The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira at Strasbourg University, June 2014 9789004366770, 9004366776

Citation preview

The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke Associate Editors Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

VOLUME 124

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj

The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira at Strasbourg University, June 2014 Edited by

Jan Joosten Daniel Machiela Jean-Sébastien Rey

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and  Ben Sira (7th : 2014 : Strasbourg University) | Joosten, Jan, editor. |  Machiela, Daniel A., editor. | Rey, Jean-Sébastien, editor. Title: The reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic period : proceedings  of the seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea  Scrolls and Ben Sira at Strasbourg University, June 2014 / edited by  Jan Joosten, Daniel Machiela, Jean-Sébastien Rey. Description: Leiden : Boston ; Brill, [2018] | Series: Studies on the texts  of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; volume 124 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018025927 (print) | LCCN 2018027204 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004366770 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004365872 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Hebrew language, Post-Biblical—Congresses. | Dead Sea  scrolls—Congresses. | Bible. Ecclesiasticus—Language, style—Congresses. Classification: LCC PJ4865 (ebook) | LCC PJ4865 .A35 2018 + (print) |  DDC 492.4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018025927

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9962 isbn 978-90-04-36587-2 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-36677-0 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii Jan Joosten, Daniel Machiela, Jean-Sébastien Rey 1 The Clause “The Lord is a Man of War” )‫ )ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬and its Reflexes throughout the Generations 1 Moshe Bar-Asher 2 Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry 16 Mats Eskhult 3 Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew 30 Steven E. Fassberg 4 Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the Syntax and Semantics of the War Scroll (1QM)—Laying the Groundwork 44 Robert D. Holmstedt 5 Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of Tiberian and Qumran Hebrew: The Preservation of Early Linguistic Features in Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Hebrew 61 Aaron D. Hornkohl 6 Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew: A Diachronic View 93 Jan Joosten 7 The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200: A Contextual Reassessment 104 Daniel Machiela 8 ‫“ תכמי בשר‬Body Parts”: The Semantic History of A Qumran Hebrew Lexeme 123 Noam Mizrahi 9 Linguistically Significant Variants in Qumran Fragments of Psalms 158 Takamitsu Muraoka

vi

CONTENTS

10 Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew 173 Tzvi Novick 11 The Etymology of ‫“ זעטוט‬Youth, Young Man” 189 Gary A. Rendsburg 12 Is the Hebrew of the Cairo Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira Relevant for the Study of the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period? 213 Jean-Sébastien Rey 13 Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira’s Hebrew: The 3ms Heh Pronominal Suffix 226 Eric D. Reymond 14 Ṣade—Shin Change in the Dead Sea Scrolls 245 Alexey Eliyahu Yuditsky and Chanan Ariel Index of Modern Authors 253 Index of Ancient Sources 259

Preface The International Symposia on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira were launched in 1995 at the initiative of Takamitsu Muraoka and Elisha Qimron. Over the years they have provided an important forum for the study of Qumran Hebrew in its cultural and historical context. The Symposia have been open to all fields of linguistic inquiry: orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, style, typology, diachrony, languages-in-contact, and sociolinguistic approaches. They have been instrumental in turning the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls into a fully-fledged object of study. This has had important repercussions on Hebrew studies more general. Whereas formerly Tiberian Hebrew was regarded as the universal norm of Ancient Hebrew, today it stands as one variety of the language alongside several others (as is now superbly documented in the two-volume Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, edited by Randall Garr and Steve Fassberg and published by Eisenbrauns in 2016). The Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira took place in Strasbourg from 22 to 25 June 2014. Aside from the usual care to select excellent speakers, the organizers made a concerted effort to invite more North American scholars than in the earlier symposia. As in the earlier Symposia, the participants included both established scholars and more junior researchers. Seventeen papers were presented, of which fourteen are published in the present proceedings. The editing process has taken an inordinately long time. We hope it was worth the wait. Our thanks go to the participants in the Symposium, who exercised their learnedness and creativity to make it a success. We are grateful, too, to the Équipe d’accueil 4378 Théologie protestante of the University of Strasbourg, the Centre Écritures, the Maison des Sciences Humaines of the University of Lorraine and the ANR/DFG project PLURITEXT, McMaster University, the City of Strasbourg, and last but not least the Institut Universitaire de France, which all provided funds enabling the organization of the Symposium. We are grateful to Marieke Dhont and Myles Schoonover who read the proofs and prepared the indexes. We also thank George Brooke for accepting these proceedings in the series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah (Leiden: Brill) and Maaike Langerak for her incredible editorial work. Jan Joosten Daniel Machiela Jean-Sébastien Rey

chapter 1

The Clause “The Lord is a Man of War” )‫ )ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬and its Reflexes throughout the Generations Moshe Bar-Asher Introduction 1. A unique usage of an epithet for God appears in the Hebrew Bible. This usage appears only once, in the ancient text of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1–19). For at least fifteen hundred years after the Song, beginning within the Hebrew Bible itself and concluding with various genres of rabbinic literature, it is possible to discern the views expressed with regard to this idiom. It is possible to discern these views both from the way this unique expression was transmitted, and the way it was re-used in the Tannaitic period. In this study I will trace the various transformations of this expression and discuss them. 2. This study is, of course, primarily diachronic. The study of this divine epithet has both linguistic aspects regarding one of its components, as well as extra-linguistic aspects that are relevant to the realm of religious beliefs. It can be said that these theological considerations determined the attitudes of later generations to the epithet. This finds expression within the Hebrew Bible itself, as well as in extra-biblical sources and the earliest biblical exegetes, namely the translations of the Bible into various languages.

From “Man of War” to “Warrior”

3. It is well known that the Song of the Sea is one of the most ancient parts of the Hebrew Bible. This poetic text represents the most ancient layer of Biblical Hebrew. It is assumed that the text of the Song of the Sea was already in existence in the tenth century bce, perhaps even a century earlier. The Song is replete with many very ancient words, expressions, and linguistic forms. Most of these are quite rare; some do not appear again in the Hebrew Bible, not even in the books composed during the First Commonwealth.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_002

2

Bar-Asher

4. One of these expressions is the phrase ‫“( ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬man of war”), which is an epithet for God in the clause ‫“ ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord is a man of war” (Exod 15:3). This clause appears only once in ancient biblical poetry, and never again in the entire Hebrew Bible. In this study I discuss the phrase ‫ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ (“man of war”) as an epithet for God and trace its development through the Tannaitic period, when an alternate expression was used in the composition of a fixed formula for blessings. 5. God, the syntactical subject of the clause ‫“( ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord is a man of war”), is described by means of the construct phrase ‫“( ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬man of war”), which functions as the predicate of the clause. In all other occurrences of the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬in the Hebrew Bible, it refers to human beings. For example, Makhir, the firstborn son of Menashe (the father of Gilead), is described in the Hebrew Bible thus: ‫“ ִּכי הּוא ָהיָ ה ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬for he was a man of war” (Josh 17:1). David, the youngest son of Jesse of Bethlehem, is described as ‫“ י ֵֹד ַע נַ ּגֵ ן וְ גִ ּבֹור ַחיִ ל וְ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬skillful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war” (1 Sam 16:18). Even Goliath the Philistine is referred to with the same expression: ‫“ וְ הּוא ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ִמּנְ ֻע ָריו‬and he was a man of war from his youth” (1 Sam 17:33). There are additional occurrences of this expression in the Hebrew Bible. 6. Since this expression almost always describes human beings, it also appears in the Hebrew Bible in the plural form. For example, ‫ַעד ּתֹם ָּכל ַהּדֹור‬ ‫“ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬until the entire generation, the men of war were consumed” (Deut 2:14), ‫“ וַ יְ ִהי ַכ ֲא ֶׁשר ַּתּמּו ָכל ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬when all the men of war were consumed” (Deut 2:16), ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל […] ִּכי ֵה ָּמה ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ִ “But of the children of Israel […] they were men of war” (2 Chr 8:9). There are many more occurrences of this phrase. It occurs also with a pronominal suffix; for example, ‫ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ְל ַח ְמ ֶּתָך‬ “they that warred against you”—literally, “your men of war” (Isa 42:12). 7. There are occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of this construct phrase where the nomen rectum takes the plural form: ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬. For example, this is the form in one of David’s addresses to the leaders of the nation shortly before his death: ‫ֹלהים ָא ַמר ִלי […] ִּכי ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות ַא ָתה‬ ִ ‫“ וְ ָה ֱא‬But God said unto me […] because you are a man of war …” (1 Chr 28:3). This is also the case in a verse that appears in the Hebrew Bible twice: ‫“ ִּכי ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ֲחמֹות ּת ִֹעי ָהיָ ה ֲה ַד ְד ָעזֶ ר‬For a man of wars [with] Toi had Hadadezer been,” literally, “for Hadadezer was Toi’s man of war” (2 Sam 8:10); the same form occurs in the parallel verse of 1 Chr 18:10.

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

3

8. When the prophet Isaiah, in a prophecy of consolation, speaks of God at war with his enemies, he uses one of the aforementioned phrases. However, the prophet uses the expression metaphorically and does not directly describe God using this epithet: ‫ ְּכ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות יָ ִעיר ִקנְ ָאה‬,‫“ ה׳ ַּכּגִ ּבֹור יֵ ֵצא‬The Lord will go forth as a mighty man; He will stir up jealousy like a man of wars” (Isa 42:13). The prophet does not designate God “a man of war” or “a man of wars” but rather “like a man of wars.” This is similar to the prophet’s use of imagery in the first hemistich of the verse—‫“ ַכּגִ ּבֹור‬as the mighty man.” The use of the attribute ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬in reference to God, then, occurs only once in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, in the quoted verse from the Song of the Sea: ‫ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬. 9. Let us now discuss a similar expression used for God in Rabbinic literature. There is one text where a similar usage was needed to refer to God in a fixed formula for blessings. It is well known that the first blessings before the reciting of the Shemaʿ were composed in the Tanaaitic period by the sages of Yavneh, towards the end of the first century ce in the generation following the destruction of the Second Temple. Some blessings, however, were composed in later periods—in the Amoraic period or even later. The blessings preceding and following the recitation of the Shemaʿ in the morning and evening prayers are already mentioned in the Mishnah: ,‫ַּב ַּׁש ַחר ְמ ָב ֵרְך ְׁש ַּתיִם ְל ָפנֶ ָיה וְ ַא ַחת ְל ַא ֲח ֶר ָיה‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ּוׁש ַּתיִם ְל ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ְ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ּוב ֶע ֶרב ְׁש ַּתיִ ם ְל ָפנ‬ ָ “In the morning two Benedictions are said before it [i.e., the Shemaʿ] and one after; and in the evening two Benedictions are said before it and two after it” (m. Ber. 1:2). Thus, the fundamentals of the blessings of the Shemaʿ were already composed by the Tannaim. 10. In the closing portion of the first blessing to precede the recitation of the Shemaʿ in the morning prayers, God is referred to by eight epithets, each one composed of two words. The epithets are: ‫ ַּב ַעל‬,‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ ,‫ּפֹועל גְ בּורֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאדֹון ַהּנִ ְפ ָלאֹות‬,‫נֹורא ְּת ִהּלֹות‬ ָ ,‫ּבֹורא ְרפּואֹות‬ ֵ ,‫ ַמ ְצ ִמ ַיח יְ ׁשּועֹות‬,‫זֹור ַע ְצ ָדקֹות‬ ֵ ,‫“ ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬performs mighty acts, creates new things, a warrior, who sows justice, produces triumphs, creates healing, revered in renown, Lord of wonder.”1 This is an

1  In Seder Rav ʿAmram Ga‌‌ʾon the text reads ‫( אדון נפלאות‬the second word lacks the definite article, like all of the other phrases). See Daniel Goldschmidt, ed., Seder Rav ʿAmram Ga‌‌ʾon (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1971), 13 [Hebrew].

4

Bar-Asher

ancient version of the prayer,2 and is in use in all prayer traditions even today. In this study we will deal with the third of these divine epithets, the phrase ‫“ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬a warrior,” beginning with some prefatory remarks regarding the language of the blessings composed by the sages. 11. It is well known that the sages composed the fixed formulae for blessings with words or phrases from Biblical Hebrew.3 The Tannaim did indeed compose their main works—the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Halakhic Midrashim and Seder Olam Rabbah—in Mishnaic Hebrew, which was the spoken language of their period. Mishnaic Hebrew did indeed absorb words from other languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Akkadian, and Persian). However, the Tannaim, the Amoraim, as well as the sages in later periods, systematically and consistently refrained from using loanwords in blessings, as I have shown in a study dedicated to this topic.4 In a separate study, I have shown that the use of Mishnaic Hebrew vocabulary and grammar in the fixed formulae for blessings is quite limited.5 12. I will now focus on the section of the blessing quoted above that contains the phrase ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬.6 This section, which contains eight epithets, was also composed with words taken from Biblical Hebrew. It is clear that the phrases ‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ ,‫נֹורא ְּת ִהּלֹות‬ ָ , and ‫זֹור ַע ְצ ָדקֹות‬ ֵ were borrowed as they appear in the Bible, or with only minimal changes. In particular, the phrase ‫נֹורא ְּת ִהּלֹות‬ ָ was borrowed unchanged from the verse in the Song of the Sea—‫נֹורא ְּת ִהּלֹות ע ֶֹׂשה‬ ָ ‫“ ֶפ ֶלא‬awesome in splendor, doing wonders” (Exod 15:11). The author of the blessing took the phrase from that verse and integrated it as one of the eight divine epithets. 13. The two other expressions are also based on biblical verses, but with slight changes. In the original text the nomen rectum appears in the singular: ‫ִהנְ נִ י‬ 2  This version appears for example in Seder Rav ʿAmram Ga‌‌ʾon (see ibid., 13) and in Mahzor Vitri (see H. Saul Horowitz and Israel A. Rabin, eds., Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishmael [2d ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970], 65 [Hebrew]). 3  See Moshe Bar-Asher, “The Formula of Blessings Ordained by the Sages,” Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World 4 (2010): 27–49 [Hebrew]. 4  See ibid., 31–34. 5  See Moshe Bar-Asher, “The Presence of Mishnaic Hebrew in Blessing Formulae,” in The Faces of Torah: Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade (ed. M. Bar-Asher Siegal, T. Novick, and C. Hayes; JAJSup 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 583–602. 6  For a preliminary study of this phrase see ibid., §§16–22.

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

5

‫“ ע ֶֹׂשה ֲח ָד ָׁשה ַע ָּתה ִת ְצ ָמח‬Behold I will do a new thing; now shall it spring forth” (Isa 43:19), and ‫“ וְ ז ֵֹר ַע ְצ ָד ָקה ֶׂש ֶכר ֱא ֶמת‬but he that sows righteousness has a true reward” (Prov 11:18). Since the second component in all eight phrases in this section of the blessing are in the plural form, the words ‫ ֲח ָד ָׁשה‬and ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬were changed to the plural form: ‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ and ‫זֹור ַע ְצ ָדקֹות‬ ֵ . Clearly, these two phrases were borrowed from the Hebrew Bible and only slightly modified.

14. The five remaining phrases are based on biblical words that were combined to form new, two-word divine epithets: ‫ ַמ ְצ ִמ ַיח‬,‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬,‫ּפֹועל ּגְ בּורֹות‬ ֵ ‫ּבֹורא ְרפּואֹות‬ ֵ ,‫יְ ׁשּועֹות‬, and ‫ ֲאדֹון ַהּנִ ְפ ָלאֹות‬. Even though these phrases do not appear as such in the Hebrew Bible, both components of each phrase do appear there. Therefore, we can justifiably state that their language is indeed Biblical Hebrew. 15. However, this raises a question. Since the sage who composed this portion of the blessing borrowed the phrase ‫נֹורא ְּת ִהּלֹות‬ ָ from the Song of the Sea and, among the other epithets, referred to God as one engaged in war, why did he not borrow the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬from the same “Song” and rephrase it as ‫ִאיׁש‬ ‫ ? ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬This would have mirrored the two phrases ‫ ע ֶֹׂשה ֲח ָד ָׁשה‬and ‫ז ֵֹר ַע ְצ ָד ָקה‬, which were rephrased in the plural (as ‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ and ‫זֹור ַע ְצ ָדקֹות‬ ֵ ). Indeed, it would not have been necessary to invent the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬with the nomen rectum in the plural form, since this phrase already appears in the Hebrew Bible, as we saw above.7 Why then was the phrase ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬used instead? 16. Clearly, later generations found it difficult to refer to God by the term ‫ִאיׁש‬ “man.” This difficulty is explicitly expressed in a homiletic interpretation, which appears in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael.8 The Mekhilta states, “‘The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name’ (Exod 15:3). It is not possible to say this (‫[= אי אפשר] לומר כן‬9 ‫… )ה׳ איש מלחמה ה׳ שמו—איפשר‬ Similarly, it is written 7  See above §7. 8  The quotations from the Mekhilta in this paragraph and below, in §18, are according to the text in Ma‌‌ʾagarim. I have added references to the page and line numbers in the HorowitzRabin edition. 9  I have added the expanded phrase in brackets. The orthographic form ‫ איפשר‬represents the phrase ‫ =( ֵאי ֶא ְפ ָׁשר‬impossible) and is the result of haplology (see Jaacov N. Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text [3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000], 1213–1216 [Hebrew]; Shimon Sharvit, Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008], 70–71 [Hebrew]; Moshe Bar-Asher, Introductions and Linguistic Investigations [vol. 1 of Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009], 138, 193 [Hebrew]).

6

Bar-Asher

‘for I am God and not man’ (‫ ;כי אל אנכי ולא איש‬Hos 11:9).”10 Hence, throughout the generations, the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬from the Song of the Sea (or the variant ‫ ) ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬was avoided as an epithet for God. That this is true in rabbinic literature is obvious. Strikingly, however, this is evident in the Hebrew Bible itself already, as well as in the tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch and later texts. It is also evident in the translations into Aramaic and other languages. I will now present this evidence and comment upon it. 17. The decision not to use the phrase from the Song of the Sea, and to replace it with a different expression, predates the composition of the aforementioned blessing. Two versions of this phenomenon appear in the Hebrew Bible itself: (A) One version is in Ps 24:8: ‫“ ה׳ ִעּזּוז וְ גִ ּבֹור ה׳ ּגִ ּבֹור ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty [in] battle.” The Psalmist was surely familiar with the phrase ‫“ ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord is a man of war,” but refrained from using the word “man” and instead used the word ‫“ ּגִ ּבֹור‬mighty.” (B) Similarly, the text of Exodus 15 in the Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‫׳ה׳ גבור ב�מ‬ ‫“ לחמה‬the Lord mighty in battle.”11 Here too, the original phrase “The Lord is a man of war” was changed; the noun “man” was replaced by the expression “mighty (in battle).” 18. Similar changes appear in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael (Mek. Shira 4). In addition to the homily quoted above,12 in some of the homilies to the verse 10  Following is a more complete quote (see tractate Shira ch. 4, lines 5–7 in Horowitz-Rabin, Mekhilta, 131; explanatory additions and biblical references appear in brackets): ‫‘ה׳ איש‬ ‫ הלא את השמים ואת‬,’‫מלחמה ה׳ שמו’—איפשר [= אי אפשר] לומר כן […] והלא כבר נאמ‬ )‫ כד‬,‫הארץ אני מלא’ (ירמיה כג‬. “‘The Lord is a man of war.’ It is impossible to say so. Has it not been said ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’” (Jer 23:24). The Mekhilta continues: ‫ומה ת’ל‬ ‫ וכן‬.‫ ‘ה׳ איש מלחמה ה׳ שמו’? מפני חיבתכם ומפני קדושתכם אקדש שמי בכם‬:]‫[= תלמוד לומר‬ ‫ ט) אקדש שמי בכם‬,‫הוא אומ’ ‘כי אל אנכי ולא איש’ וג’ (הושע יא‬. “What then does Scripture mean by saying ‘The Lord is a man of war’? Merely this: Because of My love for you and because of your holiness I sanctify My name by you. And in this sense it also says: ‘Though I am God and not a man,’ etc. [Hos 11:9], I sanctify my name by you.” In both quotations of the verse ‫( ה׳ איש מלחמה ה׳ שמו‬Exod 15:3). (I have changed the old spelling ‫[ ייי‬three yods] to ‫ה׳‬.) 11   See Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel-Aviv: Haim Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press, 2011), loc. cit. The reading of this verse appears in Zeʾev Ben-Hayyim, The Words of the Pentateuch, vol. 4 of The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1977), 418 [Hebrew]: sema gibbor bammalamma. 12  See above §16.

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

7

in question the word ‫“( ִאיׁש‬man”) was changed to ‫“( ּגִ ּבֹור‬mighty hero”). To be precise, this word appears as a simile: ‫“( כגבור‬like a mighty hero”)—“‫ה׳ איש‬ ‫“ ”מלחמה ה׳ שמו—נגלה עליהם כגבור חגור חרב‬The Lord is a man of war […] he appeared to them like a mighty hero girded with a sword,”13 “”‫ה׳ איש מלחמה‬ ‫‘“ למה נאמר? לפי שנגלה עליהם כגבור עושה מלחמות‬The Lord is a man of war.’ Why was this stated? Because he was revealed to them like a mighty hero who wages war.”14 19. This phenomenon, which appears in the Psalms, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Mekhilta, is also evident in the classical translations of the verse in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:3). We will first examine the Jewish Aramaic Targums. In the phrase ‫“ ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord is a man of war” (Exod 15:3), the targumim do not translate the word ‫( ִאיׁש‬man) as ‫ ּגְ ַבר‬or ‫( ֱאנָ ׁש‬which mean “man”), but rather use different Aramaic words. Targum Onkelos differs from the other translations not only concerning the translation of ‫ִאיׁש‬ but also of the word ‫“( ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬war”), which functions as the nomen rectum of the construct phrase. 20. Onkelos translates this phrase in Exod 15:3 thus: ‫“( ה׳ ָמ ֵרי נִ ְצ ָחן ְק ָר ָבא‬The Lord is the master [or lord] of victors in battle”).15 In two other occurrences in the Pentateuch, Onkelos translates the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬as ‫ ָמ ִרי‬, as in the phrase in the Song of the Sea. The phrase ‫“( ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ְקנֶ ה‬men of cattle” Gen 46:32, 34) is translated as ‫“( ָמ ֵרי גתי‬owners of flocks”). Undoubtedly the primary meaning of the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬in Onkelos is “owner” or “lord” with the connotation of “owner.” This is clear from the majority of occurrences of the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬in Targum Onkelos. Of the eighteen occurrences of the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬in this Targum, twelve times it comes as the translation of the noun ‫ ַּב ַעל‬or ‫ ְּב ָע ִלים‬. (“owner”). For example, ‫( ַּב ַעל הבור‬Exod 21:34): ‫“( ָמ ֵריּה דגובה‬the owner of the pit”); ‫( ַּב ַעל הבית‬Exod 22:7): ‫“( ָמ ֵריּה דביתא‬the owner of the house”); ‫( ַּב ַעל החלומות‬Gen 37:19): ‫ָמ ֵרי חלמיא‬ (“the master of dreams”); ‫( ַּוב ַעל השור‬Exod 21:28): ‫ּומ ֵריּה דתורא‬ ָ (“the owner of the ox”); ‫( ְּב ָע ָליו‬Exod 21:28): ‫“( ָמ ֵריּה‬its owner”). In one occurrence the singular 13  See Horowitz-Rabin, Mekhilta, 129 lines 4–6. 14  See loc.cit., lines 15–16. In the Horowitz-Rabin edition of the Mekhilta there are additional expressions (ibid., 130, lines 6–20 and 131, lines 1–4) where the word ‫ גבור‬is used as well as other parallel expressions. 15  The quotations from Targum Onkelos are according to Y. A. Hasid, Sefer Keter Tora (TAJ) ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1960). I also checked Alexander Sperber, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos, vol. 1 of The Bible in Aramaic based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Text (Leiden: Brill, 1959), but did not find any difference between the two editions.

8

Bar-Asher

noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬translates the plural form of the noun ‫ ָאדֹון‬, namely ‫“ וַ ֲאד ֹנֵ י האדונים‬Lord of lords,” Deut 10:17): ‫ּומ ֵרי מלכין‬ ָ (“owner16 of kings”).17 We can say that Onkelos’ translation of the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬by ‫ =( ָמ ֵרי‬owner) clearly resembles the use of the noun ‫ ַּב ַעל‬in the phrase ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬in the blessing formula. 21. The Palestinian Targum from the Genizah of Exod 15:318 reads ‫י’י ג[י]ברא‬ ‫ סדרי נצחני קרביכון‬19‫“( הוא דעבד לכון‬the mighty20 God who wages for you victorious battles in your wars”). The Fragment-Targum21 gives a similar reading:22 23‫“( ייי גיברא דהוא עביד לכון סדרי קרבא נצחני קרביכון‬the mighty God24 who wages for you victorious campaigns in your wars”). Similarly worded is the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum:25 ‫“( ה׳ גיברא עביד קרבינן‬Almighty26 God who wages our wars”).27 16  The plural form of the noun ‫ ָאדֹון‬, ‫ ֲאדֹונִ ים‬, is the pluralis majestatis in reference to God. As expected, Onkelos translates it as a singular Aramaic noun. 17  There are two other occurrences (Gen 4:20; Deut 15:2) where the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬translates other words; these are not relevant to our discussion here. Clearly, in all the occurrences, the main connotation of the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬is “owner.” 18  See Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 241, lines 8–9 (from folio 6 in ms. T-S 18269). 19  The letters printed in italics appear in the edition with question marks. 20  Perhaps the form ‫ר =( גיברא‬ ‭ ‫ גיב‬with the definite article) should be understood as an indefinite form as is the usage in Babylonian Aramaic. 21  See Michael L. Klein, Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays (vol. 1 of The FragmentTargums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources; AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 78. 22  This Targum gives Moses as the speaker (“Moses said unto them: The mighty God …”) but according to Pseudo-Jonathan this statement is pronounced by the people (“The children of Israel said: The mighty God who wages …”). 23  The Hebrew noun ‫( מלחמה‬war) is translated here by two phrases: ‫ סדרי קרבא‬and ‫נצחני‬ ‫קרביכון‬. 24  See above in footnote 20. 25  See David Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan—Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch copied from the London MS (British Museum add. 27031) (Jerusalem: Private publication [now out of print], 1974), 104. 26  Here I translated the word ‫ גיברא‬with an indefinite form because of the logical assumption that the language of this Targum was influenced by the usage current in Babylonian Aramaic (see footnotes 20 and 24, above). 27  The reading here in Pseudo-Jonathan, and to a certain extent in the Genizah and Fragment Targums, is already worded in the Mekhilta ‫“ כגבור עושה מלחמות‬like a mighty hero who wages war” (see above, towards the end of §18).

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

9

22. The Peshitta, in its customary fashion, translates the original three word phrase in Exod 15:3 by three words: ‫בתנָ א‬ ָ ‫קר‬ ַ ַ‫נּב ָרא ו‬ ָ ַ‫“( ָמריָ א ג‬The mighty Lord, and a warrior”). The word ‫ ִאיׁש‬is translated just as in the three Jewish targumim from the Land of Israel, except for a slight difference in pronunciation of the target word ‫( ּגַ ָּב ָרא‬here the first vowel is [a] rather than [i], and the nun is not pronounced). However, the noun ‫“( ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬war”) is translated in the Peshitta by only one word and was changed to the word meaning “warrior” (‫בתנָ א‬ ָ ‫קר‬ ַ ). In other words, by translating the noun ‫“( ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬war”) with the Aramaic noun ‫בתנָ א‬ ָ ‫קר‬ ַ (“a warrior”), the Peshitta employs two nouns to describe God instead of a construct phrase (‫“ גנבר קרבא‬a man of war”).28 23. The Septuagint translates the phrase in question from Exod 15:3 as follows:29 κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους (“God the shatterer of wars”).30 The Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible in two respects—instead of the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬the Septuagint employs a participle (συντρίβων), which expresses a special connotation of the word ‫ ִאיׁש‬, namely his abilities; and instead of the word for “war” in the singular, the Septuagint employs the plural form. The use of the plural form here may indicate that the translators of the Septuagint understood ‫“( ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬war”) to be a collective noun or perhaps this usage is based on the verse in Isa 42:13 where God is described as ‫“( כאיש מלחמות‬like a man of wars”),31 with the noun ‫ מלחמות‬taking the plural form. 24. Jerome, in the Vulgate, translates this phrase in Exod 15:3 differently: Dominus quasi vir pugnator (“God who fights as a man”). Instead of translating the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬by homo, which is the word usually used in the Vulgate for ‫ ִאיׁש‬, 28  At times, the word used to describe God and the word used to describe his action or attribute are interchanged, i.e., ‫“( ּגִ ּבֹור‬mighty hero”) and ‫בּורה‬ ָ ְ‫“( ּג‬might”). God is referred to as ‫ּגִ ּבֹור‬, for example, in the verses ‫“( האל הגדל ַהּגִ ּבֹר והנורא‬a great God, mighty and terrible,” Deut 10:17), ‫“( האל הגדל ַהּגִ ּבֹור ה׳ צבאות שמו‬the great, the mighty God, the Lord of hosts is his name,” Jer 32:18). In time, he was also referred to as ‫בּורה‬ ָ ְ‫“( ּג‬might”): ‫כל דיבור ודיבור‬ ‫“( שיצא מפי הגבורה נחלק לשבעים לשונות‬Every utterance pronounced by God [literally ‘might’] divides into seventy expressions,” b. Šabb. 88b). Similarly the Peshitta exchanges the word for “war” with the word meaning “warrior.” More can be said on this issue. 29  I wish to thank Dr. Nurit Shoval-Dudai of the Academy of the Hebrew Language’s Historical Dictionary Project for her assistance in clarifying matters related to the Septuagint and the Vulgate. 30  The footnotes to this verse in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia hint to the versions in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Peshitta, and the Septuagint, but it is difficult to rely on these hints. 31  See above §8.

10

Bar-Asher

Jerome employed the word vir, which means “man,” but also has the connotations of “hero” and “strength.” It is interesting to note that the Vulgate reads quasi vir (“as a man”) and not vir (“man”). This may reflect the verses ‫ה׳ ַּכּגִ ּבֹור‬ ‫“( יצא‬The Lord shall go forth as the mighty man,” Isa 42:13)32 and ‫ה׳ ּגִ ּבֹור מלחמה‬ (“the Lord mighty [in] battle,” Ps 24:8).33 Here, too, the noun ‫“( ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬war”) was changed to the word meaning “warrior” (pugnator) as in the Peshitta. 25. In short, the word ‫ ִאיׁש‬in the phrase ‫ ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬evolved in various ways. In the Psalms and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, it was replaced by ‫ּגִ ּבֹור‬. Most of the translations do likewise, either using a word parallel to the Hebrew word ‫ גיברא‬:‫( ּגִ ּבֹור‬the Palestinian Targum from the Genizah, the FragmentTargum and Pseudo-Jonathan), ‫( גנברא‬Peshitta); or an expression similar to the original: ‫( כגבור‬Mekhilta), quasi vir (Vulgate). The Septuagint and Targum Onkelos translate differently. The Septuagint employs the participle meaning “shatterer” (συντρίβων), while Onkelos uses the noun ‫ ָמ ֵרי‬, the exact parallel of the Hebrew nouns ‫ ָאדֹון‬,‫ ְּב ָע ִלים‬/‫ ַּב ַעל‬. Common to all of the translations is that none of them has the phrase from the Song of the Sea in its original form, and none translate the word ‫ ִאיׁש‬literally. 26. It seems that the biblical passages, the homilies in the Mekhilta, and the translations altered the phrase “The Lord is a man of war” to other expressions because of a common background, and for the same reason. They differ only in the expression chosen to replace ‫“ איש מלחמה‬man of war”: ‫גבור מלחמה‬ “the Lord mighty [in] battle” (Ps 24:8), ‫“ גבור במלחמה‬the Lord mighty in battle” (Samaritan Pentateuch) and similar translations in most of the Aramaic targumim cited above, ‫“ גנברא וקרבתנא‬a hero and a warrior” (Peshitta) and quasi vir pugnator (“as a fighting man” (Vulgate). The choice of expressions is especially unique in the Septuagint (συντρίβων πολέμους) and in Targum Onkelos ‫מרי נצחן קרבא‬, as stated above, and in the blessing preceding the recitation of the Shemaʿ, which reads ‫“ בעל (מלחמה >) מלחמות‬a warrior” (literally “a master of wars”). 27. In a very ancient period, it was possible to use anthropomorphic expressions and refer to God as “a man of war.” However, in later periods, a new way of thinking developed, which did not view favorably referring to God in the same way as one refers to human beings. This is reflected in the homily that appears in the Mekhilta “‘The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name’ (Exod 15:3). 32  See ibid. 33  See above §17.

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

11

It is [not] possible to say this […]. Similarly it is written ‘for I am God and not man.’”34 For this reason, it was no longer possible to refer to God as a man (‫) ִאיׁש‬. The Hebrew Bible itself provided the alternative wording for the Samaritan Pentateuch. For the one who composed this version, the best alternative for the original “The Lord is a man of war” would be “mighty in battle.” It is not to be presumed that the composer of the Samaritan Pentateuch saw the Psalm, but in the Pentateuch itself a man (‫ ) ִאיׁש‬who is mighty (‫)ּגִ ּבֹור‬, or men (‫) ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬ who are mighty (‫ּבֹורים‬ ִ ִ‫)ּג‬, are referred to by both words: ‫המה הגבורים […] אנשי‬ 35‫“( השם‬they are heroes … men of renown,” Gen 6:4). 28. The psalmist’s task was easier. Not only did the semantic proximity of “man of war” and “mighty” make possible substituting “man” by “mighty,” but the two titles ‫ גבור‬and ‫ איש מלחמה‬appear together often in the Hebrew Bible: ‫ּגִ ּבֹור‬ ‫“( וְ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬the mighty man and the man of war,” Isa 3:2), ‫ּגִ ּבֹור וְ ָכל ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ (“mighty man [men] and all men of war,” Ezek 39:20), but sometimes they are parallel elements in two hemistichs, for example ‫ּבֹורים […] אנשי‬ ִ ִ‫העירו ַהּג‬ ‫“( ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬wake up the mighty men […] the men of war,” Joel 4:9), ,‫ה׳ ְּכגִ ּבֹור יצא‬ ‫“( ְּכ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות יעיר קנאה‬The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy as a man of war,” Isa 42:3). Even so, substituting the words “man” with “mighty” and coining the phrase ‫“( ּגִ ּבֹור מלחמה‬mighty [in] battle”) causes the verse to seem redundant. Since the ‫“ גִ ּבֹור‬mighty [man]” is a “man of war,” it would seem fitting that whoever refrains from referring to God as ‫“( ִאיׁש‬man”) would not use the expression ‫“( ה׳ גבור ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬man of war”), but rather ‫ה׳ ּגִ ּבֹור‬ (“Almighty God”). 29. Nevertheless, there is a difference between those who changed the text to those who composed a new version. Those who changed the text—namely the psalmist, the author of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the literal translations (Targum Onkelos, Peshitta, and the Septuagint)—did not wish to expand on the text36 and did not want to subtract a word from the original three-word phrase.37 Therefore, they limited their emendation to substituting ‫ ּגִ ּבֹור‬or its alternative forms for ‫ ִאיׁש‬. Furthermore, this provides irrefutable proof that 34  See above §16. 35  This quote is from the Samaritan Pentateuch (see Tal and Florentin, Pentateuch, to this verse). The text here does not differ from the Masoretic Text, except for the defective spelling (without vav) of the word ‫ הגברים‬in the Masoretic Text. 36  As opposed to the Palestinan targumim, which give an expanded version of the text, or the Mekhilta, which expands on the text homiletically. 37  However, Onkelos does give a two-word translation for the word ‫ נִ ְצ ָחן ְק ָרבא‬:‫ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬.

12

Bar-Asher

the psalmist and the author of the Samaritan Pentateuch (and those who translated similarly to them) were dependent on the language of the phrase ‫“ ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬the Lord is a man of war.” They wished to preserve the structure of the verse, and changed only the part of the verse that they deemed to be problematic.38 30. Those who composed a new version of the phrase acted differently. The author of the blessing which precedes the recitation of the Shemaʿ in the morning prayers did indeed base himself on the biblical phrase, but does not transmit a version of it; he rather composed a new phrase. He substituted the word ‫ ִאיש‬in the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬with the word ‫ ַּב ַעל‬, a synonym of one of the meanings of ‫ ִאיש‬. The word ‫“( ִאיׁש‬husband”) in the verses ‫ִאיׁש‬ ‫“( ָה ִא ָּׁשה ַהּנִ ְר ָצ ָחה‬the husband of the woman who was slain,” Judg 20:4) and ‫“( ִאיׁש נָ ֳע ִמי‬Naomi’s husband,” Ruth 1:3) connotes (“master”) a synonym of ‫ַּב ַעל‬ (“owner”). Similarly, the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬connotes ‫“( ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬master of war”). This phrase in the blessing was further modified by changing the nomen rectum to the plural form: ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬. This change is in line with the other seven divine epithets, where the nomen rectum of each construct phrase takes the plural form: ‫ּפֹועל ּגְ בּורֹות‬ ֵ “performs mighty acts,” ‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ “creates new things,” etc. 31. In other words, the author of the blessing was familiar with the Song of the Sea. However, he did not quote the phrase as the psalmist did, nor did he edit the verse the way the Samaritan Pentateuch and others do. Rather, he created a new expression, which reflects the concepts of his religious worldview. According to this view, God cannot be referred to as ‫“( ִאיׁש‬man”). In this respect, Targum Onkelos, by choosing to translate ‫ ִאיׁש‬with the Aramaic word ‫“( ָמ ֵרי‬owner/master”), is similar to the expression ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬. The Septuagint and the Vulgate refrained from combining ‫“( ּגִ ּבֹור‬a mighty man”) with ‫מלחמה‬ (“war”), and instead used expressions which reflect the “mighty man’s” actions: συντρίβων πολέμους (“the shatterer of wars”) and quasi vir pugnator (“who fights as a man”). 32. The central argument in this study is that the choice of the noun ‫ַּב ַעל‬ (“master”) in the phrase ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬, used by the author of the blessing which precedes the recitation of the morning Shemaʿ, in no way reflects 38  The Vulgate also preserved the structure of the phrase, but used two different words when translating ‫“( איש מלחמה‬a man of war”).

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

13

anthropomorphism. It befits one who praises God, and fits in with the other expressions of praise mentioned in the blessing. Just as God “performs mighty acts” (‫ּפֹועל ּגְ בּורֹות‬ ֵ ) and “creates new things” (‫עֹוׂשה ֲח ָדׁשֹות‬ ֶ ), so also is he one “who wages wars” (‫) ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬. It should be stressed that this is not the only use of the word ‫ ַּב ַעל‬as a divine epithet in the formulae for blessings. The expression ‫ ַּב ַעל ּגְ בּורֹות‬occurs as a divine epithet in the second blessing of the Amida prayer. This expression is attested in Genizah documents of the Babylonian rite of prayers and is in use up until today: ‫מי כמוך ַּב ַעל ּגְ בּורֹות ומי‬ ‫“( דומה לך‬Who is like you, master of mighty deeds, and who can be compared to you?”).39 The word ‫ ַּב ַעל‬is used in rabbinic literature as a divine epithet in another phrase: ‫“( ַּב ַעל נֶ ָחמֹות‬master of consolation”). This phrase is used in expressions of consolation, the wordings of which are similar to the formulae for blessings: ‫ ברוך מנחם אבלים‬,‫ בעל נחמות ינחם אתכם‬,‫“( אחינו‬Our brothers, may the master of consolation console you; blessed be he who consoles mourners”: b. Ketub. 8b). 33. I should add that, based on an examination of all occurrences of the noun

‫ ִאיׁש‬in rabbinic literature, God is never referred to by the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬in this entire corpus. It turns out that all the cases in which the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬refers to God are found in homilies related to the verse ‫“( ה׳ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬The Lord is a man of war”), as in: ‫ מאי דכתיב “ראיתי הלילה והנה ִאיׁש ר ֵֹכב‬:‫אמר רבי יוחנן‬40 ”‫ אין “איש‬,”‫“והנה איש רכב‬  … ”‫על סוס ָאד ֹם והוא עמד בין ההדסים אשר במצולה‬ ”‫ שנאמר “ה׳ איש מלחמה‬,‫“( אלא הקב”ה‬Rabbi Yohanan said: ‘What is written:

‘I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen’ [Zech 1:8] … ‘and behold a man riding.’ There is no ‘man’ (‫) ִאיׁש‬, but God, since it is said, ‘God is a man of war’” [Exod 15:3], b. Sanh. 93a). And also: ‫ “ואל שדי‬,‫רבי יהושע בן לוי פתר קרייה בגליות‬ ‫ “לפני האיש” זה‬,”‫ “ויתן אותם לרחמים לפני כל שוביהם‬,”‫יתן לכם רחמים לפני האיש‬ ”‫ [שנאמר] “ה׳ איש מלחמה‬,‫“( הקב”ה‬Rabbi Joshua ben Levy explained the verse as referring to the exiles: ‘May God Almighty make the man compassionate

39  See Uri Ehrlich, The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah Prayerbooks: Roots and Transmission (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 45 [Hebrew]. This phrase appears in all five branches of the Babylonian rite discussed there, but there is no trace of it in the six branches of the Palestinian rite discussed on p. 44. In only one of them is there a variant: the biblical expression ‫( נאזר בגבורה‬from Ps 65:7, “being girded with power”): ‫מי כמכה‬ ‫“ נאזר בגבורה‬who is like you, girded with power?”. 40  Both of the quotations I mention here are based upon the data in the Ma‌‌ʾagarim (databases) of the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of Hebrew Language.

14

Bar-Asher

toward you’ [Gen 43:14]; ‘and He made them be pitied by all those who carried them away captive’ [Ps 106:46]. ‘In front of the man’ [‫ ] ִל ְפנֵ י ָה ִאיׁש‬refers to the Almighty, since it is said: ‘God is a man of war,’” [Bereshit Rabbah 92:3]).41 In fact, apart from midrashim based on Scriptural texts, there is not even one instance of the noun ‫ ִאיׁש‬used as an anthropomorphic reference for God. Because of this, then, the author of the section from the Yotser ‘Or blessing changed the phrase ‫ ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬to ‫ ַּב ַעל ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬. The noun ‫ ַּב ַעל‬was in widespread use, both in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, and does not in any way connote an anthropomorphism of the deity.

Conclusion and Summary

34. We have thus seen an epithet for God that appears only once in ancient Biblical Hebrew poetry. Due to changes in world-view, this epithet was abandoned. In the period of ancient Hebrew poetry the Hebrew Bible referred to the deity by anthropomorphic expressions and called God ‫ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ (“a man of war”). This form of expression was already rejected in later generations in biblical times. Even so, in the Hebrew of the First Temple period, we still find anthropomorphic expressions such as ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“( ֶא ְצ ַּבע ֱא‬the finger of God,” Exod 8:15) and ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַת ַחת ַרגְ ָליו ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ִל ְבנַ ת ַה ַּס ִּפיר‬ ֵ ‫“( וַ ּיִ ְראּו ֵאת ֱא‬And they saw the God of Israel and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone,” Exod 24:10). 35. The abandonment of anthropomorphism in Hebrew religious writing that began in the Psalms (Ps 24:8), and which is discernible in the Samaritan Pentateuch (Exod 15:3) and the ancient biblical translations, is reflected in rabbinic literature in the homilies of the Mekhilta and the fixed formulae for blessings. In the rabbinic period, anthropomorphic linguistic expressions were no longer in use. Therefore, in places where biblical imagery is no longer acceptable the sages modified the wording, whether by homily or by producing a parallel expression that would transmit the same message for use in blessings. 36. To sum up, this study clarifies a unique expression that occurs only once in ancient Hebrew poetry. The language of this expression was appropriate when it was written, but changes in world-view made it necessary to find 41  See Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba—Critical Edition and Commentary (3 vols.; 2d ed.; Jerusalem, 1965), 1139–1140 [Hebrew].

The Clause “ The Lord is a Man of War ”

15

alternatives. It has been possible to track the development of these alternatives from Psalm 24 and the Septuagint up until the fixed formulae for blessings composed in the periods following the destruction of the Second Temple, more precisely in the Amoraic period or even later. All of the changes in language that have been presented here have one underlying, extralinguistic cause.

chapter 2

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry Mats Eskhult 1 Introduction On the whole, the authors and scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls were well acquainted with the rules of Biblical Hebrew, as was their reading public.1 This dictum holds true not least for the somewhat earlier Ben Sira, which exhibits frequent use of wayyiqtol forms in pure narration (esp. Sir 44–50) and only occasionally replaces wayyiqtol by preterite weqatal. Partly adhering to the poetic diction, Ben Sira also employs yiqtol for the present, though without shunning the active participle qotel. For the future, Ben Sira uses qotel, yiqtol, and weqatal.2 This essay, nevertheless, points to traces that illustrate a growing comprehension of the qatal and yiqtol forms as simply and solely denoting location in time, a development that made the so-called converted forms weqatal and wayyiqtol difficult to handle. In Qumran Hebrew prose, this shift in the understanding of the basic forms manifests itself in a decline in the use of weqatal for the future and wayyiqtol for the past. In poetry, the conception of qatal and yiqtol as representing specific tenses, viz., past and present-future, entails a reluctance to use qatal–yiqtol sequences in such a way that the verbal content of the two verbs would refer to one and the same situation. 2

Instructional Discourse

As has been duly observed by several scholars—notably Longacre and Niccacci—the thread of instructional texts in Biblical Hebrew is made up of 1  The wording is taken from Takamitsu Muraoka, “An approach to morphosyntax and syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 193–214, with reference to 212. 2  See W. Th. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 125, 165, 239, and 400. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_003

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

17

series of weqatal forms. For the most part, the Temple Scroll from Qumran contains reworked prescriptive texts selected from Exod 34 to Deut 23, in which the Deuteronomic laws form the substantial core. The scroll frequently uses weyiqtol forms for the future, not least in the instructional material dealing with the offering at the annual feasts (11Q19 [Temple Scroll] XIII, 9–XXX, 2). Illustrative of this is 11Q19 XVI, 14–16, which, somewhat abridged, says: “And he shall take (‫ )ויקח‬the second bull, the one for the people, and he shall make atonement (‫ )ויכפר‬with it […] and he shall apply (‫ )ויתן‬some of its blood with his finger to the horns of the [altar].” The frequent use of weyiqtol forms for the future, however, does not prevent an even richer use of weqatal forms in similar contexts, e.g., 11Q19 XXIII, 11–12 “he shall raise (‫ )‏והעלה‬its blood to the altar in a bowl, and apply (‫ )ונתן‬some of its blood with his finger to the four horns of the altar.” The pretension of divine authority so characteristic of the Temple Scroll contributes to a linguistic usage that is heavily dependent on the biblical model, which in turn means that sequentiality—when projected into the future—is actually more often than not expressed by weqatal forms. This is especially so in the polity laws contained in 11Q19 LX, 1–LXVI, 17 and in the directions concerning royal power in 11Q19 LVII–LIX.3 As long as this kind of representation is restricted to presenting the biblical texts in a slightly reformulated way, it is confusingly similar to the biblical model. The section contained in 11Q19 LIX, 2–15, however, favours other constructions than the weqatal form, because at this point the biblical model has been abandoned, probably in favour of a preformed but otherwise unknown source.4 A striking example is 11Q19 LIX, 4–5: ‫ובכול זה יהיו עריהמה לשומה ולשרקה ולחורבה והיו אויביהמה שוממים במה‬ ‫והמה בארצות אויביהמה מתאנחים ומזעיקים מפני עול כבד‬

Meanwhile (‫ )ובכול זה‬their cities shall become (‫ )יהיו‬a wasteland, a mockery, and a ruin; (even) their enemies shall be (‫ )והיו‏‬stunned by them; they,

3  See Mark S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 57–63. 4  Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 196, singles out the portions 11Q19 LVII, 1–LIX, 21; LX, 2–11; and LXIV, 6b–13a as excerpts from a specific source, viz., a Midrash to Deuteronomy. Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll. Introduction, Translation & Commentary (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985), 128, refers to some thirty biblical passages underlying 11Q19 LIX, 2–15.

18

Eskhult

themselves, in the lands of their foes shall moan and scream (‫מתאנחים‬ ‫ )ומזעיקים‬due to a heavy yoke. Considering Lev 26:32, ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫“ ‏וַ ֲה ִׁשּמ ִֹתי ֲאנִ י ֶא‬and I will devastate the land,” the wording ūbeḵol zǣ followed by yihyū ʿārēhemmā lešomma etc. appears striking; and for wehāyū ʾōyeḇēhemmā šōmemīm “their enemies shall be stunned,” Lev 26:32 has ‫“ ‏וְ ָׁש ְממּו ָע ֶל ָיה א ֵֹיְב ֶיכם‬your enemies shall be stunned by it.”5 Somewhat striking is also the use of the participles referring to the future, miṯʾanneḥīm and ūmazʿīqīm. The otherwise prevailing adaption to the biblical diction would rather have produced wenæʾænḥū wezāʿaqū hemmā beʾarṣōṯ ʾōyeḇēhemmā, or the like. What is more, in Biblical Hebrew, the main line of instructional texts is not only made up of series of weqatal forms, but is also interposed by yiqtol forms expressing attendant circumstances, a pattern found in, e.g., Exod 29:12: ‫ל־ק ְרנֹת ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫‏וְ ָל ַק ְח ָּת ִמ ַּדם ַה ָּפר וְ נָ ַת ָּתה ַע‬ ]…[ ‫ל־ה ָּדם ִּת ְׁשּפְֹך ֶאל־יְ סֹוד ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬

And you shall take some of the blood of the bull and apply it to the horns of the altar […] and (at the same time) pour out all (the rest of) the blood at the base of the altar. This pattern is, not unexpectedly, used in, e.g., 11Q19 LII, 21: ‫‏וזרקו את דמו על יסוד מזבח העולה‬ ‫ואת חלבו יקטירו‬

And they shall pour out its blood at the base of the altar, and (at the same time) burn its fat. In contrast to this, the portion dealing with the ideal temple (11Q19 XXX, 3– XLVII, 18) manifests a predilection for the periphrastic form expressed by hāyā with the active participle. As a result, original weqatal–yiqtol sequences for 5  Compare however Lam 1:16 ‫ׁשֹומ ִמים‬ ֵ ‫‏ ָהיּו ָבנַ י‬, though the meaning there is “desolate” rather than “stunned, appalled.” See further discussion in Takamitsu Muraoka, “The Participle in Qumran Hebrew with Special Reference to its Periphrastic Use,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 188–203, with reference to 198.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

19

main and attendant activities, respectively, are at times replaced by the sequence weqatal–yihyǣ qōṭēl, e.g., in 11Q19 LVIII, 8–9: ‫‏ושלחו עמו שלישית אנשי המלחמה‬ ‫ושתי הידות יהיו שומרים את עריהמה‬

They shall send with him a third part of the soldiers, and two thirds shall guard their cities. A simple yišmerū would have sufficed to indicate attendant activity: wešāleḥū ʿimmō šelīšīṯ ʾanšē hammilḥāmā ūštē hayyāḏōt yišmerū ʾet ʿārēhemmā If yišmerū alone proves adequate for expressing attendant activity, there is no need to reinforce this idea by letting yihyū šōmerīm replace yišmerū. Obviously, the periphrastic form was felt to be so natural that it was even used in cases where one could not possibly discern any ongoing or accompanying activity. Thus, the reformulation of Exod 12:11 ‫אכלּו אֹתֹו‬ ְ ֹ ‫“ ‏וְ ָכ ָכה ּת‬thus you shall eat it,” in 11Q19 XLIII, 5 resulted in ‫‏כי ככה יהיו אוכלים אותו‬, literally: “thus you shall be eating it.”6 In some passages, it would seem, the participle takes on a somewhat modal sense, though without any clear reference to the future, which in turn calls for the verb “to be” to mark the tense. Thus, 11Q19 LVII, 9–10 reads: (they shall stay with him) ‫“ ‏אשר יהיו שומרים אותו‬in order to protect him;” and 11Q19 LVII, 12–14 reads (twelve princes shall be with him) ‫‏אשר יהיו יושבים עמו יחדל‬ ‫“ משפט‬so as to deliberate with him on matters of justice.”7 The War Scroll, unlike biblical instructional discourse, contains few series of successive weqatal forms, with the exception of passages of more or less fixed wordings, such as 1QM XIV, 3–4: “and they shall bless (‫ )וברכו‬all of them, the God of Israel, and they shall exalt (‫ )ורוממו‬his name in joyful chorus; and they shall answer and say (‫ )וענו ואמרו‬blessed be the God of Israel.”8 At times, the disinclination for using successive weqatal forms is conspicuous, as is the case in 1QM VI, 8–11, giving instructions concerning the cavalry.

6  See Muraoka, “The Participle in Qumran Hebrew,” 198. 7  For further discussion, see Gregor Geiger, Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 363–65. 8  Compare also 1QM XV, 7 ‫“ וענה ואמר חזקו ואמצו והיו לבני חיל‬they shall answer and say: ‘be strong and courageous, and become men of valour.’” See also Smith, Waw-Consecutive, 60.

20

Eskhult

Seven rows of horsemen shall also take position (‫ )יעמודו‬at the right and at the left of the battle line. Their rows shall take position (‫ )יעמודו‬on both sides, 700 horsemen on one flank and 700 on the other. 200 horsemen shall go out (‫ )יצאו‬with 1000 of the battle line champions, and thus they shall take position (‫ )יעמודו‬on all flanks of the camp. In 1QM I, 8–14, moreover, the yiqtol forms alternate with several other constructions referring to the sphere of the future. And [the Sons of Jus]tice shall shine (‫ )יאירו‬to all ends of the world, and go on shining (‫ )הלוך ואור‬until the end of the periods of darkness. At the time of God, his high greatness shall shine (‫ ]…[ )יאיר‬On that day the assembly of the angels and of men shall confront each other (‫ )יתקרבו‬for great destruction. The Sons of Light and the forces of Darkness shall fight (‫ )נלחמים‬together for God’s might at the roar of a great multitude and the shout of angels and men […] On the day of their battle against the Kittim, they shall go out (‫ )‏יצאו‬to destruction. In three lots the Sons of Light shall stand firm (‫ )יחזקו‬so as to strike down wickedness, and in three the army of Belial shall strengthen themselves (‫ ]…[ )יתאזרו‬Infantry banners will melt (‫ )יהיו להמס‬the heart, but God’s might will strengthen (‫ )מאמצת‬the hearts of the Sons of Light. The same is true for 1QM VI, 4–6, where only the first sentences show any resemblance to the biblical pattern: All of these shall throw (‫ )יטילו‬seven times and then return (‫ )ושבו‬to their position. Then two divisions of infantry shall march forth (‫ )יצאו‬and stand (‫ )ועמדו‬between the two battle lines: the first division equipped (‫)מחזיק‬ with a spear and a shield and the second with a shield and a sword, to fell (‫( )להפיל‬the ones) slain by the judgment of God, to subdue (‫)ולהכניע‬ the battle line of the enemy by the power of God, and to retaliate (‫)לשלם‬ against all the vainglorious nations for their evil. In passages like these, it might be argued that the frequent use of subj–yiqtol instead of clause-initial weqatal is promoted by a recurrent switch of topic.9 However, the circumstance that not only yiqtol but also infinitives and participles replace clause-initial weqatal suggests an état de langue in which a future 9  See Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2008), 99 and 127.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

21

scene is no longer preferably depicted by means of sequential weqatal forms. The linguistic usage encountered in the War Scroll does not chisel out a main line of instructions projected into the future in the way biblical diction does, and consequently its syntax deviates from that exhibited in, e.g., Exod 25–30. There, the pervading thread is constituted by clause-initial weqatal, and what is more, this pattern is not affected by any switch of topic, e.g., Exod 29:10–11: “and you shall bring (‫ )‏וְ ִה ְק ַר ְב ָּת‬the bull before the tent of meeting; and Aaron and his sons shall lay (‫ )וְ ָס ַמְך ַא ֲהר ֹן ָּובנָ יו‬their hands upon the head of the bull, and you shall kill (‫ )וְ ָׁש ַח ְט ָּת‬the bull before the Lord.” In Qumran Hebrew instructional discourse, clause-initial weqatal and non-clause-initial yiqtol—and other constructions as well—are used indiscriminately, irrespective of what might be considered to belong to the main line of discourse. When employed, the weqatal form is merely consecutive in relation to a preceding yiqtol form. 3

Narrative Discourse

Neither Biblical nor Qumran Hebrew represents a homogeneous entity. Instead they display certain varieties due to genre, substrate dialects, and pure idiosyncrasies. Of the few narrative portions of the Qumran literature, the anti-Samaritan polemic labelled Narrative and Poetic Compositiona–c (4Q371– 373), is remarkable in displaying a verbal syntax that is a veritable mixture of prose and poetry.10 Granted that the author tried to express a coherent train of thought, this composition illustrates a style that pays little regard to the circumstance that the application of the verbal system is not the same for prose as for poetry. The mixture of hardly compatible forms is striking. A somewhat abridged synopsis of the opening part says: The people followed false priests and honoured (‫ )וכבדו‬those who serve idols, and (provoked) the Most High. He gave them (‫ )‏ויתנם‬into the hands of the nations, scattered them (‫ )‏יבזרם‬among the nations, and exterminated (‫ )‏וישמד‬them. The nations made and turned (‫ )‏ויעשו וישימו‬Jerusalem into wooded heights […] And he (‫ )והוא‬stood at the crossroads (‫ )יעמוד‬to 10  For the publication, see Eileen Schuller and Moshe Bernstein, eds., Qumran Cave 4, Miscellanea (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001); for a discussion see, e.g., Magnar Kartveit, “Who are the ‘fools’ in 4QNarrative and Poetic compositionttta–c?” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 119–33.

22

Eskhult

do (‫[ )‏לעשות‬lacuna] to be (‫ )‏להיות‬with his two brothers; meanwhile (‫‏ובכל‬ ‫)זה‬, (the tribes of) Joseph were placed (‫ )‏מוטל‬in a land unknown to them, and were dispersed (‫ )‏מפצפצים‬in all the world. All their mountains were desolate of them, and fools dwelt (‫ )יושבים‬in their land, and made (‫)‏ועשים‬ for themselves a high place on the high mountain. Narrative wayyittenēm, wayyašmeḏ, and perhaps even wayyaʿaśū wayyāśīmū are expected in classical narration, while narrative wekaḇeḏū is not. The use of simple yiqtol forms for past events, viz., yeḇazzerēm and yaʿamoḏ, gives a quasi-poetic touch to the presentation. A bit striking is ūḇekol zǣ in the sense of “meanwhile” followed by mūṭāl and mefaṣfeṣīm; and the narrative participles yōšeḇīm and weʿōśīm definitely represent a usage that militates against classical biblical prose and poetry alike. Parts of the Damascus Document are narrative in character.11 The use of wayyiqtol in these parts is similar to that found in biblical narration,12 but differs in that wayyiqtol does not constitute the warp of the text, which in turn entails an increased use of subordinate clauses. The limited use of wayyiqtol may be illustrated by CD I, 3–4: ‫‏כי במועלם אשר עזבוהו‬ ‫הסתיר פניו מישראל וממקדשו ‏ויתנם לחרב‬

For due to their treachery, when they abandoned him, he turned away from Israel and his temple and put them to the sword. When forming an opinion of a passage like this, one should try to imagine what it would have looked like if it had been formulated in a more classical style. Instead of a temporal infinitive and a subordinate clause with qatal, followed by another qatal initiating the principal clause to which a wayyiqtol clause is finally linked, an explicitly sequential arrangement of the clauses typical of the classical style results in something like: 11  The publication of the 4Q fragments of the Damascus Document shows that the Qumran readings are quite compatible with those found in the tenth century Cairo Geniza manuscript A.This means that the Geniza text reflects Qumran Hebrew and no later variety of the language. See Steven E. Fassberg, “The Linguistic Study of the Damascus Document,” in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (ed. Joseph M. Baumgartner, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick; Leiden: Brill 2000), 53–76, with reference to 63. 12  The only possible preterite weqatal is wešāḇū in CD XX, 23; see discussion in Smith, WawConsecutive, 37.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

23

wayyimʿalū wayyaʿazḇūhū wayyaster pānāw miyYisrāʾēl ūmimmiqdāšō wayyittenēm laḥæræḇ. They committed treachery and abandoned him and he turned away from Israel and his temple and put them to the sword. True, the wayyiqtol form is not at all uncommon in the Damascus Document (even in series, e.g., CD I, 18–20; VIII, 5–8); what matters is its restricted use in comparison with its frequency in biblical prose. This circumstance may be illustrated by, e.g., CD II, 16–18, expounding on the evil thoughts that have led men and angels astray: ‫‏כי רבים ‏תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה‬ ‫בלכתם בשרירות לבם נפלו עירי השמים בה נאחזו‬

For many went astray due to them, heroes stumbled due to them, from bygone times until now; by walking in the stubbornness of their heart, the Watchers of Heaven fell; they were caught due to them. Reworded into straightforward biblical narrative diction this sequence would perhaps read as follows: kī ḇām tāʿū rabbīm, wayyikkāšelū bām gibbōrē ḥayil millefānīm weʿaḏ hennā; wayhī belæḵtām bišrīrūṯ libbām wayyippelū ʿīrē haššāmayim, wayyēʾāḥazū ḇāh Of course, such a reformulation can always be elaborated in a stylistically more appealing manner. The substantial point is that instead of not having a single wayyiqtol form, the reworded text has four of them. A certain resemblance to biblical poetic diction is apparent in some unexpected sequences of qatal forms following upon an initial wayyiqtol, as in CD III, 8–10: ‫‏ויחר אף אל‏בעדתם‏ובניהם בו אבדו ומלכיהם בו נכרתו וגיבוריהם בו‬ ‫‏אבדו וארצם בו שממה‬

And the wrath of God flared up against their congregation, their sons perished through it, their kings were cut off through it, their heroes perished through it, and their land was devastated through it.

24

Eskhult

The switch from the word order wayyiqtol–subj to the order subj–qatal might be explained as a way to put the different subjects in focus, viz., sons, kings, heroes, and land—but still, this arrangement of the clauses clearly deviates from the pattern encountered in classical narrative prose. The arrangement is rather to be compared to a piece of poetry such as met with in Judg 5:4: ‫אתָך ִמ ֵּׂש ִעיר ְּב ַצ ְע ְּדָך ִמ ְּׂש ֵדה ֱאדֹום‬ ְ ‫‏יְ הוָ ה ְּב ֵצ‬ ‫ם־ע ִבים נָ ְטפּו ָמיִ ם‬ ָ ַ‫ם־ׁש ַמיִם נָ ָטפּו ּג‬ ָ ַ‫ֶא ֶרץ ָר ָע ָׁשה ּג‬

Lord, when you went forth Seir, when you marched from the region of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens poured, the clouds poured water.13 4 Poetry Ancient Hebrew poetry was not part of the development that ousted yiqtol from the position of expressing ongoing activity. In fact, typically late biblical psalms are not distinguished by any specific increase in use of the active predicative participle, and only some four percent of the participles in the Qumran Hodayot exercise a verbal function.14 The hymns of the Hodayot are classified as non-liturgical pieces of poetry.15 These hymns exhibit a continuum of contemplative reflections on the exposed and vulnerable position of the individual, and the biblical poetic technique of parallelism is considerably downplayed. A commonplace pattern is expressed in 1QHa XVII, 23 “You plead (‫ )תריב‬my case, for in the mystery of your wisdom you have reproved me (‫ ”;)הוכחתה בי‬that is to say, a statement in the yiqtol is followed by a qatal that gives the reason for it. Nevertheless, 1QHa X–XVII (the portion perhaps composed by the Teacher of Righteousness) offers some instances of the qatal–yiqtol sequence, of which the following are typical:

13  For this observation, see Talia Thorion-Vardi, “The Use of the Tenses in the Zadokite Documents,” RQ 12 (1985): 65–80, at 66. 14  The number is taken from Muraoka, “The Participle in Qumran Hebrew,” 191. 15  See Emanuel Tov, The Texts from the Judean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judean Desert Series (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 138.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

25

‫‏‏ואני רעד ורתת אחזוני וכול גרמי ירועו‬

As for me—fear and dismay have gripped me (ʾaḥāzūnī), and all my bones are broken (yērōʿū). (1QHa XII, 33) ‫‏קדרות לבשתי ולשוני לחך תדבק‬

I have put on (lābaštī) the garment of mourning, and my tongue clings (tiḏbaq) to my palate. (1QHa XIII, 31) ‫‏ובצוקותי נחמתני ובסליחות אשתעשע‬

In my distress you have comforted me (niḥamtanī), and I delight (ʾaštaʿašaʿ ) in forgiveness. (1QHa XVII, 13) ‫‏ובאמת נכון סמכתני וברוח קודשכה תשעשעני‬

With a sure truth you have supported me (semaḵtanī), and by your holy spirit you delight me (tešaʿšeʿēnī). (1QHa XVII, 32) The qatal forms denote a past situation of prevailing relevance, but except for the first example the yiqtol forms following them hardly involve the past along with the present. Also, there is no clear semantic or pragmatic connection between the verbs in the qatal and yiqtol forms. They do not simply refer to the same situation. In the biblical book of Psalms, by contrast, a yiqtol form often elaborates on the action featured by a preceding qatal. In these instances the verb in the yiqtol form refers to the same situation as the verb in the qatal form and is concomitant with it, whatever temporal value it is assigned in translation. ‫י־מוֶ ת ִח ָּציו ְלד ְֹל ִקים יִ ְפ ָעל‬ ָ ‫‏וְ לֹו ֵה ִכין ְּכ ֵל‬

He prepared his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. (Ps 7:14) ‫ר־אׁש‬ ֵ ‫ם־ל ִּבי ְּב ִק ְר ִּבי ַּב ֲהגִ יגִ י ִת ְב ַע‬ ִ ‫‏ ַח‬

My heart became hot within me, in my musing a fire burnt. (Ps 39:4)

26

Eskhult

‫ּומ ְעּגָ ֶליָך יִ ְר ֲעפּון ָּד ֶׁשן‬ ַ ‫טֹוב ֶתָך‬ ָ ‫‏ ִע ַּט ְר ָּת ְׁשנַ ת‬

You crowned the year with your bounty; the tracks of your chariot dripped with fatness. (Ps 65:12) ‫ּולׁשֹונָ ם ִּת ֲה ַלְך ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ְ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫‏ ַׁשּתּו ַב ָּׁש ַמיִם ִּפ‬

They set their mouths against heaven; their tongues strutted through the earth. (Ps 73:9) ‫‏ ְמ ָצ ֵרי ְׁשאֹול ְמ ָצאּונִ י ָצ ָרה וְ יָ גֹון ֶא ְמ ָצא‬

The pangs of Sheol laid hold on me; I suffered distress and anguish. (Ps 116:3)16 It is highly plausible that the Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (11Q5) represents a collection that was widely used for liturgical purposes during the Second Temple period.17 The work contains some non-Masoretic pieces of poetry that are partly known from the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and Ben Sira. The alphabetic acrostic in 11Q5 XXI, 11–XXII, 1 offers the first part of a piece of poetry, the whole of which is preserved in Sir 51:13–30 (MS B). The parallelism involves not only the verb but other parts of speech as well, both on the grammatical and the semantic level; often it is far from clear how the text should be segmented into verses. In adherence to the division and analysis made by Eric D. Reymond,18 it is also interesting to observe that this poem integrates the qatal–yiqtol sequence in the parallelism. The part found in 11Q5 XXI, 12–19 is here given in slightly abridged form:

16  As will be shown in a forthcoming article, a good many psalms from Pss 1–106 (in contrast to Pss 107–150) have an affirmative yiqtol in the second hemistich, concomitant with a qatal form in the first hemistich. In addition to the instances quoted, see, e.g., Ps 2:1; 7:14; 18:5; 24:2; 38:5; 50:19; 56:2; 57:2; 59:4; 68:11; 74:14; 77:17,18; 81:7; 104:6; 116:3; 139:13; the sequence qatal–wayyiqtol–yiqtol is, inter alia, found in Ps 78:20; 81:8; 105:40; 114:3. 17  See Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 201. 18   Eric D. Reymond, New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (=11QPsa) (EJL 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 27–29; and to some degree James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), 114–15.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

27

‫ענבים ישמחו לב‬/‫גם גרע נץ בבשול‬//‫ועד סופה אדורשנה‬/‫באה לי בתרה‬

She came to me (‫‏‬bāʾā lī) in her beauty; until the end I will seek her (ʾ‫‏‬ædrošænnāh); Though blossom withers (gāraʿ) when ripening; grapes (still) gladden (yiśmeḥū) the heart. ‫ולוא אשוב‏‬/‫קנאתי בטוב‬/‫זמותי ואשחקה‬//‫למלמדי אתן ‏הודי‬/‫ועלה היתה לי‬ Her yoke was mine (hāyetā lī); to my teacher I give (ʾætten) my glory; I planned to play, I was zealous (qinnē(ʾ)tī) for pleasure; and did not turn away (welō(ʾ) ʾāšūb). ‫מערמיה ‏אתבונן(ד)תינפשיבה‬/‫ידי פתח‬//‫וברומיה לוא ‏אשלה‬/‫טר{ד}תי נפשי בה‬

I wearied (ṭāradtī) myself with her; and in her heights I was not lazy (lō(ʾ) ʾæšlǣ); My hand opened (pāteḥā) her gates; her secrets I investigated (ʾætbōnen). The quoted strophes share the qatal–yiqtol pattern with biblical poetry, but in contrast to the frequent pattern found there, the two verbs involved are not semantically connected; and except for the last verse the verb in the yiqtol form is hardly concomitant with the verb in the qatal form.19 The avoidance of mixing qatal and yiqtol forms in the same verse and the preference of basing the parallelism on other parts of speech than the verb are illustrated by the piece of poetry contained in 11Q5 XVIII, 1–16 (Ps 154).20 Quoted from the end of line 3, and considerably abbreviated, the text says: To declare (‫ )‏להודיע‬the Lord’s glory was Wisdom given (‫;)נתנ‬ And to recount (‫ )‏ולספר‬his many deeds was she made known (‫ )‏נודעה‬to man; To make known (‫ )‏להודיע‬his might to the witless, to teach (‫ )‏להשכיל‬the foolish his greatness. […] 19  Also, van Peursen, The Verbal System, 101–4, downplays the use of yiqtol for continuous activity in the past in this piece of poetry. 20  For discussion, see Reymond, New Idioms, 51–74 and Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 104–7.

28

Eskhult

From the gates of the righteous (‫ )‏מפתחי צדיקים‬her voice is heard, from the assembly of the pious (‫ )ומקהל חסידים‬her song. When they eat (‫ )‏על אוכלםה‬and are full, she is cited, and when they drink (‫ )ועל שתותמה‬in close company their conversation (‫ )‏שיחתם‬is about the law of the Most High, their words (‫ )‏אמריהמה‬on making known his might. […] Behold, the eye of the Lord shows pity (‫ )תחמל‬to those who are good; his mercy increases (‫ )‏יגדל‬upon those who give him glory, and he rescues (‫ )‏יציל‬their souls from an evil time. Although this poem makes recurrent use of parallelism, the interplay of semantically connected expressions is based only in part on verbal forms, and very little on finite verbal forms. On the basis of 1 Sam 16–17, the poem contained in 11Q5 XXVIII, 3–12 (Ps 151A) describes David’s exaltation from shepherd boy to king. Several phrases and ready grammatical forms are selected from the biblical model, and the skillfully composed piece of poetry reveals a chiastic pattern: a–b–c / c’–b’–a’. With the exclusion of the second part of section b’ (God slights David’s brother) the text runs:21 a

I was the least (‫ )‏קטן הייתי‬of my brothers, the smallest of my father’s sons. He made me (‫ )‏וישימני‬shepherd of his sheep, and ruler of his goats. b My hands made (‫ )ידי עשו‬a pipe, and my fingers a lyre; and I gave (‫ )‏ואשימה‬glory to God. c I said (‫ )‏אמרתי אני‬to myself: The mountains do not witness (‫ )‏לוא יעידו‬to me, nor do the hills proclaim (‫ )‏לוא יגידו‬me. c’ Who can tell (‫ )‏מי יגיד‬and who can express (‫)‏ומי ידבר‬, and who can relate (‫ )‏ומי יספר‬the deeds of the Lord of All. b’ The Lord of All saw (‫;)ראה‬ the God of All, he heard (‫)‏ הוא שמע‬, and he listened (‫;)‏והוא האזין‬ he sent (‫ )‏שלח‬his prophet to anoint me, Samuel to raise me. 21  For discussion, see Mark S. Smith, “How to Write a Poem: The Case of Ps 151A (11QPsa 28.3–12),” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 182–208. See also Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 96–97, and Reymond, New Idioms, 51–74.

Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry

29

a’ He sent for (‫ )וישלח‬and took me (‫ )‏ויקחני‬from the sheep; he anointed me (‫ )וימשחני‬with holy oil, and made me (‫ )‏וישימני‬leader of his people, and ruler of his covenant. As can be seen, the use of verbal forms plays a specific role in the chiastic scheme, in that the various forms are in a simple and beautiful way assigned to a separate part of the poem, by and large in the sequence: wayyiqtol–qatal– yiqtol // yiqtol–qatal–wayyiqtol. 5

Concluding Remarks

A striking characteristic of the main Qumran compositions is their solemn and authoritative style, which borrows a good deal of its tone from the poetic tradition. In Qumran Hebrew prose, a predominant temporal understanding of the basic forms qatal and yiqtol manifests itself in an altered use of the so-called converted forms, that is, weqatal for the future and wayyiqtol for the past. The use of these forms as a means to express contingent successive action is often replaced by constructions that preclude the sequential form. When weqatal and wayyiqtol do occur in sequential series, this is merely a lingering phenomenon dependent on the existence of models or fixed locutions. The hymns contained in the Hodayot and extant pieces of non-Masoretic poetry point to an increasing temporal understanding of the qatal and yiqtol forms, insofar as the authors display a reluctance to let both forms in the hemistichs of a single verse refer to one and the same situation.

chapter 3

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew Steven E. Fassberg 1 Introduction The group of consonants known as gutturals, i.e., pharyngeals and laryngeals, are notoriously unstable in the Semitic languages. Sometimes they weaken, shift, or disappear completely. This has happened primarily in those languages in close contact with non-Semitic languages that have lacked similar sounds, for example, in the East, Akkadian under the influence of Sumerian, and later Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic and Mandaic under the influence of Akkadian; in the West, Hebrew and Aramaic under the influence of Greek; and in SouthEthiopic under the influence of Cushitic. The Dead Sea Scrolls give clear examples of some weakening of gutturals, as has been noted since the pub­ lication of the first Scrolls, and the subject has been discussed and analyzed in detail by Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher,1 Elisha Qimron,2 and most recently by Eric Reymond.3 Representative examples are ‫“ הרץ‬the land” (1QHab XIII, 1; TH [= Tiberian Hebrew] ‎‫) ָה ָא ֶרץ‬, ‫‘ נשנתי‬I depended on’ (1QHa XIX, 35; TH ‫)נִ ְׁש ַענְ ִּתי‬, ‫‘ בתומות‬in the abysses (1QIsaa LI, 9 [MT 63:13]; TH ‫) ַּב ְּתהֹמֹות‬, ‫‘ אזתמ‬their posses­ sion’ (11QpaleoLeva IV, 6 [MT 25:32]; TH ‫) ֲא ֻחּזָ ָתם‬. The same sort of weakening is attested in later texts from the Judean Desert, from sites such as Wadi Murabbaʿāt and Naḥal Ḥever, and have been collected and discussed by Uri Mor.4 The infrequent signs of weakening show up in Tannaitic Hebrew5 and

1  Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ‫הלשון והרקע הלשוני של מגילת ישעיהו השלמה ממגילות ים המלח‬ [The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 398–493; repr. in English as The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 505–11. 2  Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 25–26. 3  Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (SBLRBS 76; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2013), 71–113. 4  Uri Mor, ‫[ דקדוק העברית של תעודות מדבר יהודה בין המרד הגדול למרד בר כוכבא‬The Grammar of the Epigraphic Hebrew Documents from Judaea between the First and the Second Revolts] (Ph.D.diss.; Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2009). 5  Yochanan Breuer, “Phonology: Rabbinic Hebrew,” EHLL 3͏:110–11.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_004

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

31

continue into Palestinian piyyutim.6 What happens to the gutturals in Hebrew is an areal feature in Palestine: it occurs also in the Aramaic dialects of the area from Qumran Aramaic down through the Late Aramaic dialects of Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, and especially Samaritan Aramaic.7 The most notable weakening of gutturals in Palestinian Hebrew dialects takes place in Samaritan Hebrew.8 The relationship of Samaritan Hebrew to Qumran Hebrew and other Hebrew varieties at the close of the Second Temple period and later was initially noted by Henoch Yalon in 1950,9 and Zeʾev BenḤayyim elaborated on it in 1954 and 1958.10 About the written tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Ben-Ḥayyim wrote:11

6   There is limited evidence of some weakening in Jewish liturgical poetry of the sixth and seventh centuries (piyyuṭim), where ḥet and heh, and ḥet and ˁayin alternate in lineending rhymes. See Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; London: Blackwells, 1959), 91. 7   Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, “‫מחקרים בארמית הגלילית‬,” Tarbiz 21 (1950): 192–205; 22 (1951): 53–63, 185–192; 23 (1952): 36–60; repr. in English as Studies in Galilean Aramaic (trans. M. Sokoloff; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1976), 78–79; Moshe Bar-Asher, ‫מח־‬ ‫ מסורותיה ובעיות נבחרות בדקדוקה‬,‫ מקורותיה‬:‫[ קרים בסורית של ארץ ישראל‬Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source-Texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems] (Jerusalem: n.p.; 1977), 367–420; Abraham Tal, Samaritan Aramaic (Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III.2; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013), 27–28. 8   Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, ,‫עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון על פי תעודות שבכתב ועדות שבעל פה‬ ‫ לשון תורה‬:‫[ כרך חמישי‬The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans; Vol. 5: Grammar of the Pentateuch] (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1977), 25–29; revised and repr. in English as A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions with assistance from Abraham Tal (Jerusalem/Winona Lake, Ind.: Magnes Press/Eisenbrauns, 2000), 38–43. 9   Henoch Yalon, ‫ דברי לשון‬:‫[ מגילות מדבר יהודה‬Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Philological Essays (1949–1952)] (Jerusalem: Shrine of the Book and Kiryath Sepher, 1967), 21–22. 10   Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language (Madrid-Barcelona: Instituto Arias Montano, 1954), 77–92; see also his “Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” ScrHier 4 (1958): 200–14, which appeared in expanded form in Hebrew as “‫מסורות השומרונים וזיקתה למסורת הלשון של מגילות ים‬ ‫“[ ”המלח וללשון חז”ל‬The Tradition of the Samaritans and its Relationship to the Linguistic Tradition of the Deads Sea Scrolls and the Rabbinic Language”], Leshonenu 22 (1958): 223–45. See also Stefan Schorch, “Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to Oral and Written Samaritan Tradition,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and JeanSébastien Rey; STDJ 73: Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175–191. 11   Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 4.

32

Fassberg

SP [= Samaritan Pentateuch] in its written form displays some features of the language as we know it from Second Temple times—more specifically, from the end of that period. As a result of these discoveries, things that were considered generations ago to be peculiar to the Samaritan Pentateuchal tradition turn out to be not so. In summary, then SP, the sole literary source extant among the Samaritans that dates from the First Temple period, is presented to us in a linguistic redaction that reveals, to the extent possible, features particular to the Hebrew of the Second Temple period … even though its external appearance, the formation of the letters and the division of words by means of a dot, antedates that of the Jewish Pentateuch. On the oral tradition he commented:12 Moreover, much of this pronunciation may be ascribed to the period of Samaritan Hebrew speech, towards the end of the Second Temple period and for a few generations after, for certain features have already been hinted at in the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, and the antiquity of those features in SP has been supported in modern days by biblical and other fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is well established that the gutturals in Samaritan Hebrew weakened and then disappeared, with two exceptions:13 (1) the syllable-initial glottal stop, which may be the weakened reflex of any guttural: ˀilla “this” (TH ‫) ֵא ֶּלה‬, ˀinna “behold” (TH ‫) ִהּנֵ ה‬, ˀikmå “wisdom” (TH ‫) ָח ְכ ָמה‬, ā̊ˀirbəm “twilight” (TH ‫) ָה ַע ְר ָּביִ ם‬, yišrā̊ˀəl “Israel” (TH ‫)יִ ְש ֹ ָר ֵאל‬, kā̊ˀən “priest” (TH ‫)ּכ ֵֹהן‬, yišmāˀu “they will hear” (TH ‫)יִ ְׁש ְמעּו‬, yērēˀi “he will see” (TH ‫ ;)יִ ְר ֶאה‬and (2) a word-initial ˁayin followed by any a-vowel, which may be the reflex of an original ˁayin, or a ḥet that has shifted to ˁayin: ˁaz “strong” (TH ‫) ַעז‬, ˁam “people” (TH ‫) ַעם‬, ˁamməš “five” (TH ‫) ֲח ֵמׁש‬, ˁākom “wise” (TH ‫) ָח ָכם‬, ˁābəd “servant” (TH ‫) ֶע ֶבד‬, ˁā̊zā̊bu “they abandoned” (TH ‫) ָעזְ בּו‬. When the guttural was intervocalic between two identical vowels, the two vowels merged into one long vowel: nār “youth” (TH ‫)נַ ַער‬, lēm “bread” (TH ‫) ֶל ֶחם‬, alˈmān “for the sake of” (TH ‫) ְל ַמ ַען‬, mašˈfūt (< *mašfūˀot) “families” (TH ‫) ִמ ְׁש ָּפחֹות‬, but when the guttural was intervocalic between i/u and another vowel, a homorganic geminated glide arose: miyyā̊dåm “from man” (TH ‫) ֵמ ָא ָדם‬, niyyā̊fåk “turned into” (TH ‫)נֶ ְה ַּפְך‬, miyyēləb “from milk” (TH ‫) ֵמ ָח ָלב‬, miyyūlåm “of old” (TH ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫) ֵמ‬, ēluwwəm “God” (TH ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫) ֱא‬, ruwwi “my spirit” 12    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 29. 13    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 38–43.

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

33

(TH ‫רּוחי‬ ִ ), yēšuwˈwā “salvation” (TH ‫ׁשּועה‬ ָ ְ‫)י‬. When word-final, the gutturals disappeared entirely, e.g., bā̊rā “he created” (TH ‫) ָּב ָרא‬, rēṣa “he murdered” (TH ‫) ָר ַצח‬, zā̊ru “arm” (TH ‫רֹוע‬ ַ ְ‫)ז‬. If a non-final guttural was immediately followed by a syllable-closing consonant, the consonant was geminated, whatever the original guttural: qā̊rā̊ttå “you called” (TH ‫את‬ ָ ‫) ָק ָר‬, yā̊rā̊ttimma “you feared” ̊ (TH ‫אתם‬ ֶ ‫)יְ ֵר‬, šāmåttå “you rejoiced” (TH ‫) ָׂש ַמ ְח ָּת‬, šāmānnu “we heard” (TH ‫) ָׁש ַמ ְענּו‬, zērākkimma “your seed” (TH ‫)זַ ְר ֲע ֶכם‬, nēmma “she was delightful” (TH ‫)נָ ֵע ָמה‬, bīmma “cattle” (TH ‫) ְב ֵה ָמה‬. I wish to reexamine what has been described by Ben-Ḥayyim and almost all scholars following him as the assimilation of gutturals to contiguous syllable-closing consonants with resulting gemination of the non-guttural consonant. This is the explanation that usually appears in descriptions of Samaritan Hebrew as well as in descriptions of Samaritan Aramaic, the latter of which is phonologically similar to, but not identical with, Samaritan Hebrew.14 Ben-Ḥayyim believed that there were two stages to this phenomenon: (1) the gutturals shifted to ˀaleph; (2) ˀaleph then assimilated to the neighboring consonant.15 He has been followed by Shelomo Morag,16 Moshe Florentin,17 L. H. Vilsker,18 and, most recently, by Abraham Tal.19 There is one dissenting voice, however. Rudolf Macuch posited in both his Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic grammars20 that when gutturals were lost, the preceding vowels were lengthened, and the lengthened vowel and simple consonant were optionally replaced by a short vowel and geminated consonant. He does not explicitly use the term, but he is referring to quantitative metathesis, a term first used in describing the transposition of short and long vowels in Ancient Greek (where it is also known as “transposition 14    Unlike in Samaritan Hebrew, samekh does not merge in Samaritan Aramaic with shin (Tal, Samaritan Aramaic, 25). 15    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 39. 16    Shelomo Morag, “‫ נקודות מפגש‬:‫“[ ”מסורת שומרון ומסורת תימן‬On Some Lines of Similarity between Samaritan Hebrew and the Yemenite Tradition of Post-Biblical Hebrew”], ‫[ מחקרים בלשון‬Language Studies] 5–6 (1992): 245–64; revised and repr. in English as “The Samaritan and Yemenite Traditions of Hebrew: Points of Contact,” ScrHier 37 (1998): 284–301. 17    Moshe Florentin, “Samaritan Hebrew: Biblical,” EHLL 3:446. 18    L. H. Vilsker, Manuel d’araméen samaritain (trans. J. Margain; Paris: Centre national de la rechereche scientifique, 1981), 32. 19    Tal, Samaritan Aramaic, 27, 33, 63. 20    Rudolf Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen hebräisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), 137–38; idem, Grammatik des samaritanischen aramäisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982), 77.

34

Fassberg

of quantity”).21 In Hebrew studies, it has often been invoked to describe the phenomenon by which a long vowel and a single consonant are replaced by a short vowel and geminated consonant (vːC = vCC):22 *hāmalk> TH ‫“ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬the king,” *ḥā̊ðḗlū> TH ‫“ ָח ֵדּלּו‬they ceased,” ‫ > ִליסֹד‬TH ‫“ ְליִ ּסֹוד‬to found,” *yīṣaθ> TH ‫יִ ַּצת‬ “it will be kindled,” *yūṣaˁ> TH ‫“ יֻ ַּצע‬it will be spread.” The medieval Hebrew grammarians called the shift of a short vowel and geminated consonant to a long vowel and single consonant ‫תשלום דגש‬, i.e., “compensatory lengthening.”23 According to Macuch, gemination occurred after the loss of the gutturals was forgotten and thus was not related chronologically to the weakening of the gutturals. It would appear that Macuch’s view is ignored by Samaritanologists for two reasons: (1) Ben-Ḥayyim’s explanation of guttural assimilation is elegantly economic and (2) Macuch’s grammars have not, in general, been well-received by scholars. As a curious aside, Macuch attributed the weakening of the gutturals in Samaritan Hebrew and Aramaic to contact with Assyrian settlers in Samaria.24 Yet, despite Occam’s razor, Ben-Ḥayyim’s explanation of the geminated consonants arising from the assimilation of gutturals runs up against one significant drawback. It flies in the face of what is attested time and time again in different Semitic languages, in the broader Afroasiatic family, and even in Indo-European: gutturals sometimes influence neighboring vowels before they weaken and disappear, but they do not assimilate to a contiguous consonant.25 21    See the OED, s.v. “metathesis.” It is called “transfer of quality” in Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised by Gordon M. Messing(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929), 15. 22    Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922), 218, 379; Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918), I: 139; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; SB 27; Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2006), 182, 184; Geoffrey Khan, “Compensatory Lengthening,” EHLL 1:500–504. 23    Radaq (R.David b. Qimḥi) may have been the first to use the term ‫( תשלום דגש‬Sefer Mikhlol 58b, last line). The concept is already found in the writings of Judah Ḥayyuj, where it is called taˁwīḍ (Ali Wated, ‫משנתו הלשונית של ר״י חיוג׳ מבעד למונחיו במקורם הערבי‬ ‫“[ ובתרגומם העברי‬The Linguistic Theory of R. Judah Ḥayyujas Reflected in His Original Arabic Terminology and in Its Hebrew Translation”] [M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984], 22–23). Jonah ibn Janaḥ also used taˁwīḍ, which Judah ibn Tibbon translated as ‫( תמורת הכפל‬Wilhelm Bacher, Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh [R. Jona] [ Berlin: H.Itzkowski, 1896], 96 under ‫)הגימל והנון הכפולה‬. I am indebted to Aharon Maman for these references. 24    Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen hebräisch, 132–33. 25    As for the assimilation of h to a contiguous consonant, during the question period that followed the lecture, Jan Joosten pointed to the noun ‫ לבה‬in TH ‫ת־אׁש‬ ֵ ‫“ ְּב ַל ַּב‬flame of fire”

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

35

I shall begin by briefly reviewing the behavior of gutturals in Hebrew and elsewhere. 2

Gutturals in the Tiberian and Other Non Samaritan Hebrew Traditions

The Proto-Semitic pharyngeal fricative *ḥ and Proto-Semitic velar fricative *x merged into ḥ in Hebrew, as did the velar fricative *ġ and pharyngeal fricative ˁ to ˁ, sometime after the third century ce since reflexes of the four phonemes

(Exod 3:2), ostensbily from ‫ ֶל ָה ָבה‬, and Noam Mizrachi, to TH ‫“ ַמּכ ֶֹלת‬food” (1 Kgs 5:25), ostensibly from ‫אכל‬. I would note that both forms are sui generis in Hebrew: the first might be derived from a root ‫לבב‬, and the second, from ‫כלל‬. On the first form, see George Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative (London: T & T Clark International, 2005), 66, who notes that it occurs in a theophany along with other unusual locutions (I thank Gary Rendsburg for this reference). Grammarians (e.g., Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen [Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908], I: 158) tend to believe that h assimilates progressively in object suffixes of the type ‫ יִ ְק ְט ֶלּנּו‬and ‫ יִ ְק ְט ֶלּנָ ה‬in the light of forms like TH ‫וַ ֲאר ְֹמ ֶמנְ הּו‬ (Exod 15:2); see also the 3 f.s. perfect with object suffixes of the pattern ‫ ְק ָט ַלּתּו‬in the light of ‫ ְק ָט ַל ְתהּו‬. Bergsträsser (Hebräische Grammatik, I: 94), on the other hand, sees the gemination as stemming from the loss of heh and subsequent lengthening of the vowel followed by quantitative metathesis. Robert Hetzron (“Third Person Singular Suffixes in Proto-Semitic,” Orientalia Suecana 8 [1969]: 101–27) reconstructs Proto-Semitic alloforms for the 3 object suffixes: 3 m.s. –hū/nnū and 3 f.s. –hā/-nnā. For a critique of Hetrzon, see Joshua Blau, “‫נ’ ובלעדיה בעברית המקרא‬-‫“[ ”כינויי נסתר ונסתרת ב‬Pronominal Third Person Singular Suffixes with and without N in Biblical Hebrew”], ErIsr 14 [H. L. Ginsberg Volume] (1978): 125–31.   In Arabic, hamza appears to assimilate to a continguous t in the eighth stem with resulting gemination (ˀittaxaḏa “take for oneself” from ˀaxaḏa; this is also the case with verbs I-w, e.g., ˀittaṣala “be connected”; William Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971], I: 76–77), it has been suggested that the apparent assimilation is actually the result of the disappearance of the glottal stop, lengthening of the preceding vowel, and subsequent quantitative metathesis (Simon Hopkins, Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic Based upon Papyri Datate to before A.H. 300/A.D. 912[London Oriental Series 37; Oxford: Oxford University Press], 25–26 n. 1). Brockelmann (Grundriss, I: 158) gives a few examples of ad hoc assimilation in different Semitic languages. Among other things, he believes ˀ assimilates regularly in ˀittafal < *ˀitˀafal in Aramaic. See also Jean Cantineau, Cours de phonétique arabe (Paris: Librairie C.Klincksieck, 1960), 71–85.

