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 (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH E D I T E D BY F. G A R C I A MARTINEZ A. S...

Author: Takamitsu Muraoka | John F. Elwolde

73 downloads 1157 Views 18MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND

SAGES

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH E D I T E D BY F. G A R C I A

MARTINEZ

A. S. V A N D E R

V O L U M E

W O U D E

XXXIII

' / 6 8 ‫' ל‬

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

15-17 December

iggy

E D I T E D BY

T. MURAOKA &

J.F. ELWOLDE

' 6 8 ‫ ׳‬V

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON

1999

‫ ־‬KÖLN

University,

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Die D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e Sirach, scrolls, and s a g e s : 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. by T . Muraoka & J . F. Elwolde. - Leiden ; Boston; Köln : Brill, 1999 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah ; Vol. 33) ISBN 90-04-11553-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 11553 6 © Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 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 Brill 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. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

TABLE O F C O N T E N T S

Preface

vii

J.K. Aitken, The S e m a n t i c s of 'Glory' in Ben Sira—Traces of a D e v e l o p m e n t in Post-Biblical H e b r e w ?

1

M.F.J. Baasten, N o m i n a l C l a u s e s w i t h Locative a n d P o s s e s s i v e Predicates in Q u m r a n H e b r e w

25

P.C. Beentjes, The H e b r e w Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16-33[36].2

53

M. Ehrensvärd, A n U n u s u a l U s e of the D e f i n i t e Article in Biblical a n d Post-Biblical H e b r e w

68

J.F. E l w o l d e , S o m e Lexical Structures in 1QH: T o w a r d s a Distinction of the Linguistic a n d the Literary

77

S.E. Fassberg, O n Syntax a n d Style in Ben Sira: W o r d Order

117

A. Hurvitz, Further C o m m e n t s o n the Linguistic Profile of Ben Sira: Syntactic Affinities w i t h Late Biblical Hebrew

132

J. Joosten, P s e u d o - C l a s s i c i s m s in Late Biblical H e b r e w , in Ben Sira, a n d in Q u m r a n H e b r e w

146

M. Kister, S o m e N o t e s o n Biblical Expressions a n d A l l u s i o n s and the L e x i c o g r a p h y of Ben Sira

160

T. Muraoka, The Participle in Q u m r a n H e b r e w w i t h Special Reference to its Periphrastic U s e

188

M. Pérez Fernandez, 4 Q M M T : Linguistic A n a l y s i s of Redactional Forms Related to Biblical a n d Rabbinic L a n g u a g e 205 W.T. v a n Peursen, N e g a t i o n in the H e b r e w of Ben Sira

223

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E. Q i m r o n , T h e D e r i v a t i o n of the N o u n ‫ ת ש מ ח ת‬in the D e a d Sea Scrolls

244

F.V. Reiterer, T h e H e b r e w of Ben Sira I n v e s t i g a t e d o n t h e Basis of h i s U s e of ‫ כ ר ת‬: A Syntactic, S e m a n t i c , a n d Language-Historical Contribution 253 M.S. S m i t h , G r a m m a t i c a l l y S p e a k i n g : T h e Participle as a M a i n V e r b of C l a u s e s ( P r e d i c a t i v e Participle) in Direct D i s c o u r s e a n d N a r r a t i v e in P r e - M i s h n a i c H e b r e w 278 N . A . v a n U c h e l e n , Q u m r a n a n d M i s h n a h : A C o m p a r i s o n of P r e s c r i p t i v e Text T y p e s

333

J.W. W e s s e l i u s , T h e L a n g u a g e of the H e b r e w Bible C o n t r a s t e d w i t h the L a n g u a g e of Ben Sira M a n u s c r i p t s a n d of the D e a d Sea Scrolls

338

I n d e x of T e x t s I n d e x of H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c W o r d s a n d P h r a s e s I n d e x of Subjects

347 360 363

PREFACE

The u n d e r s i g n e d h a v e the p l e a s u r e of p r e s e n t i n g the p r o c e e d i n g s of the s e c o n d international s y m p o s i u m o n the H e b r e w of the D e a d Sea Scrolls a n d Ben Sira in relation to Biblical a n d M i s h n a i c H e b r e w h e l d in D e c e m b e r 1997 at L e i d e n U n i v e r s i t y a n d o r g a n i z e d b y Prof. T. M u r a o k a of L e i d e n and Prof. E. Q i m r o n of Beer Sheva. The s y m p o s i u m t u r n e d o u t to b e a n o t h e r s u c c e s s , f o l l o w i n g the first, h e l d t w o y e a r s b e f o r e , a l s o in L e i d e n , a n d w a s a t t e n d e d b y a greater n u m b e r of p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h a l i v e l y d i s c u s s i o n a n d fruitful e x c h a n g e of v i e w s . There w e r e another t w o papers, w h i c h are not i n c l u d e d in this v o l u m e (by Prof. S. Morag of Jerusalem and Prof. W.J. van Bekkum of Groningen). W h e r e a s the p a p e r s p r e s e n t e d c o v e r e d a s o m e w h a t b r o a d e r r a n g e of subjects in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the first s y m p o s i u m , the f o c u s lay clearly in the H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . T h e o r g a n i s e r s of the s y m p o s i u m w i s h to a c k n o w l e d g e their ind e b t e d n e s s to the f o l l o w i n g b o d i e s , w h o s e g e n e r o u s financial s u p p o r t m a d e the g a t h e r i n g p o s s i b l e : the Faculty of Letters, the C e n t r e for N o n - W e s t e r n Studies, a n d the D e p a r t m e n t of N e a r Eastern Studies, all of L e i d e n U n i v e r s i t y ; L e i d s U n i v e r s i t a i r F o n d s ; the R o y a l D u t c h A c a d e m y of Sciences ( K N A W ) . T h e e d i t o r s are grateful to Prof. A.S. v a n der W o u d e a n d Prof. F. Garcia M a r t i n e z for readily a c c e p t i n g this v o l u m e for i n c l u s i o n in the series S t u d i e s o n the Texts of the Desert of Judah a n d the p u b l i s h e r E.J. Brill, e s p e c i a l l y in the p e r s o n of Mr H a n s v a n der Meij. Mr M a x R o g l a n d , a doctoral s t u d e n t at L e i d e n U n i v e r s i t y , is to be t h a n k e d for m a k i n g the indices. 13 M a y 1999 T. M u r a o k a (Leiden) J.F. E l w o l d e (Oxford)

THE S E M A N T I C S OF 'GLORY‫ ׳‬IN BEN SIRA— TRACES OF A D E V E L O P M E N T IN POST-BIBLICAL HEBREW? J a m e s K. A i t k e n (Cambridge)

I: Introduction S e m a n t i c c h a n g e is an i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t in t h e s t u d y of a n y l a n g u a g e a n d s e r v e s as o n e register in tracing the d e v e l o p m e n t of the l a n g u a g e . A m a j o r factor in the s t u d y of that s e m a n t i c c h a n g e is a n a l y s i s of t h e c o n t e x t s in w h i c h a l e x e m e o c c u r s in e a c h s t a g e of the l a n g u a g e . In 1961, for e x a m p l e , J. Barr i n s i s t e d that " l e x i c o g r a p h i c research s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s the s e m a n t i c s of w o r d s in their particular o c c u r r e n c e s a n d n o t t o w a r d s t h e a s s e m b l y of a stock of p e r v a s i v e a n d d i s t i n c t i v e t e r m s that c o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a l i n g u i s t i c r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e t h e o l o g i c a l realities". 1 J.F. S a w y e r h a s l i k e w i s e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t a f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e is that "an a d e q u a t e d e f i n i t i o n of c o n t e x t m u s t p r e c e d e a n y s e m a n t i c s t a t e m e n t 2 . ‫ ״‬T h i s is a l s o a n a s p e c t g o v e r n i n g t h e a r r a n g e m e n t of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew3‫ ׳‬p r e s e n t l y i s s u i n g f r o m t h e p r e s s in S h e f f i e l d , b u t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n t e x t in t h e c a s e of biblical texts is p a r t i c u l a r l y f r a u g h t . It s h o u l d take i n t o acc o u n t the form-critical, t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l a n d r e d a c t i o n a l factors that h a v e f o r m e d t h e text, a s w e l l a s t h e p o s s i b l e d i v e r s i t y of the H e b r e w l a n g u a g e a n d t h e d i f f e r e n t e r a s , if n o t g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n s , f r o m w h i c h the texts d e r i v e . All t h e s e are d i s p u t e d i s s u e s , but s o m e a t t e m p t s h o u l d b e m a d e to take t h e m i n t o a c c o u n t if w e w i s h to a c h i e v e a n a d e q u a t e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e s e m a n t i c s of a w o r d ( a n d the s a m e , i n c i d e n t a l l y , a p p l i e s to the v e r s i o n s — t h e i r c o n t e x t s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d b e f o r e t h e y are a p p l i e d to a H e b r e w text). A.S. v a n d e r W o u d e s u g g e s t s that in t h e c a s e of s o u r c e a n a l y s i s "it c a n a s s i s t u s to b e alert to the m e a n i n g of certain t e r m s in certain c o n t e x t s b u t it c a n n o t b e c o n -

1

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1961), p. 274. 2 J.F. S a w y e r , Semantics in Biblical Research: Neu‫ ׳‬Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation (London: SCM Press, 1972), p. 112. 3 D.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993-).

s i d e r e d a s a c l u e for r e s o l v i n g t h e p r o b l e m s ... in g e n e r a l " . 4 T o b e alert to t h e p r o b l e m s , e v e n if t h e y m a y p r o v e to b e i r r e s o l v a b l e , is a n e s s e n t i a l part of the s t u d y of H e b r e w s e m a n t i c s . D e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n t e x t of a l e x e m e i n e v i t a b l y b r i n g s o n e i n t o t h e r e a l m of t h e e x e g e s i s of e a c h p a r t i c u l a r text. C o n s e q u e n t l y , a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a p a s s a g e o r a u t h o r w i l l a f f e c t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l e x e m e ' s c o n t e x t a n d h e n c e t h e l e x e m e ' s m e a n ing. Just a s o n e m a y insist that e x e g e t e s take a c c o u n t of l i n g u i s t i c factors, 5 s o a l s o m u s t l i n g u i s t s , or at least s e m a n t i c s p e c i a l i s t s , b e e x e g e t e s of e v e r y text t h e y s t u d y . In the c a s e of B e n Sira a n d t h e D e a d Sea S c r o l l s t h e task of e x e g e s i s is o n l y just b e g i n n i n g , e s p e c i a l l y in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h biblical material. S e m a n t i c s t u d y is f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e in t h e s e n o n - b i b l i c a l w r i t i n g s t h e m s e l v e s of e x t e n s i v e e x e g e t i c a l m a t e r i a l , w h i c h is a l s o o n l y g r a d u a l l y b e i n g rev e a l e d b y s c h o l a r l y research. 6 T h e u s e of biblical e x p r e s s i o n s o r a l l u s i o n s to biblical v e r s e s a p p a r e n t in t h e s e w r i t i n g s h a m p e r s t h e task of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n a s e m a n t i c c h a n g e f r o m Early Biblical H e b r e w to Late Biblical H e b r e w . A s i m p l e e x a m p l e of the p r o b l e m of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s e m a n t i c s a n d e x e g e s i s can be f o u n d in C.T.R. H a y w a r d ' s recent translation of a n d c o m m e n t a r y o n n o n - b i b l i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of the t e m p l e . H e t r a n s l a t e s f r o m Sir. 44.1 t h e title ‫ ט ב ח א ב ו ת ע ו ל ם‬in MS Β a s ‫ ׳‬T h e P r a i s e of t h e Fathers of the W o r l d ' , a n d n o t t h e c u s t o m a r y ' T h e P r a i s e of t h e Fathers of O l d ' . 7 T h i s c h o i c e of r e n d e r i n g ‫ ע ו ל ם‬b y the m e a n i n g familiar f r o m R a b b i n i c H e b r e w ( ' t h e w o r l d ' ) r e f l e c t s a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of B e n Sira's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of u n i v e r s a l i t y , w h i c h m a y p e r h a p s b e 4

A S. van d e r W o u d e , ‫׳‬Some R e m a r k s on Literary Critical Source Analysis of the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d H e b r e w Semantics', in T. M u r a o k a (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics (ANSup, 4; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1995), p. 54. 5 C.H.J, v a n d e r M e r w e , ‫ ׳‬H e b r e w G r a m m a r , Exegesis a n d C o m m e n t a r i e s ' , JNSL 11 (1983), p p . 143-44, calls for greater attention to be paid to linguistics by exegetes. 6 This h a s b e e n n o t e d by M. Kister, O b s e r v a t i o n s on A s p e c t s of Exegesis, Tradition, a n d Theology in Midrash, P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , a n d other Jewish Writings', in J.C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Early J u d a i s m a n d its Literature, 6; A t l a n t a , GA: Scholars Press, 1994), p. 1. 7 C.T.R. H a y w a r d , The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 41. H e b r e w q u o t a t i o n s of Ben Sira are taken f r o m P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). T h e verse n u m b e r i n g u s e d h e r e is that of Beentjes, w h o r e p r o d u c e s the o r d e r of verses in the H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s rather than in the Greek.

d r a w n f r o m h i s p o r t r a y a l of W i s d o m in ch. 24 a n d t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d . 8 T h e r e f o r e , the c o n d e m n a t i o n of t h e S a m a r i t a n s in 50.24 is, a c c o r d i n g to H a y w a r d , i n s t i g a t e d b y the threat p o s e d b y t h e S a m a r i t a n t e m p l e to the u n i v e r s a l i t y of the J e r u s a l e m t e m p l e . 9 It m a y b e d e b a t e d , in v i e w of t h e lack of a t t e s t a t i o n of t h i s m e a n i n g e l s e w h e r e in t h e e a r l y s e c o n d c e n t u r y , w h e t h e r H a y w a r d is c o r r e c t s o to translate t h e w o r d . But if h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is feasible, t h e n o n c o n t e x tual g r o u n d s this m a y p r o v e to b e t h e earliest i n s t a n c e of that m e a n ing. I n d e e d , its a b s e n c e f r o m t h e M a s a d a Scroll s u g g e s t s that t h e title w a s a later a d d i t i o n to the w o r k , a n d h e n c e p e r h a p s d a t e s f r o m a t i m e w h e n ‫ ע ו ל ם‬d i d m e a n ‫ ׳‬w o r l d ' . N o n e t h e l e s s , the p r o b l e m r e m a i n s t h a t a g r e e m e n t o v e r the e x e g e s i s of Ben Sira h a s n o t b e e n r e a c h e d a n d e x e g e s i s m u s t r e m a i n the s e r v a n t of s e m a n t i c s t u d y . For a w o r k s u c h a s Ben Sira that c o n t a i n s s o m a n y textual a n d v e r s i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , t h i s p r o b l e m is all t h e m o r e a c u t e . T h e r e f o r e , to a d a p t v a n d e r W o u d e ' s w o r d s , w e m a y s a y that e x e g e s i s w i l l a s s i s t u s to b e alert to the m e a n i n g of certain t e r m s in certain c o n t e x t s , b u t it m a y u s h e r in a s m a n y p r o b l e m s a s it r e s o l v e s .

11: Lexical

analyses

T h e i n t e n t i o n h e r e is to s u r v e y this t e n s i o n b e t w e e n e x e g e s i s a n d s e m a n t i c s in the light of three related l e x e m e s , ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬a n d ‫ כ ב ו ד‬, w h i c h m a y in g e n e r a l b e t r a n s l a t e d ' g l o r y ' , a n d t h e c o g n a t e v e r b ‫' ה ת פ א ר‬to b e g l o r i f i e d ' , a l t h o u g h t h e s e t r a n s l a t i o n s d o n o t c o n v e y t h e full b r e a d t h of m e a n i n g . 1 " T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of their c o l l o c a t i o n w i t h o t h e r l e x e m e s in the s e m a n t i c field w i l l a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d . E v e n if w e a r e u n a b l e to reach firm c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t the s e m a n t i c s of t h e s e l e x e m e s , w e m a y at least n o t e s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g l e x i c o g r a p h i c a s p e c t s a n d a s k w h a t t h e y m a y tell us a b o u t the H e b r e w of Ben Sira.

8

H a y w a r d d o e s n o t u s e the term 'universality' as such, b u t see his s u g g e s tively entitled 'Sacrifice a n d World O r d e r : Some O b s e r v a t i o n s on Ben Sira's A t t i t u d e to the T e m p l e Service', in S.W. Sykes (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption. Durham Essays in Theology ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1991), p p . 22-34. 9 The Jerusalem Temple, p. 63. 10 F. Raurell, 'The Religious M e a n i n g of «Doxa» in the Book of W i s d o m ' , in M. Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de l'Ancien Testament (BETL, 51; Leuven: L e u v e n University Press, 1979), p. 378, n. 26, l a m e n t s that m o d e r n versions translate the G r e e k w o r d δόξα " m e c h a n i c a l l y w i t h the m e a n i n g l e s s a n d e q u i v o c a l w o r d 'glory'".

A:‫תפארת‬

in Ben Sira

‫ ת פ א ר ת‬o c c u r s 10 t i m e s i n the e x t a n t H e b r e w of B e n Sira. O n o n e o c c a s i o n it is u s e d p e j o r a t i v e l y to d e n o t e t h e p r i d e of G o l i a t h (47.4d), 1 1 b u t o t h e r w i s e it a p p e a r s in a p o s i t i v e s e n s e . A m o n g t h e s e i n s t a n c e s , t h e m o s t elliptical a n d d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t is at 49.16. B e n Sira r e c o u n t s t h e h i s t o r y of Israel u p to t h e t i m e of N e h e m i a h , w h e r e u p o n t h e c h r o n o l o g y is r e v e r s e d to s p e a k b r i e f l y of E n o c h (49.14). H e , like Elijah, f o u n d f a v o u r in G o d ' s e y e s a n d w a s t a k e n h e a v e n w a r d s . A f t e r E n o c h a brief s u c c e s s i o n of patriarchs is l i s t e d ( 4 9 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) : ‫וגם גויתו נ פ ק ד ה‬ ‫כיוסף אם נולד גבר‬ ‫ו ע ל כ ל חי ת פ א ר ת א ד ם‬ ‫ושם ושת ואנוש נ פ ק ד ו‬ ' W a s a m a n e v e r b o r n like J o s e p h ; e v e n his b o d y w a s r e m e m b e r e d ? Shem, Seth and Enosh w e r e remembered,12 But a b o v e all h u m a n s is the g l o r y of A d a m ' . O w i n g to t h e b r e v i t y of t h e r e f e r e n c e to A d a m v a r i o u s s u g g e s t i o n s h a v e b e e n m a d e a s to its m e a n i n g , m a n y of t h e m d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n s that a r o s e c o n c e r n i n g t h e f i g u r e of A d a m . 1 3 It h a s a l s o b e e n c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e t e r m ‫ כ ב ו ד א ד ם‬in t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls ( C D 3.20; 1 Q H 17[4].15; 1 Q S 3.20; 4 . 2 3 ) , 1 4 a p h r a s e that itself is o b s c u r e , b u t s e e m s to s u g g e s t a n A d a m i c e s c h a t o l o g i c a l o r ideal state. D o e s this m e a n , then, that there h a s b e e n a s e m a n t i c shift in t h e m e a n i n g of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬to i n c l u d e a n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l status, p e r h a p s u n d e r the inf l u e n c e of ‫ ? כ ב ו ר‬It w o u l d c e r t a i n l y s e e m to b e t h e c a s e if w e f o l l o w t h o s e c o m m e n t a t o r s w h o s u g g e s t this, 1 5 s o m e of t h e m d i s m i s s i n g t h e 11

O n the p r i d e of Goliath see b. Sotah 42b: ‫׳‬Goliath w a s so n a m e d , said R. Joh a n a n , b e c a u s e h e stood w i t h e f f r o n t e r y [‫ )בגילוי פנים‬b e f o r e the H o l y O n e blessed be H e ' (cf. t a r g u m to Ps. 9.1). O t h e r e x a m p l e s of the w o r d ‫ תפארת‬w i t h the m e a n i n g ' p r i d e ' or , boast' can be f o u n d in Isa. 10.12; 13.19; 20.5. 12 A l t h o u g h the H e b r e w text reads ‫נפקדו‬, the Greek reads έδοξάσθησαν, w h i c h implies a Vorlage w i t h ‫נכבדו‬. It m i g h t not be necessary to e m e n d the H e b r e w text, h o w e v e r , as the w o r d ‫ פ ק ד‬w a s p o p u l a r w i t h Ben Sira a n d h e s e e m s to h a v e u n d e r s t o o d by it that s o m e o n e or s o m e t h i n g h a d been specially r e m e m bered by G o d ; see C.T.R. H a y w a r d , T h e N e w Jerusalem in the W i s d o m of Jesus Ben Sira', SJOT 6 (1992), p . 129. 13

For a list of m a n y of these p r o p o s a l s see J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch 0 S P S u p , 1; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), p p . 44-45. 14 E.g. Raurell, 'The Religious M e a n i n g of «Doxa»', p. 381, n. 33, w h o e v e n says that Ben Sira speaks of the ‫ כ ב ו ד‬of A d a m . 15 E.g. E. Jacob, 'L'histoire d'Israël v u e p a r Ben Sira', in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957), p p . 293-94; J. Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen l,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinis-

p a s s a g e a s a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n i n a p p r o p r i a t e to B e n S i r a ' s t h o u g h t . 1 6 T h e s e c o m m e n t a t o r s as w e l l as m a n y of t h e o t h e r s r e l a t i n g B e n Sira to Jewish traditions about A d a m , h o w e v e r , d o not consider the express i o n in t h e c o n t e x t of B e n Sira or n o t e t h e w o r d p a r a l l e l s e l s e w h e r e i n the b o o k . O n e c o u l d s u g g e s t alternative translations for the h e m i s t i c h ‫ ו ע ל כ ל חי ת פ א ר ת א ד ם‬as 'upon all h u m a n s is t h e g l o r y o f A d a m ' , o r ' A d a m is an adornment upon all h u m a n s ' . T h i s s e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e h a s a parallel in t h e Latin v e r s i o n of Jubilees, in w h i c h L e v i ' s n a m e c o n n o t e s that h e w i l l s e r v e as ' t h e a d o r n m e n t of G o d ' (ad decorem dei en's). 1 7 N e v e r t h e l e s s , v a r i o u s c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s s u g g e s t its l i k e l y m e a n i n g . T h e m e a n i n g a n d s y n t a c t i c f u n c t i o n of ‫ ע ל‬, h o w e v e r , is m o r e d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n a n d w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d b e l o w . First, v a r i o u s factors m a y b e n o t e d for t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the w h o l e p h r a s e .

1: The use o/TI ‫ כ ל‬in the 'Praise of the Fathers' In B e n Sira t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ ע ל כ ל ח י‬s e e m s to i m p l y a n e l e v a t e d c o v e n a n t a l status. For, M o s e s is s a i d to h a v e f o u n d f a v o u r 'in t h e s i g h t of all h u m a n s ' ( 4 4 . 2 3 ] ‫ ) ] ב ע י נ י כ ל חי‬a n d to h a v e ' f r o m all f l e s h ' ( [ 4 5 . 4 ] ‫) ] ו י ב ח ר בו מ כ ל ] ב ש ר‬ c h o s e n ' f r o m all h u m a n s ' ( 4 5 . 1 6 ] ‫ח ר ב ו מ כ ל חי‬ m a n s ' is m a d e in t h e ' P r a i s e of t h e F a t h e r s ' w h e n s o m e o n e is to b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e rest of h u m a n i t y o w i n g to a s p e c i a l s t a t u s granted by God. 2: The meaning of 'the glory of Adam' In s e a r c h i n g for a biblical s o u r c e for Ben Sira's e x p r e s s i o n ‫ ת פ א ר ת א ד ם‬, r e f e r e n c e is s o m e t i m e s m a d e to the o n e o c c u r r e n c e of the p h r a s e in t h e H e b r e w c a n o n at Isa. 4 4 . 1 3 . 1 8 If B e n Sira d i d h a v e this v e r s e f r o m

chen Briefen (Forschungen z u r Religion u n d Literatur d e s Alten u n d N e u e n Testaments, 58; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k &: Ruprecht, 1960), p. 45. 16 E.g. B.L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago Studies in the H i s t o r y of J u d a i s m ; Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 201. 17 J.C. V a n d e r K a m , 'Jubilees' Exegetical C r e a t i o n of Levi the Priest', RQ 17 (1996), p. 360, n. 5, s u g g e s t s that the play on his n a m e in the Latin p o i n t s to the H e b r e w w o r d ‫' ל ר ה‬escort, c o m p a n y ' . 18 E.g. P.C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach: een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallelen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45: 6-26 (Nieuwegein: Beentjes, 1981), p p . 166-67; S. Schechter & C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1899), p. 24; A. E b e r h a r t e r , Das

Isaiah in m i n d , it is u n c l e a r w h a t h i s i n t e n t i o n w a s s i n c e it is u s e d in t h e c o n t e x t of i d o l a t r y , w h i c h is i n a p p r o p r i a t e for h i s p u r p o s e s at Sir. 49.16. It is m o r e l i k e l y that the p h r a s e c o n t a i n e d a r e s o n a n c e t h a t h e w i s h e d to c o n v e y a n d w a s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e n d e d a s a n a l l u s i o n to Isaiah. N e v e r t h e l e s s , in Isaiah t h e e x p r e s s i o n d e n o t e s ' h u m a n b e a u t y ' a n d this m e a n i n g m a y a l s o b e i m p l i e d in B e n Sira. T h e a n a l y s i s of t h e o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬in Ben Sira w i l l a s s i s t in i n t e r p r e t i n g 49.16. 3: The instances of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬in Ben Sira T h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t of t h e e x p r e s s i o n at 4 9 . 1 6 is its s t r i k i n g p o s i t i o n b e f o r e t h e e u l o g y of the h i g h p r i e s t S i m e o n . I n d e e d , in t h e v e r y n e x t v e r s e 1 9 Ben Sira r e p e a t s the w o r d ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬in h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e H i g h Priest (50.1a): ‫ג ד ו ל אחיו ו ת פ א ר ת ע מ ו‬

'Great a m o n g his k i n s f o l k a n d t h e g l o r y of h i s p e o p l e ' . B e n Sira c o m p a r e s t h e g l o r y o f A d a m to that of t h e h i g h p r i e s t S i m e o n , s o n of O n i a s . A l t h o u g h ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬a p p e a r s in t h e p r o e m to t h e 'Praise of t h e Fathers' as o n e of the q u a l i t i e s for w h i c h Israel's a n c e s tors s h o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d (44.7), in the rest of t h e h y m n it is f o u n d o n l y rarely. W h e n B e n Sira a p p l i e s ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬to t h e h i g h p r i e s t s , it is in r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r v e s t m e n t s . A a r o n is c l o t h e d in ' p e r f e c t g l o r y ' ( 4 5 . 8 ] ‫ כ ל י ל ת פ א ר ת‬a ] ) 2 0 a n d S i m e o n is d r e s s e d in dour' ( 5 0 . 1 1 ] ‫ ב ג ד י כ ב ו ד‬a ] ) a n d ' v e s t m e n t s of g 50.1] l b ] ) . T h e i n f l u e n c e of E x o d . 28.2,40, in w h i c h G o d p r e s c r i b e s that t h e h i g h p r i e s t ' s v e s t m e n t s are to b e 'for s p l e n d o u r [ ‫ ] ל כ ב ו ד‬a n d for g l o r y [ ‫ ' ] ל ת פ א ר ת‬, is u n d o u b t e d l y to be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e e x p r e s s i o n , 2 1 b u t t h e p h r a s e in the c o n s t r u c t ‫( ב ג ד י ת פ א ר ת‬or ‫ ) כ ל י ל‬is t h e p a r t i c u l a r w o r d i n g of Ben Sira. 2 2 H e u s e s the s a m e e x p r e s s i o n in ch. 6 in a n e x h o r t a t i o n to his p u p i l s to a s s u m e t h e y o k e a n d f e t t e r s of W i s d o m , whereupon: ‫ומוסרתיה פתיל ת כ ל ת‬

‫עלי זהב עולה‬

Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (Die Heilige Schrift d e s Alten T e s t a m e n t e s ü b e r s e t z t u n d e r k l ä r t in V e r b i n d u n g m i t F a c h g e l e h r t e n , 6, 5; Bonn: P. H a n s t e i n , 1925), p. 18; M.Z. Segal, ‫( ס פ ר בן סירא השלם‬Second ed.; J e r u s a l e m : Bialik Institute, 1958), p. 34(). 19 The Greek translation transposes this distich after 49.15a as p a r t of the e u logy of Joseph. The Syriac a n d MS Β of the H e b r e w p r o b a b l y preserve the correct position at 50.1a. See below. 20 MS Bmg:.‫חפארתו‬ 21 ‫ ח פ א ר ח‬is also applied to the priestly g a r m e n t s in 11QShirShabb 8:1.5. See C. N e w s o m (ed.), Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition ( H a r v a r d Semitic Series, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 371. 22 In Exod. 28.2 the clothes are said to be 'clothes of h o l i n e s s ' ( ‫ ) מ ד י ק ד ט‬.

'Her y o k e will b e c o m e a g o l d e n ornament, a n d h e r fetters a p u r p l e t a s s e l ' (Sir. 6.29). H e t h e n tells his p u p i l s the c o n s e q u e n c e of this: ‫ועטרת תפארת תעטרנה‬ ‫בגדי כ ב ו ד ת ל ב ש נ ה‬ ‫ ׳‬Y o u w i l l w e a r her a s c l o t h e s of s p l e n d o u r , a n d bear her as a d i a d e m of g l o r y ' (Sir. 6.30). T h e l a n g u a g e of 6 . 3 0 is r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r to that of 50.11. In b o t h there are c l o t h e s of s p l e n d o u r ( ‫ ) ב ג ר י כ ב ו ר‬a n d of g l o r y ( ‫ ) ת פ א ר ת‬, a n d t h e v e r b in t h e s e t w o p a s s a g e s a s w e l l a s at 4 5 . 8 ( o n A a r o n ) is ‫ ל ב ש‬, all s u g g e s t i n g a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n g l o r y a n d the priest's v e s t m e n t s . A t first s i g h t ch. 6 a p p e a r s to e m p l o y t h e s t a n d a r d W i s d o m v o c a b u l a r y . T h e w e a r i n g o f t h e p u r p l e t a s s e l ( 6 . 2 9 b ) is a c o m m a n d m e n t f r o m N u m . 15.38 to r e m e m b e r t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s of t h e G o d of Israel, w h i c h t h u s i d e n t i f i e s W i s d o m w i t h o b s e r v a n c e of t h e T o r a h . T h e d i a d e m of g l o r y , t o o , a l t h o u g h b e i n g a royal i m a g e (Isa. 62.3; 13.8), is a traditional m e t a p h o r for W i s d o m ( P r o v . 4.9; 16.31). N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e c o l o u r s of g o l d a n d p u r p l e are c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e h i g h priest (45.10a; 5 0 . 7 ) 2 3 a n d the d i a d e m is a h e a d - p i e c e particular to B e n Sira's d e p i c t i o n of h i m (45.12a). It w o u l d a p p e a r , therefore, that t h e e x h o r t a tion in ch. 6 is i n t e n d e d as a p r e p a r a t i o n for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of W i s d o m w i t h the p r i e s t l y a c t i v i t y that can b e d i s c e r n e d in b o t h chs. 24 (cf. λειτουργείν [v. 10]) a n d 5 0 (the m e t a p h o r s a p p l i e d to W i s d o m in ch. 24 are t h o s e a p p l i e d to the h i g h priest in 50). 2 4 4: Allusion to Gen. 3.20-21 T h e p h r a s e ‫ ע ל כ ל חי‬in B e n Sira m a y w e l l d e r i v e f r o m t h e d e s c r i p t i o n in G e n e s i s of E v e , w h o w a s 'the m o t h e r of all l i v i n g ' (‫ א ם כ ל חי‬, G e n . 3.20). T h e c h o i c e of l a n g u a g e f r o m this v e r s e w o u l d t h e n e x p l a i n t h e m e a n i n g of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬at Sir. 49.16. For in t h e v e r y n e x t v e r s e , G e n . 3.21, w h e r e the M T s a y s that G o d m a d e for A d a m a n d E v e c l o t h e s of s k i n , t h e targumim relate that h e m a d e ' c l o t h e s of h o n o u r ' ( ‫ ל ב ו ש י ו ר י ק ר‬, F r a g m e n t t a r g u m , O n q e l o s a n d Ps.-Jonathan; ‫ ל ב ש י ו ד א ו ק ר‬, N e o f i t i I). 2 5 T h e o r i g i n of this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r o b a b l y d e r i v e s f r o m a p l a y o n t h e w o r d for 'skin‫׳‬, ‫ ע ו ר‬, a n d o n the w o r d f o r 'light‫׳‬, ‫ א ו ר‬. Bereshit Rabbah 20.12 o n t h e v e r s e a d d s t h e c o m m e n t that 'in R. M e i r ' s T o r a h it w a s f o u n d w r i t t e n " G a r m e n t s of L i g h t " ( ‫ — ) כ ו ת נ ו ת א ו ר‬t h i s r e f e r s to t h e g a r m e n t s of t h e First M a n w h i c h are c o m p a r e d to a l a m p ' . S i n c e

23

In E x o d u s the p u r p l e tassle is often said to be w o r n by the h i g h priest (28.28,37; 39.21,31). 24 For d i s c u s s i o n of the identification of W i s d o m w i t h the p r i e s t h o o d , see H a y w a r d , 'Sacrifice a n d World O r d e r ‫ ׳‬, p p . 22-34. 25 See also PRE 20 a n d Midrash Tehillin on Ps. 92.1.

A d a m ' s g a r m e n t s w e r e of light, t h e y c o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d a s g l o r i o u s . 2 6 Later t r a d i t i o n a v e r s t h a t t h e h i g h p r i e s t ' s c l o t h e s h a d b e e n h a n d e d d o w n f r o m A d a m a n d this m a y b e i n d i c a t e d i n B e n Sira. Ps.‫־‬ J o n a t h a n o n G e n . 27.15 refers to the b e s t c l o t h e s of E s a u , ' w h i c h c o m e f r o m t h e first m a n ' a n d N e o f i t i I t o G e n . 4 8 . 2 2 h a s Jacob g i v i n g to J o s e p h t h e s e s a m e c l o t h e s , w h i c h h a d b e e n p a s s e d o n to A b r a h a m b y N i m r o d . J e r o m e o n G e n . 27.15 ( Q u a e s t i o n e s 3 4 ) e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e c l o t h e s a r e t h e p r i e s t l y v e s t m e n t s . 2 7 Finally, Bemidbar Rabbah 4.8 clarifies that the h i g h priests' c l o t h e s w e r e those h a n d e d f r o m A d a m t h r o u g h t h e f i r s t b o r n of e a c h g e n e r a t i o n ( P s . - J o n a t h a n to E x o d . 24.5 e x p l a i n s that the c u l t w a s p r a c t i s e d b y t h e f i r s t b o r n until t h e t i m e of A a r o n ) . W i t h regard to A d a m b e i n g a h i g h priest, it m a y b e n o t e d that f r o m t h e t i m e of B e n Sira the a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t e m p l e a n d t h e g a r d e n of E d e n w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in m a n y texts a n d h a s b e e n w e l l d o c u m e n t e d e l s e w h e r e . 2 8 T h e b o o k of Jubilees, w h i c h is p r o b a b l y c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h B e n Sira, a l s o p r e s e n t s A d a m a s a p r i e s t o f f e r i n g u p i n c e n s e at the m o m e n t of his e x p u l s i o n f r o m E d e n (3.27). T h i s incid e n t a l l y w a s t h e t i m e that G o d c l o t h e d h i m in the g a r m e n t s of skin. ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬at Sir. 49.16, therefore, d e n o t e s t h e r e s p l e n d e n t g l o r y of t h e h i g h priest in his v e s t m e n t s , w h i c h is e l a b o r a t e d u p o n in 5 0 . 5 - 1 1 . In that r e s p e c t it is related to Isa. 44.13, w h i c h s p e a k s of h u m a n b e a u t y . H o w e v e r , in Ben Sira it p a r t i c u l a r l y r e f e r s to t h e b e a u t y of the h i g h p r i e s t in t e r m s of h i s c l o t h i n g , a s m a n y of the o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬in Ben Sira, a n d d e r i v e s f r o m the w o r d i n g of E x o d . 38. It d o e s n o t refer to the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l role or state of A d a m , b u t h i s r o l e a s a priest. T h i s w i l l b e c o m e all the m o r e clear w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e v e r b 26

See M. A b e r b a c h a n d B. G r o s s f e l d , Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text ( N e w York: Ktav P u b lishing H o u s e , 1982), p. 38. An association b e t w e e n light (‫ )אורה‬a n d h o n o u r (‫ )יקר‬is m a d e in Esther 8.16 27 J e r o m e p r o c e e d s to explain that a c c o r d i n g to tradition the priestly d u t i e s until the election of Aaron w e r e a s s u r e d by the firstborn. It is interesting to note that J e r o m e h e r e uses the p h r a s e 'tradunt Hebraei', w h i c h h e s e e m s r e g u larly to use w h e n d r a w i n g u p o n w h a t h e considers to be reliable Jewish traditions. 28 See, for example, C.T.R. H a y w a r d , 'The Figure of A d a m in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities', /S/ 23 (1992), pp. 1-20; J.K. Aitken, ‫׳‬Studies in the H e b r e w a n d Greek Text of Ben Sira w i t h Special Reference to the F u t u r e ' , u n p u b l i s h e d P h D dissertation ( C a m b r i d g e , 1995), p p . 48-57; J.M. B a u m g a r t e n , 'Purification after Childbirth a n d the Sacred G a r d e n in 4Q265 a n d Jubilees', in G.J. Brooke a n d F. Garcia Martinez (eds ), New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (STDJ, 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p p . 3-10; J. van Ruiten, ‫׳‬The G a r den of E d e n a n d Jubilees 3:1-31‫׳‬, BTFT 57 (1996), p p . 305-17.

‫התפאר‬. T h e r e are three o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬that w e h a v e n o t m e n t i o n e d s o far. At 9.16 a n d 10.22 t h e w o r d is u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to t h e fear of t h e Lord, the t h e m e of the b o o k . A t 3 1 . 1 0 ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is t h e p r i z e of t h e b l e s s e d rich m a n , w h o is t h e o n e that h o l d s f a s t to t h e w a y s of W i s d o m . T h i s is s a i d to b e the m a n that f i n d s ‫ ׳‬p e r f e c t i o n 3 1 . 7,‫ם (׳‬ a w o r d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r i g h t e o u s c o n d u c t a c c o r d i n g to t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s (e.g. Ps. 15.2). ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is a l s o t h e i d e a l a t t a i n e d b y t h e f o l l o w e r of W i s d o m , w h i c h is a s s o c i a t e d b y B e n Sira w i t h t h e T o r a h (24.23), a n d i n d e e d the p r i e s t h o o d itself. 5: Concluding remarks on ‫ת פ א ר ת‬ It a p p e a r s that the n o u n ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is u s e d b y B e n Sira of t h e p r i e s t h o o d a n u m b e r of t i m e s . W e s h o u l d p e r h a p s d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n its o c c u r r e n c e s in the 'Praise of the Fathers' a n d in the rest of the b o o k , in v i e w of t h e d i f f e r e n c e in s u b j e c t m a t t e r . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e t w o a r e c l o s e l y related. W h e r e a s ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is a f e a t u r e in t h e ' P r a i s e of t h e Fathers‫ ׳‬t y p i c a l of t h e p r i e s t h o o d , in t h e rest of t h e b o o k it is typical of the w i s e or W i s d o m , but both parties, the w i s e a n d the priest, are e q u a t e d in the t h e o l o g y of B e n Sira. F u r t h e r m o r e , ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is u s e d b y B e n Sira to d e s c r i b e the c l o t h e s of the h i g h p r i e s t in the 'Praise of t h e Fathers' a n d t h e c l o t h e s of W i s d o m in ch. 6. T h e s u g g e s t i o n that 4 9 . 1 6 a l l u d e s to the c l o t h e s of A d a m m a y a l s o b e i m p l i e d b y t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n to 50.1a. In t h e t r a n s l a t i o n 5 0 . 1 a a p p e a r s after 49.15, a n d R. S y r é n h a s a r g u e d that this o r d e r i n g in t h e G r e e k is original in v i e w of an o l d tradition c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h (cf. Isa. 2 8 . I f f . ) . 2 9 A l t h o u g h S y r e n ' s s u g g e s t i o n is d o u b t f u l , h e d o e s p r o p o s e that t h e t r a n s l a t i o n σ τ ή ρ ι γ μ α is t h e G r e e k e q u i v a l e n t of t h e A r a m a i c ( ‫ כ ל י ל ) ה‬a n d η γ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς of ‫נזיר‬, b o t h of w h i c h are f o u n d in t h e P a l e s t i n i a n targumim to G e n . 4 9 . 2 6 a n d D e u t . 3 3 . 1 6 . 3 0 σ τ ή ρ ι γ μ α is t h e e q u i v a l e n t of the H e b r e w ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬, a n d if S y r e n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is correct, t h e n the G r e e k u n d e r s t o o d it to b e a r e f e r e n c e to t h e d i a d e m of the h i g h priest. T h i s e v i d e n c e m u s t r e m a i n n o m o r e t h a n t e n t a t i v e . T h e p r e c i s e m e a n i n g of 4 9 . 1 6 is o b s c u r e , a n d w a s p r o b a b l y int e n d e d b y the w r i t e r s o to be, a l l u d i n g to m a n y f e a t u r e s at o n c e . T h e r e is, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e u n c e r t a i n t y w h e t h e r ‫ א ד ם‬d e n o t e s A d a m o r m a n k i n d in g e n e r a l . A l t h o u g h the l i s t i n g of t h e n a m e s S h e m , S e t h a n d 29

The Blessings in tlw Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Acta A c a d e m i a e Aboensis, Ser. A. vol. 64, nr. 1; Àbo: Àbo A k a d e m i , 1986), p. 61. 30 Cf. H . K i p p e n b e r g , Garizirn und Synagoge: traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritonischen Religion der aramaïschen Periode (Berlin: Walter d e Gruyter, 1971), p. 272, n. 95.

Enosh s u g g e s t s that the n a m e A d a m is intended, there is also the a m b i g u i t y in the n a m e ‫אנוש‬. Indeed, Ps. 8 has probably i n f l u e n c e d Ben Sira here since there also ‫ א ד ם‬is in parallelism w i t h ‫אנוש‬, a n d the psalmist s a y s that God has been m i n d f u l ( ‫ ) פ ק ד‬of m a n a n d therefore elevated their status. The psalmist then p r o c e e d s in the next verse to say that he has c r o w n e d (‫ )עטד‬m a n w i t h glory and h o n o u r ( ‫ ) כ ב ו ד ו ה ד ר‬, w h i c h , as w e shall see, Ben Sira s a y s is h o w G o d h a s c r o w n e d his priests. Ben Sira s e e m s to allude to Ps. 8 in order to express the special status granted to the patriarchs a b o v e all others. In Sir. 49.16, therefore, if the hemistich is an adverbial clause, ‫ ע ל‬m a y well indicate that 'above' all others is the status of A d a m , especially if h e is the type of the p r i e s t h o o d . The role of A d a m as a h i g h priest, the greatest of Israel's institutions in Ben Sira's v i e w , c o u l d also s u g g e s t a n o m i n a l clause in w h i c h A d a m is an ' a d o r n m e n t ' ( ‫ ' ) ת פ א ר ת‬u p o n ' all people. A c o m p a r i s o n m a y be m a d e w i t h the ' A p o s t r o p h e to Zion' f r o m Q u m ran, in w h i c h g e n e r a t i o n s of p i o u s ( ‫ ) ח ס י ד י ם‬are said to be Z i o n ' s a d o r n m e n t ( ‫ ) ת פ א ר ת‬. A third interpretation w o u l d be to u n d e r s t a n d the verb ‫ פ ק ד‬from the previous t w o hemistichs w i t h ‫ ע ל‬. This verb has m a n y m e a n i n g s , but o n e of them is 'to appoint' (e.g. Gen. 39.4, 5; and of the Levites, N u m . 1.50), and h e n c e the hemistich c o u l d m e a n 'the glory of A d a m is appointed over all living' d e n o t i n g the a p p o i n t m e n t of the priesthood to care for the people. Elsewhere, Ben Sira s a y s that A a r o n w a s c h o s e n 'from all l i v i n g ' ( 4 5 . 1 6,‫) מ כ לחי‬ ( ‫ ) ל כ פ ר ע ל‬the s o n s of Israel, s u g g e s t i n g a distinct role for the h i g h priest vis-à-vis the people. It is probable that all these interpretations are at p l a y in this pass a g e of Ben Sira and n o o n e explanation can ever be the o n l y correct one. This h a m p e r s the task of p r o v i d i n g a clear semantic description. W e m a y , n o n e t h l e s s , c o n c l u d e that ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬is associated b y Ben Sira w i t h the priesthood and that 49.16 d o e s not d e n o t e the eschatological glory of A d a m .

B: The verb ‫ ה ת פ א ר‬in Ben Sira Further e l u c i d a t i o n of the u s e of ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬in Ben Sira m a y be g a i n e d from a s t u d y of the verb ‫ ה ת פ א ר‬, w h i c h derives f r o m the s a m e root p'r as the n o u n ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬. The verb ‫ ה ת פ א ר‬appears s e v e n times in the extant H e b r e w , but o n l y three times in the 'Praise of the Fathers'. 3 1 It is o n c e u s e d of Elijah (48.4), but significantly it is u s e d of b o t h A a r o n a n d

31

In the ‫׳‬Praise of the Fathers' it can be found at 45.8; 48.4; and 50.20. Elsewhere it appears at 11.4; 34.10; 38.6, 25.

to ' a

S i m e o n . W h e n S i m e o n p r o n o u n c e s the b l e s s i n g o v e r t h e p e o p l e h e is s a i d to h a v e b e e n ' g l o r i f i e d in the n a m e of t h e L o r d ' ( , ‫ה ת פ א ר‬ 50.20). T h e A a r o n i c b l e s s i n g of N u m . 6 . 2 4 - 2 6 ( w h o s e i n f l u e n c e c a n b e s e e n at Sir. 5 0 ) is i n t e n d e d a s a m e a n s of p u t t i n g the n a m e of G o d o n h i s p e o p l e ( N u m . 6.27) a n d this is i m p l i e d b y B e n Sira. H o w e v e r , as n o t e d b y H a y w a r d , the i n f l u e n c e of Isa. 60.21 m a y b e d e t e c t e d here: 3 2 Y o u r p e o p l e shall all b e r i g h t e o u s ( ‫; ) צ ד ק י ם‬ t h e y shall p o s s e s s the l a n d for e v e r . T h e y are the s h o o t that I p l a n t e d , the w o r k of m y h a n d s . So that I m i g h t b e g l o r i f i e d ( ‫ ) ל ה ת פ א ר‬. T h e i m a g e r y of p l a n t i n g a n d p o s s e s s i n g t h e l a n d is p r o m i n e n t in B e n Sira's d e s c r i p t i o n of W i s d o m f i n d i n g a d w e l l i n g p l a c e in Z i o n (ch. 24) a n d in J e r e m i a h ' s p r o p h e c y a c c o r d i n g to Sir. 49.6. F u r t h e r o n in 6 1 . 3 Isaiah p r o m i s e s that G o d w i l l g i v e to the m o u r n e r s of Z i o n a g a r l a n d ( ‫ ) פ א ר‬i n s t e a d of a s h e s ( ‫ ) א פ ר‬a n d that: T h e y w i l l b e called o a k s of righteousness ( ‫)אילי ה צ ד ק‬, the p l a n t i n g of the Lord, that h e m a y be g l o r i f i e d ( ‫ ) ל ה ת פ א ר‬. T h e p r o p h e t a s s o c i a t e s t h e root p'r w i t h ‫ צ ד י ק‬, a w o r d c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h G o d ' s p l a n t i n g . In Sir. 50.12 t h e priests are c o m p a r e d to c e d a r trees, i m a g e r y d e r i v i n g f r o m Ps. 9 2 . 1 2 - 1 4 w h e r e w e read of t h e ‫ צ ד י ק‬a n d of t h o s e p l a n t e d in G o d ' s h o u s e . T h e Z a d o k i t e p r i e s t h o o d in B e n Sira is the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of W i s d o m , the true ‫ צ ד י ק‬, a n d the glorif i c a t i o n of G o d is s h o w n forth in h i s p r i e s t h o o d . T h e l a n g u a g e of t h e g l o r i f i c a t i o n of G o d t h r o u g h h i s r i g h t e o u s p e o p l e in t h e p r o p h e t Isaiah is a p p l i e d b y B e n Sira to the priests. In t h e p o r t r a y a l of A a r o n in Sir. 4 5 w e m a y a l s o f i n d d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e s of G o d t r a n s f e r r e d to t h e priest.33 A s the root p'r in t h e n o u n ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬a n d the v e r b a l f o r m ‫ ה ת פ א ר‬is, a c c o r d i n g to Ben Sira, the p r e s e r v e of the priests, o n e m a y u n d e r s t a n d f r o m this h o w W i s d o m w e a r s a c r o w n of g l o r y ( 6 . 3 0,‫)תפארת‬,s i n c e W i s d o m is p e r s o n i f i e d in the p r i e s t h o o d . It is e a s y to s e e h o w t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o u l d b e d r a w n f r o m the texts of E x o d u s a n d Isaiah, b u t B e n Sira s e e m s to g i v e it a n e w s e n s e . C a n w e s a y that t h e particular 32

The Jerusalem Temple, p. 61. In similar fashion, the l a n g u a g e of Isaiah's p r o p h e c y concerning Israel is applied to the high priest by Ben Sira. In 45.11 (cf. 50.9), the h i g h priest's U r i m a n d T h u m m i m are called ‫אבני חפץ‬, ' s t o n e s of delight‫׳‬, an e x p r e s s i o n taken f r o m its sole biblical occurrence in Isa. 54.12 w h e r e it d e n o t e s the stones that will bedeck an ideal f u t u r e J e r u s a l e m . This has been n o t e d by C.T.R. H a y w a r d , 'Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly Oracle‫׳‬, JJS 46 (1995), p. 50. 33

‫ם ייי‬

a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e p r i e s t is e v i d e n c e of s e m a n t i c c h a n g e ? Or is it s i m p l y e x e g e s i s as a r e s u l t of B e n Sira's p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e p r i e s t h o o d ? A s t u d y of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬w i l l i n d i c a t e t h e b r o a d u s e of B e n Sira's l a n g u a g e in this s e m a n t i c field.

C: The use 0 / ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in Ben Sira ‫ כ ב ו ד‬o c c u r s 31 t i m e s in Ben Sira. T h i s is r e m a r k a b l y f r e q u e n t w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the total of 24 in the P e n t a t e u c h a n d 16 in P r o v e r b s . It a p p e a r s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y , h o w e v e r , in P s a l m s , w h e r e 6 6 i n s t a n c e s c a n b e f o u n d . In B e n Sira it is u s e d a n u m b e r o f t i m e s in t h e p r o v e r b i a l s e c t i o n s t o d e n o t e r e s p e c t or h o n o u r (e.g. 3.10, 11, 12; 4.21). H e w h o h o l d s fast to W i s d o m is s a i d to f i n d g l o r y (4.13), p a r a l l e l t o f i n d i n g rest in the L o r d ' s b l e s s i n g . It a l s o d e n o t e s t h e b e a u t y of t h e r a i n b o w a s it s p a n s t h e h e a v e n s (43.12). In particular, in t h e 'Praise of t h e Fathers' (chs. 44-50) it is a l m o s t a Leitmotif, o c c u r r i n g 15 t i m e s . 1: ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in Ben Sira 36.1-17 A f e a t u r e of t h e 'Praise of the Fathers' is that it r e c o u n t s t h e h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s that fulfill t h e w i s h e s e x p r e s s e d in the p r a y e r in 3 6 . 1 - 1 7 . T h e p l e a , for e x a m p l e , that G o d w i l l h a v e m e r c y o n h i s f i r s t b o r n p e o p l e Israel ( 3 6 . 1 2 ) f o r e s h a d o w s t h e n a m i n g of Jacob a s f i r s t b o r n in t h e ' P r a i s e of t h e F a t h e r s ' (44.23). 3 4 Of i n t e r e s t h e r e is t h e p e t i t i o n in 36.13-14: ‫י ח ש ל • מכון שבתיך‬ ‫רחם על קרית קדשך‬ ‫ומכבודך את היכלך‬ ‫מ ל א ציון א ת ה ו ד ך‬ ' H a v e m e r c y o n t h y h o l y city, J e r u s a l e m t h e h a b i t a t i o n of t h y dwelling, Fill Z i o n w i t h t h y praise, t h y t e m p l e w i t h t h y g l o r y ' . J e r u s a l e m w i l l b e the ' h a b i t a t i o n of t h y [ G o d ' s ] d w e l l i n g ' ( , ‫ש ב ת י ך‬ 36.13), a p h r a s e u s e d by K i n g S o l o m o n u p o n t h e d e d i c a t i o n of the first t e m p l e (1 K g s 8.13, 39, 43; 2 C h r o n . 6.2, 30, 32, 39). T h i s r e f e r e n c e to the d w e l l i n g of G o d in t h e t e m p l e l e a d s o n to the p l e a for t h e f i l l i n g of 34

A l t h o u g h the p r a y e r in 36.1-17 has often been t h o u g h t to be an interpolation w h o s e c o n t e n t s a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e to Ben Sira's t h o u g h t , the t h e m a t i c parallels w i t h the 'Praise of the Fathers' w o u l d s u g g e s t o t h e r w i s e . For d e fences of the p r a y e r ' s authenticity, see J. Marböck, 'Das Gebet u m die Rettung Z i o n s Sir 36, 1-22 (G: 33, l - 1 3 a ; 36, 16b-22) im Z u s a m m e n h a n g d e r G e s c h i c h t s s c h a u Ben Siras', in J.B. Bauer a n d J. M a r b ö c k (eds.), Memoria Jerusalem: Freundesgabe Franz Z. Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag ( J e r u s a l e m / G r a z : A k a d e m i s c h e Druck- u n d Verlagsanstalt, 1977), p p . 93-116; a n d J.K. Aitken, ‫׳‬Studies in the H e b r e w a n d Greek text of Ben Sira', p p . 66-81.

‫מכון‬

the t e m p l e w i t h G o d ' s ‫ ה ו ד‬a n d ‫ כ ב ו ד‬, a p p a r e n t l y i m p l y i n g that G o d ' s i n d w e l l i n g p r e s e n c e is m a n i f e s t in g l o r y . A similar i d e a m a y a l r e a d y b e f o u n d in Isa. 4.5 w h e r e G o d ' s p r e s e n c e in the t e m p l e is d e s c r i b e d w i t h t h e w o r d s 'a c a n o p y is o v e r all g l o r y ' or 'glory is a c a n o p y o v e r a l l ' ( ‫ • ) ע ל כ ל כ ב ו ד ח פ ה‬T h e s a m e phrase can be f o u n d in Sir. 40.27 w h e r e it d e n o t e s the 'fear of the Lord', a major t h e m e in B e n Sira. 3 5 T h e filli n g of the t e m p l e w i t h g l o r y as e m b l e m a t i c of G o d ' s d w e l l i n g is i m portant for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the u s e of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in the 'Praise of the Fathers'. 2: ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in the 'Praise of the Fathers' T h e plea that the Lord w o u l d fill Z i o n w i t h his36.14)‫ ) כ ב ו ד‬s e e m s to be fulfilled by the time of S i m e o n II, just as other w i s h e s in that prayer are a c c o m p l i s h e d in the 'Praise of the Fathers'. T h e s e c o n d t e m p l e is said to b e e s t a b l i s h e d for eternal g l o r y ( 4 9 . 1 2,‫ ) כ ב ו דעולם‬, to b e a reversal f r o m earlier in the chapter w h e n G o d , as a result of the a c t i o n s of the w i c k e d k i n g s , is said to h a v e g i v e n o v e r their ‫ כ ב ו ד‬to a f o r e i g n n a t i o n (49.5). ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in this latter v e r s e s e e m s to m e a n ' p r o w e s s ' , a n d is in parallel to ‫ ק ר ן‬, ' p o w e r ' , but the a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the p r o m i s e later in the chapter of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬resting in the t e m p l e g i v e s this o c c u r r e n c e of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a greater d i m e n s i o n . T h e t h e m e of the 'Praise of the Fathers' is the a b o u n d i n g g l o r y ( ‫ ) ר ב כ ב ו ד‬of the L o r d ' s p o r t i o n (44.2), or a c c o r d i n g to t h e LXX t h e g r e a t g l o r y that the Lord created ( ‫ ח ל ק‬, ε κ τ ι σ ε ν ) . T h e p u r p o s e is to r e m i n d Israel that the ‫ כ ב ו ר‬of the g o d l y m e n will n e v e r be blotted o u t (44.13). A c c o r d i n g l y , A b r a h a m k e p t h i s ‫ כ ב ו ד‬w i t h o u t s t a i n (44.19), w h e r e a s S o l o m o n left a stain (‫ )מום‬o n h i s47.20)‫ ) כ ב ו ד‬. All t h e s e u s a g e s c o n v e y the w e l l - k n o w n m e a n i n g for ‫ כ ב ו ד‬of 'reputation'. D a v i d is also said to h a v e ascribed ‫ כ ב ו ד‬to the M o s t H i g h (47.8), d e n o t i n g ' h o n o u r ' or 'praise'. W i t h i n the 'Praise of the Fathers', h o w e v e r , ‫ כ ב ו ר‬is a p p l i e d m o s t o f t e n to the priests a n d their objects. Both the c l o t h e s of A a r o n (45.8) a n d h i s h e a d g e a r (45.12) are s a i d to b e of g l o r y , as are the c l o t h e s of S i m e o n (50.11). Of m o r e s i g n i f i c a n c e is that G o d is said to h a v e increased the glory of A a r o n (45.20) a n d g i v e n to h i m his inheritance: ‫ויתן ל ו נ ח ל ת ו‬ ‫] ויסף [ לאהרן כבודו‬ This inheritance, a c c o r d i n g to the p r o e m , is44.2)‫ ) ר ב כ ב ו ד‬, the Lord's o w n s p e c i a l p o r t i o n . In s i m i l a r f a s h i o n the h y m n c o n c l u d i n g t h e praise of A a r o n a n d P h i n e h a s calls o n the b l e s s i n g of G o d , w h o h a s

35

The Masada scroll quotes Isa. 4.5 accurately. MS Β r e a d s p for ‫על‬, which is probably a scribal error or correction, although it w o u l d s u p p o r t the latter of the two possible translations: the reading ‫כן‬, in omitting the preposition, w o u l d imply that 'all glory‫ ׳‬is the 'canopy‫׳‬.

wh

‫המעטר אתכם כבוד‬ ' c r o w n e d y o u [the p r i e s t s ] w i t h g l o r y ‫( ׳‬Sir. 45.25). F i n a l l y , t h e L e v i t e s in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of S i m e o n s u r r o u n d t h e altar in t h e i r ' g l o r y ' ( 5 0 . 1 3,‫)בכבודם‬.A l l t h e s e m a y s i m p l y s u g g e s t t h e ' r e p u t a t i o n ' of t h e p r i e s t s , b u t t h e r e s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m t h e p r i e s t l y i n s t r u m e n t s r e f l e c t i n g ‫ כ ב ו ד‬to t h e p r i e s t s t h e m s e l v e s b e a r i n g ‫ כ ב ו ד‬. T h e p r i e s t s a p p e a r to p o s s e s s d i v i n e ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a s i n h e r itors of t h e L o r d ' s p o r t i o n . 3 : ‫ כ ב ו ר‬of divine presence O f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t is t h e u s e o f t h e l e x e m e ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a s a n a t t r i b u t e of G o d a n d p e r h a p s e v e n as a s u b s t i t u t e . T h e b e s t e x a m p l e i n B e n Sira is in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e L o r d ' s o r d e r i n g of nature: ‫ל ה ת ח ז ק לפני כבודו‬ ‫אימץ א ל ה י ם צבאיו‬ 'God has g i v e n his hosts the strength, t o b e s t r o n g b e f o r e h i s g l o r y ' (42.17c-d). In t h e first half of 4 2 . 1 7 t h e h o l y o n e s are s a i d to b e i n c a p a b l e of rec o u n t i n g t h e w o n d e r s of the L o r d , a n d t h i s is q u a l i f i e d b y t h e s t a t e m e n t that e v e n s o t h e y h a v e b e e n g i v e n t h e s t r e n g t h t o s t a n d in t h e p r e s e n c e of h i s g l o r y . ' H i s g l o r y ' m a y refer to t h e g l o r y of h i s c r e a t i o n , b u t s i n c e t h e c h a p t e r p r o c e e d s to d e s c r i b e the w i s d o m a n d m i g h t of G o d m o r e t h a n h i s h a n d i w o r k it s e e m s l i k e l y that it r e f e r s to G o d h i m s e l f . A l t h o u g h the h o l y o n e s m a y s t a n d f i r m in t h e d i v i n e p r è s e n c e , t h e y a r e still u n a b l e to r e c o u n t all h i s w o r k s , b e c a u s e h e is s o k n o w l e d g e a b l e , a n d his w o r k s s o v a s t . T h e w o r d i n g of this v e r s e h a s a parallel in 1 Q H , w h e r e ‫ כ ב ו ד‬is a p r o m i n e n t w o r d . In 1 Q H 10[18].10-11 it is a s k e d : ‫ומי ב כ ו ל מ ע ט י פ ל א כ ה ה ג ד ו ל י ם י ע צ ו ר כ ו ח ל ה ת י צ ב ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד כ ה‬ " W h o a m o n g Thy great and m a r v e l l o u s creatures c a n s t a n d in the p r e s e n c e of T h y [ G o d ' s ] g l o r y ? " . 3 6 T h a t ‫ ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד כ ה‬m e a n s in t h e p r e s e n c e of T h y G l o r y is i n d i c a t e d in t h e p r e v i o u s l i n e , w h e n t h e w r i t e r u t t e r s , " T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e of T h y G l o r y ( 3 7 . " ( ‫כ ב ו ר כ ה‬ ‫לנגד‬ T h e u s a g e of t h e ' b e f o r e ' i n d i c a t e s that it o f t e n s e e m s to h a v e e x p r e s s e d s p e c i a l r e v e r e n c e . In t h e targumim t h e H e b r e w 'to' ( ‫ ) א ל‬is f r e q u e n t l y r e n d e r e d b y ' b e f o r e ' ( ‫ ) ק ר ם‬w h e n referring to G o d , a s in the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s : G e n . 4.13: ' A n d C a i n s a i d b e f o r e t h e Lord'; G e n . 20.17: ' A n d A b r a h a m p r a y e d b e f o r e t h e Lord'; a n d 36

Translation of G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: P e n g u i n , 1997), p. 285. Text of E.L. Sukenik (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew Uniwrsity (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1954-55), p. 44. 37 The r e a d i n g in the text, as p u b l i s h e d by Sukenik, of ‫ כ כ ה ב ו ד‬s h o u l d b e r e a d as ‫ כ ב ו ד כ ה‬.

p

E x o d . 5.22: ' A n d M o s e s r e t u r n e d b e f o r e the Lord'. It is a l s o u s e d to a v o i d a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s , as, for e x a m p l e , in t h e t a r g u m i c r e n d e r i n g of N u m . 11.1 w h e r e ' A n d w h e n t h e Lord h e a r d it' is t r a n s l a t e d as ' A n d w h e n it w a s h e a r d b e f o r e the Lord'. Its r e v e r e n tial a s p e c t c a n b e c l e a r l y i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e c o m p a r a b l e u s e of t h e A r a m a i c ‫ ק ד ם‬in the B o o k of D a n i e l : 'The C h a l d a e a n s a n s w e r e d b e f o r e the K i n g ' ( D a n . 2.10; cf. 2.11). T h e r e is n o t h i n g u n n a t u r a l i n B e n Sira's u s e of t h e p r e p o s i t i o n . 3 8 In Sir. 5 0 the s o n s of A a r o n are d e s c r i b e d o n three o c c a s i o n s as m i n i s t e r i n g b e f o r e the Lord ( 5 0 . 1 6,‫לפני‬d,17c, 17d), a n d o n o n e o c c a s i o n the p e o p l e are d e s c r i b e d as w o r s h i p p i n g b e f o r e t h e ' M e r c i f u l O n e ' (50.19b). T h i s l o c a t i o n a l a s p e c t of g l o r y in B e n Sira and 1 Q H suggests a m o v e m e n t towards glory representing the d i v i n e p r e s e n c e itself. M. Kister h a s a l r e a d y t e n t a t i v e l y n o t e d a l l u s i o n s e l s e w h e r e in B e n Sira to t h e c o n c e p t of a n i m m a n e n t d e i t y , c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e t e r m S h e k h i n a h in T a l m u d i c literature. 3 9 H e s u g g e s t s that at Sir. 4 2 . 1 6 b o n e m a y find such an expression: (MS B ) ‫ו כ ב ו ד ייי ע ל כ ל מ ע ש י ו‬ ‫שמש ז ו ר ] ח [ ת ע ל כ ל נ ג ל ת ה‬ ( M a s ) ‫ו כ ב ו ד א ד נ י מ ל א מעשיו‬ 'The s u n s h i n i n g u p o n all is m a n i f e s t , a n d the g l o r y of the Lord u p o n all his h a n d i w o r k ' . T h e i d e a of t h e g l o r y of the Lord f i l l i n g h i s h a n d i w o r k ( a c c o r d i n g to the r e a d i n g in M a s ) m a y b e d e r i v e d f r o m Isa. 6.3 (cf. Ps. 72.19; 145.9), a n d t h e p a r a l l e l i s m of the g l o r y w i t h the s u n s h i n i n g s u g g e s t s that the ' g l o r y of the Lord' h a s a n a c t i v e role. Kister n o t e s h o w t h e s u n c o m e s to b e u s e d of the p r e s e n c e of G o d , p e r h a p s u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of B e n Sira itself. In r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e a n a u t h o r , w h e n s p e a k i n g of G o d , w o u l d o f t e n s u b s t i t u t e for the d i v i n e n a m e the w o r d ‫ ( כ ב ו ד ו‬M i d r a s h Ps. 209; PRE 10, 26, 53; Seder Elijahu Rabbah, p. 53; Bereshit Rabbah 28) or a l t e r n a t i v e l y t h e f o r m s ‫ ( כ ב ו ד ך‬T a n h . B. 1.19) o r2.101)‫; כ מ ד י‬ cf. 4.17,18). 4 ‫ ״‬T h e q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r w e c a n f i n d a n y e a r l y e v i d e n c e for ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬b e i n g u s e d as a term for G o d . It is p o s s i b l e to s e e f r o m a n e a r l y s t a g e a n a s s o c i a t i o n of g l o r y w i t h t h e D i v i n e N a m e , w h i c h m a y h a v e b e e n part of t h e p r o c e s s in t h e 38

For a discussion of the uses of 'before' a n d h o w it expresses the o t h e r n e s s of G o d , see M. K a d u s h i n , The Rabbinic Mind (Third ed.; N e w York: Bloch, 1972), p p . 333-34. 39 Ά c o n t r i b u t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ben Sira [in H e b r e w ] ' , Tarbiz 59 (1990), p p . 353-55. 40 See A. M a r m o r s t e i n , The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God; I: The Names & Attributes of God (Jews' College Publications, 10; L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1927), p. 88. O n e m a y c o m p a r e this w i t h such expressions in English as ' y o u r Majesty', 'her Majesty', etc.

d e v e l o p m e n t of g l o r y ' s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . 4 1 T h e ass o c i a t i o n of g l o r y w i t h the d i v i n e n a m e m a y a l r e a d y b e f o u n d in t h e H e b r e w c a n o n at Ps. 7 2 . 1 9 ( ‫ ) ו ב ר ו ך ש ם כ ב ו ד ו ל ע ו ל ם‬a n d N e h . 9 . 5 ( 4 2 , ( ‫כ ב ו ד ך‬ ‫ו י ב ר כ ו שם‬ a n d w e f i n d a r e f e r e n c e t o the ' n a m e of m a r g i n a l g l o s s to T a r g u m N e o f i t i at N u m . 20.13. I n d e e d , in B e n Sira's d e s c r i p t i o n of A a r o n ' s p r i e s t l y v e s t m e n t s , h i s t u r b a n is s a i d to b e a r the d i v i n e n a m e , t h e m e n t i o n of w h i c h u s h e r s forth t h e d e s c r i p t i o n , ‫הוד כ ב ו ד ו ת ה ל ת עז‬ 'Majestic, g l o r i o u s , r e n o w n e d for s p l e n d o u r ' (45.12) T h i s a p p e a r s a l m o s t as a n ecstatic u t t e r a n c e in a s y n d e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e a l l u s i o n to the h o l y n a m e . S o p r o n o u n c e d in J u d a i s m d i d t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n b e c o m e that, o n Y o m K i p p u r , after t h e h i g h p r i e s t h a d m a d e t h e g e n e r a l c o n f e s s i o n in the w o r d s of Lev. 16.30, t h e p e o p l e w o u l d r e p l y , ' b l e s s e d b e t h e n a m e of t h e g l o r y o f h i s k i n g d o m ( ‫ ) ש ם כ ב ו ד מ ל כ ו ת ו‬f o r e v e r a n d e v e r ' ( m . Y o m a 4 . 2 ) . L i k e w i s e , in Mekhilta, Pisha 11.24-26, w e find: "In like m a n n e r y o u interpret ' A n d the g l o r y of the Lord shall b e r e v e a l e d , a n d all f l e s h shall s e e it t o g e t h e r ; for t h e m o u t h of the Lord h a t h s p o k e n it' (Isa. 40.5). A n d w h e r e h a d H e s p o k e n it? 'See n o w that I, e v e n I, a m H e ' ( D e u t . 3 2 . 3 9 ) . 4 3 ‫״‬ T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d i v i n e n a m e in D e u t e r o n o m y is q u o t e d b y Mekhilta to e x p l a i n the r e v e l a t i o n of g l o r y in t h e m o u t h of G o d . T h i s t r a d i t i o n of a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e N a m e a n d g l o r y , p e r h a p s e v e n r e f l e c t e d in B e n Sira, m a y in part e x p l a i n t h e u s e of g l o r y a s t h e e x p r e s s i o n of d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . T h e r e s e e m s to b e w i d e s p r e a d e v i d e n c e for t h e e a r l y d a t i n g of g l o r y d e n o t i n g d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . In T a r g u m O n q e l o s w e m e e t t h e e x p r e s s i o n 'the g l o r y of the Lord', in the P a l e s t i n i a n targumim ( N e o f i t i , F r a g m e n t t a r g u m a n d G e n i z a h f r a g m e n t s ) , 'the g l o r y of t h e S h e k h i n a h of the Lord', a n d in Ps.-Jonathan b o t h e x p r e s s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n w e m e e t ' S h e k h i n a h of t h e g l o r y ' f o u r t i m e s in P s . - J o n a t h a n a n d o n c e in the N e o f i t i g l o s s e s . T h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s i m p l y that S h e k h i n a h a n d g l o r y are i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d , b u t D. M u n o z L e o n h a s a r g u e d that in t h e s e

41

Cf. C T R. H a y w a r d , ‫׳‬Review of M u n o z Leon, Gloria de la Shekina', ]]S 30 (1979), in w h i c h he too e m p h a s i z e s that " t h e connection w i t h Y H W H s h o u l d be given its full w e i g h t " (p. 102). 42 The similar expression ‫ טם ת פ א ר ח‬is also to be f o u n d (1 C h r o n . 29.13; Isa. 63.14). ‫ ח פ א ר ח‬m a y be u s e d in the Zadokite Document 6.7, w h e r e G o d s e e m s to be referred to as 'his glory‫( ׳‬reading ‫ חפארתו‬for the MS text of .(‫פארתם‬ 43 Text a n d translation of J.Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes, vol. I (Philadelphia: T h e Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933), p. 91.

e x p r e s s i o n s t h e c o n c e p t of g l o r y is t h e d o m i n a n t o n e , a n d that later this h a d to b e q u a l i f i e d b y t h e t e r m S h e k h i n a h to d e f i n e it a s G o d ' s g l o r y a s o p p o s e d to m a n ' s . 4 4 O n q e l o s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o M u n o z L e o n , a d o p t s t h e o l d e r e x p r e s s i o n of s i m p l y w r i t i n g ' g l o r y of t h e L o r d 4 5 . ‫ ׳‬It s e e m s m o r e likely, h o w e v e r , that t h e c o n c e p t of S h e k h i n a h is c e n t r a l to t h a t of g l o r y , a n d v a r i o u s e a r l y J e w i s h s o u r c e s a r e rich i n t h e d e s i g n a t i o n of G o d as g l o r y . G o d is r e g u l a r l y s p o k e n of i n t e r m s of ‫ ׳‬t h e G r e a t G l o r y ‫ ׳‬b y v a r i o u s w r i t e r s (Test. Levi 3.4; LAB 17.1; 23.8; Asc. Isa. 9.37; 10.16; 11.32; 2 Pet. 1.17; cf. C D 20.25; 3 M a c c . 6.18; R e v . 15.8; cf. ‫ ר ב כ ב ו ד‬i n Sir. 4 4 . 2 ) , i n c l u d i n g Ethiopie Enoch ( 1 4 . 2 0 ; 1 0 2 . 3 ) , 4 6 w h i c h a l s o u s e s t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ ׳‬L o r d of G l o r y 3 6 . 4;25.3)‫׳‬ Ethiopie Enoch d e s c r i b e s , in t e r m s r e m i n i s c e n t of t h e S h e k h i n a h , t h e 'presence of t h e G r e a t G l o r y 1 0 2 . 3 ) ‫ ) ׳‬, a n d s i m i l a r l y t h e b o o k of J u s p e a k s of 'the σ κ ή ν ω μ α of t h e rest of the n a m e of y o u r g l o r y ' (9.8). T h e σ κ ή ν ω μ α is p r e s u m a b l y t h e t a b e r n a c l e (as in Ps. 132), a n d t h u s t h e w r i t e r l o c a t e s the ' N a m e of Y o u r G l o r y ' in the t e n t of M e e t i n g o r t h e H o l y of H o l i e s , a n d d o e s s o b y m e a n s of a G r e e k w o r d t h a t is r e m i n i s c e n t in b o t h s o u n d a n d e t y m o l o g y of t h e S h e k h i n a h (cf. έ σ κ ή ν ω σ ε ν , Jn 1.14; σ κ η ν ή , R e v . 13.6). 4 7 It is l i k e l y that in B e n Sira w e h a v e a n e a r l y f o r m of t h i s d e v e l o p i n g n o t i o n of g l o r y . B e n Sira, t h e r e f o r e , w o u l d b e t h e e a r l i e s t a t t e s t a t i o n i n H e b r e w o f this m e a n i n g o f ‫ כ ב ו ד‬, a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e a l r e a d y t e n d e n c i e s in t h e H e b r e w Bible. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that B e n Sira d o e s n o t d r a w f o r m a l d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n l e x e m e s a n d that b o t h ‫ כ ב ו ר‬and ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬can be f o u n d with other lexemes from the s a m e sem a n t i c f i e l d . A s w e l l as b e i n g f o u n d in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h e a c h o t h e r (6.31, 5 0 . 1 1 ) , ‫ כ ב ו ר‬is in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h ‫ ה ו ד‬at 3 6 . 1 4 a n d 4 7 . 8 , a n d

44

La Gloria de la Slwkina en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Madrid: Consejo S u p e rior d e Investigaciones Cientificas. Institute ‫׳‬Francisco Suarez', 1977), p p . 376453. 45 A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: J.C.B. M o h r , 1986), p. 321, s u g g e s t s that either O n q e l o s e s c h e w e d the d e v e l o p m e n t or h a d it s u p p r e s s e d b e c a u s e of the d a n g e r o u s speculation that a r o s e f r o m its use. 46 In Enoch 102.3 this is the r e a d i n g of s o m e Ethiopie MSS a n d the G r e e k A k h m i m f r a g m e n t s . A n u m b e r of o t h e r Ethiopie MSS read ' t h e o n e w h o is g r e a t in g l o r y ' . See M.A. Knibb, in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h E. O l l e n d o r f f , The Ethiopie Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1978), vol. 1, p. 390; vol. 2, p. 237. 47 F u r t h e r e x a m p l e s m a y be f o u n d in C.T.R. H a y w a r d ' s r e v i e w of M u n o z L e o n , Gloria de la Shekina, p p . 101-102. For a d d i t i o n a l e x a m p l e s a n d discussion, see Aitken, ‫׳‬Studies in the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k Text of Ben Sira‫׳‬, p p . 92-102.

‫ ת פ א ר ת‬w i t h ‫ ה ו ד‬a n d ‫ עז‬at 45.8. A t 4 5 . 1 2 ‫ כ ב ו ד‬is a l s o p l a c e d a l o n g s i d e ‫ הוד‬and .‫עז‬ 4: Two textual

corruptions

T h e s e i n s t a n c e s of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in B e n Sira m a y h e l p to e x p l a i n t w o p a s s a g e s t h a t a r e o b s c u r e , if n o t c o r r u p t . T h e first c o n c l u d e s t h e e u l o g y o f P h i n e h a s , w h o h a s b e e n p r a i s e d for h i s t r i u m p h o v e r t h e i d o l a t e r s of B a a l - p e o r a n d h i s s u b s e q u e n t r e c e p t i o n of t h e p r i e s t l y c o v e n a n t . T h e H e b r e w , a s p r e s e r v e d in MS B, reads: ‫בן ישי ל מ ט ה י ה ו ד ה‬ ‫וגם ב ר י ת ו ע ם ד ו ד‬ ‫נחלת אהרן ל כ ל זרעו‬ ‫נ ח ל ת אש ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד ו‬ 'And also his covenant with David, s o n of Jesse o f the tribe of J u d a h , a n i n h e r i t a n c e of fire b e f o r e h i s g l o r y , the i n h e r i t a n c e of A a r o n for all his s e e d ' (45.25). T h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n of the third h e m i s t i c h s u g g e s t s that t h e H e b r e w h a s b e e n c o r r u p t e d , s i n c e it r e a d s κ λ η ρ ο ν ο μ ι ά β α σ ι λ έ ω ς υ ί ο ΰ έ ξ υ ί ο ΰ μ ό ν ο υ ( ' t h e i n h e r i t a n c e of a king [ w h i c h is] from son to son alone'). M o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e , therefore, e m e n d e d the text to ‫ נ ח ל ת איש ל ב נ ו ל ב ד ו‬. S o m e recent w r i t e r s , h o w e v e r , h a v e left t h e H e b r e w intact, o r at l e a s t h a v e o n l y s u b s t i t u t e d ‫ איש‬for ‫ א ש‬, a n d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d it a s a r e f e r e n c e to the p r i e s t l y c o v e n a n t . 4 8 T h e p r i e s t l y i n h e r i t a n c e is t h a t of the sacrificial 'fire', w h i c h t h e p r i e s t s o f f e r ' b e f o r e h i s g l o r y ' . If 'his g l o r y ' is u n d e r s t o o d to b e a r e f e r e n c e to G o d , t h e n t h e v e r s e is i n t e l l i g i b l e as a d e s c r i p t i o n of the priest c e l e b r a t i n g b e f o r e t h e d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . T h i s r e a d i n g of t h e text is itself d e p e n d e n t o n o n e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the role of the c o v e n a n t s in B e n Sira, a n d w h e t h e r the royal c o v e n a n t has been subordinated to the priestly one.49 T h o s e w r i t e r s that h a v e o p t e d for n o t e m e n d i n g t h e text h a v e t e n d e d to d e v o t e m o r e a t t e n t i o n to the e x p r e s s i o n ‫ נ ח ל ת א ש‬t h a n to ‫ ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד ו‬. F o r o u r p u r p o s e s h e r e w e m a y n o t e that ‫ ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד ו‬n e e d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e s e e n a s a c o r r u p t i o n of the text, b u t c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d in t h e l i g h t of

48

H . S t a d e l m a n n , Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-Makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehretum ( W U N T , 2 / 6 ; T ü b i n g e n : J.C.B. M o h r , 1981), p. 153; L.G. P e r d u e , Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS 30; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 93; J.D. Martin, 'Ben Sira's H y m n to the Fathers: A Messianic P e r s p e c t i v e ' , OTS 24 (1986), p p . 112-16; P.C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach: een onderzoek tiaar en een classificatie van parallelen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45: 6-26 ( N i e u w e g e i n : Beentjes, 1981), p p . 186-92. 49 See Aitken, 'Studies in the H e b r e w a n d Greek Text of Ben Sira', p p . 82-109.

B e n Sira's u s e of ‫ כ מ ד‬. In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e s a m e e x p r e s s i o n i n 4 2 . 1 7 s t r e n g t h e n s t h e c a s e for p r e s e r v i n g t h i s r e a d i n g at 45.25. H a y w a r d has translated the h e m i s t i c h as 'the inheritance of ( o n e ) m a n in r e s p e c t of h i s g l o r y ' , 5 0 u n d e r s t a n d i n g ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬a s t h e p r i e s t ' s g l o r y , w h i c h w o u l d a l s o b e in a c c o r d w i t h Ben Sira's p r e s e n t a t i o n of ‫ כ מ ד‬a s a n attribute of t h e priests. T h e p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , r e m a i n s that t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n i m p l i e s a d i f f e r e n t Vorlage, p e r h a p s o n e t h a t itself c o n t a i n e d s o m e c o r r u p t i o n , a n d w e c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , b e c e r t a i n that w e h a v e a reliable H e b r e w text. It is n o t i m p o s s i b l e that ‫ל פ נ י כ ב ו ד ו‬ w a s w r i t t e n b y a s c r i b e w h o w a s a w a r e of the u s e of t h e s a m e e x p r e s s i o n at Sir. 4 2 . 1 7 , o r w h o w a s w o r k i n g at a t i m e w h e n ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬h a d b e c o m e a s t a n d a r d e x p r e s s i o n in R a b b i n i c H e b r e w . T h e p o s s i b i l i t y of scribal c o r r e c t i o n g a i n s s u p p o r t f r o m a n o t h e r p a s s a g e in MS B. T h i s s e c o n d p a s s a g e in t h e s a m e c h a p t e r of B e n Sira p r e s e n t s s y n tactic a s w e l l a s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s . In d e t a i l i n g t h e c o v e n a n t e n a c t e d w i t h A a r o n in ch. 45, the e x t a n t H e b r e w r e a d s in v v . 6-7: ‫וישימהו ל ר ו ק ע ו ל ם‬ ‫ויתןעליו הוד‬ ‫וישרתהו ב כ ב ו ד ו‬ 'And he established h i m with an everlasting statute and bestowed upon him honour; w h i l e h e (in turn) s e r v e d h i m at t h e p l a c e of h i s g l o r y ' T h i s w o u l d at first s i g h t a p p e a r to c o n f i r m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ‫כ ב ו ד ו‬ as d e n o t i n g d i v i n e p r e s e n c e , if t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r e p o s i t i o n ‫ב ־‬ a s d e n o t i n g 'at t h e p l a c e ' is correct. A n d y e t t h e s y n t a x of t h e text is a w k w a r d . T h e c h a n g e of s u b j e c t in t h e third c o l o n , a l t h o u g h n o t i m p o s s i b l e , is d i s r u p t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y a s the f o l l o w i n g line r e v e r t s b a c k to G o d a s t h e subject. T h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n m a i n t a i n s t h e s a m e s u b j e c t t h r o u g h o u t , r e a d i n g for the third c o l o n έ μ α κ ά ρ ι σ ε ν α ύ τ ο ν έν ε ύ κ ο σ μ ί α , w h i c h is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e m a r g i n a l r e a d i n g of MS B, 51.‫ בברכה‬T h e t r a n s m i t t e d H e b r e w text is, t h e r e f o r e , p r o b a b l y c o r r u p t a n d s h o u l d b e e m e n d e d a c c o r d i n g l y . T h i s i m p l i e s that a s c r i b e c o u l d w e l l h a v e m i s t a k e n l y w r i t t e n ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬at 4 5 . 2 5 just as h e h a d at 45.7. It s e e m s p o s s i b l e that t h e scribe h a d a t e n d e n c y to insert t h e w o r d ‫ כ מ ד‬, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h its a p p e a r a n c e e l s e w h e r e in t h e v e r s e ( 4 5 . 3 d [ G r e e k ] , 20). O n c e a g a i n , it w o u l d n o t b e o u t of k e e p i n g w i t h B e n Sira's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ' g l o r y ‫ ׳‬to h a v e w r i t t e n ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬in b o t h 4 5 . 7 a n d 45.25, b u t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o u n d in b o t h p a s s a g e s s u g g e s t that it w o u l d b e u n w i s e to i n c l u d e t h e m as s e m a n t i c e v i d e n c e in their o w n right. T h e y d o

50

H a y w a r d , The Jewish Temple, p. 65. A v e r b such as ‫ ראשרהו‬w o u l d also h a v e to be u n d e r s t o o d in place of the extant textual version.

51

contribute, n o n e t h e l e s s , to the f i n d i n g s f r o m o u r s u r v e y of the rest of the b o o k . 5: Concluding remarks on ‫כ ב ו ר‬ In t h e p r o v e r b i a l p o r t i o n s of B e n Sira a n d in s o m e i n s t a n c e s in t h e 'Praise of the Fathers' ‫ כ ב ו ד‬h a s the m e a n i n g s f o u n d a l s o in Biblical H e b r e w of ' h o n o u r ‫ ׳‬or 'reputation‫׳‬. H o w e v e r , e v e n in s o m e of t h o s e c a s e s in the 'Praise of the Fathers' ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a p p e a r s to h a v e a n i m p l i e d m e a n i n g in the c o n t e x t of o t h e r u s e s of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in Ben Sira (e.g. 49.5). For, ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a l s o c o m e s to b e a charateristic of the priests t h e m s e l v e s , as B e n Sira e x t e n d s t h e n o t i o n in E x o d . f r o m g l o r i o u s i n s t r u m e n t s a n d c l o t h e s to g l o r i o u s priests. This is c o n n e c t e d in turn w i t h the p r e s e n c e of G o d in g l o r y in the t e m p l e . Sir. 36.14 relates the d w e l l i n g of G o d in the t e m p l e to the filling of the t e m p l e w i t h ' g l o r y ' ( ‫ ) כ ב ו ד‬a n d ' h o n o u r ' (‫)הוד‬, w h i c h is o n e s t e p a w a y f r o m s e e i n g 'glory' as d e n o t i n g the prèse n c e of G o d h i m s e l f , an implication that m a y be f o u n d in s o m e v e r s e s in Ben Sira

III:

Conclusions

This s u r v e y h a s tried to p r e s e n t a b r o a d s p e c t r u m of s o m e l e x e m e s f r o m the s e m a n t i c field of 'glory'. The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h s e m a n t i c s is that it is i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the interpretation of the w o r d s in their c o n t e x t s a n d that o n e is o f t e n r e d u c e d to d e s c r i b i n g s h a d e s of m e a n i n g rather than clear d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n l e x e m e s . S o m e c o n c l u s i o n s m a y , n e v e r t h e l e s s , be d r a w n . 1. T h e l e x e m e s ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬, its c o g n a t e v e r b ‫ ה ת פ א ר‬, a n d ‫ כ ב ו ד‬are the m o s t p o p u l a r in Ben Sira for d e n o t i n g 'glory' a n d t h e y are c l o s e l y ass o c i a t e d w i t h ‫ ה ו ד‬a n d ‫עז‬. T h e y are all u s e d in s i m i l a r c o n t e x t s , prev e n t i n g a n y clear s y s t e m a t i c distinction b e t w e e n t h e m . 2. All the l e x e m e s are u s e d in Ben Sira in a l l u s i o n to biblical texts. ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬, for e x a m p l e , at 49.16 s e e m s to c o n t a i n a reference to G e n . 3.21, a n d b o t h ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬a n d ‫ כ ב ו ד‬are d r a w n f r o m E x o d . 38, w h e r e t h e y d e scribe the p r i e s t l y v e s t m e n t s . T h e s e a l l u s i o n s h i n d e r the task of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r the s e m a n t i c s of the l e x e m e s h a v e c h a n g e d , but t h e particular e m p h a s i s p l a c e d u p o n t h e m a s a t t r i b u t e s of t h e p r i e s t s s e e m s to be an i n n o v a t i o n of Ben Sira. 3. T h e u s e of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬to d e n o t e d i v i n e p r e s e n c e , a l t h o u g h i m p l i e d in s o m e of the later b o o k s of the H e b r e w Bible, s e e m s to b e a d e v e l o p m e n t in Late Biblical H e b r e w that can be f o u n d in Rabbinic H e b r e w . It is a d e v e l o p m e n t i m p l i e d b y s o m e s o u r c e s that are e x t a n t in o t h e r l a n g u a g e s , but Ben Sira is the earliest e x a m p l e of it in H e b r e w . B e n

Sira's i n t e r e s t in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n ' g l o r y ' a n d t h e t e m p l e a n d its p r i e s t s m a y w e l l h a v e f a c i l i a t e d this i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l t h o u g h h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of ' g l o r y ' is e x e g e t i c a l l y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d , it h a s left its trace o n h i s l a n g u a g e . 4. T h e s e m a n t i c e v i d e n c e d o e s a l l o w u s to p l a c e t h e H e b r e w of B e n Sira w i t h i n a particular p h a s e of H e b r e w , d e s p i t e t h e a l l u s i o n s t o earlier biblical material. A t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s t h e u s e of ‫ כ ב ו ד‬a s a n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e d i v i n e title c a n a l r e a d y b e f o u n d in s o m e of t h e later biblical b o o k s , m o s t n o t a b l y in E z e k i e l . C e r t a i n p a s s a g e s i n Isa. ( e . g . 4.5; 6.3) s e e m in particular to u s e the l e x e m e a s a d e n o t a t i o n of d i v i n e p r e s e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d w e l l i n g of G o d in t h e t e m p l e , a n d all of t h e s e m a y b e late a d d i t i o n s to t h e b o o k . 5 2 N e v e r t h e l e s s , B e n Sira a n d s o m e Q u m r a n t e x t s are t h e first l i k e l y c a s e s in H e b r e w of ‫ כ מ ד‬b e i n g u s e d a s a s u b s t i t u t e for t h e d i v i n e n a m e , a l t h o u g h t h e u s e in B e n Sira o f ‫ כ ב ו ד‬in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h o t h e r l e x e m e s i n t h e s e m a n t i c f i e l d s u g g e s t s that it h a s n o t b e c o m e a terminus technicus in t h e m a n n e r of R a b b i n i c H e b r e w . 5. W e h a v e n o t e n t i r e l y r e s o l v e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e n a t u r e a n d c o n t e n t of t h e H e b r e w B e n Sira m a n u s c r i p t s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e t w o t e x t u a l l y u n c e r t a i n a p p e a r a n c e s of 25,45.7)‫כ ב ו ד‬ c o u l d w r i t e , o r r e p l a c e a n o t h e r w o r d w i t h , ‫ כ ב ו ד ו‬. In s o d o i n g t h e s c r i b e m a y h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t i n g it a c c o r d i n g to t h e r a b b i n i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of d i v i n e p r e s e n c e . T h e m o t i v a t i o n , h o w e v e r , for t h e s c r i b e to d o this m a y itself h a v e b e e n in t h e text of B e n Sira w h e r e t h e r e a r e a l r e a d y e a r l y traces of t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t t o w a r d s t h e r a b b i n i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g . In t h e p r o c e s s of t h e t e x t u a l t r a n s m i s s i o n of B e n Sira interc h a n g e b e t w e e n particular grammatical constructions has already b e e n n o t e d , 5 3 a n d t h e s a m e c o u l d p e r h a p s b e i n f e r r e d in t h i s c a s e f o r semantics.

52

1 a m g r a t e f u l to P r o f e s s o r H.G.M. Williamson for d r a w i n g m y a t t e n t i o n to these p a s s a g e s a n d suggesting that they are late additions. 53 E.g. W.Th. van Peursen, 'Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira', in T. M u r a o k a a n d J.F. E l w o l d e (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), p p . 165-67.

)

sug

A b e r b a c h , M., a n d B. G r o s s f e l d , Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text ( N e w York: Ktav, 1982). A i t k e n , J.K., 'Studies in the H e b r e w a n d Greek text of B e n Sira w i t h special reference to the future' ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h D dissertation; C a m b r i d g e , 1995). Barr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1961). B a u m g a r t e n , J.M., 'Purification after C h i l d b i r t h a n d the Sacred Gard e n in 4 Q 2 6 5 a n d J u b i l e e s ' , in G.J. B r o o k e a n d F. Garcia M a r t i n e z (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (STDJ, 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p p . 3-10. Beentjes, P.C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach: een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallelen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45: 6-26 ( N i e u w e g e i n : Beentjes, 1981). —The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Chester, Α., Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tiibingen: J.C.B. M o h r [Paul Siebeck], 1986). C l i n e s , D.J.A. (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew ( S h e f f i e l d : S h e f f i e l d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1993-). Eberharter, Α., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (Die Heilige S c h r i f t d e s A l t e n T e s t a m e n t e s ü b e r s e t z t u n d e r k l ä r t in V e r b i n d u n g mit Fachgelehrten, 6.5; Bonn: P. H a n s t e i n , 1925). H a y w a r d , C.T.R., 'The N e w J e r u s a l e m in the W i s d o m of Jesus Ben Sira', S / O T 6 (1992), pp. 123-38. — ' P s e u d o - P h i l o a n d the Priestly Oracle', JJS 4 6 (1995), pp. 43-54. —The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e , 1996). — R e v i e w of M u n o z Leon, Gloria de la Shekina, JJS 3 0 (1979), pp. 99-102. —'Sacrifice a n d W o r l d Order: S o m e O b s e r v a t i o n s o n B e n Sira's Attit u d e to the T e m p l e Service', in S t e p h e n W . S y k e s (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1991), pp. 22-34. — ' T h e Figure of A d a m in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical A n t i q u i t i e s ' , JSJ 2 3 (1992), p p . 1-20. Jacob, E., 'L'histoire d'Israël v u e par Ben Sira', in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (Paris: B l o u d et G a y , 1957),

p p . 288-94. Jervell, ]., Imago Dei: Gen l,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen ( F o r s c h u n g e n z u r R e l i g i o n u n d Literatur d e s A l t e n u n d N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s 58; G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1960). K a d u s h i n , M., The Rabbinic Mind (Third ed.; N e w York: Bloch, 1972). K i p p e n b e r g , H . ‫ ׳‬Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sainaritanischen Religion der aramaïschen Periode (Berlin: Walter d e Gruyter, 1971). Kister, Μ., Ά c o n t r i b u t i o n to the interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz.59 (1990), pp. 303-78 [in H e b r e w ] . — ' O b s e r v a t i o n s o n A s p e c t s of E x e g e s i s , Tradition, a n d T h e o l o g y in M i d r a s h , P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , a n d other J e w i s h Writings', in J.C. R e e v e s (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Early J u d a i s m a n d its Literature, 6; A t l a n t a , G A : Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 1-34. Knibb, M . A . , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h E. U l l e n d o r f f , The Ethiopie Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1978). Lauterbach, J.Z., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: T h e J e w i s h Publication Society, 1933). L e v i s o n , J.R., Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988). Mack, B.L., Wisdom and the Hebrezv Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers ( C h i c a g o S t u d i e s in the H i s t o r y of J u d a i s m ; C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o Press, 1985). M a r b ö c k , J., ‫ ׳‬D a s G e b e t u m d i e R e t t u n g Z i o n s Sir 36, 1-22 (G: 33, 113a; 36, 16b-22) i m Z u s a m m e n h a n g d e r G e s c h i c h t s s c h a u B e n Siras', in J.B. Bauer a n d J. M a r b ö c k (eds.), Memoria Jerusalem: Freundesgabe Franz Z. Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag (Jerusalem/Graz: A k a d e m i s c h e Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1977), pp. 93-116 M a r m o r s t e i n , Α., The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, 2. The Names & Attributes of God (Jews' C o l l e g e P u b l i c a t i o n s , n o . 10; L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1927). Martin, J.D., 'Ben Sira's H y m n to the Fathers: A M e s s i a n i c P e r s p e c tive', OTS 24 (1986), pp. 107-23. v a n d e r M e r w e , C.H.J., ' H e b r e w G r a m m a r , E x e g e s i s a n d C o m m e n taries', JNSL 11 (1983), pp. 143-56. M u n o z Leon, D., La Gloria de la Shekina en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Madrid: CSIC, 1977).

N e w s o m , C., Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition ( H a r v a r d Semitic Series 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). P e r d u e , L.G., Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS 30; M i s s o u l a : Scholars Press, 1977). v a n P e u r s e n , W.Th., 'Periphrastic t e n s e s in B e n Sira', in T. M u r a o k a & J.F. E l w o l d e (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Raurell, F., 'The R e l i g i o u s M e a n i n g of « D o x a » in t h e B o o k of W i s dorn', in M. Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de l'Ancien Testament (BETL, 51; Leuven: L e u v e n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979), pp. 370-83. v a n R u i t e n , J. ‫' ׳‬The G a r d e n of E d e n a n d J u b i l e e s 3 : 1 - 3 1 ‫ ׳‬, BTFT 5 7 (1996), p p . 305-17. S a w y e r , J.F., Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation ( L o n d o n : SCM Press, 1972). S c h e c h t e r S . , & C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1899). Segal, M.Z., ‫ ( ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א ה ש ל ם‬S e c o n d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958). S u k e n i k , E.L. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: M o s a d Bialik, 1954-55). S t a d e l m a n n , H . ‫ ׳‬Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-Makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehretum ( W U N T , 2 / 6 ; T ü b i n g e n : J.C.B. M o h r , 1981). Syrén, R., The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 3 3 (Acta A c a d e m i a e A b o e n s i s , Ser. Α., v o l . 64 , 1 ; Âbo: À b o A k a d e m i , 1986). V a n d e r K a m , J.C., 'Jubilees' Exegetical C r e a t i o n of Levi the Priest', RQ 17 (1996), p p . 359-73 v a n d e r W o u d e , A.S., ' S o m e R e m a r k s o n Literary Critical S o u r c e A n a l y s i s of the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d H e b r e w S e m a n t i c s ' , in T. M u r a o k a (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics ( A N S u p , 4; L e u v e n : Peeters Press, 1995), pp. 49-54. V e r m e s , G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English ( L o n d o n : P e n g u i n , 1997).

NOMINAL CLAUSES WITH LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES IN QUMRAN HEBREW‫״‬ Martin F.J. Baasten (Leiden) Of the various types of nominal clauses that exist in Hebrew, those that have a prepositional phrase as one of their core elements form a distinct group that deserves separate attention. In this study, two different types of clauses will be analysed; first, those in which the prepositional phrase indicates a location (by means of the prepositions -‫ב‬, ‫על‬, ‫עם‬, ‫מן‬, etc.), e.g. ‫' האיש בגן‬the man is in the garden' or ‫איש בגן‬ 'there is a man in the garden'; and, second, those in which the prepositional phrase conveys the notion of possession or belonging (by means of the preposition -‫)ל‬, e.g.1'‫ לי בית‬have a house' or ‫' לי הכיח‬the house belongs to me'.1 The classification, description, and analysis will be carried out according to various parameters. On the one hand, formal characteristics will serve as a point of departure. This means that main categories are chosen according to the relative order of the core constituents—the prepositional phrase may either precede the noun phrase (PP-NP, Sections I-IV) or follow it (NP-PP, Sections V-VIII). These two groups will further be classified according to the definiteness or indefiniteness of the noun phrase. Additionally, attention will be paid to the syntactic nature of the clause, that is to say, whether it

* I should like to convey my gratitude to Professor Muraoka for inviting me to present a paper at the symposium the proceedings of which are contained in the present volume. I am also g r a t e f u l to the participants of the symposium, in particular Drs W. Th. van Peursen (Leiden) and Dr J.F. Elwolde (Sheffield), f o r discussing various issues in this paper. Note the following abbreviations: NC = nominal clause; NP = noun phrase; i = indefinite; d = definite; S = Subject; Ρ = predicate; PP = prepositional phrase; PPr = personal pronoun; DPr = demonstrative pronoun; Ptc = participle; Th = theme; Rh = rheme. Braces 0 are used, both in quotations and in their translations, to separate the context f r o m the nominal clause at issue. 1 Thus clauses with -‫ כ‬or ‫ כמו‬are excluded f r o m this study, as are s h o r t relative clauses with prepositional phrases such as 1QS 5.18 ‫כול אשר להם‬. On t h e latter type, see Qimron, Hebrew, §400.16. P u r e existential clauses with an overt element expressing the notion of existence, i.e., with forms of ‫יש‬,‫אין‬, or ‫היה‬, will not be dealt with in this paper.

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

I:

PP-NPd

I A: Main clauses

of the type

PP-NPd

The first category to be described is the nominal clause in which the prepositional phrase precedes a definite noun phrase. This fairly common pattern is attested in the order both of Th-Rh and Rh-Th. Theme-Rheme. In this case, the PP serves as the point of departure, while the NP conveys the new information: 4QMMT A 5.2-5 ‫' בעשרים ושנים בו מועד השמן‬on the twentysecond of it is the Festival of the (New) Oil';4 4QMMT A 2.6-8 [‫' עליו אחר השבח ו]יו[ם השנ]י‬after it (i.e., the Sabbath) come Sunday and Monday...'.5

2

For the use of these terms, see Baasten, pp. 1-3. The corpus investigated for this purpose consists of the following texts (and editions; for full references, see bibliography): 1QpHab (Nitzan 1986); 1QH (Licht); 1QS, 4QS (Qimron and Charlesworth); lQSa, lQSb (Charlesworth and Stuckenbruck); 1QM (Duhaime); 3Q15 (Wolters, Milik); 4 Q T 0 b i t 1 4 ] ‫־‬Q200] (Fitzmyer); 4QPrayer of Enosh [4Q369] (Attridge and Strugnell); Shirot haShabbat"‫ ־‬h [4Q400-407] (Newsom); CD (Qimron); 4 Q M M T ( Q i m r o n a n d Strugnell); 11QT (Qimron). 4 Qimron and Strugnell translate consistently "the twenty-second of it is the ...". Formally speaking, however, the first constituent in these and other clauses in the calendrical part of 4QMMT is clearly a PP. Literally these clauses read: "on the twenty-second of it there/it is the/a 5 Qimron and Strugnell translate this as a Ptc clause, restoring ‫ נוסף‬after these 3

The same pattern Th-Rh obviously also serves as a circumstantial clause: 1QM 7.14 ‫{' )שבעה לויים( ובידם שבעת שופרות היובל‬seven Levites,) and in their hand there are the seven ram's horns'.6 Rheme-Theme. Within this same pattern PP-NPd, the reverse sequence, Rh-Th, also occurs, that is to say, sometimes it is the PP that conveys the new information: 1QS 4.23 ‫' ולהם כול כבוד אדם‬and theirs shall be all the glory of Adam'. 7 Especially in poetic texts, this pattern PP-NPd very often serves to emphasize the uniqueness and the power of God, a central theme in much of Qumran poetry, 8 to highlight the frailty or wickedness of sinful people or the limitations of ordinary humankind contrasted with the omnipotence of God. In all these cases, the information structure is clearly Rh-Th: 1QM 18.13 ‫' לכה הגבורה ובירכה המלחמה‬Thine is the power and in Thy hand is the battle'; 1QH 5.4 ‫' ובירכה משפט כולם‬and in Thy hand is the judgment of them all';9 1QM 13.12 ‫' ואליו ]תש[וקתמה יחד‬and towards it is their only desire'; 10 1QM 15.9-10 [‫' ובחושך כול מעשיהם ואליו תשוק]תמה‬and in darkness are all their deeds, and unto it is their inclination';

words; but in the notes they add: " T h e restoration is tentative and alternative restorations are possible (e.g., ‫)והשלישי הנוסף‬." This implies that the word ‫( נוסף‬or any other form of it) may be attributive to the days and not the Ρ of the clause, in which case the translation should be "after it (there are) an additional Sunday ..." The parallel passage quoted by Qimron and Strugnell does have this pattern: 4QMish d 1.2-3 ‫בעשרים וחמשה בו שבת על ירעיה ועלו ]מועד[ השעורים בעשרים וששה בו אחר‬ ‫" שבת‬the twenty-fifth of it is a Sabbath in (the week of service) of Yeda'aya and next to it (comes) the festival of the barley on the twenty-sixth of it on Sunday". Note that in A 20 ‫ ]נו[סף‬is restored, but there, too, its syntactic function is unclear. 6 Although all translations render ‫ שבעת שופרות היובל‬as NPi ("seven ram's horns"), grammatically the phrase is clearly d e t e r m i n a t e . Moreover, the r e f e r e n c e may possibly be to Jos. 6.4 and the conquest of Jericho. Apparently the idea is that the seven ram's horns will be used in the battle described in the War Scroll. Note Jos. 6.6 ‫ שבעת שופרות יובלים‬with a grammatically indefinite form. 7 Wernberg-M011er translates "Adam". The clause stands in parallel to 1QS 4.22 ‫כיא בם בחר אל לברית עולמים‬. 8 See Nitzan 1996, pp. 136-64; Licht, §§21-26, 36, 40; Mansoor, pp. 54-55, 58-60; Merrill, pp. 37-39. 9 Cf. 1QH fr. 13.4 .‫ובירך משפט כולם‬ 10 The singular suffix in ‫ אליו‬refers to ‫( בחוקי חושך‬Vermes: "towards them"; van der Ploeg: "vers elles"), or possibly to Belial.

1QM 13.13-14 ‫' ועם אביונים יד גבורתכה‬and with the poor ones is Thy mighty hand'; 11 1QS 11.21 ‫' והואה מעפר מגבלו‬and he—from dust is his kneading' (with extraposition); 1QS 11.2 ‫' כיא אני לאל משפטי‬but as for me—with God is my judgment' (with extraposition). 12 Less clear as regards context is 4QShirShabb d [4Q403] 1:1.32 ‫בה‬ ‫]״ תשבחות כול אלוהיהם עם הדר כול מלב]ותו‬from it (comes) the praises of all the godlike ones together with the splendour of all His majesty". 13

IB: Subordinate

clauses

of the type

PP-NPd

This pattern is almost exclusively attested in poetic texts, in every case with the conjunction (‫ גי)א‬The information structure is without doubt Rh-Th, serving to emphasize the same themes as described in the previous section: 1QH 2.33 ‫{' }]לוא יד[עו[ כי מאתך מעמדי‬they know not) that from Thee is my stand'; 14 1QS 3.2 ‫" כיא בסאון רשע מחרשו‬for in the filth of wickedness is his plowing" (not specifically poetry); 15 4Q403 1:1.32 ‫" כי בהדר תשבחות כבוד מלכותו‬for in the splendour of praise is the glory of His majesty"; CD 13.6-7 ‫ " כי להם המשפט‬f o r to them (the priests) is the judgment" 16 (not specifically poetry);

11 Jongeling reads a relative clause: "Dieu d'Israël, dont la main puissante est avec les pauvres". 12 Further examples include: 1QS 11.5 1;‫ ו מ מ ק ו ר צדקתומשפטי‬Q S 1 ‫ ;הדרך‬1QS 11.2 1 ;‫לבב‬ ‫ ו ב י ד ו תום דרכי עם ישוד‬Q S 11.4 ‫ל לוא )יזד‬ ‫;עזרע( >יזדעזע‬1>}QM11.4 1;‫ ל כ ה המלחמה ומאתכההגבורה‬Q 10.4 1;‫ ו ל ע פ רתשובתו‬Q S 11.22 .‫ולעפר תשוקתו‬ 13 Newsom's italics indicate an uncertain translation. Newsom: "The word or prepositional phrase ‫ בה‬presents a problem. Unless ‫ בה‬is an uncorrected error (e.g., for ‫)בהוד תשבחות‬, the only conceivable antecedent for the pronominal suffix ‫ה‬- is ‫ מלכותו‬in the preceding phrase. The nuance of the preposition is perhaps best taken as causal, 'on account of, arising from' (Joiion § 133c)." This sentence and the previous one form a chiastic pair (see Newsom, pp. 215-16). 14 Compare 1QH 2.23 .‫ובחסדיכה תושיע נפשי‬ 15 Cf. 4QSC 1:2.3-4 ‫ ;כ]יא ב[סאן רש]ע[ מחדשו‬difficult (compare Isa. 9.4, which is equally problematic)—Licht: "‫ ;"מחשבתו שקועה במעשי רשעה‬Lohse: "denn nach bösem Frevel (geht) sein Streben". Wernberg-M011er refers to Hos. 10.13, but with the meaning of 'to devise, to think' (cf. Prov. 3.29). 16 As against the Levites (CD 13.3).

CD 8.17-18 ‫" כי להם כרית האבות‬for to them belongs the covenant of the fathers" (not specifically poetry). 17

II:

PP-NPi

IIA: Main clauses

of the type

PP-NPi

Theme-Rheme. In the type PP-NPi, the structure Th-Rh is amply attested. This is probably due to the fact that the noun phrase is indefinite, and as such it is particularly apt for conveying contextually new information: 1QS 8.1-2 ‫בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש וכוהנים שלושה תמימים בכול הנגלה‬ ‫' מכול התורה‬in the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three priests, perfect in all that is revealed of the whole Law'; 4QMMT A 1.4-6 ‫' בעשרים ושלושה בו שבת‬on the twenty-third (day) of it (i.e., the second month) is a Sabbath'; 18 11QT 17.10 [‫' ובחמשה עשר לחודש הזה מקרא קו]דש‬and on the fifteenth of this month there shall be a holy convocation'; 3Q15 6.5-6 42 ‫" תחתו ככ‬under it there are 42 talents"; 1QS 10.4 ‫בהתחדשם יום גדול לקודש קודשים ואות למפתח חסדיו עולם‬ "when they are renewed it is a great day for the most holy and a sign of the opening of His everlasting mercies". 19 As expected, we also find circumstantial clauses displaying the order Th-Rh, in prescriptions concerning or descriptions of architectural features, ornamentation, etc.: 1QM 5.6-7 ‫' ובידם רמח וכידן‬and in their hand there shall be a spear and a sword'; 1QM 5.7 ... ‫" ובסגר שלושה צמידים מפותחים‬and on the socket there

17

The NP is indefinite in the parallel clause in MS B: CD 19.30-31 ‫כי להם בריח‬ ‫אבות‬. On this feature, see Sect. IX below, note 63. Further examples include: 1QH 2.23 ‫כיא מאתכה מצעדי‬, CD 12.4-5 ‫כי על בני האדם‬ ‫" משמרו‬it shall fall to man to keep him in custody"; 1QH 2.22 (‫לא ידעו{ כיא מאתכה‬ ‫ ;מעמד‬1QM 11.1 1;‫ כ י א אם לכההמלחמה‬Q H 11.17-18 [ . [ ‫ל ע ו ל ] ם‬ ‫כיא[ לכה אתה הצדקה ולשמך הברכה‬ 18 See the remark in note 4 above. Other examples: 4QMMT A 2.3-5 [‫ב[עשרים‬ ‫ ;ושמונה בו שבת‬4QMMT A 2.4-5 4 ;‫ ב ש מ ו נ ה עשר בו שבת‬Q M M T A 3.6-8 ‫ה בו‬ ‫ ;שבת‬4QMMT A 3.9-11 [ 4;‫ ב ש נ י ם בחמ]י[ש]י[]ש[ב]ת‬Q M M T A 4.3-4 ;‫בו שבת‬ 4QMMT A 4.5-7 .‫בעשרם ושלושא בו שבת‬ 19 The Charlesworth edition transcribes ‫יום‬, while others have ‫הם‬. But all editions interpret the word as ‫יום גדול‬, after 4QS b 8:2.2-3 ‫בהתחדשם יום גדול לקודש קודשים‬ ‫ ואות למפתח חסדיו עולם‬and 4QSd 4:1.1.

shall be three rings, engraved ..."; 11QT 36.12-13 ‫ומפנת השער עד המקצוע השני לחצר עשרים ומאה באמה‬ "and from the (outer) corner of the gate as far as the second (inner) corner of the court there shall be a hundred and twenty cubits"; 3Q15 2.5-6 ‫" ובתכו בור‬au milieu duquel se trouve une citerne". 20 In poetic texts, just as we saw in the previous section, the pattern PPNPi most often displays the order Th-Rh, the PP introducing the clause, the NP conveying the new information: 1QH 9.33-34 ‫" ועם מצעדי רוב סליחות )והמון ]רח[מים בהשפטכה בי‬and with my footsteps is abundant forgiveness and infinite mercy accompanies Thy disputing with me"; 21 4Q405 14-15 6 ‫" ]ב[חוך רוחי הדר מעשי רוקמות פלא ב מ י אלוהים חיים‬in the midst of the spirits of splendour is a work of wondrous colours, figures of the living divine beings ...";22 4Q405 19ABCD 7 ‫' מתחת לד]בירי[ הפלא קול דממת שקט‬underneath the wondrous debirim there is the sound of quiet stillness'. 23 Rheme-Theme. Clauses of the pattern PP-NPi also frequently display the information structure Rh-Th. Their function is the same as that of the pattern PP-NPd, often emphasizing the uniqueness and power of God as against the weaknesses and shortcomings of humankind. It is remarkable that many of the NPi's in these clauses might be semantically definite, even though they are clearly indefinite from a formal point of view: 1QM 4.2-3 ‫" מאח אל יד מלחמה בכול בשר עול‬from God comes the

20

Further examples include: 11QT 38.15+4Q365 ‫ובין התאו לתאו שלוש אמות וחצי‬ 4)Q365 has-41.7-8,9;41.5-6, -7;40.13-14;39.13-14, 5-16;(‫בין תו לתו שלוש אמותוחצי‬ 10,10-11; 1QM 8.4-5 .‫ולידם אנשי רכב מימין ומשמאול‬ 21 These two clauses f o r m a chiastic pair. 22 T h e r e is no reason for Newsom's parentheses a r o u n d "is", w h i c h seem to indicate a clarifying addition to the translation, as if predication is absent in Hebrew. Similarly Garcia Martinez-Van der Woude. 23 T h i s t r a n s l a t i o n is to be p r e f e r r e d to Newsom's " f r o m u n d e r n e a t h ... (comes)". T h e r e is no reason to assume a directional m e a n i n g in t h e c o m p o site preposition ‫מתחת‬: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. ‫תחת‬, §III.2b. Since the clause preceding 4Q400 1:1.17-18 ‫ומפיהם הורות כול קדושים עם משפטי‬ ‫" ]]כבודו‬and f r o m their (i.e. the priests of the inner sanctum) mouths (come) the teachings concerning all matters of holiness t o g e t h e r w i t h [His g l o r i o u s ] commandments" is incomplete, the information structure cannot be d e t e r m i n e d in this case. Further examples include: 4Q405 23:2.12 4 ;‫ר א ש י תרומות לשוני דעת‬ 4 ;‫הדר‬ ‫]אלוהים ק(ול ברך למלך מרוממים והלל פלאיהם לאל אלים‬.

might of war against all sinful flesh"; 24 1QS 3.15 ‫" מאל דעות כול הויה ונהייה‬from the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be"; 25 1QS 3.16-17 ‫" בידו משפטי כול‬in His hand are the judgments of all things". 26 The two instances found in poetry fully comply with this description: 1QH 15.22 ‫" ומאחך דרך כול חי‬from Thee is the way of every living being"; 1QH 4.31 ‫" לאל עליון כול מעשי צדקה‬to the Most High belong all righteous deeds".

IIB: Subordinate

clauses

of the type

PP-NPi

Theme-Rheme. The sequence Th-Rh is attested in a syndetic relative clause (with ‫אשר‬, the PP containing the resumptive pronoun) and in an asyndetic object clause. All instances are in prose: 11QT 48.17 ‫(" )והצרוע( אשר כו צרעת נושנת או נתק‬and the leper) on whom there is a chronic leprosis or scab"; 4QMMT C 27-28 ‫(" )שר]א[ינו( עמך ערמה ומדע תורה‬for we have seen) (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah"; 11QT 46.18+1 l Q T b [‫(" )והאנשים[ אשר להמה מקרה ]לילה‬and the men) who have had a nocturnal emission". Rheme-Theme. By contrast, all instances of this pattern with the sequence Rh-Th have the conjunction ‫כי‬. The examples in question all happen to be attested in poetic texts. This type of clause has much in common with the one described in Sect. I (PP-NPd). It may be significant that from a semantic point of view the NP could be considered definite, although formally it is indefinite. 1QH 11.7-8 ‫)ואני ידעתי כי אמת פיכה[ ובירכה צדקה ובמחשבתכה כול דעה‬ '(and I know that Thy mouth is truth) and (that) in Thy hand is righteousness and (that) in Thy purpose is all knowledge' (with ‫ כי‬doing triple duty); 4QPrEn0sh 3.2 [4Q369] ‫" כי ממכה כול הווה‬for from you is all

24

This is the title written on the standard of the hundred. Although it is possible that it is not a clause ("From God, a hand of war ..." or [Yadin 1962] " h u n d r e d of God ..."), note that some titles on the banners do consist of a clause, e.g., 1QM 43-4 .‫חדל מעמד רשעים ]ב[גבורת אל‬ 25 On the reading ‫ הווה‬or m w . c f . Licht. See also 1QM 17.5; 11.10; CD 2.10; 1QH 12.9; 1QS 11.4-5, etc. Q i m r o n , Hebrew, §107, m e n t i o n s t h e w o r d as " n o t attested either in BH or in MH" and i n t e r p r e t s it as ‫הויזז‬, a participle of .‫היה‬ 26 The clause is parallel to 1QS 3.17 ... ‫ והואה‬... ‫והואה יכלכלם‬.

that is" (context unclear); 4Q402 4 8 [‫" כיא לאלוהי אלים ]כל[י מ]ל[חמו]ח‬for to the God of the elim belong the weapons of war". 27

IIC: Excursus—the

Copper

Scroll

A category of clauses that at first sight seem to belong to the pattern PP-NPi is constituted by those that appear frequently in the Copper Scroll (3Q15)—and which in fact make up the bulk of the text. The initial local PP, which may be quite lengthy and elaborate, indicates a place where a valuable object is to be found, while the noun phrase that follows refers to the object itself, e.g.: 3Q15 1.6-8 ‫בבור הגדול שבחצר הפרסטילין בירך קרקעו סתום בחליא נגד‬ ‫" הפתח העליון ככרין חשע מאח‬in the big cistern which is in the court of the peristyle, in a recess of its bottom which is plugged up with sediment, across from the upper opening: nine hundred talents"; 28 3Q15 1.5-6 100 ‫" בנפש בן רבה השלשי עשתות זהב‬in the sepulchre of Ben Rabbah the Third: 100 ingots of gold". This type of clause is very frequent indeed in 3Q15. At first, one might be inclined to take them as classic examples of locative clauses. Some translators in fact do insert "(there is/are)" in parentheses, in order to bring out the sense of the clause: 3Q15 1.6-8 "in the big cistern... : (there are) nine hundred talents"; 3Q15 1.5-6 "in the sepulchre... : (there are) 100 ingots of gold". In that case, the PP would constitute the theme of the clause, while the new information, the valuable object referred to, would be its rheme. Although this interpretation is attractive, there is one salient feature in the text that seems to run counter to it. Many of those local PPs are followed by another independent clause, which apparently separates the theme from the rheme. These are of two types: the separating element may be an imperative clause of the type "Dig χ eu-

27

Further examples include: 1QS 10.16-17 ‫( )ואדעה( כיא בידו משפט כול חי‬cf. 4QS b 9.4 ‫ ?]י בי[דו משפט כול חי‬note that the word order is reversed in 4QSf 2.3 ‫משפט כול‬ ‫ ]בידו‬h a and the conjunction ‫ כי‬is absent); 1QH 15.13 ;(‫ואדעה[ כי בידך יצר כול רוח‬ 1QS 10.18 ‫ ( כיא את אל משפט כול חי‬/ / ‫ זהואה ישלם לאיש גמולו‬cf. also 4QS b 9.6; 4QS f 2.5-6 1 ;(‫חי‬ ‫ כ ] י [ את אל ]משפט[ כול‬Q H 4.30-31 (‫קה ולוא לבן אדם‬ ‫תום דרך‬. 28 Milik reads ‫ סתום בחליא‬as "celle qui est bouchée par une pierre percée". Wolters' interpretation of ‫ חליא‬as "sediment" is questionable; see Elwolde (forthcoming).

bits", 29 or a nominal clause that specifies the initial PP or part of it. 3Q15 6.11-13 27 ‫במשכן המלבא בצד המערבי חפר אמות שתים עסרה ככ‬ "in the Queen's Residence, on the west side, dig twelve cubits: 27 talents"; 3Q15 9.17-10.2 ‫בשובך שבמצד באמת ה]מים[ דרום בעליאה השנית ירידתו‬ 9 ‫" מלמעלא כב‬at the dovecot which is at Mesad, at the water conduit, southward in the second upper room—the descent to it is from above: 9 talents".

There even seems to be an instance of two consecutive interrupting clauses: 3Q15 9.1-3 ‫בשובך שבשולי הנטף משח משולו אמות שלוש >עש<רא שחין‬ ‫" חפור וגב שעת שבע בדין אסתרין ארבע‬at the dovecot on the edge of t h e N a t a f , measure

off

from

its edge

thirteen

cubits:

dig

two

(cubits), and on seven smooth stones: bars corresponding to four stater coins". 30 In view of these interrupting clauses, it is less likely that the pattern of PP-...-NPÌ should form one single NC in all the cases cited. Therefore, the translation given above suits the character of the text better than periphrases such as (3Q15 6.11-13) "in the Queen's Residence... : (there are) 27 talents"; (3Q15 9.17-10.2) "at the dovecot... : (there are) 9 talents". The Copper Scroll, therefore, is better considered a long list containing separate items, rather than as a regular text consisting of clauses that comply with the grammatical structure of normal discourse. The initial PPs constitute the beginning of each item. 31 The only instances of PP-NPi that could qualify as genuine existential NCs are those in which, following the interrupting clause, the initial PP (or part of it) is 'resumed', as it were, by another short PP: 3Q15 4.6-8 ‫כין שני הכינין שבעמק עבון באמצען חפור אמות שלוש שם שני‬ ‫" דודין מלאין כסף‬between the two tamarisk trees which are in the Valley of Achon, in their midst, dig three cubits: there are two cauldrons there, full of silver"; 3Q15 8.4-7 ‫בגי החיצונא בתך הדר על האבן חפור אמות שבע עסרא תחתיה‬ 17 ‫" כסף וזהב כב‬in the Outer Gorge, in the middle of the sheepfold, by the stone, dig seventeen cubits: under it there are 17 talents of silver and gold". 32

29

The other 23 instances of interrupting imperative clauses in 3Q15 are: 2.13-15; 3.5-7; 4.6-8,13-14; 5.1-4,7-11,12-14; 6.1-4,7-10; 6.14-7.2; 7.3-7,8-10,11-13,14-16; 8.47,8-9,10-13,14-16; 9.1-3,4-6,7-9,11-13; 10.12-14. 30 Though it must be pointed out that the reading is extremely difficult here. All translations differ at this point. 31 Cf. Muraoka 1991, p. 148, for comparable list-like features. 32 Reading ‫ הדר‬with Wolters, instead of Milik's ‫חרה‬. See Elwolde (forthcoming)

Note that such a resumptive PP in 3Q15 also occurs occasionally when there is no intervening clause, e.g.: 3Q15 11.9-10 ‫" כקבר בני העבט הירחי בו כלי דמע א>ר<ז דמע סוח‬in the grave of (...) the Yerahite: in it are vessels of o f f e r i n g of cedar, offering of resin"; 3Q15 2.7-8 ‫" בבור שנגד השער המזרחי רחוק אמוח חשעסרא בו כלין‬in the cistern which is across from the Eastern Gate, at a distance of nineteen cubits: in it are vessels". 33 In these cases, the initial PP forms the introduction of the list item, whereas the genuine clause begins only with ‫בו‬. An instance of such a genuine NC that is not existential is found in 3Q15 9.14-16 ‫בשיח‬ ‫" שיבצפון פי הצוק של בית תמר בצחיאח גר פלע כל שבה חרס‬in the cavern which is on the north of the mouth of the ravine of Beth Tamar, in the arid r e g i o n of G a r p e l a : everything

Ill:

in it is a consecrated

offering".

PP-DPr

Nominal clauses with a prepositional phrase preceding a demonstrative pronoun are not attested in the corpus investigated. In spite of their absence in the corpus, one should not assume that clauses of this type were ungrammatical or had fallen into disuse. The limitations of the corpus prevent any firm conclusions.

IV:

PP-PPr

IVA: Main clauses

of the type

PP-PPr

Main clauses in which a prepositional phrase precedes a personal pronoun are not attested in the corpus investigated. In Biblical Hebrew these clauses are attested, albeit relatively rarely, e.g., Deut. 30:12 ‫לא בשמים היא‬.34

IVB: Subordinate

clauses

of the type

PP-PPr

In the corpus, this pattern is attested only twice, with the first instance appearing to be in fact a periphrasis of a biblical passage. In

for a d i f f e r e n t interpretation of the latter form. 33 Milik reads . ‫ה>מ<ש עסרא‬ 34 Cf. also Andersen, Table 8, p. 113.

the second, the pattern occurs within a tripartite NC (followed by a constituent in rear extraposition 35 ): CD 3.18 ‫(" )ויאמרו( כי לנו היא‬and they had said:) it is ours" 36 (referring to CD 3.16 ;(‫באר‬ 4QTob e 6 5 ‫)]ברוך אלהים [חי( אשר לכול העולמים היאה מלכותו‬ "(Blessed is the living God,) because his kingship is for all the ages" (= Tob 13.1).37 Tripartite clauses in which the PP itself is the extraposed element are not attested in the corpus. 38

V:

NPd-PP

VA: Main

clauses

of the type

NPd-PP

The second main group of nominal clauses with a prepositional phrase is formed by those in which the PP follows the noun phrase. The first subgroup has the PP following a definite noun phrase. It is most remarkable that this is the only pattern in which the sequence Rh-Th is not attested at all. Whether in prose or poetry, in main or subordinate clauses, the PP appears to convey the new information, whereas the noun phrase never does. 39 1QM 2.10 ‫" ומלחמת המחלקות כתשע ועשרים הנותרות‬and the war of the divisions (shall take place) during the twenty-nine remaining (years)". 40 1QS 3.22-23 ‫וכול חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו לפי‬ ‫" רזי אל עד קצו‬all their sin, iniquities, wickedness, and all their

35

C o m p a r e Baasten, pp. 8-13. Dr Elwolde has pointed out to me that the p r o n o u n may r e f e r to CD 3.13 ‫ברית‬. 37 Due to attraction, the subject pronoun agrees with the second noun, not with its predicate. According to Fitzmyer, one could also translate "Blessed be the living God, whose kingdom is for all ages", d e p e n d i n g on the m e a n i n g of ‫אשר‬. Although this is correct, in view of the following clauses of the type ... ‫אשר הוא‬ (with a focalized subject pronoun), translating "because" is preferable. Contrast LXX ε ύ λ ο γ η τ ό ς ό θεός ό ζών ε ί ς τόν α ι ώ ν α κ α ί ή β α σ ι λ ε ί α αύτοΰ with Vetus Latina Benedictus es, Deus, quia magnus es, et vivis in aeternum. Quoniam in omnia saecula regnum est illius. 38 For an analysis of just such a clause in Biblical Hebrew, see Joosten. 39 T h e r e are two instances of this pattern in which both constituents seem to be contrastive. See below, Sect. X. 40 Yadin reads "wage war" for 'prepare' in 1QM 2.9. In that case, this may be an elliptic verbal clause with [‫" ;]תערך‬and the war ... [shall be waged]...'. 36

unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion in accordance with the mysteries of God, until his end". 3Q15 10.1-2 ‫" ירידתו מלמעלא‬the descent to it is from above". CD 3.20 ‫" המחזיקים בו לחיי נצח וכל כבוד אדם להם‬those who adhere to it are destined for eternal life and all glory of humankind is theirs". 41 Very frequent is this pattern as a circumstantial clause: 4Q376 1:3.2 ‫" וישראל עמו‬while Israel is with him"; 4QMMT Β 59 ‫" והבשר עליהם‬while the flesh is (still) on them (i.e., the bones)"; 4QT0b e 5 2 ‫" ]ומר[ורח הדג בידו‬while the gall of the fish was in his hand" (= Tob 11.11); 11QT 34.13 ‫" ויין נסכו אצלו‬while the wine of its drink-offering is with it". 42 A special use of this type of clause that deserves to be mentioned separately is its very frequent appearance in pesharim or pesher-hkc contexts. The NP is either ‫פשר הדבר‬, 'the interpretation of the passage', or ‫פשרו‬, 'its interpretation', whereas the PP has the preposition ‫על‬, e.g.: 1QpHab 10.9 (... ‫' פשר הדבר על מטיף הכזב )אשר‬the interpretation of the passage concerns the Spouter of Lies, (who...)'; 1QpHab 11.12 {... ‫' פשרו על הכוהן)אשר‬its interpretation concerns the Priest, {who...}'.43 As stated above, poetic texts display the very same order Th-Rh: 1QM 12.2 ‫" שמות כול צבאם אחכה במעון קודשכה‬the names of all

41 Further examples include: 1QS 3.23 1 ;‫משטמתו‬ 4.11-13 ‫ופקודת כול הולכי בה לרוב נגיעים ביד כול מלאכי חבל לשחת עולמים באף עברת אל נקמה‬ ‫ ;לזעות נצח וחרפת עד עם כלמת כלה באש מחשכים‬1QS 4.13-14 ‫וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון‬ ‫ ;ודעת מרורים בהויות חושך עד כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬1QS 4.15-16 ‫וכול פעולת מעשיהם‬ ‫ ;במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי עולמים‬1QS 5.19-20 ‫וכול מעשיהם לנדה לפניו‬ (cf. 4QS d 1:1.11); 3Q15 12.1 3;‫ ב י א ת ו מןהמ>ע<רב‬Q 1 5 2.11-12 ;‫חת הסף הגדול‬ 3Q15 3.9-10 3;‫ ב י א ת א תחת הפנאהמערבית‬Q 1 5 12.10 ‫צפון( פתחא צפון‬ but it does indicate location); CD 2.1 .‫ומעשיהם לנדה לפניו‬ 42 Other instances: 11QT 34.12 11;(‫ פ ר פר{ ונתחיואצלו‬Q T 34 1QM 5.8 ‫( הצורה מזה ומזה לצמיד‬very much like a circumstantial clause, as so o f t e n in 1QM, but here without - . ( ‫ו‬ 43 Brownlee, p. 27, notes that in 4QpIsa b 2.1 one reads "the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the passage for the last days concerns the p u n i s h m e n t of the land (‫)לחובת הארץ‬ by sword and famine". "Here the preposition lé has replaced ‫׳‬al." A p a r a l l e l passage in 4QpIsa c 22:2.10 has again ‫׳‬al. He m e n t i o n s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e : 4 Q C a t e n a [4Q182] 10.9 " t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e passage c o n c e r n s t h e victory (‫ )לנצח‬of the heart of men of [truth (?) ...]". Cf. also on pesher t e r m i nology in general Horgan, pp. 239-244: 'Formulas in the Pesharim'.

their host is with Thee in Thy holy abode"; 44 4QM a 11:1.14 ‫" ומכוני בעדת קודש‬and my place is in the holy congregation"; 1QH 9.30-31 ‫" ומשדי הוריתי רחמיך לי‬and from the breasts of her who conceived me have Thy mercies been with me" (in this case, the core clause is preceded by an adverbial PP). 45 In poetic texts the information structure is often hard to assess, since the context is not entirely unequivocal. In view of the total absence in prose texts of the sequence Rh-Th in this syntagm, however, the interpretation as Th-Rh is most likely: 1QM 13.5-6 ‫" וגורל אל לאור ]עולמ[ים‬but the lot of God is for eternal light"; 4QM a 11:2.18 ‫" וברית אל שלום ]לי[שראל‬and the covenant of the God of peace shall be for Israel"; 1QS 10.9 ‫" וכנור נבלי לתכון קודשו‬and the strings of my harp are (tuned) to His holy norm" 46 1QH 11.9 ‫" ורחמיכה לכול בני רצונכה‬and Thy mercy is towards all Thy favoured sons".47

VB: Subordinate

clauses

of the type

NPd-PP

This type appears to be quite rare. Only two instances are attested, one of which occurs in poetry. As stated in the previous section, even in subordinate clauses of the type NPd-PP, the sequence is always ThRh. IQpHab 3.4-5 ‫(" )הכתיאים( אשר פחדם ]וא[מ]ת[ם על כול הגואים‬the

44

Jongeling and van der Ploeg both read0]‫" ] פ ר שמות כולצבאם‬le livre des noms de toute leur armee" (Yadin: 1‫)מס[פר שמות כול צבאם‬. Needless to say, this does not influence the syntactical structure. 45 Licht has ‫ הורותי‬. Cf. Holm-Nielsen, Mansoor. For an analysis of this and related forms, see Elwolde 1997, pp. 236-37. Further instances include: 1QM 12.9 4 ;‫ ו צ ב א רוחיו עם צעדינו‬Q M a 11:1 ‫ ;עם בני המלך‬1QH 4.22 1 ;‫ ו י ד י על כול בוזי‬Q H 9.4 1;‫ש א ו ל עליצועי‬ ‫ ;מרום‬1QS 11.12 1 ;{‫לנצחים‬ ‫" }קדוש אדוני{ ומלך הכבוד אתנו)עם קדושים‬and the glorious king is with us" (Cf. 1QM 19.1 ‫כיא קדוש אדירנו ומלך הכבוד אתנו‬. Vermes (similarly Duhaime, van der Ploeg) reads ‫" ומלך הכבוד אתנו עם קדושים‬... is with us, together with the Holy Ones"; van der Woude and Lohse read another sentence: 'a people of saints are ...'; the issue is impossible to determine.) 46 Different in 4QSd 4:1.8 [ . ‫] ק ד ש ו‬ ‫אכה נבל]י[ לתכון‬ 47 Other examples: 1QS 10.9 4 =) ‫ ו כ ו ל נגינתי לכבוד אל‬Q S d ‫פשעי חטאתי עם נעוות לבבי לסוד רמה והולכי חושך‬.

Kittim,} fear and dread of whom are upon all the nations"; 1QH 6.8-9 ‫" כי כול מעשיהם באמתכה‬for all their deeds are in Thy truth". 48

VI:

NPi-PP

The pattern in which a prepositional phrase follows an indefinite noun phrase displays much more variety than the previous one. Both sequences, Th-Rh and Rh-Th, are attested and various uses may be discerned. Theme-Rheme. First of all, the circumstantial clause is well attested in descriptions (or prescriptions) of adornments or of how various actions are to be carried out or prepared: 1QM 7.11 ‫" ופרי מגבעות בראשיהם‬with turban head-dresses on their heads"; 1QM 5.10-11 ‫" ושמלת זהב טהור בתוך הלהב ושפוד אל הראש‬and an ear of grain in pure gold shall be in the centre of the point, tapering towards the head"; 11QT 57.11-14 ‫ושנים עשר נשיי עמו עמו ומן הכוהנים שנים עשר ומן‬ ‫" הלויים שנים עשר אשר יהיו יושבים עמו יחד למשפט ולתורה‬he will have twelve princes of his people with him and twelve priests and twelve Levites, who will sit next to him for judgment and for law". 49 Rheme-Theme. The reverse information structure, however, is by no means absent in this pattern: 3Q15 12.11 ‫" וקברין על פיה‬and there are graves at its mouth"; 1QS 5.20 ‫" וטמא בכול הונם‬and there is impurity in all their

48

The remarkable sequence Theme-Rheme following the c o n j u n c t i o n ‫ כי‬is due to the fact that the clause forms a chiastic pair with the following one: 1QH 6.8-9 ‫ג י כול מעשיהם באמתכה ובחסדיך תשפטם בהמון רחמים ורוב סליהה‬ 49 Further examples include: 1QM 7.14-15 ‫ושלושה שוטרים מן הלויים לפני הכוהנים‬ ‫ ;והלויים‬1QM 6.10-11 1 ;‫ת‬ 9.14 1 ;‫לשמאול‬ ‫ם שנים למגדל אחד ל]ימין ו[אחד‬ ‫{" ושבעה סדרי פנים למערכה‬the formation shall be composed of (units of) a thousand men} and (there are) seven (such) frontal arrays to one formation" (possibly an elliptic verbal clause [‫ ;?]תאסרו‬Jongeling, pp. 147-48, lists a n u m b e r of translations, all of which take it as NC); 1QM 5.12 ‫וספות ישר אל הראוש שתים מזה‬ ‫" ושתים מזה‬and the lips shall be straight u p to the point, two on either side" (thus Yadin, Duhaime; van der Ploeg: "et des rainures droites [ou: des bords droits] [vont] vers la tête", reading ‫ ;ישר‬Jongeling: "et [il y a] des rainures, droit vers la pointe", taking ‫ ישר‬adverbially).

property"; 50 4QT0b e 1:1.4 ‫" ]ועצבת [רבה עמי‬and much grief is mine" (= Tob. 3.6);51 1QS 10.8 ‫" ובכול היותי חוק חרות בלשוני לפרי תהלה ומנת שפתי‬as long as I live an engraved statute shall be on my tongue as a fruit of praise, the portion of my lips"; 1QS 4.17-18 ‫" וקנאת ריב על כול משפטיהן‬and there is a f i e r c e struggle between all their judgments"; 1QM 12.12-13 ‫" כסף וזהב ואבני חפץ בהיכל]ו[תיכה‬let there be silver and gold and precious stones in Thy palaces"; 4Q405 20:2-22.12 ‫" וקול דממת ברך בהמון לכתם‬there is a still sound of blessing in the tumult of their movement". 52 In the following examples, a so-called long predicate is interrupted after the first meaningful word(s): 11QT 40.11-12 ‫שלושה ב]ו[ שערים במזרח ושלושה בדרום ושלושה לים‬ ‫" ושלושה לצפון‬in it (i.e., in the wall) are three gates in the east and three in the south and three in the west and three to the north"; CD 2.4-5 ‫" ארך אפים עמו ורוב סליחות לכפר בעד שבי פשע‬patience is with Him and abundance of pardon to atone for those who turn from transgression". Due to the elaborate style of many poetic texts, the context does not always provide clear indications as to the information structure. As a consequence, it is at times very hard to determine which constituent is the rheme and which is the theme: 1QM 12.8 ‫" צבא מלאכים בפקודתנו‬a host of angels is among our numbered men"; 1QM 12.9 ‫" וגבור מלח]מה[ בעדתנו‬and the Hero of war is with our congregation"; 1QM 13.10 ‫" וכול רוחי אמת בממשלתו‬and all the spirits of truth are under his dominion"; 53 1QH 4.14 ‫" שורש פורה רוש ולענה במחשבותם‬a root that breeds gall and wormwood is in their thoughts";

50

T a k i n g ‫טמא‬, h e r e and at 5.14, quoted in Sect. VIB, as an a b s t r a c t n o u n ' i m p u r i t y ' , e q u a l l i n g Biblical H e b r e w ‫טומאה‬. See Qimron, Hebrew, §§330.4, 500.3 (p. 108). 51 LXX (ed. Hanhart, Göttingen): κ α ί λύπη π ο λ λ ή μετ' εμού; Vetus Latina et in magno sum taedio. 52 Other examples: 11QT 33.10-11 ‫ושנים שערים לו מצפונו ומררומו זה נוכח זה כמדת שער‬ ‫ ;בית הכיור‬1QS 11.5 1 ;‫ א ו ר בלבבי מרזי פלאו‬Q S 10.22 53 It is t e m p t i n g to i n t e r p r e t the NP's in the last two clauses as s e m a n t i c a l l y definite.

4

=)

1QM 17.7 ‫" שלום וברכה לגורל אל‬peace and blessing to the lot of God". In some poetic instances of this type, the sequence seems to be Th-Rh, although the context is not compelling either way: 1QH 3.12 ‫" ומשברי שחח לכול מעשי פלצות‬and the pangs of the pit (are possessed) by all acts of horror"; 1QH 3.31 ‫" ושורשי חלמיש לנחלי זפח‬and the roots of the rocks shall turn to torrents of pitch"; 1QH 3.31 ‫" יסודי הרים לשרפה‬the foundations of the mountains become a burning"; 1QH 3.12 ‫" והרית אפעה לחבל נמרץ‬and she who is pregnant of wickedness (is possessed) by an agonizing pain".

VIB: Subordinate

clauses

of the type

NPi-PP

Those clauses that are introduced by (‫ כי)א‬clearly have the order RhTh. The last one is from poetry: 1QM 7.6 ‫" כיא מלאכי קודש עם צבאותם יחד‬for holy angels are in communion with their hosts";54 1QS 3.2-3 ‫{" )כיא בסאון רשע מחרשו( וגאולים בשוכתו‬...} and (that) there is contamination in his repentance"; 55 1QS 5.14 ‫" כיא טמא בכול עוברי דברו‬for there is impurity in all those who transgress His words" CD 1.2 ‫" כי ריב לו עם כל בשר‬for He has a dispute with all flesh"; 56 1QM 12.1 ‫כיא רוב קדושים ]ל[כה בשמים וצבאות מלאכים בזבול קודשכה‬ "for Thine is a multitude of holy ones in heaven, and a host of angels in Thy holy habitation". 57

54

Compare 4QM a 1-3.10 [‫כיא מלאכי קודש במערכותמה יח]ד‬. T h e d i f f e r e n c e is unexplained, see Yadin; cf. the parallel in lQSa 2.8-9 [‫כיא מלאכי קודש ]בעצתם‬, which explains why impure persons may not enter the congregation: "for there are holy angels among ..."; on these passages, see also S c h i f f m a n , pp. 49-50; Shemesh, pp. 193-201. 55 Equals 4QSC 1:2.3-4 ‫וגא]ולי[ם בש]ו[בתו‬. The translation is uncertain, but not the syntax. Cf. Licht; Lohse: "und Befleckungen haften an seiner U m k e h r " ; Vermes: "for whoever ploughs the mud of wickedness r e t u r n s defiled (?)"; W e r n b e r g M011er reads ‫( בשיבתו‬cf. 2 Sam. 19.33). 56 Compare Jer. 25.31 ‫ ;כי ריב ליהוה בגוים נשפט הוא לכל בשר‬Hos. 4.1 ‫כי ריב ליהוה עם‬ ‫יושבי הארץ‬. 57 Reading ‫ ]ל[כה‬with Yadin, Lohse, van d e r Ploeg, Vermes, against Duhaime, whose ‫ ]א[לה‬seems syntactically problematic. Moreover, his translation does not fit this reading: " f o r [th]ere is a m u l t i t u d e of holy ones in the heavens ..."

The one case with ‫ אשר‬is less clear, though here, too, Rh-Th seems more probable: 1QM 7.4 ‫{" )וכול פסח או עור או חגר או איש{ אשר מום עולם בבשרו‬any lame person... or man) in whose flesh there is a permanent blemish". It is not clear what determines the word order NPi-PP in the last clause. Compare this one with similar ones quoted in Sect. IIB above, which display the reverse word order: 11QT 48.17 {‫והצרוע{ אשר בו צרעת‬ ‫(" משנת או נתק‬and the leper) on whom there is a chronic leprosis or scab"; 11QT 46.18+1 lQT b [‫(" )והאנשים( אשר להמה מקרה ]לילה‬and the men] who have had a nocturnal emission".

VII:

DPr-PP

Nominal clauses in which a prepositional phrase follows a demonstrative pronoun are not attested in the corpus investigated. Compare Sect. Ill above.

VIII:

PPr-PP

VIIIA:

Main clauses

of the type

PPr-PP

Of this rare pattern, only poetic examples are attested. Compare our remarks above in Sect. III. As stated there, these clauses seem to be relatively rare in Biblical Hebrew, although they are certainly attested, e.g., Gen. 24.27 ‫אנכי בדרך‬. Clearly a circumstantial clause, it is certain that the following clause has the sequence Th-Rh: 1QH 4.29-30 ‫" והוא בעוון מרחם ועד שבה באשמת מעל‬whereas he is in iniquity from the womb and in guilty unfaithfulness until his old age". The reverse sequence, Rh-Th, might be attested in the following case, but it is not absolutely certain that it belongs to this category. The most probable interpretation is that the initial pronoun stands in extraposition—as so often in Qumran Hebrew poetry—so that the clause following it is of the type PP-PPr, the pronoun not being expressed:

1QS 11.9 ‫' ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד כשר עול‬as for me—(I belong) to wicked humankind and to the assembly of deceitful flesh'. 58 In the following case the information structure is ambiguous: 1QM 12.7 ‫ואחה אל נ]ורא[ בכבוד מלכותך ועדת קדושיכה בתוכנו לעזר‬ majesty and (in) the congregation of Thy holy ones, art amongst us for eternal assistance". 59

VIIIB:

Subordinate

clauses

of the type

PPr-PP

Again, this type is very rare. Only one example is attested, the information structure being Th-Rh: 4Q375 1:1.5-6 ‫" השבט ]אשר[ הואה ממנו‬the tribe) that he comes from". 60

IX:

PP-PP

There is a limited number of cases in which a nominal clause seems to consist of two prepositional phrases, of which one is locative or possessive. On closer consideration, however, these are not genuine: CD 20.13-15 ‫ומיום האסף יורה היחיד עד חם כל אנשי המלחמה אשר שבו‬

58 The previous verses deal with God. In this verse the focus switches to the f i r s t person. E.g. 1QS 11.11-12 ‫" ואני אם אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי‬and I—when I totter,..." Dr Elwolde kindly points out to me that 1QS 11.9 may c o n t a i n the first recorded instance in Hebrew of the lexeme ‫ אדם‬in the construct state. 59 Taking ‫ בתוכנו‬as predicate of ‫אתה‬, with Jongeling and van der Ploeg: "Et toi, Dieu re[doutable] dans la gloire de ta royauté et (dans) l'assemblée de tes saints, (tu es) parmi nous pour (nous) aider éternellement]'; cf. Jongeling, pp. 281-82 and van der Ploeg, pp. 145-46. Compare 1QM 10.1 ‫כיא אתה בקרבנו אל גדול ונורא )לשול את‬ ‫כול‬...}"that Thou art in our midst, Ο great and terrible God, [to make spoil of ...}", which is a c o m b i n a t i o n of Deut. 23.15 ‫ כי י' אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך‬and Deut. 7.21 ‫כי־י' אלהיך בקרבך אל גדול ונורא‬. Compare also ÍQM 13.7. Yadin interprets differently: " A n d T h o u , Ο God, [art t e r r i b l e ] in t h e g l o r y of T h y m a j e s t y , a n d t h e congregation of Thy holy ones are amongst us for eternal alliance" ( s i m i l a r l y Duhaime). Different again, and less idiomatic, is Garcia Martinez: "You are a God, awesome in the splendour of your majesty, and the congregation of y o u r holy ones is amongst us for everlasting assistance". 60

T h e only other instance, with the preposition -‫ל‬, is poetic and displays t h e o r d e r T h - R h . N o t e that it is not a possessive clause; t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e (second) lamed is totally d i f f e r e n t and h e n c e n e e d not be i n c l u d e d h e r e : 1QH 7.25 ‫" כי אתה לי למאור ]עו[לם‬for Thou art unto me an eternal light".

