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 W O U D E

V O L U M E XXXIII

' / 6 8 '
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 iggy

E D I T E D BY

T. MURAOKA
&

J.F. ELWOLDE

' 6 8 V

BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON KLN
1999
 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; Kln : 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 SiraTraces 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. Ehrensvrd, 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 Distinc-

tion 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. Prez 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 in 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 : 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 347
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 360
I n d e x of Subjects 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 in-
d 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 ac-
c 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 fac-
tors, 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 re-
v 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 transla-
tion 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 in MS 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 b y the m e a n i n g famil-
iar 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 Writ-
ings', 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: Rout-
ledge, 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. Beent-
jes, 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 d 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 , a n d , 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 ' to
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 " 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: in Ben Sira

o 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 Eli-
jah, 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 ) :


' 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 in 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 to 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 in-
f l u e n c e of ? It 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. Jo-
h 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 [ ) b 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 w 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 , the Greek reads , w h i c h
implies a Vorlage w i t h . 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 w 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 Je-
sus 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 of A d a m .
15
E.g. E. Jacob, 'L'histoire d'Isral v u e p a r Ben Sira', in Mlanges bibliques
rdigs en l'honneur de Andr Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957), p p . 293-94; J.
Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen l,26f. im Sptjudentum, 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 expres-
s 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
as '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 , 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 in the 'Praise of the Fathers'

In B e n Sira t h e e x p r e s s i o n s 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 ] ) ] a n d to h a v e
' f r o m all f l e s h ' ( [ 4 5 . 4 ] ) ] ]
c h o s e n ' f r o m all h u m a n s ' ( 4 5 . 1 6 ]
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 ,
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; Gttingen: 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 ' escort, 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 in 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 in 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 in 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):

'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 a 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 to 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 ] a ] ) 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 ] a ] ) 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 [ ] a n d for
g l o r y [ ' ] , 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 ( or ) is 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:

Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (Die Heilige Schrift d e s Alten T e s t a m e n t e s

b e r s e t z t u n d e r k l 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, ( Second 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 of the H e b r e w p r o b a b l y preserve the cor-
rect position at 50.1a. See below.
20
MS Bmg:.
21
is 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 ' ( ) .
 '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:

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 ( ) a n d of g l o r y ( ) , 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 , 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.
[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 in 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 ' ( , 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 at 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 ' ( ,
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; , 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, , a n d o n the w o r d f o r 'light, . 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 " ( ) t 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 clari-
fies 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 inci-
d 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.
at 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
in 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 ( )a n d h o n o u r
( )is 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 tradi-
tions.
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: Pro-
ceedings 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.
.
T h e r e are three o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s of that 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 is 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, (
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). is 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
It a p p e a r s that the n o u n is 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 is a f e a t u r e in t h e ' P r a i s e of t h e Fa-
thers 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 , is 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 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 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
( ) a n d of , 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 is t h e
e q u i v a l e n t of the H e b r e w , 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 cor-
rect, 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 in-
t 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 d 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; bo:
bo 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 Unter-
suchungen zur samaritonischen Religion der aramaschen 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 . Indeed, Ps. 8 has probably i n f l u e n c e d Ben
Sira here since there also is in parallelism w i t h , a n d the
psalmist s a y s that God has been m i n d f u l ( ) of 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 ( )m a n w i t h glory and h o n o u r ( ) ,
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, there-
fore, if the hemistich is an adverbial clause, m 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 ' ( ' ) u 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 ( ) are said to be Z i o n ' s
a d o r n m e n t ( ) . A third interpretation w o u l d be to u n d e r s t a n d
the verb from the previous t w o hemistichs w i t h . 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,) to ' a
( ) the 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--vis the people.
It is probable that all these interpretations are at p l a y in this pas-
s 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 is 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 in Ben Sira

Further e l u c i d a t i o n of the u s e of in Ben Sira m a y be g a i n e d

from a s t u d y of the verb , w h i c h derives f r o m the s a m e root p'r
as the n o u n . The verb appears 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. Else-
where it appears at 11.4; 34.10; 38.6, 25.
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 ' ( ,
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 ( ; )
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 ( ) .
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 ( ) i n s t e a d of a s h e s ( ) a n d that:
T h e y w i l l b e called o a k s of
righteousness ( ) ,
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 ( ) .
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 , 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
a 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 , a n d the glori-
f 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 Isa-
iah 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 a n d the v e r b a l f o r m is,
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,),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.
33
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 , ' 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.
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 w 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 / in Ben Sira

o 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: in 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:


' 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 ' ( ,
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 interpola-
tion 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. Marbck, '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 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.
the t e m p l e w i t h G o d ' s a n d , 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 ' ( ) T 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 fill-
i 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 in the 'Praise of the Fathers'.

2: in 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) ) s 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, ) , wh
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 to a
f o r e i g n n a t i o n (49.5). in 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 , ' 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 resting 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 a 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
( ) of 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 ( , ) . T h e p u r p o s e is to
r e m i n d Israel that the of 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 w 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 ( )o n h i s47.20) ) . 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 of 'reputation'. D a v i d is also
said to h a v e ascribed to 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 , is 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 inheri-
tance:
] [
This inheritance, a c c o r d i n g to the p r o e m , is44.2) ) , 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 r e a d s p for , 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 , in omitting the preposition,
w o u l d imply that 'all glory is the 'canopy.

' 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,).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 to 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 . 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 a s i n h e r -
itors of t h e L o r d ' s p o r t i o n .

3 : of 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 a 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:

'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 re-
c 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 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 is 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 :

" 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 m 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 . " ( T h e u s a g e of t h e p
' 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' ( ) is 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 ' ( ) w 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 s h o u l d b e r e a d
as .
 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 in 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,d,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 ) ] [
( M a s )
'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 ( M 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 ( T a n h . B. 1.19) o r2.101); 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
b 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
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 & At-
tributes 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 as-
s 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 ( ) a n d N e h . 9 . 5
( 4 2 , ( 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 ,

'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
( ) f 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 is also to be f o u n d (1 C h r o n . 29.13; Isa.
63.14). m 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 for the MS text of .(
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 Transla-
tion, Introduction and Notes, vol. I (Philadelphia: T h e Jewish Publication Soci-
ety 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. i 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 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
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.
, Jn 1.14; , 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 , 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
and can be f o u n d with other lexemes from the s a m e se-
m 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 ) , is in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h at 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 . 376-
453.
45
A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim
(Tbingen: 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 Frag-
ments (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.
 w i t h a n d at 45.8. A t 4 5 . 1 2 is a l s o p l a c e d a l o n g s i d e
and .

4: Two textual corruptions

T h e s e i n s t a n c e s of in 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:


'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
( ' 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
. 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 for , 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 t h a n to . 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 n 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-Makkabischen Sofer unter Bercksichtigung seines Verhltnisses zu
Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehretum ( W U N T , 2 / 6 ; T 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 . 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 a 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
a 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 it-
self 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
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 h 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:



'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
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
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 ,
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. T 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 at 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 , 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 in 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.
51
A v e r b such as w 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 ex-
tant textual version.
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
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' h 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' a 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 in Ben Sira (e.g. 49.5). For,
a 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 ' ( ) a n d ' h o n o u r '
(), 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 prs-
e 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 , its c o g n a t e v e r b , a n d are 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 as-
s o c i a t e d w i t h a n d . 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 , pre-
v 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.
, 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 a n d are 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 to 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 a 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 b 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 in 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) ) sug
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 , . 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 inter-
c 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.
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 Gar-
d 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 classifi-
catie 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, ., Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Tar-
gumim (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, ., 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 b e r s e t z t u n d e r k l 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 Atti-
t 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.), Sacri-
fice 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'Isral v u e par Ben Sira', in Mlanges bibliques
rdigs en l'honneur de Andr Robert (Paris: B l o u d et G a y , 1957),
 p p . 288-94.
Jervell, ]., Imago Dei: Gen l,26f. im Sptjudentum, 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 Liter-
atur 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 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 Unter-
suchungen zur sainaritanischen Religion der aramaschen Periode
(Berlin: Walter d e Gruyter, 1971).
Kister, ., 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 Frag-
ments (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 Publi-
cation 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 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, 1-
13a; 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 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 , ., The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, 2. The Names & At-
tributes 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 Col-
lection 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., ( S 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-Makkabischen Sofer unter Bercksichtigung
seines Verhltnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehre-
tum ( W U N T , 2 / 6 ; T b i n g e n : J.C.B. M o h r , 1981).
Syrn, R., The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Inter-
pretations 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. ., v o l . 64 , 1 ; bo: 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 dif-
ferent types of clauses will be analysed; first, those in which the pre-
positional phrase indicates a location (by means of the prepositions
-, , , , etc.), e.g. ' the man is in the garden' or
'there is a man in the garden'; and, second, those in which the prepo-
sitional phrase conveys the notion of possession or belonging (by
means of the preposition -), e.g.1' have a house' or ' the
house belongs to me'.1
The classification, description, and analysis will be carried out ac-
cording to various parameters. On the one hand, formal charac-
teristics will serve as a point of departure. This means that main
categories are chosen according to the relative order of the core
constituentsthe 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 definite-
ness 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; = 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 - or are excluded f r o m this study, as are s h o r t relative
clauses with prepositional phrases such as 1QS 5.18 . On t h e latter
type, see Qimron, Hebrew, 400.16. P u r e existential clauses with an overt ele-
ment expressing the notion of existence, i.e., with forms of ,, or , 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 con-
textual aspects: the information structure of the clause. The main
question is which of the two core constituents conveys the contextu-
ally 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 con-
stituents have a contrastive value. Finally, attention will be paid to
the text type in which the clause appears, viz. prose or poetry, exege-
sis, 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 depar-
ture, while the NP conveys the new information:
4QMMT A 5.2-5 ' on the twenty-
second of it is the Festival of the (New) Oil';4
4QMMT A 2.6-8 [' ][ ]after it (i.e., the
Sabbath) come Sunday and Monday...'.5

2
For the use of these terms, see Baasten, pp. 1-3.
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 ha-
Shabbat" 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 after these
The same pattern Th-Rh obviously also serves as a circumstantial
clause:
1QM 7.14 {' ) ( seven Levites,)
and in their hand there are the seven ram's horns'.6
Rheme-Theme. Within this same pattern PP-NPd, the reverse se-
quence, Rh-Th, also occurs, that is to say, sometimes it is the PP that
conveys the new information:
1QS 4.23 ' and 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 ' Thine is the power and in
Thy hand is the battle';
1QH 5.4 ' and in Thy hand is the judgment of
them all';9
1QM 13.12 ' ][ and towards it is their only
desire'; 10
1QM 15.9-10 [' ]and 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., ) ." This implies that the word ( or
any other form of it) may be attributive to the days and not the 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 ][
" the twenty-fifth of it is a Sabbath in (the week of service) of Yeda'aya and
next to it (comes) the festival of the barley on the twenty-sixth of it on Sunday".
Note that in A 20 ][is restored, but there, too, its syntactic function is unclear.
6
Although all translations render as 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 with a grammatically indefinite form.
7
Wernberg-M011er translates "Adam". The clause stands in parallel to 1QS 4.22
.
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 .
10
The singular suffix in refers to ( Vermes: "towards them"; van
der Ploeg: "vers elles"), or possibly to Belial.
 1QM 13.13-14 ' and with the poor ones is
Thy mighty hand'; 11
1QS 11.21 ' and hefrom dust is his kneading'
(with extraposition);
1QS 11.2 ' but as for mewith God is my
judgment' (with extraposition). 12
Less clear as regards context is 4QShirShabb d [4Q403] 1:1.32
] ]from 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 ( )The information structure is without
doubt Rh-Th, serving to emphasize the same themes as described in
the previous section:
1QH 2.33 {' }] [[ they know not) that from
Thee is my stand'; 14
1QS 3.2 " for in the filth of wickedness is
his plowing" (not specifically poetry); 15
4Q403 1:1.32 " for in the splendour of
praise is the glory of His majesty";
CD 13.6-7 " f o r to them (the priests) is the
judgment" 16 (not specifically poetry);

11
Jongeling reads a relative clause: "Dieu d'Isral, dont la main puissante est avec
les pauvres".
12
Further examples include: 1QS 11.5 1; Q S 1
;1QS 11.2 1 ; Q S 11.4 )
;( >1>}QM11.4 1; Q
10.4 1; Q S 11.22 .
13
Newsom's italics indicate an uncertain translation. Newsom: "The word or
prepositional phrase presents a problem. Unless is an uncorrected error (e.g.,
for ) , the only conceivable antecedent for the pronominal suffix - is
in 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 .
15
Cf. 4QSC 1:2.3-4 ;] [ ][ difficult (compare Isa. 9.4, which is
equally problematic)Licht: " ;" Lohse: "denn nach bsem
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 " for 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 attest-

ed. This is probably due to the fact that the noun phrase is indefinite,
and as such it is particularly apt for conveying contextually new in-
formation:
1QS 8.1-2
' in the Council of the Community there shall be
twelve men and three priests, perfect in all that is revealed of
the whole Law';
4QMMT A 1.4-6 ' on the twenty-third
(day) of it (i.e., the second month) is a Sabbath'; 18
11QT 17.10 [' ]and on the
fifteenth of this month there shall be a holy convocation';
3Q15 6.5-6 42 " under it there are 42 talents";
1QS 10.4
"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 ' and in their hand there shall be a
spear and a sword';
1QM 5.7 ... " and on the socket there

17
The NP is indefinite in the parallel clause in MS B: CD 19.30-31
. On this feature, see Sect. IX below, note 63.
Further examples include: 1QH 2.23 , CD 12.4-5
" it shall fall to man to keep him in custody"; 1QH 2.22 ( {
;1QM 11.1 1; Q H 11.17-18
[ . [ ] [
18
See the remark in note 4 above. Other examples: 4QMMT A 2.3-5 [[
; 4QMMT A 2.4-5 4 ; Q M M T A 3.6-8
;4QMMT A 3.9-11 [ 4; ][][][]Q M M T A 4.3-4 ;
4QMMT A 4.5-7 .
19
The Charlesworth edition transcribes , while others have . But all edi-
tions interpret the word as , after 4QS b 8:2.2-3
and 4QSd 4:1.1.
 shall be three rings, engraved ...";
11QT 36.12-13
"and from the (outer) corner of the gate as far as the second
(inner) corner of the court there shall be a hundred and twen-
ty cubits";
3Q15 2.5-6 " au milieu duquel se trouve une citerne". 20
In poetic texts, just as we saw in the previous section, the pattern PP-
NPi most often displays the order Th-Rh, the PP introducing the
clause, the NP conveying the new information:
1QH 9.33-34 " ) ][ and
with my footsteps is abundant forgiveness and infinite mercy
accompanies Thy disputing with me"; 21
4Q405 14-15 6 " ][ in
the midst of the spirits of splendour is a work of wondrous
colours, figures of the living divine beings ...";22
4Q405 19ABCD 7 ' ][ underneath
the wondrous debirim there is the sound of quiet stillness'. 23
Rheme-Theme. Clauses of the pattern PP-NPi also frequently display
the information structure Rh-Th. Their function is the same as that of
the pattern PP-NPd, often emphasizing the uniqueness and power of
God as against the weaknesses and shortcomings of humankind. It is
remarkable that many of the NPi's in these clauses might be semanti-
cally definite, even though they are clearly indefinite from a formal
point of view:
1QM 4.2-3 " from God comes the

20
Further examples include: 11QT 38.15+4Q365
4)Q365 has-41.7-8,9;41.5-6, -7;40.13-14;39.13-14, 5-16;(
10,10-11; 1QM 8.4-5 .
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 : see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. , III.2b.
Since the clause preceding 4Q400 1:1.17-18
" ]]and 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 ;
4 ;
] ( .
 might of war against all sinful flesh"; 24
1QS 3.15 " from the God of Knowledge
comes all that is and shall be"; 25
1QS 3.16-17 " in His hand are the judgments of
all things". 26
The two instances found in poetry fully comply with this description:
1QH 15.22 " from Thee is the way of every
living being";
1QH 4.31 " to 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 , the PP containing the resumptive pronoun) and in
an asyndetic object clause. All instances are in prose:
11QT 48.17 (" )( and the leper) on
whom there is a chronic leprosis or scab";
4QMMT C 27-28 (" )][( for we have
seen) (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah";
11QT 46.18+1 l Q T b [(" )[ ]and the
men) who have had a nocturnal emission".
Rheme-Theme. By contrast, all instances of this pattern with the se-
quence Rh-Th have the conjunction . 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 signifi-
cant that from a semantic point of view the NP could be considered
definite, although formally it is indefinite.
1QH 11.7-8 ) [
'(and I know that Thy mouth is truth) and (that) in Thy hand is
righteousness and (that) in Thy purpose is all knowledge'
(with doing triple duty);
4QPrEn0sh 3.2 [4Q369] " for 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
. ][
25
On the reading or 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 , a participle of .
26
The clause is parallel to 1QS 3.17 ... ... .
 that is" (context unclear);
4Q402 4 8 [" ][ ][]for to the God of the
elim belong the weapons of war". 27

IIC: Excursusthe 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
" in 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 " in the sepulchre of
Ben Rabbah the Third: 100 ingots of gold".
This type of clause is very frequent indeed in 3Q15. At first, one
might be inclined to take them as classic examples of locative
clauses. Some translators in fact do insert "(there is/are)" in parenthe-
ses, 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 fea-
ture 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 se-
parating element may be an imperative clause of the type "Dig eu-

27
Further examples include: 1QS 10.16-17 ( )( cf. 4QS b
9.4 ?] [ note that the word order is reversed in 4QSf 2.3
]h a and the conjunction is absent); 1QH 15.13 ;([
1QS 10.18 ( / / cf. also 4QS b 9.6; 4QS f
2.5-6 1 ;( ] [ ][ Q H 4.30-31 (
.
28
Milik reads as "celle qui est bouche par une pierre perce".
Wolters' interpretation of as "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
"in the Queen's Residence, on the west side, dig twelve cubits:
27 talents";
3Q15 9.17-10.2 ][
9 " at the dovecot which is at Mesad, at the water
conduit, southward in the second upper roomthe descent to
it is from above: 9 talents".
There even seems to be an instance of two consecutive interrupting
clauses:
3Q15 9.1-3 ><
" at 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-...-NP should form one single NC in all the cases cited. There-
fore, 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 dis-
course. The initial PPs constitute the beginning of each item. 31
The only instances of PP-NPi that could qualify as genuine exis-
tential 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
" between 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
17 " in 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; 8.4-
7,8-9,10-13,14-16; 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 with Wolters, instead of Milik's . 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 " >< in 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 " in 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 . An instance of such a
genuine NC that is not existential is found in 3Q15 9.14-16
" in 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 in it is a consecrated offering".

Ill: PP-DPr

Nominal clauses with a prepositional phrase preceding a demonstra-

tive 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 .34

IVB: Subordinate clauses of the type PP-PPr

In the corpus, this pattern is attested only twice, with the first in-
stance 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 . ><
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 (" )( and they had said:) it is ours"
36
(referring to CD 3.16 ;(
4QTob e 6 5 )] [(
"(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 se-
quence Rh-Th is not attested at all. Whether in prose or poetry, in
main or subordinate clauses, the PP appears to convey the new infor-
mation, whereas the noun phrase never does. 39
1QM 2.10 " and the war of
the divisions (shall take place) during the twenty-nine remain-
ing (years)". 40
1QS 3.22-23
" all their sin, iniquities, wickedness, and all their

35
C o m p a r e Baasten, pp. 8-13.
36
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
.
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 .
Although this is correct, in view of the following clauses of the type ...
(with a focalized subject pronoun), translating "because" is preferable. Contrast
LXX 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 [" ;]and the war ... [shall be waged]...'.
 unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion in accordance
with the mysteries of God, until his end".
3Q15 10.1-2 " the descent to it is from above".
CD 3.20 " those 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 " while Israel is with him";
4QMMT 59 " while the flesh is (still) on them
(i.e., the bones)";
4QT0b e 5 2 " ][ while the gall of the fish was in
his hand" (= Tob 11.11);
11QT 34.13 " while 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 , 'the interpretation of the passage',
or , 'its interpretation', whereas the PP has the preposition , e.g.:
1QpHab 10.9 (... ' )the interpretation
of the passage concerns the Spouter of Lies, (who...)';
1QpHab 11.12 {... ' )its interpretation concerns
the Priest, {who...}'.43
As stated above, poetic texts display the very same order Th-Rh:
1QM 12.2 " the names of all

41
Further examples include: 1QS 3.23 1 ;
4.11-13
; 1QS 4.13-14
; 1QS 4.15-16
; 1QS 5.19-20
(cf. 4QS d 1:1.11); 3Q15 12.1 3; ><Q 1 5 2.11-12 ;
3Q15 3.9-10 3; Q 1 5 12.10 (
but it does indicate location); CD 2.1 .
42
Other instances: 11QT 34.12 11;( { Q T 34
1QM 5.8 ( very much like a circumstantial clause, as so o f t e n
in 1QM, but here without - . (
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 ()
by sword and famine". "Here the preposition l 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 ( )of 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 " and my place is in the holy
congregation";
1QH 9.30-31 " and 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 " ][but the lot of God is for
eternal light";
4QM a 11:2.18 " ][and the covenant of the
God of peace shall be for Israel";
1QS 10.9 " and the strings of my harp are
(tuned) to His holy norm" 46
1QH 11.9 " and 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 Th-
Rh.
IQpHab 3.4-5 (" )( ][][ the

44
Jongeling and van der Ploeg both read0]" ] le livre des noms
de toute leur armee" (Yadin: 1)[ . Needless to say, this does not
influence the syntactical structure.
45
Licht has . 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 ; Q M a 11:1
; 1QH 4.22 1 ; Q H 9.4 1;
;1QS 11.12 1 ;{
" } { ) and the glorious king is with us" (Cf. 1QM
19.1 . Vermes (similarly Duhaime, van der Ploeg)
reads " ... 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 [ . ] ][
47
Other examples: 1QS 10.9 4 =) Q S d
.
 Kittim,} fear and dread of whom are upon all the nations";
1QH 6.8-9 " for 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 " with turban head-dresses on
their heads";
1QM 5.10-11 " and an ear
of grain in pure gold shall be in the centre of the point, taper-
ing towards the head";
11QT 57.11-14
" he 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 " and there are graves at its mouth";
1QS 5.20 " and 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 is
due to the fact that the clause forms a chiastic pair with the following one: 1QH
6.8-9
49
Further examples include: 1QM 7.14-15
;1QM 6.10-11 1 ;
9.14 1 ; ] [
{" the 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 [ ;?]Jongeling, pp. 147-48, lists a n u m b e r of
translations, all of which take it as NC); 1QM 5.12
" and 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 tte", reading ;Jongeling: "et [il y a] des rainures, droit
vers la pointe", taking adverbially).
 property"; 50
4QT0b e 1:1.4 " ] [ and much grief is mine" (= Tob.
3.6);51
1QS 10.8 " as 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 " and there is a f i e r c e
struggle between all their judgments";
1QM 12.12-13 " ][let there be silver
and gold and precious stones in Thy palaces";
4Q405 20:2-22.12 " there 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 ][
" in 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 " patience 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 " a host of angels is among our
numbered men";
1QM 12.9 " ][ and the Hero of war is with our
congregation";
1QM 13.10 " and all the spirits of truth
are under his dominion"; 53
1QH 4.14 " a root that breeds gall
and wormwood is in their thoughts";

50
T a k i n g , 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 . See Qimron, Hebrew, 330.4,
500.3 (p. 108).
51
LXX (ed. Hanhart, Gttingen): ' ; Vetus Latina et in
magno sum taedio.
52
Other examples: 11QT 33.10-11
; 1QS 11.5 1 ; Q S 10.22 4 =)
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.
 1QM 17.7 " peace 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 " and the pangs of the pit
(are possessed) by all acts of horror";
1QH 3.31 " and the roots of the rocks
shall turn to torrents of pitch";
1QH 3.31 " the foundations of the mountains
become a burning";
1QH 3.12 " and 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 ( )clearly have the order Rh-
Th. The last one is from poetry:
1QM 7.6 " for holy angels are in
communion with their hosts";54
1QS 3.2-3 {" ) ( ...} and (that)
there is contamination in his repentance"; 55
1QS 5.14 " for there is impurity in all
those who transgress His words"
CD 1.2 " for He has a dispute with all
flesh"; 56
1QM 12.1 ][
"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 [ ]. 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 [ ], 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 ][ ][. 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 ( cf. 2 Sam. 19.33).
56
Compare Jer. 25.31 ; Hos. 4.1
.
57
Reading ][with Yadin, Lohse, van d e r Ploeg, Vermes, against Duhaime,
whose ][seems 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 is less clear, though here, too, Rh-Th seems
more probable:
1QM 7.4 {" ) { any
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 {{
(" and the leper) on whom there is a chronic leprosis or
scab"; 11QT 46.18+1 lQT b [(" )( ]and the men]
who have had a nocturnal emission".