36

Fassberg

are still attested in Greek transcriptions of proper nouns in the Septuagint.26 A similar phenomenon obtains in the Aramaic text in Demotic script from near Thebes dated to the late second century bce; Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner have demonstrated that the scribe of the document still distinguishes ḥ from x.27 The gutturals also seem to preserve their consonantal value in the Secunda, yet one must bear in mind the limitations of the Greek alphabet and the many inherent difficulties in transcriptions, which render a definitive interpretation of the data concerning the gutturals and compensatory lengthening somewhat tentative.28 Gutturals weaken a bit in the Tiberian, Babylonian, and Palestinian traditions of Hebrew. The phenomenon is evident in Tiberian Hebrew in the preservation of nun before a contiguous guttural29 (e.g., in the verbs ‫“ יִ נְ ַאף‬he will commit adultery,” ‫“ יִ נְ ַהג‬he will drive,” ‫“ יַ נְ ִחיל‬he will give as a possession,” ‫יִ נְ ַעם‬ “it will be pleasant”) as opposed to its assimilation before non-gutturals (‫יִ ַּסע‬ “he will travel,” ‫“ יִ ָּש ֹא‬he will raise,” ‫“ יִ ֵּתן‬he will give”), the lowering of the vowels u and i to a in the environment of gutturals, the creation of pataḥ furtivum, and the compensatory lengthening of vowels that occurs when the gutturals (and resh) are supposed to be geminated.30 The same is true for the Babylonian 26    Joshua Blau, On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew (Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities VI.2; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982). 27    Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JAOS 103 (1983): 263, 269 n. 13. 28    For discussions of the gutturals, see Alexey Yuditsky, “‫העיצורםים הגרוניים במסורת ת�ע‬ ‫“[ ”תיקי אוריגנס‬Gutturals in the Traditions of Origen’s Transcriptions”], Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 2005), 3͏:1–13; idem, “The Weak Consonants in the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Hexapla Transliterations,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; STDJ 73: Leiden: Brill, 2008), 236–39; Einar Brønno, Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der mercatischen Fragmente der Zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origienes (ZDMG 28; Leipzig: F. A.Brockhaus, 1943), 247–375 on the representation of the vowels in the Secunda. Unlike, Brønno, Ephraim A.Speiser thought that there is some quantitative metathesis; see “The Pronunciation of Hebrew Based Chiefly on the Transliterations in the Hexapla,” JQR 23 (1933): 239–40, and 262–65. 29    In Aramaic the nun assimilates, e.g., ‫“ יֵ ַחת‬he will descend,” e.g., in Targum Onqelos (and in the Aramaizing ‫ יֵ ַחת‬in TH Jer 21:13). 30    The first guttural to weaken was ˀ (as well as r), then ˁ and h, and finally ḥ. See Joshua Blau, “‫“[ ”על גלגוליה של החלשת הגרוניות כתופעה חיה‬Stages in the Weakening of Laryngals/ Pharyngals in Biblical Hebrew”], Lesh 45 (1981): 32–39. See also Yoel Lerner, “‫ערעור העיצורים‬

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

37

tradition with differences only in a few details, e.g., the vowel of the definite article before ˁayin, the vowel of the first consonant in Piel and in the verbal noun of Piel.31 In the Palestinian tradition, the gutturals do not seem to influence adjacent vowels (lowering them to a as in Tiberian Hebrew),32 yet the writing of vowel signs twice in the proximity of gutturals seems to indicate their weakening or loss.33 The Palestinian vocalization system may evidence compensatory lengthening.34 3

Gutturals in Other Semitic Languages

The weakening of gutturals is most prominent in Akkadian, where all but one shifted to a glottal stop, which then disappeared in most environments,35 e.g., *ˀamārum > amārum “to see,” *halākum > alākum “to go.” When ˀ was contiguous to a consonant, the vowel preceding the consonant lengthened after the glottal stop disappeared, e.g., *taˀmur > tāmur “you saw,” *marˀum > mārum “son,” *milˀum > mīlum “flood.” Before disappearing, ˁ , ḥ, and often also ġ colored a neighboring a-vowel to e (with lengthened vowel when the guttural was adjacent to a consonant):36 *ˀaḥpuš > ēpuš “I made,” *laḥāmum > ‫“[ ”הגרוניים במערכת הפועל הטברנית‬The Weakening of the Gutturals as Reflected in the Tiberian Verbal System”], Lesh 47 (1983): 155–57, and Khan, “Compensatory Lengthening.” 31    Israel Yeivin, ‫[ מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization] (Academy of the Hebrew Language Texts and Studies 12; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), 283–84. 32    Joseph Yahalom, Palestinian Vocalised Piyyuṭ Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge University Library Genizah Series 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 26. 33    Joseph Yahalom, “‫הניקוד הארץ־ישראלי בקדושתות הדותה למשמרות ותופעות הלשון‬ ‫“[ ”העולות ממנו‬The Palestinian Vocalization in Hedwata’s Qĕduštot, and the Language Tradition It Reflects”], Lesh 34 (1969–1970): 54–56. 34    Yahalom (Piyyuṭ, 26) gives examples of e before gutturals for expected i. 35    Only x remained stable, but ˀ was retained sometimes to separate vowels because of morphological pressure. Most scholars believe that the gutturals are still indicated in Old Akkadian orthography. See, e.g., Rebecca Hasselbach, Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 73. John Huehnergard (“Akkadian *ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ,” in Studia Semitica [ed. Leonid Kogan; Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3; Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2003], 102–119) reconstructs an additional Proto-Semitic guttural, *x̣ , whose reflex in Akkadian merged with Proto-Semitic *x. 36    Frank R. Blake, “Studies in Semitic Grammar III,” JAOS 65 (1945): 11–116; N. J. C. Kouwenberg, “The Proto-Semitic Gutturals in Old Assyrian,” in The Akkadian Language

38

Fassberg

*leḥēmum > lêmum “to eat,” *šamāˁum > *šemēˁum > šemûm “to hear”. Akkadian influence is also generally seen as the source of the weakening of gutturals in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and to a greater extent in Mandaic. In the western tradition of Syriac, the velar *x has merged with pharyngeal ḥ (as in Hebrew) but in the eastern tradition *ḥ has merged with x, which is still the situation in the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, where ˁ has also merged with ˀ. In Palestine, the Late Western Aramaic dialects show some weakening as well as shifting of gutturals, among them an occasional ḥ > ˁ.37 In Geʿez ġ merged with ˁ and in South-Ethiopic languages, e.g., Amharic, the pharyngeals and laryngeals tend to disappear.38 4

Gutturals in Proto-Indo European

Gutturals (“laryngeals”) have also been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (and Proto-Afroasiatic39), and are thought to have weakened early on. They are partly preserved only in the Anatolian branch, where they can be seen in Hittite and Luvian. A standard reconstruction posits *h1, realized as [h] or [ˀ], *h2 as [ḥ], and *h3 as [ˁ]. As in the case of Semitic, before they weakened, they colored adjacent vowels and then disappeared, leaving behind lengthened vowels.40 The reflexes of the gutturals show up elsewhere in Indo-European in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC, (ed. Guy Deutscher and Norbertus J. C. Kouwenberg; Uitgaven van het Nederlands insti­ tuut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 106; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006), 150–76; Jan Keetman, “Wechselwirkung von Vokalen und Gutturalen im semitischen unter dem Einfluss anderer Sprachen: Die Beispiele des Akkadischen und Hebräischen,” JSS 54 (2009): 1–17. 37    Kutscher, Galilean Aramaic, 78–79. 38    Edward Ullendorff, The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Comparative Phonology (London: Taylor’s [Foreign] Press, 1955), 33–45; Stefan Weninger, “Ethio-Semitic in General,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (HSK 36; Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton, 2012), 1117. 39    Christopher Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 338–339 reconstructs ˁ, ˀ, ḥ, and h, similarly. Allan R. Bomhard, “A Sketch of Proto-Afrasian Phonology,” Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 6; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 12–13. 40    Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction (London: Blackwell 2004), 56–58; James Clackson, Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 53–63.

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

39

in the phenomenon of apophony (Ablaut). A summary of the behavior of gutturals in Indo-European by the Indo-Europeanist James Clackson is relevant to our discussion: “Particularly puzzling is the paradox that laryngeals are lost nearly everywhere, in ways that are strikingly similar, yet apparently unique to each language branch.”41 5 Proposal I believe that Macuch’s description of the gemination of consonants following original gutturals points in the right direction, viz., that the guttural first weakened and disappeared creating a longer vowel. The new syllable vːC (long vowel and consonant) was then, where the guttural was lost, replaced by a syllable of the same weight: vCC (short vowel and gemination). I think the evidence from other Semitic languages, from Afroasiatic languages, and even from Indo-European, demonstrates that gutturals weaken and disappear, but do not assimilate to contiguous consonants. Macuch described the phenomenon in Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic as optional (“fakultativ”). Here I disagree with him. His use of the term “optional” is incorrect since it is the rule in Samaritan Hebrew (and Samaritan Aramaic), though there are a few exceptions. Hebrew nominal examples include māːni “camp” (TH ‫) ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬, nāːra “maiden” (TH ‫)נַ ֲע ָרה‬, bīːmātak “your cattle” (TH ‫) ְב ֶה ְמ ְּתָך‬, and an Aramaic example māroq ‫“ מערוק‬shelter.”42 Moreover, many verbs I-guttural, have a geminated second radical in the imperfect,43 e.g., *yaˁmud > yāmmad “he will stand” (TH ‫)יַ ֲעמֹד‬, but others do not, e.g., *yahfuk > *yahafuk > *yaˀafak > yāːfak “he will overturn” (TH ‫)יַ ֲהפְֹך‬. Ben-Ḥayyim explained the forms with long vowel and simple consonant as the reflex of forms with auxiliary vowels that separated the guttural from the contiguous consonant.44 If the quantitative metathesis I am suggesting is not optional but obligatory, then one expects to find it elsewhere in the language, and not only where long vowels were created by the loss of gutturals. This is the case, for example, in the Central Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ṭuroyo in the Ṭur ʿAbdin region of southeastern Turkey, where one finds obligatory quantitative metathesis throughout the language in both nouns and verbs. Gemination in the older classical stage of Aramaic shows up in Ṭuroyo as a long vowel and simple consonant: sammā > 41    Clackson, Indo-European Linguistics, 59. 42    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 39; Tal, Samaritan Aramaic, 27. 43    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 122. 44    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 39, 57–60.

40

Fassberg

sāmo “poison,” šattā > šāto “year,” ˁizzā > ˁēzo “goat,” gillā > gēlo “blade of grass,” mšadder > mšādər “send.”45 Quantitave metathesis also appears to be a feature of Neo-Assyrian occurring in all parts of speech, though the difficulties of the syllabic orthography make any description fraught with uncertainty. See, e.g., ma-az-za-as-su (/mazzassu/) vs. ma-az-za-a-su (/mazzāsu/) “stand,” me-emme-e-ni (/memmēni/) vs. me-e-me-e-ni (/mēmēni/) “anybody.”46 Samaritan Hebrew does not exhibit the general quantitative metathesis that Ṭuroyo does. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is significantly more widespread than in the Tiberian or other traditions of Hebrew. There are many places in Samaritan Hebrew, as well as in Samaritan Aramaic, in which one finds an alternation of vːC and vCC syllables. In the verbal system One finds biforms in the following categories (1) Piˁˁel qaṭṭəl and qāṭəl, e.g., sā̊fər “he told” (TH ‫ ) ִס ֵּפר‬vs. tēbaqqəš “you seek” (TH ‫) ְּת ַב ֵּקׁש‬. According to the twelfth century Samaritan grammarian Abu Isḥāq, the D geminated stem varies freely with the non-geminated stem in Hebrew outside of the Pentateuchal tradition except in the case of II- or IIIgutturals.47 Morag, on the other hand, viewed the non-geminated forms with long a as the reflex of the qāṭala stem as in the Arabic and Ethiopic III-form.48 (2) Hebrew Nifˁal niqqāṭal and niqqaṭṭal. While the former is dominant in the Pentateuchal reading tradition, the latter form, according to Abu Isḥāq, is also found outside the Pentateuchal reading tradition. It is usually argued, however, that the gemination of the second radical is the influence of

45    Otto Jastrow, Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭūr ʿAbdīn (4th ed.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1993), 21. There is gemination in Ṭuroyo, but it is not inherited from the classical stage of Aramaic and is optional, though more often than not it is found with the consonants n, l, r, e. g., qoṭal + no > qoṭanno “I kill,” mər + lan > mərran “we said,” qadər + no > qadənno “I could.” On the other hand, in Malḥso, also a Central Neo-Aramaic dialect, the inherited gemination has been lost, but unlike Ṭuroyo, no new gemination is created. Note that even though the Western Syriac tradition has lost gemination, there is no lengthening of vowels, nor is there in Mlaḥso. 46    Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar (SAAS 13; Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 30; Mikko Luukko, Grammatical Variation in NeoAssyrian (SAAS 16; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2004) 31–35, 123–28. See also Martin Worthington, “Some New Patterns in Neo-Assyrian Orthography and Phonology Discernible in Nouns with Monosyllabic Stems,” JNES 69 (2010): 179–94. 47    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 114. 48    Morag, “Samaritan and Yemenite Traditions,” 284–301.

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

41

Hitpaˁˁel, and the geminated first radical comes from the assimilation of the taw of Hitpaˁˁel.49 (3) Hitpaˁˁel itqåṭṭə/ål and itqā̊ṭəl. The ungeminated form is not frequent and parallels the Aramaic Hitpəˁel.50 In the nominal system, one finds a significant shift of nouns from class to class caused in part by Samaritan Hebrew phonological processes. In some cases, it is individual nouns that have shifted; in a few cases, one class merges entirely with another. Note, for example, the synchronic noun class qiṭṭol, which has absorbed nouns from a variety of classes, some with original gemination, some without, e.g., *quṭṭāl – rimmon (TH ‫* ;) ִרּמֹון‬qiṭṭūl – šiqqoṣ (TH ‫) ִׁשּקּוץ‬, gillol (MT ‫* ;)ּגִ ּלּול‬qaṭāl – liššon (MT ‫) ָלׁשֹון‬, itton (TH ‫) ָאתֹון‬, *qiṭāl – ibbod (TH ‫* ;) ֵאפֹוד‬quṭul – bikkor (TH ‫) ְּבכֹור‬.51 Florentin has gathered together word pairs that are distinguished semantically by the presence and absence of gemination: bākor “firstborn of humans or animals” (TH ‫ ) ְּבכֹור‬vs. bikkor “first fruits and animals for sacrificial offering” (TH ‫) ִּבּכֹור‬, assidak “your pious” (TH ‫) ֲח ִס ֶידָך‬ vs. āːsīda “stork” (TH ‫) ַה ֲח ִס ָידה‬, kakkar “round loaf, round talent” (TH ‫ ) ִכ ָּכר‬vs. kēkar “round geographical area” (TH ‫) ִּכ ַּכר‬, akkibbūrəm “the Day of Atonement” (TH ‫ ) ַה ִּכ ֻּפ ִרים‬vs. akkēfūrəm “the act of atonement” (TH ‫) ַה ִּכ ֻּפ ִרים‬, yammən “right side, right hand” (TH ‫ ) ִיָמין‬vs. yā̊mən “Yamin (proper noun)” (TH ‫) ִיָמין‬.52 Furthermore, the presence and absence of gemination is exploited in suppletive pairs and may distinguish between masculine and feminine, (gā̊dol “big” [TH ‫ ]ּגָ דֹול‬vs. gā̊dalla [TH ‫ )]ּגְ ד ָֹלה‬or the absolute state and nouns with pronominal suffixes (ādon “master” [TH ‫ ] ָאדֹון‬vs. ādanni “my master” [TH ‫)] ֲאד ֹנִ י‬. The alternation of geminated and non-geminated consonants is evident also in Samaritan Aramaic where one finds variation between (1) the passive participle qəṭīl (lēqəṭ “gathered”) and the adjective qaṭṭīl (laqqəṭ),53 and (2) the Aramaic Peal infinitive of verbs II-w mēqol (mētor √twr ‘watch’) and miqqol 49    Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, ‎‫עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון‬, 103; Moshe Florentin, “‫התערערות‬ ‫“[ ”מערכת הסביל הפנימי ומעמד הנפעל והנתפעל במסורת השומרונים ובלשון חכמים‬The Disappearance of the Internal Passive and the Status of ‫ נפעל‬and ‫ נתפעל‬in the Samaritan Tradition and Mishnaic Hebrew”], Lesh 56 (1993): 201–11. 50    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 119. 51    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 261. 52    Moshe Florentin, “‫ בידולים סמנטיים באמצעים‬:‫עיונים בתורת הצורות של עברית השומרונים‬ ‫“[ ”מרפולוגיים‬Studies in the Morphology of Samaritan Hebrew”], Lesh 59 (1996): 217–41. See als Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 262. 53    Abraham Tal, “Some Observations on Word Formation in Samaritan Aramaic: The Qiṭṭūl Pattern,” in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches. Papers Delivered at the London Conference of the Institute of Jewish Studies University College London 26th–28th

42

Fassberg

(mittor).54 Additionally, Tal has shown that the the noun class qiṭṭūl has absorbed some originally non-geminated noun patterns and that some original qiṭṭūl nouns have moved to the non-geminated qāṭōl class.55 Ben-Ḥayyim remarked that gemination is more common in Samaritan Hebrew than in Tiberian Hebrew.56 Unlike Tiberian Hebrew, in Samaritan Hebrew the consonant resh is geminated in nouns and verbs, e.g., barrək “he blessed” (TH ‫ ) ֵב ֵרְך‬and šarra “Sarah” (TH ‫) ָׂש ָרה‬. Moreover, the semi-vowels w and y are geminated more frequently than in the Tiberian tradition:57 one finds gemination in the historical diphthongs wā (e.g., ṣuwwāru “his neck” [TH ‫אריו‬ ָ ָ‫] ַצּו‬, yuwwāləd “he will be born” [TH ‫)]יִ ּוָ ֵלד‬, ūy (nāṭuwwi “stretched out” [TH ‫]נָ טּוי‬58), ōy (guwwi “nation” [TH ‫)]ּגֹוי‬, īw (ābiyyu “his father” [TH ‫ ;] ָא ִביו‬fiyyu “his mouth” [TH ‫)] ִּפיו‬, as well as new diphthongs (e.g., sinnuwwārəm “blindness” [TH ‫] ַסנְ וֵ ִרים‬, šiyyād “lime” [TH ‫ ;] ִש ֹיד‬yayyən “wine” [TH ‫)]יַ יִ ן‬. This is not surprising since, as shown by Morag, intervocalic semi-vowels in general tend to geminate.59 After the loss of intervocalic gutturals, glides were created, which then were geminated, e.g., ēluwwəm “God” [TH ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫] ֱא‬, kuwwi [TH ‫]ּכ ִֹחי‬. Gemination is also more widespread in Samaritan Hebrew since, unlike in Tiberian Hebrew, it occurs in all forms of the Nifˁal stem.60 Moreover, there are several unexplained cases of ad hoc gemination, which Ben-Ḥayyim attributes to rhythm, e.g., kirrəm “small stove” [TH ‫] ִּכ ַיריִ ם‬, gēbirrāti “my lady” [TH ‫]ּגְ ִב ְר ִּתי‬, lallēdət “to bear” [TH ‫] ָל ֶל ֶדת‬.61 In the light of the nature of gutturals to weaken and disappear, and in the light of the extent of quantitative metathesis, I believe that one should accept Macuch’s three-stage reconstruction for the gemination of consonants that were preceded historically by contiguous gutturals: (1) the loss of the guttural; (2) compensatory lengthening of the adjacent vowel, and (3) quantitative metathesis, i.e., shortening of the vowel and gemination of the consonant. June 1991 (ed. Markham J. Geller, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Michael P. Weitzman; JSSSup 4; Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press), 212. 54   Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 91; Tal, Qiṭṭūl, 212. 55    Abraham Tal, “Word Formation in Samaritan Aramaic: ‫ ָקטֹול‬,” ScriHier 37 (1998): 352–53. 56    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 90–92. 57    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 63–66. 58    Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, p. 66 reconstructs a previous stage of *nāṭūyi, attested, for example, in manuscripts of Tannaitic Hebrew. 59    Shelomo Morag, “‫“[ ”לבעיית היכפלותם של הגיי־המעבר‬On the Problem of the Gemination of Glides”], Tarbiz 23 (1952): 236–39. 60    The geminated first radical may be due to analogy to other forms of the Nifˁal or to the assimilation of the taw of Hitpaˁˁel. See Florentin, “Disappearance.” 61    Ben-Ḥayim, Grammar, 91. He notes similar cases in Samaritan Aramaic. For another example of unexpected gemination in Samaritan Aramaic, see Tal, Samaritan Grammar, 97.

Gutturals and Gemination in Samaritan Hebrew

43

I believe that this explanation accords with the general behavior of gutturals in Semitic languages and elsewhere, namely, their loss and the compensatory lengthening of the adjacent vowel. The weakness of my proposal is that quantitative metathesis, though, widespread, is not universal in Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic, whereas it is consistent in both languages where gutturals once preceded the consonant.62 On the other hand, the Samaritan tradition may reflect an initial stage on the way to the situation in Ṭuroyo, where quantitative metathesis is general. That is to say, quantitative metathesis could have begun initially where gutturals were involved and then been in a process of spreading throughout the rest of the language, as evidenced by the not infrequent traces of the phenomenon in verbal stems and nominal patterns. What may have driven the development of quantitative metathesis is the loss of intervocalic gutturals. When they weakened and disappeared, the resulting hiatus was resolved by the geminated semi-vowels w and y. At this early stage, when some of the gutturals may have been still weakly pronounced, speakers related the weakening of the gutturals to the gemination of w and y and reinterpreted the gemination as the assimilation of the guttural, just like the assimilation of a nun (or a taw). Once this metanalysis took place, it was a short step to extend gemination wherever a guttural was contiguous to a consonant. The cases in which vCC was replaced by vːC, e.g., in the verbal stems (qaṭṭəl ~ qā̊ṭəl) as well as the shift in noun patterns would seem to imply that the situation was in a certain state of flux. I do not imply by this reconstruction that the same may have happened with the gutturals in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no evidence that consonants preceding gutturals were geminated and the gutturals were lost, though some cases of orthography with what appear to be the glides w and y where historically there was an intervocalic glottal stop (‫“ באוו‬they came” [4Q398 11–13 2 and 3; TH ‎‫] ָּבאּו‬, ‫“ ראוו‬they saw” [1QIsaa LIV 9 (MT 66:19); TH ‎‫] ָראּו‬, ‫“ הביו‬bring!” [1QIsaa XIII 19 (MT 16:3); TH ‎‫)] ָה ִב ִיאו‬, ‫“ נשיי‬princes of” (11Q19 LVII 12; TH ‫)נְ ִש ֹ ֵיאי‬63 might have been geminated as in Samaritan Hebrew and Aramaic. In the light of the many salient isoglosses linking Samaritan Hebrew and the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it gives one pause.

62 As noted by Morag, “Samaritan and Yemenite Traditions,” 296 n. 104. 63    On glides at Qumran, see Elisha Qimron, “‫”על דיפתונגים והגיי מעבר במגילות יהודה‬ [“Diphthongs and Glides in the Dead Sea Scrolls”], ‫[ מחקרים בלשון‬Language Studies] 2–3 (2000), 270; Qimron, ‫“[ וי״ו לסיון הגה מעבר‬Waw as Marker for a Glide”], :‫תשורה לשמאול‬ ‫“[ מחקרים בעולם המקרא‬Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible”] (ed. Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2001), 362–75; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 131–32.

chapter 4

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the Syntax and Semantics of the War Scroll (1QM)—Laying the Groundwork Robert D. Holmstedt 1 Introduction* The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in dating biblical Hebrew texts and the types of languages witnessed in the texts. The longstanding model of tracing a number of primarily morphological and lexical features from early to standard to late biblical Hebrew has been strongly challenged by some who assert that the data are better explained by concurrent dialects.1 The response to the challenge can be roughly summarized as twopronged. One prong has consisted of doubling-down on the standard threestage model, with either an emphasis on more features2 or a retreat to fewer “clear” features.3 The other prong has advocated better interaction with general historical linguistics, with particular reference to the appeal to statistical analysis that has gained some traction in historical linguistics since the 1980s.4 * This study is part of a larger project, a full descriptive syntax and semantics of 1QM, that I am writing with John Screnock. I am also indebted to Martin G.Abegg for continuous feedback on both the text and grammatical parsing of items in 1QM. 1  See Ian Young, Robert Rezetko and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox, 2008). 2  See, for example, Shalom Paul, “Signs of Late Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 293–99. 3  See, for example, Avi Hurvitz, “The ‘Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts’: Comments on Methodological Guidelines and Philological Procedures,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 265–79. 4  John A. Cook, “Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 83–95; B. Elan Dresher, “Methodological Issues in the Dating of Linguistic Forms: Considerations from the Perspective of Contemporary Linguistic Theory,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 19–38; A. Dean Forbes, “The Diachrony Debate: Perspectives from Pattern Recognition and Meta-Analysis,” Hebrew Studies 53 (2012): 7–42; A. Dean Forbes and Francis I. Andersen, “Dwelling on Spelling,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 127–46; Robert D. Holmstedt, “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 97–124. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_005

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

45

At the most basic, the turn to statistical models of language change builds on the well-known principle of uniformitarianism, borrowed from geology into historical reconstruction—assuming the language of the ancient Hebrew texts was a real language, it must have changed according to the patterns witnessed in both modern languages as well as better attested pre-modern languages. Thus, using attested patterns of change, as well as the models used to identify the patterns, should be applicable to the ancient Hebrew data. Given a discrete number of patterns overlaid upon a given data set, the pattern that best explains the data should, then, describe the likeliest diachronic change. The challenge of this approach has recently been taken up by A. D. Forbes.5 Forbes’ goal is “to devise and carry out a set of statistics-based protocols that either produce reliable inferences of the temporal relations among the text portions comprising the Hebrew Bible or show that such inferences are not possible.” He works through a variety of constraints facing the study of ancient Hebrew diachrony, including noise-induced weakening of results (e.g., compositional history and scribal copying), limitations on the data set, problematic text samples, the problem of assigning anchor dates to texts, and the allure as well as difficulties of using language-diffusion S(igmoid)-curves. Though Forbes is right to criticize the facile use of S-curves, he has also confirmed in private communication my own position, which I have articulated in public but not yet put to print—S-curves hold promise if utilized carefully. That is, one S-curve means extremely little, and two S-curves mean hardly more, but dozens of carefully performed S-curve analyses may result in a statistically valid relative order of texts. And this, I believe, is where the future of ancient Hebrew diachronic analysis lies. With that said, besides the challenge of carrying out dozens of S-curve analysis across all the ancient Hebrew texts at our disposal, the other challenges that Forbes discusses, which constrain the diachronic analysis of Hebrew, require that we take a step back in our work. Specifically, we must deal with access to well-parsed, carefully categorized, and well-presented data sets. For the Dead Sea Scrolls, this requires, in my opinion, more than what the current digital databases provide; that is, it requires more than lexical identification and morphological parsing, but syntactic and semantic parsing. Furthermore, even the resulting databases would be inadequate—though they provide access to the across-the-board data, what is missing is a full-scale descriptive grammar for the individual texts. And this is what I propose for the critical next step in ancient Hebrew language study. In the remainder of this paper, I will lay the 5  I am indebted to Dean Forbes for sending me a copy of his 2014 conference paper (“On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Constraints and Options,” presented at the Conference of the International Syriac Language Project, St. Petersburg, July 2).

46

Holmstedt

foundation for such a programme and offer a description of two syntactic features in 1QM. 2

Previous Scholarship on Qumran Hebrew (QH) Grammar, with Special Focus on Syntax

In the relatively short history of scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the grammar of the Qumran texts has received focused attention on matters of orthography, phonology, and morphology, but less so in the area of syntax and semantics, even though it is the combination of words from which meaning emerges.6 To be sure, there have been a few studies of a particular grammatical issue in one text,7 and many more that describe some feature across the whole corpus.8 6  For example, in E. Qimron’s seminal grammar, only seventeen out of 118 pages are given to syntactic description, within which some issues discussed are more semantic than syntactic (The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986], 70–86). Similarly, the latest volume on the language of Qumran consists of more than three hundred pages on orthography, phonology, and morphology (Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology [Resources for Biblical Study 76; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014]). Certainly, these components of grammar are important, but where are the investigations into syntax and semantics? 7  See, for example, Thomas Leahy, “Studies in the Syntax of 1QS,” Bib 41 (1960): 135–57; John Screnock, “Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation,” DSD 18 (2011): 29–44. 8   See, for example, Jacobus A. Naudé, “Qumran Hebrew as a Null Subject Language,” South African Journal of Linguistics 9 (1991): 119–25; idem, “Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” JNSL 26 (2000): 105–32; idem, “The Distribution of Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew,” JNSL 27 (2001): 91–112. Also see most of the published papers in the five international symposiums on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995 (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University 15–17 December 1997 (STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000); Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; STDJ 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008); Hebrew in the Second Temple Period:

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

47

With respect to all elements of QH grammar, E. Y. Kutscher’s seminal study of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) holds pride of place.9 Though this study covered all aspects of language, Kutscher’s notes on syntax set the agenda for much of the future study of QH syntax. Another early study, by T. Leahy, investigated several important features found in the Scrolls, the most significant of which is the so-called “predicative” use of the infinitive.10 Short discussions of QH syntax are included in both E. Qimron’s The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls11 and the edition of 4QMMT in DJD 10.12 And among T. Muraoka’s numerous publications on Qumran language are some focused more narrowly on syntax and verbal semantics.13 Many of the same syntactical issues are highlighted in works by both Qimron and Muraoka (owing in part to their dependence on Kutscher), such as the predicative use of the infinitive absolute and the changes to the verbal system between Biblical and Qumran Hebrew.14 M. Smith’s study of the development of the wayyiqtol form includes a significant section on QH, touching on 1QM in particular;15 elsewhere Smith considers QH participles and the use of the infinitive absolute in QH.16 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, jointly sponsored by the Eliezer Ben-Yehuda Center for the Study of the History of the Hebrew Language, 29–31 December, 2008 (ed. Steven Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher and Ruth A. Clements; STDJ 108; Leiden: Brill, 2013). 9  Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974). 10  Leahy, “Studies in the Syntax of 1QS.” 11  Qimron’s 1986 monograph is based on his doctoral thesis, directed in part by Kutscher: Elisha Qimron, “‫( ”דקדוק הלשׁון העברית שׁל מגילות מדבר יהודה‬Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976). 12  Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). esp. pp. 65–108. 13  Takamitsu Muraoka, “Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, 1999, 92–149; idem, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well, 193–214; idem, “The Morphosyntax of the Construct Phrase in Qumran Hebrew,” in Conservatism and Innovation, 125–32. 14  Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Takamitsu Muraoka, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax.” 15  Mark Smith, “Converted and Unconverted Perfect and Imperfect Forms in the Literature of Qumran,” BASOR 284 (1991): 1–16. 16  Respectively, Mark Smith, “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic

48

Holmstedt

The QH scholarship of M. G. Abegg also deserves special notice, since his work was the first to investigate QH using a digital database. Working with (indeed, creating the QH databases for17) existing Bible software has allowed Abegg to consider orthographic, phonological, and morphological trends across all the texts. For example, in his work on the biblical manuscripts, all 256 manuscripts—over 90,000 words—are taken into account.18 As such, Abegg has greatly increased our knowledge and rectified longstanding inaccuracies passed down by previous scholars.19 However, even Abegg only touches on syntax at a few points, such as the distribution of verbs,20 the use of ‫ את‬with clitic pronoun verb complements, and various changes to the infinitive.21 Critically, he recently observed that the study of QH syntax “is still in its infancy,”22 a state of affairs which no doubt figured prominently in his co-creation of an ancient Hebrew syntactic database project in 2008.23 Finally, the proceedings from the five international symposia include a number of recent studies that address some aspect of syntax or semantics. This is especially true for syntax in the last two symposia volume, e.g., M. Eskhult on the ‫ה‬-relative; S. Fassberg on word-order shifts; P. van Hecke on ‫ אין‬and‫ישׁ‬ clauses and P. van Hecke on ‫ היה‬copular clauses; B. Isaksson on adjunct clauses; Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages, 278–332; idem, “The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey,” in Diggers at the Well, 256–68. 17  Abegg is responsible for the digital Dead Sea scroll texts, including the lexical and morphological tagging, in the Accordance Bible software. He is also leading the syntactic tagging of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira for the Holmstedt-Abegg Hebrew Syntax Database, distributed within the Accordance Bible software. 18  Martin Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam; 2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1.325–58; idem, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll: Where are We Now?” (unpublished paper presented at the International Organization of Qumran Studies Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 17, 2007). 19  See particularly Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll.” 20  Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls”; idem, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll”; idem, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More Than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 48–68; idem, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” in Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls, part 2 (Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint; DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 25–41. 21  Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll;” idem, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls.” 22  Abegg, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 68. 23  See note 17.

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

49

J. Joosten on the word order of imperatival clauses; and T. Zewi on the syntax of “content” clauses.24 As valuable as these studies are, they also represent the first “lost forest”—the various grammars of Qumran are taken as a whole, even though current DSS scholarship generally acknowledges the heterogeneous origins of both the biblical and the non-biblical texts. For the single text of 1QM, the lack of focused grammatical study simply illustrates my larger point. Though the War Scroll was one of the first seven Scrolls found, and is also one of the larger texts, very few studies have been dedicated to this text’s language. In fact, there have been just three. S. Holst’s Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scrolls, which is based on his 2004 doctoral thesis, is the first work to focus on the syntax of 1QM.25 Though the title of Holst’s work indicates a study of the verbal system, he—rightly, in my view—connects verbal semantics to word order and so discusses syntax a great deal. Holst analyzes the verbal system primarily through the lens of discourse analysis, loosely following the frameworks developed by R. Longacre and A. Niccacci.26 Although Holst’s study is comprehensive in scope, it fails to make many firm and clear claims about the verbal system in 1QM. For example, with respect to the so-called “predicative” use of the infinitive, Holst states blandly that the infinitive is “gradual[ly] encroach[ing] … upon the function of the yiqtol.”27 24  Mats Eskhult, “Relative ha-: A Late Biblical Hebrew Phenomenon?,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 47–55; Steven Fassberg, “Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 57–71; Pierre Van Hecke, “Constituent Order in Existential Clauses,” in Conservatism and Innovation, 61–78; idem, “Constituent Order in ‫היה‬-Clauses in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 83–104; Bo Isaksson, “Circumstantial Qualifiers in Qumran Hebrew: Reflections on Adjunct Expressions in The Manual of Discipline (1QS),” in Conservatism and Innovation, 79–91; Jan Joosten, “Imperative Clauses Containing a Temporal Phrase and the Study of Diachronic Syntax in Ancient Hebrew,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 117–31; Tamar Zewi, “Content Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 289–98. 25  Søren Holst, “Verbs and the War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Copenhagen, 2004); idem, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scrolls (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2008). 26  For example, Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Robert Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003). 27  Holst, Verbs and War Scroll, 128; for an incisive review, see Andrew R. Jones, “A Review of Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. By

50

Holmstedt

The second published study to focus exclusively on an issue of syntax or semantics in 1QM is J. Screnock’s “Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation.” In this study, Screnock surveys all the data in 1QM and concludes that the “basic” word order is Subject-Verb, which accords with the word order arguments that have been advanced by R. Holmstedt.28 Furthermore, Screnock observes that verbal valency may contribute to the movement of constituents. The third and final study on some syntactic aspect of 1QM is R. Medina’s “The Syntax of Dependent Clauses in the War Scroll (1QMilḥamah) in Comparison with other Hebrew Corpora.”29 In this study, Medina moves in a positive direction by describing a syntactic issue with full examples and concise comparative comments that do not err by drawing presumptive diachronic conclusions. Do not misunderstand my stance towards previous grammatical work on the Scrolls in general or 1QM in particular. All the studies I have mentioned— as well as any I have missed—have contributed significantly to our understanding of QH syntax and semantics.30 However, the investigation of isolated syntactic or semantic issues across all the QH texts, useful though it is, risks losing the forest for the trees. We should not assume that some syntactic or semantic feature functions the same way in all the texts in which the feature appears. Treating QH texts as a grammatically homogeneous linguistic corpus is deeply questionable, since current Dead Sea scrolls scholarship generally acknowledges the heterogeneous origins of both the biblical and the nonbiblical texts.31 Isolating one feature across the texts sidesteps the fact that each Søren Holst. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 2008,” DSD 18 (2011): 378–80. 28  Robert D. Holmstedt, “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A Generative-Typological Analysis,” JSS 54 (2009): 111–139; idem, “The Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject?” JHS 11 (2011): 1–39. 29  Richard W. Medina, “The Syntax of Dependent Clauses in the War Scroll (1QMilḥamah) in Comparison with other Hebrew Corpora,” Orientalia 82 (2013): 272–307. 30  The first symposium was held in 1995 (published in 1997 as Muraoka and Elwolde, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira), the second in 1997 (published in 1999 as Muraoka and Elwolde, Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages), the third in 1999 (published in 2000 as Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well), the fourth in 2006 (published in 2008 as Joosten and Rey, Conservation and Innovation), the fifth in 2008 (published in 2013 as Fassberg, Bar-Asher and Clements, Hebrew in the Second Temple Period), and the sixth in 2011 (the proceedings remain unpublished). The seventh symposium occurred in the summer 2014. 31  Eduard Y.Kutscher was ahead of his time in describing the grammar of one text, 1QIsaa; even though the full range of Qumran texts have now been available for twenty years, Kutscher’s lead has, inexplicably, not been followed.

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

51

text represents a grammatical system (the idiolect of its author) in and of itself. Thus, the distinctive grammar of each text is the forest that can be, and arguably often is, missed. Achieving a deeper understanding of the Qumran linguistic phenomena requires equal attention to both the trees and the forest. And so to complement the wealth of past studies, I propose that the next step should be to write descriptive grammars of each text. 3

On Writing a Descriptive Grammar

Describing the grammar of a language is a daunting task. The challenges begin even before the phenomena are described, for how a grammar is organized and how the data are presented critically affect the usability of the resulting description. For organization, presentation, and general methodological and theoretical orientation, we have followed many of the proposals expressed by the various linguists and grammar authors in T. Payne and D. Weber’s Perspectives on Grammar Writing.32 Among the principles that have been formative in our approach are these (with reference to authors’ studies within Payne and Weber 2007 in square brackets): A. All grammatical description entails theoretical assumptions about the nature of language (e.g., whether the lexical category of “noun” or the syntactic category “subject” are universal is debated).33 Thus, it is highly preferable to make one’s theoretical assumptions explicit (which assumes, of course, an awareness of linguistic theory). [Payne: 3; Rice: 153] B. Descriptive terminology should be drawn from common usage within contemporary linguistics. Creating or perpetuating idiosyncratic terminology significantly reduces the readability and usability of the description. [Mithun: 50; Noonan: 116] C. The likelihood of descriptive accuracy increases if a good, dedicated dictionary has been completed, especially for topics that involve the 32  Thomas E. Payne and David J. Weber, ed., Perspectives on Grammar Writing (Benjamins Current Topics 11; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007). 33  See Matthew S. Dryer, “Are Grammatical Relations Universal?” in Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón(ed. Joan Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra Thompson; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997), 115–43; Martin Haspelmath, “Preestablished Categories Don’t Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 119–32; Frederick J. Newmeyer, “Linguistic Typology Requires Crosslinguistic Formal Categories,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 133–57.

52

Holmstedt

intersection of syntax and semantics, such as verbal valency. [Mithun: 72; Noonan: 122; Rice: 147] D. A detailed table of contents, clear organization (including multiple outline levels), copious data examples, and index increase usability. [Noonan: 116–17; Rice: 152–53] First, my theoretical orientation is at its core generative in that I find the minimalist approach to syntax, phrase structure, and relationship of syntax to other components of grammar (phonology, morphology, semantics, and lexicon) compelling, as well as Chomsky’s general approach to human language and the brain.34 However, I see advantages in combining generative syntax and linguistic typology in that I draw on the descriptive, cross-linguistic strengths of typology but within the conceptual framework of the unifying abstraction of generative theory.35 As Baker and McClosky suggest, such a combination could thus form a kind of conduit for the best results of typology to flow into formal syntactic theory and vice versa … This could provide an escape from those sterile debates between “functionalist” (typological) and “formal” approaches to language that have too long hindered dialogue and deepening of understanding.36 Second, for my descriptive terminology, I draw heavily on two widely used reference resources: the well-known A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics by D. Crystal and the monumental The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie.37 Third, there is currently no published dictionary dedicated to the texts of Qumran, though this body of literature was included in the scope of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, edited by D. Clines.38 And yet, besides denying 34  See Noam Chomsky, The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995); idem, Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 35  For extensive discussion of this topic, see Frederick J. Newmeyer, Language Form and Language Function (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998). 36  Mark C. Baker and Jim McCloskey, “On the Relationship of Typology to Theoretical Syntax,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 285–96, 295. 37  David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008); Martin Haspelmath et al., eds., The World Atlas of Language Structure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 38  David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (8 vol.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011).

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

53

QH distinction apart from the complexity of BH lexical semantics, the lack of a focused QH lexical reference, especially one that takes into account verbal valency, that is, the argument requirements of each verb (e.g., no complements, one noun complement, more than one complement, prepositional complements), hamstrings accurate grammatical description of QH texts before their features are compared to other stages, dialects, and corpora of ancient Hebrew. To that end, each grammatical description should include (§IV.F) a valency lexicon of all verbs, including full reference to types of complements or typical adjuncts. Fourth, for the organization of a descriptive grammar, it is wise to avoid idiosyncrasy and follow and appropriately modify existing descriptive projects. Thus, I took strong cues from the discussions in Payne and Weber 2007 and well as the organization used by T. Payne’s Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists.39 The result is the following outline covering syntax and semantics: A. Grammatical Categories 1. Nouns 2. Verbs 3. Modifiers a. Adjectives b. Demonstratives c. Prepositions d. Adverbs 4. Conjunctions B. Noun Phrase 1. Determination a. Inherent – i. Proper Nouns – ii. Gentilic Nouns b. Articular c. Pronominal d. Cliticization 2. Modification a. By adjectives and demonstratives – i. Attributive Adjectives – ii. Predicative Adjectives 39  Thomas E. Payne, Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

54 – iii. Substantival Adjectives – iv. Adverbial Adjectives b. By Noun Phrase-Internal Prepositional Phrase c. By relative clause d. By appositive 3. Quantification a. ‫ כול‬ b. Cardinal numerals – i. Order, Agreement, and Structure – ii. Additive Complex Numerals – iii. Teen Constructions – iv. Multiplicative Complex Numerals – v. Other Aspects of Numeral Syntax – vi. Summary of Cardinal Numerals 4. Negation 5. Coordination a. Simple b. Distributive C. Verb Phrase 1. Tense-Aspect-Mood a. Qatal b. Yiqtol c. Infinitives d. Participle e. Other 2. Negation 3. Valency a. Verbal Arguments – i. Subjects – ii. Complements – iii. Adjuncts b. Valency changing operations D. Clause structure 1. Clause types a. Verbal (finite) b. Verbal (non-finite: imperatival, infinitival) c. Copular – i. Existential – ii. With predicate noun phrases

Holmstedt

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

55

– iii. With predicate adjective phrases – iv. With predicate prepositional phrases 2. Embedded Clauses a. Nominalized clauses b. Complement clauses 3. Subordinate Clauses a. Relative (see B2c) b. Conditional (in which the realization of one situation is contingent on another, whether a real condition (if … then) or a temporal (when … then)) c. Temporal (in which one clause sets the time frame for another (after/ before/while x … y)) d. Motive and Consequence (in which one situation is the cause or outcome or goal of another (x … because/so that/with the result that y)) e. Conjunctive and disjunctive: clauses are related either by addition (and, also, moreover) or alternation (or, but, rather, instead). f. Comparative and manner: one clause describes the manner of the other by comparison (like/as x … y) E. Constituent Order 1. Noun phrase 2. Verb phrase 3. Main clauses 4. Subordinate clauses 5. Questions, negation, and other modal contexts 6. Summary and “basic” constituent order 7. Topic and Focus F. Valency Lexicon 4

The Syntax and Semantics of 1QM—Two Brief Illustrations

To illustrate how this looks in practice, I present below two brief excerpts from the syntax and semantic grammar of 1QM I am writing with John Screnock.40 Both excerpts are from sections I have written on noun modification. 40  I thank Marty Abegg for giving me privileged access to the latest version of his syntactically tagged text of 1QM.The text I present, along with its morphological and lexical analysis, is also dependent on Abegg’s digital text, though the English translations have been modified to illustrate the Hebrew syntax more closely.

56

Holmstedt

Attributes of nouns are provided by modifiers existing on a cline from simple adjectives to more complex structures like relative clauses. These modifiers provide information about their nominal head, ranging from features such as color, quality, size, direction, location, and states of being, to events that the noun is involved in. The internal syntax of the modifier depends on the complexity it demands; that is, a bare adjective requires much less phrasal complexity than a relative clause, which has its own predication. Apart from the internal syntax, nominal modifiers may relate to their head in two ways—as a constituent located within the NP41 (the “attributive” relationship) or as a constituent linked to the head by a copula (the “predicative” relationship). 4.1 By NP-Internal PP In Hebrew, PPs overwhelmingly modify an event and thus, depending on the verb’s valency requirements, are verbal complements or adjuncts. However, some PPs modify nominal heads and thus stand within the phrase structure headed by a noun. These “NP-internal” PPs stand between adjectives and relative clauses in terms of complexity—they are phrasally more complex than most adjectives (excepting only the few adjectives that have their own internal modifiers) and less complex than the full clausal structure of relatives. Semantically, all NP-internal PPs in ancient Hebrew appear to be restrictive, providing necessary information for the identification of the relative head. ‫ למלחמת כלה לבני חושך‬1.10

‫ לוא נהיתה כמוה‬1.12a

a battle of annihilation for the sons of darkness any ∅ like it has not existed

On the day of their battle against the Kittim The annihilation by God of all the vainglorious nations ‫ מזה ומזה לצמיד סביב‬5.8–9 both sides to the band all around And the horsemen with the cavalry of the men of ‫ הפרשים על רכב אנשי הסרך‬6.11 the army ‫ ביום מלחמתם בכתיים‬1.12b ‫ כלת אל בכול גוי הבל‬4.12

2 By Appositive Apposition, which occurs ninety-six times in 1QM, is the modification of a constituent (the head) by a constituent of the same (or very similar) lexical category (the appositive). Apposition may be used as a modification strategy with nouns, PPs, verbs, and even entire clauses, though in 1QM apposition is limited 41  Note the following two commonly used abbreviations, which I employ throughout my description: Noun Phrase (NP) and Prepositional Phrase (PP).

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

57

to numerals, NPs, and PPs. PP-PP apposition occurs five times: 1:1 (3×), 3; 2:11. In 1:1 two PP appositives modify a single PP head (the sequence of modifiers on a single head is often referred to as “stacking”). Apposition with numerals, both NP-NUM and NUM-NP, occurs sixty-one times: 1:13; 2:1, 2, 4; 2:6, 9 (2×), 13, 14; 3:14; 4:15 (2×), 16 (4×), 17; 5:1, 2, 3 (2×), 7 (2×), 13 (3×), 14, 16, 17; 6:1 (2×), 2, 4, 8, 8–9 (3×), 10, 14 (2×); 7:1 (2×), 2, 3, 10, 14 (2×), 15, 16; 8:2, 4, 6, 8, 13; 9:4 (2×), 4–5 (2×), 12 (2×), 13. NP-NP apposition, where both NPs are common nouns, occurs twenty times: 1:2; 3:4; 5:6, 9, 16; 7:11 (3×); 8:5, 7, 10; 10:9–10; 11:8b; 12:11; 13:1, 12; 15:4; 16:12; 17:9, 11. In 7:11, three NP appositives are stacked and modify a single NP head. Apposition where the head is a NP and the appositive is a PN occurs once, in 10:9; where the head is a PN and the appositive a NP occurs three times, in 11:1; 13:11; 17:2. There is one example of a PN head with a gentilic appositive in 11:1. There are two cases were the head is an independent pronoun, with a NP appositive, in 14:12; 17:8. Interestingly, in 17:8, the pronoun is vocative (the verb is an imperative), and accordingly, its appositive is also vocative. Finally, the noun involved in the appositive may be null—a NP head is modified by a null head and participle appositive in 11:8a, and in 10:5 both the head and the appositive are null, with the head modified by a participle and the appositive by an adjective. (Note that these last two examples could be analyzed as unmarked relatives, though this simply illustrates the blurry line between relative and appositive modification.)42 Semantically, appositives may modify the anchor restrictively (i.e., the appositive identifies its head) or non-restrictively (i.e., the appositive provides non-identification, non-obligatory information). Restrictive apposition in 1QM occurs with all cases of numeral apposition. Only one case of nominal apposition could be restrictive, ‫ עמכה ישראל‬in 10:9. If this were the first time that ‫ עמכה‬was introduced in the discourse, then ‫ ישראל‬would be a necessary identifier. However, the “people of God” are discussed as early as column 1, and, in any case, the concept was quite familiar with the conceptual world outside the text. Thus, this example must be non-restrictive, as are all other cases of nominal apposition. Similarly, PP appositions are all non-restrictive. Note that, as with the adjective chart above, in the apposition chart below (which omits numeral apposition), light font indicates the head (whether NP or PP, etc.) and bold font indicates the appositive.

42  See Robert D. Holmstedt, The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew (volume 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 10–16.

58

Holmstedt ‫בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל‬

1.1a

‫בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב‬

1.1b

‫בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב ובני‬ ‫וחי֯[ל יושבי] פלשת ובגדודי‬ ̇ ‫עמון‬ ‫כתיי אשור‬

1.c

‫בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין גולת‬

1.2

‫וח ֯י[ל יושבי] פלשת‬ ̇ ‫ובני עמון‬

‫המדבר‬ ‫בם ב֯ [ ] לכול גדודיהם‬ ‫בשאר בני ארם בעוץ וחול תוגר‬

1.3 2.11

‫ומשא אשר בעבר פורת‬ ‫אנשי השם {{יכתובו}} ראשי אבות‬

3.4

‫העדה‬

5.6 5.9 ‫ אבנט בד שש משוזר‬7.11a ‫ אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן‬7.11b ‫אבני חפץ אבדני ריקמה‬ ‫אבני חפץ בדני ריקמה‬

‫ותולעת שני וצורת ריקמה‬

‫אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן‬ ‫ותולעת שני וצורת ריקמה‬

7.11c

‫קול מרודד ידי סדר מלחמה‬‎ 8.5 ‫שלושה סדרים‬‎ 8.6

‫קול נוח וסמוך ידי מפשע‬‎ 8.7 ‫קול אחד תרועת מלחמה גדולה‬

8.10

‫כול עתודי המלחמה נדיבי לב‬‎ 10.5

‫עמכה ישראל‬‎ 10.9 … ‫עמכה‬‎ ‫ עם קדושי ברית ומל�ו‬10.9– °]--[°]-- ‫ מדי חוק משכילי בינ֯[ה‬10

Against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, (that is) against the army of Belial against the army of Belial: (more specifically), against the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and the ar[my of the inhabitants of] Philistia against the army of Belial: (more specifically), against the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and the ar[my of the inhabitants of] Philistia and against the troops of the Kittim of Assyria the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, (namely), the exile of the wilderness against them, against […] concerning all their troops against the rest of the sons of Aram: against Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates. the men of renown {they shall write}, the heads of the congregation’s clans jewels, a multicolored brocade precious stones, a multicolored brocade a sash of linen—twined fine linen a sash of linen—twined fine linen, violet, purple and crimson a sash of linen—twined fine linen, violet, purple and crimson, and a varicolored design a level note, signals for the order of battle three formations a low legato note, signals for advance a single note, a great battle alarm all (those) prepared for battle, (those) willing of heart Your people Israel, Your people,  … the people of the holy ones of the covenant

‫ושומעי קול נכבד ורואי‬ ‫גולית הגתי‬‎ 11.1a Goliath the Gittite

Writing A Descriptive Grammar of 1QM

59

‫גולית הגתי איש גבור חיל‬‎ 11.1b Goliath the Gittite, a mighty warrior ‫דויד עבדכה‬‎ 11.2

‫משיחיכה חוזי תעודות‬‎ 11.8a ‫גדודי בליעל שבעת גוי הבל‬

11.8b

‫גוים צריכה‬‎ 12.11

‫אחיו ׄה[כו] ֗הנים והלויים וכול זקני‬

13.1

‫הסרך‬ ‫בליעל לשחת מלאך משטמה‬‎ 13.11 ‫כול רוחי גורלו מלאכי חבל‬‎ 13.12 ‫אנו עם קודשכה‬‎ 14.12 ‫אחיו הכ֯ [והנים] והלויים וכול אנשי‬

15.4

‫הסרך‬ ‫מערכה אחרת חליפה למלחמה‬‎ 16.12 ‫ואבי]הוא בני אהרון‬ ׄ ‫[נדב‬‎ 17.2 ‫אתם בני בריתו‬‎ 17.8

‫מצרפיו רזיו למעמדכם‬‎ 17.9 ‫תרועה שנית יידי התקרב‬‎ 17.11

David, Your servant Your anointed ones, seers of things appointed the hordes of Belial, the seven vainglorious nations the nations, Your adversaries his brothers, the [pr]iests, the Levites and all the elders of the army Belial for the pit, an angel of malevolence All the spirits of his lot, the angels of destruction we, Your holy people his brothers, the p[riests,] the Levites, and all the men of the army another battle line, a reserve for battle Nadab and Abi]hu, the sons of Aaron you, O children of His covenant His fiery trials, His mysteries concerning your existence A second blast, signs for confrontation

5 Conclusions In this brief study I have argued that the next stage of QH grammatical study should be the production of a descriptive grammar for each text. Providing the linguistic background for such an enterprise, I illustrated how a grammatical description of two features of the NP in QH Hebrew, NP-internal PPs and apposition, looks. The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran is entering a stage of impressive maturity. This is clear from the numerous introductions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the establishment of a second scholarly journal (Dead Sea Discoveries) to join the Revue de Qumrân, and the plethora of theses and monographs situating the Scrolls in their late Second Temple historical, textual, and theological milieu with increasing sophistication. Why should the study of the language be left behind? With all due respect to previous scholars such as E. Y. Kutscher, M. Bar-Asher, and E. Qimron, is the language of the Scrolls (or better, are the “languages” of the Scrolls) well enough understood that the study of QH should be considered complete?

60

Holmstedt

I do not think so. Indeed, I do not consider the language of any ancient Hebrew text to have been adequately investigated, though the field of Hebrew language studies as a whole has also reached a point of maturity, perhaps best signified by the recently published Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. I suggest that the stage is set for the next task of describing the grammar of each text in preparation for a new type of reference grammar and a new stage of diachrony and dialectal analysis. So, too, Qumran studies must not neglect the language of the texts, and I offer this brief illustration as a beginning, an initial push for what I hope will be a wave of properly carried out grammatical descriptions and analyses of ancient Hebrew texts as a whole.

chapter 5

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of Tiberian and Qumran Hebrew: The Preservation of Early Linguistic Features in Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Hebrew Aaron D. Hornkohl 1  Introduction: Consensus and Opposition* While there are significant differences in scholarly opinion as to the exact nature of Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS) Hebrew—for example, whether its salient features are best explained as reflecting an artificial literary idiom, an authentic spoken register, or an intentionally distinctive “anti-language”1—there is widespread consensus that it represents a form of Second Temple Hebrew characterized by a recognizable, diachronically meaningful kinship with other post-classical forms of Hebrew, e.g., Late Biblical Hebrew (= LBH) as evidenced in the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition (= MT), Samaritan Hebrew, the Hebrew of * I wish to express my gratitude at having been afforded the opportunity to take part in the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, Strasbourg, June 22–25, 2014, and for the penetrating questions and constructive comments of conference participants in response to the paper that I read in that forum, of which the present article is an updated and expanded revision. A special word of thanks to Prof. Jan Joosten for having extended me the invitation to participate. 1  To be sure, the terms “DSS Hebrew” and “Qumran Hebrew” are too broad to be of much help in the description of the language of certain Qumran texts, such as 4QMMT (i.e., Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah; see Elisha Qimron, “The Language,” in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah [ed. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 65–108; Alexey Yuditsky, “Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah (4QMMT),” in EHLL 2, 644–46) and 3Q15 (i.e., the Copper Scroll; see Judah K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll—3Q15: A Reevaluation. A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 18–19 and n. 71; John Lübbe, “The Copper Scroll and Language Issues,” in Copper Scroll Studies [ed. George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies; JSPSup 40; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 155–62; Albert M. Wolters, “Copper Scroll [3Q15],” in EHLL 1:621–22). More generally see Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988): 148–64; Steven E. Fassberg, “Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features,” EHLL 1:663–69.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_006

62

Hornkohl

Ben Sira, and Rabbinic (specifically, Tannaitic) Hebrew (= RH), as well as with contemporary forms of Aramaic. Though all forms of Second Temple Hebrew display features also typical of Classical Biblical Hebrew (= CBH) as preserved in the MT, and, on occasion, even phenomena that appear, at least typologically, to predate standard alternatives in Masoretic CBH,2 Hebraists generally view the linguistic profile of Masoretic Biblical Hebrew (= BH) as earlier than that of DSS Hebrew, whether in biblical or non-biblical material.3 2  For example, the standard RH demonstrative ‫“ זֹו‬this (f)” is thought by some to represent a typologically more primitive—and, presumably, chronologically earlier—form than standard CBH ‫ ;זֹאת‬see, e.g., Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.; Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908–13), I §107tβ; Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des alten Testamentes (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922), §30d; Moshe Z. Segal, Diqduq Lešon ha-Mišna (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1936), 49; Chaim Rabin, “The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew,” SH 4 (1958): 144–61 (145, n. 3); Avi Hurvitz, Ben Lašon le-Lašon: Le-Toldot Lešon ha-Miqra b-Ime Bayit Šeni (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972), 41; Eduard Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1982), §203; Moshe Bar-Asher, “ʾAḥdutah ha-Hisṭorit šel ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit u-Meḥqar Lešon Ḥaḵamim,” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 1 (1985): 75–100 (90–91); ibid., “Lešon Ḥaḵamim: Divre Mavo,” in Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rav Mordechai Breuer: ʾAsupat Maʾamarim be-Madaʿe ha-Yahadut (2 vols.; ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), II 657–88 (663); W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 83–84; Eduard Y. Kutscher and Yochanan Breuer, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” EJ2 8, 639–49 (643); cf. GKC §34b; Jakob Barth, Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (Hildesheim: Olms, 1913), 105; Zellig S. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1939), 70; S. J. du Plessis, “Aspects of Morphological Peculiarities of the Language of Qoheleth,” in De Fructu Oris Sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (ed. I. H. Eybers et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 164–80 (174); Takamitsu Muraoka, “The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic,” Abr-Nahrain 22 (1984): 79–117 (93–94, but cf. 84); Joshua Blau, Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), §§4.2.4.5.1–2. 3 Important discussions include Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, “Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” SH 4 (1958): 200–14; Rabin, “Historical Background;” Eduard Y. Kutscher, Ha-Lašon ve-ha-Reqaʿ ha-Lešoni šel Megilat Yišʿayahu ha-Šelema mi-Megilot Yam ha-Melaḥ (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959); ibid., The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974); Joshua Blau, “Hirhurav šel ʿArabisṭan ʿal Hištalšelut ʿIvrit ha-Miqra u-Sʿifoteha,” Leš 60 (1997): 21–32; ibid., “A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 20–25; William M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52; idem, “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well, 245–55; Avi Hurvitz,

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

63

This may seem counterintuitive. After all, the DSS date to between the third century bce and the second century ce, while the representative Masoretic codices were not produced until the beginning of the second millennium ce. Since the DSS were discovered in situ, the textual and linguistic traditions documented therein were spared some thousand years of the vagaries and vicissitudes associated with the editing and transmission to which of the MT was subject. Does it not then strain credibility to maintain, with most Hebraists, that the Hebrew preserved in medieval Masoretic sources more accurately represents the literary language of the First and early Second Temple Periods than does that found in the much earlier DSS? Does not this enormous discrepancy in exposure to modification in the course of copying, coupled with the innumerable instances of apparent textual variation arising from a comparison of the MT, the DSS, and other ancient witnesses, imply that Hebrew language scholars should re-evaluate the privilege they almost universally afford Masoretic BH in linguistic studies? In several recent publications, certain scholars have responded to these questions with a very forceful affirmative. They argue that the nearly ubiquitous evidence of literary development, textual fluidity, and linguistic modification in the course of the transmission of biblical texts renders them unsuitable for any sort of philological analysis intended to describe the linguistic milieu in which the original texts were composed. Consider a recent expression of this view: Historical linguistic analysis of ancient Hebrew has habitually proceeded on the assumption that the Hebrew language of the MT represents largely unchanged the actual language used by the original authors of “Was QH a Spoken Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 110–14; Elisha Qimron, “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers at the Well, 232–44; idem, “The Language and Linguistic Background of the Qumran Compositions,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (ed. Menahem Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 551–60 (in Hebrew); and Jan Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 351–74. For summary overviews and further bibliography see Jacobus A. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 189–214 (195–96); Fassberg, “Dead Sea Scrolls”; and Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (SBLRBS 76; Atlanta, Ga.: Society for Biblical Literature, 2014), 13–21.

64

Hornkohl

biblical writings.… This assumption, however, is out of line with the consensus view of specialists on the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible, who consider that the details of the biblical writings were so fluid in their textual transmission that we have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what the original of any biblical composition looked like.4 Such sentiment obviously flies in the face of the aforementioned agreement among Hebraists that, based on their salient features, DSS Hebrew is a patently later linguistic stratum than Masoretic CBH (and perhaps LBH, as well). It also contradicts the notion, again generally accepted among Hebraists and sympathetic biblical scholars, that ancient Hebrew compositions, whether biblical or extra-biblical, may be dated, at least relatively, on the basis of their linguistic profiles. Clearly, whatever a text’s original linguistic contours, if these have been eroded, built up, or otherwise altered by means of more recent activity in some even remotely thoroughgoing way, any attempt at linguistic periodization can hope to date no more than the derivative editing, modification, and transmission, not the original composition. The extent to which specialists in the relevant fields have accepted this decidedly negative assessment of our ability to discern the original linguistic profile of the extant ancient Hebrew sources remains unclear. To judge from recent publications, the various arguments and counterarguments have done little to alter the respective approaches of concerned Hebrew philologists and biblicists.5 4 Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics & Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward and Integrated Approach (ANEM 9; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2014), 59–60. See also, idem., 59–116; Ian Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 276–311 (310); ibid., “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach,” in Feasts and Fasts: A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. Marianne Dacy, Jennifer Dowling, and Suzanne Faigan; Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2005), 81–139 (350–51); Jacobus A. Naudé, “A Perspective on the Chronological Framework of Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 30 (2004): 87–102 (96–97); Johan Lust, “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (VTSup 110; ed. Yohanan Goldman, Arie van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 153–67 (162–65); Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; London: Equinox, 2008), I 343– 48; Robert Rezetko, “The Spelling of ‘Damascus’ and the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,” SJOT 24 (2010): 110–28 (124–26); ibid., “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics,” JHS 13/2 (2013): 1–69. 5 On the one hand, philologists, linguists, and sympathetic biblical scholars still seem, by and large, to accept the premise that, given appropriate methodological strictures, the MT can usefully be employed as a linguistic artifact representative of authentic First and Second Temple Hebrew; see, e.g., the relevant studies in Ian Young (ed.) Biblical Hebrew: Studies

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

65

With specific regard to comparing BH as it is preserved in the MT and in the DSS, recent scholarship not surprisingly reveals widely divergent and contradictory opinions. On one side are those scholars who highlight the protoMasoretic character of certain DSS manuscripts, emphasizing that these latter testify to the antiquity of the Masoretic tradition and its linguistic profile. On the other side are those who see in the very textual and linguistic variety among DSS manuscripts and between the DSS and the MT unavoidable evidence of profound and pervasive textual and linguistic instability, so that no detail of any text can be relied upon to represent an initial textual form.6 How can scholars looking at the same bodies of material propose such drastically disparate interpretations of the data? Admittedly, each comes with his/ her own set of presuppositions. Additionally, interpretation is at least somewhat subjective. Yet surely the facts ought to speak for themselves. Some (though assuredly not all) of the disagreement stems from differences in emphasis and focus. By way of example, Young usefully tabulates and discusses the frequency of textual variation in DSS biblical texts.7 However, as Rezetko

in Chronology and Typology (London: T&T Clark, 2003); Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) and 47 (2006); Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit, eds., Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS 8; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012); as well as Jan Joosten, Review of I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox, 2008), Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 535–42; Aaron D. Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition (SSLL 74; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 26–27, 30–37; idem, “Characteristically Late Spellings in the Hebrew Bible: With Special Reference to the Plene Spelling of the o-vowel in the Qal Infinitive Construct, JAOS 134.4 (2014): 1–28; idem, “All Is Not Lost: Linguistic Periodization in the Face of Textual and Literary Pluriformity,” in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics Data, Methods, and Analyses (LSAWS 12; ed. Tania Notarius and Adina Moshavi; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2017); and Rezetko and Young’s own critical survey of “Recent Discussions of Textual Criticism by Hebrew Language Scholars” in Historical Linguistics, 83–110. Others, by contrast, seem to proceed with text- and literary-critical reconstructions, including very specific conclusions regarding datation, with little or no attention being given to issues of language, apparently oblivious to the intense discussion that has been going on for more than a decade, or, more disconcerting, convinced that the last—damning—word has already been spoken. See Hornkohl, Language, 372–73, n. 1, for reference to a few such studies. 6 Rezetko and Young’s chapter on “Text Criticism: Prelude to Cross-Textual Variable Analysis of Biblical Hebrew,” in Historical Linguistics, 59–116, gives a representative survey of the current scholarly divide. Compare, especially, their sections 3.5 “Current Scholarship on the Text of the Hebrew Bible” (71–83) and 3.6 “Recent Discussions of Textual Criticism by Hebrew Language Scholars” (83–115). 7 Young, “The Biblical Scrolls.”

66

Hornkohl

astutely points out, “Not all textual variants are linguistic variants …”8 For his part, Rezetko provides a convenient statistical presentation and explanation of linguistic variants between MT Judges and the relevant DSS manuscripts, seeking thereby to demonstrate “that the empirical manuscript data clearly support the idea of substantial and coincidental linguistic fluidity in the transmission of biblical writings.”9 This may very well be (or not, depending on the specific biblical book and DSS manuscript in question). It still does not necessarily follow that all traces of diachronically meaningful linguistic patterns have been obliterated. If it is true that not all textual variants are linguistically meaningful, it is also true that not all linguistic variants are diachronically significant. For the past year and a half, the present writer has been engaged in a largescale project involving the diachronic comparison of Hebrew as it is represented, on the one hand, in the MT (represented by the Leningrad Firkovitch B19 Codex) and, on the other, in the DSS. Part of the impetus for this undertaking has been the recent controversy regarding the feasibility of a diachronic approach to BH, in which, among other things, much is made of both the relatively late date of the representative medieval Masoretic codices and the numerous apparent textual and linguistic differences arising from a comparison of these latter and other textual witnesses. While the aforementioned survey has been completed, there remains a great deal of work in analysis, quantification, and publication. Even so, certain general, if preliminary and tentative, conclusions may be offered. First, though it is probably not surprising, for obvious reasons, there are fewer linguistic differences separating Masoretic BH and DSS BH than there are separating Masoretic BH and the Hebrew of the non-biblical DSS.10 Despite significant linguistic, textual, and literary differences among DSS biblical manuscripts and between the latter and the MT, it is clear that copyists generally attempted to produce a more consistently classical literary form of Hebrew than they did in many of the non-biblical manuscripts. Second, with specific regard to DSS biblical material, while there are, as mentioned above, important dissimilarities in language, text, and literary structure, it is of critical importance that the amount of shared material between parallel texts dwarfs the amount of divergent material. This fact, which also applies to 8 Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls,” 64, n. 262. 9   Ibid., 65. 10  In the present discussion, DSS BH is defined maximally. That is to say, it refers not only to Hebrew material in the so-called “biblical” DSS, i.e., apparent copies of texts included in the Hebrew Bible, but also to biblical citations in otherwise non-biblical texts. For obvious reasons, examples of the former in this study vastly outnumber those of the latter.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

67

comparisons of the MT with the ancient translations, is routinely accorded little importance in textual discussions. However, taken together with the recognition that each and every alleged textual variant must be assessed both on its own merit and with broader awareness of the global tendencies of the specific witness in which it appears, this understanding helps in the development and cultivation of a balanced approach to apparent textual issues, especially insofar as they relate to language. Third, as mentioned above, with regard to the status of the extant Hebrew witnesses (whether the MT, a DSS manuscript, or the Samaritan Pentateuch) as artifacts whose language is genuinely representative of First and early Second Temple Hebrew, it must be emphasized that the vast majority of the differences between parallel texts relate only to spelling. Among cases of disparity that are not merely orthographical in nature (and, admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish these from phonologically meaningful distinctions in spelling), only a portion can be characterized as reflecting true differences in language, and of these a still smaller minority appear to result from the infiltration of later Hebrew into the language of an otherwise classical or early post-classical text. This relative linguistic stability should come as no surprise, given the fact that we are dealing with the transmission of venerated texts, for some of which certain (though by no means uniform) textual traditions had taken root. Against this background it is of crucial relevance that no scholar has succeeded in substantiating the claim that the textual instability and linguistic fluidity to which biblical texts were undoubtedly subject have, through the rampant interchange of distinctively classical and post-classical features, irremediably obscured their diachronic profiles. It is not enough simply to demonstrate widespread textual development or even frequent linguistic modification—the reality of which has been established (though, to be sure, the relevant argumentation is often long on theory, expert opinion, and allusions to consensus, and rather short on supporting data). To counter the argument that Hebrew texts are relatively datable on the basis of their language, one must show that the posited linguistic modification affected diachronically significant features specifically and that it did so on a large scale.11 Fourth, with continued and more in-depth study of the various DSS biblical manuscripts, it has become clear that there was no single, uniform approach among scribes to copying and representing their source texts. Certain 11  For recent studies focusing on the interaction of diachronic linguistics and textual criticism see Jan Joosten, “Textual Developments and Historical Linguistics,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts; The Historical Books (ed. Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio Trebolle Barrera; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 21–31; Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls”; Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost.”

68

Hornkohl

manuscripts, like 1QIsaa, are, arguably, rather extreme examples of linguistic “updating” or “modernization.” Thus, probably more than other manuscripts, they provide a window into contemporary linguistic practices. At the other extreme are manuscripts that seem to have been copied in an extremely conservative manner from extremely conservative source texts, such as 4Q31 (4QDeutd || Deut 2:24–4:1), in which the orthography is consistently more defective than in the parallel Masoretic material and which, presumably at least, reflects an orthographical tradition characteristic of pre-Masoretic spelling habits. Other manuscripts probably lie somewhere between these two extremes. In any case, one should not expect a complete departure from classical norms in any text, since, whatever the tendencies of the individual copyists, in the nature of things copies of older texts will generally adhere to traditional linguistic conventions to a greater extent than wholly new compositions, in the latter of which, it may reasonably be supposed, contemporary individual and corporate style will usually be more evident. As Kutscher did for 1QIsaa in relation to MT Isaiah, Rezetko and Young, respectively, have contributed valuable linguistic commentaries on the DSS Judges and Samuel manuscripts vis-à-vis the corresponding Masoretic books.12 One may, of course, quibble with certain details of their studies or with their more general conclusions related to textual criticism and/or linguistic periodization.13 But even if one accepted the whole of their analyses regarding the specific DSS manuscripts and parallel MT material on which they focus, the descriptions and conclusions still could not reasonably be taken as generally representative of the relationship between the rest of the DSS biblical manuscripts and parallel Masoretic material. The scribes responsible for copying these DSS manuscripts, like those responsible for copying others, may have succeeded in doing exactly what copyists are generally supposed to have been capable of doing, i.e., producing a manuscript identical or at least very similar to its source text.14 Likewise, perhaps the respective Masoretic editions of these two books are especially problematic. Whatever the case may be, this in no way implies the problematic nature of the entire MT or that all DSS scribes saw their role as merely one of copying or, even if they did, that they managed 12  Kutscher, Ha-Lašon; ibid., The Language; Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls”; Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 171–210, 453–592. 13  See below, on the 3mpl possessive suffix added to plurals ending in ‫ֹות‬-‫‏‬. 14  Indeed, elsewhere (Hornkohl, “Characteristically Late Spellings,” 11–12) I have attempted to demonstrate on the basis of striking similarities between Masoretic and DSS manuscripts that scribes were capable of the consistent replication of even minute details.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

69

consistently to perform their task without slips of the pen. It is precisely these deviations, whether intentional or accidental, that prove most interesting in terms of linguistic analysis. Comparing the MT biblical books and parallel material in the DSS, most of the linguistic differences have absolutely no apparent diachronic import. All the same, there are a limited number of clear-cut cases where classical linguistic features in one or more textual witnesses to a given biblical text are paralleled by characteristically late alternatives in other manuscripts. Significantly, where the Masoretic and DSS biblical material indeed differ with regard to a diachronically meaningful feature—and this is an important point to consider not just in philological research, but in textual and literary enquiries as well—more often than not it is the medieval Tiberian tradition that preserves the characteristically more classical element—at least in the consonantal text, if not in the pronunciation tradition as well—and the DSS rendition that presents the later alternative. It should be noted that this characterization is based not merely on raw counts or even proportions of features, which, given the fragmentary state of many of the DSS manuscripts, may prove misleading. It is also based on the “general direction of replacement” in different renditions of given texts, which, though often involving only a handful of cases, rather consistently point one way and not the other. Formulated differently, to the extent patterns can be detected in the use of diachronically meaningful alternants, a discernible trend emerges: BH as represented in numerous Dead Sea manuscripts is unambiguously influenced by Second Temple linguistic practices, indicating that the language of these manuscripts is very much a product of the period in which they were copied, so that even the Hebrew of the older biblical works represented therein often displays striking affinities with Late Biblical and post-Biblical Hebrew and with post-classical Aramaic. Conversely, BH as preserved in the Masoretic tradition appears to be more conservative, its constituent works reflecting not the medieval age of its representative manuscripts, nor even the late Second Temple era of the DSS, but rather the First and early Second Temple periods. This is not to say, contra how the argument is sometimes framed, that the MT represents the original biblical autographs essentially unchanged,15 but merely that despite changes, useful philological analysis, including linguistic periodization, remains feasible. Does this all prove definitively that those Masoretic editions of biblical texts with more classical linguistic profiles than parallel DSS manuscripts in 15  Thus, repeatedly, Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 59–116.

70

Hornkohl

fact represent earlier, i.e., more original, renditions thereof? Perhaps not. It is not impossible to imagine a scenario whereby the language of biblical texts deemed to be too “contemporary”, “vulgar”, or “popular” was archaized in line with what was perceived to be a more dignified style.16 But this seems an unnecessarily complicated theory. If, in terms of language, many of the DSS biblical scrolls show themselves to be products of the late Second Temple period, while the parallel Masoretic material appears to reflect First Temple and early Second Temple linguistic practices, it seems simpler to proceed on the assumption that this is the case, at least until clear and convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. At this point, since challengers to the regnant diachronic linguistic approach claim to have presented just such evidence, it is worth providing an explicit definition. The sort of evidence required would consist of copious amounts (not just an example or two) of non-linguistically datable post-classical compositions (not just copies of earlier material) employing pure CBH. It is not merely that the quantity of such evidence is meager; it is non-existent. No text securely datable on non-linguistic grounds to the Second Temple Period fails to exhibit a conspicuous accumulation of distinctive post-classical linguistic features. 2

Examples of MT Hebrew Conservatism and DSS Hebrew Development

While the full and final results of the large-scale comparison mentioned above have yet to be published, the discernibly later character of DSS BH relative to MT BH may be provisionally illustrated on the basis of two phenomena, one morphological, the other syntactical. The 3mpl Possessive Suffixes Added to Words Ending in ‫ֹות‬-:‫ם‏‬ ‎ ◌ָ versus ‫◌ ֶיהם‬ֵ From the perspective of morphology, the diachronically significant distribution of the alternant 3mpl possessive suffixes that attach to plural nouns ending in

2.1

16  One might compare the linguistic “corrections” made to RH texts in line with Masoretic BH to be found in printed editions of the Mishna, as opposed to the more pristine medieval manuscripts; see Kutscher, A History, §195; Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. John F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 174; and, especially, Kutscher and Breuer, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” for discussion and updated bibliography.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

71

‫ֹות‬-‫‏‬, i.e., ‫◌ם‬-‫‏‬ ָ and ‫יהם‬ ֶ ◌ ֵ -, is well documented and need not to be rehearsed here.17 The consensus view is that while both suffixes occur in classical as well as late sources, only in late sources is the longer ending dominant. Significantly, in DSS biblical material there are 72 cases in which a Masoretic form with ‫ֹותם‬ ָ -‫‏‬ is represented in one way or another; in 62 of them it is paralleled by a form ending in ‫ותם(ה)‏‬-‫‏‬, in ten by a form terminating with )‫ותיהם(ה‬-‫‏‬. Conversely, the DSS biblical material exhibits 23 cases in which a Masoretic form with ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ -‫‏‬is represented one way or another; in 22 of them the ending is ‫ותיהם(ה)‏‬-‫‏‬, in only one ‫ותם(ה)‏‬-‫‏‬. Not surprisingly, in the majority of parallel cases the forms in the two corpora correspond. However, of the eleven cases where they differ, the DSS show the characteristically later form in ten.18

“in their highways” (1QIsaa 48:19) || ‫ּלֹותם‬ ָ ‫( ִּב ְמ ִס‬MT Isa 59:7) a “in their paths” (1QIsa 48:19) || ‫לֹותם‬ ָ ְ‫( ְּב ַמ ְעּג‬MT Isa 59:8) “and their fears” (1QIsaa 53:15) || ‫ּומגּור ָֹתם‬ ְ (MT Isa 66:4) “to their fathers” (2Q12 f1:7) || ‫( ַל ֲאב ָֹתם‬MT Deut 10:11) “their standing stones” ‫( ַמ ֵּצב ָֹתם‬MT Deut 12:3)19 (4Q45 f15–16:2) || ‫“ אבו̇ תי̊ ̊ה[ם‬thei[r] fathers” (4Q50 f2–3:8) || ‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫( ֲא‬MT Jdg 21:22) ‫“ וקשתותיהם‬and their bows” (4Q171 f1–2ii:16) || ‫תֹותם‬ ָ ‫( וְ ַק ְּׁש‬MT Ps 37:15) ‫במלוא[ו] ̊תי̊ המה‬ ̊ (4Q365 f12biii:12) || ‫( ְּב ִמ ֻּלא ָֹתם‬MT Exod 39.13) ‫“ וקשתותיהם‬and their bows” (4Q437 f2i:3) || ‫תֹותם‬ ָ ‫( וְ ַק ְּׁש‬MT Ps 37:15) ‫מעונותי]ה ̊ם‬ ̊ “their [dens]” (11Q5 fEii:1) || ‫( ְמעֹונ ָֹתם‬MT Ps 104:22)

‫ במסלותיהמה‬ ‫ במעגלותיהמה‬ ‫ ובמגורותיהםה‬ ‫לאבותיהמ[ה‬ ̇ ‫מצבותיהם‬ ̇

17  BDB 3a; GKC §91n; Aba Bendavid, Lešon ha-Miqra u-Lšon Ḥaḵamim (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967–71): II 452; A. Cohen, “‫ ַמּכ ְֹתָך‬,” BM 20 (1975): 303–5; Hurvitz, Ben Lašon le-Lašon, 24–27; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 63; Colin J. Smith, “With an Iron Pen and a Diamond Tip: Linguistic Peculiarities of the Book of Jeremiah,” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 2003), 69–72; Rick M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (LHB/OTS 419. London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 26–30; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; SB 27; Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2006), §94g; Hornkohl, The Language, 135–42; idem, “All Is Not Lost,” 62–68. A forceful and thoroughgoing attempt to refute the diachronic significance of the alternation is found in Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 351–74, which also provides more extensive bibliography. 18  Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost,” 67, gives the mistaken figure of nine. 19  Cf. ‫ מצבתיהם‬SP Deut 12:3. Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost,” 67, n. 25, mistakenly links 2Q12 f1.7 to Deut 12:3, rather than Deut 10:11. Deut 12:3 is paralleled by 4Q45 f15–16:2.

72

Hornkohl

Consider also ‫[“ [ויונק]ו̊ תיהמה‬and] their [bab]ies” (1QIsaa 53:28) || ‫“ וִ ינַ ְק ֶתם‬and you will

nurse” (MT Isa 66:12),

though in this case the forms are not entirely parallel; cf. the Greek. The lone instance in which the biblical DSS present a short form that contrasts with a long one in the MT is ‫וחניתתם‬ ̊ “and their spears” (4Q56 f2:2) || ‫יתֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ ִ‫( וַ ֲחנ‬MT Isa 2:4).20

Formulated differently, the biblical DSS exhibit the characteristically late form in ten of 72 cases (13.9 percent), the MT in just one of 23 (4.4 percent). Neither proportion is overwhelming, but, clearly, in cases where the two corpora differ with respect to the suffixal forms under discussion the DSS are more than three times as likely to opt for the typically post-classical one. Pace Rezetko, this plainly qualifies as “a trend in the direction of replacement.”21 The Infinitive Construct as Verbal Complement with and without a Preceding Preposition -‫ל‬‎ A similarly striking pattern emerges in the case of the infinitive construct serving as a verbal complement with and without a prefixed prepositional -‫ל‬. A comparison of Masoretic BH, biblical and non-biblical DSS Hebrew, Second Temple Aramaic/Syriac, and RH reveals unmistakable evolution in the morphosyntax of the infinitive construct. In BH the infinitive may occur with or without a preceding preposition. In RH and Targumic Aramaic, conversely, 2.2

20  It may well be that the choice between ‫ותיהם‬-‫ ‏‬and ‫ותם‬-‫ ‏‬in some of these cases was dictated, or at partially least influenced, by grammatical attraction to similar forms in the immediate context. Thus, the adoption of ‫ במסלותיהמה‬and ‫ במעגלותיהמה‬at 1QIsaa 48:19 is explicable as a result of grammatical harmonization with the nearby forms ‫רגליהמה‬ “their feet” (|| MT ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫) ַרגְ ֵל‬‎, ‫“ מחשבותיהמה‬their thoughts” (|| MT ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫בֹות‬ ֵ ‫) ַמ ְח ְׁש‬, and ‫“ נתיבותיהמה‬their paths” (|| MT ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יבֹות‬ ֵ ‫)נְ ִת‬. However, in these cases it is arguably the MT’s morphological diversity that testifies to its linguistic authenticity. Indeed, in the sole case of biblical DSS ‫ותם‬-‫‏‬versus MT ‫ותיהם‬-‫‏‬,‎ ‫וחניתתם‬ ̊ “and their spears” may reasonably be explained as a result of harmonization in the opposite direction, i.e., due to ‫“ חרבותם‬their swords” (|| MT ‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫ ) ַח ְר‬in the preceding line (cf. the apparent harmonization in the opposite direction in Mic 4.3 and m. Shabbat 6.4). 21  Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls,” 56–58. Cf. Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 368–69.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

73

unless serving as the nomen rectum of a construct phrase (e.g., ‫אתָך‬ ְ ‫“ יֹום ֵצ‬the day of your leaving” m. Ber. 1:5), the infinitive is obligatorily preceded by a preposition, the default being -‫ל‬, which may even follow another preposition, e.g., ‫ ִמן‬. Evidently, with the passage of time, the preposition -‫ ל‬came to be considered an integral morphological component of the infinitive construct.22 This is not to say that the infinitive construct prefixed with -‫ ל‬is itself a late feature. Indeed, infinitival forms with and without it are found in both classical inscriptions and Masoretic CBH. Moreover, within BH the infinitive with -‫ ל‬is far more common as a verbal complement than the infinitive without it. The chronological development in question consists not, therefore, in mere use of the infinitive with -‫ל‬, but rather in abandonment of the bare infinitive. This late tendency is manifest in the distribution within Masoretic BH of the syntagm < preposition + -‫ ל‬+ infinitive >, which occurs only thirteen times, ten of them in LBH.23 More striking still is the distribution of the infinitive construct with and without -‫ ל‬functioning as a verbal complement within the MT (see table 5.1),24 in non-Masoretic biblical material, in extra-biblical Hebrew, and in non-Hebrew sources (see table 5.2). 22  The Tiberian vocalization also testifies to a stronger perceived link between the infinitive and -‫ ל‬than between the infinitive and other prepositions. First, in strong qal ‫ְקטֹל‬ infinitival forms with a begedkefet consonant as second root letter, this consonant is regularly pronounced as its “hard” allophone (with dagesh) when the form has a prefixed -‫ל‬, but “soft” (without dagesh) in forms with the prefixed prepositions -‫ ב‬and -‫( כ‬implying that the -‫ ל‬was treated similarly to a yiqṭol prefix, i.e., as an integral part of the form), e.g., ‫“ ִלנְ ּפֹל‬to fall” (e.g., Num 14:3), ‫“ ִל ְכּתֹב‬to write” (e.g., Deut 31:24), ‫“ ִל ְׁש ַּכב‬to lie down” (e.g., Gen 34:7) versus ‫ ִּכנְ פֹל‬/‫“ ִּבנְ פֹל‬in/after the falling of” (e.g., Isa 30:25; 2 Sam 17:9, respectively), ‫“ ִּב ְכתֹוב‬in writing” (Ps 87:6), ‫“ ִּכ ְׁש ַכב‬after the lying down of” (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:21), respectively. Second, the -‫ ל‬of ‫( פ”י‬and similar) qal infinitives is pointed with qamaṣ (due to pretonic lengthening), while prefixed -‫ ב‬and -‫ כ‬are vocalised with shewa, e.g., ‫ָל ֶל ֶדת‬ ‫ת־א ִחיו‬ ָ ‫“ ֶא‬to give birth to his brother” (Gen 4:2) versus ‫“ ְּב ֶל ֶדת א ָֹתם‬in giving birth to them” (Gen 25:26). 23  1 Kgs 18:29; 2 Kgs 23:10; Hab 3:14; Ezra 10:14; 1 Chr 5:9; 19:3; 28:20; 2 Chr 24:10 (?); 26:8; 26:16; 29:28; 31:1 (?); 32:24. Most of these involve cases of ‫ ַעד ִל ְקטֹל‬, on which see Avi Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew (VTSup 160; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 196–98. Apparent cases involving the toponym ‫“ ְלבֹוא ֲח ָמת‬Lebo Hamath” are excluded here, since it has been shown that the first component of this name is not composed of -‫ ל‬+ infinitive, but is rather a proper name (see idem. and the references adduced there). 24  These figures, with slight differences, are based on Michael Malessa, Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im biblischen Hebräisch (SSN 49; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 150–66. As in Malessa’s study, only those verbs represented by infinitives occurring both with and without -‫ ל‬are considered. However, cases involving the verb ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ “be willing, begin” (without

74

Hornkohl

Table 5.1

MT distribution of the infinitive construct as verbal complement with and without -‫ל‬

Book

‫ ִל ְקטֹל ְקטֹל‬Book

‫ ִל ְקטֹל ְקטֹל‬Book

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Pentateuch Joshua Judges Samuel

8 8 0 9 12 37 1 2 4

1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 38

Kings

2

Former Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah

9 21 10

41 31 3 13 31 119 12 34 57

Ezekiel Hosea Amos Jonah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Zechariah Latter Prophets 24 Prophets

127 Psalms 14 Job 23 Proverbs

47 10 7 2

6 4 2 2 1 0 1 3 19

‫ִל ְקטֹל ְקטֹל‬

Ruth Song of Songs Qohelet Lamentations Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Chronicles

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

4 8 8 3 8 1 2 6 26

183 Writings w/o LBH+Qohelet 15 LBH+Qohelet

20

37

0

51

2 Writings 5 TOTAL

20 88 104 390

In the MT forms with -‫ ל‬outnumber forms without in nearly every book. Factors related to genre would seem to be at work, the bare infinitive as verbal complement being relatively more common in poetic material, e.g., the Latter Prophets and the Writings (excepting LBH and Qohelet), than in non-poetic material, e.g., the Torah and the Former Prophets. However, there is also an unmistakable diachronic pattern: while the infinitive as verbal complement without -‫ ל‬occurs in a minority of the potential cases in most of the Hebrew Bible, it is entirely absent from LBH and Qohelet, despite over fifty instances in which it could have been employed. -‫ל‬: Deut 1:5; with -‫ל‬: Gen 18:7, 29; Exod 2:21; Josh 17:12; Jdg 1:7, 35; 17:11; 1 Chr 17:27), which were omitted there, are included here. Also, in these sums multiple infinitives following a single verb are counted separately. Finally, there are a few differences in interpretation. Despite this, the conclusions drawn here accord well with those reached by Malessa; see also Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, §124l, n. 9.

75

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH Table 5.2 Masoretic, cognate, extra-biblical, and non-Masoretic biblical distribution of the infinitive construct as verbal complement with and without -‫ ל‬according to corpus MT

Corpus Pentateuch Former Prophets Latter Prophets Writings w/o LBH + Qohelet LBH BH TOTAL

non-Hebrew, non-Masoretic, and late extra-biblical corpora

‫ִל ְקטֹל ְקטֹל‬

37 119 9 127 38 56 20 37

% ‫ִל ְקטֹל‬ 76% 93% 60% 65%

0 51 104 390

100% 79%

Corpus BA Ben Sira Mishna Non-biblical DSS Biblical DSS

0 0 0 4

21 16 269 43

% ‫ִל ְקטֹל‬ 100% 100% 100% 92%

29

72

71%

‫ִל ְקטֹל ְקטֹל‬

Confirmation that this apparent neglect is no mere accident of the limited scope of LBH, but is indeed representative of a broad post-Restoration linguistic trend, emerges from late extra-biblical, non-Hebrew, and non-Masoretic biblical material. In BA, Targumic Aramaic, and Syriac the infinitive as verbal com­ plement without -‫ ל‬is exceedingly rare.25 The same holds true for such

25  BA: ‫“ ֶא ְׁש ַּת ַּדר‬strive” (Dan 6:15); ‫“ ְּב ָעא‬seek, request” (Dan 6:5); ‫“ ֲח ַׁשְך‬need” (Dan 3:16); ‫יְ ֵכל‬ “be able” (Dan 2:10, 27, 47; 3:17, 29; 4:15, 34; 5:16 [4×]; 6:5, 21); ‫“ ְּכ ַהל‬be able” (Dan 2:26; 5:8 [2×], 15); ‫“ ְצ ָבא‬desire” (Dan 7:19); ‫“ ְּת ֵקף‬grow strong” (Dan 5:20). An exhaustive list and statistics are not provided here for the targums and the Peshitta. It should suffice to note that in the vast majority of cases where these translations do not completely reformulate phrases containing a BH infinitive construct without -‫ל‬, they render using an infinitive with -‫ל‬. Sporadic exceptions include Targum Jonathan to Isa 8:4, and to Jer 6:15 and 8:12 (all involving renderings of ‫“ יָ ַדע‬know how”). Against these, there are cases in which the translations present an infinitive construct with -‫ ל‬parallel to a form without -‫ ל‬that may be an infinitive absolute or noun, e.g., Targum Onkelos to Deut 2:31, Targum Jonathan to 1 Sam 3:2, and Targum Job 21:14.