‫' עם איש הכזב כשנים ארבעים‬from the day of the passing away of the teacher of the community until the end of all the fighting men who turned back with the liar (there will be) about forty years'; 11QT 34.13 ‫" וממנו עליו‬while some of it is on it"; 1QS 8.19 ‫' וכמשפט הזה לכול הנוסף ליחד‬and the same judgment (is the case) for all who join the Community'. In the first case, it is preferable to interpret -‫ כ‬adverbially as "about, approximately". 61 More or less the same applies to the one instance of a subordinate existential clause apparently consisting of two prepositional phrases. In the second clause, the mem partitivum in the first constituent should be regarded as an indefinite nominal constituent. 62 Such a straightforward explanation does not seem to apply to the third clause, however. On closer consideration, we are not dealing with a genuine clause consisting of two prepositional phrases. A comparison with similar clauses shows unequivocally that the third exampie quoted above is a case of ellipsis, as is made clear in the following scheme: Rheme Theme Adverbial adjunct C D 20.1-2

wkn

1QS 8 . 1 8 - 1 9

wkmšpt

C D 13.17

wkn

hzh

r

hmšpt

Ikl b'y

0(hmšpt)

Ikl hnwsp

0(hmšpt)

dt ‫׳‬nšy

tmym

hqdš

lyhd

1mgrš

A complete version of this clause type can be seen in CD 20.12; it consists of a PP kn "thus" which is the rheme, whereas the theme is hmšpt, followed by an adverbial adjunct 'and such shall be the ruling for...'. Instead of this initial kn, however, we also have cases of wkmšpt hzh, a f t e r which a repetition of the theme hmšpt would clearly be cumbersome: 'and according to this judgment (shall be the judgment) for...'. The reason for the ellipsis of the theme, therefore, is quite obvious. In CD 13.17, finally, we have the same sort of ellipsis with the PP kn: 'and thus (shall be the judgment) for the one who divorces his wife'. 63

61

See B r o w n - D r i v e r - B r i g g s , s.v. -‫ב‬, §la (p. 453); Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §133g. 62 See B r o w n - D r i v e r - B r i g g s , s.v. 3§ ,‫מן‬b (p. 580); Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §133e. 63 Further examples: CD 15.6-7 ‫( וכן המשפט בכל קץ הרשע לכל השב מדרכו‬with an added temporal adjunct); CD 16.12 ‫ ;וכן המשפט לאביה‬CD 20.1-2 ‫וכן המשפט לכל באי עדת אנשי‬ ‫ ;תמים הקדש‬CD 8.18-19 (cf. CD 19.32) ‫ ;וכמשפט הזה לכל המואס במצות אל‬CD 20.8-9

X: Clauses

with two contrastive

constituents

In some cases, the context in which a nominal clause appears unambiguously shows that both its core constituents are contrasted to those in another clause. Whereas in speech this double contrastive assertion may be easily recognized by specific prosodie patterns, in written texts such clauses can be identified when they appear in pairs, the two clauses being juxtaposed. Obviously, this type of clause cannot be classified simply as Th-Rh or Rh-Th. 64 This feature is attested in Biblical Hebrew as well, e.g., Deut. 29.28 ‫" הנסתרת ליי אלהינו והנגלח לנו ולבנינו‬the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children". In our corpus, such contrastive clauses occur in prose as well as in poetry, in main as well as in subordinate clauses, with both indefinite and definite noun phrases. The prepositional phrase almost always precedes the noun phrase: 1QS 3.19 ‫" במעין אור תולדות האמת‬from a fountain of light spring those born of truth"; 1QS 3.19 ‫" וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬but from a well of darkness spring those born of injustice"; 11QT 60.6-9 ‫וללויים מעשר הדגן והתירוש והיצהר אשר הקדישו לי‬ ‫לראישונה והשכם מאח זובחי הזבח והמכס מן השלל ומן הבז ומן הציד לעוף‬ ‫ולחיה ולדגים אחד מן המאה ומבני היונה ומעשר מן הדבש אחד מן החמשים‬ "and to the Levites is due the tithe of corn, the wine and the oil that they have sanctified to me first..."; 11QT 60.9-10 {...‫ולכוהנים אחד מן המאה מן בני היונה )כי במה בחרתי‬

1 ;‫ ו כ מ ש פ ט הזה לכל המאס בראשונים ובאחרונים‬Q S 7.9 ‫ל דבר‬ i n t r o d u c e d by wkn)\ 1QS 7.10-11 ‫וכן לאיש הנפטר במושב הרבים אשר לוא בעצה‬. The only two cases where mšpt is remarkably indefinite are f o u n d in MS B, w h e r e the parallel clause in MS A has a definite constituent; c o m p a r e CD 19.1314 ‫( וכן משפט לכל באי בריתו‬Β) with CD 8.1 ‫( וכן משפט כל באי בריתו‬A) and CD 19.28-29 ‫ משפט לשבי ישראל סרו מדרך העם‬ρ (Β) with CD 8.16 ‫וכן המשפט לשבי ישראל סרו מדרך העם‬ (A). (In CD 8.1 the phrase i n t r o d u c e d by mšpt is made d e f i n i t e by its n o m e n r e c t u m kl b'y brytw, w h i c h in t u r n r e n d e r s the adverbial i n t r o d u c e d by /superfluous.) The reason for this is probably to be found in the character of MS Β itself, in which the article is lacking several times, a p p a r e n t l y without reason. C o m p a r e also, e.g., CD 8.17-18 ‫( כי להם ברית האבות‬A) and CD 19.30-31 ‫( כי להם ברית אבות‬Β), quoted in §IB above. The absence of the article in 19.13,28 leads White (p. 549) to believe that the Α-text is original, whereas in 19.30 (p. 550) the same f a c t leads her to the opposite conclusion. 64

On the notion of contrastiveness and m u l t i p l e contrastive e l e m e n t s , see especially Chafe, pp. 33-38.

"but to the priests is due one percent of the pigeons, (for them I have chosen...)"; 1QS 3.20 ‫" ביד שר אורים ממשלח כול בני צדק‬in the hand of the Prince of Lights is t h e d o m i n i o n of all t h e Sons of Righteousness"; 1QS 3.20-21 ‫" וביד מלאך חושך כול ממשלח בני עול‬but in the hand of the Angel of Darkness is all the dominion of the Sons of Deceit"; 1QH 11.8 ‫" באפכה כול משפטי נגע‬in Thy wrath are all chastisements"; 1QH 11.9 ‫" ובטובכה רוב סליחות‬but in Thy goodness is much forgiveness"; 65 1QH 1.26-27 ‫לכה אתה אל הדעות כול מעשי הצדקה וסוד האמת ולבני האדם‬ ‫" עבודת העוון ומעשי הרמיה‬Thine, ο God of knowledge, are all righteous deeds and the counsel of truth, but to the sons of men is the work of iniquity and deeds of deceit". 66 In Sect. VA above we have seen that a nominal clause of the type NPd-PP occurs exclusively in the sequence Th-Rh. In that regard it is remarkable to find it attested with two contrastive core constituents. A possible explanation for the second pair below is the chiastic structure in which it occurs (NPd-PP—PP-NPi). 1QM 15.1-2 ‫" וגורל אל בפדות עולמים וכלה לכול גוי רשעה‬and the lot of God shall be in everlasting redemption, but destruction shall there be for every nation of wickedness"; 1QS 4.6-8 ‫ופקודת כול הולכי בה למרפא ורוב שלום באורך ימים ופרות זרע‬ ‫עם כול ברכות עד ושמחת עולמים בחיי נצח וכליל כבוד עם מדת הדר באור‬ ‫" עולמים‬and the visitation of all those who walk in it will be healing, great peace in a long life ..."; 1QS 4.9-11 ‫ולרוח עולה רחוב נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר גוה‬ ‫ורום לבב כחש ורמיה אכזרי ורוב חנף קצור אפים ורוב אולת וקנאת זדון מעשי‬ ‫תועבה ברוח זנוח ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה ולשון גדופים עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן‬ ‫" קושי עורף וכובוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושך וערמת רוע‬but to the spirit of iniquity belong greed, and slackness in the service of righteousness ..."

65

Less straighforward is 1QS 11.10 ‫כיא >לא< לאדם דרכו ואנוש לוא יכין צעדו כיא לאל‬ ‫" המשפט‬for it is not man (who determines) his way ... f o r w i t h God is justification". 66 T h e r e is strong contrast on the PP in the first clause, i n d i c a t e d by t h e a d d i tional use of the independent pronoun, immediately after the s u f f i x e d p r o n o u n with the same referent: see Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §146d; Muraoka 1985, pp. 61-62.

XI: General

observations

The foregoing investigation enables us to make a number of general observations concerning the syntax of nominal clauses with locative and possessive prepositional phrases in Qumran Hebrew. 1. David Cohen 67 suggested that in many languages a general rule is operative in nominal clauses with prepositional phrases, according to which the PP precedes when the NP is indefinite, w h e r e a s it follows when the NP is definite. Thus there would be two complementary patterns: PP-NPi and NPd-PP. As far as Biblical Hebrew is concerned, it has been shown that this supposed rule is too much of a simplification to be an accurate description of the facts. 6 8 In view of the present study, we may safely conclude that the rule does not apply to Qumran Hebrew either; we have seen that every possible combination of PP and NP, definite or indefinite, is attested. We conclude, therefore, that in Qumran Hebrew the category of definiteness in itself does not determine the relative order of the constituents in the clause type investigated. Nor indeed does it determine the clause type. We have been able to observe exactly identical types of clauses PP-NP, both with definite and indefinite NPs (see Sections I and II). 2. In his monograph on the nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew, Andersen states that for clauses with a prepositional phrase "no clear rules can be formulated for the normal use of one or other of these sequences [i.e., S-P or P-S]".69 Muraoka came to the conclusion that in Biblical Hebrew probably the pattern NP-PP is the normal sequence, which is neutral in respect of the prominence to be given to either of the two principal constituents. 70 For Late Biblical Hebrew, however, the situation seemed to be less clear. 71 The present study shows that the situation in Qumran Hebrew is 67

Cohen, pp. 38-40. Muraoka 1991, pp. 144-46; Muraoka 1990, §1.5.5. 69 Andersen, p. 50. 70 Muraoka 1991, p. 151; Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §154ff; Muraoka 1985, 14f. H o f t i j z e r treats prepositional clauses on pp. 505-509 ( t h o u g h only t h o s e in w h i c h t h e o t h e r c o r e c o n s t i t u e n t is d e f i n i t e ) ; h e o p p o s e s t h e i d e a of a 'normal sequence' for such cases altogether, see pp. 505 and 487. 71 Muraoka (1991, p. 145) noted that "LBH and the Temple Scroll stand together in that the pattern in which the prepositional phrase precedes is m a r k e d l y more frequent that in the rest of the corpus examined in this study" See also Muraoka 1990, §§1.5.2, 1.5.5. According to Azar, pp. 74-77, t h e n o r m a l s e q u e n c e in Mishnaic Hebrew in nominal clauses with prepositional phrases is S-P (i.e., NPPP), while the reverse order occurs in a limited number of cases.

68

highly diverse. It has been demonstrated that neither pattern, PP-NP or NP-PP, can be said to be the normal, neutral, sequence in Qumran Hebrew. T h e r e is not one s p e c i f i c pattern that is intrinsically emphatic or neutral of itself. With the sole exception of NPd-PP (see Sect. V above), all other possible patterns are attested in both types: Th-Rh and Rh-Th. 3. Frequencies of specific patterns may vary greatly depending on register and text type, but to determine the alleged 'normality' of those patterns on the basis of frequency alone leads to misunderstanding. We have seen, for example, that poetic texts show a relatively high frequency of PP-NP, while the pattern NP-PP is often used for descriptions or prescriptions in architecture or ornamentation and in pesher-\\Y.t formulations. From a stylistic point of view, this is highly interesting. Linguistically speaking, however, we should be very careful not to make firm statements on the basis of these facts. It may be true, for instance, that the pattern PP-NP is very common in poetry, but this does not imply that the pattern in question is 'normal', 'neutral', or even 'characteristic' of poetry. First of all, it so happens that exaltation of God's greatness is a favourite subject in Qumran poetry, and this idea is conveniently expressed by making use of this pattern. Secondly, the very same pattern is also attested in non-poetic contexts. Thirdly, although this pattern in poetry shows the sequence Rh-Th, the identical pattern is also attested with a reverse sequence Th-Rh, thus making clear that there is nothing intrinsically 'emphatic\ 'neutral', or 'poetic' in the pattern PP-NP. By the same token, notwithstanding the high frequency of the pattern NPd-PP in pesherAike texts, it is not 'naturally' linked to exegesis. Rather, it is a consequence of the fact that technical exegetical formulas (such as ... ‫ )פשרו על‬necessarily occur often in exegetical literature. It does not imply that the 'language of exegesis' has a grammar any different from that of other text types. 4. In some subordinate clauses, we have been able to observe that the conjunction ‫ כי‬attracts the sequence Rh-Th (which may be either PP-NP or NP-PP), whereas the preposition ‫ אשר‬usually has Th-Rh (which may be either PP-NP or NP-PP). 72 5. Clauses that seemingly consist of two prepositional phrases have been demonstrated to be either elliptical or not genuine (Sect. IX). 6. Circumstantial clauses invariably have the sequence Th-Rh,

72

See also Michel.

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

Bibliography A n d e r s e n , F r a n c i s I., The Hebrew

Verbless

Clause

in the

Pentateuch

(JBLMS, 14; Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1970). Attridge, H. and J. Strugnell, '4Q369 (4QPrayer of Enosh)', in Harold Attridge, Torleif Elgvin, Jozef Milik, Saul Olyan, John Strugnell, Emanuel Τον, James VanderKam and Sidnie White, in consultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4; VIII: Parabiblical

Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 13; Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press,

1994), pp. 353-62. Azar, M., ‫( תחביר לשון המשנה‬The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Sources and Studies, 4; Jerusalem: Hebrew Language Academy, 1995). Baasten, Martin F. J., 'Nominal Clauses Containing a Personal Pronoun in Qumran Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew

of the Dead

Sea Scrolls

and Ben Sira

(STDJ, 26;

(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 1-16. Bandstra, B. L., 'The Syntax of the Particle ky in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic' (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1982). Bendavid, Abba, ‫( לשון מקרא ולשון חכמים‬Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew) (Second ed.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967-71). Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and Ch. Α. Briggs, A Hebrew and English

Lexi-

con of the Old Testament, etc. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). B r o w n l e e , W i l l i a m H., The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction (SBLMS, 24; M i s s o u l a :

Scholars Press, 1979). Chafe, Wallace L., 'Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View', in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (New York/London: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 25-55.

73

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

C h a r l e s w o r t h , James H. (ed.), Rule of the Community

and

Related

Documents (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 1; Tübingen/Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). —Damascus

Document,

War Scroll, and Related

Documents

(The Dead

Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 2; Tübingen/Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). —and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 'Rule of the Congregation (lQSa)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 10817. —and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 'Blessings (lQSb)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 119-31. C o h e n , D a v i d , La phrase sémitique. Etudes

nominale et l'évolution du système verbal en de syntaxe historique ( C o l l e c t i o n L i n g u i s t i -

que, 72; Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1984). Davies, P h i l i p R., The Damascus

Covenant:

An Interpretation

of

the

"Damascus Document'‫( ׳‬JSOTSup, 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983). Duhaime, Jean, 'War Scroll (1QM; 1Q33; 4Q491-496/4QM1-6; 4Q497)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Damascus Document, pp. 80203. D u p o n t - S o m m e r , A. and M. P h i l o n e n k o , La Bible. Ecrits

intertestamen-

taires (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 337; Paris: Gallimard, 1987). E l l i g e r , K a r l , Studien

zum Habakuk-Kommentar

vom

Toten

(Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1953). Elwolde, J.F., review of Wacholder-Abegg-Bowley, A Edition

of the Unpublished

Dead

Sea Scrolls,

Meer

Preliminary

Fascicle Four:

Concordance of Fascicles 1-3 (1996), DSD 4 (1997), pp. 22941. —'3Q15: Its Linguistic Affiliation, with Lexicographical Comments', in George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies (eds.), Proceedings of

the

International

Symposium

on the

Copper

Scroll,

Manchester, September 1996 (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming). Fitzmyer, J., '4Q200 (4QT0bit e )\ in Magen Broshi, Esther Eshel, Joseph Fitzmyer, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, L a w r e n c e Schiffman, Mark Smith, Michael Stone, John Strugnell and Ada Yardeni, in consultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave

4; XIV:

Parabiblical

Texts,

Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 63-76.

Part

2 ( D J D , 19; O x f o r d :

Garcia Martinez, Florentino, Textos de Qumrán (Second ed.; Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1993). —The Dead

Sea Scrolls

Translated:

the Qumran

Texts

in

English

(Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994). —and A. S. van d e r W o u d e , De Rollen van de Dode

Zee. Ingeleid

en in

het Nederlands Vertaald (Kampen/Tielt: Kok/Lannoo 199495). Hoftijzer, J., 'The Nominal Clause Reconsidered', VT 23 (1973), pp. 446-510. H o l m - N i e l s e n , S., Hodayot:

Psalms

from

Qumran

(Acta Theologica

Danica, 2; Àrhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960). H o r g a n , M a u r y a P., Pesharim:

Qumran

Interpretations

of

Biblical

Books (CBQMS, 8; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). Jongeling, Bastiaan, 'Le rouleau de la guerre des manuscrits de Qumrân. Commentaire et traduction' (diss., Groningen; Assen 1962). J o o s t e n , J., ' T h e s y n t a x of habdrākāh

‫׳‬ahat

hī‫׳‬

lakā

‫׳‬ābī

(Gen.

27:38aa)\ JSS 36 (1991), pp. 207-21. Joüon, Paul, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Corrected rev. ed.; trans. and ed. by T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica, 14.1-2; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993). Kautzsch, Ε., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (Second English ed. by A.E.

Cowley; Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1910). Licht, J., ‫( מגילת ההודיות ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Thanksgiving Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea) (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957). L o h s e , E., Die Texte

aus Qumran.

Hebräisch

und Deutsch

( F o u r t h ed.;

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986). Mansoor, Menahem, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961). M e r r i l l , E u g e n e H., Qumran

and Predestination:

A Theological

Study

of the Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975). Michel, Diethelm, 'Probleme des Nominalsatzes im biblischen Hebräisch', Ζ AH 7 (1994), pp. 215-24. Milik, J. T., 'Commentaire et texte', in M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de V a u x , Les "Petites

Grottes"

de Qumrân

( D J D , 3; O x f o r d : C l a -

rendon Press, 1962), pp. 211-302 [on the Copper Scroll (3Q15)1 M u r a o k a , T., Emphatic

Words

and

Structures

in Biblical

Hebrew

(Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes Press/E.J. Brill, 1985). —‫'( הפסוק השמני בלשון המקרא המאוחרת ובלשון חז״ל‬The nominal clause in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew'), in M. Bar-Asher

( e d . ) , 1 9 9 0 ) 4 ‫ ) מ ח ק ר י ם כלשון‬, pp. 219-52, xviii-xi —'The Biblical Hebrew nominal clause with a prepositional phrase', in K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay (eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth

Birthday (SSLL, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 143-51. N e w s o m , C a r o l , Songs

of the Sabbath

Sacrifice:

A Critical

Edition

(HSS, 27; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985). Nitzan, Bilhah, (IQpHab), ‫( מגילת פשר חבקוק ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬A Scroll of the Wilderness of Juda [IQpHab]) (Jerusalem: Mayer, 1986). —‫( תפילת קומראן ושירחה‬Qumran Prayer and Poetry) (The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library, 14; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1996). v a n d e r P l o e g , J., Le Rouleau

de la Guerre

traduit

et annoté

avec

une

introduction (STDJ, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959). Q i m r o n , E., The Hebrew

of the Dead

Sea Scrolls

(HSS, 2 9 ; A t l a n t a ,

GA: Scholars Press, 1986). —'The text of CDC', in Magen Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992), pp. 9-49. —and John Strugnell, in consultation with Y. Sussman and with contributions by Y. Sussmann and A. Yardeni, Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat

Ma'ase

ha-Torah (DJD, 10; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press,

1994). —and J. H. Charlesworth, 'Rule of the Community', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 1-51. —and J. H. Charlesworth, 'Cave IV fragments related to the Rule of the Community (4Q255-264 = 4QS MS A-J)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 53-103. —The Temple

Scroll:

A Critical

Edition

with Extensive

Reconstructions

(Bibliography by Florentino Garcia Martinez; Judean Desert Studies; Beer Sheva/Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press/Israel Exploration Society, 1996). R a b i n , C h a i m , The Zadokite

Documents

Edited

with a Translation

and

Notes (Second, rev., ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958). S c h i f f m a n , L., The Eschatological

Community

of the Dead

Sea

Scrolls

(SBLMS, 38; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). Segal, M. H., A Grammar

of Mishnaic

Hebrew

(Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1927). Shemesh, Aharon, , "The Holy Angels are in their Council": The Exclusion of Deformed Persons From Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature', DSD 4 (1997), pp. 179-206. V e r m e s , Geza, The Dead

Sea Scrolls

in English

( F o u r t h ed.; H a r -

mondsworth: Penguin, 1995). W e r n b e r g - M 0 1 1 e r , P., The

Manual

of

Discipline

Translated

and

Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957). White, Sidnie Anne, Ά Comparison of the "A" and "B" Manuscripts of the Damascus Document', RQ 12 (1987), pp. 537-53. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). W o l t e r s , A l , The Copper

Scroll:

Overview,

Text,

and

Translation

(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Y a d i n , Y i g a e l , The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light

Against

the

Sons of Darkness (Trans. B. and C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). —The Temple

Scroll;

II: Text

and

Exploration Society, 1983).

Commentary

(Jerusalem:

Israel

THE HEBREW TEXTS OF BEN SIRA 32[35].16-33[36].2 P.C. Beentjes (Utrecht) Introduction

Between 1896 and 1982, nine different Hebrew texts of the Book of Ben Sira were discovered (MSS A-F, Masada Scroll, 2Q18, and l l Q P s a [11Q5] 21.11-17), representing a total of about 1550 verses or parts of them. 1 Whereas 253 Hebrew verses, or parts of them, have been preserved in two manuscripts, 2 there are only eighteen verses to be found in three: 6.28; 7.21 3 ; 32[35].16-21; 32[35].24; 33[36].1-2; 36.24-26; 37.19,22,24; 41.16.4 Half of these triplicate items belong to a more or less continuous text, viz. 32[35].16-33[36].2, which, therefore, merits close examination. The Hebrew texts of Sir. 32[35].16-33[36].2 have been preserved in MS B, MS E, and MS F.5 MS B, folio V verso, contains the stichometrically divided Hebrew text of Sir 32[35].14-33[36].3. It is now held in the Taylor-Schechter Collection at Cambridge University Library under the classmark T.-S. 16.313. MS Ε was discovered in 1931 by Joseph Marcus in the Elkan Nathan Adler Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, and is otherwise identified as ENA 3597. MS E, folio I recto, contains the partly legible text of Sir. 32[35].16-33[36].14a; as in MS B, the lines are stichometrically divided. Unfortunately, a large portion of the right column has been torn off, so that it lacks the first word or two of each bicolon and has only preserved the final word(s) of the first bicolon. MS F was, in fact, already identified by Prof. I. Yeivin of Jerusalem in the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection (classmark T.-S. AS 213.17) as early as 1974. However it took a long time before MS F, which is also stichometrically arranged, became widely known. A. Scheiber 1

Skehan-Di Leila, p. 53, m e n t i o n s η total of 2,200‫ ״‬cola.‫״‬ Skehan-Di Leila, p. 53, reckons w i t h " a b o u t 530 cola". 3 In MS B, b e t w e e n 10.24 a n d 10.25. 4 Sir. 6.28; 7.21; a n d 41.16 are not m e n t i o n e d in Skehan-Di Leila, p. 53. 5 A s y n o p t i c o v e r v i e w of the texts at issue is o f f e r e d by Beentjes, Text Edition, p p . 149-51. 2

p u b l i s h e d the text of MS F in 1982 in a l i t t l e - k n o w n H u n g a r i a n p e r i o d ical, a n d it t o o k a n o t h e r six y e a r s b e f o r e this article w a s n o t i c e d b y A . A . D i Leila, w h o p r o v i d e d a m o r e accurate, text-critical, e d i t i o n of MS F. MS F, f o l i o I recto, w h i c h is h e a v i l y d a m a g e d at its u p p e r s i d e , c o n t a i n s the text of Sir. 31[34].24-32[35].7 (22 lines i n c l u d i n g o n e b l a n k line), w h e r e a s I verso, s i m i l a r l y d a m a g e d , i n c l u d e s t h e text of Sir. 32[35].12-33[36].8 (2Ü lines). B e t w e e n 32[35].7, w h i c h is the final line of I recto, a n d 32[35].12, t h e first l e g i b l e line of I verso, the text of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 8 - l l is m i s s i n g . Bec a u s e MS F is n o t a florilegium a s is M S C, 6 t h e b l a n k l i n e b e f o r e 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 7 is a n i m p o r t a n t i n d i c a t o r of the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n I recto a n d I verso. T h e f o u r m i s s i n g lines b e l o n g to the h e a v i l y d a m a g e d part at the t o p of I verso. It m e a n s that at the t o p of I verso w e m a y a s s u m e that the text of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 8 - l l w a s o r i g i n a l l y to b e f o u n d . In that c a s e , I verso h a d a total of 24 lines. This n u m b e r of lines c o u l d h a v e a r e m a r k a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e w i t h respect of I recto, w h i c h in its p r e s e n t f o r m h a s 22 lines (21 of text a n d o n e blank line b e f o r e 32[35].7). If I recto origin a l l y a l s o h a d 24 l i n e s , it m u s t h a v e o p e n e d w i t h 3 1 [ 3 4 ] . 2 2 . T h i s w o u l d b e the m o r e interesting, as p r e c i s e l y in 31[34].22 a n e w literary unit o p e n s , w i t h ‫'( שמע כני‬Listen, m y son‫)׳‬. C o m p a r i n g the H e b r e w texts of Sir. 32[35].16-33[36].2 in its threef o l d f o r m , it is v e r y n o t i c e a b l e that the text of MS F is a l m o s t identical w i t h that of MS E. In fact, t h e r e is o n e e x c e p t i o n , to be f o u n d in 33[36].1b ( s e e Table 2). M o r e interesting, t h e n , are t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n MSS Ε a n d F, o n the o n e h a n d , a n d , o n the other, MS Β a n d its m a r g i n a l r e a d i n g s ( B m g ) . All the d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g s h a v e b e e n a s s e m b l e d in Tables 1 a n d 2 a n d w i l l be c o m m e n t e d u p o n o n e b y o n e . TABLE 1: MS Ε a n d MS F v e r s u s MS Β Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 6

Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir.

32[35].16d 32[35]. 17a 32[35]. 17b 32[35].17b 32[35].18a 32[35].18c 32[35].18c 32[35].18d 32[35].19b 32[35].20b 32[35].2la

(= B m g ) (= B m g ) (= B m g ) (Bmg:‫)למשוך‬ (= (= (= (=

Bmg) Bmg) Bmg) Bmg)

MSS E, F ‫וחכמות‬ ‫חמם‬ ‫ויאחר‬ ‫למשך‬ ‫חכמה‬ ‫חמס‬ ‫שכל‬ ‫יקח מצוה‬ ‫תתקפץ‬ ‫ב ד ר ך נגף‬ ‫תתחר‬

Beentjes, 'Hermeneutics'; Zappella, ‫׳‬Criteri antologici‫׳‬.

MSB ‫וכחמות רבות‬ ‫חכם‬ ‫ואחר‬ ‫ימשך‬ ‫כחמה‬ ‫חכם‬ ‫שחד‬ ‫ישמר ת ו ר ה‬ ‫תתקצף‬ ‫בנגף פעמים‬ ‫תבטח‬

12. 13. 14. 15.

Sir. Sir. Sir. Sir.

32[35].21a 32[35].21b 32[35].21b 32[35].24a

16.

Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b

(= B m g )

‫רשעים‬ ‫ובאחריתך‬ ‫היה זהיר‬ ‫נוצר‬

(Bmg:‫)ושב‬

‫ישוב‬

‫מחתף‬ ‫ובארחתיך‬ ‫הזהר‬ ‫שומר‬

[

]

T A B L E 2 : MS F a n d MS Β v e r s u s MS Ε Item 17.

Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b

MSS B, F

MS Ε

‫בניסוי‬

‫בנסר‬

1. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 6 T h i s v e r s e c o n s i s t s of t w o b i c o l a a n d h a s b e e n p r e s e r v e d i n MSS Β, Ε a n d F. H o w e v e r G r e e k a n d S y r i a c t r a n s l a t i o n s h a v e o n l y o n e b i c o l o n . P e t e r s h e l d t h e v i e w that t h e first b i c o l o n is to b e c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e a u thentic o n e , but h e altered both subject and verbs into plural forms7. S o m e y e a r s later, in his c o m m e n t a r y , h e c h a n g e d h i s o p i n i o n a n d d e c i d e d in f a v o u r of t h e s i n g u l a r . 8 H a s p e c k e r 9 c o n s i d e r s t h e first b i c o l o n a s t h e o r i g i n a l o n e , b e c a u s e its v e r b a l f o r m s are in t h e s i n g u l a r , a s e v e r y w h e r e e l s e in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 4 - 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 6 . Lévi, f o l l o w e d b y Di Leila, a r r i v e d at t h e s a m e c o n c l u s i o n o n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d s . T h e y c o n s i d e r t h e s e c o n d b i c o l o n of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 6 ( M S B) a s a r e t r o v e r s i o n f r o m t h e S y r i a c . 1 0 T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a r g u m e n t b r o u g h t to t h e f o r e b y D i Leila is t h a t t h e p h r a s e ‫( ו כ ח מ ו ת ר ב ו ת‬MS Β), w h i c h in t h e m a r g i n h a s b e e n c o r r e c t e d to 11,‫ וחכמות‬is n o t i d i o m a t i c in H e b r e w . In t h e Bible n o r in Q u m r a n lite r a t u r e is ‫ ח כ מ ה‬o r ‫ ח כ מ ו ת‬e v e r q u a l i f i e d b y a n a d j e c t i v e : " H e n c e , to s a y t h e least, it is e x t r e m e l y i m p r o b a b l e t h a t ‫ ח כ מ ו ת ר ב ו ת‬o r i g i n a t e d a s a n i n n e r H e b r e w d o u b l e t o r r e p r e s e n t s a s e c o n d r e c e n s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l ‫ ת ח ב ו ל ו ת‬. If, h o w e v e r , H e b r e w 1 6 c - d w a s r e t r o v e r t e d f r o m S y r i a c w h i c h i n t u r n h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d f r o m H e b r e w 16a-b, t h e n w e c a n v e r y r e a s o n a b l y a c c o u n t for t h e a b n o r m a l p h r a s e ‫ ; ו ח כ מ ו ת ר ב ו ת‬it is s i m p l y a s l a v i s h t r a n s l a t i o n of the p e r f e c t l y n o r m a l Syriac rCc^i r
7

Peters (1902), p p . 130,174. Peters (1913), p p . 266-68. 9 H a s p e c k e r , p. 220. 10 Lévi (1901), p p . 158-59; Di Lelln, Hebrew Text, p p . 142-47. 11 See also 32[35J.18a (MS B). 8

T h e s c r i b e of MS Ε o m i t t e d ‫ ר ב ו ת‬f r o m t h e r e t r o v e r s i o n f o u n d in h i s e x e m p l a r , t h u s m a k i n g t h e h e m i s t i c h r e a d at l e a s t l i k e n o r m a l H e b rew12.‫״‬ H o w e v e r D i L e i l a ' s t h e o r y is i n c o n c l u s i v e . It d o e s n o t e x p l a i n w h y t h e s e c o n d b i c o l o n of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 6 (MS B) e m e r g e d . T h e H e b r e w t e x t of t h e first b i c o l o n of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 6 is n o t o b s c u r e e n o u g h for m e to a g r e e w i t h D i Leila w h e n h e w r i t e s : " P e r h a p s ... s o m e c o p y i s t ( s ) r e t r a n s l a t e d f r o m t h e S y r i a c v e r s i o n p a s s a g e s that d i d n o t s e e m to m a k e s e n s e ‫״‬13

2. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 a MS Β ‫איש ח כ ם‬ Bmg ‫חמם‬ MS F

‫איש ח מ ם‬

T h e c o n t e n t of t h e first c o l o n ( ' t u r n s a s i d e r e p r i m a n d s ' ) a s w e l l a s t h e p u r p o r t of t h e s e c o n d c o l o n ( ' h e d i s t o r t s t h e l a w ' ) a r e c l e a r e v i d e n c e that Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 is n o t d e a l i n g w i t h a n ‫איש ח כ ם‬, a s in MS Β a n d S y r i a c ( RCR73J^ RC3TJ ‫ ) נ ר‬, b u t w i t h a n ‫איש ח מ ם‬, a s is h a n d e d d o w n b y MSS E, F, B m g and Greek (άνθρωπος αμαρτωλός). 3-4. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 b MS Β ‫ו א ח ר צ ר כ ו ימשך ת ו ר ה‬ Bmg ‫למשוך‬ ‫יאחר‬ MSS E, F ‫ויאחר צרכו למשך תורה‬ W h e r e a s MS Β o p e n s t h e s e c o n d c o l o n of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 w i t h t h e p r e p o s i t i o n ‫ א ח ר‬, MS E, F a n d B m g all h a v e a v e r b a l f o r m ( ‫ ) ו י א ח ר‬f o l l o w e d b y a n i n f i n i t i v e . 1 4 In itself, this latter c o n s t r u c t i o n is s y n t a c t i c a l l y u n p r o b l e m a t i c . H o w e v e r , it is t h e meaning of t h e s e c o n d c o l o n in MSS Ε a n d F that p o s e s a p r o b l e m . For it w o u l d h a v e to b e t r a n s l a t e d a s s o m e t h i n g l i k e ' a n d h e d e l a y s h i s n e e d to d i s t o r t t h e L a w ' , w h i c h is rather n o n s e n s i c a l . T h e H e b r e w text of MS B, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s e e m s t o g i v e g o o d s e n s e : ' a n d a c c o r d i n g to h i s n e e d h e d i s t o r t s t h e L a w ' . 1 5 H o w e v e r , t h i s w o u l d b e t h e first ( p e r h a p s o n l y ) c a s e e v e r of ‫ א ח ר‬m e a n i n g ' a c c o r d i n g to'. 1 6

12

Di Leila, Hebrew Text, p. 146. Di Leila, Hebrew Text, p. 151. 14 Cf. Sir. 5.7 (MSS A, C); 6.21. 15 A H L , p. 79, lists ‫ ו א ח ר‬of MS Β as a v e r b a l f o r m , w h i c h in m y o p i n i o n is h a r d l y reconcilable w i t h the p r e s e n c e of t h e f o l l o w i n g ‫ י מ ט ך‬, a l s o a v e r b a l form! 16 See D C H , I, p. 194b. In Sir. 5 . 2 c , ‫ א ה ר י‬is u s e d in this sense, albeit in association w i t h a v e r b of motion; see D C H , I, p. 199b. 13

5. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a MS Β ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י כ ס ה כ ח מ ה‬ Bmg ‫חכמה‬ MS Ε ‫[ חכמה‬ ] MS F ‫איש ל א י כ ס ה ח כ מ ה‬ In MS Β, t h e final w o r d of t h e first c o l o n h a s e r r o n e o u s l y b e e n w r i t t e n a s ‫ כ ח מ ה‬, j u s t a s in t h e s e c o n d b i c o l o n o f 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 6 ( ‫ ) ) ־ כ ח מ ו ת‬. In 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a a c c o r d i n g t o MS F, a n a d j e c t i v e is a p p a r e n t l y m i s s i n g a f t e r ‫איש‬. A g a i n , it is t h e c o n t e x t , a s w e l l a s t h e G r e e k ( ά ν ή ρ β ο υ λ ή ς ) a n d the Syriac r ^ j ^ n ) that s u p p o r t MS B. 6-7. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 c MS Β ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י ק ח ש ח ד‬ Bmg ‫איש ח מ ם ל א י ק ח ש כ ל‬ MS Ε ‫[ יקח שכל‬ ] MS F ‫איש ח מ ם ל א י ק ח ש כ ל‬ Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 c p o s e s s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s . First of all, b o t h MS Β ('a w i s e m a n w i l l n o t t a k e a bribe') a n d MSS E, F a n d B m g ('a v i o l e n t m a n w i l l not take advice') are m e a n i n g f u l , but the m e a n i n g s e x p r e s s e d are clearly quite different. 7. F r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of i d i o m , a n i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n c a n b e m a d e . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of ‫ ש ח ד‬a n d ‫ ל ק ח‬a s it a p p e a r s in MS B 1 7 c r e a t e s a n e x p r e s s i o n that is rather f a m i l i a r in Biblical H e b r e w ( E x o d . 23.8; D e u t . 10.17; 16.19; 27.25; 1 S a m . 8.3; E z e k . 22.12; Ps. 15.5 P r o v . 17.23; 2 C h r o n . 19.7) a n d in Q u m r a n l i t e r a t u r e ( 1 1 Q T 5 1 . 1 2 , 1 7 ; 5 7 . 2 0 ) , b u t is c o m p l e t e l y a b s e n t in t h e B o o k of B e n Sira, e x c e p t for 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 c . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of ‫ ש כ ל‬a n d ‫ ל ק ח‬, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is c o m p l e t e l y a b s e n t in Biblical H e b r e w , b u t is d o c u m e n t e d for H e b r e w B e n Sira t w o t i m e s in MS A (8,9c; 16,24a). A s MS Β h a s a w a y of f r e q u e n t l y a d a p t i n g B e n Sira's H e b r e w to biblical p h r a s e o l o g y , 1 8 1 w o u l d like to c o n s i d e r t h e r e a d i n g ‫( י ק ח ש כ ל‬E, F, B m g ) a s t h e m o r e o r i g i n a l o n e . But t h e n n e w p r o b l e m s arise. A s b o t h t h e G r e e k ( ά ν ή ρ β ο υ λ ή ς ο ύ μή π α ρ ί δ η δ ι α ν ό η μ α , α λ λ ό τ ρ ι ο ς κ α ί υ π ε ρ ή φ α ν ο ς ού κ α τ α π τ ή ξ ε ι φ ό β ο ν ) 1 9 a n d t h e S y r i a c (Γ<Λ ‫צנח‬. η ‫_!_<ז‬1‫ב‬0‫י רדננ‬.‫ ב‬rC ^ ; 7 3 J J J J D J J T . rCr70jjjj ‫ג<ז‬£_‫רו‬ CUJCA r<\ ) h a v e o n l y o n e b i c o l o n in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 , s c h o l a r s a s s u m e that t h e H e b r e w of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a - d m u s t c o n t a i n s e c o n d a r y e l e m e n t s . T h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a c o i n c i d e s w i t h 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a a c c o r d i n g to 17

By m i s t a k e , Di Leila h a s g i v e n ‫ ש ח ר‬i n s t e a d of ‫( ש ח ד‬see Di Leila, 'Sixth M a n u s c r i p t ‫ ׳‬, p. 235, note j). 18 See, e.g., R ü g e r , Text und Textform; Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, p p . 7 ( H e b r e w section), 9 (English section); Schräder, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit; Beentjes, Text Edition, p p . 7-8. 19 " O n l y G relates a d e q u a t e l y to the c o n t e x t " (Skehan-Di Leila, p. 395).

MSS B, E, a n d F. T h e G r e e k of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 b h a s p o i n t s of c o n t a c t w i t h 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 d a c c o r d i n g t o MSS B, E, a n d F. T h e S y r i a c of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 is alm o s t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e H e b r e w of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a b (MSS B, E, F). A s a r e suit, a h o s t of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d : 2 0 S c h e c h t e r - T a y l o r , p. 5 8 ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י כ ס ה ש כ ל‬ ‫זד ולץ י ק ח מורא‬

Levi (1901), p. 159 ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י ב ז ה ש כ ל‬ ‫ולץ ל א ישמר מורא‬

P e t e r s (1902), p. 3 7 4 2 ‫ז‬ ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י כ ח ד ש כ ל‬ ‫ו ל ץ ל א י ש מ ר לשונו‬

S m e n d (1902), p. 28 2 2 ‫איש ע צ א ל א י כ ס ה ש כ ל‬ ‫זד ולץ ל א י ק ח ת ו ר ה‬ M i n i s s a l e , p. 79 ‫איש ח כ ם ל א י כ ס ה ש כ ל‬ ‫זד ולץ ל א יקח ת ו ר ה‬

T h i s o v e r v i e w s h o w s that B e n Sira s c h o l a r s h a v e r e a c h e d a c e r t a i n m e a s u r e of a g r e e m e n t that 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a a n d d r e p r e s e n t s t h e o r i g i n a l H e b r e w text. T h e r e is d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n , h o w e v e r , w i t h r e s p e c t t o s o m e d e t a i l s : s h o u l d o n e p r e f e r ‫ ש כ ל‬to ‫ ח כ מ ה‬, ‫ י ק ח‬to ‫ י ש מ ר‬, ‫ ת ו ר ה‬to ‫ל ש ו ן‬ or to ‫ ? מ ו ר א‬O n e c o u l d a r g u e , for e x a m p l e , that ‫ ש כ ל‬s h o u l d be f a v o u r e d in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a , s i n c e t h e G r e e k h a s t h e n o u n δ ι α ν ό η μ α , j u s t a s it a l s o h a s for ‫ ש כ ל‬in 42,20a ( M a s a d a , MS B). 9. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 9 b MS Β ‫תתקצף‬ MSS E, F ‫תתקפץ‬

(‫׳‬to g r i e v e ‫ ׳‬, ‫׳‬to h a v e r e g r e t s ‫) ׳‬ (‫׳‬to p r e s s ‫) ׳‬

T h e c o n t e x t , t h e G r e e k ( μ ε τ α μ έ λ ο μ α ι ) , a n d the Syriac ( ^ ‫ ) נ ו‬all s u p p o r t t h e r e a d i n g of MS B. 10. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 0 b MS Β ‫ואל ת ת ק ל בננף פעמים‬ MS Ε [ ] ‫ואל ת ת ק ל ב ד ר ך‬ MS F ‫ו א ל ת ת ק ל ב ד ר ך נגף‬ T h e v e r b ‫'( ת ק ל‬to s t u m b l e ' , 'to trip') is n o t f o u n d in t h e Bible, b u t o c c u r s t h r e e t i m e s in H e b r e w B e n Sira: 13.23c (MS A); 15.12a (MSS A , B); 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 0 b (MSS B, E, F); there is a l s o t h e n o u n ‫ ת ק ל ה‬in 3 1 . 7 (MS B). T h e

20

In m y text edition, both in P a r t I (pp. 59, 110) a n d in P a r t II (p. 150), t h e H e b r e w text of 32(35],18b (MSS B, E, F) i n a d v e r t e n t l y h a s ‫ זר‬i n s t e a d of t h e correct r e a d i n g .‫זד‬ 21 Cf. Peters (1913), p. 269. 22 Cf. S m e n d , Weisheit... erklärt, p p . 293-94.

v e r b is k n o w n a s w e l l f r o m t w o o t h e r p o e t i c t e x t s in Q u m r a n literature. It is f o u n d in t h e s o - c a l l e d T l e a for D e l i v e r a n c e ' ( 1 1 Q P s 3 [ 1 1 Q 5 ] 19.14,22), 2 3 ‫ א ל א ת ק ל ה ב ע ו ו ה‬, a n d in t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p a s s a g e of 1 1 Q P s b [ 1 1 Q 6 ] f r a g m e n t s 4-5, [ ] ] ‫ע‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ונני א ל א ת ק ל ה‬ S i n c e Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 0 a h a s a l r e a d y o p e n e d w i t h ‫ ב ד ר ך‬, o n e m a y a s s u m e that, a l t h o u g h t h e b i c o l o n a s a w h o l e h a s a c h i a s t i c p a t t e r n , it is n o t l i k e l y that t h e s a m e n o u n w i t h t h e s a m e p r e p o s i t i o n ( ‫ ) ב ד ר ך‬s h o u l d a l s o b e u s e d in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 0 b , as is t h e c a s e in MSS Ε a n d F. M o r e o v e r , MS B's r e a d i n g is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e G r e e k 2 5 a n d t h e S y r i a c . 2 6 R e c e n t l y b o t h Di Leila a n d M i n i s s a l e h a v e f a v o u r e d MS B's t e x t u a l f o r m a s t h e original reading.27 11-12. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a MSB1 Bmg

‫אל תבטח בדרך מחתף‬ ‫רשעים‬

MS Β 2

‫א ל ת ב ט ח ב ד ר ך רשעים‬

MS Ε MS F

‫[ ד ר ך רשעים‬ ] ‫א ל ת ת ח ר ד ר ך רשעים‬

13-14. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 b MS Β 1 ‫ובאחריתך חשמר‬ Bmg ‫הזהר‬ MS Β 2 ‫ובארחתיך הזהר‬ MSS E, F ‫ו ב א ח ר י ת ך היה זהיר‬ MS Β h a s this c o l o n in t w o f o r m s : B 1 ( 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a - b ) a n d B 2 ( 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 c d). T h e G r e e k is m o r e o r l e s s in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h B 1 , w h e r e a s t h e S y r iac r e s e m b l e s B 2 . 11. In r e s p e c t of t h e o p e n i n g of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a , ‫ ( א ל ת ת ח ר‬M S F) is a t t e s t e d in Biblical H e b r e w (Ps. 37.1,7,8; P r o v . 24.19), w h e r e a s t h e v e r b a l f o r m ‫( א ל ת ב ט ח‬MS Β) is n o t . 2 8 H o w e v e r , w i t h i n t h e B o o k of B e n Sira t h e latter p h r a s e is a t t e s t e d f i v e t i m e s e l s e w h e r e : 5 . 5 (MSS A , C); 5 . 8 ( M S A ) ; 13.11 (MS A); 16.3 (MSS A , B); 3 5 . 1 2 [Greek: 3 2 . 1 4 ] ( M S B). 23

Sanders, p. 40. v a n d e r Ploeg, p p . 409-10; Garcia Mnrtinez-Tigchelaar, p p . 78-80. l l Q P s b [11Q6] consists of t w o f r a g m e n t s c a t a l o g u e d as P A M 42.177 a n d P A M 44.003. 25 F o l l o w i n g t h e s u g g e s t i o n by H a r t , p. 184, to r e a d λ ί θ ψ δ ί ς i n s t e a d of λιθώδεσιν; cf. Ziegler, p. 276. 26 See Di Leila, Hebreu‫ ׳‬Text, p p . 65-8 (= A.A. Di Leila, 'The A u t h e n t i c i t y of the Geniza F r a g m e n t s of Sirach', Bib 44 (1963), p p . 189-91). 27 Di Leila, 'Sixth M a n u s c r i p t ‫ ׳‬, p. 236, note n-n; Minisalle, p p . 79, 81. 28 H o w e v e r , the plural f o r m ‫ א ל ת ב ט ח ו‬o c c u r s five times: Jer. 7.4; 9.3; Mic. 7.5; Ps. 62.11; 146.3. 24

24

.

[

12. A c c o r d i n g to P e n a r , t h e r e a d i n g ‫( מ ח ח ף‬MS B 1 ) p o s e s s o m e p r o b l e m s , b e c a u s e t h e Pi'el of ‫ ח ת ף‬d o e s n o t e x i s t in Biblical H e b r e w , 2 9 a n d t h e v e r b d o e s n o t a p p e a r in A r a m a i c e i t h e r . S i n c e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b o t h t h e v e r b ‫( ח ת ף‬Sir. 15,14 [MS A ] ) 3 0 a n d t h e n o u n ‫( ח ת ף‬Sir. 5 0 , 4 [MS B]) 3 1 d o o c c u r in t h e B o o k of B e n Sira, t h e r e a d i n g ‫ מ ח ת ף‬in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a (MS B 1 ) s h o u l d b e f a v o u r e d o v e r ‫( ר ש ע י ם‬MSS E, F, B m g ) , w h i c h is a n T h e mem of ‫מ ח ת ף‬ a d j u s t m e n t to t h e b i b l i c a l e x p r e s s i o n 32.‫ד ר ך רשעים‬ s h o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n e n c l i t i c m e m to " b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e p r e c e d i n g bdrk"33, b u t as a c o n t r a c t i o n of ‫ מן‬m e a n i n g ' o n a c c o u n t o f 3 4 . ‫׳‬ T h u s , t h e r e is n o n e e d t o a t t r i b u t e a s p e c i a l m e a n i n g ( ' f u t u r e ' , ' d e s t i n y ' ) to t h e n o u n ‫ ד ר ך‬, a s P e n a r d o e s . A n d , in a n y c a s e , w h a t is t h e s e n s e of ' d o n o t rely o n the f u t u r e of r o b b e r s ' ? 13. H a v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d t h e t e x t u a l f o r m of Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a a c c o r d i n g to MS B 1 a s t h e m o r e o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g , I w o u l d f a v o u r ‫ ו ב א ר ח ת י ך‬, a s f o u n d in t h e s e c o n d b i c o l o n of MS B 2 ( 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 d ) , 3 5 a s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e l i k e l i e s t f o r m , b e c a u s e t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' o n y o u r p a t h s ' is r e q u i r e d b y t h e p a r a l l e l i s m : ' o n t h e w a y ' . In b o t h MSS B 1 , E, F, a n d G r e e k ( τ έ κ ν ω ν ) t h i s p a r a l l e l i s m is a b a n d o n e d a s a r e s u l t of m e t a t h e s i s , a t y p e of scribal error d o c u m e n t e d at least t w i c e . 3 6 14. It is b e y o n d d o u b t that ‫ ה ש מ ר‬in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 a (MS B 1 ) is n o t t h e o r i g i nal r e a d i n g , first, b e c a u s e t h e s t e m ‫ ז ה ר‬I ('to w a r n ' ) is q u i t e f r e q u e n t in t h e B o o k of B e n Sira b o t h a s a v e r b 3 7 a n d a s a n a d j e c t i v e ( 3 8 , ( ‫ ז ה י ר‬t h e latter n o t f o u n d in Biblical H e b r e w ; s e c o n d l y , b e c a u s e in MS B 1 t h e verbal form ‫ ה ש מ ר‬has been p r o v i d e d w i t h the (hardly legible) m a r g i n a l r e a d i n g ‫ ה ז ה ר‬, w h i c h c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e m a i n t e x t of MS B 2 ;

29

P e n a r , p. 54. C f . Job 9.12. 31 Cf. Prov. 23.28. 32 Jer. 12.1; Ps. 1.6; 146.9; Prov. 4.19; 12.26 (not 12.16, as given b y Minissale, p . 30

82). 33

Penar, p. 54. D C H , ΠΙ, p. 337. 35 In m a n y text e d i t i o n s a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s , the s h o r t colon of 32[35].21d is n u m b e r e d 32[35].22. Minissale, p p . 79-82; S m e n d , Weisheit ... hebräisch und deutsch, p. 28; Weisheit ... erklärt, p p . 294-95; Peters (1902), p p . 132, 375; Peters (1913), p p . 267-70; Segal, p. 205; A H L , p. 33; Skehan-Di Leila, p p . 393-98. 36 Cf. ‫ ארחות‬in Job 8.13, w h i c h is r e n d e r e d τά έσχατα b y the S e p t u a g i n t . See also Prov. 1.19 (BHS). 37 Sir. 11.34b: Hifil [if the adjective is e m e n d e d ] (MS A); 32[35].21: Nif al (MS Β 2 ; Bmg). M a n y text e d i t i o n s a r e n o t correct in their r e n d e r i n g of Sir. 11.34b; this text is f o u n d in MS A after 12.1. See Beentjes, Text Edition, p . 38. 38 Sir. 13.13 (MS A) parallel t o 2 1 . [ 3 5 ] 3 2;‫(השמר‬MSS E, F); 42.8 ( M a s a d a , MS Β). 34

a n d thirdly, b e c a u s e ‫ ה ש מ ר‬represents a m o r e general v e r b that c o u l d h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d b e c a u s e a c o p y i s t h a d in m i n d the h o m o n y m o u s s t e m ‫ ז ה ר‬II ('to shine') w h i c h , of c o u r s e , d i d not fit the c o n t e x t a n d w a s , therefore, altered into a f o r m of ‫שמר‬. M a y b e the a c c u m u l a tion of the verb ‫ ש מ ר‬in the s u b s e q u e n t lines (32[35].22-24) a l s o i n f l u e n c e d this choice. It is difficult to d e c i d e w h e t h e r ‫( ה ז ה ר‬MS B 2 ) or ‫( היה זהיר‬MSS E, F) s h o u l d be preferred as the m o r e original reading. T h e Syriac ( , ijroi à i j n m ) , in a n y case, s e e m s to be b a s e d o n the textual f o r m as reflected in MSS Ε a n d F. 39 After Sir. 32[35].21, MS Β has t w o v e r s e s (32[35].22-23) w h i c h u n d o u b t e d l y are doublets, 4 1 1 n o n e of w h i c h is f o u n d in MSS Ε a n d F. 41 Ben Sira scholars c o n s i d e r 32[35].22 as an e x p l a n a t o r y d o u b l e t u n d e r i n f l u e n c e of the Syriac 4 2 and claim that Sir. 32[35].23 is the m o r e original text, b e c a u s e ‫ מ ע ש י ך‬r e s e m b l e s m o r e or less both Greek (εργω) a n d Syriac ( ! ^ ‫ ) צ נ ו‬. N o d o u b t Ben Sira is a l l u d i n g h e r e to Prov. 19.16 (‫)שמר מ צ ו ה ש מ ר נפשו‬, u s i n g the stylistic d e v i c e of 'inverted q u o t a t i o n ' as d e s c r i b e d by m e in m y doctoral thesis a n d other articles d e a l i n g w i t h Ben Sira's w a y of q u o t i n g a n d a d a p t i n g the H o l y Scripture of his day.43 15. Sir. 32[35].24a MS Β ‫נ ו צ ר ת ו ר ה שומר נפשו‬ MS Ε ‫[ה נוצר נפשו‬ ] MS F ‫נוצר ת ו ר ה נוצר נפשו‬ It is striking that MS Β b e t w e e n 32[35].24 and 33[36].3 h a s the lines in quite a different s e q u e n c e from that of MSS Ε and F: MSB MSS E, F

32[35].24 —

33[36].1 33[36].1

— 32[35].24

33[36].2 33[36].2

33[36].3 44 —

33[36).4

Greek is in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h MS B. Syriac has also the s a m e order as 39

Also in Sir. 13.13, the Syriac (iicni à i j n m n ) is identical with the H e b r e w (‫ ;)והיה זהיר‬there is no Syriac extant for Sir. 42.8 ( . ( ‫ז ה י ר‬ ‫היית‬ 40 Both Greek and Syriac have one bicolon here. 41 Levi Ū, p. 160, does not mention the marginal readings ‫ מצות‬and ‫ מצותו‬relating to the first bicolon of MS B. 42 E.g. Lévi, Π, p. 161: "Il faut noter d a n s ce chapitre la fréquence des doublets, dont la plupart proviennent d e S "; cf. Peters (1902), p. 132; on the basis of τήρησις in the Greek, he has interpreted the second ‫ שומר‬of 32[35].23 as a participle passive Qal. 43 Beentjes, Jesus Siracli cu Tenacli; 'Inverted Quotations'; 'Discovering a N e w Path'. 44 The Hebrew text of Sir 33[36] .4-35[32].11 according to MS Β is missing.

MS B, b u t l a c k s 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 2 - 4 . 4 5 A s w e h a v e a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d , MSS Ε a n d F are l a r g e l y i d e n t i c a l . T h e r e f o r e , t h e l a c u n a at t h e o p e n i n g of 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 4 a c c o r d i n g to MS Ε s h o u l d not be reconstructed ‫שומר ת ו ר ה‬, w i t h Joseph Marcus,46 but s h o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d a s ‫ נ ו צ ר ת ו ר ה‬in c o n f o r m i t y w i t h MS F. In t r y i n g to a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e r e a d i n g of MS Β ( ‫שומר‬ ‫)נוצר‬ o r t h a t of MS F ( ‫נוצר‬ ‫ )נוצר‬should be favoured, neither Greek nor S y r i a c is o f g r e a t h e l p . In 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 4 a S y r i a c n o t o n l y h a s m i s r e a d ‫ת ו ר ה‬ a s cojj ‫ ח ר‬rC ('his p a t h ‫ ) ׳‬, w h i c h s e e m s to b e a s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e o f t h i s p e r i c o p e (cf. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 b ) , b u t a l s o h a s d r o p p e d ‫ נ פ ש ו‬a n d r e p l a c e d it b y ' G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t ' , w h i c h is s i m i l a r to t h e G r e e k ( έ ν τ ο λ α ΐ ς ) . F r o m t h e m e r e fact t h a t S y r i a c in 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 4 a h a s b o t h t i m e s t h e v e r b ‫י‬-‫קצ‬-‫ו‬, w e m a y n o t c o n c l u d e that t h e text of MS F is a u t h e n t i c . For b o t h ‫נ צ ר‬ a n d ‫ ש מ ר‬are r e n d e r e d b y the Syriac translator,47 just as the Greek a n d;13,8;6,13)‫ש מ ר‬ t r a n s l a t o r u s e s π ρ ο σ έ χ ε ι ν for b o t h7,24)‫) נ צ ר‬ 48 3 2 [35] .23; 37,31 ). In t h e Bible a s w e l l a s in t h e B o o k of B e n Sira, ‫ ש מ ר נ פ ש‬a p p e a r s t o b e a s e t p h r a s e : D e u t . 4.9a; P r o v . 13.3a; 16.17b; 19.16a; 22.5b; Job 2.6b; Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 2 1 . 2 2 2 . 2 3 ( M S B); 3 7 . 8 (MSS B, D ) 4 9 . It c a n h a r d l y b e a c c i d e n t a l t h a t i n s o m e of t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d i n s t a n c e s t h e v e r b ‫נ צ ר‬ s h o w s u p too: ‫( נ צ ר פיו‬Prov. 1 3 . 3 a ) , ‫( נ צ ר ד ר כ ו‬Prov. 16.17b). W h e r e a s ‫ נ פ ש‬i n a l m o s t e v e r y i n s t a n c e is a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e v e r b ‫ ש מ ר‬, it is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e that t h e v e r b ‫ נ צ ר‬is c o l l o c a t e d w i t h ‫ ת ו ר ה‬, ‫ מ צ ו ת‬, a n d their s y n o n y m s : ‫תורה‬ Ps. 105.45; 119.34; P r o v . 28.7 ‫מצוה‬ Ps. 78.7; 119.115; P r o v . 3.1; 6 . 2 0 ‫עדות‬ Ps. 119.2,22 ‫ פ ק ו ד י ם‬Ps. 1 1 9 . 5 6 , 6 9 , 1 0 0 ‫חק‬ Ps. 119.45. I w o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , f a v o u r MS B's w o r d i n g a s t h e m o r e o r i g i n a l o n e . 16-17. Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b MSB Bmg MS Ε MS F 45

[.]]‫ל‬

‫א ם בניסוי‬ ‫ושב‬ ‫כ י א ם ב נ ס ו י ישוב ו נ מ ל ט‬ ‫כ י א ם בניסוי ישוב ו נ מ ל ט‬

‫כי‬50[

Skehan‫־‬Di Leila, p. 395 o n l y m e n t i o n s that Syriac lacks vv. 2 , 3 . Marcus, Ά Fifth Ms of Ben Sira', p. 229. 47 ‫נצר‬: 7.24; ‫ ט מ ר‬: 4.20; 15.15; 20.7; 32[35].18, 23; 37.8. 48 T h e G r e e k πιστεύειν is of n o t m u c h h e l p either, b e c a u s e o n l y in 32[35].23 a n d 32[35J.24 it r e n d e r s both ‫( נצר‬v. 23) a n d ‫( שמר‬v. 24). 49 Cf. Prov. 24.12b (‫ )נצרנפשך‬a n d Ps. 119.129 ( . ( ‫נ פ ש י‬ ‫נצרתם‬ 50 S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklärt, p. 295, a n d Segal, ‫ ס פ ר‬, p. 205, h o w e v e r , e r r o n e o u s l y give ‫ בנסוי‬as MS B's reading. 46

16. H e r e w e are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e o n l y i n s t a n c e w h e r e MS Ε ( ‫) ב נ ס ו י‬ a n d MS F (‫ )בניסוי‬h a v e a d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g . MS F is i d e n t i c a l w i t h MS B, w h i c h h a s t h e s a m e n o u n a l s o in 4 4 , 2 0 d (‫)ובניסוי נ מ צ א נאמן‬, d e s c r i b i n g A b r a h a m ' s trial b y G o d . H o w e v e r , t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n MSS Β a n d F a n d MS Ε is q u i t e s m a l l , r e l a t i n g to plene (B, F) a n d defective (E) f o r m s . 5 1 T h o u g h t h e n o u n ‫ נ ס ו י‬/ ‫ נ י ס ו י‬is n o t f o u n d in Biblical H e b r e w , its f o r m (cjittni) 5 2 is s i m i l a r to ‫ ( ש ק ו י‬H o s . 2.7; Ps. 102.10; P r o v . 3 . 8 ) a n d ‫צ פ ו י‬ ( E x o d . 3 8 . 1 7 - 1 9 ; N u m . 17.3ff.; Isa. 30.22). 17. S c h o l a r s w h o i n v e s t i g a t e d MS Β rather s o o n a f t e r its d i s c o v e r y rep o r t e d h a v i n g s e e n faint traces of a shin j u s t b e f o r e t h e l a c u n a at t h e e n d of 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b . 5 3 W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of V a t t i o n i , w h o " r e p r o d u c e s I. L e v i ' s f a u l t y e d i t i o n " , 5 4 m o d e r n t e x t e d i t i o n s d o n o t r e f e r to s u c h a shin a n y m o r e . 5 5 A s , h o w e v e r , b o t h t h e m a r g i n a l r e a d i n g of B m g ( ‫) ו ש ב‬ a n d t h e r e a d i n g of MSS Ε a n d F ( ‫ ) י ש ו ב‬h a v e a f o r m of t h e v e r b ‫ ש ו ב‬, w h i c h m o r e o v e r is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e G r e e k ( κ α ί π ά λ ι ν ) a s w e l l a s b y t h e S y r i a c ( t y v 9 r o j n ) , w e m a y d e d u c e that MS B's m a i n text h a d a l s o a f o r m of ‫ ש ו ב‬, p r o b a b l y that f o u n d in MSS Ε a n d F. 18. Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 2 b MS Β [.... 5 6 ...]‫ו מ ת מ ו ט ט כמס‬ Bmg ‫במסער‬ MS Ε MS F

[.]‫ו מ ת מ ו ט ט כ מ ס ע ד ה אזנ‬ ‫ו מ ת מ ו ט ט כ מ ס ע ד ה אזנו‬

T h e r e a d i n g [.]‫( אזנ‬MS £ ) / ‫( א ז נ ו‬MS F) m a k e s n o s e n s e . H o w e v e r , if M a r g o l i s ' s s u g g e s t i o n is f o l l o w e d to c o n s i d e r t h e zayin a s a waw, t h e n w e w o u l d h a v e t h e w o r d ‫ ' ( א נ י‬f l e e t ' ) s p e l l e d plene. S u c h a r e a d i n g m a t c h e s the G r e e k ( π λ ο ΐ ο ν ) . 5 7 T h e Ketib ‫ אוניות‬in 2 C h r o n . 8 . 1 8 ( a n d its Qere 58(‫ אניות‬i n d i c a t e s that t h e s p e l l i n g ‫ א ו נ ו‬in Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 2 b is q u i t e p o s s i b l e . 5 9 H o w e v e r , in MS Ε t h e final c h a r a c t e r of this w o r d c a n n o t b e

51

W h e r e a s MSS Β, E, a n d F h a v e ‫( ניסוי‬or ‫)נסוי‬, MS A h a s consistently;4.17)‫נסיון‬ 6.6; 13.12). 52 See also GK, §84bi. Qittul b e c o m e s v e r y c o m m o n in Rabbinic H e b r e w , see P é r e z F e r n a n d e z , p p . 57,58,131. 53 Schechter-Taylor, p. (14); Lévi, Text, p . 35; S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklärt, p . 29; Peters (1902), p . 133: " n u r Reste von ‫ ט‬e r h a l t e n " . 54 S k e h a n - D i Leila, p. 61. 55 Boccaccio-Berardi, p. 19; AHL, p. 33; Beentjes, Text Edition, p p . 60,151. 56 Peters (1902), p. 133; Lévi, Text, p. 35; Strack, p . 27, a n d Vattioni, p . 173, err o n e o u s l y h a v e ...‫במס‬. S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklärt, p. 29, h a s filled u p the lac u n a in MS Β w i t h ‫במסעו־‬, w h i c h in fact is the m a r g i n a l reading! 57 Margolis, p. 439; see also Driver, p. 37. 58 Cf. 1 Kgs 22.49. 59 H o w e v e r , H a b e r m a n , p. 298, says there is n o n e e d to c h a n g e ‫אזנו‬.

v e r i f i e d w i t h a b s o l u t e certainty. M o s t text e d i t i o n s f o l l o w M a r c u s ' editio princeps, r e a d i n g a final waw (‫)אזנו‬. H o w e v e r , s i n c e that final character is v e r y faint in the manuscript, it m i g h t be a yod, as Segal h a s in his edition, 6 0 in w h i c h case the n o u n has the s a m e m o r p h o l o g y as in Biblical H e b r e w . T h o u g h MS B's text of the s e c o n d half of 33[36].2b is h e a v i l y d a m a g e d , MSS Ε a n d F are solid proof that it is the n o u n ‫'( ס ע ר ה‬gale, h e a v y w i n d s t o r m ' ) that is i n t e n d e d here. This w o r d is a l s o f o u n d at t w o other p l a c e s in the Book of Ben Sira (43.17b [MS B; B m g ; M a s a d a ] ; 48.9a [MS B]). In MSS Ε and F, ‫ ס ע ר ה‬is p r e c e d e d b y t w o p r e p o s i t i o n s in a r o w , ‫ כ‬+ ‫מן‬, a c o n s t r u c t i o n that m u s t a l s o be a s s u m e d for the marginal reading ‫( ב מ ס ע ר‬Bmg), b e i n g an error for ‫ כ מ ס ע ר‬. T o the best of m y k n o w l e d g e , n o scholar has e v e r before referred to at least t w o i n s t a n c e s in the H e b r e w Bible w h e r e a similar c o n s t r u c t i o n (D foll o w e d by ‫ )מן‬is found: 6 1 Gen. 38.24 ‫ויהי כ מ ש ל ש חדשים ויגד ל י ה ו ד ה‬ Lev. 26.37 ‫ וכשלו איש־באחיו כ מ פ נ י ־ ח ר ב‬. T h e s e t w o instances are a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e that Driver w a s right to think that at Sir. 33[36].2b there is n o u n k n o w n n o u n , ‫ מ ס ע ר‬, as is s u g g e s t e d b y several scholars/' 2 but a rather c o m m o n Biblical H e b r e w word.63

Conclusion H a v i n g m a d e a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n MS Β a n d its marginal r e a d i n g s (Bmg) o n the o n e h a n d , a n d MSS E-F o n the other, w e arrive at the c o n c l u s i o n that w h e r e the text of MS Β is different f r o m MSS Ε a n d F, the greater part of MS B's readings s h o u l d be preferred to t h o s e of MSS Ε and F (e.g. i t e m s 3-4, 9-13, 15). In s o m e instances (e.g. i t e m s 1, 2, 5, 7), the text of MSS Ε and F is to be preferred to that of MS B; in these instances, B m g is identical w i t h MSS Ε and F. In three instances (items 6-8), it is problematic as to w h i c h reading is preferable.

60

Segal, 0‫פר‬, p. 206. It is rather odd, however, that Segal also has ‫ אזני‬for MS B, where there is a complete lacuna! 61 I should like to thank my colleague Dr H.W.M. van Grol (Katholieke Theologische Universiteit te Utrecht) for his help in this matter and Dr J.F. Elwolde for various additions and improvements to my original manuscript. 62 Smend, Weisheit... erklärt, p. 296; Peters (1902), p. 133; AHL» p. 202. 63 Driver, p. 37.

Bibliography T h e A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e [ A H L ] (The Historical D i c t i o nary of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e ) , The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Con cordanceand an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e , 1973). Beentjes, P.C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6-26 ( N i e u w e g e i n : Beentjes, 1981). — ' I n v e r t e d Q u o t a t i o n s in the Bible: a N e g l e c t e d Stylistic Pattern‫׳‬, Bib 63 (1982), p p . 506-23. — ' H e r m e n e u t i c s in the B o o k o f Ben Sira: S o m e O b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e H e b r e w MS C‫׳‬, EstBib 4 6 (1988), pp. 45-60. — Ά C l o s e r Look at the N e w l y D i s c o v e r e d Sixth H e b r e w M a n u s c r i p t (MS F) of Ben Sira‫׳‬, EstBib 51 (1993), p p . 171-86. — ‫ ׳‬D i s c o v e r i n g a N e w Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Q u o t a t i o n s a n d T h e i r D y n a m i c s ' , in L.J. d e R e g t , J. d e W a a r d , a n d J.P. F o k k e l m a n (eds.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ( A s s e n : Van G o r c u m , 1996), p p . 31-50. —The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Boccaccio, P. a n d G. Berardi, Ecclesiasticus: Textus hebraeus secundum fragmenta reperta ('Ad usuin scholarum') (Rome: Institut Biblique, 1976). C l i n e s , D.J.A. (ed.) a n d J.F. E l w o l d e ( e x e c u t i v e ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebretu [ D C H ] , I-IV ( S h e f f i e l d : S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1993-1998). Di Leila, A . A . , The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study ( S t u d i e s in Classical Literature, 1; T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n , 1966). — ' T h e N e w l y D i s c o v e r e d Sixth M a n u s c r i p t of Ben Sira f r o m the Cairo G e n i z a ' , Bib 69 (1988), pp. 226-38 D r i v e r , G.R., 'Ecclesiasticus: A N e w F r a g m e n t of the H e b r e w Text', ExpTim 49 (1937-38), pp. 37-39. Garcia M a r t i n e z , F. a n d E.C.J. T i g c h e l a a r , ' P s a l m s M a n u s c r i p t s f r o m Q u m r a n C a v e 11: A P r e l i m i n a r y e d i t i o n ' , R Q 17 (J.T. Milik v o l u m e ) (1996), pp. 73-107. H a b e r m a n , A . M . , ‫עיונים ב פ ס ר ב ך ס י ר א‬, in ‫ ס פ ר ס ג ל‬: Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M.H. Segal ( P u b l i c a t i o n s of the Israel S o ciety for Biblical Research, 18; Jerusalem 1964), p p . 296-99 Hart, J.H.A., Ecclesiasticus: the Greek Text of Codex 248 ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y , 1909). H a s p e c k e r , J., Gottesfurcht bei I esus Sirach: Ihre religiose Struktur

und ihre

literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung ( A n B i b , 30; R o m e : P ä p s t liches Bibelinstitut, 1967). L a g a r d e , P. d e , Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace, L e i p z i g / L o n d o n : F.A. B r o c k h a u s - W i l l i a m s & N o r g a t e , 1861 [reprinted O s n a b r ü c k , 1972]). Lévi, I., L'Ecclésiastique II ( B i b l i o t h è q u e d e l'École d e s H a u t e s É t u d e s , S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s , 10; Paris: E. Leroux, 1901). —The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Third Edition; S e m i t i c S t u d y Series, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969). First e d i t i o n , 1904. M a r c u s , J., Ά Fifth M s of Ben Sira‫׳‬, JQR 21 (1931), p p . 2 2 3 - 4 0 [= J. M a r c u s , The Newly Discovered Original Hebrew of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus xxxii,16-xxxiv,l), Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1931]. M a r g o l i s , M.L., ‫ ׳‬N o t e s o n ‫ ״‬A Fifth MS. of Ben Sira‫״׳‬, JQR 21 (1930-31), pp. 439-40. M i n i s s a l e , Α., La Versione Greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alia luce dell'attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib, 133; R o m e : P o n t i f i c i o Istituto Biblico, 1995). Penar, T., Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr, 28; R o m e : Biblical Institute Press, 1975). P é r e z F e r n a n d e z , M., An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J.F. E l w o l d e ; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Peters, N . , Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene Hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus untersucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit kritischen Noten versehen (Freiburg i. Br.: H e r d e r , 1902). Peters, N . , Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus ( E H A T , 25; M ü n s t e r : A s c h e n d o r f f , 1913). v a n d e r P l o e g , J.P.M., ‫ ׳‬F r a g m e n t s d ' u n m a n u s c r i t d e p s a u m e s d e Q u m r â n ( 1 1 Q P s b ) ‫ ׳‬, RB 74 (1967), pp. 408-12. R ü g e r , H.-P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach ( B Z A W , 112; Berlin: W. d e Gruyter, 1970). S a n d e r s , J.A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD, IV; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1965). Schechter, S. a n d C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1899). Scheiber, Α., Ά Leaf of the Fourth M a n u s c r i p t of the Ben Sira f r o m the G e n i z a ‫ ׳‬, Magyar Könyvszemle 98 (1982), p p . 179-85. S c h r ä d e r , L., Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (Beiträge z u r b i b l i s c h e n E x e g e s e u n d T h e o l o g i e , 27; Frankfurt a. M.: P. Lang, 1994). Segal, M.Z., ‫׳‬The Fifth M a n u s c r i p t of Ben Sira‫׳‬, Tarbiz 2 (1930-31), p p . 295-307 (in H e b r e w ) . — ‫ ( ס פ ר ב ך ם י ר א ה ש ל ם‬S e c o n d e d i t i o n ; Jerusalem: M o s a d Bialik, 1958). S k e h a n , P.W. a n d A . A . Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira ( A n c h o r Bible,

39, N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1987). S m e n d , R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch (Berlin: R e i m e r , 1906). —Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1906). Strack, H.L., Die Sprüche Jesus', des Sohnes Sirachs ( S c h r i f t e n d e s I n s t i t u t u m J u d a i c u m in Berlin, 31; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903). Vaccari, Α., 'Ecclesiastici h e b r a i c e f r a g m e n t u m n u p e r d e t e c t u m ' , VD 11 (1931), p p . 172-78. Vattioni, F., Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca ( P u b b l i c a z i o n i d e l S e m i n a r i o di S e m i t i s t i c a , Testi 1; N a p l e s : Istituto o r i e n t a l e di N a p o l i , 1968). Y a d i n , Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: T h e Israel E x p l o ration S o c i e t y a n d the Shrine of the Book, 1965). Z a p p e l l a , M., 'Criteri a n t o l o g i c i e q u e s t i o n e testuali d e l m a n o s c r i t t o ebraico C di Siracide‫׳‬, RivBib 38 (1990), pp. 273-300. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesti Filii Sirach ( S e p t u a g i n t a ... G o t t i n g e n s i s , 12.2; G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p p r e c h t , 1965).

A N U N U S U A L USE O F T H E DEFINITE ARTICLE IN BIBLICAL A N D POST-BIBLICAL HEBREW Martin Ehrensvärd (Jerusalem)

T h e u s e of the d e f i n i t e article in Biblical a n d post-Biblical H e b r e w is remarkably similar to that f o u n d in w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s . A c a t e g o r y of H e b r e w article u s e that h a p p e n s not to be attested in o n e E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e is likely to occur in another. For Biblical H e b r e w , this h o l d s for all categories of article use, e x c e p t for o n e p r o p o s e d b y two c o m p r e h e n s i v e reference grammars, G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h and J o ü o n / M u r a o k a . 1 T h e article in this category is d e s c r i b e d , essentially, as b e i n g u s e d w i t h w o r d s that are not definite. 2 The g r a m m a r s g i v e a n u m b e r of e x a m p l e s to substantiate this, 66 in all, and t h e s e e x a m p l e s i n d e e d g i v e the i m p r e s s i o n that the w o r d s are not d e f i n i t e in a n y w a y , in spite of the d e f i n i t e article. S o m e of the m o s t striking e x a m p l e s are the f o l l o w i n g : (1) O n e w h o had e s c a p e d [ ‫ ] ה פ ל י ט‬c a m e a n d reported this to Abram the H e b r e w (Gen. 14.13); (2) H e h a n g e d the king of Ai o n a t r e e / a p i e c e of w o o d [‫]העץ‬ Gosh. 8.29); (3) A m e s s e n g e r [‫ ]המגיד‬c a m e a n d told D a v i d (2 Sam. 15.13). There is n o o n e fugitive, p i e c e of w o o d , or m e s s e n g e r m e n t i o n e d b e fore a n d it d o e s not s e e m possible to figure o u t f r o m the context w h a t the specific referents are, s o the n o u n s are traditionally translated as indefinites. Instances s u c h as these are e v e n u s e d b y James Barr to ar1

For full references, see the bibliography. G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h , §126q: ‫״‬Eigentümlich ist d e m Hebräischen die VerWendung des Artikels, um eine einzelne, zunächst noch unbekannte und daher nicht näher zu bestimmende Person oder Sache als eine solche zu bezeichnen, welche unter den gegebenen U m s t ä n d e n als v o r h a n d e n u n d in Betracht k o m m e n d zu denken sei. Im Deutschen steht in solchen Fällen meist d e r unbestimmte Artikel." [italics supplied]; J o ü o n / M u r a o k a , §137m, u n d e r the heading Imperfect Determination: "A thing which is not determinate in the consciousness of the writer or of him w h o is addressed is sometimes specifically determinate in itself; therefore the noun takes, or can take the article. This use of the article, characteristic of Hebrew, is rather frequent. It can only be translated in English by a, sometimes a certain ..." 2

g u e that the Biblical H e b r e w definite article is o n l y l o o s e l y a n d g e n e r ally related to d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 3 It is p e r p l e x i n g , h o w e v e r , that t h e q u i n t e s s e n t i a l m e a n s of e x p r e s s i n g d e f i n i t e n e s s , the d e f i n i t e article, can be u s e d this w a y ; in fact, an alternative interpretation is p o s s i b l e in e a c h case. A c c o r d i n g to the alternative interpretations, t h e u s e of the article in the 66 e x a m p l e s is n o different f r o m that f o u n d in w e s t e m European l a n g u a g e s a n d the reason w h y the e x a m p l e s strike us as o d d is that w e are not s u f f i c i e n t l y familiar w i t h ancient H e b r e w lang u a g e a n d culture; d u e to i g n o r a n c e of the c o n t e x t w e d o n o t k n o w w h a t the article refers to each t i m e and h a v e to translate it instead b y 'a' or 'a certain'. In other w o r d s , it is p o s s i b l e to argue, as I shall n o w a t t e m p t to d o , that n a t i v e s p e a k e r s in e a c h i n s t a n c e w o u l d h a v e k n o w n w h a t the article referred to a n d that, therefore, there is n o n e e d to i n v o k e a special category. M a n y of the e x a m p l e s are n o t that d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n ; in m a n y of t h e m , for e x a m p l e , the article is e q u i v a l e n t to a p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n . 4 For n o w , I shall s i m p l y p r e s e n t m y s u g g e s t i o n s for the three e x a m p l e s g i v e n a b o v e . 5 (1) N O l d e k e s u g g e s t e d that ‫ ה פ ל י ט‬is a c o l l e c t i v e n o u n , a n a l o g o u s to s o m e Arabic c o l l e c t i v e s of similar m e a n i n g . 6 It w o u l d t h e n m e a n 'those w h o e s c a p e d ‫ ׳‬. If this is true, the u s e of the article c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d in a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d w a y . In v. 10 a g r o u p of f u g i t i v e s are m e n t i o n e d : 'the rest fled to the hills'. N o w , 'the rest',‫הנשארים‬, refers to that s e c t i o n of the f u g i t i v e s f r o m the battle b e t w e e n C h e d o r l a o m e r a n d t h e rebel kings that d i d not fall into the tar pits in the V a l l e y of S i d d i m . It is q u i t e possible, then, that the d e f i n i t e article w i t h ‫ פ ל י ט‬in v. 13 refers to this b a n d of f u g i t i v e s that e s c a p e d all the w a y to the t e r e b i n t h s of M a m r e to report the e v e n t s to A b r a m . I b e l i e v e w e s h o u l d translate 'those w h o h a d e s c a p e d c a m e a n d told A b r a m the H e b r e w ...' a n d not 'one w h o had e s c a p e d . . . ' / ' a f u g i t i v e ...'. (2) I b e l i e v e that there w e r e t w o slightly different w a y s of e x p r e s s i n g t h e n o t i o n of h a n g i n g in t h e H e b r e w Bible, ‫ ת ל ה ע ל ע ץ‬a n d ‫ ת ל ה ע ל ה ע ץ‬, both s i m p l y m e a n i n g 'he h a n g e d ' , w i t h o u t d i f f e r e n c e in

3

'"Determination" and the Definite Article', p. 309: "This present s t u d y will argue that the Hebrew definite article is not strictly, but only loosely and generally, related to determination." See also the critique of this study by Müller, 'Zu den Artikelfunktionen im Hebräischen'. 4 As when Moses orders the donkey to be saddled—it is presumably his donkey, the one he usually used. This usage is analogous to the w a y w e use the car, the bicycle, etc. 5 I h o p e shortly to publish an article with the alternative analyses of all the examples. 6 Neue Beiträge, p. 79, η. 5. It should be noted, however, that an ancient author (1QApGen 22.1) took the noun as singular: 'one of the shepherds'.

m e a n i n g . The first e x p r e s s i o n is f o u n d three t i m e s 7 a n d the s e c o n d o n l y o n c e , 8 w h e n it d o e s not refer to a specific tree or g a l l o w s . 9 N o w , o n e occurrence is not m u c h in the w a y of substantiating ‫ ת ל ה ע ל ה ע ץ‬as an e x p r e s s i o n , but in the T e m p l e Scroll (11QT 64.8-12) it is f o u n d w i t h the d e f i n i t e article four times, m o s t p r o b a b l y w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c reference, a n d in the N a h u m pesher ( 4 Q p N a h 1.8) w e find ‫ ל ת ל ו י חי ע ל ה ע ץ‬, a l s o w i t h o u t specific reference. T h e s e o c c u r r e n c e s of c o u r s e increase the l i k e l i h o o d that a standard c o n s t r u c t i o n is r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e as d o certain cross-linguistic parallels, for this non-functional u s e of the article is w e l l - k n o w n in w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s as w e l l : to t h r o w s o m e t h i n g 'out of the w i n d o w ' is the s a m e as t h r o w i n g it 'out of a w i n d o w ' , just as it s e e m s h a n g i n g 'in the tree' e q u a l l e d h a n g i n g 'in a tree'. T h r o w i n g s o m e t h i n g 'in the rubbish' m e a n s t h r o w i n g it a w a y , falling 'by the s w o r d ' ( w h i c h I s h o u l d think is a H e b r a i s m ) m e a n s falling in battle. In s u c h c a s e s w e c a n i n d e e d s a y that the article is u s e d w i t h w o r d s that are not d e f i n i t e in a n y w a y , but it is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e that the u s e is not free and therefore these cases d o not b e l o n g to the c a t e g o r y of article u s e p r o p o s e d b y G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h a n d Joüon/Muraoka. (3) This e x a m p l e is a d m i t t e d l y not s o clear-cut as the p r e c e d i n g o n e s a n d m y s u g g e s t i o n is slightly m o r e speculative. N o w , it is p o s s i ble that the article in Biblical H e b r e w c o u l d be u s e d w i t h institutions of h u m a n society in a w a y a n a l o g o u s to that f o u n d in m o d e r n Europ e a n l a n g u a g e s : ' g o i n g to the doctor', 'taking the bus', ' l i s t e n i n g to the radio', etc. Si) the m e s s e n g e r , ‫ ה מ ג י ד‬, m i g h t t h e n b e c o m p a r a b l e w i t h 'the p o s t m a n ' in s e n t e n c e s s u c h as 'the p o s t m a n b r o u g h t g o o d n e w s this m o r n i n g ' — t h e p o s t m a n in q u e s t i o n m i g h t h a v e b e e n the regular p o s t m a n or their s u b s t i t u t e or s o m e o n e n e w to the job b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s the u s e of the article is j u s t i f i e d ( a n d in this c a s e necessary). W e k n o w that there w o u l d be a p o s t m a n a r o u n d , just as the a n c i e n t H e b r e w s m i g h t h a v e k n o w n that there w o u l d b e a m e s s e n g e r a r o u n d , h e n c e the u s e of the article, e v e n t h o u g h n o s p e c i f i c m e s s e n g e r can be i d e n t i f i e d f r o m the context. O u r l i m i t e d k n o w l e d g e of l a n g u a g e a n d c u l t u r e h a s m e a n t that w e h a v e b e e n u n a w a r e of this a n d that w e therefore felt it n e c e s s a r y to translate as 'a m e s s e n g e r ' . A n o t h e r a n d related possibility is that the article in ‫ המגיד‬e q u a l s a p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n as the article d o e s quite often: his m e s s e n g e r . That w o u l d i m p l y that D a v i d a l w a y s h a d o n e s p e c i a l m e s s e n g e r w h o

7

Gen. 40.19; Deut. 21.22; Est. 2.23. Josh. 8.29. 9 The occurrences in Esther (6.4; 7.10; 8.7; 9.13,25) must all refer to the gallows first mentioned in 5.14. 8

w o u l d be e x p e c t e d to carry m e s s a g e s of the kind in q u e s t i o n , but this s e e m s unlikely. It is p r o b a b l y i m p o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h b e y o n d d o u b t that t h e category noted by G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h and Joüon/Muraoka does not exist in Biblical H e b r e w . M o s t of the 66 e x a m p l e s p r o b a b l y b e l o n g in other, w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d categories, but there d o remain a f e w d i f f i c u l t e x a m p l e s , like (3), w h e r e , a l t h o u g h it is p o s s i b l e to e x p l a i n the u s e of t h e article, w e c a n n o t b e s u r e that t h e e x p l a n a t i o n is correct. In addition, the lists p r o v i d e d by G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h and J o ü o n / M u r a o k a d o n o t c l a i m to b e e x h a u s t i v e ; t h e r e are o t h e r d i f f i c u l t e x a m p l e s in the H e b r e w Bible a n d m o r e w o r k certainly is n e e d e d in the classification of these u s e s of the article. In the D e a d Sea Scrolls, it s e e m s that there are n o s u c h difficult e x a m pies. I e x a m i n e d the articles in a c o r p u s c o n s i s t i n g of l Q R u l e of the C o m m u n i t y , 4 Q M M T , l Q W a r Scroll, l l Q T e m p l e S c r o l l 3 , l Q H a b a k kuk Pesher, 3 Q C 0 p p e r Scroll, a n d e v e n the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t f r o m the G e n i z a h , but I f o u n d n o e x a m p l e s that c o u l d be u s e d to s u p p o r t the p r o p o s e d c a t e g o r y , o n the contrary, all the articles s e e m e d to fit the w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d categories of article use. T h e m a n y l a c u n a e in the texts naturally m a k e it m o r e difficult to be sure in s o m e cases, a n d in other cases, as w i t h Biblical H e b r e w , lack of k n o w l e d g e of the cultural context m a k e s it difficult to identify the referents. T h e c a t e g o r y h a s recently b e e n p r o p o s e d also for M i s h n a i c H e b r e w . Gavriel B i r n b a u m a n a l y s e s the u s e of the article in the M i s h n a h a n d m a k e s u s e of a category that he calls ‫ יידוע ה י ת ר‬or ' s u p e r f l u o u s determ i n a t i o n ' . 1 0 H e refers to G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h , e m p l o y s s o m e of their e x a m p l e s to s h o w the e x i s t e n c e of the c a t e g o r y in Biblical H e b r e w , a n d then p r o c e e d s to a n a l y s e the m i s h n a i c material. H e p r o v i d e s e x a m p l e s f r o m the limited ma'aseh material in the M i s h n a h , q u o t i n g s e v e n , w h a t h e calls certain, e x a m p l e s w h e r e h e a r g u e s that the article is u s e d w i t h w o r d s that are n o t d e f i n i t e a n d h e n c e is s u p e r f l u o u s . H e feels that there are a b u n d a n t e x a m p l e s of this c a t e g o r y in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w but is not sure h o w to d i s t i n g u i s h it f r o m the c a t e g o r y of generic u s a g e since "most of the s e n t e n c e s of the M i s h n a h d o n o t d e n o t e t h i n g s that h a v e h a p p e n e d but rulings of halakhah o n h y p o t h e t i cal occurrences". I shall return shortly to the u s e of the article in halakhic s e n t e n c e s , but first I shall e x a m i n e Birnbaum's s e v e n ma'aseh exa m p l e s , w h i c h for c o n v e n i e n c e I q u o t e in D a n b y ' s translation. T h e first t w o are in (4):

10

'Determination of the N o u n ' and ‫׳‬Generic Determination and Superfluous Determination'; my quotes are from the latter work.

(4) It o n c e h a p p e n e d . . . t h a t [on t h e Sabbath] they s t o p p e d u p t h e l i g h t - h o l e [ ‫ ] ה מ א ו ר‬w i t h a p i t c h e r a n d tied a p o t [ ‫ ] ה מ ק י ד ה‬w i t h reed grass [to a stick] in order to find o u t if there w a s in the r o o f i n g an o p e n i n g of o n e square h a n d breadth or not (m. Shabbat 24.5). The first e x a m p l e , ‫ ה מ א ו ר‬, D a n b y translates 'the light-hole'. In the prec e d i n g line w e are told ‫" פ ו ק ק י ן א ת ה מ א ו ר‬they m a y s t o p u p a lighth o l e " , a n d h e r e w e a r e told that o n c e it h a p p e n e d that t h e y ‫ " פ ק ק ו א ת ה מ א ו ר‬s t o p p e d u p the light-hole". This m a y n o t be anaphoric reference in a strictly logical s e n s e s i n c e the first ‫ ה מ א ו ר‬is generic, b u t ‫ פ ק ק ו א ת ה מ א ו ר‬c e r t a i n l y is d e p e n d e n t o n ‫ פ ו ק ק י ן א ת ה מ א ו ר‬i n t h e H e b r e w as in the English and c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d indefinite. The s e c o n d e x a m p l e , ‫ ה מ ק י ר ה‬, is probably d e t e r m i n e d b e c a u s e it w a s natural to h a v e a ‫ מ ק י ד ה‬in o n e ' s h o u s e . M a n y kitchen utensils tod a y can take this associative a r t i c l e — h a v i n g m e n t i o n e d a kitchen it is p o s s i b l e to refer to the grater, the toaster, etc., s i n c e t h e s e utensils are associated w i t h kitchens. (5) It o n c e h a p p e n e d in Z a l m o n that a m a n p l a n t e d his v i n e yard in r o w s sixteen cubits [apart], a n d trained the foliage of e v e r y t w o r o w s to o n e s i d e a n d s o w e d o v e r the cleared land [‫ ;]הניר‬and o n another year h e trained the f o l i a g e tow a r d s the place that had b e e n s o w n a n d s o w e d o v e r the f a l l o w land [ ‫( ] ה ב ו ר‬m. Kilaim 4.9). The t w o e x a m p l e s , ‫ הניר‬and ‫ ה ב ו ר‬also h a v e the d e f i n i t e article in D a n by's translation a n d these articles are probably associative, the cleared and the fallow land b e i n g associated w i t h w o r k in the v i n e y a r d just as the f o l i a g e is. There is n o reason to c o n s i d e r ‫ ה נ י ר‬a n d ‫ ה ב ו ר‬as i n d e f i ni te. (6) Rabban Gamaliel o n c e said to his slave Tabi, 'Go a n d roast the P a s s o v e r - o f f e r i n g for u s o n the grill [ ‫ ( ' ] ה א ס כ ל ה‬m . P e s a h i m 7.2). ‫ ה א ס כ ל ה‬is translated "the grill", either referring to the grill that w a s natural for Rabban G a m a l i e l ' s servant to u s e ( m a y b e related to the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d u s a g e w i t h kitchen utensils), or e x h i b i t i n g the n o n functional u s e of the article (cf. [2])—roasting it 'on the grill' s i m p l y m e a n i n g roasting it. (7) O n c e w h e n they b r o u g h t c o o k e d f o o d [ ‫ ] ה ת ב ש י ל‬to Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai to taste ... (m. Sukkah 2.5). This article is probably also associative, s i n c e e a t i n g a n d d r i n k i n g is w h a t o n e d o e s in the sukkah. B e c a u s e the f o o d is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the sukkah it can take the article. 11 (8) M o r e o v e r it o n c e h a p p e n e d at Z a l m o n that a m a n called 11

My thanks to Martin F.J. Baasten for this explanation (oral communication).

o u t , Ά serpent [‫ ]הנחש‬has bitten m e , s u c h - a - o n e , the s o n of such-a-one, a n d I a m d y i n g ‫( ׳‬m. Y e v a m o t 16.6). The last e x a m p l e , ‫הנחש‬, i n d e e d s e e m s v e r y strange at first sight. H o w ever, the referent in q u e s t i o n is an animal, a n d a n i m a l s can s o m e t i m e s take the article in w h a t s e e m s to be a strange generic u s a g e , as w h e n , in English, if I s e e a fox in the forest o n e d a y , I can s a y '1 s a w the f o x in the forest today'. It w o u l d a l s o be n o r m a l u s a g e to s a y ' w e h a d s o m e c h i c k e n s o n c e , but the fox took them‫׳‬, e v e n t h o u g h in fact s e v eral f o x e s h a d b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e . In D a n i s h , there e v e n is a p r o p e r n a m e , Mikkel, that can be substituted for 'the fox' in the a b o v e statem e n t s . W e h a v e a striking parallel in the A r a m a i c H e r m o p o l i s p a p y r u s 5.8: " A n d as for me, a s n a k e [‫ ]חייה‬had bitten m e a n d I w a s d y ing ..." 1 2 . P e r h a p s w e s e e the w h o l e g e n u s in the i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e to us all the i n d i v i d u a l s are alike, a n d therefore w e u s e the g e n e r i c article. Similar to this is the u s e of the article w i t h the first m e n t i o n of animals in s o m e fairy tales, for e x a m p l e , 'the w o l f ' in Little R e d R i d i n g H o o d . It s e e m s that the article c o u l d be used this w a y in Biblical H e b rew, as w i t h 'the lion' of 1 Kgs 20.36. In a n y case, the w o r d s in q u e s tion are semantically d e t e r m i n e d . M o s h e A z a r takes Birnbaum's theory a little further. 1 3 H e a r g u e s e x plicitly that "a n o n - s p e c i f i c n o u n can take the article a n d stay n o n specific", and in this category he m o s t l y i n c l u d e s e x a m p l e s f r o m halakhic statements, referring o n l y to t w o narrative e x a m p l e s ([7] a n d [8], w h i c h he shares w i t h Birnbaum). H e also m e n t i o n s that the c a t e g o r y exists in Biblical H e b r e w a n d e v e n g i v e s an e x a m p l e f r o m the BarKochba letters, '... that I put the c h a i n s [ 1 4 [ ‫ ת כ ב ל י ם‬o n y o u r feet'. 1 5 T o 'put t h e c h a i n s o n s o m e o n e ' s feet', h o w e v e r , is p r o b a b l y an i d i o m e m p l o y i n g the non-functional u s e of the article and d o e s not b e l o n g in this category. A z a r a n a l y s e s t w o halakhic e x a m p l e s a n d then p r o v i d e s a n u m ber of a n a l o g o u s instances. His t w o m o d e l e x a m p l e s are (9) a n d (10). 12

See Porten and Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents, p. 18. There has been some disagreement as to whether the ‫ה‬- of ‫ חויה‬marks the emphatic state or the feminine absolute but seen in the light of the parallel from m. Yevamot, it is perhaps more likely that it marks the emphatic state (in the Hermopolis papyri, the emphatic state m o r p h e m e is generally ‫ה‬-). See Folmer, The Aramaic Language in the Aclmemenid Period, p. 470, n. 768, and Muraoka and Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, §18d. Many thanks to Margaretha Folmer for drawing my attention to this passage. 13 In ‫׳‬The Definite Article in the Mishna', and (slightly reworked) in Mishnaic Hebrew Syntax, pp. 235-52 14 ‫ ת‬for-.‫אתה‬ 15 See Benoit et al., D/D 2, pp. 159-62.

(9) If a m a n g a v e the p o o r [‫ ]העניים‬a u g h t in e x c h a n g e [for their g l e a n i n g s ] w h a t [they g i v e ] in e x c h a n g e for his is e x e m p t [from Tithes] (m. Pe'ah 5.5). H e a r g u e s : "the n o u n ‫ ה ע נ י י ם‬, e v e n t h o u g h f o r m a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , is n o n - s p e c i f i c , b e c a u s e e v e r y o n e w h o h a s e x c h a n g e d or w i l l e x c h a n g e ( g e n e r i c - g n o m i c ) w i t h the p o o r w i l l a l w a y s d o this w i t h p o o r p e o p l e w h o are n o t all the p o o r p e o p l e , b u t o n l y o n e or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m a m o n g the poor". (10) If a m a n s a w lost property [ ‫ ] ה מ צ י א ה‬and fell u p o n it a n d another c a m e and s e i z e d it, h e that s e i z e d it h a s acquired title to it (m. Bava Mesi'a 1.4). A z a r argues: "The s e n t e n c e ... c o n t a i n s a d e t e r m i n e d , n o n - s p e c i f i c n o u n , a n d n o t a generic n o u n , b e c a u s e the e v e n t in q u e s t i o n is rand o m [ ‫ ] מ ק ר י‬, a n d b e c a u s e ‫ ה מ צ י א ה‬d e n o t e s a n y m e m b e r f r o m the g e n u s a n d not all of the g e n u s . " T h e s e a n a l y s e s c a n n o t be correct. ‫ העניים‬in (9) a n d ‫ ה מ צ י א ה‬in (10) are g e n e r i c 1 6 a n d it is p r e c i s e l y t h e article that f o r c e s a g e n e r i c reading. Since t h e s e t w o e x a m p l e s , like all the others A z a r e m p l o y s , are h a l a k h i c , their c o n t e n t is g e n e r a l or h y p o t h e t i c a l a n d this, naturally, e n h a n c e s the l i k e l i h o o d of f i n d i n g generic n o u n s . H a d the article n o t b e e n u s e d , the w o r d s w o u l d h a v e b e e n n o n - s p e c i f i c , a n d in (10) it is p o s s i b l e neither in English nor in m o d e r n H e b r e w to u s e the generic d e f i n i t e article, w h i c h is w h y w e find n o n - s p e c i f i c zero article in D a n b y ' s translation—"lost property". N e v e r t h e l e s s , this d o e s n o t a l l o w u s to c o n c l u d e that the n o u n in q u e s t i o n is n o n - s p e c i f i c in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w . There is certainly s u c h a thing, in E n g l i s h a s in H e b r e w , as non-specific definites,17 as in the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e : (11) T h e y shall offer to Y H W H an o f f e r i n g f r o m the rams a n d the lambs, the right thigh [‫]שוק הימין‬, the breast [ ‫ ] ה ח ז ה‬... a n d the f o r e l e g [ ‫ ] ה א ז ר ו ע‬a s far a s t h e s h o u l d e r b o n e [ 1 1 ) ... [‫עצםהשכם‬qt20.15-16). T h e s e four N P ' s are definite and non-specific, but that is n o t the case in Azar's e x a m p l e s . W h a t l e a d s Azar astray is his n o t i o n of 'generic'. A z a r b e l i e v e s that a generic n o u n refers to all the m e m b e r s of a set, a n d h e takes this d e f i n i t i o n f r o m a s t u d y in g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c s 1 8 that r e p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of g e n e r i c n e s s that h a s recently b e e n r e b u t t e d . 1 9 It is true, 16

Provided that -‫ ה‬+ plural can be termed generic at all; see Chesterman, On Definiteness, pp. 36-38 17 An instructive example of a non-specific, definite n o u n in English is 'the spatula‫ ׳‬in 'everyone used a grater and a spatula, but the spatula proved more useful'. 18 Werth, ‫׳‬Articles of Association'. 19 Chesterman, On Definiteness, especially p. 78.

rather, that g e n e r i c r e f e r e n c e is r e f e r e n c e to a whole set, a n d this m a k e s a difference, for that w h i c h is said a b o u t a set d o e s n o t h a v e to b e true of all its m e m b e r s . S o m e e x a m p l e s t a k e n f r o m g e n e r a l linguistic literature s h o u l d m a k e this clear; the t r u t h - v a l u e of 'the otter is a m u c h - l o v e d animal' is not r e d u c e d by the e x i s t e n c e of otters h e r e a n d there that n o o n e likes. 2 0 In fact, "generic the is g e n e r a l i z i n g in t h e direction of w h a t is normal or typical for m e m b e r s of a class, w h i c h o n l y s o m e t i m e s c o i n c i d e s w i t h w h a t is t r u e of all t h e members". 2 1 The f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s are particularly instructive. 2 2 (12) In Canada, professionals h u n t the beaver. N o o n e w o u l d a r g u e here that p r o f e s s i o n a l s in C a n a d a h u n t all existing beavers, but they h u n t the class 'beavers', just as in (9) 'he w h o e x c h a n g e s w i t h the poor' e x c h a n g e s w i t h the class 'poor' a n d n o t all existing p o o r p e o p l e ; w e c o u l d h a v e had a non-specific n o u n in stead of the generic n o u n , as in (13) In Canada, professionals h u n t beavers, but it is the article that s h o w s w h e t h e r an N P is g e n e r i c or n o n - s p e cific. This g o e s for H e b r e w as w e l l , a n d in Azar's e x a m p l e s , v e r s i o n s w i t h o u t the article m i g h t v e r y w e l l h a v e b e e n just as a c c e p t a b l e as t h o s e that are actually f o u n d , w i t h the n o u n s in that c a s e b e i n g n o n specific. H o w e v e r , this s h o u l d not lead us to b e l i e v e that the n o u n s w i t h articles in the v e r s i o n s w e h a v e are also non-specific. In c o n c l u s i o n , t h e c a t e g o r y p r o p o s e d b y G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h , J o ü o n / M u r a o k a , a n d others of 'the d e f i n i t e article u s e d for the i n d e f inite' in all likelihood is not f o u n d in the D e a d Sea Scrolls a n d there are g o o d reasons for b e l i e v i n g that it d o e s n o t exist in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w either. A s for Biblical H e b r e w , c o n c l u s i o n s will h a v e to a w a i t further s t u d y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the d e f a u l t h y p o t h e s i s s h o u l d b e that all w o r d s w i t h the d e f i n i t e article are definite. Bibliography Azar, M., T h e D e f i n i t e Article in the M i s h n a A c c o r d i n g to the Kaufm a n n M a n u s c r i p t , Hebrew Linguistics 33-35 [Festschrift G a d Sarfatti] (1992), pp. 17-31 [in H e b r e w ] . —Mishnaic Hebrew Syntax (Jerusalem: A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w Lang u a g e , 1995) [in H e b r e w ] . Barr, J., "‫׳‬Determination" and the D e f i n i t e Article', JSS 34 (1989), p p . 307-35.

20 21 22

Chesterman, On Defmiteness, p. 76. Robbins, The Definite Article in English Transformations, p. 239. See Burton-Roberts, 'On the Generic Definite Article,' especially p. 443.

B e n o i t , P., J.T. Milik, a n d R. d e V a u x (eds.), Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD, 2; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1961). B i r n b a u m , G., ' D e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e N o u n in t h e L a n g u a g e of t h e M i s h n a A c c o r d i n g to the K a u f m a n n M a n u s c r i p t ' ( M A d i s s e r tation, U n i v e r s i t y of the W i t w a t e r s r a n d , J o h a n n e s b u r g , 1983) [in H e b r e w ] . — ' G e n e r i c D e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d S u p e r f l u o u s D e t e r m i n a t i o n in the Lang u a g e of the M i s h n a ' , in M.Z. K a d d a r i a n d S. S h a r v i t (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Language and the Talmudic Literature Dedicated to the Memory of Dr. Menahem Moreshet ( R a m a t Gan: Bar Ilan U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1989), pp. 43-54 [in H e b r e w ] . B u r t o n - R o b e r t s , N . , ' O n t h e G e n e r i c D e f i n i t e Article', Language 5 2 (1976), p p . 427-48. C h e s t e r m a n , Α . , On Definiteness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). D a n b y , H., The Mishnah (Oxford: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1933). F o l m e r , M.L., The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation (Orientalia L o v a n i e n s i a A n a l e c t a , 68; L e u v e n : Peters, 1995). Joiion, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Translated a n d r e v i s e d b y T. M u r a o k a ; 2 v o l s . ; S u b s i d i a Biblica, 14.1-2; R o m e : P o n t i f i c a l Institute Press, 1991). G e s e n i u s , W., Hebräische Grammatik, völlig umgearbeitet von Ε. Kautzsch ( T w e n t y - E i g h t h ed.; Leipzig: V o g e l , 1909). Müller, Α., 'Zu d e n A r t i k e l f u n k t i o n e n i m H e b r ä i s c h e n ' , in W . G r o s s et al. (eds.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1991), p p . 313-330. M u r a o k a , T., a n d B. P o r t e n , A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic ( H a n d b u c h d e r Orientalistik, Abt. 1: D e r N a h e u n d Mittlere O s t e n ; Band 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998). N ö l d e k e , T h . , Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (Strassburg, 1910). Porten, B., a n d A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1: Letters ( J e r u s a l e m : T h e H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y , 1986). R o b b i n s , B.L., The Definite Article in English Transformations (The H a g u e : M o u t o n , 1968). W e r t h , P., 'Articles of A s s o c i a t i o n : D e t e r m i n e r s a n d context', in J. v a n d e r A u w e r a (ed.), The Semantics of Determiners (London: C r o o m H e l m , 1980), pp. 250-89.

S O M E LEXICAL S T R U C T U R E S I N 1QH: TOWARDS A DISTINCTION OF T H E L I N G U I S T I C A N D T H E LITERARY John E l w o l d e (Sheffield)

Introduction T h e basic material for this p a p e r is d r a w n f r o m t h o s e DCH e n t r i e s b e g i n n i n g w i t h zayin a n d tet (DCH, V o l u m e III), in w h i c h r e f e r e n c e is m a d e to the T h a n k s g i v i n g (or Hodayot) Scroll f r o m Q u m r a n (hereafter 1 Q H [strictly l Q H n ] ) . A s e x h a u s t i v e l y a s p o s s i b l e , I e x a m i n e d a n y u n u s u a l l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c or c o l l o c a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 1 Q H , o f t e n l o o k i n g at h o w d i f f e r e n t m o d e r n t r a n s l a t i o n s treat a particular f o r m u l a t i o n of 1 Q H a n d l i s t i n g a n t e c e d e n t s in t h e Bible a n d parallels in the Scrolls or in tannaitic literature. M y original i n t e n t i o n w a s to s e a r c h for f e a t u r e s that m i g h t c o n s t i t u t e a d i a c h r o n i c b r i d g e b e t w e e n Bible a n d M i s h n a h , a n d this is reflected s o m e w h a t in the s e c tion titles (and the s u m m a r i e s a p p e n d e d to e a c h of t h e m ) . I: C o n t i n u a t i o n s in 1 Q H (and DSS) of s e m a n t i c a n d lexical s t r u c t u r e s f o u n d in the Bible (Items 1-11); II: L i n g u i s t i c ( n o n - l i t e r a r y ) p h r a s e o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s in 1 Q H a n d D S S (Items 12-20); III: L i n g u i s t i c (non-literary) p h r a s e o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s in 1 Q H o n l y (Items 21-32); IV: Literary m a n i p u l a t i o n of biblical l a n g u a g e in 1 Q H ( I t e m s 33-40); V: D e v e l o p m e n t s in inflectional m o r p h o l o g y (Items 41-43); VI: M i s c e l l a n e a (Items 44-45). H o w e v e r , a s t h e f r e q u e n c y of the t e r m s ' l i n g u i s t i c ‫ ׳‬a n d 'literary' in t h e s e titles m i g h t s u g g e s t , it b e c a m e e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t to m a k e d i a c h r o n i c j u d g m e n t s for material that w a s , p r o b a b l y m o r e o f t e n c o n s c i o u s l y t h a n u n c o n s c i o u s l y , e m p l o y i n g the Bible a s a p r i m a r y res o u r c e for its m e a n s of e x p r e s s i o n . In the e n d , then, I c h o s e n o t to g o t o o far d o w n the road of t r y i n g to m a k e m y a n a l y s e s of o f t e n q u i t e i s o l a t e d structures in 1 Q H s e r v e a particular m o d e l of l i n g u i s t i c or literary d e v e l o p m e n t ; i n d e e d , 1 Q H m i g h t be p a r t i c u l a r l y u n s u i t e d to s u c h a n a l y s i s ("[T]he Thanksgiving Scroll ... i m i t a t e s the Bible a n d the

P s a l m s m o r e c l o s e l y than a n y o t h e r w o r k of the Sect" [Kister, 'Biblical P h r a s e s ' , 37]). In a n y c a s e , I h o p e that the little s t u d i e s in this p a p e r w i l l b e of s o m e interest a n d e v e n of s o m e h e l p to l i n g u i s t s a n d e x e g e t e s in e n c o u n t e r w i t h 1 Q H . A b b r e v i a t i o n s u s e d i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g . AL: a m o r a i c literature; b.: B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d ; BHS: Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Fourth ed.; D e u t s c h e B i b e l s t i f t u n g , 1990); m.: M i s h n a h ; DSS: D e a d Sea Scrolls; G n z P s : G e n i z a h P s a l m s ; f o u r a p o c r y p h a l P s a l m s of D a v i d f r o m t h e Cairo G e n i z a h ( s e e A H L , f r a m e s 54-58); JPS: ( N e w ) J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n S o c i e t y Tanakh (1985); M e k h . ( M e k h i l t a d e - R . I s h m a e l ) ; NEB: New English Bible (1970); NRSV: New Revised Standard Version C a t h o l i c Edition (1993); TL: tannaitic literature; SDt: Sifre to D e u t e r o n o m y ; S N m : Sifre to N u m b e r s ; SOR: S e d e r O l a m Rabbah; SZ: Sifre Zutta; tg.: Targ u m ; tos. T o s e f t a . O t h e r a b b r e v i a t i o n s are to be f o u n d in t h e B i b l i o g raphy. Q u o t a t i o n s f r o m TL f o l l o w A H L , a l t h o u g h the f o r m of r e f e r e n c e for M e k h . , S N m , S D t a n d SOR, c o n f o r m to t h e e d i t i o n s of L a u t e r b a c h , Pérez F e r n á n d e z , Cortès and Martinez, a n d Giron Blanc; other tannaitic texts f o l l o w the r e f e r e n c e s y s t e m of A H L . Partly for c o n s i s tency with A H L and DCH, I h a v e e m p l o y e d the older system (Sukenik's) of n u m b e r i n g the c o l u m n s of 1QH. W i t h i n the six major s e c t i o n s are s u b s e c t i o n s , n u m b e r e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y 1-45 a c r o s s S e c t i o n s I-VI. Each s u b s e c t i o n is h e a d e d b y a H e b r e w l e m m a c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the entry in DCH in w h i c h the first structure d i s c u s s e d in the s u b s e c t i o n is r e p r e s e n t e d .

I: Continuations in 1QH (and DSS) of semantic in the Bible (Items 1-11)

and lexical structures

found

1. ‫ — ז א ת‬A t 1 Q H 18.18, ‫ ( ר א י ת י זרת‬w i t h o u t i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t ) a p p e a r s to r e p r e s e n t a s t a g e in the s e m a n t i c e x t e n s i o n f r o m a u d i t o r y a n d m e n t a l , n o t a b l y ‫ י ד ע ז א ת‬/ ‫ ז כ ר‬/ ‫ ש מ ע‬, w e l l - a t t e s t e d in the Bible, to the v i suai, ‫ ר א ה ז א ת‬, f o u n d at 1 Q H 18.18, in G n z P s 2.13, a n d , i n t h e f o r m ‫ ר א ה ז ה‬, in t h e late biblical text of Q o h . 8.9 ( p e r h a p s a l s o at 1.10; 7.27,29). Job 1 5 . 1 7 , ‫ ח ה ־ ח ז י ת י‬, is t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e e x a m p l e of p r o n o m inal ‫ ז ה‬/ ‫( ז א ת‬or ‫ ) א ל ה‬as an object of v i s i o n in earlier literature. 2. ‫ — ז א ת‬A t 1 Q H 18.26, ‫ ל מ י נ ח ש ב ת י ע ד זרת‬r e p r e s e n t s a u n i q u e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h regard to ‫ נ ח ש ב‬if ‫ ע ד‬is r e g a r d e d as c o m p a r a t i v e ; t h u s H N , 253, "and w h a t a m I c o n s i d e r e d in c o m p a r i s o n to this?". D e s p i t e s o m e

e v i d e n c e for c o m p a r a t i v e ‫ ( ע ר‬s e e BDB, 724b, §3), I think it m o r e likely that ‫ ע ד‬is t e m p o r a l h e r e (as H N , 257; t h u s A b e g g , 109-10: W i t h w h o m a m I to b e r e c k o n e d until this occurs?; G M E s , 393: ,;Con q u i é n s e r é c o n t a d o h a s t a e s t a s Cosas?; Licht, 217: until I merit this, until m y e l e c tion). (Others u n d e r s t a n d the ‫ ע ר‬a s spatial rather t h a n t e m p o r a l in a n elliptical c o n s t r u c t i o n — G a s t e r , 208: of w h a t w o r t h a m I that I s h o u l d attain u n t o this; V e r m e s , 236: for w h a t a m I r e c k o n e d to b e w o r t h y of this?; M a n s o o r , 193: For w h a t a m I e s t e e m e d [to merit] this.) W i t h reg a r d to the m e a n i n g of ‫ נ ח ש ב ע ד‬, Η Ν , 257, a n d Licht, 217, rightly c o m p a r e 1 Q H 3.24, ‫" ו ל מ י נ ח ש ב ת י ו מ ה כ ו ח ל י‬for w h o m h a v e I v a l u e , a n d w h a t strength h a v e I?" (Burrows, 404; s u p e r i o r to Knibb, 178: " w h a t is m y w o r t h , a n d w h a t is m y strength?" [Gaster, 154-55 o m i t s t h e s e c o n d c l a u s e a l t o g e t h e r ] ) , w h i c h , l i k e 18.26, is c o n t i n u e d b y a c l a u s e c o m m e n c i n g with ‫כיא‬. A c o m p a r i s o n m i g h t a l s o be d r a w n w i t h 1 Q H 4.23, a s read b y A H L , 231, Licht, 94, Lohse, 126, a n d W i l l i a m s , 272, ‫ ל א י ח ש ב ו נ ף ע[ ר ה נ ב י ר כ ה בי‬, w h i c h L o h s e , 127, r e n d e r s "sie a c h t e n [ m i c h ] nicht, [bis] d a ß d u d i c h stark a n m i r e r z e i g s t " a n d W i l l i a m s , 272, " t h e y w i l l n o t e s t e e m [ m e unt]i1 y o u s h o w y o u r m i g h t in me". But, M a n s o o r , 127, prefers to read ‫ ל א י ח ש ב ו נ ף ע ד אש!ר ה ג ב י ר כ ה בי‬, w h i c h he renders "They e s t e e m [me] not [until] T h o u d i d s t w o r k m i g h t i l y t h r o u g h m e " , a n d H N , 77, a p p e a r s to read: ‫ ל א י ח ש ב ו נ ף א ש ! ר ה ג ב י ר כ ה בי‬, w h i c h h e translates " t h e y e s t e e m [ m e ] n o t [ a l t h o u g h ] T h o u s h o w e s t s t r e n g t h t h r o u g h m e " (cf. B u r r o w s , 406: " t h e y d o n o t r e g a r d m e , t h o u g h t h o u d i d s t w o r k m i g h t i l y in me"; s i m i l a r l y , Gaster, 159), a p p a r e n t l y f o l l o w e d b y G M E s , 372, "no m e c o n s i d e r a n , a u n q u e tu m u e s tras e n m i tu p o d e r " , a n d A b e g g , 96, " t h e y e s t e e m [ m e ] n o t [ t h o u ] g h Y o u d i s p l a y Y o u r m i g h t t h r o u g h me". H o w e v e r , t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e in the Bible or t h e S c r o l l s for ‫ ע ד א ש ר‬p l u s i n f i n i t i v e w i t h t e m p o r a l or o t h e r m e a n i n g ( i n d e e d it w o u l d be o d d if an i n f i n i t i v e r e q u i r e d a c o n j u n c t i o n rather t h a n a p r e p o s i t i o n ) ; c o n c e s s i v e ‫ ( א ש ר‬n e v e r ‫ ) ע ד א ש ר‬is rare a n d u n c e r t a i n ( s e e D C H , I, 434a); a n d ‫ ע ד‬o n its o w n n o w h e r e a p p e a r s to h a v e c o n c e s s i v e value. W e r e w e a b l e to restore ‫ ע ר ל א‬, w e m i g h t h a v e t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t of the c o m m o n tannaitic c o n j u n c t i o n ‫ ש ל א‬IV, h e n c e , ' t h e y d o n o t e s t e e m m e b e f o r e y o u r d i s p l a y of m i g h t t h r o u g h m e ‫ ׳‬. But if ‫ע ד‬ a l o n e is to be read, I c a n think of n o better s o l u t i o n than to interpret ‫ ע ד‬p l u s i n f i n i t i v e at 1 Q H 4.23 as ‫ ׳‬d u r i n g ‫ ׳‬, a u s a g e that BDB, 724b, §2b, r e c o r d s at E x o d . 33.22, J u d g . 3.26, Job 7.19, a n d , s t r i k i n g l y , in a late text (Jon. 4 . 2 ) , ‫ ( ע ד ־ ה י ו ת י ע ל ־ א ר מ ת י‬a l s o in t h e s a m e s e n s e b u t w i t h participle, N e h . 7.3), w h i c h w o u l d t h e n m a k e a perfect m a t c h w i t h ‫ו ל א‬

‫יחשבוני ב ה נ ב י ר כ ה בי‬, a f e w l i n e s earlier at 1 Q H 4.8 ( a l t h o u g h G a s t e r , 157, i n t e r p r e t s t h e ‫ ב‬as c o n c e s s i v e ) . T h i s s e n s e of ‫ ע ד‬is a l s o a t t e s t e d w i t h finite f o r m s of t h e v e r b at, e.g., 1 S a m . 14.19, Job 1.18, a n d N e h . 7.3, a n d , a p p a r e n t l y , w i t h a n o m i n a l c l a u s e in a m a n u s c r i p t r e a d i n g of Ps. 95.10: ‫ ׳ ער־ף{עי ל ב ב ח מ ה‬w h i l e t h e y stray in their heart‫׳‬. N o t e a l s o 2 K g s 9.22, ‫ מ ה ה ש ל ו ם עד־זנוני א י ז ב ל א מ ך‬p e r h a p s ‫ ׳‬w h a t k i n d of p e a c e w a s t h e r e d u r i n g the i d o l a t r i e s of y o u r m o t h e r J e z e b e l ? ' ( u n l e s s t h e ‫ע ד‬ h e r e is c o m p a r a t i v e : ' w h a t is " p e a c e " c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e i d o l atries ...?'). T h e s a m e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w o u l d a l s o fit m o r e e a s i l y than ‫׳‬until‫ ׳‬at 1 Q H 18.26 ( ‫ ׳‬w i t h w h o m shall I b e c o m p a r e d d u r i n g this?‫)׳‬, the p a s s a g e that first set u s o n this trail. P e r h a p s the u s e of ‫( ע ר‬as b o t h p r e p o s i t i o n a n d c o n j u n c t i o n ) in a s e n s e m o r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ‫ ע ו ד‬refleets A r a m a i c u s a g e (note, for e x a m p l e , tg. O n q e l o s ‫ ע ד ־ ך ה ו א מ מ ל ל‬for ‫ ע ו ד נ ו מ ד ב ר‬at G e n . 29.9). If this interpretation is correct, the u s e of the structure in D S S c a n h a r d l y r e p r e s e n t literary b o r r o w i n g o n the part of 1 Q H but is rather the c o n t i n u a t i o n of a rarer u s a g e that s u r v i v e d , or w a s r e v i v e d , in the p o s t - e x i l i c p e r i o d , a n d w e s h o u l d e x p e c t to f i n d this s a m e u s a g e in o t h e r Scrolls a n d in TL. That t h e s y n t a x of ‫ ע ד‬w a s in f l u x at the t i m e of D S S is p e r h a p s i n d i c a t e d b y its p o s s i b l e u s e b e f o r e a finite v e r b ( s e e a b o v e ; also, e.g., Jos. 10.13; H o s . 10.12; Ps. 141.10 [cf. GK, §107c; JM, § § 1 0 3 m , 112i, 113k, 166i; M e y e r , §121.1]) at C D 6.10-11: ‫שיגר ע ד ע מ ד י ו ר ה ה צ ד ק ב א ח ר י ה‬:‫לא‬ ‫( הימים‬where Qimron, ‫׳‬CDC‫׳‬, proposes reading ‫ ^ [ ל^ישוגו‬t ö ] ' t h e y w i l l n o t err‫ ;׳‬M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , 231, s u g g e s t s ‫ישוגו‬, ( w i t h o u t ^ ‫ י [ ) ל‬/ ‫] ס ו נ‬ ' t h e y w i l l backslide'; Rabin, 23, retains ‫שיגו‬: [‫נשנ^י‬, H if il] a n d interprets as elliptical for1]‫ י ש י ג ו מ ו ס ר‬Q S 6.14] a n d cites Sir. 3 4 . 2 2 , ‫ ;תשיג א מ ר י‬Rabin's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is taken u p in HALOT, 727b, a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , b y Fraenkel, 479, w h o s i m p l y g l o s s e s ‫בינו‬:; D a v i e s ' s " t h e y w i l l n o t s u e c e e d " [p. 247; s e e M u r p h y O ' C o n n o r , 230, w h o traces the interpretation to D u p o n t - S o m m e r ] is m o r e c o n v i n c i n g ) . H o w e v e r , this m i g h t be a m e d i a e v a l i s m ; c o m p a r e C D 1 0 . 1 0 , ‫' ע ר ל א י ש ל י מ ו‬until t h e y c o m p l e t e (their d a y s ) ' , w i t h 4 Q D e [ 4 Q 2 7 0 ] 6:4.19 ( B a u m g a r t e n , 159): ‫ע ד א ש ר ל א‬ ‫ ;]ישלי[מו‬n o t e that at C D 20.14 (Β), ‫ ע ד ת ם‬h a s b e e n p o i n t e d w i t h holem, p e r h a p s to a v o i d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as ‫ ת ם‬. M o r e striking, si vera lectio, is 4 Q 4 1 8 2.5 ( W A , II, 7 7 ) , [ ‫ ו כ ו ל ע ו ל ה ת ת ם ע ד י ש ל ם ] ק ץ ה א מ ת‬, p e r h a p s ' a n d all iniquity will be d e s t r o y e d until the period of truth is e n d e d ' ( 4 Q 4 1 6 1.13 [ W A , II, 5 4 ] h a s [ ‫' ו כ ל ע ו ל ה ת ת ם ע ו ד ו ש ל ם ק ץ ה א מ ! ת‬... d e s t r o y e d a g a i n a n d the p e r i o d of truth will b e c o m p l e t e ' ) . 3. ‫ — ז ד‬A t 1 Q H 6 . 3 5 , ‫ מ ל ח מ ו ת ז ד י ם‬, translators are d i v i d e d as to w h e t h e r the g e n i t i v e is subjective or o b j e c t i v e (cf., e.g., I Q p H a b 3.4-5: ‫ם ע ל כ ו ל הגואים‬1‫; ) ה כ ת י א י ם א ש ר פ ח ד ם ]וא[מ]ת‬ V e r m e s , 210: the battles a g a i n s t the u n g o d l y ; W a l l e n s t e i n , 263: t h e

battles of the i n s o l e n t [but c o n t e x t s u g g e s t s that W a l l e n s t e i n i n t e n d s 'against']; L o h s e , 137: in d e n K r i e g e n g e g e n d i e Frechen; G M E s , 379: las b a t a l l e s d e l o s i n s o l e n t e s ; A b e g g , 100: the battles of the arrogant; H N , 103: t h e w a r s of the arrogant; 122: the w a r s a g a i n s t the u n g o d l y ; Gaster, 171: w h e n battle is joined w i t h the p r e s u m p t u o u s . A t 1 Q H 6.29 a n d 7.7, ‫ מ ל ח מ ו ת ר ש ע ה‬, w h i c h m i g h t b e t h o u g h t to p r o v i d e a parallel, is n o t r e n d e r e d ' o b j e c t i v e l y ' ( ' a g a i n s t ' ) b y a n y t r a n s l a t i o n c o n s u l t e d a n d H N , 131, e x p l i c i t l y d e f e n d s a ' s u b j e c t i v e ' a n a l y s i s . H o w e v e r , tannaitic practice w o u l d t e n d to f a v o u r a n object i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p in the c a s e of ‫ מ ל ח מ ו ת זרים‬. C o n t r a s t , for e x a m p l e , ‫ ( מ ל ח מ ת כדג‬t o s . B e r a k h o t 1.11; S N m 7 6 . 2 ) , ‫מ ל ח מ ת ע מ ל ק‬ Mekh. W a y y a s s a ' 6.6; B a h o d e s h 5.10), a n d ‫( מ ל ח מ ת בן ה ד ד‬SOR 17.7) w i t h ‫( מ ל ח מ ת ו ש ל יהושע‬tos. A v o d a h Z a r a h 6 . 5 ) , ‫( מ ל ח מ ת ן ש ל י ש ׳‬SDt 199), a n d ‫( מ ל ח מ ת ה ש ל ת ו ר ה‬SDt 321; SOR 25.5). But that this i s s u e is b y n o m e a n s settled is i n d i c a t e d b y SOR 11.8, ‫ מ ל ח מ ת מ ה ש ל ע י ו ש ל גבעון‬, a n d , strikingly, b y M e k h . B e s h a l l a h 1.44-46, ‫ זו מ ל ח מ ת בני א פ ר י ם‬. . . ‫ ד ב ר א ח ר‬. . . ‫זו מ ל ח מ ת ע מ ל ק י‬, a n d b y SOR 30.11: ‫ קיטום‬/‫מ פ ו ל מ ו ס של טיטוס‬ ‫ע ד מ ל ח מ ת בן כ ו ז י ב א שש‬ ‫ ע ש ר ה שנה ו מ ל ח מ ת ב ן כ ו ז י ב א שלש שנים ו מ ח צ ה‬. P e r h a p s significantly, o n e of the three clear e x a m p l e s of 'objective' ‫ מ ל ח מ ת‬in the Bible c o m e s f r o m a late text, 2 C h r o n . 3 5 . 2 1 , ‫ב י ת מ ל ח מ ת י‬ "the k i n g d o m that w a r s w i t h m e " (JPS), a l t h o u g h it is a l s o f o u n d at Isa. 4 1 . 1 2 , ‫[" אנשי מ ל ח מ ת ך‬t]he m e n that battle a g a i n s t y o u " (JPS), w h i c h e l s e w h e r e is 'subjective' (Jer. 50.30; E z e k . 27.10,27), a n d , p r e s u m a b l y at J u d g . 3.1 ( ‫ ) כ ל ״ מ ל ח מ ו ת כ נ ע ן‬. A c l e a r l y o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e in D S S is ‫' מ ל ח מ ת ה א ו י ב‬the w a r a g a i n s t the e n e m y ' at 1 Q M 3 . 1 1 = 4 Q M a [ 4 Q 4 9 1 ] 1.14, a l t h o u g h it is far f r o m clear that this r e p r e s e n t s the n o r m for the c o n s t r u c t chain: c o m p a r e a n d c o n t r a s t ‫' מ ל ח מ ת א ל‬battle of G o d ' at 1 Q M 4.12; 9.5; 1 5 . 1 2 ; ‫ ( ' ב מ ל ח מ ת ו‬s t r e n g t h e n ... h a n d s ) for h i s battle' at 1 Q M 16.14; • ‫' מ ל ח מ ת‬their battle (against)' at 1 Q M 1 . 1 2 ; ‫' מ ל ח מ ה ב‬battle a g a i n s t (the Kittim)' at 1QM 1 6 . 9 = 1 7 . 1 5 = 4 Q M a 11:2.8; 4 Q M a 10:2.10,12 (cf. 1 Q M 1.12);‫' מ ל ח מ ה ב כ ו ל הגויים‬battle a g a i n s t all the n a t i o n s ' at 1 Q M 15.1 ( s e e b e l o w ) ; ‫' מ ל ח מ ת כ ל ה ל‬a w a r of d e s t r u c t i o n a g a i n s t ' at 1 Q M 1.10; ‫ ע ם‬. . . ‫' מ ל ח מ ה‬a ( s e c o n d ) battle w i t h (the Kittim)' at 4 Q M a 11:2.19; ‫' מ ל ח מ ה ע ל‬battle a g a i n s t ' at 1QM 10.3; 15.1 ( ‫ ע ל‬e r a s e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y ‫ ' מ ל ח מ ת כ ל ה ; ) ב‬w a r of d e s t r u c t i o n ' at 1 Q M 1.10; 4 Q M 3 1 . 1 4 ( ; ( ‫מ ל ח מ ו ת‬ ‫ ' מ ל ח מ ת ה מ ח ל ק ו ת‬w a r of the d i v i s i o n s ' at 1 Q M 2 . 1 0 (cf. 1 Q M 2.14). Clearly, ‫ מ ל ח מ ה ב‬still d o m i n a t e s in the W a r Scroll, a s it d o e s in t h e Bible, reflecting the p r e d o m i n a n c e of the rection ‫ נ ל ח ם ב‬. M a n s o o r , 147, w h o r e n d e r s 1 Q H 6.35 as "the w a r s of s t r a n g e r s " r e a d s ‫ ז ר י ם‬for ‫ ז ד י ם‬in parallel w i t h a r e c o n s t r u c t e d [ ‫ ] ע ר י צ י ם‬, o n the ba-

sis of the s a m e p a r a l l e l i s m in Ps. 54.5 a n d Ezek. 31.12. H o w e v e r , M a n s o o r d i s r e g a r d s f o u r things: (1) in the parallel text to Ps. 54.5, n a m e l y Ps. 86.14, a n d , i n d e e d , in MSS of Ps. 54.5 itself, ‫ ז ד י ם‬is read for2);‫)זרים‬ at Isa. 13.11, w e a g a i n f i n d the p a r a l l e l i s m 3) ;‫זדים‬11‫ )עריצים‬at Sir. 11.9, w e f i n d ‫ ר י ב ז ד י ם‬in the m a r g i n , w h i c h a p p e a r s to b e a parallel e x p r e s s i o n to ‫( מ ל ח מ ו ת ז ר י ם‬and c o u l d e v e n r e p r e s e n t a n 'objective' g e n i t i v e ) ; a n d (4) at l Q I s a a 29.5, M T ‫ המון ז ר י ך‬a p p e a r s a s a further parallel e x p r e s s i o n , ‫המון ז ר י ך‬. Kutscher, 232, a r g u e d that it w a s p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e t h e scribe w a n t e d a m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e parallel to ‫ ע ר י ץ‬that h e rejected ‫ ז ר‬, w h i c h at h i s t i m e w a s felt n o r m a l l y to s i g n i f y ' s t r a n g e r ' (cf. Isa. 28.21: ‫ נ כ ך ז י ה ע ב ך ת ו‬. . . ‫זר מ ע ש ה ו‬,· b u t c o n t r a s t Isa. 1 . 7 : ‫ כ מ ה פ כ ת ז ר י ם‬, i n reference to S o d o m , a c c o r d i n g to J u d a h ibn Bil'am [ s e e S à e n z - B a d i l l o s a n d Targarona, 98]) a n d r e p l a c e d it w i t h a f o r m of t h e r o o t ‫ ז ו ד‬, w h i c h w a s w e l l - a t t e s t e d in the Bible a n d in the c o m m o n tannaitic f o r m ‫מ ז י ר‬ in a p p l i c a t i o n to the w i c k e d a n d the e n e m i e s of Israel. R o s e n b l o o m , 38, f a v o u r s the M T r e a d i n g , e v e n t h o u g h ( u s i n g K u t s c h e r ' s logic), h e u n d e r s t a n d s ‫ ז ר י ם‬as 'strangers'. 4 . ‫ — ז נ ח‬T h e Hif'il of ‫זנח‬, the three i n s t a n c e s of w h i c h in the Bible are restricted to C h r o n i c l e s (1 C h r o n . 28.9; 2 C h r o n . 11.14; 29.19), is f o u n d t w i c e in 1 Q H , at 9.7 a n d 9.11. P o l z i n ' s c l a i m ( p p . 133-34) that in this v e r b Qal c h a n g e d to Hif'il in 'LBH' is s o m e w h a t u n d e r m i n e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e of the Qal at Lam. 2.7; 3.17,21, a n d , in a g a r b l e d s e q u e n c e , at Sir. 4 3 . 1 3 (MS B, margin). N e i t h e r binyan o c c u r s in TL (as P o l z i n i n d i cates) b u t both Qal a n d Hif'il are f o u n d in later literature ( s e e Jastrow, 406a-b; H N , 160; Schuller, 181-82). T h e v e r b is f o u n d b o t h w i t h s u f f i x e d p e r s o n a l o b j e c t (9.7: ‫ ) ל א הזנחתני‬, as in the first t w o C h r o n i c l e s p a s s a g e s , a n d w i t h an object d e s i g n a t i n g t h e t h i n g a b a n d o n e d (9.11: ‫ ) ו ש ל ו מ י ל א ה ז נ ח ת ה‬, a s at 2 C h r o n . 29.19. ( N o t r a n s l a t i o n c o n s u l t e d or Licht, 144, a g r e e s w i t h M u r a o k a , 116, in i n c l u d i n g the p r e c e d i n g ‫ חיי‬as a n object of ‫ה ז נ ח ת ה‬ rather than of ‫ ) ג ע ר ת ה‬. At 9.11 ‫ הזניח‬is parallel to ‫ ע ז ב‬, just a s it is at 1 C h r o n . 28.9. At 9.7, the f o l l o w i n g [ ‫ ב ח ם ד י כ ] ה‬is r e m i n i s c e n t of the u s e of ‫ ב מ ע ל‬at 2 C h r o n . 29.19 a n d t e n d s to i n d i c a t e that the Q u m r a n a u t h o r u n d e r s t o o d ‫ הזניח‬there as 'reject' (as Arabic zanaha) n o t , like JPS, a s ' b e f o u l ' (Arabic zaniha, p r e s u m a b l y o n the basis of Isa. 19.6, e s p e c i a l l y in the l Q I s a 3 r e a d i n g ; as Schuller, 181-82, i n d i c a t e s , the c o n t e x t of the f o r m ‫ ת ז נ ז ח‬at 4 Q N o n C a n P s b [ 4 Q 3 8 1 ] 46.6, is s u c h that w h e t h e r t h e f o r m be t h e result of r e d u p l i c a t i o n or a m i s t a k e for ‫תזניח‬, it c o u l d b e c l a s s e d u n d e r e i t h e r h o m o n y m ; n o t e a l s o ‫ כ י א יוכיח ע ל הזניח‬at 4 Q 4 6 0 5:1.6 [ W A , III, 345]). T h e similarity of u s a g e b e t w e e n 1 Q H a n d C h r o n i c l e s h e r e a n d t h e rarity of ‫ הזניח‬e l s e w h e r e in D S S a n d its a b s e n c e in TL are g r o u n d s for s u s p e c t i n g a c o n s c i o u s literary b o r r o w i n g f r o m C h r o n i c l e s . C u r i o u s l y ,

t h e o n l y o t h e r e x a m p l e I d i s c u s s in this s e c t i o n of p r o b a b l e literary b o r r o w i n g a l s o c o n c e r n s a n i t e m (5) r e p r e s e n t e d b y a late biblical text. 5. ‫ ( ז ע ף‬T L ) — T h e s e q u e n c e ‫ ח ר י ש י ת‬/ ‫׳ אוניה ב ז ע ף י מ י ם‬a s h i p in the r a g i n g of the s e a / w i n d ‫ ׳‬at 1 Q H 6.23 a n d 7.4 clearly r e s u m e s the u s e of ‫זען^י‬ in r e f e r e n c e to the e l e m e n t s (rather than to p e o p l e or G o d ) f o u n d at Jon. 1 . 1 5 , ‫ ר ע כ ( ד ה^ם מ ז ע פ ו‬. W e m i g h t h a v e t h o u g h t that this r e p r e s e n t e d a n i d i o s y n c r a s y of 1 Q H in particular, as e l s e w h e r e in D S S the n o u n ‫ ז ע ף‬o c c u r s six t i m e s ( 1 Q p H a b 3.12; 4QWi1es [ 4 Q 1 8 4 ] 2.6 [ 4 ;[‫זאף‬QJubh [ 4 Q 2 2 3 - 2 4 ] 2:2.52 [= Jub. 36.10]; 4 Q B a r k 3 [ 4 Q 4 3 4 ] 1:2.6; 4 Q B a r k c [ 4 Q 4 3 6 ] 1:2.2; 4 Q S h i r b [ 4 Q 5 1 1 ] 35.1) a l w a y s in t h e c o n t e x t of a n g e r . H o w e v e r , that 1 Q H m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a m o r e w i d e s p r e a d s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t , c o u l d b e i n d i c a t e d b y m . O h o l o t 18.6, ‫ כ ל מ ק ו ם שהים ע ו ל ה ב ז ע פ ו‬, m. Ta'anit 3.8, ‫ ל א כ ך ש א ל ת י א ל א נשמי רצון ב ר כ ה‬,‫ אמי‬, ‫ י ר ד ו ב ז ע ף‬, a n d S D t 42: ‫ שמתכוין ל א ר ץ ואינו י ו ר ד ב ז ע ף‬,‫ יורה‬/ ‫ ד׳ א‬. For ‫ י‬/ ‫ ז ע ף‬in the c o n t e x t of h u m a n a n g e r , A H L registers o n l y o n e exa m p l e , t h e p a s s i v e participle ‫ ז ע ו ף‬at M e k h . Shirata 4.56, " t r o u b l e d " , w h e r e a s Jastrow, 408a, records t w o e x a m p l e s of A r a m a i c ‫ ז ע פ א‬u s e d to r e n d e r H e b r e w ‫( ח ח‬tg. Job 1.19; b. Berakhot 59a o n m. Berakhot 9.2). H e r e , t h e i s s u e is w h e t h e r 1 Q H is s i m p l y b o r r o w i n g — a t a literary l e v e l — f r o m Jonah, a n d the fact that the Jonah hapax ‫ ( ח ר י ש י ת‬s e e b e l o w ) is u s e d b y 1 Q H in the s a m e c o l l o c a t i o n a n d that ‫ ' ז ע ף‬s t o r m ' is n o t f o u n d e l s e w h e r e in D S S i n d i c a t e s to m e that literary a p p r o p r i a t i o n rather than l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t is to b e s e e n here. H o w e v e r , in v i e w of the clear i n c o r p o r a t i o n of ‫' ז ע ף‬storm' into the l e x i c o n of TL, the 1 Q H u s a g e m i g h t be v i e w e d as a n i n t e r e s t i n g e a r l y s t a g e in t h e linguistic d e v e l o p m e n t of ‫ ז ע ף‬f r o m l i v e m e t a p h o r in J o n a h to borr o w e d i m a g e in 1 Q H to lexicalized ('dead') m e t a p h o r in TL. 6. ‫ ח ר י ש י ת — ז ע ף‬is a l s o taken f r o m Jonah, Jon. 4.8, w h e r e , in v i e w of the c o n t e x t of 1 Q H 7.4, it w o u l d be better r e n d e r e d ' s h a r p , s c o r c h i n g

(wind)', as HALOT,

353, NEB, HN, 123, not 'sultry', as JPS and

NRSV.

It is n o t f o u n d in TL or e l s e w h e r e in D S S ( s e e also, e.g., W a l l e n s t e i n , 265; Gaster, 171, 245; n. 27 of P r o f e s s o r J o o s t e n ' s article in this v o l ume). 7 . ‫ ז ק‬. / ‫ — ז י ק‬T h e fact that at 1 Q H 1.12 ‫ ז ק י ם‬is f o u n d i m m e d i a t e l y adjacent to ‫ ' ב ר ק י ם‬l i g h t n i n g f l a s h e s ' s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s that ‫ ז ק י ם‬c a n h a r d l y m e a n t h e s a m e t h i n g b u t that it refers to s o m e o t h e r n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n , p r o b a b l y a ' m e t e o r ' (as A b e g g , 91; G a s t e r , 145; H N , 17; M a n s o o r , 99, w h o a l s o refers to m a n y of the f o l l o w i n g data), o n t h e

b a s i s of the l o n g list of u n u s u a l e v e n t s in m. B e r a k h o t 9.2, w h e r e ]‫זיקי‬ ( g l o s s e d b y ‫ כ ו כ ב א ר ש ב י ט‬at b. B e r a k h o t 5 8 b ) is f o l l o w e d b y !WIT ' e a r t h q u a k e s ' , w h i c h m i g h t f o r m a s t a n d a r d c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h ‫זיקין‬, just a s t h e f o l l o w i n g ‫ ב ר ק י ם‬d o e s w i t h ‫ ר ע מ י ם‬. T h e s a m e set of p a i r i n g s is f o u n d at M e k h . B a h o d e s h 3 . 1 2 1 . N o t e , h o w e v e r , V e r m e s , 190; Knibb, 159: t h u n d e r b o l t s a n d l i g h t n i n g s ; G M E s , 364: r e l a m p a g o s y truenos; L o h s e , 113: B r a n d p f e i l e u n d Blitze. B e c a u s e of this, a l t h o u g h it is p o s s i b l e to s e e ‫ ז י ק‬in s y n o n y m o u s p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h ‫ ב ר ק‬at Sir. 43.13 (MSS Β a n d M, b u t n o t Β m a r g i n ) , it is p r o b a b l y better u n d e r s t o o d a s 'meteor, c o m e t ' in line w i t h 1 Q H a n d the M i s h n a h . In fact, this interpretation is b o l s t e r e d b y the p r e s e n c e of ‫ כ ו כ ב‬in the n e a r c o n t e x t of b o t h p a s s a g e s , n a m e l y , at 1 Q H 1.11 a n d , less c o n v i n c i n g l y , Sir. 43.9. At 1 Q M 6.2-3, w e f i n d the s e q u e n c e ‫ב ר ק ת‬ ‫ ח נ י ת‬, ‫זיקי ד ם‬, a n d ‫ ש ל ה ו ב ת ח ר ב‬w h i c h I s u g g e s t r e n d e r i n g ' l i g h t n i n g f l a s h ' (literally ' l i g h t n i n g of a spear'), ' b l o o d y c o m e t s ' , a n d ' s e a r i n g f l a m e ' (literally, f l a m e of a s w o r d ' ) , that is a s r e p r e s e n t i n g natural p o w e r s a n d p o r t e n t s of d e s t r u c t i o n ( V e r m e s , 131: B l o o d y s p i k e s ; G M E s , 150: Flécha d e s a n g r e ; C o o k , 156: M i s s i l e s of b l o o d ; v d P , 41: F l è c h e s a r d e n t e s d e s a n g ) . T h i s s e q u e n c e of p h r a s e s is a p p a r e n t l y b a s e d o n N a h . 3.3, ‫ךב ו ב ר ק חנית‬1‫ " ו ל ה ב ד‬f l a s h i n g s w o r d s a n d glittering s p e a r s " (JPS), w i t h ‫ זיקי ר ם‬i n t e r p o s e d . Gaster, 406, r e n d e r s " s p u r t i n g s of b l o o d " ( s e e 454: "The H e b . for 'javelin' c o m e s f r o m a root w h i c h also m e a n s 'spurt'" [i.e.‫י‬/‫ ;זנק‬s e e Jastrow, 395b, 407a]). W e s h o u l d a l s o bear in m i n d the p o s s i b i l i t y that in all or s o m e of o u r p a s s a g e s ‫ ז י ק‬m e a n s n o t ' c o m e t ' b u t '(fierce) w i n d ' , a m o r e c o m m o n l y attested m e a n i n g at least in J e w i s h A r a m a i c literature, a c c o r d i n g to J a s t r o w , 3 9 5 b - 9 6 a (cf. L a u t e r b a c h at M e k h . B a h o d e s h 3.121: " w i n d s ... e a r t h q u a k e s " ) . Kister, 'Contribution', 361, a r g u e s s t r o n g l y for the b o u n d n a t u r e of the w o r d pair ‫ ז י ק‬a n d ‫ ב ר ק‬, in w h i c h c a s e ‫ז י ק‬ w o u l d m e a n 'lightning'. In a n y case, w e s e e r e p r e s e n t e d in all three e a r l y postbiblical corpora t h e e s t a b l i s h e d l e x i c a l i z a t i o n of a m e a n i n g p r e s u m a b l y d e v e l o p e d f r o m the u s e of ‫ ז ק י ם‬at Prov. 26.18, w h e r e it m u s t s u r e l y refer to a w e a p o n i n t h e h a n d s of a h u m a n b e i n g , t h u s , s t a n d a r d l y , 'firebrands'. That the m e a n i n g ' m e t e o r ' , or ' l i g h t n i n g ' , is c o m p l e t e l y l e x i c a l i z e d , i.e. is n o t at all m e t a p h o r i c a l , is i n d i c a t e d b y its e x i s t e n c e in 1 Q H a l o n g s i d e a h o m o n y m o u s w o r d m e a n i n g 'fetter', f r o m ‫ י‬/ ‫ ז ק ק‬, f r o m w h i c h t h e w r i t e r c r e a t e d the n e w c o n s t r u c t c h a i n s ‫ ז ק י מ כ ש ו ל‬at 8.35 a n d ‫ זקי מ ש פ ט‬at 8.37. ‫' ז ק‬fetter' is f o u n d o n l y three t i m e s i n TL (in S N m , S D t , SOR), a l t h o u g h in t h e f e m i n i n e , ‫ ז י ק ה‬/ ‫ ' ז ק ה‬c o n n e c t i o n , ( b i n d i n g ) relationship', it is c o m m o n in TL (but this u s e is n o t f o u n d in DSS). 8. ‫ — ז ר ה‬I n t h e f r a g m e n t a r y c o n t e x t s of 1 Q H fr. 6 . 3 a n d 9.11 ( w h i c h

G M , 3 6 0 , j o i n s together), the f o r m ‫ מ מ ז ר י ם‬, is p e r h a p s , a s A H L , 12498, G M , 3 6 0 , a n d A b e g g , 112, the w e l l k n o w n rabbinic t e r m ( a l s o D e u t . 23.3; Z e c h . 9.6), w h i c h A H L record in f i v e o t h e r D S S p a s s a g e s , a n d is a l s o f o u n d in 4 Q M M T Β 39 ( w h i c h r e w o r k s D e u t . 23.2-4) a n d in 4 Q 4 4 4 1:1.8 ( ‫ ; ] מ ן מ ז ר י ם ו ר ו ח ה ט מ א ה‬W i s e , 399: [ . . . b a ] s t a r d s a n d t h e u n c l e a n spirit). H o w e v e r , H N , 267, w h o m a k e s n o m e n t i o n of the a b o v e interpretation, r e n d e r s "scattering o n e s " (at fr. 6.3; " t h e m that scatter" at fr. 9.11 [p. 268]), i.e. the Pi'el p a r t i c i p l e of ‫ ז ר ה‬, o n t h e b a s i s of Job 37.9, w h e r e the t a r g u m u n d e r s t a n d s as "a particular c o n s t e l l a t i o n of stars", a n d s u g g e s t s a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ‫ ל מ ז ו ת ת י ב ק ע ו‬at 1 Q H 2.27. T h i s is o d d , a s H N , 40, r e n d e r s 2.27 a s "By r e p e a t e d c r u s h i n g s " , o n the basis of ‫ ה ז ח ־ ה‬at Isa. 59.5, rejecting at t h e s a m e t i m e ( H N , 4 3 ) a n y c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ‫ ' מ ז ר ו ת‬c o n s t e l l a t i o n ( s ) ‫ ׳‬at Job 38.32, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , u n d e r l i e s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Licht, 71, M a n s o o r , 109 (shall break t h r o u g h the planets), B u r r o w s , 4 0 2 (break t h r o u g h to the stars), G M E s , 3 6 7 ( H a s t a 10s astros e x p l o t a n ) , L o h s e , 119 (Bis z u d e n Gestirn e n b r e c h e n h e r v o r ) , a n d V e r m e s , 195 ( s p o u t u p w a r d to the stars), Knibb, 168 ( u p to t h e stars b u r s t [cf. p. 170: "the t r a n s l a t i o n of this p a s s a g e is uncertain"]). A b e g g , 93, " A s c a t a p u l t s (?), ... burst o u t " , is o d d . A H L , 7950, i n t e r p r e t s as ‫ ' מ ז ו ר‬w o u n d ‫( ׳‬as H o s . 5.13), but this w o r d is n o t attested e l s e w h e r e in D S S or TL. Kittel, 3 5 (breaks forth, c r u s h e d out; s i m i l a r l y , W i l l i a m s , 140: In the c r a s h i n g surf ... are h a t c h e d o u t ) , m a k e s a g o o d c a s e (42-43) for d r a w i n g ‫ ל מ ז ו ר ו ת י ב ק ע ו א פ ע ה‬f r o m Isa. 59.5; s i m i l a r l y , Gaster, 238, w h o , h o w e v e r , translates (p. 51): "they crush in a p o u n d i n g cascade". 9. ‫ ה ט ה ר מ ן — ט ה ר‬/ ‫ ' ט י ה ר‬p u r i f y / f r e e ( o n e s e l f ) f r o m ‫ ׳‬, w h i c h is c o m m o n in D S S a n d q u i t e w e l l - a t t e s t e d in t h e Bible (Qal: E z e k . 24.13; P r o v . 20.9; Pi'el: Lev. 16.19,30; Jer. 33.8; Ezek. 36.25,33; Ps. 51.4; N e h . 13.30; 2 C h r o n . 34.3; Hitpa'el: Judg. 22.17), is f o u n d in three places in 1 Q H : ‫( ו ר ו ח נ ע ו ה ט ה ר ת ה מ פ ש ע ר ב‬3.21); ‫( ו ת ז ק ק ם ל ה ט ה ר מ א ש מ ה‬6.8); ‫( ל מ ע ן כ ב ו ד כ ה ט ה ר ת ה אנוש מ פ ש ע‬11.10). T h i s u s a g e is, h o w e v e r , n o t particularly c o m m o n in the M i s h n a h , w h e r e I h a v e n o t i c e d o n l y o n e e x a m p l e w i t h the Pi'el, ‫שחיטתה מ ט ה ר ת ט ר י פ ת ה מטומאתה‬ '(If) its s l a u g h t e r f r e e s its u n c l e a n f l e s h f r o m its i m p u r i t y ' ( Z e b a h i m 7.6), a l t h o u g h there are three i n s t a n c e s w i t h the Hitpa'el, N e g a ' i m 7.4,5, a n d N i d d a h 9.10: ‫' ואינה מ י ט ה ר ת מן ה ו ו ס ת‬and s h e is n o t to regard h e r s e l f a s p u r i f i e d f r o m her p e r i o d ' ; n o t e a l s o m. N a z i r 9.2, ‫' ל י ט ה ר מ ט ו מ א ת מ ת‬to b e p u r i f i e d f r o m the u n c l e a n n e s s of a corpse'.

