[tigchelaar & Van Hecke] Hebrew Of The Late Second Temple Period

Hebrew of the Late Second Temple 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 114

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

Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira

Edited by

Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke with the assistance of

Seth Bledsoe and Pieter B. Hartog

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (6th : 2011 : Leuven, Belgium)  Hebrew of the late Second Temple period : proceedings of a sixth international symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls and Ben Sira / edited by Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke.   pages cm. — (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; volume 114)  Conference held in Leuven, September 19–21, 2011.  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-29101-0 (hardback: alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-29931-3 (e–book) 1. Hebrew language, Post-Biblical—Congresses. 2. Dead Sea scrolls—Congresses. 3. Bible. Ecclesiasticus—Language, style—  Congresses. I. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., editor. II. Van Hecke, P. (Pierre), editor. III. Title.  PJ4865.A35 2015  492.4—dc23 2015020785

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9962 isbn 978-90-04-29101-0 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-29931-3 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. 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.

Contents Preface vii Abbreviations viii Remarks on the Language of the Pesher Scrolls 1 Chanan Ariel and Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 7 Steven E. Fassberg The Tiberian Vocalization and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period 25 Jan Joosten Priests of Qoreb: Linguistic Enigma and Social Code in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 37 Noam Mizrahi The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters from the Judean Desert 65 Uri Mor and Tamar Zewi Aspects of the (Morpho)syntax of the Infinitive in Qumran Hebrew 80 Takamitsu Muraoka Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew 88 Jacobus A. Naudé and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh from the Cairo Genizah 112 Wido van Peursen The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk 132 Gary A. Rendsburg

vi

contents

“Dislocated Negations”: Negative ‫ אל‬Followed by a Non-verbal Constituent in Biblical, Ben Sira and Qumran Hebrew 160 Jean-Sébastien Rey Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS 175 Francesco Zanella Index of Modern Authors 197 Index of Ancient Sources 201

Preface After earlier meetings in Leiden (1995 and 1997), Beer-Sheva (1999), Strasbourg (2006), and Jerusalem (2008), a sixth international symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira was held in Leuven on September 19–21, 2011, organized by the editors of this volume with the assistance of Hanneke van Loon, and with the financial support of the Research Fund—Flanders (FWO) The conference hosted twenty scholars and several Ph.D. students. This volume contains the peer-reviewed papers of eleven of the presented papers. Half of them have been revised by the authors at the request of the editors. All of them have been copy-edited by Seth Bledsoe. Bärry Hartog has produced the indices. Eight of the eleven papers in this proceedings deal with different linguistic or philological aspects of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran (Ariel and Yuditsky; Fassberg; Mizrahi; Muraoka; Naudé and Miller-Naudé; Rendsburg; Rey; Zanella), one more generally with the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period (Joosten), one with the Hebrew of the documents and letters found elsewhere in the Judaean Desert (Mor and Zewi), and one with the Prayer of Manasseh from the Cairo Genizah (van Peursen). The emphasis on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls warrants the inclusion of this volume, like the earlier proceedings, in the Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, and we thank the series’ editor, George J. Brooke, for peer-reviewing some of the articles, and for accepting the volume. Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke Leuven, March 2015

Abbreviations General BH Biblical Hebrew CBH Classical Biblical Hebrew DSS Dead Sea Scrolls KJV King James Version LBH Late Biblical Hebrew LXX Septuaginta MH Mishnaic Hebrew MT Masoretic Text NRSV New Revised Standard Version QA Qumran Aramaic QH Qumran Hebrew RH Rabbinic Hebrew SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew Bibliographical AB AGJU ANES ANESSup AOAT AOS BDB BETL BHS BibOr BKAT CBQ DCH DJD

Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Oxford, 1907 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica et orientalia Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield, 1993–2015 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

abbreviations

DSD DSSEL DSSSE EBib EHLL GKC HAHAT HAL HALOT HAR HdO HS HSM HSS HTKAT ICC IELOA JANES JAOS JBL JHS JJS JM JNSL JQR JSem JSOTSS JSQ

ix Dead Sea Discoveries The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Program. Edited by E. Tov. Leiden, 2006 The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden, 1997–1998; Leiden and Grand Rapids, 2000 Etudes bibliques Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan. 4 vols. Leiden, 2013 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910 Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by W. Gesenius and H. Donner. 18th ed. Berlin, 2005 Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 5 vols. Leiden, 1967–1995 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 5 vols. Leiden, 1994–200o Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders Theologisches Kommentar zum Alten Testament International Critical Commentary Instruments pour l’étude des langues de l’Orient ancien Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Hebrew Studies Journal of Jewish Studies A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Edited by P. Joüon and T. Muraoka. Rome, 1993. 2nd ed. Rome, 2006 Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for Semitics Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly

x KBL

abbreviations

Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. Edited by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. 2nd ed. Leiden, 1958 KS Kirjath-Sefer KZAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament LCL Loeb Classical Library Ling&P Linguistics and Philosophy LingI Linguistic Inquiry Lingua Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics MPI Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. Oxford, 2007 NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OrChr Oriens christianus PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project REJ Revue des études juives RevQ Revue de Qumrân ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations SJSJ Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism SSL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. 8 vols. Grand Rapids ThWQ Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen. Stuttgart TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TSHLRS Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Bible Commentary WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Remarks on the Language of the Pesher Scrolls* Chanan Ariel and Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky The preparation of the database of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Historical Dictionary Project at the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem entails the reexamination of the readings of all the scrolls. During the process new readings and reconstructions are occasionally found, which could be preferred to those of the official editions. Here are presented three such innovative cases which have been revealed while editing the pesharim.1 1

4Q163 4–7 i 4–11

In these lines a commentary on Isa 9:13–14 had been preserved. The editor of the text, John Allegro, restored the survived text as follows:2 ‫ ] ֯בוא והואה‬4 ‫ ] ֯ם ו֯ ֯בי̇ ום אחד זקן‬5 ‫ ]הואה הזנב‬6

Regarding line 5 he noted: “apparently the end of a pešer on v. 13 and the beginning of the statement of v. 14.” Indeed, in chapter 9 of Isaiah we read ‫וַ ּיַ ְכ ֵרת ה׳‬

‫ה־ּׁש ֶקר הּוא‬ ֶ ‫מֹור‬ ֶ ‫ׂשּוא־פנִ ים הּוא ָהרֹאׁש וְ נָ ִביא‬ ָ ְ‫זָ ֵקן ּונ‬ ‫ִמּיִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל רֹאׁש וְ זָ נָ ב ִּכ ָּפה וְ ַאגְ מֹון יֹום ֶא ָחד׃‬ ‫ ַהּזָ נָ ב‬. John Strugnell suggested an improved reading of line 5:3 ‫ אג]מון ביום אחד זקן‬5

As he has claimed, it should be better treated as the final words of v. 13, which contain a variant ‫ ביום אחד‬alternative to the Masoretic Text, whereas ‫ זקן‬begins the citation of v. 14. Thus, the text should be restored as follows: *  We would like to thank Prof. Elisha Qimron for his valuable comments. Our thanks are also due to Dr. David Prebor who has styled the English text of the article. 1  The readings are now included in Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2015), 2:267, 271, 292. 2  See Allegro, DJD 5:18. These fragments consist of two partially survived columns, and the following text is situated in the right one. Since it has a full margin on the left, the preserved words should be posited in the end of the lines as presented below. 3  John Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’ ” RevQ 7/26 (1970): 163–276, at 189. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_002

2

Ariel and Yuditsky

‫וביום] ֯בוא והואה‬ 4 ‫ [ויכרת יהוה מישראל רואש וזנב כפה ואג] ֯מו֯ ן̇ ו֯ ֯בי̇ ום אחד זקן‬5 ‫ [ונשוא פנים הואה הרואש ונביא ומורה שקר ]הואה הזנב‬6

A careful examination of the photographs shows that Strugnell’s proposition should be preferred. But it raises another difficulty. Taking into account that the last words of line 6, ‫הואה הזנב‬, concludes v. 14, one can easily reconstruct an estimated width of the column in this manuscript. It has to be about 30–35 letters. But this is just the length of v. 13 which, therefore, should be fully cited in line 5. As a result, the surviving remains of line 4 conclude the previous sentence. Yet, it is quite unusual and non-grammatical to finish a phrase by the word ‫והואה‬, as correctly noted by Maurya Horgan.4 As a result of reexamining the photos we believe that line 4 should be deciphered otherwise. It seems that the surviving traces might be read as ‫[ ̇ב ̇יד‬ ‫נ֯ ֯טואה‬. The word ‫ נטואה‬here is an allograph of ‫נטויה‬, and such a spelling occurs elsewhere in the Scrolls.5 Fluctuations of glides spelled like this are quite common in Qumran Hebrew.6 This reading fits perfectly Isa 9:11 ‫אכלּו ֶאת יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ֹ ‫ּופ ִל ְׁש ִּתים ֵמ ָאחֹור וַ ּי‬ ְ ‫ֲא ָרם ִמ ֶּק ֶדם‬ ‫א־ׁשב ַאּפֹו וְ עֹוד יָ דֹו נְ טּויָ ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ְּב ָכל ֶּפה ְּב ָכל זֹאת ל‬. It is reasonable to assume that the commentary of verse 11 of chapter 9 concludes in the third line. The author or the redactor finished its Pesher with the phrase ‫ ביד נטואה‬as an allusion to ‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫ יָ דֹו נְ טּויָ ה‬of v. 11. 2

4Q163 23 ii 14–14b

֯ ‫כיחכה איש‬,7 and the remIn the editions of this scroll the reading is: . . .[‫גדוד‬ nants of . . .[‫ איש גדוד‬make possible the identification of the phrase as a citation of the book of Hosea. Hosea (6:8–9) says: ‫ ְּוכ ַח ֵּכי‬:‫ּגִ ְל ָעד ִק ְריַת ּפ ֲֹע ֵלי ָאוֶ ן ֲע ֻק ָּבה ִמ ָּדם‬ ‫חּו־ׁש ְכ ָמה ִּכי זִ ָּמה ָעׂשּו‬ ֶ ‫דּודים ֶח ֶבר ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ֶּד ֶרְך יְ ַר ְּצ‬ ִ ְ‫ ִאיׁש ּג‬. The scroll citation is similar to the biblical text, apart from the first word, which is ‫ כיחכה‬in the scroll vis-à-vis ‫ּוכ ַח ֵּכי‬ ְ in the Bible. How should it be understood? 4   See Maurya Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 108. 5  [‫( ]ויד]ו נטוא[ה על ירושלים‬4QSama 164:2–3 [2 Sam 24:16]). 6  See Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 26 and Qimron, “‫וי״ו לסימון הגה מעבר‬,” in ‫( תשורה לשמואל׃ מחקרים בעולם המקרא‬ed. Z. Talshir, Sh. Yona, and D. Sivan; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2001), 362–75, esp. 363–64. 7  See Allegro, DJD 5:24 and Strugnell, “Notes,” 193.

Remarks on the Language of the Pesher Scrolls

3

Regarding the biblical ‫ ְּוכ ַח ֵּכי‬, commentators of Hosea floundered in explaining this word, proposing a plural form of the noun ‫“ ַח ָּכה‬fishing rod” or a peculiar form of the verb ‫“ לחכות‬to wait.”8 The Scroll’s version ‫ כיחכה‬is not less puzzling. It was suggested that it reflects a combination of the preposition -‫כ‬ and a future Piel form ‫יחכה‬.9 Yet, such a combination is common in Piyyut, but not in the Bible and in the Scrolls. Another option is to understand the word as a combination of the conjunction ‫ כי‬and the infinitive ‫חכה‬. It seems that the latter solution is not better than the former. In fact, there is no clear distinction between waw and yod in this papyrus, so it is possible to read the word with waw ‫“ כוחכה‬your power,” as suggested by Elisha Qimron. This reading apparently reflects the Septuagint version of Hosea, which translates καὶ ἡ ἰσχύς σου “and your power.”10 Prima facie, there were two different versions, ‫ ְכ ַח ֵּכי‬in the Hebrew Bible, and ‫ כוחכה‬in the Scrolls, the latter of which is seemingly reflected in the Septuagint. There is, however, another possible solution. Hosea 6:8 reads ‫ּגִ ְל ָעד ִק ְריַת‬ ‫ּפ ֲֹע ֵלי ָאוֶ ן ֲע ֻק ָּבה ִמ ָּדם‬. Its subject is ‫ ִק ְריַת ּפ ֲֹע ֵלי ָאוֶ ן‬, a feminine form, as the verbal form ‫ ֲע ֻק ָּבה‬also proves. The pronominal suffix of ‫כוחכה‬, therefore, should be the second person feminine. The scroll, however, has ‫כוחכה‬, not ‫כוחְך‬ ֵ (or ‫)כוחכי‬. But in fact, the spelling ‫ כוחכה‬might reflect the form with the suffix of second person feminine. It has already been shown that this suffix is occasionally written just as the masculine one, ‫כה‬-.11 For example, the Isaiah Scroll has: ‫ואת מי דאגת ותיראיני כיא תכזבי ואותי לוא זכרתי ולוא שמתי‬ ‫( אלה על לבכה‬57:11). Hence, the word ‫ כוחכה‬might well be understood as ‫הכוח שלְך‬, as if it were ‫כוח ֵכה‬ ֵ .12

8   For various propositions of medieval and modern commentators see Andrew A. Macintosh, Hosea: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 242. 9   See Horgan, Pesharim, 120. 10  Compare Allegro, DJD 5:25. 11  See Hannah M. Cotton and Elisha Qimron, “XḤev/Se ar 13 of 134 or 135 CE: A Wife’s Renunciation of Claims,” JJS 49 (1998): 108–18, at 111. 12  The same suffix seems to occur in the Bible, as well. In Nah 2:14, there is ‫ִהנְ נִ י ֵא ַליִ ְך נְ ֻאם‬ ‫אכל ָח ֶרב וְ ִה ְכ ַר ִּתי ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ַט ְר ֵּפְך וְ לֹא יִ ָּׁש ַמע עֹוד קֹול‬ ַ ֹ ‫ּוכ ִפ ַיריִ ְך ּת‬ ְ ‫ה׳ ְצ ָבאֹות וְ ִה ְב ַע ְר ִּתי ֶב ָע ָׁשן ִר ְכ ָּבּה‬ ‫מ ְל ָא ֵכ ֵכה‬.ַ According to the context, ‫ מלאככה‬is your (fem.) messenger. Compare also the verb ‫ תהיה‬for ‫( תהיי‬2 fem. sg.) in Ezek 21:37 and 23:32, which was usually seen as an error; see Rimon Kasher, ‫ פירוש מדעי למקרא‬:‫( יחזקאל מקרא לישראל‬2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2004), 1:432, 459; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 22, 44. It can be explained, however, as a peculiar form of ‫תהיי‬, where the last vowel ī was lowered to ē.

4

Ariel and Yuditsky

Regarding the Tiberian form ‫ ְכ ַח ֵּכי‬, its consonantal basis fits the word ‫;כ ֵֹח ִכי‬13 that is ‫ כח‬and the old original feminine suffix ‫כי‬-. It is possible, therefore, that the only difference between the Tiberian version ‫ כחכי‬and the Scrolls’ ‫כוחכה‬ is just the spelling. Both imply “your (fem.) power,” and in the former the last vowel is designated by yod whereas in the latter by he. So actually in Hosea there is, perhaps, an example of a difference between the scribal and the vocalization traditions. The spelling ‫ כחכי‬intends such a word as ‫כ ֵֹח ִכי‬, but it was vocalized as ‫ ְכ ַח ֵּכי‬. It should be noted that the Greek language has the same form for the pronouns of the second person. Hence, the translation of Septuagint ἡ ἰσχύς σου might indicate the form with the feminine suffix as well, and it could be assumed that the translator utilized the text which included the very same version as the Masoretic one.14 3

4Q177 7–11 8–11

In the scroll 4Q177 a number of biblical verses are interpreted. John Allegro, the first editor of the scroll, joined two fragments and suggested such a composite text:15 ‫עד אנה יהו] ֯ה תשכח[ני נצח עד אנה תסת]יר פניכה ממני עד אנה אשיתה‬ [ 8 ‫ [עצות בנפשי יגון בלבבי יומם] עד אנה[ ירום איבי עלי פ] ֯ש ֯ר ֯ה ֯ד ֯ב ֯ר לנ֯ צח לב אנשי‬9 ‫]◦ה◦ מי̇ [ ]לבוחנם ולצורפם‬ [ 10

He rightly stated that in these lines the words of Ps 13:2–3 are cited and interpreted. It says: ‫ַעד ָאנָ ה ה׳ ִּת ְׁש ָּכ ֵחנִ י נֶ ַצח ַעד ָאנָ ה ַּת ְס ִּתיר ֶאת ָּפנֶ יָך ִמ ֶּמּנִ י‬ ‫יֹומם ַעד ָאנָ ה יָ רּום א ִֹיְבי ָע ָלי‬ ָ ‫ַעד ָאנָ ה ָא ִׁשית ֵעצֹות ְּבנַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ גֹון ִּב ְל ָב ִבי‬

At the end of line 9 he read ‫פ]שר הדבר לנצח לב אנשי‬, translating “the interpretation of the phrase ‘forever’: the hearts of men of [. . . .” Allegro understood the 13  Basing on the Septuagint version, Albin Van Hoonacker proposed to treat ‫ כחכי‬of the Hebrew Bible as ‫כ ֵֹח ִכי‬, where the suffix ‫כי‬- is related to ‫ גלעד‬mentioned in verse 8; see Albin van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (Paris: Gabalda, 1908), 65–66. 14  As has already been suggested by Wilhelm Rudolph, Hosea (KZAT; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966), 142 and Macintosh, Hosea, 244. 15  See Allegro, DJD 5:71.

Remarks on the Language of the Pesher Scrolls

5

word ‫ לנצח‬as ‫“ לנֶ ַצח‬forever,” assuming, perhaps, that it is a citation or an interpretation of the word ‫ נצח‬of the Psalms. John Strugnell added two more fragments reconstructing as follows:16 ‫עד אנה יהו] ֯ה תשכח[ני נצח עד אנה תסת]יר פניכה ממני עד אנה אשיתה‬ [ 8 ‫הדבר [ע?]ל נצח לב אנשי‬ ֯ ‫ [עצות ] ֯בנפשי [יגון ב] ̇ל ̇ב ֯ב[י י]ו֯ ֯מ ֯ם עד אנה[ ירום איבי עלי ] ֯פ ֯ש ֯ר‬ 9 ‫]לבוחנם ולצורפם‬ [‫] ֯עת[ ]נה באחרית הימים כיא‬ [‫ [ ] ֯ה‬10

He thought that ‫ נצח‬was better explained as “cleansing,”17 and the author of the Pesher apparently had spoken of the purification of men’s hearts. Annette Steudel argued that the verb ‫ נצח‬has a similar meaning in Arabic and Ethiopian.18 Steudel presented an alternative reconstruction: ‫תשכח[ני נצח עד אנה תסת]יר פניכה ממני עד אנה אשיתה‬ ֯ ‫עד אנה יהו] ֯ה‬ [ 8 ‫הדבר [ע]ל נצח לב‬ ֯ ‫ [עצות ] ֯בנפשי [יגון ב] ֯ל ֯ב ֯ב[י י]ו֯ ֯מ ֯ם עד אנה יר[ום איבי עלי ] ֯פ ֯שר‬9 ‫אנשי‬ [‫] ֯תה באחרית הימים כיא‬ [‫]נ֯ ת‬ [‫ [היחד ] ֯ה‬10 ‫]לבוחנם ולצורפם‬

The completion ]‫אנשי [היחד‬, however, does not fit the remnants of the following letter ‫ה‬. Qimron has proposed reconstructing ‫אנשי [התור]ה‬, which seems to be better. We believe that it is possible to reconstruct the full sentence, as follows: ‫תשכח[ני נצח עד אנה תסת]יר פניכה ממני עד אנה אשיתה‬ ̊ ‫עד אנה יהו] ֯ה‬ [ 8 ‫הדבר לנצח לב אנשי‬ ֯ ‫ [עצות ] ֯בנפשי [יגון ב] ̇ל ̇ב ֯ב[י י]ו֯ ֯מ ֯ם עד אנה[ ירום איבי עלי פ] ֯ש ֯ר‬9 ‫]לבוחנם ולצורפם‬ [‫ [התור] ֯ה[ ב] ̇עת[ צרת] ̇מה באחרית הימים כיא‬10

Our reconstruction is supported by another text, Barkhi Nafshi which reads:

‫( לחזק לב נדכה ולנצח לרוח כה לנחם דלים בעת צרתמה‬4Q436 1 i 1). This reading has been suggested by Qimron interpreting ‫ לרוח כה‬as ‫לרוח כהה‬, “depressed, gloomy soul.”19 Here is a clear parallel ‫ לחזק לב‬vis-à-vis ‫לנצח לרוח‬.20 A similar parallel is found in the Hodayot ‫[הקדי] ֯שו שמו בשפתי עוז ולשון נצח הרימו לבד‬

16  See Strugnell, “Notes,” 243. 17  Ibid., 245. 18  See Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 95–96, n. 5. 19  Other scholars have read ‫לריח בה‬, “to make delight in it” and the like see DJD 24:297–99. 20  See also the discussion in DJD 24:300.

6

Ariel and Yuditsky

‫( קולכמה‬4Q427 7 i 16). In this clause the noun ‫ נצח‬corresponds to the noun ‫עוז‬ “strength.”21 More than fourty years ago Yechezkel Kutscher claimed that the verb ‫ חז״ק‬is relatively common in the books of Chronicles because it is a calque of Aramaic ‫נצ״ח‬.22 Now the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate his assumption. Two additional remarks should be made. Firstly, the editor of the scroll 4Q299 read ‫[ברק]י̇ ם עשה לנצח גשמים‬, translating “lightning bolts He made for eternal rain.”23 In fact, it should be better interpreted as “strengthening the rain,” just as in the Mishnah there is an expression ‫גבורות גשמים‬. And secondly, we are able to understand better the method of interpretation of the Dead Sea community. It seems that reading the Psalms they understood ‫ נצח‬as “eternity,” but when preached they read !‫ ַעד ָאנָ ה ה׳ ִּת ְׁש ָּכ ֵחנִ י? נַ ַצח‬, an imperative form, that means “strengthen me.” It may well be a kind of very early evidence of the Midrash ‫ אל תקרי‬and ‫יש אם למסורת‬.24

21  Eileen Schuller translates “mighty tongue”; see DJD 24:99. She notes, DJD 24:104, “‘‫ ’נצח‬in sense of ‘strength’ is frequent in Qumran Hebrew.” The verb ‫ נצ״ח‬in the War Scroll should also be interpreted as “strengthen,” as, for example, in 1QM 8:1 ‫והחצוצרות תהיינה מריעות‬ ‫ ;לנצח אנשי הקלע‬see Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 1:119. Noam Mizrahi, “‫ לביאורו של נתון מוקשה ברשימת‬:‫מן ה‘מנצח’ שבמקרא אל ה‘מזמור לדוד’ בקומראן‬ ‫ על רקע מעמדו של השורש נצ״ח בלשון הבית השני‬11QPsa ‫ ” ‘חיבורי דוד’ שבמגילה‬in Avi Hurvitz Festschrift (ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Maman; Language Studies 11–12; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 2008), 199–212 has discussed the semantics of the verb ‫ נצ״ח‬in the Scrolls, but has drawn quite different conclusions. 22  See E. Yechezkel Kutscher, “‫בשולי מאמרה של ש׳ יפת‬,” Leshonenu 31 (1967): 280–81. It is worth mentioning that Kutscher himself stated that the verb ‫ אתנצח‬in Imperial, Egyptian, and Biblical Aramaic (Dan 6:4) has to be understood as ‫הצטיין‬, i.e., “to distinguish oneself” etc.; see Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 18. This assumption has been accepted by scholars; see, for example, Godfrey R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), 65; HALOT 5:1933; Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 259. Yet, in the light of the present discussion, the verb ‫ אתנצח‬in these dialects of Aramaic should be better interpreted as, e.g., “to strengthen,” “to overcome.” 23  See DJD 20:45–46. 24  Regarding these Midrashim see Moshe Zippor, ‫( על מסירה ומסורה‬Tel Aviv: Papirus, 2001), 166–210.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls Steven E. Fassberg 1 Introduction From the beginning scholars have noted the influence of Aramaic on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. E. Y. Kutscher commented on it already in 1950 in a review of M. Burrows’ edition of the Great Isaiah Scroll,1 and a year later H. Yalon pointed out several grammatical Aramaisms while reviewing the same edition.2 In 1958, towards the end of the first decade of research, M. Goshen-Gottstein presented the first linguistic overview of all published Scrolls in which he also referred repeatedly to Aramaisms.3 A comprehensive and detailed analysis of suspected Aramaisms was presented a year later in Kutscher’s monumental book on the language of 1QIsaa, where more than twenty pages were devoted to the subject.4 In his posthumous History of the Hebrew Language, Kutscher summarized the situation in the Hebrew Scrolls as follows: “The Aramaic influence is all pervasive. The Isaiah Scroll especially is permeated by Aramaic elements, but they are to be found in the other Scrolls as well.”5 Kutscher’s general assessment is accepted by all who deal with the language of the Scrolls, though scholars disagree over specific examples. For instance, E. Qimron wrestles throughout his 1986 grammar of the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls with the question of different Aramaisms, often agreeing with Kutscher, occasionally expressing hesitation, and at times preferring to 1  E. Y. Kutscher, “‫ טופס א‬,‫ מגילות גנוזות‬:‫הרקע הלשוני של מגילת ישעיהו‬,” Haaretz (Tel Aviv), September 25, 1950. Kutscher noted the Aramaic background of the scribe and mentioned in particular the forms ‫ מהסיר‬,‫דרכוהי‬, and ‫גופן‬. 2  H. Yalon, review of M. Burrows, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. I: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, KS 27 (1951): 163–72 [Hebrew]. 3  M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents,” ScrHier 4 (1958): 101–36. 4  E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1959), 19–22, 141–63 [Hebrew]. Further references to this work will be given according to the English translation, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isaa) (STDJ 6; Brill: Leiden, 1974). 5  E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, (ed. R. Kutscher; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1982), 104.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_003

8

Fassberg

see independent and parallel Hebrew developments.6 Recent concise statements on the subject include observations by Qimron and by M. Kister in the two-volume work of collected essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls from 2009,7 by J. Joosten in the Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 2010,8 and also in 2010 by M. Abegg, Jr. in a contribution to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert volume containing the Isaiah Scrolls.9 Now that all of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been published and in the light of earlier and later Hebrew and Aramaic evidence from Palestine, I think it only appropriate to reevaluate the nature and extent of Aramaic penetration into the Hebrew of the Scrolls as well as the distribution of Aramaisms in the different documents. A similar reevaluation of the Hebrew influence on the Aramaic Scrolls was undertaken a few years ago by C. Stadel, who demonstrated that most Hebrew borrowings into Aramaic were religious and technical lexemes for which there were no Aramaic equivalents, and that the influence of Hebrew on syntax and morphology was negligible.10 Unlike in the case of Hebraisms in Aramaic, which Stadel attributed to the literary and religious prestige of Hebrew, Aramaisms in Hebrew have been assumed, on the whole, to be the result of a spoken Aramaic superstratum. For example, Kutscher wrote that Aramaic was the mother tongue of the 1QIsaa scribe; however, he also displayed sensitivity to the possibility of written Aramaic influence on the scribe, who was, in his words, “undoubtedly familiar with the Aramaic literature of his day.”11 In the third meeting of this group in Beersheba in 1999, M. Bar-Asher conjectured that the Qumran scribes may have drawn not only on the Hebrew Bible, but also on a literary Aramaic corpus composed of Aramaic biblical Targumim or related works.12 Nonetheless, the question 6   E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 116 and “Aramaic” in the subject index (119). 7   E. Qimron, “The Language and Linguistic Background of the Qumran Compositions,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (ed. M. Kister; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 2:551–60, esp. 552, 555 [Hebrew]; and from the same work M. Kister, “Some Lexical Features of the Writings from Qumran,” 2:565–66 [Hebrew]. 8   J. Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 351–74, esp. 358–59. 9   M. Abegg, Jr., “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” DJD 32:25–41. 10  C. Stadel, Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer (Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 11; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008). 11  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 24. 12  M. Bar-Asher, “A Few Remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 9

of spoken versus written influence has generally been ignored by scholars, who have tended to focus on the general status of Hebrew vis-à-vis Aramaic.13 Joosten expresses what is the majority view today when he concludes that Hebrew and Aramaic are adstrata and that “The amount of Aramaic influence in the Hebrew Qumran scrolls can best be explained as reflecting the bilingualism of the authors and their readers. Although the sectarian writings were composed in Hebrew, the group among which they came into being knew and practiced these two languages.”14 It is a commonplace in linguistics that languages in contact tend to influence one another more in certain fields than in others. At the most frequent end of the “scale of adoptability,”15 a term coined by E. Haugen in the 1950s, is lexical borrowing, and at the other end are morphological and grammatical loans. In between one finds phonological, semantic, and syntactic influences. In cases of bilingualism involving closely related languages, structural borrowing may increase.16 I shall survey the nature and extent of Aramaic borrowings against the backdrop of Haugen’s scale of adoptability. 2 Orthography One indicator of the influence of written language on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the occasional use of alef as against he to represent final -ā and -ē, as is common in Official and Middle Aramaic, e.g., ‫“ וגבורא‬and bravery” 6Qpap apocrSam–Kings [6Q9] 45 2; ‫“ התורא‬the law” 1QSa 1:1; ‫“ ויבנא‬and he built” 1QIsaa 4:13 (‫ וַ ֶּיִבן‬Isa 5:2); ‫“ היא‬it was” 4QMMTe [4Q398] 14–17 i 5; 14–17 ii 1, 2; ‫שתים עשרא‬

the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 12–19, esp. 16–19. 13  J. C. Greenfield’s description of a Standard Literary Aramaic at Qumran is directly relevant to the question of the nature of the Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls as will be seen. See J. C. Greenfield, “Standard Literary Aramaic,” in Actes du premier congrès de linguistique sémitique et chamito–sémitique, Paris, 16–19 juillet 1969 (ed. A. Caquot and D. Cohen; Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 159; Paris: Mouton, 1974): 280–89. 14  Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” 359. 15  E. Haugen, “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing,” Language 26 (1950): 210–31, at 224. Before him W. D. Whitney, “On Mixture in Language,” TAPA 12 (1881): 5–26 presented a decreasing scale of borrowings: nouns, other parts of speech, suffixes, inflections, and sounds. 16  S. G. Thomason, “Language Change and Language Contact,” Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (ed. K. Brown; 14 vols.; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Elsevier, 2006), 10:339–46, at 341.

10

Fassberg

“twelve” 4QShirShabbf [4Q405] 20 ii 21–22 6; ‫“ הנא‬behold” 4QPsf [4Q88] X 11. Final alef is especially frequent in the Copper Scroll [3Q15].17 3 Phonology Several phonological phenomena seem to point to Aramaic influence. The common sporadic shift in Aramaic in general, and in Palestinian Aramaic in particular, of a > o before labials and r (known also in Tannaitic Hebrew)18 is well-attested in different Qumran manuscripts, particularly 1QIsaa, e.g., ‫“ אבירום‬Abiram” 4QNumb [4Q27] 6:6 12, 19:33 2–40 6 (‫ ֲא ִב ָירם‬Num 16:1; 26:9) and 4QPhyl K [4Q138] 1 13 (Deut 11:6); ‫“ הוררט‬Ararat” 1QIsaa 31:19 (‫ֲא ָר ָרט‬ Isa 37:38); ‫“ מהורסיך‬your destroyers” 1QIsaa 41:16 (‫ ְמ ָה ְר ַסיִ ְך‬Isa 49:17); ‫ובצובים‬ “and on litters” 1QIsaa 54:10 (‫ ַּוב ַצ ִּבים‬Isa 66:20); ‫“ חורטומים‬magicians” 4QRPc [4Q365] 2 3; ‫“ והיורדן‬and the Jordan” 4QapocrJoshb [4Q379] 12 6; ‫“ והחורגול‬and the cricket” 11QTemplea [11Q19] 48:3.19 The related shift of a > o / _ n, well known in Aramaic,20 is found in ‫“ רחמון‬merciful” (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B [4Q381] 10–11 3). An unequivocal Aramaic phonological feature is prenasalization, i.e., the substitution of nasalization for gemination.21 It is attested several times in verbs: ‫“ ינתן‬he will give” (as against ‫ )יִ ֵּתן‬in the biblical manuscript 4QExod–Levf [4Q17] 2 ii 14 (Exod 40:19, 20, 22) and in a biblical citation in 4QTest [4Q175] 3 (Deut 5:29). In non-biblical manuscripts one finds ‫“ בהנכון‬when it is established” 4QShirb [4Q511] 63–64 2 4; ‫“ להנצילם‬to save them” CD 14:2. Perhaps ‫תנצור‬ in ‫“ ותנצור תורתכה‬you will keep your law” 4QBarkhi Nafshic [4Q436 ] 2 i 4 should also be included here; the original nasal is preserved in the verb ‫ נצר‬in the Imperfect in Biblical Hebrew only in pause (e.g., ‫ ְּוב ִר ְיתָך יִ נְ צֹרּו‬Deut 33:9, which 17  J. T. Milik, DJD 3:163–64; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 23. 18  Yalon, review of Burrows, 169; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 496–97. 19  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 496–98; E. Qimron, “The Language of the Temple Scroll,” Leshonenu 42 (1978): 83–98, esp. 90 [Hebrew]. Qimron’s interpreration of ‫ שומה‬as “there” (11QTemplea [11Q19] 59:4) is difficult; the common interpretation of “a waste” is preferable because of the waw connecting it with ‫“ ולשרקה ולחורבה‬and a mockery and a ruin.” 20  C. Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.; Berlin: Reuther & Reichard 1908–1913), 1:203. 21   Goshen-Gottstein “Linguistic Structure,” 15; Sh. Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988): 151–53; W. R. Garr, “Prenasalization,” in Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg (ed. C. L. Miller; SAOC 60; Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007), 81–109.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 11

is attested as ‫ ובריתך ינצר‬in 4QTest [4Q175] 17; cf. ‫ יצורו‬4QBeatitudes [4Q525] 5 9). Prenasalization is also responsible for what is commonly described as the non-assimilation of the preposition ‫ מן‬under the influence of Aramaic, e.g., ‫“ ומן גוי נכר‬and from a gentile nation” 11QTa [11Q19] LVII 11; ‫“ מן תאנה‬from a fig” 1QIsaa 28:4–5 (‫ ִמ ְּת ֵאנָ ה‬Isa 34:4); ‫“ ומן בנות‬and from daughters” 1QIsaa 46:16 (‫ּומ ָּבנֹות‬ ִ Isa 56:5).22 A phenomenon related to prenasalization is the rhotacism found in place of gemination: there are seven examples of the proper noun ‫“ דרמשק‬Damascus” in 1QIsaa.23 The addition of a prosthetic alef before consonants, especially consonantal clusters involving sibilants, is a feature that is attested in Aramaic, Hebrew, and in Semitic languages in general,24 but since it is a relatively frequent phenomenon in Palestinian Aramaic Targumim,25 one wonders if the prosthetic vowel in ‫ אזרוע‬reflects the influence of Palestinian Aramaic or Biblical Aramaic ‫ֶא ְד ָרע‬ “arm”26: ‫ אזרוע‬in 11QTa [11Q19] 20:16 and also a few times in biblical quotations (Deut 5:15) in phylacteries (4Q137, 139, XQ3) versus ‫ זרוע‬in Phyl J [4Q137] 1 22; Phyl L [4Q139] 1 8; Phyl 3 [XQ3] 1 24; Phyl A [4Q128] 1 29; 8QMez [8Q4] 1 16 (Deut 11:2); 4QXIIg [4Q82] (Hos 7:15); 4QIsac [4Q57] (Isa 52:10); 11QPsa [11Q5] (Ps 136:12). Of course, Biblical Hebrew too knows ‫אזרוע‬, but only in the book of Jeremiah, where it might also be explained as Aramaic influence.27 Could ‫“ אשאול‬underworld” 11QPsa 23:4 [11Q5] (‫ ְׁשאֹול‬Ps 141:7) and ‫“ ולאזכרון‬and for a remembrance” XHev/Se5 1 3 (‫ ְּולזִ ָּכרֹון‬Exod 13:9) also be additional examples of this phenomenon?28 Early on in Qumran research scholars suggested that two more phonological features were Aramaisms. The first was the weakening of gutturals and the second, general penultimate stress. With regard to the first, Goshen-Gottstein, 22  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 214; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 30–31. 23  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 3–4, 102. 24  E. Qimron, “A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976), 117–18 [Hebrew]. 25  G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch–palästinischen Aramäisch nach den Idiomen des palästinischen Talmud, des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum und der jerusalemischen Targume (2nd ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905), 94. 26  ‫ ְּד ָרע‬is also attested in Biblical Aramaic. 27  See Sh. Morag, “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94 (1974): 307–15, at 315 n. 48, where he calls Official Aramaic influence on the language of Jeremiah plausible. 28  Were these two nouns realized with consonantal clusters at Qumran? For different Aramaic realizations of ‫ שאול‬without prosthesis in Aramaic dialects, see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 500.

12

Fassberg

for example, considered the weakening of the gutturals attested in Qumran manuscripts an Aramaism, either direct or indirect.29 The weakening, merger, and disappearance of gutturals is indeed attested to varying degrees in different Aramaic dialects both in the east and in the west, though in neither area does it affect all dialects to the same extent so one cannot speak of a general Aramaic phenomenon. In eastern dialects it is attributed to the historical legacy of Akkadian, whereas in the west, it is blamed on Greek.30 Nonetheless, though there is no proof that Aramaic is responsible for the weakening of the gutturals in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it may have played some role in the light of the weakening in later Palestinian Aramaic sources (Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, and Samaritan). With regard to word stress, some scholars have invoked the Aramaic pattern of accentuation in order to explain the orthography of 3 masc. pl. imperfect verbs of the type ‫יקטולו‬, masc. pl. imperatives ‫קטולו‬,31 and segholate nouns written ‫ קוטול‬or showing the fluctuation ‫קוטל‬/‫קטול‬.32 In classical Aramaic stress is generally on the penultimate syllable when the word ends in a vowel, and on the ultimate syllable when the word ends in a consonant or what once was originally consonantal. In later Palestinian Aramaic one finds this system still remains in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but no longer in Christian Palestinian Aramaic nor in Samaritan Aramaic. Plausible alternative explanations, however, have been proposed for each of these categories in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls and so here, too, Aramaic influence is speculative. 4 Lexicon The biblical Dead Sea Scrolls contain lexical Aramaisms, though by no means a deluge. Kutscher pointed out that 1QIsaa sometimes substitutes infrequent Hebrew roots of nouns and verbs with Hebrew roots that are common in Aramaic, e.g., √‫ אמר‬for √‫ספר‬, √‫ בחן‬for √‫בחר‬, √‫ זעק‬for √‫צעק‬, √‫ עיל‬for √‫עול‬, and 29  Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure,” 7. For the statistics concerning the misspellings with gutturals, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 29–30. 30  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 508–11. 31  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 32 notes eleven occurrences of ‫ קטולו‬in the non-biblical manuscripts from Qumran and forty-four in the biblical manuscripts. 32  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 194–97, 502–4. For recent discussions and bibliography, see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 40–42; Qimron, “,‫ּגְ ד ֹל הזרוע‬ ‫וקד ֹש ההיכל‬ ְ ‫ּגְ ב ַֹּה הקומה‬,” in Yaakov Bentolila Jubilee Volume: Research Papers in Hebrew Linguistics, Hebrew Literature and Jewish Languages (ed. D. Sivan and P.-I. HalevyKirtchuk; Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2003), 327–39.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 13

√‫ שרי‬for √‫שרע‬.33 Note also the noun ‫“ מאפכה‬overturning” for ‫מהפכה‬, if the alef indeed reflects the Aramaic √‫ = ( אפך‬Hebrew √‫ )הפך‬and not merely an ad hoc weakening of the guttural h > ʾ.34 In a quotation of a biblical verse in a nonbiblical text, 4QTanḥ [4Q176] 8–11 6, one finds ‫“ ארמלותך‬your widowhood” for ‫( אלמנותך‬it also shows up in Tannaitic Hebrew). A certain and common Aramaism in some biblical manuscripts, as well as non-biblical, is the plural base of the noun ‫“ יום‬day”35: ‫ היומים‬4QTest [4Q175] 4 (‫ ַהּיָ ִמים‬Deut 5:29); ‫ביומי‬ 1QIsaa (‫ ִב ֵימי‬Isa 1:1); ‫“ כול יומי ממשלת בליעל‬all the days of the wicked dominion” 1QS 2:19; ‫“ כול יומי מואסו במשפטי אל‬all the days that he rejects God’s laws” 1QS 3:5; and in some phylacteries (‫ ִיָמ ָימה‬Exod 13:10): ‫למוע[ד]ו מימים יומימוה‬ Phyl B [4Q129]; ‫ [ מיומים י‬Phyl I [4Q136]; ‫ למועדוה מ[יומי]ם יומימוה‬Phyl M [4Q140]; ‫ למעדוה מימים יומימה‬Phyl R [4Q145]. It should be stressed that apart from 1QIsaa, the biblical manuscripts that have survived are extremely fragmentary and this may be the reason why they exhibit fewer lexical Aramaisms than does 1QIsaa.36 Non-biblical scrolls also exhibit borrowings, though the number of examples is actually quite limited. One cannot say that they are particularly frequent in any one text.37 Borrowed nouns include ‫“ ְּכ ִליל‬crown,” which appears four times in the expression ‫ כליל כבוד‬1QS 4:7, 1QSb 4:2, 1QHa 17:25; and once in the expression ‫“ כליל תפארת‬crown of glory” (4QEschatological Work B [4Q472] ii 8),38 as well as words and expressions that are of ultimate Akkadian origin: ‫“ אוחזי אבות‬intercessors” (abbūt) 1QS 2:9, 4QCurses [4Q280] 2 4; ‫מלאך‬ 33  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 219, 223, 233, 289, 272, 313. 34  Ibid., 251. 35  Yalon, review of Burrows, 167; H. Yalon, review of M. Burrows, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. II, 2: Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline, KS 28 (1952–1953): 65 [Hebrew]; Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure,” 32 n. 17. 36  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 25 points out that 1QIsaa contains more than 24% of all the words (tokens) attested in the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran. 37  Kister, “Lexical Features,” 565–66. 4QTest [4Q175] does contain a number of Aramaiclooking forms in a relatively small text, but only one, maybe two (depending on the readings), are lexical. F. M. Cross notes: Perf. 1 sg. ‫“ שמעת‬I heard” (1), ‫“ ינתן‬he will give” (3), and ‫“ היומים‬the days” (4). One should also add ‫“ לידעתיכהי‬I don’t know you (fem. sg.)” (16). See Cross, “Testimonia [4Q175 = 4QTestimonia = 4QTestim],” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. M. Rietz; PTSDSSP 6b; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 308–27, at 312. J. Strugnell read two more forms as Aramaic: ‫“ ויהוה‬and he will be” (3; Cross ‫ )ויהיה‬and ‫“ בתהלותוהי‬and with his praises” (21; so too Qimron [n. 51 below], but Cross ‫ ;)בתהלותיהו‬see Strugnell, “Notes en marge du Volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’ ” RevQ 7 (1970): 163–276, at 225–29. 38  See also Sir 45:8 and the Hekhalot literature.

14

Fassberg

‫“ אבות‬angel of intercession” 4QPrayer of Enosh [4Q369] 2 1; ‫( מלוש‬malwāš)

“sign of the zodiac” 4QLament by a Leader [4Q439] 1 i 2.39 Original *qutl nouns spelled ‫ קטול‬are common in different Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g., ‫“ בסור גמול‬unripe grapes” 1QIsaa (‫ ּב ֶֹסר ּג ֵֹמל‬Isa 18:5), ‫“ ישור לב‬straight of heart” 1QS 11:2; ‫“ ארוך אפים‬slow to anger” 1QHa 9:8; ‫‘ עצום ידינו‬strength of our hands’ 1QM 11:5. Not all *qutl nouns show up as ‫קטול‬, however. Most scholars consider those that do to be Aramaisms; a notable exception is Qimron, who takes them as authentic Hebrew forms for which there are parallels in the Masoretic text.40 Verbs in non-biblical texts inflected as Hebrew but from Aramaic roots include ‫“ נתארמלה‬she was widowed” 4QDf [4Q271] 3 12 and ‫( תבית‬tābīt < √‫)בות‬ “she will spend the night” 1QHa 25:6. Aramaic prepositions have also penetrated both biblical and non-biblical texts. One finds ‫ תחות‬for ‫“ תחת‬under, in place of,” e.g., ‫ ותחות‬1QIsaa 4:1 (‫וְ ַת ַחת‬ Isa 3:24; preceded in same verse by ‫ תוחת‬tūt?), ‫ מתוחת‬1QS 7:13; ‫ בעקר‬for ‫“ אצל‬by, from” 4QPseudo-Ezekiela [4Q385] 6 8 (also attested in Samaritan Aramaic), and, as attested in Late Biblical Hebrew, ‫ על‬for ‫אל‬: ‫“ ונהרו עלוהי‬and they will stream unto him” 1QIsaa 2:9 (‫ ונהרו אליו‬Isa 2:2), as well as Isa 6:9, 17:8, 22:5, 22:11, 36:7, 36:12, 46:7, 65:6, and ‫ על‬for ‫( ל‬47:1, 9:12, 36:11).41 See also the preposition ‫מן‬ above (§3 under prenasalization). 5 Semantics There is no doubt that Aramaic is the source of several calques. Qimron presented a comprehensive collection of loan translations known at the time in his 1986 grammar.42 Underlying Aramaic words and syntagms can be found throughout the non-biblical corpus, e.g., ‫“ בתדירא‬frequently” 1QM 2:2 (‫ ִּב ְת ִד ָירא‬Dan 6:17, 21), ‫“ לאחת‬very” 4QHoroscope [4Q186] 1 iii 4; = Targum Onqelos ‫)לחדא‬. Note also in the Vision of Gabriel ‫“ מן לפני‬before me” (16) and ‫“ מן לפניך‬before you” (17), which are calques on the common Aramaic ‫מן ֳק ָדם‬ (e.g., Dan 2:15, 18).43 39  Cf. the synonym, ‫מזל‬, which also came into Hebrew and Aramaic from Akkadian. 40  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 201–3, 502–4; Qimron, “‫גדל הזרוע‬,” esp. 32. For a list of nouns, see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 37–38. 41  There are several cases of ‫ אל‬in 1QIsaa for MT ‫על‬. See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 404–5. 42  Qimron, Hebrew of Dead Sea Scrolls, 116, 119. 43  See the discussion of M. Bar-Asher, “On the Language of the Vision of Gabriel,” RevQ 23 (2008): 491–524, at 493 n. 16.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 15

6 Syntax 4QMMT is marked by syntagms that seem to be calques on Aramaic compound conjunctions containing ‫די‬/-‫ד‬, e.g., ‫“ שלוא‬lest” (= ‫ )די לא‬4QMMTc [4Q396] 1–2 iv 7; -‫“ בגלל ש‬so that” (= -‫ לגלל ד‬,-‫ )מן בגלל ד‬4QMMTc [4Q396] 1–2 iv 8; -‫בשל ש‬ “so that” (= -‫ )בדיל ד‬4QMMTa [4Q394] 3–7 i 15, 3–7 i 19, 4QMMTb [4Q395] 10; 4QMMTd [4Q397] 23 2; 4QMMTe [4Q398] 14–17 ii 6; ‫“ משכתוב‬as it is written” (= ‫ )מדכתיב‬4QMMTc [4Q396] 1–2 iv 5.44 J. Carmignac argued that the positioning of an object before the infinitive in Qumran Hebrew texts is the result of Aramaic influence, e.g., ‫וכוחם לתקן‬ “they should properly exercise their strength” 1QS 1:12; ‫נדיבי לב להחזיק בגבורת‬ ‫“ אל‬to strengthen the willing hearted by the might of God” 1QM [1Q33] 10:5.45 Qimron believes that there are not enough examples in the Hebrew texts to prove Carmignac’s assertion.46 7 Morphology Several morphological phenomena have been attributed to Aramaic. For example, one finds in 1QIsaa Aramaic-looking 2 fem. sg. forms―the independent pronoun ‫ אתי‬at 1QIsaa 42:24, 25, 28 (‫ ַא ְּת‬Isa 51:9, 10, 12); the pronominal suffix ‫כי‬- (‫“ וגואלכי‬and your redeemer” 1QIsaa 41:27 [‫ ּג ֲֹא ֵלְך‬Isa 49:26]); the object suffix ‫כי‬- (‫“ אשכחכי‬I will forget you” 1QIsaa 41:15 [‫ ֶא ְׁש ָכ ֵחּך‬Isa 49:15]); and the perfect suffix ‫תי‬- (‫“ שמתי‬you placed” 1QIsaa 29:25 [‫ ַש ֹ ְמ ְּת‬Isa 47:6, 7]).47 Abegg has discussed the number of occurrences of 2 fem. sg. forms in the Scrolls:48 the 2 fem. sg. independent pronoun ‫ אתי‬is attested three times (as noted above) in 1QIsaa as well as once possibly in a non-biblical text (4QpapJubh [4Q223–224] 2 ii 11); the 2 fem. sg. perfect ‫תי‬- shows up in eighteen out of thirty examples of the 2 fem. sg. perfect in 1QIsaa but outside of this scroll only twice, and both times in biblical manuscripts (1QIsab 20:20 [Isa 47:7] and 4QJerc 47–54 11 44  E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, DJD 10:74–75, 95. 45  J. Carmignac, “Un aramaïsme biblique et qumrânien: l’infinitif placé après son complément d’objet,” RevQ 5 (1966): 503–20. 46  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 74. 47  For the examples from 1QIsaa, see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 188– 90. For a general discussion, see E. Qimron, review of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, Vol. 5, KS 54 (1979): 365 [Hebrew]. 48  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 31, 33.

16

Fassberg

[Jer 31:21]); the 2 fem. sg. pronominal suffix ‫כי‬- is preserved twenty-seven times in 1QIsaa as against 217 occurrences of ‫ך‬-; there are two more examples of ‫כי‬- in other biblical manuscripts (4QPsb 28 i 18 [Ps 116:10] and 4QLam 3:2 [Lam 1:12]) and five examples in non-biblical manuscripts (4QPsf [4Q88] 8:13; 4QpIsaa [4Q161] 5–6 7; 4QTanḥ [4Q176] 8–11 6–7, 50 1). As an object suffix, it may possibly underlie the unexpected orthography ‫“ לידעתיכהי‬I don’t know you” 4QTest [4Q175] 16 (= ‫)?לא ידעתיכי‬.49 The 3 masc. sg. suffix ‫והי‬- on plural nouns and prepositions is limited neither to 1QIsaa nor to biblical texts, e.g., ‫“ ידוהי‬his hands” 1QIsaa 37:10 (‫ יָ דֹו‬Isa 44:5); ‫“ עלוהי‬upon him” 1QpHab 12:12; ‫“ רגלוהי‬his feet” 1QS 6:13; ‫“ בתהלותוהי‬with his praises” 4QTest [4Q175] 21.50 It also shows up in non-biblical texts such as the Community Rule (1QS) and Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), though early editors, because of the difficulty in distinguishing between waw and yod in some manuscripts, sometimes read the Aramaic ‫והי‬- suffix as the Hebrew ‫יהו‬- (ehū), which is found in Biblical Hebrew on III-y nouns (e.g., ‫“ ָׂש ֵדהּו‬his field”) and in poetry.51 ‫הי‬- also shows up in 1QIsaa as the object suffix on perfect 3 pl. verbs (cf. Tiberian Hebrew ‫ּוהּו‬-), e.g., ‫“ ישאוהי על כתפ יסבלוהי ויניחוהי‬they must carry it on their backs, transport it and put it down” 1QIsaa 34:12 (‫ יִ ְס ְּב ֻלהּו‬. . . ‫ּכ ֵתף‬-‫ל‬ ָ ‫יִ ָש ֹ ֻאהּו ַע‬ ‫יחהּו‬ ֻ ִ‫ וְ יַ ּנ‬Isa 46:7).52 Kutscher believed that 1QIsaa evidences three examples of an Aramaic 3 fem. pl. perfect suffix ‫ה‬- (ā) as against the expected Hebrew suffix ‫ו‬- (ū): ‫“ והחזיקה שבע נשים‬seven women shall take hold” 1QIsaa 4:4 (‫וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יקּו ֶׁש ַבע נָ ִׁשים‬ Isa 4:1); ‫“ הצליחה דרכוהי‬his ways succeeded” 1QIsaa 40:20 (‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַיח ַּד ְרּכֹו‬Isa 48:15); ‫ יצאה‬. . . ‫“ הרישונות‬the first things . . . went out” 1QIsaa 40:8 ‫ יָ ְצאּו‬. . . ‫ָה ִראׁשֹנֹת‬ (Isa 48:3).53 There are a few words in the Scrolls, primarily in 1QIsaa, that appear to reflect the Aramaic C-stem Hapʿel: ‫“ מהסיר‬remove” 1QIsaa 3:1 (‫ ֵמ ִסיר‬Isa 3:1); ‫“ ואוכלתי‬and I shall feed” 1QIsaa 41:27 (‫ וְ ַה ֲא ְכ ְל ִּתי‬Isa 49:26); ‫“ והוליכתי‬and I will lead” 1QIsaa 35:26 (‫הֹול ְכ ִּתי‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬Isa 42:16), ‫“ ויהכין‬and he will prepare” 1QS 3:9.54 49  The he is unexpected. Strugnell, “Notes,” 226 reads here ‫לאדעתיכהי‬. See also n. 37 above. 50  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 61; Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 34. See also n. 37 above. 51  See the discussion in J. Licht, The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. 1QS. 1QSa. 1QSb. Text, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 44–45 [Hebrew]. On the difficulty of distinguishing waw from yod, see E. Qimron, “The Distinction between Waw and Yod in the Qumran Scrolls,” Beit Mikra (1972): 102–12 [Hebrew]. 52  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 34. 53  For possible additional examples, see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 191. 54  Ibid., 197–200.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 17

It has been suggested that the use of G-stem verbal nouns and infinitives with prefixed mem, which is found in various Dead Sea Scrolls, is the result of Aramaic influence,55 e.g., ‫“ במתור‬seeking out” 1QS 3:3; also in the parallel text 4Q257); ‫“ למפתח‬to unlock” 1QS 10:4; ‫“ למשוב‬to repent” 1QS 3:1; ‫“ מתעב‬hating” 1QS 4:5; ‫“ למשוב‬to repent” 1QM 1:13; ‫“ בצאת ומבוא‬in leaving and entering” 4QShirShabbf [4Q405] 23 i 10. Some have viewed the masc. pl. suffix ‫ין‬- found in the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and occasionally in other Scrolls56 (and in Tannaitic Hebrew) as an Aramaism, though most nowadays consider it a phonological phenomenon: a shift of final m > n.57 8

Analysis of Data

The sketch presented above leaves no doubt that the scribe of 1QIsaa was heavily influenced by Aramaic and that other scribes were also influenced, though the manuscripts they wrote or copied show less evidence of it. It confirms what was known by the end of the 1950s, namely, that there is a significant difference in the amount of Aramaisms in 1QIsaa and other more carefully written, official-looking documents such as the Community Rule (1QS) and the Temple Scroll. One must keep in mind, however, that the picture of other biblical Scrolls may be distorted because of their fragmentary nature.58 Are the Aramaisms the result of a literary language, the vernacular, or a combination of both? The most obvious yardstick by which to begin to examine the Aramaisms in the Hebrew scrolls is the Aramaic corpus of manuscripts from Qumran.59 Yet, because the provenance and date of composition of many if not all of the Aramaic documents is far from certain60 and because the texts 55  Licht, Rule Scroll, 44. See also the remarks of Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 65. 56  Qimron, “Language of Temple Scroll,” 93–94. 57  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 27 for a discussion and additional bibliography. 58  See n. 36 above. 59  See the grammatical descriptions of Qumran Aramaic by K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (3 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984–2004); U. SchattnerRieser, L’araméen des manuscrits de la mer Morte. I. Grammaire (IELOA 5; Lausanne: Editions du Zébre, 2004) and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (ANESSup 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011). 60  For an overview of the Aramaic corpus, see J. J. Collins, “The Aramaic Texts from Qumran: Conclusion,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 547–64.

18

Fassberg

are written in Standard Literary Aramaic and not in a vernacular like the BarKosibah letters, for these reasons it must be said that just because a feature may be found in an Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll does not necessarily mean that Qumran Aramaic is the source of the Aramaism. The alleged morphological Aramaisms are the most intriguing and surprising of all the data. As noted, morphological loans from one language to another are relatively rare. U. Weinreich noted that when they do occur they may not only be the result of cultural influence, but may also have been introduced into the recipient language to “replace zeros or phonemically less bulky forms.”61 Grammatical loans may be attested when the two languages are closely related, or usually when they are dialects of the same language: one of the parade examples is the borrowing of Scandinavian pronouns (Old Norse) beginning with th- (þeir “they,” þeim “them,” and þeirra “their”) into Old English displacing the corresponding h- forms (hie, him, and hira), presumably facilitated by the existence in Old English of th- demonstrative pronouns (including the definite article).62 Is the contact between Hebrew and Aramaic reflected in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls similar to the contact that might have enabled the borrowing of pronouns between Old Norse and Old English? See what Otto Jespersen says about Old Norse and Old English: An enormous number of words were then identical in the two languages, so that we should now have been utterly unable to tell which language they had come from if we had had no English literature before the invasion; nouns such as man, wife, father, folk, mother, house thing, life, sorrow, winter, summer, verbs like will, can, meet, come, bring, hear, see, think, smile, ride, stand, sit, set, spin, adjectives and adverbs like full, wise, well, better, best, mine and thine, over and under, etc. etc. The consequence was that an Englishman would have no great difficulty in understanding a Viking—nay, we have positive evidence that Norse people looked upon the English language as one with their own.63 Can one say that this was the case for Aramaic and Hebrew? Did not the Canaanite vowel and consonant shifts, as well as the distinctive Canaanite core vocabulary, create a divide with Aramaic that was considerably wider than that between Old Norse and Old English? Was a sentence such as ‫נפק גברא‬ 61  U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 33. 62  O. Jespersen, Growth and Structure of the English Language (10th ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 66; T. R. Lounsbury, History of the English Language (rev. and enl. ed.; New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1894), 266–67. 63  Jespersen, Growth and Structure, 60.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 19

‫“ מן קריתא‬the man went out from the city” felt to be identical with ‫יצא האיש‬ ‫ ?מהעיר‬Were Hebrew and Aramaic mutually intelligible? It is interesting to

note that the redactors of the Mishnah clearly distinguished between Hebrew and Aramaic. There is no Mischsprache in the Mishnah: when the editors deal with Aramaic, they cite the sentence or paragraph in pure Aramaic. There is no general mixing of languages, even though there are isolated Aramaic words that appear in the Mishnaic text. A comparison with other Hebrew corpora that were heavily influenced by Aramaic is, I think, instructive. The first is Tannaitic Hebrew. Despite the considerable Aramaic influence on the language, which manifests itself in many different areas,64 it is by no means accepted by all that Aramaic penetrated the morphological structure of the language. Take, for example, the pronominal and the verbal systems. Grammatical features that have been attributed by scholars to Aramaic include the 2 masc. sg. independent pronoun ‫ ַא ְּת‬, the possessive suffixes 2 masc. sg. [āḵ] and 2 fem. sg. [īḵ], the second a-vowel of the Nitpaʿel stem, and the Paʿel stem.65 All of them, however, are explainable by internal Hebrew processes and are attested already in Classical Biblical Hebrew: ‫( ַא ְּת‬8× in MT), -āḵ (‫ א ָֹתְך‬,‫ ִא ָּתְך‬,‫ ִע ָּמְך‬,‫ ָּבְך‬,‫) ָלְך‬, -īḵ (,‫ ָח ִמיְך‬,‫ ָא ִחיְך‬,‫ ָא ִביְך‬,‫ִּפיְך‬ ‫) ְק ַט ְל ִּתיְך‬, and the final a-vowel of Hitpaʿal (e.g., ‫) ִה ְת ַאּנַ ף‬. The existence of parallel phenomena in Aramaic probably reinforced their use in Hebrew. Following Weinreich’s observation that grammatical borrowings tend to replace ambiguous forms, why would speakers of Tannaitic Hebrew borrow a form such as ‫ַא ְּת‬ for the 2 masc. sg. from Aramaic when it would create confusion in the system between the 2 masc. sg. and the 2 fem. sg. independent pronouns? Grammatical borrowings are usually motivated by the desire to eliminate obfuscation. A second corpus for comparison is the Hebrew Judean Desert documents from between the destruction of the Second Temple and the Second Revolt. Though the paradigms are not complete and the evidence is limited, I am not certain that there are clear Aramaisms in either the pronominal or verbal systems,66 64  For an extreme maximalist view, see I. Gluska, Hebrew and Aramaic in Contact during the Tannaitic Period: A Sociolinguistic Approach (Tel Aviv: Papirus, 1999) [Hebrew]. 65  M. Bar-Asher, L’hébreu mishnique: études linguistiques (Orbis Supplementa 11; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 30–34. On the suffix –āḵ see also R. Steiner, “From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of ‫ְך‬-ָ and ‫ּה‬-ָ ,” HAR 3 (1979): 157–74. 66  U. Mor, “The 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), 116–33, 143–46 [Hebrew]. Mor, at 132, cites one example of a possible 3 masc. pl. Aramaic suffix ‫הון‬- (‫ עליהון‬in P. Yadin 51:3), but the reading is far from certain. According to H. Gzella there is Aramaic influence, however, on the use of the Hebrew participle; see H. Gzella, “The Use of the Participle in the Bar Kosiba Letters in the Light of Aramaic,” DSD 14 (2007): 90–98; Gzella, “Elemente systemischen Sprachkontaktes in den

20

Fassberg

unless one views the shift of final m > n as proof, though it is currently believed by most to reflect an internal Hebrew development.67 Yet another case of intense Hebrew and Aramaic contact occurs in NeoAramaic as spoken today in Israel. Hebrew is the superstratum for all NeoAramaic speakers living in Israel, most of whom emigrated from Kurdistan in 1950–1951. And yet, the pronominal and verbal systems of all Neo-Aramaic dialects still spoken in Israel are impermeable to Hebrew morphological features. The lexicon is flooded with Modern Hebrew loans and scores of verbal roots, but the nouns and verbs are all inflected according to the grammatical rules of Neo-Aramaic, and the pronouns are direct internal Aramaic developments. Speakers of Jewish Neo-Aramaic often borrow pronouns and verbal inflections from other closely related Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects, but not from Hebrew. Speakers distinguish clearly between Hebrew and Neo-Aramaic; they borrow lexemes freely, but not morphological elements. The same is true for the Western Neo-Aramaic Christian dialects (Maʿlula, Baxʿa, and Jubbʿadin), which have been in contact with the superstratum of Arabic for over a millennium. The lexicon of Western Neo-Aramaic is heavily Arabicized, but the grammatical structure of the language remains entirely Aramaic. In the light of the relative rarity of morphological borrowings between languages,68 on the one hand, and the Hebrew-Aramaic bilingualism demonstrated in Tannaitic Hebrew, the Hebrew of the Judean Desert documents, and Jewish Neo-Aramaic, on the other, I question whether all the morphological phenomena that have been described as borrowings in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls indeed are vernacular Aramaisms that penetrated the texts from the spoken language of the scribes. The 2 fem. sg. forms with final -ī are attested in Biblical Hebrew in all the categories in which they are attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls: the independent pronoun, the possessive suffix, and the object suffix. Kutscher called the pronominal elements with -ī in 1QIsaa a “mirage” form or “fata morgana,”69 i.e., although the 2 fem. sg. forms with yod looked like ancient Hebrew forms, hebräischen Bar-Kosiba-Briefen,” in “. . . der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!”: Festschrift für Ernst Jenni zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. J. Luchsinger, H.-P. Mathys, and M. Saur; AOAT 336; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007), 93–107. 67  On m > n, see, e.g., Bar-Asher, L’hébreu mishnique, 9. 68  For examples of morphological borrowings, see S. G. Thomason, Language Contact: An Introduction (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001), 63–65; D. Winford, An Introduction to Contact Linguistics (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003), 56–58. 69  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 38; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 25.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 21

in reality they entered the Qumran texts from the Aramaic vernacular. Ben-Ḥayyim, in discussing Samaritan Hebrew, took the opposite view of the 2 fem. sg. forms with final -ī, arguing that the ancient Hebrew forms were ­maintained because of the Aramaic.70 I agree with Ben-Ḥayyim because I think Qumran scribes tended to lengthen artificially pronouns and other forms whenever possible in order to embellish the text (the independent pronouns ‫היאה‬, ‫אתמה‬, ‫הואה‬, the suffixes ‫כמה‬-, and ‫המה‬-, the adverbs ‫שמה‬, ‫מאדה‬, ‫)ריקמה‬.71 In the case of the 2 fem. sg. morphemes, I believe that here too Qumran scribes deliberately used the archaic or dialectal Hebrew forms since they were longer and felt to be more elegant than the regular classical forms, and also had the same syllable structure as the 2 masc. sg. forms (Cv̄#). The existence of the suffix in Aramaic reinforced the use of the older Hebrew forms.72 The orthography ‫והי‬- for the 3 masc. sg. pronominal suffix on pl. nouns and the object suffix is undeniably Aramaic. It occurs once in Biblical Hebrew ‫( תגמולוהי‬Ps 116:12), but on a word that occurs only in Second Temple Hebrew sources and itself may be an Aramaism.73 Ben-Ḥayyim considered the suffix ‫והי‬- in Qumran Hebrew texts to be an Aramaic orthography that reflected a realization of -o, similar to the contracted diphthong of Samaritan Aramaic,74 and a borrowing of Aramaic orthography.75 In the light of the contraction of the diphthong aw > o in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ensuing homophony and graphic confusion between the 3 masc. sg. suffix on singular and plural nouns (‫ו‬- and ‫יו‬-), I would like to suggest that the use of ‫והי‬- was 70  Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 104 (perfect suffixes), and 225 (independent pronouns). Qimron, in his review of the Hebrew version of Ben-Ḥayyim’s grammar (see n. 47 above), agrees with Kutscher’s interpretation of the data (p. 365) as does generally Abegg, “Linguistic Preference,” 31, 33–34. 71  S. E. Fassberg, “The Preference for Lengthened Forms in Qumran Hebrew,” Meghillot 1 (2003): 227–40 [Hebrew]. 72  Two different 2 fem. sg. suffixes existed in Palestine. The orthographies of the suffix in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls ‫כי‬- and ‫יכי‬- (e.g., ‫ לכי‬1QapGen ar [1Q20] 19:19 but ,‫בטליכי‬ ‫ בדיליכי‬19:20) could reflect -eḵī, as in Official Aramaic, though Palestinian Aramaic also knows –īḵ, which is found in Targum Onqelos, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and Samaritan Aramaic. See S. E. Fassberg, “The Pronominal Suffix of the Second Feminine Singular in the Aramaic Texts from the Judean Desert,” DSD 3 (1996): 10–19. 73  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 213; the Classical Biblical Hebrew noun is ‫גמול‬. 74  Written ‫יו‬- and ‫וי‬- in Samaritan Aramaic texts. 75  Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1954), 90–92. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 61 corrects Ben-Ḥayyim’s statement that ‫והי‬- was used on both singular and plural nouns: ‫והי‬- is restricted to plural nouns. See too Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure,” 16–17.