VII: DPr-PP

Nominal clauses in which a prepositional phrase follows a demonstra-

tive 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 attest-
ed, e.g., Gen. 24.27 . Clearly a circumstantial clause, it is cer-
tain that the following clause has the sequence Th-Rh:
1QH 4.29-30 " whereas 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
extrapositionas so often in Qumran Hebrew poetryso that the
clause following it is of the type PP-PPr, the pronoun not being ex-
pressed:
 1QS 11.9 ' as 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 ][

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 infor-
mation structure being Th-Rh:
4Q375 1:1.5-6 " ][ the 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

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 " and Iwhen 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 in the construct state.
59
Taking as predicate of , with Jongeling and van der Ploeg: "Et toi,
Dieu re[doutable] dans la gloire de ta royaut et (dans) l'assemble de tes saints,
(tu es) parmi nous pour (nous) aider ternellement]'; cf. Jongeling, pp. 281-82 and
van der Ploeg, pp. 145-46. Compare 1QM 10.1 )
...}"that Thou art in our midst, 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 ' and Deut. 7.21
' . Compare also QM 13.7. Yadin interprets differently:
" A n d T h o u , 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 -, 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 " ][for Thou art unto me an eternal light".
 ' from 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 " while some of it is on it";
1QS 8.19 ' and the same judgment (is
the case) for all who join the Community'.
In the first case, it is preferable to interpret - adverbially as "about,
approximately". 61 More or less the same applies to the one instance
of a subordinate existential clause apparently consisting of two pre-
positional phrases. In the second clause, the mem partitivum in the
first constituent should be regarded as an indefinite nominal constitu-
ent. 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 com-
parison with similar clauses shows unequivocally that the third exam-
pie quoted above is a case of ellipsis, as is made clear in the follow-
ing scheme:
Rheme Theme Adverbial adjunct
r
C D 20.1-2 wkn hmpt Ikl b'y dt ny tmym hqd

1QS 8 . 1 8 - 1 9 wkmpt hzh 0(hmpt) Ikl hnwsp lyhd

C D 13.17 wkn 0(hmpt) 1mgr

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
hmpt, followed by an adverbial adjunct 'and such shall be the ruling
for...'. Instead of this initial kn, however, we also have cases of
wkmpt hzh, a f t e r which a repetition of the theme hmpt 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. -, la (p. 453); Joon-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 ,b (p. 580); Joon-Muraoka, Grammar,
133e.
63
Further examples: CD 15.6-7 ( with an added
temporal adjunct); CD 16.12 ; CD 20.1-2
; CD 8.18-19 (cf. CD 19.32) ; CD 20.8-9
X: Clauses with two contrastive constituents

In some cases, the context in which a nominal clause appears unam-

biguously 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 " the secret things belong to the
Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children".
In our corpus, such contrastive clauses occur in prose as 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 " from a fountain of light spring
those born of truth";
1QS 3.19 " but from a well of darkness
spring those born of injustice";
11QT 60.6-9


"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 {... )

1 ; Q S 7.9
i n t r o d u c e d by wkn)\ 1QS 7.10-11 .
The only two cases where mpt 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 19.13-
14 ( ) with CD 8.1 ( A) and CD 19.28-29
() with CD 8.16
(A). (In CD 8.1 the phrase i n t r o d u c e d by mpt 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 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 ( A) and CD 19.30-31 ( ),
quoted in IB above. The absence of the article in 19.13,28 leads White (p. 549) to
believe that the -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 " in 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 " but in the hand of
the Angel of Darkness is all the dominion of the Sons of
Deceit";
1QH 11.8 " in Thy wrath are all chastise-
ments";
1QH 11.9 " but in Thy goodness is much
forgiveness"; 65
1QH 1.26-27
" Thine, 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 struc-
ture in which it occurs (NPd-PPPP-NPi).
1QM 15.1-2 " and the lot
of God shall be in everlasting redemption, but destruction
shall there be for every nation of wickedness";
1QS 4.6-8

" and the visitation of all those who walk in it will be
healing, great peace in a long life ...";
1QS 4.9-11


" but to the spirit
of iniquity belong greed, and slackness in the service of
righteousness ..."

65
Less straighforward is 1QS 11.10 ><
" for it is not man (who determines) his way ... f o r w i t h God is justifica-
tion".
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 Joon-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 comple-
mentary 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.
68
Muraoka 1991, pp. 144-46; Muraoka 1990, 1.5.5.
69
Andersen, p. 50.
70
Muraoka 1991, p. 151; Joon-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., NP-
PP), while the reverse order occurs in a limited number of cases.
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 misunder-
standing.
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 'emphat-
ic\ '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 exe-
gesis. Rather, it is a consequence of the fact that technical exegetical
formulas (such as ... ) necessarily 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 attracts the sequence Rh-Th (which may be either
PP-NP or NP-PP), whereas the preposition usually has Th-Rh
(which may be either PP-NP or NP-PP). 72
5. Clauses that seemingly consist of two prepositional phrases
have been demonstrated to be either elliptical or not genuine (Sect.
IX).
6. Circumstantial 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 sepa-
rate 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 , 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., ( The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Sources
and Studies, 4; Jerusalem: Hebrew Language Academy, 1995).
Baasten, Martin F. J., 'Nominal Clauses Containing a Personal Pronoun
in Qumran Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.),
The Hebrew 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, ( Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic
Hebrew) (Second ed.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967-71).
Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and Ch. . 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, Trans-
lation, 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; Tbingen/Louis-
ville: 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; Tbingen/Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Sie-
beck]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 'Rule of the Congregation (lQSa)', in
James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 108-
17.
and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 'Blessings (lQSb)', in James H. Charles-
worth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 119-31.
C o h e n , D a v i d , La phrase nominale et l'volution du systme verbal en
smitique. Etudes 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. 80-
203.
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 (Bibliothque de la Pliade, 337; Paris: Gallimard,
1987).
E l l i g e r , K a r l , Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer
(Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1953).
Elwolde, J.F., review of Wacholder-Abegg-Bowley, A Preliminary
Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, Fascicle Four:
Concordance of Fascicles 1-3 (1996), DSD 4 (1997), pp. 229-
41.
'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, Part 2 ( D J D , 19; O x f o r d :
Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 63-76.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, Textos de Qumrn (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 1994-
95).
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; rhus: 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
Qumrn. 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 habdrkh ahat h lak b (Gen.
27:38aa)\ JSS 36 (1991), pp. 207-21.
Joon, 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, ., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (Second English ed. by A.E.
Cowley; Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1910).
Licht, J., ( The Thanksgiving Scroll. A
Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea) (Jerusalem: Mosad
Bialik, 1957).
L o h s e , E., Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebrisch 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 Hebr-
isch', 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 Qumrn ( 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).
'( The nominal clause in
Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew'), in M. Bar-Asher
 ( e d . ) , 1 9 9 0 ) 4 ) , 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), ( A Scroll
of the Wilderness of Juda [IQpHab]) (Jerusalem: Mayer,
1986).
( Qumran Prayer and Poetry) (The Biblical Ency-
clopaedia Library, 14; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1996).
v a n d e r P l o e g , J., Le Rouleau de la Guerre traduit et annot 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 contri-
butions 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 Exclu-
sion 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, 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: HarperSanFrancis-
co, 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 Commentary (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1983).
 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 pre-
served 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 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 total of 2,200 cola.
2
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.
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 (2 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 . Be-
c 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 origi-
n 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 '( Listen, 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 three-
f 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 a n d F, o n the o n e h a n d , a n d , o n the other, MS 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 a n d MS F v e r s u s MS

Item MSS E, F MSB

1. Sir. 32[35].16d (= B m g )
2. Sir. 32[35]. 17a (= B m g )
3. Sir. 32[35]. 17b (= B m g )
4. Sir. 32[35].17b (Bmg:)
5. Sir. 32[35].18a (= Bmg)
6. Sir. 32[35].18c (= Bmg)
7. Sir. 32[35].18c (= Bmg)
8. Sir. 32[35].18d (= Bmg)
9. Sir. 32[35].19b
10. Sir. 32[35].20b
11. Sir. 32[35].2la

6
Beentjes, 'Hermeneutics'; Zappella, Criteri antologici.
12. Sir. 32[35].21a (= B m g )
13. Sir. 32[35].21b
14. Sir. 32[35].21b
15. Sir. 32[35].24a
16. Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b (Bmg:) [ ]

T A B L E 2 : MS F a n d MS v e r s u s MS

Item MSS B, F MS
17. Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 1 b

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 ,
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 . Lvi, 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 ( MS ), 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, is 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 lit-
e r a t u r e is o r e 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 o 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
. 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 ; it 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 Syr-
iac rCc^i r<T1\m ^<7_.[. T h e m e d i e v a l J e w i s h r e t r a n s l a t o r r e a d t h e
Syriac w o r d s as plurals a n d the o r t h o g r a p h y a l l o w s s u c h a n interpre-
tation, b u t t h e S y r i a c MSS a n d e d i t i o n s that w e c o n s u l t e d d o n o t h a v e
t h e t w o d o t s w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h e plural o v e r e i t h e r of t h e s e t w o w o r d s .

7
Peters (1902), p p . 130,174.
8
Peters (1913), p p . 266-68.
9
H a s p e c k e r , p. 220.
10
Lvi (1901), p p . 158-59; Di Lelln, Hebrew Text, p p . 142-47.
11
See also 32[35J.18a (MS B).
T h e s c r i b e of MS o m i t t e d f 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
Bmg
MS F
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 , a s in MS a n d S y r i a c
( RCR73J^ RC3TJ ) , b u t w i t h a n , a s is h a n d e d d o w n b y MSS E, F,
B m g and Greek ( ).

3-4. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 7 b
MS
Bmg
MSS E, F
W h e r e a s MS 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 , 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 ( ) f 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 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 m 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.
13
Di Leila, Hebrew Text, p. 151.
14
Cf. Sir. 5.7 (MSS A, C); 6.21.
15
A H L , p. 79, lists of MS 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 , 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 , is u s e d in this sense, albeit in associa-
tion w i t h a v e r b of motion; see D C H , I, p. 199b.
5. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 8 a
MS
Bmg
MS [ ]
MS F
In MS , 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 , 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 ( ) ) . 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
. 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 ( ) 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
Bmg
MS [ ]
MS F
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 ('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 a n d a 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 a n d , 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 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 ( E, 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 (
, ) 1 9
a n d t h e S y r i a c (< . _!_<10 . rC ^ ; 7 3 J J J J D J J T . rCr70jjjj <_
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 i n s t e a d of ( see Di Leila, 'Sixth
M a n u s c r i p t , p. 235, note j).
18 See, e.g., R 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); Schrder, 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 al-
m 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 Levi (1901), p. 159

P e t e r s (1902), p. 3 7 4 2 S m e n d (1902), p. 28 2 2

M i n i s s a l e , p. 79

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 to , to , to
or to ? O n e c o u l d a r g u e , for e x a m p l e , that s 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 , j u s t a s
it a l s o h a s for in 42,20a ( M a s a d a , MS B).

9. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 1 9 b
MS (to g r i e v e , to h a v e r e g r e t s )
MSS E, F (to p r e s s )
T h e c o n t e x t , t h e G r e e k ( ) , a n d the Syriac ( ^ ) all 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
MS [ ]
MS F
T h e v e r b '( to 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 in 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 i n s t e a d of t h e cor-
rect r e a d i n g .
21
Cf. Peters (1913), p. 269.
22
Cf. S m e n d , Weisheit... erklrt, 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 litera-
ture. 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 , 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, [ ] ] 24
. [
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 , 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 ( ) s 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 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
MS 2
MS [ ]
MS F

13-14. Sir. 3 2 [ 3 5 ] . 2 1 b
MS 1
Bmg
MS 2
MSS E, F

MS 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 , ( M 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
( MS ) 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 lat-
ter 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.
24
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 i n s t e a d of
; 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 o c c u r s five times: Jer. 7.4; 9.3; Mic. 7.5;
Ps. 62.11; 146.3.
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 ( MS 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 d 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 ( Sir. 15,14 [MS A ] ) 3 0 a n d t h e n o u n ( Sir. 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 in 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 ( MSS E, F, B m g ) , w h i c h is a n
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. T h e mem of
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 m 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 , 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 , 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 ( ) 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 er-
ror 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 in 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 I ('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 , ( t 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 has 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 , 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.
30
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 .
82).
33
Penar, p. 54.
34
D C H , , 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 ... hebrisch und
deutsch, p. 28; Weisheit ... erklrt, 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. in Job 8.13, w h i c h is r e n d e r e d 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 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;(MSS E, F); 42.8 ( M a s a d a , MS ).
a n d thirdly, b e c a u s e represents 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 II ('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 . M a y b e the a c c u m u l a -
tion of the verb in 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 ( MS B 2 ) or ( MSS E, F)
s h o u l d be preferred as the m o r e original reading. T h e Syr-
iac ( , ijroi 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 a n d F. 39
After Sir. 32[35].21, MS 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 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 origi-
nal text, b e c a u s e r e s e m b l e s m o r e or less both Greek () a n d
Syriac ( ! ^ ) . 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
() , 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
MS [ ]
MS F
It is striking that MS 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 and F:

MSB 32[35].24 33[36].1 33[36].2 33[36].3 44

MSS E, F 33[36].1 32[35].24 33[36].2 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 i j n m n ) is identical with the H e b r e w
( ;) there is no Syriac extant for Sir. 42.8 ( . (
40
Both Greek and Syriac have one bicolon here.
41
Levi , p. 160, does not mention the marginal readings and relat-
ing to the first bicolon of MS B.
42
E.g. Lvi, , p. 161: "Il faut noter d a n s ce chapitre la frquence des doublets,
dont la plupart proviennent d e S "; cf. Peters (1902), p. 132; on the basis of
in the Greek, he has interpreted the second of 32[35].23 as a par-
ticiple 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 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 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
s h o u l d not be reconstructed , 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 in 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 ( )
o r t h a t of MS F ( )should 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
a s cojj rC ('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 a 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 ( ) . 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 --,
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
a n d are r e n d e r e d b y the Syriac translator,47 just as the Greek
t r a n s l a t o r u s e s for b o t h7,24)) a n d;13,8;6,13)
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, a 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
s h o w s u p too: ( Prov. 1 3 . 3 a ) , ( Prov. 16.17b). W h e r e a s
i 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 , 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 is c o l l o c a t e d w i t h , , a n d
their s y n o n y m s :
Ps. 105.45; 119.34; P r o v . 28.7
Ps. 78.7; 119.115; P r o v . 3.1; 6 . 2 0
Ps. 119.2,22
Ps. 1 1 9 . 5 6 , 6 9 , 1 0 0
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 [.]] 50[
Bmg
MS
MS F

45
SkehanDi Leila, p. 395 o n l y m e n t i o n s that Syriac lacks vv. 2 , 3 .
46
Marcus, Fifth Ms of Ben Sira', p. 229.
47
: 7.24; : 4.20; 15.15; 20.7; 32[35].18, 23; 37.8.
48
T h e G r e e k 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 ( v. 23) a n d ( v. 24).
49
Cf. Prov. 24.12b ( )a n d Ps. 119.129 ( . (
50
S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklrt, p. 295, a n d Segal, , p. 205, h o w e v e r , e r r o -
n e o u s l y give as MS B's reading.
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 ( )
a n d MS F ( )h 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 () , 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 a n d
F a n d MS 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 / is 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 ( H o s . 2.7; Ps. 102.10; P r o v . 3 . 8 ) a n d
( 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 rather s o o n a f t e r its d i s c o v e r y re-

p 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 ( )
a n d t h e r e a d i n g of MSS a n d F ( ) h a v e a f o r m of t h e v e r b ,
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 ( ) 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 , p r o b a b l y that f o u n d in MSS a n d F.

18. Sir. 3 3 [ 3 6 ] . 2 b
MS [.... 5 6 ...]
Bmg
MS [.]
MS F
T h e r e a d i n g [.]( MS ) / ( MS 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 ' ( f 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 ( ) . 5 7 T h e Ketib in 2 C h r o n . 8 . 1 8 ( a n d its
Qere 58( i n d i c a t e s that t h e s p e l l i n g in 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 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 , E, a n d F h a v e ( or ), MS A h a s consistently;4.17)
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 r e z F e r n a n d e z , p p . 57,58,131.
53
Schechter-Taylor, p. (14); Lvi, Text, p . 35; S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklrt, p . 29;
Peters (1902), p . 133: " n u r Reste von e 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; Lvi, Text, p. 35; Strack, p . 27, a n d Vattioni, p . 173, er-
r o n e o u s l y h a v e .... S m e n d , Weisheit ... erklrt, p. 29, h a s filled u p the la-
c u n a in MS w i t h , 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 .
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 (). 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 a n d F are solid proof that it is the n o u n '( gale, 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 and F, is 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 , + , 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 ( Bmg), b e i n g an error for . 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 fol-
l o w e d by )is found: 6 1
Gen. 38.24
Lev. 26.37 .
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 , , 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 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 is different f r o m MSS 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
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 and F is to be preferred to that of MS B; in these
instances, B m g is identical w i t h MSS and F. In three instances (items
6-8), it is problematic as to w h i c h reading is preferable.

60
Segal, 0, p. 206. It is rather odd, however, that Segal also has for MS B,
where there is a complete lacuna!
61
I should like to thank my colleague Dr H.W.M. van Grol (Katholieke Theo-
logische 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... erklrt, 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 classifi-
catie 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.
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 . , , in : 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 doktrinre Bedeutung ( A n B i b , 30; R o m e : P 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 c k , 1972]).
Lvi, I., L'Ecclsiastique II ( B i b l i o t h q u e d e l'cole d e s H a u t e s 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., 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 , ., La Versione Greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico
alia luce dell'attivit 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 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 jngst wiederaufgefundene Hebrische Text des Buches Ec-
clesiasticus untersucht, herausgegeben, bersetzt 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 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 n ( 1 1 Q P s b ) , RB 74 (1967), pp. 408-12.
R g e r , H.-P., Text und Textform im hebrischen 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, ., 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 Knyvszemle 98 (1982), p p . 179-85.
S c h r d e r , L., Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und
Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (Beitrge 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 ) .
( S 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, hebrisch und deutsch (Berlin:
R e i m e r , 1906).
Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklrt (Berlin: Reimer, 1906).
Strack, H.L., Die Sprche 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, ., '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 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 Ehrensvrd
(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 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 [ ] c 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 []
Gosh. 8.29);
(3) A m e s s e n g e r [ ]c 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 ar-

1
For full references, see the bibliography.
2
G e s e n i u s / K a u t z s c h , 126q: Eigentmlich ist d e m Hebrischen die Ver-
Wendung des Artikels, um eine einzelne, zunchst noch unbekannte und daher
nicht nher zu bestimmende Person oder Sache als eine solche zu bezeichnen,
welche unter den gegebenen U m s t 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 Fllen meist d e r
unbestimmte Artikel." [italics supplied]; J o 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 con-
sciousness 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 ..."
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 lan-
g 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 is 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',, 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 in
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, a n d
, 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 gen-
erally, related to determination." See also the critique of this study by Mller,
'Zu den Artikelfunktionen im Hebrischen'.
4
As when Moses orders the donkey to be saddledit is presumably his don-
key, 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 ex-
amples.
6
Neue Beitrge, p. 79, . 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 as
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 refer-
ence, a n d in the N a h u m pesher ( 4 Q p N a h 1.8) w e find ,
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 arti-
cle 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
Joon/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 Euro-
p 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 , , 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 e 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.
8
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.
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 Joon/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 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 or ' s u p e r f l u o u s deter-
m 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 hala-
khic 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 ex-
a 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 [ ] w i t h a p i t c h e r a n d tied a p o t
[ ] w 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 , , D a n b y translates 'the light-hole'. In the pre-
c e d i n g line w e are told " they m a y s t o p u p a light-
h 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
" s 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 is generic, b u t
c e r t a i n l y is d e p e n d e n t o n i 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 , , 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 in o n e ' s h o u s e . M a n y kitchen utensils to-
d 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 [ ;]and o n another year h e trained the f o l i a g e to-
w 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 [ ( ] m. Kilaim 4.9).
The t w o e x a m p l e s , and also 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 a n d as 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 [ ( ' ] m .
P e s a h i m 7.2).
is 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 [ ] to 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 , serpent [ ]has 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 , , 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 state-
m 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 [ ]had 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 arti-
cle. 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 an-
imals 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 hala-
khic 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 Bar-
Kochba letters, '... that I put the c h a i n s [ 1 4 [ o 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 - of marks 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 -). 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
for-.
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 [ ]a 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 , 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 [ ] and 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 ran-
d o m [ ] , a n d b e c a u s e d 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. in (9) a n d in (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 [] , the breast [ ] ...
a n d the f o r e l e g [ ] a s far a s t h e s h o u l d e r b o n e
[ 1 1 ) ... [qt20.15-16).
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 - + 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 exist-
ing 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 ex-
isting 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 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 fur-
ther 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 Kauf-

m 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 Lan-
g 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
Chesterman, On Defmiteness, p. 76.
21
Robbins, The Definite Article in English Transformations, p. 239.
22
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 Lan-
g 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 Dedi-
cated 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 , . , 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., Hebrische Grammatik, vllig umgearbeitet von . Kautzsch
( T w e n t y - E i g h t h ed.; Leipzig: V o g e l , 1909).
Mller, ., '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 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 l d e k e , T h . , Neue Beitrge 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 par-
ticular 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 re-
s 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 lit-
erary 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 Edi-
tion (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.: Tar-
g 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 ,
Prez F e r n n d e z , Corts 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 (Suke-
nik'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 and lexical structures found

in the Bible (Items 1-11)

1. A t 1 Q H 18.18, ( w 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 / / , w e l l - a t t e s t e d in the Bible, to the v i -
suai, , 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
, 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 , , 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 / ( or ) as an object of v i s i o n in earlier literature.

2. A t 1 Q H 18.26, r 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 if is 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 ( s e e BDB, 724b, 3), I think it m o r e likely
that is 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 n s e r
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 a 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 re-
g a r d to the m e a n i n g of , , 257, a n d Licht, 217, rightly c o m -
p a r e 1 Q H 3.24, " for 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 .
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,
[ ,
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 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
! ,
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:
! ,
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
p 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 ( n e v e r ) is rare a n d u n c e r t a i n ( s e e
D C H , I, 434a); a n d o 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 , 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 IV, 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
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
p 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 ) , ( a 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
 , 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 as c o n c e s s i v e ) . T h i s s e n s e of is 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: { w 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, p 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
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 ( as 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 re-
fleets 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 for
at 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 w 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: :
( where Qimron, CDC, proposes reading ^ [ ^t ] ' 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 , ( w i t h o u t ^ [ ) / ]
' t h e y w i l l backslide'; Rabin, 23, retains : [^, H if il] a n d interprets
as elliptical for1] Q S 6.14] a n d cites Sir. 3 4 . 2 2 , ; Rab-
in'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 :; 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 interpreta-
tion 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 , ' until 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):
;][n o t e that at C D 20.14 (), h 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 . M o r e striking, si vera lectio, is
4 Q 4 1 8 2.5 ( W A , II, 7 7 ) , [ ] , 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 [ ' ! ... 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. A t 1 Q H 6 . 3 5 , , 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:
1; ) ][]
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, , 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 objec-
t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p in the c a s e of . C o n t r a s t , for e x a m p l e ,
( t o s . B e r a k h o t 1.11; S N m 7 6 . 2 ) , Mekh.
W a y y a s s a ' 6.6; B a h o d e s h 5.10), a n d ( SOR 17.7) w i t h
( tos. A v o d a h Z a r a h 6 . 5 ) , ( SDt 199), a n d
( SDt 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,
,
a n d , strikingly, b y M e k h . B e s h a l l a h 1.44-46,
. . . . . . ,
a n d b y SOR 30.11:
/

.
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'
in the Bible c o m e s f r o m a late text, 2 C h r o n . 3 5 . 2 1 ,
"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 , [" t]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 ( ) . 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
' the 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 ' battle of G o d ' at
1 Q M 4.12; 9.5; 1 5 . 1 2 ; ( ' s 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; ' their battle (against)' at 1 Q M 1 . 1 2 ; ' battle
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);' battle 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 ) ; ' a 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; . . . ' a ( s e c o n d ) battle w i t h (the Kittim)' at 4 Q M a 11:2.19;
' battle a g a i n s t ' at 1QM 10.3; 15.1 ( e r a s e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y
' ; ) w 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 ( ; (
' w 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, still 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 .
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 for in parallel w i t h a r e c o n s t r u c t e d [ ] , 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, is read for2);)
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) ;11 )at Sir. 11.9,
w e f i n d in 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 ( and 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 a p p e a r s a s a further parallel e x -
p r e s s i o n , . 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 that h e rejected
, 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: . . . , b u t c o n t r a s t Isa. 1 . 7 : , 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 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 , 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
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 as 'strangers'.