10. ‫ — ט ו ב‬M u r a o k a , 145, remarks o n the n o v e l t y of t h e ‫ נשען ב‬c o n s t r u c t i o n ( e . g . 1 0 . 1 7 , ‫ כ י נשענתי ב א מ ת כ ה‬, a n d 4 . 3 6 - 3 7 , ‫ כ י נשענ!תי[ ב ח ס ד י כ ה‬, w h i c h Licht, 228, rightly c o m p a r e s w i t h ‫ נשען ע ל‬at fr. 4.13, n o t cited b y M u r a o k a ) , w h i c h is a l s o f o u n d at 1QS 4.4 a n d p e r h a p s , in the Hitpa'el, at Sir. 44.8, as w e l l a s at Isa. 50.10, w h e r e it o c c u r s in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h ‫' ב ט ח ב‬trust in'. In v i e w of this a n d of the e v i d e n c e of Isa. 3 0 . 1 2 a n d P r o v . 3.5 ( d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , Item 18), it is p r o b a b l y right to see, w i t h M u r a o k a , ‫ ( נשען ב‬a n d a l s o ‫ נשען ע ל‬w i t h abstract) as a l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c i n n o v a t i o n u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of ‫ ב ט ח ב‬. C o n t a i n e d in this i n n o v a t i o n is a s h i f t in t h e m e a n i n g of the v e r b itself, f r o m p h y s i c a l , 'lean', to a b stract, 'rely'. ‫ נשען ב‬is not, h o w e v e r , f o u n d in TL. In this e x a m p l e , then, a natural l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t a t t e s t e d in the Bible is m a i n tained in Ben Sira a n d in t w o Scrolls but, a p p a r e n t l y , n o t in TL. 11. ‫ — ט ו ח‬A l l e d i t i o n s a n d translations c o n s u l t e d u n d e r s t a n d ‫ פ נ י‬or ‫פני‬ in ‫ ו ל א ט ח ת ה ב ב ו ש ת פני‬at 1 Q H 4.23 a s t h e object of ‫' ט ו ח‬smear'. H o w e v e r , this i g n o r e s the fairly c o m m o n c o l l o c a t i o n ‫ ב ש ת פ נ י ם‬, f o u n d n o t o n l y in the Bible (Jer. 7.19; Ps. 4 4 . 1 6 [cited b y M a n s o o r , 127, a n d H N , 84]; D a n . 9.7; 2 C h r o n . 32.21) but a l s o in D S S at 4 Q S h i r b [4Q511] 2:2.4 a n d , e v e n m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y , at 1 Q H 9.20,22 ( A H L , Licht, 147: [‫במ[שת‬ ‫ ) פ נ י ם‬a n d at 1 Q H 5 . 3 5 , ‫בושת ע ל פ נ י ם‬, as w e l l as at A v o t 5.20, ‫עז פ נ י ם לגיהינם ובוש)ת( פ נ י ם לגן ע ד ן‬, a n d in the Mekhilta of S i m e o n b e n Y o h a i 20.17 (see Item 1 of P r o f e s s o r Kister's c o n t r i b u t i o n to this v o l u m e ) . T h e s t r e n g t h of the c o l l o c a t i o n of ‫ ב!שת‬a n d ‫ פ נ י ם‬s u g g e s t s , then, that the object of ‫ ט ו ח‬is to be s o u g h t in the f o l l o w i n g ‫( כ ו ל ח נ ר ר ש ף ם [ ל י‬if ‫ פני‬is read) or ‫( ה נ ו ע ד י ם י ח ד ל ב ר י ת כ ה‬if ‫ פני‬is read). T h e s e n s e w o u l d be ' y o u h a v e n o t s m e a r e d w i t h m y s h a m e all w h o are s o u g h t b y m e ' or ' y o u h a v e n o t s m e a r e d t h o s e w h o a s s e m b l e t o g e t h e r for y o u r c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e s h a m e of all w h o are s o u g h t b y m e ' ( s e e Item 30, b e l o w ) . T h e fact that the a u t h o r d i d n o t e m p l o y t h e object m a r k e r ‫ א ת‬b e f o r e ‫ פני‬t e n d s to s u p p o r t m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g here. (Gaster, 242, refers, c u r i o u s l y , to Isa. 44.18: ‫)בי ט ח מו־אות עיניהם‬. H e r e , 1 Q H s h a r e s w i t h D S S in g e n e r a l a n d w i t h TL t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of a late biblical i d i o m ( p r o b a b l y Jer. 7.19 is the o n l y early p a s sage; cf. s i m i l a r i d i o m s at Ps. 69.8 a n d Ps. 83.17, b o t h o f t e n a r g u e d to b e late). S u m m a r y . All but o n e (‫נשען ב‬, ‫ ז ק‬, ‫ ) מ מ ז ר‬of the e l e v e n lexical or s e m a n tic s t r u c t u r e s d i s c u s s e d are a t t e s t e d in late biblical texts, a s w e l l as in 1 Q H , a n d , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of ‫ ח ך י ש י ת‬in o t h e r D S S d o c u m e n t s a n d / o r B e n Sira as w e l l . In f i v e cases, the structure is o n l y or p r e d o m i n a n t l y a t t e s t e d in the Bible in late texts. Six i t e m s , n a m e l y ‫ ז ק‬a s a n a t ural p h e n o m e n o n , ‫' ז ע ף‬storm', ‫ מ מ ז ר‬, ‫ ' ב ש ת פ נ י ם‬s h a m e ' , ‫' ה ט ה ר מן‬free o n e s e l f o f , a n d ‫ ' מ ל ח מ ת‬w a r against', are clearly a t t e s t e d in TL. In the

c a s e of ‫ ז ע ף ׳ הזניח‬, a n d ‫ ח ר י ש י ת‬, the similarity of u s a g e b e t w e e n 1 Q H a n d t h e Bible is s o c l o s e a n d the d i s t r i b u t i o n in the o t h e r D S S a n d TL is s o l i m i t e d that c o n s c i o u s (or, at least, s e m i - c o n s c i o u s ) literary b o r r o w i n g o n the part of 1 Q H is a s t r o n g possibility.

II: Linguistic (non-literary) (Items 12-20)

phraseological

innovations

in 1QH and

DSS

12. ‫ — ז ו ל ת‬A t 1 Q H 12.10, the u s e of ‫ ז ו ל ת ה‬in r e f e r e n c e t o a n i m p e r s o n a l abstract o b j e c t , ‫ ' ת ע ח ־ ה‬t e s t i m o n y ' , is striking (the c l o s e s t biblical parallei w o u l d be D e u t . 4.12, ‫)זולתי ק ו ל‬, a l t h o u g h it is m a t c h e d b y o t h e r D S S texts:‫ זולתם‬. . . ‫( מ ח ק ק ו ת‬CD 6 . 1 0 ) ; 1 ) ‫ ז ו ל ת רצון א ל‬Q S 9.2 ‫ ( נ ח ל ת כ ה‬4 Q 4 1 6 2:3.8). E l s e w h e r e in 1 Q H (7.32; 1 0 . 9 ) , ‫ ז ו ל ת‬is f o u n d w i t h s u f f i x referring to G o d , as c o m m o n l y in the Bible (also at 1 Q S 11.18; 4 Q D i b H a m 3 [ 4 Q 5 0 4 ] 1:5.9; in r e f e r e n c e to M i c h a e l : 4 Q M a [ 4 Q 4 9 1 ] 11:1.13). T h i s is p e r h a p s d u e to the w e i g h t of biblical u s a g e , h e n c e the result of literary i n f l u e n c e , w h e r e a s the u s e in D S S of ‫ ז ו ל ת‬w i t h abstracts s e e m s to reflect a g e n u i n e l y s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t . Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 107, n o t e s d i v e r g e n c e s f r o m biblical practice of a m o r e s y n t a c tic n a t u r e . Strikingly, ‫ ז ו ל ת‬, w h i c h is c o m m o n in B e n Sira a n d DSS, is n o t f o u n d at all in TL. M a n s o o r , 174, o d d l y , r e n d e r s ‫ ז ו ל ת ה‬at 1 Q H 12.10 a s "apart f r o m H i m " ( ? ‫ ז ו ל ת ה‬/ ‫ ) ז ו ל ת ה‬, d e s p i t e t h e c l e a r s e q u e n c e...‫ת ע ו ד ת ה ו י ה‬ ‫ ( ו ה י א ה ת ה י ה‬M a n s o o r , 173: ‫ ) ו ה י ה‬... ‫ ז ו ל ת ה‬. . . ‫ ה כ י נ ה‬, in w h i c h e v e r y p r o n o u n m u s t s u r e l y refer to ‫ ; ת ע ו ד ה‬H N , 204: "‫ היאה‬refers back either to the w i t n e s s [ ‫ ] ת ע ו ד ה‬, or to i n c l u d e the w h o l e o r d e r of the w o r l d as p o r trayed in t h e p r e v i o u s lines". H e n c e , the f o l l o w i n g translations: V e r m e s , 225: W i t h o u t it; A b e g g , 108: b e s i d e it; B u r r o w s , 414: b e s i d e s it; W i l l i a m s , 593: apart f r o m it; L o h s e , 157: a u ß e r ihr; Η Ν , 197: b e s i d e it. G M E s , 390, "fuera d e él", is a m b i g u o u s , b u t o n balance (in v i e w of the c h o i c e of third p e r s o n p r o n o u n s a n d u s e of p u n c t u a t i o n in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t ) p r o b a b l y d o e s m e a n , as G M , 356, " b e s i d e s h i m " ; s i m i larly, Gaster, 191: " a l o n g w i t h him". 13. ‫ — ז ל ע פ ה‬T h e restoration [‫ ז ל ע ו פ ו ת ]אחזוני‬at 1 Q H 5 . 3 0 i n Licht, 106, a n d M a n s o o r , 139 ( a c c e p t e d b y V e r m e s , 206: a n g u i s h [ s e i z e s m e ] ; G M E s , 376: La i n d i g n a c i ô n s e ha a p o d e r a d o d e mi; G M , 339: R e s e n t m e n t [!] h a s t a k e n h o l d of m e ; A b e g g , 98: S e a r i n g p a i n s h a v e s e [ i z e d me]; L o h s e , 133: E r r e g u n g e n [ e r f a s s e n m i c h ] ; Η Ν 109, 100: f l a s h i n g t o r m e n t s h a v e o b s e s s e d m e ; W i l l i a m s , 367: a b u r n i n g s i e z e d [sic] m e ) , o n the b a s i s of a similar e x p r e s s i o n , ‫ ז ל ע פ ה א ח ז ת נ י‬, at Ps. 119.53, g a i n e d m o r e p l a u s i b i l i t y f r o m t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e s a m e c o l l o c a t i o n at 4 Q a p L a m b [4Q501] 6 , ‫ ח ל ע ו פ ו ת א ח ז ת ו‬, a n d w a s f i n a l l y c o n f i r m e d b y the

r e a d i n g ‫ות אחזוני‬1‫ ( ]זל[עוכ‬W A , II, 276) in a d u p l i c a t e v e r s i o n of the 1 Q H text at 4 Q H o d c [4Q429] 1:4.3 ( s e e a l s o P u e c h , 46). T h e c o m b i n a t i o n a s s u c h a p p e a r s to h a v e b e e n a c l i c h é d e x p r e s s i o n of t e r r o r / h o r r o r , alt h o u g h the s e e m i n g l y s t r a n g e u s e of ‫ א ח ז‬in it is paralleled at tos. Bava M e s i a ' 7.3, ‫ ' מ ח או א ח ז ת ו ח מ ה‬h e w a s d e a d or h e a t h a d o v e r c o m e h i m ' (Jastrow, 39b, lists a n a d d i t i o n a l e x a m p l e f r o m AL). T h e f o r m of t h e n o u n w i t h waw for qames m i g h t b e d u e to b a c k w a r d a s s i m i l a t i o n to the liquid ( s e e Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 40), if w e a s s u m e that t h e ayin w a s n o t p r o n o u n c e d , or to f o r w a r d a s s i m i l a t i o n to t h e v o w e l of the plural s u f f i x . 1 4 . ‫ — ז מ ה‬T h e clearest biblical s o u r c e for the c o n s t r u c t c h a i n in w h i c h Licht, 100, g l o s s e s as ' w i c k e d n e s s ' ( ‫ ; ) ה ר ע‬Kittel, 84: m y w i c k e d nature; Gaster, 162: m y lusts; M a n s o o r , 132: the (evil) d e v i c e s of m y i m a g i n a t i o n ; H N , 90: the s h a m e f u l i n t r i g u e s of m y d e s i r e ('desire' d e f e n d e d at H N , 92); V e r m e s , 203: the d e s i g n s of m y inclination; G M E s , 374: las intrigas d e mi inclinacion; L o h s e , 129: [das] T r a c h t e n m e i n e s V e r l a n g e n s ; W i l l i a m s , 318: the d e s i r e s of m y e v i l nature; A b e g g , 97: the p l o t s of m y evil inclination (similarly, M u r p h y , 343; cf. C o l l i n s , 8183, o n ‫יצר‬. in Sir. 15.14, a n d , m o r e g e n e r a l l y , Lichtenberger), is p r o b a bly Jer. 2 3 . 2 0 = 3 0 . 2 4 , ‫' מזמות ל ב ו‬the p l a n s of his ( G o d ' s ) heart'. T h e s u p p o s i t i o n that l Q H ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ‫ ז מ ה‬is b a s e d o n a biblical o n e w i t h ‫ מ ז מ ה‬t e n d s to be s t r e n g t h e n e d b y e x a m i n a t i o n of ‫ז מ ו ת‬ ‫( ב ל י ע ל יחשובו‬Licht] 93; A H L , 231; p a c e M a n s o o r , 125) at 1 Q H 4.13-14, w h i c h is p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n Ps. 1 0 . 2 , ‫יתפשו ב מ ז מ ו ת זו ח ש ב ו‬, as w e l l a s o n Ps. 21.12, ‫ ח ש ב ו מ ז מ ה‬. T h e fact that ‫ מ ז מ ה‬is n o t f o u n d in TL m a k e s l Q H ' s i n n o v a t i o n (of ‫ ז מ ה‬for ‫ ) מ ז מ ה‬u n d e r s t a n d a b l e in the l i g h t of t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y l a n g u a g e . (That ‫ ז מ ו ת ב ל י ע ל‬w a s n o t a s t a n d a r d c o l l o c a t i o n , d e s p i t e Licht's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n [p. 105] ‫[ ] מ מ ו ת ב [ ל י ע ל‬also L o h s e , 132] at 1 Q H 5.26, is n o w c o n f i r m e d b y the r e a d i n g [ ‫ו ד ב ר י ס ל י ע ל‬ at 4 Q H o d c [4Q429] 1:3.8 [ W A , II, 276]. H o w e v e r , the c o n s t r u c t i o n repr e s e n t s a m o r e g e n e r a l a s s o c i a t i o n of ‫י‬/‫ זמם‬a n d ‫ ב ל י ע ל‬in 1 Q H , as indicated b y 4 . 1 0 , ‫זממו ע ל י ב ל י ע ל‬.) Both ‫ יחשובו‬... ‫ זמות‬a n d ‫ ז מ ו ת י צ ר י‬c a n a l s o b e s e e n a s lexical variants of c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h the n o u n ‫ מ ח ש ב ה‬in p l a c e of ΠφΤ; for ‫ ז מ ו ת י צ ר י‬, compare: ‫זשבות י צ ר א ש מ ה‬1[‫]במ‬ ( 4 Q D e [4Q270] 1:1.1 [ B a u m g a r t e n , 141]); ‫ב כ ת ל [ מחשבות יצר א]שמתכה ו ב כ ו ל מזמות תוע[בה‬ 3 (4QBer [4Q286] 7:2.7 [EW, 228; cf. W A , III, 102]); [‫!רע‬:!‫ובמחשבות יצר לבם‬ ( 4 Q A d m o n i t i o n [4Q370] 1:1.3 [ N e w s o m , Admonition, 90]); !‫א ל ת פ ת כ ה מחשבת יצר רע‬

( 4 Q 4 1 7 2:2.12 [ W A II, 67]). T h e 4 Q A d m o n i t i o n text is b a s e d o n G e n . 6.5, ‫כל־_יצר מ ח ש ב ת ל ב ו ר ק ר ע‬, w h i c h m i g h t be cited in t h e f r a g m e n t a r y text of 4 Q B é a t [ 4 Q 5 2 5 ] 11.4: !‫ ( [ מ י צ ר מחשב‬W A , π , 190). T h e g e n e r a l reversal of the e l e m e n t s in DSS, as a l r e a d y n o t e d b y M o r a g , 156, is e s p e c i a l l y s t r i k i n g g i v e n that the G e n e s i s o r d e r a l s o o c c u r s at 1 C h r o n . 28.9 a n d 29.18: ‫ צ ר מ ח ש ב ו ת‬: . (The reversal of c o n struct e l e m e n t s o c c u r s , or h a s b e e n c l a i m e d to o c c u r , s p o r a d i c a l l y in the Bible; t h u s , for e x a m p l e , D u n a s h ibn Labrat c o m m e n t s o n ‫ת ו ל ע ת‬ ‫ ש נ ^ ש נ י‬, w h i c h o c c u r s 27 times, a n d ‫שני ] ה [ ת ו ל ע ת‬, at Lev. 14.4,6,49,51,52; N u m . 19:6, a n d Ibn Janāh c l a i m e d that ‫ כ ר ה ק מ ח‬at 1 K g s 17.14 a c t u a l l y m e a n t ‫ ; ק מ ח ה כ ר‬s e e S â e n z - B a d i l l o s a n d T a r g a r o n a , 64, 86; n o t e a l s o , for e x a m p l e , ‫ ל ח ם ה מ ע ר כ ת‬at N e h . 10.34; 1 C h r o n . 9.32; 2 3 . 2 9 w i t h ‫ מ ע ר כ ת ל ח ם‬at 2 C h r o n . 13.11 a n d ‫ עו־ןי ל ח ם‬at E x o d . 40.23; o n ‫ח ב ל‬ ‫ ת ו ע ב ו ת‬a n d ‫ ת ו ע ב ו ת ח ב ל‬a n d the p h e n o m e n o n of c o n s t r u c t reversal in g e n e r a l , s e e n o t e 11 of P r o f e s s o r Kister's p a p e r in this v o l u m e a n d the a s s o c i a t e d text; a s p e c i a l kind of reversal that d i s p l a y s , a d d i t i o n a l l y , s y n e c d o c h e of a n a t o m i c a l terms is r e p r e s e n t e d b y ‫' ר ע עין‬evil of e y e ' > ‫' עין ר ע ה‬evi1-eye[d]', etc., d i s c u s s e d b y P r o f e s s o r Kister in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ‫[ פני ח צ ף‬if this is the correct a n a l y s i s ] 'face of an i m p u d e n t / i m p o r t u n a t e o n e ' , at Sir. 40.28, for ‫ ' ח צ ף פ נ י ם‬o n e i m p u d e n t of face'). ‫ זמות י צ ר י‬represents, then, first, as in ‫זמות ב ל י ע ל‬, the r e p l a c e m e n t of biblical ‫ מ ז מ ה‬b y ‫ ז מ ה‬, a n d , s e c o n d l y , the m a n i p u l a t i o n for stylistic reas o n s of t h e c o m m o n D S S c o l l o c a t i o n ‫ מ ח ש ב ו ת י צ ר‬, w h i c h itself repres e n t s a reversal of the c o r r e s p o n d i n g e x p r e s s i o n in earlier a n d later biblical literature. P e r h a p s the o r i g i n s of this reversal are to b e traced to the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the c o m p o n e n t s in the t r a n s m i s s i o n of the text of G e n . 8.21, w h e r e , first, instead of ‫ ״יצר מ ח ש ב ת ל ב ו‬at 6.5 w e f i n d s i m p l y ‫יצר ל ב האז־ם‬., a n d s e c o n d , in N e o p h y t i , ‫ מ ח ש ב ת ל ב ה‬in p l a c e of M T ' s ‫ ( ) ו י א מ ר י׳ אל"( ל ב ו‬s e e M o r e n o Garcia, 185-86). In a n y case, the a p p e a r a n c e of ‫ מ ח ש ב ו ת י צ ר‬in d i v e r s e Scrolls i n d i c a t e s that the c o l l o c a t i o n h a d b e c o m e l e x i c a l i z e d a n d m a r k s a striking d e p a r t u r e f r o m LBH practice. R e g a r d i n g the interchangeability of ‫ זמה‬a n d ‫ מ ח ש ב ה‬, n o t e the parall e l i s m of ‫ מ ה אזום‬a n d ‫ מ ה א ח ש ו ב‬at 1 Q H 10.5 a n d a l s o ‫ מ ח ש ב ת זמה‬at 4 Q D 3 [ 4 Q 2 6 6 ] 6 : 1 . 1 5 = 4 Q D 8 [4Q272] 1:2.4, w h i c h B a u m g a r t e n , 53, 190, rend e r s " l u s t f u l t h o u g h t s " ( C o o k , 62: t h o u g h t s of d e p r a v i t y ) , a l t h o u g h ' c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i n i q u i t y ‫ ׳‬w o u l d b r i n g this e x p r e s s i o n c l o s e r to t h e verbal c o n s t r u c t i o n in 1 Q H a n d the l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t r e p r e s e n t e d there. B a u m g a r t e n , 54, w o u l d a l s o read ‫( מ ח ש ב ת זימה‬for ‫;זירה‬ A H L : ?‫ < ?רה‬. . . > ‫ ) מ ח ש ב ת‬at 1Q29 13.4. Licht's r e s t o r a t i o n (p. 116) at 1 Q H 6.22, ‫ ] ל ז ו [ • מ ח ש ב ת ר ש ע ה‬, w h i c h c o n v e r t s the v e r b of ‫ זמות ח ש ב‬to a n o u n a n d v i c e - v e r s a , is n o t a c c e p t e d b y M a n s o o r , H N , V e r m e s , G M , L o h s e , or A b e g g . If Q i m r o n ' s c o m p a r i s o n ('Biblical P h i l o l o g y 3 1 3,‫)׳‬of t h e c o l l o c a -

tions in 1 Q S 1.6 ( ‫ ) ב ש ר י ר ו ת ל ב א ש מ ה‬a n d C D 2.16 ( ‫ ) ב מ ח ש ב ת י צ ר א ש מ ה‬is a c c e p t e d , n o t o n l y are ‫ מ ח ש ב ה‬a n d ‫ י צ ר‬f u n c t i o n a l l y s y n o n y m o u s b u t s o t o o are ‫ ש ר י ר ו ת‬a n d ‫ מ ח ש ב ה‬o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d ‫ י צ ר‬a n d ‫ ל ב‬o n t h e other. T h e e v i d e n c e as a w h o l e w o u l d s e e m to p o i n t to t h e t e n d e n c y o v e r t i m e of the c o m p o n e n t s of f r e q u e n t c o n s t r u c t c h a i n s (or o t h e r s t a n d a r d c o l l o c a t i o n s ) to c o a l e s c e in m e a n i n g ( p r e c e d e d , p r e s u m a b l y , b y the i d i o m a t i z a t i o n of a collocation, s o that it is u n d e r s t o o d as referring, i d i o m a t i c a l l y or s y n t h e t i c a l l y , to a s i n g l e , c o m p o s i t e , d e n o t a t u m , rather than, literally or analytically, to a s e q u e n c e of discrete d e n o t a t a ; o n this u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the u s e of, for e x a m p l e , ‫ מ ח ש ב ה‬for ‫ י צ ר‬or v i c e v e r s a can a l s o b e s e e n as a k i n d of l e x i c o - s e m a n t i c a p o c o p a t i o n or ellipsis, w i t h o n e c o n s t i t u e n t of a c o m m o n s e q u e n c e s e r v i n g for all t h e constituents). 15. 1—‫זמם‬QH 4.26 a n d 9.20 m a i n t a i n the u s a g e f o u n d just o n c e in t h e Bible, at Ps. 37.12, a n d r e p e a t e d at 4 Q p P s a [4Q171] 1:2.12, of ‫ ז מ ם ל‬in the s e n s e of 'plot a g a i n s t ' ( p r e s u m a b l y a dativus incommodi [ s e e Gibs o n , 150]). T h i s rection is n o t c o n t i n u e d in TL. A t Ps. 37.12, the ‫ ל‬is p e r h a p s u s e d in o r d e r to a v o i d the s e q u e n c e ‫ ז מ ם ע ל‬. . . ‫ ח ר ץ ע ל‬. M u r a o k a ' s d i s t i n c t i o n (p. 116) b e t w e e n " ‫ ( ע ל‬e n m i t y ) " a n d "‫ ל‬pers" d o e s n o t s e e m to c a p t u r e the s e m a n t i c facts here. But, strikingly, 1 Q H e m p l o y s a s w e l l , at 4.10, a n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n , ‫ ז מ ם ע ל‬, a l s o f o u n d at 4 Q N o n C a n P s b [4Q381] 45.2-3, a s a l r e a d y n o t e d b y Schuller, 174, w h e r e the c o n s t r u c t i o n ‫ ע ל י יזמו ל ה ס ג י ר נ י‬m a t c h e s prec i s e l y that of Est. 9 . 2 4 , ‫ ח ש ב ע ל ־ ה י ה ו ך י ם ל א ב ך ם‬. ‫ ז מ ם ע ל‬is a l s o f o u n d at 4 Q B e r f [4Q280] 1.6, ‫ ( ל ז ו ם ע ל ב ר י ת א ל‬W A , III, 91), p r e s u m a b l y u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e , o n c e again, of ‫ ח ש ב‬, w h i c h r e g u l a r l y t a k e s ‫ ( ע ל‬n e v e r ‫ ל‬in the required sense). It m i g h t b e t h o u g h t that there w a s a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n ‫ז מ ם ע ל‬ a n d ‫ ז מ ם ל‬o n s y n t a c t i c g r o u n d s , g i v e n that ‫ ז מ ם ע ל‬is a l w a y s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a direct object or object c l a u s e ( l e a v i n g a s i d e 4QBer^ 6) in DSS, just like ‫ ( ח ש ב ע ל‬w i t h the m i n o r e x c e p t i o n of 2 S a m . 14.13), a n d ‫ז מ ם ל‬ n e v e r takes o n e in the Bible or DSS, if w e a s s u m e (1) that at 1 Q H 4 . 2 6 a n d 9.20, Licht, 146, a n d M a n s o o r , 160, are correct in r e c o n s t r u c t i n g a n a p o d o s i s after ‫ כ ז ו מ ם ל י‬, n o t , like H N , 146, 162, a n object (146: a n d w h e n t h e y d e v i s e [affliction a n d trouble (?)] a g a i n s t m e ) a n d (2) that t h e v e r b is in fact Qal, n o t Hof'al. A l t h o u g h ‫( זומם ע ל‬participle) o c c u r s s e v e r a l t i m e s in tos. Bava Q a m m a 7.22-23 a n d 8.1, the s e n s e is n o t the s a m e (but rather 'perjure o n e s e l f c o n c e r n i n g ' ; I a m g r a t e f u l to Martin Baasten for his h e l p w i t h t h e s e T o s e f t a texts). T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n ‫ זמם‬a n d ‫ ח ש ב‬a p p e a r s to b e p u r e l y stylistic ( s e e the p r e c e d i n g item). I n d e e d , at 1 Q H 4.10, t h e c h o i c e of b o t h elem e n t s in ‫ זמם ע ל‬is d i c t a t e d largely b y stylistic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , in o r d e r to p r o v i d e a c o n t r a s t w i t h ‫' ח ש ב ל‬regard a s ' at 4.9, ‫ויחשבוני ל כ ל י א ו ב ר‬

'and t h e y r e g a r d e d m e as a w a s t e d v e s s e l ' . ‫ ח ט ב ע ל‬in the s a m e s e n s e a s ‫ ז מ ם ע ל‬, w i t h object, is f o u n d at 4 Q M i d r E s c h a t 3 3 . 9 (= 4QF10r [4Q174] 1.9). T o recapitulate, b o t h the n o u n s ‫ מ ח ט ב ה‬a n d ‫ זמה‬a n d the v e r b s ‫ח ט ב‬ a n d ‫ ז מ ם‬are f o u n d in s y n t a g m a t i c a n d p a r a d i g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p in a v a r i e t y of c o n s t r u c t i o n s . T h e u s e of the v e r b ‫ זמם‬in D S S s e e m s to h a v e a s s i m i l a t e d to that of ‫ ח ט ב‬in earlier H e b r e w s o u r c e s . 1 6 . 1 — ‫ ט ה ר‬Q H 1 1 . 3 0 - 3 1 , ‫וטהרני ב צ ד ק ת כ ה‬, and 16.12,‫לטהרני ב ר ו ח קודשך‬, b o t h e v i d e n c e the u s e of ‫ ט י ה ר‬w i t h ‫ ב‬of i n s t r u m e n t , ' p u r i f y b y ( m e a n s of)', a n i n n o v a t i o n w i t h respect to biblical u s a g e , p e r h a p s o n the a n a l o g y of v e r b s f r o m the s a m e s e m a n t i c field, that is c o m m o n in D S S but o n l y rarely c o n t i n u e d in the M i s h n a h b e c a u s e of t h e M i s h n a h ' s t e n d e n c y to u s e ‫ ט י ה ר ב‬for i n t r o d u c i n g a n object or in the s e n s e , ' d e c l a r e c l e a n in respect of' (the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o m e a n i n g s is o f ten d i f f i c u l t to m a k e ) , for e x a m p l e E d u y y o t 6.3,3; H u l l i n 4.4; 9.4; K e l i m 3.8,8; 9.4; 21.2; T a h a r o t h . 3.8; 5.2; 8.1; M i q w a ' o t 4.1; 9.2; M a k h s h i r i n 3.1,2; 6.2; Z a v i m 3.2; 4.3; U q s i n 1.4; t h e D S S u s a g e w i t h ‫ ב‬of i n s t r u m e n t is f o u n d in the f o l l o w i n g M i s h n a h p a s s a g e s : ‫ל א יטול א ד ם אם ע ל הבנים אפילו ל ט ה ר ב ה א ת המצורע‬ ' O n e m a y n o t take a m o t h e r w i t h her y o u n g e v e n if it is to p u rify a leper t h r o u g h her' ( H u l l i n 12.5; similar: Parah 11.8); ‫ ה ר י זה ינתץ‬,‫א ם ע ד ט ל א ט י ה ר ו ב צ י פ ר י ן נ ר א ה בו נגע‬ 'If a mark a p p e a r s b e f o r e t h e y h a v e p u r i f i e d (the h o u s e ) w i t h the birds, it is to be p u l l e d d o w n ' ( N e g a ' i m 13.1); ‫כ ל הימים מ ט ה ר י ן ב ז ו ח ל י ן‬ 'All s e a s p u r i f y t h r o u g h r u n n i n g w a t e r s ' (Parah 8.8; similar: M i q w a ' o t 1.7,8; 5,3,4). T h e M i s h n a h d i s p l a y s a s i m i l a r d i v e r s i t y of u s a g e in r e s p e c t of ‫ ט י ה ר ל‬, w h i c h is f o u n d at least o n c e i n t r o d u c i n g an object: ‫מ ע ט ה ב א נ ט י י ר ו ט ל ם ט ט מ נ ו א ת ד ב י ל ת ן ב מ י ם מפני‬ ‫ה ס י ק ר י ן ו ט י ה ר ו ל ה ן חכמי‬ 'It h a p p e n e d that the p e o p l e of J e r u s a l e m h i d their figs in w a ter o n a c c o u n t of the p r o p e r t y c o n f i s c a t o r s [ r e a d i n g ‫] ס י ק ר י ק ץ‬ a n d the s a g e s d e c l a r e d t h e m p u r e ' ( M a k h s h i r i n 1.6); contrast E d u y y o t 1.14: ‫כ ט ט י ה ר ת ה א ת ה כ ל י ט י ה ר ת ה ל ך ולו‬ ' W h e n y o u d e c l a r e d the v e s s e l clean y o u d e c l a r e d it c l e a n for y o u r s e l f a n d for him'. 17. ‫ — ט ו ב‬T h e g o o d n e s s ' at ‫)נדו>לכ<חכה‬, a p p e a r s to b e

c o l l o c a t i o n ‫' ג ד ו ל ט ו ב כ ה‬great o n e , i.e. g r e a t n e s s , of y o u r 1 Q H 10.16 ( a n d in Licht's r e a d i n g of 11.29; A H L , 239: w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s a u s e of t h e c o n s t r u c t a d j e c t i v e that m o d e l l e d o n ‫ ר ב ״ ט ו ב‬at Is 63.7 a n d ‫ ר ב ״ ט ו ב ך‬at Ps. 145.7, is

s t r i k i n g g i v e n that for the biblical f o r m s cited, 1 Q H prefers a n o m i n a l f o r m a t i o n , 1 ) ‫טוב‬/‫טובך‬/‫ ר ו ב טובכה‬Q H struction a l s o f o u n d at 4 Q 4 1 8 81.19 a n d 1QS 11.14. H o w e v e r , there are o t h e r o c c a s i o n s in w h i c h 1 Q H a l s o e m p l o y s ‫ ג ד ו ל‬a s nomen regens, s o , a p p a r e n t l y , the writer d i d n o t p e r c e i v e it as a n adjective, f u n c t i o n a l l y : 1.32; 16.12: ‫ ך‬/ ‫ ( ג ד ו ל ח ס ד י כ ה‬d e s p i t e N u m . 14.19::14.23;(‫גךלחסךף‬ ‫ ג ד ו ל כ ו ח ך‬. N o t e that at 11.29 ( s e e a b o v e ) a n d 14.23, t h e adjectival c o n struction w i t h ‫ ב ד ו ל‬is i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y a parallel w i t h a n o u n , ‫( ו ר ו ב נ פ ל א ו ת י ך‬14.23), a n d this is p r o b a b l y true as w e l l at 10.16 (Puech, 4 6 ) : [ ‫והו]• ר ח מ י כ ה‬. N o t e that the c o n s t r u c t i o n of ‫ ג ד ו ל‬s i n g u l a r as regens w i t h a n abstract n o u n as rectum is rare e l s e w h e r e in D S S ( 4 Q S h i r b [4Q511] 52:3.2; p e r h a p s 4QBer* [ 4 Q 2 8 6 ] 1.5 [see b e l o w ] ) , a s i n d e e d it is in the Bible (Jer. 32.19; N a h . 1.3; Ps. 145.8; Pr. 19.T9). A s w e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d , this u s e of ‫ ג ד ו ל‬as n o u n in 1 Q H is m a t c h e d b y a d e c l i n e in its e m p l o y m e n t in o t h e r f u n c t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y , ‫ ג ד ו ל‬is o n l y clearly f o u n d as an a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e o n four o c c a s i o n s , 1 Q H 7 . 3 2 - 3 3 = l Q H b [1Q35] 1.7 ( s e e A H L , 235; P u e c h , 39); 12.5; 15.19, 20-21 (13.17 a n d fr. 1.2 req u i r e restoration of n o u n s ; at 4 Q H o d n [4Q427] 3:1.8, the s e q u e n c e ‫ת ה‬ ‫ ג ד ו ל א ל ה מ פ ל י‬is p r o b l e m a t i c [ A b e g g , 106; G M , 363: a l o u d / g r e a t cry]) a n d n o t o n c e as a p r e d i c a t i v e adjective. That ‫ ג ד ו ל‬at 1 Q H 1.32; 10.16; 11.29; 14.23; 16.12 is i n d e e d the c o n struct of the a d j e c t i v e ‫ ג ד ו ל‬, as v o c a l i z e d t h r o u g h o u t b y L o h s e , a n d not, as A H L a p p e a r s to u n d e r s t a n d , an u n h e l p f u l s p e l l i n g of the n o u n ‫ ג ד ל‬, is i n d i c a t e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e f o r m ‫ ו ל ג ו ד ל כ ה‬at 1 Q H fr. 2:1.9 ( A H L ) , w h i c h clearly r e p r e s e n t s the n o u n (Licht, 222, h o w e v e r , r e a d s ‫ ; ב ג ו ר ל כ ה‬there is n o i m m e d i a t e context). T h e n o u n is f o u n d e l s e w h e r e in D S S w i t h waw in the first s y l l a b l e ( 1 Q M 14.17: ‫ ) א ו ר ג ו ד ל כ ה‬or w i t h n o waw at all (1QM 1.8; 4.8; 4 Q S h i r S h a b b d [4Q403] 1:1.8 [and p e r h a p s e l s e w h e r e in 4 Q S h i r S h a b b d ‫ ־‬f ; s e e N e w s o m , Songs, 401]; a l s o Sir. 4 4 . 2 [MS B], but s e e Kister, ‫ ׳‬C o n t r i b u t i o n 3 6 6,‫)׳‬.N o t e a l s o 4 Q H o d n [4Q427] 7:1.21 ( W A , II, 2 5 8 ) : ‫ ״ ר ח מ י ם ל מ פ ר י ט ו ב ג ו ר ל ו ו מ ק ו ר‬m e r c y for t h o s e w h o e n j o y the g o o d n e s s of h i s g r e a t n e s s a n d s o u r c e of" (GM, 365; W A , IV, 99, list u n d e r the n o u n , ‫ ג ו ר ל‬, a l t h o u g h A b e g g , 113, r e n d e r s "great g o o d n e s s " ) . EW, 227, a l s o h a v e t h e f o r m w i t h waw at 4 Q B e r a [4Q286] 1.5, [ ‫ " ו ג ו ד ל נ ו ר א ו ת ו ר פ א ת ת‬a n d m i g h t y w o n d e r s a n d h e a l i n g s " ( E W , 229), b u t W A , III, 97, a n d N i t z a n , 12, read ‫( ו ג ד ו ל‬i.e. t h e c o n s t r u c t adjective) here ( N i t z a n , 13: "and great in a w e s o m e d e e d s a n d hea1in[g / hea1ing[s"; but A b e g g , 287: "greatness of fears"). T h e Isaiah Scroll reflects e x a c t l y the s a m e o r t h o g r a p h i c practice. ‫ ג ך ל‬is f o u n d a s ‫ ( ג ד ל‬9 . 8 : ‫ ) ב ג א ו ה ו ב ג ד ל ל ב ב‬a n d ‫ ( ג ו ד ל‬1 0 . 1 2 : ‫ ) פ ר י ג ו ד ל ל ב ב‬, w h e r e a s in all ten i n s t a n c e s of ‫ ג ד ו ל‬in M T (Isa. 8.1; 9.1; 12.6; 27.13; 29.6; 34.6; 36.4,13; 38.3; 56.12) 1 Q I s a n u s e s ‫ ג ד ו ל‬, a n d ‫ ג ד ו ל ה‬for ‫ ג ד ו ל ה‬at Isa.

27.1. E v e n m o r e s t r i k i n g is ‫ נ ת ל י ם‬for ‫ ג י ל י ם‬at Isa. 5 . 9 a n d 5 4 . 7 . ( H o w e v e r f r o m W A , IV, 98-99, w e a l s o f i n d plural a n d f e m i n i n e f o r m s of ‫ ג ד ו ל‬w i t h o u t waw at 4 Q 3 7 2 1.19; 4 Q 3 7 9 22:2.13-14; p e r h a p s 4 Q 4 4 6 2.3 [ W A , III, 337]: ‫׳ ][גדלי ת ב ו נ ה ה מ ה‬great of u n d e r s t a n d i n g are they‫׳‬.) I h a v e f o u n d o n l y o n e p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n to the rule that ‫ צ ך ל‬is n o t s p e l t ‫ ג ד ו ל‬in DSS, n a m e l y , at 4 Q H 0 d ^ [4Q427] 7:1.13 ( W A , II, 258): ‫הבו גדול לאלנו וכבוד למלכנו‬ "ascribe g r e a t n e s s to o u r G o d a n d g l o r y to o u r K i n g " ( A b e g g , 113), but h e r e o n e w o n d e r s if the ‫ ג ד ו ל‬w a s c h o s e n , or has e n t e r e d b y felicit o u s m i s t a k e , in p h o n a e s t h e t i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h ‫ כ ב ו ד‬. A g a i n s t m y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ‫ ג ד ו ל‬at 1 Q H 1.32; 10.16; 11.29; 14.23; 16.12 a s ‫ ג ד ו ל‬, P r o f e s s o r M u r a o k a a r g u e s (in private c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ) : "in m o s t c a s e s of the s y n t a g m ccstr. adj. + n o u n > ... the f o l l o w i n g n o u n is a b s o l u t e , w i t h n o s u f f i x e s , t h o u g h the article c a n b e a d d e d " ( s e e M u r a o k a 1977). In TL a s a w h o l e , f o r m s of ‫ ( צ ך ל‬a l w a y s ‫ )גו׳‬are f o u n d p e r h a p s fift e e n t i m e s , but I h a v e not n o t i c e d a n y clear e x a m p l e of the c o n s t r u c t adjective ‫ ( ג ד ו ל‬i n c l u d i n g f e m i n i n e a n d plural f o r m s ) in the M i s h n a h . 18. ‫ — ט ו ב‬N o t e the striking e x p r e s s i o n , ‫ ל ה ט ע ן ע ל ט ו ב כ ה‬at 1 Q H fr. 4.13. ‫ נ ט ע ן ע ל‬w i t h abstract n o u n d o e s o c c u r e l s e w h e r e in D S S ( 1 Q S 5.18, with 10.16;‫מעטה‬,w i t h ‫ ) ח ס ד‬a n d Sir. (5.1, w i t h ‫ צ ח‬a n d ‫ ) ח י ל‬, e v e n t h o u g h it is f o u n d o n l y o n c e in the Bible, at Isa. 30.12b, ‫ו ת ב ט ח ו ב ע ט ק‬ ‫ " ונלוז ו ת ט ע נ ו ע ל י ו‬A n d h a v e put y o u r trust a n d reliance in that w h i c h is f r a u d u l e n t a n d t o r t u o u s " (JPS). T h e D S S u s a g e m i g h t a l s o h a v e d r a w n o n t h e o n e i n s t a n c e of ‫ נ ט ע ן א ל‬, at P r o v . 3.5, w h i c h , a g a i n , h a s a n abstract c o m p l e m e n t : ‫ב ט ח אל־י׳ ב כ ל ־ ל ב ך ו א ל ־ ב י נ ת ך א ל ־ ת ט ע ן‬ (the s e c o n d ‫ א ל‬h a s p e r h a p s b e e n c h o s e n , o v e r ‫ ע ל‬, to m a t c h the first or to a v o i d h o m o p h o n y w i t h the f o l l o w i n g n e g a t i v e ) . Of the ten i n s t a n c e s of ‫ נ ט ע ן‬in TL, if a p r e p o s i t i o n l i n k s it to a c o m p l e m e n t that p r e p o s i t i o n is a l w a y s ‫ ע ל‬, w i t h n o e x a m p l e of a b stract n o u n f o l l o w i n g , s o in its u s e of ‫ נטען ע ל‬w i t h abstract n o u n ( w i t h the c o n c o m i t a n t c h a n g e in m e a n i n g of the v e r b f r o m c o n c r e t e to abstract) a n d of ‫ ( נ ט ע ן ב‬s e e a b o v e , Item 10), 1 Q H a p p e a r s to r e p r e s e n t a n i n n o v a t i o n of the p e r i o d , albeit o n e w i t h biblical sources, that w a s n o t c o n t i n u e d thereafter. 19. ‫ — ט ר ם‬T o e x p r e s s its d o c t r i n e of p r e d e s t i n a t i o n , 1 Q H u t i l i z e s t w o u n u s u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h ‫ ב ט ר ם‬. A t 1.10-11,19-20,28, ‫ ב ט ר ם ה י ו ת ם‬represents the rare c o n s t r u c t i o n of ‫ ב ט ר ם‬w i t h infinitive, f o u n d in the Bible o n l y at Z e p h . 2.2. A s w e a l s o find ‫( ט ר ם ה י ו ת ם‬sic) at 4 Q T a n h [ 4 Q 1 7 6 ] 16.3, ‫ ב ט ר ם ה ב ר א ם‬at 4 Q T i m e of R i g h t e o u s n e s s [4Q215a] 1:2.8 ( W A , III, 7), a n d p e r h a p s ‫( ב ט ר ם ת ע ו ת י‬rather than ‫ ) ב ט ר ם ת ע י ת י‬in the 1 1 Q P s 3 ver-

s i o n of Sir. 5 1 . 1 3 ( 1 1 Q P s a [11Q5] 21.11; S a n d e r s , 42, 80, r e a d s ‫ ת ע י ת י‬, w i t h o u t c o m m e n t , a s d o e s Beentjes, 1 2 5 , 1 7 7 ; h o w e v e r , A H L , 51, g i v e s b o t h r e a d i n g s ; S a n d e r s , 81, n o t e s t h e i n f i n i t i v e r e a d i n g as a n earlier r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) , w e m i g h t regard the c o n s t r u c t i o n of ‫ ) ב ( ט ר ם‬w i t h inf i n i t i v e a s a post-biblical i n n o v a t i o n , w h i c h , h o w e v e r , w a s n o t c o n t i n u e d i n t o TL ( w h e r e ‫ ט ר ם‬is n o t f o u n d at all [ s e e PF, 172, 205; S e g a l , G r a m m a r , §294], a m o s t r e m a r k a b l e fact w h e n w e c o n s i d e r that it is f o u n d 3 0 t i m e s in D S S a n d B e n Sira, w h i c h is t w i c e the d i s t r i b u t i o n d e n s i t y of that f o u n d in the Bible, w h e r e ‫ ט ר ם‬o c c u r s 5 6 t i m e s , if w e a s s u m e that D S S a n d B e n Sira c o m b i n e d are a b o u t a q u a r t e r of t h e l e n g t h of t h e Bible); for a m o r e t y p i c a l l y tannaitic c o n s t r u c t i o n , n o t e ‫ ו ל פ נ י ה י ו ת ם‬at 1QS 3.15. T h e D S S structure r e a p p e a r s in later H e b r e w , for e x a m p l e , in Ibn Gabirol: ‫" ט ך ם היותי ח ס ד ך ב א נ י‬Before I w a s , y o u r e n d u r i n g l o v e c a m e to m e " (Carmi, 317). In 1 Q H , w e a l s o f i n d t h r e e e x a m p l e s of ‫ ב ט ך ם‬f o l l o w e d b y t h e perfect of :‫ברא‬ ‫( א ת כ ו ל מ ע ש י ך ב ט ר ם ב ר א ת ם‬13.11); ‫( ה כ י נ ו ת ה ב ט ר ם ב ר א ת ו‬15.14) (also at 4 Q A g e s [4Q180] 2:2.10). ‫ ב ט ר ם‬w i t h perfect o n l y o c c u r s t w i c e in the Bible (Ps. 90.2; Pr 8.25 [the s a m e is true of ‫ ט ר ם‬+ perfect: G e n . 24.15; 1 S a m . 3.7]), a l t h o u g h it is f o u n d , in a d d i t i o n to the p a s s a g e s alr e a d y c i t e d , in t w o o t h e r Q u m r a n texts ( C D 2.7; 4 Q M y s t b [ 4 Q 3 0 0 ] l b . l ) , but n o t w i t h a n a c t i v e v e r b ( w i t h the p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n s of Sir. 5 1 . 1 3 a n d , a c c o r d i n g to S c h i f f m a n , ' M y s t e r i e s ' , 102, of 4 Q M y s t b [4Q300] l b . l [if ‫ נ ד ב ר‬is read for ‫ ) נ ד ב ר‬. Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 108, n o t e s the p r e f e r e n c e for the perfect after ‫ ) ב ( ט ר ם‬in DSS, but d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the e m e r g e n c e of the infinitival c o n s t r u c t i o n (or, to put it a n o t h e r w a y , the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the particle f r o m c o n j u n c t i o n to p r e p o s i t i o n ) . At 1 Q H 8.6-7, a s t a n d a r d biblical construction, ‫ ט ר ם‬p l u s i m p e r f e c t , is f o u n d : ‫והיו ל ה פ ר י ח נ צ ר ל מ ט ע ת ע ו ל ם‬ ‫להשריש ט ר ם יפריחו‬ "They m u s t m a k e a s h o o t g r o w in the e v e r l a s t i n g p l a n t a t i o n to take root b e f o r e it g r o w s " (GM, 345) If the translation g i v e n is correct, t h e n p e r h a p s ‫ י פ ר י ח ו‬e x e m p l i f i e s the p r e f e r e n c e for Hifil o v e r Qal in DSS, in v i e w of the c o l l o c a t i o n of the t w o v e r b s at Isa. 27.6: ‫ ש ך א ל‬: ‫ציץ ו פ ר ח‬: ‫ ע ק ב‬: ‫ ש ר ש‬: (but 1 Q I s a 3 , a l t h o u g h it r e a d s a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t text here, d o e s p r e s e r v e t h e Hifil-Qal s e q u e n c e ) . M o r e l i k e l y , I t h i n k , is that ‫ י פ ר י ח ו‬b e u n d e r s t o o d a s c a u s a t i v e , ' ( b e f o r e ) t h e y c a u s e (it) to s p r o u t ' , the s u b j e c t b e i n g t h e s a m e a s that of ‫ ;והיו‬B u r r o w s , 411, V e r m e s , 213, a n d A b e g g , 102, rend e r all t h r e e Hifil f o r m s n o n - c a u s a t i v e l y ; M a n s o o r , 153, c a u s a t i v e , n o n - c a u s a t i v e , n o n - c a u s a t i v e , a n d C h a r l e s w o r t h , 297, c a u s a t i v e , n o n -

c a u s a t i v e , c a u s a t i v e : A n d t h e y c a u s e d to s p r o u t ... B e f o r e t h e y shall c a u s e (it) to s p r o u t t h e y strike root. If o n e or m o r e of t h e Hif'il v e r b s h e r e h a s n o n - c a u s a t i v e m e a n i n g , Isa. 27.6 is certainly, f r o m the v i e w p o i n t of b o t h lexis a n d v e r b c o m p l e m e n t a t i o n ( n o t e a l s o Job 5.3), a m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t of c o m p a r i s o n than that c h o s e n b y H N , 150: ‫( ו ת ש ר ש שו־שיה‬Ps. 80.10). N o t e that in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a s i m i l a r v e r b Ì Q H 4.14,'‫שורש פ ו ר ה רוש ולענה‬, e m p l o y s Qal rather than Hifil at least in part b e c a u s e it c o n s t i t u t e s part of a d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n f r o m t h e Bible ( D e u t . 29.17). 2 0 . 1 — ‫ ט ר ף‬Q H 5 . 1 4 , ‫ פ ן י ט ר פ ו נפש)י( עני ו ר ש‬, is, a s the e r a s u r e i n d i c a t e s , clearly d e r i v e d m o r e f r o m Ps. 7.3 (as H N , 9 6 ) , ‫ פ ן ־ י ט ל ף כ א ר י ה נ פ ש י‬, than, a s M a n s o o r , 134, c l a i m s , f r o m Ps. 8 2 . 3 ( a l s o n o t e d b y Knibb, 172), ‫עני וו־ש‬. ‫ נפש עני ו ר ש‬a l s o o c c u r s at 1 Q H 2.34, s o at first s i g h t it a p p e a r s to b e a literary i n n o v a t i o n of 1 Q H b a s e d o n the m e l d i n g of both biblical p a s s a g e s . H o w e v e r , the p r e s e n c e of ‫ נ כ ר י ו ר ש‬at Sir. 10.22, parallel to ‫( נ ר וזר‬MS A) or ‫( נ ר ז ר‬MS Β), m i g h t s u g g e s t that a s a m o r e g e n e r a l literary, or e v e n p e r h a p s s p o k e n , i d i o m , ‫ ו ר ש‬w a s u s e d a t t r i b u t i v e l y or e m p h a t i c a l l y or as part of a h e n d i a d y s (cf. Gaster, 163: a h a p l e s s m a n ) . P e r h a p s t h e c o m m o n t a n n a i t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h ‫ ו ה ו ל ך‬a n d ‫ויו״רר‬ s h o u l d b e c o m p a r e d . T h i s s u g g e s t i o n g a i n s m o r e p l a u s i b i l i t y in t h e light of the e x i s t e n c e of the non-biblical c o n s t r u c t i o n ‫ נפש עני‬o n its o w n ( n o t f o l l o w e d b y ‫ ) ו ר ש‬at Sir. 4.1 a n d 1 Q H 5.13, i n d i c a t i n g that ‫ נפש עני ו ר ש‬m i g h t h a v e b e e n an i n t e n s i v e v e r s i o n . A b i b l i c a l l y - b a s e d variant of ‫נפש עני‬, n a m e l y ‫( נפש א ב י ו ן‬Jer. 20.13; a l s o Jer. 2.34; Ps. 72.13: ‫ [ נ פ ש ו ת א ב ו נ י ם‬u n l e s s ‫ נביאים‬is read at Jer. 2.34 for ‫ ) ] א ב י ו נ י ם‬, is f o u n d at 1 Q H 2.32 ( A H L 229: 5.18;3.25;([‫נפ[ש‬,b u t neither of t h e s e c o l l o c a t i o n s n o r ‫ ט ר ף נפש‬or similar are to be f o u n d in TL. S u m m a r y . Of t h e v a r i o u s n e w c o l l o c a t i o n s a n d s y n t a g m s p r e s e n t e d , s o m e of w h i c h h a v e l i m i t e d a n t e c e d e n t s in earlier H e b r e w ( ‫ז ל ע ו פ ו ת‬ ‫ ג ד ו ל ; א ח ז ו נ ו‬, · ‫ נשען ע ל‬p l u s abstract n o u n ; ‫ ב ט ר ם‬w i t h p e r f e c t ; ‫ ב ט ר ם‬w i t h infinitive), o n l y ‫זמם ע ל‬, ‫ ט י ה ר‬p l u s ‫ ב‬of i n s t r u m e n t (to a limited extent), a n d ‫ א ח ז‬in the s e n s e of ' o v e r c o m e ' are f o u n d in TL.

III: Linguistic 21-32)

(non-literary)

phraseological

innovations

in 1QH only

(Items

21. ‫ — ז א ת‬I f at 1 Q H 4.29, w e interpret ‫ מי ב ש ר כ ז א ת‬as " W h o h a t h d e clared the like?" ( H N , 78), the u s e of ‫ ב י ש ר‬, a v e r b that is f o u n d a g a i n at 1 Q H 18.14 ( t w i c e ) , w o u l d s e e m to be a logical e x t e n s i o n f r o m that of biblical ‫ א מ ר‬, ‫ ד י ב ר‬, a n d ‫ השמיע‬f o l l o w e d b y ‫ כ ז א ת‬. H o w e v e r m o s t translators interpret ‫ ב ש ר‬as ‫' ב ש ר‬flesh‫( ׳‬thus, A H L ,

6041), w h i c h is a n integral part of l Q H ' s lexis, o c c u r r i n g at least 2 0 t i m e s (7.17; 8.31,33; 9.16; 10.23; 13.16; 15.12,17,21; 17.25; 18.21,23; fr. 3.3; 5.10; 6.3; 7:2.10; 9.1,9; 1 9 . 2 , 3 ) — V e r m e s , 202: But w h a t is f l e s h (to b e w o r t h y ) of this?; G M E s , 373: Q u e e s la c a r n e c o m p a r a d a c o n esto?; A b e g g , 96: W h a t is mortal m a n in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h this?; W i l l i a m s , 291: W h a t is f l e s h in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h this [the task of a n n o u n c i n g G o d ' s glory]?; L o h s e , 127: W a s ist Fleisch i m V e r g l e i c h d a z u ? ; M a n soor, 128: W h o is he, (that is) f l e s h ( w h o can w o r k ) like this ...?; Licht, 95: A n d w h o else, a m o n g h u m a n b e i n g s , w h o are f l e s h a n d b l o o d , d e s e r v e s s u c h loyalty?; B u r r o w s , 407: W h o that is f l e s h c o u l d d o a u g h t like this ...?; Gaster, 160: Yet n e v e r c o u l d f l e s h a l o n e attain u n t o this. Licht c o m p a r e s 1 Q H 15.21, [ ‫ ־‬p r o ] ‫ — ו מ ה א ף ה ו א ב ש ר כ י י ש כ י ל‬V e r m e s , 231: But w h a t is f l e s h that it s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d [ t h e s e things]?; M a n s o o r , 184: W h a t is he, (that is) f l e s h that h e c a n d i s c e r n t h y secrets . . . ? ( M a n s o o r n o t e s the s i m i l a r i t y to 4.29); H N , 228: A n d y e t w h a t is f l e s h that it s h o u l d h a v e i n s i g h t into ....?; G M E s , 361: Q u e e s p u e s la carne para c o m p r e n d e r [tus maravillas?]; A b e g g , 89: A n d w h a t i n d e e d is a m e r e h u m a n that it m i g h t h a v e i n s i g h t into ...?; L o h s e , 167: U n d w a s ist e s d e n n a u c h , d a s Fleisch, d a ß e s v e r s t e h e n sollte [...]; Gaster, 200: H o w c a n f l e s h h a v e r e a s o n . . . ? N o t e a l s o 1 Q H fr. 7 . 1 0 = 4 Q H o d a [ 4 Q 4 2 7 ] 7:2.14: ‫ מ ה ב ש ר ל א ל ה‬, f r o m c o n t e x t p r e s u m a b l y ' w h a t is m e r e f l e s h c o m p a r e d w i t h these?' rather than ' w h a t d i d h e p r o c l a i m [ ‫] ב ש ר‬ to these?' or ' w h a t w a s p r o c l a i m e d [ ‫ ] ב ש ר‬b y / t o these?'. There is n o direct biblical or tannaitic parallel to either a n a l y s i s of ‫מי ב ש ר כ ז א ת‬. T h e verb ‫ ב י ש ר‬is n o w h e r e e l s e f o l l o w e d b y the p r e p o s i t i o n ‫ כ‬or p r e c e d e d b y ‫ מי‬or ‫ מ ה‬. O n the o t h e r h a n d , o u t s i d e of 1 Q H 4.29, 15.21; fr. 7.2:10 (‫ ) מ ה בשר‬, ‫' ב ש ר‬flesh' is o n l y p r e c e d e d b y ‫ מי‬or ‫ מ ה‬in the e r r o n e o u s text of S N m 92.4, ‫ ( ע ל א ח ת כ מ ה ו כ מ ה } מ ה [ ב ש ר ו ד ם‬o t h e r e d i t i o n s read s i m p l y ‫)ק״ו‬, a n d at S D t 76, w h e r e ‫ ב ש ר‬clearly h a s a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n to that f o u n d in 1QH: ‫ מ ה ב ש ר ב ח ל ב ש מ ו ת ר ל ב נ י נח א ס ו ר ליש׳‬. H o w e v e r , this d i f f e r e n c e in m e a n i n g — ' m e a t ' a s a g a i n s t 'frail h u m a n i t y ‫ — ׳‬g i v e s a c l u e to w h e r e a parallel to t h e ‫ ב ש ר‬i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m a y be f o u n d , n a m e l y , in s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s a s ‫( מ ה ־ א ך ם‬Ps. 144.3), ‫( מה־אנוש‬Ps. 8.5,- j o b 7.17; 15.14), a n d ‫( מי ג ב ר‬Ps. 89.49)7 ‫י‬ A t 1 Q H 4.29, the f o l l o w i n g ‫ ו מ ה י צ ר ח מ ר ל ה ג ד י ל פ ל א ו ת‬s e e m s to reinf o r c e t h e a n a l y s i s of ‫( ב ש ר‬in ‫ )מי ב ש ר כ ז א ת‬a s n o u n , b u t it is a l s o true that ‫ ה ג ד י ל‬w o u l d n i c e l y c o m p l e m e n t ‫( ב י ש ר‬as H N , 85). W i l l i a m s , 291, s u g g e s t s a c o m p r o m i s e : "There m a y b e a p l a y o n this m e a n i n g [seil, of ‫ ב ש ר‬a s verb]". 2 2 . 1 — ‫ ז ד ו ן‬Q H 7 . 1 2 , ‫ ( כ ו ל ג ר י‬A H L r e a d s ‫ גדי‬as an error for ‫גרי‬, a l t h o u g h H N , 132 r e p o r t s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e f o r m as ‫ ) ג י ד י‬, is t h e first r e c o r d e d e x a m p l e of ‫' גור‬attack' w i t h direct object (cf. 2.23:‫ ) ג ת ע ל נפשי‬,

w h i c h h a s p e r h a p s b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y an interpretation of ‫ מ י ־ ג ר א ת ך‬at Isa. 54.15 ( m e n t i o n e d b y Licht, 124, a n d H N , 132, w h o , h o w e v e r , m a k e n o grammatical observations), as i n c l u d i n g the object-marker, not p r e p o s i t i o n , a n d b y t h e a d v e r b i a l a c c u s a t i v e ‫ ע ו ר ו מ ל ח מ ה‬at Ps. 140.3. N o t e that l Q I s a 3 r e a d s ‫ מי יגר א ת ך‬at 54.15b, w h i c h Kutscher, 356, in the light of the p r e c e d i n g ‫ )ןגיר־—( יגור‬in 54.15a s u g g e s t s m i g h t r e p r e s e n t ‫יצר־‬ (VIT) ‫׳‬fear', w h i c h r e a d i l y takes a n object. 2 3 . ‫ — ז כ ר‬T h e u s e of the f o r m u l a ‫ ז כ ר א׳ ע ם ב׳‬, is u n i q u e to 1 Q H 4.34-36 (I h a v e n o t n o t i c e d a n y e x a m p l e in TL), w i t h the p r e p o s i t i o n s i g n i f y i n g little m o r e than ‫ ׳‬a n d ‫( ׳‬as n o t e d b y W i l l i a m s , 307): . . . ‫כ י ז כ ר ת י אשמותי ע ם מ ע ל א ב ו ת י‬ ‫ו מ ו כ ר י כ ו ח י ר כ ה ע ם המון ר ח מ י כ ה‬ ( t h u s , G a s t e r , 161: a n d ... a n d ; c o n t r a s t B u r r o w s , 407-408: t o g e t h e r w i t h ... t o g e t h e r w i t h ; V e r m e s , 202-203 a n d ... a n d ; G M E s , 373: c o n ... y; A b e g g , 97: t o g e t h e r w i t h ... a n d ; M a n s o o r , 130: t o g e t h e r w i t h ... w i t h ; L o h s e , 129: z u s a m m e n m i t ... mit; Η Ν , 78: t o g e t h e r w i t h ... tog e t h e r w i t h ) . H o w e v e r , the s e c o n d c o m b i n a t i o n m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t s e m a n t i c structure, ‫׳‬the s t r e n g t h of y o u r h a n d , which contains the a b u n d a n c e of y o u r mercies'.

2 4 . ‫ח ר ת‬ ‫זכרון—זכרון‬ at 1 Q H 1.24 is r e n d e r e d as f o l l o m e m o r i a l i n s c r i p t i o n ; Knibb, 160: t h e stela of r e m e m b r a n c e (Knibb, 164, c o m p a r e s ‫ ם פ ר ץ כ ר ו ן‬at Mai. 3.16); V e r m e s , 191: w r i t t e n R e m i n d e r ; B u r r o w s , 400: p e n of r e m e m b r a n c e ; G M , 327: s t y l u s of r e m e m b r a n c e ; L o h s e , 113: Griffel [i.e. s t y l u s ; p.114: ‫ ] ח ר ת‬d e s G e d ä c h t n i s s e s ; Η Ν , 1 8 / A b e g g , 9 1 / W i l l i a m s , 75: ink of r e m e m b r a n c e ; G a s t e r , 146: a r e c o r d i n g script. ‫ ח ר ת‬, w h i c h i n c l u d e s 'ink' a m o n g its m e a n i n g s , o c c u r s three t i m e s in TL. C o n v e r s e l y , the v e r b ‫' ח ר ת‬inscribe' is n o t f o u n d at all in TL. (It d o e s o c c u r , d e r i v a t i v e l y , d i s c u s s i n g E x o d . 32.16 [ s e e b e l o w ] , in t h e w o r d p l a y ‫ ' ח ח ת‬e n g r a v e d ' / ™ ^ ‫ ׳‬f r e e d o m ‫ ׳‬, at m. A v o t 6.2, part of a m e d i a e v a l a d d i t i o n [see PF, 68-69] a n d at b. Eruvin 54a.) H o w e v e r , Licht, 61, a n d M a n s o o r , 101, b o t h a r g u e that ‫ ח ר ת‬is e i ther a n o m i n a l i z e d p a s s i v e participle, ‫ ( ' ח ר ו ת‬s o m e t h i n g ) inscribed‫׳‬, or a n i n d e p e n d e n t n o u n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to ‫ךט‬1‫ ד‬at E x o d . 3 2 . 1 6 ( a n d Isa. 8.1), n o t in the s t a n d a r d l y - a c c e p t e d s e n s e of ' s t y l u s ' (but s e e E m e r t o n , 17-19) b u t m e a n i n g rather 'tablet‫ ( ׳‬E x o d . 32.4; Isa. 1.8; s e e H N , 25), a n d this is a p p a r e n t l y a c c e p t e d b y A H L , 8854, w h i c h lists as ‫ח ר ת‬ ( s e p a r a t e l y f r o m ‫ךת‬1‫' ד‬ink‫)׳‬. H o w e v e r , 1QM 12.3 u s e s the f o r m w i t h tet a n d p r e c e d e s this b y a f o r m of the v e r b ‫ ; ח ר ת ה ל מ ו ב ח ר ט חיים( ח ר ת‬v d P , 144, c l a i m s that the v e r b is f r o m ‫ ח ו ר‬/ ‫' ח ר ר‬pierce, perforate'), w h i c h s u g g e s t s that if ‫ ח ר ת‬is a n o u n it w a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m ‫ ח ר ט‬. N o t e a s w e l l that ‫ ח ר ט‬a l w a y s o c c u r s in the c o m b i n a t i o n ‫ב ח ר ט‬

' w i t h a s t y l u s ' (or ‫ ׳‬o n a tablet‫)׳‬, w h i c h , a g a i n , t e n d s to g o a g a i n s t i d e n t i f y i n g ‫ ח ר ת‬w i t h ‫ ח ר ט‬at 1 Q H 1.24. A t 4 Q D a [ 4 Q 2 6 6 ] 11.16, B a u m g a r t e n , 77, r e n d e r s ‫ כ ח ר ת‬... ‫ נ כ ת ב‬a s ‫ ׳‬i n s c r i b e d ... p e r m a n e n t l y ‫ ׳‬, i.e. ‫ ( כ ח ך ת‬G M , 57, o m i t s ) , w h i c h w o u l d s e e m to r e p r e s e n t the s a m e o r t h o g r a p h y f o u n d at 1 Q H 1.24, a l t h o u g h B a u m g a r t e n , 78, a l s o s u g g e s t s r e a d i n g ‫ ״ ב ח ר ת‬w i t h a g r a v i n g tool" (as C o o k , 74), t h u s i d e n t i f y i n g ‫ ח ר ת‬w i t h ‫ ח ר ט‬, a l t h o u g h h e p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e for s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e y o n d a r e f e r e n c e to t h e 1 Q H p a s s a g e . W A , IV, 141, list this u s a g e u n d e r the v e r b ‫ ח ר ת‬, w h i c h o c c u r s in b o t h a c t i v e a n d p a s s i v e v o i c e s at least t w e l v e t i m e s in D S S ( a n d o n c e in Ben Sira), as a g a i n s t just o n c e in the Bible. T h e g r e a t i n c r e a s e in the u s e of this v e r b at Q u m r a n m a k e s its a b s e n c e f r o m TL the m o r e r e m a r k a b l e (cf. Item 19, o n .(‫טרם‬

25. ‫ — ז מ ם‬A t 1 Q H 4.26 a n d 9.20, b o t h of w h i c h read ‫ כ ז ו מ ם ל‬, L o h s e ' s p o i n t i n g (pp. 126, 146), ‫ כ ז י מ ם‬, a p p a r e n t l y a c c e p t e d b y M u r a o k a , 116, a n d a d m i t t e d as a p o s s i b i l i t y b y A H L , 795, is v e r y o d d ( s e e JM, §174d: "But it is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r 3 e v e r b e c o m e s a c o n j u n c t i o n in the strict s e n s e of t h e w o r d ; it is n o t f o u n d b e f o r e a v e r b form"); i n d e e d , o n e m i g h t s a y , m e d i a e v a l ( s e e S à e n z - B a d i l l o s , 212, 215, 223, 226, 229, 232, 236, 237). N o t e h o w e v e r , s u c h f o r m s a s that f o u n d at Est. 1.9, ‫יין‬ ‫כטוב לב־המלך‬ ? , w h i c h w e r e p e r h a p s liable to i fects rather than i n f i n i t i v e s : 'xuhen the heart of t h e k i n g was good b e c a u s e of w i n e ‫ ) ] ׳‬. E q u a l l y s t r a n g e is M a n s o o r ' s r e n d e r i n g at 4 . 2 6 (p. 127), " W h e n (the p l o t ) is d e v i s e d a g a i n s t t h e m " , a p p a r e n t l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g as Po'al 3 m s pf., ‫ כ ז ו מ ם‬. ( N o t e that L o h s e , a s B u r r o w s [ s e e bel o w ] , interprets the ‫ כ‬as c o m p a r a t i v e rather t h a n t e m p o r a l ; 127: w i e sie e s g e g e n sie g e p l a n t h a b e n ; 147: U n d g e m ä ß i h r e m P l a n e n w i d e r m i c h . ) Licht's e x p l a n a t i o n of 9 . 2 0 (p. 146), ‫ כ א ש ר ה ם ז ו מ מ י ם ל י‬, h a r d l y clarifies t h e s y n t a x . It s u r e l y m a k e s m o r e s e n s e to f o l l o w W i l l i a m s , 281, in i n t e r p r e t i n g as inf. cstr. w i t h s u f f i x , ‫ כ ז ו מ ם‬, a n o p t i o n a d m i t t e d b y A H L , 7997, a n d a p p a r e n t l y a c c e p t e d b y B u r r o w s , 4 0 7 ( a c c o r d i n g to their p l o t t i n g a g a i n s t t h e m ) , e v e n t h o u g h the participle is v e r y c o m m o n in TL. If ‫ כ ז ו מ ם‬is the correct p o i n t i n g , it w o u l d h a v e to be c o m p a r e d w i t h a TL form' like ‫ ( כו־אוי‬w i t h o u t D , ‫ ר א ו‬at 4 Q M M T Β 12 a n d ‫ ר א ו א י‬at Β 17,26), a n d p e r h a p s ‫ ) כ ח ר ת ?( כ ח ר ת‬at 4 Q D 4 ] ‫ י‬Q 2 6 6 ] 11.16, d i s c u s s e d earlier. It is n o t c o m p a r a b l e w i t h , for e x a m p l e , t h e u n e x c e p t i o n a l [ ‫ ־‬p n ‫ והיו כ מ ג ש ש י ם‬at 4 Q 3 0 6 1.12, in w h i c h ‫ כ‬f u n c t i o n s a s p r e p o s i t i o n b e f o r e participle u s e d a s n o u n (similar e x a m p l e s at 4 Q 4 1 8 103:2.7,8; 4 Q 4 2 4 3.4). 2 6 . 1 — ‫ ז מ ר‬Q H 1 1 . 5 , ‫ ו א ז מ ר ה ב ח ס ר י כ ה ו ב ג ב ו ר ת כ ה א ש ו ח ח ה‬, c o m b i n e s a para l l e l i s m of ‫ ז מ ר‬a n d ‫ שיח‬f o u n d at Ps. 105.2 II 1 C h r o n . 16.9 ( a n d q u o t e d

at G n z P s 3.23) w i t h , a s n o t e d by M u r a o k a , 116, a p r e v i o u s l y u n a t tested u s e of ‫ זימר ב‬m e a n i n g n o t 'praise w i t h ( m u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t ) ' , a u s a g e f o u n d at 1 Q H 11.23 (and the biblical P s a l m s ) , or, as at 1 Q S 10.9, ' s i n g w i t h (skill)' ( ‫ ) א ז מ ר ה ב ד ע ת‬, b u t i n t r o d u c i n g an object of p r a i s e ( M u r a o k a , 116: ‫ ב‬rei; M a n s o o r , 167: s o that I m a y s i n g the p r a i s e s of T h y l o v i n g k i n d n e s s ; V e r m e s , 222:1 will s i n g T h y mercies; H N , 184: s o that I c a n p r a i s e T h y m e r c y ; G M E s , 389: C a n t a r é tu ternura; A b e g g , 1 0 7 , 1 shall praise Y o u r m e r c y ; W i l l i a m s , 560: A n d I praise y o u r faithful d e e d s ; L o h s e , 153: u n d ich w i l l d e i n e B a r m h e r z i g k e i t b e s i n g e n ; Kittel, 1 1 1 / B u r r o w s , 413: A n d I w i l l / t h a t I m a y s i n g of y o u r s t e a d f a s t l o v e [similarly, Gaster, 186]), u n l e s s the ‫ ב‬h e r e is of c a u s e , ' g i v e p r a i s e o n a c c o u n t of'. Kittel, 167, c i t i n g this e x a m p l e , c l a i m s that in 1 Q H "‫ ב‬is u s e d to d e s i g n a t e t h e a c c u s a t i v e of v e r b s m o r e o f t e n t h a n in the OT." (162: " ‫ א ת‬... [is] u s e d q u i t e s p a r i n g l y . ‫ ) ״‬S h e d r a w s a t t e n t i o n to t h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n in tannaitic literature (see S e g a l , Grammar, §360; PF, 163, m e n t i o n s this u s a g e of ‫ ב‬o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ‫ ) ז כ ה ב‬. In a m u c h m o r e d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n , M u r a o k a , 94-96, e x a m i n e s the u s e of ‫ ב‬w i t h the object of v e r b s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n (at p. 116, h e s u g g e s t s that ‫ז מ ר‬ m i g h t be i n c l u d e d a m o n g t h e m ) , a n d p o i n t s o u t that in the Bible this u s a g e is characteristic of 'LBH‫( ׳‬JM, §125m, briefly p r e s e n t "‫ ב‬of transitivity", but n o particular d i a c h r o n i c f e a t u r e s t a n d s o u t or is n o t e d ; similarly, GK, §119k-m, w h i c h i n c l u d e s partitive u s a g e s ) . T u r n i n g our attention to ‫ זימר ב ח ס ד‬in particular, DCH, III, 279, registers t w e n t y i n s t a n c e s of ‫ ח ס ד‬a s the direct object ( w i t h o u t p r e p o s i tion) of ten 'verbs of c o m m u n i c a t i o n ' (Jenni) in the Bible, B e n Sira, a n d D S S (Sir. 51.8; 1QS 1:22; 9:26 l l Q P s a 19.1,3; 22.5). A n d w h e t h e r the ‫ ב‬is transitive, c a u s a l , or partitive ('praise s o m e of y o u r d e e d s of loyalty'), it is not f o u n d b e f o r e ‫ ח ס ד‬w i t h a n y o t h e r v e r b in s u c h a u s a g e . T h e verb ‫' ז מ ר‬praise' is not f o u n d in TL ( s e e Jastrow, 405a, for ‫ ז י מ ר‬in AL). 27. ‫ — ז פ ת‬A t 1 Q H 3 . 3 1 = 4 Q H o d b [ 4 Q 4 2 8 ] 3.7 ( W A , II, 2 6 2 ) , ‫נ ח ל י ז פ ת‬ m i g h t s i m p l y represent a literary a l l u s i o n to Isa. 34.9, ‫ ת ה פ כ ו נ ח ל י ה ל ז פ ת‬. A s Kittel's d i a g r a m (p. 72) s h o w s , ‫ נ ח ל י ז פ ת‬is ' e n v e l o p e d ' b e t w e e n t w o i n s t a n c e s of ‫ נ ח ל י ב ל י ע ל‬. H o w e v e r , that ‫ נ ח ל י ז פ ת‬w a s p e r h a p s a n e s t a b l i s h e d f i g u r e is i n d i c a t e d b y its p r e s e n c e in 4 Q p s H o d c 3 . 1 0 ( W A , III, 370), a l t h o u g h n e i t h e r it nor a n y s i m i l a r s e q u e n c e is f o u n d in TL, w h e r e , h o w e v e r , ‫ ז פ ת‬a n d ‫ נ ח ל‬are, i n d i v i d u a l l y , c o m m o n . 28. ‫ — ט ו ב‬A t 1 Q H 14.12, ‫ בין ט ו ב ל ר ש ע‬w o u l d n o t be r e m a r k a b l e u n l e s s it r e p r e s e n t e d the s o l e i n s t a n c e of ‫( ו~שע‬or ‫ )ו~שע‬rather than ‫ ' ( ך ע‬w i c k e d n e s s ' or ' w i c k e d p e r s o n ' ) in this o t h e r w i s e c o m m o n c o l l o c a t i o n . Licht, 189, s u g g e s t s that there is a n a l l u s i o n h e r e to ‫ בין צ ד י ק ל ו ־ ש ע‬at M a l . 3.18, w i t h the a u t h o r r e f r a i n i n g f r o m c a l l i n g h i m s e l f ‫ צ ד י ק‬. H o w e v e r ,

Licht fails to report that the e x a c t p h r a s e in M a l a c h i is u s e d at 1 Q H 7.12 ( w h e r e M a n s o o r , 150, a n d H N , 132, n o t e the biblical p a s s a g e b u t L i c h t d o e s n o t ) in e v i d e n t s e l f - r e f e r e n c e , .[‫ל[ ה ב ד י ל בי בין צ ד י ק לרשע‬ ‫( בין צ ד י ק ל ר ש ע‬Mal. 3.18) is a l s o q u o t e d at C D 20.20 a n d 4 Q C o m m M a l [4Q253a] 1:1.4. A n d as ‫ בין ט ו ב ל ר ע‬is e v e n m o r e c o m m o n than ‫בין צ ד י ק‬ ‫ ל ר ש ע‬in b o t h Bible a n d DSS, p e r h a p s w e s h o u l d s e e at 1 Q H 14.2 either a n u n c o n s c i o u s m e l d i n g of t h e s e t w o c o l l o c a t i o n s or a c o n s c i o u s , literary, m a n i p u l a t i o n for stylistic reasons, s e e i n g that ‫ ר ש ע‬o c c u r s a further three t i m e s in this hodayah ( s e e P u e c h , 53-54), o n c e b e f o r e (14.9) a n d t w i c e f o l l o w i n g ( 1 4 . 1 4 , 1 6 ) — o n l y at 14.18 d o e s ‫ ר ע‬p u t in a n o t h e r a p pearance. I h a v e n o t n o t i c e d ‫ ר ש ע ה‬/ ‫ ר ש ע‬/ ‫בין ט ו ב ל ר ש ע‬, or a n y similar c o l l o c a tion, a n y w h e r e in TL, but ‫ ל ה ב י ן בין ט ו ב ל ר ע‬is f o u n d at Sifra 92.3 ( A h a r e M o t 8.3) a n d M e k h . P i s h a 16.56 a n d ( ‫ ט ו ב ) ה‬a n d ( ‫ ר ע ) ה‬are c o l l o c a t e d at tos. S o t a h 14.8; M e k h . B a h o d e s h 11.110; Sifra 23.3 ( H o v a h 9.1); S D t 32; SZ 30.14 (328). N o t e the n e w tannaitic c o l l o c a t i o n at m. Z a v i m 2.2 a n d m . B a v a M e s i a ‫ ׳‬1.19, ‫בין ר ע ב י ן י פ ה‬, a n d at t o s . K i p p u r i m 4 . 4 , ‫ ;בין י פ ה ל ר ע‬o t h e r c o l l o c a t i o n s of ‫ ר ע‬a n d ‫ י פ ה‬are f o u n d at m . T e r u m o t 2.7; tos. T e r u m o t 3.1; 7.9; tos. A v o d a h Zarah 2.3; Sifra 98.1 ( E m o r 6.1); SZ 18.29 (299). 29. ‫ — ט ו ב‬T h e three m a i n e l e m e n t s in ‫ ( ו ל ט ו ב כ ה י צ פ ו‬V e r m e s , 226: a n d w a t c h for T h y g o o d n e s s ; s i m i l a r l y , A b e g g , 21; G M E s , 392: y e s t a r á n alerta a tu b o n d a d ) at 1 Q H 12.21 are a l s o f o u n d at Sir. 11.12: ‫עין י׳ צ פ ת ה ו ל ט ו ב‬ "Yet the e y e of the Lord l o o k s k i n d l y o n h i m " ( S k e h a n a n d D i Leila, 235), a l t h o u g h the e x p r e s s i o n in 1 Q H m i g h t be b a s e d o n ‫ כ י ־ ח ל ה ל ט ו ב‬at Mic. 1.12 (or e m . ‫ )מי י ח ל ה‬or, m o r e l o o s e l y , o n Job 30.26, ‫ ואיחלה ל א ו ר‬...‫בי טוב קויתי‬. M o r e g e n e r a l l y , c o m p a r e , as M u r a o k a , 1 3 6 , 1 Q S 9 . 2 5 : " . ‫י צ פ ה‬ 30. ‫ — ט ו ח‬H o w e v e r ‫ ו ל א ט ח ת ה ב ב ו ש ת פני‬at 1 Q H 4 . 2 3 is i n t e r p r e t e d ( s e e Item 11), the u s e of ‫ ט ו ח‬w i t h ‫ ב‬of i n s t r u m e n t / m a t e r i a l , is u n p a r a l l e l e d in t h e Bible, w h e r e , i n s t e a d , ‫ ט ו ח‬t a k e s t w o objects (Ezek. 13.10,14,15); p r e s u m a b l y , the 1 Q H c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y ‫ כ י ס ה ב‬. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n is, h o w e v e r , v e r y w e l l - a t t e s t e d in TL, t y p i c a l l y f o l l o w e d b y ‫' ט י ט‬clay‫׳‬, e.g. tos. S h e v i ' i t : ‫' ת א י נ ה ש נ ת ק ל פ ה אין טחין א ו ת ה ב ט י ט‬a f i g that h a s n o t b e e n p e e l e d off m a y n o t b e c o v e r e d in clay‫׳‬. T h e u s e of ‫ ט ו ח‬w i t h the t w o c o m p l e m e n t s it h a s at 1 Q H 4.23 a p p e a r s to r e p r e s e n t a n o v e l figure, a l t h o u g h V e r m e s , 201, G M , 335, a n d A b e g g , 96, i m p l y a d e a d , or lexicalized, m e t a p h o r , 'cover(ed)', w h i c h m i g h t b e m o r e a p propriate in v i e w of the p o s s i b l e syntactic i n f l u e n c e f r o m ‫ כ י ס ה‬that w e have noted.

‫אל‬

3 1 . ‫ — ט מ א‬A t 1 Q H 6 . 2 0 - 2 1 , ‫ ו ע ר ל ו ט מ א ו פ ר י ץ ב ל י ע ו ב ר נ ה‬, there is n o t s i m ply, a s M a n s o o r , 146, n o t e s , an o b v i o u s a l l u s i o n to Isa. 3 5 . 8 , ‫ל ^ ־ ל ע ב ת ו‬ ‫ ט מ א‬, but o n e that a l s o c o m b i n e s a r e f e r e n c e to ‫ י ע ל נ ה‬. ‫א ר י ה ו פ ר י ץ חיות ב ל ־‬ at Isa. 35.9 (as n o t e d b y W a l l e n s t e i n , 260) a n d to ‫כיי ל ^ ־ י ו ס י ף ;ב&־בןי ע ו ר‬ ‫ ע ר ל ו ט מ א‬at Isa 52.1, a s n o t e d b y H N , 117, Gaster, 245, a n d b y Licht, 115, w h o s e e s an a d d i t i o n a l a l l u s i o n to N a h . 2.1b (Qr): ‫ ע ל כליה נ כ ר ת‬: ‫ כ י ל ^ י ו ס י ף ע ו ר ל ע ב ר ־ ב ך ב ל‬. H N , 117, e x p l a i n s l Q H ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of ‫ פ ר י ץ‬to h u m a n s b y refere n c e to D a n . 11.14, ‫בני פ ך י צ י ע מ ך‬, b u t ‫ פ ר י ץ‬is better a t t e s t e d in this s e n s e (Jer. 7.11; Ezk 7.22; 18.10; Ps. 17.4) than it is in r e f e r e n c e to a n i m a i s ( I s a . 3 5 . 9 ) . In v i e w o f t h e a d j e c t i v e s t h a t precede ( ' u n c i r c u m c i s e d ' , 'impure'), ‫ פ ר י ץ‬in 1 Q H 6.20 m i g h t refer n o t s o m u c h to o n e w h o is 'violent‫ ׳‬but rather to o n e w h o is ' u n b r i d l e d , l i c e n t i o u s , i m p u d e n t ' (Jastrow, 1227b), ( D a l m a n , 348: ' z ü g e l l o s , entartet'; a l s o ' g e w a l t t ä t i g ‫ ) ׳‬. T h e matter is not clarified b y TL, w h e r e ‫ פ ר י ץ‬o c c u r s o n l y in ‫ ( פ ר י צ י זיתים ו ע נ ב י ם‬m . / t o s . U q s i n 3.6; tos. T a h a r o t 11.5), w h i c h Jastrow, 397a, i n d e e d r e n d e r s "the p r o u d a m o n g the o l i v e s [and g r a p e s ] " but D a n b y , 788, as " O l i v e s a n d g r a p e s that h a v e t u r n e d hard", a g l o s s that Jastrow, 1227b, a c c e p t s at N u m b e r s R a b b a h 19.32; D a l m a n , 348, i n d i c a t e s that ‫ פ ר י ץ‬in M i s h n a h a n d T o s e f t a s h o u l d b e r e n d e r e d 'entartet‫׳‬. In A L ‫ פ ר י ץ‬is clearly a t t e s t e d , as a near s y n o n y m of, s a y , ‫ ז ך י ם‬, a l o n g w i t h ‫ ' פ ר י צ ו ת א‬l i c e n t i o u s n e s s ' ( s e e Jastrow, 1227b). 3 2 . 1 — ‫ ט מ ן‬Q H fr. 3 . 8 , ‫ ו פ ח ל פ ח יטמונו צמי ר ש ע ה‬, c o m b i n e s the c o m m o n c o l l o c a t i o n ‫( טמן פ ח‬Jer. 18.22; Ps. 140.6; 142.4; 1 Q H 2.29) w i t h the w o r d pair ‫ פ ח‬1 1 ‫ צ מ י ם‬at Job 18.9 ( ‫ צ מ י ם‬o n l y o c c u r s e l s e w h e r e at Job 5.6). (There m i g h t a l s o be a d e l i b e r a t e or u n c o n s c i o u s p l a y o n the c o l l o c a tion ‫ פ ה ל פ ה‬at 2 K g s 10.21; 21.16, o n both o c c a s i o n s e m p l o y e d in t h e c o n t e x t of m a s s m u r d e r , a n d , in the first p a s s a g e , in t h e c o n t e x t of a trap.) Licht, 225, c l a i m s that ‫ צמי ר ש ע ה‬refers to h u m a n a g e n t s in c o n trast to the i m p e r s o n a l reference in Job, but G M E s , 3 9 3 (redes), A b e g g , 110; V e r m e s 5 , 294; H N , 263 (all three: snares), a n d Gaster, 212 (traps), d o n o t c o n c u r . The w o r d is n o t f o u n d in TL. S u m m a r y . (21) A t 1 Q H 4.29, neither ‫ ב ש ר כ ז א ת‬, ‫ מ‬nor ‫ ב ש ר כ ז א ת‬, ‫ מ‬h a s a clear parallel in TL, a l t h o u g h both interpretations c a n d r a w o n biblical f o r m s of e x p r e s s i o n . (22) At 1 Q H 7.12, ‫ נ ו ר‬+ a c c u s a t i v e , a l t h o u g h it m i g h t h a v e biblical a n t e c e d e n t s , h a s n o TL parallel. (23) A t 1 Q H 4.3436, the f o r m u l a ‫ ז כ ר א׳ ע ם ב׳‬a p p e a r s to be u n i q u e . (24) A t 1 Q H 1.24, ‫ ח ר ת‬either r e p r e s e n t s a f o r m p r e v i o u s l y first f o u n d in TL ( w i t h taw for tet) or a n e w p a s s i v e participle as n o u n . (25) A t 1 Q H 4.26 a n d 9.20, the p o s s i b l e u s e of ‫ כ‬b e f o r e a participle w i t h verbal f o r c e (‫ )כזוימם‬w o u l d o n l y h a v e l i m i t e d parallels w i t h certain p a s s i v e participial c o n s t r u c tions in D S S ( ‫ כ ח ר ת‬at 4 Q D a [4Q266] 11.16) a n d TL ( 2 6 ).(‫)כראוי‬A t 1 Q H

11.5, ‫ ז י מ ר‬w i t h ‫ ב‬a c c u s a t i v e is u n i q u e , a l t h o u g h ‫ ב‬a c c u s a t i v e is c o m m o n in TL ( w i t h a n t e c e d e n t s , of c o u r s e , in the Bible). (27-28) S e e b e l o w . (29) A t 1 Q H 1 2 . 2 1 , ‫ ו ל ט ו ב כ ה י צ פ ו‬h a s l i m i t e d structural a n d lexical a n t e c e d e n t s in the Bible a n d Ben Sira. (30) A t 1 Q H 4.23, ‫ טרח‬w i t h ‫ ב‬of i n s t r u m e n t / m a t e r i a l is w e l l - a t t e s t e d in TL, h a v i n g a p p a r e n t l y a s s i m i l a t e d to t h e s y n t a x a n d s e m a n t i c s of ‫ כ י ס ה‬in the Bible. (31) A t 1 Q H 6.20, ‫ פ ר י ץ‬m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a t r a n s i t i o n to t h e m e a n i n g ' l i c e n t i o u s ‫׳‬ clearly attested in A L (but n o t TL). (32) A t 1 Q H fr. 3.8, the u s e of ‫צ מ י ם‬ is d e r i v e d f r o m the Bible, but the w o r d is n o t f o u n d in TL. In (27), the o c c u r r e n c e of ‫ נ ח ל י ז פ ת‬o n l y o n c e o u t s i d e 1 Q H 3.31 (and t h e n in a similar context), its a p p a r e n t d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a biblical text, a n d its a b s e n c e f r o m TL, e v e n t h o u g h ‫ ז פ ת‬a n d ‫ נ ח ל‬are c o m m o n t h e r e , s u g g e s t s that t h i s s t r u c t u r e m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a c o n s c i o u s , literary, m a n i p u l a t i o n of the biblical text. Similar c o m m e n t s a p p l y to (28), a l t h o u g h h e r e1)‫ ב י ן ט ו ב ל ר ט ע‬Q H 14.12) m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a n u n c o n s c i o u s m e r g e r of t w o similar c o l l o c a t i o n s f o u n d in the Bible a n d DSS. C o m p a r e w i t h the f o l l o w i n g section.

IV: Literary manipulation

of biblical language in Ί QH (Items

33-40)

3 3 . ‫ — ז ה ב‬T h e simile of 1 Q H 5.16, ‫ ו ת ב י א ה ו ב מ צ ר ! ף כ ז [ ה ב ב מ ע ש י אש‬, is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h that of Mai. 3 . 3 a n d Job 23.10, e s p e c i a l l y t h e f o r m e r , ‫ ו ז ק ק א ת ם כ ז ה ב ו כ כ ס ף‬, as n o t e d b y H N , 96, g i v e n that the 1 Q H p a s s a g e continues with a second simile e m p l o y i n g ‫ כ ס ף‬: ‫ ו כ כ ס ף מזוקק ב כ ו ר‬. Licht, 102, a n d M a n s o o r , 134, fail to n o t e this, a l t h o u g h t h e y d o refer, r e s p e c t i v e l y , to Prov. 17.3 a n d 27.21, b o t h of w h i c h read ‫מצרף ל כ ס ף וכור לזהב‬, w h i c h m a y w e l l be o n e of t h e s o u r c e s of l Q H ' s text h e r e ( b u t W i l l i a m s , 341, d o e s n o t m e n t i o n Job 23.10). 3 4 . 1 — ‫ ז ר ה‬Q H 4.18-19, ‫אתה א ל תענה ל ה ם לשופטם בגבורתכה ]כ[גלוליהם‬ ‫ו כ ר ו ב פ ש ע י ה ם ל מ ע ן יתפשו ב מ ח ש ב ו ת ם‬ ‫ א ש ר נזורו מ ב ר י ת כ ה‬, is, as Η Ν , 83, s a y s , a clear r e w o r k i n g of Ezek. 14.4b-5 (not just 14.5, as c l a i m e d b y Licht, 94, H N , 83, a n d M a n s o o r , 126) a n d the u s e of t h e rare Nifal of ‫( זור‬also f o u n d at Isa. 1.4) is to be e x p l a i n e d in that light. A H L , 7939, a n d Rabin, 34, find the s a m e f o r m at C D 8.8 (MS A ) = 19.20 (MS B ) , ‫ ו ל א נזרו מ ע ם‬, a l t h o u g h ‫ נזרו‬m i g h t e x e m p l i f y i n s t e a d ‫' נזר‬set o n e self apart‫׳‬, c o m m o n in TL as a Qal, or, as Lohse, 8 2 , 1 0 2 , as Nifal (‫)נזרו‬, f o u n d in TL a n d in D S S in the f o l l o w i n g three g r o u p s of texts: (1) ‫להנזרמן‬ (4QRitPur [4Q512] 69.2);

(2)

[ ‫ועזרי מ י ח ך‬ ( 4 Q 1 8 3 1:2.5),

!‫ל ה נ ז ר מ ד ת כ י רשעה‬ ( 4 Q D a [4Q266] 1.1 [ B a u m g a r t e n , 31]); (3) ‫ל ה ב ד ל מ ב נ י ה ש ח ה ו ל ה נ ז ר מהון ה ט מ א ה ר ש ע ה ה ט מ א‬ ( C D 6.14-15), ‫ו א ח ה ה ב ד ל מ כ ו ל א ש ר שנא והנזר מ כ ו ל ת ע ב ו ת נפש‬ ( 4 Q 4 1 8 81.2 [ W A , II, 101]). 3 5 . ‫ — ! ל ע פ ה‬A n i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t of literary creativity in the Hodayot is g l i m p s e d in the u s e of a s e c o n d subject of ‫אחז‬, a d d i t i o n a l to that f o u n d in the biblical source, b o t h at 1 Q H 5.30, ‫ ז ל ע ו פ ו ת ]אחזתי[ ו ח ב ל י ם כ צ י ר י י ו ל ד ה‬, for Ps. 1 1 9 . 5 3 , ‫ ז ל ע פ ה א ח ז ת נ י‬, a n d at 1 Q H 4 . 3 3 , ‫ואני ר ע ד ו ר ת ת א ח ז ו נ י‬, for Exod. 1 5 . 1 5 , ‫י^חזמו ר ע ד‬.'‫י‬ In a related v e i n , Licht, 10 (§11) n o t e s that at 1 Q H 10.33, t h e a u thor a s s o c i a t e s ‫ ' ח ל ח ל ה‬a n g u i s h ‫ ׳‬w i t h the heart rather t h a n w i t h t h e loins, a g a i n s t the biblical p r e c e d e n t s , a n d the loins w i t h ‫ ' ך ע ך ה‬t u r m o i l ‫׳‬ d e s p i t e t h e lack of biblical p r e c e d e n t . A p a r t f r o m ‫ ז ל ע ו פ ו ת אחזוני‬, n o n e of t h e c o l l o c a t i o n s of n o u n s or of n o u n s a n d v e r b s cited f r o m 1 Q H that h a v e m e n t i o n e d are f o u n d e l s e w h e r e in D S S or TL. 36. ‫ — ז ר‬I n h i s n o t e to 5QRèg1e 26.3, ‫ ז ר י ם ב א ו‬, S c h i f f m a n , ‫ ׳‬R u l e 1 4 3 ,‫׳‬, c o m p a r e s Jer. 51.51,‫ כ י ב א ו ז ר י ם ע ל ־ מ ק ד ש י ב י ת י׳‬, a n d there m a y be a n all u s i o n to the s a m e p a s s a g e in 1 Q H 6 . 2 7 , ‫ כ י ל א י ב ו א ז ר‬, a l t h o u g h neither Licht, 117, nor M a n s o o r , 146, r e c o g n i z e s it. 37. ‫ — | ר ע‬A t 1 Q H 17.14, if w e a c c e p t w i t h Gaster, V e r m e s , G M , a n d A b e g g , the r e a d i n g of A H L , 243, Licht, 208, a n d H N , 245, ‫]ל[?ה?יות ז ר ע ם ל פ נ י ך כ ו ל הימים‬, t h e biblical s o u r c e for t h e r e s u l t i n g e x p r e s s i o n a p p e a r s to b e Jer. 3 1 . 3 6 b , ‫גם ז ר ע י ש ך א ל ישבתו מ ה י ו ת גוי ל פ נ י ב ל ־ ח מ י ם‬, p e r h a p s w i t h s o m e inf l u e n c e f r o m Ps. 162.29b (as H N , 245; Gaster, 253),‫ ת ר ע ם ל פ נ י ך יפרן‬, a n d Job 2 1 . 8 a , ‫ ז ך ע ם נכון ל פ נ י ה ם ע מ ם‬. M a n s o o r ' s r e a d i n g ( p . 1 8 8 : ' ‫) ] ל ח ך ו ת‬ w o u l d f u r n i s h n o biblical parallel to the p h r a s e a s a w h o l e , d e s p i t e h i s reference to G e n . 7.3 a n d 19.32. 38. 1—‫טבע‬QH 7.2, ‫ ו ת ט ב ע ב ב ץ ר ג ל י‬, e v i d e n c e s a r e g u l a r i z i n g of t h e Hofal,‫הטבעו‬, in the biblical s o u r c e , Jer. 38.22, to the Qal (as at Jer 38.6, w h e r e , h o w e v e r , LXX r e a d s ‫ היה‬for ‫ ) ט ב ע‬. In the Bible, the Hofal is a l s o attested at Job 38.6 a n d P r o v . 8.25, but in both p l a c e s ‫ ה ו ט ב ע‬m e a n s 'be e s t a b l i s h e d , be set' rather t h a n 'be s u n k ' , for w h i c h t h e Qal u s u a l l y s u f f i c e s . T h e Qal is a l s o a t t e s t e d in D S S at 4 Q B a r k d [ 4 Q 4 3 7 ] 2:1.10 ( W A , III, 318) a n d the Pi'el, for the first time, in G n z P s 1.24; b o t h t h e s e

f o r m s are w e l l - a t t e s t e d in TL but n o o t h e r binyan occurs. 39. ‫( ך ך ך ל ^ ־ ט ו ב — ט ו ב‬Isa. 65.2; Ps. 36.5; P r o v . 16.29) is a l s o f o u n d at 1 Q H 15.18, w h i c h , in v i e w of the i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g ‫ ו י מ א ס ו‬is perh a p s d e r i v e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f r o m Ps. 36.5, w h e r e ‫ מ א ם‬a l s o f o l l o w s , rather than, a s M a n s o o r , 184, a n d H N , 231, Isa. 65.2 (in v i e w of the p r e c e d i n g ‫ ה ל ך‬, w h i c h , in fact, is a l s o f o u n d at P r o v . 16.29). ‫ ט ו ב‬c o u l d of c o u r s e r e p r e s e n t either n o u n or a d j e c t i v e here; c o m p a r e "a path of n o g o o d " (JPS at Ps. 36.5); "the w a y that is n o t g o o d " (JPS at Isa. 65.2). 40. ‫ — ז ו ־ ם‬A t 1 Q H 2.27, it is uncertain w h e t h e r the r e a d i n g is (1) ‫נ פ ץ ז ר ם‬ (as Licht, 71, a n d , a p p a r e n t l y , M a n s o o r , 109, a n d V e r m e s , 195), w h i c h w o u l d b e a n o b v i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t of •‫ ' נפץ הר״‬c l o u d b u r s t a n d d o w n p o u r ' at Isa. 30.30, a l t h o u g h as it d o e s n o t o c c u r e l s e w h e r e w e c o u l d n o t regard it as a set e x p r e s s i o n ; or (2) ‫( נ פ ץ ח ר ם‬as Kittel, 34, w h o d e f e n d s the r e a d i n g , a n d , a p p a r e n t l y , A b e g g , 93, a n d H N , 42; A H L , 229: ‫ < ז ר ם‬. . . > ‫)נפץ‬, w h i c h w o u l d r e p r e s e n t a s i m p l e q u o t a t i o n of the biblical text. ( G M , 330: h u r r i c a n e s t o r m ; B u r r o w s , 402, t e m p e s t u o u s c l o u d burst; Gaster, 150: f l o o d b u r s t ; Knibb, 168: v i o l e n t s t o r m d o n o t clearly reflect o n e particular r e a d i n g o v e r another.) N o t e that the d e s t r u c t i v e , w e a p o n - l i k e , nature of the • ‫ ז ר‬in Isa. 3 0 . 3 0 (also Isa. 28.2; H a b . 3.10), is m a d e e x p l i c i t in t h e 1 Q H p a s s a g e , ‫ ( נ פ ץ ) ו ( ז ר ם ל ה ש ח י ת ר ב י ם‬s e e Kittel, 43, for t h e m o r e g e n e r a l w a r l i k e c o n t e x t h e r e ) a n d a l s o at 4 Q p I s a c [4Q163] 25.3: ‫( ] נ פ ץ חזו־ם כ ל י מ ל ח מ ה ה מ ה‬as Kister, 'Biblical P h r a s e s ' , 28, p o i n t s o u t , the w o r d s in b o t h 1 Q H a n d the pesher are a p p l i e d to t h e w e a p o n s of Israel's e n e m i e s rather t h a n , a s in t h e B i b l e , to t h e w e a p o n s of G o d ) . ‫ ז ר ם‬is u s e d in a m i l i t a r y c o n t e x t a l s o at 1 Q M 12.10 = 1 9 . 2 , ‫ כ ז ר ם ר ב י ב י ם ל ה ש ק ו ת מ ש פ ט‬, a l t h o u g h this c o n t e x t d o e s n o t a p p e a r to be p r e s e n t at 4 Q 4 2 4 1.4 ( W A , II, 174=EW, 166): ‫" ]י[נתר מפני ז ר ם‬it w i l l fall apart d u r i n g a d o w n p o u r " ( C o o k 393) (hardly: "[and] f r o m it rain w i l l fall" [GM, 393]). N e i t h e r ‫ נ פ ץ‬nor ‫ ז ר ם‬is f o u n d in TL.

V: Developments

in inflectional

morphology

(Items

41-43)

4 1 . ‫ — ז ר ע‬D S S s e e the e m e r g e n c e of a Hitpalpel of the v e r b ‫זוע‬, w h i c h occ u r s just three t i m e s in the Bible, but p e r h a p s g a i n e d in p o p u l a r i t y t h r o u g h its m o r e e x t e n s i v e e m p l o y m e n t in A r a m a i c (cf., e.g., D a n . 5.19; 6.27; tg. Isa. 6.4 [for M T ‫ ;]נוע‬W a l l e n s t e i n , 262, s a y s that the Hitpalpel is c o m m o n in t a l m u d i c literature). In DSS, it is f o u n d in refe r e n c e to the d e s t r u c t i v e s h a k i n g of f o u n d a t i o n s ( 1 Q S 8.8), p e r h a p s w a l l s ( 1 Q H 7.9), a n d , probably, a rock (1QS 11.4). It is a p p a r e n t l y u s e d as a c a u s a t i v e - i n t e n s i v e of the Qal, '(be m a d e to) tremble'. T h e Qal is also f o u n d in the Scrolls a n d Ben Sira.

T h e f o u r d i f f e r e n t Hitpalpel f o r m s of ‫ זרע‬f o u n d in DSS a p p e a r to reflect p h o n e t i c u n c e r t a i n t y (as Licht, 10 [§11]) r e g a r d i n g the rare c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t D s t e m of a v e r b b e g i n n i n g w i t h the v o i c e d sibil a n t : 1 ) ‫יזדעזעו‬QS 8 . 8 ) , 1 ) ‫תתזעזע‬QH 6 . 2 1) ‫ י ז ד ע ז ר ע‬Q S 11.4; W M , 151, n o t e s the possibility of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the v e r b ‫ זיד‬here). In this respect, Licht, 10 (§11), a n d Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 55, n o t e as w e l l ‫( יתשגשגו‬for ‫ )ישתגשנו‬at 1 Q H 8.9 ( r e g a r d e d b y m o s t as a n o t h e r w i s e u n a t t e s t e d Hityalpel of ‫שוג‬, but in the s e n s e of ‫ישתנו‬, f r o m ‫שגה‬ 'be great'; B u r r o w s , 411, a p p a r e n t l y r e g a r d s the f o r m as Hitpolpel of ‫ ' שגג‬g o astray' [ w h i c h M a n s o o r , 154, c u r i o u s l y , interprets as 'flourish'], w h i c h in the Qal d o e s o c c u r three t i m e s in D S S a n d f r e q u e n t l y in TL, a l o n g w i t h ‫שגה‬, w h i c h is rare in TL but o c c u r s t w i c e in Ben Sira a n d s e v e n t i m e s in DSS; Gaster, 176, r e n d e r s ‫ יחשגשגו‬as "they g r o w e n t a n g l e d " , n o t i n g [p. 247], Isa. 1 7 . 1 1 , , ‫ ת ש ג ש ג‬: "Our p o e t ... t o o k it, as d i d later J e w i s h c o m m e n t a t o r s , to be a variant of the c o m m o n w o r d for 'entangle‫ [ '״‬i . e . . ‫( ס כ ס ך‬Pilpel of V p 0 ) ; s e e Jastrow, 992b]). Contrast, h o w e v e r ,1)‫ א ש ת ע ש ע‬Q H 9.13),1)‫ ת ש ת ע ש ע‬Q H 11.7) a n d s i m i l a r l y m e t a t h e t i c Hitpa'pe' f o r m s of ‫ ש ע ע‬at 1 Q H 9.8 a n d fr. 30.2. Kutscher, Isaiah, 346, s u g g e s t e d that the n o n - m e t a t h e t i c form, f o u n d a l s o at l Q I s a a 29.9 ( ‫ ) ה ת ש ע ת ש ע ו‬a n d o n c e in the Bible (Jer. 49.3), m i g h t represent a m o r p h o p h o n o l o g i c a l t e n d e n c y in the Q u m r a n period. At the m o r p h o l o g i c a l level, n o t e that it is the s a m e Hitpalpel of ‫זרע‬ (or the Hitpa'el/Nitpa'al of ‫)זעזע‬, n o t the Hitpa'el (*‫ )הזרוע‬that is c o n t i n u e d in TL, w h e r e it is w e l l - r e p r e s e n t e d , w i t h the e x p e c t e d m e t a t h e s i s , in the perfect a n d participle ( s e e A H L 8036-37; Segal, Grammar, §182, w h o n o t e s ‫ נ ז ד ע ז ע ה‬at b. Bava Q a m m a 82b), just as, c o n v e r s e l y , it is the Hitpa'el of ‫זוג‬, f o u n d at 3 Q 1 5 10.9, ‫ ( א ב ן ש ה ז ד ו ג א‬a c c o r d i n g to Milik, 295, A H L , 390, a n d Wolters, 50; A l l e g r o , 5 L 1 6 2 : ‫ ;אבן ש ח ר י ת‬in u n p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s attributed to, r e s p e c t i v e l y , J. L e f k o v i t s a n d D. W i l m o t : ‫א ב ן‬ ‫)שחוריא‬, that is c o n t i n u e d in TL (see A H L , 7910; Segal, Grammar, §134, w h o cites ‫' ןהיו מזדווגין‬they w o u l d pair u p ' at m. S a n h é d r i n 5.5), n o t the Hitimlpel (*‫)הזדגזגה‬. In other w o r d s , f r o m this a d m i t t e d l y v e r y s l i m evid e n c e w e f i n d that in respect of tD f o r m s of h o l l o w v e r b s , w h e r e TL prefers r e d u p l i c a t i o n of a g i v e n verb, the s a m e treatment of that v e r b is f o u n d in D S S a n d w h e r e TL p r e f e r s r a d i c a l i z a t i o n of the h o l l o w c o n s o n a n t for a particular verb, DSS treat the v e r b in the s a m e w a y too. T h e c o n c l u s i o n is s u p p o r t e d by a n e x h a u s t i v e s u r v e y of quadriliteral a n d h o l l o w v e r b s (but, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , n o t d o u b l e ayin v e r b s ) in the A H L c o n c o r d a n c e , w h e r e I f o u n d o n l y the f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e for m o r p h o l o g i c a l uncertainty at the time. (1) Sir. 43.3 in the G e n i z a h Β a n d M a s a d a MSS is read b y A H L thus: ‫( ל פ נ י ח ך ב ו מי י ת כ ל כ ל‬B); ‫( ו ל פ נ י ח ר ב מי י ? ת כ ו ? ל ל‬M).

7

(Yadin, 43, r e a d s ‫ י ת כ ל ] כ [ ל‬in M, but Beentjes, 118, a n d S t r u g n e l l , 117, s u p p o r t A H L ) . T h e Hitpalpel is f o u n d t w i c e m o r e in t h e s a m e s e n s e ('resist, e n d u r e , w i t h s t a n d ‫ ) ׳‬at 4 Q S h i r b [4Q511] 1.8, ‫ ו כ ו ל בני ע ו ל ה ל ו א י ת כ ל כ ל ו‬, 4 Q S h i r S h a b b f [4Q405] 20:2.21-22.2=11QShirShabb [11Q17] 3-4.3, ‫בחוק יתכל]כ[לו לשרת‬ (not n o t e d b y R o f é ) a n d p e r h a p s a l s o at Sir. 12.15 (MS A): ‫ ו א ם נמוט ל א י ת כ ל כ ל‬, if w e u n d e r s t a n d as 'but if he s l i p s h e c a n n o t e n d u r e ' ( b u t S k e h a n DiLella, 245, S m e n d , 15, a n d Lévi, 19, e m e n d to ‫ ; ת מ ו ט‬t h u s R o f é , 316: "if y o u falter, h e will not c o n t a i n himself"; R o f é s e e s the basic s e n s e of the t D f o r m as 'contain o n e s e l f ' , w i t h the p r e c i s e m e a n i n g v a r y i n g a c c o r d i n g to context. N o t D f o r m of ‫ כ ו ל‬is attested in the Bible, a l t h o u g h the Pilpel (not PoleI) in the required s e n s e of ' e n d u r e ' is f o u n d at P r o v . 18.14 a n d Mai. 3.2. (2) A related e x a m p l e is p r o v i d e d b y TL, w h e r e , at m. H u l l i n 12.3 e d i t i o n s v a r y b e t w e e n Pilpel a n d Polel r e a d i n g s , ‫ מ ע פ ע פ ת‬a n d ‫מ ע ו פ פ ת‬ ( s e e J a s t r o w , 1055b). T h e (Hit)polel is s u p p o r t e d b y 1 Q H fr. 9.5, ‫ ( ו י ע ו פ פ ו ב ה כ ל‬A H L ; Licht, 2 3 8 : 1,(]‫ופפו‬QH8 . 3 1 , ‫ו י ת ע ו פ פ ו > ע ל י < מ ש ב ר י ם‬ ( A H L ; Licht: < ‫ ) > פ ח י‬, a n d 3.27, ‫( ב ה ת ע ו פ ף כ ל ח צ י ש ח ת‬cf., a s Licht, 81, 3:17: ‫ י ש מ ע י ו ק ו ל ם‬. . . ‫ ) ] ו כ ה ל ח צ י ש ח ת‬. T h e a p p a r e n t l y a g g r e s s i v e a c t i o n c o n v e y e d in b o t h texts (8.31 a n d 3.27) s e e m s to r e p r e s e n t a n i n t e n s i v e v e r s i o n of the Polel in TL, 'fly (like a bird)'. A variant f o r m of the Pilpel is f o u n d in ‫(' ע פ פ ו נ י‬troubles) c o m e f l y i n g o v e r m e ' ( M i d r a s h T e h i l l i m to Ps. 18.5 [Jastrow, 1100a]) for M T ‫ ' א פ פ ו נ י‬c o r d s of d e a t h ) s u r r o u n d me'. (3) Sir. 3.27, ‫' ו מ ת ח ו ל ל מ ו ס י ף עון ע ל ערן‬and o n e w h o is in t o r m e n t a d d s sin to sin', p r e s u m a b l y r e p r e s e n t s the Hitpolel of ‫' ח י ל‬writhe', a s Job 15.20, or ‫' ח ו ל‬whirl, d a n c e ' , as Jer. 23.19. ( S m e n d , 2, 66; 3, 32, r e a d s ‫ מ ת ה ו ל ל‬, Hitpo'el of ‫' ה ל ל‬praise', "der U e b e r m i i t i g e " , b u t o n e w o u l d e x p e c t ‫ מ ת ה ל ל‬in that c a s e [cf. Jastrow, 353b, f r o m AL]; ‫ מ ת ה ו ל ל‬w o u l d be rather the Hitpo'el of ‫' ה ל ל‬be f o o l i s h ' , i.e. ' ( o n e w h o acts like a) m a d m a n ' . ) H o w e v e r , the s a m e root s e e m s to be r e p r e s e n t e d in TL b y Pilpel, Pulpal, a n d Hitpalpel forms: ‫אם ח ל ח ל לתוכן‬ 'if h e rolled t h e m (in w a t e r ) ‫( ׳‬m. M a k h s h i r i n . 3.6); ‫מ ג ו פ ת ה ח ב י ת ה מ ח ו ל ח ל ת ואינה נשמטת‬ "If the p l u g of a jar b e c a m e l o o s e but d i d n o t fall o u t " (m. Kel i m 10.3 [ D a n b y , 619]); ‫היו צ ר ו ר ו ת מ ת ח ל ח ל י ם ב ת ו כ ו‬ "if t h e g r a v e l ... r o l l e d a b o u t w i t h i n it' ( m . M i q w a ' o t 4 . 3 [ D a n b y , 736]). (Jastrow, 466b, d e r i v e s the quadriliterals here f r o m ‫' ח ל ל‬pierce', but I am unconvinced.)

(4) A t 1 Q H 6.21, the verb in ‫ ו י ת מ ו ט ט ו מ ד ר ך ל ב כ ה‬is r e n d e r e d b y all ( G M , 340; V e r m e s , 208; A b e g g , 100) as ' s t a g g e r ‫ ; ׳‬t h e s a m e Hitpolel f o r m is c o m m o n l y f o u n d in A L in the related s e n s e of ' d e c l i n e , s i n k ' ( J a s t r o w , 740b). H o w e v e r , at tos. B a v a M e s i a ' 6.18, J a s t r o w , 7 6 8 b , n o t e s a r e d u p l i c a t i n g , Hitpa'el, form: ‫ מ ט מ ו ט זה איני י ו ר ע מ ה הוא‬. ‫מ ת מ ט מ ט י ן ו ה ו ל כ י ן מן ה ע ו ל ם‬ in ( m e t a l i n g u i s t i c ) reference to the u s e of ‫ ימוט‬at Ps. 15.5. (5) W h e r e clearly d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s are c o n v e y e d , the rule, n o t u n e x p e c t e d l y , s o m e t i m e s breaks d o w n , a s for e x a m p l e , w i t h the root ‫ ע ר‬, u s e d in the Pi'el a n d Hitpa'el in TL in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r o s e l y t i z i n g , a n d in the Hitpolel at C D 4.6 in t h e c o n t e x t o f s o j o u r n i n g ( ‫ ;)שני ה ח ג ו ר ר ם‬cf. 1 K g s 1 7 . 2 0 : ‫ ה א ל מ נ ה א ש ר ־ א נ י מ ת ג ו ר ר ע מ ה‬. L i k e w i s e , ‫ י‬/ ‫ק ו ם‬ is regularly u s e d in the Pi'el, Pu'al, a n d Hitpa'el in TL (and at C D 20.12, ‫ ) ו א מ נ ה א ש ר ק י מ ו‬to e x p r e s s a p p o i n t m e n t , e s t a b l i s h m e n t , c o n f i r m a t i o n , w h e r e a s the Polel a n d Hitpolel are e m p l o y e d in B e n Sira (11.9; 35.9; 41.22) a n d 1 Q H (12.35; fr. 1.6) to e x p r e s s s t a n d i n g u p (to a r g u e ) , c l i m b i n g u p ( o n t o a b e d ) , or s t a n d i n g o n e ' s g r o u n d ( 1 Q H fr. 1.6: ‫ל ה ת ק ו מ ם‬ ‫ ; ל פ נ י נגעי‬Licht, 220, p o i n t s o u t that this u s e of the Hitpolel of ‫ ק ו ם‬d i f f e r s f r o m that f o u n d in the Bible, w h e r e it a l w a y s f o u n d in t h e c o n t e x t of r e b e l l i o n ; t h e s a m e w o u l d b e true of t h e B e n Sira p a s s a g e , 4 1 . 2 2 [ M a s a d a ] : . ( ‫י צ י ע י ה‬ ‫ומהתקומםעל‬ ily d r a w n , as in the c a s e of ‫י‬/‫עור‬, w h i c h o c c u r s in an e x p e c t e d s e n s e in the Polel at 1 Q H 9.3, ‫' ב א ף י ע ו ר ר ק נ א ה‬angrily h e a r o u s e s j e a l o u s y ' , a n d in the Hitpolel at SOR 2 0 . 5 : ‫א ר מ י ם בימי א ל י ש ע ל א ע מ ד ו ע ד ש נ ת ע ו ר ר בימי א ח ז‬ ‫" ו נ פ ל ו‬... hasta q u e f u e r o n d e s p a b i l a d o s . . . " (Giron Blanc, 96). A t Sir. 19.1, a q u a d r i l i t e r a l Hitpa'el o c c u r s in a d i f f e r e n t s e n s e , ‫] י ת [ ע ר ע ר‬ 'complain'; similarly, three s e n s e s r e a s o n a b l y d i s s i m i l a r f r o m the Polel ' a r o u s e ' are g i v e n (in TL) b y Jastrow, 1121b-22a, for the Pilpel, n a m e l y ' c o m p l a i n ' , 'gargle', a n d 'chide'. H o w e v e r , it is d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n the first of t h e s e m e a n i n g s a n d that f o u n d for the Polel of ‫ע ו ר‬ at m . M o ' e d Q a t a n 1 . 5 : ‫ ל א י ע ו ר ר א ד ם ע ל מתו ו ל א י ס פ י ד נ ו‬. In general, the d e a r t h of alternative structures to e x p r e s s the s a m e verbal m e a n i n g is e v i d e n c e that in its m o r p h o l o g i c a l c h o i c e s , the D S S r e p r e s e n t a l i v i n g l a n g u a g e , not o n e m a d e u p o n the trot b y the D S S writers. But a l t h o u g h w e c a n n o t fault the D S S w r i t e r s ' m o r p h o l o g i c a l c o m p e t e n c e , the p h o n e t i c / o r t h o g r a p h i c v a r i a t i o n s w e h a v e s e e n in res p e c t of the t D f o r m s of v e r b s w i t h root-initial zayin s u g g e s t s that t h e y w e r e n o t c o m p l e t e l y familiar w i t h s o m e of t h e f o r m s t h e y w e r e e m p l o y i n g . This m a y h a v e b e e n d u e to the s h e e r lack of e x a m p l e s of this kind of structure. In a n y case, the D S S w r i t e r s w e r e n o t a l o n e in their d i f f i c u l t i e s , for the s a m e u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t w h a t to d o w i t h zayin is reflected at D a n . 2.9, w h e r e the Q e r e , ‫( ה ז ד מ נ ת ו ן‬Hitpa'al w i t h m e t a t h e s i s a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n ; t h u s m s s a n d BDB, 1091b) / ‫ ( ה ז ד מ נ ת ו ן‬H i t p e ' e l ; t h u s

L) ' y o u h a v e c o n s p i r e d ' , r e p r e s e n t s the p r e d i c t e d f o r m , b u t t h e Ketiv m i g h t reflect n o t the Hafel,]‫הזמנתו‬ (as BDB) but a f o r m of the Hitpa'al w i t h s i m p l e a s s i m i l a t i o n (but not m e t a t h e s i s ) of t h e taw of the a f f o r m a t i v e , t h u s ]‫( הזמנתו‬both p o s s i b i l i t i e s g i v e n b y BHS). T h i s s i m p l e a s s i m i l a t i o n , rather than m e t a t h e s i s a n d v o i c i n g , is a l s o f o u n d at Isa. 1 . 1 6 , ‫( ה ז כ ו‬not *‫ ;הזדכו‬s e e G K , §54d), the o n l y e x a m p i e in t h e H e b r e w Bible of a t D of a verb b e g i n n i n g w i t h zayin. A s the Hitpa'el of ‫ ז כ ה‬is n o t attested at all in TL, it is p e r h a p s s u r p r i s i n g that ‫ י ז כ ה‬at 1QS 3.4 a n d 5QRèg1e [5Q13] 4.2 a n d ‫ יזכו‬at 1QS 8.18 are g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as Hitpa'el f o r m s ( t h u s W M , 59, o n 1QS 3.4; Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 55; A H L , 7966), e s p e c i a l l y as A H L , 7 9 6 3 (and A b e g g , 111, a n d G M E s , 394) interpret ‫ י ז כ ה‬at 1 Q H fr. 4 . 1 0 as Qal. But if t h e o t h e r s are Hitpa'el, t h e y m a i n t a i n precisely the unpredicted biblical structure, e v e n t h o u g h t h e y are not q u o t i n g f r o m the biblical source. 42. ‫ — ט ה ר‬I f the v e r b at 1 Q H 5.16, • ‫ ל ט ה ר ש ב ע ת י‬, is to b e r e g a r d e d a s Pi'el, as A H L , 8 9 4 0 ( W i l l i a m s , 341: T o p u r i f y s e v e n f o l d ; M a n s o o r , 134: to c l e a n s e ( h i m ) s e v e n f o l d ; L o h s e , 131: u m e s s i e b e n f a c h z u r e i n i g e n ) the o m i s s i o n of an object r e p r e s e n t i n g the p a t i e n t of c l e a n s i n g is d i f f i cult. T h e r e n d e r i n g s of G M , 338, A b e g g , 98, a n d V e r m e s , 204, 'to b e ref i n e d / p u r i f i e d s e v e n times' (also Gaster, 163: "to c o m e forth s e v e n f o l d pure") m i g h t s u g g e s t a contracted Hitpa'el,‫לטהר‬, w h i c h is f o u n d , w i t h ‫ ל י ט ה ר‬, in the M i s h n a h , but a g a i n s t this is the p r e s e n c e of t h e m o r e regular f o r m ‫ ל ה ט ה ר‬at 1 Q H 6.8 ( u n l e s s this is a p r e v i o u s l y u n a t t e s t e d Nif'al). T h e fact that the 4 Q H o d c [ 4 Q 4 2 9 ] 1:2.3 v a r i a n t r e a d s ‫ל ט ה ו ר‬ ‫]]•שבעתי‬, si vera lectio ( W A , II, 275: e v e r y letter is in d o u b t ) s u g g e s t s that at 1 Q H 5.16, w e s i m p l y h a v e to read a Qal, ‫' ל ט ה ר‬to b e c o m e purified ( s e v e n t i m e s over)'. (The u s e of • ‫ ש ב ע ת י‬a n d o t h e r lexical parallels s u g g e s t s that Ps. 12.7 f o r m e d at least part of the w r i t e r ' s s o u r c e m a t e rial here, as W i l l i a m s , 342; H N , 96; a n d Gaster, 243, a l t h o u g h this is, a p p a r e n t l y , n o t n o t i c e d b y Licht, 102, or M a n s o o r , 13). A Qal i n f i n i t i v e ( i n t e r p r e t e d as Pi'el) h a s b e e n s e e n at 4 Q T o h A [4Q274] 2:2.4 ( W A , III, 8 2 ) , ‫ ל ט ה ו ר י ו ת ר כ ו ל ה י ר ק‬, b y EW, 210: "to p u r i f y , a n d the r e m a i n s of [‫ ]ויתר‬all the g a r d e n v e g e t a b l e s " ( H o w e v e r , A b e g g , 282, r e n d e r s " h e shall l e a v e all t h e g r e e n s for t h e p e r s o n w h o is c l e a n s e d " a n d V e r m e s 5 , 231, as "for a cleaner m a n . A n y green", interp r e t i n g ‫ ט ה ו ר‬either, s t a n d a r d l y , as the adjective, or, p e r h a p s as p a s s i v e participle, ‫( ט ה ו ר‬as Q i m r o n , ' R e m a r k s ' , 66, n. 13, u n d e r s t a n d s in ‫ ט ה ו ר ב כ ו ר‬at 1 Q M 5.11. R e g a r d i n g , the p o s s i b l e o m i s s i o n of -‫ה‬- in ‫ ל ט ה ר‬at 1 Q H 5.16, Licht, 9 (§7) m e n t i o n s o n e i n s t a n c e of s u c h o m i s s i o n in a n o u n in 1 Q H (8.30: ‫ ש ל ב ת ה‬for ‫ ) ש ל ה ב ת ה‬a n d h e a n d M a n s o o r , 16, n o t e its f r e q u e n t o m i s s i o n f r o m t h e Hif'il i n f i n i t i v e in D S S ( i n c l u d i n g 1 Q H ) , a l t h o u g h in o t h e r binyanim s u c h o m i s s i o n is l e s s c o m m o n ; M a n s o o r n o t e s ‫ ל י ח ד‬at 1 Q S

1.8 ( a l s o l Q S a 1.9) p e r h a p s for1)‫ ל ל ד ח ד‬Q H 11.11; L o h s e , 154: ‫ ) ל ה ו ח ד‬, a l t h o u g h , as n o t e d b y M a n s o o r , 168, a n d H N , 186-87, t h e latter f o r m m i g h t be Hitpa'el ( ‫ ח ד‬: ‫ ׳ ) ל ה‬as ‫ ל ת י ס ר‬for ‫ ס ר‬: ‫ ל ה ת‬at 1 Q S 9.10. M u r a o k a , 120, r e g a r d s ‫ ל י ח ד‬as Nifal; A H L , 9569, a s Hitpa'el; H o r g a n , 44, n o t e s t w o clear a n d t w o uncertain i n s t a n c e s of e l i s i o n of the ‫ ־ה־‬of the Nifal i n f i n i t i v e in the pesharim. 4 3 . 1 — ‫ ט מ ן‬Q H fr. 3.4 r e a d s ‫מטוני פ ח י ה‬, w h i c h Licht, 224, t h i n k s is either an error for ‫( טמוני פ ח י ה‬as A H L , 9239), in the s e n s e of 'the b u r i e d o n e s of h e r traps', i.e. '[Sin's] h i d d e n traps' (Gaster, 212; but A b e g g , 110: the h i d i n g p l a c e s of her (?) traps; G M E s , 393: e s c o n d i t e s d e t r a m p a s ) or a 'linguistic' m e t a t h e s i s of the ‫ ש ל מ ה‬/ ‫ ש מ ל ה‬kind. T h e p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p l e of ‫ טמן‬is w e l l - a t t e s t e d in TL. H N , 263, s a y s that ‫" מטוני‬is p r o b a b l y a n o m i n a l f o r m a t i o n of ‫" נ ט ה‬ (cf., p r e s u m a b l y , GK, § 8 5 u : . ( ‫ ג א ו ן‬, ‫ ה מ ו ן‬, ‫ ח ז ו ן‬, ‫ש ר י ו ן‬ 4 Q H o d b [ 4 Q 4 2 8 ] 11.7 ( W A , II,' 266) h a s in its parallel v e r s i o n of 1 Q H fr. 3.4 a p r e v i o u s l y u n a t t e s t e d Hif'il p a r t i c i p l e , ‫מטמיני פ ח י ם‬, w i t h the Hifil, w h i c h a l s o o c c u r s at 2 Kgs 7.8 a n d h a s b e e n r e c o n s t r u c t e d at Sir. 41.15 ( s e e Strugnell, 113), a p p a r e n t l y n o t d i f f e r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y in m e a n i n g f r o m the Qal. T h e participle (like o t h e r f o r m s of the Hifil) is a t t e s t e d in TL, but p e r h a p s w e s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d the (biblical) n o u n ‫' מטמוני‬treasures of‫ ׳‬at 4 Q H o d b 11.7 a n d , e r r o n e o u s l y w r i t t e n , at 1 Q H fr. 3.4.

VI: Miscellanea

(Items

44-45)

4 4 . ‫ — ז ד ו ן‬A t 1 Q H fr. 3.15, Licht, 225, r e a d s ‫ל ע ו ל ה ו ר מ י ה יגורו י ח ד ל ז ד ו ן‬ a n d A H L , 2 4 5 , ‫( ל ע ו ל ה ו ר מ י ה יגורו ו ח ד ל ז ד ו ן‬also r e c o r d e d b y Licht, 226, a n d Gaster, 255). A H L , 6226, lists ‫ יגורו‬as a Qal i m p e r f e c t f o r m of ‫י‬/‫גור‬ in a m e a n i n g that c a n n o t b e a s c e r t a i n e d . A b e g g , 110, r e n d e r s "injustice a n d d e c e i t are p o u r e d o u t a n d a r r o g a n c e c e a s e d " , a p p a r e n t l y i n t e r p r e t i n g as a pa usai f o r m of the Hof al of ‫גרו( נגר‬: > ‫גורו‬:), a root that is attested in 1 Q H , b o t h in the Hofal (4.34), in a q u o t a t i o n of Mic. 1.4, a n d in the Nifal (8.32), but is u n a t t e s t e d in TL. H N , 263, int e r p r e t s " i n i q u i t y a n d d e c e i t are cast o u t , a n d a r r o g a n c e c e a s e t h " , c o m m e n t i n g (p. 264) "the v e r b is n i p h . of ‫נגר‬, m e a n i n g 'is d r o p p e d , is cast out', but in that c a s e w h y is there n o nun? G M E s , 394, a p p e a r s to f o l l o w H N : "toda i n i q u i d a d y e n g a n o serán e x p u l s a d o s y la a r r o g a n cia cesará". I c a n f i n d n o b a s i s for G a s t e r ' s c h o i c e of v e r b (p. 213): "that flock u n t o f r o w a r d n e s s a n d guile". Licht u n d e r s t a n d s h i s r e a d i n g to m e a n that the w i c k e d (or w i c k e d spirits) are g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r for attack (VTD) in order to u n d e r t a k e iniquity, deceit, a n d i n s o l e n c e , t h u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r e p o s i t i o n a s ‫ל‬

of p u r p o s e ; Licht r e m a r k s that the o t h e r ( A H L ) r e a d i n g , w h i c h h e s a y s w o u l d require a m e a n i n g for ‫ יגורו‬of 'be d e s t r o y e d ' , f i n d s n o s u p p o r t in the Bible or 1 Q H , w i t h the p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of 3 . 2 5 , ‫ו ת נ ו ר נ פ ש א ב י ו ן‬ (Licht, 85), w h i c h Licht a n a l y s e s as ‫ ג ר ר‬ni. ‫׳‬be d r a g g e d (to d e s t r u c t i o n ) ‫ ׳‬, c o m p a r i n g P r o v . 21.7: 0‫ ע י ם ן ג ו ך ם כ י מאנו לעשותםש)*ט‬$ ‫ ד ״ ך‬. i f , d e s p i t e Licht, w e a c c e p t this u n d e r s t a n d i n g at 1 Q H fr. 3.15, w e w o u l d n e e d to p o i n t ‫יגורו‬. In f a v o u r of this a n a l y s i s is the f r e q u e n c y of the v e r b ‫ ג ר ר‬, i n c l u d i n g Nifal, in TL ( w h e r e a s ‫ ' נ ג ר‬p o u r ' a n d ‫' גור‬fear' or 'attack' are n o t attested at all). In d e f e n c e of h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ‫ יגורו‬at 1 Q H fr. 3 . 1 5 a s ‫גור‬ 'attack', Licht, 225-26, fails to p o i n t o u t that this v e r b d e f i n i t e l y o c c u r s at 1 Q H 7.12 (‫ ; כ ו ל נרי‬A H L reads ‫ גרי‬as a n error for ‫ ;גרי‬H N , 132 reports an interpretation as ‫ ) ג י ך י‬a n d 2.23 (‫ ) נ ח ע ל נפשי‬. A t 1 Q H 3.25, o n l y V e r m e s , 198, c o n c u r s w i t h Licht in d e r i v i n g ‫יגור‬ f r o m ‫ ג ר ר‬, "the s o u l of the p o o r o n e w a s carried a w a y " . T h e majority, i n c l u d i n g A H L , 6223, u n d e r s t a n d ‫ ' גור‬d w e l l ‫( ׳‬Gaster, 155, c u r i o u s l y : " w h o s e s o u l h a s l o d g e d like a b e g g a r " ) , a l t h o u g h B u r r o w s , 404, rend e r s "but the p o o r m a n ' s soul w a s in dread". 4 5 . 1 — ‫ ט א ט א‬Q H 5.21 is read a n d u n d e r s t o o d in v a r i o u s w a y s : [ ‫( ו ע ם ענוים ב ט א ט א י י רגל] ת ם ר צ ו נ כ ה‬Licht, 1 0 4 ) / [‫( ו ע ם ע נ ו י ם ב ט א ט א י י ך ג ל ץ ה ם הייתה‬Lohse, 130) ( ‫ ( ועםיענוים בטאיטאיי ך נ ל י ) כ ה‬W a l i e n s t e i n , 242) ( A H L : [ ‫ ; ר ג ל ] כ ה‬V e r m e s , 205: y e t [hast T h o u d o n e m a r v e l s ] a m o n g t h e h u m b l e in the m i r e u n d e r f o o t ; G M E s , 375: y u n p u e b l o d e s e n c i l l o s esta e n el barro ante tus pies; H N , 99: a n d a p e o p l e f r o m the m e e k are in t h e m u d b e f o r e [ T h y ] feet; 105: a p e o p l e of h u m i l i t y are a m o n g t h e m that s w e e p thy feet; W a l l e n s t e i n , 251: A n d the h u m b l e p e o p l e are a m o n g t h o s e that c l e a n s e (thy) feet; A b e g g , 98: A h u m b l e d p e o p l e are in the s w e e p i n g s at [Your] feet; W i l l i a m s , 349: A n d w i t h the h u m b l e in t h e s w e e p i n g s of t h e f e e t of [ ]; L o h s e , 131: U n d m i t d e n D e m ü t i g e n [bist d u ] , w e n n [ihre] F ü s s e v e r s i n k e n [?]; M a n s o o r , 135: A n d ( t h e y are) w i t h the m e e k w h o are t r a m p l e d b y t h e f e e t of ...; Gaster, 164: a n d [they w a l k ] at the s i d e of the m e e k ... w h e n that their feet are mired). M a n s o o r , 135, r e a d s ‫ מ ט א ט א י‬, as a Polpal participle f r o m ‫ ' ט י ט‬m u d ' , h e n c e 'be t r a m p l e d ' . H N ' s o b j e c t i o n (p. 105) to the a l t e r n a t i v e r e n d e r i n g h e ( H N ) p r o v i d e s ( ' a m o n g t h e m that s w e e p thy feet') is that " o n e w o u l d rightly e x p e c t in that c a s e a participle piel", i . e . ‫ ב מ ט א ט א י‬. H o w ever, e l i s i o n of the mem prefix in the i n t e n s i v e s t e m s is n o t u n k n o w n , e s p e c i a l l y in rabbinic literature ( s e e Segal, Graminar, §130), b u t a l s o in the Bible (cf. GK, §52s; JM, §§52c, 56c, 58b) a n d at Q u m r a n (at least acc o r d i n g t o PF, 96; b u t s e e Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 36: ‫ ; ) מ ע ט = מ ו ע ט‬the p r e c e d i n g v o i c e d labial c o u l d h a v e a s s i s t e d the p r o c e s s h e r e ( s e e E l w o l d e ,

238, o n 4 Q p s E z e k 3 [ 4 Q 3 8 5 ] 4.10-11). If this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is correct, the a u t h o r h a s created a striking n e w i m a g e of o b e i s a n c e (cf. M a n s o o r , 135; W a l l e n s t e i n , 251), albeit o n e w i t h w h i c h the p a r a l l e l i s m of ‫א ב י ו נ י ם‬ a n d ‫ כ ו ר ע י ע פ ר‬at 1 Q M 11.13 m i g h t p r o f i t a b l y b e c o m p a r e d . A l t e r n a tively, of c o u r s e , ‫ ב ט א ט א י‬c o u l d b e retained if w e u n d e r s t a n d ‫ ט א ט א י‬a s a n o u n ( t h u s W a l l e n s t e i n , 251: "a c o n s t r u c t p l u . n o u n f r o m ‫ ט א ט א‬... treated a s ‫ ט א ט ה‬, t h e s e c o n d 'alejih b e i n g v o c a l i c [cf. t h e p o s t Biblical ‫' ג ב א י‬collector‫׳‬, r o o t ‫ ; ״ ] ג ב ה‬Gaster, 244: "Literally, ‫׳‬in the m i r i n g s of [their] feet'". G a s t e r c l a i m s a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n ‫ ט א ט א י‬h e r e a n d t h e p r e s e n c e of ‫ ' ט י ט‬m u d ‫ ׳‬at Ps. 4 0 . 3 , ‫ ר ע ל נ י מ ב ו ר שאון מ ט י ט ה י ו ן‬, a text w h i c h h e b e l i e v e s is referred to in t h e n e x t l i n e of 1 Q H [ 5 . 2 2 ] : ‫ל ה ע ל ו ת מ ש א ו ן‬ ‫ ) י ח ד כ ו ל א ב י ו נ י ח ס ר‬. Licht, 104, t h i n k s the s e n s e is ‫ ׳‬w h e n their f e e t are s u n k in m u d ' , o n t h e b a s i s of the LXX's r e n d e r i n g of Isa. 14.23, alt h o u g h h e a l s o m e n t i o n s S e g a l ' s e m e n d a t i o n (Ben Sira, 63) ‫ ט א ט א‬for ‫ ט מ ט ם‬, at Sir. 1 0 . 1 6 , ‫ ע ק ב ו ת גוים ט א ט א א ל ה י ם‬, "i.e. h e s w e e p s a w a y a n d d e s t r o y s their traces s o that n o m e m o r y of t h e m r e m a i n s (cf. Ps. 37.10; 77.20)." For the i m a g e , Licht a l s o c o m p a r e s 1 Q H 7 . 2 , ‫ ו ת ט ב ע ב ב ץ ר ג ל י‬.

Bibliography A b e g g : ( a u t h o r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s to) M i c h a e l W i s e , Martin A b e g g , a n d E d w a r d C o o k , The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation ( L o n d o n : H a r p e r C o l l i n s , 1996) A H L : T h e A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e (The Historical D i c t i o nary of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e ) , Materials for the Dictionary; Series I: 200 B.C.Ε. - 300 C.E.; Guide and Indices to the Microfiche (Jerusalem: T h e A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w L a n g u a g e , 1988) (and the f r a m e s of the a s s o c i a t e d m i c r o f i c h e ) A l l e g r o , John Marco, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n Paul Ltd, 1960) B a u m g a r t e n , J o s e p h M., Qumran Cave 4; XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD, XVIII; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1996) BDB: B r o w n , Francis, S.R. Driver, a n d C h a r l e s A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament ( C l a r e n d o n Press: O x f o r d , 1906) Beentjes, Pancratius C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997) B u r r o w s , Millar, The Dead Sea Scrolls ( L o n d o n : Seeker a n d W a r b u r g , 1956) C a r m i , T. (ed.), The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n , 1981) C h a r l e s w o r t h , James H., ' A n A l l e g o r i c a l a n d A u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l P o e m

b y the Moreh Has-Sedeq ( 1 Q H 8:4-11)‫׳‬, in M i c h a e l F i s h b a n e a n d E m a n u e l Τ ο ν (eds.), "Sha'arei Taltnon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1992), p p . 295-307 C o l l i n s , John J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age ( T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t Library; L o u i s v i l l e , KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n K n o x Press, 1997) Cook: see A b e g g Cortès, Enric a n d Teresa Martinez, Sifre Deuteronomio: Comentario Tannaitico al Libro del Deuteronomio, Vol. I: Pisqa 1 - 1 6 0 (Collectània Sant Pacià, 40; Barcelona: Facultat d e T e o l o g i a d e C a t a l u n y a / Editorial H e r d e r , 1989) D a l m a n , G u s t a v H., Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch (Third e d . ; G ö t t i n g e n : E d u a r d Pfeiffer, 1938) D a n b y , Herbert, The Mishnah Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1933) D a v i e s , P h i l i p R., The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document" (JSOTSup, 25; S h e f f i e l d : JSOT P r e s s , 1982) DCH: D a v i d J.A. C l i n e s ( e d . ) , The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew ( V o l u m e s I-IV; e x e c u t i v e e d . J.F. E l w o l d e ; S h e f f i e l d ; S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1993-98) E l w o l d e , John F., R e v i e w of W A , Fascicle IV, Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997), p p . 229-41 E m e r t o n , J.A., ' C o m p a r a t i v e S e m i t i c P h i l o g y a n d H e b r e w L e x i c o g raphy', in Congress Volume, Paris, 1992 (ed. J.A. E m e r t o n ; VTS, 61; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 1-24 EW: E i s e n m a n , Robert a n d M i c h a e l W i s e , The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years ( S h a f t e s b u r y , Dorset: Ele m e n t , 1992) F r a e n k e l , Y o n a h , Darkhe ha-Aggadah we-ha-Midrash, 2 (Givataim: M a s a d a Press, 1991) G i b s o n , John C.L., Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (Fourth ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) G i r o n Blanc, L u i s - F e r n a n d o , Seder 'Olam Rabbah, El Gran Orden del Universe: Una cronologia judia (Biblioteca Midrásica, 18; Estella: Editorial V e r b o D i v i n o , 1996) GK: K a u t z s c h , Ε., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar ( S e c o n d E n g l i s h e d . b y A.E. C o w l e y ; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1910) G M : F l o r e n t i n o Garcia M a r t i n e z , The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: the Qumran Texts in English (trans. W i l f r e d G.E. W a t s o n ; L e i d e n :

E.J. Brill, 1994) G M E s : F l o r e n t i n o Garcia M a r t i n e z , Textos de Qumran ( S e c o n d e d . ; Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1993) HALOT: K o e h l e r , L u d w i g a n d W a l t e r B a u m g a r t n e r , The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vols. I-III; Trans, a n d e d . b y M.E.J. R i c h a r d s o n ; Leiden: E.J. Brill: 1994-96) H N : H o l m - N i e l s e n , S v e n d , Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Acta T h e o Iogica Danica, 2; Aarhus: U n i v e r s i t e t s f o r l a g e t , 1960) H o r g a n , M a u r y a P., Pesharim: Qumran Interrelations of Biblical Books ( C B Q M S , 8; W a s h i n g t o n , DC; T h e C a t h o l i c Biblical A s s o c i a tion of A m e r i c a , 1979) J a s t r o w , M a r c u s , A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 v o l s , in o n e , N e w York: Judaica Press, 1992 [originally p u b l i s h e d , 1903]) JM: Joiion, P a u l , A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew ( C o r r e c t e d rev. e d . ; trans, a n d e d . b y T. M u r a o k a ; S u b s i d i a Biblica 14.1-2; R o m a : Editrice P o n t i f i c i o Istituto Biblico, 1993) Kister, M e n a h e m , Ά C o n t r i b u t i o n to the Interpretation of Ben-Sira', Tarbiz 59 (1990), p p . 303-78 (in H e b r e w ) —'Biblical P h r a s e s a n d H i d d e n Biblical Interpretations a n d Pesharim', in D e v o r a h D i m a n t a n d Uriel R a p p a p o r t (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ, 10; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 27-39 Kittel, B o n n i e Pedrotti, The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Common‫׳‬ tary (SBLDS, 50; M i s s o u l a , MT: Scholars Press, 1981) Knibb, M i c h a e l Α., The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries o n W r i t i n g s of the J e w i s h a n d Christian W o r l d 200 BC to A D 200, 2; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1987) Kutscher, E.Y., 'The H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c Letters of Bar K o s e b a a n d h i s C o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Part II: T h e H e b r e w Letters', Leš. 2 6 (1962), p p . 7-23 (reprinted in Hebrew and Aramaic Studies [ e d . Z e e v B e n - H a y y i m , A h a r o n D o t a n , a n d Gad Sarfatti; J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s P r e s s / T h e H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y , 1977], H e b r e w section, p p . 54-70) —The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsaa) (STDJ, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974) Lauterbach, Jacob Z., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions With an English Translation, Introduction and Notes ( V o l u m e s O n e to T h r e e ; P h i l a d e l p h i a : T h e J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a , 1933-35; reprinted 1976) Licht, Jacob, The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea, Text Introduction, Commentary and Glossary (Jerusalem: T h e Bialik Institute, 1957)

Lichtenberger, H e r m a n n , 'Zu V o r k o m m e n u n d B e d e u t u n g v o n ‫ י צ ר‬i m Jubiläenbuch‫׳‬, JSf 14 (1983), pp. 1-10 L o h s e , E d u a r d , Die Texte aus Qumran, Hebräisch und Deutsch, mit masoretischer Punktuation, Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen (Fourth ed.; M ü n c h e n : Kösel-Verlag, 1986) M a n s o o r , M e n a h e m , The Thanksgiving Hymns Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ, 3; G r a n d R a p i d s , MI; W m . B. E e r d m a n s , 1961) M e y e r , R u d o l f , Hebräische Grammatik (Third, rev., ed.; 4 v o l s , in 1; Berlin, d e Gruyter, 1992) Milik, J.T., 'Le r o u l e a u d e c u i v r e p r o v e n a n t d e la Grotte 3 Q (3Q15)', in Baillet, Maurice, J.T. Milik a n d R. d e V a u x , a v e c u n e c o n t r i b u tion d e H . W . Baker, Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (DJD, 3; O x ford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1962), pp. 201-302 M o r a g , S h e l o m o , ' S o m e N o t e s ( F o l l o w i n g Elisha Q i m r o n ' s P a p e r , "The Biblical L e x i c o n in t h e Light of the D e a d Sea Scrolls" [DSD 2 (1992), pp. 295-329])', DSD 3 (11996), pp. 152-56 M o r e n o Garcia, Α., 'La tradicion t a r g ú m i c a e n R o m 8,5-8', in La Biblia i el Mediterrani: Actes del Congrès de Barcelona 18-22 de setembre de 1995 (ed. A g u s t i Borreil, A l f o n s o d e la F u e n t e , a n d A r m a n d Puig; Scripta Biblica, 1-2; Barcelona: A s s o c i a c i o Biblica d e C a talunya, 1997), Vol. 2, pp. 181-94 M u r a o k a , T., 'Verb C o m p l e m e n t a t i o n in Q u m r a n H e b r e w ' , in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. M u r a o k a a n d J.F. E l w o l d e ; STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), p p . 92-149 — ' T h e S t a t u s C o n s t r u c t u s of A d j e c t i v e s in Biblical H e b r e w ' , VT 27 (1977), p p . 3 7 5 - 8 0 M u r p h y , R o l a n d E., 'Yeser in the Q u m r a n Literature‫׳‬, Biblica 3 9 (1958), pp. 334-44 M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , Jerome, Ά Literary A n a l y s i s of D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t VI, 2 - VIII, 3‫׳‬, RB 78 (1971), pp. 210-32 N e w s o m , Carol, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; Atlanta, G A : Scholars Press, 1985) — ' 3 7 0 . 4 Q A d m o n i t i o n B a s e d o n the F l o o d ' , in Broshi, M a g e n , Esther E s h e l , J o s e p h F i t z m y e r , Erik L a r s o n , C a r o l N e w s o m , L a w r e n c e Schiffman, Mark Smith, Michael Stone, John Strugnell a n d A d a Yardeni, in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h J a m e s V a n d e r K a m , Qumran Cave 4; XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, 19; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1995), p p . 85-97 N i t z a n , B i l h a h , '286. 4 Q B e r a k h o t n ‫ ׳‬, in E s t h e r E s h e l , H a n a n E s h e l , Carol N e w s o m , Bilhah N i t z a n , Eileen Schuller a n d A d a Y a r d e n i , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h J a m e s V a n d e r K a m a n d M o n i c a Brady, Qumran Cave 4; VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 11; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1998), pp. 7-48

PF: P e r e z F e r n á n d e z , M i g u e l , An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J.F. E l w o l d e ; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997) —Midrás Sifre Numeros: Version crítica, introducciôn y notas (Biblioteca Midrásica, 9; Valencia: Instituciôn San J e r ô n i m o para la I n v e s t i g a c i â n Biblica, 1989) P o l z i n , Robert, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose ( H S M , 12; M i s s o u l a , MT: Scholars Press, 1976) P u e c h , E m i l e , ' Q u e l q u e s a s p e c t s d e la r e s t a u r a t i o n d u R o u l e a u d e s H y m n e s ( 1 Q H ) ‫ ׳‬, / / S 39 [1988], p p . 38-55 Q i m r o n , Elisha, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; A t l a n t a , G A: Scholars Press, 1986) —'Biblical P h i l o l o g y a n d the DSS‫׳‬, Tarbiz 58 (1989), p p . 297-315 — ' T h e Text of C D C ‫ ׳‬, in The Damascus Document Reconsidered (ed. M a g e n Broshi; Jerusalem: T h e Israel Exploration S o c i e t y / T h e Shrine of the Book, Israel M u s e u m , 1992), pp. 9-49 — ' S o m e R e m a r k s o n the A p o c r y p h a l P s a l m 155 ( l l Q P s 3 C o l u m n 24)‫׳‬, in Qumran Questions (ed. J a m e s H. C h a r l e s w o r t h ; S h e f f i e l d : S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1995), pp. 64-66 Rabin, C h a i m , The Zadokite Documents Edited with a Translation and Notes ( S e c o n d r e v i s e d ed.; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1958) R o f é , A l e x a n d e r , Ά N e g l e c t e d M e a n i n g of the Verb ‫ כ ו ל‬a n d the T e x t of 1 Q S VL11-13', in "Sha'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon ( e d . M i c h a e l F i s h b a n e a n d E m a n u e l Τ ο ν ; W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1992), pp. 315-21 R o s e n b l o o m , J o s e p h R., The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll: A Literary Analysis (Grand R a p i d s , MI; W i l l i a m B. E e r d m a n s , 1970) S a e n z - B a d i l l o s , A n g e l , A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J.F. Elw o l d e ; C a m b r i d g e : C U P , 1993) — a n d T a r g a r o n a , Judit, Los judios de Sefarad ante la Biblia: La interpretaciôn de la Biblia en el medievo ( E s t u d i o s d e Cultura H e b r e a , 13; C o r d o b a : E d i c i o n e s El A l m e n d r o , 1996) S a n d e r s , J.A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave ΊΊ (DJD, 4; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1965) S c h i f f m a n , L a w r e n c e H . , ' S e c t a r i a n R u l e ( 5 Q 1 3 ) ' , in J a m e s H . C h a r l e s w o r t h (ed.), Rule of the Community and Related Documents (The D e a d Sea Scrolls: H e b r e w , A r a m a i c , a n d G r e e k Texts w i t h E n g l i s h Translations, Vol. 1; T ü b i n g e n / L o u i s v i l l e : J.C.B. M o h r / W e s t m i n s t e r John Knox Press; 1995), pp. 135-43 — ' 3 0 0 . 4 Q M y s t e r i e s b ' , in E l g v i n , Torleif, M e n a c h e m Kister, T i m o t h y Lim, Bilhah N i t z a n , S t e p h e n P f a n n , Elisha Q i m r o n , L a w r e n c e H . S c h i f f m a n , a n d A n n e t t e S t e u d e i , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h J o s e p h A. F i t z m y e r , partially b a s e d o n earlier t r a n s c r i p t i o n s

b y Jôzef T. Milik a n d John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 20; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1997), p p . 99-112 Schul ler, Eileen, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS, 28; Atlanta, G A : Scholars Press, 1986) Segal, M.H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebreio (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1927) —Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem ( s e c o n d , c o r r e c t e d a n d e x p a n d e d , e d . ; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958) S k e h a n , Patrick W. a n d A l e x a n d e r A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes ... Introduction and Commentary (AB, 39; N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1987) S m e n d , R u d o l f , Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch, mit einem hebräischen Glossar (3 parts; Berlin: G e o r g Reimer, 1906) S t r u g n e l l , J o h n , ' N o t e s a n d Q u e r i e s o n t h e "Ben Sira Scroll f r o m M a s a d a " [of Y. Y a d i n ] ‫ ׳‬, in A. M a l a m a t (ed.), W.F. Albright Volume (=Eretz-Israel 9; Jerusalem: Israel E x p l o r a t i o n S o c i e t y , 1969), pp. 109-19 v d P : v a n d e r P l o e g , J., Le Rouleau de la Guerre traduit et annoté avec une introduction (STDJ, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959) V e r m e s , G e z a , The Dead Sea Scrolls in English ( R e v i s e d a n d e x t e n d e d fourth ed.; H a r m o n d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n Books, 1995) V e r m e s 5 : V e r m e s , G e z a , The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English ( L o n d o n : A l l e n L a n e / P e n g u i n , 1997) W A : W a c h o l d e r , Ben Z i o n a n d Martin G. A b e g g ( w i t h James B o w l e y [Fascicle Four]), A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebreio and Aramaic texts from Cave Four. Fascicles O n e to Four ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C , Biblical A r c h a e o l o g y Society, 1991-96) W a l l e n s t e i n , Meir, Ά Striking H y m n F r o m the D e a d Sea Scrolls', BJRL 38(1955-56), pp. 241-65 W i l l i a m s , G a r y R o y e , ' P a r a l l e l i s m in t h e H o d a y o t f r o m Q u m r a n ‫ ׳‬, (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A n n e n b e r g R e s e a r c h Institute, 1991; p p . vi, 835 [2 vols.]; U M I Order N u m b e r 9234457) Wise: s e e A b e g g W M : Wernberg-M011er, P., The Manual of Discipline Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957) Wolters, Al, The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Translation (Sheffield: S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1996) Y a d i n , Yigael, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada with Introduction, Emendations, and Commentary (Jerusalem: T h e Israel Exploration Society a n d T h e Shrine of the Book, 1965)

O N S Y N T A X A N D STYLE IN BEN SIRA: W O R D O R D E R S.E. Fassberg (Jerusalem) I:

Introduction

The s y n t a x of the b o o k of Ben Sira has, o n the w h o l e , r e c e i v e d less att e n t i o n t h a n h a v e f i e l d s s u c h as m o r p h o l o g y or l e x i c o l o g y . T h i s p h e n o m e n o n is d u e in part to a general lack of interest in s y n t a x . In t h e c a s e of Ben Sira, h o w e v e r , it is a l s o attributable to the d i f f i c u l t y a n d uncertainty i n v o l v e d in reconstructing the H e b r e w Urtext.‫ ו‬W h i l e the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the Greek a n d Syriac v e r s i o n s o n the o n e h a n d , a n d the H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s o n the other, a n d t h o s e b e t w e e n t h e H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s t h e m s e l v e s , d e m a n d that o n e treat the s y n t a x of textually s u s p e c t p a s s a g e s w i t h c a u t i o n , the difficulties of reconstructi n g the H e b r e w original s h o u l d n o t p r e c l u d e an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the syntax of Ben Sira, since the H e b r e w text is acceptable a n d g r a m m a t i cal in m o s t p a s s a g e s . O n e syntactic feature of the l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira that has y e t to be d i s c u s s e d is w o r d order. W o r d o r d e r d o e s not b e l o n g s o l e l y to t h e d o m a i n of syntax, for it reflects the interaction of s y n t a x a n d style. In Biblical H e b r e w , the p o s i t i o n i n g of w o r d s in a c l a u s e t e n d s to be m o r e rigid in p r o s e than in poetry, t h o u g h variation m a y be f o u n d in the former as w e l l as the latter. W o r d order is affected by y e t a n o t h e r factor in poetry, n a m e l y , parallelism, w h i c h establishes a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s and s e r v e s to e m p h a s i z e the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m . 2 O n e form of parallelism salient in p o e t r y that affects

1

See, e.g., the remarks of W. Th. van Peursen in attempting to reconstruct the original Hebrew passages in 35.21-22 (32.21-22) in 'Periphrastic Tenses in Ben Sira‫׳‬, in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 165-67. M. Kister also deals inter alia with the difficulties of the Hebrew text in his articles: 'Notes on the Book of Ben-Sira‫׳‬, LeS. 47 (1983), p p . 125-46 [Hebrew]; 'Additions to the Article ‫'בשולי ס פ ר בךסירא‬, Le5. 53 (1989), pp. 36-53 [Hebrew]; Ά Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira‫׳‬, Taring 59 (1991), pp. 303-78 [Hebrew], 2 J.L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New H a v e n : Yale University Press, 1981), p. 2; A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 2-3.

w o r d order is i n v e r t e d parallelism, m o r e c o m m o n l y k n o w n a s chiasm u s . A l t h o u g h c h i a s m u s is a l s o f o u n d in p r o s e , it s t a n d s o u t in p o etry. It is c o m m o n l y t h o u g h t of as a d e v i c e for p r e v e n t i n g m o n o t o n o u s repetition in a p a s s a g e ; 3 it h a s b e e n further d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s of structural f u n c t i o n s ( m a r k i n g the b e g i n n i n g or c l o s i n g of s t a n z a s a n d p o e m s , linking c o m p o n e n t s of a p o e m , indicating the m i d p o i n t of a p o e m ) a n d e x p r e s s i v e f u n c t i o n s ( e x p r e s s i n g m e r i s m u s , reversal of e x i s t i n g state, e m p h a t i c n e g a t i o n or p r o h i b i t i o n , s t r o n g c o n t r a s t or antithesis). 4 A c c o r d i n g to A. Mirsky, the e s s e n c e of c h i a s m u s in H e b r e w literature (biblical, rabbinic, a n d m e d i a e v a l ) is to mark the e n d of a literary unit, a n d thus is a m e a n s of p u n c t u a t i o n . 5 L i n g u i s t s d e a l i n g w i t h f u n c t i o n a l g r a m m a r a n d stylistics s p e a k of c h i a s m u s h a v i n g a f u n c t i o n of ' f o r e g r o u n d i n g ' or ' d e f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n ' , i.e., c h i a s m u s is a d e v i a t i o n f r o m the n o r m or ' b a c k g r o u n d ' i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d this d e v i a tion g i v e s p r o m i n e n c e to a p a s s a g e a n d s e p a r a t e s it f r o m the p r e c e d i n g line/' O n e s h o u l d bear in m i n d that e v e n t h o u g h c h i a s m u s affects w o r d order, it is still subject to certain w o r d order constraints. 7 In the light of syntax, style, parallelism, a n d c h i a s m u s , w o r d order w i l l be d i s c u s s e d in three t y p e s of clauses: 8 1. C l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g an imperative; 2. C l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d ; 3. C l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g a v o c a t i v e . 3

On chiasmus in general, see the collection of articles in J.W. Welch, Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), particularly the chapter by W.G.E. Watson, 'Chiastic Pattern in Biblical Hebrew Poetry‫( ׳‬pp. 118-68). See also W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 201208.