22

Fassberg

merely another embellished form, a long marker of the 3 masc. sg. suffix -o, which served to distinguish plural nouns bound by the suffix from the homophonous singular nouns. The orthography ‫והי‬- was, as suggested by Ben-Ḥayyim, borrowed from Aramaic, but probably from Standard Literary Aramaic and not from the vernacular, in which there are signs that the he already began to fall out (‫“ אחוי‬his brother” 1QapGen [1Q20] 21:34; ‫“ עלוי‬on him” 11QNJ ar [11Q18] 8 3; 9 4),76 leaving -ūy and -oy, which may have further contracted to -o. Moreover, the use of the he agreed with the orthographic convention of adding that letter to final -o in spellings such as ‫ כוה‬1QIsaa 38:18 (‫ ּכֹה‬Isa 45:11); ‫“ ובחיקוה‬and in his bosom” 1QIsaa 30:11 (‫ ְּוב ֵחיקֹו‬Isa 33:11); ‫“ כוחוה‬his strength” 1QIsaa 37:17 (‫ ּכֹחֹו‬Isa 44:12); ‫“ רצונוה‬his desire” 4QJubd [4Q219] 2:29, 32; ‫“ אתוה‬his sign” 4QJubd [4Q219] 2:34; as well as the spelling ‫וה‬- found in Official Aramaic texts and once in Qumran Aramaic.77 With regard to ‫והי‬- as an object suffix (cf. Tiberian Hebrew [ūhū]), this orthography was probably realized as ū since the he may not have been pronounced and the diphthong ūy > ū/o as in ‫“ גלו‬revealed” 4QTest [4Q175] 11 = MT ‫)ּגְ לּוי‬. Here too the scribe of 1QIsaa seems to have merely adopted the literary Aramaic form. In the case of the 3 fem. pl., which is attested only in 1QIsaa, Aramaic influence may indeed be responsible, though later Palestinian Aramaic dialects (Jewish Palestinian ‫ ַק ְט ֵלין‬,78 Christian Palestinian ‫ܩܛܠܝ‬,79 and Samaritan ‫קטלי‬ qā�ṭā�li)80 show a suffix of -e/i and not -ā, the latter of which is attested in the qere of Biblical Aramaic (‫ ִא ְת ֲע ַק ָרו‬, ‫ נְ ַפ ָלו‬,‫ )נְ ַפ ָקו‬as well as in Targum Onqelos (‫) ְק ַט ָלא‬. The final -ā in 1QIsaa represented by ‫ה‬- may well be in imitation of Standard Literary Aramaic.81 76  See Schattner-Rieser, L’araméen, 59; Muraoka, Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 40; cf. Syriac, where the pronoun was written with a he for historical reasons, even though it was ̄ = [aw]. no longer pronounced: ‫ܘܗܝ‬ 77  T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (2nd rev. ed.; HdO 32; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 50; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 61. The Qumran example is ‫נחירוה‬ “its nostrils” 11QtgJob [11Q10] 36:5. See Muraoka, Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 40. 78  S. E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (HSS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 175–76, 179. 79  For the Christian Palestinian Aramaic evidence, see M. Bar-Asher, “Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source-Texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977), 325–26 [Hebrew]. 80  Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns (vol. 3.2 of The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans; ed. Ben-Ḥayyim; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967), 147 [Hebrew]. 81  One finds ‫א‬- in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls: ‫“ שלמא‬they are/were perfect” 1QapGen [1Q20] 20:6, 22:28; ‫“ נסבא‬they took” 1QapGen [1Q20] 5:12; ‫“ הויה‬they were” 4QEnocha [4Q201] iii 16.

The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls 23

The few examples of he in the C-stem are most certainly in imitation of a literary and not a vernacular Aramaic since he was often unpronounced in speech at Qumran, as can be seen by its occasional omission in writing.82 Is the addition of he in these C-stem verbs part of the same archaizing process that reinserts a he in the two proper nouns ‫ יהוחנן‬and ‫( יהוסף‬reinterpreted as a C-stem verb?) in Second Temple epigraphic sources?83 The 1QIsaa forms ‫אוכלתי‬ and ‫ הוליכתי‬are indisputably Aramaic. The existence of G-stem verbal nouns and infinitives with prefixed mem need not be attributed to Aramaic influence since the use of such noun patterns as infinitives is attested already in Classical Biblical Hebrew, e.g., ‫למקרא‬ ‫“ העדה ולמסע את המחנות‬to summon the community and to set the divisions in motion” (Num 10:2). 9 Conclusion Aramaic has left a heavy imprint on the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly 1QIsaa. Other documents show less influence and may lend support to S. Weitzman’s view that the Qumran community sought to write in the Holy Tongue and “transcend the mundane reality,”84 and to the antilanguage nature of Qumran Hebrew argued by W. Schniedewind,85 though one would have thought that the scribe of 1QIsaa would have wanted to preserve the ipsissima verba of God, as did other scribes of other biblical manuscripts. It must be borne in mind that the biblical manuscripts at Qumran with which one can compare 1QIsaa are fragmentary and so the more limited extent of Aramaic influence on different manuscripts may be an optical illusion. Among nonbiblical manuscripts, the Community Rule (1QS) has a number of Aramaisms; 4QTest [4Q175] should also be singled out since, relative to its size, there are several Aramaic-looking features.86 This is not surprising since both manuscripts were copied by the same scribe.87

82  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile,” 29. 83  For a discussion of these names and bibliography, see D. Talshir, “Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Personal Names,” ScrHier 37 (1998): 365–79. 84  S. Weitzman, “Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” JAOS 119 (1999): 35–45, at 45. 85  W. M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52, esp. 235. 86  See n. 37 above. 87  Cross, “Testimonia,” 308.

24

Fassberg

Lexical, phonological, and semantic borrowings occur in varying degrees in different manuscripts according to the official nature of the document and the skill of its scribe. No doubt conservative orthography and a desire to write Hebrew hide additional forms. Of the alleged morphological loans, two occur in more scrolls than just 1QIsaa: the 2 fem. sg. pronominal elements with final [ī] and the 3 masc. sg. suffix ‫והי‬- on plural nouns and as an object suffix. In the light of the general infrequency of morphological loans from one language into another, even those in close contact, I suggest that these and other morphological-looking borrowings are not loans in Hebrew from a spoken Aramaic. In the case of the 2 fem. sg. forms, they are old Hebrew forms that have been exploited because they are attested in literary Aramaic and because they embellish the text. I think the morphological borrowing of ‫והי‬- is also probably from Standard Literary Aramaic, and it reflects the general desire of Qumran scribes to lengthen forms in order to raise the register of the language.88 Do we really know what the Aramaic of the scribes sounded like?89 After all, we possess only literary texts, and judging from later Palestinian Aramaic, it looked considerably different.

88  Cross, ibid., 308–9, calls the orthography “baroque” and the forms “archaic and pseudoarchaic literary forms.” 89  See Greenfield, “Standard Literary Aramaic,” 281.

The Tiberian Vocalization and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period Jan Joosten 1 Introduction While the Tiberian system of vocalization was developed only in the Middle Ages, the information encoded in the Tiberian vowels added to the Masoretic text is probably considerably older.1 Some past and present Hebraists tend to view the Masoretes themselves as the ones who created the vocalization on the basis of their general knowledge of Hebrew and the Biblical text.2 Most specialists agree, however, that the Tiberian Masoretes based their vocalization on an oral reading tradition stretching back to the time when some form of Hebrew was still a living language.3 The Tiberian vocalization preserves a host of features that could not be derived from the consonantal text, and nevertheless appear to represent genuine linguistic features of Hebrew: – The distinction between shin and sin is not one of vocalization, but the point distinguishing them was introduced at the same time as the vowels. In some cases, Hebrew sin may have been selected so as to accord with a samek in Aramaic, but the letter also occurs in many words not attested in that language (e.g., ‫“ חשף‬to strip off,” ‫“ נגש‬to press, drive,” ‫“ רמש‬to creep”). Comparative grammar shows that it is almost always correctly used in these instances as well.4 – The difference between infinitive construct (‫ ) ֱאכֹל‬and infinitive absolute (‫ ) ָאכֹל‬is for most verbs a matter of vocalization only. The distinction 1  See S. Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes: Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora, I: Das Buch Genesis (BZAW 339; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 1–10. 2  See, e.g., P. Kahle, “Die überlieferte Aussprache des Hebräischen und die Punktation der Masoreten,” ZAW 39 (1921): 220–39; R. Bartelmus, Einführung in das Biblische Hebräisch (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994), 20–22. 3  See the recent review of the evidence in G. A. Khan, A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2012), in particular 46–48. 4  See R. Steiner, “Addenda to The Case for Fricative Laterals,” in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 85th Birthday (ed. A. S. Kaye; Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1991), 2:1499–1514, in particular 1501–4 (where earlier literature is discussed).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_004

26

Joosten

is not attested in the same way in Arabic, Aramaic, or Rabbinic Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Masoretes get the morphology right in practically all cases. – The distinction between long and short forms in the prefix conjugation of middle weak verbs or in the Hiphil of strong verbs is another subtlety that could not be derived from Aramaic, Arabic, or Rabbinic Hebrew. Admittedly, it is often in accord with the consonantal spelling—the long form being written with a mater lectionis (‫)יַ ְפ ִקיד‬, the short form without (‫)יַ ְפ ֵקד‬. Yet the vocalization does not blindly follow the spelling. Long forms written defectively are almost always correctly pointed by the Masoretes.5 These features, and many others, can hardly have been “reconstructed” by the Masoretes on the basis of their knowledge of comparative Semitics. They must reflect an oral tradition going back to an age when the biblical idiom was still known at least to some.6 The present study will focus on some parallels and connections between Tiberian Hebrew and different varieties of Hebrew from the Second Temple period. 2

Methodological Remarks

It is not easy to compare Tiberian Hebrew, expressed as it is in the vowel pointing, with unvocalized texts produced in the Second Temple period and earlier. Even apart from the essential incommensurability of the data, the undertaking seems daunting: Second Temple Hebrew is not a unified language, but a collection of corpora exhibiting a wide variety of linguistic forms. The language of the main sectarian scrolls from Qumran differs along dialectal lines from the Hebrew of Ben Sira, and differs again from what transpires from transcriptions of Hebrew words in the Septuagint. In addition, there are problems of attestation: some of the documents are known from old manuscripts, while others 5  See, e.g., Deut 29:22; Judg 20:16; 1 Sam 20:13, 23:22; Isa 44:28; Jer 13:16, 32:5; Ezek 46:18; Mal 3:11. An exception would be ‫ ותינק‬in Exod 2:7, where one expects a short form. 6  In his dissertation, Uri Mor has recently defended the view that the period between the Jewish wars is the one when Hebrew died out as a living language; see U. Mor, “The 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). Note, however, that Steven Fassberg has recently enumerated some arguments for the view that Hebrew remained a spoken language in Palestine until much later; see S. Fassberg, “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak,” CBQ 74 (2012): 263–80, in particular 275–78.

The Tiberian Vocalization & the Hebrew of the 2nd Temple Period

27

have been transmitted through a textual tradition that can only partially be retraced. How can a linguist operate with such disparate materials? In dealing with these thorny questions it is important to keep an eye on the objective of the inquiry. The point at issue presently is the problem of the antiquity of the oral tradition leading up to the Tiberian vocalization. This issue can be discussed without having recourse to fine-grained dialectological analyses. What is of interest is not the location of Tiberian Hebrew on the dialectal spectrum of the Second Temple period, but the temporal anchoring of the tradition it represents. The perspective is historical. The question at issue is whether it is possible to find diachronic markers defining the time span when the Tiberian tradition originated. Some linguistic features spring up and die out in Hebrew at approximately datable periods. If such features can be identified in Tiberian Hebrew it will be possible to cast light on our problem. 3

Reinterpretation of Forgotten Words and Forms

A first category of promising features is that of forgotten words and forms. The history of Hebrew is a very long one, and many words were forgotten over time—although sometimes their meaning could later be recovered through close philological study. The phenomenon of forgotten words cannot usually be exploited in diachronic perspective: it is hard to know when the meaning of a word fell into oblivion. In a few cases, however, words that had fallen from use were then reinterpreted and used in a new meaning. The attestation of such (pseudo-classical) reinterpretation can at times be dated at least approximately. Where the reinterpretation turns up in the Tiberian pointing, it can become a diagnostic feature in the sense defined above. A well-known example of this phenomenon is the noun ‫ ַצ ְל ָמוֶ ת‬.7 In the Hebrew Bible, this word occurs only in poetical texts, almost always in combination with words like ‫ חשך‬or ‫ אפל‬meaning “darkness.” Its general meaning is not in doubt. But its precise interpretation has been the object of debate. According to the Tiberian vocalization (as well as the Babylonian: ṣilmâwät),8 ‫ ַצ ְל ָמוֶ ת‬is a composite word consisting of ‫“ צל‬shadow” and ‫“ מות‬death.” The

7  See C. Cohen, “The Meaning of ‫‘ צלמות‬Darkness’: A Study in Philological Method,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. V. Fox; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 287–309. 8  See I. Yeivin, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), 2:812.

28

Joosten

Mekilta explains: “‫( מהו צלמות‬in ref. to Jer 2:6)? ‫מקום צל ועמו מות‬.”9 This etymology is endorsed in the lexical works of Ibn Janah and David Qimhi. By their time a derivation from the root ‫“ צלם‬to be dark”—rare in Hebrew but well-known in Arabic—had been envisaged. But Ibn Janah and Qimhi argued that the pointing doesn’t allow this connection.10 Eight hundred years later, Wilhelm Gesenius still held on to this traditional point of view. In the Thesaurus the word is listed under the root ‫צלל‬, with the express indication that it is a composite.11 By his time, however, critical scholars had found a way to overcome the problem of the vocalization. According to Johann Michaëlis, the noun should simply be repointed. It might originally have been pronounced ṣalmût (or ṣalmôt, or ṣallamût).12 Over the last two hundred years, most knowledgeable scholars have adopted this opinion. Recent dictionaries agree in deriving the word from the root ‫צלם‬.13 A major argument in favor of this view is that Hebrew has very few genuine composites.14 Alleged parallels such as ‫ עזמות‬and ‫ חצרמות‬are proper nouns and as such should not be used to explain a common noun. Moreover, the Ugaritic texts have provided a precise cognate in the word ẓlmt “darkness”—incidentally confirming the non-consonantal status of the waw in the Hebrew word.15 The upshot of these considerations is that the precise meaning of the poetic word ‫צלמות‬, originally pronounced ṣalmût or something similar, was, at some point in the history of Hebrew, forgotten and subsequently reinterpreted according to a type of “folk etymology” entailing a different pronunciation. It appears that the change from the original noun to the reinterpreted pseudocomposite can be dated approximately. The biblical occurrences, all reflecting the original usage of the word, take us down to the sixth century—note especially Jer 2:6 and 13:16.16 The reinterpretation, for its part, is clearly attested in the standard Septuagint rendering of the word as σκιὰ θανάτου “shadow 9   H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin, eds., Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael (Breslau, 1930; repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1997), 54. 10  Ibn Janah, Book of Hebrew Roots (ed. A. Neubauer; Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), 611; D. Qimhi, Sefer hashorashim (ed. J. H. R. Biesenthal and F. Liebrecht; Berlin: Friedländer, 1847), 313. 11  Gesenius, Thesaurus, 3:1169. 12  Cited in W. Gesenius, Hebräisch–deutsches Handwörterbuch (2 vols.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1810– 1812), 2:974. 13  Thus HAL, HAHAT (but not DCH). 14  The only real exception is ‫ ֶׁשנְ ַה ִּבים‬in 1 Kgs 10:22 and parallel. 15  For more details and secondary literature, see the study by Chaim Cohen cited above in n. 7. 16  Some exegetes are of the opinion that the occurrences of the word in Ps 44:20 and 107:10, 14 are very late. It is hard to attain certainty in these matters.

The Tiberian Vocalization & the Hebrew of the 2nd Temple Period

29

of death.”17 Thus the reinterpretation must have occurred between the sixth and the second century BCE. It is a reasonable hypothesis to say that the word fell into oblivion because of the disruption caused by the Judaean exile. The Tiberian vocalization reflects the later form and appears to hark back to this period.18 Another, equally famous example is the noun ‫יפח‬/‫ יפיח‬meaning “witness,” pointed almost everywhere as if it were a form of the verb ‫“ פוח‬to blow.” In this case the correct meaning of the word was retrieved only in the twentieth century after the discovery of Ugaritic.19 Otherwise, the history of this word is comparable to that of ‫צלמות‬: while the word is still used correctly by Habakkuk, at the very end of the seventh century, by the time of the Septuagint translators its meaning is completely forgotten. In the Greek version, the word is generally interpreted as a finite verb, exactly as in the MT. These examples show, rather persuasively, that elements of the Tiberian vocalization were stabilized during the Second Temple period. 4

Grammatical Modernizations

A number of grammatical modernizations also indicate a connection between Tiberian Hebrew and the Second Temple period. Like words, grammatical forms and constructions fell into disuse over the long existence of the Hebrew language, while others arose in their place. Just as in the case of the forgotten words discussed above, some old grammatical features were later misunderstood and analyzed differently. In some instances, this reanalysis shows up in the vocalization. The old Hebrew morphology presupposed by the consonantal text is overlaid by a more recent system. Although grammatical modernizations may affect single forms, they more typically concern groups of instances, thus strengthening the case.

17  This is the standard rendering everywhere except in the book of Job, where other equivalents are found as well. 18  For completeness’ sake it should be signaled that the word is attested once with context in the Qumran Scrolls: ‫“ וישוכו בעדי בצלמות‬They hedged about me with utter darkness” (1QHa 13:35). It is difficult to know from this sole occurrence how the author of the Hodayot would explain the word, let alone how he would vocalize it. Without context the word is found in 4Q509 189 3. In later Hebrew, the word is, unless I err, used only in reference to the biblical text. 19  See D. Pardee, “Ypḥ ‘witness’ in Hebrew and Ugaritic,” VT 28 (1978): 204–13.

30

Joosten

Several examples of possible grammatical modernization have been pointed out by various scholars, first Mayer Lambert, and after him H. L. Ginsberg, Elisha Qimron, Jeremy Hughes, David Talshir, and no doubt others.20 Some of these authors, such as Lambert and Ginsberg, loosely speak of “Rabbinic Hebrew” influence on the Masoretic pointing. But the discoveries of the Qumran texts and subsequent research on Second Temple Hebrew show that many of the later features underlying the vocalization existed already in the Second Temple period.21 Two case studies will illustrate this point. 4.1 The Use of WEYIQTOL instead of WEQATAL with pe-yod verbs In classical Hebrew prose, the two syntagms we + prefix conjugation and we + suffix conjugation (WEQATAL) are usually kept apart: the first expresses volition (or “light subordination”)22 and teams up with the cohortative, imperative, and jussive, while the second expresses more general futurity and interacts with clause-internal YIQTOL (the long form of the prefix conjugation). In other words, we + prefix conjugation essentially, in classical prose, represents we + jussive. The meanings and functions of the jussive are close to those of WEQATAL, but they are not identical.23

20  M. Lambert, “Le waw conversif,” REJ 26 (1883): 47–62; Lambert, “L’emploi du Nifal en hébreu,” REJ 41 (1900), 196–214; H. L. Ginsberg, “‫מבעד למסורת‬,” Tarbiz 5 (1934–35): 208–23 and Tarbiz 6 (1935–36): 543; J. Hughes, “Post-Biblical Features of Biblical Hebrew Vocalization,” in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (ed. S. E. Balentine and J. Barton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 67–80; E. Qimron, “‫על מסורת הלשון של סופרי המקרא‬,” Hadassah Shy Jubilee Book (ed. Y. Bentolila; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1997), 37–43; D. Talshir, “‫אחות בלשון רבים ועדות בלשון יחיד בעברית העתיקה‬,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal (ed. M. BarAsher and M. Florentin; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2005), 159–75. See now also Khan, Short Introduction, 48–50. 21  In a recent study on the form ‫ זְ ִמרֹות‬in Biblical Hebrew, Noam Mizrahi has expressly established a link between the grammatical modernizations in the Tiberian vocalization and Second Temple Hebrew; see N. Mizrahi, “Colliding Traditions in Biblical Hebrew in Historical Linguistic Perspective,” in ISRAEL: Linguistic Studies in the Memory of Israel Yeivin (ed. R. I. Zer and Y. Ofer; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Bible Project, 2011), 341–54, xxviii [Hebrew, with English abstract]. 22  JM §116, “Indirect volitive moods.” 23  See J. Joosten, “Textual Developments and Historical Linguistics,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books (ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera; BETL 246; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 21–31; in more detail, Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012).

The Tiberian Vocalization & the Hebrew of the 2nd Temple Period

31

This state of affairs raises doubts as to the vocalization of the form weyira‌ʾu in the following formulaic passages: Deut 17:13

‫ל־ה ָעם יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּו וְ לֹא יְ זִ ידּון עֹוד‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬

All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again. Deut 19:20

‫וְ ַהּנִ ְׁש ָא ִרים יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּו וְ לֹא־י ִֹספּו ַל ֲעׂשֹות עֹוד ַּכ ָּד ָבר ָה ָרע ַהּזֶ ה‬

The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed. Deut 21:21

‫ּוב ַע ְר ָּת ָה ָרע ִמ ִּק ְר ֶּבָך וְ ָכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּו‬ ִ

So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear and be afraid. The use of clause-internal YIQTOL in the first clause, would lead one to expect a WEQATAL form in the second clause. Functionally, none of the usual meanings of we + jussive fits the passages well: one should hardly attribute a volitive (“and may they be afraid”) or telic (“so that they may be afraid”) nuance to the second clause. These considerations may seem somewhat subjective, but they can be backed up by two more structural observations. Firstly, the cases enumerated (to which Deut 13:12 is to be added, see below) are practically the only cases of we + prefix conjugation in the Deuteronomic Code.24 The legislative style has no place for volitive forms. Secondly, in the one instance where the Deuteronomic formula is varied in a way that puts a different verb in the second slot, WEQATAL is used instead of we + prefix conjugation: Deut 31:13

‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫יהם ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא־יָ ְדעּו יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ ָל ְמדּו ְליִ ְר ָאה ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ֵ‫ּובנ‬ ְ

24  The exceptions occur in quoted direct discourse: Deut 13:3, 7, 14; 20:5, 6, 7, 8; and in a motivation clause Deut 16:19.

32

Joosten

Their children, who have not known it, will hear and learn to fear the Lord your God. What all this leads up to is that instead of we + prefix conjugation, the original text of Deuteronomy was intended to be read as WEQATAL in all these passages: ‫וְ יָ ְראּו‬. It appears that in the later reading tradition, the form was adapted to the syntax of post-classical Hebrew in which we + YIQTOL is regularly used in legislative discourse, as is indeed the norm in Qumran Hebrew.25 First-yod verbs have the particularity that the consonantal shape of third person forms is the same for the prefix conjugation as for the suffix conjugation. This made it possible to read WEQATAL as we + YIQTOL.26 It is hard to say when the change in the reading tradition, from WEQATAL to we + YIQTOL, was made. Non-volitive we + YIQTOL is found already in the later biblical books,27 and is still frequent in Mishnaic Hebrew. An indication as to the relatively high date of the change is that in one or two passages, it shows up in the consonantal text as well: Deut 13:12

‫וְ ָכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּון‬

All Israel will hear and be afraid. Although the paragogic nun is attached to the suffix conjugation once or twice,28 it typically features with the long form of the suffix conjugation.29 The addition of the nun in ‫ וְ יִ ָראּון‬suggests, therefore, that the form was already read as a prefixed form.30 Similar considerations can be made in regard to another 25  See, e.g., 1QS 6:1–2: ‫באלה יתהלכו בכול מגוריהם כול הנמצא איש את רעהו וישמעו הקטן‬ ‫“ לגדול למלאכה ולממון‬By these rules they are to govern themselves wherever they dwell, in accordance with each legal finding that bears upon communal life. Inferiors must obey their ranking superiors as regards work and wealth.” 26  The same phenomenon affects the Samaritan Pentateuch more systematically, see Joosten, “Textual developments,” 26–27. 27  See Ezek 12:25; 14:7; 27:30; 40:42. For a full list of occurrences, see Joosten, Verbal System, 308–11. 28  JM § 42f (Deut 8:3, 16; Isa 26:16). 29  See W. R. Garr, “The Paragogic nun in Rhetorical Perspective,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006), 65–74. 30  The Samaritan Pentateuch does not attest the paragogic nun in this passage. Omission of paragogic nun is a normal phenomenon in this textual witness.

The Tiberian Vocalization & the Hebrew of the 2nd Temple Period

33

attestation of we + YIQTOL of the same verb even although it does not occur in the same formula: Deut 2:4

‫י־ע ָׂשו ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ֵׂש ִעיר וְ יִ ְיראּו ִמ ֶּכם‬ ֵ ֵ‫יכם ְּבנ‬ ֶ ‫ַא ֶּתם ע ְֹב ִרים ִּבגְ בּול ֲא ֵח‬

You are about to pass through the territory of your kindred, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you. Here too, one expects the WEQATAL form ‫וְ יָ ְראּו‬. The pointing probably reflects secondary adaptation to later syntax. And here, too, the consonantal text concurs with the pointing.31 The fact that the reading of the forms as prefix conjugation shows up in the consonantal text tends to indicate that the putative change from WEQATAL to we + YIQTOL came about in the Second Temple period. 4.2 The Shortening of YIQTOL when it is Preceded by waw Another case of grammatical modernization allowing a good handle on the diachronic question is the following. As Elisha Qimron has shown, Late Biblical and Qumran Hebrew tend to use the long and short forms of the prefix conjugation as syntactically conditioned allomorphs—the long form being used in clause-internal position, the short form at the head of the clause, particularly with waw:32 Dan 11:4

‫ּוכ ָע ְמדֹו ִּת ָּׁש ֵבר ַמ ְלכּותֹו וְ ֵת ָחץ ְל ַא ְר ַּבע רּוחֹות ַה ָּׁש ָמיִ ם‬ ְ

And while still rising in power, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven. The reason for the use of the short form ‫ וְ ֵת ָחץ‬is not that the meaning is jussive—it isn’t—, but simply that the form occurs at the head of the clause following waw. The meaning of short and long forms is, in LBH, the same: both may be used over a wide range of predictive and modal statements. The LBH system is 31  In 4QDeuth [4Q35], the form is written with one yod: ‫ויראו‬. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, the form is written with two yods in all passages: Deut 2:4; 13:12; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21. 32  See E. Qimron, “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: the Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew,” JQR 77 (1987): 149–61, esp. 151–53.

34

Joosten

superficially similar to that of Classical Hebrew, where long and short forms tend to occur in the same syntactic positions, but in CBH the forms do in fact express distinct functions: the imperfect is used in predictive discourse, whereas the jussive expresses volition or “light subordination.” In a context like that of Dan 11:4, Classical Hebrew would not have used the jussive but WEQATAL. LBH grammar has affected the pointing of CBH texts in a few places where a long form has been shortened due to the prefixed waw: Exod 19:3

‫אמר ְל ֵבית יַ ֲעקֹב וְ ַתּגֵ יד ִל ְבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ֹ ‫ּכֹה ת‬

Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel. In this example, the second imperfect form does not have a jussive meaning. According to the CBH system, the form should therefore be read wetaggîd, as is confirmed by the consonantal orthography.33 The form is to be regarded as a normal imperfect.34 It was mechanically vocalized as a jussive according to the LBH system, because it was preceded by waw.35 If this explanation is correct, the vocalization of we + prefix conjugation as a short form in Exod 19:3 can only be attributed to Second Temple times. It accords with the syntax of LBH and Qumran Hebrew, but in later Hebrew the short form became obsolete. 5

Tiberian Hebrew and the Second Temple Period

The lexical and grammatical features inspected above show rather clearly that elements of the Tiberian vocalization hail back to the Second Temple period. By itself this is an interesting insight, establishing at once the great antiquity of the tradition on which the Masoretes based their work, and the secondary nature of some of the features this tradition incorporates. 33  Note also that CBH does not use the jussive in the second person except following the negation ʾal: the second person volitive is the imperative. 34  For the syntax of the passage, see J. Joosten, “A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions: On NonVolitive yiqtol in Clause-Initial Position,” in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ: Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm (ed. G. Geiger; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2011), 213–19. 35  Thus also in Mic 3:4; 6:14; Ps 85:14 (but not in Amos 9:10).

The Tiberian Vocalization & the Hebrew of the 2nd Temple Period

35

It would be tempting to generalize this conclusion and situate the origin of the entire reading tradition leading up to the Tiberian vocalization, and the linguistic knowledge it incorporates, in this period. The time of the Second Temple is the period to which our earliest biblical manuscripts belong, the period when the biblical text became the object of intense study and commentary, the period in which we first hear of public reading of the Bible. One could easily imagine that this is also the time when more or less fixed reading traditions were established.36 Nevertheless, such a conclusion would be essentially misguided. As clear as the fact that some features of the Tiberian vocalization first emerged during the Second Temple period is the fact that precisely those features are late and secondary. Reinterpreted words and grammatical modernizations are characteristic items of Tiberian Hebrew, yet they are also exceptions proving the rule. For every “forgotten word” re-vocalized according to late exegesis, Tiberian Hebrew relays innumerable old words whose morphological shape is transmitted correctly. For every construction overlaid by later grammatical rules, there are many constructions of classical Hebrew that are faithfully reproduced in the Masoretic tradition. The stream of tradition that issued in the Tiberian vowels underwent important changes in the Second Temple period, but it goes back much further. Precisely how much further is a question that cannot be addressed in the present context.37 An entirely different issue is whether the alterations introduced during the Second Temple period were the last ones that affected the reading tradition inherited by the Tiberian Masoretes. There is no reason of principle to exclude the possibility that similar changes came about even later in the stream of tradition, in late antiquity or during the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, one should be cautious in postulating such changes. Paul Kahle famously attempted, during the 1920s and 1930s, to identify a number of late—and, in his view, artificial— 36  Stefan Schorch has tried to define more precisely the period when oral reading traditions of the biblical text crystallized. On the basis of an array of evidence, some of it rather loosely connected to the issue, he argues for the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BCE as the most likely period when fixed reading traditions may have been established. See Schorch, Vokale des Gesetzes, 56–60. 37  A few cases may be found where an opposition between CBH and LBH is expressed solely in the vocalization. Such cases seem to indicate that the vocalization of CBH texts was transmitted faithfully all the way down from pre-exilic times. See for the time being S. Morag, “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94 (1974): 307–15; D. Boyarin, “Towards the Talmudic Lexicon IV,” in Te‘uda VI: Studies in Hebrew and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron (ed. Aron Dotan; Tel Aviv: University Publishing, 1988), 63–75, in particular 63–64.

36

Joosten

features in the Tiberian vocalization, only to be proved spectacularly wrong by subsequent discoveries.38 Until someone brings new and better evidence, the existence of post-Second Temple features in Tiberian Hebrew will remain a mere theoretical possibility. 6 Conclusions To non-specialists the idea of an oral tradition accurately transmitting linguistic information over a millennium or more is hard to envisage. Hebrew scholars have had to adjust their critical acumen to this idea, however, because so many facts support it. Not only Tiberian Hebrew, but other traditions as well—the Babylonian vocalization, the Samaritan reading tradition—appear to link up with genuine varieties of the language from a period when it was still spoken. Of all the vocalization systems, the Tiberian is the most extensively preserved. The evidence examined in the present paper indicates that the information it transmits is of very high quality. Although it incorporates some manifestly secondary features, the most striking of these arguably go back to the Second Temple period. Since the secondary features are to be qualified as exceptions proving the rule, much else in the Tiberian tradition would appear to be even older. The Hebrew Bible hasn’t come to us in autographs, dug up recently in archeological excavations. It has been mediated by a century-long tradition. Although the consonants and the vocalization of this text have travelled partly along distinct itineraries, our basic attitude to them should be similar. Textual critics, exegetes, and grammarians need to adopt a critical attitude toward both the consonantal text and the vocalization: to confront variant traditions and to be prepared to admit that even when only one text form is attested it might be secondary. They also need to respect the tradition, however, and to realize to what extraordinary extent it faithfully transmits information coming to us from the mists of time.

38  See the review of the question in L. L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 179–97.

Priests of Qoreb: Linguistic Enigma and Social Code in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Noam Mizrahi Introduction The liturgical composition known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is one of the most enigmatic works discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls. To be sure, its state of preservation is considerably better than that of many other works, due to the presence of nine or ten copies; fragmentary as they are, they overlap in many passages, a fact that allowed Carol Newsom to reconstruct much of the work in her admirable edition.1 This reconstruction enabled her and subsequent scholars to account for the literary structure of the work as being composed of thirteen songs, and to expose its somewhat esoteric or even mystical contents. The most baffling aspect of the Songs, however, remains its language. Although its entire inventory of lexical items and grammatical forms is attested elsewhere in QH or other corpora,2 in this composition they are boldly combined into unique phrases and seemingly wild syntactic constructions that are often so exceptional as to verge on unintelligible. A reader may be relieved to at last encounter a clause with what appears to be a comprehensive 1  The manuscripts are generally quoted according to the following editions: C. Newsom, DJD 11:173–401, pl. xvi–xxxi; F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, DJD 23:259–304, pl. xxx–xxxiv. I have also consulted the preliminary edition of C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985). A new composite edition is that of E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2015), 2:358–84 [Hebrew]. 2  Hebrew corpora are abbreviated throughout this paper as follows: BH = Biblical Hebrew, divided to classical (CBH) and late (LBH) phases; QH = Qumran Hebrew; MH = Mishnaic Hebrew, referring especially to the language used by the early Rabbis, the Tannaim. LBH, QH, and MH comprise the main literary corpora that testify to Second Temple Hebrew, although it is acknowledged that they do not completely overlap in terms of their exact time, literary status, or social register. Quotations from rabbinic literature are taken from Ma⁠ʾagarim, the online database of the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of Hebrew Language (http:// hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il/), with references to the standard editions of the rabbinic works cited. Translations from the Hebrew Bible take their cue from the NRSV, but with many modifications. Other translations are my own, unless noted otherwise.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_005

38

Mizrahi

structure, only to discover within it a new riddle that reduces understanding to speculation. The following discussion focuses on one such mystery, which, to my mind, has not been addressed in a satisfactory way: the meaning of the collocation ‫כוהני קורב‬, which appears at least six times in three different Songs.3 Both the consistent use of this construct phrase and its distribution throughout the work indicate that it belongs to the core phraseology of the Songs and stems from the essential ideology encoded therein. Admittedly, the nomen regens (‫כוהני־‬, “priests of . . .”) is a well-known lexeme, amply recorded throughout the history of Hebrew, but the nomen rectum (‫ )קורב‬is anything but transparent from a semantic point of view, and it requires close linguistic analysis and detailed exegesis. 1

Primary Evidence

An overview of the actual contexts in which the collocation is embedded allows one to sketch a preliminary, cotextual definition of its usage.4 Since the grammatical form of the word spelled ‫ קורב‬is to be considered unknown at this initial stage of the inquiry, it will be rendered by its orthographical representation, i.e., ‹QWRB›. Song I: (1) [‫( ֯כוה[ני] קורב משרתי פני מלך קודש [קודשים‬4Q400 1 i 8 || 4Q401 15 3ʹ) Priests of ‹QWRB›, servants of the presence of the [most] holy King (2) ‫[ דעת בכוהני קורב ומפיהם הורות כול קדושים‬. . .] (4Q400 1 i 17) [. . .] Knowledge is among the priests of ‹QWRB›, and by their mouth is the teaching of all the holy ones. (3) ‫( יסד לו כוהני קורב קדושי קדושים‬4Q400 1 i 19) He had established for himself the priests of ‹QWRB›, the holiest among the holy ones. Song VIII: (4)  ‫פלא‬ ֯ ‫( שניים בכוהני קורב סוד שני במעון‬4Q403 1 ii 19 || 4Q405 8–9 [= col. E] 2–3) 3  For the time being it is also unique to the Songs, as no parallel to it has been detected in other Hebrew or Aramaic sources. 4  When quoting from the Dead Sea scrolls, overlapping manuscripts were merged into a composite text, so that brackets mark only conjectural restorations. The numbering of lines distinguishes, with the prime sign, between lines of columns (1, 2, 3) and lines of fragments (1ʹ, 2ʹ, 3ʹ).

Priests of Qoreb

39

Second among the priests of ‹QWRB›, a second council in the wondrous abode (5)  ‫( הללו [לאל] אלוהים שבע [כוהונ]ו֯ ת קורבו‬4Q405 8–9 4–5 || 4Q403 1 ii 20 || 11Q17 3 [= col. II] 6)5 Praise [the God of] gods, O seven [priestly order]s of His ‹QWRB›. (6) [. . .] ‫[ רוש מכוהן קורב וראשי עדת המלך בקהל‬. . .] (4Q403 1ii 24) Chief [. . .] from a priest of ‹QWRB›, and the chiefs of the King’s congregation in the assembly of [. . .] Song XI: (7)  ‫קור ֗ב‬ ֗ ֗‫ [דב]י֯ ֯רו כול ֗כוהני‬...‫[לו]א יתמהמהו בעומדם‬ ֗ (4Q405 20 ii–22 1ʹ [= col. J 10] || 11Q17 16–18 [= col. VII] 3) They shall [no]t delay in taking their stand . . . His [inner sanct] um, all the priests of ‹QWRB› Song I describes the establishment of the cultic function of the angels, and twice juxtaposes the collocation ‫ כוהני קורב‬with an appositive: ‫משרתי פני מלך‬ “servants of the king’s presence” (no. 1), and ‫קדושי קדושים‬, “the holiest among the holy ones” (3). These epithets demonstrate that the angels called ‫כוהני קורב‬ belong to the highest ranks of the priestly hierarchy at the heavenly temple, since they are allowed to be in the very presence of the divinity. A similar relation is implied by the designation ‫ראשי עדת המלך‬, “chiefs of the king’s congregation” (6), from Song VIII. Song I further informs us that these senior angels possess divine knowledge (2), and are thus in charge of the teaching (‫ )הורות‬of the other angels, called ‫קדושים‬, “holy ones.” The important position of these priests is reflected also in Song XI, which seems to place them in the inner sanctum (‫ )דביר‬of the heavenly temple (7). Songs VI–VIII portray a picture according to which seven groups or orders of priests officiate in the celestial shrine; these are probably denoted by the term ‫( כהונות קורב‬5).6 Song VIII focuses on the second order, which consists of ‫נשיאי משנה‬, “deputy princes,” and defines them as ‫שניים בכוהני קורב סוד שני במעון פלא‬, “second among the priests of ‹QWRB›, a second council in the wondrous abode” (4). The functional matrix that emerges from this survey is that the collocation ‫כוהני קורב‬ refers to the angels that serve as priests in the heavenly temple, and best fits a

5  For the restoration ‫שבע [כוהונ]ו֯ ת‬, cf. further in the Song VIII: ‫כו֗ ֯ה[נות] ֗ש ֗בע במקדש פלא‬ ‫לשבעת סודי קודש‬, “seven priest[ly orders] in the wondrous temple for the seven holy cadres” (4Q403 1 ii 22). 6  For the use of the noun ‫ כהונה‬to denote a group of priests, see 1 Sam 2:36; cf. Neh 13:9.

40

Mizrahi

select group of them—those who hold the highest ranking positions in the celestial hierarchy.7 2

Current Interpretation and its Problems

2.1 Newsom’s Interpretation Newsom established the standard understanding of the expression by consistently translating all its occurrences as “priests of the inner sanctum.” The word ‫ קורב‬is thus taken as a reference to the innermost part of the temple, functioning as a virtual synonym of the architectural term ‫דביר‬. This interpretation is based on the premise that ‫ קורב‬is nothing but a morphological biform of the BH noun ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬in the sense of “inner part.”8 Indeed, the use of this lexeme in relation to the temple was compared by Newsom to a biblical psalmodic passage:9 (8) ‫ֹלהים ַח ְס ֶּדָך ְּב ֶק ֶרב ֵה ָיכ ֶלָך‬ ִ ‫( ִּד ִּמינּו ֱא‬Ps 48:10) We ponder your steadfast love, O God, in the midst of your palace. Newsom backed her argument that ‫ קורב‬is a biform of ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬with a seemingly unequivocal piece of evidence adduced from a biblical quotation embedded in another work found in Qumran, the so-called Pesher Melchizedek: (9) ‫ֹלהים יִ ְׁשּפֹט‬ ִ ‫ֹלהים נִ ָּצב ַּב ֲע ַדת ֵאל ְּב ֶק ֶרב ֱא‬ ִ ‫( ֱא‬Ps 82:1) God has taken his place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. 7  The form ‫ קורב‬appears in two additional phrases, one that may come from Song IV: ‫קדושי‬ ‫קורב‬, “the holy ones of ‹QWRB›” (4Q401 16 2ʹ || 4Q402 9 4), and the other from Song IX: ‫רוחי‬ ‫קורב קודש קודשים‬, “the spirits of ‹QWRB›, holy of holies” (4Q405 14–15 i 4ʹ [=col. G 19] || 4Q403 3 2ʹ). Both phrases are unique, and seem to be variations of the more basic term ‫כוהני‬ ‫קורב‬, which recurs in the Songs. 8  See, e.g., Newsom, Songs, 36–37; cf. B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chipman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 288 n. 47. Newsom’s interpretation also underlies James Davila’s attempt to connect ‫ כוהני קורב‬with the figure of the archangel Metatron, known from much later sources as the angel who bears God’s name within him, following biblical proof-texts such as Exod 23:20–23 (mentioning a divine messenger about whom God says: ‫כי שמי בקרבו‬, “for my name is within him”) and Isa 63:7–14. See his paper, “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” DSD 9 (2002): 1–19, esp. 12–17, elaborating his earlier comment in Liturgical Works (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 98. 9  Newson, Songs, 36–37.

Priests of Qoreb

41

(10) ‫בע[דת אל ] ֗בקורב אלוהים‬ ֗ ‫ אלוהים [נ] ֗צב‬:‫כאשר כתוב עליו בשירי ֗דו֗ יד אשר אמר‬ ‫( ישפוט‬11Q13 ii 9–10) As it is said concerning it in the Songs of David, who has said: “God has taken his place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.” While the Tiberian vocalization of the MT has ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬qέrεb, which originates in *qirb-, the quoted passage contains an alternative form that is spelled plene, with a waw. Presumably, this is also a segholate form, but one that goes back to *qurb-, which in the Tiberian tradition would have yielded ‫ ק ֶֹרב‬qórεb. Apparently this is a case of the common interchange between nouns of the primitive patterns *qitl/qatl on the one hand and *qutl on the other, which is a common feature of QH.10 2.2 Counter Considerations The morphological facts adduced by Newsom are indisputable, but in my judgment their relevance for the interpretation of ‫ כוהני קורב‬can be questioned for several reasons. 2.2.1 Semantics First and foremost, there is no clear evidence anywhere in Hebrew that ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬has ever been used as an architectural term in general, or denoted the holiest part of the temple in particular. This is certainly not the meaning of Ps 82:1 (no. 9), and there is no indication that Ps 48:10 (no. 8) refers necessarily to the inner sanctum rather than the temple in general. Moreover, the very assumption that the form ‫ קורב‬in the Songs can be interpreted as “inner part” may be misguided, as it does not give sufficient weight to a crucial semantic distinction between two different usages in BH: (a) The substantive ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬is a primary noun that denotes the entrails, and this concrete meaning is particularly clear whenever the word is used in unbound constructions: (11) ‫ וְ ַה ֶּק ֶרב וְ ַה ְּכ ָר ַעיִ ם יִ ְר ַחץ ַּב ָּמיִ ם וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַהּכ ֵֹהן ֶאת ַהּכֹל‬. . . ‫( וְ ָׁש ַחט אֹתֹו‬Lev 1:11–13) He shall slaughter it . . . He shall wash the entrails and the legs with water. Then the priest shall offer the whole. 10   E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 65 §330.1a. For the wider phonological background of this interchange, see E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 452–96.

42

Mizrahi

(12) ‫תח ֗מי֗ ר מעי דך וקרב עני אל תכאיב‬ ֗ ‫( אל‬Sir 4:2–3 [ms a]) Do not churn the stomach of an oppressed person; and to the entrails of a poor man, do not cause pain.11 (b) By contrast, the more abstract notion of “inner part” is found, if at all, only in bound usages of the word, notably when it forms part of the prepositional phrases ‫ ְּב ֶק ֶרב‬and ‫ ִמ ֶּק ֶרב‬. These forms are the product of grammaticalzation of the word when used figuratively. Thus, for instance, ‫( ְּב ֶק ֶרב ָה ָעם‬e.g., Num 14:14) “in the entrails of the people” > “in the midst of the people” > “among the people”; ‫( ְּב ֶק ֶרב ָה ָא ֶרץ‬e.g., Gen 45:6) “in the entrails of the land” > “in the midst of the land” > “within the land.” The semantic change gave rise to syntactic reanalysis, in which the distinct components of the prepositional phrases were fused together and reinterpreted as a single, compound preposition, that is: ]‫[ ֶק ֶרב ָה ָעם‬+‫“ ְּב‬in [the entrails of the people]” > “in [the midst of the people]” > ‫ ֶק ֶרב] ָה ָעם‬+‫[“ [ ְּב‬in the midst of] the people” > “[among] the people” (cf. Judg 18:20).12 This semantic and syntactic development follows a predictable path, being a typological process that is well-attested cross-linguistically.13 Against this background, it becomes clear that the use of ‫ ְּב ֶק ֶרב‬in (8) and (9) is in no way exceptional. Synchronically, it functions as an extended form of the simple preposition ‫ ְּב־‬. Translating it as “in the midst” in both psalms is thus somewhat misleading; “among” would be a more idiomatic rendition. In any case, this bound usage—as part of compound prepositions—signifies 11  For the first hemistich, cf. Lam 1:20. 12  A comparable development was operative in the metaphorical use of the lexeme ‫לב‬ “heart,” for instance: ‫עד ֵלב ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם‬,ַ lit. “up to the heart of the heavens” > fig. “to the very heavens” (Deut 4:11); ‫ּב ֶלב יָ ם‬,ְ lit. “in the heart of the sea” > fig. “in the deep sea” (Exod 15:8). Cf. further ]‫[תֹוְך הבית‬+‫“ ְּב־‬in [the midst of the house]” > ‫תֹוְך] הבית‬+‫[ּב־‬ ְ “[within] the house,” and not necessarily in its middle part (cf. Ezek 23:39). For this semantic change in Hebrew and Akkadian, and for the semantic relation between ‫“ ֶק ֶרב‬entrails” and ‫ֵלב‬ “heart”, see E. Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (Paris: Geuthner, 1923), 109–12. Note, in passing, that the grammaticalization of ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬may go back to very early times; A. D. Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalzation (HSS 57; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 46 §3.3.1, cautiously considers the possibility that this development took place already in Proto-Afro-Asiatic, since it is attested in Egyptian. For the linguistic prehistory of the various Semitic cognates, cf. Y. L. Arbeitman, “You Gotta Have Heart,” in Humanism, Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff (ed. A. Afsaruddin and A. H. M. Zahniser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 363–68. 13  See, e.g., B. Heine and T. Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 53–54, s.v. “belly (‘Belly, Stomach’) > in (Spatial)”.

Priests of Qoreb

43

nothing as far as the unbound use of ‫( ֶק ֶרב‬or ‫ )ק ֶֹרב‬as an independent lexeme is concerned, and the alleged sense of “inner part” is not independently attested in ancient Hebrew. 2.2.2 Historical Development Another consideration militating against the lexical identification of the Songs’ ‫ קורב‬with ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬is that the latter form has been rendered obsolete in Second Temple Hebrew. This is evident in two complementary processes that were operative in the language of the literary sources that survive from this period. (a) Morphology: For denoting the original, concrete sense of the noun, a new grammatical form has been coined in Second Temple Hebrew. Rather than using the old singular ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬, an innovative dual (or dual-like) is preferred, namely, ‫ ְק ָר ַביִ ם‬.14 This form is first attested as a suffixed form in LBH: (13) ‫( ָּב ְר ִכי נַ ְפ ִׁשי ֶאת ה׳ וְ ָכל ְק ָר ַבי ֶאת ֵׁשם ָק ְדׁשֹו‬Ps 103:1)15 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all my organs (lit. “my entrails”), bless his holy name. In its independent form, ‫ ְק ָר ַביִ ם‬is attested in QH. A telling example is furnished by Jub. 21:8, which reworks an earlier, Pentateuchal prescription: (14a) ‫( וְ ֵאת ָּכל ַה ֵח ֶלב ֲא ֶׁשר ַעל ַה ֶּק ֶרב וְ ֵאת ְׁש ֵּתי ַה ְּכ ָלי ֹת‬Lev 3:3–4) . . . and all the fat that is around the entrails, and the two kidneys . . . vs. (14b) ‫( [וא] ֯ת ה[ח] ֯לב אשר על הקרבים ואת הכליות‬4QJube [4Q220] 1 7ʹ) . . . [and] the [f]at that is around the entrails, and the kidneys . . . The adapter’s most conspicuous touch is the replacement of the older singular ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬by the innovative dual ‫ ְק ָר ַביִ ם‬, which was current in his vernacular. 14  This is perhaps on formal analogy with other terms that denote body parts: ‫“ יָ ַדיִ ם‬hands”, ‫“ ַרגְ ַליִ ם‬feet”, ‫“ ֵעינַ יִ ם‬eyes”, and especially ‫“ ֵמ ַעיִ ם‬internal organs”. Alternatively, the dual ending might reflect an anatomical distinction between the small intestine and the colon. 15  That Ps 103 belongs to the LBH corpus has been established, on independent grounds, by A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972), 107–30 [Hebrew]. Interestingly, the dual-like form is witnessed only by the vocalization, whereas the consonantal text ‫ קרבי‬is apt also for the singular form ‫ק ְר ִּבי‬,ִ which is common in CBH (cf. Isa 16:11; Ps 5:5; 94:19). The vocalization tradition thus captures, in this case, a grammatical difference between CBH and LBH that is not encoded in the consonantal text.

44

Mizrahi

The same tendency is executed more systematically—albeit not entirely consistently—in the Temple Scroll:16 (15a)

‫ּופ ְרׁשֹו‬ ִ ‫( וְ ֶאת עֹור ַה ָּפר וְ ֶאת ָּכל ְּב ָׂשרֹו ַעל רֹאׁשֹו וְ ַעל ְּכ ָר ָעיו וְ ִק ְרּבֹו‬Lev 4:11); And the skin of the bull and all its flesh, as well as its head, its legs, its entrails, and its dung . . .

vs. (15b) ‫ [על ראושו וכרעיו] עם כול קרביו‬. . . ‫( ואת עורו עם פרשו ישרופו‬11QTa 16:11–13) They shall burn its skin with its dung . . . [its head and its legs] with all its entrails. . . (16a) ‫( וְ ֶאת ָּכל ַה ֵח ֶלב ֲא ֶׁשר ַעל ַה ֶּק ֶרב‬Lev 8:16; cf. v. 25; 3:3,9,14; 4:8); . . . and all the fat that is around the entrails . . . vs. (16b) ‫הק רבים‬ ֯ ‫החלב אשר על‬ ֗ ‫( ואת כול‬11QTa 20:5 || 11QTb 4:15) . . . and all the fat that is around the entrails . . . (16c) ‫( ואת אשר על הקרבים‬11QTa 23:15) . . . and everything that is around the entrails . . . (17a) ‫( וַ ּיִ ְר ַחץ ֶאת ַה ֶּק ֶרב וְ ֶאת ַה ְּכ ָר ָעיִ ם‬Lev 9:14; cf. Exod 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:21). He washed the entrails and the legs . . . vs. (17b) ‫( ומרחצים את הקרבים ואת הכרעים‬11QTa 34:10–11) And they wash the entrails and the legs . . . The dual form eventually becomes the default form in MH, for instance: (18) ‫( הקרביים מדיחין אתן שלשה פעמים‬m. Tamid 4:2) The entrails are being washed three times. Thus the original use of the word as a primary noun, which is peculiar both semantically (by having a concrete sense) and syntactically (by being used as an independent lexeme), is being marked, in Second Temple Hebrew, by a novel morphological marking. When denoting the internal organs, contemporaneous authors reveal a clear preference for the dual ‫ ְק ָר ַביִ ם‬over the older

16  In addition to the following passages, consider also ‫( את הקרבים ואת הרגלים‬11QTa 33:14– 15). This lexical trait of the language of the Temple Scroll was noted by E. Qimron, “The Lexicon of the Temple Scroll,” Shnaton 4 (1980): 239–62 [Hebrew], at 251 n. 41.

Priests of Qoreb

45

singular ‫קרב‬, regardless of the question how exactly the latter was vocalized (i.e., as either ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬or ‫)ק ֶֹרב‬. (b) Lexis: The compound prepositions ‫ ְּב ֶק ֶרב‬and ‫ ִמ ֶּק ֶרב‬fell out of use in QH, and are commonly replaced by the alternative compounds ‫ ְּבתֹוְך‬and ‫ ִמּתֹוְך‬.17 It can again be demonstrated by the Temple Scroll’s reworking of a biblical law, this time one that pertains to the Day of Atonement: (19a)

‫ וְ ָכל ַהּנֶ ֶפׁש ֲא ֶׁשר‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה ֵמ ַע ֶּמ‬,‫ִּכי ָכל ַהּנֶ ֶפׁש ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא ְת ֻעּנֶ ה ְּב ֶע ֶצם ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶ ה‬ ָ ‫( ַּת ֲע ֶׂשה ָּכל ְמ ָל‬Lev ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ַב ְד ִּתי ֶאת ַהּנֶ ֶפׁש ַה ִהוא ִמ ֶּק ֶרב ַע ָּמּה‬,‫אכה ְּב ֶע ֶצם ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶ ה‬

23:29–30) For anyone who does not practice self-denial during that entire day shall be cut off from the people. And anyone who does any work during that entire day, such a one I will destroy from among the people.

vs. (19b) ‫כול האיש אשר יעשה ֗בו֗ מלאכה או אשר לוא יתענו בו – ונ֗ כרתו מתוך עממה‬ (11QTa 27:6–8) And any person, who does work during it, or those who do not practice self-denial during it, shall be cut off from among the people. While the scriptural passage freely interchanges between the simple preposition ‫( ִמן‬v. 29: ‫ ) ֵמ ַע ֶּמ ָיה‬and the compound preposition ‫( ִמ ֶּק ֶרב‬v. 30: ‫) ִמ ֶּק ֶרב ַע ָּמּה‬, the legal adaptation of the Temple Scroll prefers the compound preposition ‫( מתוך‬ll. 7–8: ‫)מתוך עממה‬. In light of this evidence, one can properly appreciate the striking fact that ‫ ְּבתֹוְך‬and ‫ ִמּתֹוְך‬are the only forms attested in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,18 whereas the older ‫ ְּב ֶק ֶרב‬and ‫ ִמ ֶּק ֶרב‬are not documented at all in the preserved fragments. These facts, drawn from the realms of morphology and lexis, render unlikely a linguistic connection between BH ‫( ֶק ֶרב‬or ‫)ק ֶֹרב‬, in any of its usages, and the enigmatic QH form ‫ קורב‬as found in the Songs.

17  This process of lexical replacement was recognized by A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967), 1:361 [Hebrew]; cf. E. Qimron, “The Psalms Scroll from Qumran: A Linguistic Survey,” Lešonenu 35.2 (1971): 99–116 [Hebrew], at 116 §5.7. 18  Song VII: 4Q404 6 1ʹ; Song IX: 4Q405 14–15 i 6ʹ [= col. G 21]; Song XIII: 4Q405 23 ii 8ʹ, 9ʹ [= col. L 19, 20].

46 3

Mizrahi

Other Alternative Interpretations

Two other interpretations of ‫ קורב‬may be (or have been) proposed, but in my opinion they do not supply proper solution for the problem at hand. 3.1 Borrowing from Aramaic? One option, mentioned by Newsom in passing, is to consider ‫ קורב‬as a borrowing from Aramaic ‫קורבא‬19—a masculine counterpart of the Hebrew feminine form ‫( ִק ְר ָבה‬attested only as part of the fixed phrase ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ִק ְר ַבת ֱא‬in Isa 58:2; Ps 73:28).20 Apparently this was also the opinion of Elisha Qimron, who included ‫ קורב‬in the list of Aramaic borrowings appended to his grammar of QH.21 If this interpretation is correct, the form ‫ קורב‬is not directly related to the Hebrew noun ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬or its prepositional derivations.22 The difficulty with this solution is that the form ‫ קורבא‬is attested in eastern dialects of Middle and Late Aramaic (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic), but not in the western dialects (Jewish, Samaritan, and 19  Newsom translated this word as “nearness, approach,” based on Jastrow’s dictionary. Sokoloff, in his recent dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, prefers to gloss it with “close distance.” 20  Newsom seems to have changed her mind in this regard. In her dissertation, she presented this explanation on a par with the one discussed above (§2.1), i.e., the one that equates it with ‫ק ֶרב‬.ֶ See C. A. Newsom, “4Q Serek Šîrôt ‘Ôlat HašŠabbāt (The Qumran Angelic Liturgy): Edition, Translation, and Commentary” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1982), 52–54. In her book, she focused on the ‫קורב‬/‫ ֶק ֶרב‬equation, relegating the possibility of an Aramaism to a footnote (Newsom, Songs, 77 n. 8). Her final DJD edition does not include an introduction, but when commenting on the first occurrence of the phrase ‫כוהני קורב‬ (DJD 11:180) she refers only to the interchange between ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬and ‫ קורב‬and makes no mention of the Aramaic form. 21  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 116 §600. 22  The two words may be unrelated also from an etymological point of view. As mentioned above, ‫“ ֶק ֶרב‬entrails” is a primary noun, which needs not be derived from any verbal root. Rather, it should be compared to related primary nouns in other Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages; see A. Militarev and L. Kogan, Semitic Etymological Dictionary, I: Anatomy of Man and Animals (AOAT 278.1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 146, 149–50, nn. 161 and 165; cf. H. Holma, Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-Babylonischen: Eine LexikalischEtymologische Studie (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Kustantama, 1911), 59–62 (s.v. qablu), 68–69 (s.v. qirbu, qirbitu). In contradistinction, Hebrew ‫ ִק ְר ָבה‬and Aramaic ‫ קורבא‬are evidently derived from the verb q-r-b “to approach, come or draw near.” The etymon of this verb possibly differs from that of the primary noun, although the issue is debated among etymologists and lexicographers; contrast, e.g., BDB, 897 and 899 with the comment of N. H. Tur-Sinai in E. Ben-Yehuda’s Thesaurus, 12:6141a, n. 1.

Priests of Qoreb

47

Christian Palestinian Aramaic). Had the word penetrated into Hebrew from Aramaic, one would expect to find its traces in the western dialects, which were spoken in Palestine, rather than in the eastern dialects, which were spoken in Mesopotamia. The fact that the documented evidence is opposite to the expected distribution casts doubts on the initial assumption, and cautions one from accepting the hypothesis that this item was indeed borrowed from Aramaic.23 To be sure, there might be an exception to this rule in the form of a word spelled ‫ קורבא‬that was recently found in a small Aramaic fragment allegedly coming from Qumran. Its exact interpretation, however, is hampered by the fragmentary context. Two options were proposed: (a) André Lemaire, who first published the fragment under the provisional siglum XQ6, read and restored in line 3ʹ: ‫על (?) מדב] ֯חי֯ לקורבא קו֯ [רבנא‬, and interpreted the form as a D infinitive.24 This grammatical analysis, however, would normally necessitate a form without a waw, namely, ‫ ְל ָק ָר ָבא‬, as is indeed found in all the parallel examples adduced by Lemaire himself. (b) Émile Puech re-edited the fragment under the siglum 4Q587 (frg. 1), but his reading at this point is indecisive: -‫ירבא קו֯ [דמ‬/‫אקי] ֯מנ֯ י לקו‬. When commenting on this line, he hesitates on whether the form should be read as ‫( קירבא‬following Hebrew ‫ ) ִק ְר ָבה‬or ‫( קורבא‬in accordance with Syriac ‫)ܩܘܪܒܐ‬.25 The first option is unlikely, since medial short /i/ is rarely if ever represented by yod in the Qumran scrolls, while the second option is dialectally problematic, as explained above. The fragmentary state of the text, as well as the doubts concerning the reading of the other words in context, precludes any definitive answer. Nevertheless, Lemaire may have been on the right track in taking the form not as a noun but rather as an infinitive. This interpretation, however, should be slightly modified in order to accommodate for the unexpected presence of a waw. The plene spelling may be a product of an irregular phonetic change, which is sporadically attested in various Aramaic dialects as well as in QH, vis., the change of /a/ > /o/ before /r/ in closed syllables.26 23  This is in contrast to the Hebrew feminine form ‫קורבה‬, which is attested only in much later sources: the dictum of R. Pedat quoted in b. Šabb. 13a (although note that the parallel quote in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17a has the form ‫ ;)קריבה‬Tanḥuma Buber, addition to Devarim, 3a. For this particular form, the assumption of influence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is plausible. 24  A. Lemaire, DJD 36:490–91, pl. xxxii. 25  É. Puech, DJD 37:501–4, esp. 502–3, pl. xxv. 26  See Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of 1QIsaa, 496–97.

48

Mizrahi

Notwithstanding that this is not the only possible explanation for the ambiguous form that occurs in the small fragment, it is precisely the ambiguity of this occurrence that renders it useless for our concern. As long as there is no other, unambiguous occurrence of ‫ קורבא‬in Western Aramaic, the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the available evidence is that this nominal form typifies the eastern dialects and was not necessarily in use in Palestine during the Greco-Roman period. Consequently, it seems unlikely that it was borrowed by Hebrew speakers at that time. 3.2 Prefiguring Late Semantics? Another alternative solution is suggested by the fact that sources much later than the Songs attest to two terms that are derived from q-r-b and might be pertinent for the case under review: (a) some Amoraic sources refer to ‫ ָקרֹוב‬, a term that is said to mean “a prayer leader,”27 and (b) some Genizah fragments mention the term ‫רֹובה‬ ָ ‫ ְק‬as a designation of a genre of Piyyuṭ, Hebrew liturgical poetry of the Byzantine period. These terms form the basis for the opinion that some occurrences of the verb q-r-b in rabbinic literature can be interpreted as having the sense “to pray, sing, compose or perform poetry” or the like.28 This was suggested especially in relation to sources belonging to Amoraic (i.e., late rabbinic literature), but a few homilies in Tannaitic (i.e., early rabbinic literature) may also reflect such an understanding.29 Contrary to that assumption, Miron Bialik Lerner has convincingly demonstrated that such an interpretation is fraught with doubts. At the very least, his

27  The nominal pattern qātol is common for nomina agentis; it appears already in the transitional period from CBH to LBH (probably under Aramaic influence), and its distribution expands in MH. 28  See especially S. Lieberman, “The Liturgical Poetry of Yannai,” Sinai 4 (1939): 221–50 [Hebrew], at 223–24; A. HaCohen, Cathedra 64 (1992): 172–74 [Hebrew]. 29  Lieberman mentions two homilies from Sifre Deuteronomy, but his interpretation was refuted by M. B. Lerner, “The Beginning of Piyyut: Talmudic and Midrashic Inquiries,” Sidra 9 (1993): 13–34 [Hebrew], esp. 19–20. Prof. Menaḥem Kahana drew my attention to two additional homilies in Sifre Numbers §116 (ed. Hurovitz, 131–32) that may be relevant, and suggested that I consider the possibility that the same meaning is at play with the phrase ‫ כוהני קורב‬in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The homilies in Sifre Numbers, however, pose several exegetical difficulties of their own, and cannot be said to utilize such a meaning unambiguously. Moreover, even if they are interpreted in this way, this is not necessarily relevant for the Songs (cf. below, n. 31).

