The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 9004108203, 9789004108202

Citation preview

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITEDBY

F. GARCIA MARTINEZ

A. S. VAN DER WOUDE

VOLUMEXXVI

t-EG10

~~IJ


o ).37 In two instances, the extraposed NP does not resume part of a biblical text, but another NP that precedes: CD 4.17 nmil ~'il ilJ1rv~'il (explains preceding CD 4.15 ?.1"?:::l m'1:~m nrv1?rv);38 CD 4.19-20 ~l'~o ~1il 1~il ... 'tD~ (referring back to 1~ ',n~ 1:J?il ,rv~ r'nil 'J1::l).39 As is clear from cases like CD 8.10-11 (= 19.22) Cil':::>" ~1il CJ"1 (explaining Deut 32.33 'P~ c'~t;1~ rzi~'1 Cr C~'m nr;lIJ), the pronoun mostly agrees in gender and number with the preceding extraposed element, with which it is coreferential-and not with its predicate (as in 1QS 8.14 il'1nil rv"o il~'il, see Section HA above). Due to attraction, however, the pronoun may occasionally agree with its predicate, as in 1QpHab 12.9 il'1il' ".1' ilOil r'~ oom (explaining Hab 2.17 n~rOr;lr:n).40 In two instances only do we find an indefinite constituent as the

36 In later Bible commentaries, mere repetition of a biblical lemma is fairly common, as in Rashi on Gen 6.2 'The sons of God: the sons of the princes and the judges'. Here the lemma is neither apart of the c1ause nor in extraposition, but serves as an introductory heading. 37 Identical instances, in which the noun in extraposition resumes part of a preceding biblical quotation, are: CD 4.2-3, 4.3?, 4.3-4, 7.17-18, 7.18-19, 7.20, 8.10 (= 19.22-23),8.10-11 (= 19.23),8.11-12 (= 19.23-24). 38 These words in turn are the interpretation of the cited Isa 24.17 nJ:r~i 'J:re n~;;r ::1~;' '9'?~ n~i· The clause is followed by two simple NCs: ]1i1i1 n'Wi1 W'POi1 ~Ot:l n'W'?Wi1. 39 Although ~r~o is

formally indefinite, it may be construed as semantically definite, since the reference is c1early to :ll:li1l'j'OO (e.g. 1QpHab 10.9; without artic1e in CD 8:13 ). 40 An exact parallel in BH is mentioned in Khan, Studies, 72: Lev 25.33, cnrn~ ~'i! C',?i1 'ilPn::1 ':l, where cmn~ is Rh. The c1ause in 1QpHab 12.4-5, i1i1ni1 i1Wl11 i1"i1"~n€l i10i1 n1Oi1::1i11 (explanation of Hab 2.17 mOi1::1 'Wl ... 1')::1? oon), remains doubtful as to agreement, since i10i1 is also used for feminine referents, cf. Qimron, Hebrew, §321.16.

11

BAASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

second NP, in both cases a verbal participle:41 CD 4.19-21 f'i1i1

c'n!D~ C'!DOO'J Ci1 ... ,~ ',n~ ,::J'?i1 '!D~;42 CD 16.2-4 11"11'? Ci1'~P

'J'~

!D"EJ,

Ci1'n'l1'~!D~' Ci1''?~'''? c'nl1i1 mp'?nr.l '00 '?11 P'P',r.l ~'i1 mi1 i1'?~ '?::Jr.l '?~'!D'

(the extraposed element is separated from the clause by mi1).

B: Ex 11 Rh(PPr)-Th

There are three cases that might belong in this category, i.e. a NP in extraposition, followed by a NC that consists of a pronoun which is the Rh and a definite NP. In all three cases, however, the context does not allow us to make adecision as to the syntactic structure of the clause and the identification of Th and Rh. At first sight, both in CD 7.15-16, l'?r.li1n::J'OCi1i1"m"EJO, and in CD 19.9, "Jl1Ci1,m~C"r.l'!Di11 1~~i1 , the last NP seems to contain the old information-thus explaining the contrastive emphasis that makes the pronoun the rheme and the last NP the theme-but the context is unclear. 43 Also the context of lQS 11.4-5, 'r.ll1EJ 11'?o i1~'i1 '?~ m~ ~'::J, is not unequivocal. In view of the preceding 1QS 11.4 , 'r.ll1EJ 1" nl1l1'?o~, one might take 'r.ll1EJ 11'?o as the old information, but the argument is by no means conclusive.

41 Pace GeIler, 'Oeft sentences', 15, n. 5. This is in line with our conclusion re-

the order PPr-Ptc, see Section HC above. Lohse, Texte aus Qumran, 75, takes ... itv~ f'nii 'J1:J as a complete NC: 'Die Erbauer der Mauer, das sind die, die hinter "Zaw" hergehen .... Sie sind durch zweierlei gefangen', but most other translations (Garda Martinez, Garda Martinez and Van der Woude, Rabin, Knibb, Vermes) interpret the words between C'tvOO'J 0., ... 1~ 'in~ as an interpolation. 43 The clause in CD 7.15 seems to explain Amos 5.26, ~f?o n1:lQ, which would indicate that iii1nii 'ielO is the Rh, but the clause is followed by i~ itv~:;, mElJii '1' n;'10 n~ 'n"lO'pii1 (= MT Amos 9.11 n'?ElJii "1' n;,o ~ C'P~, which might indicate that l'?Oii n:;'10 is the Rh). Moreover, two lines below we have CD 7.17-18, ... itv~ C'~':JJii 'ielO Cii C'O'?~ii 11':;'1, where C'~':JJii 'ielO is the Rh. The clause in 19.9 is preceded by Zec 13.7, l~~ii iiJ'~1001, which would indicate that 1n1~ C'i01tvii is the Rh, but l~~ii "w refers to Zec 11.11, 'nk C'iOtvii l~~ii "w p, which does not occur in the text. Remarkably, both clauses are found in the parallel parts of the Damascus document, but the former appears only in MS A, whilst the latter can only be found in MS B. On the difficult question of the textual history of these passages, cf. Davies, Damascus Covenant, 143-72; Strickert, 'Damascus Document', 327-49; Brooke, 'Amos-Numbers Midrash', 397-404; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 302-309; von der Osten-Sacken, 'Bücher der Tora', 423-33; Murphy O'Connor, 'Literary analysis', 210-232; Murphy O'Connor, 'Original text of CD', 379--86; White, 'Comparison of the "A" and ''8'' manuscripts', 537-53. Interestingly, Goshen-Gottstein ('Hebrew syntax', 100-106) found a similar clause in Isaiah, Isa 9.13-14, with the same structure and which he also identified as a gloss: ~~i;;r ~~ii C'~-~'Itll~~ 1Pl :'r;r~ Ci' 1io~1 ii~f ~n ~~i~'1rq'~ " n!~l ~~~iiiP!l?"lio~'~l. Here, indeed, the NPs tv~iii and :JJlii contain the old information. ~rding

12

TIIE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

C: Rh-Th(PPr) 1/ Ex

The third type of tripartite NC consists of a simple cIause of which the first constituent is an indefinite NP as P and a pronoun as 5, followed by an extraposed element. In our corpus, there is only one clear instance of this type, viz. 11 QT 60.19-20 i1?~ i1{D1l' ?1:;' 'JEl? ~i1 i1~lTIn ':) (compare 11 QT 52.4-5 '? i10i1 i1~lTIn ':;' ).44 To this same type belong clauses with an initial interrogative element. The simple NC has the order rheme-theme, and again the last NP is in apposition. This type is only attested in poetry. In its pure fonn it does not occur in our corpus, but it is found, for example, in 1QH 15(7).32-33 Ltl'?""i1] l~?El '{Dl'O~ p,~m? ?~i1 ?l'~1 1i1n {D'~ ~1i1 i101. An interjection is inserted after the interrogative pronoun, as in 1QS 11.20 i1:;'~?El '{Dl'O~ t:l,~, 1~ i1~1i1 ~~ i101. 45 D: Ex

11 Rh-Th (PPr)

The last type of tripartite NCs only differs from the previous one in the position of the extraposed element. As in the previous examples, the bi partite NC has an indefinite NP as predicate followed by a subject pronoun. Dur corpus contains only one cIear instance of this type, viz. CD 9.2-4, 't:l1J' ~'i1 t:lP1J ... '{D~ n"~i1 {'~~O} {D'~ ?:;", where the extraposed element has a very long relative clause.46 Other similarlooking cases, where an Inf is involved, are not certain, for example CD 9.1, ~'i1n'Oi1?t:l""i1'P1n~t:l,~t:l'~t:l',n"rD~ {t:l,n} ?:;, (cf. Lev 27.29), and 1QS 7.16, onM ;,~,;, n'?w" "':;" 1'" o'~,~ {D'~', where the pronoun should probably be regarded as the grammatical object of the infinitive in view of parallel constructions Iike 1QS 5.17-18, ?,:;, ~':;' t:li1? '{D~ ?,:;, n~1 t:lm~ ?"~i1? 1n"~~ '~rDm ~,? 'rD~, and 1QS 7.17, ,;,n?fD' .47 Finally, one parallel example may be included here, alThe fact that in our clause the Qumran scribe intentionally avoided using the divine name that is present in the underlying Deut 18.12, ~ ~ll-',f" n~in-':;l, obviously does not imply that the result in Qumran Hebrew should be grammatically awkward. 45 Of exactly the same type is 1QH 20(12).31 "w"~:JtD 'i1~ i101. Although most commentators assume the interjection to be ~~, a closer parallel would be BH ~;~~. In Biblical Hebrew, ~~ is never used in this way (2 Kgs 2.14, ~'i1-~~, is probably corrupt [LXX a the Hebrew found in the period during which the Mishnah was being redacted > the Hebrew of any documents found up to 98

ELWOLDE: PROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

51

The notion of 'RH', as a Iinguistic rather than a literary concept, seems to me to be a terminological anachronism, nourished only by the lack of continuity that existed before 1947 in our sources of Hebrew literature between Bible and Mishnah. From the perspective of vocabulary, the overall lack of new words in the extra-biblical corpora and the overlap of what new material there is with words previously regarded as 'rabbinic' innovations, supports the notion of a constantly developing, seamless, Hebrew language. Or, to put it another way, had the Scrolls and the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira been available a millennium earlier and European Hebrew scholarship had been more linguistically than theologically based, so as not to look, on the whole, with interest at the Hebrew Bible but with disdain at the Mishnah and midrashim, the dominating Iinguistic unity among these diverse texts would probably have meant that 'RH', or a similar term, would have been employed only as a literary label (in the same way in which we might speak of the Hebrew of the Psalms), but without any Iinguistic import. Incidentally, in these criticisms, I find no fault with those who employ the 'RH' vocabulary of the Serolls or Ben Sira as evidence that the language ascribed to the zugot and tannaim in the Mishnah actually reflects the Hebrew they spoke in the Hasmonaean and Roman periods. But that is a very different sort of argument, and one that does not necessarily imply that the early rabbis spoke 'Rabbinic' Hebrew (in preference to any other kinds of Hebrew doing the rounds at the time, if such astate of affairs is really imaginable). Having said that, on the whole, we can no more accurately correlate linguistic features of the Mishnah with the generations of scholars recorded there than we can assign the words of Joshua, David, and Manasseh, as recorded in the Bible as we have it, to the different historical periods in which these characters were active. To a large extent, neither Bible nor Mishnah can be diachronically unravelled. This leads us into the issue of 'LBH' ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). As before, if 'LBH' is nothing more than a terminological convenience for the Hebrew of the books written in the post-exilic period, it is innocuous. And if it simply stands for the 'three percent' of new words in those writings, it is both innocuous and trivial (unless of course the proportion of new words to old is much greater than one in thirtythree, which I doubt).99 But if it stands for a discrete phase of the Hefour centuries before, so long as they contain words which were previously only known from the Mishnah), apparently merely to maintain the traditional divisions that scholarship from another age erected in the study of the Hebrew language. 99 Professor David }.A. Clines, editor of the Sheffield Dictionary o[ Classical He-

52

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

brew language that is significantly different from preceding and succeeding phases, then, from a lexical perspective, it is unsound, given not only the vast discrepancy between what 'LBH' inherited and what it 'innovated' but also the fact that many of these innovations are later found in 'RH' (and if they are to be regarded as both 'LBH' and 'RH', then why make a linguistic distinction between the two?). Indeed, the overlap of 'LBH' and 'RH' as weIl as the emergence in the scholarly literature of 'transitional LBH' all tends to work against the notion of discrete levels of language (and if 'LBH', 'RH', etc. do not refer to discrete entities, then why should one want to use these terms at all as linguistic labels?) and in favour of the concept of an organically united language in astate of constant, but at any one time imperceptible, development. An additional methodological pitfall is created by the chronological discrepancies between literature purporting to be from a particular period and the language employed for that literature in a work created, compiled, and redacted over two millennia. Thus, for exampIe, the use of pre-exilic vocabulary in a document that presents itself as a his tory of the early pre-exilic period does not mean that the work itself is pre-exiliclOO (and even in a work of fiction, the use of such

brew, makes the following point in a reply to a review of the Dictionary by Professor Francis I. Andersen: 'To take as an ex am pIe, as between pre-exilic

and postexilic Hebrew there is practically no semantic change whatsoever that Angel Saenz-Badillos can point to in his 50-page account of Hebrew in the period of the Second Temple (in a History of the Hebrew Language [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993]); he says .,~ changed from "indeed" to "but" ... , and he mentions three examples of lexical specialization in Qumran Hebrew' (ABR 43 [1995], p. 73). 100 For example, in Numbers, terms for '(national) assembly', 'tribe', 'dan', 'shewbread', and 'be genealogically registered' are not those used in dearly post-exilic books, i11j~ means '(physical) labour', as against '(religious) ministry' (post-exilic), and thirteen expressions for such concepts as 'pace, 'tax', 'muster troops', 'ordain as priest', 'specify by orade', and 'couple (sexuaIly)' have cognates in earlier Mesopotamian (Akkadian) literature (see Jacob Milgrom's /PS Torah Commentary: Numbers [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990], pp. xxxii-iii). Somewhat comparable data have even been daimed, not altogether convincingly, in respect of works gene rally accepted as late such as Song (William F. Albright, 'Archaic Survivals in the Text of Cantides', in D. Winton Thomas and W.D. McHardy [eds.1, Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, 20 August 1962 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19631, pp. 1-7), Ecdesiastes (Daniel C. Fredericks, Qoheleth's Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date [Ancient Near Eastern Text and Studies, 3; Lewiston, Edwin MeIlen] (reviewed by Avi Hurvitz in Hebrew Studies 31 [1990],144-54), and Chronides

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

53

terms could simply be intended as an attempt to add an archaic quality to the composition), but it does show how difficult it can be to determine the date of major texts and how precarious is a linguistic chronology buHt on such dating (particularly when the dating of the texts has to some extent been motivated by the requirements of an assumed linguistic chronology). And of course, even in those very few biblical writings for which a late date of composition is not disputed, in principle 'innovations' are but a subset of newly-appearing words, for the latter group can also inc1ude words which, although they were present in the language, simply had not been registered in earlier literature, and we only need to think about how many words for basic things occur just once or twice in the Bible to realize that it is quite possible for a word which 'appears' late to have actually been around much earlier. 101 Unless there is c1ear evidence that a word is loaned or that it belongs to a new morphological pattern (mishqal), then there is no incontestable proof that it is late. And, of course, even if we agree that a word appearing for the first time in Esther or Jonah might have only come into existence around the time those books were written, it exceeds the bounds of objectivity and evidence to argue that the word belongs to a form of Hebrew distinct from that represented by the mainstream language of the Bible. In both 'LBH' and 'RH', novel features frequently represent no more than an increased usage of preexisting structures, or, where genuine innovation is attested, natural deveIopments in the language. 102 (Wilfred G.E. Watson, 'Archaic Element's in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53 [19721, 191-207). 101

A point weil made by Professor Edward Ullendorff in his recent review

(JIS 46 [19951, 283-92) of the 5aenz-Badillos volume (see note 99). Referring to

p. 123 of the book, Professor Ullendorff asks: '[Clan it be held that i1J't:lO 'ship', 'hurI', pnfD 'to be silent', or iiJO 'to appoint' are necessarily indieative of Rabbinie Hebrew?-just because they occur rarely and in what are assumed to be late books?' (289) The position taken by Professor Ullendorff on the diachronie structure of Hebrew is consistent with his more general view that 'the limitations of size and subject matter of the canon of the Old Testament have inevitably prevented the entire resources of Hebrew being represented in that restricted corpus' (288). 102 More than that, such features are rarely found in any regular fashion across the whole range of post-exilic works (the 'LBH' corpus), as demonstrated, for example, by the striking divergences within the 'work of the Chronicler' Uaphet, 'Supposed Common Authorship'). And despite the apparent persuasiveness of Robert Polzin's arguments (in Late Biblical Hebrew: Towards an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose [HSM, 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976], pp. 32-37) for the increased use of 'emphatic', nomina"'Oii

54

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

As a lexicographer, I freely admit that vocabulary is the least significant aspect of language as a formal system. But I believe in this case, where lexicology is pushing back the borders of 'Rabbinic Hebrew' ever nearer to its biblical origins, grammar is also trailing in the same direction. For example, for ?fD, we now have a swathe of textsMurabbaCat, llQT, 4QJubg [4Q422],4QpsEzeka [4Q385],103 4QMMT,l04 and Ben Sira-that help to link the use of ?fD in the Mishnah with its use in Jonah, Koheleth, and SonglOS and force us to reappraise our perception of the form as 'typically' rabbinic or of its use in the Bible as especially remarkable. Similar comments can be made concerning the relative particle ..1JJ, wh ich is found at MurabbaCat, in the Copper Scroll, the Damascus Document,l06 the Mishmarot sequence, 4QMMT, the Genizah Psalms,107 and Ben Sira, as weil as in 'LBH' writings (where ..1JJ is frequent and occurs in official registers such as that represented by 1 Chr 8.19) and 'Archaic Hebrew' (where ..1JJ is used sporadically). Thus, the value of the 'fD~/tive, n~ as a characteristic structure of LBH, my own exhaustive study (The Use of 'et in Non-Biblical Hebrew Texts', VT 44 [19941, 170-82) of anomalous uses of the object-marker in the pre-mishnaic corpus, indicates not one instance of this kind of irregularity in Esther (with the minor exception of 2.13), although the graphic form n~ occurs there 118 times, or in Ezra (30 tim es) or in Jonah (14 times) or in Ruth (44 times) or in Lamentations (6 times) or in Song (27 times). Nor, of course, as Polzin admits, is it a significant feature of the Serolls. The usage (and abu sage) of n~ in the post-exilic period would appear to have been a matter of authorial competence and taste (and of transmission-history), without any lasting structural impact on the language. Related criticisms of Polzin in respect of 'nominative n~' and other assumed LBH features are made by Gary A. Rendsburg in his 'La te Biblical Hebrew and the Date of "P"', JANES 12 (1980), 65-80. 103 4Q2221.7 and 4Q3851.9, where the apparent collocation of construct chain and '?t/1 phrase is striking: C~ '?t/1 '~1'?l.ll 'nt~ 'one of a calf and one of a man'. 104 Three times, in the form Jl] '?tD~ as final conjunction, 'so that'. 105 Indeed, in BHS, the editor (W. Rudolph) was confident enough of the status of '?t/1 to propose that it be read at 1 Chr 29.3 ('''rq 'my [temple)' for ',?,;~ 'I have [a treasuryJ'). 1064QDa [4Q266 1 18.3.1;18.4.2. The information about -tD in 'General Qumran' literature is drawn from the Stegemann-Strugnell concordance (Hans-Peter Richter, 'A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumrän Caves lI-X' [5 vols., unpublished, printed in Göttingen, 1988, and distributed by Hartmut Stegemann on behalf of John Strugnell]), which records Jl] as occurring nine times. Other texts indude 4Q448 (an apocryphal rcsalm), and 4QUnid d , where the form .JDO 'after' occurs. 07 3.1, which goes unregistered in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's microfiche concordance. Similarly, the Academy concordance registers none of the many instances of -tD in Ben Sira.

ELWOLDE: FROM BIßLE TO MISHNAH

55

fD distinction as either an isogloss or a diachronie marker is diminished,l08 with the evidence pointing to a context of preference for one or other allomorph rather than to differences based on period or area. This is indicated by the alternation of -(Z) and ifD~ in Ben Sira and the Bible (see above, p. 32), as weIl as in 4Qoa [4Q2661 18.3.1 (-fD) and the parallel text at CD 14.8 (ifD~). The same kind of idiolectal alternation or allomorphy underlies 4QMMT's use of -., ~"fD introducing a prohibition in contrast to 1QS's use of the same construction but with i!D~.109

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

108 Although it stillleaves unanswered the difficult question of why 4QMMT and the MurabbaCat material, which are so dose in time but remote in subjectmatter, shun 'tZl~ almost completely, but freely employ -tZl. But those who would want to point to this as an element in defence of the notion of a clean BH/RH divide, will themselves have to resolve the related difficulty of why the 'RH' document 4QMMT employs the 'BH' form ')nJ~ ten times but completely eschews the 'RH' form ')~ whereas the opposite phenomenon occurs in the 'non-RH' General Qumran literature, where ')~ (once in the Bible, seventeen times at Qumran) is preferred over un~ 004 times in the Bible, eleven at Qumran). 109 As a third, less persuasive, example to add to that of "tZl and -ID, we also find the elided object-marker both at Murabba(at (i1) and in lQS (i1~).

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

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

lntroduction The authenticity of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira was the subject of much debate from the discovery of the first Ben Sira Genizah manuscripts in 1896 until the publication of the scrolls from Masada and Cave 11 at Qumran in 1965.1 The debate centred on the originality of the Hebrew text and its relationship to the Greek and Syriac versions. The language of the Genizah manuscripts was, of course, discussed, but drew less attention than did the question of the Urtext. 2 Since the scrolls from Masada and the Qumran caves have become known, the debate has been settled in favour of the authenticity of the Hebrew manuscripts, though it is acknowledged that there are some corruptions in the mediaeval manuscripts, in which, it is also argued, there are retroversions from the Syriac.3 To this day, more than 30 years since the publication of the Ben Sira material from Masada and Qumran, the language of the Hebrew manuscripts has still not been treated systematically. In fact, the most

recent and comprehensive analysis of the material is still the short sketch presented by M. H. Segal in his 1958 edition of Ben Sira. 4 Segal, ·1 would like to thank the participants of the Leiden Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira for their helpful comments on the oral version of this paper. 1 Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem, 1965); 11QPsa in J.A. Sanders, OJO, IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumrän Cave 11 (11QPs") (Oxford, 1965), 79--85, plates 13-14. Note also the extremely fragmentary 2Q18 (2QSir) in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, OJO, III: Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrän (Oxford, 1962), 75-77, plate 15. 2 For bibliography on the discussions concerning the authenticity of the Genizah manuscripts, see P.W. Skehan & A.A. Oi Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; New York, 1987), 54. 3 See A.A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague, 1966), 106-47; Oi Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 57-59; M. Kister, 'A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbi?; 59 (1990), 304, n. 2 (Hebrew). 4 M.H. Segal, c?Dil ~"O P 100 (Second ed.; Jerusalem, 1958), 20-22. See also his earlier treatment, ~"OrJ '?tD 1JT.D", Les'. 7 (1937), 114-20.

FASSBERG: DEPENDENT CLAUSES

57

like others before him,5 thought that the language reflected the Hebrew of the Second Temple period, in which one finds the classical language along with innovations that are reminiscent of Tannaitic Hebrew. This century has witnessed three significant developments that have dramatically added to our knowledge of the Hebrew of the Second Temple and tannaitic periods: 1) the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Serolls; 2) the great strides made in analysing and describing Late Biblical Hebrew; 3) the revolution in the study of Tannaitic Hebrew that has resulted from the investigation of reliable manuscripts and oral traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew. In the light of these new developments, it is time to re-examine the Hebrew of the Ben Sira manuscripts and describe its language vis-a-vis other Hebrew corpora. To that end I have chosen to investigate one aspect of the language of Ben Sira that has received little attention, namely, syntax. This paper investigates the syntax of five types of dependent clauses in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira: conditional, relative, temporal, circumstantial, and purpose. The clauses are analysed synchronically and then compared with the data from Classical Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew,6 and Tannaitic Hebrew. All Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira have been used.7 The readings follow 5 See the earlier conc1usions of s. Schechter and C Taylor,

The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), 34: '0) that he was a conscious imitator; (2) that the classical portions in his work are due to his skilful manipulation of Biblical passages and patching them together; (3) that his composition shows already such traces of an artifical way of interpreting and using the contents of the Scriptures as are only to be found in post-Biblical writers; (4) that with an his skin and caution his language is fun of later Hebrew expressions, even furnishing us with criteria pointing to the highest development of the Rabbinic dialect'. Recently Kister has argued that Ben Sira was not a conscious, unsuccessful imitator. He writes: 'Ben Sira's idiom is not to be considered an unsuccessful attempt at imitating Biblical Hebrew. The language deliberately chosen by Ben Sira is not the spoken language of his day, but a literary idiompartly reflecting contemporary speech-for which we scarcely have any sources' (Kister [note 31, ii [English summary». 6 'Qumran Hebrew' is a convenient term to describe the language of the documents from the Judaean Desert. It is wen known, of course, that not an the documents reflect the same variety of Hebrew. For example, the language of 3Q15 ('Copper Scroll') and 4QMMT differs significantly from that of other Qumran documents. See, e.g., S. Morag, 'Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations', VT 38 (988), 148-164; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta, 1986); 'Observations on the History of Early Hebrew 0000 B.CE.-200 CE.) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents', in The Dead Sea SeroIls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant & U. Rappaport; Jerusalem, 1992),349--61; with J. Strugnell, DJD, X: Miq~at Maca.se ha-Torah (Oxford, 1994), 65-108. 7 The relevant differences between the Hebrew manuscripts will be noted.

58

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

the edition of Ben Sira prepared by the Academy of the Hebrew Language (MSS A-E)8 and the additional manuscript (MS F) published by Di Lella.9

A: Conditional clauses 1. The protases of real conditional clauses are usually introduced by t:l~.

The apodoses are, on the whole, unmarked, e.g., ":Jm"l"r.l 10n't:l~t::m (3.13[A» t:l~nnn ':J:J r'tlnn t:l~ (6.32[AD ;'1'nn ;'1n~t:l;)':J l'r.lM t:l~ (15.15[A» l"~ l";)' 'tron t:l~ (37.12[BD.

2. The protasis is unmarked in

,mp l'o':J:J :J;'1'~ n':Jp (6.7[A» ;'1:J 1r.lM ,~ ;'1~':JfD' ;'1:Jl'nn ,~ l ' ;'1fD~ (7.26[A» t:lm~ 10' l ' t:l':J:J (7.23[CD t:l1~fD 1'~:J l ' m:J:J (7.24[A».

Note that in two examples a second protasis in the verse is introduced by t:l~: ;'1"r.ll1;'1 ~';'1 mr.l~ t:l~, 1':J'l' ;'1~1 l ' ;'1r.l;'1:J (7.22 [AD 'i1r.l ,:Jr.lr.l ~, t:l~ nr.l,~n ~~r.l' P"~' :J~';'1 (12.2[AD.

3. Infrequently a waw introduces the apodosis: pOl' ~~" n:J ~';'1 (7.25[A])10 nr.l,~n ~~r.l' P"~' :J~';'1 (12.2[A]).

There may be two additional examples. The first is 10m l:JT~ ~;'1' l'r.ltZl' ~:J1n t:l~ (6.33[A»

if the intention of the Hebrew text is 'if you are willing to listen, then incline your ear-you will be instructed'; however, in the light of the Septuagint and Peshi tta, it is may be that the apodosis of l'r.lfD' ~:J1n t:l~ has been deleted and ~m introduces a second protasis whose apodosis is 101n.11 A second possible example is

The versions of Ben Sira found in the Septuagint and the Peshitta will be noted when the Hebrew text is ambiguous. 8 The Book 0/ Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis 0/ the Vocabulary ~erusalem, 1973). A.A. Di Lella, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza', Bib 69 (1988), 226-38. The manuscript was incorporated in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's 1988 microfiche edition of, and concordance to, Ben Sira and the Qumran and tannaitic literature. 10 Segal, ~"O 1~ ,ElO (note 4), p. t!l0, calls this 'imperative of condition' and compares with p'o ~~'.!r' tD,J at Prov 22.10. One could also take ~~" as a wawconsecutive with the Perfect. 11 'Eav ayalt~anc; aKouElv EK8i~n Kat Eav KA,lVnC; 1:0 OÜC; aou aO il11 [Bmg» ,~ i1pEl' il1 rD10n ~, (32.21 [B» 'iT::>N ':Jnr.l rno' i.l] (32.22[B» piT ~::1rD ID'i1' il1 (32.23[B» 1'l1El rD1:J~' ::1'rD' il1 (32.24[B». 5. irD~ il1 + imperfect/perfect can be found in: 1::1 'nil' "l11' irD~ il1 (13.7[A» ep iID~ il1 (47.23[B» ID~:> ~'::l:J ep irD~ il1 (48.1 [B» e~iM 1nO:J iID~ 111 (48.15[B». 6. nl1 il1 + imperfect is attested once: '::1 1::1' ~'?o' nl1 il11 (4.17[A».42

7. iID~ + perfect may introduce atemporal clause in:

'~iID' ':J::1,l1 iEl::>'1 1::1' 1::1i:J iID~ 1011 fiEl::1 i0l1'1'::> 'il1'~' 1~P::1 (45.23[B».