4

See Watson, ‫׳‬Chinstic Pattern‫׳‬, pp. 146-49. A. Mirsky,‫( הפיסוק ט ל הסגנון העברי‬Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), p p . 11-35. 6 M. Rosenbaum, Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40-55: A Functional Perspective (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 35; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997), p p . 149-208, especially pp. 179-81. For an overview of the term 'foregrounding' and its use in linguistics, see W. van Peer, 'Foregrounding', in R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1994), pp. 1272-75. 7 See, e.g., M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), p. 391: "Chiasm is constrained in a p r o f o u n d w a y by the w o r d order d e m a n d s of the language, but within its granted boundaries, it flourishes". 8 I t should be a d d e d that clauses in Ben Sira frequently are a half line (or 'verset', ‫׳‬hemistich', 'colon'), and this syntactic division is d e m o n s t r a t e d by the stichography of MSS B, E, F, and the Masada scroll. A g a p is presented between half-lines in this p a p e r w h e r e the original manuscripts display stichography. 5

W o r d o r d e r in c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g an i m p e r a t i v e a n d a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d are of interest b e c a u s e of their f r e q u e n c y a n d centrality to t h e b o o k . C l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g a v o c a t i v e are a l s o of interest b e c a u s e p e rusal of Ben Sira r e v e a l s a c o n s p i c o u s l y c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n of t h e v o c a t i v e . For the s a k e of c o m p a r i s o n , the w o r d order in t h e s e c l a u s e s will be c o m p a r e d w i t h the w o r d order in similar c l a u s e s in the b o o k of Proverbs, w h i c h is a c o r p u s of w i s d o m literature m u c h like that of Ben Sira. 9

II: Clauses containing

an

imperative

1. C l a u s e s w i t h an i m p e r a t i v e are f r e q u e n t in Ben Sira ( a b o u t 190x). The i m p e r a t i v e u s u a l l y s t a n d s at the b e g i n n i n g of the clause, e.g.: 4.9) ‫ ה ו ש ע מ ו צ ק מ מ צ י ק י ו ו א ל ת ק ו ץ ר ו ח ך כ מ ש פ ט יושר‬A ) 7.31) ‫ ל ק ם כ א ש ר צוותה‬1 ‫ ן ח‬1 ‫כ ב ר א ל ו ה ד ר כ ה ן ו ת‬ Al 7.33) ‫ ת ן מתן ל פ נ י כ ל חי ונם מ מ ת א ל ת מ נ ע ח ס ד‬A ) 12.2) ‫ ה י ט ב ל צ ד י ק ו מ צ א ת ש ל ו מ ת א ם ל א ממנו מייי‬A ) 36.21) ‫תו א ת פ ע ל ת ק ו ו י ך ו נ ב י א י ך יאמינו‬ Β = 36.16) N o t e the repetition (14x) of the w o r d order I m p e r a t i v e + Indirect o b ject + C a u s a l C l a u s e b e g i n n i n g w i t h the i m p e r a t i v e - ‫ ה ו ד ו ל‬in 51.12B (cf. Ps. 118), e.g., ‫כי ל ע ו ל ם חסדו‬ ‫כי ל ע ו ל ם חסדו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

‫הודו ל ה ׳ כ י ט ו ב‬ ‫הודו ל א ל ה ת ש ב ח ו ת‬ ‫הודו ל ש ו מ ר י ש ר א ל‬.

2. T h e r e are a b o u t 40 e x a m p l e s in w h i c h the i m p e r a t i v e is n o t p o s i tioned at the b e g i n n i n g of the clause: 1 "

9

Citations from Ben Sira are according to the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Aiwlysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973). Where the verse n u m b e r s differ from that found in Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira, the Hebrew n u m b e r i n g is cited in addition according to P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). 10 For clauses containing η vocative, see Sect. IV below.

‫ א ח ר י ת ו ל ע ו ל ם ל א ת ש ח ת‬τ ο !7.36)‫מ ע ש י ך‬

‫ ב כ ל‬A )

‫( כ כ ח ך ע נ ה ר ע ך ו ע ם ח כ מ י ם ה ס ת י י ד‬9.14A)

[ ]

3

0

.

3

1

)

In s e v e r a l of the c l a u s e s a b o v e o n e f i n d s P r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e ( A d v e r b i a l / I n d i r e c t Object) + Verb + Direct Object; see, for e x a m p l e , t h e cluster of e x a m p l e s in chapter 7 (vv. 29,30,32,36). Prepositional P h r a s e ( A d v e r b i a l ) + Verb + Indirect Object is attested in 4.28. T h e r e are n o e x a m p l e s of P r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e + Direct Object + V e r b (in final

11

Segal takes the initial waw as dittography. See M.H. Segal, 0‫ ירא השלם‬ρ ‫ס פ ר‬ (Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958), p..‫מנ‬ 12 The adjective ‫ זהיר‬by itself is ungrammatical. O n e expects the periphrastic form ‫ היה זהיר‬or the imperative ‫הזהר‬. See Segal,‫בן סירא‬, p..‫עז‬ 13 Another possible example is11.6)]‫ א ו ל ובקהל טעםשפוט‬B ) , though the line is difficult and unattested in MS A, the Septuagint, and Peshitta.

position). In four p a s s a g e s o n e f i n d s a direct object at the b e g i n n i n g of the clause: ‫( כ ל שיחה ח פ ו ץ ל ש מ ו ע‬6.35;‫ כ ל שיחה‬is the direct object of the inf.

also w i t h v o c a t i v e : . ( [ 4 1 . 1 4 ] 3. C h i a s m u s . C h i a s m u s in Ben Sira has b e e n n o t e d by P. S k e h a n a n d A. Di Leila, w h o present a listing of different t y p e s of chiastic structure in their A n c h o r Bible v o l u m e . 1 4 In c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g an i m p e r a five, o n e f i n d s inverted w o r d order in w h i c h the verb in o n e half-line is p o s i t i o n e d initially w h i l e the verb in the other half-line is p o s i t i o n e d finally or a l m o s t finally (4.7; 5.11; 34.15; 37.8; 38.10; 39.35). The verb is not final in the c l a u s e w h e n it takes a direct object, w h i c h f o l l o w s it, a n d there is an initial prepositional p h r a s e — a constraint that p r e v e n t s the i m p e r a t i v e f r o m o c c u r r i n g finally in both half-lines or initially in o n e and finally in the other (4.7; 9.14; 16.24 [the first half-line h a s t w o imperatives]; 38.10). Cf. 32.11 w h e r e this constraint is f o u n d in b o t h h a l f - l i n e s a n d so perfect p a r a l l e l i s m , i.e., identical v e r b p o s i t i o n , is m a i n t a i n e d . The parallel pattern a:b::a':b:' also occurs in 6.13. 1 5 4. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h the b o o k of Proverbs. There are a p p r o x i m a t e l y 115 i m p e r a t i v e s in Proverbs, of w h i c h all but e l e v e n occur initially in the clause: ‫( ב כ ל ד ר כ י ך ד ע ה ו והוא יישר א ר ח ת י ך‬3.6) ‫ נ ה בינה‬£ ‫קנה ח כ מ ה ו ב כ ל קנינך‬. ‫( ראשית ח כ מ ה‬4.7) ‫( בני ל ד ב ר י ה ק ש י ב ה ל א מ ר י הט־אזנך‬4.20) ‫( מ כ ל מ ש מ ר נ צ ב ל ב ך כי ממנו ת ו צ א ו ת חיים‬4.23) ‫( ה ס ר מ מ ך ע ק ש ו ת פ ה ולזות שפתים ה ר ח ק מ מ ך‬4.24) ‫( ל ק ח ב ג ד ו כי ע ר ב זר ו ב ע ד נ כ ר י ם ח ב ל ה ו‬20.16) ‫( מ ח ש ב ו ת ב ע צ ה ת כ ו ן ו ב ת ח ב ל ו ת עשה מ ל ח מ ה‬20.18) ‫( ר י ב ך מ ב א ת ר ע ך ו ס ו ד א ח ר א ל ת ג ל‬25.9) ‫( ק ח מ ד ו כי ע ר ב זר ו ב ע ד נ כ ר י ה ח ב ל ה ו‬27.13). It s h o u l d be n o t e d that a non-initial i m p e r a t i v e is attested in Proverbs in clause-final position o n l y w h e n it has an object suffix (20.16; 27.13). There are n o e x a m p l e s of this in Ben Sira.

14

P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Sen Sira (AB, 39; N e w York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 67-73. 15 For examples w h e r e an imperative is parallel to a negative c o m m a n d , see below.

‫נים‬

III: Clauses containing a negative A.‫תקטול‬

command

‫אל‬

1. T h e f r e q u e n c y of the n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d ‫ א ל ת ק ט ו ל‬is o n e of the h a l l m a r k s of Ben Sira's style ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 200x); it is slightly m o r e c o m m o n than the imperative. T h e usual p o s i t i o n of ‫ א ל ת ק ט ו ל‬in the c l a u s e is initial, e.g.:

2. A s in the case of the imperatives, a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - f i f t h of the instances of ‫ א ל ת ק ט ו ל‬d o not occur initially in the clause: 1 6 [ 3 . 1 4 )

16

For clauses containing a negative c o m m a n d and a vocative, see Sect. IV below. 17 For expected ‫תפיח‬. See Segal,‫בן סירא‬, pp..‫כב‬-‫כנ‬ 18 Segal, ‫בןסירא‬, p. ‫כא‬, suggests that this is possibly an error for ‫ )ד־וה =( דווה‬or ‫)רוח =( רווח‬. Beentjes reads ‫ רווה‬.

3. A s i g n i f i c a n t n u m b e r of n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s f o l l o w a n initial p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase (e.g., 8.15,16,17,18,19; 3 5 . 4 , 9 , l l , 1 9 , 2 0 ) . T h e r e are f e w e r n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s after an initial direct object (3.14,21 [2x]; 4.3; 12.5; 35.9). T h e n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d is attested in final p o s i t i o n in the c l a u s e w h e n p r e c e d e d by a direct object (3.14,21 [2x]), t h o u g h t h e direct object u s u a l l y f o l l o w s the n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d w h e n there is an initial prepositional p h r a s e (as is the case w i t h the i m p e r a t i v e ) , e.g., 5.14; 3 5 . 1 2 , 1 9 ; 42.12. In 10.6 o n e f i n d s a F r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e (Adverbial) + N e g a t i v e C o m m a n d + Direct Object + Indirect Object. 4. There are three e x a m p l e s of casus pendens the w o r d order of Verb + Object:

f o l l o w e d by c l a u s e s w i t h

5. In chapters 4,5,7,8 there are clusters of initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s . R e p e t i t i o n of w o r d order a n d v o c a b u l a r y is a l s o a t t e s t e d in o t h e r chapters, but to a m o r e limited extent. Non-initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s also cluster together, particularly in chapter 35 (= ch. 32). 6. C h i a s m u s . A s in c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g i m p e r a t i v e s , there are several e x a m p l e s of chiastic structures in c l a u s e s w i t h n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s of the pattern a:b::b':a', w h e r e the n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d in o n e of the halfl i n e s is i n v e r s e l y p o s i t i o n e d w i t h regard to a n o t h e r n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d in the s a m e line (4.2,3; 7.10; 9.9; 11.8 [with vocative: s e e Section 19

On the problems in the Hebrew text with regard to the Septuagint a n d Peshitta, see Segal, ‫ ק ס י ר א‬, p. ‫צא‬.

IV b e l o w ] ; 35.20; 42.2). In 5.14; 8.19; 10.6 the chiastic structure is n o t perfect b e c a u s e o n e of the t w o h a l f - l i n e s e n d s w i t h a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d f o l l o w e d b y an object. There is o n e e x a m p l e w h e r e a final n e g a tive c o m m a n d is i n v e r s e l y parallel to an initial i m p e r a t i v e (35.11) a n d a n o t h e r e x a m p l e w h e r e a n i m p e r a t i v e f o l l o w i n g a v o c a t i v e is inv e r s e l y parallel to a final n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d (4.20 [see Section IV b e low]). O n e also f i n d s the parallel pattern a:b::a':b', w h e r e t h e n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d in b o t h h a l f - l i n e s is in final p o s i t i o n : 3.21; 11.9; 14.14; in 35.9,19 a n d 42.12 o n e half-line has an initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d w h i l e the n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d in the other half-line occurs near the e n d of the half-line f o l l o w e d b y a direct object. In 3.14 a final n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d parallels a final imperfect a n d in 35.12 and 37.27 (see b e l o w , Sect. IV) a final N e g a t i v e C o m m a n d + Object parallels a final I m p e r a t i v e + Object. 7. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h the b o o k of Proverbs. There are a b o u t 75 n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s , of w h i c h 15 occur in non-initial position: ‫( בני ת ו ר ת י א ל ת ש ב ח ומצותי י צ ר ל ב ך‬3.1) ‫( ב ט ח א ל ה׳ ב כ ל ל ב ך ו א ל ב י נ ת ך א ל תשען‬3.5) ‫( מ ו ס ר ה׳ בני א ל ת מ א ס ו א ל ת ק ץ ב ת ו כ ח ת ו‬3.11) ‫( כי ל ק ח ט ו ב נתתי ל כ ם ת ו ר ת י א ל ת ע ז ב ו‬4.2) ‫( ב א ר ח ר ש ע י ם א ל ת ב א ו א ל ת א ש ר ב ד ר ך ר ע י ם‬4.14) ‫( באזני כ ס י ל א ל ת ד ב ר כ י יבוז ל ש כ ל מ ל י ך‬23.9) ‫( א ל ת ס ג ג ב ו ל ע ו ל ם ובשדי יתומים א ל ת ב א‬23.10) ‫( ב נ פ ל א ו י ב י ך א ל ת ש מ ח ו ב כ ש ל ו א ל יגל ל ב ך‬24.17) ‫( י ר א א ת ה׳ בני ו מ ל ך ע ם שונים א ל ת ת ע ר ב‬24.21) ‫( א ל ת ת ה ד ר ל פ נ י מ ל ך ו ב מ ק ו ם ג ד ל י ם א ל ת ע מ ד‬25.6) ‫( ר י ב ך ר י ב א ת ר ע ך ו ס ו ר א ח ר א ל ת ג ל‬25.9) ‫( ר ע ך ו ר ע ה א ב י ך א ל ת ע ז ב ו ב י ת א ח י ך א ל ת ב ו א ביום א י ד ך‬27.10) ‫( ר א ש ועשר א ל ת ת ן ל י ה ט ר י פ נ י ל ח ם ח ק י‬30.8). There are n o n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s p r e c e d i n g a vocative. 2 0 A non-initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d is m o s t frequent after a prepositional phrase (3.5; 4.14; 23.9,10; 24.17; 25.6). T h e n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d is attested at the e n d of a c l a u s e f o l l o w i n g a direct object (3.11 [with i n t e r v e n i n g vocative]; 4.2; 25.9; 27.10).

20

There are, however, negative c o m m a n d s following a vocative:

‫( בני אל ילזו מעיניך נצר תשיה ומזמה‬3.21); see also 3.1,11 above. In1.10)‫ ) ב נ י אם יפתוך חטאים אל תבא‬, the negative c o m m a n d ‫ א ל ת ב א‬occurs in the a p o d o s i s of a conditional clause, w h o s e protasis is preceded by a vocative.

B.‫לא תקטול‬ 1. In a f e w p a s s a g e s a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s e e m s to b e e x p r e s s e d b y ‫לא ת ק ט ו ל‬: 2 1 ‫ו ל א ת ב ז ה שאולות ד ל ו א ל ת ת ע ל ם מ מ ד כ ר ך נפש ו ל א ת ת ן ל ו מ ק ו ם ל ק ל ל ך‬ (4.4A)

‫ד ע ש ר ע ך כ מ ו ך ו א כ ו ל כאיש ד ב ר ששם ל פ נ י ך ו ל א ת ה י ה נ ר נ ר ן פן ת מ א ס‬ (34.16B = 31.16). 2 2 cf. A n o t h e r possible e x a m p l e is3.14)‫ צ ד ק ת א ב ל א ת מ ח ה‬A ; 3.14] ‫ צ ד ק ת א ב א ל ת ש כ ח‬C ] ) . 2. C h i a s m u s . N o n e of the e x a m p l e s a b o v e d e m o n s t r a t e chiastic structure w i t h i n the line. 3. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h the b o o k of Proverbs. There is an e x a m p l e of the n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d ‫ ל א ת ק ט ו ל‬in Prov. 22.24: ‫ א ל ת ת ר ע א ת ב ע ל א ף ואת איש ח מ ו ת ל א ת ב ו א‬.

IV: Clauses containing

a vocative

1. There are 28 e x a m p l e s of c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g a vocative. It is striking that in 18 of the e x a m p l e s the v o c a t i v e occurs before the clause: 2 3 3.8) ‫ ב ב ב מ א מ ר ו ב מ ע ש ה כ ב ד א ב י ך ע ב ו ר ישיגוך כ ל ב ר כ ו ת‬A ) 3.12) ‫ ב ע ה ת ח ז ק ב כ ב ו ד א ב י ך ו א ל ת ע ז ב ה ו כ ל ימי חייך‬A ) 3.17) ‫ ב ב ב ע ש ר ך ה ת ה ל ך בענוה ו ת א ה ב מנותן מתנות‬A )

21

This interpretation is supported by the translation of the Septuagint (μη) in 4.4; 7.30; 9:13. According to CKC, §§107o, 109c‫ לא תקטול ׳‬in Biblical Hebrew is more emphatic as a negative c o m m a n d than ‫אל תקטול‬. Joüon-Muraoka note that ‫ לא תקטול‬is common in laws and more solemn than ‫אל תקטול‬, and is also used to express a specific prohibition. See P. Joiion-T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), §113m. 22 The Septuagint, however, translates a 3rd fem. sg. verb; the Peshitta translates a fem. sg. participle. 23 Segal, ‫בן סירא‬, pp. 17-18, notes the initial position of ‫ בני‬in 21 examples as against three non-initial occurrences of ‫בני‬. H e also comments on the sing, use of ‫ בני‬vs. the pi. use of ‫ בנים‬in Proverbs. See also A. Hurvitz, Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), pp. 62-64 [Hebrew], for a discussion of the use (but not syntax) of ‫ בני‬and ‫ בנים‬as vocatives in w i s d o m literature. H e comments on examples from Proverbs, Psalms, Qohelet, Ben Sira, and Ahiqar.

4.20) ‫ ב ר ע ת המון ש מ ר ו פ ח ד מ ר ע ו א ל נ פ ש ך א ל ת ב ו ש‬A ) [ 1 0 . 2 8 ) [10.29)‫ ב ר מ ר ש י ע נפשו מי יצריקנו ומי י כ ב ה‬B ) 2 4 11.8) ‫ ב ב א ל תשיב ד ב ר ט ר ם ת ש מ ע ו ב ת ו ך ש י ח ה א ל ת ר ב ר‬A ) 11.10) ‫ ב ב ל מ ה ת ר ב ה ע ש ק ך ואץ ל ה ר ב ו ת ל א י נ ק ה‬A ) 11.10) ‫ ב ב א ם ל א ת ר ו ץ ל א תגיע ואם ל א ת ב ק ש ל א ת מ צ א‬A ) [ 2 0 •11 14.11) ‫ב ב א ם יש ל ך שרות נ פ ש ך ואם יש ל ך ה י ט י ב ל ך ו ל א ל י ד ך הדשן‬ A) 34.12) ‫ ב ב א ם ע ל ש ל ח ן ]איש[ ג ד ו ל י ש ב ת ה א ל ת פ ת ח ע ד י ו גרנך‬B = 3 1 . 1 2 ) 37.27) ‫ ב ב ב ח י י ך נס נ פ ש ך ו ר א ה מ ה ר ע ל ה א ל ת ת ן ל ה‬B ) 38.9) ‫ ב ב ב ח ו ל י א ל ת ת ע ב ר ה ת פ ל ל א ל א ל כ י הוא י ר פ א‬B ) 38.16) ‫ ב ב ע ל ה מ ת הזיב ד מ ע ה ה ת מ ר ר ונהה קינה‬B ) 40.28) ‫ ב ב חיי מ ת ן א ל ת ח י ט ו ב נ א ס ף מ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬B m g ) 2 6 42.11) ‫ב ב ע׳ ב׳ ה ח ז ק מ ש מ ר פ׳ ת ע ׳ מ׳ ל א ׳‬ Bmg). 2 7 In eight of these e x a m p l e s o n e finds Vocative + Prepositional P h r a s e + I m p e r a t i v e (3.8,17; 4.20; 10.28; 37.27; 38.9,16; 42.11). Twice the vocative is f o l l o w e d by a n i m p e r a t i v e (3.12; 11.20). T h e o r d e r Vocative + N e g a tive C o m m a n d o c c u r s in t w o lines (4.1; 11.8). T h e o r d e r Vocative + C o g n a t e Accusative + N e g a t i v e C o m m a n d is attested in 40.28Bmg. 2. In six e x a m p l e s the vocative is not extra p o s e d , b u t rather follows an initial verb:

‫באחרית תמצא דברי‬

‫שמע ב ב וקח מוסרי ואל תלעיג עליו‬ (34.22B = 31.22)

3. In o n e e x a m p l e o n e f i n d s Verb + Indirect Object + Vocative (at e n d of clause): [ 3 0 . 2 7 )

24

C f . 1 0 . 2 9 ) this line. 25 Beentjes reads ‫][טע‬Π. 26 T h e text reads ‫מני חיי מחן אל תחי‬. Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta read ‫׳‬my son.‫׳‬ 27 ...‫עלבתחזוק[מטםרנפ[ות‬ 42).UM). 28 The preferred reading, however, is that found in the marginal reading in MS B,‫המר בכי והחם מספד‬, and in the Septuagint. See Kister, ‫׳‬Contribution‫׳‬, p. 306, n. 8.

‫טו‬

4. T h e r e is o n e e x a m p l e of Direct Object + V e r b + Vocative:

5. T h e r e m a y p o s s i b l y be a n e x a m p l e of t h e v o c a t i v e f o l l o w i n g t h e particle :‫הוי‬ ‫ י א מ ר מ ד ו ע נ ו צ ר ת י‬ο37.3)‫ ה י י‬B m g ) . 2 9 6. T h e v o c a t i v e is n o t f o u n d f o l l o w i n g a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d , o n l y e x t r a p o s e d b e f o r e it: 11.8

)

7. In t h r e e of t h e five e x a m p l e s of a c o n d i t i o n a l c l a u s e w i t h v o c a t i v e , the v o c a t i v e o c c u r s b e f o r e the i n t r o d u c t o r y particle of t h e p r o t a s i s , ‫א ם‬ 11.10; 14.11; 34.12)); in the f o u r t h e x a m p l e , the v o c a t i v e is f o u n d a f t e r t h e c o n d i t i o n a l particle a n d v e r b a n d o c c u p i e s e i t h e r final p o s i t i o n in t h e p r o t a s i s or is e x t r a p o s e d b e f o r e the a p o d o s i s :

In t h e fifth e x a m p l e , 35.7, the v o c a t i v e o c c u r s b e t w e e n t h e v e r b of t h e a p o d o s i s a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n a l p a r t i c l e of t h e p r o t a s i s ( t h e a p o d o s i s p r e c e d e s t h e protasis). 8. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h the b o o k of Proverbs. 3 1 1 T h e r e a r e 22 e x a m p l e s of t h e v o c a t i v e in t h e b o o k of P r o v e r b s : 1.8,10; 2.1; 3.1,11; 4.1,10; 4.20; 5.1,7; 6.3; 7.1,24; 8.5,32; 9.6; 19.27; 23.15,26; 24.13,21; 27.11. U n l i k e in Ben Sira, t h e v o c a t i v e is placed initially in o n l y s e v e n p a s s a g e s (1.10; 2.1; 3.1; 4.10; 5.1; 7.1; 23.15). O n e f i n d s ‫ ו ע ת ה מ י ם ש מ ע ו ל י‬in t h r e e p a s s a g e s (5.7; 7.24; 8.32). T h e v o c a t i v e p r e c e d e s the c o n d i t i o n a l particle of t h e p r o t a s i s in 1.10; 2.1; 6.1. T w o p a s s a g e s in Ben Sira, 30.27 a n d 29

Beentjes reads ‫ רךע‬in the margin; Segal reads ‫דיע‬. The body of the text reads ‫רע‬, which is either a defective spelling for 'friend' or else reflects ‫' רע‬evil' as attested in the Syriac and Greek translations. For a discussion of the relationship between the three versions, see Segal, ‫בן סירא‬, p. ‫רלה‬, and Skehan-Di Leila, Ben Sira, p. 428. 30 For an extensive treatment on the word order of clauses containing a vocative in Biblical Hebrew, see Rosenbaum, Ward-Order Variation, pp. 116-32. Surprisingly, the standard grammars contain relatively little on the subject. See, e.g., E. K ö n i g , Historisch-comparative

Syntax der hebräischen

Sprache (Leipzig:

J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1897), §344w; C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956), §10; B.K. Waltke-M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §§4.7d; 8.3d; 40.2.4; Joüon-Muraoka, §137g.

34.22(2x), w h e r e o n e f i n d s t h e v o c a t i v e f o l l o w i n g t h e i m p e r a t i v e 31,‫שמע‬ should be compared with Proverbs: ‫ ר א ב י ך ו א ל ־ ת ט ש ת ו ר ת א מ ך‬0 ‫( ש מ ע בני מ ו‬1.8) ‫( ש מ ע ו ב נ י ם מ ו ס ר א ב ו ה ק ש י ב ו ל ד ע ת ב י נ ה‬4.1) ‫( ש מ ע בני ו ק ח א מ ר י ו י ר ב ו ל ך שנות ח י י ך‬4.10). T h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f e w e r e x a m p l e s in P r o v e r b s of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases (indirect object/adverbial) immediately following the vocative ( ‫ [ בני ל ד ב ר י ה ק ש י ב ה‬4 . 2 0 ] ; ‫[ בני ל ח כ מ ת י ה ק ש י ב ה‬5.1]) t h a n t h e r e a r e in Ben Sira (3.8,17; 10.28; 37.27; 38.9,16; 42.11). 9. C f . a l s o t h e n o n - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n of t h e v o c a t i v e in t h e D a m a s c u s Document: ‫ ( ו ע ת ה ש מ ע ו כ ל י ו ד ע י צ ד ק ובינו ב מ ע ש י א ל‬C D 1.1) ‫ ( ו ע ת ה ב נ י ם ש מ ע ו ל י‬C D 2.14) ‫ ( ו ע ת ה ש מ ע ו א ל י כ ל ב א י ב ר י ת‬C D 2.2). 10. It is i n t e r e s t i n g to c o m p a r e t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e v o c a t i v e in Ben Sira w i t h t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e v o c a t i v e in o t h e r Semitic w i s d o m c o r p o r a . 3 2 In Babylonian w i s d o m literature33 one finds that the vocative consist e n t l y o c c u r s in s e c o n d p o s i t i o n a f t e r a n i m p e r a t i v e o r n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d , e.g. iitaqqmnma ibrt limad 5ibqīya " p a y a t t e n t i o n , m y f r i e n d , u n d e r s t a n d m y i d e a s " (p. 86,1. 254); là teppuš bē1īlā teppuš " D o n o t s a c r i fice, sir, d o n o t s a c r i f i c e " (p. 146,1. 59). In c l a u s e s w i t h o t h e r v e r b s a n d in n o m i n a l c l a u s e s , t h e v o c a t i v e is m o s t f r e q u e n t l y f o u n d in initial p o s i t i o n , e.g. marl lū libbašū1na ša rubê attā " M y s o n , if it b e t h e w i s h of t h e p r i n c e t h a t y o u a r e h i s " (p. 102, 1. 81), t h o u g h it c a n a l s o o c c u r n o n - i n i t i a l l y , e.g. taSemine ^ŠamaS suppä sullâ u karābi " Y o u o b s e r v e , Š a m a š , p r a y e r , s u p p l i c a t i o n , a n d b e n e d i c t i o n " (p. 134,1.130). F i v e e x a m p l e s of t h e v o c a t i v e a r e a t t e s t e d in t h e E l e p h a n t i n e v e r s i o n of t h e P r o v e r b s of A h i q a r . 3 4 T h e r e is o n e initial o c c u r r e n c e of t h e 31

M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 304-305, notes the use of the imperative ‫ טמע‬in wisdom literature in the sense of , obey'. 32 1 thank Professor A. Hurvitz for suggesting this comparison. 33 W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1975). 34 The readings and line numbers follow B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3: Literature, Accounts, Lists (Jerusalem: The H e b r e w University, 1993), pp. 24-53. There are three examples of the vocative in non-initial position in the narrative of Ahiqar: ‫]ת[חיי אחיקר אבוה זי אתור כלה‬ "May you survive, Ο Ahiqar, the father of the w h o l e of Assyria" (4.55);

v o c a t i v e , w h i c h is f o u n d b e f o r e a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d : ‫ס ד י [ א ל תל]ו!ט יומא ע ד ת ח ז ה ]לי[לה‬ " M y s o n , d o n o t c u r s e t h e d a y u n t i l y o u see t h e n i g h t " (6.80). T h e v o c a t i v e a p p e a r s to o c c u r n o n - i n i t i a l l y in t w o e x a m p l e s , b o t h a f ter i m p e r a t i v e s , if t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 3 5 is c o r r e c t : ‫]שמע[ א נ ת י ה ב ר י ה כ צ ר כ ל כ צ י ר ו ע ב ד כ ל ע ב י ר ה‬ "[Hear], Ο m y son. Harvest a n y harvest a n d d o a n y w o r k " (9.127); ‫]שמע[ א נ ת יה ב ר י ז ף ד ג נ א ו ח נ ט ת א זי ת א כ ל ו ת ש ב ע ותנתן ל ב נ י ך ע מ ך‬ "[Hear], Ο m y son. Borrow the grain a n d the w h e a t that y o u m a y eat a n d be satisfied a n d give to y o u r children w i t h y o u " (9.129). In a n o t h e r e x a m p l e t h e v o c a t i v e o c c u r s m e d i a l l y in t h e p r o t a s i s : [ ] ‫הן צ ב ה א נ ת ב ר י זי ת ה ו ה‬ "If y o u d e s i r e , m y s o n , t h a t y o u b e [ . . . ] 1 0 . 1 4 9 ) ‫ ) ״‬. In y e t a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o n e m a y i n t e r p r e t t h e v o c a t i v e a s o c c u r r i n g a t t h e e n d of t h e p r o t a s i s o r b e t w e e n t h e p r o t a s i s a n d a p o d o s i s : ‫הן א מ ח א נ ך ב ר י ל א ת מ ו ת‬ "If 1 s t r i k e y o u , m y s o n , y o u will n o t d i e " (12.177). In t h e Syriac v e r s i o n of the P r o v e r b s of A h i q a r t h e v o c a t i v e ‫ ב ר י‬c o n s i s t e n t l y o c c u r s initially in e a c h p r o v e r b . 3 6

‫אמר לן נבוסמסכן רביא‬ "Say to us, Nabusumiskun, young m a n " (4.58); ‫הקימני אל בצדיק עמך‬ "Establish me, O, El, as a righteous (one) with y o u " (8.109). See T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), §86a-d. O n e should note that the vocative in Ugaritic does not occur in initial position in the sentence. See C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar (AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1965), §12.6; D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (HdO, 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 6,186-87. 35 For the reconstructed imperatives see J.M. Lindberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). 36

See F.C. C o n y b e a r e et al., The Story of Ahiqar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopie, Ohl Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions (Second ed.; C a m -

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913). In the narrative the vocative ‫ ברי‬is attested following the verb: ‫שמע יולפני ברי נדן ותא לתשעיתי‬ "Hear my teaching, my son Nadan, and come to my u n d e r s t a n d i n g " (Mus. Brit. Add. 7200).

V:

Conclusion

1. A n a n a l y s i s of c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g i m p e r a t i v e s , c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s , a n d c l a u s e s w i t h a v o c a t i v e i n Ben Sira r e v e a l s a p r e f e r e n c e f o r c e r t a i n w o r d o r d e r p a t t e r n s , t h o u g h t h e r e is v a r i a t i o n , a s e x p e c t e d in a p o e t i c w o r k . T h e p r e f e r e n c e s in t h e c a s e of c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g i m p e r a t i v e s a n d n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s a r e s i m i l a r to t h o s e f o u n d in t h e b o o k of P r o v e r b s . S u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e w o r d o r d e r in c l a u s e s w i t h a v o c a t i v e d i f f e r s f r o m t h a t in P r o v e r b s . 2. In c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g a n i m p e r a t i v e o r a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d , t h e v e r b is o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p o s i t i o n e d initially in t h e c l a u s e , a s is t h e c a s e in t h e b o o k of P r o v e r b s . O n l y a b o u t o n e - f i f t h of s u c h c l a u s e s e x h i b i t s n o n - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n of t h e v e r b , u s u a l l y at t h e e n d of t h e c l a u s e , e x c e p t w h e n t h e v e r b t a k e s a d i r e c t object, in w h i c h c a s e t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t o c c u r s in f i n a l p o s i t i o n in t h e c l a u s e a n d is p r e c e d e d b y t h e v e r b . T h e initial p o s i t i o n i n g of i m p e r a t i v e s a n d n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s s t a n d s in s h a r p c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e p o s i t i o n i n g of i m p e r f e c t s a n d p e r f e c t s , w h i c h regularly are non-initial. The relatively few imperfect verbs that are initial in c l a u s e s u s u a l l y e x p r e s s m o d a l i t y . 3 7 D e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h e initial p o s i t i o n i n g of i m p e r a t i v e s a n d n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s i n v o l v e c h i a s m u s . O n e f u n c t i o n of t h e c h i a s m u s s e e m s to be, a s n o t e d a b o v e in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , to d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o a l i n e t h a t m a r k s t h e b o u n d a r i e s of a u n i t ; a s s u c h it d o e s i n d e e d s e r v e a s a m e a n s of p u n c t u a t i o n . T h e f o l l o w i n g is a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e x a m p l e of a l i n e t h a t is m a r k e d off f r o m o t h e r lines, n o t o n l y b y m e a n i n g , b u t a l s o b y its i n v e r t e d w o r d o r d e r : in 4.22-27A t h e l i n e s b e g i n w i t h a n initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d , e.g. a n d a r e then a b r u p t l y i n t e r r u p t e d by T h e series of initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s is r e s u m e d in t h e latter p a r t of v. 28 w i t h ‫ א ל ת ק ר א ב ע ל שתים ו א ל לשונך א ל ת ר ג ל‬, 3 8 w h i c h , h o w e v e r , is o n c e a g a i n d e l i m i t e d b y S i m i l a r l y , in 7.3-16 t h e r e is a s e r i e s of l i n e s b e g i n n i n g w i t h n e g a t i v e

37

There are exceptions, however. Cf.

and5.10)‫ ה י ה סמוך ע ל דברך ואחר יהיה דבריך‬C , with non-modal form). Note the chiasmus of this line and the following ‫( היה ממהר להאזין ובארך רוח הטב פתגם‬5.11 ). 38 This line itself displays chiasmus.

c o m m a n d s , w h i c h is b r o k e n off b y a line w i t h a non-initial i m p e r a t i v e : 7.17) ‫ מ א ד מ א ד ה ש פ י ל נאוה כ י ח ק ו ת אנוש ר מ ה‬A ) . T h e i n v e r s i o n of w o r d o r d e r as a w a y of m a r k i n g t h e limits of lite r a r y u n i t s s t a n d s o u t clearly in c h a p t e r s 8 a n d 9, w h e r e o n e f i n d s in 8.1-14 a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d r e p e a t e d l y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e first clause; t h e shift to a n e w literary u n i t is indicated b y a w o r d o r d e r c h a n g e in lines 15-19, w h e r e t h e n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d is c o n s i s t e n t l y non-initial; a n d yet a n o t h e r u n i t is m a r k e d as b e g i n n i n g t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n (9.1-3) w i t h initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s . T h i s in t u r n is f o l l o w e d by a n o t h e r u n i t of non-initial n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s in 9.3-5, etc. In s o m e lines c h i a s m u s a p p e a r s to e x p r e s s contrast, e.g. 7.10) ‫ א ל ת ת ק צ ר ב ת פ ל ה ו ב צ ד ק ה א ל ת ת ע ב ר‬A ) , t h o u g h in o t h e r chiastic lines n o a n t i t h e s i s is felt, e.g. 4.7) ‫ ה א ה ב ל נ פ ש ך ל ע ד ה ו ל ש ל ט ו ן ע י ר ה כ א ף ר א ש‬A ) . O n e can also find c h i a s m u s o c c u r r i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h i n lines a n d b e t w e e n lines: ‫ו א ל ת ת ק ל ב ד ר ך נגף‬

‫בדרך מוקשתאלתלך‬

3. W i t h r e g a r d to the w o r d o r d e r in c l a u s e s w i t h a vocative, the l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira s h o w s a d e f i n i t e p r e f e r e n c e for e x t r a p o s i t i o n of t h e a d d r e s s e e b e f o r e t h e c l a u s e . T h i s p o s i t i o n of the v o c a t i v e d i f f e r s n o ticeably f r o m t h a t of t h e v o c a t i v e in t h e b o o k of P r o v e r b s , w h e r e t h e a d d r e s s e e u s u a l l y o c c u r s a f t e r t h e v e r b . T h e initial p o s i t i o n of t h e v o c a t i v e in Ben Sira is s i m i l a r to t h e p l a c i n g of t h e v o c a t i v e in Babylonian w i s d o m literature with clauses that d o not contain i m p e r a t i v e s or n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d s , u n l i k e the p o s t - v e r b a l p o s i t i o n of the A k k a d i a n v o c a t i v e in c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g i m p e r a t i v e s a n d n e g a t i v e commands.

FURTHER C O M M E N T S O N T H E L I N G U I S T I C P R O F I L E O F B E N SIRA: SYNTACTIC AFFINITIES W I T H LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW* Avi H u r v i t z (Jerusalem) Part A F o u r m a j o r a s p e c t s m a y b e o b s e r v e d w i t h i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m of s c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h d e a l i n g w i t h t h e b o o k of Ben Sira: t h e o l o g i c a l , l i t e r a r y , t e x t u a l , a n d l i n g u i s t i c . W i t h i n t h i s f r a m e w o r k , m u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n is d e v o t e d to topics such as religious conceptions a n d ideas, rhetorical t e c h n i q u e s a n d d e v i c e s , o r q u e s t i o n s of Vorlage a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g t h e d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s of t h e b o o k . T h e l i n g u i s t i c d i m e n s i o n of t h e H e b r e w of Ben S i r a — t h e o r i g i n a l l a n g u a g e of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n — i s h a r d l y g i v e n d u e a t t e n t i o n in t h e v a r i o u s p u b l i c a t i o n s . T h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s is c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d in a r e c e n t s u r v e y b y D.J. H a r r i n g t o n o n t h e s c h o l a r l y s t u d y of Ben Sira, e n t i t l e d ' S i r a c h R e s e a r c h s i n c e 1965: Progress and Questions'.1 The author deals competently with a wide v a r i e t y of i s s u e s ; h o w e v e r , t h e l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t i n v o l v e d in t h e s t u d y of Ben Sira is n o t e v e n m e n t i o n e d . N o w , e v i d e n t l y , t h i s is n o t H a r r i n g t o n ' s f a u l t . H e explicitly s t a t e s at t h e o u t s e t t h a t h i s r e p o r t " c o v e r s t h e m a j o r e d i t i o n s a n d m o n o g r a p h s ; it d o e s n o t t r e a t articles, p a r t s of b o o k s , o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o h a n d b o o k s " (p. 164). Yet, t h e b a s i c f a c t r e m a i n s , t h a t — a s f a r a s g e n e r a l Ben Sira r e s e a r c h is c o n c e r n e d — n o a d e q u a t e s p a c e is r e s e r v e d in t h e ' m a j o r e d i t i o n s a n d m o n o g r a p h s ' f o r a

* Cf. A. Hurvitz, 'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elw o l d e , The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls 6‫ ׳‬Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, U-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill,

1997), pp. 72-86. In preparing the final version of the present paper, I w a s able to take a d v a n t a g e of some c o m m e n t s a n d suggestions m a d e by colleagues w h o took part in the 1997 session of the Leiden Symposium; I w o u l d like to mention the following n a m e s in particular: M. Baasten, S. Fassberg, J. Hoftijzer, T. Muraoka, and M. Smith. 1

In J.C. Reeves a n d J. K a m p e n (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday ( J S O T S u p , 184;

Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 164-76.

d i s c u s s i o n of t h e l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i l e of t h e p a r t i c u l a r t y p e of H e b r e w u s e d b y B e n Sira a n d its s t a t u s w i t h i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c m i l i e u of t h e Second Temple period. T h i s m a y c o m e a s a s u r p r i s e to p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e p r e s e n t s e s s i o n of o u r s y m p o s i u m — m a n y of w h o m a l s o a t t e n d e d t h e p r e v i o u s s e s s i o n , h e l d in 1 9 9 5 — t h e f o c u s of b o t h b e i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y ' T h e H e b r e w of t h e D e a d S e a S c r o l l s a n d Ben S i r a ' . 2 H o w e v e r , w e m u s t b e a r in m i n d t h a t o u r s t u d y g r o u p c o n s i s t s b y a n d l a r g e of s p e c i a l i s t s w i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c c o m m u n i t y t h a t d e a l s w i t h t h e S c r o l l s a n d Ben Sira. O b v i o u s l y , o u r g r o u p ' s p u b l i c a t i o n s — a s w e l l as e x t e n s i v e res e a r c h c o n d u c t e d b y o t h e r H e b r a i s t s a n d A r a m a i s t s s p e c i a l i z i n g in Second Temple languages—quite often goes unnoticed by non-ling u i s t c o l l e a g u e s . T h i s d e f i c i e n c y is c l e a r l y m a n i f e s t e d in t h e s t u d i e s of a c e r t a i n r e c e n t m o v e m e n t w h i c h s e e k s to d e n y t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l - d i a c h r o n i c d i m e n s i o n of Biblical H e b r e w ( h e r e a f t e r , B H ) , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e e n t i r e H e b r e w Bible w a s c o m p o s e d in t h e P e r s i a n - H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d . 3 It is to b e h o p e d t h a t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h i s f o r u m a n d t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of its ( p a s t a n d f u t u r e ) p r o c e e d i n g s w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to t h e r e d u c t i o n of s u c h a n o m a l i e s . It is w i t h t h i s b a c k g r o u n d in m i n d t h a t I p r e s e n t m y p a p e r o n a c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c p h e n o m e n o n in t h e H e b r e w of Ben S i r a : ‫ א י ן‬+ i n f i n i tive.

PartB ‫ אין‬+ infinitive4 T h e n o n - c l a s s i c a l n a t u r e of t h i s s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n w a s r e c o g n i z e d b y H e b r a i s t s a n d Biblicists a s a p o s t - c l a s s i c a l f e a t u r e a l r e a d y in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e first d e c a d e s of t h e t w e n t i e t h . 5 M e a n i n g ,

2

See the introductory footnote. For detailed review articles on two such studies, see M. Ehrensvärd, 'Once again: The Problem of Dating Biblical H e b r e w ' , SJOT 11 (1997), pp. 29-40; A. H u r v i t z , 'The Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47 (1997), pp. 301-15. 4 An expanded and revised version of a discussion which appeared in Hebrew Studies 31 (1990), pp. 145-47. 3

5

Cf., for i n s t a n c e , H . E w a l d , Ausführliches

Lehrbuch der hebräischen

Sprache

(Seventh ed.; Göttingen: Verlag d e r Dieterichschen B u c h h a n d l u n g , 1863), §321c (p. 789); S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Third ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), §202.1 (p. 274); A.B. Davidson, Hebrew

b a s i c a l l y , 'it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o . . . ' , ' t h e r e is n o n e e d t o . . . ' ; 6 ' i t is n o t p e r m i t t e d . . . , m a y n o t ' , 7 t h i s t y p e of n e g a t i o n — a t t e s t e d s o m e t e n t i m e s in t h e H e b r e w B i b l e — i s i n d e e d a d i s t i n c t i v e h a l l m a r k of L B H ( E s t h e r , E z r a , C h r o n i c l e s ; Ecclesiastes). C l a s s i c a l B H e m p l o y s d i f f e r e n t m o d e s of e x p r e s s i o n in t h e s e c o n t e x t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y 8 ‫ ל א‬/ ‫ א ל‬+ i m p e r feet; see, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s . a. Est. 4.2 (RSV): n o o n e m i g h t e n t e r versus D e u t . 24.10 (JTS): y o u m u s t n o t e n t e r J o s h . 23.7 (RSV): y o u m a y n o t b e m i x e d 1 K g s 11.2 UPS): N o n e of y o u shall j o i n a n d n o n e of t h e m s h a l l join H o s . 4.15 (RSV): E n t e r n o t i n t o Jer. 16.5-8 (RSV): D o n o t e n t e r

Y o u shall n o t g o i n t o P r o v . 4.14 (RSV): D o n o t e n t e r

( ‫)אין ל ב ו א‬

(

the king's gate9

his h o u s e w i t h ‫ת י‬t h‫ ל‬e‫ ב‬s‫ל‬e nations them... (‫)לאתבאו‬ you (‫) ל א יבאו‬ Gilgal (‫)ואל תבאו‬ the house (‫)אל תבוא‬ of m o u r n i n g . . . the house ( ‫ ) ל א ת ב ו א‬of f e a s t i n g the path (‫)אל תבא‬

1 0

(‫)לא הבא‬ ( ‫ב ו א‬

Syntax (Third ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), §95b (p. 128); BDB (F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907J), p. 34b; E. Ben Iehuda, Thesaurus, I (Berlin 1908-1909), p. 191a; GKC (W. Gesenius, E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew Grammar [Second ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910]), §1141 (p. 349); G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, II (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1926), § l l h ( p . 56). 6 7

8

BDB, ibid. GKC, ibid.

Cf. η. 10. JM (P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [corrected revised ed.; Subsidia Biblica 14.1-2; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993]), §160j (p. 606): "it w a s not allowable to enter (one did not have the right, permission)". 10 It is widely recognized that in Classical/Standard BH the infinitive construct is negated as a rule by ‫לבלתי‬, not by ‫—לא‬see, e.g., BDB, p. 518b; GKC, §114s (p. 352); Bergsträsser, Grammatik, II, p. 56; B.K. Waltke a n d M. O ' C o n nor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §36.2.1g (p. 603); JM, §§124e, 1601 (pp. 433, 607). This is w h y s o m e cases of ‫ ל ב ל ת י‬are a d d u c e d in the following lists of examples. I a m aware, however, that ‫ לבלתי‬+ infinitive does not offer a perfect 'linguistic contrast‫ ׳‬for o u r purposes, since ‫ לבלתי‬does not function as an independent negative statement, whereas ‫ א ץ‬/ ‫ ל א‬+ infinitive does. 9

P r o v . 23.10 (JPS): D o n o t e n c r o a c h u p o n

of the wicked (‫)אלתבא‬ the field of orphans.

b. 2 C h r o n . 20.6 (JPS): p o w e r a n d s t r e n g t h are Yours; none can o p p o s e (‫ להתיצב‬...‫)אין‬ versus D e u t . 7.24 (JPS): n o m a n s h a l l s t a n d u p (‫) ל א יתיצב‬ c. E z r a 9.15 (RSV): w e a r e b e f o r e t h e e in‫ו‬ o u r guilt, for n o n e can s t a n d

You11 to You

‫ ))אין ל ע מ ו ד‬b e f o r e t h e e

[versus12 1 S a m . 6.20 (RSV): W h o is a b l e to s t a n d Ps. 76.8 GPS): W h o c a n w i t h s t a n d N a h . 1.6 GPS): W h o c a n s t a n d

( ‫)מי יופל ל ע מ ו ד‬ before... this h o l y G o d ? ( ‫)ומי י ע מ ד‬ You w h e n You are enraged? ( ‫)מי י ע מ ו ד‬ before His wrath? ( ‫)ומי י ק ו ם‬ His fury?]

W h o c a n resist d. Q o h . 3.14 (RSV): w h a t e v e r G o d d o e s e n d u r e s for ever; n o t h i n g can be a d d e d (‫להוסיף‬ nor anything taken (‫לגדע‬ versus D e u t . 13.1 (12.32; RSV): E v e r y t h i n g t h a t I c o m m a n d ... b e c a r e f u l t o d o ; y o u shall n o t a d d (‫םף‬1‫ו‬ or take (‫תגרע‬ e. 1 C h r o n . 23.26 (RSV): A n d s o t h e L e v i t e s n o longer n e e d to carry versus Jer. 17.21,27 (RSV): T a k e h e e d ... d o not bear

11

‫)אין‬ ‫)אין‬

to it, 13 from it

‫)לא‬ ‫)לא‬

to it from it.

( ‫)אין ל ש א ת‬ the tabernacle

(‫)ואלתשאו‬

a burden

Driver, Tenses, p. 274: "none can stand in conflict with thee". Syntactically, the following verses are phrased as rhetorical questions (‫ מי‬+ impf.), not negative statements (**‫ל‬/‫ אל‬+ impf.). Nevertheless, in linguistic usage they represent a m o d e of expression that in classical BH fulfills a function very similar to that of the later ‫ אין‬+ inf.: ' w h o is able to stand?!' = 'none is able to stand!.‫׳‬ 13 JM, §160j (p. 606): "impossible to a d d ‫ ״‬. 12

o n t h e S a b b a t h d a y ... if y o u d o n o t listen ... n o t to b e a r ... o n t h e S a b b a t h d a y .

(

1 4

( ‫ש א ת‬

‫ולבלתי‬

a

T h e closely r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n ‫ ל א‬+ infinitive, c a r r y i n g t h e n o t i o n of ' c a n n o t , m u s t n o t ' 1 5 is m u c h less c o m m o n in B H ; it is a t t e s t e d o n l y f o u r t i m e s in t h e e n t i r e OT. 1 6 Still, in light of t h e d e c i d e d l y late d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n of its c o u n t e r p a r t ‫ אין‬+ infinitive, it s e e m e d h i g h l y sign i f i c a n t t h a t t w o o u t of t h e f o u r o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ ל א‬+ i n f i n i t i v e a r e to b e f o u n d in L B H a s well. 1 7

/ . 1 C h r o n . 5.1 (RSV): ... R e u b e n ... his b i r t h r i g h t w a s g i v e n to t h e s o n s of J o s e p h . . . , h e is n o t e n r o l l e d in t h e g e n e a l o g y a c c o r d i n g to t h e birthright ( ( ‫ל ב כ ר ה‬ ‫ולא להתיחש‬ 1 C h r o n . 15.2 ( R S V ) : . . . N o o n e b u t the Levi tes m a y 1 9 c a r r y t h e a r k of G o d ( . . . . 18(‫אתאתאו־וןאלהים‬ F u r t h e r m o r e , it h a s b e e n n o t e d 2 0 t h a t exactly t h e s a m e c o n s t r u c t i o n of ‫ ל א‬+ infinitive a p p e a r s in Biblical A r a m a i c ( h e r e a f t e r , BA) w h i c h — l i k e L a t e Biblical H e b r e w ( h e r e a f t e r , L B H ) — i s a p r o d u c t of t h e s a m e historical a g e ; i.e., the P e r s i a n p e r i o d : g. Ezra 6.8 (JPS): ··· t h e e x p e n s e s a r e to b e p a i d ... o u t of t h e r e s o u r c e s of the k i n g , . . . s o t h a t t h e w o r k n o t b e s t o p p e d (‫)דילאלבטלא‬

14

Cf. η. 10. BDB, p. 518b. 16 Both options,‫ אין‬+ inf. and ‫ לא‬+ inf., indicate "very much similar nuances" (JM, §160j [p. 606]). However, ‫ לא‬seems to be somewhat stronger than ]‫ ;אי‬cf. Driver, Tenses, p. 275 ("Where ‫ לא‬is found instead of ‫אין‬, it denies more absolutely, and categorically,‫ אין‬implying that though the attempt to d o the act would be folly, still it might be made, but ‫ לא‬implying that the conditions are such that it would be (or actually was) out of the question altogether"). 17 The other two appear in Judg. 1.19 and Amos 6.10. 18 ‫ לא לשאת‬in this verse is virtually identical to ‫ אין לשאת‬in 1 Chron. 23.26 (already quoted), both relating as they do to the 'carrying‫ ׳‬of sacred objects performed by the Levites. 19 1 Chron. 5.1 and 15.2 are rendered by Driver (Tenses, p. 275), "and he could not be reckoned for the birthright" and "must not", respectively. In JM, p. 606, the translation of 1 Chron. 5.1 is "it was impossible to enrol". Most probably, 1 Chron. 21.17, ‫תהי נא ידך בי ובבית אבי ובעמך לא למנפה‬, is also related to the usage examined here (cf. Α. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, I [Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967], p. 71); however,‫ מגפה‬is not an infinitive. 20 Cf. Driver, Tenses, p. 275; BDB, s.v.‫לא‬, p. 518b. 15

D a n . 6.16 (15; R S V ) : . . . it is a l a w ... that n o i n t e r d i c t . . . can be c h a n g e d ( ‫ ) ל א ל ה ש ד ה‬. It w a s o n t h e b a s i s of t h e s e d a t a a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e e a r l y s c h o l a r s cited a b o v e 2 1 c o n c l u d e d t h a t b o t h ‫ א י ן‬+ i n f i n i t i v e a n d ‫ ל א‬+ i n f i n i t i v e m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s f e a t u r e s typical of LBH u s a g e . I n d e e d , w i t h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls ( h e r e a f t e r , DSS), this c o n e l u s i o n h a s b e e n f u l l y c o n f i r m e d . Q i m r o n ' s g r a m m a r of Q u m r a n H e b r e w ( h e r e a f t e r , Q H ) — o n e of o u r best tools for a p r o p e r e v a l u a t i o n of the linguistic profile of this c o r p u s — e m p h a s i z e s t h e fact t h a t t h e p o s t classical c o n s t r u c t i o n ‫ א י ן‬/ ‫ ל א‬+ i n f i n i t i v e is q u i t e c o m m o n in t h e Scrolls, w h e r e it o c c u r s p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e m e a n i n g ‫ ׳‬o n e m u s t n o t ' . 2 2 See t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s . h. 1QS 1.13-15: 23 T h e y m u s t n o t w a l k a w a y they m u s t neither rush n o r flinch They must not turn aside His true ordinances b y w a l k i n g either

(‫)ולוא לצעוד‬ from... G o d ' s w o r d s ... ( ‫)ולוא ל ק ד ם‬ the times fixed for t h e m , (‫)ולוא להתאחר‬ from... (‫)ולוא לסור‬ from

21

Cf. η. 5. Ε. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), §400.12, pp. 78, 79. Cf. also Qimron, ‫׳‬The Language‫׳‬, in E. Qim22

r o n a n d J. S t r u g n e l l , Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Ma'aie h Ha-Torah (DJD, 10; O x -

ford: Clarendon Press, 1994) [= MMT), §3.4.2.1 (p. 80): "[i]n MMT, as in LBH and QH". The lateness of the construction is similarly noted in other linguistic studies dealing with QH. Cf. T. Leahy, 'Studies in the Syntax of 1QS‫׳‬, Biblica 41 (1960), p. 144: "a non-biblical [= non-classical—A.H.] usage"; A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew, p. 85: ‫״‬the Bible as a rule negates the infinitive with ‫לבלתי‬, but in 1QS ... ‫ ולוא לסור‬... ‫ולוא לצעוד‬, as in Aramaic Dan 6.16, Ezra 6.8 and 1 Chron. [15.2], is more common"; E.Y. Kutscher, 'Canaanite-Hebrew-PhoenicianAramaic-Mishnaic Hebrew-Punic‫׳‬, LeS. 33 (1968-69), p. 109: "characteristic of LBH and the DSS"; J. Carmignac, 'L'emploi de la négation ‫ אין‬dans la Bible et à Q u m r â n ‫ ׳‬, RQ 8 (1974), p. 410: 'une création récente en hébreu'; E.M. Schuller, Non-Canonical

Psalms from Qumran: a Pseudepigraphic

Collection

(HSS,

28; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), p. 47: 'a feature of LBH and QH‫׳‬. See also R. Bergey, ‫׳‬Late Linguistic Features in Esther‫׳‬, JQR 75 (1984-85), p. 71: "This use of ]‫אי‬, current in LBH and the DSS, must be considered a post-exilic BH linguistic development"; C.L. Seow, 'Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet‫׳‬, JBL 115 (1996), p. 664: "only in Late Biblical Hebrew". 23 ρ VVernberg-Mnller, Tlw Manual of Discipline (STDJ, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957), p. 22.

to t h e r i g h t or to t h e left versus D e u t . 17.11 (JPS): Y o u m u s t riot d e v i a t e (‫)לא תסור‬ the verdict that t h e y a n n o u n c e ... e i t h e r to t h e r i g h t o r to t h e left D e u t . 5.29 (32; RSV): Y o u shall n o t t u r n a s i d e (‫)לאהסח‬ right h a n d or to t h e left J o s h . 23.6 (JPS): ... w i t h o u t e v e r d e v i a t i n g (‫)לבלתי סור‬24 to t h e r i g h t o r to t h e left. i. M M T B.71: 25 o n e s h o u l d n o t let t h e m ... e a t

(‫)לא תאכלו‬

of a n y tree flesh

E x o d . 12.43 (RSV): n o f o r e i g n e r shall e a t E x o d . 29.33-34 (JPS): t h e y m a y n o t b e e a t e n! l a y m a n ... it shall n o t b e e a t e n

versus D e u t . 7.26 (JPS): Y o u m u s t n o t b r i n g

24

f r o m it

of t h e sacred food

G e n . 9.4 (JPS): Y o u m u s t n o t . . . e a t w i t h its l i f e - b l o o d E x o d . 12.9 (RSV): D o n o t eat

j. M M T B.58: 28 o n e m u s t n o t let enter

to t h e

( 2 6 ‫)אין ל ה א כ י ל ם‬

versus G e n . 3.1 (RSV): Y o u shall n o t e a t

D e u t . 12.23-24 (JPS): d o n o t p a r t a k e b l o o d ... y o u m u s t n o t c o n s u m e you must not partake

from

(‫)לא תאכלו‬ (‫)אל תאכלו‬ (‫)לא יאכל‬ (‫)לא יאכל‬ (‫אכל‬:‫)לא‬, (‫)לבלתי אסל‬27 (‫)ולא תאכל‬ (‫) ל א תאכלנו‬

a n y of it r a w of it by a f o r it is h o l y of t h e .·. of it.

(‫)להביא‬

dogs the holy c a m p

(‫)לא תביא‬

an abhor-

(‫)אין‬

C f . n. 10. Qimron and Strugnell, MMT, pp. 54-55. 26 "[T]he expression [‫ ]להאכיל‬in MMT is closer to M H than to BH, for in MMT ... the use of the hiph'il is apparently technical, and its meaning is 'let X eat of‫( ״׳‬MMT, p. 97). 27 Cf. n. 10. 28 Qimron and Strugnell, MMT, pp. 52-53. 25

rent thing into your house D e u t . 23.19 (18; RSV): Y o u s h a l l n o t b r i n g (‫)לא תביא‬ of a h a r l o t , o r t h e w a g e s of a d o g , i n t o tine h o u s e of t h e L o r d . N o t e a l s o E x o d . 20.13 (JPS): Y o u shall n o t m u r d e r Y o u shall n o t s t e a l

the hire

(‫)לא תרצח‬ (‫)לאתגנב‬,

etc.

k. C D 4 . I I : 2 9 t h e r e shall b e n o u n i t i n g house ofJudah versus D e u t . 7.3 (JPS): Y o u shall n o t i n t e r m a r r y d o n o t g i v e y o u r d a u g h t e r s ... 1 K g s 11.2 GPS): N o n e of y o u shall j o i n n o n e of t h e m shall join P r o v . 22.24 (JPS): D o n o t a s s o c i a t e irascible m a n P r o v . 24.21 (JPS): . . . A n d d o n o t m i x

(‫ להשתפח‬...‫)אין‬

with the

(‫)ולא תתחתן‬

with them:

(‫)לא תבאו‬ (‫) ל א יבאו‬ (‫)אל תתרע‬

them and you with an

(‫)אל תתערב‬

with dissenters.30

/. 1 Q H 12.30-31: 3 1 A n d n o n e c a n a n s w e r

( ‫)אין ל ה ש י ב‬

Thy chastisement

(‫)אל תמאס‬

the

(‫)ואלתקץ‬

His rebuke

versus P r o v . 3.11 GPS): D o n o t reject d i s c i p l i n e of the Lord ... D o n o t a b h o r m. 1 Q S 9.16: 3 2 H e m u s t n o t a r g u e versus H o s . 4.4 (JPS): Let n o m a n r e b u k e let n o m a n p r o t e s t !

29

.. ·

(‫ )לוא להוכיח‬and quarrel w i t h ... (‫)אלירב‬, (‫)ואל יוכח‬

C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 14. W. Mckane, Proverbs (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970 [1980]), p. 249: "... d o not get involved with noblemen". 31 M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961), p. 176. 32 Wernberg-Mnller, Manual, p. 35. 30

η . 1 Q H . 8.34: 3 3 m y k n e e s d r i p p e d like w a t e r . A n d u n a b l e to s t r e t c h f o r t h versus G e n . 41.44 (JPS): I a m P h a r a o h ; y e t w i t h o u t y o u , n o o n e shall lift u p 0. 4 Q 3 8 1 14.3: 3 4 ... a n d n o t t o t r a n s g r e s s versus 1 S a m . 12.14 (RSV): ... a n d n o t rebel a g a i n s t m e n t of t h e L o r d .

( ‫)אין ל ש ל ו ח‬

(my) pace n o r step ...

(‫ ) ל א ירים‬h a n d or foot. ( 1 ‫ )ואין ל ע ב ו‬His c o m m a n d (‫ )ולא תמרו‬the c o m m a n d -

p. 1 Q 3 4 b i s 32.2: 3 5 ... le g r a n d l u m i n a i r e p o u r la f ê t e d e . . . et il n e f a u t p a s t r a n s g r e s s e r ( ‫)ואין ל ע ב ו ר‬ versus Ps. 148.3-6 (JPS): ... s u n ... m o o n ... s t a r s ... H e m a d e t h e m e n d u r e f o r e v e r , ... a n o r d e r that shall n e v e r c h a n g e (‫)ולא יעבור‬.

l e u r s lois

F u r t h e r , it h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d in r e c e n t y e a r s t h a t ‫ ל א‬+ i n f i n i t i v e is a t t e s t e d w i t h i n S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d A r a m a i c n o t o n l y in t h e b i b l i c a l b o o k s of E z r a a n d D a n i e l , b u t in e p i g r a p h i c a l s o u r c e s a s w e l l . 3 6 q. U z z i a h T o m b Slab: 3 7 H i t h e r w e r e b r o u g h t t h e b o n e s of U z z i a h ... (It is) n o t ( p e r m i t t e d ) to o p e n ! ( O r , N o t to b e o p e n e d ! ) Kidron Valley Dipinto:38 This sepulchral c h a m b e r w a s m a d e f o r t h e b o n e s of o u r f a t h e r s ...

33

Mansoor, Hymns, p. 157.

34

Schuller, Non-Canonical

(‫)ולא למפתח‬

Psalms, p. 92.

35

D. Barthélémy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1; Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1955), p. 154. 36 It is largely d u e to Kutscher's observations that this epigraphical material w a s a d d u c e d to bear u p o n the dating of ‫ אין‬+ infinitive within o u r literary sources; cf. E.Y. Kutscher, A r a m a i c Calque in H e b r e w ' , Tarbiz 33 (1963-64), p p . 127-128; ‫׳‬Canaanite-Hebrew‫׳‬, p. 109; Qimron, Hebrew of DSS, §§400.02, 400.12 (pp. 70, 79). 37

J.A. F i t z m y e r a n d D.J. H a r r i n g t o n , A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C.—Second Century A.D.) (Biblia et O r i e n t a l i a , 34; R o m e :

Biblical Institute Press, 1978), N ° 70 (p. 168). 38

Ibid., N ° 67.

(It is) n o t ( p e r m i t t e d ) to o p e n t h e m ! (Or, N o t to b e o p e n e d ! ) K i d r o n E p i t a p h : 3 9 O u [ r ] fathers! (It is) n o t ( p e r m i t t e d ) to o p e n eve[r]! (Or, N e v e r to be o p e n e d ! ) J e r u s a l e m H y p o g e u m O s s u a r y , l : 4 0 ... D o s i t h o s , o u r father! (It is) n o t ( p e r m i t t e d ) to o p e n ! (Or, n o t to b e o p e n e d ! ) These sources are extremely instructive for m a y b e set a g a i n s t b u r i a l i n s c r i p t i o n s d a t e d t h e s a m e r o o t ‫ ' =( פ ת ח‬o p e n [a g r a v e ] ' ) is enough, however, not within the formula ‫ל א‬

(‫) ו ל א ל מ פ ת ח עליהון‬

([•]‫)ולא למפתח לעל‬

(

4 1

.(‫למפתח‬

our purposes, since they to earlier p e r i o d s , w h e r e employed; interestingly + infinitive:

Royal S t e w a r d , 23: 42 ‫־‬ C u r s e d b e the m a n w h o o p e n s this 4 3 T a b n i t , 3-4, 5-6: 4 4 You m u s t n o t open up ( w h a t is) o v e r m e ... E s h m u n ' a z a r , 4: 45 W h o e v e r y o u are, ... r u l e r or ... c o m m a n d e r ,

( ‫ א ש ר י פ ת ח‬... ‫) א ר ו ר‬ (‫)אל א ל תפתח‬

39 i(i

Ibid., N ° 71. Ibid., N ° 95 (p. 174).

41

It is noteworthy that the ‫ לא‬+ infinitive construction appears in another funerary inscription, recently discovered near Jerusalem, although not with the root ‫פחח‬: ‫ אמר די לא להשניה‬...; see E. Puech, 'Une inscription araméenne sur un couvercle de sarcophage', Eretz-Israel 20 (Y. Yadin Memorial Volume; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), pp. 161M65*. According to F.M. Cross, Ά Note on a Burial Inscription from Mount Scopus', IE] 33 (1983), pp. 245-46, there is another Aramaic burial inscription from Jerusalem in which our construction is attested: ‫' = לאיח לאנט למעלה‬no man can go u p (from the grave)'. However, this interpretation raises some severe linguistic difficulties, which w e cannot discuss here. 42 J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 24. The Hebrew text as presented above follows the publication of N. Avigad, ‫׳‬The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village', IEJ 3 (1953), p. 143. 43 Strictly speaking, ‫ ארור אטר יפתח‬cannot be considered 'a linguistic contrast‫׳‬ to ‫אין לפתח‬. Nevertheless, since in terms of both form and content the two formulae are employed in exactly the same circumstances, this juxtaposition may well illustrate the main point under examination here; i.e., that it was ‫אין‬ + infinitive that became prominent in Second Temple linguistic usage. Cf. also above, n. 10 (‫ )לבלתי‬and n. 12 (‫ מי‬+ impf.). 44 Gibson, Textbook, ΠΙ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 103. 45 Gibson, Textbook, ΠΙ, pp. 106-109.

‫ולא‬

let n o n e s u c h this r e s t i n g - p l a c e — 2 0 : . . . let n o n e ... ( w h a t is) o v e r m e .

open up

(‫) א ל יפתח‬

open up

(‫) א ל יפתח‬

C l e a r l y , in t h e pre-exilic H e b r e w i n s c r i p t i o n of t h e R o y a l S t e w a r d , t h e r o o t ‫ פ ת ח‬a p p e a r s in t h e s t a n d a r d v e r b a l f o r m of t h e 3 r d m . i m p f . ( ‫ א ש ר י פ ת ח‬. . . ‫ ; ) א ר ו ר‬s i m i l a r l y , in t h e t w o P h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s , ‫פ ת ח‬ a p p e a r s in the 3rd m. i m p f . ( ‫ ) א ל י פ ת ח‬a n d in the 2 n d m . i m p f . ( ‫ ) א ל ת פ ת ח‬. All t h i s , in c o n t r a s t to t h e w e l l - a t t e s t e d S e c o n d T e m p l e Jewish Aramaic formulation which, as noted above, a d o p t s — i n c o m parable burial inscriptions—the f o r m u l a t i o n ‫ ל א‬+ infinitive.46 F i n a l l y , still w i t h i n t h e r e a l m of f u n e r a r y p h r a s e o l o g y , t h e r e is a — late—Punic inscription which definitely belongs here.47 r. KAI, 70: 4 8 G r a b d e r Z J B Q T , d e r P r i e s t e r i n ... (Es ist) n i c h t zu offenen! (‫)אבל לפתח‬ (versus Tabnit: ‫)אל תפתח‬ Eshmun'azar: ‫)אל יפתח‬. T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e s c o p e of t h e l i n g u i s t i c d e v e l o p m e n t o b s e r v e d a b o v e m a y b e e x t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e t h e r e a l m of t h e C a n a a n i t e i n s c r i p t i o n s a s w e l l . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e d i a c h r o n i c d i s t i n c t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n o u r literary sources b e t w e e n C l a s s i c a l B H ( ‫ א ל‬/ ‫ ל א‬+ f i n i t e v e r b ) o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d LBH, Q H , a n d ΒA ( ‫ א י ן‬/ ‫ ל א‬+ infinitive) o n t h e o t h e r is c o r r o b o r a t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e epigraphical data ( H e b r e w , A r a m a i c , P h o e n i c i a n , P u n i c ) , w h i c h reflect e x a c t l y t h e s a m e l i n g u i s t i c

46

It should be emphasized, that ‫ לא‬+ inf., attested in Jerusalem and vicinity, is a formula absent from the distinctive repertoire of the Aramaic tomb inscriptions as a whole. Cf., e.g., Palmyrene, w h e r e w e find ‫ ולא יתפתח עליהם‬a n d ‫( ואנש לא יפתח עלוהי‬CIS, II, 226, 2-3; 4218, 3 [= Cooke, NSI, p. 310]), in line with the usage of the standard—old—finite f o r m s current in BH a n d Phoenician ( ‫ י ק ט ל‬/ ‫ ) א ל ת ק ט ל‬. Similarly, at Beth She'arim w e encounter: ‫׳‬Anyone w h o shall open this burial ... shall die of an evil e n d ‫( ׳‬... ‫ דיפתח‬ρ ‫)כל‬, ' w h o e v e r shall open u p o n him shall die of an evil e n d ‫ ;)כל דיפתח עלוי( ׳‬see Ν. Avigad, Beth She'arim—Report on the Excavations During 1953-1958, ΠΙ (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1976), pp. 233-34. 47 Cf. η. 36. 48 H. D o n n e r a n d W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973), p. 87. Cf. also J. Friedrich a n d W. Röllig, Phönizisclt-punisclie Grammatik (Second ed.; Analecta Orientalia, 46; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1970), §318 3b (p. 162).

c h a n g e . T h i s s t r i k i n g c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o i n d e p e n d e n t s e t s of evidence—biblical a n d extra-biblical—underlies, then, both the typological (syntactic c o n s t r u c t i o n ) a n d chronological (historical age) asp e c t s of t h e l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e t h a t i n t e r e s t s u s h e r e . 4 9 ‫ א י ן‬+ i n f i n i t i v e is a t t e s t e d a l s o in t h e b o o k of Ben Sira: s. Sir. 39.21: N o n e m a y s a y Sir. 39.34: N o n e m a y s a y (Text: (marg.: versus D e u t . 9.4 (RSV): D o n o t s a y

(‫)אל תאמר‬

say not

-OPS):

(‫ ־‬8 ‫ )אין לאמן‬5 0 ‫)אל לאמר‬/ ‫)אין‬:

Jer. 23.38 (RSV): Y o u shall n o t s a y Ps. 35.25 (RSV): Let t h e m n o t s a y P r o v . 3.28 (RSV): D o n o t s a y

(‫)אל תאמר‬

T h i s is w o r s e ... in y o u r heart... to y o u r s e l v e s ...

(‫) ל א תאמרו‬ (‫) א ל יאמרו‬

to thems e l v e s ... (‫)אל תאמר‬ to y o u r n e i g h b o u r ...

N o t e also the following. t. Sir. 40.26: In t h e f e a r of J a h v e h t h e r e is

49

Kutscher noted ('Caique‫׳‬, pp. 127-28), that the widespread diffusion of the p h e n o m e n o n (attested also in Creek) specifically d u r i n g the Second Temple period should be attributed to a prestigious language, which served as a 'radiating' centre. Due to its influence, "the usage appeared in languages in which it had never existed before, and it was intensified in others w h e r e it w a s found from the outset". As for the exact shade of meaning to be attached to ‫ אין‬+ infinitive, obviously no strict definition may be proposed (cf. above, nn. 6, 7, 9, 11,13, 15, 19). Nevertheless, it may well be stated, that the newly emerging construction is basically less personal in form and more forceful in meaning than the old ‫ ל א‬/ ‫ א ל‬+ imperfect, which it (at least partially) replaced (Professor J. Hoftijzer's comment). 50

In the Greek: ούκ εστίν ειπείν. ‫ אין לאמר‬appears twice in Sir. 39.21. The ver-

sion in The Historical

Dictionary

of the Hebrew Language, The Book of Ben Sira

(Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973), p. 41, is ‫־‬1‫ אין לאמו‬in both cases. In P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew—A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts

(VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), p. 68, the version s u g g e s t e d is: •‫ איןלאמל‬...‫איןלאמו־‬.

n o w a n t , . . . t h e r e is n o n e e d t o s e e k Sir. 14.16: i n S h e o l t h e r e is n o s e e k i n g versus Lev. 19.31 (RSV): d o n o t s e e k to b e d e f i l e d b y t h e m D e u t . 23.7 (6; RSV): Y o u s h a l l n o t s e e k A m o s 5.5 (JPS): d o n o t s e e k n o r g o to G i l g a l E s h m u n ' a z a r , 4-5: 5 3 let n o n e ... s e e k u. Sir. 10.23: A p o o r m a n t h a t h a t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g is n o t to b e d e s p i s e d N o r is a n y m a n of v i o l e n c e to b e h o n o u r e d versus Sir. 4.4: D e s p i s e n o t c a t i o n of t h e p o o r E x o d . 22.27 (28; RSV): You shall n o t r e v i l e nor curse Lev. 19.14 (JPS): Y o u shall n o t i n s u l t Jer. 25.6 (JPS): D o n o t v e x

( 5 1 ( ‫ל ב ק ש‬ (‫ לבקש‬...‫)אין‬

‫ואין‬ of d e l i g h t

(‫)אל תבקשו‬

them out,

(‫תדרש‬52‫)אל‬ (‫)אל תדרשו‬

their peace Bethel,

(‫)אליבקש‬

anything...

(.(‫לבזות‬ ‫לכבד‬

(‫)לא חקלל‬ (‫)לא תאר‬ (‫)לא תקלל‬ (‫)ולא תכעיסו‬

‫אין‬ ‫))ואין‬

God, a ruler the deaf M e w i t h ...

PartC T h e l a t e n e s s of ‫ א י ן‬+ i n f i n i t i v e is w i d e l y r e c o r d e d in t h e s c h o l a r l y lite r a t u r e ; i n d e e d , it is c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e a m o n g l i n g u i s t s t h a t t h i s f e a t u r e r e f l e c t s t h e post-classical p h a s e of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . 5 5 T h e p u r p o s e of b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r all t h e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d a b o v e is to r e - a f f i r m t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s v i e w , b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e s c o p e

51

In the Masada Scroll: ‫ ;אץ לבקש‬see. Y. Yadin, The Bei 1 Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), English section, p. 16. 52 Meaning 'seek',‫ בקש‬and ‫ דרש‬may be considered as synonyms. 53 Gibson, Textbook, III, pp. 106-107 (cf. above, n. 36). 54 It goes without saying that the traditional negation ‫ ל א‬/ ‫ א ל‬+ finite verb is still current in Ben Sira. Cf. in particular 9.1-6, where every verse specifically employs this form: ( 1 ) ; ‫א‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ה‬ 5) ‫( ;אל תתבונן‬6)‫ •)אלתתן‬It is a well-attested p h e n o m e n o n that the emergence of—late—post-classical elements does not necessarily lead to a total rejection of their—old—classical counterparts. Indeed, quite often w e observe that the old and new coexist (cf., for instance, the use of both ‫ קם‬and ‫ עמד‬in Ben Sira; see Hurvitz, 'The Linguistic Status', p. 79). 55 Cf. nn. 5,10,22, 49, above. Note that the construction is attested in a variety of literary genres; it is not limited to 'prose'.

suppo

a n d s i z e of t h e d i a c h r o n i c d e v e l o p m e n t e x a m i n e d — b o t h in b i b l i c a l a n d e x t r a - b i b l i c a l t e x t s , in H e b r e w a s w e l l a s in A r a m a i c , in l i t e r a r y and epigraphical records. In o t h e r w o r d s , o u r d i s c u s s i o n m a y s e r v e a s a f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t i o n f o r t h e v i e w g e n e r a l l y h e l d b y H e b r e w l i n g u i s t s , t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira, a l t h o u g h d e e p l y r o o t e d in t h e t r a d i t i o n of Classical B H , n e v e r t h e l e s s e x h i b i t s a n e x t e n s i v e n e t w o r k of post-Classical isoglosses w i d e l y a t t e s t e d in c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s S e c o n d T e m p l e s o u r c e s . 5 6 A s n o t e d , t h i s l i n g u i s t i c d i m e n s i o n is a l m o s t t o t a l l y n e g l e c t e d b y m a n y of t h e ' m a j o r e d i t i o n s a n d m o n o g r a p h s ' d e a l i n g w i t h Ben Sira, w h i c h d o not offer any serious discussion—or helpful information—pertaining to t h e l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e s i n v o l v e d in t h e s t u d y of t h e a v a i l a b l e H e b r e w t e x t s of t h i s c o m p o s i t i o n . It is d e s i r a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t a n a t t e m p t b e m a d e to b r i d g e t h e g a p b e t w e e n t h e s o - c a l l e d l i t e r a r y s t u d y of Ben S i r a — a n d , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , of t h e H e b r e w Bible a s w e l l 5 7 — a n d t h e s c h o o l of S e c o n d T e m p l e H e b r e w l i n g u i s t i c s . In t h i s c o n t e x t , I h a v e e n d e a v o u r e d to d e m o n s t r a t e the s t r o n g connections that exist b e t w e e n t h e l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira a n d t h a t of L B H . 5 8

56

It is interesting that Nöldeke wrote already in 1897—immediately after the p u b l i c a t i o n of the Ben Sira f r a g m e n t s f r o m the C a i r o G e n i z a h — t h a t "combinations like ‫] לאמו־‬,K, 39.34, and others which a p p e a r elsewhere in the latest d o c u m e n t s of the Old Testament, are of Aramaic origin" (T. Nöldeke, 'The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus', The Expositor, 5th Series, 5 [1897], p. 352). 57 Cf. η. 3. 58 The reader is referred to the article by W. van Peursen in this v o l u m e (pp. 223-43) (eds.).

PSEUDO-CLASSICISMS IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW, IN BEN SIRA, A N D IN Q U M R A N H E B R E W Jan Joosten (Strasbourg) I: Prolegomena I m p r e s s i o n s v a r y a s to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e H e b r e w of t h e ' l a t e ' biblical b o o k s — e x e m p l i f i e d b y D a n i e l , E s t h e r , E z r a , N e h e m i a h a n d C h r o n i c l e s — a n d t h e H e b r e w of t h e 'classical p e r i o d ' r e p r e s e n t e d by the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. To some, the linguistic d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n Late Biblical H e b r e w ( h e r e a f t e r , L B H ) a n d C l a s s i c a l Biblical H e b r e w ( h e r e a f t e r , C B H ) a r e s o o b v i o u s t h a t t h e y scarcely n e e d e n u m e r a t i n g , 1 w h i l e to o t h e r s t h e y a p p e a r to b e so s l i g h t t h a t o n e w o u l d b e j u s t i f i e d in c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e n t i r e b i b l i c a l c o r p u s as basically h o m o g e n e o u s . 2 Characteristically, p e r h a p s , the most p r o n o u n c e d statements—on either side—are m a d e w i t h o u t supp o r t i n g evidence.3 W h e n o n e starts looking closely at the facts, or m o r e p r e c i s e l y , w h e n o n e a t t e m p t s t o m a k e a n i n v e n t o r y of t h e k i n d of i t e m s t h a t m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d f a c t s in t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , it t u r n s o u t t h a t L B H is a c t u a l l y b o t h like a n d u n l i k e C B H . L B H is n o t i c e a b l y u n l i k e C B H in its v o c a b u l a r y a n d i n its s y n t a x — t h o u g h n o t , o r v e r y little, in o t h e r a r e a s of g r a m m a r . T h e d i f f e r e n c e s o w e t h e i r e x i s t e n c e t o s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . S o m e of t h e m a r e d u e t o n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e l a n g u a g e : m e a n i n g s of w o r d s c h a n g e t h r o u g h the ages, a n d grammatical f o r m s too m a y be e x t e n d e d , lim-

1

Cf. the forceful opinion expressed in the Jewish Chronicle, Aug. 5,1887: "Ezra could not have written a single complete verse of the Pentateuch", quoted approvingly by M. Weinfeld, ‫׳‬Julius Wellhausen's Understanding of the Law of Ancient Israel and its Fallacies', Slmaton 4 (1980), pp. 62-93. 2 Cf., e.g., Philip Davies, In Search of'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 102-105; J.F. Elwolde, ' D e v e l o p m e n t s in H e b r e w Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah', in T. Muraoka a n d J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 26; L e i d e n : E.J.

Brill, 1997), pp. 17-55, in particular p. 55. O n the deficiencies of Philip Davies's a p p r o a c h cf. A. H u r v i t z , ' T h e Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" a n d the Linguistic Evidence of the H e b r e w Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47 (1997), p p . 301-15. The opinion quoted above in n. 1 is also advanced with but little argument. 3

i t e d o r o t h e r w i s e m o d i f i e d in t h e i r f u n c t i o n a n d u s e . 4 O t h e r d i f f e r ences w e r e caused through influence f r o m a foreign language, partieularly Aramaic: w o r d s or m e a n i n g s w e r e b o r r o w e d a n d grammatical c o n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y f o r e i g n o n e s . F i n a l l y , s o m e of t h e d i v e r g e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o t y p e s of H e b r e w a r e t r a c e a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t local d i a l e c t s : L B H is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e l i n e a r d e s c e n d a n t o r c o n t i n u a t i o n of C B H . 5 L B H is a l s o s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o C B H , h o w e v e r . T h e a r e a of g r a m m a r , excluding syntax, has already been mentioned: the phonolo g y a n d m o r p h o l o g y of t h e t w o p h a s e s a r e w e l l n i g h i d e n t i c a l , a t l e a s t a c c o r d i n g to t h e r e c e i v e d t e x t / ' B u t t h e v o c a b u l a r y t o o , a s w e l l a s t h e s y n t a x , is t o a r e m a r k a b l e e x t e n t s h a r e d b y t h e d i f f e r e n t b o o k s of t h e b i b l e . A g a i n , t h i s c o n t i n u i t y is t o b e a s c r i b e d to s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . First, it m u s t not be overlooked that, a l t h o u g h languages change, they d o not n e c e s s a r i l y d o so m a s s i v e l y o r o v e r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e of l i t e r a r y l a n g u a g e s , a c a t e g o r y to w h i c h all v a r i e t i e s of Biblical H e b r e w b e l o n g . 7 S e c o n d l y , it s e e m s t h a t t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n L B H a n d C B H a r e in s o m e m e a s u r e d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t l a t e a u t h o r s c o n s c i o u s l y i m i t a t e d t h e k i n d of H e b r e w t h e y k n e w f r o m

4

M u c h material w a s g a t h e r e d by S.R. Driver in his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (eighth ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909). For a review of more recent work, cf. M. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition. The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1990). 5 This p o i n t has often been m a d e with regard to Q u m r a n H e b r e w a n d Mishnaic Hebrew; cf., e.g., for Q u m r a n Hebrew, E. Qimron, O b s e r v a t i o n s on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the Light of the Dead Sea D o c u m e n t s ' in D. Dimant and U. R a p p a p o r t (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 349-61, and, for Mishnaic H e b r e w , M. Bar-Asher, 'The Historical Unity of H e b r e w a n d Mishnaic H e b r e w Research', in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Language Studies, 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985), pp. 75-99, in particular p p . 86-93. With regard to Biblical Hebrew, one may refer, e.g., to the use of the relative particle -‫ ש‬in the late books, which cannot be explained as a d e v e l o p m e n t from classical ‫( אשר‬nor as an Aramaism). 6 As Professor S. Morag pointed out at the conference, the phonological a n d morphological homogeneity of Biblical Hebrew is not absolute. Thus, e.g., the Pi'el of ayin-waw verbs is limited to the late books (cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch, §72m); note also the Nufal in 1 Chr. 3.5; 20.8 (cf. Bar-Asher, ‫׳‬Historical Unity', p. 83). 7 An interesting parallel is provided by Syriac. The literary use of this lang u a g e stretches from the second to at least the twelfth Century AD (as a matter of fact it is still used in writing today) with the texts exhibiting a remarkable degree of linguistic continuity.

classical t e x t s . 8 T o t h i s e x t e n t , t h e r e s e m b l a n c e of L B H to C B H is a r t i ficial. It d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e w r i t i n g s a r e c o n t e m p o r a r y o r t h a t t h e y s t e m f r o m c o n t i g u o u s p e r i o d s . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h i s t y p e of s i m i l a r i t y s h o w s t h e t e m p o r a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c o r p o r a : it c a m e a b o u t because the earlier writings w e r e a l r e a d y considered authoritative b y t h e l a t e r a u t h o r s , e v e n in t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t . It is to t h i s l a t t e r t y p e of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t t h e r e s t of t h i s p a p e r w i l l b e d e v o t e d . S i n c e L B H , a s w i l l b e s e e n , e s s e n t i a l l y s t a n d s o n o n e line, f o r t h e t y p e of p h e n o m e n o n to b e d i s c u s s e d , w i t h t h e H e b r e w of Ben Sira a n d w i t h Q u m r a n H e b r e w , t h e s e l a t t e r c o r p o r a w i l l b e i n c l u d e d in t h e d i s c u s s i o n a s w e l l . T h e o b j e c t i v e of t h e p a p e r is t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e l a b o r a t i o n of c o r r e c t m e t h o d o l o g y in d e a l i n g w i t h t h e h i s t o r y of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . In l i g h t of t h i s o b j e c t i v e , a n d f o r t h e s a k e of c l a r i t y , t h e e v i d e n c e will b e p r e s e n t e d in a n a r g u m e n t a t i v e w a y w i t h o u t e x h a u s t i v e d i s c u s s i o n of p h i l o l o g i c a l m i n u t i a e .

II: Tell-tale indications

of literary

imitation

H o w c a n o n e p r o v e t h a t H e b r e w w r i t e r s of t h e l a t e P e r s i a n a n d H e l l e n i s t i c a g e s w r o t e i n c o n s c i o u s i m i t a t i o n of c l a s s i c a l m o d e l s ? I n principle, a n y similarities b e t w e e n the textual c o r p o r a m a y b e exp l a i n e d a s e v i d e n c e of l i n g u i s t i c c o n t i n u i t y . W h a t t h e n a r e t h e i n d i c a t i o n s a l l o w i n g u s to c l a i m t h a t a t l e a s t s o m e of t h o s e s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e artificial?9 A f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n m a y b e f o u n d in t h e m i x t u r e of c l a s s i c a l a n d n o n - c l a s s i c a l e l e m e n t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e l a t e r texts. 1 0 E v i d e n t l y l a t e l e x e m e s , like ‫ ' א ג ר ת‬l e t t e r ' , o c c u r s i d e - b y - s i d e w i t h t h e i r m o r e a n c i e n t e q u i v a l e n t s ( ‫ ס פ ר‬in t h i s case), 1 1 a n d later s y n t a x , s u c h a s t h e u s e of we8

The notion of imitation is not intended to carry any pejorative overtones. Having been almost dissuaded by Dr. James Aitken and Prof. Avi H u r v i t z — w h o m I w o u l d like to thank here for their constructive criticism—from using the term, I finally decided to keep it w h e n I f o u n d out that it had been e m ployed in the same sense by Professor Blau; cf. J. Blau, 'The Structure of Biblical H e b r e w a n d Dead Sea Scrolls H e b r e w in Light of Arabic Diglossia and Middle Arabic', Vš0nénu 60 (1997), pp. 21-32. 9 It is p e r h a p s worthwhile pointing out that quotations from a n d allusions to biblical texts, which are frequent in some Q u m r a n i c texts and in Ben Sira, d o not establish linguistic dependence. It is entirely possible to quote from a contemporary work. 10 Cf. A. H u r v i t z , ‫הלשון העברית בתקופה הפרסית‬, in Β. Mazar (general ed.), ‫ההסטוריה ט ל עם ישראל‬, Vol. 6 (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 210-23; 306309, in particular pp. 221-22. 11 E.g. in Est. 9.20-30; cf. Hurvitz, 'Historical Quest', p p . 311-13.

qatal t o e x p r e s s s i n g l e p a s t a c t i o n s , i n t e r m i n g l e s w i t h e a r l i e r c o n s t r u c Such mixing m a y s h o w that the authors t i o n s (in t h i s c a s e wayyiqtol).u w e r e n o t d e a l i n g w i t h o n e s y s t e m of l a n g u a g e , b u t w i t h t w o : c l a s s i c a l H e b r e w a s t h e y k n e w it f r o m t h e s t u d y of t e x t s , a n d p o s t - c l a s s i c a l H e b r e w , w h i c h w a s t h e i r n a t u r a l m e d i u m of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . W h e r e a s t h e y t r i e d to c o m p o s e t h e i r t e x t s in t h e f o r m e r , t h e l a t t e r c o n s t a n t l y i n t e r f e r e d in t h e i r w r i t i n g , l e a d i n g to t h e m i x t u r e w e o b s e r v e t o d a y . T h i s l i n e of r e a s o n i n g , a l t h o u g h o f t e n c o n v i n c i n g in p r a c t i c e , is n o t e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y o n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l level. A s a m a t t e r of f a c t , in t h e n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t of l a n g u a g e , t o o , a n o v e l e l e m e n t w i l l t y p i c a l l y c o e x i s t f o r a w h i l e w i t h its o l d e r e q u i v a l e n t b e f o r e t h e l a t t e r d r o p s f r o m use.13 A m o r e p o w e r f u l a r g u m e n t , t h e r e f o r e , is p r o v i d e d b y ' m i x e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s ' , w h e r e classical a n d p o s t - c l a s s i c a l e l e m e n t s a r e c o m b i n e d w i t h i n o n e a n d t h e s a m e e x p r e s s i o n . A n u m b e r of t h e s e h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t by d i f f e r e n t scholars.14 The p h e n o m e n o n m a y be illust r a t e d b y a n e x a m p l e f r o m Ben Sira (30.20[B]): ... ‫ ( כ א ש ר ס ר י ס י ח ב ק נ ע ר ה ו מ ת א נ ח‬t e x t c o r r e c t e d 1 5 ) ' A s a e u n u c h e m b r a c e s a girl a n d g r o a n s . . . ' . S i n c e in B e n Sira e x t e n d e d s i m i l e s a r e u s u a l l y of t h e s t r u c t u r e ‫ כ ־‬+ s u b j e c t + p a r t i c i p l e , e.g. Sir. 50.7(B), ‫וכשמש משרקת א ל היכל ה מ ל ך‬ ' a s t h e s u n s h i n e s o n t h e p a l a c e of t h e k i n g . . . ' , 1 6 t h e i m p e r f e c t ‫ י ח ב ק‬s t a n d s o u t in t h i s e x a m p l e . It s e e m s t o b e d u e to i n f l u e n c e of C B H , w h e r e t h e u s u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of s i m i l e s h a s t h e s t r u c t u r e : ‫ כ א ש ר‬+ i m p e r f e c t + s u b j e c t , e.g. ‫כ א ש ר ימשש ה ע ו ר ב א פ ל ה‬ ' a s t h e b l i n d g r o p e in d a r k n e s s ' ( D e u t . 28.29). H o w e v e r , w h e r e a s in C B H ‫ כ א ש ר‬is a l w a y s i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y the verb, w i t h the subject taking the third position,17 the e x a m p l e f r o m Ben Sira h a s t h e s e q u e n c e ‫ כ א ש ר‬- s u b j e c t - v e r b . T h u s it a p p e a r s t h a t w e h a v e h e r e a m i x e d c o n s t r u c t i o n , w i t h t h e v e r b in t h e i m p e r f e c t a s in C B H b u t w i t h t h e s e q u e n c e ‫ כ א ש ר‬- s u b j e c t - v e r b a s in t h e H e b r e w of 12

E.g. in Dan. 8.1-7. Cf. Qimron, O b s e r v a t i o n s ' . 14 Cf., e.g., C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), p p . 4 5 (CD 3.1), 47 (CD 18.1). 15 Instead of ‫סריס‬, the manuscript reads ‫ ;סירים‬the Creek (ευνούχος) and Syriac (mhymn ' ) leave no d o u b t as to the original text, however. Cf. also Sir. 20.4. 16 See Sir. 14.18(A) (?); 47.2(B); 50.10(B). This construction is found in the Bible as well: Hos. 6.4; Mic. 1.4; Isa. 11.9. 17 See Exod. 33.11; N u m . 11.12; Deut. 1.31; Judg. 7.5, cf. J. Joosten, ‫׳‬Elaborate Similes—Hebrew and Greek. A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique', Bib 77 (1996), pp. 227-36, in particular p. 228 (add 2 Sam. 17.12). 13

B e n S i r a . 1 8 U n l e s s s u c h a m i x e d c o n s t r u c t i o n is t o b e e x p l a i n e d a s d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e n a t u r a l a n d c h a o t i c d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e l a n g u a g e , it h e l p s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c a s e f o r c o n s c i o u s — b u t i m p e r f e c t — i m i t a t i o n of classical t e x t s . T h e m o s t e l o q u e n t e v i d e n c e of c o n s c i o u s i m i t a t i o n is a f f o r d e d b y a d i f f e r e n t p h e n o m e n o n , n a m e l y t h e o c c u r r e n c e of e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t p u r p o r t to be classical b u t o n close inspection a r e r e v e a l e d to be essentially d i f f e r e n t f r o m their classical c o u n t e r p a r t s . Such ' p s e u d o c l a s s i c i s m s ' a r e d e f i n e d b y t w o c r i t e r i a : f i r s t , t h e y m u s t c o n s i s t of a n e x p r e s s i o n (i.e. a w o r d , a n i d i o m , a s y n t a g m ) r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of classical usage; s e c o n d , they m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e a w r o n g analysis o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o n t h e p a r t of t h e p o s t - c l a s s i c a l a u t h o r . 1 9 L e t u s c o n s i d e r a s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e , t h e u s e of t h e w o r d ‫ א פ ע ה‬in 1 Q H 2.28; 3.12,17,18. T h e w o r d is i n t r o d u c e d in t h e c o u r s e of a n a l l u s i o n t o Isa. 59.5, a n d t h e n o c c u r s t h r e e m o r e t i m e s in t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t e x t w i t h o u t c l e a r r e f e r e n c e t o Isa. 59.5. It is n o t a t t e s t e d e l s e w h e r e in Q u m r a n H e b r e w . 2 0 This r e m a r k a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n s h o w s that, to the w r i t e r of t h e H o d a y o t , ' h i s ' ‫ א פ ע ה‬e q u a l l e d t h e biblical ‫ ; א פ ע ה‬t h e y a r e n o t h o m o n y m s . N o w in Biblical H e b r e w , w h e r e it is a t t e s t e d t h r e e times, the w o r d ‫ א פ ע ה‬a l w a y s m e a n s ' v i p e r ' or s o m e t h i n g similar.21 N o t s o in t h e Q u m r a n text; r a t h e r , t h e c o n t e x t s w h e r e t h e w o r d o c c u r s s u g g e s t t h e m e a n i n g ' w i c k e d n e s s ' o r ' e m p t i n e s s ' o r s o m e t h i n g of t h e kind.22 W h e t h e r this m e a n i n g w a s a r r i v e d at t h r o u g h a particular

18

It is also to be noted that further verb forms developing the simile turn u p in the consecutive perfect (weqatal) in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. Isa. 55.10, w h e r e a s the passage from Ben Sira uses the participle. 19 The adjective ' w r o n g ' is not here to be taken in a moral sense. As a matter of fact, the type of linguistic interpretation involved w a s beyond d o u b t considered legitimate in the c o m m u n i t y w h e r e the texts originated; at times the same 'pseudo-classicism' crops u p in different writings showing that it w a s not created ad hoc (cf. below, Sect. V). The import of the second criterion is to distinguish between, on the one h a n d , usages diverging from their classical counterparts through natural d e v e l o p m e n t of the language, influence f r o m Aramaic, etc.—which are not pseudo-classical—and, on the other h a n d , divergences from classical expressions that arose in the course of interpreting texts. 20 According to the Sheffield Hebrew Dictionary, s.v. 21 See Isa. 30.6; 59.5; Job 20.16. The approximate meaning of the w o r d is indicated both by the respective contexts and by the evidence from cognate languages. 22 For discussion cf. M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961), pp. 109, 114f. As indicated by Mansoor, some interpreters have taken the word to mean 'viper' in the Hodayot; this seems fanciful, h o w ever.

e x e g e s i s of Isa. 59.5 o r t h r o u g h c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r w o r d , 2 3 is d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e . H o w e v e r t h i s m a y b e , t h e Q u m r a n i c u s e of t h e w o r d m e e t s o u r t w o c r i t e r i a : it c o r r e s p o n d s t o a c l a s s i c a l e x p r e s s i o n ; a n d it w a s w r o n g l y a n a l y s e d . T h e e x a m p l e s h o w s u s a n a u t h o r d e s i r o u s of e m p l o y i n g b i b l i c a l v o c a b u l a r y b u t s t u m b l i n g w h i l e h e d o e s s o . T h e a u t h o r of t h e H o d a y o t d i d n o t u s e t h e w o r d ‫א פ ע ה‬ b e c a u s e it w a s p a r t of t h e l i v i n g l a n g u a g e of h i s t i m e , b u t b e c a u s e it f i g u r e d in t h e Bible. T h e e x a m p l e p r o p o s e d m a y b e c h a l l e n g e d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s . A n d i n d e e d , d e f i n i t i v e d e m o n s t r a t i o n of t h e p s e u d o - c l a s s i c a l c h a r a c t e r of a g i v e n u s a g e will o f t e n p r o v e d i f f i c u l t , o r e v e n i m p o s s i b l e . A l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e a l m o s t a l w a y s f e a s i b l e : t h e d i v e r g e n c e of t h e l a t e r u s a g e m a y b e d u e , n o t to w r o n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g , b u t to n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e l a n g u a g e ; o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n m a y b e of C B H o r i g i n in a p p e a r a n c e o n l y ; in s o m e c a s e s , m o r e o v e r , it is p o s s i b l e to a r g u e t h a t t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e l a t e r w r i t e r s is t h e c o r r e c t o n e , a n d t h a t w e a r e t h e o n e s m i s t a k e n in o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S u c h d i f f i c u l ties a r e c o n n e c t e d to t h e v e r y n a t u r e of t h e p h e n o m e n o n : a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is n o t likely to a r i s e w h e n t h e o r i g i n a l u s a g e is w h o l l y unproblematic.24 O v e r a n d b e y o n d t h e v a l i d i t y of a n i n d i v i d u a l e x a m p l e t h e o c c u r r e n c e of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s m u s t b e r e c o g n i z e d , a s w i l l b e f u r t h e r c o n f i r m e d b y t h e e x a m p l e s p r e s e n t e d b e l o w . So let u s c o n t i n u e o u r e x p l o r a t i o n of t h i s p h e n o m e n o n a n d of t h e l i n g u i s t i c r e a l i t i e s it i m plies.

Ill: Further definition

of

pseudo-classicisms

A c c o r d i n g to t h e d e f i n i t i o n p r o p o s e d a b o v e , t h e e l e m e n t of e r r o r is of t h e e s s e n c e in t h e p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m . If a n e x p r e s s i o n k n o w n f r o m C B H w e r e u s e d c o r r e c t l y in a l a t e r t e x t o n e c o u l d n o t s p e a k of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m . A s a m a t t e r of fact, in s u c h a c a s e , o n e c o u l d n o t e v e n s p e a k of ' c l a s s i c i s m ' , s i n c e it w o u l d b e all b u t i m p o s s i b l e to s h o w

23

In Isa. 41.24, the nonce-word ‫ — א פ ע‬w h i c h m a y just h a v e come a b o u t as a mistake for ‫( אפס‬cf. BHS)—demands the meaning ‫׳‬nothing‫ ׳‬or the like (cf. the parallel ‫)אין‬. Perhaps this passage set off the interpretation of Isa. 59.5 seen in 1QH. Note that l Q I s a 3 reads ‫ אפע‬instead of ‫ אפעה‬in Isa. 59.5. 24 For some cases it can be s h o w n that an interpretation held to by post-classical writers also underlies the Septuagint translation of an expression (see below, n. 38). Since the Septuagint translators are partly contemporary with the literature to be discussed in this paper, the concurrence is not amazing, a n d it may at times strengthen our argument.

that the expression w a s taken from CBH a n d not f r o m the c o n t e m p o r a r y s t o c k of H e b r e w e x p r e s s i o n s . W h e r e t h e i m i t a t i o n of C B H is s u e c e s s f u l , it p a s s e s u n n o t i c e d ; o n l y w h e r e t h e p r o c e d u r e f a i l s is it e x posed. N o w t h e e r r o r o n t h e p a r t of t h e l a t e r w r i t e r m a y c o n c e r n e i t h e r t h e s e m a n t i c a s p e c t of t h e c l a s s i c a l e x p r e s s i o n o r its f o r m a l a n a l y s i s ; e i t h e r t h e signifié o r t h e signifiant, in S a u s s u r i a n t e r m s . T h e u s e of t h e w o r d ‫ א פ ע ה‬in t h e H o d a y o t f a l l s in t h e f o r m e r c a t e g o r y : f o r m a l l y t h e w o r d is c o r r e c t l y t r a n s c r i b e d , b u t its m e a n i n g is i n t e r p r e t e d w r o n g l y . T h i s t y p e m a y b e r e f e r r e d to a s a ' s e m a n t i c p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m ' . A ' f o r m a l p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m ‫ ׳‬a r i s e s w h e n a C B H e l e m e n t is u s e d w i t h t h e s a m e m e a n i n g a s in c l a s s i c a l t e x t s , b u t in a w a y t h a t s h o w s t h a t t h e f o r m a l a n a l y s i s of t h e e l e m e n t w a s i n a d e q u a t e . A g a i n , a n e x a m p l e c a n b e q u o t e d f r o m t h e H o d a y o t . In 1 Q H 9.32, t h e s l i g h t l y p u z z l i n g ‫ ב א מ ת נכון‬is a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y to b e c o n n e c t e d w i t h D e u t . 13.15; 17.4: 25 .‫הדבר‬ ‫ו ה נ ה א מ ת נכון‬ T h e m e a n i n g of t h e w o r d s in t h e Q u m r a n text p o s e s n o p r o b l e m . B u t the syntax does: the Q u m r a n a u t h o r a p p a r e n t l y parsed the expression ‫ א מ ת נ כ ו ן‬a s a g e n i t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n (smikhut). T h i s is a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y not the w a y the D e u t e r o n o m i c p h r a s e should be analysed.26 T h u s the e x a m p l e m e e t s t h e t w o c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d a b o v e : t h e e x p r e s s i o n is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of C B H , a n d it w a s w r o n g l y a n a l y s e d . H o w e v e r , t h e f a u l t y a n a l y s i s d o e s n o t c o n c e r n t h e m e a n i n g of t h e e x p r e s s i o n , b u t its f o r m . T h e e f f e c t , f o r o u r p u r p o s e s , is t h e s a m e . W e o b s e r v e a n a u t h o r d e s i r i n g t o e x p r e s s h i s t h o u g h t s in a n i d i o m , k n o w n t o h i m t h r o u g h t h e s t u d y of classical texts, b u t w h i c h h e d o e s n o t f u l l y m a s t e r .

IV: More

examples

P s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s o c c u r n o t o n l y in t h e Q u m r a n H o d a y o t , a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y in e v i d e n c e t h e r e . 2 7 A t e l l i n g e x a m p l e f r o m L B H 25

The entire Deuteronomic expression occurs in 11QT 55.5,20. Some d o u b t exists as to the correct analysis of the phrase in Deuteronomy. S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (Third ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), p. 154, p r o p o s e d taking ‫ אמת‬adjectival and the two n o u n s as co-ordinate: " A n d , behold, the thing is true (and) certain". It is also possible to take ‫ אמח‬adverbially (as in Jer. 23.28, cf. BDB, s.v., §5): 'and behold, the matter really is so'. Even better, p e r h a p s , would be to find here t w o clauses with ‫ ת ה‬equalling ‫׳‬behold it' (cf. J. Joosten, ΖAH 2 [1989], p. 135, n. 31): ' A n d behold it is true; the matter is so'. 27 For o t h e r e x a m p l e s , cf. D. Barthélémy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament, 2 (OBO, 5.2; Fribourg: U n i v e r s i t é / G ô t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k &: Ruprecht, 1986), p. 97 (‫מדהבה‬, exemplifying "[des] réutilisations érudites d ' u n

26

is t h e u s e of t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ מ ל א י ד ו‬in C h r o n i c l e s , f o r e x a m p l e 1 C h r . 29.5: ‫ומי מ ת נ ד ב ל מ ל א ת ידו היום לי׳‬ ' w h o t h e n will o f f e r w i l l i n g l y , " f i l l i n g his h a n d " t o d a y f o r t h e LORD?‫׳‬. W e m a y a s s u m e t h a t t h e w o r d s ‫ ל מ ל א ת י ד ו‬c o n s t i t u t e a n i d i o m a t i c exp r e s s i o n c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e classical e x p r e s s i o n ‫ מ ל א י ד‬. H o w e v e r , w h e r e a s in C B H t h e e x p r e s s i o n m e a n s ' t o i n d u c t into a p r i e s t l y o f f i c e ' , in C h r o n i c l e s it clearly h a s a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g — p e r h a p s ‫ ׳‬t o b e g e n e r o u s ' a s s u g g e s t e d b y M. P a r a n . 2 8 It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e a u t h o r of C h r o n i c l e s u s e d a n e x p r e s s i o n h e h a d f o u n d in C B H texts, t h e m e a n i n g of w h i c h h e falsely a p p r e h e n d e d . 2 9 If t h i s a n a l y s i s is c o r r e c t , w e have here a 'semantic30 pseudo-classicism'.31 A ' f o r m a l p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m ' m a y p e r h a p s b e f o u n d in t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e ( N e h . 10.32): ‫ונטט א ת הטנה הטביעית ומטא כ ל יד‬ ' a n d w e will f o r e g o t h e c r o p s of t h e s e v e n t h y e a r a n d t h e e x action of e v e r y d e b t ' . A s h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d , t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ מ ט א כ ל י ד‬is to b e v i e w e d in light of D e u t . 15.2: ‫וזה ד ב ר ה ט מ ט ה ט מ ו ט כ ל ב ע ל מ ט ה י ד ו א ט ר י ט ה ב ר ע ה ו‬. Syntactically, t h e e x p r e s s i o n s d i f f e r , h o w e v e r . In N e h e m i a h ‫מ ט א כ ל י ד‬ hapax biblique interprété en fonction d e son contexte"); E.Y. Kutscher, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 16, col. 1589 (‫חרישית‬, belonging to the class of Biblical Hebrew "words whose meaning changed owing to a certain interpretation of their original meaning which had been forgotten" [col. 1588]). 28

C f . M . P a r a n , Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch

(Jerusalem: M a g n e s

Press, 1989), pp. 283-84. Note, however, that this interpretation does not seem to fit 2 Chr. 13.9, a passage that escaped Paran's notice. 29 The different meaning attached to the expression in Chronicles cannot easily be explained as the result of natural development of the language. Rather, it seems that the later writer interpreted the expression from its component parts. Cf. the remarks on ‫ כ ר ת ברית‬in Sir. 50:24 in J. F. E l w o l d e , 'Developments', p. 33f. 30 If the Masoretic vowels may be trusted, there is a formal discrepancy as well. In classical texts the Qal occurs when the action is reflexive (Exod. 32.28: 'ordain yourselves'), whereas the Pi'el is used only when the action concerns an external object (Judg. 17.5: 'he ordained one of his sons'). This distribution of Qal and Pi'el corresponds to a general pattern described in J. Joosten, 'The Functions of the Semitic D stem. Biblical H e b r e w Materials for a Comparative-Historical Approach', forthcoming in Orientalia. In Chronicles, however, the Pi'el is used in a reflexive sense. 31 For other possible examples in LBH, cf. Paran, Forms, p. 303 (‫ ;)אחזה‬J.-M. B a b u t , Les expressions

idiomatiques

de l'hébreu biblique ( C a h i e r s d e la R e v u e

Biblique, 33, Paris: Cabalda, 1995), pp. 84-87 (‫)דבר על לב‬.

is a g e n i t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , l i t e r a l l y 'a l o a n of a n y h a n d ‫ ׳‬. T h i s a n a l y s i s is n o t s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h e D e u t e r o n o m i c ‫ מ ש ה י ד ו‬. T o b e s u r e , t h e Masoretic pointing, and m a n y m o d e r n exegetes, d o find a genitive c o n s t r u c t i o n h e r e : ' e v e r y m a s t e r of a l o a n of h i s h a n d ' . H o w e v e r , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v e r b ‫ ש מ ט‬is e l s e w h e r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h 32‫ יד‬s h o w s t h a t w e s h o u l d rather, with Rashi and T a r g u m Neofiti, take ‫ ידו‬as the dir e c t o b j e c t of t h e v e r b ‫ ש מ ו ט‬. If t h i s a n a l y s i s is c o r r e c t , t h e n t h e t e x t of N e h . 10.32 r e p r e s e n t s a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , 3 3 s h o w i n g t h a t t h e a u t h o r w a s n o t e x p r e s s i n g h i m s e l f in t h e l i v i n g H e b r e w of h i s d a y , b u t i m i t a t i n g a biblical p h r a s e . 3 4 T h e B o o k of Ben Sira, too, b r i n g s a h a r v e s t of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s . Let u s f i r s t c o n s i d e r a c a s e w h e r e t h e s e m a n t i c s of a c l a s s i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s e e m to h a v e b e e n w r o n g l y a p p r e h e n d e d . T h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫פ י שנים‬ o c c u r s t w o t i m e s in Ben Sira w i t h t h e m e a n i n g ' t w i c e a s m u c h , d o u b l y ' , f o r e x a m p l e Sir. 12:5(A): ‫פ י שנים ר ע ה ת ש י ג ב ע ת צ ו ר ך ב כ ל ט ו ב ה ת נ י ע א ל י ו‬ ' y o u will f i n d t w i c e a s m u c h evil in t i m e s of n e e d , f o r all t h e good y o u can d o for him'.35 T h e e x p r e s s i o n is k n o w n , of c o u r s e , f r o m t h e Bible, w h e r e it o c c u r s t h r e e t i m e s : D e u t . 21.17; 2 K g s 2.9; Z e c h . 13.8. In Biblical H e b r e w , h o w e v e r , t h e m e a n i n g is n o t ' t w i c e a s m u c h ' , b u t 'a d o u b l e p a r t of a l a r g e r w h o l e ' . 3 6 T h e biblical u s e is w e l l e x e m p l i f i e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e (2 K g s 2.9): ‫ו י ה י נא פ י שנים ב ר ו ח ך א ל י‬ 'let m e i n h e r i t a d o u b l e p a r t of y o u r s p i r i t ' . Elisha's wish d o e s not imply that he desired to receive twice as m u c h of t h e p r o p h e t i c s p i r i t a s w a s in Elijah, b u t t h a t h e s h o u l d g e t a d o u b l e s h a r e of it—i.e. t h e f i r s t b o r n ' s p a r t . 3 7 B e n S i r a ' s u s e of t h e p h r a s e

32

See Deut. 15.3; and, possibly, Jer. 17.4 (cf. BHS). Cf. M. Weinfeld, ‫׳‬Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws', in T. Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and in its Environment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 39-62, in particular p. 48. 34 If the analysis proposed in the text is accepted, then one may further submit that the Masoretic pointing of Deut. 15.2 w a s influenced by the g r a m m a r of Neh. 10.32. 35 The expression is f o u n d also in Sir. 18.32(C). It m a y be postulated for 48.12, w h e r e however the Hebrew text of MS Β is not sufficiently legible. 36 Cf. HALOT, p. 915b (where a possible connection with Akkadian šÌnip(u) is noted), against E.W. Davies, 'The Meaning of pî Š?nayim in Deuteronomy XXI 17', VT 36 (1986), pp. 341-47. For Davies, the use of the expression in Ben Sira and later writings, and its translation in the Septuagint (cf. below, n. 38) are major a r g u m e n t s in favour of a meaning 'twice as much, double' for the biblical expression. 37 Cf. the m o d e m commentaries to this passage. To be sure, Ben Sira did un33

s h o w s t h a t its o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g h a d b e e n f o r g o t t e n . 3 8 A n d t h u s it characterizes his l a n g u a g e as pseudo-classical. A p o s s i b l e c a s e of f o r m a l p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m is t h e f o l l o w i n g (Sir. 14.11[A]): ‫ב נ י א ם יש ל ך ש ר ו ת נ פ ש ך ו א ם יש ל ך ה י ט י ב ל ך ו ל א ל י ד ך ה ד ש ן‬ ' m y s o n , if y o u a r e a b l e , s e r v e y o u r s e l f , a n d if y o u a r e a b l e , d o g o o d t o y o u r s e l f ; a n d a c c o r d i n g to y o u r p o w e r a f f o r d yourself luxury'. T h e w o r d s ‫ ל א ל י ד ך‬c e r t a i n l y c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e biblical e x p r e s s i o n ‫יש ]אין! ל א ל י ד פ ׳‬ 'it is ( n o t ) in s o - a n d - s o ' s p o w e r ' 3 9 — b u t w i t h a d i f f e r e n c e in c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e of t h e b i b l i c a l p h r a s e c a n b e s t b e u n d e r s t o o d f r o m t h o s e e x a m p l e s w h e r e it is f o l l o w e d b y a n i n f i n i t i v e , e.g. G e n . 31.29: ‫יש ל א ל ירי ל ע ש ו ת ע מ כ ם ר ע‬ 'it is in m y p o w e r t o d o y o u h a r m ' . H e r e , t h e i n f i n i t i v e p h r a s e m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s t h e s u b j e c t of ‫( י ש‬as in, e.g., 2 K g s 4.13: ‫היש ל ד ב ר ל ך א ל ה מ ל ך‬ 'is it p o s s i b l e to s p e a k f o r y o u to t h e k i n g ? ' ) . 4 0 T h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e ‫ ל א ל י ד י‬f u n c t i o n s a s a c o m p l e m e n t ' i t is p o s s i b l e — ‫ י( ל א ל י ד י‬t o t h e p o w e r [?] of m y h a n d ' ) — t o d o y o u h a r m ' . T o p u t it m o r e s i m p l i s t i c a l l y , t h e lamed in ‫ יש ל א ל י ד י‬e x p r e s s e s p o s s e s s i o n . T h i s r e m a i n s t r u e f o r t h e biblical e x a m p l e s w h e r e n o i n f i n i t i v e p h r a s e f o l l o w s . 4 1 T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n in Sir. 14.11, h o w e v e r , h a s t o b e a n a l y s e d d i f f e r e n t l y . T h e lamed d o e s n o t e x p r e s s ' p o s s e s s i o n ' b u t r e f e r e n c e , ' a c c o r d i n g t o ' , a s in E z e k . 2 2 . 6 , ‫ ' ל ז ר ע ו‬a c c o r d i n g t o h i s m i g h t . ' 4 2 If t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e c l o s e t o t a r g e t t h e n B e n Sira h e r e p e r p e trated a formal pseudo-classicism.

derstand Elijah's w o r d s as a request to receive ‫׳‬twice as much', see Sir. 48.12. Note also the Septuagint translation in Deut. 21.17; 2 Kgs 2.9: διπλά. 39 The classical expression occurs in Sir. 5.1(A):‫אל תאמר יש ל א ל ידי‬. N o t e also 4QapLam a [4Q179] 1 . 1 : . ‫י ד נ ו‬ ‫ואין ל א ל‬ 40 S e e a l s o 2 Sam. 14.19. 41 In other words, o n e may in these cases s u p p o s e an ellipsis: 'it is in so a n d so's p o w e r (to do something)'. 42 See also 1 Sam. 23.20; 1 Kgs 9.11; cf. BDB, 5§ ,‫ל‬jb.5. Note that Wilfred G.E. W a t s o n ' s reanalysis of the expression as ‫ א י ן ל א ל י ד‬/ ‫׳ י ש‬there i s / t h e r e is n o t strength (belonging) to (my) h a n d ‫'( ׳‬Reclustering H e b r e w I'lyd-', Biblica 58 [1977], pp. 213-15) does not affect the interpretation at the synchronic level in either the Bible or the post-biblical texts cited. 38

V: Grammatical

pseudo-classicisms

All t h e c a s e s h i t h e r t o e x a m i n e d a r e f r o m t h e lexical d o m a i n . B u t in their g r a m m a r , too, H e b r e w texts f r o m the P e r s i a n a n d Hellenistic a g e s s h o w s i g n s of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m . M o r e o v e r , t h e f i e l d of g r a m m a r g i v e s u s s o m e t h i n g t h a t w e d i d n o t f i n d in t h e f i e l d of v o c a b u l a r y , n a m e l y p s e u d o - c l a s s i c a l u s a g e s o c c u r r i n g in m o r e t h a n o n e c o r p u s . E x a m p l e s of g e n e r a l i z e d p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s s h o w , m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n t h e i s o l a t e d c a s e s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e u n i t y of t h e e a r l y p o s t - c l a s s i c a l p h a s e of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . T h e y a l s o s u g g e s t t h a t c l a s s i c a l H e b r e w w a s t a u g h t in a s c h o o l s e t t i n g , a n d t h a t n o t all t h e a b e r r a n t u s a g e s a r e d u e to t h e f a i l i n g l i n g u i s t i c s e n s i t i v i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s . It a p p e a r s t h a t c e r t a i n ' p s e u d o - r u l e s ' of C B H w e r e t a u g h t t o t h o s e w h o b e c a m e t h e a u t h o r s of t h e p o s t - c l a s s i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . T i m e is t o o s h o r t to a t t e m p t a d e m o n s t r a t i o n f r o m s c r a t c h . T h e d i s c u s s i o n w i l l b e l i m i t e d , t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t w o g r a m m a t i c a l p h e n o m e n a that h a v e already been exhaustively analysed and d o c u m e n t e d , the lengthened imperative a n d the shortened imperfect. In h i s b o o k Studies in Biblical Syntax, S. F a s s b e r g h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e l e n g t h e n e d s e c o n d p e r s o n m a s c u l i n e s i n g u l a r i m p e r a t i v e qotlä in Biblical H e b r e w e x p r e s s e s a n a c t i o n d i r e c t e d in s o m e w a y t o w a r d s t h e s p e a k e r . 4 3 H i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n is c o n v i n c i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of c a s e s . 4 4 A f e w c o u n t e r - e x a m p l e s o c c u r , h o w e v e r , in s o m e l a t e biblical texts. T h u s N e h e m i a h ' s r e f r a i n ( N e h . 5.19), ‫ז כ ר ה לי א ל ה י ל ט ו ב ה כ ל א ט ר עטיתי ע ל העם הזה‬ ' r e m e m b e r f o r m y g o o d , Ο m y G o d , all t h a t I h a v e d o n e f o r this p e o p l e ' ( s i m i l a r : N e h . 13.14,22,31), s e e m s to a c c o r d w i t h t h e t h e o r y , b u t t h e t w o c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e is n o d i r e c t i n v o l v e m e n t of t h e s p e a k e r g i v e r o o m f o r d o u b t , e.g. N e h . 6.14: ‫זכרה אלהי לטוביה ולסנבלט כמעטיו אלה‬ ' r e m e m b e r T o b i a h a n d Sanballat, Ο m y G o d , a c c o r d i n g to these things that they d i d . . . ' ( s i m i l a r : N e h . 13.29). In s o m e P s a l m s , t h e l e n g t h e n e d f o r m s e e m s t o b e u s e d m o r e o r less i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y w h e n e v e r t h e i m p e r a t i v e is a d d r e s s e d t o G o d . 4 5 S i m i l a r e x a m p l e s a r e f o u n d in t h e W a r S c r o l l f r o m Q u m r a n . 4 6

43

Cf. S. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem: Magnes, Press 1994). Cf. my review in /SS 41 (1996), pp. 331-33. 45 Cf. S. A. Kaufman, 'An Emphatic Plea for Please', Maarav 7 (1991), pp. 19598, in particular p. 198; Fassberg, Studies, p. 24. 46 Cf. Fassberg, Studies, p. 28. 44

M o r e o v e r , t h e o n e e x a m p l e in a n o n - b i b l i c a l Q u m r a n t e x t w h e r e t h e i m p e r a t i v e is n o t a d d r e s s e d to G o d d o e s n o t a g r e e w i t h F a s s b e r g ' s theory: ‫שמחה יהודה ש מ ח ת כ ה שמחה ש מ ח ת כ ה וגילה גילך‬ 'be h a p p y , J u d a h , be h a p p y ! ; be h a p p y a n d burst w i t h joy!' ( 4 Q P s f 10.7-8). T h e i m p r e s s i o n is c r e a t e d t h a t t h e s e p a s s a g e s a r e n o t j u s t e x c e p t i o n s c o n f i r m i n g the rule.47 Rather, they indicate that the l e n g t h e n e d imp e r a t i v e w a s n o l o n g e r p a r t of t h e l i v i n g l a n g u a g e in t h e a g e of N e h e m i a h and the Q u m r a n writers. The f o r m w a s k n o w n f r o m CBH, a n d u s e d in i m i t a t i o n , s o m e t i m e s c o r r e c t l y , s o m e t i m e s a c c e p t a b l y , a n d s o m e t i m e s in a c o n t e x t w h e r e c l a s s i c a l u s a g e d i d n o t a l l o w it. In other words, w e are dealing with a semantic pseudo-classicism—not a lexical o n e , b u t in t h e field of g r a m m a r . A n o t h e r c a s e m a y b e f o u n d in t h e u s e of t h e s h o r t e n e d i m p e r f e c t in p o s t - c l a s s i c a l t e x t s . C B H , a s is w e l l k n o w n , p o s s e s s e s t w o v a r i a n t f o r m s of t h e p r e f i x c o n j u g a t i o n : t h e l o n g f o r m a n d t h e s h o r t f o r m , e a c h w i t h its o w n f u n c t i o n . T h e s e f o r m s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , p a r t l y , w i t h ayin-waw a n d livned-he v e r b s a n d w i t h t h e Hifil s t e m , b u t o t h e r wise they formally coincide. Nevertheless, they can generally be kept a p a r t — a t l e a s t in c l a s s i c a l p r o s e — w h e n d u e a t t e n t i o n is p a i d t o t h e s y n t a x of t h e c l a u s e : t h e s h o r t f o r m t e n d s to o c c u p y t h e f i r s t p o s i t i o n in t h e c l a u s e , w h i l e t h e l o n g f o r m n o r m a l l y t a k e s a n o n - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n . 4 8 S i n c e t h e H e b r e w c o n j u n c t i o n ‫ ו־‬is a l w a y s c l a u s e - i n i t i a l , t h e s e r u l e s i m p l y t h a t weyic\tol m u s t , in p r i n c i p l e , b e a n a l y s e d a s -‫ ו‬w i t h t h e s h o r t f o r m of t h e p r e f i x c o n j u g a t i o n . A n d i n d e e d , t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of c a s e s of ufyiqtôl t u r n o u t to c o n f o r m to t h i s r u l e , b o t h s e m a n t i c a l l y — e v e n t h o u g h t h e p r e c i s e m e a n i n g of t h e s h o r t f o r m is s o m e w h a t h a r d to d e t e r m i n e — a n d m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y , w h e n e v e r the f o r m a l l o w s the d i s t i n c t i o n to b e m a d e . In L B H a n d in t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, 4 9 h o w e v e r , t h e p i c t u r e c h a n g e s . A s h a s b e e n s h o w n b y E. Q i m r o n in t w o r e c e n t a r t i c l e s , weyiqtöl in t h i s p h a s e of t h e l a n g u a g e still t u r n s u p a s ‫ ו־‬+ s h o r t f o r m w h e n e v e r t h e m o r p h o l o g y a l l o w s it; b u t t h e m e a n i n g of t h e f o r m is n o l o n g e r d i s t i n c t f r o m t h a t of t h e l o n g f o r m of t h e p r e f i x c o n j u g a t i o n , 5 0 f o r e x a m p l e D a n . 11.4:

47

This seems to be the explanation advanced by Fassberg. Cf. A. Niccacci, Ά Neglected Point of H e b r e w Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence', Liber Annuus 37 (1987), pp. 7-19. 49 N o research on this question in the Hebrew of Ben Sira has come to m y attention. 50 See E. Qimron, 'Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: the Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical H e b r e w ‫ ׳‬, JQR 77 (1987), pp. 151-53; Ά N e w Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect Without Personal Endings', in 48

‫וכעמרו ת ש ב ר מלכותו ותחץ ל א ר ב ע רוחות השמים‬ ' a n d w h e n h e h a s arisen, his k i n g d o m shall b e b r o k e n a n d d i v i d e d t o w a r d t h e f o u r w i n d s of h e a v e n ' . The f o r m ‫ ו ת ח ץ‬here expresses the s a m e function as the p r e c e d i n g ‫ ת ש ב ר‬. T o b e s u r e , t h e s h i f t in t h e v e r b a l s y s t e m s t a n d i n g in t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h i s u s a g e o w e s s o m e t h i n g t o d i a c h r o n i c d e v e l o p m e n t : e n c r o a c h e s u p o n t h e d o m a i n of c l a s s i c a l n o n - v o l i t i v e weyiqtöl n f q ā t a 1 ^ — a d e v e l o p m e n t r e s u l t i n g , in M H , in t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e of m o d a l ufqâtal o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d of t h e s h o r t f o r m of t h e p r e f i x c o n j u g a t i o n o n t h e o t h e r . H o w e v e r , t h e u s e of t h e s h o r t f o r m in L B H ufyiqtôl is n o t e x p l a i n e d b y t h i s h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t ; in t h e e x a m p i e q u o t e d o n e e x p e c t s t h e l o n g f o r m ‫ ו ת ח צ ה‬a s it w o u l d b e in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w . T h e p h e n o m e n o n c a n b e e x p l a i n e d if w e i n v o k e t h e c o n c e p t of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m . T h e a u t h o r s of p o s t - c l a s s i c a l t e x t s a p p e a r t o h a v e n o t e d t h a t C B H t e n d s to u s e t h e s h o r t f o r m f o l l o w i n g waw, w i t h o u t p a y i n g attention to the distinct f u n c t i o n e x p r e s s e d by the f o r m . T h e y t h e r e f o r e i m i t a t e d t h e m o r p h o l o g y of t h e c l a s s i c a l t e x t s , e v e n w h e r e t h e s e m a n t i c s of t h e f o r m d i f f e r e d .

VI:

Conclusions

A t t h e c l o s e of this p a p e r , a n i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n of t h e p h e n o m e n o n still r e m a i n s to b e m o r e c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . P s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s b e l o n g t o t h e d o m a i n of la parole a n d n o t t o la langue (in S a u s s u r i a n l i n g u i s t i c s ) ; t h e y b e l o n g to a w r i t e r ' s s t y l e r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e l a n g u a g e s y s t e m . It is n o t , in f a c t , c o r r e c t to s p e a k of c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n t w o l a n g u a g e s y s t e m s : t h a t of C B H a n d t h a t of p o s t - c l a s s i c a l H e b r e w . If H e b r e w w a s a l i v i n g l a n g u a g e f o r t h e p o s t - c l a s s i c a l a u t h o r s , w h i c h s e e m s to h a v e been the case, this m e a n s they possessed their o w n l a n g u a g e s y s t e m . H o w e v e r , in t h e t e x t s t h e y left b e h i n d t h e y a t t i m e s p r e f e r r e d to c l o t h e t h e i r t h o u g h t s in e x p r e s s i o n s b o r r o w e d f r o m c l a s s i c a l t e x t s . T h e p r o c e d u r e s e e m s i n d e e d to h a v e b e e n a c o n s c i o u s o n e , i n v o l v i n g t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e w r i t e r to i m i t a t e C B H . 5 2 T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h t h e p h e n o m e n o n s e e m s to a f f e c t t h e e n t i r e c o r p u s of l i t e r a r y H e b r e w of t h e l a t e P e r s i a n a n d H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d s , it is, in f a c t , m o r e a c h a r -

T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings

of a Symposium

held at Leiden University,

11-14 December

1995

(STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 174-81. 51 According to the rules of CBH grammar, one w o u l d h a v e expected ‫ ונחצתה‬in Dan. 11.4. 52 T h u s texts from the same period and milieu can yet show very different degrees of this tendency.

acteristic of t h e texts a n d of t h e g e n r e s t h a n of the l a n g u a g e a s s u c h . Precisely for this r e a s o n , h o w e v e r , linguistic r e s e a r c h o n t h e p o s t classical texts o u g h t n o t to n e g l e c t t h e p h e n o m e n o n of p s e u d o - c l a s s i c i s m s . A l t h o u g h w o r d - l i s t s a n d e n u m e r a t i o n s of g r a m m a t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s m a y s h o w u p a r e m a r k a b l e d e g r e e of i d e n t i t y b e t w e e n classical a n d post-classical H e b r e w , this d o e s n o t i m p l y t h a t t h e t w o Iang u a g e s y s t e m s a r e close. T h e i m p r e s s i o n is c r e a t e d , r a t h e r , t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e s y s t e m of C B H w a s a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r a b l y r e m o v e d f r o m a u t h o r s of the late P e r s i a n p e r i o d . T h i s fact a l o n e e x p l a i n s h o w w o r d s , e x p r e s s i o n s a n d g r a m m a t i c a l f o r m s f r o m C B H c o u l d h a v e c o m e to b e wrongly interpreted or analysed.

S O M E N O T E S O N BIBLICAL EXPRESSIONS A N D A L L U S I O N S A N D T H E L E X I C O G R A P H Y O F B E N SIRA* M e n a h e m Kister (Jerusalem) T h e l a n g u a g e of t h e B o o k of Ben Sira s t a n d s a t a c r o s s r o a d s in t h e h i s t o r y of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e a n d J e w i s h c u l t u r e . E s s e n t i a l l y , Ben Sira w r i t e s in t h e biblical w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n . M a n y of h i s v e r s e s c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s a c o n t i n u a t i o n of P r o v e r b s , b o t h in c o n t e n t a n d s t y l e . S o m e p e c u l i a r i t i e s of Ben Sira c o m e t o m i n d i m m e d i a t e l y : B e n Sira c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l l o n g a n d e l a b o r a t e d l i t e r a r y u n i t s ; it c o n s i s t s of a v a r i e t y of g e n r e s (e.g. p r a y e r s , a l o n g h i s t o r i c a l s u r v e y ) ; its r e l i g i o u s a t m o s p h e r e is r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t of m o s t of t h e biblical w i s d o m c o m p o s i tions. 1 B e n Sira is n o t i m i t a t i n g t h e b i b l i c a l s t y l e a n d l a n g u a g e , alt h o u g h m u c h of h i s b o o k is c l e a r l y modelled on t h e Bible. B e n S i r a c o m p o s e d h i s b o o k in a p o s t - b i b l i c a l w o r l d 2 of c h a n g i n g c u l t u r e a n d l a n g u a g e , f o c u s e d o n t h e s t u d y a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Bible. L e x i c a l l y , B e n Sira h a s n o h e s i t a t i o n in u s i n g t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e a n c i e n t writings, including poetic forms, but he d o e s not consider himself o b l i g e d to u s e o n l y t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e Bible; 3 h e a l s o e m p l o y s m a n y * G = the Greek version of Ben Sira (Sir.); S = the Syriac version of Sir.; H = H e b r e w fragments of Sir.; MSS A, B, C = Genizah manuscripts of Sir. (Bmg = alternative readings written in the margin of MS B); MS M = the Masada scroll of Sir. The English translations of Ben Sira verses in the present article are frequently based on Box and Oesterly (in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [ed. R.H. Charles; Oxford, 1913], Vol. 1) although with m a n y deviations. 1 To a certain extent, Ps. 119 could be considered as a parallel to Ben Sira. Note especially the regard for the Torah and the observance of the c o m m a n d m e n t s in b o t h p r o d u c t s of w i s d o m l i t e r a t u r e (see A. H u r v i t z , ‫[ שקיעי חכמה בספר חהלים‬Jerusalem, 1991], pp. 100-19). For an analysis of the concepts reflected in this psalm see Y. Amir, ‫מקומו של מזמור קיט בתולדות דת ישראל‬, Te'udah 2 (1982), pp. 57-81. It should be noted, however, that the a b u n d a n t allusions to biblical passages, so characteristic of Ben Sira, is not shared by Ps. 119. This difference may imply an essential (rather than merely stylistic) difference between the two authors; see n. 2. 2 Cf. M. Kister, Ά C o m m o n Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Q u m r a n a n d its Implications', in Biblical Perspectives (ed. E. Chazon and M.E. Stone; Leiden, 1998), pp. 101-102. 3 E.g. •‫׳ לדו‬war, battle‫ ׳‬is used in 12.5 ( ‫ )כלי לחם אל חתן א‬as well as in 41.19:

n o n - b i b l i c a l w o r d s a n d e x p r e s s i o n s . S o m e of t h e m s e e m to b e A r a m a i s m s , 4 o t h e r s a r e d o c u m e n t e d in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w , a n d still o t h e r w o r d s a r e a t t e s t e d n e i t h e r in H e b r e w n o r in A r a m a i c . 5 N e e d l e s s to say, this classification is r a t h e r a r b i t r a r y , b a s e d o n v o c a b u l a r y of t h e c o r p o r a p r e s e r v e d f o r us. T h r e e e x a m p l e s will s u f f i c e to i l l u s t r a t e this p o i n t . 1. Ben Sira u s e s ‫ ' נ צ ח‬t o f l a s h , s h i n e ' (35.10; 43.5,13), a m e a n i n g w e l l - a t t e s t e d in Syriac. T h e s a m e m e a n i n g m i g h t p o s s i b l y exist in Biblical H e b r e w : t h e v e r s e ‫ ( ו ל א י צ א ל נ צ ח מ ש פ ט‬H a b . 1.4) can be compared with ‫ ( מ ש פ ט ו יתן ל א ו ר‬Z e p h . 3.5); the w o r d ‫ נ צ ח‬w o u l d t h e n be u s e d h e r e in t h e s e n s e of 'light'. 6 2. T h e v e r b ‫ ' ח ל ק‬c r e a t e ' (16.16; 31[34].13,27; 38.1; 39.25), c u r r e n t in A r a b i c , o c c u r s (as n o t e d by B e n - H a y y i m ) in a n A r a m a i c f r a g m e n t f o u n d at Q u m r a n . 7 3. Sir. 10.31 r e a d s : ‫ו נ ק ל ה ב ע ש ר ו *בעניו* א י כ כ ה‬ ‫ נ כ ב ד *בעניו* ב ע ש ר ו א י כ כ ה‬. T h e w o r d10.31)‫ ) א י כ כ ה‬in the s e n s e of ' h o w m u c h s o ' ( e q u i v a l e n t to ‫ ) ע ל א ח ת כ מ ה ו כ מ ה‬s e e m e d to be p e c u l i a r to t h e b o o k of Ben Sira. Ben‫ממטה אציל ע ל לחם‬ ‫ז‬1[‫)בוש( מהפר אלה ו ב ה י‬, where it occurs together with the neologism ‫' מטה אציל‬one w h o reclines to dine' (cf. 9.9; see n. 15; ‫ מטה אציל‬should not be understood as an infinitive, as suggested by most scholars, but rather as a participle). Most commentators on 41.19 follow G and render ‫ לחם‬as 'bread‫׳‬. This creates severe difficulties, and sometimes forced translations and interpretations of ‫מטה אציל‬. Instead, ‫לחם‬ should be interpreted as meaning 'war' (MT ‫ לחם‬rather than ‫׳ לחם‬bread‫)׳‬, a word from biblical poetry (Judg. 5.8) used also, as noted, in 12.5. The meaning of the verse would be, then, 'be ashamed to fight someone with w h o m you dine'. Since 'oath and covenant‫ ׳‬were related to eating together (cf. 9.16 and Obad. 7) it is not difficult to see why both exhortations would be included in the same verse. 4 Cf. M. Kister, ‫לפירושו ט ל ס פ ר ב ך ס י ר א‬, Tarbiz 59 (1990), pp. 306-307, η. 10 (henceforth, Kister, 'Contribution'). 5 E.g. 42.5: ‫למת‬,‫ועבד רע וצלע מד‬ ‫]על בנים מוסר ה ר ק ה‬, which I would translate 'upon children multiply correction, and upon an evil and "lame" slave (multiply) blows'; the reading ‫ מהלמח‬has been suggested by J. Strugnell, 'Notes and Queries on "The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada'", Eretz Israel 9 (1969), p. 114‫ ״‬but my translation differs from his. ‫' צלע‬lame' is used in a metaphorical sense, 'bad, inefficient' (cf. χωλός and derived verbs in Greek, and other languages). 6 M. Kister, Ά Common Heritage', p. I l l , n. 36. 7 Z. Ben-Hayyim,‫ישנים נם חדשים מן צפוני מדבר יהודה‬, LCS. 42 (1978), p. 291. Cf. also Kister, 'Contribution‫׳‬, p. 334.