Priests of Qoreb

49

analysis makes it very difficult to assume that such a sense was functional in the language of the early rabbis, the Tannaim.30 Furthermore, even if one assumes that such a verb or a particular sense of it were known to users of Second Temple Hebrew, it still does not supply adequate explanation for the phrase ‫ כוהני קורב‬in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. To begin with, there is a conceptual difficulty: at least in the earthly temple, liturgical singing is a ritual task peculiar to the Levites, who stand outside the inner cultic circle, rather than the priests, who serve within it.31 The latter are supposed to perform their cultic duties in silence, and this holds true to their angelic projections as described in the Songs.32 In addition, although the Songs portray a picture according to which the main ritual performed in the heavenly temple is glorifying God by songs of praise, this is not the primary theme of the specific passages that contain the phrase ‫כוהני קורב‬. Indeed, the extensively preserved fragments from Songs VI and VII describe with much detail the angelic liturgy, but, tellingly, nowhere do they mention the term ‫כוהני קורב‬. To be sure, the term does surface in Song VIII, which parallels Song VI in its structure and content, but in all its contexts the phrase seems to designate—and possibly to explain—the place of the angels within the priestly cultic hierarchy of the heavenly temple, not their liturgical function in organizing the prayer. 30  Lerner, “The Beginning of Piyyut,” 21–25. I should add that the two relevant terms are not necessarily related to one another. The nomen agentis ‫ קרוב‬occurs in an ambiguous context that plays with several possible derivations ( y. Ber. 8b [ed. Academy of Hebrew Language, 39]). By contrast, the term ‫קרובה‬, which denotes a genre of liturgical poetry, ܵ may be compared to Syriac ‫ܩܘܪ ܼܵܒܐ‬ ܼ /qurrābā/, which can denote “liturgy,” especially the mass; as such, it might be a metonymic extension of the original sense of “offering, sacrifice” in a specialized usage, i.e., when referring to the Eucharist. See the references in M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 1343a. The technical terminology of Byzantine Piyyuṭ contains several items that were evidently borrowed from Greek and Aramaic, and some of them may have come from Syriac. See, e.g., C. Aslanov, “Bayt (‘House’) as ‘Strophe’ in Hebrew, Byzantine and Near Eastern Poetry,” Le Muséon 121 (2008): 297–310. For the cultural setting that enabled—and even motivated—such borrowings, cf. Aslanov, “Romanos the Melodist and Palestinian Piyyut: Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Perspectives,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures (ed. R. Bonfil et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 613–28. 31  This rule also applies to the two homilies quoted from Sifre Numbers (above, n. 29), which indeed refer to the Levites. 32  I. Knohl, “Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult,” JBL 115 (1996): 17–30.

50

Mizrahi

To sum up this part of the discussion, previous interpretations of the phrase

‫ כוהני קורב‬are incompatible with the full range of linguistic facts, drawn from

Hebrew semantics and lexicology as well as Aramaic dialectology. These data thus force us to search for a solution to the problem in a different direction. 4

New Proposal

4.1 Grammatical Analysis A proper starting point must be an acceptable morphological analysis of the form in question. I submit that the simplest—and hence the most ­compelling—analysis takes ‫ קורב‬to be a verbal noun, a nomen actionis of the G verb ‫“ ָק ַרב‬to approach, draw near.”33 Morphologically, it can be viewed as a ‘masculine’ biform of BH ‫( ָק ְר ָבה‬/qɔrb-ɔ/ < *qurb-ā), which is used as a ‘feminine’ infinitive of the G stem:34 (20) ‫אכה ַל ֲעׂש ֹת א ָֹתּה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָק ְר ָבה ֶאל ַה ְּמ ָל‬. . .‫( וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא מ ֶֹׁשה ֶאל ְּב ַצ ְל ֵאל‬Exod 36:2) Moses called Bezalel . . . to come to do the work. A comparable interchange between a ‘feminine’ infinitive in BH and a ‘masculine’ verbal noun in QH—both of which exhibit a similar segholate nominal pattern (historical *qVtl)—is to be found in the way in which the language of the Community Rule adapts a BH expression: (21a) ‫( ַמיִ ם ְל ָר ְח ָצה‬Exod 40:30) water for washing vs. (21b) ‫( מי רחץ‬1QS 3:5) washing water

33  Segholate nouns are commonly employed in BH as nomina actionis of the G stem. See H. Bauer und P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testament (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), 461, §61k″–l″. 34  The terms “masculine” and “feminine” are used in this context solely as a descriptive means to refer to the grammatical marking of these inanimate nouns with or without final *-ā, without implying anything about their syntactic behavior. For the use of such “feminine” infinitival forms in BH, see A. Cohen, “The Infinitive plus Hé,” Lešonenu 33 (1969): 238 [Hebrew].

Priests of Qoreb

51

Against the infinitival purpose clause attested in BH, which employs the “feminine” form ‫ ָר ְח ָצה‬/rɔḥṣ-ɔ/ < *ruḥṣ-ā (21a),35 the Community Rule makes use of a construct phrase; its nomen rectum is a segholate ‘masculine’ form: ‫מי רחץ‬ (21b), whose Tiberian counterpart can be either ‫* <( ַר ַחץ‬raḥṣ) or ‫* <( ר ַֹחץ‬ruḥṣ).36 The strong relation of the latter form to the verbal paradigm is even more pronounced in a variant reading found in 4QSh, a copy of the Community Rule from Cave 4: (21c)

‫( [מי] רחיצה‬4Q262 1 3ʹ) washing water

This manuscript utilizes a nominal pattern that in MH has indeed become a standard nomen actionis, derived automatically from the G stem.37 Accordingly, one may predict that the QH form ‫קורב‬, which corresponds morphologically to the BH infinitive ‫ ָק ְר ָבה‬, would find an equivalent in a MH form ‫ ְק ִר ָיבה‬. This is indeed borne out by the evidence, as demonstrated by the following passage from the Sifra, a Tannaitic explication of the book of Leviticus. The passage is a homily, which seeks to explain the reason for the death of Aaron’s sons:

35  Cf. ‫מיִ ם ִל ְרחֹץ ַרגְ ָליו‬,ַ “water for washing his feet” (Gen 24:32). 36  That the two grammatical patterns were available in QH is suggested by another text found in Qumran, a liturgical work that deals with a ritual of purification. A version published by Maurice Baillet contains the expression ‫רחץ‬ ֯ ‫( מי‬4Q512 1–6 [= col. XII] 5; cf. ‫מי‬ ]‫ רח[ץ‬in frgs. 42–44, line 5ʹ), while another version, published by Esther Eshel, formulates it as ‫( מימי רוחץ‬4Q414 13 7ʹ). By default, such a difference is to be explained as an orthographic fluctuation between plene and defective spellings. However, the seemingly defective spelling is found in 4Q512, which normally represents the round vowels by a waw. Since it is less likely that its scribe would have resorted to defective spelling, it is reasonable to conclude that the textual variation between ‫ רחץ‬and ‫ רוחץ‬reflects a grammatical interchange, within QH, between the *qitl/qatl and *qutl patterns (respectively). 37  E. Y. Kutscher, “Studies in the Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (according to ms Kaufmann),” in Bar-Ilan Annual, Humanities and Social Sciences: Decennial Volume II (ed. M. Z. Kaddari; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1969), 57–77; repr. in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 108–34 [Hebrew], esp. 110–16, 130–31. Cf. S. Sharvit, “The Growth and Crystallization of Verbal Nouns in Ancient Hebrew,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies: Presented to Abraham Tal (ed. M. Bar-Asher and M. Florentin; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 177–88 [Hebrew]; M. Bar-Asher, A Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew: Introductions and Noun Morphology (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language and the Bialik Institute, 2015), 2:1218–80 [Hebrew].

52

Mizrahi

(22) ‫ וכתוב אחד או׳ וַ ּיַ ְק ִריבּו ִל ְפנֵ י‬,‫ כתוב אחד או׳ ְּב ָק ְר ָב ָתם ִל ְפנֵ י יי וַ ּיָ ֻמתּו‬:‫ר׳ עקיבה או׳‬ ‫ לא מיתו על‬,‫ ְּב ַה ְק ִר ָיבם ֵאׁש זָ ָרה ִל ְפנֵ י יי – הוי על הקריבה מיתו‬:‫ הכריע‬.‫יי ֵאׁש זָ ָרה‬ ‫( ההקרבה‬Sifra, 1:1 ,‫[ אחרי מות‬ed. Weiss, 79c]) R. Aqiva says: One passage reads “upon their approaching (lit. drawing near) before the Lord they died” (Lev 16:1), and one passage reads “they offered (lit. brought near) illicit fire before the Lord” (Lev 10:1). The decisive passage is “upon their offering (lit. bringing near) illicit fire before the Lord” (Num 3:4; 26:61). This means that they died for approaching (lit. drawing near), not for offering (lit. bringing near). The homily is based on two transparent grammatical equations between BH and MH. For the causative stem, both the BH infinitival form ‫ ְּב ַה ְק ִר ָיבם‬and the finite verb ‫ וַ ּיַ ְק ִריבּו‬are paraphrased by the MH verbal noun ‫ ַה ְק ָר ָבה‬. For the G stem, the BH infinitival form ‫( ְּב ָק ְר ָב ָתם‬i.e., ‫ ָק ְר ָבה‬with a pronominal suffix) is matched by the MH verbal noun ‫ ְק ִר ָיבה‬. One may therefore conclude that just as speakers of Second Temple Hebrew could have alternated between the forms ‫ ַר ַחץ‬/‫ ר ַֹחץ‬and ‫ ְר ִח ָיצה‬as nomina actionis of ‫ ָר ַחץ‬, so were they able to express the nomen actionis of the verb ‫ ָק ַרב‬by both ‫ ק ֶֹרב‬and ‫ ְק ִר ָיבה‬. 4.2 Syntactical Analysis Turning back to the full phrase ‫כוהני קורב‬, the syntactic relation between its components becomes clear. The nomen actionis ‫ קורב‬occupies the slot of the nomen rectum, and should be taken attributively as referring to “the approaching priests.”38 This interpretation may be corroborated by a partially restored passage in Song I, which explicates the verbal noun ‫ קורב‬by paraphrasing it with another deverbal form of ‫ ָק ַרב‬, the participle ‫ ְק ֵר ִבים‬.39 In this case, the attributive relation to the term for “priests” is syntactically marked by using it as part of a relative clause: (23) ‫ כוהני מרומי רום‬,‫ א] ֗ל[והי] אלים‬. . .[ ,‫ קדושי קדושים‬,‫יסד לו כוהני קורב‬ [. . .] ‫( ֯ה[קר]בים‬4Q400 1 i 19–20) 38  A semantically comparable expression, which similarly underscores the proximity of the angels to God, occurs in the Arabic angelological epithet: ‫ون‬ َ ُ‫  الْ َملآئِ َك ُة الْ ُم َق َّرب‬, lit. “the angels who are drawn/brought near” (Qur’ān 4:172; I owe this suggestive comparison to Prof. Sara Stroumsa). The Arabic expression has a different syntax, though, since it consists of a noun modified by an attributive participle that functions as an adjective. 39  See further below, §5.3.

Priests of Qoreb



5

53

He had established for Himself the approaching priests, holiest among the holy ones, [. . . g]o[ds of] gods, priests of the heavenly heaven who [app]roach [. . .] Terminological Analysis: Use of q-r-b in BH

If the above linguistic analysis is correct, closer attention should be paid to the semantics of the verb ‫“ ָק ַרב‬approach,” to which the verbal noun ‫ קורב‬is intimately related. While this verb is richly documented in all Hebrew chronolects, a specific pattern emerges if one narrows the search to parallels for a more restricted terminological use associated with “priests.” Especially important for the present concern is its use in literary works that employ it as part of the technical terminology of the cult that was current among priestly circles. The Hebrew Bible contains two such sources that merit inspection: the so-called Priestly Document of the Pentateuch (P)40 and the book of Ezekiel. 5.1 Priestly Texts in the Pentateuch Jacob Milgrom has shown that P employs q-r-b (in the G stem) to specifically denote encroachment into the holy precinct of the tabernacle.41 Accordingly, even though the cultic conceptualization underlying P is that the tabernacle 40  Although P is by no means a homogenous body of texts, its internal diversity makes no difference for the issue discussed herein, and it will be treated as a single source. For a detailed lexicographic description, which elaborates on the cultic nuances of the verb and its derived nouns, see S. Rattray and J. Milgrom, “qāraḇ,” in TDOT 13:135–52. For the present purpose, one can exclude passages that mention proximity or drawing near to God without mentioning priests, as found in the Covenant Code (Exod 22:7). The poetic expression ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫( ִק ְר ַבת ֱא‬Isa 58:2; Ps 73:28; contrast Zeph 3:2) is similarly irrelevant, since it does not occur in a ritual context, but rather in a figurative description of seeking God’s protection. 41  This technical sense is prominent with respect to cultic paraphernalia, approaching to which may be either allowed (e.g., Lev 9:7) or prohibited (e.g., Num 18:3–4; cf. Num 17:5 etc.). The latter usage is especially evident in the recurring formula ‫יּומת‬ ָ ‫וְ ַהּזָ ר ַה ָּק ֵרב‬, “the illicit encroacher shall be put to death” (Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7). Milgrom has also drawn attention to a parallel usage in Akkadian texts from Nuzi, and suggested that the terminology employed by P is rooted in a West Semitic milieu of the second millennium BCE. See J. Milgrom, “The Cultic Use of ‫נגש‬/‫קרב‬,” in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. P. Peli; 5 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1973), 1:75–84; cf. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), 5–59.

54

Mizrahi

is the house of God and that the priests are his personal servants, normally one does not find that they are described as those who approach God himself, or even his seat—an action that would have be considered an unacceptable encroachment. At most, they can approach the altar (Exod 40:32; Lev 9:7–8).42 Similarly, the people of Israel may only approach the Tent of Meeting (Lev 9:5; contrast Num 18:22).43 The verb q-r-b is therefore used in P in a specific technical sense that pertains to the delimitation of ritual spheres. But since it is usually used to refer to unauthorized access to domains of graded holiness, it is not normally applied to priests. In any case, it is not used to define their role in relation to the divinity itself, but rather to exclude admittance to the domain of holiness. 5.2 Ezekiel’s Law Code Unlike P, the idea that the priests do indeed approach God is emphatically expressed in another outgrowth of priestly literature, namely, Ezekiel’s law code of chapters 40–48.44 In this literary corpus, the use of the verb q-r-b becomes an essential element of the very definition of the cultic role of the legitimate priesthood: (24) ‫וְ ַה ִּל ְׁש ָּכה ֲא ֶׁשר ָּפנֶ ָיה ֶּד ֶרְך ַה ָּצֹפון ַלּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ִמ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֵה ָּמה ְבנֵ י ָצֹדוק ַה ְּק ֵר ִבים‬ ‫( ִמ ְּבנֵ י ֵלוִ י ֶאל ה׳ ְל ָׁש ְרֹתו‬Ezek 40:46) 42  The peculiarity of priestly terminology is particularly evident regarding this usage, since the phrase ‫על המזבח‬/‫ אל‬+ ‫ קרב‬can be shown to be typical of P, whereas non-priestly sources employ ‫ על המזבח‬+ ‫( עלה‬1 Sam 2:28; 1 Kgs 12:33). See M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), 314–15 [Hebrew]; note also his explanation for the juxtaposition of the two phrases in 2 Kgs 16:12. For a somewhat different opinion see Milgrom, “Cultic Use,” 84 n. 38. 43  The only exception to this rule may be found in the divine words quoted by Moses after the death of Aaron’s sons: ‫ ועל פני כל העם ֶא ָּכ ֵבד‬,‫ּב ְקר ַֹבי ֶא ָּק ֵדׁש‬,ִ “through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev 10:3), assuming that ‫ ְקר ַֹבי‬are the sons of Aaron, and taking ‫ ֶא ָּק ֵדׁש‬as a reference to the action of killing them (cf. Ezek 28:22). However, critical commentators doubt if this passage had originally referred to the event to which it is now connected, and in any case, it does not explicitly mention any priests. See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), esp. 600–601, and the literature adduced there. 44  The connection between the law code and the other prophecies contained in the book of Ezekiel has been much debated in critical scholarship, and so also the integrity of the law code itself. These issues, however, have no direct impact on the present discussion, which is concerned with the reception of the priestly terminology in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. In what follows, when referring to Ezekiel, it is only the law code that is intended.

Priests of Qoreb

55



The chamber that faces north is for the priests who have charge of the altar; these are the descendants of Zadok, who (alone) among the descendants of Levi may come near to the Lord to minister to him. (25) ‫ֹרובים ַלה׳‬ ִ ‫אכלּו ָׁשם ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ֲא ֶׁשר ְק‬ ְ ֹ ‫( ִל ְׁשֹכות ַהּק ֶֹדׁש ֲא ֶׁשר י‬Ezek 42:13) . . . the holy chambers, where the priests who approach the Lord shall eat. (26) ‫( ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם ֲא ֶׁשר ֵהם ִמּזֶ ַרע ָצֹדוק ַה ְּקר ִֹבים ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י ה׳ ְל ָׁש ְר ֵתנִ י‬Ezek 43:19) . . . the levitical priests from the seed of Zadok, who draw near to me, says the Lord God, to minister to me. (27) ‫וְ ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם ְּבנֵ י ָצֹדוק ֲא ֶׁשר ָׁש ְמרּו ֶאת ִמ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת ִמ ְק ָּד ִׁשי ִּב ְתֹעות ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵמ ָע ַלי‬ ‫( ֵה ָּמה יִ ְק ְרבּו ֵא ַלי ְל ָׁש ְר ֵתנִ י וְ ָע ְמדּו ְל ָפנַ י ְל ַה ְק ִריב ִלי ֵח ֶלב וָ ָדם נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י ה׳‬Ezek 44:15) But the levitical priests, the descendants of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister to me; and they shall attend me to offer me the fat and the blood, says the Lord God. (28) ‫ק ֶֹדׁש ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ הּוא ַלּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ְמ ָׁש ְר ֵתי ַה ִּמ ְק ָּדׁש יִ ְהיֶ ה ַה ְּק ֵר ִבים ְל ָׁש ֵרת ֶאת ה׳‬ (Ezek 45:4) It shall be a holy portion of the land; it shall be for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and approach to minister to the Lord. This usage is unique to Ezekiel.45 It stands in stark contrast to the careful terminology that characterizes P, which refrains from any such definition. The opposition between the two priestly corpora suggests that this peculiar turn of phrase encodes a polemical stance.46 But the interpretation of Ezekiel’s own language goes beyond the confines of the present discussion and cannot be addressed here. Suffice it to acknowledge, for the present concern, that the close similarity between Ezekiel’s usage and the phrase ‫ כוהני קורב‬can hardly be incidental, nor can it be attributed to a general “priestly concern” of the

45  The only additional source (4Q213a 1 18) that exhibits a somewhat similar use of the verb q-r-b, albeit not in an explicit association with the term ‫כהן‬, is Levi’s prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document, but this use may actually depend on the language of Ezekiel. See J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 62–63 (ALD 3:10 according to their numeration); H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (SJSJ 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 99 (Greek text), 173 (Aramaic text), 217–18 (commentary; the passage is ALD 1a 11, according to his system of reference). 46  Cf. the insightful comment of Eliezer of Beaugency on Ezek 40:46: ‫שיהו קרבים אז – מכלל‬ ‫ יתרחקו‬,‫שהשאר שמנה למעלה‬, “so that they shall then approach, hence that all the others, whom he mentioned above, should keep far away”; Miqra⁠ʾot Gedolot HaKeter: Ezekiel (ed. M. Cohen; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2000), 271 [Hebrew].

56

Mizrahi

Songs. Rather, the lexical components of the collocation ‫ כוהני קורב‬appear to be directly drawn from those passages in Ezekiel.47 Note further that there is no need to assume that when utilizing Ezekiel’s phraseology, the Songs necessarily carried over also its original polemical overtones. On the contrary, whatever was the political or cultic subtext of Ezekiel’s insistence on his peculiar definition of the priestly role vis-à-vis P, this underlying motivation was no longer relevant when the Songs were composed, most probably during the Greco-Roman period. The Songs thus adapt Ezekiel’s definition of the cultic duty of the priests: to approach God in order to serve him. In the context of the Songs, this definition is projected on the angels, whose access to the divine presence is presumably less problematic than that of human priests. Stylistically, the relation between the variety of formulations found in Ezekiel and the virtually fixed collocation employed by the Songs conforms to a mode of stylistic adaptation that is well-known in QH, especially in the realm of legal terminology. Biblical designations and epithets, originally formulated freely in various syntactic constructions, were crystallized in QH into construct phrases, which then became fixed expressions, functioning as technical terms.48 5.3 Excursus: The Participial Patterns One further detail in the Ezekiel passages merits attention due to its potential bearing on the understanding of the language of the Songs. Ezekiel usually distinguishes between two different participial derivatives of q-r-b: ‫ ְק ֵר ִבים‬and ‫ ְקר ִֹבים‬. This differentiation matches a morphological opposition maintained in BH between the two participial patterns—if they are both attested for the same verb: ‫ ָקרֹוב‬functions as a stative participle, whereas ‫ ָק ֵרב‬takes the role of a dynamic participle (i.e., one that encodes an action or a process). Similarly, contrast ‫“ ּגָ ֵדל‬growing, becoming greater” (e.g., 1 Sam 2:26) with ‫“ ּגָ דֹול‬great”; ‫ָר ֵחק‬ “one who goes far away” (Ps 73:27) with ‫“ ָרחֹוק‬one who is far.”49 The morphological variation thus encodes, in BH, a semantic distinction. 47  Newsom had sensed the relation between the phrase ‫ כוהני קורב‬and Ezekiel’s law code in her dissertation (“4QSerek,” 53–54), but since she gradually retreated from the understanding that the form ‫ קורב‬is related to the verb q-r-b (see above, n. 20), she eventually gave up her earlier insight in later publications. 48  Cf. E. Qimron, “Halakhic Terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Importance for the Study of the History of Halakha,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. Magen Broshi et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992), 128–38 [Hebrew]. The general stylistic trend was already observed by J. Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 10 §11 [Hebrew]. 49  G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, II: Verbum (Leipzig: Vogel, 1929), 85, §14r (e).

57

Priests of Qoreb

The twofold differentiation appears to be operative in Ezekiel as well. This is indicated by the fact that the form ‫ ְק ֵר ִבים‬, which takes the pattern of the dynamic participle, may indeed alternate with a finite verb:

(24) ‫ה ָּמה ְבנֵ י ָצֹדוק ַה ְּק ֵר ִבים ִמ ְּבנֵ י ֵלוִ י ֶאל ה׳ ְל ָׁש ְרֹתו‬...‫ים‬ ֵ ִ‫( ַלּכ ֲֹהנ‬40:46)50 (27) ‫ ֵה ָּמה יִ ְק ְרבּו ֵא ַלי ְל ָׁש ְר ֵתנִ י‬...‫( וְ ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם ְּבנֵ י ָצֹדוק‬44:15)  

If this morpho-semantic distinction maintained its force in QH, at least as far as the verb q-r-b is concerned, it corroborates the restoration in Song I (‫כוהני‬ ֵ rather than the stative ‫ )מרומי רום ֯ה[קר]בים‬with the dynamic participle ‫קרבים‬ ‫קרובים‬.51 Moreover, such a restoration accords well with the use of the form ‫ קורב‬as a nomen actionis, since this semantic category typifies dynamic verbs.52

50  On the other hand, note Ezek 43:19, which reads ‫ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם ֲא ֶׁשר ֵהם ִמּזֶ ַרע ָצֹדוק ַה ְּקר ִֹבים‬ ‫ל ָׁש ְר ֵתנִ י‬...‫י‬ ְ ‫( ֵא ַל‬26). Even though it is close in its formulation to the above quoted passages with dynamic forms—be they a participle (24) or a finite verb (27)—one finds here a seemingly stative form. Possibly this is due to a weakening of the opposition that took place in later phases of Hebrew. A process of semantic erosion in this regard is evidenced by an alternation of the two patterns in various vocalization traditions: contrast the Tiberian tradition ‫יּומת‬ ָ ‫( וְ ַהּזָ ר ַה ָּק ֵרב‬Num 1:51) with the Babylonian reading ‫הקר ֹב‬, ָ and the reverse interchange in Deut 13:8. Similarly, in Ps 73:27 the Tiberian tradition reads ‫ר ֵח ֶקיָך‬,ְ while the Babylonian one has ‫רחֹקיך‬.ְ See I. Yeivin, The Tradition of the Hebrew Language Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization (Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1985), 1:443 [Hebrew]. The two participial forms also alternate in MH; see M. Bar-Asher, “First Studies in MH according to MS Vatican 32 of Sifre Numbers,” in Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009), 1:240–68 [Hebrew], esp. 255–57. Cf. S. Naeh, “The Tannaic Hebrew in the Sifra according to Codex Vatican 66” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989), 93–94 [Hebrew]. 51  See above, §4.2. 52  For an alternative analysis see E. Qimron, “‫ ּגְ ב ַֹה הקומה‬,‫ ּגְ ד ֹל הזרוע‬and ‫קד ֹׁש ההיכל‬,” ְ in Yaakov Bentolila Jubilee Volume: Research Papers in Hebrew Linguistics, Hebrew Literature, and Jewish Languages (ed. D. Sivan and P. I. Kirtchuk-Halevi; Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2003), 327–39 [Hebrew]. Although he also recognizes the relation of the noun ‫ ק ֶֹרב‬to the verb q-r-b in general and the adjectival participle ‫ ָק ֵרב‬in particular, he prefers to view ‫ ק ֶֹרב‬as a nomen qualitativum, further suggesting that such qótɛl nouns originate in *qutul infinitives of stative verbs. But even if this morphological analysis is correct, due weight needs to be given to the semantic differentiation between qātol and qātel when both patterns are attested for the same verb (cf. Qimron’s note on p. 334, n. 15).

58 6

Mizrahi

Sociolinguistic Analysis: Use of q-r-b in QH and MH

Both in form and in content, the collocation ‫ כוהני קורב‬seems to depend on an intertextual relation to Ezekiel’s law code (which itself interacts with other priestly concepts and terms). Yet the dependence upon earlier, scriptural precedents does not exhaust the range of meanings that this phrase may have encoded when the Songs were composed. While the original, potentially polemical overtones of the intertext were probably lost by the Greco-Roman period, novel connotations may well have developed in their stead. Neither the semantics of the verb q-r-b nor the theological notion of the approaching priests remained static during the time span that separates BH from QH. Full explication of the phrase should thus take into account additional nuances that its components might have acquired over the years. Careful scrutiny of the use of the verb q-r-b in QH indeed supplies evidence for such a semantic development, which charged the Songs’ designation of the angels officiating in the heavenly temple with a specialized sense. The evidence comes primarily from sectarian writings, especially the composite works of the Community Rule (S) and the Damascus Document (D), but there are some indications that these texts reflect a broader linguistic trend that had been current in Second Temple Hebrew. 6.1 The Community Rule: Admission to the Yaḥad The verb q-r-b is used (in the G and D stems) in several sections of the Community Rule as a technical term denoting a gradual yet formal procedure of becoming a member of the sectarian formation of the Yaḥad.53 This usage is most conspicuous in 1QS 6, which describes in great detail how a new member is admitted, stage by stage. The candidate first has to be interrogated by the assembly (‫)הרבים‬, whose members decide whether “he should draw near or far” (l. 16: ‫)יקרב או ירחק‬, i.e., be admitted or denied of the possibility of becoming a novice. If he is admitted, he goes through a two-year training period, during which he gradually gains stricter levels of purity. Initially, he may not touch the pure food of the assembly even after he is admitted (lines 16–17: ‫ובקורבו‬ ‫לעצת היחד לוא יגע בטהרת הרבים‬, “as he draws near [i.e., while in the process of 53  This specialized use of q-r-b was correctly perceived by commentators of the Community Rule from the early days of Qumran scholarship; see, e.g., P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 30–31 (translation of 1QS 6:13–23, esp. line 19; cf. n. 52 on p. 108), 35 (translation of 1QS 9:15; cf. n. 37 on p. 137) and M. Delcor, “Le vocabulaire juridique, culturel et mystique de l’‘initiation’ dans la secte de Qumrân,” in QumranProbleme (ed. H. Bardtke; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963), 109–34, esp. 118–23.

Priests of Qoreb

59

being admitted] to the council of the community, he shall not touch the purity of the assembly”). After a year, if he passes the exams, he is allowed to partake in the general assembly, and eventually be elected as a full member and permitted to join the sectarian council (line 19: ‫לקרוב אל סוד היחד‬, “to draw near [i.e., to be admitted] to the cadre of the community”).54 6.2 The Damascus Document: Admission to the Community of the New Covenant Another procedure of admission is prescribed by CD A 15:6–16:1. It is quite different from the one detailed in 1QS 6, but interestingly closer to 1QS 5:7–9. The complex relationship between the various passages suggests that they reflect different (though related) types of social organization, but it remains a matter of debate to what extent these differences are to be explained as resulting from diachronic development or synchronic variation (or both).55 Notwithstanding the literary, sociological, and historical aspects of this problem, what is telling for our concern is the use in CD A 15:10 of the expression ‫ קץ ק[ר]בו‬in reference to the admission procedure. If the restoration is correct, then both the

54  The procedure described in 1QS 6 famously finds a close parallel in Josephus’s report about the admission of a new member among the Essenes ( J. W., 2.137–138). Whether or not the Essenes described by Josephus are indeed to be identified with the members of the Yaḥad described in 1QS is a much contested issue, one which cannot be addressed here. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to mention a peculiar choice of words in Josephus’s description of the initial stages of the process, when asserting that ἐπειδὰν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πεῖραν ἐγκρατείας δῷ, πρόσεισιν μὲν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ, “Having given proof of his temperance, he (i.e., the candidate) is brought into closer touch with the rule” ( J. W. 2.137–138 [Thackeray, LCL]); cf. the recent translation of S. Mason and H. Chapman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Vol. 1b: Judean War 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 111: “Whenever he should give proof of his self-control during this period, he approaches nearer to the regimen.” The apparent resemblance between this formulation (attested nowhere else in Josephus’s writings) and the use of Hebrew q-r-b in 1QS 6 was underscored by commentators; see especially T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 73–75. 55  See especially C. Hempel, “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, and Disciplinary Procedures,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 2:67–92, esp. 70–73. For a theoretical perspective, informed by socialscientific approaches, see C. Wassen and J. Jokiranta, “Groups in Tension: Sectarianism in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances (ed. D. J. Chalcraft; London: Equinox, 2007), 205–45.

60

Mizrahi

immediate context of the phrase and its terminological similarity to 1QS 6 encourage one to interpret it as referring to “the period of one’s admission.”56 Rabbinic Sources: The Pharisaic Gathering and other Social Delineations A few years after the first scrolls were published, Saul Lieberman had already noticed the specialized, terminological use of the verb q-r-b, and drew attention to a striking parallel in rabbinic literature. It occurs in a passage that describes a similar issue of admission—but this time to the Pharisaic gathering (‫)חבורה‬, which, like the sectarian community portrayed in the S tradition, was defined first and foremost by its strict adherence to purity laws:57 6.3

(29) ‫—אין צריך קירוב‬58*‫ *תא קמן‬.‫חבר שיצא לחוצה לארץ—אין דוחין אותו מחבורתו‬ (y. Demai 23a [ed. Academy of Hebrew Language, 124]) 56  Another noteworthy passage in the D tradition is the famous pesher-like exegesis of Ezek 44:15 (above, no. 27) in CD A 3:20–4:4. The scriptural passage mentions three groups—the priests, the Levites, and the descendants of Zadok—who are defined in terms of their relation to the cult and the temple. The exegetical explication embedded in D, by contrast, systematically interprets these designations as referring to constituents of a sectarian community. See the recent discussion of this passage by L. Goldman, “Biblical Exegesis and Pesher Interpretation in the Damascus Document” (Ph.D. diss., Haifa University, 2007), 42–62 [Hebrew]. Interestingly, the passage exhibits a major textual discrepancy— which results in lexical differentiation—between the scriptural quotation and the MT. While the MT defines the priestly role by framing it with two derivatives of q-r-b, one referring to the act of approaching God (‫יִ ְק ְרבּו‬, lit. “they draw near”), and the other to the offering of sacrifices to him (‫ל ַה ְק ִריב‬,ְ lit. “to bring near”), the text as cited in D replaces this whole string of words with one verb: ‫יגישו‬. The lexical replacement may well be related to the organization terminology employed in other sectarian writings (see, e.g., the parallelism in 1QS 9:15–16; cf. 1QHa 6:24–25, 29–32), but this issue requires an independent analysis. 57  S. Lieberman, “The Discipline of the So-Called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” JBL 71 (1952), 199–206, esp. 199–200; cf. C. Rabin, “Yaḥad, Ḥaburah, and the Essenes,” in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. Liver; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1957), 104–22 [Hebrew], esp. 110, 115, 119–20. Obviously, the intriguing similarity in terminology and salient sociological features does not mean that the sectarian Yaḥad and Pharisaic gatherings are identical in their social formations and historical context; the differences between these phenomena are as important as the similarities between them, as emphasized by S. Fraade, “Qumran Yaḥad and Rabbinic Ḥăbûrâ: A Comparison Reconsidered,” DSD 16 (2009): 433–53. Still, the conspicuous phraseological isogloss between late rabbinic reports on Pharisaic circles and authentic sectarian writings plausibly points to a well rooted usage in Second Temple Hebrew. 58  This is Lieberman’s emendation for ‫הא קטן‬, which is written in MS Leiden (the only complete manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud), but makes no sense in its context.

Priests of Qoreb

61

A member who went abroad is not expelled from his association; when he comes back, he requires no (re-)admission. Furthermore, perusal of MH indicates that the verb q-r-b (often together with its antonym r-ḥ-q) was used to delineate various sorts of social boundaries. Especially noteworthy is a Tannaitic source presented as a much older tradition, “a regulation given to Moses at Sinai,”59 which potentially goes back, at the very least, to the Hellenistic period:60 (30) ‫ הלכה למשה‬,‫ מקובל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכיי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו‬:‫אמ׳ ר׳ יהושע‬ ,‫ אלא לרחק את המקורבין בזרוע‬,‫ לרחק ולקרב‬,‫ שאין אלייהו בא לטמא ולטהר‬,‫מסיני‬ ‫ וריחקה בין‬,‫ משפחת בית צריפה הייתה בעבר הירדן‬.‫ולקרב את המרוחקין בזרוע‬ ‫ כגון אלו אלייהו בא לטמא‬.‫ וקרבה בין ציון בזרוע‬,‫ציון בזרוע; ועוד אחרת הייתה שם‬ ‫ לרחק ולקרב‬,‫( ולטהר‬m. ʿEd. 8:7) R. Joshua said: I have received as a tradition from Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a Halakah given to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or to bring nigh, but to remove afar those [families] that were brought nigh by violence and bring nigh those [families] that were removed afar by violence. The family of Beth Zerepha was in the land beyond Jordan and Ben Zion removed it afar by force. And yet another [family] was there, and Ben Zion brought it nigh by force. The like of these Elijah will come to declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or bring nigh.61 6.4 Sequitur While the S and D traditions are related in terms of the ideological movement that shaped their values and spiritual concerns, they differ in the community structures they envisage, each reflecting a range of forms of social organization. The rabbinic sources evidently describe communities and groups that are 59  This phrase is used in rabbinic literature to denote a type of legal prescriptions that are not anchored in scriptural proof-texts—by way of either explicit mention or exegetical deduction—but are still accepted as obligatory, drawing their authority from their presumed antiquity; see Talmudic Encyclopedia, 9:365–87 [Hebrew]. Prescriptions so designated are by no means a unified corpus, as they exhibit a variety of themes, literary forms, and legal principles; they may have thus crystallized at different contexts. Nevertheless, at least some of them do appear to belong to very old strata within the legal traditions transmitted in rabbinic literature. 60  I am indebted to Prof. Vered Noam, who alerted my attention to this instructive reference. 61  The Mishnah (trans. H. Danby; London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 436.

62

Mizrahi

even more remote from those depicted in the S and D traditions. Nevertheless, the variety of sources embedded in these corpora testifies to a specialized, terminological use of the verb q-r-b in order to express a type of social affiliation that is legally regulated. It appears, therefore, that the technical use of q-r-b in order to denote the admission of a person to a confined social group was a common property of Hebrew legal terminology during the Second Temple period.62 If so, where Jewish authors of the Greco-Roman period have made use of the Hebrew verb q-r-b or its derivatives, especially in relation to a carefully delineated social circle or a group, modern philologists are at least entitled (and, at times, obliged) to take into consideration the sociolinguistic connotations of this verb in the legal terminology of the period.63 All the more so, since the notion of membership is of crucial importance for the establishment of social identity, particularly in sectarian contexts.64 Close scrutiny of the language used to denote various stages of becoming a member of a restricted group may thus shed some light on the social mechanisms that were operative in the formation of the circles in which the literary texts were formed and/or utilized. Put differently, when decoding the ancient sources, one must bear in mind that the verb q-r-b may convey not only the primary meaning of “drawing near” but also the secondary sense of “being admitted to a community.” Such appears to be the case with the phrase ‫כוהני קורב‬, which is peculiar to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.

62  Compare the analogous case of the term ‫הרבים‬, lit. “the many”, which is similarly attested by both the Community Rule (for denoting the sectarian assembly) and rabbinic sources (for referring to the legal category of “the public”). See, e.g., M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA 2; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires Fribourg Suisse; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 14–15; S. Morag, “On Some Concepts in the World of Qumran: Polysemy and Semantic Development,” in Diggers at the Well (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 186–91. 63  For an attempt to consider QH from a sociolinguistic point of view, see W. M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52; idem, “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 245–55; idem, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), Chapter 8: “Hebrew in the Hellenistic World,” esp. 173–90. 64  For the application of such sociological insights to the field of Qumran Studies, see, e.g., J. Jokiranta, “Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 200–31.

Priests of Qoreb

63

Conclusion The key to decoding the collocation ‫כוהני קורב‬, which is a phraseological hallmark of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, is a proper grammatical analysis of ‫קורב‬. I have suggested that this is a verbal noun, related to the verb ‫ ָק ַרב‬in general and to the dynamic participle ‫ ָק ֵרב‬in particular. While the literal meaning of this verb is “to approach, draw near,” it also acquired a specialized nuance in Second Temple Hebrew, “to be admitted,” functioning as a technical term that denotes social delineation from a legal perspective. I have further proposed that the components of the construct phrase are not an ad hoc combination; rather, the full phrase appears to rely on a specific scriptural source, Ezekiel’s law code, which supplies a unique definition of the role of priests—a definition that is embraced by the Songs and projected on the heavenly temple. By repeatedly employing the phrase ‫כוהני קורב‬, the Songs constructs its angelological terminology on the basis of scriptural precedents that pertain to a visionary yet earthly temple. At the same time, the phrase also connotes that the angelic priests form a strictly defined community, that is, a fellowship to which access is not free but rather depends on specific qualification (pertaining mainly to purity) and is mediated by formal procedures of admission. Such a meaning resonates profoundly within the theological matrix that frames the Songs, namely, the notion of liturgical communion between the earthly congregation of praying humans and the heavenly assembly of the angelic priests, who all praise God at the very same time and in the very same manner. The terminology used by the Songs implies that such a communion is not automatically reached whenever a community offers its prayers; rather, it is achieved only if certain formal conditions are being met with regard to the ritual qualifications and aptness of the members of that community. The praying members of the community aspire to unite with the angelic hosts through the act of liturgical performance. In their minds, they and they alone are the earthly equivalents of the heavenly priests; it is only their prayers that are heard in the celestial temple, in harmony with the angelic liturgy, thus approaching the divine presence itself. The language of admission (‫ )קורב‬thus simultaneously encodes both social inclusivity and exclusivity, as “drawing near” some individuals necessarily means “drawing far” others. Those admitted form part of a tight spiritual community that shares its stand with the angels, whereas those excluded have no hope of ever being enchanted by the angelic liturgy. This dual signification of the verbal noun ‫ קורב‬echoes the double sociolinguistic nature of the specialized use of q-r-b. On the one hand, since it was evidently shared by various groups during the Second Temple period, it need not be viewed as a unique item of a sectarian jargon of any particular

64

Mizrahi

community. Rather, it is an item of the legal phraseology that was relatively common in Hebrew of the Greco-Roman period. On the other hand, its specific application does form a backbone of “sectarian” identity: it denotes a process of formal admission by way of an agreed upon procedure for how to join restricted social circles, especially ones that follow special voluntary rules of purity. Thus, although this terminology was apparently shared by a variety of groups in Second Temple Judaism, it vociferously gives expression to the highly factious nature of Jewish society at that time.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters from the Judean Desert Uri Mor and Tamar Zewi 1 Introduction The legal documents and letters from the time of the first and second JewishRoman wars, discovered in the Judean Desert, reveal a living Hebrew dialect, interspersed with ancient writing traditions on the one hand and significant Aramaic influences on the other. While this dialect is basically similar to Rabbinic Hebrew, it also exhibits independent linguistic features as well as some resemblance to the Hebrew dialect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly in phonology.1 Following a paper by Uri Mor on word order in verbal clauses in 1  For grammatical characterization of this corpus see U. 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, forthcoming) [Hebrew]; U. Mor, “Three Questions and Three Answers regarding the Hebrew Documents from Judaea between the First and the Second Revolts,” Meghillot 10 (2013): 219–34 [Hebrew]. The texts are cited (and translated, unless otherwise specified) according to following editions: the Wadi Murrabaʿat documents (= Mur.) and the so-called Naḥal Ṣeʾelim collection (= Ḥev-Ṣe)—according to A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000), excluding Mur. 174, which is cited according to E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and G. Geiger, “Mur 174: A Hebrew I.O.U. Document from Wadi Murabbaʿat,” Liber Annuus 58 (2008): 313–26. The Yadin collection (P. Yadin)—according to Y. Yadin et al., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Judean Desert Studies 3; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002). The Beth ʿAmar document—according to E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and A. Yardeni, “A Document from ‘Year Four of the Destruction of the House of Israel’ in Which a Widow Declared That She Received All Her Rights,” Cathedra 132 (2009): 5–24. The War Scroll—according to E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben–Zvi, 2010–2015), 1:109–36 [Hebrew]. Rabbinic Literature—­ according to Ma‌ʾagarim, the online edition of The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. Translation of biblical passages are according to RSV version. Translation of Rabbinic passages—H. Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933); J. Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction (2 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002). Square brackets mark reconstructed text; angle brackets mark editor’s addition; curly brackets mark editor’s deletion.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_006

66

Mor and Zewi

this corpus,2 the current article is dedicated to its nominal clause patterns. The limited number of nominal clauses attested in the corpus allows us to present here a complete account of all their occurrences.3 Most of the examples were found in the legal documents and only five in the letters (namely ##4, 9, 10, 12, 17), which suggests that nominal clauses were typical of the style of the former more than of the latter. In the corpus we found only simple nominal clauses, namely bipartite without a personal pronoun, mostly in the third person, in addition to the subject and the predicate, occasionally entitled “tripartite nominal clauses.”4 Though the number of our examples is limited, they still disclose clear tendencies and allow us to draw significant conclusions. 2

Word Order in Simple Nominal Clauses

2.1 Subject-Predicate Order Thirty-five occurrences of simple nominal clauses were found in the corpus. These can be classified into 13 clusters of examples, as follows: 2.1.1

An Adjective Predicate

#1 . . . ‫וכל שיש לי ושאקנה אחראים וערבים למרק לפנך את המכר הזה‬ And all that I have and that I will acquire are responsible and a guarantee for cleansing before you this sale . . .5 (Mur. 30.23–24)—the subject is a nominalized clause.

2  U. Mor, “Word Order in the Legal Documents and Letters from the Judean Desert,” Meghillot 7 (2008): 237–61 [Hebrew]. 3  The legal document from Beth ʿAmar, which was confiscated from Palestinian antique dealers, is excluded from the corpus, for it is different from the other documents in time (140 CE) and in language, and the division within it between Hebrew and Aramaic still awaits clarification (see meanwhile Mor, Judean Hebrew, §1.1.2 n. 17). Nevertheless, we do not overlook it altogether (see ##3, 16). 4  We exclude from the current discussion existential and possessive clauses, the impersonalevaluative pattern (the so-called xagam [‫ ]חג״ם‬pattern; see U. Mor and N. Pat-ʾEl, “The Development of Predicates with Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew,” Journal of Semitic Studies [forthcoming]), and nominal clauses containing conjugated forms of the auxiliary verb ‫היה‬. 5  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: e.g., Ḥev-Ṣe 8.6–7; Ḥev-Ṣe 9.8; Ḥev-Ṣe 50 + Mur. 26.14–15;

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

67

#2 . . . ̇‫אחי̇ ו‬ ̇ ] ‫ואין האנשים האלה רשאים לרדף [איש את‬ And these men have no authority to pursue (= press a suit against) [one] another . . . (P. Yadin 44.24)—the negative particle ‫ אין‬stands at the beginning of the clause;6 the predicate is complex (‫ לרדף‬+ ‫ ;רשאים‬cf. #15, where there is no negative particle and the subject intervenes between the two components of the complex predicate). 2.1.2

A Prepositional Phrase Predicate

#3 ‫והתשלם [מן ]ביתי ומן נכסי‬

And the payment (will be) [from] my house and from my property (Ḥev-Ṣe 49.10–11).7 #4 ‫עמי‬ ׄ ‫ידעין שדברׄ כן‬ ̇ ‫אבל הוא‬

However, be informed that your case is (under consideration) by me (P. Yadin 49.6)—in a content clause.

cf. t. Ketub. 12.1: ‫[“ [כל] נכסין די איתאי לי אחראין ומערבין לכתובתיך דא‬All] property which I have is liable and obligated for the payment of your marriage-contract.” 6  This word order is found—not exclusively—in Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew; cf. T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem and Leiden: Magnes Press, 1985), 106 [§20]; P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), §§154k, 160g-i; M. Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995), 167–71 [Hebrew]. See, e.g., ‫“ ֵאין ה׳ ר ֶֹאה א ָֹתנּו‬The Lord does not see us” (Ezek 8:12); ‫ואין המים השאובין פוסלין את‬ ‫“ המקוה אלא לפי חשבון‬Drawn Water renders the Immersion-pool invalid only if it is in the prescribed proportion” (m. Ter. 5:6). 7  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: e.g., Mur. 18.7–8; P. Yadin 42.9; Naḥal David (Wadi Sdeir) 2.6–7. Cf. the parallel in Beth ʿAmar: 10–11: ‫ותשלמים לך מנכסי‬/‫ותשלמתא‬. ̇

68

Mor and Zewi

#5 ‫אלעזר בן̇ אלעזר ̇בן̇ חי̇ ̇טא ואליעזר בן שמואל שניהם מן עין גדי ותחנה בן שמעון ואלמא‬ ׄ ‫בן יהודה שניהם מן הלוחית ׄש ׄב ׄמ ׄח ׄו ׄז‬ ‫עגלת ׄי ̇ן יושבים בעין גדי‬

ʾElʿazar, son of ʾElʿazar, son of Ḥayyaṭa, and ʾEliʿezer, son of Shemuʾel, both of them from ʿEn Gedi; and Teḥinna, son of Shimʿon, and ʾAllima, son of Yehuda, both of them from the Luḥit that is in Maḥoz ʿEglatayin (and) residing in ʿEn Gedi (P. Yadin 44.4–6); ‫קבי̇ [ש] בן שמעון מן עין גדי אמר לאלעזר בן אלעזר בן ̇חי̇ טא ולאליעזר בן שמואל‬ ̇ ‫י̇ שוע‬ . . . ‫שניהם משם‬

Yeshuaʿ QBY[Š], son of Shimʿon, from ʿEn Gedi, stated to ʾElʿazar, son of ʾElʿazar, son of Ḥayyaṭa, and to ʾEliʿezer, son of Shemuʾel, both of them from there . . . (P. Yadin 46.2–3)—in a non-restrictive relative clause (asyndetic), closely similar to a circumstantial clause. 2.1.3

A Nominal Phrase Predicate

#6 ‫ ויתר ̇המנו עוד‬. . . ]‫תחצי הכסף הלו̇ ז חסר דינרין ששה עשר שהם סלעים ארבע לב[ד‬ ‫דינרין ששה עשר שהם סלעים ארבע‬

The half of that silver, minus sixteen denarii, which are (equivalent to) four selaʿs, on[ly] . . . and in addition to it, sixteen more denarii, which are (equivalent to) four selaʿs (P. Yadin 44.19–24); ‫ [כסף ]דינרין ̇ע ̇שרה שהם סלעים שתים‬. . . ‫בכסף זוזין מאה וששי̇ ̇ם שהם סלעים ארבעין‬ ‫ושקל חד‬

For silver (in the sum of) one hundred sixty zuz, which are (equivalent to) forty selaʿs . . . [silver,] ten denarii, which are (equivalent to) two selaʿs plus one shekel (P. Yadin 46.8–12); ‫בכסף[ זו]זין ש[לושין וששה שה]ן סלעין תשע‬

For silver (in the sum of) th[irty-six zu]zin, [which a]re (equivalent to) nine selaʿs (Ḥev-Ṣe 8:7–9.6);

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

69

‫מן היום עד סוף ערב השמטה שהם שנים שלמות שני [מ]כׄ סה ׄחמש‬

From today until the end of the eve of the Shemiṭṭa (year), which are five whole years, years of [t]ax (Mur. 24:5.9–10)8—in a non-restrictive relative clause, functioning as apposition; the subject is a personal pronoun. #7 ̇‫ואני ̇ק ̇בלן‬

And I am (the) receiver (Mur. 30.22)9—the subject is a personal pronoun (cf. #11: ‫“ אני מקבל‬I have received”). Example 8 . . . ‫ואח ̇רי̇ ן דרום‬ ̇ ‫צפון חנין בר חני‬ ̇ . . . ‫מערב ירשי אבשי‬ West—the heirs of ABŠY; . . . north—Ḥanin, son of Ḥani, and others; south . . . (Mur. 22.3); . . . ‫חליפ ̇א‬ ̇ ] ‫ צפון חנין בר חנינא ואחרים ̇ד ̇ר[ום‬. . . ‫]מזרח חוני ואחרים מערב יורשי בר אבשי‬ ]East—Ḥoni and others; west—the heirs of (the) son of ABŠY . . . north— Ḥanin, son of Ḥanina, and others; sou[th—]Ḥalifa . . . (Mur. 11–12.1–2); ‫הד ̇רך צפון ̇כבלולה דרום חנין בר יהונתן‬ ̇ ‫המ ̇כו̇ ̇ר מערב‬ ̇ ‫מזרח‬

East—the seller; west—the road; north—KBLWLH; south—Ḥanin, son of Yehonatan (Mur. 30.3–4); ‫הד ̇רך צפון ̇כבלולה דרום ח[נ]י̇ ן בר יהונתן‬ ̇ ‫מכ ̇ר הז̇ ה מזרח המכו̇ ̇ר מערב‬ ̇ ]‫תחומ[י ה‬

The boundari[es of ]this sale (are): east—the seller; west—the road; north—KBLWLH; south—Ḥa[n]in, son of Yehonatan (Mur. 16–17)10— in these cases the identification of the subject and the predicate cannot 8   Parallels in the Aramaic documents: P. Yadin. 8.5; P. Yadin 47:2.6; Ḥev-Ṣe 21.5–6. 9   This form is a noun and not a verb; see Mor, Judean Hebrew, §4.10.36. 10  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: e.g., P. Yadin 7.5–6 = 36–38; Ḥev-Ṣe 8a.8–9; Ḥev-Ṣe 50 + Mur. 26.6–8.

70

Mor and Zewi

rely on formal criteria, as the two clause components are both indefinite nominal phrases. Consequently, the determination of the word order (subject-predicate) relies only on context.11 2.1.4

A Participle Predicate

#9 ‫מעיד אני עלי תשמים י̇ פס[ד] מן הגללאים שאצלכם כל אדם שאני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬

̇ ‫כמה‬ ‫שעסת[י] לבן עפלול‬

I am making the heaven my witness (that if) any person will be missi[ng] of the Galileans who are with you, that I shall put the chains on your feet, the same as [I] did to the son of ʿAflul (Mur. 43.5–6)—in an apodosis of a conditional sentence; a threat; the subject is a personal pronoun.12 #10 ‫בטב אתן יושב[י]ן אכלין ושתין מן נ̇כסי בית ישראל ולא דאגין לאחיכן לכול דבר‬

In good (circumstances) you are dwell[i]ng, eating and drinking of the property of the house of Israel, but showing no concern for your brothers in any manner (P. Yadin 49.2–3)—note that the adverbial phrase is put in initial position (focusing13) and that the predicate is relatively long; the subject is a personal pronoun.

11   In the Aramaic parallels a preposition may precede the first noun (the cardinal direction word), e.g., ‫“ למדנחא מדברא‬To the east: the desert” (P. Yadin 7.5); ‫מן‬ ‫“ מדנחה[ מע]לת תרעה דביתה‬To the east[: the ent]rance-gate of the house” (Ḥev-Ṣe 8.3)— but this, too, is not conclusive, since a subject can take the form of a prepositional phrase; see T. Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” in Semitic and Cushitic Studies (ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 145–67, esp. 154–55 n. 29; T. Zewi, “Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Several Semitic Languages,” in Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (ed. R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El; Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2012), 465–76. 12  On the order “personal pronoun + participle” in the apodosis of a threat expression, see A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967–1971), 2:832–833 [Hebrew]; Mor, “Word Order,” 253. 13  Mor, “Word Order,” 251, 256.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

71

#11 ‫תסלע הזוא אנמקבל המך‬

This selaʿ I (have) received from you (Ḥev-Ṣe 49.7–8); ‫מקבל‬ ̇ ‫משה אני‬ ̇ ‫ כסף זו̇ ז̊ [ין טובי]ן ̊עשר[י]ן ו̊ ̊ח‬. . .

twe[nt]y [fi]ve [fin]e (= valid) zuzin of silver I am receiving . . .  (Mur. 174.5)14—the object is in initial position (topicalization);15 the subject is a personal pronoun;16 cf. ̇‫“ ואני ̇ק ̇בלן‬And I am (the) receiver” (#7). #12 ‫ואף אללי שהגיים קרבים אלנו אזי̇ עלתי {והפצ} והפצתיך על ככה‬

And if it were not for (the fact) that the gentiles are approaching us, I would have come and appeased/convinced you for this (Mur. 42.5)—in an adverbial clause. #13 ‫ ותחנה בן‬. . . ‫אלעזר בן אלעזר חיטא ואליעזר בן שמואל שניהם שוקלים תחצי הכסף הלו̇ ז‬ ‫שמעון ואלמא בן יהודה שוקלים {שוקלים} תחצי הכסף הלז‬

ʾElʿazar, son of ʾElʿazar, (son of) Ḥayyaṭa, and ʾEliʿezer, son of Shemuʾel— both of them (shall undertake to) weigh out the half of that silver . . . and Teḥinna, son of Shimʿon, and ʾAllima, son of Yehuda (shall be) weighing out the half of that silver (P. Yadin 44.18–22). 2.2 Predicate-Subject Order All in all, 11 occurrences of simple nominal clauses were found in the corpus. These can be classified into 6 clusters of examples, as follows:

14  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: e.g., Mur. 25.5; Ḥev-Ṣe 8.5; Ḥev-Ṣe 50 + Mur. 26.11. Note that ‫ מקבל‬is a passive form, a participle of Pual (Mor, Judean Hebrew, §4.7.4). 15  Mor, “Word Order,” 250, 256. 16  Note the attachment of the pronoun to the verb in ‫ אנמקבל‬of Ḥev-Ṣe 49 (Mor, Judean Hebrew, §5.5).

72 2.2.1

Mor and Zewi

A Modal Adjective or Participle Predicate

#14 ‫וקים עליהם וביניהם כל שמלעמלה [= שמלמעלה] כתוב‬

And all that is written above is legally binding on them, and on each with respect to the other (P. Yadin 44.26); ‫וקים עלי כול שאש ̇ע ̇ל השטר הזא‬

And all that is in this deed is binding upon me (Ḥev-Ṣe 49.11–12)17—the subject is a nominalized clause. #15 ‫להמ ̇כר הזה לעשות בו כל שתחפץ‬ ̇ ̇‫ו̇ [ר] ̇שי̇ הלוקח וירשו‬

And the buyer and his heirs is (= are) [per]mitted in regard to this sale to do with it all that you (= they) desire (Mur. 30.22–23); [◦ ‫] ◦◦◦ ̇הז̇ ̇ה‬

‫̇ר ̇שי̇ ̇הלוק[ח‬

The buye[r] . . . this . . . (Mur. 22.4)—the subject intervenes between the two parts of the complex predicate18 (cf. #2). #16 . . . ‫מודא אני לך ̇הי̇ ום שהחכ<ר>תי לך תגנה שלנו‬ I acknowledge to you this day that I have leased to you the garden of ours . . . (P. Yadin 45.6–7);

17  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: P. Yadin 7.29; P. Yadin 10.6, 18; Ḥev-Ṣe 13.9–10. 18  Mor, “Word Order,” 248. On this pattern in Biblical Hebrew and in Aramaic see also Muraoka, Emphatic Words, 15; Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” 154–55, and the literature cited there in n. 30.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

73

. . . ‫מודא אני לכם היום שחכרתי מכם תמקום שנקרה הסלם‬ I acknowledge to you this day that I have leased from you (both) the site that is called hasullam . . . (P. Yadin 46.3)19—a legal formula of acknowledgement. #17 ]. . .[ ‫מעיד אני עלי תשמים‬ I am making the heaven my witness . . . (Mur. 43.3)20—a speech act of oath. 2.2.2

A Prepositional Phrase Predicate

#18 ‫ארבעה‬ ̇ ‫החרו̇ בים‬ ̇ ̇‫המכר הזה בתחומי̇ ו‬

This sale—within its boundaries (are) the four carob trees (Mur. 22:11–12.2–3); . . . ‫] ̇ם התאנים הזיתים העץ‬

[‫המכר הזה בתחומו בית ו‬

This sale—within its boundaries (are) a house and[. . .] the fig trees and olive trees. The tree . . . (Mur. 30.17–18)21—these two examples (as well as the two parallel Aramaic examples) occur in deeds of sale, in the legal paragraph describing the assets within the property (in an 19  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: e.g., P. Yadin 17.40; P. Yadin 20.41–42; P. Yadin 42.3. Cf. also Beth ʿAmar: 4–6. This construction is typical of the language of prayer and Rabbinic Hebrew (Mor, “Word Order,” 253 n. 51). On the order “participle + personal pronoun” at the beginning of a speech act (as opposed to “personal pronoun + participle” in other positions) see Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 2:817–19. This order also expresses, according to Bendavid (pp. 825–27), an action that has begun in the recent past. Both these functions are appropriate for the example mentioned above. 20  This formula is found in Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew (Mor, “Word Order,” 254 n. 52). Here too the order “participle + personal pronoun” is found at the beginning of a speech act (but in contrast to the previous example this cannot be an action that has begun in the recent past). 21  Parallels in the Aramaic documents: Ḥev-Ṣe 21.3–4; Ḥev-Ṣe 50 + Mur. 26.8–9.

74

Mor and Zewi

e­ xtrapositional pattern). The designation of the property at the beginning of this ­paragraph (‫“ המכר הזה‬this sale,” and in Aramaic ‫אתרא דך‬ “That place”, ‫“ אתריא אלך‬Those places”) connects it to the previous paragraph, which specifies the boundaries of the property (see #8), by means of topicalization. This syntactic device is a well established feature of the legal documents.22 In principle, the word order could have been subjectpredicate (e.g., ‫)המכר הזה החרובים בתחומיו‬. It seems that the predicate was brought forward in order to keep the resumptive pronoun close to the extraposed sentence component; it may have also been due to the length of the subject, since short components tend to appear before long ones (‫)כל הקצר קודם‬. 2.2.3

A Demonstrative Pronoun Predicate

#19 ‫ם] שלאלעזר בן אלעזר ושל ̇א[ליע]ז̇ ̇ר בן שמואל‬/‫[קו]מו ׄׄת שנפלו בחלק[ו‬ ׄ ‫ׄאלה ׄה ׄמ‬ ׄ ‫ו‬ ‫ וזה המקום שנפל לתחנה בן‬. . . ‫הח ̇פי̇ ר והמקום שנקרה הסלם‬ ̇ ‫המקום שנקרה‬ . . . ‫שמעון ולאלמא בן יהודה המקום שנקרה החורת‬

And these are the si[t]es that fell to the portion of ʾElʿazar, son of ʾElʿazar, and of ʾEliʿezer, son of Shemuʾel: the site that is called haḥafir and the site that is called hasullam . . . and this is the site that fell to Teḥinna, son of Shimʿon, and to ʾAllima, son of Yehuda: the site that is called haḥiwweret . . . (P. Yadin 44.10–15).23 2.3 Conclusion The examples above clearly suggest that subject-predicate is the typical word order in the Judean Desert legal documents and letters.24 The alternative order (predicate-subject) is prevalent only in two patterns: (1) when the predicate 22  Mor, “Word Order,” 243–44, 250. 23  A parallel in the Aramaic documents: P. Yadin 7.5. Cf. in Biblical Hebrew: ‫ֵא ֶּלה ְׁשמֹות‬ ‫יהֹוׁש ַע ִּבן נּון‬ ֻ ִ‫“ ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ֲא ֶׁשר יִ נְ ֲחלּו ָל ֶכם ֶאת ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַהּכ ֵֹהן ו‬These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to you for inheritance: Elea’zar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun” (Num 34:17), and in Rabbinic Hebrew: ‫אלו הן הפסולין המשחק בקוביא והמלוה‬ ‫“ בריבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית ועבדים‬These are they that are ineligible: a diceplayer, a usurer, pigeon-flyers, traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves” (m. Roš Haš. 1:8; see Azar, Syntax, 74, 310). 24  As stated above (§1), most of the examples are from the legal documents.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

75

is a modal adjective or participle,25 and (2) when the predicate is a demonstrative pronoun.26 In #18, in which the predicate is a prepositional phrase, the sequence of the sentence components depends on its particular extrapositional pattern, so it cannot serve as a representative example for a predicatesubject word order with a prepositional phrase predicate. 3

Comparison with Other Hebrew Dialects

3.1 Nominal Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Simple nominal clauses in Biblical Hebrew show either subject-predicate or predicate-subject word order. The syntactic conditions for each order are clear: subject-predicate order is typical of positive clauses introduced by the relative particle ‫אשר‬, of two or more clauses coordinated by the conjunctive waw, of the second of two clauses expressing contrast, and of circumstantial clauses; predicate-subject order is typical of negative clauses introduced by ‫אשר‬, of clauses introduced by speech verbs, of subordinate clauses introduced by the subordinating conjunction ‫כי‬, of protasis and apodosis of conditional sentences, and of interrogative clauses. Furthermore, only predicate-subject order is possible when the predicate of the nominal clause is a personal pronoun or a demonstrative pronoun.27 As to the examples of nominal clauses in the Judean legal documents and letters, most of them exhibit subject-predicate word order, and unlike Biblical Hebrew they are unconditioned by the larger syntactic patterns in which they 25  As stated, Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 2:817–19, offered an alternative explanation for these examples; see notes 19–20 above. 26  The order predicate-subject in sentences whose predicate is a demonstrative pronoun or a personal pronoun is the expected order in Biblical Hebrew; see Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” 149–50. 27  Ibid., 149–50, 154, 158. The basic word order of the nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew is a matter of debate. Some scholars argue that subject-predicate is the basic order, and predicate-subject depends on pragmatic matters, such as different sorts of emphasis (e.g., GKC §141l). Muraoka notes that in approximately two thirds of the nominal clauses in Biblical Hebrew the order is subject-predicate, and that the scale of predicate-subject clauses does not allow us to treat them simply as irregular forms (Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, §154f). See C. L. Miller, ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), for different theoretical treatments of nominal clauses; and T. Zewi and C. H. J. van der Merwe, “Biblical Hebrew Nominal Clause: Definitions of Subject and Predicate,” JNSL 27 (2001): 81–99, for different approaches to identifying the subject and the predicate in nominal clauses.

76

Mor and Zewi

appear or by certain particles introducing them. Subject-predicate word order indeed appears in the legal documents and letters in syntactic conditions similar to Biblical Hebrew, e.g., in a positive relative clause (##5 and 6— introduced by the subordinate conjunction -‫ש‬, typical of Second Temple Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew, and not by the Biblical ‫)אשר‬, but it is also attested in patterns that have the opposite word order in Biblical Hebrew, e.g., in a subordinate object content clause (#4—introduced by -‫)ש‬, which in Biblical Hebrew has predicate-subject order (introduced by ‫)כי‬.28 It can thus be concluded that the word order of nominal clauses in the legal documents and letters from the Judean Desert essentially differs from the standard Biblical Hebrew word order, and that it demonstrates predominance of subject-predicate order. This dissimilarity is also evident in examples in which predicate-subject word order is regular in Biblical Hebrew. While it can perhaps be surmised that the choice of subject-predicate order in #429 has to do with the use of the subordinate conjunction -‫ש‬, namely that the -‫ש‬ triggers subject-predicate word order, a close look at nominal clauses within object content clauses introduced by -‫ ש‬in Late Biblical Hebrew finds predicate-subject word order, just like Classical Hebrew; e.g., ‫חֹולת ַא ֲה ָבה‬ ַ ‫ַמה ַּתּגִ ידּו לֹו ֶׁש‬ ‫“ ָ ֽאנִ י‬. . . that you tell him that I am sick with love” (Cant 5:8). Resemblance to Biblical Hebrew is reflected nonetheless in examples in which the word order is predicate-subject. This is typical of Biblical Hebrew modal clauses, including blessings and curses,30 and may have been maintained in the language of the legal documents and letters where the predicate was a modal adjective or participle, as demonstrated in ##14–17. However, the participle may also be expected to precede its subject pronoun when introducing a speech act, as suggested by Bendavid.31 Resemblance to Biblical Hebrew is also revealed in the predicate-subject order of nominal clauses whose predicate is a demonstrative pronoun.