76

Hornkohl

extra-biblical Hebrew material as Ben Sira,26 the non-biblical DSS,27 and the Mishna.28 Turning to the biblical DSS, the ratio of verbal complement infinitives construct with -‫ ל‬to those without is comparable to the ratio in the MT. However, these statistics are deceptive, the relative frequency of the form without -‫ל‬ probably resulting at least partially from the fragmentary nature of the Scrolls. 26  ‫“ אבה‬desire” (6.33A); ‫“ אחר‬delay” (5.7A; 5.7C; 6.21A); ‫“ בקש‬seek, request” (7.6A; 7.6C); ‫“ חפץ‬desire” (6.35A; 6.35C; 7.13A); ‫“ יכל‬be able” (8.17A; 8.17D; 31.10B [2×]); ‫“ מהר‬hasten” (5.11A; 6.7A; 6.7C). Consider also ‫“ אוץ‬hasten” (11.10A; 11.10B); ‫“ בוש‬be ashamed” (4.26A); ‫“ האיץ‬hasten” (7.17A); ‫“ הפליא‬do wonderfully” (31.9B; 50.22B); ‫“ כלה‬finish” (32.8B; 50.14B, 19B; ‫“ צרך‬need” (32.17E; 32.17F); ‫“ רבה‬become great” (32.9B); ‫“ שנה‬repeat” (50.21B). More generally, see W. Th. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 255–65. 27  Without -‫ל‬:‎ ‫“ הואיל‬be willing, begin” (4Q364 f20a–c.7–8 || MT Deut 1:5); ‫“ יכל‬be able” (1QpHab 5:2 || MT Hab 1:13); ‫“ יסף‬add, do again” (4Q252 1:20–21 || MT Gen 8:12); ‫“ מהר‬hasten” (4Q417 f2ii+23:6 [?]). With -‫ל‬:‎ ‫“ אבה‬desire” (4Q221 f7:9 [?]); ‫“ אחר‬delay” (11Q19 53:11); ‫“ בקש‬seek, request” (4Q169 f3–4i:2; 4Q171 f1–2ii:17; f3–10iv:14 [?]; 4Q174 f4:5; 4Q177 f7:2; 4Q223–224 f2i:52; 11Q19 58:3); ‫“ הואיל‬be willing, begin” (1QHa 8:26); ‫“ החל‬begin” (1QS 9:10; 1QM 9:1; 16:8, 11 [2×]; 17:14; 4Q274 f1i:1; 4Q317 f2:29; 4Q491 f11ii:9; 4Q514 f1i:4, 7; 11Q20 5:20); ‫“ חפץ‬desire” (4Q380 f1ii:6); ‫ידע‬‎ (4Q286 f7i:6; 4Q394 f8iv:4; 4Q396 f1–2ii:5 [?]); ‫“ יכל‬be able” (1QS 11:20; 1QHa 7:26, 27, 34; 15:32; 19:27; 4Q365 f6aii+6c:9; 4Q511 f30:6; 11Q19 43:13–14 [2×]; 66:11); ‫הוסיף‬/‫“ יסף‬add, do again” (4Q252 1:19); ‫“ למד‬teach” (11Q19 62:16); ‫“ מאן‬refuse” (4Q171 f1–2ii:3); ‫“ מהר‬hasten” (4Q267 f5iii:3 [?]); ‫“ נתן‬permit” (4Q381 f45a+b:2 [?]; 5Q13 f2:7 [?]). 28  ‫“ בקש‬seek, request” (Kil. 3:3, 6, 7; Yoma 1:7; Šeqal. 2:4; Soṭah 8:6); ‫“ התחיל‬begin”(Šeqal. 1:3 [2×]; Ned. 8:4 [2×]; Naz. 7:2; Kelim 8:28; ʿUq. 2:5 [2×], 6); ‫“ חפץ‬desire” (Yebam. 12:6 || MT Deut 25:8); ‫“ ידע‬know how” (Bik. 3:7 [2×]; B. Meṣiʿa 2:8; Sanh. 6:2); ‫( יכל‬Ber. 3:2 [2×], 5 [3×]; 4:5 [2×]; Peʾah 2:2 [2×]; 7:8 [2×]; Demai 6:4 [2×], 8, 9, 10; Šeb. 3:8 [2×], 9; 5:8; 6:3; Ter. 8:9, 10; Maʿaś. 1:5; 5:11, 12 [2×]; Ḥal. 2:3 [2×]; ʿOr. 1:3 [2×]; Bik. 1:4, 5; 4:5; Šabb. 4:2; 10:5; 13:6; 15:1; 16:4 [2×], 5; ʿErub. 4:5, 10; 5:4; Pesaḥ. 2:3; 3:7 [3×]; 4:6; 8:6, 7 [2×]; Sukka 2:2, 3, 6 [2×]; Beṣa 3:3; Roš Haš. 1:9; 4:2; Moʿed Qaṭ. 1:10; Ḥag. 1:1 [3×], 6 [2×], 7 [3×]; Yebam. 1:1, 2; 12:2; 13:2; Ketub. 1:5; 6:6; 7:8 [2×]; 7:10 [4×]; 9:5; 12:3 [2×]; 13:5, 8; Ned. 5:1, 2; 8:7 [2×]; 9:4; 10:4, 8; 11:2, 3 [2×], 4, 9 [3×]; Giṭ. 2:4; 6:2; Naz. 2:4; 4:1, 2, 5 [4×]; Soṭah 2:4; 4:3 [3×]; 7:8; 8:5; Qidd. 3:13; 4:14; ʿArayot 5, 6; B. Qam. 9:12; B. Meṣiʿa 2:10; 4:2 [2×]; 5:7; 6:8; 7:1; 8:6; 10:6 [3×]; B. Bat. 2:3 [4×]; 3:6 [4×]; 5:6 [4×]; 8:7 [2×]; 9:7; 10:1; 10:7 [2×]; Sanh. 3:1 [2×], 2 [4×]; 4:1 [2×]; 5:5 [2×]; 7:10; 9:1 [2×]; Mak. 2:3; 3:11 [2×]; Šebu. 4:3 [2×], 4; 5:2 [2×]; 7:8; ʿEd. 1:5 [2×], 13; ʿAbod. Zar. 1:4; ʾAbot 5:1 [2×]; Zebaḥ. 8:2; Menaḥ. 3:3; 12:4 [2×]; Bek. 8:4, 5; 9:7; 3:3; ʿArak. 6:2; Qinnim 3:2 [2×]; Kelim 3:7; 4:1, 2, 3; 5:10; 6:3; 17:3, 4; 18:2; 26:1 [2×]; ʾOhol. 3:2; 4:2; 6:2 [3×]; 8:2, 5; 18:4, 5, 6, 7 [2×], 8; Parah 5:9; 11:1; Ṭehar. 7:2 [2×], 3 [2×], 4 [4×]; Miqw. 4:5; Nid. 6:11; 7:1 [4×], 2 [2×]; 8:2 [3×], 3 [2×]; Zabim 3:3; 4:7 [2×]; ʿUq. 2:10; 3:8 [2×]); ‫“ יסף‬add, do again” (Soṭah 8:5 || MT Deut 20:8; Makš. 2:4); ‫“ למד‬teach” (Sukkah 6:4); ‫“ מאן‬refuse” (Yebam. 12:6 || MT Deut 25:7); ‫מהר‬ “hasten” (ʾAbot 5:12 [4×]; Nid. 5:9); ‫“ נתן‬permit” (Meg. 4:9 || MT Lev 18:21). More generally see Segal, Diqduq, 135–38; Bendavid, Lešon, 496–97.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

77

In his discussion of infinitival forms in a comparison of MT Isaiah and the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran Cave 1 (1QIsaa), Kutscher observed that infinitives construct without -‫ ל‬in the former were regularly paralleled by any number of alternative forms (the infinitive construct preceded by -‫ל‬, imperfect, wayyiqṭol, imperative, perfect, participle) in the latter.29 While 1QIsaa’s penchant for linguistic “updating” far exceeds the slips in favor of contemporary Second Temple Hebrew discernible in most DSS biblical material, whether biblical texts or citations thereof in non-biblical texts, the general move away from using the infinitive construct as a verbal complement without prefixed -‫ל‬ is evidenced in both 1QIsaa and in other DSS texts. ‫ ויחל עוד שבעת ימים ̇א[חרים] ויוסף לשלחה‬‎(4Q252 1:15–16) || MT ‫וַ ָיּ ֶ֣חל ֔עֹוד‬ ‫יֹּונ֖ה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה‬ ַ ‫יָמים ֲא ֵח ִ ֑רים ‏וַ ֹ֛יּ ֶסף ַשׁ ַ ֥לּח ֶא‬ ֖ ִ ‫( ִשׁ ְב ַ ֥עת‬Gen 8:10) “and he waited another

seven days and he again sent it/the dove forth” … ‫ שבעת ימים ̊א ̊ח ̊ר[ים שלח א] ̊ת ה[יונה ולוא] יספה לשוב עוד‬‎(4Q252 1:18–19) || MT ‫שׁוּב־א ָל֖יו ֽעֹוד‬ ֵ ‫יֹּונה וְ ֽל ֹא־יָ ְס ָ ֥פה‬ ָ֔ ‫ת־ה‬ ַ ‫יָמים ֲא ֵח ִ ֑רים וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּ ֙ח ֶא‬ ֖ ִ ‫(‏…  ִשׁ ְב ַ ֥עת‬Gen 8:12) “… seven more days (and) he sent forth the dove, but it did not return again” ‫לכלותמה‬ ̊ ‫ לוא ת]ו̇ ̇כל‬‎(4Q40 f5.6) || MT ‫ֹּלתם‬ ֣ ָ ‫תּוכל֙ ַּכ‬ ַ ‫( ֤ל ֹא‬Deut 7:22) “you will not be able to finish them off” ‫ לא תוכ] ̇ל לשתו‬‎(1Q4 f12.2) || MT ֒‫תּוכ ֘ל ְׂש ֵאתֹו‬ ַ ‫( לֹא‬Deut 14:24) “you cannot carry it” ‫ ̇מי בקש זואת ̊מידכם לרמוס‬‎(1QIsaa 1:14–15) || MT ‫מס ֲח ֵצ ָ ֽרי‬ ֹ ֥ ‫י־ב ֵ ּ֥קׁש ֛ז ֹאת ִמּיֶ ְד ֶכ֖ם ְר‬ ִ ‫ִמ‬ (Isa 1:12) “Who has asked this of you, to trample my courts?”30 ‫ לוא תוסיפו להביא‬‎(1QIsaa 1:15) || MT ‫יא‬ ֙ ‫תֹוסיפּו ָה ִב‬ ִ֗ ‫( ֣ל ֹא‬Isa 1:13) “you will not continue to bring” ‫ בטרם ידע הנער לקראו‬‎(1QIsaa 7.22) || MT ‫ְּב ֶט ֶ ֙ר ֙ם יֵ ַ ֣דע ַה ַּ֔נ ַער ְק ֖ר ֹא ָא ִ ֣בי וְ ִא ִ ּ֑מי‬ (Isa 8:4) “before the child knows how to call” ‫ ולוא אבו לשמוע‬‎(1QIsaa 22:13–14) || MT ‫( וְ ֥ל ֹא ָא ֖בּוא ְׁש ֽמ ַֹוע‬Isa 28:12) “but they did not want to hear” ‫ לוא אבו לשמוע‬‎(1QIsaa 24:16) || MT ‫א־א ֥בּו ְׁש ֖מ ַֹוע‬ ָ ֹ ‫( ֽל‬Isa 30:9) “they did not want to hear” ‫ לוא תוכלי לכפרה‬‎(1QIsaa 39:31) || MT ‫תּוכ ִ ֖לי ַּכ ְּפ ָ ֑רּה‬ ְ ‫( ֥ל ֹא‬Isa 47:11) “for which you will not be able to atone” ‫לקום‬ ̇ ‫ ֗לוא אוכל‬‎(4Q111 3:6) || MT ‫א־אּוכל ֽקּום‬ ַ֥ ֹ ‫( ל‬Lam 1:14) “I cannot arise”

29  Kutscher, The Language, 346–48. 30  Technically, the case in 1QIsaa 1:14–15 occurs in apposition to the definite object of the matrix verb.

78

Hornkohl

Listed above are twelve clear-cut cases in which a bare infinitive construct serving as verbal complement in the MT corresponds to the same with a prefixed -‫ ל‬in a parallel DSS passage. One might also consider the following cases, which, for one reason or another, have been excluded from the above list, but which also exhibit the preference for infinitival forms with -‫ל‬: ‫ ולוא אבו בדרכיו להלוך‬‎(1QIsaa 36:7) || MT ‫א־א ֤בּו ִב ְד ָר ָכ ֙יו ָה ֔לֹוְך‬ ָ ֹ ‫( וְ ֽל‬Isa 42.24) “and they did not want to walk in his ways” ‫ כיא לאשקוט לוא יוכל‬‎(1QIsaa 47:20) || MT ‫יּוכל‬ ָ֔ ‫( ִ ּ֤כי ַה ְׁש ֵק ֙ט ֣ל ֹא‬Isa 57:20) “which cannot rest” ◦‫מע ̊ש[ו] ̊ת ̊ד ̊רכיך מלמצ‬ ̊ ‫ וכבתה‬‎[(4Q67 f1:4) || MT ‫ּתֹו ֵמ ֲע ׂ֣שֹות ְּד ָר ֶ֔כיָך ִמ ְּמ ֥צֹוא‬ ֙ ‫וְ ִכ ַּב ְד‬ ֖‫( ֶח ְפ ְצָך‬Isa 58:13) “and you honor it [by refraining] from going your own ways and from finding your own pleasure” ]‫את[ערותה‬ ̇ ‫( והצלתי צמרי ופישתי מלכסות‬‎4Q166 2:9) || MT ‫וּפ ְשׁ ִ֔תּי‬ ִ ‫תּי ַצ ְמ ִ ֣רי‬ ֙ ִ ‫וְ ִה ַצּ ְל‬ ‫ת־ע ְרוָ ָ ֽתהּ‬ ֶ ‫( ְל ַכ ֖סֹּות ֶא‬Hos 2:11) “and I will take away my wool and my linen from covering/to cover your nakedness”

In 1QIsaa 36:7 ‫“ להלוך‬to go, walk” parallels the infinitive absolute ‫ ָהלֹוְך‬in MT Isa 4:24. The infinitive construct with -‫ ל‬in 1QIsaa 47:20 may parallel an infinitive absolute in the MT: defective ‫“ השקט‬to be quiet” would appear to be the dominant spelling of the infinitive construct in the MT—in Isa 30:15; 57:20; Jer 49:23; Job 37:17 the form functions as such; in Isa 32:17 and Ezek 16:49 it seems to function as an infinitive absolute; only in Ps 94:13 do we find ‫ ְל ַה ְׁש ִקיט‬. The use of an infinitive construct both prefixed with -‫ ל‬and following another preposition, as in 4Q67 f1:4 || Isa 58:13 and 4Q166 2:9 || Hos 2:11, is much more common in LBH than in CBH (see above, n. 24) and is standard in RH and the post-classical Aramaic dialects. To be sure, there are a few cases in which an infinitive construct with -‫ ל‬in the MT is paralleled by a form without -‫ ל‬in corresponding biblical material from the DSS: ‫ כי מזרעו נתנ למלכ למענ ט[מא א]ת מקדשי וחלל את שמ ק[דשי‬‎(11Q1 fJ:4–5) || MT ‫ת־ׁשם ָק ְד ִ ֽׁשי‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ּול ַח ֵּל֖ל ֶא‬ ְ ‫ת־מ ְק ָּד ִׁ֔שי‬ ִ ‫ּמ ֶלְך ְל ַ֗מ ַען ַט ֵּמ ֙א ֶא‬ ֹ ֔ ‫עֹו נָ ַ ֣תן ַל‬ ֙ ‫( ִ ּ֤כי ִמּזַ ְר‬Lev 20:3)

“for he gave of his offspring to Molech so as to defile my holy place and to profane my holy name” ‫הוליכך יהוה אלהיך זה ארבעים שנה[במדבר למען ענתך] נסותך ולדעת את אשר‬‎ ֛ ֶ ‫הו֧ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫יכ ָ֜ך י‬ ֲ ‫ה ִ ֹֽל‬ ‫ בלבבך‬‎(4Q30 f5:2–3) || MT ‫ֹלהיָך ֶז֛ה ַא ְר ָּב ִ ֥עים ָׁש ָנ֖ה ַּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּ֑בר ְל ַ֙מ ַען‬ ֛‫ת־א ֶ ׁ֧שר ִ ּֽב ְל ָב ְבָך‬ ֲ ‫ּס ְת ָ֗ך ָל ַ ֜ד ַעת ֶא‬ ֹ ֽ ַ‫( ַע ֹּֽנ ְת ָ֜ך ְלנ‬Deut 8:2) “the Lord God has led you for forty years in the wilderness in order to humble you, to test you, to know that which is in your heart” ‫ ויהיה בער‬‎(1QIsaa 4:17) || MT ‫( וְ ָה ָי֣ה ְל ָב ֔ ֵער‬Isa 5:5) “and it will be to graze”

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

79

In three cases, however, the infinitive serves not as a verbal complement, but to mark purpose in a final clause, where a form with -‫ ל‬is arguably more felicitous than a form without it. Indeed, in 4Q30 f5:2–3 and 11Q1 fJ:4–5 the form without -‫ ל‬comes second in a series of infinitives marking purpose, the first of which is bare and preceded by ‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬. In 1QIsaa 4:17, on the other hand, the infinitive was evidently replaced with a participle. To sum up, then, in at least twelve cases the difference between the MT and parallel material in the DSS centers on the presence or absence of -‫ ל‬preceding an infinitive construct in service as a verbal complement. In all twelve the DSS text has the -‫ ל‬and the MT the bare infinitive. Sweeping conclusions are not to be reached on the basis of just a couple features, even if a trend in the direction of replacement is especially striking. With regard to a comparison between BH as represented in the MT and as represented in the DSS, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that these examples are far from isolated. Furthermore, the greater the number of patterns of this sort, the greater the probability that such differences between MT and DSS BH are attributable to diachronic factors. Regarding the broader question of the feasibility of serious philological enquiry in general and of diachronic linguistics more specifically in the face of textual instability and linguistic fluidity—to be sure, indications of orthographic, linguistic, textual, and literary development in Masoretic and pre-Masoretic times are to be investigated and the results integrated in any diachronically sensitive study. However, it must be recognized that most concrete instances of these phenomena have no direct bearing on diachronic linguistics or linguistic periodization. Further, the ramifications for historical linguistics of the limited number of textual or literary cruces that do involve diachronically relevant features should not be overblown. In other words, it is incumbent upon the Hebrew philologist to deal with tangible, which is to say documented, textual and literary complications to diachronic linguistics; far-reaching conclusions based on overgeneralizations and a few dubious and/or irrelevant difficulties merit a response, but pose no real threat to the current paradigm. 3

Linguistic Innovations in the Tiberian Reading Tradition and the Preservation of Old Forms in DSS Hebrew

The Tiberian reading tradition merits special comment. Though apparently reflecting certain comparatively late traits sometimes at odds with the phonology and morphology of the consonantal text—or with the pronunciation thought to underlie that text (where reasonably certain reconstruction is

80

Hornkohl

possible)31—generally speaking, it is best considered the natural offspring of an authentic—though by no means solitary—Second Temple pronunciation with roots extending even farther back, embodying an extremely conservative tradition that safeguards early textual and linguistic details.32 Despite the generally conservative linguistic character of the MT, however, there can be no doubt but that it also contains relatively late features uncharacteristic of the language environment in which its more classical portions were written. To judge from pre-exilic epigraphic material, Masoretic orthography throughout the biblical corpus is entirely too plene to be considered representative of actual First Temple spelling practices; if classical biblical works really derive from the pre-exilic period, their comparatively profuse employment of matres lectionis can only have resulted from a rather late orthographical revision. But clear indications of regular spelling modernization hardly constitute definitive evidence of rampant linguistic modernization.33 And, in any case, 31  For specific categories in which the vocalization appears to reflect a different, perhaps later, linguistic tradition than the consonantal text, e.g., the phenomenon of asymmetry in the paradigms of the qal internal passive, the qal and piʿel forms of the root ‫ דב״ר‬and others, the substitution of the infinitive absolute for finite forms of the verb, and several other possibly relevant features see, inter alia, M. Lambert, “Le Vav Conversif,” RÉJ 26 (1893): 47–62 (55–62); Harold L. Ginsberg, “Mi-beʿad la-Masoret,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 209–23; ibid., “Nosafot le-‘Mi-beʿad la-Masoret’,” Tarbiz 7 (1936): 543; Ben-Ḥayyim, “Traditions,” 237; Jeremy Hughes, “Post-Biblical Features of Biblical Hebrew Vocalization,” in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (ed. Samuel E.Balentine and John Barton; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 67–80; Blau, “Hirhurav,” 26–27; Steven E. Fassberg, “The Movement of Qal to Pi‘el in Hebrew and the Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive”, Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 243–55; idem, “The Infinitive Absolute as Finite Verb and Standard Literary Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 73; ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 47–60; Geoffrey Khan, A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013a), 45–52. 32  James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament: With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987; originally published Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 188–22; Shelomo Morag, “Ha-Masoret ha-Ṭavranit šel Lešon haMiqra: Homogenyut ve-Heṭerogenyut,” Peraqim: Sefer ha-Šana šel Meḵon Šoqen 2 (1974): 105–44; ibid., “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94 (1974): 307–15; Khan, A Short Introduction, 43–65. 33  Frederick H. Cryer, “The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel,” in In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Its Period (Festschrift

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

81

most—though assuredly not all—of the (late Second Temple Period) DSS material reveals more advanced use of plene spelling than does the (medieval) MT. In all events, such orthographic development proves only that transmission sometimes involved more than just copying, not that all scribes routinely engaged in the replacement of outmoded linguistic elements with more current ones. As the ancient Hebrew writing system only partially and ambiguously represents its vowel sounds, phonology would seem a promising, though not entirely unproblematic, area in which to seek linguistic features whose Tiberian Masoretic representation appears developmentally more evolved than the corresponding DSS Hebrew depiction. However, before treating the following examples, it is imperative to stress that cases such as these are to be seen as exceptions to the general rule illustrated above, according to which, more often than the contrary, the DSS present a somewhat more advanced stage of BH than does the MT. 3.1 The DSS Contextual Use of Forms Reserved for Pausal Environments in the MT: ‫ יקטולו‬versus ‫יִ ְק ְטלּו‬ The routine contextual use in the DSS of certain forms that in the MT are reserved for pausal duty arguably qualifies as a case in which DSS Hebrew presents a linguistic alternative developmentally more primitive than the corresponding one found in the Tiberian tradition. For example, based on both inner-Hebrew and cognate evidence, it seems reasonable to view the so-called “pausal” pattern of qal yiqṭol forms, e.g., 3mpl ‫ יקטולו‬yiqṭolu, with its apparently full vowel in the second syllable, as representative of an earlier stage in pronunciation development than the MT’s analogous ‫יִ ְק ְטלּו‬, with vowel reduction to shewa.34 Of course, it is not impossible that the reduced form was itself an ancient development, perhaps rooted in the vernacular and/or in fluent reading, and that the DSS Hebrew predilection for full over reduced vowels might be classified as a sort of artificial pseudo-archaism. It seems just as likely— if not more so—however, that pronunciations of the type yiqṭolu, limited to pausal environments in the Tiberian reading tradition, had been at an early

Benedikt Otzen) (ed. Knud Jeppesen, Kirsten Nielsen, and Bent Rosendal; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994), 185–98 (193, n. 25); Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating, I 346–47; Geoffrey Khan, “Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Background of Masoretic Text,” EHLL 1:304–15 (305); Hornkohl, “Characteristically Late Spellings.” 34  Steven E. Fassberg, “Pausal Forms,” EHLL 3:54–55 (54).

82

Hornkohl

stage standard in Hebrew (biblical and otherwise),35 in which case the dominant consonantal spelling in the MT—without waw—is merely defective, not indicative of a contraction to shewa. According to this scenario, the DSS plene orthography represents a living—whether natural or archaistic, it is difficult to determine—preservation of the same yiqṭolu pronunciation defectively reflected in the consonantal MT or, at the very least, one similar to it. On the basis of transcriptional evidence, it is clear that the secondary, reduced pronunciation standard in the Tiberian tradition was, for its part, also already a viable alternative during the late Second Temple Period or, at any rate, soon would be.36 (It is admitted here that this approach may account for some, but not all pausal-like DSS forms.37) The Form of the 3ms Object/Possessive Suffix on Words Ending in ‫◌י‬ִ :‎ ‫◌יהּו‬ִ versus ‫◌יו‬ִ Another feature from the perspective of whose use DSS Hebrew seems to present an earlier picture than that depicted in Tiberian Hebrew involves the form of the 3ms pronominal suffix when attached to words ending in the sound ‫◌י‬ִ -i, namely the object pronoun attached to 1cs (we)qaṭal forms and the possessive pronoun attached to the construct forms of the nouns ‫“ ָאב‬father,” ‫ָאח‬ “brother,” and ‫“ ֶּפה‬mouth.” In the MT the dominant 3ms suffix on these forms is written with waw alone, as in ‫“ ָא ִביו‬his father.” This ending is most reasonably explained as owing to ellipsis of the he in a suffix resembling the alternative

3.2

35  The exact pronunciation of such forms in DSS Hebrew is uncertain. E. Y.Kutscher interprets them as equivalent to Tiberian pausal forms, but I.Yeivinholds them to be more similar to the contextual forms of the Babylonian reading tradition, which retained a medial o-vowel even in non-pausal environments; compare the former’s “Hebrew Language: Dead Sea Scrolls,” EJ 8, 634–39 (637), and the latter’s “The Verbal Forms ‫יקוטלנו‬, ‫יקטולנו‬ in DSS in Comparison to the Babylonian Vocalization,” in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (ed. Binyamin Uffenheimer; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1971), 256–76 (in Hebrew). Needless to say, the frequent waw mater in the DSS orthography does not necessarily indicate the millʿel stress pattern of Tiberian pausal status. 36  Einar Brønno’s data from the Hexapla give evidence of pronunciations resembling both pausal and contextual forms of the Tiberian tradition; see his Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der mercatischen Fragmente der zweiten Kolumne der Hexaplades Origenes (AKM 28; Leipzig: F.A.Brockhaus, 1943), 429–32. 37  Incidentally, the appearance of pausal-type forms in certain manuscripts in RH is rather different, both quantitatively and qualitatively; see Moshe Bar-Asher, “Ṣurot Heqšer veṢurot Hefseq bi-Lšon ha-Mišna (ʿal pi Mesoret Ketav-Yad Parma B),” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 4 (1990): 51–100; Kutscher and Breuer, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” 644.

83

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH Table 5.3 Distribution of ‫יהו‬- -ihu per corpus and trends of replacement

‫(ו)קטלתיהו‬ ‫אביהו‬ ‫אחיהו‬ ‫פיהו‬

TOTALS

MT

non-biblical DSS

biblical DSS

BDSS ‫הו‬- || MT ‫ו‬- (etc.)

BDSS ‫ו‬- || MT ‫הו‬- (etc.)

18/91 7/227 4/117 22/77 51/512

2/4 25/27 19/23 33/34 79/88

19/35 2/15 5/22 10/21 36/93

17 (18) 2 (2) 4 (5) 3 (4) 26 (29)

1 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Masoretic ‫הּו‬-, as in ‫ ָא ִביהּו‬, the evolution running something like ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu to -i(y)u to ‫◌יו‬ִ -iw. See table 5.3. Crucially, while in the MT forms terminating in ‫◌יהּו‬ִ occur in only a minority of the potential cases—approximately ten percent—these are much more common in the DSS. This is especially true in non-biblical material, where a he appears in nearly ninety percent of the potential cases.38 The incidence in the biblical DSS is decidedly lower than this—just under forty percent—and there is pronounced variation among the four relevant categories, but nevertheless forms ending in ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu are still significantly more frequent than in the MT—proportionally, almost four-times as common. Now, it is important to point out that this is not an instance in which the statistical difference is attributable to distortion due to the fragmentary state of the Scrolls, since the trend of replacement in Masoretic and DSS editions of the same text shows a decisive shift toward ‫יהו‬- in the Scrolls: there are 26 cases in which ‫יהו‬- in DSS biblical material parallels ‫◌יו‬ִ in the MT, just one example of the contrary.39 38   ‎‫‏(ו)קטלתיהו‬:‎ 11Q19 59:18; 61:1; ‫‏(ו)קטלתיו‬:‎ 4Q388a f7ii:5; 4Q522 f9ii:11; ‫אביהו‬‎: 1Q19 f3:4; ‎4Q221 f4:1, 2, 10; ‎4Q223–224 f2iii:16; f2iv:15; ‎4Q364 f3i:1; ‎‎4Q365 fH:1; ‎4Q416 f2iii:16; ‎4Q418 f9+9a– c:17; ‎4Q502 f4:2; f15:1; ‎4Q524 f15–22:2; ‎11Q19 15:16; 25:16; 57:16, 17, 19; 64:2, 3; 66:12 (bis), 14, 15; ‎11Q20 1:22; ‫אביו‬:‎ 4Q225 f2ii:4; ‎4Q474 f1:2; ‫אחיהו‬: CD 5:8, 19; 6:20; 7:1, 2; 14:5; 19:18; 1QS 6:10; 4Q215 f1–3:7; 4Q223–224 f2i:50; ‎4Q223–224 f2ii:10; 4Q267 f9v:8; 4Q426 f1i:6; 4Q524 f15–22:2; 11Q19 61:10 (bis), 13 (bis); 66:17; ‫אחיו‬: CD 8:6; 20:18; ‎4Q251 f17:3; 4Q422 3:9; ‫פיהו‬: CD 10:1; 13:3, 4; 14:10; 16:15; 1QS 9:9, 25; 1QSa 2:10; 1Q22 f1ii:6; 1Q26 f2:3; 4Q159 f1ii:5; 4Q266 f9ii:14; f10ii:3; 4Q270 f6iv:13; 4Q299 f59:3; f76:2; 4Q372 f1:20; 4Q377 f2ii:11; 4Q381 f14+5:3; f69:9; 4Q392 f1:3; 4Q403 f1i:35, 39; 4Q405 f4–5:3; 4Q417 f2i:20; 4Q418 f7b:3; f126ii:14; 4Q421 f2:1; 4Q423 f3:3; 4Q513 f17:2; 11Q19 53:15; 58:19 (bis); ‫פיו‬:‎ 4Q381 f1:3. 39  Due to concerns of space, the following list includes only those instances in which a DSS biblical form differs from that in the parallel MT version (* indicates that the

84

Hornkohl

In the present case as well, then, the DSS seem to conserve the more ancient element, this time not just in relation to the Tiberian reading tradition, but as regards the Masoretic consonantal text, too—if, that is, one assumes at least some correlation between orthography and pronunciation, namely, that spellings of the ending with he actually reflect pronunciation therewith; there are scholars who see all forms as more or less representative of a pronunciation without he.40 3.3 Second Thoughts While the two foregoing cases may seem convincing examples of DSS Hebrew conservation versus Tiberian Hebrew development, the matter is perhaps not so simple or straightforward as this. The main problem is that the supporting evidence, though arguably indicating linguistic change over time, does not manifest this change in any unambiguously datable way. In the history of Hebrew, pronunciations along the lines of yiqṭolu almost certainly predate those of the yiqṭəlu type, and the former, yiqṭolu—or something like it—may indeed have been the standard pronunciation accompanying classical Hebrew texts—biblical and non-biblical alike, in contextual as well as pausal environments; but the relevant manuscripts and epigraphs, with their often defective consonantal orthographies, are in many respects phonologically opaque, often precluding determination of vocalic reality. In any case, according to an eminently plausible reading of the evidence, DSS Hebrew merely represents with plene spelling a pronunciation standard in all environments in First Temple Hebrew, the middle vowel of which was only later reduced in contextual

corresponding MT form ends with something other than ‫◌יו‬ִ or ‫◌יהּו‬ִ ). DSS ‫‏(ו)קטלתיהו‬:‎ 1QIsaa 36:16 (tris) || MT Isa 43:7 (tris); 1QIsaa 40:20 || MT Isa 48:15; 1QIsaa 42:15 || MT Isa 51:2; 1QIsaa 43:12 || MT Isa 51:23*; 1QIsaa 45:23 || MT Isa 55:4; 1QIsaa 47:19 || MT Isa 57:19; 4Q5 f8:2 (bis) || MT Isa 43:9 (bis); 4Q27 f20–22:5 || MT Num 22:11; 4Q51 1b:2 || MT 1 Sam 1:11; 4Q51 2a–d:3 || MT 1 Sam 1:22; 4Q57 f30:2 || MT Isa 48:15; 4Q57 f44–47:14 || MT Isa 55:4; 4Q107 f1:15 || MT Song 3:1; 4Q113 f16–18i+19:12 || MT Dan 8:7; 4Q175 1:16 (?) || MT Deut 33:9; DSS )‫‏(ו‬ ‫קטלתיו‬:‎ 4Q52 f4:6 || MT 1 Sam 16:7; DSS ‫אביהו‬:‎ 4Q72 f14–18:8 || MT Jer 22:11; 4Q364 f11:14 || MT Gen 43:23; DSS ‫אביו‬:‎ 1QIsaa 7:23 || MT Isa 8:4*; ‫אחיהו‬:‎ 1QIsaa 3:8 || MT Isa 3:6; 1QIsaa 34:9 || MT Isa 41:6; 4Q51 f61i+62:8 || MT 2 Sam 3:27; 4Q265 f3:2 || MT Mal 2:10; 4Q364 f10:5 || MT Gen 44:33*; ‫פיהו‬:‎ 1QIsaa 28:17 || MT Isa 34:16*; 1QIsaa 44:13 || MT Isa 53:7; 1QIsaa 44:14 || MT Isa 53:7; 4Q175 1:6 || MT Deut 18:18. 40  Qimron, The Hebrew, 60; Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” 356. On the basis of occurrences of the orthography with he in DSS manuscripts that attest numerous vernacular, apparently phonetically-inspired spellings, Reymond deems it likely that the he was pronounced when written; see his Qumran Hebrew, 144.

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

85

environments according to the Tiberian reading tradition (cf. the Babylonian tradition, where the full middle vowel was preserved). Similarly, though the majority Masoretic ending ‫◌יו‬ִ -iw, as in ‫ ָא ִביו‬, is probably a secondary development by means of elision from ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu, as in ‫ ָא ִביהּו‬, which serves as the majority ending in the DSS, there is little in the way of documentary evidence to support the contention that the elided form may be used to differentiate between CBH, on the one hand, and LBH or late extra-biblical Hebrew, on the other. To the best of my knowledge, First Temple inscriptions furnish only a single potential example—apparently ‫“ אחיו‬his brother” (which, however, could conceivably be read ‫“ ֶא ָחיו‬his brothers”) and, at any rate, is found in one of the much maligned Mousaieff inscriptions. More importantly, within BH as represented in the MT, a clear-cut diachronic distribution of either majority ‫◌יו‬ִ -iw or minority ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu is lacking. The spelling without he is dominant in the best Rabbinic manuscripts and is apparently the only one employed in the consonantal tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch. For its part, the geminated -iyyu of the Samaritan reading tradition may preserve a reflex of he, though this form can also be otherwise explained.41 There really is no proof that the evidently evolutionarily-secondary elided form was especially characteristic of Second Temple Hebrew, so that, from the perspective of this feature, DSS Hebrew must be considered more archaic than its Tiberian counterpart. One may reasonably opine that the shift from ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu to ‫◌יו‬ִ -iw was a comparatively early development, so that by post-classical times, the two alternatives served as contemporary variants. It is tempting to hypothesize a sociolinguistic motivation for the frequency of ‫יהו‬- -ihu in the DSS, namely that 41  According to Ben-Ḥayyim: “It cannot be determined whether the form of the pronominal suffix is derived from īhū or from īw, since the diphthong iw is likely to split into two syllables, restoring the original situation;” see his A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 231. See also idem., 65: “The form iyyu may develop directly from īhū (e.g., ‫)פיהו‬, and so it is impossible to rule definitively that in every case it results in the splitting of the diphthong, though spelling considerations would seem to support such an opinion.” With “spelling considerations” Ben-Ḥayyim is presumably referring to the consistent absence of he in the relevant endings throughout the consonantal Samaritan Pentateuch. The problem is that even in the Masoretic tradition of the Pentateuch the ending ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu is exceptional (only two cases—Exod 4:15; Num 11:12—against over 170 of ‫◌יִ ו‬ִ -iw), and the levelling and harmonizing tendencies of the Samaritan tradition are well known; see Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar, 3–4; Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, eds., The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel-Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press), 25–28; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd edition, revised and expanded; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press), 82–87.

86

Hornkohl

the relevant scribes were attracted to the form that least resembled the one characteristic of the vernacular, as reflected primarily in RH. If so, the high frequency of ‫יהו‬- -ihu in the non-biblical Scrolls shows that they were undeterred in this by the fact that the dominant spoken form also served as the principal biblical one.42 As noted above, the preference for ‫◌יהּו‬ִ -ihu over ‫◌יו‬ִ -iw is apparent, though less marked, in the admittedly fragmentary biblical DSS, evidently because the elided ending really was the dominant biblical form and scribes were less prone to substitute ‫יהו‬- -ihu there than they were to employ it in non-biblical compositions. Of course, these explanations, though not entirely devoid of documentary support, remain speculative in the extreme, as the data are far from complete. For example, perhaps issues related to regional dialects should also be taken into consideration; after all, both the elision and retention of intervocalic he have been identified as characteristic northern features in pre-exilic epigraphic sources and in the MT.43 Alternatively, maybe scribes were partially influenced by the spelling of the corresponding Aramaic ending ‫והי‬- -ohi. Whatever the case may be, notwithstanding the appearance of an uncomplicated diachronic typology, it emerges on the basis of the extant Hebrew sources that this is hardly a simple case of “early versus late” or even of “literary versus spoken.” The Spelling and Pronunciation of the 3mpl Gentilic Ending: ‫◌ּיִ (י)ם‬ִ versus ‫◌ים‬ִ Turning to a final example—the typical Hebrew gentilic ending is the nisba ִ‫י‬-ī, as in ‫“ ִע ְב ִרי‬Hebrew”. On the basis of the relevant fs and fpl gentilic forms in 3.4

42  Note that Schniedewind, “Antilanguage,” 237–238, 245, 248, attributes the Qumran use of forms ending in—what he terms—“preclassical” ‫יהו‬- -ihu to “an underlying language ideology that did not look to the classical period (as the Hasmoneans did), but to the preclassical period” (248). He continues: “There is no reason to believe that such an orthography would arise without a strong ideological motivation” (ibid.). 43  On the elision of he in the theophoric suffix found in northern (and other) personal names, i.e., ‫יו‬-, presumably -yaw, rather than standard ‫◌יהּו‬ָ -yā�hū, see Frank M. Cross, “The Seal of Miqnêyaw, Servant of Yahweh,” in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 105–11 (108); Brian A. Mastin, “The Theophoric Elements yw and yhw in Proper Names in Eighth-Century Hebrew Inscriptions and the Proper Names at Kuntillet “Ajrud,” ZAH 17–20 (2004–2007): 109–35; see also Hornkohl, Language of Jeremiah, 85, for further bibliography. For the retention of he as a marker of Israelian Hebrew see Gary Rendsburg, “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 65–88 (76–77).

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

87

Tiberian BH, namely ‫◌ּיָ ה‬ִ -iyyā� and ‫◌ּיֹות‬ִ -iyyōṯ, respectively, in both of which the yod is consonantal (and geminated),44 as well as cognate evidence (see below), the expected mpl form is ‫◌ּיִ (י)ם‬ִ -iyyīm, with consonantal yod, e.g., ‫“ ֻכ ִׁשּיִ ים‬Ethiopians” and ‫ּופ ִל ְׁש ִּתּיִ ים‬ ְ “and Philistines” (both Amos 9:7). Yet this ending is exceedingly rare according to the Masoretic tradition, occurring just fifteen times in the consonantal text, mainly (nine times) in LBH, eight of these ktiv forms for which the qre demands the standard pronunciation ‫◌ים‬ִ -īm.45 To these should be added the four post-Restoration cases of the spelling ‫(י)אים‬ ִ ◌ִ -īʾīm, with ʾalef, in which pronunciation of the sequence iyi was apparently facilitated by means of the insertion of a glottal stop (or hiatus?), resolving -iyyīm to ̈ -īʾīm (or -ī-īm?).46 Though forms such as ‫“ ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬Levites” (which does not contain the gentilic ending in question) testify to a pronunciation identical to the one anticipated for the mpl gentilic, to wit, -iyyīm, on gentilics ending in the nisba, this form is reflected in the qre a mere seven times, the standard mpl gentilic ending according to the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition being the singlesyllable monophthong ‫◌ים‬ִ -īm, as in ‫“ ְפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬Philistines,” ‫“ ִע ְב ִרים‬Hebrews,” ‫“ ִמ ְצ ִרים‬Egyptians,” examples of which occur some 460 times in the Hebrew

44  All of these forms involve the addition of a suffix beginning with a vowel to the ‫◌י‬ִ -ī gentilic ending. The alternative Tiberian fs suffix ‫◌ית‬ִ is not relevant, because it is composed of the gentilic ending plus the merely consonantal sufformative ‫ת‬- -t. I am grateful to my friend and colleague Dr. Michael Rand for input on this point. 45  Exod 3:18; 1 Kgs 11:17; Isa 23:12 (ktiv); Jer 2:10; Amos 9:7 (2×); Esth 4:7 (ktiv); 8:1 (ktiv), 7 (ktiv), 13 (ktiv); 9:15 (ktiv), 18 (ktiv); 1 Chr 12:3; 14:10 (ktiv); 2 Chr 26:7 (ktiv). In Ezek 27:6 the qre calls for ‫“ ִּכ ִּתּיִ ים‬Kittites”, but the ktiv has ‫ ;כתים‬might this be due to pausal status in verse-final position? 46  ‫(י)אים‬ ִ ‫“ ַה ַהגְ ִר‬the Hagrites” (1 Chr 5:10, 19, 20; cf. ‫“ וְ ַהגְ ִרים‬and [the] Hagrites” Ps 83:7) and ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫“ ָה ַע ְר ִב‬the Arabians” (2 Chr 17:11; cf. ‫“ וְ ָה ַע ְר ִבים‬and the Arabians” Neh 4:1; 2 Chr 21:16). The spelling in question reflects either -iy(y)im or -iʾim, both of which tally with the minority long MT suffixes ‫◌ּיִ ים‬ִ and ‫(י)אים‬ ִ ◌ִ , against standard ‫◌ים‬ִ . There is a dispute regarding the phonetic reality represented by the various spellings, i.e., ‫ים‬-,‎ ‫יים‬-, and )‫(י‬‫אים‬. Qimron, The Hebrew, 24, holds that these all basically represent -īm or -i-im. It was also suggested by members of the audience present for the oral version of this paper that the dagesh in several forms of the gentilic ending in the Tiberian vocalization may not, in fact, represent gemination, or, at any rate, that such gemination may be just a natural development often associated with glides; see Shelomo Morag, “Li-Vʿayat Hikaflutam šel Hagaye-ha-Maʿavar,” Tarbiz 23 (1952): 100–103 [Hebrew]. The present study proceeds, however, in agreement with Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 120–22, who contends, not without evidence, that “different spellings … reflect different pronunciations.”

88

Hornkohl

Bible.47 How is the rarity of the expected form, along with its predominantly late distribution (thirteen of nineteen cases), to be explained? Extra-biblical sources are instructive. For example, the sixth-century bce Arad Ostraca present several cases of a gentilic spelled ‫“ כתימ‬Kittites.” At first glance, this orthography would seem to confirm the standard Tiberian BH ending ‫◌ים‬ִ against the minority form ‫◌ּיִ (י)ם‬ִ (and ‫יאים‬ ִ ◌ִ ). Upon further review, however, the ostensible support proves illusory. It turns out that there are no examples of the plural suffix -īm written plene, i.e., ‫ימ‬-, in the Arad Ostraca.48 It thus stands to reason that the spelling there ‫ כתימ‬represents not kittīm, but kittiyyīm with consonantal yod, thereby corroborating the non-standard and predominantly late Tiberian spelling/pronunciation with consonantal yod. This same logic also holds for spellings of mpl gentilic forms with yod in cognate languages, such as Ugaritic ʾugrtym “Ugaritites,” etc., and the Phoenician ‫“ דננימ‬Danunites,” in both of which, in view of orthographical conventions, the yod of the plural suffix is to be considered no mere mater lectionis, but consonantal. In the case of late extra-biblical Hebrew and non-Masoretic BH, the situation is somewhat complex. The two relevant examples in Ben Sira, both references to the Philistines written with a single yod, and thus corresponding to the dominant biblical spelling, were presumably pronounced pĕlīštīm rather than pĕlīštiyyīm (though, of course, there can be no certainty here). In Codex Kaufmann of the Mishna, there are 58 relevant cases: in ten of them the spelling and accompanying vocalization is ‫◌ּיִ ים‬ִ -iyyīm, in the remaining 48 the more standard ‫◌ים‬ִ -īm, the vocalization always matching the orthography.49 47  The same holds true for other (sometimes substantivized) adjectives, including ordinal numbers, that incorporate the nisba ending, such as ‫“ ָח ְפ ִׁשים‬free” (Isa 58:6; Jer 34:9, 10, 11, 16), ‫“ נָ ְכ ִרים‬foreign” (Isa 2:6; Obad 11; Lam 5:2; Prov 20:16 ktiv), ‫“ ֲע ִר ִירים‬barren” (Lev 20:20, 21), ‫ימים‬ ִ ִ‫“ ְּפנ‬inner” (1 Chr 28:11), ‫“ ַק ְדמֹנִ ים‬ancient” (Ezek 38:17; Job 18:20), ‫יעים‬ ִ ‫“ ְר ִב‬fourth (generations)” (2 Kgs 10:30; 15:12), ‫“ ַרגְ ִלים‬foot soldiers” (Jer 12:5), and ‫“ ְש ִל ִׁשים‬third” (Gen 6:16; Num 2:24; 1 Sam 19:21; 1 Kgs 6:8; 2 Kgs 1:13; Ezek 42:3). The exceptions are ‫ְׁשנִ ּיִ ם‬ “second” (Gen 6:16; Num 2:16) and ‫“ ַּת ְח ִּתּיִ ם‬lower” (Gen 6:16). 48  More generally, see Sandra L. Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1998), 61–73. 49  ‫יים‬-:‎ ‫“ ַּב ְב ִלּיִ ים‬Babylonians” (Yoma 6:4); ‫רּוׁש ְל ִמּיִ ים‬ ַ ְ‫“ י‬Jerusalemites” (Menaḥ. 7:2); ‫ִמ ְצ ִרּיִ ים‬ “Egyptians” (Pesaḥ. 10:5; ʾAbot 5:4); ‫“ ַע ְר ִבּיִ ים‬Arabians” (Menaḥ. 5:9; Kelim 5:10; 26:4; 29:1; ʾOhal. 18:10; see also ‫“ ֵבינֹונִ ּיִ ם‬intermediate” Neg. 2:1; ‫רֹומּיִ ם‬ ִ ‫“ ְּד‬southerners” Šeqal. 6:3; Mid. 2:6; ‫“ ִמזְ ָר ִחּיִ ם‬eastern” Tamid 3:9; 6:1; ‫יּמּיִ ים‬ ִ ִ‫“ ְפנ‬inner” Naz. 6:2; Tamid 2:4; ‫“ ְׁשנִ ּיִ ין‬second” Yad. 2:2, 3 [4×]; 3:2). ‫ים‬-‎: ‫“‏ ַא ְׁש ְקלֹונִ ים‬Ashkelonites” (Kelim 13:7; Ṭ. Yom 4:6); ‫ילים‬ ִ ‫“ ּגְ ִל‬Galileans” (Kelim 2:2); ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“ י‬Jews” (Ketub. 7:6 [2×]; Ned. 11:12 [3×]); ‫“ יְ וָ נִ ים‬Greeks” (Giṭ. 9:6 [2×], 8); ‫ּכּותים‬ ִ “Kutheans” (Demai 5:9 [5×]; 7:4; Šeb. 8:10; Roš Haš. 2:2; Ned. 3:10 [3×]; Giṭ. 1:5;

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

89

For their part, the written and reading traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch treat the ending as a typically unaccented mpl suffix.50 Intriguingly, however, forms spelled with two yods, presumably reflecting a consonantal pronunciation of the letter, are standard in the non-biblical DSS and come in the majority of cases in the biblical manuscripts as well.51 ʾOhal. 17:3; Nid. 4:1; 7:3, 4); ‫“ ְּכנַ ֲענִ ים‬Canaanites” (Maʿaś. Š. 4:4; ʿErub. 7:6; B. Meṣiʿa 1:5; 7:6; ʿArak. 8:4); ‫“ ִע ְב ִרים‬Hebrews” (Maʿaś. Š. 4:4; Giṭ. 9:6, 8; ʿErub. 7:6; B. Meṣiʿa 1:5; 7:6); ‫“ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬Philistines” (Ned. 3:11; Naz. 1:2; Soṭah 1:8; 8:1, 6 [2×]); ‫דּוקים‬ ִ ‫“ ַצ‬Sadducees” (Yad. 4:7 [2×]); ‫יל ִקים‬ ְ ‫“ ִק‬Cilicians” (Maʿaś. 5:8; see also ‫ימין‬ ִ ִ‫“ ְּפנ‬inner” Ber. 3:2; ‫יעים‬ ִ ‫“ ְר ִב‬fourths” Ḥal. 3:1; ‫יׁשים‬ ִ ‫“ ְׁש ִל‬third” Ḥag. 3:8). Vocalization in the Mishna follows the spelling; i.e., yod is consonantal only where the spelling with double yod makes this necessary. However, this is not the case in forms such as ‫“ ְלוִ (ו)ּיִ ם‬Levites,” in which the yod is consonantal despite the possibility of its having been treated as a mater. 50  In Exod 3:18, the only case in which the Masoretic Torah has the ‫◌ּיִ ים‬ִ ending, the Samaritan consonantal text presents the standard ‫“ העברים‬Hebrews.” According to the Samaritan reading tradition, the ending corresponding to Tiberian ‫◌ים‬ִ is realized as unaccented -ĕm; this also applies to such forms as ‫“ לוים‬Levites”, which is pronounced lībĕm. 51  In the biblical material forms with ‫יים‬- outnumber those with ‫ים‬- ‎23:18—‫יים‬- (unless other­ wise stated, the MT forms in the following lists end in ‫◌ים‬ִ )‎: ‫“ יהודיים‬Judahites” (2Q13 f3–4:2 || MT Jer 43:9); ‫“ כשדיים‬Chaldeans” (1QIsaa 11:26 || MT Isa 13:19; 1QIsaa 18:19 || MT Isa 23:13; 1QIsaa 36:25 || MT Isa 43:14; 1QIsaa 39:20 || MT Isa 47:1; 1QIsaa 39:24 || MT Isa 47:5; 1QIsaa 40:19 || MT Isa 48:14; 1QIsaa 40:25 || MT Isa 48:20; 4Q72 f10–12:8 || MT Jer 21:9; 4Q72 f19–21:14 || MT Jer 22:25); ‫“ כשיי[ם‬Ethiopians” (Mur 88 8:19 || ‫ ֻכ ִׁשּיִ ים‬MT Amos 9:7); ‫כתיים‬ “Kittites” (1QIsaa 18:6 || MT Isa 23:1; 1QIsaa 18.17 || 4Q57 f9ii+11+12i+52:17 || MT Isa 23:12); ‫“ מדיניים‬Midianites” (4Q27 f31–33i:25 || MT Num 25:17); ‫“ סוניים‬Syenes” (1QIsaa 49:12 || ‫ ִסינִ ים‬MT Isa 49:12); ‫ פלשתיים‬‎(1QIsaa 11:3 || MT Isa 11:14; 2Q13 f7–8:10 || MT Jer 47:4; 4Q51 5a:1 || MT 1 Sam 4:9; 4Q51 9a–d:1 || MT 1 Sam 9:16; 4Q51 f6:1 || MT 1 Sam 14:47; 4Q51 f43:9 || MT 1 Sam 28:1; 4Q51 f61ii+63–64a–b+65–67:30 || MT 2 Sam 5:18; see also ‫“ חו̊ פ̇שיים‬free” 1QIsaa 47:29 || MT Isa 58:6; ‫“ הקד]מניים‬the ancient” 4Q51 f26–27:1 || ‫ ַק ְדמֹנִ י‬MT 1 Sam 24:14; ‫נכריאים‬ “foreign” 1QIsaa 2:15 || MT Isa 2:6; ‫“ נ̇ ו̇ כריאם‬foreign” 5Q6 f1iv.6 || MT Lam 5:2); ‫ים‬-:‎ ‫אפרתים‬ “Ephrathites” (4Q104 f1.3 || MT Ruth 1:2); ‫“ גבים‬Gebites” (1QIsaa 10:17 || MT Isa 10:31); ‫“ דודנים‬Dudanites” (1QIsaa 16:30 || ‫“ ְּד ָדנִ ים‬Dedanites” MT Isa 21:13); ‫“ הגרים‬Hagrites” (Mas1e 2:20 || MT Ps 83:7); ‫“ י̇ ו̇ נים‬Greeks” (Mur 88 2:27 || MT Joel 4:6); ‫כר ̇תי̇ ם‬ ̇ “Cherethites” (Mur 88 20:16 || MT Zeph 2:5); ‫דים‬ ̊ ‫כש‬ ̇ “Chaldeans” (1Q71 f1ii.1 || MT Dan 2:2; Mur 88 18:4 || MT Hab 1:6); ‫“ לובים‬Lybians” (Mur 88 17:17 || MT Nah 3:9); ‫“ מואבים‬Moabites” (4Q35 f7.3 || MT Deut 2:29); )‫“ סבאים ( ̇שבאים‬Sabeans” (1QIsaa 36:12 || ‫“ ְס ָבא‬Seba” MT Isa 43:3; 1QIsaa 38:21 || MT Isa 45:14; Mur 88 2:30 || ‫ ְׁש ָבאיִ ם‬MT Joel 4:8); ‫“ פלשתים‬Philistines” (1Q7 f4.2 || MT 2 Sam 23:10, 1Q7 f4.5 || MT 2 Sam 23:11; 1QIsaa 2.14 || MT Isa 2:6; Mur 88 9:30 || MT Obad 19); ‫קה ̇תים‬ ̊ “Kohathites” (4Q23 f56.6 || MT Num 10:21; see also ‫“ חפשים‬free” 1Q8 25.14 || MT Isa 58:6; ‫“ נכרים‬foreign” Mur 88 9.17 || MT Obad 11; ‫“ ש]נ̇ י̇ ם‬second” 6Q1 f1.5 || MT Gen 6:16). In the non-biblical material forms with ‫יים‬- outnumber those with ‫ים‬- ‎11:3 (30:3 if spellings with an inserted ʾalef are counted)—‫יים‬:‎ ‫“ כנעניים‬Canaanites” (Pam43692 f85.1); ‫כש־‬ ‫“ דיים‬Chaldeans” (4Q252 2.9; see also ‫ כשדאים‬‪1QpHab 2.11); ‫“ כתיים‬Kittites” (1QM 18.4;

90

Hornkohl

Some of the correspondences between the Hebrew strata and corpora mentioned above are expected: the predilection for consonantal yod in the DSS and in the minority Masoretic orthography/pronunciation known chiefly from LBH; the preference for ‫◌ים‬ִ in standard Masoretic orthography/pronunciation and in RH. One correspondence, however, is especially surprising: the employment of an ending with consonantal yod in the DSS and LBH, on the one hand, and in early extra-biblical Hebrew (Arad) and cognate sources (Ugaritic, Phoenician), on the other. While it is not impossible that the early extra-biblical ending with consonantal yod had already reduced to a single syllable in CBH, only later to split anew in LBH, which form thereafter became dominant in some (e.g., the DSS), but not all (e.g., RH and Ben Sira) types of post-biblical Hebrew, this scenario hardly recommends itself as the simplest or most likely. More plausible is the hypothesis that the classical BH orthography ‫ים‬- was originally intended as a purely consonantal, defective representation of -iyyīm, as in the standard Masoretic spelling of ‫“ ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬Levites,” with a single consonantal yod. The minority LBH and dominant DSS spelling with double yod (‫יים‬-) would thus constitute no more than a plene spelling transparently representing this pronunciation. The dominant DSS ending, then, would be a late orthographical representation of early phonology. It is difficult to date the resolution of -iyyīm to -īm with anything resembling precision or certainty. Conceivably, it may be an ancient, presumably popular, contraction that began to creep into literary Hebrew as early as the First Temple Period. However, the inscriptional evidence, along with forms spelled ‫יים‬- in LBH and the DSS, in contrast to the standard form ‫ים‬- in RH, seem to point to a rather late date of adoption. Moreover, the dominance of the orthography ‫ים‬- in the MT, originally defective for -iyyīm, apparently shows that the truncation to -īm predated (at least part of) the orthographical revision discussed above, since the spelling ‫יים‬- would presumably have been much more common in the MT than it is, had the pronunciation -iyyīm been standard among the revisers. It would seem that when those copyists responsible for the spelling update came to add the mater lectionis yod of the standard plural ending ‫ים‬-, in the case of gentilics and related forms, with their previously consonantal yods, the scribes encountered spellings that, in line with the contracted pronunciation -īm in contemporary Hebrew, already seemed to be 19.10; 4Q169 f3–4i.3; 4Q247 f1.6; 4Q285 f3.4; f4.5; f7.6; see also ‫“ כתיאים‬Kittites” 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 6.1, 10; 9.7; 1Q16 f9–10.4; 4Q161 f8–10.3, 7, 8; 4Q332 f3.2; 4Q491 f10ii.10, 12; f11ii.8; f13.5); ‫“ פלשתיים‬Philistines” (1QM 11.3; 6Q9 f32.1; see also ‫“ שלישיים‬third” 4Q267 f9v.9; ‫“ שניים‬second” 4Q267 f9v.7; 4Q403 f1ii.19); ‫ים‬-:‎ ‫“ אופירים‬Ophirites (?)” (4Q472 f2.6; 4Q491 f11i.18); ‫“ ̊ג ̇בים‬Gebites” (4Q161 f5–6.8; see also ‫“ שנים‬second” CD 14.4, 5).

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of TH and QH

91

written plene. In other words, the originally defective ‫ים‬- ending of a gentilic was simply appropriated without change, because it could readily be reanalyzed as a plene spelling for -īm. Meanwhile, the few plene ‫יים‬- forms that had managed to penetrate into (mainly late) Masoretic biblical texts were (with a few exceptions) retouched (according to the qre) within the standard reading tradition. Such is arguably the most obvious interpretation of the facts, but alterative solutions are no doubt possible; for example, perhaps the rarity of the double-yod spelling in the MT is less a function of phonology, and more one of orthographical convention, according to which the writing of double yod in suffixes was deemed undesirable in the eyes of the revisers. It is readily admitted here that this leap from data to explanation involves not a little conjecture. Whatever the case may be, in this instance, only the Masoretic vocalization seems to present a version of the feature more advanced than that reflected in the spelling with double yod in DSS Hebrew, which itself displays in later, plene spelling what was arguably the pronunciation intended for the Masoretic consonantal tradition with its single, presumably consonantal yod. 4

Summary and Conclusion

Summing up, the present study has dealt with three features that, contrary to the norm, tend to show up in DSS BH in a form developmentally more primitive than the corresponding Masoretic one. In two cases—‫ יקטולו‬yiqṭolu (versus ‫ יִ ְק ְטלּו‬yiqṭəlu) and mpl gentilic ‫יים‬- -iyyim (versus ‫◌ים‬ִ -īm)—it is difficult to decide whether we are dealing with natural and unaffected preservation of early Hebrew features on the part of DSS scribes or with instances of intentional archaization, since the antiquity of the respective standard alternatives and the contemporary extent of their diffusion is hard to determine. Regular use of the remaining feature in the biblical DSS—the 3ms ending ‫יהו‬- -ihu (rather than ‫יו‬- –i(y)u/-iw)—is more probably the result of a conscious attempt to avoid what was actually a perfectly classical form that had also, however, come to be identified with the vernacular. However, as has been repeatedly emphasized during this study, none of these cases is plain or unambiguous. First, the potential for mismatch between the Masoretic consonantal text and the Tiberian reading tradition opens the possibility that only the Tiberian vocalization of a given word is comparatively late, not its consonantal form or presumed earlier pronunciation (where this can be reconstructed), with respect to DSS Hebrew. Also problematic is the absolute dating of a form considered developmentally secondary, which may conceivably have arisen very early on, in which case its employment, even its

92

Hornkohl

exclusive employment, has nothing to contribute to distinguishing between pre- and post-exilic ancient Hebrew. Moreover, it is well-nigh certain that the extant sources furnish only a small sampling of the many sorts of Hebrew employed in the relevant times, regions, and contexts. For this reason it is very difficult to be sure, for example, that apparently secondary features in the Tiberian reading tradition were not already in use in someone’s Hebrew somewhere during the late Second Temple Period, in which cases they may conceivably have served alongside the developmentally more classical alternatives preserved in DSS Hebrew. Finally, it is now common knowledge among experts that the distinction between CBH and DSS Hebrew cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional schematic depicting a straight and uninterrupted sequence of discrete linguistic stages. In other words, though we are dealing with historical phases of Hebrew separated by time, the relationship between the two strata in question is not one of simple chronological linearity, with LBH serving as the joining link. Rather, there are numerous factors beyond the merely diachronic that demand consideration, including, but not limited to, genre, dialect, and sociolect. Problems of textual and literary development must also be addressed, without, however, being overemphasized. While it is imperative that the existence of such dimensions not be misused to explain away genuine evidence of historical development, they complicate, complement, and enrich diachronic research, and it is thus only to the detriment of that research that they are ignored.

chapter 6

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew: A Diachronic View Jan Joosten 1

Research Question

A broad consensus exists on the general periodization of ancient Hebrew: the bulk of the prose texts of Genesis to 2 Kings are written in Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), reflecting roughly the monarchic period, while the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Daniel, Esther and Ecclesiastes represent Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) of the Persian and Hellenistic periods.1 In outline this language-historical scheme goes back to Wilhelm Gesenius at the beginning of the nineteenth century.2 Although it has occasionally been challenged, it is fair to say most Hebraists uphold it in some form.3 Scholars of the Hebrew

1  See, e.g., Aaron D. Hornkohl, “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization,” EHLL 1, 315–25. See also the recent collection of studies: Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012). 2  See Jan Joosten, “Wilhelm Gesenius and the History of Hebrew in the Biblical Period,” in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie. Das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage (ed. Stefan Schorch and Ernst-Joachim Waschke; BZAW 427; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 94–106. 3  Some recent publications have urged more integration between general linguistics and Hebrew studies in diachronic research on Biblical Hebrew. See, e.g., the articles by Robert D. Holmstedt, John A. Cook and B. Elan Dresherin Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, and the monograph of Dong-Hyuk Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (VTSup 156; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Substantially these studies are not far removed from the existing consensus. A completely different view has been proposed by Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, but their arguments do not bear out their claims. See Jan Joosten, review of Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, with the assistance of Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (2 vols; London–Oakville: Equinox, 2009), in Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 535–42. The latest book of Ian Young and Robert Rezetko is Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Atlant, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_007

94

Joosten

Bible, even some very good ones, have sometimes given it short shrift.4 But a discipline cannot suspend its central tenets just because outsiders find them hard to understand. The durable success of the diachronic paradigm is due, it seems, to the extraordinary lineup of the data. The Hebrew of the LBH corpus is really completely unlike that of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, as becomes especially clear when one compares prose texts representing the same literary genre—say Kings and Chronicles, or the Joseph story and the Book of Esther. Moreover, the diachronic nature of the differences is manifest: massive Aramaic influence on LBH vocabulary shows that this state of language is later than CBH, as do syntactic developments following typologically predictable lines. Less assured, though still well established, are the absolute dates: CBH before the Babylonian exile, LBH after the exile. These dates might shift a bit, but not too much: links between CBH and epigraphic documents of the eighth to sixth century vouch for the date of the earlier corpus, while a series of Persian loanwords are indicative of the period when the LBH books came into being.5 Beyond the distinction between CBH and LBH, the success of the diachronic approach is much more modest. A good case has been made, and continues to be made, for the existence of an archaic BH corpus consisting of a handful of poems inserted into the CBH prose narrative.6 Similarly, the arguments for a transitional period in the history of BH, attested in such books as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Second Isaiah, Lamentations and Job are cogent.7 It has proved very 4  See, e.g., David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 131–32; Mark S. Smith, “Words and Their Worlds,” in Biblical Lexicology: Hebrew and Greek. Semantics—Exegesis—Translation (ed. Jan Joosten, Eberhard Bons, Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, and Romina Vergari; BZAW 443; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 3–31 (on p. 6). 5  The full argument for the absolute (although of course approximate) dates of CBH and LBH is longer, but this is not the right place to develop it further. Ron Hendel and the present author are preparing a monograph titled How Old is the Hebrew Bible? where this question will be discussed at more length. In the meantime, see Jan Joosten, “Variations, évolutions, rupture: une approche diachronique de l’hébreu biblique,” in Variations, évolutions, metamorphoses (ed. Bernard Pouderon and Jérôme Casas; Colloques de l’Institut Universitaire de France; Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de St-Étienne, 2012), 93–105. 6  See recently Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry (SSLL 68; Leiden: Brill, 2013). 7  See, e.g., on Jeremiah, Aaron D. Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition (SSLL 74; Leiden: Brill, 2013); on Ezekiel, Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990); on Second Isaiah, Shalom Paul, “Signs of

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew

95

difficult, however, to identify developments within CBH, or within LBH. The CBH corpus may have come into being over as much as four centuries. Frank Polak has shown convincingly that it is made up of strata, evincing an evolution from texts standing close to oral literature to texts developing all the resources offered by writing.8 But as it appears, no one has been able to indicate linguistic features attesting chronological stages within CBH.9 The same is true for LBH. The LBH corpus is less unified than the CBH corpus, but the diversity of LBH can only with difficulty be interpreted in diachronic terms. Who would dare assert that the language of Esther is later than that of Chronicles? Or that it is earlier? Since languages change continuously, the evolution of Hebrew is expected to show up, in one way or another, within LBH. Yet the relative scantiness of the corpus, its literary diversity, and the limits of our scholarly sagacity do not allow us to see it. In a diachronic view, LBH—like CBH—is opaque. The question addressed in the present paper is whether the opacity of LBH encompasses Qumran Hebrew (QH). QH is here taken in a somewhat broad sense. The core corpus is made up of the main sectarian scrolls—the Damascus Document,10 the Rule Scroll, the War Scroll, Pesher Habakkuk, the Hodayot— and related manuscripts.11 However, many non-sectarian writings also present a linguistic profile that is very close to that of the core group. The Qumran and LBH corpora are easy to distinguish, of course. Histories of the Hebrew language typically devote distinct sections to LBH and QH.12 The differentiation is not necessarily based on diachronic linguistics, however. It is more of a Late Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 293–300; on Job, Jan Joosten, “Linguistic Clues as to the Date of the Book of Job: A Mediating Position,” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines(ed. James K. Aitken, Jeremy M.S. Clines and Christl M. Maier; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 347–57; on Lamentations, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations,” JANES 26 (1998): 1–36. 8   See e.g. Frank Polak, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANES 26 (1998): 59–105. 9   Of course it is possible to indicate types of variation within CBH that oppose an earlier and a later form of language. However, neither the relatively late nor the relatively early forms aggregate in any obvious way within the CBH corpus. 10  The copy of the Damascus Document discovered in the Cairo Geniza is a genuine sectarian scroll that has been copied in the Middle Ages. Its orthography cannot be considered to be typical of QH, but most of the other aspects of its language are. 11   For additional prolegomena and bibliography, see Jan Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 351–74. 12  See e.g., Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. John F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 112–46.

96

Joosten

practical matter, reflecting other factors setting apart the two corpora.13 In fact, knowledgeable Hebraists regard QH and LBH as a single phase in the history of ancient Hebrew.14 Only with Tannaitic Hebrew does the diachronic approach gain firm ground again. This view has a solid basis in the facts. There is indeed a strong continuity between LBH and QH, with many features occurring more or less exclusively in these two corpora. Nevertheless, the question still merits to be asked: within the LBH-QH continuum, can QH be established as being relatively later than LBH? 2

Preliminary Remarks

Before looking at specific features, a few remarks of a more general nature are in order. The relation between QH and LBH is complex. Three dimensions must be mentioned: chronology, literary tradition, and dialectal diversity. 2.1 Chronology LBH stretches over close to three centuries, arguably coming into view first in the second half of the fifth century with the Nehemiah memoirs and continuing at least until the one hundred sixties bce when the latter chapters of Daniel appear to have been composed.15 Qumran literature is commonly assigned to a period overlapping that of LBH. The sectarian scrolls are situated between the one hundred sixties bce and the turn of the era, while some of the non-sectarian writings may even be a bit earlier. According to this chronology, one would hardly expect a strong break between the latest LBH writings and the earliest Qumran literature. In recent years, however, a forceful case has been mounted to lower the date of the sectarian writings from Qumran by around one century. Michael Wise 13  It is often said that the Dead Sea Scrolls fill in a gap between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. QH is presented as a transitory phase between LBH and Mishnaic Hebrew. It is rare to find that this claim is backed up with extensive evidence. 14  See, e.g., Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 116: “The language of the DSS springs from the BH of the Second Temple period. In grammar, vocabulary, and even style it is very close to the language of the biblical books written in this period.” Similarly David Talshir, “The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period,” in Biblical Hebrew—Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 251–75 (on pp. 265–66). The International Symposia on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira have always been open to papers on LBH. 15  Admittedly, it is hard to prove that no LBH text was composed later than Daniel.

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew

97

has developed various lines of historical argument indicating that the Teacher of Righteousness belongs to the reign of Salome Alexandra (76–67 bce).16 The sectarian scrolls, in this view, date from a rather short period in the middle of the first century bce. If this approach were accepted, a significant portion of the Qumran corpus would be separated from LBH by about one hundred years. Such an interval might be expected to show up in the language.17 2.2 Literary Tradition Qumran Hebrew has rightly been described as a continuation of biblical literature. The sectarian scrolls are very close to the LBH corpus in the way they link up with CBH: verses and expressions from the Torah and the Prophets are quoted and alluded to, and even single words are used in a way that indicates they were derived from earlier texts. LBH and QH represent a single literary tradition. The continuity between the corpora can be seen in vocabulary, grammar and style.18 2.3 Dialectal Diversity Some of the differences between QH and BH (including LBH) are almost certainly dialectal in nature.19 QH exhibits numerous morphological singularities. Some of these align with other varieties of Hebrew such as the Samaritan reading tradition or the tradition underlying Origen’s second column. Others—e.g., imperfect qal forms with suffixes of the pattern ‫—ידורשהו‬appear to be unique to QH. These features cannot all be explained as linear developments from their BH cognates, nor were they all invented by sectarian leaders. They are to be viewed as alternative forms rooted in a local dialect.20 The extent to which this dialect also comprised distinct lexemes, and syntactic constructions, is an open question. These rapid remarks illustrate how challenging diachronic research on ancient Hebrew can be. The date of the latest books of the Bible and the Qumran writings is debated and cannot be made the basis of a scientific argument. The 16  Michael O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement,” JBL 122 (2003): 53–87. 17  Surprisingly, perhaps, Wise has brought no linguistic evidence to bolster his case. 18  See above, note 14. 19  Some striking features in the scrolls—e.g., the third singular personal pronouns ‫ הואה‬and ‫—היאה‬have been explained as reflecting a sectarian “sociolect.” This explanation may be feasible for a handful of features, but it cannot account for the entire picture. 20  For bibliography and further discussion, see the publication in note 11.

98

Joosten

literary continuity between the two corpora would lead one to expect that, even if there were differences of a diachronic nature, they would be partly veiled due to the effects of classicizing style. The issue of dialectal variety further complicates the issue. Any instances of linguistic variation can in principle be explained as reflecting either contemporary dialects or successive stages of the Hebrew language. 3

Linguistic Evidence for Dating QH after LBH

In spite of all the uncertainties, an argument for the relative dating of QH and LBH would seem to be feasible. Different lines of evidence indicate that the Hebrew of the sectarian Dead Sea scrolls is globally later than that of the latest books of the Bible. The goal of the present study is not to list the arguments exhaustively, but to illustrate the type of material that would seem to be relevant. 3.1 Vocabulary An easy place to start is with vocabulary. The Qumran texts contain many words that are not attested in the Bible. Some of them may be new words indicating that the texts that use them are of a later date. However, several other factors have to be taken into account as well. Some of the “new” words may be unattested by chance. Thus the common noun ‫“ בדן‬body” may always have been part of the vocabulary of Hebrew, even though it is first found in the new texts discovered in Qumran.21 The word is not found in later texts and may always have been rare. Moreover, the proper name ‫“ בדן‬Bedan” found in 1 Sam 12:11 and 1 Chr 7:17 suggests that the noun did exist much earlier. Other words, however, do show that the scrolls reflect a relatively late type of Hebrew. 3.1.1 “Mishnaic” Hebrew Words First Attested in the Qumran Corpus Several words characteristic of later phases of the language, notably Tannaitic Hebrew, occur in the Qumran corpus.22 Even this category should be used with caution in dating QH. Some of them may be old words unattested in the biblical books due to accident. But others may for various reasons be regarded as new formations attesting genuine language change. Let us take an example, the well-known case of ‫“ עכשו‬now” in 4Q225 (Pseudo-Jubilees) 21  See Noam Mizrahi, “A Body Refigured: The Meaning and History of Hebrew BDN,” JAOS 130 (2011): 541–49. 22  Whether these words were originally borrowed from Aramaic or are inner-Hebrew creations is not overly significant in this regard.

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew

99

2 II, 7. This adverb is not attested in the Bible. It is the normal form in Tannaitic Hebrew (where it is written ‫ עכשיו‬with a yod). Moreover, ‫ עכשו‬is probably a grammaticalized development of ‫עד כשהוא‬. In BH, including LBH, ‫ עתה‬is used instead, and this word is also the normal one in QH. Thus, ‫ עכשו‬is clearly a relatively late item in a Qumran text. Most probably this is a case of a word from the spoken language slipping into a written text. But how late does that make QH? Elements of spoken Hebrew are occasionally encountered even in CBH.23 Items known from Tannaitic Hebrew are attested more than once in Ecclesiastes and Esther. Since no one knows when the adverb ‫ עכשו‬was created, its presence in 4QPseudo-Jubilees does not by itself date that text, nor even its language. Similar remarks could be made on several other lexical items attested once or twice in the Scrolls and better known from Tannaitic Hebrew.24 The case is somewhat different for words known from Tannaitic Hebrew that have gained some currency in QH: e.g., ‫“ ממון‬money,” or ‫“ זעטוט‬little one.”25 To the extent we can be certain that these words really are recent intrusions from the spoken language (and not old inherited forms reflecting the dialectal substratum of QH), their repeated use in the Qumran texts attests to a process of renewal of the written language under the influence of the vernacular. In QH, this process appears to have progressed further than in LBH. 3.1.2 Pseudo-Classicisms Some words known from the biblical corpus are used in the Scrolls in a way that shows their original meaning was forgotten and a different meaning was attributed to them on the basis of exegesis or popular etymology. The phenomenon is known already in LBH,26 but it is much more prominent in QH. Examples include ‫“ תשוקה‬desire” used with the meaning “return,” ‫“ שחת‬pit” used in the meaning “corruption,” and ‫“ אות‬to consent” in the meaning “to share.” Pseudo-classicisms have diachronic implications because they could 23  Note for instance ‫ למה‬in the meaning “lest” in 2 Sam 2:22 and elsewhere (see BDB 554a); ‫“ אנו‬we” in Jer 42:6K. 24  Several examples are discussed in Menahem Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 137–65 (on p. 137–42); Moshe Bar-Asher, Studies in Classical Hebrew (Studia Judaica 71; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 111–18, 131, 167, 174. 25  On ‫ זעטוט‬see the study of Gary Rendsburg in the present volume. 26  See Jan Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–59.

100

Joosten

only come into being when the classical words had fallen from use in the living language. The fact that they are more numerous in QH than in LBH probably indicates that in time the literary language developed this feature more and more. In a few instances, the pseudo-classicism is modeled on a usage that is itself attested in late strata of BH. Kutscher pointed out the artificial use of ‫חרישית‬, a word known only from Jonah, in 1QHa XV, 8.27 And Kister discussed the expression ‫ חדודי השמש‬in 1Q19 3:5, an expression that seems to reflect a peculiar interpretation of ‫ חדודי חרש‬in Job 41:22.28 Neither Jonah nor Job is part of the LBH corpus, however. As far as I know no pseudo-classicism based on LBH has been identified so far. In a recent article, Mizrahi has shown that the nonce-word ‫ מדהבה‬was not only reused in a pseudo-classical way, but in addition spawned a new formation, the noun ‫( מדהב‬also attested as ‫)מדהוב‬.29 Such renewed productivity shows that the pseudo-classicism has come to be thoroughly absorbed into the tissue of the language, again a process that would necessitate much time. 3.1.3 Religious Vocabulary A special category is made up of religious terms that first turn up in QH. The transformation of common words into technical terms of religion can be observed already in BH: ‫ תורה‬changes its meaning from “instruction” to “Torah” (e.g., Neh 8:14), ‫ מועד‬changes from “appointed time” to “festival” (passim), and ‫“ תמיד‬continuously” takes on the meaning of “daily sacrifice” (Dan 11:31). But several additional examples are found only from QH onward: ‫ ברך‬means not only “to bless” as in BH, but develops the additional meaning “to say a blessing” (before meals, for instance);30 ‫ מעשים‬means not only “deeds” but also “divine precepts”;31 ‫ גר‬no longer means “resident alien,” as in the Bible, but “proselyte” (or something very close); ‫ עריות‬takes on the meaning “rules on incest”; ‫ ׁשמטה‬means “sabbatical year” (contrast BH ‫שנת השמטה‬, “the year of release,” Deut 15:9). These special usages illustrate the ever-growing influence of Jewish religion on the Hebrew language. Several of them could have been used in the LBH corpus if the biblical authors had known them.32 27  Eduard Y. Kutscher, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 16, col. 1589. 28  Kister, “Observations,” 147–49. 29  Noam Mizrahi, “The Linguistic History of ‫ מדהבה‬from Textual Corruption to Lexical Innovation,” RevQ 26/101 (2013): 93–116. 30  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 99. 31  Ibid, 101. 32  E.g., for “proselytes,” Neh 10:29 uses an unwieldy circumlocution; the year of release is just called the seventh year in Neh 10:32.

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew

101

Any individual case is to be evaluated with caution. Some of the words and expressions attested for the first time in the sectarian scrolls may have been in circulation much earlier. Nevertheless, the cumulative evidence of lexical innovations in QH strongly suggests a relatively later date. 3.2 Morphosyntax Syntactic and morphosyntactic evidence of language evolution is crucial in diachronic research. While vocabulary submits to a speaker’s (or writer’s) choice to a certain extent, syntactic features are used much more unconsciously. Also, syntactic evolution often takes the form of systemic changes evolving over long periods of time. Such changes typically follow a path that can be illuminated from language typology. Since they can be pursued over the entire history of ancient Hebrew, from CBH to Tannaitic Hebrew, their diachronic nature is not in doubt. The verbal system is the area par excellence to look for wide-ranging developments of this sort. In regard to our question, the first observation to make is that the verbal system of QH is strikingly similar to that of LBH.33 The two phases share some exclusive and well-profiled features of verbal syntax. Notably, in both LBH and QH, weqatal and weyiqtol freely interchange in predictive or prescriptive discourse.34 In both LBH and QH, the morphology of prefixed forms preceded by waw, whatever their function, tends to shift to forms of the volitive paradigm (jussive, or cohortative).35 These phenomena are only marginally attested in the CBH corpus, and neither of them is found in later stages of the language. These shared features show that LBH and QH are close in time. Nevertheless, there is at least one structural difference between QH and LBH. In QH, the participle is used as a modal verbal form:

33  See, e.g., Mark S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991); Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008); Ken Penner, The Verbal System of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Qumran Hebrew Texts (SSN 64; Leiden: Brill, 2015). 34  See, e.g., Jan Joosten, “The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective,” in The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday(ed. Angelika Berlejung and Pierre Van Hecke; OLA 164; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 47–61. 35  Elisha Qimron, “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew,” JQR 77 (1987): 151–53.

102

Joosten

1QS V, 1–3 ‫‏וזה הסרך לאנשי היחד המתנדבים לשוב מכול רע ולהחזיק בכול אשר צוה לרצונו‬ ‫להבדל מעדת‬ ‎‫‏אנשי העול להיות ליחד בתורה ובהון ומשיבים על פי בני צדוק הכוהנים שומרי הברית‬ }‫על פי רוב אנשי{ו‬ ‎‫היחד המחזקים בברית‬

This is the rule for the men of the Yahad who volunteer to repent from all evil and to hold fast to all that He, by His good will, has commanded. They are to separate (infinitive construct) from the congregation of perverse men. They are to come together (infinitive construct) as one with respect to Law and wealth. Their discussions shall be (participle) under the oversight of the Sons of Zadok—priests and preservers of the Covenant—and according to the majority rule of the men of the Yahad, who hold fast to the Covenant. 1QS VII, 2–3 ‫ואם באחד מן הכוהנים הכתובים בספר דבר בחמה ונענש שנה‬ ‫אחת ומובדל על נפשו מן טהרת רבים‬

If anyone speaks angrily against one of the priests who are inscribed in the book, he is to be punished (weqatal) by reduced rations for one year and he will be separated (we + participle) from the pure meals of the general membership, eating by himself.36 As is duly noted by Kesterson in his dissertation, the participle is used in a way that has no parallel in the Bible.37 The modal use of the participle is found also in the War Scroll,38 and in the Temple Scroll.39 The use of the participle in this function seems to be unattested in the Bible. The use of the participle in religious law is very typical of Tannaitic Hebrew. In QH, the usage remains marginal. Prescriptive contexts use yiqtol and weqatal far more often (note 1QS VIII, 24 ‫ ;והובדל‬similarly CD IX, 21 and other passages). This conforms to 36  The same syntax recurs in line 5. 37  John C. Kesterson, “Tense Usage and Verbal Syntax in Selected Qumran Documents” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 1984), 198. 38  Holst, Verbs and War Scroll, 120 (1QM IX, 13). 39  See 11Q19 XXXVI, 10; XLI, 15; XLV, 5.

Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew

103

expectations: new syntactic usages do not usually burst upon the scene with massive attestations. At first they coexist with other, earlier forms of expression, superseded only after a long process. Nevertheless, the bare fact that this usage, which will become standard in Tannaitic Hebrew, is attested in QH is almost certainly significant. Systemic changes, such as the evolution of the verbal system, provide more dependable evidence of linguistic development than items of vocabulary. Unfortunately, they are hard to come by. Another area that would probably repay renewed analysis is the nominal system: relics of the old Semitic inflectional system survive still in QH, but they partly express different functions than in earlier stages of the language, including perhaps LBH. 4 Conclusions The lessons we can draw from the data presented are hardly earth-shattering. To some, the present paper may seem merely to belabor the obvious. Nevertheless, two conclusions merit to be briefly presented. First, on the substantial level, the data discussed indicate rather clearly that QH, although directly linking up with LBH in literary perspective, and although standing rather close to it in time, nevertheless reflects a later stage of the language. The vocabulary of QH exhibits many usages that are unattested in LBH and have to be qualified as relatively late for independent reasons. The QH verbal system, too, is marked out as late by one well-profiled usage that is unattested in LBH. The evidence is perhaps suggestive enough to raise the question whether the new-fangled date in the first century bce is not more likely for the bulk of Qumran literature than the traditional date, which would put most of the corpus very close to the latest stratum of LBH. The least one should say is that the linguistic data do not contradict the hypothesis formulated by Michael Wise. Second, on the methodological level, the data discussed demonstrate the feasibility of the diachronic approach. The corpora are scant, and they come with many caveats. The LBH texts are very disparate, and they are attested only in very late manuscripts. The Qumran texts are almost all fragmentary, and some are difficult to understand. In addition, dialectal differences hamper the comparison between LBH and QH. In spite of all this, the linguistic evidence broadly supports a chronological sequence. In spite of much overlap, QH is revealed to be globally more recent than LBH. Also significant in methodological regard is that lexical data and morphosyntax go hand in hand in establishing the linguistic development.

chapter 7

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200: A Contextual Reassessment Daniel Machiela 1 Introduction Language has played a prominent role in study of the book of Tobit since the discovery of manuscripts of this work in Cave 4 of Qumran in the 1950’s, and especially since their official publication by Joseph Fitzmyer in 1995. At present, these include four Qumran manuscripts of Tobit written in Aramaic (4Q196–199) and one in Hebrew (4Q200), along with a fifth Aramaic papyrus fragment of Tobit from the Martin Schøyen collection (Schøyen ms. 5234).1 In all likelihood, an Aramaic fragment from Cave 3 published by Maurice Baillet also preserves isolated words from Tobit (albeit in a somewhat different form than the later Greek traditions), bringing the probable copies of Tobit from Qumran up to seven; six in Aramaic and one in Hebrew.2 Before the Qumran 1  For the Cave 4 copies see Joseph A. Fitzmyerin James C. VanderKam et al., Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 1–76. Also, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4,” CBQ (1995): 655–75. In addition to Fitzmyer’s DJD edition, we now have the more detailed textual treatment and edition of Michaela Hallermayer (Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit [DCLS 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]), who, importantly, included the alternative readings of Klaus Beyer in her analysis. The Schøyen fragment may be viewed online at http://www.schoyen collection.com/dead-sea-scrolls-collection/para-biblical/tobit-dead-sea-scroll-ms-5234 (16 December, 2014). It was first published by Michaela Hallermayer and Torleif Elgvin, “Schøyen MS.5234. Ein neues Tobit-Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006): 451–61, but is soon to be published in a reedited form in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artifacts from the Schøyen Collection (ed. Torleif Elgvin; LSTS 71; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, in print). Hallermayer and Elgvin (2006) originally considered the Schøyen fragment to belong to 4Q196, though this obviously cannot be the case based upon: a) The overlap between 4Q196 18:16 and 4Q198 1.2, which demonstrates that the word beginning the first line of the Schøyen fragment (‫ )ואמר‬falls in the middle of 4Q196 18:16; and b) the clear difference in the scribal hands of 4Q196 and the Schøyen fragment, as seen especially in a comparison of the letters dalet, lamed, final nun, and shin/sin. 2  Frg. 4 of 3Q14, “Fragments Isolés,” in Maurice Baillet et al., Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân (Textes) (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 103. Several words in this fragment speak to

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi:��.��63/9789004366770_008

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

105

discoveries, scholars debated whether Tobit was composed in a Semitic language or a semiticizing Greek, with a significant group of scholars adopting the latter view.3 This was answered decisively in favor of the Semitic option by the Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran, some dating to the late second or early first centuries bce. The question has now shifted to whether the book was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew, a question tied closely to the complicated question of Tobit’s history of transmission and the multiple, quite different versions of the book attested in Greek, Latin, and other daughterrecension languages. Adjudication of these versions, in turn, bears heavily on decisions about which form of the book is used for translation, publication, and study, not least by those Christian traditions for which Tobit has obtained a canonical status. In this paper, I am chiefly interested in 4Q200’s witness to the state of the Hebrew language at its time of composition, of copying, or perhaps both, depending on where the copy stands in relation to the composition, and how stable the transmission has been.4 Without other ancient copies of Hebrew Tobit, this last point is impossible to assess, though it is worth mentioning that the fourteen very brief overlaps which exist with the Aramaic 4Q196 reveal a close correspondence between the two manuscripts.5 My goal in this study is to consider the character of 4Q200’s Hebrew, and to better situate it within our existing architecture for describing Hebrew during the Second Temple period. Two general questions seem to me especially important when seeking to do this, questions that I simply raise at this point and continue to address over the course of the paper: First, how might the factor of translation have influenced the Hebrew of 4Q200? Did somebody translate Aramaic Tobit into Hebrew, Hebrew Tobit into Aramaic, or perhaps some third solution? If this manuscript is, for example, a Hebrew translation from literary Aramaic of the third or second century bce, did this factor influence the Hebrew target language in any readily perceivable ways? Second, how much its identification with the Aramaic Book of Tobit, as already noted by Baillet. He suggested comparison with Tob 7:1–2, though further study should also include comparison with 7:7–15 and 8:9–15. 3  For an overview of the debate see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 18–28. See also, more recently, the overview of Andrew B. Perrin, “An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 2000–2014,” CBR 13 (2014): 107–42, esp. 111–13. 4  According to Fitzmyer (DJD 19, 63), who bases his assessment on Frank M. Cross, 4Q200 dates to around the turn of the Common Era (c. 30 bce–20 ce). 5  Correspondences occur at 4Q196 10 and 4Q200 2:6 (Tob 4:7), 4Q196 17i:4–14 and 4Q200 6:2–9 (Tob 12:22–13:4), 4Q196 18:2 and 4Q200 7i:1 (Tob 13:13), and 4Q196 18:11–12 and 4Q200 711:3–4 (Tob 13:18–14:1).