H a y y i m n o t e d its s e m a n t i c s i m i l a r i t y t o A r a b i c fakayfa.8 W e m a y a d d t h e A r a m a i c ‫ ה י כ י‬a n d t h e H e b r e w ‫ כ י צ ד‬in t h i s s e n s e , a c c o r d i n g t o s o m e t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s t o a p a s s a g e of t h e B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d ( R . N . N . R a b i n o v i t z , Diqduqê Sôfrim o n b . B a v a B a t r a 134b): ‫ גדול היכי‬,‫ומאחר ר ק ט ן שבכולן הכי‬. P a r a l l e l r e a d i n g s of ‫ ה י כ י‬in t h i s p a s s a g e a r e ‫ ע ל א ח ת כ מ ה ו כ מ ה‬, ‫ כ י צ ד‬. T h i s r e m i n d s u s , h o w e v e r , of t h e b i b l i c a l f o r m u l a ... ‫ ו א י ך‬. . . ‫ ה נ ה‬, i n w h i c h t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e n a t u r e of ‫ ו א י ך‬is still q u i t e c l e a r , e.g. 2) ‫ה נ ה שני ה מ ל כ י ם ל א ע מ ד ו ל פ נ י ו ו א י ך נ ע מ ד א נ ח נ ו‬ K g s 10.4); ‫כי את ת ל י ם ר צ ת וילאוך ואיך ת ת ח ר ה את הסוסים‬ ‫ ( ו ב א ר ץ ש ל ו ם א ת ה ב ו ט ח ו א י ך ת ע ש ה ב ג א ו ן ה י ר ד ן‬j e r . 12.4-5). T h e s h i f t f r o m s u c h s t r u c t u r e s to t h e s t r u c t u r e of Sir. 10.31 a n d t h e o n e in t h e B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d c a n b e e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d . T h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e D e a d Sea s c r o l l s i n t r o d u c e d u s t o p r e v i o u s l y u n k n o w n l a y e r s of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e , a n d lexical c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e s c r o l l s a n d Ben Sira m a y s h e d l i g h t o n b o t h , a s m a y b e s e e n from the following four examples. 1. B e n Sira (42.8) s p e a k s of ‫שב כושל ענה מ נ ו ת‬ 'a t o t t e r i n g o l d p e r s o n o c c u p i e d w i t h w h o r e d o m ‫ ׳‬, w h e r e a s a Q u m r a n i c c o m p o s i t i o n ( l Q S a 2.7) m e n t i o n s ‫איש זקן כושל ל ב ל ת י ה ת ח ז ק בתוך ה ע ד ה‬ 'a t o t t e r i n g o l d m a n w h o c a n n o t m a i n t a i n h i m s e l f w i t h i n t h e congregation‫׳‬. It s e e m s t h a t ‫ ז ק ן ) ש ב ( כ ו ש ל‬w a s a t e r m i n d i c a t i n g t h e f e e b l e n e s s of o l d age.9 2. T h e e x p r e s s i o n [ ‫] ב ל ת ו ע ב ו ת י ה ם‬Π ' t h e c o r r u p t i o n of t h e i r a b o m i n a t i o n s ' is t h e p r o b a b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of J u b 23.21 o n t h e b a s i s of 4 Q 1 7 6 and the Ethiopie translation.10 O n e w o n d e r s , then, w h e t h e r ‫ ' ת ו ע ב ו ת ה ב ל‬v a i n a b o m i n a t i o n s ' (Sir. 49.2) s h o u l d n o t b e e m e n d e d to ‫ ' ת ו ע ב ו ת ח ב ל‬a b o m i n a t i o n s of c o r r u p t i o n ' . 1 1 3. ‫( נ ה י ו ת‬Sir. 42.19; 48.25) is a t e r m a l s o f o u n d in t h e D e a d S e a 8

Z. B e n - H a y y i m , ‫ערכי ק ־ ס י ר א‬, L'S. 37 (1973), pp. 215-16. Alternatively, but less plausibly, it could be interpreted as a term for senility; cf. Sir. 25.2 (according to G): 'and an old man w h o is an adulterer lacking u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' . For the meaning in lQSa, cf. L H. Schiffman, The Eschatological 9

Community

of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study

of the Rule of the

Congregation

(Atlanta, 1989), p. 49 (which should be reconsidered in the light of Sir. 42.8). 10 G.-W. Nebe, 'Ergänzende Bemerkung zu 4Q176', RQ 14 (1989), pp. 129-30. 11 The reversed construct state of ‫ ח כ ל ת ו ע ב ו ת ם‬a n d ‫ תועבות חבל‬is a well-known feature of early H e b r e w literature; see Y. Yahalom, ‫ט פ ת השיר ט ל הפיוט הארץ־‬ ‫( יטראלי הקרום‬Jerusalem, 1985), p. 99; M. Kister, ‫׳‬Notes on Some N e w Texts from Q u m r a n ‫ ׳‬, //S 44 (1993), p. 286; and especially Y. Avishur, ‫סמיכויות מהופכות‬ ‫ בקומראן ובפיוט הקדום‬,‫במקרא‬, Leš. 57 (1993), pp. 278-86.

Scrolls. T h e m e a n i n g in Ben Sira ( ' e v e n t s of t h e f u t u r e ' ) m a y b e h e l p f u l f o r t h e e l u c i d a t i o n of this t e r m in t h e Scrolls. 4. Ben Sira u s e s t h e r o o t ‫ע‬1‫' ב‬rejoice': ‫ וגם א ם פ ר ו א ל ת ב ע ב ם‬. ‫( ו א ל ת ש מ ח ב ב נ י ע ו ל ה‬Sir. 16.1-2); cf. a l s o ‫( ו ב ט ו ב ת ו י ת ב ע ב ע ז ר‬Sir. 14.4). T h e r o o t ‫ ב ו ע‬in this s e n s e is c u r r e n t in A r a m a i c . A h y m n in 1QM (12.12) r e a d s : . . . ‫ציון ש מ ח י מ א ד ו ה ו פ י ע י ב ת ו ת י ר ו ש ל י ם ו ה ג ל נ ה כ ל ע ר י י ה ו ד ה‬ ‫בנות ע מ י ה ב ע נ ה ב ק ו ל רנה‬. In t h e light of t h e u s a g e in Ben Sira, in o t h e r texts f r o m Q u m r a n , 1 2 a n d in t h e P r o p h e t s T a r g u m , 1 3 it s e e m s p l a u s i b l e to m e t h a t ‫ו ה ו פ י ע י‬ ' a p p e a r ' is a c o r r u p t f o r m of ‫' ו ה ב י ע י‬rejoice', d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r o o t ‫ ב ו ע‬, f r o m w h i c h ‫ ה ב ע נ ה‬is c e r t a i n l y d e r i v e d . 1 4 A n y s t u d y of Ben S i r a ' s l e x i c o g r a p h y ( a n d o t h e r linguistic s t u d i e s of t h i s b o o k ) m u s t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p r o b l e m a t i c a l s t a t e of t h e H e b r e w text (H), 1 5 a s w e l l a s t h e m a n y m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a n d p e r i 12

See E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1988), p. 88;

4 ) ‫בטמחות עולמים‬ E.g. Targum Isa. 54.1 : ‫ בועי חטבחא ורוצי‬... ‫ ;טבחי ירוטלם‬T a r g u m Joel 2.3: ‫ ;ובני ציון בועו וחדו‬and many other occurences. 14 Cf.4)‫ א ו ב י י ר י ם‬Q 4 2 7 ) instead of4)‫ א ו פ י ר י ם‬Q 4 9 1 ; E. Eshel, 4‫׳‬Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn', RQ 17 [1996], p. 192). 15 Cf. 9.9 according to the quotation in b. Sanhédrin 100b: ‫למסוך עמה יין וטכר‬ ‫אל תט אצל עם בעלה‬ The text of Ms A, ‫עם בעלה אל תטעם‬, is obviously corrupt, the single word ‫תטעם‬ replacing the expression (‫תט אציל)עם‬, and thus spoiling the literary beauty of this passage (9.9-10), which plays with expressions containing the root ‫נטה‬. Cf. Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v. ‫אציל‬, pp. 367-68.1. Ben-David, ‫ וי״ו האצל‬,‫החאצל‬, Leš. 59 (1996), pp. 71-73, cites MS Jerusalem of tractate Sanhédrin, in which "we find a variant of a citation from Ben Sira, as follows: ‫אלתתאצל עם בעלה‬ ‫'( למסוך עמו יין וטכר‬Do not draw near to her husband to drink wine with him')", and he concludes: "The phrase ‫ א ל ח ת א צ ל‬carries the meaning 'do not mingle, do not d r a w near‫'״‬. However, ‫ אל ת ת א צ ל‬is a mere scribal corruption of ‫אל חט אצל‬. (For the interchange of ‫ חט‬and ‫תת‬, cf. 47.19, where G has παρανέκλινας ... γυναιξίν instead of Η ‫ותתןלנטים‬. It could be hypothesized that the form ‫[ ותתלנטים‬see I. Yevin,‫הבלעתן׳ סוף תיבה‬, Leš. 42 (1977), p. 73] was read in G's Vorlage as ‫וחט לנטים‬.) It should be emphasized that ‫ בעלה‬originally had the sense of 'a married w o m a n ' rather than ‫׳‬her husband‫( ׳‬i.e. ‫ ;בעלה‬cf. 4Q513 2.2 [M. Baillet, DJD, 7 (1982), p. 288): ‫ ;בעלות לבני הנכר‬see also J. Strugnell, , Notes', p. 115; M. Kister, ‫בשולי ק־סירא‬, Le$. 47 [1983], p. 146). The reading ‫ עמה‬in G, S and some textual witnesses of the Talmud (MS Karlsruhe; Rashi, according to the first edition [cf. R.N.N. Rabinovitz, ‫דקדוקי סופרים‬, ad. loc.j) is therefore greatly to be preferred over the reading ‫ עמו‬in both MS Jerusalem (and most other MSS) of b. Sanhédrin and MS A of Ben Sira. The reading ‫ עמו‬in the masculine is, of course, a result of the misinterpretation of ‫ בעלה‬as ‫׳‬her husband'. In the parallel, b. Yevamot 63b, only the secondary reading is attested (cf. A. 13

p h r a s t i c t r a n s l a t i o n s f o u n d in t h e G r e e k (G) a n d S y r i a c (S) v e r s i o n s . E v e r y s t u d e n t of t h i s b o o k is w e l l a w a r e of a l t e r n a t i v e r e a d i n g s in t h e H e b r e w t e x t s of t h e m a n u s c r i p t s p r e s e r v e d in t h e G e n i z a h a n d in t h e M a s a d a scroll, in w h i c h s y n o n y m o u s H e b r e w w o r d s a r e u s e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , it o f t e n s e e m s t h a t t h e Vorlage of G d i f f e r e d f r o m t h e H e b r e w t e x t a s w e h a v e it. T h i s m e a n s t h a t c e r t a i n w o r d s w e r e r e p l a c e d b y o t h e r s a t a v e r y e a r l y s t a g e of t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of Ben S i r a , a n d t h e process c o n t i n u e d for a long time.16 T h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s e x e m p l i f y t h e text-critical d i f f i c u l t i e s p r e s e n t in s u c h a s t u d y of Ben Sira. In Sir. 36[33].6-7 t h e r e a d i n g of MS Β is ‫ה א ד ר יד ו א מ ץ זרוע וימין‬ ‫ח ד ש א ו ת ושנה מ ו פ ת‬ ' r e n e w the sign a n d repeat the w o n d e r , m a k e glorious (your) hand and strengthen (your) a r m and right h a n d ' , whereas Bmg reads: ‫ה א ר י ך י ד וזריז י מ י ם‬ ‫ ח ד ש א ל ושנה ת מ ה‬, literally, ' r e n e w , G o d , a n d r e p e a t the w o n d e r , m a k e long (your) h a n d and quicken the days'. W e h a v e h e r e at l e a s t t h r e e i m p o r t a n t v a r i a n t s . 1. T h e r e is t h e biblical w o r d48.12)‫ ) מ ו פ ת‬v e r s u s t h e A r a m a i c ‫' ת מ ה‬a w o n d e r ' ( w h i c h o c c u r s in MS Β a l s o in 43.25 a n d 48.14). 2. B o t h G a n d S r e a d in t h e i r H e b r e w Vorlage ‫ה א ד ר י ד ו ז ר ו ע ימין‬ ' m a k e strong (your) h a n d a n d (your) right arm', w i t h o u t t h e w o r d ‫ א מ ץ‬in MS B). T h i s is b a s e d o n P s . 89.14: ‫ל ך זרוע ע ם גבורה תעז ירך תרום ימינך‬ ' y o u r s is a n a r m ( e n d o w e d ) w i t h m i g h t ; y o u r h a n d is s t r o n g ; your right hand, exalted'.17 B m g h a s ‫( זריז‬Pi'el i m p e r a t i v e ) i n s t e a d of ‫ ז ר ו ע‬. F o r t u n a t e l y t h i s v a r i a n t ( b a s e d o n t h e g r a p h i c s i m i l a r i t y of t h e t w o w o r d s ) e x p l a i n s t h e r e a d i n g of MS B, ‫ ו א מ ץ‬, s i n c e ‫ ז ר ז‬is t h e A r a m a i c e q u i v a l e n t of t h e b i b l i c a l ‫ א מ ץ‬in t h e s e n s e of ' t o g i r d l e ' a n d , m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , ' t o s t r e n g t h e n ' . 1 8

Liss,‫ עם דקדוקי סופרים השלם‬. . . ‫תלמוד ב ב ל י‬, Yevamot, 2 [Jerusalem, 1986], p. 424). 16 To give just o n e example at this point, in Sir. 32[35].16 G a n d S probably read ‫ חפצו‬instead of H ' s ‫צרכו‬. Similarly,1)‫כ כ ל חפצך‬ Kgs 5.22) is replaced at 2 Chr. 2.15 by ‫( כ כ ל צ ר כ ך‬the textual problems of this passage, and especially of H, are particularly difficult). 17 P e r h a p s it also echoes Exod. 15.6: ‫ימינך י׳ חרעץ אויב‬ ‫ימינך י׳ נאדרי בכח‬ 'Your right h a n d , Ο Lord, is glorious in p o w e r , y o u r right h a n d , Ο Lord, shatters the enemy' (according to the ancient translations, ‫ נאדרי‬is a predicate). The expression ‫ חדש אות‬clearly refers to a renewal of the miracles of the exodus from Egypt. 18 Cf. Targum Neofiti to Deut. 31.7, w h e r e ‫ א ת ו ק ף ו א ז ח‬renders ‫ ;חזק ואמץ‬cf. also Targum Prov. 31.17, w h e r e ‫ וזרזתדרעהא‬renders ‫( ותאמץ זרעותיה‬it is well-known

3. But, u n l i k e ‫אמץ‬, t h e v e r b PIT h a s t h e s e n s e of ' t o q u i c k e n , m a k e haste'. A minor phonetic c h a n g e (‫ימין‬-‫ )ימים‬or Aramaic influence19 g a v e t h e p h r a s e ‫ וזריז י מ י ם‬a n e n t i r e l y n e w m e a n i n g , ‫ ׳‬s p e e d t h e d a y s ' 2 0 r a t h e r t h a n ‫ ' וזריז ימין‬s t r e n g t h e n y o u r r i g h t h a n d ' ( w h i c h itself s e e m s to be a secondary reading). Apart f r o m t w o grave copyists' errors, ‫א ל‬ , G o d ' i n s t e a d of ‫ ׳ א ו ת‬w o n d e r ‫ ׳‬a n d ‫ ' ה א ר י ך‬m a k e l o n g ' i n s t e a d of ‫ה א ד י ר‬ ' m a k e s t r o n g ' ) , w e h a v e in this v e r s e o n e g r a p h i c v a r i a n t ( ‫ ) ו ז ר י ז ־ ו ז ר ו ע‬, o n e phonetic variant (‫)ימים־ימין‬, t w o w o r d s replaced by s y n o n y m s ( ‫ מ ו פ ת‬/ ‫ ת מ ה‬, ‫ א מ ץ‬/ ‫ ) ז ר ז‬, o n e of t h e m c h a n g i n g its m e a n i n g in t h e p r o c e s s of t e x t u a l t r a n s m i s s i o n (‫)זרז‬, a n d a g l o s s t h a t h a s c r e p t i n t o t h e text (‫)אמץ‬. F u r t h e r o n , in v. 10, w e h a v e t w o v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s , ‫( מ ו ע ד‬Β) a n d ‫ ( מ צ ע ר‬B m g ) ; ‫( ע ש ה‬cf. Eccl 8.4; Job 9.12) a n d ‫ ( פ ע ל‬u s e d m u c h in Ben Sira in c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e s t y l e of biblical p o e t r y ) . 2 1 T h e link b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g ‫ ' מ ו ע ד‬a p p o i n t e d t i m e ' a n d t h e r e a d i n g ‫' מ צ ע ר‬a s m a l l t h i n g ' is o b v i o u s l y a r e a d i n g t h a t is n o t e x t a n t , n a m e l y ‫ מ ז ע ר‬, a c o r r u p t i o n of ‫ מ ו ע ד‬d u e to g r a p h i c s i m i l a r i t y of t h e t w o w o r d s . T h e w o r d ‫'( מ ז ע ר‬a s m a l l t h i n g ' ) w a s r e p l a c e d b y ‫ מ צ ע ר‬. Similarly, l Q I s a a r e a d s a t Isa. 16.14 ‫ מ צ ע ר‬i n s t e a d of M T 22.‫ מזער‬It s h o u l d be c l e a r l y s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t b o t h t h e e r r o n e o u s r e a d i n g ‫ מ ז ע ר‬a n d its ( b a s i c a l l y p h o netic?) v a r i a n t ‫ מ צ ע ר‬, w h e n e v e r t h e y e m e r g e d , a r e of n o v a l u e f o r est a b l i s h i n g t h e o r i g i n a l text of Ben Sira. T h e n e x t v e r s e s (36.10-17 [33.10-11; 36.17-22]) c o n t a i n s o m e o t h e r v a r i a n t s b e t w e e n t h e r e a d i n g s of M S Β a n d B m g . M o s t i n t e r e s t i n g is t h e Syriac t r a n s l a t i o n of ‫ ' ר ח ם ע ל ע ם‬h a v e c o m p a s s i o n o n t h e p e o p l e ' (36.18) b y ‫' ו ח ד י ע ל ע מ ך‬rejoice o v e r y o u r p e o p l e ‫ ׳‬. For ‫ ' ר ח ם‬p i t y , l o v e ' in H , t h e S y r i a c h a s ‫' ח ד י‬rejoice'. It h a s b e e n c o n v i n c i n g l y s u g g e s t e d b y s c h o l a r s that the Syriac r e n d e r s t h e H e b r e w w o r d ‫ ש מ ח‬, w h i c h w a s n o t u s e d h e r e in its u s u a l s e n s e , b u t r a t h e r in t h e s e n s e ' t o h a v e f o r b e a r a n c e f o r ' , a m e a n i n g t h a t this r o o t h a s in Isa. 9.16 ( a n d t h a t is c u r r e n t in Arabic). T h e p h r a s e s h o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d ' h a v e f o r b e a r a n c e f o r t h e p e o p l e ' . 2 3 In all l i k e l i h o o d , t h e o r i g i n a l of Ben Sira h a d ‫ ש מ ח‬, w h i c h w a s r e p l a c e d b y ‫ ר ח ם‬precisely b e c a u s e this m e a n i n g of t h e w o r d ‫ש מ ח‬ w a s n o l o n g e r c u r r e n t in H e b r e w . S e e l i g m a n n h a s d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h i s r e p l a c e m e n t of r o o t s a n d t h e t e x t of that the targum of Proverbs is a Jewish version of the Peshitta, in which the Hebrew words are rendered by .(‫ושררת דרעיה‬ 19 Cf. Dan. 12.13:.‫לקץדזימין‬ 20 Cf. Sir. 36[33].1C) ('hasten the end and ordain the appointed time‫ ;)׳‬M. Kister and E. Qimron, ‫׳‬Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel‫׳‬, RQ 15 (1992), pp. 600601. 21 See below, Item 8. 22 ‫ מצער‬of lQIsa 3 was corrected by a scribe to .‫מזער‬ 23 F. Perles, ‫׳‬Le texte de l'Ecclésiastique‫׳‬, REJ 35 (1897), p. 63.

24 lQIsa3, in w h i c h ‫ י ש מ ח‬is r e p l a c e d b y .‫יחמול‬ In 40.28 t h e r e a d i n g of MS Β is ‫טוב נאסף ממסתולל‬ ‫מ נ י ]גיל׳ בני[ ח י י מ ת ן א ל ת ח י‬ ' M y s o n , l i v e n o t a b e g g a r ' s life; b e t t e r is o n e d e a d t h a n o n e importunate'. In MS M , o n l y t h e s e c o n d stich is p r e s e r v e d , a n d its r e a d i n g is ‫טוב נאסף מפני ח צ ף‬. S is v e r y p a r a p h r a s t i c h e r e , w h i l e G h a s έ π α ι τ ή σ ε ω ς a n d έ π α ι τ ε ί ν f o r b o t h ‫ מ ת ן‬a n d ‫ פני ח צ ף‬o r ‫ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬in Η . T h e w o r d ‫ ח צ ף‬m u s t m e a n h e r e ' t o beg importunately', a semantic shift f r o m ‫' ח צ ף‬importunate', which m i g h t b e d o c u m e n t e d in t h e S y r i a c r o o t ‫( ח צ ף‬so Di Leila). 2 5 T h e exp r e s s i o n ‫ פ נ י ח צ ף‬i n s t e a d of ‫ ח צ ף פ נ י ם‬is to b e e x p l a i n e d a s s i m i l a r to ‫ ( ל ב כ ב ד‬3 . 2 6 ) , ‫ ( ל ב ק ט ן‬1 4 . 3 ) , ‫( ל ב ר ע‬b. Q i d d u s h i n 66a),14.10)‫ ) ע י ן ר ע ה‬, a n d t h e like, all of t h e m r e f e r r i n g to p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p e o p l e (i.e. u s e d a s s y n e c d o c h e s ) . 2 6 T h e w o r d ‫ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬is a hayax legomenon in t h e Bible ( E x o d . 9.17), a n d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e a n c i e n t v e r s i o n s d i f f e r d r a m a t i c a l l y . T h e m e a n i n g ' t o e x a l t o n e s e l f ( a g a i n s t ) ' is g i v e n t o this w o r d by Neofiti a n d P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n , a n d later by m e d i a e v a l H e b r e w a u t h o r s ; 2 7 ‫ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬c o u l d t h e r e f o r e h a v e r e p l a c e d ‫ פ נ י ח צ ף‬in its u s u a l m e a n i n g , ' i m p u d e n t ' , b u t n o t in its m e a n i n g in 40.28 ( ' a n i m p o r t u n a t e b e g g a r ' ) . W h e n d i d t h e w o r d ‫ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬a p p e a r in t h e t e x t ? W e c a n n o t a n s w e r this question.

It s h o u l d b e b o r n e in m i n d t h a t s i n c e t h e text of MS Β is b y a n d

24

I.L. Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature (ed. A. Hurvitz, S. Japhet, a n d Ε. Τον; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), pp. 308-309 (in Hebrew). We m a y further note that the verses in Ben Sira's prayer should be compared to the benedictions recited after the reading of haftara. Ben Sira Haftara Benediction (v. 20) ‫חן עדות למראט מעטיך‬ ‫האומר ועוטה המדבר ומקיים‬ ‫והקם חזון ד ב ר בטמך‬ ‫ונאמנים דבריך ודבר אחד‬ ‫מדבריך אחור לא יטוב ריקם‬ (v. 21)‫ונביאיך יאמינו‬ ‫האל הנאמן ב כ ל דבריו‬ (ν. 1 8 ) ‫רחם על קרית ק ד ט ך‬ ‫ מטמח ציון בבניה‬...‫רחם ע ל ציון‬ (ν. 17) ‫טמח ע ל עם נקרא בטמך‬ ‫ במלכות ביח דוד‬... ‫ באליהו הנביא‬...‫טמחנו‬ In the light of the striking similarity between the two passages, the use of ‫ט מ ח‬ in the last benediction (to be sure, in the sense of 'to rejoice') should be noted. 25 P.W. Skehan (translation) and A.A. Di Leila (commentary), The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Anchor Bible; N e w York, 1987), p. 467. 26 Contrast J. Strugnell, 'Notes', 112.1 take ‫ חצף‬as an abstract n o u n . For ‫פני חצף‬, c o m p a r e ‫( רנלנאוה‬Ps. 36.12), ‫( ט פ ת ט ק ר‬Ps. 120.2, and cf. Ibn Ezra's commentary ad loc.). 27

See mediaeval Hebrew commentators to Exod. 9.17 and Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v.‫סלל‬, iv, p. 4071.

l a r g e r e l i a b l e in t h e s e c h a p t e r s , 2 8 t h e w o r d ‫ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d a s o r i g i n a l h a d n o t t h e text of t h e M a s a d a MS e n a b l e d u s t o t r a c e t h e t e x t u a l p r o c e s s . M o r e o v e r , it is f a r f r o m c e r t a i n t h a t G a c t u a l l y h a d e i t h e r ‫ מ פ נ י ח צ ף‬o r ‫ מ מ ס ת ו ל ל‬in its Vorlage. T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e Bible a n d its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of H e b r e w v o c a b u l a r y (e.g. p a y t a n i c H e b r e w a n d t h e H e b r e w of t h e m i d d l e a g e s ) is e v i d e n t . B e n Sira is p e r h a p s t h e first b o o k of H e b r e w l i t e r a t u r e k n o w n to u s in w h i c h t h e Bible a s a w h o l e is u s e d a n d a l l u d e d to so f r e q u e n t l y a n d intensively, a n d t h u s also the first b o o k in w h i c h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of biblical w o r d s , e x p r e s s i o n s a n d v e r s e s h a s s u c h lexical s i g n i f i c a n c e . 2 9 T h e r e s t of this p a p e r will b e d e v o t e d to a s t u d y of a f e w biblical w o r d s , e x p r e s s i o n s , a n d p h r a s e s t h a t o c c u r in B e n S i r a , i l l u s t r a t i n g s o m e a s p e c t s of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira a n d t h e Bible ( i n c l u d i n g a l l u s i o n s t o b i b l i c a l v e r s e s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i m p l i c i t l y g i v e n t o t h e biblical text a n d t h e i r b e a r i n g o n Ben S i r a ' s v o c a b u l a r y ) , w i t h o u t a n y p r e t e n c e t o a n e x h a u s t i v e t r e a t m e n t of t h e p r o b l e m . l.ero ‫ולא כ ל הכלם נבחר‬ ‫ל א כ ל ב ש ת נאוה ל ב ו ש‬ ' N o t e v e r y k i n d of s h a m e is m e e t to r e t a i n , 3 0 a n d n o t e v e r y k i n d of a b a s h m e n t is to b e a p p r o v e d ' (41.16 [M]) In t h e i r m a n y o c c u r e n c e s in t h e Bible, t h e r o o t s ‫ ב ו ש‬a n d ‫ כ ל ם‬a r e al28

This is p r o v e n by a c o m p a r i s o n of the text of MS Β with the text of the Masada scroll. 29 For the lexical significance of the interpretation of biblical words, expressions and verses in the Dead Sea Scrolls see E. Qimron, 'Biblical Philology a n d the Dead Sea Scrolls', Tarbiz 58 (1989), pp. 297-313. 30 Both in the Bible and in Ben Sira (Sir. 10.13; 14.3), the formula ‫ לא נאוה‬is alw a y s followed by -‫ ל‬+ dativus comnwdi, e.g. ‫( לא נאוה ל כ ס י ל תענוג‬Prov. 19.10), w h e r e a s in Mishnaic Hebrew ‫נאוה‬/‫ נאה‬may be followed by the infinitive (e.g. ‫[ ממי נאה ללמוד תורה‬Sifre Deut. 14); ‫[ ע ל זה נאה לבכות ועל זה נאה להתאבל‬Semahot, 8]). This might be the case in o u r verse: ‫ לבוש‬is usually interpreted as an infinitive, 'to be a s h a m e d ' . However, since ‫ בוש‬is used as a n o u n (42.1, according to MS Β [but not according to MS M]; 32(35).10 [cf. commentaries]), w e should consider the possibility that this is the case in o u r verse as well. The translation could then be 'not every s h a m e is meet for a shamefaced one‫'( ׳‬shamefaced' w o u l d be, of course, a positive feature). G and the two Genizah manuscripts (MSS Β and C) read ‫ לשמר‬rather than ‫לבוש‬. This reading can obviously be u n d e r s t o o d only as an infinitive.

w a y s u s e d in a n e g a t i v e s e n s e : o n e is a s h a m e d b e c a u s e of w r o n g d o i n g o r a s h a m e d of b e i n g h u m i l i a t e d . In c o n t r a s t to t h i s u s a g e , i n s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s of Ben Sira, a s w e l l a s in s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w , ‫ מ ש‬is u s e d in a p o s i t i v e s e n s e : 3 1 s h a m e b e f o r e d o i n g t h e w r o n g t h i n g h i n d e r s o n e f r o m d o i n g it. T h u s ‫ ׳ ב ו ש ה‬s h a m e , b a s h f u l n e s s ‫ ׳‬is considered a central cultural (and religious) positive value: .‫ ס י מ ן ט ו ב ב א ד ם ש ה ו א ביישן‬. ‫ זו ב ו ש ה‬, ‫ו ב ע ב ו ר ת ה י ה י ר א ת ו ע ל פ נ י כ ם‬ ‫ מגיד שהבושה מביאה לירי יראת חטא‬,‫ל ב ל ת י תחטאו‬ ‫ ' ״‬A n d t h a t H i s f e a r m a y b e e v e r w i t h y o u [literally, ' o n y o u r f a c e ' ] " — t h i s is b a s h f u l n e s s . 3 2 It is a g o o d s i g n in a m a n if h e is b a s h f u l . " T h a t y o u sin n o t " — t h i s s a y s t h a t b a s h f u l n e s s l e a d s o n e to p i e t y (literally, ' t o f e a r s i n ' ) 3 3 ; ‫ש ל ש ה ס י מ נ י ם יש ב א ו מ ה זו ה ר ח מ נ י ם ו ה ב י י ש נ י ן ו ג מ ו ל י ח ס ד י ם‬ ' T h e r e a r e t h r e e ( g o o d ) s i g n s in t h i s p e o p l e (Israel): t h e y a r e c o m p a s s i o n a t e a n d b a s h f u l a n d charitable'); 3 4 ‫־‬ ‫עז פנים לגיהינם ובושת פנים לגן ע ד ן‬ 'The s h a m e l e s s are for G e h e n n a , a n d the s h a m e f a c e d for the G a r d e n of Eden'. 3 5 ‫־‬ C l e a r l y t h i s s e m a n t i c s h i f t , w h i c h is a b s e n t in b i b l i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , h a d a l r e a d y t a k e n place b e f o r e Ben Sira's time. H e m u s t h a v e s u p p o s e d t h e r e a d e r of c h a p t e r s 41-42 t o b e w e l l - a w a r e of a c o n v e n t i o n of w i s d o m l i t e r a t u r e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h ' s h a m e ' a n d ' b e i n g s h a m e f a c e d , b a s h f u l ' a r e right a n d r e c o m m e n d a b l e . Ben Sira's s t a t e m e n t that ' n o t e v e r y k i n d of s h a m e is m e e t ' is d e l i b e r a t e l y p r o v o c a t i v e : s u c h a g e n eral s t a t e m e n t kirns u p s i d e d o w n l a u d a b l e qualities a n d g o o d m a n n e r s . T h e p r o v o c a t i v e s t a t e m e n t is e x p l a i n e d o n l y in 4 2 . I f f . F o r m a l l y , t h e v o c a b u l a r y of 41.16, a s w e l l a s t h e p a r a l l e l p a i r ‫ כ ל ם‬/ / ‫ ב ו ש‬, a p p e a r s to c o n t i n u e C l a s s i c a l Biblical H e b r e w . S e m a n t i c considerations, h o w e v e r , reveal that these verses are m o r e r e m o v e d f r o m Biblical H e b r e w t h a n w o u l d s e e m at f i r s t g l a n c e . 2 . ‫נשא פ נ י ם‬ ‫ואל תבטח ע ל זבח מעשק‬ ‫ואין ע מ ו מ ש ו א פ נ י ם‬ ‫ותחנוני מ צ ו ק י ש מ ע‬ 31

‫א ל תשחר כי ל א יקח‬ ‫כי אלהי משפט הוא‬ ‫ל א ישא פנים א ל ד ל‬

Needless to say, the negative meaning of , s h a m e ‫ ׳‬continues to occur in the post-biblical periods. 32 The w o r d s ‫ ע ל פניכם‬are related to .‫מ ש ח פנים‬ 33 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael to Exod. 20.17 (ed. H.S. Horovitz and I.A. Rabin [Frankfurt a.M., 1931], p. 237 [see variae lectiones]; ed. J.Z. Lauterbach, Vol. 2 [Philadelphia, 1933], p. 272. 34 b. Yevamot 79a a n d parallels. 35 m. Avot 5.20 (a baraita a d d e d to the Mishnah).

' B r i b e n o t , f o r h e w i l l n o t r e c e i v e ; a n d p u t n o t y o u r t r u s t in a s a c r i f i c e of e x t o r t i o n . For h e is a G o d of j u s t i c e , a n d w i t h h i m is n o p a r t i a l i t y . H e will not s h o w partiality against the p o o r m a n ; a n d t h e s u p p l i c a t i o n s of t h e o p p r e s s e d h e will h e a r 1 2 - 1 3 ] 1 4 - 1 6 . [ 3 2 ] 3 5 ) BDB d e f i n e s t h e biblical i d i o m ‫ נ ש א פ נ י ם‬in t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y : 3 6 "lift up one's face, countenance . . . ; s i g n of g o o d c o n s c i e n c e . . . , s i g n of f a v o u r . . . ; e s p . lift up face of a n o t h e r ( o r i g . p r o b , of o n e p r o s t r a t e in h u m i l i t y ; o p p . ‫ ה ש י ב פ נ י ם‬re\1el), in v a r i o u s s h a d e s of m n g . : = g r a n t a r e q u e s t ...; = b e g r a c i o u s t o . . . ; . . . ‫ נשוא פ נ י ם‬graciously received, held in honour ...; = s h e w c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r . . . ; a l s o in b a d s e n s e = b e u n d u l y i n f l u e n c e d b y ... a n d , s p e c i f . , = s h e w partiality (towards)". T h e v e r s e s c i t e d a b o v e f r o m Ben Sira u s e t h e b i b l i c a l i d i o m in a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g . Sir. 3 5 (32).14-16 o b v i o u s l y a l l u d e s to Lev. 19.15, ‫ ל א ת ע ש ו ע ו ל ב מ ש פ ט ל א ה ש א פני ד ל ו ל א ת ה ד ר פ נ י ג ד ו ל‬, a n d 2 C h r o n . 19.7: ‫ כ י א י ן ע ם י׳ א ל ה י נ ו ע ו ל ה ו מ ק ח ש ח ר ו מ ש א פ נ י ם‬. It h a s b e e n n o t e d b y c o m m e n t a t o r s t h a t t h e o n l y w a y t o i n t e r p r e t t h e w o r d s ‫ ל א י ש א פ נ י ם א ל ד ל‬in Ben Sira is ‫ ׳‬h e ( G o d ) w i l l n o t s h o w p a r t i a l ity against a p o o r m a n ' . L e v . 19.15b is a n e x h o r t a t i o n n o t to s h o w p a r t i a l i t y to t h e p o o r . 3 7 H o w e v e r , f r o m Sir. 35[32].16 w e m a y i n f e r t h a t B e n Sira h a d a n a l m o s t c o n t r a d i c t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to t h a t of L e v . 19.15b. For Ben Sira, ‫ נשא פ נ י ם‬a p p a r e n t l y m e a n t s h o w i n g p a r t i a l i t y t o w a r d s (35[32].15b) o r a g a i n s t (35[32].16a) t h e p e o p l e o n trial. T h e o r e t i cally s u c h a s e m a n t i c s h i f t is p o s s i b l e . A l t h o u g h t h i s is n o t t h e o r i g i n a l s e n s e of t h e biblical v e r s e , 3 8 it m a k e s p e r f e c t s e n s e a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e s e v e r s e s a t t e s t to a n o t h e r w i s e u n k n o w n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e biblical v e r s e a n d h e n c e to a n u n k n o w n u s a g e of t h e b i b lical i d i o m . 3 9 36

F. Brown, S R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 19()7), p. 670, cols. a-b. 37 See Vulgate and rabbinic literature (Mekhilta to Exod. 23.3 [ed. Horovitz and Rabin, p. 323]; Sifra to Lev. 19.15 [ed. I.H. Weiss (Wien, 1862), p. 89a]) a n d elsewhere. 38 Cf. Exod. 23.3:‫( ודל לא תהדר כריכו‬a meist a w k w a r d verse, to be sure). 39 For the following reasons I d o not think it likely that the sense of ‫ נשא פנים‬in Biblical H e b r e w w a s both to be partial t o w a r d s or against (as it is indeed in Ben Sira), d e p e n d i n g ein the preposition used (as suggested b y Professor Muraoka). 1. In the Bible ‫ נשא פנים‬is used only in the positive sense. In Deut. 28.50 -‫ נשא פנים ל‬means 'show consideration for‫ ;׳‬in Lev. 6.26 ‫ נשא פנים אל‬has the meaning 'show favour for‫׳‬. It is difficult, then, to a s s u m e that ‫( נשא פנים אל‬used

‫׳‬

]

170

SIRACH, SCROLLS, A N D SAGES

A v e r y e a r l y c o p y i s t of t h e H e b r e w t e x t t h o u g h t t h a t ‫נ ש א פ נ י ם‬ c o u l d n o t m e a n b o t h to f a v o u r a n d t o d i s f a v o u r , a n d t h e r e f o r e c h a n g e d 35[32].15b to ‫( ואין ע מ ו * ה ת ר * פ נ י ם‬in G r e e k : κ α ί ούκ ε σ τ ί ν π α ρ ' α ύ τ ω δ ό ξ α π ρ ο σ ώ π ο υ ) o n t h e b a s i s of L e v . 19.15c. 4 0 T h e i d i o m ‫נ ש א פ נ י ם‬ is a c c o r d i n g l y u s e d o n l y in t h e m e a n i n g ' t o d i s f a v o u r ' , w h e r e a s ' t o f a v o u r ' is e x p r e s s e d b y ‫ ה ד ר פ נ י ם‬. T h e a l l u s i o n s t o 2 C h r . 19.7 in 35[32].14a,15b m a k e it p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e r e a d i n g r e f l e c t e d in G is a s e c o n d a r y o n e ( b u t v e r y a n c i e n t ! ) . It a t t e s t s t o t h e s a m e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of L e v . 19.15b, a n d t h u s t o t h e u n k n o w n m e a n i n g of ‫ נשא פ נ י ם‬a s d e n o t ing ' s h o w partiality against'. H o w e v e r , t h e s a m e e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r s e l s e w h e r e in Ben Sira in a totally different sense: 42.1) ‫ו א ל ת ש א פ נ י ם ו ח ט א‬ ‫א ך ע ל א ל ה א ל תבוש‬ [B+M]). T h e t w o v e r s e s in Ben Sira w e r e i n t e r p r e t e d o n t h e b a s i s of t h e biblical u s a g e s . Box a n d O e s t e r l y c o m m e n t o n 42.1 " s o m e of t h e t h i n g s e n u m e r a t e d a l s o i n v o l v e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a j u d i c i a l a n d i m p a r t i a l m i n d . T o t h e l a t t e r t h e i n j u c t i o n ' a c c e p t n o t p e r s o n s (i.e. e x h i b i t n o t p a r t i a l ity) u n t o s i n ' (i.e. s o a s t o b r i n g s i n u p o n t h y s e l f ) s p e c i a l l y a p p l i e s " , w h i l e 4.22a t h e y t r a n s l a t e " R e s p e c t n o m a n to t h i n e o w n d e t r i m e n t " . 4 1 4.22a w a s t r a n s l a t e d by S k e h a n ( a n d Di Leila) a s " S h o w n o f a v o r i t i s m

by Ben Sira) had in Biblical Hebrew the meaning of ‫׳‬show partiality against'. 2. The verse of Ben Sira is evidently related to Lev. 19.15. There is a clear exegetical motive for interpreting the w o r d s ‫ לא חטא פני ד ל‬in this verse as an admonition to judges not to show partiality against the poor (and to interpret ‫ נטא פנים‬and ‫ הדר‬in this verse as antonyms rather than as synonyms): judges are more likely to be partial towards the rich and against the poor; cf. Ps. 82.2-4, Deut. 10.17-19, and Sir. 35[32]. 17[14]; but see n. 38.1 tend, therefore, to regard the strange usage in Ben Sira as stemming from a peculiar interpretation of Lev. 19.15. For a discussion of ‫ נשא פנים‬in Biblical H e b r e w , see M.I. Gruber, 'The m a n y faces of Hebrew ‫" נטאפנים‬Lift u p the face‫"׳‬, Z A W 9 5 (1983), pp. 252-60. 40 Since the verb ‫ תהדר‬in the biblical verse is not rendered in the Septuagint by a Greek verb derived from δόξα (but see Hexapla ad loc. [ed. F. Field; Oxford, 1875], p. 198: άλλος · ού δοξάσεις προσώπον μεγάλου), it may be preferable to a s s u m e that G had a different text from H at this point, and the translator of Ben Sira had the reading ‫ הדור פנים‬in his Hebrew Vorlage. At the symposium, Professor Muraoka m a d e the suggestion that δόξα προσώπου is a rendering of ‫מטאפנים‬, δόξα being derived from δέχομαι. However (1) such a derivation of the word δόξα is not attested either in the Septuagint or in Greek dictionaries; (2) δέχομαι does not appear to render the Hebrew root ‫ נטא‬in the Septuagint; (3) on the other hand, a Greek rendering of ‫ תהדר‬in this verse by δοξάσεις derived from δόξα, is attested. 41 Box and Oesterly, pp. 330, 468.

to y o u r o w n d i s c r e d i t " a n d 4 2 . I f . a s " l e s t y o u sin t o s a v e f a c e " / 2 b u t n o e x p l a n a t i o n is o f f e r e d a s to h o w t h i s i n j u n c t i o n fits t h e c o n t e x t . T h e s e t r a n s l a t i o n s t r y , w i t h r a t h e r l i m i t e d s u c c e s s , to fit t h e i d i o m in Ben Sira to t h e biblical u s a g e of ‫ נ ט א פ נ י ם‬. T h e p a r a l l e l i s m in Ben Sira a s w e l l a s t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n 4 . 2 2 a n d 4 . 2 0 b ( ‫ ) ו א ל נ פ ט ך א ל ת ב ו ש‬c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i d i o m m e a n s in t h e t w o v e r s e s ' t o b e a s h a m e d ' . It s h o u l d b e f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t in t h e t r e a t i s e Derekh Eres w e r e a d ‫ א ל ת ט א פנים ל ע צ מ ך ל ו מ ר ל א שמעתי‬, f o r w h i c h a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g is ‫אל ת ב ו ט לומר ל א טמעתי‬,43 a n d a n o t h e r o c c u r e n c e of t h e H e b r e w i d i o m s e e m t o b e i n d i c a t e d b y i m p o r t a n t MSS of G to 20.22: εστίν άπολλύων την ψυχήν αύτοΰ δ ι ' αίσχύνην καί άπο λήψεως προσώπου άπολει αύτήν.44 A f r e e t r a n s l a t i o n of 4 2 . I f . w o u l d be, t h e n : ' B e n o t a s h a m e d (in t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s ) , f o r y o u will b e a r s h a m e a n d ( b e a r ) s i n ' . (Ben Sira p l a y s w i t h t h e i d i o m s ‫ נ ט א ערן‬a n d ‫ נ ט א פ נ י ם‬, e q u a t i n g t h e t w o b y u s i n g t h e v e r b ‫ נ ט א‬f o r b o t h ) . It is e v i d e n t a l s o t h a t 4.20b ( ‫ ) ו א ל נ פ ש ך א ל ת ב ו ש‬c a n n o t p o s s i b l y be r e n d e r e d ' b e n o t a s h a m e d to be y o u r s e l f ' (as t r a n s l a t e d b y S k e h a n [ a n d Di Leila]), a n d n e i t h e r Sir. 4.20 n o r 4.22 c a n b e " a n a d m o n i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e b l a n d i s h m e n t s of H e l l e n i s m " of J e w s w h o a r e " a s h a m e d t o b e t h e m s e l v e s " , a s s u g g e s t e d b y Di L e i l a . 4 5 Sir. 4.22 s h o u l d b e t r a n s l a t e d : ' D o n o t b e a s h a m e d a b o u t y o u r s e l f a n d let n o t s h a m e c a u s e y o u s t u m b l i n g ' . 4 6 T h e s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i d 42

Skehan and Di Leila, pp. 174, 477. The Treatises Derek Erez (ed. M. Higger; N e w York, 1935), p. 74. This passage was cited by I. Levi, L'Ecclesiastique, 2 (Paris, 1901), p. 20. Levi failed to notice the special sense of the expression in both sources. 44 J. Ziegler, Sapientia lesu Filii Siraclt (Göttingen, 1965), p. 218. O t h e r Greek MSS have: άφρονος προσώπου; thus also MS C of the Hebrew: ‫וגאולת פנים יורישנה‬ ‫יש מאבד נפשו מבושת‬ ( S : . ( ? = ‫מןכוסיאפוהי‬ 45 Skehan and Di Leila, pp. 175-76. 46 This general statement is explained in Sir. 4.25-26. The text of these verses is almost hopelessly corrupt, especially in H. The relation between 4.26a a n d 4.26b is particularly puzzling. I w o u l d v e n t u r e to propose the following reading, which is not f o u n d in any textual witness, but makes perfect sense (for the textual details see commentaries): 43

‫׳‬Do not disobey God / / and stand not against the stream. Be not a s h a m e d to confess y o u r s i n s / / a n d be a s h a m e d of y o u r foolishness'. A similar p h e n o m e n o n of stichs wrongly placed at an early date is attested,

i o m ‫ נ ש א פ נ י ם‬in t h e s e n s e of b e i n g a s h a m e d is n o t q u i t e c l e a r to m e . T h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t in G e n e s i s R a b b a h m i g h t b e r e l e v a n t : ‫ב ז מ ן ש א ד ם עני אין ל ו פ נ י ם ל ר א ו ת מ פ נ י ש ה ו א מ ת ב י י ש מ ח ב י ר ו‬ ' w h e n o n e is p o o r , h e h a s n o f a c e to see h i m (a f r i e n d ) , b e i n g a s h a m e d of h i m ' . 4 7 C o u l d ‫ נשא‬in t h e i d i o m ‫ ' נשא פ נ י ם‬b e a s h a m e d ' h a v e t h e s e n s e of ' t o t a k e a w a y ' 4 8 o n e ' s o w n c o u n t e n a n c e ? Be t h a t a s it m a y , t h e special m e a n i n g w h i c h this i d i o m h a s in Ben Sira, is e v i d e n t . T o s u m m a r i z e : t h e i d i o m ‫ נשא פ נ י ם‬o c c u r s in t w o d i s t i n c t m e a n i n g s in this b o o k , o n e d e r i v e d f r o m a n o t h e r w i s e u n a t t e s t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a biblical v e r s e , a n o t h e r scarcely d o c u m e n t e d e l s e w h e r e a n d p r o b a b l y u n r e l a t e d to t h e first. 3.‫נבה עינים‬ T h i s is a n o t h e r Ben Sira i d i o m t h a t d o e s n o t s u i t Biblical H e b r e w . It o c c u r s in 23.4 in a r h y m e d m e d i a e v a l H e b r e w p a r a p h r a s e of Ben Sira, ‫ו ל ב פ ח ז ה ר ח ק ממני‬ ‫גבהעיניםאלתתנני‬, a n d is c o n f i r m e d by G a n d S. In t h e Bible ‫ ג ב ה ע י נ י ם‬m e a n s ' p r o u d ' , b u t in r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e it m e a n s 'licentious, u n c h a s t e ' : ‫( עיניו ש ל א ב א היו ג ב ו ה ו ת ונשא א ש ה שאינה ה ו ל מ ת ל ו‬j. G i t t i n l.2[43c]). Similar e x p r e s s i o n s a r e f o u n d in the T e s t a m e n t of I s s a c h a r 7.2 ( ' E x c e p t m y wife I have not k n o w n any w o m a n . I never committed fornication b y t h e u p l i f t i n g of m y e y e s [έν μετεωρισμό» οφθαλμών μου]') a n d in Did a c h e 3.3 ( ' M y c h i l d , b e n o t l u s t f u l ... n o r a l i f t e r u p of e y e s [ύψηλόφθαλμος], for f r o m all t h e s e t h i n g s is a d u l t e r y [ μ ο ι χ ε ΐ α ι ] e n g e n dered'). ' L i f t i n g u p t h e e y e s ' is c o n n e c t e d w i t h l a s c i v i o u s n e s s in t h e Bible, ‫( ו ת ש א א ש ת א ד נ י ו א ת ע י נ י ה א ל י ו ס ף‬Gen. 39.7), 4 9 in a w o r k f r o m Q u m r a n , ‫ועפעפיה בפחז תרים‬ ‫עיניה הנה והנה ישכילו‬ ' h e r e y e s g l a n c e k e e n l y h i t h e r a n d t h i t h e r , a n d s h e raises h e r e y e l i d s in l e w d n e s s ' (4Q184), 5 0 in M a n d a i c , a n d in t h e B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d : ' t h e w h o r e s l o o k a t t h e m , b u t t h e y d o n o t lift t h e i r e y e s for instance, at Sir. 41.19-22, where G reflects a secondary arrangement of the stichs (cf. M). 47 Genesis Rabbah 91.5 (ed. Ch. Albeck; Berlin, 1929), p. 1121. 48 Rather than 'lift up the face of another' (cf. BDB, cited above), the concrete gesture that is the basis of the biblical idiom. 49 As noted by Di Leila, Ben Sira, p. 322. 50 J.M. Allegro, D/D, 5 (1968), pp. 82-83. For ‫פחז‬, see J.C. Greenfield, 'The M e a n i n g of PHZ',

in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient

Near East Presented

S.E. Loewenstamni (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 35-40.

to

[ ‫ ] ל א מ ד ל ו ע י נ י י ה ו‬to l o o k a t t h e w h o r e s ‫( ׳‬b. P e s a h i m 113b). 5 1 Sir. 23.4 s h o u l d b e t r a n s l a t e d : ' G i v e m e n o t a b r a z e n e y e , a n d w a r d off f r o m m e a l u s t f u l h e a r t ' . It is n o t d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n i n E n g l i s h t h e s e m a n t i c a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n t h e t w o m e a n i n g s of ' i m m o d e s t y ' : p r i d e a n d l i c e n t i o u s n e s s . T h e m e a n i n g of t h e i d i o m ‫ ג ב ה ע י נ י ם‬in B e n Sira is n o t d e r i v e d f r o m t h e biblical e x p r e s s i o n ; r a t h e r , t h e t w o m e a n i n g s of t h e i d i o m w e r e d e r i v e d , e a c h o n e in its t u r n , f r o m t h e c o n c r e t e g e s t u r e . T h e biblical m e a n i n g of t h e i d i o m h a s m i s l e d m o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s ; 5 2 t h e c o r r e c t r e n d e r i n g w a s s u g g e s t e d b y Di Leila. 5 3 It m a y b e n o t e d t h a t t h e G r e e k f r a g m e n t of t h e P r a y e r of L e v i r e a d s καί πορνείαν καί ϋβριν άποστρεψον ά π ' έμοΰ, w h e r e a s t h e A r a m a i c f r a g m e n t of t h e s a m e p r a y e r r e a d s o n l y [ 5 4 . ‫ ח נ ו ת א ד ח א ] מ נ י‬P o s s i bly, t h e w o r d ϋ β ρ ι ς is a m i s t r a n s l a t i o n of ‫ ר מ ו ת ע י נ י א‬o r a s i m i l a r i d i o m , u s e d o r i g i n a l l y in t h i s p r a y e r a s a s y n o n y m of f o r n i c a t i o n (‫)זנותא‬. T h e w o r d i n g of t h e p h r a s e in t h e Vorlage of t h e G r e e k P r a y e r of L e v i w o u l d t h e n b e r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r to Sir. 23.4. 4. ‫ש ו א ל ש ל ו ם‬ ‫ו ש פ ת י חן ש ו א ל ו ] צ ״ ל שואלי[ ש ל ו ם‬ ‫ובעל סודך אחד מאלף‬ ‫מ ש א ל שלום החריש‬

‫חיך ע ר ב ירבה אוהב‬ ‫( אנשי ש ל ו מ ך יהיו ר ב י ם‬6.5-6) ‫ ת מ נ ה‬1 ‫ ת מ ח ל ] ק‬1 ‫( ם ] ח [ ש ) א ( ] ו‬41.21-20)

T h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫( ש ו א ל ש ל ו ם‬G: ε ύ π ρ ο σ ή γ ο ρ ο ς ) in 6.5, a p a r a l l e l t o ‫א ו ה ב‬ means, as has been ob' f r i e n d ' a n d a p p a r e n t l y s i m i l a r to 55,‫אנשי שלומך‬ s e r v e d , 5 6 ' a c q u a i n t a n c e ' . T h e b a s i c m e a n i n g of ‫ ש ל ם‬/ ‫ ש א ל ש ל ו ם‬is

51

Kister, 'Contribution', p. 329. Idioms k n o w n to us from Mishnaic Hebrew sometimes h a v e in Ben Sira a meaning otherwise u n k n o w n in rabbinic literature; cf. Ben-Hayyim's élucidation of the idiom ‫ כיוצא בו‬in Ben Sira and in Mishnaic Hebrew (Z. Ben-Hayyim, ‫ערכי מלים‬, in ‫[ ספר שמואל יבין‬S. Yeivin Festschrift; ed. S. Abramski, Y. Aharoni, et al.; Jerusalem, 1970], pp. 435-39). 53 Skehan and Di Leila, pp. 320, 322. 54 M E. Stone and J.C. Greenfield, ‫׳‬The Prayer of Levi', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 25758, 261: "Observe that the Aramaic manuscript has nothing corresponding to Greek ΰβριν 'pride', and w e have omitted it in o u r reconstruction". N o t e a s o m e w h a t similar phraseology in Testament of Dan 5.6. 55 The Peshitta renders ‫( איש שלומי‬Ps. 41.9) as ‫נברא שאל שלמי‬, and ‫( אנשי שלמך‬Jer. 38.22) as . ‫אנשא דשאלין הוו בשלמך‬ 56 P.C. Beentjes, 'Ein Mensch o h n e Freund ist w i e eine linke H a n d o h n e die Rechte', in F.V. Reiterer (ed.), Freundschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW, 244; Berlin, 1996), p p . 1-18, especially pp. 6, 10-11. I d o u b t the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n ‫ שאל שלום‬and ‫( שאל לשלום‬ibid., p. 6, η. 22). Strugnell's suggestion (‫׳‬Notes', p. 114), "and of saying 'how d o you do?‫ ׳‬to a deaf-mute", seems unlikely. 52

'inquire about one's welfare',57 hence, 'be an acquaintance, friend'. Sir. 6.5-6 s h o u l d , t h e n , b e t r a n s l a t e d : ' g e n t l e s p e e c h m u l t i p l i e s f r i e n d s a n d k i n d l y w o r d s ( m u l t i p l y ) a c q u a i n t a n c e s . Let y o u r a c q u a i n t a n c e s b e m a n y , b u t y o u r c o n f i d a n t — o n e in a t h o u s a n d ' . T h e s a m e m e a n i n g s h o u l d b e a p p l i e d to • ‫ ש ו א ל ש ל ו‬in 41.21-20. T h e latter h a s b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d b y c o m m e n t a t o r s a s r e f e r r i n g to t h e r u d e n e s s of n o t a n s w e r i n g a g r e e t i n g . H o w e v e r , b o t h v e r b s , ‫ ה ח ש ה‬in t h e first stich a n d ‫ ה ח ר י ש‬in t h e s e c o n d , m a y — a n d p e r h a p s s h o u l d — b e int e r p r e t e d a s ' a v o i d , sit idle, be inactive', a m e a n i n g w e l l - a t t e s t e d in t h e Bible. 5 8 T h e g e n e r a l s e n s e of this v e r s e w o u l d t h e n b e s i m i l a r to t h e p r e c e d i n g o n e in MS M 5 9 Sir. 41.21-20 c a n be t r a n s l a t e d : ' ( b e a s h a m e d ) of a v o i d i n g t h e d i v i d i n g of p o r t i o n s , of b e i n g i n a c t i v e t o w a r d s y o u r a c q u a i n t a n c e (i.e., of n o t h e l p i n g h i m ) ' . I n j . Shevi'it 9.5 (39a) C a p p a d o c i a n J e w s s t a y i n g in S e p p h o r i s c o m plain: ‫לית לאילין עמא ל א ר ח ם ולא שאל שלם‬ 'this (our) c o m m u n i t y has neither a friend nor an acquaintance'. Similarly in t h e A r a m a i c Levi d o c u m e n t w e r e a d : 6 0 ‫ר ח מ ו ה י סניאין ו ש א ל י ש ל מ י ה ר ב ר ב י ן‬ 'his f r i e n d s a r e m a n y a n d his a c q u a i n t a n c e s n u m e r o u s (or: 57

2 Sam. 8.10: ‫;וישלח חעי אח יורם בנו אל המלך דוד לשאל לו לשלום ולברכו‬

Jer. 15.5: ‫ומי יסור לשאל לשלום לך‬,‫־‬ j. Bikkurim 3.3 (65c): ‫סליק ושאיל בשלמיה‬,· Lev. Rab. 21.8 [ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem, 1957], p. 487]: ... ‫ר׳ יוחנן כ ד הוה סליק למשאל שלמיה דר׳ חנינה‬, and other occurences. The Ugaritic text cited by M.J. Dahood, Psalms (Anchor Bible; Garden City, 1970), p. 206, namely UT 2010:8:2, has the same meaning ('inquire about one's welfare') rather than 'pray' (cf. 2 Sam. 8.10 cited above). 58 C f . J u d g . 18.9: ‫;ואתם מחשים אל תעצלו‬ 1 Kgs 22.3: ‫ואנחנו מחשים מקחת אחה מיד מלך ארם‬ Exod. 14.14: ‫ י׳ ילחם לכם ואתם חחרישון‬. Cf. also ‫ יושב ושותק‬in ΜΗ (M. Kister, ‫ עריכה ופרשנות‬,‫ נוסח‬:‫עיונים באבות דר׳ נתן‬ (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 244 59

60

Y. Y a d i n , The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada ( J e r u s a l e m , 1965), p. 21.

R H. Charles and A. Cowley, 'An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs', JQR 19 (1907), p. 577; M.E. Stone and J.C. Greenfield, DJD 22 (1196), p. 6.

'great ones'). In b o t h A r a m a i c texts, ‫ ר ח ם‬is r e l a t e d to ‫ ש א ל ש ל ם‬, exactly a s ‫ א ו ה ב‬is related to ‫ ש ו א ל ש ל ם‬in Sir. 6.5. A w a r e n e s s of this u s a g e m a y yield a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a lite r a r y d e v i c e u s e d in Ps. 122.6: ‫ישליו א ה ב י ך‬ ‫שאלו שלום ירושלים‬ ' p r a y for (literally, ' i n q u i r e a b o u t ' ) t h e w e l l b e i n g of J e r u s a l e m , " M a y t h o s e w h o love y o u be at p e a c e ' " . Jer. 29.7 ( ‫ ) ו ד ר ש ו א ת ש ל ו ם ה ע י ר‬l e a v e s little d o u b t t h a t t h e f i r s t s t i c h s h o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d as a b o v e . It s e e m s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c o m p o s e r of Ps. 122 d e l i b e r a t e l y p u t ‫ ש א ל ש ל ו ם‬in t h e first stich a n d ‫ א ה ב‬in t h e seco n d , t h u s c r e a t i n g a s u b t l e p l a y b e t w e e n t w o d i s t i n c t m e a n i n g s of ‫ ש א ל שלום‬and ‫ א ו ה ב‬. The expression ‫ ש א ל שלום‬means both 'inquire a b o u t w e l l b e i n g ' , 6 1 a s a t o k e n of f r i e n s h i p a n d l o v e (cf. a l s o Jer. 15.5), a n d ' p r a y for wellbeing'; ‫' א ו ה ב י ם‬those w h o love', h a s as well the m e a n i n g ' f r i e n d s ' . T h e p a r a l l e l i s m , o r c o l l o c a t i o n , of ‫ ש א ל ש ל ו ם‬a n d ‫ א ו ה ב‬in H e b r e w is k n o w n to u s f r o m t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d p a s s a g e s of Ben Sira. In this case Ben Sira d o e s n o t u s e t h e Bible o r a l l u d e to it, b u t l i s t e n i n g c a r e f u l l y to Ben Sira e n a b l e s us to h e a r t h e o v e r t o n e s of a biblical e x p r e s s i o n . 6 2 5.‫נעלם‬ ‫ה ע י ד י׳ ו מ ש י ח ו‬ ‫ו ע ת נוחו ע ל מ ש כ ב ו‬ ‫ו כ ל א ר ם ל א ע נ ה בו‬ ‫כ פ ר ונעלם מ מ ך ל ק ח ת י‬ ' a n d a t t h e t i m e h e r e s t e d u p o n h i s b e d , h e called t h e L o r d a n d h i s a n o i n t e d to w i t n e s s , " F r o m w h o m h a v e I t a k e n a r a n s o m o r a b r i b e ? " , a n d n o m a n testified a g a i n s t h i m ' (46.19). A s is w e l l - k n o w n , t h i s is a n a l l u s i o n to 1 S a m . 12.3, a c c o r d i n g to a non-masoretic reading. MT reads: 61

Cf. A.F. Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Book IV and V (The Cambridge Bible; Cambridge, 1912), p. 741. 62 A possible emendation of ‫ אהביך‬to ‫ אלהיך‬is considered by Psalms commentators (e.g., G.H.A. von Ewald, Commentary on the Psalms, 2 [London, 1880], p. 170; H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen [Göttinger Handkommentar zum AT; Göttingen, 1926], p p . 542, 544; Biblia

Hebraica

[ S t u t t g a r t , 1937] a n d Biblia

Hebraica

Stuttgartensia [Stuttgart, 1970], ad loc.), although many scholars tend to reject it (e.g., F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, 3 [Edinburgh, 1885], p, 278; A.B. Ehrlich, Die Psalmen: neu übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin, 1905), p. 110; A.F. Kirkpatrick, Psalms, p. 741). Other emendations have also been proposed (see Ν.H. Tur-Sinni's note to Ben-Yehuda, ‫[ מלון הלשון העברית‬Jerusalem, 1952/53], s.v. ‫שאל‬, p. 6802). These emendations to the biblical verse may now be dispensed with.

‫הנני ענו ב י נ ג ד י׳ ו נ ג ד מ ש י ח ו א ת ש ו ר מ י ל ק ח ת י ו ח מ ו ר מ י ל ק ח ת י ו א ת מ י‬ ‫ע ש ק ת י ו א ת מי ר צ ו ת י ו מ י ד מי ל ק ח ת י כ פ ר ו א ע ל י ם עיני בו ואשיב ל כ ם‬ ' H e r e I a m ! T e s t i f y a g a i n s t m e , in t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e L o r d a n d in t h e p r e s e n c e of H i s a n o i n t e d o n e , . . . f r o m w h o m h a v e I t a k e n a b r i b e n o t t o set m y e y e s o n h i m (i.e. h i s d e e d s ) ? ‫׳‬ T h e r e a d i n g a c c o r d i n g to t h e S e p t u a g i n t w a s : ‫ ענו בי‬,‫ו מ י ד מי ל ק ח ת י כ פ ר ונעלים‬ ' f r o m w h o m h a v e I t a k e n a b r i b e o r a p a i r of s a n d a l s ? ; t e s t i f y against me'. Ben Sira s h a r e s w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t t h e r e a d i n g ‫ ' ע נ ו‬t e s t i f y ' r a t h e r t h a n M T ‫ ׳ עיני‬m y eyes', but w h e r e a s the Septuagint has ‫' נ ע ל י ם‬sandals' r a t h e r t h a n M T ' s ‫ ׳ א ע ל י ם‬n o t t o s e t ( t h e e y e s ) ‫ ׳‬, B e n Sira r e a d s ‫ נ ע ל ם‬, lite r a l l y ‫ ׳‬h i d d e n ‫ ׳‬. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n t e x t , t h i s w o r d is a s y n o n y m f o r 'bribe'. T h e biblical v e r s e w o u l d be a c c o r d i n g l y t r a n s l a t e d : ‫ ׳‬f r o m w h o m d i d I take r a n s o m or bribe [‫ ; ? ] כ פ ר ונעלם‬testify against m e ' . T h i s m a y e n a b l e u s t o p r o p o s e a n e w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a d i f f i c u l t biblical v e r s e . P s . 49.7-10 r e a d s : ‫ל א יתן ל א ל ה י ם כ פ ר ו‬ ‫( א ח ל א פ ד ה י פ ר ה א י ש‬8) ‫וחדל לעולם‬ ‫( ו י ק ר פ ד י ו ן נ פ ש ם‬9) ‫ל א יראה השחת‬ ‫( ו י ח י ע ו ר ל נ צ ח‬10) N o w , in Ben Sira w e h a v e ‫ כ פ ר ו נ ע ל ם‬, w h e r e a s in t h e a b o v e v e r s e s t h e w o r d ‫ כ פ ר‬in 8 b is f o l l o w e d b y ‫ ל ע ו ל ם‬in 9b. B o t h 8a a n d 9a s e e m t o exp r e s s t h e s a m e i d e a u s i n g t h e s a m e r o o t , ‫ ; פ ד י‬t h e s a m e i d e a is exp r e s s e d in 8a t h r o u g h t h e r o o t ‫ כ פ ר‬. If w e a s s u m e t h a t 9 b o r i g i n a l l y h a d a w o r d d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r o o t ‫ ע ל ם‬in t h e m e a n i n g of ' b r i b e ' ( r a t h e r than ‫' ל ע ו ל ם‬for ever'), then the parallelism b e t w e e n these verses ( 8 a / / 8 b = 9 a / / 9 b ) is p e r f e c t . E m e n d a t i o n n e e d b e m i n i m a l — i f w e a s s u m e a n o u n ‫ ע ל ם‬, w e h a v e to o m i t o n l y t h e lamed of ‫ ל ע ו ל ם‬a s a c a s e of d i t t o g r a p h y . ( O n e m a y e v e n s u g g e s t , t h o u g h this s e e m s to m e less likely, a n i n f i n i t i v e : ‫ ' ו ח ד ל ל ע ל ם‬a n d h e [cf. 10] w i l l c e a s e t o b r i b e ‫ ; ׳‬alt e r n a t i v e l y o n e m a y v e n t u r e to e m e n d ‫ ל ע ו ל ם‬to 63.(‫ נעלם‬A c c o r d i n g l y t h e text w o u l d b e t r a n s l a t e d : 6 4 63

M a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s considered v. 9 as a sentence in parenthesis or as a

gloss to vv. 8b a n d 10a (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartcnsia,

a d loc.; F. Delitzsch, Bib-

lical Commentary on the Psalms, 2 [Edinburgh, 1887], p. 112; H.P. Chayes, ‫ ספר תדזלים‬,‫[ תורה נביאים וכתובים עם פירוש מדעי‬ed. A. Kahana; St. Petersburg, 1902], p. 107; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59 [Mineapolis, 1993], p. 479). Some c o m m e n t a tors arrive at the sense of ‫ ו ח ד ל לעולם‬by e m e n d i n g ‫ וחדל‬to ‫( וחי‬e.g., Biblia Hebraica, ad loc.; H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen [Handbuch z u m AT; Tübingen, 1934], p. 94) or by equating ‫ ח ד ל‬in this verse with ‫( ח ל ד‬R. Gordis, ' H e b r e w Roots of Contrasted Meanings', JQR 27 [1936-37], pp. 38-41). 64 The translation is based on NJPS, with alterations in line with the n e w interpretation suggested here.

(7) A s f o r t h o s e w h o t r u s t in t h e i r r i c h e s , a n d g l o r y in t h e i r g r e a t w e a l t h ; (8) a h (?), it c a n n o t r e d e e m a p e r s o n , o r p a y t h e i r r a n s o m to G o d . (9) T h e p r i c e of life is t o o h i g h , a n d t h e r e is n o l o n g e r a n y b r i b e (10) s u c h t h a t o n e m i g h t live e t e r n a l l y a n d never see the grave.

6.‫שחק‬ ‫קנאתי בטוב ולא אשוב‬

‫( זמותי ואשחקה‬51.18)

T h i s is t h e o r i g i n a l H e b r e w text p r e s e r v e d in l l Q P s a . A s h a s b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e G e n i z a h text (MS B) h a s n o s i g n i f i c a n c e w h a t s o e v e r in t h i s a c r o s t i c p o e m , s i n c e it is a p u r e r e t r o v e r s i o n of S. 6 5 ‫זמותי ו א ש ח ק ה‬ is r e n d e r e d i n G b y διενοή&ην γ α ρ τοΰ π ο ι η σ α ι α ύ τ ή ν , i.e., a s if it w a s Stich b is t r a n s l a t e d in G καί ε ζ ή λ ω σ α το ά γ α θ ο ν w r i t t e n 6'/‫זמותי לעשותה‬ και ού μή αίσχυνθώ, r e f l e c t i n g t h e r e a d i n g ‫ א ב ו א‬r a t h e r t h a n ‫אשוב‬. H o w is ‫ ז מ ו ת י ו א ש ח ק ה‬t o b e e x p l a i n e d ? S a n d e r s t r a n s l a t e s t h i s p h r a s e Ί p r o p o s e d t o m a k e s p o r t ' ; 6 7 D e l c o r r e l a t e s it to c h i l d ' s p l a y ( B e n Sira c o m p a r e s h i m s e l f t o a little c h i l d p l a y i n g w i t h w i s d o m ) ; 6 8 S k e h a n e m e n d e d ‫ ו א ש ח ק ה‬t o ‫ ( ו א ח ש ק ה‬o n t h e b a s i s of t h e r e t r a n s l a t e d t e x t of M S B!), 6 9 f o l l o w e d b y C . D e u t s c h ; 7 0 R a b i n o w i t z r e a d s wa'eš1fqah r a t h e r t h a n wa-'eshâqâ, a n d t r a n s l a t e s 1‫ ׳‬p r o p o s e d it a n d c o n s t a n t l y t r o d h e r ( p a t h ) 7 1 ; ‫ ׳‬S k e h a n a n d Di Leila f o l l o w t h i s s u g g e s t i o n in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n , b u t p r e f e r S k e h a n ' s e m e n d a t i o n . 7 2 T h e c l u e to t h e r i g h t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s v e r s e is J o b 39.22:

‫ולא ישוב מפני חרב‬

‫ישחק ל פ ח ד ולא יחת‬

' h e l a u g h s at f e a r a n d is n o t d i s m a y e d ; h e d o e s n o t d r a w b a c k f r o m the s w o r d ' . By r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e of this biblical v e r s e o n B e n Sira, w e a r e a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g w a s wa-'eshâqâ. T h e m e a n -

65

I. Lévi, L'Ecclesiastique, 2 (Paris, 1901), pp. xxi-xxvii, and in his c o m m e n t a r y ad loc.; M. Delcor, 'Le text hébreu d u cantique d e Siracide 51.13 et ss.', Textus 6(1968), p p . 27-47. 66 For similar H e b r e w expressions in the Bible, cf. Gen. 11.6; Jer. 51.12; Zech. 1.6; Lam. 2.16. The Septuagint does not employ the verb διανοέομαι (used in G) in these verses. 67 DJD, 4 (1965), p p . 81-82. 68 Delcor, p. 34. 69 P.W. Skehan, ‫׳‬The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51.13-30', HTR 64 (1971), p. 394. 70 C. Deutch, 'The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation', Z A W 9 4 (1982), p. 402, n. 12. 71 I. Rabinowitz, 'The Q u m r a n H e b r e w Original of Ben Sira's C o n c l u d i n g Acrostic on Wisdom', HUCA 42 (1971), pp. 175,178. 72 Skehan and Di Leila, pp. 572, 575.

i n g of ‫ ש ח ק‬w a s n o t ' p l a y ' o r ' m a k e s p o r t ' , b u t r a t h e r , l i k e t h e b i b l i c a l e x p r e s s i o n ‫ ש ח ק ל פ ח ד‬, ' t o l a u g h a t f e a r ' . 7 3 T h e u s a g e of t h e v e r b ‫ש ח ק‬ ( b y i t s e l f ) in t h e Bible in t h i s s e n s e is f a r f r o m u n e q u i v o c a l . 7 4 S u c h a n e l l i p s i s , h o w e v e r , is q u i t e n a t u r a l . O n e m a y c o m p a r e ‫ ו י ע פ ל ו‬a n d ‫ותהינו‬, w o r d s d e s c r i b i n g c o u r a g e , w h i c h e m e r g e d (in a s i m i l a r , a l b e i t n o t i d e n t i c a l , m a n n e r ) 7 5 a s a n e l l i p s i s of e x p r e s s i o n s b a s i c a l l y d e n o t i n g ' c o n t e m p t , d i s r e g a r d ' of d a n g e r to o n e s e l f . B e n S i r a ' s d e p e n d e n c e o n J o b 39.22 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e a d i n g ‫ ו ל א א ש ו ב‬is t h e o r i g i n a l o n e a n d t h a t it m e a n s ' d r a w b a c k ' . 7 6 T h e v e r s e s h o u l d b e t r a n s l a t e d : '1 h a v e d e c i d e d , l a u g h i n g a t all t h e o b s t a c l e s , I w a s e n v i o u s of g o o d p e o p l e ' s 7 7 ( a c t i o n s ) a n d d i d n o t d r a w b a c k ' . 7 . ‫נס ל ח ה‬ Ben S i r a ' s text s o m e t i m e s s e r v e s a s a n o l d t e x t u a l w i t n e s s of t h e Bible. T h u s , Sir. 10.27: nioim!‫מ!מת[כבד‬ ‫ט ו ב ע ו ב ד ו י ו ת ר הון‬ ' b e t t e r is o n e w h o w o r k s a n d h a s w e a l t h in a b u n d a n c e t h a n o n e w h o plays at being i m p o r t a n t but lacks sustenance'. T h i s v e r s e is, a s h a s b e e n n o t e d , a p a r a p h r a s e of P r o v . 12.9:

‫מתן‬

‫ממתכבד וחסר לחם‬ ‫טוב נ ק ל ה ו ע ב ד לו‬ ' b e t t e r is o n e of h u m b l e s t a n d i n g w h o h a s a s e r v a n t 7 8 t h a n o n e w h o p r e t e n d s to g r e a t n e s s b u t l a c k s s u s t e n a n c e ' . T h e S e p t u a g i n t a n d t h e P e s h i t t a p r o b a b l y r e a d in P r o v e r b s ‫ו ה ב ד ל ו‬ ' w h o w o r k s f o r h i m s e l f ' ( t h e y u s e t h e p a r t i c i p l e ) , 7 9 a n d Ben Sira e v i d e n t l y h a d the s a m e reading.8(1 73

Cf. also 47.3. T h u s BDB, s.v. ‫שחק‬, p. 965, w h e r e Prov. 31.25 and Ps. 2.4 are suggested. (Prov. 31.25 seems to me not to be related at all to this meaning.) 75 A.D. Singer,‫על הלשונות ויעפלו ותהינו‬, Tarbiz. 18 (1947), pp. 200-201. 76 Cf. also Midrash Mislile to Prov. 30.30 (ed. B.L. Visotzky; N e w York, 1990, p. 186): ‫ שאין מתבייש‬,‫ למה? ולא ישוב מפני כל‬,‫ליש נבור בבהמה‬ '"The lion is mightiest a m o n g beasts'. Why? 'and does not d r a w back from anything', for he is not a s h a m e d " . 77 This is h o w ‫ קנאתי בטוב‬should be u n d e r s t o o d (note the preposition -‫ ב‬a n d see BDB, s.v. ‫קנא‬, p. 888), in contrast with the commentaries to Ben Sira. 78 Alternatively: ' w h o is a servant of himself.‫׳‬ 79 It is rather uncertain that the reading ‫ ועבד לו‬is the original one in the biblical verse. A suggested emendation of ‫ ועבד‬to ‫׳( ועבור‬grain, food', as in Syriac) m a y well be correct: the parallelism between the two stichs w o u l d t h u s b e perfect. According to MT and the other versions the parallelism is defective; see n. 80. 80 Ben Sira tried to improve the parallelism (see n. 79) by a d d i n g ‫ ויותר‬in the first stich as a contrast to ‫ וחסר‬in the second one (cf. 11.12; cf. also b. Makkot 74

In o t h e r p l a c e s , Ben Sira a t t e s t s t o a n e a r l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e biblical text. T h u s , 31 (34).13: ‫ע ל כן מפני כ ל נס ל ח ה‬ ‫רע מעין ל א ח ל ק א ל‬. T h e v e r s e s a y s t h a t G o d r e s t r i c t e d t h e p o w e r of t h e evil e y e b y c r e a t i n g t h e t e a r s of t h e e y e . T h e w o r d s ‫ נם ל ח ה‬r e f e r , t h e n , t o w e e p i n g ( a s t r a n s l a t e d b y G).81 T h e w o r d ‫ ל ח ה‬s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as ‫ ל ח‬w i t h t h i r d p e r s o n s i n g u l a r f e m i n i n e p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x in r e f e r e n c e to t h e e y e . TLie v e r s e s h o u l d b e l i t e r a l l y t r a n s l a t e d : ' G o d h a s c r e a t e d 8 2 n o t h i n g m o r e evil t h a n t h e e y e ; t h e r e f o r e , f r o m e v e r y f a c e 8 3 its ( t h e e y e ' s ) fluid shall d e p a r t ' . This a p p a r e n t l y implies s u c h a r e a d i n g a n d interp r e t a t i o n of D e u t . 34.7: ‫ ל א כ ה ת ה עינו ו ל א נס ל ח ה‬. T h e ketiv m a y e a s i l y b e r e a d a s a f e m i n i n e s u f f i x ( ‫ ) ל ח ה‬a n d i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g l y in r e f e r e n c e to t h e s h e d d i n g of t e a r s , in t h e c o n t e x t of D e u t . 34.7, u n w i l l i n g d r i p p i n g of t e a r s d u e t o o l d a g e ( ' h i s e y e s w e r e u n d i m m e d a n d did not d r i p tears'). As far as I k n o w , s u c h a p r o n u n c i a t i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e biblical text a r e p e c u l i a r to Ben Sira. 8 4 8.‫תפארת אדם‬,‫נפקד‬ ‫וגם ה ו א נ ל ק ח פ נ י ם‬ ‫וגם נויתו נ פ ק ד ה‬ ‫ו ע ל כ ל חי ת פ א ר ת א ד ם‬ ‫ש מ ע ו ן ב ן יוחנן ה כ ה ן‬ ‫ובימיו ח ז ק ה י כ ל‬

!‫מ ע ט נוצר ע ל ה א ר ץ כ ה נ י ך ] צ ״ ל כחנוך‬ ‫כיוסף אם נולד נבר‬ ‫ו ש ם ו ש ת ואנוש נ פ ק ד ו‬ ‫גדול אחיו ותפארת עמו‬ ‫( א ש ר ב ד ו ר ו נ פ ק ד ה ב י ת‬49.14-50.1)

I suggest the following translation: ' F e w like E n o c h h a v e b e e n c r e a t e d o n e a r t h ; h e a l s o w a s t a k e n

23a: ‫ כח ויתרי מדע‬, τ ο π ) . The word ‫מתן‬, which replaces the biblical w o r d ‫לחם‬, can h a r d l y be correct. It is usually e m e n d e d by c o m m e n t a t o r s to ‫( מזון‬Mishnaic H e b r e w ) on the basis of S (‫)מזונא‬. Alternatively it can be e m e n d e d to ‫מרון‬, a w o r d h a v i n g the s a m e sense in S a m a r i t a n A r a m a i c (Z. B e n - H a y y i m , 3.2 ,‫עברית ארמית נוסח שומוק‬ [Jerusalem, 1967], p. 97). But G probab Vorlage ‫( לחם‬αρτον), following the biblical verse without any change. 81 E l s e w h e r e , I h a v e c o m p a r e d this v e r s e w i t h G e n e s i s R a b b a h 79.1 ('Contribution', p. 334). The parallel proves that this verse is indeed an aetiology of tears, and of the eyes being wet in general (contrast commentaries). 82 For ‫' ח ל ק‬create' see above, n. 7. 83 T h u s G, S (followed by commentaries). Alternatively the w o r d s ‫ מפני כ ל‬can be rendered 'for any reason'. 84 LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, Onkelos, Palestinian largumim, Ps.-Jonathan as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch all share the reading of the ‫ה‬- in ‫ ל ח ה‬as a m a s c u line suffix.

up(?).85 Like Joseph w a s ever a m a n born? Even his b o d y w a s visited (by death). S h e m , Seth, a n d Enoch w e r e visited (by death), a n d (above)86 every creature possessing h u m a n form, G r e a t a m o n g h i s b r e t h r e n a n d t h e g l o r y of h i s p e o p l e , S i m e o n t h e s o n of J o c h a n a n t h e p r i e s t , In w h o s e t i m e t h e h o u s e w a s r e n o v a t e d a n d in w h o s e d a y s the temple w a s fortified'. T h e p h r a s e49.15)‫ ו נ ם נ ו י ת ו נ פ ק ד ה‬b ) h a s b e e n u n a n i m o u s l y i n t e r preted as indicating that Joseph's b o d y w a s t r a n s p o r t e d f r o m E g y p t to t h e H o l y L a n d . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s v i e w t h e w o r d s ‫ נויתו נ פ ק ד ה‬a l l u d e t o G e n . 50.25, ‫פ ק ד י פ ק ד א ל ה י ם א ת כ ם והעלתם את עצמתי מזה‬ ' G o d w i l l v i s i t y o u , a n d y o u a r e to c a r r y u p m y b o n e s f r o m here', as a l r e a d y i n t e r p r e t e d by G (καί τά ΰστα α ύ τ ο ΰ επεσκέπησαν). This s u g g e s t i o n is less a p p e a l i n g t h a n it s e e m s , s i n c e in G e n . 50.25 t h e v e r b ‫ פ ק ד‬d o e s n o t r e f e r to J o s e p h ' s b o d y . M o r e o v e r , w h a t w o u l d b e t h e p o i n t of m e n t i o n i n g J o s e p h ' s b u r i a l in this c o n t e x t ? T h e w o r d s ‫ גויתו נ פ ק ד ה‬as well as ‫ נ פ ק ד ו‬s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as ' d i e d ' , o n t h e b a s i s of N u m . 16.29, ‫א ם כ מ ו ת כ ל ה א ד ם ימתון א ל ה ו פ ק ד ת כ ל ה א ד ם י פ ק ד ע ל י ה ם‬ 'if t h e s e m e n d i e t h e c o m m o n d e a t h of all m e n , o r if t h e y a r e v i s i t e d b y t h e f a t e of of all m e n ' , 8 7 a n d t h e w o r d ‫ א ת פ ק ד ו‬is s i m i l a r l y i n t e r p r e t e d b y S y r i a c l e x i c o g r a p h e r s ( 8 8 . ( ‫ א ב ד ו‬, ‫ מ י ת ו‬For t h i s r e a s o n I t r a n s l a t e d v . 15b a s ' e v e n h i s b o d y w a s

85

Cf. below, n. 89. T w o readings of this verse are possible, and it seems that Ben Sira intended the reader to have both of them in mind: (1) 'Shem, Seth, and Enoch w e r e visited (by death), and similarly every living creature possessing h u m a n form', the preposition ‫ ע ל‬related to ‫( פ ק ד‬see below). (2) 'and above every living créature possessing h u m a n form Simeon son of Jochanan the priest (was visited by death)', the preposition ‫ ע ל‬meaning 'above', connecting syntactically the historical survey (ch. 44-49) to the eulogy of Simeon the high priest. (The two units are linked by the w o r d s ‫ חפארח‬and ‫ ;נפקד‬see below, note 93. For the significance of the connection between these t w o units for solving the riddle of the absence of Ezra in Ben Sira's survey see Kister, 'Contribution', p. 374). See also below, n. 89. 87 The w o r d ‫ נפקדו‬w a s thus recently interpreted by V. Yahalom, ‫׳‬Angels Do Not U n d e r s t a n d Aramaic', JJS 47 (1996), p p . 38-39. Yahalom thinks that the w o r d49.15)‫ ) נ פ ק ד ה‬has a different meaning from49.16)‫ ) נ פ ק ד ו‬. To my mind the verb has the same meaning ('visited by death') in both verses; see also n. 89. 88 Bar Bnhlul, Lexicon Syriacum (ed. R. Duval; Paris, 1901), p. 1598. 86

v i s i t e d b y d e a t h ' . 8 9 T h e i n f l u e n c e of N u m . 16.29 a l s o e x p l a i n s t h e p r e p o s i t i o n ‫ ע ל‬u s e d in 49.16b, a n d m a k e s t h e r e a d i n g of MS Β ( ‫) נ פ ק ד ו‬ m u c h m o r e p r e f e r a b l e to t h a t of G ( ε δ ο ξ ά σ θ η σ α ν ) . 9 0 W e c a n c l e a r l y h e a r in Sir. 49.16 the e c h o e s of t w o biblical v e r s e s : (1) N u m . 16.29 ·,‫עליהם‬ ‫ופקדת האדם יפקד‬ ( ' h e gives it [ = t h e idol] a h u m a n f o r m , t h e b e a u t y of m a n ‫ ) ׳‬. It s e e m s u n l i k e l y in this s t a t e of a f f a i r s t h a t 49.16b r e f e r s to t h e special g l o r y of A d a m ( k n o w n f r o m o t h e r a n c i e n t s o u r c e s , b u t c l e a r l y n o t ref e r r e d to in Isa. 44.13), a s i n t e r p r e t e d by s c h o l a r s . 9 1 R a t h e r , t h e m e a n i n g of t h e p h r a s e ‫ ת פ א ר ת א ר ם‬w o u l d n o t b e t o o f a r f r o m ‫' ת ב נ י ת א י ש‬a h u m a n f o r m ' , p e r h a p s ' t h e b e a u t i f u l f o r m of m a n ' . 9 2 T h e m e a n i n g ' b e a u t i f u l f o r m ‫ ׳‬d e p e n d s o n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e v e r s e in Isaiah. It h a s n o t h i n g to d o , I c o n t e n d , w i t h t h e a p p a r e n t l y s i m i l a r t e r m ‫ כ ב ו ד א ר ם‬in t h e D e a d Sea scrolls (1QS 3.20; 4.23). T h e w o r d ‫ ת פ א ר ת‬w a s c h o s e n h e r e b e c a u s e of its u s e in Sir. 50.1 ( w h e r e it is e m p l o y e d in a d i f f e r e n t sense). 9 3 A s i m i l a r case, of stylistic v o c a b u l a r y p r e f e r e n c e s , m a y b e d i s c e r n e d in Sir. 48.18c-d: ‫ו י נ ד ף א ל בנאונו‬ ‫ויט י ד ו ע ל ציון‬ ' a n d h e s t r e t c h e d forth his h a n d a g a i n s t Z i o n a n d b l a s p h e m e d a g a i n s t G o d in his a r r o g a n c e ' . A s h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d , Sir. 48.18c a l l u d e s to Isa. 10.32: ‫י נ פ ף י ד ו ה ר ב ת ציון‬ 89

Yahalom shows that these verses in Ben Sira correspond to Aramaic eulogies, which "bring a kind of catalogue of the Jewish patriarchs in order to show that the Angel of Death could not be stayed .... If so great a man as Adam or Noah had died, who then could escape death?". According to my interpretation of these verses (which differs from Yahalom's), all three verses deal with the inevitability of human death. This is meist important for the interpretation of the reference to Enoch in 49.15. The possibility that ‫נלקח פנים‬ refers to death rather than to elevation should be seriously considered. 90 It may be observed that whereas G has εδοξάσθησαν in stich a and εν τη κτίσει Αδαμ in stich b, S has ‫ אתבריו‬in verse a and ‫ חטבוחחה דאדם‬in verse b. 91 Flusser and Safrai have even suggested the possibility that ‫ אדם‬in Isa. 44.13 had been interpreted by an ancient midrash as referring to Adam; see D. Flusser and S. Safrai,‫[ בצלם דמות תבניתו‬Festschrift I.L. Seeligmann; Jerusalem, 1983], p. 458, n. 18). 92 In Hebrew, these words mean both 'the (beautiful) form of m a n ' and 'the (beautiful) form of Adam‫׳‬, whose name is most appropriate at the conclusion of 'the Praise of the Fathers' and of verse 16. My argument is that this verse does not refer to the glory of Adam as a biblical hero, but rather to the h u m a n form in general. 93 Another key word used deliberately in two different senses in this passage is ‫ פ ק ד‬meaning both ‫׳‬visited (by death)' (49.15-16) and 'be renovated' (50.1c).

' h e w i l l w a v e h i s h a n d a g a i n s t t h e m o u n t a i n of t h e d a u g h t e r of Z i o n ' . Ben Sira c h o s e t h e v e r b ‫ ו י ט‬i n s t e a d of ‫ ו י נ ף‬b e c a u s e h e h a d u s e d t h e r o o t ‫ נטי‬in t h e p r e v i o u s v e r s e ( 4 8 . 1 7 b ) : . ‫מ י ם‬ ‫בהטות אל תוכה‬ 8.‫רצון‬ S o m e t i m e s , a s w e h a v e j u s t s e e n , t h e w o r d s of a b i b l i c a l v e r s e a r e c h a n g e d b e c a u s e of stylistic p r e f e r e n c e s . I h a v e s h o w n e l s e w h e r e 9 4 t h e r e w o r k i n g of Isa. 55.11 in Sir. 43.26: t h e r o o t ‫ ע ש י‬in I s a i a h is a l s o r e p l a c e d b y t h e p o e t i c r o o t 95.‫ פעל‬In t h e s a m e v e r s e , ‫ ' ( ח פ ץ‬w i l l ' ) in I s a i a h is r e p l a c e d b y its L a t e Biblical H e b r e w s y n o n y m , ‫ ר צ ו ן‬. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , e l s e w h e r e B e n Sira u s e s t h e w o r d ‫ ר צ ו ן‬in its o l d e r m e a n i n g , ) . ' f a v o u r , a c c e p t a n c e 3 6 . 2 2;11.[35]32)‫׳‬ O f t e n a biblical p h r a s e is a n i n d i c a t i o n of Ben S i r a ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of it, o r e v e n of a midrash.96 T h i s is a p p a r e n t l y t h e r u l e b u t it is n o t w i t h o u t its e x c e p t i o n s ; f o r e x a m p l e , ‫( א ם כ ל ח י‬Sir. 40.1) d o e s n o t r e f e r to E v e ( G e n . 3.20). T h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e is a midrash of v e r s e s in P r o v e r b s b y Ben Sira ( o r r a t h e r k n o w n to h i m ) b a s e d o n t h e m e a n i n g ' w i l l ' t h a t t h e w o r d ‫ ר צ ו ן‬h a d a c q u i r e d in L a t e Biblical H e b r e w :

15.15b r e a d s in MS A ‫ ו ת ב ו נ ה ל ע ש ו ת ר צ ו נ ו‬, w h e r e a s G p r o b a b l y r e a d in its Vorlage ‫ ו א מ ו נ ה ל ע ש ו ת ר צ ו ן‬. I p r e f e r t h i s r e a d i n g , i n t e r p r e t i n g it ' o n e ' s o w n will' rather than 'God's will'. Such a reading a n d interpretation w o u l d y i e l d a p e r f e c t p a r a l l e l i s m b e t w e e n t h e t w o s t i c h s of v e r s e 15, a n d w o u l d fit t h e c o n t e x t of 15.11-20, w h i c h d i s c u s s e s t h e p r o b l e m of free will. Both r e a d i n g s , ‫ ר צ ו נ ו‬a n d ‫ ר צ ו ן א ל‬, can be easily e x p l a i n e d as d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r e a d i n g ‫ ר צ ו ן‬, m i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s r e f e r r i n g to G o d ' s w i l l . 9 7 I w o u l d t r a n s l a t e t h e p a s s a g e a s f o l l o w s : 'Evil a n d a b o m i n a t i o n t h e L o r d h a t e s , a n d h e d o e s n o t c a u s e it t o t h o s e w h o f e a r h i m . ... If t h i s is y o u r w i l l , y o u c a n k e e p t h e c o m m a n d m e n t ; ( f o r ) b e i n g f a i t h f u l (to G o d ) is ( a c h i e v e d b y ) a c c o m p l i s h i n g o n e ' s o w n w i l l ‫ ׳‬. Sir. 15.13-15 is b a s e d o n t w o b i b l i c a l v e r s e s . T h e f i r s t is E x o d . 21.13: 94

M. Kister, 'Ben Sira Manuscripts in the Genizah', in Fragments Found and Fathomed (tentative title; ed. S.C. Reif; Cambridge [forthcoming]). 95 For the use of ‫ פ ע ל‬see above, towards the end of the introductory section. 96 M. Kister, 'Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Writings', in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Atlanta, 1994), p. 2. 97 Cf. 16.3 in S a n d H (MSS A a n d B!). "

‫ואשר ל א צ ד ה ו ה א ל ה י ם אנה לידו‬ ' b u t if h e d i d n o t d o it ( c o m m i t h o m i c i d e ) b y d e s i g n , b u t G o d c a u s e d it to c o m e a b o u t b y h i s ( t h e killer's) h a n d ' . T h i s w a s p r o b a b l y t h e p r o o f t e x t of t h o s e w h o s a i d ' f r o m G o d is m y t r a n s g r e s s i o n ' (15.11), w i t h w h o m Ben Sira is t a k i n g i s s u e h e r e . T h e s e c o n d biblical s o u r c e text is P r o v . 12.21-22: ‫ורשעים מלאו רע‬ ‫ל א י א נ ה ל צ ד י ק כ ל און‬ ‫ועשי אמונה רצונו‬ ‫ת ו ע ב ת י׳ ש פ ת י ש ק ר‬ T h e p l a i n m e a n i n g of P r o v . 12.21 is ‫ ׳‬n o h a r m b e f a l l s t h e r i g h t e o u s , b u t t h e w i c k e d a r e filled w i t h m i s f o r t u n e ' . H o w e v e r , in t h e l i g h t of E x o d . 21.13 a p o s s i b l e m i d r a s h i c r e n d e r i n g w o u l d be: ' h e d o e s n o t c a u s e s i n (or: ' s i n is n o t c a u s e d [by G o d ] ' ) t o b e b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e r i g h t e o u s , a n d t h e w i c k e d a r e filled w i t h evil!'. S u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a t t e s t e d b y Sir. 15.13. T h e w o r d ‫ ר צ ו ן‬in P r o v . 12.22 c e r t a i n l y m e a n s ' d e l i g h t ' — ' l y i n g lips a r e a n a b o m i n a t i o n to t h e Lord, a n d t h o s e w h o act (or: ‫ ׳‬w h o e v e r a c t s ' ) 9 8 f a i t h f u l l y a r e h i s ( G o d ' s ) d e l i g h t ' — w h e r e a s t h e s a m e w o r d in Sir. 15.15 a p p a r e n t l y m e a n s ' w i l l ' . C l e a r l y t h e v e r s e s in P r o v e r b s d o n o t d e a l w i t h f r e e will, b u t t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e t w o biblical v e r s e s c o u l d b e f o r m u l a t e d a s a midrash: o n e v e r s e ( E x o d . 21.13) s a y s t h a t G o d c a u s e s ( ‫ ) א נ ה‬a m a n to kill ( u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ) , b u t a n o t h e r ( P r o v . 12.21) s t a t e s t h a t n o t r a n s g r e s s i o n w i l l b e c a u s e d ( ‫ ) י א נ ה‬t o t h e r i g h t e o u s ; w e l e a r n , t h e n , t h a t E x o d . 21.13 d o e s n o t r e f e r to a r i g h t e o u s p e r s o n . B u t b e i n g r i g h t e o u s is a p e r s o n a l d e c i s i o n , a s w r i t t e n in P r o v . 12.22, t o w h i c h a n e w t w i s t is g i v e n : ‫ ] ? = ו ע ש ה [ א מ ו נ ה — ר צ ו נ ו‬, c?in ' h e w h o a c t s f a i t h f u l l y d o e s so a c c o r d i n g to h i s o w n w i l l ' , w h i c h is t h e s o u r c e of Sir. 15.15b, a c c o r d i n g to t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s u g gested above. 9 . ‫ ב כ ל מ א ד ך‬...‫ בכל לבבך‬,‫פחד‬ [ . . . ‫ואם מ ח ו ל ל ת ך א ל ת ש כ ח‬ ‫]בכל ל ב ב ך כבד אביך‬ ‫ואת כהניו ה ק ד ש‬ ‫בכל לבך פחד אל‬ ‫ואת משרתיו ל א תעזוב‬ ‫ב כ ל מאודך אהוב עושך‬ ‫ותן ח ל ק ם כ א ש ר צ ו ו ת ה‬ ‫כ ב ד אל והדר כהן‬ ' [ W i t h all y o u r h e a r t h o n o u r y o u r f a t h e r , a n d f o r g e t n o t y o u r m o t h e r w h o b o r e y o u ....] W i t h all y o u r h e a r t f e a r G o d , a n d r e v e r e H i s p r i e s t s . W i t h all y o u r s t r e n g t h l o v e t h e o n e w h o m a d e y o u , a n d f o r s a k e n o t his ministers. 98

For such an o r t h o g r a p h y see E. Qimron, The H e b r e w of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 20.

H o n o u r God a n d the priests, a n d give (them) their portion as y o u h a v e b e e n c o m m a n d e d ' (7.27-31)." T h e s e v e r s e s clearly reflect t h e p a t t e r n of D e u t . 6.5:

‫ואהבת את י׳ אלהיך ב כ ל ל ב ב ך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך‬ ' y o u a r e to love t h e L o r d y o u r G o d w i t h all y o u r h e a r t a n d w i t h all y o u r s o u l a n d w i t h all y o u r m i g h t ' . 1 0 0 Sir. 7.29-31 s e e m s to a l l u d e also to D e u t . 10.12:

‫כי אם ליראה את י׳ אלהיך ל ל כ ת ב כ ל דרכיו ולאהבה אתו‬ ‫ולעבד את י׳ אלהיך ב כ ל ל ב ב ך ו ב כ ל נפשך‬, w h e r e love a n d fear of G o d a r e c o m b i n e d w i t h w o r s h i p of h i m ' w i t h all y o u r h e a r t a n d s o u l ' by k e e p i n g his c o m m a n d m e n t s (see b e l o w ) . T h e p r o b l e m t h a t p o s e s itself is w h e t h e r t h e p a t t e r n of D e u t . 6.5 u s e d in t h i s p a s s a g e of Ben Sira is to b e c o n s i d e r e d a m e r e stylistic b o r r o w i n g f r o m t h e Bible ( w i t h o u t p a y i n g m u c h a t t e n t i o n to t h e o r i g inal c o n t e x t ) 1 0 1 o r a n a l l u s i o n to t h e biblical v e r s e s a n d t h e i r specific c o n t e n t . T h e f o r m e r a l t e r n a t i v e c a n be well i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e acrostic p o e m d e s i g n a t e d ' A p o s t r o p h e to Zion', 1 0 2 in w h i c h t w o v e r s e s r e a d :

‫בכול מורי אני אהבתיך‬

‫ו]א׳בי[ אזכירך ל ב ר כ ה ציון‬03

99

Omitted by scribal error in H, and reconstructed by G and S. The reading of G in 7.29 should be noted in this context: Instead of ‫ בכל לבך‬of H and S, G reads εν ϋλη ψυχή σου, which may well be a rendering of ‫( ב כ ל נפשך‬notwithstanding J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach [Analecta Biblica, 30; Rome, 1967], p. 296). It seems that Ben Sira interpreted ‫ מאד‬as 'vigour, effort, strength' rather than 'property' (contrast M. Weinfeld, 1 ‫ ׳‬. . . ‫ ו כ ל ד ג ד ב י ם ל א מ ת ו‬Q S 1.12‫׳‬, Te'udah 2 [1992], p the so-called A p o s t r o p h e to Zion (below, n. 102), 4Q274 (j. Milgrom, '4QTohora a : An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities', in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness [ed. D. Dimant and G. Brooke; Leiden, 1995], p. 59-60): ‫ ובכול מודה ]אל[ תתערב‬, she should (strive) with all her might [not] to intermingle (with pure persons)'. This is apparently the meaning of the word ‫ מ א ד‬in CD 12.10; Sir. 6.26 (not preserved in H), rather than the meaning 'wealth, property'. The semantic development suggested by Weinfeld to explain the meaning 'wealth' is greatly to be preferred over the etymology suggested by M. Mishor, ‫בכל מאדך—בכל ממונך‬, LeSonénu la'am 38 (1987), pp. 375-79. Although the meaning 'wealth' is attested in CD 9.11, it is not clear whether this semantic development had already taken place at the time of Ben Sira. 100

101

R. S a n d e r , Furcht und Liebe im palästinischen

Judentum

( S t u t t g a r t , 1935), p .

28: "Sirach mit geprägten kanonischen Formel arbeitet, ohne ihren ursprüngliehen Inhalt zu übernehmen". See also H. Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (Tübingen, 1980), p. 59 n. 2; J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, pp. 296, 302. 102 11QPs 3 22 (JA- Sanders, DJD, 4 [1965], pp. 43, 86-88). 103 For the pronunciation of ‫ מאודי‬as ‫מורי‬, cf. E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 25. This pronunciation explains the midrash at m. Berakhot 9.5: ‫ בכל מדה ומדה שהוא מודד ל ך בכל הוי מודה לו במאד מאד‬,‫בכל מאדך‬,

‫בכול לבבי אברכך‬ ‫]פ׳[ פ ע מ י ם ר ב ו ת א ז כ י ר ך ל ב ר כ ה‬ '1 r e m e m b e r y o u f o r b l e s s i n g , Ο Z i o n , w i t h all m y m i g h t I l o v e y o u . ... M a n y t i m e s d o I r e m e m b e r y o u f o r b l e s s i n g , w i t h all m y heart I bless you'. T h i s p o e t i c w o r k c l e a r l y d o e s n o t a l l u d e to D e u t . 6.5, b u t r a t h e r m a k e s u s e of b i b l i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s f r o m t h e v e r s e r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t . H o w e v e r , in t h e c a s e of Sir. 7.27-31 I t e n d t o o p t f o r t h e s e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e , n a m e l y t h a t Ben Sira a l l u d e s t o D e u t . 6.5 a n d e v e n i m p l i c i t l y i n t e r p r e t s t h i s v e r s e . G o d ' s h o n o u r , t h e f o c u s of t h i s p a s s a g e , 1 0 4 is r e l a t e d (1) t o h o n o u r i n g o n e ' s p a r e n t s , b e c a u s e b o t h t h e y a n d G o d a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o n e ' s e n t r y i n t o t h e w o r l d (cf. Sir. 3.6-7, 16 a n d G o d ' s a t t r i b u t e of ‫ ע ו ט ך‬at 7.30), a n d (2) t o h o n o u r i n g t h e p r i e s t s a s G o d ' s s e r v a n t s a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s (cf., e.g., L e v . 21.8). M o r e o v e r , G o d ' s w o r s h i p ( ‫ ) ל ע ב ר‬in D e u t . 10.12 c o u l d v e r y e a s i l y b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s r e f e r r i n g to t h e t e m p l e c u l t . 1 0 5 It s h o u l d b e b o r n e in m i n d t h a t ‫ ' כ י ב ו ד‬h o n o u r i n g ' w a s d e f i n e d , in p a r t , a s t h e g r a n t i n g of m o n e y o r p o s s e s s i o n s , so t h a t h o n o u r i n g p a r e n t s i n c l u d e d s a t i s f y i n g t h e i r m a t e r i a l n e e d s a n d h o n o u r i n g G o d w a s e x p r e s s e d , inter alia, b y paying one's d u e s to the priesthood a n d by setting aside the ' p a u p e r ' s t i t h e ' (cf. j. P e ' a h 1.1 [ 1 5 d ] , w h i c h is a s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l t o o u r p a s sage).106 T h e p a s s a g e in Ben Sira t h r o w s n e w l i g h t o n t h e w e l l - k n o w n s a y i n g of R. A k i b a a n d its b a c k g r o u n d (b. P e s a h i m 22b; b u t cf. j. B e r a k h o t 9 [14b]): ‫ ל ר ב ו ת ת ל מ י ד י ח כ מ י ם‬, ‫א ת י׳ א ל ה י ך ת י ר א‬ ' " Y o u a r e to f e a r t h e LORD y o u r G o d " ( D e u t . 6 . 1 3 ) — t h e w o r d ‫ א ת‬is t h e r e to i n c l u d e ( f e a r o f ) T o r a h s c h o l a r s (in t h e f e a r of God)'. T h i s s a y i n g c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d a s a r e a c t i o n to p r i e s t l y c o n c e p t s a n d p o s s i b l y to a p r i e s t l y midrash s i m i l a r to t h e o n e p r e s e r v e d in B e n S i r a . T h e t e a c h e r s of halakhah, r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r i e s t s , a r e G o d ' s r e p r e s e n t a -

w h e r e ‫ מורך‬is derived from the root ‫מדד‬. This is also the explanation of the reading of l Q I s a 3 in Isa. 38.17: ‫ מ ר ל י א מ א ו ד ה‬instead of MT ‫מר לי מר‬. An alternative reading to the MT w a s probably ‫( מר לי מור‬cf. 1QIsa 3 to 38.15: ‫מור‬, w h e r e MT reads ‫ ;מר‬see E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQlsa") [Leiden, 1974], p. 378). The w o r d ‫ מור‬w a s misread ‫ מור‬a n d u n d e r s t o o d as equivalent to ‫מאד‬. A copyist c h a n g e d its spelling to ‫מ א ו ד ה‬ (contrast Kutscher, ibid., p. 251). 104 As emphasized by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, p. 307. 105 Cf. ‫ ע ב ו ד ה‬as 'sacrificial cult‫ ׳‬in Mishnaic H e b r e w . Cf. also Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, p. 307. Cf. also η. 101. 106 g e e a j s o Kister, ‫׳‬Ben Sira Manuscripts', at the end of the introduction (on Sir. 3.11).

t i v e s a n d t h e o b j e c t s of r e l i g i o u s r e v e r e n c e . 1 0 7 T h e u s e of ‫ פ ח ד‬in 7.29 s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d . If, a s s u g g e s t e d a b o v e , t h i s v e r s e is b a s e d o n D e u t . 10.12, t h e n c l e a r l y t h e r o o t ‫ י ר א‬w a s r e p l a c e d b y ‫ ( פ ח ד‬w h i c h d o e s n o t t a k e a d i r e c t o b j e c t in t h e Bible). 1 0 8 It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t s i n c e t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ י ר א ת י׳‬b e c a m e e q u i v a l e n t to ' p i e t y ' ( t h e c o m p o n e n t ‫ י ר א‬t h u s l o s i n g its o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g ) , 1 0 9 B e n Sira felt h e n e e d e d a n o t h e r , f r e s h , w o r d to e x p r e s s t h e f e e l i n g of a w e a n d r e v e r e n c e t o w a r d s G o d . 1 1 0 H o w e v e r , ‫ פ ח ד‬in t h i s s e n s e s e e m s t o o c c u r in a f r a g m e n t of a pesher to H o s e a : ‫ולמתעיהם שמעו ויכבדום ובאלים יפחדו מהם בעורמם‬ T h e y l i s t e n e d to t h o s e t h a t m i s l e d t h e m , a n d h o n o u r e d t h e m , a n d in t h e i r b l i n d n e s s f e a r e d t h e m like g o d s . 1 1 1

In t h i s s t u d y w e c a m e a c r o s s i d i o m s in Ben Sira t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e v i a t e f r o m t h e biblical u s a g e ( ‫ נ ש א פ נ י ם‬, ‫ ) ג ב ה ע י נ י ם‬, e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t illum i n a t e t h e biblical text ( ‫ נ ע ל ם‬, ‫ ש א ל ש ל ו ם‬+ ‫ ) א ה ב‬, w o r d s f o r m a l l y m a r k e d s i m p l y a s C l a s s i c a l Biblical H e b r e w t h a t h a v e u n d e r g o n e a s e m a n t i c c h a n g e (‫)בוש‬, e l l i p s i s b a s e d o n a biblical v e r s e ( ‫ ) ש ח ק‬, a n d m a n y u s a g e s d e r i v e d f r o m biblical v e r s e s . In Ben Sira, a s in a l m o s t a n y o t h e r c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e l a t e S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , w e a r e f a c e d w i t h t h e d i l e m m a of w h e t h e r t h e u s e of a biblical e x p r e s s i o n is a d e l i b e r a t e a l l u s i o n to t h e biblical v e r s e in w h i c h it o c c u r s , o r is it j u s t a s t y l i s t i c

107

Sir. 6.26 (not preserved in H) might well be a midrash on Deut. 6.5, since in D e u t e r o n o m y G o d ' s w o r s h i p is related to the observance of the c o m m a n d ments (cf. also Deut. 26.16), and thus to wisdom, which is identified by Ben Sira with the Torah (cf. Sir. 6.37). 108 It m a y be especially instructive to compare Sir. 7.29, ‫ואח כהניו הקדש‬ ‫בכל ל ב ך פ ח ד אל‬, with Isa. 8.13: ‫אח י׳ צבאות אותו תקדישו והוא מוראכם‬. Note that Isa. 8.13 and 29.23 are the only biblical verses in which the Hifil of ‫ קדש‬has the meaning of 'to treat as sacred‫׳‬, both referring to God. The Pi'el is used in the same sense in Lev. 21.8, w h e r e the priests are referred to. The root ‫ פחד‬in the sense of ‫׳‬reverence (for God)‫( ׳‬rather than 'dread, fear') is quite rare in the Bible (Hos. 3.5; p e r h a p s Gen. 31.42 [‫ ;]פחד יצחק‬the passage in Ben Sira alludes to neither of these verses). 109 Interestingly, in verse 31 G has φοβοΰ (probably ‫ )ירא‬w h e r e Η a n d S read ‫כבד‬. Cf. the interchange of these verbs in Exod. 20.12 and Lev. 19.3. Cf. also the w o r d i n g of R. Akiba's saying cited above. 110 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, pp. 305-307. 111 4 Q p H o s a 2.5-6 (J.M. Allegro, DJD, 5 [1968], p. 31). For the content of these lines and its relation to R. Akiba's saying, cf. M. Kister, 'Studies in MMT' (in Hebrew; forthcoming).

b o r r o w i n g . 1 1 2 S o m e t i m e s e x p r e s s i o n s e m p l o y e d in Ben Sira a r e d e r i v e d f r o m biblical v e r s e s i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p l a i n s e n s e (e.g. ‫ ; ) נ פ ק ד‬it is n o t rare, h o w e v e r , t h a t Ben S i r a ' s u s a g e is b a s e d o n a p e c u l i a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e biblical text ( ‫נם ל ח ה‬, ‫ ) נ ש א פ נ י ם‬o r t h a t h e a l l u d e s to a m i d r a s h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of biblical p a s s a g e s (‫ אנה‬a n d ‫ר צ ו ן‬ in 15.13-15; ‫ ב כ ל מ א ק ־‬. . . ‫ ב כ ל ל ב ך‬in 7.27-31). But e v e n w h e n Ben Sira a l l u d e s to a biblical v e r s e h e feels f r e e to c h a n g e it a c c o r d i n g to h i s stylistic p r e f e r e n c e s . 1 1 3 T h e r e l a t i o n of t h e b o o k of Ben Sira to t h e Bible is o n e of t h e m o s t crucial p r o b l e m s for t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e c u l t u r a l p o s i t i o n of t h e f o r m e r . T h e r e l a t i o n of its l a n g u a g e a n d style to Biblical H e b r e w , s e v e r a l a s p e c t s of w h i c h h a v e b e e n e l u c i d a t e d in t h e p r e s e n t article, is s i m i larly s i g n i f i c a n t for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e linguistic p o s i t i o n of w h a t s e e m s to b e a special post-biblical b l e n d of old a n d n e w .

112

The former is more current than sometimes assumed; cf. M. Kister, 'Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretation and Pesharim', in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. D i m a n t a n d U. R a p p a p o r t ; STD], 10;

Jerusalem/Leiden, 1992) pp. 27-39. 113 See above, n. 94.

T H E PARTICIPLE IN Q U M R A N HEBREW W I T H S P E C I A L R E F E R E N C E T O ITS P E R I P H R A S T I C U S E 1 Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden) I:

Introduction

C u r r e n t l y t h e r e a r e d i v e r g e n t v i e w s o n t h e n a t u r e of Q u m r a n H e b r e w in r e l a t i o n to o t h e r t y p e s of H e b r e w , w h e t h e r e a r l i e r o r l a t e r t h a n Q u m r a n H e b r e w o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h it. 2 A d e f i n i t i v e a s s e s s m e n t in t h i s r e g a r d c a n o n l y b e a t t e m p t e d w h e n o n e h a s r e s u l t s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n in all l i n g u i s t i c f a c e t s of t h e i d i o m c o m p a r a b l e in d e p t h a n d b r e a d t h to t h o s e w h i c h o n e a l r e a d y h a s a t o n e ' s d i s p o s a l r e g a r d i n g Biblical a n d M i s h n a i c H e b r e w . U n t i l s u c h a t i m e a r r i v e s o n e n e e d s to s t u d y e a c h of t h o s e f a c e t s m o r e o r less p i e c e m e a l w i t h a v i e w t o o b t a i n i n g a c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e at the e n d . T h e recently a c c e l e r a t e d s p e e d w i t h w h i c h t h e n e c e s s a r y text e d i t i o n s a r e b e i n g m a d e a v a i l a b l e m a k e s it p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e s u c h a v e n t u r e . It is g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t o n e of t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s of t h e s t r u c t u r e of H e b r e w in t h e p e r i o d u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , n a m e l y t h e t u r n of t h e e r a , is t h e m o r p h o l o g y , a n d m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e m o r p h o s y n t a x a n d s y n t a x of t h e v e r b . T h e f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e s , i n i t i a l s i g n s of w h i c h a r e e v i d e n t in L a t e Biblical H e b r e w (LBH), e m e r g e i n t o full v i e w in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w ( M H ) a s c o m p l e t e d a n d i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a n e w r e s t r u c t u r e d l a n g a g e . T h i s e v o l u t i o n is r i g h t l y h i g h l i g h t e d b y C o h e n 1984 a n d G o r d o n 1982. A s f a r a s t h e t e n s e - s w i t c h i n g o r s e q u e n c e of t e n s e s is c o n c e r n e d , t h i s g a p h a s n o w b e e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y filled b y M . S m i t h ' s s t u d y , The Origins and Development of the W a w consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (1991). In t h i s s h o r t p r e s e n t a t i o n w e w o u l d a l s o like t o f o c u s o n o n e f a c e t 1

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

of t h e v e r b a l s y s t e m in Q H , to w i t , t h e m o r p h o s y n t a x of t h e p a r t i c i p l e w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to its u s e in t h e s o - c a l l e d c o m p o u n d t e n s e o r periphrastic structure.3 This w e shall d o by c o m p a r i n g d a t a f r o m Q H w i t h t h o s e t y p i c a l of t h e p r e c e d i n g , b i b l i c a l , p e r i o d of t h e l a n g u a g e a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g , m i s h n a i c , p e r i o d . It is a n a p p r o a c h a d o p t e d b y K u t s c h e r . O n e of m a n y s t r e n g t h s of h i s m o n u m e n t a l s t u d y , ‫ה ל ש ו ן‬ ‫( ו ה ר ק ע ה ל ש ו נ י ש ל מ ג י ל ת י ש ע י ה ו‬1959)/T/1e Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa") (1974), w a s t h a t , i n s t e a d of v i e w i n g Q H a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y l Q I s a a in b l i s s f u l i s o l a t i o n h e f i r m l y p l a c e d it in t h e h i s t o r i c a l , d i a c h r o n i c c o n t e x t of t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d v i e w e d it in its c o n s t a n t i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h A r a m a i c o n t h e other.4 A s s a m p l e s of Q H t e x t s w e h a v e f o c u s e d o n 1 Q S ( R u l e of t h e C o m m u n i t y / 1 1,(‫ ס ר ךהיחד‬Q T ( T e m p l e S c r o l l / a n d 1 Q H a ( T h a n k s g i v i n g H y m n s / ‫ ) ה ו ד י ו ת‬, c o l s . 1 - 1 0 (olim 9-18). T h e data on the periphrastic tense cover the entire Q H corpus. In o r d e r to c o m p a r e Q H w i t h B H , w e h a v e s t u d i e d b l o c k s of t h e P e n t a t e u c h ( E x o d . 10-14; 22-27; D e u t . 6-19) a n d t h e e n t i r e b o o k of N e hemiah. F i n a l l y , f o r t h e s a k e of c o m p a r i s o n w i t h M H , w e h a v e s t u d i e d t h e f i r s t f i v e c h a p t e r s of t h e M i s h n a h t r a c t a t e S h a b b a t , q u a n t i t a t i v e l y c o m p a r a b l e to 4 Q M M T , if t h e l a t t e r w e r e p r e s e r v e d i n t a c t . T w o main issues h a v e e n g a g e d o u r attention. 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h r e e m a i n u s e s of t h e p a r t i c i p l e , n a m e l y predicative, attributive and nominal. 2. P e r i p h r a s t i c u s e w i t h ‫ ה י ה‬. Periphrastically used participles are, by definition, c o u n t e d also a s c a s e s of p r e d i c a t i v e u s a g e . F o r t h e s a k e of c l a r i t y w e q u o t e a f e w e x a m p l e s to i l l u s t r a t e e a c h

4,(‫מקדש‬

3

The reader should refer to Professor Smith's contribution to this v o l u m e as well. 4 In v i e w of this o n e is s o m e w h a t p u z z l e d by the fact that David Cohen, in his otherwise valuable diachronic and comparative-Semitic study of the nominal clause, allows his description of the evolution of the participle in Biblical Hebrew to proceed from Late Biblical Hebrew directly to Mishnaic H e b r e w with a sondage in the tractate Yoma. There is no mention of Qumran H e b r e w anyw h e r e in the monograph. Even Kutscher's above-mentioned study is conspicu o u s l y m i s s i n g from a fairly extensive bibliography (Cohen 1984:593-609). O n e notes precisely the same o m i s s i o n in A m n o n Gordon's study, 'The Dev e l o p m e n t of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and M o d e m H e b r e w 1 9 8 2 ) which, as its title suggests, purports to be a diachronic s t u d y of the H e b r e w participle. H e also m o v e s from his study of LBH with special reference to the book of N e h e m i a h directly to an enquiry into the use of the participle in M H with citations from the tractate Teharoth.

‫ ) ׳‬,

of t h e t h r e e s y n t a c t i c u s e s . Predicative. Deut. 9 . 6 : ; ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ה‬ 11QT 48.11:‫ כ א ש ר הגוים עושים ב כ ל מקום‬. A t t r i b u t i v e . N e h . 3.15: 1 ·,‫דויד‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ א ת כ ו ל אנשי ג ו ר ל א ל ה ה ו ל כ י ם ת מ י ם ב כ ו ל ד ר כ י ו‬. N o m i n a l . E x o d . 1 2 . 1 9 : 1 1;‫ כ ל א כ לחמץ‬Q T 6 1 . 1 4 : ; 1QS 1 . 1 6 : ‫ כ ו ל ה ב א י ם ב ס ר ך ה י ח ד‬.

II: Statistical

distribution

of the three syntactic

uses

A statistical c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n these sources reveals several interesting things.5 1. First of all, t h e t o t a l n u m b e r of p a r t i c i p l e s in t h e E x o d u s b l o c k is v a s t l y s m a l l e r t h a n in a n y o t h e r s o u r c e . D e u t e r o n o m y u s e s t h e p a r t i c i p l e t w i c e a s o f t e n . A m o n g t h e Q u m r a n d o c u m e n t s 1 Q S is c o m p a r a b l e t o D e u t e r o n o m y . At t h e o t h e r e n d of t h e s c a l e s t a n d N e h e m i a h , 11QT, a n d 4 Q M M T . T h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h f r e q u e n c y of t h e p a r t i c i p l e in 4 Q M M T is m o s t s t r i k i n g . T h e d o c u m e n t c o n s i s t s of a m e r e 134 r a t h e r s h o r t lines, m a n y of w h i c h h a v e b e e n p r e s e r v e d in q u i t e a f r a g m e n t a r y s t a t e . In t h e f i r s t f i v e c h a p t e r s of t h e t r a c t a t e S h a b b a t of t h e M i s h n a h , a h a l a k h i c d o c u m e n t c o m p a r a b l e t o 4 Q M M T , w e f i n d 141 p a r ticiples. 2. T h i s s e t of s t a t i s t i c s c o u l d b e c o m p a r e d w i t h a n o t h e r s e t s h o w i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e t h r e e s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s a m o n g t h e s e l e c t e d s o u r c e s . In t h i s r e s p e c t 1 Q S a n d 1 Q H s t a n d o u t , w i t h a n e x t r e m e l y s p a r i n g u s e of t h e p a r t i c i p l e a s t h e p r e d i c a t e of a c l a u s e a n d t h e e q u a l l y s t r i k i n g p r e p o n d e r a n c e of its n o m i n a l u s e ( s u b s t a n t i v i s e d participle).

5

There is a considerable difference in frequency of occurrences. T h o u g h not every source investigated is of precisely identical size, the 11 chapters each of Exodus, D e u t e r o n o m y and N e h e m i a h are of roughly equal size: 17 pages, 17 pages, and 20 pages respectively in the Adi edition of the Bible. 1QS and 1QH cols. 1-10 each takes up 20 p a g e s in Lohse's edition. 11QT is difficult to quantify because of its fragmentary state in the first several c o l u m n s — t h e a m o u n t of data meaningful for our investigation, n a m e l y those parts w h i c h d o and could contain participles with sufficient context for syntactic analysis, d o e s not appear to exceed very much that of 1QS, maybe 30% more. 4QMMT is of a very much smaller size.

Source

Predicative

Attributive

Nominal

Exodus

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

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

16 (27%) 33 (28%) 47 (27%) 63 (55%) 56 (66%) 37 (24%) 4 (12%) 11 (8%)

Deut. Neh. 1QS 1 Q H 1-10 11QT 4QMMT m. Shabb. 1-5

(3%) 2 (1%)

Total 60 119 167 116 84 151 33 141

3. T h e f r e q u e n c y of p r e d i c a t i v e u s e is c o n s i d e r a b l e in e v e r y s i n g l e s o u r c e e x c e p t 1 Q S a n d 1 Q H . T h i s is t r u e of all t h e t h r e e biblical c o r p o r a , a n d c a n n o t , in o u r v i e w , b e o v e r e m p h a s i s e d . F o r a l m o s t e v e r y d i s c u s s i o n in t h e p a s t o n t h e t e n s e s of t h e H e b r e w v e r b , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e to Biblical H e b r e w , f o c u s e d o n t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation, or imperfect a n d p e r f e c t , yicjtol o r cjatal, o r w h a t e v e r t e r m i n o l o g y y o u m a y c a r e t o u s e . T h e participle h a s been a c c o r d e d o n l y a m a r g i n a l place, r e d u c e d to t h e s t a t u s of a C i n d e r e l l a . W a l t k e a n d O ' C o n n o r , in t h e i r Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, a l l o c a t e it a m e r e t w e n t y p a g e s o u t of a t o t a l of n e a r l y 18Ü p a g e s d e v o t e d to t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e H e b r e w v e r b t e n s e s . 6 D e s p i t e its d i s t i n c t m o r p h o l o g y a n d s o m e a s p e c t s of its s y n tax, w h i c h set t h e p a r t i c i p l e a p a r t f r o m t h e i m p e r f e c t a n d t h e p e r f e c t , t h e p a r t i c i p l e n e e d s to b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e H e b r e w t e n s e s y s t e m . 7 It is n o t t r u e t h a t t h i s a p p l i e s o n l y f r o m M i s h n a i c H e b 6

T h e y g o e v e n further by saying that the utterance such as ‫ יח־עאני‬in Biblical H e b r e w has the sense 1‫ ׳‬am one w h o k n o w s ' and o n l y in Mishnaic H e b r e w it came to mean simply '1 k n o w ‫( ׳‬Waltke-O'Connor 1990:624f.), a statement for w h i c h there is no basis and w h i c h their o w n translation belies, e.g. ‫היא מוצאת‬ "as she w a s being brought forth"(Gen. 38.25). This is of c o u r s e an old question discussed extensively by Sellin (1889) and briefly revisited lately by Dyk (1994:383). 7 A point underlined by Kesterson (1984:205) in his s u m m a r y of Joüon's position on the matter. I am indebted to Professor Smith for drawing m y attention to Kesterson's study and sending me a p h o t o c o p y of relevant pages from it.

r e w o n w a r d s . T h e p o s i t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d b y J o ü o n - M u r a o k a (1991, §121a) n e e d s t o b e t a k e n m o r e s e r i o u s l y : " t h e p a r t i c i p l e u s e d p r e d i c a t i v e l y h a s b e c o m e ... a t e m p o r a l f o r m " . E v e n t h i s w o r k , h o w e v e r , is not yet completely free f r o m the conventional and universally prevalent view, according to w h i c h the participle " r e p r e s e n t s a n action as a s t a t e , i.e. a s d u r a t i v e i n a s p e c t " (§121c). 8 B u t t h e r e is r e a l l y n o t h i n g d u r a t i v e a b o u t t h e s t a n d i n g f o r m u l a s ‫ ( ה א ר ץ א ש ר י׳ א ל ה י ך נ ת ן ל ך‬L e v 23.10, e t c . ) , ‫ ( ה א ר ץ א ש ר א ת ה ב א ש מ ה ל ר ש ת ה‬D e u t . 7.1, e t c . ) , ‫כ ל ה מ צ ו ה א ש ר‬ ‫ ( א נ כ י מ צ ר ך ה י ו ם‬D e u t . 11.8, etc.), o r s o m e of t h e e x a m p l e s c i t e d b y W a l t k e a n d O ' C o n n o r :1)‫ מ ח ר א ת ה מ ו מ ת‬S a m . 1 9 . 1 1 ) , ‫ ( א ם ; ש ך מ ו ש י ע‬J u d g . 6 . 3 6 ) , ‫ ( כ י ; ר ע א ל ה י ם‬G e n . 3.5). 9 If this a p p l i e s t o E a r l y Biblical H e b r e w , all t h e m o r e s o to L a t e Biblical a n d Q u m r a n H e b r e w . T h i s m u s t b e p a r t of t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e s u r p r i s i n g l y h i g h f r e q u e n c y of t h e p r e d i c a t i v e u s e of t h e p a r t i c i p l e in all t h e s o u r c e s e x a m i n e d b y u s except 1QS a n d 1QH. Q u m r a n H e b r e w , j u d g e d by this a d m i t t e d l y small s a m p l e , a p p e a r s to b e c o n t i n u i n g t h e t r e n d s e t p r e t t y f i r m l y a l r e a d y in Biblical H e b r e w . T h e a u t h o r of 1 1 Q T r e t a i n e d t h e p a r t i c i p l e f o u n d in his biblical s o u r c e s w h e n q u o t i n g v e r b a t i m or p a r a p h r a s i n g . In o n e i n s t r u c t i v e c a s e h e t h o u g h t it r i g h t to c o n v e r t t h e i m p e r f e c t in h i s s o u r c e w i t h a m o d a l n u a n c e to t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e of g e n e r a l , u n i v e r s a l truth: ‫ ( כ י ה ש ח ר ; ע ו ר עיני ח כ מ י ם ו י ס ל ף ד ב ר י צ ר י ק י ם‬D e u t . 1 6 . 1 9 ) / / 11) ‫ כ י ה ש ו ח ר מ ט ה מ ש פ ט ו מ ס ל ף ד ב ר י ה צ ד ק ו מ ע ו ר עיני ח כ מ י ם‬Q T 51.13). W e d o n o t of c o u r s e d e n y t h a t t h e a c t i o n i n d i c a t e d b y a p a r t i c i p l e is o f t e n d u r a t i v e or i t e r a t i v e in n a t u r e , e . g . ‫ ( א ת ־ א ח ׳ א נ כ י מ ב ק ש‬G e n . 37.16), e s p e c i a l l y in c i r c u m s t a n c i a l c l a u s e s set in t h e p a s t c o n t e x t , a s a t G e n . 37.15, ‫ ו י מ צ א ה ו א י ש ו ה נ ה ת ע ה‬, o r 38.25, ‫ ה י א מ ו צ א ת ו ה י א ש ל ח ה‬. it m u s t b e a s k e d , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r it is r e a l l y d u r a t i v i t y , f r e q u e n c y , r e p e t i t i o n o r h a b i t u a l n e s s t h a t is i n d i c a t e d b y t h e v e r b a l c a t e g o r y of p a r t i c i p l e . It m a y r a t h e r b e a n a c t u a l p r e s e n t o r a f o r m of s i m u l t a n e i t y o r c o n c u r W e are doubtful that Joseph r e n c e , w h a t C o h e n calls concomitance.10 h a d t h e o p t i o n of s a y i n g 11.‫א ת א ח י אבקש‬

8

So also Waltke-O'Connor 1990:624: "the predicate participle ... distinguishes itself by e m p h a s i z i n g a durative circumstance". 9 See also Gibson 1994:§110: "In m a n y contexts and w i t h suitable verbs it [the ptc.] implies continuity, but this is not a necessary part of its m e a n i n g , as in other contexts and with other verbs it indicates a s i m p l e punctual action". 10 C o h e n 1984:302. 11 A c c o r d i n g to Joüon-Muraoka (1991:§121d) the imperfect w o u l d h a v e the s a m e v a l u e here and the u s e of the participle has been triggered b y the a d d i tion of the pronoun. But w h y w a s the p r o n o u n u s e d in the first place? Is it not because the participle has been chosen?

W i t h 91% of the p a r t i c i p l e s a p p e a r i n g in t h e first f i v e c h a p t e r s of m . S h a b b a t b e i n g p r e d i c a t i v e , this is m a n i f e s t l y t h e p r e d o m i n a n t s y n tactic u s e of t h e participle. T h i s is l a r g e l y d u e to t h e fact t h a t t h e p a r ticiple, w h e t h e r u s e d p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y w i t h ‫ א י ן‬, is t h e b a s i c v e r b f o r m in h a l a k h i c p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . T h e i m p e r f e c t , h o w e v e r , o c c u r s s o m e t i m e s a l o n g s i d e t h e participle: e.g. 5.3: ‫ ל א י ק ש ר ג מ ל י ם ז ה ב ז ה‬. . . ‫ צ א ה ג מ ל ב מ ט ו ט ל ת‬: ‫ו ב מ ה א י נ ה יוצא? ל א‬ ‫ א ב ל מכנים ח ב ל י ם ל ת ו ך ידו וימשך‬.‫וימשך‬ ' a n d w i t h w h a t m a y it n o t g o o u t ? A c a m e l m a y n o t g o o u t w i t h a r u g ... O n e m a y n o t tie c a m e l s w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d lead ( t h e m ) a l o n g . But o n e m a y h o l d (their) r o p e s in o n e ' s h a n d a n d lead ( t h e m ) a l o n g ‫ ׳‬. T h e l a n g u a g e of 1QS is d i s t i n c t n o t o n l y o n a c c o u n t of t h e striki n g l y h i g h f r e q u e n c y of t h e n o m i n a l p a r t i c i p l e , b u t this n o m i n a l u s e s h o w s a n u m b e r of n o t a b l e f e a t u r e s w h i c h a r e n o t o n l y p u r e l y g r a m matical in n a t u r e , b u t also stylistic. Firstly, w h e r e a s in all t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s the n o m i n a l l y u s e d p a r ticiple, a l m o s t w i t h o u t a n e x c e p t i o n , h a s a h u m a n or a n i m a t e r e f e r e n t , in 1QS w e f i n d a n u m b e r of cases w h e r e t h e u n s p e c i f i e d r e f e r e n t is i n a n i m a t e , n e u t e r o r s o m e a b s t r a c t e n t i t y : e.g., 1QS 1.8, ‫כ ו ל ה נ ג ל ו ת‬ ‫ ל מ ו ע ד י ת ע ו ד ו ת ם‬, 5.11, ‫ ל ד ע ת ה נ ס ת ר ו ת‬, a n d 10.24, ‫ר ק י ם א ש ב י ת מ ש פ ת י נ ד ו ת‬ ‫ ׳ ו נ פ ת ל ו ת מ ד ע ת ל ב י‬e m p t y t h i n g s I shall r e m o v e f r o m m y lips, f o u l a n d c r o o k e d t h i n g s f r o m the p e r c e p t i o n of m y m i n d ' . T h e r e m a i n i n g v e r b s t h a t fall u n d e r this c a t e g o r y a r e ‫ ג ל ה‬Ni. (5.9; 8.1,15; 9.13,19), ‫ ע ש ה‬Ni. (9.24), a n d ‫ ה ו ה‬Qal (11.4,5). By c o n t r a s t , 1 Q H , w h i c h a l s o s h o w s a h i g h p e r c e n t a g e of t h e nominalized participle, uses such a participle, virtually w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , w i t h r e f e r e n c e to h u m a n s : e.g., 2.10, ,3.13 ;‫מגדים‬//‫ישרי דרך‬ ‫ ' יושבי ע פ ר כ י ו ר ד י ימים‬t h o s e w h o sit in the d u s t a r e t h o s e w h o d e s c e n d i n t o t h e seas'. P o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n s a r e 9.18, ‫ " כ ו ל ה נ ע ז ב מ מ נ ה‬e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h is e x c l u d e d f r o m it" (Garcia M a r t i n e z ) , 1 2 a n d 3 . 3 2 , ‫ב ה מ ו ן נ ו ר ש י‬ ‫' ר פ ש‬with raging (waters) s p e w i n g out m u d ' . D e s p i t e this d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n 1QS a n d 1 Q H as r e g a r d s w h e t h e r t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l y u s e d p a r t i c i p l e r e f e r s to p e r s o n s o r i n a n i m a t e o b jects, t h e y s h a r e a n i m p o r t a n t s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e , n a m e l y t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e n o m i n a l u s e of t h e p a r t i c i p l e . Is t h e r e a n y r e a s o n f o r this s h a r e d f e a t u r e ? H a s it to d o w i t h the p o e t i c c h a r a c t e r of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n s ? T h o u g h the poetic c h a r a c t e r of t h e c l o s i n g c o l u m n s of 1QS (10-11) is g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i s e d , t h e first n i n e c o l u m n s a l s o s h o w f e a -

12

Cf. "all w h o forsake it" (Vermes) and "tous ceux qui sont a b a n d o n n é s loin d'elle" ( D u p o n t - S o m m e r ) . O n the striking sg. a n d def. art. of the participle, n o t e also 1QS 6.13:... ‫ כ ו ל המתנדב מישראל להוסיף‬/ / 1 . 7 : . . . ‫אח כ ו ל הנדבים ל ע ש ו ת‬. Cf. also 1QS 2.25:[‫כול המואס לבוא ]בברית‬.

t u r e s of s k i l f u l l i t e r a r y c r a f t i n g . S e c o n d l y , w h e r e a s in t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s p a r t i c i p l e s of t h i s t y p e a r e o f t e n b a r e participles, s u c h as D O p , ‫ מ ע ו נ ן‬, or r a t h e r s h o r t , as in ‫ י ו ש ב י ה ע י ר‬, s o t h a t t h e y a r e m o r e n o m i n a l t h a n v e r b a l , like a g e n t / a c t o r n o u n s , t h o s e in 1QS e s p e c i a l l y a p p e a r to r e t a i n m o r e v e r b a l c h a r a c t e r , a s s h o w n b y t h e t y p e of c o m p l e m e n t s t h a t f o l l o w t h e m : 1 Q S 1.7: . . . ‫ ; א ת כ ו ל ה נ ד ב י ם ל ע ש ו ת‬2 . 2 5 : [ ‫כול ה מ ו א ס ל ב ו א ] ב ב ר י ת‬,· 5 . 6 : ‫ה נ ל ו י ם ע ל י ה ם‬ ‫ ; ל י ת ר‬6 . 1 3 : . . . ‫כול ה מ ת נ ר ב מ י ש ר א ל ל ה ו ס י ף‬,· 7 . 9 : ‫ ל מ ד ב ר ב ת ו ך ד ב ר י ר ע ה ו‬/ / ‫ ; א ש ר י ד ב ר‬7 . 1 5 : ‫ ; ה מ ו צ י א א ת י ד ש מ א ו ל ו‬s i m i l a r l y in 1 Q H 4 . 2 4 : ‫כ ו ל ה נ ד ר ש י ם‬ ‫ ; ל י ה נ ו ע ד י ם י ח ד ל ב ר י ת כ ה‬4.24: ‫ ; ה ה ו ל כ י ם ב ד ר ך ל ב כ ה‬6.25: ‫; כ ב א ב ע י ר מ צ ו ר‬ 2.5:[‫משמיעי שמחה ל א ב ל ימון‬. T h i r d l y , a stylistic f e a t u r e . T h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p l e s of t h i s n o m i n a l t y p e in 1QS is p r e c e d e d b y t h e q u a n t i f i e r 1.‫כול‬QHa b o u n d s in s u c h c a s e s . B e f o r e w e l e a v e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e f r e q u e n c y a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e v a r i o u s s y n t a c t i c u s e s of t h e p a r t i c i p l e , w e w o u l d like to m e n t i o n o n e m o r e u s e of t h e p a r t i c i p l e , n a m e l y c o m p l e m e n t a r y p a r t i c i p l e . T h i s is a p a r t i c i p l e u s e d to c o m p l e m e n t a n d e x p a n d a n o t h e r v e r b o r p s e u d o - v e r b . Its u s e is w e l l a t t e s t e d in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w : e.g. ‫צ ר י כ י ן‬ ‫( ה ד י י נ י ן מ כ י ר י ן א ת הנידונין‬j. G i t t i n 50.3). P e r e z F e r n a n d e z ( 1 9 9 7 : 1 3 6 ) q u o t e s f r o m m . T a ' a n i t 3.8, w h e r e t h e p a r t i c i p l e a s w e l l a s t h e i n f i n i t i v e o c c u r n e x t to e a c h o t h e r : ‫ ה ת ח י ל ו לי_רד ב ז ע ף‬. . . ‫ה ת ח י ל ו ה ג ש מ י ם מ נ ט פ י ן‬ ' t h e r a i n s b e g a n d r i p p i n g ... t h e y b e g a n t o fall w i t h f o r c e ‫ ׳‬. M i s h o r ( 1 9 8 3 : 2 6 8 ) s t a t e s t h a t t h i s u s a g e is w i d e s p r e a d in t h e i d i o m s of W e s t e r n A r a m a i c . O n e w o u l d p o i n t o u t t h a t it is e q u a l l y w i d e s p r e a d in Classical Syriac, a n Eastern A r a m a i c dialect a c c o r d i n g to the s t a n d a r d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( s e e M u r a o k a 1997:§98d). T h i s m a y b e t h e n a n o t h e r isogloss b e t w e e n Western A r a m a i c a n d Classical Syriac. H o w e v e r t h a t m a y b e , t h i s u s a g e is n o t a t t e s t e d in o u r c o r p u s e v e n w h e r e s u c h a s y n t a g m c o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e d : 1 Q M 9.1: ‫י ח ל ו י ד ם ל ה פ י ל‬ ‫ ׳ ב ח ל ל י ם‬t h e y w i l l b e g i n to s t r i k e t h e f a l l e n w i t h t h e i r h a n d ‫ ( ׳‬t h o u g h t h e v e r b ‫ ה ח ל‬is a d m i t t e d l y n o t t y p i c a l of M H ) ; 1 Q H 15.13: ‫ל א י ו כ ל אנוש‬ ‫ ' ל ה כ י ן צ ע ד ו‬m a n cannot p r e p a r e his step'.

II: The periphrastic

syntagm

<‫ היה‬+

T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n , to w h i c h w e c o n c e r n s t h e u s e of t h e p a r t i c i p l e v e r b ‫ ה י ה‬in a s y n t a g m w h i c h m a y tense.13 This question has received 13

participle> w i s h to d e v o t e t h e r e m a i n i n g t i m e , in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e u b i q u i t o u s be called periphrastic or c o m p o u n d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n b y D. C o h e n

O n the general, theoretical and c o m p a r a t i v e a s p e c t s of this structure, s e e Rosen 1991

in h i s m o n o g r a p h m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r . G o r d o n a l s o d i s c u s s e s it in r e l a t i o n t o Biblical, M i s h n a i c a n d M o d e r n H e b r e w . K e s t e r s o n (1984:195200) a l s o d e a l s w i t h t h e i s s u e in h i s s t u d y of 1 Q S a n d C D , a s w e l l a s v a n P e u r s e n (1997), a s t u d e n t of m i n e , w h o h a s i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c t e n s e in t h e H e b r e w of Ben Sira. Q i m r o n (1986:70) n o t e s s u c c i n c t l y : " I n t h e DSS, t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n is a t t e s t e d a b o u t 5 0 t i m e s , c h i e f l y in T S " . It is o f t e n s a i d t h a t t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c t e n s e is r a r e in Biblical H e b r e w . 1 4 C o n s u l t i n g t h e e n t r y ‫( ה י ה‬Qal) in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. 2 (1995) w e l e a r n t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e is a t t e s t e d in t h e H e b r e w Bible 124 t i m e s . 1 5 In r e l a t i v e t e r m s , n a m e l y in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t e n s of t h o u s a n d s of f r e e - s t a n d i n g v e r b f o r m s , t h e s e a r e b u t a d r o p in t h e o c e a n , b u t in a b s o l u t e t e r m s t h e y c a n n o t b e b r u s h e d a s i d e a s r a r e . Let u s t u r n to t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s e 124 c a s e s a m o n g t h e b i b l i cal b o o k s . T r u e , o n e f i n d s 17 in C h r o n i c l e s a n d 12 in N e h e m i a h . But in t h e b o o k of K i n g s w e f i n d 27 (18 in 2 K i n g s ) , w h i c h is o n l y t w o l e s s t h a n in C h r o n i c l e s a n d N e h e m i a h p u t t o g e t h e r . In t h e b o o k s of S a m u e l t h e r e o c c u r 13 e x a m p l e s a n d in t h e P e n t a t e u c h 18. T h u s it is h a r d l y t h e c a s e t h a t t h e s y n t a g m is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of L a t e Biblical H e b r e w , 1 6 t h o u g h o n e c o u l d a l w a y s a r g u e t h a t t h e f i n a l r e d a c t i o n of t h e Bible is late. N o n e t h e l e s s , w h e n t h e s t r u c t u r e is s a i d to b e t y p i c a l of L a t e Biblical H e b r e w , 1 7 o n e is r e f e r r i n g to b o o k s s u c h a s C h r o n i c l e s , Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel.

14

So Qimron 1986:70: "only occasionally in the Bible, m o s t l y in the later books". Qimron cites Joiion 1927:§121g where, however, o n e reads "Dans la l a n g u e postérieure o n trouve la forme périphrastique ‫ הייה ק ט ל‬au s e n s d'un pur parfait il tua (sans nuance durative ou fréquentative) ...". This has n o w been revised to read: "On occasion the periphrastic construction appears superfluous, particularly in the later books, but a close look s u g g e s t s that the real force of the construction is akin to that of the inchoative imperfect of Greek or the graphic historic present" (Joüon-Muraoka 1991: §121g). 15 W e d o not k n o w h o w Rendsburg (1990:26) has c o m e to the figure of "about thirty". 16 C o n t r a s t Morag's (1988:160) more nuanced statement: "... a d e v e l o p m e n t that started in the First Temple and greatly expanded in LBH". 17 S e e , for example, Driver 1892:170: "... the more frequent use of the combination is characteristic of the later writers ..."; Gibson 1994:138: "... more c o m m o n in later books ...".

Frequency Source

Γ‫ה י ן‬

0/ΓΡΠ ( Q a l ) + participle

Genesis

'2

‫ויהי‬ ί

Exodus

1

1

Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings

‫י ה‬F‫ה‬Τ‫ו‬

2

1

I

‫יהי‬, ί

4 1 1 3 5 3

Isaiah 3

Ezekiel XII

6

Psalms

1 1

1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah

‫יהיה‬

Hebrew18 ‫להיות‬ ‫ י‬1

‫היה‬

Total 5 5 2

2

Jeremiah

Job Proverbs

in Biblical

1 2 4

1

5 8

5 4

9 18

15 1

2

3

1

5 7

2 2

1 3

1

3 2 2

1 1

7

3 10 1 4

Daniel

2

3 1

Lamentations Koheleth

1

Esther

0 6 0 4

1

0 4 13 1 1

12 3

6 3 1 0

Song

0

Ruth 4

0 124

1

4) 2

Total (Ben Sira 1QS

18

45

56

8

7

4

1

3

Passive participles and participles of stative verbs have been excluded. Cases of coordinate participles have been counted as one, as is the case with this sole e x a m p l e in 1QS where, beginning with 1.18, ‫יהיו הכוהנים והלוים מברכים‬, w e h a v e m o r e participles f o l l o w i n g , e v e n w i t h a n e w subject in the immediate sequel: ‫ ומשמיעים‬. . . ‫וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחריהם אמן אמן והכוהנים מ ס פ ר י ם‬, ...‫ והלויםמספרים‬...‫׳‬ etc. See Muraoka 1996:578. 19

11QT Source O t h e r DSS m. Shabbat

'7 l22

‫ויהי‬ I2'0

34 ‫יהיה‬ 11 21 l23

2 ‫ ה‬: ‫ה וי ה‬ 25

‫יהי‬

‫להיות‬

‫היה‬ 3

36 Total 3

A g a i n , largely b a s e d o n t h e listing in t h e D i c t i o n a r y of Classical H e b r e w w e f i n d at least 25 m o r e cases in o t h e r DSS, w h i c h m a k e a total of 63. 2 4 T h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e of this s y n t a g m in 11QT, a s a l r e a d y n o t e d b y Q i m r o n , is striking. 2 5 T h e y a r e largely c o n c e n t r a t e d in t h e m i d d l e section of t h e d o c u m e n t , c o l u m n s 31-59. 2 6 In Q u m r a n H e b r e w in g e n e r a l a n d in 11QT in p a r t i c u l a r t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t s y n t a g m is t h e c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h a f r e e - s t a n d i n g ‫ י ה י ה‬. Q i m r o n (1978:96) s e e m s to h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e h i g h f r e q u e n c y in 11QT of t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c s t r u c t u r e in g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t e s t h e m o s t m a r k e d d e p a r t u r e of its l a n g u a g e f r o m Biblical H e b r e w . It is r a t h e r t h e f r e q u e n c y of this p a r t i c u l a r s y n t a g m , c l m p f . ‫ ה י ה י‬+ ptc.>, t h a t s e e m s to u s to b e t h e h a l l m a r k of the i d i o m of this Q u m r a n d o c u m e n t . Its p r e p o n d e r a n c e in 11QT is largely d u e to its literary g e n r e : it is n o t a h i s torical n a r r a t i v e . W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of M u r 4 2 . 6 , ‫ ' ש ל א ת ה י א ו מ ר‬s o t h a t y o u will n o t s a y / t h i n k ' , all t h e e x a m p l e s a r e p r e s c r i p t i v e s t a t e m e n t s

20

This rare e x a m p l e occurs at 4QApacJerC 2.4,‫ויהי ירמיה מקונן‬, ‫׳‬and Jeremiah kept lamenting.‫׳‬ 21 A t Mur 42.6 ‫ שלא תהי א מ ו ר‬s h o u l d be corrected to ‫ אומר‬..., pace Milik (1961:158), w h o c o m m e n t s "participe passif qui e x p r i m e la n u a n c e durativefréquentative d'un verb actif". This verb is not o n the list of such verbs c o m p i l e d b y Segal (1927:161). ‫ תהי‬is n o j u s s i v e in the s e n s e of Biblical H e b r e w g r a m m a r , but rather ‫תהי‬. At 4Q225 2:2.10, ‫ ל א יהיה א ה ב‬, the form c o n c e r n e d c o u l d b e a substantivised participle and a scribal error d u e to h a p l o g r a p h y for ‫ ' אהבי‬m y friend.‫׳‬ 22 5.4: ‫ היתה יוצאה‬. . . ‫׳ פ ר ת ו‬his c o w ... used to g o out.‫׳‬ 23 2.4: ‫׳ בשביל שתהא מנספת‬so that it will drip.‫׳‬ 24 R e f e r e n c e s to these 25 cases are: l Q S b 4.25; 4 Q M M T Β 12, 16, 26; Mur 24.2.15, 3.13; Mur 42.6; 1QM 2.1, 7.12 ( m i s s i n g in DCH), 8.1 (ditto); 2QJub b 46.2; 4 Q Cat 3 1.8 (2x); 1Q Jub a 27.20; 4 Q Q u o t 64.5; 4Q Flor 1.1.6; 4Q ApocJerC 2.4; 4Q477; 5 / 6 0 e v B A 45 fr. 2; 4Q20() 2.3,4,6,; 6.2; 4Q221 5.6; 4Q225 2:2.10. In addition w e find ‫ היה‬w i t h a p a s s i v e participle at C D 4.12; 4 Q M M T C 24,26; 11QT 35.13. 25

O n account of this high incidence in 11QT Yadin (1977:1, 30) felt c o n f i d e n t e n o u g h to o v e r c o m e the uncertainty m o o t e d by Goshen-Gottstein (1965:129), w h o had f o u n d the p h e n o m e n o n too sparingly attested to be called a feature typical of Q u m r a n H e b r e w . 26 This is o n e of the a r g u m e n t s of W i l s o n a n d Wills (1982:286) for isolating part of this section as a separate literary unit.