28  Cf., e.g., Gen 45:12 and Exod 32:22. 29  And so in #9, in which -‫ ש‬introduces the apodosis of a conditional sentence (Mor, Judean Hebrew, §5.43). 30  See, e.g., R. J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (rev. and ed. J. C. Beckman; 3rd ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto: 2007), §§551, 580. 31  Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 2:817–19. See notes 19–20, 25 above.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

77

3.2 Nominal Clauses in the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls Nominal clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as in Biblical Hebrew, exhibit either subject-predicate or predicate-subject word order.32 Both sequences are attested in nominal clauses whose predicate is a nominal phrase, a prepositional phrase, or an infinitive, with no apparent syntactic conditions. This can be observed clearly in the following two examples, which display nominal clauses introduced by ‫ כי‬and having a nominal phrase predicate. Subjectpredicate order is found in ]‫“ כיא היאה עת צרה לישר[אל‬For it is a time of distress for Isra[el]” (1QM 15:1), and predicate-subject order is found in ‫כיא שבת מנוח‬ ‫“ היאה לישראל‬For it is a Sabbath of rest for Israel” (1QM 2:8–9).33 Subjectpredicate order is attested in this dialect also in nominal clauses whose predicate is a content clause. This pattern does not exist at all in Biblical Hebrew.34 Predicate-subject word order is also attested in this dialect in nominal clauses whose predicate is an adjective, a passive participle, an interrogative particle, a personal pronoun or a demonstrative pronoun. It appears, then, that the word order of nominal clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls differs from that of the Judean Desert legal documents and letters (compare, for instance, #11 above with the predicate-subject sequence in Dead Sea Scrolls nominal clauses whose predicate is a passive participle). Actual resemblance is revealed only in predicate-subject examples whose predicate is a demonstrative pronoun. As stated above, in Biblical Hebrew too this order 32  This discussion is based on T. Zewi, “Nominal Clause Patterns in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Shaʻarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher (ed. A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg, and Y. Breuer; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 1:64–80; T. Zewi, “Nominal Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JJS 59 (2008): 273–91. The corpus for these studies comprises Pesher Habakkuk, the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, and the Rule of the Community (Serekh Ha-Yaḥad); no Biblical scrolls were included in it. 33  English translation is according to D. W. Parry and E. Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 208–42, 248–70. 34  See T. Zewi, “Content Clause in Hebrew,” Leshonenu 70 (2008): 627–57, esp. 650; T. Zewi, “Content Expressions in Biblical Hebrew,” in Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar: Studies in Memory of H. J. Polotsky (ed. G. Goldenberg and A. Shisha-Halevy; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2009), 302–16, esp. 306. Content clauses in the role of a predicate in the Dead Sea Scrolls are peculiar to the Pesharim; cf. Zewi, “Nominal Clause Patterns in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 72–73; Zewi, “Nominal Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 284–85; Zewi, “Content Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources: Proceedings of the Symposium of Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, December 29–31, 2008, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (ed. S. E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher, and R. Clements; STDJ 108; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 289–98.

78

Mor and Zewi

in nominal clauses whose predicate is a demonstrative pronoun or a personal pronoun is the only one possible. 3.3 Nominal Clauses in Rabbinic Hebrew An examination of simple nominal clause patterns in Rabbinic Hebrew (according to Ms. Kaufman) in Azar’s work on the syntax of the language of the Mishnah35 suggests that their typical word order is subject-predicate, and that the number of examples in which the order is the opposite is limited. Predicate-subject order exists only when the predicate is a personal pronoun or a demonstrative pronoun, in direct speech, when the predicate expresses measure, when it is an interrogative particle (‫מה‬, ‫)איזה‬, and when it is the numeral ‫אחד‬. As stated above, predicate-subject order is found in nominal clauses whose predicate is a personal pronoun or a demonstrative pronoun in both Biblical Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew. In the legal documents and letters from the Judean Desert, only examples with a demonstrative pronoun were encountered (#19), and they seem to reflect the same pattern. This pattern was apparently stable throughout the different phases and dialects, and consequently it cannot serve as a significant criterion for comparison of the Judean Desert legal documents and letters with other dialects. On the other hand, nominal clauses whose predicate is an adjective or participle can serve for this purpose. Bendavid indicated that the word order of such nominal clauses in Rabbinic Hebrew can be either subject-predicate or predicate-subject, and he endeavored to seek and define the syntactic and contextual conditions typical of each.36 These two word orders with adjective and participle predicates also exist in the language of the legal documents and letters from the Judean Desert. Subject-predicate order is attested in ##9–13, while predicate-subject order in ##14–17. Accordingly, the legal documents and letters share these patterns with Rabbinic Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew, too, a participle may precede or follow its subject, but, as stated above, the order depends on specific syntactic conditions. The most prominent resemblance between the language of the legal documents and letters and Rabbinic Hebrew, however, is manifested in the large number of nominal clauses with subject-predicate word order, in the limited distribution of the opposite order, and in both orders—unlike Biblical Hebrew—being unconditioned by the nominal clause’s general syntactic pattern. This resemblance also conforms to the general affinity of the language

35  Azar, Syntax, 71–79, §3.1.1. 36  Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 2:817–19.

The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters

79

of the Judean Desert legal documents and letters with Rabbinic Hebrew;37 it is still more salient considering that the language of the legal documents and letters has no such similarity to Biblical Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls language. 4 Conclusion The majority of the nominal clauses in the legal documents and letters from the Judean Desert exhibit subject-predicate word order and are unconditioned by the syntactic pattern in which they appear. These characteristics are also typical of Rabbinic Hebrew, in which the subject-predicate order generally prevails. This conclusion conforms with other linguistic features revealed in the language of the Judean Desert legal documents and letters, which testify to its close affinity with Rabbinic Hebrew. 37  Mor, Judean Hebrew, §6.2; Mor, “Three Questions and Three Answers,” §2.

Aspects of the (Morpho)syntax of the Infinitive in Qumran Hebrew Takamitsu Muraoka Whereas Qimron’s The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986) is bound to remain the fundamental reference work as far as Qumran Hebrew (QH hereafter) is concerned for some years to come, its syntax section covers only a small number of select topics. A number of scholars, including Qimron himself, have published on issues not covered in this standard work. However, there is no denying that there remains a great deal more to be investigated. It is a great honour for me to be allowed to address here only one such issue, namely the morphosyntax and syntax of the infinitive in QH. The scope of this investigation is limited primarily to the following texts: 1QS (Community Rule), 1QH (Thanksgiving Hymns), 11QTa (Temple Scroll) and 1QpH (Pesher Habakkuk). It is generally agreed that the infinitive absolute (inf. abs.) became obsolete in Mishnaic Hebrew (MH hereafter).1 The process had already begun in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH hereafter), and it is a process continuing in QH, as shown by cases in which an inf. abs. in the biblical source text is replaced by a finite verb as in 1QIsaa 37:19 ‫ ויתנו‬vs. MT ‫וְ נָ תֹן‬. Qimron2 justly mentions ‫ו̇ [בני צ] ֯דק יאירו‬ ‫( לכול קצוות תבל הלוך ואור עד תום כול מועדי חושך‬1QM 1:8).3 This case reminds us of BH examples such as ‫( וְ ַה ַמּיִ ם ָהיוּ ָהלֹוְך וְ ָחסֹור‬Gen 8:5) and ‫אַחת ָה ְלכוּ ָהֹלְך‬ ַ ‫ִבּ ְמ ִס ָלּה‬ ‫( וְ גָ עֹו‬1 Sam 6:12). However, that the structure was not quite at home with the author of 1QM is betrayed by the incongruence in binyan, for one would have expected Hiphil ‫ ָה ֵאר‬.4 We could identify another case in ‫והצנע לכת בערמת כול‬ 1  M. Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 144. Cf. also T. Muraoka, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of in 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. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 193–214, esp. 195–96. See also a brief discussion of this particular instance in Qimron, DJD 10:81 (§ 3.4.2.4). 2  E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), § 310.14. 3  The reading presented here follows E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2015) vol. 1. For other texts, so far as they are published in the first volume, the same applies. 4  ‫הֹולְך ָ ֜ו ֗אֹור ַעד־נְ ֥כֹון ַהּיֽ ֹום‬ ֥ ֵ ‫יקים ְּכ ֣אֹור ֹ֑נגַ ּה‬ ִ ‫א ַרח ַ ֭צ ִּד‬ ֹ ֣ ְ‫( ו‬Prov 4:18), mentioned by Y. Yadin, ‫מגילת‬ ‫( מלחמת בני אור בבני חושך ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 259, as another example of this construction illustrates a clumsy imitation of the BH construction.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_007

Aspects of the ( Morpho ) Syntax of the Infinitive

81

‫ וחבא לאמת רזי דעת‬1QS 4:5, namely ‫ הצנע‬in the collocation ‫הצנע לכת‬, a favourite collocation not only for the author of the Community Rule, but also for other authors; it occurs also at 1QS 5:4 par 4Q256 9 4 par 4Q258 1 3; 1QS 8:2; 4Q298 3–4 ii 5; and possibly also 4Q502 16 3. ‫ הצנע‬and ‫ חבא‬here are more likely to be inf. absolutes than inf. constructs, because this statement concludes a long series of ethical religious norms to be observed by members of the community; the series starts off with ‫להאיר בלבב איש ולישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק אמת ולפחד‬ ‫ לבבו במשפטי אל‬with three forms clearly marked as inf. constructs with the preposition lamed prefixed, and then followed by a series of abstract verbal nouns (‫ ורוח ענוה ואורך אפים‬etc.). In one case the collocation is “modernised”: ‫ללכ ֯ת‬ ֯ ‫להצניע‬ ֯ 4Q438 4 ii 4. The use of the inf. abs. ‫ חבא‬by the author of 1QS was most probably triggered by ‫הצנע‬. All the examples found in 11QTa are almost verbatim quotes from the Scriptures: 53:11 = Deut 23:22; 55:6 = Deut 13:16; 56:14 = Deut 17:15; 62:14 = Deut 20:17; 64:11 = Deut 21:23; 64:14 = Deut 22:1; 65:4 = Deut 22:7. What appear to be exceptions may in fact have to do with a different Vorlage. The first such example is again from 11QTa 53:14–15 ‫ואיש כי‬ ‫ידור נדר לי או ישבע‬, which is supposed to correspond to Num 30:3, where, however, we read ‫ ִה ָּשׁ ַבע‬, an inf. abs. instead of the imperfect in the Qumran text. Since its author appears to be quite at home with the inf. abs., his Vorlage may have read the imperfect, which the parallelism with the immediately following clause seems to favour,5 or he may have so “edited” it mentally. A reverse situation obtains at 11QTa 53:19–20 ‫ואם הנא יאנה אביה‬, for which the MT reads at Num 30:6 ‫אָב ָיה‬ ִ ‫ם־הנִ יא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬which is, grammatically, perfectly in order. The LXX, however, reads ἐὰν δὲ ἀνανεύων ἀνανεύσῃ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς, which agrees with 11QTa. Most revealing is an authentic inf. abs. occurring in what is not part of a “rewritten Bible”: 4Q398 14–17 ii 2 ‫ואף הוא נצל מצרות רבות ונסלוח לו‬, “and he was thus rescued from many troubles, and he was forgiven.” Here the Niphal inf. abs., ‫נסלוח‬, continues the preceding finite verb, a feature rather typical of the LBH syntax.6 It is most striking that this rare, genuine QH example of the inf. abs., an example which is not an allusion to a biblical text or a take-off from In the well-known syntagm ‫ ָקטו ֺל ָק ַט ְל ִּתי‬or ‫ ָק ַט ְל ִּתי ָקטו ֺל‬one meets with cases of discord in binyan such as ‫יּומת‬ ַ ‫“ מו ֺת‬he shall be put to death” (Exod 19:12); for details, see P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; Subsidia biblica 27; Rome: Gregorian Biblical Press, 2006), § 123p. 5  Cf. LXX: ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν εὔξηται εὐχὴν κυρίῳ ἢ ὀμόσῃ ὅρκον. See also Peshitta ad loc. 6  See Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 123x with n. 1 there. Cf. also Qimron, in his description of the language of this document in DJD 10:81 (§ 3.4.2.4), where he adds a few more examples from QH. Though the usage is particularly common in LBH, it is not confined there; see references in Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 123x.

82

Muraoka

some standing BH (= Biblical Hebrew) expression, should occur in this document, 4QMMT, whose proximity to, and affinity with, MH is well known. Though in LBH and QH the inf. abs. as a category of the verb morphology was breathing its last, some of the unique ways in which it was used in BH were being taken over by the infinitive construct, it appears, and survived in QH. Its modal use in expressing a command of general, permanent validity is one such. This is well known from 1QS, though not confined to it. An innovation in QH is its extension to negative injunctions: ‫ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה‬ parallel with a series of the infinitives in positive form, 1QS 1:6, and similarly five more times: 1QS 1:14–17;7 ‫ לוא להוכיח ולהתרובב‬1QS 9:16; ‫לוא לסור ימין ושמאול‬ 1QS 3:10, immediately followed by ‫;ואין לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו‬8 and also without lamed in ‫ והבדל מכול איש ולוא הסר דרכו מכול עול‬1QS 9:20–21.9 In BH we have, by contrast, a complementary opposition between ‫ ָקטו ֺל‬and ‫ לא ִת ְקטֹל‬as illustrated in the Decalogue: ‫ זָ כו ֺר‬in contrast to ‫לא תגנב‬. Thus the morphosyntactic mechanism for expressing the obligative modality of the QH system is simpler and more elegant (?) than that of BH. The inf. abs. in BH is not negated. In examples such as ‫( וְ ָה ֵמת לֹא נְ ִמ ֶיתָך‬Judg 15:13), even in ‫( לא מֹות תמותון‬Gen 3:4), the negator is to be construed with the verbal clause as a whole, not with the inf. abs. alone. On the other hand, QH follows BH in its use of ‫ בלתי‬or ‫ לבלתי‬as the principal negator of the normal inf. cst. (= construct). Just as in ‫ל־מ ֶמּנּוּ‬ ִ ‫יתיָך ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֲא ָכ‬ ִ ִ‫ִצוּ‬

7  For a syntactical analysis of this long series of infinitives, see T. Muraoka, “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (1),” RevQ 17 (1996): 573–83, esp. 575–76. 8  On this syntagm, ‫ אין‬+ inf., which is not to be considered syntactically equivalent to the preceding ‫ לוא‬+ inf., see T. Muraoka, “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (3): The Community Rule (1QS) Column 3,” Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998): 47–64, esp. 56. 9  For a discussion of this long series of infinitives from a stylistic, literary perspective, see J. Licht, ‫( מגילת הסרכים ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), §§ 30 and 31. P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 44 is right in saying that these infinitives are to be translated as finite forms, though he is inconsistent with his “in order to do what is good and right” (p. 22). Thus these infinitives do not “clarify the purpose of entering the covenant,” pace J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 7 n. 3. Charlesworth dissects the series of infinitives into shorter series, translating the first infinitive of each with “in order to” and the subsequent ones with a participle, which produces in English an awkward anacolouth with no grammatical subject. Martone justly recognises the obligative, injunctive force of the construction here, justifying his addition of si deve in his translation: si deve ricercate Dio etc., see C. Martone, La “Regola della Comunità” (Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 1995), 117, 137 n. 4.

Aspects of the ( Morpho ) Syntax of the Infinitive

83

(Gen 3:11) we find in QH, e.g., ‫“ אשים גבולי לבלתי שוב‬I shall set my limit so as not to go astray” (1QS 10:10–11). As is well known, the inf. abs. in BH also continues a verbum finitum, a typically LBH feature. Qimron quotes several examples, all from 1QM,10 in which an inf. cst. appears to be continuing the preceding verbum finitum, e.g., ‫ביד‬ ‫( אביונים תסגיר [נד]יבי כול הארצות וביד כורעי עפר להשפיל גבורי עמים‬1QM 11:13);11 also ‫ואת ראשי הכוהנים יסרוכו אחר כוהן הראש ומשנהו ראשים שנים עשר להיות‬ ‫משרתים [ב]תמיד לפני אל וראשי המשמרות ששה ועשרים במשמרותם ישרתו ואחריהם‬ ‫ראשי הלויים לשרת תמיד שנים עשר אחד לשבט וראשי משמרותם איש במעמדו ישרתו‬ ‫( וראשי השבטים ואבות העדה אחריהם להתיצב תמיד בשערי המקדש‬1QM 2:1–3). To these we should now add the example mentioned earlier, ‫ נסלוח‬in 4QMMT.

It appears then that we are witnessing here a redeployment in QH of the morphosyntactic resources which were available in BH. Let’s now take a look at another issue, namely the negation of the infinitive.12 In BH ‫ בלתי‬is virtually the sole negator used with the infinitive. The only exceptions are ‫ ֵמ ֵאין‬,‫ ְּבלֹא‬, and ‫ ְּב ִלי‬, each attested once: ‫“ בלא ְראו ֺת‬without seeing, when he is not seeing” (Num 35:23);13 ‫“ ֵמ ֵאין עֹוד ְּפנֹות אל המנחה‬because he no longer takes notice of the offering” (Mal 2:13); and ‫“ ִמ ְּב ִלי יְ כ ֶֹלת יהוה ַל ֲה ִב ָיאם‬because the Lord was not able to bring them” (Deut 9:28). ‫ לבלתי‬is abundantly attested in QH—42 times,14 including some uncertain readings. What we find significant here is that QH, in addition to a good number of attestations of the biblical ‫לבלתי‬/‫בלתי‬, uses the plain ‫לא‬: ‫ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות‬ ‫לב אשמה‬, parallel with a series of the infinitives in positive form (1QS 1:6), and similarly five more times (see above). Moreover, QH shows a complementary distribution of the two structures. ‫ לא‬+ inf. is used for generic, negative commands,15 and this is possibly a replacement and continuation of similar use of the inf. abs. in BH, as I have pointed out earlier. By contrast, ‫ בלתי‬+ inf. is a standard negation of an inf. cst. as in BH, e.g., ‫צויתיך לבלתי ֲא ָכל־ממנו‬ 10  Qimron, Hebrew, § 400.02. 11  Though ‫ וביד כורעי עפר‬could be an additional prepositional adjunct to be construed with ‫תסגיר‬, making the inf. ‫ להשפיל‬another adjunct denoting a purpose, such an analysis is not an obvious one. 12  On this matter in general, cf. also Qimron, Hebrew, § 400.12. 13  4QNumb is here fragmentary; the inf. as in the MT is read with some hesitancy, but one does not know the form of the negator (DJD 12:260). 14  See M. G. Abegg, Jr., with J. E. Bowley and E. M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2003–2009), 1:147–48. 15  Cf. also G. 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. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 217–46, esp. 223–25.

84

Muraoka

(Gen 3:11). An example from QH is ‫“ אשים גבולי לבלתי שוב‬I shall set my limit so as not to go astray” (1QS 10:10–11). In BH, however, such an inf. abs. is not used with a negator. In QH the inf. without a negator can be modally used with an obligative modality. A good example is mentioned by Qimron:16 ‫כול אשר לוא נחשבו בבריתו‬ ‫“ להבדיל אותם‬all those who were not counted among his covenant, you should excommunicate them” (1QS 5:18). Here, too, we could see a substitute of the archaic inf. abs., which was in the death throes in the intertestamental period. In BH the inf. cst. is not used in this way. An example such as ‫לנו הסגירֹו ביד המלך‬ (1 Sam 23:20) represents a distinct syntagm.17 On the other hand, ‫ שלוא‬followed by an infinitive in 4QMMT is not another independent negator. Thus in ‫על בה[מתו הטהור]ה כתוב שלוא לרבעה כלאים ועל‬ ‫( לבוש[ו כתוב שלוא] יהיה שאטנז ושלוא לזרוע שדו וכ[רמו כלאים‬4QMMT B 76–78) the particle -‫ ש‬in ‫“ לרבעה שלוא‬one shall not mate it” introduces a content clause just as in ‫“ כתוב שמעת שיגלח וכבס‬it is written that from the moment he shaves and washes . . .” (4QMMT B 66). The same analysis can apply to the above-quoted ‫( שלוא לזרוע‬4QMMT B 78), where it is therefore, pace Qimron,18 not to be assumed that the particle is redundant and introduces a clause which is independent of what precedes. Qimron19 lists a series of negators used in QH with an infinitive. We in turn have attempted here to point to some functional, (morpho)syntactic differences between them.20 As in BH, an inf. often indicates a purpose in relation to the lead verb. There are many examples of this. Let us mention just a couple: ‫בבואם לשרת בקודש‬ “when they enter in order to minister in the sanctuary” (11QTa 32:12); ‫ובעם רב‬ ‫“ יקיפום לתפושם‬and with a large army they will encircle them in order to capture them” (1QpHab 4:7). A variant on this use of the inf. is identifiable in cases such as ‫עד אשר‬ ‫“ יזכו מעשיו מכול עול להלך בתמים דרך‬until his deeds are cleansed of every iniquity so that he will walk in integrity of way” (1QS 8:18); ‫חנותני ברוח דעת‬ 16  Qimron, Hebrew, § 400.02. 17  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 124l. 18  DJD 10:80, § 3.4.2.1 with n. 74 there. One of Qimron’s arguments is that ‫ שדה‬and ‫ כרם‬are mentioned in two separate places in the Bible, which is no argument that the injunction here in 4QMMT, combining both nouns in a single injunction, is not biblically informed. 19  Qimron, Hebrew, § 400.12. 20  See further T. Muraoka, “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4c) on the Community Rule (1QS),” in Crossing Textual Boundaries: A Festschrift in Honor of Archie Chi Chung Lee for His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. L. K. Lo, N. Tan, and Y. Zhang; Hong Kong: Divinity School of Chung Chi College of Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010), 291–309, esp. 297–301.

Aspects of the ( Morpho ) Syntax of the Infinitive

85

‫“ ֯ל[אהוב כול א] ֯מת [וצד] ֯ק ולתעב כול דרך עולה ואהבכה נדבה‬you have graciously endowed me with a spirit of insight . . . and in order for me to detest every way of iniquity and to love you freely” (1QHa 6:36–37).21 In these and other similar cases, unlike in the above-mentioned final use of the inf., the subject of the inf. differs from that of the lead verb.22 The same analysis could apply in a syntactically difficult passage: ‫ארור בגלולי לבו לעביר הבא בברית הזות ומכשול‬ ‫“ עוונו ישים לפניו להסוג בו‬Abominable is it, with idolatrous ways of one’s heart, to cause the new member in this covenant to digress, and to place his sinful stumbling-block in front of him so that he will backslide through it” (1QS 2:11).23 Further, by virtue of the broadly terminative value of the preposition lamed, an inf. cst. with such a lamed prefixed can be consecutive, indicating a result or a consequence, namely, the action indicated by the lead verb leads to, or results in, a certain situation, e.g., ‫“ הנגלות עשו ביד רמה לעלות אף למשפט‬they treated the revealed matters high-handedly, as a consequence of which punitive wrath will emerge” (1QS 5:12); ‫המה מחלקים את עולם ואת מסם מאכלם על כול‬ ‫“ העמים שנה בשנה לחריב ארצות רבות‬they will allocate their yoke and tribute, their sustenance, to all the nations year in year out, eventually ruining many lands” (1QpHab 6:7–8), where the infinitive cannot be indicating a purpose, for the colonial overlords would wish to be able to keep milking their colonies for ever.



Epexegetical

Sometimes an infinitive carries on in a loose fashion the thought expressed by the preceding lead verb. In ‫לדרוש אל ב[כול ל]ב ובכול נפש לעשות הטוב והישר‬ ‫( לפניו‬1QS 1:1–2) the second inf., ‫לעשות‬, does not express a purpose of the action expressed by ‫לדרוש‬, but the first indicates one’s attitude and principle, whilst

21  In other editions the lines are numbered as 25–26. Henceforward this discrepancy will not be noted: the requisite information can be easily found in the margin to the left in Qimron’s edition. 22  A translation such as “you have favoured me with the spirit of knowledge [to love tr]uth [and justice,] and to loathe all the paths . . .” is misleading: DSSSE, 1:155. We submit that ‫ אהבכה‬is not an impf., but an inf., coordinate with the preceding ‫לתעב‬. In close, semantic juncture the preposition lamed may be left out as in ‫( לשבת וקום‬1QS 10:14). 23  On this difficult passage, see T. Muraoka, “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (2),” AbrNahrain 33 (1995): 55–73, esp. 67–68; I read a phonetically spelled ‫( לעביר‬Hiphil) instead of Qimron’s ‫( לעבור‬Qal).

86

Muraoka

the second says how the attitude and stance manifests itself in practice.24 In the Qumranic style, the second infinitive could have been introduced with ‫ ;פשרו‬likewise, ‫( לוא ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות לעשות כול רע‬1QS 1:6– 7); and, similarly, ‫( ולוא לסור מחוקי אמתו ללכת ימין ושמאול‬1QS 1:15) and ‫העיר‬ ‫ אשר אקדיש לשכין שמי‬11QTa (47:3–4). Also, ‫לרחוק מכול רע ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב‬ (1QS 1:4–5) is meant to elaborate the immediately preceding pair of infinitives: ‫( ולאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס‬1QS 1:3–4). It is not for nothing that the co-ordinating conjunction waw is missing before ‫לרחוק‬.25 In one rare case an epexegetical infinitive follows and elaborates a noun phrase: ‫( כובוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושך‬1QS 4:11).26 This biblical imagery is to be compared with ‫( וַ ּיִ ְכ ַּבד לב פרעה ולא שלח את העם‬Exod 9:7); ‫ן‬‎‫ָּכ ֵבד ֵלב ַּפ ְרעֹה ֵמ ֵא‬ ‫( ְל ַׁש ַּלח ָה ָעם‬Exod 7:14). This epexegetical function of the inf. cst. is a legacy from BH as in ‫( העם ח ְֹט ִאים ליהוה לאכל על הדם‬1 Sam 14:33).27

Nominalisation

The infinitive is often used as an equivalent to a substantive in its various functions: a) Subject or Predicate in a nominal clause: ‫( להרע כול מחשבתם‬1QpHab 3:5); ‫( לבני] הכוהנ[ים] ראו להזהיר בדבר הזה‬4QMMT B 11). b) Complement of a preposition: ‫פרשנו מרוב הע[ם ומכול טמאתם ו]מהתערב‬ ‫( בדברים האלה‬4QMMT C 7), note the juxtaposition of the infinitive with an ordinary substantive. Particularly common in temporal adjuncts: ‫( בעוברם בברית‬1QS 1:18); ‫( לפני היותם‬1QS 3:15); ‫( עד כלותם‬1QS 4:13–14);

24  In the corresponding spot in the 4Q fragment (4Q255 i 1) there is no waw prefixed to ‫לעשות‬. 25  It is thus misleading to use a semicolon, as DSSSE, 71 does before “in order to keep oneself . . .” as if this is a new injunction parallel with the preceding “in order to love everything. . . .” Equally misleading is Vermes’s “that they may abstain . . .”; see G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed; New York: Penguin Books, 1995), 98. On the other hand, DSSSE’s use of a participle, “performing,” to follow on “not to talk” at line 6 is felicitous. 26  See further T. Muraoka, “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4b) on the Community Rule,” in Zaphenath-Paneah: Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. D. Sivan, D. Talshir, and C. Cohen; Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2009), 115–25, esp. *122–23. 27  See further Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 124o.

Aspects of the ( Morpho ) Syntax of the Infinitive

87

‫( עם האספו‬1QS 10:3); ‫( בטרם היותם למלאכי ק[ודש‬1QHa 9:12–13); ‫בהיות טמאתם‬ ‫( עמהם‬4QMMT B 67); cf. ‫“ בכול היותי‬as long as I live” (1QS 10:8). Non-temporal adjuncts are ‫“ בלא הוכח‬without reproving” (4Q417 2 i 2); ‫( תמ]שכהו מחטוא לך‬1QHa 4:34); ‫( אכרית זרעו ממשול עוד על ישראל‬11QTa 59:15); ‫( לפי קורבי‬1QHa 6:24–25); ‫“ כרחקך אותו כן אתעבנו‬to the extent that

you keep him away, so I shall detest him” (1QHa 6:32). c) Object of a verb: ‫( ל]א תירבב[ אובל סאומה‬1QS 2:25–26); ‫“ ריטקל המתולכב‬on finishing burning incense” (11QTa 33:15); ‫( םינויבא תולכל םמז‬1QpHab 12:6); ‫( ןהוכב די חולשל ושקבי‬4Q171 1–2 ii 17) || ‫( ךתצע תא ןקתיש וינפלמ שקב‬4QMMT C 28); ‫( ודעצ ןיכהל לכוי ךיא‬1QHa 8:34). d) Nomen rectum: ‫( היאה עת פנות הדרך למדבר‬1QS 9:19–20); ‫טמא טמא יהיה‬ ‫( כול יומי מואסו במשפטי אל‬1QS 3:5–6); ‫ בראשית צאת‬. . . ‫ברשית משלח ידי ורגלי‬ ‫( ובוא לשבת וקום עם משכב יצועי‬1QS 10:13–14) || ‫( בתחילת עומדו‬1QpHab 8:9); ‫( ביום זוב[חם‬4QMMT B 11). In all these cases the nomen regens is of temporal signification;28 cf. ‫( מיום הביאכמה את העומר‬11QTa 18:11 = MT) and, similarly, 11QTa 19:11 (= MT). 28  In QA the lamed-less infinitive is confined to temporal adjuncts.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew Jacobus A. Naudé and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé Abstract This paper focuses on the description and explanation of the syntactic status, distribution, and scope of the quantifier ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew, that is, the Hebrew of the Qumran collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, it will be shown that the quantifier ordinarily exhibits many syntactic features that are similar to Biblical Hebrew with respect to the constituent it modifies and the semantic nuances of each construction. Second, the distinctive patterns of ‫ כל‬at Qumran will be described and analysed. These include, first, the use of ‫ כל‬before repeated, conjoined nouns to indicate “each and every,” which is a syntactic construction that emerged in the Second Temple period. The second construction involves the reduced use of the floated quantifier in Qumran Hebrew. The implications of the syntactic features of ‫ כל‬for a diachronic understanding of Hebrew will be explored.

1 Introduction This paper reports research in progress on the interpretation and translation of quantification constructions.1 It will specifically focus on the description and explanation of the syntactic status, distribution, and scope of the quantifier ‫כל‬ in Qumran Hebrew, that is, the Hebrew of the Qumran collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Comparisons will be made to Biblical Hebrew where relevant. The analysis will focus on two constructions with unusual distributional patterns in the Qumran texts. The first construction concerns the repetition of the constituent qualified by the quantifier ‫כל‬. The second one concerns the construction * We thank our research assistant, Ms. Jacqueline Smith, for her assistance in collecting and classifying the data for this paper. This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Jacobus A. Naudé UID 85902). The grant-holder acknowledges that opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF supported research are those of the author, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard. 1 J. A. Naudé, “Syntactic Patterns of Quantifier Float in Biblical Hebrew,” HS 52 (2011): 121–36; Naudé, “The Interpretation and Translation of the Biblical Hebrew Quantifier KOL,” JSem 22 (2011): 408–21; J. A. Naudé and G. A. Rendsburg, “Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew,” EHLL 2:801–11. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_008

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

89

described by linguists as “quantifier float,” which is quite common in Biblical Hebrew but is nearly absent in Qumran Hebrew. As background for the analysis it is necessary to explain the linguistic terminology for quantification.2 The term “quantifier” is used within linguistics to indicate items which appear together with nouns to specify the number or the amount of the referents indicated by these nouns (e.g. each, every, all).3 In other words, quantifiers indicate the amount of the entity or the amount of the substance. As Lyons puts it, “a quantifier tells us how many entities or how much substance is being referred to.”4 Determiners (e.g. a, the, this and that) differ from quantifiers (each, every, all) in that they indicate which part of a subgroup or group of entities is being referred to. The sentences in (1) illustrate this difference; in (1a), the subject is modified by a determiner (these) which indicates which subgroup of students read the book, whereas in (1b) and (1c), the subject is modified by a quantifier (all, every) which indicates the number of students reading the book: (1) (a) These students read the book (b) All the students read the book (c) Every student reads the book The scope of a quantifier is the part of an utterance that is controlled or qualified by the quantifier; this is called the quantifier phrase (QP). Example (2a) illustrates that the quantifier all has scope only over the noun phrase (NP) 2   This section draws on the material in Naudé, “Syntactic Patterns,” and Naudé, “The Interpretation and Translation,” and is repeated here for the convenience of the reader to understand the argumentation in this article. The following linguistic abbreviations are used in this article: NP (Noun Phrase), QP (Quantifier Phrase). 3  The linguistics literature on quantification is massive. For important references on this topic, see the articles on the various aspects of quantification in J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, vol. 6: Generalized Quantifiers and Scope (London: Routledge, 2003). Other important articles include: M. R. Baltin, “Floating Quantifiers, PRO, and Predication,” LingI 26 (1995): 199–248; J. Barwise and R. Cooper, “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language,” Ling&P 4 (1981): 159–219; E. Benmamoun, “Remarks and Replies: The Syntax of Quantifiers and Quantifier Float,” LingI 30 (1999): 621–42; J. D. Bobaljik, “Floating Quantifiers: Handle with Care,” in The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book (ed. L. L.-S. Cheng and R. Sybesma; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 107–48; R. May, “The Grammar of Quantification” (Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977); U. Shlonsky, “Quantifiers as Functional Heads: A Study of Quantifier Float in Hebrew,” Lingua 84 (1991): 159–80; D. A. Sportiche, “Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure,” LingI 19 (1988): 425–49. 4  J. Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 2:455.

90

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

the students and not over an additional NP in the sentence (for example, the books). In order to qualify the NP the books, a second quantifier must be formally added, as in example (2b). (2) (a) All the students read the books. (b) All the students read all the books. Quantifiers can be divided into two general types on the basis of the amount of entities or the amount of the substance with which they are associated. (Examples of the relevant quantifiers in English and Afrikaans are given in brackets).5 (3) (a) All-type quantifiers are used with uncountable entities and/or with a series of entities consisting of three or more members (English all; Afrikaans alle, al); (b) Each-type quantifiers are used with a series of countable entities consisting of two or more members (English each; Afrikaans elk, elkeen). In a cross-linguistic study of quantifiers Gil states that syntactic and semantic evidence supports the claim that the quantifier all is the basic or simple universal quantifier and that the quantifier every is among the most exceptional of quantifiers in its syntactic and semantic behaviour.6 Evidence for the claim that all is the more basic quantifier can be adduced from English, where the quantifier all allows either distributive or non-distributive interpretations, 5  This division is not an exhaustive classification of Afrikaans floating universal quantifiers; see J. Oosthuizen, “Movement vs. Binding: Two Analyses of Quantifier Postposing Phenomena in Afrikaans” (M.A. thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 1988). The division in (3) must be broadened to make provision for at least two additional types of floating universal quantifiers. The first type (Type I quantifiers) encompasses the negative equivalents of the quantifiers in (3a)–(3c), i.e. nie al/albei (“not all/both”), geeneen (“not one”) etc. The quantifiers of the second general type (Type II quantifiers) are the same as those in (3b) in the sense that they are used with an exact number of entities. Examples of Type II quantifiers are al drie (“all three”), al tien (“all ten”), etc., that is, combinations of al (“all”) plus a number. These two types of quantifiers will not be discussed because the relevant characteristics of Type I quantifiers are the same as those of their positive equivalents in (3a)-(3c), and the relevant characteristics of Type II quantifiers are the same as in (3b). 6  D. Gil, “Universal Quantification in Hebrew and Arabic,” in Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar Papers from the Second Conference on Afroasiatic Languages Sophia Antipolis, 1994 (ed. J. Lowenstamm and U. Shlonsky; The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics, 1996), 105–22, at 106.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

91

while the quantifier every forces distributive interpretations. Consider the contrast between the two sentences in (4): (4) (a) All the boys are riding an elephant. (b) Every boy is riding an elephant. Whereas in (4a), the sentence may be understood to mean that the boys are acting collectively (all on one elephant) or individually/distributively (each one on a separate elephant), in (4b) the only interpretation is that they are acting individually (each boy on a separate elephant). In other words, the use of every forces a distributive interpretation. While English has distinct lexemes for the universal quantifier and the distributive quantifier, Gil mentions Maricopa, isiZulu, Malayalam, White Hmong, Yukaghir, Modern Hebrew and Arabic as languages with a simple universal quantifier, but no distributive universal quantifier.7 In these languages there are no distinct lexical counterparts to English all and every, but instead the semantic contrast between simple and distributive universal quantification is expressed structurally. According to Gil, the quantifier in Modern Hebrew or Arabic may occur either with plural morphology, in which case it is interpreted as a simple universal quantifier, or alternatively it may occur with singular morphology, in which case it is interpreted as a distributive universal quantifier.8 This claim is reiterated by Shlonsky, who states that the distributive universal quantifier in Hebrew and Arabic must be followed by an indefinite singular noun.9 Brockelmann also operates with this distinction.10 What this means is that Modern Hebrew differentiates the use of ‫ כל‬as a universal quantifier from ‫ כל‬as a distributive quantifier through the syntactic shape of the quantifier phrase. In Qumran Hebrew, however, there are two additional syntactic constructions involving ‫כל‬, namely: ‫ כל‬with indefinite plural nouns and ‫ כל‬with definite singular nouns. In other words, Modern Hebrew only uses ‫ כל‬with definite plural nouns to indicate “all” and ‫ כל‬with indefinite singular nouns to mean “each/ every.” But both Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew use ‫ כל‬in four constructions—with definite and indefinite nouns in both singular and plural. Whereas Modern Hebrew uses maximal redundancy to indicate the type of quantifi7   Ibid., 108–10. 8   Ibid., 110. 9   U. Shlonsky, “Quantifiers as Functional Heads,” 160 n. 1. 10   C. Brockelmann, Hebraïsche Syntax (2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 71.

92

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

cation by means of opposing both definiteness–indefiniteness and singular– plural, Biblical and Qumran Hebrew have four syntactic constructions and thus four nuances of quantification. As a result, while Hebrew appears, at first glance, to be impoverished since it has only one lexical quantifier as opposed to English, in fact, ancient Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew) syntactically differentiates four quantification constructions. The semantic implications of these four constructions must be specified even though they cannot be translated concisely into languages with fewer quantificational distinctions, such as English and Modern Hebrew. Precisely how we should understand the semantic nuances of the various quantification constructions is not well understood. As an example of the uncertainty, we can contrast the translation by García Martínez and Tigchelaar11 and that of Wise, Abegg, and Cook.12 In 1QS 5:3, we have an example of ‫ כל‬followed by an indefinite noun. García Martinez and Tigchelaar translate with “every” whereas Wise, Abegg, and Cook translate with “all.”13 In 1QS 4:20–21, the same construction—‫ כל‬followed by an indefinite noun—occurs, but here García Martinez and Tigchelaar translate with “all” whereas Wise, Abegg, and Cook translate with “every.” It is clear, then, that the syntactic constructions of quantification and their accompanying semantic distinctions are not well understood. Three questions arise: First, how do we determine when ‫ כל‬in Biblical and Qumran Hebrew should be understood as the simple universal quantifier all and when it should be understood as the distributive quantifier every? Second, because Biblical and Qumran Hebrew have twice as many quantifier constructions as Modern Hebrew, what is the nuance of each construction and how should they be translated? Third, how does Qumran Hebrew differ from Biblical Hebrew? The first two questions will be addressed in Section B; the third question will be examined in Section C. 2

Syntactic Patterns and Scope of ‫כל‬

This section examines the syntactic patterns and scope of ‫ כל‬as found in Qumran Hebrew and compares them to Biblical Hebrew. As will be shown 11   F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998). 12   M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2nd ed.; London: Harper Collins, 2005). 13   D SSSE, 1:79; Wise, Abegg and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 122.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

93

below, the difference between ‫ כל‬as a distributive quantifier “every” and ‫ כל‬as a collective quantifier “all” is that ‫ כל‬as a distributive quantifier occurs with indefinite nouns, is non-specific, and is implicitly inclusive, whereas ‫ כל‬as a collective quantifier “all” is specific and inclusive. The difference between the plural and the singular is motivated by individualisation. In the plural the focus is not on individualisation. The singular focuses on individualisation/ individuation. These distinctions will be discussed in what follows. 2.1 ‫ כל‬with Scope over a Definite Plural Noun In the first category, ‫ כל‬has scope over a definite plural noun. In linguistic terms, the quantifier ‫ כל‬in this construction functions as a collective universal quantifier and indicates “the totality of the (specific) group.” In this construction ‫ כל‬conveys the nuance of “all.”14 14   See also 1QpHab 2:8–9; 1QpHab 2:10; 1QpHab 3:4–5 (2 examples); 1QpHab 3:6; 1QpHab 3:11; 1QpHab 5:4; 1QpHab 5:5; 1QpHab 6:7; 1QpHab 7:5; 1QpHab 8:1; 1QpHab 8:5 (2 examples); 1QpHab 12:12–13; 1QpHab 13:1; 1QpHab 13:3; 1QpMic 8–10 7; 1Q22 1:10; 1Q26 1+2 7 (2 examples); 1QMyst 1 i 8; 1QMyst 1 i 8–9; 1QMyst 1 ii 10; 1QS 1:3; 1QS 1:7; 1QS 1:8–9; 1QS 1:11; 1QS 1:16; 1QS 1:19; 1QS 1:19–20; 1QS 1:23; 1QS 2:4–5; 1QS 2:5; 1QS 2:10; 1QS 2:15–16; 1QS 2:18; 1QS 2:19; 1QS 3:5; 1QS 3:6–7; 1QS 3:7–8; 1QS 3:11; 1QS 3:14; 1QS 3:15; 1QS 3:17; 1QS 3:22; 1QS 3:23; 1QS 3:24; 1QS 4 (2 examples); 1QS 4:12; 1QS 4:13; 1QS 4:15; 1QS 4:18; 1QS 5:4; 1QS 5:6; 1QS 5:7; 1QS 5:8; 1QS 5:10; 1QS 5:14; 1QS 5:19 (2 examples); 1QS 5:20 (2 examples); 1QS 5:22; 1QS 6:2; 1QS 6:7; 1QS 6:15; 1QS 7:20; 1QS 9:3; 1QS 9:25; 1QS 10:17; 1QS 11:14; 1QS 11:16; 1QS 11:19; 1QSa 1:4; 1QSa 1:5 (2 examples); 1QSa 1:6; 1QSa 1:15; 1QSa 1:16; 1QSa 1:24; 1QSa 1:27–28; 1QSa 1:29; 1QSa 2:12–13; 1QSb 2:27; 1QSb 3:2; 1QSb 3:24; 1QSb 5:19; 1Q31 1 1; 1QM 1:3; 1QM 1:7; 1QM 1:12; 1QM 2:4; 1QM 2:7 (3 examples); 1QM 2:12; 1QM 2:13; 1QM 2:16; 1QM 4:2; 1QM 4:6; 1QM 4:7; 1QM 4:8; 1QM 4:12-13; 1QM 6:10; 1QM 7:2; 1QM 7:7 (2 examples); 1QM 7:12; 1QM 9:3; 1QM 9:14; 1QM 10:1–2; 1QM 10:5; 1QM 10:9; 1QM 10:13; 1QM 11:6; 1QM 11:13; 1QM 12:10; 1QM 12:13; 1QM 12:14; 1QM 13:1 (2 examples); 1QM 13:2; 1QM 13:3; 1QM 13:4; 1QM 13:8; 1QM 13:11–12; 1QM 14:8; 1QM 14:9 (2 examples); 1QM 14:11; 1QM 15:1; 1QM 15:4; 1QM 15:6; 1QM 15:7; 1QM 15:9; 1QM 16:1; 1QM 16:11; 1QM 17:8; 1QM 18:4 (2 examples); 1QM 19:5; 1QM 19:10; 1QM 19:12; 1Q39 1 3; 2Q22 2:3; 4QpPsa 1–10 ii 2; 4QpPsa 1–10 ii 3; 4QTest 24; 4QTanḥ 1:6; 4QTobe 2 3; 4QTobe 6 5; 4QJuba 1:15; 4QJuba 2:15; 4QJuba 2:16; 4QJuba 7:13; 4QJuba 7:14; 4QJubd 2:12; 4QJubd 2:28; 4QJubd 2:30; 4QJubd 2:31; 4QpsJubb 5 2; 4QSb 3:3; 4QSb 9:4; 4QSd 1:3; 4QSd 2:1; 4QSd 2:6; 4QSj 1 3; 4QSj 1 7; CD-A 1:2; CD-A 2:16; CD-A 4:7; CD-A 4:12; CD-A 7:3; CD-A 7:4; CD-A 7:9; CD-A 7:13; CD-A 7:21; CD-A 8:1; CD-A 8:21; CD-A 12:14; CD-A 12:15; CD-A 13:4; CD-A 14:1; CD-A 14:3; CD-A 14:8; CD-A 14:9; CD-A 14:12; CD-B 19:5; CD-B 19:13–14; CD-B 19:31–32; CD-B 19:33; CD-B 20:2; CD-B 20:14; CD-B 20:26–27; CD-B 20:27; 4QDa 1 a-b 3; 4QDa 11 6; 4QDa 11 7; 4QDb 9 v 12; 4QDc 1 10; 4QDe 3 ii 19; 4QDe 7 i 15; 4QDe 7 i 20; 4QDf 3 8; 4Q274 1 i 1; 4Q274 1 i 3; 4Q274 1 i 8–9; 4Q274 2 i 9; 4QBera 1 a 2, b 2; 4QBera 5a, b, c, 1; 4QBera 5a, b, c, 5; 4QBera 7a 2, b, c, d, 3; 4Q292 2 4; 4QMysta 6 i 14; 4Q303 1 6; 4Q369 3 4; 4Q370 i 3; 4Q374 2 ii 5; 4Q379 12 6; 4Q379 22 ii 10; 4Q380 1 ii 3; 4Q381 1 10; 4Q392 1 7; 4QMMTc 1–2 iii 1; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 27; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 35; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 41; 4QShirShabbd 1 ii 4; 4QShirShabbd 1 ii 13; 4QShirShabbd 1 ii 14;

94

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

(5) 11QTa 19:14–15

]‫ו[הקרבת]מה יין חדש לנסך ארבעה הינים מכול מטות ישראל ש[לישית‬ ‫ההין על המטה‬

and [y]ou [shall offer] new wine for the libation: four hin from all the tribes of Israel, a th[ird of] a hin for (each) tribe. In this example, it is clear that ‫ כל‬indicates “all” rather than “every” because the amount of wine for each tribe is explicitly mentioned in the following phrase. (6) 1QM 7: 12

‫הכוהן האחד יהיה מהלך על פני כול אנשי המערכה לחזק ידיהם במלחמה‬

The one priest shall walk before all the men of the battle line to strengthen their hands for battle. In this example, it is clear that one priest is walking before the total group of men of the battle line. (7) CD-A 14:8–10

‫והמבקר אשר לכל המחנות מבן שלשים שנה ועד בן חמשים שנה בעול בכל סוד‬ ‫אנשים‬

And the Inspector who is over all the camps will be between thirty years and sixty years of age, master of every secret of men.

4Q416 1 10; 4Q417 2 i 7; 4Q417 2 i 12–13; 4Q417 2 ii 11; 4Q418 9–9c 10; 4Q418 81 7; 4Q418 81 8; 4Q418 81 17; 4Q422 2–6 ii 7; 4Q423 4 2; 4Q426 1 i 2; 4QHa 7 ii 13; 4QHa 7 ii 23; 4Q433a 2 7; 4Q434 1 i 1; 4Q437 2 i 7; 4Q439 1 i 6; 4Q445 3 1; 8Q5 2 6; 11QTa 3:8; 11QTa 9:12; 11QTa 15:4; 11QTa 16:13; 11QTa 17:4; 11QTa 19:16; 11QTa 20:13; 11QTa 26:11; 11QTa 27:9; 11QTa 29:6 (2 examples); 11QTa 29:10; 11QTa 42:3; 11QTa 45:13; 11QTa 46:4; 11QTa 49:14; 11QTa 50:10; 11QTa 50:12; 11QTa 50:16; 11QTa 51:6; 11QTa 51:11; 11QTa 51:16; 11QTa 53:9; 11QTa 53:19; 11QTa 53:20; 11QTa 54:5; 11QTa 55:3–4; 11QTa 55:6–7; 11QTa 55:13; 11QTa 56:13; 11QTa 57:5; 11QTa 57:7–8; 11QTa 57:15–16; 11QTa 58:16–17; 11QTa 58:19; 11QTa 58:21; 11QTa 59:10; 11QTa 59:15; 11QTa 59:19; 11QTa 60:2; 11QTa 60:3; 11QTa 60:10; 11QTa 60:11 (2 examples); 11QTa 60:14; 11QTa 62:16; 11QTa 63:4; 11QTa 64:6; 11QTa 66:11.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

95

Again, in this example, the meaning is that there is a single inspector who is over all the camps, not one inspector over each of the camps. (8) 4Q274 1 i 3 ‫ ורחץ במים ויכבס בגדיו ואחר יואכל‬. . .]. . .[. . . ]. . .[ ‫איש מכול הטמאים‬

A man from all of the impure persons [. . .] . . . [. . .]. . . shall bathe in water and wash his clothes, and afterwards he shall eat. In this example, one person out of the totality of the group of impure persons is described. The following example is similar: (9) 1QM 14:8

‫ולכול גבוריהם אין מעמד‬

And concerning all (the totality of the specific group of) their heroes, not one remains standing. The construction of ‫ כל‬with the plural deictic ‫ אלה‬also fits into this category; the deictic is construed as semantically definite as an anaphoric deictic:15 (10) 1QM 7:4–5

‫וכל פסח או עור או חגר או איש אשר מום עולם בבשרו או איש מנוגע‬ ‫בטמאת בשרו כול אלה לוא ילכו אתם למלחמה‬

And each/every lame or blind or paralysed person or a man who has an indelible blemish on his flesh or a man suffering from uncleanness in his flesh, all of these (the totality of the group) will not go out to war with them. The example illustrates the difference between ‫ כל‬with singular indefinite noun meaning “each, every” and the use of ‫ כל‬with a definite plural deictic meaning “the totality of the group.”16 15   Additional examples include: 1Q22 4:9; 1QM 2:6; 1QM 6:4; 1QM 9:5; 4Q248 1 10; 4QDf 4 ii 5; 4Q381 1 7; 4QMMTa 3–7 i 18; 4QpapMMTe 14–17 ii 4; 4QShirShabbc 4 11; 4Q418 123 ii 5; 4Q437 4 6; 4Q438 4a, b, c, d, ii 3–4; CD-A 8:12; CD-A 16:3; CD-B 19:24. 16   The phrase ‫ כל אלה‬occurs 47 times in the Hebrew Bible. For a clear example of the same meaning of the quantifier in this construction, see Gen 49:28. The other examples are:

96

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

A few nouns must be construed as semantically definite although they are grammatically indefinite, as illustrated in (11):17 (11) 1QS 2:1–2

‫והכוהנים מברכים את כול אנשי גורל אל ההולכים תמים בכול דרכיו‬

And the priests will bless all the men of God’s lot who walk unblemished in all his paths. The noun is construed as a proper name and thus the construct phrase governed by ‫ כל‬is semantically definite. Note that the participial clause which modifies the noun phrase agrees with it in semantic definiteness. This construction is the Qumran Hebrew equivalent of the Biblical Hebrew construction where ‫ כל‬precedes definite plural nouns, as illustrated in Ezra 2:58. (12) Ezra 2:58

‫ּוׁש ָנ�ֽיִ ם׃‬ ְ ‫מה ְׁש ֹ֥לׁש ֵמ ֖אֹות ִּת ְׁש ִ ֥עים‬ ֹ ֑ ‫ּוב ֵנ֖י ַע ְב ֵ ֣די ְׁשֹל‬ ְ ‫ל־הּנְ ִת ִ֔ינים‬ ַ ‫֙ ָּכ‬

All the temple servants and the descendants of Solomon’s servants were three hundred ninety-two. The quantifier ‫ כל‬has scope over two definite plural nouns and indicates “the totality of the (specific group of the) temple servants and the (specific group of the) descendants of Solomon’s servants.” Within the Temple Scroll (11QT), there are a few examples in which ‫ כל‬seems to mean “each, every” rather than “all”: (13) 11QTa 30:9–10

‫ועמוד בתוך באמצעו מרובע רוחבו ארבע אמות לכול רוחותיו ורוחב המסבה‬ ‫עולה מעלות ארבע אמות‬

Gen 10:29; 14:3; 15:10; 25:4; Lev 20:23; Deut 3:5; Jdg 13:23; 20:25, 44, 46; 1 Kgs 7:9; 2 Kgs 10:9; 1 Chr 1:23, 33; 2:23; 7:8, 11, 40; 8:38, 40; 9:9; 12:39; 25:5, 6; 26:8; 27:31; 29:17; 2 Chr 14:7; 21:2; 29:32; Ezra 10:44; Job 33:29; Qoh 11:9; Isa 45:7; 66:2 (2 examples); Jer 2:34; 3:7; 5:19; 14:22; Ezek 6:13; 16:30; 18:11; Zech 8:12, 17. 17   Additional examples include: 1QS 1:15; 1QS 3:8; 1QS 3:10; 1QS 4:3-4; 1QpHab 7:13; CD-A 13:14; CD-B 20:8 4QFlor 1-2 i 7-8; 4QpapSa 2:3; 4QpapSa 2:5; 4QpapSc 2:1.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

97

It will have a square pillar within it, in its centre, of four cubits in width on each/all of its sides. And the width of the stairway with ascending steps is four [cu]bits. We would expect the phrase ‫ לכול רוחותיו‬to mean “on all of its sides,” that is, the total measurement of the four sides is four cubits. However, because the width of the stairway is four cubits, it is clear that the phrase instead must mean “on each of its sides.” Other examples of this meaning of ‫ כל‬are found only in the Temple Scroll, primarily with measurements.18 2.2 ‫ כל‬with Scope over an Indefinite Singular Noun In the second construction, the quantifier ‫ כל‬may occur with an indefinite singular noun to function as a distributive quantifier which is non-specific and implicitly inclusive. In this case the construction has the nuance of individualization and is glossed as the distributive quantifier “every.” In the following examples the indefinite singular noun modified by ‫ כל‬indicates “each and every individual.”19

18   See 11QTa 31:10; 11QTa 36:5; 11QTa 36:13; 11QTa 38:13–14; 11QTa 51:6; 11QTa 52:14; 11QTa 60:10. 19   See also 1QpHab 8:13; 1Q27 1 ii 5; 1QS 5:16; 1QS 6:3; 1QS 6:4; 1QS 6:9; 1QS 6:11; 1QS 6:12; 1QS 6:15; 1QS 7:1; 1QS 7:22; 1QS 8:16; 1QS 8:18; 1QS 8:21; 1QS 8:23–24; 1QS 8:25; 1QS 9:12; 1QS 9:20; 1QS 9:21; 1QS 9:23; 1QS 10:5; 1QS 10:17; 1QS 10:18; 1QS 11:8–9; 1QSa 1:19; 1QSa 2:3; 1QSa 2:4; 1QSa 2:5; 1QSb 3:28; 1QM 4:3; 4Q171 1–2 ii 8–9; 4QTanḥ 1–2 i 7–8 (2 examples); 4Q215a 1 ii 4; 4Q215a 1 ii 8; 4QJubd 2:8; 4QJube 1 2; 4Q251 10 9; 4QSb 9:3; 4QSb 9:7; 4QSb 9:10; 4QSb 19:3; 4QSf 4:3; 4Q265 4 i 11; CD-A 2:20; CD-A 3:20; CD-A 9:1; CD-A 9:2; CD-A 9:13; CD-A 9:14; CD-A 9:16; CD-A 10:12; CD-A 11:2; CD-A 11:16; CD-A 12:2; CD-A 12:17; CD-A 12:21; CD-A 14:9-10; CD-A 14:10; CD-A 14:11; CD-A 14:12; CD-A 14:13; CD-A 15:9; CD-A 15:12 (2 examples); CD-A 15:15; CD-A 16:7; 4QDa 2 i 7; 4QDa 8 i 3; 4QDa 8 i 7; 4QDe 6 iii 17; 4QDe 6 v 19; 4QDe 7 i 15; 4QDf 2 10; 4QDf 2 11; 4QDf 5 i 10; 4Q272 1 i 2; 4Q274 1 i 2; 4Q274 1 i 5; 4Q274 1 i 6; 4Q274 2 i 4; 4Q274 3 ii 10; 4Q277 1 ii 2; 4Q298 3–4 i 5; 4QMysta 3a ii 3; 4QMysta 3a ii 10; 4QMysta 3a ii 11 (2 examples); 4QMysta 3a ii 15 (2 examples); 4Q370 1 6 (2 examples); 4Q381 1 4; 4Q381 1 6; 4Q381 24a+b 5; 4QMMTc 1–2 iv 2; 4Q416 1 12; 4Q416 1 13; 4Q416 2 ii 2; 4Q416 2 iii 5; 4Q416 2 iv 8; 4Q417 1 i 6; 4Q417 2 i 10; 4Q417 2 i 19; 4Q417 2 ii 9; 4Q418 81 2 (2 examples); 4Q418 81 4; 4Q418 81 20; 4Q418 9, 9a 13–14; 4Q421 12 2; 4Q422 10a-e iii 11; 4Q423 1+2 i 1 (2 examples); 4Q434 1 ii 1; 11QTa 17:11; 11QTa 17:16; 11QTa 20:9; 11QTa 25:9; 11QTa 27:6; 11QTa 27:9; 11QTa 32:15; 11QTa 35:2; 11QTa 35:3; 11QTa 35:5; 11QTa 45:12; 11QTa 45:15; 11QTa 45:17 (2 examples); 11QTa 46:15; 11QTa 47:5 (2 examples); 11QTa 47:6; 11QTa 47:7 (2 examples) 11QTa 48:5; 11QTa 48:6; 11QTa 48:11; 11QTa 49:5; 11QTa 49:7; 11QTa 49:8; 11QTa 49:9; 11QTa 49:11–12; 11QTa 49:21; 11QTa 50:11; 11QTa 50:21; 11QTa 51:19; 11QTa 52:4; 11QTa 53:19; 11QTa 53:20; 11QTa 57:10; 11QTa 57:14; 11QTa 57:15; 11QTa 57:21 (2 examples); 11QTa 58:3; 11QTa 58:17 (2 examples); 11QTa 59:9; 11QTa 60:19; 11QTa 61:6 (2 examples); 11QTa 62:10; 11QTa 62:14; 11QTa 63:4 (2 examples); 11QTa 65:2.

98

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

(14) 1QS 7:22

‫וכול איש אשר יהיה בעצת היחד על מלואת עשר שנים‬

Every (i.e., each and every individual) man who has been in the council of the community { } for ten full years . . . (15) 1QS 6:3–4

‫ובכול מקום אשר יהיה שם עשרה אנשים מעצת החיד (היחד) אל ימש מאתם‬ ‫איש כוהן‬

In every (i.e., each and every individual) place where there are ten men from the council of the community, there should not be missing a priest among them. (16) 11QTa 47:3–5

‫והעיר אשר אקדיש לשכין שמי ומקד[שי בתוכה] תהיה קודש וטהורה מכול‬ ‫דבר לכול טמאה אשר טמאו בה‬

The city which I will sanctify by installing my name and my temp[le within it] shall be holy and shall be pure from every (i.e. each and every individual) matter concerning every (i.e each and every individual) impurity with which they become impure. A particularly instructive example is found in the Temple Scroll and concerns measurements: (17) 11QTa 46:15–16

‫ולוא תהיה נראה לכול רחוק מן העיר שלושת אלפים אמה‬

It (the outhouse) must not be visible from each and every direction from the city for three thousand cubits. (18) CD-A 9:14–15

‫וכן כל אבדה נמצאת ואיןלה בעלים והיתה לכהנים כי לא ידע מוצאיה את‬ ‫משפטה‬

And in the same way, each and every every lost object which has been found and has no owner, will be for the priests, for he who found it does not know the regulation in its regard.

99

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

When the indefinite singular noun is an abstract noun, the phrase with ‫ כל‬has the nuance “each and every aspect of X”:20 (19) 4QMysta 8 8

‫כול שכל מעולם הוא לוא ישנה‬

Each and every aspect of wisdom is from eternity; it may not be changed. Similarly, when the singular indefinite noun governed by ‫ כל‬is a mass noun or a collective noun, the nuance is “each and every aspect/part of X”: ‫“ לכל עם‬each and every person who is part of the people” (4Q185 1–2 ii 8), ‫“ כל הון‬each and every kind/aspect of wealth” (4Q416 2 ii 6; 11QTa 57:21). The same construction occurs in Biblical Hebrew, as illustrated in (20). (20) Isaiah 9:16

‫ל־ּפה ּד ֵֹב֣ר נְ ָב ָל֑ה‬ ֖ ֶ ‫וְ ָכ‬

And every (= each and every individual) mouth spoke folly. When ‫ כל‬occurs without a following noun, it functions as a substantive. The substantive use of indefinite ‫ כל‬has the same semantic nuance as ‫ כל‬preceding an indefinite singular noun: (21) 1QS 1:3–4

‫ולאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס‬

. . . in order to love everything (= each and every individual thing) that he has chosen and to hate everything (= each and every individual thing) that he has rejected . . . (22) 1QS 3:16–17

‫בידו משפטי כול‬

In his hand (are) the laws of everything (= each and every individual thing) . . .

20   See also 1Q27 1 ii 5; 4QSj 1 5; 4Q265 7 17; 4Q417 2 i 9; 4Q418 2, 2a, 2b, 2c 5; 4Q418 69 ii 1; 4Q418 127 1; 4Q418 127 6.

100

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

2.3 ‫ כל‬with Scope over an Indefinite Plural Noun Like the previous category, ‫ כל‬in this construction functions as a distributive quantifier. Its semantic nuance is non-specific and implicitly inclusive. It is translated in English with every. Joüon and Muraoka note that an indefinite noun that is quantified by ‫ כל‬has “a certain notion of determination,” and, as a result, a constituent that is appositional to it may have the article.21 They do not, however, describe what “a certain notion of determination” means. Miller indicates that the semantic nuance conveyed by the use of ‫ כל‬with indefinite plural nouns is very similar to definite plural noun quantified with ‫ ;כל‬they differ only with respect to specificity.22 We can see this semantic nuance in the following Qumran examples.23 (23) 1QS 1:9–11 ‫ולאהוב כול בני אור איש כגורלו בעצת אל ולשנוא כול בני חושך איש כאשמתו‬ ‫בנקמת אל‬

21   P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009), §138d. 22   C.L. Miller, “Definiteness and the Vocative in Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 36 (2010): 43–64. 23   See also 1Q27 1 i 7; 1Q27 1 i 9; 1QS 1:5; 1QS 1:9; 1QS 1:10; 1QS 1:22; 1QS 2:1–2; 1QS 3:13 (2 examples); 1QS 3:20; 1QS 3:22; 1QS 3:24–25; 1QS 4:2; 1QS 4:5 (2 examples); 1QS 4:6; 1QS 4:7; 1QS 4:11; 1QS 4:12; 1QS 4:15; 1QS 4:16; 1QS 4:17; 1QS 4:20; 1QS 4:21; 1QS 4:23; 1QS 5:7; 1QS 5:18–19; 1QS 6:7; 1QS 10:21; 1QSb 4:26; 1QSb 5:18; 1QM 1:8 (2 examples); 1QM 1:9; 1QM 3:8; 1QM 3:9; 1QM 6:6; 1QM 6:13; 1QM 10:5–6; 1QM 11:14; 1QM 13:10; 1QM 13:16; 1QM 14:7; 1QM 15:2; 1QM 17:5; 1Q36 7 2; 4Q185 1–2 iii 12; 4Q215a 1 ii 8; 4QJubd 2:33; 4QSf 5:1; CD-A 1:1; CD-A 1:20–21; CD-A 2:2; CD-A 2:6; CD-A 2:9–10; CD-A 2:10; CD-A 8:4; CD-A 14:2; CD-B 20:34; 4QDc 1 9; 4QDe 2 ii 19; 4Q286 5a, b, c 2; 4Q286 5a, b, c 7; 4Q286 5a, b, c 10; 4Q286 7a i, b, c, d 6; 4QMysta 8 7; 4Q369 1 i 4; 4Q370 1 3–4; 4Q381 1 6; 4Q382 31 4; 4QShirShabba 1 i 2; 4QShirShabba 1 i 5; 4QShirShabba 1 i 15; 4QShirShabba 1 i 16 (2 examples); 4QShirShabba 1 i 17; 4QShirShabba 2 2; 4QShirShabbb 14 i 8; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 21; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 22; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 24; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 29; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 30–31; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 32; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 34; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 35; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 36; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 37 (2 examples); 4QShirShabbd 1 i 38 (3 examples); 4QShirShabbd 1 i 40; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 42; 4Q416 1 14; 4Q416 2 iii 14 (2 examples); 4Q417 2 ii 7; 4Q418 126 i-ii 9; 4Q418 2, 2a, 2b, 2c 6; 4Q418 55 9; 4Q418 69 ii 8; 4Q418 69 ii 12; 4Q418 69 ii 13–14; 4Q418 81 4; 4Q418 81 12; 4Q418 81 13; 4Q418 81 14; 4Q418 81 16; 4Q418 81 18; 4Q418 81 20; 4Q418 127 5; 4Q423 5 4; 4QHa 7 i 17; 4QHa 7 ii 6; 4Q434a 1–2 7; 11QTa 35:14; 11QTa 49:15 (2 examples); 11QTa 50:17–18.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

101

. . . to love all (i.e., each and every one of the) sons of light, each one24 according to his lot in God’s plan, and to hate all (i.e., each and every one of the) sons of darkness, each one according to his guilt in God’s vindication. (24) 1QS 4:15

‫באלה תולדות כול בני איש‬

In these is the history of all (i.e. each and every one of) mankind. (25) 1QS 1:5–6

‫ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב ולעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט בארץ‬

. . . and to hold fast to all (i.e., each and every one of the) good works and to do truth, justice and righteousness in the land. (26) 4QpNah 3–4 iv 2

‫עילוליה ירוטשו בראש כל חוצות‬

Her children were dashed to pieces at all (i.e., each and every one of the) crossroads. The distinction between plural indefinite noun phrases and plural definite noun phrases modified by ‫ כל‬can be seen by comparing similar phrases: ‫לכול‬ ‫“ קצי עולם‬for all the periods of eternity” (i.e., for each and every one of the periods of eternity) and ‫“ לכול העולמים‬for all the ages” (i.e., for the totalities of the ages). The construction is the Qumran Hebrew equivalent of the Biblical Hebrew construction, as illustrated in Isa 28:8: (27) Isa 28:8

‫ל־ׁש ְל ָחנ֔ ֹות ָמ ְל ֖אּו ִ ֣קיא צ ָ ֹ֑אה ְּב ִ ֖לי ָמ ֽקֹום׃‬ ֻ ‫ִּכ֚י ָּכ‬

All (= each and every one) tables are covered with filthy vomit; there is no place left.

24   A subsequent article will describe how ‫ איש‬as a distributive differs from ‫ כול‬as a distributive. Preliminary investigations suggest that the use of ‫ איש‬after ‫ כול‬serves to strengthen the distributive interpretation. See, for example, CD-B 20:24.