106

Machiela

of a distinction should be made, for linguistic purposes, between 4Q200 and a potentially earlier Hebrew composition of Tobit, if such a composition ever existed? It is sometimes the case that these two activities—an early stage of initial composition and then subsequent copying—are conflated in discussions of language and dating, without sufficient attention to the linguistic changes that can take place at the point of copying. I think, for example, of the distinction in Aramaic between the causative haphel or aphel stem, an orthographic or phonological variation that can change from one manuscript to another for the same work. Yet, one might find this characteristic used for dating the composition of a text, when it is not at all clear that an existing copy accurately reflects the earlier stage of composition. In a number of cases, we can see very clearly that it does not. In the remainder of this essay, I will seek to provide: 1) A brief overview of previous scholarship on the Hebrew of 4Q200; 2) An analysis of the Hebrew of this manuscript, paying special attention to the comparative evidence of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) and Qumran Hebrew (QH), along with Qumran Aramaic (QA); and 3) A summary of my findings. As will become clear over the course of the paper, it is my opinion that 4Q200 represents a Hebrew translation from Aramaic, the linguistic character of which stands apart from QH, and in some ways is either imitating or producing naturally features often associated with LBH.6 This marks off 4Q200 as a singular text for linguistic study of Second Temple period Hebrew. 2

Previous Scholarship on the Hebrew of 4Q200

Most treatments of the language of 4Q200 have been restricted to very brief observations, varying in length from a short footnote to a page or two. These are usually appended to a more sustained linguistic treatment of the Aramaic manuscripts, and seek to assess the Hebrew of 4Q200 secondarily in relation 6  It is obvious that I accept here the validity of a diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew, as opposed to recent attempts to deconstruct diachrony in favor of a model which largely decouples Hebrew style and dating. For a helpful description of the situation and defense of the diachronic approach, see Jan Joosten, “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia L. MillerNaudé and Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 281–92. Many other essays in this volume also touch on the relevant issues. My understanding of LBH follows the basic scholarly consensus for books, or parts of books, usually included under that designation, as formulated, e.g., by Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. John F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 112–29.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

107

to the Aramaic of the other manuscripts. Much of the discussion has revolved around establishing the compositional priority of either the Hebrew or Aramaic. Reacting against Józef Milik’s early statement that, “a preliminary investigation suggests that Aramaic was the original language of the book,” a small group of scholars have argued for the Hebrew 4Q200 representing the earlier, original composition of Tobit.7 Klaus Beyer pioneered this approach, founded on the presence of several apparent lexical Hebraisms in the Aramaic copies (e.g., ‫משפחתי‬, ‫)תהילין‬, use of the “unaramäisch” four dots (or tetrapuncta) to represent the divine name in the Aramaic 4Q196 (which he judged as a carryover from Hebrew), and what Beyer considered to be mistranslations of a Hebrew source in the later Greek versions.8 Beyer was followed by Michael Wise, who noted that the infinitive absolute is used multiple times in 4Q200 where we might normally expect a finite verb form in the narrative.9 This feature, he proposed, “is surprising if this text is translation Hebrew, not least because one rarely encounters the infinitive absolute at all in Qumran Hebrew.”10 Wise thus implies that the Aramaic copies are translations of what he calls “a very idiomatic Hebrew.” Esther Eshel has taken a different approach, not as closely dependent on assessing linguistic traits. She reasoned that Hebrew should be given priority since we have no other instances of translation from Aramaic to Hebrew during the Second Temple period, while we have many examples of the opposite scenario (“‫יש דוגמאות רבות לתרגומים ארמיים ליצירות‬ ‫)”עבריות‬.11 Moreover, she considers it to make better sense that a popular Hebrew book would be translated into Aramaic, in order to gain a wider readership in the Diaspora, than the other way around, since she assumes more Jews of the period were fluent in Aramaic than Hebrew. Finally, she uses the widespread linguistic influence of Aramaic on Second Temple period Hebrew in an attempt to neutralize Fitzmyer’s linguistic arguments, which will be discussed in a moment. 7   Józef Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Judean Wilderness (trans. John Strugnell; London: SCM Press, 1959), 31. For the original French see Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1957), 29. 8    Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testa­ ment Levis aus der Kairo Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Ergänzungsband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 134–35. 9   Michael Wise, “A Note on 4Q196 (papTob ara) and Tobit i 22,” VT 43 (1993): 566–70. 10  Ibid, 569, n. 4. 11  Esther Eshel, “Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (2 vols; ed. Menahem Kister; Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 2009), 2:573–600 (here at 590–91) [in Hebrew].

108

Machiela

A larger group of scholars considers Aramaic to be the original language of composition, with the Hebrew being a translation of an earlier Aramaic Tobit. However, it must be admitted that many of these scholars base their views more on negative arguments against Beyer and Wise than positive ones for Aramaic. Beyer has endured repeated criticism, most notably from Fitzmyer and Edward Cook.12 Both have rightly pointed out that some of the Hebraisms in Aramaic copies should not, in fact, be considered Hebraisms, but part of the Aramaic of this period in view of the larger Aramaic corpus from the Judean Desert. Any perceived Hebrew influence in Aramaic Tobit must be contextualized within this extended Aramaic corpus, for which a measure of Hebraisms—especially lexical Hebraisms—is the rule rather than the exception.13 At the same time, there are several clear Aramaisms in 4Q200 that might be considered to point in the other direction, that of Aramaic priority. These include lexical items such as ‫שימה‬, ‫תשבוחה‬, and ‫כבר‬, as noted by Fitzmyer, Cook, and even Beyer himself. More important are the observations of Matthew Morgenstern, who pointed to several clear grammatical Aramaisms in 4Q200, to be discussed further in my following section on the scroll’s language.14 To my mind, Morgenstern has shown convincingly that Beyer’s examples do not really work, and may in fact point more readily to an Aramaic source text. Cook dealt compellingly with Beyer’s proposed mistranslation of Hebrew in the Greek versions, though I cannot rehearse his detailed arguments here.15 As for the tetrapuncta in 4Q196, I have written recently on this, and aside from the essential point that the four dots are almost certainly a substitution for the Aramaic ‫אלהא‬, not the Hebrew tetragrammaton, the use of four dots should be attributed to the copying scribe in the first century bce, rather than the original composition.16 12  Fitzmyer, Tobit, 22–24. Edward M. Cook, “Our Translated Tobit,” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (ed. Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher; JSOTSup 230; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 153–62. 13  On this point, see also Steven E. Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” in Studies in Qumran Aramaic (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka; Abr-NahrainSup 3; Louvain: Peeters, 1992), 48–69; Matthew Morgenstern, “Language and Literature in the Second Temple Period,” JJS 48 (1997): 130–45; and especially Christian Stadel, Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer (Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 11; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008); Christian Stadel, “Hebrew Influences on the Language of the Aramaic Qumran Scrolls,” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 393– 407 [in Hebrew]. 14  Ibid. 15  Cook, “Our Translated Tobit,” 155–56. 16  This is made clear from the parallel in 4Q198 1:1. See further Daniel A. Machiela, “Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton,” CBQ 75 (2013): 463–72.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

109

Wise’s contention that the infinitive absolute in place of a finite verb suggests an original Hebrew composition has also come under attack. Cook noted that Wise’s central point—that the infinitive absolute is rarely used in Qumran Hebrew—can, in fact, be taken as evidence that 4Q200 “is not freely composed Hebrew, but a translation,” an opinion with which Morgenstern and Fitzmyer agree.17 Cook suggests that the infinitive absolute may be an effort to duplicate the nuance of the Aramaic narrative participle, while Elisha Qimron and others have gathered evidence that such use of the infinitive absolute, while rare in the Second Temple period, is not completely dead.18 In light of the above, two points become clear: 1) the use of the infinitive absolute in 4Q200 is unexpected, though not entirely unprecedented, and sets its Hebrew apart from Qumran Hebrew generally; and 2) the fact that such use is unexpected cannot be taken as obvious evidence for Tobit being composed in Hebrew, as Wise suggests. As for Eshel’s explanation, there are several points that may give one pause over her conclusions. In addition to Morgenstern’s important examples of Aramaic grammatical constructions in the Hebrew of 4Q200, I would add the following two points: 1) The assumption that we have many Second Temple period examples of translations from Hebrew to Aramaic is, in my opinion, a dramatic overstatement. I assume that Eshel is referring to the rabbinic targumim, the dates of which are seriously disputed, with the early Second Temple dates that have been championed by Alejandro Díez-Macho and a few others being the minority view. In fact, we have the two translations of Job (11Q10, 4Q157), which may well be a special case given the character of this book and its Hebrew, and the translation of a few verses from Leviticus (4Q156), the nature of which is not at all settled.19 2) Independent of language, there are literary factors suggesting that Tobit is more at home in an Aramaic compositional setting, most notably several phrases, idioms, and even type scenes that also appear in the Genesis Apocryphon.20 One of these will be discussed briefly 17  Cook, “Our Translated Tobit,” 156 n. 13. 18  For Qimron’s comments see his section on the language of 4QMMT in Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Maʿase Ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 81. 19  I have dealt with this topic much more extensively in a recent article, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Differing Phenomena of Targum and Translation in the Second Temple Period and Post-Second Temple Period,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels—Volume 2 (ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley; JCPS 26; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 209–46. 20  See further Daniel A. Machiela and Andrew B. Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocrypon: Toward a Family Portrait,” JBL 133 (2014): 111–32.

110

Machiela

in the following section. More generally, Tobit fits well the entertaining narrative character of Second Temple Aramaic works like the Genesis Apocryphon, Aramaic Levi, the Testaments of Amram and Qahat, Jews in the Persian Court, and the Aramaic Daniel, while didactic narrative works like these are very scarcely attested in Hebrew during the same period. Based on these factors, one might reasonably argue in the opposite direction of Eshel, that Aramaic was originally chosen as Tobit’s language because of the book’s popular character and concerns relevant to the Jewish Diaspora, and that it was later translated into Hebrew as part of a conscious return to Hebrew as a national language during the Hasmonean period—a return likely also reflected in the Book of Jubilees and the Hebrew chapters of Daniel. In concluding this brief survey, I must mention the longest single study dedicated to 4Q200, that of Armin Schmitt.21 Schmitt spent several pages addressing directly the type of Hebrew found in this manuscript, and, following Beyer, calls it Mittelhebräisch of a late post-exilic type, similar to that in Qohelet, Ben Sira, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Focusing almost exclusively on connections with these LBH books, Schmitt provides nine linguistic items from 4Q200 to illustrate his point, all of which I will incorporate into my following analysis. After considering most of the evidence cited by Beyer, Fitzmyer, and the others mentioned above, Schmitt makes the sensible observation that it is difficult, based on the available evidence, to determine with certainty whether the Aramaic or Hebrew Tobit reflects the book’s Urtext. His next suggestion is more surprising: that, based on the close proximity of the language-types of 4Q200 and the Aramaic copies, Tobit may have been disseminated by its authors in simultaneous Hebrew and Aramaic editions. The Aramaic edition, according to Schmitt, used the lingua franca of the Near East during this period to make Tobit accessible to a wide range of readers with literary interests—whether Jews or Gentiles—while the Hebrew edition was written in the lingua sacra in an effort to secure the book’s place among the sacred religious writings of Israel. Although I find the idea of a simultaneous, bilingual publication of Tobit most unlikely on linguistic and historical grounds, I find Schmitt’s reasoning to be helpful in considering why each language was chosen at its respective point in the history of Tobit’s composition and transmission.

21  Armin Schmitt, “Die hebräischen Textfunde zum Buch Tobit aus Qumran 4QTobe (4Q200),” ZAW 113 (2001): 566–82.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

3

111

The Hebrew of 4Q200

Having set the stage with this brief, schematic survey of previous work on the Hebrew of 4Q200, I now turn to a closer examination of the scroll’s language. In doing so, I draw heavily on the admirable work of the scholars just mentioned, but with a more sustained focus on situating distinctive linguistic features in relation to the following points of orientation: Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), LBH and Ben Sira, QH, and QA.22 Of course, much could be said about the variety within these corpora, the overlaps between them, and the methodological issues involved with drawing general conclusions based on isolated linguistic features. While I am keenly aware of these issues, I remain convinced that we can draw meaningful, if somewhat guarded, conclusions about the Hebrew of this scroll from the cumulative evidence adduced in what follows. In order to facilitate my survey, I will group linguistic features under the following categories: 1) Lexical/Semantic items;23 2) Grammatical features; and 3) Orthography. 3.1 Lexical/Semantic Items The first word to be discussed, the interrogative ‫“ ֵא ָיכ ָכה‬how?,” was used by Schmitt to argue for the LBH character of 4Q200 4:6.24 One setback of Schmitt’s method was that he picked only those features for comment that demonstrate the correspondence of 4Q200 with LBH, and cited parallels only in LBH books and Ben Sira during his comparative discussions. This results in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the survey inevitably communicates a strong argument for 4Q200 being written in LBH, which is Schmitt’s underlying theory. ‫יכ ָכה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬does indeed appear to be a later development from the earlier form ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬, but it also shows up in several non-biblical texts from Qumran, alongside two occurrences each in Song of Songs, Qohelet, and Ben Sira (the corresponding Aramaic term is ‫ היך‬or ‫א‬/‫)היכה‬.25 This, of course, only proves that this copy of Tobit reflects a form of Hebrew dating to the LBH period or anytime there­ after, up to the time this copy was made. In other words, ‫ איככה‬does not make 4Q200 LBH; it may just as easily be placed at a later date, with QH. If 4Q200 is 22  I will simply use BH (Biblical Hebrew) when referring to CBH and LBH collectively. 23  Lexical items are discussed in alphabetical order. 24  Schmitt, “Die hebräischen Textfunde,” 576. 25  Song 5:3, Esth 8:6, and Sir 10:31 (this and subsequent references to Hebrew Ben Sira are based on the edition of Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew [VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997]). The Qumran instances are 4Q381 31:6 (Non-canonical Psalms), 4Q388 7:5 (Pseudo-Ezekiel), and 4Q453 1 (Lament B).

112

Machiela

a translation, it may also be imitating LBH, though this is impossible to determine based on a single lexical item. Finally, we must keep in mind the possibility of morphological updating on the part of scribes (i.e., from ‫ איכה‬to ‫)איככה‬, something that we find across the scrolls corpus. Fitzmyer and Schmitt comment on the use of the conjunction ‫ אשר‬at various points in 4Q200 (e.g., 4:3–5, 6:5), where it is used to introduce a causal clause (“because”) or an object clause. Fitzmyer suggests that these irregularities make the Hebrew stand apart from what we might expect, and raise the likelihood that this is a translation from Aramaic, since the conjunction ‫די‬ introduces causal or object clauses regularly in much the same way as ‫אשר‬ in 4Q200. This might be strengthened by one of the overlaps with 4Q196, where ‫ אשר‬and the shortened, prefix form of Aramaic ‫( די‬i.e., ‫ )ד־‬are used in parallel.26 Nevertheless, it must be said that even CBH uses ‫ אשר‬in these situations, though not as frequently as other conjunctions (e.g., ‫)כי‬, and consequently ‫ אשר‬used in these ways cannot really be considered a strong indication of translation Hebrew.27 The compound word ‫ בכן‬with the meaning “then” (“sodann”) was listed already by Beyer as an Aramaism, a claim repeated by several others. While this could be true from an etymological standpoint for the LBH examples in Qoh 8:10 and Esth 4:16 (although this is, in fact, tenuous), it seems mistaken to call it an Aramaism in 4Q200. There are no examples of this compound in BA or QA, while it is present in LBH, Ben Sira, and a number of times in QH.28 It has essentially become a Hebrew word during the Second Temple period, and its absence in the many narrative works of QA makes one question its association with Aramaic during this period, even if it does reappear in later dialects. As for Schmitt’s point that it is an LBH feature of 4Q200, the same point may be made as with ‫איככה‬: it may just as easily be placed later, with QH. The word ‫ בקש‬used with the sense of “ask, request,” rather than the earlier meaning “seek,” is a mark of LBH, as Schmitt points out.29 However, its use in 4Q200 coincides with examples of the later meaning in Ben Sira and QH, and only marks 4Q200’s Hebrew as being later than CBH, which, again, is not the same thing as being LBH.30 26  4Q196 18:11//4Q200 7 ii:3. 27  On CBH see Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (3rd ed.; SB 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006) §157c, §170f. 28   Sir 13:7, 1QSa 1:11, 4Q248 3, 4Q385a 16a–b:5, 4Q386 1 ii:8, and 4Q462 1:4. Note also PAM 43:676 10:1. 29  Schmitt, “Die hebräischen Textfunde,” 576. 30  See, e.g., Sir 7:4, 1Q18 1–2:2, 4Q169 3–4 iii:6, and 4Q171 1+3–4 iii:18.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

113

4Q200’s use of the imperative ‫“ דוצי‬praise!” has proven to be something of an enigma, based on our currently-available attestation of the word. Apart from one instance of the verb in Job 41:14, with the same general meaning as here in 4Q200, it is not found in BH, QH, or BA.31 Cook and Morgenstern label it as a common Aramaic word, and on that basis consider it to be an Aramaism in 4Q200.32 In fact, the word becomes commonplace only in later dialects, such as Targumic Aramaic. To make things yet more interesting, in one of the rare parallels between 4Q200 and the Aramaic manuscripts, 4Q196 18:2 has the word ‫ בועי‬where 4Q200 reads ‫דוצי‬, so that we cannot simply assume ‫ דוצי‬to have been imported from an Aramaic source text without being translated.33 What previous commentators on 4Q200 have not noticed, to my knowledge, is the roughly contemporaneous use of the hollow root ‫ דו״ץ‬in another Qumran Aramaic text, the Testament of Qahat (4Q542). In 1:10–11 of that scroll, we find a poetic quadruplet of terms for praise associated with four of Israel’s fathers: ‫חא לאברהם‬ ̇ ‫ …“ וחדוא ללוי ושמח{א} לי̇[ע]קוב ודיאצ לישחק ותשבו‬joy for Levi, gladness for J[a]cob, exultation for Isaac, and praise for Abraham.”34 While we might wish for more examples on which to build our case, the clear occurrence of ‫ דו״ץ‬in 4Q542 with the same meaning as in 4Q200 suggests strongly that the word is a lexical Aramaism in the latter text. It remains unclear, however, why the parallel in 4Q196 has instead the (equally Aramaic) root ‫בו״ע‬. Morgenstern observed that the infinitive ‫ להרויח‬in 4Q200 is unknown in the hiphʿil conjugation until Amoraic Hebrew (in ‫)ויקרא רבה‬, and that this is the earliest extant instance of the word so-conjugated in Hebrew.35 Cognates are present in BH, but an example like this could be taken to move the Hebrew later than the true LBH character advocated by Schmitt. In reality, we would need many more examples to be sure of such a move. The presence of the name Jerusalem with a penultimate yod (‫ )ירושלים‬was used by Schmitt to bolster his evidence of an LBH identification for Hebrew Tobit, since the plene spelling becomes much more frequent in the later books of the Hebrew Bible.36 This is problematic for several reasons, not least that such a change can and was easily made by the scribe of any given copy. 31  The Job text has some textual problems, with twelve manuscripts reading ‫ תרוץ‬instead of ‫תדוץ‬. So, too, the Job translation from Qumran (11Q10), which has ‫תרוט‬. 32  Cook, “Our Translated Tobit,” 156; Morgenstern, “Language and Literature,” 139. 33  The two words are very similar or synonymous in meaning. 34  The aleph of }‫ שמח{א‬is not present in the manuscript, but the word is corrected to this form by Puech (DJD 31, 268, 275). 35  Morgenstern, “Language and Literature,” 138. 36  The name is spelled ‫ ירושלם‬in 4Q198 1:11 and 1Q20 22:13.

114

Machiela

Orthography should be used very carefully, if at all, for determining the character of a work’s original compositional language, since it is the most subject to change over time with copying. It is also possible that the shift to a penultimate yod in ‫ ירושלים‬was the result of a morphological shift, in which case the yod is actually consonantal, and not simply orthographic.37 In this case, we may still point to the mixed spelling practices of the QH scrolls generally (33 occurrences with yod, 15 without), which makes any firm decision on the subject unattainable. The adverb ‫ כבר‬will be dealt with further along, with reference to grammatical construction, but it is one of the strongest examples of a lexical Aramaism in 4Q200.38 True, it is found eight times in Qohelet (where it is typically considered an Aramaism), but is nowhere else present in BH or QH.39 However, it is found in several QA works, including Aramaic Tobit. It seems to me much more likely that the composer or translator of Hebrew Tobit is borrowing ‫ כבר‬from its common use in narrative Aramaic than from the poetic uses in Qohelet, though this depends in part on the cumulative argument made over the course of this article. Beyer first proposed the noun ‫ כשר‬with the meaning “suitability, propriety” as an Aramaism in 4Q200 1ii:3, though this might be questioned.40 Fitzmyer and Schmitt noted several instances of the verbal root used in LBH (which does appear to be a borrowing from Official Aramaic), though the meaning does not always match that in 4Q200.41 However, the same is true for QA, where it is found twice.42 We also find the noun used in 4QInstruction (4Q417–18), though it may be that the meaning there is different than in 4Q200. In any event, the fact that the root ‫ כשר‬is used in LBH, QH, and QA, precludes us from placing it firmly with any one of these corpora, such as Schmitt wishes to do for LBH. The noun ‫ מאמר‬was also taken by Schmitt as an LBH trait of 4Q200 4:4, since it appears three times in Esther and twice in Ben Sira.43 It is also found once in QH (in a Damascus text, 4Q271 3:14), but these cases are completely 37  This was helpfully pointed out to me by Aaron Hornkohl, in the context of the conference occasioning this proceedings volume. 38  See Schmitt, “Die hebräischen Textfunde,” 576, who nevertheless considers it a trait of LBH. 39   Qoh 1:12; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6, 7. 40  Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte: Ergänzungsband, 135. 41  See Esth 8:5; Qoh 10:10, 11:6; and Sir 13:4. Other lexical entries based on the same root are found in Qoh 2:21, 4:4, 5:10, Ezek 32:33, and Ps 68:7. 42  4Q543 2:9 and 4Q546 7:3. 43  Esth 1:15, 2:20, 9:32; Sir 3:8.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

115

overwhelmed by the many times the word is found in BA and QA—it is clearly an Aramaic word borrowed in the Hebrew texts just mentioned. Consequently, ‫ מאמר‬certainly cannot be taken as an LBH word only, and is more likely to be a borrowing from Aramaic, whatever the channel of the borrowing may have been. There is little need to dwell on the noun ‫מלכות‬, for it follows the same theme as several of the previous words. It is a later form than the CBH ‫ מלוכה‬or ‫ממלכה‬, as Schmitt observes, but this hardly means that the word in 4Q200 6:5 is LBH. ‫ מלכות‬is widely attested in LBH, QH, BA and QA, so that the word simply indicates a post-CBH form of the language. The verb ‫ פצ״י‬with the meaning “to save, deliver” (rather than the CBH “to open”) in 4Q200 6:7 was singled out by Morgenstern as being a late Hebrew word, attested in BH only three times, all in Psalm 144.44 It also occurs once in Ben Sira (51:2), but never in QH. What Morgenstern did not mention is that the verb, with this later meaning, is well-attested in QA, being found four to six times in the extant corpus.45 We must be careful about positing sources or directions of influence with our limited evidence, but Aramaic seems a more likely influence than Hebrew based on our currently available information. Since Beyer’s 1994 Ergänzungsband, the word ‫“ שימה‬deposit, treasure” has been considered to be an Aramaism in 4Q200 2:9.46 The word never occurs in BH, once in the main text of a Ben Sira manuscript, and once in a QH wisdom text (4Q504 7:9).47 It is used three times in QA, but as important as the number of occurrences is their nature in relation to Tobit. 4Q213 1 i:20, an Aramaic Levi manuscript, is especially relevant: not only does it use exactly the same expression as we find in 4Q200 (though with Aramaic morphology)—‫שימה טובה‬ / ‫—שימה טבה‬but the expression has the same literary context of a wisdom discourse spoken by a father to his son. Since this sort of wisdom discourse is a common feature of Jewish Aramaic literature from the Hellenistic period (e.g., the Epistle of Enoch, Visions of Amram, and Testament of Qahat), it is possible that this particular phrase took root in that context.

44  Morgenstern, “Language and Literature,” 139. See Ps 144:7–11, which Morgenstern notes contains a number of LBH elements. 45  1Q20 22:11; 11Q10 11:5; 16:1, 23; perhaps in 4Q539 1:2 and 4Q547 9:2. 46  Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte: Ergänzungsband, 135. 47  The word is found in the Ben Sira Masada ms. (M) 41:14 as ‫שימה‬, and in the margin of ms. B at 40:18 as ‫סימה‬. On the meaning here see Menahem Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 137–65 [here at 138].

116

Machiela

Our last lexical item is the noun ‫תשבוחה‬, or ‫ תשבוחת‬if we follow Greenfield, in 4Q200 6:4.48 Beyer and several after him have held this to be a clear Aramaism, and it is likely that the word did originally come from Aramaic.49 However, by the mid-Second Temple period one may seriously question the force of this observation. The noun is indeed found five times in QA—once with the plene spelling of 4Q200—but also once in Ben Sira (51:12, ms. B) and approximately 27 times in QH.50 In the QH corpus it is used exclusively in liturgical contexts of praise and thanksgiving, as in Ben Sira and 4Q200, and its strong presence suggests that ‫ תשבוחת‬had effectively become a Hebrew word by this time. This makes the Aramaic cited by Beyer and those following him difficult to affirm for the Second Temple period. 3.2 Grammatical Features I would now like to turn to a smaller group of grammatical structures which, to my mind, are more significant for assessing the Hebrew of 4Q200 than the lexical and semantic items just examined. The first was identified by Morgenstern, and concerns a retrospective temporal phrase in 4Q200 4:1: ‫[וכאשר] שלמו‬ 51.…‫ארבע[ת] עשר ימי [החתנה] ̊אשר ̇נשבע לעשות לשרה בתו בא [אליו] ̊טו̊ [ב]י̊ ה‬ ̊ ‫להמה‬ Morgenstern points to a couple of interesting features in the Hebrew of this statement: 1.) The use of ‫ של״ם‬followed by a personal pronoun to indicate the completion of time, a combination unknown in BH; and 2.) The apodosis of the temporal phrase beginning with a simple perfect (or suffix conjugation) verb, without a conjunction. Morgenstern claimed that both of these features are unique in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew. This is true for his first point, although the verb ‫ של״ם‬to indicate the fulfillment time is found once in LBH (Isa 60:20), and perhaps once in QH (4Q251 12.1).52 Nevertheless, the typical verb in BH 48  On the debate over the base from of the word see Jonas C. Greenfield, “The Small Caves of Qumran,” JAOS 89, no. 1 (1969): 128–41 (esp. 131); Elisha Qimron, “The Derivation of the Noun ‫ תשבוחת‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Sirach Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, & the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997 (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 244–52. 49  Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte: Ergänzungsband, 134. 50  Aramaic ‫ תשבחה‬occurs at 1Q20 11:13, 4Q201 1 ii:10, 4Q204 1 i:29; 4Q212 1 ii:15, and 4Q542 1 i:11 (‫)תשבוחא‬. Hebrew ‫ תשבוחת‬is found in the following manuscripts (aside from 4Q200): 1QM, 4Q88, 4Q286, 4Q334, 4Q400, 4Q403, 4Q405, 4Q414, 4Q433a, 4Q510, 4Q511, 6Q18, 11Q5, and 11Q17. The word is not found in BH. 51  Morgenstern, “Language and Literature,” 138–39. 52  The only other place in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew where we find the verbal root ‫ של״ם‬used in a temporal phrase is at 11Q19 XLV, 8: ‫עד אשר [יש]לים שלושת ימים‬, though as part of a construction quite different than that found in 4Q200.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

117

and QH for temporal clauses most closely paralleling that in 4Q200 is ‫מל״א‬, and the full syntactic combination of ‫ של״ם‬,‫כאשר‬, and a personal pronoun is found nowhere in BH or QH.53 In light of this, it is significant that a construction nearly identical to 4Q200 is found in the QA Genesis Apocryphon: ‫וביומי‬ ‎̊‫לאנ̊ ̊תו‬ ̇ ‫למ ̊ס ̇ב להון נשין‬ ̊ ‫… יובלין עשרה באדין שלם לבני‬ ‫( כדי שלמו̇ לי‬1Q20 6:9–10). Once we account for the lexical equivalency of ‫ כאשר‬in Hebrew and ‫ כדי‬in Aramaic, the protases ‫ [וכאשר] שלמו להמה‬and ‫ כדי שלמו̇ לי‬constitute a striking syntactic and lexical parallel. As for Morgenstern’s second point, he correctly noted that the expected apodosis of a temporal statement like this in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew is formed with a waw-conversive construction, as we see, for example, in QH at 4Q215 frg. 1, 3:7: ‫… וינהג לבן את חנה אם‬ ‫ו̊ ̇כאשר בא יעקוב אבי אל לבן בורח מלפני עישיו אחיהו‬ ‫בנותיה‬ ̊ ‫אמי ואת שתי‬.54 Although this construction dominates in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew, there is one instance of a simple perfect, without a conjunction, to begin the temporal apodosis at 2 Sam 20:13: ‫כאשר הגה מן המסלה עבר כל איש‬ ‫אחרי יואב‬. Despite this single exception, what we find in 4Q200 is clearly the expected temporal apodosis construction for Aramaic, which does not have the waw-consecutive, and forms the sort of phrase being discussed here as follows: ‫תציו [י] ̇ומי משתותא שלח קרא לאהרון לברה‬ ̇ ‫( אדין כדי אש‬‎4Q545 1a i:7–8). Another example is seen in the apodosis from 1Q20 6:9–10, cited above. Taking together the divergences of 4Q200 4:1 from BH and QH in both the protasis and apodosis, and the striking similarities with the Aramaic of 1Q20 6:9–10 and other QA texts, we may justifiably consider the whole sentence as an Aramaism in 4Q200. The second grammatical feature is 4Q200’s repeated use of the so-called periphrastic imperative—a term coined by Edda Bresciani—in Tobit’s wisdom

53  I am grateful to Prof. Muraoka for pointing this out in response to the conference form of my paper. It should be noted, however, that many instances of the BH ‫ מל״א‬idiom do not closely parallel the syntactic clause construction of the sentence in 4Q200. For the typical usage see, e.g., Gen 29:21; Lev 12:6; Num 6:13; 1 Sam 18:26; Jer 25:12, 32; Ezek 5:2; and Esth 1:5. For a few uses of ‫ מל״א‬slightly closer to the syntactical arrangement of 4Q200, see 2 Sam 7:12; 1 Chr 17:11; and Esth 2:12. The ‫ מל״א‬idiom is present in QH at CD 10:1, 4Q270 6 iv:14, and 4Q271 2:13, in the set phrase ‫…אשר לא מלאו ימיו לעבור‬. 54  There are many BH examples of constructions similar to this, though most begin with a waw-conversive form of the verb ‫( הי״ה‬e.g., ‫… ויאמר‬ ‫)ויהי כאשר כלו‬. See, e.g., Gen 24:52, 43:2; Josh 4:11; Judg 8:33; 1 Sam 12:8; 2 Sam 16:16; 2 Kgs 14:5; Jer 39:4; Qoh 8:16–17; Neh 3:33, 13:19; and 2 Chr 25:3. Future or potential temporal phrases, signaled by a prefix conjugation verb in the protasis, do not hold to the vav-conversive apodosis pattern, as seen in Ezek 37:18–19 and Hos 7:12.

118

Machiela

injunctions, given to his son Tobiah (e.g., [‫ ו̊ כ̇ארך ידכה בני היה[עושה‬in 4Q200 2:6).55 In Tobit, these imperatives carry an iterative sense, indicating acts that should be habitual, though Gianto has recently argued that it bears the sense rather of “trying” to do something in certain texts.56 The important point for our purposes is that this is typically an Aramaic construction, one that is found only very sparsely in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew outside of 4Q200.57 Greenfield gives a helpful survey of the evidence, demonstrating the scarcity of the form even in Aramaic dialects: it occurs in Early and Egyptian Aramaic (the Hermopolis papyri and Carpentras Stela), and, as we shall see, in QA.58 The most pertinent QA instance is at 4Q196 10:1 (‫)וכארך]י̊ דך ברי הוי ̇ע[בד‬, most fortuitously in parallel with the 4Q200 occurrence cited above. The periphrastic imperative also occurs multiple times in the Cairo Aramaic Levi manuscript iii:1–5 (‫הוי סחי‬ ‫ הוי תאיב תוב ורחיץ ידיך ורגליך‬,‫)במיא‬, which appears to correspond quite closely to the Qumran copies in terms of grammar, even if fidelity to earlier orthography and morphology is more questionable. Based on the available evidence, there are grounds to consider the periphrastic imperative in 4Q200 as a grammatical Aramaism, one that mirrors the phrasing of the Aramaic 4Q196. A third point of grammar concerns a clause in 4Q200 4:3–4 beginning with the word ‫כבר‬, about which Morgenstern opined, “[t]he whole construction is very Aramaic.”59 In the clause, we find ‫ כבר‬followed by a subject pronoun, a participle, and then an object clause introduced by the word ‫אשר‬: ‫כבר אני‬ .]… ‫ מאמין‬/‫אשר[ אבי איננו‬ ̊ ‫ יודע‬Morgenstern observed that Hebrew would typically prefer the perfect tense (suffix conjugation) in this situation, though we only have several examples in Qohelet on which to base ourselves, and these 55  This construction appears at least four times in 4Q200 2:3–8. For the coining of the term and the Hermopolis evidence see Edda Bresciani and Murad Kamil, “Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli,” Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, VIII/12 5 (1966): 357–428. 56  Agustinus Gianto, “Lost and Found in the Grammar of First Millennium Aramaic,” in Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting (ed. Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 11–25 (here at 21). 57  In only one phrase from Exodus (‫ ֱהיּו נְ כֹנִ ים‬/‫“ ֱהיֵ ה נָ כֹון‬Be prepared”; Exod 19:11, 15; 34:2) and at Ps 30:11 (‫“ ֱהיֵ ה עֹזֵ ר‬Be a helper”), though note the misgivings of Greenfield about these examples in Jonas C. Greenfield, “The ‘Periphrastic Imperative’ in Aramaic and Hebrew,” IEJ 19.4 (1969): 199–210 [at 209]; repr. in ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology(2 vols; ed. Shalom Paul et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 56–67 [at 66]. See also the comments of Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments,” 669. 58  Greenfield, “The ‘Periphrastic Imperative.’” 59  Morgenstern, “Language and Literature,” 139.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

119

constructions are not quite the same as that found in 4Q200.60 On the Aramaic side, however, we do indeed see the same phrase, in a text most closely related to it, the Aramaic Tobit copy 4Q197: ]… ‫וכבר הוא ̊מ[דבק לאחמתא‬.61 Part of the phrase in 4Q197 must be reconstructed, but based on the Greek and Latin versions, Fitzmyer’s suggested reconstruction appears correct. When we combine the lexical and grammatical aspects of the phrase from 4Q200, its dependence on Aramaic seems very likely. The fourth and last point of grammar to be discussed is the oft-cited infinitive absolute preceded by the conjunction waw, with the narrative function of continuing a preceding finite verbal clause.62 This feature in 4Q200 was used by Wise to argue for the scroll being written in a native, idiomatic Second Temple period Hebrew, while Cook disagrees and considers it to increase the likelihood that 4Q200 is a translation from Aramaic.63 Wise’s argument is founded on the general absence of the form in Second Temple period Hebrew, assuming that such radical divergence must be ascribed to a colloquial Hebrew. I agree with Cook, Fitzmyer, and Morgenstern that this is not a very convincing argument. But does this feature’s presence in 4Q200 then point to an Aramaic source text? First, it must be said that the narrative infinitive absolute is clearly present in BH, even if it occurs infrequently, and increases in regularity in LBH.64 At the same time, Qimron and others have pointed to its ongoing use in Second Temple Hebrew, in 4QMMT and 4Q215 (Testament of Naphtali), though again such use is restricted to only a few examples in tens of thousands of lines of text.65 What really causes 4Q200 to stand out in relation to this picture is the high frequency with which the narrative infinitive absolute is employed. In BH and other QH texts we may get one example per literary work, while in 4Q200 60   Qoh 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 9:6, 7. 61  Also see 4Q196 6:12. 62  Present in 4Q200 2:2; 4:3; 5:2, 4; and 6:4. 63  Wise, “A Note on 4Q196,” 569, n. 4; Cook, “Our Translated Tobit,” 156, n. 13. 64  On the linguistic background, previous scholarship on, and usage of the infinitive absolute in the sense of a finite verb, see Steven E. Fassberg, “The Infinitive Absolute as Finite Verb and Standard Literary Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; STDJ 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 47–60. Fassberg argues that LBH and Second Temple period use of the infinitive absolute in this way is an imitation of CBH usage, not dependent on a spoken or colloquial form of the Hebrew language. 65  See Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 48 §310.14; Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 81; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 25.

120

Machiela

we have at least five cases in 57 very fragmentary lines containing one or more legible word. Based on this evidence, it is plausible that the scroll once contained many more instances of the infinitive absolute used in this way. Even if it did not, these five occurrences eclipse any other Hebrew writing of which we know, causing 4Q200 to stand in prominent relief against its linguistic surroundings. Cook remarked that the infinitives absolute in 4Q200 may be translating the Aramaic narrative participle, which also continues the temporal sense of a governing finite verbal clause. There are instances in both BA and QA of sentences that look much like what we see in 4Q200, but with participles instead of infinitives absolute (e.g., Dan 5:5f, 6:14, 1Q20 22:4, 4Q197 4 iii:6f). A number of these QA examples have been gathered by Muraoka in his recent grammar.66 At the very least, we can say that the frequency of the Aramaic narrative participle is much higher than that of the narrative infinitive absolute in BH or QH, and that the infinitive absolute in 4Q200 approximates much more closely the former than the latter with respect to frequency. One other factor that might support Cook’s idea, if 4Q200 is judged to be a translation, is that the narrative participle is not native to Hebrew, and that the translator would thus need to decide how best to represent this grammatical feature when moving from an Aramaic source to the Hebrew target language. One might well imagine ways other than the infinitive absolute for achieving this end, but the narrative infinitive absolute has the benefit of preserving the distinctiveness of a non-Hebrew feature through the use of a Hebrew construction native to the language, yet distinctive due to its infrequency. As a transition to my conclusions, I wish to raise briefly one last point that has some bearing on our topic, not lexical or grammatical, but orthographic. To the extent that we are able to speak confidently about a distinctive Qumran orthography, 4Q200 fits this profile.67 It is, generally speaking, written in a full orthography, using long forms of pronouns such as ‫( הואה‬see 4Q200 6:6) and ‫( היאה‬see 4Q200 6:5) as well as the heavy forms of some conjunctions and particles.68 To my mind, when we combine this with the proposed paleographic date of around the turn of the Common Era, it seems possible—even likely—that this copy of Tobit was carried out at Qumran. While we have no other evidence of a preceding Hebrew Tobit, we cannot be sure that no such 66  Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (ANESSup 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 175–78. 67  See the sections on orthography in Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and now Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (RBS 76; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). 68  6:9 ‫כיא‬, 6.8 ‫אתמה‬, 4:5 ‫אות]כה‬, 4:1 ‫להמה‬, 2:7 ‫לכה‬, 2.7 ‫לוא‬.

The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200

121

earlier copy existed; that is to say, 4Q200 may be a Qumran copy in the line of an earlier Hebrew Tobit tradition. At the same time, we must balance the language of our Hebrew copy of Tobit against the five or six Aramaic manuscripts. When we do so, we are presented with the following scenario: as Beyer observed, the Aramaic copies of Tobit contain some lexical Hebraisms, as do the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Levi Document, and a number of other Jewish Aramaic texts from the Hellenistic period. As Fitzmyer, Cook, Morgenstern, and Stadel have shown, this is simply not a strong enough reason to consider the Aramaic copies of Tobit to be translations from Hebrew, since it is a characteristic of the Aramaic Qumran texts more generally. Moving back to 4Q200, we find that the lexical and semantic evidence is mixed, and much of it ambiguous. Schmitt saw numerous indicators of an LBH setting in words like ‫כשר‬, ‫איככה‬, and ‫מאמר‬, but we have seen that these words could just as easily be placed with QH, or in some cases QA. For this reason, I do not find Schmitt’s close association of 4Q200 with LBH compelling, aside from saying that the author and/or translator may have drawn upon LBH in his literary efforts. There are four words—‫כבר‬‎, ‫מאמר‬, ‫פצ״י‬, and ‫—שימה‬that pass the test of being lexical Aramaisms according to our current knowledge, though when set against the aforementioned Hebraisms of the Aramaic copies we might consider these to be neutralized, and the matter to remain undecided. After all, like the Hebraisms in Qumran Aramaic, some measure of Aramaisms in LBH and QH is to be expected, a point made by Eshel in her argument for Hebrew as Tobit’s original language of composition. This is where the grammatical evidence, adduced primarily by Morgenstern, becomes especially important, for this is the factor that shows portions of the Hebrew Tobit to be “thinking in Aramaic” beyond the word level only, and, in my opinion, tips the balance in favor of 4Q200 being a Hebrew translation of Aramaic Tobit. The latter is written in a Standard Literary Aramaic (to use Greenfield’s term) very similar to other third or second century bce Aramaic compositions like the Book of Watchers, Aramaic Levi Document, and Genesis Apocryphon.69 In light of the evidence surveyed above, it seems most 69  On Greenfield’s category see Jonas C. Greenfield, “Standard Literary Aramaic,” in Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique, Paris 16–19 juillet 1969 (ed. André Caquot and David Cohen; The Hague & Paris: Mouton, 1974), 280–89 (repr. in ʿAl Kanfei Yonah, 111–20). See also, Jonas C. Greenfield, “Aramaic and its Dialects,” Jewish Languages: Themes and Variations (ed. Herbert H. Paper; Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978), 29–43 (Repr. in ʿAl Kanfei Yonah, 361–75); Note, however, the further nuance given to the expression by Steven E. Fassberg, “Qumran Aramaic,” Maarav 9 (2002): 19–31; and its recent critique by Holger Gzella, A Cultural

122

Machiela

plausible that the Hebrew translation of Tobit was done sometime during the second to first centuries bce, perhaps even at Qumran. Incidentally, this would coincide with the theory that literary products such as Jubilees, the Hebrew chapters of Daniel, and the Qumran sectarian texts are the result of a conscious return to Hebrew as a literary language around the Hasmonean period. As for the Hebrew style of 4Q200, it is difficult to speak in any detail of the translator’s Übersetzungsweise with so little overlapping text to study. Nevertheless, based on 4Q200 it appears that the translator sought to follow his Aramaic source-text closely, to the point of occasionally reproducing grammatical structures that mirrored the underlying Aramaic rather than more commonly-used Hebrew idioms. In the preserved text of 4Q200 we see this in the temporal ‫ של״ם‬phrase followed by a suffix-conjugation verb, the periphrastic imperative, the phrase in 4.3 beginning with ‫כבר‬, and perhaps the use of the narrative infinitive absolute as a substitute for the Aramaic narrative participle. It is also plausible that occasionally a word in the source text that the translator expected the audience to easily understand, or which perhaps carried a special meaning in its context, was kept in the Hebrew translation. Yet, for the most part the translator wrote in a good, Second-Temple period Hebrew that overlaps in many ways with what we know of LBH and QH, both lexically and grammatically. In a few cases, such as ‫להרויח‬, we even get early testimony to the use of a Hebrew word or form that would be more widely attested only in a later period.

History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam (HdO 111; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 165.

chapter 8

‫“ תכמי בשר‬Body Parts”: The Semantic History of a Qumran Hebrew Lexeme Noam Mizrahi 1 Introduction* The semantic field of body parts, also known as partonomy, is an important lexical domain of all natural languages because the human body constitutes the primary conceptual frame by which human cognition processes its sensory and mental input. From a lexical point of view, this importance is twofold. On the one hand, numerous linguistic studies—in fields such as typology, historical and cognitive semantics, and lexicography—demonstrate that terms denoting body parts comprise a central resource for broadening the lexicon, for both content and function words. Many lexemes, including grammatical particles such as prepositions, are rooted in terms that had originally denoted body parts (or were related to such terminology) and whose sense transformed throughout the ages by recognized mechanisms of semantic change and grammaticalization processes. On the other hand, some such terms belong to chronolects so ancient that the form and content of these words were rendered opaque, thus drawing the attention of historical linguists and etymologists to ponder on the mystery of their origin. No wonder, then, that partonomy has become a focus of both synchronic and diachronic methods of linguistic inquiry—examining issues such as the structure of the lexicon, processes

* An early version of this study was presented at the seventh meeting of the International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Strasbourg, June 2014), and later published in Lešonenu 77 (2015): 25–57 [Hebrew]. I extend my thanks to the participants of the Symposium as well as other colleagues who made helpful comments at various stages, especially Profs. S. Izreʾel and M. Kister. I am indebted to Prof. R. C. Steiner, who generously shared with me his transcription and interpretation of an unpublished passage of P.Amherst 63, which was essential for my argument. I am also grateful to Prof. M. Bar-Asher, for his invaluable assistance in obtaining information concerning this papyrus, as well as for his instructive comments on the Hebrew version. Finally, thanks are due to Rebecca Sacks for her attentive editing of the English version.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_009

124

Mizrahi

of linguistic change, and evaluations of the reconstructability of successive stages of language.1

1  Linguistic literature in these fields is vast, and only a few items of particular interest can be mentioned here. In the realm of theoretical linguistics, a starting point for many typological studies is Cecil H. Brown, “General Principles of Human Anatomical Partonomy and Speculations on the Growth of Partonomic Nomenclature,” American Ethnologist 3 (1976): 400–24, who proposed identifying universal principles that govern the semantic and lexical development of partonomy. A complementary analysis, from the point of view of historical semantics, is offered by David P. Wilkins, “Natural Tendencies of Semantic Change and the Search for Cognates,” in The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change (ed. Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 264–304. An updated theoretical discussion, from the perspective of semantic typology, is that of Nick J. Enfield, Asifa Majid, and Miriam van Staden, “Cross-Linguistic Categorisation of the Body: Introduction,” Language Sciences 28 (2006): 137–47, which introduces a whole issue of the journal devoted to this topic, but see also the critical reaction of Anna Wierzbicka, “Bodies and their Parts: An NSM Approach to Semantic Typology,” Language Sciences 29 (2007): 14–65. An even broader perspective is offered by Bernd Heine, Cognitive Foundations of Grammar (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), esp. 131–46. Many concrete examples for terms of body parts that underwent grammaticalization can be found in the work of Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), while examples from the Semitic languages were discussed by Aaron Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (HSS 57; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005). Relevant lexical material from the Semitic phylum is now comprehensively collected in the comparative dictionary of Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan, Anatomy of Man and Animals (vol. 1 of Semitic Etymological Dictionary; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2000), conveniently summarized by Leonid Kogan, “Proto-Semitic Lexicon,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (ed. Stefan Weninger et al.; HSK 36; Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2001), 179–258, esp. 214–27 (= Chap. 6). Highly useful, despite its old age, is the monograph of Harri Holma, Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-Babylonischen: Eine lexikalisch-etymologische Studie (Helsinki: Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian kustantama, 1911), even though its main focus is Akkadian. As far as Hebrew is concerned, the topic was already investigated in depth by Édouard P. Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (Paris: Lecoffre, 1923; repr. Paris: Geuthner, 1963; originally published as a series of articles in RB, 1920–23); although his methodology is now outdated in several respects, his book still merits close study. For an attempt to consider the evidence of ancient Hebrew in a cross-linguistic perspective, see Katrin Müller and Andreas Wagner, Synthetische Körperauffassung im Hebräischen und den Sprachen der Nachbarkulturen (AOAT 416; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014). The terminology used in Modern Hebrew was discussed by Miriam R. L. Petruc, “Body Part Terminology in Hebrew: A Study in Lexical Semantics” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1986) from the point of view of cognitive semantics, utilizing the approach of Frame Semantics (inspired by the theoretical work of the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore).

“ Body Parts ”

125

Despite the ongoing, intensive research in this field, carried out from various vantage points and by employing a variety of linguistic methodologies, there are still basic aspects and details that have thus far eluded full clarification. One who studies textual sources of ancient Hebrew sometimes encounters lexical items whose context suggests that they belong to the semantic domain of partonomy, but whose precise configuration and etymological identification remain debatable. The following study focuses on one such item; recorded in Qumran Hebrew (QH), it has yet to be given a satisfactory explanation. 2

The Lexicographical Problem

A number of passages, embedded in several literary works found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, witness to a puzzling word spelled ‫תכמי‬, otherwise unattested in any other corpus of ancient Hebrew. Grammatically, the various contexts in which this word occurs are to be interpreted in one of two ways: the word may function as either the plural construct (i.e., ‫תכמי‬ ֵ ; below, nos. 1, 3, 7–10), or a suffixed plural, usually with the 1.sg pronominal suffix (i.e., ‫תכמי‬ ַ ; nos. 2, 4–6, 12; in no. 11, the suffix is probably that of the 3m.pl). One may therefore reconstruct a singular form ‫*תכם‬, whose plural is ‫*תכמים‬, but it should be underscored that only the construct (or suffixed) forms of the plural are actually recorded in the textual evidence. The word occurs in the following passages:2 I.

Community Rule (1) ‫ להתם כול רוח עולה‬/ ‫ וֿ זקק לו מבני איש‬/ ‫ואז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי גבר‬ ‫ ולטהרו ברוח קודש מכול עלילות רשעה‬/ ‫מתכמי | בשרו‬‎ (1QS 4:20–21).3

2  Quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls usually follow the edition of Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2015; Hebrew), with other editions noted wherever necessary. References to the Hodayot also include, in square brackets, the older numeration established by Eleazar L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955), which was adopted by all early commentaries on this composition. A vertical line (|) marks a line-break in the original manuscript, while a slash (/) marks my own division into clauses or poetic lines. The English translations adduced below are merely illustrative for the general sense of the passages, and their rendition of the term under discussion should not be taken as definitive in any way. 3  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:216.

126

Mizrahi

Then God will refine, with his truth, all man’s deeds, and will purify for himself the structure of man, ripping out all spirit of injustice from the innermost part of his flesh, and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every wicked deeds.4 II. Hodayot (2) ‫בשר ̇עבדך‬ ̇ ‫ כי רוח‬/ ֿ‫( [ממ] ̊שלתם בתכמי‬‎1QHa 4:37 [Suk. 17:25]).5 […] their [domi]nion in his members; for your servant (is) a spirit of flesh.6 (3) ‫ להכשי̊ ̊ל [רוח] ולהתם | כוח‬/ ‫ותהי לכאוב אנוש ונגע נמאר בתכמי עבדכה‬ ‫ לבלתי החזק מעמד‬‎(1QHa 13:30–31 [Suk. 5:28] || 4QHc 2 11ʹ–12ʹ).7 It has become an incurable pain and a malignant affliction in the bowels of your servant, causing [the spi]rit to stumble and bringing an end to strength, so that he could not stand firm.8 (4) ‫ ותכמי עליֿ כאוניה בזעף | חרישית‬/ ‫ ו̇ ̇עצמי יתפרדו‬/ ̇‫מבניתי‬ ̇ ‫וירועו כול אושי‬ ‎(1QHa 15:7–8 [Suk. 7:4–5]).9 All the foundations of my frame groan, and my bones are dislocated. My bowels are to me like a ship in a raging storm.10

4  Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:79. 5  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:63. 6  Hartmut Stegemann, Eileen Schuller and Carol Newsom, Qumran Cave 1. III: 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 74. The translation “in his members” reflects the reading ‫( בתכמו‬see ibid., 63, for the transcription; 72, for the comment). But the 3m.sg pronominal suffix is not paleographically required, and a 1c.sg one (i.e., ‫בתכמי‬, “in my members”) better fits the context. 7   Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:77. The verb [‫( ]ותהי‬3f.sg) agrees with ‫“ חמת תנינים‬serpents’ venom” mentioned in the previous line. The words of the wicked people are likened to snake poison following Deut 32:33 (see further below, §4.2.3). 8   Stegemann and Schuller, DJD 40: 180. 9  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:80. 10  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 40: 214. The translation “groan” reflects the reading ‫( ויריעו‬see ibid., 198, 201), rather than ‫“ וירועו‬collapsed, broke down.”

“ Body Parts ”

127

(5) ‫הכ ̊ר ̊תה מתכמי‬ ̇ ‫( [ורוח נעוה בלוא] | דעת‬‎ 4QHb 10 7ʹ–8ʹ || 1QHa 16:2–3 [Suk. 8:1–2]).11 [And a perverted spirit without] knowledge you expelled from me.12 (6) ]‫ במבניתי ותכמ[י‬‎(1QHa frg. 47 5ʹ).13 … into my frame and [my] bowels …14 III. Songs of the Sage (7) ‫בת ̇כמי ̇ב ̇שרי‬ ̇ ‫ ̊עו̊ ̊לה‬‎(4Q511 frgs. 28–29 4ʹ).15 (8) ‫ ודעת ב] ̇גויתי‬/ ‫יסד ̊בי̊ נ̊ [ה‬ ̊ ‫כיא ̊ב ̊ת ̊כמי | ̊בשרי‬ ̊ ‎(4Q511 frgs. 48–51 3ʹ–4ʹ).16 IV. Hymns (9) ]…‫ […] ̊ב ̇אים בתכמי ̇ב ̇ש[רו‬‎(1Q36 frg. 14 2ʹ).17 V.

Apotropaic Incantation (10) ]‫בל[בבי‬ ̊ ‫אל‬ ̊ ‫ ורוח דעת ובינה ̇א ̊מ ̇ת ̇וצדק שם‬/ ‫ […ב] ̊תכמי בשר‬‎(4Q444 frgs. 1-4i-5 [= col. I] 3ʹ).18

VI. Sapiential Work (11) ]‫ ובתכמי̇ ̇ה[ם תואחז‬/ ‫גאוה תנחל‬ ̇ ]‫ [בעושי‬‎(4Q525 frg. 13 4ʹ).19 11  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:82. 12  Eileen Schuller, “427–432. 4QHodayota–e and 4QpapHodayotf,” in Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 69–232, at 142. The translation “expelled” reflects the reading ‫הכ ̊א ̊תה‬ ̇ , rather than ‫הכ ̊ר ̊תה‬ ̇ “cut off.” 13  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:101. This fragment was placed by Qimron at the bottom of col. 25, contrary to Stegemann and Schuller (DJD 40: 270 and 271, n. 3), who placed it in the middle of col. 22. 14  Stegemann and Schuller, DJD 40: 275. 15  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 2:324. 16  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 2:327. 17  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 3:9. 18  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 3:182. 19  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 2:118. Previously, Qimron read the text as ‫‏[ב]גדיה תנחל‬ ‫ובתכמיה[ ]‏‬, interpreting the first word as a defective spelling of ‫“ גידים‬sinews” (cf. below,

128

Mizrahi

(12) ]‫אלו̊ [הים‬ ̇ ‫ אחז̇ ו תכמי מלפני‬‎(4Q525 frg. 23 1).20 From a phraseological point of view, the terms ‫ תכמים‬and ‫“ בשר‬flesh” comprise a collocation: in five of the twelve passages, the two words are joined in the construct phrase ‫( תכמי בשר‬nos. 1, 7–10), and in an additional passage they are employed in immediate proximity to one another (no. 2). In two other passages, the word ‫ תכמים‬is used alongside other terms that denote the human body or its parts (no. 4: ‫מבניתי ועצמי‬, “my build and my bones”; no. 8: ‫גויתי‬, “my body”). Furthermore, according to the descriptions contained in these passages, the ‫ תכמים‬function as the locus where evil forces—such as ‫“ ַעוְ ָלה‬injustice” (no. 7) or ‫“ רוח עולה‬spirit of injustice” (no. 1)—reside, and their concrete expression is nothing but ‫כאוב אנוש ונגע נמאר‬, “an incurable pain and a malignant affliction” (no. 3). The speaker thus requests from God—or expects of him—to extract these dark entities, purify his body (no. 1; cf. no. 5), and render it a dwelling place for the opposite, good forces such as ‫“ בינה‬understanding” (no. 8; cf. no. 10). All these usages thus point to the conclusion that the term ‫תכמים‬ belongs to the semantic domain of partonomy, as generally sensed by most translators and commentators of the Qumran scrolls.21 3

History of Research

Even though the general semantic profile of the lexeme under scrutiny is fairly clear, scholars have been unable to define more precisely its sense and to uncover its etymon. Most attempts in this direction were carried out in the early days of Qumran research. The first occurrence to be published (no. 1, from the Community Rule) was incorrectly deciphered by the first editor as ‫תכמו‬.22 Even after the last letter was appropriately corrected to yod, the word was still so enigmatic that it was n. 28); see Elisha Qimron, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Disease,” JJS 42 (1991): 256– 59, at 258–59. This reading, however, was correctly rejected in his latest edition (quoted above). Even though the letter following the gimel is slightly damaged, it is undoubtedly an aleph. 20  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 2:124. 21  So it was also defined by Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1986), 115, §500.3, in a lexicological list appended to his grammar of QH. 22  Millar Burrows, John C. Trever and William H. Brownlee, Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline (vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951), pl. IV.

“ Body Parts ”

129

considered a scribal mistake, resulting in the emended phrase ‫כתמי בשרו‬.23 Although other texts containing additional occurrences of the form ‫ תכמי‬were eventually published, it proved difficult to give up this conjectural emendation, and one scholar went as far as suggesting that the interchange of /‫תכמי‬ ‫ כתמי‬is not simply a lapsus calami due to metathesis of letters, but rather a linguistic alternation due to metathesis of consonants.24 However, as examples accumulated, it became evident that the form ‫ תכמי‬represents an independent lexeme that should be interpreted in its own right. The first to offer such an interpretation was Yigael Yadin, as part of his analysis of passage no. 1 of the Community Rule.25 Yadin’s explanation consists of three main elements: (a) He hypothesized that the term ‫ תכמים‬denotes the “inner organs,” based primarily on contextual grounds, i.e., the parallelism with “bones” on the one hand, and the demonological conception that the evil spirits invade into the human body on the other. (b) He also suggested, albeit hesitantly, that the word might be connected to another enigmatic lexeme attested in a late rabbinic work (Pesiqta Rabbati 23:22):26 ?‫ועד היכן הוא כבודה של שבת‬ ‫ בשרא‬:‫רב אמר‬ ‫ תוכמידה‬:‫ושמואל אמר‬

Now to what extent is a man required to go in honor of the Sabbath? According to Rab, to the extent of buying a piece of meat; but according to Samuel, no more than any addition at all to the usual fare [so that the butcher might have been left with his meat unsold].

23  Ralph Marcus, “Textual Notes on the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” JNES 11 (1952): 205–11, at 207. 24  Joseph T. Milik, “36. Recueil d’hymnes,” in Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 138–41, at 139–40. 25  Yigael Yadin, “A Note on DSD IV 20,” JBL 74 (1955): 40–43, at 41, n. 11. 26  For the Hebrew text, see Rivka Ulmer, Pesiqta Rabbati:‎A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps (3 vols; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1997–2002), 1:576–77. The English translation is quoted from William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths (2 vols; Yale Judaica Series 18; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 1:486. As Braude explicitly states (ibid., n. 55), his rendering of ‫ תוכמידה‬by “the usual fare” is based on conjectural (and, in my opinion, a highly unlikely) emendation.

130

Mizrahi

(c) Finally, Yadin proposed to etymologically relate the word to the Arabic verb ‫تـخم‬, “to suffer from indigestion, feeling a heavy stomach.”27 Although Yadin’s view is still influential, as evident from the above quoted translations (§2), it is untenable. (a) While interpreting ‫ תכמים‬as the “inner organs”—or “bowels,” “innermost parts,” etc.28—is admittedly possible, it is by no means necessitated by the passage of 1QS, or any other source. All available contexts could do just as well with the more general sense of “body parts” or “organs.” (b) Connecting the term with the hapax legomenon ‫ תוכמידה‬is a highly questionable move. Whatever the sense of the latter word, its grammatical form patently indicates that it is not a Hebrew (or even Semitic) lexeme.29 Also, the very attempt to interpret an obscure word with the help of an even obscurer item should be rejected as a methodologically unsound procedure. (c) The comparison to Arabic is also dubious because it counters the expected sound correspondence between the two languages (since Hebrew /k/ = Arabic /k/, but not Arabic /ḫ/), at least as far as the classical varieties of the languages are concerned. And even if none of these considerations is regarded as conclusive on its own, taken together they carry a cumulative weight that strongly speaks against accepting Yadin’s interpretation of the word ‫תכמים‬.

27  Cf. Edward W. Lane, An Arabic–English Lexicon (8 vols; London:‎Williams & Norgate, 1863–85), 1:299. 28  A more precise definition of ‫ תכמים‬along this line, as denoting the “blood vessels,” was suggested by Qimron, “Skin Disease,” 258–59 (accepted by Esther Chazon, “444. Incantation,” in Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 [DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999], 367–78, at 376). However, this hypothesis depended upon the parallelism between ‫ תכמים‬and ‫ גידים‬in passage no. 11; after it turned out that the word ‫גידים‬ “sinews” is not at all recorded in this passage (see above, n. 19), the main argument in favor of interpreting ‫ תכמים‬as “blood vessels” disappeared. 29  Commentators of the Pesikta Rabbati and lexicographers of MH tend to emend the form ‫תוכמידה‬, considering it as a loanword borrowed from either Greek or Persian. But all proposals are tenuous and require radical, conjectural emendations. Note further that the textual witnesses of the Pesiqta Rabbati are not unanimous regarding their reading of the rabbis’ contrasting statements. According to the synoptic edition of Ulmer, 1:576–77, the pair of ‫ בשרא … תוכמידה‬is supported (with only minor orthographical differences) by the editio princeps, ms Parma and a Genizah fragment (JTS 8195), while other witnesses (ms Dropsie and ms Casanata) read instead ‫בכורא … תוכברא‬. For the latter word, see Abraham Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1975), 200 [Hebrew].

“ Body Parts ”

131

Jacob Licht concisely summarized the issue in his classic commentary on the Hodayot:30 The sense of this word is everywhere interpreted as a “part of the human body” (such as the “flesh,” “bones,” “intestines,” “skin,” etc.). It can also be interpreted as referring to a “wound” or “plague-spot,” considering it as a derivative of ‫ כתם‬by metathesis; however, this interpretation fits less its recorded usages, and the implied etymology is not very reasonable. It is better to admit that I do not know how the word was derived. Other early, comprehensive commentaries of the Hodayot extensively list additional proposals made during the 1950s that did not gain scholarly support and eventually fell into obscurity,31 and later commentators saw no point in further discussing the issue.32 Wilhelm Nebe returned to this problem in 1992. After critically surveying many previous solutions, he put forward his own proposal that ‫ תכמים‬is derived from a weak verb (k-m-m or k-m-y) in the sense of “to bind, tie,” assuming that the deverbal noun (with a prefix *ta-) means “what is bound, tied, connected.” He accordingly interprets the phrase ‫ תכמי בשר‬as “the bonds of body parts,” reflecting the assumption that the human body consists of many different parts being “tied” or “bound” together.33 But even though I share Nebe’s learned critique of the previous solutions proposed for our problem, it seems to me that he too presents an unconvincing etymology because the putative weak verb is unattested in any known variety of Hebrew (or other Northwest Semitic dialects). No wonder, then, that in a recent survey of the QH lexicon, Menahem Kister was content with the cautious assertion that “in a few passages in the Qumran evidence, the word ‫ תכמים‬occurs […] The sense of the word is approximately 30  Jacob Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 106 [Hebrew, my translation, NM]. 31  Svend Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 108, n. 41; Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 3; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 138, n. 7. 32  For instance, the most recent edition of 1QHa (Stegemann and Schuller, DJD 40) does not consider the meaning and origin of the word ‫ תכמים‬in any detail. 33   G.-Wilhelm Nebe, “Zwei vermeintliche Ableitungen von twk ‘Mitte’ im QumranHebräischen,” ZAH 5 (1992): 218–23. I thank Dr. Harald Samuel, who called my attention to this paper.

132

Mizrahi

“body parts” […] So far, these words find no cognate, and they are probably old Hebrew words that do not occur, for the time being, in other texts.”34 In contradistinction, the following analysis seeks to demonstrate an alternative hypothesis. I submit that there are both historical-linguistic and philological grounds to consider ‫ תכמים‬to be historically related to the BH lexeme ‫שכם‬ “shoulder.” After all, both words are nouns that belong to the same semantic domain of partonomy, and their forms can relatively easily be connected by well-known sound changes.35 A crucial piece of evidence in support of this hypothesis comes from the discovery of a potential cognate of the word in an Aramaic document that was not hitherto mentioned with respect to the issue in question: The form tkmty, probably to be rendered as “my back,” is attested in P. Amherst 63, which contains an anthology of Aramaic literary works in Demotic script. This would mean that the etymological connection between ‫ תכמים‬and ‫ שכם‬is methodologically safer than Yadin’s proposal, which lacks a regular phonological correspondence between ‫ תכמים‬and its putative Arabic cognate, and which exhibits no clear semantic relation between the two. Examining the hypothesis proposed herein requires a discussion of two aspects. First, one should explore the exact phonological relation between BH ‫ שכם‬and QH ‫תכמים‬. If the latter is indeed an Aramaic loanword, one must attempt to explain how and why it was borrowed. Secondly, one should 34  Menahem Kister, “Some Lexical Features of the Writings from Qumran,” in The Qumran Scrolls and their World (ed. Menahem Kister; 2 vols; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 2:561– 69, at 563 (Hebrew, my translation, NM]. For the other case mentioned by Kister, the word ‫בדן‬, see Noam Mizrahi, “A Body Refigured: The Meaning and History of Hebrew BDN,” JAOS 130 (2011): 541–49. As explained below, I do not share the view that ‫ תכמים‬is originally Hebrew; in my opinion, it is an Aramaic loanword. 35  It should be noted that the possibility of connecting ‫ תכמים‬with ‫ שכם‬was already mentioned at an early stage of Qumran scholarship, but the idea was expressed with reservation and only in passing, and it was eventually forgotten. In a preliminary translation and interpretation of the Hodayot, Baumgarten and Mansoor observed (when discussing passage no. 3) the linguistic problems inherent in Yadin’s etymology. In a single sentence, they proposed an alternative etymology, comparing ‫ תכמים‬to BH ‫“ שכם‬shoulder,” referring also to additional cognates: Ugaritic ṯkm and Old South Arabian ṯkmt (which they render as “porter”). However, they also observed that a sense such as “shoulder” or “back” does not fit the QH contexts and therefore leaned eventually toward accepting Yadin’s general interpretation of the term. See Joseph M. Baumgarten and Menahem Mansoor, “Studies in the New Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns), III,” JBL 75 (1956): 107–13, at 110–11, n. 28; cf. Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 138, n. 7.

“ Body Parts ”

133

investigate the semantic relation between the specific senses displayed by the various terms, in order to see if they can be bridged with the help of recognized mechanisms of semantic change. For practical reasons, the following discussion begins with the semantic analysis, which is then followed by the phonological one. 4

Historical-Linguistic Analysis

BH knows three words spelled ‫שכם‬: a. b. c.

A common noun that denotes the “shoulder” or “upper back,”36 whose contextual form is ‫ ְׁש ֶכם‬and pausal form is ‫( ֶׁש ֶכם‬Ps 21:13).37 A proper noun ‫ ְׁש ֶכם‬, which refers to a central city of the northern kingdom of Israel. The biblical tradition also recognizes its importance in preIsraelite times, among the Canaanites (e.g., Gen 34; Judg 9). A proper noun ‫ ֶׁש ֶכם‬, which refers to an Asherite settlement or family, attested only as an eponym in genealogies (Num 26:31; Josh 17:2; 1 Chr 7:19).

Our concern here is mostly in the first of these words, i.e., the common noun. But it stands to reason that the other two are etymologically related to the first, as they probably represent adaptations of the common noun to local topographic conditions, as found in other place names.38 Compare the case of ‫ֶּב ֶטן‬ “belly,” which is the name of another Asherite settlement (Josh 19:25). 36  According to Julius Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine (trans. Fred Rosner; New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1978; originally published in German, 1911), 48–49, BH maintains a terminological distinction between ‫“ שכם‬posterior shoulder” and ‫כתף‬ “anterior shoulder.” 37  To be sure, scholars have doubted this pausal form in two respects. First, it was considered to be a “dubious word,” unrelated to the common noun, which requires textual amendment (so Tur-Sinai, in Ben-Yehudah’s Thesaurus, 14:7103b, n. 4). Secondly, it is grammatically noteworthy that there is a witness of the Babylonian tradition which reads in Ps 21 an alternative form, equivalent to ‫( ָׁש ֶכם‬Israel Yeivin, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization [2 vols; Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1985], 2:833 [Hebrew]). Nonetheless, if one maintains the received form, it seems that the form ‫ ֶׁש ֶכם‬should indeed be considered as the pausal counterpart of contextual ‫ ְׁש ֶכם‬, at least within the confines of the Tiberian tradition of vocalization. 38  This hypothesis is confirmed by a phonological piece of evidence (see below, n. 74). Noteworthy is the vocalization of the form with a schwa, which is not the expected reflex

134

Mizrahi

4.1 The Semantic Relation Although both ‫ שכם‬and ‫ תכמים‬belong to the same semantic domain, they do not denote precisely the same thing. BH ‫ שכם‬refers to a very specific part of the body (“shoulder” or “upper back”), but this sense does not fit ‫ תכמים‬in any of its occurrences; the more appropriate sense implied by their respective contexts is “body parts” in general.39 Nevertheless, there is a transparently demonstrable semantic relation between these two senses. It is best illustrated with the help of a parallel case—the semantic history of the term ‫אבר‬. This word denotes “body part” in post-biblical Hebrew (down to contemporary, Modern Hebrew), and it is highly instructive to trace its semantic development. 4.1.1 Parallel Case: ‫אבר‬ The nouns ‫ ֵא ֶבר‬and ‫ ֶא ְב ָרה‬take, in BH, the concrete and specific sense of “wing(s).” This is clear from poetic passages that utilize the stylistic structure of a parallelism and thus make use of standard word-pairs, i.e., established juxtaposition of synonyms (or antonyms). In the poetic diction of BH, the lexeme ‫ אבר‬forms part of a standard word-pair together with ‫“ כנף‬wing” (Ezek 17:3; so

of the original vowel (of the *qVtl pattern, cf. below, n. 78) and has not been given a satisfactory explanation as of yet. To be sure, it is not surprising to find the schwa in proper nouns, which often exhibit Aramaic-like patterns in both personal and place names; see, e.g., Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History (Jerusalem: Magnes/Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 125–26; cf. Mizrahi, “BDN,” 547. But this solution does not apply to the vocalization of the common noun (in the absolute state!). Bauer and Leander assert that the grammatical form of ‫ ְׁש ֶכם‬is Aramaic, but terms for body parts are usually primary nouns that are not easily susceptible to such an external influence, and one cannot accept this line of reasoning without full justification, which is absent from their discussion; see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr. Hildescheim: Olms, 1965), 456, §61jʹ. Joüon and Muraoka consider the vocalization of ‫ְׁש ֶכם‬ as the product of inner-Hebrew development, due to analogy to the construct form of nouns of the *qatil > /qɔtel/ pattern, which is indeed common in Hebrew partonomy (e.g., ‫ ָּכ ֵתף ~ ֶּכ ֶתף־ ~ ְּכ ֵתפ־; יָ ֵרְך ~ יֶ ֶרְך־ ~ יְ ֵרכ־‬, etc.); see Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (3rd ed.; SB 27; Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2006), 275, §96Ak, n. 4. However, they could not adduce any additional example that takes a seghol following the schwa. For the whole issue, see further Isaac Avinery, A Thesaurus of the Hebrew Radical Nouns (Tel Aviv: Izreʾel, 1976), 44–45 [Hebrew]. 39  As mentioned above (n. 35), the absence of semantic identity between the words was the reason why Baumgarten and Mansoor eventually decided to stick to Yadin’s interpretation of ‫ תכמים‬despite their own reservations regarding his etymology.

“ Body Parts ”

135

also Deut 32:11; Ps 68:14; 91:4; cf. Job 39:13), while other contexts explicate that the lexeme indeed refers to a body part typical of birds (Isa 40:31; Ps 55:7).40 In Second Temple Hebrew, a change in the semantic scope of the lexeme becomes discernible through a morphological permutation. BH usually employs the singular forms ‫ ֵא ֶבר‬and ‫ ֶא ְב ָרה‬. The former is used as a collective noun (i.e., it actually means “wings” in the plural), while the second functions as a nomen unitatis. This is why BH does not normally employ plural forms of ‫ ֵא ֶבר‬, and why there is an instance of the (suffixed) plural form ‫( ֶא ְברֹות־‬Ps 68:14), which evidently pluralizes the nomen unitatis ‫ ֶא ְב ָרה‬.41 In contradistinction, post-biblical sources witness to the form ‫( אברים‬see further below), whose base-form is obviously ‫אבר‬. In other words, despite being morphologically marked as a singular, ‫ אבר‬semantically encodes the plural in BH. But in later varieties of the language this distinction was neutralized, and speakers resorted to a morphologically transparent distinction between singular and plural forms of this lexeme. This development was apparently motivated by a number of comple­mentary factors. An internal factor appears to be the reshuffling of nominal morphosyntax in Second Temple Hebrew, with respect to the marking of grammatical number. Already within BH, one can discern a development in this respect: semantic categories such as collective nouns and nomina unitatis—productive in the CBH and morphologically marked as such—were rendered obsolete in LBH, which exhibits a preference for a simpler, binary system of externallymarked singular/plural.42 This general trend explains why the form ‫( אברה‬and 40  The sense “wing” probably reflects the original semantics of this noun already in ProtoSemitic, as suggested by the fact that it is also the normal sense of the word abru in Akkadian (i.e., East Semitic). Moreover, the lexeme can be etymologically related to an Afro-Asiatic verb with the sense “to fly” (Militarev and Kogan, Semitic Etymological Dictionary, 1:3, no. 1). 41  Marking the nomen unitatis by attaching the “feminine” marker to a collective noun is a common morphological strategy in BH (as well as other Semitic languages). See, e.g., GKC 394, §122t; Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik, 511, §62z; Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, §134p. 42  More accurately, the binary system consists of an unmarked singular versus a marked plural. For the replacement of collective nouns with externally-marked plurals see, e.g., Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (BZAW 16; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1909), 8–13; Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars, 1976), 40–42 (notwithstanding the objection of Gary Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P,’ ” JANES 12 [1980]: 65–80, at 67). According to Hurvitz, the dual form also ceased to be productive in Second Temple Hebrew; see Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CahRB 20; Paris: Gabalda,

136

Mizrahi

its plural ‫ )אברות‬fell out of use, while the form ‫ אבר‬has changed its grammatical function. Being morphologically unmarked, it was fit for functioning as the base-form of the nominal paradigm. It thus took the place of ‫ אברה‬as a fullblown singular, serving as the base-form for the plural ‫אברים‬. Alongside this internal development, another factor might have been operative, namely, the external influence of Aramaic, with which Hebrew was in intense contact throughout the Second Temple period. Later Aramaic dialects usually employ the masculine singular form,43 and it stands to reason that such a usage also underlies the conspicuous preference of the masculine form by speakers of post-biblical Hebrew. Aramaic influence might be discerned not only in the morphology of the word, but also in its semantics. To be sure, scattered traces of the meaning “wing” (either in a concrete sense or an extended, figurative one) might be reflected in a few Aramaic dialects.44 However, Qumran Aramaic as well as Targumic Aramaic employ ‫ אבר‬with the sense of “limb.” The semantic link between “wing” and “limb” is transparent: one need not be a professional anatomist in order to see that birds’ wings correspond—both structurally and functionally—to human hands or the tetrapod’s front limbs. So, for instance, in a physiognomic manual from Qumran, dated (on paleographic grounds) to the second half of the first century bce (4Q561 1 i 2–5):45 1982), 30–32. But as a matter of fact there are counter-examples, such as ‫ ְק ָר ַביִם‬, which is surely an innovation of the Second Temple period; see Noam Mizrahi, “Priests of Qoreb: Linguistic Enigma and Social Code in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period (ed. Pierre van Hecke and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; STDJ 114; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 43–45. Thus the matter requires a systematic re-investigation. ܵ 43  ‫בריָ א‬ ַ ‫ ַא‬,‫ברא‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬,‫ ֵא ַבר‬in the classical targums of Onkelos and Jonathan. Cf. ‫ ܐܸ ܒܪܐ‬in Syriac and ‫ איברא‬in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. 44  In Palmyrene Aramaic, ‫ אבר‬denotes a “military unit,” but this usage might be a calque of Latin ala, as suggested by Delbert R. Hillers and Eleonora Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 334. Another trace of the concrete sense might be found in Syriac ‫ܐܒܪܐ‬, which denotes both “feather” and “limb”; see Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (2d ed.; Halle: Niemeyer, 1928), 3 = Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns/Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009), 5; “wing” is presumably the intermediate stage bridging between these senses. Note, though, that the standard word for “wing” in Classical Syriac—as represented by the Peshitta version—is ‫( ܓܦܐ‬cf. ‫ גף‬in Biblical Aramaic, Dan 7:4, 6). 45  Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXVII: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575, 580– 582 (DJD 37; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 308 (transcription and translation), 310 (commentary); cf. Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in

“ Body Parts ”

‫אפה נגיד [ו] ̊שפיר ושנוהי שוין ודקנה‬ ̇ ‫̇ש[וה] | [ו] ̊דק‬ ‫להוה [ו]לא ̊ש ̊גיא‬ … ]‫אברוהי [מת]מחקי[ן‬

137 His nose is long [and] beautiful, and his teeth are even. And his beard will be thin [but] not too much so. His limbs [are s]mooth …

That the word ‫ אברוהי‬refers here to the person’s limbs can also be deduced by comparison to a similar, Hebrew text that describes an opposite picture of the physiological markers (4Q186 1 iii 7):46 ‫ושוקיו עבות ומלאות שער לאחת‬

And his thighs are thick and each one is hairy.

Aramaic texts produced by Jews around the turn of the first millennium bce thus reflect a semantic extension of the lexeme from “wing” to “limb” by way of metonymy. From this point on, it was only a short step to expand the semantic scope of the word even further, from “limb” to “body part” in general. The classical targums sometimes employ the word ‫ אבר‬as a rendition of BH ‫אבר(ה)‏‬ (Tg Onqelos Deut 32:11; Tg Jonathan Ezek 17:3). More often, though, Aramaic ‫ אבר‬is employed as a rendition of BH ‫“ נֵ ַתח‬piece of a divided carcass” (Tg Onqelos Exod 29:17; Lev 1:6, 8, 12; 8:20; 9:13; Tg Jonathan Judg 19:29b), or, less frequently, of BH ‫“ ֶע ֶצם‬bone” (Tg Jonathan Judg 19:29a; cf. Tg Jonathan Mic 3:3). In most of the later Aramaic dialects, “body part” has become the primary sense of the lexeme (‫אבר(א‬. The successive stages of this semantic development, i.e., “wing” > “limb” > “body part,” are also reflected, albeit contingently, in contemporaneous Hebrew sources.47 So, for instance, in a passage of Sirach, where the word ‫ אברים‬is clearly employed in a sense broader than that found in BH (Sir 7:31, ms a):48 the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (STDJ 67; Leiden: Brill, 2007), esp. 54–65, 263–65. The English translation is adapted from Popović, Reading the Human Body, 61. 46  For both the Hebrew text and English translation, see Popović, Reading the Human Body, 30. 47  Historically, then, the Hebrew lexeme ‫ אבר‬should not be split into two homonyms, “wing” on the one hand and “body part” on the other (so Ben-Yehudah’s Thesaurus, 1:37–38). The word is better regarded as a single lexeme, which was rendered polysemic due to semantic development. But see further below, end of §5. 48  The English translation is quoted from Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York:‎Doubleday, 1987) 203–4. The passage plays on

138

Mizrahi

̇‫והדר ̇כהן‬ ̇ ‫̇כבד אל‬ ̇ :‫ות[ן ח]לקם כאשר ̊צוותה‬ ‫‏‬50)ms D ‫ (אבירים‬49‫לחם ̇א ̇בו̇ ̇רים‬ ‫ותרומת ̊י ̊ד ז̊ ̊ב ̊חי̊ צדק ותרומת קדש‬ ̇

Honor God and respect the priest; give him his portion as you have been commanded: The flesh of sacrifices, contributions, his portion of victims, a levy on holy offerings.

4950 Admittedly, the phrase ‫אבורים‬/‫ לחם אבירים‬is not text-critically secure.51 Nonetheless, since this is the reading recorded in the available Hebrew witnesses, it must be studied in its own right. Haim Dihi discussed the phrase in much detail, interpreting it as referring to an offering of bread that was kneaded by the “members,” just as the parallel phrase ‫ תרומת יד‬refers to an offering that was offered by the “hands.”52 Dihi concluded that ‫ אבירים‬in this context refers to “body parts” in general. But this semantic conclusion is not fully warranted by the evidence: after all, one normally kneads a dough with

Ps 78:25, ‫‬ל ֶחם ַא ִּב ִירים ָא ַכל ִאיׁש‬ ֶ (NRSV: “mortals ate of the bread of angels”), referring to the manna. ‬‬‬ 49  This reading adopts a suggestion of Dr. Alexei Yuditzky. The middle letters of the word in ms a are badly damaged (see http://www.bensira.org/images/Manuscripts/A/A_III_ Recto.jpg), but no other reading fits the traces. The reading ‫( אבירים‬as in ms d) is ruled out because it requires an exceptionally narrow resh. Moreover, the long trace that follows the bet is not compatible with yod (which is typically small in this hand), but it does suit a waw. For the relation between singular ‫ אבר‬and plural ‫ אבורים‬compare QH ‫;נגע ~ נגועים‬ cf. Elisha Qimron, “The Distinction between Waw and Yod in the Qumran Scrolls,” Beit Mikra 18 [52] (1973): 102–12, at 109 [Hebrew]; idem, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 111, s.v. ‫נגועים‬. 50  The testimony of ms d is included in a recently published fragment: Shulamit Elitzur and Michael Rand, “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira,” DSD 18 (2011): 200–5, at 203–4; cf. http://www.bensira.org/images/Manuscripts/D/D_I_Recto.jpg. The form ‫ ֲא ִב ִירים‬is a plural of ‫( ֵא ֶבר‬compare BH ‫) ְּפ ִס ִילים ~ ֶּפ ֶסל‬, and it is also known from MH and the Samaritan tradition; see Moshe Bar-Asher, “Addenda to qέtεl ~ qətilim,” in idem, The Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew in the Communities of Italy (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1980), 116–20 [Hebrew]. 51  The Greek and Syriac versions do not correspond to the Hebrew phrase, but it remains unclear whether they reflect variant reading(s), and even if so, how exactly their Vorlage should be reconstructed. See, e.g., Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 72; Moshe Zvi Segal, The Complete Book of Sirach (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute 1959), 50 [Hebrew]; Skehan and di Lella, Ben Sira, 204. 52  Haim Dihi, “The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira” (Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, 2005), 1:41–45 [Hebrew].

“ Body Parts ”

139

the “limbs” more than with the “members” or “body parts.” The parallelism with ‫תרומת יד‬, lit. “hand-offering,”53 is thus better interpreted as indicating that the nomen rectum in the parallel expression ‫אבורים‬/‫ לחם אבירים‬denotes the “limbs.”54 Be that as it may, the semantic development of ‫ אבר‬evidently continued into MH, which regularly employs this term—and especially the plural ‫ אברים‬55— in reference to all body parts, without necessarily denoting any particular

53  So according to ms a. ms d reads ‫תרומתה‬, “its offering.” 54  The noun ‫ אבר‬is seemingly attested in another Hebrew source, the aforementioned physiognomic work: ‫( ושניו רומות לאבר‬4Q186 1iii 6ʹ). Since the original publication of the text, it is commonly assumed that the passage refers to a person whose teeth are crooked; see John M. Allegro, “An Astrological Cryptic Document from Qumran,” JSS 9 (1964): 291–94, at 294; idem, Qumrân Cave 4, I: 4Q158–4Q186 (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 90. But I concur with Nebe, who argues that the word has nothing to do with Hebrew ‫אבר‬ but should rather be identified with Aramaic ‫“ ַּבר‬outside” (whose earlier borrowing into Hebrew is already attested in Job 39:4), and the clause thus means “his teeth extend out, protrude”; see G.-Wilhelm Nebe, “‫ אבר‬in 4Q186,” RQ 8[30] (1973): 265–66; cf. Popović, Reading the Human Body, 252. Unlike Nebe, though, I prefer to vocalize the word as ‫אּבר‬ ַ ‫ ַל‬, taking the aleph not as a prosthetic consonant but rather as an orthographic marker, i.e., a mater lectionis for the medial /a/ vowel of the definite article (cf. Nebe, “266 ”,‎‫אבר‬, n. 9). A comparable spelling occurs in Isa 59:5, MT ‫ּזּורה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַה‬vs. 1QIsaa ‫ ;והאזורה‬Deut 5:11, MT ‫ ַל ָּׁשוְ א‬vs. three phylacteries from Qumran that read ‫ לאשו‬‪(4QPhyl B = 4Q129 rec. 5; 4QPhyl J = 4Q137 rec. 18; 4QPhyl L = 4Q139 rec. 4). Similar spellings are found in manuscripts of rabbinic works that testify to MH; see Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden:‎Brill, 1974), 162; cf. Elisha Qimron, “Initial Alef as a Vowel in Hebrew and Aramaean Documents from Qumran Compared with Other Hebrew and Aramaean Sources,” Leš 39 (1975): 133–46, esp. 138–39, 142, 146 [Hebrew]. Moreover, the aleph in all these cases might be a marker not (only) of the /a/ vowel, but (also) of the consonantal lengthening (i.e., gemination) that follows the definite article, comparable to the orthographic use of hé after the relative pronoun ‫ ;ש־‬in Second Temple documents, one finds that this particle is represented by ‫ שה־‬as well as ‫ ;שא־‬see Steven E. Fassberg, “The Orthography of the Relative Pronoun ‫ שה־‬in the Second Temple Period,” Language Studies 7 (1996): 109–18, at 115–16 [Hebrew]. The latter spelling apparently reflects a vocalization with /a/, which also survives in the Tiberian tradition of BH (Judg 5:7). 55  The regular plural form in MH is ‫ ֵא ָב ִרים‬, as witnessed by most reliable manuscripts. But ms Parma II vocalizes the form as ‫ ֲא ָב ִרים‬. Ms Kaufmann records once (m. Yoma 2:4) a correction from ‫אבירים‬, which apparently reflects a third allomorph, i.e. ‫( ֲא ִב ִירים‬compare ‫ ; ֶּפ ֶסל ~ ְּפ ִס ִילים‬cf. above, n. 50).

140

Mizrahi

member such as “wings” or even “limbs.” This is made explicit by the lexical definition furnished by the Tosefta (t. ʾOhalot 1:7, ed. Zuckermandel, 598):56 ‫ כל שיש בו גידים ועצמות הרי זה אבר‬Whatever has on it tendons and ‫ ושאין בו גידים ועצמות אינו אבר‬bones, lo, this is a limb, and what-

ever does not have on it tendons and bones is not a limb.

The term is often used with respect to animals, especially those brought as offerings at the temple,57 or those used for the Passover offering,58 but it is commonly employed with respect to humans as well.59 The lexeme ‫ אבר‬is far from being the only anatomical term that underwent such semantic developments of extension, abstraction and generalization.60 Yet it sufficiently demonstrates the reasonability of reconstructing a process that begins with a well-defined, concrete denotation of a particular part of the body, and then gradually shifts—by way of metonymy—to the more abstract notion of “body part” in general.61 There is no difficulty, therefore, in assuming 56  The English translation is that of Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta, Sixth Division: Tohorot (The Order of Purities) (New York: Ktav, 1977), 82, but it does not accurately represent the original Hebrew. 57  For instance, m. Sheqalim 8:8, ‫איברי התמיד ניתנים מחצי כבש [ו]למטה‬, “The members of the Daily Whole-offering were set down on the [Altar-]Ramp on the lower half”; or the description of the scape-goat in m. Yoma 6:6, ‫ולא היה מגיע למחצית ההר עד שהוא נעשה‬ ‫איברים איברים‬, “and before it had reached half the way down the hill it was broken in pieces.” The English translation is that of Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 162, 170, respectively. 58  For instance, m. Pesahim 7:12, ‫ חותך עד שמגיע לעצם וקולף עד שמגיע‬,‫אבר שיצא מקצתו‬ ‫לפרק וחותך‬, “If the limb [of a Passover-offering] projected outside [the wall of Jemsalem] it must be cut away until the bone is reached, and the flesh then pared off until the joint is reached, and then it may be cut off” (Danby, Mishnah, 146). 59  For instance, m. Shabbat 23:5, ‫ סכים ומדיחים אותו ובלבד שלא יזוז בו‬:‫עושין כל צרכי המת‬ ‫אבר‬, “They may make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it” (Danby, Mishnah, 120). 60  Additional examples are furnished by lexemes such as ‫ גף‬,‫( יד‬and its biform ‫ )אגף‬and ‫כנף‬, which underwent similar—albeit not identical—processes of generalization and abstraction. 61  These types of semantic shifts (metonymy, generalization, abstraction) are very common in partonomy, in the world’s languages in general and Hebrew in particular; see, e.g., Gad B. Sarfatti, Semantic Aspects of Hebrew (Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 2001), 197–98, §11.23 [Hebrew]. Moreover, they typologically reflect the universal

“ Body Parts ”

141

that the lexeme ‫ שכם‬went through a similar path of gradual semantic change: “shoulder” > “upper back” > “back” > “body part.” 4.1.2 ‫ שכם‬as “Part” An indirect piece of evidence that this—or a similar—semantic development may come from a biblical passage in ‫ שכם‬took place with respect to the lexeme which the word is hardly employed in its concrete, specific sense. The passage forms part of Jacob’s blessing to Joseph (Gen 48:22): ‫ל־א ֶ ֑חיָך‬ ַ ‫ ַ ֽו ֲא ִ֞ני נָ ַ ֧ת ִ ּֽתי ְלָך֛ ְׁש ֶ ֥כם ַא ַ ֖חד ַע‬I now give to you one portion more ‫ּתי ִמ ַּי֣ד ָ ֽה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֔רי‬ ֙ ִ ‫ ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ָל ַ ֨ק ְח‬than to your brothers, the portion ‫ּוב ַק ְׁש ִ ּֽתי‬ ְ ‫ ְּב ַח ְר ִ ּ֖בי‬that I took from the hand of the

Amorites with my sword and with my bow (NRSV).

It was recognized, already in antiquity, that this formulation refers, either explicitly or implicitly, to the city of Shechem. Shechem is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as an important urban center not only of the northern Israelite kingdom of the first millennium bce, but also in pre-Israelite times, i.e., among the Canaanite city-states of the second millennium bce (as was indeed confirmed by the El-Amarna tablets).62 Thus the Septuagint version renders the trajectory of development of semantic change of such terms (specific > general; concrete > abstract); see, e.g., Wilkins, “Natural Tendencies,” esp. 273–74. 62  Classical biblical criticism deduced from this passage that Jacob’s words reflect a tradition concerning Israel’s conquest of Shechem that differs from the one recorded in Gen 34; see, e.g., Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; New York/ London: Methuen, 1904), 378–79; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 421–22, 507; cf. M. Haran, “Schechem Studies,” Zion 38 (1973): 1–31 at 17 (n. 37) and 25 (n. 52) [Hebrew]. By the mid-twentieth century, however, one can detect a retreat from this critical position. For instance, Eduard Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: Gad, 1955, 21959), esp. 283–86, was half-hearted concerning the interpretation of the passage, and later on Claus Westermann, Genesis 37–50 (trans. John J. Scullion, Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1986), 192–93, thought that the term ‫ שכם‬referred primarily to a “ridge,” although possibly alluding to Shechem as well. A few monographs from the 1970s that focus on biblical Shechem do not discuss Gen 48:22, not even for rejecting its relevance for their topic; see Karl Jaroš, Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung (OBO 11; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976); Eckhart Otto, Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979).