The clause beginning with irD~, however, can also be taken as causal. 41

Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta take ifD~:::l as comparative:

QltroA.ov'to m1ta.p~av'tE ", 'JEl? ::l~'nil? 1nJ 'Cl1 ,',n~ Cl' ?~'rD'C 'after hirn, Nathan came forward to be prophet in the reign of David [literally, 'to stand up before David']. For as the fat is separated from the sacrifice, so David was chosen out of all Israel' (47.1-2 [B]). In other instances, ':::> introduces a content clause (syntactically, it subordinates an object c1ause), especially following a verb of mental activity such as ':::>T 'remember', 11" 'know', il~' 'see', and 'C~ 'say': ?'ElrDC' C"C rD' ':::> ':::>T 'remember, there is one who both exalts and humbles' (7.11 [A]);3 n?Jilnn nrD' ?l1"l'~n C'nEll'::l ':::> 11' 'tell yourself [literally, 'know, be aware'] that you are making your way among pitfalls, and you are walking on the battlernents of the city' (Snaith;4 9.13 [A]); il'n~~c, il::l 'n,cl" 'n"ill~p ':::> C:::>'J'l1::l ,~, 'see for yourself how young [literally, 'small'] I was and I endured it and (finally) found it [i.e. wisdom]' (51.27 [B»; '? ::lTl1' ilnl' ilC1['~Eln 'n['JDl1 ':::> ... ,c~n?~ 'do not say, What good can the future hold for me?' (11.23 [A».5 Mosheh Zevi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shnlem (Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958). 3 The sentence represents a continuation of a negative recommandation: m, 'C::J W,~, 1::JrI ~ 'never laugh at [literally, 'despise'] a man in his bitter humiliation [literally, 'in bitterness of spirit')'. John Snaith (see the next note) adds a causa! connector ('for') after '::11, and this is also true of other sentences with '::11, at 8.5 (A) and 9.12 (A). The only '::11 sentence without a negative main c1ause is at 14.11-12 (B): 'N::J""::1 'DlJtD1i11"'""1'::J'~'ill'W'~' ilCilCr1' n,c ",mwn 'if you can afford it [literally, 'if you have'], do weIl for yourself [or, 'spoil yourself'] and as you are able [literally, 'according to the power of your hand'], satisfy yourself. Remember there is no pleasure in Sheol and death is not to be postponed'. 4 John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus; or, The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Commentary (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). 5 However, in view of the lacuna, there might originally have been a verb 2

KADDARI: THE SYNTAX OF ':;'

89

II: Occasioml usages

':;' can introduce atemporal clause, as in i1'nniM 'O!D" !D'P n'ip ,n'~', ,mJl' ':;' 'i1'Oi' ":l 'and they set fire to the holy city and left its streets

deserted [Iiterally, 'desolated its streets'], as Jeremiah prophesied [Iiterally, 'through Jeremiah'] when they mistreated hirn' (49.6-7 [B». In the fo11owing example, the protasis of a conditional clause is introduced by ':;': pm P'~M ':;' i10 mpm U"l' '0 ['\"'~ [i1!Dl'O] (i10) 'who knows what are my righteous deeds, and what are the chances (of being rewarded) if I do [Iitera11y, 'create'] the law?' (Snaith: 'who is to declare his acts of justice or wait for his remote decree'; 16.22 [A». 'not', ':;' can, like ~,~ in Mishnaic Hebrew, introduce an After adversative statement, as in ... '!Dp:lO ,:;" ':;' 'no'l' ',:l' ~, ':;' '~i 'see that I did not toH ['n~l'] for myself, but for a11 who sought ... ' (30.26 [E». In the formula ':;' El~['l, ':;' can introduce the first stage of an a tortiori argument of the type known as qal wahomer in Mishnaic Hebrew:

M'

i1T i10n ~il' i1!DpO in~ ':;' ~~, t:l:l' P'T:l t:l'ElO~i1 "li ~,~ mM !D!D p

i1pJ' t:l~ 'those six hundred thousand warriors marshalled in stubbom

defiance. Even if only one [,n~] man were obstinate, it would be a miracle [literally, 'it is amazing'] for hirn (let alone the many) to escape punishment' (16.10-11 [A]). Ben Sira's use of ':;' to introduce a comparative clause is uncertain, but is perhaps evidenced in just the one, following, text: ~'lO:;' 'OM :lmo"~ t:ll'1n ":J~ :Jnl'i1 'to leave your father in the lurch [literally, 'whoever leaves a father'] is like blasphemy [literally, 'one who reviles'], and to provoke your mother's anger is to call down the Lord's curse' (Snaith;3.16 [Cl; A: 'o~ "po '~i':J 0'100' ":J~ i1T':J "TO ':;'). Segal proposesthat here the -:l of ~'''O:l could be equivalent to ':l, in which case either ':;' is comparative or both ':;' and -:;, are used emphatically, a function they are known to have in BH.6 Finally, there are a few instances where ':;' might be expected but is replaced by other connectors like 1El, as at 8.2 (A), or i10', as at 8.1 (A), or by zero, as at 7.16 (A).

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

6

90

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

tion of negative advice is relatively less common in BH, where it is most typical in Proverbs, for example Prov 23.6-7: l1i Cn? nR cn~ 'R R'il P 'IZ1ElJ~ i.w7 'lO~'~ .•• 1'11 'do not eat of a stingy man's food ... , for he is like one keeping accounts' (see also Prov 23.10-11, 20-21; 24.1-2, 15-16,19-20, Prov 24.1-22). The use of ,~ to introduce the reason for a positive recommendation is also documented in BH, for example Prov 23.26-27: l~' 'J~ ilJn ilJ,r ilP'Ol1 iln1lZ1'~ ... " 'give your mind to me, my son ... , for a harlot is a deep pit'. ,~ is also found in BH introducing a causal clause the 'main clause' of which is a whole section of the discourse that has preceded, as at Gen 20.18: " i~l1 i~l1'~ 'for the Lord has closed fast (every womb of the household of AbimelechY. In BH, '~'s primary röle is to introduce a causal clause within a factual description, for example Gen 26.7: ,~ ... iO~' ~i"~ ... iOR" ~'il il~iO n~'t!l 'he said ... , for he was afraid to say ... , for she was beautiful' . The use of'~ to introduce a content clause (as object complement to verbs of speech or thought) is also regular in BH, as at Gen 21.30: npn ... ,~ iO~" 'he replied, ... You are to accept'. But there is no example of an appositional clause in Ben Sira. Moving on to the uses listed in section 11, we find that in BH as well'~ is used in temporal clauses (e.g. Gen 4.12: i~l1n'~ 'when you work'), conditional clauses (e.g. Deut 7.17: iOM'~ 'should you say'), adversative clauses (e.g. Gen 24.3-4: l,n ... '~iR'R'~ ... ilrD~ npn R' 'you will not take a wife ... hut will go to my land'), and comparative clauses (e.g. Prov 30.33: Ci ~,~" ~R ilMn ~,~" ~'n r'o'~ 'as milk under pressure produces butter, so patience under pressure produces strife')7 The use of ,~ ~~ in an a fortiori argument is widespread in BH (where ,~ ~~ has other functions too, including its primary röle of introducing the apodosis of a conditional or concessive clause), for example 1 Kgs 8.27: ilTil n'~il'~ ~~ ... C'OrDil ilJil 'even the heavens ... , how much less this house'. Syntactic functions associated with ,~ that are found in BH hut are not attested in Ben Sira include subject-raising, as noted in the opening to section I, or the use of'~ as an emphatic adverb (a variation of emphatic -~), 'indeed, certainly', with the possible exception of the usage at 3.16-17, noted in the penultimate paragraph of section 11. The only substantivized ,~ clauses in Ben Sira are the content clauses (object clauses) illustrated in section I. With the exception of ,~ ~R, ad-

r'o,

7 The waw of r'0' is waw apodosis; see Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A grammar 0/ Biblical Hebrew (2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14. 1-2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute; 1993), §176.

KADDARI: THE SYNTAX OF':.l

91

verbial combinations of':.l are also missing from Ben Sira. These include ':.li1, ':.l '11, C~ :.l, Cl ':.l, and pI;! ... ':.l. In conclusion, then, we find that there is no usage of':.l found in Ben Sira that is not also attested in the Bible, although the reverse is not true. However, the distribution of the various functions of':.l in Ben Sira is very different from that found in BH, and seems to reflect the genre (wisdom literature and historical survey) and subject-matter ofBen Sira. In the syntax of ':.l, the Hebrew of Ben Sira represents the living continuation of a literary language of a particular genre.

VERB COMPLEMENTATION IN QUMRAN HEBREW Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden)

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

nlir.l ''? iTnr.lrD ~'? ,rD::l ,~,

You have not made a creation of flesh my refuge. The subject as an argument of a verb does not interest us here. The distinction of direct versus indirect object may be said to be meaningful only in regard to verbs which are capable of taking both at the same time, such as 1m, but for the purpose of the present study we would define them as folio ws: a direct object is an argument which may be linked to the verb by means of the so-called nota objecti, n~, whereas an indirect object is an argument which is explicitly and obligatorily marked by a member of a closed set of 'prepositions'.2 Formally speaking, one can distinguish between zero-complementation and prepositional complementation: on'? '?'::J~'? as against nr.l~::l "n'? In this respect, the nota objecti n~ does not count as a preposition, for it is, as is weIl known, optional, whereas any other preposition, except when it links a participle with its complement, is obliga tory. Another distinction that needs to be made is that between the personal pronoun as verb complement and some other category of t Muraoka 1979a. See also Muraoka 1992.

We shall investigate, inter aHa, whether the preposition lamed can, in our corpus (see note 4), mark, in the Aramaic fashion, a direct object.

2

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

93

complement. In the former ca se, the complement, even when it exhibits prepositional complementation, may be optionally attached directly to the verb as suffix (synthetic linkage: 'JiOfD) or stand detached from it but linked by means of apreposition (analytical linkage: 'm~ iOfD or '?lJ iOfD). The primary distinction, namely that between zero-complementation and prepositional complementation, can be confidently made only when a complement is other than a personal pronoun and the verb in question is other than participial.

2. Direct object and indirect object It is a well-known fact3 that certain verbs allow direct, synthetic linkage, not only in a case such as 'J1~i, but also where a personal pronoun as an indirect object is involved: e.g. 1QSb 3.26 il~01PO [ ] il~Jn' 'he will give you [ ] your place'. Whether such a synthetically attached pronoun is a direct or indirect object needs to be studied in the light of all the attested ca ses of the verb in question. 4 To iIlustrate, let us look at a segment of our database with respect to lJ,' H(ifil):

H: + e drei suf < 1QH 1.29; 13.13 il~'1::J~ lJ"1il? (inf)5 + suf pers and ::J rei < 1QH 4.27 il~~?E:l 'Ti::J 'JnlJ'1il;

1QH 11.9 il~no~ '10::J OnlJ'1il; > 1QH 7.27 'JnlJ'1il il~~?E:l 'Ti::J; 1QH 10.4 1JlJ"1n [il~nO~ '10::J

+ ? pers and '" drei< lQH 4.28

il~'mi1::J" o"nil ?1~? lJ"1il?

+ suf pers and eid rei < 1QH 11.16 no~

'10 'JnlJ'1il .

Although the examples are by no means plentiful, it is to be noted that among those attested there is not a single case of n~ indicating aperson to whom something is communicated. On the other hand, BH, in addition to many ca ses of , proffers plenty

3 Joüon-Muraoka 1993: §l25ba. 4 The corpus of the present study

is a result of a systematic investigation of 1QS (I'he Manual of Discipline) and related documents as published in Charlesworth 1994,and 1QH (I'he Thanksgiving Hymns) as covered in Lohse 1986. 5 The symbol< signifies that the complement follows the verb, standing to the left of it (in the Hebrew writing).

94

lHE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

of examples of at 1QS 3.13 and once with 1 The Hebrew of Psalms 103 and 119 has

to be late on other linguistic grounds.

.

4'1~

been said by Hurvitz (1972: 107-52)

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON

97

sense of 'to respond in liturgy, following the leader'. Cf. lQH 2.18: 11:l~ 11:l~ Ci1'in~ 'iO~' '~lJ' .

RH uses ~'rDi1 for 'to answer (a question)': see Bendavid 1967: 326. Our "i1JlJ then might be considered as standing halfway on the course of development. 5. and A slightly different kind of diachrony is the opposition between W"P mi, from 1QH 17.26, l'::Jl1 "l1 [o1:::>W"P mi iln1El'Jil, 4Q285 frg iii col ii 4, ~~OJil ":::>::J C"':::>Wil", from 1QS 9.20, ~~OJil ",:::>C"':::>Wil", 1QS 7.24, ,n'il n~l1 ,,~ ::J'W' ~,,, , from 1QS 7.2, ,n'il n~l1"l1 "l1 ::J'W', and 1QS 5.13, W"pil 'WJ~ niilt:l::J nl1"" from 4Q258 frg i col i 7, W['Pil] 'WJ~ niil~" ,l1,,' ~,,? A verb which normally shows prepositional complementation may have the appearance of a verb of zero-complementation when found in a relative dause, because of ellipsis of the customary preposition: 1QS 1.4 O~ iW~ ,,:::> n~ ~'JtD"; 1QS 1.3 in::J iW~ ",:::> ::J'il~"; 1QS 11.7 ... "~in::J iW~" 'to those whom God chose'.

100 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

In lQSb 3.21, ".- C:l in:l itD'-C'~i11:)i1 p"~ '~:l, we find a fuH form.

7. Aramaic influence The interaction between Hebrew and Aramaic, especially in LBH and QH, is a much discussed subject. One possible Aramaism is the use of the preposition lamed as a marker of a direct object replacing n.-. Such was claimed by Licht (1965:96) regarding lQS 4.6: nJ)' 'Ti no.-" '-:ln1. Cf. Charlesworth (1994:17) 'concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge /. Even Wernberg-MeJller (1957:79), having accepted Milik/s adverbial interpretation, 'faithfully', translates otherwise: ' concealing the truth of the ...'. See also Clines (1993:329b): 'dependably'. Our interpretation, 'to hide faithfully mysteries of knowledge', is largely due to the non-attestation elsewhere of the complex collocation nJ)' 'Ti no.- or C'Ti no.-, although a long construct chain is not foreign to the style of QH: e.g. lQS 4.12, ilOP~ ".- ni:lJ) 1:]'-, something like 'the anger of the wrath of God of vengeance'. Nor is it right to quote lQS 11.16: ,~ il~'~El" :l~'ni1" C,.- 'i'n:l" iln'~i itD~ il~nr::l'-1:l" Cpil. The translation is not 'Raise up the son of your hand maid' (Garcia Martinez; sim. Lohse with 'richte den Sohn deiner Wahrheit auf'), but 'Grant the son ... (and) the elect of mankind to stand before thee forever'. Cf. Vermes (1995:88) and Licht (1965:235). In other words the argument is not accusatival, but datival, dat. commodi. A more likely example of lamed marking a direct object is lQH 18. 14: il~'r.mi :l'i" C"~J) itD:l" To proclaim to the poor the abundance of your mercies (Garcia Marnnez 1994:359).17 Unlikely is Lohse (1986:175): 'den Demütigen zu verkündigen nach der Fülle deiner Barmherzigkeit', for wh ich the biblical language would say il~'oni :l'i~ (e.g. Ps 51.3; 69.17). Furthermore, if the text of the following line be correctly restored as c"'J) nnOtD" C''':l.-, n1i ''-D'~'" 'according to eternal joy' would not convince, and this must also contain a similar lamed.

8. Innovations 17 Similarly Vermes (1995: 235): 'that to the humble he might bring the glad tidings of Thy great mercy'.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON

101

Notwithstanding the obvious continuity of the linguistic tradition visa-vis BH, our writers also displaya measure of creativity. This has been demonstrated above in connection with the syntagm -'';1Jl1. -:::l "';'Iz]il, discussed above in a different context, also seems to belong here. In BH this verb in the sense of 'to teach, instruct' is not mediated by :::l, but by n~.

9. Participle Because of its partly nominal character, the participle warrants separate discussion. Dur survey suggests that the following categories and parameters are relevant to a meaningful description and c1assification of the data: 1. direct, i.e. n~ (including its zero-representation), or indirect complementation, i.e. by means of apreposition when a given verb is used in non-participial form; 2. the number of the participle, i.e. singular or plural; 3. the syntactic function within a c1ause, i.e. whether a given participle is functioning as a predicate in semi-verbal capacity (a 'third' tense beside the prefix and suffix conjugations) or as anoun. With reference to these parameters, the following observations may be made. A. Where a plural participle is nominalized or functioning as a modi-

fier of a preceding noun head,18 the relationship between such a participle and the following complement may be formally (but not semantically) indistinguishable from that of a construct noun phrase: e.g., lQS 2.6 C'''10:l 'o'?q,o "1::l i':::l ... CpJ 'Op1J "1::l i':::l

At the hand of all who execute vengeance ... at the hand of all who pay rewards'; lQH 5.7 ... C'i1:::lJ [tl]i 'mtZl1 C'i'i~ C~l1 'i:::l1tZl m'i~ 18 This decision is not always easy. For instance, there is no scholarly consensus as regards lQH 5.36, ~ 'tDllO C''''O lltDD

',,:l

-is C''''O verbal with 'they' as the subject or does it introduce a noun phrase adjectivally modifying lltDD "'?-and ibo 8.10, 1" Crl1n ll'1J ~"~1 ~tDnJ ~1"~ ,mo ~ n.Il~" tD'[1lt' '~J n'1DO

-where the first word, as Holm-Nielsen (1960: 151) justly observes, can be an intransitively used Hif 'like one who comes into a besieged city, is difficult to say, because in BH the preposition kaf tends to be vocalized with a shewa when the noun is further expanded. On the other hand, the lamed in ibo 9.22, 1::l7D1O?, ought to be pointed with a patab, which is confirmed by the parallel 1::l i1'1ii1 'Jel? there. At 1QS 7.9 one ought perhaps to vocalize 1fDelJ? CP1~7 p1. Both Lohse and Habermann, however, vocalize the preposition with a shewa, though the parallel clause begins with i~'r;l7.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON i1fD.I1r.l '?'~:::l ~'lC'

105

m, ,?,~,? P'~' C',:DJ lL;lo, C''?~ 'fD i1n~ i1Ji1

You are the prince of gods ... and role every creature, not ' ... a roler of every creature'. The only probable exception24 is a Qal or Nifal participle of i1'i1, a key-tenn of Qumranic theology and cosmology. This inevitably leads to some interpretative ambiguities. Though in lQS 9.26 i1'i1J fP cannot mean anything other than 'time to come', with i1'i1J thus an adjectival participle, authorities are divided regarding, for instance, lQS 11.3, i1'i1J [T],:::l ':::l:::l'? n,,~, 'J' J) i1t!l':::li1 ,'m~'?ElJ:::l',

which could also be interpreted as an attributive participle: 'myeye beheld his wonders, and the light of my mind a mystery in the making'.25 However, no doubt can be entertained at lQH 11.13, i1'i1J ,?,~ CJ) fD,nm'?

To be renewed together with all that is going to come into existence, and lQS 11.11, 'J'~' ,n:::lfDnO:::l il"il ,?,~, ,?,~ il'ilJ ,nJ)':::l

Through his decision everything comes into existence, and all that is extant he establishes with his calculation, where i11,i1 is clearly a substantivized participle. This theological use also includes plural fonns of il'il NWal: lQH 18.27 :::l'?:::l i1mpn C'?'J) n1'i1J You engraved the events of etemity on the heart of ... ; CD 13.8 c'?'J) n1'i1J Ci1'JEl'? '00" And he shall recount the events of eternity. See, however, lQS 11.18 i1'i1 i1~l1~i:l i1'i1li1'n:l 'all that came into existence was at your pleasure'. Here one may suspect that the participle with the definite article is used, as in BH (see Joüon-Muraoka 1993: §121i), with the force of the suffix conjugation. Although QH possibly knows the use of stative verbs in the suffix conjugation with the translation value of the present tense, there are insufficient grounds for translating the i1'i1 here in this way-e.g. Vermes (1995: 88) 'all things come to pass by Thy will', Dupont-Sommer (1987: 45) 'existe', as against Lohse (1986: 43) 'geschah'. 25 So Dupont-Sommer (1987: 43) 1e Mystere a venir' and Vermes (1995: 86) 'the mystery to come', as against Lohse (1986: 41) 'das Geheimlnis) des Gewordenen', Garcia Martinez (1994: 17) 'the mystery of the future' (but Garcia Martinez [1994:399) translates the same phrase with 'the future mystery' at lQ27.3, 4, so Milik [1955: 103», Licht (1965: 228) 'C1p'i1'fD 1Ii', Charlesworth (1994: 47) 'the mystery of what shall occur'. Charlesworth translates the following 'l'O' lllfDO c'?111 ~11i11 with 'and is occurring. A support is at my right hand', which is implausible; this addition must as a whole constitute a nominal clause, parallel to 'l'O' nlllfDO lni1:ll, which he does translate as a nominal clause: 'his strength is the staff (in) my right hand'. Charlesworth (1994: 47, n. 289) refers to 1QS 3.15 in support of his interpretation of i1'i1l at ibo 11.4, but there, i1"i1l i111i1'~ n111'i1 ~o, it can be rendered ' ... exists and shall come into being' as against his 'all that is occurring and shall occur'. 24

106 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

That the definite article in this syntagm (with the exception of i1'i1 G and N) does not necessarily carry the usual defining function, but, rather, signals the use of the participle as verb may be seen in the juxtaposition of aseries of clauses prescribing various forrns of punishment for misconducts committed by community members: lQS 7.15,

0'0' n,co1' COJ1'J, ... "'WolCO" n" "'~'0i1

One who puts out his left hand ... shall be punished for ten days, is preceded by, among others, lQS 7.13, 'co" 'one who spits .. .', and followed by lQS 7.17, ... 11" 'co" co',,;, 'one who grumbles .. .'. See also 1QS 2.25, ... ",:::l, 0"'0i1 ":>, and 1QS 8.19, ,n', ~O'Ji1 ,,:>, 'to everyone who joins the community'. With plural participles no such neat picture is to be obtained: lQS 5.6,

... P'"

tD''

Oi1"1' O""Ji1, ... tz",p' O':::l'Jno;, ,,:>,

for all who volunteer for sanctity ... and join them, and lQSa 1.4,

0''':::li1 ,,:> n" ,,'i1P'

They shall assemble all who come, as against lQSa 2.18 O'J':::lC ,:>, 'to all those who understand'. K. In the following cases we have participles used as modifiers of a nounhead: lQS 6.6 i1,1n:::l CO", CO'" 'a man who studies the Law'; lQS 9.23 p,n, "JpO CO'" m'i1' 'to be a man zealous for the law'; with adefinite noun head: lQS 6.12 ,n'i1 n~1' n" ',,'COi1 CO'''i1; lQS 11.5 i1:>,:::l1':::l' i11'" nmEli1 ""; lQH 14.8 i1J':::l [i1:>,P1' :l'?:::lln1Ji1 'm". 10. Use and non-use ofn,,26

The question of use and non-use of the nota objecti where the complement is a personal pronoun has been briefly discussed above. Where the complement is a noun or a proper noun, we are still far from a definitive description. Confronted by the following contrasting pairs, we can hardly do better than invoke one of the philologist's valued panaceas, viz. variation in style: 1QS 1.4 OWol 'co" ,:> n" ",JCO, vs. lQS 1.3 ,n:::l 'co" ,,:> :::l,;'",; 26 See

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

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

107

lQS 9.14 P"~il 'J~ "'PID" 11 4Q259 Erg i col iii 10 P'~il 'J~ nM "'PIDf,'; 1QS 9.17 il"nil n~1' nM ,no" 11 4Q285 Erg iii col ii 2 ,n~1' 1nO"; lQS 5.22 "p,n ",~ nM "pEl" vs. lQS 3.24 "p,n ",~ "pEl. One negative observation we can make is that, out of a total oE 44 notae objecti (excluding the three cited in the last paragraph) found in our corpus, none precedes the verb. Furthennore, as many as 25 (57 %) mark the object of an infinitive. Compare lQS 6.26,

'il1" 'El nM m'OM:::l,

M".

with lQH 14.141'El "0' Such an infinitive does not appear to be motivated by the desire to mark the object unambiguously as such, for we have a mere three ca ses in wh ich an infinitive is followed by hoth a nominal subject and a nominal object (1 QS 5.24 'il1" nM ID'M n':l1il"; lQS 6.9 '1"0 nM ID'M ~'IDil"; and possibly lQH 15.20 lm~ nM' l"~~ nM [",~] n1'i"),27 and moreover there is only one case where anything else intervenes between the infinitive and its object marked by nM (1QS 8.13 MilM'ill"

nMt:l1D mJEl").

The nota objecti precedes a direct object wh ich is determined to varying degrees28 and which can be either animate or inanimate.

11. Semantic and collocational factoTs Where a verb has distinct senses or enters distinct collocations, the question of its complementation needs to be looked at separately for each of those senses or collocations. For instance, it would be too mechanical to assign the preposition lamed the same complementational value of indirect object marker both when it folio ws the verb 1m in the common sense of 'to give to' and when it follows the same verb in a sequence such as that found at Gen 17.6, t:l"J"l'nm 'I will make nations of you'. Likewise one would distinguish between different senses of the G verb MIDJ as illustrated by its collocation with MIDr.l, t:l'JEl, pD, etc.

Z7 In the first two cases the presence of the intervening U7'~ is a function of its

idiomatic use. For an attempt to establish a graduated scale of definiteness, see Andersen 1970: 33, 110.

28

108 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA II: Database29 '::l~D: ::li1~

+ suf rei lQS 7.6 "::l~" 'to cause damage to it' (inf)

G:

+ e drei< 1QS 1.3 ,n::l '!Z1~ ",:l ::l'i1~" (inf); lQH 17.24 i1n::li1~ '!Z1~"':l (rel cl); + id rei > lQS 3.26 ... "~::li1~ nn~ (ptc?) + e d pers cst < lQS 1.9 ,,~ 'J::l ":l ::l'i1~" (inf) + suf lQH 14.19 'J::li1~; 14.26, 15.10 i1:l::li1~ 111~

0: tD: "~H:

+ " rei > 1QS 10.19 '!Z1e)J i1'M ~,,, oon 11i1"

+ ::l rei < lQS 9.25 i1'~ ~,,, '!Z1~ ",:l::l 111M' ~,,, + e drei suf < 1QS 2.3 !:l"n ":l!Z1::l i1:l::l" '~'; lQH 3.3 'Je) i1m"~i1'Je) i1m"~i1; lQH 4.5 i1:ln"::l" 'Je) i1m"~i1 + e id rei < 1QSb 4.27 !:l'::l, 'Je) "~i1" (inf); lQH 4.27 !:l'::l, 'Je) i1m"~i1 '::l; > lQH 9.26 '1"i1m"~i11!Z1,no "M + ::l rei < lQS 4.2 !Z1'~ ::l::l"::l "~i1" (inf)31

29 The following tems, abbreviations, and symbols are used: ace = accusativej cogn = cognatej comm = dative of advantage; cst = construct; d = determined; dat = dative; dem pron = demonstrative pronoun; dir = direct; id = indetermined; ind = indirect; inf = infinitive; obj = object; obj compl = object complement; pass = passive; pers = person; ptc = participle; rei = of thing; rel cl = relative clause; sim = similarly; st = a noun determined by virtue of a determined noun in the status constructus; suf = suffix; vel = or; ß = a zero complement; < = a complement to the left, Le. following the verb; > = a complement to the right, Le. preceding the verb; G = Qal, D = Pi 1QS 11.221'::l' ilO n~.I1'? + suf pers and::l rei < lQS 6.15 ,n'il 't:lMlO '?'~::l 'ilJ'::l'; lQSa 1.5 ilO[il't:l]e:lrDO '?'~::l CJ'::lil'? (inf) + '" d pron dem< 1QH 1.37 il'?R ,J'::l' R'? '~-clause < lQH 17.21 ... ,~ 'n1J'::lil tD: + ::l rei < lQS 11.19 il~'n1~'?e:lJ '?'~::l P'::lnil'? (inf); lQH 7.321~'?e:l '!D.I10::l p'::lm'? (inf) .I1'?::l D(?): + suf pers lQH 7.5 'J.I1'?::ln ,.I1::lG38: + ::l pers lQS 2.15 ,::l ".I1::l'

36 BH uses both syntagms frequently: + '" and +::1. In QH the latter predominates, but cf. CD 2.15: i1~' '~tH~ "n::1? 37 On a diachronie development, see above, under 1.4. 38 The verb is most likely G, and its collocation with ::1 is common in BH: e.g. Isa 42.25.