102

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

The indefinite plural noun modified by ‫ כל‬indicates “each and every one of the tables” and conveys the nuance of “every”. 2.4 ‫ כל‬with Scope over a Definite Singular Noun In the fourth category, the quantifier ‫ כל‬occurs with definite singular nouns. In this construction, ‫ כל‬functions as a collective quantifier by identifying and selecting individual members which belong to the set. Its semantic nuance indicates “the totality of the individual members of the (specific) group or set” or “the totality of X.” (28) 11QTa 45:1625

‫ורחץ את כול בשרו במים חיים‬

He shall wash his entire body in running water. (29) 1QM 12:2

‫וספר שמות כול צבאם אתכה במעון קודשכה‬

The book of the names of all their army (i.e. the totality of the individual members of their army) is with you in your holy dwelling.

25   See also 1QpHab 3:5; 1QpHab 5:12; 1QpHab 6:1; 1QS 1:13; 1QS 2:22; 1QS 2:25; 1QS 3:15; 1QS 5:9; 1QS 6:2; 1QS 8:1; 1QS 8:1–2; 1QS 8:15; 1QS 8:17; 1QS 8:18; 1QS 8:19; 1QS 8:21; 1QS 9:7; 1QS 9:9; 1QS 9:13; 1QS 9:19; 1QS 9:20; 1QS 9:24 (2 examples); 1QS 10:8; 1QS 10:9; 1QS 10:16; 1QS 11:18; 1QS 11:19; 1QSa 1:6; 1QSa 1:26; 1QSa 2:12; 1QSb 3:2; 1QSb 3:3; 1Q29 5–7 2; 1QM 1:5; 1QM 4:11; 1QM 6:11; 1QM 7:17; 1QM 9:6; 1QM 11:16; 1QM 13:2; 1QM 13:5; 1QM 14:12; 1QM 15:10–11; 1QM 15:11; 1QM 16:3; 1QM 18:1; 1QM 18:3; 4QpNah 5 2; 4Q171 3–4 iii 1–2; 4Q171 1–2 ii 7; 4QFlor 1–3 ii 2; 4QFlor 4 5; 4Q185 1–2 ii 10; 4Q215a 1 ii 3; 4QJubd 1:35; 4QJubf 1 4; 4QSb 18:3; 4QSf 1 iv 3; 4QSj 1 6–7; 4Q265 7 14; CD-A 2:1; CD-A 6:10; CD-A 8:19; CD-A 9:10; CD-A 11:21; CD-A 12:10; CD-A 12:12; CD-A 12:12–13; CD-A 13:9; 1QSa 2:12; CD-A 13:11; CD-A 14:11; CD-A 14:16; CD-A 15:7 (2 examples); CD-B 19:32; CD-B 20:8; 4Q301 1 3; 4Q369 1 ii 7; 4Q376 1 iii 1; 4Q381 69 2; 4Q382 105 5; 4QShirShabbd 1 i 31; 4Q415 2 ii 3; 4Q417 2 i 14; 4Q418 81 12; 4Q418 123 ii 3; 4Q418 126 i-ii 2; 4Q418 126 i-ii 10; 4Q418 127 2; 4Q422 10a-e iii 10; 4Q423 5 6; 4Q448 B:3; 11QTa 20:5; 11QTa 25:11; 11QTa 26:12 (2 examples); 11QTa 27:6 (2 examples); 11QTa 31:8; 11QTa 35:14; 11QTa 44:5; 11QTa 45:8; 11QTa 45:11–12; 11QTa 45:16; 11QTa 47:12–13; 11QTa 48:7 (2 examples); 11QTa 49:7; 11QTa 49:9; 11QTa 49:21; 11QTa 50:8; 11QTa 50:20; 11QTa 51:4; 11QTa 52:3; 11QTa 52:7; 11QTa 52:16; 11QTa 53:15; 11QTa 53:19; 11QTa 54:13 (2 examples); 11QTa 55:8 (2 examples); 11QTa 55:9; 11QTa 55:18; 11QTa 59:10 (2 examples); 11QTa 62:10.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

103

(30) 1QS 2:25

‫וכול המואס לבוא [בברית א]ל ללכת בשרירות לבו לוא [יעבור בי]חד אמתו‬

And every one (i.e. the totality of the identified and selected individuals) who declines to enter [the covenant of Go]d in order to walk in the stubbornness of his heart shall not [enter the Com] munity of this truth . . . In the following example ‫ כל‬has scope over the collective noun ‫ העם‬and indicates “the totality of the identified and selected individual members of entity”:26 (31) 1QS 2:21

‫וכול העם יעבורו בשלישית בסרך זה אחר זה לאלפים ומאות‬

And in third place all (i.e. the totality of the identified and selected individual members of) the people will enter the Rule, one after another, by thousands, and hundreds. . . . When ‫ כל‬has scope over a definite abstract NP, it is acceptable to translate it with all/whole. This is evident from the following example where ‫ כל‬has scope over an abstract NP. The qualified abstract NP does not refer to the entire substance, but rather to the total of specific, identifiable entity:27 (32) 1QS 1:11–12

‫יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם והונם ביחד אל‬

They will bring all (i.e. the totality of the identified and selected of) their knowledge and their strength and their riches into the community of God . . .

26   See also 1Q22 1:2; 1QS 2:21; 1QS 6:9; 1QSa 1:1; 1QSa 1:23; 1QSa 1:25; 1QSa 2:21; 1QM 2:9; 1QM 3:13 (2 examples); 1QM 4:15; 1QM 5:1; 1QM 9:1; 1QM 16:8–9; 1QM 17:14; 4QpNah 3–4 iii 3; 4Q185 1–2 ii 10; CD-A 3:14; CD-A 7:20; CD-A 8:13; CD-A 15:5; CD-A 16:1; CD-B 19:26; 4QDa 5 i 18; 4QDf 3 8; 4Q375 1 ii 6; 4Q376 1 ii 2; 4Q376 1 iii 1; 4Q418 126 i-ii 1; 4Q439 1 i 5; 11QTa 21:6; 11QTa 26:7; 11QTa 26:9; 11QTa 39:6–7; 11QTa 56:10–11; 11QTa 60:12; 11QTa 62:7. 27   See also 1QS 1:11; 1QS 9:10; 1QS 9:13; 4Q171 1–2 ii 7; 4Q300 1 ii 4; 4Q300 3 i 3; 4Q432 5 i 2.

104

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

(33) 1QS 8:1–2

‫בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש וכוהנים שלושה תמימים בכול הנגלה מכול התורה‬ ‫לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת איש אם רעהו‬

In the council of the Community (there shall be) twelve men and three priests, perfect in all (i.e., the totality of the identified and selected of) that has been revealed from all (i.e., the totality of the identified and selected of) the law to do truth and righteousness and judgment and, compassionate love and unassuming behaviour of each man with his neighbour . . . This construction is Qumran Hebrew is identical to the Biblical Hebrew construction, as illustrated in Exod 1:22: (34) Exod 1:22

‫ל־ה ַ ּ֖בת ְּת ַחּיֽ ּון׃‬ ַ ‫יכהּו וְ ָכ‬ ֻ֔ ‫ל־ה ֵּב֣ן ַהּיִ ּ֗לֹוד ַהיְ ֙א ֹ ָר ֙ה ַּת ְׁש ִל‬ ַ ‫מר ָּכ‬ ֹ ֑ ‫ל־ע ּ֖מֹו ֵלא‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַצ֣ו ַּפ ְר ֔עֹה ְל ָכ‬

Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live”. The construction indicates “the totality of the individual members of the (specific) group of sons that are born and the totality of the individual members of the (specific) group of daughters (that are born).” The substantive uses of ‫ כל‬with the definite article are similar. (35) 1QS 5:23

‫וכתבם בסרך איש לפני רעהו לפי שכלו ומעשיו להשמע הכול איש לרעהו‬ ‫הקטן לגדול‬

And they shall be recorded in the Rule, each one before his neighbour according to his insight and his deed so that the entirety (i.e., the totality of those identified and selected) may obey, each one his neighbour, the lesser man the superior . . . (36) 1QS 2:24

‫כיא הכול יהיו ביחד אמת וענות טוב ואהבת חסד ומחשבת צדק איש לרעהו‬ ‫בעצת קודש ובני סוד עולמים‬

For the whole (i.e., the totality of those identified and selected) shall be in a community of truth and proper humility and compas-

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

105

sionate love upright purpose, each one to his neighbour in the holy council and sons of an everlasting society. (37) 3Q15 i 10–11

‫הכל של הדמע והאצר השבעי מעסר שני מפוגל‬

The total (i.e., the totality of the items identified and selected) of the tithes and of the treasure: a seventh of a second tithe made unclean. 2.5 Summary To summarise, the difference between ‫ כל‬as the distributive quantifier “every” and as the collective quantifier “all” is that it functions as the distributive quantifier when it has scope over indefinite nouns (i.e., the NP is non-specific and implicitly inclusive), whereas it functions as the collective quantifier when the NP is specific and inclusive. The distinction between the use of plural and singular NPs is motivated by individualisation. The singular focuses on individualisation/individuation; the plural does not. 3

Unique Patterns of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

Thus far, we have seen that the patterns of quantification with ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew are identical to those of Biblical Hebrew. In this section, we examine and explain two usages of ‫ כל‬which depart from the patterns found in Biblical Hebrew. 3.1 The Repetition of the Constituent Qualified by the Quantifier ‫כל‬ The construction X-‫ ו‬X ‫ כול‬means “each and every X” and is attested only in the Biblical Hebrew of Esther and 2 Chronicles and thereafter.28 It is common in late biblical, Mishnaic and Aramaic usage. An example from Esther illustrates the use of this construction in a temporal expression:29 28   E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press 1986), 81–82; A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of the Psalms (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972), 70–73 [Hebrew], and references cited there; R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press 1976), 47–51. 29   Additional examples include ‫ל־ׁשנָ ה וְ ָׁשנָ ה‬ ָ ‫( ְּב ָכ‬Esth 9:21, 27); ‫ל־עיר וָ ִעיר‬ ִ ‫( ְב ָכ‬2 Chr 11:12; 28:25; 31:19; Esth 8:11,17); ‫ּוב ֵה ָמה‬ ְ ‫ל־ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ְ ‫( ָכ‬2 Chr 32:28); ‫( ָכל־יֹום וָ יֹום‬Esth 2:11); ‫ל־מ ִדינָ ה‬ ְ ‫ָכ‬ ‫ּומ ִדינָ ה‬ ְ (Esth 3:14; 4:3; 8:13, 17).

106

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

(38) Esth 2:11

‫ת־ׁש ֣לֹום ֶא ְס ֵּ֔תר‬ ְ ‫ית־הּנָ ִ ׁ֑שים ָל ַ ֙ד ַע ֙ת ֶא‬ ַ ‫ו ְּבכָ ל־י֣ וֹ ם וָ י֔וֹ ם ָמ ְר ֳּד ַ ֙כי ִמ ְת ַה ֔ ֵּלְך ִל ְפ ֵנ֖י ֲח ַצ֣ר ֵּב‬ ‫ּומה־ּיֵ ָע ֶ ׂ֖שה ָ ּֽבּה׃‬ ַ

On each and every day Mordecai would walk about in front of the court of the harem, to learn how Esther was faring and what was happening to her. The overall function of this construction is distributive and inclusive. We can compare the Biblical Hebrew construction which consists of two nouns juxtaposed.30 The semantic nuance is only distributive (and not inclusive). (39) Gen 39:10

‫֛יה ִל ְׁש ַ ּ֥כב ֶא ְצ ָלּ֖ה ִל ְהי֥ ֹות ִע ָ ּֽמּה׃‬ ָ ‫א־ׁש ַ ֥מע ֵא ֶל‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל־יֹוסף י֣ וֹ ם׀ י֑וֹ ם וְ ל‬ ֖ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִ֕הי ְּכ ַד ְּב ָ ֥רּה ֶא‬

And much as she coaxed Joseph day after day, he did not yield to her request to lie beside her, to be with her. In Qumran Hebrew, the construction of ‫ כל‬having scope over repeated conjoined nouns appears fifteen times, all except four of them in the Temple Scroll.31 The construction is thus an example of a change that began in Late Biblical Hebrew (Esther and 2 Chronicles) but did not widely diffuse in Qumran Hebrew.32

30   G KC §123. 31   In addition to the examples provided below, see 1QM 7:17; 4Q471 1:4; 4QMMTa 3:20 = 4QMMTc 2:2 (both examples are partially reconstructed); 11QTa 15:1; 11QTa 15:3; 11QTa 17:11; 11QTa 20:10 (reconstructed); 11QTa 22:12–13; 11QTa 36:5; 11QTa 23:7(?); 11QTa 36;54; 11QTa 40:8; 11QTa 42:13 ; 11QTa 48:14.. 32   For the theoretical background and terminology of change and diffusion with reference to the history of Hebrew, see J. A. Naudé, “Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. C. L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit; Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 61–81.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

107

(40) 11QTa 22:11–13

‫ונתנו בני ישראל לכוה[ני]ם איל אחד כבש אחד וללויים איל אחד כבש אחד‬ ‫ולכול מטה ומטה איל אחד כבש אחד‬

. . . the children of Israel shall give to the priests one ram, one lamb, and to the Levites one ram, one lamb and to each and every tribe one ram, one lamb. (41) 11QTa 17:12–13

‫והקרבתמה בכול יום ויום לשבעת הימים הא[לה] עולה ליהוה‬

You shall offer on each and every day for these seven days a burnt offering to the LORD. Contrast the following example with ‫“ כול הימים‬all the days,” referring to the totality of the days and not to the complete set of individual, distributive days. (42) 11QTa 29: 9–10

‫אברא אני את מקדשי להכינו לי כול הימים כברית אשר כרתי עם יעקוב בבית‬ ‫אל‬

. . . I will create my temple, establishing it for myself all (i.e., the totality of) the days, according to the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel. 3.2 The Dismissal of the Floating Quantifier The second distributional pattern of ‫ כל‬that is significant for Qumran Hebrew involves the floating quantifier. The adjective floating indicates that the position of the quantifier is not fixed, but variable. In English, for example, the quantifier all may appear before or after the noun that it modifies as illustrated in the following examples: (43a) (43b) (43a) (43b)

All the men would have been working. The men would all have been working. She loved all of them. She loved them all.

108

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

In Biblical Hebrew the quantifier ‫ כל‬may appear after the constituent with which it is associated, but in that case it obligatorily hosts a resumptive pronoun. This phenomenon can be illustrated with the following sentence pairs in which the quantifier ‫ כל‬serves to modify the NP ‫“ ַע ִּמים‬peoples.” In (44a), Lam 1:18, the quantifier ‫ כל‬precedes the NP and is bare. In (44b), Ps 67:4, ‫כל‬ follows the NP and hosts a pronominal suffix which agrees with the quantified NP in number and gender.  (44a) Lam 1:18

‫תּוֹלתי‬ ֥ ַ ‫אּו ַמ ְכא ִֹ֔בי ְּב‬ ֙ ‫ל־ע ִּמים ְּור‬ ַ ‫עּו־נ֣א ָכ‬ ָ ‫יתי ִׁש ְמ‬ ִ ‫הו֖ה ִ ּ֣כי ִ ֣פיהּו ָמ ִ ֑ר‬ ָ ְ‫ַצ ִ ּ֥דיק ֛הּוא י‬ ‫חּורי ָה ְל ֥כּו ַב ֶ ּֽׁש ִבי׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ַ

The LORD is righteous, for I have rebelled against his command; hear, all peoples, and see my suffering; my young women and my young men have gone into captivity.  (44b) Ps 67:4

‫ֹלהים יֹודּוָך ַע ִּמים ֻּכ ָּלם׃‬ ִ ‫יֹודּוָך ַע ִּמים ֱא‬

Let peoples praise you, O God; let all peoples (lit. peoples, all of them) praise you! Conversely, ‫ כל‬cannot host a pronominal clitic when it precedes the quantified Noun Phrase. To understand how the distributional patterns exhibited in Qumran Hebrew represent a reduced inventory of constructions, let us first survey the Biblical Hebrew data. In Biblical Hebrew, the quantifier ‫ כל‬can “float” in each of the four syntactic constructions that we have already identified in Section B. 3.2.1 ‫ כל‬with Scope over a Preceding Definite Plural Noun In the first construction—‫ כל‬with scope over a definite plural noun—‫ כל‬can float to a position after the noun it modifies. Consider the floating quantifiers in Ezek 39:18 and Job 27:12: (45) Ezek 39:18

‫יאי‬ ֵ ‫ּתּודים ָּפ ִרים ְמ ִר‬ ִ ‫יאי ָה ָא ֶרץ ִּת ְׁשּתּו ֵא ִילים ָּכ ִרים וְ ַע‬ ֵ ‫אכלּו וְ ַדם־נְ ִׂש‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ּבֹורים ּת‬ ִ ִ‫ְּב ַׂשר ּג‬ ‫ָב ָׁשן ֻּכ ָּלם׃‬

You shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth as if they were rams, lambs and goats, bulls—all

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

109

the fattened animals of Bashan (lit. the fattened animals of Bashan, all of them). (46) Job 27:12

‫ה־ּזה ֶ ֣ה ֶבל ֶּת ְה ָ ּֽבלּו׃‬ ֶ֜ ‫יתם וְ ָל ָּמ‬ ֑ ֶ ִ‫ן־א ֶ ּ֣תם ֻּכ ְּל ֶכ֣ם ֲחז‬ ַ ‫ֵה‬

All of you (lit. you, all of you) have seen it yourselves; why then have you become altogether vain? In (45), the quantifier ‫ כל‬with the third-person plural pronominal suffix has scope over the preceding definite QP ‫“ ְמ ִר ֵיאי ָב ָׁשן‬the fattened animals of Bashan” (a plural, countable definite NP) so that it indicates the total of the specific and inclusive group of fattened animals. When ‫ כל‬has scope over a plural, countable definite NP, it is a collective quantifier and can be translated with “all.” In (46) the scope is over an independent personal pronoun. 3.2.2 ‫ כל‬with Scope over Preceding Indefinite Singular Noun For the second category, ‫ כל‬with scope over an indefinite singular noun, consider the floating quantifier in (47). (47) Job 34:13

‫ּומי ָׂשם ֵּת ֵבל ֻּכ ָּלּה׃‬ ִ ‫י־פ ַקד ָע ָליו ָא ְר ָצה‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬

Who appointed him over the earth? Who put him in charge of the whole world (lit. world, all of it)? The quantifier ‫ כל‬with the third-person feminine singular pronominal suffix has scope over the preceding indefinite NP ‫ ֵּת ֵבל‬. The indefinite singular noun modified by ‫ כל‬indicates “the whole (single) earth”. 3.2.3 ‫ כל‬with Scope over a Preceding Indefinite Plural Noun In the third category, ‫ כל‬floats when it modifies an indefinite plural noun. In (43) ‫ כל‬with the third-person plural pronominal suffix has scope over “the peoples.” (48) Mic 1:2 (also Ps 67:4, example 44b above) Listen, peoples all of you (lit. peoples all of them)!

‫עּו ַע ִ ּ֣מים ֻּכ ֔ ָּלם‬ ֙ ‫ִׁש ְמ‬

110

Naudé and Miller-Naudé

3.2.4 ‫ כל‬with Scope over Definite Singular Nouns In the fourth category, ‫ כל‬floats when it modifies a definite singular noun. In (49) ‫ כל‬with the third-person singular pronominal suffix has scope over the definite NP ‫ ָה ָע֣ם‬and indicates “the totality of the individual members of the one entity.” (49) Isa 9:8

‫ּובג ֶֹדל ֵל ָבב ֵלאמֹר׃‬ ְ ‫יֹוׁשב ׁש ְֹמרֹון ְּבגַ ֲאוָ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ יָ ְדעּו ָה ָעם ֻּכּלֹו ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ו‬

And all the people (lit. the people, all of it) knew it—Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, who say in pride and in arrogance of heart. 3.2.5 Differences between Qumran Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew Qumran Hebrew does not exhibit the same distribution of constructions involving the floated quantifier in two respects. First, the construction is much rarer at Qumran than it is in the Bible. Second, the quantifier floats only when the noun that it modifies is definite; as a result, the Qumran Hebrew has only half of the types of floated quantifier constructions that are found in the Bible. (50) 1QTa 46:5–633

‫ועשיתה רובד סביב לחוץ מחצר החיצונה רחב ארבע עשרה באמה על פי‬ ‫פתחי השערים כולמה‬

You shall make a platform around the outer courtyard, fourteen cubits wide, corresponding to the openings of the gates all of them. A particularly problematic case is found in the Temple Scroll (33:10–11) in which a noun phrase is modified by ‫ כל‬both preceding it and a floated ‫ כל‬with a resumptive pronoun following it:34 (51) 11QTa 33:10–11 (translation uncertain)

‫ושנים שערים לו מצפונו ומדרומו זה נוכח זה כמדת שער[י ] בית הכיור וכול‬ ‫הבית הזה כולו קירו עשוי חלונים פנימה אטומים‬

And it will have two gates: to the north and to the south, one faces the other with the same measurements as the gates of the laver 33  See also CD-A 11:23. 34  See also 1QM 7:2-3; 1QM 9:3-5.

Syntactic Features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew

111

building. And all of this building, all of it, its walls on the inside there will be blocked windows. . . .35 Quantifier float is absent completely from most texts at Qumran, including the following: 1QS (Rule of the Community), 1QSa (Rule of the Congregation), 1QSb (Blessings), 4Q255–264 = 4QSa–j and 5Q11, 4Q159 = 4QOrda (Ordinances) and 4Q513 = 4QOrdb (Rules), 4Q514 = 4QOrdc (Purification Rule). This distribution is significant given that quantifier float is prevalent and widespread in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of instances of quantifier float occur in the Temple Scroll. 4 Conclusions The quantifier ‫ כל‬presents numerous challenges for analysis and interpretation. In ancient Hebrew, both as attested in the Bible and in Qumran Hebrew, ‫ כל‬appears in four basic syntactic constructions whose semantic nuances are determined by the morphological indications of definiteness-indefiniteness and singular-plural. The numerous examples of ‫ כל‬from the Qumran Hebrew texts (in contrast with Modern Hebrew) do not exhibit any peculiarities when compared with Biblical Hebrew in this respect. The Qumran Hebrew texts do exhibit distributional differences from the biblical material in two respects and each difference has important implications for our understanding of the history of Hebrew. First, the construction ‫כל‬ X we-X is attested only in some Late Biblical texts and in the variety of Qumran Hebrew primarily represented in the Temple Scroll. What this means is that the structural change that began in late biblical times became only partially diffused in the Qumran Hebrew texts. Second, the reduced usage and constricted syntactic richness of quantifier float in Qumran Hebrew as compared to the Bible is striking. This also represents a change from the syntactic structure of Hebrew. What is also quite interesting is the fact that once again the Temple Scroll stands out in two ways—first, as syntactically different from the other texts at Qumran and second as representing a closer connection to the late biblical texts. A close analysis of the syntactic patterns of quantification and their syntactic nuances allows us both to understand what the construction means on a synchronic level and what the changes in that construction mean for the history of Hebrew and the linguistic profile of the individual texts at Qumran. 35   It is possible that the translation should be “in this whole building”; cf. DSSSE, 2:1253.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh from the Cairo Genizah Wido van Peursen 1 Introduction Among the so-called magical texts from the Cairo Genizah edited by Peter Schäfer and Shaul Shaked, the Cambridge fragments T.-S. K 1.144, T.-S. K 21.95, and T.-S. K 21.95P constitute a manuscript containing various prayers, most of which have “a mystico-magical character.”1 Among these prayers we find a Hebrew version of the Prayer of Manasseh2 previously known in Greek and Syriac.3 There is no relationship with Manasseh’s prayer found at Qumran (4Q381 33 8–11) edited by Eileen Schuller4 and investigated by William M. Schniedewind.5 One of the very few studies on the Genizah text is an article by 1  Abbreviations: BH = Biblical Hebrew; CH = Classical Hebrew (including BH and QH); MH = Mishnaic Hebrew; RH = Rabbinic Hebrew; QH = Qumran Hebrew; PrMan = Prayer of Manasseh; PrMan-Heb = The Hebrew text of the Prayer of Manasseh from the Cairo Genizah; DCH = D. J. A. Clines, ed., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew; HALOT = Koehler, Baumgartner, Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexi­con of the Old Testament. We use “MH” if the distinction between the Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoraic Hebrew is applicable, and “RH” if that distinction does not apply. 2  Peter Schäfer and Shaul Shaked, eds., Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza (3 vols.; TSAJ 42,64,72; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994–1997), 2:27–78, PrMan on pp. 32 (text) and 53 (translation). 3  Also in other languages, but the other versions depend either on the Greek or on the Syriac text. 4  Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigrapic Collection (HSS 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), PrMan on pp. 146 (Hebrew text), 151 (translation), 155–58 (comment); Schuller also published this text in the DJD series in 1998; for PrMan (text, translation and notes) see DJD 11:122–26. 5  W. M. Schniedewind, “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient Prayer of Manasseh?” ZAW 108 (1996): 105–7, argued that the Qumran prayer represents an early extra-biblical tradition, which predates the Chronicler’s history, and was perhaps even part of the source to which the Chronicler refers. For a rather positive assessment of this view see Louis Jonker, “Tradition through Reading—Reading the Tradition: Reflections on Eep Talstra”s Exegetical Methodology,” in Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. W. Th. van Peursen and J. W. Dyk; SSN 57; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 133–51, esp. 146–47; for a more critical assessment see

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_009

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

113

Reimund Leicht, in which he argues that this Hebrew text of PrMan is a tenthcentury translation from a Greek text close to the text of the Codex Turicensis, but reflects also unequivocal influence from the Syriac versions. The picture that emerges from Leicht’s hypothesis is reminiscent of the model that various scholars in the late-19th and early-20th centuries advocated regarding the Hebrew text of Ben Sira from the Cairo Genizah,6 namely, that of a document written in the Second Temple Period,7 that survived in Greek and Syriac, and that in the Middle Ages, presumably the tenth century, was retranslated into Hebrew.8 For the Hebrew text of Ben Sira the retroversion theory could not stand the test of time, and after the discovery of the Masada text and the Qumran fragments, at most the partial retroversion theory could be maintained; that is, the view that the Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira are basically the result of inner-Hebrew development, and that only some passages such as Sir 51:13–30 contain traces of a retroversion from Syriac (or Greek).9 For other books the scholarly discussion moved in the opposite direction. Thus M. Gaster considered the small Hebrew version of the story of Judith that he published in 1894 to be standing at the beginning of the literary and

Ariel Gutman and Wido van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 30; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2011), 12. Schuller, NonCanonical Psalms from Qumran, 31–32, 161–62, argues for the secondary attribution of the prayer to Manasseh; see also Schuller, “4Q380 and 4Q381: Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 90–99, esp. 94–95; and Schuller, DJD 11:123. 6  Cf. W. Th. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSL 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 20. 7  Note, however, that the date of origin of PrMan is not so easy to establish as some scholars have suggested and that a later date of origin cannot be ruled out; cf. Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 41–52. 8  Whether we should call PrMan-Heb a “retranslation” (back into Hebrew) or just a “translation” depends on the source of the Greek and Syriac versions. Only if we assume that these versions go back to a Hebrew original—which is far from certain (cf. Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 8–9 n. 11)—is it justified to speak of a re-translation. 9  Cf. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 19–23; van Peursen, “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprachen des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 2 (2001): 47–95; and van Peursen, “Sirach 51:13–30 in Hebrew and Syriac,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen; OLA 118; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 357–74.

114

van Peursen

textual history of the book of Judith,10 and this view was in vogue for some time and entered, for example, the Encyclopedia Biblica edited by Cheyne and Black, in which Gaster wrote the entry on the book of Judith.11 In 1922, however, C. Meyer argued that the Hebrew text was a free retroversion from the Vulgate,12 and since then this view has become the majority view;13 although the minority view, giving priority to one or more of the extant Hebrew versions, did not completely disappear. It was advocated by A. M. Dubarle in his 1958 article.14 Similarly, the abridged Hebrew version of the Book of Maccabees was thought by its editor, Abraham Schweizer, to be original,15 a view that was refuted by C. C. Torrey.16 Will PrMan-Heb from the Cairo Genizah undergo the same fate as the Hebrew text of Ben Sira from the Genizah? Will it also in the end—with our increased knowledge of Hebrew from the Second Temple period—turn out to be a genuine, original Hebrew document? Or should we rather consider it as a parallel to medieval translations into Hebrew of, for example, the books of Judith and 1 Maccabees? This question can be addressed from various perspectives. Leicht focuses on the textual affiliations of PrMan-Heb with the Greek and Syriac versions and draws upon linguistic observations to support his theory.17 My aim is to start with the Hebrew text in its own right and with its linguistic profile before proceeding to the larger text-historical picture 10  M. Gaster, “An Unknown Hebrew Version of the History of Judith,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894): 156–63. 11  M. Gaster, “Judith, the Book of,” in Encyclopedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religion History, the Archeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible (ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black; 4 vols.; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1899–1903), 2:2642–46. 12  Carl Meyer, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Buches Judith,” Biblica 3 (1922): 193–203. 13  Cf. Carey A. Moore, Judith (AB 40B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 101–2. 14  A. M. Dubarle, “Les textes divers du livre de Judith,” VT 8 (1958): 344–73; see, however, also Dubarle, “Rectification: sur un texte hébreu de Judith,” VT 11 (1961): 86–87. 15  A. Schweizer, Untersuchungen über die Reste eines hebräischen Textes vom ersten Makkabäerbuch (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1901); unfortunately, we were unable to consult a copy of this book, so we depend on the extensive review by Torrey. 16  Charles C. Torrey, “Schweizer’s ‘Remains of a Hebrew Text of 1 Maccabees,’” JBL 22 (1903): 51–59. Compare how Torrey (p. 53) linked up the discussion about the original Hebrew of 1 Maccabees with that about the original Hebrew text of Ben Sira: “Since a part of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus has recently come to light, we are prepared to hear of the recovery of the original text of other books of the Old Testament Apocrypha, now preserved only in translations.” 17  The studies about the Hebrew texts of Judith and 1 Maccabees mentioned above do not address linguistic arguments.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

115

that emerges. Regardless of its origin, PrMan-Heb has cultural and literaryhistorical significance, being the only Hebrew witness from a Jewish context to a prayer otherwise only known from Christian transmission channels. 2

Rabbinic Elements

Our analysis of the linguistic profile of PrMan-Heb will start with features that are typical of Rabbinic Hebrew.18 2.1 Orthography 1. The pronominal suffix 1 sg. attached to plural nouns or prepositions with a (pseudo-)plural ending is spelled ‫יי‬: 2a19 ‫“ אבותיי‬my fathers”; 2b8 ‫חטאותיי‬ “my sins,” ‫“ אשמותיי‬my transgressions”; 2b9+13 ‫“ עונותיי‬my iniquities”; 2b9+10 ‫“ חטאותיי‬my sins”; 2b12 ‫“ עליי‬on me” (contrast 2b16+17 ‫ ;)עלי‬2b15 ‫“ פשעיי‬my wrongdoings”; 2b16 ‫“ בחטאותיי‬in my sins”; 2b17 ‫“ בפניי‬before me,” ‫“ חטאותיי‬my sins.” 2. The Niphal imperfect is written with a yod as vowel letter in the prefix: 2b5 ‫“ ותינחם‬and you relent.” 3. Word-internal consonantal yod is written as ‫יי‬: 2b18 ‫“ תחייבני‬do not condemn me.”19 4. The Tetragrammaton is written with three yods in 2b6 and 2b18 ‫יײ‬. 5. ‫ האלים‬in 2b18 ‫“ שאתה הוא ײי האלים לבני אדם‬because you are the Lord of the gods for the human beings” is at first sight somewhat peculiar. There is no exact parallel to ‫ ײי האלים‬in the Bible, the closest parallel being ‫אל‬ ‫ אלים‬in Dan 11:36. A more plausible explanation, however, is that it is a short form of ‫“ אלהים‬God”; the Genizah manuscript in which PrMan-Heb is found contains also other abbreviated forms of ‫אלהים‬.20 2.2 Morphology 1. The form of the perfect 2 masc. sg. is ‫( קטלתה‬contrast BH ‫)קטלת‬: 2a20 ‫(“ עשיתה‬you who) made”; 2b1 ‫“ צויתה‬you commanded”; 2b7 ‫“ שמתה‬you put.”

18  References are to the folio and line number of the Genizah manuscript. Thus 2a19 means: line 19 of folia 2a. 19  See also below, Section 2.2. 20  Schäfer and Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, 27.

116

van Peursen

2. After ‫ אל‬the full imperfect is used, rather than the short form in 2b17 ‫ואל‬ ‫“ יחרה‬and let (your wrath) not burn.”21 3. The Piel of the so-called hollow roots follows the pattern of the strong verb: 2b18 ‫(“ תחייבני‬do not) condemn me.”22 4. The pronominal suffix attached to the negation ‫ אין‬does not take the epenthetic nun: 3a1 ‫“ איני‬I am not” (contrast BH ‫)אינני‬.23 2.3 Morphosyntax (Conjunctions) 1. ‫ ש‬is used as a relative (exclusively; there are no cases of ‫ )אשר‬in 2b5, 7, 9, 19, 20; and as a causal conjunction (cf. BH ‫ )כי‬in 2b16 ‫אבקשך שאני‬ ‫“ צריך אותך‬I seek you because I need you”; 2b18 ‫ שאתה הוא‬. . . ‫ואל תחייבני‬ ‫ ײי‬. . . “and do not condemn me . . . because you are the Lord . . .”; compare also ‫ ש‬introducing an adnominal prepositional phrase in 2b8 ‫מחול שעל‬ ‫“ שפת הים‬than the sand (that is) on the seashore” (contrast an adnominal prepositional phrase without relative in 2b3–4 ‫“ זעמך על החטאים‬your anger over sinners”). The introduction of an adnominal prepositional phrase with a relative is common in Syriac.24

21  After ‫ אל‬the short imperfect is frequent throughout the CH period (including QH). In MH the short imperfect is used only in literary and elevated style, see Gideon Haneman, ‫תורת‬ ‫( הצורות של לשון המשנה‬A Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew according to the Tradition of the Parma MS [De Rossi 138]) (TSHLRS 3; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1980), 31–32; Mordechai Mishor, ‫“( מערכת הזמנים בלשון המשנה‬The Tense System in Tannaitic Hebrew”) (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983), 86–92; and van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 92. 22  Cf. M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 82–83 and Segal, ‫( דקדוק לשון המשנה‬A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1936), 143. See also above, Section 2.1, on the orthography. 23  Cf. M. Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 19. 24  Van Peursen, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study (MPI 16; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 224. The examples given there ̈ include Gen 1:9 ‫“ ܡܝܐ ܕܠܬܚܬ ܡܢ ܫܡܝܐ‬the waters (that are) under the sky” for MT ‫המים‬ ‫מתחת השמים‬.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

117

2. The following compound conjunctions are attested: ‫“ מפני ש‬because” (2b8); ‫“ ועל ש‬because” (2b10; cf. BH ‫“ בעת ש ;)על אשר‬at the time when” (2a18; cf. ‫ בזמן ש‬etc. in MH);25 ‫“ אף על פי ש‬although” (3a1).26 2.4 Syntax 1. There is one nominal clause with the pattern ‫אין מי יקטול‬: 2b3 ‫ואין מי יעמוד‬ ‫“ לפני כוחך‬and there is none who can stand before your power.” This pattern is reminiscent of MH examples such as m. Menaḥ. 4:3 ‫אין לו מי יתירנו‬ “it has nothing which renders it permissible,”27 but the use of ‫( מי‬rather than ‫ )מי ש‬is remarkable.28 2. The pattern ‫ לקטול‬X ‫ אין לי‬is attested twice: 2b9 ‫“ ואין לי רשות להביט‬I have no authority to look”; 2b10­–11 ‫“ ואין לי מצח להרים ראשי אליך‬and I do not have the insolence to raise my head to you.” Unlike the pattern ‫אין לקטול‬, which is well attested in LBH and QH, the pattern ‫ לקטול‬X ‫ אין‬is common in MH.29 2.5 Words and Phrases 1. PrMan-Heb contains a number of words that are infrequently attested or unattested in BH, but common in RH: 2b3 ‫“ סבל‬to carry”; 2b5 ‫ארוך‬ “long, lasting”;30 2b9 ‫“ רשות‬authority”; 2b15 ‫ עוה‬Qal “to transgress”;31 2b17

25  Cf. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 335, with references to Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 209–10, and M. Azar, ‫( תחביר לשון המשנה‬The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language/University of Haifa, 1995), 117–18; but note that in MH the compounds with ‫ שעה‬and ‫ זמן‬are more common. 26  Cf. M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; New York: Judaica, 1886–1903), 99b. 27  Example from Azar, ‫תחביר לשון המשנה‬, 89. 28  Cf. Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 41: “The interrogatives ‫ִמי‬ and ‫ ָמה‬can also have indefinite significance, particularly in the sequence ‫מה ש‬/‫‘ מי‬whoever, whatever’ . . . and especially when preceded and reinforced by ‫ כל מי ש( כל‬etc.).” 29  Cf. W. 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. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 223–43, esp. 229. 30  Only three occurrences in BH: Job 11:8; 2 Sam 3:1; Jer 29:28; for its use in RH see J. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim (4 vols.; Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1876–1889), 1:166a. 31  ‫ עוה‬Qal occurs in the Bible only in Esth 1:16 and Dan 9:5.

118

van Peursen

‫ חרט‬Hitpael “to repent”; 2b17 ‫ חוב‬Piel “to condemn”;32 3a1 ‫“ זכאי‬worthy, deserving”; 3a2 ‫( נאה‬+ infinitive) “appropriate.”33

2. A word that is well-attested in both BH and RH but is used in PrMan-Heb with a sense that is typically RH is ‫עולם‬, with the meaning “world” (rather than “eternity”), in 2a19 ‫“ השליט בעולמו‬the ruler over his world”; and 2b2 ‫“ ישבחו כל העולם‬the whole world praises you”; also, in 2b17, “(in) this world” in contrast to ‫“ עולם הבא‬the world to come.”34 The biblical usage is attested as well, cf. 3a2 ‫“ לעולמי עולמים‬for ever and ever.” The introduction of “the world to come” in this prayer reflects acquaintance with rabbinic discussions as to whether or not Manasseh will have a share in the world to come.35 3. Rabbinic idioms include, in addition to the above-mentioned ‫עולם הבא‬, 2a18 ‫“ עשה תשובה‬to do repentance” (e.g. m. Yoma 8:9; m. Ned. 9:3; m. ʾAbot 5:18).36 3

Non-Rabbinic Features

The features discussed in Section 2 suggest a straightforward characterization of PrMan-Heb as a rabbinic text, but there are also features that do not easily fit into a rabbinic linguistic profile.

32  In the Hebrew Bible it occurs only in Dan 1:10, meaning “to make guilty.” See also Sir 11:18. 33  Compare Sir 41:16, where the Genizah MSS B and C have ‫נאה‬, but the Masada Scroll ‫נאוה‬. Since in BH we find other forms with a waw, such as Ps 93:5 ‫( נַ ֲאוָ ה‬probably to be interpreted as a Niphal of ‫)אוה‬, I have argued elsewhere that the Masada text should be interpreted as a Niphal of ‫אוה‬, and that the Genizah manuscripts reflect a later stage in the history of the Hebrew language, in which the Niphal of ‫ אוה‬and the Qal of ‫ נאה‬have merged; cf. van Peursen, “Het Participium bij Ben Sira” (M.A. thesis, Leiden University, 1994), 35. For the purpose of the present study it suffices to observe that the form in HebPrMan (‫ )נאה‬agrees with the form in the Genizah manuscripts of Ben Sira as against the Masada Scroll. R. Leicht, A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version of the Apocryphal “Prayer of Manasseh,” JSQ 3 (1996): 359–73, at 366, refers to ‫ כי לך נאה‬in the Yishtebach of the morning prayer. For the construction of ‫ נאה‬+ infinitive see also van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 270. 34  Cf. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midra­ schim, 3:655. 35  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 367, and Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 46–47. 36  ‫ תשובה‬occurs in the Bible with the meaning “return” (HALOT, 1800b).

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

119

3.1 Orthography 1. Sin (rather than samek) occurs in the form 2b13 ‫“ השיגוני‬they have over­ taken me,” for which we would expect in MH ‫ינוגיסה‬.37 3.2 Morphology 1. The lengthened imperative is used in 2b16 ‫“ חוסה‬spare!”38 2. Unusual in RH are perfect forms of ‫“ יכל‬to be able,” as in 2b13 ‫יכולתי‬. In RH we find only the participle ‫ ;יכול‬the BH perfect structure ‫ יכֹלת‬,‫ יכֹלתי‬has been replaced in RH by perfect forms of the verb ‫ היה‬+ the participle ‫יכול‬.39 3.3 Morphosyntax (tenses) 1. The use of the imperfect for the present is attested in 2b5 ‫“ ותינחם‬and you relent”; 2b15 ‫“ פשעיי אני אדע‬I know my wrongdoings”; 2b19 ‫“ שיתחרטו‬who repent.” 3.4 Syntax (phrase structure) 1. The use of the construct state agrees with the rules of BH, e.g., 2a18 ‫תפילת‬ ‫“ מנשה מלך יהודה‬Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah”; 3a1 ‫“ כל ימי חיי‬all the days of my life”; 3a2 ‫“ כל צבאות שמים‬all the hosts of heaven.”40 Although it is unwarranted to call these examples, “non-rabbinic,” it is worth noting that analytical genitive constructions with ‫ש‬, which are common in RH, do not occur. Furthermore, typically BH is the construction with an adjective in 2b4 ‫“ ישרי לב‬those whose heart is upright.”41

37  Cf. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, 32; see Segal, ‫דקדוק לשון המשנה‬, 34, on samek replacing sin, but there this verb is not mentioned. 38  Cf. Haneman, ‫תורת הצורות של לשון המשנה‬, 31; Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 151; and van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 92. 39  Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 114; see also Haneman, ‫תורת‬ ‫הצורות של לשון המשנה‬, 71–72. 40  Other examples: 2a19 ‫“ אלהי אבותיי‬the God of my fathers”; 2b6 ‫“ רעת העם‬the evil over the people”; 2b6 ‫“ אלהי הצדיקים‬the God of the righteous”; 2b6 ‫“ טוב הצדיקים‬the good for the righteous”; 2b8 ‫“ שפת הים‬the seashore”; 2b10 ‫“ כבלי ברזל‬fetters of iron”; 2b13 ‫שערות ראשי‬ “the hairs of my head”; 2b18 ‫“ תחת תהום הארץ‬under the depths of the earth”; 2b18 ‫בני אדם‬ “the human beings”; 3a2 ‫“ לעולמי עולמים‬for ever and ever.” Note that we interpret 2b18 ‫ ײי האלים‬as an apposition: “the Lord God [‫ ;”]אלהים‬see Section 3.6. 41  For the use of this construction in BH see T. Muraoka, “The Status Constructus of Adjectives in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 27 (1977): 375–80.

120

van Peursen

2. Another peculiarity is the discord or rather the constructio ad sensum in 2a19–20 ‫“ זרעם הצדיקים‬their righteous offspring,” but this type of disagreement is acceptable in both BH and RH.42 3.5 Syntax (clause structure) 1. The construction in 3a1 ‫“ איני זכאי להושיעני‬I do not deserve to save me (i.e. to be saved)” is peculiar in that the suffix attached to the infinitive is superfluous.43 The same applies to 3a2 ‫“ ולך נאה להללך‬to you, it is appropriate to praise you.”44 2. We find a nominal clause with ‫ אתה הוא‬in 2b4­–5 ‫“ אתה הוא שהחסד עמך‬it is you with whom is mercy”; 2b6 ‫“ אתה הוא ײי אלהי הצדיקים‬you are the Lord, the God of the righteous”; 2b18 ‫“ שאתה הוא ײי האלים לבני אדם‬because you are the Lord, the God for the human beings.” According to Azar there is no example of ‫ אתה הוא‬in the Mishnah and only one example of ‫אני הוא‬ (m. Naz. 8:1).45 3. The use of ‫( מי‬rather than ‫ )מי ש‬for “someone who” in 2b3 is remarkable.46 3.6 Words and Phrases 1. 2b10 ‫“ מצח‬insolence” in 2b10­–11 ‫“ ואין לי מצח להרים ראשי אליך‬and I do not have the insolence to raise my head to you,” is remarkable. It seems to have a meaning parallel to ‫ רשות‬in 2b9 ‫“ ואין לי רשות להביט‬I have no authority to look.” I have found no direct parallels for this use of ‫מצח‬, but it is reminiscent of its use in the Bible in combination with ‫( ָחזָ ק‬e.g., Ezek 3:7–8) or other idioms expressing the “strength of the ‫מצח‬.” 42  Disagreement in number is attested with ‫ זרע‬as subject of a plural verb (Jer 31:3; Ezra 9:2; Neh 9:2); for the idiom used here compare Prov 11:21 ‫“ זרע צדיקים‬the offspring of the righteous” (but there the two words constitute a construct state connection rather than an apposition). For disagreement in number with an attributive adjective, Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 148a, give as an example Isa 9:1 ‫העם ההלכים‬. In MH, “with collectives, adjective agreement is according to semantic sense,” according to Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 81. 43  Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 124s, on the identification of the subject in infinitive constructions. 44  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 367, calls the use of the suffix pronoun here “rather clumsy.” 45  Azar, ‫תחביר לשון המשנה‬, 80. The construction is common in Syriac—cf., e.g., Sir 36:22 ‫“ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܠܚܘܕܝܟ‬that you alone are God,” corresponding to ]‫כי אתה אל [עו]ל[ם‬ in the Hebrew text (MS B)—as well as in other Semitic languages; cf. Van Peursen, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 304. 46  See Section 2.4 above.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

121

2. In 2b11–12 we find ‫“ להאריך אפך‬to make your anger endure.” In BH and RH this idiom is used for “to refrain from anger,”47 and the pronominal suffix attached to ‫אף‬, if present, refers to the (logical) subject of the verb. Thus we find Isa 48:9 ‫“ למען שמי אאריך אפי‬for my own name”s sake I refrain from anger”; Prov 19:11 ‫“ שכל אדם האריך אפו‬a man’s insight makes him patient”; similarly Sir 30:22 (MS B);48 cf. ‫“ אֹרך אפים‬patience” (Prov 25:15) and ‫“ ֶארך אפים‬patient” (e.g., Joel 2:13, quoted below). The use of this idiom in PrMan-Heb, in a meaning opposite to its usual meaning (provoking anger, rather than refraining from it) and in an uncommon syntactic construction (the logical subject of the verb is “I,” not the “you” referred to by the suffix attached to ‫)אף‬, is striking. 3. The participle ‫ מחננים‬in 3a1–2 ‫ כי לך מחננים כל צבאות שמים‬is problematic. Leicht translates with “because all hosts of heaven ask you for compassion,”49 but adds in a footnote that perhaps ‫ מחננים‬is a scribal error for ‫מרננים‬, since the other versions suggest a word like “to praise.”50 ‫ חנן‬Piel occurs only once in the Bible, in Prov 26:25, meaning “to make gracious, favourable (voice).” In the meaning “to ask for compassion” (cf. Leicht’s translation) the Hitpolel is used in BH. The Piel of ‫ חנן‬is not given in the RH dictionaries of Jastrow51 and Levy.52 4. 3a2 ‫“ כל צבאות שמים‬all the hosts of heaven” differs from the biblical idiom ‫צבא השמים‬, with the singular form of ‫צבא‬. For the plural in similar contexts, DCH (7:67) gives only two examples from Qumran Hebrew, one in a reconstructed text in 1QHa 9:12 (but not anymore reconstructed in DJD 40), and one in 1QHa 5:25–26 ‫“ רקיע קודשך וכול צבאותיו‬your holy vault and [al]l its hosts,” where the suffix attached to a plural form of ‫ צבא‬refers to ‫רקיע‬.

47  H ALOT, 88b. 48  Cf. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 249. 49  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 373; cf. Schäfer and Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, 53: “denn alle Heerscharen des Himmels flehen zu dir.” 50  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 373 n. 45 (see also p. 365: “If ‫ מחננים‬in v. 15 is no scribal mistake this cannot be called a correct translation of the sources”). 51  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, 484a–b. 52  Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim, 2:82b.

122 4

van Peursen

Explanations for the Non-Rabbinic Elements

The rabbinic features of PrMan-Heb discussed in Section 2 make it basically a RH text. This calls for an explanation for those features, discussed in Section 3, that do not agree with this overall picture. This concerns BH features as well as peculiarities that are unusual both according to BH and according to RH standards. We will first focus on two phenomena highlighted by Leicht: biblical quotations and “etymological congruities” with the Syriac text. 4.1 Biblical Quotations PrMan-Heb contains many quotations from and allusions to the Bible. As Leicht puts it: “In many cases the translator adapts the verses he borrows from the Hebrew Bible rather than rendering his textual sources very exactly.”53 Some of the non-rabbinic elements discussed above come from biblical quotations: 1. For the sin rather than samek in ‫ השיגוני‬and the form ‫ יכולתי‬in 2b13–14 ‫“ והשיגוני עונתיי ולא יכולתי לראות עצמי משערות ראשי ולבי עזבני‬and my iniquities have overtaken me and I cannot see; they have become more numerous [reading ‫ ]עצמו‬than the hairs of my head, and my heart has left me,” compare Ps 40:13 ‫והשיגוני עונתי ולא יכֹלתי לראות עצמו משערות ראשי ולבי‬ ‫עזבני‬. 2. For the construct state of an adjective, ‫ ישרי לב‬in 2b4 ‫ובלא מספר חסדיך‬ ‫“ וצדקותיך לישרי לב‬and innumerable are your mercies and your righteous acts to those whose heart is upright,” compare Ps 36:11 ‫משך חסדיך לידעיך‬ ‫“ וצדקתך לישרי לב‬continue your mercy to those who know you and your righteousness to those whose heart is upright.” 3. The use of the imperfect for the present tense in 2b15 ‫כי פשעיי אני אדע‬ ‫“ וחטאתי נגדי תמיד‬for I know my wrongdoings and my sin is always before me” can be explained from Ps 51:5 ‫כי פשעי אני אדע וחטאתי נגדי תמיד‬. 4. Perhaps the construction of ‫ מי‬rather than ‫ מי ש‬for “someone who” in 2b3 ‫“ ואין מי יעמוד לפני כוחך‬and there is none who can stand before your power” comes from Nah 1:6 ‫“ לפני זעמו מי יעמד‬who can stand before his anger?”54 Yet, though the sequence ‫ מי יעמוד‬is identical, the syntactic structure in which these words function is different. 5. Note also that the construction in 2b8 ‫“ מחול שעל שפת הים‬than the sand (that is) on the seashore” comes from Judg 7:12 ‫מחול שעל שפת הים לרב‬ (contrast “the sand of the sea” in the Greek version of PrMan). 53  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 365. 54  Leicht, ibid., 365, erroneously refers to Neh 1:6.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

123

6. Apart from these examples, which affect the linguistic profile of the text, other biblical quotations or allusions occur as well. Thus 2b5–6 ‫ותינחם על‬ ‫“ רעת העם‬and you relent the evil over the people” (with “people” instead of “human beings” in the Greek text) seems to be influenced by Exod 32:12 ‫“ והנחם על הרעה לעמך‬and relent the evil against your people” and Joel 2:13 ‫“ ארך אפים ורב חסד ונִ ַחם על הרעה‬slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents the evil.” 2b19 ‫“ הראני ײי חסדך וישעך תתן לי‬show me, Lord, your mercy and give me your salvation” is a direct quote from Ps 85:8 ‫הראנו יהוה חסדך וישעך תתן לנו‬. 7. The lengthened imperative of the verb ‫“ חוס‬to spare” (2b16) occurs also in Neh 13:22 ‫“ וחוסה עלי כרב חסדך‬and spare me according to the greatness of your mercy” and Joel 2:17 ‫“ חוסה יהוה על עמך‬spare, o Lord, your people,” but since there are no other analogies with these passages, apart from words and idioms that we can expect in penitential prayers in general (cf. ‫ חסדך‬in Neh 13:22 and ‫“ חמל‬have compassion” in Joel 2:17), we do not consider the occurrence of the lengthened imperative in PrMan-Heb to be the result of a quotation. 8. Also the following examples are unsure: 2b10 ‫“ כבלי ברזל‬fetters of iron” which occurs (as an Aramaism in BH) also in Ps 105:18 and 149:8; 2b10 ‫“ וכבדו חטאותיי‬and my sins are heavy,” where we find the combination of ‫ חטאה‬and ‫כבד‬, which occurs also in Gen 18:20 ‫ ;וחטאתם כי כבדה‬2b14 ‫נטיתי‬ ‫“ לבי‬I inclined my heart,” which occurs also in Ps 119:112 (contrast “I incline the knee of my heart” in the Greek). Biblical quotations do not explain all non-RH features. Thus the use of the imperfect for the present tense in 2b15 can be explained from Ps 51:5, but the same usage is attested in 2b5 and 2b19. The biblical elements should hence be described not only in terms of quotations from or allusions to biblical passages, but also as biblical language used in an otherwise RH text. 4.2 Close Similarity to Syriac Can we say more about the linguistic profile of PrMan-Heb than that it is basically a RH text that includes BH elements, partly in quotations, partly in a general tendency to employ biblical language? One factor should be included in the discussion, which links the linguistic analysis with text-historical considerations. Leicht has drawn attention to “the great number of etymological

124

van Peursen

congruities between the Hebrew and the Syriac versions.”55 The “most obvious examples” that he mentions are the following:56 ̈ 1. 2a19–20 ‫“ זרעם הצדיקים‬their righteous offspring” = SyrB ‫ܙܕܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܙܪܥܗܘܢ‬ (cf. SyrA ‫)ܙܪܥܗܘܢ ܙܕܝܩܐ‬ 2. 2b4­–5, 2b18 ‫“ אתה הוא‬you are . . .” = SyrA+B ‫ܐܢܬ ܗܘ‬ 3. 2b7 ‫“ ושמתה תשובה לי‬you put repentance for me” = SyrA+B ‫̣ܣܡܬ ܬܝܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܝ\ܥܠܝ‬ 4. 2b10 ‫“ כפוף אני‬I am bent” = SyrA+B ‫ܟܦܝܦ ܐܢܐ‬ 5. 2b16 ‫ ואל תאבדני בחטאתי‬57 “and do not destroy me because of my sins” = ̈ ‫)ܘܐܠ ܬܘܒܕܝܢܝ ܥܡ‬ ̈ ‫( ܘܐܠ ܬܘܒܕܢܝ‬cf. SyrA ‫ܣܟܠܘܬܝ‬ SyrB ‫ܒܚܛܗܝ‬ 6. 2b18 ‫ ואל תחייבני תחת תהום הארץ‬58 “do not condemn me under the depths ̇ ‫ܒܬܚܬܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܐܠ‬ ̈ of the earth” = SyrB ‫ܬܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫( ܘܐܠ ܬܚܝܒܢܝ‬cf. SyrA ‫ܬܚܝܒܢܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܬܐܚܬܝܬܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫“ ܘܬܐܫܕܢܝ ̈ܒ‬and do not condemn me and banish me to the depths of earth”)59 Another example of possible Syriac influence that Leicht mentions is: ̈ but he adds: “although this can be 7. ‫ = צבאות שמים‬SyrA+B ‫ܚܝܠܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‬, due to the Hebrew language itself.”60 To this last example we can add the observation that the biblical idiom ‫צבא‬ ‫ שמים‬is rendered in the Peshitta with a plural in, for example, Deut 17:3 MT: ‫לכל‬ ̈ ‫ܠܟܠ‬.61 ‫צבא השמים‬, Pesh ‫ܚܝܠܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‬ We admit that such “etymological congruities” should play a role in establishing the textual relationships between the various sources. For our linguistic analysis, however, it should be noted that the features of the Hebrew text that 55  Ibid., 364. 56  We distinguish between SyrA, the version found in the Syriac Didascalia and biblical manuscripts, and SyrB, found in Melkite Horologia; cf. Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 24–25. 57  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” has ‫ לא‬instead of ‫ אל‬in his list on p. 367, but the correct reading ‫ אל‬in his text on p. 370. In general, one can observe the alternation of ‫( לא תקטל‬e.g., 2b17 ‫“ לא תביא‬do not bring”) and ‫( אל תקטל‬2b16, 17, 18). 58  Here, too, Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” has ‫ לא‬instead of ‫ אל‬in his list on p. 364, but the correct reading ‫ אל‬in his text on p. 370. 59  Note the difference between the two Syriac versions, ignored by Leicht. 60  Cf. ibid., 364. 61  Cf. P. G. Borbone and K. D. Jenner, eds., The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, Part V, Concordance 1: The Penta­teuch (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 304b.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

125

can be accounted for by the similarities with the Syriac text are not in themselves linguistically problematic. Thus the constructio ad sensum ‫זרעם הצדיקים‬ is indeed remarkable, especially in comparison with the singular form in the Greek, but fits well with the rules of BH and RH. Also the “peculiar structure”62 ‫ אתה הוא‬is reminiscent of biblical passages such as Isa 37:16 ‫אתה הוא האלהים‬ “you are God” (or: “it is you who are God”).63 Likewise, the use of the 2nd person perfect in the first verses instead of the participle found in the Greek can well be explained by the influence of the Syriac, but as such the Hebrew text is not problematic at all. An exception can be made for 3a2 ‫ כל צבאות שמים‬because the plural in this construction is indeed unattested in the Hebrew Bible.64 Moreover, here, too, as in the case of biblical quotations, the “etymological congruities” do not result in consistently applied correspondences. Note, for example, that ‫אתה הוא‬, which twice corresponds to Syriac ‫ܐܢܬ ܗܘ‬, occurs also in 2b6, where SyrA+B has only ‫ܐܢܬ‬. Also, the “etymological congruities” cannot account for the most striking lexical peculiarities in the Hebrew text. Thus 2b11–12 ‫“ להאריך אפך‬to make your anger endure” cannot be explained by a translation error, since SyrA+B has the “normal” ‫“ ܐܪܓܙܬ ܠܚܡܬܟ‬I provoked your anger.” The same applies to the lexical peculiarities mentioned above, in Section 3.6, such as the use of ‫“ מצח‬insolence” in 2b10. 5

Discussion and Evaluation

5.1 The Linguistic Profile of PrMan-Heb The linguistic profile of PrMan-Heb differs considerably from that of other Hebrew writings from the Second Temple period such as Ben Sira or the Dead Sea Scrolls. PrMan-Heb is basically a rabbinic text reflecting rabbinic grammar and lexicon. Also in its contents PrMan-Heb has an interesting rabbinic 62  Cf. Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 364: “The peculiar structure ‫אתה הוא‬, found in the Syriac version ‫ܐܢܬ ܗܘ‬, is very striking as well.” 63  This verse has played a major role in the linguistic study of the Hebrew tripartite nominal clause; see van Peursen, “Three Approaches to the Tripartite Nominal Clause in Classical Syriac,” in Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta (ed. P. S. F. van Keulen and W. Th. van Peursen; SSN 48; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 157–73, esp. 158–59; cf. F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über den Prophet Jesaia (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1866), 363: “‫ הוא‬in ‫ אתה הוא‬ist nachdrückliche Wiederaufnahme, also Verstärkung des Subj., wie 43,25. 51,12. 2S 7,28. Jer. 49,12. Ps. 44,5. Neh. 9,6f. Ezr. 5,11: tu ille (nicht tu es ille (Ges. § 121,2) = tu, nullus alius.” 64  See Section 3.6 above.

126

van Peursen

element, because it reflects acquaintance with rabbinic discussions about Manasseh’s share in the world to come. There are also some biblical forms and expressions, such as the occurrence of the lengthened imperative. Some of them occur in biblical quotations and allusions. The biblical influx may be due to the liturgical character of the text and does as such not change its overall rabbinic appearance. There are also some linguistic oddities such as the construction with ‫מצח‬ “insolence” in 2b10, the use of ‫“ להאריך אפך‬to make your anger endure” in 2b11– 12, and the Piel of ‫“ חנן‬ask for compassion” in 3a1. Leicht ascribed these oddities to the translator’s poor knowledge of the Hebrew language,65 and we think he is right. It is hard to find any other satisfying explanation for these features. Regarding the question about the origin of PrMan-Heb, this linguistic evidence is not decisive. If we postulate the composition of PrMan somewhere the late Second Temple period (but cf. n. 7 above), it is clear that the Genizah text is not the original composition, but this does not compel us to assume that it is a medieval composition (or translation), since it could also be the result of an inner-Hebrew development, reflecting, on the one hand, adaptations to later Hebrew usage and, on the other hand, the influence of biblical passages with some traces of unsuccessful adaptations of the text. What we can observe, however, is that PrMan-Heb has a linguistic profile different from that of other texts from the Second Temple period that have been discovered in the Genizah. Thus in the case of Ben Sira, even though there are linguistic differences between the Masada and Qumran texts on the one hand and the Genizah texts on the other—and the latter contain some “late” features, such as the typically RH idiom ‫בית מדרש‬, bet midrash, in Sir 51:23 (MS B)66—we can even say of the Genizah texts that they reflect much more linguistic diversity than PrMan-Heb, and that they combine Standard BH, Late BH, and Post-BH elements, as well as many unique features. The same applies to the Damascus Document. In this case too, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed not only the way in which the text has been linguistically

65  Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 367. 66  On this idiom see van Peursen, “Sirach 51:13–30 in Hebrew and Syriac,” 369–70; on the rabbinic flavour of the Hebrew text (and the Syriac text) of Ben Sira see further van Peursen, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira, 115, with references.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

127

altered and updated in its transmission history,67 but also close linguistic affinities with Qumran Hebrew and agreements with the CD fragments.68 5.2 Textual Affiliations None of the linguistic oddities in PrMan-Heb mentioned above can be explained as translation errors from the Greek or the Syriac versions, because in each case these versions have a different reading that cannot account for the reading in the Hebrew text. There is one case where the Hebrew text is likely the result of a translation error because it seems to reflect a wrong rendering of the Greek text, but in that case the Hebrew text is not problematic in itself. In the Greek text of v. 13 we find αἰτοῦμαι δέομενος “asking I request,” in which the obvious interpretation of δέομενος is “asking”; however, the Greek verb can also mean “to need,” and that interpretation is reflected in Hebrew 2b16 ‫אבקשך שאני צריך אותך‬ “I seek you because I need you.”69 The textual affiliations with the Syriac text seem to be stronger, especially because of the “etymological congruities” between the Hebrew and Syriac versions to which Leicht has drawn attention. However, these are not as pervasive as, for example, those between the Hebrew text of Sir 51:13–30 in the Genizah MS B and the Syriac text,70 for which it has been suggested that the Hebrew text is a retranslation from the Syriac. The divergences between the Hebrew and the Syriac texts are too large to assume that the Hebrew presents a rather literal translation from the Syriac. This means that the model that has been used in the comparison of the Hebrew and Syriac versions of Sir 51:13–30 cannot be applied in the very same form to PrMan-Heb. 67  E. Qimron did not include the Genizah manuscripts of the Damascus Document in his Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), since “their text was distorted by the copyists of the Middle Ages and thus does not reflect the DSS language, especially in its phonology and morphology” (p. 15). 68  Cf. S. E. Fassberg, “The Linguistic Study of the Damascus Document: A Historical Perspective,” The Damascus Document, A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998 (ed. J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 53–67, at 67: “The relationship of phenomena in the Damascus Document to features in late biblical Hebrew, mishnaic Hebrew, and the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been proven beyond doubt. Moreover, the Geniza manuscripts of the Damascus Document, once disparaged linguistically, are now recognized as medieval copies that still possess features of an earlier authentic type of Hebrew.” 69  Cf. Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 364. 70  Cf. van Peursen, “Sirach 51:13–30 in Hebrew and Syriac,” passim.