142

Mizrahi

word ‫ שכם‬in this passage by the form Σικιμα, which is one of the transcriptions of the place name in the LXX (alongside Συχεμ). The other ancient versions, by contrast, usually take the Hebrew word as a common noun, interpreting the entire passage as asserting that Jacob gives Joseph an extra “portion,” that is, an additional “part” of his inheritance compared to what each of his brothers receives (so also the NRSV, quoted above). This is the reading of the Aramaic versions, beginning with Tg Onqelos: ‫ואנא יהבית‬ ‫לך חולק חד יתיר על אחך‬, “Now, I have given to you one portion more than to your brothers.”63 This rendition is matched by most of the Palestinian targums,64 as ̈ ‫ܝܗܒܬ ܠܟ ܡܢܬܐ ܚܕܐ ܝܬܝܪܬܐ ܥܠ‬ ܿ ‫)ܘܐܢܐ ܗܐ‬. well as the Peshitta (‫ܐܚܝܟ‬ And so also reads the Vulgate, “Do tibi partem unam extra fratres tuos.”65 This interpretation actually fits the context well, and it is grounded in a legal tradition of the ancient Near East, which sanctions that the elder or preferred brother is indeed entitled to inherit a double share compared to any of his brothers.66 Moreover, there is a decisive piece of evidence that both exegetical traditions of the passage were known by the second century bce: they are both attested, in different narratives, within the book of Jubilees. The tradition that considers Gen 48:22 as alluding to the conquest of Shechem is elaborated into

63  The English translation is that of Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6; Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1988), 157. 64  Tg Pseudo-Jonathan combines both exegetical traditions: ‫ואנא הא יהבית לך ית קרתא‬ ‫דשכם חולק חד למתנא יתיר על אחך‬, “As for me, behold, I give you the city of Shechem, one portion as a gift more than your brothers,” following the translation of Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 156. 65  Note, however, that Jerome’s understanding of the passage is more complex than meets the eye in his Latin translation. Although he rendered the word ‫ שכם‬as a common noun, his commentary makes clear that he also viewed it as a word-play that alludes to the place name of Shechem. See his Questions on Genesis ad loc. For the Latin text, see Dominicum Vallarsi, ed., “Liber hebraicarum quaestionum in Genesim,” in Patrologia Latina 23, ed. Jean-Paul Migne: Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi … opera omnia … tomus secundus (Paris, 1883), 983–1062 at 1055; this edition is to be preferred over that of Paul de Lagarde, printed in Mark Adriaen, ed., S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars I: Opera exegetica, 1: Hebraicæ quæstiones in libro Geneseos … (CCSL 72; Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), 52, which was based on a corrupt text. For an English translation and commentary, see Robert Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 82–83, 234–35. 66  Isaac Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959): 38–40.

“ Body Parts ”

143

a full-blown story in Jub 34:1–9, while the tradition that takes ‫ שכם‬as meaning an extra “part” or “portion” finds expression in Jub 45:14.67 Of all the ancient versions, Aquila alone has rendered the word by ὦμον ἕνα,68 an anatomical term that refers to the “shoulder,” in harmony with its very literal translation technique. Arguably, the interpretation of ‫ שכם‬as “part, portion” is based on a semantic change in the sense of the common noun ‫שכם‬. It might represent an additional stage in the process of abstraction: “shoulder” > “upper back” > “back” > “body part” > “part.”69 But an alternative path of development is also possible: the word might have shifted to denote “part” not due to gradual, internal development, but rather on analogy to a comparable usage of the word ‫“ יד‬hand.” As is well-known, when the noun ‫ יד‬is used in its primary, concrete sense (i.e., “upper limb”), its plural (‫ )יָ ַדיִ ם‬is marked by the dual ending, even when the context clearly refers to many hands, not just two (e.g., Isa 13:7; Ezek 7:17). The word can also be used figuratively, to refer to items such as handles of objects and utensils (e.g., 1 Kgs 7:32–36) or decorated edges (e.g., Exod 26:17–19; 36:22– 24); in such cases, the plural form is marked by the “feminine” ending (‫)יָ דֹות‬.70 The most conspicuous extended usage of the word so marked is its employment as a technical term with the sense of “part of a whole,” constituting, in effect, an arithmetic term denoting the notion of a mathematical fraction (e.g., Gen 43:34; 47:24).71 The lexeme ‫ יד‬thus developed a specialized, abstract sense: “hand” > “part.” Such a change might have motivated a similar shift with respect to the semantically related term ‫שכם‬.72 67  Atar Livneh, “Jubilees 34:1–9: Joseph, the ‘House of Joseph,’ and the Josephites’ Portion,” JSJ 43 (2012): 22–41; eadem, “ ‘ With My Sword and Bow’: Jacob as Warrior in Jubilees,” in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz; BZAW 439; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 189–213. 68  Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1871–75), 1:69. 69  The exegetical tradition connecting the place name Shechem with the sense of “part” (Aramaic ‫ )חולק‬may have been motivated by yet another passage, namely, a geographical formula attested in a recurring poetic passage: ‫ וְ ֵע ֶמק ֻסּכֹות ֲא ַמ ֵּדד‬// ‫ ֲא ַח ְּל ָקה ְׁש ֶכם‬, “I will divide up Shechem, and portion out the Vale of Succoth” (Ps 60:8; 108:8 [NRSV Ps 60:6; 108:7]). 70  Sarfatti, Semantic Aspects of Hebrew, 121, §8.11. 71  Gad B. Sarfatti, “Arithmetical Fractions in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew,” Tarbiz 28 (1959): 1–17, esp. 2, 11 [Hebrew]. 72  Cf. the conceptual importance of the notion of “hand” (as a semantic prime) vis-à-vis other body parts as explored by Wierzbicka, “Bodies and their Parts,” esp. 25–36.

144

Mizrahi

Whatever the preferred explanation for the unique use of the term ‫ שכם‬in Gen 48:22, it is evident that already in BH, as it was understood and interpreted in the Hellenistic period, the lexeme ‫ שכם‬could have been used in the sense of “part” (like ‫)יד‬. It also might have been employed to refer to “body part” (like ‫)אבר‬. 4.1.3

Theoretical Consideration: Explicit Marking of Semantic Differentiation In all cases discussed above, the semantic extension resulted in polysemic differentiation between a concrete sense (the original and primary denotation of the word) that refers to a specific part of the body, and an abstract sense that was generalized from the former. From a historical point of view, these are two related senses of one and the same lexeme. In linguistic reality, however, speakers exhibit a tendency to differentiate between them with the help of formal markers, thus giving expression to their intuition that such linguistic forms are in fact functionally different lexemes. So in the case of ‫יד‬, the semantic difference is marked by morphological means, i.e., different plural markers (‫ ידים‬for the concrete, primary sense, vs. ‫ ידות‬for the abstract, secondary sense). The lexeme ‫ אבר‬similarly displays a change in the plural formation preferred by late speakers, and even though its motivation and distribution are somewhat different, they eventually result in the marking of a semantic differentiation between BH ‫“ אברות‬wings” vis-à-vis MH ‫“ איברים‬body parts.” If a similar process of semantic change took place in the case of ‫שכם‬, an explicit or formal marking of the semantic differentiation between “shoulder” and “body part” may be expected. It need not be limited to the morphological realm, as it may well manifest itself by phonetic distinction or by utilizing a historical doublet, due to internal development (compare, e.g., ‫“ אּור‬fire” vs. ‫אֹור‬ “light”) or external loan (e.g., ‫“ תעה‬wander, stray” vs. ‫“ טעה‬err,” the latter being an Aramaic loan).73 From a synchronic point of view, then, the very process of semantic extension results in an internal pressure of the lexical system, which motivates formal marking of the differentiated senses. This structural constraint constitutes a linguistic background for understanding the synchronic function of ‫ שכם‬and ‫ תכמים‬within the lexis of a given chronolect, i.e., Second Temple Hebrew as witnessed by QH. If so, one only needs to clarify ‫ תכמים‬from a diachronic point

73  These and other examples are adduced by Sarfatti, Semantic Aspects of Hebrew, 120–21 §8.10–12.

145

“ Body Parts ”

of view, i.e., to identify its source and trace the process by which it was adopted by (and adapted into) the lexicon of QH. 4.2 Phonological Analysis If QH ‫“ תכמים‬body parts” is indeed related to BH ‫“ שכם‬shoulder,” as one can propose on the basis of semantic analysis, why is it spelled with rather than ? The recorded orthography renders the form alien to Hebrew, making it difficult to consider the word as an inherited item from an earlier stage of the language. 4.2.1 Reconstructing the Original Form BH ‫ שכם‬goes back to an earlier form whose first consonant was not a sibilant (PS *s > BH /š/) but rather an interdental fricative (PS *θ or *ṯ, which, in BH, merged with /š/). This historical reconstruction is based on comparative evidence, since BH ‫ שכם‬is clearly a cognate of Ugaritic ṯkm “shoulder.”74 The sense of the latter word is apparent in a passage from the Epic of Kirta, which describes, in a poetic parallelism, how the protagonist purifies himself before performing a ritual by fully washing his hands from shoulder to toe (CAT 1.14 III 53–54):75 A yrḥṣ . ydh . a͗ mth B u͗ ṣbʕth . ʕd . ṯkm

He washes his hands to the elbow his fingers as far as the shoulder

The length of the arm is therefore marked by two extreme points, differently defined in the two members of the parallelism: in the A-colon, the hand 74  Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (trans. W. G. E. Watson; HdO 1.67; 2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2.903–904. Cf. Issam K. H. Halayqa, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite (AOAT 340; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 346. Furthermore, there is some evidence that in the mid-second millennium bce, the place name of Shechem was also pronounced with an interdental fricative rather than a sibilant. This is indicated by analysis of transcriptions of the name of Shechem in both Egyptian sources and El-Amarna Akkadian, even though their renderings of the place name are usually transcribed as ś-k-m and Šakmu (respectively) by scholarly convention. See especially Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria (AOAT 214; Kevelar: Butzon & Bercker, 1984), 42–43, 48–50; Shlomo Izreʾel, Canaano-Akkadian (Munich: Lincom Europa, 1998), 8. 75  The English translation is adapted from Edward L. Greenstein in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon B. Parker; WAW 9; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1997), 18.

146

Mizrahi

stretches from its palm (yd = BH ‫ )יד‬to the end of arm (amt = BH ‫)אמה‬, while in the B-colon, it begins with the fingers (u͗ ṣbʕt = BH ‫ )אצבעות‬and continues all the way to the shoulder (ṯkm = BH ‫)שכם‬.76 Alongside this concrete usage, Ugaritic also testifies to an extended, figurative use of the term, referring to the upper part of buildings such as walls and houses. An example is furnished by another section of the Epic of Kirta, which describes how Kirta offers his sacrifice to the deity at an elevated place (CAT 1.14 IV 2–4): A wʕly . lẓr . mgdl B rkb . ṯkmm . ḥmt

He ascends to the top of the lookout mounts the city-wall’s shoulder

Moreover, it appears that this noun motivated a denominative derivation of a verb that denotes carrying something on the shoulder.77 76  The similarity between Ugaritic and BH is not restricted to the lexical level, but extends to phraseology as well, since BH displays at least one word-pair identical to what is found in the Ugaritic passage: ‫ אצבעות‬// ‫( יד‬Isa 2:8; 17:8; Ps 144:1; Cant 5:5; cf. ‫ אצבעות‬// ‫ כף‬in Isa 59:3). For the Ugaritic word-pair of a͗ mt // ṯkm cf. the semantically (but not etymologically) equivalent pair of ‫ זרוע‬// ‫( כתף‬Job 31:22). Note that Ugaritic has its own cognate of BH ‫“ כתף‬shoulder,” as in a verse from the Baal Cycle, in an episode that describes the battle of Baal and Yamm: hlm . ktp . zbl . ym // bn ydm . [ṯp]ṭ nhr (CAT 1.2 IV 14ʹ–15ʹ). The exact translation of these terms, however, is debated. Compare, for instance, the following translations: “Strike the torso of Prince Yamm, // Between the hands of [Jud]ge River,” according to Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (vol. 1 of Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2; SVT 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 323, cf. his detailed comment ibid., 345–346; “Strike Prince Yammu on the shoulder // Ruler Naharu on the chest,” according to Pierre Bordreuil and Denis Pardee, A Manual of Ugaritic (LSAWS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 160. (I am indebted to Prof. Edward Greenstein for his advice on this matter.) 77  The Epic of Aqhat refers to Pġt, Dan-Il’s daughter and Aqhat’s sister, by the epithet ṯkmt my (CAT 1.19 II 6), which apparently designates her as the one who “carries water on (her) shoulder.” This usage finds parallels in Ethiopian languages, such as the denominative verb sakama “to carry on the shoulder, carry a burden” in Geʿez; see Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 496. An additional development in this direction may be reflected in Old South Arabian languages, such as Sabaic ṯkmt (cf. above, n. 35). Its interpretation, however, is far from certain. Joan C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982), 544, distinguishes between two homonyms: ṯkmt1 (cognate of Ugaritic ṯkmt and Hebrew ‫ )שכם‬that designates a (political) “subject” < “under the yoke”; ṯkmt2 (similarly related to “shoulder”), which is a technical term meaning “first year of appointment of eponymous

“ Body Parts ”

147

Both Ugaritic and Hebrew forms evidently go back to a Proto-Northwest Semitic noun *θikm-.78 Its first consonant was retained in Ugaritic (ṯkm), whereas in Hebrew it merged with /š/ (‫)שכם‬. Furthermore, already within Ugaritic, the term was subject to semantic change, as it is used in an extended sense (metaphorically, perhaps on the basis of an earlier, metonymic shift) to denote not only the concrete “shoulder” but also an abstract “upper part.” 4.2.2 Borrowing from Aramaic As a rule, cases in which a Hebrew word contains a reflex of historical *θ, but one that takes the form of /t/ rather than the expected /š/, should be suspected as Aramaic loans, for Aramaic is the only classical Semitic language in which historical *θ merged with /t/. This self-evident identification faces a practical difficulty in the case of QH ‫תכמים‬, as no word such as ‫ תכם‬is recorded in most of the Aramaic dialects. Moreover, when translators of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic came across BH ‫שכם‬, they usually rendered it by ‫( ְּכ ַתף‬e.g., Tg Onqelos Gen 9:23; Tg Jonathan Judg 9:48, etc.) or sometimes by ‫( ַצּוָ ר‬e.g., Tg Jonathan Isa 14:25).79 Nevertheless, there is evidence that a form *tikm-(a)t was indeed part and parcel of the Aramaic lexicon. The evidence comes from P. Amherst 63, a collection of Aramaic literaryreligious texts recorded in Demotic script. Only parts of this document have office.” Walter W. Müller, “Altsüdarabische Beiträge zum hebräischen Lexikon,” ZAW 75 (1966): 304–16 at 315, prefers the second interpretation, but relates the term ṯkmt to the Hebrew verb ‫“ ִה ְׁש ִּכים‬start, rise early.” A. F. L. Beeston et al., Sabaic Dictionary: EnglishFrench-Arabic (Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters, 1982), 150, refrain from an exact rendition altogether. Tur-Sinai (in Ben-Yehudah’s Thesaurus, 14:7102b–7103a and n. 2) turns the semantic relation on its head: In his view, such usages are not to be seen as denominative verbs but rather the other way round: the noun ‫ שכם‬was derived from a verb with the sense “to carry weight,” and the deverbal, nominal form originally meant “that part of the human or animal body on which their head is set, and on which they carry weight, (i.e.,) the nape and shoulders” (my translation). This view, however, is doubtful, because terms of body parts are usually unmotivated substantives and not derived nouns. 78  The reconstructed vocalization depends on the /i/ vowel exhibited by suffixed forms of the common noun ‫ ְׁש ֶכם‬in BH, which suggest that it goes back to Proto-Hebrew *šikm(Gen 21:14, ‫ ; ִׁש ְכ ָמּה‬Josh 4:5, ‫ ִׁש ְכמֹו‬, etc.). The vocalization of the Ugaritic cognate was similarly reconstructed as /ṯikmu/ by John Huehnergard, An Introduction to Ugaritic (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012), 158. On the other hand, the name of the city of Shechem is recorded in the El-Amarna tablets as Šakmi (or Θakmi; EA 289:23) with an /a/ vowel. If this toponym is indeed etymologically related to the common noun (see above, §4), one can also reconstruct the alternative vocalization *θakm-. 79  The only exception to this rule is Gen 48:22 (discussed above, §4.1.2).

148

Mizrahi

been published so far, but it was fully translated into English by Richard Steiner,80 who also published a select glossary of the text, including lexemes whose identification and interpretation were deemed relatively secure.81 This glossary contains the entry tkmh, a substantive rendered as “back.”82 The recorded form is doubly cited, once as a transliteration of the graphic signs (t.qm.ty) and once as a phonemic transcription (tkmty). This is because the Demotic script does not encode a distinction between voiced, voiceless or emphatic consonants among the sibilants (/z, s/), velars (/q, g, k/) and dentals (/ṭ, d, t/). In other words, the Demotic script employs a single graphic sign for representing any of the consonants that have the same place of articulation. This feature explains the need to employ both graphic transliteration and phonemic transcription. It also follows that the latter already embeds an unavoidable element of linguistic interpretation. The rationale of rendering tkmh as “back” transpires from the context of this word. In column XIV of the papyrus, lines 4–6 describe the destructive force of the goddess Nanai:83 On my back horses have walked;ss I am the viper at their heel.tt Horses have walked ˹on˺ my belly; from my poison they grew old, they were sickened by my venom, their hide rotted from my venomous bite. ss Ps 129:3

tt Gen 49:17

Three considerations support the decision to transcribe the form as tkmty and render it as “my back”:84 80  Richard C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr.; 3 vols; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:309–27 [see below, n. 103]. 81  Richard C. Steiner and Adina M. Moshavi, “A Selective Glossary of Northwest Semitic Texts in Egyptian Script,” in Dictionary of North-West Semitic (Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 2:1249–1266. For an updated discussion, which sets P. Amherst 63 in its linguistic, literary and historical contexts, see Ingo Kottsieper, “Aramaic Literature,” in From an Antique Land: An Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature (ed. Carl S. Ehrlich; Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 393–444 at 426–29. 82  Steiner and Moshavi, “Selective Glossary,” 1266. 83  Steiner, “Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 320. 84  I wish to record my gratitude to Prof. Steiner, who most kindly responded to my queries (in an email communication from April 6, 2014) and explained his considerations to me.

“ Body Parts ”

a.

149

Internal literary structure and content of the passage: the image of horses walking on the body is twice told in parallel clauses: On my back ʿr̅ t.ḳm.t̅y̅ ‫על תכמתי‬ horses have walked s̅w̅ s̅y̅n̅ .rkẇ ‫‏‬86)‫סוסין אלכו (= הלכו‬ … Horses have walked s̅w̅ s̅y̅n̅ .rkẇ ‫סוסין אלכו (= הלכו)‏‬ ˹on˺ my belly ˹ ʿr̅ ˺ .bt˹.˺nm ‫‏˺על˹ {א}בטנ(י)‏‬

In the second clause,85 the Semitic word is fairly recognizable as bṭn “belly.”86 It is therefore reasonable to assume that, taken together, the two clauses convey the idea that Nanai’s entire body is sodden with venom; one who treads upon her87 absorbs the poison as if he was bitten by her. b.

c.

External literary parallel: The first clause is comparable to a BH passage, which is a poetic depiction of personal suffering: ‫ל־ּג ִּבי ָ ֽח ְר ׁ֣שּו ֽחֹ ְר ִ ׁ֑שים‬ ֭ ַ ‫ַע‬ )‫יתם‬ ֽ ָ ִ‫( ֶ ֝ ֽה ֱא ִ ̇ריכּו למענותם ( ְל ַ ֽמ ֲענ‬Ps 129:3, cf. Steiner’s n. ss), “The plowers plowed on my back; they made their furrows long” (NRSV). Appropriate Northwest Semitic etymology: The word appears to be a full cognate of the aforementioned Ugaritic ṯkm.

The cumulative weight of all these considerations supports the interpretation of the word in its literary context. Obviously, it remains hypothetical in the absence of any additional documentation in other Aramaic texts, at least for the

Following this, he also generously shared with me his decipherment and transcription of the two clauses relevant for our concern and allowed me to quote them in the following discussion. 85  Prof. Steiner notes on this transcription: “less likely: (‫סוסין ארכו (= האריכו‬, on the basis of the parallel in Ps 129:3, ‫ האריכו למעניתם‬,‫[ ”על גבי חרשו חורשים‬Heb., my translation, NM]. 86  Theoretically, one can also identify this word with QH ‫“ בדן‬body” (Mizrahi, “BDN”; compare especially the spelling ‫ אבדני‬in 1QM 5:6). But this noun is unattested in any other Aramaic dialect, whereas ‫ בטן‬is attested already in the Proverbs of Aḫiqar and in other Aramaic documents found in Egypt (Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West Semitic, 1:151). 87  This is an allusion to a previous episode, which depicts the desecration of the goddess’s image (XIII 9–17); see Steiner, “Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 319).

150

Mizrahi

time being.88 All the more so because this explanation depends on etymological interpretation, as the Demotic signs are polyphonic and can be interpreted in more than one way. Nevertheless, the explanation given to tkmh was offered without any recourse to QH ‫תכמים‬. With all due caution, then, one may take it as an independent, even if (for the moment) solitary piece of lexical evidence for the existence of an Aramaic cognate of Ugaritic ṯkm and Hebrew ‫שכם‬. Since the word exhibits the expected sound change (*θ > /t/), it phonologically matches QH ‫תכמים‬, thus suggesting that the latter was indeed borrowed from Aramaic. Semantically, Aramaic tkmh reflects a progressed stage, as it no longer denotes the “shoulder” alone, but rather the entire “back.”89 This sense does not fully match that of QH ‫תכמים‬, but the difference should not be overemphasized. The crucial point for our concern is that the recorded usages of both words represent successive stages along a semantic continuum, leading from “shoulder” as found in BH and Ugaritic, through “upper part” as in Ugaritic or “back (part)” as in Aramaic, to “body part” as in QH. This reconstruction of the semantic development is corroborated by chronological data pertaining to the evidence. The word tkmh is attested in a manuscript usually dated by most scholars to the end of the fourth century bce, i.e., the late Persian or early Hellenistic period.90 Aramaic tkmh “back” thus fits as an intermediate stage between BH ‫“ שכם‬shoulder” and QH ‫“ תכמים‬body parts”—the latter being documented in texts that were indisputably penned in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. This state of affairs not only testifies 88  It is difficult to know why the word is not recorded in other sources, but one should bear in mind that the scope of Aramaic records in times preceding the Persian period is scant. In any case, there are other examples for ancient lexemes that first surface only in late sources. An interesting parallel from a later stage of Aramaic is supplied by the analysis of Joshua Blau and Simon Hopkins, “On Aramaic Vocabulary in Early Judaeo-Arabic Texts Written in Phonetic Spelling,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 32 (2006): 433–71, esp. 459–68, who demonstrate how lexemes originating in colloquial Aramaic are first attested as loanwords in much later, Judeo-Arabic texts (I owe this reference to Prof. Steven Fassberg). 89  For this semantic change, compare the history of Latin spatula “shoulder” in the Romance languages: the old sense is retained in French épaule, but it shifted to “back” in Spanish espalda. 90  Note, however, that Nims and Steiner are of the opinion that the papyrus should be dated much later, in the late second century bce; see Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JAOS 103 (1983): 261–74 at 261.

“ Body Parts ”

151

to the genetic link between the QH and Aramaic forms, but also reveals their diachronic relation to one another. Admittedly, it is difficult to know whether the semantic development was completed already in Aramaic, and the word then borrowed into QH in its latest sense, or whether the word was borrowed while carrying its intermediate sense, and further progressed within Hebrew.91 But regardless of this question, it seems safe to conclude that the QH ‫ תכמים‬indeed originates in an Aramaic loanword. Furthermore, this borrowing led to a doublet in Second Temple Hebrew, the lexis of which also included the inherited form ‫שכם‬.92 4.2.3 Path of Borrowing As mentioned above, body part terminology often consists of primary nouns and unmotivated substantives; as such, they are not easily borrowed from one language to another. In this case, the hypothesis that Hebrew speakers borrowed a form such as ‫ תכם‬from Aramaic requires further substantiation by way of attempting to uncover the possible motivation of such an unusual loan and to trace the path by which it was borrowed. This endeavor necessitates paying closer attention to the literary nature of the contexts in which the word is attested. On the one hand, most of the pertinent passages in the Qumran scrolls (§2) describe how the human body is under attack by various maladies and evil powers. These contexts thus express the hope, expectation or plea to be protected from such ailments, making use of images that correspond, in their formulation and conception, to 91  This consideration comes close to the first of two criteria suggested by Naʾama Pat-El, “Contact or Inheritance? Criteria for Distinguishing Internal and External Change in Genetically Related Languages,” Journal of Language Contact 6 (2013): 313–28, for identifying the source of borrowings between genetically-related languages, in order to distinguish such loans from internal developments within these languages. However, unlike the syntactic case studies analyzed by Pat-El, the semantic shifts discussed here are typologically very common and could thus have taken place, with the same degree of probability, in either Hebrew or Aramaic, or both. This fact obscures the analysis of our case; even if we had more data, it is doubtful if they would have allowed us to fully link successive stages of the semantic change to the gradual unfolding of the borrowing process. 92  It is an established phenomenon that languages may synchronically exhibit a variety of reflexes of the same historical lexeme due to inter-dialectal loans or borrowings from genetically-related languages. A well-known example is furnished by ‫ ס ֵֹכן‬and ‫ ְסגָ ן‬, which were both borrowed from Akkadian into Hebrew but in different periods, and were both adopted alongside the inherited verb ‫ ;שכן‬see Eduard Y. Kutscher, Words and their History (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1961), 108–9 [Hebrew].

152

Mizrahi

demonological descriptions of the human body being possessed by evil spirits. On the other hand, the passage cited above from P. Amherst 63 (§4.2.2) relies on an image of a snakebite and the resulting, unavoidable envenomation. This image finds parallels mostly in incantations and spells against the evil injury caused by snakes or scorpions,93 and it stands to reason that it was borrowed from a literary tradition of this (or a similar) sort. The common denominator of both contexts is their apotropaic nature This conceptual and literary proximity allows one to entertain the possibility that the word ‫ תכמים‬was not borrowed as an isolated lexical item of a general sense, but rather as a technical term integral to the linguistic texture of a broader tradition that branches from magic literature, especially in the forms that were available in the Levant.94 The Qumran passages indeed underscore 93  Many examples for this literary genre can be adduced from Mesopotamian literature. See, e.g., Nathan Wasserman, “Dictionaries and Incantations: Cross-Generic Relations in Old-Babylonian Literature,” in Wool from the Loom: The Development of Literary Genres in Ancient Literature (ed. Nathan Wasserman; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2002), 1–13 [Hebrew] and the magic spells collected in the Sources of Early Akkadian Literature (SEAL) database (http://www.seal.uni-leipzig.de). Examples from Ugarit were published by Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (WAW 10; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 158– 59, 172–84 (with previous literature). Very old serpent spells, from the Pyramid Texts of the mid-third millennium bce, were published by Richard C. Steiner, Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts (HSS 61; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Their language is, for the most part, Egyptian, but they also embed a few passages in a West Semitic dialect, which Steiner identifies as Proto-Canaanite. 94  There is room for suspecting that the apotropaic tradition from which our term was borrowed is indeed rooted in the Levant. One indication is the coupling of terms for “belly” and “back,” as attested by P.Amherst 63, which is semantically comparable to the Akkadian phrase kabattu u ṣēru. This phrase is not common in the Akkadian dialects of Mesopotamia; rather, it is peculiar to the language of the Canaanite scribes responsible for the El-Amarna letters, usually as part of the addressing formula that expresses the subjugation of the Canaanite ruler to his overlord, the Pharaoh; see the references in CAD, Ṣ, 139b. Particularly interesting is EA 232, a letter sent from Acco, because alongside the Akkadian terms it also employs the Canaanite glosses baṭn- “belly” and ṣuhr- “back”; see Anson F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan (HdO 1.25; 4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 3:5. This indication is important because recent studies demonstrate that Aramaic magic (at least of Late Antiquity) inherited Mesopotamian material of a much more limited scope than previously thought; see Nathan Wasserman, “Old-Babylonian, Middle-Babylonian, NeoBabylonian, Jewish-Babylonian? Thoughts about Transmission Modes of Mesopotamian Magic through the Ages,” in Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity (ed. Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda;

“ Body Parts ”

153

time and again that the ‫ תכמים‬are body parts that were afflicted or possessed by evil spirits. As indicated above (§2), they are replete with other terms that similarly denote body parts, and they allude to magical (or magical-like) practices of exorcism, which intend to drive evil spirits out of the human body. A particularly noteworthy passage is no. 3, which employs the term ‫ תכמים‬in direct relation to an image of snakes and their venom:95 ‫ו̊ ̊ד ̊ב[רי] ̇בליעל פתחו | לשון שקר‬ ‫כחמת תנינים פורחת לקצים וכזוחלי‬ ̇ ‫עפר יורו‬ ‫לחתו[ף מבלגית] פתנים לאין‬ ‫חבר ותהי לכאוב אנוש ונגע נמאר‬ ‫בתכמי עבדכה להכשי̊ ̊ל[רוח] ולהתם‬ ‫כוח לבלתי החזק מעמד‬

… and (with) devilish wor[ds] they loosen a lying tongue like the venom of serpents that shoots forth repeatedly, and like creatures that slither in the dust they lie in wait in order to sei[ze] (with) the po[ison of ] vipers for which there is no charm. It has become an incurable pain and a malignant affliction in the bowels of your servant, causing [the spi]rit to stumble and bringing an end to strength, so that he could not stand firm.

Loanwords, especially technical terms and voces magicae, are a typical feature of magic literature as known in a variety of languages from antiquity down to modern times.96 It should be borne in mind that such spells were also Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 255–69, note especially his comments on spells against snakes at 262–63. 95  1QHa 13:28–31 [Suk. 5:26–29 + frg. 29] || 4QHc 2–3. See Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 1:76–77. The English translation is that of Stegemann, Schuller and Newsom, DJD 40: 180, but note the important observations of Menaham Kister, “Three Unknown Hebrew Words in Newly Published Texts from Qumran,” Leš 63 (2001): 35–40 at 37–40 [Hebrew], dealing especially with the word ‫ מבלגית‬or ‫מבלגות‬. 96  Most pertinent, for our concern, is Isaac Gluska, “The Linguistic Field of Mystery in Mishnaic Hebrew,” in Shaʿarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher (ed. Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg and Yohanan Breuer; 3 vols; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008), 2:88–102, who discusses several terms and phrases in MH that were borrowed from Aramaic magic. However, I am unaware of any systematic discussion of the Aramaic influence over Hebrew through the mediation of Aramaic magic. Most scholarly analyses of the contact between languages within the context of magic literature focus on other aspects of the contact situation. For instance,

154

Mizrahi

­ tilized by healers, and within the cultural context of the ancient Near East u (including the Hellenistic and Roman periods), such spells can be regarded as an extension of scientific and medical literature as much as to that of magic. QH indeed knows several other scientific terms that were borrowed from (or via) Aramaic.97 At the same time, one should remember that the transmission and reception of spells and their language are not identical to the textual history of other literary corpora, because various components of magic literature were transmitted in a whole range of independent routes, due to the continuous use of magic recipes by professional magicians over many generations.98 It is thus of much interest to note that the Qumran scrolls supply a direct piece of evidence for the availability of Aramaic medical spells to Jewish scribes. Among the writings unearthed in Qumran there are remains of a collection of Aramaic spells (4Q560). Its state of preservation is very fragmentary, but it evidently contained spells against fever, toothaches and other

attention was given to the adoption of Greek words and magical formulae by Hebrew (and vice versa) in magical texts of Late Antiquity; see, e.g., Gideon Bohak, “Remains of Greek Words and Magical Formulae in Hekhalot Literature,” Kabbalah 6 (2001): 121–34; idem, “Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the Interpretation of Voces Magicae,” in Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, and Brannon Wheeler, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 69–82. Bohak qualifies many exaggerations made in the past, but his main concern is proper nouns and bound formulae, not freely-used lexemes such as the one discussed here. The international horizon of ancient magic and its multi-lingual nature were demonstrated, on the basis of epigraphic finds from Palestine (mostly of the Byzantine period), by Joseph Naveh, On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 154–76 [Hebrew]. The Hebrew language embedded in Babylonian magic bowls was analyzed by Mordechay Mishor, “Hebrew in the Babylonian Incantation Bowls,” in Shaʿarei Lashon, 2:204–27 [Hebrew]. 97  See, for instance, the astrological term ‫מלוש‬, which denotes one of the twelve stellar constellations of the zodiac; see Kister, “Three Unknown Words,” 35–36. 98  For an instructive case of a magic formula attested in Qumran on the one hand and the Cairo Genizah on the other, see Gideon Bohak, “From Qumran to Cairo: The Lives and Times of a Jewish Exorcistic Formula (with an Appendix by Shaul Shaked),” in Ritual Healing: Magic, Ritual and Medical Therapy from Antiquity until the Early Modern Period (ed. Ildikó Csepregi and Charles Burnett; Micrologus’ Library 48; Florence: SISMEL, 2012), 31–52.

“ Body Parts ”

155

afflictions.99 Moreover, while other apotropaic prayers and Hebrew incantations (such as those copied in 4Q444, 4Q510–511, 11Q11) were adapted for use by Jewish magicians and clients by utilizing scriptural passages and Hebrew divine names, no such process of cultural adaptation is reflected in the fragmentary remains of the Aramaic magic book of 4Q560. Although the evidence is badly damaged, it indicates that some of the spells contained in this medical compendium, or at least their literary models, were borrowed from the international world of magic. One may therefore conclude that in the Greco-Roman period, Aramaic spells—probably imported from non-Jewish milieux—were being used in Judah, and specifically at Qumran.100 This conclusion supplies a cultural and historical background for the influence exerted by Aramaic spells on the literary register of contemporaneous Hebrew, at least among scribes who were involved in the textual transmission of magic books, and all the more so if they were actually practicing medical magic. This is a self-subsistent conclusion, which is completely independent of any particular theory concerning the precise historical identification of the Qumran scribes. Yet it is of interest to note that adherents to the consensus view that Qumran was an Essene settlement may add that the Essenes were known in Antiquity as healers and foretellers,101 and that the term Essene itself is most plausibly derived from the Aramaic term ʾassay “healer.”102 Most 99  The subject matter of this text was identified by Joseph Naveh, “Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran,” IEJ 48.3–4 (1998): 252–61. The text was eventually edited by Émile Puech, Qumran Grotte 4. XXVII: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575, 580–582 (DJD 37; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 291–302. He dates the manuscript, on paleographic grounds, to the beginning of the first century bce. 100  For a comprehensive discussion of Jewish magic in the Second Temple period, see Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 70–142 (4Q560 is discussed at 111–12). For the Qumran evidence pertaining to apotropaic prayers and psalms, cf. Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 227–72; Esther Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements, and Avital Pinnick; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 69–88. 101  See, e.g., Josephus, Jewish War 2 (healing), 159 (foretelling), etc. 102  Cf. Geza Vermes, “The Etymology of Essenes,” in idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 8–29, and most recently Bezalel Bar-Kochva, “The Essaioi: A Fiction or Historical Reality?,” Tarbiz 80 (2012): 275–308 at 280–81 [Hebrew], as well as his Appendix II, by A.Yuditzky. The idea that the name is derived from Aramaic ‫“ אסי‬to heal” was first suggested by Gustaf Dalmanin the first edition of his Aramaic grammar (Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894], 128, n. 1), but interestingly enough he deleted this explanation in the second edition, proposing instead

156

Mizrahi

of the literary words that contain the term ‫ תכמים‬are patently sectarian in nature, and if they were indeed composed by the Essenes, it stands to reason that the latter’s professional occupations supply the intermediate link between the tradition of Aramaic spells and their original, Hebrew compositions. Such a hypothesis would also explains the loss of the lexeme ‫ תכמים‬from later Hebrew corpora.103 5 Conclusion According to the historical-linguistic analysis offered above, the word ‫תכמים‬ is etymologically related to BH ‫“ שכם‬shoulder,” and both go back to Northwest Semitic *θikm (or *θakm). Hebrew and Aramaic independently inherited this noun, which underwent the expected sound changes that typify these languages (*θ > /t/ in Aramaic; *θ > /š/ in Hebrew), but eventually the Aramaic cognate was borrowed into Second Temple Hebrew. The semantics of this ancient lexeme have changed in the various languages by mechanisms of well-known types. Originally, the word was a specific, anatomical term denoting the “shoulder,” as remained the case in BH. Its semantic scope was extended—by way of metonymy, which is common in partonomy terms—to denote the entire “back,” as reflected in an Aramaic text of the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. Later on, the lexeme (in its borrowed form) has shifted to denote “body parts” in general, as witnessed by QH, which reflects the Greco-Roman period. This line of development may have continued even further, if one connects to it the interpretation of BH ‫ שכם‬in the abstract sense of “portion” or “part” (not necessarily of the body), in exegetical sources—addressing the ambiguous scriptural passage of Gen 48:22—that are similarly anchored in the Greco-Roman period. If this analysis is correct, it follows that Hebrew retained the form ‫ שכם‬in its original, concrete sense, while in the Second Temple period it borrowed from alternative derivations (Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch: Zweite Auflage, vermehrt und vielfach umgearbeitet [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905], 161, n. 3: ‫חסי‬‎; 419: ‫ ַח ָּׁשא‬or ‫ ַח ָּׁשי‬, “discrete, secretive”). 103  After this paper was submitted, the full text of P. Amherst 63 has finally been released to the scholarly community. See Richard C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: Text, Translation, and Notes”, available in https://www.academia.edu/31662776/The_ Aramaic_Text_in_Demotic_Script_Text_Translation_and_Notes. See now also Karel van der Toorn, Papyrus Amherst 63 (AOAT 448; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2018).

“ Body Parts ”

157

Aramaic—probably by mediation of magical and medical spells—the form ‫תכם‬, in an extended and abstracted sense. Both forms go back to the same historical lexeme, but they coexisted in late literary Hebrew. From an etymological point of view, they can be considered as doublets. In linguistic reality, however, they were differentiated from one another in both phonological form and semantic content, so that speakers probably viewed them as two distinct lexemes.

Chapter 9

Linguistically Significant Variants in Qumran Fragments of Psalms Takamitsu Muraoka With about forty manuscripts, the Book of Psalms is the biblical book which has been preserved with the greatest number among the biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since many of them are fragmentary, the total number of words in them would no doubt fall below that of 1QIsaa. Nonetheless, this impressive number of manuscripts of the book testifies to the interest shown in it by the scribes and their contemporary clients. As far as the canonical parts of the book are concerned, there are no earth-shaking disparities that emerge in comparison with the Masoretic text-form. However, scholars, especially editors of the relevant DJD volumes, have meticulously noted every single variation or variant reading vis-à-vis the MT, and such variants run easily into the hundreds. A small portion of them are patent scribal errors. In this article, I would like to take a look at some of the variants which might tell us something about Hebrew as a parole (i.e., a particularized instantiation of the Hebrew langue) in the Qumran community and adjacent areas of Judaea. Even variants which can be judged, out of text-critical considerations, to be inferior to the corresponding forms in the MT might reveal something of the Hebrew current at that time and place. Fifty-five years after the publication of the now-famous, seminal and solid study by the late E. Y. Kutscher on the variations between 1QIsaa and its MT counterpart, the implications of such variation for Hebrew linguistics have been duly noted by not a few scholars. However, no other single biblical book has been subjected to a systematic investigation as thorough as that made by Kutscher for Isaiah. The Book of Psalms, we believe, deserves such an enquiry, given its size, its genre, and the extent of its preservation among the Qumran fragments.1

1  With the label “Qumran,” we also include documents discovered at locations in the Judaean Desert other than Qumran caves, and dating roughly from the same period.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_010

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

1

159

Orthography, Phonology

The question of plene and defective spelling has drawn much attention from many scholars starting with Martin as early as 1958, even before Kutscher. In the introduction to many manuscripts appearing in the DJD volumes you find something said about this question. I would like to draw attention to one specific orthographic detail. An originally short u immediately followed by a geminated consonant is often spelled plene: Ps 119:37, 40 // 11QPsa VIII, 1, 4; Ps 119:88 // 11QPsa X; Ps 119:107 // 11QPsa XI; Ps 119:156, 159 // 11QPsa XIII ‫( חונני‬MT ‫) ַחּיֵ נִ י‬‎; Ps 119:132 // 11QPsa XII ‫( חונני‬MT ‫) ָחּנֵ נִ י‬‎; Ps 119:64 // 11QPsa IX ‫( חוקכה‬MT ‫) ֻח ֶּקיָך‬‎; Ps 104:24, 27 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( כולם‬MT ‫) ֻּכ ָּלם‬‎, also Ps 102:27 // 11QPsa C II; ‎Ps  147:19 // 11QPsa E iii ‫( חוקיו‬MT ‫ ;) ֻח ָּקיו‬‎Ps  105:4 // 11QPsa E iii; Ps 150:1 // 11QPsa XXVI ‫( עוזו‬MT ֺ ‫ ;) ֻעּזו‬‎‎Ps  12:7 // 11QPsc 4–7 ‫( מזוקק‬MT ‫ ;) ְמזֻ ָּקק‬‎Ps  68:17 // 11Q8 11 ‫( גבנונים‬MT ‫)ּגַ ְבנֻ ּנִ ים‬‎; Ps 119:16 // 4QPsh 1–2 ‫( חוקותיך‬MT ‫) ֻחּק ֶֹתיָך‬‎; Ps 148:10 // 11QPsa II ‫( לאומים‬MT ‫ם‬ ‎ ‫ ;) ְל ֻא ִּמי‬‎Ps  119:16 // 11QPsa IV ‫אלומותו‬ (MT ‫) ֲא ֻלּמ ָֹתיו‬‎; Ps 145:3 // 11QPsa XVI ‫( גדולתו‬MT ֺ ‫)גְ ֻד ָּלתו‬‎, Ps 145:6 // 11QPsa XVI ‫גדו־‬ ָ ְ‫ ;)ג‬‎Ps  139:13 // 11QPsa XX ‫( תסוכני‬MT ‫) ְּת ֻס ֵּכנִ י‬‎, Ps 139:15 // 11QPsa ‫( לותיכה‬MT ‫דּול ְתיָך‬ XX ‫( רוקמתי‬MT ‫) ֻר ַּק ְמ ִּתי‬. ‫ חונני‬occurs as many as six times in Ps 119 for MT ‫ ַחּיֵ נִ י‬, and each time makes good sense in the context meaning: “Be gracious to me,” i.e., ‫חו ֺּנֵ נִ י‬. In the Qumran Psalms fragments, this is the only case where the vowel o followed by gemination is spelled with a waw. Similar examples occur elsewhere, e.g., ‫חוננו‬ Isa 33:2 (MT ‫) ָחּנֵ נּו‬, ‫ו‬‎‫יבוז‬‎ Isa 10:2 (MT ‫)יָ בֹּזּו‬‎. This plene spelling, however, is not a rigid rule; for exceptions, see, e.g., Ps 31:10 in 5/6Hev 1b frg. 13, 4QPsc frg. 15 ‫חנני‬ (MT ‫) ָחּנֵ נִ י‬. This orthographic feature is common to other Dead Sea Scrolls, and already Kutscher listed a number of examples found in 1QIsaa, though he did not mention the phonological condition of gemination.2 It is rather intriguing that the short vowel i under the same morphophonemic conditions is not spelled plene with yod. We also find a morphologically kindred Pual form spelled plene: ‫רוקמתי‬, see above. Thus ‫ ִרּנָ ה‬is consistently spelled defectively: Ps 42:5 // 4QPsu 2; Ps 107:22 // 4QPsf III, 9; Ps 118:15 // 11QPsa XVI, 2; Ps 126:2 // 4QPse 26 i 7; Ps 142:7 // 11QPsa XXV, 3. This is a fairly frequent 2  Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 139f., 145–47. Examples in the MT for the whole of the Hebrew Bible are also listed in Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BO 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 95–98, where no morphophonemic conditioning is mentioned.

160

Muraoka

word in the book, and Kutscher found frequent words that tended to be spelled plene in 1QIsaa.3 The same observation can be made on the dual ‫ ִשּׁנַ יִם‬. Thus ‫ חרקו עלי שנים‬Ps 35:16 // ‎4QPsa 6 III; Ps 33:11 // ‎4QPsq I ‫( לבו‬MT ֺ ‫ ) ִלּבו‬et passim similia. Nor are there any Piel or Hifil verbs in the perfect that have been found to be spelled plene: Ps 119:13 // ‎4QPsh 1–2 ‫( שפרתי‬MT ‫ ;) ִס ַּפ ְר ִּתי‬‎Ps  107:3 // ‎4QPsf I ‫( קבצם‬MT ‫;) ִק ְּב ָצם‬‎ Ps 116:2 /‎ / 4QPse 13 ‫( הטה‬MT ‫) ִה ָּטה‬. 2

Against Economical Spelling

A consonantal waw followed by a vowel u or o tends to be spelled with a double waw, so that one letter is not allowed to represent simultaneously the consonantal phoneme /w/ and the vowel phoneme, /u/ or /o/. This is contrary to what we normally find in the MT throughout the Hebrew Bible.4 Ps 119:6 // 11QPsa VI; Ps 119:19, 21 // 11QPsa VII ‫( מצוותיכה‬MT ‫ֹותיָך‬ ֶ ‫) ִמ ְצ‬‎‎, likewise Ps 119:60, 66 // 11QPsa IX; Ps 119:86 // 11QPsa X; Ps 119:131 // 11QPsa XII; Ps 119:151 // 11QPsa XIII; Ps 119:172 // 11QPsa XIV; Ps 119:22, 24 // 11QPsa VII ‫( עדוותיכה‬MT ‫) ֵעד ֶֹתיָך‬‎, likewise Ps 119:46 // 11QPsa VIII; Ps 119:59 // 11QPsa IX; Ps 119:95 // 11QPsa X; Ps 119:119 // 11QPsa XI; Ps 119:129, 138 // 11QPsa XII; Ps 119:157 // 11QPsa XIII; Ps 119:111 // 11QPsa XI ‫( עדוותיכה‬MT ‫) ֵע ְדו ֶֺתיָך‬‎; Ps 119:172 // 11QPsa XIV ‫עדוותיכה‬ (MT ‫ ;) ִמ ְצו ֶֺתיָך‬Ps 119:88 // 11QPsa X ‫( עדוות‬MT ‫ת‬ ‎ ‫;) ֵעדּו‬‎5‎‎‎ Ps 119:92 // 11QPsa X ‫עווני‬ (MT ‫) ָענְ יִ י‬ Where the plural of ‫ ֵעדּות‬is spelled with a double waw, the copyist is indicating his selection of the allomorphic form ‫ ֵע ְדוֹות‬, and not ‫ ֵעדו ֺת‬. On the other hand, ‫ עווני‬must indicate ‫ ֲעֹונִ י‬or ‫ ֲעֹונַ י‬. We do not find relevant data in any of the Psalms fragments which could enable us to see whether there is a resistance to a spelling such as ‫ ישתחו‬for ‫ יִ ְשׁ ַּת ֲחוּו‬at Gen 43:28, whereas 1QIsaa 27:13 writes ‫השתחו‬‎as well as ‫השתחוו‬‎ in 1QIsaa 36:7. In the Psalms scrolls, the plural of ‫ ַחי‬is always spelled with a double yod, just as in MT.

3  Kutscher, Language, 143. 4  Cf. Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (3rd ed.; SB 27; Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2006), § 7c. Sarfatti thinks that an aesthetic consideration is at work here. See Gad B. Sarfatti, “The Origin of Vowel Letters in West-Semitic Writing—A Tentative Recapitulation,” Lĕšonénu 58 (1994): 13–24, esp. 23 [Hebrew]. 5  Cf. LXX τὰ μαρτύρια.

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

161

3 Are ‫“ עינו‬His Eye” and ‫“ עיניו‬His Eyes” Pronounced the Same? As a result of contraction of the diphthong aw, Qimron holds that not only was the orthographical distinction often abandoned, but also that the two forms “were pronounced alike (ō or ū).”6 He goes on to say, “Only this assumption can explain such awkward spellings as ‫ברואשיו‬‎ 1QIsaa 59:17, which is formally and contextually singular …” The same phenomenon is found in the Samaritan oral tradition, for example, debaro = “his words” and debaru = “his word.” How were readers of a Hebrew manuscript originating in Qumran supposed to understand a sentence such as ‫ ?וישא את עינו וירא והנה גמלים רובצים‬But is it at all conceivable that the scribe of 4QPsq may have worried about the possibility that a reader of his manuscript might think ‫ אלהו‬at Ps 33:12 (‫ַא ְׁש ֵרי ַהּגֹוי ֲא ֶׁשר־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫ ) ֱא‬means “his gods”? Qimron justly credits Ben-Ηayyim with this assumption.7 Ben-Hayyim, however, is precise, as Qimron quotes, Samaritan Hebrew makes a phonemic distinction between the two vowels u and o solely in the case of the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix, namely u with singular nouns and o with plural nouns. Hence īnu ‘his eye’ vs. īno ‘his eyes.’ Samaritans are theologically sensitive, so that ‘his god’ is ēluwiyyu in spite of the corresponding Hebrew form ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫ ֱא‬.8 If these spelling irregularities and fluctuations resulted from the assumed contraction of the diphthong aw, should we perhaps assume that both “his eye” and “his eyes” were pronounced /ʿēnō/, and not /ʿēnū/? It would follow then that in terms of ambiguity the suffix morpheme for 3ms joined that for 1pl, for / ʿēnēnū/ in Tiberian Hebrew can mean either “our eye” or “our eyes.” Here, then, Qumran Hebrew went a step farther than Standard Hebrew. We have the same neutralisation in the Tiberian tradition of Biblical Aramaic for 2ms, 3fs, and 1pl. Any language suffers occasional ambiguities.

6  Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), § 200.18 (p. 33). 7  Ibid, 33, n. 35, where Yalon is also mentioned. However, Yalon recognised the orthographical neutralisation, but did not draw any phonological conclusion therefrom; see Henoch Yalon, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Philological Essays (1949–1952) (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967) [Hebrew]; Yalon had originally published this analysis in a 1951 article. 8  Zeev Ben-Ηayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem / Winona Lake, Ind.: Magnes Press / Eisenbrauns, 2000), 229.

162

Muraoka

Some relevant examples include: Ps 107:15 // 4QPsf II ‫ו =( חסידו‬‎‫( ) ֲח ִס ָידי‬MT ֺ ‫) ַח ְסּדו‬‎;9 Ps 107:24 // 4QPsf III ‫( נפלאו̊ תו‬MT ‫ ;)נִ ְפ ְלאו ָֺתיו‬Ps 104:4 // 4QPsl I ‫מלאכו‬ (MT ‫) ַמ ְל ָא ָכיו‬‎;10 Ps 33:12 // 4QPsq I ‫“ אלהו‬his god,” where the ending /-ho/ is highly unlikely; Ps 112:1 // 4QPsw 1–2 ‫( מצותו‬MT ‫) ִמ ְצו ָֺתיו‬‎, Ps 112:5 ‫ברו‬ ̊ ‫( ̊ד‬MT ‫) ְּד ָב ָריו‬‎; Ps 126:6 // 11QPsa IV ‫( אלומותו‬MT ‫ ;) ֲא ֻלּמ ָֹתיו‬Ps 89:23 // 4QPsg ‫( על‬MT ‫) ַעוְ ָלה‬. If this reading is correct, we may have here another example of this diphthong contraction representing ‫ ָעוֶ ל‬‎ > ‫עֹל‬, though it is striking, occurring in the nomen rectum in the construct phrase ‫בן על‬. This is also in respectable company: cf. always ‫יו ֺם‬, whether in absolute or construct state. 4

Modernisation and away with Archaism?

a) Some variants seem to attest to a tendency to modernise and move away from archaic or poetic diction. Ps 104:11 // 4QPsd III ‫( חיות‬MT ֺ ‫ || ) ַחיְתו‬Ps 104:20 // ‎4QPse 15–16 1 ‫יער[ויער‬, which has a different scribe than 4QPsd; ‫ חיות‬in 4QPsd probably represents ‫ ַחּיו ֺת‬.11 Ps 104:23 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( עד‬MT ‫ ) ֲע ֵדי‬Ps 12:8 // 11QPsc 4–7 ‫( הדורזה‬MT ‫;) ַהּדו ֺרזּו‬ Ps 17:9 // 11QPsc 8 ‫( מפני רשעים זה דרש[וני‬MT ‫) ִמ ְּפנֵ י ְר ָשׁ ִעים זּו ַשּׁדּונִ י‬, cf. ‎‫עם זה יצרתי‬ ‫לי‬‎ 1QIsaa 43:21 (MT ‫)עם זּו יצרתי לי‬‎, ‫הלוא יהוה זה חטאנו לו‬‎ 1QIsaa 42:24, 4Q61 1 (MT ‫)הלוא יהוה זּו חטאנו לו‬. Ps 95:4 // 4QPsm 3–4 ‫( יבשה‬MT ‫) ֶיַּב ֶשׁת‬. The MT form occurs in BH here and at Exod 4:9 only, at which latter place both forms are used as complete synonyms. Elsewhere ‫ ָיַּב ָשׁה‬, and where the passages concerned are preserved among DSS scrolls, it is never replaced by ‫יבשת‬. In BH these lexemes neither occur in the plural, nor attached with a possessive suffix. In non-biblical QH documents ‫ יבשה‬occurs five times, but never ‫יבשת‬. In the eyes of our scribe ‫ יבשת‬may have also smacked of an Aramaism. b) Admittedly the use of yiqtlun is conditioned by more than one factor, but antiquity is one such important factor.12 Our scribes, however, are not consistent.

9  See Syr. zaddiqaw(hy). 10   Pace the editors of the manuscript in Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 129, it is hardly a variant reading in view of the matching plural, ‫רוחות‬. Nor is the following ‫משירתו‬, which must be an error for MT ‫ ְמ ָשׂ ְר ָתיו‬. Otherwise, what lexeme lies behind ‫?משירתו‬ 11  So Dr Ada Yardeni (private communication). 12  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, §44e.

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

163

Ps 104:27 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( ישברו‬MT ‫ )יְ ַשׂ ֵּברּון‬in spite of the affinity with the Aramaic morphology, and inconsistent vis-à-vis ‫( יאספון‬Ps 104:22) and ‫יהלכון‬ (Ps 104:26); Ps 104:28 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( ישבעו‬MT ‫ ;)יִ ְשׂ ְבעּון‬Ps 104:29 ‫( יגועו‬MT ‫)יִ גְ וָ עּון‬, Ps 104:29 ‫( ישובו‬MT ‫ || )יְ שּׁובּון‬Ps 104:30 ‫( יבראון‬MT ‫ ;) ָיִּב ֵראּון‬‎Ps 104:22 // 4QPsd IV ‫יאספו‬, ‫ו‬‎ ‫( ירבצ‬MT ‫יֵ ָא ֵספּון‬, ‎‫)יִ ְר ָּבצּון‬ c) In some places the archaic preterite yaqtul is converted to the standard syntagm way-yiqtol. Ps 104:22 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( תזרח השמש ויאספון‬MT ‫) ִּתזְ ַרח ַה ֶּשׁ ֶמשׁ יֵ ָא ֵספּון‬, cf. LXX ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος καὶ συνήχθησαν and Ps 104:20 ‫ > ָּת ֶשׁת־ח ֶֹשְׁך וִ ִיהי ָליְ ָלה‬ἔθουσκότος, καὶ ἐγένετονύξ. Ps 18:17 // 11QPsc 9 ‫( ויקחני‬MT ‫)יִ ָּק ֵחנִ י‬, following ‫( יִ ְשׁ ַלח‬nothing preserved of the frag.),13 where the context clearly indicates preterite interpretation. d) In one case we may recognise a yet further advanced modernisation, namely wayyiqtol > w-qatálti. Ps 33:9 // 4QPsq I ‫( והיה‬MT ‫)וַ יְ ִהי‬, following ‫ ָא ַמר‬as restored as in the MT. If the scribe were consistent, one should restore, pace the editors (DJD XVI, 147), ‫( ועמד‬MT ‫) ִצּוָ ה וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד‬. Unfortunately the second clause is not preserved in our manuscript. e) Asyndetic relative clause > syndetic—Ps 125:1 // 11QPsa IV ‫( שלוא‬MT ‫ר־צּיו ֺן‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ַה‬ ‫)לֹא־יִּמו ֺט‬. f ) Archaic adverbial, pseudo-fem. sg. cst. morpheme unrecognised.14 Ps 129:2 // 11QPsa V ‫( רבות‬MT ‫ ) ַר ַּבת ְצ ָררּונִ י‬‎“they brought much distress on me.” The morpheme is sometimes said to be an Aramaism and reference is made to a form such as Syr. /rabbat/.15 However, this is a relic of the adverbial use of the feminine status absolutus form.16 This ‫ רבת‬occurs also at Ps 65:10, 120:6, 123:4, and possibly 2 Chr 30:17, of which 4QPse has preserved the same form.17 One 13  Cf. LXX ἐξαπέστειλεν … καὶ ἔλαβέν με. 14  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 109c. 15  As early as Wilhelm Gesenius and Frants Buhl, Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch über das Alte Testament (Berlin, etc.: Springer, 1915), s.v. ‫ ַּרב‬, ‎739b–740a. 16  See Takamitsu Muraoka, Classical Syriac for Hebraists (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987, 2013), § 60, and Takamitsu Muraoka, Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), § 71f. 17  The LXX renders it πλεονάκις at Ps 128:1–2, which Jerome follows with his saepe, whereas at Ps 122:4 we find ἐπὶ πλεῖον “over a long time” and πολλά “to a great extent” at Ps 119:6.

164

Muraoka

could, of course, argue that at Ps 129:2 the scribe possibly read ‫ רבת‬as a defective spelling for ‫רבות‬. g) Paragogic /-i:/ elided Ps 123:1 // 11QPsa III ‫( היושב‬MT ‫) ַהּי ְֹשׁ ִבי‬18 h) Infinitive absolute In LBH, the infinitive absolute was in decline, and was totally abandoned in Mishnaic Hebrew. The following examples are probably symptomatic in this respect: Ps 35:16 // 4QPsa 6 ‫חרקו‬‎ (MT ‫) ָחר ֹק‬‎19 Ps 132:16 // 11QPsa VI ‫( ירננו‬MT ‫) ַרּנֵ ן יְ ַרּנֵ נּו‬ 5 Purism i) An Aramaising 2fs possessive suffix ‫ כי‬is replaced with ‫ך‬.20 Ps 103:3 // 4QPsb XXII ‫עונך‬‎ (MT ‫ ;) ֲעו ֺנֵ ִכי‬‎Ps 103:3 // 4QPsb XXII ‫תחלואיך‬‎ (MT ‫לּואיְ ִכי‬ ָ ‫ ;) ַּת ֲח‬‎Ps 103:4 // 4QPsb XXIII ‫חייך‬‎ (MT ‫) ַחּיָ יְ ִכי‬‎; Ps 103:4 // 4QPsb XXIII ‫המע־‬ ‫טרך‬‎ (MT ‫ ַה ְמ ַע ְט ֵר ִכי‬‎), but MT followed by ‫; ֵע ְדיֵ ְך‬‎ Ps 103:5 // 4QPsb XXIII ‫נעוריך‬‎ (MT ‫עּוריְ ִכי‬ ָ ְ‫)נ‬. The Aramaising morpheme, however, is retained in Ps 116:19 // 4QPsb XXXIII ‫]בתוכ]כי‬‎ (MT ‫) ְּבתו ֵֺכ ִכי‬‎. No other example from the OT where this morpheme occurs has been preserved among the Qumran fragments.21 Ps 89:20 // 4QPsq ‫( שת‬MT ‫ת ;) ִשּׁוִ ִיתי‬ ‎ ‫ש‬, an error for ‫ =( שתי‬‎‫ ?) ַשׁ ִּתי‬In BH Piel ‫ִשּׁוָ ה‬ as a synonym of Qal ‫ ָשׂם‬and ‫ ָשׁת‬is attested only two other times, and only in poetry: Ps 16:8, 18:34 (= 2 Sam 22:34). This rare verb is a typically Aramaic lexeme, Saadiah renders with ṭaːlama: “frequently” at Ps 65:10, 120:6, 123:4, whilst at Ps 129:1, 2 he renders it with /katiːru/ “many.” 18  In some cases the archaic /-iː/ has been deleted in the Qere as in ‫יושבתי‬‎ > ‫ י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬Jer 10:17. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 93o. 19  The scribe may be correcting what he thought to be an incongruent pf 3ms. 20  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 94h. According to Rendsburg, the long suffix is a geographical allomorph typical of Northern Hebrew. See Gary Rendsburg, “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 65–88, esp. 72. 21  According to Qimron (Hebrew, § 322.12) this morpheme is attested “in the biblical and apocryphal texts,” though I do not know to which apocryphal texts he is referring. BenHayyim says (Grammar, 229) that the usual 2fs ending is ək or īk (the latter after a guttural), and notes that at Gen 21:17 we find līki for MT ‫ ָלְך‬. This appears to be an isolated case, the normal form being lek, e.g. Gen 20:16.

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

165

very common in that language. Unless one posits secondary, late Aramaisms in these passages,22 one may identify a purist scribe at work. Non-biblical documents do not attest to this rare verb. ii) ‫ את‬vs. Aramaising -‫ל‬ Ps 135:11 // 4QPsk I ‫( את סיחון‬MT ‫צּומים ְל ִסיחו ֺן‬ ִ ‫) ָה ַרג ְמ ָל ִכים ֲע‬, probably governed by ‫( ָה ַרג‬vs. 10).23 Ps 135:3 // 11QPsa XIV ‫( זמרו שמו‬MT ֺ ‫)זַ ְּמרּו ִל ְשׁמו‬, cf. ‫ ֲאזַ ְּמ ָרה ֵׁשם־יְ הוָ ה‬Ps 7:18, ‫ ֲאזַ ְּמ ָרה ִׁש ְמָך‬‎ Ps 9:3, etc.; -‫ ל‬c. dei very often, but never c. rei. If the scribe’s Vorlage read like MT, he may have seen there an Aramaism and “corrected” it. But in Ps 104:25 // 11QPsa E ii ‫( שמה רמש הרבה ואין למספר חיות קטנ[ות‬MT ‫ָשׁם‬ ‫) ֶר ֶמשׂ וְ ֵאין ִמ ְס ָּפר‬. ‫ר‬‎ ‫ למספ‬may represent an Aramaic Peal infinitive, though the verb root does not mean “to count,” hence a pseudo-Aramaism: “it is not possible to count …”. 6

Stem Vowel Retained

In Ps 38:22 // 4QPsa 9 II ‫( תעזובני‬MT ‫י‬‎ִ‫) ַּת ַעזְ ֵבנ‬, we encounter a striking departure from the Tiberian BH verb morphology, in which the phonemically short stem vowels o and i are systematically deleted when an object pronominal suffix is attached to the verb and the final, third root consonant is followed by a vowel; thus in unstressed, open syllables. Hence ‫י‬‎ ִ‫ יִ ְק ְט ֵלנ‬as against ‫יִ ְק ָט ְלָך‬.‎‎24 This anomalous morphophonemic feature is attested in QH quite frequently, in biblical texts and non-biblical texts alike, e.g., ‫וילכודה‬‎ 1QIsaa 20:1 (MT ‫)וַ ּיִ ְל ְּכ ָדּה‬ and ‫אזכורך‬‎ 11QPsa 22:12 (the suffix is fs, referring to Zion).25 This may be a false analogy of the yiqtal pattern as in ֺ ‫ ִּת ְמ ָל ֵאמו‬Exod 15:9,‫ וַ ּיִ ְל ָּב ֵשׁנִ י‬Job 29:14, and not *‫וַ ּיִ ְל ְּב ֵשׁנִ י‬. Note also ָ‫ יִ ְשׂנָ ֶאּךָ … יֶ ֱא ָה ֶבּך‬‎ Prov 9:8. Another possible analysis is that the simplest, bare imperfect Qal form with no pronominal suffix directly attached (i.e., yiqtol) was perceived as the unchangeable base, to which suffixes were attached. That not every historically attested form is accountable by applying to a proto-form a morphophonemic rule or a set of such rules is shown by, for instance, Syriac pf. Peal 2ms or 2fs /qa:mt/ when one would expect the short 22  No Qumran fragment is preserved for 2 Sam 22:34. 23  The editors of the fragment (DJD 16, 124) restore ‫ ולעוג‬as the second direct object in the following line, when it would be more sensible to restore ‫ואת עוג‬. 24  See Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 61e. The vowel a is not subject to this rule, so ‫יִ ְשׁ ָמ ֵענִ י‬. 25  This question has been extensively discussed in the past, cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 63b with n. 3 there.

166

Muraoka

/a/; the 3ms /qa:m/ was apparently perceived as the basis, to which personal endings were attached irrespective of the phonological parameters of syllable structure (open or closed) and stress. Thus our form spelled ‫ תעזובני‬may have been articulated as /taʿazobénī/, as argued by Qimron,26 or /taʿzōbénī/. This process is already attested in the Tiberian Hebrew in fairly frequent forms such as ‫ יִ לקֹטּון‬Ps 104:28, ‫ ִּת ְד ָּבקּון‬Deut 13:5, ‫ יְ ַל ֵּמדּון‬Deut 4:10, alongside ‫ ֵּת ְד ִעין‬Ruth 3:18 in lieu of ‫ ֵּת ָד ִעין‬. Note especially ‫ יֶ ְה ָּד ֶפּנּו‬Num 35:20 and ‫יִ ּגָ ֶפּנּו‬‎ 1 Sam 6:10. In other words, a form such as ֺ ‫ ִּת ְמ ָל ֵאמו‬did not result from the application of the vowel deletion rule to the entire complex. I do not know, however, why this suspension of the vowel deletion rule was not equally applied to suffixed forms of the yiqtal and yiqtil patterns as well. Ps 139:9 // 11QPsa XX ‫( אשכונה‬MT ‫) ֶא ְשׁ ְּכנָ ה‬‎in context; Ps 119:115 // 11QPsa XI ‫( אצורה‬MT ‫ ) ֶא ְּצ ָרה‬in context; Ps 119:44 // 11QPsa VIII; Ps 119:88 // 11QPsa X; Ps 119:134 // 11QPsa XII ‫( אשמורה‬MT ‫) ֶא ְשׁ ְמ ָרה‬, in context. Also of the qatal form—Ps 129:2 //11QPsa V ‫( יכולו‬MT ‫)יָ ְכלּו‬, in context. Another attestation of the form at Exod 8:14 is spelled defectiva in 4QpaleoExodm ‫י]כלו‬ as in MT; Ps 141:9 // 11QPsa XXIII ‫( יקושו‬MT ‫)יָ ְקשּׁו‬, in context. Qal impv. Ps 141:9 // 11QPsa XXIII ‫( שמורני‬MT ‫) ָשׁ ְמ ֵרנִ י‬, cf. Ps 140:5 // 11QPsa XXVII ‫( שומרני‬MT ‫) ָשׁ ְמ ֵרנִ י‬. Note pausal forms in context—Ps 118:27 // 11Q5 E i ‫( אסורו‬MT ‫) ִא ְסרּו‬‎27 and Ps 105:4 // 11QPsa E iii ‫( דרושו‬MT ‫ ;) ִּד ְרשּׁו‬‎Ps 105:25 // 11QPsa I ‫( ישמורו‬MT ‫)יִ ְשׁ ְמרּו‬‎ and Ps 141:10 // 11QPsa XXIII ‫( יפולו‬MT ‫)יִ ְּפלּו‬, but in pausal form—Ps 126:5 // 11QPsa IV ‫( יקצורו‬MT ‫)יִ קצֹרּו‬. 7

aqtul > aqtla

a) Ps 18:4 // 11QPsc 8 ‫( אקראה‬MT ‫) ֶא ְק ָרא‬‎; Ps 132:16 // 11QPsa VI ‫‏[אלבי]שה‬‎‎ (MT ‫ ;) ַא ְל ִּבישׁ‬Ps 119:47 // 11QPsa VIII ‫( ואשתעשעה‬MT ‫ ;)וְ ֶא ְשׁ ַּת ֲע ַשׁע‬Ps 119:69 // 11QPsa IX ‫( אצורה‬MT ‫ ;) ֶאּצֹר‬Ps 139:9 // 11QPsa XX ‫( אשאה‬MT ‫ ;) ֶא ָּשׂא‬Ps 143:5 // 11QPsa XXV ‫( אשיחה‬MT ‫) ֲאשׂו ֵֺח ַח‬ According to Qimron, QH shows a complementary distribution, namely the long form is attached to the waw, consecutive or conjunctive.28 The sole long form here prefixed with the conjunction is Ps 119:47 ‫ואשתעשעה‬, preceded by three verses, all beginning with w-aqtla:, and it may have also been followed by such in view of LXX καὶ ἦρα … καὶ ἠδολέσχουν for MT ‎‫וְ ֶא ָּשׂא … וְ ָא ִשׂ ָיחה‬, though 26  Qimron, Language, 51. 27  D JD 23, 31, ‫ אסורי‬unlikely, followed by ‫חג‬. 28  Qimron, Language, § 310.122.

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

167

11QPsa VIII here = MT. Qimron’s subsequent position is that the modally marked forms are used clause-initially, whether with or without waw.29 Bergsträsser holds that initially the consecutive imperfect was uniformly short, also in the 1sg, and identical with the jussive form.30 This identity between the preterite short form and the jussive led to the gradual use of the 1sg voluntary form, namely, the cohortative as a consecutive form. This further led to a general increase in the use of the cohortative. This is shown in the five cases above where the long form replaces the short one in the MT. According to Fassberg, long forms, also in pronouns, were preferred in QH as being more sonorous and better suited for formal recitation.31 It appears that our fragments testify to the last glow of the classical system before the cohortative, jussive, and consecutive, short yaqtul almost totally disappear as shown in Mishnaic Hebrew. But there are also found some cases pointing to the opposite process. aqtla: > aqtul Ps 50:21 // 4QPsc 15–16 ‫ואערך‬‎ (MT ‫)וְ ֶא ֶע ְר ָכה‬‎; Ps 119:15 // 4QPsh 1–2; Ps 145:5 // 11QPsa XVI ‫( אשיח‬MT ‫) ָא ִשׂ ָיחה‬‎; Ps 119:18 // 4QPsh 1–2 ‫( אביט‬MT ‫)וְ ַא ִּב ָיטה‬ Note also that the imperative with a paragogic -ā occurs twice, whilst the reverse alteration is attested once: Ps 119:49 // 11QPsa VIII ‫( זכורה‬MT ‫)זְ כֹר‬, also with a stem vowel Ps 143:1 // 11QPsa XXV ‫( שמעה‬MT ‫) ְשׁ ַמע‬ Ps 142:8 // 11QPsa XXV ‫( הוצא‬MT ‫)הו ִֺצ ָיאה‬ b) paragogic /-aː/ This preference for a longer allomorph extends to other parts of speech, such as adverbs.32 29  Elisha Qimron, “A New Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect without Personal Endings,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 174–81, esp. 181. Cf. also Moshe Florentin, “The Distribution of Short and Long Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” Lĕšonénu 63 (2000): 9–18 [Hebrew]. 30  Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, II (Teil: Verbum; Leipzig: J. C.Hinrichs, 1929), § 5 d (pp. 21f.). 31   Stephen E. Fassberg, “The Preference for Lengthened Forms in Qumran Hebrew,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (2003): 227–40, esp. 231f. The question of sonority is tricky. It presupposes that texts were “read” aloud. Were all these Qumran texts meant to be read aloud? Moreover, the use of the cohortative instead of the expected jussive is known to be typical of LBH, thus not the Pentateuch read aloud in synagogue services. 32  Cf. Fassberg, “The Preference for Lengthened Forms,” 232, n. 28.

168

Muraoka

Ps 104:1 // 11QPsa E i ‫( מאודה‬MT ‫) ְמאֹד‬, also Ps 6:4 // 11QPsd 1; Ps 119:4 // 11QPsa III; Ps 142:7 // 11QPsa XXV ‫( מואדה‬MT ‫) ְמאֹד‬‎; ‎Ps  104:25 // 11QPsa E ii ‫שמה‬ (MT ‫)שם‬‎,33 but Ps 122:5 // 4Q522 (Prophecy of Joshua) 22–25 ‫( שם‬MT ‫) ָשׁ ָּמה‬ Ps 69:18 // 4QPsa 19–20 III ‫]מה]רה‬‎ ‫ ̊רה‬‎ (MT ‫) ַמ ֵהר‬. The long form, ‫ ְמ ֵה ָרה‬, is usually regarded to be a feminine noun stressed on the ultima. It is, however, mostly used as an adverb meaning “speedily.” The ending may have been originally paragogic and unstressed. 8

Verbal Rection

a) In Ps 36:5 // 4QPsa 4 II ‫יתיעץ כל דרך ל‬‎[‫( וא טוב‬MT ‎‫) ְיִתיַ ֵּצב ַעל ֶּד ֶרְך לֹא טוֺב‬, we have an unusual construction. The verb root √‫ יעץ‬in Qal takes a direct object of impersonal referent, e.g., ‫יָ ַעץ ָע ֶליָך ֲא ָרם ָר ָעה‬‎ Isa 7:5. In Hitpael, apparently with reciprocal value, the verb occurs only once in BH: ‫ל־צפּונֶ יָך‬ ְ ‫יִתיָ ֲעצּו ַע‬ ְ “they conspire against your protected ones” Ps 83:4. Likewise a QH example: ‫מתיעצים עלי‬ “they are conspiring against me” 4Q381 45 a+b, 5. Thus the 4Q reading looks like a scribal error. Ps 119:110 // 11QPsa XI ‫( אני פקודיכה לוא תעיתי‬MT ‫ּקּודיָך לא ָת ִע ִיתי‬ ֶ ‫ּומ ִפ‬ ִ ). The verb, when used in the sense of religious apostasy, always takes an ablative adjunct: ‫ ִמן‬like here and Prov 21:16, ‫ ֵמ ַא ֲח ַרי‬Ezek 14:11, ‫ ֵמ ָע ַלי‬Ezek 44:10, 15. The scribe may have accidentally dropped the proclitic preposition -‫מ‬. Otherwise, the verb was mistaken for Aramaic ‫ טעה‬in the sense of “to forget,” cf. ‫תורתכה לֹא שכחתי‬ one line above. b) Nota objecti added Ps 94:14 // 4QPsb VII Frgs. 7, col. ii, 8, col. ii, 9 col. ii, 10 ‫( את עמו‬MT ֺ ‎‫;) ַעּמו‬ ‎Ps 103:20 // 4QPsb XXV ‫ברכו את יהוה‬‎ (MT ‫) ָּב ֲרכּו יהוה‬, but in vs. 21 absent (= MT); Ps 135:3 // 11QPsa XIV ‫( הללו את יהוה‬MT ‫) ַה ְללּו־יָ ּה‬ Ps 145:21 // 11QPsa XVII ‫( ויברך כול בשר את שם קודשו‬MT ‫ל־ּב ָשׂר ֵשׁם ָק ְדשׁ‬ ָ ‫וִ ָיב ֵרְך ָּכ‬ ‫)ו ֺ ְלעו ָֺלם וָ ֶעד‬ However, ‫ את‬can be deleted as against MT: Ps 148:1 // 11QPsa II ‫( יהוה‬MT ‫ ;) ַה ְללּו ֶאת־יהוה‬the deletion does meet one of the conditions applicable to MH (‫—)הללו יהוה משמים‬when the verb has an additional complement following,34‎likewise at Ps 145:21, for our fragment lacks the ending of MT—‫לעולם ועד‬. 33  But see ‫ שם‬in next verse (= MT), a frequent inconsistency in 11QPsa as noted in DJD 23, 34. 34  See Moshe Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language and University of Haifa, 1995), § 2.2.1, 1 ‫[ ג‬Hebrew].

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

169

The object marker can be deleted from a second co-ordinate term, as at Ps 136:7 // 11QPsa XV ‫( את השמש וירח‬MT ‫הּשׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ֶ ‫)את‬‎;35 the double objects were perceived as a sort of hendiadys. See elsewhere on the omission of the article from a second, syndetically-added substantive. Chr/Isa: + nota obj. 1 Chr 16:24, 33 2 Chr 1:11 2 Chr 3:3 Isa 36:14 Isa 37:2

Source: - nota obj. Chr/Isa: - nota obj. Source: + Ps 96:3, 13 2 Chr 31:1bis 2 Kgs 18:4 1 Kgs 3:11 1 Kgs 6:2 2 Kgs 18:28 Isa 36:15 2 Kgs 18:3036 2 Kgs 19:2

We see that,36 with the exceptions of 2 Chr 31:1 ad Isa 36:15, the particle is absent as against its source. 9 Binyanim There are some noteworthy alternations of binyanim. Ps 38:21 // 4QPsa 9 II ‫( משלימי רעה תחת טובה‬MT ‫מ ַשׁ ְּל ֵמי ָר ָעה ַּת ַחת טו ָֺבה‬‎ ְ ). Since Hifil ‫ ִה ְשׁ ִלים‬is not known to mean “to recompense, requite,” we probably have here a scribal error. The use of yod to represent a “vocal” shewa is unlikely.37 An alternative analysis could be to see in the yod of ‫ משלימי‬a paragogic ending typical of poetry as in ‫“ עֹזְ ִבי ַהּצֹאן‬the forsaker of the flock” Zech 11:17.38 Then the following verb ‫ ישסני‬in lieu of MT ‫ יִ ְשׂ ְטנּונִ י‬would be non-problematic in terms of congruence, possibly to be vocalised as ‫“ יְ ֻשׁ ֶסּנִ י‬he will plunder me” or the like from √‎‫שׁסס‬, or ‫ יִ ְשׁ ֶסּנִ י‬from a homonymous √‫שׁסי‬. Nonetheless, the singular verb following the plural ‫ עצמו‬is odd. If the consonants have correctly come down, one could postulate a defectively spelled plural form, ‎‫ יְ ֻשׁ ֻּסנִ י‬or ‫יִ ְשׁ ֻסנִ י‬. And yet 35  The text of the fragment is expansive here: ‫לעושה מאורות גדולים כי לעולם חסדו את‬ ‫השמש וירח כי לעולם חסדו את השמש לממשלות יום כי לעולם חסדו ירח וכוכבים לממשלות‬ ‫ ;בלילה‬the underlined part is a plus as against MT. In v. 9, the MT also does not repeat ‫את‬: ‎‫את הירח וכוכבים‬. 36  M T ‫ת־ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת‬ ָ ‫ לֹא ִתּנָ ֵתן ֶא‬is syntactically anomalous. 37  The editors (DJD 16, 16) note that part of the LXX tradition reads οἱ ἀνταποδιδόντες μοι, but the pronoun is most likely a free, idiomatic plus, not representing ‫ ְמ ַשׁ ְּל ַמי‬. This Hebrew verb governs an indirect object and a direct object, and when the former is of a person to be expressed pronominally, it is unlikely to be directly attached to the verb; *‫ נ ְֹתנִ י ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬is rather unlikely in the sense of “he who gives me the land.” 38  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Hebrew Grammar, § 93n.

170

Muraoka

the notion of plundering does not fit the context particularly well. After all, one might have to follow the MT and postulate a scribal error in 4QPsa. G vs. D stem: Ps 144:3 // 11QPsa XXIII ‫( ותחושבהו‬MT ‫)וַ ְּת ַח ְשׁ ֵּבהּו‬. Piel “to give thought to, consider, ponder, take note of” fits the context better. Ingressive Hifil > Qal39 Ps 92:14 // 4QPsb Col. IV Frg. 5 col. ii 14 ̊‫( יפרחו‬MT ‎‫ = יַ ְפ ִריחּו‬LXX ἐξανθήσουσιν “they will start blooming”), cf. Ps 92:13 ‫ = יִ ְפ ַרח‬LXX ἀνθήσει‎“will be in bloom, flourish”; Ps 139:12 // 11QPsa XX ‫( יחשך‬MT ‫)יַ ְח ִשׁיְך‬. Of course scr. def. is possible. No other Hifil impf. example is preserved in the DSS. Cf. ‫ יאריכון‬Deut 5:16 // 4QDeutn; Deut 25:15 // 4QDeutg ]‫יאריכו‬. 10

Singular vs. Dual/Plural in Idiomatic Collocations

Ps 125:3 // 4QPse 26 i ‫( ישלחו] הצדיקים בעולתה ידים‬MT ‫ם‬ ‎ ‫ יְ ֵד ֶיה‬..). The original reading of the fragment is ‫ידם‬, which was subsequently corrected to ‫ידים‬, with a yod added over the line. This rather common idiomatic collocation, when used with a third person plural subject, mostly appears either with ‫ יד‬un-suffixed or with ‫ידם‬, e.g., ‫ֹלח יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ ר ֹׁש‬ ַ ‫ וַ ַיְב ְקׁשּו ִל ְׁש‬Esth 2:21, see also ib. 6:2, 9:2; ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ְלחּו‬ ‫ ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ֶאת־יָ ָדם‬Gen 19:10, see also 1 Sam 22:17, Esth 9:10, 15, and 16. No example occurs with a bare dual, ‫ידים‬. With ‎‫ ידיהם‬the collocation is attested only in our passage.40 On the other hand, with a singular suffix we find ‫ ידיו‬as in ‫ָׁש ַלח יָ ָדיו‬ ‫ֹלמיו‬ ָ ‫ ִּב ְׁש‬Ps 55:21 alongside ‫ ידו‬as in ‫הּודיים‬ ִ ְ‫ ָׁש ַלח יָ דֹו ַּבּי‬Esth 8:7. Thus, the correction in our fragment was perhaps made in haste. Note also the second half of the verse: [‫( ולישר[ים בלב‬MT ‫ישׁ ִרים ְּב ִלּבו ָֺתם‬ ָ ‫ּול‬ ִ ).‎41 Ps 35:16 // 4QPsa 6 ‫חרקו שנים‬‎ (MT ֺ ‫ ;) ַחר ֹק ִשׁ ֵּנמו‬the collocation occurs three more times in the OT, and only once without a suffix pronoun—‎‫וַ ּיַ ְח ְרקּו ֵשׁן‬ Lam 2:16. It recurs in another Qumran poetic text: ‫יחרוקו שנים‬‎ 1QHa X, 11. Hence, our 4QPsa form is not necessarily a scribal slip for ‫שנימו‬.‎42

39  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Hebrew Grammar, § 54d. 40  Cf. LXX χεῖρας αὐτῶν. 41  Cf. LXX καὶ τοῖς εὐθέσι τῇ καρδίᾳ. 42  Cf. ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν “they gnashed (their) teeth at him” Acts 7:54, which is rendered in the Peshitta as mḥarqin (h)wawšennayhon ʿlayhon.

Linguistical Variants in Qumran texts of Psalms

11

171

Syncope of the Definite Article Following Proclitic, MonoConsonantal Prepositions

In Ps 36:6 // 4QPsa 4 II ‫( מהשמים‬MT ‫ּב ַה ָּשׁ ַמים‬‎ ְ ), the scribe of the 4Q fragment may have taken offence at this non-syncopated article with the preposition beth. The only other instance of it in BH is ‫ ְּב ַה ֶּד ֶרְך‬Neh 9:19.43 As is well known, the preposition ‫ ִמן‬, however, when the nun is assimilated and is spelled proclitically, commonly allows non-syncopation, thus ‫ ֵמ ָהעו ָֺלם‬Ps 41:14. As to the sense of the verse, the wording in the 4Q fragment suggests a dynamic, antithetical and vertical movement of God’s mercy and faithfulness: from heaven and to heaven. Then the first hemistich would suggest celestial origin of the divine property. The beth of the MT could suggest a static location or, if dynamic, “into.”44 In either case, one may take note of an interpretation proposed by Rashi ad loc., “God removes mercy and truthfulness away from wicked humans, and makes them inaccessible.” One could of course invoke the Ugaritic preposition b-, which it is said can signify not only “in, into,” but also “from, out of.”45 12

A Pronominal Suffix with a Nomen Rectum

Ps 38:20 // 4QPsa 9 II ‫שנאי] שקרי‬‎ (MT ‫)שׂנְ ַאי ָשׁ ֶקר‬. The common substantive ‫ֶשׁ ֶקר‬ in the sense of “attitude of unfounded unfriendly behaviour” appears to have become an adverbial adjunct in the same manner as ‫ ִחנָ ם‬. So in ‫חּו־לי‬ ִ ‫ַאל־יִ ְׂש ְמ‬ ‫צּו־עיִ ן‬ ָ ‫א ַֹיְבי ֶׁש ֶקר שׂנְ ַאי ִחּנָ ם יִ ְק ְר‬‎ Ps 35:19; ‫יתי א ַֹיְבי‬ ַ ‫אׁשי שׂנְ ַאי ִחּנָ ם ָע ְצמּו ַמ ְצ ִמ‬ ִ ֹ ‫ַרּבּו ִמ ַּׂש ֲערֹות ר‬ ‫ ֶׁש ֶקר‬‎ Ps 69:5; ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקר ִעּוְ תּונִ י‬‎ Ps 119:78; ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקר ְר ָדפּונִ י‬‎ Ps 119:86. The significant difference between them is that the latter is a genuine adverb morphologically as well, thus incapable of taking a pronominal suffix. The reconstructed ‫ שנאי‬must be read as ‫שׂנְ ֵאי‬. The construct phrase so reconstructed represents a bold application of the syntax represented by a phrase such as ֺ ‫“ ְּכ ֵלי ִמ ְל ַח ְמּתו‬his battle gear” Deut 1:41; it is not about a war he launched or he took part in. The pronominal suffix qualifies the entire construct phrase, ‫ ְּכ ֵלי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬, and not just the nomen rectum.46 All the same, the addition of the pronominal suffix is striking, since 43  According to David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. II (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 481a, we have a ketib ‫בהשדה‬‎ 2 Kgs 7:12, for which there is a qere ‫ ַב ָּשׂ ֶדה‬. Cf. also Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 35e with the n. there. 44  So Radaq ad loc., where the preposition is said to be occasionally synonymous with ʿad, for which he quotes Lev 16:22 ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ֵאת ַה ְּשׂ ִעיר ַב ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬. 45  Cf. Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2000), 755–57 (§ 82.11). 46  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 129kb.

172

Muraoka

the nomen rectum is being used adverbially, modifying the verbal notion inherent in the substantivised participle, ‫שׂנְ ִאים‬, just as in ‫א ַֹיְב ִיחּנָ ם‬. 13

Grammatical Congruence

There is one known case of incongruence, Ps 107:42 // 4QPsf IV ‫עולה קפץ פי[ה‬ (MT ‫) ַעוְ ָלה ָק ְפ ָצה ִּפ ָיה‬. In Ps 38:10 // 4QPsa 7–8 ‫( ממכה לוא נסתר‬MT ‫ה‬ ‎ ‫) ִמ ְּמָך לֹא־נִ ְס ָּת ָר‬, the editors are certain that there is enough space after the letter ‫ר‬, and restore ‫ אנחתי‬as the subject in accordance with the MT. If our 4Q reading is correct, then some solution to this glaring incongruence is called for. Should one restore ‫קול אנחתי‬, as in Ps 102:6? However, in Ps 119:137 // 11QPsa ‫( ישרים משפטיכה‬MT ‫ )יָ ָשׁר ִמ ְשׁ ָּפ ֶטיָך‬the 4Q fragment has rectified the incongruence in the MT. In the following cases the DSS texts present the ad sensum construction: Ps 105:38 // 4QPse 18 ‫( ]שמחו מ[ם[צרי‬MT ‫) ָשׂ ַמח מצרים‬ Ps 145:4 // 11QPsa XVI ‫( דור לדור ישבחו‬MT ‫)דור לדור יְ ַשׁ ַּבח‬.

chapter 10

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew Tzvi Novick ‫מלא עולם אשר אין קץ לגדלו‬ ‫הכמוני יהללך ובמה‬ ‫הדרך לא יכילון מלאכי רום‬ ‫ועל אחת אני כמה וכמה‬

O world’s fullness, great without bound, Would one such as I praise you, and how? Your glory angels on high cannot compass, And I, much, much the less.1 ‫עני הוא בחייכם וקל וחמר במותכם‬

Poor was He during your lives, and all the more so in your deaths.2 The prayer whose opening lines I reproduce below is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud both as Rava’s customary request after the daily amidah prayer and as the Day of Atonement confession recommended by R. Hamnuna (b. Ber. 17a; b. Yoma 87b). ‫ אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי ועכשו שנוצרתי כאלו לא נוצרתי‬.1 ‫עפר אני בחיי קל וחומר במיתתי‬

1. My God, before I was fashioned, I was unworthy, and now, fashioned, I am as though unfashioned. Dust am I as I live, all the more so in my death.3 1  I thank Andrew Geist for his research assistance. From the piyyut ‫“ שפל רוח‬Low of spirit,” by Solomon ibn Gabirol. 2  From the poem ‫“ בעיר ההרגה‬In the city of slaughter,” by H. N. Bialik. 3  Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna ʾim and the Amora ʾim: Its Nature and Its Patterns (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 133, counts this prayer among those that, with

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_011

174

Novick

An alternative version of the second sentence, preserved in a commentary on the maḥzor Ashkenaz from the thirteenth or fourteenth century, runs as follows. ‫ כי מה אני בחיי אף כי במיתתי רימה אני בחיי ותוליעה במיתתי הבל וריק בראשיתי‬.2 ‫עפר ואפר באחריתי‬

2. For what am I as I live, all the more so in my death? I am worms in life and maggots in death, empty vanity in the beginning and dust and ashes at the end.4 The Hebrew corresponding to “all the more so” is in text 1, ‫קל וחומר‬, but in text 2, ‫אף כי‬. The first usage is characteristically rabbinic, whereas the second belongs to standard biblical Hebrew, and is otherwise absent, to my knowledge, from the corpus of rabbinic prayers. This unusual occurrence of ‫ אף כי‬was perhaps triggered by the pairing ‫במיתתי‬/‫בחיי‬, which recollects Deut 31:27, and in turn the occurrence of ‫ אף כי‬therein. ‫ כי אנכי ידעתי את מריך ואת ערפך הקשה הן בעודני חי עמכם היום ממרים היתם‬.3 ‫עם ה׳ ואף כי אחרי מותי‬

3. Well I know how defiant and stiffnecked you are; even now, while I am still alive in your midst, you have been defiant toward the Lord; all the more so after my death.5 The author of text 2, calling the sequence ‫ אף כי אחרי מותי‬to mind, may have substituted ‫ אף כי במיתתי‬in place of the original prayer’s ‫קל וחומר במיתתי‬. In any case, classical rabbinic literature also manifests awareness of the equivalence between biblical ‫ אף כי‬and rabbinic ‫קל וחומר‬.6

their argumentative character, draw on the rhetoric of the courtroom. But it is helpful to consider separately, among such prayers, those like the above (and the one that Heinemann quotes just before it) that employ argumentative forms especially familiar from rabbinic dialectic. 4  Cited from the online Dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (Maʾagarim), accessed on December 6, 2014. The commentary is ms Guenzberg 615. 5  Here as elsewhere, translations from the Hebrew Bible are based on (but sometimes diverge from) the NJPS. 6  Genesis Rabbah 30:6 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 272).