112 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA l1P:J N (pass?): 1QH 3.32 '.I1":J ',m P':J~' ,.I1P:J', 'P:J D: + '.11 pers< 1QS 6.12 O':J'il'.I1 'P:JOil (pte) + '.11 rei < 1QS 6.200':J'il n~~'r.l'.I1 'P:JOil tD'~il (pte) + suf pers and id rei 4Q159 frg ii-iv 8 nlJr.l~ il"P:J (impv) tDP:J D: + e drei suf< 1QH 2.21 'tDElJ ,tDP:J + e rei < 1QH 16.6 ]m, tDP:J' (inf) ~':J G: + eid pers< 1QS 3.17 tD1J~ ~':J il~'il; 1QH 4.38 .I1tD" P"~ iln~':J + e id pers> 1QH 15.17iln~':J0'.I1tD'1 + e id rei < 1QH 3.251tDlm '1~ nlm, ~':J il~'ill; 1QH 1.13 r'~ iln~'::J iln~; 1QH 1.27 ptD'::J m, iln~'::J iln~; 1QH 13.11 nltD,n ~1'::J' (inf) + suf: 1QH 1.7, 13.8 on~'::J; 1QH 15.14 l'::J 0: + n~ d pers et rei suf < 1QS 1.19 1nr.l~ 'tD.I1r.l '1~ n~, nl.l11tD"~ n~ 0'~'::Jr.l (pte); 1QS 2.1 ,~ "1~ 'tDJ~ ,~ n~ 0'~':Jr.l (pte) + n~ drei st < 1QSa 2.19 On'il n'tD' n~ l'::J['] + suf pers 1QS 2.2, 1QSb 3.25 il~~'::J'; 1QS 9.26 lJ~'::J'; 1QS 10.6 lJ~':Jil (= lJ~':J~),39 sim. 1QS 10.14,16; 1QH 1.31; 11.2 i1~1~':J' + e d pers suf < 1QS 9.26 1'tDl.111'::J' + e drei suf < 1QS 10.13 ~1r.ltD l'::J~; 1QH 2.30 i1~r.ltD il~'::J~; 1QH 11.6 i1~r.ltD i1~'::J~ "r.ln H(!):

,,::J 0:

+ ::J rei < 1QS 6.5 on'i1 mD~'::J l'::Ji1? (inf)40 + e drei suf < on.l1' ,,::J' (inf) + e id rei < 1QS 4.20 '::J~ 'tD.I1r.l '1~ ... ,~ ,,::J'

H: ,tD::J D:

+ e drei suf < lQH 15.10 'El~ '::Jil' (inf) + e id pers (ind obj) and , (dir Obj?)41

correctly in MSS Band D. The preposition seems basically to be instrumental. Should the Hif'n'~?E)J ?1::> + e id rei > 1QH 8.35 'El:::l i1n1:::Ui1 prD?

?'l 0: + e id rei < lQH 6.15, 7.19 '~J ?'l? (inf) H:

"l G:

+ e id rei < lQH 4.29 m~?El ?"li1? (inf) + ?11 < lQH 2.23 'rDE)J?l1 "l'they assailed my soul'42 + e lQH 7.12 "l ?,::> 'all those who contend against me' (pte)

?'lG: +?11 < lQH 9.35 Ci1'?l1 ?ln43 i1?l G44: + e drei suf < 1QH 1.21 ~?El 'T'? 'm~ i1n'?l, sim. lQH 6.4; 18.19 'J'l1i1n'?l + e id rei < lQH 18.4 ,Ell1 F~ ?lm; lQH 18.24 ,Ell1:::l? i1?m, N (pass): + ? pers (ind obj) < 1QS 5.9 P"~ 'J:l'? i1J00 i1?lJi1 ?,::> (pte); lQH 5.12 '? i1::>l1rD' n1?1' fP (inf) 0: + drei suf< 1QH 12.34 ':::l? i1n'?l; lQH 13.3 i1~" i1n'?l ?clG: + e drei suf > and < ?11 pers lQS 2.1 'J'?l1?cl "on 'on, (?l1?cl is late for -? ?cl, e.g. Ps 103. 10, 119.19, Ion 4.4); 1QH 9.30 '?l1i1n?cl ?l1l G: + :::l id rei < lQS 2.26 P'~ ,~OOO nl1' "10':::l 1tDElJ i1?l1l tzi'l G45:

The author of our text would surely have read at Ps 94.21 P"~ fDEll".\1 "U' instead of the MT 1"1il!. 43.,.\1 oeeurs in BH with this verb in the sense of 'to rejoice' only at Zep 3.17; the usual preposition is :1. 44 In the idiomatic eolloeation 1TM i1"l the verb is in G, not D (so pointed by Habermann [1959: 115 ete) and Lohse [1986: 114, ete.». 45 1QH 2.12 is by universal agreement manifestly based on Isa 57.20, where the MT, however, has a G form: 1fDl)'. There is no reason why we should not follow Habermann (1959: 116) in reading here also a G, lfD"l' instead of an H, 1fD'1l' (so Lohse). 42

114 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

+ e id rei > 1QH 2.12 'fZTI"1)' t!l,t!l, IDEli 46 + '?l1 pers and e d rei suf < 1QH 8.15 CIDEli ''?l111Dil. Cf. 1QH 3.321DEli 'lDi'l, c1early aG ptc. P:l, G:

+ :l drei< 1QS 1.5 :l,t!l 'IDm '?,:J:l P':l,'? (inf); 1QH 16.71n'i:l rn~:l P':l,'? (inf)

+ :l pers 1QS 2.15 ,:l 'P:l, + '? > 1QH 5.31 p:l,n ln'? 'J'ID'? i:l' D:

+ '?~ pers< 1QS 5.25 ~~:l 'il'il''?~ i:n' '?~; 1QSa 2.9 1D"Pil n~l1 '?~ i:l''? (inf)

+ :l pers ('against'?) > 1QS 7.2 il7~n:l i:l' ... C'Jil':Jillr.l ,n~:l + n~ 11 pers< 1QS 7.5 'ill1i n~ i:l" + e id rei < 1QS 6.11 i:l' '?,:J ID'~ i:l" '?~; 1QS 7.9 '?:lJ i:l' ... i:l" and '? pers 1QS 6.12 C':li'? i:l''? i:l' m~ ID' (inf), sim. 1QS 6.13; > 1QH 12.32 n1T '?l1 i:l'~ ilr.l, sim. 1QH 12.32b + e id (?) rei > 1QH 1.23 l1"J ~'?::J i::J'~ ilr.l47 ilm N (pass): 1QH 4.9 'Jr.lr.l ,mJ

1" G:

~'D:

li,G:

lDi' G:

+ e drei suf < 1QH 5.13 'J'l'nn + e drei suf < 1QH 5.17 'IDElJ '~:J" + e drei suf (idiom) < 1QH 6.30 mrDp i':lll'i"

+ e d pers< 1QS 1.1 '?~ lD'i''? (inf) + e drei st < 1QS 8.24 t!lEllDr.lil 'lDi' + n~ drei suf < 1QS 5.20 c,mi n~ 'lDi"

This passage is not registered in Clines 1995: 378. In the light of a contrast between ibo 10.7, 'El i1nn!'1el ~?::l '::l~ i1C1, and ibo 12.33, 'e) i1nnnEl ~ ~';:' '::l'~ i1C1, this ought to be translated 'what can I speak unless it has been made known?' In other words, .l1'1J, pace Lohse (1986: 114), must be pointed as pf., .l11;J. 1QH contains many unmistakable examples of ~1?::l with a perfect: e.g. 1.23 1El10 ~"::l, 10.7 'Jn?;:'fZli1 ~"::l, 12.34'::l i1n'?l ~1?::l. Cf. our discussion in Muraoka 1996 (forthcoming) on 1QS 2.14. The preposition bet is no bet communicationis. We fail to comprehend what Mansoor (1961: 101) meant by 'causal conjunctive'. Lohse's rendering, 'Wie soll ich reden, ohne daß es schon erkannt wäre?', is thus preferable to, e.g. Mansoor's (1961: 101), 'What can I speak that is not foreknown?'. See also Qimron (1986: 77). This ~"::l should not be confused with the same combination as in Lam 4.14, t:liT'W::l?::l1.l1l' 1?;:'1' ~?::l, where the pr~position is required by the verb .l1lJ and what fo11ows the preposition, ";:'''~?, is an asyndetic relative c1ause. 46

47

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTA TION

115

+ suf pers 1QS 5.11 'ilrDi';

iIJ., G: tm G: l'?il G:

1QS6.14 ''?~rD'? ... 'ilrDi'" 'should examine hirn with respect to his intellect,' sirn. 1QS 6.17; 1QH 4.6 il~rDi"~; 1QH 4.14, 15 il~1rDi"; 1QH 4.16 il~rDi"'? (inf) + e id rei < 1QS 6.7 ~El!Z1r.l rD'i''? (inO, cf. 1QH 2.15 [mpl'?n 'rDi" ,?,~ (pte) + ::l rei < 1QS 6.6 ili,n::l rDi" rD'~ (pte)

+ e id rei < 1QH 11.21 11'" '''il m"il'? (eogn obi> (inO + '?JJ pers< lQH 5.31 '::l'?''?JJOil'' + e id rei loe < 1QS 1.15 '?'MrD' 1'r.l' n~'?'? (inf); lQS 11.10 1rD,n '~'?'il (pte)

+ ::lloc < lQS 4.6 il::l '~'?'il ,?,~ (il::l = '?::ln::l) (pte); lQS 4.11 1rDm '~i' '?'~::l n~'?'? (inf); lQS 4.12 il::l '~'?'il ,?,~ (pte); lQS 5.10 ilJJrDiil1i'::l O'~'?'ilil (pte); 1 QS8.20 O::l ,~'?, irD~ O'~El!Z1r.lil; lQS 8.21 1i' O'r.ln::l O'~'?'ilil (pte) + '? < 1QS 8.13 i::l'r.l'? n~'?'? (inf) + ::l '?'~i pers< lQS 7.15 'ilJJi::l '?'~i 1'?'; > 1QS7.16'?'~i1'?'0'::li::l D(?):

tD:

+ ::l < lQS 8.181i' O'r.ln::ll'?il'? (inf); lQS 9.19 1:li1'? il'?JJil '?':l~ ... l'?il" (inf)

+ ::l > lQS 4.15 '~'?iln' lil'~i'::l; lQS 6.1 '~'?iln' il'?~::l; < lQS 4.24 ilr.l~n::l '~'?iln'; sirn. lQS 9.12; lQH 17.24

'?'?il D:

+ e drei suf < lQH 1.30; 3.23 il~r.lrD '?'?il'? (inf); 1QH 12.3 il~r.lrD il'?'?il~

L:

+ suf pers 1QS 10.17 '~'?'?il~

+ e drei suf < 1QH 4.17 Oil'rDJJr.l ,?,~ il'r.li::l '?'?'il'? (inf) tL: ilr.lil G:

+ ::l < 1QH 4.12 Oil"JJ'r.l::l '?'?'ilni1'? (inf) + '?JJ pers> lQH 2.16 'r.lil' ''?JJ

116 TI-IE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

lEli1 G: .lnrG: i1~T

H:

'~T

G:

+" id rei and , > lQH 2.17':Jl "n i1n11D' 1:),Elt,,~ + 10 < lQS 7.18 ,n'i1 "0'0

,m, mm

+" drei suf < lQS 9.91:l~"

'~Ti1 ~"

+" drei suf < lQH 4.34 'mo!Z1~ 'n1~T; lQH 4.35 i1~" m~ "~'T:l (inf)

H: 1:l0TG:

+" id rei < lQS 6.27 ,:l, "~T' + " lQH 10.51:l'T~ i10; and '.lJ (enmity)

+'

'OT D(?):

< lQH4.10'.lJ":l".lJ'00T pers< lQH 4.26 'O'I:lO'O (pte)

+ :l rei < 1QH 11.5 i1~',on:l i1'OT~49

mTH:

+ suf pers lQH 9.7 ':lnmTi1~'

+" drei suf > lQH 9.11 i1nmTi1~' 'o,~,,'n ppTD:

+ 10 partitive (= ,,) < lQS 4.20 !Z1'~ ':l:lr.l,' PPT' + suf pers lQH 6.8l:lpprm ~:ln

D (?):

+" id rei < lQS 4.6

n.lJ' 'r, no~' ~:lm 'to hide faithfully mysteries of knowledge'50 (inf)51; > lQH 5.11 i1n:ln i1~n1,n; lQH 5.25 (rel cl)':l i1n:ln r':l; lQH 9.24 nc~ ~:lnm

':ln D:

+ d pers and , < 1QS 11.8 ,n' n~.lJ' 1:l,'0 ':ln

The verb cannot possibly mean 'to cast, throw' (so translated by some: Vermes 1987: 169, Holm-Nielsen 1960: 32, Garcfa Martfnez 1994: 329). It rather means 'to transform, convert'; so Lohse (1986: 117) 'kehrten'. 49 This bold combination is unknown to BH. It may be understood as an application of bet communicationis. It is followed in our passage by 48

;"!nm~

;"!:lm1:ll1;

is common. 5OCf. our discussion on an alleged Aramaism, under 1.7 above. 51 Most likely a 0 infinitive. The verb root occurs in 0 passive in BH (Job 24.4 lM~ry). See also a 0 pass. ptc., C'M:llnO, at 1QH 8.6, 18. Despite the palaeographie ambiguity, whether to read waw or yod, an impf., pace WernbergMeIler (1957: 78f.), is unlikely at this point.

:l nn1!D

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON

117

lZi,n D: + e drei st> lQSb 5.21 ,? lZi,n' ,n'iT n"::J' iTm G: + e lQH 2.15 mm::lJ'nn ?,::l (ptd pm G(?): + info < lQS 3.1 ::J'lZiO?prn ~,? D: + suf pers lQH 7.7 'Jpmm + e drei suf < lQH 14.5l'p,n iTnpm

H: + ::J rei < lQS 5.1 iT'~ 'rD~ ?,::l::J p'miT? (inf); lQS 5.3 n"::J::J c'pmoiT52 (ptc); lQH 2.281~"::J::J 'rDm pmm53; pers and > 1QS 9.14 p'rniT?mm ','n::J::J (inf); lQH 4.36 '0.l10::J iTp'miT + e id rei < lQSa 2.5, lQH 5.29 ,0.l10p'miT (inf)54 + ?.11 pers< 1QH 15.11 C'::J, ?.11 iTp'm~ D: + e drei suf < lQSa 1.17 'Jnopm'; lQSb 3.23 ,n"::J pm? (inf) + e id rei < lQH 1.31 lZi'J~ m, iTnpm ... iTn~ tD: +::J lQH 4.39 iT::ln"::J::J iTpmn~; lQH 16.7 [ltz"JP m'::J pmniT?; lQH 18.9 iT::ln"::J::Jpmno ~~nG:

+? pers< lQH 17.22, 231?~,~no (inf) iT'n D:

+ e id rei < lQH 8.36 c,?!Zi,::l m, n1'n? (inf)

iT?n D: + e drei< lQH 16.11 l'J~ iT?n~

We prefer to take the verb as a defectively spelled Hifcil ptc., rather than Pi lQH 5.26 1:::l1rDn' C:::l" n11il ilOi11 H: + snf pers 1QH 3.6 'J1:::l'rDn' [; sim. lQH 4.8 Hpass.: + :::l < lQS 5.11 1n',:::l:::l 1:::ltVnil ~1"56 tD: + " 1QH 10.5 :::lrDnn~ ilO + ClJ > 1QS 3.1 :::lrDnn' ~1" C',tV' c.1P7

+"

The definite artic1e was probably washed away' (Charlesworth 1994: 129, n.37). 56 Thongh a scribal error for 1:lWnJ or 1:lWnn;, is not impossible, note Si 7.16 :cl"nc:ll:l'wnn .,~. 57 The difficult 1'.!1:l at 1QS 3.3, :lwnn' ~,., C'O'Jn J'~:l, may be an error for J'm 'among the number of or J'll may mean 'kind, sort'. 55

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON

119

N: +::l < lQS 5.181n'1::l::l '::ltom ~" +' > lQH 18.26 'n::ltonpo, nnn H: + suf pers lQH 2.34 'Jmnni1 ~'?S8 + 10 < lQH 7.8 i1:Jn'1::lO i1nnni1 ~]' 1i1t!l

D: + suf pers lQS 4.21 toi1p m1::l '1i1t!l' (inO; + 10 lQS 11.14 to'J~ n1JO 'J1i1t!l'; lQH 11.30 i1:Jnpi~::l 'J1i1t!l; lQH 16.12 'J1i1t!l' (inf) + e id rei and 10 > lQH 3.21 ::l1 lJtoOO i1n1i1t!l i1U'J m1 + e id pers and 10 < lQH 11.10 lJtoOO to'J~ i1n1i1t!l ...

tD: + 10 > 1QH 6.8 i10to~ 1i1t!li1' (inf) mt!lG: + e drei st < 1QH 4.23 "t:l'rD1iJi1 ',:J 'JEl nto'::l::l i1nnt!l ~, l°t!lG:

+ e id rei > 1QH 2.29 'toElJ, ,JOt!l t:l'nEl

~1t!lG:

i1i' H:

eid rei < lQH 5.14 'JlJ rDElJ 'El1t!l' + , pers (ind obj) and " drei suf < lQS 11.15 'Pi~ ,~, mi'i1' (inf)59 + suf pers lQH 2.20, 31; 3.19, 37; 4.5; 5.5; 7.6; 11.3, 15 i1:Ji'~

lJi'G: + " drei suf < lQS 2.22 'iOlJr:l n'::l to'~ '~1rD' to'~ ,,:J nlJi' (inf); lQS 4.25 p'tolJO n"lJEllJi' i1~'i1; lQH 1.7 t:li1'tolJr:l i1nlJi'; lQH 4.32 ,'tolJr:l ',:J 'lJi'; lQH 6.12 i1:Jnr.l~ t:l'1:l ',:J 'lJi'; lQH 7.16 i1:Ji::llJ 1~' i1nlJi'; lQH 9.12 'nr.l'TO lJim +" drei st< lQS 5.11 m1nOJi1 nlJi' (inf) + "id rei < lQH 7.13 i1tolJO 1~' ,,:J i1nlJi' i1n~ + d dem pron > lQH 1.21 i1:Jm'::lO 'nlJi' i1'~; lQH 5.3 i1'~ 'nlJi::l (inf) + n~ drei suf< lQS 5.191n'1::ln~'lJi' ~"; lQH 15.20 lm:J n~, li'::l:J n~ ['?,:J] nlJi' (inf) + suf pers 1QSa 1.10 i1nlJi' i1rD~; lQH 9.30 'JnlJi'; lQH 9.35 'JlJi'; To be pointed 'mi'lJ:li) or such like, and not '~'l'Ir:r.J (Habermann 1959: 117; Lohse 1986: 118). Cf. also Qimron 1976: 198. 59 Cf. Ps 107.8, 15,21, 31 C~ 'J~" "n~'?EJJ' "on "., "". 58

120 TIlE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA lQH 12.11 n:>'n.u,'; lQH 12.22 n:>,.u,'

+ :J < lQS 8.18 cn~.u ",:>:J 1'" "~;60

lQH 9.9 n:>no~ 'n.u,' + ':> clause < lQS 10.16, lQH 3.20; 6.6; 9.14 ... ~':> n.u,~; lQH 2.22, 33 ... ~':> '1'" ~". Also lQH 4.30; 11.7; 14.12; 15.12, 13,22,23,25; 16.4, 10, 11; 18. 21. + irD~ clause < lQH 6.7 ... irD~ 'n.u[,'

H:

+" drei suf < lQH 1.29; 13.13 n:>":J:> .u'"n" (inf) + suf pers and :J rei < 1QH 4.27 n:>~"e:l 'Ti:J 'Jn.u"n;61 lQH 11.9 n:>nr.l~ ,'O:J cn.u"n; > lQH 7.27 'Jn.u"n n:>~"e:l 'Ti:J; lQH 10.4 'J.u'"n [n:>no~ ,'O:J pers and" drei< lQH 4.28 n:>'n1i':J" c"nn ",:>" .u'"n"62 + suf pers and "id rei < lQH 11.16 nr.l~ "0 'Jn.u"n

+"

,n'N:

+ " pers< lQS 5.20 rD,'P n,.u" ,n'n" (inf) + Cl' suf pers < lQS 5.14 ,m':J.u:J '01' ,n" ~'''; and +:J 1QH 11.11 n:>'rD"p Cl' "iU:J ... (inf)

,mn"

"n' 0:

+ "rei < lQH 9.10 n:>',on" 'n"n'; lQH 11.31 n:>:J,t:>" 'n"n' H: n:>' H:

+ inf < 1QH 7.18 r'~n'? '?'m~

+ n~ pers< 1QS 5.24 ,n.ui n~ rD'~ n':>,n'? (inf) + suf pers lQS 5.26 ,m':>,'

The preposition :J in this collocation, also found in Ps 31.8 and Job 35.15, is comparable with that in -:J 1':J.,; see above. According to Jenni (1992: 252) such a bet comes under bet of 'geistiger Kontakt', in particular 'Aufmerksamkeit, Einsicht'. 61 Though BH affords no example of -:J ll",;', the preposition prefixed to a noun indicating the contents of knowledge, -:J ll", does occur once: Ps 31.8 60

,~) n"~:J

nlli' .

Cf. Jenni 1992: 252f. The preposition in our 1QH passage is hardly instrumental: does ll"'!.' + acc. pers. mean 'to make someone a knowledgeable person, expert lQH 1.28c'noo 'iElP~}; lQH 18.22 '?,:J r:Jil'? (inf) + '" drei suf < lQH 7.8 'n':J::JO 1''?o '?1' pm; 1QH 7.13 '::J'? pm; and '?,:J 1QSb 3.20 ']tD'~'?':J r:Jil '?~; 1QH 7.25 ''?1i pm; 1QH 15.13, 21 "1'~ r:Jil'? (inf); > 1QH 15.22 iln]'~':Jil iln'?'l'El' + drei and a resurnptive pron suf > 1QS 11.11

66 -'ll'tZ";' is a familiar BH collocation. The verb is foreign to RH.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENT A TION

0:

ron~

il~O:

'?~'?~ 0:

123

'J'~' m:::lrDnO:::l il"il ,?,~

+ '?.u < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 il''?.u rDn~ ~,,?

+ info < 1QS 6.10 i:::l''? 'il'n~ il'?~' + '" id rei < 1QH 5.36 m~ m'?~'? (inD; 1QH 8.31 irD:::l m'?~'? (inD

+ suf pers 1QS 3.17 t:l'?~'?~, il~'il'; 1QH 9.34 'J'?~'?~n

.uJ~

H:

+ '? < 1QH 9.36 il~[']rD.uo ,?,~,? '?~'?~n

+ '" id pers< 1QSa 1.21 t:l'U.u'J~il'? (inf) im 0: 67 + '" drei suf < 1QS 2.81'J".u itl~'? (inf) + '" id rei < 1QH 4.37 11'.u itl~n + '? pers (cornm?) < 1QS 5.6 t:l':::l,mOil ,?,~,? itl~'? (inf)

+ '? rei < 4Q159 frg i col ii 2 [t:l]il'.urDtl ,?,~,? itl~'? (inD + ,.u:::l pers vel rei (= peccati) < 1QS 8.6, 10 ri~il ,.u:::l itl~'? (inf); 1QS 11.14 'mJ".u ,?,~ ,.u:::l itl~' + '?.u rei (= peccati) < 1QS 9.4 .urDtl norD~ '?.u itl~'? (inf) Cf. Opass.: 1QS 3.6 ,mm.u ,?,~ 'itl'~'; 1QS 3.8 m~n itl,~n. ni~H:

+ '" id pers< 1QH 4.20

ilOiO 'rDJ~ ,?,~ ~[OO]l:l:::l ni~n; 1QH 4.26 il~'tl 'i:::l'.u ,?,~ ~OOO:::l n'i~il'? (inD

'?rD~

G:

H:

+ :::l < 1QH 17.231J'~i 'i:::l' '?'~:::l '?'rD~O (inf) + '" id pers< 1QS 3.24 i'~ 'J:::l '?'rD~il'? (inf) + '" id rei < 1QH 5.36 mi '?'tD~il'? (inf)

:::ln~:

+ suf pers 1 QS5.231iO:::l t:l:::ln~';6B 1QS 6.22 m~n 1iO:::l 'il:::l,n~'; + suf rei 1QS 6.20 11:::lrDn:::l ':::ln~' + '" d pers suf < 1QSa 1.21 67 68

All this striking variety of syntagms is weIl attested in BH. Probably we should read ::lrOi1'?, a variant reading in 4Q258 frg i, col ii 2.

124 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA ,nnEl!DO :J,n~' ~il1iO:J rD:J':I G: + 0 id rei < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 7 ilrDM nJ,n~ rD:J':I' ':IM; > lQH 5.31 'nrD:J':Imi'p

m':l N:

+ ':1.11 pers < 1QS 5.6 Cil'':I.I1 C',':IJil (pte)

n':l H:

+ ':1.11 pers < lQH 5.24 ' :1.11 'T'':I', 11':1 G: ,~':I

G:

+ ':1.11 pers < lQS 7.17 ,n'il "0' ':1.1111':1'; > lQS 7.1711':1' 'il.l1i ':1.11 CM + 0 drei suf < 1QH 2.29 C':IJi ,,~':In

'0':1 G:

+ nM drei st < lQS 9.13 ':I~rDil ':I,~ nM "0':1 1QS 11.3 il'ilJ Ti::l '::l::l? ni'~' 'J' l1 ilt:l'::lil ,'m~?ElJ::l; 1QS 11.5 'J'l1 ilt:l'::lil C?,l1 ~"il::l

70 This must be a jussive. Lohse's and Habermann's pointing, n!il', is dubious. Point n1;)'. In the OT the verb combines with 1I~~ in Qal, e.g. Isa 43.25; 44.22; Ps

"'0

51.3. 71 11 1QS 9.20 ... c?':lWi1'? 72 On the zero-linkage in BH, see Num 12.18; 23.21; Isa 64.8. Pace Charlesworth, the verb does not mean 'to consider' (similar Garda Marnnez: 'he regards darkness as paths to light'). We prefer Maier's 'und Finsternis schaut er für Wege des Lichtes' and Vermes's 'for seeking the ways oflight he looks towards darkness' .

126 THE HEBREW OF THE OEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

+ ,~ rei < lQH 4.11 Cr11l1n'~ ~':Jil' (inf) .11:JJ H:

+ '" id rei < lQH 8.18 C'~1no 1.11':J'

.11lJ

G:

+ :J < lQS 5.13 rDi1pil 'rD~~ n1il~:J n.111' (inf), sim. lQS 8.17;

lQS 6.16; 7.19 C':J1il n1il~:J .111' ~1'; lQS 6.20 C':J1il ilPrDO:J .111' ,~, sim. lQS 7.20; lQH 11.21 ')':l~.11:J 1.111'1 + , < 4Q258 frg i eol i 7 rD[iPil] 'rD~~ n1il~' 1.111' ~, (111 QS 5.13 ... n1il~:J) H 'to bring into eontaet': + suf and:J < 4Q513 frg ii eol ii 1 rD1i[Pil] n1il~:J C.11'li' (inf) rDlJ H: + suf pers lQS 9.16 1rD'lil' (inf); lQS 11.13 '~rD'lil; lQH 12.23 CnrD1il; lQH 14.19 1~rD'1~; lQH 16.12 '~rD'lil' (inf); and' < lQH 14.131m':J' '~rD'ln :Ji~ tO: + info < lQS 5.1 :J1rD'C':Ji~noil (pte); lQS 5.10 1~1~1:J 1,nil'1 ... C':Ji~nOil (pte); lQS 5.21; 6.13 + , < 1QS 5.1 0 1n0~' in' C':Ji~nOil (pte) ni~H:

+ suf pers and 10 lQH 4.8 '~1M '~n'i,73 :J1~ 0: + '" id rei < 1QH 8.13 1'1E:l :J:J'~' ':J E'J'~ H:

+ '" drei and :J pers> lQH 7.6

':J ilmE:l'~il il~rDi'P m1; < and '.11 pers lQH 17.26 li:J.11'.11 [il~]tVi'P m1 ilmE:l'~il + '" id rei < 1QH 8.33 i' E'J'~il' (inf); lQH 8.22 i' 'E:l'~il:J (inf) i1T~

G:

ilnJ H: ,nJ H:

+ '" id rei and '.11 < 1QS 4.21 no~ m1 "'.11 T" + suf pers lQS 9.18 cmnJil' (inf)

+ suf rei and , pers< 1QS 4.26 :J'~ n.11i' rD'~ '~:J' 1"nJ" 73 Less probably, an H fonn of a doubtful '~r.r'T] and Lohse [1986: 125] ')ri'!').

root

m, (pace Habennann [1959: 118

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTA TION

127

+ suf pers and :J rei < lQS 11.7 c'rz",p '?i'J:l C'?'n:!,,(!);74 lQH 17.15 C,~ ,,~ '?'~:J C'?'n:!il'? (inO + suf pers (dir obj) and drei (?; dir obj) < lQSb 3.28 [... ]n'rDi il~'?'n:!' Cn:! D: +:J pers < lQS 10.21 C'~J:J Cn:!~ ~,,?75 + suf pers lQH 9.13; 11.32 'JnOn:!