4 . T h e Hif'il of , the three i n s t a n c e s of w h i c h in the Bible are re-

stricted 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:
) , 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: ) , 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 as a n object of
rather than of ) . At 9.11 is parallel to , 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 [ ] is r e m i n i s c e n t of the u s e of
at 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 there 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 at 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 , 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 at 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 e 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. ( T L ) T h e s e q u e n c e / a 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 ^
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 , ( ^ . 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
o 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 ;[QJubh
[ 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,
,
m. Ta'anit 3.8,
, , ,
a n d S D t 42:
, / .
For / in 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 ex-
a m p l e , t h e p a s s i v e participle at 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 u s e d to
r e n d e r H e b r e w ( tg. 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 ( s 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 ' s 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 ' storm' 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 f r o m l i v e m e t a p h o r in J o n a h to bor-
r 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. is 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 . . / T h e fact that at 1 Q H 1.12 is f o u n d i m m e d i a t e l y adja-

cent to ' l 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 c 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 ]
( g l o s s e d b y at 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 ,
just a s t h e f o l l o w i n g d o e s w i t h . 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 in 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 at Sir. 43.13 (MSS a n d M, b u t n o t 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
in 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
, , a n d w 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: Flcha 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 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, 1 " f 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 i 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./ ;s 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 m 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 a n d , in w h i c h c a s e
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 cor-
pora 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 at 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 / ,
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 at
8.35 a n d at 8.37. ' fetter' 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 , / ' c 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. I 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 , 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 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 ( ; ] W 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 interpre-
tation, 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 , 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 at 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 at 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 ' c 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 Gestir-
n 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 ' w 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 f 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. / ' p 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 :
( 3.21);
( 6.8);
( 11.10).
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,

'(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: ' and 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, ' to
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. M u r a o k a , 145, remarks o n the n o v e l t y of t h e c o n s t r u c -
t i o n ( e . g . 1 0 . 1 7 , , a n d 4 . 3 6 - 3 7 , ![ ,
w h i c h Licht, 228, rightly c o m p a r e s w i t h at 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
' trust 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 , ( a n d a l s o w 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 . 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'. is 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. A 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 or
in at 1 Q H 4.23 a s t h e object of ' smear'. 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 , 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: [[
) a n d at 1 Q H 5 . 3 5 , , as w e l l as at A v o t 5.20,
)( ,
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
!a n d s u g g e s t s , then, that the object of is to be s o u g h t in the
f o l l o w i n g ( [ if is read) or ( if is
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 b e f o r e t 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: ) .
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 ( , , ) of 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 in 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 a s a n a t -
ural p h e n o m e n o n , ' storm', , ' s h a m e ' , ' free
o n e s e l f o f , a n d ' w a r against', are clearly a t t e s t e d in TL. In the
c a s e of , a n d , 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) phraseological innovations in 1QH and DSS

(Items 12-20)

12. A t 1 Q H 12.10, the u s e of in 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 , ' t e s t i m o n y ' , is striking (the c l o s e s t biblical paral-
lei w o u l d be D e u t . 4.12, ) , 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: . . . ( CD 6 . 1 0 ) ; 1 ) Q S 9.2
( 4 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 ) , is 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 w i t h ab-
stracts 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, , 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 at 1 Q H 12.10 a s "apart f r o m
H i m " ( ? / ) , d e s p i t e t h e c l e a r s e q u e n c e...
( M a n s o o r , 173: ) ... . . . , 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 ; H N , 204: " refers back either to
the w i t n e s s [ ] , 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 e r ihr; , 197: b e s i d e it.
G M E s , 390, "fuera d e l", 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. T h e restoration [ ]at 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 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 ] ; 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 , , 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 , , 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 1 ( ][W 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 d e x p r e s s i o n of t e r r o r / h o r r o r , al-
t 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 in it is paralleled at tos. Bava
M e s i a ' 7.3, ' h 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 . T 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 ' ( ; ) Kittel, 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 , 81-
83, o n . 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 , ' the 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 is b a s e d o n a
biblical o n e w i t h t 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
( Licht] 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 , ,
as w e l l a s o n Ps. 21.12, . T h e fact that is 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 for ) u 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 w 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] [ ] [ also
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 [
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 rep-
r 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 / a n d in 1 Q H , as indi-
cated b y 4 . 1 0 , .)
Both ... a n d c 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 in p l a c e of ; for ,
compare:
1[]
( 4 Q D e [4Q270] 1:1.1 [ B a u m g a r t e n , 141]);
[ ] [
3
(4QBer [4Q286] 7:2.7 [EW, 228; cf. W A , III, 102]);
[!:!
( 4 Q A d m o n i t i o n [4Q370] 1:1.3 [ N e w s o m , Admonition, 90]);
!
 ( 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, _ ,
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 a t [ 4 Q 5 2 5 ] 11.4:
! ( [ W A , , 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: : . (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
^ , w h i c h o c c u r s 27 times, a n d ] [ , at Lev. 14.4,6,49,51,52;
N u m . 19:6, a n d Ibn Janh c l a i m e d that at 1 K g s 17.14 a c t u a l l y
m e a n t ; s e e S 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 , at N e h . 10.34; 1 C h r o n . 9.32; 2 3 . 2 9 w i t h
at 2 C h r o n . 13.11 a n d at E x o d . 40.23; o n
a n d a 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 ' evil of e y e ' >
' evi1-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 [ if 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 ' o n e i m p u d e n t of face').
represents, then, first, as in , the r e p l a c e m e n t of
biblical b y , 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 rea-
s 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 , w h i c h itself repre-
s 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 at 6.5 w e f i n d s i m -
p l y ., a n d s e c o n d , in N e o p h y t i , in p l a c e of M T ' s
( ) "( s 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 in 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 a n d , n o t e the paral-
l e l i s m of a n d at 1 Q H 10.5 a n d a l s o at 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, ren-
d 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 ( for ;
A H L : ? < ?. . . > ) at 1Q29 13.4. Licht's r e s t o r a t i o n (p. 116) at
1 Q H 6.22, ] [ , w h i c h c o n v e r t s the v e r b of to 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 ( ) a n d C D 2.16 ( ) is
a c c e p t e d , n o t o n l y are a n d f 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 a n d o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d a n d o 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 refer-
ring, 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 , for or 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 el-
lipsis, 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. 1QH 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 in
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 Gib-
s 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 is
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 . . . . 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 " ( e n m i t y ) " a n d " pers" 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 ,
, 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 m a t c h e s pre-
c i s e l y that of Est. 9 . 2 4 , . is a l s o f o u n d at
4 Q B e r f [4Q280] 1.6, ( W 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 , w h i c h r e g u l a r l y t a k e s ( n e v e r in
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
a n d o n s y n t a c t i c g r o u n d s , g i v e n that is 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 ( w 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
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 , 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 ( participle) 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 a n d a 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 ele-
m e n t s in is 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 ' regard a s ' at 4.9,
'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 ' . in the s a m e s e n s e
a s , 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 a n d a n d the v e r b s
a n d are 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 in 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 in earlier H e b r e w s o u r c e s .

1 6 . 1 Q H 1 1 . 3 0 - 3 1 , , and 16.12, ,
b o t h e v i d e n c e the u s e of w i t h of 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 for 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 of
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 :

' 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);
,
'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);

'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
, 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:


'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 ]
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:

' 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. T h e c o l l o c a t i o n ' great o n e , i.e. g r e a t n e s s , of y o u r

g o o d n e s s ' at 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
a p p e a r s to b e m o d e l l e d o n at Is 63.7 a n d at 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 ) // Q 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 a 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: / ( d e s p i t e N u m . 14.19::14.23;(
. 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 is 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 ,

( 14.23),
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 ) : [ ] .
N o t e that the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s i n g u l a r as regens w i t h a n ab-
stract 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 as 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 , is 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 re-
q 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
is 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 at 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 , 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 ,
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 at 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
; there 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: ) or 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 ) : m 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 , , 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, [ " a 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 ( i.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.
is f o u n d a s ( 9 . 8 : ) a n d ( 1 0 . 1 2 : ) ,
w h e r e a s in all ten i n s t a n c e s of in 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 , a n d for at Isa.
27.1. E v e n m o r e s t r i k i n g is for at 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 w 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]: ][ great 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 is n o t
s p e l t in DSS, n a m e l y , at 4 Q H 0 d ^ [4Q427] 7:1.13 ( W A , II, 258):

"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 w a s c h o s e n , or has e n t e r e d b y felici-
t 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 . A g a i n s t m y
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of at 1 Q H 1.32; 10.16; 11.29; 14.23; 16.12 a s ,
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 ( a l w a y s )are f o u n d p e r h a p s fif-
t 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 ( i 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. N o t e the striking e x p r e s s i o n , at 1 Q H fr. 4.13.

w 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;,w i t h ) a n d Sir. (5.1, w i t h a n d ) , 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,
" A 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 , at P r o v . 3.5, w h i c h , a g a i n , h a s a n ab-
stract c o m p l e m e n t :

(the s e c o n d h a s p e r h a p s b e e n c h o s e n , o v e r , 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 in 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 , 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 w 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 ab-
stract) a n d of ( s 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. T 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 . A t 1.10-11,19-20,28, rep-
resents the rare c o n s t r u c t i o n of w 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 ( sic) at 4 Q T a n h [ 4 Q 1 7 6 ]
16.3, at 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 ( rather than ) in 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 ,
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 ) ( w i t h in-
f 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 is 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 o 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
at 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: " Before 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 f o l l o w e d b y t h e
perfect of :

( 13.11);
( 15.14)
(also at 4 Q A g e s [4Q180] 2:2.10). w 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 + 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 al-
r 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 is read for ) . 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 ) ( in 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, p l u s i m p e r f e c t ,
is f o u n d :


"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 e 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: : : : : (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 b 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 ;B u r r o w s , 411, V e r m e s , 213, a n d A b e g g , 102, ren-
d 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:
( Ps. 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
Q H 4.14,' , 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 Q H 5 . 1 4 , )( , 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 ) , , 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),
. a 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 at Sir. 10.22, parallel to
( MS A) or ( MS ), 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 lit-
erary, or e v e n p e r h a p s s p o k e n , i d i o m , w 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 a n d
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 o n its o w n
( n o t f o l l o w e d b y ) at Sir. 4.1 a n d 1 Q H 5.13, i n d i c a t i n g that
m 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 , n a m e l y ( Jer. 20.13; a l s o Jer. 2.34; Ps. 72.13:
[ u n l e s s is read at Jer. 2.34 for ) ] , is f o u n d at
1 Q H 2.32 ( A H L 229: 5.18;3.25;([[,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 or 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 (
; , p l u s abstract n o u n ; w i t h p e r f e c t ; w i t h
infinitive), o n l y , p l u s of i n s t r u m e n t (to a limited extent),
a n d in 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 (non-literary) phraseological innovations in 1QH only (Items

21-32)

21. I f at 1 Q H 4.29, w e interpret as " W h o h a t h d e -

clared the like?" ( H N , 78), the u s e of , 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 , , a n d f o l l o w e d b y .
H o w e v e r m o s t translators interpret as ' flesh( 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 ] V 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 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: , 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 [ ]
to these?' or ' w h a t w a s p r o c l a i m e d [ ] b y / t o these?'.
There is n o direct biblical or tannaitic parallel to either a n a l y s i s of
. T h e verb is 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
or p r e c e d e d b y or . 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 ( ) , ' flesh' is o n l y p r e c e d e d b y or in the
e r r o n e o u s text of S N m 92.4, ( } [ o t h e r
e d i t i o n s read s i m p l y ), a n d at S D t 76, w h e r e clearly 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:
.
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 i 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 ( Ps. 144.3),
( Ps. 8.5,- j o b 7.17; 15.14), a n d ( Ps. 89.49)7

A t 1 Q H 4.29, the f o l l o w i n g s e e m s to rein-
f o r c e t h e a n a l y s i s of ( in ) a s n o u n , b u t it is a l s o true
that w o u l d n i c e l y c o m p l e m e n t ( as 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
a s verb]".

2 2 . 1 Q H 7 . 1 2 , ( A H L r e a d s as an error for , 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 ) , is t h e first
r e c o r d e d e x a m p l e of ' attack' w i t h direct object (cf. 2.23: ) ,
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 at
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 at Ps. 140.3.
N o t e that l Q I s a 3 r e a d s at 54.15b, w h i c h Kutscher, 356, in the
light of the p r e c e d i n g )( in 54.15a s u g g e s t s m i g h t r e p r e s e n t
(VIT) fear', w h i c h r e a d i l y takes a n object.

2 3 . T h e u s e of the f o r m u l a , 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):
. . .

( 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; , 78: t o g e t h e r w i t h ... to-
g 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 . 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 at 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: ] d e s G e d c h t n i s s e s ; ,
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.
, 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 ' inscribe' 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 ' e 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 is e i -
ther a n o m i n a l i z e d p a s s i v e participle, ( ' s 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 1 at 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
( s e p a r a t e l y f r o m 1' ink). 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 ; ( v d P ,
144, c l a i m s that the v e r b is f r o m / ' pierce, perforate'), w h i c h
s u g g e s t s that if is 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 .
N o t e a s w e l l that a l w a y s o c c u r s in the c o m b i n a t i o n
' 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 w i t h at 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 ... a s
i n s c r i b e d ... p e r m a n e n t l y , i.e. ( G 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 w 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 w i t h , 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 , 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 .(

25. A t 1 Q H 4.26 a n d 9.20, b o t h of w h i c h read , L o h s e ' s

p o i n t i n g (pp. 126, 146), , 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 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,
? , 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., . ( N o t e that L o h s e , a s B u r r o w s [ s e e be-
l o w ] , interprets the as 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 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), , 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 , , 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 is 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 ( w i t h o u t D , at 4 Q M M T 12 a n d at
17,26), a n d p e r h a p s ) ?( at 4 Q D 4 ] Q 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 at 4 Q 3 0 6 1.12, in w h i c h f 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 Q H 1 1 . 5 , , c o m b i n e s a par-
a l l e l i s m of a n d f 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 m 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)' ( ) , 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: rei; 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 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 faith-
ful 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 h 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 " is 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:
" ... [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 o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ) . 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 w 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
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 " of tran-
sitivity", 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 in particular, DCH, III, 279, reg-
isters t w e n t y i n s t a n c e s of a 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 is
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 w 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 ' praise' is not f o u n d in TL ( s e e Jastrow, 405a, for in AL).

27. A 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 ) ,

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, .
A s Kittel's d i a g r a m (p. 72) s h o w s , is ' 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 . H o w e v e r , that w 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 , a n d are, i n d i v i d u a l l y , c o m m o n .

28. A t 1 Q H 14.12, w 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 ( ~or )~rather than ' ( w 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 at 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 . 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 , .[[
( Mal. 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 is e v e n m o r e c o m m o n than
in 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 , liter-
ary, m a n i p u l a t i o n for stylistic reasons, s e e i n g that o 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 p 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 / / , or a n y similar c o l l o c a -
tion, a n y w h e r e in TL, but is 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 ( ) a n d ( ) are 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, , a n d at t o s . K i p p u r i m 4 . 4 ,
; o t h e r c o l l o c a t i o n s of a n d are 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. T h e three m a i n e l e m e n t s in ( V 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 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:

"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 at Mic.
1.12 (or e m . ) or, m o r e l o o s e l y , o n Job 30.26,
... .
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 : " .

30. H o w e v e r at 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 w i t h of 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 , t 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 . 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 ' clay, e.g. tos. S h e v i ' i t : ' a 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
w 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 that w e
have noted.
3 1 . A t 1 Q H 6 . 2 0 - 2 1 , , 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 , ^
, 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 .
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 ^ ;&
at 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):
: ^ .
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 to h u m a n s b y refer-
e n c e to D a n . 11.14, , b u t is 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'), in 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 g e l l o s , entartet'; a l s o ' g e -
w a l t t t i g ) . T h e matter is not clarified b y TL, w h e r e o c c u r s o n l y
in ( m . / 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 Jas-
trow, 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 in 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 'ent-
artet. In A L is clearly a t t e s t e d , as a near s y n o n y m of, s a y , ,
a l o n g w i t h ' l i c e n t i o u s n e s s ' ( s e e Jastrow, 1227b).

3 2 . 1 Q H fr. 3 . 8 , , 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 ( Jer. 18.22; Ps. 140.6; 142.4; 1 Q H 2.29) w i t h the w o r d
pair 1 1 at Job 18.9 ( o 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 at 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 refers 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 , nor , h 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, + 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 4.34-
36, the f o r m u l a a p p e a r s to be u n i q u e . (24) A t 1 Q H 1.24,
either 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 b e f o r e a participle w i t h verbal f o r c e ( )w 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 ( at 4 Q D a [4Q266] 11.16) a n d TL ( 2 6 ).()A t 1 Q H
11.5, w i t h a c c u s a t i v e is u n i q u e , a l t h o u g h a 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 , h 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, w i t h of
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 in the Bible. (31) A t 1 Q H
6.20, m 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
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 o 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 a n d are 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) Q 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 QH (Items 33-40)

3 3 . T h e simile of 1 Q H 5.16, ! [ , 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 ,
, 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 : .
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
,
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 Q H 4.18-19,
][

,
is, as , 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 ( also 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 ) , , a l t h o u g h m i g h t e x e m p l i f y i n s t e a d ' set 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 (),
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)
(4QRitPur [4Q512] 69.2);
 (2) [
( 4 Q 1 8 3 1:2.5),
!
( 4 Q D a [4Q266] 1.1 [ B a u m g a r t e n , 31]);
(3)
( C D 6.14-15),

( 4 Q 4 1 8 81.2 [ W A , II, 101]).

3 5 . ! A 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 , 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,
][ ,
for Ps. 1 1 9 . 5 3 , , a n d at 1 Q H 4 . 3 3 , , for
Exod. 1 5 . 1 5 , ^ .'
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 ' a 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 ' t 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 , 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. I n h i s n o t e to 5QRg1e 26.3, , 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, , a n d there m a y be a n al-
l 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 , , 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. | A 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,
][?? ,
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 , , p e r h a p s w i t h s o m e in-
f l u e n c e f r o m Ps. 162.29b (as H N , 245; Gaster, 253), , a n d
Job 2 1 . 8 a , . M a n s o o r ' s r e a d i n g ( p . 1 8 8 : ' ) ]
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. 1QH 7.2, , 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,, 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 for ) . 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 m 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. ( ^ Isa. 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 is per-
h 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 a 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
, w h i c h , in fact, is a l s o f o u n d at P r o v . 16.29). c 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. A 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)

(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 ' 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) ( as 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:
< . . . > ), 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 in 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 , ( ) ( s 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: ( ] as 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 ) . is 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 , , 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): " ][ it 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 nor is f o u n d in TL.

V: Developments in inflectional morphology (Items 41-43)

4 1 . D S S s e e the e m e r g e n c e of a Hitpalpel of the v e r b , w h i c h oc-

c 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 ;]W a l l e n s t e i n , 262, s a y s that the Hit-
palpel 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 ref-
e 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 f 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 sibi-
l a n t : 1 ) QS 8 . 8 ) , 1 ) QH 6 . 2 7
1) Q 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 here). 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 ( for )at 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 , but in the s e n s e of , f r o m
'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
' g 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 , 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 as "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 , , : "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 . . ( Pilpel of V p 0 ) ; s e e Jastrow, 992b]).
Contrast, h o w e v e r ,1) Q H 9.13),1) Q 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 at 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 ( ) a 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
(or the Hitpa'el/Nitpa'al of ), n o t the Hitpa'el (* )that 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 at 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 , f o u n d at 3 Q 1 5 10.9, ( a 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 : ; in 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 :
), 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 ' they w o u l d pair u p ' at m. S a n h d r i n 5.5), n o t the
Hitimlpel (*). 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 evi-
d 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 quadrilit-
eral 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 a n d M a s a d a MSS is read b y A H L
thus:
( B);
( ? ? M).
(Yadin, 43, r e a d s ] [ in 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,
,
4 Q S h i r S h a b b f [4Q405] 20:2.21-22.2=11QShirShabb [11Q17] 3-4.3,
][
(not n o t e d b y R o f ) a n d p e r h a p s a l s o at Sir. 12.15 (MS A):
,
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 Lvi, 19, e m e n d to ; t h u s R o f , 316:
"if y o u falter, h e will not c o n t a i n himself"; R o f 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 is 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 , a n d
( 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,
( A H L ; Licht, 2 3 8 : 1,(]QH8 . 3 1 , > <
( A H L ; Licht: < ) > , a n d 3.27, ( cf., a s Licht, 81,
3:17: . . . ) ] . 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 (' troubles) 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 ' c o r d s of d e a t h ) s u r r o u n d
me'.
(3) Sir. 3.27, ' and 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 ' writhe', a s
Job 15.20, or ' whirl, d a n c e ' , as Jer. 23.19. ( S m e n d , 2, 66; 3, 32, r e a d s
, Hitpo'el of ' praise', "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 in that c a s e [cf. Jastrow, 353b, f r o m AL]; w o u l d
be rather the Hitpo'el of ' be 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:

'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);

"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. Ke-
l i m 10.3 [ D a n b y , 619]);

"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 ' pierce', but I
am unconvinced.)
 (4) A t 1 Q H 6.21, the verb in is 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:
.
in ( m e t a l i n g u i s t i c ) reference to the u s e of at 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
, 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
( ;) cf. 1 K g s 1 7 . 2 0 : . L i k e w i s e , /
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,
) to 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:
; Licht, 220, p o i n t s o u t that this u s e of the Hitpolel of d 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 ] : . (

ily d r a w n , as in the c a s e of /, 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, ' angrily 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 :
" ... 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 , ] [
'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
at m . M o ' e d Q a t a n 1 . 5 : .
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 re-
s 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 , ( Hitpa'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) / ( H 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,] (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 ]( both 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 , ( not * ;s 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 is 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
at 1QS 3.4 a n d 5QRg1e [5Q13] 4.2 a n d at 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 at 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. I f the v e r b at 1 Q H 5.16, , 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 re-
f 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,, w h i c h is f o u n d , w i t h
, 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 at 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
]], 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, ' to b e c o m e puri-
fied ( s e v e n t i m e s over)'. (The u s e of a 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 ) , , b y EW, 210: "to p u r i f y ,
a n d the r e m a i n s of [ ]all 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", inter-
p r e t i n g either, 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, ( as 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
at 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 -- in at 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:
for ) a 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 at 1 Q S
1.8 ( a l s o l Q S a 1.9) p e r h a p s for1) Q H 11.11; L o h s e , 154: ) ,
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 ( : ) as for : at 1 Q S 9.10. M u r a o k a ,
120, r e g a r d s as 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 of the Nifal
i n f i n i t i v e in the pesharim.

4 3 . 1 Q H fr. 3.4 r e a d s , w h i c h Licht, 224, t h i n k s is either

an error for ( as 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 / kind. T h e p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p l e
of is w e l l - a t t e s t e d in TL.
H N , 263, s a y s that " is 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 "
(cf., p r e s u m a b l y , GK, 8 5 u : . ( , , ,
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 , , 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
' treasures 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 . A t 1 Q H fr. 3.15, Licht, 225, r e a d s

a n d A H L , 2 4 5 , ( also r e c o r d e d b y Licht, 226,
a n d Gaster, 255). A H L , 6226, lists as a Qal i m p e r f e c t f o r m of /
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 ( : > :), 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, in-
t 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 , 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 sern e x p u l s a d o s y la a r r o g a n -
cia cesar". 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 in-
iquity, 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
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 of '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 ,
(Licht, 85), w h i c h Licht a n a l y s e s as ni. 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 )*$ . 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 . 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 , i n c l u d i n g Nifal, in TL ( w h e r e a s ' p o u r ' a n d ' fear' 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 at 1 Q H fr. 3 . 1 5 a s
'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 ( ; A H L reads as a n error for ;H N , 132 reports
an interpretation as ) a n d 2.23 ( ) .
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
f r o m , "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 ' d 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, ren-
d e r s "but the p o o r m a n ' s soul w a s in dread".

4 5 . 1 Q 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 :
[ ( ] Licht, 1 0 4 ) /
[( Lohse, 130)
( ( ) W a l i e n s t e i n , 242)
( A H L : [ ; ] V 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 t i g e n [bist d u ] , w e n n [ihre] F 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 , as a Polpal participle f r o m ' m 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 . . 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 ac-
c o r d i n g t o PF, 96; b u t s e e Q i m r o n , Hebrew, 36: ; ) = the 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
a n d at 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 , c o u l d b e retained if w e u n d e r s t a n d a 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 ...
treated a s , 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
' collector, r o o t ; ] Gaster, 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 h e r e a n d t h e
p r e s e n c e of ' m u d at Ps. 4 0 . 3 , , 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 ] :
) . 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, al-
t 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) for
, at Sir. 1 0 . 1 6 , , "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 , .

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; Se-
ries I: 200 B.C.. - 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 (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
Corts, Enric a n d Teresa Martinez, Sifre Deuteronomio: Comentario Tan-
naitico al Libro del Deuteronomio, Vol. I: Pisqa 1 - 1 6 0 (Collectnia
Sant Paci, 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., Aramisch-Neuhebrisches Handwrterbuch zu Tar-
gum, Talmud und Midrasch (Third e d . ; G 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 Introduc-
tion 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 Uncov-
ered: 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: El-
e 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 Midrsica, 18; Estella:
Editorial V e r b o D i v i n o , 1996)
GK: K a u t z s c h , ., 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 , 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 ., The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commen-
taries 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', Le. 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 Jud-
aea, 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 i m
Jubilenbuch, JSf 14 (1983), pp. 1-10
L o h s e , E d u a r d , Die Texte aus Qumran, Hebrisch und Deutsch, mit maso-
retischer Punktuation, bersetzung, Einfhrung und Anmerkun-
gen (Fourth ed.; M n c h e n : Ksel-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 , Hebrische 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 Qumrn (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, ., 'La tradicion t a r g m i c a e n R o m 8,5-8', in La Biblia i
el Mediterrani: Actes del Congrs 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, 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 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)
Midrs Sifre Numeros: Version crtica, introduccin y notas (Biblioteca
Midrsica, 9; Valencia: Institucin San J e r n i m o para la I n v e s -
t i g a c i 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 , A l e x a n d e r , N e g l e c t e d M e a n i n g of the Verb a 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 Tal-
mon ( 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 ; 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. El-
w 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 inter-
pretacin 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 Qumrn Cave (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 Docu-
ments (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 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 Jzef T. Milik a n d John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4; XV: Sapi-
ential 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 hebrisch und deutsch, mit
einem hebrischen 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 annot 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. Fasci-
cles 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 Soci-
ety, 1991-96)
W a l l e n s t e i n , Meir, 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 An-
notated 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, Emen-
dations, and Commentary (Jerusalem: T h e Israel Exploration So-
ciety 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 at-

t 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. W 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 reconstruct-
i 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 fac-
tor 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
' , Le5. 53 (1989), pp. 36-53 [Hebrew]; Contribution to the In-
terpretation 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 chias-
m 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. 201-
208.
4
See Watson, Chinstic Pattern, pp. 146-49.
5
A. Mirsky,( Jerusalem: 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, es-
pecially 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 Encyclo-
pedia of Language and Linguistics (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1994), pp. 1272-75.
7
See, e.g., M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 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 flour-
ishes".
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 be-
tween half-lines in this p a p e r w h e r e the original manuscripts display sticho-
graphy.
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) A )
7.31) 1 1 Al
7.33) A )
12.2) A )
36.21) = 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 - in 51.12B
(cf. Ps. 118), e.g.,


.