2

‫י‬

of o n e s o r t o r a n o t h e r a n d t h e y a r e p r e s e n t e d a s p r e s c r i p t i o n s 2 7 of p e r m a n e n t v a l i d i t y (so a l s o 4 Q M M T B12, 16), a n o t i o n e x p r e s s e d b y t h e a u t h o r of 11QT in e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h a s11)‫ ח ו ק ו ת ע ו ל ם‬Q T 18.8; 27.4). T h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e s e p r e s c r i p t i o n s a r e v a l i d p e r m a n e n t l y a n d a r e to b e a c t e d u p o n r e p e a t e d l y is m a d e explicit a n d r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e a d d i tion of a d v e r b i a l c o m p l e m e n t s , as in 11QT 4 2 . 1 2 : . . . ‫ותיו ה ס ו כ ו ת נ ע ש ו ת‬ ‫ ' ב כ ו ל ש נ ה ושנה‬a n d t h e b o o t h s shall b e m a d e ... in e v e r y s i n g l e y e a r ' ; 1 Q M 2.1: ‫ ' ל ה י ו ת מ ש ר ת י ם ב ת מ י ד‬t o b e s e r v i n g a l w a y s ' ; M u r 24:2.15; 3.13: 1‫ ] כ ח ל שנה ושנה‬... ‫ ׳ א ה א ש ו ק ל‬shall p a y ... e v e r y s i n g l e y e a r ' . T h e l o n g s e r i e s of d i r e c t i v e s in t h e first t w o c o l u m n s of 1QS c o n c l u d e s w i t h 1QS 2.19: ‫ ' כ כ ה יעשו שנה ב ש נ ה כ ו ל יומי מ מ ש ל ת ב ל י ע ל‬t h u s t h e y s h a l l b e d o i n g y e a r a f t e r y e a r all t h e d a y s of t h e r e i g n of Belial'. In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n w e find it also i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e a u t h o r of 11QT c h a n g e s t h e s y n t a g m of the biblical text h e is o b v i o u s l y d r a w i n g u p o n : . . . ‫א ש ר ת ה י ה ה צ ו א ה י ו ר ד ת א ל ת ו כ מ ה ו ל ו א ת ה י ה נ ר א ה ל כ ו ל ר ח ו ק מן ה ע י ר‬ ' i n t o w h i c h e x c r e m e n t shall b e d r o p p i n g a n d it shall n o t b e visible f r o m a total d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e city . . . ' (11QT 46.15), as a g a i n s t ‫ ( ו ל ^ ־ י ך א ה ב ף ע ח ת ך ב ר‬D e u t . 23.15); as a g a i n s t ‫( ו כ כ ה ת א כ ל ו א ת ו‬Exod. 12.11); a n d ‫והיו א ו י ב י ה מ ה ש ו מ מ י ם ב מ ה‬ ' a n d y o u r e n e m i e s shall be a s t o n i s h e d 2 8 at t h e m ' ( 1 1 Q T 59.4), as a g a i n s t Lev. 2 6 . 3 2 : 2 9 . ‫א י ב י כ ם‬ ‫ושממו ע ל י ה‬ 27

What Kesterson (1984:197) calls injunctive. N o t ‫( יביאו שממה‬Yadin 1977: II, 187), "their e n e m i e s shall l e a v e them razed" (Garcia Martinez 1994:175), "their e n e m i e s shall d e v a s t a t e t h e m " ( V e r m e s 1995:175), "Leurs e n n e m i s feront d e s ravages parmis e u x " (Caquot 1987:122), nor "their e n e m i e s shall d e v a s t a t e them time a n d a g a i n " ( W i s e 1996:486). Such an interpretation requires a Hifil of the root. The correct translation is "... ihre F e i n d e sich über die e n t s e t z e n " (Maier 1978:60) and "hun vijanden z u l l e n zieh o v e r hen ontzetten" (Garcia Martinez-van der W o u d e 1994-95: I, 173). The o n l y difficulty is that the verb in question in the s e n s e required here regularly takes ‫על‬. The verb in a context like ours d e n o t e s more than a merely neutral a s t o n i s h m e n t , but an e m o t i o n tinged w i t h d i s d a i n and c o n t e m p t , as s h o w n in the p r e c e d i n g sentence: ‫ י ה י ו ע ר י ה מ ה ל ש ו מ ה ו ל ש ר ק ה ו ל ח ר ב ה‬. Verbs indieating such an attitude, e.g. ‫ לעג‬Hifil, o f t e n take the preposition ‫ ;ב‬see Jenni 1992: 263. The preposition Beth is equally u n u s u a l for the s e n s e indicated by the q u o t e d translations. 28

29

T h i s skilful u s e of the periphrastic s y n t a g m by the author of 11QT r e m i n d s o n e of an e q u a l l y deliberate and skilful use of the related periphrastic s y n t a g m ‫ ה י ה‬+ ptc. by a l e a d i n g Israeli writer, A h a r o n M e g e d , in h i s n o v e l l a • ‫ י ד ו ש‬, the central t h e m e of w h i c h is the perpetuation of the past acted o u t b y its hero, ‫סבא זיסקינד‬, w h o s e actions and those of the other dramatis p e r s o n a e are cast in this periphrastic structure t h r o u g h o u t the story: ‫א ח ר ־ ; ס ב א היה מפציר‬ ‫היתה רעיה נחלצת להושיע אח יהודה;ולבסוף היה בא אוחא ד ב ר ; כ ך היה סבא שואל‬, etc., etc.

This u n i q u e f e a t u r e of t h e s y n t a g m <ΓΓΓΓ + ptc.> in 11QT b e c o m e s all t h e m o r e s t r i k i n g w h e n o n e n o t e s w i t h M i s h o r (1983:375) t h a t t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c s y n t a g m w i t h f o r m s o t h e r t h a n t h e p e r f e c t t e n s e is in M H n o t a s r e g u l a r a n d f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d (‫מגובש‬, ‫ ) ס ד י ר‬a s t h e o t h e r v e r b f o r m s , s u c h a s i m p f . , i m p v . a n d inf. A n o t h e r t h i n g to b e n o t e d a b o u t t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c t e n s e is t h a t its u s e is o p t i o n a l . T h i s is t r u e n o t o n l y in Q u m r a n H e b r e w , b u t a l r e a d y in Biblical H e b r e w . A n a c c o u n t of t h e i n d u s t r i o u s m a n u f a c t u r i n g of h e a t h e n i d o l s b e g i n s w i t h t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c s t r u c t u r e a t 2 K g s 17.29: ‫ ' ויהיו ע ש י ם גוי גוי א ל ה י ו‬a n d e a c h p e o p l e b u s i e d t h e m s e l v e s w i t h m a k i n g their g o d s ' . T h i s is f o l l o w e d b y a series of ‫ ע ש ו‬c l a u s e s e l a b o r a t i n g t h e l a b o u r of v a r i o u s e t h n i c g r o u p s (17.30): . . . ‫ואנשי ב ב ל ע ש ו א ת ־ ס כ ו ת בנות ואנשי כ ו ת א ת נ ת ל‬. See also Isa. 30.20, ‫ ואזניך ת ש מ ע נ ה ךבו־‬. . . ‫והיו ע י נ י ך ר ^ ו ת‬, a n d 59.2, ‫א ם עוינתיכם היו מ ב ד י ל י ם ב י נ כ ם ל ב י ן א ל ה י כ ם‬ ‫;וחנ(אותיכם ה ס ת י ר ו פ נ י ם מ כ ם מ ש מ ו ע‬ N e h . 1.4, ‫ מ י ם ואהי צם‬: ‫שבתי ו א ב כ ה ו א ת א ב ל ה‬:, a n d 5.18, ‫ נעשו ל י‬. . . ‫ ה נ ע ש ה‬: ‫ ו א ש ר ה‬. See a l s o Isa. 14.2. F o r Q u m r a n H e b r e w w e n o t e 1 Q M 2.1: ‫ל ה י ו ת‬ ‫ מ ש ר ת י ם ב ת מ י ד‬/ / 2.2: ‫ • ל ש ר ת ת מ י ד‬M i s h o r a l s o d i s c u s s e s c a s e s in Mishnaic H e b r e w w h e r e the distinction between the periphrastic t e n s e a n d t h e s i m p l e t e n s e s a p p e a r s to be b e c o m i n g n e u t r a l i z e d . 3 0 W h e r e a s in Biblical H e b r e w 3 1 a n d Ben Sira 3 2 w e f i n d s e v e r a l exa m p l e s of a p a r t i c i p l e u s e d w i t h a n i m p e r a t i v e o r a j u s s i v e of ‫ ה י ה‬a n d the s y n t a g m is fairly c o m m o n in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w 3 3 , n o t a single s u c h c a s e is a t t e s t e d in o u r Q u m r a n c o r p u s . 3 4 Since m o s t of the cases of t h e s y n t a g m ‫ י ה י ה‬+ ptc. o r its e q u i v a l e n t , ‫ ו ה י ה‬+ ptc., in 11QT a r e p r e s c r i p five, this is r e m a r k a b l e . A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n m a y b e t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e M i s h n a h is largely b a s e d o n a v e r n a c u l a r 3 5 , w h e r e a s t h a t 30

Mishor 1983:365f., 381-89. Likewise in Ben Sira (van Peursen 1997:173). E.g. Gen. 1 . 6 : . ‫ל מ י ם‬ ‫ויהי מ ב ד י ל בין מים‬ 32 E.g. 5 . 1 1 : . ‫מ מ ה ר‬ ‫היה‬ 33 E.g. ‫ ;הווי מ ק ב ל‬see also Bendavid 1971: II, 540. 34 On this question in Aramaic w i t h s o m e c o m p a r a t i v e data from Mishnaic H e b r e w , see Greenfield 1969. 35 This d o e s not m e a n that Mishnaic H e b r e w represented a form of s p o k e n H e b r e w in the tannaitic period. It is quite c o n c e i v a b l e that, w h e r e a s the lang u a g e had crystallized into a written idiom, certain features of it originated in a s p o k e n form of the language. Cf. the notion of 'mixing of levels' d e v e l o p e d by Morag (1996:211f.). 31

of 1 1 Q T is a l i t e r a r y i d i o m . It is n o t , in o u r v i e w , a c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t t h e A r a m a i c e q u i v a l e n t of t h i s s y n t a g m is o n e of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l i n g u i s t i c t r a i t s of t h e H e r m o p o l i s p a p y r i , a c o l l e c t i o n of u n m i s t a k a b l y i n f o r m a l a n d h o m e l y letters36, a l t h o u g h the s y n t a g m in t h e s e late s i x t h - o r e a r l y f i f t h - c e n t u r y l e t t e r s is n o t d u r a t i v e , i t e r a t i v e , b u t r a t h e r s e r v e s t o i n d i c a t e a s e n s e of u r g e n c y o r a t o n e of i n s i s t e n c e . T h e p o s i t i o n of t h e p a r t i c i p l e in r e l a t i o n t o t h e a u x i l i a r y ‫ ה י ה‬w a s o n e of t h e q u e s t i o n s d i s c u s s e d b y G r e e n f i e l d (1969:204f.). 3 7 I n o u r Q u m r a n c o r p u s w e h a v e f o u n d n o i n s t a n c e of a p t c . p r e c e d i n g a f o r m of ‫ ה י ה‬, e x c e p t a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p l e ( w e h a v e e x c l u d e d p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p i e s f r o m o u r s t u d y ) :11)‫ מ ו ב ד י ל י ם יהיו מ ק ו מ ו ת מ ה‬Q T 35.13). By c o n t r a s t , Biblical H e b r e w k n o w s s e v e r a l s u c h e x a m p l e s : ‫ ( מ מ ך י ם ה י י ת ם ע • י ׳‬D e u t . 9.7,24; 3 1 . 2 7 ) ; ‫ ( מ ק צ פ י ם ה י י ת ם א ת ־ י ׳‬D e u t . 9 . 2 2 ) ; ‫ר ע ה ה י ה ע ב ד ך ל א ב י ו ב ^ א ן‬ 1) S a m . 1 7 : 3 4 ) ; ‫ ( מ ת ב ו ס ס ת ' ב ך מ ך ה י י ת‬E z e k . 1 6 . 2 2 ) ; ‫ ( &ךיה ו ע נ פ ה ה י ת ה‬È z e k . 1 9 . 1 0 ) ; ‫( ע מ ד ו ת היו ר ג ל י נ ו‬Ps. 122.2). 3 8 T h i s is q u i t e c o m m o n in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w : ‫( מ ס ת כ ל ה י י ת י ב מ ע ש ה ב ר א ש י ת‬t. H a g i g a h 2.5). 3 9 N o f u n c t i o n a l o p p o s i t i o n c a n b e e s t a b l i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e t w o s e q u e n c e s , a s in O f f i cial A r a m a i c . K a d d a r i ' s a t t e m p t ( K a d d a r i 1991:31X1-18) t o s h o w t h a t t h e s y n t a g m < p t c . + ‫ > ה י ה‬w i t h a p a r t i c i p l e p r e c e d i n g is m a r k e d f o r emphasis, contrast, rejection/selection, a n d vernacular, as well as for punctiliar, unique or m o m e n t a r y aspect, does not convince us. Too m a n y diverse features are b u n d l e d together as significant for a single syntagm.

Ill: Possible Aramaic influence on the periphrastic

syntagm

A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r a c o u p l e of t i m e s , t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c t e n s e is o f t e n s a i d to o w e its o r i g i n t o A r a m a i c i n f l u e n c e . In t h i s r e s p e c t S e g a l s e e m s to h a v e p l a y e d a v o i c e c r y i n g in t h e w i l d e r n e s s . 4 0 A l t h o u g h w e n o w k n o w t h a t h e g e n e r a l l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e d t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y A r a m a i c in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of L a t e Biblical H e b r e w a n d M i s h n a i c H e b r e w , a n d t h e e v i d e n c e h e q u o t e d to s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e A r a m a i c i n f l u n c e o n t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c t e n s e in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w h o l d s l i t t l e w a t e r , 4 1 w e h a v e p o i n t e d o u t a b o v e t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e in q u e s t i o n is 36

S e e Muraoka-Porten 1997:§55. There is another example in D7.6:10, also an informal letter, though once the syntagm occurs in an official letter (A6.1:3). Classical Syriac, which displays the richest variety of periphrastic tenses, d o e s not attest to this particular syntagm. 37 See also Muraoka-Porten 1997:§55. 38 See also an instance in the Yavneh Yam inscription: .(‫עבדך( קוצר היה עבדך‬ 39 For more examples, see Bendavid 1971: II, 524f. 40 Segal 1908: 699f. 41 His is a negative argument: he points out that neither Biblical nor Mishnaic

f i r m l y r o o t e d in pre-exilic b o o k s , w h e r e a s t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e in A r a m a i c b e c o m e s a real f a c t o r o n l y in t h e O f f i c i a l A r a m a i c of t h e P e r s i a n p e r i o d . 4 2 D i r e c t A r a m a i c i n f l u e n c e is t h u s u n l i k e l y , a t l e a s t initially. 4 3 T h e m o s t o n e c o u l d s a y is t h a t in t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d this n a t i v e H e b r e w s y n t a g m w a s reinforced t h r o u g h constant contacts w i t h Aramaic. Because Classical BH used the self-standing i m p f , as a f o r m w i t h i t e r a t i v e , h a b i t u a l , o r c o n t i n u o u s f o r c e , a s i n G e n . 29.2, ‫ ' מן ה ב א ר ה ה ו א ישקו ה ע ד ר י ם‬f r o m that well they w o u l d give d r i n k to the f l o c k s ' , it is a r e a s o n a b l e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e p e r i p h r a s t i c s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e s a m e s e m a n t i c f o r c e b e g a n to p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e a t t h e time that the iterative, habitual or c o n t i n u o u s imperfect h a d b e g u n to l o s e its g r o u n d . 4 4 S u c h a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e H e b r e w t e n s e s y s t e m m a y h a v e i n t e n s i f i e d w i t h t h e o n s e t of t h e i n f l u e n c e of O f f i c i a l A r a maic. F r o m t h e v a n t a g e p o i n t of t h e m o r p h o s y n t a x a n d s y n t a x of t h e participle, Q u m r a n H e b r e w bears typologically intermediate features, w h i c h a c c o r d w i t h its c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n Biblical H e b r e w o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d M i s h n a i c H e b r e w o n t h e o t h e r . It d i s p l a y s , h o w e v e r , s o m e t r a i t s b e a r i n g w i t n e s s to c l o s e c o n t a c t s w i t h A r a m a i c a s w e l l a s f e a t u r e s u n i q u e t o it. 4 5

Bibliography B e n d a v i d , Α., 1 9 6 9 - 7 1 : Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic ‫( ] מ ק ר א ולשון ח כ מ י ם‬Tel A v i v : D v i r ) .

Hebrew

[‫לשון‬

H e b r e w ever combines ‫ היה‬with a finite verb form, as Syriac d o e s with its equivalent, and, as is occasionally attested in targumim, his e x a m p l e s from which latter source are rather dubious. 42 What Greenfield (1969:201) quotes as the only Old Aramaic example, Sefire 3.6, ‫' הוי חלפה‬be his successor', d o e s not belong here, as his o w n translation suggests, for it is a s u b s t a n t i a l l y used participle. Moreover, a pronominal object of a participle is mediated by the preposition lamed. 43 Kaddari's study (1983) points to a number of shared syntactic and semantic traits b e t w e e n H e b r e w ‫ היה‬and Aramaic ‫הוה‬. But the presence of such a b u n d l e of shared features d o e s not constitute by itself a case for Aramaic influence on Hebrew. 44 T h e w o r d i n g of the concluding part of this statement represents an improvement on the oral version, for, as remarked by Prof. Joosten, the iterative or durative imperfect w o u l d linger on for a w h i l e yet, as w e k n o w from the language of Ben Sira, for instance. 45 F o r a tentative characterization of Qumran Hebrew, see the author's forthc o m i n g s t u d y 'Qumran Hebrew‫׳‬, in L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford).

C a q u o t , Α., 1987: ' R o u l e a u d u T e m p l e ' , in A. D u p o n t - S o m m e r a n d M . P h i l o n e n k o ( e d s ) , La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires (Paris: G a l l i m a r d ) , p p . 61-132. C l i n e s , D.J. A . (ed.), 1 9 9 3 , 1 9 9 5 : The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, V o l s . 1 a n d 2 ( E x e c u t i v e e d . J.F. E l w o l d e ; S h e f f i e l d : S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i e Press). C o h e n , D., 1984: La Phrase nominale et l'évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Études de syntaxe historique ( L e u v e n : P e e t e r s ) . D r i v e r , S.R., 1892, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and some other Syntactical Questions ( T h i r d e d . ; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n ) . D y k , J.W, 1994: ' P a r t i c i p l e s in C o n t e x t . A C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d S t u d y of Old T e s t a m e n t H e b r e w ' (Ph.D. diss., Free University, A m s terdam). G a r c i a M a r t i n e z , F., 1994: The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English ( T r a n s . W . G . E . W a t s o n ; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill. — a n d A.S. v a n d e r W o u d e , 1994-95: De Rollen van de Dode Zee ( T w o parts; K a m p e n : Kok a n d Lanno/Tielt). G i b s o n , J.C.L., 1994: Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar. Syntax (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark). G o r d o n , Α., 1982: ' T h e D e v e l o p m e n t of t h e P a r t i c i p l e in B i b l i c a l , M i s h n a i c , a n d M o d e r n H e b r e w ‫ ׳‬, Afroasiatic Linguistics 8.3. G o s h e n - G o t t s t e i n , M . H . 1965: ' L i n g u i s t i c S t r u c t u r e a n d T r a d i t i o n in t h e Q u m r a n D o c u m e n t s ' ( S e c o n d e d . ) , Scripta Hierosolymitana 4, p p . 101-37. G r e e n f i e l d , J.C., 1969: ' T h e " P e r i p h r a s t i c I m p e r a t i v e " in A r a m a i c a n d H e b r e w , IE] 19, p. 199-210. J e n n i , E., 1992: Die hebräischen Präpositionen; Band Ί: Die Präposition Beth ( S t u t t g a r t : W . K o h l h a m m e r ) . J o i i o n , P., 1923: Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique ( R o m e : P o n t i f i c a l Biblical Institute Press). — T . M u r a o k a , 1991 ( c o r r e c t e d e d . 1993): A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew ( T w o v o l s . ; S u b s i d i a Biblica 14 I / I I ; R o m a : P o n t i f i c i o I s t i t u t o Biblico). K e s t e r s o n , J. C h . , 1984: ' T e n s e U s a g e a n d V e r b a l S y n t a x in S e l e c t e d Q u m r a n D o c u m e n t s ' ( P h . D . d i s s . , C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of America). K u t s c h e r , Ε.Y., 1959: ‫ ( ה ל ש ו ן ו ה ר ק ע ה ל ש ו נ י ש ל מ נ י ל ת י ש ע י ה ו‬J e r u s a l e m : Magnes). — 1 9 7 4 : The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Qlsaa) ( L e i d e n : E.J.Brill). M a i e r , J., 1978: Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer ( M ü n c h e n : E r n s t R e i n hardt). M i l i k , J.T., 1961: Les Grottes de Murabba'at ( W i t h P . B e n o i t a n d R. d e V a u x ; DJD, 2; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n ) .

M i s h o r , M . , 1983: ' T h e T e n s e S y s t e m in T a n a i t i c H e b r e w ‫מ ע ר כ ת [ ׳‬ ‫ ( ] ה ז מ נ י ם ב ל ש ו ן ה ת נ א י ם‬P h . D. d i s s . , J e r u s a l e m ) . M o r a g , S., 1988: ‫ ׳‬Q u m r a n H e b r e w : S o m e T y p o l o g i c a l O b s e r v a t i o n s ' , VT 38, p p . 148-64. — 1 9 9 6 . ‫ ׳‬L a n g u a g e a n d S t y l e in M i q s a t m a ' a s e h a - t o r a h — D i d M o r e h h a - S e d e q w r i t e t h i s d o c u m e n t ? ‫ ׳‬, Tarbiz 65, p p . 209-23 (in H e b rew). M u r a o k a , T., 1996: ' N o t a e q u m r a n i c a e p h i l o l o g i c a e (1), RQ 17, p p . 573-83. — 1 9 9 7 : Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar ( P o r t a L i n g u a r u m O r i e n t a l ium; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). — a n d B. P o r t e n , 1997; A Grammar of Egißitian Aramaic (Handbuch der Orientalistik; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill) P é r e z F e r n a n d e z , M . , 1997: An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew ( T r a n s . J.F. E l w o l d e ; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill. v a n P e u r s e n , W . Th., 1997: ' P e r i p h r a s t i c T e n s e s in Ben S i r a ' , in T. M u r a o k a a n d J.F. E l w o l d e ( e d s ) , The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University Π-14 December 1995 ( L e i d e n : E.J. Brill), p p . 158-73. Q i m r o n , E., 1978: ' T h e L a n g u a g e of t h e T e m p l e Scroll', Leš. 42, p p . 8398. — 1 9 8 6 , The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; A t l a n t a : S c h o l a r s Press). — 1 9 9 4 . ' T h e L a n g u a g e ' , in E. Q i m r o n a n d J. S t r u g n e l l , Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Ma'ase-Torah (DJD, 10; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n ) , p p . 65-

108. R e n d s b u r g , G . Α . , 1990: Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (SBLMS, 43; A t l a n t a : S c h o l a r s P r e s s ) . R o s é n , Η.Β., 1992: Die Periphrase. Wesen und Entstehung (Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft: Vorträge und kleinere S c h r i f t e n , 57; I n n s b r u c k : I n s t i t u t f ü r S p r a c h w i s s e n s c h a f t d e r Universität Innsbruck). S e g a l , M . Η . , 1908: ' M i š n a i c H e b r e w , Biblical H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c ' . IQR 20, p p . 647-737. — 1 9 2 7 : A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n ) . Sellin, Ε., 1889: Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Construktion ( L e i p z i g : A c k e r m a n n & G l a s e r ) . S m i t h , M.S., 1991: The Origins and Development of the Waw-consecutive. Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugaritic to Qumran ( H S S , 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press). V e r m e s , G., 1995: The Dead Sea Scrolls in English ( F o u r t h e d . ; L o n d o n : P e n g u i n Books). W a l t k e , B.K. a n d M . O ' C o n n o r , 1990: An Introduction

to Biblical

Hebrew

Syntax ( W i n o n a L a k e : E i s e n b r a u n s ) . W i l s o n , A . M . a n d L. W i l l s , 1982: ' L i t e r a r y S o u r c e s of t h e T e m p l e Scroll‫׳‬, HTR 75, p p . 275-88. W i s e , M . , 1996: in M . O . W i s e , M . G . A b e g g , a n d E . M . C o o k , The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San F r a n c i s c o : H a r p e r ) .

4QMMT: LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF REDACTIONAL FORMS RELATED TO BIBLICAL AND RABBINIC LANGUAGE 1 Miguel Pérez Fernández (Granada) In memory of my brother Manolo (+ 22.8.97) I: Preliminary

remarks

In initial research discussion was focused on whether 4 Q M M T is a letter or a compendium of halakhot, and this can now be resolved judiciously by saying that it is both at the same time; more accurately, it could be said that an already existing halakhic compendium was used by someone in a letter. Indeed, an in-depth study concludes not only that there is a difference between the halakhic part (B) and the exhortative part (C), but also that two different authors existed: one was the author of the halakhic document and the other was the person who used the document in his letter. In my view, the differences in content, style, syntax and lexis are clear enough to assert that the author of the letter used a halakhic document that was already written. 2

1

This work was undertaken in the context of a research project entitled Lengua y Literatura del Judaismo Clásic0 (PB96-1422), sponsored by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. 2 1 presented an initial study d o c u m e n t i n g this conclusion in September 1997 at the meeting of the Asociaciôn de Biblistas Espafioles (Pamplona, 9-12 Sept. 1997) and in the Colloquium on Early Rabbinic Judaism of the European Association of Jewish Studies (Oxford, 22-26 Sept. 1997). In it, I paid particular attention to the exhortatory part (M. Pérez Fernández, ' 4 Q M M T : Redactional Study', RQ 18 [1997], pp. 191-205). Briefly, here are some of the notable differences: (1) the main verb of the clauses from Β is always a plural participle, in part C it is a perfect Qal·, (2) in Β the interlocutors are ' y o u ' plural, in C, ' y o u ' singular; (3) in Β the imperative is expressed by the modal infinitive; never is the imperative mood as such employed; in C, the imperative is employed as many as 5 times; (4) neither ' y o u ' plural nor 'priests' nor ‫־‬they' of Β reappear in C; (5) the number of distinctly halakhic terms used in C, but not found in B, is notable: ‫תורה‬, ‫ספר‬. ‫כתוב בספר‬, ‫זכר‬, etc.; (6) in Β , ‫ כ י‬is used as an explanatory particle; in C, - ‫ ש‬is used.

I must clarify one matter: although the author of a letter is generally easy to identify due to his particular language or style, in a collection of halakhot it is much more difficult to pinpoint this identity as there are many more additions, corrections and clarifications in which various hands might have taken part. Anyone who has ever drafted, or studied, a legal text is well aware of its complexity. Thus, when I refer to the author of the halakhic part, I am not thinking of an individual person whom I have not managed to define, but of a community which possessed a legal text that was undoubtedly already complicated in its first draft, but became even more so in its successive redrafts and clarifications. This analysis of 4QMMT forms part of a broader study into the sources and origins of the technical and exegetical language of the tannaim. 1 will start from an obvious assumption, which can be explained simply in two parts. A. If a halakhic-type document was updated by someone in a letter, this document may have been updated either by the author of the letter himself or by others at any time either before or after the letter was composed. B. If the text of the final letter continued to be copied, in its totality, by the same community that wrote it for up to 200 years after it had been written, in theory, up-datings cannot be discounted. 3 What I am trying to show is that the halakhic part of 4 Q M M T is a document that has been subject to amendments unrelated to the original author of the letter as we know it today. In order to do so, I shall analyse linguistically two formulas recognized as 'additional statements 5 in Β and absent from C.

II: Linguistic analysis of the formulas ‫יודעיםש‬-in the halakhic block

- ‫כי ל ב נ י ה כ ו ה נ י ם ראוי ל‬

and

‫ואתם‬

The main purpose of this paper is the linguistic analysis of the following two formulas present in the halakhic part of 4 Q M M T Β and which the

3

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

editors themselves acknowledge to be as 'additional statements' X, pp. 136-37): - ‫( כי לבני הכוהנים ראוי ל‬Β 11-12; Β 16-17; Β 25-26; [Β 48; Β -‫[( ואתם יודעים ש‬B 38; B46]; Β 68; Β 80; C 8). If the context of these formulas can be revealed, perhaps we obtain a better understanding of the redaction of the document in they appear.

(DJD 82]) might which

A :-‫כי לבני הכוהנים ראוי ל‬ The singularity of this expression was noted by the editors ( D J D X, p. 95): it is not an expression that is to be found previously in the Bible nor contemporaneously in the Qumran texts nor later in rabbinic literature. But the idiom is also absolutely atypical in the view of E. Qimron ( D J D X, p. 95): a)‫ ראוי‬in 4 Q M M T is indeclinable and functions as an auxiliary of the infinitive; in the Bible (Est. 2.9) and in numerous other mishnaic and midrashic texts, the participle of ‫( ראה‬+ infinitive) is always inflected; b) -‫ ראוי ל‬+ infinitive has an imperative value, which is not prevalent in mishnaic and other rabbinic texts (although a semantic dynamism of the 'decet > oportet > debet' type can be easily understood); c)‫ ראוי‬could be suppressed in 4 Q M M T without changing the basic meaning, which could also have been expressed by: ‫ כי לבני הכוהנים ראוי להזהר‬as ‫כי לבני הכוהנים להזהר‬. It is really surprising that neither the expression nor the linguistic structure it represents has any precedent or continuity in the literature of classical Judaism. Suspecting that the expression was a formula or literary 'form' the context of which might be recoverable, I decided to reopen the investigation. The results obtained are fairly modest, but do provide further detail to previous conclusions. In the Bible, it is not this formula that is found, but a quite similar one; in 2 Chron. 26.18 we read ‫ויעמדו על עזיהו המלך ויאמרו לו‬ ‫לא לך עזיהו להקטיר‬ ‫כי לכהנים בני אהרון המקדשים להקטיר‬

And they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him: it is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. 4 The context of this text is surprising because of its resonance with 4QMMT: it is the accusation that the high priest Azariah and 80 of his priests level against King Uzziah , s attempt to act as priest in the temple (2 Chron. 26.16-21 ). The Qumran experience seems to repeat the biblical scene. Numerous researchers maintain that the letter is addressed to the Maccabaean king Jonathan, who was to usurp the high priesthood and to earn the name o f ' i m p i o u s priest' from the members of the community/ I leave it to the experts in Qumran Studies to evaluate this similarity and to decide whether it is fortuitous or intentional, whether it is deliberately provoked by the author or the result of scholarly hypersensitivity. A redactional analysis could not sidestep this issue, but this is not our primary aim. Only after completing the linguistic analysis shall we return to the matter of the redaction. Returning to the linguistic structure, 4 Q M M T adds the particle ‫ראוי‬ before the infinitive. Semantically (bearing in mind its use in later texts as well) we believe that it defines the priesthood's ' o w n ' [domain], what is 'destined' to them, 'appropriate' to them or within their 'competence'. 6 Contrary to first appearances, this structure has not completely disappeared in the classical texts of Judaism, where, however, with a meaning very close to the imperative, the following exegetical formula appears: ... ‫ אלא‬... ‫ ;אין ראוי לומר‬in tannaitic literature 1 have only found it in only three texts: (‫וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם)ויקרא ט׳ כבי‬ ‫זה מקרא מסורס‬ ... ‫ואין ראוי לומר אלא‬ Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them (Lev. 9.22). This set of verses is in improper order and it should be stated in the following sequence: 'and came down from

4

The parallel between the two parts leads us to regard ‫ להקטיר‬as the subject of a nominal clause in both cases ( ' t o b u m incense is not for you, but for the priests'). The introduction of ‫ המקדשים‬in the second part may convert the second infinitive into its complement ('... but for the priests who are consecrated to burn incense'). Syntactically, the expression is more complex but, in my view, retains a literary parallelism with the first .‫להקטיר‬ 5 Q p P s " [4Q171]. This is also the view of the editors of 4 Q M M T : DJD X, pp. 118-21. The editors translate: "Should take care/beware"; Garcia Martinez (1996c: 77-78): "ought to be/to observe".

4

6

offering of the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offering (v. 22b) and lifted up his hands ...' (v. 22a) (J. Neusner; Sifra, Mek. Milluim to Lev. 9.22 [Weiss, p. 45b]); (‫ויצעק העם אל משה)במדבר יא׳ בי‬ ‫וכי מה היה משה מועלם‬ ‫והלא אין ראוי לומר אלא ויצעק העם אל ה׳‬ And the people cried unto Moses (Num. 11.2). Could Moses have really helped them? Was it not suitable to say only that the people cried unto Yhwh? (Sifre Num. 86.1 [Horovitz, p. 85]); (‫אלה תולדות יעקב משה )בראשית לז׳ ב׳‬ ...‫והלוא אינו ראוי לומר אלא‬ These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph... (Gen. 37.2). Surely Scripture should have said here: Reuben ...? (ARNa 2.10 [Sehechter, p. 12]). In these texts the indeclinable particle plus infinitive appears as an exegetical formula that in all three cases is used to correct what the Scriptures apparently say, with a formula that means something like 'the Scriptures would probably say', 'which really means' or 'what it should say is'. But in this rabbinic formula the logical subject introduced by preposition -‫ל‬, which would give it the same linguistic structure as in 4QMMT 7 , is missing. In the Mishnah we find two occurrences of texts with the structure: indeclinable particle + logical subject introduced by -:‫ל‬ ...‫כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים ראוי לו כאלו לא בא לעולם‬ ‫וכל שלא חם על כבוד קונו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם‬ Whoever puts his mind to these four matters it were better for him if he had not come into the world... And whosoever has no regard for the honour of his Creator, it were better for him had he not come into the world (Blackman; m. Hag. 2.1) But in these texts, the infinitive is missing as grammatical subject and the sense of ‫ ראוי לו‬is apparently very different from the subtle modal value of the exegetical formulas that we have just examined. Blackman translates it: 'it were better for him'; and Danby: 'it would be better for him'. However, 'more appropriate' or 'more suitable' better reflects the tenor of the Hebrew text: 'it would have been more appropriate for anyone who speculates about what he should not speculate about never to have come into the world'. A parallel formula in the NT is symférei

7

T h e linguistically equivalent formula would be ‫אין ראוי למקרא לומר‬.

+ dative, as in 'Who offends one of these little ones who believes in me, symférei auto hina kremasthe ..." (Matt. 18.6) or 1 Cor. 10.23. It is not until Tanh. (ed. Buber) Š0fet. 8 that we find an exegetical formula that linguistically has the same structure as that of 4QMMT and the function of which is also to correct the biblical text: (‫המתהללים באללים)תהלים צד ז‬ ‫ מהו המתהללים‬,‫ראוי למקרא לומר הבטחים‬ 'Who vaunt their idols' (Psalms 97.7). It would have been more appropriate for the Scripture to say 'those who trust'. What is therefore the sense of 'they who vaunt'? It also appears in Pesiqta Rabbati 20 (Friedmann, p. 96), to correct 'myrrh that flows' or 'myrrh that passes away'(‫מור עובר‬, Cant. 5.13) to ‫מר קבוע‬, 'myrrh that will be kept', in an interpretation of Cant. 1.13); other texts include Midrash Bereshit 81.13 and Hekhalot Rabbati 35.4. It is essential to be prudent when classifying and dating linguistic phenomena such as pre-rabbinic, tannaitic, amoraic. Here we have a phenomenon that we would not have hesitated in classifying as amoraic; in fact this is what Bacher does, recording the formula ‫ראוי למקרא לומר‬ in his volume on the amoraic tradition. 8 And it is significant that Segal and even I myself, in my recent manual, mention the modal structures of ‫סוף‬/‫ עתיד‬+ infinitive, but we do not include the structure of ‫ ראוי‬+ infinitive. If we restrict ourselves to written texts, we cannot discover how a language is kept alive. What seems to us to be linguistically and semantically a later innovation turns out to be related to forms used five, six or seven centuries beforehand. Might I venture to suggest that if a linguistic structure rarely appears in literature, and then disappears for centuries, only finally to reappear in a cultured exegetical context, we may assume that it is in cultured circles that it has been cultivated, maintained and recovered. This is a modest conclusion, but it might contribute to defining the context of the Qumran document and would be useful in redactional study.

8 Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. Zweiter Teil, Die Bibel- und traditionsexegestische Terminologie der Amoräer, p. 201. Leipzig 1899 (1. Teil) and 1905 (2. Teil). Repr. Hildesheim, 1965.

B: -‫( ואתם יודעים ש‬Β 68; Β 80) Examination of the halakhot of 4 Q M M T indicates that this formula is not common in most of them. 9 By its tenor, it is a redactional element used only in some halakhot (at most in five, probably in three, and certainly in two). It is for Qumran experts to investigate whether such a redaction proceeds from the same author as that of the letter, and if so, why these complements with ‫ אתם‬are used when the receiver is addressed as ‫אתה‬. For my part, 1 prefer to offer some linguistic considerations. Curiously the formula is not attested in the Bible, Scrolls'" or tannaitic literature. However, it is well-known how in the language of the Mishnah the participle encroaches upon the territory of other tenses. It may have its equivalent in ‫ואתם ידעתם‬, evidenced in Exod. 23.9, precisely to justify one of the regulations of the code of the Covenant: 'You shall not oppress a stranger, you ktiow (‫ )ואתם ידעתם‬the heart of a stranger ...'. In any event, it must be noted that in what is known as the halakhic part, the only tense used in the main clause is the participle, a way of establishing the timelessness of the regulation. Exactly because of its halakhic context, this formula could be assimilated to the well-known mishnaic formulas Rabbi 'omer (as opposed to 'amar Rabbi in narrative sections). Is the dramatic effect of the text diminished because of the stability of the opinions thus expressed (by participles)? A striking component of this formula is the personal pronoun introduced by wcrw, which causes a hiatus in the speech with an emphasis on the new characters and on the contrast that they introduce. This is a very effective device in classical Hebrew representation of speech: ‫ אינני עבר את הירדן ואתם עברים וירשתם‬...‫' כי אנכי‬For I must die in this land, I must not go over the Jordan; but you shall go over and take possession of that (good land) (Deut. 4.22)';

‫ יי‬This formula can be clearly read in Β 68, in the halakhah on the lepers, and in Β 80 in the halakhah on mixed marriages. It can be reconstructed with all probability in C 8 (‫ ואתם י‬can clearly be read) and can only be conjectured in C 7, in what may belong either to the last halakhah on priestly marriages or to the transitional formulas between the halakhic part and the exhortative part of the document. It can be guessed at in a very extensive reconstruction of Β 38 (halakhah on pregnant women) and Β 46 (halakhah on those excluded from the temple). 10 ‫ ואתם יודעים‬could be read in 11QapPs" [11Q11 j 2.8, as reflected in Wise, Abegg and Cook 1996:454, although Puech (1989: 394) believes that ‫ והם יודעים‬is the safer reconstruction, with a clear sense of contrast and with reference to a knowledge of the power of God.

‫' ויאמרו קומה ונעלה עליהם כי ראינו את הארץ והנה טובה מאד ואתם מחשים‬They said: Arise, and let us go up against them; for we have seen the land, and behold, it is very fertile. And will you do nothing? (Judg. 18.9)'; ‫' כי גדול שמי בגרם אמר יהוה צבאות ואתם מחללים אותו‬For my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts, but you profane it... (Mai. 1.11-12)'; ‫ ואתם נוסיפים חרון על ישראל לחלל את השבת‬...‫' הלא כה עשו אבותיהם‬Did not your fathers act in this way...? Yet you bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath! (Neh. 13.18)'. The same linguistic structure to mark contrast is found in the language of the Mishnah and halakhic midrashim (but it is not very common): ‫' "הן באין בנצחונו שלבשר ודם ואתם באים בנצחונו שלמקום‬They come in the strength of flesh and blood, but ye come in the might of the Almighty (m. Sotah 8.1)'; ‫' הנחתם כבוד מקום ואתם עסוקים בכבוד בשר ודם‬You abandoned the honour of God and you are instead concerned with honouring flesh and blood1. (Sifre Deut. 38 [Finkelstein, p. 75])'; ‫שיהו גרנות מליאות חדש והאוצרות מליאות ישן ואתם מקפידים היאך נוציא ישן מפני‬ ‫' חדש‬The granaries will be full of new grain, and the storage bins will be full of the old, so you will wonder how we shall take out the old on account of the new harvest (Sifra Be-huqqotay, Pereq 3.1 [Weiß, p. 111a])'. ‫ ואתם‬also appears in some Qumran texts ( 1QM 17.2,4,8; 4Q185 1.9; 2.7). This backgrounds of usage leads us to conclude that ‫ ואתם יודעים‬is a linguistic structure that is suitable for marking a contrast and adding emphasis. I do not see anything that could lead us to a more precise context. Ill: The formulas

in their redactional

context

The formulas that are the subject of our study are to be found in the halakhic block of 4QMMT where, throughout the 16/17' 2 halakhic

11

Also in Sifre Deut. 192 (Finkelstein, p. 233). 1 prefer to consider the editors' halakhot 13 and 14 as one, as there is nothing which separates them and they have the same syntactic structure and parallelism: the trees and the tithe are in both cases hu ' la-kohänim. 12

provisions, the editors distinguish with total clarity a) the headings, b) the halakhic proposal and c) the additional statements. 13 A. The headings are perfectly defined in each and every one of the halakhot (marker ‫ואף על‬/‫ ועל‬+ declaration of the subject). 14 B. The halakhic proposal is formulated in a great variety of forms: first person plural, third person plural, modal infinitive with positive and negative value, jussives, noun clauses; these formulations can also be found combined in quite complicated structures. In conclusion, I cannot be certain when 1 identify any initial structure as original or discount a formula as secondary. What is evident is the dialectic character, which is decidedly polemical, of most of the formulations. Despite this, I would cautiously venture a proposition: if only halakhot 5 (red cow), 12 (the dogs) and 13 (the terumah of the priests) lack a polemical formulation (without any ' w e ' or 'they' or 'you' plural) and in these cases the halakhah is categorically formulated with the modal infinitive with imperative value (5: ‫ ;להיות טהורים‬12: ‫ )אין להביא‬and with a nominal clause with imperative value (13:‫)הוא לכוהנים‬, possibly it is because this was the system of formulating these halakhot in the putative base document prior to manipulation for polemical purposes; the formulations with ' w e ' and 'they' would be secondary alterations for polemical reasons. It should be noted that the categorical formulation with infinitive has continued to be maintained in clearly polemical structures such as 6, 8, 9, 14, and 16. Similarly, the formulation in the shape of a noun clause is maintained in the polemical structure of 7, 11, and 15. Consequently, it would theoretically be possible to isolate the polemical elements and earlier formulation of the halakhah without dialectic intention; this would possibly lead to acceptable results in some halakhot: ‫ ועל תרומת רגן הגוים אין לאכול מדגן הגוים‬. 1 ‫ על עורות הבקר והצאן אין לביאם למקדש‬.6 ...‫ המשכן אוכל מועד הוא וירושלים מהנה היא‬...‫ ועל שכתוב‬.7 ...‫ ועל עברות אין לזבוח את האם ואת הולד ביום אחד‬.8 ‫ ואין להתיכם‬...‫ אין לבוא עליהם‬...‫ ועל העמוני והמואבי‬.9 ...‫ להזהר‬...‫ ואף על הסומים‬.10 But in other cases, the reconstruction of a possible initial halakhah is pure guesswork, as in 2 and 3 where we only have the description of the non-halakhic practice, or in 16, which is enormously complex.

13

See Synopsis in DJD X, p. 137. O n l y halakhah 12, about the dogs (B 58-62), lacks a marker and title. abruptly with the formulation of the rule. 14

It begins

C. However, the editors do not have any difficulty in isolating 'additional statements', such as the propositions introduced by our formulas ‫כי ראוי לכוהנים‬, ‫ואתם יודעים‬, and certain explanations and biblical justifications.

Let us now look at how our formulas function in context. 1. The formula ‫ בני אהרון‬/ ‫בני הכוהנין‬. In halakhah 4 our formula can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty: 1) [And concerning the cereal-offering] of the sacrifice of wellbeing which they leave over from one day to the following one: 2) but [it is written] 15 that the cerea1-0ffer[ing is to be ea]ten after the suet and the flesh, on the day when they are s a c r i f i c e d . 3 ) For the sons of] the priest [sj]b should take care concerning this practice so as not to cause the people to bear punishment 1 7 (B 913). Clause 3) is syntactically independent of the previous clauses and is dependent on the state of mind of the writer, and can be understood as something like Ί am telling you this because ...'. Indeed, the particle ‫כי‬ does not explain any previous proposition, simply the thoughts of the writer. In fact it is equivalent to the adversative ‫ אלא‬in that it represents an answer to a difficulty the writer has thought of; alternatively, it could

15 A c c o r d i n g to the reconstruction of the editors. Garcia Martinez ( 1 9 9 6 c : 7 7 ) supposes another reading, ' w e think'. Neither is Bernstein ( 1996b:39) satisfied by the reconstruction of .‫כתוב‬ 16

Garcia Martinez (1996c:77): " t h e sons of Aaron". T h e difficulties in the reconstruction do not affect the syntactic and stylistic analysis that we outline here: two-part construction (1-2), indicating the protasis with waw (2). Or line 2) may also be understood as a continuation of the theme: ' a n d also on what is written ...'. T h e structure is elegant, although the expression of 2) is particularly difficult due to the repetition of ‫ אף‬at the beginning and perhaps due to its attempt to evoke biblical texts: Lev. 7.15; 8.26; 19.5; 22.29; consequently, the difficultuy of the expression might result f r o m the complexity of the idea being e x p r e s s e d rather than literary heavy-handedness. Whichever reading of ‫ כתוב‬is accepted, the opinion of the sender seems to be based on Lev. 7.15 and 27.29-30 (as opposed to m. Z e b a h i m 6.1, w h i c h is based on Lev. 19.5) and coincides with 11QT 20.12-13. For the exegetical device, see Sifra Saw Pereq 12.1 (to Lev. 7.15), which extends to ‫ לחם‬the obligation to eat it the same day. Apart from this, it is clear that Β 13 (‫ )מסיעים את העם עון‬is a conscious imitation of Lev. 22.16: ‫( והשיאו אותם עון אשמה באכלם את קדשיהם‬cf. Bernstein 1996b:36). 17

be regarded as an emphatic particle, as commonly found in classical BH. It should be noted that we have here an apparently learned formula, perhaps derived from 2 Chron. 26.18; in any event, it is characteristic of priestly terminology, which we should not be surprised to find used here. It is definitely not an explanatory particle of the halakhah. It is more probably an explanation of the use that the writer is making of the halakhah. But in this way the writer reveals the real addressees of the document, the priests, whose strict task is that of ensuring compliance with this regulation. In halakhah 5, the priests' formula can be found again: 1) And concerning the purity-regulations of the cow of the purification-offering: 2) he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers its ashes and he who sprinkles the [water of] purification, 18 3) it is at sun[se]t 19 that all these become pure 20 4) so that the pure man may sprinkle upon the impure one. 5) For the sons of Aaron should f...2i (B 13-17). It is not a formally polemical text, but the polemic with the Pharisees is explicit in the Mishnah and Tosefta (Parah 3.7, etc.). As in unit Β 913, here 5) is a clause that is syntactically independent of what precedes it and dependent on the letter writer's state of mind, which can be understood as something like 'This I tell you because ...'. The same considerations we applied before are still valid. In halakhah 6 the same expression is found once more: 1) [And concerning] the hides of cattle [and sheep that they ... from] their hides vessels [...

18

According to Bernstein ( 1996b:34) this is a good example of scriptural imitation: " T h e language ... derives from expressions employed in N u m 19:8,10, 21". 19 Baumgarten (1996:513) reads ‫ להעריב את השמש‬as in 4QD d [4Q269] 9:2.5. 20 Or according to the reading of Baumgarten ( 1996:513): "all these must wait for sunset to become pure". 21 The syntactical structure is also clear, practically the same as we have seen in Β 9-13, although somewhat harsher: protasis, which is an introduction to the subject, and apodosis, which is not signalled by any syntactic marker. The apodosis (2-4) consists of a subject in anacoluthon or pendens (2), a modal infinitive clause (3) and a consecutive dependent clause (4). In spite of its syntactical coarseness, the essential elements of the halakhah are perfectly indicated with reference to the biblical source: sacrifice (cf. Num. 19.3), b u m (Num. 19.4), gather ashes (Num. 19.9) and sprinkle the water of purification (Num. 19.4).

2) not to bring] 22 them to the sanctuary [... ] 3) [... ] And concerning the hi[des and the bones of the unclean animals: 4) it is forbidden to make] handles of [vessels from their bones] and hides. 5) [And concerning] the hide of the carcass of a clean [animal]: 6) he who carries such a carcass shall not have access to the sacred food 23 ... 7) [ ... ] And concerning the [... ] that they [use to ... ]24 8)...

9) [For the sons] of the priests should [take care] concerning all these practices, 10) [so as not to] cause the people to bear punishment (B 17-27) There are four halakhot that begin with ‫ ;ואף על‬however, we can assume that the four make up one halakhic unit, both in content (concerning hides, bones and skeletons) and in the final conclusion which involves all of them ("As for the sons of the priests ..."). Our earlier considérations apply equally. In halakhah 9 the expression may only very speculatively be assumed (at Β 48 not a single letter of the formula is conserved); it is also risky to reconstruct ‫ בני ישראל‬when in the cases in which the formula is patent ‫ בני אהרון‬or ‫ בני הכוהנים‬is read. I shall therefore leave this reconstruction out of consideration for the purposes of this study. The same applies to the reconstruction in halakhah 16 (B 82), where the formula may appear more opportune, but is equally unverifiable. The author of these redactional or additional considerations assumes the priests to be the addressees of the halakhot and is very probably the same person who introduces the priests directly into the polemic by the

22

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

sporadic addition of ‫ואתם יודעים‬. My question is this: is the author of these the same as the person who wrote the letter? 1 consider this to be unlikely, as the author of the letter addresses it to a singular 'you' and, in particular, uses a terminology and syntax that is totally absent from the halakhic block 25 . It seems to me more plausible that there were two stages of redaction through which the document passed: ( 1 ) a dramatization carried out for the purpose of making the priests assume their duty to comply with the halakhah; (2) a letter directed to a political or religious leader (but in any event someone with authority over the priests) in order that he ensures compliance with the halakhah. The fact that for no apparent reason this formula relating to the priests is found in only some of the halakhot indicates that the work represents a redrafting that was not definitive or, at least, had not been completed as a literary composition. New light is shed on this point by contextual study of the second formula.

2. The formula ‫ואתם יודעים‬. The reconstructions made by the editors of the formula in halakhot 8 and 9 (B 38 and Β 46) are possible but are difficult to verify. However, if the reconstruction of halakhah 8 is correct 26 ‫ ואתם יודעים‬is an appeal to the interlocutor's knowledge of the halakhah and of Scripture: 'and you know that it is so and that it is written'. This is a feature common to the other uses of the formula. Let us now turn to various readings of halakhot 14 (on lepers) and 16 (on mixed marriages). Halakhah 14 (On the impurity of the lepers) 1) And concerning lepers 2) we are [of the opinion that they may not] enter (any place) containing sacred food 27 and should be isolated [outside any house],

25

See details in M. Perez Fernandez 1997b. Baumgarten ( 1 9 9 6 : 5 1 4 ) questions this. 27 Garcia M a r t i n e z (1996c:78): " W e say that they should not enter the holy purity"; Bernstein (1996b:41): " w e s[ay that they shall not e]nter with sacred pure (food)". 26

3) And it is written 28 that after he shaves and washes he should dwell outside [his tent seven] days. 29 4) But now while their impurity is with them the 1e[pers enter] into a house containing sacred food. 30 5) And you know 6) [that if someone violates a prohibitive commandment unintentionally], and the fact escapes him, 31 he should bring a purification offering; 7) [and concerning him who purposely transgresses the precepts 32 8) it is writ]ten 33 that he 'despises and blasphemes'. 9) [Moreover, since they have the] impurity of leprosy, one should not let them eat of the sacred food until sunset of the eighth day. (B 64-71). The halakhah is formulated in the first part (1-4): the subject is introduced (1) and the opinion of the community (2) and the testimony of the Scriptures (3) are added, against all of which is contrasted the actual situation (4). The second part (5-9) is a cultured reflection made to the addressees with reference to the consequences of violating the halakhah based on the Bible itself. One must observe (a) the contrasting value of the formula; (b) the knowledge of the Scriptures the interlocutors are assumed to possess; and (c) the same knowledge is undoubtedly also shared by the writer of this additional commentary. The author of the commentary is an expert addressing a group of experts: ‫ יודעים‬in this commentary refers to knowing how to interpret the Scriptures. Halakhah 16 (On mixed marriages [of priests with Israelites]) 1) And concerning the practice of illegal marriage that exists among the people:

28

T h e f o r m u l a introduces a biblical paraphrase based on Lev. 23.46 and Lev. 14.8. ‫ יי‬Bernstein (1996b: 43-44) proposes the following reconstruction of Β 65-67: ‫ברד יהיו‬ ‫]מחוץ ל ^ ר ו[ אף כתוב שמעת שיגלח וכבס ]י[שב מחוץ ]לביתו שבעת י[מים‬. T h e biblical text is interpreted as if the leper must keep out of the cities (interpretation of the biblical ‫ )מחנה‬and, during the 7 days of purification, outside his house as well (interpretation of the biblical .(‫אהלו‬ 2

30

Garcia M a r t i n e z 1996c:78: "[lepers approach] the holy purity, the house"; Bernstein 1996b:41-42: "those s u f f e r i n g skin-desease enter wi]th sacred pure ( f o o d ) into the house". 31 Reminiscent of N u m . 15.27 and Lev. 5.2. 32 T h e reconstruction is m a d e following the phraseology of N u m . 15.30. 33 T h e f o r m u l a introduces a very abbreviated reference to N u m . 15.30-31.

2) despite their being s0[ns] of holy [seed], as it is written 34 'Israel is holy'. 3) And concerning his [clean ani]ma1 it is written 35 that one must not let it mate with another species; 4) and concerning his clothes [it is written 36 that they should not] be of mixed stuff; and he must not sow his field and vine[yard with mixed species], 5) Because they are holy, and the sons of Aaron are [most holy], 6) But you know that some of the priests and [the laity mingle with each other] [as well as] ... 7) [And they] unite with each other and pollute the [holy] seed 8) [as well as] their own seed with women whom they are forbidden to marry. 37 9) Since [the sons of Aaron should ...] (B 75-82). The text is obviously incomplete and therefore is not very conducive to discussion for our purposes. It seems acceptable to assume that lines 2-5 are very condensed explanatory and clarifying comments that employ biblical references to the seriousness of the sin of certain marriages by priests. Within this commentary is included a call to the experience of 'you' (with its emphasis and contrast), that 'you know' how some priests indeed mix and pollute the holy seed and their own high degree of holiness. I simply indicate how, by using ‫אתם‬, the author shows himself to be a learned person who can speak to the priests directly and invoke their halakhic and exegetical science to them. 38

34

T h e formula introduces a quotation from Jer. 2.3. Bernstein (1996b:45) writes: " W h e n a quotation is inexact, we may surely characterize it as a paraphrase, but there is no reason to claim that ‫ כתוב‬cannot introduce a verbatim citation in M M T , even though that is not its primary function". 35 The formula introduces a clear reference to Lev. 19.19 and Lev. 22.29; "They are allusions, not citations, although they are introduced by ‫( "כתוב‬Bernstein 1996b:46). 36 The reconstruction of the formula ‫ כתוב‬is superfluous for Bernstein (1996b:39). 37 Garcia Martinez 1996c:78: "fornications". 38 Probably this halakhah still continues into lines C 1 -8, as the vocabulary on marriages that are considered impure reappears: "And concerning the women... and the treachery‫"׳‬ (C 4), "for in these [... because of malice] and the fornication [some] places were destroyed. [And it is] written [in the book of Moses]" (the formula introduces a quotation or paraphrase of Deut. 7.26, exegetically merged with Deut. 12.31. Thus is the view of Bernstein [1996b:47], who considers the whole paragraph to be the conclusion of the halakhic part: "This citation could be a fitting conclusion to the halakhic section, with the epilogue beginning with [‫ )"]ואתם יודעים ש(פרשנו מרוב הע]ם‬that you should [no]t bring any abomination [into your home, since] abomination is a hateful thing detestable. [And you know that] we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people [and from all

IV:

Conclusions

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

their impurity] and from being involved with these matters and from participating with them in these things" (C 5-8). Perhaps until C 8-9 it belongs to the Halakhah on the mixed marriages of priests, as ‫ ואתם יודעים‬is used to introduce a reflection on an already formulated halakhah and there is another mention o f ' b e t r a y a l ' ( ‫ ) מ ע ל‬, already found, in connection with women, in C4. The biblical base would be a restrictive interpretation of Lev. 21.14. Sifra to Lev. 19.29 questions whether the marriage of a priest's daughter to a Levite or to an ordinary Israelite could be equivalent to prostitution (which, in theory, is what 4 Q M M T says) and excludes it as being evident. Might we consider it a restrictive interpretation of the Qumranic community? Might there not have been interpretations, such as that of of 4 Q M M T , that could have led to the exegesis of Sifra? However, Baumgarten ( 1996:515) believes that here we are not dealing with the marriages between priests and Israelites but between Israelites and heathens.

Bibliography Baumgarten, J.M., 1996: 'The "Halakha" in Miqsat Ma ase ha-Torah (MMT) ‫׳‬, JAOSU 6, pp. 512-16. Bernstein, M.J., 1996a: Review of Qimron and Strugnell, JJS 36, pp. 67*-74* — 1996b: 'The employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Obervations', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 29-51. Brin, G., 1995: Review of Qimron and Strugnell, JSS 40, pp. 334-42. Garcia Martinez, F., 1996a: 'Textos de Qumrán', in G. Aranda Pérez, F. Garcia Martinez, and M. Pérez Fernández, Literatura judía intertestamentaria (Estella: Verbo Divino), pp. 15-241. — 1996b: ' 4 Q M M T in a Qumran Context', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 15-27. — 1996c: The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English, (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; second ed.; Leiden, E.J. Brill). —and J. Trebolle, 1995: The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Joiion, Paul and T. Muraoka, 1993: A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (corrected rev. second ed.; Subsidia Biblica, 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Kampen, J., 1996: ' 4 Q M M T and New Testament Studies', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 129-44. —and M. J. Bernstein (eds.), 1996: Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (SBL Symposium series, 2; Atlanta, GA: Scholar Press). Morag, S., 1996, 'Language and Style in Miqsat Maas'e ha-Torah: Did Moreh ha-Sedeq Write this Document?', Tarbiz 65 (1996), pp. 209-233. In Hebrew. Pérez Fernández, M., 1997a: An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J.F. Elwolde; Leiden: E.J. Brill) — 1997b: '4QMMT: Redactional Study', RQ 18, pp. 191-205 Puech, E., 1989: ' 1 IQPsAp": un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction' RQ 14, pp. 376-408. Qimron, E., 1992: 'Halakhic Terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls and their Contribution to the History of Early Halakha', in M. Broshi et al. (eds.), The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: Forty Years of Research (Jerusalem), pp. 128-138. In Hebrew.

—and John Strugnell, 1994: Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Maa&eh haTorah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Stegemann, Hartmut, 1996: The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Wise, M.O., M. Abegg, and E. Cook, 1996, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (London: HarperCollins).

N E G A T I O N IN T H E H E B R E W O F B E N S I R A W . Th. v a n P e u r s e n (Leiden) I:

Introduction'1

C l a s s i c a l H e b r e w 2 e m p l o y s s e v e r a l n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e s , s u c h a s ,‫לא‬, ‫א ל‬ ‫אין‬, ‫ ב ל‬, ‫ פ ן‬and ‫ א פ ם‬. Their use and distribution are determined by g r a m m a t i c a l c o n t e x t (e.g. ‫ ל א‬n e g a t i n g t h e i n d i c a t i v e , ‫ א ל‬t h e j u s s i v e ) , g e n r e (e.g. ‫ ב ל‬a s a p o e t i c s y n o n y m of ‫ ) ל א‬a n d d a t e (e.g. ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬a s a L B H a n d Q H e q u i v a l e n t of 3.(‫ לא)־!קטל‬T h e u s e of t h e s e n e g a t i v e p a r t i cles in Ben Sira s h o w s s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e s . In this a r t i c l e w e will n o t p r e s e n t a f u l l a n a l y s i s of n e g a t i o n in B e n S i r a . W e w i l l d i s c u s s s o m e s e l e c t e d i s s u e s ( S e c t i o n s 1I-VI) a n d t h e n f o c u s o n t h o s e p h e n o m e n a t h a t a r e p o e t i c o r r a r e in t h e Bible a n d t h o s e t h a t a r e c o n f i n e d to L B H a n d / o r P B H ( S e c t i o n s VII-VIII).

II: The negation of nominal

clauses

In B H t h e m a i n p a r t i c l e n e g a t i n g a s t a t e m e n t e x p r e s s e d b y a n o m i n a l c l a u s e is ‫ א י ן‬. In Ben Sira w e f i n d t w o e x a m p l e s . T h e f i r s t is 3 0 . 1 9 (Bmg), ‫כ ן מ י שיש ל ו ע ו ט ר ואין נהנה מ מ נ ו‬ ' t h u s is h e w h o p o s s e s s e s w e a l t h , b u t c a n n o t e n j o y 4 it'.

1

The author w i s h e s to express his gratitude to Professor T. Muraoka for c o m m e n t i n g on earlier versions of this article and to Drs. M.F.J. Baasten for s o m e useful suggestions. The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research in the Field of P h i l o s o p h y and T h e o l o g y (SFT), w h i c h is subsidized by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). 2 By 'Classical H e b r e w ' w e understand the H e b r e w attested in the four premishnaic corpora: The Bible, Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls and H e b r e w inscriptions, see Elwolde (1997), especially pp. 18 and 49. 3 Abbreviations: BH = Biblical H e b r e w ; SBH = Standard Biblical H e b r e w ; LBH = Late Biblical Hebrew; PBH = post-Biblical Hebrew; Q H = Qumran H e brew; M H = Mishnaic Hebrew; Btxt = main text of MS B; Bmg = marginal reading of MS B; G = Greek translation of Ben Sira; S = Syriac translation; L = Latin translation; see also the abbreviations in the bibliography. 4 For the verb ‫ הנה‬ni., see Moreshet (1980), p. 141.

T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n , in w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t is n o t e x p r e s s e d , o c c u r s o n c e in t h e Bible, in L B H : ‫ו ה נ ה צ פ י ר ה ע ז י ם ב א מ ן ה מ ע ר ב ע ל פ נ י כ ל ה א ר ץ ואין נוגע ב א ר ץ‬ ‫ ׳‬a n d a h e - g o a t c a m e f r o m t h e w e s t a c r o s s t h e f a c e of t h e w h o l e e a r t h w i t h o u t t o u c h i n g t h e e a r t h ' ( D a n . 8.5). 5 A l s o in M H t h e s u b j e c t is s o m e t i m e s o m i t t e d , e.g. m . A v o t 3.17: ‫ש א פ י ל ו כ ל ה ר ו ח ו ת ש ב ע ו ל ם ב א ו ת ו נ ו ש ב ו ת ב ו א י ן מזיזות א ו ח ו מ מ ק ו מ ו‬ ‫ ׳‬s o t h a t e v e n if all t h e w i n d s in t h e w o r l d c o m e a n d b l o w a g a i n s t it, t h e y c a n n o t stir it f r o m its p l a c e ' . 6 T h e o t h e r e x a m p l e of a n o m i n a l c l a u s e n e g a t e d b y ‫ א י ן‬is 50.25 (B): ‫ב ש נ י נוים ק צ ה נ פ ש י ו ה ש ל י ש י ת איננו ע ם‬ ' t w o n a t i o n s m y s o u l a b h o r s , a n d t h e t h i r d is n o t e v e n a n a tion‫׳‬. T h i s v e r s e m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s a pesher o n D e u t . 32.21, w h e r e w e f i n d ‫' ל א ע ם‬a n o n - p e o p l e ' . 7 T h e u s e of ‫ א י ן‬in a n o m i n a l c l a u s e in w h i c h t h e p r e d i c a t e is a s u b s t a n t i v e d o e s n o t o c c u r in B H , w h e r e w e f i n d ‫ ל א‬ins t e a d , e.g. N u m . 23.19 ‫ ׳ ל א א י ש א ל‬G o d is n o t a m a n 8 ‫ ׳‬a n d s e e Sir. 3.10 c i t e d b e l o w . 9 In M H ‫ אין‬is u s e d in this c o n t e x t a s w e l l , e.g. m . T e r u m o t 1.1 ‫ ׳ א י ן ת ר ו מ ת ו ת ר ו מ ה‬h i s h e a v e - o f f e r i n g is n o t a h e a v e - o f f e r i n g (i.e. is not valid)'. S o m e t i m e s t h e n o m i n a l c l a u s e is n e g a t e d b y ‫ ל א‬, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e p r e d i c a t e is a s u b s t a n t i v e 1 1 1 o r w h e n t h e n e g a t i o n r e l a t e s to a w o r d o t h e r t h a n t h e p r e d i c a t e . 1 1 T h u s w e f i n d ‫ ל א‬in t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a tions.

5

BDB, p. 354b. Another example is possibly Dan. 8.27, ‫ואקום ואעשה את מלאכת ה מ ל ך ואשתומם על המראה ואין מבין‬ 'then I arose and w e n t about the king's business, but I w a s appalled by the vision and did not understand it' (RSV), or ‫׳‬but the king d i d not notice (i.e. that I w a s appalled)'; but here ‫ ואין מבין‬can also be translated with 'and n o o n e could explain it' (NEB) or 'and no one noticed' (cf. NBG: 'maar niemand merkte het'), in w h i c h case the function of ‫ אין‬is not the negation of a statement expressed by a nominal clause, but the indication of non-existence or non-presence. 6 Azar (1995), pp. 168-69. 7 K i s t e r (1990), p. 308, n. 14. 8 C f . Swiggers (1991), p. 175. 9 Joosten (1991), pp. 213-14; Swiggers (1991), p. 175. D u e to ignorance about this situation in BH, the use of ‫ ל א‬in this type of nominal clause is often explained wrongly as 'emphatic' (Professor Joosten, oral communication). 10 See above on Sir. 50.25. 11 JM, §160b-c; GKC, §152d; see also Swiggers (1991), pp. 175-76.

1. B e f o r e t h e p r e d i c a t e , e.g. 3.1Ü (A) ‫' ל א כ ב ו ד ה ו א ל ך‬it is n o g l o r y to y o u ‫ ( ׳‬w i t h a s u b s t a n t i v e ) , 1 2 15.20 ( A + B ) ‫ ' ו ל א מ ר ח ם ע ו ש ה ש ו א‬a n d H e h a s n o m e r c y o n h i m t h a t c o m m i t s f a l s e h o o d ' , 1 3 a n d in a n a s y n d e t i c r e l a t i v e c l a u s e : 9.8 ( A ) ‫ ' י פ י ל א ל ך‬a b e a u t y t h a t is n o t y o u r s ' ( w i t h a prepositional phrase).14 2. B e f o r e t h e s u b j e c t , e.g. ‫ ' כ י ל א ה כ ל ל כ ל ט ו ב‬f o r n o t e v e r y t h i n g is g o o d f o r e v e r y o n e ' (37.28 [Btxt]); ‫ ' ל א כ ל ב ש ת נ א ו ה ל ב ו ש‬n o t e v e r y k i n d of s h a m e is s h a m e f u l ' (41.16 [ B + C + ] M 1 5 ) . 3. B e f o r e t h e object, e.g. 11.29 (A) ‫ ׳ ל א כ ל א י ש ל ה ב י א א ל ב י ת‬o n e s h o u l d not bring every m a n into one's house'.16 4. B e f o r e a n a d v e r b i a l p h r a s e , e.g. 6.22 ( A ) ‫ ' ו ל א ל ר ב י ם ה י א נ כ ו ח ה‬a n d n o t to m a n y is s h e c l e a r ' , 37.28 ( B m g + D ) ‫ ' כ י ל א ל כ ל ט ו ב ת ע נ ו ג‬f o r n o t f o r e v e r y o n e is d a i n t y f o o d g o o d ' .

Ill: Clauses indicating

non-existence

or

non-presence

T h e u s e of ‫ א י ן‬to n e g a t e e x i s t e n c e or p r e s e n c e 1 7 is w e l l a t t e s t e d in Ben Sira in a n u m b e r of p a t t e r n s , 1 " e.g. 13.22 (A) ‫ ' ואין ל ו מ ק ו ם‬a n d t h e r e is n o p l a c e f o r h i m ' , 18.33 (C) ‫ ' ו מ א ו מ ] ה [ א י ן ב כ י ס‬w i t h n o t h i n g in y o u r p u r s e ' (cf. J u d g . 14.6 ‫ ' ו מ א ו מ ה אין ב י ד ו‬a n d h e h a d n o t h i n g in h i s h a n d ' ; 1 9 t h i s w o r d o r d e r , w i t h ‫ אין‬f o l l o w i n g t h e s u b j e c t , is r a r e in Q H 2 0 ) , 51.7a ( B ) ‫ ' ואין ע ת ר ל י‬b u t t h e r e w a s n o - o n e w h o h e l p e d m e ' . ‫ א י ן‬is u s e d a b s o l u t e l y in 5.12 ( A + C ) ‫ ( ו א ם א י ן‬. . . ) ‫׳ א ם י ש א ת ך‬if y o u h a v e (...), b u t if n o t 2 1 ‫׳‬ a n d 51.7b ( B ) 1 ‫ו א י ן‬ ‫ ׳ ו א צ פ ה ס ו מ ך‬l o o k e d f o r o n e to s u p p o r t m w a s n o n e ' . (This c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ‫ ואין‬a f t e r a v e r b of s e e k i n g , a s k i n g for, etc. is c o m m o n in BH. 2 2 )

12

For the syntactic structure of this clause, see Joosten (1991). For the omission of the subject, see also the article by Professor Smith in this volume. 14 Compare Hab. 2.6,‫המרבה לא לו‬, ' w h o multiplies what is not his own'. 15 This notation indicates that the text in Β and C slightly differs from the text cited, but without bearing on the topic under discussion. 16 The w o r d order object-infinitive, which is also attested in QH, is c o m m o n in several Aramaic dialects; see Carmignac (1966); Qimron (1986), §400.05; Folmer (1995), pp. 536-42; Muraoka-Porten (1998), p. 308. 17 The notions of 'existence' and 'presence‫ ׳‬are closely related. The only difference is that 'presence' is restricted to the d o m a i n of discourse (Kieviet [1997], p. 87). 18 C f . Muraoka (1985), pp. 102-108; Azar (1995), pp. 84-91. 19 BDB, p. 548b; Muraoka (1985), p. 104. 20 Carmignac (1974), pp. 407-408. 21 JM, §160j; Muraoka (1985), p. 102. 22 Muraoka (1985), p. 102. 13

‫ א י ן‬is a l s o f o u n d in n o m i n a l c l a u s e s w i t h a m o d a l f u n c t i o n , 2 3 e.g. 3.22 (A) ‫ ' ו א י ן ל ך ע ס ק ב נ ס ת ר ו ת‬y o u s h o u l d h a v e n o b u s i n e s s in h i d d e n N o t e a l s o 39.19 ( Β ) ‫ו א י ן נ ס ת ר‬ t h i n g s ' (cf. MS C 24.(‫ו ע ס ק א ל י ה י ל ך בנסתרות‬ ' a n d n o t h i n g is h i d d e n ' , f o r w h i c h G h a s καί ούκ ε σ τ ί ν κ ρ υ β ή ν α ι , p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t i n g ‫ ' ואין ל ה ס ת ר‬a n d n o t h i n g c a n b e h i d d e n ' ; 2 5 c o m p a r e 39.21 ( B ) ‫אין ל א כ ז ר‬, G υύκ εστίν ειπείν, L non est dicere, b u t in 39.19 L h a s non est quicquain absconditwn. In t h e Bible s o m e t i m e s ‫ ל א‬is e m p l o y e d to i n d i c a t e n o n - e x i s t e n c e o r n o n - p r e s e n c e , e.g. j o b 28.14 ‫ ׳ ת ה ו ם א מ ר ל א ב י ה י א וים א מ ר א י ן ע מ ד י‬t h e d e e p s a y s , It is n o t in m e , a n d t h e sea s a y s , It is n o t w i t h m e ‫ ׳‬, w h e r e ‫ ל א‬p a r a l l e l s ‫ א י ן‬. In Ben Sira w e f i n d t w o e x a m p l e s , in 14.12 (A) ‫ ׳ ז כ ר כ י ל א ב ש א ו ל ת ע נ ו ג‬r e m e m b e r t h a t in S h e o l t h e r e is n o l u x u r y ‫ ( ׳‬t h e q u o t a t i o n of t h i s v e r s e in b. E r u v i n 54a h a s ‫ ) ! א י ן‬a n d in 39.20 (B) ‫ ׳ ע ל כ ן ל א מ ס פ ר ל ת ש ו ע ת ו‬t h e r e f o r e H i s s a l v a t i o n is b e y o n d c o u n t i n g ‫( ׳‬cf. ‫ אין מ ס פ ר‬in P s . 147.5: ‫ ׳ ל ת ב ו נ ת ו א י ן מ ס פ ר‬H i s w i s d o m is b e y o n d c o u n t i n g ‫ ) ׳‬. T h i s u s e of ‫ ל א‬i n s t e a d of ‫ א י ן‬is a l s o a t t e s t e d in Q H 2 6 a n d M H . 2 7 In a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e w e f i n d 36.26 (Btxt) ‫ א י ש א ש ר ל א ק ן‬f o r ‫׳‬a m a n w h o h a s n o n e s t ' , i n s t e a d of ‫ א י ש א ש ר א י ן ל ו ק ן‬, w h i c h is f o u n d in B m g , C a n d D. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n in Btxt w i t h ‫ ל א‬is c o m p a r a b l e w i t h t h e r a r e u s e s of ‫ ל א‬i n s t e a d of ‫ א י ן‬in c o n t e x t s like 2 S a m . 23.4 ‫' ב ק ר ל א ע ב ו ת‬a m o r n i n g w i t h o u t c l o u d s ' a n d J o b 12.24 ‫ ' ב ת ה ו ל א ד ר ך‬i n a p a t h l e s s w a s t e ' ( C D 1.15). In t h e Bible t h i s u s a g e is c o n f i n e d t o p o e t r y , e x c e p t in 1 C h r o n . 2.30,32 ‫ ( ל א ב נ י ם‬. . . ) ‫ ' ו י מ ת‬a n d ( h e ) d i e d c h i l d l e s s ' . 2 8 C o m p a r e n o w also the 'réclamation d ' u n e v e u v e a u p r è s d ' u n fonctionn a i r e ' r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d b y B o r d r e u i l , Israel a n d P a r d e e . L i n e 3 of this ostracon reads ‫ ' מ ת אישי ל א בנים‬m y h u s b a n d has d i e d w i t h o u t s o n s ' ; c o n t r a s t N u m . 27.8 ‫ ' א י ש כ י י מ ו ת ו ב ן א י ן ל ו‬w h e n a m a n d i e s a n d h e h a s n o s o n ' . 2 9 W h e r e a s all t h e H e b r e w p a r a l l e l s j u s t q u o t e d c o n t a i n a n

23

Cf. JM, §§154e, 163b, on nominal clauses with optative force. Saadia has ‫( לא יש ל ך עסק בנסתרות‬Harkavy [1891 ], p. 179). 25 Thus Segal (1958), p. 263. 26 E.g.: ‫כי אין הולל בכול מעשיך ולא רמיה ]ב!מזמת ל ב כ ה‬ ‫׳‬for there is no folly in all Your acts and there is no deceit in the intentions of Your h e a r t 1 ) ‫ ׳‬Q H 4[12].20-21); ‫ואין פה לרוח הוות ולא מענה לשון ל כ ו ל נקני אשמה‬ 'and there is no word for the spirit of destruction and there is n o reply of the tongue for all the sons of guilt' (1QH 7[15].11), in both cases following an J^-clause. I thank m y colleague Martin Baasten for these references. 27 Azar (1995), pp. 173-74. 28 BDB, p. 519b; Driver (1892), §164; Sappan (1974), pp. 211-15; JM, §1600, oa; GKC, §152u. 29 Bordreuil-Israel-Pardee (1996), pp. 65-66; I thank Professor Joosten for this 24

a s y n d e t i c r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , in Sir. 36.26 (Btxt) w e f i n d ‫ א ש ר‬. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ‫ א ש ר ל א‬h a s its c l o s e s t p a r a l l e l in t h e A r a m a i c ‫ד י ל א‬ ‫ ׳‬w i t h o u t ‫ ׳‬f o u n d in 1 Q a p G e n 2 2 . 3 3 : ‫א נ ה כ ד י א מ ו ת ע ר ט ל י א ה ך ד י ל א ב נ י ן‬ ' a n d w h e n I d i e I s h a l l g o n a k e d , w i t h o u t s o n s ' (cf. G e n . 15.2 30 .(‫ו א נ כ י ה ו ל ך ערירי‬ In Isa. 40.29, 2 C h r o n . 14.10 a n d N e h . 8.10 ‫ א י ן‬is e m p l o y e d f o r ‫ י א ש ר א י ן ל ו‬t h e o n e w h o h a s n o . . . ' in t h e c o m b i n a t i o n 31.‫ לאין‬T h i s u s e is a l s o a t t e s t e d in Sir. 41.2 ( M ) • ‫ ׳ ל א י ן א ו י נ י‬t o h i m t h a t h a s n o m i g h t ‫ ׳‬, w h i c h is b a s e d o n Isa. 40.29.

IV: The syntagm

‫( ל ק ט ל‬X)‫אין‬

F i v e t i m e s in Ben Sira w e f i n d t h e s y n t a g m ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬w i t h o u t a n i n t e r v e n i n g e l e m e n t . 3 2 It c a n t a k e d i f f e r e n t m o d a l v a l u e s , l i k e 'it is n o t p r o p e r ' , 'it is n o t p o s s i b l e ' o r ' t h e r e is n o n e e d ' . 3 3 T h u s w e f i n d ‫ ' א י ן ל א מ ר‬o n e s h o u l d n o t s a y ' in 39.21 ( B 1 + 2 ) a n d 39.34 ( B m g ) , at 10.23 ([A+]B), ‫א י ן ל ב ז ו ת ד ל מ ש כ י ל ואין ל כ ב ד כ ל א י ש ח מ ם‬ 'it is n o t p r o p e r to d e s p i s e a p o o r m a n w h o is w i s e , n o r j u s t to h o n o u r a n y m a n of v i o l e n c e ' , a n d a t 40.26 (B+M), ‫ואין ל ב ק ש ע מ ה מ ש ע ן‬ ' a n d w i t h h e r t h e r e is n o n e e d to s e e k o t h e r s u p p o r t ' . 3 4 T h e s y n t a g m is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of L B H a n d Q H . In t h e l a t e r b o o k s of t h e Bible it is f o u n d a b o u t t e n t i m e s , a l s o w i t h s e v e r a l m o d a l n u a n c e s , e . g . Est. 4.2 ‫' א י ן ל ב ו א‬it w a s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o c o m e ' , Q o h . 3.14 ‫' א י ן ל ה ו ס י ף‬it is i m p o s s i b l e t o a d d ' . 3 5 In Q H ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬o c c u r s s e v e r a l

reference. 1 am indebted to Professor Jooster! and Professor Qimron for this reference. Elsewhere I will deal with other cases in Ben Sira w h e r e ‫ אשר‬appears to be a caique of Aramaic (‫ד)י‬/‫ ז‬or Mishnaic -‫ש‬. See also b e l o w , Sect. VII (5), o n -‫ אשר לא ב‬in LBH and QH. 31 BDB, p. 35a; Kropat (1909), p. 66. 32 The construction without -‫ל‬, as in Ps. 32.9,‫' אין הבין‬there is no understanding' (only three times in the Bible) d o e s not occur in Ben Sira, but with an abstract verbal noun w e find ‫' מאין מענה‬because he has nothing to answer' (20.6 (Cj) and possibly also ‫׳ ואין משקל לטובתו‬there is no w e i g h i n g of His g o o d n e s s ' (6.15 [A]). 33 Cf. English 'there is no telling which is correct' = 'one cannot tell ...' 34 Segal (1935), p. 118; Smend (1906), p. 361 (on 39.21). On these e x a m p l e s see further Professor Hurvitz's article in the present proceedings. 35 Carmignac (1974), p. 410; CKC, §1141; JM, §1241; Hurvitz (1990), pp. 145-47; Bergey (1983), pp. 75-77; Bergey (1984-85), pp. 70-71. 30

t i m e s , a l o n g s i d e ‫ ל א ל ק ט ל‬. Both s y n t a g m s p r i m a r i l y i n d i c a t e o b l i g a t i o n o r p r o h i b i t i o n , e.g. 1 Q S 3.16 ‫ ׳ ו א י ן ל ה ט נ ו ת‬o n e s h o u l d n o t c h a n g e 1 ,‫׳‬QS 1.13, ‫ ' ו ל ו א ל צ ע ו ד‬t h e y s h a l l n o t t r a n s g r e s s ' , b u t a l s o p o s s i b i l i t y , e.g. 1 Q H 12[20].30 ‫ ' ואין ל ה ט י ב‬n o b o d y c a n a n s w e r ' . 3 6 S o m e authorities d e a l i n g w i t h the s y n t a g m s ‫ אין ל ק ט ל‬a n d ‫ל א ל ק ט ל‬ h a v e r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e u s e of t h e s e s y n t a g m s in L B H a n d Q H is d u e to A r a m a i c i n f l u e n c e . In Biblical A r a m a i c a s w e l l a s in Aramaic inscriptions from Jerusalem w e find the s y n t a g m ‫ ל א ל מ ק ט ל‬, e.g. D a n . 6.16 ‫(' ל א ל ה ט נ י ה‬it) c a n n o t b e c h a n g e d ' . 3 7 H o w e v e r , t h e A r a m a i c s y n t a g m ‫ ל א ל מ ק ט ל‬m a y h a v e i n f l u e n c e d its c l o s e s t H e b r e w p a r ( w h i c h d o e s n o t o c c u r in Ben Sira 3 9 ), b u t f o r t h e H e allel 38‫ל א לקטל‬ b r e w ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬t h i s s e e m s less likely. A b e t t e r p a r a l l e l to t h e H e b r e w ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬is t h e S y r i a c c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ckA in, f o r e x a m p l e , A p h r a h a t , Demonstrationes 23.59 7XLC0 rC1m rCxnrC ^70

' n o b o d y c a n tell w h a t is b e l o w t h e e a r t h ' . 4 0 in M H , ‫ א י ן‬+ ‫ל ק ט ל‬ is o n e of t h e w a y s in w h i c h m o d a l i t y is e x p r e s s e d , p r i m a r i l y to d e n o t e possibility (rather t h a n obligation or p r o h i b i t i o n , c o n t r a s t Q H ) , b u t w i t h ‫ ל ק ט ל‬d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g ‫ א י ן‬t h e r e is o n l y o n e e x a m p l e in T a n n a i t i c H e b r e w (MH1): ‫אין ל ה ט י ב ע ל ד ב ר י מי טאכזר ו ה י ה ה ע ו ל ם‬ 'it is i m p o s s i b l e to a r g u e a g a i n s t t h e w o r d s of H i m w h o s p o k e a n d t h e e a r t h c a m e i n t o b e i n g ' ( M e k h i l t a 14.29). 4 1 W i t h a p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e b e t w e e n ‫ א י ן‬a n d ‫ ל ק ט ל‬w e f i n d 14.16 (A): ‫כ י אין ב ט א ו ל ל ב ק ש ת ע נ ו ג‬ ' f o r in S h e o l t h e r e is n o s e e k i n g of joys'. 4 2 C o m p a r e 2 C h r o n . 14.10 ‫ ' א י ן ע מ ך ל ע ז ו ר‬t h e r e is n o n e like Y o u to h e l p ' (RSV) a n d 2 C h r o n . 20.6 ‫ ' ואין ע מ ך ל ה ת י צ ב‬a n d n o b o d y c a n w i t h s t a n d Y o u ' , b u t n o t e t h a t in t h e biblical e x a m p l e s t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e 36

Carmignac (1974), pp. 409-10; Qimron (1986), §400.12; Qimron-Strugnell (1994), p. 80. 37 Bauer-Leander (1927), §85g-h; Kutscher (1971), p. 1588; Qimron §400.12. See Professor Hurvitz's contribution to the present collection. 38 See above the example from QH and below, at the end of this section, the example from LBH. 39 11.29 (A), ‫' לא כ ל איש להביא אל בית‬one should not bring every man into one's house', is different, since ‫ ל א‬relates to ‫ כ ל‬and not to the infinitive. 40 Ed. Parisot (1894-1907), II, p. 124, line 6; N ö l d e k e (1898), §286 41 Ed. Horovitz-Rabin (1960), p. 112; Sharvit (1983), p. 420; Yifrach (1997), p. 279, n. 12. 42 C o m p a r e a similar usage with verbal noun: ‫׳ כי אין ל ה רפואה‬for there is n o healing for i t 3 . 2 8 ) ‫׳‬ [Aj); ‫׳ ואין עמו משוא פנים‬and with Him there is n o partialit 35.15) [Bl).

c o n s i s t s of a p r e p o s i t i o n + s u f f i x p r o n o u n , w h i l e in Sir. 14.6 t h e p r e p o s i t i o n g o v e r n s a n o u n . T h e r e a r e n o biblical o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ אין‬+ p r e p o s i t i o n + n o u n + ‫ ל ק ט ל‬, b u t w i t h ‫ יש‬w e f i n d G e n . 23.8: ‫א ם יש‬ ‫׳ א ת נ פ ש כ ם ל ק ב ר א ת מ ת י‬if y o u a r e w i l l i n g to let m e b u r y m y d e a d ' . ‫ ל ק ט ל‬X ‫אין‬, in c o n t r a s t to ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬, o c c u r s a n u m b e r of t i m e s in M H , e.g. m . G i t t i n 5.6, ‫ ׳ ב ז מ ן שאין ב י ד ן ל י ק ח‬w h e n t h e y h a v e n o t t h e m e a n s to b u y it‫ ׳‬a n d t h e c o m m o n p h r a s e ‫ ל ד ו ן‬/ ‫ ' א י ן ע ל י ך ל ו מ ר‬y o u s h o u l d n o t s a y / a r g u e 4 3 . ‫ ׳‬In Q H , h o w e v e r , t h e s e p a r a t i o n of ‫ א י ן‬f r o m the s u b j e c t is rare. 4 4 W i t h a s u f f i x e d n o u n b e t w e e n ‫ א י ן‬a n d ‫ ל ק ט ל‬w e f i n d 40.29 (B[+M]), ‫א י ן חייו ל מ נ ו ת חיים‬ ‫׳‬his life is n o t to ( c a n n o t ) be c o n s i d e r e d a life'. The construction with a determinate noun between ‫ אין‬and the i n f i n i t i v e is e x c e p t i o n a l . In BH the o n l y e x a m p l e is Jer. 49.12, ‫א ש ר אין מ ש פ ט ם ל ש ת ו ת ה כ ו ם שתו ישתו‬ ' t h o s e w h o s e j u d g m e n t w a s n o t to d r i n k of t h e c u p shall certainly d r i n k it‫׳‬, b u t h e r e t h e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e is d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t of Sir. 40.29. In Sir. 40.29 ‫חייו‬, t h e g r a m m a t i c a l object of the infinitive, 4 5 is t h e s u b j e c t ( t h e m e ) a n d ‫ ל מ נ ו ת ח י י ם‬... ‫ א י ן‬t h e p r e d i c a t e ( r h e m e ) ; in Jer. 49.12 ‫ ל ש ת ו ת ה כ ו ם‬is t h e s u b j e c t ( t h e m e ) a n d ‫ אין מ ש פ ט ם‬t h e p r e d i c a t e (rheme).46 In 39.34 Btxt h a s ‫ א ל ל א מ ר‬. T h e u s e of ‫ א ל‬b e f o r e a n i n f i n i t i v e is s t r i k i n g a n d m o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s r e g a r d it a s c o r r u p t , a m i x i n g of ‫ אין ל א מ ר‬a n d 47.‫א ל תאמר‬ H o w e v e r , - ‫ א ל ל‬+ i n f i n i t i v e a l s o o c c u r s in 4 Q 3 9 3 2.3-4, w h e r e w e find ‫ו א ל ל ל כ ת איש בשררתת! ל ב ו ה ר ע‬ and ‫ו א ל ל ל כ ת איש ב ש ר י ר ת ל ב ו ] ה ח ע‬ ' d o n o t ( a l l o w ) m a n to w a l k in t h e s t u b b o r n n e s s of h i s evil heart'4" a n d in BH ‫ א ל‬p r e c e d e s a n infinitive c o n s t r u c t i o n in P r o v . 31.4:

43

Sharvit (1983), pp. 420-23; Perez F e r n a n d e z (1997), p. 148. C a r m i g n a c (1974), pp. 411-12; m o s t of the e x c e p t i o n s to this rule concern constructions w i t h preposition + suffix. 45 Preceding the infinitive, see above, note 16, on the w o r d order object-infinitive. 46 Kieviet (1997), p. 96. W e use the terms ‫׳‬theme‫ ׳‬and ‫׳‬rheme‫ ׳‬to indicate the psychological subject and predicate; see Bansten (1997), pp. 1-2, o n the distinctions a m o n g grammatical, logical and psychological subject a n d predicate. 47 Kaddari (1985), p. 202; cf. Yifrnch (1997), p. 276, n. 12. 48 Falk (1994), pp. 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 . 1 thank Professor Qimron for this reference. 44

‫א ל ל מ ל כ י ם שתו יין‬ 'kings should not drink wine'.49 F u r t h e r m o r e , i n L B H a n d Q H t h e o t h e r n e g a t i v e t h a t is c o m m o n l y u s e d b e f o r e f i n i t e v e r b s , n a m e l y ‫ ל א‬, o c c u r s b e f o r e ‫ ל ק ט ל‬a s w e l l , e.g. 1 C h r o n . 15.2 ‫ ׳ ל א ל ש א ת א ת א ר ו ן ה א ל ה י ם‬n o b o d y m a y c a r r y t h e a r k of G o d ‫ ׳‬. (See a l s o a b o v e o n Q H . ) 5 "

In B H ‫ פ ן‬is u s e d a f t e r verba timendi a n d in n e g a t i v e f i n a l c l a u s e s , m a i n l y a f t e r a v o l i t i v e . 5 1 S i m i l a r l y w e f i n d ‫ פ ן‬in Ben Sira (a) a f t e r e x p r e s s i o n s of f e a r , w o r r i e s , a n d t h e like: f i v e t i m e s in t h e p a s s a g e o n a f a t h e r ' s w o r r i e s a b o u t his d a u g h t e r in 42.9-10; 5 2 a n d (b) in n e g a t i v e fin a l c l a u s e s : m o r e t h a n t w e n t y t i m e s , of w h i c h t w o c o m e a f t e r a n i m perative and eighteen after a prohibitive. In B H t h e r e a r e s o m e r a t h e r r a r e c a s e s w h e r e ‫ פ ן‬, r i g h t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of a s e n t e n c e , i n d i c a t e s a n e g a t i v e w i s h (in p l a c e of ‫ ) א ל‬, e.g. Isa. 36.18 ‫ ' פ ן י ס י ת א ת כ ם ח ז ק י ה ו‬d o n o t let H e z e k i a h m i s l e a d y o u ‫ ; ׳‬s i m i l a r l y J o b 32.13 a n d 36.18, w h e r e ‫ פ ן‬s t a n d s in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h 53.‫ אל‬In Ben Sira t h i s i n d e p e n d e n t u s e of ‫ פ ן‬o c c u r s o n c e , in 15.12 (A[+B]) ‫פן ת א מ ר הוא התקילני‬ ' s a y n o t , It w a s H e w h o led m e a s t r a y ' , p a r a l l e l to 54.‫א ל תאמר‬ In t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p a s s a g e o n a f a t h e r ' s w o r r i e s a b o u t h i s d a u g h t e r t h e r e is in Sir. 42.10b o n e p u z z l i n g c a s e of ‫ ל א‬i n s t e a d of ‫ פ ן‬. T h e text r u n s as f o l l o w s : Btxt [...]‫[ל‬...]‫[ל‬...!‫בבית‬ Bmg ‫[בית בעי ל תנשה‬.] 'in h e r h u s b a n d ' s h o u s e lest s h e b e f o r g o t t e n ' 49

Professor Joosten (oral communication); see Kaddari (1985), pp. 201, 202 and Qimron (1983), p. 474. 50 N o t e also 1QS 1.6, ‫ולוא ל ל כ ת עוד בטרירות ל ב אטמה‬, w h i c h is almost identical with the text of 4Q393 just cited. The use of ‫ אל‬in 4Q393 may be d u e to the different context: ‫ אל ל ל כ ת‬is part of a petition to God, not the expression of a negative c o m m a n d . 51 Fassberg (1990), pp. 107-12; Azar (1981), pp. 19-27. For the relation between particles following verba timendi and those introducing negative final clauses, see also Bravmann (1970), pp. 191-98. 52 In 42.9c (B+M), 9d (B+M), 10a (Btxt+mg+M), 10c ( B t x t + m g 2 + M ) , 10d (Bmg); cf. 42.9b (B) ‫ ;דאנה‬in the Bible ‫ פן‬occurs once after the verb ‫דאג‬, in Jer. 38.19, on w h i c h see Azar (1981), p. 27. 53 Fassberg (1994), pp. 108-109; Azar (1981), pp. 27-28. 54 See further the commentaries of Smend and Segal on this verse.

M

‫[ תשטה‬...]‫ועלאישה‬ ' a n d b y h e r h u s b a n d [lest] s h e b e u n f a i t h f u l ‫׳‬ b. S a n h é d r i n 100b ‫ב ג ר ה שמא ל א תנשא‬ 55 ' w h e n s h e is m a r r i a g e a b l e , lest s h e w i l l n o t b e t a k e n a s a w i f e ' . ‫ ל א‬i n s t e a d of ‫ פ ן‬o c c u r s in B m g 4 2 . 1 0 d , ‫ ׳ ] ב [ ב י ת ב ע ) ל ה ( ל ) א ( ת נ ש ה‬a n d p o s s i b l y a l s o in t h e a b o v e g i v e n r e a d i n g of Btxt, w h i c h w e c a n r e c o n s t r u c t to r e a d [... ‫ ב ב ית ] ב ע [ ל ] ה [ ל ] א‬, b u t t h e t w o lameds a r e n o t s u r e . 5 6 T h e r e a d i n g w i t h ‫ ל א‬f i n d s s u p p o r t f r o m t h e q u o t a t i o n of t h i s v e r s e in O n t h e b a s i s of t h i s c i t a t i o n in t h e b. S a n h é d r i n 100b w i t h 57.‫ש מ א לא‬ T a l m u d it a p p e a r s likely t h a t ‫ ל א‬in Sir. 42.10d o r i g i n a t e s f r o m t h e e x p r e s s i o n of f e a r t h a t s o m e t h i n g will not t a k e p l a c e . 5 8 N o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t *‫ ' פ ן לא‬l e s t . . . n o t ' d o e s n o t o c c u r in t h e Bible, so t h a t e v e n in t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e u s e of ‫ ל א‬r e m a i n s p e c u l i a r .

V/: ‫« מ ה‬/‫״‬ί ‫ל מ ה‬ Α. ‫ מ ה‬. T h e m e a n i n g of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e ‫ מ ה‬a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of a n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e in t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e s . 5 9 1. W h e n ‫ מ ה‬is u s e d in q u e s t i o n s to w h i c h t h e a n s w e r ' n o t h i n g ' is exp e c t e d . T h i s r h e t o r i c a l f o r m is m a i n l y f o u n d in p o e t r y a n d d i r e c t s p e e c h , e.g. P s . 118.6 • ‫ ' מ ה י ע ש ה ל י א ד‬w h a t c a n m a n d o to m e ? ' a n d 1 K g s 12.16 ‫ ' מ ה ל נ ו ח ל ק ב ד ו ד ו ל א נ ח ל ה ב ב ן ישי‬w e h a v e n o s h a r e in D a v i d , n o p a r t in J e s s e ' s s o n ‫ ׳‬, w i t h ‫ מ ה‬in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h 60.‫ לא‬In Ben Sira w e f i n d in 5.4 ( C ) ‫ ' ו מ ה י ה י ה ל ו‬w h a t will h a p p e n to m e ? 6 1 . ‫׳‬ 2. W h e n ‫ מ ה‬is u s e d a d v e r b i a l l y , m e a n i n g ' h o w ? ' o r ' w h y ? ' . 6 2 T h i s

55

Probably originating from a reading with ‫ ' )אטה( אטה‬w o m a n ' instead of ‫איטה‬ ‫' ))איטה‬her husband‫׳‬, w h i c h is found in M and forms the basis of the reading in B; see Kister (1983), p. 146. 56 They are found in BBS, but not in Beentjes (1997). 57 See below, Sect. VI, on ‫ ;טמא‬on the passage in b. Sanhédrin 100b, see Greenfield (1990). 58 See Kister (1983), p. 143 n. 90 and pp. 145-46. 59 With Arabic mil, the transition from interrogative to negative particle is complete; see BDB, p. 553b. N o t e also the interchange of ‫ טמא‬and ‫ ט ל א‬in the manuscripts of the Mishnah (below, note 69). 60 BDB, p. 553a; JM, §144h; WO, §18.3g. Cf. 2 Sam. 2 0 . 1 : . ‫ב ד ו ד‬ ‫אין א ו ח ל ק‬ 61 In MS A the a n s w e r ‫' מאומה‬nothing‫ ׳‬is added: ‫ ;ומה יעטה לי מאומה‬compare S ‫ ^ כדנדכק‬r
u s a g e , too, is p r i m a r i l y a t t e s t e d in d i r e c t s p e e c h a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s , e.g. E x o d . 14.15 ‫ ' מ ה ת צ ע ק א ל י‬w h y d o y o u c r y to m e ' > ' d o n o t cry to m e ‫; ׳‬ j o b 31.1 1‫ ׳ ב ר י ת כ ר ת י ל ע י נ י ו מ ה א ת ב ו נ ן ע ל בתולה‬m a d e a c o v e n a n t w i t h m y eyes, t h a t I w o u l d n o t look u p o n a m a i d ' (< ' h o w s h o u l d I look . . . ' ; G ού); C a n t . 8 . 4 : ‫ ' מ ה ת ע י ר ו ו מ ה ת ע ר ר ו א ת ה א ה ב ה ע ד ש ת ח פ ץ‬d o n o t stir u p o r a w a k e n l o v e until it is e a g e r ' . In t h e s e c o n t e x t s ‫ מ ה‬a p p r o x i m a t e s t h e m e a n i n g of ‫ ל א‬or ‫ א ל‬. A c c o r d ingly, w e find in Ben Sira t h e f o l l o w i n g u s a g e s . 1. ‫ מ ה‬f o r 35.22:‫לא‬c(Bmg) ‫ ' ו ג ב ו ר מ ה י ת א פ ק‬a n d the M i g h t y O n e will n o t r e f r a i n h i m s e l f 3 8 . 2 163;‫(׳‬B) ‫׳ מ ה ת ו ע י ל ו ל ך ת ר י ע‬it is of n o p r o f i t f o r y o u , b u t it w i l l d o y o u h a r m 3 8 . 2 5 ;‫( ׳‬B) ‫ ׳ מ ה י ת ח כ ם ת ו מ ך מ ל מ ד‬o n e w h o g u i d e s t h e p l o u g h c a n n o t b e c o m e w i s e ' . 6 4 For this u s e of ‫ מ ה‬a s a d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m its u s e w i t h the a d v e r b i a l m e a n i n g ' h o w ? ‫ ׳‬o r ' w h y ? ' , c o m p a r e 13.17 (A) ‫ ' מ ה י ח ו ב ר ז א ב א ל כ ב ש‬h o w will a w o l f h a v e f e l l o w s h i p w i t h a l a m b ? ' (i.e. ' t h e r e is n o f e l l o w s h i p . . . ' ) . 2. ‫ מ ה‬f o r 13.2:‫(אל‬A) ‫ ' כ ב ד מ מ ך מ ה ת ש א‬d o n o t t a k e u p t h a t w h i c h is too h e a v y for y o u 3 2 . 465;‫׳‬b( B ) ‫ ' ו ב ל א מ ז מ ר מ ה ת ש פ ך שיח ו ב ל ע ת מ ה ת ת ח כ ם‬a n d without music do not pour out discourse and d o not display your w i s d o m at t h e w r o n g t i m e 4 1 . 466;‫ (׳‬B ) [ ‫ ׳ ו מ ה ת מ א ס ב ת ו ר ת ע ל י ! ו ן‬a n d d o n o t r e j e c t t h e L a w of t h e M o s t H i g h ‫ ׳‬. F o r t h i s u s e of ‫ מ ה‬a s a d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m its u s e w i t h t h e a d v e r b i a l m e a n i n g ' h o w ? ' o r ' w h y ? ' , c o m p a r e 10.9 (A) ‫ ' מ ה י ג א ה ע פ ר ו א פ ר‬w h y a r e d u s t a n d a s h e s p r o u d ? ' (i.e. ' d u s t a n d a s h e s s h o u l d n o t be p r o u d ' ) .

B. ‫ ל מ ה‬. A s i m i l a r d e v e l o p m e n t ( ' w h y ‫ ' > ׳‬n o t ‫ ) ׳‬is a t t e s t e d for ‫ ל מ ה‬, e.g. E x o d . 32.11 ‫ ' ל מ ה י ה ו ה י ח ר ה א פ ך ב ע מ ך‬w h y , L o r d , is Y o u r a n g e r b u r n i n g a g a i n s t Y o u r p e o p l e ? ' > ' d o n o t let Y o u r a n g e r ...‫׳‬. In Ben Sira ‫ ל מ ה‬is n e a r l y t h e e q u i v a l e n t of ‫ א ל‬in 11.10 (A[+B]): ‫ ׳ בני ל מ ה ת ר ב ה ע ש ק ך‬m y son, w h y s h o u l d y o u m u l t i p l y y o u r b u s i n e s s ? ' > ' d o n o t m u l t i p l y . . . ' . the sense of 'why?‫׳‬, see Bravmann (1970), p. 203. Btxt has ‫לא‬, c o m p a r e the parallel 22b, ‫׳ נם א ל ל א יתמהמה‬God i n d e e d will n o t tarry'. 64 30.19 (Bmg), ‫[ לי המים‬...‫מה יען‬, probably also b e l o n g s here, t h o u g h the reading of the verse and the restoration of the lacuna is problematic, see the c o m mentaries. 65 In MS A ‫ מה‬has been a d d e d b e t w e e n the lines. 66 H e r e MS Β has t w o cola, o n l y the s e c o n d of w h i c h is original (= G); MS F h a s ‫ ו ב ל א מזמור א ל טיח ח ט פ ך‬w i t h ‫ א ל‬, as in v. 4a (B+F). G h a s μή a n d S rC\ s e e Di Leila (1988), p. 223. 63

Six t i m e s in B e n S i r a ‫ ל מ ה‬is e m p l o y e d a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t of ‫ פ ן‬, i n t r o d u c i n g a n e g a t i v e f i n a l - c o n s e c u t i v e c l a u s e a f t e r a v o l i t i v e , e.g. 12.5 ( A ) ‫׳ כ ל י ל ח ם א ל תתן לו ל מ ה ב ם י ק ב י ל א ל י ך‬do not give h i m a w e a p o n so t h a t h e m a y n o t a t t a c k y o u w i t h it'. A l s o t h i s u s e of ‫ ל מ ה‬o c c u r s p r i m a r i l y in d i r e c t s p e e c h , s a p i e n t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e l i k e . T h e i n s i s t e n t t o n e of t h i s u s a g e b e c o m e s c l e a r i n a c a s e l i k e 1 S a m .

19.17,

‫ ׳ ש ל ח נ י ל מ ה א מ י ת ך‬l e t m e l e a v e , in o r d e r t h a t I m a y n o t kill y o u 6 7 . ‫ ׳‬T h e n e g a t i v e f i n a l - c o n s e c u t i v e v a l u e of t h i s p a r t i c l e is o f t e n m a d e e x p l i c i t in t h e a n c i e n t v e r s i o n s . T h u s G t r a n s l a t e s ‫ ל מ ה‬w i t h μήποτε in Sir. 8.1; 11.33; 1 2 . 1 2 d ; 3 0 . 1 2 , w i t h ϊ ν α μ ή in 12.5, a n d w i t h μή in 1 2 . 1 2 b . S t r a n s lates ‫ ל מ ה‬w i t h ^

‫י‬

in 8 . 1 ; 11.33; 12.5; 1 2 . 1 2 d a n d w i t h

in

1 2 . 1 2 b ; 3 0 . 1 2 . 6 8 R e l a t e d t o t h i s u s e of ‫ ל מ ה‬a r e t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e it is p r e c e d e d b y t h e s u b o r d i n a t i n g p a r t i c l e - ‫ ש‬a s in C a n t . 1.7 ‫ ( ש ל מ ה‬a l s o ‫ א ש ר ל מ ה‬in D a n . 1.10). 6 9 C o m p a r e Biblical A r a m a i c ‫ ( ד י ל מ ה‬E z r a 7 . 2 3 ) , Jewish A r a m a i c ‫ ד ל מ א‬, Syriac

VII: Poetic or rare features found

.7"

in Ben Sira

In t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n w e h a v e c o m e a c r o s s t h e f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s i n t h e l a n g u a g e of B e n S i r a t h a t a r e r a r e in t h e B i b l e a n d / o r confined to poetry.

67

JM, §161h; CKC, §150e; WO, §18.3c. Bravmann (1970), p. 189, objects to translating ‫ למה‬with 'lest‫ ׳‬in contexts like these. 68 Smend (1906), p. 74, Bnrthélemy-Rickenbncher (1973), pp. 208-209; Fassberg (1994), pp. 113-14. 69 According to Segal (1927), §302, a n d Perez Fernandez (1997), p. 231, the MH particle ‫ שמא‬also derives from -‫ ט‬+ ‫למה‬, but then the loss of the lamed is strange. It is more likely that ‫ טמא‬derives from -‫ ש‬+ ‫ מ ה‬/ ‫ מ א‬, compare Christian Palestinian Aramaic 0‫בר‬7‫ ינ‬and Samaritan Aramaic drnli (Yalon [1964], p. 114). The s a m e applies to Syriac ·pi, w h i c h d e v e l o p e d from ‫ ׳ ו נ כ < ז‬not from rÍr75A 1; B r a v m a n n (1970), p. 203; pace P a y n e - S m i t h (1903), p. 93b, Brockelmann (1913), §456 and others. In the textual witnesses of the Mishnah ‫ שמא‬interchanges with ‫ ;שלא‬see Yalon (1964), p. 117. 70

A careful analysis of these particles w a s m a d e by Bravmann (1970), w h o argues that the relation between these particles and the u s e of ‫ למה‬under discussion is not so direct as Brockelmnnn (1913), §456, and others, assumed; according to them ‫ למה‬d e v e l o p e d into a conjunction, w h i c h c o n s e q u e n t l y required the subordinating -‫ש‬/-‫ ד‬to be prefixed (p. 189). On the Syriac rO^Ai Bravmann maintains that the loss of the interrogative character of KlrnA and the prefixing of - ‫ י‬originated from the use of rCmA after ī‫׳‬erl‫׳‬a timendi. Thus a construction like Ί fear Γ<τπΛη X will happen‫ ׳‬has as its underlying structure 1‫ ׳‬fear that (-‫( )ר‬X will happen]—Why ( <<=nS) should X happen?‫( ׳‬p. 190).

1. ‫ ל א‬n e g a t i n g existence or p r e s e n c e . 2. T h e u s e of ‫ א ש ר ל א‬for ‫ ׳‬w h o h a s n o ...', w h i c h h a s p a r a l l e l s w i t h o u t ‫ א ש ר‬in biblical p o e t r y (but the a s y n d e t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n is a l s o a t t e s t e d in t h e H e b r e w e p i g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l , w h i l e t h e closest p a r a l l e l to t h e s y n d e t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n is f o u n d in Q u m r a n A r a m a i c ) . 3. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of ‫ אין ל ק ט ל‬w i t h a n i n t e r v e n i n g s u f f i x e d n o u n (in c o n t r a s t to c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e n o u n , w i t h a p r e p o s i tional p h r a s e o r w i t h o u t i n t e r v e n i n g e l e m e n t ) . 4 . ‫ פ ן‬u s e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n s t e a d of ‫ א ל‬. Ben Sira also d i s p l a y s s o m e o t h e r f e a t u r e s that a r e poetic or r a r e in t h e Bible. 5. ‫ ' ב ל א‬w i t h o u t ' . ‫ ' ב ל א‬w i t h o u t ' f o l l o w e d by a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e n o u n is e m p l o y e d in 32.4b (B+F) ‫ ' ו ב ל א מ ז מ ר‬a n d w i t h o u t m u s i c ' , 32.19 (B+F) ‫ ' ב ל א ע צ ה‬w i t h o u t c o u n s e l ' , 33.30 (E) ‫ ' ו ב ל א מ ש פ ט‬a n d w i t h o u t justice,‫׳‬ 37.31 (B+D) ‫ ' ב ל א מ ו ס ר‬w i t h o u t i n s t r u c t i o n 7 1 ‫ ׳‬a n d 51.25 (B) ‫ב ל א כ ס ף‬ ' w i t h o u t m o n e y ' , a n d w i t h a s u f f i x e d n o u n in 25.18 (C) ‫ב ל א ט ע מ ו‬ ' w i t h o u t h i m n o t i c i n g it'. A c c o r d i n g to BDB, p. 520a, this u s e is chiefly poetic or late, but t h e late n o n - p o e t i c u s a g e s are restricted to C h r o n i cles. In o t h e r late b o o k s , like Esther, a n d at Q u m r a n , w e s e e a t e n d e n c y to e m p l o y c o n s t r u c t i o n s like - ‫ א ש ר ל א ב‬a n d -‫ א ש ר ל א כ‬i n s t e a d of ‫ ב ל א‬a n d ‫ כ ל א‬, w h i c h is c o m p a r a b l e w i t h M H ‫ כ ־‬/ ‫ ש ל א ב ־‬a n d A r a m a i c ‫ כ ־‬/ • ‫די ל א ב‬, e.g. Est. 4.16, D a n . 2.34, 1QS 5.17. 72 In t h e p r e c e d i n g e x a m p l e s ‫ ל א‬s e r v e s to i n d i c a t e t h e a b s e n c e of s o m e t h i n g . 7 3 A d i f f e r e n t u s e of ‫ ב ל א‬is f o u n d in 30.24 (B), ‫ו ב ל א ע ת הזקין דאגה‬ ' a n d anxiety b r i n g s o n p r e m a t u r e old a g e ' , w h e r e ‫' ב ל א ע ת‬in n o t - t h e - ( p r o p e r ‫ ) ־‬t i m e ' = ' o u t s i d e (> b e f o r e ) t h e p r o p e r t i m e ‫ ׳ = ׳‬p r e m a t u r e 7 4 . ‫ ׳‬C o m p a r e Q o h . 7.17 ‫' ל מ ה ת מ ו ת ב ל א עתן־‬in o r d e r t h a t y o u m a y n o t d i e b e f o r e y o u r t i m e ' a n d Job 15.32 ‫ ׳ ב ל א יומו ת מ ל א‬b e f o r e his t i m e h e will be p a i d in full‫( ׳‬NIV) a n d c o n trast -‫ ש ל א ב‬in m . Rosh H a s h a n a h 2.9 ‫ ׳ בין בזמנן בין ש ל א מ מ נ ן‬w h e t h e r in their p r o p e r t i m e or n o t in their p r o p e r time'. 7 5

71

Cf. Prov. 5.23, .‫באי] מוסר‬ Hurvitz (1972), pp. 142-44; Qimron (1986), §400.14; Segal (1927), §425; Perez Fernandez (1997), pp. 52,162-63; Azar (1995), pp. 182-83; see also Jenni (1992), pp. 56, 348, 357. 73 See on ‫ ל א‬indicating non-existence and non-presence above, Sect. ΙΠ; c o m pare also ‫באין‬, discussed below. 74 A n d not: 'without the proper time'. 75 Jenni (1992), p. 303; Hurvitz (1972), p. 143. 72

6 . ‫ב ־‬ ‫ ב א י ן‬. , w h e n p r e f i x e d to ‫אין‬, h a s the u s u a l local m e a n i n g ' i n ' , a is e q u i v a l e n t to ‫' ב א ש ר‬in t h e place w h e r e ' . 7 6 H o w e v e r , ‫ ב א י ן‬is n o t o n l y e m p l o y e d in t h e s e n s e of 'in t h e place w h e r e t h e r e is n o t ‫ ׳‬, b u t also in t h e s e n s e of 'in t h e a b s e n c e of, w i t h o u t ' . 7 7 T h e } ^ - c l a u s e f o l l o w i n g ‫ב־‬ is n o m i n a l i z e d . 7 8 ‫ באין‬is o n l y f o u n d in p o e t r y , m a i n l y in P r o v e r b s 7 9 (8 o u t of 10 of its o c c u r r e n c e s ) , e.g. w i t h a p a r t i c i p l e P r o v . 26.20 ‫ובאין נרגן‬ ‫ ' י ש ת ק מ ר ו ן‬a n d w i t h o u t g o s s i p a q u a r r e l s u b s i d e s ' , G οπου ούκ εστίν. T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n is f o u n d a n u m b e r of t i m e s in Ben Sira, e.g. 36.25a (B[+C+D]), ‫ ' באין נ ד י ר י ב ו ע ר כ ר ם‬w i t h o u t a h e d g e a v i n e y a r d is o v e r r u n ' ; f u r t h e r 3.25a (A), ‫ ' באין אישון‬w i t h o u t a p u p i l ' ; 3.25b (A), ‫ ' ובאין ד ע ת‬a n d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e ' ; 8.16 (A), ‫ ' ובאין מ צ י ל‬a n d w i t h noo n e t o r e s c u e ' ; 11.9 ([A+]B), ‫ ' באין ע צ ה‬w i t h o u t c o u n s e l ' ; 36.25b (B[+C+D]), ‫ ' ובאין אשה‬a n d w i t h o u t a w i f e ' . For ‫ באין‬G has in 8.16 κ α ί οπου ούκ εστίν a n d in 11.9 a n d 36.25 [twice], ου ούκ εστίν, b u t in 3.25a w e find κόρας μή εχων a n d in 3.25b, γνώσεως δε άμοιρων. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ‫ באין‬in t h e s e n s e of ' w i t h o u t ' can s e r v e as t h e e q u i v a l e n t of a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l c l a u s e w i t h ‫ ;ואין‬c o m p a r e Isa. 57.1, ‫ ' ואנשי ח ס ד נ א ס פ י ם ב א י ן מ ב י ן‬m e n of g o o d f a i t h a r e t a k e n a w a y , b u t n o b o d y c a r e s ' , parallel to ‫ ' ה צ ד י ק א ב ד ואין א י ש שם ע ל ל ב‬t h e r i g h t e o u s p e r i s h a n d n o b o d y takes it to h e a r t ' . O n t h e basis of this o b s e r v a t i o n w e s h o u l d a n a l y s e a v e r s e like 8.16 (A), ‫ ' ו ב א י ן מ צ י ל י ש ח י ת ך‬w h e n there is n o - o n e to r e s c u e , h e will d e s t r o y y o u ' , as e q u i v a l e n t to *‫ישחיתך‬ ‫ואין מ צ י ל‬. 8 0 C o m p a r e t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‫ ' ואין מ צ י ל‬w i t h n o - o n e t o r e s c u e ' in Isa. 5.29, 42.22 a n d eight o t h e r times in t h e Bible. 7. ‫ ב ל‬i n s t e a d of ‫ ל א‬. In BH ‫ ב ל‬is a p o e t i c s y n o n y m of ‫ ל א‬, e.g. P r o v . 24.23, ‫ ' ה כ ר פנים ב מ ש פ ט ב ל ט ו ב‬p a r t i a l i t y in j u d g i n g is n o t g o o d ' ; Isa. 26.10, ‫ ' ב ל ל מ ד צ ד ק‬h e d o e s n o t learn r i g h t e o u s n e s s ' . 8 1 In M H it is o n l y u s e d in t h e s y n t a g m ‫ ב ל י ק ט ל‬in h a l a k h i c texts, r e p l a c i n g ‫ ל א‬o r ‫ א ל‬in b i b l i c a l t e x t s u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . 8 2 In Ben Sira w e f i n d 11.5 (A), ‫ ' ו ב ל ע ל ל ב ע ט ו צ נ י ף‬a n d t h o s e n e v e r t h o u g h t of h a v e w o r n a c r o w n ' , 8 3 a n d 32.4 (B), ‫ ' ו ב ל ע ת מ ה ת ת ח כ ם‬a n d d o not d i s p l a y y o u r w i s d o m at t h e w r o n g time'. 76

BDB, p. 82b. C f . B D B , p . 35a. 78 Jenni (1992), p. 357. The s a m e applies to ]‫ אי‬f o l l o w i n g -‫ל‬, b e l o w , Sect. VIII

77

(5). 79

Driver (1892), §164. G interprets differently (see above). See also b e l o w , note 94, on ‫ לאין‬as the equivalent of .‫ואין‬ 81 JM, §160m; GKC, §152t. 82 Azar (1995), p. 185; Segal (1927), §472; Pérez Fernandez (1997), p. 174. 83 Cf. Prov. 23.7, ‫' ולבו ב ל ע מ ך‬but his heart is not with you'. Segal e m e n d s Sir. 11.5 ‫ ע ל‬to ‫ עלו ע ל‬and S m e n d to ‫עלים ע ל‬. 8(1

8. ‫ א ל‬in place of ‫ ל א‬. In BH ‫ א ל י ק ט ל‬is s o m e t i m e s u s e d w h e r e w e e x p e c t ‫ ל א י ק ט ל‬, e s p e c i a l l y in p o e t r y , e.g. P r o v . 3.25, ‫ ' א ל ת י ר א‬y o u will n o t h a v e to b e a f r a i d ' , Jer. 46.6, ‫ ' א ל ינום‬h e will n o t be a b l e to flee'. 8 4 T h i s f r e e u s e of ‫ א ל‬also o c c u r s in Sir. 3.14 (C), ‫ ' צ ד ק ת א ב א ל ת ש כ ח‬k i n d n e s s to a f a t h e r will n o t b e f o r g o t t e n ' , 6.8 (A) ‫ ' ו א ל י ע מ ו ד ב י ו ם צ ר ה‬a n d h e will n o t s t a n d w i t h y o u in t h e d a y of d i s t r e s s ' , 8 5 16.13 ( A t x t ) ‫' א ל י מ ל ט ב ג ז ל ע ו ל‬a s i n n e r d o e s n o t e s c a p e w i t h h i s s p o i l ' a n d 38.4 (B) ‫' ו נ ב ר מ ב י ן א ל י מ א ם ב ם‬a m a n of d i s c e r n m e n t will n o t d e s p i s e t h e m ' . 8 6 In 7.1 (A), 9.13 (A) a n d 38.12 (Bmg) ‫ א ל‬is u s e d in a n e g a t i v e final c l a u s e , w h i c h is a l s o a c o n t e x t w h e r e ‫ ל א‬is m o r e c o m m o n . In t h e v e r s e s m e n t i o n e d the t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s s h o w s o m e v a r i a tion in t h e f o r m of n e g a t i o n , w h i c h s h o u l d be e x p l a i n e d f r o m a t e n d e n c y to c h a n g e ‫ א ל‬to ‫ ל א‬in cases w h e r e its u s e is u n c o m m o n . T h u s in 3.14 C h a s ‫ א ל ת ש כ ח‬, b u t A 87‫ ל א תמחה‬a n d S a a d i a h a s ‫ ו ל א‬in his citation f r o m 6.8; 8 8 in 16.13 (A) ‫ א ל‬h a s b e e n c o r r e c t e d to ‫ ל א‬in t h e m a n u s c r i p t ( m a r g i n a l r e a d i n g ) ; in 38.12 w h e r e B m g h a s ‫ ו א ל ישמש‬, Btxt h a s .‫ו ל א ימוש‬ 9. ‫ א פ ם‬. In Ben Sira w e find o n e o c c u r r e n c e of ‫ א פ ם‬u s e d a s a n e g a t i v e , in 41.2 ( [ B m g + ] M ) ‫׳ איש כ ש ל ונוקש ס כ ל [ א פ ם ה מ ר ה ו א ב ו ד ת ק ו ה‬a m a n w h o s t u m b l e s a n d t r i p s in e v e r y t h i n g , w h o lacks the will to f i g h t 8 9 a n d h a s lost h o p e ' . Since ‫ א פ ם ה מ ר ה‬s t a n d s in a p p o s i t i o n to ‫איש‬, w e r e a d ‫ א פ ם‬as a v e r b a l a d j e c t i v e of the v e r b ‫' א פ ם‬to lack' r a t h e r t h a n t h e particle ‫ א פ ם‬. In BH t h e v e r b o c c u r s o n l y five times. 911 ‫ א פ ם‬is m o r e f r e q u e n t , m a i n l y in p o e t r y , e i t h e r as a n o u n , e.g. in the p h r a s e ‫ ' א פ ס י א ר ץ‬t h e e n d s of t h e e a r t h ' (also in Sir. 36.17 [B] a n d 44.21 [B]), 91 o r as a n e g a t i v e particle, e.g. Isa. 5.8 ‫ ' ע ר א פ ם מ ק ו ם‬u n t i l t h e r e is n o m o r e place'. 9 2

84

JM, §§114k, 160f; GKC, §107p. Kaddari (1985), p. 202. T h e indicative v a l u e of the c l a u s e is also e v i d e n t from the p r e c e d i n g ‫' י ט א ו ה ב‬there is a friend...'; c o m p a r e further v. 10 (A), ‫׳ ולא ימצא ביום רעה‬but h e will not be f o u n d in the evil day'. 86 H e r e ‫ א ל ימאס‬m a y h a v e v o l i t i v e force: 'which the p r u d e n t s h o u l d not negleet‫( ׳‬Skehan-Di Leila). C o m p a r e the n e g a t e d j u s s i v e in, e.g., Exod. 34.3 ‫׳ איט א ל ירא‬let n o b o d y be seen‫( ׳‬JM, §1141); G has ού. 87 N o t e that from the indicative v a l u e of ‫( ל א ח מ ח ה‬A) it d o e s not automatically follow that ‫( א ל ת ט כ ח‬C) is indicative as well. Morecwer, it is also possible to attribute a v o l i t i v e s e n s e to both readings, see Dr Fassberg's article in this v o l ume. 88 H a r k a v y (1891), p. 177. 89 For this translation of ‫אפס המרה‬, see Lieberman (1968), pp. 89-90. 90 Gen. 47.15,16; Isa. 16.4; 29.20; Ps. 77.9. 91 Cf. also Sir. 41.10 (B[+M]): ‫׳ כ ל מאפס אל אפם יטוב‬all that is of n a u g h t returns to naught'. 92 B D B , p. 67a; JM, §160n. 85

In t h e f i v e biblical p r e s s e s t h e a b s e n c e of gard ‫ א פ ס ה מ ר ה‬as a ‫ פ ה תארה‬: ‫)אטה א ט ר‬, i .

p a s s a g e s in w h i c h ‫ א פ ס‬is u s e d a s a v e r b , it e x t h e g r a m m a t i c a l s u b j e c t . For t h i s r e a s o n w e rec o n s t r u c t s t a t e of t h e t y p e=)‫א ש ה י פ ת ת א ר‬ ‫איט( א ט ר א פ ס ה‬ e . 9 3 . ( ‫ה מ ר ת ו‬

VIII: Features that are typical of Late Biblical Hebrew and post-Biblical brew

He-

W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e s in t h e l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of LBH a n d P B H . 1. T h e s y n t a g m ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬, p a r a l l e l e d in L B H a n d Q H , a n d ‫ ל ק ט ל‬X ‫אין‬, w h i c h is a l s o a t t e s t e d in M H . 2.‫ אין‬before a substantival predicate, agreeing with M H usage instead of B H .‫לא‬ 3. T h e o m i s s i o n of t h e s u b j e c t in a n o m i n a l c l a u s e w i t h ‫ א י ן‬, f o r w h i c h w e f o u n d p a r a l l e l s in LBH a n d M H . 4 . ‫ ל א י ן‬f o r ‫ ל א ט ר א י ן א‬a s in LBH. O t h e r late f e a t u r e s in Ben Sira i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g . 5 . ‫׳‬ ‫ ל א י ן‬w i t h o u t ' . In LBH a n d Q H w e f i n d ‫ ל א י ן‬+ ( a b s t r a c t ) n o u n o r i n f i n i t i v e in t h e s e n s e of ' w i t h o u t , s o t h a t n o t ‫ ׳‬, e . g . 1 C h r o n . 22.4 ‫ ׳ ל א י ן מ ס פ ר‬w i t h o u t n u m b e r 2;‫׳‬C h r o n . 20.25 ‫׳ ל א י ן מ ט א‬so t h a t t h e r e w a s n o c a r r y i n g a w a y 1 ;‫׳‬QS 2.7 • ‫ ׳ ל א י ן ר ח מ י‬w i t h o u t m e r c y 9 4 . ‫ ׳‬In B e n Sira w e f i n d in 51.4 (B) ‫ ( ׳ מ כ ב ו ת א ט ל א י ן פ ח ה‬Y o u s a v e d m e ) f r o m b u r n i n g fire, w i t h o u t a t r a c e of it r e m a i n i n g ' . 6. ‫ ל ל א‬. In t h e M a s a d a Scroll t h e r e is o n e o c c u r r e n c e of ‫ ל ל א‬i n 41.11 ‫׳ ל ל א י כ ר ת‬will n o t b e c u t o f f ‫( ׳‬B: ‫ ) ל א‬. T h i s f o r m of t h e n e g a t i v e o c c u r s a n u m b e r of t i m e s in Q u m r a n H e b r e w , w h e r e it is f o l l o w e d b y a p a s s i v e f o r m of t h e i m p e r f e c t , e.g. 1 Q H 6[14].28 ‫ ׳ ל ל א י ט ו ב ח‬t h e y c a n n o t b e b r o k e n ‫( ׳‬in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h ‫ ל א י ן‬+ a b s t r a c t n o u n ) . 9 5 S i n c e ‫ ל ל א‬is a t t e s t e d in Q u m r a n H e b r e w a s w e l l , t h e r e is n o n e e d to r e g a r d it a s a

93

See Muraoka (1977); the same applies to the following ‫אבודתקוה‬, which w e can paraphrase with.(‫איש( אשר אבודהתקותו‬ 94 BDB, p. 35a (‫ לי‬of state‫ ;׳‬peculiar to Chronicles); Hurvitz (1972), p. 39; Qimron (1986), §400.09. My colleague Martin Baasten pointed out to me that in QH ‫ לאין‬often functions as an equivalent of ‫ואין‬. The ]^-clause following -‫ ל‬is nominalized; cf. Sect. VU (6), above, on .‫באין‬ 95 Similarly 1QH 5[13].37; see Qimron (1986), §400.10.

scribal error.96

/ X : ‫ א י ן‬and ‫ל א‬ B e f o r e t u r n i n g to o u r c o n c l u s i o n s , s o m e o b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e u s e of ‫ל א‬ a n d ‫ א י ן‬a r e in o r d e r . 1. F o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n of a n e g a t i v e c o m m a n d b o t h ‫ ל א ת ק ט ל‬a n d ‫ א י ן ל ק ט ל‬a r e u s e d ; c o m p a r e 4.4 (A) ‫ ' ו ל א ת מ ה‬a n d d o n o t d e s p i s e ‫ ׳‬w i t h 10.23 (A) ‫ א י ן ל ב ז ו ת‬. T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o e x p r e s s i o n s is p r i m a r i l y d i a c h r o n i c : ‫ אין ל ק ט ל‬is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of later H e b r e w . 9 7 2. B o t h ‫ ל א‬a n d ‫ א י ן‬a r e e m p l o y e d f o r t h e n e g a t i o n of a s t a t e m e n t e x pressed by a nominal clause.‫ אין‬negates the clause (predication) as a whole, while ‫ ל א‬negates a single phrase, either the predicate or ano t h e r p a r t of t h e c l a u s e . W i t h a s u b s t a n t i v e a s t h e p r e d i c a t e w e f i n d o n c e ‫( ל א‬as in BH) a n d o n c e ‫( אין‬as in M H ) . 3. N o n - p r e s e n c e o r n o n - e x i s t e n c e is c o m m o n l y e x p r e s s e d b y ‫ א י ן‬, b u t sometimes by .‫לא‬ 4. B e f o r e a n i n d e f i n i t e n o u n , b o t h ‫ ב ל א‬a n d ‫ ב א י ן‬o c c u r . C o m p a r e 11.9 ([A+]B) ‫ ב א י ן ע צ ה‬a n d 32.19 (Ε) ‫ ׳ ב ל א ע צ ה‬w i t h o u t c o u n s e l 9 8 . ‫׳‬ 5. B o t h ‫ ל א‬a n d ‫ א י ן‬a r e o n c e p r e c e d e d b y t h e p r e p o s i t i o n - 9 9 . ‫ ל‬W e f i n d once ‫ ל ל א‬+ imperfect and once ‫ לאין‬+ verbal noun. C o m p a r e the c o m p l e m e n t a r y constructions ‫ לאין‬+ infinitive or abstract n o u n , ‫ ל ל א‬+ i m p e r f e c t a n d ‫ ב ל א‬+ p e r f e c t in Q H . 1 0 ‫״‬ 6. F o r ' w h o h a s n o . . . ‫ ׳‬w e f i n d n o t o n l y t h e p h r a s e ‫ א ש ר א י ן ל ו‬in 36.26 ( B m g + C + D ) , b u t a l s o ‫ א ש ר ל א‬in Btxt of t h e s a m e v e r s e a n d ‫ א י ן‬in ‫ל א י ן‬ ‫ ׳‬t o t h e o n e w h o h a s n o . . . ‫ ׳‬in 41.2 (M).

X:

Conclusion

A s f a r a s n e g a t i o n is c o n c e r n e d , t h e l a n g u a g e of Ben Sira s h o w s a rich v a r i e t y of f o r m s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s . A p a r t f r o m e l e m e n t s in h i s Iang u a g e t h a t a g r e e w i t h S B H , t h e r e a r e s o m e f e a t u r e s t h a t c o n n e c t it to

96

Pace Yadin (1965), p. 19, and others. Hurvitz (1990), pp. 145-47. 98 C f . Muraoka (1995), p. 70. 99 Apart from ‫ לאין‬with a different function in 41.2 (M). 100 Qimron (1986), §400.10; Muraoka (1995), pp. 69-70. 97

B H p o e t r y a n d o t h e r s t h a t link it to L B H a n d P B H . F e a t u r e s t h a t a r e r a r e o r p o e t i c in t h e Bible i n c l u d e ‫ ל א‬n e g a t i n g e x i s t e n c e o r p r e s e n c e , ‫ ׳ ב א י ן‬w i t h o u t ‫ ׳‬, w h i c h is m a i n l y f o u n d in t h e b o o k of P r o v e r b s , ‫ ' ב ל א‬w i t h o u t ' , t h e u s e of ‫ ב ל‬a n d ‫ א ל‬in p l a c e of ‫ ל א‬, t h e i n d e p e n d e n t u s e of ‫ פ ן‬in p l a c e of ‫ א ל‬, a n d t h e n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e ‫ א פ ס‬. T h e u s e of ‫ א ש ר ל א‬f o r ' w h o h a s n o . . . ' h a s , in B H p o e t r y a n d t h e H e b r e w e p i g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l , o n l y p a r a l l e l s w i t h o u t ‫ א ש ר‬. Its c l o s e s t p a r allel is f o u n d in Q u m r a n A r a m a i c . ‫ מ ה‬a n d ‫ ל מ ה‬as ( n e a r l y ) t h e e q u i v a lent of ‫ ל א‬, ‫ א ל‬o r ‫ פ ן‬a l s o o c c u r in biblical s a p i e n t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n ( b u t in o t h e r c a s e s of d i r e c t s p e e c h a s well). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of LBH a n d P B H a r e t h e ‫ ( ל ק ט ל‬X ) ‫ א י ן‬c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( m a i n l y in L B H a n d Q H ; w i t h a n i n t e r v e n i n g e l e m e n t a l s o a t t e s t e d in M H ) , t h e u s e of ‫ א י ן‬n e g a t i n g a s u b s t a n t i v a l p r e d i c a t e ( M H ) , t h e o m i s s i o n of t h e s u b j e c t in a n } ^ - c l a u s e (LBH, M H ) , ‫ ׳ ל א י ן‬w i t h o u t ‫ ׳‬, f o l l o w e d b y a n i n f i n i t i v e o r a b s t r a c t n o u n (LBH, Q H ) , ‫ ל א י ן‬m e a n i n g ' t o t h e o n e w h o h a s n o . . . ‫( ׳‬LBH), a n d ‫ ל ל א‬i n s t e a d of ‫ ( ל א‬Q H ) . For t h e first f e a t u r e mentioned, Aramaic influence cannot be ruled out. Of t h e f e a t u r e s t h a t Ben Sira s h a r e s w i t h L B H , ‫ ׳ ל א י ן‬w i t h o u t ‫ ׳‬is r e s t r i c t e d t o C h r o n i c l e s , w h e r e a s t w o of t h e t h r e e o c c u r r e n c e s of ‫ ל א י ן‬f o r ' t o h i m w h o h a s n o . . . ' a r e f o u n d in C h r o n i c l e s a n d N e h e m i a h . F u r t h e r m o r e , of t h e p o e t i c f e a t u r e s m e n t i o n e d , t h e u s e of ‫ ל א‬f o r ‫ אין ל ו‬in a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h ‫ ' ב ל א‬w i t h o u t ' a r e a l s o att e s t e d in C h r o n i c l e s . 1 " 1 T h e a n o m a l o u s u s e of ‫ ל א‬in a n e x p r e s s i o n of f e a r in 42.10 (B) is p r o b a b l y d u e to t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n . I n s t e a d of i n d i c a t i n g t h e f e a r t h a t s o m e t h i n g w o u l d t a k e p l a c e , it o r i g i n a l l y e x p r e s s e d t h e f e a r t h a t s o m e t h i n g w o u l d not t a k e p l a c e . E v e n w i t h t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n , t h e u s e of ‫ ל א‬r e m a i n s n o t e w o r t h y . T e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n m a y a l s o h a v e c a u s e d t h e s t r i k i n g ‫ א ל ל ק ט ל‬in 39.34 (Btxt), a l t h o u g h this f o r m m o r e p r o b a b l y r e p r e s e n t s a r a r e u s a g e , t h e g e n u i n e n e s s of w h i c h is n o w e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h its o c c u r r e n c e t w i c e in a Q u m r a n f r a g m e n t .

Bibliography A p h r a h a t , Deinonstrationes: I. P a r i s o t (ed.), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (PS, 1,1-2; P a r i s : F i r m i n - D i d o t , 1894-1907). A z a r , M., ‫ פ ן ( ׳ פ ך ב מ ק ר א‬in t h e Bible), Hebrexv Computational Linguistics

l1‫ ״‬Whether these observations are significant will only appear from a much broader investigation into the language of Ben Sira in relation to the diversity of LBH.

18 (1981), p p . 19-30. — ‫ ( ת ח ב י ר ל ש ו ן ה מ ש נ ה‬T h e S y n t a x of M i s h n a i c H e b r e w ) ( J e r u s a l e m : A c a d e m y of t h e H e b r e w L a n g u a g e / U n i v e r s i t y of H a i f a , 1995). B a a s t e n , M.F.J., ' N o m i n a l C l a u s e s C o n t a i n i n g a P e r s o n a l P r o n o u n in Q u m r a n H e b r e w ‫ ׳‬, HDSSBS (1997), p p . 1-16. B a r t h é l é m y , D. a n d O . R i c k e n b a c h e r , Konkordanz zum hebräischen Siräch ( G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1973). B a u e r , H . a n d P . L e a n d e r , Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen ( H a l l e / S a a l e : M a x N i e m e y e r , 1927). BBS = ‫ ק ו נ ק ו ר ד נ צ י ה ו נ י ת ו ח א ו צ ר ה מ ל י ם‬, ‫ ה מ ק ו ר‬, ‫ ( ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א‬T h e B o o k of Ben Sira: Text, C o n c o r d a n c e a n d a n A n a l y s i s of t h e V o c a b u lary) (ed. Z. Ben H a y y i m ; J e r u s a l e m : A c a d e m y of t h e H e b r e w L a n g u a g e / S h r i n e of t h e Book, 1973). BDB = F. B r o w n , S.R. D r i v e r a n d C . A . Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1907). B e e n t j e s , P.C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts ( V T S u p , 68; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1997). B e r g e y , R., ' T h e Book of E s t h e r — I t s P l a c e in t h e L i n g u i s t i c M i l i e u of P o s t - E x i l i c Biblical H e b r e w P r o s e : A S t u d y in L a t e Biblical H e b r e w ‫( ׳‬Doct. diss., D r o p s i e C o l l e g e , 1983; A n n A r b o r , MI, U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1985). — ' L a t e L i n g u i s t i c F e a t u r e s in E s t h e r ‫ ׳‬, JQR 72 (1984-85), p p . 66-78. B o r d r e u i l , P., F. Israel a n d D. P a r d e e , ‫ ׳‬D e u x o s t r a c a p a l é o - h é b r e u x d e la collection S h . M o u s s a ï e f f ‫ ׳‬, Sem. 46 (1996), p p . 49-76. B r a v m a n n , M . M . , ‫ ׳‬S y r i a c dalmâ " l e s t " , " p e r h a p s " a n d S o m e R e l a t e d A r a b i e P h e n o m e n a ‫ ׳‬, ISS 15 (1970), p p . 189-204 [=Studies in Semitic Philology (SSLL, 6; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1977), p p . 322-37], B r o c k e l m a n n , C., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitisehen Sprachen, Vol. II: Syntax (Berlin: R e u t h e r & R e i c h a r d , 1913). C a r m i g n a c , } . , ' U n a r a m a ï s m e b i b l i q u e et q u m r â n i e n : l'infinitif p l a c é a p r è s s o n c o m p l é m e n t d ' o b j e c t ' , RQ 5 (1966), p p . 503-20. — ' L ' e m p l o i d e la n é g a t i o n ‫ א י ן‬d a n s la Bible et à Q u m r a n ' , RQ 8 (1974), p p . 407-13. Di Lella, A . A . , ‫ ׳‬T h e N e w l y D i s c o v e r e d Sixth M a n u s c r i p t of Ben Sira f r o m t h e C a i r o G e n i z a ' , Bib. 69 (1988), p p . 226-38. D r i v e r , S.R., A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Third ed.; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1892). E l w o l d e , J.F., ' D e v e l o p m e n t s in H e b r e w V o c a b u l a r y b e t w e e n Bible a n d M i s h n a h ' , HDSSBS (1997), p p . 17-55. Falk, D., ' 4 Q 3 9 3 : A C o m m u n a l C o n f e s s i o n ' , JJS 45 (1994), p p . 184-207.

Fassberg, s.Ε., ‫ פן יקטל‬,‫ ולא יקפ{ל‬:‫משפטי תכלית שליליים בלשון המקרא‬ ( N e g a t i v e F i n a l C l a u s e s in Biblical H e b r e w : ‫ פן יקטל‬a n d ‫־קטל‬: ‫)ולא‬, in M . G o s h e n - G o t t s t e i n , S. M o r a g a n d S. K o g u t (eds.),‫שי לחיים רבין‬: Studies in Hebrew and Other Semitic Languages Presented to Professor Chaim Rabin on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday ( J e r u s a l e m : A c a d e m o n , 1990), p p . 27394. - ‫ ( סוגיות ב ת ח ב י ר ה מ ק ר א‬S t u d i e s in Biblical S y n t a x ) ( J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s P r e s s / H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y , 1994). F o l m e r , M. L., The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation ( O L A , 68; L e u v e n : P e e t e r s , 1995). G K C = W . G e s e n i u s , E. K a u t z s c h a n d A.E. C o w l e y , Hebrew Grammar ( S e c o n d e d . ; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1910). G r e e n f i e l d , J.C., 'Ben Sira 42.9-10 a n d its T a l m u d i c P a r a p h r a s e ‫ ׳‬, in P . R. D a v i e s a n d R. T. W h i t e (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History ( J S O T S u p , 100; S h e f f i e l d : J S O T P r e s s , 1990), p p . 167-73. HDSSBS = T. M u r a o k a a n d J.F. E l w o l d e (eds.), The Hebrnv of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1997). H u r v i t z , Α . , ‫ ( בין ל ש ו ן ל ל ש ו ן‬T h e T r a n s i t i o n P e r i o d in Biblical H e b r e w ) ( J e r u s a l e m : Bialik I n s t i t u t e , 1972). — R e v i e w of D. C. F r e d e r i c k s , Qohelet's Language: Re-evaluating its Natureand Date, HS 31 (1990), p p . 1 4 4 - 5 4 / J e n n i , E., Die Präposition Beth ( D i e h e b r ä i s c h e n P r ä p o s i t i o n e n , 1; S t u t t g a r t : W . K o h l h a m m e r , 1992). J o o s t e n , J., ‫ ׳‬T h e S y n t a x of Imbnrākāh ,ahat hi> hkāh tibi ( G e n . 2 7 : 3 8 a a ) ‫ ׳‬, JSS 3 6 (1991), p p . 207-21. J M = P . J o ü o n a n d T. M u r a o k a , A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew ( c o r r e c t e d r e v i s e d e d . ; S u b s i d i a Biblica 14.1-2; R o m a : P o n t i f i cio I s t i t u t o Biblico, 1993). K a d d a r i , M . Z . , ‫ ( מ ל ת ה ש ל י ל ה א ל‬T h e W o r d of N e g a t i o n ‫ ) א ל‬, in M . Bar A s h e r (ed.), Language Studies 1 ( J e r u s a l e m : I n s t i t u t e of J e w i s h S t u d i e s , H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y , 1985), p p . 197-210 [= Post-Biblical Hebrew Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Diachronic Hebrew ( R a m a t G a n : Bar Ilan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1991-94), I, p p . 58-60]. Kieviet, P.-J., ' D e I n f i n i t i v u s C o n s t r u c t u s in h e t B o e k K r o n i e k e n ‫ ( ׳‬M A thesis, L e i d e n U n i v e r s i t y , 1997). K i s t e r , M., ‫ ( ב ש ו ל י ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א‬N o t e s o n t h e B o o k of Ben Sira), Leš. 4 7 (1983), p p . 125-46. — ‫( ל פ י ר ו ש ו ש ל ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א‬A C o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ben Sira), Tarbiz 59 (1989-90), p p . 303-78. K r o p a t , Α., Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner

Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen ( B Z A W , 16; G l e s s e n : A l f r e d T ö p e l m a n n , 1909). K u t s c h e r , E.Y., ' H e b r e w L a n g u a g e , T h e D e a d S e a S c r o l l s ' , Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 16 ( J e r u s a l e m : Keter, 1971), p p . 158390. L i e b e r m a n , S . , ‫ ( ה ו ר א ו ת נ ש כ ח ו ת‬F o r g o t t e n M e a n i n g s ) , Leš. 32 (1968), p p . 89-102. M e k h i l t a d e R a b b i I s h m a e l : H . S . H o r o v i t z a n d I.A. R a b i n ( e d s . ) , ‫( מ כ י ל ת א ר ר ב י י ש מ ע א ל ע ם ח ל ו פ י ג ר ס א ו ת ו ה ע ר ו ת‬Mechilta d'Rabbi is1nael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus) (Second ed.; Jerus a l e m : B a m b e r g e r & W a h r m a n , 1960). M o r e s h e t , M . , ‫ ( ל ק ס י ק ו ן ה פ ו ע ל ש נ ת ח ר ש ב ל ש ו ן ה ת נ א י ם‬A L e x i c o n of t h e N e w V e r b s in T a n n a i t i c H e b r e w ) ( R a m a t G a n : Bar Ilan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980). M u r a o k a , T., ' T h e S t a t u s C o n s t r u c t u s of A d j e c t i v e s in Biblical H e b r e w ' , VT 27 (1977), p p . 375-79. —Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew ( J e r u s a l e m / L e i d e n : M a g n e s P r e s s / E . J . Brill, 1985). — ' N o t a e Q u m r a n i c a e P h i l o l o g i c a e (2)', Abr-N. 3 3 (1995), p p . 55-73. — a n d B. P o r t e n , A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic ( H d O , 1, 32; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1998). N ö l d e k e , T h . , Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik ( S e c o n d e d . ; L e i p z i g , 1898; r e p r . w i t h a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s ; D a r m s t a d t : W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e B u c h g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1966). P a y n e S m i t h , )., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1903). P é r e z F e r n a n d e z , M., An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew ( t r a n s . J.F. E l w o l d e ; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1997). Q i m r o n , E., The Hebreui of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; A t l a n t a : S c h o l a r s P r e s s , 1986). — ‫ ( מ ל י ת ה ש ל י ל ה א ל ב מ ק ו ר ו ת י נ ו ה ק ר ו מ י ם ׳‬T h e N e g a t i v e P a r t i c l e ‫ א ל‬in t h e E a r l y S o u r c e s ) , in M . Bar A s h e r et. al. (eds.), Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Hayyin (Jerusalem: M a g n e s P r e s s / H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y , 1983), p p . 473-82. — a n d J. S t r u g n e l l , Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Ma case ha-Torah (DJD, 10; O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1994). S a a d i a G a o n , ‫ ס פ ר ה ג ל ו י‬, in A. H a r k a v y , Leben und Werke des Saadjah Gaon (Said al-Fajjumi, 892-942), Rectors der Talmudischen Akademie in Sora ( S t u d i e n u n d M i t t h e i l u n g e n d e r K a i s e r l i c h e n o e f f e n t l i c h e n B i b l i o t h e k z u St. P e t e r s b u r g , 5, 1; St. P e t e r s b u r g / L e i p z i g , 1891). S a p p a n , R., ‫ה י י ח ו ר ה ת ח ב י ר י ש ל ל ש ו ן ה ש י ר ה ה מ ק ר א י ת ב ת ק ו פ ת ה ה ק ל א ס י ת‬ ( T h e T y p i c a l F e a t u r e s of t h e S y n t a x of Biblical P o e t r y in its Classical P e r i o d ) ( J e r u s a l e m : K i r y a t Sefer, 1981).

S e g a l , M . H . , A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1927). — ‫ ( ל ש ו נ ו ש ל ב ן ם י ר א‬T h e L a n g u a g e of Ben Sira), Leš. 7 (1935), p p . 100-20. — ‫ ( ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א ה ש ל ם‬T h e C o m p l e t e B o o k of B e n S i r a ) ( S e c o n d e d . ; J e r u s a l e m : Bialik I n s t i t u t e , 1958). S h a r v i t , S., ‫ ( מ ש פ ט י ש ם ־ פ ו ע ל מ ו ר א ל י י ם ב ל ש ו ן ח כ מ י ם‬M o d a l i n f i n i t i v e C l a u s e s in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w ) , in M . B a r - A s h e r et al. ( e d s . ) Studies in Bible and Exegesis, 3 ( M o s h e G o s h e n - G o t t s t e i n i n m e m o r i a m ; R a m a t G a n : B a r - l l a n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1993), p p . 413-37. S k e h a n , P . W . a n d A . A . Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; N e w Y o r k : D o u b l e d a y , 1987). S m e n d , R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: R e i m e r , 1906). S w i g g e r s , P., ' N o m i n a l S e n t e n c e N e g a t i o n in Biblical H e b r e w : T h e G r a m m a t i c a l S t a t u s of ‫ ' א י ן‬, in K. J o n g e l i n g , H.L. M u r r e - V a n d e n B e r g , L. V a n R o m p a y ( e d s . ) , Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor /. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (SSLL, 17; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill, 1991), p p . 173-79. Y a d i n , Y., ‫ ( מ ג י ל ת ב ן ס י ר א מ מ צ ד ה‬T h e Ben Sira S c r o l l f r o m M a s a d a ) ( J e r u s a l e m : Israel E x p l o r a t i o n S o c i e t y , 1965). Y a l o n , H . , ‫ ( מ ב ו א ל נ י ק ו ד ה מ ש נ ה‬I n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e V o c a l i z a t i o n of t h e M i s h n a h ) ( J e r u s a l e m : Bialik I n s t i t u t e , 1964). Y i f r a c h , E., ‫ ( ת ח ב י ר ה מ ק ו ר ה נ ט ו י ב ס פ ר ב ן ס י ר א‬T h e C o n s t r u c t I n f i n i t i v e in t h e L a n g u a g e of Ben Sira), LeS. 59 (1997), p p . 275-94. W O = W a l t k e , B.K. a n d M. O ' C o n n o r , An Introduction to Biblical Hebreiv Syntax ( W i n o n a Lake: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1990).