N: + '?l' < lQH 6.7 m~[~]o P~rD '?l" Cl' pOil '?l' ilOn:!~'; lQH 9.13 PrD~i l'rDEl '?l' ilOn:!~

ilt!lJ G: + '" rei d < 1QH 1.10 C'OrD iln't!lJ iln~ it!lJG: + '? pers< 1QS 7.8 'ill'i'? i't!l' ; lQS 10.20 l'rDEl ':JrD'? ~~:J i't!l~ ~,,?76 il~JH:

+ '" drei< 1QH 8.23 "rDirD ,~, i~JH:

+ suf pers lQSb 3.19 il~i['Pil'? (inO +:J< lQH 5.13 'nn:!~:J ilni~il + '" id rei > 1QH 7.13 ilni~il prD'? ilrDl'O ,?,~ ilOJ D: + '" id pers< 1QH 2.14 iO'O ':Jil'~ mOJ'? (inf) '?ElJ H:

+ '" id rei + '? ~rs < lQS 4.26

'n ,?,~ m'?i'" '?'El[i1]'? (inf); and Cl' pers lQH 3.22 nl" mmi Cl' c'?'l' '?i'" rD'~'? '?Elm + '" id rei and Cl' < lQSb 4.26 C'JEl ,~~~ Cl' '?i'" '?'OO, (ptc) + '" drei suf and :J 1QH 7.34 74 The preposition bet may still retain something of its loeal signifieation, but see Ps 82.8: c'u., "::>::l ?nl"l i1n~ 75 On the diffieult c,~:;J,· see Licht 1965: 220. 76 A rendering sueh as 'I will not hold anger towards those ... ' (Charlesworth) should not make us regard the ::l-phrase as an object. In BH the verb is always used without a noun denoting asentiment, e.g. Lev 19.18: 10,1) 'J::l M j~n ~?, cpn~". In BH the verb takes onee M (Lev 19.18) and onee ? (Nah 1.2): "::l'~" ~", j~m ,'ji? " CPJ. We further eome across CD 13.18, C~ jl!)'~; ibo 8.5, j'~J' C'pJ "~,, rD'~.

128 lHE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA '?~J H:

epJG:

,tz1 m.l1:::l ''?1'l im'?Elt' M''? + suf pers and 10 < 1QH 2.31 :::lD ,~,';o nMJpO 'J'?'~n,; 1QH 3.5 "P 'J'?'~m + ß id rei < 1QH 5.13 'J.I1 tz1ElJ '?~m + ß id rei < 1QS 2.6 epJ 'Op'J ,?,~ (ptc); 1QS 5.12 epJ e'pJ'? (inf. and cogn. obj.)77 + '? pers and + ß id rei < 1QS 7.9 1:::l' ,?,~ 'tz1ElJ'?ep'J'? (ptc)78

~JG:

+ ß drei suf < 1QS 2.4 il~'? ,',on 'JEl Mtz1'; 1QS 2.9 'ElM 'JEl ~'; 1QSb 3.1 il~''?M ,'JEl 'mM to1:tz1'; > lQS 10.9 Mtz1M 'noo '?''?n + ß id rei < 1QS 6.1 11'.11 ,''?.11 Mtz1'; 4Q513 frg ii col ii 5 11'.11 Mtz1J; 1QSa 1.20 il'.I1 to1:tz10 nMtz1'? (inf); 1QH 6.34 OJ '~J ... ; 1QH 10.25 il'?.11 ntz1'? (= nM izJ ,?)79 (inf); lQH 14.19 .111 'JEl ~M M'?; 1QH 16.16.11tz1El ~'J (ptc) + :::l rei < 1QSb 4.23 e'tz1"p tz1'1:::l nMtz1'? (inf);80 > 1QH 9.4 Mtz1n ilJ'p:::l ,tz11.1181 77 So in BH: Ezek 24.8 cm !:f'~,? 78 In BH the prep. lamed used with this verb in Qal indicates the personal target of an act of vengeance as in Nah 1.22, "l~'?"CPJ, so also Ezek 25.12. This complementation occurs alongside that with mem as in 1 Sam 24.13, 'JOpJ, 100 ", and sim. Num 31.2, l:l'J"OiT MO. This is particularly prominent in Nifcal:, e.g. Jer 46.10. On the other hand, in Josh 10.13, ,'::l'~'U OP', we find a zerocomplementation, which one mayaiso identify in the above-mentioned 1 Sam 24.13. Thus the lamed complementation at 1QS 7.9 is unique: one could only refer to Jer 15.15, 'El,'O''? opJiT, where the verb is, however, a Nifal. It appears then that the lamed at our 1QS passage is a plain dal. commodi. 79 So Licht 1957: 157 and Mansoor 1961: 165. 80 Is this a bel to introduce a direct object? Milik (1955: 126f.), whose translation, 'presider a la tI~te des saints', does not quite agree with what his footnote seems to be driving at, usefully mentions Si 11.13, where the preposition displays similar syntax in ,tD~'::l ~fDJ. On Num 11.18, C.lliT ~fDo::l1~ ~fDJ', also mentioned by Milik (1955: 127), see Jenni 1992: 273. 81 This sentence division is more likely than that of Lohse (1986: 146), who construes 'fD'~ with the preceding '.Il'~' to make a construct phrase, '~l~ '.!'~~, which is an unattested combination, the reverse sequence of which is attested. Licht (1957: 143) appropriately refers to Job 7.13. The preposition bel here is categorized by Jenni (1992: 273) as 'Teilnahme am Lastentragen', though we may have here to do with ellipsis of '?1p.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENT ATION

H:

129

+ suf pers and id rei < lQS 5.14 1est he should burden him with the penalty of guilt (?)'82

ilOfD~ 1111' 1~~'fD' 1El lfD~

H:

1ruG :

+ '" id rei < lQS 6.14 i010 l'fD' O~ + suf pers lQH 5.29 O'i~O:::l '~1l'fD'1; lQH 17.9 01l'fDil

+ suf pers lQH 8.4 o'''m i1P0:::l '~nn[~ + suf pers (ind obj) and '" drei (dir obi> < lQSb 3.26 il~01PO

[ ] il~Jn'

+ suf pers (dir obi> and " < 1QS 2.5

il11'T lQS 11.7 0"11' mn1~" o~ru ,,~ in:::l ifD~" + '" drei< lQS 2.17 0'0"11' 'i1i~ l1n:::l 1"i1l1n'; lQH 4.26 il~01'''1' 0~i10 1nm; lQH 10.22 1'~:::l"1' '~l'fD0 ilnru~" + '" id rei < lQS 4.17 0"11' n:::l'~ 1n'1; 1QS 4.18 il"11' m'il" 1m; lQH 9.10 il~':l1' 'El:::l il~nn 1nm; lQH 11.4 m'1il 'El:l1nm + '" id rei and "rei < lQH 2.7 'noo ["1i ]1''' 11tD" iT~1'O 1nm + :::l rei < lQH 3.35 0'1i':::l 1~n'8S + '" rei and:::l (rel cl) 1QH 12.11; 13.19; 16.11 ':::l iTnru ifD~n1i:::l; lQH 17.17 ':l iTnru itD~ mn1iO; lQH 14.8 il~':::l [i1~'P1' :::l":::llm~iT (pte)

rp

:::l:::l0 G:

+ suf pers lQH 2.25 ('~1:::l:::l0=) 01:::l:l0

L:

+ suf pers lQH 5.34 '~1:l:::l10' l1l'1 [n1]n~[~]

82 The locution is apparently based on Lev 22.16 i1~~ 1~ CI;'I~ ~'U;;:rl. 83 Cf. Deut 28.25; Jer 15.4; 24.9; 29.18; 34.17. 84 mm, an error for 'Jnro? So Licht 1957: 124.

8S The idiomatic collocation "P 1m occurs three times in the OT with the preposition bet: Ps 46.7; 68.34; Jer 12.8. Cf. also Jenni (1992: 96-99).

130 lHE HEBREW OF THE DEAO SEA SCROLLS ANO BEN SIRA ilO G: + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.9 !:l'i'ED'El i1l0m + '11~ < 1QH 5.14 !:li1'JrD '11~ i1nilO N (pass): + '11~ < 1QH 3.18 ?,11 n'ii1 '11~ nnrD 'n?, 'ilO" l'O N: + 'in~ d pers< 1QS 2.16?~ 'in~o 'l'Oi1~ (inf) i'O

G:

H:

n'?o G:

+ 10 < 1QS 1.15 ,no~ 'p,no i'O? ~,? (inf); 1QS 8.17 i11~0i1 ?,::lO i'O'; 1QS 6.15 ?,l1?,::lO i'O? (inf); 1QH 15.11 i1n',~ irD~ ?,::lO i'O[ + 0 id rei < 1QS 3.10 ?'~rD' 1'0' i'O? ~,? (inf) + 0 drei suf and 10 < 1QS 9.20 ?,11 ?,::lO '::li' iOi1 ~,? + ? pers < 1QH 14.24 l1toEl '~rD? n?,oi1 (pte)

100G: + 0 drei suf < 1QH 2.7 'toElJ l,oom + 0 pers (rel cl) 1QH 18.13 i1mOO irD~ i~' + suf pers 1QH 7.6; 9.32 'Jn::lOO iElO D: + n~ drei est < 1QS 1.21 ?~ mp'~ n~ !:l'iElOO (pte); 1QS 1.22 ?~irD' 'J~ mml1 n~ !:l'iElOO (pte) + 0 drei est > 1QS 10.23 t:J'rlm~ ?l10, 'J,rD? iOOn?~ mp'~ + 0 drei suf > 1QH 1.25 ,n~t:ln rD1J~ iElO' i10,;86 < 1QH 12.30 i1::l"~ ?,::l iElO? (inf); 1QH 1.30, 33; 3.23 i1::l'm~?ElJ iElO? (inf); 1QH 10.20 i1::l'm~?ElJ i1iElO~; 1QH 11.6 i1::l,,:::l::l i1iElO~; 1QH 13.111"~::l 'iElO'; 1QH 17.17 Tmp'~ iElO? (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QS 10.24 iElO~ i1'rD,n n~l1~87 nl1' + ~ rei < 1QH 11.28 i1::l',on ~'i~ iElOD' (inf) +? (ind obj) and 0 drei suf < 1QH 6.11 i1::l'm~?ElJ !:l?,11 mi"? iElO? (inf) 86 Whether one takes the verb in the rare sense of 'to count exactly' or such like (Ps 22.18), the interrogative can hardly be its direct object as translated by Vermes (1987: 167), 'What shall a man say conceming his sin?', for which one would expect ",I). Lohse's (1986: 115) 'Wie soll ein Mensch seine Sünde aufzählen ... ?' is to be preferred: see also Holm-Nielsen (1960: 18). For this sense of the interrogative, see BOB, s.v., §2a. Such a force of it is also recognisable in the following two c1auses both beginning with the same interrogative. 87 Corrected in the manuscript from ,ro~ '1 shall conceal'.

131

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON

+ " (ind obj) and 0 id rei < 1QH 18.23 m.,,:::u ~:b .,00" (inf) .,no O(?):

H:

,::JlJ G:

.,::JlJ G:

H: '1lJ H:

+ suf rei and 1r.l < 1QS 8.12 il"~r.l 'il.,no' ,,~ + suf pers 1QH 5.11 C'~ '~::J ,JJ '~n.,no + n~ drei st < 1QS 9.17 il.,1nil n~lJ n~ .,no" (inf)B8 + 0 4Q285 frg iii eol ii 2 ,n~lJ .,no" (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.26 il~'::J l' lJr.l mno

11

+ suf pers and 1r.l1QH 3.38 ilr.l1ilr.l nmilr.l '~,,'non + n~ drei (eogn obi> < 1QSa 1.13 il'lJil m1::JlJ n~ '1::JlJ" (inf) + suf pers 1QSb 5.28 il::l1'::J1lJ'; 1QH 16.181'::J1lJ" (inf) + 0 d pers st < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 2 C"1'" 1'1::JlJ' + ::J ('to join a eovenantal eommunity') drei st < 1QS 1.16 n,.,::J::J 1.,1::JlJ'; 1QS 1.18 n,.,::J::J C.,::J1lJ (inf); 1QS 1.20; 2.10, n,.,::J::J C"::J1lJil (pte); 1QS 2.191,o::J ... 1'1::JlJ'; sim. 1QS 2.21 + 0 ('to transgress') id rei < 1QS 5.7 P1" "::J1lJ "1::l (pte); 1QS 5.14 1'::J' ',::J,lJ "1::l (pte); 1QS 8.22 ilfD1r.l n'1nr.l ,::J, '1::JlJ,89 + "lJ < 1QH 12.24 il::l'::J' "lJ '1::JlJ" ~1" (inf) + sufrei 1QH 6.21 il~'::J1lJ' "::J

+ 0 id rei < 1QH 6.35 ~~1tD ~1tD ,'::JlJr.l (pte) + "lJ pers and 0 drei st < 1QSa 1.11 ~'1ni1 m~oor.l 1'''lJ "lJil" (inf)90

88 Licht (1965: 196) holds that the text is dependent on Isa 29.15, ~.11 il'l9'?, with a defectively spelled H infinitive; cf. 4Q259 frg i col iii 14, i'no'. 89 BH is consistent in the use of zero-complementation: both EBH (Josh 7.11 'n'i~ M) and LBH (e.g. 2 Chr 24.20 " m~o M), whereas QH also displays an '11complementation: 1QH 12.24 ;';'i~"l1 i'~' M". See s.V. '11~. 90 On this extremely difficult passage, see Licht (1965: 257) and Baumgarten (1957: 266-69). Licht mentions Jer 6.10 as exemplifying the combination of the verb with '11. The c1ause cannot possibly mean 'to witness the precepts of the Torah' (so Charlesworth 1994: 113). Vermes's (1987: 101) 'when he calls to witness the judgements of the Law' has some justification, though in BH the object to be invoked is always personal (e.g. Isa 8.2) or heaven and earth (e.g. Deut 4.26) or just 0'1.11 (e.g. Jer 32.44). Perhaps in addition to emending '~pn

132 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA i'l1L: n'l1 G: ::1Tl1 G:

pTl1 G: iTl1 G:

il"l1 H:

,011 H:

i1:Il1 G:

+ e id rei < 1QH 9.3 il~ ii'.l1' + " < 1QH 8.36 i::1' ~~~ ml1" (inf)91 " pers and e id rei < 1QS 9.22 pil ,r::h ::1'Tl1" (inf) + e drei suf< 1QH 2.36 il~ni'::1l1 ::1'T~ (inf); 1QH 9.11 'mpn iln::1Tl1 ~"; cf. 1QH 6.6 il~t!ln '::1nl1 (ptc) + e id pers< 1QH 5.20 o,n' iln::1Tl1~" + suf pers 1QH 5.5, 6, 12, ':ln::1Tl1; 1QH 9.35 ':ln::1Tl1 il~'''l1 'O~ + 10 < 1QH 15.121'p,n ",~o ::1'Tl1 (inf?)92

+ e drei< 1QH 8.22 ,'J"ElP'Tl1" (inf)

+ " pers< lQS 3.24 i'~ ':1::1 ",~" iT1193 + e id rei 94 < 1QH 2.34 ':111 rDEl:l ilniT1195 + e drei suf < 1QH 5.6"n nr:ItQo i'Tl1m; 1QH 7.23 'rDEl:l ilniTl1 + e id pers< 1QS 5.24 '''~rD 'El" rD'~ m"l1il" (inf);96 1QH 5.22 ,on ':I"::J~ "'11 ,n' P~rDO m"l1il" (inf) + suf pers 1QH 3.19 0"'11 r:l1i" ':ln'''l1il P'::1~ "'~rDO + e drei suf < 1QH 2.8 ill1rDi ",::1J::1 'Ol1El ,011m; lQH 9.12 'mi iln'Ol1ill1!1 ':lEl" + suf pers 1QH 7.19 il:>n'i:b 'Jn'O,Vilj 1QH 7.31 il:>':lEl"O"Ol1il" (inf); lQH 10.6 ':lniOl1il + ::1 'to testify against' < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 il::1 il:ll1 + " suf pers< 1QH 4.18 Oil" il:ll1n 97

".,,u

to "::Jpn', should be followed by 1'el"'u. 91 Based on Isa 50.4 '~1 ~~~ ~ nw7. If our author understood this hapax verb in the sense of 'to help', the lamed would be analogous to that of '!'u. 92 The syntagm is analogous to 10 '10 or is the 10 partitive, 'none of your statutes'? 93 One expects 1'!,U' or C"!Ul. The form could be a noun: 'W. 94 This syntagm or that with ~ is firmly established in BH, e.g. Ps 10.14 '11,U n"i1 i1~ C1n' .

On the basis of these few examples one cannot with confidence speak of a possible lexico-semantic complementary distribution, namely" pers and nM rei: note a fluctuation in i1"::Jpi1" '11,U "M'tD' nM 'l1,UtD '0 "::>1 (Mekhilta on Exod 15.7, ed.I.A. Rabinf"p. 135). 96 Rather than a Nital infinitive. 97 In BH the verb is never used with lamed. See our discussion above, under 95

1.4.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

IDJl1 N:

133

+ n~ d suf < 1QS 6.25 'lOn" n' l1':J, n~ 'IDJl1J

+ " id rei < 1QS 7.2 nn~ ;'1J!D IDJl1J, sim. lQS 6.27; 7.3, 4bis, 5, 6, 8bis, 13, 14bis, 15, 16, 18, 19; 9.1; 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 C'D 'JID IDJl1J98

'~11

G:

+" id rei < lQH 8.23 n110 "~11'; lQH 10.11 "~l1'm;:, and + 10 < lQH 4.11

:J,11 D:

C'~O~O nl1' ;'1ptDO "'~11"

+ n~ drei suf < lQS 6.22,m n~ :J,11" (inf) tD:

+ :J rei < 1QS 6.17 c':J';'11';'1:J :J,m' ,,~; lQS 7.24 ,m;'1~:J '0.11 :J,11r1'; and + Cl1 < lQS 8.23 'r1~11 cm ,J';'1:J ... :J'l1n' ~,,, + Cl1 < lQS 9.8 ;'1'0';'1 'tDJ~ p;'1 C.11CJ,;'1 :J'11r1'''~

1'11 G: ;'1IDl1 G:

+ " drei st < 1QS 6.4 ",;:,~" 1n"'ID;'1 ';:"'11' + " id rei < 1QS 1.5 ~OOo' ;'1p ,~, r10~ mtDl1" (inf), sim. 1QS 8.2; lQS 5.3 ,n' m~ mtD~ (inf); lQS 7.5 ;'1'0' ;'1tDl1'; lQS 9.23 p~' mtDl1" (inf) + n~ drei cst < lQS 9.13"~ p~' r1~ mtD~ (inf) drei< lQS 1.2 ,tD';'11 :J'~;'1 mtDl1"(inf); lQS 1.711' ",;:, mtDl1" (inf); lQS 1.7"~ 'pm mtD~ (inf); lQS 5.12 ;'10' ":J ,tDl1 m"JJ;'1 'they treated the revealed things with insolence';99

+"

98 All these are examples of a doubly transitive G-stem, as in 2 Chr 36.3:

~O:l ,:l:l ~o r~i1 ~ ~ tDlll". The above-quoted example at 1QS 6.25 with n~ shows that these accusatives were feIt to be genuine accusatives. On the striking reading 1tDlllJ, see Wernberg-Melller 1957: 111 and Licht 1965: 159. For the use of double accusative with this particular verb, compare Lev 22.16: i19~ li~ c.";l;~ ~'$iJ'. Incidentally, these QH examples demonstrate that, pace König (1897: §327l), there is no need to suppose that at 2 Chr 36.3 a J has been inadvertently dropped on account of a phonetically kind red o. 99 The zero-linkage is striking. Is it possibly a result of an occasional misuse of the object marker n~ for the preposition n~ 'with' (e.g. Josh 10.25 cn~c'on"JCI"IM)? Perhaps it is better to identify here a rare sense of the verb, 'to treat', as in Ezek 23.25, i19r.r~ 1l;1~ 'tD-!'1 'and they will treat you with wrath', and ibo 29, ~jz)::lln~ -mll' 'and they will treat you with hatred', though in both cases the object is personal.

134 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

1QS 9.15 '~m70 mfDl1? (inOi 1QSa 1.22 ... ,m'::1l1 ilfD~; 1QH 10.12 il?~ ?,~ iln'fDl1i 1QH 18.21 il?~ iln'fDl1 il~?i > 5Q13 frg 4.4 'fDl1' il?~ + ::1 and '" id rei < 1QS 5.12 tJ'~m7 tJ::1 mfD.I1? (inf)i 1OO 1QH 15.19 tJ'?"JtJ'~m7tJ::1n1fD.I1? (inO + 10 (partitive) < 1QH 14.18l1iil ?'~O mfDl1 'n?::1['?'] (inO

N: i~El

+ ::1 pers< 1QS 9.24 ,::1 ilfDl1Ji1 ?,~ (ptC)101 0:

il'El G:

+ suf 1QH 13.17'Ji~Eln + '" id rei and 10 < 1QH 2.32 F::1~ fDElJ [i1]n"El mp?n 'fDi" ml10';

+ '" drei suf 1QH 2.35 tJ'i"~ "0 'fDElJ 'Elm; 1QH 3.19 nnfDO 'fDElJ iln"El ,nEl 0:

+ '" drei suf and::1 rei < 1QS 4.2 ?~ '~ElfDO::1 ,::1::1? ,nEl? 'to make his heart fear God' s

judgements' (inf)l02 J?El 0:

~?El 0:

+ '" drei suf < 1QH 1.16 tJm'::1l1tJm?El ... + suf rei 1QH 1.18 tJil'~~~~ ?,~? m.?Elm + suf pers and 10 < 1QSb 1.7 ] ?'~O il~~?El' + id rei > lQH 5.18 i1ntl'?EI P'~~ fDEiJ + drei suf< 1QH 9.33 'fDEiJ ~?EI? (inf)

ilJEl 0:

+ n~ drei cst < 1QS 8.13

~il~'illi' n~ tJfD mJEl? (in0 103

100 As in BH: e.g. Exod 12.12 and Ezek 16.41; but in 2 ehr 24.24 we find ~ 'with' (?), with which compare a rare use of ~ at Zec 7.9, ,,~ n~ fZi'~ lDll c'on" 10m, instead of the usual Oll in this idiom. 101 Two interpretations of the preposition have been proposed: agent of a passive verb, so e.g. Lohse (1986: 35), 'durch ihn', Dupont-Sommer (1987: 38), 'par Lui', and person to whom something happens, e.g. Vermes (1987: 75) and Charlesworth (1994: 43), 'all that befalls hirn'. The former seems to us rather unlikely, whereas for the latter one might cite Dan 9.13, 'a great disaster ... as it happened to Jerusalem (c'?fli"'~)'. It is, however, uncertain that such a usage can be applied to a neutral situation as in our lQS passage. 102 This fairly frequent BH verb is never linked to the object of fear by means of bet. The only case of some relevance known to us is Jer 51.46, i1111O!z)~ ,~,'n 'you will be scared of the rumour' . 103 Isa 40.3, on which the text is based and which is actually quoted in the se-

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTAnON "l'El G: il~El

G:

135

+ e drei lQS 9.19 1:::l'0" 11'il n1JElnl' (inO + e drei dem< lQH 11.33 il"~ iln"l'El iln~ + "l' pers and e drei suf < lQH 5.11 Cil'El'''l' '~El + e id rei < lQH 7.21 ilEl'~El"

'pEl G:

n1El H: l'1El G: 11El H:

+ e id rei < lQS 2.6 il":::l il:::l'1n~ "pEl,;104 lQH 14.24 C'Wl1 pl' 'P'El (pte) + n~ drei suf < lQS 5.22 "p1n ",:::l n~ "pEl"; lQS 5.23 Cil'tDl'O' cm1 n~ C'P'El n1'il" (pte) + e drei suf < lQSb 3.2 il:::l[']tD',p ",:::l "PEl'; lQSb 3.24 "p,n ",:::l "pEl + suf pers 1QS 6.21 'il"PEl' + info < lQSa 1.9 ~':::l"C"'PElil (pte) + e id rei < lQH 8.6 1~J n'1Elil" (inO; lQH 8.10 1~Jn'100 (pte) + n~ drei suf < 1QS 6.26 1n'0l' "0' n~ l"1El" (inf)

+ e id rei < lQH 2.26 c'~n '1El"; lQH 13.12 c'p 'o'p 1Elil" (inf)

1D1El

G:

+ e id rei 1QH 2.29 C"l1 ":::l"n ,,, 'tD1El ntzl1 105 N (pass): 1QH 3.26 C'O 'JEl "l' ... ill'tD1 n",~o ",:::l 'tD1El" nnEl G: + e drei< 1QS 10.2 '1~'~ nnEl' + e drei suf < lQS 10.23 'ElnnEl~; lQS 11.3 '1,~nnEl; lQS 11.15 il:::l':::ll':b ill"" nn1Elil (pte);l06 1QH 10.7; 12.33 'El ilnnnEl; ~uel,

lacks the particle, and so does the quotation.

1 4 On i1;:,',rn~, see Jer 29.18. No exactly similar collocation is known to BH.

One wonders, however, whether the verb is actually a Hif 1QH 10.21 "'p~il;,'mn''?o'?; 1QH 11.31 "'P~il;,',on'?