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 vocative, see Sect. IV below.
 !7.36) A )

( 9.14A)

[ ] 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
(Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958), p..
12
The adjective by itself is ungrammatical. O n e expects the periphrastic
form or the imperative . See Segal, , p..
13
Another possible example is11.6)] B ) , 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:
( 6.35; is 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 struc-
ture 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:
( 3.6)
. ( 4.7)
( 4.20)
( 4.23)
( 4.24)
( 20.16)
( 20.18)
( 25.9)
( 27.13).
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.
III: Clauses containing a negative command

A.

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 is 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 in 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 in-

stances of d 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 be-
low.
17
For expected . See Segal, , pp..-
18
Segal, , p. , suggests that this is possibly an error for ) =( or
) =( . Beentjes reads .
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 f o l l o w e d by c l a u s e s w i t h

the w o r d order of Verb + Object:

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 half-
l 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, , p. .
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 in-
v 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:
( 3.1)
( 3.5)
( 3.11)
( 4.2)
( 4.14)
( 23.9)
( 23.10)
( 24.17)
( 24.21)
( 25.6)
( 25.9)
( 27.10)
( 30.8).
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:

( 3.21);
see also 3.1,11 above. In1.10) ) , the negative c o m m a n d
occurs 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.

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
: 2 1

(4.4A)

(34.16B = 31.16).
2 2
A n o t h e r possible e x a m p l e is3.14) A ; cf.
3.14] C ] ) .

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 struc-

ture 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 in Prov. 22.24:
.

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) A )
3.12) A )
3.17) A )

21
This interpretation is supported by the translation of the Septuagint () in
4.4; 7.30; 9:13. According to CKC, 107o, 109c in Biblical Hebrew is
more emphatic as a negative c o m m a n d than . Joon-Muraoka note
that is common in laws and more solemn than , 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 trans-
lates a fem. sg. participle.
23
Segal, , pp. 17-18, notes the initial position of in 21 examples as
against three non-initial occurrences of . H e also comments on the sing, use
of vs. the pi. use of in 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 and as vocatives in w i s d o m
literature. H e comments on examples from Proverbs, Psalms, Qohelet, Ben
Sira, and Ahiqar.
 4.20) A )
[ 1 0 . 2 8 )
[10.29) B ) 2 4
11.8) A )
11.10) A )
11.10) A )
[ 2 0 11
14.11) A)
34.12) ][ B = 3 1 . 1 2 )
37.27) B )
38.9) B )
38.16) B )
40.28) B m g ) 2 6
42.11) 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:

(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 ][.
26
T h e text reads . Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta read
my son.
27
...[[ 42).UM).
28
The preferred reading, however, is that found in the marginal reading in MS
B, , and in the Septuagint. See Kister, Contribution, p. 306, n.
8.
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 :
37.3) B 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 ,
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 in 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 in the margin; Segal reads . The body of the text reads
, which is either a defective spelling for 'friend' or else reflects ' evil' as
attested in the Syriac and Greek translations. For a discussion of the relation-
ship between the three versions, see Segal, , p. , and Skehan-Di
Leila, Ben Sira, p. 428.
30
For an extensive treatment on the word order of clauses containing a voca-
tive in Biblical Hebrew, see Rosenbaum, Ward-Order Variation, pp. 116-32. Sur-
prisingly, the standard grammars contain relatively little on the subject. See,
e.g., E. K n i g , Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebrischen Sprache (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1897), 344w; C. Brockelmann, Hebrische
Syntax (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956), 10; B.K. Waltke-M.
O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 1990), 4.7d; 8.3d; 40.2.4; Joon-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,
should be compared with Proverbs:
0 ( 1.8)
( 4.1)
( 4.10).
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 voca-
tive
( [ 4 . 2 0 ] ; [ 5.1])
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:
( C D 1.1)
( C D 2.14)
( C 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 consis-
t 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 5ibqya " 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); l teppu b1l teppu " 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 l libba1na a rub att " 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 ^amaS supp sull u karbi " Y o u o b s e r v e ,
a m a , 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 in wisdom litera-
ture 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:
][
"May you survive, 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 :
[ ]! ][
" 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 :
][
"[Hear], m y son. Harvest a n y harvest a n d d o a n y w o r k "
(9.127);
][
"[Hear], 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 :
[ ]
"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 :

"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 c 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

"Say to us, Nabusumiskun, young m a n " (4.58);

"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; Lei-
den: 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 is
attested following the verb:

"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
, 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) C , with non-modal form). Note the

chiasmus of this line and the following
( 5.11 ).
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) A ) .
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 lit-
e 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 ini-
tial 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) A ) ,
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) A ) .
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:

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. El-
w 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. Hofti-
jzer, 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 Sec-
ond 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 re-
s 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 languagesquite often goes unnoticed by non-lin-
g 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 : + i n f i n i -
tive.

PartB

+ 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.
3
For detailed review articles on two such studies, see M. Ehrensvrd, '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 Evi-
dence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47 (1997),
pp. 301-15.
4
An expanded and revised version of a discussion which appeared in Hebrew
Studies 31 (1990), pp. 145-47.
5
Cf., for i n s t a n c e , H . E w a l d , Ausfhrliches Lehrbuch der hebrischen Sprache
(Seventh ed.; Gttingen: 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 / + 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 ( ) the king's

gate9
versus
D e u t . 24.10 (JTS): y o u m u s t n o t e n t e r () his h o u s e
1 0
J o s h . 23.7 (RSV): y o u m a y n o t b e m i x e d ( ( w i t h t h e se
nations
1 K g s 11.2 UPS): N o n e of y o u shall j o i n () them...
a n d n o n e of t h e m s h a l l join () you
H o s . 4.15 (RSV): E n t e r n o t i n t o () Gilgal
Jer. 16.5-8 (RSV): D o n o t e n t e r () the house
of m o u r n i n g . . .
the house
Y o u shall n o t g o i n t o ( ) of f e a s t i n g
the path
P r o v . 4.14 (RSV): D o n o t e n t e r ()

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. Bergstrsser, Hebrische Grammatik, II (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhand-
lung, 1926), l l h ( p . 56).
6
BDB, ibid.
7
GKC, ibid.
8
Cf. . 10.
9
JM (P. Joon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [corrected re-
vised 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, per-
mission)".
10
It is widely recognized that in Classical/Standard BH the infinitive con-
struct is negated as a rule by , not by see, e.g., BDB, p. 518b; GKC,
114s (p. 352); Bergstrsser, 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: Eisen-
brauns, 1990), 36.2.1g (p. 603); JM, 124e, 1601 (pp. 433, 607). This is w h y
s o m e cases of are a d d u c e d in the following lists of examples. I a m
aware, however, that + infinitive does not offer a perfect 'linguistic con-
trast for o u r purposes, since does not function as an independent nega-
tive statement, whereas / + infinitive does.
 of the wicked
P r o v . 23.10 (JPS): D o n o t e n c r o a c h u p o n () 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 ( ...) You11
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 () to You

c. E z r a 9.15 (RSV): w e a r e b e f o r e t h e e in
o u r guilt, for n o n e can s t a n d )) b e f o r e t h e e

[versus12
( ) before...
1 S a m . 6.20 (RSV): W h o is a b l e to s t a n d this h o l y G o d ?
( ) You w h e n
Ps. 76.8 GPS): W h o c a n w i t h s t a n d You are enraged?
( ) before
N a h . 1.6 GPS): W h o c a n s t a n d His wrath?
( ) 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 ( ) to it, 13
nor anything taken ( ) from it
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 (1 ) to it
or take ( ) from it.

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 ( )
the tabernacle
versus
Jer. 17.21,27 (RSV): T a k e h e e d ...
d o not bear () a burden

11
Driver, Tenses, p. 274: "none can stand in conflict with thee".
12
Syntactically, the following verses are phrased as rhetorical questions ( +
impf.), not negative statements (**/ + impf.). Nevertheless, in linguistic
usage they represent a m o d e of expression that in classical BH fulfills a func-
tion very similar to that of the later + inf.: ' w h o is able to stand?!' = 'none is
able to stand!.
13
JM, 160j (p. 606): "impossible to a d d .
 o n t h e S a b b a t h d a y ...
1 4
if y o u d o n o t listen ... n o t to b e a r ( ( a
... o n t h e S a b b a t h d a y .

T h e closely r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n + 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 + infinitive, it s e e m e d h i g h l y sig-
n 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 + 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 ( (
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(

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
+ 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 ()

14
Cf. . 10.
15
BDB, p. 518b.
16
Both options, + inf. and + inf., indicate "very much similar nuances"
(JM, 160j [p. 606]). However, seems to be somewhat stronger than ] ;cf.
Driver, Tenses, p. 275 ("Where is found instead of , it denies more abso-
lutely, and categorically, implying that though the attempt to d o the act
would be folly, still it might be made, but implying that the conditions are
such that it would be (or actually was) out of the question altogether").
17
The other two appear in Judg. 1.19 and Amos 6.10.
18
in this verse is virtually identical to in 1 Chron. 23.26
(already quoted), both relating as they do to the 'carrying of sacred objects
performed by the Levites.
19
1 Chron. 5.1 and 15.2 are rendered by Driver (Tenses, p. 275), "and he could
not be reckoned for the birthright" and "must not", respectively. In JM, p.
606, the translation of 1 Chron. 5.1 is "it was impossible to enrol". Most prob-
ably, 1 Chron. 21.17, , is also related to the
usage examined here (cf. . Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, I
[Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967], p. 71); however, is not an infinitive.
20
Cf. Driver, Tenses, p. 275; BDB, s.v., p. 518b.
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 ( ) .

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 + i n f i n i t i v e a n d +
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 / + 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 () from...

G o d ' s w o r d s ...
they m u s t neither rush ( ) the times
fixed for t h e m ,
n o r flinch () from...
They must not turn aside () from
His true ordinances
b y w a l k i n g either

21
Cf. . 5.
22
. 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. Qim-
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-classicalA.H.] usage"; A. Bendavid,
Biblical Hebrew, p. 85: the Bible as a rule negates the infinitive with , but
in 1QS ... ... , as in Aramaic Dan 6.16, Ezra 6.8 and 1 Chron.
[15.2], is more common"; E.Y. Kutscher, 'Canaanite-Hebrew-Phoenician-
Aramaic-Mishnaic Hebrew-Punic, LeS. 33 (1968-69), p. 109: "characteristic of
LBH and the DSS"; J. Carmignac, 'L'emploi de la ngation dans la Bible et
Q u m r n , RQ 8 (1974), p. 410: 'une cration rcente en hbreu'; 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 ], 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 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 () from
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 () to t h e
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 () 24 f r o m it
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 ( 2 6 ) of t h e
sacred food
versus
G e n . 3.1 (RSV): Y o u shall n o t e a t () of a n y
tree
G e n . 9.4 (JPS): Y o u m u s t n o t . . . e a t () flesh
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 () a n y of
it r a w
E x o d . 12.43 (RSV): n o f o r e i g n e r shall e a t () of it
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! () by a
l a y m a n ... it shall n o t b e e a t e n (:), f o r it
is h o l y
D e u t . 12.23-24 (JPS): d o n o t p a r t a k e () 27 of t h 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 () of it.

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

enter () the
holy c a m p
versus
D e u t . 7.26 (JPS): Y o u m u s t n o t b r i n g () an abhor-

24
C f . n. 10.
25
Qimron and Strugnell, MMT, pp. 54-55.
26
"[T]he expression [ ]in 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.
 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 () the hire
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 (), 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 ( ...) with the

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 () with them:
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 () them and
n o n e of t h e m shall join () you
P r o v . 22.24 (JPS): D o n o t a s s o c i a t e () with an
irascible m a n
P r o v . 24.21 (JPS): . . . A n d d o n o t m i x () 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 ( ) Thy
chastisement
versus
P r o v . 3.11 GPS): D o n o t reject () the
d i s c i p l i n e of
the Lord
... D o n o t a b h o r () His rebuke

m. 1 Q S 9.16: 3 2 H e m u s t n o t a r g u e ( ) and quarrel

w i t h ...
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
C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 14.
30
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.
 . 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 ( ) (my) pace
n o r step ...
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 ( ) h a n d or foot.

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 ( 1 ) His c o m m a n d

versus
1 S a m . 12.14 (RSV): ... a n d n o t rebel a g a i n s t ( ) the c o m m a n d -
m e n t of t h e L o r 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 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 ( ) l e u r s lois
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 () .

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 + 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 Psalms, p. 92.
35
D. Barthlmy 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 + 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 !
4 1
(Or, n o t to b e o p e n e d ! ) ( .(

These sources are extremely instructive for our purposes, since they
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 to earlier p e r i o d s , w h e r e
t h e s a m e r o o t ' =( o p e n [a g r a v e ] ' ) is employed; interestingly
enough, however, not within the formula + 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 ,

39
Ibid., N 71.
i(i
Ibid., N 95 (p. 174).
41
It is noteworthy that the + infinitive construction appears in another fu-
nerary inscription, recently discovered near Jerusalem, although not with the
root : ...; see E. Puech, 'Une inscription aramenne sur un
couvercle de sarcophage', Eretz-Israel 20 (Y. Yadin Memorial Volume;
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), pp. 161M65*. According to F.M.
Cross, 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: ' = no 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 publica-
tion of N. Avigad, The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village', IEJ 3
(1953), p. 143.
43
Strictly speaking, cannot be considered 'a linguistic contrast
to . 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
+ infinitive that became prominent in Second Temple linguistic usage. Cf.
also above, n. 10 ( )and n. 12 ( + impf.).
44
Gibson, Textbook, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 103.
45
Gibson, Textbook, , pp. 106-109.
 let n o n e s u c h open up ()
this r e s t i n g - p l a c e
2 0 : . . . let n o n e ... open up ()
( w h a t is) o v e r m e .

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 a 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 .
( . . . ; ) s 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 ,
a p p e a r s in the 3rd m. i m p f . ( ) a n d in the 2 n d m . i m p f .
( ) . 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 inscriptionsthe f o r m u l a t i o n + 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
latePunic 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! ()
(versus
Tabnit: )
Eshmun'azar: ) .
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 ( / + 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 A ( / + 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 + inf., attested in Jerusalem and vicinity, is
a formula absent from the distinctive repertoire of the Aramaic tomb inscrip-
tions as a whole. Cf., e.g., Palmyrene, w h e r e w e find a n d
( CIS, II, 226, 2-3; 4218, 3 [= Cooke, NSI, p. 310]), in line with
the usage of the standardoldfinite f o r m s current in BH a n d Phoenician
( / ) . Similarly, at Beth She'arim w e encounter: Anyone w h o shall
open this burial ... shall die of an evil e n d ( ... ), ' w h o e v e r shall
open u p o n him shall die of an evil e n d ;) ( see . Avigad, Beth
She'arimReport on the Excavations During 1953-1958, (Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society, 1976), pp. 233-34.
47
Cf. . 36.
48
H. D o n n e r a n d W. Rllig, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften, II
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973), p. 87. Cf. also J. Friedrich a n d W. Rllig,
Phnizisclt-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
evidencebiblical a n d extra-biblicalunderlies, then, both the typo-
logical (syntactic c o n s t r u c t i o n ) a n d chronological (historical age) as-
p 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

+ 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 ( 8 ) 5 0
Sir. 39.34: N o n e m a y s a y (Text: ) /
(marg.: ): T h i s is
w o r s e ...
versus
D e u t . 9.4 (RSV): D o n o t s a y () in y o u r
heart...
-OPS): say not () to y o u r -
s e l v e s ...
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 () to them-
s e l v e s ...
P r o v . 3.28 (RSV): D o n o t s a y () 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 + 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 / + imperfect, which it (at least partially) replaced
(Professor J. Hoftijzer's comment).
50
In the Greek: . appears 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 in both
cases. In P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in HebrewA Text Edition of all Ex-
tant 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:
....
 n o w a n t , . . . t h e r e is n o n e e d t o s e e k ( 5 1 ( suppo
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 ( ...) of d e l i g h t
versus
Lev. 19.31 (RSV): d o n o t s e e k () them out,
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 (52) their peace
A m o s 5.5 (JPS): d o n o t s e e k () Bethel,
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 () anything...

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 () God,
nor curse () a ruler
Lev. 19.14 (JPS): Y o u shall n o t i n s u l t () the deaf
Jer. 25.6 (JPS): D o n o t v e x () M e w i t h ...

PartC

T h e l a t e n e s s of + 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 lit-
e 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: ; see. Y. Yadin, The Bei 1 Sira Scroll from Masada
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), English section, p. 16.
52
Meaning 'seek', and may be considered as synonyms.
53
Gibson, Textbook, III, pp. 106-107 (cf. above, n. 36).
54
It goes without saying that the traditional negation / + finite verb is
still current in Ben Sira. Cf. in particular 9.1-6, where every verse specifically
employs this form: ( 1 ) ;
5) ( ; 6) )It is a well-attested p h e n o m e n o n that the emergence
oflatepost-classical elements does not necessarily lead to a total rejection
of theiroldclassical counterparts. Indeed, quite often w e observe that the
old and new coexist (cf., for instance, the use of both and in 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'.
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 discussionor helpful informationpertaining
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 Nldeke wrote already in 1897immediately 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 ] ,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. Nldeke,
'The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus', The Expositor, 5th Series,
5 [1897], p. 352).
57
Cf. . 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 statementson either sideare m a d e w i t h o u t sup-
p 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 ap-
provingly 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.
3
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.
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, partie-
ularly 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 phonol-
o 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 re-
gard to Biblical Hebrew, one may refer, e.g., to the use of the relative particle
- in the late books, which cannot be explained as a d e v e l o p m e n t from classi-
cal ( nor 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 lan-
g 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 ex-
p 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 ' l 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 ( in 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 we-

8
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 criticismfrom 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', V0nnu 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 con-
temporary work.
10
Cf. A. H u r v i t z , , in . Mazar (general ed.),
, Vol. 6 (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 210-23; 306-
309, 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 -
t i o n s (in t h i s c a s e wayyiqtol).u Such mixing m a y s h o w that the authors
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 illus-
t 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]):
... ( t 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 +
s u b j e c t + p a r t i c i p l e , e.g. Sir. 50.7(B),

' 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 s 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 : + i m p e r f e c t + s u b j e c t , e.g.

' 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 is 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 - 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 - 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.
13
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 , the manuscript reads ;the Creek () 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
SimilesHebrew and Greek. A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique',
Bib 77 (1996), pp. 227-36, in particular p. 228 (add 2 Sam. 17.12).
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 in 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 ' e q u a l l e d t h e biblical ; t 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 a 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 con-
sidered 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-classicaland, on the other h a n d , di-
vergences 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 indi-
cated both by the respective contexts and by the evidence from cognate lan-
guages.
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
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 w h i c h m a y just h a v e come a b o u t as a
mistake for ( cf. BHS)demands the meaning nothing or the like (cf. the
parallel ). Perhaps this passage set off the interpretation of Isa. 59.5 seen in
1QH. Note that l Q I s a 3 reads instead of in Isa. 59.5.
24
For some cases it can be s h o w n that an interpretation held to by post-classi-
cal writers also underlies the Septuagint translation of an expression (see be-
low, 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 signifi 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 in 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
is 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
.
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
a 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.
26
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 adjectival 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 adver-
bially (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 equalling
behold it' (cf. J. Joosten, AH 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. Barthlmy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien
Testament, 2 (OBO, 5.2; Fribourg: U n i v e r s i t / G t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k &:
Ruprecht, 1986), p. 97 (, exemplifying "[des] rutilisations rudites d ' u n
is t h e u s e of t h e e x p r e s s i o n in 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:

' 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 c o n s t i t u t e a n i d i o m a t i c ex-
p 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 . 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):

' 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 is to b e v i e w e d in
light of D e u t . 15.2:
.
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

hapax biblique interprt en fonction d e son contexte"); E.Y. Kutscher,

Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 16, col. 1589 (, 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 eas-
ily 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 in 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 ( ;)J.-M.
B a b u t , Les expressions idiomatiques de l'hbreu biblique ( C a h i e r s d e la R e v u e
Biblique, 33, Paris: Cabalda, 1995), pp. 84-87 () .
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 . 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 is 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 s 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 as the di-
r e c t o b j e c t of t h e v e r b . 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
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):

' 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):

'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 iti.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).
33
Cf. M. Weinfeld, Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws', in
T. Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and in its Environment (Gttingen:
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 is not sufficiently legible.
36
Cf. HALOT, p. 915b (where a possible connection with Akkadian nip(u) is
noted), against E.W. Davies, 'The Meaning of p ?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 bibli-
cal expression.
37
Cf. the m o d e m commentaries to this passage. To be sure, Ben Sira did un-
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]):

' 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 c 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
]!
'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:

'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 ( as in,
e.g., 2 K g s 4.13:

'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 f 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 ( t 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 e 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 , ' a 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.

38
Note also the Septuagint translation in Deut. 21.17; 2 Kgs 2.9: .
39
The classical expression occurs in Sir. 5.1(A): . N o t e also
4QapLam a [4Q179] 1 . 1 : .
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 ,jb.5. Note that Wilfred G.E.
W a t s o n ' s reanalysis of the expression as / there 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.
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 anal-
ysed 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 qotl 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),

' r e m e m b e r f o r m y g o o d , 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:

' r e m e m b e r T o b i a h a n d Sanballat, 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).
44
Cf. my review in /SS 41 (1996), pp. 331-33.
45
Cf. S. A. Kaufman, 'An Emphatic Plea for Please', Maarav 7 (1991), pp. 195-
98, in particular p. 198; Fassberg, Studies, p. 24.
46
Cf. Fassberg, Studies, p. 28.
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:

'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 im-
p 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-classicismnot 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 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 - w 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 ufyiqtl 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 , weyiqtl 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 +
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.
48
Cf. A. Niccacci, 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 at-
tention.
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; N e w
Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect Without Personal Endings', in

' 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 here expresses the s a m e function as the p r e c e d i n g
. 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 :
n o n - v o l i t i v e weyiqtl 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 f q 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 ufqtal 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
ufyiqtl 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 a 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 in
Dan. 11.4.
52
T h u s texts from the same period and milieu can yet show very different de-
grees 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 clas-
sical 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 Ian-
g 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 , al-
t 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 fre-
quently 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 devia-
tions.
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 ,
[ Jerusalem, 1991], pp. 100-19). For an analysis of the con-
cepts reflected in this psalm see Y. Amir, ,
Te'udah 2 (1982), pp. 57-81. It should be noted, however, that the a b u n d a n t al-
lusions to biblical passages, so characteristic of Ben Sira, is not shared by Ps.
119. This difference may imply an essential (rather than merely stylistic) dif-
ference between the two authors; see n. 2.
2
Cf. M. Kister, 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. war, battle is used in 12.5 ( ) as 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 ' t 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 Bib-
lical H e b r e w : t h e v e r s e
( H a b . 1.4)
can be compared with
( Z e p h . 3.5);
the w o r d w 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 ' c 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 :
** ** .
T h e w o r d10.31) ) in 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
) s 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. Ben-

1[)( ,
where it occurs together with the neologism ' one w h o reclines to
dine' (cf. 9.9; see n. 15; should 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 as 'bread. This creates severe difficulties, and
sometimes forced translations and interpretations of . Instead,
should be interpreted as meaning 'war' (MT rather than bread), 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, , Tarbiz 59 (1990), pp. 306-307, . 10
(henceforth, Kister, 'Contribution').
5
E.g. 42.5:
, ] ,
which I would translate 'upon children multiply correction, and upon an evil
and "lame" slave (multiply) blows'; the reading has 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. ' lame' is used in
a metaphorical sense, 'bad, inefficient' (cf. and derived verbs in Greek,
and other languages).
6
M. Kister, Common Heritage', p. I l l , n. 36.
7
Z. Ben-Hayyim, , 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 a n d t h e H e b r e w in 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 , Diqduq Sfrim o n b . B a v a B a t r a 134b):
, .
P a r a l l e l r e a d i n g s of in t h i s p a s s a g e a r e , . 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 ... . . . , 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 is still q u i t e c l e a r , e.g.
2) K g s 10.4);

( j 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

'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

'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 ) ( w 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 [ ] ' 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
' v 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
' a 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. ( Sir. 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 , , L'S. 37 (1973), pp. 215-16.
9
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
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, 'Ergnzende Bemerkung zu 4Q176', RQ 14 (1989), pp. 129-30.
11
The reversed construct state of a n d is a well-known
feature of early H e b r e w literature; see Y. Yahalom,
( Jerusalem, 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,
,, Le. 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 1' rejoice':
. ( Sir. 16.1-2);
cf. a l s o ( Sir. 14.4). T h e r o o t in 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 :
. . .
.
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
' a p p e a r ' is a c o r r u p t f o r m of ' rejoice', d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r o o t ,
f r o m w h i c h is 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 )
13
E.g. Targum Isa. 54.1 : ... ; T a r g u m Joel 2.3:
; and many other occurences.
14
Cf.4) Q 4 2 7 ) instead of4) Q 4 9 1 ; E. Eshel, 4Q471B: A Self-Glo-
rification Hymn', RQ 17 [1996], p. 192).
15
Cf. 9.9 according to the quotation in b. Sanhdrin 100b:

The text of Ms A, , is obviously corrupt, the single word
replacing the expression ( ), and thus spoiling the literary beauty of
this passage (9.9-10), which plays with expressions containing the root . Cf.
Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v. , pp. 367-68.1. Ben-David, ,, Le.
59 (1996), pp. 71-73, cites MS Jerusalem of tractate Sanhdrin, in which "we
find a variant of a citation from Ben Sira, as follows:
'( Do not draw near to her husband to drink wine with him')",
and he concludes: "The phrase carries the meaning 'do not mingle,
do not d r a w near'. However, is a mere scribal corruption of
. (For the interchange of and , cf. 47.19, where G has -
... instead of . It could be hypothesized that the
form [ see I. Yevin, , Le. 42 (1977), p. 73] was read in
G's Vorlage as .) It should be emphasized that originally had the
sense of 'a married w o m a n ' rather than her husband( i.e. ;cf. 4Q513 2.2
[M. Baillet, DJD, 7 (1982), p. 288): ; see also J. Strugnell, , Notes',
p. 115; M. Kister, , Le$. 47 [1983], p. 146). The reading in G, S
and some textual witnesses of the Talmud (MS Karlsruhe; Rashi, according to
the first edition [cf. R.N.N. Rabinovitz, , ad. loc.j) is therefore
greatly to be preferred over the reading in both MS Jerusalem (and most
other MSS) of b. Sanhdrin and MS A of Ben Sira. The reading in the mascu-
line is, of course, a result of the misinterpretation of as her husband'. In
the parallel, b. Yevamot 63b, only the secondary reading is attested (cf. A.
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 is

' 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:
,
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) ) v e r s u s t h e A r a m a i c ' a
w o n d e r ' ( w h i c h o c c u r s in MS 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

' 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 in MS B). T h i s is b a s e d o n P s . 89.14:

' 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 ( Pi'el i m p e r a t i v e ) i n s t e a d of . 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, , s i n c e is 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
in 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, . . . , 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 instead of H ' s . Similarly,1) Kgs 5.22) is replaced at 2
Chr. 2.15 by ( the 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:

'Your right h a n d , Lord, is glorious in p o w e r , y o u r right h a n d ,
Lord, shatters the enemy'
(according to the ancient translations, is a predicate). The expression
clearly 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 renders ; cf. also
Targum Prov. 31.17, w h e r e renders ( it is well-known
 3. But, u n l i k e , 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 (- )or Aramaic influence19
g a v e t h e p h r a s e a 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 ' s 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,
,
G o d ' i n s t e a d of w o n d e r a n d ' m a k e l o n g ' i n s t e a d of
' 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 ( ) ,
o n e phonetic variant (), t w o w o r d s replaced by s y n o n y m s
( / , / ) , 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 (), 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
().
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 , ( ) a n d
( B m g ) ; ( cf. Eccl 8.4; Job 9.12) a n d ( u 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 ' a 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 ' a 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 , a c o r r u p -
t i o n of d 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
'( a s m a l l t h i n g ' ) w a s r e p l a c e d b y . Similarly, l Q I s a a r e a d s a t
Isa. 16.14 i n s t e a d of M T 22. It 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 a n d its ( b a s i c a l l y p h o -
netic?) v a r i a n t , 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 es-
t 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 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 ' h 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 ' rejoice o v e r y o u r p e o p l e . For ' p i t y , l o v e ' in
H , t h e S y r i a c h a s ' rejoice'. 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 , 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 , w h i c h
w a s r e p l a c e d b y precisely b e c a u s e this m e a n i n g of t h e w o r d
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 .(
19
Cf. Dan. 12.13:.
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. 600-
601.
21
See below, Item 8.
22
of lQIsa 3 was corrected by a scribe to .
23
F. Perles, Le texte de l'Ecclsiastique, REJ 35 (1897), p. 63.
 lQIsa3, in w h i c h is r e p l a c e d b y 24
.
In 40.28 t h e r e a d i n g of MS is
] [
' 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
.
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 a n d f o r
b o t h a n d o r in . T h e w o r d m u s t m e a n h e r e ' t o
beg importunately', a semantic shift f r o m ' importunate', 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 ( so Di Leila). 2 5 T h e ex-
p r e s s i o n i n s t e a d of is to b e e x p l a i n e d a s s i m i l a r to
( 3 . 2 6 ) , ( 1 4 . 3 ) , ( b. Q i d d u s h i n 66a),14.10) ) ,
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 is 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 c 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 in 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 a 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 is b y a n d

24
I.L. Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature (ed. A. Hurvitz, S. Japhet, a n d
. ; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), pp. 308-309 (in Hebrew). We m a y fur-
ther note that the verses in Ben Sira's prayer should be compared to the bene-
dictions recited after the reading of haftara.
Ben Sira Haftara Benediction
(v. 20)


(v. 21)
(. 1 8 ) ...
(. 17) ... ...