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

175

My aim in this paper is to trace the line between these two terms, or more modestly, because the data is too sporadic, to identify and analyze some of the changes in the rhetoric of Hebrew a fortiori argumentation from the Hebrew Bible to the beginning of the rabbinic period. To this end it will be helpful, at the outset, to describe and label the different elements of the a fortiori argument. The a fortiori argument reasons from the fact that rule x pertains in case A to the conclusion that rule x ought all the more so to pertain in case B, because in some relevant respect, B is “more” than A. The fact that rule x pertains in case A I will call the “protasis.” I will assign the term “apodosis” to the inference that rule x ought all the more to pertain in case B. Both the phrase ‫קל‬ ‫ וחומר‬in text 1 and the words ‫ אף כי‬in text 2 mark apodoses. The claim that B is “more” than A I will call the inequality assertion. My interest here lies specifically in terms that explicitly mark one of these three elements of the a fortiori argument. In any given case, one or more of the three may be left unmarked or even unstated. Such cases fall outside the scope of this paper.7 My analysis begins with the apodosis, then turns to the protasis, and last to the inequality assertion. The most interesting and abundant data center on the apodosis marker ‫אף כי‬, and the bulk of the paper is devoted to it. About the other rhetorical markers, the data permit only isolated observations. 1

The Apodosis

Standard Biblical Hebrew features two common apodoses, ‫ אף כי‬and ‫ואיך‬. 1.1 ‫אף כי‬ Text 3 above illustrates the use of ‫ אף כי‬to signal “all the more so.” In that text it is followed by a prepositional phrase, ‫“ אחרי מותי‬after my death”, but there is no syntactic restriction on the clauses that it can head. In the following text (1 Sam 23:3), which represents the response of David’s men, in flight from Saul, when David proposes that they save the town of Keilah from the Philistines, the phrase introduces an independent sentence. ‫ הנה אנחנו פה ביהודה יראים ואף כי נלך קעלה אל מערכות פלשתים‬.4

4. Behold, we are afraid here in Judah, how much more so if we go to Keilah against the forces of the Philistines. 7  For many such cases see Louis Jacobs, “The qal va-ḥomer Argument in the Old Testament,” BSOAS 35 (1972), 221–27.

176

Novick

In text 4, the word ‫ כי‬appears to be syntactically and semantically necessary: it corresponds to “if” in the translation. In text 3 above, ‫ כי‬could be deleted without harm to the syntax and without changing the sense, but it could also, if with some strain, be construed as a grammatical component of the apodosis, as the header of a “that”—clause governed by ‫“( ידעתי‬I know … all the more so that [you will be defiant] after my death”). In some cases, however, as in the next text (1 Sam 14:29–30), which gives Jonathan’s response to his comrades who have critiqued him for eating honey in violation of the fast that his father had imposed, ‫ כי‬cannot be construed grammatically with the apodosis. ‫ ראו נא כי ארו עיני כי טעמתי מעט דבש הזה אף כי לוא אכל אכל היום העם משלל‬.5 ‫איביו אשר מצא כי עתה לא רבתה מכה בפלשתים‬

5. See how my eyes lit up when I tasted that bit of honey. All the more so: If only the troops had eaten today of spoil captured from the enemy, the defeat of the Philistines would have been greater still. Indeed, in text 5, not only ‫ כי‬is superfluous, but also ‫אף‬: The sense of “all the more so” is conveyed by the word ‫רבתה‬. We may hypothesize that the ‫אף כי‬ formula originated in grammatical contexts like that of text 4, where ‫ כי‬is grammatically necessary. The fact that it migrated to other contexts into which ‫כי‬ cannot be grammatically integrated is evidence that ‫ אף כי‬achieved the status of a technical term. Further evidence for the status of ‫ אף כי‬as a technical marker of the a fortiori apodosis comes, first, from the fact that the semantically equivalent expression, ‫גם כי‬, does not serve this function.8 Second, ‫ אף‬by itself, without ‫כי‬, never heads an a fortiori apodosis in standard Biblical Hebrew, nor does it ever occur in standard Biblical Hebrew together with a marker of the a fortiori protasis like ‫ הן‬and ‫( הנה‬on which see part 2 below). Third, and finally, the sequence ‫ אף כי‬rarely if ever occurs in contexts other than a fortiori argumentation in standard biblical Hebrew. The one case where it appears outside of anything resembling an a fortiori argument is Gen 3:1, in the mouth of the serpent, but the role of ‫ אף כי‬in this verse is obscure. In some (Prov 11:31; 17:7; 19:10) but not all (15:11; 19:7; 21:27) cases in Proverbs, ‫ אף כי‬appears to weaken to something like “moreover.” Consider, for example, Prov 19:10.

8  For examples of ‫ גם כי‬see Isa 1:15; Prov 22:6.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

177

‫ לא נאוה לכסיל תענוג אף כי לעבד משל בשרים‬.6

6. Luxury is not fitting for a dullard, much less that a servant rule over princes. Perhaps it is less inappropriate that a dullard should enjoy luxury than that a servant should rule over princes, but there is no patent a fortiori argument that would lead from condemnation of the former to condemnation of the latter. The weakening of the force of ‫ אף כי‬in text 6 (and elsewhere in Proverbs) is probably connected to the fact that the parallelistic structure of the Proverbs verse encourages “A = B” reasoning, or what James Kugel has famously described as the logic of “A, and what’s more, B.”9 The latter logic almost inverts the a fortiori logic of “A, and all the more so B.” Let us take up one other borderline case in Proverbs (Prov 11:31), both for its rhetorical and for its theological interest. ‫ הן צדיק בארץ ישלם אף כי רשע וחוטא‬.7

7. If the righteous on earth get their desserts, how much more the wicked man and the sinner. Is there an a fortiori argument in text 7? The fact that the verse begins with ‫הן‬, which, as we will later note, is a standard marker of the a fortiori protasis (as, for example, in text 3), makes text 7 a better candidate for such an analysis than text 6, where the protasis is unmarked. A rabbinic midrash finds an a fortiori argument by construing the first half of text 7 as a reference to the punishment of the righteous, so that the reasoning is: if God punishes the righteous, then all the more so the wicked.10 Michael Fox, in his magisterial commentary on Proverbs, rejects this reading as a violation of the plain sense: it is the reward of the righteous that the verse compares to the punishment of the wicked. But Fox agrees that the verse reasons a fortiori. “The a fortiori argument assumes that the punishment of the wicked is more urgent, hence even more certain, than the rewarding of the righteous.”11 Fox might have drawn support for this view from Hab 2:4–5, which, though very obscure, appears likewise to infer, via the term ‫אף כי‬, from the perseverance of the righteous to the punishment of 9   James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1981]). 10   Genesis Rabbah 30:6 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 272). 11  Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (AB 18B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 546.

178

Novick

the wicked. If Fox is correct, then the theological assumption underlying the a fortiori argument in text 7 is the precise inverse of the assumption underlying later New Testament and rabbinic passages, one of which we shall encounter as text 22 below, according to which God is more graceful than vengeful, or rewards more than he punishes. In later strata of biblical Hebrew, the technical usage of ‫ אף כי‬gradually disappears, although it remains available even to the Chronicler (2 Chr 32:15). The disappearance of the technical usage is manifest in two phenomena. First, ‫ אף כי‬occurs in contexts other than a fortiori argumentation. Second, one element of the technical term, or a synonym thereof—‫ אף‬by itself, ‫ כי‬by itself, or ‫—גם‬can occur in place of ‫ אף כי‬to mark the a fortiori apodosis. I begin with the first phenomenon. In the book of Ezekiel, ‫ אף כי‬twice (Ezek 14:21; 15:5) marks a fortiori reasoning, but in one instance (23:40) carries the weaker sense of “moreover,” even though there is no pressure from parallelism.12 In the book of Job, too, ‫ אף כי‬still usually heads an a fortiori apodosis (Job 9:14; 15:16; 25:6), but on one occasion (35:14) it carries the sense “even though.” ‫ אף כי תאמר לא תשורנו דין לפניו ותחולל לו‬.8

8. Even though you say, ‘You do not take note of it,’ the case is before Him; so wait for Him. It is possible that this verse does not offer evidence of a shift in the usage of the technical term ‫אף כי‬, but instead uses the words non-technically, for, as in text 4, the word ‫ כי‬serves a grammatical function in the clause that follows. But in two other cases from the post-classical period, ‫ אף כי‬also conveys “even” or “even though,” and both passages, because they appear not to integrate ‫כי‬ into the grammar, probably have the technical term in mind. The first case is Neh 9:18, which I reproduce together with its continuation (9:18–19). ‫ אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים ויעשו נאצות‬.9 ‫גדלות ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר‬

12  Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 485) is right to reject an a fortiori interpretation of ‫ אף כי‬in 23:40, but assigns the phrase too little force. It does not “only introduce another lurid episode.” The second scenario is worse than the first because Oholibah not only sins in the land, but does so by introducing foreigners from outside the land.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

179

9. They even made for themselves a molten calf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you out of Egypt,’ thus committing great impieties. But You, in Your abundant compassion, did not abandon them in the wilderness. The second text comes from Ben Sira (Sir 16:11), and represents the only occurrence of ‫ אף כי‬in the extant Hebrew of Ben Sira. In Sir 16:8–9, Ben Sira observes that God did not have mercy (‫ )ולא חמל‬on the wicked Sodomites, or on the sinful Canaanites. I reproduce 16:10–11 (ms A). ‫ כן שש מאות אלף רגלי הנאספים בזדון לבם ואף כי אחר (!) מקשה ערף תמה זה‬.10 ‫אם ינקה‬

10. Likewise [he did not have mercy on] the six hundred thousand foot soldiers who died in their arrogance. And even one stiff-necked person, it is a wonder if he should be cleared. In his Sira commentary, M. Z. Segal, interpreting ‫ אף כי‬in light of its classical usage, identifies an a fortiori argument: “And if whole nations were punished for their sins, all the more so a single sinner will be punished.”13 Segal’s approach is defensible. In Jon 4:11, God adduces the fact that Nineveh is a city of over one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants to argue, a fortiori, from Jonah’s consideration for the gourd to God’s solicitousness toward the Ninevites. But I contend that the opposite interpretation, which I have encoded in the translation, is the more plausible: not “all the more so one” but “even one.” God not only refuses to overlook the sins of the Sodomites, the Canaanites, the wilderness generation—collectives whose large-scale wickedness cannot be ignored—but will even insist on punishing the individual sinner. The use of ‫תמה‬, “a wonder,” supports this interpretation, because it implies that the scenario of an individual sinner spared, if unusual, is within the realm of possibility, unlike the possibility of a sinning collective spared. The “even” interpretation is also supported by the fact that the language of text 10 recollects Sir 7:8 (ms A). ‫ אל תקשור לשנות חט כי באחת לא תנקה‬.11

11. Do not plot to repeat a sin, for even with one, you shall not be cleared.

13  Moses Z. Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא השלם‬‎(2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1958), 100.

180

Novick

In text 11, the dynamic is unambiguously: “A, and even B.” In light of texts 8 and 9, which suggest that ‫ אף כי‬in post-classical biblical Hebrew can carry the sense “even though,” there is no need to make ‫ אף כי‬in Sir 16:11 conform to the classical usage. Just as one could construe ‫ אף כי‬in text 8 as an incidental junction of ‫אף‬ “even” and ‫“ כי‬when”, rather than as a received technical term, so one might deny any echo of the technical usage in the occurrences of ‫ אף כי‬in texts 9 and 10. In text 9, such an approach would require construing ‫( ואתה‬rendered above as “but you”) as an implicit header of the main clause (“you, then,” thus yielding: “even when they made for themselves a molten calf, … thus committing great impieties, you, then, etc.”), and in text 10, the participle ‫מקשה‬ would have to be analyzed as a present-tense verb (“stiffens,” thus yielding: “and even when one person stiffens his neck, etc.”). But in light of the fact that ‫ אף כי‬conveys “even” or “even though” in a number of instances in late biblical and Second Temple literature, and never in classical biblical literature, I am inclined to uphold the above analysis. At the very least we may suppose that a decline in the technical usage of ‫ אף כי‬to convey “all the more so” allowed post-classical authors to use ‫ אף‬and ‫ כי‬together without fear of evoking the technical term. I now turn to the second body of material in which the decline of the technical usage of ‫ אף כי‬becomes manifest. There are four cases in which one element of the technical term or a synonym thereof—‫ אף‬by itself, ‫ כי‬by itself, or ‫—גם‬appears to occur instead of ‫ אף כי‬to head the a fortiori apodosis. The first case occurs in the book of Job. Job employs ‫ אף כי‬thrice (Job 9:14; 15:16; 25:6), in each case to introduce an a fortiori apodosis that highlights human beings’ lowliness. I cite Job 25:5–6 as an example. ‫ הן עד ירח ולא יאהיל וכוכבים לא זכו בעיניו אף כי אנוש רמה ובן אדם תולעה‬.12

12. Even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, a worm; the son-of-man, a maggot.14 But in one case, Job 4:18–19, the a fortiori inference is headed not by ‫ אף כי‬but by ‫ אף‬alone. ‫ הן בעבדיו לא יאמין ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה אף שכני בתי חמר אשר בעפר יסודם‬.13 ‫ידכאום לפני עש‬ 14  This text may have inspired Sir 17:31–32 (not extant in the Hebrew), which reasons similarly, by a fortiori logic, from the darkening of the sun to the wickedness of human beings who are but dust.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

181

13. If he cannot trust His own servants, and casts reproach on his angels, how much less those who dwell in houses of clay, whose origin is dust, who are crushed like a moth. This verse represents the only case in the Hebrew Bible in which isolated ‫אף‬ (without ‫ )כי‬heads an a fortiori apodosis. It is also the only verse in which isolated ‫ אף‬is paired with a marker of the a fortiori protasis, here ‫( הן‬on which see part 2).15 There is remarkably little a fortiori reasoning in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but what little there is appears to involve the same use of isolated ‫אף‬. The text below is from 1QHa XVIII 10–12. ‫ ומי בכול מעשי פלאכה הגדולים יעצור כוח להתיצב לפני כבודכה ומה אפהוא שב‬.14 ‫לעפרו כי יעצור כ[ו]ח‬

14. Who among all the great, wondrous creatures can maintain the strength to take a stand before Your glory? So what then is he, who returns to his dust, that he should maintain str[en]gth?16 Jacob Licht, in his commentary on the Hodayot, spells out the logic of this passage: “Even the strongest creatures cannot stand before him, and all the more so human beings.” The phrase ‫ ומה אף הוא‬recurs thrice elsewhere in the Hodayot (1QHa VII 21; XVIII 3; XX 31), and once in the Community Rule (1QS XI 20), always to convey the lowliness of human beings. The restricted distribution suggests that ‫ ומה אף הוא‬is a technical term, and the usage in text 14 suggests a relationship to the usage of ‫ אף‬in text 13. Against this hypothesis, we must note that in none of the other instances of ‫ ומה אף הוא‬is there something approaching an explicit protasis to which the ‫ ומה אף הוא‬statement might serve as apodosis.17 Moreover, on one occasion (1QHa XV 32), the words ‫ומה הוא‬, without ‫אף‬, occur in the same context. 15  In Song 1:16, ‫ אף‬follows a suffixed form of ‫הנה‬, but there is no a fortiori reasoning in the verse, and in any case, only unsuffixed ‫ הנה‬marks the a fortiori protasis. It is probably no coincidence that only in Job does ‫ אף‬pair with other particles besides ‫כי‬: at Job 34:12 with ‫ אמנם‬and at Job 36:29 with ‫אם‬. 16  For the text and (slightly modified) translation see Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (6 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005), 5.48–49. 17  The one possible exception is the instance from the Community Rule. The passage (1QS XI 20) runs thus: ‫ומי יכול להכיל את כבודכה ומה אפ הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬ “Who can measure Your glory? Who, indeed, is man among Your wondrous creatures?” For the text and (modified) translation see Parry and Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 1.42–43. This passage, like text 14, contrasts human beings to God’s “wondrous creatures.”

182

Novick

The third relevant case occurs in Sir 16:18–20 (ms A). ‫ הן השמים ושמי השמים תהום וארץ ברדתו עליהם עמודים בפקדו וכרגשו אף קצבי‬.15 ‫הרים ויסודי תבל בהביטו אליהם רעש ירעשו גם עלי לא ישים לב ובדרכי מי יתבונן‬

15. Behold, even the heavens to their outermost reaches, the deep and the land, when he descends upon them, they tremble at his visitation.18 Even mountain tops and the earth’s foundations quake when he looks at them. Much less will he attend to me, or contemplate my ways. This passage appears to rework 1 Kgs 8:27, where Solomon reasons that “even the heavens to their outermost reaches” (‫ )הנה השמים ושמי השמים‬cannot contain God, and all the more so (‫ )אף כי‬the temple that he has built. Sira uses a similar premise for his own a fortiori argument, but instead of heading the apodosis with ‫אף כי‬, he incorporates ‫ אף‬into a second protasis, and introduces the apodosis with ‫גם‬. A fourth and final displacement of classical ‫ אף כי‬may be detectable in Sir 43:5, in Sira’s sapiential hymn.19 The previous verse, 43:4, brings to a close Ben Sira’s extended praise of the sun (43:2–4): “Its fiery tongue consumes the world; the eyes are burned by its fire.”20 Before turning to the moon (43:6–8), and beyond it to other natural phenomena, Sira interjects a remark about God. ‫ כי גדי(!)ל ייי עושהו ודבריו ינצח אביריו‬.16

16. Great indeed (?) is the Lord who made it, whose mandate sets His mighty ones alight.21 Menahem Kister reasonably supposes that text 16 advances an a fortiori argument. If the human eye cannot look upon the sun, then still less can it perceive God, or, if the sun is great, then all the more so God who made it.22 Ben Sira 18  I have left the problematic ‫ עמודים‬untranslated, and construe ‫ וכרגשו‬as an error for ‫ירגשו‬. 19  I borrow this term from Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 200–33. 20  The translation is from Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 485. On 43:4–5 see also Menahem Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1989–90), 360. 21  For the translation of ‫ ינצח‬see ibid. The Hebrew is from ms B. The verse is also partially preserved in the Masada scroll: ‫]……[כי גדול אדנ[] עשהו וד‬. 22   Ibid.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

183

asserts the same at the end of the hymn, by way of a sort of global a fortiori summation (43:8): “We cannot fathom, and he is greater (‫ )גדול‬than all his makings (‫)מעשיו‬.” My interest lies in the word ‫ כי‬at the beginning of text 16. How does it function? It could be construed, as I tentatively have in the above translation, merely as asseverative or emphatic.23 Given, however, that Ben Sira means to advance an a fortiori claim in this verse, it is very possible that the word represents a vestigial revision of classical ‫אף כי‬. 1.2 ‫ואיך‬ About ‫ואיך‬, the other important marker of the a fortiori apodosis in classical biblical Hebrew, we will have much less to say. Let us note, first, that it never became a technical term like ‫אף כי‬. It always integrates into the syntax of the clause that it heads, and it need not occur in the context of a fortiori argumentation. Compare, for example, Exod 6:12 (text 17) and Exod 6:30 (text 18). ‫ וידבר משה לפני ה׳ לאמר הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי ואיך ישמעני פרעה ואני‬.17 ‫ערל שפתים‬

17. But Moses appealed to the Lord, saying, ‘The Israelites would not listen to me; how then should Pharaoh heed me, a man of impeded speech?’ ‫ ויאמר משה לפני ה׳ הן אני ערל שפתים ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה‬.18

18. Moses appealed to the Lord, saying, ‘See, I am of impeded speech; how then should Pharaoh heed me?’ In text 17, ‫ ואיך‬heads an a fortiori apodosis, but in text 18 the conclusion that it heads does not follow from a fortiori reasoning. Second, the distribution of ‫ ואיך‬is restricted by discourse function: It contrasts what has happened (in the protasis) with what might happen (in the apodosis). In text 16 and elsewhere (2 Sam 12:18; 2 Kgs 10:4), the protasis and the apodosis even feature the same verbal root, or near synonyms. The ‫ אף כי‬a fortiori argument can also express this contrast (as in texts 3 and 4), but it need not do so (as in texts 5 and 7).

23  On emphatic ‫ כי‬see Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 158–64; Scott C. Jones, Rumors of Wisdom: Job 28 as Poetry (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 117–23.

184

Novick

I have found no occurrence of ‫ ואיך‬in this usage in Second Temple texts, but Ben Sira (Sir 10:31 [ms B; see also ms A]) employs the related word ‫ איככה‬in an a fortiori argument. ‫ הנכבד בעיניו (ק׳ בעניו) בעשרו איככה ונקלה בעשרו בעיניו (ק׳ בעניו) איככה‬.19

19. One honored in his poverty, in his wealth how then? And one despised in his wealth, in his poverty how then? This use of ‫איככה‬, to express “all the more so,” is to my knowledge unparalleled in biblical and post-biblical Hebrew. 2

The Protasis

The most common headers of the a fortiori protasis in classical biblical Hebrew are ‫( הן‬as in texts 3, 7, 12, 13, 15) and ‫( הנה‬as in text 4).24 The occurrence of ‫ראו‬ in this role in text 5 is not surprising in light of the pragmatic relationship between ‫הנה‬/‫( הן‬often rendered in English “behold”) and sight. ‫ הלוא‬also occurs occasionally (e.g., Num 12:14; 2 Kgs 5:23). Even when the apodosis is marked, the protasis need not be. This asymmetry pertains especially when the protasis stretches over multiple verses (2 Sam 4:9–10; Ezek 14:12–20). One of the most common protasis headers in the tannaitic a fortiori argument is ‫אם‬, as in the following example (Sifre Num 11 [Kahana ed., 39]). ‫ ונתן על כפיה אבא חנן א׳ משם ר׳ ליעזר כדי לייגעה כדי שתחזור בה והלא דברים‬.20 ‫קל וחומר אם כך חס המקום על עוברי רצונו על אחת כמה וכמה על עושי רצונו‬

20. “And he will place upon her hands [the meal offering of remembrance]” (Num 5:18). Abba Ḥanin in the name of R. Eliezer: To weary her, that she may recant. And isn’t the matter an argument a fortiori: If the Place spares those who transgress his will to this degree, how much more so those who perform his will? This protasis, in the form of Greek εἰ, is also exceedingly common in the gospels (e.g., Matt 7:11) and in Paul’s writings, where it may reflect, at one point or another, and to one degree or another of separation, Hebrew ‫אם‬. Surprisingly, 24  On ‫ הן‬see W.Randall Garr, “‫הן‬,” RB 111 (2004): 321–44.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

185

however, ‫ אם‬is, to my knowledge, unattested as a header of the a fortiori protasis prior to the rabbinic corpus. 3

The Inequality Assertion

In the biblical a fortiori argument, the inequality assertion—the claim that B is “more” than A in a way that justifies the extension of rule x from A to B— is always formulated indirectly, and in an ad hoc fashion, according to the context. Consider, for example, 2 Sam 16:11, where David restrains his officer Abishai from killing Shimei son of Gera for cursing the king. ‫ הנה בני אשר יצא ממעי מבקש את נפשי ואף כי עתה בן הימיני הנחו לו ויקלל כי‬.21 ‫אמר לו ה׳‬

21. If my son, my own issue, seeks to kill me, how much more the Benjaminite! Let him go on hurling abuse, for the Lord has told him to. That is, Shimei, as a Benjaminite and thus a tribesman of Saul, can hardly be faulted for wishing David dead, when David’s own son, Absalom, wishes the same. David supports the inference by identifying Absalom not only as his son, but as his issue. Likewise, he identifies Shimei not by name, but according to the tribal affiliation that explains Shimei’s readiness to assault David. The contrast nicely sets ‫“ בני‬my son” against ‫“ בן הימיני‬the Benjaminite”. The inequality assertion (in short: “my son, my own issue” is “more” than “the Benjaminite”) is artfully crafted, not formulaic, and implicit, not explicit. Here again a considerable change is detectable only in rabbinic literature, and (with the same evidentiary caveats flagged in part 2) in the New Testament. In these corpora, the inequality assertion regularly becomes explicit, and (especially in the rabbinic corpus) standardized. Thus, for example, Matthew on three occasions (Matt 12:6; 23:16–22) has Jesus ground an a fortiori argument in the fact that the B case is “greater” (μεῖζον) than the A case.25

25  These three passages are unique to Matthew. In a different passage where Matthew parallels Luke (Matt 12:41–42 = Luke 11:29–32), and only in this passage, the comparative adjective is not μεῖζον but πλεῖον. The adjective likely reflects the language of the common source underlying the Matthew-Luke parallels (Q).

186

Novick

Hebrew ‫מרובה‬, semantically close to Greek μεῖζον, occurs in tannaitic a fortiori argumentation.26 In the following text, from Sifre Num 8 (ed. Kahana, 32), R. Ishmael challenges the justice of the straying wife’s ‫מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון‬, her “meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing” (Num 5:15). ‫ שהיה בדין לבעל הדין לחלוק וכי אי זו מידה מרובה מידת טובה או מידת פורענות‬.22 ‫הוי או׳ מידת הטוב אם מידת פורענות ממועטת הרי היא מזכ׳ עון מידה טובה דין הוא‬ ‫שתהא מזכ׳ זכות‬

22. For a party would have grounds to object: Which measure is greater, the measure of good or the measure of exaction? Say, the measure of good. If, though the measure of exaction being lesser, it recalls wrongdoing, then, the measure of good being greater, doesn’t it stand to reason that it should recall merit?27 It may be possible to trace this usage of ‫ מרובה‬to the Second Temple period. The following text, t. Ḥag. 1:4, evidently attaches to m. Ḥag. 1:2, in which the houses of Shammai and Hillel debate whether one ought to spend more money on the pilgrimage whole-offering (the house of Shammai) or on the festal peaceofferings that accompany it (the house of Hillel). In the Tosefta, the houses defend their positions.

26  Cf. Ezek 33:24 ‫“( אחד היה אברהם … ואנחנו רבים‬Abraham was but one man … We are many”); Jonah 4:11 ‫ואני לא אחוס על נינוה העיר הגדולה אשר יש בה הרבה משתים עשרה רבו‬ ‫“( אדם‬And should I not care about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons”). See also text 10 above. 27  On this passage see Menahem I. Kahana, Sifre on Numbers: An Annotated Edition, Part II: A Commentary on Piskaʿot 1–58 (The Portion of Naso) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011), 116–17 and 116 n. 81. In the continuation, R.Ishmael rather brilliantly solves the problem by positing a “meta-” measure of good (‫ )מידה טובה שבתורה‬that dictates that when a verse contradicts what is just, the verse must be reinterpreted to accommodate justice. On the measure of good and the measure of exaction in tannaitic literature and in the New Testament see Menahem Kister, “Romans 5:12–21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage,” HTR 100 (2007): 391–424. The Sifre Numbers passage assumes rather than argues for the proposition that the measure of good is greater than the measure of exaction, and both Kahana (Sifre, 116 n. 81) and Kister (“Romans,” 396 n. 19) assume that the quantitative proof from Exod 20:5–6 attested in other tannaitic sources is the basis for this claim. It is possible, however, especially given the parallel use of “greater” in the New Testament, that the exegesis of Exod 20:5–6 is secondary.

Rhetorical Markers in A Fortiori Argumentation

187

‫ בית שמיי או׳ מרובה מדת הראיה ממדת חגיגה ראיה כולה לגבוה מה שאין כן‬.23 ‫בחגיגה בית הלל או׳ מרובה מדת חגיגה ממדת ראיה חגיגה נוהגת לפני דבור ולאחר‬ ‫דבור מה שאין כן בראיה‬

23. The house of Shammai says: The measure of the pilgrimage sacrifice is greater than the measure of the festal sacrifice. The pilgrimage sacrifice is entirely God’s portion, which is not the case for the festal sacrifice. The house of Hillel says: The measure of the festal sacrifice is greater than the measure of the pilgrimage sacrifice. The festal sacrifice applies before the divine speech and after the divine speech, which is not the case for the pilgrimage sacrifice.28 According to the house of Shammai, one ought to spend more on the pilgrimage sacrifice because, as a whole-offering, it is entirely God’s, whereas the festal sacrifices, as peace-offerings, are partially consumed by the priests. Hence the pilgrimage sacrifice is “greater.” The house of Hillel counters that the festal sacrifices are “greater,” hence deserving of greater expenditure, because festal sacrifices were made even prior to the levitical legislation (Exod 24:5). If—a big “if”—the attributions to the houses can be trusted, then this usage of ‫מרובה‬ is attested already in the Second Temple period.29 The most common standardized terms for the expression of the inequality assertion in the rabbinic corpus are ‫“ קל‬light” and ‫“ חמור‬heavy,” as in the following example (m. Ḥul. 12:5). ‫ לא יטול אדם אם על הבנים אפילו לטהר בה את המצורע מה אם מצוה קלה שהיא‬.24 ‫באיסר אמרה תורה למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים קל וחומר על מצוות חמורות שבתורה‬

24. One must not take the mother (bird) with the offspring, even to purify a leper with it. If concerning a light commandment, which involves (only the loss of) an issar, the Torah said, “in order that you may fare well, and have a long life” (Deut 22:7), all the more so concerning heavy commandments in the Torah.30 28  For the text see Saul Lieberman, The Tosefta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2002), 2.376. 29  Beyond the ordinary skepticism that attends any attribution, this case is complicated by the fact that the word ‫( מרובה‬with its opposite, ‫ )מעוטה‬occurs in a different sense in m. Ḥ‫‏‬ag. 1:5, a pericope intimately and explicitly connected to m. Ḥ‫‏‬ag. 1:2, and thus to text 23. The house of Shammai uses the ‫מעוטה‬/‫ מרובה‬dichotomy in a different sense in t. Ter. 6:4. 30  The Hebrew text is from ms Kaufmann.

188

Novick

The use of “light” (in “a light commandment”) and “heavy” (in “heavy commandments”) to give expression to the inequality assertion has a loose parallel in the New Testament (Matt 23:23). But in text 24, as very often elsewhere in the rabbinic corpus, the light/heavy dichotomy marks not only the inequality assertion but the apodosis, in the form of the conjunction ‫קל וחומר‬. This conjunction is in origin the name of the deductive principle, or set of principles, i.e., “[inference from] the light and [inference from] the heavy.”31 The fact that the apodosis marker derives from the terms that structure the inequality assertion is a testament to the more prominent, standardized role of the latter in rabbinic a fortiori argumentation. 4 Conclusion The rather limited data set, especially from the Second Temple period, permits only modest but nevertheless relatively confident conclusions. Standard Biblical Hebrew developed a marker of a fortiori argumentation, the term ‫אף‬ ‫כי‬, which heads the apodosis. This usage was already on the wane in late biblical Hebrew and eventually disappeared in the Second Temple period. Indeed, data from late biblical and post-biblical Hebrew allows us to trace its demise in considerable detail. Toward the end of the Second Temple period and afterward in rabbinic circles, new markers arose that gave unprecedented attention to the inequality assertion.

31  Saul Lieberman (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Tradition, Beliefs, and Manners in Palestine in the I c. bce–IV c. ce [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962], 55–56) long ago noted that the name corresponds to and likely represents something like a calque of the Greek “from something smaller, from something greater” (ἀπὸ μικροτέρου, ἀπὸ μείζονος).

chapter 11

The Etymology of ‫“ זעטוט‬Youth, Young Man” Gary A. Rendsburg One of the more surprising lexemes to emerge from reading the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) is the word ‫“ זעטוט‬youth, young man,”*, 1 attested relatively frequently within the Qumran Hebrew (QH) corpus. The word was known previously to scholars of ancient Hebrew, though solely through later rabbinic mentions of the word, all within the context of variant manuscripts and/or editions of the Torah. The better known tradition concerns the three scrolls which were housed in the Temple court.2 One of these scrolls, we are informed, was called ‫ספר‬ ‫“ זעטוטי‬the zaʿaṭuṭe scroll,” because it contained the reading ‫וישלח את זעטוטי בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬instead of (proto-)MT ‫( וישלח את נערי בני ישראל‬Exod 24:5), and perhaps also the reading ‫ ואל זעטוטי בני ישראל‬instead of (proto-)MT ‫ואל אצילי בני ישראל‬

*  My thanks to Aaron Rubin (Pennsylvania State University) for his comments on the pre-final version of this paper, and to my colleague Charles Häberl (Rutgers University) for his kind assistance and interest in this project (see especially n. 49 below). Research for this article was conducted during my residency as a Visiting Scholar at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (Summer 2014) and during my visit to the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas (January 2015). I am grateful to both institutions and personally to Mark Lanier and Charles Mickey at the latter for their unsurpassed hospitality. 1  Henceforth I will gloss this word as simply “youth,” by which I mean “young man” and not the abstract noun. To the best of my knowledge, none of the manuscripts of the sources cited in the nn. 2 and 4 is vocalized, so that we do not have a certain vocalization for the word ‫זעטוט‬, but one will assume the form ‫( זַ ֲעטוּט‬with Tiberian niqqud); see further below, n. 25. For bibliographic abbreviations (including simply the surnames “Levy,” “Jastrow,” et al.) used herein, see at the end of the article. 2  See Sifre Devarim 356; y. Taʿan. 4.2 (68a); ʾAbot R. Nat. (B), ch. 46 (65a); Masekhet Sofrim 1:7, 6:4; Tanḥ. Shemot 22. The classic treatment of this tradition remains Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962): 14–27. A Hebrew version of this article, with some changes and additions, was published two years later: Shemaryhau Talmon, “Šeloša sefarim maṣʾu ba-ʿazara,” in Sefer Segal: Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal by his Colleagues and Students (ed. Yehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver; Publications of the Israeli Society for Biblical Research 17; Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1964), 252–64.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_012

190

Rendsburg

(Exod 24:11).3 A second rabbinic tradition includes this word within a list of passages which the Septuagint translators rendered differently than the textus receptus.4 Not just any random passages, mind you, but strikingly the two relevant passages from Exodus 24, to wit, ‫( וישלח את זעטוטי בני ישראל‬v. 5) and ‫ואל‬ ‫( זעטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו‬v. 11). In Aramaic, the word is even less widely used, with only two attestations.5 The first is within the Targumic expansion of Song 6:5, in the phrase ‫ושראר זעט�ו‬ ‫“ טין ועמא דארעא‬and the remainder of the young-men and people of the land.”6 The second is somewhat less textually reliable, but worth mentioning nonetheless: both J. Levy and M. Jastrow cited Targum Yerushalmi to Exod 24:11 (!),

3  Some of the rabbinic sources (e.g., y. Taʿan. 4.2 [68a]) mention only the former instance of ‫זעטוטי‬, while others (e.g., Sifre Devarim 356) mention the additional variant reading six verses later. For the different versions, see conveniently at Maʾagarim, s.v. ‫זעטוט‬. See also the summary in Louis Finkelstein, Siphre ad Deuteronomium (Berlin: Jüdischer Kulturbund in Deutschland, 1939) / reprint: Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), 423. For a detailed study of this tradition, see Gary A. Rendsburg, “How Could a Torah Scroll Have Included the Word ‫ ”?זעטוטי‬Textus 26 (2016): 121–41. 4  See b. Meg. 9a (with the spelling ‫ ;)זאטוטי‬Midrash ha-Gadol to Exod 12:40 (with the spelling ‫ ;)זעטוטי‬Yalquṭ Shimʿoni, Genesis, para. 3 (with the spelling ‫)זטוטי‬. See the standard treatment of the subject by Emanuel Tov, “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Translation of the Torah and Their Relation to the Original Text of the Septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–20. Earlier versions of this article are: a) “The Rabbinic Traditions concerning the ‘Changes’ Inserted in the Septuagint Translation of the Pentateuch and the Question of the Original Text of That Translation” [Hebrew], in Isaac Leo Seeligmann Memorial Volume (ed. Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 371–93; and b) “The Rabbinic Tradition concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX,” JSJ 15 (1984): 65–89. For a thorough treatment of the rabbinic traditions concerning the Septuagint, see Giuseppi Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai: Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 41; Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994). Within the discussion, Veltri addressed the question of ‫ זעטוטי‬in both Exod 24:5 and Exod 24:11 on pp. 79–82, 87–88 (and elsewhere, consult the index on p. 265). In addition to the monograph itself, see also the review essay by Emanuel Tov in Scripta Classica Israelica 14 (1995): 178–83, reprinted in The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 75–82. 5  So rarely attested, in fact, that there is no entry for ‫ זעטוטי‬in the standard dictionaries: DJPA, DJBA, DSA, and SL—save for the once-attested similar form ‫ זטוטאי‬as a gentilic (collocated with ‫ )כנענאי‬in ʾAsaṭir 9b, for which see DSA, 1.229, along with Excursus I at the end of the present article. 6  I render the key term ‫ זעטוטין‬with “young-men” here for the nonce, though as we shall see below, “students” is more appropriate within the context of the Targumic passage.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

191

with the word ‫ זעטוטי‬rendering ‫אצילי‬,7 although the chief witness to this text, British Library (formerly British Museum) Add. 27031, reads ‫עולימיא שפיריא‬ here.8 The above represents the totality of the evidence for the word within ancient Hebrew and Aramaic (in all its manifestations, including Syriac, Mandaic, etc.), that is, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As indicated above, the noun ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” appears relatively frequently in the Qumran corpus, which is to say, seven times.9 The occurrences are as follows:10 CD XV 16 ‫וכה ̇ה ̇עי̊ נ̊ י̊ ̊ם ̇ל ̊ב ̇ל[תי ראות וחגר או פסח או חרש] ו̊ נ̊ ער ז̊ [עטו]ט אל יבוא אי̇ [ש מאלה‬ ̇ ]‫אל תוך העדה‬ 1QM VII 3

‫‬וכול נער זעטוט ואשה לוא יבואו למחנותם בצאתם‬

7   It is not clear to me which edition of Targum Yerushalmi was used by Levy or by Jastrow, though almost undoubtedly the source of the information in their respective dictionaries is Elijah Levita, Meturgeman = Lexicon Chaldaicum (Isny, 1541), s.v. ‫( זעטט‬available online at http://hebrewbooks.org/44372). See also Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Šeqiʿim mi-Targume ha-Miqraʾ ha-ʾAramiyim, 2 vols (English title: Fragments of Lost Targumim) (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983–1989), 1.64. I am indebted to Edward Cook (Catholic University of America) for these two sources (email communication, 20 August 2014). Finally, for discussion of the word, see also Jacob Levy, “Beiträge zur Revision der Thargumim,” ZDMG 14 (1860): 269–277, esp. pp. 276–77. 8   Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1984), 96. The manuscript is now available online at http://www. bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_27031 (with our passage on fol. 85r). See also Targum Neofiti mg. ‫עולמייא שפיריא‬, available online at http://digi.vatlib.it/view/ MSS_Neofiti.1. (with the relevant marginal note on fol. 161v). For the various Targumic renderings gathered together conveniently, the reader is directed to the CAL Targumic Studies Module. 9   The count includes the Damascus Document from the Cairo Geniza and also includes parallel citations. 10  Information culled from Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (revised ed.; Brigham Young University; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2006); and Accordance Bible Software, version 10.4.3.2 (Oaktree Software, July 2014). See also Martin G. Abegg, with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1.246; DCH, 3.125; and Maʾagarim, s.v. ‫זעטוט‬. Just for the record, Accordance counts an eighth occurrence, restored at 4Q270 (4QDe) 6 ii 9, though the restoration is total, without a single letter extant in this fragment.

192

Rendsburg

4Q265 (4QMisc Rules) 3 3

‫הפסח‬ ̇ ‫ה [בזב] ̊ח‬ ‫[אל] יואכל נער זעטוט ואש ‏‬

4Q266 (4QDa) 8 i 8

‫י‬‎‬ ‫חגר או פסח או חרש או נער זעטוט ̇א[ ‏ל יבו] איש [מ] ̇אלה אל תוך ̊ה ̊עדה כ‬ ̇ ]‫‏[ו‏‬ ]‫מלאכ[י] הקו̇ ̊ד[ש בתוכם‬ ̊ ‬

4Q491 (4QMa) 1–3 6

]‫ואשה ונער זעטוט וכול איש מנו[גע בטמאת בשרו‏‬ ̊ ‬‬

4Q502 (4QpapRitual of Marriage) 28 4 4Q502 (4QpapRitual of Marriage) 311 1

‫‬ז]עטוטי[ם‬

[‫‬זע]טו̊ טי̊ ם‬

As may readily be seen from the above list of passages, the expression ‫נער זעטוט‬ is a fixed phrase in Qumran Hebrew (QH), used in the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, and 4Q265. (The other two occurrences of ‫ זעטוט‬occur in the exceedingly fragmentary 4Q502 text, with the preceding word in these two instances unknown.)11 The context of these Qumran compositions suggests that ‫ נער זעטוט‬is a technical term for a young individual, who, for one reason or another, is in a state of either impurity or disqualification.12 Regardless of

11  Commenting on the use of the locution ‫ נער זעטוט‬in the War Scroll (the first Qumran text with this expression to come to light—the reading in CD was determined only upon the discovery of 4Q266), Yigael Yadin opined that the addition of ‫ זעטוט‬after ‫ נער‬allowed for the meaning “youth, young person” to be understood, since ‫ נער‬alone could mean “young warrior” (cf., e.g., 1 Chr 12:28). In the light of the presence of the same phrase in texts without a military context, such as 4Q265 and 4Q266, I for one would surrender this view in favour of the notion that ‫ נער זעטוט‬is simply an idiomatic expression in QH. See Yigael Yadin, Megillat Milḥemet Bene ʾOr bi-Vne Ḥošek mi-Megillot Midbar Yehuda (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1955), 290 = Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 300. 12  Commenting on the War Scroll passage, Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 120, remarks that “because of the presence of the angels among the holy warriors, it is also imperative that only men fit for the battle be admitted to the ranks of warriors and that there be absolute bodily and cultic purity in their camp.” Schäfer’s comment is confirmed by the explicit mention of the angels in the analogous passage from 4Q266 (4QDa) 8 i 8 cited above.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

193

the specific connotation,13 though, the Qumran evidence demonstrates that ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” (or some such gloss within the general semantic field of “young person”) had entered the Hebrew language by the 2nd century bce. But where did the word come from? Three possibilities suggest themselves: (a) it is a native Hebrew word which simply did not present itself in the books of the Bible or earlier inscriptional Hebrew; (b) it is a borrowing from Aramaic; and (c) it is a borrowing from Greek. In what follows, I shall present the case for each of these three options. 1

Option (a): Native Hebrew Word

Option (a) is possible, especially when one considers the long lists of “Words Mainly Attested in the DSS and in the Tannaitic and Amoraitic (MH 2) Literature” and “Words Not Attested either in BH or in MH,” compiled by Elisha Qimron, with the word ‫ זעטוט‬registered in the former list.14 In almost all instances, these “new” words derive from roots and forms well known in Biblical Hebrew (BH). Thus, for example, QH/MH nouns may reflect semantic extension (e.g., ‫“ אבות‬fathers,” with reference to the three patriarchs [CD VIII 18; XIX 31; 1QM XIII 7; XIV 8]); a new form based on a well-known root (e.g., ‫אלוהות‬ “divinity, divine power” [4Q287 (4QBerb) 2a–b 8; 4Q400 (4QShira) 1 i 2; 4Q403 (4QShirc) 1 i 33]); a different plural form (e.g., ‫“ אשמות‬guilts, guilt-offerings”15 [4Q184 (4QWiles) 1 10; 4Q387 (4QapocrJer Cb) A 4; 4Q460 (4QNarr Work and Prayer) 9 i 4; 9 i 11; 4Q475 (4QRenewed Earth) 4; 11QT XXXV 14]); a plural form for a word which appears in the Bible only in the singular (e.g., ‫“ פרכות‬veils, curtains” [4Q405 (4QShirf) 15–16 ii 3]); and so on. Whereas verbal developments

13  See the comment by Maurice Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4. III (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 17: “Il semble clair que ‫ זעטוט‬est épithète de ‫ נער‬et ne désigne pa une catégorie distincte.” At an earlier stage in DSS research, see the comment by Jean Carmignac, La règle de la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958), 104: “Toutefois nous ne sommes pas encore suffisamment renseignés sur les nuances exactes de ce terme et nous ignorons sʾil est employé ici comme synonyme de ‫נער‬, « enfant, adolescent » ou sʾil marque par rapport à lui une gradation quelconque, par exemple « jeune homme non encore admis dans la société des adultes ».” 14  Elisha Qimron, Diqduq ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit šel Megillot Midbar Yehuda (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1976), 297 [Hebrew]; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 99. 15  Cp. BH ‫( ֲא ָשׁ ָמיו‬Ps 68:22).

194

Rendsburg

typically are reflected by the attestation of a new binyan, e.g., ‫ד‬-‫ר‬-‫“ ג‬scrape” (Qal) (11QT XLIX 12);16 ‫ש‬-‫ג‬-‫“ ר‬rage” (Hitpaʿel) (1QHa X 12, XI 15, XI 16);17 etc. All of which is to say, the number of genuinely “new” Hebrew words in QH, from roots totally unattested in BH, is actually quite small.18 A full-scale study of the Qumran lexicon remains a desideratum, but I suspect that most of the truly new words (and these, to repeat, are relatively limited in number) are borrowings from other languages. Examples include19 ‫“ אמצע‬middle” (11QT XXX 9) (cf. Aramaic ‫“ חגר ;(אמצע‬lame” (1QM VII 4; 4Q266 [4QDa] 8 i 8; 4Q279 [4QDe] 6 ii 8)20 (cf. Aramaic ‎‫;)חגר‬21 ‫“ נחשיר‬carnage” (1QM I 9, 10, 13) (cf. Middle Persian naxčīr); and most commonly ‫“ רז‬secret” (passim [119×]) (cf. Middle Persian rāz).22 Naturally, there is an occasional instance of a native Hebrew word, that is, one simply not attested in the Bible, Ben Sira, etc., in the QH lexis. The most stellar example, to my mind, is ‫“ בדן‬body,” a word with good Semitic pedigree, as elucidated by Noam Mizrahi.23 There is, accordingly, no intrinsic reason why ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” could not be a native Hebrew word, one simply unattested in the Bible by sheer accident. In fact, such is implied by the important voice of E. Y. Kutscher, who treated ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” in his book A History of the Hebrew Language, within the

16  In the Bible attested only once, in the Hitpaʿel “scrape/scratch oneself” (Job 2:8). 17  In the Bible attested only once, in the Qal (Ps 2:1). 18  David J.A. Clines, “The Recovery of the Ancient Hebrew Language: The Astonishing Wealth of its Unrecognized Vocabulary,” in Biblical Lexicology: Hebrew and Greek. Semantics—Exegesis—Translation (ed. Eberhard Bons, Jan Joosten, and Regine HunzikerRodewald; BZAW 443; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 71-82, counts 675 new words in QH, though one wonders how many of these have no relationship whatsoever to BH lexemes. 19  Because its linguistic profile does not match that of general QH, I exclude the Copper Scroll from the current discussion, though note that ‫“ אמצע‬middle” occurs there as well, at 3Q15 IV 7. As is well known, the Copper Scroll also attests to a number of Greek architectural terms, to wit, 3Q15 I 7 ‫“ פרסטלין‬peristyle,” 3Q15 XI 2 ‫“ אסטאן‬stoa,” 3Q15 XI 3 ‫“ אכסדרן‬exedra, portico.” 20  Note the proximity of ‫ חגר‬to our word ‫ זעטוט‬in these passages; see above. 21  The Aramaic quality of this noun is borne out by the fact that all three Jewish Targumim use ‫ חגיר‬to render Hebrew ‫ ִּפ ֵּס ַח‬in Lev 21:18 and Deut 15:21 (the Peshitta likewise in the former passage). For discussion, see David Sperling, “ḥgr I and ḥgr II,” JANES 3 (1970–1971): 120–28. 22  For these Persian loanwords, see Thamar E. Gindin, “Persian Loanwords,” EHLL 3.67–68. 23  Noam Mizrahi, “A Body Refigured: The Meaning and History of Hebrew BDN,” JAOS 130 (2010): 541–49.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

195

DSS section entitled “The Hebrew Vocabulary” (and not in the section “The Aramaic Influence”).24 This line of reasoning may be enhanced when one recognizes that ‫זעטוט‬, with its presumed vocalization ‫( זַ ֲעטוּט‬see above, n. 1), fits the (albeit rare) Hebrew nominal pattern qaṭlūl present in ‫פּופ ָיה‬ ֶ ‫( נַ ֲא‬Hos 2:4), ‫ּגַ ְבנֻ ּנִ ים‬ (Ps 68:16–17).25 Moshe Bar-Asher suggested26 that this mišqal is used for intensification, so that ‫פּופ ָיה‬ ֶ ‫ נַ ֲא‬means “her great adulteries” and ‫ ּגַ ְבנֻ ּנִ ים‬means “mountain of many peaks” (presuming some relationship to ‫“ גִ ֵּבן‬hunch-back”).27 In which case, ‫ זעטוט‬may mean something like “very young person,” though we certainly need not push this point too strongly. In short, ‫ זעטוט‬could be a native Hebrew word which emerges for the first time in the Qumran lexicon, but if this be the case, it would belong to a very small group of such lexemes.28

24  E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 103. As we shall see below, however, in an earlier publication Kutscher stated very clearly that ‫ זעטוט‬is a borrowing from Aramaic. 25  See further GKC, p. 234, §84bm. The qaṭlūl pattern is present also in Aramaic and Arabic, for which see Jakob Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894), 214; and Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908–1913), 1.366–67. As far as I can tell, the form is not discussed in Joshua Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns (HSS 59; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003); while Edward Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 215, provides just one example, viz., Aramaic ‫“ מרטוט‬lint.” The presence of this nominal pattern in Aramaic and Arabic will be relevant again when we discuss option (b), that is, proposed borrowing of ‫זעטוט‬ from Aramaic into Hebrew. 26  During the discussion period following the oral presentation of my paper at the conference in Strasbourg. 27  Note that body parts may be extended to natural topography, for example, ‫“ ָּכ ֵתף‬shoulder, mountain ridge”; ‫“ ְשׁ ֶכם‬shoulder, mountain ridge” (see Gen 48:22); and ‫“ ָּב ָמה‬back, mountain peak” (for the former meaning, see especially Ugaritic bmt and most likely Deut 33:29). For a detailed study of the first term, with comments on the semantic extension generally, see Yoel Elitzur, “Mahu katef we-hekan ketef yam kinneret qedma,” ʿAl ʾAtar 4–5 (5759 [1998–1999]): 41–50 = Yoel Elitzur, “Katef: A Topographical Term in the Benjaminite Dialect,” HUCA 70–71 (1999–2000): 27–38. 28  Note that the word has been revived in modern Hebrew as well, though spelled with ʾaleph; cf. http://www.morfix.co.il/‫זאטוט – זאטוט‬: “infant, tiny child, toddler; (literary) youth, mischievous child.”

196 2

Rendsburg

Option (b): Borrowing from Aramaic

Most scholars who have dealt with the lexeme ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” have considered it a Hebrew borrowing from Aramaic. The first scholar to have suggested this appears to have been Joel Mueller in his edition of Masechet Soferim (1878).29 Two decades later, Immanuel Löw stated the same opinion, within his Bemerkungen to Samuel Krauss’s Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrash und Targum (1898–1899).30 Löw’s statement, in turn, was accepted by both Victor Aptowitzer in an article on the rabbinic traditions concerning the Septuagint31 and by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in his monumental dictionary.32 The working hypothesis connects ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” to ‫“ זוטא‬small, young,” though as we shall see, there are difficulties with this derivation. The proposed Aramaic origin of Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” has been repeated by more recent scholars, though usually with some manner of doubt. Thus, one finds the following comments regarding ‫( זעטוטי‬plural) or ‫( זעטוט‬singular): – Jean Carmignac: “Maintenant aucune hésitation n’est plus possible : ce mot est bel et bien apparenté a ‫ זוט‬et comme lui il signifie « petit ».”33 – Harry M. Orlinsky: “Aramaic for ‘young men.’ ”34 – Shemaryahu Talmon: “an Aramaic word, which seems most likely....”35

29  Joel Mueller, Masechet Soferim (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1878), 92. I have not been able consult the original. In fact, as far as I am able to determine, this work is not available in any North American library. Accordingly, I cite this work through Talmon, “Three Scrolls,” 27 n. 34. 30  Immanuel Löw apud Samuel Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrash und Targum, 2 vols (Berlin: S.Calvary, 1898–1899), 2.240, including the comment, “alle Combinationen mit griechischen Wörtern ausschliesst” (the relevance of which will be seen when we reach option (c) below). 31  Victor Aptowitzer, “Die rabbinischen Berichte über die Entstehung der Septuaginta (Schluss),” ‫ הקדם‬3 (1909): 17, footnote. (For the previous two portions of the article, see the two prior issues of the same journal. The entire run is available at http://hebrew books.org/37725.) 32  Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1915), 3.1373– 1374, esp. 1373 (see also p. 1318 for ‫)זָ טוּט‬. I cannot resist the side comment that the year 1915 is arrived at by converting the actual year given, namely ‫אתתמ״ה לחרבן‬. 33  Carmignac, La règle de la guerre, 104. 34  Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Origin of the Kethib-Qere System—A New Approach,” in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), 184–92, esp. 190. 35  Talmon, “Three Scrolls,” 26.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

197

– Emanuel Tov: “This word is apparently derived from ‫זוטא‬.”36 – Avraham Even-Shoshan: ‫ והוא מארמית זוּ‬,‫ זָ אטוּט‬,‫יש סוברים כי הנוסח הנכון זָ טוּט‬ ‫ ָטא קטן‬.37 The clearest statement in favor of the Aramaic derivation of ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is that of E. Y. Kutscher, who wrote most unequivocally, “‫ואשר ל׳זעטוט׳ המלה‬ ‫ארמית היא‬,”38 or in English, “As for ‫—זעטוט‬the word is Aramaic.”39 Yet as we saw above, Kutscher later implied that the word is native Hebrew. As noted above, those who have sought an Aramaic connection to Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” typically have invoked Eastern Aramaic ‫“ זוטא‬small, young,” attested in Syriac, Mandaic, and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (see Tov above, and the discussion in Kutscher).40 While this is possible, caution is advised, since Aramaic ‫ זוטא‬may have developed secondarily from ‫“ זוטר‬small, young” (especially common in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic),41 with loss of final /r/. Should this be the case, then a connection between ‫ זעטוט‬and ‫ זוטא‬seems most improbable, if not impossible. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, ‫ זוטא‬is limited to Eastern Aramaic dialects and does not occur in Western Aramaic, so to consider this the source of Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is even more unlikely. Another factor also needs to be considered, which is the total absence of this word from non-Jewish Aramaic dialects. As noted above, ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is attested perhaps twice in Jewish Targumic texts, but not at all in Samaritan 36  Emanuel Tov, “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Translation of the Torah and Their Relation to the Original Text of the Septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 20 n. 33. 37  Avraham Even-Shoshan, Ha-Millon he-Ḥadaš, 7 vols (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1975, 2:680 (see also p. 686) [Hebrew]. 38  E. Y. Kutscher, Ha-Lašon ve-ha-Reqaʿ ha-Lešoni šel Megillat Yešaʿyahu ha-Šelema miMegillot Yam ha-Melaḥ (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 59 n. 12 [Hebrew]. 39  E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1974), 81 n. 2. 40  This appears to be the approach of the CAL Lexicon Browser module, s.v. ‫זעטוט‬, where the word is glossed as “young scholar,” based on Targum to Song of Songs 6:5 (mentioned above and treated in more detail below). CAL then adds the following etymological remark: “The use of the word is based on its RH2 usage in BT Meg 9a in a discussion of the translation practices of the Septuagint. Some have suggested a Greek origin from ζητητής (see Levy), but a connection with the various forms of zwṭʾ ‘small,’ i.e., ‘very young’ seems more appropriate now in light of the common expression ‫ נער זעטוט‬in Qumran Hebrew (see DCH s.v.).” On the citation of b. Meg. 9a, see above, n. 4. On the reference to Levy, see below, where the proposed Greek derivation for ‫ זעטוט‬is discussed. 41  Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 403–404.

198

Rendsburg

Aramaic,42 Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, or Mandaic. If ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” were a borrowing from Aramaic into Hebrew, one would expect to find a greater presence of this lexeme in the former language. If anything, one may wish to reason that the borrowing is in the opposite direction, from Hebrew (where it is attested earlier and more frequently, especially within QH) into Aramaic (that is, Jewish Aramaic). This does not mean that all is lost for those who wish to advance the Aramaic derivation of Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth.” The argument begins with an inspection of Neo-Aramaic, something which Kutscher himself (to no surprise) did. As Kutscher noted, Gotthelf Bergsträsser recorded the word izʿuṭ in Western Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula dialect),43 and the lexeme is now confirmed by Werner Arnold in his research.44 Closer in form, though at a geographic remove, is the attestation of zaʿṭūṭ “small child” in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). The word is registered in Yona Sabar’s dictionary of Jewish Neo-Aramaic,45 though both the author and Hezy Mutzafi inform me that the vocable is known only from Zakho and to a lesser extent Telkepe (both northern Iraq), both of which dialects are heavily influenced by Iraqi Arabic (see next paragraph), and with no attestation of the word in earlier Neo-Aramaic.46 While this section of the article is devoted to the possible Aramaic source of Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth,” this is also the most appropriate time to present the evidence from Iraqi Arabic. The earliest recording of the word by a modern scholar, to my knowledge, is by Bruno Meissner, in precisely the same form

42  I exclude from consideration the single attestation of the gentilic ‫זטוטאי‬, on which see above, n. 5, and Excursus I below. 43  Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Glossar des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʿlula (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 15:4; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1921), 104. See also Anton Spitaler, Grammatik des neuaramaischen Dialekts von Maʿlūla (Antilibanon) (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 23.1; Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1938), 77 (reference courtesy of Steven Fassberg [Hebrew University]). 44  I am grateful to Steven Fassberg (Hebrew University) for confirming that the lexeme appears in the draft version of Werner Arnold’s dictionary of Western Neo-Aramaic, which he has at his disposal. 45  Yona Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq (Semitica Viva 28; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 160, listed as both ‫ זעטוטה‬and ‫זעזוטה‬, plural forms pronounced zaʿṭūṭe, zaʿzūṭe, respectively, with the gloss “mischievous kids, children.” 46  I am grateful to Yona Sabar (University of California, Los Angeles) and Hezy Mutzafi (TelAviv University) for their respective email communications, both dated to 12 January 2015.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

199

and meaning: zaʿṭūṭ “small child”47—a datum made more widely known by Carl Brockelman in his famous Grundriss.48 Today one also may consult the authoritative Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic, produced by Georgetown University, for confirmation of this noun,49 along with Yitzhak Avishur’s major dictionary of Iraqi Judeo-Arabic.50 What is one to make of these data? One could argue the following: ‫זעטוט‬ “youth” is originally Aramaic, even if barely attested in the ancient sources (see above); it was borrowed into Hebrew in post-biblical times (see the QH evidence especially51); and it was retained in Aramaic throughout the millennia, appearing as the byform izʿuṭ in Maʿlula52 and enduring in its original form in 47  Bruno Meissner, Neuarabische Geschichten aus dem Iraq (Leipzig: J.C.Hinrichs, 1903), 125, with the gloss “Knabe, Junge.” I should add here the personal note: I was unaware of Meissner’s work in Arabic studies, since to my mind he has always been identified as one of the pioneers in Assyriology. My thanks to Stefan Schorch (Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg) for a detailed description of Meissner’s Arabistik accomplishments (via email, 15 December 2014). 48  Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 1.295, 366. See also David Cohen et al., Dictionnaire des racines sémitique, fasc. 8 [Z] (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 769, s.v. ZƐṬ. 49  Beverly E. Clarity, Karl Stowasser, Ronald G. Wolfe, D. R. Woodhead, and Wayne Beene, A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 203; and Mohamed Maamouri, The Georgetown Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2013), 246–47. Note that this latter edition incorporates the material collected in the earlier edition. Both editions note that words derived from zaʿṭūṭ “child, young person” can be used with derision, e.g., mazʿaṭa “something for children” (used in derisive phrases), “child’s play”; tziʿṭiṭ “immature behavior, acting childish.” My colleague Charles Häberl (Rutgers University) has independently confirmed the word for me in Iraqi Arabic from several of his colleagues and informants. For this lexeme and the root z-ʿ-ṭ in other Arabic dialects, see Excursus II. 50  Yitzhak Avishur, Millon la-ʿAravit ha-Yehudit ha-Ḥadaša, ha-Ketuva ve-ha-Medubberet šel Yehude ʿIraq (1600–2000), 3 vols (English title: A Dictionary of the New Judeo-Arabic Written and Spoken in Iraq (1600–2000) (Tel-Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 2008), 1.461, along with the references cited there. 51  If ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” originates in Aramaic, it would constitute an exception to the norm within the literary register of QH, which is generally devoid of loanwords. On this issue, see E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 100; and Gary A. Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (with a Trial Cut [1QS]),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 217–46, esp. pp. 240–41. 52  Note, incidentally, that Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 1.295, considered Maʿlula ezʿūṭ (his spelling) to be a blend between zūṭ and ezʿūr, two separate words for “small.” This is clearly a clever proposal, but unnecessary.

200

Rendsburg

Eastern Aramaic (even if not attested in our limited sources). From the latter it was borrowed into Iraqi Arabic as zaʿṭūṭ “small child,” and then was borrowed back into in NENA (Zakho, Telkepe) with the same meaning from Iraqi Arabic.53 Is all this possible? Yes. 3

Option (c): Borrowing from Greek

As intimated above, however, there is a third possibility, namely, derivation from Greek, with particular attention to the noun ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” (> “student”) derived from the verb ζητέω “seek.” The first to propose this etymology seems to have been Abraham Geiger in his pathfinding book Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (1857). Concerning the variant reading at Exod 24:5 mentioned in the rabbinic sources, Geiger wrote as follows: “für das bekannte Wort ‫נערי‬ 2. Mos. 24, 5 ein offenbar ausländisches ‫ זעטוטי‬gesetz wurde; dieses ist ohne Zweifel das gr. ζητητής, der Forscher, Sucher, indem das Verb. ζητέω in den Apokryphen häufig für: Gott, die Weisheit suchen gebraucht wird.”54 A decade later one finds this etymology ensconced in the standard reference work of the era, namely, Jacob Levy’s Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schrifttums (1867–1868).55 Also concurring with Geiger, and citing him explicitly, was Alexander Kohut.56 And to mention one more great 19th century scholar, the same Greek source for ‫ זעטוטי‬appears in C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1897), who even provided a rather interesting gloss in his translation of the passage in y. Taʿan. 4.2 (68a), as follows: “One Codex read ‫ =[ זעטוטי‬ζητητής] enquires of [Exod. XXIV 5] and the other two Codices read ‫ נערי‬young men of.”57 53  For the long and complicated relationship between Aramaic and Arabic, see the fine survey by Stefan Weninger, “Aramaic-Arabic Language Contact,” in Semit‫‏‬ic Languages: An International Handbook (ed. Stefan Weninger; Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011), 747–55. 54  Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857), 243. 55  Levy, p. 226. 56  Alexander Kohut, Kritische Beleuchtung der persischen Pentateuch-Uebersetzung des Jacob ben Joseph Tavus (Leipzig: C. F. Winter, 1871), 286, note h: “wie Geiger Urschrift S. 243 richting eruirt hat.” See also in the same author’s magnum opus: Alexander Kohut, ‫ערוך השלם‬ = Aruch Completum (2nd ed.; Vienna: Menorah, 1926), 3.283. 57  Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), 408. The book is available in reprint with a Prolegomenon by Harry M. Orlinsky(New York: Ktav, 1966).

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

201

To be sure, as per Geiger’s comment cited above, the verb ζητέω “seek” is common in the Apocrypha, occurring 7× in Tobit, 13× in 1 Maccabees, 7× in Wisdom of Solomon, and 20× in Sirach, for example.58 As further indication of the regular use of the verb in Greco-Jewish literature, note that it occurs 114× in the New Testament (most famously, perhaps, in Matt 7:7).59 True, the specific noun form ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” does not occur in these corpora, but it does appear in classical texts such as Plato, The Republic, 10.618c.60 Notwithstanding Geiger’s certainty (note the phrases “offenbar ausländisches” and “ohne Zweifel” in the quotation above), there are two main difficulties with the derivation of Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” from Greek ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” (> “student”). The first is easily surmountable, the second one less so, but regardless both require extended discussion. The first issue is the semantic one. The presumed Greek etymon ζητητής means “seeker, inquirer” (LSJ, p. 756), and only by extension “student,” but it is not attested (as far as I know) with the meaning “youth”—which connotation is implied by the QH fixed phrase ‫ נער זעטוט‬and/or which is necessitated by the use of ‫ זעטוטי‬as a lexical substitution for ‫ נערי‬in a scroll of Torah that was housed in the Temple. This obstacle may be overcome, however, when one realizes that on occasion during the process of lexical borrowing, the loanword changes meaning and may even jump grammatical category. An excellent modern example is German Handy “mobile phone,” borrowed from English, though in the source language the word is an adjective and is not used for the modern technological invention. For a second example, note Modern Hebrew ‫ ַּפנְ ֶצ׳ר‬, borrowed from English, but whose semantic range has expanded from “puncture” (as in a tyre or other inflatable item) to mean also “disruption, foulup, mishap,” especially in colloquial Hebrew—even though this connotation does not obtain in English (either British or American) “puncture.” More pertinent to the issue at hand, however, are loanwords from Greek into post-biblical Hebrew, with different nuances or meanings. To cite but two examples:

58  Data culled from Accordance (see above, n. 10). The verb ζητέω “seek” is also the common rendering of the Hebrew roots ‫שׁ‬-‫ק‬-‫ ב‬and ‫שׁ‬-‫ר‬-‫( ד‬especially the former) in the Septuagint, for which see Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897–1906; reprint: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 597–98. 59  Data culled from Accordance (see above, n. 10). 60  L SJ, p. 756; and Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, s.v. ζητητής (accessed 4 January 2015).

202

Rendsburg

a) ‫“ איפטייה‬consulship, regnal era, significant date from which an era is reckoned,” borrowed from Greek ὑπατεία “consulate”; as Daniel Sperber remarked, “The meanings of the word in Rabbinic lit[erature] seem to be unattested in the classical sources.”61 b) ‫“ זיטמא‬blameworthy conduct,” borrowed from Greek ζήτημα “judicial inquiry, subject of dispute, etc.”62 The second major issue in the presumed derivation is the presence of ʿayin in the word ‫“ זעטוט‬youth,” since Greek loanwords into Hebrew and Aramaic rarely include the letter ʿayin. True, a number of examples have been identified, but none of them, as far as I can determine, meets the phonological requirements demanded by the theorized borrowing ζητητής > ‫זעטוט‬.63 We will return to this point in a moment, but first let us present a sampling of Hebrew words borrowed from Greek which nonetheless contain the letter ʿayin. Examples from the Mishnah, identified by Shai Heijmans in his recent doctoral dissertation, include the following:64 – ‫“ ענבול‬bell-clapper” < ἔμβολον “peg, stopper, linch-pin” (LSJ, p. 540) – ‫“ עמילן‬starch-flour” < ἄμυλον “cake of fine meal” (LSJ, p. 87) (cf. also Latin

amylum)

– ‫ערכאות‬, ‫“ ערכי‬archives, registry” < ἀρχεῖον “town-hall, office of chief magis-

trates, public records, archives” (LSJ, p. 251)65

– ‫“ טרפעיקין‬half-dinar” < τροπαϊκαϊος, τροπαϊκόν “half-dinar” (LSJ, p. 1826)

Note that in the first three cases, the Greek etymon commences with spiritus lenis, and yet the Hebrew orthography uses the letter ʿayin; while in the fourth 61  Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984), 41–42, with the quotation on p. 42. 62  Ibid., 94–95. 63  Note, incidentally, that the use of ⟨‫ ⟩ט‬to represent Greek ⟨τ⟩ is standard; see Shai Heijmans, Ha-Millim ha-Šeʾulot mi-Yavanit u-mi-Laṭinit ba-Mišna: Leqsiqon ve-Torat Hege (English title: Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology) (Ph.D. diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2013), 239, §12. 64  Heijmans, Ha-Millim ha-Šeʾulot mi-Yavanit u-mi-Laṭinit ba-Mišna, 156–58 (for the first three) and 112 (for the fourth). 65  This particular item requires special comment. The shift of the expected (and sometimes attested) form ‫“ ארכי‬court, magistrates office, etc.” (< ἀρχή) to ‫ ערכי‬may have been stimulated by the influence of the Hebrew root ‫ך‬-‫ר‬-‫“ ע‬arrange, etc.,” with its strong legal associations, see Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, pp. 62–65, esp. p. 65, and the bibliography cited there.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

203

instance, the ʿayin serves to separate two internal vowels, to wit, the combination written as -αϊ. Another potential item is ‫“ עוגין‬anchor,” even if Heijmans is less sanguine about this example.66 Other lexemes, which typically are spelled with ʾaleph, occasionally appear with ʿayin in the different textual witnesses; see, for example, ‫“ אסקריטין‬paste-ball cakes” (< ἐσχαρίτης “bread baked over the fire” [LSJ, p. 699]), spelled as ‫ עסקריטין‬at m. Ḥal. 1:4 in a Cairo Genizah fragment with Babylonian niqqud.67 Almost undoubtedly, in these cases the consonant in question was not pronounced as a voiced pharyngeal fricative [ʕ]; instead one should assume a weakening of the gutturals within (some pronunciations of) Hebrew and Aramaic at this stage, so that ʿayin (and also he) came to be used when we expect ʾaleph.68 For further instances of ʿayin, with most of the evidence coming from Amoraic sources, one may consult the classic work by Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch, und Targum; many of the items, though not all of them, occur as alternatives to spellings with ʾaleph.69 Two words not listed by Krauss, but identified by Daniel Sperber, are the following:70 – ‫“ מלתרעות‬roof beams” < μάλαθρον (with the addition of the Hebrew fem.pl. ending)71 – ‫“ פרמועה‬closely resembling” < παρόμεια 66  Heijmans, Ha-Millim ha-Šeʾulot mi-Yavanit u-mi-Laṭinit ba-Mišna, pp. 155–156. Proposed etyma include ἐχενηΐς “ship-detaining” (LSJ, p. 747) and ὄγκινος “hook” (LSJ, p. 1196) (cf. Latin uncinus). 67  Heijmans, Ha-Millim ha-Šeʾulot mi-Yavanit u-mi-Laṭinit ba-Mišna, pp. 51–52. See further Israel Yeivin, Masoret ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit ha-Mištaqqefet ba-Niqqud ha-Bavli, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), 2.10. As far as I am able to determine (by coordinating the information available at www.genizah.org with the information provided in the index to Yeivin, 2.1176), the shelfmark for this document is St. Petersburg, RNL (Antonin) Yevr. III B 254. Unfortunately, no images of this document are available yet at the website. 68  Heijmans, Ha-Millim ha-Šeʾulot mi-Yavanit u-mi-Laṭinit ba-Mišna, p. 279 (see also p. vii of the English abstract). 69  Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch, und Targum, Teil I: Grammatik, 13–16. 70  Daniel Sperber, Greek in Talmudic Palestine (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2012), 67, 70, respectively. 71  Note, however, that this form interchanges with ‫ מלתראות‬in the manuscripts. See, for example, in Vayyiqraʾ Rabba 17:1, for which see conveniently Vayyiqraʾ Rabba: Mahadura Sinopṭit (Department of Talmud, Bar-Ilan University), available here: http://www.biu .ac.il/JS/midrash/VR/outfiles/OUT17–01.htm.

204

Rendsburg

In both cases the ⟨‫ ⟩ע‬appears in internal position. In the first one, the Greek etymon has a single vowel /ο/, but the particular Hebrew plural form has two separate vowels with ʿayin interposed, presumably something like -aʿo-. In the second case, the Greek term includes a diphthong or glide followed by a vowel, and once more the Hebrew form has ʿayin interposed between two vowels, presumably something like -uʿa. One could continue with more examples, but the point is clear. To the best of my knowledge, we possess not a single attestation of the Greek single vowel /η/ in internal position (or any single Greek vowel, for that matter) marked by an ⟨‫ ⟩ע‬in its Hebrew-Aramaic form—as would be required if ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” were the source of Hebrew-Aramaic ‫“ זעטוט‬youth.” While unusual (and even unique) phenomena may occur when words are borrowed from one language into another,72 this phonological issue remains a serious detraction from the original theory proposed by Geiger and those in his wake.73 There remains, however, one remarkable curiosity, which may even serve to rescue the theory of a Greek origin for the word ‫זעטוט‬. I refer to the attestation of this word in the Targumic expansion to Song 6:5 mentioned above. The complete passage is as follows:74

72  For a masterful discussion of Hebrew in contact with other languages, throughout its various historical phases, and with ample illustrations of what may transpire in the course of lexical borrowing, see Azzan Yadin-Israel, “Contact of Hebrew with Other Languages,” EHLL 1.597–601. 73  I should add here that no one seems to have dealt with this issue in the century-and-ahalf from Geiger to the present. It is not as if the 19th-century savants thought the word was spelled ‫( זאטוט‬with ʾaleph—though they knew about this variant spelling), because they consistently wrote the word as ‫( זעטוט‬see, for example, the aforecited quotations by Geiger and Ginsburg, along with Lewy’s dictionary entry, etc.). Perhaps even more striking, none who have promoted the Aramaic origin of ‫ זעטוט‬have pointed out this issue either. 74  For the text, see Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 4A: The Hagiographa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), 137, which in turn is based on British Library Or. 2375, available online at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_2375 (see folio 179v). For simplicity’s sake, I have omitted the Babylonian supralinear vocalization marks, plus I have marked šin to aid the reader. The primary change in the consonantal text is the emendation in the first word, adopted from the CAL Targumic Studies module; see also at Accordance. The version presented by Raphael Hai Melamed, The Targum to Canticles According to Six Yemen MSS.: Compared with the “Textus Receptus” as Contained in De Lagarde’s “Hagiographa Chaldaice” (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1921), 99–100, is essentially the same, save for minor variants. Somewhat curiously, Sperber included the word ‫ יתי‬after ‫אצדיקו‬, even though it is lacking in the British Library manuscript; for this

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

205

‫אסחר{יך}⟨ו⟩רבניך חכימי כנשׁתא רבתא חזור חזור לקבלי דאנון אמלכוני בגלותא‬ ‫ ועמא דארעא אצדיקו במימר פומהון‬75‫וקבעין מדרשׁא לאלפאן אוריתי ושׁאר זעטוטין‬ ‫דבני יעקב דלקטו אבנין ועבדו גלשׁושׁיתא בטור גלעד׃‬

Your rabbis, the sages of the Great Assembly, surrounded Me completely to receive me, for they acknowledged My reign during the Exile, and they established a House of Study for the instruction of My Law. And the rest of your students and the people of the land acknowledged My justice by the word of their mouth, like the sons of Jacob who gathered stones and made a monument on Mount Gilead.76 In the context of “rabbis,” “the sages of the Great Assembly,” “a House of Study,” and “the instruction of My Law,” the word ‫ זעטוטין‬here must mean “students,” as so translated by both Treat and Alexander. Now, the Targum to Song of Songs is a late text, typically dated to the eighth century ce, and yet the meaning “students” here is rather striking in light of the proposed Greek etymon ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” (> “student”). Could it be that indeed the Greek word was borrowed into Hebrew-Aramaic during the Second Temple period (the problem of the ʿayin notwithstanding), that its meaning was adjusted to “youth, young man” generally (witness QH and the rabbinic tradition of the zaʿaṭuṭe scroll), but that it retained its original connotation of “seeker, inquirer, student” as well?—to emerge with the latter sense in Targum to Song of Songs? To repeat what I stated above, in the world of lexical borrowing, unusual things may occur—though naturally all due caution is advised before accepting the above scenario. The other option, it seems to me, is to accept the Hebrew or Aramaic origin of our word (see above, options [a] and [b]) with the meaning “youth, young man” and to assume that the semantic shift to “student” attested in Targum to

reading, see Melamed, p. 100, note to line 2, with a nod to Paul de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1873), 158. 75  Above (n. 1) I mentioned that we do not possess a Hebrew manuscript with the word ‫ זעטוט‬vocalized, though in this case we are able to cite the Aramaic (plural) form with Babylonian niqqud, to wit, zaʿăṭūṭīn, precisely as one would expect. My thanks to Geoffrey Khan (University of Cambridge) for his assistance on this matter, especially the question of how to transcribe the ḥiṭfa mark over the ʿayin. 76  Translation of Jay C. Treat, available at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/song/targum/. See also Philip Alexander, The Targum of Canticles (Aramaic Bible 17A; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 167.

206

Rendsburg

Song of Songs occurred either by sheer coincidence or more likely under the influence of the like-sounding Greek word ζητητής.77 One final point should be raised here. Some may consider a Greek source for ‫ זעטוט‬out of the question entirely, since cognates to the word are attested in Iraqi Arabic and Neo-Aramaic (see above). This should not enter into the equation, however, since there are other instances of words borrowed from Greek into Hebrew and Aramaic during late antiquity, which persist to the present day (via Middle Aramaic and medieval Aramaic) in both modern Aramaic and modern Arabic dialects. The most widespread example is probably Greek ζυγόν “yoke” (LSJ, p. 757) > Hebrew-Aramaic ‫“ זוּג‬pair, couple,” Arabic zawǵ “pair, couple,” also “one of a pair,” hence “husband” and by extension feminine zawga “wife.”78 Though others also may be cited, for example: – Iraqi Arabic ʾalmāsa, Neo-Aramaic ʾalmas “diamond” < Syriac ‫אדמוס‬, JBA ‫ < אדמסא‬Greek ἀδάμας “steel, diamond” (LSJ, p. 20)79 – Iraqi Arabic batrīq, Neo-Aramaic ‫“ פטריך‬patriarch” < Syriac ‫ < פטרירך‬Greek πατριάρχης, (LSJ, p. 1163)80 – Iraqi Arabic ṣābūna, Neo-Aramaic ‫“ צאבון‬soap” < Syriac ‫צבון‬, ‫ < צפון‬Greek σάπων (LSJ, p. 1374)81

77  For parallel instances, again see Yadin-Israel, “Contact of Hebrew with Other Languages,” esp. p. 598; along with Nicholas de Lange, “Greek Influence on Hebrew: Late Antiquity,” EHLL 2.146–47. For numerous detailed discussions, see the classic work by Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942; 2nd ed.: New York: Feldheim, 1965). 78  See conveniently Ernst Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 195. 79  Yona Sabar, “General European Loanwords in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho, Iraqi Kurdistan,” in Studies in Neo-Aramaic (ed. Wolfhart Heinrichs; HSS 36; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990), 59. See also Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary, p. 96; and Clarity et al., A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic, p. 53. Even with the shift of /d/> /l/ in the Iraqi Arabic and Neo-Aramaic forms, the ultimate origin from Greek seems assured. 80  Sabar, “General European Loanwords in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho, Iraqi Kurdistan.” See also Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary, p. 254; and Clarity et al., A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic, p. 37. 81  Sabar, “General European Loanwords in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho, Iraqi Kurdistan.” See also Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary, p. 266; and Clarity et al., A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic, p. 163. Note that the Greek word may be a borrowing from Celtic, though it clearly reached the Semitic world directly from Greek.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

207

– Neo-Mandaic qəlidɔ, qəlíd “key,” Turoyo qliḏo, NENA qlida, etc. < Syriac ‫קלידא‬, JBA ‫ < אקלידא‬Greek κλείς, acc. κλεῖδα “key” (LSJ, p. 957)82 – Neo-Mandaic qallɔn “blue” < Syriac ‫קלינא‬, JBA ‫( < קלאילן‬MH ‫ < )קלאילן‬Greek καλάϊνος or καλλάϊνος “shifting between blue and green” (LSJ, p. 865)83 In short, Greek loanwords into ancient Northwest Semitic, that is, Hebrew and Aramaic, persist to the present day in the various languages spoken in Iraq. Those who wish to countenance the Greek source for Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth,” accordingly, should not be deterred by the presence of modern Iraqi Arabic and Neo-Aramaic zaʿṭūṭ “child.” 4 Conclusion As we have seen, three possible etymologies for Hebrew ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” have been proposed: a) original Hebrew word; b) borrowing from Aramaic; and c) borrowing from Greek.84 Each approach has something to commend it, while each also has at least one drawback. In the end, accordingly, perhaps we should conclude with Ernst Klein, “of uncertain origin.”85 This would be quite an unsatisfying finish, however, especially after the lengthy analysis presented herein. So let me conclude with my own current thoughts, after months of contemplating the matter. To be honest, when I began this project, I was given to Geiger’s original proposal that the word ultimately derived from Greek ζητητής, and in fact I presented this position during the oral version of this paper at the conference in Strasbourg. Upon further reflection, however, I now consider the presence of 82  Hezy Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 27. 83  Ibid., p. 47. 84  For the sake of complete coverage, I should mention here one other proposed source, namely Middle Persian zâta “geboren,” for which see Joseph Perles, Zur rabbinischen Sprach- und Sagenkunde (Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1873), 5. I am unable to judge the value of this suggestion, though it appears to have had no followers, including amongst those conversant with Iranian. To be sure, the presence of ʿayin in ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” would be as much as an obstacle for an Iranian derivation as it is for a Greek derivation—though Perles appears to have built his argument more on the spelling with ʾaleph, that is, ‫זאטוט‬. 85  Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, p. 193 (see also p. 201). Though I should add that Klein continued, “possibly standing for ‎‫זָ טוּט‬, ‫זָ אטוּט‬, and formed from JAram. ‫זוּטא‬ ָ (= small), through reduplication of the ‫ט‬.”

208

Rendsburg

ʿayin in ‫ זעטוט‬to be a greater problem than I first had recognized. Borrowing from Aramaic into Hebrew remains possible, though to my mind also less probable, given the even sparser attestation of this word in the former (that is to say, ancient varieties thereof) than in the latter. We return, then, to the first option, namely, that ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is a native Hebrew word which does not appear in BH, but which surfaces in QH and in rabbinic literature. As indicated above, such lexemes would be rare, but not unprecedented, with the aforementioned ‫“ בדן‬body” as a sterling example.86 The history of our word, accordingly, is as follows. 1) The word ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is part of the ancient Hebrew lexis. 2) It was borrowed into Jewish Aramaic (presumably first Western, then Eastern), where possibly under the influence of the like-sounding Greek word ζητητής “seeker, inquirer” > “student” it gained this connotation as well, as witnessed in Targum to Song of Songs 6:5. 3) The word continued in Aramaic, both western and eastern through the centuries, emerging as the byform izʿuṭ in Maʿlula Aramaic and enduring as the main form in Eastern Aramaic (even if we lack evidence for the latter).87 4) From Eastern Aramaic the word passed into Iraqi Arabic, hence zaʿṭūṭ “child.” 5) Finally, in the recent past, the word was re-borrowed by Aramaic, as it passed from Iraqi Arabic into NENA. I hasten to add that this reconstruction represents only one possible scenario, since others are possible as well. Scholarship normally proceeds with an issue or problem presented, followed by a sure (or nearly certain) solution. In the present instance, we have not been able to attain the second part of this equation with the usual degree of certainty desired in academic writing. Nonetheless, we hope that the reader will have benefited from this rather long excursion into the 2000-plus-year history of a single lexeme, attested first within the Dead Sea Scrolls and continuing until the present day in Hebrew, Neo-Aramaic, and spoken Arabic. 86  Naturally, it is possible that ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” is simply a good Semitic noun, based on a presumed Semitic root z-ʿ-ṭ attested across Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. But since the noun appears only in Hebrew and in Jewish Aramaic in antiquity, and not in other Aramaic dialects and classical Arabic, not to mention in more distantly related languages such as Akkadian, South Arabian, and Ethiopian, this seems less likely. By contrast, note the panSemitic cognates to ‫“ בדן‬body” identified by Mizrahi, “A Body Refigured: The Meaning and History of Hebrew BDN,” 543. 87  For some analogues, see Joshua Blau and Simon Hopkins, “On Aramaic Vocabulary in Early Judaeo-Arabic Texts Written in Phonetic Spelling,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 32 (2006): 433–71, esp. §8 “Aramaic loanwords not attested in Eastern Jewish Aramaic” (pp. 459–68). The situations are not precisely the same, but said article nonetheless demonstrates how words may travel “through” a language, even without explicit testimony thereto. I am grateful to Steven Fassberg (Hebrew University) for this reference.

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

209

Abbreviations Blau Joshua Blau, Millon le-Ṭeqsṭim ʿAraviyim-Yehudiyim mi-Yme ha-Benayim (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2006). CAL  Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, online at http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/. DCH David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011). DJBA Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002). DJPA Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990). DSA Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, 2 vols (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.50; Leiden: Brill, 2000). EALL  Kees Versteegh et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, 4 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2006–2009). EHLL  Geoffrey Khan et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Jastrow Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, 2 vols (London: Luzac, 1903; reprint: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2005). Lane Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols (with Stanley Lane-Poole; London: Williams & Norgate, 1863–1893). Levy Jacob Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumin und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, 2 vols (Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1867–1868). LSJ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon, 9th edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Maʾagarim  Maʾagarim: The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, online at http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il. SL Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns / Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2009). Wehr Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, edited by J. Milton Cowan (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961; 4th edition: Ithaca, N.Y.: Spoken Language Services, 1979).

210

Rendsburg

Excursus I: ‫ זטוטאי‬in ʾAsaṭir 9b As indicated above in n. 5, the term ‫ זטוטאי‬appears in ʾAsaṭir, a late Samaritan retelling of Genesis-Exodus written in Aramaic. The passage (9a–9b) reads as follows:88 ‫) קרבה קמאה עם כנענאי וזטוטאי‬9b( ‫) ונפקו מיתי פלשתים ועבדו‬9a(

And the men of the Philistines came-out and made war first with the Canaanites and the Zaṭuṭa ʾy.89 According to Moses Gaster, the Pitron commentary (written in Hebrew) identifies the enigmatic Zaṭuṭaʾy with the Perizzites.90 I do not know the basis for this identification, other than the collocation of “the Canaanite and the Perizzite” in the Torah (see especially Gen 13:7, 34:30; and of course in the longer lists of the inhabitants of the land [Gen 15:20, Exod 3:8, etc.]). Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim stated more matter-of-factly regarding the Zaṭuṭaʾy: ‫לא נזכר‬ ‫“ במקרא ולא ידעתי למי הכוונה‬not mentioned in the Bible, and I do not know to whom is the intention.”91 Whether this gentilic term is related to our word ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” one cannot say. The lack of ʿayin in the Samaritan Aramaic form ‫ זטוטאי‬is not a problem, since even some rabbinic manuscripts read either ‫ זטוטי‬or ‫ זאטוטי‬instead of ‫( זעטוטי‬see above, n. 4). The question must remain open.92

88  For the text, see Moses Gaster, The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the “Secrets of Moses” (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927), 22 (‫ ;)כב‬and Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, “Sefer ʾAsaṭir (ʿim Tirgum u-Peruš),” Tarbiz 14/2 (Tevet 5703 [1942–43]): 118. 89  For Gaster’s English translation, see The Asatir, 240. 90  Gaster, The Asatir, 15 (‫ )יה‬for the Hebrew text, and 221 for his English translation. 91  Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, “Sefer ʾAsaṭir,” 186. 92  Wondering whether I might have missed something regarding the connotation of the single attestation of ‫ זטוטאי‬in Samaritan Aramaic, I turned to the world’s authority himself, Abraham Tal (Tel-Aviv University), who in his customarily generous fashion responded as follows (email communication, 2 January 2015): “I am afraid that I cannot help you in solving the riddle of ‫זטוטאי‬. There is no reasonable explanation for the identification of ‫ זטוטאי‬with the Perizzites. Apparently the author of the twelfth century (?) comment on ʾAsaṭir, was not ‘à point’ with the ancient nomenclature.… Until further study is done, I think Ben-Ḥayyim’s statement still stands.”

The Etymology of ‫ “ זעטוט‬youth, young man ”

211

Excursus II: z-ʿ-ṭ / zaʿṭūṭ in Arabic Dialects In the main body of the article, I noted the presence of zaʿṭūṭ “child” in Iraqi Arabic. For the sake of complete coverage, this Excursus presents the evidence for this lexeme and the root from which it is derived in other modern colloquial Arabic dialects.93 My colleague Zakia Salime (Rutgers University) informs me that she knows the word from her native Moroccan Arabic dialect. In her own words, “we say zaʿtout in Morocco, very rarely in fact, and it is used as a pejorative term for a boy” (via email, 1 January 2015). The word is not listed, however, in the standard dictionaries of Moroccan Arabic by G. S. Colin, Le dictionnaire Colin d’arabe dialectal marocain, 8 vols (ed. Zakia I. Sinaceur; Rabat: É ditions al Manahil / Ministère des affaires culturelles, 1993–1994), 3.715; and by Richard S. Harrell, A Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic (Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2004), 231. Curiously, one finds our word in these lexica, presented as either ẓăʿṭōṭ (Colin) or ẓăʿṭūṭ (Harrell), though with different meanings:94 “1. Sonneur de trompe (durant les nuits du Ramadan); 2. Zool. Pigeon ramier; 3. Nom donné aux singe de bateleurs (singe sans queue, maggot), dressé à faire des tours, exhibé par les bateleurs du Sous” (Colin); “long trumpet-like horn” (Harrell).95 Could the use of our word for a trained monkey (looking rather child-like, even mischievous) be related? Regardless, I am led to wonder whether zaʿṭūṭ “child,” as documented by my colleague, has entered contemporary Moroccan Arabic secondarily, through film and television perhaps, even if the industry is dominated by Egypt (and not Iraq) within the Arab world. The second of the definitions given by Colin above occurs already in R. P. A. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1877–1881), 1.592, “pigeon ramier,” citing Beaussier, Cherbonneau, and Daumas (all dictionaries or lexicographical studies of North African Arabic). For Levantine Arabic, we may cite both J. G. Hava, Arabic-English Dictionary (Beyrut: Catholic Press, 1899), 289, who lists a verb zaʿaṭ “to bray (ass)”; and Claude Denizeau, Dictionnaire des parlers arabes de Syrie, Liban et Palestine (Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve,

93   zaʿṭūṭ “child” is not listed in the major dictionaries of Lane, Wehr, Blau et al., so that one may conclude that the word is not a feature of the classical lexis, continued into modern literary Arabic. 94  Note that in Moroccan Arabic /z/ > /ẓ/ in proximity to another emphatic, as is the case in the word under discussion here. While this is not stated explicitly in the entry, see the convenient chart and brief discussion in Dominique Caubet, “Moroccan Arabic,” EALL 3.275. 95  See also Daniel Ferré, Lexique marocain-français (Maroc: Impr. de Fédala, 1952), 295: ẓǎʿṭōṭ “trompette du Ramadan.”