C'p H: + info < 1QS 5.8 ilID'O m,n '?~ :::l'ID'? 'o~ n.l1':::lID:::l 'IDEl~ '?.11 CP"; 1QS 5.10 '?'.I1il 'ID~~ ,?,;,o '?':::lil'? 'IDEl~ '?.11 n":::l:::l C'p' + n~ drei suf < 1QS 5.21 ,n":::l n~ C'Pil'? (inf) + '? d pers suf < 1QS 11.16 il;,no~ 1:::l'? Cpil ll2 + 0 id rei < 1QS 8.10 c,?,.11 n'p,n'? n":::l Cpil'? (inO + 0 drei suf < 1QSb 5.21 '0.11 m;,'?o C'Pil'? (inf) + suf pers (dir obj) and '? (obj comp) < 1QSb 5.27 c''?ID,o'? ~:::lID'? iT;'O'Pil '?~ 'God set you up as a rod for the ruiers' + info < 1QH 14.171'? ~,~n 'n'?:::l'? 'IDEl~ '?.11 'mO'piT '?'?p 0: + n~ d pers cst < 1QS 2.4 '.I1":::l "". 'ID~~ ,,;, n~ c"'po C""il (pte) ~pD:

+ '? rei < 1QS 9.23 pm' ~po to'~ (pte) + '?.11 < 1QH 14.14 .I1to, ".I1,El ";".11 'n~p +:::l rei/pers < 1QS 10.18 il.l1ID' m':::l ~p~ ~,,113 112 Not 'Raise up the son of your hand maid' (Garda Martinez; similarly Lohse with 'richte den Sohn deiner Wahrheit auf'), but 'Grant the son ... (and) the elect of mankind to stand before thee forever'. Cf. Vermes (1995: 88) and Licht (1965:235). In other words the argument is not accusatival, but datival, dat. commodi. Incidentally, i1:mo~ ):l, has, pace Lohse (op. eit.), nothing to do with truth, though it does correspond to i111' earlier in the passage: it is ~rallel to l':lll as in Ps 76.16; 116.16. 13 The semantic distinetion between bet and lamed with this verb roughly corresponds to that which prevails in BH. Most take the prepositional phrase n1i:l as adverbial: 'with a spirit of wickedness' (Charlesworth; 'in ... ' Vermes),

138 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

i1JP H: ~ipG:

+ 121 id rei < 1QS 11.2 pi1 'JpC (pte)114

+ ~ rei < 1QS 6.7 iElO~ ~'iP'? (inf); 1QS7.1

iElO~i1i1p

(pte)

+ n~ drei '?,::J < 1QSa 1.4

n'i~i1 'p,n '?'Pl n~ ... '~iP' ~iP

G:

+ '? < 1QS 6.16 ,n'i1 n~lJ'? '~i'P~ 'on his approaching the Council of the Community' (inf); 1QS 6.19 in'i1 "o'? ~'iP'? (inf)

0:

+ n~ drei suf < 1QS 6.19 lJ'i1 n~ CI" '~iP' + suf pers 1QS 7.21 'i1~iP'; 1QS 9.15 1~iP'? (inf); and'? < 1QS 6.22 in''? 1~iP'? (inf); and ~ 1QS 8.18 i1~lJ~ 1i1~iP1

H:

+ 121 id rei < 1QS 8.9 mn'J n'i ~'iP'? (inf)

i1~i

G:

+ 121 id rei < 1QH 7.2 lJi m~iC (inf) + 121 drei (dem pron) < 1QH 18.18 mr 'n'~i

H: i1~i

+ 121 drei suf < 4Q513 frg iii 4 '~~11 i1t1:ii1

H:

piN: rD"i tD: i1'i G:

+ suf pers (ind obi> and n~ < 1QH 13.11 1irDtI: n~ Cn'~ii1 + 121 id rei < 1QH 10.26 ~JlJ m~ii1'? (inf) + 121 drei suf < 1QH 10.28 ... 1n'?m iln'~ii1 rD[ + ~ pers< 1QH 9.22'~ 'J"iJ (pte)115

+ '?lJ pers> 1QH 2.12 tD"inn C'lJrDi n'?i1p ''?lJ1 + ~ pers< 1QS 9.23'~ i1i1iil'one who lords it over hirn' (pte)

'im Geist der Gottlosigkeit' (Lohse), 'with a godless spirit' (Wernberg-M011er), 'par l'esprit d'impiete' (Dupont-Sommer), but cf. 'I shall have no enthusiasm for the wicked spirit' (Garcia Martinez) and Licht (1%5: 219). 114 A Hif lQS 5.15 pnir1 iprD i::l' "1::JO (:I Exod 23.7) + r1M suf < 1QH 14.21 1mMlpni::J117

::l'i

G:

tL:

+" id rei (cogn obj) < 1QSa 1.13

t:lElrDO, ::l'i ::l'i" (inf), sim. 1QSa 1.20 +" drei (cogn obj) < 1QH 9.23 '::l'i ::l'ir1

+ OD pers< 1QS 9.16 nnrDil 'rDJM OD ::l::l1inil" (inf)

ilOi tD:118

+ ::l pers> 1QS 7.6 ilOir1' 1ilDi::l OM; + ::l rei > 1QS 7.6 ilOir1' ,n'il Pil::ll:::JM

JJiD:

+"

pers< 1QS 10.14 '''ilJJiM119

116 For the lateness of this complementation in BH, which occurs only at Ps 103.13, see Hurvitz (1972: 107-109). 117 It is significant that this remarkable exception of n~ plus a suffix is due to the fact that the preceding infinitive is always suffixed, and that, the suffix being the subject of the infinitive, this was the only possible way of arranging the two pronominal elements. Dr Elwolde (Elwolde 1994: 172) refers to another example of the same kind in QH. 118 On the meaning of the verb, see Licht 1965: 162. 119 Cf. Ps 95.1 I'? iiD1J.

140 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA +::l rei > lQS 10.17i1JJi~,n.l1'ID'::l120 il.l1i G: il~i

G:

+ ::l > lQH 8.8 i.!1' [n'n] ,,~ '.I1i' "'.11 i~J::l +::l drei> lQS4.1 ... il~i'il'n1"'.11"~::l; > lQS 9.25 il~i' 'il'El 'ir.l~ "~::l; lQH 9.10 'n'~i '.I1'JJ::l; lQH 15.18 iln',~ iID~ "~::l '~i~' + '" rei < lQS 8.3 11'.11 n~i' (inf);121 > lQS 9.24 il~i"::l ilID.I1Jil ,,::>

CIDi G: + '" id rei < lQH

16.10p',~miilnr.lIDi

.!1!DiH:

+ '" pers< lQS 5.7 p,n 'i::l'.I1 ,,::> .I1'IDiil' (inf); > lQH 7.12 .I1'IDin t:lEltzlr.l' 'il ,,~ + '" drei suf < lQH 9.9 'J" il.l1'IDi~ lIDlID tD: + :J > lQH 8.9 'ltDlIDn' cn.l1t:lr.l:J n'IDL: +::l rei > lQS 1O.16nmID~1ni':Jl::l;122 1QH 11.5 ilnmtD~ il~ni':Jl::l; < lQH 9.7 il::>'n1~'ElJ:J 'IDElJ nmIDn C'ID G: + '" drei suf > lQS 2.12 ,'JEl'C'tD' 'J".I1"ID~r.l; < lQS 10.10 "':Jl C'ID~; lQH 2.20 t:l"nil in~:::l '!DElJ ilnO!D; lQH 3.6 il'J'~~ [')IDElJ 'O'!D"; lQH 7.34 'p,n ilnr.ltD~' C'O'.I1J ,'O:J + '" drei suf and obj comp < lQSb 5.26 'Ti::l il::>'Jip t:l!D'[1] + '" id rei < 1QH 1.28 'p '.11 C'i:J' CtDn1; > 1Q H 4.15 ... 'OrD CJ".I1 "tD~r.l; lQH 6.26 .I1';lo'.I1 "0 C'tDn lQH 8.16 CtDl ili"~ 'El:J ilnr.ltD + '" id rei (dir obi> > and id rei (obj compl) < lQH 10.23 Tl.l1r.l " ilnr.lID~' itD:J i~' + , pers (comm) + id rei < lQS 3.18 nm'i 'ntD" CID"

120 Cf. Ps. 20.61rw1W':li1D,J. Jenni (1992: 107) regards the prep. as causal, but we would rather classify it und er his rubric bet communicationis (ib. 160-70, esl'ecially 170). 12 A collocation found in Lev 26. 41,43 CJ1.11 M ~". 122 See note 120

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

141

+ suf lQS 4.16 pinMfp i.1' i::J' i::J lr.lfD'M~ 11 lQS 4.25 il~inJ fP i.1"M lr.lfD i::J' i::J M'~; lQH 5.7 ... 'XlfDm + suf pers (dir obi> and obj comp < lQSb 3.25 iiil "'~r.l1r.l'fD"; lQSb 4.27 [fD]i'P 1r.l'fD'; lQH 2.9 ... C'il'::J' O'P' ilE)in 'Jr.l'fDm; lQH 2.13 Pi~ 'i'n::J' OJ 'Jr.l'fDn,; lQH 7.20 ion 'J::J'::JM 'Jr.l'fDm + suf pers (dir obj) and , (obj comp) < lQH 2.33 ilE)im n::J' 'J'r.l'fD" + suf pers (dir obi> and ~ < 1QH 7.8 T1.1' 'ilr.l~ 'Jr.l'fDm fD'fD

G:

+ ::J rei < lQH 10.30 il~n'i::J::J '::J' fDfD[

l~fDG:

+ i.1'::J rei and id rei < lQS 10.251'r.l0 "::Jl ili.1'::J l'fDM; and lr.l < lQH 2.21 nnfD 'fDP'r.l "~r.l 'i.1'::J l'fDm; and:J < lQH 5.33 mr.l'~:J 'i.1':J '~'fD"

+ i.1':J < lQH 8.11 "iE) i.1':J iln~fD '~fD H:

+ 0 id rei and 0 pers> 1QS 4.22 1ii 'r.l'r.ln "~fDil'C'r.lfD 'J:J nr.l~m 'to instruct the perfect of way in heavenly wisdom' (inO l23 + suf pers lQH 10.7; 12.33 'm'~fDil + suf pers and :J rei < 1QS 9.18 M'E) 'Ti:J C"::lrDil' (inO; lQSa 1.7 n'i:Jil ['1i',n:J 'il"'~fD,;124 lQH 7.26 il~nr.lM:J 'm'~rDil; lQH 11.4 il~M'E)'fD.1'r.l:J 'J"~fDm; > lQH 11.10 Cn'~fDil il~M'E) 'Ti:J + 0 pers and :J rei < lQS 11.1 np'::J C'J::l'i "::lfDil' (inf) + ::J rei < lQS 11.18 il::lfDi'P n::JrDnr.l '1::l::J "::lfDil' (inf); lQH 12.20 il~'Ti '1::l:J "~rDil~] (inf) + suf pers and 0 drei st < lQS 9.20 M~r.lJil '1::l C"::lrDil' (inf) 11

A case of possible double direct object with this verb occurs in LBH, at Dan 9.22: ;"I)':ll"::lfZhi'. Though the striking position of 1QS 4.22, C'Otzl 'J~ nrDn, has most likely been influenced by the immediately preceding )1"11 n111 (in 11"11 n111~ C'1tzl' l'~i1'?), the parallelism indicates that the former ought to be construed with "::ltl)i1'?, though the preposition bet can do a double-duty, as in 123

ml'1 i1rDn~ 1::l,i1n' .

124 In BH the theme of instruction, as in Dan 9.22, quoted in the preceding note, is never indicated by means of bet, but as direct object. Thus the use of bet in QH seems to be an innovation, though it is analogous to the bet used with verbs such as pi1, on which see above and s.v. 10'. On the difficulty in 1 Chr 28.19, ,,::ltl)i1',l1" 1'0~n::l~'::li1; cf. Ehrlich 1914: VII, 352.

142 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

+ ::I 4Q285 frg iii co} ii 4 ~~r.lJil '?:l::l c'?':llzm'? (inf); 1QH 10.4 il'?~ m~'?ElJ:1 'J'?':ltZln nr.ltZl D: ~tZl

G:

+ '" drei suf < 1QH 11.30 il:lnr.l~:1 il:l':1l' tZlElJ nr.ltZl + n~ d rei < 1QS 1.4 O~ 'tZl~ '?:l n~ ~'JtZl'? (inf) + '" d pers cst < 1QS 1.10 ltZl,n 'J:1 '?,:l ~'JtZl'? (inf) + '" d suf > 1QS 4.1 n~J'? ~tZl il':l" '?,:l (ptc?) + '" id rei < 1QS 4.24 il'?,l' ~tZl'; 1QH 14.25 il'?,l' ~tZln + suf pers 1QS 5.26 'il~JtZl' '?~

'?~

G:

+ n~ d pers st < 1QS 6.12 ,n'il n~l' n~ '?~'tDil tD'~il (ptc) + '?l' < 1QS 6.18; 7.21 ",:1, '?l' C':1'il 1'?~tZl'

N: + '? rei < 1QS 6.4 Cn~l''? 1'?~tZl,;125 1QS 6.9 ,:1" il~.1' '?:l'?1 t:lEltDr.l'? 1'?~tZl'

+ '?.1' rei < 1QS 6.15

1":1' '?.1' '?':lil 1'?~tDJ1 'and all will be asked about his affairs'; 1QS 7.21 t:loor.lil '?~ '?~tZl' (~'? for '?.1'?); 1QS 8.25 il~.1' '?,:l '?.1' '?~tD' ~,,? ,:1tZl Dpass.: 1QH 5.37 1':11tZl' ~1'?'? C'pT, sim. 1QH 6.28 n:1tZl H: + '" id rei > 1QH 1.36 il'?"l) ln'::ItDil; and also< 1QS 10.24 '::I'? n.1"r.l m'?nElJ' m'J 'noor.l n':1tZl~ C'p'

On whether the form here is a G or N, see Wernberg-M011er 1957: 102. The usage of the verb in N in BH, which is attested only a few times, has nothing in common with its usage in our present case. In G, however, BH uses the verb often with lamed. But the combination means 'to put a question concerning' as in Deut 4.32, O'J~':'1 O'O''? ttJ '?ttw, and Gen 43.7, ':ln''?1O'?, ,t? W'tt:'1 '?ttW '?1ttW. The preposition which most naturally comes to one's mind, '?.Il, occurs only twice, both in LBH: m '?.Il (Qoh 7.10) and 0'?W,,' '?.Il ... 0"':'1':'1 '?.Il (Neh 1.2). This ties in with the preponderance in our corpus of this complementation. The translation by Vermes (1995: 77) of 1QS 6.4, 'shall be asked their counsel', appears to be preferable to that by Wernberg-M011er (1957:30), 'shall be asked for their counsel', or Lohse's (1986: 21), 'so sollen sie um ihren Rat befragt werden'. The distinction is rather subtle: 'to ask for' means to put in a request with a view to obtaining something, which obviously does not apply to Gen 43.7 cited above. In this view the idiomatic biblical expression O,'?w'? '? '?tttli would mean 'to put a question, out of concern for aperson, about his or her well-being'. Finally, M '?ttw, when followed by pers, means 'to put a question to someone'. 125

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENf AnON

143

:J'IO

G:

+ 'in~ drei< 1QS 1.17 'in~ :J'IO'? (inf) + l~ < 1QS 5.111i '?'::l~ :J'IO'? (inf); 1QS 5.14 Cnl1iO ':JIO, cf. 1QH 6.6 in~on ':Jnm WlEl':JIO'? (ptc) + '?~ < 1QS 5.8 illO'O nim '?~ :J,IO'? (inf); 1QS 7.24 ,n'il n~l1 '?~ :J'IO' ~,'?; 1QH 16.171''?~C':J1O (ptc) + '?l1 < 1QS 7.2 ,n'il n~l1 '?l1 "l1 :J'1O,126 + '? < 1QS 5.22m'i:J'? ,n':J :::l,1O'? (inf); 1QS 6.15 no~'? :::l'IO'? (inf); 1QH 10.12 'iEll1'?:::l1O

H:

+ '? pers and 0 drei suf < 1QS 8.7 c,?,~" C'l1rDi'? :::lrDil'? (inf) 0 id rei < 1QS 10.17 l1i ,?,~" IO'~'? :::l'rD~ ~,'?; 1QH 9.8 i:::l' 'l1'?:::lO'? il:::l'IO~ + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.18 ilOO''? ilil10 :::l'lOn; 1QH 6.23 IOElJ :::l'lOil'? (inf); 1QH 8.24 ":::l'IO~ + 0 id rei and ,,,J'? and '? < 1QS 11.1 ... 'o~ 'IOJ~'? ... mi '~i ,JJ'? il1Jl1 :::l'lOil'? (inf) + 'El'?l1 sufpers < 1QS 5.15Cil'El'?l1 ... :::l'rD' ~,,?127 + n~ drei suf < 1QS 6.9 ,l1'O n~ IO'~ :::l'rDil'? (inf) + n~ d pers< 1QS 6.25 'ill1i n~ :::l'tD' 'answers his colleague'128 + 0 il~ > 1QS 11.22 i~n :::l'rD' il~;l29 and '? pers > 1QH 1.26 il::l'? P'~il ooo~ '?11 '?,11 :::l'IO' il~'. + 0 drei suf < 1QH 18.9 il::l":::loo '?~; and 10> 1QS 10.19 iT'?lIJ 'rzm~r.:l :::l'rv~ ~h ~,~~ 'I shall not turn my anger away from men of wickedness' + '?l1 rei < 1QS 11.18 il::ln~l1 '?11 :::l'rDil'? 'to dispute your decision' (inf);l30 1QH 12.30 il::lnn::l,n '?11 :::l'rDiT'?

+ '? pers and

126 A familiar interchange between ~ and ?11 rat her than an Aramaism. 127 :I'W' is preferable to :l1'.D', as the photograph of lQS 11.22 reveals. 128 Rather than :l1W' as read by Charlesworth 1994. There is a c1ear tendency for LBH to use lamed in this idiomatic combination, as is eloquently testified by 2 Chr 10.6, ':1';"Im Cl1? :I'w;,? (111 Kgs 12.6 ':1';"Im Cl1 ~ :I'w;,?), but the construction with ~ is still attested at 2 Chr 10.16, ,?O;"l n~ Cl1;"1 1:1'W'1, and Neh 6.4, ;"Im ,:1,::> cn~ :I'W~1.

129 The interrogative here may mean 'how?', with ,~"'! understood. See n. 63. 130 Yalon (1967: 85) indicated this complementation in the sense required here as typical of RH. The same idiom occurs also at 1QH 7.29; 12.30 (Licht 1965: 236).

144 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

+ 0 d rei < 1QH 16.181':J11 'JEl :JrDn?~ il1rD G: + :J < 1QH 15.231ro~:J Pil?'::l il1rD'~? nnrD tL: + :J < 1QH 9.9':J 'n'mnrDo? nnrD H: + 0 id pers< 1QH 2.27 O':J, n'nrDil? (inf) n'rD G: + suf rei 1QS 10.2 'ilnrD" n'?rD

G:

+ 0 drei suf (idiom) < 1QS 6.5bis ilJ'rD'?'" n?rD'; and + :J < 1QSa 2.20 On?:J "'[ n'?rD', 11 1QSa 2.18 On?il nrv':J ", n~ rD'~ [n'?rD' (si vera lectio) + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.34 Ol1El m?rv? (inf) D: + n~ < 1QS 7.160n~il~'iln'?rD? (inf)131 + suf pers 1QS 7.17 'iln'?rD'; + 10 < 1QS 8.22 ,n'il n~110 'iln'?rD' + 0 drei suf > 1QH 8.7 ,n'?rD' [?]:J,'? Oil'rD"rD 132 0'?rD D: + id rei < 1QS 2.6 O'?'OJ '0'?rD0 ?,::l (pte) + suf 1QS 7.6, 7,0'?rD 'to refund it' (inf) + ? pers and 0 drei suf < 1QS 10.18 ,?'OJ rD'~? 0'?rD' il~'il H: + drei suf< 1QH 16.111"[On]I:l''?rvil? (inf) 'OrD H:

110rD G:

+ suf rei 1QS 4.19 ,11? ilJ"OrD' + 0 d suf pers> 1QS 5.19 ?:Jno ,'OrD' ,,:J, ,~~o ?,::l + 0 id rei > 1QH 14.15 ,'orvn l1rv[,,] il?'l1?'::l + n~ drei est < 1QS 2.13 n1Til n":Jil ',:J, n~ ,110,rD:J (inf) + suf pers 1QH 4.24 'J,110rD' + 0 drei suf > 1QH 5.12 ... ilnl10rv 'nl1'rD; < 1QH 10.34 il::l:J'" ... il::l't!lOOO '110,rD:J (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QH 7.3 0'0' l1'orvo (inf) +? rei < 1QH 12.12 il::lrD"P "o?'nl1orD

131 On the use of a disjunctive pronoun in a non-subject position, see Qimron 1986: 76. 132 Jer 17.8, on which this cIause is evidently based, reads ".11: 1'lD"'1.Zl n'?tD' "::1,,".11.

But later in our passage we find, at 1QH 8.10, lD"l1lD ln'?tD' M" "::11' '?M.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENT AnON

H:

iOfD G:

ilJfD D:

H: JJfD D:

1l1tD N:

l1tDl1tD D:

tD:

'-0

+ e id rei < 1QS 1.22 t:I'Oni 'ion t:I' l1'OfDO (ptc) + e d rei suf < lQS 7.14 .I1'OfDil' (inO; lQH 3.17 t:I'lP 'l1'OfD,133 + , (ind obj) < lQH 18.11 ,nJ'::JO i~" .I1'OfD[i1' (inO

",p

N:

145

+ , pers< 1QS 5.23 "il' 1t:lPil 'il.l1i' fD'M ":)i1 l1OfDil' (inO; 1QS 6.2 "il' 1t:lPil ,.I10fD" + suf pers and 10 lQS 2.3 .I1i ";:10 il;:li'OfD' + e id rei < lQS 8.3 ilJ'OM i'O~ (inO, sim. lQS 10.25 + e d pers nom > lQS 10.21 '::J::J,::J i'OfDM M" '.I1"::J + e drei suf < 1QSa 1.3 ,n'i::J 'iOfD + e drei cst < lQH 5.36 'M 'rD.I10 t:I'JrDO .I1rDEl 'Ti;:l (ptc) + e drei suf < lQH 14.151'i::Ji ,JtD' M' + nM drei suf < lQH 15.14 il;:l'i::Ji nMnlJtDil' + e (rel cl) 1QH 4.10 '::J::J,::J ilnJJtD ifDM il;:lni,n + e drei suf < lQH 5.13 t:lJ,tD, ::Jin;:l ,JJtD + ::J rei < 1QS 4.4 'ion ::J'i::J nJ.I1fDJ; 134 lQH 4.36 il;:l'ion::J pn]J.I1rDJ; 10.17 il;:lnoM::J 'nJ.I1fDJ; 1QH 11.32 il;:l'Oni::J PnJ.I1rDJ=] 'nJfDJ + '.11 > lQH 5.18 '::Jil 'tD.I10 ',;:1'.11 rDi'Pil rD'M l.l1rD' M"; > lQH 10.161.l1rDM"iOn'.I1 + suf pers lQSb 2.23 il;:l.l1rD.I1rD'; lQH 9.32 'J.I1fD.I1rDn + e drei suf < lQH 10.31 'rDElJ .I1tD.I1tDn [ilpnoM + ::J < lQH 9.8 il;:l'Oni POil::J 'rDElJ .I1fD[.I1]nfDn;

133 The immediately preceding ~)1i1n" is, with Holm-Nielsen (1960: 51), Garda Martfnez (1995: 332) and others, better taken as a locative with the preceding C'll~O Cll 'on their approach to', rather than as indirect object of 'll'OID' (so Dupont-Sommer [1987: 2431, 'a l' Abime ils font entendre ... ' and Lohse [1986: 1211 'bis zur Meerestiefe lassen sie ihren Schall hören'). 134 This complementation occurs also at lQH 4.36; 7.18; 10.17; 11.32, possibly under the influence of a semantically affiliated verb, rro:::l, as at lQM 11.2,

'"l.,

i1~:::l nt:l:::l ,

a complementation which occurs in BH only once (Isa 50.10, where also it is parallel to -:::l rro:::l).

146 lHE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

t:lEXDG:

> 1QH 9.13 .w7mco~ n,n"O:::l; 1QH 11.6 'CO~ l1comcon i1~:::l,t:l :::l,,:::l

+ e id pers < 1QS 8.25 CO'~ t:l'EXD' ~" + suf pers 1QS 10.13 'Jt:lEl'CO'; 1QS 11.14 'Jt:lEXD; 1QH 4.18 t:lt:lEl'CO' (inf); 1QS 5.6 'Jnt:lEXD

100 G:

'pco G: i1pCO H: ,pCO G: 'pCO D: n,co D: i1nco G: pnD:

10nG:

t:lon H:

+ suf rei 1QH 6.9 t:lt:lEXDn 1"On:::l

e drei suf > 1QH 2.32 i1~n1':::l11 '111'EXD' '0' (inf)

+ n~ drei cst < 1QS 6.7 i1JCOi1 m," ,,~ n'co'~ n~ ,n':::l "'pco'

+ suf pers and e id rei < 1QH 4.11 fo,n t:l,pCO' + e d pers st < 1QS 9.14 P"~i1 'J:::l "ptD' (inf) 11 + n~ 4Q259 frg i col iii 10

+ :::l 'concerning' < 1QS 6.24

11i1:::l ,ptD' 1ies about property'135

+ suf pers 1QH 12.23; 15.24 i1~m'tD'

+ e drei> 1QS 6.4 mnco, co,,'n;, (inf) + e id rei < 1QH 8.13 co"p'o i1nco'~' + e drei suf > ... pn, Clm~ (inf) + e d rei (',~) > 1QH 1.14 i1PJ'~" i1m~n t:l:::l 'tD~ ,,~

+ :::l > 1QH 2.21 i1~n":::l:::l '~o,n:::l (inf); 1QH 4.22 i1~:::l '~o,n:::l (inf); 1QH 7.20 i1~ni.l~:::l i1~,on~

+ e id rei < 1QS 4.20 i1',11 m, ,,~ t:ln;" (inf);

:::ll1n D:136

1QH 2.32 t:ln;" ':::ltDn 'co~ l1':::l~ COElJ (inf. and rel cl); 1QH 3.29 n, fl1 ,,~ t:ln;" (inf); 1QH 4.32 t:l,~ 'J:::l' 1" t:ln;" (inf); 1QH 5.28; 8.31 m~t:ln;" (inf)

135 Is this also a case of Jenni's bet communicationis? See above, s.v. p'. 136 The verb is attested in classical texts only in D, N, and H, but appears in G only in the early mediaeval period: Ibn Gabirol, piyyut etc. (see Even-Shoshan [1966: 1466a, s.v.]). However, if :llmc at lQS 4.5 be an Aramaizing infinitive, then it can be only G. Its use in N in BH is passive. Therefore an active G

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTA TION

147

+ e id rei > 1QS 4.1 :JlJn nn~;l37 < 1QS 4.5 il'J ,,,,,,~ ,,:;, :Jmo (inf. IIlJ~il );138 1QS4.24 nO~:Jm'p'; 1QH 14.26 il"'lJ li' ",:;, :Jm" (inf) + n~ < 1QH 14.10] i{D~ ",:;, n~ :JlJn" (inf) + suf 1QH 14.21 'J:JlJn~ illJn G: H:

oonG:

+ in~ < 1QS 5.4

':J:J" in~ n1lJn" (inf)

+ suf pers lQH 4.251:llJnn

+ id rei > 1QS 10.19 {D'Eln~ ~,,, nn{D aUtive 00. J.F. ~) 1993, 19'1;. The Dictinay cf Otmai Hdmw. Vds. 1-2 [Altf--WuiJ. 9-effieli 9-effield AorlnUcPres Cdnl. C 1~ 'F.:lq:mBng Ire llin:minal Cl>jrt in ~ Hbrew', Les. 47, ~ 18 (Hbrew). ~ G.I 19)1. 'The U~ aOO. Nn-U~ ci >t in Hbrew Jns:riplicn.'l.' in Studit:s in Hdmwand Anmic Syntzx Prrsentat tJ Prrfr5.crr J.1-kftijv (ai K P1geIing et would certainly have been possible even in BH.

137 nM appears to be universally understood as casus pendens, cf., for instance,

Wernberg-M011er (1957: 26) 'the other-its assembly He loathes, and all its ways He hates for ever', a translation of ~J'? M1D iI'~" ,?,~, iI"O :l!ln nM.

But the parallelism with the immediately preceding

'.I)'? ~" iI'n''?',?.I)'?~:l' C'Q'?'W ".I),?~,? '?M :l.'M nM

seems to go against such an interpretation. nM in both cases is rather a plain, direct object of the following verb, and therefore iI"O must be a co-object of M1D. 138 On this

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

148 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

d.; Iaien: EJ. Mll4-~ ~,

A 19ffi 1.a

(~)

de Ja ammtmauE de Ja l'O.IVeIIe aIIi versehentliche Auslassung; { } versehentliche Hinz~.fügung; () Verdeutlichung der Ubersetzung. .. Eine detaillierte Begründung meiner Lesungen und Ubersetzungen erfolgt in meiner in Anmerkung 4 angezeigten Arbeit. Ich danke allen Teilnehmern am Leidener Symposium für ihre Fragen und Vorschläge. E. Qimrons Einwand gegen meine Konjektur von cnprn in cnpm in Zeile 13, 16 (auch in Zeile 20 hat der Schreiber I und 1 verschrieben!) habe ich dankend angenommen.