In the light of the striking similarity between the two passages, the use of
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 as an abstract n o u n . For ,
c o m p a r e ( Ps. 36.12), ( Ps. 120.2, and cf. Ibn Ezra's commentary
ad loc.).
27
See mediaeval Hebrew commentators to Exod. 9.17 and Ben Yehuda, The-
saurus, s.v., 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 w 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 o r in 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

' 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 a n d a r e al-

28
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 with the text of the
Masada scroll.
29
For the lexical significance of the interpretation of biblical words, expres-
sions 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 is al-
w a y s followed by - + dativus comnwdi, e.g.
( Prov. 19.10),
w h e r e a s in Mishnaic Hebrew / may be followed by the infinitive (e.g.
[ Sifre Deut. 14);
[ Semahot, 8]).
This might be the case in o u r verse: is usually interpreted as an infinitive,
'to be a s h a m e d ' . However, since is used as a n o u n (42.1, according to MS
[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
and C) read rather than . 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 , is 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 s h a m e , b a s h f u l n e s s is
considered a central cultural (and religious) positive value:
. . ,
,
' 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 ;

' 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

'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
/ / , 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 .

31
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 are related to .
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 in 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 . re\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 . . . ; . . . gra-
ciously 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,
,
a n d 2 C h r o n . 19.7:
.
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 in 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, a 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:( a 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 in
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 is used only in the positive sense. In Deut.
28.50 - means 'show consideration for ;in Lev. 6.26 has the
meaning 'show favour for. It is difficult, then, to a s s u m e that ( used
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
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 ( * * in G r e e k : '
) 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
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 . 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 a 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) [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 ex-
egetical motive for interpreting the w o r d s in this verse as an ad-
monition to judges not to show partiality against the poor (and to interpret
and in this verse as antonyms rather than as synonyms): judges are
more likely to be partial towards the rich and against the poor; cf. Ps. 82.2-4,
Deut. 10.17-19, and Sir. 35[32]. 17[14]; but see n. 38.1 tend, therefore, to regard
the strange usage in Ben Sira as stemming from a peculiar interpretation of
Lev. 19.15. For a discussion of in Biblical H e b r e w , see M.I. Gruber,
'The m a n y faces of Hebrew " Lift u p the face", Z A W 9 5 (1983), pp.
252-60.
40
Since the verb in the biblical verse is not rendered in the Septuagint by
a Greek verb derived from (but see Hexapla ad loc. [ed. F. Field; Oxford,
1875], p. 198: ), 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 in his Hebrew Vorlage. At the symposium,
Professor Muraoka m a d e the suggestion that is a rendering of
, being derived from . However (1) such a derivation of
the word is not attested either in the Septuagint or in Greek dictionaries;
(2) does not appear to render the Hebrew root in the Septuagint;
(3) on the other hand, a Greek rendering of in this verse by de-
rived from , 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 .
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 ( ) c 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
,
f o r w h i c h a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g is
,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:
'
.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 a n d , 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 f 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 ( ) c 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.
43
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 (Gttingen, 1965), p. 218. O t h e r Greek
MSS have: ; thus also MS C of the Hebrew:

( S : . ( ? =
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 read-
ing, which is not f o u n d in any textual witness, but makes perfect sense (for
the textual details see commentaries):

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 foolish-
ness'.
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 in 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 :

' 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 in t h e i d i o m ' b 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 o 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.

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,
,
a n d is c o n f i r m e d by G a n d S. In t h e Bible m 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 ' :
( j. 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 [ ]') a n d in Di-
d 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
[], 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 [ ] 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,
( Gen. 39.7), 4 9
in a w o r k f r o m Q u m r a n ,

' 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 , 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 to
S.E. Loewenstamni (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 35-40.
 [ ] to 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 in 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 ' , 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 . ] P o s s i -
bly, t h e w o r d is a m i s t r a n s l a t i o n of o 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 (). 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.

] [
( 6.5-6)
1 ] 1 ( ] [ ) ( ] 41.21-20)

T h e e x p r e s s i o n ( G: ) in 6.5, a p a r a l l e l t o
' 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, means, as has been ob-
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 / is

51
Kister, 'Contribution', p. 329.
52
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 lucida-
tion of the idiom in Ben Sira and in Mishnaic Hebrew (Z. Ben-Hayyim,
, in [ S. 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. 257-
58, 261: "Observe that the Aramaic manuscript has nothing corresponding to
Greek '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 ( Ps. 41.9) as , and ( Jer.
38.22) as .
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
and ( ibid., p. 6, . 22). Strugnell's suggestion (Notes', p.
114), "and of saying 'how d o you do? to a deaf-mute", seems unlikely.
'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 in 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 , in t h e
first stich a n d in 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 in-
t 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:

'this (our) c o m m u n i t y has neither a friend nor an acquain-
tance'.
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

'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:
;
Jer. 15.5:
,
j. Bikkurim 3.3 (65c):
,
Lev. Rab. 21.8 [ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem, 1957], p. 487]:
... ,
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:
;
1 Kgs 22.3:

Exod. 14.14:
.
Cf. also in (M. Kister, , :
(Jerusalem, 1998), p. 244
59
Y. Y a d i n , The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada ( J e r u s a l e m , 1965), p. 21.
60
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, is r e l a t e d to , exactly a s is re-
lated to in 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 lit-
e r a r y d e v i c e u s e d in Ps. 122.6:

' 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 ( ) l 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 in t h e first stich a n d in t h e sec-
o 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
and . The expression means 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'; ' those 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 a n d
in 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.

' 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; Cam-
bridge, 1912), p. 741.
62
A possible emendation of to is considered by Psalms commen-
tators (e.g., G.H.A. von Ewald, Commentary on the Psalms, 2 [London, 1880], p.
170; H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen [Gttinger Handkommentar zum AT; Gttingen,
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 bersetzt und erklrt (Berlin, 1905), p. 110;
A.F. Kirkpatrick, Psalms, p. 741). Other emendations have also been proposed
(see .H. Tur-Sinni's note to Ben-Yehuda, [ Jerusalem,
1952/53], s.v. , p. 6802). These emendations to the biblical verse may now
be dispensed with.


' 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 :
,
' 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 ' t e s t i f y ' r a t h e r t h a n
M T m y eyes', but w h e r e a s the Septuagint has ' sandals'
r a t h e r t h a n M T ' s n o t t o s e t ( t h e e y e s ) , B e n Sira r e a d s , lit-
e 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 [ ; ? ] testify 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 :

( 8)
( 9)
( 10)
N o w , in Ben Sira w e h a v e , 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 in 8 b is f o l l o w e d b y in 9b. B o t h 8a a n d 9a s e e m t o ex-
p 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 , ; t h e s a m e i d e a is ex-
p r e s s e d in 8a t h r o u g h t h e r o o t . 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 in t h e m e a n i n g of ' b r i b e ' ( r a t h e r
than ' for 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 , w e h a v e to o m i t o n l y t h e lamed of a 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 : ' a n d h e [cf. 10] w i l l c e a s e t o b r i b e ; al-
t 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 to 63.( A 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,
,[ ed. 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 by e m e n d i n g to ( e.g., Biblia Heb-
raica, ad loc.; H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen [Handbuch z u m AT; Tbingen, 1934], p.
94) or by equating in this verse with ( R. 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 in-
terpretation 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.

( 51.18)

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
is r e n d e r e d i n G b y & , i.e., a s if it w a s
w r i t t e n 6'/ Stich b is t r a n s l a t e d in G
, r e f l e c t i n g t h e r e a d i n g r a t h e r t h a n .
H o w is t 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 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 t o ( o 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-
'e1fqah r a t h e r t h a n wa-'eshq, 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:

' 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-'eshq. T h e m e a n -

65
I. Lvi, 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 hbreu 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 (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 w 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 , ' 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
( 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 a n d ,
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
is 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 .

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!![
' 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:

' 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
' 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.
74
T h u s BDB, s.v. , 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, , 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):
, ? ,
'"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 should be u n d e r s t o o d (note the preposition - a n d
see BDB, s.v. , 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 is the original one in the bibli-
cal verse. A suggested emendation of to ( grain, 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 in the
first stich as a contrast to in the second one (cf. 11.12; cf. also b. Makkot
 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:
.
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 r 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 s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as w 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 inter-
p r e t a t i o n of D e u t . 34.7:
.
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 ( ) a 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. ,

! ]



( 49.14-50.1)

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: , ) . The word , which replaces the biblical w o r d , 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 ( Mishnaic
H e b r e w ) on the basis of S (). Alternatively it can be e m e n d e d to , 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 , [Jerusalem, 1967], p. 97). But G probab
Vorlage ( ), 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 aetiol-
ogy of tears, and of the eyes being wet in general (contrast commentaries).
82
For ' create' see above, n. 7.
83
T h u s G, S (followed by commentaries). Alternatively the w o r d s can
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 - in as 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) b ) 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 a l l u d e t o
G e n . 50.25,

' 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 ( ). 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
d 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 as well as s 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,

'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 is 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 . ( , For 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.
86
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 vis-
ited (by death), and similarly every living creature possessing h u m a n form',
the preposition related to ( see below). (2) 'and above every living cra-
ture possessing h u m a n form Simeon son of Jochanan the priest (was visited
by death)', the preposition meaning '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 and ;see below, note 93. For the sig-
nificance 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 w 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) ) has a different meaning from49.16) ) . 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.
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 u 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 ( )
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 ( ) . 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 ,

( ' 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 re-
f 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 w o u l d n o t b e t o o f a r f r o m ' a
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 in
t h e D e a d Sea scrolls (1QS 3.20; 4.23). T h e w o r d w 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:

' 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:

89
Yahalom shows that these verses in Ben Sira correspond to Aramaic eulo-
gies, 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 in-
terpretation of these verses (which differs from Yahalom's), all three verses
deal with the inevitability of human death. This is meist important for the in-
terpretation of the reference to Enoch in 49.15. The possibility that
refers to death rather than to elevation should be seriously considered.
90
It may be observed that whereas G has in stich a and
in stich b, S has in verse a and in verse b.
91
Flusser and Safrai have even suggested the possibility that in Isa. 44.13
had been interpreted by an ancient midrash as referring to Adam; see D.
Flusser and S. Safrai,[ Festschrift 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 meaning 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 i n s t e a d of b e c a u s e h e h a d u s e d t h e r o o t
in t h e p r e v i o u s v e r s e ( 4 8 . 1 7 b ) : .

8.

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 in 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. In t h e s a m e v e r s e , ' ( w 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 , . 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 in 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 , ( Sir. 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 h 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 , w h e r e a s G p r o b a b l y r e a d in its
Vorlage . 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 , a n d , 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 , 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 see above, towards the end of the introductory section.
96
M. Kister, 'Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in
Midrash, Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Writings', in Tracing the Threads:
Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Atlanta, 1994), p. 2.
97
Cf. 16.3 in S a n d H (MSS A a n d B!). "

' 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:


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 in 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 ( ) a 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 ( ) t 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 :
] ? = [ , 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 . ... ,

[ . . . ]



' [ 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:

' 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:

,
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 :
][ 03

99
Omitted by scribal error in H, and reconstructed by G and S.
100
The reading of G in 7.29 should be noted in this context: Instead of
of H and S, G reads , which may well be a rendering
of ( notwithstanding J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach
[Analecta Biblica, 30; Rome, 1967], p. 296). It seems that Ben Sira interpreted
as 'vigour, effort, strength' rather than 'property' (contrast M. Weinfeld,
1 . . . Q 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):
][ , she should (strive) with all her might [not] to intermingle
(with pure persons)'. This is apparently the meaning of the word in CD
12.10; Sir. 6.26 (not preserved in H), rather than the meaning 'wealth, proper-
ty'. The semantic development suggested by Weinfeld to explain the meaning
'wealth' is greatly to be preferred over the etymology suggested by M.
Mishor, , LeSonnu la'am 38 (1987), pp. 375-79. Although
the meaning 'wealth' is attested in CD 9.11, it is not clear whether this seman-
tic development had already taken place at the time of Ben Sira.
101
R. S a n d e r , Furcht und Liebe im palstinischen Judentum ( S t u t t g a r t , 1935), p .
28: "Sirach mit geprgten kanonischen Formel arbeitet, ohne ihren ursprng-
liehen Inhalt zu bernehmen". See also H. Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftge-
lehrter (Tbingen, 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 as , cf. E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, p. 25. This pronunciation explains the midrash at m. Berakhot 9.5:
, ,
 ][
'1 r e m e m b e r y o u f o r b l e s s i n g , 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 at 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 ( ) in 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 ' h 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]):
,
' " 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
is 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 is derived from the root . This is also the explanation of the

reading of l Q I s a 3 in Isa. 38.17: instead of MT . An alterna-
tive reading to the MT w a s probably ( cf. 1QIsa 3 to 38.15: , w h e r e
MT reads ;see E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the
Isaiah Scroll (IQlsa") [Leiden, 1974], p. 378). The w o r d w a s misread a n d
u n d e r s t o o d as equivalent to . A copyist c h a n g e d its spelling to
(contrast Kutscher, ibid., p. 251).
104
As emphasized by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, p. 307.
105
Cf. as 'sacrificial cult in Mishnaic H e b r e w . Cf. also Haspecker,
Gottesfurcht, p. 307. Cf. also . 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 in 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 w a s
r e p l a c e d b y ( w 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 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 t 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 , in 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 :

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 ( , ) , e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t illu-
m i n a t e t h e biblical text ( , + ) , 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 (), e l l i p s i s b a s e d o n a biblical v e r s e ( ) , 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,
,
with Isa. 8.13:
.
Note that Isa. 8.13 and 29.23 are the only biblical verses in which the Hifil of
has the meaning of 'to treat as sacred, both referring to God. The Pi'el is
used in the same sense in Lev. 21.8, w h e r e the priests are referred to. The root
in the sense of reverence (for God)( rather than 'dread, fear') is quite rare
in the Bible (Hos. 3.5; p e r h a p s Gen. 31.42 [ ;] the passage in Ben Sira
alludes to neither of these verses).
109
Interestingly, in verse 31 G has (probably )w h e r e a n d S read
. 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. ; ) it 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 ( , ) o 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 ( a n d
in 15.13-15; . . . in 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 ,
( 1959)/T/1e Language and Linguistic Back-
ground 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,( Q T ( T e m p l e S c r o l l / 4,(
a n d 1 Q H a ( T h a n k s g i v i n g H y m n s / ) , 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 .
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

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 Heb-
rew 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 any-
w h e r e in the monograph. Even Kutscher's above-mentioned study is conspic-
u 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 De-
v 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 : ;
11QT 48.11: .
A t t r i b u t i v e . N e h . 3.15: 1 ,
.
N o m i n a l . E x o d . 1 2 . 1 9 : 1 1; Q T 6 1 . 1 4 : ;
1QS 1 . 1 6 : .

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 inter-

esting 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 quan-
tify 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 Total

Exodus 27 17 16 60
(45%) (28%) (27%)
Deut. 63 23 33 119
(53%) (19%) (28%)
Neh. 95 27 47 167
(57%) (16%) (27%)
1QS 11 42 63 116
(9%) (36%) (55%)
1 Q H 1-10 3 25 56 84
(4%) (30%) (66%)
11QT 87 27 37 151
(58%) (18%) (24%)
4QMMT 28 1 4 33
(85%) (3%) (12%)
m. Shabb. 128 2 11 141
1-5 (91%) (1%) (8%)

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 18 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 in 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.
"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 Joon's posi-
tion 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 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 preva-
lent 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 ( L e v
23.10, e t c . ) , ( D e u t . 7.1, e t c . ) ,
( D 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) S a m . 1 9 . 1 1 ) , ( ; J u d g .
6 . 3 6 ) , ( ; G 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 ex-
cept 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:
( ; D e u t . 1 6 . 1 9 ) / /
11) Q 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 . ( G 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, , o r 38.25, . 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 -
r e n c e , w h a t C o h e n calls concomitance.10 W e are doubtful that Joseph
h a d t h e o p t i o n of s a y i n g 11.

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 Joon-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 , 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:
. . . : ?
.
' 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 strik-
i 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,
, 5.11, , a n d 10.24,
e 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 Ni. (5.9; 8.1,15; 9.13,19), Ni.
(9.24), a n d Qal (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 ;//
' t 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, " e 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 ,
' with 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 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:... / / 1 . 7 : . . . . Cf.
also 1QS 2.25:[ ].
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 , , or r a t h e r s h o r t , as in
, 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:
. . . ; 2 . 2 5 : [ ] , 5 . 6 :
; 6 . 1 3 : . . . , 7 . 9 : / /
; 7 . 1 5 : ; s i m i l a r l y in 1 Q H 4 . 2 4 :
; 4.24: ; 6.25: ;
2.5:[ .
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.QHa 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.
( j. 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 : _ . . .
' 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:
t 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 is 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:
' m a n cannot p r e p a r e his step'.

II: The periphrastic syntagm < + participle>

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 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 ,
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 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
v e r b in a s y n t a g m w h i c h m a y be called periphrastic or c o m p o u n d
tense.13 This question has received 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

13
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 (1984:195-
200) 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 ( Qal) in The Dictionary of Classical Heb-
rew, 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 postrieure o n trouve la forme priphrastique au s e n s d'un
pur parfait il tua (sans nuance durative ou frquentative) ...". This has n o w
been revised to read: "On occasion the periphrastic construction appears su-
perfluous, 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" (Joon-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 combi-
nation is characteristic of the later writers ..."; Gibson 1994:138: "... more
c o m m o n in later books ...".
 Frequency 0/ ( Q a l ) + participle in Biblical Hebrew18

Source F I , Total
1
Genesis '2 5
Exodus 1 1 2 1 5
Leviticus 2 2
Numbers 0
Deuteronomy 4 1 1 6
Joshua 0
Judges 1 2 1 4
1 Samuel 1 4 5
2 Samuel 3 5 8
1 Kings 5 4 9
2 Kings 3 15 18
Isaiah 1 2 3
Jeremiah 3 2 5
Ezekiel 6 1 7
XII 2 1 3
Psalms 1 1 2
Job 1 1 2
Proverbs 0
1 Chronicles 1 3 4
2 Chronicles 3 10 13
Ezra 1 1
Nehemiah 7 4 1 12
Esther 3 3 6
Daniel 2 1 3
Lamentations 1 1
Koheleth 0
Song 0
Ruth 0
Total 45 56 8 7 4 4 124

(Ben Sira 1 3 4)
1QS 1 2

18
Passive participles and participles of stative verbs have been excluded.
19
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, ,
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:
. . . ,
... ...
etc. See Muraoka 1996:578.
11QT 34 2 36
Source : Total
O t h e r DSS '7 I2'0 11 21 25 3 3
m. Shabbat l22 l23 2

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 sec-
tion 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 . 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 . + 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 , ' s 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, , and Jeremiah
kept lamenting.
21
A t Mur 42.6 s h o u l d be corrected to ..., 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 durative-
frquentative 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). is 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 . At 4Q225 2:2.10, , 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
' m y friend.
22
5.4: . . . his c o w ... used to g o out.
23
2.4: so 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 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 w 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.
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) Q 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 : . . .
' a 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: ' t 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 ] ... shall 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: ' t 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 :
. . .
' 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 ( ^ D e u t . 23.15);

as a g a i n s t ( Exod. 12.11); a n d

' 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 .

27
What Kesterson (1984:197) calls injunctive.
28
N o t ( Yadin 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 ber 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 . 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: . Verbs indi-
eating such an attitude, e.g. Hifil, o f t e n take the preposition ;see 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.
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 + 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
, 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, , 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: ;
; ; , 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 < + 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 (, ) a 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:
' a 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 c 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):
. . . .
See also Isa. 30.20,
. . . ^ ,
a n d 59.2,

;(
N e h . 1.4,
: :,
a n d 5.18,
. . . : .
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:
/ / 2.2: M 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 ex-
a 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 a 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 + ptc. o r its e q u i v a l e n t , + 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).
31
E.g. Gen. 1 . 6 : .
32
E.g. 5 . 1 1 : .
33
E.g. ; see 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 lan-
g 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.).
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 w 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 , 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) Q 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 : ( D e u t .
9.7,24; 3 1 . 2 7 ) ; ( D e u t . 9 . 2 2 ) ; ^
1) S a m . 1 7 : 3 4 ) ; ( ' E z e k . 1 6 . 2 2 ) ; ( & z e k .
1 9 . 1 0 ) ; ( Ps. 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 : ( t. 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 . + > w 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: .((
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,
' f 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 , ., 1 9 6 9 - 7 1 : Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew [

( ] Tel A v i v : D v i r ) .

H e b r e w ever combines with 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, ' be 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 and Aramaic . 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 im-
provement 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 forth-
c 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 , ., 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: crits 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'volution du systme verbal en
smitique. tudes 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: & Clark).
G o r d o n , ., 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 hebrischen Prpositionen; Band : Die Prposition
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'hbreu 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 , .Y., 1959: ( J 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 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 [
( ] P 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 Egiitian Aramaic (Handbuch der
Orientalistik; L e i d e n : E.J. Brill)
P 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 Univer-
sity -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', Le. 42, p p . 83-
98.
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 . . , 1990: Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Se-
lected 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 n , .., 1992: Die Periphrase. Wesen und Entstehung (Innsbrcker
Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft: Vortrge 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 r S p r a c h w i s s e n s c h a f t d e r
Universitt Innsbruck).
S e g a l , M . . , 1908: ' M i 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, ., 1889: Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebrischen Particip-
ien und Infinitive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Con-
struktion ( 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 Prez Fernndez

(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 Clsic0 (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 Asociacin 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. Prez Fernndez, ' 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
is always a plural participle, in part C it is a perfect Qal, (2) in the interlocutors are
' y o u ' plural, in C, ' y o u ' singular; (3) in 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
reappear in C; (5) the number of distinctly halakhic terms used in C, but not found in B,
is notable: , . , , etc.; (6) in , is used as an explanatory particle; in
C, - is 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 discoun-
ted. 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
and absent from C.