THE DERIVATION OF THE N O U N ‫ תשבוחת‬IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Elisha Q i m r o n (Beer-Sheva)

I:

Introduction

T h e n o u n ‫ ׳ ח ש ב ו ח ח‬p r a i s e ' is n o t f o u n d in t h e Bible. It o c c u r s o n c e in Ben Sira (51.12: 1(‫ תשבחות‬a n d m o r e t h a n t w e n t y t i m e s in t h e H e b r e w D e a d Sea Scrolls. It is a t t e s t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s in t h e A r a m a i c D e a d Sea S c r o l l s ( ‫ ת ש ב ו ח ת‬a t 4 Q T Q a h a t 1.11 a n d ‫ ת ש ב ח ה‬at 4 Q E n o c h c 1:2.29 a n d e l s e w h e r e ) . M o s t f r e q u e n t l y it is f o u n d in t h e l a t e r A r a m a i c d i a l e c t s a n d m a y b e p r e s u m e d to b e a n A r a m a i s m in H e b r e w , 2 s i n c e b o t h t h e r o o t a n d t h e p a t t e r n a r e c o m m o n in A r a m a i c w h e r e a s in H e b r e w t h e r o o t ‫ ש ב ח‬o c c u r s o n l y in t h e p o s t - c l a s s i c a l e r a 3 a n d t h e p a t t e r n ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬is q u i t e r a r e in t h e Bible. 4 It is, h o w e v e r , t h e d e r i v a t i o n of this n o u n t h a t h a s n o t b e e n s a t i s factorily resolved since the M i d d l e Ages w h e n scholars first d i s p u t e d the matter. They were confused by the form ‫תושבחות‬, which has n o e q u i v a l e n t in biblical H e b r e w . R. J o s e p h K i m c h i a r g u e d t h a t t h e f o r m ‫ ת ש ב ח ו ת‬d o e s n o t c o n f o r m to H e b r e w g r a m m a r a n d t h a t t h e f o r m ‫ ת ש ב ח ו ת‬should be preferred.5 His view w a s a d o p t e d by later g r a m m a r i a n s , e m e n d a t o r s of t h e p r i n t e d e d i t i o n s , a n d b y l e x i c o g r a p h e r s . 6 T h e available e v i d e n c e until recently could h a r d l y h a v e s u g g e s t e d a s o l u t i o n . T h e n e w e v i d e n c e of t h e D e a d Sea S c r o l l s m a y , h o w e v e r ,

1

Probably a defective spelling of n i m m See Ben-Yehuda, ‫מילק הלשון העברית הישנה והחדשה‬, p. 7927 (Vol. XVI); Ilan Eldar ‫ מהותה ו היסודות המשותפים לה ולמסורת ס פ ר ד‬:‫•אשכנזית‬-‫ מ ס ו ר ת ה ק ר י א ה ה קדם‬, Edah veLashon 5 (1975), Part 2, p. 285; Isaac Gluska, ‫ בחינות לשוניות‬:‫התפילה במסורת תימן‬, Edah ve-Lashon 20 (1995), p. 88. 3 Avi Hurvitz,‫( בין לשון ללשון‬Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 88-91. 4 In fact, ‫ תשבוחת‬is derived from an original tušbūht, a pattern that is practically unused in BH. Only ‫' חלבשת‬garment‫( ׳‬Isa. 59.17) perhaps belongs to this pattern (see Sect. ΠΕ). For the preference of ‫ תשבוחת‬over ‫ ת ש מ ח ה‬see Sect. BF. 5 See Sefer Zikkaron (Bacher), p. 8. 6 See Eldar, ibid.; A. Berliner (ed.), ‫הקדמה כללית לסידור ר׳ שבתי הסופר ע ל פי הכ״י‬ ‫( אשר בבית המדרש בלונדון‬Frankfurt am Main, 1909), p. 30. The v i e w of Gluska, ibid., that ‫ תשבחות‬resulted from the v o w e l change u > i, is unlikely. See also the bibliography in note 31 below. 2

s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s f o r m . T h e w o r d is a t t e s t e d in t h e Scrolls in d i f f e r e n t f o r m s . T h e m a j o r types f o u n d there are ‫( ת ש ב ו ח ת‬construct singular), ‫( תשבוחות‬plural), a n d o n c e4)‫ ח ו ש ב ח ו ח‬Q 4 0 3 1 : 1 . 3 1 ) / w h i c h i n t e r c h a n g e s w i t h ‫ ה ש כ ו ח ו ת‬in t h e s a m e m a n u s c r i p t (cf. 1:1.3: [ ‫ ) ת ש ב ו ח ] ו ת‬. T h e fact t h a t b o t h f o r m s occ u r in o n e m a n u s c r i p t a n d w e r e w r i t t e n b y t h e s a m e h a n d is v e r y i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e e v i d e n c e . T h e s e f o r m s a p p e a r t o b e s i m p l y v a r i a n t s of o n e a n o t h e r , b u t t h e y m a y a l s o b e t a k e n a s d i f f e r e n t d e f e c t i v e s p e l l i n g s of t h e f o r m ‫ * ת ו ש ב ו ח ו ת‬. S u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e o r t h o g r a p h i c h a b i t s of t h e Scrolls. It h a s b e e n n o ticed t h a t t w o c o n s e c u t i v e 0/11 v o w e l s in t h e b a s e of a g i v e n w o r d a r e g e n e r a l l y d e s i g n a t e d b y o n l y o n e waw. T h u s e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r t h e seco n d v o w e l is i n d i c a t e d o r t h o g r a p h i c a l l y ; f o r i n s t a n c e t h e p l a c e n a m e S o d o m (Σόδομα) is r e g u l a r l y w r i t t e n • ‫ ס ו ד‬o r • ‫ ס ר ו‬a n d o n l y o n c e 8 .‫סודום‬ D u r i n g p r e p a r a t i o n of a n e w g r a m m a r of t h e H e b r e w of t h e Scrolls I e x a m i n e d t h e r e l e v a n t p a r a l l e l s of t h e w o r d ‫ ת ש ב ו ח ת‬a n d of its m o r p h o l o g i c a l p a t t e r n . T h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n is t h e r e s u l t of t h i s research.

II: The pattern

tuqtû1(a)t

A: The prevailing

view

N o t o n l y in t h e Scrolls d o e s t h e n o u n ‫ ת ש ב ו ח ת‬a p p e a r w i t h a u v o w e l in t h e f i r s t o r s e c o n d s y l l a b l e . T h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n is a l s o a t t e s t e d in A r a m a i c d i a l e c t s , w i t h t h e it a p p e a r i n g in t h e f i r s t s y l l a b l e in s o m e d i a l e c t s a n d in t h e s e c o n d s y l l a b l e in o t h e r s . In n o n e , h o w e v e r , d o b o t h f o r m s o c c u r . In M i s h n a i c H e b r e w a n d in e a r l y J e w i s h p r a y e r s t h e f o r m ‫ תושבחות‬predominates. The evidence suggests that the original f o r m w a s *tušbūh(a)t a n d t h e v a r i a n t s w i t h o n e 11 r e s u l t e d f r o m d i s s i m i l a t i o n of t h e o t h e r 11 v o w e l s . A c t u a l l y , t h e p a t t e r n tuqt1d(a)t ( a s w e l l a s t h e m a s c u l i n e f o r m tuqtūl) is q u i t e c o m m o n in A r a m a i c a n d in A r a b i c a n d is a l s o f o u n d ( t h o u g h less f r e q u e n t l y ) in H e b r e w a n d i n

7

Sometimes written defectively: .‫תשבחות‬ See Eduard Y. Kutscher, ‫לדיוקה של לשון מגילות ים המלח‬, Leš. 22 (1958), p. 105; idem, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsa") (Leid e n , 1974), pp. 503-504; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1986), §200.24; idem, Ά Work Concerning D i v i n e Providence: 4Q413', in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of ]0nas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, S e y m o u r Gitin a n d Michael Sokoloff) (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), pp. 198-202. 8

Akkadian. C u r i o u s l y , this p a t t e r n w a s n o t r e g a r d e d by Semitists as original. It w a s J. B a r t h w h o first c o n s i d e r e d it to b e a p h o n o l o g i c a l v a r i a n t of t h e o r i g i n a l p a t t e r n taqt1d/taqtūl(a)t. In h i s o p i n i o n , t h e u v o w e l in t h e f i r s t s y l l a b l e r e s u l t e d f r o m a s s i m i l a t i o n to a l a b i a l , w h i c h is a l w a y s f o u n d in t h e r o o t s of t h e w o r d s c o n f o r m i n g to t h i s p a t t e r n . 9 H i s o p i n ion h a s b e e n a d o p t e d b y o t h e r s . 1 0 B r o c k e l m a n n d i s a g r e e d w i t h B a r t h ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e u v o w e l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e a g r e e d t h a t t h e v o w e l is n o t o r i g i n a l . In h i s v i e w , it e v o l v e d f r o m a s s i m i l a t i o n t o t h e it of t h e s e c o n d s y l l a b l e r a t h e r t h a n to a labial. 1 1

B: Critical

observations

I s u b m i t t h a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w is w r o n g f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s . 1. T h e p a t t e r n tuqtūl/tuqtūI(a)t is a t t e s t e d in t h r e e o r f o u r S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s . 1 2 T h e r e f o r e , c o m p a r a t i v e S e m i t i c s c o m p e l s u s t o c o n s i d e r it o r i g i n a l u n l e s s s t r o n g c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e is a d d u c e d . 2. B a r t h ' s v i e w t h a t t h e 11 in t h e first s y l l a b l e r e s u l t e d f r o m a s s i m i l a t i o n to a labial d o e s n o t a c c o r d w i t h all of t h e i n s t a n c e s . F o r e x a m pie, t h e r e is n o labial in ‫ ת ו נ א ל ה‬, ‫ ת ו ט ל ח ה‬in A r a m a i c , tuhh'tk in A r a b i c a n d tutturum in A k k a d i a n (see n o t e 12). F u r t h e r m o r e , a s s i m i l a t i o n of a v o w e l to a labial o c c u r s a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y in d i r e c t c o n t a c t . N o w o n d e r that Barth failed to s u p p l y relevant e x a m p l e s to s u p p o r t his view.13 3. In m o s t of t h e n o u n s in t h i s p a t t e r n o n e of t h e t w o c o n s e c u t i v e u v o w e l s is d i s s i m i l a t e d (see b e l o w ) . It is m u c h m o r e r e a s o n a b l e to a s s u m e d i s s i m i l a t i o n f r o m a n o r i g i n a l tucjtūl(a)t f o r m r a t h e r t h a n a r g u -

9

Jacob Barth, Die Nonunalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1894; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967), p. 310. 10 For e x a m p l e by Gustaf Dalman, Grammatik des /iidisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (Second ed.; Leipzig, 1905), p. 171. 11 Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der ziergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vol. I (Berlin, 1907), p. 388. 12 The e v i d e n c e from Aramaic (and Hebrew) is given below. For the e v i d e n c e in Arabic, see Barth, pp. 296, 300; Brockelmann, p. 384. Clear Akkadian ins t a n c e s are turbu'tu and turbu'u ( a l o n g s i d e tarbu'u) ' d u s t cloud', tutturum/tatturum 'profit, abundance', turgumannu ‫׳‬translator' (see note 23), and tu/uklatu 'food' (< *tu'kulatu?) (see CAD, Vol. IV [Έ‫]׳‬, p. 18a). H o w e v e r , the pattern is rare in Akkadian (see Wolfram von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik [Rome, 1952], §56m). 13 The n o u n s in this pattern in Hebrew appear to be Aramaic loanwords, although the w o r d ‫' תונה‬grief‫( ׳‬and perhaps ‫' חושיה‬sound w i s d o m ' ) could attest to u in the first syllable.

i n g t h a t tacjtūl(a)t b e c a m e t11qtūl(a)t b y a s s i m i l a t i o n a n d t h e n again by dissimilation.

C: The evidence from

taqtūl(a)t ·

Aramaic

S i n c e t h e n o u n ‫ ה ש מ ח ה‬o r i g i n a t e d in A r a m a i c its p a t t e r n s h o u l d b e est a b l i s h e d in t h i s l a n g u a g e in t h e first p l a c e . A s p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d ‫ ת ש ב ו ח ת א‬a n d ‫ ת ו ש ב ח ת א‬in t h e v a r i o u s A r a m a i c d i a l e c t s b e l o n g t o t h e p a t t e r n tuqtūl(a)t. T h i s p a t t e r n o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y p r e s e r v e d t h e o r i g i n a l u v o w e l s in b o t h s y l l a b l e s . M o r e f r e q u e n t l y , o n e of t h e v o w e l s w a s c h a n g e d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e e v i d e n c e is g i v e n u n d e r t h r e e h e a d s , n a m e l y (1) f o r m s t h a t h a v e u in b o t h f i r s t a n d s e c o n d s y l l a b l e s ; (2) f o r m s t h a t h a v e u o n l y in t h e first s y l l a b l e ; (3) v a r i a n t s of t h e s e c o n d g r o u p w i t h u in t h e s e c o n d s y l l a b l e o n l y . 1 4 1. ‫ ' ת ו ל ^ ר ב ת א‬o f f e r i n g ' (tg. 2 K g s 3.4; a l s o in t h e v a r i a n t r e a d i n g in tg. O n q e l o s G e n . 32.13, 20, 21; 3 3 . 1 1 ) ; ‫ ' ת ו ח מ ו ר ה‬d e s i r e ‫( ׳‬tg. N e o f i t i to N u m . 11.4); ‫ ' ת ו ח ל ו פ א‬s u b s t i t u t e ' in Syriac. 1 5 2. ‫ ' ב ת ו ש ל ח ת י ה‬m i s s i o n ' (tg. J u d g . 5 . 1 5 ) ; ‫ ' ת ו ק ר ב א‬o f f e r i n g ' (tg. Jer. 51.59); ‫ ' ת ו ס ק פ א‬p r e t e x t ' ( t g . J u d g . 14.4); ‫ ׳ ת ו ס ק פ ח א‬p r e t e x t ' ; 1 6 ‫ת ו ג א ל ה‬ ' d e f i l e m e n t ‫( ׳‬tg. Isa. 4.4); ‫ ' ה ו ש ב ח ה‬p r a i s e ' (tg. O n q e l o s D e u t . 26.19; tg. Isa. 26.1 a n d s i m i l a r f o r m s in t h e P a l e s t i n i a n tg. f r a g m e n t s D e u t . 26.19 a n d tg. N e o f i t i E x o d . 15.2); ‫ ׳ ת ו ש ב ח ת א‬p r a i s e ‫( ׳‬tg. O n q e l o s D e u t . 31.19); ‫ ׳ ח ו ש ב י ה ת א‬p r a i s e ‫ ( ׳‬M a n d a i c ) ; ' 1 7 ‫ ׳ ה ו ש ל מ ה‬p a y m e n t ' (tg. O n q e l o s D e u t . 32.32); ‫ ' ת ו ש ל י מ א‬p a y m e n t ' ( M a n d a i c ) ; 1 8 ‫ ' ת ו ר ע מ ת‬c o m p l a i n t ' a n d s i m i l a r f o r m s (tg. O n q e l o s E x o d . 16.12; N u m . 17.25; tg. N e o f i t i E x o d . 16.8, 9); 1 9 ‫ ' ח ו ל ע ב א‬s c o r n ' ( t g . Isa. 28.11); ‫ ' ת ו ל מ ד ־ א‬t r a i n i n g ' ( S y r i a c ) ; 2 0 ‫ת ו ל ב ש א‬

14

I included n o u n s of the masculine equivalent tuqtūl. Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (Second ed.; Halle, 1928; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966), p. 236. 16 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature ( N e w York, 1950), p. 1655. 17 Theodor Nöldeke, Mandäisclie Grammatik (Halle, 1875), p. 133. 18 Nöldeke, ibid. 19 Cf. ‫׳ תורעמנים‬rebels' in late midrashim and ‫( חורעמנוחכון‬tg. Neofiti Deut 31.27; see Ben-Zion Gross, ‫[ המשקלים פעלון ופעלן כ מ ק ר א ובלשון חכמים‬Jerusalem, 1994], p. 118; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aranmic [Ramat-Gan, 1990], p. 578). 20 J. Payne Smith (ed.), A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus ofR. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1903), p. 607. 15

' d r e s s i n g oneself i n ' (Syriac); 2 1 ΓΠφΓΠΠ ' d e s i r e ' ( P a l e s t i n i a n tg. f r a g m e n t s G e n . 3.6); 22 ‫ ' ת ח ־ נ מ א‬t r a n s l a t i o n ' (Syriac); 2 3 ‫' ת ו נ ח ת ה‬sigh'. 2 4 3. ‫( ח ט ב ו ח ת א‬Syriac, P a l e s t i n i a n Syriac a n d tg. Neofiti); 2 5 ‫ ׳ ת ח מ ו ד א‬d e s i r e ' ( P a l e s t i n i a n Syriac a n d tg. P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n G e n . 3 . 6 ) ; ‫( ת ח מ ו ך י‬tg. Mic. 7 . 3 ) ; ‫ ( ת ח מ ו ד ת ה‬P a l e s t i n i a n Syriac a n d tg. N e o f i t i N u m . 11.35); ‫ת ק ר ו ב ת א‬ ‫ ׳‬o f f e r i n g ‫( ׳‬tg. O n q e l o s G e n . 32.18,20; tg. Jer. 5 1 . 5 9 ) , ‫ ׳ ת ס ק ו פ י‬p r e t e x t ‫( ׳‬tg.

21

Brockelmann, p. 358; Payne Smith, p. 608. The vocalization with !‫׳‬-vowel w o u l d reflect the Palestinian pronunciation of an original short u in a closed syllable. 23 P a y n e Smith, p. 608. A l s o w i t h s u f f i x e d -an as nomen agentis:‫תורגמן‬. This n o u n a p p e a r s in the Semitic l a n g u a g e s in six variations: 1) turgùmān in A k k a d i a n and in Arabic; 2) targtinuin in Akkadian, Arabic and J e w i s h A r a m aie; 3) tirgūnuìn in Christian Palestinian Aramaic; 4) turgàmàn in Mishnaic H e b r e w ; 5) turgmän (and ‫ )תורגמן‬in Mishnaic H e b r e w and Jewish Aramaic; 6) targmân in Syriac. There are also t w o forms with prefixed mem: mturgmän in Jewish Aramaic and in Mishnaic H e b r e w and mtargmàn in Syriac. ( A l m o s t all the f o r m s are listed in Gross, pp. 90-91; on the fourth g r o u p see Israel Yeivin, ‫[ מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬Jerusalem, 1985], p. 1046.) Apparently, the w o r d originated in Akkadian (see Gross, ibid.). Even if the n o u n is of n o n Semitic origin (see Ignace J. Gelb, T h e Word for D r a g o m a n in the A n c i e n t Near East‫׳‬, Glossa 2 [1968], pp. 93-104), its pattern is Semitic. Scholars d i s a g r e e o n the relation b e t w e e n t h e s e forms. I b e l i e v e that turgūmān is the original form and that forms 2-5 are dissimilated variations of it. T h e f o r m s w i t h p r e f i x e d mem h a v e been d e v e l o p e d in Aramaic, w h i c h prefers the participle + im as n o m e n agentis. Yohanan Breuer ‫ה ע ב ר י ת ב ת ל מ ו ד‬ ‫פי כתבי היד של מ ס כ ת פסחים‬-‫[ )הבבלי על‬Ph D diss.; Jerusalem, 1993], pp. 282-83) s u g g e s t s that this form originates in eastern Aramaic. See the f o r m s cited there. T h u s the form mtargmän has been d e v e l o p e d (in addition to mturgmàn patterned after turgmän). T h e form targmän in Syriac w a s i n f l u e n c e d by mtargmän. O n l y the a s s u m p t i o n that turgūmí1n is the original form can account for all the variations. The v i e w of Kutscher, Isaiah, p. 392, n. 244, that the u in ‫ חרנמן‬resulted from assimilation of the a v o w e l to the resh w o u l d not account for the f o r m s 1-4 (see also Barth, p. 310) (note that n o assimilation occurs in ‫)תרגום‬. T h e u s e of the verbal n o u n as n o m e n a g e n t i s is f o u n d in the w o r d s ‫׳ ת ע ל ו ל י ם‬boys' (Isa. 3.4), ‫' וזרבין‬educator' in Aramaic (Barth, p. 310); ‫תורעמנים‬ 'rebels' (note 19, above); p e r h a p s also ‫' ת ה פ ו כ ו ת‬perversity', e.g. Prov. 10.31. N o t e also ‫׳ ת ל מ י ד‬disciple', ‫׳ תינוק‬baby', and tamläku 'advisor' ( A H w , p. 1315b). This u s a g e of the pattern is rare; it is, therefore, m o r e likely that turgūmān w o u l d be c h a n g e d to ‫ מתורגמן‬than the o p p o s i t e . For another treatment of this w o r d see S t e p h e n A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influence on Aramaic (Chicago, 1974), p. 107. 24 Sokoloff, p. 577. 25 See lexicons of these dialects. 22

QIMRON: THE DERIVATION OF

249

O n q e l o s D e u t . 22.14,17; P a l e s t i n i a n tg. f r a g m e n t s G e n . 44.18), ‫ת ל ב ו ש א‬ ( S y r i a c ) ; 2 6 ‫ ' ת ל ב ו ש ת א‬g a r m e n t ' ( P a l e s t i n i a n tg. f r a g m e n t s E x o d . 15.14 a n d in P a l e s t i n i a n S y r i a c ) , ‫ ' ת ש ל ו מ י‬p a y m e n t ' ( P a l e s t i n i a n tg. f r a g m e n t s E x o d . 21.23; 24.25), ‫ ' ת ש ל ו מ ת א‬p a y m e n t ' (b. B a b a M e s i ' a 104a, c i t i n g a writ),27 ‫ ' ת ח ל ו פ ה‬s u b s t i t u t e ' (Syriac);28 ‫ ' ת ל מ ו ך א‬T a l m u d ' (tg. Shir H a s h i r i m 1.2), ‫( תו־גומא‬b. M e g i l l a h 3a).

D:

Discussion

T h e e v i d e n c e in t h e A r a m a i c d i a l e c t s is s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h tuqtūl/ tuqtülat a s a p a t t e r n d i s t i n c t f r o m taqtūl/taqtūlat. In fact, t h e f o r m e r is m o r e c o m m o n t h a n t h e latter. 2 9 T h r o u g h d i s s i m i l a t i o n , o n l y o n e of t h e u v o w e l s ( e i t h e r o n e ) in t h e c o n t i g u o u s s y l l a b l e s r e m a i n e d in m o s t ins t a n c e s . T h e d i a l e c t s d i f f e r f r o m o n e a n o t h e r in t h i s r e s p e c t . T h o s e f o r m s in w h i c h t h e first v o w e l d i s s i m i l a t e d b e c a m e i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e taqtūl/taqtūlat pattern a n d their original f o r m can be ascertained only b y c o m p a r i n g t h e m w i t h t h e i r b y - f o r m s . A d m i t t e d l y , it is n o t i m p o s s i b l e t h a t a g i v e n n o u n a p p e a r s in o n e l a n g u a g e (or d i a l e c t ) in t h e tuqtiil p a t t e r n a n d in a n o t h e r in t h e taqtūl p a t t e r n . H o w e v e r , s u c h a s o l u t i o n is less likely t h a n m i n e .

E: The pattern t u q t ū 1 / t u q t ū I ( a ) t in Hebrew T h e p a t t e r n u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n is n o t i n c l u d e d in a n y of t h e s t a n d a r d H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c g r a m m a r s . A l t h o u g h , as d e m o n s t r a t e d above, t h i s is t o t a l l y u n j u s t i f i e d in c a s e of A r a m a i c , it is m o r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e w i t h r e g a r d to H e b r e w , a s t h e u v o w e l in t h e first s y l l a b l e , w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s p a t t e r n f r o m taqtū1/taqt1ìl(a)t is a t t e s t e d o n l y in o n e is u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of n o u n ( 3 0 . ( ‫ ת ו ש ב ח ו ת‬T h e p a t t e r n tuqtūl/tuqtūl(a)t H e b r e w . All t h e n o u n s t h a t c a n b e a s s i g n e d to it o c c u r in t h e p o s t -

26

Brockelmann, p. 358. Cf.‫( תשלמחה‬Nahal Se>elim 9, line 10). 28 Payne Smith, p. 609; Brockelmann, p. 236. 29 It has been noticed that some of the words in these patterns are verbal nouns of the conjugations Pa'cl, Hitpa'al and (occasionally) Hafel (Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar [London, 1904], p. 76; Nöldeke deals with various patterns with prefixed Π). Let me add that two consecutive u vowels are typical of other verbal nouns and infinitives, of these conjugations, e.g. quttul (qittul). 30 The formation of the nouns ‫' חונה‬grief‫ ׳‬and ‫' חושיה‬sound wisdom' is obscure, but the u in ‫ חונה‬probably came from uw. 27

‫תשבוחת‬

classical era and are apparently Aramaic loans. The distinction between these two patterns can help us in establishing their history, since n o u n s of original taqtfd/taqtūl(a)t are basically Hebrew while nouns of original tuqtūI/tuqtūl(a)t pattern are Aramaic loans. The Hebrew evidence is as follows: ‫( ת ו ש ב ח ו ת‬m. Sukkah 5.4 and in other sources),·31 ‫' תשלומים‬payment' (very frequent in MH, according to the most reliable manuscripts it is plurale tantuin);32 ‫' תשלומת‬payment' (Sir. 12.2; 14.6); ‫( ת ש ל ו מ ו ת‬Sir. 32.13; 48.8), ‫ ' ת ל מ ו ד‬t e a c h i n g 4 ) ‫׳‬QpNahum 3:2.8; 4QBéat [4Q525] 14:2.15, and very frequent in MH); ‫ת נ א ו ל ת‬ ‫׳‬defilement‫ ( ׳‬l l Q T a 49.12)'; ‫׳ תלנ־שת‬garment‫( ׳‬Isa. 59.17 = ‫ ת ל ב ו ש ת‬in lQIsa a ); ‫׳ תרגום‬translation‫( ׳‬m. Yadaim 4.5); ‫' ת ק ר ו ב ת‬offering‫( ׳‬t. Baba Qama 6.14; 7.8), ‫׳ תרעומת‬complaint' (m. Baba Mesi'a 4.6; 6.1 and elsewhere) ‫( תרעומות‬Mekhilta Wayyissa' [Horovitz-Rabin, p. 155]). On the nouns ‫' תוגרגמן‬translator' and ‫' תורעמן‬rebel‫׳‬, see notes 19 and 23. It has been noticed 3 3 that the form ‫ תוגרגמן‬dominates in the most reliable sources of Mishnaic Hebrew. The comparison with Aramaic suggests that all the above nouns are of the tuqtūl(at) pattern and appear to be Aramaic loans in late Hebrew. The relation to Aramaic is also manifested in the usage of the noun ‫' תשלומים‬payment‫׳‬, which is plurale tantuin in both languages.

F: The original root vowel in ‫ת ק ט ל ת‬

Scholars disagree on the original root vowel in the feminine pattern ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬. Some opt for a short 34,/‫ ן‬others, for a long a. 35 Surprisingly,

31

Moshe Bar-Asher, ‫ פ ר ק י ם במסורת לטון חכמים ט ל יהודי איטליה‬, Edah ve-Lashon 6 (198()), p. 20; Haya Natan,‫( מסורתו הלשונית של כ״י ארפורט של התוספתא‬Ph.D. diss.; Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1984), p. 343; Eldar, Edah ve-Lashon, 5 (1979), Part 2, p. 285; Isaac Gluska, ‫הטקפתו הדקדוקית ט ל מהרי״ץ בפירוטו ׳עץ חיים׳ ל ת פ י ל ה‬, Massorot 8 (1994), pp. 32-33; idem, Edah ve-Lashon 20 (1995), pp. 88-89; Breuer (see note 23), p. 277 (arguing that ‫ תטבוזה‬is original). For the forms in the Scrolls, see Sect. III. 32 The singular ‫ והתטלם‬occurs in a d o c u m e n t from the Judaean Desert, but the reading is not absolutely sure; see Magen Broshi and Elisha Qimron, Ά Hebrew I.O.U. N o t e from the Second Year of the Bar Kokhba Revolt‫׳‬, JJS 45 (1994), pp. 286-294. 33 G r o s s , pp. 90-91. 34 Moshe Ζ. Segal, ‫( ד ק ד ו ק לטון המטנה‬Tel Aviv, 1936), p. 82 (as a second option). 35 Segal, ibid.; Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebratschen Sprache (Halle, 1922; reprinted H i l d e s h e i m , 1965), p. 496, list ‫חלב!שת‬ under taqtäl and mention a possible derivation from ta1bùštu. Yet Barth (p. 296) had already indicated the possibility of original ú in ‫חלב!טת‬, w h i c h is supported by Akkadian. See also note 23.

QIMRON: THE DERIVATION OF ‫תשבוחת‬

251

none have explicitly opted for a long u (being shortened by the double enclosure of the syllable). In fact, the original vowel cannot be established in the singular form, since each of the vowels a, 11, u would be represented by the vowel 0. It is only in the plural, where the syllable is open, that the original vowel is preserved or may be reconstructed. The only plural forms that would conform to a singular ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬pattern are the following: ‫' ת ה ל כ ת‬processions' (Neh. 12.31); ‫' ת ה פ כ ו ת‬perversity' (Prov. 2.12 and nine times elsewhere, always written defectively); ‫' ת ח ב ל ו ת‬counsels' (Prov. 1.5; 11.14; 12.5; 20.18; 24.6);‫( בתחבולתו‬Job 37.12 [Qere]); ‫ת ל א מ ת‬ ‫׳‬drought‫( ׳‬Hos. 13.15);‫׳ תנחומות‬consolation‫( ׳‬Job 15.11);‫( תנחומתיכם‬Job 21.2);‫׳ תעצמות‬might‫( ׳‬Ps 68.36), ‫׳ ת ע ר מ ת‬pledge' (1 Kgs 14.14, 2 Chr. 25.24). Unfortunately, none of these plural forms has an extant corresponding singular form. 36 Naturally, they have been taken as plural of ‫*תקטולה‬. Yet such a form does not exist either in BH or in MH whereas ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬does exist in both BH and MH. It is therefore possible that 37 ‫ תקטולות‬is the plural of .‫תקטלת‬ Actually, in MH ‫ ת ע ר ו ב ו ת‬is the plural of ‫ ת ע ל ב ת‬. Furthermore, in reliable unvocalized sources, the spelling ‫ תקטולות‬occurs as the plural of ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬. This spelling conforms to original taqtiil or taqtâl but exeludes original taqtnl. The derivation of ‫ ת ק ט ו ל ו ת‬from ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬seems to be established in MH, 38 and I therefore suggest taking ‫ ת ק ט ו ל ו ת‬in BH as the plural of ‫ ת ק ט ל ת‬rather than of ‫תקטולה‬. In any case, all the forms belong to the taqtiil (or tuqtūl) pattern.

Ill: The t u q t u l t pattern in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Based on the above discussion, the forms ‫תושבחות‬/‫ תשמח)ו(ת‬in the Scrolls may best be taken as originating from the pattern tuqtûlt. Since

36

N o t e that in BH, most of the verbal n o u n s of the patterns taqtül and qittul occur exclusively in the plural. 37 The i v o w e l is the result of attenuation which sometimes occurs before 0 but not before u (see Daniel Sivan and Elisha Qimron, ‫חילופי התנועות פ ת ח וחיריק‬ ‫מוטעמת בעברית המקראית ושאלת חוק ההידקקות‬-^‫בהברהסנורהל‬, US. 59 (1996), pp. 7-38, especially pp. 13-14, 27. Contrast also ‫' מקצעת‬corner-post' (Exod. 26.24) with ‫׳ מקצעות‬scraping tool‫( ׳‬Isa. 44.13); ‫׳ מ ס ל ו ל‬splendid attire‫( ׳‬Ezek. 23.12) w i t h ‫׳ מסללים‬splendid garment‫( ׳‬Ezek. 27.24);‫׳ גבעול‬bud‫( ׳‬BH) with ‫( גבעול‬MH). 38

Unlike Greenfield and Eben Shoshan, w h o suggest the derivation ‫ת ק ט ו א ת‬ from ‫( ת ק מ ל ת‬See Jonas C. Greenfield in IAOS 89 [1969], p. 131, w h o suggests the singular liSbohct [sic] and plural tiSbohôt [sic]; see also Abraham Even Shoshan,‫[ המלון החדש‬Jerusalem, 1983], p. 1482).

the form ‫ ת ו ש ב ו ח ו ת‬is not attested in the Scrolls there is no telling whether the original form was preserved there or whether the variant spellings represent two different dissimilated forms. I prefer the first solution since both spellings were used alongside one another by the same scribe (see Sect. I). Similar consideration should apply to the nouns ‫ תגאולת‬and ‫ת ל מ ו ד‬ but since each of them occurs only in one form in the Scrolls there is no solid basis for assuming that they represent the original non-dissimilated forms.

THE HEBREW OF BEN SIRA INVESTIGATED ON THE BASIS OF HIS USE OF ‫ כ ר ת‬: A SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC AND LANGUAGE-HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTION Friedrich V. Reiterer (Salzburg) 1: Preliminary l.i:

remarks

Presuppositions

1.1.1. The aim of this investigation is to see and to show what position the language of Ben Sira holds within the development of Hebrew. On reading the book we have the impression that there are traditional expressions as well as strange-sounding ones. But before we may take this as evidence that the language of the author of the book of Ben Sira is more or less independent we need to collect and interpret facts, not simply record our first impressions. 1.1.2. At this stage it is worth recalling earlier discussion about the originality of Ben Sira's Hebrew, which began with the discovery of the first documents 1 and has continued up to the present day. Some scholars argued that the newly discovered text of Ben Sira was a retranslation from the Greek or the Syriac. If the Genizah texts really are

1

See the discussion between the proponents and opponents of their originality: Schechter, Solomon, Ά Fragment of the Original Text of Ecclesiasticus', Expositor 5.4 (18%), pp. 1-15, published a portion of Ben Sira and maintained its originality (pp. 13ff.); in the following dispute many scholars supported him, e.g. Margoliouth, David Samuel, O b s e r v a t i o n s on the Fragment of the Original of Ecclesiasticus Edited by Mr. Schechter‫׳‬, Expositor 5.4 (1896), pp. 140-51; König, Eduard, ‫׳‬Professor Margoliouth and the "Original Hebrew" of Ecclesiasticus‫׳‬, ET 10 (1898-99), pp. 512-16, 564ff.; Die Originalität des neulich entdeckten hebräischen Sirachtextes, textkritisch, exegetisch und sprachgeschichtlich untersucht (Freiburg, 1899); ‫׳‬Professor Margoliouth and the "Original Hebrew" of Ecclesiasticus‫׳‬, ET 11 (1899-1900), pp. 31f, 69-74, 170-76. The most passionate adversary w a s Margoliouth, D a v i d Samuel, The Origin of the Original Hebrew' of Ecclesiasticus (London, 1899); 'The Hebrew Ecclesiasticus‫׳‬, ET 10 (1898-99), pp. 528, 567f. For a comprehensive survey, see my 'Text und Buch Ben Sira in Tradition und Forschung. Eine Einführung', in F.V. Reiterer (ed.), Bibliographie zu Ben Sira (BZAW, 266; Berlin, 1988), pp. 1-43 (17-25).

retranslations, the Hebrew they contain is useless for the investigation of late Biblical Hebrew or early Mishnaic Hebrew. In this study I have tried to use convincing examples; if my arguments concerning them cannot be countered, then I believe that they provide a basis for describing the particular way in which Ben Sira employs the Hebrew language. Of course, if there are no examples to demonstrate the originality of his use of Hebrew, I have to accept this. But if, in fact, there are arguments that supply evidence for originality, they too deserve to be accepted. 1.1.3. I assume, and will endeavour to show, that the protocanonical Old Testament (hereafter referred to simply as Ό Τ ‫ ) ׳‬was regarded as embodying a normative vocabulary and that Ben Sira would have employed this vocabulary when discussing topics the same as, or similar to, those found in the Hebrew Bible. The preface to the Greek translation tells us that Ben Sira the grandfather was a renowned expert in the Bible: 'Since it is necessary not only that the readers themselves should acquire understanding but also that those who love learning should be able to help the outsiders by both speaking and w r i t i n g , m y g r a n d f a t h e r J e s u s , after devoting

himself

especially

to the

reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, a n d after acquiring

considerable

proficiency

in them, w a s h i m s e l f a l s o l e d

to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law' (Sir. 0.4-10). 1.1.4. Another—maybe the most important—observation is that the peculiarity of a language can be seen in the fact that a speaker or an author uses not only words construed according to grammatical rules but also idioms. The difference is easily seen if one tries to translate word-for-word a traditional fixed phrase; for example, if one renders the idiom 'it is raining cats and dogs' literally into Hebrew or German, the result is nonsensical and the speaker's intended meaning incomprehensible, even though native-speakers of English have no problem with the expression. It is most unlikely that, for example, a Frenchspeaker would independently generate such an idiom, which is peculiar to English. Other surprising and interesting linguistic phenomena also fall under the category of idioms. There is, for example, an ironic Greek expression that means that what is done, intended, or argued, is complete nonsense: NN. (Ίαννης)—πράσινα άλογα (BiOK^aJi ™ CH 3eneH K0H?). One may not change the colour, so that the horse is yellow or blue, as this would result in the expression losing its idiomatic sense.

Thus, it is possible to claim that something is not sensible by using an expression that is, apparently, nonsense, but this expression m u s t correspond to the traditional fixed idiom cited and it is not possible to replace one nonsense element (green horse) with another (yellow/blue horse). But some interesting data emerge from the Bulgarian-Greek bilingual area, where the phrase has been adopted from Greek: Τον στέλνω για πράσινο χαβιάρι/ITpamaM ro 3a 3ej1en xaÖBep ( Ί send you to bring the green caviar') and parallel to it: (Ίαννης)—πράσινα άλογα ('Iannis—green h o r s e ! ' ) / B i o s a n nu en 3ej1eu KOH? ('DO you see the green horse?'). This demonstrates that a phrase can w a n d e r f r o m one language into another but can only be used by someone w h o has the source language as one of their native tongues. This example shows that it is only possible to build such idioms on condition that someone is able to handle la langue (the expressive possibilities within a language system itself) and la parole (the ability to use the l a n g u a g e more or less perfectly within a given speech community). What is indispensable for constructing such an idiomatic structure is the ability to use a language in the same way that a native speaker would. 1.1.5. There are some spheres—for example, the religious—in which vocabulary is traditionally fixed and phrases have become unalterable. If s o m e o n e deviates from particular usages, the hearer cannot understand the changed phrases or superimposes their o w n interpretation on the new formulation and understands it in another way. If there are divergent but correct sentences in these spheres w e have to reckon with a new emphasis a n d / o r a different intended emphasis. Modified phrases of this sort indicate that their originator has a high level of poetical skill, although a m o d e r n scholar should be cautious in venturing an opinion on the authenticity, originality, and artistry of such a phrase. 1.1.6.1 assume that the fragments of Ben Sira go back in general to an author of the second century BCE, and so w e may inquire into the w a y in which that author uses the Hebrew language. We h a v e to bear in mind as well that the c o m m o n languages of the time w e r e Hellenistic Greek, as can be seen from the great n u m b e r of p a p y r u s scrolls dealing with daily problems, and Palestinian Aramaic. That Aramaic w a s important can be seen from the targum translations of the Torah. Influence of Aramaic on Ben Sira is evidenced but is not very important. I have already argued that idiomatic use of a language shows h o w well an author has mastered it. If a high level of idiomatic usage can be demonstrated, this is evidence that the author employed H e b r e w

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

256

as the language of his everyday life. Probably we may assume that as a child Ben Sira learned Hebrew as a religious language. If his Hebrew was a taught language, we have to try to find out whether the author was completely dependent on the vocabulary he had learnt or whether he was able to use the language independently. In this way the poetic ability of Ben Sira would show itself. 1.1.7. O u r investigation faces additional problems because we find in Ben Sira only a metrically concise verse. Other books of the OT, because they are often written in narrative prose, will differ from Ben Sira in their representations of the same topics. Bearing this in mind, we might ask whether the poetic dynamic of the author sometimes forces him to break the rules of grammar. 1.2:

Method

From the outset I make no hypotheses about the nature of the Hebrew language employed. Every colon/hemistich, stich, or verse/stanza is described from a metrical and grammatical standpoint, followed by a discussion of poetic elements such as parallelism and then by a comparison of Ben Sira's formulation with parallel terms or phrases within the OT. This method is intended to assist in uncovering the sources of a particular usage in the Bible and, if there are differences, the characteristic features of Ben Sira's own use of language. On this basis I attempt to arrive at some tentative conclusions about the linguistic character of the Book of Ben Sira. 1.3: The choice of example

I have chosen to concentrate on the verb ‫כרת‬. This is because there are few other verbs in Biblical Hebrew that are so central to the biblical n a r r a t i v e , as illustrated by such idiomatic c o m b i n a t i o n s as ‫ איש לא־יכרת ל־‬and, most n o t a b l y , . ‫ב ר י ת‬ ‫כרת‬ 1.4:

Lexicography

The basic and different meanings seem so certain that lexicographers do not dispute them: 'cut', 'cut off', 'cut d o w n ' , 'exterminate‫ ;׳‬or, combined with ‫ברית‬, 'make a covenant' or 'impose duties, obligations'. In the Septuagint the translation of the phrase ‫ כ ר ת ברית‬is fixed: (δια)τίθημι διαθήκην; in Syriac one finds ‫ נק‬CLD and occasionally

2: Sir.

40.17a

In the literary unit 40.12-17 different types of correct and incorrect behaviour are contrasted. The structure of the unit is artistic and shows that 40.12-17 is a very well-planned poem. In v. 12 there is an antithetic parallelism. Verses 15-16 and 17 form an interesting variant of an antithetic parallelism, which does not employ the usual form of colometric juxtaposition but extends over several verses. We may also note that 12b and 17 form an inclusio. Representing negative behaviour we find δώρον (in the meaning of 'bribery'), και αδικία (12a), and ‫( חמס‬M, B); άσεβων and ‫( חנף‬B); άκάθαρτοι (15a,b); the positive characteristics are πίστις (12b) and ‫חסד‬ (M, B); χάρις and 1‫( )צד[קה‬M, B); ελεημοσύνη (17a,b). The aim of the poem is to emphasize the need for good behaviour. 2.1:

Metre

Metrical regularity is clear—the verse is divisible into 3:3 accentual units in every colon. The negation in 17a forms a single accentual unit with the verb. 3 ‫תכן‬ ‫תכון‬ 2.2:

2 ‫לעד‬ ‫לעד‬

1 ‫]וצחקה‬ ‫וצדקה‬

3 ‫לאתכרת‬ ‫לאימוט‬

2 ‫כעד‬ ‫לעולם‬

1 ‫חסר‬ ‫חסד‬

40.17a,b M Β

Grammar

The noun ‫ חסר‬in the singular is the only noun and relates to the verb ‫ ל א ת כ ר ת‬. The verb can be analysed as Qal 2nd pers. sg. m. (impossible in this context) or as Nif'al 3rd pers. sg. f. If the verb is passive, ‫ח ס ד‬ would seem to be the subject. But OT usage shows that ‫ ח ס ד‬is masculine 2 (cf. Gesenius, Wörterbuch, p. 247), so the verb ought to be 2

In all OT references the verb indicates that the noun is masculine: 2) ‫וחסדי לא־יסור ממנו‬ Sam. 7.15) ‫( וחסדי מאתך לא־ימוש‬Isa. 54.10) ‫( יהי־חסדך י׳ עלינו‬Ps. 33.22) ‫( מה־יקר חסדך אלהים‬Ps. 36.8) ‫( חסדך ואמתך תמיד יצרוני‬Ps. 40.12) ‫( חסד ואמת יקדמו פניך‬Ps. 89.15) ‫( כי נבר עלינו חסדו‬Ps. 117.2) ‫( ויבאני חסדך י׳ תשועחך כאמרתך‬Ps. 119.41) ‫( יהי־נא חסדך אחמני כאמרתך ל ע ב ד ך‬Ps. 119.76) ‫( חסד ואמת אל־יעזבך‬Prov. 3.3) ‫( חסד ואמת יצרו־מלך‬Prov. 20.28) passive clauses:‫( היספר ב ק ב ר חסדך אמונתך באבדון‬Ps. 8 8 . 1 2 ) ; 8 9 . 3 )

‫ה‬

3

.‫ יכרת‬MS β has the correct person but a different verb: ‫לא ימוט‬. If we compare M and B, the following additional arguments suggest that Β could be seen as a later correction: the parallel ‫ ע ר ־ ע ד‬is unusual but in Β there is ‫עד־עולם‬. The same argument holds for the prepositions: instead of ‫( ל־כ‬M) there is ‫( ל י ל‬Β).4 But in Β the intended sense of M, namely that 10Π is as firm and fixed as eternity, vanishes. M seems to be the more original text, which contains a grammatical error, although we should bear in mind the possibility that the difference arose because of alliteration and assonance: ‫ ל א תכרת( ל־ת‬and ‫)לעד הכן‬. The spelling of17)‫ ת כ ן‬b [M]) may be a scriptio defectiva; B: ‫תכון‬. 2.3:

Parallelism

One could use this verse as a model of synonymous parallelism. The position of the corresponding substantives (first words), the corresponding specifications of time (second words), and the verbs (third words) displays the pattern: a:b:c=a':b':c'. The contrast in the meaning of the verbs—'cut‫( ׳‬M) or 'shake' (B) in colon a as against 'be firm' in colon b—allows the negation of the first clause and a movement from negative statement to positive. 2.4: OT

parallels

2.4.1. ‫( ח ס ד‬colon a) and ‫( צ ד ק ה‬colon b) There are few instances of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ צ ד ק ה‬in parallel, whether as parallei words in a single colon (Prov. 21.21;5 Jer. 9.23 6 ) or within a wider context (Ps. 103.17;7 40.11;» Hos. 10.12;9 Ps. 33.5;10 36.1;" 1 Kgs 3.612). A precise equivalent to the parallelism in Ben Sira cannot be found. 2.4.2.‫ חסד‬and ‫צ ד ק‬ Sometimes ‫ צ ד ק ה‬and ‫ צ ד ק‬have the same meaning, so the word pair ‫ ח ס ד‬and ‫ צ ד ק‬should also be checked. In close proximity we find both

3

Cf. Skehan, Patrick William and Alexander Anthony Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; N e w York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 466. 4 Cf.‫( ותהי ליום אחרון ל ע ד עד־עולם‬Isa. 30.8). 5 . ‫ר ד ף צדקה וחסד ימצא חיים צדקה וכבוד‬ 6 ‫אני י׳ עטה חסד מטפס וצדקה בארץ‬ ‫כי‬ . .7 ‫וחסד י׳ מעולם ועד־עולם על־יראיו וצדקתו לבני בנים‬ .8 ‫צ ד ק ת ך לא־כסיתי בתוך לבי אמונתך ותטועתך אמרתי לא־כחדתי חסדך ואמתך ל ק ה ל ר ב‬ .9 ‫ לדרוט את־י׳ עד־יבוא וירה צ ד ק ל כ ם‬... ‫זרעו ל כ ם ל צ ד ק ה קצרו לפי־חסד‬ .10 ‫אהב צדקה ומטפס חסד י׳ מלאה הארץ‬ .‫ו‬1 ‫מטך חסדך לידעיך וצדקתך ליטרי־לב‬ 12 ‫ויאמר טלמה אתה עטית עם־עבדך דוד אבי חסד נדול כאטר ה ל ך לפניך‬ ‫באמת ובצדקה וביטרת ל ב ב עמך ותטמר־לו אח־החסד הנדול הזה‬.

nouns in Isa. 16.513 (acompaniments to the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy), as a parallel word-pair in Ps. 85.11 (results of God's activity) and 89.1514 (they stand in God's presence); Hos. 2.21 15 (God's brideprice for Israel). Each reference occurs in a theological context. None of these passages served as a model for Ben Sira. 2.4.3.‫ עד‬and ‫( ע ד‬M) or ‫ עולם‬and ‫( ע ד‬Β) ‫ ע ד‬and ‫ ע ד‬are found nowhere else in parallel. The word pair ‫ עולם‬and ‫ ע ד‬is suggestive of the 57 occurrences of ‫עד עולם‬. 1 6 ‫ ל ע ל ם ועד‬is attested just twice 17 and ‫ עולם וער‬nine times. 1 " 2.4.4.‫ כרת‬and ‫( כרן‬M) or ‫ מוט‬and ‫( כרן‬Β) In the OT the verbs ‫ כ ר ת‬and ‫ כרן‬are never found in parallel or in the same verse. This is not true, though, of ‫ מוט‬and ‫כרן‬. The firmness of the earth's foundation is the reason why it does not rock (1 Chron. 16.30; Ps. 93.1; 96.10;1'‫ ׳־‬cf. Ps. 104.5). One has to fix a graven image so that it does not move (Isa. 40.20 20 ). According to Prov. 12.3 h u m a n beings cannot achieve stability, because of their evil ways; in contrast, it is said that stability can be achieved through honesty: ‫לא־יכון א ד ם ב ר ט ע ושרט צדיקים בל־ימוט‬. It is unusual to find the roots ‫ כרן‬and ‫ צ ד ק‬together. 2.5: Examination

of stereotyped

phrases

2.5.1.‫ל א יכרת חסד‬ In most references ‫ ח ס ד‬has the sense of a 'fulfilled deed of love', mostly construed with ‫ ; ע ט ה‬six times one finds the phrase ‫ט מ ר‬ ‫הברית רהחסד‬. 2 1 The union of ‫ ח ס ד‬and ‫ ב ר י ת‬is noteworthy. We might consider the possibility that Ben Sira looked for a verb that could govern both nouns (‫ חסד‬and ‫ )ברית‬as direct objects. This could be the reason why he chose ‫ כ ר ת‬in reference to the breaking or cutting off of a 13

‫ והוכן בחסד כסא וישב עליו באמת באהל דוד טפט ודרש משפט ומהר צ ד ק‬. ‫ צדק ומשפט מכון כסאך חסד ואמת יקדמו פניך‬. 15 ‫וארשתיך לי לעולם וארשתיך לי ב צ ד ק ובמשפט ובחסד וברחמים‬. 16 Gen. 13.15; Exod. 12.24; 14.13; Deut. 12.28; 23.4; 28.46; 29.28; Josh. 4.7; 14.9; 1 Sam. 1.22; 2.30; 3.13f; 13.13; 20.15,23,42; 2 Sam. 3.28; 7.13,16,24ff.; 12.10; 22.51; 1 Kgs 2.33,45; 9.3; 1 Chron. 15.2; 17.12,22ff.; 22.10; 23.13; 28.8; 2 Chron. 7.16; Ezra 9.12; Neh. 13.1; Ps. 18.51; 48.9; 89.5; 90.2; 106.31; Isa. 30.8; 32.14,17; Jer. 17.4; 35.6; 49.33; Ezek. 27.36; 28.19; 37.25; Zeph. 2.9; Mai. 1.4. 17 Exod. 15.18; Ps. 45.18. 18 Ps. 10.16; 21.5; 45.7; 48.15; 52.10; 89.38; 104.5; Jer. 7.7; 25.5. 19 ‫אף־תכון ח ב ל ב ל ־ ח מ ו ט‬. 20 ‫להכין פ ס ל לא ימוט‬. 21 Deut. 7.9; 1 Kgs 8.23; 2 Chron. 6.14; Neh. 1.5; 9.32; Dan. 9.4; cf. Hos. 12.7: ‫חסד ומשפט שמר‬. 14

loving relationship. There are a few references where we read about the end of such a relationship. In Prov. 3.3 it is v o w e d that ‫חסר ואמתאל־יעזבך‬. In Jer. 16.5 lamentation for the dead has to cease because God has withdrawn ‫ חסד‬from Jeremiah: ‫ א ח ־ ה ח ס ד ואת־הרחמים‬...‫כי־אספחי‬. One encounters ‫ ל א יכרת חסד‬in connection with David and Jonathan, who loves David like himself/his own life ( 1 ] 20.17]). G o d ' s love (‫[ ח ס ד יי‬v. 14]) might be the measure of the (expected) care of David for the house of (the deceased) Jonathan: ‫׳‬Do not cut off (‫ )ולא־תכרת‬your loyalty (‫ )את־חסרך‬from my house for ever (‫)עד״עולם‬. When the LORD cuts off every one of the enemies of David (‫ )בהכרת י׳ את־איכי דוד‬...‫( ׳‬v. 15). Thus, we see that the destruction of a relationship of love can be just as brutal as the felling of a tree or the annihilation of an enemy. Incidentally, the mention of ‫ ח ס ד י׳‬in v. 14 suggests a connection with Isa. 55.3, where as well as ‫ ח ס ד‬, ‫ כ ר ת‬is used, but in a different sense: ‫ואכרתה ל כ ם ברית עולם חסדי דור הנאמנים‬. It seems that Ben Sira always has in mind the antithetical meanings of ‫כרת‬, which is, therefore, potentially both positive and negative, although at the surface level the modern scholar, who is not a nativespeaker of the language of Ben Sira, sees only the immediately appropriate sense.

‫בו‬

2.5.2.‫לעד‬ ‫ ל ע ד‬can refer to the distant future; in this sense it is used repeatedly: 1 Chron. 28.9; Job 19.24; Ps. 9.19; 19.10 ( ; 3 7 . 2 9;22.27 61.9; 89.30; 111.3 (‫ ;)וצדקתו‬111.10 (‫ ;)תהלתו‬112.3 (‫ ;)צדקתו‬112.9 (‫;)צדקתו‬ 148.6; Prov. 12.19; 29.14; Isa. 64.8; Amos 1.11 (‫ ;)אפו‬Mic. 7.18 (.(‫אפו‬ 2.5.3.‫צ ד ק ה תכון‬ In the OT ‫ צ ד ק ה‬is never the object of the verb ‫פון‬. The prepositional phrase ‫ ב צ ד ק ה‬is used however as a qualitative modifier. A royal throne is established (‫ ב צ ד ק ה )יכון‬, meaning either that ‫ צ ד ק ה‬is an objective feature (similar material) that is able to consolidate the throne or that it refers to a good quality in royal attitude or action (Prov. 16.12; cf. Isa. 9.6, ‫;להכין אתה ו ל ס ע ר ה במשפט ו ב צ ד ק ה מעתה ועד־עולם‬ Isa. 16.5). In Isa. 54.14 ( ‫ ) ב צ ר ק ה ת כ ו ע י‬it seems to be an almost spatially definable feature that keeps distress and depression away. Ben Sira uses ‫ צ ד ק ה ת כ ו ן‬in reference to behaviour.

2.6:

Summary

The phraseology of Ben Sira shows that the author is familiar with OT vocabulary and is to some extent apparently influenced by the OT models. It is possible, although quite improbable, that one would choose eo ipso ‫ כ ר ת ח ס ד‬for the ending of a relationship of love. The expression seems peculiar even if 1 Sam. 20 is regarded as a parallel, for the contexts are very different. We might say that Ben Sira coins his own style by employing traditional formulas with a new aspect; that the author has developed his own idiom can be seen in the parallel of ‫ כ ע ד‬and ‫ ל ע ד‬. In his use of language Ben Sira does not slavishly follow his literary antecedents. If we are justified in seeing alliteration at work in the parallelism of ‫תכן‬ and ‫ ת כ ר ת‬, instead of the grammatically correct ‫יכרת‬, this d e m o n strates Ben Sira's confidence in adapting the language freely even if it means breaking grammatical rules.

3: Sir.

41.11

The topic death forms the focus of 41.1-13. Nothingness disappears into nothingness, likewise the malefactor. The bodily form of a h u m a n being is but a breath; only the name has a continued existence, so that what is associated with one's name can never be annihilated. 3.1:

Metre

There are three accentual units in colon a and colon b, with ‫שם ח ס ד‬ and ‫ ל א יכרת‬needing to be read as single units. In this way a 3:3 metre emerges, which matches the preceding and following verses. 3 ‫לאיכרת‬ ‫ללאיכרת‬ 3.2:

2 1 ‫א ך שם ח ס ד‬ ‫][ם ח ס ד‬

3 ‫בגויתו‬

2 ‫אדם‬ •n

1 41.lib,a [Bmg ‫ה ב ל ]בני‬ Β M

Grammar

In so far as it is legible, MS M supports B; the two lameds in ‫ ל ל א‬represent a spelling variant that also can be found in Mishnaic Hebrew (see the contribution of W. Th. van Peursen to this volume). The introductory particle ‫ אך‬in colon l i b introduces a contrast to colon a. ‫ שם ח ס ד‬is a noun phrase, with nomen regens and subject ‫ שם‬and nomen rectum ‫חסר‬. The verb is Nifal 3rd pers. m. sg. There are no peculiarities. 3.3:

Parallelism

In 41.11 we find an antithetic parallelism. But the elements are not arranged as beautifully as in 40.17. The middle elements of the cola are

correlated—‫ אדם‬and ‫שם ח ס ד‬. Thus, we see that a ‫ שם‬is identified with a h u m a n being and not just with that human being's name. 3.4: OT

parallels

Only Qoh. 6.10 might have some distant relationship: ‫מה־שהיה כ ב ר נקרא שמו ונודע אשר־הוא אדם‬. The ability to bear a name shows that someone belongs to the category of human beings. 3.5: Examination

of stereotyped

phrases

3.5.1.‫כ ר ת שם‬ When the Israelites fled from Ai, Joshua poured out his troubles to the LORD, saying that the other inhabitants of the country (‫)וכל ישבי הארץ‬ would now attack and the names, that is the Israelites, would be exterminated (‫[ והכריתו את־שמנו‬Josh. 7.9}). ‫׳‬Names' mean here the people themselves. The following passage (Isa. 56.5) might be associated with the idea that a person is able to survive in the person's children, which w o u l d explain the importance of establishing the n a m e of the deceased on their heritage (‫)להקים שברהמת על״נחלתו‬. If this is done both person and name lives on among the person's descendants, which means a special existence after death (‫)ולא־יכרת שם־המת מעם אחיו‬. In 1 Sam. 24.22 we find the parallel term 22,‫ זרע‬which indicates that ‫שם‬ refers to descendants. It is significant that ‫ שם‬can be identified immediately with 'offspring‫׳‬. Thus, a 'name' is able to indicate the fact of lasting (human) existence 23 through one's children and even where children are not present. If a name (in the sense of 'human existence') is promised by God, there are additional consequences of which the most important is that a name conferred by God cannot be annihilated: ‫ונתתי להם בביתי ובחומתי יד ושם טוב מבנים ומבנות שם עולם‬ ‫( אתן־לו אשר ל א יכרת‬Isa. 56.5). 3.5.2.‫שם חסד‬ In Ps. 109.21 we read the request that God might treat the supplicant according to his own name, in other words that the treatment corresponds to God's personality (‫)למען שמך‬. This personality can be specified by ‫ ח ס ד ך‬. The supplicant praises God, who is present in his name, for his love and loyalty (‫[ ע ל ־ ח ס ר ך ועל־אמתך‬Ps. 138.1]). But no formu22

‫ ;ועתה השבעה לי בי׳ אס־תכרית את־זרעי אחרי ואם־תשמיד את־שמי מבית אבי‬cf. ‫( ושאר ונין ונכד נאם־י׳ וקמתי עליהם נאם י׳ צבאות והכרתי ל ב ב ל שם‬Isa. 14.22); Isa. 48.19. 23 Zeph. 1.4; Zech. 13.2, but there it is used of God rather than people.

lation is comparable with that found in Ben Sira. 3.6:

Summary

When Ben Sira uses the phrase ‫ ל א כ ר ת שם‬he is basically within the biblical tradition, although it is difficult to determine exactly what he intends by employing this expression. In general in this tradition continued existence was bound up with children (see, e.g., Gen. 48.16). In Isa. 56.5 such a definite connection with children is removed: even a castrated person, so often specifically excluded from the cult and its positive effects, lives on, without children, if the name ('existence') of God is given to him. The gift of God's 'promised name' is, however, conditional on the person's keeping the sabbath, not committing any evil deed, and staying faithful to the covenant (Isa. 56.2,4). Ben Sira, too, deals with life after death, but without any mention of descendants, coinciding, in this respect, with Isaiah. Furthermore, both texts agree that the continued existence of the name is bound up with the fulfilment of specific obligations. For Ben Sira the decisive criterion is not the fulfilment of commandments: only an existence/a person (name) established in love (‫ )חסר‬lives on (cf. the meaning of 'love for one's neighbour' in Sir. 32[35].l-3: love is greater than, first, offerings, and second, the commandments). Thus, it is clear that the name is more than the body, the former somehow implying the latter. But the normal h u m a n body subsides and disappears whereas the ‫שם‬, which is more precisely qualified by ‫חסר‬, does not pass away. How can this be understood? Does the ‫ שם‬that remains allude to life after death? Verse 11a deals with individual, physical death; in contrast, v. l i b seems to deal with the individual's life after death. I see here an attempt to formulate in Hebrew abstract ideas not traditionally associated with the language. Ben Sira was probably influenced by the Greek philosophical terminology he knew; compare a similar, Greekrelated, phenomenon at Exod. 3.14, where the LXX has έγώ είμι ό ών for ‫אהיה אשר אהיה‬. In Ben Sira ‫ שם‬is an abstract term for 'person', but remains indebted to Hebrew usage in that it always refers to h u m a n beings as concrete entities. ‫ ח ס ר‬is not only used to qualify ‫ שם‬but is also in its own right another 'concrete' abstract: concrete deeds of love. Because these categories of thought and formulation are not developed in Indogermanic, it is difficult to put them into w o r d s . ^ The subject, the development of themes, and the formulation of 24

That the p r o b l e m of f i n d i n g the right e x p r e s s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y to H e b r e w a l o n e is indicated b y translations of ‫נפש‬: in Exod. 12.4 ‫ ב מ כ ס ת נפשת‬refers to the ' n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s / h u m a n b e i n g s ' w h o can eat; in the LXX w e find κ α τ ά α ρ ι θ μ ό ν φ υ χ ώ ν . In N u m . 9.6 ‫ ל נ פ ש א ד ם‬m e a n s a ' d e a d p e r s o n ' ( c o n v e y i n g impurity), but the LXX h a s έπί ψ υ χ ή ά ν θ ρ ω π ο υ .

the entire verse demonstrate not only allusions to Ben Sira's tradition but also innovation.

4: Sir.

44.18

Ben Sira dedicates three stichs (48.17-18) to Noah. The verb ‫ כ ר ת‬occurs in 18a. 4.1:

Metre

From a metrical viewpoint, there is a beautiful stylistic symmetry, such that it is impossible to conceive of there being any element missing from 18a, where the accentual units form an elegant 4:4 rhythm. However, in 18a the absolute use of ‫ כ ר ת‬is discordant with OT parallels. 4 ‫תחליף‬

3 ‫היה‬ 3 ‫מבול‬ 4 3 ‫בשר‬ ‫כל‬

2

1

4

3

2

1

Β 44.17

2

1

3

2

1 44.17

2

1

4

3

2

1 44.18

[Bmg ‫]כרת‬ 4.2:

Grammar

Although ‫ באות‬is a prepositional phrase it could be argued that it is a subject marked by ‫( ב‬cf. the formally equivalent construction with ‫את‬ in 2 Sam. 11.25).25 ‫ ע ו ל ם‬is an adjective modifying ‫אות‬. ‫ נכרת‬could be Nifal pf. 3rd pers. m. sg. or Nifal ptc. m. sg., but because a continuing process is not signified, the participial interpretation must be exeluded. 26 In Bmg, there is the variant ‫( כ ר ת‬Qal pf. 3rd pers. m. sg.). It is not clear whether it is Abraham or God who is referred to here. The enclitic pronoun in the prepositional phrase ‫'( עמו‬with him') could refer to either person, depending on the decision about the subject: if the subject is God, the pronoun refers to Abraham, and vice-versa.

25

‫ את‬can be a marker of the subject; cf. Meyer, Rudolf, Hcbräische Grammatik (Third, rev., ed.; 4 vols, in 1; Berlin: d e Cruyter, 1992), §53 (pp. 192-93); cf. the example in a passive clause: 2 Sam. 11.25, ‫אל־ירע בעיניך את־הדבר הזה‬, but this is also possible in active clauses, e.g. N u m 5.10, ‫ואיש אח־קדשיו לו יהיו‬, Dan. 9.13, ‫את כל־הרעה הזאת באה עלינו‬, or in a noun clause, e.g. Judg. 20.46: ‫את־כל־אלה אנשי־‬ ‫חיל‬. 26 It is not possible to see here Qal 1st pers. pi.

[‫לה‬

4.3:

Parallelism

Verse 18 employs synthetic parallelism. A model of the parallelism of 18) ‫ כ ר ת‬a ) , in the meaning of ‫׳‬cut‫׳‬, ‫׳‬annihilate', and another verb meaning ' d e s t r o y ' ( 1 8 ] ‫ ש ח ת‬b ] ) , can be found at Isa. 48.19 (‫ כרת‬/ / ‫ר‬ and Mic. 4.9 (‫ כרת‬/ / ‫)אבר‬, although these do not underpin Ben Sira's formulation. 4.4: Stereotyped

phrases

Analysis of the construction ‫ כ ר ת‬plus • ‫ ע‬shows that it is used almost exclusively in the context of the phrase • ‫כרת ברית ע‬. Thus one may assume that ‫ ברית‬is required as complement. If the object ‫ ברית‬is missing an ellipsis should be assumed, with the object present virtually. In all the references, the verb is Qal: four times God is the subject, making a covenant with someone (Deut. 5.2; 1 Kgs 8.9,21; Neh. 9.8); four times h u m a n partners enter into an alliance (Gen. 26.28; 2 Chron. 23.3; job 40.28; Hos. 12.2); and on one occasion people conclude an alliance with personified death (Isa. 28.15). In addition, two (parallel) references can be found, where ‫ כ ר ת עם‬is used absolutely, without the direct object1)‫ברית‬ Kgs 8 . 9 / / 2 Chron. 5.10). These texts have an active verb. 4.5: Note on active and passive

sentences

If there is a sentence with a transitive verb connected to a direct object the alternation from active to passive voice has the consequence that the direct object is converted to the subject. In the following examples, the active verb ‫ כ ר ת‬is followed by (an object-marker and) an object: ‫( כ ר ת האשרה‬Judg. 6.30);‫( ו ת כ ר ת א ת ־ ע ר ל ת בנה‬Exod. 4.25);‫ב ה כ ר ת י׳ את־‬ ‫( א י ב י ד ו ד‬1 Sam. 20.15); ‫( י כ ר ת י׳ לאיש‬Mal. 2.12). In passive sentences (with the verb ‫ ) כ ר ת‬the subject is essential: ‫( יכרת־איש‬impf. [Obad. l.9]); ‫( ה כ ר ת ת כ ר ת הנפש ההוא‬impf. [Num. 15.31]), ‫( נכרתה הנפש ההוא‬pf. [Gen. 17.14]). It is a rule, then, that the direct object of an active sentence has to reappear as the subject when the sentence is converted to passive. As in Jer. 33.21 ( 2 7 ‫ת פ ר‬ ‫ ) ב ר י ת י‬, the verb has to be feminine Sir. 44.18. Ellipsis of ‫ ברית‬is excluded in a passive sentence. If the subject is ‫ברית‬, the correct formulation would be ‫תכרת)ה(ברית‬. But in the OT this passive form does not occur. If ‫ ברית‬is lacking, one could as-

27

N o t e that here the second radical is not doubled with dagesh; the doubling is normative (and assumed, hence the short patah): "The formal and prominent characteristic of Piel is the doubling of the second radical": Joiion, Paul, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (corrected rev. ed.; trans, and ed. by T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica 14.1-2; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), §52a (p. 151). One w o n d e r s if the Masoretic grammarians w e r e aware that this is the only evidence for the breaking of a covenant in the passive voice.

266

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

s u m e that in the opinion of the author the verb ‫ כ ר ת‬on its o w n (without direct object) can mean 'make a covenant'. 2 8 This is a semantic development that is understandable but not usual and is not found in Mishnaic Hebrew. Finally, we note that if the verb is masculine, then the subject should also be masculine. This would make sense if God were the subject. Then w e would have a reflexive relationship: he (God) ineludes himself in a covenant, he takes a covenant u p o n himself. The unusual reflexive form as passivum divinum indicates that God takes a covenant upon himself with Noah as his partner. We see a new use of ( ‫ כ ר ת ) ב ר י ת‬in connection with God—God is similar to a h u m a n partner. Such a use of ‫ כ ר ת‬cannot be found elsewhere. 4.6: Comparison

of Β and

Bmg

Bmg has as a variant ‫ כ ר ת‬, Qal, in place of Nifal. This form is possible and reasonable. In many respects, it appears to be a correction. A. The reviser's use of ‫ כ ר ת‬in the active voice follows the general tendency of the OT. B. It makes better sense to assume that a longer form (‫)נכרת‬ was changed to a shorter (‫ ;)כרת‬the change from ‫ כ ר ת‬to ‫ נ כ ר ת‬brings only difficulties. C. The reflexive form poses a theological problem, because it portrays God in the same terms as those used of a h u m a n partner in an alliance. Therefore, ‫ כ ר ת‬should be rejected, as it is an easier, secondary, reading.

28 p e t e r s ‫ ׳‬Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EH, 25; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), p. 38(), sees the problem. H e thinks that the Vorlage of LXX reads well, but the absolute use of ‫" כ ר ת‬bleibt auch immerhin hart", and he tries to demonstrate the passive voice using a quite unusual formulation in German: "Ein e w i g e r Bund w a r d mit ihm geschlossen" (p. 377). Sauer, Georg, Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira) (JSHRZ, 3.5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Cerd Mohn, 1981) p. 616, uses the correct passive voice and a d d s — w i t h o u t an additional note—'covenant': "Mit e i n e m e w i g e n Zeichen w u r d e ein Bund mit ihm geschlossen". Di Leila switches the relationship by turning the sentence from passive to active: "A lasting sign sealed the assurance to him" (p. 503). H e argues that "Heb. bérîtô (lit., 'covenant with him') ... is God's c o m m i t m e n t to Noah that he w o u l d never again destroy bodily creatures ..." (p. 505), without mentioning that this w o r d d o e s not exist in v. 18. Marböck, Johannes, 'Die "Geschichte Israels" als "Bundesgeschichte" nach d e m Sirachbuch', in (A) E. Zenger (ed.), Der neue Bund im Alten (Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente [QD, 146); Freiburg, 1993), pp. 177-97/(B) I. Fischer (ed.), Gottes Weisheit unter uns: zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (Herders Biblische Studien, 6; Freiburg, 1995), pp. 103-23 (110), maintains that the Hebrew of MS Β is inferior and Greek, Syriac, and Latin are to be preferred and therefore one has to read ‫ברית‬.

4.7: Ancient

versions

‫ ו י < ז‬, ‫ ר ד‬ΓΟΛ (rCr7x! ) rCr73jT ( ‫נרו< ר‬ ) ‫ ר‬CRXAÀ3 1 ‫ נ‬RG RCS ‫ר‬

There is no translation corresponding to the prepositional phrase • ‫בואת ע ו ל‬. 1<‫וו‬ cannot be understood in this way. The translation might imply that in the Hebrew text the translator had, or understood, ‫כרת ברית‬. No N-stem is found in the Syriac. διαθηκαι αιώνος ετέθησαν προς αύτόν ι'να μή έξαλειφθη κατακλυσμώ πάσα σάρξ The verb is active. It is usual to translate a prepositional phrase as a genitive construction (substantive and attributive genitive). Now w e see that διαθήκη is singular in the Septuagint, with few exceptions. There are 336 occurrences of διαθήκη in the OT, with one plural (Ezek. 16.29); there are five more examples of the plural in the deuterocanonical literature, three of them in Ben Sira (2 Macc. 8.15; Wisd. 18.22; Sir. 44.12,18; 45.17). It is very doubtful that this rare plural is the translation of ‫אות‬. Both versions presuppose ‫ כ ר ת ברית‬in their Vorlage and have provided standard translations. Translation from the Syriac or Greek would not arrive at the present Hebrew text, which can hardly, therefore, be a retroversion. 4.8:‫ ( כרת‬N i f ' a l ) W ‫ אות עולם‬in the OT Ben Sira's 'absolute' use of ‫( כרת‬Nif'al) differs from the biblical construction. It should be asked now whether the choice of the remaining vocabulary in 44.18a is influenced by OT usage. A. We see that the only contextually comparable use of ‫ כ ר ת‬, in connection with Noah, is in reference to (negated) annihilation (Gen. 9.11). However, the expression 'make a covenant' is not found there. B. ‫ אות‬appears in the construct phrase ‫אות״הברית‬, twice in a nominal clause, ‫( זאת אות־הברית‬Gen. 9.12,17), and twice in prepositional periphrastic constructions, governed by ‫( היה‬Gen. 9.13; 17.11), with 'sign of the covenant' used in reference to circumcision. C. ‫ עולם‬is used in Gen. 9.16 to determine 29;‫ ברית‬the phrase is the direct object of the infinitive ‫לזכר‬. D. ‫ אות עולם‬is not found in the OT. E. In Sir. 44.18, ‫ ברית‬is suppressed. The noun appears in Gen. 9.11 in the construct phrase ‫ אות־הברית‬as direct object of the verb .‫הקמתי‬ ‫ קום‬is frequently used in connection with 30.‫ ברית‬But this phrase is not 29

For ‫ברית עולם‬, see Gen. 9.16; 17.7,13,19; Exod. 31.16; Lev. 24.8; 2 Sam. 23.5; 1 Chron. 16.17; Ps. 105.10; Isa. 24.5; 55.3; 61.8; Jer. 32.40; 50.5; Ezek. 16.60; 37.26. 30 Gen. 6.18; 9.9,11,17; 17.7,19,21,32; Exod. 6.4; Lev. 26.9; Deut. 8.18; 31.16; Josh.

as widespread as ‫ כ ר ת‬and ‫ ב ר י ת‬, being mainly associated with the Priestly Code; cf. Gen. 6.18; 17.7,19.31 4.9:

Summary

The phraseology deviates from that found in the OT. I believe that we have here a typical example of Ben Sira's use of the Bible. He employs various elements from the Bible but also formulates new ideas by using traditional terminology. He achieves this by cleverly choosing words from contexts with which he expects the listener/reader to be familiar. Ben Sira alludes to the contents of the underlying biblical passage but only uses one element from it. The listener/reader has to complete the rest from memory. In this way Ben Sira is able to allude in concise form to two different ideas, apart from expressing his own intended meaning. I see here a special kind of poetic shorthand as Ben Sira integrates earlier vocabulary into his own intended meaning, transforms it, and builds it up into a new message. Thus, we may conclude that the formulation of 44.18 is not accidental. It is not the result of a taught, passive, use of language. It seems impossible that a retranslator from Greek or Syriac would have created new phrases. And anyone using expressions they had been taught would have remembered that ( ‫ כ ר ת ) ב ר י ת‬is never used in the passive and is very seldom negated. A good student would have known that in a passive clause the subject has to be maintained. The Siracidic formulation implies an independent use of the language and a poet familiar with the handling of Hebrew. The formulation is not be found before or after Ben Sira.

5: Sir.

44.20c-d-2ìa-b

In colon 44.20b we find ‫ ברית‬as the object of the governing verb ‫ב ו א‬ 40.20)b) and in 44.20c ‫ כ ר ת‬is used with ‫ ח ק‬as its direct object. 4 3 ‫בכבודו מום‬ 3 ‫עמו‬

2 ‫נתן‬ 2 ‫בברית‬

1 ‫לא‬ 1 ‫ובא‬

4 3 ‫המון נוים‬ 4 3 ‫מצות עליון‬

2 1 ‫ א ב ר ה ם אב‬44.19b,a 2 1 ‫שמר‬ ‫ אשר‬44.20b,a

The metre of 44.20a.b (4:3) is the same as that of the following stichs 3.3; 4.9.18; 2 Sam. 3.21; 1 Kgs 8.6,21; 2 Kgs 23.3; 1 Chron. 22.19; 28.2; 2 Chron. 5.7; Neh. 9.8; Isa. 28.18; 49.8; Jer. 34.18; Ezek. 16.60,62; 17.16. 31 Cf.1)‫הקמתי את־דברי‬ Kgs 6.12; Jer. 29.10) as well as ‫( הקמתי את־הדבר‬Jer. 33.14) and ‫( והקמתיאת־השבעה‬Gen. 26.3).

(44.20c,d and 44.21a,b). The phrase20)‫ ע מ ר מצות‬a ) is used 28 times, ‫ שמר‬with the noun in the singular (‫)]ה[מצוה‬, nine times. Sometimes we also find combinations of nouns, mostly with ‫ מ צ ו ה‬/ ‫ מ צ ו ת‬in first position, rarely in second place. There are also earlier references for ‫בא בברית‬. In three of them the verb is, as in Ben Sira, Qal (1 Sam. 20.8; Jer. 34.10; Ezek. 16.8), once it is Hifil; on two occasions ‫ ברית‬is nomen rectum, in Jer. 11.8 with ‫רברי‬, in Ezek. 20.37 with ‫מסרת‬. Both examples express the obligatory character of the law. If there is an object it is marked with1)‫את‬ Sam. 20.8; Ezek. 16.8;32 [20.37]); but Ben Sira has • ‫ ע‬. The clauses in 44.20 are grammatically and syntactically correct; the phrases are traditional, although ‫ ) ה ( מ צ ו ת‬/ ‫ ש מ ר מ צ ו ת‬and ‫ בא בברית‬are never found in parallel. The direct dependence of Ben Sira on a Vorlage is very unlikely. We turn now to 44.20c,d. 5. Ì : Metre

3

2

1

4

3

2

1 44.20 44.2

There are four stressed syllables followed by three (4:3). In this respect, the section fits very well into the context. 5.2: Grammar,

semantics,

syntax

‫ בבשרו‬is a prepositional phrase with enclitic possessive pronoun. ‫כ ר ת‬ is Qal pf. 3rd pers. m. sg. It is uncertain who is the subject: God or Abraham. The decision depends on the semantic specification of ‫כ ר ת‬ + (direct object) + indirect object (introduced by ‫)ל‬. ‫ לו‬is a prepositional phrase, the exact significance of which is entwined with the meaning and valency of ‫כרת‬, which could mean either 'he cuts o f f or 'he makes (a covenant/statute'[‫)]חק‬. ‫ כ ר ת ל‬is a stereotyped/formulaic phrase meaning 'make a covenant'. Where the meaning of ‫ כ ר ת‬is 'cut off' in the OT the indirect object is never introduced by means of ‫ל‬, in contrast to the use of the negative formulation,-‫ ל א כ ר ת ל‬at Sir. 50.24c. The indirect object might be God or Abraham, depending on who it is decided is the subject, so that if God is subject then Abraham is indirect object, and vice-versa. However, there is also another possibility, namely that ‫ לו‬be understood as a reflexive object. Then the pronoun ‫ו‬- is co-referential with the subject of .‫כרת‬ ‫ ח ק‬is the direct object of ‫ כ ר ת‬. The noun has the same syntactic function as ‫ ברית‬in many other texts.

32

N o t e the surprising vocalization of ‫אחך‬, meaning here 'with'.

5.3:‫ חק‬and ‫ברית‬ Whatever the exact meaning of pU is, it seems clear that w e are in the mental context of legal diction. Ben Sira speaks about a (cultic?) tradition/practice—something has been done to the body of Abraham, resuiting in a sign that shows there is a legal relation between him and God. In the following I attempt a list of the different possible relationships. 5.3.1. I n / o n his (Abraham's) him (Abraham); i n / o n his (Abraham's) himself (God); i n / o n his (Abraham's) for him (God); i n / o n his (Abraham's) for himself (Abraham).

flesh/body he (God) cuts a binding sign for f l e s h / b o d y he (God) cuts a binding sign for flesh/body he (Abraham) cuts a binding sign flesh/body he (Abraham) cuts a binding sign

5.3.2. ‫ כ ר ת‬+ -‫ ל‬is a formulaic phrase and there are many examples of ‫ ברית‬as the direct object. In Ben Sira ‫ ב ר י ת‬is not the direct object, but the noun ‫ ח ק‬. The question arises as to whether the two structures are synonymous, with ‫ חק‬therefore meaning 'covenant'. But why would the terminus technicus be changed? Simple identification is excluded. The proximity in meaning of ‫ ב ר י ת‬and ‫ ח ק‬may derive from the frequency of the parallelism fact of both terms. The solution may be in the intention of Ben Sira: he wants to stress the obligatory nature of circumcision. If so, this indicates a crisis concerning a mark on the body, that is, circumcision. Ben Sira shows that this mark is a part of Jewish self-identity as can be seen with Abraham. In this way the sentence can be seen in another light: i n / o n his (Abraham's) f l e s h / b o d y he (God) m a d e an covenant for him (Abraham); i n / o n his (Abraham's) f l e s h / b o d y he (God) m a d e an covenant for himself (God); i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) made an covenant for him (God); i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) made an covenant for himself (Abraham).

obligatory obligatory obligatory obligatory

5.3.3. The choice of words suggests that the author was aiming at ambiguity: Ben Sira attempts to combine the meanings 'cut off' and 'make a covenant' into one expression; thus, he achieves a poetic shorthand (an example of the Siracidic style as seen above, Sect. 4.9).

He compresses in one word what would otherwise have to come one after the other, as, for example, in Jer. 34.18, where, in the same verse, w e find ‫ כ ר ת‬meaning both 'cut off‫ ׳‬and 'make a covenant': And the men w h o transgressed my covenant (‫ ) ה ע ב ר י ם אתיברתי‬and did not keep the terms of the covenant (‫ )לא־הקימו את־רברי הברית‬which they made (‫ )כרתו‬before me (‫)לפני‬, I will make like the calf which they cut in two (‫ )כרתו לשנים‬and passed (‫ )ויעברו‬between its parts ( . ( ‫ב ת ר י ו‬ ‫בין‬ 5.4: Stereotyped

phrases

5.4.1.‫כ ר ת בבשרו‬ The phrase ‫ יכרת כל־בשר‬in Gen. 9.11 is, at the phonetic level, the closest to what we find in Ben Sira. But in Genesis the context is of extermination. In the OT there is no example of ‫ בבשר‬and ‫ כ ר ת‬in a positive context. But this can be found in connection with other verbs combined with 33,‫ בשר‬+ ‫ב‬ in texts dealing mostly with circumcision. Ben Sira should be compared with Gen. 17.13 in respect of phonetics, terminology, and contents: 'Both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised (‫)המול ימול‬. So shall my covenant be (‫ )והיתה בריתי‬in your flesh ( ‫ ) ב ב ש ר כ ם‬an everlasting covenant ( . ' ( ‫ע ו ל ם‬ ‫לברית‬ 5.4.2.‫כ ר ת ל־‬ In the OT, the combination -‫ כ ר ת ל‬means exclusively 'to make a covenant/an alliance with someone'. On 27 occasions ‫ ברית‬is specified as the direct object. There are many occurrences in which God is not included expressly. In eight instances, it is said that God makes a covenant; 34 otherwise a human being wants to make an alliance with (before) God. If there is a direct object, one would therefore, assume it to be ‫ ב ר י ת‬. Besides a great many references with direct object ‫ברית‬ there is one (1 Sam. 11.2)35 in which ‫ ברית‬does not occur as direct object but there is an indirect object introduced by .‫ל‬ 5.4.3.‫כ ר ת לו חק‬ Although ‫ ברית‬is the direct object of ‫ כ ר ת‬in many places, there are two

33

On four occasions, ‫ ב‬before ‫ בשר‬functions as an object-marker (Lev. 8.32; 6.20; 15.7; Judg. 6.21); in five cases, it is a normal preposition (Gen. 17.13; Lev. 15.19; 19.28; Ps. 38.4,8). 34 2 Chron. 21.7; Isa. 55.3; 61.8; Jer. 32.40; Ezek. 34.25,26; Hos. 2.20; Ps. 89.4. 35 ‫ויאמר אליהם נחש העמוני בזאת אכרת ל כ ם בג קור ל כ ם כל־עין ימין ושמתיה חרפה על־כל־ישראל‬ 'But N a h a s h the A m m o n i t e said to them, On this condition I will make a treaty with you, namely that I g o u g e out everyone's right eye, and thus put disgrace upon all Israel‫׳‬.

instances of other nouns used as direct object: ‫( כרתים אמנה‬Neh. 10.1) and ‫( א ת ־ ה ד ב ר אשר־כרתי אתכם‬Hag. 2.4). But there is no example with ‫חק‬. 5.5: OT

Parallels

The verbs ‫ כ ר ת‬and ‫ מצא‬are used in the parallel colons 44.21a,b. In the OT ‫ כ ר ת‬and ‫ מ צ א‬appear in parallel hemistichs or in close proximity in five places. 36 But apart from Neh. 9.8 this co-occurrence is not meaningful. Neh. 9.8, a reference familiar to Ben Sira, mentions (‫כרת)ברית‬ and ‫מצא נאמן‬, in a context that also deals with Abraham. One reads that the LORD chose Abram, led him out of Ur, and gave him the name Abraham (Neh. 9.7): 'And thou didst find his (Abraham's) heart faithful before thee (‫)ומצאת א ת ־ ל ב ב ו נאמן לפניך‬, and didst make with him the covenant (‫ )וכרות עמו הברית‬to give to his descendants (‫)לזרעו‬ the land (‫ )לתתאת־ארץ‬of the Canaanite ...‫׳‬. One is left with the definite impression that Neh. 9.7f. finds an echo in Ben Sira. The usual, basic, sources (Gen. 17.9-14; 22.1-14) are filtered through a Nehemianic interpretation. 5.6:

Content

5.6.1. Circumcision 'You shall be circumcised (‫ )ונמלתם‬in the flesh (‫ )את בטר‬of your foreskins (‫)ערלתכם‬, and it shall be a sign of the covenant (‫)והיה לאות ברית‬ between me and you (‫( ')ביני וביניכם‬Gen. 17.11). At the ripe old age of ninety-nine years, it came about that Abraham 'was circumcised (‫ )בהמלו‬in the flesh of his foreskin (‫( ' ) ב ט ר ערלתו‬Gen. 17.24). But 'his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin (‫( ')בהמלו את ב ט ר ערלתו‬Gen. 17.25). Abraham took 'every male among the men of... (his) house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins (‫ )וימל את־בטר ערלתם‬that very day' (Gen. 17.23). As a general legal obligation, it is stated that 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin (‫ )בטר ערלתו‬shall be circumcised (‫( ')ימול‬Lev. 12.3). Compare: 'Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised (‫)לא״ימול‬ in the flesh of his foreskin (‫ ')את״בטר ערלתו‬cannot be a member of the people of Israel (Gen. 17.14). The same verb is also used with figurative meaning: 'Circumcise (‫ )מלתם‬therefore the foreskin of your heart (‫( ')את ע ר ל ת לבבכם‬Deut. 10.16). The choice of verb is consistent: ‫מול‬, never ‫כרת‬. With equal regularity the part of the body to be circumcised is named ‫ ב ט ר‬, which appears everywhere as direct object. 5.6.2. ‫ כ ר ת‬and circumcision 36

Exod. 12.19; Deut. 19.5; 1 Kgs 18.5; Neh. 9.8; Prov. 24.14.

Regarding circumcision the basic reference for the use of ‫ כ ר ת‬is Exod. 4.25: 'Zippora took a flint and cut off ( ‫ ) ו ת כ ר ת‬her son's foreskin (‫׳)את־ערלתבנה‬. It is noteworthy that the indirect object (‫ )בנה‬is not morphologically specified as such but appears as nomen rectum. This is the only instance of ‫ כ ר ת‬in reference to circumcision. 5.6.3. ‫ כ ר ת‬in Gen. 17 In view of the importance of circumcision in Gen. 17 many scholars maintain that this chapter has influenced Ben Sira. One wonders, therefore, what rôle ‫ כ ר ת‬fulfils in Gen. 17. An uncircumcised man has to be extirpated because he has broken the covenant of the LORD: he ‫׳‬shall be cut off from his people (‫( ׳)ונכרתה הנפט ההוא‬Gen. 17.14). 5.7: Ancient

versions rCrnj-o ο‫־‬Δ ( 73jl• àì rC ) •‫!_כק‬1‫ ו^ י^ כ‬rC CO ‫ ר‬m *‫ו~ ר‬

‫ <ז‬roj‫• ח‬m!-‫ ו‬n (44.20c,d) The Syriac version employs a passive or reflexive stich, which cannot be derived from the present Hebrew text. The translator follows the common understanding of ‫ כ ר ת‬in reference to the covenant. ‫ מ ב מ ז‬JJJ

έν σ α ρ κ ι α ύ τ ο ΰ εστησεν δ ι α θ ή κ η ν κ α ί έν π ε ι ρ α σ μ ω ευρέθη πιστός

The Greek text employs the same (active) verb that, compounded, is standardly employed in rendering ‫( כרת ברית‬see above, Sect. 1.4) 5.8:

Summary

In some respects, the phraseology of 44.20c is the same as that of the biblical tradition, but it differs slightly in a central point. Ben Sira says, following Gen. 17, that of all God's commandments the most important to observe is circumcision. Ben Sira chooses the term ' s t a t u t e / o r d e r ' ( ‫ ) ח ק‬to demonstrate that circumcision is not voluntary but is ordered by God himself and its observance is a matter of life and death. Non-performance is a grave deviation from the law of God. Ben Sira's formulation is allusive. It seems to presuppose that circumcision is a controversial issue, with some people rejecting it more and more, as evidenced by the literature of the Maccabees: 'In those days lawless men (υιοί παράνομοι) came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant (διαθώμεθα διαθήκην) with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us. (12) This proposal (ό λύγος) pleased them, (13) and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances (τά δικαιώματα) of the Gentiles. (14) So they built a college of physical education (γυμνάσιον) in

Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom (κατά τα νόμιμα τών έθνών), (15) and removed the marks of circumcision (καί έποίησαν εαυτοίς ά κ ρ ο β υ σ τ ί α ς ) , and abandoned the holy covenant (άπέστησαν άπό διαθήκης άγιας). They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do e v i l 1 ) ‫ ׳‬Macc. 1.11-15). From this passage it appears that the negative development begun in the time of Ben Sira has achieved a kind of inglorious climax. From the viewpoint of meaning, we can see that ‫ ב ר י ת‬is developed in the direction of, on the one hand, circumcision and, on the other hand, religion. In an earlier period ‫ ברית‬denoted a strong link between God and men; in the period before the Maccabees the traditional customs were becoming obsolete and new forms of linguistic expression, for example νόμος, were required; Ben Sira is a witness to this change.

6: Sir. 6.1:

50.24 Metre

In each stich of 24a,b there are four stresses (4:4). If one varies the present arrangement of the stichs in MS Β by attributing ‫ ולזרעו‬to stich d, in stich 24c there are three stresses. In 24c the negation and the verb comprise one stress (3:3). The metre thus yields no problems. 4

3

2

1

3

2

1

4

3

2

1

3

2

1

50.24 50.24 6.2: Grammar

and

semantics

Detailed analysis (see below, Sect. 6.5) shows that Ben Sira is deliberately ambiguous to the extent that even the grammar is affected. On my preferred reading the relative particle ‫ אשר‬in 24c has as antecedent ‫ברית‬, the direct object in the preceding clause, with the relative clause forming a single sentence with the main clause,24)‫ ו י ק • לו ברית‬b ) . If, however, one understands ‫ ל א יכרת לו‬as ‫׳‬his descendants should not be cut off', then ‫ אשר‬is a conjunction introducing a consecutive clause. 37 ‫ ל א‬negates the verb ‫ ( יכרת‬N i f a l impf. 3rd pers. m. sg.). Probably the imperfect is intended to suggest temporal duration including the future. The verb requires a direct object, which is elliptically provided by ‫ ברית‬in the preceding stich. ‫ ל‬introduces the indirect object, announcing the person spoken about, as in biblical usage, in reference to Simeon and his descendants, in 24d w h e r e ‫ ז ר ע‬is collective. 37

1 am grateful to Dr Elwolde for pointing out this second possibility.

‫ כימי שמים‬specifies the temporal extension already indicated by the imperfect—the same phrase can be found in Deut. 11.21 38 and Ps. 89.30. 6.3:

Parallelism

In 24 there is a synthetic parallelism (a,b begin with verbs and in each colon a personal name is used). But 24c,d are only metrically parallel. 6.4: Formal parallels from the OT

‫ כ ר ת ברית‬+ -‫ ל‬is a common set-phrase (cf. above on 44.20c,d). However, there are few references with negation (cf. Judg. 2.2). + ‫ל‬- is a frequently-occurring stable combination. In the context of this phrase the subject ‫ איש‬regularly occurs: a man (i.e. descendant) will not become cut off for someone; in other words, there will be a descendant for ever:39.‫איש לא־יכרתל־‬ 6.5: Parallels

of content

‫רת‬

in the OT

A valuable contribution to the understanding of this passage is made by John Elwolde, who treats the ‫אשר‬-clause as relative and regards this "an interesting contrast with BH phraseology". How quickly semantics force their way into syntactic discussion is illustrated by Elwolde's remarks, so that in Sir. 50.24c [‫( ל א כ ר ת ]ברית‬we prefer to stress the negative particle, which Elwolde does not, and at the same time place ‫ כ ר ת‬in brackets) means, contrary to standard OT usage, "abrogate a covenant": 411 thus, the author expresses the wish that God will never break the covenant with Simeon. There is no example of the active phrase ‫ ל א כ ר ת ב ר י ת‬in this meaning. If reference is m a d e to Judg. 2.2, one must first discuss important differences, as according to purely formal criteria this text appears to be a straightforward parallel to the negated phrase in Ben Sira: ‫ ־‬I r

11

This negation of ‫ כ ר ת ברית‬, which is remarkable in itself, is active and not passive. Moreover, it does not say that an existing covenant should not be broken (cf. J11dg. 2.1) but expresses a general prohibition on en-

38

Braulik, Georg, Deuteroiwmiuni 1-16,17 (NEB, 15; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986), p. 94: "Meint einen i m m e r w ä h r e n d e n Aufenthalt"; Braulik connects this perspective with cosmic elements. 39 Cf. 1 Kgs 2.4 ('there shall not fail you a successor tin the throne of Israel'); 9.5; 2 Chron. 6.16; 7.18; Jer. 33.17,18; 35.19. 4 " Elwolde, J.F., ' D e v e l o p m e n t s in Hebrew Vocabulary b e t w e e n Bible a n d Mishnah', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden; E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 17-55 (33).

‫ז ז‬

‫ו‬

tering a covenant relationship. Elwolde's claim 41 that Ben Sira's usage exemplifies "a striking example of idiolectal loss of figurative meaning, presumably because of a perceptual mismatch between the idiomatic and analytical meanings of the collocation" does not seem compelling. I see instead, as 1 shall show below, combination with another phrase and, therefore, an indication of a quite inspirational poetic union of two very different elements. However, compared with classical usage the linguistic result is unusual and perhaps even incorrect: conventionally, one cannot employ ‫ ל א כ ר ת ברית‬for the breaking of an extant covenant; nonetheless, this is exactly what occurs in Ben Sira. This raises the question of why Ben Sira chose this formulation, when it was surely known to him that for a normal listener it would not be possible to add ‫ ל א‬to ‫ כ ר ת ברית‬to indicate thereby that a ‫ ברית‬is broken. Such a listener would have been led to a different meaning by this negative phrase: descendants will not be destroyed. And this meaning also fits the context very well. Once w e realize that it is impossible to negate ‫ כ ר ת ב ר י ת‬in the sense of 'make a covenant', it is evident that a ‫ ב ר י ת‬has to be established before it can be negated, i.e. broken. The constant use of an active verb indicates that the establishing of a covenant is viewed as a deed that is conciously intended and responsibly observed. If ‫ כ ר ת ב ר י ת‬expresses these essential elements in the establishing of a covenant, this expression cannot be negated, because we cannot say of something that does not yet exist that it is 'disestablished'. Because of this, in connection with breaking a covenant/alliance we find a different phraseology, namely23)‫ע ב ר ברית‬ times), 42 on the times), 43 on the other; one hand, and almost as often22)‫ פ ו ר ברית‬/ ‫פ ר ר‬ in addition to these, we might also mention1)‫ו ל א שמרת בריתי‬ Kgs 11.11).

24c,d represents a twofold intention: it is said that the ‫ ברית‬will never be broken and at the same time that there will always be a descendant. Thus Ben Sira combines two very different usages. In the freedom with which phraseological relationships are manipulated and in the use of language that is ambiguous yet clearly comprehensible for the listener or reader who interacts with the author, I see an indication of the originality and poetic skill of the writer who composed these words. 6.6: Ancient

versions

.QC0ÈÌ-U Γ<Τ73\Τ RCNCRUN RC3A ‫ ר‬RCÀ^MJ1U .Π ΓΟΛ Λ 41

Pp. 33f. Deut. 17.2; 29.11; Josh. 3.6,11,14,17; 4.7; 6.8; 7.11,15; 23.16; Judg. 2.20; 2 Sam. 15.24; 2 Kgs 18.12; Isa. 24.5; 28.15.18; 33.8; Jer. 34.18; Ezek. 16.8; 20.37; Hos. 6.7; 8.1. 43 Gen. 17.14; Lev. 26.15,44; Deut. 31.16; 31.20; Judg. 2.1; 1 Kgs 15.19; 2 Chron. 16.3; Isa. 24.5; 33.8; Jer. 11.10; 14.21; 31.32; 33.20,21; Ezek. 16.59; 17.15,16,18; 17.19; 44.7; Zech. 11.10. 42

1 < 0 3 1 r ‫ ר‬r C c h m r u ι^γrC

‫ צ ג ק ןר‬n

rÍTxajj

‫נק‬.‫צ‬.

η

The Syriac offers no additional evidence for Hebrew of these stichs. 50.23 δώη ήμιν εύφρυσύνην καρδίας καί γενέσθαι είρήνην έν ημέραις ήμών έν Ισραήλ κατά τάς ημέρας τοΰ αιώνος 50.24 έμπιστεύσαι μεθ' ήμών το ελεος αύτοΰ καί έν ταις ήμέραις ήμών λυτρωσάσθω ήμας The Greek deviates so far from the Hebrew that comparison seems impossible. 6.7:

Summary

Retranslation from the Greek version is ruled out. Independence from traditional use of phraseology shows the author's individuality. The author also seems to enjoy varying traditional phrases, combining different meanings, and so on. There is not a straightforward relationship to the biblical sources. This means that we cannot interpret Ben Sira's use of language as merely representing the repetition of a taught vocabulary. The easiest way to classify this free-thinking and poetically compact verse is as the work of a skilled author.

7:

Conclusion

Our conclusions are based on the analysis of five texts containing ‫כרת‬: Sir. 40.17; 41.11; 40.18,20; 50.24. The meanings of ‫ כ ר ת‬in these texts differ greatly. The different meanings are derived from the OT, espedally from the use of ‫ כ ר ת‬in special phrases. Thus, ‫ כ ר ת‬means 'cut off'; ‫ א י ט ל א ־ י כ ר ת ל ־‬means 'there will be a descendant';‫ כ ר ת ברית‬means 'make a covenant'; ‫ ל א כ ר ת ברית‬is not used in classical Hebrew to mean that an existing covenant will not be broken; ‫( יכרת‬passive)‫לא‬ ‫ ]]ברית‬means, however, precisely this. ‫ כ ר ת‬in 40.17 and 41.11 is used in the traditional sense of 'cut off'. Typical of Ben Sira is that he includes rare formulations, as in the phrase40.17)‫ ) ח ס ד ל א ת]י[כרת‬. The absolute use of ‫ כ ר ת‬with the meaning 'make a covenant' is very rare; the passive form ‫ ל א יכרת‬without a subject is unique. The phrase ‫ כ ר ת ח ק‬has no parallel in the OT. That ‫ ל א יכרת‬is used to express 'not to break a covenant' may be labelled a curiosity. In sum, Ben Sira's use of ‫ כ ר ת‬cannot merely be derived from traditional usage and the idea of retroversion seems quite impossible. We have seen that Ben Sira knew the traditional vocabulary, but was able to use the language in an extremely clever and independent way. His high degree of poetic skill and the freedom he employs in fashioning new applications out of traditional meanings and set-phrases may indicate a very creative author.

GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKING: THE PARTICIPLE AS A M A I N VERB O F C L A U S E S (PREDICATIVE PARTICIPLE) IN DIRECT DISCOURSE A N D N A R R A T I V E IN P R E - M I S H N A I C H E B R E W 1 M a r k S. S m i t h (Philadelphia) I: Background and

introduction

D e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e v e r b a l s y s t e m in i n d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e s in ' c l a s s i c a l ' Biblical H e b r e w h a v e c u s t o m a r i l y r e v o l v e d a r o u n d t h e p r e f i x a n d s u f f i x v e r b a l f o r m s , w i t h a n d w i t h o u t t i m e - f r a m e s w i t c h i n g waw.2 T h i s c l a s s i c a l s c h e m a is s a i d to g i v e w a y in M i s h n a i c H e b r e w to a s y s t e m of f o r m s m a r k i n g t e n s e s , w i t h p a r t i c i p l e s s e r v i n g to s i g n a l t h e p r e s e n t (as w e l l as o t h e r t i m e - f r a m e s , u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s ) . 3 T h e

1

The system of transliteration follows JBL, as d o the abbreviations, with the addition of CAT: M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts front Ugarit, Ras Ihn Hani and Other Places (KTU, second, enlarged

edition) (ALASP, 81 Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), cited by text number; JM: P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14.12; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), cited by section (§). I have also taken to italicizing the predicative participles in the translations. For the BH examples, the Hebrew letter sin is marked by a diacritical mark whereas šin is not. I wish to thank Professors W.R. Garr, J. Huehnergard, V. H u r o w i t z and G.A. Rendsburg for commenting on an early draft of this essay; I am also grateful to Dr. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith for discussing some of the points in this piece. This study also benefited from comments m a d e following the presentation of this essay at the Second Leiden symposium (Professor J. Joosten w a s especially kind to send me written notes concerning my presentation); these are reflected in the footnotes below. 2

For recent discussion with references, see Z. Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hei;rew;(SBLMS, 50; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 49-65 (I wish to thank Professor Zevit for sharing his m o n o g r a p h with me prior to its publication). For time-frame switching waw, see M.S. Smith, The Origins and Development

of the Waw-Consecutive:

Northwest

Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to

Qumran (HSS, 39; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990). 3 M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927; reprinted 1983), §323 (p. 156); M. Perez Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J.F. Elwolde; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), §§8-14 (pp. 13336), §§19, 21 (pp. 139-40). Professor S. Fassberg has brought to my attention M. Mishor, ‫׳‬The Tense System in Tanaitic H e b r e w ‫( ׳‬PhD diss., the H e b r e w

purpose of this selective survey is to discuss the participle used as a main verb of clauses (or, predicative participle) prior to Mishnaic Hebrew. An impression in the scholarly world is that the predicative participle is a post-exilic or even Mishnaic development. 4 The chief aim of this investigation is to demonstrate the relative frequency of the BH predicative participle, especially in pre-exilic BH direct discourse. The survey is of necessity selective, but it is my hope that it will highlight some nuances involved in the use of the predicative participle from pre-exilic BH through DSS. Before beginning, I would like to mention the background of my interest in this problem. It first came to my attention during my research on the waw consecutive. 5 In a 1975 article on the Hebrew of direct discourse, J. MacDonald 6 noted many features of spoken Hebrew in the direct discourse of 1 and 2 Samuel, and while MacDonald did not raise the matter of predicative participle in a present time-frame for direct discourse, his study nonetheless struck me as relevant to the predicative participle in 4QMMT. 7 I suggested further a correlation between the lack of consecutive forms in this text and its use of the predicative participle. This is an issue that deserves further attention, and I welcome the opportunity to return to it. Moreover, I welcome Professor Muraoka's interest in this subject, which dates to his dissertation published in 1985.8 His paper delivered before the 1997 DSS Congress 9 is an important treatment of the participle. Professor Muraoka and I agree that some aspects of the predicative participle have not received sufficient attention in the

University, 1983); this work is unavailable to me. See also the contribution of Professor N.A. van Uchelen to this volume. 4 See R. Gordis, ‫׳‬Notes on General Conditional Sentences in Hebrew‫׳‬, JBL 49 (1930), p p . 201; B. I s a k s s o n , Studies

in the Language of Qoheleth:

With

Special

Emphasis on the Verbal System (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensis, 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), pp. 33-36. 5 Smith, Origins, pp. 23, 27, 32-33, 69, n. 2. 6 MacDonald, 'Some Distinctive Characteristics of Israelite Spoken Hebrew‫׳‬, BibOr 32 (1975), pp. 162-75; discussed in Smith, Origins, pp. xii, 5, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30. Specifically on the participle, see p. 21. 7 Smith, Origins, p. 58. 8

T. M u r a o k a , Emphatic

Words and Structures

in Biblical Hebrew

(Jerusalem:

Magnes/Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), especially pp. 21-23. 9 T. Muraoka, 'Aspects of the Participle in Qumran Hebrew', in The Dead Sea Scrolls—Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Major Issues and New Approaches. An International Congress. The Israel Museum, July 20-25, 1997 ( f o r t h c o m i n g ; p a p e r

delivered July 23, 1997). I am very grateful to Professor Muraoka for sharing this version of his paper with me.

standard grammars. 1 0 More specifically, while grammars list exampies, they convey insufficiently the extent of the predicative participle, with respect to either diachronic development or usage in direct discourse as opposed to narrative. 11 Professor Muraoka and I also concur that the predicative participle's use in the present time-frame has been underappreciated; the exception to my mind would be the discussion of J. Joosten (to which I will return shortly). To illustrate, let me cite some other recent discussions. A. Gor12 don discusses two examples of predicative participle set in a timeframe contemporary with the moment of speech. 1 Kgs 2.20 ‫ט א ל ה אחת קטנה אנכי ט א ל ת מאתך‬ "I am making one small request of you" (Gordon) Neh. 2.4 ‫ע ל מה זה אתה מ ב ק ט‬ 'What are you asking for?‫׳‬ (Gordon: "What is it that you are asking for?") Gordon refers to such usage as "inference", insofar as "the time reference can be inferred from context". Gordon's label of "inference" is, as he himself says, "a logical process"; it is not a grammatical category. Accordingly, this description does not suffice for grammatical purposes. Indeed, he implicitly recognizes the issue in a further comment: The row [in Table 1 on p. 10] entitled ‫׳‬How many of inference participles refer to concurrent time?' is interesting because eventually, when the participle becomes a verb, it will have no external time referencing clue, and it will refer mainly to concurrent time. The table shows that many inference participies ALREADY refer to concurrent time. 13 10

A m o n g the older works, perhaps the best treatment of the predicative participle is S.R. Driver's A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Third edition, revised and improved; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), pp. 165-173, especially 167-68. For recent treatments, see the w o r k s cited immediately below. For d e p e n d e n t usage in relative clauses, see W. Gross, 'Das nicht substantivierte Particizip als Prädikat im Relativsatz hebräischer Proza‫׳‬, JNWSL 4 (1978), pp. 23-47. 11 See the criticism of J. Joosten in his review of Y. Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 32; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), in Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 77 (1997), p. 192. 12 A. Gordon, 'The D e v e l o p m e n t of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew', Afroasiastic Linguistics 8 (1982), pp. 8-9 (reference courtesy of Z. Zevit). 13 Gordon, ‫׳‬Development', pp. 9-10.

The deduction to be drawn from Gordon's own observations here is that the BH predicative participle then is already a verb. Indeed, Gordon does not show why the BH predicative participle set in a present time-frame does not overlap with the present tense usage of Mishnaic Hebrew. Finally, Gordon does not observe that his examples derive from direct discourse. The far more comprehensive study of J.W. Dyk accurately mentions how the "participial form" can occur "with both verbal complements and verbal adjuncts". 1 4 Although Dyk's discussion does not sufficiently indicate the extent and magnitude of the usage, especially regarding the predicative participle's relative distribution in direct discourse as opposed to narrative, 1 5 this study is important for its grammatical analysis of the participle and for its discussion of diachronic change involving the predicative participle, noted in section VI below. R.A. Steiner's 1992 synopsis of the BH verbal system suggests that the participle originally expressing imperfective aspect became a tense ("present in Pre-MH [Mishnaic Hebrew] [?], non-past in MH") by virtue of assuming the *cjâtal's two functions of "the perfective present (including the performative); and present of transitive statives". 16 In Steiner's defence, his comments are abbreviated, being part of an encyclopaedia article (perhaps so reduced so as to be vague), but his question as to the present usage of the participle in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew is well-put. In another brief treatment dating to 1996,17 Steiner suggests that the BH participle and not the *yiqtol form handles the present progressive ('he is going') and that the participle as well as the *yiqtol expresses the simple present ('he goes'). Nothing in the discussion below contradicts this reconstruction; instead, the analysis presented below is designed to provide a more precise description, especially to distinguish developments in the pre-exilic period versus the post-exilic period and in direct discourse versus narrative. 14

J.W. Dyk, Participles in Context: A Computer-Assisted Study of Old Testament Hebrew (Applicatio, 12; Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1994), p. 56

(reference courtesy of W.R. Carr). 15 Dyk, Participles in Context, pp. 49-52, discussing Gen. 37.7; Esther 9.19; 10.3. 16 R.A. Steiner, 'Hebrew: Ancient Hebrew', International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (ed. W. Bright; four vols.; New York/Oxford: Oxford, 1992), II, pp. 115-16 (reference courtesy of the author). 17 R A. Steiner, 'The History of the Ancient Hebrew Modal System and Labov's Rule of Compensatory Structural Change‫׳‬, in Toward a Social Science of Language; Volume 1: Variation and Change in Language and Society (ed. G.R.

Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffin and J. Baugh; Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 127; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996), pp. 257-58 (reference courtesy of the author).

Valuable comments on the predicative participle appear in S. R. Driver's magisterial work, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. In his discussion of the participle set in the present, Driver observes: "When there is nothing to imply that the state denoted by the ptcp. extends beyond the moment of speaking, the force of the phrase is as nearly as possible that of the true English present." 1 8 His examples derive all from direct discourse (as implied by his formulation "the moment of speaking"), and many belong to corpora regarded as preexilic. While Driver does not provide a proper sense of the great number of participial forms that fall under this category, here in this observation may be sensed a key to the participle used for statements referring to time contemporary with the time of speaking. It is perhaps only J. Joosten whose work demonstrates the full range of the predicative participle in direct discourse. 19 The study is very comprehensive and offers some important proposals, especially regarding word-order. Joosten's assessment that the participle is the form of the present tense with *yic\tol being only vestigial ("mere traces") requires greater evidence. To question the position as stated, one need only consult older surveys in standard grammars or compare the distribution of verbal forms in Deuteronomy versus Pirqe Abot, presented by J. Dyk and E. Talstra. 20 Largely because Joosten does not raise clearly the distinction between direct discourse and narrative, his presentation skews the role of the participle in the BH verbal system(s). Joosten correctly demonstrates that the participle dominates the present for BH direct discourse in prose, but the prefix indicative form is well represented in BH narrative prose and the poetic corpora. Perhaps my only real quibble with Joosten's formulation thus far involves his expression "mere traces". If by this expression he 18

Driver, Treatise, p. 167. J. Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew‫׳‬, Ζ AH 2 (1989), p. 128: "In Biblical Hebrew the present tense is properly the d o m a i n of the predicative participle. T w o other verbal forms, the prefix conjugation (PC, yiqtol) and the suffix-conjugation (SC, !]atal), may be used in present-tense statements as well, but this use is subject to fairly strict conditions ... In fact, the present-tense uses of PC and SC are mere traces of an earlier stage of the language w h e r e the participle wasn't yet used as a tense form. The normal w a y to form a present-tense statement in Biblical Hebrew is with the predicative participle." See further Joosten's discussion on pp. 156-57. 19

20

J.W. Dyk and E. Talstra, 'Computer-Assisted Study of Syntactical Change, the Shift in the U s e of the Participle in Biblical and Post-Biblical H e b r e w Texts', in Spatial and Temporal Distributions, Manuscript Constellations: Studies in Language Variation Offered to Anthonij Dees on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (ed. P. van Reenan and K. van Reenan-Stein; A m s t e r d a m / P h i l a d e l p h i a : John Benjamins, 1988), pp. 49-52.

means that Israelites probably did not speak about the present (or better 'concurrent') time-frame in the prefix form but instead used the participle (restricting the former for writing), then I stand in substantial agreement with this part of his presentation, which is to be praised for a score of reasons. As Driver's comment intimates and as Joosten's study shows over and over again, the predicative participle is not only durative or timeless (what Gordon calls "unbounded" 2 1 ); it is attested also in a present time-frame. This usage is evident in both prose and poetry, in both independent and dependent clauses. Joosten, as well as Hendel and Muraoka, refers quite rightly to the example of Genesis 37: the question ‫ מה תבקש‬in v. 15 is answered in v. 16 by22.‫ אנכימבקש‬The former is the older usage, while the participial use in BH is the innovation. Yet the question in Gen. 37.15 might also have been posed with the predicative participle in pre-exilic direct discourse, ‫ ;*מה אתה מבקש‬this formulation is closely paralleled by the divine question posed to the prophet, Amos: ‫מה אתה ר א ה‬, ‫׳‬what do you see? 23 ‫( ׳‬Amos 7.8; 8.2). Anticipating the discussion below, some further examples of the predicative participle for concurrent time-frame in direct discourse are given as illustrations. Prose

Josh. 5.14 ‫מה א ת י מ ד ב ר א ל עבדו‬ "What does my lord command his servant?" (NJPS) Josh. 7.10 ‫ל מ ה זה אתה נפל ע ל פניך‬ 'Why do you fall on your face?' (NJPS: "why do you lie prostrate?(‫״‬ 1 Kgs 2.2 ‫אנכי ה ל ך ב ד ר ך כ ל הארץ‬ "I am going the way of all the earth" (NJPS) 1 Kgs 18.21 ‫ע ד מתי אתם פסחים ע ל שתי הסעפים‬ 21

Gordon, 'Development', pp. 8-9. Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle', p. 157. See already JM, §1550b; R.S. Hendel, 'In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense, Aspect, Mood', Ζ AH 9 (1996), p. 155; and also T. Muraoka's contribution to this volume. Professor Joosten informs me that this example may be found already in A.B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (Third ed.; Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1901), p. 68, §45, remark 1. 23 Professor H u e h n e r g a r d reminds me, however, that the verb ‫׳‬to see' is a special verb in most languages and is p e r h a p s not relevant for comparison with other verbs. 22

'How long 24 will you hop on the two boughs?' (NJPS "... between two opinions") Poetry

Hosea 7.6 ‫כ ל הלילה ישןאפהם‬ ‫ב ק ר הוא ב ע ר כאש ל ה ב ה‬

'All night their baker sleeps, In the morning it burns like a burning flame' Seing of Songs 25 2.8 ‫ ק ו ל ד ו ר י ה נ ה זה ב א‬2 6

'Hark, 27 my love—behold, he comes/is coming ...' Seing of Songs 2.9 ‫דומה דודי לצבי‬28

24

For another example of the predicative participle with this interrogative, see 1 Sam. 16.1. 25 The date of Song of Songs is debated. Although the terminus ad quern is apparently the Persian period, s o m e parts might be older. Therefore, a precise date cannot be set for linguistic purposes. In addition to these instances of the predicative participle, see 5.12 and 8.13. For the latter H.L. Ginsberg, The Five Megilloth and Jonah: A Neu‫ ׳‬Translation (second ed.; Philadelphia: JPS, 1974), p. 17, renders: ‫היושבת בגנים‬ ‫חברים מקשיבים‬ ‫ל ק ו ל ך השמיעני‬ Ο y o u w h o linger in the garden, A lover is listening; Let m e hear your voice. Whether or not the subject is correctly understood, the clause appears to s h o w the participle as the main verb of the clause to describe present action. Perhaps the clause could be rendered as a subordinate clause (e.g., ‫׳‬even if companions overhear, let me hear your voice‫)׳‬. For unmarked relative use of the participle, see 1.6, 7; for -‫ ה‬relative plus the participle, see 2.16, 3.3 = 5.7, and 4.5 similar to 6.3. 3.6 (= 8.5) may be read attributively. 26

The following participles, ‫ מדלג‬and ‫מקפץ‬, illustrate the ease of switching from predicative to attributive usage with the same subject in the same verse. The same point applies to ‫ משגיח‬and ‫ מציין‬in the following example, 2.9. See also 1 Sam. 10.3. The predicative participles in 5.2 and 5.5 are set in a past time-frame indicated by a preceding *qiltal. 27 That ‫ ק ו ל‬m a y serve as a presentative particle and not the subject of the clause is indicated by the plural form of the predicative participle in Gen. 4.10; the plural construct ‫ דמי‬is the subject. So also M.H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB, 7C; N e w York: Doubleday, 1977), p. 389. This point of grammar w a s brought to m y attention first by Professor Chaim Cohen. 28 For the first verb, 7.8 uses the same construction in the *qiltal form.

‫או ל ע פ ר האילים‬ ‫הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו‬ 'My love resembles a buck, Or a young stag. Behold, this one stands at our w a l l . . . ' As these examples illustrate, the predicative participle is not confined to relative clauses, but occurs also in independent clauses. And even if some of these example show 'imperfective' aspect, they hardly detract from the basic point that the predicative participle governs the present time-frame in direct discourse much as *yiqtöl forms do elsewhere. A related usage in narrative involves general (or habitual) characterization. Gen. 39.3 = 23 offers a case in point: ‫וכל א ט ר הוא ע ט ה יהוה מצליח בידו‬ 'And everything that he [Joseph] would do, Yahweh would cause success by his hand‫׳‬. As with the example of Gen. 37.15-16, this one shows the corresponding usage with the *yiqtöl form, though not from the same context, but from Ps. 1.3. This verse shows the same idiom and usage as Gen. 39.3 = 23 but with the *yiqtöl form: ‫ ו כ ל אשר יעטה יצליח‬. 2 ‫י‬ Finally, Professor Muraoka and I agree that factors of style and genre play a role in the usage of the predicative participle. In sum, the basic purpose of this essay is to suggest the range of usage of the predicative participle in different time-frames and to emphasize the present usage in direct discourse in phases of pre-Mishnaic Hebrew. In these goals I am not laying claim to an entirely original point, but I am attempting to give a presentation of these matters that will demonstrate their relative importance for understanding the Hebrew predicative participle. Within each of sections II-V, the presentation offers a data base for four corpora, pre-exilic BH, post-exilic BH, Ben Sira and DSS, then divides the data base for each corpus into independent and dependent clauses, and then where applicable, provides separate discussions and examples for narrative and direct discourse within each corpus. The final section of this presentation, section VI, uses a number of specific examples to illustrate the overall development of the predicative participle in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew. It is my hope that this sort of arrangement will allow for a clear picture of 29

This example raises the issue of w h e t h e r prose should be seen as a factor involved in the innovation, whereas poetry reflects a factor in retaining the older form. However, examples cited below show the innovation within the poetic corpus at a relatively early date.

change and continuity. Before preceding any further, I want to express my gratitude to Professor Muraoka for sharing his paper with me in advance of this symposium, as it affords three important advantages. First, it allows the two of us to divide the labour. His contribution focuses on 1QS, 11QT and 4QMMT in the scrolls, 30 Nehemiah for a sample of postexilic Hebrew and the legal sections of the Pentateuch, since they have important parallels with the 11QT material. For pre-exilic BH examples, the following discussion in this paper uses the narrative of Genesis and Exodus (which e n c o m p a s s the great majority of Pentateuchal narrative), Samuel and Hosea. For post-exilic BH I have taken Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Esther and Qohelet. 31 The extra-biblical Second Temple works surveyed below are Ben Sira and for the DSS, CD, 1QM, 3Q15, 4QMMT and 4Q400-405. Second, our approaches are slightly different and therefore complement one other. Professor Muraoka's approach is primarily quantitative, focusing on the number of predicative participles as opposed to other uses of the participle (attributive, etc.); he also focuses on the periphrastic participle. 32 In contrast, I omit discussion of the uses of the participle apart from the predicative participle. While the discussion below offers some counts for the predicative participle in the texts mentioned above, it also provides more examples in order to illustrate the range of usage for the predicative participle. Third, it is my hope that the basic view of the predicative participle that we share will gain greater attention by the two studies. A few further ground rules for the discussion below. The following participles have been generally avoided: 30

Professor Muraoka's presentation originally included o n l y the first t w o of these texts, but in his s y m p o s i u m presentation, Professor Muraoka a d d e d 4QMMT. Our c o u n t s differ for this text as w e l l as for E x o d u s since h e ine l u d e s periphrastic participles. Our selections from E x o d u s differ as w e l l . I h a v e a d d e d the Copper Scroll to m y presentation. 31 For the post-exilic date of Qohelet, see C.L. Seow, 'Linguistic E v i d e n c e and the Dating of Qohelet‫׳‬, JBL 115 (19%), pp. 643-66. 32 On the periphrastic participle, see in addition to Professor Muraoka's c o n tribution to this v o l u m e , J.C. Kesterson, 'Tense U s a g e and Verbal Syntax in Selected Q u m r a n D o c u m e n t s ' (Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of A m e r ica, 1984), pp. 195-200; M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica U p s a l i e n s i a , 12; S t o c k h o l m : A l m q v i s t & Wiksell, 1990), p p . 113-14; G . A . Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS, 72; N e w H a v e n , CT: American Oriental Society, 1990), pp. 145-49; M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1990), pp. 108-10; Dyk, Participles in Context, pp. 133-47.

i. forms that may be read adjectivally (‫ נקיאם הם‬in CD MS A 15.13); ii. ambiguous N-stem forms (e.g. those that may be *qātal); iii. most other passive forms (e. g. ‫ ה ו א כ ח ו ב‬in CD MS A 5.10 33 ),and blessing formulas involving ‫( ב ר ו ך‬e.g. 1 Sam. £3.21; 25.33, 39; 26.25; 2 Sam. 2.5) or curse formulas or statements (e.g. Gen. 49.7; 1 Sam. 26.19); iv.‫ אין‬clauses with participle (e.g. Gen. 20.7; 30.1; Exod. 5.16; Deut. 4.22; Mai. 2.2,9; Qoh. 4.17; Esther 3.5; 7.4; Ezra 3.13; Ben Sira 8.16; 15.12 [?]; 39.19; 51.7; CD MS A 5.7; 4QMMT B50), even though this formation is sometimes simply the negative of the predicative participle (see Qoh. 9.5 for both positive and negative versions of the same statement; see JM, 160i);34 v. ‫ יש‬clauses with participle (e.g. Gen. 24.42, 49; Esther 3.8; Ben Sira 6.8-10; 10.30; 11.11, 18; 20.6, 23; 36.28); vi. ‫ עוד‬+ suffixes + participle (e.g. Gen. 18.22; 29.3; Exod. 9.2; Esther 6.14); vii. the periphrastic participle (e.g. 1 Sam. 2.11; Zech. 3.3; 7.7; Esther 1.22; 2.7, 15; Ezra 4.4-5; Ben Sira 4.30; 5.9, 11; 18.33; 4QMMT B16 and perhaps B12-13, C3 and C25-2635 ); viii. participles preceded by the independent pronoun (e.g., Ben Sira 11.11; 37.16, 19; 43.8; 51.30) that could be construed as nominal sentences plus attributive participle (‫׳‬he is the one who ...'); 36 and ix. attributive participles serving as subjects (Gen. 9.6), objects

33 For the sake of convenience, instances of ‫( ככתוב‬e.g. Ezra 3.3,4) or ‫כ א ט ר כ ת ו ב‬ g o uncatalogued. These forms illustrate further the w i d e s p r e a d use of the predicative participle. For these formulas especially in DSS, see J.A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the Neu> Testament (SBLSBS, 5; n.p.: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 8-10; M.J. Bernstein, 'The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations', in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. J. Bernstein; SBL S y m p o s i u m Series, 2; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 38-46. 34

Regarding ‫ יט‬and ]‫ אי‬clauses, see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 5, 78-82, 99111; see also JM, §154k-l. 35 E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Ma'aSe Ha-Torah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 79. On the periphrastic participle, see n. 32 above. 36 Cf. usage with definite article with predicative participle ('-‫ ה‬relative clauses') noted below. The definite article marks these as separate clauses. For exa m p l e s of the attributive participles of this sort in C D and 1QS CD, see Kesterson, 'Tense Usage‫׳‬, pp. 182-95.

(Gen. 4.15; 42.3037), nominal predicates (Gen. 4.9), adjectives (1 Sam. 18.7; 19.14) or standing in apposition to such (Gen. 4.22, 14.19; Exod. 14.9)38, even when they govern a complement of their own. Other participles omitted from consideration are those that are mostly or entirely reconstructed, lack sufficient context (these may be attributive) or belong to biblical citations. Included are participles that seem to govern asyndetic relative clauses; sometimes poetic context can clarify these as predicative (so Zech. 10.1) as opposed to attributive (so Zech. 10.5, 13.5), but at times these instances are ambiguous. For counting the instances of dependent usage, the ‫ ה־‬relative clauses ineluded are those instances that are not simply adjectival (as in 1 Sam. 18.7); such usage is often indicated by the participle's governing a further element, such as a prepositional phrase, a direct object or an infinitive clause. Also included are clauses beginning with the presentative particles,‫הנה‬,‫ קול‬and ‫ראו‬.3'·‫׳‬

37

Cf. nominal use in verses 9, 14,16, 34. These differ little syntactically from e x a m p l e s best translated in English as asyndetic relative clauses. For the sake of c o m p l e t e n e s s , the predicative participles in asyndetic relative clauses are included in the listings below. 39 It w o u l d be p o s s i b l e in m a n y cases to v i e w clauses with ‫ הנה‬as n o m i n a l w i t h the participle functioning attributively; this interpretation w o u l d suit n u m e r o u s circumstantial clauses w i t h third p e r s o n subjects, e.g. Gen. 29.2 ('and h e l o o k e d and there w a s a well in the field and there w e r e there three flocks of s h e e p lying by it') and Exod. 2.13 ('and there w e r e t w o H e b r e w m e n fighting‫)׳‬. Moreover, it is e v i d e n t that ‫ הנה‬can govern a clause (cf. the nominal clauses in Gen. 18.9, Haggai 1.9 and Qoh. 5.17). Finally, ‫ הנה‬can take p r o n o m i nal suffixes w i t h o u t participle, w h i c h w o u l d indicate the theoretical possibility that this construction c o u l d g o v e r n an attributive participle; see B.K. Waltke and M.P. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §§16.2, 16.4c, w h e r e they refer to p r o n o m i n a l suffixes on ‫ הנה‬as "in function accusative". H o w e v e r , other factors s u g g e s t a predicative interpréta tion in instances of ‫ הנה‬w i t h o u t suffixes. G r a m m a r i a n s generally o b s e r v e that ‫ הנה‬is a presentative particle d e s i g n e d to introduce a fact; see T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew ( N e w York: Charles Scribner's Seins, 1971), p. 170; Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 137-40; Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, §34.7; JM, §164a; for the idea of ‫ הנה‬as "a construction that i m m e d i a t e l y m o v e s the argumentation to the ;n/;!c-level", see Isaksson, Studies, p. 45. A s such, the particle d o e s not in itself g o v e r n the f o l l o w i n g n o u n p l u s attributive participle, but d r a w s attention to the fact e x p r e s s e d b y the subject p l u s the predicative participle that it g o v e r n s . Furthermore, the semantics of s o m e e x a m p l e s s u g g e s t the predicative character of the participle (e.g. Gen. 38.13, 45.12, 48.2, Exod. 2.6). A n d in other cases, the w o r d - o r d e r of predicative participle preceding the subject w o u l d s e e m to militate against an attributive interpretation of the participle (for n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s , s e e 38

II: A pre-exilic A: Pentateuchal

('classical')

corpus

narrative

Genesis (127 cases) Independent usage (81 cases): 1.2;40 2.10; 4.7, 10; 6.13, 17; 9.9; 13.7; 14.12, 13; 15.3, 12, 14; 16.8; 17.19; 18.1, 2, 8, 10, 16, 17; 19.1; 22.13 (passive); 41 23.10: 24.13 (2x), 30, 43, 45, 62, 63; 25.28, 32; 26.8; 27.5, 42; 28.12 (3x), 13; 29.2; 31.5; 32.7, 32; 33.1, 13; 37.7, 9, 13,15, 16, 19, 25, 30; 38.13, 24, 25 (2x, second passive); 39.3 (= 23); 40.6, 17; 41.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 32; 42.2242; 45.12; 48.2, 4, 21 (= 50.2443); 49.29. Dependent usage (47 cases). ‫אם‬: 27.46. ‫אשר‬: 9.12; 13.15; 18.17; 21.22; 24.3, 37; 28.13, 20; 31.12,43; 39.3 (= 23), 6, 22; 40.3 (passive), 5; 41.25 = 28; 47.14. 37.16:‫(איפה‬indirect discourse). ‫ ה־‬relative: 30.36, 36; 31.10, 12; 41.27; 42.5,6; 46.8; 48.5,15,16; 49.21. 29.33;19.3,4;7. 35:‫(כי‬passive); 31.20; 32.12; 42.23, 38; 45.12, 26. 27.8 :‫לאשר‬. Asyndetic relative clause: 37.25.44 Exodus (84 cases) Independent usage (49 cases): 2.5, 6, 13, 14; 3.2, 13; 4.7, 14, 23; 5.13, 16 (2x, second passive), 17 (3x); 7.15, 17, 27; 8.16, 25; 9.3, 18; 10.4; 11.4; Joosten, 'Predicative Participle', pp. 128-59; note the intervening adverb in 22.13, if correctly taken as a participle and not a *qiltal). Moreover, a predicative function is indicated in cases of ‫ הנה‬with the first person i n d e p e n d e n t pronoun plus participle (e.g. Exod. 7.17, 27; 19.9; 23.20; 34.10; 1 Sam. 24.5; A m o s 2.16) and in cases of ‫ *הנה‬with a first person suffix plus participle (note in Exod. 34.11 in the same speech as the example above for 34.10). Finally, it is to be observed that ‫ *הנה‬precedes *qiltal forms, suggesting that participles following ‫ *הנה‬may not be nominal (cf. Ugaritic lui plus *yqtl, e. g. CAT 1.22 117; 1.23.46; cf. 1.17 V 3). Note that Professor Muraoka's counts of the predicative participle in his contribution to this v o l u m e also include clauses with ‫הנה‬ (personal communication from Professor Muraoka). On ‫ קול‬as a presentative particle, see n. 27. See also ‫ ראו‬in 2 Sam. 15.28 (cited below). 40

That is, within a larger d e p e n d e n t clause. See J.M. P o w i s Smith, 'The Syntax and Meaning of Genesis 1.1-3‫׳‬, AJSL 44 (1927-28), pp. 108-15. 41 A s suggested by the syntax, the participle s e e m s more likely, and it is attested in s o m e manuscripts (see BHS). 42 A s s u m i n g a translation, literally: 'and furthermore, (as for) his blood—see, it is being required". 43 Cf. 1 Kgs 2.2. 44 ‫ להוריד‬governs the preceding nouns.

13.4, 15, 21; 14.3, 10, 17; 16.4, 10, 29; 17.6, 9; 18.15; 19.9; 20.15; 23.20; 32.15 (passive), 32.18, 33.12; 34.10, 11; 36.5; 37.18, 19 (2x); 45 38.17 (passive). Dependent usage (35 cases). ‫אשר‬: 3.5, 9; 4.19; 5.8; 6.5, 29; 8.18; 12.30; 16.8; 18.14,17; 25.9, 4046; 34.10, 11; 36.4, 5. •‫ די‬relative: 1.1; 6.7, 27; 10.5, 8; 11.5 (= 12.29); 12.10; 14.19, 28; 36.4; 37.19, 21. ‫כי‬: 5.8; 9.14; 10.11; 14.25; 40.35. 1 and 2 Samuel 1 Samuel (145 cases) Independent usage (81 cases): 1.12,47 13; 2.6 (3x), 7 (4x), 8, 18, 26; 3.1, II 4 8 ; 4.12, 13; 5.3, 4 (2x, second passive); 6.12, 13; 8.8; 9.6, 8, 14; 10.5, 8; 12.2; 14.2, 8, 11, 33; 15.12; 16.1, 11; 17.3 (2x), 5 (passive), 7, 15 (2x), 19, 23, 25 (‫כי‬, ' s u r e l y 1 0,21.8;0,19 .2;18645,(‫(׳‬passive); 22.6, 9; 23.1 (2x), 3 (stative), 17, 19, 26; 24.4, 5, 10, 12, 15; 25.19, 20, 49 36; 26.1, 3, 5 (2x), 7 (2x), 18; 28.9,14; 29.1-2; 30.3 and 16 (passives 50 ); 31.1. Dependent usage (64 cases). .7.3 ,6.3 :‫אם‬ 12.16;10.9;24,.23:‫(אשר‬future); 15.14; 16.3; 18.15; 20.36; 21.3; 22.2; 28.9. -‫ ה‬relative: 1.26; 2.14,15; 2.22; 4.8,16; 6.5; 9.20; 10.18; 11.9,12; 13.15,16, 18; 14.22, 39; 17.20, 25, 26; 21.7; 22.7,17; 25.10, 26, 27,42; 30.23, 24. 2) 13,9,10,3.8:‫כי‬x);17.43; 18.16 (2x); 20.1, 30; 22.17; 23.10,49; 25.4, 28; 27.8. Unmarked apodosis: 2.13; 3.3 (2x); 9.11, 14, 27; 17.23. 2 Samuel (100 cases) Independent usage (73 cases): 3.1 (2x), 13, 31; 4.5, 7; 6.4, 5, 14 (2x, second passive), 15 (see v. 16); 7.2 (2x); 9.11, 13; 10.3; 11.1, 4, 11 (2x); 12.11, 22 , 23 (2x); 13.4, 8, 34; 15.11, 12, 18 (2x), 20, 23 (4x), 27, 28, 30 (2x); 16.3, 5 (2x), 11, 13; 17.9 (passive), 17; 18.9, 12, 22, 24 (2x), 26, 27; 19.2, 9, 11, 42; 20.8 (2x, passive), 12, 15, 17, 19; 21.4, 16 (passive); 22.51 45

Cf. attributive syntax in 37.20. A bracketing device? See also 26.30 and 27.8. See also d i s c u s s i o n b e l o w . 47 N o t e ‫והיה‬, but w o r d order militates against seeing a periphrastic construction in this context. 48 3.12 w o u l d s u g g e s t future or near-future time-frame for statement in 3.11. 49 The first t w o participles in this verse may be regarded as periphrastic following .‫והיה‬ 50 The p a s s i v e instances in 30.3 and 16 nre structurally parallel to ‫ הנה‬clauses with the active participle. The e x a m p l e ‫י‬- v. 16 is f o l l o w e d by three active attributive participles. 46

(2x, including keti^); 23.13; 24.3,12, 13. Dependent usage (27 cases). .17.3,12,13 ;15.20 ;14.18 ;3.25 :‫אשר‬ ‫ה‬- relative: 1.5, 6, 13, 23, 24 (2x); 5.14 (passive); 11.5; 12.14; 14.10; 18.11; 19.4, 6; 22.48 (2x), 49 (cf. 22.2, 33,34, 35 poetic context); 23.17. ‫כי‬: 9.13; 12.19; 17.10, 11. Hosea (15 cases) 52 Independent usage (12 cases): 2.8, 16; 3.1; 5.2 (passive); 7.6; 9.9; 12.2 (2x); 13.2,12 (2x, passives), 15. Dependent usage (3 cases). ‫אם‬: 4.15. Asyndetic clause: 6.4; 13.3.

B: Narrative

(concurrent

in

past)

Generally, narrative involves the past, and the predicative participle in the past involves a departure from the time-line of the narrative in order to provide further information operative at some point in the narrative time-line. In many cases, information concurrent with the time of the preceding past narrative verb (either *qātal or *ivayyiqtöl) is introduced by w e - + subject + participle. This syntactical environment directly parallels *qātal/*umyyiqtöl plus vf- + subject + *qātal to mark action anterior to the time-frame of the narrative verb: "The qātal verb distinguishes these clauses [past circumstantial clauses, or pluperfect/preperfect] both formally and semantically from similar clauses with participles whose time referent is that of the verb in the preceding clause." 53 Both clause-types with *qātal and the participle are dis51

Cf. Ps. 18.51. So also F M. Cross Jr. and D.N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (The Bible Resource Series; Grand Rapids, MLEerdmans/Livonia, MI: Dove, 1997; originally published in 1975), pp. 94, 106, n. 114. 52 The participle in 7.4a may be regarded as nominal ( T h e y are all adulterers', so JPS). The cases in 9.7 (passive), 9.15 and 12.1 may be read adjectivally. 53 Zevit, Anterior Construction, p. 15. S o m e of the more convincing e x a m p l e s include Gen. 15.18-16.1; 38.24b-25; Judg. 3.25-26; 1 Sam. 14.18. S o m e of the instances discussed on pp. 22-24, however, d o not constitute anterior constructions, but contrasts set in the past (e.g. Gen. 4.2, 3-4; 31.47); see Isaksson, Studies, p. 32. This problem is reflected in Zevit's translation of the waw as ' a n d / b u t ‫ ׳‬. It is to be noted that the anterior construction in relative clauses (*qätal/*wayyiqtöl + ‫ אשר‬+ *qtìta1) is paralleled syntactically also by the predicative participle in relative clauses (*qiital/*wayyiqtöl + ‫ אשר‬+ participle) expressing a concurrent situation.

junctive relative to the narrative. Most commonly, a single participial clause intrudes in a narrative sequence; clauses of this type are generally characterized as 'circumstantial clauses'. Gen. 24.62 contains both *qātal and participial disjunctive clausetypes. Pluperfect with *qātal: ‫ויצחק בא מבוא ב א ר לחי ראי‬ 'Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi'; Disjunctive participial clause: ‫והוא יושב בארץ ה ע ב‬ 'for he was dwelling in the region of the Negev'; Narrative resumed with *wayyiqtöl: ‫ויצא יצחק‬ 'and Isaac w e n t . . . ' . The initial verb provides an action prior to the narrative as marked by the disjunction ‫ויצחק‬. This initial clause itself is interrupted by the circumstantial clause that provides information about Isaac's dwelling in the Negev. The narrative continues with Isaac's departure. As this passage illustrates, disjunction is well-attested with the predicative participle of the root ‫( *ישב‬Gen. 14.12, 18.1, 19.1, 23.10; Num. 13.29; 14.25; 22.5; 33.40; Josh. 24.18; Judg. 3.3, 20; 4.2; 10.1; 16.9, 12; 1 Sam. 1.9; 4.13; 14.2; 19.9; 22.6; 26.3; 2 Sam. 9.13; 11.1; 18.24; cf. Num. 13.19). Gen. 37.15 provides a syntactically simple example of the participial disjunctive clause, with ‫ והנה‬introducing the clause. Narrative with *wayyiqtôl: ‫וימצאהו איש‬ 'and a man came upon him [Joseph]'; Disjunctive participial clause: ‫והנה ת ע ה בשרה‬ 'and there (while) he was wandering in the field'; Narrative resumed with *xoayyiqtol: ‫' וישאלהו האיש‬and the man asked him ...'. A more complex example involving ‫ והנה‬appears in the narrative account of Jacob's dream (Gen. 28.10-13). Narrative chain with *wayyiqtôl: ‫ ו י ל ך‬. . . ‫ויצא י ע ק ב‬ 'And Jacob l e f t . . . and he set o u t . . . . . . ‫ ו י ל ן‬...‫ויפנע‬ And he came upon ... and stopped for the n i g h t . . . ...‫ וישם‬...‫ויקח‬ And he took ... and he s e t . . . ‫ ויחלם‬...‫וישכב‬ And he lay down ... and he dreamt';

Disjunction with predicative participles: ‫והנה ס ל ם מצב א ר צ ה‬ 'And there a ladder was set on the ground, ‫וראשו מגיע השמימה‬ A n d its top reached to h e a v e n ‫׳‬

‫והנה מלאכי אלהים‬ And there angels of God ‫עלים וירדים בו‬ were ascending

a n d descending

o n it,

‫והנה יהוה נ צ ב ע ל י ו‬ And there Yahweh was standing beside it'; Narrative chain resumed with *wayyiqtöl: ‫ויאמר‬ 'And he [Yahweh] said ...‫׳‬. While the *wayyiqtöl verbs of the narrative are sequential, all of the predicative participles are concurrent relative to the preceding *wayyiqtöl, namely •‫ויחל‬. Occasionally the order of clauses is reversed: the participial clause of af- + subject + participle may precede the narrative verb in order to set the stage for the narrative. 1 Sam. 31.1 ‫ופלשתים נלחמים בישראל‬ ‫וינסו אנשי ישראל‬ 'And the Philistines were fighting against Israel And the men of Israel fled ...' To provide a more precise sense of these two clauses, they might be translated, 'and while the Philistines were fighting against the Israelites, the men of Israel fled ...'. 54 Person. The participial clause may involve different persons relative to the preceding narrative verb. Background information may be introduced by the personal pronoun referring back to a person already named (Gen. 14.12, 13; 24.62; 31.10, 12). In other cases, the person involved is named (Gen. 24.62). Or, the background information may involve a party unrelated to the preceding narrative (Gen. 13.7), sometimes providing information pertinent to the narrative that follows (Gen. 23.10). The same uses of the third person pronoun (Gen. 32.32; 2 Sam. 11.4) or person named (2 Sam. 11.1) plus predicative participle apply to simultaneous circumstances. Usage. A predicative participial clause may provide background data. 54

For another example, see 2 Sam. 18.24. Apart from the use of the passive participle, the case of 2 Sam. 1.18 in unusual.

For example, the predicative participles in Gen. 13.7, 14.12, 13; 24.62 provide the location of someone's habitation. Gen. 13.7 is illustrative, with its parenthetical use of the participial clause. Narrative with *wayyiqtöl·. ‫ויהי ריב בין רעי מקנה אברם ובין רעי מקנה לוט‬ 'And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle'; Disjunctive participle clause: ‫והכנעני והפרזי אז ישב בארץ‬ 'And the Canaanite and the Perizzite at that time were dwelling in the land'; Narrative resumed with *wayyiqtöl. ‫ויאמר אברם‬ 'And Abram said: ...'. More commonly, the predicative participle in narrative renders circumstances taking place at the same time. For example, the participial clause in Gen. 18.1 relates Abraham's location when the Lord appeared to him (cf. 1 Sam. 19.9), and the participial clause in 18.8 describes where the patriarch was standing while his guests ate. Simultaneous circumstances present at the time of the preceding *wayyiqtöl may be indicated by the predicative participle: Gen. 18.1, 2, 10 (following the content of the direct discourse i n t r o d u c e d by *wayyiqtöl); 19.1; 22.13; 24.30, 63; 25.28; 32.32; 33.1; 37.15, 25 (3x); Exod. 13.21; 2 Sam. 2.26, 6.12-13; 1 Sam. 14.2, 29.1-2; 2 Sam. 11.1, 4. In other cases the verb that precedes the participial clause is *qatal (Gen. 1.2). The case of Exod. 20.18 is more complicated: ‫ו כ ל העם ר א י ם א ת ה ק ו ל ת‬ 'And all the people were perceiving the thunderings ...' (cf. Gen. 45.12 for a predicative participle of the same root, though in direct discourse). The larger context that the clause describes in this verse obtains all during the preceding giving of the Ten Commandments in Exod. 20.1-14, and presumably all the way back to the previous mention of the theophanous effects on the mountain in 19.18-19. In these instances, the participle follows the past narrative verb, which sets the time-frame, but in other cases the participle precedes (1 Kgs 10.1), providing information b a c k g r o u n d i n g the following narrative verb. Some past narratives involve two predicative participles, some coordinate (1 Sam. 17.3), others not, as in 1 Sam. 17.23 (see also 2 Sam. 15.23): ‫והוא מ ר ב ר ע מ ם‬ ‫והנה איש הבנים עולה‬ 'And (while) he was speaking with them, [And] there the champion xvas coming up ...'

As this case illustrates, the narrative may introduce simultaneous conditions with the predicative participle. F u r t h e r m o r e , the participial clause introduces new information, which indicates the next development in the sequence of action. Other examples show the introduction into the narrative of a new simultaneous action by the predicative participle. Gen. 15.12 ‫ויהי השמש לבוא‬ 'And the sun was setting, ‫ותרדמה נ פ ל ה ע ל א ב ר ם‬ And slumber had fallen on Abram, ‫והנה אימה חשכה גדלה נפלת עליו‬ And there a great, dark dread was falling on him‫׳‬ (or: 'when a great, dark dread began to fall on him') 55 Gen. 18.16 ‫ויקמו משם האנשים‬ 'And the men rose from there, ‫וישקפו ע ל פני סדם‬ And they looked out toward Sodom, ‫ואברהם ה ל ך עמם לשלחם‬ And Abraham was going with them to send them off' 5 6 1 Sam. 9.14 ‫ויעלו העיר‬ 'And they went up to the city; ‫המה באים בתוך העיר‬ They were going into the city, ‫והנה שמואל יצא‬ And there Samuel was coining out ‫ל ק ר א ת ם ל ע ל ו ת הבמה‬ to meet them, to go up to the high place' In the case of Gen. 15.12, the verb and the recipient of the action show no change between the second and third lines; the new element introduced is the subject. In the case of Gen. 18.16, the participial clause places Abraham in the company of the 'men' as they head out (note the word-order placing Abraham at the head of the clause). It is implied that the men are going, and this information is supplied more explicitly by the participial clause. The new information supplied by the participle is the inclusion of Abraham in this group. The case of 1 Sam. 9.14 is slightly more complicated with its double use of the predicative participle. The two predicative participles in this verse are set 55

A s suggested to me by Professor Huehnergard. Professor Huehnergard suggests an idiomatic gloss for the third line, 'with Abraham accompanying them . . .'.

56

in the past sequence by the preceding *wayyiqtöl in the same verse. The new information is the appearance of Samuel in the middle of the travel into the city. In these cases, the participial clause introduced in the course of the narrative adds a new event to the sequence, but one that is considered simultaneous to one or more other events mentioned in the same sequence (in contrast to *qätal wayyiqtöl or *wayyiqtöl wayyiqtöl, which also convey two events in a past sequence, but not simultaneous ones). In addition, the participial clauses especially with ‫הנה‬, serve to shift the perspective from either the narrative line or one figure in the narrative to the figure newly introduced by the participial clause. 57 Finally, one might compare with these cases the predicative participle used to render the next development in the future (incipient future) in direct discourse (see below). General characterization. Finally for narrative, the predicative participle rarely expresses a general (or habitual) characterization over an undefined period of past time. Gen. 39.3 = 23, cited above, might serve as an example. Although it may be argued that the example of 39.3 involves dependent usage governed by the preceding ‫כי‬, the case of 39.23 seems to be an independent clause. It is unclear whether such a generalization is to be seen as deriving from wisdom influence. 58 It may be further noted that the formula here may serve a (redactional?) bracketing purpose for the chapter. It is to be noted that the same function has been attributed to the predicative participles set in an anterior time-frame in 1 Samuel 2. More specifically, the participial clause in v. 18a forms an editorial bracket with v. l i b and the participial clause in v. 26 forms a similar bracket with v. 21b. Such examples would suggest that further investigation is needed. 5 9

C: Direct discourse:

anterior,

concurrent

and

subsequent

Anterior usage. The narrative and direct discourse examples of the anterior participle manifest no syntactical difference; both involve narrative verb plus we- + subject + participle. The predicative participle in direct discourse may stand within the relating of a past event, and in

57

A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature, 9; Sheffield: A l m o n d Press, 1983), pp. 62-63 (reference courtesy of Professor Rendsburg). See also Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 37-40. 58 See the comparison with Ps. 1.3 below. For e x a m p l e s of the predicative participle in w i s d o m , see Ps. 37.12,17,18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 32, in addition to the examples cited in Sect. IV below. 59 M. Brettler, , The Composition of 1-2 Samuel‫׳‬, JBL 116 (1997), pp. 601-12.

these cases the speaking narrator provides circumstantial information or simultaneous action; in these cases the participle expresses the present within a past narrative context. So the speech in Gen. 24.43 relates the events of 24.30 (cf. the future time-frame of the same participle in 24.13). Similarly, the simultaneous conditions expressed by the participle in 24.45 belong within the past narrative of 24.15-16. Direct discourse can use ‫ והנה‬with participle to recount a past event (Gen. 24.43,37.7). 60 Concurrent usage. The introductory section of this essay cites a number of predicative participles set in a time-frame contemporary with the moment of speech, all in the context of direct discourse. As noted above, the question of Gen. 37.15, ‫ מ ה ת ב ק ש‬in v. 15 is answered in v. 16 by61.‫ אנכימבקש‬This is no isolated example with this root: 62 1 Sam. 19.2 ‫מבקש שאול אבי להמיתך‬ 'Saul, my father, seeks to kill you'; 2 Sam. 16.11 ‫הנה בני אשר יצא ממעי‬ 'See, my son who came from my insides ‫מבקש את נפשי‬ seeks m y life'. 6 3

Other examples of the predicative participle in a present timeframe may be furnished. The two examples in 1 Sam. 23.1 are cited here. ‫וינדו ל ד ו ד ל א מ ר‬

60

Dyk, Participles in Context, pp. 52, 54. See already JM, §1550b. 62 See also 1 Sam. 24.10, 26.18 and 2 Sam. 20.19, as well as the usage in a ‫כי‬ clause in 1 Sam. 23.10 (see also Ps. 37.32). Another root used as a predicative participle belonging to the s a m e semantic field is 1) *‫ רדף‬Sam. 24.15, 2 Sam. 24.13; Hos 12.2). These examples raise the question whether s o m e roots w e r e used in the present time-frame as predicative participles, i.e., verbs c o m monly used in conversation. S o m e verbs of mental and verbal activity and perception are conspicuous, for example, ‫( *ידע‬e.g. Gen. 3.5, 33.13; 1 Sam. 23.17), ‫( *ראה‬see section I), and vebs of speech, for example, ‫( * ד ב ר‬e.g. Isa. 63.1) and ‫( *אמר‬see Sect. VI). In narrative, verbs of m o v e m e n t ( , * ‫ * ב ו א‬, ‫ )*עלה‬and position (‫*ישב‬, ‫*נצב‬, ‫ )*עמד‬appear quite c o m m o n l y in predicative participles. See the extensive discussion of Joosten, 'Predicative Participle', pp. 128-59. 61

63

Professor Rendsburg rightly raises the question of w h e t h e r the similar w o r d i n g of these t w o verses reflects a literary connection, that despite the great distance b e t w e e n the two p a s s a g e s readers are to associate the t w o lines.