NEBE: 5/61:1ev 44--46

157

B: Übersetzung (1) Am 28. Marcheschwan (Okt./Nov.) im Jahre drei des Simeon, des Sohnes des Kosiba, (2) des Fürsten Israels, in Engedi. Heute haben wunschgemäß freiwillig untereinander aufgeteilt (3) Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, der Sohn des l;Iot(a, und Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, (4) beide aus Engedi, und Ta1:tenna, der Sohn des Simeon, und Elma, der Sohn des Juda, (5) beide aus Hallul:lit in Ma1:toz Eglten, wohnhaft in En- (6) gedi, die Grundstücke, die sie von Jonatan, dem Sohn des Ma1:tanaym, dem Verwalter (7) des Simeon, des Sohnes des Kosiba, des Fürsten Israels, in Engedi gepachtet haben: Das Grundstück, (8) das genannt wird Ha1:t1:torot und Hammasukim, und ihre ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht, und das Grundstück, (9) das genannt wird Ha1:t1:tapur, und seine ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht, Hassulam, und seine ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht. (10) Und dies sind die Grundstücke, die zugefallen sind dem Teil des Eleazar, dem Sohn des Eleazar, (11) und dem des Eliezer, dem Sohn des Samuel: Das Grundstück, das genannt wird Ha1:t1:tapur, und das Grundstück, (12) das genannt wird Hassulam, samt der weißen (= baumlosen) Erdscholle auf ihnen und allen Bäumen (13) auf ihnen gemäß dem für sie Üblichen und gemäß ihrer Besitzhaltung. Und dies ist das Grundstück, das zugefallen ist (14) dem Ta1:tenna, dem Sohn des Simeon, und dem Elma, dem Sohn des Juda: Das Grundstück, das genannt wird (15) Ha1:t1:torot und Hammasukim, samt der weißen (= baumlosen) Erdscholle auf ihnen und allen (16) Bäumen gemäß dem für sie Üblichen und gemäß ihrer Besitzhaltung, mit der Verpflichtung darüber, daß (17) jene vier Männer die Pacht(summe) für jene Grundstücke bezahlen, (18) die sie von Jonatan, dem Sohn des Ma1:tanaym, gepachtet haben: Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, (19) des l;Iotta, und Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, zahlen beide die Hälfte (20) jenes Silbers weniger sechzehn Denare, das sind (21) vier Sela, nur, und Ta\.lenna, der Sohn des Simeon, und Elma, der Sohn (22) des Juda, zahlen beide die (andere) Hälfte jenes Silbers (23) und außerdem noch sechzehn Denare, das sind (24) vier Sela. Und diese Männer sind nicht (verfügungs)berechtigt, zu folgen (25) diesem [Schriftlstück gegen die Berechnung jener Einteilung die ganze Zeit, solange (26) [Jonatanl ihnen verpachtet hat. Und es ist verbindlich zu ihren Lasten und zwischen ihnen alles, was oben geschrieben ist. (27) Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). (28) Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Masabbala, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (29) Ta1:tenna, der Sohn des Simeon, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Sapun, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (30) Elma, der Sohn des Juda, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Josef, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (31) Juda, der Sohn des Josef, Zeuge. (32) Eleazar, der Sohn des Juda, Zeuge. (33) Simeon, der Sohn des Josef, Zeuge. Palalya, der Sohn des Buta, [Zeugel.

PERIPHRASTIC TENSES IN BEN SIRA1 W. Th. van Peursen (Leiden)

I: Introduction In any discussion of the language of Ben Sira (Sir), one of the main problems is the relationship of the Hebrew of Ben Sira to Biblical Hebrew (BH), Mishnaic Hebrew (MH)2 and Aramaic. One of the areas in which important changes occurred between BH and MH and in which similarities to Aramaic are evident, is that of the construction of a finite form of the verb ;";' combined with a participle. No agreement, however, has been reached about whether the changes which can be noticed in Hebrew, should be ascribed to Aramaic influence. Before considering the occurrences of the periphrastic construction in Sir, we will have a brief look at the use of this construction in BH, MH and Aramaic. Special attention will be paid to the periphrastic imperative, which occurs at least once in Sir. 3

1 The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor T. Muraoka for commenting on earlier versions of this article. The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research in the Field of Philosophy and Theology (SFT), which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). 2 Other abbreviations: A, B, C, D, E, F, M, Q = MSS of Sir; Btxt = main text of MS B; Bmg = marginal readings of MS B; C = the Creek translation of Sir; S = the Syriac translation of Sir; BBS = ,~~ n1n'J1 ;'1'~J"1pJ1p ,'1pr.li1 ,~"O j::l1€lO 0'''0;'1 [The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabularyl (ed. Z. Ben 1:1 ayyim; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973 [this lacks MS F, which was incorporated in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's 1988 microfiche edition of, and concordance to, Ben Sira and the Qumran and tannaitic literature)); LBH = Late Biblical Hebrew; PC = prefix-conjugation; SC = suffix-conjugation. 3 5.11 (A) ';'100 ;'1';'1, but see also 5.10 (A, C) 1100 ;'1';'1,5.11 (C) )1:>J ;'1';'1, 13.9 (A) pm, ;'1';'1, 13.13 (A) ";'11 ;'1';'11, 31(34).22 (B) .Il1~ ;'1';'1, 32(35).22 (E, F) "i1! ;'1';'1 and the prohibitive, the negative counterpart of the imperative, in 5.9 (C)

;'1'11';'1n ~ (cf. MS A i1J1El1 ... ;'1'11 ;'1';'1n ~).

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

159

1I: Periphrastic tenses in Hebrew and Aramaic 1: Biblical Hebrew 4 In BH, the periphrastic construction serves primarily to denote durativity, particularly in the past, but also in the future. The perfect and imperfect forms of il'il express the temporal sphere, whereas the participle conveys durative aspect. The verb il'il, therefore, is not only a copula, but also a time indicator, e.g., Job 1.14 n'rD'n1'il 'P~il 'the cows were ploughing'.5 In LBH, the number of periphrastic forms increases. Some scholars relate this increase in the periphrastic construction to a broadening of its use. As in Aramaic, it is employed in a loose, free manner. It is no longer restricted to durative or iterative actions, but can also denote instantaneous or unique acts. 6 Other scholars give a rather different picture: the increase in the periphrastic construction is not to be explained by a weakening of its original function, but by a reduction in other ways of expressing the same thing. To express durativity or iterativity, the older means were no longer feIt sufficient. As a consequence, the regular use of the periphrastic construction became a necessity.7 4 R. Bartelmus, HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen »Allerweltswortes« (ATAT, 17; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982), 205-208; G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik I (Leipzig: Vogel, 1918), 72-74; S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Third ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 169-70; J.c.L. Gibson, Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (Fourth ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 138; A. Gordon, 'The Development of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modem Hebrew', Afroasiatic Linguistics 8 (1982), 121-79 (141-45); }.c. Greenfield, 'The "Periphrastic Imperative" in Aramaic and Hebrew', lEI 19 (1969), 199210 (209); P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, AGrammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Subsidia Biblica, 14.1-2; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993), §§121 e-f; 154m; E. König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache (III: Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897); E. Sellin, Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Construktion (Leipzig: Ackermann & Glaser, 1889), 35-36; B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introdudion to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §37.7.1. 5 Related to the use of i1'i1 to express c1early the temporal sphere is the notion 'at just that time ... '; related to the durative aspect of the construction is its inchoative use. See Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §37.7.1b; Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 73; cf. Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §121g. 6 Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 73; P. Joüon, Grammaire de l'he'breu biblique (Second ed.; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1923), §121g; König, Syntax,132. 7 Driver, Treatise, 170 ('the older forms are feit to be insufficient' to express durativity); M. H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical He-

160 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAO SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Most scholars deny the presence of the periphrastic imperative in BH. In the doubtful examples of Exod 34.2 p~J i1'i1, and 19.15 C'J~J "i1, p~J is probably a pure adjective ('ready') and in Ps 30.11 "'T.11 i1'i1, 'T.11 is a substantive ('helper').8

2: Qumran Hebrew 9 In Qumran Hebrew the periphrastic construction is well-attested. A few serolls show a more frequent use of it, in particular the Temple Seroll, which has 29 occurrences of i1'i1 + participle as against about 20 in the other non-biblical scrolls.10

3: Mishnaic Hebrew 11 The verbal system employed in Mishnaic Hebrew differs radically from that of BH. In M.H. Segal's grammar, one still finds the view that the MH verbal system is primarily a tri partite tense-system, in which qatal, qotel, and yiqtol denote past, present, and future respectively.12 E.Y. Kutscher and his school have put forward a rather dif-

brew and to Aramaie', JQR 20 (1908), 647-737 (698--99) (participle with iI'iI in MH, but also already in the Memoirs of Nehemiah, taking the place of the frequentative and iterative use of the old perfect consecutive and of the simple tenses); similarly Gordon, 'Development of the Participle', 22. Cf. JoüonMuraoka, Grammar, §121g: 'On occasion the periphrastic construction appears superfluous, partieularly in the later books, but a dose look suggests that the real force of the construction is akin to that of the inchoative imperfect of Creek or the graphie historie present' (see also note 5). 8 Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §121eN; cf. Greenfield, 'Periphrastie Imperative', 209. 9 E. Qimron, iI"iI' ,~'O m'?'lO '?tD n"~l1i1 j1tD'?iI P"P' (rhO diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1976), 288; The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 70. 10 Y. Yadin, tD'POil n'?'lo (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine of the Book, 1977), 1.30; Qimron, tD,poiln'?'lo'?!DilYKD'?, Uso 42 (1978), 83-98 (96); for 4QMMT, see Qimron and J. Strugnell, Miqliat MacaSe ha-Torah (OJO, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994),79. 11 A. Bendavid, c'o:m j1tD'?, ~'po l'tD'? (Second ed.; 2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967-1971) II.5~2; Gordon, 'Oevelopment of the Participle', 32-33; M.Z. Kaddari, illDOil )1tD'?~ iI'iI '?l11El'?l1, in Post-Biblical Hebrew Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Diachronie Hebrew, 1 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991), 290-304 (296, 300-304 = Annual of the Bar-Ilan University 16-17 [1979], 112-25); M. Mishor, C'~Jnil llD'?~ C'JOTil n::l'110 (PhO diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1983),351-400; see also the following notes. 12 M.H. Segal, AGrammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), §§324-27.

V AN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

161

ferent and more elaborate view: 13 the perfect is employed only to denote past action; the participle indicates present or future action; the imperfect no longer denotes the future, but has tumed into a modal form. The imperfect is mainly restricted to subordinate clauses; in main clauses it is chiefly used to indicate desire or command. Moreover, the imperfect has lost its function of conveying durative or iterative aspect in the past. To indicate repeated, usual, and concurrent action, periphrastic tenses with the auxiliary verb ;";' are used. They are frequently employed to denote an action that occurs as the background to another, shorter-lasting, action. The periphrastic construction is mainly used for the past, but also for the future and the imperative. Sometimes, in order to emphasize the futurity of an act, '? i'n.11 is employed. Kutscher's view is nowadays accepted by many scholars, though it has been modified on certain points such as the non-modal use of the imperfect, the use of the perfect to describe a present state, and the performative function of the perfect. 14 The function of ;";' in the periphrastic construction has changed, from a copula which is also a time indicator to an auxiliary. In BH, where ;";' served as copula and time reference clue, it is mainly found in order clearly to express past and future. In MH, where the function of ;";' + participle is primarily to indicate aspect, it is found in all tenses, including the imperative. The periphrastic imperative is wellknown in commands of general import: 'be doing' (constantly), compare m. Abot 3.2 n1:l'?0 '?!D ;'0'?1D:::l '?'?ElnO '11;' 'pray for the peace of the ruling power' (regularly and habitually) with m. Tacanit 3.8 ;'1D.110 C'01D1 1ii'1D '?'?oo;, '?1.110;' 'J1n'? 1'? 1iO~1D 'once they said to Honi the Circle Drawer: pray that rain may come down'.

4: Aramaic The periphrastic construction of the perfect and imperfect of ;'1;' with the participle is common in all Aramaic dialects. It is mainly used to denote durative, iterative, or habitual action, but can also be used for an instantaneous or unique act, and in a good number of cases differE.Y. Kutscher, 'Hebrew Language, Mishnaic', Encyclopaedia Judaica 16 (Jerusalern: Keter, 1971), 1590-1607 (1600-1601); A History 01 the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/E.J. Brill, 1982), §218; S. Sharvit, '0')01'i1 n:>,.I1o 13

Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages Dedicated to the Memory 01 Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher (ed. G.ß. Sarfatti; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ban Univer-

i1:l210i1 )'fD?::J,

sity Press, 1980), Hebrew section, 110-25 (111-12).

Uso 55 (1991), 8996; cf. A. 5aenz-Badillos, A History 01 the Hebrew Language (translated by J.F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 193-94. 14 See Mishor, 0')0Ti1 n:>,.I1o; Qimron, o'o:>n)'fD?::Jn1'?,'Oi1?.I1

162 TIlE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

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

5: Aramaie influence on Hebrew? In Aramaic the periphrastic forms are extensively used, especially in the perfect, but also with other forms of the verb hwh. In MH16 we see a large increase in the number of periphrastic forms. The question arises of the röle Aramaic actually played in the changes that occurred in Hebrew. Segal regarded the periphrastic construction as native to Hebrew and not borrowed from Aramaic.J7 This view has also been defended by Gordon. 18 Both scholars claim that Aramaic influence did not cause the increase in i11i1 + participle, but at most accelerated it. It should be noted, however, that Segal, in his refutation of the theory that MH was an artificiallanguage, tried to minimize the extent of the Aramaic influence, a point on wh ich he has been criticized by Kutscher. 19 A different view is taken by Greenfield ('perhaps due to Aramaic influence'),20 and B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor ('probably the result of Aramaic influence', quoting P. Ioüon).21 Kutscher wams against hasty conclusions: 'All these changes in MH almost exactly

15 Greenfield, 'Periphrastic Imperative', 200; T. Muraoka, 'Notes on the Syntax of Biblical Aramaic', JSS 11 (1966), 151-67 (158--60); T. Muraoka and B. Porten, AGrammar 0/ Egyptian Aramaie (forthcoming); H.B. Rosen, 'On the Use ofTenses in the Aramaic of Daniel', JSS 6 (1961), 183-203 (184). 16 See Section 11.1 on the different opinions regarding LBH. 17 M.H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and ... Aramaic', 698-700. 18 Gordon, 'Development of the Participle', 142. 19 Kutscher, History, §196. 20 Greenfield, 'Periphrastic Imperative', 209. 21 Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §37.7.1c;Joüon, Grammaire, §121g Ooüon's remark quoted by Waltke-O'Connor has been omitted in JoüonMuraoka, Grammar). It is c1ear that the question of Aramaic influence might be directly related to the interpretation of the periphrastic construction. Waltke and O'Connor and Joüon, who explain its increase in LBH as a consequence of the weakening of its meaning, assume Aramaic influence, whereas for Segal, Gordon and Driver, who regard its increase as the result of an internal development in which other means to express durativity or iterativity are lost, there is no need to resort to external factors (Aramaic influence) to account for it. See Section 11.1.

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

163

parallel Aramaic. Therefore, the simplest assumption would be that this too should be ascribed to Aramaic influence. But since Aramaic itself underwent far-reaching changes in this respect ... we had best refrain from drawing conclusions'.22 The question of Aramaic influence is also relevant for the Book of Ben Sira. Even apart from the Aramaic influence on Hebrew in general, we have to reckon with a strong Aramaic element in Ben Sira's Hebrew, which may be related to an Aramaizing tendency which is characteristic of all Wisdom literature.23 III: Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira

When we turn to Ben Sira, the first step is to determine which forms can be regarded as periphrastic. Our point of departure will be the criterion of replaceability as it is laid down by R. Bartelmus in his study on the verb il'il. For Bartelmus, the criterion for establishing whether a construction of il'il + participle is periphrastic is whether it could or could not be replaced by a non-periphrastic form of the same root. 24 On the one hand this approach includes constructions with forms other than '?t!)1p-participles, e.g., adjectives,25 on the other hand it excludes constructions where the noun, though in form a participle, does not allow for substitution by a construction without il'il. To this category belong substantivized participles and a11 passive participles. According to this criterion of replaceability, we can leave out of consideration constructions with the passive participle like 51.30 (B) 1"::10 ", erD 'il' 'the name of the Lord be blessed' (a quotation of Ps 113.2), with a substantivized participle like 7.6 (A) ~'O n1'il'? rDp::1n '?~ 'do not seek to become a ruler', and with apreposition like 12.11 (A) il'?Jr.l::l ,,? il'il 'be as one who reveals a secret'. On the other hand, we may include in OUT discussion constructions with adjectives like 51.27 (B) 'n"illt:lp 'I was young', which has 'mt:lp (Gen 32.11) as its non-periphrastic aItemative. 26 Applying this criterion, we can select the fol-

r,

22 Kutscher, History, 23 A. Hurvitz, 'The

§218. Chronological Significance of "Aramaisms" in Biblical Hebrew' IE! 18 (1968), 234-40 (240); see also G.R. Driver, 'Hebrew Poetic Diction', SVT, 1 (1953), 26-39; I. Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Forschungen zum Alten Textament, 5; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993), 83. 24 Bartelmus, HYH (see note 4),205. 25 Bartelmus inc1udes 'participIes' of certain stative verbs (verbal adjectives) as well. In our discussion below, we will also include other cases of iT'iT + ad~tive that could have been replaced by a finite form of a stative verb. 6 In Gen 32.11 the SC of the stative verb l~P has present meaning (1 am too insignificant for all the kindnesses'), whereas in Sir 51.27 the construction

164 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

lowing occurrences of periphrastic constructions in Sir: 5.9 5.9 5.11 5.11 6.6 13.9 13.13 31(34).6 31(34).22 32(35).22 42.1 42.8 51.17 51.24 51.27

C

A A

C

A A A B B E,F M(B) M,B Q B B

i1"r 'i1n ,,~ m1El' ... i1"r i1'i1n ,,~ ,i1r.lr.l i1'i1 l1:JJ i1'i1 C'~' ,'i1' p,n, i1'i1 ,'i1 r i1'i1, ,'i1 C'~' .lm~ i1'i1 ,'i1T i1'i1 ~~r.l' ... rD,,~27 n"m ,'i1T n"m i1n'i1 i1".ln il'i1n ... i1~~ 'n"i11~p

Excluded from the following discussion is 31(34).22 (B) .lm~ i1'il 'be humble' (cf. m. Abot 6.1 .lm~ ',m), though it might be argued that, as far as can be discerned, .lm~ i1'i1 in our verse conveys the same meaning as the HifJ il'il, see the discussion of 5.9-11 below. The last two items in our list come from the MS B text of the acrostic poem in 51.13--30. This poem has been so poorly preserved in MS B that P.W. Skehan, A.A. Di Lella, M. Delcor, and others have assumed it to be a retroversion from Syriac:30 51.24 (B) il'iln 'M ilM~ C:>Il1DJ, ",~, ",~ 1~

51.27 (B)

pionn 'n~ 'l'

il'n~~~, il~ 'm~m

'n"il1t:lp ':> C:>'J'l'~ '~i

In 51.24, il'iln seems to be an addition which is not found in G or 5.31 In 51.27, , 'n"il is inserted under the influence of 'n"il il'J in the opening line of the poem (51.13) and should be omitted with G and 5; instead of 'n,~l' 'I stood', we should read 'n'~l' 'I laboured' and 1t:lP is better taken temporally ('a short time' and not 'young', cf. Isa 54.7).32 Thus, we can reconstruct the following text: 'n'?ol'1t:lp ':>C:>'J'l'~ '~i il'n~~~, il~ 'see with your own eyes: I have laboured but a little in her and have found her'. The relevance of the transmission of the Hebrew text of Sir for a description of the periphrastic construction in Sir can be illustrated by 32(35).21-22: 33 BI i~rvilln'in~~, ~nn~ li'~ nt:l~n'~ B1 mg ... iilTil ß2 iilTill'nni~~' C'l'll1i li'::1 nt:l~n'~

E F

i'ilT il'illn'in~~, i'ilT il'illn'in~~,

C'l'll1i li' ... C'l'll1i li'~ innn'~ Whereas MSS E and F have the periphrastic construction i'ilT il'il 'be careful', ß1 mg and ß2 have iilTil, and ß 1 txt has i~1l1il 'be on your guard'. i'ilT il'il is also found in 13.13 (A), which is quoted by S.

Schechter as an example of Ben Sira's 'failure' in his attempt to imitate biblical style.34 Compare Qoh 12.12 iilTil, Ezra 4.22 "il1'i'ilT1, m. Abot

the non-periphrastic form at Isa 66.14: i1Jn1Eln ~tD'::l tJ:)'mO~1l1 'your bones will flourish like the grass' . 30 M. Dekor, 'Le texte hebreu du cantique de Siracide LI, 13 et ss. et les anciennes versions', Textus 6 (1968), 27-47 (46-47); P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom 01 Ben Sira (A8; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 576-77. 31 M.H. Segal, C?Di1 ~1'O 1::1 1ElO (Second ed.; Jerusalem: 8ialik Institute, 1958), 362; Skehan-Di Lella, Wisdom 01 Ben Sira, 575. 32 Segal, ~"01::1 100,363; P.W. Skehan, 'fhe Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13--30', HTR 64 (1971), 387-400 (398); Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 509. 33 The four cola in 8 are two parallel renderings of the same line, signalIed as 8 1 and 8 2 . 34 S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom 01 Ben Sira. Portions 01 the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899 [reprinted, Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1979]),

166 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 1.11 iin'il (but m. Abot 1.9 and elsewhere i'ilP"i11). In 42.8 (B, M) we find i'in n"i11. We cannot establish the original text of our verse by weighting the textual witnesses, though a few things can be said about the manuscripts. It can be argued that MSS E and F are related in some way because of many, sometimes peculiar, readings they have in common against MS B.35 In a number of cases where E or F differ from Btxt, they agree with Bmg.36 As far as the relation of Btxt and Bmg is concemed, new light has been shed on the value of the marginal readings of MS B by the discovery of the Masada Seroll. In a considerable number of cases the main text of MS B has more biblicallanguage and the margin has Aramaic or mishnaic phraseology. Whereas earlier scholars like R. Smend regarded this as the indication of a recension that introduced Aramaic or more 'vulgar' expressions, Bmg is now often supported by the Masada SerolI. A closer look at all the variants, however, yields a more complicated picture. Besides, in the lines under discussion, Bmg has the more biblical expression and MSS E and F mishnaic phraseology. Accordingly, these general observations do not help us in establishing the original text here, even if we were to ignore the principle that it is methodologically unsound to evaluate individual variant readings only on the basis of a general assessment of the manuscripts. Another way in wh ich one may try to solve the problem is by evaluating the variant readings themselves. If Sehechter and others are right in regarding iinil as more classical and i'ilT il'il as mishnaic, we can pose the question: did Ben Sira use the more classical biblical expression iilTil, which was altered by a copyist to the mishnaic (and Aramaic) i'in il'il, or did Ben Sira himself use the mishnaic phraseology which was changed into the more biblical idiom? This question is relevant in quite a number of cases where a second rendering of the text is found in the margin, as a doublet in the main text or in another manuscript. For in not a few instances, two parallel renderings of the text have been transmitted: one in biblical style and another in mishnaic or Aramaic language (see above on Btxt, Bmg and M). On these occurrences, there are two opposing views. According to one view, mishnaic and Aramaic phraseology entered the text in the process of

33.

35 P.c. Beentjes, 'A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manuscript (MS F) of Ben Sira', EstBib 51 (1993), 171-86 (175); A.A. Di Lella, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza', Bib 69 (1988) 226-38 (228). 36 J. Marcus, 'A Fifth MS of Ben Sira', JQR n.s. 21 (1930-31),223-40 (225).

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

167

textual transmission (thus, for example, Segal);37 according to the other view, the biblical style is secondary and entered the text as a result of a tendency to render the text in a more common, biblical, idiom (thus, for example, Y. Yadin).38 To a certain extent the laUer view has been vindicated by the diseovery of the Masada seroll. Reasoning in this way, one might be inclined to regard the mishnaic ,'ilT il'il as original, but again nothing can be said with any certainty. What can be said, however, is that this passage shows the fluctuation between periphrastic and non-periphrastic constructions in the process of textual transmission. We are touching here upon a question that requires further investigation.39 The last case where the use of the periphrastic construction cannot be established with certainty is 51.17. il~i1il1n~ 'iO'?O'? i1~'? ''? il'il il'?l1 B Q , /1i1il1n~ 'iO'?o'? ''? iln"il il'?111 The reading of il'?l1 as participle is not certain since it can be interpreted in different ways. The following proposals have been put forward. 1. CI,?.!'. 'her yoke' (.,J '?'?11); this interpretation, wh ich is also reflected in 5, is the most appropriate for ms B, but does not fit the context of Q. 2. il'l1 'reason', as in MH (.,J '?'?11), land for me she has been a reason that I give thanks to my teacher' .40 One may object, however, that on the other occasions in this section that we find qatal in the a-colon and 'eqtol in the b-colon (14bc, 18cd, 19cd, 20ab), qatal expresses an event in the past, and 'eqtol the speaker's intention for the future, e.g., 14bc (Q): i1J~'1i~ m:no i111 il,n::l ''? il~::l'she came to me in her beauty, and until the end I will seek her'. 3. il7.P,J (.,J '?11') 'profit, advantage' (cf. Isa 48.17, where the HWil of the verb is found alongside iO'? pi. 'teach', as in our text).41 il7.P,J, however, is not found elsewhere (nouns formed from the root '?11' are il'?l11n [e.g., 1QH 6.10] and il'?l1n (Sir 30.23 [B] and 41.14 [B, MD, and only the Hif.9 All these forms of the first person consecutive imperfect are identical with those of the regular imperfeet. A significant contribution to the subjeet has been made by David Talshir, who demonstrated that in LBH not only the first person singular of the imperfeet with waw-consecutive can have the normal (as against lengthened) form, but also the first person plural,10 for exampIe "7.:lliJ' (Neh 4.3) and :nrzm (Neh 4.9[Kt]). Let me add that this phenomenon also occurs occasionally in the Samaritan oral tradition, in those verbs which still preserve shortened forms: ll wyal, wtal vs. welli, wnelli, wyaba, wtaba vs. waJbu, wnaJbu wyas, wtaS vs. weSsi, wneSSi 7

Bergsträsser (note 5), §5d.

8 Ibid.; also in Moabite: tDll~l, MeSa< inscription lines 3, 9; ~'~', line 6; 1:J~', line

9.

The Babylonian tradition is not absolutely consistent with the Tiberian in regard to the forms of the conversive imperfect. On the one hand, some first person forms ar~ identical with second and first person forms (unlike Tiberian): "k; (vs. ''''lk), ?~1, Gen 3.12 (in pause = MT ?:;;)'~). On the other hand, some conversive imperfect forms in the second and third persons still preserve the original penultimate stress (unlike their Tiberian counterparts); see I. Yeivin, '?:D, 'I"J:J n~ntDOii n":Jllii ptD?ii m"lOo (Jerusalern, 1986), 585. The apparently preserves the original penultimate stress; the ~ere being form unstressed has not been changed to patal;! according to 'Philippi's law' (see p. 93 of E. Qimron, n'~l'0ii n":Jll:J rTneJ/"'~ 'El,?'rT, Uso 59 [1986], 77-102). 10 D. Talshir, n'?~"Oii n;:"llOii ?~ iiP'f:J lEl'iiOii ,'nllii n;:"110 nmnElnii, Tarb~ 56 (1987),585-91. 11 See Z. Ben-I:Iayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaie Amongst the Samaritans, Vol. V (Jerusalern, 1977), 127-28. Ben-I:Iayyim did not realize that the variant forms are not free variants but forms used in complementary distribution (according to persons). See also p. 367 of my review (article) of this book in Kiryat Sefer 54 (1979). 9

"k,

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECf

177

wyere, wtere vs. were'i wyasab vs. wnesob Thus, this behaviour of the first person, strange as it may seem is a real feature of Hebrew prior to the period of the Mishnah, being attested in a variety of traditions. Bergsträsser explains the use of the regular forms in the consecutive imperfect of the first person singular as being on the analogy of the modal system. 12 One may, however, wonder why the regular rather than the lengthened forms are used. 13 While BH uses both normal and lengthened imperfects in the first person consecutive or conjunctive imperfect, DSSH knows only the form i1'~p~,14 irrespective of whether the waw is conversive or conjunctive. This feature can easily be explained as analogous to the modal system. The forms of the imperfect with waw in DSSH thus became identical with the early modal forms. 15 According to the prevailing view, BH shortened forms are used in the second and third persons of the consecutive and modal imperfects. I have previously demonstrated that such shortened forms mayaIso occur with conjunctive waw, as in DSSH.16 I considered myobservation significant, claiming that it was an indispensable first step towards a comprehensive morphosyntactical re-examination of the moods in BHP According to this observation shortened '~P'l forms should not necessarily be given an optative nuance. Regrettably, scholars have not heeded my call for such a reappraisal and have instead maintained the earlier misconceptions. 18 Recognizing the influence of the modal forms of the imperfect on the non-modal ones is of great significance for the re-examination of the function of these forms. On the one hand, any discussion should not mix together the forms of the first person with those of the second and third persons. On the other hand, the forms should not necessarily be explained as having their original function.

12 Bergsträsser (note 5), ibid. 13 In fact, i1"~P~i and i1~J!

are also used and are most frequent in the late biblical books (see Talshir [note 10], 589-90). Talshir disagrees with Bergsträsser about the development of the various forms of the first person. He suggests, for example, that the use of i1r.:l1P~l rather than c1P~1 should be regarded as the result of analogy with the modal system, and that, later, c1P~1 sometimes replaced i10"'~1. 14 Exeeptions are found in the biblieal and apoeryphal serolls. 15 See E. Qimron, The Hebrew 01 the Dead Sea Serolls (Atlanta, 1986), 45-46. 16 See my article mentioned in note 5. 17 Ibid., 153. 18 See, for example, B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introdudion to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, 1990), 564-79.