II: Linguistic analysis of the formulas - and

-in the halakhic block

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 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' (DJD
X, pp. 136-37):
- ( 11-12; 16-17; 25-26; [ 48; 82])
-[( B 38; B46]; 68; 80; C 8).
If the context of these formulas can be revealed, perhaps we might
obtain a better understanding of the redaction of the document in which
they appear.

A :-

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) in 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 ( + infinitive)
is always inflected;
b) - + 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) could be suppressed in 4 Q M M T without changing the basic
meaning, which could also have been expressed by:
as .
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



 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 commu-
nity/ 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
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 'competen-
ce'. 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: ... ... ; in tannaitic literature 1 have only found it
in only three texts:
( )

...
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 as 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 in 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 .
5
4 Q p P s " [4Q171]. This is also the view of the editors of 4 Q M M T : DJD X, pp. 118-21.
6
The editors translate: "Should take care/beware"; Garcia Martinez (1996c: 77-78):
"ought to be/to observe".
 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]);
( )


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]);
( )
...
These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph... (Gen. 37.2). Surely
Scripture should have said here: Reuben ...? (ARNa 2.10 [Sehe-
chter, 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 -, 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 -:
...

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 is 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 symfrei

7
T h e linguistically equivalent formula would be .
+ dative, as in 'Who offends one of these little ones who believes in me,
symfrei auto hina kremasthe ..." (Matt. 18.6) or 1 Cor. 10.23.
It is not until Tanh. (ed. Buber) 0fet. 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:
( )
,
'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'( , Cant. 5.13) to
, '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
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 / + infinitive, but we do not include the structure of +
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 seman-
tically 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 jdischen Traditionsliteratur. Zweiter Teil, Die
Bibel- und traditionsexegestische Terminologie der Amorer, p. 201. Leipzig 1899 (1.
Teil) and 1905 (2. Teil). Repr. Hildesheim, 1965.
B: -( 68; 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 are used when the receiver is addressed
as . 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 , 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 ( ) the 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 intro-
duced 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:
...' For 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)';

This formula can be clearly read in 68, in the halakhah on the lepers, and in 80 in
the halakhah on mixed marriages. It can be reconstructed with all probability in C 8
( can clearly be read) and can only be conjectured in C 7, in what may belong either
to the last halakhah on priestly marriages or to the transitional formulas between the
halakhic part and the exhortative part of the document. It can be guessed at in a very
extensive reconstruction of 38 (halakhah on pregnant women) and 46 (halakhah on
those excluded from the temple).
10
could be read in 11QapPs" [11Q11 j 2.8, as reflected in Wise, Abegg and
Cook 1996:454, although Puech (1989: 394) believes that is the safer
reconstruction, with a clear sense of contrast and with reference to a knowledge of the
power of God.
 ' They
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)';
' For my name is great
among the nations, says the Lord of hosts, but you profane it...
(Mai. 1.11-12)';
...' Did not
your fathers act in this way...? Yet you bring more wrath upon
Israel by profaning the Sabbath! (Neh. 13.18)'.
The same linguistic structure to mark contrast is found in the
language of the Mishnah and halakhic midrashim (but it is not very
common):
' " They come in the
strength of flesh and blood, but ye come in the might of the
Almighty (m. Sotah 8.1)';
' You abandoned the honour
of God and you are instead concerned with honouring flesh and
blood1. (Sifre Deut. 38 [Finkelstein, p. 75])';

' The 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 [Wei, p. 111a])'.
also appears in some Qumran texts ( 1QM 17.2,4,8; 4Q185 1.9;
2.7). This backgrounds of usage leads us to conclude that is a
linguistic structure that is suitable for marking a contrast and adding
emphasis. I do not see anything that could lead us to a more precise
context.

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).
12
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-kohnim.
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 / + 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 formula-
tion (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: ; 12: ) and with a nominal clause
with imperative value (13:) , 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 maintai-
ned 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:
. 1
.6
... ... .7
... .8
... ... .9
... ... .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.
14
O n l y halakhah 12, about the dogs (B 58-62), lacks a marker and title. It begins
abruptly with the formulation of the rule.
 C. However, the editors do not have any difficulty in isolating
'additional statements', such as the propositions introduced by our
formulas , , and certain explanations and biblical
justifications.

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

1. The formula / .

In halakhah 4 our formula can be reconstructed with reasonable

certainty:
1) [And concerning the cereal-offering] of the sacrifice of well-
being 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 9-
13).
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 am telling you this because ...'. Indeed, the particle
does not explain any previous proposition, simply the thoughts of the
writer. In fact it is equivalent to the adversative in 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 reconstruct-
ion of .
16
Garcia Martinez (1996c:77): " t h e sons of Aaron".
17
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 at the beginning and perhaps due to its attempt to evoke
biblical texts: Lev. 7.15; 8.26; 19.5; 22.29; consequently, the difficultuy of the
expression might result 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 is 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 the obligation to
eat it the same day. Apart from this, it is clear that 13 ( ) is a conscious
imitation of Lev. 22.16: ( cf. Bernstein 1996b:36).
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 9-
13, 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 as 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 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 ; however, 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 considra-
tions apply equally.
In halakhah 9 the expression may only very speculatively be assumed
(at 48 not a single letter of the formula is conserved); it is also risky
to reconstruct when in the cases in which the formula is patent
or is 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
is 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 ). 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 , whereas in Yadayim 4.6 an unusual plural,
, 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 . 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 dramatiza-
tion 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 .

The reconstructions made by the editors of the formula in halakhot 8 and

9 (B 38 and 46) are possible but are difficult to verify. However, if the
reconstruction of halakhah 8 is correct 26 is an appeal to the
interlocutor's knowledge of the halakhah and of Scripture: 'and you
know that it is so and that it is written'. This is a feature common to the
other uses of the 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.
26
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)".
 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 uninten-
tionally], 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 interlocu-
tors 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: in 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.
2
Bernstein (1996b: 43-44) proposes the following reconstruction of 65-67:
] ^ [ ][ ] [. T h e biblical text is interpreted
as if the leper must keep out of the cities (interpretation of the biblical )and, during
the 7 days of purification, outside his house as well (interpretation of the biblical .(
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 , 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 cannot 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 ( "Bernstein 1996b:46).
36
The reconstruction of the formula is 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 [ )"] ( ]that 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 - - and 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: . =
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 (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 is 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 ' ( ) , 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 Qumrn', in G. Aranda Prez, F.
Garcia Martinez, and M. Prez Fernndez, Literatura juda
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.
Prez Fernndez, 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 reconstruc-
tion' 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 ha-
Torah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Stegemann, Hartmut, 1996: The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes,
Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans).
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 ,,
, , and . 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. n e g a t i n g t h e i n d i c a t i v e , t h e j u s s i v e ) ,
g e n r e (e.g. a s a p o e t i c s y n o n y m of ) a n d d a t e (e.g. a s a
L B H a n d Q H e q u i v a l e n t of 3.( )!T 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 . 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),

' 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 Founda-
tion 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 pre-
mishnaic corpora: The Bible, Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls and H e b r e w in-
scriptions, 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 ni., 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 :

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:

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 is 50.25 (B):

' 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
' a n o n - p e o p l e ' . 7 T h e u s e of in 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 in-
s t e a d , e.g. N u m . 23.19 G 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 is 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 h 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 , 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 in 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,

'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 can 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 is 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 in this type of nominal clause is often ex-
plained 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. 3.1 (A) ' it 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 ) ' a 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 ) ' a 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. ' f 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]); ' n 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) o 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 ) ' a 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 ) ' f 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 to 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) ' a n d t h e r e is
n o p l a c e f o r h i m ' , 18.33 (C) ' ] [ w 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 ' a 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 f 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 ) ' b 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 ' . is u s e d a b s o -
l u t e l y in 5.12 ( A + C ) ( . . . ) if y o u h a v e (...), b u t if n o t 2 1
a n d 51.7b ( B ) 1 l 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 a 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).
13
For the omission of the subject, see also the article by Professor Smith in
this volume.
14
Compare Hab. 2.6, , ' w h o multiplies what is not his own'.
15
This notation indicates that the text in 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 dif-
ference 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.
 is 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) ' y 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
t h i n g s ' (cf. MS C 24.( N o t e a l s o 39.19 ( )
' 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 ,
p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t i n g ' a 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 ) , G , 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 is 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 t 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
p a r a l l e l s . In Ben Sira w e f i n d t w o e x a m p l e s , in 14.12 (A)
r 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 ) ! a n d in 39.20 (B)
t 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.
in P s . 147.5: H 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 i n s t e a d of is 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) f 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 , 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 is 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 i n s t e a d of in c o n t e x t s like 2 S a m . 23.4 ' a
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 ' i 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 ( . . . ) ' a 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 'rclamation d ' u n e v e u v e a u p r s d ' u n fonction-
n 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 ' m 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 ' w 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.
24
Saadia has ( Harkavy [1891 ], p. 179).
25
Thus Segal (1958), p. 263.
26
E.g.:
]!
for there is no folly in all Your acts and there is no deceit in the in-
tentions of Your h e a r t 1 ) Q H 4[12].20-21);

'and there is no word for the spirit of destruction and there is n o re-
ply 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
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 . T h e c o n -
s t r u c t i o n w i t h h 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
w i t h o u t f o u n d in 1 Q a p G e n 2 2 . 3 3 :
' 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
.(
In Isa. 40.29, 2 C h r o n . 14.10 a n d N e h . 8.10 is e m p l o y e d f o r
t 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. T h i s u s e
is a l s o a t t e s t e d in Sir. 41.2 ( M ) t 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 ( X)

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 w 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
' o 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),

'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),

' 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 ' it 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
' it is i m p o s s i b l e t o a d d ' . 3 5 In Q H o c c u r s s e v e r a l

reference.
30
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 appears to be a
caique of Aramaic ()/ or Mishnaic -. See also b e l o w , Sect. VII (5), o n
- in LBH and QH.
31
BDB, p. 35a; Kropat (1909), p. 66.
32
The construction without -, as in Ps. 32.9,' there is no understand-
ing' (only three times in the Bible) d o e s not occur in Ben Sira, but with an ab-
stract verbal noun w e find ' because he has nothing to answer' (20.6
(Cj) and possibly also there 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.
t i m e s , a l o n g s i d e . 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 o n e s h o u l d n o t c h a n g e 1 ,QS
1.13, ' t 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 ' n 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 a n d
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 ,
e.g. D a n . 6.16 (' it) 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 m 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 -
allel 38 ( 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 -
b r e w t 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
is 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 , +
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 d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g t 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):

'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 a n d w e f i n d 14.16
(A):

' 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 ' t 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 ' a n d n o b o d y c a n w i t h s t a n d
Y
36
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
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), ' one should not bring every man into one's
house', is different, since relates to and not to the infinitive.
40
Ed. Parisot (1894-1907), II, p. 124, line 6; N 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: for there is n o
healing for i t 3 . 2 8 ) [Aj); and 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 +
p r e p o s i t i o n + n o u n + , b u t w i t h w e f i n d G e n . 23.8:
if 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 ' .
X , in c o n t r a s t to , 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, w 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 / ' y 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 f 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 a n d w e f i n d 40.29
(B[+M]),

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 and 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,

' 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 cer-
tainly 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 , 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 ... t h e p r e d i c a t e ( r h e m e ) ; in Jer. 49.12
is t h e s u b j e c t ( t h e m e ) a n d t h e p r e d i c a t e
(rheme).46
In 39.34 Btxt h a s . T h e u s e of b 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
a n d 47. H o w e v e r , - + 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
!
and
]
' 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 p 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.
44
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-infini-
tive.
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 distinc-
tions 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.

'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 , o c c u r s b e f o r e a s w e l l , e.g.
1 C h r o n . 15.2 n 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 is 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 in 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 fi-
n 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 , 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 ) , e.g.
Isa. 36.18 ' d 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 s t a n d s in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h 53. In
Ben Sira t h i s i n d e p e n d e n t u s e of o c c u r s o n c e , in 15.12 (A[+B])

' 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.
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 i n s t e a d of .
T h e text r u n s as f o l l o w s :
Btxt [...][...][...!
Bmg [ .]
'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, , w h i c h is almost identical
with the text of 4Q393 just cited. The use of in 4Q393 may be d u e to the dif-
ferent context: is 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) ;in the Bible occurs once after the verb , 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 [ ...]
' 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 d r i n 100b
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 ' .
i n s t e a d of o c c u r s in B m g 4 2 . 1 0 d , ] [ ) ( ) ( a 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 [... ] [ ] [ ] , 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 f 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
b. S a n h d r i n 100b w i t h 57. 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
T a l m u d it a p p e a r s likely t h a t in 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 * ' l 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 r e m a i n s p e c u l i a r .

V/: /

. . 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 a 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 is 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 ex-

p 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 ' w h a t c a n m a n d o to m e ? ' a n d
1 K g s 12.16 ' w 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 in p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h 60. In Ben Sira w e
f i n d in 5.4 ( C ) ' w h a t will h a p p e n to m e ? 6 1 .

2. W h e n is 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 ' )( w o m a n ' instead of
' ))her 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 ;on the passage in b. Sanhdrin 100b, see Green-
field (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 and in the
manuscripts of the Mishnah (below, note 69).
60
BDB, p. 553a; JM, 144h; WO, 18.3g. Cf. 2 Sam. 2 0 . 1 : .
61
In MS A the a n s w e r ' nothing is added: ; compare S
^ r<nm n and Ps. 118.6, quoted.
62
For the use of an interrogative particle with the primary meaning 'what? in
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 ' w 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 m 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
); C a n t . 8 . 4 : ' d 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 a p p r o x i m a t e s t h e m e a n i n g of or . 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. f o r 35.22:c(Bmg) ' a 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) it 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) o 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 a 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) ' h 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. f o r 13.2:(A) ' d 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 ) ' a 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 ) [ ! a 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 a 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) ' w 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. . 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 , e.g.

E x o d . 32.11 ' w 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 is
n e a r l y t h e e q u i v a l e n t of in 11.10 (A[+B]): m 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.

63
Btxt has , c o m p a r e the parallel 22b, God i n d e e d will n o t
tarry'.
64
30.19 (Bmg), [ ... , probably also b e l o n g s here, t h o u g h the read-
ing of the verse and the restoration of the lacuna is problematic, see the c o m -
mentaries.
65
In MS A has been a d d e d b e t w e e n the lines.
66
H e r e MS 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
w i t h , as in v. 4a (B+F). G h a s a n d S rC\ s e e Di
Leila (1988), p. 223.
 Six t i m e s in B e n S i r a is e m p l o y e d a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t of , 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 ) do 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 o 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,
l 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 w i t h in Sir. 8.1;
11.33; 1 2 . 1 2 d ; 3 0 . 1 2 , w i t h in 12.5, a n d w i t h in 1 2 . 1 2 b . S t r a n s -
lates w i t h ^ 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 a 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 - a s in C a n t . 1.7 ( a l s o
in D a n . 1.10). 6 9 C o m p a r e Biblical A r a m a i c ( E z r a 7 . 2 3 ) ,
Jewish A r a m a i c , Syriac .7"

VII: Poetic or rare features found 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 with 'lest in contexts like these.
68
Smend (1906), p. 74, Bnrthlemy-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 also derives from - + , but then the loss of the lamed is
strange. It is more likely that derives from - + / , compare Christian
Palestinian Aramaic 07 and 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 < not from
rr75A 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
interchanges with ;see 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 under
discussion is not so direct as Brockelmnnn (1913), 456, and others, assumed;
according to them d 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 -/- to be prefixed (p. 189). On the Syriac rO^Ai
Bravmann maintains that the loss of the interrogative character of KlrnA and
the prefixing of - originated from the use of rCmA after erla timendi. Thus a
construction like fear < X will happen has as its underlying structure
1 fear that (-( )X will happen]Why ( <<=nS) should X happen?( p. 190).
1. n 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 for 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
in 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 w 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 . u s e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n s t e a d of .

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. ' w i t h o u t ' . ' w 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) ' a n d w i t h o u t m u s i c ' , 32.19 (B+F)
' w i t h o u t c o u n s e l ' , 33.30 (E) ' a n d w i t h o u t justice,
37.31 (B+D) ' w 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)
' 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)
' 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 - a n d - i n s t e a d of
a n d , w h i c h is c o m p a r a b l e w i t h M H / a n d A r a m a i c
/ , 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 s 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 is f o u n d in 30.24 (B),

' 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 ' in 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 ' 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
b 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 - in m . Rosh H a s h a n a h 2.9 w 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, .]
72
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 indicating non-existence and non-presence above, Sect. ; c o m -
pare also , discussed below.
74
A n d not: 'without the proper time'.
75
Jenni (1992), p. 303; Hurvitz (1972), p. 143.
6 . . , w h e n p r e f i x e d to , 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 ' in t h e place w h e r e ' . 7 6 H o w e v e r , is 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
is n o m i n a l i z e d . 7 8 is 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
' a 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 .
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]), ' w 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), ' w i t h o u t a p u p i l ' ; 3.25b (A),
' a n d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e ' ; 8.16 (A), ' a n d w i t h no-
o n e t o r e s c u e ' ; 11.9 ([A+]B), ' w i t h o u t c o u n s e l ' ; 36.25b
(B[+C+D]), ' a n d w i t h o u t a w i f e ' . For G has in 8.16
a n d in 11.9 a n d 36.25 [twice], , b u t in 3.25a
w e find a n d in 3.25b, .
T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h in 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 ;c o m p a r e Isa. 57.1,
' m 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 ' t 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), ' w 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 *
. 8 0 C o m p a r e t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' w 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. i n s t e a d of . In BH is a p o e t i c s y n o n y m of , e.g. P r o v .
24.23, ' p 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, ' h 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 in h a l a k h i c texts, r e p l a c i n g o r in
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),
' a 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), ' a 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.
77
C f . B D B , p . 35a.
78
Jenni (1992), p. 357. The s a m e applies to ] f o l l o w i n g -, b e l o w , Sect. VIII
(5).
79
Driver (1892), 164.
8(1
G interprets differently (see above). See also b e l o w , note 94, on as the
equivalent of .
81
JM, 160m; GKC, 152t.
82
Azar (1995), p. 185; Segal (1927), 472; Prez Fernandez (1997), p. 174.
83
Cf. Prov. 23.7, ' but his heart is not with you'. Segal e m e n d s Sir.
11.5 to and S m e n d to .
8. in place of . In BH is 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
, 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, ' y o u will n o t
h a v e to b e a f r a i d ' , Jer. 46.6, ' h 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 also o c c u r s in Sir. 3.14 (C), ' k 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) ' a 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 )
' a 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)
' a 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) is 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 is 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 to in 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 , b u t A 87 a n d S a a d i a h a s in his citation
f r o m 6.8; 8 8 in 16.13 (A) h a s b e e n c o r r e c t e d to in 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 , Btxt h a s .

9. . In Ben Sira w e find o n e o c c u r r e n c e of u s e d a s a n e g a t i v e ,

in 41.2 ( [ B m g + ] M ) [ a 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 s t a n d s in a p p o s i t i o n to , w e r e a d as
a v e r b a l a d j e c t i v e of the v e r b ' to lack' r a t h e r t h a n t h e particle .
In BH t h e v e r b o c c u r s o n l y five times. 911 is 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 ' t 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 ' u 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.
85
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 ' there is a friend...'; c o m p a r e further v. 10 (A),
but h e will not be f o u n d in the evil day'.
86
H e r e m 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 ne-
gleet( 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
let n o b o d y be seen( JM, 1141); G has .
87
N o t e that from the indicative v a l u e of ( A) it d o e s not automatically
follow that ( C) is indicative as well. Morecwer, it is also possible to at-
tribute 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 , 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]): all that is of n a u g h t returns to
naught'.
92
B D B , p. 67a; JM, 160n.
 In t h e f i v e biblical p a s s a g e s in w h i c h is u s e d a s a v e r b , it e x -
p r e s s e s t h e a b s e n c e of 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 re-
gard as a c o n s t r u c t s t a t e of t h e t y p e=)
: ) , i . e . 9 3 . ( (

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

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 , p a r a l l e l e d in L B H a n d Q H , a n d X ,
w h i c h is a l s o a t t e s t e d in M H .
2. before a substantival predicate, agreeing with M H usage instead
of B H .
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 , 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 . f o r a 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 . w i t h o u t ' . In LBH a n d Q H w e f i n d + ( 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
w i t h o u t n u m b e r 2;C h r o n . 20.25 so 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 w 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) ( Y 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. . 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 i n 41.11
will n o t b e c u t o f f ( B: ) . 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 t 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 + a b s t r a c t n o u n ) . 9 5 S i n c e is 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 , which w e
can paraphrase with.((
94
BDB, p. 35a ( of state ;peculiar to Chronicles); Hurvitz (1972), p. 39; Qim-
ron (1986), 400.09. My colleague Martin Baasten pointed out to me that in
QH often functions as an equivalent of . The ]^-clause following - is
nominalized; cf. Sect. VU (6), above, on .
95
Similarly 1QH 5[13].37; see Qimron (1986), 400.10.
scribal error.96

/ X : and

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
a n d a 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 a n d
a r e u s e d ; c o m p a r e 4.4 (A) ' a n d d o n o t d e s p i s e w i t h
10.23 (A) . 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 : is 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 a n d a 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. negates the clause (predication) as a
whole, while negates a single phrase, either the predicate or an-
o 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 ( as in BH) a n d o n c e ( as 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 , b u t
sometimes by .
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 a n d o c c u r . C o m p a r e 11.9
([A+]B) a n d 32.19 () w i t h o u t c o u n s e l 9 8 .
5. B o t h a n d a 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 . W e f i n d
once + imperfect and once + verbal noun. C o m p a r e the
c o m p l e m e n t a r y constructions + infinitive or abstract n o u n , +
i m p e r f e c t a n d + 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 in 36.26
( B m g + C + D ) , b u t a l s o in Btxt of t h e s a m e v e r s e a n d in
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 Ian-
g 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.
97
Hurvitz (1990), pp. 145-47.
98
C f . Muraoka (1995), p. 70.
99
Apart from with a different function in 41.2 (M).
100
Qimron (1986), 400.10; Muraoka (1995), pp. 69-70.
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 n 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 , w 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 , ' w i t h o u t ' , t h e u s e of a n d in p l a c e of ,
t h e i n d e p e n d e n t u s e of in p l a c e of , a n d t h e n e g a t i v e p a r t i c l e .
T h e u s e of f 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 . 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 . a n d as ( n e a r l y ) t h e e q u i v a -
lent of , o r a 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 ( X ) c 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 n 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 ) , w 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 ) , m 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 i n s t e a d of ( Q 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 , w 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 f 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 f o r in 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 ' w i t h o u t ' a r e a l s o at-
t 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 in 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 r 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 in 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., ( in 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.
( T 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 l m y , D. a n d O . R i c k e n b a c h e r , Konkordanz zum hebrischen Si-
rch ( G 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-Aramischen
( H a l l e / S a a l e : M a x N i e m e y e r , 1927).
BBS = , , ( T 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 Ex-
tant 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 o - h b r e u x d e
la collection S h . M o u s s a 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 dalm " 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 semiti-
sehen 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 s m e b i b l i q u e et q u m r n i e n : l'infinitif p l a c
a p r s s o n c o m p l 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 g a t i o n d a n s la Bible et 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.., , {:
( 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 : a n d
: ), 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.), : Studies in Hebrew and Other Semitic Lan-
guages 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 . 273-
94.
- ( S 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: Es-
says 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 Lei-
den University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; L e i d e n : E.J.
Brill, 1997).
H u r v i t z , . , ( T 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 Na-
tureand Date, HS 31 (1990), p p . 1 4 4 - 5 4 /
J e n n i , E., Die Prposition Beth ( D i e h e b r i s c h e n P r 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 Imbnrkh ,ahat hi> hkh tibi ( G e n . 2 7 : 3 8 a a ) ,
JSS 3 6 (1991), p p . 207-21.
J M = P . J o 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 . , ( T h e W o r d of N e g a t i o n ) , 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., ( N o t e s o n t h e B o o k of Ben Sira), Le. 4 7
(1983), p p . 125-46.
( A 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 , ., Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner
 Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebrischen
( B Z A W , 16; G l e s s e n : A l f r e d T 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 . 1583-
90.
L i e b e r m a n , S . , ( F o r g o t t e n M e a n i n g s ) , Le. 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 . ) ,
( Mechilta d'Rabbi is-
1nael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus) (Second ed.; Jeru-
s 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 . , ( A 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 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 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).
( T h e N e g a t i v e P a r t i c l e in 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 , , 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.,
( 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).
( T h e L a n g u a g e of Ben Sira), Le. 7 (1935), p p . 100-20.
( T 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., ( M 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 erklrt (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 ' , 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 Ara-
maic 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., ( T 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 . , ( I 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., ( T 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 He-
breiv 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 IN THE
DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Elisha Q i m r o n
(Beer-Sheva)

I: Introduction

T h e n o u n p 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( a 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 ( a t 4 Q T Q a h a t 1.11 a n d at 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 o 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 is
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 , 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
d 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
should 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
2
See Ben-Yehuda, , p. 7927 (Vol. XVI); Ilan Eldar
:- , Edah ve-
Lashon 5 (1975), Part 2, p. 285; Isaac Gluska, : ,
Edah ve-Lashon 20 (1995), p. 88.
3
Avi Hurvitz,( Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 88-91.
4
In fact, is derived from an original tubht, a pattern that is practically
unused in BH. Only ' garment( Isa. 59.17) perhaps belongs to this pat-
tern (see Sect. ). For the preference of over see Sect. BF.
5
See Sefer Zikkaron (Bacher), p. 8.
6
See Eldar, ibid.; A. Berliner (ed.),
( Frankfurt am Main, 1909), p. 30. The v i e w of Gluska,
ibid., that resulted from the v o w e l change u > i, is unlikely. See also the
bibliography in note 31 below.
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 ( construct singular), ( plural),
a n d o n c e4) Q 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 in
t h e s a m e m a n u s c r i p t (cf. 1:1.3: [ ) ] . T h e fact t h a t b o t h f o r m s oc-
c 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 * . 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 sec-
o 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 () is r e g u l a r l y w r i t t e n o r a n d o n l y o n c e
8
.
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 a 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 tuqt1(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 a 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 predominates. The evidence suggests that the original
f o r m w a s *tubh(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 tuqtl) 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: .
8
See Eduard Y. Kutscher, , Le. 22 (1958), p. 105;
idem, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsa") (Lei-
d e n , 1974), pp. 503-504; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Atlanta, 1986), 200.24; idem, 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.
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/taqtl(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 tuqtl/tuqtI(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 , in 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 tucjtl(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-palstinischen
Aramisch (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 in-
s 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', tut-
turum/tatturum 'profit, abundance', turgumannu translator' (see note 23), and
tu/uklatu 'food' (< *tu'kulatu?) (see CAD, Vol. IV [], 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, al-
though the w o r d ' grief( and perhaps ' sound w i s d o m ' ) could attest
to u in the first syllable.
i n g t h a t tacjtl(a)t b e c a m e t11qtl(a)t b y a s s i m i l a t i o n a n d t h e n taqtl(a)t
again by dissimilation.