212

Rendsburg

1960), 220, with the gloss “parler fort, crier” for the same verb. These connotations of emitting a sound (whether from an animal or a human) are to be associated, most likely, with the meaning of the aforecited Moroccan Arabic noun relevant to the trumpet for Ramadan. My Arabist colleague Benjamin Koerber (Rutgers University) mentions to me the Egyptian Arabic dialectal word ṣuǵanṭūṭ / zuǵanṭūṭ / ṣuǵaṭṭūṭ “small and cute, tiny, wee,” which looks intriguingly like a blend between ṣuǵayyar “small” and zaʿṭūṭ, even if there is no independent confirmation for the latter word in Egyptian Arabic. For the various forms, see Martin Hinds and El-Said Badawi, A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic (Beirut: Libraire du Liban, 1986), 504. Hinds and Badawi, A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic, p. 370, also provide the Egyptian Arabic verb, zaʿaṭ “pluck out (hair),” including using tweezers on one’s eyebrows. This usage is paralleled in Sudanese Arabic zaʿaṭ “arracher les plumes,” as registered by Cohen et al., Dictionnaire des racines sémitique, fasc. 8, p. 769 (see there for a summary of much of the information contained in this Excursus). As noted above (n. 93) the noun zaʿṭūṭ “child” does not occur in classical or modern standard Arabic, but Wehr does register the verb zaʿaṭa with the meaning “to drive away.” A byform of this verb, namely zaʿṭaṭ, occurs in Yemeni Arabic, as noted by Moshe Piamenta, A Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic, 2 vols (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990–1991), 1.200, with the meaning “to put to flight by intimidation.” In sum, with the possible exception of rare usage in Moroccan Arabic, the noun zaʿṭūṭ “child” is limited to Iraqi Arabic, while the verbs derived from the root z-ʿ-ṭ are not connected semantically to our noun (nor frequently to one another, for that matter). All of this, of course, makes it most probable that zaʿṭūṭ “child” was borrowed into Iraqi Arabic from Aramaic at some stage in the relatively distant past. Finally, and for the record, since the Hebrew-Aramaic word ‫“ זעטוט‬youth” could in theory emerge from a Semitic root z-ǵ-ṭ, I append here the observation that the sole attestation of this root, according to Cohen et al., Dictionnaire des racines sémitique, fasc. 8, p. 775, is Levantine Arabic zaġaṭ “avaler,” for which see Claude Denizeau, Dictionnaire des parlers arabes des Syrie, Liban, et Palestine (Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve, 1960), p. 221. Clearly this datum has no significance for our enterprise. Having arrived at the end of this long note, I here express my deep gratitude to my friend Noam (Norman) Stillman (University of Oklahoma) for his researching the word in Arabic (especially Maghrebi, Levantine, and Yemeni) dialects on my behalf and for his providing most of the aforecited references (via email communication, 12 January 2015).

chapter 12

Is the Hebrew of the Cairo Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira Relevant for the Study of the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period? Jean-Sébastien Rey After the discovery of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira in the Cairo Genizah at the end of the nineteenth century, a large debate took place about the authenticity of these witnesses. Many scholars argued against their authenticity claiming that the manuscripts are “translations of Ecclesiasticus made from Syriac and a daughter version of the Greek.”1 The discovery, half a century later, of the Masada and Qumran fragments, has certainly undermined this assumption. But problems related to the history of the Hebrew text from the Cairo Genizah and, in particular, the relationship between these texts and the supposed original, have not been definitively resolved. The main arguments of D. S. Margoliouth against the authenticity of the Hebrew were primarily linguistic, focusing mainly on Hebrew words borrowed from Arabic.2 Although most of these arguments are no longer tenable,3 the question of the authenticity of the Hebrew text and its possible linguistic transformation during transmission must be taken seriously and reassessed today with our better knowledge of the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period, due especially to the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no doubt that the medieval text has sustained a large number of modifications: Do these textual transformations affect the linguistic character of the text from a diachronic point of view? To what degree are the Hebrew Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira reliable witnesses to the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period? 1  David S. Margoliouth, “The Destruction of the Original of Ecclesiasticus,” ExpTim 16 (1904): 26–29, esp. 26. 2  David S. Margoliouth, The Origin of the “Original Hebrew” of Ecclesiasticus (London: James Parker, 1899). 3  For example, Margoliouth attributes the form ‫ משריק‬in 43:9 to a late student of Hebrew who ‫)� ش ق‬, but this form is spoke and thought in a Mohammedan language (from the Arabic �‫م���ر�ي‬ clearly attested in Masada VI 2. Similarly, in 43:8 the form ‫ מרצף‬cannot be borrowed from ‫ف‬ late Arabic �‫ ر�ص‬as the letters also appear in Masada VI 1, ruining definitively Margoliouth’s argument: “Neither the phrase in the text nor that in the margin could have been used by anyone who lived before the Mohammedan domination” (p. 6).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_013

214

Rey

In this article, I would like to examine four aspects of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira as it relates to the history of the Hebrew language. First, radical divergences in the Hebrew witnesses; second, the use of words that are only found in Paytanic literature; third, the occasional syntactical variations found in the Hebrew manuscripts; and, finally, I would like to examine to the marginal notations found in ms B in order to ask to what degree this scribal practice affects the text linguistically. 1

Irreducible Discrepancies between Hebrew Witnesses

Irreducible discrepancies between Hebrew witnesses provide good illustrations of scribal interventions and the evolution of the text during transmission. This is especially true for the very distinctive manuscript C as compared with other versions. One example, reflective of others, will suffice to illustrate that two different Hebrew texts can agree with the old translations―Greek and Syriac―yet disagree with each other. Take, for instance, Sir 3:14: Ms A ‫ תנטע‬

‫צדקת אב לא תמחה‬ ‫ותמור חטאת היא תנתע‬

Kindness to a father will not be blotted out And instead of sin it will be crushed ⟨it will be planted⟩

Ms C

‫צדקת אב אל תשכח‬ ]‫ותחת ענותו תתנצ[ב‬

Do not forget to show kindness to your father, And instead of sins? it will sta[nd]

In this sentence, the two texts of A and C say, more or less, the same thing: “we must not forget charity/justice/kindness (tsedaqah) to a father and this tsedaqah will be put, planted, in place of sin.” With the exception of the syntagm ‫צדקת אב‬, the two texts have no Hebrew words in common. The two sentences present easily recognizable scribal mistakes: In ms A, the letters ‫ תנתע‬must be corrected to ‫ תנטע‬as indicated in the margin; in ms C, the reading ‫“ ענותו‬his humility” is doubtlessly a metathesis for ‫“ עונתו‬his sins.” In addition to these corrections, the texts present linguistic divergences.4 Hans Peter Rüger solves the problem by considering that the sentence of ms C is older than that of ms A, but the problem seems more complex: 4  Hans P. Rüger, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112; Berlin: de

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

215

1. ‫( לא תמחה‬ms A) versus ‫( אל תשכח‬ms C). Ms A presents an indicative (or a vetitive) statement where ms C has a prohibitive one. As the reading of A agrees with both the Greek (οὐκ ἐπιλησθήσεται) and the Syriac (‫)ܠܐ ܡܬܛܥܝܐ‬ versions, we should admit that the negative ‫ לא‬of A preceded the reading of C. Yet, as attested elsewhere in Ben Sira and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the semantic distinction between the two syntactic constructions ‫ לא תקטול‬and ‫אל תקטול‬ tended to disappear and the two constructions became interchangeable in the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period.5 So, although the reading of ms A is possible, that of ms C is not to be excluded. 2. The distinction between ‫ תמחה‬and ‫ תשכח‬is more complicated. The two verbs are closely related semantically and while the first agrees with the Greek, the second agrees with the Syriac. 3. The word ‫תמור‬, also present in 4:10, is attested neither in Biblical Hebrew nor at Qumran, but occurs later in piyyutim. In such a case, I would admit that the ‫ תחת‬of ms C could be better. At the same time, however, the reading ‫תתנצב‬ of ms C is clearly a late Aramaism, not attested outside the Syriac language. I have to conclude that the word ‫תנטע‬, in the margin of ms A, would be better. In conclusion, the manuscripts attest to two quite different Hebrew texts. Both partially agree with ancient Greek and Syriac versions and both seem to have undergone transformations during transmission. Here again, this is not an isolated situation, it is repeated, for example, in the next two verses. In such an example, it seems impossible to reconstruct the Urtext with any objectivity. More fundamentally, how might we explain this phenomenon? With two texts differing so clearly, one is necessarily not the “original,” and, in our case, it is even probable that neither are original. But where do they come from? We cannot explain all divergences as scribal errors: how can we explain the change of ‫ תמחה‬to ‫תשכח‬, or of ‫ תחת‬to ‫תמור‬, of ‫ חטא‬to ‫עוון‬, of ‫ תנטע‬to ‫תתנצב‬, or vice versa? Can we demonstrate a linguistic adaptation or a retroversion (in a case where the scribes have not had a complete manuscript, as in Sir 51), but Gruyter, 1970), 27, considers that ms C presents the oldest form of the text and ms A the most recent. 5  See §3 infra and Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1986), § 400.13; Ahouva Shulman, “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” ZAH 13 (2000): 168–80; Jean-Sébastien Rey, “Quelques particularités linguistiques communes à 4QInstruction et à Ben Sira” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 155–74.

216

Rey

then from which text? Could we speak of creative writing, rewording? In any event, this example demonstrates the fluidity of the text of Ben Sira. How then can we use such texts to characterize the Hebrew of the second temple period? Indeed is Sir 3:14 a first attestation of the word ‫ תמור‬in the Hellenistic period or a rewording from the time of piyyutim? Is ‫ לא תמחה‬an indicative or a confusion with the form ‫ ?אל תקטול‬Or, on the contrary, is the form ‫ אל תשכח‬used in the sense of the indicative here as suggested by a few scholars? 2

Ben Sira and Paytanic Influence

Since the discovery of the Genizah fragments, scholars have noticed the presence of words or expressions, attested only in piyyutim, suggesting that although the text was not written by medieval Jews, it must have been amended in this period. This intuition was first voiced by Walter Bacher in 1897, in a study on the vocabulary of the last chapters of Ben Sira: “One can say that Sirach already exhibits that mosaic style which is characteristic of the productions of the later post-Talmudical Hebrew literature.”6 The same statement led Solomon Schechter to suggest that this linguistic feature was proof of the use of the Paitanic language in the second century bce: “The Paitanic features of our fragments thus in no way point to its late composition. They only prove that this ornamental style is also pre-Talmudic.”7 For Schechter, Ben Sira should be described rather “as the first of the Paitanim than as one of the last of the canonical writers.”8 This type of diachronic analysis is facilitated today, thanks to Maʾagarim, the database of the Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. Let me present examples that reflect different linguistic situations. 1. The word ‫לֹומת‬ ֶ ‫ ִת ְׁש‬with the meaning, “payment, retribution, reward,” is present four times, in Sir 12:2 and 14:6 in ms A and, in the plural, ‫תשלו־‬ ‫מות‬, in 35:13 and 48:8 in ms B. This form is not attested in Classical Hebrew,

6  Wilhelm Bacher, “The Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus,” JQR 9 (1897): 556–60; see also Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1899), 27–33. 7  Solomon Schechter, “The Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. The British Museum Fragments of Ecclesiasticus,” JQR 12 (1900): 268. 8  Taylor and Schechter, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 33.

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

217

Rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic, which have the form ‫לּומא‬ ָ ‫ ַּת ְׁש‬/ ‫ ַת ְׁשלּום‬.9 However the form ‫לֹומת‬ ֶ ‫ ִת ְׁש‬is documented in medieval Hebrew, in a late addition of b. Sukkah 49b,10 and in one piyyutim from the eighth century ce of Eleazar HaQalir and in Hilkhot reʾu §7–8. The fact that the word appears four times in the Ben Sira manuscripts is a good indication of its antiquity and could hardly be explained as a systematic linguistic adaptation of the Hebrew of Ben Sira to medieval Hebrew. 2. The expression ‫תעיז מצח‬, in Sir 8:16 (ms A), is attested only in tenth century piyyutim11 and does not correspond to the Greek and Syriac translations. In classical Hebrew, the hiphil of ‫ עזז‬is generally constructed with ‫ פנים‬to signify “to set one’s face against, to dare, to be insolent” (cf. Prov 7:13; 21:29) and never with ‫מצח‬. The Greek (μὴ ποιήσῃς μάχην, “do not pick a fight”) and Syriac (‫ܠܐ ܬܨܐ ܡܨܘܬܐ‬, “do not pick a fight”) translations would suggest the Vorlage ‫“ אל תעש מצה‬do not pick a fight,” proving that the expression ‫תעיז מצח‬ appeared by letter confusion in a later period, perhaps under the influence of the medieval expression. 3. The hiphil of the verb ‫דמע‬, “to make cry,” in Sir 12:16 is never used in classical or early Rabbinic Hebrew, but only in Ben Sira and piyyutim from the tenth century.12 The root is known in cognate Semitic languages.13 Classical Hebrew knows the substantive ‫“ דמעה‬tears.” The verb ‫ דמע‬is attested only twice in the qal: in Jer 13:17 (‫)ודמע תדמע‬, which is part of the additions from the MT as compared with the Greek, and in Sir 31:13B (‫)דמעה תדמע‬, probably an allusion to Jeremiah. The factitive conjugation, aphel, is recorded at least once by dictionaries14 in Babylonian Aramaic, in a magical bowl, offering an expression very close to Sir 12:16 ‫ומדמעא עינין‬, “(the demon) causes eyes to shed tears.”15 9  This example was already cited by Bacher, “The Hebrew Text,” 557 and analysed by Hayyim Dihi, The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira (Ph.D. diss., BenGurion University of the Negev, 2004), 745–49 [Hebrew]. 10  The word is not attested in the main manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. At least, two manuscripts (Oxford, ms. Heb. e.51 [2677] from the Cairo Genizah and ms. ‫ביהמ׳׳ל‬ 218) add the sentence, ‫גדול וגדולה תשלימת אהבת חסד סימ׳‬, before the aphorism of rabbi Eliezer. 11  The expression is never attested before Eleazar HaQalir or Shelomo Suleiman. 12  See Dihi, The Morphological and Lexical Innovations, 187–88. 13  See the Arabic ‫د �م‬, peal in Palestinian Aramaic and in Samaritan Aramaic, as well as the ‫ع‬ peal and pael in the Syriac (see, among others, Robert Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus [Oxford: Clarendon, 1879], 1: which refers to Ephr. iii 247: ‫)ܕܡܥܝ ܥܝܢܘܗܝ‬. 14  See Sokoloff, Babylonian Aramaic, 343. 15  J TS cat. no. 950. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Aramaic and Mandaic Magical Bowls,” ArOr 9 (1937): 87 (text H.8).

218

Rey

Elsewhere, the hiphil is recorded five times in piyyutim.16 These attestations of the hiphil in the medieval period, suggest that in Sir 12:16, the former verb has been changed at a very late period, probably from the qal to the hiphil (see the Greek that has the active conjugation of the verb ‫( דמע‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ δακρύσει ὁ ἐχθρός).17 These examples, as well as others, possibly indicate the intervention of scribes on the text at a literary level during transmission from antiquity to the medieval period. But this should not be overestimated. Indeed, we also find words or expressions attested not only in Ben Sira and in late piyyutim, but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in the Masada Scroll. This is, for example, the case for the form ‫יתכלכל‬, “be steadfast, holdfast,” in Sir 12:15 ms A,18 Sir 43:3 ms B and Masada.19 The hitpalpel of ‫ כול‬is never attested in Biblical Hebrew, but is found twice at Qumran in 4Q511 1 820 and 4Q405 (Shir ʿolat ha Shabbat) 20 ii + 21–22 2 // 11Q17 VII 421 as well as in numerous piyyutim dated back to the seventh century.22 An equivalent similarity has been noted by Noam Mizrahi between the Hebrew of the piyyutim and the Hebrew of The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.23 Different scenarios are possible and not necessarily incompatible. First, the text of Ben Sira could have been changed several times by scribes from the medieval period. A second possibility is the opposite 16  Unfortunately, Dihi did not noticed the attestations of the factitive forms in Babylonian Aramaic and in late piyyutim. See Hoshanot for Hoshanah Rabba, 21; Nehemiah ben Shelomoh ben Heiman (tenth century), Seder Avodah for the Day of Atonement, 65; Shmuel Bar Yitzchak, Selichot, 22; Shemuʾel Hashelishi Bar Hoshaʿna (tenth–eleventh century), Yotserot for the Shabbats of the year, 41; Meshulam bar Kalonymus (eleventh century), Sidre Avodah for the Day of Atonement, 31. 17  But the Syriac has the factitive (‫ܥܐ‬ ̈ ‫)ܡܚܬ ܕܡ‬, which supposes that the hiphil was integrated before the Syriac translation. 18  Sir  12:15: ‫“ ואם נמוט לא יתכלכל‬And if you stumble, he will not stand fast.” 19  Sir  43:3: ‫“ לפני חרבו מי יתכלכל‬Who can stand fast before its scorching heat?” (Greek ὑποστήσεται; Syriac ‫ܡܩܡܠ ܚܟܫܡ ܘܢܡ‬‎). 20  4Q511 1 8: ‫“ וכול בני עולה לוא יתכלכלו‬and none of the sons of injustice shall stand fast.” 21   ‫“ בח[וק ית]כלכלו לש[רת‬by ordinance they stand fast in the service.” See also certainly 4Q301 4 2, see Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 144 (fragment renumbered 4–5* in Qimron’s edition). 22  The oldest attestation is recorded in Eleazar HaQalir, ‫קרובות והשלמות קרובה לתשעה באב‬ (T-S H2.74). 23  Noam Mizrahi, “Aspect of Poetic Stylization in Second Temple Hebrew: A Linguistic Comparison of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with Ancient Piyyuṭ,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources (ed. Steven E. Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth Clements; STDJ 108; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 147–63.

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

219

phenomenon—that is, the influence of the book of ben Sira on medieval piyyutim.24 A third hypothesis, suggested by Mizrahi, would consider stylistic motivations: “The similarities between them are therefore the result of comparable stylistic motivations and aesthetic principles that were at work in shaping the linguistic profile of the Songs [and I add Ben Sira] on the one hand and of piyyut Hebrew on the other.”25 A fourth explanation is that of a parallel linguistic evolution, independently, in antiquity and the medieval period. This short analysis shows that cases where words or expressions are attested in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira and in ancient piyyutim, have to be analyzed with prudence, case by case, without generalization. Indeed, although the similarities could suggest a rewording of the work in the medieval period, other explanations remain possible. 3

Syntactic Variations between the Different Witnesses

Since historical linguistics are interested in syntactic changes, syntactic variations between different witnesses could present a real challenge. This difficulty can be illustrated by the example of discrepancies between the use of ‫ אל‬and ‫ לא‬in negative clauses in the different manuscripts of Ben Sira.26 Wido van Peursen presents a list of examples where the negative ‫ אל‬is used in place of ‫לא‬

24  In addition to the quotation of Ben Sira in Saʾadiah Gaon, see Cecil Roth, “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service,” JBL 71 (1952): 171–78; Joseph Marcus, The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 16–xxxiv, 1), the Fifth Ms and a Prosodic Version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxii, 22–xxiii, 9) (Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1931), 9–10 and 26–28; Ezra Fleischer, “Additional Fragments of the ‘Rhymed Ben Sira,’ ” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry. L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 205–17; Ezra Fleischer, Proverbs of Saʿid ben ābshād (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990), esp. chapter 2 “Rhymed Ben Sira,” pp. 264–82. My thanks to Noam Mizrahi for most of these references. 25  Mizrahi, “Aspect of Poetic Stylization,” 161. 26  For more details on this analysis, see Jean-Sébastien Rey, “ ‘Dislocated Negations’: Negative ‫ אל‬Followed by a Non-verbal Constituent in Biblical, Ben Sira and Qumran Hebrew,” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period. Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Pierre van Hecke; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 160–74, esp. 168–70.

220

Rey

in a predictive sense instead of the expected prohibitive.27 However, each case presents textual variations among the Hebrew witnesses. In Sir 3:14 ms B, ‫“ צדקת אב אל תשכח‬kindness to a father will not be forgotten” (or “do not forget kindness to a father”) corresponds to ‫צדקת אב לא תמחה‬ “kindness to a father will not be blotted” in ms A (in agreement with the Greek and Syriac). In Sir 6:8 ms A, ‫“ כי יש אוהב כפי עת ואל יעמוד ביום צרע‬For there is the friend for one time, and he will not stay in the day of distress,” ‫ אל יעמוד‬following ‫ כי יש אוהב‬is clearly indicative. However, the new folio, discovered in 2007, reads ‫ולא יעמוד‬, in agreement with the quotation in Saʾadiah28 and the Greek (οὐ μή παραμείνῃ). In Sir 16:13 ms A, ‫אל ימלט בגזל עול‬, “A sinner does not escape with his spoil,” the negative ‫ אל‬has been corrected into ‫ לא‬in the margin.29 The same difficulty arises in Sir 39:34 where ‫ אל‬precedes an infinitive construct instead of the expected ‫( אין‬‎‫“ אל לאמר זה רע מה זה‬not to tell: this is not good, what is this”). Moshe Zvi Kaddari considers the construction as a corruption, resulting from the contamination of ‫ אל תאמר‬and ‫אין לאמר‬.30 But neither Kaddari nor van Peursen note that the marginal reading of ms B corrects the text to ‫אין לאמר‬. So here again, in which way should we take this example as a witness of linguistic evolution? Such textual variations challenge our attempt to reconstruct the historical evolution of Hebrew language. The frequency and the regularity of the phenomenon would exclude the hypothesis of scribal mistakes.31 It is difficult to know, without a comparison with a similar phenomenon in other dated texts, in which direction the transformation appeared. Does the use of ‫ אל‬in a 27  Wido Th. van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997 (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 236. This characteristic was already noticed by Joüon in biblical Hebrew poetry (§114k), but the examples he gives are debatable. For example, in Ps 41:3: “you will not give him over” could also mean “Do not give him over,” in Ps 50:3 “he will not remain quiet” could also be “do not remain quiet,” etc. 28   ‫( ספר הגלוי‬ed. Harkavy), 178. 29  We could add cases where ‫ אל‬is used in a negative final clause to express purposeconsecution (Si 7:1 [ms A], 9:13 [ms A] and 38:12 [ms B in the margin, in opposition to the plain text ‫)]ולא‬. 30  Menahem Zvi Kaddari, “‫“[ ”עיון בתחביר דיאכרוני׃ מלת השלילה אל‬The Negative Particle ʾal: A Study in Diachronic Syntax”], in ‫ א‬,‫מחקרים בלשון‬‎[Language Studies, vol. 1. On the Unity of the Hebrew Language and Its Periodization] (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1985), 202. 31  In any case, such scribal mistakes could reflect linguistic harmonization (consciously or unconsciously).

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

221

predictive clause reflect a characteristic of the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period (as lectio difficilior)? Should the alternative variants be explained as efforts to harmonize texts with classical Hebrew syntax? Or, on the contrary, should we consider the use of ‫ אל‬in a predictive sense as a feature of medieval Hebrew and the marginal readings as witnesses to the ancient text? 4

Linguistic Variants in the Margin of B

Another phenomenon of linguistic ambiguity is generated by the numerous marginal notations of ms B. If the scarce marginal notations of ms A are correctives—probably based on the scribe’s original copy— then the marginal notations of ms B are either alternative readings that may be based on another copy of Ben Sira (or more than one), or may be from the scribe himself.32 I will discuss two examples that highlight scribal creativity and the linguistic problems it raises. In Sir 11:2, three readings are present in the manuscript: ]‫אדם ̊ב ̊מ[׳‬ ̊ ‫תתעב‬ ̊ ‫ אל‬

‫בתוארו‬ ̊ ‫אד ̇ם‬ ̊ ‫ אל תהלל‬ ‫ ואל תתעב אדם מעזב במראהו‬

]‫מכֹוע[ר‬

Do not praise a person for his good looks, and do not abhor a person forsaking ⟨who is ugl[y]⟩ in his appearance Although the Hebrew of the plain text is perfectly understandable and correct, nevertheless the scribe puts in the margin two alternative readings. In the right margin, the word ‫ מכֹוע[ר]‏‬agrees with ms A and the Syriac. The other alternative reading—curiously written vertically and at the very edge of the paper33— agrees with the Greek (the end or the marginal note is very hard to read 32  Jean-Sébastien Rey, “Transmission textuelle et sacralisation. Quelques caractéristiques de la pratique des copistes des ms A et B du texte hébreu de Ben Sira,” in Littérature et sacré: La tradition en question (ed. Valentina Litvan; Bern: Peter Lang, 2016), 153–66 ; Idem, “Scribal practices in Ben Sira ms B,” in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira’s Hebrew Text, 1896–2016. Proceeding of a Conference on the 120th Anniversary of the Cairo Genizah Discoveries (James K. Aitken, Stefan Reif, and Renate Egger-Wenzel; DCLS; Berlin: de Guyter, forthcoming). 33  There are several attestations of these curious notes written at the very edge of the paper, while there was enough space in the margin in ms B, see fol. Ir, fol. Iv, fol. IIIr, fol. VIr, fol. XVIv.

222

Rey

properly). The piel or the pual of ‫ ָעזַ ב‬‎34 in the meaning “to be dirty, ugly,” is not attested in either biblical or Qumran Hebrew, and is extremely rare in Rabbinic Hebrew, limited to very late texts. Maagarim identifies the first attestations in Yannai (3 times). 35 The attestation in ms Bodl. Heb. 55 folio 6r is particularly interesting because the two roots ‫ עזב‬in the poual and ‫ כער‬in the hophal are paralleled and contrasted with words referring to beauty and delight: ‫מה יפו ומה‬ ‫ מה עוזבו מה הוכארו‬,‫נעימו‬.36 Concerning the marginal variant ‫ מכוער‬in Ben Sira, the root ‫—כער‬also attested in Sir 13:22 with the meaning “ugly, repulsive”—is an Aramaism present neither in Biblical Hebrew, nor in Qumran Hebrew, but only in Rabbinic literature.37 Rüger38 judiciously mentions the case of Nah 3:6 where the words ‫ ושמתיך כראי‬are written ‫ושמתיך כאורה‬, from ‫כאר‬, in 4Q169 (pNah) 3–4 iii 1–2, which explains the translation of these words in the Targum by ‫ואשויניך מכערא‬ ‫לעיני [עממיא] כל חזך‬. In this case, scribes have not corrected a corrupted Hebrew text, but offer three alternative readings. The plain text, unique—using ‫מעזב‬, a very late word—, the right reading similar to ms A and the Syriac—using ‫מכוער‬, an Aramaism—, and the left reading in agreement with the Greek. In this example, ms B shows that the divergences of the ancient translations are documented by the pluriformity of the Hebrew text in a single manuscript and challenge our capacity to retrace the history of the textual development and consequently the reconstruction of the history of the Hebrew Language.39 34  The reading ‫ שבר‬suggested as an alternative by Ben Ḥayyim and followed in the Maagarim The Historical Dictionary Project is impossible. 35  See for example in ‫ במדבר‬,‫קדושתות לשבתות השנה‬, 22, 70 in opposition to ‫“ הידור‬paying respect, honoring, adorning.” 36  Yannai, ‫קדושתות לשבתות הפורענות והנחמה‬‎, 11, 93. The two words are also associated in the hitpael in Cant. R. 2:14:8 in ms Vat. Ebr. 76 ‫ומ ְת ַעזֵ ֶבת‬ ִ ‫( ִמ ְת ַא ֵכ ֶרת‬vocalized by another hand in the manuscript). Jastrow notices the same association in Gen. R. 45:4, ‫ היא מתכערת ומתעזבת‬but the last word (‫ )עזב‬is missing in ms Vat. Ebr. 30 recorded in Maagarim. See also, Yannai, ‫ במדבר‬,‫קדושתות לשבתות השנה‬, 22, 70 where the piel of ‫עזב‬ is contrasted with ‫“ הידור‬paying respect, honoring, adorning” (‫)ע׳ הידור ו׳ העיזוב‬. 37  The root ‫אר‬/‫ כע‬is elsewhere attested in Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac and possibly in Biblical Hebrew (see Menahem Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira [ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 137–65, esp. 140–41), as well as the derivatives, ‫כיעור‬, )‫מכארו(ת‬, ‫מכאר‬, )‫כואר(ו‬, )‫מכער(ו‬. 38  Rüger, Text und Textform, 64. 39  In this case, we could imagine the following succession: ∅ > ‎‫מעזב > מכוער‬.

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

223

Another example could illustrate a different difficulty: the presence of alternative but erroneous readings. Sir 30:12ef: ‫יקשיח  למה ישקה ומרה בך  ונולד ולך ממנו מפח נפש  ולוד ממך‬ ‫ישקיח‬

Lest40 he shall make drink ( ?) [mg. 1: become obstinate] [mg. 2: ?] and rebel against you and the last breath be begotten of him. [mg 1: and for you (come) from this (or from him) the last breath.] [mg 2: and the one that is begotten from you (bring) the last breath.] The reading ‫“ ישקה‬he shall make drink” seems clearly erroneous. Possibly, it is a metathesis for ‫“ יקשה‬become hard”41 in agreement with the Greek (σκληρυνθείς “he becomes stubborn”) and the Syriac (‫“ ܢܥܫܢ‬he grow strong”). But these versions could also be confirmed by the first marginal reading ‫ יקשיח‬which, in this case, seems to be corrective. The verb ‫קשח‬, “to treat harshly,” is only attested twice in Biblical Hebrew (Job 39:16 and Isa 63:17), and never again until piyyutim as Yannai, Eleazar HaQalir and later literature. But this marginal correction has been corrected by a second one,42 ‫—ישקיח‬a metathesis from the first one—which is a hiphil of a root, ‫שקח‬, unattested elsewhere.43 What is more surprising, is that the second marginal reading, the wrong one, is later than the first one. Why should a scribe add a wrong word to correct a good one? Is it a new Hebrew word unattested elsewhere? Is this form attested in the scribe’s original copy, considered as sufficiently sacred to be copied, erroneous or not? ‫ ונולד ממך‬is also complemented by two marginal readings perhaps written by two different hands. The reading under the line, ‫ולך‬, is understandable: “and for you (come) from this (or from him) the last breathe.” But the second reading 40  For ‫ למה‬with the meaning ‫ פן‬as attested in a few instances in Ben Sira and 4QInstruction, see Jean-Sébastien Rey, “Quelques particularités linguistiques communes à 4QInstruction et à Ben Sira” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 155–74. 41  See Box Osterley and Smend, for example. 42  It is difficult to say if this second annotation is from the same hand as the preceding one. 43  The root is attested only in Samaritan Aramaic as equivalent to ‫“ שקע‬to sink, to let down,” cf. Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Handbook of Oriental Studies 50; Leiden: Brill, 2000).

224

Rey

is less clear. Indeed the form ‫ ולוד‬is incomprehensible. We could assume that it is a mistake for ‫וילוד‬: “the one that is begotten from you (bring) the last breath.” But it is intriguing that a few lines further along, in Sir 30:17, the same marginal reading ‫ ולוד‬appears but this time as an alternative for ‫ולירד‬. Can we suppose that a scribe made the same mistake twice? All the more confusing is that, in the second case, ‫ ולוד‬cannot be explained as a mistake for ‫וילוד‬. How, from a linguistic point of view, might we explain these marginal readings which seem to be erroneous, when the plain text is perfectly understandable? 5 Conclusion In this paper, I wanted to provide a series of examples that challenge the question of the linguistic features of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. 1. The first example concerned irreducible divergences between different witnesses to a single sentence. This kind of situation demonstrates the complex process of rewording by scribes over time. Not only does this exemplify scribal activity within the text, it also illuminates the extent to which the successive textual layers have become interwoven and the difficultly one faces in attempting to deconstruct this process. 2. The second example examined the presence of words attested only in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira and in piyyutim. The analysis shows that the situation is particularly complex. Since the discovery of the Genizah manuscript, this issue has been used as a forceful argument against the integrity of the medieval witnesses of Ben Sira, but it could be explained in different ways, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive: By influence of the book of Ben Sira on piyyutim, which is clearly documented; by a similar yet independent linguistic development in both corpora; and finally, by scribal emendations in the medieval period and linguistic harmonization. Each textual case has to be evaluated individually in light of these three possibilities. 3. The third example took a specific syntactic case that presents strong variations between the witnesses or the marginal annotations: the use of the negative ‫ אל‬instead of ‫ לא‬in predictive sentences. The manuscript variants show how difficult it is to identify a specific syntactic peculiarity reflecting unambiguously the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period. 4. Finally, the last example analyzed marginal variance in a single manuscript and the problems it raises concerning textual history and its variation in time. This example illustrates, once again, the involvement of scribes in textual transformation and the difficulties this creates for the reconstruction of the peculiarities of the Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period.

Cairo Genizah manuscript of Ben Sira

225

This article sought to demonstrate the complexity of the above phenomena. It is doubtlessly difficult to demonstrate a clear rewording of the text dating back to the medieval period and bearing the linguistic features of that time, but it is also clear that the text does not uniformly reflect the Hebrew of the Hellenistic period and that it has undergone numerous transformations. The line between these two realities is difficult to define with any precision and each case has to be analyzed for itself.

chapter 13

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira’s Hebrew: The 3ms Heh Pronominal Suffix Eric D. Reymond 1 Introduction* The Hebrew manuscripts containing the Wisdom of Ben Sira exhibit relatively few traits associated with what is commonly described as archaic Hebrew poetry.1 For example, we do not find enclitic endings (mem, hiriq–yodh, or holem–waw), the 3mp suffix ‫מו‬-, or the jussive form used as a preterite.2 Even the prepositions in their expanded forms (‎‫ ֶא ֵלי‬, ‎‫ ִמּנֵ י‬/ ‎‫ ִמּנִ י‬, ‫ע ֵדי‬‎ ֲ , ‫) ֲע ֵלי‬, which seem somewhat common in biblical poetry in general and which also appear among the Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS), do not occur in the ancient or medieval manuscripts of Ben Sira. In relation to the 3fs perfect verb ending in ‫ת‬- (as in ‫ָאזְ ַלת‬ “it has gone away” in Deut 32:36), Accordance identifies one example (‫והבשת‬ wǝhobišat “she will cause embarrassment” Sir 42:11 ms Bm), and this is better construed as a 2ms form (wǝhobaštå “you will be embarrassed”).3 When we * I wish to thank my fellow participants of the conference for their comments as well as my colleague Joel Baden for sharing his thoughts on the subject of the paper with me. The topic of this paper is further expanded upon in Eric D. Reymond, “The 3ms Suffix on Nouns Written with a Heh Mater,” in “Like ʾIlu Are You Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee, ed. H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond (Chicago, Oriental Institute, forthcoming). 1  For a summary of characteristics of archaic Biblical Hebrew, see Alice Mandell, “Biblical Hebrew, Archaic,” in EHLL, online version, accessed April 4, 2014. On Northern Israelian Hebrew, one may consult Gary A. Rendsburg, “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon,” Orient 38 (2003): 5–35. 2  There are no 2fs or 3fp verbal forms attested; thus, there are no 2fs perfect verbs ending in ‫תי‬- or 3fp imperfects beginning with yodh. On the aberrant short jussive forms used as imperfects (but not preterites) in Ben Sira, see Wido Th. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 94–95. The three prefix verbal forms that can be construed as preterites do not bear the form of the jussive (see van Peursen, Verbal System, 113–119). 3  Martin Abegg and Casey Towes, “Ben Sira,” in Accordance 9.5 (Altamonte Springs, Florida: OakTree Software, 2007, 2009). The phrase “and she will shame you” is hard to read in the ms B text, but the traces of ‫( הובשתך‬hobišatkå) can be made out (see the photo at genizah.bodle

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_014

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

227

do see features characteristic of early Hebrew poetry, they are also common features of later dialects of Hebrew, including the dialects (presumably) used by Ben Sira himself as well as the later scribes transmitting his text (e.g., the relative -‫ ש‬and/or the 2ms suffix -åk [< -āk] in ‫מאודך‬ ָ Sir 7:30 ms A).4 There are, however, traits conventionally associated with archaic Hebrew poetry that, while appearing in Ben Sira, are uncommon in this text as well as in roughly contemporaneous texts. One of these is the 3ms pronominal suffix marked with a heh.5 The antiquity of this feature is implied by not only its appearance in archaic Biblical Hebrew poems, but also the fact that the heh is used almost exclusively to mark the 3ms suffix in pre-Exilic inscriptions and then becomes rare in post-Exilic texts and inscriptions. Despite this rarity, as will be pointed out below, the 3ms heh suffix does still appear to be an orthographic variant of the more common waw suffix in late first millennium bce texts. The following contribution attempts to identify likely examples of the 3ms heh suffix in the ancient and medieval manuscripts of Ben Sira. The present study will also hopefully provide insight into some confusing words in the Hebrew of Ben Sira. More broadly, the study will suggest some factors influencing the use of the pronoun in the Masoretic Text, as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in Ben Sira. The consistency of these factors points to a manner of writing and reading for both ancient and medieval scribes that allowed for variety and encouraged flexibility. Along the way we will assess whether it seems likely that the suffix or the word on which it is affixed is part of an early layer of the text or is a later addition. This is not executed with the intention of determining explicitly how Ben Sira himself wrote or understood Hebrew. We have no evidence for how Ben Sira wrote, and, beyond this, we do not know for certain that he composed ian.ox.ac.uk/fragment/MS_HEB_e_62/3a, accessed through www.bensira.org), accessed May 14, 2014. The left margin contains a plene form ‫הובישתך‬. In the right margin one finds ‫והבשת‬. This is most likely a 2ms form: “so that you will be ashamed.” This fits the orthography (see ‫ ה ַֹב ְׁש ָּת‬in 2 Sam 19: 6) and the meaning of the hiphil of ‫ בוׁש‬when it takes this peculiar form (as though from ‫)יבׁש‬. 4  Similarly, the retention of a final consonantal yodh in ‫ אתיות‬ʾotiyyot “things that will come” (Sir 42:18 Mas) reflects the Biblical Hebrew lexicon as well as the morphology of certain III– waw/yodh words (e.g., ‫ ה ִֹמּיֹות‬/ ‫“ ה ִֹמּיָ ה‬one’s growling,” ‫“ ְר ִמּיָ ה‬deceit”). 5  Another is verb forms that may be construed as originating from the passive qal conjugation. On this, see my contribution, “The Passive Qal in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period, especially as Found in the Wisdom of Ben Sira” in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy (ed. Joel S. Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2017), 1110–27.

228

Reymond

by writing.6 Instead, knowing if a given word is a later addition or not will give us an indication of the degree to which later scribes are responsible for this archaic element of the orthography. 2

History of the 3ms Heh Suffix

In pre-Exilic Hebrew inscriptions, the heh as a marker of the 3ms pronominal suffix on (singular) nouns and verbs appears almost exclusively (e.g., ‫עבדה‬ “his servant” Meṣad Ḥashavyahu 2), though the pronunciation is unknown (perhaps -ō or -uh).7 6  On the possible oral delivery of his proverbs, see, e.g., Benjamin G. Wright, “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shimeʾon Centre, Papa, Hungary 19–20 May, 2006 (ed. Geza G. Xeravits and Jozsef Zsengeller; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 206. 7  See Jeremy Hutton, “Epigraphic Hebrew: Pre-Roman Period,” EHLL, online version, accessed April 4, 2014. Cf. Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 105–106. Hutton cites for the former pronunciation (-ō): Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (AOS 36; New Haven: AOS, 1952), 53; Ziony Zevitt, Matres Lectiones in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs (ASORMS 2; Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1980), 17, 18, 21; Randall W. Garr, Dialect Geography of SyriaPalestine, 1000–586 BCE. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 57, 103; Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (2 vols.; Halle: Niemeyer, 1922), 226. He cites for the latter pronunciation (-uh): Frank Moore Cross, “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [-âw],” Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Harvard Semitic Studies 51; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 351–52; Rebecca Hasselbach, “The pronominal suffix of the third person masculine singular in Hebrew,” Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (2003): 50–54. A third possibility Hutton views as less likely is that the suffix was pronounced as an open syllable with a following (unmarked) vowel -h. It is unlikely to have been -ahu since, on analogy to the theophoric element on various names in the inscriptions (e.g., “Hoshayahu” ‫ הושעיהו‬Meṣad Ḥashavyahu 1), this would have presumably resulted in spellings with a final waw mater ‫הו‬-. See Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture (BO 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986), 41. The common assumption is that the pronunciation -ō derives from a historical process by which the heh of an earlier 3ms suffix -ahu was lost and the resulting diphthong -au collapsed to -ō. The same final vowel -ō may, alternatively, have developed through a process whereby the last syllable of an earlier -uhu was lost and the resulting -uh then shifted to -u, simultaneously or subsequently being lowered (and lengthened) to -ō. See Jeremy Hutton, “Orthography: Epigraphic,” EHLL, online version, accessed April 4, 2014.

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

229

The Hebrew literary texts of the pre-Exilic era are, of course, preserved in later manuscripts. In these manuscripts, namely the so-called “biblical” DSS and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, the 3ms heh suffix is found on a small number of words.8 In the Masoretic Text, especially the Leningrad Codex (= LC), the 3ms heh suffix occurs approximately fifty times.9 In other medieval manuscripts the 3ms heh suffix occurs in other distributions.10 The reasons for the use of this suffix and not the more common waw are hard to know. Nevertheless, the distribution of the 3ms heh suffix suggests certain influential factors. First, certain spellings seem to dominate in certain texts. For example, ‫“ ָא ֳהֹלה‬his tent” occurs four times in Genesis (all J; vs. ‫ ָא ֳהלֹו‬twice or, perhaps, three times in E);11 ‫“ ֻכֹּלה‬all of it” eight times in Jeremiah (vs. ‫ ֻכּלֹו‬twice in one verse);12 ‫“ ֲהמֹונֹה‬his multitude” four times in Ezekiel (vs. ‫ ֲהמֹונֹו‬once). Similar sounding words, even though occurring in different places, sometimes 8  According to a search by Accordance, in the Samaritan Pentateuch the 3ms pronoun is heh only in ‫( לחה‬Deut 34:7), which may imply that this was construed, in fact, as a 3fs pronoun, as seems likely in Sir 31:13, as pointed out below. 9  G KC (§91e) report “fourteen times in the Pentatuech, and some forty times in other books.” The precise number is difficult to determine, in the end, since some scholars will view certain 3fs suffixes as misunderstood examples of the 3ms suffix and vice versa. In certain cases, the 3ms heh suffix may, in fact, be due to a confusion of the two pronouns, as in Jer 17:24, where the antecedent to the pronoun of ‫“ ּבֹה‬in it” is ‫יום השבת‬. 10  Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (2 vol.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1776–80, reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 2003). Note, e.g., that while ‫ָא ֳהֹלה‬ “his tent” occurs only four times in Genesis in the LC, what is ‫ אהלו‬in LC is found as ‫אהלה‬ in various other manuscripts listed by Kennicott (e.g., at Gen 26:25; 31:25; 33:19; Exod 33:10; Jdt 4:11). Certain manuscripts, like Kennicott’s codex 9 (Pentat. 4. minori, Mash 635), seem to have the word spelled frequently with a heh. In other cases, as many as twenty mss attest to the heh suffix (as at Gen 26:25). By contrast what is ‫ אהלה‬in the LC is ‫ אהלו‬in other mss (as at Gen 13:3). 11  The case of ‫ אהלה‬in Gen 26:25 may be J or E. 12  Recently, Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky has commented on the frequency of ‫ כלה‬among the prophetic books as indication of the heh possibly representing the final adverbial -a (“The Non-Construct ‫ כל‬/ ‫ הכל‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources [ed. Steven E. Fassberg et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 260 n. 5). While I agree that this ending is most likely found on other Hebrew particles (like ‫)עתה‬, construing the instances of ‫ כלה‬in this manner makes cases of ‫ כלו‬in syntactically analogous positions hard to explain. Note especially that the single verse where ‫ כלו‬appears in Jeremiah, 6:13, is almost identical to Jer 8:10 where ‫ כלה‬is used. Also, ‫ כלה‬appears after the place name “Israel” (in the sense “all of [the house of] Israel”) in 2 Sam 2:9; Ezek 11:15, 20:40, 36:10 in a manner similar to how ‫ כלו‬appears after the generic noun ‫“( עם‬all the people” Isa 9:8) and ‫“( גוי‬all the nation” Mal 3:9).

230

Reymond

encourage spelling with a heh; note, especially, ‫“ ַּפ ְרעֹה‬Pharaoh” passim and ‫“ ְפ ָרעֹה‬he neglected it” in Exod 32:25; ‫“ סּותֹה‬his robe” in Gen 49:11 and ‫“ ְּכסּותֹה‬his covering” in Exod 22:26; ‫“ ִעיר ֹה‬his donkey” in Gen 49:11 and ‫“ ְּב ִעיר ֹה‬his beast” in Exod 22:4 as well as ‫“ ְּב ֵרעֹה‬when it shouted” in Exod 32:17.13 In some of these passages and in others, the word to which the 3ms heh pronoun is suffixed occurs close to other words that bear a final heh mater (e.g., ‫“ ְּב ִעיר ֹה‬his beast” [Exod 22:4] occurs just before ‫“ ְב ֵע ָרה‬burning” in the next verse; ‫ל־אגַ ָּפיו‬ ֲ ‫ֶעזְ ר ֹה וְ ָכ‬ ‫ …“ ֱאזָ ֶרה‬his help and all his bands I will scatter” [Ezek 12:14]; ‫ּוב ַליְ ָלה ִׁשיר ֹה‬ ְ “at night his song” [Ps 42:9]).14 In still other cases, the 3ms heh suffix may occur on a word that also occurs as a feminine singular word with final -å (‫◌ה‬ָ ͏‫ )‏‬or on a masculine by-form with final -ɛ (‫◌ה‬ֶ ‫( )‏‬e.g., ‫“ ׂשֹוכֹה‬its branch” [Judg 9:49] vs. ‫ׂשֹוכה‬ ָ “branch” [Judg 9:48]; ‫“ ִקּצֹה‬his end” [2 Kgs 19:23, = ‫ ִקּצֹו‬in Isa 37:24] vs. ‫ ָק ֶצה‬‎, ‫ ֵק ֶצה‬,‎‫“ ָק ָצה‬end”; ‫“ ֶעזְ ר ֹה‬his help” [Ezek 12:14] vs. ‫“ ֶעזְ ָרה‬help” [passim] and ‫ֲעזָ ָרה‬ “enclosure” in Ezek 43:14; ‫“ ֻסּכֹה‬his lair” [Ps 10:9, 27:5] vs. ‫“ ֻס ָּכה‬booth” [passim]; ‫“ ִׁשיר ֹה‬his song” [Ps 42:9] vs. ‫“ ִׁש ָירה‬song” [passim]).15 I assume that the spellings with the 3ms heh suffix are not simple mistakes. I assume that the proximity to other words with final heh maters, and/or graphic similarity to other nouns ending in heh has encouraged the scribe’s use of heh as marker for the 3ms suffix. In the biblical DSS (including phylactery texts), one sees the 3ms heh suffix in the places that it occurs in the MT (e.g., ‫אהלה‬‎ 4Q1 [4QGen–Exoda] at Gen 35:21; ‫ [ברע]ה‬4Q22 [4QpaleoExodm] at Exod 32:17; ‫כלה‬‎ 1QIsaa at Isa 15:3, 16:7; ‫כלה‬‎ 1Q8 [1QIsab] at Isa 16:7; ‫כלה‬‎ 4Q72 [4QJerc] at Jer 20:7; ‫ כלה‬Mur 88 at Hab 1:9, 15; ‫ עזה‬Mur 88 at Hab 3:4).16 In addition, where the heh does not occur in the MT (either because the MT has no word with a suffix or because the MT has a waw instead), the scroll has a digraph ‫וה‬- (e.g., ‎‫ בוה‬4Q128 [4QPhyl A] at Exod 12:43, 44; 4Q140 [4QPhyl M] at Exod 13:3; 4Q137 [4QPhyl J] at Deut 5:14; ‫לוה‬‎ 4Q138 [4QPhyl K] at Deut 10:18; ‫אותוה‬‎ 1QIsaa at Isa 36:21, 59:19, 62:8; ‫חיקוה‬

13  Note also ‫“ ׂשֹוכֹה‬its branch” in the MT and 1Q6 at Judg 9:49 and the place name ‫ׂשֹוכֹה‬ passim (e.g., Josh 15:35). Note, too, the similar sounding but not identical ‫“ ֻסּכֹה‬its lair” in Ps 10:9 and 27:5. 14  Note also ‫ל־המֹונֹה‬ ֲ ‫ ַפ ְרעֹה וְ ָכ‬in Ezek 31:18. 15  With the exception of the first example, where the feminine noun occurs in construct, ‫ׂשֹוכת‬ ַ , the feminine nouns do not occur in passages close to those where the masculine word occurs with the 3ms heh suffix. 16  There is only one exception I could find through Accordance: ‫ נכתיו‬appears in 1QIsaa at Isa 39:2 for ‫נְ כֹתֹה‬. In other “reworked” texts, the suffix is not preserved, as in ‫בעירו‬‎ (4Q366 1, 9) for MT ‫ ְב ִעיר ֹה‬.

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

231

at Isa 40:11; ‫ כוחוה‬at Isa 44:12, 63:1; ‫ נפשוה‬at Isa 53:11).17 In relation to these, we should note that the examples are concentrated in the phylactery texts and in the second half of 1QIsaa, reflecting perhaps a peculiar scribal reflex. In other non-biblical Second Temple era texts, also found among the DSS, the 3ms suffix is sometimes attested just with a heh and sometimes as a waw–heh digraph. Among the non-biblical DSS, the 3ms heh suffix (both as ‫ה‬- and as ‫וה‬-) occurs in several texts, usually in ways that echo its distribution in the biblical corpus. Thus, one finds a concentration of the suffix on certain words in certain texts, like the copies of the Damascus Document (‫ בה בדרשה‬bō bǝdoršō “by him, when he examines” [4Q266 8 i, 2, for an expected ‫ בו בדרשו‬which occurs in CD XV, 11]; ‫ אפה‬ʾappō “his anger” [4Q266 2 ii, 21]; ‫ דעתה‬daʿtō “his knowledge” [4Q266 8 i, 6]), the Pesher of Nahum (‫ חירה‬ḥīrō “its hole” [4Q169 3–4 i, 6 in a quotation of Nah 2:13, which has ‎‫[‏[ח]ילה ;]ח ָֹריו‬ḥ]ēlō “his [i.e., Manasseh’s] army” [4Q169 3–4 iii, 11, repeating the word ‫ חילה‬ḥēlā “her rampart” from the preceding line that is a loose quotation of ‫ ֵחיל‬in Nah 3:18]; and ‫‏[מ]לחמתה‬ milḥamtō “his war” [4Q169 3–4 iii, 11]), and various calendrical texts (‫ בה‬bō “in it” [4Q322 3; 4Q324 1, 3 and 5]; ‫ דוקה‬dūqō “its moon phase” [in 4Q321 eighteen times]; ‫דוקוה‬‎ [4Q321a V, 5]).18 In some cases, the suffix occurs on words in 17  The examples are drawn from Accordance software. The one exception is ‫“ עלמה‬his young man” (4Q52 [4QSamb] at 1 Sam 20:38) which corresponds to MT ‫ ַהּנַ ַער‬and παιδαρίου αὐτοῦ in certain Septuagint texts (see Ulrich et al., Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 280). Here again ‫עלמה‬ “his servant” is in its spelling akin to ‫“ ַע ְל ָמה‬young woman.” In one case the digraph might also have helped disambiguate the gender of the suffix, as in the version of Deut 5:14 preserved in 4Q137, where the digraph on ‫ בוה‬makes clear that the antecedent is ‫ יום‬and not ‫שבת‬. 18  Joseph M. Baumgartenlists several other cases in 4Q266 (Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) [DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 30). Some readings are disputed: ‫דרשה‬ ̊ ‎ (4Q265 4 ii, 4) is read as ‫ ידרשו‬by DSSSE. Gregory L. Doudna has commented on Baumgarten’s list, suggesting that ‫לחללה‬‎ (4Q265 5 ii, 6) is ambiguous (4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition [JSPSup 35; London: Sheffield Academic, 2001], 133 n. 163). Doudna lists other possible examples of this suffix (ibid., 134–35, 524–25). The form of ‫ טרפה‬in 4Q169 3–4 i, 6 and 9 he finds ambiguous (ibid., 154–55). Others see the suffixes on ‫‏[ח]ילה‬and ‫‏[מ]לחמתה‬as 3fs; see, e.g., Shani L. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (STDJ 53; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279. On calendrical texts, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Calendrical Documents,” in Qumran Cave 4: XVI, Calendrical Texts (ed. Shemaryahu Talmon et al.; DJD 21; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 95, 104. In other calendrical texts, the comparable preposition plus suffix is ‫( בוא‬e.g., thirty times in 4Q321 [4QCalendrical Doc Ba]; seven times in 4Q321a [4QCalendrical Doc Bb]). The antecedent to the pronoun on ‫ דוקה‬is apparently ‫“ חדש‬new moon.” See also ‫דוק‬ in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten (ed. Heinz-Jozef Fabry and Ulrich Dahmen; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), cols. 1:659–65.

232

Reymond

proximity to other words with a heh mater: The phrase ‫בה בדרשה‬‎ (4Q266 8 i, 2) is immediately preceded by ‫“‏למה [יתפ]תה‬lest he prove to be a fool …”19 Just as the absolute noun with final heh, ‫ ָק ֶצה‬, might have encouraged a scribe to write the related ‫ ֵקץ‬with suffix as ‫ ִקּצֹה‬, thus the word ‫“ רעה‬friend” (= ‫ ) ֵר ֶעה‬might have encouraged the spelling ‫רעה‬, presumably “his friend” (4Q258 [4QSd] II, 2; 4Q266 13, 4, = ‫ ֵרעֹו‬in Jer 6:21).20 Furthermore, the visual similarity between the 3ms heh pronominal suffix and 3fs suffix may also be part of an interpretive strategy in 4Q169 (4QpNah), such that ‫“ חילה‬her rampart” in the scriptural lemma (4Q169 3–4 iii, 10, reflecting Nah 3:8) can become ‫“ חילה‬his army” in the interpretation (4Q169 3–4 iii, 11).21 The heh as marker of the 3ms suffix continues into the first centuries ce. In the Bar Kochba letters, for example, it appears again. In these cases, with the heavy influence of Aramaic, one cannot help but suspect a possible influence from Aramaic, where the 3ms pronominal suffix is marked by a heh (-ēh). Such a pronunciation seems to be corroborated in the interlinear writing ‫“ כתביה‬he wrote it” (or, “its writer”) in XḤev/Se 49 14a, though the same text in the preceding line (line 13) may attest the opposite pronunciation: ‫ בהו‬for bō “in it.”22 19  Baumgarten, DJD 18:64. Similarly, ‫“ אפה‬his anger” (4Q266 2 ii, 21) is preceded by ‫“ חרה‬it raged” (based on the parallel in CD A II, 21); ‫“ דעתה‬his knowledge” (4Q266 8 i, 6) is preceded by ‫“ עד שנה תמימה ולפי‬until a full year, according to....” 20  Note that in neither case is the word ‫ רעה‬followed by a waw; thus the form of the word cannot be explained based on mis-division of words, as seems to be the case in ‫רעה‬ ‫ועד‬‎ 4Q266 8 ii, 6 (= ‫ רעהו עד‬in 4Q270 [4QDe] 6 iii, 14). Note also the similarity to ‫ְּב ֵרעֹה‬ (Exod 32:17). 21  See footnote 19, above. The play bewteen “her rampart” and “his army” seems to be part of the wordplay characteristic of this and other such texts. Note, e.g., “like a lion (‫”)שחל‬ in 4Q167 (4QpHosb) 2, 2 corresponding to “he will stretch” (‫ )ישלח‬in the interpretation (see, Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 257, citing Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books [CBQMS 8; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979], 245 n. 68). Mistakes of heh for waw appear in two places listed by Accordance (4Q274 3 ii, 8; 4Q405 23 ii, 3), though these might reflect confusion over the gender of the antecedent, not how to mark the suffix. 22  Dennis Pardee suggests that in the formulaic ending of the Bar Kochba letters, the phrases ktbh “its writer” and npšh “himself (lit., his soul)” the 3ms heh suffix reflects Aramaic influence (Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition [SBS 15; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982], 125). The same opinion is expressed by Yigael Yadin, et al., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002), 17. XḤev/Se 49 is an unprovenanced deed of the Bar Kochba era, a photograph of which was found among Yadin’s documents after his death and which text was then published by Magen Broshi and Elisha Qimron, “A Hebrew I.O.U. Note from the Second Year of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” JJS 45 (1994): 286–94. Note,

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

233

In addition, it is important to point out that in some medieval Hebrew texts of a much later era, like the piyyuṭ literature, the 3ms suffix on nouns is sometimes marked with heh (e.g., ‫“ דתה‬his law” in Qillir’s qedushta of Pentecost, Eretz Maṭah, line 425).23 3

Evidence of 3ms Heh Suffix in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

Among the various ancient and medieval Ben Sira manuscripts, we find the heh marking the 3ms suffix in perhaps as many as seven words.24 One example that different resources identify as the 3ms heh suffix seems in truth easier to interpret as a 3fs suffix in its present context. In what follows, I first present those cases which I feel are most likely to be examples of the suffix and then those that are more hypothetical. Afterward, I address the one occurrence better construed as a 3fs suffix. The first two examples occur in two adjacent bicola of the same verse (Sir 10:13 ms A). In both cases the relevant words are supplied with Tiberiantype vowels. ‫ומקור ֹה יביע זמה‬ ְ   ‫כי מקוה זדון חטא‬

For the origin (lit., reservoir) of arrogance is sin, and its (arrogance’s) source emits evil scheme(s) (Sir 10:13a–b ms A).25 however, that the preposition + pronoun ‫ בהו‬is hard to read, according to Broshi and Qimron (ibid., 292). Furthermore, they do not read the interlinear text ‫ ;כתביה‬this is the reading of Ada Yardeni, “Aramaic and Hebrew Documentary Texts,” in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Ḥever and Other Sites (ed. Hannah M. Cotton and Ada Yardeni; DJD 27; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 122. 23  See Michael Rand, Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine (Gorgias Dissertations 22; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2006), 31 and Shulamit Elizur, Rabbi Elʿazar bi-Rabbi Qilir [or Qillir, Kalir, Kallir] Kedushtaʾot le-Yom Matan Torah / Rabbi Elʿazar Birabbi Kiliri Hymni Pentecostales (Jerusalem: Mekitse Nirdamim, 2000), 120. 24  E.g., Accordance software lists five examples where “‫ ”ה‬marks the 3ms suffix (‫מקורה‬‎, ‫נגעה‬‎, ‫גדלה‬‎, ‫[ תסתורה‬Sir 32:1b], ‫)לחה‬. Segal, identifies the same words, minus ‫תסתורה‬, which was unknown to him and which, as noted below, is likely just a mistake for *‫תס־‬ ‫( תרהו‬Moshe Z. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira [2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1958], passim). In addition, Segal (among others) understands the heh of ‫( שמה‬Sir 6:22) and ‎‫( לבנה‬Sir 43:18) as further examples of the suffix. 25  In essence, Ben Sira is commenting on how arrogance and pride derive from turning away from God (an idea that he has already expressed in the preceding verse, Sir 10:12

234

Reymond

In this verse, the vocalization suggests that the final heh of ‫ ְמקור ֹה‬was interpreted as a 3ms pronominal suffix. Due to the placement of the mark just after the resh and due to the shewa beneath the mem, the dot is unlikely to be a cancellation mark (cf. the mark above aleph in Sir 15:14 ms A).26 Furthermore, it is unlikely to be a feminine morpheme or pronoun given the following masculine verb and the possible antecedents to the pronoun, “arrogance” or “sin,” both masculine nouns.27 While the Syriac translation perhaps reflects this or a similar expression, the Greek does not and implies, in fact, that the word ‫ְמקור ֹה‬ may be secondary.28 The second instance of the heh 3ms suffix occurs in the next bicolon (Sir 10:13c–d ms A): ‫כלה‬ ֵ ‫על כן מלא ִלּבֹו אלה[י] ̊ם נֶ גַ עֹה ויכהּו עד‬

Therefore, as for the presumptuous one (lit., the one full of heart = ‫)לב‬, God strikes him (= ‫ )נִ ּגְ עֹה‬and smites him until destroyed. The reading of the Hebrew verse is not easy and presupposes at least two basic interpretations.29 Before explaining these, however, we should address a [ms A]: “the beginning of pride is fierceness/arrogance [‫]מועז‬, from his maker he turns his heart”). The fact that Ben Sira says the same thing twice is not unusual. In Sir 5:9–10, he expresses one idea in a metaphoric manner and then in a more literal way. It would be the opposite in 10:12–13. 26  On the suggestion of a correction mark, see Jan Liesen, Full of Praise: an Exegetical Study of 39,12–35 (JSJSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 159 n. 37. 27  Rudolf Smend postulated the suffix might have been 3fs in an earlier stage of the text, when the preceding colon contained ‫“ ּגַ ֲאוָ ה‬pride,” instead of ‫( זָ דֹון‬Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, erklärt [Berlin: Reimer, 1906], 94). He notes ὑπερηφανία corresponds with ‫ גַ ֲאוָ ה‬in Sir 10:18 ms A) (as well as in 10:7 ms A, 16:8 ms A), though the same Greek word also corresponds with ‫“ גָ אֹון‬pride” in 10:12 ms A and 48:18 ms B. 28  The Syriac translates mabbūʿā dǝtartayhēn “source of them both” and the Greek ὁ κρατῶν αὐτῆς “the one who holds it.” Conceivably the Greek reflects in the first colon ‫( מקור‬where it has “beginning” ἀρχή) and in the second ‎‫“ ) ְמ ַקּוֵ הּו =( מקוהו‬the one who gathers it” or “the one who waits for it” at the beginning of 10:13b (cf. ἐπέχω “to hold, hold out, prevail” for the piel of ‫“ קוה‬to hope” in Job 30:26). That there was some confusion on how best to understand the Hebrew words is reflected in some of the Greek manuscripts, for example in the Origensian recension, where one reads “the beginning of sin is pride.” See Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 94. Furthermore, the Greek seems to prefer the use of the two verbs κρατέω and ἐξομβρέω together (see Liesen, Praise, 67–73). 29  Given the many variables, numerous other interpretations are possible (see Liesen, Praise, 160–61).

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

235

couple of issues relating to the manuscript. First, the placement of the dot suggests it is not a correction mark. Second, and more significantly, the traces of letters beneath the words ‫ מלא‬and ‫ לב‬are not indications of an earlier, underlying text, as some have suggested, but rather are traces from the words on the verso of the preceding leaf of the manuscript (ms A III verso), the marks corresponding to the words ‫(“ זֹונָ ה ַאל ִת ְס ַתייָ ד‬with) a prostitute do not converse” in Sir 9:3.30 Although the dot above ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬roughly corresponds to the second holem of ‫“ ִב ְמצֹוד ֶֹת ָיה‬into her traps” in Sir 9:3, the dot of ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬is actually too low to be the trace of this other vowel. It makes better sense to view the holem of ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬as an accidental vowel mark that was partially wiped away by the scribe supplying vowels or as an initial vocalization that was later partially erased.31 As for the interpretation of the words themselves, the above translation ignores the marginal additions as well as the vowels under the words ‫ לב‬and ‫נגעה‬. Reading in this way provides a clear antecedent to the suffix on the word ‫נגע‬ (cf. ‫“ יהוה נִ ּגְ עֹו‬the lord struck him” [2 Chr 26:20]) and the following verb (‫)ויכהּו‬, even if this interpretation creates a somewhat strange division between cola (i.e., separating the subject from the verb [cf. ‫“ אבני‬stones of” at the end of a colon in Sir 46:5 ms A]) and even if the second colon seems redundant. In addition, this understanding provides a sense for ‫ מלא לב‬that is similar to the one found in Esth 7:5, Qoh 8:11, and elsewhere (t. Dem. 5:24 as cited by Jastrow), 30  As far as I know, Pancratius C. Beentjeswas the first to describe the marks as reflecting an erased text (The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts [VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997; reprinted with corrections, Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2006], 35). His observation has been repeated by Liesen, Praise, 160; van Peursen, Verbal System, 151 n. 56; Bradley C. Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach (DCLS 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 41 n. 64. Jean-Sébastian Rey, on the other hand, was the first to correctly notice that these marks are the traces of ink from the facing folio page (“Si 10,21–12,1: nouvelle édition du fragment Adler (ENA 2536–2),” RevQ 25/100 [2012]: 581). This is a phenomenon found in other places, as in the left half of ms A II recto; one can easily see blurry images of the letters from the other side of the paper (especially clear examples are the two taws in line 14 [between the words ‫ וברעתך‬and ‫ יתנדה‬of Sir 6:11] that correspond to ‫ תתקצר‬at II verso Sir 7:10; and beneath these [at II recto 15] the shin and beth that correspond to ‫( לאנוש במר‬II verso 15, Sir 7:11). In relation to Sir 10:13 and Sir 9:3, note that the last heh of ‫זֹונָ ה‬‎(9:3) is especially clear to the right of the lamedh of ‫ֹו‬‎‫( ִלּב‬10:13); the first taw of ‫ת ְס ַתייָ ד‬‎ ִ (9:3) is on top of the lamedh of ‫מלא‬‎(10:13), the samekh is on top of the mem, and the second taw is between ‫ מלא‬and the preceding word ‫כן‬. A similar sequence does not exist in the relevant line on IV verso. 31  Note, too, the holem of ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬has traces of darker ink around its circumference, unlike the traces of other letters. There also appears to be a trace of a smear beneath the holem of ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬as though whoever wrote the holem tried to wipe it away.

236

Reymond

where the words indicate presumption (though in these cases the word “heart” is the subject of the verb).32 On the other hand, one can interpret the words according to the vowel marks and take ‫ נגעה‬as a noun (either “plague,” “his plague” [‫]נִ גְ עֹה‬, or “hurt” [cf. ‫ נִ גְ ָעה‬in RH from the Babylonian Talmud]). If so, then we should presumably insert the marginal words ‫ויבא‬ ֵ ‫רע‬, and translate: “therefore, his heart was full of evil and God brought (his) plague …”33 Due to the inchorent vowel points on ‫נגעה‬, one is left to wonder if the vocalizer himself attempted to subtract the suffix on “plague” and then add it to “heart.” In the end, neither interpretation of the Hebrew corresponds exactly with the Greek or Syriac, though they both imply the existence of a noun like ‫נגע‬, indicating “plague,” with a 3ms suffix, implying this word might be original to the text.34 The third example of a heh 3ms suffix is presumed by many scholars in the Masada scroll at Sir 44:2:

32  Esth  7:5: ‫“ ֵאי־זֶ ה הּוא ֲא ֶשר ְמ ָלאֹו ִלּבֹו‬where is the one who presumes …?” The connection with Qoh 8:11 is further enhanced by the phrase ‫ על כן‬and the marginal addition in ms A, ‫רע‬, which recalls the expression from Qoh 8:11 “to do evil (‫) ָרע‬.” The letters ‫ נגעה‬cannot be construed as an infinitive construct complementing ‫ מלא‬since such phrases are marked with prepositions in Ben Sira. 33  See Smend, Sirach, erklärt, 94–95; Ben-Hayyim, Book of Ben Sira, 13 and van Peursen, Verbal System, 139. Other explanations include taking ‫ויבא‬ ֵ as an alternative to ‫ ויכהּו‬or ‫( יביע‬see ibid. and references there). It seems likely that the mark above the beth of ‫ִלּבֹו‬ is a holem, not a correction mark or a mark from the preceding page. Not inserting the marginal words and reading ‫ נגעה‬as a noun results in translations like: “Therefore, as for the presumptuous one, God is his plague” and “Therefore, God fulfills (‫ ) ִמ ֵלא‬his intention (through) plague.” 34  Both translations imply for 13c the hiphil of ‫פלא‬, either ‫ ִה ְפ ִליא‬or ‫“ ִה ְפ ָלא‬he will make wonderful” (as in Deut 28:59, where the verb takes the object ‫“ ַמכ ְָֹתך‬your blows”). The Greek reads “Therefore, the Lord brought on incredible attacks” (Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., New English Translation of the Septuagint [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 727 [= NETS]); Syriac can be translated: “because of this, God determined (or made extraordinary) their blows.” The Syriac verb, prš, is the same one used in Deut 28:59 to translate ‫ ִה ְפ ָלא‬. The Greek word ἐπαγωγή, which means “distress, misery” in the Septuagint, is somewhat uncommon in translations of the Hebrew Bible, but is more common in Sirach, where it seems to correspond to what is in the Hebrew manuscripts ‫“ מכה‬blow” (Sir 3:28 ms A), ‫“ עברה‬wrath” (5:8 ms A), and ‫“ נגע‬plague” (23:11 ms C). The Syriac translation, mktšʾ “blow” translates words from the root ‫ נגע‬in at least two places from the Hebrew Bible (Job 6:7 and 2 Chron 6:28 [see LS3]) and in Sirach corresponds with ‫“ נגע‬plague” in 23:11 (ms C).

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

237

]‫רב כבוד חלק עליון  וגדלה מי[מות עולם‬ (His own) abundant glory the most high apportions, his magnificence from days of old.35 The version preserved in ms B contains basically the same text. The first word of the second colon is, however, spelled with a waw mater: ‫וגדלו‬.36 The Greek and Syriac translations agree in that their corresponding translations of the first word of the second colon are accompanied by possessive pronouns, “his greatness” in the case of the Greek, and “their greatness” in the case of the Syriac. While this agreement strongly suggests that the Masada text here attests the 3ms heh suffix on the noun ‫ּג ֶֹדל‬, it remains possible that the intended word was ‫“ ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬greatness.”37 The latter word in the MT shows the spontaneous gemination of the lamedh and is often written defectively.38 A defective writing of a /u/ vowel would not be unexpected in the Masada orthography, where even a long /ū/ vowel is sometimes not marked with a waw mater: ‫“ צר‬rock” (= ‫ )צּור‬at Sir 40:15. Nevertheless, the agreement of all the versions suggests that this word and its suffix were, in fact, part of an early version of this text. A fourth possible example of the suffix occurs in Sir 43:1, where one reads in ms Bm: ‫תואר מרום רקע על טהר  ועצם שמים מביט נהרה‬

The beauty of the height he spreads out over a pure surface, even the heavens watch its shining.

35  On this interpretation, see Eric D. Reymond, “Prelude to the Praise of the Ancestors, Sirach 44:1–15,” HUCA 72 (2001): 1–14. 36  In addition, as a marginal gloss it adds after ‫“ חלק‬to them” (‫)להם‬. Conceivably, ‫ וגדלה‬and ‫ וגדלו‬could be construed as verbs “and he magnified it” (= ‫וְ גִ ְדלֹו‬/ ‫)וְ גִ ְדֹלה‬. 37  Strugnell apparently identified the word as ‫ ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬since he lists it among other cases where the short /u/ vowel is not represented with a mater (John Strugnell, “Notes and Queries on ‘The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,’ ” EI 9 [1969]: 111). Menahem Kister also notes that the 3ms heh suffix is not otherwise found in the Masada text (“On the Interpretation of the Book of Ben Sira,” 366). 38  Both words are rare in Ben Sira. The segholate word ‫ ּג ֶֹדל‬occurs only here and ‫ ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬occurs only once (in 3:18 ms A) in a corrupt version of the verse which originally most likely had ‫( גדול‬as it does in the version of 3:18 in ms C).

238

Reymond

Here, the last word corresponds to ‫“ ֲה ָדרֹו‬its majesty” in the ms B text and what appears to be ‫ = נהרו‬nohrō “its shining” in the Masada Scroll.39 Lévi early on suggested construing the heh of ‫ נהרה‬as a 3ms suffix, though most commentators interpret the word as ‫“ נהרה‬light,” which occurs once in Biblical Hebrew in Job 3:4 (‫)נְ ָה ָרה‬, and then only in later Hebrew (ca. 550 ce and later).40 In the case of this verse, the Greek translation has a slightly different sense and the Syriac does not exist.41 It is conceivable that the difficulty of the original Hebrew (perhaps reflected in Mas) has led to a Greek expression that deviates more than usual from the Hebrew and that the Hebrew word is part of an early layer of the text. A fifth example, similar to the preceding, is found in Sir 43:18 ms B: ‫תואר לבנה יגהה עינים  וממטרו יהמה לבב‬

The beauty of its whiteness cures (margin: ‫“ יהגה‬turns away”) eyes, and the mind is astir from his rain. This version can be compared to that of Mas, where the second word is spelled with a final waw: “The aspect of its whiteness (‫ )לבנו‬turns away (‫ )יהג‬eyes and the mind marvels (‫ )יתמיה‬at his rain.” The heh of ‫ לבנה‬was interpreted as a 3ms suffix by Peters (= ‫ ) ָל ְבנֹה‬and others (e.g., Segal, ‫) ִל ְבנֹה‬.42 Although some have proposed reading as an absolute form (‫“ ִל ְבנָ ה‬whiteness”; ‫“ ְל ָבנָ ה‬white thing”),

39  That the earlier text has the more common (MT-like) spelling and the latter, medieval text the non-standard spelling, is also reflected in ‫ הלוא‬in Mas at 42:22 (the more common spelling of the interrogative + negative particles in the MT) versus ‫ הלא‬in all the other occurrences (seven) in mss B, C, and D (see Andersen and Forbes, Spelling, 186; ‫ לא‬is spelled defectively in all but one instance [11:10] in ms B). Note similarly ‫ ‏[פ]יו‬in Mas at Sir 39:31 versus ‫ פיהו‬in the ms Bm (see Reymond, “New Readings in the Ben Sira Masada Scroll (Mas 1h),” RevQ 26/103 [2014]: 327–44). Needless to say, the earlier text does not necessarily preserve the “more original” text, as demonstrated by the many mistakes in Mas (e.g., ‫ מעדם‬in Sir 41:18 for what is ‫“ מעדה‬from a congregation” in ms B; ‫ נשמתם‬in 43:24 for what is ‫“ נשתומם‬we are astonished” in ms B). 40  Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1:62. See Maʾagarim, http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il. 41  N ETS translate the second colon: “the form of the sky in a vision of glory!” 42  Norbert Peters, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus (Freiburg: Herdersche Verlag, 1902), 217; George H. Box and William O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1: Apocrypha (ed. Robert H. Charles; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 476; Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 289.

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

239

this seems less likely.43 The Greek suggests ‫ ָל ְבנֹה‬or something similar was in an early version of the text.44 Another possible, though uncertain, example of the 3ms heh suffix appears in Sir 46:5 (ms B): [ ̊‫לפנ‬ ̊ ‫כי קרא אל אל עליון  כאכפה‬ For, he (i.e., Joshua) called to El-Elyon, as he pressed (?) before … The Hebrew is again unclear. The consonants ‫ אכפה‬may represent either an infinitive construct (with pronominal suffix) or a noun (with feminine ending or with a suffix).45 The verb ‫ אכף‬occurs once in the MT (Prov 16:26), as a qal perfect with a following prepositional complement (‫“ )על‬to press upon.” The related noun, ‫“ ֶא ֶכף‬pressure,” occurs once in the MT (Job 33:7), according to BDB and other dictionaries, though HALOT identifies this word as a byform of ‫“ ַּכף‬palm.” The Greek translation, (ἐν τῷ θλῖψαι αὐτὸν ἐχθροὺς κυκλόθεν), if interpreted to mean “when he [i.e., Joshua] pressed enemies round about,” suggests interpreting the word ‫ אכפה‬as an infinitive construct followed by a 3ms suffix (i.e., ‫) ָא ְכפֹה‬.46 This would fit the context of the passage to which Ben Sira’s text seems to allude, where Joshua is chasing the Amorites (Josh 10:9–10). Most commentators, however, construe the Greek to mean “when enemies pressed him all around” (NETS), following the Latin.47 Based on this latter 43  See Haim Dihi, “The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira” (Ph.D. diss., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2004), 352 [Hebrew]. 44  The Greek reads κάλλος λευκότητος αὐτῆς. The Syriac does not exist. Similarly, note ‫בכבודה‬ “with her glory” in Mas and ms B at Sir 43:12a, but ‫“ בכבודו‬with his glory” in the ms B margin (“[the rainbow] circles [God’s] majesty with his glory”). 45  Lévi (L’Ecclésiastique, 1:111) suggests interpreting as an infinitive construct, while many others (e.g., Peters, Smend, Segal) read as a noun. It is unlikely that the heh represents the paragogic ending (like that on some infinitives of stative verbs) since the sense of the infinitive seems to be active. 46  The Syriac (“he set power into his hand”) implies that the translator was working from a text with the word ‫ כף‬or ‫יד‬, which seems to echo more strongly the biblical passage which this Ben Sira text echoes “into your hand I have given them” (Josh 10:8). Note that among the Northwest Semitic languages, the verb ‫ אכף‬is attested best in Syriac where it is found primarily in the G-stem and not at all in the D. 47  Segal (Sefer Ben Sira, 319) proposes that the Greek might reflect ‫ ְּכ ָא ְכ ָפם‬. The fact that in the Greek we expect the subject of the verbal noun to be in the accusative just like

240

Reymond

interpretion, Lévi (followed more or less by, e.g., Ryssel, Smend, Segal) reconstructs the Hebrew [‫כאכפה ל[ו צרים מסביב‏‬‎‫‏‬48 The reconstruction of the lamedh preposition plus pronoun seems unlikely. The above reconstuction seems to be informed by the Aramaic and RH idiom ‫ ִא ְכ ָּפה ְל‬and ‫יכ ַּפת ְל‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬, which in the past was usually interpreted as a noun followed by a preposition. Nevertheless, it seems that this idiom might, instead, have been borrowed from Aramaic where the forms are interpreted as verbs.49 In RH, it bears mentioning, the phrase seems to be used as it is in Aramaic.50 Since in Ben Sira the kaph particle does not precede finite verbs, we do not expect the idiom of ‫ ִא ְכ ָפה ְל‬here.51 More importantly, the remaining Hebrew text in ms B seems not to reflect a waw after the lamedh, but rather something like ] ̊‫לפנ‬ ̊ .52 The short horizontal mark above the lacuna and the longer base line that seems to end (at the left) in a short downward stroke both seem characteristic of the peh (less like a beth, kaph, or mem).53 Lévi’s reconstruction, in part, also is informed by Sir 46:16, where the Greek translation is almost identical to that of 46:5 and whose Hebrew reads: ‫‏]ל[ א]ויביו מסביב‬.54 Despite the similarity in the Greek translation, however, the Hebrew of the respective verses was probably not identical. In 46:16 the lamedh certainly may be a preposition the verbal noun’s direct object means that the phrase is technically ambiguous. Note the sequence of preposition + verbal noun + pronoun as subject + direct object in Sir 50:11 (ἐν τῶ ἀναλαμβάνειν αὐτὸν στολὴν δόξης) “when he put on a robe of glory” (NETS). See also Sir 40:14, 47:10. 48  Lévi reconstructs ‫( כאכפה ל[וצרים מסביב]‏‬L’Ecclésiastique, 1:110). Segal reconstructs similarly ‫אֹויְבים ִמ ָּס ִביב]‏‬ ִ ‫ּכא ְכ ָּפה ל[ֹו‬ ַ . 49  Sokoloff interprets the Aramaic idiom as an impersonal use of the perfect ‫( אכף‬see DJPA, DJBA, and LS3). 50  The phrase in RH, as in Aramaic, is preceded often by the interrogative particle ‫ מה‬and followed by the lamedh preposition + pronoun, and it is not used after prepositions (see the website Ma’agarim, http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il). Thus, ‫ כאכפה ל‬is not akin to ‫ בצר־לו‬in Isa 25:4, as Bacher suggested (Review of Israel Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, in REJ 37 [1898]: 314–15). 51  In Ben Sira the kaph preposition (or the abbreviated enclitic form of ‫ )כי‬does not directly precede a finite form of the verb (on this syntagm, see Rand, Introduction, 422–27). 52  Or, perhaps, ‫לכ ̊פ[י]‏‬ ̊ “at the hands of” or ‫למ ̊ע[לה]‏‬ ̊ “at the ascent of.” Although we must acknowlede that sometimes the remnants of letters are so blurred and splotched that they are unrecognizable (as in the colon just beneath the one in question), the edges of the marks in 46:5 are defined enough to warrant the belief that they actually can be deciphered. 53  Compare ‫ לפני‬in Sir 45:25 (ms B XV verso, line 6). A smaller downward tick is also found rarely on the beth, as in ‫ לב‬in Sir 45:26. 54  The Greek reads: ἐν τῷ θλῖψαι ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ κυκλόθεν “when his enemies pressed …”

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

241

(followed by a pronoun), but the entire phrase ‫ כאכפה‬does not fit in the lacuna before it. In 46:5, on the other hand, there seems to be only space for a word like ‫צרים‬‎, ‫צריו‬, or perhaps ‫ איביו‬after the proposed preposition ‫לפנ̊ [י‬ ̊ . Furthermore, note that, unlike in Sir 46:5, the biblical reference in Sir 46:16 is to Samuel offering a sacrifice when Israel was in fact threatened (1 Sam 7:7–9). Nevertheless, if one assumes, following the Greek translation of 46:5, that the Hebrew colon (5b) contains the basic elements of an infinitive construct, a prepositional phrase, and a word for “enemy,” then there would appear to be two basic options for the interpretation of ‫אכפה‬. One could understand the word as a qal infinitive construct followed by a 3ms suffix: “as he [Joshua] pressed before his enemies” (‫לפנ̊ [י איביו]‏‬ ̊ ‫)כאכפה‬. Or, one could understand the word as a niphal infinitive construct followed by a 3ms suffix, the initial heh having elided as sometimes happens with I-guttural verbs that are preceded by a preposition: “as he was pressed before his enemies;” note, in relation to this interpretation, the phonetically and semantically similar ‫ְּב ִהּנָ גֵ ף ַע ְּמָך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫“ ִל ְפנֵ י אֹויֵב‬when your people, Israel, are struck before the enemy” (1 Kgs 8:33).55 A third option, as stated above, is to understand the word as a singular noun, either masculine + 3ms suffix or feminine: “when (his) pressure (was) before his enemies” (‫לפנ̊ [י איביו]‏‬ ̊ ‫)כאכפה‬.56 Another possible example of the 3ms heh suffix is found in Sir 6:22 (ms A), where we read: ‫וחה‬ ָ ‫כי המוסר כשמה כן הוא  ולא לרבים היא נ ְֹכ‬

For discipline, like its name, so it (is): it is not obvious (qere: “justified”) to many. The antecedent to the suffix on ‫ כשמה‬is literally “instruction” (‫)מוסר‬, and thus the pronoun may be 3ms, as Segal interprets (‫) ִּכ ְשמֹה‬.57 Nevertheless, “instruction” in this verse is conventionally understood to be a reference to wisdom, as the second colon, with its feminine forms, makes more explicit.58 In the end, 55  Note the somewhat common idiom of the niphal of ‫ נגף‬with the phrase ‫( לפני איבים‬e.g., Lev 26:17; Num 14:42; Deut 1:42; 2 Chr 6:24). For the elision of the initial heh of the niphal infinitive construct in I-guttural verbs, note ‫( ֵלאֹור‬Job 33:30), ‫( ֵב ָה ֵרג‬Ezek 26:15), ‫ֵל ָענֹת‬ (Exod 10:3), ‫( ֵב ָע ֵטף‬Lam 2:11). 56  Or, “as pressure was before him round about” ‫לפנ̊ [יו מסביב]‏‬ ̊ ‫כאכפה‬. 57  Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 41. 58  On the pun and this verse, see Nuria Calduch-Benages, “A Wordplay on the Term mûsar,” in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage: Festschrift für Friedrich Reiterer zum 65 Geburtstag (ed.

242

Reymond

it is easier to construe the suffix in this manuscript as 3fs and the following independent 3ms pronoun to be a mistake.59 All the same, this mistake was perhaps triggered, in part, by the graphic ambiguity of the heh suffix on “name.” Furthermore, if we consider the fragment of this verse found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (2Q18), which preserves only two final letters: ‫]נ]כח‬, then we must entertain the possibility that the original text was consistent in using masculine forms (referring to “instruction”) and if this earlier version contained a text otherwise similar to that in ms A, then the heh of ‫ כשמה‬would, indeed, have to be interpreted as marking the 3ms suffix. There are other possible examples of the 3ms heh suffix, though I am less confident about their identification. For example, although it is possible to construe the heh of ‫ נגשה‬in 31:31d–e (ms F) as a 3ms heh suffix on an infinitive construct, the word is most likely a feminine singular noun, as Haim Dihi has illustrated, something encouraged by the Greek and Syriac translations.60 As mentioned above, there is one case where a heh suffix is identified as a 3ms suffix, though in its context it is easier to construe as 3fs. The example is found in Sir 31:13g (ms B).61 ‫רע מעין לא חלק אל  על כן מפני כל נס לחה‬

God did not create something more wicked than the eye, thus, due to anything its fluid escapes (ms B).62 The manuscript preserves various alternatives to this verse, though none of these substantially effects our understanding of the last word, which Segal

Renate Egger-Wenzel et al.; DCLS 15; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 13–26. Note also the 3fs suffix with antecedent of “instruction” in Prov 4:13 (see Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 [AB 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 180). 59  Cf. the Syriac, which contains 3fs suffixes on “name” and on “teaching.” 60  Haim Dihi, “Linguistic Innovations in Ben Sira Manuscript F,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period (ed. Steven E. Fassberg, et al.; STDJ 108; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 44. 61  The verb ‫“ תסתורה‬do (not) undermine him (‫ ”)ׂשתר‬in ms F at Sir 32:1b is listed in Accordance as another example, though this form is likely just a spelling mistake for ‫( תסתרהו‬due to a misplaced mater and/or haplography [the following word is ‫)]והיה‬. 62  On ‫ חלק‬and the verse in general, see Menahem Kister, “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 161. On the verb ‫חלק‬, see also van Peursen, Verbal System, 72.

Reflections on Orthography and Morphology in Ben Sira

243

and Accordance have read as containing the 3ms heh suffix.63 As Kister has indicated, it is more likely that the heh of ‫ לחה‬is marking the 3fs pronoun in this context, where “eye” is the natural antecedent and the preceding verb is masculine.64 Presumably, the parsing of the suffix as masculine is based on the parallel biblical phrase in Deut 34:7, which describes Moses at his death: “his eye was not dimmed, his vigor had not escaped (him)”: ‫לֹא נָ ס ֵלחֹה‬. This verse in Ben Sira is absent from the Greek and Syriac translations and seems like a secondary doublet of the preceding material. One might assume that the scribe who supplied this phrase understood the word in Deuteronomy to have a 3fs pronoun too. But, it is also possible that the scribe used the ambiguity of the orthography to suit his purpose, in a manner similar to how the writer of 4Q169 3–4 iii, 10–11 seems to have used the ambiguity of ‫ חילה‬for his own exegetical purpose.65 4 Conclusion In sum, we have reviewed seven examples where the heh on a word is plausibly to be construed as a 3ms suffix. Although much of the evidence is ambiguous, it seems likely that some of the 3ms heh suffixes entered the text at the hand of later scribes in the course of the text’s transmission during the early centuries of the Common Era. The study has also identified certain factors that seem related to the appearance of the 3ms heh suffix. These factors are found in all three major corpora studied. In relation to Ben Sira, we should highlight the fact that the words that plausibly attest the 3ms heh suffix are found in the context of other words with heh maters: ‫ ְמקֹור ֹה‬parallels ‫ מקוה‬in the preceding colon (phonetically, grammatically, semantically); ‫ נֶ גַ עֹה‬follows ‫ ְמקֹור ֹה‬in the preceding verse; ‫ ָל ְבנֹה‬occurs just before ‫יִ גְ ֶהה‬. In addition, some words which plausibly attest the heh suffix have feminine nominal counterparts ‫“ ּגָ ְדֹלה‬his greatness” or ‫“ ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬greatness”; 63  Note the marginal reading of the first verse without the negative particle, presumably reflecting “God apportioned the wicekedness that (derives) from the eye.” 64  Kister, “Some Notes,” 179. The word ‫ לחה‬is unlikely to be the feminine noun “juice” ‫ ֵל ָחה‬known from RH as well as the DSS, though the occasional disagreement in gender between verb and following subject means that this is still a possibility. GKC §145o; Bruce Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 109–10. 65  On this verse in general and the possibility of the scribe’s confusion, see Menahem Kister, “On the Interpretation of the Book of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 335.