‫הלך‬

'And they told David. ‫הנה פלשתים נלחמים ב ק ע י ל ה‬ "Look! the Philistines are fighting against Keilah, ‫והמה שסים את הגרנות‬ And they are plundering the threshing-floors'" Just as the predicative participle in anterior use may relate a past event, these examples show that the participle may also relate a present event (see also Gen. 32.7). A speaker may relate an event using the predicative participle, followed in sequence by a *wayyiqtöl form (2 Sam. 19.2). This sequence is unusual and text-critical issues may be involved, although on the principle of lectior difficilior, MT seems preferable. 64 To obviate the difficulty, D.L. Washburn views the participle as part of a quotation while the following *wayyiqtöl form resumes the narrative. 65 Apart from these variations, the predicative participle in a concurrent time-frame may, like any verb in independent usage, govern a direct object (Gen. 31.5; 37.7, 9; 41.9; Exod. 7.27, 32.18, 34.10; 2 Sam. 10.3, 13.4), a prepositional phrase (Gen. 4.10, 16.8; 37.13; Exod. 7.17, 33.12; 1 Sam. 16.1, 11; 2 Sam. 10.3), an infinitival complement (Gen. 28.42; 41.32; Exod. 2.14, 36.5; 1 Sam. 14.33) or a subordinate clause (Gen. 3.5; 4.7; 33.13). The predicative participle in the present can also take multiple subjects (2 Sam. 11.11). Accordingly, it is impossible to disregard the verbal function that the predicative participle exercises in pre-exilic BH. Subsequent usage.(,(' Events predicated in direct discourse subsequent to the time of the speaker commonly introduce the clause containing the predicative participle with ‫הנה‬: Gen. 6.13,17; 9.9; 15.3 ( ; 2 4 . 1 3 ;(‫והנה‬ 25.32; Exod. 4.23, 9.18, 19.4. (This usage is common for prophetic predictions, e.g. Jer 46.25, 27, Ezek 29.8, 18, Amos 2.13, and many of the Exodus examples from the plague threats are modelled on this genre.) 64

P.K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 403, taking the sentence (p. 398) as an instance of indirect discourse. 65 D.L. Washburn, 'The King is Weeping: A Textual/Grammatical N o t e on 2 Sam. 19.2', Text Criticism: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 1 (1996) on-line at f t p . / / s h e m e s h . s c h o l a r . e m o r y . e d u / p u b / T C / v t 1 1 0 1 / Washburnl996.txt. My thanks to G.A. Rendsburg for bringing this article to my attention. A s Professor Rendsburg observes, Washburn's solution, w h i l e a v o i d i n g recourse to both emendation and unusual grammatical interpretation, reads against the Masoretic accents, which take the two verbs together. 66

See W.F. Stinespring, ‫׳‬The Participle of the Immediate Future and Other Matters Pertaining to Correct Translation of the Old Testament', in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament (Festschrift H.G. May; ed. H.T. Frank and W.L. Reed; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), pp. 64-70.

However, future predictions can occur without ‫ הנה‬or ‫( והנה‬Gen. 15.14, 17.19,41.32; Deut. 31.367). The future may be evoked by the predicative participle apart from any prediction. The following examples recall the conversational style in the examples of the predicative participle in concurrent time presented in the previous section. Gen. 18.17 ‫ה מ כ ס ה אני מ א ב ר ה ם אשר אני עשה‬ "Shall I hide f r o m A b r a h a m w h a t I am about to do . . . ? ‫( ״‬NJPS)

Exod. 11.4 ‫כ ח צ ת ה ל י ל ה אני יוצא בתוך מצרים‬ , At about midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt‫׳‬ 1 Sam. 19.11 ‫מחר אתה מומת‬ ' . . . t o m o r r o w y o u will be killed'

2 Sam. 15.28 ‫ראו אנכי מתמהמה בעברות המרבר‬ "Look, I zvill linger in the steppes of the wilderness ..." (NJPS) What is particularly important to note about the predicative participle in subsequent usage is that in some instances no other verbal form needs to mark the context as future; the predicative participle is not dependent on another verbal form in order to indicate the future. In other contexts the future is so marked but not by a verbal form. Exod. 11.4 and 1 Sam. 19.11 (cited above) contain a temporal referent indicating the future time-frame of the predicative participle. It is also important to observe in some of these examples that the predicative participle can express a single action in the future. The example of 1 Sam. 19.11 cited immediately above is a case in point; clearly getting killed is a single action. The prediction that Sarah will bear a son is expressed with a participle (Gen. 17.19): ‫א ב ל שרה אשתך ילרת ל ך בן‬ "Nevertheless, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son" (NJPS). This birth is a single event. The Lord's crossing the Jordan with the Israelites, predicted in Deut. 31.3, is likewise a one-time event. The predicative participle can begin a sequence of predicted future events (Exod. 8.25; 1 Sam. 14.8; Hos 2.16), or it can follow to mark one action in a group of described future events (1 Sam. 10.8). Future predictions in direct discourse may include uses of the predicative participle attested for past narrative, for example, simultaneous conditions marked by the third person independent pronoun plus the predicative participle (1 Sam. 10.5).

67

Dyk and Talstra, 'Computer-Assisted Study', p. 50.

Modal Use (?)

The predicative participle in direct discourse is occasionally susceptible to a modal interpretation. The following cases are a matter of dispute. 1. Gen. 49.29 ‫אני נאסף אל עמי‬ Ί am to/should be gathered to my people' (JPS) It is possible to render this charge of Israel to his sons as a future prediction: "I am about to be gathered to my kin" (so NJPS; see also NRSV). However, the modal character of the context is perhaps suggested by the imperative that follows in the same verse. 68 2. 2 Sam. 12.23 ‫ועתה מת למה זה אני צם‬ "But now that he is dead, why should I fast?" (NJPS) David's question here may suggest modal use, as translated not only by NJPS, but also JPS, NAB and NRSV. 3. 2 Sam. 18.12 ‫ולא אנכי שקל‬ ‫׳‬Even if I would/were to have ‫על כפי אלף כסף‬ a thousand shekels of silver in my hands, ‫לא אשלח ידי אל בן המלך‬ I would not raise my hand against the son of the king' This example clearly differs from the preceding cases as a contrary-tofact conditional in an apodosis (see JM, §167f, k). The question is whether or not a contrary-to-fact conditional is inherently modal. A number of translations do not carry a modal sense (NJPS, NAB, NRSV). 4. 2 Sam. 18.22 ‫למה זה אתה רץ בני‬ ' W h y should you run, m y s o n ,

‫ולכה אין בשורה מצאת‬ as you have no news (worthwhile? 69 ) to be brought?' This translation reflects NJPS's handling of the initial clause. So too NAB translates: "Why do you want to run ...?" However, other translations take the initial verbal form as indicative (JPS: "Wherefore wilt thou run ...?‫ ;״‬NRSV: "Why will you run ...?"). 5. 2 Sam. 24.3 ‫ויוסף יהוהאלהיך‬ 'May the Lord your God increase ‫אל העם כהם וכהם מאה פעמים‬ 68 69

NAB takes the clause as a concessive apodosis to the following imperative. See NJPS.

(the number of) the people a hundredfold, ‫ועיני אדני המלך ראות‬ and may the eyes of my lord, the king, see it' As this JPS translation suggests, modal use is perhaps involved, perhaps continuing the preceding jussive. However, NJPS and NRSV gloss X i f - as "while" instead of "and may" (see also NAB). Word-order

The predominant word-order for clauses containing the predicative participle, especially in direct discourse, is subject-verb; there are exceptions (e.g. Song of Songs 2.9; Gen. 15.14, 18.17, 31.15, 37.15, 41.2, 18; Exod. 19.13, 14; 1 Sam. 19.2, 20.17; Hos 4.15). 70 Of all of these examples, only one does not appear in direct discourse, and this one example in Gen. 41.2 matches the same wording in direct discourse in 41.18. Of the twenty-six examples of the verb-subject word-order noted by Driver, 71 only one (Judg. 8.4) does not occur in direct discourse. Accordingly, one may wonder whether word-order with the predicative participle is generally the same in narrative as it is in direct discourse, an issue not addressed in Joosten's extensive study of word-order of predicative participle. 72 Omission

of Subject

One final feature to be noted for clauses with the predicative participie in pre-exilic BH is the occasional omission of the subject normally constituted by an independent pronoun representing a person mentioned previously in the context. This feature is found in independent clauses, as noted in particular in JM, §154c. A few examples are noted in order to illustrate. Exod. 5.16 ‫תבן אין נתן ל ע ב ד י ך‬ 'Straw is not given to your servants; ‫ולבנים אמרים לנו עשו‬ But "bricks", 73 they say to us, "Make."‫׳‬ 70

So already Driver, Treatise, p. 169; Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 22. Driver, Treatise, p. 171, n" 4. 72 Joosten, 'Predicative Participle', pp, 128-59. For criticism of this article, see JM, §154fc, n. 2. 73 This clause is problematic. RSV, NRSV, JPS and NJPS take the n o u n as the direct object of the imperative despite the word-order (this approach is represented in the translation). Following LXX, NAB handles the problem by taking the imperative not as a quote, but as indirect speech: 'and still w e are told to m a k e bricks'. However, an infinitive construct a n d not an imperative w o u l d be expected. A variation on the first approach is to take ‫ לנו‬as part of the quote: ‫"׳‬Bricks" they say, "for us, make'". None of these approaches is es71

1 Sam. 17.25 ‫הראיתם האיש העולה הזה‬ 'Have you seen this man who is coming up? ‫כי ל ח ר ף את ישראל ע ל ה‬ Surely, (in order) to taunt Israel he comes up'. 2 Sam. 16.3 ‫ויאמר ה מ ל ך‬ 'And the king said, ‫ואיה בן אדניך‬ "And where is the son of your master?" ‫ויאמר ציבא א ל ה מ ל ך‬ And Ziba said to the king, ‫הנה יושב בירושלם‬ "See, he is staying in J e r u s a l e m ‫" ׳‬

JM, §154c, lists other examples, some with ‫( הנה‬e.g. Gen. 24.30, 37.15, 38.24, 41.1; Exod. 7.15, 8.16; 1 Sam. 15.12 and Isa. 29.8), others without (e.g. Gen. 32.7; Deut. 33.3; 1 Sam. 20.1; Isa. 33.5, 40.19; Ps. 22.29, 33.5, 55.20; Job 12.17, 1 9 f f . 2 6 . 7,25.2‫׳‬ ) . No rule is g may be noted that context supplies the subject, as Driver argued. 7 4 It may be noted further that most of the examples listed in JM in addition to those given above occur in direct discourse (exceptions being Gen. 24.30,37.15 and 41.1). JM, §155f, addresses the omission in Exod. 5.16: "Much more rarely the vague personal subject is understood before a plural or singular participle." Although this characterization may apply to other examples discussed in that context (especially those in narrative), in the case of Exod. 5.16 it is not quite correct as the implied subject is not vague; context in v. 15 had provided the subject as ‫שטרי בני ישראל‬. From these examples one might deduce that the predicative participle without the named subject occurs when context has already provided the subject; it is unnecessary to repeat the subject. This point would especially apply to direct discourse where context would supply such information; and it is no surprise that the bulk of the examples with the subject omitted with predicative participles in independent usage occur in direct discourse. This point applies as well to the omission of the subject in other sorts of clauses.

pecially persuasive. 4 ‫ י‬So Driver, Treatise, p. 171. It might be suggested that ‫ הנה‬might lead to the 'suppression' of the third person pronoun in a case such as 2 Sam. 16.3 (so J. Joosten, personal communication), but this point w o u l d hardly apply to cases without ‫הנה‬. A s Professor Rendsburg inquires, there is a further issue of whether literary purposes may be at work with the omission of the subject. For example, in some instances w o u l d the lack of a mentioned subject lessens the stature of the person in a story?

The omission of the subject occurs also in dependent usage. 1 Sam. 6.3 ‫אם משלחים את ארון אלהי ישראל‬ 'If you send the ark of the God of Israel, ‫א ל תשלחו אתו ריקם‬ Do not send it without anything.' In this case, the second person plural subject, 'you‫׳‬, is not stated at all, because the addressees know from context that they are the subject. It is to be noted that this feature extends to clauses other than those with predicative participles. The omission appears in nominal clauses, as in Gen. 18.9: ‫הנה ב א ה ל‬ ‫׳‬Behold, she is in the tent‫׳‬. The nominal clause in Hos 2.25 is even more elliptical: ‫ואמרתי ל ל א עמי‬ 'And I will say to Not-my-people. ‫עמי אתה‬ "You are my people." ‫והוא יאמר‬ And he [Not-my-people] will say. ‫אלהי‬ "[You are] my god.' 7 5 ‫״‬ In this case, the parallelism provides the missing subject in the nominal clause. 76 In the cases of the predicative participle without an explicitly named subject, context supplies the missing grammatical element. Of the possibly pre-exilic and exilic thirty-six examples listed by Driver, 77 75

So RSV and NRSV, JPS and NJPS (with square brackets). The LXX of H o s 2.25 makes explicit the a s s u m e d subject: κύριος ύ θεός μου εί σύ 'You are the Lord my Cod.' In contrast, NAB translates literally, 'My God!' 76 It is arguable that Gen. 37.17 witnesses to the omission of the direct object, 'them'(‫)*אותם‬, preceding the attributive participle: ‫ויאמר האיט‬ ‫נסעו מזה‬ ‫כי שמעתי אמרים‬ ‫׳‬And the man said, "They have departed from here, for I heard them saying ...‫"׳‬. In this case, the preceding verb supplies the subject for the predicative participle. It w o u l d be possible to analyze ‫ אמרים‬as the direct object itself, ‫׳‬the o n e s saying‫׳‬, except that the participle introduces direct discourse. On this latter point, see S.A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup, 46; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 120." 77

Driver, Treatise, p. 171.

only five occur in narrative (Gen. 37.15, 39.22, 41.1; 1 Sam. 10.11, 30.16)78; the other examples all derive from direct discourse. In direct discourse grammatical information shared by the speaker and audience may be assumed and not made explicit, and it may be hypothesized that while the number of examples attested in the literary deposit surveyed here is quite few, it is probably only the tip of the iceberg: most Israelites used the predicative participle in everyday speech for the present time-frame; they also omitted the subject when it was clear from context. It will be seen below that omission of the subject with predicative participles continues in post-exilic BH (Driver cites Neh. 6.10 and 9.3, 37). Finally, it is to be noted that particular genres are more given to the predicative participle, including predictions (see above) and dreams (Gen. 28.12 [3x], 13; 37.7, 9; 40.17; 41.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23). In contrast, other genres are considerably less given to the predicative participle. For example, the book of Leviticus offers few examples of the predicative participle in independent clauses (cf. relative clauses in 17.5, 7; 18.3, 25; 20.22, 23; 22.3; 23.10; 25.2; and ‫כי‬ clauses in 21.6, 8; 25.16), whereas the attributive participle in various forms is very common in that book.

Ill: A post-exilic

biblical

corpus

As noted above, Professor Muraoka's paper treats Nehemiah. It is therefore excluded from consideration here. Instead, the predicative participle is addressed for several other post-exilic works. In order to represent different genres in this period, the books selected are Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Qohelet, Esther and Ezra. Haggai (total: 6 cases) Independent usage (6 cases): 1.6, 9; 2.3, 5, 6 = 21. Dependent usage: zero. Zechariah (total: 37 cases79) Independent usage (23 cases): 1.8 (2x), 11 (2x), 15; 2.4, 6, 7 (2x); 3.1, 9; 4.2; 5.2,7, 9,10; 6.1; 8.7; 9.12; 11.6; 12.2; 14.1, 12. 78

In accordance with the criteria listed at the outset, I set aside Driver's citation of 1 Sam. 30.3 and Ezek 19.13, which involve passive participles. 1 Sam. 30.16 contains a passive participle followed by two active participles a p p a r ently used predicatively. 79 9.16b may be characterized as an implied periphrastic, with ellipsis of ‫*יהיו‬ or the like.

Dependent usage (14 cases). .(‫אשר‬: 6.6 (‫בה אשר‬ ‫ •די‬relative: 7.6; 12.9. 11.16

;3.8

;2.12,13,14

:‫כי‬.

Asyndetic relative clause: 10.1; 12.1 (3x); 13.3 (2x). Malachi (total: 21 cases) Independent usage (14 cases): 1.7, 1.11 (passive), 1.12a, 1.14 (2x); 2.3, 15; 3.1 (2x), 3.2,3.9a (passive), 3.9b, 3.15, 3.23. Dependent usage (7 cases). 2) 3.1:‫אשר‬x),17,21. 2) 19 ,3.8 :‫כי‬x). Qohelet (total: 49 cases) Independent usage (25 cases): 1.4 (3x), 1.5a, 1.6 (6x), 1.7 (2x) 80; 2.2, 3, 14 , 19; 3.20, 21; 4.5 (2x), 4.8 (2x); 6.6, 12; 7.26; 8.1; 9.16 (passive); 10.19 (impersonal use). Dependent usage (24 cases). 2) 8.12;4.1:‫אשר‬x),14; 9.10. ‫ ה־‬relative: 3.9, 21 (2x); 4.15; 9.2,12 (passive). • . 1 0 . 3 :‫כשדי‬ ‫כי‬: 2.22 (‫ מה‬interrogative); 5.2, 7; 6.12; 8.12; 9.5; 12.5. 9 . 1 2;8.14;2.18;(‫ש‬:1.7 (-‫א ל מקום ש‬ Asyndetic relative clause: 1.5b (with implied ‫ ?אשר‬cf. 1.7). Esther (total: 32 cases) Independent use (22 cases): 1.7; 2.11, 19, 21, 20 ; 3.2 (2x), 3, 8, 14; 4.11, 14; 5.1,12 ; 6.5; 7.8, 9; 8.17; 9.3,19, 28 (2x); 10.2 (passive). 81 Dependent usage (10 cases): .(‫אשר‬: 4.3 = 8.17 (‫ )מקום אשר‬82 ; 5.13 (‫ב כ ל עת אשר‬ ‫ה‬- relative: 1.14; 4.16; 6.11; 9.19. 2) 10.3 ;9.4 :‫כי‬x). Ezra (total: 8 cases) Independent usage (4 cases): 3.12; 4.2, 7 (passive); 9.4. Dependent usage (4 cases): ‫אשר‬: 9.11. ‫כי‬: 3.13; 4.1; 9.11 (‫ ;)אשר‬10.6.

80

N o t e *qātal for the s a m e time-frame in 1.5. ‫( הלוא הם כתובים ע ל ס פ ר דברי הימים ל מ ל כ י מדי ו פ ר ס‬an older formula, as in 1 K g s 11.41, etc.; cf. 2 Sam. 1.18). 82 Thematically, 8.17 represents the reversal of 4.3 (cf. 9.1 in *qātal). 81

Distribution.

The distribution of predicative participles in the post-exilic books surveyed is hardly surprising. A few observations may be offered. It is interesting to note that predictions with the predicative participle are relatively rare in Haggai and none begin with ‫הנה‬. This situation contrasts with the material in Zechariah and many other prophetic books. The predicative participle in independent usage is relatively rare in Zechariah 9-14, the so-called Deutero- or Second Zechariah, with its five cases in six chapters (9.12; 11.6; 12.2; 14.1,12), compared with Zechariah 1-8, with eighteen instances in eight chapters. Zech. 9.9 might well have used the predicative participle instead of *yiqtöl, especially given the use of statement opening ‫הנה‬, a common formation for clauses with predicative participles. The point here is that use of the predicative participle may be a matter of stylistic choice even within the same period of Hebrew, or in this case, even within a shared tradition (of some sort). Compared with the total a m o u n t of material in the book, Qohelet shows the greatest number of predicative participles. Perhaps the purportedly autobiographical style of the book engenders greater attestation of the predicative participle espedaily in independent usage. 83 Ezra stands at the opposite end of the scale, given its largely narrative form, incuding the genealogies (2; 8.1-14) and the list of names in 10.18-43 (as well as the Aramaic sections of 4.8-6.18 and 7.11-26, which are obviously excluded from consideration). Few instances of the predicative participle might be expected for the book; nonetheless, some clear cases are attested. Narrative Anterior

usage

Pre-exilic narrative generally uses the predicative participle to describe circumstances holding at the time of the past narrative. The construction, as noted above, is past narrative verb (usually *qātal or *wayyiqtöl) followed by nf- + subject + participle. Esther 5.1 shows this construction in a circumstantial clause: ‫ויהי ביום השלישי ותלבש אסתר‬ 'And it was on the third day, that Esther dressed ... ‫ו ה מ ל ך יושב ע ל כסא מלכותו‬ and the king was sitting on his royal throne'. Here the waw-consecutive verb precedes the circumstantial we- + subject + participle. Esther 7.8 shows the same construction following the past *qātal verb. Esther 1.7 attests this construction with some variation: 83

See the valuable treatment of the present predicative participle in Qohelet in Isaksson, Studies, pp. 33-36, 65, 68, 72, 77, 78.

‫והשקות ב כ ל י זהב‬ "And they gave them drink in vessels of gold— ‫וכלים מכלים שונים‬ the vessels being diverse from one another ..." (JPS) What is to be noted in this example is the use of the infinitive as the preceding past narrative verb and the position of the prepositional phrase in the following clause. Ezra 3.12 also uses the predicative participle to render action simultaneous with the preceding narrative. In its syntax this case resembles the preceding examples, except that the subject clause is extensive. It is noted above that in some pre-exilic narrative passages the past circumstantial clause may precede the past narrative verb to which it is related for its time-frame; this construction obtains as well in Esther (see 2.19-21). Esther 2.11 interrupts the narrative chain of events in order to provide background information: ‫ו ב כ ל יום ויום מ ר ד כ י מ ת ה ל ך‬ ' A n d every d a y Mordecai would walk ...'

The predicative participle also narrates past action, an innovation compared with the pre-exilic sample. Esther 2.20 ‫ואת מאמר מ ר ד כ י אסתר עשה‬ 'and the word of Mordecai Esther did' Esther 3.2 ‫ כרעים ומשתחוים‬. . . ‫ו כ ל עברי ה מ ל ך‬ ' a n d all the servants of the king ... knelt and bowed low ...'

Esther 8.17 ‫ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים‬ 'And many from the peoples of the land became Jews/pretended to be Jews'

Esther 9.3 ‫ מנשאים את היהודים‬...‫ו כ ל שרי המדינות‬ " A n d all the officials of the p r o v i n c e s ... showed deference to

the Jews" (NJPS) In the case of Esther 3.2, that the verbs may be rendered 'used to kneel' and 'used to bow low' is indicated by the order mentioned in the following clause and Mordecai's ongoing refusal to honour this order (‫ומרדכי ל א יכרע ולא ישתחוה‬, 'but Mordecai would not kneel and bow down'). In this instance the predicative participle assumes the role exercised by *yiqtol in the pre-exilic narrative, a point indicated by the *yiqtol form used to describe Mordecai's refusal to pay homage. M. Eskhult argues that the four examples cited above from Esther represent "the use of the participle in place of yiqtol in its cursive

value". 8 4 A remaining question is whether more examples of the predicative participle comply with this description (Esther 2.19; see also the example of the passive participle used for narrative in 3.14). General

characterization

The predicative participle also expresses a general present characterization. Esther 9.19 supplies an example: ‫ עשים את יום א ר ב ע ה עשר ל ח ד ש א ד ר‬...‫" ע ל כן היהודים הפרוזים‬That is why village Jews ... observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar" (NJPS). Given the extension of the predicative participle's function in post-exilic narrative, it is reasonable to support in general terms the conclusion reached by Eskhult: "There is a clear tendency in the late biblical writings that the participle, not only in direct speech, but - this is to be stressed - in narrative discourse takes the place of the finite verb." 8 5 Direct

discourse

Anterior usage. Direct discourse can use the predicative participle to relate past events. The past time-frame appears in Qoh. 2.3 and Zech. 1.8, 11, 3.1, 5.9, 6.1. As in post-exilic direct discourse, narrative can also use a predicative participle to describe the past, as in Zech. 5.7: ‫והנה כ כ ר ע פ ר ת נשאת‬ "And behold, a disk of lead ivas lifted ..." (NJPS). As in pre-exilic narrative, post-exilic direct discourse can relate simultaneous conditions in a past narrative with two predicative participles, as in Zech. 2.7: ‫והנה ה מ ל א ך ה ד ב ר בי יצא‬ 'And there, the angel who was speaking to me left, ‫ומלאך אחר יצא לקראתו‬ And another angel left to meet him‫׳‬. The case of Ezra 4.2 includes the past up to the time of the speaker: ‫ולא אנחנו זבחים מימי אסר חדן‬ 'and to Him 86 we have been sacrificing from (since) the days of Esarhaddon ...'. This clause may be understood in the sense that 'we have been (and still are) sacrificing ...'. Concurrent usage. As found in both pre- and post-exilic narrative, postexilic direct discourse uses the predicative participle to render circumstances contemporary with the preceding verb (Hag. 1.9; 2.5). Like 84 85 86

Eskhult, Studies, p. 113. Eskhult, Studies, p. 113. Reading ‫ ;לו‬see BHS, ad loc.

pre-exilic direct discourse, post-exilic direct discourse also employs the predicative participle for the time-frame contemporary with the moment of speech. Some examples occur in declarative sentences describing conditions concurrent at the time of speech. The following cases derive from the book of Esther (see also Zech. 1.15; 9.12, cited below; Mai. 1.7, cited below; 1.12a; 3.9b, 15). Esther 4.11 ‫כ ל ע ב ד י ה מ ל ך ועם מדינות ה מ ל ך יודעים‬ 'All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know

...'

Esther 6.5 ‫הנה המן ע מ ד ב ח צ ר‬ 'See, Haman is standing in the c o u r t . . . ' Esther 7.9 ‫ ע מ ד בבית המן‬. ..‫גם הנה העץ‬ 'Also note, the gallows ...stand in the house of Haman ...' Other cases involve interrogative sentences also concurrent with the perspective of the speaker. Esther 3.3 ‫מדוע אתה עובר את מצות ה מ ל ך‬ 'Why do you transgress the king's commandment?' Esther 4.14 ‫ומי יודע‬ ' . . . a n d w h o knows

...'

Other post-exilic works contain a number of interrogatives in the present with the predicative participle (Qoh. 2.2, 19, 3.21, 4.8, 6.6, 12, 8.1; Hag. 2.3; Zech. 2.4, 6, 4.2, 5.2, 10; Mai. 2.15, 3.2). Esther 3.8 uses the predicative participle in a description of present conditions: ‫יטנו עם א ח ד‬ 'There is a certain people ‫מפזר ו מ פ ר ד בין העמים‬ scattered and dispersed among the peoples ‫ב כ ל מדינות מלכותך‬ in all the provinces of your realm, ‫ורתיהם טנות מ כ ל עם‬ and their laws differ from every people's (laws)'. Insofar as this clause uses 11/- + subject + participle, this example recalls the standard circumstantial clause in narrative, both pre-exilic and post-exilic (see above). Subsequent usage. As found commonly in pre-exilic direct discourse, the predicative participle governs future predictions (Hag. 2.6 = 21; Zech. 3.9, 8.7,11.6,12.2, 14.1; Mai. 2.3, 3.1 [2x], 23).

The future can be described with *yiqtöl followed by accompanying circumstances presented with predicative participles (Zech. 14.12). These cases are syntactically no different from circumstantial clauses presented in the anterior or concurrent time-frames. Timeless

characterization

Post-exilic direct discourse expresses a number of timeless characterizations reminiscent generally of wisdom formulations (Mai. 1.6; Qoh. 2.14; 3.20; 4.5). The description of the world in Qoh. 1.4-7 uses several predicative participles to express both repetitious action and durative or iterative/frequentative aspect 87 ; regardless of the precise aspect of the participles, the t i m e - f r a m e clearly involves a g e n e r a l characterization that includes the speaker's concurrent perspective. Other

features

Modal use of the predicative participle is rare in this corpus. Esther 9.28 attests the usage, however: ‫והימים ה א ל ה נזכרים ונעשים‬ ' a n d t h a t t h e s e d a y s ought to be commemorated

and

kept...'.

As with a number of cases in pre-exilic BH, post-exilic BH shows the predicative participle without an explicit subject governing it. 88 Zech. 9.12 ‫גם היום מניד משנה אשיב ל ך‬ 'Also today I announce (that) double I will repay you' Mai. 1.7 ‫מגישים ע ל מזבחי לחם מנאל‬ 'You offer defiled food on my altar' Ezra 10.6 ‫כי מ ת א ב ל ע ל מ ע ל הגולה‬ 'For he was mourning the trespass of (those of) the exile. It is to be noted that these examples comprise both narrative and direct discourse. Finally, post-exilic dependent usage, compared with pre-exilic use, adds to the range of subordinating conjunctions that may govern clauses with predicative participles. 89

87

So A.J.C. Verheij, ‫׳‬Words Speaking for Themselves: On the Poetics of Qohelet 1:4-7', in Give Ear to My Wards. Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (ed. J. Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996), pp. 185-86. 88 See also Mai. 2.16, cited below in Sect. VI. 89 See the beginning of this section for the particles governing subordinate clauses, compared to the particles governing subordinate clauses in pre-exilic

IV: Ben Sira™

The Hebrew text of Ben Sira contains a total of 71 examples of the predicative participle. Given the poetic character of Ben Sira, the sampie differs from most of the biblical and DSS corpora discussed. Independent usage (44 cases): 10.1, 31; 11.30 (2x, MS A expansion); 12.8, 9 (2x); 13.6, 12, 22 (passive, partially reconstructed); 14.9, 10; 15.16 (passive), 20 (expansion in A and B); 16.18,91 21; 26.13; 34.2,92 13, 30 (2x); 36.2b, 23; 37.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 (MS D; cf. MS B), 26; 38.4, 8; 39.20; 41.16; 42.19 (2x), 23b (MS M93), 24; 43.2a, 8,94 9, 22 (2x); 47.8; 51.26. Dependent usage (27 cases). Asyndetic clauses 95 : 7.20; 13.22a, 23 (2x); 38.25; 40.29; 42.11; 47.12. ‫ אשר‬clause: 38.15 (cf. Lev. 25.2). ‫ כאשר‬clause: 30.20. ‫ כי‬clauses: 3.11 [see 3.10]; 3.16 (2x); 5.3; 12.6; 15.18 (2x); 16.11 (2x); 35.23, 24; 42.18 (M); 46.6 (cf. Lev. 21.6, 8; Prov. 5.21). ‫ מן‬clauses: 40.3,4. ‫ ע ד‬clause: 40.4b. -‫ ש‬clause.16.15. Usage

Anterior usage. For i n d e p e n d e n t clauses in Ben Sira, only o n e instance BH listed at the beginning of section II. For the sake of convenience, examples are taken from The Book of Ben Sira:

90

Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: T h e A c a d e m y of

the Hebrew L a n g u a g e / T h e Shrine of the Book, 1973). Given the common use of this resource by many others at the Leiden s y m p o s i u m , its chapter and verse n u m b e r s are used. I am a w a r e that n u m e r o u s text-critical issues attend many of the verses cited; my p u r p o s e is only to comment on the Hebrew text as attested. For the text with variants, including MS F, see now P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill,

1997). MS A reads ‫ עמודים‬apparently for ‫ ;עומדים‬so The Book of Ben Sira (Academy of the Hebrew Language), p. 23. 92 A secondary expansion; see P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; New York: Doubledny, 1987), p. 38(1. 93 See Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965), p. 28. 94 See Skehan and Di Leila, Ben Sira, p. 489. 95 In addition to the biblical examples cited above, see also Song of Songs 2.15: ‫שועלים קטנים מחבלים כרמים‬ 'The little foxes (that) ruin the vineyards.' 91

uses the participle for past time-frame (following *qātal): 47.8 (Β) ‫ו ב כ ל מעשהו נתן הורות‬ 'And in all his deeds he offered thanks ... ‫ב כ ל ל מ א ו ה ב עושהו‬ With all his heart he [David] loved his Maker.‫׳‬ The usage of participle for past time-frame following *qātal is evident in dependent clauses in the biblical corpus. 96 Concurrent Usage. Almost all instances of the predicative participles in independent clauses are timeless present used especially to characterize the subject. 10.1 (A) ‫שופט עם יוסר עמו‬ 'The judge of a people establishes his people ...' 10.31 (A and B) ‫ה מ ת כ ב ד בדלותו בעשרו מ ת כ ב ד יתר‬ 'The one honoured in his poverty, is in his wealth honoured (all the) more' 11.30 (A expansion) ‫כן בוצע בא‬ 'So a violent person comes ‫ומשים ריב ל כ ל ]טו[בתם‬ And sets strife to all their [we1]fare‫׳‬ This tendency to generalize (see also 14.9, 10; 20.4; 26.13; 34.2, 13, 30 [3x]; 36.23; 37.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 [D], 26; 38.4, 8; 41.16b; 42.19, 24; 43.8, 9, 22; 51.26b) may be expected of a wisdom book that characterizes the nature of positive and negative behaviour and attitudes. A perusal of Proverbs 10-14, for example, turns up many similar sorts of predicative participles (Prov. 10.4, 5, 17b; 11.3, 15b, 17, 18, 21, 25; 12.1, 10, 15, 16, 23; 13.1 [passive], 3, 12, 24, 25; 14.2, 16, 21, 25, 29, 31, 32). It is unclear whether Ben Sira uses proportionately more predicative participies t h a n P r o v e r b s , a n d both s h o w *yiqtöl for g e n e r a l characterizations (gnomic present). Subsequent Usage. General characterization can be applied in a subsequent or future time-frame. 13.6(A) ‫צריך לו ע מ ך והשיע ל ך‬ 'when he needs (literally, with) you, he will please you, ‫ושוחק ל ך והבטיחך‬ he will humour you and gain your trust' 96

See the examples cited in Sect. I from the Song of Stings.

13.12 (A) ‫אכזרי יתן מושל ולא יחמל‬ Ά cruel one exercises power and he will not have mercy, ‫ע ל נפש רבים קושר קשר‬ On the neck of many he xvill tie a knot (noose)' The preceding future contexts indicate the future rendering of these instances of the predicative participle. Other

features

Three specific syntactical contexts may be noted for the predicative participle in independent clauses: (1)‫ כן‬conclusion (20.4; 38.8; cf. the attributive use in the ‫ כן‬nominal clause in 12.14); (2)‫ מי‬interrogative (16.21; 34.10); and (3) ‫ ה ל א‬interrogative (37.2). All three of these types are attested in BH. Of the types of dependent clauses, asyndetic, ,‫אשר‬ ‫ כי‬and ‫ ש־‬clauses with the predicative participle are attested in biblical literature. The others, ‫ער‬, ‫( כאשר‬but see ‫ ל א ש ר‬in Genesis and ‫ באשר‬in Qohelet noted above) and ‫ מן‬are not. As with BH pre-exilic and post-exilic passages, Ben Sira 47.8 (B) omits a named subject: ‫ב כ ל לבו אוהבעושהו‬ 'With all his heart he [David] loved his Maker'.

V: Dead Sea Scrolls

(DSS)

Professor Muraoka's essay addresses the predicative participle in the Temple Scroll (11QT) and Serek ha-Yahad (1QS).97 Therefore, it is unnecessary to revisit the evidence in those texts. Instead, the clear instances of the predicative participle are listed for five other major DSS.y8

97

The earlier version of his paper that Professor Muraoka kindly s h o w e d m e did not treat 4QMMT, but in his s y m p o s i u m presentation he added this text. 98 Professor D. Harrington, in a letter dated 4 April 1997, most kindly informs m e that John Strugnell and he k n o w of no participle used as a main verb in 4Q415-418; the only possibility s e e m s to be a mistake, ‫ דורש‬written for the imperative ‫דרוש‬. From the prayers edited by E. Schuller, 4Q380 and 4Q381, p o s sibilities w o u l d be 4Q380 1:2.5 and 4Q381 47.3, but the contexts of both lines are unclear. The pcsharitn yield one predicative participle, in d e p e n d e n t usage (relative clause marked by 4:(‫אשר‬QpIsali1.5.

Damascus Document (total: 15 cases") CD MS A 100 Independent usage (12 cases): 3.1 (N-stem); 4.20 (N-stem); 5.6, 7 (2x), 13; 8.14 = 19.27101; 9.4 (2x), 20; 10.31 (2x). Dependent usage (3 cases). .9.20 :‫אם‬ .11.4 :‫אם‬ ‫כי‬ 10.11:‫(מדי‬cf. 12-13). War Scroll 1QM (1Q33)102 (total: 13 cases) Independent usage (12 cases): 1.11; 5.4, 5, 12; 6.15 (?) 103 ; 9.11, 13; 12.5 (partially reconstructed); 14.6; 15.13,16.9 104 ; 17.10. Dependent usage (1 case) ‫כי‬: 10.4. Copper Scroll 3Q15 105 (total: zero) 4QMMT (total: 20 cases) I n d e p e n d e n t usage (12 cases): A20 (partially reconstructed); B4 (partially reconstructed); B29, B37,1"6 B42, B54, B55 (partially reconstructed), B64-65 (reconstructed largely on the basis of B55), B68,107 99

C D MS Β contains no examples. 4QD^'111‫ ׳«׳‬contain t w o forms with insufficient context: ‫ והנהנוסף‬and ‫והנה באה‬. ‫ והנה‬is often u s e d w i t h the participle in biblical texts (see above), but it also p r e c e d e s *qātal. For ‫ והנה‬w i t h *qātal, see ( m o s t l y in direct discourse) 1 Sam. 10.2; 14.20; 28.9; 2 Sam. 1.6 ; 14.32; 18.31 (not direct discourse). 100 p o r t h e predicative participles in this text, see Kesterson, 'Tense U s a g e ' , pp. 191-95. 101

The pertinent portion of these c a s e s closely f o l l o w s Deut. 9.5. See J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations; Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Möhr [Siebeck]/L0uisvi11e: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 29. 102 A n examination of 4QM1 yielded n o further clear e x a m p l e s of the predicative participle. 103 Cf. construct in 6.5. 104 A p u r p o s e clause? So Charlesworth, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts, p. 131. But see the reconstruction in 17.15, w i t h n o p u r p o s e clauses. 105 Ν θ ν ν editions b y Ρ.Κ. McCarter and E. Puech are in progress. In the meantime, o n e m a y consult A. Wolters, The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Translation (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1996). 106 Partially reconstructed based o n s a m e formation in B29. The s a m e formation is reconstructed in B36 in the s a m e manner. See Q i m r o n and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; V, p. 51. 107

The s a m e construction, ‫*אתם יודעים‬, is r e c o n d u c t e d for C7 and C8 by Q i m ron and Strugnell, Qumran Caw 4; V, pp. 58-59.

B73, B80 (partially reconstructed); C2Ü. Dependent usage (8 cases): ‫כי‬: C9. -‫ש‬: BIO, B39, B40 (partially reconstructed), B59, B81 (2x, plural ending of the second form is reconstructed). -‫שא‬: B2. 4QShirO1atShabb = 4Q400-405 + 11QShirShabb + MasShirShabb (total: 9 cases 108 ). Independent usage (9 cases): 4Q400 2.2 = 4Q401 14:1.8109; 4Q402 4.13 = MasShirShabb 1 . 3 1 1 4;‫״‬Q40514-15:1.5 (passive verb); 4Q405 23:1.7 (2x), 9; 4Q205 23:2.10 (passive verb). Dependent usage: zero. Narrative Anterior

Use

CD 3.1 ‫בה הם נכרתים‬ 'through it they were cut off]U CD A 5.6-7 ‫וגם מטמאים הם את המקדש‬ ‫׳‬and they also they (continually) polluted the sanctuary ‫ושוכבים עם‬... and they (habitually) lay with ...‫׳‬ Concurrent

Use

CD A 5.13 ‫הם מדברים בם‬ '... they are speaking against them.‫׳‬ CD A 9.2-4 ‫ו כ ל איש מביאו הברית‬ 'and anyone who enters into the covenant... ‫נוקם הוא ונוטר‬ h e is taking vengeance

a n d bearing a grudge

..."

CD A 9.20 ‫ואם שנים הם והם מעידים‬ 'and if there are two and they witness ...'.

108

There is insufficient context to adjudicate the participles in 4Q403 1:2.7,12. C. N e w s o m , Songs of tlw Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 110,136. no N e w s o m , Songs, pp. 168-69. 109

111

See Kesterson, 'Tense Usage', p. 191. In contrast, Charlesworth (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts, p. 17) renders the clause in the present despite the past time-frame verbs preceding and following it.

Subsequent

Use

1QS 1.20 = 2.10 ‫העוברים ב ב ר י ת אומרים‬ '... those w h o pass into the covenant will say ...' 1QM 1.11 ‫נלחמים י ח ד‬ ' t h e y shall fight t o g e t h e r . . . '

In general, context marks the context as future. For example, in 1QM 1.11, the time-frame is evident from the preceding *yiqtöl forms (‫ילחמו‬ in 2.10, 11, 12). For other examples, see 1QM 5.4, 5, 12; 9.13; 12.5; 17.10. Direct

discourse

N o cases of anterior and subsequent use are attested in direct discourse. Given the limited character of the corpus examined, little conelusion can be d r a w n from this particular fact. In contrast, examples of concurrent use are numerous. 1QM 10.4 quotes the w o r d s of priests addressed to Israel in battle: ‫כיא א ל ו ה י כ ם ה ו ל ך ע מ כ ם ל ה ל ח ם ל כ ם‬ 'for your God is going with you (in order) to fight for you ...'. This passage slightly reworks Deut. 20.5. O n e alteration involves the participle: in the biblical verse the participle follows 4‫'( ה־‬for y o u r God is the one w h o is going before you to fight for you'), while in 1QM 10.4 the participle shows no preceding ‫ *ה־‬and is therefore predicative in nature. The description of prayer in 4QShirO1atShabb likewise s h o w s concurrent use: ‫המה נכבדים‬ 'they are honoured' (4Q400 2.2 = 4Q401 14:1.8). The identification of this passage as direct discourse is based not only on the general characterization of this corpus as 'psalms', but also more specifically on the context of 4Q400 2.1 = 4Q401 14 :1.7, with its a d d r e s s to God ( ‫ מ ל כ ו ת כ ה‬. . . ‫ כ ב ו ר כ ה‬, 'Your glory ... Your kingship‫)׳‬. Other predicative participles in the psalms of this corpus are not provided with such a clear indication of direct discourse (e.g. 4Q402 4.13 = MasShirShabb 1.3, mentioned below in section 6; 4Q405 23:1.7, cited below in this section; and line 9). C o m p a r e d with other DSS documents, 4QMMT contains an inordinate n u m b e r of predicative pariticiples in a concurrent time-frame. The usage in 4QMMT largely revolves a r o u n d two types of predicative participles, including reconstructed forms: (1) the positions that ' w e hold'(‫[ אנחנו חושבים‬B2 [?], B8 [?], B29, B36 [?], B37, B42 [?], with reversed word-order]), ' w e say'(‫[ אנחנו אומרים‬B55, B64-65 [?], B73]), and ' w e recognize' ( ‫[ אנחנו מ כ י ר י ם‬C20]); and (2) the situation of the ad-

dressee that 'you know'(•‫יודעי‬ ‫[ א ת ם‬B38 [?], B46 [?], B68 ‫ ׳‬B80; C7 [?], C8 [?]). 112 (The majority of d e p e n d e n t clauses involve ‫ ש־‬clauses dep e n d e n t on these verbs.) It is to be noted that these participles are all concurrent f r o m the speakers' perspective; for example, ‫ אנחנו חושבים‬is present; the clauses predicated of this formation are the views that ' w e hold‫׳‬. It is not simply a timeless characterization, but present action. (For this reason ‫׳‬we are of the opinion', the translation in the edition of Q i m r o n and Strugnell is w o n d e r f u l English, but it m a y m a k e the H e b r e w seem s o m e w h a t Stative in character.) As Q i m r o n and Strugnell observe, other cases of the predicative participle that describe t h e practices of the o p p o n e n t s d e n o t e an o n g o i n g situation. 1 1 3 These instances are present in time-frame; these actions are ones currently going on from the speakers' perspective and ones that they h o p e to curtail by persuasion. In contrast to 4QMMT, the C o p p e r Scroll s h o w s no cases of the predicative participle, this despite its alleged affinities to 4QMMT. 1 1 4 This contrast underscores the f u n d a m e n t a l point that the use of verbal forms is constrained partially according to limitations of genre. Other

features

4Q405 23:1.7 contains a case with a biblical echo: ‫וקול ב ר ך מ כ ו ל מפלניו מ ס פ ר ה ר ק י ע י כבודו‬, which may be translated: 'and the sound of blessing from all its divisions relates his glorious firmaments'. 1 1 5 The line evidently echoes Ps. 19.2a, with its o w n predicative participle: ‫השמים מספרים כ ב ו ד א ל‬ 'The heavens relate the glory of God'. Qimron and Strugnell point to one possible modal use in 4QMMT B31: ‫]ו[מוציאים‬, 'one should take out', but they note that "the text is broken and our reconstruction and interpretation are tentative". 1 1 6 It is to be noted that such a modal usage for the predicative participle m a y represent a continuation from pre- and post-exilic BH. 117 Omission of subject occurs, for example, in C D 5.7 (cf. ‫ ה ם‬in

112

See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; V, p. 80. The bracketed n u m bers involve largely, if not entirely, reconstructed participles. 113 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; V, p. 80. 114 Wolters, Copper Scroll, p. 11. For participles in -Π* relative clauses in the Copper Scroll, see 1.2, 4.3, 6.8, 8.10, 12; 9.4, 7; 11.5. 6.2 also uses a participle adjectivally. 115 Cf. the translation in N e w s o m , Songs, p. 324. 116 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; V, p. 80. 117 On the injunctive use of the predicative participle in 1QS, see Kesterson, ‫׳‬Tense Usage‫׳‬, pp. 198-200, 201.

5.6).118 Distribution

While 4QMMT is conspicuously shorter than the Damascus Document or the War Scroll, it contains proportionately more instances of the predicative participle. This feature may be d u e to the fact that it largely constitutes direct discourse. It may be inferred from this difference that the predicative participle may have been a standard form of direct discourse and more common than in literary Hebrew, especially one that may at times imitate biblical style. J. T. Milik numbered the predicative participle among the grammatical features in 4QMMT that align it with Mishnaic Hebrew, 1 1 9 but the foregoing survey would also suggest continuity with biblical Hebrew, especially in direct discourse. Indeed, the predicative participle in this text may be considered one of the features of "the language of MMT" that "owes a good deal to Biblical Hebrew". 12 " Despite the relatively small amount of material, Shir'OlatShabbat preserves nine cases of the predicative participle. Given its status as prayer, this text as well may be related to the usage of the predicative participle in direct discourse.

VI: General

comments

Of necessity, any general conclusions offered are based on a selective corpus. Therefore the conclusions presented are necessarily tentative. Indeed, completing the survey of the predicative participle all biblical books remains a major desideratum. The surviving evidence of Hebrew in the biblical and early post-biblical period may represent a small portion of the material that was actually produced in ancient Israel, and therefore there is no way to know how much of the verbal system (and therefore its development as well) the attested corpora may actually represent. Apart from the selection of texts, it is important to identify some inherent difficulties in this survey, before drawing any general conclusions. First, by definition these texts belong to the literature of ancient Israel and therefore manifest the literary use of the predicative participle. In texts that purport to present direct discourse, there is no guaranteeing that such a presentation reflects

118

See Kesterson, T e n s e Usage‫׳‬, p. 192. J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (trans. J. Strugnell; London: SCM, 1959), p. 130, cited in Bernstein, ‫׳‬Employment and Interpretation‫׳‬, p. 33, n. 9. 120 So Bernstein, ‫ ׳‬E m p l o y m e n t and Interpretation‫׳‬, p. 33, c o m m e n t i n g o n Qimron's findings. 119

the actual speech or speech patterns of the authors. 1 2 1 By the same token, some attempt may have been made by authors to achieve some level of verisimilitude. 1 2 2 Accordingly, if a significantly different distribution of usage of the participle obtains in direct discourse, it may be argued that this might reflect at least to some degree a different usage in the spoken language. Finally, replacement of *yiqtöl and *qātal by the predicative participle has been examined in texts with parallels in prior books (e.g. Chronicles versus their parallels in Samuel and Kings). 123 This sort of replacement may be examined from a diachronic perspective as well. Replacement

of *yiqtöl by the predicative

participle

Some diachronic observations may be offered. Before doing so, it is to be noted that many of the roots chosen as illustrations are selected from the corpora of Ben Sira and Dead Seal Scrolls in order to trace back the development of the predicative participle to pre-exilic Hebrew. In presenting these examples, texts are included from outside the biblical books or DSS works presented above. First, the participle in Ugaritic may serve as a backdrop to the development of the BH predicative participle. It is paramount to note the absence or near absence of the predicative participle f r o m Ugaritic. As in BH, the Ugaritic participle generally functions as an adjective (especially the passive participle 124 ) or a substantive. 125 Since both Ugaritic and BH use the attributive participle verbally (i. e., governing direct objects and prepositional phrases), this attributive usage may have been an antecedent to the predicative participle. It is to be noted further that Ugaritic may anticipate the widespread predicative use found in BH. The great problem for determining this question is 121

See Rendsburg, Diglossia, pp. 12-20. See Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 22. 123 See A.J.C. Verheij, Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Sauel, Kings, and Chronicles (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 28; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990), p p . 81-83. As Verheij's figures demonstrate, the parallels d o not exhibit a uniform direction of replacement by the participle; Verheij also lists cases w h e r e the participie is replaced by *qiital, *wayyiqtöl and the infinitive. The same examination should be undertaken for various translations and Hebrew texts (e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch). 124 D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (HdO, 28; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), p. 122. See especially CAT 1.5 VI 8-9: mgny lb'1 npl I'ars ‫׳‬we two came across Baal fallen to the earth'. 125 Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, pp. 121-22. See further P. Wernberg-Moller, 'Observations on the Hebrew Participle', Z A W 7 1 (1959), pp. 5467. 122

the lack of vowels marked in Ugaritic apart from the three alephs. 126 However, two possible examples of a predicative participle in Ugaritic may be noted. In contrast to tqr'u used otherwise throughout CAT 100, line 2 of this text uses qr'it. The parallel syntax (in speecho p e n i n g f o r m u l a s ) w o u l d suggest a predicative use of the participle 127 . qr'it 1špš 'uinh ,

She calls to Shapshu her mother‫( ׳‬CAT 1.100.2);

tqr'u 1špš 'umh

‫׳‬She calls to Shapshu, her mother‫( ׳‬CAT 1.100.8,14, 19, 25,30, 35, 40, 45,51,57). Yet given the difficulties attending Ugaritic grammar, it is difficult to be sure even with this example. The form 1n1nnn1n in CAT 1.23.40, 44, 47 is clearly a D-stem participle, 128 but it is unclear whether it is predicative 129 or attributive. 13 " Whether these particular examples prove to be predicative participles, it is clear that Ugaritic rarely at best attests the predicative participle. Accordingly, the widespread attestation of the BH predicative participle would appear to be largely an innerHebrew development. Four roots may be cited in order to illustrate the predicative participle, especially in pre-exilic BH direct discourse.

126

See D. Marcus, ‫׳‬The Three Alephs in Ugaritic‫׳‬, ]ANES 1 (1968), pp. 50-60. Sivan, Grammar, p. 121. This form was first brought to m y attention by A. Rainey (personal communication). So already M. Tsevat, M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, S. Segert, E. Verreet, M. Kottsieper, and D. Pardee (listed by Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24'' Campagne (1961) [Ras Shamra - Ougarit IV; Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations Mémoire, 77; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations, 1988], p. 205, n. 18). Sivan notes the alternative v i e w that this form may reflect the *qatala (so also J.C. d e Moor, also cited in Pardee). Yet one w o u l d probably expect *qr'at for the the *qatala form (as in the performative perfect, qr'a, in 1.161.4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 parallel to the performative perfect, qr'itm, with syllable closing ‫׳‬aleph, in 1.161. 2, 9; and possibly qr'an in 1.5 I 23 if it is not an imperative). 127

128

See UT 9.23; Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 175. U n d e r this v i e w the participle is regarded as passive. The debated meaning of the verb, as it applies to the status of El's penis, is irrelevant to the grammatical issue at hand. For discussions, see the following authors. 129 So F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, M A / L o n d o n : Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 23; Sivan, Grammar, p. 175. 130 So J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Second ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), p. 125; W. G. E. Watson, ‫׳‬Aspects of Style in KTU 1.23‫׳‬, SEL 11 (1994), p. 5.

1. ‫׳ *בקש‬to seek‫׳‬ We may return to, and expand upon, the parade example of ‫ *בקש‬in Gen. 37.15-16, cited at the outset of this essay. The older usage with *yiqtöl form occurs in the question ‫ מ ה ת ב ק ש‬in Gen. 37.15. In contrast, the answer in 37.16, ‫אנכי מבקש‬, shows the newer usage with the predicative participle. The older usage can continue in post-exilic BH as in Qoh. 3.15: ‫והאלהים יבקש את נ ר ד ף‬ 'And God seeks the pursued‫׳‬. Post-exilic BH also uses the predicative participle, as in the reworking of Qoh. 3.15 in Ben Sira 5.3 A: ‫כי יהרה מבקש נרדפים‬ ‫׳‬For the Lord seeks the pursued ones' (cf. also Ben Sira 20.4 [B]: ‫ויהוה מבקש מידו‬ 'and the Lord seeks from his hand'). 2. ‫' *עשה‬to do, to make' Pre-exilic BH direct discourse shows the predicative participle of this root in independent usage: ‫וישראל עשה חיל‬ 'but Israel shall do valiantly' (Num. 24.18; cf. NAB); and ‫ואתה עשה אתי ר ע ה‬ 'but you do me wrong ...' (judg. 11.27) (see also Judg. 18.3,18; 1 Sam. 3.11; 2 Kgs 7.2, 19). Quite common is the use of this root as a predicative participle in dependent clauses (Gen. 21.22; 31.12; 39.3 = 23 and 22; 41.25, 28; Exod. 18.14, 17; 34.10; Num. 11.15; Deut. 31.21; Judg. 15.3; 1 Sam. 12.16; 2 Sam. 3.25). Gen. 18.17, cited also above, is illustrative of dependent usage: ‫ה מ כ ס ה אני מאברהם אשר אני עשה‬ "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do ...?" (NJPS). Post-exilic BH texts likewise attest to the usage (Neh. 2.16, 4.11, 6.3). Ben Sira 38.8 (B) provides a further example: ‫וכן רוקח עושה מ ר ק ח ת‬ 'so a pharmacist yrtyares pharmaceuticals'. DSS usage of the predicative participle with ‫ *עשה‬appears in both independent clauses (4Q402 4.13 = MasShirShabb 1.3) and dependent clauses (11QT 48.11 and 51.19).131 131

These 11QT passages echo Ezek. 8.13 and p e r h a p s Deut. 12.8, respectively, according to Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Three vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of J e r u s a l e m / T h e Shrine of the Book, 1983), II, pp. 209, 230.

3 . ‫ • א מ ר‬, to say‫׳‬ Ugaritic uses the *yiqtol form of *rgin in direct discourse to express, 1‫׳‬ say to you‫׳( ׳‬argmk in CAT 1.3 III 21, IV 13, 1.4 I 20). In contrast, BH direct discourse often uses the participle of ‫*אמר‬. For example, ‫ א ת ה א מ ר‬, 'you say' occurs in pre-exilic direct discourse (Exod. 2.14, 33.12; 1 Kgs 18.11, 14; Amos 7.16; cf. plural in Exod. 5.17). Similarly, the third-person predicative participle of this root occurs in the problematic Ps. 29.9c, Obad 3, Micah 6.1 and Ben Sira 37.1 (D), 7 (D); cf. third-person plural examples in Hos 13.2 and Ps. 3.3, 4.7. Notable also is the first-person form in Ps. 45.2,‫אמר אני‬. This form may be taken as present or incipient future. 1 3 2 Post-exilic contexts include BH post-exilic direct discourse (Neh. 5.12, 6.8; 2 Chron 13.8, 28.10,13), DSS direct discourse (4QMMT B55, B64-65, B73) and DSS prescriptive contexts (1QS 1.20, 2.10). 4. ‫׳ *שאל‬to ask‫׳‬ Pre-exilic BH direct discourse uses both *yiqtol (Gen. 32.30) and the participle (2 Sam. 3.13; 1 Kgs 2.16, 20, 22) to express the concurrent time-frame (see also Deut. 10.12). (There are no unambiguously postexilic examples of the predicative participle of this root in the BH corpus.) It may be noted that comparable distributions of the predicative participle in pre- and post- exilic BH can be found in other common verbs, such as ‫׳ *בכה‬to weep' (pre-exilic: Num. 25.6; 2 Sam. 15.23; exilic: Lam 1.16; post-exilic: Ezra 3.12; Neh. 8.9; cf. Job 30.31);‫( *נתן‬preexilic: Josh. 11.6; 1 Sam. 23.4, 5; post-exilic: Neh. 2.12, 12.47, 13.5; cf. Exod. 16.29; Num. 25.12; Deut. 11.26); and ‫׳ *שמע‬to hear‫( ׳‬pre-exilic: Exod. 32.18; Judg. 11.10; 1 Sam. 3.10; 2 Kgs 20.1; post-exilic: Deut. 4.12; cf. Ps. 59.8, 69.34). In these roots and m a n y others discussed by Joosten and Dyk, the BH predicate participle serves as a verb in lieu of the earlier and contemporary *yiqtôl. BH manifests a further type of replacement of *yiqtôl by the predicative participle. In Ugaritic and BH, the predicative participle may be used following particles of existence. BH also shows the eventual loss of the same particles with the predicative participle. To begin, the Ugaritic participle may serve as a predicate of either 'it or 133.»/‫ ׳‬The 132

See J. Hoftijzer, 'Some Remarks on Psalm 45.2', in Give Ear to My Words. Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. van Uelielen (ed. J. Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996), pp. 52-54. My thanks go to Professor Hoftijzer for providing me with a copy of his article. 133 All the examples given in Sivan, Grammar, p. 206, involve nouns except for

corresponding BH usage, noted at the outset of this essay, involves the syntactically analogous particles, ‫ יש‬and 134.‫ אין‬Clearly then this usage predates biblical Hebrew. Ugaritic literature, for example, attests: 'in b'ilin 'nyh, contextually 'no one a m o n g the gods answers him 135 .‫ ׳‬The participle in this instance is governed by the particle 'in. BH continues this usage, as demonstrated by 1 Sam. 14.39: ‫ואין ענהו מ כ ל העם‬, contextually ‫׳‬but no one from any of the people would answer him‫׳‬ (cf. ‫׳ *ואין ענה‬and there is not an answerer', or idiomatically 'with no one to answer‫ ׳‬in Judg. 19.28,1 Kgs 18.26, 29; Isa. 50.2,66.4; Job 32.12). Unlike Ugaritic, 136 BH develops the participle as predicate without such particles. For a fine example of this d e v e l o p m e n t , an example discussed at the outset of this essay may serve as an illustration, namely the C-stem of ‫' *צלח‬to succeed'. In Gen. 24.42 the participle is used with a particle of existence. In contrast, the case of Gen. 39.3 = 23 shows the extension of the use of the participle without a particle of existence. Additionally, the post-exilic verse, Ps. 1.3, reflects the traditional use of *yiqtöl with ‫( *צלח‬C-stem). Gen. 24.42 ‫אם ישך נא מצליח דרכי אשר אנכי ה ל ך עליה‬ 'if you would please cause to succeed my way on which I am going...‫׳‬ (NJPS: ‫״‬if You would indeed grant success to the errand on which I am engaged!") the participle, 'nyli, discussed below. A perusal of the entrees for 'in and 'it in Whitaker's Concordance confirms this point. However, given the fact that the predicative participle's terminations may involve both genders, it m a y be more accurate to speak of a 'substantized' predicate (cf. the use of the participie as a substantive in both g e n d e r s in Ugaritic; for examples, see Sivan, Grammar, p. 121). 134 Ugaritic 'in and BH ]‫ אי‬are etymologically related (UT 19.149). According to J. Blau Ugaritic 'it and BH ‫ יש‬d o not correspond etymologically; instead, Ugaritic 'it corresponds etymologically to Aramaic 'yt (cf. the negative lyt), w h i l e BH ‫ יש‬corresponds to the Arabic negative laysa, and Akkadian iSû, 'to have' (see CAD, I/J, p. 289) and laSSti, ‫׳‬not to be' (see CAD, L, p. 108-10). See J. Blau, ‫׳‬Marginalia Semitica II‫׳‬, /OS 2 (1972), pp. 58-62; also UT 19.418. H o w ever, F. Renfroe, ‫׳‬Methodological Considerations Regarding the Use of Arabic in Ugaritic Philology‫׳‬, UF 18 (1986), pp. 33-74 (36-37 [n. 17]), argues that laisa is probably not directly cognate with ‫ יש‬or išti but entered Arabic (as a loan) from Akkadian (1aSšu). For an important semantic discussion, see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 77-82. 135

CAT 1.16 V 12-13,16,19 (all partially reconstructed) and 22 (with e m e n d a tion of hn to Ί11 as generally accepted). 136 The verbal form in the expression, loank 'ny, in CAT 1.2 I 28 is generally taken as an infinitive absolute.

Gen. 39.3 = 23 ‫ו כ ל אשר הוא עשה יהוה מצליח בידו‬ '... and every thing that he [Joseph] would do, Yahweh would cause success

by his h a n d ‫׳‬

Cf. Ps. 1.3: ‫ו כ ל אשר יעשה יצליח‬ 'And everything that he does (or: that he might do) He causes to succeed (or: He would cause to succeed)‫׳‬. Cf. Ben Sira 41.1 (B and M): ‫ומצליח ב כ ל‬ '(the man who is at ease) and succeeds in all'. Finally, it is to be noted that the predicative participle may replace the *yiqtôl form in at least one dependent usage. Ugaritic uses a nominal sentence with a particle governing *yiqtôl in order to express identification of a person with an action: CAT 1.4 VII 49-50 'ahdy dymlk

Ί ΊΙιη

Ί alone am the one who reigns over gods'. To express the same sort of identification, Biblical Hebrew uses the predicative participle following ‫ ה־‬after the subject. 137 Gen. 2.13 (JM, §154fc, η. 1) ‫הוא הסובב את כ ל ארץ כוש‬ 'It is the one that encircles all the land of Cush' Exod. 6.27 ‫הם המדברים א ל פ ר ע ה‬ 'They are the ones who spoke to Pharaoh ...' Replacement

of* q ä t a l by the predicative

participle

Replacement by the predicative participle applies as well to *qātal. One instance involves a prime verb of mental activity, ‫' 'יידע‬to know'. 1 3 8

137

For a listing of m a n y passages with examples, see the various sections above. 138 p o r a n aspectual approach to the interpretation of this verb in the *qātal form, see Isnksson, Studies, p. 29, 112-17. The same v i e w is held by Dr. M. Eskhult (personal communication).

Third

person

Second

person

First

person

Ugaritic 139 CAT 2.39.14140 yd'in

lyd't

'you do not know' Pre-exilic BH (older usage) Gen. 39.8 Jer 17.16 ‫אדני ל א ידע‬ ‫אחה ידעת‬ 'my master does not know' 1 4 1 ‫׳‬you / you know

1.13.10 ank yd't'

‫׳‬know

1 Sam. 17.55 ‫אם ידעתי‬ ... if I know'.

Pre-exilic BH (newer usage) Gen. 3.5 (cf. Ps. 37.18) ‫כי ידע אלהים‬ ' F o r G o d knows

...‫׳‬

Gen. 33.13 ‫אדני ידע‬ ' M y lord knows

...'

1 Sam. 23.17 ‫ונם שאול אבי ירע כן‬ "and even my father Saul knows this is so" (NJPS) 2 Sam. 12.22 ‫מי יודע‬ ' . . . w h o knows

...'

Post-exilic BH Qoh. 6.12 ‫כי מי יודע‬ 'For w h o knows ...?‫י‬

Jonah 1.12 ‫כי יודע אני‬ ' F o r I know . . . ‫י‬

Esther 4.11 ‫כ ל ע ב ד י ה מ ל ך ועם מדינות ה מ ל ך יודעים‬ 'All the king's servants a n d the people of the king's provinces know / Esther 4.14 139

Cf. CAT 1.3 III 26-27: dl td' Smm//ltd' nSm 'that the h e a v e n s d o not k n o w / / m e n d o not know‫׳‬. The case of CAT 1.10 I 3 is morphologically ambiguous; yd' in this instance could be either a suffix or a prefix indicative form. 140 For another second person *qatala form of this verb, see CAT 1.16 I 33. For CAT 2.39, see D. Pardee, Ά Further Note on PRU V, No. 60', UF13 (1981), pp. 151-56. 141 'Knows‫ ׳‬in the sense of 'gives thought to' (so NJPS). For another third person example, see 1 Kgs 1.11.

1

‫ומי יודע‬ ' . . . a n d w h o knows

...'

Ben Sira 16.21 (A) ‫או אם אכזב ב כ ל סחר מי יודע‬ ' O r , if (I a m ) d e c e p t i v e in e v e r y secret, w h o will know (or, is to know)?'

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 14.20

‫ והוא יודע‬142

4QMMT B38 (?), B46 (?), B68, B80; C7 (?), C8 (?); 11QrsAp a 2.7 ‫אתם יודעים‬

‫ ׳‬a n d h e knows'

4Q200 [4QTob e ] 4.3

' y o u know'

‫אני יודע‬ Ί know'

1QS 6.25143 ‫והואה יודע‬ ‫ ׳‬a n d h e knoivs'

By comparing forms of ‫' *ידע‬to know', it is evident that the predicative participle replaced *cjâtal as a present tense in pre-exilic Hebrew (but not Ugaritic) down through DSS. Another verb denoting verbal activity that shows a comparable pattern of distribution from *qātnl to *qôtcl for the present is ‫' *חשב‬to plan, devise, think'. BH *cjātal (older usage) job 144 35.2:‫הזאת חשבת למשפט‬, 'Do you think it j u s t . . . ? ' Pre-exilic BH *qātēl (newer usage)

Micah 2.3 ‫הנני חשב ע ל המשפחה הזאת ר ע ה‬ "I am planning such a misfortune against this clan" (NJPS) 142

For the rending, see E. Qimron in M. Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusnlem: The Israel Explorntion S o c i e t y / T h e Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992), pp. 36, 37. For η n u m b e r of the forms in this section, see further J.A. Nnudé, 'Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumrnn Hebrew Syntnx' (D.Litt. diss., University of the Free Stnte, South Africa, 1996), p. 61 (reference courtesy of Professor G. A. Rendsburg). 143 See nlso 4Q261 [4QSK] 3.3. 144 I nm not clniming η pre-exilic date for Job, only that the exnmple here would represent η continuation of pre-exilic usnge. The dnte of Job is notoriously difficult to pin d o w n , nlthough commentntors seem to favor generally a post-exilic date.

Jer 18.11145 ‫הנה אנכי יוצר עליכם ר ע ה וחשב ע ל י כ ם מחשבה‬ "I am devising d i s a s t e r f o r y o u a n d laying plans a g a i n s t y o u " (NJPS)

Post-exilic BH usage Neh. 6.6 ‫אתה והיהודים חשבים למרור‬ 'you a n d the Jews are planning to rebel ...' (cf. 6.2:‫והמה חשבים לעשות לי רעה‬ 'and they thought to d o evil to me') Dead Sea Scrolls 4QMMT B2 (?), B8 (?), B29, B36 (?), B37, B42 (? with reversed w o r d order) ‫אנחנו חושבים‬ ' w e think'

The BH distribution of *qātal of this root provides no absolutely clear pre-exilic instance of *qdtal for the present; this older usage appears only in the poetic direct discourse of Job 35.2. Either the extant texts simply lack attestations to clear pre-exilic examples of *qātal of ‫ ייחשב‬in the present, or the rate of change was different for this root. In either case, however, both ‫ *ירע‬and ‫ *חשב‬demonstrate the shift from *qatal to the predicative participle to express the concurrent time-frame. Of further interest in the case of Jer 18.11 is a third verb of mental activity, ‫*יצר‬, that uses the predicative participle for a concurrent time-frame. Two verbs involving emotional activity 146 are ‫' *שנא‬to hate' and ‫*אהב‬ 145

For a similar idiom and usage in a d e p e n d e n t clause, see Jer 26.3 (cf. 36.3, 39.11): ‫ונחמתי אל הרעה אשר אנכי חשב לעשות להם‬ 'and I will renounce the evil that I am planning to d o to them ...'. 146 Emotional and mental activity might be viewed in similar terms insofar as both involve internal personal activity. See the comment m a d e by the American psychologist, G. W. Alport, The Individual and his Religion: A Psychological Interpretation (New York: Macmillan/ London: Collier, 1961), p. 125: " O n e might say that the grammatical part of speech most typical of mental life is the active participle, for at every moment of time the individual is occupied in comprehending, comparing, judging, approving, disapproving, loving, hating, fearing, rejecting, yielding, adoring. The possible modes of intending are numerous, probably more n u m e r o u s than the available store of present participles in our language." To be sure, hate is regarded as much an emotional activity as a mental one; Alport seems to be including actions 'internal' to in-

'to love'. Like the verbs, ‫ * י ד ע‬a n d ‫*חשב‬, these t w o also s h o w a shift f r o m *qâtal ( t h o u g h w i t h * / - t h e m e , o r sere, v o w e l e s p e c i a l l y f o u n d w i t h s t a t i v e v e r b s 1 4 7 ) to t h e p r e d i c a t i v e p a r t i c i p l e in e x p r e s s i n g t h e concurrent time-frame. *ŠN'

*,HB

U g a r i t i c *qatala C A T 1.4 III 17 dm tn dbhm Sn'aUH b'l ' F o r t w o f e a s t s Baal h a t e s ' BH *qâtal A m o s 5.21 ‫שנאתי מ א ס ת י חגיכם‬ '1 h a t e , I s p u r n y o u r f e s t i v a l s ' M a i . 2.16 ‫כ י שנא ש ל ח‬ " F o r I d e t e s t d i v o r c e " (NJFS)

BH *qātēl D e u t . 19.4, 6 1 4 9 (cf. 4.42) ‫ לו‬. . . ‫)והוא( ל א ש נ א‬ ' a n d h e d o e s n o t hate h i m . . . '

G e n . 27.9 ‫ואעשה אתם מטעמים לאביך כאשר אהב‬ ‫ ׳‬A n d I will m a k e t h e m t a s t y f o r y o u r f a t h e r j u s t a s h e likes.' E x o d . 21.5 ‫א ה ב ת י א ת א ד נ י א ת א ש ת י ו א ת בני‬ '1 l o v e m y m a s t e r , m y w i f e a n d m y children'

2 S a m . 13.4 ‫א ת ת מ ר א ח ו ת א ב ש ל ם א ח י אני א ה ב‬ ' T a m a r , t h e sister of A b s a l o m m y b r o t h e r , I love'

Ben Sira *qôtêl

dividuals under his definition of 'mental life.' 147 To be sure, the *«‫־‬theme vowel is more prevalent with the *qâtal of ‫*אהב‬. Yet, this is expected, given the gutturals. The use of the participle for verbs such as these is not restricted to the present. It may be used for the past in narrative as well (see the form in 1 Sam. 18.16). 148 The 'olef in this word reflects the following vowel, hence *qatila and not the participle (*qatilu), which would be Sii'u (cf. the construct plural form, Sn'u lid, ‫׳‬enemies of H a d d u ' , in CAT 1.4 VII 36). 149 As Professor J. Joosten (personal communication) reminds me, it is perhaps wiser to regard the participles in these verses as nominal ('and he w a s not an enemy to him ...'). The point is well-taken, but m a n y translations render the participles predicatively and u n d e r the norm proposed by Dyk (see below), these instances would be predicative. Furthermore, if these participles were nominal, it would be interesting to see a nominal participle governing a prepositional phrase and an adverbial.

12.6 (A) ‫כי גם א ל שונא רעים‬ 'For also God hates the wicked'

34.2 (Β) ‫ומסתיר סור אוהב כנפש‬ 'and whoever hides counsel loves only himself'

34.13 (B) ‫ר ע עין שונא א ל‬ 'God hates an evil eye' Like Ugaritic, BH attests the older usage. Yet BH also shows the innovation of the predicative participle to express the time-frame contemporary with the moment of speech. The replacements evidenced in these many examples show different rates of change with different verbal roots. The replacement begins to appear in pre-exilic BH, but it is incomplete until Mishnaic Hebrew, since with some roots the older *yiqtöl usage may last into the post-exilic period. 150 Indeed, the prevalence of the literary usage of *yiqtöl in both biblical poetry and DSS literary texts as opposed to BH direct discourse and 4QMMT may be the reason why the predicative participle has been underestimated in many treatments of the BH verb. It has been noted that the predicative participle is well-documented in examples of pre-exilic BH direct discourse. Accordingly, it may be proposed that direct discourse and not literary usage was the locus of this innovation. An early first millennium date for the beginning of the replacement might be argued on the basis of the predicative participles in monarchic period poems, specifically Num. 24.18, Ps. 18.51 and 45.2 (all mentioned above). Such a date might be inferred from the predicative participles in pre-exilic BH personal names. 151 In general, this development might be characterized grammatically as an instance of "reanalysis", as Gordon and Dyk call it. 152 Dyk's definition of the "participle reanalysis corollary" applies to the predicative participle as discussed above: "For the participle to be able to undergo reanalysis and function as the main verb, there must be an absence of elements which would force a nominal analysis of

150

Sei J. Kurylowicz, cited in Isaksson, Studies, p. 22: "The ousting of an old form by a n e w o n e is not a momentary event but a process extending over time and space." Isaksson c o m m e n t s further: "It is therefore to be expected that older oppositions will be in force side by side with new ones in the same state of language, although in different contexts." 151 M. Tsevat lists a number of cases in his article, 'Ishbosheth and Congeners: The N a m e s and Their Study', HUCA 34 (1975), p. 82. 152 Gordon, 'Development of the Participle‫׳‬, p. 5; Dyk, Participles in Context, p. 136.

the participle." 153 Clearly, in the many examples presented by Driver, Joosten, and Dyk as well as this study, so many examples of the verbal use of the predicative participle manifest "an absence of elements which would force a nominal analysis of the participle." And indeed, Dyk notes this "reanalysis" in the case of the predicative participle: "The participle analyzed as occurring in the predicate position of a structure having no contra-indications for reanalysis may be taken as reanalysable as the main verb of the clause." 154 It is evident that this "reanalysis" is evident in pre-exilic direct discourse. As a result, the predicative participle, which originally expressed the present no more than a noun, adjective or prepositional phrase in a nominal sentence, 155 came to function as a verb in ways hardly different from verb forms. Like the attributive participle, which may convey a present situation (or what W. R. Garr calls "situational immediacy" 1 5 6 ) or characterization, so too the predicative participle shows 'immediacy' espedally in present and future in direct discourse as well as concurrent descriptions in narrative, but also present characterization ('gnomic present'), for example in wisdom texts. The further issue is the reason for the 'reanalysis', or stated differently, how the rise of the participle for the present time-frame is to be explained, if the *yiqtôl form served this function adequately in early Hebrew. This is a complex question, involving other features of the verbal system. For now, the suggestion of of R. Steiner may be noted. 157 According to Steiner, the loss of final short vowels on early Hebrew *yiqtôl indicative and volitive verbal forms required a new verbal opposition in order to distinguish volitive (present by définition) from indicative present. For Steiner, the *yiqtôl continued to represent the volitive while the participle served to express the indicative present: 'When the need arose, the indicative-volitive distinction could be made clear through the use of the Participle or the new peri153 Dyk, Participles in Context, p. 138. 154

D y k , Participles in Context, p. 162.

155 p o r examples, see the nominal sentences cited above in Sect. Π, under the issue of omission of subject. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W.G.E. Watson; JSOTSup, 86; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), p. 54, discusses the predicative participle in the larger category of nominal sentences. As Dr. Niccacci (personal communication) reminds me, divorcing nominal clauses from consideration in this issue is a methodological issue untreated in Joosten's study, 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew', pp. 128-59, especially p. 128, n. 2. 156 W.R. Garr (personal communication). It is therefore unsurprising to find the predicative participle with either ‫( הנה‬see note 39 above) or demonstrative pronouns. Cf. also Alport's comment cited in n. 144. 157 Steiner, 'Ancient Hebrew Modal System', pp, 257-58.

phrastic construction." 158 Even if a bit sweeping, the theory is attractive. 159 In short, the development of the BH predicative participle to express the present time-frame may be traced to features internal and external to the participle (within the larger verbal system), specifically the verbal character of the participle in nominal clauses ('reanalysed') and the apparent need for a new form in the indicative verbal system to mark a concurrent time-frame. Based on the discussion up to this point, the history of the BH predicative participle may be sketched in the following manner. The participle derived originally from the adjectival/nominal system. 160 The older attributive use of the participle reflects an adjectival usage while the participle used as a substantive matches the form and function of nouns. 161 The participle is also marked with the gender and number of adjectives and nouns. The adjectival character of the participle ineluded verbal semantics and syntax. Perhaps as a result of 'reanalysis' as noted above, the participle became predicative, merging into the verbal system, and assuming some roles previously expressed by the *yiqtöl and *qātal forms. For *yiqtöl these roles were the present in pre158

Steiner, 'Ancient Hebrew Modal System', p, 258. A related issue raised by Professor Huehnergard (personal c o m m u n i c a tion) involves the d e v e l o p m e n t of the predicative participle in Aramaic. Aramaic influence on Hebrew w o u l d likely be confined only to the further d e v e l o p m e n t of the predicative participle in post-exilic Hebrew. A s Sect. II indicates, Aramaic is hardly the source for the predicative participle in pre-exilic Hebrew. Instead, Hebrew and Aramaic seem to evidence a parallel d e v e l o p ment, and it is to be noted, as Professor Huehnergard observes, that o n l y these t w o languages both lose final short v o w e l s and distinguish the imperfeet and jussive by *yaqtulu and *yaqtul, lending support to Steiner's s u g g e s tion. 160 ggg £ j R e v e j ] ‫)\' ׳‬l)cci (Deut. 26:5) and the Function of the Participle in MT', Sefarad 48 (1988), pp. 197-205. 161 For the discussion of the participle in Ugaritic, see above. For early BH attributive participles, see Gen. 49.14, 21, Judg. 5.9; for participial forms substantized as nouns, see Gen. 49.10, 15, 24, Judg. 5.3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 23; for the passive participle used adjectivally, see Judg. 5.27 (cf. ‫' ארור‬cursed' in Gen. 49.7). I am of the view that the bulk of Judges 5 and the sayings in Genesis 49 are pre-monarchic (this position d o e s not preclude the possibility of such dates for other compositions, only that other compositions are not so clearly indicative of such a date). Based on their grammatical features, the rest of 'ancient Yahwistic poetry' s e e m s to predate the prophetic poetic corpus, but such a criterion w o u l d imply a date prior only to the eighth century. For this v i e w as it applies to the dating of the poem in Exodus 15, see M.S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (with contributions by E M. Bloch-Smith; JSOTSup, 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 222-26. 159

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

162 For example, Professor J. Huehnergard (personal communication) rightly raises the issue of the semantic/aspectual relationship between the use of the participle and the use of *yiqtol or *qātal when the participle seems to (begin to) replace the latter two. In other words, what factors govern the choice of a participle rather than another indicative verbal form? It may be that when the g r a m m a r presents such options, the selection then becomes governed by other considerations such as literary style. For this question, see R. J. Ratner, ‫׳‬Morphological Variation in Biblical Hebrew Rhetoric‫׳‬, Maarav 8 (1992) (= Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz. Part //; ed. R. J.

Ratner et al.; Rolling Hills Estates, CA: Western Academic Press, 1992), p p . 143-59 (reference courtesy of Professor G.A. Rendsburg).

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

Robert d e Beaugrande and W o l f g a n g Dressier, Introduction to Text Unguistics (Third ed.; L o n g m a n Linguistic Library, 26; N e w York: L o n g m a n 1986), p.

186.

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

have a different power from, and a range other than, that of the Mishnah. Next, this dissimilarity in addressing-system becomes even more noticeable in the usage of verb forms in the respective texts. In the Qumran documents qatal forms (perfect) and yiqtol forms (imperfect) in the first and second person singular and plural appear to refer to anonymous addressees. In the Mishnah, however, we nearly always find qotel and meqattel forms (participles), denoting unnamed addressees a m o n g the public. As remarked above, the mishnaic addressees generally belong to c o m m o n categories, that is to say 'Israelites, Priests and Levites' or 'women, slaves and young men'. When the names of the rabbis, as addressers, are involved, the accompanying participial forms are, without exception, in the third person singular or plural. Whenever forms of the first and second person singular and plural denoting rabbis occur, they appear, for example, in narrative passages (ina'asim) or in conventionally formulated disputepatterns (mahaloqot). It should be remarked here of course that the Qumran documents certainly do contain participial forms, just as the Mishnah has a lot of yiqtol forms, in both cases referring to acts that have to be performed by addressees. 2 These cases, however, evidently are the exceptions to the rule. Another, seemingly important, aspect of modality concerns a more particular form of the text types under consideration. The form in which the precepts of Qumran have been moulded does not correspond with the prescriptive forms in the Mishnah. For, as may be well known, the Qumranic precepts are almost never further developed through the statement of appropriate circumstances, significant conditions or influential causes. They rarely receive a discursive embedding. 3 In their categorical form the Qumranic ‫ מ ש פ ט י ם‬, ‫ ח ו ק י ם‬, and ‫ מצות‬are completely dissimilar to the ‫ משניות‬of the ‫תורה ש ב ע ל פ ה‬. The precepts of the Mishnah in their turn have an expressly casuistic character and consequently are discursively e m b e d d e d , because, time and again, arguments for and against are given, other 2

For participial forms in the Temple Scroll (ed. Y. Yadin; Volume Three: Plates and Texts; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Institute of Archeology of the Hebrew University of J e r u s a l e m / T h e Shrine of the Book, 1977), see e.g. 34.6,7,8,9,10; 35.10,11; 42.11; in the Miqsat (Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqçat Ma'aseh Ha-Torah, ed. Elisha Q i m r o n a n d John Strugnell in consultation with Y. Sussmann and A.Yardeni; DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), e.g. 4Q394 3-7:1.17; 4Q395 3-7:2.18. 3 There are exceptions, such as, e.g., Damascus Document (The Damascus Document Reconsidered, ed. M. Broshi; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Socie t y / T h e Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992) 1.16ff.; 12.2ff.,15ff.; 13.2ff.; Temple Scroll 54.8ff.,19ff.; 50.5ff.

cases and conditions put forward, objections and approvals added, examples and alternatives advanced. In this manner, the mishnaic discourse progresses step by step; the procedure of decision can be pursued in principle and in practice always leads to conclusive halakhic statements. More often than not this conspicuous textual method finds its concrete expression in what generally is called the ‫ מ ח ל ק ת‬, the particular rabbinic expression of conflict (e.g. m. Avot 5.17; m. Pesahim 4.1). This contrasting of opinions appears to be an approved textual pattern, whether leading to a conclusive statement or functioning as a device to keep traditional learning alive or at hand. This type of diversified discursive text-form, the ‫ מ ח ל ק ת‬, either functioning as a means of halakhic decision-making or as a didactic exercise in tradition is not readily found in the Qumranic documents. Finally, in the framework of discursive embedding, the mishnaic text contains another distinctive feature. Without doubt the Mishnah is the only original and integrated halakhic corpus of rabbinic literature. From this point of view the mishnaic corpus is the ‫תורה ש ב ע ל פ ה‬, par excellence, consisting of 4178 mishnayot, which in most cases function as decisive statements or as obligatory rulings. However, notwithstanding this dominating regulatory character and its tendency to make socio-religious law, the Mishnah brims over with questions mostly introduced by interrogative pronouns. 4 The first mishnah of the first seder (m. Berakhot 1.1) starts with the interrogative ‫ מאמתי‬and the last but one mishnah of the last seder (m. Uqsin 3.12) has the same interrogative. As a rule the interrogatives in the Mishnah aim at set times, destinations, and persons. They appear to be typical 'wh-questions', concerning times when, places where and persons who. They, therefore, do not allow short-cut answers, either 'yes' or 'no'. On the contrary, they ask for further information, always in connection with or geared towards the procedure of halakhic decision. Well then, such information-seeking questions are completely foreign to the Qumran documents. Some concluding remarks may suffice here. 5 Both texts that so far have been compared with each other, the Qumran documents under consideration and the Mishnah, do contain prescriptive text types. However, the forms in which the respective texts are formulated differ to a considerable extent. In contrast to the categorical Qumranic 4

See the writer's 'Questioning and Deixis in Mishnah Chagigah', in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D; Vol.1: The Hebrew Language. Jewish Languages (ed. David Assaf; Jerusalem: World U n i o n of Jewish Studies 1990), p. 25-29. 5 For more details, see m y ‫׳‬Halakhah at Qumran?', RQ 18 (1997), pp. 243-53.

precepts stands the general discursive embedding in the Mishnah. The particular devices of this mishnaic embedding make a regular and distinctive contribution to what can be called halakhic procedure. The mishnaic halakhic procedure is in the form of argumentation, to w h i c h questioning and a n s w e r i n g , d i s p u t i n g and consenting, alternating and referring make a distinct rhetorical contribution. This is not the case in the Qumran documents with their predominant unconditional rulings. In terms of textual resemblance or conformity they seem to be more comparable with prescriptive text types whether or not found in other corpora.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE CONTRASTED WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE BEN SIRA MANUSCRIPTS AND OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Jan-Wim Wesselius (Amsterdam) Recently, there have been some heated discussions among specialists in the field of the Hebrew Bible about the date of composition of many of the books of which it is constituted, with—I hope to be permitted this simplification—conservative or not-so-conservative scholars entertaining the traditional notion that much of it was written, sometimes in a completely different form, when Solomon's temple was still standing, with a process of addition and redaction of the texts d u r i n g and shortly after the Babylonian Captivity completing most of the series of books as we now have them in the Hebrew canon. 1 Against this, a number of critical scholars have stated in some form that the entire Hebrew Bible was written at most within a 'relatively short period of time', 2 to provide Judaism of Persian or Hellenistic times with a literary, historical and religious heritage. 3 Though the statements of the latter group are sometimes extreme, they have the undiminished merit of focusing our attention on the uncertainties surrounding the origin of much of the Hebrew Bible and consequently also the d e v e l o p m e n t of the H e b r e w language in this period. Linguists have on some occasions dealt rather harshly with the

1

Thus, for example, also the w e l l - k n o w n surveys of the history of the Hebrew language, E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem / L e i d e n , 1982); A. Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge, 1993). 2 F.H. Cryer 'The Problem of Dating Biblical H e b r e w and the H e b r e w of Daniel', in: K. Jeppesen et al. (eds.), In the Last Days. On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period [Festschrift B. Otzen] (Aarhus, 1994), pp. 185-98 (192). 3 S o m e important publications: P.R. D a v i e s , In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Sheffield, 1992); N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites (Sheffield, 1991); 'The Old Testament; a Hellenistic book?', SJOT 7 (1993), pp. 163-93. N o t e also I. Provan, 'Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 585606; T.L. Thompson, Ά Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?', ibid., pp. 683-98; P R. Davies, 'Method and Madness: S o m e Remarks on Doing History with the Bible', ibid., pp. 699-705.

the publications of these scholars, 4 and while their criticism is on the whole not incorrect, there seems to be some room for attempting to do justice to the critical approach while avoiding the linguistic pitfalls. We will discuss this problem against the background of the thesis, which I have set forth elsewhere, that there was a more or less unitary Jewish literary tradition in the Second Temple period, which remained fairly constant in spite of changes in literary and religious taste in this period, part and parcel of which was that books were composed as a whole, based on the structure recognized in works that the author for some reason deemed to be worthy examples for his own work. It would seem that at least part of the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially works with pronounced historical aspects such as Primary History (the series of historical books Genesis until and ineluding 2 Kings), Ezra and Daniel, originated in this tradition; for others this is likely, though it has not yet been demonstrated. 5 The most sensational of these derivations, very important for the study of history and language of the Hebrew Bible, is provided by the realization that the treatment of the theme of Exodus and Conquest as found in Primary History appears to be derived from the Histories of the Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 6 suddenly providing us with a clear terminus post quern f o r t h e w r i t i n g of P r i m a r y H i s t o r y ( t h e p u b l i -

cation of Herodotus' work ca. 445 BCE or a little later) and with a likely terminus ante quern ( t h e e n j o i n m e n t to t h e J e w s of E l e p h a n t i n e to 4

See, for example, A. H u r v i t z ' s reaction to Davies's Ancient Israel, ‫׳‬The Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47(1997), p p . 301-315, as well as the retort of M. Ehrensvärd, O n c e Again: the Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew‫׳‬, S/OT 11 (1997), pp. 29-40, to the article by F.H. Cryer, ‫׳‬The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew‫׳‬. Cf. also A.J.C. Verheij, ‫׳‬Early? Late?: a Reply to F.H. Cryer‫׳‬, S/OT 11 (1997), pp. 41-43. 5 See, for the time being, my article ‫׳‬Analysis, imitation a n d emulation of classical texts in the Hebrew Bible‫׳‬, Dutch Studies-NELL 3(1996), pp. 43-68. 6 There is much more to this dependence, to be discussed in my m o n o g r a p h , The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus'

Histories as Blueprint for the First

Books of the Bible, which I hope to see in print scion, but here it must suffice that it is, in fact, remarkable that the parallel has apparently never d r a w n attention, as it can only be said to be very striking: in one work a campaign by an army of millions setting out from Lydia to conquer Greece across King Xerxes' bridges of boats over the Hellespont, the w a t e r w a y between Asia and Europe, in the other work a nation of millions leaving Egypt to conquer the Promised Land through the Red Sea near the border of Africa and Asia, a story told in the last three books of nine in H e r o d o t u s ' work and in n u m b e r s two through six of the originally also nine books of Primary History, with later Israelite history relegated to the last three books. See also my 'Analysis, imitation and emulation'.

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

7

The latest s u r v e y of this e p i s o d e is P. Schäfer, Judeophobia. Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, M A / L o n d o n , 1997), pp. 124-28. 8 See m y article ‫׳‬Irregularity, C o n g r u e n c e and the M a k i n g of the H e b r e w Bible' (to appear). 9 Contrast, for example, in his article ‫׳‬Canon' in the Anchor Bible Dictionary(6 vols.; N e w York, 1992), J.A. Sanders's conviction that the c a n o n constitutes a tangible w h o l e with his statement: ‫׳‬Modern critical s t u d y has s h o w n that the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs in G e n e s i s stem from v a r i o u s ancient s o u r c e s . . . ‫( י‬Vol. 1,844, §1).

many others, 10 is closely related to the type of Hebrew that we find in inscriptions of various kinds from the kingdom of Judah. There are some differences of vocabulary and especially of spelling, but on the whole SBH must be the continuation of the southern linguistic tradition. This observation, strangely enough, leads some to think that large parts of this literature were written in the time when SBH was the official language of the kingdom of Judah, and others to state as their opinion that SBH is an antiquarian imitation of the language of the southern kingdom, 11 whether or not it is considered as the spoken language of the time. I would say that it may be better to pronounce a non liquet about this problem straightaway. Even without the considerations about the date of Primary History as presented above, the mere fact that we cannot make a linguistic distinction between the supposedly pre-exilic parts of Primary History and its post-exilic parts or the signs of redactional activity of the post-exilic period means that we simply cannot assign Primary History a precise time in the development of the Hebrew language on purely linguistic grounds (apart from the fact that it must be earlier than works that reflect its Unguistic forms), because from this simple fact it appears that this type of Hebrew was still written very well after the period when political circumstances caused its rise and flourishing, so well indeed that no one has yet been able to formulate criteria that distinguish it from preexilic SBH. 12 It is clear that the Hebrew of Primary History largely continues the literary Hebrew of the time of the monarchies, but we simply lack the linguistic tools to date the work, or parts of it, to 700 BCE, 550 BCE or 400 BCE, not to mention even more extreme dating by some scholars. We must rely on non-linguistic criteria here, and they make it very probable that a large part of the work was written in the fifth century, while not excluding the possibility that parts of it may go back to much older texts. The relationship of this type of Hebrew with the spoken Hebrew of, let us say, Jerusalem before or after the Captivity will probably never become entirely clear. It seems very likely that the process of relatively regular growth of the canonical Scriptures as outlined above has also exerted consid10

For example in the books by Kutscher and Sàenz-Badillos mentioned in note 1. 11 See, for example, E.A. Knauf, 'War "Biblisch-Hebräisch" eine Sprache? Empirische Geschichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherungan die Sprache der althebräische Literatur‫׳‬, Ζ AH 3 (1990), pp. 11-23. 12

Even R. Polzin's p e n e t r a t i n g s t u d y Late Biblical Hebrew. Toward an Historical

Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, 1976), in spite of its m a n y useful observations, does not give a simple list of criteria that would enable one to determine whether, in the terms of the book, a given chapter or passage is 'Ρ‫׳‬ or 'non-P'.

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

See e s p e c i a l l y J. Barr, The Variable Spellings

in the Hebrew Bible ( O x f o r d ,

1989). 14

Against S. Ôlafsson, 'Late Biblical Hebrew. Fact or Fiction?', in Z.J. Kapera

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

tail by A. Hurvitz. 1 5 Of course it is possible that the authors of books such as Nehemiah, Ezra, Chronicles, Daniel and Ben Sira all let their spoken language, where ‫ ע מ ד‬was probably indeed used both for 'to stand' and for 'to rise‫׳‬, influence what they wrote, though the distinction of the two verbs in SBH is quite straightforward, so that w e would hardly expect such a universal shift if it depended on the individual choice of the authors. Therefore it seems somewhat more likely that one of these books (in view of what is stated below, most likely Nehemiah) provided the precedent of using ‫ ע מ ד‬for 'to rise', with the result that the others felt that it would be legitimate to write what was anyway sounding more natural to them. Such processes may play a far greater role than would appear at first sight, with the result that no proof for the absence of a certain feature in the spoken language can be derived from negative evidence. Thus the distinction between ‫ע ץ‬ 'wood' and ‫' אילן‬tree', which is found in Rabbinic Hebrew, as against the use in the Hebrew Bible of ‫ עץ‬for both, may well have been in effeet already at the time the late biblical books were composed, but failed to be expressed in writing due to the absence of a precedent. Still, this does not explain how the influx of elements of the spoken language in SBH started, for one can hardly imagine highly capable authors like those of the later books of the Hebrew Bible not being able to keep to the linguistic forms of Primary History, had they decided to do so. With some hesitation I would like to present the possibility that the tension between SBH, which after all was at least three centuries old by the time of writing of Primary History, and the spoken dialects of Hebrew was already effective in the late fifth and early fourth century BCE, and that one or more books with linguistic influence from spoken Hebrew were added to the canon at a very early date, perhaps with the intention of contrasting them with Primary History, so that a difference of language would be fully functional. I would say that the book of Nehemiah, which after all is the only one of the entire Hebrew Bible to tell us when (the first part of) Primary History was first recited and generally accepted (in chs. 8-9), is a very good candidate for this position. Such a book, whether it is Nehemiah or some other work, would henceforth legitimize the use of non-SBH (ed.), Intertestamental Essays in Honour of JázefTadeusz M/7ifc(Krak0w, 1992), pp. 135-47. 15 A. Hurvitz, 'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link b e t w e e n Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in T. Muraoka and J.F. E l w o l d e (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995 (Leiden, 1997), pp. 72-86 (78-83). N o t e that, because Hurvitz studied only part of the semantic range of this verb, the o n e clear occurrence of ‫' עמד‬to rise' in N e h e m i a h (8.5) is not mentioned.

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

INDEX O F TEXTS Bible Genesis 1.6 199 2.13 324 3.1 138 3.20 182 3.20f. 7 , 2 0 3.5 192,325 4.2ff. 291 4.13 14 6.5 89 6.18 268 7.3 103 8.21 89 9.4 138 9.11 267, 271 9.12ff. 267 11.6 177 13.7 294 14.10 69 14.12 294 14.13 68f., 294 15.2 227 15.12 295 15.18ff. 291 17.7 268 17.9ff. 272 17.11 267 17.13 271 17.14 265 17.19 268f. 17.23ff. 272 18.1 294 18.8 294 18.9 303 18.16 295 18.17 299, 321 19.32 103 20.17 14 22.1 ff. 272 23.8 229 24.13 297

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

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

23.3 169 23.9 211 24.5 8 26.24 251 26.30 290 27.8 290 28.2 6 28.28 7 28.37 7 28.40 6 29.33f. 138 32.4 97 32.11 232 32.16 97 32.28 153 33.11 149 33.22 79 34.3 236 37.19 290 38 8 , 2 0 39.21 7 39.31 7 40.23 89 Leviticus 5.2 218 6.26 169 7.15 214 8.26 214 9.22 208 11.24ff. 216 12.3 272 14.4 89 14.6 89 14.8 218 14.49 89 14.51f. 89 16.19 85 16.30 1 6 , 8 5 19.3 186 19.5 214 19.14 144 19.15 169f. 19.19 219 19.29 220 19.31 144

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

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

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

20.8 269 20.14 260 20.15 260, 265 20.17 260 23.1 297 23.17 325 23.20 155 24.22 262 26.19 287 30.3 290 30.16 290, 304 31.1 293 2 Samuel 1.18 293 7.15 257 8.10 174 11.25 264 12.22 325 12.23 300 13.4 328 14 .13 90 14.19 155 15.13 68, 70 15.28 299 16.3 302 16.11 297 17.12 149 18.12 300 18.22 300 18.24 293 19.2 298 20.1 231 23.4 226 24.3 300 1 Kings 2.2 283 2.20 280 3.6 258 5.22 164 8.9 265 8.13 12 8.21 265 8.39 12 8.43 12 9.11 155 11.2 134, 139

11.41 305 12.16 231 14.14 251 17.14 89 17.20 107 18.5 272 18.21 283 20.36 73 22.3 174 2 Kings 2.9 154f. 4.13 155 7.8 109 9.22 80 10.4 161 10.21 101 17.29f. 199 21.16 101 Isaiah 1.4 102 1.7 82 1.16 108 3.4 248 4.5 13,21 5.8 236 5.9 93 5.29 235 6.3 15,21 8.1 9 2 , 9 7 8.13 186 9.1 92 9.4 28 9.6 260 10.12 4 10.32 181 11.9 149 12.6 92 13.8 7 13.11 82 13.19 4 14.2 199 14.22 262 14.23 111 16.4 236 16.5 259f. 17.11 105 19.6 82 20.5 4 26.10 235

27.1 93 27.6 94f. 27.13 92 28.2 104 28.15 265 28.21 82 29.6 92 29.20 236 29.23 186 30.6 150 30.8 258 30.12 8 6 , 9 3 30.20 199 30.30 104 34.6 92 34.9 99 35.8 101 35.9 101 36.4 92 36.13 92 36.18 230 38.3 92 40.20 259 40.29 227 41.12 81 41.24 151 42.22 235 44.13 5 , 8 , 181,251 44.18 86 48.19 262, 265 50.10 86 52.1 101 54.7 93 54.10 257 54.12 11 54.14 260 54.15 97 55.3 260 55.10 150 55.11 182 56.2 263 56.4f. 262f. 56.12 92 57.1 235 59.2 199 59.5 85, 150f. 59.17 244, 250 60.21 11 61.3 11

62.3 7 63.7 91 63.14 16 65.2 104 Jeremiah 2.3 219 2.34 95 7.11 101 7.19 86 9.23 258 11.8 269 12.4f. 162 15.5 174f. 16.5 260 16.5ff. 134 17.4 154 17.16 325 17.21 135 17.27 135 18.11 327 18.22 101 20.13 95 23.19 106 23.20 88 23.28 152 23.38 143 25.6 144 25.31 40 26.3 327 29.7 175 30.24 88 31.36 103 32.19 92 33.8 85 33.21 265 34.10 269 34.18 271 38.6 103 38.19 230 38.22 103 46.6 236 49.3 105 49.12 229 50.30 81 51.12 177 51.51 103

14.4-5 102 16.8 269 16.22 200 16.29 267 18.10 101 19.10 200 20.37 269 22.6 155 23.12 251 24.13 85 27.10 81 27.24 251 27.27 81 31.12 82 36.25 85 36.33 85 Hosea 2.16 299 2.25 303 3.5 186 4.1 40 4.4 139 4.15 134 5.13 85 6.4 149 7.4 291 7.6 284 9.7 291 9.15 291 10.12 80, 258 10.13 28 12.1 291 12.2 265 13.15 251 Amos 5.5 144 5.21 328 6.10 136 7.8 283 8.2 283 Obadiah 9 265

Ezekiel 7.22 101 13.1 Off. 100

Jonah

Malachi

1.12 325 1.15 83 4.2 79 4.8 83

1.11f. 212 1.7 310 2.12 265 2.16 328 3.16 97 3.18 99f. 3.2 106 3.3 102

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

92 135 101 84

Habakkuk 1.4 161 2.6 225 3.10 104 Zephaniah 1.4 262 2.2 93 3.5 161 Haggai 2.4 272 Zechariah 1.6 177 2.7 308 5.7 308 9.6 85 9.9 306 9.12 310 9.16 304 10.1 288 10.5 288 13.2 262 13.5 288 13.8 154

Psalms 1.3 285, 323f. 2.4 178 7.3 95 8 10 8.5 96 10.2 88 12.7 108 15.2 9 15.5 107 17.4 101 18.5 106 18.51 329 19.2 317 21.12 88 32.9 227 33.5 258 33.22 257 35.25 143 36.1 258 36.5 104 36.8 257 37.10 111 37.12 90 40.3 111 40.11 f. 257f. 44.16 86 45.2 322, 329 49.7ff. 176 f. 51.4 85 54.5 82 68.36 251 69.8 86 72.13 95 72.19 16 76.8 135 77.9 236 77.20 111 80.10 95

82.3 95 83.17 86 85.11 259 86.14 82 88.12 257 89.3 257 89.14 164 89.15 257, 259 89.30 275 90.2 94 92.12ff. 11 93.1 259 95.10 80 96.10 259 97.7 210 102.29 103 103.17 258 104.5 259 105.2 98 109.21 262 117.2 257 118 119 118.6 231 P s 1 1 9 160 119.41 257 119.53 87, 103 119.76 257 122.2 200 122.6 175 132 17 138.1 262 140.3 97 140.6 101 141.10 80 142.4 101 144.3 96 145.7 91 145.8 92 147.5 226 148.3ff. 140 Job 1.18 80 5.3 95 5.6 101 7.17 96 7.19 79 12.24 226 15.11 251 15.14 96

15.17 78 15.20 106 15.32 234 18.9 101 20.16 150 21.2 251 21.8 103 23.10 102 28.14 226 30.26 100 31.1 232 32.13 230 35.2 326 36.18 230 37.9 85 37.12 251 38.6 103 38.32 85 39.22 177f. 40.28 265 Proverbs 1.5 251 1.8 127f. 1.10 127 2.1 127 2.12 251 3.1 127 3.3 257, 260 3.5 8 6 , 9 3 3.11 127, 139 3.25 236 3.28 143 4.1 127f. 4.9 7 4.10 127f. 4.14 134 4.20 127 5.1 127f. 5.7 127 5.23 234 6.1 127 6.3 127 7.1 127 7.24 127 8.5 127 8.25 9 4 , 1 0 3 8.32 127 9.6 127 10.31 248 11.14 251

12.3 259 12.5 251 12.9 178 12.21f. 183 16.12 260 16.29 104 16.31 7 17.3 102 18.14 106 19.10 167 19.19 92 19.27 127 20.9 85 20.18 251 20.28 257 21.7 110 21.21 258 22.24 125, 139 23.7 235 23.10 135 23.15 127 23.26 127 24.6 251 24.13 127 24.14 272 24.21 127, 139 24.23 235 26.18 84 26.20 235 27.11 127 27.21 102 31.4 229 31.17 164 31.25 178 Song of Stings 1.6 284 1.7 2 3 3 , 2 8 4 1.13 210 2.8f. 284 5.2 284 5.5 284 5.12 284 5.13 210 7.8 284 8.4 232 8.13 284

Ecclesiastes 1.4ff. 310 1.10 78 3.14 135, 227 3.15 321 6.10 262 6.12 325 7.17 234 7.27 78 7.29 78 8.9 78 9.5 287 Lamentations 2.7 82 2.16 177 3.17 82 3.21 82 Esther 1.7 306 1.9 98 2.9 207 2.11 307 2.19f. 307f. 2.23 70 3.2 307 3.3 309 3.8 309 3.14 308 4.2 1 3 4 , 2 2 7 4.3 305 4.11 309, 325 4.14 309, 325 4.16 234 5.1 306 5.14 70 6.4 70 6.5 309 7.8 306 7.9 309 7.10 70 8.7 70 8.16 8 8.17 305, 307

9.3 307 9.13 70 9.19 281, 308 9.20ff. 148 9.24 90 9.25 70 9.28 310 10.2 305 10.3 281

9.8 265, 272 10.1 272 10.32 153f. 10.34 89 12.31 251 13.14 156 13.18 212 13.22 156 13.29 156 13.30 85 13.31 156

Daniel 1 Chronicles 1.10 233 2.9 107 2.10 15 2.34 234 5.19 104 6.16 137, 228 6.27 104 8.5 224 8.27 224 9.7 86 9.13 264 11.4 157f. 11.14 101 12.13 165 Ezra 3.3f. 287 3.12 307 4.2 308 6.8 136f. 7.23 233 9.15 135 10.6 310 Nehemiah 1.4 199 2.4 280 3.15 190 5.18 199 5.19 156 6.6 327 6.14 156 7.3 79f. 8.5 334 8.10 227 9.5 16 9.7 272

2.30 226 2.32 226 3.5 147 5.1 136 9.32 89 15.2 136f., 230 1C 16.9 98 16.30 259 20.8 147 21.17 136 22.4 237 23.26 135f. 23.29 89 28.9 8 2 , 8 9 29.5 153 29.13 16 29.18 89 2 Chronicles 2.15 164 5.10 265 6.2 12 6.30 12 6.32 12 6.39 12 11.14 82 13.9 153 13.11 89 14.10 227f. 19.7 169f. 20.6 135, 228 20.25 237 23.3 265 25.24 251 26.16ff. 208 26.18 207,

215 29.19 82 32.21 86 34.3 85 35.21 81 Ben Sira 1.10 124 1.15 124 3.1 124 3.5 124 3.6 121 3.6f. 185 3.8 125f.,

128

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

4.27 122 4.28 119f., 130 5.1 9 3 , 1 5 5 5.2 56 5.3 321 5.4 231 5.5 59, 122, 130 5.7 56 5.8 59 5.10 130 5.11 119, 121,130, 199 5.12 225 5.14f. 122ff. 6.5f. 173ff. 6.8 236 6.13 62,119, 121 6.15 227 6.21 56 6.22 225 6.26 184,

186

6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.35

53 7 7,11 17 127 119,

121

6.37 120,

186 7.1 236 7.3ff. 130 7.10 122f., 131 7.17 120, 131 7.21 53 7.24 62 7.26 123 7.27ff. 184ff. 7.29 120f.,

186

7.30 120, 125 7.31 ff. 119f. 8.1 233 8.1 ff. 131 8.3 122

8.8 120 8.9 57 8.15 122f. 8.15ff. 131 8.16 122f., 235 8.17ff. 122ff. 9.1 ff. 131, 144 9.3 122 9.3ff. 131 9.4f. 122 9.8 225 9.9 122f. 9.13 125, 236 9.14 120f. 9.16 9 10.1 312 10.6 122ff. 10.9 232 10.13 167

10.16 111 10.22 9, 95 10.23 144, 227, 238 10.24f. 53 10.27 178 10.28 126,

128

10.29 126 10.31 161 f., 312 11.4 10,122 11.5 235 11.6 120 11.7 122 11.8 11.8 123, 126f. 11.9 82,107, 123f., 235, 238 11.10 126f., 232 11.12 100, 178

11.20 126 11.27 11.29 228 11.30 11.33 233

123 225, 312 125,

11.34 60,

120

12.1 60 12.2 119, 250 12.5 123, 154,160f., 233 12.6 329 12.12 233 12.15 106 13.2 232 13.6 312 13.8 62 13.9 120 13.11 59 13.12 313 13.13 60f. 13.17 232 13.22 225 14.3 166f. 14.4 163 14.6 229, 250 14.10 166 14.11 126f., 155 14.12 226 14.13 120f. 14.14 123f. 14.16 144, 228 14.18 149 15.12 230 15.13ff. 182 f., 187 15.14 6 0 , 8 8 15.16 120 15.20 225 16.If. 163 16.3 5 9 , 1 2 2 16.13 236 16.16 161 16.21 326 16.24 57, 120f. 18.32 154 18.33 225 19.1 107 20.4 149, 321 20.6 227 20.16 121

20.18 121 20.22 171 23.4 1 72f. 23.9f. 124 24 3 , 7 , 1 1 24.17 124 24.21 124 24.23 9 25.6 124 25.9 121, 124 25.18 234 27.10 124 27.13 121 30.8 124 30.12 233 30.19 223, 232 30.20 149 30.23 120 30.24 234 30.27 126f. 30.31 [33.23] 120 31[34].2 329 31[34].7 9 31 [34], 10 9f. 31[34].12 126f. 31[34].13 161,179, 329 31[34].14 123 31[34].15 120f. 31[34].16 125 31[34].18 123 31[34].22 80,120, 126,128 31[34].2432[35].7 54 31[34].25 123 31[34].27 161 32[35].1ff. 263 32[35].3 126

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

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

40.27 13 40.28 89, 126,166 40.29 229 41.1 324 41.Iff. 261 ff. 41.2 227, 236, 238 41.4 232 41.10 236 41.11 237, 261, 277 41.14 121, 127 41.15 109 41.16 53, 167f., 225 41.19 160f. 41.21 173f. 41.22 107 42.1 167, 170f. 42.1ff. 168 42.2 123f. 42.5 161 42.8 6 0 , 6 1 , 162 42.9f. 230 42.10 230f., 239 42.11 126, 128 42.12 123f. 42.16 15 42.17 1 4 , 1 9 42.19 162 43.3 105 43.5 161 43.9 84 43.12 12 43.13 82, 84, 161 43.17 64 43.25 164 43.26 182 44.1 2 44.2 1 3 , 9 2 44.7 6 44.8 86 44.12 267 44.13 13 44.17f. 264ff.

44.19 13, 268 44.20 63, 273 44.20f. 268ff. 44.21 236 44.23 5 , 1 2 45 11 45.3 19 45.4 5 45.6f. 19ff. 45.8 6f., 10, 13,18 45.10 7 45.11 11 45.12 7 , 1 3 , 16,18 45.16 5 , 1 0 45.17 267 45.20 1 3 , 1 9 45.25 14, 18f., 21 46.19 175 47.2 149 47.4 4 47.8 13,17, 312f. 47.20 13 48.4 10 48.8 250 48.9 64 48.12 154f., 164 48.14 164 48.17f. 181 f. 48.25 162 49.2 162 49.5 13, 20 49.6 11 49.12 13 49.14 4 49.14ff. 179ff. 49.15 4, 6, 9 49.16 4ff., 8ff., 20 50.1 6 , 9 50.4 60 50.5ff. 8 50.7 7 , 1 1 , 149 50.10 149

50.11 6f.,13, 17 50.12 11 50.13ff. 14f. 50.20 10f. 50.22 120 50.23 277 50.24 3 , 1 5 3 , 269,274ff. 50.25 224 51.4 237 51.7 225 51.8 99 51.12 119, 244 51.13 94 51.18 177 51.25 234 51.26 120 51.30 1 20f. Tobit 3.6 39 11.11 36 13.1 35 Jubilees (5) 3.27 8 23.21 162 36.10 83 Ethiopie Enoch 14.20 17 25.3 17 36.4 17 102.3 17 Dead Sea Scrolls lQIsa3 9.8 92 10.12 92 16.14 165 29.5 82 29.9 105 38.17 185 54.15 97

IQpHab 3.4f. 37, 80 3.12 83 10.9 36 11.12 36 1QApCen 22.1 69 22.33 227 1QH a (15, 77ff.) 1.2 92 1.6 107 1.7 94 1.10f. 93 1.11 84 1.12 83 1.19f. 93 1.24 97f., 101 1.26f. 45 1.28 93 1.32 92f. 2:1.9 92 2.5 194 2.10 193 2.22 29 2.23 28f.,96 2.27 8 5 , 1 0 4 2.28 150 2.29 101 2.32 95 2.33 28 2.34 95 3.3 96 3.4 109 3.8 101f. 3.12 40,150 3.13 193 3.15 109f. 3.17 106, 150 3.18 150 3.21 85 3.24 79 3.25 95, 110 3.27 106 3.31 40,99, 102

3.32 193 4.8 80 4.9 90 4.10 8 8 , 9 0 , 108 4.13 86, 93 4.13f. 88 4.14 3 9 , 9 5 4.18f. 102 4[12).20f. 226 4.22 37 4.23 79, 86, 100,102 4.24 194 4.26 90, 98, 101 4.29 95f., 101 4.29f. 41 4.30f. 31 f. 4.33 103 4.34 109 4.34ff. 97, 101 4.36f. 86 5.4 27 5.6 88 5.10 96 5.13f. 95 5.16 102, 108 5.18 95 5.21f. 110f. 5.26 88 5.30 8 7 , 1 0 3 5.35 86 5[13].37 237 6.3 84f. 6.8 8 5 , 1 0 8 6.8f. 38 6.20f. 101f. 6.21 107 6.22 89 6.23 83 6.25 194 6.27 103, 105 6[14].28 237 6.29 81 6.35 80f. 7:2.10 96 7.2 103,111

7.4 83 7.7 81 7.9 104f. 7[15].11 226 7.12 96, 100f.,110 7.17 96 7.25 42 7.30 92 7.32 87 7.32f. 92 8.6f. 94 8.9 105 8.30 108 8.31 9 6 , 1 0 6 8.32 109 8.33 96 8.34 140 8.35 84 8.37 84 9.1 96 9.3 107 9.4 37 9.5 106 9.7 82 9.8 105 9.9 96 9.11 82, 84f. 9.13 105 9.16 96 9.18 193 9.20 8 6 , 9 0 , 98,101 9.22 86 9.30f. 37 9.32 152 9.33f. 30 10.4 28 10.5 89 10.9 87 10[18].10f. 14 10.16 91ff. 10.17 86 10.23 96 10.32 37 10.33 103 11.5 9 8 , 1 0 2 11.7 9 2 , 1 0 5 11.7f. 31 11.8 45 11.9 3 7 , 4 5 11.10 85

11.11 109 11.17f. 29 11.23 99 11.29ff. 91 ff. 12.5 92 12.9 31 12.10 87 12.21 100, 102 12[ 20],30 228 12.30f. 139 12.35 107 13.11 94 13.16 96 13.17 92 14.2 100 14.9 100 14.12 99, 102 14.14 100 14.16 1(X) 14.17 92 14.18 100 14.23 92f. 15.7 92 15.12 96 15.13 32, 194 15.14 94 15.17 96 15.18 104 15.19 92 15.20f. 92 15.21 96 15.22 31 16.9 28 16.12 91ff. 17.14 103 17.20 29 17.25 96 18.14 95 18.18 78 18.21 96 18.23 96 18.26 78ff. 19.2f. 96 30.2 105 1QM 1.8 92 1.10 81

1.11 316 1.12 81 2.1 198f. 2.2 199 2.9 35 2.10 3 5 , 8 1 3.11 81 4.2ff. 30f. 4.8 92 4.12 81 5.3f. 38 5.6f. 29 5.8 36 5.1 Off. 38 6.2f. 84 6.10f. 38 7.4 41 7.6 40 7.11 38 7.14 27 7.14f. 38 8.4f. 30 9.1 194 9.5 81 9.14 38 10.1 42 10.3 81 10.4 316 11.1 29 11.4 28 11.10 31 12.1 40 12.2 36 12.3 97 12.7 42 12.8f. 3 7 , 3 9 12.10 104 12.12 163 12.12f. 39 13.5f. 37 13.7 42 13.10 39 13.12 27 13.13f. 28 14.17 92 15.1 81 15.1f. 45 15.9f. 27 15.12 81 16.9 8 1 , 3 1 4 16.14 81 17.2 212 17.4 212

17.5 31 17.7 40 17.8 212 17.15 81 18.13 27 19.2 104 1QS 1.6 9 0 , 2 3 0 1.7 193f. 1.8 1 0 9 , 1 9 3 1.12 184 1.13 228 1.13ff. 137 1.16 190 1.18 196 1.20 316 1.22 99 2.1 190 2.7 237 2.10 316 2.19 198 2.25 193f. 3.2 28 3.2f. 40 3.4 108 3.15 3 1 , 9 4 3.16 228 3.16f. 31 3.19 44 3.20 4 , 4 5 , 181 3.22f. 35f. 4.4 86 4.6ff. 45 4.11ff. 36 4.17ff. 39 4.22 27 4.23 4 , 2 7 , 181 5.6 194 5.9 193 5.11 193 5.14 39f. 5.17 234 5.18 2 5 , 9 3 5.19f. 36 5.20 38 6.13 193f. 6 .14 80 6.25 326 7.9 4 4 , 1 9 4

7.10f. 44 7.15 194 8.1 193 8.1f. 29 8.8 104f. 8.15 193

8.18 108

8.18f. 43 9.10 109 9.13 193 9.16 139 9.19 193 9.24 8 7 , 1 9 3 9.25f. 99f. 10.4 29 10.8 39 10.9 37, 99 10.16 93 10.16f. 32 10.18 32 10.22 39 10.24 193 11.2 28 11.4 28, 104f., 193 11.4f. 31 11.5 28,39, 193 11.9 42 11.10 45

11.1 Of. 28 11.11f. 42 11.12 37 11.14 92 11.18 87 11.21 28 1QSa 1.9 109 2.7 162

2.7f. 34 2.11f. 36 3.9f. 36 4.6ff. 33 6.5f. 29 6.1 Iff. 33 8.4ff. 33 9.1 ff. 33 9.14ff. 34 9.17ff. 33 10.1f. 36 10.9 105 11.9f. 34 12.1 36 12.10 36 12.11 38

4Q179 155 4Q180 94 4Q182 36 4Q183 103 4Q184 83, 172

e

4QTob [4Q200]

4QPs f [4Q88] 157 4QpIsa b [4Q162] 36

4QEnoch c [4Q204] 244

4QpIsa C [4Q163] 36,104

4Q215a 93

4QpHas3 [4Q166]

186 4QpNah [4Q169] 1.8 70 3:2.8 250

I.1 103 II.16 98, 101 6:1.15 89 4QDd [4Q269] 215

4Q185 212

1:1.4 39 4.3 326 5 2 36 6 5 35

4QpIsa d [4Q164] 313

4QDa [4Q266]

4QIub h [4Q22324] 83

4QDe [4Q270] 1:1.1 88 6:4.19 80 4QD8 [4Q272] 89 4Q274 108, 184 4QBer f [4Q280] 90 4QBer a [4Q286]

4Q225 197 4Q253a 100

1.5 92 7:2.7 88

4QS b [4Q256] 29

4QMystb [4Q300] 94

4QS C [4Q257] 28,40

4Q306 98

4QS d [4Q258]

4Q369 31

4Q325 27

1Q29 89 1Q34bis 140 1QHb [1Q35] 92

4QpPs a [4Q171] 90, 208

3Q15 (32)

4QF10r [4Q174] 91

1.5ff. 32 2.5f. 30

4Q176 93, 162

4Q370 88 4:1.1 29 4:1.8 37

4Q372 93 4Q375 42 4Q376 36

4Q379 93 4Q380 313 4QN0nCan Psb [4Q381] 14.3 140 45.2-3 90 46.6 82 47.3 313 4QpsEzek3 [4Q385]

111 4QApocJer c [4Q385b] 197 4Q393 229f. 4QMMT (26, 335) A 1 . 4 f f . 29 A 2 . 3 f f . 29 A 2 . 6 f f . 26 A 3 . 6 f f . 29 A 4 . 3 f f . 29 A 5 . 2 f f . 26 B 9 f f . 215 Β 1 If. 207 Β 12 9 8 , 1 9 8 Β 13 214 B 1 3 f f . 215 Β 16 198 B 1 6 f . 207 Β 17 9 8 B 1 7 f f . 216 B 2 5 f . 207 Β 26 98 Β 29 3 2 7 Β 31 3 1 7 Β 37 327 Β 3 8 207, 211, 217 Β 39 85 Β 46 207, 211, 217 Β 48 207, 216

Β 5 8 138 B 5 8 f f . 213 Β 59 36 B 6 4 f f . 218 Β 68 207, 211,326 Β 71 138 B 7 5 f f . 219 Β 80 207, 211,326 Β 82 207,

216 C Iff. 219 C 4 219f. C 5 f f . 220 C 7 211 C 8 207 C 8 f . 220 C 27f. 31

4Q416 1.13 80 2:3.8 87

1:1.17-18 30 2.1 316 2.2 316 4Q401 316

81 87 37 37

1 1 : 2 . 8 81

4 Q 4 1 7 89

11:2.18 3 7 11:2.19 81

4Q418 4Q444 85 2.5 80 81.2 103 81.19 92 103:2.7,8 98

4Q460 82

4Q424

4Q501 87

I.4 104 3.4 9 8

4Q504 87

a

4QShir Shabb a [4Q400]

10:2.12 11:1.13 11:1.14 11:1.18

4QH [4Q427] 3:1.8 92 3:2.2 163 7:1.13 93 7:1.21 92 7:2.14 96

4Q446 93

4QShir b [4Q511] 1.8 106 2:2.4 86 35.1 83 52:3.2 92 4Q512 102

4QHb [4Q428]

4QBéat [4Q525]

3.7 99 I I . 7 109

7.17 163 11.4 89 14:2.15 250

4Q402 32 4QShir Shabb d [4Q403] 1:1.3 245 1:1.8 92 1:1.31 245 1:1.32 28

4QHC [4Q429] 1.2.3 108 1:3.8 88 1:4.3 88

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

4 Q 4 3 7 103

4Q415-418 313

4QMa [4Q491]

4Q434 83 4Q436 83

1-3.10 40 1.14 81 1 0 : 2 . 1 0 81

4Q542 244 5QRèg1e [5Q13] 4.2 108 26.3 103 11QPs 8 [11Q5] (177,184) 19.1 99 19.3 99 19.14 59 19.22 59 21.11 94 22.5 99

11QT [11Q1920]

11QShir Shabb [11Q17]

17.10 29 18.8 198 20.12f. 214 20.15f. 74 27.4 198 33.10f. 39 34.6ff. 335 34.12 36 34.13 3 6 , 4 3 35.13 200 36.12f. 30 38.15 30 39.13ff. 30 40.11f. 39 40.13f. 30 41.5ff. 30 42.11 335 42.12 198 43.5 198 46.15 198 46.18 3 1 , 4 1 48.11 190 48.17 3 1 , 4 1 49.12 250 50.5ff. 335 51.12 57 51.13 192 51.17 57 54.8ff. 335 55.5 152 55.20 152 57.1 Iff. 38 57.20 57 59.4 198 60.6ff. 44 61.14 190 64.8ff. 70

3-4.3 106 8:1.5 6

11QPs b [11Q6] 59 11QApPs3 [11Q11] 2.7 326 2.8 211

Murabba'at 3.13 198 24:2.15 198 42.6 197 42.6 197 CD 1.1 128 1.2 40 1.15 226 1.16ff. 335 2.1 36 2.2 128 2.4f. 39 2.7 94 2.10 31 2.14 128 2.16 90 3.1 149,315 3.13 35 3.18 35 3.20 4 , 3 6 4.6 107 4.11 139 5.6f. 315 5.7 317 5.10 287 5.13 315 6.10 87 6.1 Of. 80 6.14f. 103 8.1 44 8.8 102 8.14 314 8.16 44 8.17f. 2 9 , 4 4 8.18f. 43 9.2ff. 315 9.11 184 9.20 315 10.10 80 12.2ff. 335 12.4f. 29 12.10 184

12.15ff. 335 13.2ff. 335 13.3 28 13.6f. 28 13.17 43 14.20 326 15.6f. 43 15.13 287 16.12 43 18.1 149 19.13f. 44 19.20 102 19.27 314 19.28f. 44 19.30f. 29, 44 20.1 f. 43 20.8f. 43 20.12 43, 107 20.13ff. 42 20.14 80 20.20 100 Genizah Psalms 1.24 103 2.13 78 3.23 99 Inscriptions, etc. Yavneh Yam inscr. 200 Sefire inscr. 3.6 201 Proverbs of Ahiqar 128f. Hermopolis papyri 5.8 73 A6.1:3 200 D7.6:10 200

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah A v o t 3.17 224 A v o t 5.17 336 A v o t 5.20 86,168 A v o t 6.2 97 Bava Mesia‫׳‬ 1.4 74 Bava Mesia' 1.19 100 Bava Mesia' 4.6 250 Bava Mesia' 6.1 250 Berakhot 1.1 336 Berakhot 9.2 83f. Berakhot 9.5 184 Eduyyot 1.14 91 E d u y y o t 6.3 91 Gittin 5.6 229 Hagigah 2.1 209 Hullin 91 Hullin 216 Hullin 91 Hullin 106 Hullin 91

4.4 9.1 f. 9.4 12.3 12.5

Kelim 3.8 91

Kelim 9.4 91 Kelim 10.3

Pesahim 4.1 336

Yoma 189 Yoma 4.2 16 Zavim 2.2

Kelim 21.2 91

Rosh Hashanah 2.9 234

Kilaim 4.9 72

Sanhédrin 5.5 105

Makhshirin 1.6 91 Makhshirin 3.1 f. 91 Makhshirin 3.6 106 Makhshirin 6.2 91

Shabbat 1-5 189ff. Shabbat 24.5 72

Zebahim 7.6 85

Babylonian Talmud

Tosefta

Bava Batra 134b 162

Sotah 8.1 212

Avodah Zarah 2.3

106

Miqwa'ot 1.7f. 91 Miqwa'ot 4.1 91 Miqwa'ot 4.3 106 Miqwa'ot 5.3f. 91 Miqwa'ot 9.2 91 Mo'ed Qatan 1.5 107 Nazir 9.2 85 Nega'im 7.4f. 85 Nega'im 13.1 91 N i d d a h 9.10 85 Oholot 18.6 83 Parah 3.7 215 Parah 11.8 91 Pe'ah 5.5 74

Terumot 3.1

100 Zavim 3.2 91 Zavim 4.3 91

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

100 Uqsin 1.4 91 Uqsin 3.6

101

Uqsin 3.12 336 Yadaim 4.5 250 Yadaim 4.6 216 Yevamot 16.6 73

Avodah Zarah 6.5

81

Bava Mesia' 6.18 107 Bava Meçia' 7.3 88 Bava Qamma 6.14 250 Bava Qamma 7.8 250 Bava Qamma 7.22f. 90 Bava Qamma 8.1 90 Berakhot 1.11 81 Kippurim 4.4 100

100

Terumot 7.9

100 Uqsin 3.6

101

Bava Mesia' 104a 249 Bava Qamma 82b 105 Berakhot 58b 84 Berakhot 59a 83 Eruvin 54a 97,226 Makkot 23a 179f. Megillah 3a 249 Pesahim 113b 173 Pesahim 22b 185 Qiddushin 66a 166

Parah 3.7 215

Sanhédrin 100b 163, 231

Sotah 14.8

Sotah 42b 4

100 Taharot 11.5

Yevamot 63b 163

Sifre Numbers

Hekhalot Rabbati

Pisha 16.56 100 Shirata 4.56 83 Wayyassa' 1.88 250 Wayyassa'

76.2 81 86.1 209 92.4 96

35.4 210 Tanhuma

Sifre Deuteronomy

Shofetim 8 210

6.6 81

Genesis Rabbah 91.5 172

20.17 86

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

Sifra

Sifre Zutta

21.8 174

Behuqqotay 3.1 212 Mek. Millu'im to Lev. 9.22 209 S a w 12.1 214 23.3 ( H o v a h 9.1) 100 92.3 (Ahare Mot 8.3)

18.29 (299)

Numbers Rabbah

Palestinian Talmud

1.44-46 81 Pishn 11.24-

Berakhot 9 (14b) 185

26 16

Bikkurim 33 (65x) 174 Gittin 1.2 (43c) 172 Gittin 50.3 194

Mekhilta of Simeon b. Yohai

Shevi'it 9.5 (39a) 174 A v o t of Rabbi Nathan 2.10 209 Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Bahodesh 3.121 84 Bahodesh 5.10 81 Bahodesh 9.88 168 Bahodesh 11.110 (100) Beshallah

100 98.1 (Emor 6.1) 100

Leviticus Rabbah

100 30.14 (328)

100

19.32 101

Seder 'Olam Rabbah

Midrash Bereshit

11.8 81

81.13 210

17.7 81 20.5 107 25.5 81 30.11 81

Midrash Tehillim Ps. 18.5 106

Pesiqta Rabbati 20 210

INDEX OF HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC WORDS A N D PHRASES

289 173

‫ א ה ב‬f f . , 327ff.

297,322

,127 164

‫ א מ ץ‬f .

‫ אות עולם‬267

161

‫איככה‬

‫ר‬ f.

152

‫אמת‬

223 133 331

‫ א י ן‬f f . , 223ff., 287, 323

‫ איפה‬289 134

‫ א ל‬f f . , 223ff.

85,150

‫פ ע ה‬ ‫ארור‬

289,274,

‫‪102‬‬

‫‪ f .‬ז ו ר‬ ‫‪f.‬זיק‪/‬זק‬

‫‪83‬‬

‫‪Iff.‬‬ ‫‪ f . , 103‬ז ל ע פ ה‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫יודעים ט‬ ‫ואתם זכר‬ ‫‪97‬‬ ‫‪87‬‬

‫א‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫‪311,313‬‬ ‫ת‪264,99‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪0 6 ,‬‬ ‫‪235,238‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪ f .‬ב א י ן‬

‫‪ff.‬זמה‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫‪ 313‬באטר‬

‫‪f.,98‬זמם‬

‫‪90‬‬

‫‪ 297‬בוא‬ ‫‪ 163‬בוע‬

‫‪f.‬זמר‬ ‫‪f.‬זנח‬

‫‪98‬‬ ‫‪82‬‬ ‫‪ 83‬זעף‬

‫‪ f .‬ב ו ש‬

‫‪ 99‬זפת‬ ‫‪ 162‬זקן כ ו ט ל ‪ f f .‬ב כ ל‬ ‫‪ 103‬זר ‪ f f .‬ב כ ל מאדך‬

‫‪167‬‬ ‫‪ 5 9 , 8 6‬בטח‬ ‫‪ 322‬בכה‬

‫לבבך‬

‫‪f.‬זרה‬

‫‪183‬‬ ‫‪183‬‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ב ל‬

‫‪84‬‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ב נ י אהרון‬

‫‪ f .‬ז ר ז‬

‫‪214‬‬

‫‪164‬‬ ‫זרם‪ f f‬ב נ י הכוהנים‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪104‬‬

‫‪214‬‬ ‫‪ 297,321‬ב ק ט‬

‫‪ 103,274‬זרע‬ ‫‪ 161‬ח ל ק‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ח ס ד‬

‫‪ 287‬ברוך‬ ‫‪256‬‬

‫‪ff.‬ברית‬

‫‪257‬‬ ‫‪ 166‬חצף‬

‫‪,‬‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫ט ה ר‬ ‫‪ff., 99f.‬‬

‫‪ 84‬ב ר ק‬ ‫‪95‬‬

‫‪f.,271f.‬בטר‬

‫ק‪268,62,198‬‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫‪ 86‬בטת פנים‬

‫‪ 59‬חרה‬ ‫‪ f .‬ח ר ט‬ ‫‪f.,326ff.‬חטב‬

‫‪ f .‬נ ב ה‬

‫‪97‬‬ ‫‪90‬‬ ‫‪ 60‬חתף‬

‫‪Of.‬‬

‫טאטא‬

‫‪ f .‬ט ב ע‬ ‫טוב‬

‫‪172‬‬

‫עינים‬

‫‪92‬‬ ‫‪96‬‬

‫‪ f .‬נ ד ל‬ ‫‪f.‬נור‬

‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪85,91,108‬‬ ‫‪86,91‬‬

‫‪223‬‬

‫‪ 2 3 4 , 2 3 8‬בלא‬

‫‪ 164‬זרוע‬

‫ח‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪ 297‬ד ב ר‬ ‫‪ 59,104‬דרך‬ ‫‪- 6 8‬‬ ‫‪ f f . , 284, 288ff., 305, 316f., 324‬ה‬ ‫‪ 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 7‬הוד‬

‫‪ 8 6 , 1 0 0‬טוח‬ ‫‪ 101‬טמא‬

‫‪ 127‬הוי‬ ‫‪195‬‬

‫‪ f f .‬ה י ה‬

‫‪ 101,109‬טמן‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ב (טרם(‪93‬‬

‫‪ 162‬היכי‬ ‫‪ 313‬הלא‬

‫‪ 95‬ט ר ף‬ ‫‪297,324‬‬

‫‪ 297‬ה ל ך‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ו (הנה(‪288‬‬

‫‪ f f .‬י ד ע‬

‫‪ 297‬יצא‬ ‫‪ 327‬יצר‬ ‫‪ 2 8 7 , 3 2 3‬יט‬ ‫‪ 2 9 2 , 2 9 7‬יטב‬ ‫‪ 64‬כ‪-‬‬

‫‪ff.‬התפאר‬ ‫‪ f . , 95f.‬ז א ת‬ ‫‪ f . , 109f.‬ז ד ו ן‬

‫‪80‬‬ ‫‪96‬‬ ‫‪ 102‬זהב‬ ‫‪ 60‬זהר‬

‫‪ 6 0 , 1 2 0‬זהיר‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪ 4 , 1 8 1‬כ ב ו ד אדם‬ ‫‪ 84‬כ ו כ ב‬

‫‪78‬‬

‫‪ff.‬זד‬

‫‪ 149,311,313‬כאטר‬ ‫‪ff.‬כבוד‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪ 87‬זולת‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ז ו ע‬

‫‪104‬‬

‫‪163‬‬

‫‪f.‬נהיות‬ ‫‪ f .‬נ ז ר‬ ‫‪ f .‬נ ם‬

‫‪102‬‬ ‫‪178‬‬

‫לחה‬

‫‪ff.‬נעלם‬

‫‪ f .‬כ ו ן‬

‫‪ 63‬נסוי‬ ‫‪ 63‬נסוין‬ ‫‪175‬‬ ‫‪ 62‬נפש‬ ‫‪ 297‬נצב‬ ‫‪ 161‬נצח‬ ‫‪ 62‬נצר‬ ‫‪ 8 6 , 9 3‬נשען ב‪-‬‬

‫‪ f f .‬נ ש א פנים‬

‫‪ 314‬כי אם‬ ‫‪ 162‬כיצד‬ ‫‪ 5 , 7 , 1 0‬כ ל חי‬ ‫‪167‬‬ ‫‪ 313‬כן‬ ‫‪ 10,176‬כ פ ר‬ ‫‪256‬‬

‫‪ f .‬כ ל ם‬

‫‪ f f .‬כ ר ת‬

‫‪ 305‬כשה‪-‬‬ ‫‪ f f . , 167,223ff.‬ל א‬

‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪ 322‬נתן‬

‫‪ f f . , 258f., 3 1 1 , 3 1 3‬ע ד‬

‫‪134‬‬ ‫‪ 237, 239‬לאין‬ ‫‪ 155‬ל א ל ידך‬

‫‪ 148‬ס פ ר‬

‫‪ 2 8 9 , 3 1 3‬לאשר‬

‫‪78‬‬

‫‪ 62‬עדה‬ ‫‪ 287‬עוד‬ ‫הכוהנים ראוי ל‬ ‫‪f f. . , 176, 258ff., 264‬ע ו‪ f‬לל םב נ י‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪ 18‬עז‬ ‫‪ 89‬עין‬ ‫‪ 297‬עלה‬ ‫‪297,343‬‬ ‫‪ f .‬ע מ ד‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪ f f . , 344‬ע ץ‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫‪ 166‬ל ב‬ ‫‪134‬‬ ‫‬‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫לחם‬ ‫‪f.‬‬ ‫‪ f f .‬ל ל א‬

‫‪ 7‬לבש‬ ‫‪160‬‬ ‫‪237‬‬

‫‪ff.‬לבלתי‬

‫‪ff.‬‬

‫‪231‬‬ ‫‪ 260‬ל ע ד‬ ‫‪ 57‬ל ק ח‬ ‫‪ 184‬מאד‬

‫למה‬

‫‪ 321‬עשה‬ ‫‪183‬‬

‫‪ f f .‬פ ח ד‬ ‫‪ f .‬פ י‬

‫‪259‬‬

‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪ f . , 40f., 47, 289ff., 296f., 304f.,‬כ י‬ ‫‪311, 313ff.‬‬

‫שנים‬

‫‪ 336‬מאמתי‬

‫‪154‬‬ ‫‪68‬‬

‫‪ff.‬פליט‬ ‫‪ f f .‬פ ן‬

‫‪ff.‬מגיד‬

‫‪ 314‬מדי‬

‫‪223‬‬ ‫‪ff.‬‬

‫‪ 165‬פ ע ל‬ ‫‪ f f .‬פ ק ד‬

‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪231‬‬

‫מה‬

‫‪ 259‬מוט‬

‫‪4,10,179‬‬

‫‪ 272‬מול‬ ‫‪ 164‬מופת‬

‫‪ 62‬פקוד‬ ‫‪ 142‬פחח‬ ‫‪257‬‬ ‫‪ f f .‬צ ד ק ה‬ ‫‪ 15‬קדם‬ ‫‪ f .‬ק ו ל‪288,284‬‬

‫‪ 336‬מ ח ל ק ת‬ ‫‪ f .‬מ ט ה‬

‫‪f.‬מחשבה‬ ‫אציל‬

‫‪ f .‬ר א ו‬ ‫‪ff.,220‬ראוי‬

‫‪ 297‬ר ד ף‬

‫‪f.‬מלחמה‬ ‫‪f.‬מסתולל‬

‫‪ 1 6 5 , 1 7 5‬רחם‬ ‫‪ f .‬ר צ ו ן‬ ‫‪ f .‬ש ח ק‬ ‫‪ f .‬ש כ ל‬

‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪177‬‬ ‫‪57‬‬

‫‪160‬‬ ‫‪ 313‬מי‬ ‫‪ 153‬מלא יד‬

‫‪ 343‬קום‬ ‫‪ 297‬ראה‬ ‫‪288‬‬ ‫‪207‬‬

‫‪89‬‬

‫‪80‬‬ ‫‪ 6 0 , 6 4 , 3 1 1‬מן‬ ‫‪166‬‬

‫‪ 62, 269, 333, 335‬מצוה‬ ‫‪ f .‬מ ש א‬

‫כ ל יד‬

‫‪153‬‬ ‫‪ 3 3 3 , 3 3 5‬משניות‬ ‫‪ 3 3 3 , 3 3 5‬משפטים‬

165 ‫שמח‬ ‫ שנא‬327ff. -

3

62 1

315 322

‫ תבנית אדם‬181 ‫ תורגמן‬248 7,315,313,305,311‫ש‬ ‫ תורה‬62 ‫שא‬335

‫שאל‬ 173

‫ ש ו א ל שלום‬f f .

244 63

‫שבח‬ ‫שוב‬

57

‫שחד‬

234

‫שלא‬

322

‫שמע‬

‫ ת ו ר ה שבעל פה‬f . 164

‫ תפארת‬4 ff. 58

5,179 ‫ ת ק ל‬f .

‫אדם‬ 58

‫ תשבוחת‬244ff.

I N D E X OF SUBJECTS

addressing system 334f. anteriority (see 'verb tenses') Aramaic influence 147,165, 200f., 228 Aramaisms 161, 244, 250 assimilation 88,107f., 246f. Ben Sira manuscripts 21, 53ff., 117,163ff., 253f., 342 Biblical allusions 2 , 1 0 , 2 0 f . , 148ff. Biblical expressions 2,148ff., 256ff. Biblical imitation 57, 77f., 160ff., 318 Biblical quotations 6 1 , 1 4 8 binyanim 104ff. casus pendens 123 chiasmus 118,121,123f., 130 circumstantial clause 27ff., 235, 307 clause type 26ff., 278ff. collective n o u n 69 concurrence (see 'verb tenses') contrastive consituents 26ff., 212 contrary-to-fact condition 300 dating of texts 132ff., 210,338ff. definite article 44,68ff. definiteness 25ff., 68ff. diachrony (see 'linguistic development') dialects 147 direct discourse (see , text type‫)׳‬ dissimilation 246f., 249 emphatic structures 211 f. exegetical language 47, 206ff.

existential clause 25,33f. extraposition 35, 41f., 127,131 final clause 230f. generic noun 73ff. genre (see ‫׳‬text type‫)׳‬ Herodotus 339f. idiomatic expressions 160ff., 254ff. imperative 32f., 118ff., 156f., 199 imperfect 130,157f., 201, 281ff. independent clause (see 'clause type‫)׳‬ infinitive 94,133ff., 207, 213, 227ff. information structure 26ff., 229 inscriptions 140ff. jussive 1 9 9 , 2 1 3 , 2 2 3 Late Biblical Hebrew 77ff., 132ff., 146ff., 192,195, 200, 237, 239, 342 lexicography Iff., 77ff., 160ff., 253ff. linguistic d e v e l o p m e n t Iff., 77ff., 133ff., 146ff., 168,189, 253ff., 278ff. literary influence 77ff., 102ff., 148, 186f., 339f. locative clause 25ff. main clause (see 'clause type‫)׳‬ metathesis 60,107f. metre 257, 261, 264, 269, 274 modality 300f.,310 narrative (see 'text type') negation 223ff.

‫פ א ר ת‬

negative c o m m a n d 118,122ff., 238 nomen agentis 248 nominal clause 25ff., 35,189, 223ff., 303, 324 non-existence 225ff. non-presence 225ff. omission of subject 224, 237, 301 ff. orthography 63, 92f., 107, 245, 342 parallelism 117f. participle 188ff., 211, 278ff., 335 participle, complementary 194 participle, periphrastic 188ff. participle, position of 2(X) poetry (see 'text type') possessive predicate 25ff., 155 precepts, Mishnaic 335 prepositional phrase 25ff., 120ff.,

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

prose (see 'text type') pseudo-classicisms 146ff. redaction 205ff., 338 relative clause 31, 226f. resumptive phrase 34 resumptive p r o n o u n 31 semantics Iff., 77ff., 253ff. spoken Hebrew 279ff., 341 f. subordinate clause (see 'clause type‫)׳‬ text type 26ff., 1 1 7 , 1 9 7 , 2 2 3 , 278ff., 333ff. Ugaritic 174, 289,319ff. verbal adjunct 281 verbal aspect 192, 200f., 310 verbal c o m p l e m e n t 194, 281 verb tenses 148ff., 188ff., 211, 278ff., 335 vocative 118ff. volitive 230f.,330 w i s d o m vocabulary 7 w o r d order 25ff., 117ff., 225ff.,

282,288

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH 1. Wernberg M011cr, P. The Manual of Discipline. Translated and Annotated, with an Introduction. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02195 7 2. Ploeg, J . van der. Le rouleau de la guerre. Traduit et annoté, avec une introduction. 1959. ISBN 90 04 02196 5 3. Mansoor, M. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02197 3 5. Koffmahn, E. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda. Recht und Praxis der jüdisehen Papyri des 1. und 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. samt Übertragung der Texte und Deutscher Übersetzung. 1968. ISBN 90 04 03148 0 6. K u t s c h e r , E.Y. The Language and linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Qlscfi). Transi, from the first (1959) Hebrew ed. With an obituary by H.B. Rosen. 1974. ISBN 90 04 04019 6 6a. K u t s c h e r , E.Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I QIsaa). Indices and Corrections by E. Qimron. Introduction by S. Morag. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05974 1 7. Jongeling, B. A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah, 1958-1969. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02200 7 8. Merrill, E.H. Qumran and Predestination. A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. 1975. ISBN 90 04 042652 9. Garcia Martinez, F. (Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Q u m r a n . 1992. ISBN 90 04 09586 1 10. Dimant, D. & U. Rappaport (eds.). The Dead Sea ScrolL·. Forty Years of Research. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09679 5 11. Trcbollc Barrera, J. & L. Vegas Montaner (eds.). The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1821 March 1991. 2 vols. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09771 6 set 12. Nitzan, B. (Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry 1994. ISBN 90 04 09658 2 13. Steudel, A. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata^). Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschiehtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (‫״‬Florilegium") und 4Q177 (‫״‬Catena A") repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfundcn. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09763 5 14. Swanson, D.D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible. The Methodology of 11QT. 1995. ISBN 90 04 09849 6 15. Brooke, G.J. (ed.). New Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Q u m r a n Studies, Paris 1992. With F. Garcia Martinez. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10093 8 16. Dimant, D. & L.H. Schiffman. Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Q u m r a n Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10225 6 17. Flint, P.W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10341 4 18. Lange, Α. Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10432 1' 19. Garcia Martinez, F. & D.W. Parry. A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970-95. Arranged by Author with Citation and Subject Indexes. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10588 3

20. Parry, D . W . & S.D. Ricks (cds.). Cunent Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Conference on the Texts from the J u d e a n Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10662 6 21. Metso, S. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10683 9 22. Herbert, E.D. Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Method applied to the Reconstruction of 4QSam 3 . 1997. ISBN 90 04 10684 7 23. Bernstein, M., F. Garcia Martinez & J . Kampen (eds.). Legal texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International O r g a n i z a t i o n for Q u m r a n S t u d i e s , C a m b r i d g e 1995. P u b l i s h e d in h o n o u r of J o s e p h M . Baumgarten. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10829 7 24. Lcfkovits, J . K . The Copper Scroll - 3QJ5: A Réévaluation. A new R e a d i n g , Translation, and Commentary. ISBN 90 04 10685 5 (In preparation) 25. Gleßmer, U. Die Ideale Kultordnung. 24 Priesterordnungen in den Chronikbüchern, kalendarischen Qumrantexten und in synagogalen Inschriften. ISBN 90 04 10837 8 (In preparation) 26. Muraoka, T. & J.F. Elwolde (eds.). The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10820 3 27. Falk, D.K. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10817 3 28. Stone, M.E. & E.G. Chazon (cds.). Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Dterature, 12-14 May, 1996. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10939 0 29. Hempel, C. The Laws of the Damascus Document. Sources, Tradition and Redaction. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11150 6 30. Parry, D.W. & E. Ulrich (eds.) The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11155 7 31. Chazon, E.G. & M. Stone (cds.) Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. T h e Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11164 6 32. Parry, D.W. & E. Qimron (eds.) The Great Isaiah Scroll (lQIsaa). A New Edition. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11277 4 33. Muraoka, T. & Elwolde, J.F. (cds.) 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. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11553 6

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

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

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (Studies of the Texts of The desert of Judah)

The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls

New perspectives on old texts: proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9-11January, 2005 (Studies on the texts of the Desert of Judah; Vol. 88)

The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (Studies

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

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 (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

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

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (Studies of the Texts of The desert of Judah)

The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls

New perspectives on old texts: proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9-11January, 2005 (Studies on the texts of the Desert of Judah; Vol. 88)

The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (Studies

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Bible And the Dead Sea Scrolls

Wisdom Texts From Qumran (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Holistic Qumran: trans-disciplinary research of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, vol.87)

The Scrolls of the Ancients

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 (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

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

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (Studies of the Texts of The desert of Judah)

The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls

New perspectives on old texts: proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9-11January, 2005 (Studies on the texts of the Desert of Judah; Vol. 88)

The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (Studies

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Bible And the Dead Sea Scrolls

Wisdom Texts From Qumran (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Holistic Qumran: trans-disciplinary research of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, vol.87)

The Scrolls of the Ancients

Recommend Documents