178 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

W: Fonns without waw As we have seen, the various forms in BH are often not used in their original function. Are they at a stage where they are becoming free variants or did each of them acquire a new function? The answer to this question may be found in DSSH, which represents a later development in the use of these forms. Let me describe the rule in some of the major scroUs. In the second part of 1QIsaa, the form il'?~P~ (and il'?t:lp~l) is used at the beginning of c1auses while '?t:lp~ is always used in non-initial positions, as the following examples show. In initial position: 1QIsaa 41.18-19

1QIsaa 43.13 In non-initial position: 1QIsaa 45.1-2 In both positions: 1QIsaa 42.14-16

t:l'~' l'r:l ml'p::ll,n::l' miil~ t:l'~EJ!D '?l' linnEJ~ t:l'r:l '~~'r:l'? il~'~ fi~' t:l'r:l t:l~~'? i::lir:lil,it:J'~~ 1r:ltD fl" Oiil' ilt:ltD Ti~ i::lir:l::l ,jjn~ 'in' i'tDM' iilin tD'~i::l il::lil'::l,it:J'~~ il~::l'tD' 'r:l, li'7.v!J~

t:l'iiil' 7'~il:;"~El'? ,~~ ... nn!J~ t:l':;''?r:l '~nr:l' .vi..7~'?Ti::l 'n'i::l' i7.:J~~iltD'm mn'?i itD'~' ili'?,':;' liP!JM~ ~'in~ t:l'?'l'r:ll~ 'n'wn~ t:l'iil,i.:J'in~"in' li!J7~~7,it:J~~ill'El~

1QIsaa 46.4 1QIsaa 66.9

t:l"K'? mii1~ 'nr:lW' ~'.:J7~t:l::ltDli ,?,:;" n'li::ll' i'~'? ilr:lil'~El'? t:l':;"tDilr:l,it:J'~~ ... ~'.:J7~t:l'r:l~~' 'n'wl' ,~~ '7.:JO~'~~ il::l'W il" li~'?t:J~7 '7.:JO~':;"~~' ~~,~~, t:l~ ir:l~" i"7~~''?' i'.:J~~,~~i1 l'il''?~ ir:l~ lii73f.v~7 i''?'r:lil ~,~~

I,

In the major sectarian ScroUs, the form il'?~P~ (and il'?~P~') is used initiaUy, but also non-initiaUy, though this is very rare. '?~p~ is practicaUy never used in initial position: 19 1QH 10.5-7 il:;'~'~i 1'~::l.:J~nn~ilr:l' iln~Eln ~''?::l tJ7r~ilr:l ,'p~J(~;')~il:;"~' 'Jnir:ll'il ~'?::l prnn~ilr:l 'El ilnnnEl ~'?::l i.:Ji~ilr:l' ''? ilni~' ~'?::l 'm,?:;,tDil ~'?::l .:J'~~ il:;"~'

19 Exceptions are to be found in some biblical serolls. Even lQIsaa exceptionally uses ?t!lp~ rather than i1~P~ in initial position, e.g. C'tD~ (= Mf) at 50.2.

179

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECf

1QH9.8-14

nn::),n ':l 'ri;mntDo", ,:l, ,lh:lO" ,i:J'ro~7 ,i,n:J~7

... P'i~~il::)~EXDO'

,J',

,i.v'ro'~7

"l' ,iDm~7 .vro.vnro~mn'''O:l' ... '~DtDO:l ... ;::) ,i.vi~7 ptD~, l'tDD

1QS 10.9-26

"1::)'

"'''m ... ,,~ "~,, 'ru'lI nl":l,iiDr~ il"'''' t:l" ~':lO t:ll' '~EXDO 1p:l ~~'nEXD

'P':l, :l,l' ~~10 t:ll""~ n":J:l,i[~]( )7:J~ :l,tD ''':l'' o'ro~t:lm'il:l' "p,n "l':J~ ... 'P'~ iD7~"~~ ... 'm'l'J;:) m:,,~,~EXDO' 'J~El,tD' ,tD~ ,i~i~7 'J,,' 'tD~:l,iin:J,i t:llJ1 ... 'OtD ~i:J~ ,,,,,,, ", n"m n'tD( ),:l ", O'i~t:l'~:l' ... ,,, ,ijJi~'l"~' ~tDO l.vro~,',on "l" nmro~,m':l":l' ... 1tD'il" ... 'n ",::) ~EXDO ,,':l ';:) ,i.vi~7 t:l"il ",::)

' ',:lJ

"'0" tD'~" :J'ro~~," ,n' ,ijJi~1nl"tD':l' ... ltJp~~,,, ... ':l" Z]ii~ :l'~:ll"

~,,, ... il"'l' 'tDJ~ :J'ro~ ~,,, ~'El~' "j);":l' ... om~ ~,,, ... Oni~~'''' ... i7~~ t:l'p, ... 'El nn~~m"il:l ... ':l:l":l i7Dro~~," nl" i[~](n)o~il'tD1n n~l':l ... 'nooo n'::Jro~ t:l'nl' 'p:l p,n ilp"ri~ ... ~7ro~nl" m'l':l'

The rules govering the use of the forms in DSSH also operate in BH, in the first person but more especially in the second and third persons. 20 The following examples (some drawn from extensive sequences of texts) include synonymous optative expressions and the use of different forms in parallel: Judg 6.39 ,,~ ,j',i'r'~il ,,;:) "l" il':l" ilTJil"~ :l,n ~ ',i' Ps 72.13 .v'ro7't:l'J":l~ n'tDElJ' P':l~' ", "l' on' Gen 9.25-27 ... ,'n~" ,j',i't:l":ll' ,:ll' 11'J::) ",~ 'o~" 11'J::) ',i'7 ... nEl'" t:l'il1"~ n~' Isa 47.3 1nD,n ,i~int:l" 1m,1' (lQIsaa il"m) ,;n Prov 3.28(Qr) ln~ ,no, :l,tD, 1" 11"" "DM ,~ Exod 20.19 mDj lD t:l'il"~ ,JOl' i:Ji' '~7

For the first person, see Orlinsky (note 5), 273-75. Driver (note 5),214-15, observes that usually the shortened form 'stands at the beginning of a c1ause'. He supposed 'that (e.g.) ~~ was retained primarily as a reminiscence of the normal [jp~1 ... On the other hand, where the shorter form occurs, preceded by 1(§84a), it must be admitted to be doubtful whether the punctuation represents a genuine tradition' (p. 215). Note that imperfect forms without waw in the second and third persons are rarely used in initial position in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Imperfect forms with waw are always short in the major nonbiblical scrolls . This is not the case with lQIsaa. 20

180 niE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA Note the forms in the blessing of Moses (Deut 33),21 (7)

ti'tin "'~O

'T.IT1 ... (6) "I"lC ',i" ... P'~' 'n'

(24) ,'n~ ,,~, ',i' ... (11) li~'" "" 'l1El, ... , the blessing of Jacob (Gen 49), and in the Admonition (Deut 28):

22(16-17) IDm P

',i' ... 1011 1'i' p,

P:::Ji' (13) in:lO? ti'tin ~?, ... (8) 1n~ " ,~, (36) 1n~ " 7"' ... (25) 07Jl1C'::>" ill1:lID:l' ... (39) linm~? 1'" ... (38)il'IDillt'~7n:l' l1'T li'.v'l:l1p:l 'ID~ 'lil ... (40) 770n~? lOID1- .. (44):l.Jr? ,i',iniln~, ID~'? ,i',i'~'il ... (43) 1'?11.

(21) l:l"

Perhaps most instructive of all are the following equivalent wishes or requests: 1 Kgs 1.31, 39 (C?l1?)l?Oil'n' vs. Neh 2.3 il'n' C?,l1? l?cil Ps 122.7 l?'n:l C'?ID 'il' vs. 1 Kgs 2.33 c,'?!D il'il' '" 'l1'T?' ",? 1 Chr 21.23 "J'11:l :l't:lil1?cil 'J'~ IDl1" vs. 2 Sam 10.12 ,'J'l1:l :l't:lil ilIDl1' '" Jer 42.5 l0~' no~ ,11? ,J:l" 'il' vs. Judg 11.10 'J'mJ':l110ID il'il' " 1 Kgs 10.9112 Chr 9.8 l":l 1'il?~ '''il' Ruth 2.19 l":ll"::>o 'il' Prov 5.18 l":ll"PO 'il' vs. Gen 27.33 il'il' l":l Cl Deu t 7.14 il'iln 11i:l Admittedly, there are some exceptions to the rule (and even contradictory examples), such as: 2 Sam 14.17 ... iln1JC? l?Cil 'J'~ ,:l, 231tj li ',i' (cf. 1 Sam 17.37 Zep 3.17

2~Cl1 ',i' 1'il?~ '"

1Cl1 il'il' '" 1?) ilJ':ll'?l1 ?'J' 1n:lil~:l ID',n' ilnCID:l 1'?11 ID'ID' Gen 1.22 r'~:l :l,' ~'l1il' (=4QGenb, but il:li' in 4QGeng)

21 In 4QDeuth 33.10-11 (see Julie A. Duncan, 'New Readings for the "Blessings of Moses" from Qumran', IßL 114 [19951,273-90), we find:n?.Il~' ... OVPl .... ", ~,n[')1'. On the other hand, 11QPsa 119.172 uses the regular form in initial ~sition: i1l0n rather than MT l.1ln. In 4QpGenc [4Q2541 5.4: J1 ';"1. 23 This is the only example in the Bible of ~~ preceded by anormal imperfect, where a choice between special and normal forms is available. 24 Cf. '[Jl'~ Cl1 ';'" in an inscription from Kuntillet (Ajrud (and other paralleIs), cited in S. Al,tituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 158 (Hebrew).

QIMRON: FORMS OFTHE IMPERFECf

181

Such exceptions indicate that this new system based on syntax was not yet fully developed in BH. Nevertheless, the overall arrangement of the forms according to the position of the verb is c1early evident in BH. Keeping in mind that the forms with initial waw always stand at the beginning of clauses, the rule appears very inclusive and the exceptions are relatively insignificant. The special forms, thus, came to be employed typically in c1ause-initial position, whether or not they began with waw. One may say that morphologically the imperfect forms were constructed on the analogy of the modal system, and syntactically they were influenced by the consecutive imperfect, coming in initial position. This rule fully explains why in purpose c1auses beginning with the verb the modal forms are used (. .. ilJn~, '?~tD), while in those beginning with a particle (pi1:l'?, 1E:l, ,,::ll1::l) the indicative forms are used. 25 The dominance of the syntactic element (the use of the special forms in c1ause-initial position) indicates that the original modal system had become very weakened and was on the verge of being replaced. The following preliminary observations follow from my analysis. 1. Every imperfect form could be used optatively. 2. The special forms are also used indicatively. 3. The use of the forms depends on their syntactical position. 4. The original usage is still consistently evident only after '?~ or before~.

dal.

5. The interpretation of BH in the light of DSSH has been benefi-

Finally, I have to add that Mishnaic Hebrew exhibits a system which must have developed quite differently in early times. Even those who believe that the tenses in LBH or DSSH reflect the transition from LBH to Mishnaic Hebrew realize that the increase of i1'?tlp~ forms in late BH and DSSH is inconsistent with this view. 26 The fact that i1'?tlp~ acquires new functions in the Second Temple period makes any comparison with Mishnaic Hebrew untenableP

25 See Fassberg (note 6),76-92. 26 E.Y. Kutscher, The Language

(lQISIfl) (Leiden, 1974), 326-27.

and Linguistic Background of the lsaiah Scroll

Note that in Samaritan Hebrew, i1't!lp~, denotes the past (Z. Ben-l::Iayyim [note 11], 129-30).

27

HOW TO WRITE A POEM: THE CASE OF PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3--12)"

Mark S. Smith (Philadelphia)

I: Introduction Psalm 151 is so numbered in Creekl and Syriac psalters,2 and it is attested in psalter texts in Old Latin, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. 3 A Hebrew version of this text was unknown until the discovery of the Psalms Scroll in Cave 11 at Qumran. J.A. Sanders published the scroll first in 1963 in a preliminary edition and then in 1965 in the form of

• This paper represents two presentations made at the Leiden Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, held 11-14 December, 1995 at the Rijks Universiteit te Leiden. The discussion of the text of Psalm 151 in sections of I through IV of this essay was the basis for my workshop at the symposium, and section V, the appendix on superscriptions in 11QPsa, represents my lecture. Because of the closeness of subject matter in the two contributions, I have combined them into a single paper for this volume. I wish to express very warm thanks to Professor T. Muraoka for the invitation to the Symposium, as weIl as appreciation for the improvements to my paper suggested at the Symposium by Professor Muraoka and other participants; these are cited below. 1 J. Magne, 'Les textes grec et syriaque du Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 548-64; 'Le verset des trois pierres dans le tradition du Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 565-91; R. Meyer, 'Die Septuaginta-Fassung von Psalm 151, 1-5, als Ergebnis einer dogmatischer Korrectur', in Das ferne und nahe Wort (Fs. Leonard Rost; BZAW, 105; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 164-72; D.N. Wigtil, The Sequence of the Translations of the Apocryphal Psalm 151', RQ 11 (1983),401-407. 2 See W. Baars (ed.), 'Apocryphal Psalms', in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version edited by the Peshitta Institute, Part IV, fascicle 6 (Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1972), i-ix, 1-4; Magne, 'Textes'; 'Verset'; M. Noth, 'Die fünf syrisch überlieferten apocryphen Psalmen', ZAW 48 (1930), 4, 8, 11; H. Schneider, 'Biblische Oden im syrohexaplarischen Psalter', Bib 40 (1959), 20205; P.W. Skehan, 'Again the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms', CBQ 38 (1976), 14358; H.H. Spoer, 'Psalm 151', ZA W 28 (1908), 65-67; J. Strugnell, 'Notes on the Text and Transmission of the Apocryphal Psalms 151, 154 (= Syr. 11) and 155 (= Syr. III)', HTR 59 (1966), 258--72, 278--81; Wigtil, 'Sequence'. 3 See S. Stre1cyn, 'Le psaume 151 dans le tradition ethiopienne', JSS 23 (1978), 316-29; G. Viaud, 'Le Psaume 151 dans le liturgie copte', Bulletin de l'Institut Fran~is d'Archiologie Orientale du Caire 67 (1969), 1-8. The first work contains a critical Ethiopic edition with translation and notes.

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

183

an editio princepS.4 The final composition in this seroll was Psalm 151

(llQPsa column 28, lines 3-14). A terminus ad quem of the third century has been generally accepted largely on the witness to the text in the LXX.5 However, dates of either the second or first century B.C. have been proposed for the Septuagintal psalter.6 Perhaps a better indicator of a second-century date (or earlier), this text displays none of the thematic traits specifically associated with Qumran community literature. Lines 3-14, attesting to two poems, offer a rare opportunity to witness the process of poetic composition in the Second Temple period.7 The psalm was regarded rightly by its editor as a sort of 'midrash'8 on the life of David in 1 Sam 16.1-13. This sort of composition is not altogether exceptional. Yet there is evidence, albeit seanty, for such a genre earlier than the Syriac Psalms 152-153. J. Strugnell points to the survival of such a piece in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 59.4. 9 The second half of this composition includes many of the same themes found in Psalm 151 (the mention of shepherding; David's father and brothers; his anointing; the reference to 'messengers' as in LXX Psalm 151 but not 11QPsa 28; the prophet>. The text also shows the technique of taking language from 1 Samuel. Pseudo-Philo 62.5 contains a line which J. Strugnell and D. Harrington compare with the opening of Ps 151: 'For I, the least among my brothers, was tending sheep'.10 Ben Sira 47.1-12's praise of David for his many exploits might be placed in the same or a similar subgenre. Ben Sira 47.4 compares weIl with the final verse in LXX and Syriac: 'As a youth he slew the giant and did away with the people's disgrace' (cf. 1 Sam 17.26). One of the methods of composition utilized in 4 J.A. Sanders, 'Psalm 151 in llQPss', ZA W75 (1963), 73--86; The Psalms Seroll w.Qumran Cave 11 (DJD, IV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 5~4. So F.M. Cross, 'David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3--4', BASOR 231 (1978),697l. 6 G. Dorival, M. Harl and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque: du judai"sme hellinistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf/C.N.R.S., 1988), 91, 93, 97. O.

Munnich prefers the earlier date based on a relative chronology of the LXX Psalter's influence on the translation of other LXX books. See Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique du Psautier des Septante' (2 vols.; these presentee pour le doctorat; Paris: Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, 1982), 1, 19-53. See the summary of his views in Dorival, Harl and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 96, 111. 7 For the grammatical basis of this argument, see A. Hurvitz, 'The Language and Date of Psalm 151 from Qumran', EI8 (1967), 82-87 (Hebrew). 8 Sanders, Psalms SerolI, 56. 9 J. Strugnell, 'More Psalms of "David''', CBQ 27 (1965), 207-16. For a translation, see D. Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo', in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 2; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985),372. 10 Strugnell, 'More Psalms', 215, n.6; Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo', 375.

184 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Psalm 151, namely using words and phrases from 1 Samuel 17, finds its dosest analogue in Ben Sira 47.1-12. Whatever the precise relationship among these texts, they point to a number of late poetic texts devoted to developing the biblical biography of David, or in the case of the psalm texts, Davidic autobiography.ll While Sanders' view of Psalm as a 'midrash' has been generally accepted, the extent of the borrowing from these chapters has not been sufficiently noted.t 2 The dependence on 1 Samuell5--18 (but especially 16-17) indicates how the process of composition incorpoOn this point, see S. Talmon, 'Pisqah Be)em~( Pasuq and llQPs', Textus 5 (1966),19. 12 The secondary literature does not sufficiently address this point: P. Auffret, 'Structure litteraire et interpretation du Psaume 151 de la grotte 11 de Qumran', RQ 9 (1977), 163-88; J. Baumgarten, 'Perek Shirah, an Early Response to Psalm 151', RQ 9 (1978), 575-9; WH. Brownlee, 'fhe llQ Counterpart to Psalm 151, 1-5', RQ 4 (1963), 379-88; J. Carmignac, 'La forme poetique du Psaume 151 de la grotte 11', RQ 4 (1963), 371-78; 'Precisions sur la forme du Psaume 151', RQ 5 (1965), 249-52; 'Nouvelles precisions sur le Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 593-97; J.H. Charlesworth with J.A. Sanders, 'More Psalms of David', in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 609-15; F. Collela, '11 testo ebraica deI Salmo', Rivista Biblica Italiana 14 (1966), 365-88; Cross, 'David'; A. Dupont-Sommer, 'Le Psaume CU dans 11 QPS3 et le probleme de son origine essenienne', Semitica 14 (1964), 25-62; R.Y. Ebied, 'A Triglot volume of the Epistle of the Laodiceans, Psalm 151 and other Biblical Materials', Bib 47 (1966), 243-54; F. Garda Martinez, 'Salmos ap6crifos en Qumran', EstBib 40 (1982), 200-201; M. Haran, The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151', JJS 39 (1988), 171-82; Hurvitz, 'Language and Date'; Magne, 'Orphisme, pythagorisme, essenisme dans le texte hebreu du Psaume 151?', RQ 8 (1975), 508-47; "'Seigneur de l'univers" ou David-Orphee? Defense de mon interpretation du Psaume 151', RQ 9 (1977), 189-96; R. Mancini, 'Note sul 151', RSO 65 (1991), 125-29; M. Philonenko, 'David humilie et simplex. L'interpretation essenienne d'un person nage biblique et son iconographie', CRAIBL Fevrier 1978, 536-48; I. Rabinowitz, The Alleged Orphism of llQPss 28:3-12', ZA W 76 (1964), 193-200; Sanders, 'Psalm 151'; 'Responsum', ZAW 76 (1964), 200; Psalms Serail; 'A Multivalent Text: Psalm 151:3-4 Revisited', HAR 8 (1984), 167-84; F. Sen, 'EI Salmo 151 merece aftadirse al Salterio corno obra maestra', Separata de Cultura Biblica 29 (1972), 167-73; p.w. Skehan, 'fhe Apocryphal Psalm 151', CBQ 25 (1963), 407-409 = Israelite Wisdom Literature (CBQMS I; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971), 64-66; 'Again', 143-47; Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151, David, Jesus and Orpheus', ZA W 92 (1980), 247-53; J. Starcky, 'Le psaume 151 de Septuaginte retrouve cl Qumran', Le Monde de la Bible 6 (1979), 8-10; B. Storfjell, The Chiastic Structure of Psalm 151', AUSS 25 (1987), 97106; S. Talmon, The World 01 Qumran From Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989),244-72; B. Uffenheimer, 'Psalm 151 from Qumran', Molad 22 (1964), 6981 (Hebrew); R. Weiss, 'Psalm 151', Massa' 15 May 1964 (Hebrew), 'Additions to the Subject of Psalm 151' Massa' 29 January 1965 (Hebrew). The studies of Skehan on this text and others in llQPs3 deserve more consideration than they have received in recent discussions. 11

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

185

rated phrases and words from this biblical book. By isolating the material drawn from 1 Samuel, it is possible to see how the author then added and arranged the material. This arrangement induded some aspects of syntax, in particular verbal syntax. Hence, detailing the extensive borrowings provides a key to understanding the building process involved in the composition of this text. It may be no aceident that the borrowings from 1 Samuel appear in the material shared by all the versions, but, as stressed by M. Haran and discussed below at greater length, the other material does not appear in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Creek and Syriac versions.B Therefore, additions to the 1 Samuel material generally represent the compositional activity of the author of llQPsa 28.3-14. (In turn, it would seem that the Creek and Syriac versions attest to a Hebrew Vorlage that like Ben Sira 47 stayed considerably doser to the language borrowed from 1 Samuell6-17.) Before proceeding, it is necessary to darify the relationship between llQPsa 28.3-14 and the other versions of Psalm 151. The discrepaneies between the extant Hebrew version and the shorter Creek and Syriac versions may in some cases provide an idea of how the redactor added to an older Hebrew version represented by these latter versions. 14 Some of these discrepaneies, in particular the LXX and Syriac counterparts to llQPsa 7-8 and perhaps 9-10, are not helpful for this discussion, as they may contain haplographies in the Creek and Syriac versions rather than expansions on the part of the extant Hebrew version. 15 However, some of the longer readings in llQPsa 4, 5-6 and perhaps 10-12, compared with their LXX and Syriac counterparts, seem to represent expansions in the extant Hebrew version. 16 Sanders regarded the difficult form of the LXX even in these ca ses as the result of internal reduction of an original to which the extant Hebrew version is a witness. This approach may suit the evident basis 13 Haran, 'Two Text-Forms " 172-73. For the Creek, on which the Syriac is dependent, a glance at the paralleis assembled in the older work by F. W. Mozley suggests this point. See Mozley, The Psalter 0/ the Church: The Septuagint Psalms Compared with the Hebrew, with Various Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905),190. 14 The Syriac versions are directly dependent on the LXX (Strugnell, 'Notes', 261-65; Skehan, 'Again', 14~7). Strugnell disputes Sanders' claim that the Syriac superscription is closer to the extant Hebrew than LXX. The complicated issues of the Creek and Syriac versions and their many variants are not treated here. Rather, these versions are discussed in tandem here in order to highlight the differences with the extant Hebrew version which is the foeus of this discussion. 15 So Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 59. See also Strugnell, 'Notes', 265. See below for further discussion. 16 See below for further discussion.

186 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

for haplography in the LXX and Syriac counterparts to 11QPsa 7-8 and perhaps 9-10, but it hardly explains the whole-scale loss demanded by this approach for the very long plus in ~. Nor does it do justice to the extra material in either lines 11-12 or 13-14.17 It seems more reasonable to admit textual problems on the side of the LXX and Syriac versions here, but it may not be a matter of a reduction of the massive sort envisioned by J. A. Sanders and J. Strugnell and accepted by J. Charlesworth. 18 Rather, the Greek and Syriac versions had a shorter Hebrew Vorlage which differed on a number of points from the extant Hebrew version. 19 As M. Haran has argued,20 the Greek and Syriac versions are closer to the original Hebrew Vorlage that was inherited by the 'author' of the 11QPsA text, which represents an expansive version relative to the Greek and Syriac treatment. (Given the process of composition under discussion, it may be more appropriate to label the author of the expanded extant Hebrew version an 'author-redactor' or the like.) Indeed, the extant Hebrew version seems to have inherited a single poem about David's life perhaps culminating in his defeat of Goliath (hence the allusion to this episode in the superscriptions in the Greek and Syriac versions). Then the authorredactor made two poems out of his received material and provided each one with its own superscription; hence the reference to Goliath was perhaps taken from the first superscription as reflected in the Greek and Syriac versions and used in the second superscription of the Hebrew version. While the second poem is extant only in the very fragmentary lines 13-14 of 11QPs a 28, the Creek and Syriac versions are more extensive at this point. Furthermore, there is room for eight more lines at the bottom of column 28, more than enough room to

17The plus in lines 13-14 is not addressed here. For now, see correctly Haran, Two Text-Forms'. 18Strugnell, 'Notes', 281; Charlesworth with Sanders, 'More Psalms', 612. 19 In addition to the pluses in 11QPs3 28.3-12, the Creek and Syriac versions showa few differences which reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage, e.g., LXX 'angel' (from Hebrew l~?O) for 11QPs 3 28:8 'prophet' (see L. H. Silberman, 'Prophets/ Angels: LXX and Qumran 151 and the Epistle to the Hebrews', in Standing Before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor of lohn M. Oesterreicher red. A. Finkel and L. Frizzell; New York: Ktav, 1981»),91-101) and LXX Ev t~ EÄ.atC!l t1;C; XptCH:OlC; autou, 'the oil of his anointment', compared with tzi"Pill0tzi:::l 'with the holy oil', in line 11 (see Strugnell, 'Notes', 268). LXX ~pJ.LoO"av 'he fitted' (reflecting p,"") has no corresponding verb in 11QPs3 28 line 3, as noted by Haran (Two Text-Forms', 175). Unlike Haran, I would be inclined to view this as a possible addition and not the original. 20 Haran, 'Two Text-Forms', 176-77.

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

187

sing the praises of David for his victory over Goliath. 21 Therefore, llQPsa 28.3-14 is generally expansive relative to the Greek and Syriac versions, except in the cases of possible haplography in the LXX and Syriac counterparts to llQPsa 7-8 and perhaps 9-10. In sum, the expressions from 1 Samue115-18 and the additions special to llQPsa 28.3-14 will help to illustrate the compositional process for 11QPsa 28.3-14. The purpose of this study is to examine in detail the process of composition in Psalm 151 as represented by llQPsa 28.3-12. This essay proceeds in five parts: (1) text and translation of the Hebrew version of Psalm 151, presented first for the sake of reference and c1arification; (2) palaeographical and philological notes and discussion of the sections in the poem; (3) sources for the poem's composition; (4) stylistic strategies in the poem's composition; and (5) an appendix comparing the syntax of the superscriptions in Psalm 151 with that of others in 11QPsa. To anticipate, the four main points insufficiently appreciated up to this point are: (1) the use of previous texts by the author-redactor of 11QPsa 28.3-14; (2) the author-redactor's departure from inherited tradition in describing David and God's relationship in the middle of the poem; (3) the double-bicola construction of 11QPsa 28.3-12; and (4) the röle of verbal syntax in the construction of this poem.

II: Textand translation of 11QPsa 28.3-14 Superscription

Type 3.

A Halleluyah

Putative author Of David, son of Jesse.

;""';' 'rD' 1:::l "",

Could some of the content of Ben Sira 47 have constituted some material in the lacuna? This possibility does not seem so remote when Ben Sira 47.4 is compared with the final verse of Psalm 151 in LXX and Syriac. There is also a sizeable extra attested in Ethiopic and Arabic versions in this section of the poem; is it possible that this material, generally regarded as an interpolation, was actually part of a Hebrew Vorlage somehow rearranged and lost from the Creek and Syriac versions? The possibility seems too remote and convenient, but it would seem that further material existed at one time such that a second superscription would be added. 21

188 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Poem

I. David's glorification of Yahweh22 A: David as his father's shepherd among the sons I was the least of rny brothers, And smallest of rny father's sons. 4. And he made rne shepherd to his sheep, And ruler over his goats.

'n~ 1~ 'n"il1~p ':J~ 'J~ i'~'

1J1:~b ill1'i 'J~'fD"

,'m',n '?!D~,

B: David's honouring of God And rny hands made a pipe, And rny fingers a Iyre. 5. And I gave honour to Yahweh, I truly said to myself: C: David as God's witness 6. 'The rnountains do not witness to Hirn, Nor do the hills tell of Hirn, Nor the trees, rny words, Nor the sheep, rny compositions' .

:J1'11 'fD

1""

i'J~ 'ml1:J~~'

,,~ i11il''? il~'fD~'

'fDElJ:J 'J~ 'ni~~

,,? "'11' ~,,? C'iilil ,'?11 "'1' ~,,? ml1:J1i11 'i:J' n~ C'~l1il 'tDl1~ n~ 1~'~il'

11. God's glorification of David C': God as David's witness 7. For who can tell and who can express And who can relate the deeds of the Lord of All? 8. The God of All has seen. He has heard and he has listened. B': God's honouring of David among his family He sent His prophet to anoint rne, 9. Sarnuel to raise rne. My brothers carne out to rneet hirn, Handsorne of form and handsorne of appearance. 10. (Though) tall in their height, Handsorne in their hair, The Lord God Chose thern not.