128

van Peursen

The agreements with the Syriac text in themselves still do not compel us to consider PrMan-Heb a retranslation from Syriac. If remarkable elements in the Hebrew text correspond to similar constructions in the Syriac text and the constructions in that case are less remarkable in Syriac, the “congruities” as such would be a strong argument for the dependency of the Hebrew text upon the Syriac. However, where the Hebrew text is somewhat extraordinary, as, for example, in 2b16 ‫“ ואל תאבדני בחטאתי‬and do not destroy me because of my sins,” the construction in the Syriac text (SyrB) ‫ܚܛܗܝ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐܠ ܬܘܒܕܢܝ ܒ‬is just as uncommon as the Hebrew construction. In such a case the agreements do not answer the question as to whether the Syriac text derives from the Hebrew or the other way round. 5.3 Text-Historical Reconstructions In Sections 5.1–5.2 we have seen that neither the linguistic profile of PrManHeb nor its textual affiliations with the Greek and Syriac versions provide decisive indications for its origin. We will now take a broader perspective and address the question as to how the linguistic profile and the textual affiliations can be projected into the textual history of PrMan. It is generally acknowledged that in the Greek transmission the text of PrMan in the Didascalia has priority over all other extant versions.71 It is also likely that PrMan entered the Syriac tradition through the Syriac translation of the Didascalia, and that from there it was introduced into biblical manuscripts (SyrA).72 The relation of this Syriac version (SyrA) with the version found in the Melkite Horologia (SyrB) is complex, but there is strong evidence that both derive from a Greek text, even if not from exactly the same Greek Vorlage.73 That PrMan-Heb stands between the Greek and the Syriac, i.e. that it is a translation of the Greek and was in turn the basis for the Syriac translation, is unlikely because of the interrelatedness of the Greek and the Syriac versions as part of the Didascalia. It follows that if we try to integrate PrMan-Heb within a reconstruction of the textual history of the Greek and Syriac versions, it should stand either at the beginning (as the source text of the Greek text), or at the end (as a translation from the Greek and/or the Syriac). If we assume that PrMan-Heb stands at the beginning of the textual history, this would require the postulation of a Hebrew text that on the one hand served as the source text of the Greek translation, and on the other hand underwent an inner-Hebrew development up to the version found in the Genizah. 71  Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 8–9. 72  Ibid., 24. 73  Ibid., 201.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

129

Apart from the fact that this postulation is highly hypothetical, because of the absence of any Hebrew manuscript corroboration of this reconstruction, it is problematic because of the agreements between the Hebrew and the Syriac, not only the “etymological congruities”, but also, for example, cases where the Hebrew and the Syriac versions have a perfect against a participle in the Greek text. It is hard to explain how these features have been retained (or rather: reintroduced) in the transition from Hebrew to Greek and from Greek to Syriac. Because of these text-historical considerations, I prefer the alternative reconstruction, namely that the Hebrew text is a retranslation from the Greek and/or Syriac. As indicated above, the correspondence between the Greek αἰτοῦμαι δέομενος “asking I request” (v. 13) and the Hebrew ‫אבקשך שאני צריך‬ ‫“ אותך‬I seek you because I need you” (2b16) argues for the latter’s dependency on the Greek; the remarkable patterns of formal agreement argue for dependency on the Syriac. This agrees with Leicht’s view that the Hebrew text depends both on a Syriac text (more precisely, a text of the SyrB type) and on a Greek text (close to the text of the Codex Turicensis). As a consequence, the question as to whether the Greek version in the end goes back to a Hebrew original (cf. note 8 above) becomes irrelevant to our analysis of the Genizah text and cannot be answered on the basis of this text. 5.4 Historical Considerations The text-historical reconstruction does not answer the question of how the Hebrew text was written. Was there a Hebrew scribe who had both a Greek and a Syriac text in front of him? And if so, what made him decide to resort to either the one or the other? And why did he decide to translate this document and where did he get his sources from? In our study on the two Syriac versions of PrMan, we have proposed (following a suggestion that we received from James K. Aitken) that Christians who had converted to Judaism were responsible for the (re-)adaptation of Christian sources. Since these converts were acquainted with these sources and knew their languages, but probably learned Hebrew at a later age, this assumption may account for those peculiarities that can be explained from a poor knowledge of Hebrew.74 The interactions between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in all areas of life and culture is well-documented in the vast collection of the Genizah materials. That the exchange also concerned religious texts and practices is apparent, for

74  Ibid., 201.

130

van Peursen

example, from some Syriac liturgical texts from the Genizah.75 The text under discussion is another piece of evidence of this exchange. The origin of the PrMan-Heb can be placed in the wider cultural context of Jewish translation activity in the Middle Ages in which the Jewish or allegedly Jewish sources that had been transmitted through Christian channels were rediscovered by Jews who translated them into Hebrew. This activity gave rise to an abundance of Hebrew translations of all kinds of literature, as has been described in detail in the still classic work by M. Steinschneider.76 Thus, culturally, the Hebrew versions of the books of Judith and Maccabees discussed above provide better parallels to PrMan-Heb than the Genizah fragments of Ben Sira or the Damascus Document. Whether this is also true linguistically deserves further research. Above we noted the differences between the linguistic profiles of the Genizah texts of Ben Sira and the Damascus Document on the one hand, and that of PrMan-Heb on the other. A comparison of the linguistic profile of PrMan-Heb with that of the other mediaeval Hebrew translations is beyond the scope of the present study. Since until now the study of these translations has focused on textual affiliations and the quest for the original versions of these books, a linguistic description of them is still a desideratum. 6 Conclusions The linguistic profile of PrMan-Heb in itself does not prove its dependency on a Greek or Syriac text. The linguistic observations put forward to support this argument are not decisive. PrMan-Heb can be read as a rabbinic text, reflecting rabbinic language and ideas, with some passages that reflect biblical influence. It is only the textual affiliations and general text-critical and text-historical considerations that necessitate an explanation in terms of a retranslation from the Syriac or Greek rather than in terms of development within the Hebrew. Does this mean that our research has been useless because PrMan-Heb can only be positioned at the end of a long and complex transmission history? Certainly not! PrMan-Heb is a document that deserves to be studied in its own right, whether or not it reflects a Hebrew text from the Second Temple period, and whether or not it brings us back to the precursors of the Greek and Syriac 75  Ibid., 12–13. 76  S. P. Brock, “East Syrian Liturgical Fragments from the Cario Genizah,” OrChr 68 (1984): 58–79 and Brock, “Some Further East Syrian Liturgical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah,” OrChr 74 (1990): 44–61; cf. Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version,” 368 and Gutman and van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh, 12.

Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh

131

versions that were available. We find here in a clearly Jewish environment, and with some adaptations to the Jewish context, a text that otherwise was transmitted only in Christian channels. As such it is a unique witness to PrMan, which adds an interesting chapter to the reception history of Manasseh and his Prayer. It also informs us about cultural and religious exchanges between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk Gary A. Rendsburg 1.0. One of the major accomplishments of Hebraists in the 20th century was the establishment of a reliable methodology for the diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew.1 Based on the foundations laid by S. R. Driver and others,2 the two scholars who stand out in this field are E. Y. Kutscher and Avi Hurvitz, mentor and disciple, respectively.3 The results of their investigations led to a scholarly consensus regarding the periodization of Biblical Hebrew, with recognition of three chronological strata: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ca. 1150–1000 BCE), Standard Biblical Hebrew (ca. 1000–550 BCE), and Late Biblical Hebrew (ca. 550–200 BCE). Just as this consensus emerged, however, a challenge arose, mainly from the pens of Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd.4 These scholars aver that the differences between Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) result not from matters of diachrony, but rather from matters of style.5 Hence, according to this view, both registers were in use during the post-Exilic period, with the former a more conservative style, used by certain scribes who continued to write in an older form of the language, and with the latter a more liberal style, used by other scribes who wrote in a more contemporary fashion. To demonstrate the manner in which the former style still could be employed deep into the Second Temple Period, Young, Rezetko, 1  For an excellent survey, see Aaron Hornkohl, “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization,” EHLL 1:304–14. 2  See especially the many references to language issues scattered throughout S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (12th edition; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906). 3  E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982), esp. 12, 44–45, 77–85; Avi Hurvitz, Ben Lašon le–Lašon (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972); Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982); and numerous articles written by Avi Hurvitz over the course of almost half a century. 4  Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; London: Equinox, 2008). 5  In addition to the abbreviations included in this sentence, note also: QH = Qumran Hebrew; MH = Mishnaic Hebrew.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_010

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

133

and Ehrensvärd present the case of Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab).6 To their mind, this composition evinces relatively few LBH features, to such an extent, in fact, that it may be compared with other SBH texts such as portions of Samuel and Kings. 2.0. The LBH features identified by Young in 1QpHab are the following: 2.1. ‫—פשרו אשר‬with two separate items inherent in this phrase: a) The noun ‫“ פשר‬solution, interpretation” (cf. Qoh 8:1; ‫ פשרה‬Sir 38:14 MS B). b) ‫ אשר‬introducing complement clause (much more common in Qohelet, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, than in SBH).7 2.2. Preference for Hiphil over Qal: a) 4:2 ‫“ ילעיגו‬mock” (cf. Ps 22:9, Job 21:3, Neh 2:19, 3:33, 2 Chr 30:10; elsewhere 12x as Qal) b) 9:11 ‫“ הרשיע‬acted wickedly” (cf. 1 Sam 14:47, Ps 106:6, Job 34:12, Dan 9:5, 11:32, 12:10, Neh 9:33, 2 Chr 20:35, 23:3; elsewhere 9x as Qal)8

6  Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 1:255–62, 271–76. In light of the more detailed article written by Young alone (“Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk,” JHS 8 [2008], 1–38, art. 25), one assumes that he is the main contributor to this particular subject. Henceforth, accordingly, I shall refer to the view of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd as simply “Young.” 7  See the list compiled by Robert D. Holmstedt, “The Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšer,” ANES 43 (2006): 7–26, at 10 n. 10. 8  The outlier here is 1 Sam 14:47, since it appears in a clearly SBH composition. But as Noam Mizrahi pointed out to me during the oral presentation of this paper in Leuven, the passage is textually difficult and suspect, especially in light of LXX ἐσῴζετο “he was being kept safe” (thus the NETS rendering), the last word in the verse. Note that Greek σῴζω frequently renders Hebrew ‫“ י–ש–ע‬save, rescue,” which presumably was present in the LXX Vorlage. One could imagine, for example, an “original” text which read ‫יוֹשׁ ַיע =( יושיע‬ ִ Hiphil) or ‫יושע‬ (= ‫ יִ ּוָ ֵַשׁ ַע‬Niphal) “he would save, he would be victorious,” which eventually served as the LXX Vorlage (the latter option is suggested by the passive voice in the Greek), but which was changed (purposefully?) by a later scribe to ‫“ ירשיע‬he would transgress” during the Persian period, during which time the Hiphil served to express this semantic notion, as opposed to the Qal. See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890), 91–92. Alas, the last word that can be read in 4QSama 6 2 is ‫ —יפנ̇ ֯ה‬and how often does this happen in Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship!

134

Rendsburg

2.3. Eighteen verbal object suffixes vs. zero instances of ‫ את‬plus suffix;9 as follows: 4:7 ‫“ יקיפום‬they overtake them” 4:7 ‫“ לתפושם‬to capture them” 4:8 ‫“ והרסום‬and they destroy them” 5:11 ‫“ ולוא עזרוהו‬and they did not help them” 7:2 ‫“ לוא הודעו‬he did not make known to him” 7:4 ‫“ הודיעו‬he made known to him” 8:2 ‫“ יצילם‬he will rescue them” 9:10 ‫“ נתנו‬he gave him” 10:4 ‫“ יעלנו‬he will bring him up” 10:5 ‫“ ירשיענו‬he will condemn him” 10:5 ‫“ ישפטנו‬he will judge him” 11:7 ‫“ לבלעם‬to swallow them” 11:8 ‫“ ולכשילם‬and to cause them to stumble” 11:15 ‫“ תבלענו‬it will swallow him” 12:5 ‫“ ישופטנו‬he will judge him” 12:13 ‫“ יצרום‬they made them” 12:13 ‫“ לעובדם‬to worship them” 12:14 ‫“ לוא יצילום‬they will not save them” 2.4. Preference for ‫( על‬40x vs. 2x ‫אל‬, even if this count includes 20 instances of the characteristic phrase ‫ ;)פשרו על‬one notes especially the following passages: a) 1:4 ‫( ז] ̇עקו על‬even though the lemma Hab 1:2 reads ‫) ֶאזְ ַ ֥עק ֵא ֶל֛יָך‬ b) 4:2 ‫( ילעיגו על רבים‬cf. Neh 3:33; elsewhere in BH typically with -‫ ְל‬, sometimes with -‫) ְּב‬ c) 4:2 ‫ ובזו על נכבדים‬/ 4:5–6 ‫( יבזו על מבצרי העמים‬cf. Neh 2:19; elsewhere in BH with -‫) ְל‬ d) 12:3 ‫( גמל על אביונים‬cf. Joel 4:4, Ps 13:6, 103:10, 116:7, 119:17, 142:8, 2 Chr 20:11; elsewhere with direct object or with -‫) ְל‬ e) 7:12 ‫( בהמשך עליהם הקץ האחרון‬cf. Neh 9:30 ‫;וַ ִּת ְמ ׁ֤ש ְֹך ֲע ֵל ֶיה ֙ם ָׁש ִנ֣ים ַר ֹּ֔בות‬ elsewhere in BH with -‫) ְל‬

9  For discussion, see Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 28–31; Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSS 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 86–87; and Richard M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwist Source (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 37–41.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

135

2.5. Double plurals: a) 6:4 ‫( כלי מלחמותם‬cf. BH ‫ ְּכ ֵלי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬11x) b) 8:12–13 ‫( ודרכי ת[וע]בו̇ ת‬cf. BH ‫ּתֹועבֹות‬ ֵ ) c) 12:8 ‫( מעשי תועבות‬cf. BH ‫ּתֹועבֹות‬ ֵ ) 2.6. ‫“ רז‬secret, mystery,” appearing as the construct plural ‫ רזי‬3x in col. 7 (7:5, 7:8, 7:14).10 2.7. To quantify these data, and to place them within the context of other ancient Hebrew compositions, Young invokes sample 500-word texts from the literary corpus. The 6 above-listed LBH traits all appear within the 500 words that span 1QpHab 5:3–12:13,11 a datum which places this portion of Pesher Habakkuk on par with SBH texts such as 1 Sam 13:1–14:9; 2 Sam 6:1–20a, 7:1–12; 1 Kgs 2:1–29—i.e., other 500-word extracts which include 6 LBH features. These stand in contrast to selected 500-word excerpts from core LBH books such as Ezra, Daniel, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Esther, which have 25, 24, 22, 20, and 17 LBH traits, respectively, within the same span of material. Which is to say: a writer in the 1st century BCE, the presumed date of Pesher Habakkuk, still was capable of writing SBH, notwithstanding the development of LBH in the preceding centuries spanning the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This is thus far Young’s position, though, as we shall see, he neglected to include in the mix a host of other LBH features present in 1QpHab. 3.0. Prime among these LBH traits are matters of style and syntax identified by Frank Polak in his extensive researches into the different registers of the biblical Hebrew literary corpus. 3.1. One of the most crucial discoveries made by Polak is the increased use of hypotaxis (subordination) in LBH prose, in contrast to the more typical parataxis that dominates in SBH.12 Moreover, the hypotaxis of LBH at times works downward through several levels, with subordination upon subordination. Pesher Habakkuk reveals a number of such instances:13 10  See further below, §8.7. 11  “Biblical quotes are excluded from the sample,” according to Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 1:274 n. 42. 12  See, amongst his many studies, Frank Polak, “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 47 (2006): 115–62, esp. 127–36. 13  Since Polak treats mainly narrative prose in his research, I have limited my selections from 1QpHab to those passages which relate past events. These are not quite narrative prose, of course, but they are the closest approximation thereto in our document. The translations (which are mine) are included in order to help the reader apprehend the hypotaxis, especially since the subordinating particles are indicated by italics. The Hebrew originals are taken from The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Program (ed. Emanuel Tov; Brigham

136 1QpHab 2:6–10

Rendsburg

‫עריצ[י הבר]ית אשר לוא יאמינוא‬ ̇ ‫המה‬ ֯ ‫בשומעם את כול‬ ‫הבא[ות ע] ֯ל[ ]הדור האחרון מפי‬ ‫הכוהן אשר נתן אל ב[לבו בינ]ה לפשור ֯א ̇ת כול‬ ‫דברי עבדיו הנביאים[ אשר ] ֯בידם ספר אל את‬ ֯ ‫ כול הבאות על עמו‬14 ]‫וע[דתו‬

6. They are the oppress[ors of the covena]nt who will not believe 7. when they hear all that is to co[me up]on the latter generation from the mouth of 8. the Priest whom God has placed in [his heart the understand]ing to interpret all 9. the words of his servants the prophets, through [whom] God has foretold 10. all that is to come upon his people and [his] com[munity]. 1QpHab 5:9–12

‫פשרו על בית אבשלום‬ ‫ואנשי עצתם אשר נדמו בתוכחת מורה הצדק‬ ‫ אשר מאס את‬vacat ‫ולוא עזרוהו על איש הכזב‬ ‫עד ֯תם‬ ֯ ‫התורה בתוך כול‬

9. Its interpretation is about the house of Absalom 10. and the men of their council, who kept quiet upon the rebuking of the Teacher of Righteousness, 11. and they did not help him against the Man of the Lie, [vacat] who has rejected 12. the Torah in the midst of their entire congregation.

Young University; Leiden: Brill, 2006) (henceforth DSSEL), though I have kept an eye on other editions as well, e.g., Maurya P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 157–85; and Elisha Qimron, Megillot Midbar Yehuda: ha-Ḥibburim ha-ʿIvriyim (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben–Zvi, 2010–2015), 1:243–57. 14  Qimron, Megillot Midbar Yehuda, 1:246 restores ‫ כיא‬instead of ‫ אשר‬at the lacuna, though for our purposes this matters not.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

1QpHab 7:7–8

7. 8.

137

‫פשרו אשר יארוך הקץ האחרון יותר על כול‬ ‫אשר דברו הנביאים כיא רזי אל להפל{א}ה‬

Its interpretation, that the end time will be long, more so than all that the prophets had said, because the mysteries of God are wondrous.

1QpHab 7:10–14

‫פשרו על אנשי האמת‬ ‫עושי התורה אשר לוא ירפו ידיהם מעבודת‬ ‫האמת בהמשך עליהם הקץ האחרון כיא‬ ‫כול קצי אל יבואו לתכונם כאשר חקק‬ ̇ ‫להם ̇ברזי ערמתו‬

10. Its interpretation is about the men of truth, 11. observers of the Torah, whose hands do not slacken from the worship of 12. truth, even when the end time is drawn out upon them, because 13. all the fixed–times of God will come about in their due course, as he ordained 14. for them through the mysteries of his discernment. 1QpHab 8:1–3

X ‫פשרו על כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה אשר‬

‫יצילם אל מבית המשפט בעבור עמלם ואמנתם‬ ‫במורה הצדק‬

1. 2. 3.

Its interpretation is about all the observers of the Torah in the house of Judah whom God will rescue from the house of judgment, on account of their labour and their loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness.

1QpHab 9:4–7

‫פשרו על כוהני ירושלם‬ ‫האחרונים אשר יקבוצו הון ובצע משלל העמים‬ ‫ולאחרית הימים ינתן הונם עם שללם ביד‬ ‫ כיא המה יתר העמים‬vacat ‫חיל הכתיאים‬

138 4. 5. 6. 7.

Rendsburg

Its interpretation is about later priests of Jerusalem, who will gather wealth and spoil from the plunder of the peoples, but in the end of days their wealth and their plunder will be given into the hand of the army of the Kittim, [vacat] because they are “the rest of the peoples”.

1QpHab 9:9–12

‫בעוון מורה‬ ̇ ‫פשרו על הכוהן ה[ר]שע אשר‬ ‫הצדק ואנשי עצתו נתנו אל ביד[ ]אויביו לענותו‬ ‫בנגע לכלה במרורי נפש בעבור א֯ שר הרשיע‬ 15‫על בחירו‬

9. Its interpretation is about the [W]icked Priest, because of the crime against the Teacher of 10. Righteousness and the men of his council, God gave him into the hand of his enemies, to humiliate him 11. with a consuming affliction, with bitterness of soul, on account that he had done wrong 12. to his chosen-ones. 1QpHab 10:9–13

‫פשר הדבר על מטיף הכזב אשר התעה רבים‬ ‫לבנות עיר שוו בדמים ולקים עדה בשקר‬ ‫בעבור כבודה לוגיע רבים בעבודת שוו ולהרותם‬ ‫בׂמ[ע]שי שקר להיות עמלם לריק בעבור יבואו‬ ‫למשפטי אש אשר גדפו ויחרפו את בחירי אל‬

9. Its interpretation is about the Spreader of Lies, who deceived many, 10. by building a worthless city by bloodshed and by founding a congregation by lies, 11. on account of its glory, by making many weary with worthless work, and by teaching them 12. about false d[ee]ds. Their labour will be for naught, on account of which they will enter 15  I have adopted the reading ‫( לכלה‬with kaf ) in line 11, following Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” 176, especially upon checking the photograph; though the reading with bet (as per DSSEL and Qimron, Megillot Midbar Yehuda, 1:253) is possible and would fit the context as well.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

139

13. into judgments of fire, because they blasphemed and reviled the chosen ones of God. 1QpHab 11:12–14

‫פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו‬ ‫כיא לוא מל את עורלת לבו וילך בדרכי‬ ‫הרויה למען ספות הצמאה‬

11. Its interpretation is about the priest whose disgrace became greater than his honour, 12. because he had not circumcised the foreskin of his heart, and he followed the paths of 13. indulgence, in order to bring to sweep away the thirsty. 1QpHab 12:2–6

‫פשר הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את‬ ‫גמולו אשר גמל על אביונים כיא הלבנון הוא‬ ‫עצת היחד והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה עושה‬ vacat ‫התורה אשר ישופטנו אל לכלה‬ ‫כאשר זמם לכלות אביונים‬

2.

The interpretation of this matter is about the Wicked Priest, to recompense him 3. his due for what he did to the poor, because “Lebanon” refers to 4. the council of the Yaḥad, and “the beasts” refers to the simple ones of Judah who obey 5. the Torah, because God will judge him for destruction, [vacat] 6. just as he had planned to destroy the poor. 3.2. A second important LBH feature identified by Polak is the much more nominal, and hence less verbal, style. Which is to say, writers in the Persian period were wont to use many more nouns in their prose (and indeed poetry as well), so that the Noun-Verb ratio in later texts is markedly higher.16 While I do not engage in the specific statistical analysis regularly presented by Polak, the highlighting of the nouns and verbs in the following passages will demonstrate the point. I indicate the nouns with the bold Hebrew font (and note how

16  See Frank Polak, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANES 26 (1998): 59–105.

140

Rendsburg

many of these are noun groups, on which see below, §3.3); whereas verbs are designated via the light Hebrew font.17 1QpHab 5:9–12

‫פשרו על בית אבשלום‬ ‫ואנשי עצתם אשר נדמו בתוכחת מורה הצדק‬ ‫ אשר מאס את‬vacat ‫ולוא עזרוהו על איש הכזב‬ ‫התורה בתוך כול עד֯ ת֯ ם‬

1QpHab 7:4–5

‫פשרו על מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את‬ ‫כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים‬

1QpHab 9:9–12

1QpHab 11:4–8

‫בעוון מורה‬ ׄ ‫פשרו על הכוהן ה[ר]שע אשר‬ ‫הצדק ואנשי עצתו נתנו אל ביד[ ]אויביו לענותו‬ ‫בנגע לכלה במרורי נפש בעבור ֯אשר הרשיע‬ ‫על בחירו‬

‫פשרו על הכוהן הרשע אשר‬ ‫רדף אחר מורה הצדק לבלעו בכעס‬

‫חמתו אבית גלותו ובקץ מועד מנוחת‬ ‫יום הכפורים הופע אליהם לבלעם‬ ‫ולכשילם ביום צום שבת מנוחתם‬

3.3. Not surprisingly, given the greater nominal style inherent in LBH, the number of “noun groups” increases in Persian-period literature.18 Such is to be seen in Pesher Habakkuk as well, as witnessed by the following lists. 3.3.1. The first type of noun group is comprised by the collocation of two (or more) individual nouns (A+B). In six instances, as indicated below, the Pesher comment expands upon a single noun present in the interpreted lemma, thereby further highlighting this practice.

17  Once more these selections are taken from those sections of Pesher Habakkuk which narrate past events and hence most closely approximate BH narrative prose storytelling. 18  See n. 12; and see also Frank Polak, “Parallelism and Noun Groups in Prophetic Poetry from the Persian Era,” in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel (ed. E. Ben Zvi, D. V. Edelman, and F. Polak; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2009), 199–235.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

1:6 2:12 3:1 3:4 3:5 3:10 3:12–13 4:2–3 4:7 5:9 6:1 6:6 6:11 8:2 9:5 9:6 9:9–10 11:7–8 12:13–14 13:3–4

141

‫בעשק ומעל‬ ‫קלים וגבורים‬ ‫( לכות ולבוז‬infinitives) ‫תם‬ ̇ ‫אמ‬ ̇ ֯‫פחדם ו‬ ‫ובנכל ומרמה‬ ‫( בסוס[יהם] ובבהמתם‬lemma Hab 1:8 ‫סּוסיו‬ ָ֗ ) ‫חרן אף וזעף אפים‬ ̇ ]‫ ובחמה וכ[עס וב‬ ‫( במלכים ושרים‬lemma Hab 1:10 ‫)וְ ר ֹזְ ִנ֖ים ׀׀ ַּב ְּמ ָל ִ ֣כים‬ ‫ובאמה ופחד‬ ‫( בית אבשלום ואנשי עצתם‬lemma Hab 1:13 ‫) ּֽבֹוגְ ִ ֔דים‬ ‫את הונם עם כול שללם‬ ‫את עולם ואת מסם‬ ‫( נערים אשישים וזקנים נשים וטף‬lemma Hab 1:17 ‫ )ּגֹויִ ֖ם‬ ‫( עמלם ואמנתם‬lemma Hab 2:4 ‫) ֶּב ֱאמּונָ ֥תֹו‬ ‫ הון ובצע‬ ‫( הונם עם שללם‬lemma Hab 2:8 ‫ֹות‬ ָ֙ ֙‫) ַׁשּל‬ ‫מורה הצדק ואנשי עצתו‬ ‫( לבלעם ולכשילם‬infinitives) ‫( לעובדם ולשתחות להםה‬infinitives) (sic) ‫את כול עובדי העצבים ואת הרשעים‬

3.3.2. The second type of noun group is comprised of construct phrases (A–B). On four occasions, Pesher Habakkuk expands a single noun in the lemma to a construct phrase in the interpretative comment. Moreover, fifteen of the following items include a complex construct phrase, that is, with three or more nouns in construct, or two constructs back-to-back with the second standing in apposition to the first, and so on. 1:11 ‫( תורת אל‬lemma Hab 1:4 ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ֔ ) 1:13, etc. ‫( מורה הצדק‬lemma Hab 1:4 ‫) ַה ַּצ ִ ּ֔דיק‬ 2:1–2, 5:11 ‫איש הכזב‬ 2:2–3 ‫מׁפיא אל‬ 2:4 ‫ברית אל‬ 2:6 ‫עריצ[י הבר]ית‬ ̇ 2:7 ]‫הבא[ות‬ ̇ ‫כול‬ 2:7–8 ‫מפי הכוהן‬ 2:8–9 ‫הנביאים‬ ̇ ‫( כול דברי עבדיו‬complex) 2:10 ‫כול הבאות‬ 2:13 ‫ממשלת הכתיאים‬ 2:15 ‫חוקי [א]ל‬ 3:4–5 ‫כול הגואים‬

‫‪142‬‬

‫‪Rendsburg‬‬

‫כול העמים‬ ‫מושלי הכתיאים‬ ‫ל־מ ְב ָצ֣ר ‪ (lemma Hab 1:10‬מבצרי העמים‬ ‫) ְל ָכ ִ‬ ‫מׂושלי הכתיאים‬ ‫ )‪ (complex‬כל רשעי עמו‬ ‫בקץ הרשעה‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬בתוכחת מורה הצדק‬ ‫גמר הקץ‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים‬ ‫רזי אל‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬אנשי האמת עושי התורה‬ ‫עבודת האמת‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬כול קצי אל‬ ‫רזי ערמתו‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה‬ ‫בית המשפט‬ ‫שם האמת‬ ‫בתחלת עומדו‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬הון אנשי ̇חמס‬ ‫הון עמים‬ ‫)‪ (cf. Lev 22:16‬עׂון אשמה‬ ‫דרכי ת[וע] ̇בות‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬בכול נדת טמאה‬ ‫במשפטי רשעה‬ ‫בגוית בשרו‬ ‫שלל העמים‬ ‫לאחרית הימים‬ ‫חיל הכתיאים‬ ‫̇מ[ע]שי שקר‬ ‫משפטי אש‬ ‫בחירי אל‬ ‫)‪ (sic‬כמי היים‬ ‫בכעס חמתו‬ ‫בית גלותו‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬בקץ מועד מנוחת יום הכפורים‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬ביום צום שבת מנוחתם‬ ‫)‪ (complex) (cf. Isa 51:17‬כוס חמת [א]ל‬ ‫עצת היחד‬ ‫)‪ (complex‬פתאי יהודה עושה התורה‬ ‫מעשי תועבות‬

‫ ‪3:6‬‬ ‫ ‪4:5‬‬ ‫ ‪4:6‬‬ ‫ ‪4:10‬‬ ‫ ‪5:5‬‬ ‫ ‪5:7–8‬‬ ‫ ‪5:10‬‬ ‫ ‪7:2‬‬ ‫ ‪7:5‬‬ ‫ ‪7:8‬‬ ‫ ‪7:10–11‬‬ ‫ ‪7:11–12‬‬ ‫ ‪7:13‬‬ ‫ ‪7:14‬‬ ‫ ‪8:1‬‬ ‫ ‪8:2‬‬ ‫ ‪8:9‬‬ ‫ ‪8:9‬‬ ‫ ‪8:11‬‬ ‫ ‪8:12‬‬ ‫ ‪8:12‬‬ ‫ ‪8:12–13‬‬ ‫ ‪8:13‬‬ ‫ ‪9:1‬‬ ‫ ‪9:2‬‬ ‫ ‪9:5‬‬ ‫ ‪9:6‬‬ ‫ ‪9:7‬‬ ‫ ‪10:12‬‬ ‫ ‪10:13‬‬ ‫ ‪10:13‬‬ ‫ ‪11:1–2‬‬ ‫ ‪11:5–6‬‬ ‫ ‪11:6‬‬ ‫ ‪11:6–7‬‬ ‫ ‪11:8‬‬ ‫ ‪11:14–15‬‬ ‫ ‪12:4‬‬ ‫ ‪12:4‬‬ ‫ ‪12:8‬‬

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

12:9 12:12–13 12:14 13:2–3 13:3

143

‫מקדש אל‬ ‫( כול פסלי הגוים‬complex) (lemma Hab 2:18 ‫) ֗ ֶּפ ֶסל‬ ‫ביום המשפט‬ ‫( ביומ המשפט‬sic) ‫( כול עובדי העצבים‬complex)

The most revealing of these passages is 11:6–8, which includes a five-word construct string ‫“ בקץ מועד מנוחת יום הכפורים‬at the time of the festival of the repose of the Day of Atonement” (11:6–7), followed by a four-word construct string ‫“ ביום צום שבת מנוחתם‬on the day of the fast of the Sabbath of their repose” (11:8). Such complex constructs are very rare in the Bible; the following represents more or less a complete list:19 Gen 47:9 ‫מי ְׁשנֵ ֙י ַח ֵּי ֣י ֲאב ַֹ֔תי‬ ֙ ֵ ְ‫ י‬. . . ‫מי ְׁש ֵנ֣י ַח ַּ֔יי‬ ֙ ֵ ְ‫י‬ Isa 10:12 ‫ְך־א ּׁ֔שּור‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפ ִרי־֙ג ֹ ֶדל֙ ְל ַ ֣בב ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬ ְ ‫ֶא ְפ ֗קֹד ַע‬ Isa 21:17 ‫ֽי־ק ָ ֖דר יִ ְמ ָ ֑עטּו‬ ֵ ‫ֹּבורי ְב ֵנ‬ ֥ ֵ ִ‫ר־ק ֶׁשת ּג‬ ֛ ֶ ‫ּוׁש ָ ֧אר ִמ ְס ַּפ‬ ְ Job 12:24 ‫ם־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫אׁשי ַע‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִ֗סיר ֵ ֭לב ָר‬ 4.0. We now turn to other grammatical items classified as LBH (that is, beyond the items investigated by Polak), though these too were not included by Young in his study of Pesher Habakkuk. The first of these is the non-repetition of the preposition in a noun series. The difference between SBH and LBH may be seen by comparing the following passages:20 SBH: LBH:

‫ּוב ִכּנֽ ֹור‬ ְ ‫תף‬ ֹ ֥ ‫ּוב ִׁש ִ ֖רים ְּב‬ ְ ‫( ְּב ִׂש ְמ ָ ֥חה‬Gen 31:27); ‫ּוב ְמח ֹֹֽלת‬ ִ ‫( ְּב ֻת ִ ּ֖פים‬Exod 15:20) ‫תף וְ ִ֝כּנ֗ ֹור‬ ֹ ֥ ‫( ְּב‬Ps 149:3); ‫ּומ ֑חֹול‬ ָ ‫תף‬ ֹ ֣ ‫( ְב‬Ps 150:4); ‫עּוגב‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫( ְּב ִמ ִּנ֥ים ו‬Ps 150:4)

The latter system continues in post-Biblical texts, as seen in the following passages from a Judean desert document:21 19  P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993), 465. 20  See Abba Bendavid, Lešon Miqra‌ʾ u-Lšon Ḥakhamim, (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1967–1971), 2:455–56; and the more detailed study of Misop Park, “Ḥazara we-ʾi-Ḥazara ʿal Miliyot bi-Lšon ha-Miqra‌ʾ u-vi-Lšon Megillot Midbar Yehuda” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002–2003). I am grateful to Steven Fassberg for this latter reference and to Dr. Park for supplying me with a copy of her work. 21  Uri Mor, “Diqduq ʿIvrit šel Teʿudot Midbar Yehuda ben ha-Mered ha-Gadol le-Mered BarKokhva” (Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University, 2009), 241.

144 Mur 30:15 Mur 30:18

Rendsburg

‫מהמערב והדרום‬ ‫ברשותו וביתו‬

In light of this picture, one is not surprised to find five examples of this usage in Pesher Habakkuk: 1:6 3:5 3:12–13 4:2–3 4:7

‫בעשק ומעל‬ ‫ובנכל ומרמה‬ ‫חרן אף וזעף אפים‬ ̇ ]‫ובחמה וכ[עס וב‬ ‫במלכים ושרים‬ ‫ובאמה ופחד‬

5.0. Among the noun groups of the construct phrase type surveyed above (§3.3.2), two collocations deserve special notice. 5.1. The first of these places the word ‫“ אמת‬truth” in the nomen rectum position, with a variety of nouns serving in the nomen regens slot. Five such phrases occur in the Bible, with only one from a pre-exilic text, one from an exilic text, and three from post-exilic texts—thus pointing to the late usage inherent here:22 ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ֱא ֶמת‬ ‫ ִמ ְׁש ַּפט ֱא ֶמת‬ ‫ איׁש ֱא ֶמת‬ ִ ‫ וְ תֹורֹות ֱא ֶמת‬

(Exod 18:21) (Ezek 18:8, Zech 7:9) (Neh 7:2) (Neh 9:13)

This pattern continues throughout Qumran Hebrew, as the following representative examples demonstrate:23 ‫ברכות אמת‬ ‫גמולי אמת‬ ‫דיין אמת‬ ‫חוקי אמת‬

‫יחד אמת‬ ‫מעשי אמת‬ ‫נחלת אמת‬ ‫פעלות אמת‬

22  Note that the first of these occurs in the mouth of Jethro, whose speech is replete with atypical usages. See further Mordecai Mishor, “On the Language and Text of Exodus 18,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Environment: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006), 225–29. 23  I do not include the specific references here, which may be located via a search in any of the DSS concordances; the same holds for the list in §5.2 below.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

145

Three examples of this phraseology occur in Pesher Habakkuk: 7:10 ‫אנשי האמת‬ 7:11–12 ‫עבודת האמת‬ 8:9 ‫שם האמת‬ 5.2. The second relevant phrase places the word ‫“ מעשי‬deeds of” in the nomen regens position, with a panoply of terms in the nomen rectum slot. To be sure, such construct phrases occur in SBH, but they are limited to prescribed usages. The first such usage places ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬before a specific artisan term, as in the following exemplary phrases:

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ָח ָרׁש‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ח ֵֹׁשב‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ר ֵֹקם‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה א ֵֹרג‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה א ֶֹפה‬

The second typical usage occurs with a specific product or material in the nomen rectum locus, as illustrated by the following expressions:



‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ִעּזִ ים‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ֲעבֹת‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן‬ ַ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬

The third standard usage is the well-known expression with ‫“ יָ ד‬hand” (singular or plural) serving as nomen rectum, hence, for example:

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ְדָך‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ֶדיָך‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ָדיו‬

Finally, we may point to the two parallel usages in Lev 18:3:

‫ץ־מ ְצ ַ ֛ריִ ם‬ ִ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֧שה ֶ ֽא ֶר‬ ‫ץ־ּכ ַ֡נ ַען‬ ְ ‫ׂשה ֶ ֽא ֶר‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲע‬

The picture in LBH is totally different, since here one finds authors utilizing a host of different words following ‫“ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬deeds of.” The impression one gains is that late authors no longer felt constrained by the traditional phraseology

146

Rendsburg

summarized above. Rather, they began to express their literary and linguistic freedom through the use of expressions such as these: ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה ַה ְּצ �ד ָ ָ֖קה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה ָה ָר ָ ֖עה‬ ‫ׂשה ָה ְר ָׁש ֔ ִעים‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ַמ ֲע‬ ‫�יקים‬ ֑ ִ ‫ׂשה ַה ַּצ ִּד‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ַמ ֲע‬ ‫ ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל‬ ‫ מעשה כל בשר‬

(Isa 32:17) (Qoh 8:11) (Qoh 8:14) (Qoh 8:14) (2 Chr 17:4) (Sir 39:19 MS B)

This LBH trend continues, indeed increases to a remarkable extent, in Qumran Hebrew, as witnessed by the following examples: ‫מעשי אמת‬ ‫מעשי אפעה‬ ‫מעשי אשמה‬ ‫מעשי הדור‬ ‫מעשי טוב‬ ‫מעשי כבודו‬ ‫מעשי נדה‬

‫מעשי רוח‬ ‫מעשי רמיה‬ ‫מעשי רשע‬ ‫מעשי שקר‬ ‫מעשי תועבה‬ ‫מעשי התורה‬

Two such expressions occur in 1QpHab: 10:12 12:8

‫̇מ[ע]שי שקר‬ ‫מעשי תועבות‬

6.0. In this section we present a series of other late usages, of various types and in no particular order, found in Pesher Habakkuk. 6.1. The expression ‫“ זה אחר זה‬one after another” occurs in our text in the following passage: ‫הא[רץ‬ ̇ ‫ז]ה אחר זה יבואו לשחית את‬

[on]e after another they shall come to destroy the la[nd] (1QpHab 4:12–13)

A second instance of this syntagma in QH appears in 1QS 2:19–20 ‫הכוהנים יעבורו‬ ‫“ ברשונה בסרכ לפי רוחותם זה אחר זה‬the priests shall pass first in order, according to their spirits, one after another.” The closest BH parallel occurs in Qoh 7:14 ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ֔ ‫ת־ז֤ה ְל ֻע ַּמת־זֶ ֙ה ָע ָ ׂ֣שה ָ ֽה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫“ ַּג֣ם ֶא‬indeed this-one and that-one God has done.” Most strikingly, the expression ‫“ זה אחר זה‬one after another” occurs 38x in Tannaitic Hebrew (Mishnah 7x; Tosefta 27x; Midreshe Halakah 4x).

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

147

6.2. The prepositional phrase ‫“ אבית‬in the house” (in place of standard Hebrew ‫ )בבית‬occurs in Pesher Habakkuk in the expression: ‫ אבית גלותו‬

in the house of his exile (1QpHab 11:6)

A second attestation within the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus (albeit in an Aramaic composition) occurs in the book of Tobit: ‫אבי̇ ̊ת[ רעואל‬ ̇ in the house of [Reuel] (4Q197 [4QTobb ar] 4 i 16)

For another occurrence in a Hebrew text of several centuries later, note the following from a Wadi Murabaʿat document:24 ‫ אבית משכו‬in Bet-Mašiko (Mur 42:4)

Finally, the form ‫“ אבית‬in the house” occurs 9x in MH, especially within specific locutions, such as ‫“ אבית הדשן‬at the ash-heap” and ‫“ אבית הבליעה‬in the pharynx.” The evidence points to this unusual usage as a feature of Hebrew (and Aramaic) within the prescribed period of ca. 200 BCE (or whenever we may date the book of Tobit, or at least the relevant Qumran manuscript thereof) through ca. 300 CE. Its presence in 1QpHab surely must be accorded status as an LBH trait. 6.3. The noun ‫“ גמר‬fulfillment” occurs in 1QpHab 7:2 ‫“ גמר הקץ‬fulfillment of the end,” and in two other DSS texts: 4Q249p 10 ‫הקצ[ים׀׀( הגמר‬ ̇ ‫ב]קץ‬ ֯ ) 4Q381 24a+b 2 ‫כג ֯מ ֯ר‬ ֯ (‫)לכלה ׀׀‬ The word is used more regularly in MH (28x in Tannaitic texts),25 especially in the phrase ‫“ גמר מלאכה‬completion of the work.”26

24  For this specific reference and for general discussion of the phenomenon treated here, see Mor, “Diqduq ʿIvrit,” 109–10. 25  Data according to Ma‌ʾagarim (database of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language project). 26  See already E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 99, where ‫ גמר‬is included in the list of “Words Mainly Attested in the DSS and in the Tannaitic and Amoraitic (MH2) Literature.”

148

Rendsburg

6.4. The noun ‫“ עמל‬engagement” occurs in Pesher Habakkuk as follows: ‫בעבור עמלם ואמנתם במורה הצדק‬

  On account of their engagement and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness (1QpHab 8:2–3) This usage is not attested in BH, where instead the noun ‫ ָע ָמל‬means “toil, labour” and by extension “trouble, distress.” But the QH usage is continued in MH, especially with the collocation of the verbal root ‫ל‬-‫מ‬-‫“ ע‬be engaged” and the key noun ‫“ תורה‬Torah,” e.g.:27   Mekilta Devarim 12:1 ‫הוי עמל בתורה כל ימיך‬ 6.5. The same passage in Pesher Habakkuk attests to the noun ‫“ אמנה‬faith, support”: ‫בעבור עמלם ואמנתם במורה הצדק‬

  On account of their engagement and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness (1QpHab 8:2–3) While in theory this word could be read as ʾĕmūnā (= Masoretic ‫) ֱאמוּנָ ה‬, in light of the fact that in MT 48 out of 49 attestations of this noun are written plene (the exception is Ps 143:1)—not to mention the greater propensity for plene orthography in the Qumran scribal tradition when compared to MT—almost without a doubt the relevant word above should be read as wa-ʾămānātām (= Masoretic ‫)וַ ֲא ָמנָ ָתם‬, with the base word ‫ ֲא ָמנָ ה‬ʾămānā as in Neh 10:1, 11:23 (with the meanings “pact” and “agreement,” respectively).28 A second postbiblical attestation of this word may occur in the Damascus Document:29 ‫בברית { } ואמנה‬

 the covenant { } and (the) pact (CD 20:12)

Notwithstanding the uncertainty of the reading here, most likely, especially with the preceding word ‫ברית‬, we are to understand the second word in this

27  Again, see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 102, where ‫ עמל‬occurs in the same list of lexical items noted in the previous footnote. 28  Once more, see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 88, where ‫ אמנה‬is included amongst “Words Mainly Attested in the DSS and in the Late Biblical Books.” 29  D CH, 1:318.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

149

phrase as the noun ‫ אמנה‬meaning “pact” (though in theory it could be functioning as an adjective here). 6.6. The next term to be considered is ‫“ לרב‬in abundance,” occurring in Pesher Habakkuk as follows: ‫ כמי היים לרב‬like the waters of the sea, in abundance (1QpHab 11:1–2)

While this adverbial occurs in SBH (e.g., 15x in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings), it develops into a more salient feature of LBH. The single attestations of ‫ ָלר ֹב‬in both Zechariah and Nehemiah do not disclose this, but the 36 occurrences in the book of Chronicles demonstrate the point clearly, especially when one considers the difference between parallel passages such as these:30 1 Kgs 10:2 2 Chr 9:1

‫אד‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ב־מ‬ ְ ‫ְּב ָׂש ִ ֧מים וְ זָ ָ ֛הב ַר‬ ‫ְּב ָׂש ִ ֧מים וְ זָ ָ ֛הב ָל ֖ר ֹב‬

1 Kgs 10:10 ‫אד‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ּוב ָׂש ִ ֛מים ַה ְר ֵ ּ֥בה ְמ‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ָ ֥אה וְ ֶע ְׂש ִ ֣רים ׀ ִּכ ַּכ֣ר זָ ָ֗הב‬ 2 Chr 9:9 ‫אד‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ּוב ָׂש ִ ֛מים ָל ֥ר ֹב ְמ‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ָ ֥אה וְ ֶע ְׂש ִ ֣רים ׀ ִּכ ַּכ֣ר זָ ָ֗הב‬ The Kings passages use adverbials such as ‫ב־מאֹד‬ ְ ‫ ַר‬and ‫( ַה ְר ֵּבה ְמאֹד‬the latter is particularly common in SBH), while the Chronicler updates the text linguistically by using ‫ ָלר ֹב‬in both cases (once with ‫ ְמאֹד‬following). The pattern discernible here continues in other Qumran texts, as witnessed by the attestation of ‫ לרוב‬/ ‫ לרב‬in 1QS 4:12; 1QHa 20:14, 23:14; 4Q381 (4QNonCanonical Psalms B) 46a+b 4; 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milḥamah) 8 7 // 11Q14 (11QSefer ha-Milḥamah) 1 ii 10.31 We exemplify the usage with the last passage: ‫“ דגן תירוש ויצהר לרוב‬grain, wine, and oil in abundance.” 6.7. Yet another late usage occurring in Pesher Habakkuk is the adverb ‫יותר‬ “more than, very much”: ‫פשרו אשר יארוך הקץ האחרון יותר על כול אשר דברו הנביאים‬

  Its interpretation, that the last end time will be longer than anything about which the prophets spoke. (1QpHab 7:7[–8])

30  Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 535; and Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 140. 31  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 95, for the inclusion of this item in his list of “Words Mainly Attested in the DSS and in the Late Biblical Books.”

150

Rendsburg

This term is a true marker of LBH, as indicated by the following passages:32 Qoh 2:15 ‫יֹותר‬ ֑ ֵ ‫וְ ָל ָּ֧מה ָח ַכ ְ֛מ ִּתי ֲא ִנ֖י ָ ֣אז‬ Qoh 7:16 ‫יֹותר‬ ֑ ֵ ‫ל־ּת ְת ַח ַ ּ֖כם‬ ִ ‫יק ַה ְר ֵּ֔בה וְ ַא‬ ֙ ‫ל־ּת ִ ֤הי ַצ ִּד‬ ְ ‫ַא‬ Qoh 12:9 ‫וְ י ֵֹ֕תר ֶׁש ָה ָי֥ה ק ֶ ֹ֖ה ֶלת ָח ָכ֑ם‬ Qoh 12:12 ‫וְ י ֵ ֹ֥תר ֵמ ֵ ֖ה ָּמה ְּב ִנ֣י ִהּזָ ֵ ֑הר‬ Esth 6:6 ‫יֹותר ִמ ֶ ּֽמּנִ י‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ְל ִ֞מי יַ ְח ֥ ֹּפץ ַה ֶ ּ֛מ ֶלְך ַל ֲע ׂ֥שֹות י ָ ֖�ְקר‬ This usage continues in the book of Ben Sira:33 Sir 8:13 (MS A) Sir 10:31 (MS A)34 Sir 10:31 (MS A)35

‫אל תערב יתר ממך‬ ‫[המ]תכבד בדלותו בעשרו מתכבד יתר‬ ‫והנקלה בעשרו בדלותו נקלה יותר‬

Other Qumran texts also reflect the usage of ‫“ יותר‬more than, very much”: 1Q30 1 5 4Q274 3 ii 4

‫ ֹויותר על ארבעת‬ ‫ לטהׂוׂר יותר‬

and more than four for one more pure

Finally, one notes that this feature occurs in Tannaitic texts, indeed one might even consider it a distinguishing characteristic of MH.36 6.8. The noun ‫“ הבאות‬the coming things” is a common feature of Pesher Habakkuk: 1QpHab 1:3 1QpHab 2:7 1QpHab 2:10 1QpHab 7:1–2

‫הב] ֯אות עליהם‬ ‫הבא[ות ע]ל ̇הדור האחרון‬ ̇ ‫כול‬ ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬ ‫לכתוב את הבאות על {על} הדור האחרון‬

32  For extended discussion, see A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part I: Grammar (OLA 41; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 114– 15, and Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part II: Vocabulary (OLA 143; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 215–18. 33  Several of these perhaps should be read as yātēr (as opposed to yōtēr), but the picture remains the same essentially. 34  The restoration is rather obvious, but in any case is confirmed by the reading of Ben Sira MS B, which is not damaged at this point. 35  MS B has ‫ יתר‬as the final word. 36  Moshe Zvi Segal, Diqduq Lešon ha-Mišna (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1936), 193; and Miguel Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 81. According to Ma‌ʾagarim, the counts for ‫ יותר‬in Tannaitic texts are as follows: 18x Mishnah, 43x Tosefta, 60x Midreshe Halakah.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

151

This usage developed in BH only during the exilic period, as evidenced by the following two texts: Isa 41:22 Ezek 16:16

‫יענּו‬ ֽ ֻ ‫יתן ֥אֹו ַה ָּב ֖אֹות ַה ְׁש ִמ‬ ָ֔ ‫וְ נֵ ְד ָע֣ה ַא ֲח ִר‬ ‫֥ל ֹא ָב ֖אֹות וְ ֥ל ֹא יִ ְה ֶיֽה‬

Notwithstanding the fact that these phrases represented the totality of this usage in ancient Hebrew (which is to say, the term ‫“ הבאות‬the coming things” does not occur in the intervening material from the Persian period or in Ben Sira, nor does it occur in rabbinic texts, as far as I am able to determine), one still may see in this usage a feature linking LBH (albeit from the transitional period during the 6th century BCE) and QH. 6.9. The noun ‫“ נכבדים‬honoured ones” occurs in Pesher Habakkuk in the following passage: ‫ילעיגו על רבים ובזו על נכבדים במלכים ושרים יתעתעו וקלסו בעם רב‬

  They mock the great ones, and they deride the honoured ones; at kings and princes they jeer, and they scoff a throng of people. (4:2–3). The source for this usage may be found in the following biblical passages: Isa 23:8 Isa 23:9 Nah 3:10 Ps 149:8

‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ֽ ָ ‫֖יה נִ ְכ ַּב ֵּד‬ ָ ‫יה ָׂש ִ ֔רים ִּכנְ ָע ֶנ‬ ָ֙ ‫ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ס ֲֹח ֶ ֙ר‬ ‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ֽ ָ ‫ל־צ ִ֔בי ְל �ה ֵ ָ֖קל ָּכל־נִ ְכ ַּב ֵּד‬ ְ ‫ְל ַח ֵּלל֙ ּגְ ֣אֹון ָּכ‬ ‫֖יה ֻר ְּת ֥קּו ַבּזִ ִ ּֽקים‬ ָ ‫דֹול‬ ֶ ְ‫גֹורל וְ ָכל־ּג‬ ֔ ָ ‫יה יַ ּ֣דּו‬ ָ֙ ‫וְ ַעל־נִ ְכ ַּב ֶ ּ֙ד‬ ‫יהם ְּב ַכ ְב ֵ ֥לי ַב ְר ֶזֽל‬ ֶ֗ ‫יהם ְּבזִ ִ ּ֑קים וְ ֝נִ ְכ ְּב ֵד‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ֶל ְא ֣סֹר ַמ ְל ֵכ‬

These passages (especially the first three) suggest a non-native Hebrew idiom, which first was employed as a style-switching feature and which only later was expanded to general usage.37 Note that the two Isaiah passages are part of the prophet’s oracle against Tyre; while the Nahum passage is directed towards (as throughout this book) the Assyrians, even if the term here refers to the Egyptian notables. The fourth passage above also refers to the dignitaries of foreign countries, though one notes that the author of Ps 149 in the post-exilic period now uses the word in a generic fashion, without an association to specific foreign notables.

37  On style-switching, see Gary A. Rendsburg, “Style-switching,” EHLL 3:633–36, along with the sources cited there. Though one must admit that in the present instance no Phoenician or other cognate evidence exists.

152

Rendsburg

This generalization of the word ‫( נכבדים‬always in the plural, one notes) continues and may even be expanded in the book of Ben Sira. In the passages below, the “honoured ones” could just as easily (and indeed may) refer to Israelite dignitaries as to foreign ones: Sir 11:6 (MS B) Sir 48:6 (MS B)

‫ונכבדים נתנו ביד זעירים‬ ‫]מטותם‬.[ ‫המוריד מלכים על שחת ונכבדים‬

The first verse occurs in a typical wisdom context, while the second appears in the praise of Elijah. When we turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find the word ‫“ נכבדים‬honoured ones” attested in 1QpHab 4:2 cited above, and then three times in Pesher Nahum (4Q169): 4QpNah 3–4 ii 9 4QpNah 3–4 iii 9 4QpNah 3–4 iv 4

]‫נׁ[כ] ֯בדים ומוש[לים‬ ]‫פשרו אמון הם מנשה והיארים הם גד[ו]ׂלׂי מנשה נכבדי ה‬

‫גבוריו ונכבדיו‬

Only the third of these is elicited by the lemma of Nah 3:10 (see above for the verse), whereas the first and second are used in pesher comments to passages occurring earlier in Nah 3. To be sure, the Pesher author presumably anticipated the attestation of ‫ נכבדיה‬in Nah 3:10; nevertheless one notes the more common usage of this word in QH, continuing the picture suggested by Ben Sira. 7.0. A characteristic feature of Pesher Habakkuk in particular is the omission of the he in the Hiphil infinitive. While examples of this general phenomenon occur sporadically in other DSS texts (with Niphal and Hitpael, in addition to Hiphil),38 the seven-fold presence of laqṭīl infinitives in our text is truly striking. Examples of this grammatical feature appear more or less equally distributed throughout the Bible (Exodus/1; Numbers/2; Deuteronomy/2; Samuel/2; Kings/1; Isaiah/4; Jeremiah/3; Amos/1; Psalms/3; Proverbs/1; Qohelet/1; Daniel/1; Nehemiah/1; Chronicles/1), as evidence for the colloquial dialect of ancient Hebrew which penetrated the written standard (= BH) at various times.39

38  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 48. 39  Gary A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS 72; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1990), 95–103. See also my earlier study, with a slightly different focus: “Laqṭîl Infinitives: Yiphʿil or Hiphʿil?” Orientalia 51 (1982): 231–38.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

153

I am aware of three other instances of the loss of he in the Hiphil infinitive in the Qumran documents:40 4Q169 (4QpNah ) 3–4 iii 7 4Q171 (4QPsa) 1–10 ii 16 4Q511 (4QShirb) 2 i 4

‫לתעות‬ ‫לפיל‬ ‫לאיר‬

As is well known, this feature becomes standard in MH.41 In this case, accordingly, Pesher Habakkuk does not represent the continuation of a feature observable in LBH (examples of which have dominated our discussion unto this point), but the regular use of the laqṭīl infinitive by the author/scribe of 1QpHab demonstrates nonetheless that his language is “on the way” to the still later attested register of the Tannaim. 8.0. I do not wish to give the impression, however, that there are no early features of ancient Hebrew in Pesher Habakkuk. Indeed, there are a number of linguistic usages that evoke SBH from the pre-exilic period, and in some cases these items even suggest Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH). Moreover, in the famous case of the 3rd person masc. sg. independent pronoun (see below, §8.6), we must contend with a feature that occurs nowhere else in the history of the Hebrew language. Before presenting these items, however, I must state clearly that I do not consider these traits to be natural usages of the Qumran author/scribe, but rather conscious archaisms (or, in the one case, even an invention), used in imitation of earlier strata of the Hebrew language.42 Together these elements constitute evidence for understanding QH as an anti-language, used by the Yaḥad to distinguish itself intentionally from other Jews of the period, while

40  This may represent a slight increase in the ratio of occurrences, when compared to BH, though someone would have to produce a pure mathematical calculation to demonstrate the point (or to deny it). 41  M. H. Segal, Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 58; Segal, Diqduq Lešon ha-Mišna, 114, 120; and Gideon Haneman, Torat ha-Ṣurot šel Lešon ha-Mišna (TelAviv: University of Tel-Aviv Press, 1979–1980), 37–38. 42  Hence, most or all of these items would fall into the category of grammatical “pseudoclassicisms,” to use the term employed by Jan Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–59.

154

Rendsburg

at the same time providing their texts with a patina of antiquity and hence authority.43 The following features fall into this category. 8.1. In the two places where the option was available, the Qumran author/ scribe elected to use the older 3rd masc. pl. pronominal suffix attached to nouns ending in ‫ות‬-, i.e., -ōtām (as opposed to the later form -ōtēhem):44 1QpHab 6:4 ‫“ אותותם‬their signs [sc. military standards]”; 1QpHab 6:4 ‫“ מלחמותם‬their wars.”45 Note that the former term has biblical precursors in Ps 74:4 ‫ אֹות ָֹתם‬and Job 21:29 ‫את ָֹתם‬ ֹ ְ‫ו‬. 8.2. 1QpHab 5:6 includes the phrase ‫“ בצר למו‬in their distress,” using the archaic form ‫“ למו‬their.” This morpheme is limited to poetry in the Bible (57x; mainly in Job, Psalms, and Isaiah, though also 2x each in the archaic poems of Deut 32 and 33), whereas in QH it occurs quite “naturally” in prose compositions (see 1QS 4:14, 9:22, for example). Note that the Pesher comment here interprets Hab 1:12–13a, and not Hab 2:7, where the word ‫ למו‬occurs. 8.3. As is true throughout QH, so also in Pesher Habakkuk: the preferred term for God is ‫“ אל‬God.” For QH as a whole, ‫“ אל‬God” occurs 694x; for the key text 1QS, this lexeme appears 56x. Pesher Habakkuk employs the term 23x: 1:6, 1:11, 2:3, 2:4, 2:8, 2:9, 2:15(r), 5:3, 5:4, 7:1, 7:4, 7:8, 7:13, 8:2, 8:10, 8:11, 9:10, 10:3, 10:13, 11:15(r), 12:5, 12:9, 13:3.46 For many of these attestations, see the construct phrases listed above, §3.3.2. 8.4. One of the main discriminants between SBH and LBH is the choice between ‫“ ֵע ָדה‬community, congregation,” used in the former (including P), versus its LBH equivalent ‫ ָק ָהל‬.47 Contrary to what one might expect, given the late linguistic profile observable in Pesher Habakkuk, our text utilizes the former 43  See William M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52; Schniedewind, “Linguistic Ideology in 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. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 245–55; 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. L. H. Schiffman and Sh. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 217–46. See also Steven Weitzman, “Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” JAOS 119 (1999): 35–45. 44  For general discussion, see Moshe Bar-Asher, “Lešon Qumran ben ha-Miqra‌ʾ li-Lšon Ḥazal (ʿIyyun bi-Sʿif be-Morfologya),” Meghillot 2 (2004): 137–49. 45  The full phrase is ‫“ כלי מלחמותם‬their instruments of war,” but to bring out the grammatical point in the translation I present here simply ‫“ מלחמותם‬their wars.” 46  The symbol (r) indicates that the text has been slightly restored. 47  Indeed, this conclusion was one of the first of many such findings emanating from the pen of Avi Hurvitz; see his article, “Le-šimušo šel ha-Munaḥ ha-Kohani ʿēdā ba-Sifrut ha-Miqra‌ʾit,” Tarbiz 40 (1970–1971): 261–67.

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

155

word: ‫( לקים עדה בשקר‬1QpHab 10:10). This usage is indicative of QH as a whole, with ‫ עדה‬occurring 153x and ‫ קהל‬occurring 46x.48 8.5. A full-scale study of the difference(s) (if any) between ‫ ַב ֲעבוּר‬and ‫ְל ַמ ַען‬ in ancient Hebrew, both meaning “on account of, in order that,” remains a desideratum.49 I here present some basic information concerning the distribution of the two forms. The former occurs 51x in the Bible, as follows: Gen-Exod 22x; Josh 2x; Sam 15x; Jer 1x; Amos 2x; Mic 1x; Ps 3x; Job 1x; Chr 4x (3 of which ‫׀׀‬ Samuel), suggesting a decidedly early usage, which becomes less and less common with the passage of time. The latter occurs 272x, more or less equally distributed throughout the biblical corpus, though by the very nature of the decreased use of ‫ ַב ֲעבוּר‬in late texts, one may assume an increased use of ‫ְל ַמ ַען‬ in Persian-period compositions. In order to highlight this dichotomy between the two options, note the data provided in the following chart: ‫ ַב ֲעבוּ ר‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬

Samuel 15x / LBH corpus 4x (3 of which ‫ ׀׀‬Samuel) Samuel 3x / LBH corpus 16x

To complete the picture, note that Ben Sira uses each form 10x, a point that seems to run counter to the trend for decreased use of ‫ בעבור‬in LBH. I would posit, somewhat tentatively, that the unexpected increase in ‫ בעבור‬in Ben Sira is due to the poetic nature of this composition, with its tendency to evoke biblical language quite consciously. Regardless, what is clear is Pesher Habakkuk’s undoubted preference for ‫בעבור‬, which occurs in 1QpHab 8:2, 8:10, 9:11, 10:11, 10:12 (with only one instance of ‫ למען‬in 11:14). This stands in contrast, moreover, to the choice between these two synonyms in the base text, with ‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬occurring twice (Hab 2:2, 2:15), versus no instances of ‫ ַב ֲעבוּר‬. In short, by favouring ‫בעבור‬, Pesher Habakkuk resounds the more classical language found in SBH, as another instance of intentional archaism in support of the goal of anti-language. 48  These numbers, taken from DSSEL, reflect some double counting, since the same word that occurs in two different copies of the same composition is counted twice. See, for example, ‫ עדה‬in the specific form (‫ )בעדתם‬in both CD 3:9 and its parallel text 4Q269 = 4QDd 2 3; and ‫ קהל‬in both CD 12:6 (‫ )אל הקהל‬and its parallel text 4Q271 = 4QDf 5 i 21 (‫)לקהל‬. Such instances, however, are relatively few and do not skew the data presented in any significant way. 49  The essential equality of the two terms may be determined by noticing the use of ‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬in Gen 18:24 alongside the three instances of ‫ ַב ֲעבוּר‬in Gen 18:29, 31, 32; the use of ‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬in Gen 27:25 alongside its parallels in Gen 27:4, 19, 31; and so on. For an entrée to the subject, see Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 634–35.

156

Rendsburg

8.6. The uniquely QH feature represented by ‫“ הואה‬he” occurs in 1QpHab 1:9. And while the more normative ‫ הוא‬predominates thereafter (in 1QpHab 1:13, 3:2, 3:13, 5:6, 10:3, 12:3; in addition to several occurrences within the biblical lemmata), we nonetheless may observe how the author/scribe of Pesher Habakkuk sets the tone with his initial choice. This long form, moreover, is not an isolated morpheme, but rather stands as part of a much larger mix, with longer spellings of various types, all of which serve to create, at least in the eyes of the Yaḥad members, “a more official text, a more literary text, indeed a more archaic text.”50 8.7. One final characteristic feature of the language of Pesher Habakkuk, and indeed of QH in general, is the lack of foreign loanwords (Aramaic, Persian, or Greek).51 To my mind, this stratagem fits the overall picture perfectly, as another indication of the Yaḥad’s commitment to produce “a more official text, a more literary text, indeed a more archaic text” (to repeat Steven Fassberg’s felicitous phrase).52 The main exception, of course, is the word ‫“ רז‬secret, mystery” (borrowed from Persian), a key term in Qumran theology, which occurs 119x in the

50  Steven Fassberg, “Haʿadafat Ṣurot Muʾrakhot bi-Mgillot Midbar Yehuda,” Meghillot 1 (2003): 227–40, at 235 (the English rendering is mine). See also in the present volume, Fassberg, “The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls,” 21. 51  Contrary to the opinion of many if not most scholars, I am not convinced that the key noun ‫“ פשר‬interpretation” is an Aramaic loanword within Hebrew. True, the Aramaic form occurs 34x in Daniel vs. its more limited spread in Hebrew, with Qoh 8:1 as the sole attestation in the Hebrew portions of the Bible, in addition to Sir 38:14 (MS B) (as feminine noun ‫פשרה‬, albeit with the meaning “diagnosis” vel sim., given the medical context), and then QH (passim). But the picture is far from clear. First, note that the Tiberian Masorah transmitted the vocable in Qoh 8:1 as a Hebrew segolate noun ‫ ֵפ ֶשׁר‬, reflecting no influence from Aramaic. Secondly, the semantic range of the word is greater in Hebrew than it is in Aramaic, a point stressed by Jonas C. Greenfield, “Etymological Semantics,” ZAH 6 (1993): 26–37, at 27; repr. in Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 2:821–32, at 822. For further discussion, see Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, Part II: Vocabulary, 466–67. 52  In addition to the parallels brought in my earlier article, “Qumran Hebrew (with a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 241 (including n. 56), note the following analogues from a period closer to the composition of the DSS: (a) the Hebrew register used for the prayers, which strikingly lack Greek and Latin loanwords, on which see Moshe Bar-Asher, “Les formules de bénédiction forgées par les sages: étude préliminaire,” REJ 166 (2007): 441–61; and (b) the Syriac employed by Jacob of Edessa in his letters, which is distinguished by a lack of Greek loanwords, in conspicuous contrast to the writings of other Syriac Orthodox authors of the previous generation (information courtesy of Aaron M. Butts, Yale University).