C: The evidence from Aramaic

S i n c e t h e n o u n o 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 es-
t 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
a n d in 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 tuqtl(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. ' ^ o 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 ) ; ' d e s i r e ( tg. N e o f i t i to N u m .
11.4); ' s u b s t i t u t e ' in Syriac. 1 5

2. ' m i s s i o n ' (tg. J u d g . 5 . 1 5 ) ; ' o f f e r i n g ' (tg. Jer. 51.59);

' p r e t e x t ' ( t g . J u d g . 14.4); p r e t e x t ' ; 1 6
' d e f i l e m e n t ( tg. Isa. 4.4); ' p 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); p r a i s e ( tg. O n q e l o s D e u t . 31.19);
p r a i s e ( M a n d a i c ) ; ' 1 7 p a y m e n t ' (tg. O n q e l o s D e u t .
32.32); ' p a y m e n t ' ( M a n d a i c ) ; 1 8 ' c 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
' s c o r n ' ( t g . Isa. 28.11); ' t r a i n i n g ' ( S y r i a c ) ; 2 0

14
I included n o u n s of the masculine equivalent tuqtl.
15
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 Nldeke, Mandisclie Grammatik (Halle, 1875), p. 133.
18
Nldeke, ibid.
19
Cf. rebels' in late midrashim and ( tg. Neofiti Deut 31.27;
see Ben-Zion Gross, [ Jerusalem, 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 Thes-
aurus Syriacus ofR. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1903), p. 607.
' d r e s s i n g oneself i n ' (Syriac); 2 1 ' 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 ' t r a n s l a t i o n ' (Syriac); 2 3 ' sigh'. 2 4

3. ( Syriac, P a l e s t i n i a n Syriac a n d tg. Neofiti); 2 5 d 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 ) ; ( tg. Mic.
7 . 3 ) ; ( P 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);
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 ) , p r e t e x t ( tg.

21
Brockelmann, p. 358; Payne Smith, p. 608.
22
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:. 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) turgmn 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) tirgnun in Christian Palestinian Aramaic; 4) turgmn in Mishnaic
H e b r e w ; 5) turgmn (and )in Mishnaic H e b r e w and Jewish Aramaic; 6)
targmn in Syriac. There are also t w o forms with prefixed mem: mturgmn in
Jewish Aramaic and in Mishnaic H e b r e w and mtargmn 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,
[ Jerusalem, 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
turgmn 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
-[ ) Ph 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 mtargmn has been d e v e l o p e d (in addition to mturgmn
patterned after turgmn). T h e form targmn in Syriac w a s i n f l u e n c e d by
mtargmn. O n l y the a s s u m p t i o n that turgm1n 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
resulted 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
).
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
boys' (Isa. 3.4), ' educator' in Aramaic (Barth, p. 310);
'rebels' (note 19, above); p e r h a p s also ' perversity', e.g. Prov. 10.31.
N o t e also disciple', baby', and tamlku '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 turgmn
w o u l d be c h a n g e d to than 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.
 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),

( S y r i a c ) ; 2 6 ' g 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 ) , ' p 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), ' p 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 ' s u b s t i t u t e ' (Syriac);28 ' T a l m u d ' (tg. Shir
H a s h i r i m 1.2), ( b. 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 tuqtl/
tuqtlat a s a p a t t e r n d i s t i n c t f r o m taqtl/taqtlat. 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 in-
s 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
taqtl/taqtlat 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 taqtl 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 1 / t u q t 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 taqt1/taqt1l(a)t is a t t e s t e d o n l y in o n e
n o u n ( 3 0 . ( T h e p a t t e r n tuqtl/tuqtl(a)t is u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
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.
27
Cf.( Nahal 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
Nldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar [London, 1904], p. 76; Nldeke deals
with various patterns with prefixed ). 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 ' grief and ' sound wisdom' is obscure,
but the u in probably came from uw.
classical era and are apparently Aramaic loans. The distinction be-
tween these two patterns can help us in establishing their history,
since n o u n s of original taqtfd/taqtl(a)t are basically Hebrew while
nouns of original tuqtI/tuqtl(a)t pattern are Aramaic loans. The Heb-
rew evidence is as follows: ( m. Sukkah 5.4 and in other
sources),31 ' payment' (very frequent in MH, according to the
most reliable manuscripts it is plurale tantuin);32 ' payment' (Sir.
12.2; 14.6); ( Sir. 32.13; 48.8), ' t e a c h i n g 4 ) QpNahum
3:2.8; 4QBat [4Q525] 14:2.15, and very frequent in MH);
defilement ( l l Q T a 49.12)'; garment( Isa. 59.17 = in
lQIsa a ); translation( m. Yadaim 4.5); ' offering( t. Baba
Qama 6.14; 7.8), complaint' (m. Baba Mesi'a 4.6; 6.1 and else-
where) ( Mekhilta Wayyissa' [Horovitz-Rabin, p. 155]). On the
nouns ' translator' and ' rebel, see notes 19 and 23. It has
been noticed 3 3 that the form dominates in the most reliable
sources of Mishnaic Hebrew.
The comparison with Aramaic suggests that all the above nouns
are of the tuqtl(at) pattern and appear to be Aramaic loans in late
Hebrew. The relation to Aramaic is also manifested in the usage of the
noun ' payment, which is plurale tantuin in both languages.

F: The original root vowel in

Scholars disagree on the original root vowel in the feminine pattern

. Some opt for a short 34,/ others, for a long a. 35 Surprisingly,

31
Moshe Bar-Asher, , Edah ve-Lashon 6
(198()), p. 20; Haya Natan,( Ph.D. diss.;
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1984), p. 343; Eldar, Edah ve-Lashon, 5 (1979),
Part 2, p. 285; Isaac Gluska, ,
Massorot 8 (1994), pp. 32-33; idem, Edah ve-Lashon 20 (1995), pp. 88-89; Breuer
(see note 23), p. 277 (arguing that is original). For the forms in the
Scrolls, see Sect. III.
32
The singular occurs 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, Heb-
rew 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 . Segal, ( Tel Aviv, 1936), p. 82 (as a second option).
35
Segal, ibid.; Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der heb-
ratschen Sprache (Halle, 1922; reprinted H i l d e s h e i m , 1965), p. 496, list !
under taqtl and mention a possible derivation from ta1btu. Yet Barth (p.
296) had already indicated the possibility of original in !, w h i c h is sup-
ported by Akkadian. See also note 23.
 QIMRON: THE DERIVATION OF 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 estab-
lished 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 pattern are the following:
' processions' (Neh. 12.31); ' perversity' (Prov. 2.12 and
nine times elsewhere, always written defectively); ' counsels'
(Prov. 1.5; 11.14; 12.5; 20.18; 24.6);( Job 37.12 [Qere]);
drought( Hos. 13.15); consolation( Job 15.11);( Job
21.2); might( Ps 68.36), pledge' (1 Kgs 14.14, 2 Chr.
25.24).
Unfortunately, none of these plural forms has an extant corre-
sponding singular form. 36 Naturally, they have been taken as plural of
*. Yet such a form does not exist either in BH or in MH whereas
does exist in both BH and MH. It is therefore possible that
37
is the plural of .
Actually, in MH is the plural of . Furthermore, in
reliable unvocalized sources, the spelling occurs as the plural
of . This spelling conforms to original taqtiil or taqtl but ex-
eludes original taqtnl. The derivation of from seems to
be established in MH, 38 and I therefore suggest taking in BH
as the plural of rather than of . In any case, all the forms
belong to the taqtiil (or tuqtl) pattern.

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

Based on the above discussion, the forms / )(in the

Scrolls may best be taken as originating from the pattern tuqtlt. Since

36
N o t e that in BH, most of the verbal n o u n s of the patterns taqtl 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,
-^, US. 59 (1996), pp. 7-38,
especially pp. 13-14, 27. Contrast also ' corner-post' (Exod. 26.24) with
scraping tool( Isa. 44.13); splendid attire( Ezek. 23.12) w i t h
splendid garment( Ezek. 27.24); bud( BH) with ( MH).
38
Unlike Greenfield and Eben Shoshan, w h o suggest the derivation
from ( See Jonas C. Greenfield in IAOS 89 [1969], p. 131, w h o suggests
the singular liSbohct [sic] and plural tiSboht [sic]; see also Abraham Even
Shoshan,[ Jerusalem, 1983], p. 1482).
the form is 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 and
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-dis-
similated forms.
 THE HEBREW OF BEN SIRA INVESTIGATED
ON THE BASIS OF HIS USE OF :
A SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC AND LANGUAGE-HISTORICAL
CONTRIBUTION

Friedrich V. Reiterer
(Salzburg)

1: Preliminary remarks

l.i: 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 ex-
pressions 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 re-
translation from the Greek or the Syriac. If the Genizah texts really are

1
See the discussion between the proponents and opponents of their original-
ity: Schechter, Solomon, 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; Knig, Eduard, Professor Margoliouth and the "Original Hebrew" of
Ecclesiasticus, ET 10 (1898-99), pp. 512-16, 564ff.; Die Originalitt des neulich
entdeckten hebrischen Sirachtextes, textkritisch, exegetisch und sprachgeschichtlich
untersucht (Freiburg, 1899); Professor Margoliouth and the "Original Heb-
rew" 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 Einfhrung', 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 de-
scribing 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 de-
serve to be accepted.

1.1.3. I assume, and will endeavour to show, that the protocanonical

Old Testament (hereafter referred to simply as ) 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 ex-
pert in the Bible: 'Since it is necessary not only that the readers them-
selves 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. Anothermaybe the most importantobservation 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 incom-
prehensible, even though native-speakers of English have no problem
with the expression. It is most unlikely that, for example, a French-
speaker would independently generate such an idiom, which is pe-
culiar 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 com-
plete nonsense: NN. () (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 cor-
respond 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 bilin-
gual area, where the phrase has been adopted from Greek:
/ITpamaM ro 3a 3ej1en xaBep ( send you to
bring the green caviar') and parallel to it: ()
('Iannisgreen 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 spheresfor example, the religiousin which

vocabulary is traditionally fixed and phrases have become unalter-
able. 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 interpre-
tation 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 em-
phasis. 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 deal-
ing with daily problems, and Palestinian Aramaic. That Aramaic w a s
important can be seen from the targum translations of the Torah. In-
fluence 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
256 SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

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 Heb-
rew was a taught language, we have to try to find out whether the au-
thor 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, be-
cause 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 com-
parison 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 charac-
teristic features of Ben Sira's own use of language. On this basis I at-
tempt 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 . 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
and, most n o t a b l y , .

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 , 'make a covenant' or 'impose duties, obliga-
tions'. In the Septuagint the translation of the phrase is fixed:
() ; in Syriac one finds CLD and occasionally
2: Sir. 40.17a

In the literary unit 40.12-17 different types of correct and incorrect be-
haviour 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 paral-
lelism, which does not employ the usual form of colometric juxtaposi-
tion but extends over several verses. We may also note that 12b and 17
form an inclusio.
Representing negative behaviour we find (in the meaning
of 'bribery'), (12a), and ( M, B); and ( B);
(15a,b); the positive characteristics are (12b) and
(M, B); and 1( )[M, B); (17a,b). The aim of the
poem is to emphasize the need for good behaviour.

2.1: Metre
Metrical regularity is clearthe verse is divisible into 3:3 accentual
units in every colon. The negation in 17a forms a single accentual unit
with the verb.

3 2 1 3 2 1 40.17a,b
] M

2.2: Grammar
The noun in the singular is the only noun and relates to the verb
. 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,
would seem to be the subject. But OT usage shows that is
masculine 2 (cf. Gesenius, Wrterbuch, p. 247), so the verb ought to be

2
In all OT references the verb indicates that the noun is masculine:
2) Sam. 7.15)
( Isa. 54.10)
( Ps. 33.22)
( Ps. 36.8)
( Ps. 40.12)
( Ps. 89.15)
( Ps. 117.2)
( Ps. 119.41)
( Ps. 119.76)
( Prov. 3.3)
( Prov. 20.28)
passive clauses:( Ps. 8 8 . 1 2 ) ; 8 9 . 3 )
 3
. MS has the correct person but a different verb: .
If we compare M and B, the following additional arguments sug-
gest that could be seen as a later correction: the parallel is un-
usual but in there is . The same argument holds for the
prepositions: instead of ( M) there is ( ).4 But in the intended
sense of M, namely that 10 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 differ-
ence arose because of alliteration and assonance: ( and
) . The spelling of17) b [M]) may be a scriptio defectiva; B:
.

2.3: Parallelism
One could use this verse as a model of synonymous parallelism. The
position of the corresponding substantives (first words), the corre-
sponding 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 ballows the negation of the first clause and a movement from
negative statement to positive.

2.4: OT parallels
2.4.1. ( colon a) and ( colon b)
There are few instances of and in parallel, whether as paral-
lei 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. and
Sometimes and have the same meaning, so the word pair
and should 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.( Isa. 30.8).
5
.
6
.
.7
.8
.9 ...
.10
.1
12

.
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. and ( M) or and ( )

and are found nowhere else in parallel. The word pair and
is suggestive of the 57 occurrences of . 1 6 is attested
just twice 17 and nine times. 1 "

2.4.4. and ( M) or and ( )

In the OT the verbs and are never found in parallel or in the
same verse. This is not true, though, of and . 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:
.
It is unusual to find the roots and together.

2.5: Examination of stereotyped phrases

2.5.1.
In most references has the sense of a 'fulfilled deed of love',
mostly construed with ; six times one finds the phrase
. 2 1 The union of and is noteworthy. We might
consider the possibility that Ben Sira looked for a verb that could gov-
ern both nouns ( and )as direct objects. This could be the rea-
son why he chose in reference to the breaking or cutting off of a

13
.
14
.
15
.
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
.
20
.
21
Deut. 7.9; 1 Kgs 8.23; 2 Chron. 6.14; Neh. 1.5; 9.32; Dan. 9.4; cf. Hos. 12.7:
.
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
. In Jer. 16.5 lamentation for the dead has to cease
because God has withdrawn from Jeremiah:
....
One encounters in connection with David and Jonathan,
who loves David like himself/his own life ( 1 ]
20.17]). G o d ' s love ([ v. 14]) might be the measure of the
(expected) care of David for the house of (the deceased) Jonathan:
Do not cut off ( )your loyalty ( )from my
house for ever (). When the LORD cuts off every one of
the enemies of David ( ) ...( 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 in v. 14 suggests a connection
with Isa. 55.3, where as well as , is used, but in a different
sense:
.
It seems that Ben Sira always has in mind the antithetical mean-
ings of , which is, therefore, potentially both positive and negative,
although at the surface level the modern scholar, who is not a native-
speaker of the language of Ben Sira, sees only the immediately appro-
priate sense.

2.5.2.
can 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 ( ;)111.10 ( ;)112.3 ( ;)112.9 (;)
148.6; Prov. 12.19; 29.14; Isa. 64.8; Amos 1.11 ( ;)Mic. 7.18 (.(

2.5.3.
In the OT is never the object of the verb . The prepositional
phrase is used however as a qualitative modifier. A royal
throne is established ( ), meaning either that is an ob-
jective 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,
;
Isa. 16.5). In Isa. 54.14 ( ) it seems to be an almost spatially
definable feature that keeps distress and depression away. Ben Sira
uses in 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 for the ending of a relationship of love. The ex-
pression 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 tra-
ditional formulas with a new aspect; that the author has developed his
own idiom can be seen in the parallel of and . 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
and , instead of the grammatically correct , 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
and needing to be read as single units. In this way a 3:3 metre
emerges, which matches the preceding and following verses.

3 2 1 3 2 1 41.lib,a
[Bmg ]
][ n M

3.2: Grammar
In so far as it is legible, MS M supports B; the two lameds in repre-
sent a spelling variant that also can be found in Mishnaic Hebrew (see
the contribution of W. Th. van Peursen to this volume). The introduc-
tory particle in colon l i b introduces a contrast to colon a. is
a noun phrase, with nomen regens and subject and nomen rectum
. 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 ar-
ranged as beautifully as in 40.17. The middle elements of the cola are
correlated and . Thus, we see that a is 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:
.
The ability to bear a name shows that someone belongs to the cate-
gory of human beings.

3.5: Examination of stereotyped phrases

3.5.1.
When the Israelites fled from Ai, Joshua poured out his troubles to the
LORD, saying that the other inhabitants of the country ()
would now attack and the names, that is the Israelites, would be ex-
terminated ([ Josh. 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 () . If this is done both
person and name lives on among the person's descendants, which
means a special existence after death () . In 1
Sam. 24.22 we find the parallel term 22, which indicates that
refers to descendants. It is significant that can be identified imme-
diately 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 annihi-
lated:

( Isa. 56.5).

3.5.2.
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 corre-
sponds to God's personality () . This personality can be speci-
fied by . The supplicant praises God, who is present in his name,
for his love and loyalty ([ Ps. 138.1]). But no formu-

22
; cf.
( Isa. 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 he 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 con-
tinued 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 descen-
dants, 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 ( )lives 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 , which
is more precisely qualified by , does not pass away. How can this
be understood? Does the that 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 at-
tempt to formulate in Hebrew abstract ideas not traditionally associ-
ated with the language. Ben Sira was probably influenced by the
Greek philosophical terminology he knew; compare a similar, Greek-
related, phenomenon at Exod. 3.14, where the LXX has
for . In Ben Sira is 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. is not only used to qualify but 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 : in Exod. 12.4 refers 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
. In N u m . 9.6 m 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 .
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 occurs
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 is discordant with
OT parallels.

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
44.17 [
3 2 1 3 2 1
44.17
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
44.18
[Bmg ]

4.2: Grammar
Although is a prepositional phrase it could be argued that it is a
subject marked by ( cf. the formally equivalent construction with
in 2 Sam. 11.25).25 is an adjective modifying . could 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 ex-
eluded. 26 In Bmg, there is the variant ( Qal 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 '( with him') could re-
fer to either person, depending on the decision about the subject: if the
subject is God, the pronoun refers to Abraham, and vice-versa.

25
can be a marker of the subject; cf. Meyer, Rudolf, Hcbrische 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, , but this is
also possible in active clauses, e.g. N u m 5.10, , Dan. 9.13,
, or in a noun clause, e.g. Judg. 20.46:
.
26
It is not possible to see here Qal 1st pers. pi.
4.3: Parallelism
Verse 18 employs synthetic parallelism. A model of the parallelism of
18) a ) , in the meaning of cut, annihilate', and another verb
meaning ' d e s t r o y ' ( 1 8 ] b ] ) , can be found at Isa. 48.19 ( / /
and Mic. 4.9 ( / / ), although these do not underpin Ben Sira's
formulation.

4.4: Stereotyped phrases

Analysis of the construction plus shows that it is used almost
exclusively in the context of the phrase . Thus one may as-
sume that is required as complement. If the object is 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) refer-
ences can be found, where is used absolutely, without the di-
rect object1) 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 is followed by (an object-marker and) an object:
( Judg. 6.30);( Exod. 4.25);
( 1 Sam. 20.15); ( Mal. 2.12). In passive sentences
(with the verb ) the subject is essential: ( impf. [Obad.
l.9]); ( impf. [Num. 15.31]), ( pf.
[Gen. 17.14]). It is a rule, then, that the direct object of an active sen-
tence has to reappear as the subject when the sentence is converted to
passive. As in Jer. 33.21 ( 2 7 ) , the verb has to be feminine
Sir. 44.18. Ellipsis of is excluded in a passive sentence. If the sub-
ject is , the correct formulation would be )(. But in the
OT this passive form does not occur. If is 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 promi-
nent 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 on its o w n

(without direct object) can mean 'make a covenant'. 2 8 This is a seman-
tic 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) in-
eludes 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
( ) in connection with GodGod is similar to a h u m a n part-
ner. Such a use of cannot be found elsewhere.

4.6: Comparison of and Bmg

Bmg has as a variant , 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 in the active voice follows the general tendency of
the OT. B. It makes better sense to assume that a longer form ()
was changed to a shorter ( ;)the change from to brings
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, should 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; Mnster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), p. 38(), sees the problem. H e
thinks that the Vorlage of LXX reads well, but the absolute use of " bleibt
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; Gters-
loh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Cerd Mohn, 1981) p. 616, uses the correct pas-
sive 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. brt (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. Marbck, 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 is inferior and Greek, Syriac,
and Latin are to be preferred and therefore one has to read .
4.7: Ancient versions
< , (rCr7x! ) rCr73jT
( < ) CRXA3 1 RG RCS
There is no translation corresponding to the prepositional phrase
. 1< cannot be understood in this way. The translation
might imply that in the Hebrew text the translator had, or understood,
. No N-stem is found in the Syriac.

'
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 is singular in the Septuagint, with few exceptions.
There are 336 occurrences of in the OT, with one plural (Ezek.
16.29); there are five more examples of the plural in the deuterocanon-
ical 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 transla-
tion of .
Both versions presuppose in their Vorlage and have pro-
vided standard translations. Translation from the Syriac or Greek
would not arrive at the present Hebrew text, which can hardly, there-
fore, be a retroversion.

4.8: ( N i f ' a l ) W in the OT

Ben Sira's 'absolute' use of ( Nif'al) differs from the biblical con-
struction. 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 , in
connection with Noah, is in reference to (negated) annihilation (Gen.
9.11). However, the expression 'make a covenant' is not found there.
B. appears in the construct phrase , twice in a nomi-
nal clause, ( Gen. 9.12,17), and twice in prepositional pe-
riphrastic constructions, governed by ( Gen. 9.13; 17.11), with 'sign
of the covenant' used in reference to circumcision.
C. is used in Gen. 9.16 to determine 29; the phrase is the
direct object of the infinitive .
D. is not found in the OT.
E. In Sir. 44.18, is suppressed. The noun appears in Gen. 9.11
in the construct phrase as direct object of the verb .
is frequently used in connection with 30. But this phrase is not

29
For , 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 and , 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 us-
ing 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 acci-
dental. 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 ( ) is 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-2a-b

In colon 44.20b we find as the object of the governing verb

40.20)b) and in 44.20c is used with as its direct object.

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
44.19b,a
3 2 1 4 3 2 1
44.20b,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) Kgs 6.12; Jer. 29.10) as well as ( Jer. 33.14)
and ( Gen. 26.3).
(44.20c,d and 44.21a,b). The phrase20) a ) is used 28 times,
with the noun in the singular ()][, nine times. Sometimes we
also find combinations of nouns, mostly with / in first posi-
tion, rarely in second place.
There are also earlier references for . 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 is nomen rectum, in Jer. 11.8 with , in
Ezek. 20.37 with . Both examples express the obligatory character
of the law. If there is an object it is marked with1) Sam. 20.8; Ezek.
16.8;32 [20.37]); but Ben Sira has . The clauses in 44.20 are grammati-
cally and syntactically correct; the phrases are traditional, although
) ( / and are never found in parallel. The direct
dependence of Ben Sira on a Vorlage is very unlikely.
We turn now to 44.20c,d.

5. : Metre
3 2 1 4 3 2 1
44.20
44.2

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

5.2: Grammar, semantics, syntax

is a prepositional phrase with enclitic possessive pronoun.
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
+ (direct object) + indirect object (introduced by ). is a preposi-
tional phrase, the exact significance of which is entwined with the
meaning and valency of , which could mean either 'he cuts o f f or
'he makes (a covenant/statute'[)]. is a stereotyped/formulaic
phrase meaning 'make a covenant'. Where the meaning of is 'cut
off' in the OT the indirect object is never introduced by means of , in
contrast to the use of the negative formulation,- at 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 possibil-
ity, namely that be understood as a reflexive object. Then the pro-
noun - is co-referential with the subject of .
is the direct object of . The noun has the same syntactic
function as in many other texts.

32
N o t e the surprising vocalization of , meaning here 'with'.
5.3: and
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?) tradi-
tion/practicesomething has been done to the body of Abraham, re-
suiting 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 relation-
ships.

5.3.1.
I n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (God) cuts a binding sign for
him (Abraham);
i n / o n his (Abraham's) f l e s h / b o d y he (God) cuts a binding sign for
himself (God);
i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) cuts a binding sign
for him (God);
i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) cuts a binding sign
for himself (Abraham).

5.3.2. + - is a formulaic phrase and there are many examples of

as the direct object. In Ben Sira is not the direct object, but
the noun . The question arises as to whether the two structures are
synonymous, with therefore meaning 'covenant'. But why would
the terminus technicus be changed? Simple identification is excluded.
The proximity in meaning of and may derive from the fre-
quency 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 sen-
tence 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 obligatory

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 obligatory
covenant for himself (God);
i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) made an obligatory
covenant for him (God);
i n / o n his (Abraham's) flesh/body he (Abraham) made an obligatory
covenant for himself (Abraham).