244

Reymond

‫“ נָ ְהר ֹה‬its shining” or ‫“ נְ ָה ָרה‬light”; and ‫“ ָל ְבנֹה‬its whiteness” or ‫“ ְל ָבנָ ה‬white thing, moon.” The assumption behind these correspondences is that the presence of a final heh on a nearby word, or, alternatively, on a graphically and semantically similar word encouraged the scribe to write the suffix as a heh instead of a waw. This flexible manner of writing, in turn, assumes a flexible manner of reading, something that seems especially likely for the scribes of Ben Sira who have preserved so many alternative ways of understanding individual words.66 Thus, an individual reader might construe the heh of ‫ לחה‬in Deuteronomy as a masculine singular pronoun (‫) ֵלחֹה‬, but in Ben Sira as a feminine singular pronoun (‫) ֵל ָחּה‬.67 An individual reader could initially construe the heh of ‫ כשמה‬as 3ms (‫) ִּכ ְׁשמֹה‬, but then upon re-reading the verse construe it as 3fs (‫) ִכ ְש ָמּה‬. This manner of reading reflects the ambiguity that is inherent in the writing system and which is implied, in part, by the vocalization in Ben Sira.68 That the scribes of Ben Sira were attuned to these ambiguities is suggested by, among other things, the wordplay that depends on the ambiguity of homophones and homographs, where at first a reader might understand the word in one way (‫מּוסר‬ ָ in Sir 6:22 as “instruction”), but then upon concluding the verse, read the word in another way (‫מּוסר‬ ָ “that which is turned away” or ‫מֹוסר‬ ֵ “cuff”).69

66  Note, e.g., the three alternatives ‫חוק‬‎, ‫חזק‬‎, ‫ חוקו‬in the margin, for ‫ חקיך‬in the ms B text of Sir 41:2. Was the scribe listing all possible interpretations? See Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 1:xvii. Note too the inclusion in the margin of clearly inferior alternatives to words in the text: ‫ אל‬for ‫ על‬at 42:1e, 2a ms B; and ‫“ קרח‬baldness” (or ‫ )? = קרת‬for ‫“ רוקח‬apothecary” at 38:8a ms B (ibid., 1:xi). 67  Such would help explain the similar switch in the gender of the suffix in ‫ חילה‬in 4Q169 3–4 iii, 10–11. 68  Note, for example, the ambiguity of the final heh on ‫( ַעד ַּכ ֵלה‬Sir 10:13d); without the sere, the word could be construed as a simple noun ‫“ ָּכ ָלה‬end” (as in Dan 9:27, 11:36). Many other biblical examples can be found attesting to scribal (and thus readerly) confusion involving final heh: ‫ ַהּזֶ ה‬written for *‫( ַהּזֹה‬Jos 2:17; Judg 16:28); ‫ ֵע ָצה‬for mappiq in final heh: *‫( ֵע ָצּה‬Jer 6:6); and ‫ ָע ְצ ָמה‬for ‫ * ָע ְצ ָמּה‬mappiq in final heh: (Nah 3:9) (see Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament [Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1920], 67, 79–80). 69  On wordplay in Ben Sira, see N. Seger, “L’utilisation de la polysémie des raciness hébraïques chez Ben Sira” (Ph.D. diss., Université de Strasbourg, 2005); Eric Reymond, “Wordplay in the Hebrew to Ben Sira” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira (ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten; JSJSup 150; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 37–53; CalduchBenages, “A Wordplay,” 13–26.

chapter 14

Ṣade—Shin Change in the Dead Sea Scrolls Alexey Eliyahu Yuditsky and Chanan Ariel In 4Q365 frag. 2 the expression ‫ תקריבו עצים לעולה‬is used to describe a wood offering.*, 1 The editors of this text in the DJD series noted that, in the word ‫עצים‬, the second letter was corrected.2 They suggested that initially the letter shin was written, but then deleted by way of two points above and below the letter. The letter was then corrected to ṣade, which was added above the line. Was this a haphazard mistake? Examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveals further cases of this phenomenon. In the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) the ṣade of ‫( לערוץ‬Isa 2:19) was amended from a shin;3 the ṣade of ‫( יצאה‬Isa 28:29) was written over a shin;4 and the ṣade of ‫( חרוץ‬Isa 41:15) was corrected from a shin.5 In 1QS VII, 24 the word ‫ עצת‬was corrected. Reconstructing with the assistance of an image editing program, it can be seen that the ṣade and the taw are most probably written over a shin.6 *  This paper has been prepared during our work on editing Dead Sea Scrolls texts for the Historical Dictionary Project at the Academy of the Hebrew Language. We would like to thank Prof. E. Qimron for his valuable notes. 1  This text probably belongs to the Temple Scroll; see Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Writings, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010), 162 [Hebrew]. 2  See Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, eds., “Reworked Pentateuch,” in Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 291. 3  The DJD editors remarked that “the scribe may have written ṣade over another letter”; see Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, eds., Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 99. 4  The DJD editors noted that “the ṣade was written over another letter, possibly ʾalep”; see ibid., 106. 5  Here the DJD editors rightly stated that “ṣade appears to have been written over another letter, possibly šin”; see ibid., 111. The two former corrections were noticed by Yechezkel Kutscher, see Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959), 424–425 [Hebrew], whereas the two latter corrections were noted by Donald Parry and Elisha Qimron; see Donald A. Parry and Elisha Qimron, eds., The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition (STDJ 32; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 47, 69. 6  An uncertain case is the word ‫( ציון‬Isa 3:16) where the ṣade is probably corrected from a shin. The DJD 32 editors (p. 99) say that “[t]he ink for ṣade and yod is thick, possibly over ‫צפ(ון)‏‬.” See also Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 424. Another inconclusive occurrence is an apparent ṣade written over a shin in the word ‫ הצו[ח]ק‬‭(4Q266 10 II, 12). However, the evidence is uncertain,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004366770_015

246

Yuditsky and Ariel

Since, as demonstrated above, in the Scrolls the letter shin has occasionally been miswritten in place of the original ṣade, and then corrected to ṣade, it is not impossible that there are also cases in which such a shin has not been corrected. In 4Q457 one finds the phrase ‫שמח דויד להשיב‬. As noted by Esther Chazon, here the word ‫ שמח‬could be interpreted as a peculiar spelling of ‫צמח‬, compare Jer 33:15 ‫אצמיח לדוד צמח צדקה‬.7 A more compelling example is, perhaps, the word ‫ שא‬in 4Q225 (psJuba) 2 I, 5, which appears in the following context:8 ‫ור ̇א ̇ה‬ ̇ ‫אברהם ̇שא צפא את הכוכבים‬ ̊ ‫ [ויומר אד]נ̇ י אל‬5 ‫אשר ̇ע ̇ל שפת הים ואת עפר הארץ ̇כי̇ אם‬ ̇ ‫ [את כול] הֿכחול‬6 ]‫ [יהיו נמ]נ̊ ים ̇א ̇לה ו̇ ̊אף ̇אם לוא ככה יהיה זרעכה ויא[מן‬7 ‫ות ̇ח ̇שב לו צדקה‬ ̇ ‫ [אברהם ב]אלו̊ [הי]ם‬8

The word ‫ שא‬has usually been taken as an imperative of the verb ‫נשא‬, a kind of ellipsis of the idiom ‫“ שא עיניך‬lift your eyes”.9 However, in 4Q225 there is clearly an allusion to Gen 15:2–6: ‫יתי הּוא ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק‬ ִ ‫ן־מ ֶׁשק ֵּב‬ ֶ ‫ּוב‬ ֶ ‫הֹולְך ֲע ִר ִירי‬ ֵ ‫ן־לי וְ ָאנ ִֹכי‬ ִ ‫ה־ּת ֶּת‬ ִ ‫אמר ַא ְב ָרם ֲאד ֹנָ י ַמ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬15:2 ‫ וְ ִהּנֵ ה‬15:4 ‫יֹורׁש א ִֹתי׃‬ ֵ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ן־ּב‬ ֵ ‫אמר ַא ְב ָרם ֵהן ִלי לֹא נָ ַת ָּתה זָ ַרע וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֶב‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬15:3 ‫יעזֶ ר׃‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫ּיֹוצא אֹתֹו‬ ֵ ַ‫ ו‬15:5 ‫י־אם ֲא ֶׁשר יֵ ֵצא ִמ ֵּמ ֶעיָך הּוא יִ ָיר ֶׁשָך׃‬ ִ ‫ְד ַבר ה׳ ֵא ָליו ֵלאמֹר לֹא יִ ָיר ְׁשָך זֶ ה ִּכ‬ ‫אמר לֹו ּכֹה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ּתּוכל ִל ְסּפֹר א ָֹתם וַ ּי‬ ַ ‫ּכֹוכ ִבים ִאם‬ ָ ‫ּוספֹר ַה‬ ְ ‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫אמר ַה ֶּבט־נָ א ַה ָּׁש ַמ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫חּוצה וַ ּי‬ ָ ‫ַה‬ ‫ וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַּבה׳ וַ ּיַ ְח ְׁש ֶב ָה ּלֹו ְצ ָד ָקה׃‬15:6 ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה זַ ְר ֶעָך׃‬

The phrase ‫ שא צפא את הכוכבים‬in 4Q225 is a parallel to ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫חּוצה וַ ּי‬ ָ ‫ּיֹוצא אֹתֹו ַה‬ ֵ ַ‫ו‬ ‫ּכֹוכ ִבים‬ ָ ‫ּוספֹר ַה‬ ְ ‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶּבט נָ א ַה ָּׁש ַמ‬in Gen 15:5. We maintain, therefore, that ‫ שא‬exhibits a phonetic variant of ‫צא‬, an imperative form from the biblical ‫ּיֹוצא‬ ֵ ַ‫ו‬.10   since the parchment is damaged; for other suggestions see Joseph M. Baumgarten and Józef T. Milik, eds., Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 74; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 1.55. 7  See Esther G. Chazon, “Prayers,” in Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 418. The phrase ‫ צמח דויד‬occurs in the Scrolls at 4Q174 1–2 i, 11, though in a rather fragmentary context. 8  The text is according to Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Writings, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 217 [Hebrew]. 9  See, for example, James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, eds., “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 147. See also the following note. 10  It should be remarked, however, that elsewhere in Genesis one finds the phrase ‫וַ ּיִ ָּׂשא‬ ‫ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶאת ֵעינָ יו‬. In Gen 22, the Sacrifice of Isaac story, it is followed by ‫י־ב ֵרְך ֲא ָב ֶר ְכָך‬ ָ ‫ִּכ‬

Ṣade—Shin Change In the Dead Sea Scrolls

247

In 4Q51 (4QSama) 93–94, 1 (cf. 2 Sam 11:16) the word ‫בשור‬ ̊ , a variant of the Masoretic ‫בשמור‬, is puzzling. Yet, many biblical translations attest to an underlying infinitive construct form, ‫בצור‬, from the root ‫צו״ר‬, which fits well the context. It seems, therefore, that the Qumran text reflects the alleged version ‫בצור‬, but with the original ṣade represented by a shin.11 This very scroll probably contains another case of the shin utilized for ṣade. The reconstruction of the text, based on the estimated column width, shows that the letters ‫ שים‬at the end of 4Q51 29–33, 8 correspond to the end of the word ‫ ַה ִּמ ְת ָּפ ְר ִצים‬‭(1 Sam 25:10).12 The shin of ‫ שים‬is probably written for the ṣade of the Masoretic ‫ַה ִּמְתָּפ ְרִצים‬. It could be added that the spelling ‫ שלמשיון‬for ‫ שלמציון‬occurs on a first century ce sarcophagi found in Jericho.13 It appears, thus, that the spelling (or misspelling) of shin for original ṣade is not restricted to the Scrolls.14 How should this phenomenon be interpreted? Eric Reymond believes that such mistakes are merely due to confusion of sibilants.15 However, in all the cases above only the shin, but not samekh or zain, was written in place of the original ‫ל־ׂש ַפת ַהּיָ ם וְ יִ ַרׁש זַ ְר ֲעָך ֵאת ַׁש ַער א ָֹיְביו‬ ְ ‫כֹוכ ֵבי ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ַכחֹול ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ְ ‫וְ ַה ְר ָּבה ַא ְר ֶּבה ֶאת־זַ ְר ֲעָך ְּכ‬. The author of Pseudo-Jubilees has apparently interlaced this text into Gen 15. However, while in the biblical examples the verb ‫ נשא‬occurs in a similar context with the noun ‫עינים‬, in 4Q225 the object ‫ עינים‬is absent. Therefore, the word ‫ שא‬is apparently better interpreted as a by-form of ‫ ֵצא‬. It may be also noted that, in the Tannaitic sources, the imperative ‫ צא‬is ordinarily used as a kind of auxiliary cohortative verb in such constructions as ‫צא ולמד‬, ‫ צא וראה‬etc.; see Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der Judischen Traditions Literatur: die bibelexegetische Terminologie der Tannaiten, vol. 1 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905), 75. 11  For other suggestions see Frank M. Cross, Donald W. Parry, and Richard J. Saley, eds., “4QSama,” in Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 141. We thank Prof. Elisha Qimron for drawing our attention to this occurrence. 12  See ibid., 86–87. 13  See Rachel Hachlili, “The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a First Century a .d.Jewish Monumental Tomb,” BASOR 235 (1979): 31–70, esp. 49. 14  One could also mention that in CD IV, 19 the word ‫ צו‬in a quotation of Hos 5:11 is apparently interpreted as ‫“ שוא‬vanity” as reflected in the Septuagint and Aramaic Targums, see e.g. Solomon Schechter, “Fragments of a Zadokite Work,” in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2 (ed. RobertH.Charles; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 810. 15  See Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 28. The word ‫( החרוש‬4Q491 8–10 II, 13) mentioned there is apparently mistaken. Examination of high-resolution photos of the scroll available on the IAA Scrolls website shows that the correct reading is ‫החרוץ‬. See also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 1.127.

248

Yuditsky and Ariel

ṣade, and in most of these cases the shin was corrected to the ṣade. One should, therefore, assume that this is not an arbitrary sibilant interchange; and that shin was usually perceived in these cases to be non-normative by the scribes (or copyists) themselves. Hence, we consider this phenomenon to reflect a sporadic phonetic variation, as described below.16 Indeed, allegedly similar grapheme and/or phoneme variations do occur in the Bible and other Hebrew sources.17 The most common one is probably ‫יצחק–ישחק‬. However, this case is not the same as those above, since in ‫ישחק‬ and similar forms the original /ṣ/ seems to be shifted because of the emphatic dissimilation,18 and its shin represents a sound pronounced as /s/ in Tiberian Hebrew. The same thing is true of Qumran Hebrew, as may be inferred, for example, from the spelling ‫ יסחק‬‭(4Q225 2 I, 9).19 The cases in question, by contrast, do not contain two emphatics, and are expected to exhibit a misspelling of the original ṣade by samekh, not by shin. Consequently, they should be treated in a different manner. 16  In the following discussion the usual signs ṣ and ṭ will be used to express emphatic consonants, although from the phonetic point of view they were obviously pharyngealized, and therefore would be better represented as sʕ and tʕ; see Alice Faber, “Interpretation of Orthographic Forms,” in Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology (ed. Philip Baldi; Berlin–New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 1990), 629. The sign č will represent palatalized join tʃ. 17  See Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 28, n. 28. He has mentioned the word ‫ צו‬in Hos 5:11, which was suggested to be a peculiar spelling or a corruption of ‫“ שוא‬vanity” as reflected in the Septuagint and Aramaic Targums. It is worth noting that in the Geniza manuscript of the Damascus Document (CD IV, 19) this very word ‫ צו‬is apparently interpreted as ‫שוא‬, implying that this version was probably found or inferred in the original Qumran version of CD; see, e.g., Schechter, “Fragments of a Zadokite Work,” 810. 18  The forms like ‫ ישחק‬are usually explained as a result of the so-called Geers’ Law in Hebrew. Frederick Geers demonstrated that in Akkadian roots originally containing two emphatic consonants one of them loses its emphatic trait, e.g. /ṣ/–/ṭ/ > /ṣ/–/t/, ‫– צבט‬ ṣabātu, /q/–/ṭ/ > /q/–/t/, ‫ – לקט‬laqātu, /q/–/ṣ/ > /k/–/ṣ/, ‫ – קרץ‬karāṣu. See Frederick W. Geers, “The Treatment of Emphatics in Akkadian,” JNES 4 (1945): 65–67. In Biblical Hebrew dissimilation of emphatics did not behave precisely according to the rules of Akkadian, yet, as suggested by Chaim Cohen, the Hebrew forms ‫( ואשחט‬Gen 40:11, ṣaḫātu in Akkadian), ‫ישחק‬, ‫שחק‬, and also ‫ זעק‬are the outcome of such an irregular process; see Chaim Cohen, “The Law of Dissimilation of Emphatics in Akkadian (Geers’ Law) and its Ramifications for Biblical Lexicography,” in Hebrew through the Ages: In Memory of Shoshanna Bahat (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Studies in Language 2; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1997), 29–46 [Hebrew]. 19  For more instances see Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 24.

Ṣade—Shin Change In the Dead Sea Scrolls

249

Other early Hebrew sources also show sibilant changes involving ṣade. For example, ṣade representing original samekh probably occurs once in the Scrolls in the word ‫ ואפץ‬‭(4Q418 7b, 11) for ‫ואפס‬,20 and twice in the letters of BarKosiba in the forms ‫( הפצתיך‬Mur 42, 6) and ‫ארצטון‬, which, however, are loans from Greek.21 These spellings should be perhaps attributed to the occasional influence of the emphatic /p/22 and /ṭ/.23 Therefore, they could be indirect evidence of the emphatic pronunciation of the ṣade in these sources. In the Tannaitic sources, the apparently unconditioned interchange of ṣade–samekh is not unusual, e.g., ‫עוקסיהן‬-‫עוקציהן‬, ‫מצננין‬-‫מסננין‬, ‫צלק‬-‫סלק‬, etc. Yet, Yochanan Breuer has shown that there is a strong tendency to use ṣade in the Babylonian manuscripts, whereas the forms containing samekh are utilized in the Palestinian ones.24 Breuer has further suggested that the Palestinian evidence attests to /ṣ/ > /s/ shift in particular cases because of the loss of the emphatic component. This solution could well be right for the Scrolls’ change of ṣade > shin too, implying depharyngealization of /ṣ/.25 However, there are two reasons that put in doubt such an assumption. First, it seems ill-advised to surmise that a shin written instead of ṣade could reflect the /s/ sound, and that such usage was due to hypercorrection or confusion

20  See Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 28. Qimron, however, suggested an alternative reading; see Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Writings, 2.153. 21  See Uri Mor, Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea between the First and the Second Revolts, (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015), 105–6 [Hebrew], and the bibliography cited there. 22  Regarding emphatic pronunciation of the sound /p/ in Ancient Hebrew see Richard D. Steiner, “Emphatic ‫ פ‬in the Massoretic Pronunciation of ‫( אפדנו‬Dan 11:45),” in Hebrew and Arab Studies in Honor of Joshua Blau (ed. Haggai Ben-Shammai; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1993), 551–62 [Hebrew]. 23  This very phenomenon is found in the Mishnaic loans from Greek; e.g., ‫( קפצא‬καψα), ‫( אצטרוביל‬στροβιλος). See Shai Heijmans, “Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology,” (Ph.D. diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2013), 253–55 [Hebrew], and the bibliography cited there. See also Yochanan Breuer, The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud according to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesaḥim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002), 116 [Hebrew]. 24  See ibid., 115–17, and the bibliography cited there. 25  Chanan Ariel would prefer Breuer’s account for the ṣade-shin orthographic alternation regarding the Scrolls evidence, because it is based on a minimal phonetic alternation: the two sounds make a minimal pair, differing just in pharyngealization [sʕ/s], notwithstanding that the assumed /s/ sound was always represented in the Scrolls by shin, as noted below.

250

Yuditsky and Ariel

of letters pronounced in a like manner,26 since the letter samekh, which is normally expected in these cases, never occurrs.27 Second, a yawning chasm of some thousand years divides the Scrolls and the reliable Tannaitic written sources, and one must be quite careful when comparing their dialects.28 In the light of the data presented above, we would like tentatively to suggest an alternative solution. There is evidence, described by Richard Steiner, that in Ancient Hebrew loanwords the original sound /č/, which presumably did not exist as an independent phoneme in Biblical Hebrew, was expressed by means of the letter shin.29 Thus, Qumranic ‫ נחשיר‬is Persian naxčir, and Mishnaic ‫ַּד ְרּגֵ ש‬ seems to be Persian dargič.30

26  As noted above, in the Scrolls’ dialects, as in Tiberian Hebrew, the letter shin has apparently two possible phonetic values /š/ and /s/, which is an outcome of the shift /ś/ > /s/. As a result, theoretically both the samekh and the shin could have been used to represent the sound /s/. 27  In fact, the original /s/ was sporadically expressed by shin in the Scrolls; see Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 28–29. However, these cases are rather exceptional, and further investigation of them is required. 28  The Tannaitic sources could well reflect a tradition of Hebrew from the third to fourth centuries or even later, see Michael Ryzhik, “Orthography of the Rabbinic Hebrew,” in EHLL 2.955. Moreover, the Hebrew of the Bar-Kosiba letters seems to differ markedly from Mishnaic Hebrew; compare Elisha Qimron, “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 232–44. 29  See Richard D. Steiner, Affricated Ṣade in the Semitic Languages (New York: The American Academy for Jewish Research, 1982). 30  See ibid., 52. It is believed that these and other Persian loanwords were borrowed to Hebrew through Aramaic, which was an official language of the Persian Empire. See, e.g., Avi Hurvitz, A Concise Dictionary of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 5. However, there is apparently no conclusive evidence pro or contra this submission. See, e.g., Choon-Leong Seow, “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Kohelet,” JBL 115 (1996): 643–66 (at 650 and n. 38). Furthermore, the shin representing /č/ is also found in the Aramaic texts from Persia, Parthia, and Syria; note also ‫ ֻא ַּׁש ְרנָ א‬and ‫ פתשגן‬from the Book of Ezra (see ibid.). One could further mention in this context that in Aramaic papyri from Egypt the shin was widely used to express the original Egyptian sound /č/, e.g. ‫ פסמשך‬for Psammetichus; see Steiner, Affricated Ṣade, 62; Walter Kornfeld, Onomastica Aramaica aus Ägypten (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), 28. It thus appears that the shin was rather widely used to represent the consonant /č/ in the Middle East during the Second Temple period.

Ṣade—Shin Change In the Dead Sea Scrolls

251

As has been proved by Steiner, the phoneme /ṣ/ in many Hebrew (and Semitic) dialects was pronounced as an affricated /ts/.31 One could explain, therefore, the writing of shin instead of ṣade in Qumran as based on occasional usage of the affricated [č] allophone of the phoneme /ts/ (or /ṣ/).32 That is, in Qumran Hebrew the phoneme /ts/ (or /ṣ/) was colored at times as [č],33 and expressed by shin as the most appropriate Hebrew grapheme to represent [č].34 To sum up, in the present paper we discussed the apparent cases of representation (or misrepresentation) of the original ṣade by shin in the Hebrew epigraphy of the Second Temple period. Since the letter shin, but not samekh, is consistently used instead of ṣade, this shift probably should not be interpreted as indicating a putative non-emphatic pronunciation of ṣade, but rather as an occasional utilization of shin to represent the affricate allophone [č] (or [čˁ]).35 As a result, the phenomenon described in the paper sheds new light on the difficult passage in 4Q225 2 I. 31  See Steiner, Affricated Ṣade, esp. 90–91. It has been proved by Steiner for Egyptian Hebrew of the Second Temple Period, though the Palestinian evidence is, in his opinion, inconclusive. 32  As argued above, the standard pronunciation of /ṣ/ in the vernaculars reflected in the Scrolls was apparently an apharyngealized, and probably palatalized, sibilant; therefore the [č] variant could well preserve its emphatic character, and, probably should be more accurately denoted as [čˁ], [č̣], or [č]/[č̣]. 33  We would like to emphasize again that such variation does not reflect a regular sound shift, but rather a sporadic phonetic process inherent in particular individual idiolects, which, as noted above, apparently was not recognized as normative by speakers. 34  [ts] > [č] shift is simple, reflecting change of the place of articulation from alveolar to postalveolar. Yet, a [ṣ] > [č]/[čˁ] shift is also not impossible, assuming palatalization of [ṣ]. 35  Some other cases in Semitic languages could be interpreted analogously. Thus, based on the biblical parallels and the Targums, the verb ‫( נָ פֹׁשּו‬Nah 3:18) was usually recognized as an alternative of ‫נפוצו‬, and many modern scholars suggested to emend ‫ נפושו‬to ‫נפוצו‬, which is, however, not necessary. Compare 1 Kgs 22:17; see traditional commentaries, e.g. Rashi (but compare Radak), and Mordechai Cogan, “Naḥum,” in Mikra Leyisraʾel: Naḥum, Ḥabakkuk, Zephaniah: A Commentary (ed. Shmuel Ahituv; Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2006), 60 [Hebrew], who believes that the scribe of Naḥum intended to use ‫ נָ פֹׂשֹו‬with sin. In Biblical Aramaic ‫“ ְׁש ַפ ְר ָּפ ָרא‬dawn, morning” (Dan 6:20) was suggested by Frank Blake to express a by-form of ‫צפרפר‬, a duplicated form of ‫“ צפר‬morning;” see Frank R. Blake, “Congeneric Assimilation as a Cause of the Development of New Roots in Semitic,” in Studies in Honor of M. Bloomfield(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920), 44. Note that in both cases the assumed shift occurred in vicinity of /p/. One could also mention representation of the original ṣade by shin in Akkadian and Ugaritic when /ṣ/ is followed by a suffix beginning with /t/, e.g., *mḫṣt > mḫšt. See Moshe Held, “mḫṣ/*mḫš in Ugaritic and other Semitic Languages,” JAOS 79 (1959): 173.

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin 44, 48, 55 n. 40, 191 n. 10, 226 n. 3 Adriaen, Mark 142 n. 65 Aitken, James K. 95 n. 7, 221 n. 32 Ahituv, Shmuel 251 n. 35 Albeck, Chanoch 14 n. 41 Allegro, John M. 139 n. 54 Andersen, Francis I. 44 n. 4, 159 n. 2, 228 n. 7, 238 n. 39 Aptowitzer, Victor 196 Ausloos, Hans 67 n. 11 Avinery, Isaac 134 n. 38 Avishur, Yitzhak 199 Azar, Moshe 168 n. 34 Bacher, Wilhelm 34 n. 23, 216 n. 6, 217 n. 9, 240 n. 50, 247 n. 10 Badawi, El-Said 212 Baden, Joel S. 226, 227 n. 5 Baillet, Maurice 104, 193 n. 13 Baker, Mark C. 52 n. 36 Baldi, Philip 248 n. 16 Balentine, Samuel E. 80 n. 31 Bar-Asher, Moshe 4 n. 3, 5 n. 9, 31 n. 7, 47 n. 8, 50 n. 30, 59, 62 n. 2, 82 n. 37, 99 n. 24, 123, 138 n. 50, 195, 218 n. 23, 220 n. 30, 248 n. 18 Bar-Kochva, Bezalel 155 n. 102 Barr, James 80 n. 32 Barrera, Julio Trebolle 67 n. 11 Barth, Jakob 62 n. 2, 195 n. 25 Barton, John 80 n. 31 Bauer, Hans 34 n. 22, 62 n. 2, 134 n. 38, 135 n. 41, 228 n. 7 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 22 n. 11, 132 n. 35, 134 n. 39, 231 n. 18, 232, n. 19, 246 n. 6 Beene, Wayne 199 n. 49 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 111 n. 25, 235 n. 30 Beeston, Alfred Felix London 147 n. 77 Ben-Shammai, Haggai 249 n. 22 Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer 196 Bendavid, Aba 71 n. 17, 76 n. 28 Bergsträsser, Gotthelf 34 n. 22, 35 n. 25, 167, 198 Berlejung, Angelika 101 n. 34 Bernstein, Moshe 21 n. 10

Berrin, Shani L. 231 n. 18 Beyer, Klaus 104 n. 1, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 121 Bialik, H. N. 173 n. 2 Biella, Joan C. 146 n. 77 Blake, Frank R. 37 n. 36, 251 n. 35 Blau, Joshua 35, 36 n. 26, 36 n. 30, 62 n. 2, 80 n. 31, 150 n. 88, 208 n. 87, 209, 211 n. 93 Bodine, Walter R. 86 n. 43, 164 n. 20 Bohak, Gideon 154 n. 98, 155 n. 100 Bomhard, Allan R. 38 n. 39 Bons, Eberhard 94 n. 4, 194 n. 18 Bordreuil, Pierre 146 n. 76 Bowley, James E. 191 n. 10 Box, George H. 238 n. 42 Braude, William G. 129 n. 26 Bresciani, Edda 117, 118 n. 55 Breuer, Yochanan 30 n. 5, 62 n. 2, 70 n. 16, 82 n. 37, 153 n. 96, 249 Brockelmann, Carl 35 n. 25, 62 n. 2, 136 n. 44, 195 n. 25, 199 n. 48 Brønno, Einar 36 n. 28, 82 n. 36 Brooke, George J. 61 n. 1 Brown, Cecil H. 124 n. 1 Brownlee, William H. 128 n. 22 Buhl, Frants 163 n. 15 Burnett, Charles 154 n. 98 Burrows, Millar 128 n. 22 Buth, Randall 109 n. 19 Bybee, Joan 51 n. 33 Caquot, André 121 n. 69 Carmignac, Jean 193 n. 13, 196 Carr, David M. 94 n. 4 Casas, Jérôme 96 Cathcart, Kevin J. 108 n. 12 Chazon, Esther G. 22 n. 11, 130 n. 28, 155 n. 100, 246 Chomsky, Noam 52 n. 34 Choon-Leong, Seow 250 n. 30 Clackson, James 38 n. 40, 39 Clarity, Beverly E. 199 n. 49, 206 n. 79 Clarke, Ernest G. 191 n. 8 Clements, Ruth A. 47 n. 8, 50 n. 30, 155 n. 100, 218 n. 23

254 Clines, David J. A. 52, 95 n. 7, 171 n. 43, 194 n. 18, 209 Clines, Jeremy M. S. 95 n. 7 Cogan, Mordechai 219 n. 24, 251 n. 35 Cohen, Chaim 248 n. 18 Cohen, David 121 n. 69, 199 n. 48 Colin, G. S. 211 Collins, John J. 63 n. 3, 95 n. 11 Cook, Edward M. 108 n. 12, 109 n. 17, 113 n. 31, 119 n. 63, 120–121, 191 n. 10 Cook, John A. 44 n. 4, 93 n. 3 Cotton, Hannah M. 233 n. 22 Cross, Frank M. 86 n. 43, 105 n. 4, 228 n. 7, 247 n. 11 Cryer, Frederick H. 80 n. 33 Crystal, David 52 Csepregi, Ildikó 154 n. 98 Cussini, Eleonora 136 n. 44 Dacy, Marianne 64 n. 4 Dalman, Gustaf 155 n. 102 Danby, Herbert 140 n. 57 Davies, Philip R. 61 n. 1 de Lange, Nicholas 206 n. 77 Delitzsch, Friedrich 244 n. 68 Denizeau, Claude 211–212 Dhorme, Édouard P. 124 n. 1 di Lella, Alexander 137 n. 48, 138 n. 51 Dihi, Haim 138, 217 n. 9, 218 n. 16, 239 n. 43, 242 Dimant, Devorah 143 n. 67 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 95 n. 7 Doudna, Gregory L. 231 n. 18 Dowling, Jennifer 64 n. 4 Dozy, R. P. A. 211 Dresher, B. Elan 44 n. 4, 93 n. 3 Driver, Samuel R. 141 n. 62 Dryer, Matthew S. 51 n. 33, 52 du Plessis, S. J. 62 n. 2 Durie, Mark 124 n. 1 Ehrensvärd, Martin 44 n. 1, 64 n. 4, 65 n. 5, 81 n. 33, 93 n. 3 Ehret, Christopher 38 n. 39 Ehrlich, Carl S. 148 n. 81 Ehrlich, Uri 13 n. 39 Elgvin, Torleif 104 n. 1 Elitzur, Shulamit 138 n. 50

Index of Modern Authors Elitzur, Yoel 134 n. 38 Elwolde, John F. 16 n. 1, 18 n. 5, 28 n. 21, 46 n. 8, 50 n. 30, 62 n. 3, 70 n. 16, 99 n. 24, 115 n. 47, 167 n. 29, 220 n. 27, 222 n. 37, 242 n. 62 Enfield, Nick J. 124 n. 1 Epstein, Jaacov N. 5 n. 9 Eshel, Esther 107, 109, 121, 155 n. 100 Eskhult, Mats 48, 49 n. 24 Even-Shoshan, Avraham 197 Faber, Alice 248 n. 16 Faigan, Suzanne 64 n. 4 Fassberg, Steven E. 22 n. 11, 47 n. 8, 48, 49 n. 24, 50 n. 30, 61 n. 1, 63 n. 3, 80 n. 31, 81 n. 34, 108 n. 13, 119 n. 64, 121 n. 69, 139 n. 54, 150 n. 88, 153 n. 96, 167, 198 n. 43, 208 n. 87, 218 n. 23, 229 n. 12, 242 n. 60 Ferré, Daniel 211 Field, Frederick 143 n. 68 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 104, 105 n. 3, 107–110, 112, 114, 118 n. 57, 119, 121 Fleischer, Ezra  223 Flint, Peter W. 26 n. 17, 48 n. 18, 48 n. 20, 245 n. 3 Florentin, Moshe 6 n. 11, 11 n. 35, 33, 41, 85 n. 41, 167 n. 29 Folmer, Margaretha L. 118 n. 56 Forbes, A. Dean 44 n. 4, 45, 159 n. 2, 228 n. 7, 238 n. 39 Fortson, Benjamin W. IV 38 n. 40 Fox, Michael V. 177–178, 195 n. 25, 242 n. 58 Freedman, Noel 228 n. 7 Gabbay, Uri 152 n. 94 Garr, W. Randall, 62 n. 2, 184 n. 24, 228 n. 7 Gaster, Moses 210 Geers, Frederick W. 248 n. 18 Geiger, Abraham 200–201, 204 Geiger, Gregor 19 n. 7 Geller, Markham J. 42 n. 53 Gesenius, Wilhelm 93, 163 n. 15 Gianto, Agustinus 118 Gindin, Thamar E. 194 n. 22 Ginsberg, Christian D. 200 Ginsberg, Harold L. 35 n. 25, 80 n. 31 Gluska, Isaac 153 n. 96 Gogel, Sandra L. 88 n. 48

255

Index of Modern Authors Goldman, Yohanan 64 n. 4 Goldschmidt, Daniel 3 n. 1 Gordon, Cyrus H. 217 n. 15 Greenberg, Moshe 178 n. 12 Greenfield, Jonas C. 42 n. 53, 116, 118, 121 Greenstein, Edward L. 145 n. 75 Gregory, Bradley C. 235 n. 30 Grintz, Yehoshua M. 189 n. 2 Grossfled, Bernard 142 n. 63 Grossman, Maxine L. 48 n. 20 Gzella, Holger 118 n. 56, 121 n. 69 Hachlili, Rachel 247 n. 13 Haiman, John 51 n. 33 Halayqa, Issam K. H. 145 n. 74 Hallermayer, Michaela 104 n. 1 Hämeen-Anttila 40 n. 46 Häberl, Charles 199 n. 49 Hallo, William W. 148 n. 80 Haran, M. 141 n. 62 Harrell, Richard S. 211 Harris, Zellig S. 62 n. 2 Hasid, Y. A. 7 n. 15 Haspelmath, Martin 51 n. 3, 52 Hasselbach, Rebecca 37 n. 35, 228 n. 7 Hava, J. G. 211 Hatch, Edwin 201 n. 58 Hayes, C. 4 Heijmans, Shai 202, 203 n. 66, 249 n. 23 Heine, Bernd 124 n. 1 Heinemann, Joseph 173 n. 3 Heinrichs, Wolfhart 206 n. 79 Held, Moshe 251 n. 35 Hetzron, Robert 35 n. 25 Hillers, Delbert R. 136 n. 44 Hinds, Martin 212 Hoftijzer, Jacob 148 n. 81, 149 n. 86 Holm-Nielsen, Svend 131 n. 31 Holma, Harri 124 n. 1 Holmstedt, Robert D. 44 n. 4, 50 n. 28, 57 n. 42, 93 n. 3 Hornkohl, Aaron D. 65 n. 5, 67 n. 11, 68 n. 14, 71 n. 17, 81 n. 33, 86 n. 43, 93 n. 1, 94 n. 6, 114 n. 37 Holst, Søren 20 n. 9, 49, 101 n. 33, 102 n. 38 Hopkins, Simon 35 n. 25, 150 n. 88, 208 n. 87 Horgan, Maurya 232 n. 21 Huehnergard, John 37 n. 35, 147 n. 78

Hughes, Jeremy 80 n. 31 Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine 94 n. 4, 194 n. 18 Hurvitz, Avi 44 n. 3, 62 n. 2, 71 n. 17, 73 n. 23, 135 n. 42, 250 n. 30 Hutton, Jeremy 228 n. 7 Isaksson, Bo 48 Izre’el, Shlomo 145 n. 74 Jaroš, Karl 141 n. 62 Jastrow, Marcus 190, 209, 222 n. 36, 325 Jastrow, Otto 40 n. 45 Jeppesen, Knud 81 n. 33 Jones, Andrew R. 49 n. 27 Jones, Scott C. 183 n. 23 Jongeling, Karel 148 n. 81, 149 n. 86 Joosten, Jan 31 n. 10, 34 n. 25, 36 n. 28, 46 n. 8, 49, 50 n. 30, 61, 63 n. 3, 65 n. 5, 67 n. 11, 80 n. 31, 84n. 40, 93 n. 1, 93 n. 3, 94 n. 4, 95 n. 10, 99 n. 26, 101 n. 34, 106 n. 6, 119 n. 64, 194 n. 18, 215 n. 5, 223 n. 40, 252 n. 69 Joüon, Paul 34 n. 22, 71 n. 17, 74 n. 24, 112 n. 27, 134 n. 38, 135 n. 41, 160 n. 4, 162 n. 12, 163 n. 14, 164 n. 18, 165 n. 24, 169 n. 38, 170 n. 39, 171 n. 43, 220 n. 27 Kahle, Paul E. 31 n. 6 Kamil, Murad 121 n. 55 Kartveit, Magnar 21 n. 10 Kennicott, Benjamin 229 n. 10 Kesterson, John C. 102 Kim, Dong-Hyuk 93 n. 3 Kister, Menaham 63 n. 3, 99 n. 24, 100, 107 n. 11, 115 n. 47, 123, 131, 132 n. 34, 153 n. 95, 154 n. 97, 182, 186 n. 27, 222 n. 37, 237 n. 37, 242 n. 61, 243 Khan, Geoffrey 34 n. 22, 37 n. 30, 80 n. 31, 81 n. 33, 205 n. 75, 209 Klein, Ernst 206 n. 78, 207 n. 85 Klein, Michael L. 8 n. 18 Koerber, Benjamin 212 Kogan, Leonid 37 n. 35, 124 n. 1, 135 n. 40 Kornfeld, Walter  250 n. 30 Kottsieper, Ingo 148 n. 81 Kouwenberg, Norbertus J. C. 37 n. 36, 38 n. 36

256 Kratz, Reinhard G. 143 n. 67 Krauss, Samuel 196, 203 Kropat, Arno 135 n. 42 Kugel, James L. 177 Kutscher, Eduard Y. 30, 31 n. 7, 38 n. 37, 47, 48 n. 18, 50 n. 31, 59, 62 n. 2, 68, 70 n. 16, 77, 82 n. 35, 100, 139 n. 54, 151 n. 92, 158, 159, 160, 194, 195 n. 24, 197, 198, 199 n. 51, 245 n. 5 Lambert, M. 80 n. 31 Lane, Edward W. 130 n. 27, 209, 211 n. 93 Leahy, Thomas 46 n. 7, 47 Leander, Pontus 34 n. 22, 62 n. 2, 134 n. 38, 135 n. 41, 228 n. 7 Lefkovits, Judah K. 61 n. 1 Lemmelijn, Bénédicte 67 n. 11 Lerner, Yoel 36 n. 30 Leslau, Wolf 146 n. 77 Levita, Elijah 191 n. 7 Levy, Jacob 190, 191 n. 7, 197 n. 40, 200, 209 Licht, Jacob 181 Lieberman, Saul 187 n. 28, 188 n. 31, 206 n. 77 Lim, Timothy H. 63 n. 3, 95 n. 11 Liver, Jacob 189 n. 2 Livneh, Atar 143 n. 67 Longacre, Robert 16, 49 n. 26 Löw, Immanuel 196 Lübbe, John 61 n. 1 Lust, Johan 64 n. 4 Luukko, Mikko 40 n. 46 Machiela, Daniel A. 108 n. 16, 109 n. 20 Macuch, Rudolf 33–34, 39, 42 Maher, Michael 108 n. 12, 142 n. 64 Maier, Christl M. 95 n. 7 Maier, Johann 17 n. 4 Majid, Asifa 124 n. 1 Malessa, Michael 73 n. 24 Maman, Aharon 34 n. 23, 153 n. 96 Mandell, Alice 226 n. 1 Mansoor, Menahem 131 n. 31, 132 n. 35, 134 n. 39 Marcus, Joseph 219 n. 24 Marcus, Ralph 129 n. 23 Margoliouth, David S. 213 Martínez, Florentino García 126 n. 4 Mastin, Brian A. 86 n. 43

Index of Modern Authors McCoskey, Jim 52 n. 36 Medina, Richard W. 50 n. 29 Meissner, Bruno 198, 199 n. 47 Melamed, Raphael Hai 204 n. 74 Mendelsohn, Isaac 142 n. 66 Messing, Gordon M. 34 n. 21 Migne, Jean-Paul 142 n. 65 Milik, Józef T. 107, 129 n. 24, 246 n. 6 Militarev, Alexander 124 n. 1, 135 n. 40 Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. 44 n. 2, 65 n. 5, 93 n. 1, 106 n. 6 Mishor, Mordechay 154 n. 96 Mizrahi, Noam 98 n. 21, 100, 132 n. 34, 134 n. 38, 136 n. 42, 149 n. 86, 194, 208 n. 86, 218–219 Mor, Uri 249 n. 21 Morag, Shelomo 33, 40, 42, 43 n. 62, 61 n. 1, 80, 87 n. 46 Morgenstern, Matthew 108–109, 113, 115–119, 121, 198 n. 43 Moshavi, Adina 65 n. 5, 148 n. 81 Mueller, Joel 196 Müller, Katrin 124 n. 1 Müller, Walter W. 147 n. 77 Muraoka, Takamitsu 16 n. 1, 18 n. 5, 28 n. 21, 34 n. 22, 46 n. 8, 47 n. 13, 62 n. 2, 71 n. 17, 99 n. 24, 108 n. 13, 112 n. 27, 115 n. 47, 120 n. 66, 134 n. 38, 160 n. 4, 163 n. 16, 167 n. 29, 183 n. 23, 220 n. 27, 222 n. 37, 250 n. 28 Mutzafi, Hezy 198, 207 n. 82 Najman, Hindy 227 n. 5 Naudé, Jacobus A. 46 n. 8, 63 n. 3, 64 n. 4 Naveh, Joseph 154 n. 96, 155 n. 99 Nebe, G.-Wilhelm 131 n. 33, 139 n. 54 Neusner, Jacob 140 n. 56 Newmeyer, Frederick J. 51 n. 33, 52 n. 35 Newsom, Carol A.  126 n. 6, 153 n. 95, 190 n. 19 Niccacci, Alviero 49 n. 26 Nielsen, Eduard 141 n. 62 Nielsen, Kristen 81 n. 33 Nims, Charles F. 36, 150 n. 90 Nitzan, Bilhah 155 n. 100 Notarius, Tania 65 n. 5, 94 n. 6 Notley, R. Steven 109 n. 19 Novick, Tzi 4 n. 5

Index of Modern Authors O’Connor, Michael P. 243 n. 64 Orlinsky, Harry M. 196, 200 n. 57 Otto, Eckhart 141 n. 62 Paper, Herbert H. 121 n. 69 Pardee, Dennis 146 n. 76, 152 n. 93, 232 n. 22 Parry, Donald W. 181 n. 16, 245 n. 5, 247 n. 11 Pat-El, Na’ama 151 n. 91 Paul, Shalom 44 n. 2, 94 n. 7, 118 n. 57 Payne, Thomas E. 51 n. 32, 53 n. 39 Penner, Ken 101 n. 33 Perles, Joseph 207 n. 84 Perrin, Andrew B. 105 n. 3, 109 n. 20 Petersen, Anders Klostergaard 21 n. 10 Petruc, Miriam R. L. 124 n. 1 Piamenta, Moshe 212 Pinnick, Avital 22 n. 11, 155 n. 100 Polak, Frank 95 Polzin, Robert 135 n. 42 Pouderon, Bernard 94 n. 5 Preuss, Julius 133 n. 36 Puech, Émile 113 n. 34, 136 n. 45, 155 n. 99 Qimron, Elisha 30, 43 n. 63, 46 n. 6, 47, 59, 61 n. 1, 63 n. 3, 71 n. 17, 84 n. 40, 87 n. 46, 96 n. 14, 100 n. 30, 101 n. 35, 109, 116 n. 48, 119, 120 n. 67, 125 n. 2, 126 n. 5, 127 n. 11, 130 n. 28, 139 n. 54, 153 n. 95, 161, 164 n. 21, 166, 193, 215 n. 5, 218 n. 21, 232 n. 22, 245 n. 1, 246 n. 6, 247 n. 11, 248 n. 19, 249 n. 20 Rabin, Chaim 62 n. 2 Rainey, Anson F. 152 n. 94 Rand, Michael 87 n. 44, 138 n. 50, 233 n. 23, 240 n. 51 Redpath, Henry A. 201 n. 58 Rendsburg, Gary 86 n. 43, 99 n. 25, 135 n. 42, 164 n. 20, 190 n. 3, 199 n. 51, 226 n. 1 Rey, Jean-Sébastien 31 n. 10, 36 n. 28, 46 n. 8, 50 n. 30, 80 n. 31, 119 n. 64, 215 n. 5, 219 n. 26, 221 n. 32, 223 n. 40, 235 n. 30, 244 n. 69 Reymond, Eric D. 26, 27 n. 20, 28 n. 21, 30, 43 n. 63, 46 n. 6, 63 n. 3, 84 n. 40, 87 n. 46, 120 n. 67, 237 n. 35, 238 n. 39, 244 n. 69, 247, 248 n. 17, 249 n. 20

257 Rezetko, Robert 44 n. 1, 64 n. 4, 65, 66 n. 8, 67 n. 11, 68 n. 12, 69 n. 15, 71 n. 17, 72 n. 21, 81 n. 33, 93 n. 3 Rieder, David 8 n. 25 Rooker, Mark F. 94 n. 7 Rosendal, Bent 81 n. 33 Ross, Malcolm 124 n. 1 Rubin, Aaron 124 n. 1, 189 Rüger, Hans Peter 214, 222 Ryzhi, Michael 250 n. 28 Sabar, Yona 198, 206 n. 79 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel 70 n. 16, 95 n. 12, 106 n. 6 Saley, Richard J. 247 n. 11 Sanders, James A. 26 n. 18, 27 n. 20, 28 n. 21 Sanmartín, Joaquín 145 n. 74 Sarfatti, Gad B. 140 n. 61, 143 n. 70, 144 n. 73, 160 n. 4 Savran, George 35 n. 25 Schäfer, Peter 192 n. 12 Schechter, Solomon 216, 247 n. 14, 248 n. 17 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 199 n. 51 Schmitt, Armin 110–115, 121 Schniedewind, William 62 n. 3, 86 n. 42 Schorch, Stefan 31 n. 10, 93 n. 2, 199 n. 47 Schuller, Eileen 21 n. 10, 126 n. 6, 127 n. 12, 131 n. 32, 153 n. 95 Screnock, John 44, 46 n. 7, 50, 55 Secunda, Shai 152 n. 94 Segal, Moshe Zvi 62 n. 2, 233 n. 24, 238–242 Siegal, Michal Bar-Asher 4 n. 5 Sivan, Daniel 43 n. 63, 145 n. 74 Sharvit, Shimon 5 n. 9 Skehan, Patrick W. 138 n. 51, 145 n. 48, 182 n. 20 Skinner, John 141 n. 62 Smend, Rudolf 138 n. 51, 223 n. 41, 234 n. 27, 236 n. 33, 239 n. 45, 240 Smith, Colin J. 71 n. 17 Smith, Mark S. 17 n. 3, 19 n. 8, 22 n. 12, 28 n. 21, 47, 94 n. 4, 101 n. 33, 146 n. 76 Smith, Robert 217 n. 13 Smyth, Herbert Weir 34 n. 21 Sokoloff, Michael 31 n. 7, 136 n. 44, 197 n. 41, 209, 217 n. 14, 240 n. 49 Sperber, Alexander 7 n. 15, 204 n. 74 Sperber, Daniel 202–203 Sperling, David 194 n. 21

258 Spitaler, Anton 198 n. 43 Stadel, Christian 108 n. 13, 121 Steiner, Richard C. 123, 148 n. 80–84, 150 n. 90, 152 n. 93, 156 n. 103, 249 n. 22 Stegemann, Hartmut 126 n. 6, 127 n. 13, 131 n. 32, 153 n. 95 Stowasser, Karl 199 n. 48 Strugnell, John 47 n. 12, 61 n. 1, 119 n. 65, 237 n. 37 Sukenik, Eleazar L. 125 n. 2 Tal, Abraham 6 n. 11, 11 n. 35, 31 n. 7, 33, 41 n. 53, 42 n. 55, 85 n. 41, 130 n. 29, 209, 210 n. 92, 223 n. 43 Talmon, Shemaryahu 193 Talshir, David 96 n. 14 Talshir, Zipora 43 n. 63 Tigay, Jeffrey 223 n. 24 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 126 n. 4, 136 n. 42, 219 n. 26, 227 n. 5 Theodor, Julius 14 n. 41 Thompson, Sandra 51 n. 33 Thorion-Vardi, Talia 24 n. 13 Tov, Emanuel 24 n. 15, 85 n. 41, 181 n. 16, 190 n. 4, 191 n. 10, 197, 245 n. 2 Towes, Casey 226 n. 3 Treat, Jay C. 209 Trever, John C. 128 n. 22 Tropper, Josef 171 n. 45 Tzoref, Shani 203 Uffenheimer, Binyamin 82 n. 35 Ullendorff, Edward 37 Ulmer, Rivka 129 n. 26, 130 n. 29 Ulrich, Eugene 48 n. 20, 162 n. 10, 231 n. 17, 245 n. 3 Vallarsi, Dominicum 142 n. 65 VanderKam, James C. 48 n. 18, 104 n. 1, 246 n. 9 van der Kooij, Arie 66 van Hecke, Pierre 48, 49 n. 24, 101 n. 34, 136 n. 42, 219 n. 26 van Peursen, Wido T. 24 n. 2, 27 n. 19, 76 n. 26, 219, 220 n. 27, 226 n. 2, 235 n. 30, 242 n. 62 van Staden, Miriam 124 n. 1

Index of Modern Authors Vergari, Romina 94 n. 4 Vermes, Geza 155 n. 102 Vilsker, L. H. 33 n. 18 Wagner, Andreas 124 n. 1 Walker, Joel 154 n. 96 Wasserman, Nathan 152 n. 93, 152 n. 94 Weber, David J. 51 Wehr, Hans 209, 211 n. 93, 212 Weis, Richard D. 64 n. 4 Weitzman, Michael P. 42 n. 53 Weninger, Stefan 38 n. 38, 124 n. 1, 200 n. 53 Westermann, Claus 141 n. 62 Wierzbicka, Anna 124 n. 1, 143 n. 72 Wilkins, David P. 124 n. 1, 141 n. 61 Wise, Michael O. 17 n. 4, 96, 97 n. 16, 103, 107, 108, 109, 119 Wheeler, Brannon 154 n. 96 White, Sidnie 245 n. 2 Wolfe, Rongald G. 199 Wolters, Albert M. 61 n. 1 Woodhead, D. R. 199 n. 49 Worthington, Martin 40 n. 46 Wright, Benjamin G. 228 n. 6, 236 n. 34 Wright, Rick M. 71 n. 17 Wright, William  35 n. 25 Yadin, Yigael 129–130, 132, 192 n. 11, 232 n. 22 Yahalom, Joseph 37 n. 32 Yalon, Henoch 31, 161 n. 7 Yeivin, Israel 37 n. 31, 82 n. 35, 133 n. 37, 203 n. 67 Young, Ian 44 n. 1, 63 n. 3, 64 n. 4, 65, 68, 69 n. 15, 71 n. 17, 72 n. 21, 81 n. 33, 93 n. 3, 96 n. 14, 228 n. 7 Younger, K. Lawson Jr. 148 n. 80 Yuditsky, Alexey 36 n. 28, 61 n. 1, 138, 163 n. 102, 229 n. 12 Xeravits, Geza G. 228 n. 6 Zevit, Ziony 44 n. 2, 65 n. 5, 93 n. 1, 106 n. 6, 228 n. 7 Zewi, Tamar 49 n. 24

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament Genesis 3:1 176 4:2 73 n. 22 4:20 8 n. 17 6:4 11 6:16 49, 88 n. 47 8:10 77 8:12 76 n. 27, 77 9:23 147 13:3 229 n. 10 13:7 210 15:2–6 246 15:5 246 15:20 210 18:7 74 n. 24 18:29 74 n. 24 19:10 170 20:16 164 n. 21 21:14 147 n. 78 21:17 164 n. 21 24:52 117 n. 54 25:26 73 n. 22 26:25 229 n. 10–11 29:21 117 n. 53 31:25 229 n. 10 33:19 229 n. 10 34:7 73 n. 22 34:30 210 35:21 230 37:19 7 40:11 248 n. 18 43:2 117 n. 54 43:14 14 43:23 84 n. 39 43:28 160 43:34 143 44:33 84 n. 39 46:32 7 46:34 7 47:24 143 48:22 141, 147 n. 79, 156, 195 n. 27 49:11 230 49:17 148

Exodus 2:21 74 n. 24 3:2 35 n. 25 3:8 210 3:18 89 n. 50 4:9 162 4:15 85 n. 41 6:12 183 6:30 183 8:14 166 8:15 14 10:3 241 n. 55 12:11 19 12:40 190 n. 4 12:43 230 12:44 230 13:3 230 15:1–19 1 15:2 35 n. 25 15:3 2, 5, 6 n. 10, 7–10, 13–14 15:9 165 15:11 4 19:11 118 n. 57 19:15 114 n. 43, 118 n. 57 20:5–6 186 n. 27 21:28 7 21:34 7 22:4 230 22:7 7 22:26 230 24:5 187, 189, 190 n. 4, 200 24:10 14 24:11 190 26:17–19 143 29:10–11 21 29:12 18 29:17 137 32:17 230, 232 n. 20 32:25 230 33:10 229 n. 10 34 17 34:2 118 n. 57 36:22–24 143 39:13 71

260 Leviticus 1:6 137 1:8 137 1:12 137, 140 n. 58 8:20 137 9:13 137 12:6 117 n. 53 16:22 171 n. 44 18:21 76 n. 28 20:3 78 20:20 88 n. 47 20:21 75 n. 25 21:18 194 n. 21 26:17 241 n. 55 26:32 18 Numbers 2:16 88 n. 47 2:24 88 n. 47 5:15 186 5:18 184 6:13 117 n. 53 10:21 89 n. 51 11:12 85 n. 41 12:14 184 14:3 73 n. 22 14:42 241 n. 55 22:11 84 n. 39 25:17 89 n. 51 26:31 133 35:20 166 Deuteronomy 1:5 74 n. 24, 76 n. 27 1:41 171 1:42 241 n. 55 2:14 2 2:16 2 2:29 89 n. 51 2:31 75 n. 25 4:10 166 5:11 139 n. 54 5:14 230, 231 n. 17 5:16 170 7:22 77 8:2 78 10:11 71, 71 n. 19 10:17 8, 9 n. 28

Index of Ancient Sources 10:18 230 12:3 71 13:5 166 14:24 77 15:2 8 n. 17 15:9 100 15:21 194 n. 21 18:18 84 n. 39 20:8 76 n. 28 22:7 187 23 17 25:7 76 n. 28 25:8 76 n. 28 25:15 170 28:59 236 n. 34 31:24 73 n. 22 31:27 174 32:11 135, 137 32:33 126 n. 7 32:36 226 33:9 84 n. 39 33:29 195 n. 27 34:7 229 n. 8, 243 Joshua 2:17 244 n. 68 4:5 147 n. 78 4:11 117 n. 54 10:8 239 n. 46 10:9–10 239 15:35 230 n. 13 17:1 2 17:2 133 17:12 74 n. 24 19:25 133 Judges 1:7 74 n. 24 1:35 74 n. 24 5:4 24 5:7 139 n. 54 8:33 117 n. 54 9:48 147, 230 9:49 230 16:28 244 n. 68 17:11 74 n. 24, 87 n. 46 19:29a 137 19:29b 137

261

Index of Ancient Sources 20:4 12 21:22 71 Ruth 1:2 89 n. 51 1:3 12 3:18 166 1 Samuel 1:11 84 n. 39 1:22 84 n. 39 3:2 75 n. 25 4:9 51, 89 n. 49 6:10 166 7:7–9 241 9:16 89 n. 51 12:8 117 n. 54 12:11 98 14:29–30 176 14:47 89 n. 51 16:7 84 n. 39 16:18 2 17:33 2 18:26 117 n. 53 19:21 88 n. 47 20:38 231 n. 17 22:17 170 23:3 175 24:14 89 n. 51 25:10 247 28:1 89 n. 51 2 Samuel 2:9 229 n. 12 2:22 99 n. 23 3:27 84 n. 39 4:9–10 184 5:18 89 n. 51 7:12 117 n. 53 8:10 2 11:16 247 12:18 183 16:11 185 16:16 117 n. 54 17:9 73 n. 22 20:13 117 22:3 165 n. 22 22:34 164

23:10 23:11

89 n. 51 89 n. 51

1 Kings 1:21 73 n. 22 3:11 169 5:25 35 n. 25 6:2 169 6:8 88 n. 47 7:32–36 143 8:27 182 8:33 241 11:17 87 n. 45 22:17 251 n. 35 2 Kings 1:13 88 n. 47 5:23 184 7:12 171 n. 43 10:4 183 10:30 88 n. 47 14:5 117 n. 54 15:12 88 n. 47 18:4 169 18:28 169 18:30 169 19:2 169 19:23 230 23:10 73 n. 23 1 Chronicles 5:9 73 n. 23 5:10 87 n. 46 5:19 84 n. 39, 87 n. 46, 88 n. 47 5:20 87 n. 46 7:17 98 7:19 133 12:3 87 n. 45 12:28 192 n. 11 14:10 87 n. 45 16:24 169 16:33 169 17:11 117 n. 53 17:27 74 n. 24 18:10 2 19:3 73 n. 23 28:3 2 28:11 88 n. 47

262

Index of Ancient Sources 8:13 9:15 9:18 9:32

1 Chronicles (cont.) 28:20 73 n. 23 29:28 73 n. 23 2 Chronicles 1:11 169 3:3 169 6:24 241 n. 55 6:28 236 n. 34 8:9 2 17:11 87 n. 46 21:16 87 n. 46 24:10 73 n. 23 25:3 117 n. 54 26:7 87 n. 45 26:8 73 n. 23 26:16 73 n. 23 26:20 235 30:17 163 31:1 73 n. 23, 169 32:15 178 32:24 73 n. 23 Ezra 10:14

73 n. 23

Nehemiah 3:33 117 n. 54 4:1 87 n. 46 8:14 100 9:18 178 9:18–19 178 9:19 171 10:29 100 n. 32 10:32 100 n. 32 13:19 117 n. 54 Esther 1:5 117 n. 53 2:12 117 n. 53 2:20 114 n. 43 4:7 87 n. 45 4:16 112 8:5 114 n. 41 8:6 111 n. 25 8:1 87 n. 45 8:7 170 8:7 87 n. 45

Job

87 n. 45 87 n. 45 87 n. 45 114 n. 43

2:8 194 n. 16 3:4 238 4:18–19 180 6:7 236 n. 34 9:14 178, 180 15:16 178, 180 18:20 88 n. 47 21:14 75 n. 25 25:5–6 180 25:6 178, 180 29:14 165 30:26 234 n. 28 31:22 146 n. 76 33:7 239 33:30 241 n. 55 34:12 181 n. 15 35:14 178 36:29 181 n. 15 37:17 78 39:4 139 n. 54 39:13 135 39:16 223 41:14 113 41:22 100

Psalms 2:1 26 n. 16, 194 n. 17 6:4 168 7:14 25, 26 n. 16 7:18 165 9:3 165 10:9 230 12:7 159 12:8 162 16:8 164 17:9 162 18:4 166 18:5 26 n. 16 18:17 163 20:2–6 36 n. 27, 150 n. 90 21:13 133 24:2 26 n. 16

263

Index of Ancient Sources 24:8 6, 10, 14 27:5 230 n. 13 30:11 118 n. 57 31:10 159 33:9 163 33:11 160 33:12 161 35:16 160, 164, 170 35:19 171 36:5 168 36:6 171 37:15 71 38:5 26 n. 16 38:10 172 38:20 171 38:21 169 38:22 165 39:4 25 41:3 220 n. 27 41:14 171 42:5 159 42:9 230 50:3 220 n. 27 50:19 26 n. 16 50:21 167 55:7 135 55:21 170 56:2 26 n. 16 57:2 26 n. 16 59:4 26 n. 16 60:6 143 n. 69 60:8 143 n. 69 65:7 13 n. 39 65:10 163, 164 n. 17 65:12 26 68:7 114 n. 41 68:11 26 n. 16 68:14 135 68:16–17 195 68:17 159 68:22 193 n. 15 69:5 171 69:18 168 73:9 26 74:14 26 n. 16 77:17 26 n. 16 77:18 26 n. 16 78:20 26 n. 16

78:25 138 n. 48 81:7 26 n. 16 81:8 26 n. 16 83:4 168 83:7 87 n. 46, 89 n. 51 87:6 73 n. 22 89:20 164 89:23 162 91:4 135 92:13 170 92:14 170 94:13 78 94:14 168 95:4 162 96:3 169 102:6 172 102:27 159 103:3 164 103:4 164 103:5 164 103:20 168 104:1 168 104:4 162 104:6 26 n. 16 104:11 162 104:20 162 104:22 71, 163 104:23 162 104:24 159 104:25 165, 168 104:26 163 104:27 159, 163 104:28 163, 166 104:29 163 104:30 163 105:4 159, 166 105:25 166 105:38 172 105:40 26 n. 16 106:46 14 107:3 160 107:15 162 107:22 159 107:24 162 107:42 172 108:7 143 n. 69 108:8 143 n. 69 112:1 162

264 Psalms (cont.) 112:5 162 114:3 26 n. 16 116:2 160 116:3 26 116:19 164 118:15 159 118:27 166 119:4 168 119:6 160, 163 n. 17 119:13 160 119:15 167 119:16 159 119:18 167 119:19 160 119:21 160, 168 119:22 160 119:24 160 119:37 159 119:44 166 119:46 160 119:47 166 119:49 167 119:59 160 119:60 160 119:64 159 119:66 60 119:69 166 119:78 171 119:86 160, 171 119:88 159–160, 166 119:92 160 119:95 160 119:107 159 119:110 168 119:111 160 119:115 166 119:119 160 119:129 160 119:131 160 119:132 159 119:134 166 119:137 172 119:138 160 119:151 160 119:156 159 119:157 160 120:6 163, 164 n. 17

Index of Ancient Sources 122:4 163 n. 17 122:5 168 123:1 164 123:4 163, 164 n. 17 125:1 163 125:3 170 126:2 159 126:5 166 126:6 162 128:1–2 163 n. 17 129:1 164 n. 17 129:2 163, 164 n. 17, 166 129:3 148–149 n. 85 132:16 164, 166 135:3 165, 168 135:11 165 136:7 169 139:9 166 139:12 170 139:13 26 n. 16, 159 139:15 159 140:5 166 141:9 166 141:10 166 142:7 168 142:8 167 143:1 167 143:5 166 144:1 146 n. 76 144:3 170 144:7–11 115 n. 44–45 145:3 159 145:4 172 145:5 167 145:6 159 145:21 168 147:19 159 148:1 168 148:10 159 150:1 159 151A 28 154 27 Proverbs 4:13 242 n. 58 7:13 217 9:8 165 11:18 5

265

Index of Ancient Sources 11:31 176–177 15:11 176 16:26 239 17:7 176 19:7 176 19:10 176 20:16 88 n. 47 21:16 168 21:27 176 21:29 217 22:6 176 n. 8 Qohelet 1:12 2:12

114 n. 39, 119 n. 60 114 n. 39, 117 n. 53, 119 n. 60 2:16 117 n. 54, 119 n. 60 2:21 114 n. 41 3:15 114 n. 39, 119 n. 60 4:2 114 n. 39, 119 n. 60 4:4 114 n. 41 5:10 114 n. 41 6:10 114 n. 39 8:10 112 8:16–17 117 n. 54 9:6 114 n. 39, 119 n. 60 10:10 114 n. 41 11:6 114 n. 41

Song of Songs 1:16 3:1 5:5 6:5

181 n. 15 84 n. 39 146 n. 76 190, 204

Canticles 5:5

146 n. 76

Isaiah 1:12 77 1:13 77 1:15 176 n. 8 2:4 72 2:6 88 n. 47, 89 n. 51 2:8 146 n. 76 3:2 11 3:6 84 n. 39 3:16 245 n. 6

5:5 78 7:5 168 8:4 75 n. 25, 77, 84 n. 39 9:8 229 n. 12 10:2 159 10:31 89 n. 51 11:14 89 n. 51 13:7 143 13:19 89 n. 51 14:25 147 15:3 230 16:3 43 16:7 230 17:8 146 n. 76 21:13 89 n. 51 23:1 89 n. 51 23:12 87 n. 45, 89 n. 51 23:13 89 n. 51 25:4 240 n. 50 28:12 77 28:29 245 30:9 77 30:15 78 30:25 73 n. 22 32:17 78 33:2 159 34:16 84 n. 39 36:14 169 36:15 169 36:21 230 37:2 169 37:24 230 39:2 230 n. 16 40:11 231 40:31 135 41:6 84 n. 39 41:15 245 42:3 11 42:12 2 42:13 3, 9–10 43:3 89 n. 51 43:7 84 n. 39 43:9 84 n. 39 43:14 89 n. 51 43:19 5 44:12 231 45:14 89 n. 51 47:1 89 n. 51

266 Isaiah (cont.) 47:5 89 n. 51 47:11 77 48:14 89 n. 51 48:15 84 n. 39 48:20 89 n. 51 49:12 89 n. 51 51:2 84 n. 39 51:23 84 n. 39 53:7 84 n. 39 53:11 231 55:4 84 n. 39 57:19 84 n. 39 57:20 78 58:6 88 n. 47, 89 n. 51 58:13 78 59:3 146 n. 76 59:5 139 n. 54 59:7 71 59:8 71 59:19 230 60:20 116 62:8 230 63:1 231 63:17 223 66:4 71 66:12 72 66:19 43 Jeremiah 2:10 87 n. 45 6:6 244 n. 68 6:15 75 n. 25 6:21 232 8:10 229 n. 12 10:17 164 n. 18 12:5 88 n. 47 13:17 217 17:24 229 n. 9 20:7 230 21:9 89 n. 51 21:13 36 n. 29 22:11 84 n. 39 22:25 89 n. 51 23:24 6 n. 10 25:12 117 n. 53 25:32 117 n. 53 32:18 9 n. 28 33:15 246

Index of Ancient Sources 34:9 88 n. 47 34:10 88 n. 47, 89 n. 51 34:11 88 n. 47 34:16 88 n. 47 39:4 117 n. 54 42:6 99 n. 23 43:9 89 n. 51 47:4 89 n. 51 49:23 78 Lamentations 1:14 77 1:16 18 n. 5 2:11 241 n. 55 2:16 170 5:2 89 n. 51 Ezekiel 5:2 117 n. 53 7:17 143 11:15 229 n. 12 12:14 230 14:11 168 14:12–20 184 14:21 178 15:5 178 16:49 78 17:3 134, 137 20:40 229 n. 12 23:40 178 26:15 241 n. 55 27:6 87 n. 45 31:18 230 n. 14 32:33 114 n. 41 33:24 186 n. 26 36:10 229 n. 12 37:18–19 117 n. 54 39:20 11 42:3 88 n. 47 43:14 230 44:10 168 Daniel 2:2 2:10 2:26 2:27 2:47

89 n. 51 75 n. 25 75 n. 25 75 n. 25, 87 n. 45 75 n. 25, 77, 84 n. 39, 89 n. 51

267

Index of Ancient Sources 3:16 3:17 3:29 4:15 4:34

75 n. 25 75 n. 25 75 n. 25 75 n. 25, 85 n. 41 75 n. 25, 84 n. 39, 88 n. 47 5:5f 120 5:16 75 n. 25 5:20 75 n. 25 6:5 75 n. 25 6:14 120 6:15 75 n. 25 6:20 251 n. 35 6:21 75 n. 25, 87 n. 46 7:4 136 n. 44 7:6 136 n. 44 7:19 75 n. 25 8:7 84 n. 39 9:27 244 n. 68 11:31 100 11:36 244 n. 68 11:45 249 n. 22 Hosea 2:4 195 2:11 78 5:11 247 n. 14, 248 n. 17 7:12 117 n. 54 11:9 6 Joel 4:6 89 n. 51 4:8 89 n. 51 4:9 11 Amos 9:7

87, 89 n. 51

Obadiah 11 19

88 n. 47 89 n. 51

Jonah 4:11

179, 186 n. 26

Micah 3:3 137

Nahum 2:13 231 3:6 222 3:8 232 3:9 89 n. 51, 244 n. 68 3:18 231, 251 n. 35 Habakkuk 1:6 89 n. 51 1:9 230 1:13 76 n. 27–28 2:4–5 177 3:4 230 3:14 73 n. 23 Zephania 2:5

89 n. 51

Zechariah 1:8 13 11:17 169 Malachi 2:10 3:9

84 n. 39 229 n. 12

New Testament Matthew 7:7 201 7:11 184 12:6 185 12:41–42 185 n. 25 23:16–22 185 23:23 188 Luke 11:29–32

185 n. 25

Acts 7:54

170 n. 42

Romans 5:12–21

186 n. 27

Hebrews 1:15

230, 234, 237, 241 n. 55

268

Index of Ancient Sources

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Tobit 4:7 7:1–2 12:22–13:4 13:13 13:18–14:1

105 n. 5 105 n. 2 105 n. 5 105 n. 5 105 n. 5

Judith 4:11

229 n. 10

Sirach 3:8 114 n. 43 3:14 214, 216, 220 3:28 236 n. 34 5:9–10 234 n. 25 6:8 220 6:11 235 n. 30 6:22 233 n. 24, 241, 244 7:4 30, 112 n. 28 7:8 179 7:10 235 n. 30 7:11 235 n. 30 7:30 227 8:16 217 9:3 235 10:12 233 n. 25 10:13 233–235 n. 30 10:13d 244 n. 68 10:18 234 n. 27 10:31 111 n. 25, 184 11:2 221 12:2 216 12:16 217–218 13:4 114 n. 41 13:7 112 n. 28 13:22 222 15:14 234 16:8–9 179 16:10–11 179 16:11 179–180 16:13 220 16:18–20 182 17:31–32 180 n. 14 30:12 223 30:17 224 31:13 217, 229 n. 8, 242 32:1 233 n. 24, 242 n. 61

39:31 238 n. 39 39:34 220 40:14 240 n. 47 40:15 237 41:2 244 n. 66 41:18 238 n. 39 42:11 226 42:18 227 n. 4 43:1 237 43:3 218 43:5 182 43:12 239 n. 44 43:18 233 n. 24, 238 44:1–15 237 n. 35 44:2 236 45:25 240 n. 53 45:26 240 n. 53 46:5 235, 239, 241 46:16 240–241 47:10 240 n. 47 51:13–30 26 Jubilees 34:1–9 143 45:14 143 Dead Sea Scrolls CD

I, 3–4 I, 18–20 II, 16–18 III, 8–10 V, 8 V, 19 VI, 20 VII, 1 VII, 2 VIII, 5–8 VIII, 6 VIII, 18 IX, 21 X, 1 XIII, 3 XIII, 4 XIV, 4 XIV, 5 XIV, 10 XVI, 15

22 23 23 23 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 23 83 n. 38 193 102 83 n. 38, 117 n. 53 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 90 n. 51 83 n. 38, 90 n. 51 83 n. 38 83 n. 38

269

Index of Ancient Sources XIX, 18 XIX, 31 XX XX, 18

83 n. 38 193 22 n. 12, 23 83 n. 38

1Q4 12:2 77

1Q19 3:4 83 n. 38 3:5 100 1Q20 6:9–10 117 22:13 113 n. 36 1Q22 1 ii 6

83 n. 38

1Q26 2:3

83 n. 38

1QS V, 1–3 VI, 10 VII, 2–3 VII, 24 VIII, 24 IX, 9 IX, 10 IX, 25 XI, 20

102 83 n. 38 102 245 102 83 n. 38 76 n. 27 83 n. 38 76 n. 27–28, 181 n. 17

89 n. 51

1QpHab II, 11 II, 12 II, 14 III, 4 III, 9 IV, 5 IV, 10 V, 2 VI, 1 VI, 10 IX, 7 XIII, 1

1QSa 2:10

83 n. 38

89 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 76 n. 27–28 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 30

1Q16 9–10:4

90 n. 51

1Q18 1–2:2

112 n. 30

1QM I, 8–14 I, 9 I, 10 I, 13 V, 6 VI, 4–6 VI, 8–11 VII, 3 VII, 4 IX, 1 IX, 13 XI, 3 XIII, 7 XIV, 3–4 XV, 7 XVI, 8 XVI, 11 XVII, 14 XVIII, 4 XIX, 10

20, 55, 194 194 194 194 149 n. 86 19–20 19–20 191 194 76 n. 27 102 n. 38 90 n. 51 193 19 19 n. 8 76 n. 27 76 n. 27 76 n. 27 89 n. 51 90 n. 51

1Q7 4:2 4:5

89 n. 51 89 n. 51

1QIsaa II, 15 X, 17 XIII, 19 XVI, 30 XxVII, 13 XXXVI, 7 LI, 9 LIII, 15 LIII, 28 LIV, 9

89 n. 51 89 n. 51 43 89 n. 51 160 160 30 71 72 43

1Q8 XXV, 14

270

Index of Ancient Sources

1QHa IV, 37 126 VII, 21 181 VII, 26 76 n. 27 VII, 27 76 n. 27–28 VII, 34 76 n. 27 VIII, 26 76 n. 27 X, 11 170 X, 12 194 X–XVII 24 XI, 15 194 XI, 16 194 XII, 33 25 XIII, 31 25 XV, 7–8 126 XV, 8 100 XV, 32 76 n. 27, 181 XVI, 2–3 127 XVII, 13 25 XVII, 23 24 XVII, 32 25 XVIII, 3 181 XVIII, 10–12 181 XIX, 27 76 n. 27 XIX, 35 30 XX, 31 181 47:5 127 1Q36 14:2 127 1Q71 1 ii 1

89 n. 51

2Q12 1:7 71 2Q13 3–4:2 7–8:10

89 n. 51 89 n. 51

3Q14 4

104 n. 2

3Q15 I, 7 IV, 7 XI, 2 XI, 3

194 n. 19 194 n. 19 194 n. 19 194 n. 19

4Q23 56:6

89 n. 51

4Q27 20–22:5 31–33 i 25

84 n. 39 89 n. 51

4Q30 5:2–3 78–79 4QDeutd 68 4Q35 7:3

89 n. 51

4Q40 5:6 77 4QDeutn 170 4Q45 15–16:2 71 4Q50 2–3:8 71 4Q51 1b:2 84 n. 39 2a–d:3 84 n. 39 5a:1 89 n. 51 6:1 89 n. 51 9a–d:1 89 n. 51 26–27:1 89 n. 51 29–33:8 247 43:9 89 n. 51 61 i+62:8 84 n. 39 61 ii+63–64a–b+ 65–67:30 89 n. 51 93–94:1 247 4Q52 4:6

84 n. 39

4Q56 2:2 72 4Q57 9 ii+11+ 12 i+52:17

89 n. 51

271

Index of Ancient Sources 4Q57 44–47:14

84 n. 39

4QPsh 1–2

159–160, 167

4Q67 1:4 78

4QPsk I 165

4Q72 10–12:8 14–18:8 19–21:14

4QPsl I 162

89 n. 51 84 n. 39 89 n. 51

4QPsa 170 4 ii 168, 171 6 164, 170 6 iii 160 7–8 172 9 ii 165, 169, 171 19–20 iii 168 4QPsb IV, 14 170 XXII 164 XXIII 164 XXXIII 164 4QPsc 15–16 167 15 159 4QPsd 162 III 162 IV 163 4QPse 163 13 160 15–16 1 162 18 172 26 i 170 26 i 7 159

4QPsm 3–4 162 4QPsq 161 I 160, 162–163 4QPsu 2 159 4QPsw 1–2 162 4Q104 1:3

89 n. 51

4Q111 3:6 77 4Q113 16–18 i+19:12

84 n. 39

4Q128 230 4Q129 rec. 5

139 n. 54

4Q137 rec. 18

139 n. 54

4Q138 230

4QPsf 116 n. 50 I 160 II 162 III 162 III, 9 159 IV 172

4Q139 rec. 4

4QPsg 162

4Q157 109

139 n. 54

4Q140 230 4Q156 109

272

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q159 1 ii 5

83 n. 38

4Q161 5–6:8 8–10:3 8–10:7 8–10:8

90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51

4Q166 78 4Q167 2

232 n. 21

4Q169 3–4 i 6 3–4 iii 10

231 112 n. 30, 231–232, 243, 244 n. 67 3–4 iii 10–11 112 n. 30, 231–232, 243, 244 n. 67 3–4 iii 10–11 112 n. 30, 231–232, 243, 244 n. 67 3–4 iii 7 11 6, 112 n. 30, 231–232, 243, 244 n. 67 3–4 i 2 76 n. 27–28 3–4 i 3 90 n. 51 3–4 iii 1–2 76 n. 27, 90 n. 51, 112 n. 30, 222, 231–232, 243, 244 n. 67

4Q186 1 iii 6 1 iii 7

139 n. 54 137

4Q196 6:12 17 i 4–14 18:2 18:11 18:11–12

119 n. 61 105 n. 5 105 n. 5, 113 112 n. 26 105 n. 5

4Q196–199 104 4Q197 119–120 4 iii 6 120 4Q198 1:11

113 n. 36

4Q200 104–118, 120–122 1 ii 3 114 2 106 2:3–8 118 n. 55 2:6 105 n. 5, 118 2:9 115 4:1 116–117 4:3–4 118 4:4 114 4:6 111 6:2–9 105 n. 5 6:4 116 6:5 120 6:6 120 6:7 115 7 i 1 105 n. 5 7 ii 3 112 n. 26 7 ii 3–4 105 n. 5

4Q171 1+3–4 iii 18 1–2 ii 3 1–2 ii 16 1–2 ii 17 3–10 iv 14

112 n. 30 76 n. 27 71 76 n. 27 76 n. 27

4Q174 1-2 i 4:5

11, 246 n. 7 76 n. 27

4Q213 1 i 20

115

4Q175

84 n. 39

4Q177 7:2

76 n. 27

4Q215 1–3:7 3:7

83 n. 38, 117, 119 83 n. 38 1, 117

4Q221 4:1 4:2

83 n. 38 83 n. 38

4Q184 1:10 193

273

Index of Ancient Sources 4:10 7:9

83 n. 38 76 n. 27

4Q223–224 2 i 50 2 i 52 2 ii 10 2 iii 16 2 iv 15

83 n. 38 76 n. 27 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38

4Q225 98, 246 2 i 9 248, 251 2 ii 7 83 n. 38, 98, 246, 247 n. 10, 248, 251 4Q247 1:6

90 n. 51

4Q248 3

112 n. 28

8 i 8 83 n. 38, 192, 194, 231–232, 245 n. 6, 246 n. 6 8 ii 6 232 n. 20 9 ii 14 83 n. 38 10 ii 3 83 n. 38 10 ii 12 245 n. 6 4Q267 5 iii 3 9 v 7 9 v 8 9 v 9

76 n. 27 90 n. 51 83 n. 38 90 n. 51

4Q270 6 ii 9 83 n. 38, 117 n. 53, 191 n. 10, 232 n. 20 6 iii 14 232 n. 20 6 iv 13 83 n. 38 4Q271

114, 117 n. 53

4Q251 12:1 116 17:3 83 n. 38

4Q274 1 i 1 3 ii 8

76 n. 27 232 n. 21

4Q252 1:15–16 77 1:18–19 77 1:19 76 n. 27 1:20–21 76 n. 27 2:9 89 n. 51

4Q279 6 ii 8

194

4Q285 3:4 4:5 7:6

90 n. 51 90 n. 51 90 n. 51

4Q286 7 i 6

76 n. 27, 116 n. 50 76 n. 27

4Q287 2a–b 8

193

4Q299 59:3 76:2

83 n. 38 83 n. 38

4Q301 4 2

218 n. 21

4Q317 2:29

76 n. 27

4Q258 [4QSd] II, 2

232

4Q265 3:3 4 ii 4 5 ii 6

84 n. 39, 192, 231 n. 18 84 n. 39, 192, 231 n. 18 231 n. 18 231 n. 18

4Q266 83 n. 38, 192, 194, 231–232, 245 n. 6, 246 n. 6 2 ii 21 231, 232 n. 19 4 13, 232 8 i 2 231–232 n. 19 8 i 6 231–232 n. 19

274

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q321 231 4Q321a V, 5

231

4Q322 3 231 4Q324 1 231 3 231 5 231 4Q332 3:2

90 n. 51

4Q334

116 n. 50

4Q364 3 i 1 10:5 11:14 20a–c:7–8

83 n. 38 84 n. 39 84 n. 39 76 n. 27

4Q365 2 245 6aii+6c:9 76 n. 27–28 12biii:12 71 H:1 83 n. 38 4Q371–373 21 4Q372 1:20

83 n. 38

4Q377 2 ii 11

83 n. 38

4Q380 1 ii 6

76 n. 27

4Q381 1:3 83 n. 38 14+5:3 83 n. 38 45a+b:2 76 n. 27 45a+b:5 168 69:9 83 n. 38

4Q385a 16a–b:5

112 n. 28

4Q386 1 ii 8

112 n. 28

4Q387 A 4

193

4Q388

111 n. 25

4Q388a 7 ii 5

83 n. 38

4Q392 1:3

83 n. 38

4Q394 8 iv 4

76 n. 27

4Q396 1–2 ii 5

76 n. 27

4Q398 11–13:2–3 43 4Q400 1 i 2

116 n. 50, 193 116 n. 50, 193

4Q403 83 n. 38, 90 n. 51, 116 n. 50, 193 1 i 33 83 n. 38, 90 n. 51, 116 n. 50, 193 1 i 35 83 n. 38 1 i 39 83 n. 38 1 ii 19 90 n. 51 4Q405 83 n. 38, 116 n. 50, 193, 218, 232 n. 21 4–5:3 83 n. 38 15–16 ii 3 83 n. 38, 116 n. 50, 193, 218, 232 n. 21 20 ii + 21–22 2 218 23 ii 3 232 n. 21 4Q414

116 n. 50

275

Index of Ancient Sources 4Q416 2 iii 16

83 n. 38

4Q417 2 i 20 2 ii+23:6

76 n. 27, 114 83 n. 38 76 n. 27

4Q417–18 114 4Q418 7b:11 249 7b:3 83 n. 38 9+9a–c:17 83 n. 38 126 ii 14 83 n. 38 4Q421 2:1

83 n. 38

4Q422

83 n. 38

4Q423 3:3

83 n. 38

4Q426 1 i 6

83 n. 38

4QHb 10 7–8

127

4QHc 2 11–12

126

4Q433a

116 n. 50

4Q437 2 i 3

71

4Q444

127, 155

4Q457 246

4Q474 1:2

83 n. 38

4Q475 4 193 4Q491 1–3:6 76 n. 27, 90 n. 51, 192, 247 n. 15 8–10 ii 13 247 n. 15 10 ii 10 90 n. 51 10 ii 12 90 n. 51 11 i 18 90 n. 51 11 ii 8 90 n. 51 11 ii 9 76 n. 27 13:5 90 n. 51 4QMMT

61 n. 1, 119

4Q502 4:2 83 n. 38 15:1 83 n. 38 28:4 192 311:1 192 4Q504 115 4Q510

116 n. 50, 155

4Q510–511 155 4Q511 116 n. 50 1 8 218 28–29:4 127 30:6 76 n. 27 48–51:3–4 127 4Q513 17:2

83 n. 38 76 n. 27 76 n. 27

4Q460 9 i 4 9 i 11

193 193

4Q462 1:4

4Q514 1 i 4 1 i 7

112 n. 28

4Q472 2:6

90 n. 51

4Q522 9 ii 11 83 n. 38 22–25 168

276 4Q524 15–22:2

Index of Ancient Sources 83 n. 38

4Q525 13:4 127 23:1 128

11QPsc 4–7 159, 162 8 162 9 163

4Q542

113, 116 n. 50

11QPsd 1 168 11 159

4Q545 1a i 7–8

117

11Q10 11:5

4Q547 9:2

115 n. 45

4Q561 1 i 2–5

136

4QpaleoExodm 166 5Q6 1 iv 6

89 n. 51

5Q13 2:7

76 n. 27

6Q1 1:5

89 n. 51

6Q9 32:1

90 n. 51

6Q18

116 n. 50

11Q1 J 4–5 IV, 6

78–79 30

11Q5 26–28, 116 n. 50 E i 166 E ii 1 71 XVIII, 1–16 27 XXI, 11–XXII, 1 26 XXI, 12–19 26 XXVIII, 3–12 28 11Q8 11 159

109, 113 n. 31 115 n. 45

11Q11 155 11Q17

116 n. 50, 218

11Q19 17–19, 43, 102 n. 39 XIII, 9–XXX, 2 17 XV, 16 83 n. 38 XVI, 14–16 17 XXIII, 11–12 17 XXV, 16 83 n. 38 XXX, 9 194 XXX, 14 193 XXX, 3–XLVII, 18 18 XXXVI, 10 102 n. 39 XLI, 15 102 n. 39 XLIII, 5 19 XLV, 5 102 n. 39 XLV, 8 116 n. 52 XLIX, 12 194 LII, 21 18 LIII, 11 76 n. 27 LIII, 15 83 n. 38 LVII, 1–LIX, 21 17, 19, 43 LVII, 9–10 17, 19, 43 LVII, 12 43 LVII, 12–14 17, 19, 43 LVII, 16 83 n. 38 LVII, 17 83 n. 38 LVII, 19 83 n. 38 LVII–LIX 17 LVIII, 3 76 n. 27 LVIII, 8–9 19 LVIII, 19 83 n. 38 LIX, 2–15 17 LIX, 4–5 17 LX, 1–LXVI, 17 17 LXI, 10 83 n. 38

277

Index of Ancient Sources LXI, 13 LXI, 17 LXII, 16 LXIV, 2 LXIV, 3 LXVI, 12 LXVI, 14 LXVI, 15 11Q20 5:20

83 n. 38 83 n. 38 76 n. 27 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 83 n. 38 76 n. 27

11QPsa 172 C II 159 E i 168 E ii 159, 162–163, 165, 168 E iii 159, 166 I 166 II 159 III 164, 168 IV 159, 162–163 IX 159–160 V 163, 166 VI 160, 164, 166 VII 160 VIII 160, 166–167 X 160 X 159–160, 166 XI 159–160, 166, 168 XII 159–160, 166 XIII 159–160 XIV 160, 165 XV 169, 172 XVI 159, 167 XVI, 2 159 XX 159, 166, 170 XXII, 12 165 XXIII 166, 170 XXV 167–168 XXV, 3 159 XXVI 159 XXVII 166 Mas 1e 2:20

89 n. 51

Mur 42:6

249

Mur 88 2:27 2:30 8:19 17:17 18:4 20:16

89 n. 51 89 n. 51 89 n. 51 89 n. 51 89 n. 51 89 n. 51

Rabbinic Quotations Mishnah ʿAbod. Zar. 1:4

76 n. 28

ʾAbot 5:1 5:4 5:12

76 n. 28 88 n. 49 76 n. 28

ʿArak. 6:2 8:4

76 n. 28 89 n. 49

B. Bat. 2:3 3:6 5:6 8:7 9:7 10:1 10:7

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

B. Meṣiʿa 1:5 2:8 2:10 4:2 5:7 6:8 7:1 7:6 8:6 10:6

89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

B. Qam. 9:12

76 n. 28

278 Bek. 3:3 8:4 8:5 9:7

Index of Ancient Sources 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Ber. 1:2 3 1:5 73 3:2 76 n. 28, 89 n. 49 3:5 76 n. 28 Beṣa 3:3

76 n. 28

Bik. 1:4 1:5 3:7 4:5

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Demai 5:9 6:4 6:8 6:9 6:10 7:4

88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49

ʿEd. 1:5 1:13

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

ʿErub. 4:5 4:10 5:4 7:6

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 89 n. 49

Giṭ. 1:5 2:4 6:2 9:6 9:8

88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49, 89 n. 49 89 n. 49

Ḥag. 1:2 186, 187 n. 29 1:4 186 1:5 187 n. 29 1:6 76 n. 28 3:8 89 n. 49 Ḥal. 2:3 3:1

76 n. 28 89 n. 49

Kelim 2:2 3:7 4:1 4:2 4:3 5:10 6:3 8:28 13:7 17:3 17:4 18:2 26:1 26:4 29:1

88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28, 88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49 88 n. 49

Ketub. 1:5 6:6 7:6 7:8 7:10 9:5 12:3 13:5 13:8

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Kil. 3:3

6–7, 76 n. 28

Mak. 2:3 3:11

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Makš. 2:4

76 n. 28

279

Index of Ancient Sources Maʿaś. 1:5 5:8 5:11 5:12

76 n. 28 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Maʿaś. Š. 4:4

89 n. 49

Meg. 4:9

76 n. 28

Menaḥ. 3:3 5:9 7:2 12:4

76 n. 28 88 n. 49 88 n. 49 76 n. 28

Mid. 2:6

88 n. 49

Miqw. 4:5

76 n. 28

Moʿed Qaṭ. 1:10

76 n. 28

Naz. 1:2 2:4 4:1 4:2 4:5 6:2 7:2

89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49 76 n. 28

Ned. 3:10 3:11 5:1 5:2 8:7 9:4 10:4 10:8 11:2 11:3

88 n. 49 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

11:4 11:9 11:12 2:1 4:1 5:9 6:11 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:4 8:2 8:3

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49 88 n. 49 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 89 n. 49 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

ʾOhal. 3:2 4:2 6:2 8:2 8:5 17:3 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:7 18:8 18:10

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 89 n. 49 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49

ʿOr. 1:3

76 n. 28

Parah 5:9 11:1

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Peʾah 2:2 7:8

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Pesaḥ. 2:3 3:7 4:6 7:12 8:6 8:7 10:5

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 140 n. 57–59 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49

280

Index of Ancient Sources

Qidd. 3:13 4:14

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Qinnim 3:2

76 n. 28

Roš Haš. 1:9 2:2 4:2

76 n. 28 88 n. 49 76 n. 28

Šabb. 4:2 10:5 13:6 15:1 16:4 16:5

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Sanh. 3:1 3:2 4:1 5:5 6:2 7:10 9:1

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Šeb. 3:8 3:9 5:8 6:3 8:10

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 88 n. 49

Šebu. 4:3 4:4 5:2 7:8

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Šeqal. 2:4 6:3

76 n. 28 88 n. 49

Soṭah 1:8 2:4

89 n. 49 76 n. 28

4:3 76 n. 28 7:8 76 n. 28 8:1 89 n. 49 8:5 76 n. 28 8:6 76 n. 28, 89 n. 49 Sukkah 2:2 76 n. 28 2:3 76 n. 28 2:6 76 n. 28 5:28 126 6:4 76 n. 28 7:4–5 126 8:1–2 127 17:25 126 Tamid 2:4 3:9

88 n. 49 88 n. 49

Ṭehar. 7:2 7:3 7:4

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Ter. 6:4 8:9 8:10

187 n. 29 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

ʿUq. 2:5 2:10 3:8

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Yad. 2:2 4:7

88 n. 49 89 n. 49

Yebam. 1:1 1:2 12:6 13:2

76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Yoma 1:7 2:4 6:6

76 n. 28 139 n. 55 140 n. 57

281

Index of Ancient Sources Zabim 3:3 4:7

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

Zebaḥ. 8:2

76 n. 28

Tosefta

Tg Onqelos Deut 32:11 137 Tg Jonathan Judg 9:48 147 19:29b 137 19:29a 137

ʾOhalot 1:7 140

Tg Jonathan Isa 14:25 147 Mic 3:3 137

Dem. 5:24 235

Tg Jonathan Ezek 17:3 137

Ter. 6:4 187

Tg Jonathan Mic 3:3 137

Palestinian Talmud Taʿan. 4:2 (68a)

Other Rabbinic Works 189

Babylonian Talmud Ketub. 8b 13 Meg. 9a

190, 197

Šabb. 88b 9 Sanh. 93a 13 Sukkah 49b

217, 221

Targum

ʾAbot R. Nat. (B) 46 (65a)

189

ʿArayot 5 6

76 n. 28 76 n. 28

ʾAsaṭir 9b

190 n. 5, 210

Bereshit Rabbah 92:3 14 David b. Qimḥi, Sefer Mikhlol 58b 34 Genesis Rabbah 92:3 14 Hilkhot reʾu 7–8 217

Tg Onqelos Gen 9:23 147

Masekhet Sofrim 1:7 189

Tg Onqelos Exod 29:17 137

Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael (Mek. Shira 4) 6

282 Midrash ha-Gadol Exod 12:40 190 Pesiqta Rabbati 23:22 129 Sifre Num 11 184 8 186 Sifre Devarim 356 189 Tanḥ. Shemot 22 189 Yalquṭ Shimʿoni Gen. 3 190 Other Sources Plato, The Republic 10.618c 201

Index of Ancient Sources Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit CAT 1.14 III 53–53 IV 2–4

145 146

CAT 1.2 IV 14–15

146 n. 76

CAT 1.19 II 6

146 n. 77

El-Amarna EA

289:23 147 n. 78 232 152