22 For this two-fold division, see Sanders,

i:::li' '1:\1 i'J' '1:\ '::> 'fDl1~ n~ iElO' ,~,

'?'~il1"~

'?'~il il''?~ il~i P~il ~'il' l11:\fD ~'il

'JnfZ11O'? '~':JJ n'?!D 'J'?'1'? '?~'~fD n~ ,n~ip'? 'n~ ,~~, il~i~il

Psalms SerolI, 56.

'El', i,nil 'El'

cm'p:J C'il:J1il Cil1!D:J C'El'il il'il' in:J ~,,? C:J C'il''?~

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12) A': David as shepherd of God's people 11. And he sent for and took me from after the sheep, And he anointed me with the holy oil. And he made me leader for His people 12. And ruler over the sons of His covenant. Superscription Biographical information 13. The beginning of the stre[ng]th of [Dav)id, After the prophet of God anointed hirn. Poem Then I saw the Philistine, Cursing from the r[anks of the PhilistinesJ. 14. . .. I ... (about eight lines missing).23

189

,nW-l 'JnP"

n~',

1~'~i1 rD'1pi11~rD:::l 'JnrD~"

,~lh ".lJ '~'rD"

,n":::l 'J:::l:::l "rD~'

"[,,J" i1,[,J:::lJ n"nn t:l'i1'''~ ~':::lJ ,nrD~rD~

'nrD"tl 'n [,J~' 'T~ [t:l'nrv"tl m:J'l1 J~~ ~,n~ . .. n~ ... ':J'J~ ...

III: Notes and seetions The first poetic unit of lines 3b--4a consists of two synonymously parallel bicola. The second bicola consisting of lines 4b-5 poetically follows suit. Sanders does not construe the lines as the introduction to the direct speech in the following lines, but this is the standard use of the comparable biblical expression, 'to say in one's heart'. The poetic parallelism militates, however, in favour of construing this unit as two bicola. The third unit of line 6 contains several structural and philological problems. The attempt to take ~,,, in the first two lines as precative by I. Rabinowitz and F.M. Cross24 has not been adopted except by B. Storfjell.25 It is not clear that the precative was still used 23 On average, the seroll has room for a total of twenty-three lines. Sanders does not eount the blank line after line 2 in his enumeration of this eolumn, which means 15 lines are extant, leaving another possible eight lines. 24 Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 193; Cross, 'Notes', 69. Storfjell, 'Chiastic Strueture', 101. See the eriticisms of Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151',253; and M. Weinfeld, 'fhe Angelie Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts', in Time To Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Serolls 1:ly Fellows 01 the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusa1em, 1989-90 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ, 16; Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1995), 154, n. 108.

190 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

' '11,

in this period. The word rendered here as a prepositional phrase at the end of the second line of line 6, was taken in the editio princeps as averb. There is little supporting evidence and the rabbinic citations, the chief basis for the putative verb, were criticized by Rabinowitz. 26 Sanders considered but rejected the view adopted here (for a variation known elsewhere in this scro1l27) is that parallel to ,,, in the preceding line. In contrast, Strugnell and Cross adopted this view. 28 It might be objected that such a prepositional 'to witness', since in BH the verb phrase would not follow takes -" rather than the standard -~ (Commentators have noted the same syntactical issue with respect to ,,, in the preceding line.)30 Comparing n'-''i~n in Neh 8.15, Skehan viewed the word as a noun in construct to the following as 'the boughs of trees'.31 Weinfeld32 accepted this rendering. This approach would break the syntactical parallelism found in the four poetic lines in this unit ('mountains ... hills ... trees ... sheep') by having a construct phrase syntactically unparalleled. Morever, the contents of such a hypothetical construct phrase would seem out of place.33 Scholars have noted modifications in usage in late Hebrew poetry. Such changes in the expected use of verb-preposition combinations have been viewed as poor composition on the part of the author. It may be asked, however, whether poetic considerations such as alliteration are at work. In this regard W. G. E. Watson comments: Consonantal patterns tend to force a poet's hand, leading to the selection of particular words or word-forms which best fit the alliterative scheme. They dictate the choice between synonyms, tip the scales in favour of rare words and word-forms and can also lead to the avoidance of certain words as non-alliterative.34 In a study of Second lsaiah, L. Boadt suggested that the author uses prepositions in unexpected ways in order to heighten allitera-

' '11

""11,

"11'"

26 Rabinowitz,

"11 . . 29

"11'"

'Alleged Orphism', 198. E. Qimron, 'The Psalms Scroll from Qumran: A Linguistic Survey', Les. 34 (1969-70), 99-116, esp. 107 (Hebrew); see also Qimron, The Hebrew 01 the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986),33-34,59. 28 See Cross, 'David', 69. Haran, 'Two Text-Forms', 175-76. 30 See Haran, 'Two Text-Forms', 175-76. 31 Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151'. 32 Weinfeld, 'Angelic Song', 154. 33 The abverbial use of the phrase in initial position (/Above ... ') is common in older West Semitic texts (e.g. Ugaritic), but does not appear suitable here. 34 W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques OSOfSUP, 26; Sheffield: JSOf, 1984)/228. 27 See

29

SMITH: PSALM 151A (l1QPsa 28.3-12)

191

tion. 35 Such a hypothesis may be tested against the use of" and "l' in llQPsa 28.3-12. When alliterative considerations are introduced into the discussion, the usage seems to reflect a creative use on the part of the author-redactor. SpecifieaIly, using -, instead of -:::I works weIl with the other -, in the first line: " ... ~". Similarly, ~" maintains the same alliteration in the second line: "l' ... ~". Sonant aspects mayaiso govern the selection of "'l" and "'l' as parallel verbs, even though these verbs are hardly a known word-pair. 36 The verbs as weIl as the prepositional phrases and negative particles in these two parallellines may be considered examples of 'sound pairs', according to the definition of A. Berlin: 'the repetition in parallel words or lines 0/ the same or similar consonants in any order within elose proximity' .37 Such prosodie considerations may He behind the modifications to the more traditional grammar and usage. The suffixes on -,:::1,* and the two ca ses of -Wl'~* in this line and the next were all read as yod by Sanders and Skehan, but Strugnell and Cross read waw in all three instances. 38 T. H. Gaster, followed by Morton Smith, voieed strong criticism of Cross's readings. 39 According to E. Puech,40 the suffixes on the nouns are to be read as yod. While yod and waw are similar when the head of yod is thin, the heads of these letters are thick, even triangular, which is characteristic of many instances of yod in this text, but only rarely at best of waw. Cross allows that yod may be the correct reading on -,:::1, and 'may be a confusion of the scribe'. (Or, could haplography be involved due to the following waw, hence ',:::I,?) In the cases of -WJ)~*, the letter is longer but exhibits the stance more characteristic of yod. The readings of the editio princeps therefore are retained here. Finally, Strugnell, though he reads these letters as waw, perhaps provides some indirect evidence for reading yod. As noted above, the Greek and Syriac versions provide no corresponding text for this section, but Strugnell discusses a version in an Arabic psalter which renders all of the perti-

35

Boadt, 1ntentional Alliteration', CBQ 45 (1983), 353--63, esp. 357-59.

36 Y. Avishur discusses the word-pairs 'lt> and 100" and 'll" and 1100", as weIl as "11" and n~''', but not ilt> and "11". See Avishur, Stylistic Sfudies Word-

0/

Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT, 210; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984). ~ Berlin, The Dynamics 0/ Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington/lndianapolis: Indiana University, 1985) 104; Berlin's italies. 38 StrugneIl, 'Notes', 280; Cross, 'Notes', 69. See also Garcia Martfnez, 'Salmos ap6crifos'; The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (English translation by W.G.E. Watson; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 310. 39 Gaster apud Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151', 253. 40 Puech, personal communication, cited with permission and gratitude.

192 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA nent suffix fonns as first person singular.41 Strugnell comments of the passage: 'The closeness in thought is surely too great to be accidental'. It may be that this point applies to the issue of the suffixes. To be sure, the Arabic version's reading of all the suffixes in the lines corresponding to 11QPsa 28.6-7 as first person singular is not original. However, the Arabic version may have inherited one or more first person suffixes, which was levelled through the rest of the suffixal forms at some point in the tradition. The two ca ses of ~1101t in this line and the next have been translated generally to mean 'deeds'. Skehan drew attention to '~.P,~ in Ps 45.2 and argued that the correct rendering in both instances is 'my compositions,.42 In its description of David's praise of God, Ben Sira 47.8 (manuscript B) reads m"i11m ,i1rv110 ":;':J, wh ich may be rendered 'with all his compositions he offered praises'. This passage is especially dose to the language and context of Psalm 151. Finally, this interpretation improves the poetic parallelism. The resulting arrangement in line 6 is of double bicola exhibiting synonymous parallelism as found thus far clearly in lines 3b-4a and arguably in lines 4b-5. The syntactical difficulty with this solution for line 6 is the lack of a verb clearly heading the scond bicolon. For that reason, it might be argued that the lines should be rearranged accordingly, perhaps in the following manner. 43 The mountains do not witness to hirn, ,,, "'11' ~'''t:l''i1i1 Neither the hills; ml1:J1i1' The boughs of the trees do not tell t:l'~11i1 '''11 ,,'J' ~,,, my words, 'i::n n~ Neither the sheep, my deeds. 'rv110 n~ 1~'~i1' While the grammatical difficulty is alleviated by this approach, the resulting poetic parallelism for the first bicolon militates against this solution. Furthermore, this approach requires a scribal error in reading '''11 for '''11. In this instance it may be wiser to allow the apparent poetic parallelism to lead to the understanding of the grammar instead of assuming prior grammatical constraints on the poetic expression. The fourth unit of lines 7-8a also has some major interpretational cruces. A. Hurvitz insightfully proposes that the titles, 'Lord of All' b':;'i1l1'~) and 'God of All' (",:;'i1 i11"~) should be recognized here.«

41 Strugnell, 'Notes', 280. 42 Skehan, ,Apocryphal Psalm 151', 407 43 This possibility was raised by Professor

J. Hoftijzer (personal communication). «Hurvitz, 'Adon Hakkol ("':>;"!1"~)" Tarb~ 34 (1964-65),224-27; 'Language and Date', 83-87; 'Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

193

Sanders had noted m, 'n:hp'~ in 1QH 10.8.45 Hurvitz compared the first title with [']'?'~ ",;:, P'~ in 40403 1.ii.33, and the title is reconstructed in a text that was unavailable to Hurvitz, namely 40409 line 8: "';:'ill[1'~ n~ 1':1'], 'land bless the Lo1rd of all, praise ... '.46 J. A. Fitzmyer notes 1C6p1.o~ xav"tQ)v 'lord of all' in Romans 10.12 as weIl as ~~f t:l'~1 ill/fl, 'Lord and Master over all', in 1QApGen 20.13 and, in Josephus, Antiquities 20.4.22.90, "toov xav"tQ)v ... ~vov Kai xpOO"tov il'Y11J.1.a1. Kup1.oV 1 have considered you the first and only Lord of all'.47 The second title may be compared with 'il"~ in Ben Sira 33.1 and 45.23 and ";:'il [']il1"~ in 5QRegle 1.2.48 The titles are paralleled also in Ben Sira 18.1-2 (cited below in section 111).49 Most accept the yod reading, but they do not translate 'my deeds', a notable exception being Rabinowitz. 5o Rather, they construe the final yod as the plural form in construct to the following divine title ('deeds of the King of All', or the like) as rendered above in section I. (Hurvitz considers both possibilities.) It should be noted that all renderings require some relative imbalance of lines. Finally, it should be noted that the Greek and Arabic versions understand as an object 'for whatever their judgement is worth' .51 Another way to read this unit, which preserves the divine titles, is as folIows. For who will tell and who can express ,:1,' ,~, "1' ,~ ';:' And who will relate my deeds? 'ID,\]~ n~ '00' ,~, The Lord of All has seen, il~' p'~ The God of All, he has heard '\]~rD ~'il il'''~ and he has listened. l'T~il ~'il' Though without parallel, the context might seem to favour 'my compositions' or 'my deeds', since the preceding context concerns David's deeds and words. Commentators perhaps overlook this possibility not only because of the lack of paralleIs, but because the idea of David's self-proclamation conflicts with preconceptions of

""il

",p

";:'il

"';:'il

"'::>il "';:'il

Psalm from Qumran', RQ 5 (196~6), 228, n. 7. This view is, however, not accepted by a number of commentators, a notable exception being Cross ('Notes', 70). 45 Sanders, Psalms Sero 11, 57. 46 See E. Qimron, "firnes for Praising God: A Fragment of a Scroll from Qumran', JQR 80 (1990), 341-47. This evidence meets part of Skehan's objections voiced in 'Again', 147. 47 Fitzmyer, RotfUlnS (AB, 33; Garden City: Doubleday, 1992), 593. 48 The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. I: Alef (ed. D.J.A. Clines; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 280. 49 See p.w. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 278, 295. 50 Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 196. 51 Strugnell, 'Notes', 281.

194 TIiE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA David's humility. Yet it is arguable that this is the central point in the Hebrew version: David recounts his devotion in Iines 3-7, which is why God rewards him in Iines 7-12.52 This approach, as represented in the translation immediately above, has two problems, however. The length of the last line is conspicuous. Furthermore, the theology implied by the second line, which would have David praising himself rather than God, seems odd and lacks paralleis. In contrast, the reading offered by the line division and translation in section I incurs no such problems. The only point to note is the initial position of the ·qatal form in the third poetic line; such syntax has paralleis in the biblical corpus (e.g. Exod 15.9, 10, 13, 14; Deut 32.5, 26; Judg 5.7, 19).53 The fifth unit seems the longest, running from line 8b through the end of line 10. The two bicola in Iines 8b-9 offer no problems. The defective spelling of ,m for ,~m in line 9 is notable. It is likewise attested in the 11QPsa 21.11 version of Ben Sira 51.14: ;"n:l''? ;'~::J, Iiterally 'she came to me in her beautY.54 (Given the context, the last word in this c1ause may involve paranomasia with ;"n::J, 'with torah'.) The major interpretive issue in this unit is whether to read line 10 as two or four lines. The parallelism here is open to either interpretation. There are two factors in favour of seeing only two poetic Iines in line 10. The internal parallelism of the last poetic line in line 9 would perhaps suggest the same in the case of line 10a. Moreover, the syntax of what is taken here as two lines is more properly speaking a single line from a grammatical point of view. There are two points which perhaps suggest reading the unit as four Iines. The addition of c'm'?~ relative to LXX might imply an attempt to fill out the obviously short line. Furthermore, most of the other units in this poem seem to be double bicola, and the same may be the case here. The final unit of the first poem exhibits the double bicola structure as found c1early in most units of this poem and arguably for all the units. For the first line of the second poem Talmon reconstructs the lacuna 'n[l'l:lrD], 'I [hearJd'.55 Sanders has read instead 'n[']~i, which admittedly is less suitable.

52 For this two-fold division, see Sanders, Psalms Seroll, 56. 53 See P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew,

Part Three: Syntax (Subsidia Biblica 14. 11; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991) ~155k (reference courtesy of Professor T. Muraoka). 4 The form ,n or '1M for ,~n 'form, beauty' occurs twice elsewhere in Ben Sira, in the Masada manuscript of 43.9 and 18 (Dr J.F. Elwolde, personal communication). 55 Talmon, 'Pisqah', 20.

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

195

IV: Sources tor the poem'5 composition The various phrases known from 1 SamueI16-17, with some echoes from 15 as well, constituted the building blocks for the external edifice of this text (marked in the translation as A, B, B' and A'). (This is true not only of the first psalm attested here in lines 3 through 12, but also in the second psalm, the beginning of whose poem is preserved fragmentarily in lines 13-14.) The following list contains fourteen items from 1 Samuel 15-18 which served as building blocks for 11QPsa 28.3-12. llQPsa 28

1 Samuell5-18

3 he anointed me/ 11 ('JnrDr.l',) 15.17 (~r:)~1?'1) you anoint with oil 11 (Jr.lrD:J 'JnrDr.l'1) 16.13 (mP1?~119rP.iJ); cf. 18.14, 16

56 Cf.

'n"i! l~ in Ben Sira 51 :27 (B).

196 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

In addition to the material from 1 Samuel 15-18, four eases of borrowings from other royal biblical passages may be noted. 15. my eompositions

6 'Wl10 Ps 45.2 '~pr.l57 (Ben Sira 47.8 [B]

16. took from after the sheep

10--11 l~'~il ,n~ 'Jnp" 2 Sam 7.81~~;:T 'IJ~~ ... '1'I:1T?P-'r8 Ps 78.71 nil117 i~':;lD ni'?.p 'IJ~

17. anointed with holy Oil59 18. leader for his people

n"'illm 'iltom '?::l:J)

11 rD"Pill0rD 'JnrDo" Ps 89.21 "I:1r;t~9 '~li? 19rp,~

11 'O.!1? "lJ 1 Sam 13.14 iO,p-'?,p "~; cf. 1 Sam 8.16, 10.1; 2 Sam 6.21,7.8, ete.

The net effect of these eomparisons is noteworthy. It is evident that the two outer envelopes, lines 3-5 and 8-12, are eonstrueted mainly from expressions found in 1 Samuel. The poem in the two outside envelopes uses material from 1 Samuel 15-18 (but mainly 1617), and then the author-redaetor filled in this construetion with the material from his own hand. Many non-biblieal and late expressions serve to eomplete the outer edifiee of the poem and a small part of its inner strueture as weIl. Ten such expressions in lines 3-5 and 8-12 appear in the foIlowingorder. 1. 2.

3. 4.

'n~/ /':J~ 'J:J (3)60 ,'n1',J:J?rDO (4)61

C'W" in an expression of 'giving' honour (5)

rDElJ:J ... 'O~" (5)62

5-6. '?'::lil p'~/ /'?'::lil i11'?~ (7-8)63

57 Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151',407. 58 2 Sam 7.8 refers back to 1 Samuel 16.

Noted by Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151',407. Haran (Two Text-Forms', 174) rightly regards the parallelism as innovative on the part of the author-redactor, especially in view of the biblical wordpair, 'brother' j j'sons of mother'. He considers it artificial, but the change over and against the standard biblical parallel word-pair may represent a su~rior evocation of the theme of 1 SamueI15-18. 1 See Haran, Two Text-Forms', 175. 62 Cf. the BH idiom, ::J"::J 'r.l~" (e.g. Pss 14 = 53.1; also Qoh 2.1, 3.17, etc. as noted by Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 197). 63 For the parallelism of divine titles, see Ps 114.7. So Sanders, Psalms Seroll,

59 60

SMITH: PSALM 151A (l1QPsa 28.3-12)

8.

7.

'J"'l" "..-1r.lrD (8-9)64 il..-iOil 'El'1 i1nil 'El' (9)

9. 10.

tJiW1:JtJ'El'il (10) 1n'i:J 'J:J:J (11-12).

197

These ten expressions do not occur in the Greek and Syriac versions, but only in the expanded Hebrew version, rightly emphasized by Haran.65 They show four strategies for completing lines. First, the author-redactor extends usage from material in the older version of the poem. So, for example, "rzio* in line 4 draws on the more traditional use of this word attested in line 11 (written superIinearly). In a similar vein, tJ'lD* as a verb for giving honour in line 5 is perhaps an extension of this verb's more regular usage in line 11. Perhaps the expression 1n'i:J 'J:J:J in 11-12 owes its first noun to 'J:J in line 3. Second, the poet used traditional bibIical wordings (in addition to items noted above). So the construction of the parallel :Jl1J] and i1J:::l in line 4 was completed in accord with this traditional word-pair known in Gen 4.21, Ps 150.4, Job 21.12 and 30.31. Similarly, il..-iOil 'El'1 i1m 'El' in line 9 shows a modification of 1 Sam 17.42 (il~1~ il;;l~)66 and 16.12 N~" :Jit:l1 tJ~~'.!' il;;l~). 'The handsome hair of David's brothers is a trait borrowecI from Absalom (2 Sam 14. 26)'F Third, the poet used non-bibIical and current reIigious language. This would seem to apply to "1:::lil1""-/ /"1:::lil in Iines 7-8 (as noted above). Perhaps to be included here is the phrase, 1n'i:J 'J:J:J, in 11-12 which may have sounded traditional to the poet. Fourth, the poet ventured new parallel expressions to match material borrowed from 1 Samuel: for 'Jm~10" in line 8, 'J"'l" in line 9; and, for ono'p:J tJ'il:JJil in line 9, tJil'lD:::l tJ'El'il in line 10. Given these observations, the poet at times appears more adroit at using older material than in coining original expressions or even in offering parallel expressions. A further observation, one perhaps even more conspicuous, may be derived from noting the distribution of the borrowings from 1 Samuel: the central section of the poem shows no comparable borrowing. Here the 'midrash' ends, unveiling the main thematic point

il1"..-

57. 64 Haran, 'Two Text-Forms', 176. 65 It may be added that it is precisely many of these items which provided the linguistic basis for a post-exilic date. See Hurvitz, 'Language and Date'; Haran, 'fwo Text-Forms', 172-73. 66 Cf. Esther 1.11. 67Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151',407.

198 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA placed strategically in the rniddle. Before pursuing this point, it is necessary to study the poet's sources for this section as weil, not only to discem this main point more clearly, but also to exarnine the poet's method of construction in the rniddle sections of his poem (marked in the translation as C and C). As noted above, "'~i1 p'~/ /"'~i1 i11"~ in lines 7-8 constitute idioms current in the author-redactor's time. For form and content, other sources provided models. The form of the statement in lines 5--6 echoes biblical passages. Sanders eited Mic 6.12, Isa 44.23 and 55.12.68 The addition of the negative in line 6 seems to represent the author-redactor's modification. The negative form of this assertion relative to biblical models has been attributed to the influence of Orphism, but this view met with strong criticism and is not generally held now. 69 In either case, David's claim in line 6 seems superlative in comparison with the biblical examples. Regarding the question in line 7, Sanders compared Isa 40.12-13 as weil as a number of passages in Ben Sira. Of these, Ben Sira 16.22 (manuscript B) is perhaps the most pertinent since like line 7, it juxtaposes ~1.70* with an interrogative clause containing'O + the HiNI of 'll*: U"J' '070[,]p'~ i1lDm, 'my (?) righteous deeds, who can relate?'. The Creek text of Ben Sira 18.1-2,4 is also helpful, as it contains the same juxtaposition of question and statement about Cod known from llQPsa 28.7. 71 P.W. Skehan translates: The Etemal is the judge 0/ all alike; Kupu>~ J.L6v~ 5UCUlCJlEhlO"E'tUl the Lord alone is just. KUt OUK EO"'tlV äU~ 1tAi1v au'tou

Whom has he made equal ou9EVt E~E1tOillO"EV to describing his works, E~UrYE'iAal 'tu EPYU uu'toU and who can probe KUt 'ti~ E~lxvuiO"El his mighty deedS?72 'tu J.LE)'UAE'iu uu'toU 1QS 11.20 shows a similar question: i1~"::O n~ "'~i1" ",~, '0' (cf.1QH frg 16.4-5). 68 Sanders, Psalms SerolI, 69 See Sanders, 'Psalm

57. 151'; Charlesworth with Sanders, 'More Psalms'; Magne, 'Orphisme'; "'Seigneur de l'univers"'. For strenuous eriticism, see Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism'; Cross, 'David' esp. 71; Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151'; see also Skehan, 'Again', 147. 70 There seems to be a question of whether the suffix is to be read as waw or ~od, but eontext favours yod. 1 To the best of my knowledge, the parallel was proposed first by M.R. Lehman, 'l1QPs8 and Ben Sira', RQ 11 (1983),249. See also Weinfeld, 'AngeHe Song', 154-55. The paralleIs between Ben Sira and the non-bibHeaI texts in l1QPs8 are notable (as are its paralleIs with Jubilees) and may prove helpful in locating more precisely the sort of cirdes involved in the final stages of the woduction of the Psalms Seroll. Skehan in Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom 0/ Ben Sira, 278.

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

199

In general, the author-redactor drew on contemporary religious idiom to construct the centre of the poem just as he had inherited and modified material from 1 Samuel 15-18 for the outer part of the poem. The reason for this difference perhaps lies with the Samuel material: the outer sections of A and A' and Band B' focus on the deeds of David and God, while the central sections of C and C' dweIl on David's internal expressions about his relationship with God, a subject for whieh 1 Samue115-18 did not provide ready material. The author-redactor therefore turned to more contemporary religious expression. The twist on this expression, if correctly understood, would appear to be the author-redactor's own. 11QPsa 28.4-8 stresses David's piety and knowledge of the divine. Perhaps thanks to the prophetie gift of his musie (line 4), David has the capacity to give witness to God unlike the mountains and hills (lines ~). This witness that nature is incapable of rendering includes 'my compositions' and 'my words', that is, David's own faithful words (line 6). Thus, David asks who can appreciate his devotion, and the answer is God. Or, it might be said, 'only God'. The third person singular pronoun in line 8 seems to express an implicit contrast73; that is, only God has seen and heard. Both the question and response witness to David's piety insofar as his words in praise of God are known fully only by God. In turn, God's glory is made manifest by David's unparalleled praise. This presentation of David's internal expression in lines 6-7 represents the author-redactor's single greatest departure from either biblical and extra-biblical models or the Hebrew Vorlage of his composition. This passage perhaps represents the author-redactor's own special contribution to the traditional characterization of David. The words of David mediate knowledge of God to the reading community. Nature does not fathom the designs of God, but these have been providentially provided in this, the last psalm of 11QPsa (not to mention the LXX), perhaps even as a commentary on the view of David underlying the scroll as a whole. (This would be consistent with the exalted portrait of David in column 27.5-11, whieh may have served as the final comment in an earlier stage of the scroll). Moreover, David is a model for the community; in the words of I. Rabinowilz: This psalm is a homily with David as exemplum: David, though an insignificant stripling, glorified the Lord, and SO came himself to glory; we too, then, humble though we may

73 For this use, see S.A. GeIler, 'Cleft Sentences with Pleonastic Pronoun: A Syntactic Construction of Biblical Hebrew and Some of its Literary Uses', JANES 20 (1991), 22.

200 lHE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

be, may expect future glory if now we honour God?4 If the author-redactor's own material betrays his special view of the collection, it falls on the avenue of divine communication embodied in the words of David. This view may have been traditional in the post-exilic psalmic tradition, and it is consistent with other descriptions of David.

V: Stylistic strategies in the poem's composition The content of the poem exhibits traditional strategies; this is true also of style. The poem largely adheres to traditional canons of synonymous parallelism. Not in every ca se is the paraHelism fuHy maintained (e.g. t:l:::l t:l'il1'?~/i11i1' 1n:::l ~1'? in line 10), but in general there seems to be an attempt at regularity. The extant Hebrew version generally represents an expansion of an older poem, surviving perhaps only fragmentarily in the Greek and Syriac versions. Based on the style of expansions identified in the preceding section, it is possible to observe the poet's stylistic strategy in creating this poem. First, the arrangement of lines into groupings of two bicola was invented by the author-redactor of the extant Hebrew version. This is clear from the following additions relative to the Greek and Syriac versions: 1. The addition of 1'nl'iD '?tzil0l in line 4 provided a fourth line to the first set of double bicola in lines 3-4. 2. To form the second group of double bicola, a second bicolon in line 5 was added to the first one in line 4. 3. The third set of double bicola in Iines 5-6 apparently was an original creation in the Hebrew version which perhaps iIIustrates the author-redactor's own plan at work. 4. The fourth set of double bicola in lines 7-8 is difficult to assess against the Greek and Syriac evidence, and perhaps Sanders, Strugnell and others are correct in seeing haplography at work in the Greek and Syriac versions. For the first part of this section, LXX seems to assume a different Vorlage: 't'~7 i'~~'O'::P Kuhit; avuYYEAEl -Ci> Kupiep ~u l?r,;l~ ~~i1 '~.,~ ~~i1 umot; Kupw~ umot; dauKouE~. If correct, it is possible that the Hebrew version essentially doubled the amount of material, issuing in a double bicolon for this unit. The details are unclear, however, and it is impossible to assess exactly the degree of manipulation of the Hebrew Vorlage that was before the author-redactor of the extant Hebrew version.

74

Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 199.

SMITH: PSALM 151A (11QPsa 28.3-12)

201

5-6. For the fifth and sixth sets of double bicola in lines 8-10, it is possible that the Greek and Syriac versions had a tricolon and a bicolon in their Hebrew Vorlage: au'to~ e/;a'ltEcm:tAnr 'tov ä:YYEMV au'tou i~~'?on~ Kat TIPE JlE eK 'trov 'ltpoß(X't