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

157

Hebrew texts and 19x in the Aramaic documents from Qumran.53 Amongst the former are three attestations in 1QpHab, always as the construct plural ‫רזי‬: 7:5 7:8, 7:14 (see above §2.6). Most likely this noun was admitted into the QH lexis because its morphology was well suited to the Hebrew language, with so many other basic nouns bearing this shape (‫ זָ ב‬,‫ ָרע‬,‫ ָרב‬,‫ ָעם‬,‫ ָדם‬, ‫ ָּדג‬,‫ יָ ד‬,‫ יָ ם‬,‫ ָאח‬,‫ ָאב‬, etc.)— in contrast to words such as ‫“ ַפּ ְר ְתּ ִמים‬nobles” or ‫“ ִפּ ְתגָּ ם‬word, speech,” which do not fit a Hebrew paradigm, not to mention such exceedingly long (for Hebrew, that is) vocables as ‫“ ֲא ַח ְׁש ַּד ְר ְּפנִ ים‬satraps,” and ‫“ ֲא ַח ְׁש ְּת ָרנִ ים‬royals.”54 Within Pesher Habakkuk there is only one other item that discloses foreign influence, namely, ֿ‫( עלוֿ הי‬1 QpHab 12:11), in the citation of the scriptural lemma (= MT Hab 2:18 ‫) ָע ֔ ָליו‬. While this pronominal suffix constitutes a patent Aramaism, its presence may be explained if we follow Fassberg’s lead and regard the form as one further instance of the Qumran scribes’ preference for longer forms,55 again, as part of their “baroque” style.56 9.0. This study demonstrates that, contrary to the opinion expressed by Young (and Rezetko and Ehrensvärd), the language of Pesher Habakkuk is representative of LBH, as opposed to SBH. These two varieties of ancient Hebrew do not constitute coeval stylistic taxons, but rather chronologically determined dialects. By the time of the main floruit of the Qumran community, ca. 150 BCE to ca. 50 BCE, during which period Pesher Habakkuk presumably was written,57 53  Count according to DSSEL. Again, there are some double countings, e.g., in the phrase ‫ ברזי פלא‬in both 1QS 9:18 and its parallel text 4Q258 = 4QSd 8 3, but the number of such examples is relatively insignificant. 54  Naturally, I do not mean to imply that Qumran scribes had paradigm charts of the sort found in language primers. But individuals who spend their time (lives?) copying, studying, and composing texts gain more than facility in orthography and literary flair. They are just as likely to gain a firm understanding of the mechanics of the language, especially if their prose is girded by linguistic ideology. 55  See the very short comment in Fassberg, “Haʿadafat Ṣurot Muʾrakhot bi-Mgillot Midbar Yehuda,” 231, and then the extended discussion in the present volume, Fassberg, “The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls,” 21–22. 56  For this use of the descriptive term “baroque,” though with special attention to the trend of “baroque orthography” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Frank Moore Cross, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11.1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:1–15, at 4. 57  In fact, Pesher Habakkuk most likely was composed towards the end of this century span, given the repeated reference to the Kittim, a code name for the Romans, in 1QpHab 2:12, 2:14, 3:4, 3:9, 4:5, 4:10, 6:1, 6:10, 9:7. On the use of this code name, see Hanan Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans

158

Rendsburg

no Hebrew author was capable still of composing in SBH. Notwithstanding his noble effort to produce an ancient-looking text—through the use of archaisms, the adaptation of poetic forms for normal prose usage, the invention of specific forms, the non–use of foreign words, and more—the author of Pesher Habakkuk reveals the true nature of his “native” and “natural” Hebrew by the LBH features that dominate throughout, in both the morphological and syntactic realms. To expand upon this last statement, I repeat here the conclusion of my earlier article on QH, with special attention to Serekh ha-Yaḥad, but which is equally applicable to this study focused on Pesher Habakkuk. Two counter trends are visible in this document: a) The first trend is the purposeful development and employment of an anti-language, in order to create an internal idiom for the members of the sect. This brand of Hebrew attempts as much as possible to utilize archaic features, in order to provide an air of authenticity and authority to the new documents under formation in the hands of the sect’s leaders. b) At the same time, though, a second trend is noticeable throughout: try as they might, the Qumran authors could not swim upstream against the billowing surge of LBH incursions into their prose. The result is a most unusual Hebrew dialect, which may be visualized in the following manner (adapting the chart developed by Shelomo Morag to depict his understanding of QH):58 to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 27–31 January 1999 (ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz; STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 29–44, esp. 41–42. 58  Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 48 (1988): 148–64, with the chart on p. 162. As the reader is by now aware, the present article has focused on elements (a) and (b) of the chart, with an occasional nod to element (d) and no discussion of element (c). The lack of treatment of variant stress patterns is not to minimize their importance, though. In a word, I would argue that they too could serve the goal of linguistic ideology. For examples in Pesher Habakkuk, note 1QpHab 4:6 ‫( ישחוקו‬with dots both above and below the waw in the manuscript), 4:11 ‫יעבורו‬, 9:5 ‫יקבוצו‬. The reading in 1QpHab 1:8 is presumably ‫יגז[ו]לו‬, but the lacuna occurs at the crucial spot. For additional comments, see Fassberg, “The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls,” 12. For some recent data on the subject, see Martin G. Abegg, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 48–68, esp. 61–62.

159

The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed

(a) non-LBH features, especially those of a (pseudo-)archaic nature used to create an anti-language

(c) variant stress patterns

(d) features due to Aramaic influence

GQH Adapted from Vetus Testamentum 48 (1988), p. 162

(b) LBH features

“Dislocated Negations”: Negative ‫ אל‬Followed by a Non-verbal Constituent in Biblical, Ben Sira and Qumran Hebrew Jean-Sébastien Rey This study focuses on an unusual syntactic construction attested in 4Q417 2 i 9 (// 4Q416 2 i 3–5 in bold Hebrew font): ‫אל לכה לבדכה תרחב [נפשכ֯ ה֯ בׁרשכה‬. This clause is the second in a series of three prohibitive clauses: 10 ]‫ ]נפשכ֯ ה֯ בׁראשכה‬2‫ תמוֿ ש מלבכה ואל לכה לבדכה תרׁ ֯חׂב‬vacat ‫ אל‬9 ]ׁ‫צדק֯ה‬1 ‫תעמל בחיֿכה‬ ֯ ‫כיא מה צעיר מרש ואל תשםח באבלכה ̇פן‬

Do not remove [charity] from your heart, And do not for yourself increase [your appetite in your poverty], for what is more insignificant than a poor man? And do not rejoice when you should mourn, lest you have trouble in your life Two elements are worth noting: (1) while the negative particle ‫ אל‬usually directly precedes the verbal predicate, here, this order is disrupted by the complement ‫( ;לכה לבדכה‬2) this complement, a reflexive dative (‫)לכה לבדכה‬,

* I wish to thank Émile Puech for his careful reading and Gladys Gordon-Bournique for her improvement of my English text. 1  J. Strugnell and D. Harrington, DJD 34:172, read only ]ׂ‫ ;◦קׁׂה‬nevertheless, qof and he are certain (see DJD 34:88), and the trace of a letter is visible before the qof, possibly a head of reš or dalet; see J.-S. Rey, 4QInstruction: Sagesse et Eschatologie (STDJ 81; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 44, followed by E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 2010–2015), 2:152. 2  The reading ‫ תרחב‬is not certain. As noticed by the editors (DJD 34:175), dalet would be preferable to reš, and he is also possible instead of ḥet. Thus √‫ דהב‬or √‫( רהב‬cf. Ps 138:3; Sir 13:8 ‫ )השמר אל תרהב מאד‬are not excluded. The end of the line is partially restored with 4Q416 2 i 4 ‫[כ ֯ה ֯ב ̇ר ̇אשכה‬ ֯ (just a trace of the end of the base of kaf has been preserved). The reading ‫ [◦ ן֯ ̇בראשכה‬proposed by the editors (p. 88) for 4Q416 2 i 4 is impossible and has not been retained in the edition of 4Q417 (p. 173). Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:152 restores ‫ואל לכה‬ ]‫תנה בראשכה‬ ֯ ‫ לבדכה תרחב [לאביונים‬which is certainly too long. In any event, the readings or restorations proposed do not affect the argument.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_011

“ Dislocated Negations ”

161

usually follows the verb, whereas here it is in a preverbal position.3 The syntactic structure of the clause therefore presents its elements in dislocated order. In this example, it is unlikely that the negative particle affects the prepositional group and not the verb (i.e., “You could increase your appetite but not for yourself”); the expression would be contradictory and would not fit the context. In what follows, I will call “dislocated negation” a construction where the negative particle does not immediately precede the verb but still negates it (‫—אל‬X—Verb). Scholars have noticed that the negative ‫ אל‬displays some syntactic evolution in post-biblical Hebrew. Does the specific example of 4Q417 2 i 9 testify to such an evolution? In this study, I will examine the unusual use of the negative ‫ אל‬followed by a non-verbal element in biblical Hebrew, with special focus on dislocated negative clauses (‫—אל‬X—Verb). After offering a categorization, I will consider these uses in Ben Sira and Qumran. 1

The Negative ‫ אל‬Followed by a Non-Verbal Element in Biblical Hebrew

The syntax of the negative ‫ אל‬has been studied by Elisha Qimron4 in 1983 and Menahem Zevi Kaddari,5 one year later.6 The general rule is that this particle 3  I thank Elitsur Bar Asher Siegal for this remark. I found only one other example in 1QHa 21:7 ‫“ כיא לכה עשיתה אלה אלי‬That for yourself you have done these things my God.” 4  E. Qimron, “‫[ מלית השלילה ַאל במקורותינו הקדומים‬The Negative Word ‫ ַאל‬in our Early Sources],” in ‫[ מחקרי לשון מוגשים לזאב בן־חיים בהגיעו לשיבה‬Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim] (ed. M. Bar-Asher et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 473–82. 5  M. Zvi Kaddari, “‫[ עיון בתחביר דיאכרוני׃ מלת השלילה אל‬The Negative Particle ʾal (A Study in Diachronic Syntax),” in ‫ א‬,‫[ מחקרים בלשון‬Language Studies, 1: On the Unity of the Hebrew Language and Its Periodization] (ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 197–210. See also M. Zvi Kaddari, “On Deontic Modality in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew,” in Occident and Orient: A Tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber (ed. R. Dan; Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 251–56. 6  More recently, see also T. Zewi, “‫[ מילת השלילה כנשוא המשפט בעברית‬The Negative Particle as a Predicate in Hebrew],” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae Sodalicium Israëlense, Beit Berl, May 5th, 1998 (ed. E. Allon and P. Trumer; Kfar-Sava: Beit-Berl College, 1998), 41–48; Zewi, “The Syntactic Function of Nega­ tive Particles in Biblical Hebrew and English Bible Translations,” JNSL 33 (2007): 99–113; J. A. Naudé, “Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew,” EHLL 2:801–11; G. Rendsburg attributes the use of the negative ‫ אל‬followed by a noun as a dialectal feature of the northern dialect of

162

Rey

is followed directly by a verb7 in the jussive or cohortative form.8 Cases where it is followed by a non-verbal element are relatively rare: 25 appearances out of 729 in the biblical corpus, without taking into account those where the enclitic ‫ נא‬is directly attached to the negation ‫אל‬.9 I plan to classify these occurrences

ancient Hebrew; see Rendsburg, “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon,” Orient 38 (2003): 5–35, at 24. 7  This general rule is attested in cognate Semitic languages also with some rare exceptions: in Ugaritic, J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 87.24 notices one attestation in a fragmentary context in RS 92.2016:8: [. . .] kbkb kbkbm al kbkb \ [. . .]; in Phoenician, KAI 13,3–4: ‫“ אל אל תפתח עלתי ואל תרגזן‬Do not, do not open it (the coffin), and do not disturb me !” (cf. Zellig S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language [New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1990], 77 and Charles R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar [HdO 54; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 279); in Egyptian Aramaic, see Proverbs of Aḥiqar C1.1.155: [. . .] ‫[ יהשחתון ידי ואל פמי ואל‬. . .] “Let my hands destroy (or: they will destroy my hands) and not my mouth [. . .]” (B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Vol. 3: Literature, Accounts, Lists [Texts and Studies for Students; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1993] = [TAD]); see also Deir ʿAlla I 6–7 ḥšk wʾl ngh “darkness and complete absence of light” (J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla [Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19; Leiden: Brill, 1976], 173, 179, and 196). But see the other explanation proposed by E. Puech, “Balaʿam and Deir ʿalla,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam (ed. G. H. van Kooten and J. van Ruiten; TBN 11; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 25–47, at 32, 36: “and do not plot (/remove?) forever.” 8  The exception of 1 Sam 27:10 where ‫ אל‬is followed by a qatal is probably a later corruption. In Aramaic, see also 4Q546 14 3: ֯‫ע[לי]הון‬ ֯ ‫ ̇א ֯ל ̇פתח ̇בי̇ ̇תכ‬translated by E. Puech “ne leur ouvre pas ta maison” (DJD 31:346, but the use of the negative ‫ אל‬with an imperative seems to be never attested elsewhere; for this example, see T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic [ANESSup 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011], 256 n. 122). For the case of Prov 31:4, where ‫ אל‬is followed by an infinitive, see infra §1.1b and §2.2. 9  The construction ‫ אל־נא‬tends to disappear in late biblical Hebrew and is not attested in Ben Sira or Qumran. The enclitic ‫ נא‬has been considered rare in late biblical Hebrew (cf. R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose [HSM 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976], 145), but statistics are not clear. It does occur eight times in Chronicles (only two times in Chronicler’s own language according to Polzin), six times in Ezra and Nehemiah, twice in Daniel, and ten occurrences total in Ezekiel, Lamentations, Song of Songs, and Qoheleth. Four attestations in Ben Sira and thirteen in Qumran should be added, while some of them are biblical quotations; see I. Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSS 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 276–311, at 288–89.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

163

in two categories:10 (1) ellipses and (2) absolute uses; in a third part, I will examine some ambiguous instances. Then, I will look at possible examples of dislocated negation. 1.1 Ellipsis of the Verb In ten cases, where ‫ אל‬is followed by a non-verbal element, the verb is understood and has to be supplied.11 All the examples are in poetry. (a) First, seven times, the negative ‫ אל‬follows a volitive clause (imperative, absolute infinitive used for the imperative, or jussive). The verb of the first clause has to be supplied in the second in the negative form, “do X and [do] not Y.” For example, in Joel 2:13: ‫ל־ּבגְ ֵד ֶיכם‬ ִ ‫“ וְ ִק ְרעּו ְל ַב ְב ֶכם וְ ַא‬rend your hearts and not your clothing.”12 There the second clause contains only the negative directly followed by the verbal complement and the verb ‫ קרע‬has to be supplied: ‫וְ ִק ְרעּו‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫( ְל ַב ְב ֶכם וְ ַאל (תקרעו) ִּבגְ ֵד‬i.e., “rend your hearts and do not [rend] your clothing”). The same situation occurs in Amos 5:14 (‫ל־רע‬ ָ ‫ ;) ִּד ְרׁשּו־ֹטוב וְ ַא‬Jer 10:24 (‫יַ ְּס ֵרנִ י‬ ָ ‫ֹותיָך וְ ַאל ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ל־ע ְד‬ ֵ ‫ט־ל ִּבי ֶא‬ ִ ‫ ;) ַה‬Prov 8:10 ‫ל־ּב ַא ְּפָך‬ ְ ‫ְך־ּב ִמ ְׁש ָּפט ַא‬ ְ ‫ ;)יְ הוָ ה ַא‬Ps 119:36 (‫ל־ּב ַצע‬ (‫ל־ּכ ֶסף‬ ָ ‫חּו־מּוס ִרי וְ ַא‬ ָ ‫ ;) ְק‬27:2 (‫ל־ׂש ָפ ֶתיָך‬ ְ ‫א־פיָך נָ ְכ ִרי וְ ַא‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ;)יְ ַה ֶּל ְלָך זָ ר וְ ל‬and 17:12 (‫ ּד ֹב‬13‫ָּפֹגוׁש‬ ‫ל־ּכ ִסיל ְּב ִאּוַ ְלֹּתו‬ ְ ‫) ַׁשּכּול ְּב ִאיׁש וְ ַא‬.14 A similar phenomenon may be observed, at least once, in Egyptian Aramaic in Proverbs of Aḥiqar TAD C1.1.155: [. . .] ‫יהשחתון ידי‬ ‫[ ואל פמי ואל‬. . .] “Let my hands destroy (or: they will destroy my hands) and not my mouth and not [. . .].”15 10  See also the relevant classification in BDB, 39 (b). 11  On the ellipsis of verb in negated clauses, see C. L. Miller, “Ellipsis Involving Negation in Biblical Poetry,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. E. L. Troxel, K. G. Friebel, and D. R. Magary; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 37–52, esp. 45; C. L. Miller-Naudé, “Ellipsis: Biblical Hebrew,” EHLL 1:807–12. See also J. D. Wijnkoop, Manual of Hebrew Syntax (London: Luzac & Co, 1897), 69 § 25 Rem. 5. 12  English translations of biblical passages in principle follow the NRSV unless indicated otherwise. 13  The infinitive absolute is used here for the imperative. 14  Qimron adds Lam 3:41 to this list: ‫ל־אל ַּב ָּׁש ָמיִ ם‬ ֵ ‫ל־ּכ ָּפיִ ם ֶא‬ ַ ‫ נִ ָּׂשא ְל ָב ֵבנּו ֶא‬vocalizing ‫ל־ּכ ָּפיִ ם‬ ַ ‫א‬.ַ But it is perhaps preferable to correct ‫ אל‬to ‫ על‬according to the Greek and the Syriac (so the BHS). Confusion between ‫ אל‬and ‫ על‬is frequent in late Hebrew (see, for example, in Sir 4:22 ‫ על נפשך‬where one would expect ‫אל נפשך‬, or in 4:28 ‫ אל לשונך‬where one would expect ‫)על נפשך‬. 15  This example where ‫ אל‬is not immediately followed by a verbal form is not recorded by T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 322 §83b.

164

Rey

(b) To these examples of ellipsis, we can add three others, where the verb

‫ היה‬is implied. For Kaddari, “the clause, in this case, may be interpreted as hav-

ing a zero-representation of the existential verb haya as its predicate.”16 On the contrary, for T. Zewi, in such cases, as for “absolute uses” infra (§1.2), the negation itself has to be understood as the logical predicate.17 For example: 2 Sam 1:21: ‫ּוׂש ֵדי ְתרּומֹת‬ ְ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ָטר ֲע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ל־טל וְ ַא‬ ַ ‫“ ָה ֵרי ַבּגִ ְלּב ַֹע ַא‬You mountains of Gilboa, (let there be) no dew or rain upon you, nor bounteous fields!”;18 see also Isa 62:6 (‫ל־ּד ִמי ָל ֶכם‬ ֳ ‫) ַא‬, Ps 83:2 (‫י־לְך‬ ָ ‫ל־ּד ִמ‬ ֳ ‫) ַא‬, and Prov 31:4 (‫ֹמואל ַאל ַל ְמ ָל ִכים‬ ֵ ‫ַאל ַל ְמ ָל ִכים ְל‬ ‫( ) ְׁשֹתו־יָ יִ ן‬cf. infra §2.2).19 1.2 Absolute Uses The particle ‫ אל‬can also be used absolutely as a negative answer (like the negative ‫)לא‬. Six cases are attested, all in direct discourse: Gen 19:18 ‫אמר ֹלוט ֲא ֵל ֶהם ַאל־נָ א ֲאד ֹנָ י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ וַ ּי‬And Lot said to them, ‘Oh, no, my lords.’” 2 Kgs 3:13  ‫אמר ֹלו ֶמ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַאל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ וַ ּי‬But the king of Israel said to him, ‘No.’” 1 Sam 2:24  ‫ֹלוא־ֹטובה ַה ְּׁש ֻמ ָעה‬ ָ ‫“ ַאל ָּבנָ י ִּכי‬No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear.”20 In fact, these examples are classified by Kaddari in the first category where the verb ‫ היה‬should be implicit. However, this is not clear, especially in passages like 1 Sam 2:24, where one cannot expect ‫ֹלוא־ֹטובה ַה ְּׁש ֻמ ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ַאל יהי ָּבנָ י ִּכי‬. As proposed by Zewi, it seems better to consider that in such examples ‫ אל‬is the functional predicate of the clause.21 To this category I suggest adding instances where ‫ אל‬occurs twice in the phrase: first before a non-verbal element and then before a prohibitive ‫אל‬ ְ ‫ל־א ִחי ַא‬ ָ ‫אמר לֹו ַא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ וַ ּת‬She answered him, ‘No, my ‫תקטול‬, as in 2 Sam 13:12: ‫ל־ּת ַעּנֵ נִ י‬ brother, do not force me.’” Qimron explains such cases as a poetic extension of

16  Kaddari, “On Deontic Modality,” 255. 17  Zewi, “The Negative Particle,” 46; “The Syntactic Function,” 103. 18  Driver suggested restoring ‫אל יֵ ֵרד טל‬, or more simply ‫ ;אל יהי טל‬see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel with an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 236. 19  It should be noticed that these three references are translated by periphrasis in the Greek and Aramaic. 20  See also Ruth 1:13 (‫)אל ְּבנ ַֹתי‬, ַ 2 Kgs 3:13, and perhaps 2 Sam 13:16 (the text is perhaps corrupted, a few manuscripts, the Lucianic version, Vulgate and Targum read ‫)על‬. 21  Zewi, “The Negative Particle,” 46.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

165

the structure: ‫אל תענני אחי‬.22 Consider also 2 Kgs 4:16 (‫ֹלהים ַאל־‬ ִ ‫ל־אד ֹנִ י ִאיׁש ָה ֱא‬ ֲ ‫ַא‬ ָ ‫ל־א ַחי ַא‬ ַ ‫ ;) ַא‬and 2 Sam 13:25 (‫ל־ּבנִ י ַאל־נָ א נֵ ֵלְך‬ ְ ‫) ַא‬. ‫ ;) ְּת ַכּזֵ ב‬Jdg 19:23 (‫ל־ּת ֵרעּו נָ א‬ 1.3 Two Ambiguous Cases Two passages do not fit these categories, but they are textually dubious. In Prov 12:28, the negative ‫ אל‬seems to modify a non-verbal element: ‫ח־צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ ‫ְּבא ַֹר‬ ‫ל־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ ַחּיִ ים וְ ֶד ֶרְך נְ ִת ָיבה ַא‬, “In the path of righteousness there is life, in walking its path there is no death.” But the text is hardly understandable. Old versions (Septuagint, Targum, and Peshitta) suggest that the text is corrupted and that ‫ אל‬should be vocalized ‫ ֶאל‬. Hence, the clause should have had something like: “but the path of wickedness (leads) to death.”23 Finally, in Job 24:25, ‫וְ יָ ֵׂשם ְל ַאל ִמ ָּל ִתי‬, “there is nothing in what I say,”24 the negative ‫ אל‬precedes a non verbal element, but is, in this unique case, considered by grammarians25 and dictionaries26 as a substantive. Perhaps we can posit that such a form occurs by assimilation to ‫( ְל ַאיִ ן‬cf. Isa 40:17; 40:23) or through the influence of the Aramaic ‫)לה( ָלא‬.27

22  Qimron connects this attestation with KAI 13,3–4 in Phoenician: ‫אל אל תפתח עלתי ואל‬ ‫“ תרגזן‬Do not, do not open it (the coffin), and do not disturb me!”; cf. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language, 77 and Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 279. 23  This verse has given rise to considerable debate. M. Dahood, Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications (BibOr 17; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 19, for example, equates the syntagm ‫ אל־מות‬with Ugaritic blmt “not dying = immortality” || ḥym (KTU 1.16 I 15; 1.16 II 37; 1.17 VI 27). But more probably the Hebrew text is corrupted; cf. Septuagint: ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης ζωή, ὁδοὶ δὲ μνησικάκων εἰς θάνατον “In the ways of justice there is life, but the ways of those who bear grudges lead to death” (NETS) and the Targum: ‫באורח דצדקתא חיי ואורחא דאכתנא למותא‬. E. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancient (2 vols.; EBib 21–22; Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 1:60 suggests reading ‫ תעבה‬instead of ‫ נְ ִת ָיבה‬and vocalizing ‫ ֶאל‬instead of ‫ ַ;אל‬see also C. H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), 259–60. 24  L XX: καὶ θήσει εἰς οὐδὲν τὰ ῥήματά μου “and will he place my words as nothing” (this verse is marked with an obelos); Targum: ‫ ;ויׁשוי כלא הות עיקר מלתי‬David M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (AGJU 20; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 170 notes the following variants: ‫בלא | כלא | בדלא | כדלא‬. 25  Wijnkoop, Manual of Hebrew, 66; R. J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (rev. and ed. J. C. Beckman; 3rd ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto: 2007), §405, 146; GKC, §152a. 26  BDB, KBL. 27  Cf. Dan 4:32 ‫ כלא( כלה חשיבין‬in Codex Cairensis, cf. Theodotion: ὡ οὐδὲν ἐλογίσθησαν) and Muraoka and Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, §83 and §78cd; Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, §5e, 23.

166

Rey

In conclusion, when the negative ‫ אל‬is used in a non-verbal clause, either the verb is implied (only attested in poetry) or the particle is used in an absolute sense as predicate. Except for the two ambiguous cases of Prov 12:28 and Job 24:25, the negative ‫ אל‬never seems to negate a non verbal element. 1.4 Dislocated Negations To these examples should be added four cases not mentioned by Qimron and that Kaddari considers as regular. They concern clauses where, as in 4Q417 2 i 9, the construction ‫ אל תקטול‬is dislocated to introduce a non-verbal element between the particle and the verb. Such constructions are explained by grammarians as an emphasis on the non-verbal component: “The position of ‫אל‬ (like that of ‫לא‬, § E) is immediately before the verb. Exceptions, for the sake of emphasis: Ps 6:2 ‫‘ אל באפך תוכיחני‬Do not reprimand me with anger,’ cf. 38,2; Isa 64,8 ; Jer 15,15” (JM, §160f; cf. GKC, §152h). I intend to examine each of these cases. 1.4.1 Ps 6:2 and Ps 38:2 In Ps 6:2 (and Ps 38:2 with few variations),28 we find this syntactic construction: ‫ל־ּב ֲח ָמ ְתָך ְתיַ ְּס ֵרנִ י‬ ַ ‫יחנִ י וְ ַא‬ ֵ ‫ֹתוכ‬ ִ ‫ל־ּב ַא ְּפָך‬ ְ ‫הוה ַא‬ ֗ ָ ְ‫“ י‬O Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger, or do not discipline me in your wrath.”29 Both prepositional groups, ‫ ְּב ַא ְּפָך‬and ‫( ַּב ֲח ָמ ְתָך‬as well as ‫ ְּב ֶק ְצ ְּפָך‬in Ps 38:2), should have been placed after the verb and the construction should have been ‫ֹתוכ ֵיחנִ י ְּב ַא ְּפָך וְ ַאל ְתיַ ְּס ֵרנִ י‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַאל‬ ‫ ַּב ֲח ָמ ְתָך‬. However, in these passages, we may consider that the negative ‫ אל‬does not negate the following verb but the prepositional group and that the verb ‫ היה‬is implied: ‫יחנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ֹתוכ‬ ִ ‫“ יְ הוָ ה ַאל (יהי) ְּב ַא ְּפָך‬O Lord, you can rebuke me but not in your anger.” Finally, they should be classified with cases of §1.1b. Indeed, the same idea is attested in Jer 10:24: ‫ל־ּב ַא ְּפָך‬ ְ ‫ְך־ּב ִמ ְׁש ָּפט ַא‬ ְ ‫“ יַ ְּס ֵרנִ י יְ הוָ ה ַא‬Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure; not in your anger.” Here, as the negative ‫ אל‬follows the imperative of ‫יסר‬, the same verb has to be supplied (cf. infra §1.1a). 1.4.2 Isa 64:8 In Isa 64:8, the formulation ‫ל־ל ַעד‬ ָ ‫ד־מאֹד וְ ַא‬ ְ ‫ל־ּת ְקצֹף יְ הוָ ה ַע‬ ִ ‫ל־ל ַעד ִּתזְ ּכֹר ( ַא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא‬ ‫“ ִּתזְ ּכֹר ָעֹון‬Do not be exceedingly angry, O Lord, and do not remember iniquity 28  MT: ‫ּוב ֲח ָמ ְתָך ְתיַ ְּס ֵרנִ י‬ ַ ‫יחנִ י‬ ֵ ‫תֹוכ‬ ִ ‫ל־ּב ֶק ְצ ְּפָך‬ ְ ‫“ יְ הוָ ה ַא‬O Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger, or discipline me in your wrath”; LXX: Κύριε, μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς με μηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς με; Tg: ‫יהוה לא ברוגזך תכסין יתי ולא בריתחך תרדי יתי‬. It is probable that the negative ‫ אל‬is missing before ‫ תיסרני‬by scribal error as suggested by the versions. 29  LXX: Κύριε, μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς με μηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς με; Tg: ‫יהוה לא ברוגזך‬ ‫תכנעני ולא בריתחך תרדי יתי‬.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

167

forever”)30 could be explained by comparison with the equivalent expressions ‫( לא לנצח‬Isa 28:28; 57:16; Ps 9:19; 103:9), ‫( לא לעולם‬Isa 57:16; Ps 103:9; Job 7:16; Prov 27:24), or ‫( לא עוד‬Isa 29:17 and Job 20:9), where the temporal complement is inserted between the negative particle and the verb. Such a syntactical construction is frequently found in biblical as well as in Qumran Hebrew (4Q200 1 ii 3; 6 2; 4Q446 1 2) and Aramaic (4Q537 1+2+3 2; 4Q538 1–2 6;31 4Q580 4 5)32 but only in indicative clauses with ‫לא‬. It is, therefore, legitimate to consider that the specific case of Isa 64:8 is an extension of this syntax to the prohibitive (cf. Exod 36:6 ‫ ;אל יעשו עוד‬CD 10:7 ‫)ואל יתיצב עוד‬. 1.4.3 Jer 15:15 The last example, Jer 15:15, is certainly the most complex: ‫ל־ל ֶא ֶרְך ַא ְּפָך ִּת ָּק ֵחנִ י ַּדע ְׂש ֵא ִתי ָע ֶליָך‬ ְ ‫ּופ ְק ֵדנִ י וְ ִהּנָ ֶקם ִלי ֵמר ְֹד ַפי ַא‬ ָ ‫ַא ָּתה יָ ַד ְע ָּת יְ הוָ ה זָ ְכ ֵרנִ י‬ ‫ֶח ְר ָּפה‬

O Lord, you know; remember me and visit me, and bring down retribution for me on my persecutors. In your forbearance do not take me away; know that on your account I suffer insult. The textual situation of the clause is ambiguous: the Septuagint (μὴ εἰς μακροθυμίαν), Targum (‫לבנִ י‬ ָ ‫רכא ְל ֻע‬ ָ ‫)וְ ָלא ִת ֵתן ַא‬, and Vetus Latina (non in longanimitate) do not translate ‫תקחני‬‎33 while Vulgate (noli in patientia tua suscipere ܿ ‫ )ܐܠ ܒܢܓܝܪܘܬ ܪܘܚܟ‬do. The former should either have me) and Peshitta (‫ܬܕܒܪܢܝ‬ had a Vorlage like ‫ אל תארך אפך‬or have corrected the syntactic ambiguity. In the MT, the clause must be interpreted as “do not let me die by your patience” (already in D. Kimchi, ‫אל תמיתני‬, “Do not kill me”).34 In that case, the negative ‫ אל‬does not negate the prepositional complement but rather the verb after it, as in 4Q417 2 i 9. Although the wording is textually ambiguous, this instance would be the only example of dislocated negation in biblical Hebrew. If ‫תקחני‬ is a later addition, then it could carry the features of post-classical Hebrew.35 30  LXX: καὶ μὴ ἐν καιρῷ μνησθῇς; Tg: ‫דכר‬ ַ ‫וְ ָלא ְל ָע ְל ָמא ִת‬. 31  ‫( ולא עוד יכל‬4Q538 1 6), but compare in the preceding line: ‫( ולא יכל עוד‬4Q538 2 4). 32  Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, §75d, 226. 33  For the sense of ‫ לקח‬in this clause, cf. Gen 5:24, Isa 53:8, and Ps 73:24. 34  See W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 1:351. 35  See J. Joosten, “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings

168 2

Rey

Special Usage of the Negative ‫ אל‬in Ben Sira and Qumran

The negative ‫ אל‬is especially common in Ben Sira and particularly in the prohibitive form ‫אל תקטול‬. Scholars like Kaddari and van Peursen36 have noticed some peculiarities that they identify as linguistic evolution: the use of ‫ אל‬in a predictive sense; the use of ‫ אל‬before the infinitive construct instead of ‫;אין‬ and the use of ‫ אל‬in nominal clauses. I would like to look more closely at these examples, because all of them appear to me textually ambiguous and raise some methodological questions. 2.1 Use of  ‫ אל‬in a Predictive Sense Van Peursen presents a list of examples where the negative ‫ אל‬is used in a predictive sense instead of the expected prohibitive.37 Such a characteristic was already noticed by Joüon in biblical Hebrew poetry (§114k) but the examples he gives are debatable.38 Concerning Ben Sira, as already noticed by van Peursen, wherever ‫ אל‬is used in a predictive sense instead of ‫ לא‬there are variations in the textual 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 forgotten” in MS A, this later is confirmed by 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.39 However, ms C, discovered in 2007, reads ‫ולא‬ ‫יעמוד‬, a reading confirmed by the quotation in Saadiah40 and the Greek (οὐ μή παραμείνῃ).

of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; STDJ 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108. 36  W. 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 (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 223–43. 37  Van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” 236. 38  Then in Ps 41:3 “you will not give him over” could also mean “Do not give him over,” and in Ps 50:3 “he will not remain quiet” could also be “do not remain quiet,” etc. 39  As already noticed by Kaddari, “The Negative Particle ʾal,” 202 and van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” 236. 40  ‫( ספר הגלוי‬ed. Harkavy), 178.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

169

In Sir 16:13 MS A, ‫אל ימלט בגזל עול‬, “A sinner does not escape with his spoil,” the negative ‫ אל‬has also been corrected into ‫ לא‬in the margin.41 Such textual variations challenge our attempt to reconstruct the historical evolution of Hebrew language. Indeed, is the use of ‫ אל‬in a predictive sense original (as lectio difficilior)? And in this case, is this characteristic a witness to a linguistic feature of the Hebrew language of the Hellenistic period? 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? 2.2 Use of  ‫ אל‬with the Infinitive Construct Instead of ‫אין‬ The same difficulty arises in Sir 39:34 where ‫ אל‬precedes an infinitive construct instead of the expected ‫“ אל לאמר זה רע מה זה( אין‬Not to tell: this is not good, what is this”). Kaddari considers the construction as a corruption resulting from the contamination of ‫ אל תאמר‬and ‫אין לאמר‬.42 But neither Kaddari nor van Peursen note that the marginal reading of manuscript B corrects the text to ‫אין לאמר‬. So here again, in which way should we take this example as a witness of linguistic evolution? Is the plain text the original reading and the marginal reading a later correction or the contrary? Van Peursen notices that such a similar expression occurs twice in 4Q393 3 3–4: ‫ללכת איש בשרירות לבו [הר]ע‬ ̇ ‫ו֗ אל‬, “Do not (allow) each to walk in the stubbornness of his [ev]il heart.”43 This construction could be explained by the development of the syntagm ‫ לא‬or ‫ אין‬+ ‫ לקטל‬in late biblical Hebrew to indicate obligation or prohibition44 combined with confusion between ‫ אל‬and ‫( לא‬cf., for example, the almost identical construction in 1QS 1:6 ‫ולוא ללכת עוד‬ ‫“ בשרירות לב אשמה‬and not to walk anymore in the stubbornness of a guilty heart”).45

41  We could add cases where ‫ אל‬is used in a negative final clause to express purposeconsecution (Sir 7:1 [MS A], 9:13 [MS A] and 38:12 [MS B in the margin, in opposition to the plain text ‫)]ולא‬. 42  Kaddari, “The Negative Particle ʾal,” 202. 43  Translation from Falk, DJD 29:55. 44 See J. Carmignac, “L’emploi de la négation ‫ אין‬dans la Bible et à Qumrân,” RevQ 8 (1974): 407–13, esp. 409–10; GKC, §114l; JM, §124l; Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, §400.12; van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” 227–28. 45  So Falk, DJD 29:56; van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” 230 n. 50, notes that the use of ‫ אל‬in 4Q393 “may be due to the different context: ‫ אל ללכת‬is part of a petition to God, not the expression of a negative command.”

170

Rey

Finally, van Peursen adds the complex case of Prov 31:4: ‫ֹמואל ַאל ַל ְמ ָל ִכים ְׁשֹתו־יָ יִ ן‬ ֵ ‫ַאל ַל ְמ ָל ִכים ׀ ְל‬

It is not for kings, O Lemuel,46 it is not for kings to drink wine47 Both uses of ‫ אל‬in this phrase raise difficulties insofar as they precede a nonverbal element and an infinitive construct for the latter.48 Nevertheless, they could easily be explained if we consider that both clauses are elliptical. The verb ‫ היה‬could be supplied and this example would be placed in category 1.1.b supra.49 2.3 Use of ‫ לא‬in Nominal Clauses: Ellipsis of the Verb The use of the negative ‫ אל‬in nominal clauses is attested only twice in the entire preserved corpus of Qumran texts, both in 4QInstruction: 4Q416 2 ii 9 // 4Q418 8 9 (set in bold Hebrew font, see also the same construction in 4Q417 2 i 21–22 // 4Q418 7 b 5 partially reconstructed): ‫[אל מנוח בנפשכה ואל תנומה לעיניכה‬ ]‫ מצוׁתיו‬10 ‫עד עשותכה‬, “[Let there be no rest for thy soul] or sleep for thy eyes, Until thou hast performed 10 [his commandments.”50 Here again, this example can be explained as a case where the jussive ‫ יהי‬is elliptical (cf. 1.1.b. supra). Nevertheless, it should be noticed that this construction is attested neither in Ben Sira nor elsewhere in Qumran and seems to disappear totally in Mishnaic Hebrew. Certainly the sentence of 4QInstruction is inspired by biblical language; see Prov 6:4, ‫נּומה ְל ַע ְפ ַע ֶּפיָך‬ ָ ‫ּות‬ ְ ‫ל־ּת ֵּתן ֵׁשנָ ה ְל ֵעינֶ יָך‬ ִ ‫“ ַא‬Give your eyes no sleep and your eyelids no slumber”51; Ps 132:4 (‫נּומה‬ ָ ‫ם־א ֵּתן ְׁשנַ ת ְל ֵעינָ י ְל ַע ְפ ַע ַּפי ְּת‬ ֶ ‫“ ִא‬I will not give sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids”) or by the Proverbs of Aḥiqar (TAD C.1.1.130–31) which has a comparable phrase in a similar context of loan and deposit: ‫“ אף [ה]ן תזף זפתא שלין לנפשך אל תשים עד תשלם‬Moreover, [i]f you

46  Kadari, The Negative Particle ʾal,” 201 n. 10, following Ibn Ezra and N. H. Torcyner, suggests reading ‫ למואל‬not as a proper name, but as an Aramaic-type infinitive of the root ‫אול‬: “it is not for kings to be foolish.” 47  LXX does not translate the negation (nor do the Targum and Syriac): “Do everything with counsel (βουλῆς = aram. ‫ ;)מלכא‬drink wine with counsel (μετὰ βουλῆς οἰνοπότει). Those in power are wrathful (θυμώδεις). Let them not drink wine (= ‫( ”)?אי שכר‬NETS). 48  The form is closer to an infinitive absolute ‫ ָׁשתֹו‬than to an infinitive construct ‫ׁשתֹות‬. ְ 49  See Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 886. 50  Trans. by Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34:93. 51  Note that the second group exhibits ellipsis of the negative ‫ אל‬as well as of the verb ‫נתן‬.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

171

take the loan, rest to your soul do not put (= give) until 131 [you repay] the [l] oan.” 2.4 Use of  ‫ אל‬in “Dislocated Negations” Finally, we might find one example of a dislocated negation, in Ben Sira 32:4, following the reading of MS F (parallel to MS B):52 ‫במקום שכל אל תשפך שיח ובלא מזמור אל שיח תשפך׃‬ ‫במקום היין אל תשפך שיח ובלא מזמר מה תשפך שיח ובל עת מה‬ ‫תתחכם׃‬

32:4F 3 2:4B

MS F: Do not pour out discourse in the hall of understanding, and without music do not pour out discourse. MS B: Do not pour out discourse53 in the banquet-hall and without music54 do not pour out discourse and do not display your wisdom at the wrong time. This verse seems to have suffered several alterations. Indeed, the first stich presents variants;55 the second stich, attested in MS F and MS B, is missing in Greek and Syriac;56 the third stich is present in MS B, the Greek, and the Syriac, but is missing in MS F; the second and third stichs are written on the same line in MS B, but in smaller script. In any event, ‫ אל שיח תשפך‬is a rare example of dislocated negation. Indeed, the negation probably falls on the verb and not on ‫ ִׂש ַיח‬which is the object of ‫שפך‬, and we cannot postulate an ellipsis. Nevertheless, MS B does not present the same construction: as regularly, the negation directly precedes the verb, and ‫ מה‬is used in place of ‫אל‬.57 So, although MS F presents a dislocated negation, MS B, on the contrary, follows the common syntax of the prohibitive (except in the use of ‫ מה‬in place 52  See A. Scheiber, “A Leaf of the Fourth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza,” Magyar Köyvszemle 98 (1982): 179–85; A. A. Di Lella, “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza,” Biblica 69 (1988): 226–38. 53  For ‫ ׂשיח‬in the sense of “word,” “discourse,” see Sir 13:11; 44:4. 54  This is the only attestation of ‫ מזמור‬outside of the Psalter and the Hodayot (1QHa 7:21; 25:34; 4Q403 1 i 40; 4Q427 3 4; 4Q448 1 1). 55  M S F: ‫ ;במקום שכל‬MS B: ‫ ;במקום היין‬LXX: ὅπου ἀκπόαμα (= ‫[ במקום האזין‬so SchechterTaylor]); Syr: ‫“ ܒܐܬܪܐ ܕܡܫܬܬܐ ܒܗ ܚܡܪܐ‬in place in which wine is drunk.” 56  Di Lella, “The Newly Discovered,” 233 considered this stich as secondary. 57  According to van Peursen, “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” 232, the particle ‫ מה‬has here the sense of ‫ אל‬as in 13:2; 41:4.

172

Rey

of ‫)אל‬. In a diachronic perspective, again, it seems difficult to claim the dislocated negation of MS F as a characteristic of a specific period in the history of Hebrew language. In the Qumran texts dislocated negations seem to be attested only twice:58 in the example of 4QInstruction (4Q417 2 i 9 [// 4Q416 2 i 3–5]) and in 4Q393 1 ii 2 7. And this latter is clearly problematic: ‫תה ֯ד ֯ף‬ ֯ ‫מלפניך‬ ̇ ‫“ ו̇ ֯א[ל רו] ֯ח נשברה‬Do n[ot] thrust the broken of [spir]it from before you.”59 This example is based solely on the restoration of Falk which presents difficulties: (1) although plausible, readings of alef and ḥet are uncertain;60 (2) as noted by Falk, the space between the two fragments is difficult to estimate, but is certainly too short for the restoration ‫( ו̇ ֯א[ל רו] ֯ח‬see the distance of both fragments with the complete preceding line); (3) it is not prudent to restore an unusual syntactic construction; (4) John Strugnell proposed another solution mentioned by Falk but not adopted: ‫ ̇ור[ו]ח נשברה מלפניך ̇ת ̇ת ̇ ̇ך‬, “and the broken spirit before Thee shall be melted away.” (5) Finally, it is better to read ‫תר ̇ד ̇ף‬ ̊ ‫“ ור[ו̊ ]ח נשברה מלפניך‬and you will drive out from you the broken spirit.”61 For these five reasons, it seems preferable to not retain this case in our analysis. 2.5 Conclusion Our analysis has shown the difficulty in drawing some conclusions on diachronic evolution in the use of the particle ‫אל‬. Indeed, in each case where the negative ‫ אל‬does not follow classical syntax, textual witnesses differ. For each one, it seems impossible to know which lesson testifies to the Hebrew of the second century BCE and which is a later corruption or evolution of the language.

58  Other cases where ‫ אל‬is followed by a non-verbal element are limited to biblical quotations: Ps 6:2 in 4Q177 2 i 12–13 and Joel 2:13 in 4Q266 11 5 // 4Q270 7 i 19. 59  Falk, DJD 29:55. 60  As noted by Falk, DJD 29:50: “It is extremely difficult to read crucial parts of these lines and to make good sense of them. I offer my reading in the transcription and translation with a discussion of the difficulties here, and in the comments below consider this proposal alongside the equally plausible restoration of Strugnell. Both rely on conjecture.” 61  For the reading ‫ת ֯ ׁׂרדׂף‬, see PAM 42.560 where the tav is entirely preserved, next the head of a reš and the end of its downstroke, after, head and shoulder are preferable for a dalet than to a reš, and finally the final pe is almost certain.

“ Dislocated Negations ”

3

173

“Dislocated Negation” with ‫ לא‬in Biblical Hebrew, Ben Sira, and Qumran

It is not the purpose of this study to examine the syntax of the negative ‫לא‬, however, it is necessary to know if our cases of “dislocated negation” with ‫אל‬ are or are not the result of syntactical contamination of the negative ‫לא‬. Do we observe “dislocated negations” with the particle ‫?לא‬ As with the negative ‫אל‬, generally the position of ‫ לא‬is immediately before the verb. But grammarians note that “this normal order can be relinquished, especially for the sake of emphasis.”62 If examples are more numerous than those with the negative ‫אל‬, we have to remember that: First, such constructions are never used in the vetitive, in which case the negative ‫ לא‬precedes the verb directly. Second, when a non-verbal constituent is inserted between the negative ‫ לא‬and the verb, most often the non-verbal constituent is predicative and the negative affects only it, for example: Num 16:29: ‫“ לא יהוה ְׁש ָל ָחנִ י‬the Lord has not sent me” (lit., “It is not the Lord who sent me)”; Ps 115:17: ‫לֹא ַה ֵּמ ִתים יְ ַה ְללּו־יָ ּה וְ לֹא‬ ‫דּומה‬ ָ ‫“ ָּכל־י ְֹר ֵדי‬The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence” (lit. “it is not the dead (who) praise the Lord, and it is not all those who go down into silence”). As with the negative ‫אל‬, these sentences exhibit ellipsis of the verb.63 Third, cases where the negation affects the verb and not the non-verbal constituent are rare;64 see, for example, Ps 49:18: ‫ִּכי לֹא ְבֹמוֹתו יִ ַּקח ַהּכֹל לֹא־יֵ ֵרד ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ‫“ ְּכֹבוֹדו‬For when they die they will carry nothing away; their wealth will not go down after them.” One can hardly translate “For it is not in his death that he shall carry all away.” Here, the predicate is clearly the verb ‫ לקח‬and the negation concerns the verb and not ‫ ְבֹמוֹתו‬. Classical syntax would have had: ‫ִּכי לֹא‬ ‫יִ ַּקח ַהּכֹל ְבֹמוֹתו‬, or for emphasis ‫( ִּכי ְבֹמוֹתו לֹא יִ ַּקח ַהּכֹל‬see also Qoh 10:10; 2 Chr 32:25). Clear examples do not seem to be attested in Qumran Hebrew,65 and only one in Sir 14:12: ‫“ לא מות יתמהמה‬Death does not tarry” (and not: “it is not the death which shall tarry”). This unusual syntax is not preserved in the quotation of this clause in b. ʿErub. 54a: ‫ואין למות התמהמה‬. In conclusion, we cannot attribute the prohibitive “dislocated negation” with ‫ אל‬to a confusion with the syntax of negative ‫לא‬. 62  J M, §160e. 63  See Miller-Naudé, “Ellipsis: Biblical Hebrew,” 810. 64  I have not taken into account constructions like ‫ לא לנצח‬,‫לא עוד‬, or ‫לא לעולם‬. 65  The construction ‫ לא עוד‬followed by a verb is attested twice. Cases such as 1QS 4:18, ‫כיא‬ ‫לוא יחד יתהלכו‬, or 4Q460 9 i 5, ‫כ]יא לוא אתה עזבתה לעבדכה‬ ̊ “for you have not abandoned your servant,” are ambiguous (cf. 1 Chr 17:4 and Gen 45:8).

174

Rey

4 Conclusion We can now summarize the result of our analysis: (1) In classical Hebrew, in addition to the prohibitive construction ‫אל תקטול‬, the negative ‫ אל‬is used sporadically in nominal clauses. I suggested classifying these uses in two categories: (a) when the verb is elliptical, only attested in poetry; and (b) when ‫ אל‬is used in an absolute sense, only in direct discourse. All the other cases present textual ambiguities. This use of ‫ אל‬in nominal clauses seems to disappear in post-biblical Hebrew and possibly already in late biblical Hebrew. In Qumran Hebrew, the only exception is 4Q416 2 ii 9 // 4Q418 8 9 : ‫[אל מנוח בנפשכה וא]ל תנומה לעיניכה עד עשותכה [מ ̇צותיו‬. (2) In the book of Ben Sira, syntactic variations in the use of ‫ אל‬raise methodological problems. Indeed, each specific case presents variations among the textual witnesses and challenges all diachronic typology of the language. Predictive use of ‫אל‬, use of ‫ אל‬before the infinitive construct, and dislocated negations are certainly evidence in favor of a linguistic evolution, but which could hardly be dated without risk to the second century BCE. (3) Qumran texts, except biblical quotations and the two exceptions of 4QInstruction, attest exclusively the use of the negative ‫ אל‬before the verb (including one case before the infinitive construct in 4Q393 3 3–4). (4) After examination, dislocated negation, as attested in 4Q417 2 i 9, seems only to appear in Jer 15:15 and Sir 32,4 (4Q393 1 ii 2 7 certainly has to be rejected). Nevertheless, both examples are textually ambiguous. The former may be the result of a later addition and in consequence would belong to late biblical Hebrew. The latter is hard to estimate in a diachronic perspective. (5) This construction can hardly be attributed to confusion with the negative ‫לא‬, since the same construction with the negative ‫ לא‬in the vetitive seems not to be attested. (6) Examples of dislocated negation are too tenuous to characterize a linguistic evolution or to be syntactically normative. Such cases may have to be classified as hyperbata. This trope defines wavering between grammatical and rhetorical fields66 and characterizes “tout déplacement syntaxique engendrant un relief jugé exemplaire, et par là figural, au contact du discours et de ses récepteurs.”67 66  See Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 8.6.62–67; M. Bonhomme, “Entre grammaire et rhétorique. L’hyperbate comme extraposition problématique,” in Les linguistiques du détachement: Actes du colloque international de Nancy (7–9 juin 2006) (ed. D. Apothélos, B. Combettes, and F. Neuveu; Sciences pour la communication 87; Bern: Lang, 2009), 117–28, esp. 118–20. 67  Bonhomme, “Entre grammaire et rhétorique,” 122.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫מדהבה‬ in the DSS Francesco Zanella Introduction This paper examines the semantic value of the Hebrew substantive ‫מדהבה‬ in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS).1 For the lexicographer, ‫מדהבה‬ presents quite an intriguing and challenging case indeed: a problematic and disputed hapax legomenon in Biblical Hebrew (= BH; Isa 14:4), ‫ מדהבה‬does not seem to have any cognate words,2 nor—according to the major concordances and dictionaries—is it attested in Mishnaic Hebrew (= MH).3 Unexpectedly, however, the lexeme occurs at least four times in Qumranic Hebrew (= QH). The repeated usage of the substantive in the DSS is quite surprising. It becomes even more puzzling if one considers that the Scrolls attest to two further lexemes, ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫( מדהב‬perhaps variants of ‫)?מדהבה‬, which happen to be unknown to both BH and MH. These lexemes shall also be investigated here * I am grateful to Prof. Pierre Van Hecke and Prof. Eibert Tigchelaar for inviting me to take part in this prestigious symposium. I am also grateful to those scholars, among others Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher, Prof. Jan Joosten, and Dr. Noam Mizrahi, who gave me precious advices during the discussion that followed the presentation of the paper, thus helping me to deal with the intriguing and difficult topic I chose. 1  The background of the present paper is the article on the lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬which I wrote for the second volume of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten (ThWQ), edited by Prof. H.-J. Fabry and Prof. U. Dahmen. 2  Cf. the entries for ‫ מדהבה‬in DCH, HAL, and HAHAT. 3  The data concerning MH results from the consultation of the major concordances to the Tannaitic corpus: Ch. Y. Kasowsky, Thesaurus Mishnae: Concordantiae verborum quae in sex Mishnae ordinibus reperiuntur (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Massada Publishing, 1956–1960]; Kasowsky, Thesaurus Thosephtae: Concordantiae verborum quae in sex Thosaephtae ordinibus reperiuntur (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Massada Publishing, 1932–1961); B. Kosowsky, Concordantiae Verborum quae in Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael reperiuntur (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Massada Publishing, 1965– 1969]; Kosowsky, Concordantiae Verborum que in Sifra reperiuntur (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Massada Publishing, 1967–1969); Kosowsky, Concordantiae Verborum que in Sifrei Numeri et Deuteronomium reperiuntur (5 vols.; Jerusalem: Massada Publishing, 1971–1974); and lexica: M. Jastrow, The Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bavli, and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic literature (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006) and J. Levi, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols.; Berlin, Vienna: Verlag Benjamin Harz, 1924).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299313_012

176

Zanella

in order to identify the possible sense-relations (perhaps even of interchange­ ability?) between them and ‫מדהבה‬. The working hypothesis of this paper is as follows: The repeated usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in QH might imply that some scribal circles authoring the DSS were actually able to give ‫ מדהבה‬a specific meaning and to use it consistently. In light of this hypothesis, the present paper will search for semantic consistency in the use of the word in the DSS, in order to ascertain (a) whether the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS points to recurrent patterns of semantic and lexical relations that qualify its meaning, and—if the use of the lexeme actually goes back to Isa 14:4—(b) whether such semantic patterns are consistent with the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in this biblical passage. In order to exhaustively draw the possible lines of the semantic development of ‫ מדהבה‬between Hebrew Bible and DSS, the present paper approaches the problem of the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬within the framework of the semantic methodology known as “Componential Analysis of Meaning.”4 To conclude, this paper argues against the assessment of ‫ מדהבה‬as a coincidental case and as a mere biblicism, and demonstrates instead that the usage of this lexeme in the DSS points to an intentional lexical choice aimed at expressing a specific concept. 1

Distributional Analysis

1.1 ‫מדהבה‬ The first problem concerning the substantive ‫ מדהבה‬arises with the very calculation of its occurrences. According to the concordances to the non-biblical Qumran texts, ‫ מדהבה‬is attested seven times (including doublets): four occurrences belong to the Hodayot (1QHa 11:26; 20:21; 4Q427 [4QHa] 7 ii 3 par. 4Q431 [4QHe] 2 2) whereas the remaining three are attested in 4QInstruction (4Q416 2 ii 14; 4Q418a 16 3; 4Q418 176 3).5 4  For an exhaustive description of the approach of Componential Analysis to the semantic study of Ancient Hebrew, cf. F. Zanella, The Lexical Field of the Substantives of “Gift” in Ancient Hebrew (SSN 54; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 12–61 and Zanella, “Componential Analysis of Meaning,” EHLL 1:511–17. As far as the role of Componential Analysis of meaning for the purposes of the present paper is concerned, cf. “Afterword” below. 5  Cf. M. G. Abegg, Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume One: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). At this point of the investigation the count of the occurrences still includes doublets.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS TABLE 1

177

Distribution of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

Distribution of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

4x in the Hodayot

1QHa 11:26; 20:21; 4Q427 7 ii 3 par. 4Q431 2 2

3x in 4QInstruction

4Q416 2 ii 14; 4Q418a 16 3; 4Q418 176 3

This distributional data can be improved. For morphological reasons, two occurrences should be excluded as irrelevant (4Q416 2 ii 14; 4Q418a 16 3). The forms ‫( מדהבכה‬4Q416 2 ii 14) and ‫( מדהביכה‬4Q418a 16 3) are in fact morphologically incompatible with the pattern of a substantive fem. sing/pl. + suffix, which in QH also follows the standard rules of classical Hebrew: in the case of ‫מדהבה‬, then, one would expect ‫( מדהבתכה‬not ‫)מדהבכה‬6 and ‫מדהבותיכה‬ (and not ‫)מדהביכה‬.7 These forms can either be regarded as participles (Piel) of the root ‫דהב‬,8 or be understood as reflecting a *maqtal substantive, hence ‫מדהב‬.9 Furthermore, in light of 4Q427 (4QHa) 7 ii 3 and the parallel occurrence in 4Q431 (4QHe) 2 2, DJD 40 reconstructs the occurrence of ‫ מדהבה‬in 1QHa 26:21. To sum up, if one follows DJD 40, one counts six occurrences altogether (including doublets): five are attested in the Hodayot and one in 4QInstruction.10

6   Cf., e.g., ‫( תורתכה‬4Q175 1 18). 7   Cf., e.g., ‫( נדבותיכם‬4Q366 4 i 7 etc.). 8   Following J. Strugnell and D. T. Harrington, DJD 34:104 and HAHAT, 632): in this regard, one should note that that the Hebrew DSS do not seem to know this (Aramaising) root. 9   For the *maqtal pattern, cf., e.g., P. Joüon A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka; SubBi 14; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), esp. 257–58. See below, 1.3. 10  This calculation includes doublets.

178 table 2

Zanella Improved distribution of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

Distribution of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS—a possible improvement

5x in the Hodayot

1QHa 11:26; 20:21; 1QHa 26:21 par. 4Q427 7 ii 3 par. 4Q431 2 2 par.

1x in 4QInstruction

4Q418 176 3

1.2 ‫מדהוב‬ In the Hebrew DSS the substantive ‫ מדהוב‬is attested three times.11 table 3

Distribution of ‫ מדהוב‬in the DSS

Distribution of ‫ מדהוב‬in the DSS

2x in D

CD 13:9 par. 4Q267 9 iv 6

1x in H

1QHa 19:4

1.3 ‫מדהב‬ The present distributional analysis also takes account of the two occurrences of the (possibly) nominal form ‫מדהב‬, which is considered here in order to have more data available for the assessment of the lexeme under investigation.12 table 4

Distribution of ‫ מדהב‬in the DSS

Distribution of ‫ מדהב‬in the DSS

4QInstruction

4Q416 2 ii 14; 4Q418a 16 3

11  This calculation includes doublets. 12  For an alternative assessment of the occurrences as Piel participles of the root ‫ דהב‬see above 1.1.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

179

1.4 ‫מדהבה‬: An Idiolect of the DSS? If one were to extend the distributional analysis of ‫ מדהבה‬across the whole corpus of Ancient Hebrew, one would notice that the lexeme is not attested: (a) in the Hebrew sections of Ben Sira, (b) in the later post-Classical corpora from the Judean Desert, or (c) in the main writings of Tannaitic literature. In light of such a peculiar distribution, one may be tempted to consider the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬as an idiolect of the DSS, which probably alludes to the language use of Isaiah. For an exhaustive evaluation of the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS, the following two aspects should be taken into consideration. (a) The first aspect concerns the issue of the concrete influence of the language of Isa 14:4 on the use of ‫ מדהבה‬in the Scrolls. In my view, it is plausible to assume this influence: the group(s) authoring the DSS show(s) a high acquaintance with what we call “Biblical text,” particularly with the writings and the language of Isaiah. It is therefore quite possible that the use of ‫מדהבה‬ in the DSS explicitly goes back to Isa 14:4 or, at least, to its Qumranic reception and interpretation. The semantic investigation of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS confirms this assumption. (b) The second aspect concerns the issue of a possible “sectarian” use of the lexeme. Unfortunately, at present, we do not have enough pieces of evidence to demonstrate whether ‫ מדהבה‬can be understood as a distinctive lexical feature of the writings of the community, even if it is the case that ‫ מדהבה‬occurs in writings that—according to Devorah Dimant—should be considered as “sectarian.”13 If one follows Dimant’s results, one might even consider ‫מדהבה‬ as a lexeme belonging to the “sectarian” idiolect. 2

The Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in BH

If the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS goes back to Isa 14:4, and if at that time the current Isaiah text corresponded to our Masoretic Text (= MT),14 then one can 13  See, e.g., D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58; Dimant, “The Vocabulary of Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Qumran und die Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte (ed. J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler; WUNT 278; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 347–95; J. G. Campbell, “The Qumran Sectarian Writings,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 798–821, esp. 802–5, as well as Zanella, The Lexical Field, 28–33. According to Dimant 4QInstruction should be considered as definitely “sectarian.” This opinion, however, does not rely on scholarly consensus. 14  According to 1QIsaa, this is not so clear-cut (see below, 2.2.1.).

180

Zanella

plausibly assume that the context of this particular biblical passage contains all the pieces of information available to those who intentionally chose to use this word in their writings. In Isa 14:4 ‫ מדהבה‬occurs at the beginning of an oracle uttered against the King of Babylon. The context of the usage of ‫מדהבה‬

table 5

‫ד־ּבְך׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ן־ה ֲעב ָ ֹ֥דה ַה ָּק ָ ׁ֖שה ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר ֻע ַּב‬ ָ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‫ּומ ָרגְ ֶז�ָ֑ך‬ ֵ ֖‫וְ ָה ָ֗יה ְּבֹי֨ ום ָה ִנ ַ֤יח יְ הוָ ֙ה ְל ָ֔ך ֵ ֽמ ָע ְצ ְּבָך‬ ‫ל־מ ֶלְך ָּב ֶ ֖בל וְ ָא ָ ֑מ ְר ָּת ֵ ֚איְך ָׁש ַ ֣בת נ ֔ ֵֹגׂש ָׁש ְב ָ ֖תה ַמ ְד ֵה ָ ֽבה׃‬ ֥ ֶ ‫את ַה ָּמ ָ ׁ֥של ַה ֶּז֛ה ַע‬ ָ ‫וְ נָ ָׂ֜ש‬ ‫הו֖ה ַמ ֵ ּ֣טה ְר ָׁש ִ ֑עים ֵ ׁ֖ש ֶבט מ ְֹׁש ִ ֽלים׃‬ ָ ְ‫ָׁש ַ ֥בר י‬ ‫ל־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ָּפ ְצ ֖חּו ִר ָ ּֽנה‬ ָ ‫ָנ ָ֥חה ָׁש ְק ָ ֖טה ָּכ‬ ‫ֹרוׁשים ָׂש ְמ ֥חּו ְלָך֖ ַא ְר ֵז֣י ְל ָבֹנ֑ ו ן‬ ֛ ִ ‫ם־ּב‬ ְ ַ‫ּג‬

3. 4. 5. 7. 8.

3 4 5 7 8

and it shall come to pass in the day in which YHWH shall give you rest from your pain and from your agitation, and from the hard labour, which was worked on you, and you shall lift up this poem against the king of Babylon, and say: “How has the oppressor ceased! The ‫ ַמ ְד ֵה ָבה‬has ceased! YHWH has broken the staff of the wicked ones and the sceptre of the rulers. The whole earth is at rest, it is quiet: they break forth into singing. Even the cypress trees rejoice over you, the cedars of Lebanon.”

2.1 ‫מדהבה‬: A Poetical Lexeme The passage in which ‫ מדהבה‬occurs is explicitly referred to in the Hebrew text as a māšāl, a word that may denote both a “poem” and a “satirical song.” The sentence introducing the māšāl (‫ל־מ ֶלְך ָּב ֶ ֖בל וְ ָא ָ ֑מ ְר ָּת‬ ֥ ֶ ‫את ַה ָּמ ָ ׁ֥של ַה ֶּז֛ה ַע‬ ָ ‫ )וְ נָ ָׂ֜ש‬functions as a clear text marker, which explicitly separates the content and language of the main text from the content and the language of the māšāl. Linguistically, a poem or a song is qualified by a language-use which deliberately deviates from the linguistic norm according to the rules of a specific genre. A poem, or a song, is not only subject to the rules of prosody (metre, assonance, parallelismus membrorum, and the like) but it is also likely to use a specific vocabulary, which may consist of archaisms, dialectal lexemes, loan-

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

181

words, etc.15 Against such an extraordinary linguistic framework, therefore, the usage of words like ‫ מדהבה‬should not be particularly surprising. The precise meaning and translation of ‫מדהבה‬: A past and present problem Surprisingly or not, the lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬presented (and still presents) a problem for most of its translators (and for lexicographers as well!).16 After a rough overview of the ancient translations, besides ἐπισπουδαστής (“oppressor”),17 one finds the renderings tributum (“tribute, tax”),18 φορολογία (“tax collection”),19 and fames (“famine”).20 This rather wide range of meanings is shared by modern translators as well: besides “Tyrann”21 and “Anstürmer” (“oppressor”),22 one finds “oppression,”23 “oppressive tax-gatherer,”24 and “tax-collection(?),”25 not to mention “the golden city.”26 The diverse translations, roughly summarised here, point not only to the fact that the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬presents an enigma, but they also show that ‫מדהבה‬ has repeatedly been understood as referring to something distressing: whether such distress is of a political (tyrant), physiological (hunger), or financial (tribute, tax collection) kind, is merely left to the interpretation of the translators.27 2.2

15  According to H. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27 (BKAT 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 543, it is not unlikely that the satirical song in Isa 14:4 attests to beliefs, ideas, images, and even expressions of an extra-Israelite provenance. 16  Surprisingly enough, the word ‫ מדהבה‬is known by “Google-Translator.” 17  Cf. LXX. 18  Cf. Vulg. 19  Cf. Symmachus and Theodotion. 20  Aquila according to Jerome. 21  Wildberger, 531. 22  W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaia 13–27 (HTKAT 35: Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 49. 23  Cf. E. Chazon, DJD 29:206. 24  Cf. Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34:93. 25  Ibid., 399. 26  So, according to KJV. On the relationship between the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬and the Aramaic lexeme ‫“( דהב‬gold”) see below, 2.3. 27  Linguistically, the substantial lack of explicit lexical relations between ‫ מדהבה‬and lexemes belonging to the financial sphere of language would exclude any references of the lexeme to the collection of tributes or to economic oppression.

182

Zanella

2.2.1 ‫ מדהבה‬or ‫?מרהבה‬ A further possible way to approach the problem of the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬is to assume that the present spelling of the word reflects a mistake. It has been suggested to emend the form ‫ מדהבה‬to ‫מרהבה‬, thus connecting the word to the root ‫“( רהב‬to attack, to storm”).28 Interestingly enough, such an “emended” form turns out to be a genuine variant, since it is attested in the Isaiah Scroll (Isa 14:4 = 1QIsaa 12:7).29 The occurrence of the ‫ מרהבה‬in 1QIsaa in fact complicates our case. If the variant attested in the Isaiah Scrolls corresponds to the correct form of our word, where do the six occurrences of the word with dalet—hence compatible with the MT—come from? Do they really originate from a spelling mistake? In light of the scanty data available, I believe that, if one is still interested in determining the meaning of ‫ מרהבה‬/ ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS, the fascinating quest for the correct and original spelling of the word should be put aside. Rather, one may try to see the problem from a semantic perspective. This means that one should move the focus of the investigation and deal with questions such as the following ones: to which semantic domain does ‫ מדהבה‬belong? Which concept(s) is it likely to lexicalise? How can a possible relationship to Isa 14:4 be proven? And, in this regard, does ‫ מדהבה‬merely represent, like Beuken argues, “eine gelehrte Übernahme eines im Grunde unbekannten Ausdrucks,”30 or, rather, do the DSS point to an intentional and consistent usage of the substantive? If, as we assume, the use of ‫ מדהבה‬in the scrolls relates to Isa 14:4, than the quest for the “Qumranic meaning” of ‫ מדהבה‬must be closely connected either with its biblical meaning or, at least, to the Qumranic reception of the “satirical song” of Isa 14:4, thus reflecting the way in which some Qumran scribal circles understood the meaning of the word. 2.2.2 ‫מדהבה‬, a “ghost word”? In the quest for the original meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬one may take into account a further perspective: the most diverse translations of ‫ מדהבה‬mentioned above31 might indicate the fact that both past and present translators did not actually understand the linguistic meaning of ‫מדהבה‬: instead, they merely grasped 28  See, e.g., the critical apparatus of the BHS. 29  Unfortunately, no further pieces of evidence are available: among the biblical and nonbiblical Qumran scrolls, only a further quotation from Isa 14:4 is found (4Q57 8 8): in the very place where ‫ מדהבה‬would be, the text unfortunately presents a lacuna. 30  Beuken, Jesaia, 49. 31  Cf. above 2.2.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

183

its contextualised meaning, and assumed that this would correspond to its semantic value.32 This particular kind of lexicographical mistake may also be reflected in the Qumranic usage of ‫מדהבה‬: the scribal circles, which intentionally used ‫ מדהבה‬in their writings, may have picked out this word simply because they aimed to allude to Isa 14:4. In this respect, they may have used the otherwise unknown substantive ‫ מדהבה‬with a meaning that they deducted from the context of Isa 14:4 but that did not necessarily correspond to its original meaning, thus giving birth to a “ghost word.”33 In this regard, one may explain the use of ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS as a “pseudo-classicism,” namely a word whose existence is solely due to the scribal culture.34 Against this framework, the first step to be taken in order to understand the Qumranic understanding of the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬is to go back to the text and the context of the biblical māšāl and try to see what the Qumranic reception might have been. 2.3 The Content of the māšāl and the Contextual Meaning of ‫מדהבה‬ The passage in Isa 14 celebrates the fall of the world power Babylon, thereby glorifying God’s saving might and pointing to the resulting period of liberation and rest for the whole earth. From a semantic point of view, one can see that the context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬here clearly consists of three distinct lexical domains, which the following table displays.

32  For a distinction between linguistic meaning and contextualised use of the meaning, see, e.g., Zanella, The Lexical Field, 15–19. 33  In the discussion that followed the presentation of the paper, Prof. Bar-Asher argued that in his view ‫( מדהבה‬plausibly derived from the Aramaic ‫דהב‬, “gold”) denotes in Isa 14:4 a “golden staff,” namely the sceptre of the king of Babylon. 34  Concerning the role of “pseudo-classicisms” in the later layers of the Hebrew language, see J. Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira and in Qumran Hebrew,” 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. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33, Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–59.

184 table 6

Zanella The semantic background of the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in Isa 14:3–7

Semantic domains in Isa 14:3–7

1. Distressing and threatening circumstances

Relevant lexemes

‫נֹגֵ ׂש‬

“oppressor”

‫ָע ְצ ְּבָך‬

“your pain”

‫ָרגְ זֶ ָך‬

“your agitation”

‫ַמ ֵּטה‬

“staff,” “rod”; i.e. violence and submission

‫ָה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָּק ָׁשה‬ ‫ְר ָׁש ִעים‬ 2. Pleasant and peaceful circumstances

‫נוח‬

‫שקט‬ ‫ָּפ ְצחּו ִרּנָ ה‬

‫שמח‬ ‫מן‬

3. End, ceasing (through destruction)

Meaning

“the hard labour” i.e. slavery “wicked ones” “rest”

“quiet” “they have broken out with joyous shout”; i.e. satisfaction and joy “to rejoice” “away from”; i.e. distance from distressing circumstances; cf. v.3

‫שבת‬

“to come to an end”

‫שבר‬

“to break in pieces”

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

185

(a) First of all, one finds a cluster of lexemes denoting distressing and threatening circumstances, such as oppression (‫ ;נֹגֵ ׂש‬v. 4), pain (‫ ; ָע ְצ ְּבָך‬v. 3), agitation, (‫ ; ָרגְ זֶ ָך‬v. 3), violence, submission (‫ ; ַמ ֵּטה‬v. 3), and slavery (‫ ; ָה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָּק ָׁשה‬v. 3). The explicit relationship between such distressing circumstances and the wicked ones (‫ ; ַמ ֵּטה ְר ָׁש ִעים‬v. 5) sets this first semantic domain within an unequivocal theological framework. Moreover, as the recurrent references to the 2 person sg. indicate, these distressing situations directly involve and affect the addressee of the prophetic speech, namely the one who is due to sing the māšāl. Furthermore, semantically, the clear-cut parallelism between the lexemes ‫“( נֹגֵ ׂש‬oppressor”) and ‫ מדהבה‬in v. 4 may suggest that ‫ מדהבה‬itself belongs, in part at least, to this first semantic domain. (b) Secondly, there is a group of words which lexicalise the opposite pole, thus denoting rest (‫ ;נוח‬v. 3, 7), quiet (‫ ;שקט‬v. 7), satisfaction, and joy (‫; ָּפ ְצחּו ִרּנָ ה‬ ‫) ָׂש ְמחּו‬. Such positively connoted situations and circumstances are explicitly described as being far away from (‫ )מן‬the distress mentioned above (cf. v. 3: ‫ן־ה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָּק ָׁשה‬ ָ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‫ּומ ָרגְ זֶ ָך‬ ֵ ‫“ ֵמ ָע ְצ ְּבָך‬away from your pain and from your agitation, and from the hard labour”). (c) Finally, there are lexemes denoting both the ceasing (‫ ;שבת‬2 times, v. 4) and the destruction (‫ ;שבר‬v. 5) of any kind of distressing and threatening situations. The end of any oppression results from divine destruction, which prepares the way to a final and global period of quiet. Against its particular context of usage, the lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬seems to refer to an oppressing, threatening, and unsettling situation or condition—a sort of calamity—which has come to an end thanks to divine intervention. 3

The Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in QH

3.1 4QHa 7 ii 2–7 par. 1QHa 26:21 and 4QHe 2 2: A Less Concrete Usage of ‫מדהבה‬

To begin with, one may want to refer to the passage in 4QHa 7 ii 2–7 (par. 1QHa 26:21 and 4QHe 2 2), which attests to a clear-cut allusion to Isa 14:4.

186 table 7

Zanella The context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in 4QHa 7 ii 2–7

‫ותמה רשעה‬ [    ‫הבה[ שבת נוגש בזעם‬ ֯ ‫מ]ד‬ ֯ ‫ושבתה‬ [ ]‫וש[מחה תביע אבד‬ ֯ ‫[כלת]ה ֯ר ֯מי֯ ֯ה ו֯ ֯אי֯ ן֯ נעוות בלוא דעת הופיע אור‬ ֯ ]‫אבל ונס יגון הופיע שלום שבת פחד נפתח מקור לב[רכת עד‬ ]‫ומרפא בכול קצי עולם כלה עו֯ ון שבת נגע לאין מחל[ה נאספה עולה‬ ‫]ע[וד‬ ֯ ‫[ואשמ]ה̇ לו֯ ֯א[ תהיה‬ ]

2 3 ‭4‬ 5 6 7

2. [ and wickedness perishes ] 3. [ and op]pression[ ceases; the oppressor ceases; with indignation 4. deceit [end]s, and there are no witless perversities; light appears, and j[oy pours forth] 5. grief [disappears], and groaning flees; peace appears, terror ceases; a fountain is opened for [eternal ]bles[sing] 6. and (for) healing for all times everlasting; iniquity ends, affliction ceases so that there is no more sick[ness; injustice is removed,] 7. [and guil]t is no m[ore. (Translation according to DJD 29)

The immediate context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in v. 3 is very close to that of Isa 14:4, even if it does not represent a literal quotation. The MT reads ‫ָׁש ַ ֣בת נ ֔ ֵֹגׂש ָׁש ְב ָ ֖תה‬ ‫ ַמ ְד ֵה ָ ֽבה‬whereas the Qumran text in 4QHe, which changes the word order, reads ‫“( ושבתה מדהבה שבת נוגש‬and ceased the ‫מדהבה‬, ceased the oppressor”). This very first piece of evidence may imply a high degree of consistency in content between this passage and the ‫ משל‬of Isaiah, which an exhaustive analysis of both vocabulary and content of this Hodayot text clearly demonstrates. As a matter of fact, the whole vocabulary of 4QHa 7 ii 2–7 (par. 1QHa 26:21 and 4QHe 2 2) is organised according to clusters of lexical relations which are highly compatible with those identified in Isa 14:2–7. Firstly, one finds a negative pole consisting of lexemes referring to distressing and threatening circumstances, such as oppression (‫ ;נוגש‬line 3), grief (‫;אבל‬ line 5), groaning (‫ ;יגון‬line 5), affliction, plague (‫ ;נגע‬line 6), sickness (‫;מחלה‬ line 6), terror (‫ ;פחד‬line 5), wickedness (‫ ;רשעה‬line 2), deceit (‫ ;רמיה‬line 4), senseless perversities (‫ ;נעוות בלוא דעת‬line 4), iniquity (‫ ;עוון‬line 6), injustice (‫ ;עולה‬line 6), and guilt (‫ ;אשמה‬line 7). Secondly, there is a positive pole consisting of lexemes referring to peace (‫ ;שלום‬line 5), joy (‫ ;שמחה‬line 4), light (‫ ;אור‬line 4), healing (‫ ;מרפא‬line 6), and blessing (‫ ;מקור לברכת עד‬line 5).

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

187

Finally, one may identify a cluster of verbs denoting the ceasing of something and its non-existence: besides the known ‫“( שבת‬to come to an end”), which occurs altogether four times (twice in line 3, once in lines 5 and 7 respectively), one finds ‫“( כלה‬to end,” “to complete,” “to destroy”; line 4), ‫ מות‬and ‫אבד‬ (“to perish”; lines 2 and 4 respectively), ‫“( נוס‬to flee”; line 5), ‫“( אין‬not to be”; line 4) and ‫“( לא תהיה עוד‬no longer be”; line 7). Within this particular cluster of lexemes one should also list three further verbs that actually lexicalise the opposite situation, namely the appearance and the beginning of something: ‫( יפע‬Hiphil “to appear”; twice, lines 4 and 5), ‫( פתח‬Niphal “to be opened”; line 5), and ‫( נבע‬Hiphil “to pour forth”; line 4) . Compared to Isa 14, this passage from the Hodayot seems to display some significant developments in vocabulary and concepts. Each one of the three main semantic domains qualifying the vocabulary of Isa 14:2–7 is here subject to striking extensions. Besides the usage of key-words from the biblical passage (‫שבת‬, ‫נוגש‬, and ‫)רשעה‬, the Hodayot text includes new lexemes and omits some other lexemes, thus providing a new configuration and definition of both vocabulary and concepts of the original text. Concerning the first cluster of lexemes (words referring to distressing and threatening circumstances) the following two data are worth mentioning: (a) First of all, the lexemes in the biblical passage that refer to concrete— perhaps even historically traceable—distressing circumstances, such as slavery, violence, or submission, are left out. Instead, the Hodayot text uses words referring to a more abstract, theoretical kind of distress, which instead affects the inner part of the human nature, such as grief, groaning, terror, and the like. (b) Secondly, the reference to the domain of the ungodly, which in Isaiah is only mentioned once (‫) ְר ָׁש ִעים‬, plays a key role here and almost constitutes an independent cluster of terms. Starting from ‫רשעה‬, which goes back to Isa 14, the Hodayot passage uses many words belonging to the semantic field of guilt and iniquity. A similar tendency to abstraction also applies to the second cluster of lexemes (words referring to pleasant and peaceful situations). In comparison with Isaiah one may note here the overwhelming presence of lexemes and phrases qualified by a theologically positive association (such as ‫אור‬, ‫מרפא‬, ‫)מקור לברכת עד‬, which is in fact meant to stand in contrast to the domain of the ungodly reflected by the first cluster of lexemes. The third cluster of lexemes (words referring to ceasing and coming to an end) reflects traces of a significant extension, as well. On the one hand, the recurrent usage of the verb ‫( שבת‬four times), which clearly goes back to Isa 14, is strengthened by the use of the close synonym ‫ כלה‬and by further expressions referring to “not being.” On the other hand, the biblical reference to the concrete “destruction of the rod of the wicked ones” (‫הו֖ה ַמ ֵ ּ֣טה ְר ָׁש ִעים‬ ָ ְ‫) ָׁש ַ ֥בר י‬

188

Zanella

seems here to become a more abstract reference to the perishing, decaying, and dissipation of the whole ungodly domain, to which the lexeme ‫מדהבה‬ clearly belongs. To sum up, the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in 4QHa 7 ii 2–7 (par. 1QHa 26:21 and 4QHe 2 2) seems to go back intentionally to the context of Isa 14:2–7; the lexeme is used here with reference to something that is (a) distressing, (b) belonging to the ungodly domain, and (c) supposed to dissipate due to divine intervention (d) in order to leave the place with a period of peace and blessing. 3.2 1QHa 20:21: Eschatological nuances of ‫מדהבה‬ A very similar usage of ‫ מדהבה‬can be found in 1QHa 20,21, where the meaning of the substantive might even gain a thus far unknown eschatological nuance. table 8

The context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in 1QHa 20:21

[‫מ]פחד רשעה ואין רמיה ו‬ ֯  19‬ ‫]מו֯ עדי שממה כיא אין ע[וד‬ ֯  20‬ ‫אפכ[ה‬ ֯ ‫  וא]ין עוד מדהבה כיא לפני‬21 ‫]כה‬ [‫   ]ב יחפזו ואין צדיק עמכה‬22 ‫ ו[ל]השכיל בכול רזיכה ולשיב דבר[ על משפטיכה‬23 ‫כו]ל‬ ‫בחסד[כה‬ ֯ ‫ בתוכחתכה ולטובכה יצפו כיא‬24 ‫ ידעוכה ובקץ כבודכה יגילו‬25 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

from ] dread of wickedness, and there is no deception and [ ] appointed times of destruction, for there is no m[ore ] and] there is no more oppression, for before yo[ur] anger [ ] they make haste. No one is righteous besides you [ ] and [to] have insight into all your mysteries, and to answer [concerning your judgements 24. with your reproach, and they will watch for Your goodness. For in [your] kindness [ al]l 25. who know you. In the time of your glory they will rejoice (Translation and text according to DJD 40)

In spite of its fragmentary state, the context of the text provides significant pieces of evidence for the assessment of the meaning of ‫מדהבה‬.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

189

On the one hand, one can see in line 21 a clear reference to the dissipation of the ‫(אין עוד מדהבה) מדהבה‬, which one may now consider to be a central sense-component qualifying the meaning of this substantive: the distressing and oppressive situation referred to by ‫ מדהבה‬will surely not last, it will disappear in order to leave the place with a lasting joy. On the other hand, the exhaustive investigation of the lexical organisation of the whole passage in 1QHa 20:21 points to recurring word clusters, which are shared both by Isa 14:4 and 4QHa 7 ii 2–7, and which one may now consider to be the typical lexical background for the usage of ‫מדהבה‬. (a) Firstly, ‫ מדהבה‬occurs together with lexical items referring both to distressing, threatening situations (‫פחד רשעה‬, “terror of wickedness”; line 19) and to negative qualities (‫רימה‬, “insolence, deception”). (b) Secondly, the passage points to a cluster of lexemes denoting pleasant and peaceful circumstances, such as goodness (‫)טוב‬, grace (‫)חסד‬, and rejoicing (‫)גיל‬. (c) The third cluster of terms referring to coming to an end through divine destruction is highlighted by the usage of ‫“( אין‬there is not”; cf. also ‫אין עוד‬, “there is no more”), of the verb ‫ שבת‬in line 17 (Hiphil “to cause to come to an end”) as well as by references to destruction (‫ )שממה‬and to divine anger (‫;אפכה‬ line 21), which presumably represents the cause of the destruction. In this particular context of usage, the occurrence of ‫ שבת‬may not be accidental, but, rather, it may reflect a syntagmatic and paradigmatic lexical relation explicitly going back to Isa 14:4. The passage depicts an “appointed time of destruction” (‫ ;מועדי שממה‬line 20). Such a period of time is far “away from the dread of wickedness” (‫מפחד‬ ‫ ;רשעה‬line 19): here “there is no deception” (‫ ;ואין רמיה‬line 20) and even the ‫ מדהבה‬kind of oppressive threat no longer exists (‫)אין עוד מדהבה‬. The passage tells us furthermore that this appointed time of destruction results in the joyful “time of the glory” of God (‫ ;קץ כבודכה‬line 25). Compared to Isa 14 and to 4QHa 7 ii 2–7, this passage displays further developments in both vocabulary and concepts. In this regard, what is particularly striking is (a) the focus on the temporal dissipation of the distressing circumstances, and (b) the presence of sapiential vocabulary—especially the reference to the mysteries of God (‫ ;רזיכה‬line 23). These aspects might ascribe an eschatological and mystical nuance to the context of usage of ‫מדהבה‬, which in Isaiah is implicit at best. Against this particular semantic framework, if the Hodayot passage actually goes back to Isa 14—as I am proposing—then one may be tempted to draw the following conclusion: in the Hodayot text, the references to the appointed

190

Zanella

times of destruction, to the divine wrath, and to the final period of glory may reflect a sort of eschatological interpretation (a kind of implicit pesher perhaps?) of the Isaianic passage, with respect to the verb ‫“( שבר‬to break in pieces”; Isa 14:5) and to the global situation of peace described in v. 7. The final reference to joy in line 25 (‫)יגילו‬, which actually echoes Is 14:7, seems to support this conclusion. 3.3 1QHa 11:26 (4Q418 176 3): ‫הוות מדהבה‬ The last two occurrences of ‫( מדהבה‬1QHa 11:26 and 4Q418 176 3) unfortunately complicate the conclusions which have been drawn thus far. In both texts, the context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬deviates from the lexical patterns which apply both to Isaiah and to the other occurrences in the scrolls. Furthermore, in both texts, ‫ מדהבה‬functions as the nomen rectum of the rather obscure—and otherwise unattested—genitival syntagm ‫הוות מדהבה‬, whose usage one should analyse in its particular context. table 9

The context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in 1QHa 11:26

‫ ואני יצר‬24 ‫ החמר מה אני מגבל במים ו̇ למי נחשבתי ומה כוה לי כיא התיצבתי בגבול‬25 ‫רשעה‬ ‫ ועם חלכאים בגורל ותגור נפש אביון עם מהומות רבה והוות מדהבה עם‬26 ‫מצעדי‬ 24. and I, creature of 25. clay, what am I? Kneaded with water. For whom am I to be reckoned? And what is my strength? For I have taken my stand within the domain of wickedness, 26. and I am with the wretched by lot. The soul of the poor dwells with great tumults, and ‫ הוות מדהבה‬are with my steps.35

In 1QHa 11:26 ‫ מדהבה‬is still used together with lexemes referring to distressing and oppressive situations (‫ מהומה‬and ‫ )חלכאים‬as well as to the ungodly domain (e.g., ‫)גבול רשעה‬: such a lexical context may be considered as the basic syntagmatic and paradigmatic background that qualifies the context of usage of ‫מדהבה‬. The parallelism between this syntagm and the phrase ‫מהומות רבה‬ (“great tumults”) is particularly relevant for the assessment of the semantic

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

191

value of the genitive ‫הוות מדהבה‬. The contextual similarities between 1QHa 11:26, Isa 14:4 and the other Qumran occurrences of ‫ מדהבה‬end here. As a matter of fact, the general context of 1QHa 11:26 does not seem to preserve any explicit mention of the characteristic dissipation of the ‫ מדהבה‬or of the resulting final period of rest. The passage presents a self-portrayal of the petitioner as a sinner: he/she has walked in the boundary of the wicked ones (‫ ;התיצבתי בגבול רשעה‬line 25), he/ she shared his/her lot with the wretched ones (‫ ;ועם חלכאים בגורל‬line 26), his/ her soul lives with great tumult (‫)נפש אביון עם מהומות רבה‬, while ‫הוות מדהבה‬ (“disastrous calamities”)36 follow his/her steps (‫)עם מצעדי‬. The translation of the genitival syntagm is very problematic indeed, not least because the meaning of the nomen regens, which swings between “to desire” and “to decay” or “to destruct,” is not easy to determine in this context.37 If one ascribes to ‫ הווה‬the first meaning (“to desire”), the genitival syntagm—an objective genitive—would then denote the “desire for oppression/calamity.” A reference to the pursuit of oppression/calamity could be consistent with the very context of the passage, in which the petitioner depicts his/ her sinful nature. On the other hand, in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, A. Amihay argues that if ‫ הווה‬occurs together with lexical items belonging to the ungodly domain, it is likely to denote a sort of eschatological destruction. If one follows Amihay’s argument, one should translate the genitive with “destructions of ‫מדהבה‬.”38 A reference of the syntagm—an objective genitive—to the elimination of the ‫מדהבה‬-calamity would be highly consistent with the general usage of ‫מדהבה‬, since it would imply the final dissipation of this calamity through destruction. Such a reference, however, would not be appropriate within the context of the passage. The evaluation of the syntagm as a subjective genitive would imply a reference to destructions caused by the ‫מדהבה‬-calamity, which would fit the context as well as the translation “desire for oppression/calamity.” The determination of the meaning of the genitival syntagm in 4Q418 176 3 is almost impossible. The genitival syntagm, preceded by the preposition ‫ב‬, occurs after an invocation to the ‫מבין‬: ‫א] ֯תׂה מבין בהוֿ ות מדהבה‬. Probably with reference to the translations of Isa 14:4, DJD renders with “O th]ou who hast understanding of the calamities of tax-collection(?).”39 35  My translation. 36  Cf. H. Stegemann, E. M. Schuller, and C. Newsom, DJD 40:155. 37  Cf. A. Amihay, “‫הווה‬,” ThWQ 1:755–57. 38  Ibid., 757. 39  Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34: 399–400.

192 4

Zanella

The Lexemes ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫ מדהב‬in QH

4.1 ‫מדהוב‬ The close relationship between the lexemes ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫ מדהבה‬seems to be not only of a morphological kind. In fact, a detailed investigation of ‫ מדהוב‬shows striking similarities between the contexts of usage of ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫מדהבה‬. 4.1.1

CD 13:7–10: ‫מדהוב‬, a Problem Due to Disappear

table 10

The context of usage of ‫ מדהוב‬in CD 13:7–10

‫למחנה ישכיל את הרבים במעשי‬ ̇ ‫ וזה סרך המבקר‬7 ‫לפניהם נהיו̇ ת עולם בפרתיה‬ ̇ ‫ אל ויבינם בגבורות פלאו ויספר‬8 ‫וישק ̇ה ̇לכל מדהובם כרועה עדרו‬ ̇ ‫ וירחם עליהם כאב לבניו‬9 ‫לב ̇לתי ̇הי֯ ו֯ ת עשוק ורצוץ בעדתו‬ ̇ ‫    יתר כל חרצובות קשריהם‬10 7.

This is the rule for the overseer of a camp. He must teach the general membership about the works 8. of God, instruct them in his mighty miracles, relate to them the future events coming to the world with their interpretations; 9. he should care for them as a father does his children, taking care of all their ‫ מדהוב‬as a shepherd does for his flock 10. He should loosen all their knots, that there be no one oppressed or crushed in his congregation.

The context of usage of ‫ מדהוב‬in CD 13:7–10 (parallel to 4Q267 9 iv 6) describes the role of the mebaqqer of a camp (‫ ;וזה סרך המבקר לׂמחנה‬line 7) in his relationship to the many (‫)הרבים‬: besides pedagogic duties (lines 7–8), the mebaqqer also performs a social function, hence his comparison to a shepherd and a father. Against this particular context, one may draw the following conclusions: (a) The substantive, which here functions as the direct object of the verb ‫שקד‬ (“to take care for”),40 seems to denote a general distressing circumstance afflicting the members, which may result in oppression (‫ )עשק‬and crushing (‫)רצץ‬. (b) Such a distressing circumstance, furthermore, is due to disappear, since the 40  The emendation of the uncertain form of the Cairo Geniza text into ‫ שקד‬is made following J. Baumgarten in DJD 18:108–9.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

193

mebaqqer will take care of it (‫)שקד‬, so that there is no one oppressed in the congregation (line 10). (c) Finally, the peaceful and reassuring representation of the mebaqqer as an attentive shepherd and a merciful father provides a striking contrast to the oppressive and distressing situations referred to in the text. 4.1.2 1QHa 19:4: ‫מדהוב‬, a Problem Due to Disappear More fragmentary is the immediate context of usage of ‫ מדהוב‬in 1QHa 19:4. The text is similar to 1QHa 11:26, a very negative self-portrayal of the petitioner, in which the lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬occurs. table 11

The context of usage of ‫ מדהוב‬in 1QHa 19:4–7

֯‫]ע ֯מ ֯ל מעיני ויגו֯ ן‬ ֯

[‫ בפחד מדהוב‬ ֯ 4 vacat ‫ בהגי לבי‬5 ‫ אודכה אלי כי הפלתה עם עפר וביצר חמר הגברתה מודה מודה ואני מה כיא‬6 ‫ [הבינ]ותני בסוד אמתכה ותשכילני במעשי פלאכה ותתן בפי הודות ובלשוני‬ ̇ 7 4. terror disaster [ ]trouble from my eyes and grief 5. in the meditation of my heart. vacat 6. I thank you, o my God, that you have acted wonderfully with dust and with a creature of clay you have worked so very powerfully. What am I that 7. you have [instr]ucted me in the counsel of your truth, and that you have given me insight into your wonderful works, that you put thanksgiving into my mouth, pr[ai]se upon my tongue in my mouth, and upon my tongue

Together with the lexemes ‫“( פחד‬terror”), ‫“( ֯ע ֯מ ֯ל‬trouble”), and ֯‫“( יגו֯ ן‬grief”), ‫ מדהוב‬is used to depict the desolate and helpless state of the petitioner. In the examination of the text, however, one may see how such distressing circumstances vanish the more the petitioner acknowledges the wondrous deeds God has done for him. 4.2 ‫( מדהב‬Financial?) Oppression The passages in 4Q416 2 ii 14 and in 4Q418a 16 3, in which ‫ מדהב‬occurs, attest to a rather obscure language use: this may be due to their fragmentary status or, more probably, to the characteristic intricate idiolect of 4QInstruction. The first occurrence reflects striking, recurrent lexical relations between ‫ מדהב‬and lexemes from the financial sphere of language, which apply neither to ‫מדהוב‬

194

Zanella

nor to ‫מדהבה‬.41 Nonetheless, one may find here clear traces of a dualistic polarisation (threatening vs. peaceful circumstances), which is typical of the context of usage both of ‫ מדהוב‬and of ‫מדהבה‬. 4Q416 2 ii 11–14 refers respectively to the enviousness (‫ )קנאה‬and deceitfulness (‫ )עקוב הלב‬of human nature, and then picks up the image of the merciful father with his only son (line 13) and uses the verb ‫“( שקד‬to take care of”), thus being very close to the content and the context of CD 13:7–10.42 A possible reference to threatening and distressing circumstances may be found in the extremely fragmentary text 4Q418a 16 3, as well; the lexeme ‫עמל‬ (“toil,” “labour”) in the (plausibly genitival) syntagm ‫“( עמל מדהביכה‬the toil of your ‫ )”]?[ מדהבים‬is, in fact, semantically close to the oppression and hard labour referred to in Isa 14:3–4. In light of these scanty pieces of evidence, one may assume, supported by the DJD edition, that ‫ מדהב‬may denote a financial kind of threat. 5 Conclusion The investigation of the context of usage of ‫ מדהבה‬in Isaiah and in the DSS shows that this hapax legomenon, in its reception, may have been understood as referring to a distressing, oppressive circumstance, belonging to the ungodly domain, and supposed to vanish (due to divine intervention which will leave the place in a time of peace and blessing). The substantive is used with this particular reference in 4QHa 7 ii 2–7 (par. 1QHa 26:21 and 4QHe 2 2), in 1QHa 20:21. These very passages from the scrolls, which have apparently taken up the phraseology and context of Isa 14, attest to a subtle development in the contextualised meaning of the substantive: the use of ‫ מדהבה‬indeed reflects a more psychological, introspective, nature than in Isaiah (4QHa 7 ii 2–7 and doublets), while the dissipation of the ‫ מדהבה‬is embedded into explicit eschatological conceptions (1QHa 20:21). These Qumran occurrences attest to a creative relationship with the biblical text. Possibly inspired by Isa 14:4, the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬does not result in a slavish repetition of empty formulaic phrases. Rather, one has the impression that the borrowed concept referred to by ‫ מדהבה‬is interpreted, developed, and

41  Supported by the reconstructions and the translation of Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34, one finds in 4Q416 2 ii references to lending and paying back money (lines 4–6), to creditors (lines 4–5), to prices (line 7), to taking and giving (both in line 5), and the like. 42  See above 4.1.1.

Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‬in the DSS

195

extended in order to be applied to contexts and ideas which are neither necessarily nor explicitly found in the original biblical text. The two further occurrences in 1QHa 11:26 and in 4Q418 176 3 deviate from the typical patterns of usage of ‫מדהבה‬, and attest to the genitival syntagm ‫הוות‬ ‫מדהבה‬. Here the context of usage of the lexeme seems to lose its reference to the dissipation of the threat due to divine intervention, thus merely referring to a distressing, oppressive, and unsettling situation. Due to the fragmentary data, it is impossible to decide whether this reflects a further step in the conceptual development of the usage of ‫מדהבה‬, after its progressive abstraction and grounding in eschatological conceptions and coordinates. The investigation of the few occurrences of the substantive ‫ מדהוב‬indicates that its context of usage shares the main features qualifying the context of usage of ‫מדהבה‬. Nevertheless, traces of a possible opposition between ‫מדהוב‬ and ‫ מדהבה‬may be detected: in opposition to the dissipation of a ‫מדהבה‬, the ceasing of a ‫ מדהוב‬does not necessarily require a divine intervention (but the sole presence and the actions of the mebaqqer): supported by further pieces of evidence, which unfortunately are not available, this could potentially challenge the argument for the interchangeability between ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫מדהבה‬. More questionable is the issue of the role of the lexeme ‫מדהב‬: even if its context of usage shares some aspects with those of ‫ מדהוב‬and ‫מדהבה‬, the context of usage of seems to be associated with a financial dimension, which applies neither to Isa 14 nor to the other occurrences in the DSS, and which may be considered as belonging to the idiolect of 4QInstruction. Afterword After the submission of this paper, in late 2011, an excellent article on the same topic was published by Dr. Noam Mizrahi: “The Linguistic History of ‫מדהבה‬: From Textual Corruption to Lexical Innovation,” RevQ 26 (2013): 91–114. Based on evidence from phonology and associative etymology, Mizrahi provides a different perspective on the problem of the meaning of ‫מדהבה‬, which represents a valid alternative to the one proposed in the present paper. In my view, though, both perspectives are not incompatible. In my paper, to sum up, I intended to approach the problem of the meaning of ‫ מדהבה‬from the point of view of historical semantics, thereby focusing on the identification of possible diachronic changes in the meaning and the usage of ‫ מדהבה‬across the Hebrew Bible and the DSS. In doing this, I made use of some insights taken from the semantic methodology known as “Componential Analysis of Meaning.” This methodology is a proven and valid heuristic tool,

196

Zanella

which allows one to depict the development of lexical meanings within a clearly diachronic framework, thereby also taking into consideration the possible presence of sociolects as well as of idiolects linked to specific genres.43 Against this methodological framework, therefore, my aim was not to provide a range of possible translations of ‫מדהבה‬. Rather, I intended (a) to draw the possible line(s) of the semantic development of ‫ מדהבה‬and (b) to categorise them according to its different usages in the biblical and Qumranic corpora. With the present paper, finally, I do not claim to give a definitive answer concerning meaning and usage of ‫מדהבה‬. Rather, I intend to contribute to the academic discourse a perspective that, in my view, may be helpful to throw some light on the complex semantics of ‫מדהבה‬. This perspective is, of course, open to debate. My study could not, unfortunately, take Mizrahi’s insights and results exhaustively into consideration, nor could it use them as a starting point for further investigations of the meaning of ‫מדהבה‬. This would fall outside the framework and the scope of the present paper but may, instead, represent a challenging topic for future publications.

43  Cf. Zanella, The Lexical Field, 12–61 and Zanella, “Componential Analysis of Meaning,” passim.

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Jr., M. G. 8, 12 (nn. 29, 31), 13 (n. 36), 15, 16 (nn. 50, 52), 21 (n. 70), 23 (n. 82), 83 (n. 14), 92, 158 (n. 58), 176 (n. 5) Allegro, J. M. 1, 2 (n. 7), 3 (n. 10), 4 Allen, L. C. 3 (n. 2) Amihay, A. 191 Arbeitman, Y. L. 42 (n. 12) Aslanov, C. 49 (n. 30) Azar, M. 67 (n. 6), 74 (n. 23), 78, 117 (nn. 25, 27), 120 (n. 45) Baltin, M.R. 89 (n. 3) Bar-Asher, M. 8, 14 (n. 43), 19 (n. 65), 20 (n. 67), 22 (n. 79), 57 (n. 50), 154 (n. 44), 156 (n. 52) Bartelmus, R. 25 (n. 2) Barwise, J. 89 (n. 3) Bauer, H. 50 (n. 33) Baumgarten, J. M. 192 (n. 40) Beall, T. S. 59 (n. 54) Bendavid, A. 45 (n. 17), 70 (n. 12), 73 (n. 19), 75 (n. 25), 76, 78, 143 (n. 20) Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. 21– 22 Benmamoun, E. 89 (n. 3) Bergsträsser, G. 56 (n. 49) Beuken, W. A. M. 181 (n. 22), 182 (n. 30) Beyer, K. 17 (n. 59) Bobaljik, J. D. 89 (n. 3) Bonhomme, M. 174 (nn. 66–67) Borbone, P. G. 124 (n. 61) Bowley, J. E. 83 (n. 14) Boyarin, D. 35 (n. 37) Brock, S. P. 130 (n. 76) Brockelmann, C. 10 (n. 20), 91 Campbell, J. G. 179 (n. 13) Carmignac, J. 15, 169 (n. 44) Chapman, H. 59 (n. 54) Charlesworth, J. H. 82 (n. 9) Chazon, E. G. 181 (n. 23) Cohen, A. 50 (n. 34) Cohen, C. 27 (n. 7), 28 (n. 15) Cohen, M. 55 (n. 46) Collins, J. J. 17 (n. 60) Cook, E. M. 83 (n. 14), 92

Cooper, R. 89 (n. 3) Cotton, H. M. 3 (n. 11) Cross, F. M. 13 (n. 37), 23 (n. 87), 24 (n. 88), 157 (n. 56) Dahood, M. 165 (n. 23) Dalman, G. 11 (n. 25) Danby, H. 61 (n. 61), 65 (n. 1) Davila, J. 40 (n. 8) Delcor, M. 58 (n. 53) Delitzsch, F. 125 (n. 63) Dhorme, E. 42 (n. 12) Di Lella, A. A. 171 (nn. 52, 56) Dimant, D. 179 Drawnel, H. 55 (n. 45) Driver, G. R. 6 (n. 22) Driver, S. R. 132, 133 (n. 8), 149 (n. 30), 164 (n. 18) Dubarle, A. M. 114 Ehrensvärd, M. 132–133, 135 (n. 11), 157 Eshel, E. 55 (n. 45), 65 (n. 1) Eshel, H. 65(n. 1), 157–158 (n. 57) Falk, D. K. 169 (nn. 43, 45), 172 Fassberg, S. 21 (nn. 71–72), 22 (n. 78), 26 (n. 6), 127 (n. 68), 156–157, 158 (n. 58) Fox, M. V. 170 (n. 49) Fraade, S. 60 (n. 57) García Martínez, F. 37 (n. 1), 92 Garr, W. R. 10 (n. 21), 32 (n. 29) Gaster, M. 113–114 Geiger, G. 65 (n. 1) Gesenius, W. 28 Gil, D. 90–91 Ginsberg, H. L. 30 Gluska, I. 19 (n. 64) Goldman, L. 60 (n. 56) Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 7, 10 (n. 21), 11, 12 (n. 29), 13 (n. 35), 21 (n. 75) Grabbe, L. L. 36 (n. 38) Greenfield, J. C. 9 (n. 13), 24 (n. 89), 55 (n. 45), 156 (n. 51) Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. 89 (n. 3)

198 Gutman, A. 112–113 (n. 5), 113 (nn. 7–8), 118 (n. 35), 124 (n. 56), 128 (nn. 71–73), 129 (n. 74), 130 (nn. 75–76) Gzella, H. 19–20 (n. 66) HaCohen, A. 48 (n. 29) Haneman, G. 116 (n. 21), 119 (nn. 38–39), 153 (n. 41) Harrington, D. T. 160 (n. 1), 170 (n. 50), 177 (n. 8), 181 (nn. 24–25), 191 (n. 39), 194 (n. 41) Harris, Z. S. 162 (n. 7), 165 (n. 22) Haugen, E. 9 Heine, B. 42 (n. 13) Hempel, C. 59 (n. 55) Hoftijzer, J. 162 (n. 7) Holma, H. 46 (n. 22) Holmstedt, R. D. 133 (n. 7) Horgan, M. 2, 3 (n. 9), 135–136 (n. 13), 138 (n. 15) Hornkohl, A. 132 (n. 1) Horovitz, H. S. 28 (n. 9) Hughes, J. 30 Hurvitz, A. 43 (n. 15), 105 (n. 28), 132, 154 (n. 47) Ibn Janah 28 Jastrow, M. 117 (n. 26), 121 (n. 51), 175 (n. 3) Jenner, K. D. 124 (n. 61) Jespersen, O. 18 Jokiranta, J. 59 (n. 55), 62 (n. 64) Jonker, L. 112 (n. 5) Joosten, J. 8–9, 30 (n. 23), 34 (n. 34), 153 (n. 42), 167–168 (n. 35), 183 (n. 34) Joüon, P. 67 (n. 6), 75 (n. 27), 80–81 (n. 4), 81 (n. 6), 84 (n. 17), 86 (n. 27), 100, 120 (nn. 42–43), 143 (n. 19), 155 (n. 49), 168, 177 (n. 9) Kaddari, M. Z. 161, 164, 166, 168–169, 170 (n. 46) Kahle, P. 25 (n. 2) Kasher, R. 3 (n. 12) Kasowsky, Ch. Y. 175 (n. 3) Khan, G. A. 25 (n. 3) Kister, M. 8, 13 (n. 37) Knohl, I. 49 (n. 32) Kogan, L. 46 (n. 22) Kooij, G. van der 162 (n. 7)

Index Of Modern Authors Kosowsky, B. 175 (n. 3) Krahmalkov, C. R. 162 (n. 7), 165 (n. 22) Kuteva, T. 42 (n. 13) Kutscher, E. Y. 6–8, 10 (nn. 18–19), 11 (nn. 22–23, 28), 12, 14 (nn. 40–41), 15 (n. 47), 16, 20, 21 (n. 73), 41 (n. 10), 47 (n. 26), 51 (n. 37), 132 Lambert, M. 30 Leander, P. 50 (n. 33) Leicht, R. 113–114, 118 (nn. 33, 35), 120 (n. 44), 121–124, 125 (n. 62), 126, 127 (n. 69), 130 (n. 76) Lemaire, A. 47 Lerner, M. B. 48, 49 (n. 30) Levy, J. 117 (n. 30), 118 (n. 34), 121 (n. 52), 175 (n. 3) Licht, J. 16 (n. 51), 17 (n. 55), 56 (n. 48), 82 (n. 9) Lieberman, S. 48 (nn. 28–29), 60 (n. 57) Lounsbury, O. 18 (n. 62) Lyons, J. 89 Macintosh, A. A. 3 (n. 8), 4 (n. 14) Martone, C. 82 (n. 9) Mason, S. 59 (n. 54) May, R. 89 (n. 3) McKane, W. 167 (n. 34) Merwe, C. H. J. van der 75 (n. 27) Meyer, C. 114 Michaëlis, J. 28 Milgrom, J. 53, 54 (nn. 42–43) Milik, J. T. 10 (n. 17) Militarev, A. 46 (n. 22) Miller(-Naudé), C. L. 75 (n. 27), 100, 163 (n. 11), 173 (n. 63) Mishor, M. 116 (n. 21), 144 (n. 22) Mizrahi, N. 6 (n. 20), 30 (n. 21), 32 (nn. 26–27), 195–196 Moore, C. A. 114 (n. 13) Mor, U. 19 (n. 66), 26 (n. 6), 65, 66 (nn. 2–4), 69 (n. 9), 70 (nn. 12–13), 71 (nn. 14–16), 72 (n. 18), 73 (nn. 19–20), 72 (n. 22), 76 (n. 29), 79 (n. 37), 143 (n. 21), 147 (n. 24) Morag, Sh. 10 (n. 21), 11 (n. 27), 35 (n. 37), 62 (n. 62), 158 Muraoka, T. 6 (n. 22), 17 (n. 59), 22 (nn. 76–77), 67 (n. 6), 72 (n. 18), 75 (n. 27), 80 (n. 1), 80–81 (n. 4), 81 (n. 6), 82

199

Index Of Modern Authors (nn. 7–8), 84 (nn. 17, 20), 85 (n. 23), 86 (nn. 26–27), 100, 119 (n. 41), 120 (nn. 42–43), 143 (n. 19), 155 (n. 49), 162 (n. 8), 163 (n. 15), 165 (n. 27), 167 (n. 32), 177 (n. 9) Naeh, S. 57 (n. 50) Naudé, J. A. 88 (n. 1), 89 (n. 2), 106 (n. 32), 161 (n. 6) Neusner, J. 65 (n. 1) Newsom, C.A. 37, 40–41, 46, 56 (n. 47), 191 (n. 36) Nitzan, B. 40 (n. 8) Oosthuizen, J. 90 (n. 5) Paran, M. 54 (n. 42) Pardee, D. 29 (n. 19) Park, M. 143 (n. 20) Parry, D. W. 77 (n. 33) Pat-ʾEl, N. 66 (n. 4) Pérez Fernández, M. 80 (n. 1), 116 (n. 23), 117 (nn. 25, 28), 119 (nn. 38–39), 120 (n. 42), 150 (n. 36) Peursen, W. Th. van 112–113 (n. 5), 113 (nn. 6–9), 116 (nn. 21, 24), 117 (nn. 25, 29), 118 (nn. 33, 35), 119 (n. 38), 120 (n. 45), 121 (n. 48), 124 (n. 56), 125 (n. 63), 126 (n. 66), 127 (n. 70), 128 (nn. 71–73), 129 (n. 74), 130 (nn. 75–76), 168–170, 171 (n. 57) Polak, F. 135, 139, 140 (n. 18), 143 Polzin, R. 105 (n. 28), 134 (n. 9), 149 (n. 30), 162 (n. 9) Porten, B. 6 (n. 22), 22 (n. 77), 162 (n. 7), 163 (n. 15), 165 (n. 27) Puech, É. 47, 162 (nn. 7–8), 165 (n. 23) Qimchi, D. 28, 167 Qimron, E. 1 (n. 1), 2 (n. 6), 3 (n. 11), 6 (n. 21), 7, 10 (n. 19), 11 (nn. 22, 24), 12 (n. 32), 14–15, 16 (nn. 50–51), 17 (nn. 55–57), 21 (nn. 70, 75), 22 (n. 77), 30, 33, 37 (n. 1), 41 (n. 10), 44 (n. 16), 45 (n. 17), 46, 56 (n. 48), 47 (n. 52), 65 (n. 1), 80, 81 (n. 6), 83–84, 85 (nn. 21, 23), 105 (n. 28), 127 (n. 67), 135–136 (n. 13), 136 (n. 14), 138 (n. 15), 147 (n. 26), 148 (nn. 27–28), 149

(n. 31), 152 (n. 38), 160 (nn. 1–2), 161, 163 (n. 14), 164, 165 (n. 22), 166, 169 (n. 44) Rabin, C. 60 (n. 57) Rabin, I. A. 28 (n. 9) Rattray, S. 53 (n. 40) Rendsburg, G. A. 83 (n. 15), 88 (n. 1), 151 (n. 37), 152 (n. 39), 154 (n. 43), 156 (n. 52), 161–162 (n. 6) Rey, J.-S. 160 (n. 1) Rezetko, R. 132, 133 (n. 6), 135 (n. 11), 157 Rooker, M. F. 134 (n. 9) Rubin, A. D. 42 (n. 12) Rudolph, W. 4 (n. 14) Schäfer, P. 112, 115 (n. 20), 121 (n. 49) Schattner-Rieser, U. 17 (n. 59), 22 (n. 76) Scheiber, A. 171 (n. 52) Schniedewind, W. M. 23, 62 (n. 63), 112, 154 (n. 43) Schoors, A. 150 (n. 32), 156 (n. 51) Schorch, S. 25 (n. 1), 35 (n. 36) Schuller, E. M. 6 (n. 21), 112, 112–113 (n. 5), 191 (n. 36) Schweizer, A. 114 Segal, M. H. (also: M. Z.) 116 (n. 22), 119 (n. 37), 150 (n. 36), 153 (n. 41) Shaked, Sh. 112, 115 (n. 20), 121 (n. 49) Sharvit, S. 51 (n. 37) Shlonsky, U. 89 (n. 3), 91 Sokoloff, M. 49 (n. 30) Sportiche, D. A. 89 (n. 3) Stadel, C. 8 Stec, D. M. 165 (n. 24) Stegemann, H. 191 (n. 36) Steiner, R. 19 (n. 65), 25 (n. 4) Steinschneider, M. 130 Steudel, A. 5 Stone, M. E. 55 (n. 45) Strugnell, J. 1–2, 5, 13 (n. 37), 15 (n. 44), 16 (n. 49), 160 (n. 1), 170 (n. 50), 172, 177 (n. 8), 181 (nn. 24–25), 191 (n. 39), 194 (n. 41) Talshir, D. 23 (n. 83), 30 Thomason, S. G. 9 (n. 16), 20 (n. 68), 92 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 37 (n. 1) Torrey, C. C. 114

200 Tov, E. 77 (n. 33) Toy, C. H. 165 (n. 23) Tropper, J. 162 (n. 7) Van Hoonacker, A. 4 (n. 13) Vermes, G. 86 (n. 25) Wassen, C. 59 (n. 55) Weinfeld, M. 62 (n. 62) Weinreich, U. 18, 19 Weitzman, S. 23, 154 (n. 43) Wernberg-Møller, P. 58 (n. 53), 82 (n. 9) Whitney, W. D. 9 (n. 15) Wijnkoop, J. D. 163 (n. 11), 165 (n. 25) Wildberger, H. 181 (nn. 15, 21) Williams, R. J. 76 (n. 30), 165 (n. 25)

Index Of Modern Authors Winford, D. 20 (n. 68) Wise, M. O. 92 Woude, A. S. van der 37 (n. 1) Wright, R. M. 134 (n. 9) Yadin, Y. 65 (n. 1), 80 (n. 4) Yalon, H. 7, 10 (n. 18), 13 (n. 35) Yardeni, A. 65 (n. 1), 162 (n. 7) Yeivin, I. 27 (n. 8), 57 (n. 50) Young, I. 132–133, 135, 143, 157, 162 (n. 9) Zanella, F. 176 (n. 4), 179 (n. 13), 183 (n. 32), 196 (n. 43) Zewi, T. 70 (n. 11), 72 (n. 18), 75 (nn. 26–27), 77 (nn. 32, 34), 161 (n. 6), 164 Zippor, M. 6 (n. 24)

Index of Ancient Sources This index includes all texts that are discussed, and excludes some texts that are only listed as examples of a specific feature. I. Hebrew Bible Genesis 3:4 3:11 8:5 18:20 18:24 18:29 18:31 18:32 19:18 27:4 27:19 27:25 27:31 39:10 45:6 45:12 47:9

82 83–84 80 123 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 164 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 155 (n. 49) 106 42 76 (n. 28) 143

Exodus 1:22 7:14 9:7 15:8 18:21 19:3 19:12 22:7 23:20–23 29:17 32:12 36:2 36:6 40:30 40:32

104 86 86 42 (n. 12) 144 34 80–81 (n. 4) 53 (n. 40) 40 (n. 8) 44 123 50 167 50 54

Leviticus 1:9 1:11–13 1:13

44 41 44

3:3 3:3–4 3:9 3:14 4:8 4:11 8:16 8:21 8:25 9:5 9:7 9:7–8 9:14 10:3 23:29–30 32:22

44 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 54 53 (n. 41) 54 44 54 (n. 43) 45 76 (n. 28)

Numbers 1:51 3:10 3:38 16:29 17:5 18:3–4 18:7 18:22 34:17 35:23

53 (n. 41), 57 (n. 50) 53 (n. 41) 53 (n. 41) 173 53 (n. 41) 53 (n. 41) 53 (n. 41) 54 74 (n. 23) 83

Deuteronomy 2:4 4:11 9:28 13:8 13:12 17:3 17:13 19:20 21:21 31:13 33:9

33 42 (n. 12) 83 57 (n. 50) 32 124 31 31 31 31–32 10–11

202

Index Of Ancient Sources

Judges 7:12 15:13 18:20 19:23

122 82 42 165

1 Samuel 1:21 2:24 2:26 2:28 2:36 6:12 14:33 23:20 27:10

164 164 56 54 (n. 42) 39 (n. 6) 80 86 84 162 (n. 8)

2 Samuel 13:16 13:25 23:12 24:16

164 (n. 20) 165 164 2 (n. 5)

1 Kings 10:22 12:33

28 (n. 14) 54 (n. 42)

2 Kings 3:13 4:16 16:12

164 165 54 (n. 42)

Isaiah 6:9 9:8 9:11 9:12 9:13–14 9:16 10:12 14:3–7 14:4 17:8 21:17 22:5 22:11 23:8 23:9

14 110 2 14 1–2 99 143 183–85 179–85 14 143 14 14 151 151

28:8 28:28 29:17 32:17 36:7 36:11 36:12 37:16 41:22 46:7 47:1 48:9 57:11 57:16 58:2 62:6 63:7–14 64:8 65:6

101 167 167 146 14 14 14 125 151 14 14 121 3 167 46, 53 (n. 40) 164 40 (n. 8) 166–167 14

Jeremiah 2:6 10:24 15:15 31:3

28 163 167 120 (n. 42)

Ezekiel 3:7–8 8:12 16:16 18:8 21:37 23:32 23:39 28:22 39:18 40:46 42:13 43:19 44:15 45:4

120 67 (n. 6) 151 144 3 (n. 12) 3 (n. 12) 42 (n. 12) 54 (n. 43) 108–109 54–55, 57 55 55, 57 (n. 50) 55, 57 55

Hosea 6:8–9

2–3

Micah 1:2

109

203

Index Of Ancient Sources Nahum 1:6 2:14 3:10

122 3 (n. 12) 151

Joel 2:13 2:17

123, 163 123

Zechariah 7:9

144

Zephaniah 3:2

53 (n. 40)

Malachi 2:13

83

Psalms 6:2 9:19 13:2–3 36:11 38:2 40:13 41:13 48:10 49:18 50:3 51:5 67:4 73:27 73:28 74:4 82:1 83:2 85:8 93:5 103:1 103:9 105:18 115:17 119:112 119:36 132:4 149:8

166 167 4–5 122 166 122 168 (n. 38) 40, 41 173 168 (n. 38) 122 108 56, 57 (n. 50) 46, 53 (n. 40) 154 40, 41 164 123 118 (n. 33) 43 167 123 173 123 163 170 123, 151

Job 7:16 12:24

167 143

20:9 21:29 24:25 27:12 34:13

167 154 165 109 109

Proverbs 4:18 6:4 8:10 11:21 12:28 17:12 19:11 25:15 26:25 27:2 27:24 31:4

80 (n. 4) 170 163 120 (n. 42) 165 163 121 121 121 163 167 164, 170

Canticles 5:8

76

Ruth 1:13

164 (n. 20)

Qohelet 2:15 7:14 7:16 8:1 8:11 8:14 10:10 12:9 12:12

150 146 150 156 (n. 51) 146 146 173 150 150

Lamentations 1:18 1:20 3:41

108 42 (n. 11) 163 (n. 14)

Esther 2:11 6:6

106 150

Daniel 2:15 2:18 4:32

14 14 165 (n. 27)

204

Index Of Ancient Sources

6:4 11:4 11:36

6 (n. 22) 33–34 115

Ezra 2:58 9:2

96 120 (n. 42)

Nehemiah 7:2 9:2 9:13 13:9 13:22

144 120 (n. 42) 144 39 (n. 6) 123

2 Chronicles 17:4 32:25

146 173

II. Ben Sira 3:14 4:2–3 4:22 4:28 6:8 7:1 8:13 9:13 10:31 11:6 13:2 13:11 14:12 16:13 30:22 32:4 36:22 38:12 38:14 39:19 39:34 41:4 41:16 44:4 45:8 48:6

168 41 163 (n. 14) 163 (n. 14) 168 169 (n. 41) 150 169 (n. 41) 150 152 171 (n. 57) 171 (n. 53) 173 169 121 171 120 (n. 45) 169 (n. 41) 156 (n. 51) 146 169 171 (n. 57) 118 (n. 33) 171 (n. 53) 13 (n. 38) 152

51:13–30 51:23

127 126

III. Qumran Scrolls 1QIsaa 2:9 3:1 4:1 4:4 4:13 28:4–5 29:25 30:11 31:19 34:12 35:26 37:10 37:17 37:19 38:18 40:8 40:20 41:15 41:16 41:27 42:24 42:25 42:28 46:16 54:10

14 16 14 16 9 11 15 22 10 16 16 16 22 80 22 16 16 15 10 15, 16 15 15 15 11 10

1QIsab 20:20

15

1QpHab 2:6–10 3:5 4:7 4:12–13 5:9–12 6:7–8 7:4–5 7:7–8 7:10–14 8:1–3 8:2–3 8:9

136 86 84 146 136, 140 85 140 137 137 137 148 87

205

Index Of Ancient Sources 9:4–7 9:9–12 10:9–13 11:4–8 11:6–8 11:12–14 12:2–6 12:6 12:12

137–138 138, 140 138–139 140 143 139 139 87 16

1QapGen (1Q20) 5:12 19:19 19:20 20:6 21:34 22:28

22 (n. 81) 21 (n. 72) 21 (n. 72) 22 (n. 81) 22 22 (n. 81)

1QS (1Q28) 1:1–2 1:3–4 1:4–5 1:5–6 1:6 1:6–7 1:9–11 1:11–12 1:12 1:14–17 1:15 1:18 2:1–2 2:9 2:11 2:19 2:19–20 2:21 2:24 2:25 2:25–26 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:5–6 3:9 3:10 3:15 3:16–17 4:5 4:7

85 86, 99 86 101 82, 169 86 100–101 103 15 82 86 86 96 13 85 13 146 103 104–105 103 87 16 16 13, 50 87 16 82 86 99 16, 80–81 13

4:11 4:12 4:13–14 4:14 4:15 4:18 4:20–21 5:3 5:4 5:7–9 5:12 5:18 5:23 6 6:1–2 6:3–4 6:13 6:16–17 6:19 7:13 7:22 8:1–2 8:2 8:18 9:15–16 9:16 9:18 9:19–20 9:20–21 9:22 10:3 10:4 10:8 10:10–11 10:13–14 10:14 11:2

86 149 86 154 101 173 (n. 65) 92 92 81 59 85 84 104 58, 60 32 98 16 58 59 14 98 104 81 84 60 (n. 56) 82 157 (n. 53) 87 82 154 87 16 87 84 87 85 (n. 22) 14

1QSa (1Q28a) 1:1

9

1QSb (1Q28b) 4:2

13

1QLiturgical Text (1Q30) 1 5 150 1QM (1Q33) 1:8 1:13

80 16

206

Index Of Ancient Sources

2:1–3 2:2 2:8–9 7:4–5 7:12 8:1 10:5 11:5 11:13 12:2 14:8 15:1

83 14 77 95 94 6 (n. 21) 15 14 83 102 95 77

1QHa 4:34 5:25–26 6:24–25 6:29–32 6:32 6:36–37 7:21 8:34 9:8 9:12 9:12–13 11:26 17:25 19:4 20:14 20:21 21:7 23:14 25:6 25:34 26:21

87 121 60 (n. 56), 87 60 (n. 56) 87 84–85 171 (n. 54) 87 14 121 87 190–191 13 193 149 188–190 161 (n. 3) 149 14 171 (n. 54) 185–88

3QCopper Scroll (3Q15) 1:10–11 105 4QExod-Levf (4Q17) 2 ii 14 10

4QPsb (4Q84) 28 i 18

16

4QPsf (4Q88) 8:13 10:11

16 10

4QLam (4Q111) 3:2

16

4QPhyl A (4Q128) 1 29 11 4QPhyl J (4Q137) 1 22 11 4QPhyl K (4Q138) 1 13 10 4QPhyl L (4Q139) 1 8 11 4QpIsaa (4Q161) 5–6 7

16

4Qpap pIsac (4Q163) 4–7 i 4–11 1–2 23 ii 14–14b 2–4 4QpNah (4Q169) 3–4 ii 9 3–4 iii 7 3–4 iii 9 3–4 iv 2 3–4 iv 4

152 153 152 101 152

4QpPsa (4Q171) 1–2 ii 7 1–10 ii 16

87 153 10 13 22 16 11 177 16

4QSama (4Q51) 164:2–3

2 (n. 5)

4QTest (4Q175) 3 4 11 16 17 18 21

4QJerc (4Q72) 47–54 11

15–16

4QTanḥ (4Q176) 8–11 6 13

4QNumb (4Q27) 6:6 12 10 19:33 2–40 6 10

207

Index Of Ancient Sources 8–11 6–7 50 1

16 16

4QCatena A (4Q177) 2 i 12–13 172 (n. 58) 7–11 8–11 4–6 4QHoroscope (4Q186) 1 iii 4 14 4QTobb ar (4Q197) 4 i 16 147 4QTobe (4Q200) 1 ii 3 167 4QEnocha ar (4Q201) 3:16 22 (n. 81) 4QLevib ar (4Q213a) 1 18 55 (n. 45) 4QJubd (4Q219) 2:34

22

4QJube (4Q220) 1 7

43

4QDd (4Q269) 2 3

155 (n. 48)

4QDe (4Q270) 7 i 19

172 (n. 58)

4QDf (4Q271) 3 12 5 i 21

14 155 (n. 48)

4QTohorot A (4Q274) 1 i 3 95 3 ii 4 150 4QcryptA Words of the Maskil to All Sons of Dawn (4Q298) 3–4 ii 5 81 4QCurses (4Q280) 2 4 13 4QSefer ha-Milḥama (4Q285) 8 7 149 4QMysteriesa (4Q299) 6 i 4 6 8 8 99

4QpapJubh (4Q223–224) 2 ii 11 15

4QReworked Pentateuchc (4Q365) 2 3 10

4Qpap cryptA Prophecy? (4Q249p) 10 147

4QReworked Pentateuchd (4Q366) 4 i 7 177

4QpapSa (4Q255) 1:1 86 (n. 24)

4QPrayer of Enosh (4Q369) 2 1 14

4QSb (4Q256) 9 4

81

4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) 12 6 10

4QSd (4Q258) 1 3 8 3

81 157 (n. 53)

4QSh (4Q262) 1 3

51

4QDa (4Q266) 11 5

172 (n. 58)

4QDb (4Q267) 9 iv 6

192–193

4QNon-Canonical Psalms B (4Q381) 10–11 3 10 24a+b 2 147 33 8–11 112 46a+b 4 149 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385) 6 8 14 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393) 1 ii 2 7 172 3 3–4 169

208

Index Of Ancient Sources

4QMMTa (4Q394) 3–7 i 15 15 3–7 i 19 15 4QMMTb (4Q395) 10 15 4QMMTc (4Q396) 1–2 iv 5 15 1–2 iv 7 15 1–2 iv 8 15 4QMMTd (4Q397) 23 2 15 4QMMTe (4Q398) 14–17 i 5 9 14–17 ii 1 9 14–17 ii 2 9, 81 14–17 ii 6 15 4QMMT B 11 66 67 76–78 78

86–87 84 87 84 84

4QMMT C 7 28

86 87

4QShirShabba (4Q400) 1 i 8 38 1 i 17 38 1 i 19 38 1 i 19–20 52–53 4QShirShabbb (4Q401) 15 3 38 16 2 40 (n. 7) 4QShirShabbc (4Q402) 9 4 40 (n. 7) 4QShirShabbd (4Q403) 1 i 40 171 (n. 54) 1 ii 19 38 1 ii 20 39 1 ii 22 39 (n. 5)

1 ii 24 3 2

39 40 (n. 7)

4QShirShabbf (4Q405) 8–9 2–3 38 8–9 4–5 39 14–15 i 4 40 (n. 7) 20 ii 21–22 6 9–10 20 ii–22 1 39 23 i 10 16 4QRitPur A (4Q414) 13 7 51 (n. 36) 4QInstructionb (4Q416) 2 i 3–5 160 2 i 4 160 (n. 2) 2 ii 9 170 2 ii 14 193–194 4QInstructionc (4Q417) 2 i 2 87 2 i 9 160 2 i 21–22 170 4QInstructiond (4Q418) 7 b 5 170 8 9 170 176 3 190–191 4QInstructione (4Q418a) 16 3 193–194 4QHodayota (4Q427) 3 4 171 (n. 54) 7 i 16 5–6 7 ii 2–7 185–88 4QHodayote (4Q431) 2 2 185–88 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436) 1 i 1 5 2 i 4 10 4QBarkhi Nafshie (4Q438) 4 ii 4 81 4QLament by a Leader (4Q439) 1 i 2 14

209

Index Of Ancient Sources 4QPoetic Text A (4Q446) 1 2 167

11QtgJob (11Q10) 36:5

4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer (4Q448) 1 1 171 (n. 54)

11QMelchizedek (11Q13) 2:9–10 41

4QNarrative Work and Prayer (4Q460) 9 i 5 173 (n. 65)

11QSefer ha-Milḥama (11Q14) 1 ii 10 149

4QEschatological Work B (4Q472) 2:8 13

11QShirShabb (11Q17) 3 6 39 16–18 3 39

4QpapRitMar (4Q502) 16 3 81 4QShirb (4Q511) 2 i 4 63–64 2 4

153 10

4Qpap RitPur B (4Q512) 1–6 5 51 (n. 36) 42–44 5 51 (n. 36) 4QBeatitudes (4Q525) 5 9 11 4QTJacob(?) ar (4Q537) 1+2+3 2 167 4QTJud ar (4Q538) 1–2 6 167 2 4 167 (n. 31) 4QVisions of Amramd ar (4Q546) 14 3 162 (n. 8) 4QTestamenta? ar (4Q580) 4 5 167 6Qpap apocrSam-Kings (6Q9) 45 2 9 8QMez (8Q4) 1 16

11

11QPsa (11Q5) 23:4

11

1QNJ ar (11Q18) 8 3 9 4

22 (n. 77)

22 22

11QTemplea (11Q19) 16:11–13 44 17:12–13 107 18:11 87 19:11 87 19:14–15 94 20:15 44 20:16 11 22:11–13 107 27:6–8 45 29:9–10 107 30:9–10 96–97 32:12 84 33:10–11 110–111 33:14–15 44 (n. 16) 33:15 87 34:10–11 44 45:16 102 46:5–6 110 46:15–16 98 47:3–4 86 47:3–5 98 48:3 10 53:11 81 53:14–15 81 53:19–20 81 55:6 81 56:14 81 57:11 11

210 59:4 59:15 62:14 64:11 64:14 65:4

Index Of Ancient Sources 10 (n. 19) 87 81 81 81 81

11QTempleb (11Q20) 4:15 44 Phyl 3 (XQ3) 1 24

11

XQ6 3

47

IV. Other Judean Desert Documents Beth A ͑ mar 4–6 10–11

73 (n. 19) 67 (n. 7)

Murabbaʿat 11–12.1.2 16–17 18.7–8 22.3 22.4 22:11–12.2–3 24.5.9–10 25.5 26.6–8 26.8–9 26.11 26.14–15 30.15 30.18 30.17–18 30.22 30.22–23 30.23–24 42.4 42.5 43.3 43.5–6 174.5

69 69–70 67 (n. 7) 69 72 73 69 71 (n. 14) 69 (n. 10) 73 (n. 21) 71 (n. 14) 66 (n. 5) 144 144 73 69 72 66 147 71 73 70 71

Naḥal David (Wadi Sdeir) 2.6–7 67 (n. 7) Naḥal Ḥever (P. Yadin) 5 1 3 11 7.5 70 (n. 11), 73 (n. 21) 7.5–6 69 (n. 10) 7.29 72 (n. 17) 7.36–38 69 (n. 10) 8.3 70 (n. 11) 8.5 69 (n. 8), 71 (n. 14) 8.6–7 66 (n. 5) 8.7–9.6 68 8a.8–9 69 (n. 10) 9.8 66 (n. 5) 10.6 72 (n. 17) 10.18 72 (n. 17) 13.9–10 72 (n. 17) 17.40 73 (n. 19) 20.41–42 73 (n. 19) 21.3–4 73 (n. 21) 42.3 73 (n. 19) 42.9 67 (n. 7) 44.4–6 68 44.10–15 74 44.18–22 71 44.19–24 68 44.24 67 44.26 72 45.6–7 72 46.2–3 68 46.3 73 46.8–12 68 47.2.6 69 (n. 8) 49 71 (n. 16) 49.2–3 70 49.6 67 49.7–8 71 49.10–11 67 49.11–12 72 50 66 (n. 5), 69 (n. 10), 71 (n. 14), 73 (n. 21) Vision of Gabriel 16 14 17 14

211

Index Of Ancient Sources V. CD CD 3:9 3:20–4:4 9:14–15 10:7 12:6 13:7–10 14:2 14:8–10 15:6–16:1 15:10 20:12

155 (n. 48) 60 (n. 56) 98 167 155 (n. 48) 192–193 10 94 59 59 148

VI. Rabbinic Literature Mishna ʾAbot 5:18 118 ʿEduyyot 8:7 61 Menaḥot 4:3 117 Nazir 8:1 120 Nedarim 9:3 118 Roš Haššanah 1:8 74 (n. 23) Tamid 4:2 44 Terumot 5:6 67 (n. 6) Yoma 8:9 118 Tosefta Ketubbot

67 (n. 5)

Yerushalmi Demai 23a

60–61

Bavli ʿErubin 54a

173

Mekhilta Devarim 12:1

148

Sifra ‫אחרי מות‬, 1:1

52

VII. Other Sources Epigraphical sources Deir ʿAlla I 6–7 KAI 13,3–4 RS 92.2016:8

162 (n. 7) 162 (n. 7) 162 (n. 7)

Proverbs of Aḥiqar TAD C1.1.130–131 TAD C1.1.155

170 162 (n. 7), 163

Josephus, Jewish War 2.137–138

59 (n. 54)

Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 8.6.62–67

174 (n. 66)

Qurʾān 4:172

52 (n. 38)