5.3.3. The choice of words suggests that the author was aiming at am-
biguity: 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 meaning both 'cut off and 'make a covenant': And the
men w h o transgressed my covenant ( ) and did not
keep the terms of the covenant ( ) which they
made ( )before me (), I will make like the calf which they cut
in two ( ) and passed ( )between its parts ( . (

5.4: Stereotyped phrases

5.4.1.
The phrase in Gen. 9.11 is, at the phonetic level, the clos-
est to what we find in Ben Sira. But in Genesis the context is of exter-
mination.
In the OT there is no example of and in a positive con-
text. But this can be found in connection with other verbs combined
with 33, + in texts dealing mostly with circumcision. Ben Sira
should be compared with Gen. 17.13 in respect of phonetics, terminol-
ogy, and contents: 'Both he that is born in your house and he that is
bought with your money, shall be circumcised () . So shall my
covenant be ( ) in your flesh ( ) an everlasting
covenant ( . ' (

5.4.2.
In the OT, the combination - means exclusively 'to make a
covenant/an alliance with someone'. On 27 occasions is 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 . Besides a great many references with direct object
there is one (1 Sam. 11.2)35 in which does not occur as direct ob-
ject but there is an indirect object introduced by .

5.4.3.
Although is the direct object of in many places, there are two

33
On four occasions, before functions 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

'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: ( Neh. 10.1)
and ( Hag. 2.4). But there is no example with
.

5.5: OT Parallels
The verbs and are used in the parallel colons 44.21a,b. In the
OT and appear in parallel hemistichs or in close proximity in
five places. 36 But apart from Neh. 9.8 this co-occurrence is not mean-
ingful. Neh. 9.8, a reference familiar to Ben Sira, mentions ()
and , 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 () , and didst make with
him the covenant ( ) to give to his descendants ()
the land ( )of 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 in-
terpretation.

5.6: Content
5.6.1. Circumcision
'You shall be circumcised ( )in the flesh ( ) of your fore-
skins (), and it shall be a sign of the covenant ()
between me and you (( ') Gen. 17.11). At the ripe old age of
ninety-nine years, it came about that Abraham 'was circumcised
( )in the flesh of his foreskin (( ' ) Gen. 17.24). But 'his
son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin (( ') Gen. 17.25). Abraham took
'every male among the men of... (his) house, and he circumcised the
flesh of their foreskins ( ) that very day' (Gen. 17.23).
As a general legal obligation, it is stated that 'On the eighth day the
flesh of his foreskin ( ) shall be circumcised (( ')Lev. 12.3).
Compare: 'Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised ()
in the flesh of his foreskin ( ') cannot be a member of the
people of Israel (Gen. 17.14). The same verb is also used with figura-
tive meaning: 'Circumcise ( )therefore the foreskin of your heart
(( ') Deut. 10.16).
The choice of verb is consistent: , never . With equal regu-
larity the part of the body to be circumcised is named , which ap-
pears everywhere as direct object.

5.6.2. and 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 is Exod.
4.25: 'Zippora took a flint and cut off ( ) her son's foreskin
(). It is noteworthy that the indirect object ( )is not
morphologically specified as such but appears as nomen rectum. This is
the only instance of in reference to circumcision.

5.6.3. in 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 rle fulfils 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 (( ) Gen. 17.14).

5.7: Ancient versions

rCrnj-o ( 73jl rC ) !_1 ^ ^ rC CO m *~
<roj m!- n (44.20c,d)
JJJ
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 in reference to the covenant.

The Greek text employs the same (active) verb that, compounded, is
standardly employed in rendering ( see 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 impor-
tant to observe is circumcision. Ben Sira chooses the term
' s t a t u t e / o r d e r ' ( ) to 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 cir-
cumcision 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 ( ) came forth from Israel, and misled
many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant ( )
with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them
many evils have come upon us. (12) This proposal ( ) pleased
them, (13) and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He autho-
rized them to observe the ordinances ( ) of the Gentiles.
(14) So they built a college of physical education () in
Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom ( ),
(15) and removed the marks of circumcision (
) , and abandoned the holy covenant (
). 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 is developed in the
direction of, on the one hand, circumcision and, on the other hand,
religion. In an earlier period denoted 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 , were required; Ben Sira is a witness to this change.

6: Sir. 50.24

6.1: Metre
In each stich of 24a,b there are four stresses (4:4). If one varies the pre-
sent arrangement of the stichs in MS by attributing to 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 4 3 2 1
50.24
3 2 1 3 2 1
50.24

6.2: Grammar and semantics

Detailed analysis (see below, Sect. 6.5) shows that Ben Sira is deliber-
ately ambiguous to the extent that even the grammar is affected. On
my preferred reading the relative particle in 24c has as antecedent
, the direct object in the preceding clause, with the relative clause
forming a single sentence with the main clause,24) b ) . If,
however, one understands as his descendants should not
be cut off', then is a conjunction introducing a consecutive
clause. 37 negates the verb ( N i f a l impf. 3rd pers. m. sg.). Prob-
ably the imperfect is intended to suggest temporal duration including
the future. The verb requires a direct object, which is elliptically pro-
vided by in the preceding stich. introduces 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 is collective.

37
1 am grateful to Dr Elwolde for pointing out this second possibility.
 specifies the temporal extension already indicated by the
imperfectthe 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

+ - is a common set-phrase (cf. above on 44.20c,d). How-
ever, there are few references with negation (cf. Judg. 2.2). +
- is a frequently-occurring stable combination. In the context of this
phrase the subject regularly occurs: a man (i.e. descendant) will
not become cut off for someone; in other words, there will be a de-
scendant for ever:39.

6.5: Parallels of content in the OT

A valuable contribution to the understanding of this passage is made
by John Elwolde, who treats the -clause as relative and regards
this "an interesting contrast with BH phraseology". How quickly se-
mantics force their way into syntactic discussion is illustrated by El-
wolde's remarks, so that in Sir. 50.24c [( ]we prefer to
stress the negative particle, which Elwolde does not, and at the same
time place in 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 in 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 , 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; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag,
1986), p. 94: "Meint einen i m m e r w 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).
tering a covenant relationship. Elwolde's claim 41 that Ben Sira's usage
exemplifies "a striking example of idiolectal loss of figurative mean-
ing, presumably because of a perceptual mismatch between the id-
iomatic 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 incor-
rect: conventionally, one cannot employ for 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 to to indicate thereby that a is
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 in the
sense of 'make a covenant', it is evident that a has to be estab-
lished before it can be negated, i.e. broken. The constant use of an ac-
tive verb indicates that the establishing of a covenant is viewed as a
deed that is conciously intended and responsibly observed. If
expresses 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) times), 42 on the
one hand, and almost as often22) / times), 43 on the other;
in addition to these, we might also mention1) Kgs
11.11).
24c,d represents a twofold intention: it is said that the will
never be broken and at the same time that there will always be a de-
scendant. 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 indi-
cation of the originality and poetic skill of the writer who composed
these words.

6.6: Ancient versions

.QC0-U <73\ RCNCRUN RC3A RC^MJ1U .

41
Pp. 33f.
42
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.
 1 < 0 3 1 r r C c h m r u ^rC n rTxajj ..
The Syriac offers no additional evidence for Hebrew of these stichs.
50.23

50.24 '

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 relation-
ship 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 :

Sir. 40.17; 41.11; 40.18,20; 50.24. The meanings of in these texts dif-
fer greatly. The different meanings are derived from the OT, espe-
dally from the use of in special phrases. Thus, means 'cut
off'; means 'there will be a descendant'; means
'make a covenant'; is not used in classical Hebrew to
mean that an existing covenant will not be broken; ( passive)
]]means, however, precisely this.
in 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) ) ][. The absolute use of with the mean-
ing 'make a covenant' is very rare; the passive form without a
subject is unique. The phrase has no parallel in the OT. That
is used to express 'not to break a covenant' may be labelled a
curiosity.
In sum, Ben Sira's use of cannot merely be derived from tradi-
tional 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 in-
dicate 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 Al-
phabetic Texts front Ugarit, Ras Ihn Hani and Other Places (KTU, second, enlarged
edition) (ALASP, 81 Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), cited by text number; JM:
P. Joon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14.1-
2; 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
in 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 presen-
tation 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. 133-
36), 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 re-
search on the waw consecutive. 5 In a 1975 article on the Hebrew of di-
rect 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 deliv-
ered 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
ScrollsFifty 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 exam-
pies, they convey insufficiently the extent of the predicative participle,
with respect to either diachronic development or usage in direct dis-
course 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. Gor-
12
don discusses two examples of predicative participle set in a time-
frame contemporary with the moment of speech.
1 Kgs 2.20

"I am making one small request of you" (Gordon)
Neh. 2.4

'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 refer-
ence 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 partici-
pies ALREADY refer to concurrent time. 13

10
A m o n g the older works, perhaps the best treatment of the predicative par-
ticiple 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 Prdikat im
Relativsatz hebrischer 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, Gor-
don 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 men-
tions how the "participial form" can occur "with both verbal comple-
ments 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 dia-
chronic change involving the predicative participle, noted in section
VI below. R.A. Steiner's 1992 synopsis of the BH verbal system sug-
gests that the participle originally expressing imperfective aspect be-
came a tense ("present in Pre-MH [Mishnaic Hebrew] [?], non-past in
MH") by virtue of assuming the *cjtal's two functions of "the perfec-
tive 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 de-
scription, especially to distinguish developments in the pre-exilic pe-
riod versus the post-exilic period and in direct discourse versus narra-
tive.

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 Lin-
guistics (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 Ben-
jamins, 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 pre-
exilic. While Driver does not provide a proper sense of the great num-
ber of participial forms that fall under this category, here in this ob-
servation may be sensed a key to the participle used for statements re-
ferring 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 com-
pare 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 po-
etic 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.
19
J. Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew, AH 2 (1989), p.
128: "In Biblical Hebrew the present tense is properly the d o m a i n of the pred-
icative participle. T w o other verbal forms, the prefix conjugation (PC, yiqtol)
and the suffix-conjugation (SC, !]atal), may be used in present-tense state-
ments 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 lan-
guage 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.
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 Birth-
day (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 substan-
tial 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 time-
less (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 ques-
tion in v. 15 is answered in v. 16 by22. The 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 pred-
icative participle in pre-exilic direct discourse, ;* this for-
mulation is closely paralleled by the divine question posed to the
prophet, Amos: , what do you see? 23 ( Amos 7.8; 8.2). An-
ticipating the discussion below, some further examples of the predica-
tive participle for concurrent time-frame in direct discourse are given
as illustrations.

Prose
Josh. 5.14

"What does my lord command his servant?" (NJPS)
Josh. 7.10

'Why do you fall on your face?'
(NJPS: "why do you lie prostrate?(
1 Kgs 2.2

"I am going the way of all the earth" (NJPS)
1 Kgs 18.21

21
Gordon, 'Development', pp. 8-9.
22
Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle', p. 157. See already JM, 1550b; R.S.
Hendel, 'In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense, As-
pect, Mood', AH 9 (1996), p. 155; and also T. Muraoka's contribution to this
volume. Professor Joosten informs me that this example may be found al-
ready in A.B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (Third ed.; Edinburgh: . & 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.
 'How long 24 will you hop on the two boughs?'
(NJPS "... between two opinions")

Poetry
Hosea 7.6


'All night their baker sleeps,
In the morning it burns like a burning flame'
Seing of Songs 25 2.8
2 6
'Hark, 27 my lovebehold, he comes/is coming ...'
Seing of Songs 2.9
28

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 ap-
parently 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:



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 - relative 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, and , illustrate the ease of switching
from predicative to attributive usage with the same subject in the same verse.
The same point applies to and in 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 m 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 is 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.


'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 *yiqtl forms do
elsewhere.
A related usage in narrative involves general (or habitual) charac-
terization. Gen. 39.3 = 23 offers a case in point:

'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 correspond-
ing usage with the *yiqtl 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 *yiqtl form:
. 2
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 inde-
pendent 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 develop-
ment 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 post-
exilic 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 follow-
ing 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 in-
e 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 Tech-
nique 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 ( in CD MS A
15.13);
ii. ambiguous N-stem forms (e.g. those that may be *qtal);
iii. most other passive forms (e. g. in CD MS A
5.10 33 ),and blessing formulas involving ( e.g. 1 Sam.
3.21; 25.33, 39; 26.25; 2 Sam. 2.5) or curse formulas or state-
ments (e.g. Gen. 49.7; 1 Sam. 26.19);
iv. clauses 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. clauses 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. + 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 ( e.g. Ezra 3.3,4) or
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 Obser-
vations', 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: Schol-
ars Press, 1996), pp. 38-46.
34
Regarding and ] clauses, see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 5, 78-82, 99-
111; 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 ('- relative claus-
es') noted below. The definite article marks these as separate clauses. For ex-
a 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 comple-
ment of their own.
Other participles omitted from consideration are those that are mostly
or entirely reconstructed, lack sufficient context (these may be attribu-
tive) 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 relative clauses in-
eluded 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 fur-
ther element, such as a prepositional phrase, a direct object or an in-
finitive clause. Also included are clauses beginning with the presenta-
tive particles,, and .3'

37
Cf. nominal use in verses 9, 14,16, 34.
38
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 par-
ticiples 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 as 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 can govern a clause (cf. the nominal
clauses in Gen. 18.9, Haggai 1.9 and Qoh. 5.17). Finally, can 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 possibil-
ity 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 as "in function accusative". H o w e v e r , other factors s u g g e s t a
predicative interprta tion in instances of w 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 is 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 as "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
II: A pre-exilic ('classical') corpus

A: Pentateuchal 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).
: 27.46.
: 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:(indirect discourse).
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:(passive); 31.20; 32.12; 42.23, 38; 45.12, 26.
27.8 :.

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 predica-
tive function is indicated in cases of with 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 *with 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 *precedes *qiltal forms, suggesting that participles fol-
lowing *may 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
(personal communication from Professor Muraoka). On as a presentative
particle, see n. 27. See also in 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 Syn-
tax 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 at-
tested 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 bloodsee,
it is being required".
43
Cf. 1 Kgs 2.2.
44
governs 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).
: 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.
relative: 1.1; 6.7, 27; 10.5, 8; 11.5 (= 12.29); 12.10; 14.19, 28; 36.4;
37.19, 21.
: 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 (, ' 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 :
12.16;10.9;24,.23:(future); 15.14; 16.3; 18.15; 20.36; 21.3; 22.2;
28.9.
- relative: 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:x);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, sec-
ond 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.
46
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 , but w o r d order militates against seeing a periphrastic construc-
tion 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 fol-
lowing .
50
The p a s s i v e instances in 30.3 and 16 nre structurally parallel to clauses
with the active participle. The e x a m p l e - v. 16 is f o l l o w e d by three active at-
tributive participles.
(2x, including keti^); 23.13; 24.3,12, 13.
Dependent usage (27 cases).
.17.3,12,13 ;15.20 ;14.18 ;3.25 :
- 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.
: 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).
: 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 *qtal or *ivayyiqtl) is
introduced by w e - + subject + participle. This syntactical environment
directly parallels *qtal/*umyyiqtl plus vf- + subject + *qtal to mark
action anterior to the time-frame of the narrative verb: "The qtal verb
distinguishes these clauses [past circumstantial clauses, or pluper-
fect/preperfect] both formally and semantically from similar clauses
with participles whose time referent is that of the verb in the preced-
ing clause." 53 Both clause-types with *qtal and the participle are dis-
51
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 in-
stances discussed on pp. 22-24, however, d o not constitute anterior construc-
tions, but contrasts set in the past (e.g. Gen. 4.2, 3-4; 31.47); see Isaksson, Stud-
ies, 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
(*qtal/*wayyiqtl + + *qtta1) is paralleled syntactically also by the predica-
tive participle in relative clauses (*qiital/*wayyiqtl + + participle) express-
ing a concurrent situation.
junctive relative to the narrative. Most commonly, a single participial
clause intrudes in a narrative sequence; clauses of this type are gener-
ally characterized as 'circumstantial clauses'.
Gen. 24.62 contains both *qtal and participial disjunctive clause-
types.
Pluperfect with *qtal:

'Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi';
Disjunctive participial clause:

'for he was dwelling in the region of the Negev';
Narrative resumed with *wayyiqtl:

'and Isaac w e n t . . . ' .
The initial verb provides an action prior to the narrative as marked by
the disjunction . This initial clause itself is interrupted by the cir-
cumstantial 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 ( *Gen. 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 particip-
ial disjunctive clause, with introducing the clause.
Narrative with *wayyiqtl:

'and a man came upon him [Joseph]';
Disjunctive participial clause:

'and there (while) he was wandering in the field';
Narrative resumed with *xoayyiqtol:
' and the man asked him ...'.
A more complex example involving appears in the narrative
account of Jacob's dream (Gen. 28.10-13).
Narrative chain with *wayyiqtl:
. . .
'And Jacob l e f t . . . and he set o u t . . .
. . . ...
And he came upon ... and stopped for the n i g h t . . .
... ...
And he took ... and he s e t . . .
...
And he lay down ... and he dreamt';
 Disjunction with predicative participles:

'And there a ladder was set on the ground,

A n d its top reached to h e a v e n

And there angels of God

were ascending a n d descending o n it,

And there Yahweh was standing beside it';
Narrative chain resumed with *wayyiqtl:

'And he [Yahweh] said ....
While the *wayyiqtl verbs of the narrative are sequential, all of the
predicative participles are concurrent relative to the preceding
*wayyiqtl, namely .
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


'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 Is-
raelites, the men of Israel fled ...'. 54

Person. The participial clause may involve different persons relative to

the preceding narrative verb. Background information may be intro-
duced 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 in-
volved 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 fol-
lows (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 *wayyiqtl.

'And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle
and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle';
Disjunctive participle clause:

'And the Canaanite and the Perizzite at that time were
dwelling in the land';
Narrative resumed with *wayyiqtl.

'And Abram said: ...'.
More commonly, the predicative participle in narrative renders
circumstances taking place at the same time. For example, the par-
ticipial 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 de-
scribes where the patriarch was standing while his guests ate. Simul-
taneous circumstances present at the time of the preceding *wayyiqtl
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
*wayyiqtl); 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:

'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 Command-
ments in Exod. 20.1-14, and presumably all the way back to the previ-
ous 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):


'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

'And the sun was setting,

And slumber had fallen on Abram,

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

'And the men rose from there,

And they looked out toward Sodom,

And Abraham was going with them to send them off' 5 6
1 Sam. 9.14

'And they went up to the city;

They were going into the city,

And there Samuel was coining out

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 pred-
icative participle. The two predicative participles in this verse are set

55
A s suggested to me by Professor Huehnergard.
56
Professor Huehnergard suggests an idiomatic gloss for the third line, 'with
Abraham accompanying them . . .'.
in the past sequence by the preceding *wayyiqtl 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 men-
tioned in the same sequence (in contrast to *qtal wayyiqtl or
*wayyiqtl wayyiqtl, which also convey two events in a past sequence,
but not simultaneous ones). In addition, the participial clauses espe-
cially with , 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 unde-
fined 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 in-
volves dependent usage governed by the preceding , 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 an-
terior 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 particip-
ial 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 an-
terior participle manifest no syntactical difference; both involve narra-
tive 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 pre-
sent 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 with 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, in v. 15 is answered in v.
16 by61. This is no isolated example with this root: 62
1 Sam. 19.2

'Saul, my father, seeks to kill you';
2 Sam. 16.11

'See, my son who came from my insides

seeks m y life'. 6 3
Other examples of the predicative participle in a present time-
frame may be furnished. The two examples in 1 Sam. 23.1 are cited
here.

60
Dyk, Participles in Context, pp. 52, 54.
61
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
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) * Sam. 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, ( *e.g. Gen. 3.5, 33.13; 1 Sam.
23.17), ( *see section I), and vebs of speech, for example, ( * e.g. Isa.
63.1) and ( *see Sect. VI). In narrative, verbs of m o v e m e n t ( , * * ,
)*and position (*, *, )*appear quite c o m m o n l y in predicative
participles. See the extensive discussion of Joosten, 'Predicative Participle',
pp. 128-59.
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.
 'And they told David.

"Look! the Philistines are fighting against Keilah,

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 pre-
sent event (see also Gen. 32.7).
A speaker may relate an event using the predicative participle,
followed in sequence by a *wayyiqtl 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 *wayyiqtl form resumes the narrative. 65
Apart from these variations, the predicative participle in a concur-
rent 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 : Gen. 6.13,17; 9.9; 15.3 ( ; 2 4 . 1 3 ;(
25.32; Exod. 4.23, 9.18, 19.4. (This usage is common for prophetic pre-
dictions, 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 Profes-
sor 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 or ( Gen. 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

"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

,
At about midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt
1 Sam. 19.11

' . . . t o m o r r o w y o u will be killed'
2 Sam. 15.28

"Look, I zvill linger in the steppes of the wilderness ..." (NJPS)
What is particularly important to note about the predicative par-
ticiple 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 ex-
ample 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):

"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 con-
ditions 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 suscepti-
ble to a modal interpretation. The following cases are a matter of dis-
pute.
1. Gen. 49.29

am to/should be gathered to my people' (JPS)
It is possible to render this charge of Israel to his sons as a future pre-
diction: "I am about to be gathered to my kin" (so NJPS; see also
NRSV). However, the modal character of the context is perhaps sug-
gested by the imperative that follows in the same verse. 68
2. 2 Sam. 12.23

"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

Even if I would/were to have

a thousand shekels of silver in my hands,

I would not raise my hand against the son of the king'
This example clearly differs from the preceding cases as a contrary-to-
fact 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

' W h y should you run, m y s o n ,

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

'May the Lord your God increase

68
NAB takes the clause as a concessive apodosis to the following imperative.
69
See NJPS.
 (the number of) the people a hundredfold,

and may the eyes of my lord, the king, see it'
As this JPS translation suggests, modal use is perhaps involved, per-
haps 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 ex-
ceptions (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 dis-
course. Accordingly, one may wonder whether word-order with the
predicative participle is generally the same in narrative as it is in di-
rect 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 partici-
pie in pre-exilic BH is the occasional omission of the subject normally
constituted by an independent pronoun representing a person men-
tioned 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

'Straw is not given to your servants;

But "bricks", 73 they say to us, "Make."

70
So already Driver, Treatise, p. 169; Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 22.
71
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 repre-
sented in the translation). Following LXX, NAB handles the problem by tak-
ing 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 as part of
the quote: "Bricks" they say, "for us, make'". None of these approaches is es-
 1 Sam. 17.25

'Have you seen this man who is coming up?

Surely, (in order) to taunt Israel he comes up'.
2 Sam. 16.3

'And the king said,

"And where is the son of your master?"

And Ziba said to the king,

"See, he is staying in J e r u s a l e m "
JM, 154c, lists other examples, some with ( e.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 addi-
tion 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 be-
fore 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 . From these examples one might deduce that
the predicative participle without the named subject occurs when con-
text 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 par-
ticiples in independent usage occur in direct discourse. This point ap-
plies as well to the omission of the subject in other sorts of clauses.

pecially persuasive.
4
So Driver, Treatise, p. 171. It might be suggested that might 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 . 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

'If you send the ark of the God of Israel,

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:

Behold, she is in the tent.
The nominal clause in Hos 2.25 is even more elliptical:

'And I will say to Not-my-people.

"You are my people."

And he [Not-my-people] will say.

"[You are] my god.' 7 5
In this case, the parallelism provides the missing subject in the nomi-
nal 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: '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'()*, preceding the attributive participle:



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 par-
ticiple. It w o u l d be possible to analyze as 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 audi-
ence may be assumed and not made explicit, and it may be hypothe-
sized that while the number of examples attested in the literary de-
posit surveyed here is quite few, it is probably only the tip of the ice-
berg: 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. rela-
tive clauses in 17.5, 7; 18.3, 25; 20.22, 23; 22.3; 23.10; 25.2; and
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 Hag-
gai, 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 cita-
tion 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 *
or the like.
Dependent usage (14 cases).
.(: 6.6 (
relative: 7.6; 12.9.
11.16 ;3.8 ;2.12,13,14 :.

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:x),17,21.
2) 19 ,3.8 :x).
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:x),14; 9.10.
relative: 3.9, 21 (2x); 4.15; 9.2,12 (passive).
. 1 0 . 3 :
: 2.22 ( interrogative); 5.2, 7; 6.12; 8.12; 9.5; 12.5.
- 9 . 1 2;8.14;2.18;(:1.7 (-
Asyndetic relative clause: 1.5b (with implied ?cf. 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):
.(: 4.3 = 8.17 ( ) 82 ; 5.13 (
- relative: 1.14; 4.16; 6.11; 9.19.
2) 10.3 ;9.4 :x).

Ezra (total: 8 cases)

Independent usage (4 cases): 3.12; 4.2, 7 (passive); 9.4.
Dependent usage (4 cases):
: 9.11.
: 3.13; 4.1; 9.11 ( ;)10.6.

80
N o t e *qtal for the s a m e time-frame in 1.5.
81
( an 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 *qtal).
Distribution.
The distribution of predicative participles in the post-exilic books sur-
veyed 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 . This situation con-
trasts 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 *yiqtl, es-
pecially given the use of statement opening , 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 predica-
tive participles. Perhaps the purportedly autobiographical style of the
book engenders greater attestation of the predicative participle espe-
daily 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 de-
scribe circumstances holding at the time of the past narrative. The
construction, as noted above, is past narrative verb (usually *qtal or
*wayyiqtl) followed by nf- + subject + participle. Esther 5.1 shows
this construction in a circumstantial clause:

'And it was on the third day, that Esther dressed ...

and the king was sitting on his royal throne'.
Here the waw-consecutive verb precedes the circumstantial we- + sub-
ject + participle. Esther 7.8 shows the same construction following the
past *qtal verb. Esther 1.7 attests this construction with some varia-
tion:

83
See the valuable treatment of the present predicative participle in Qohelet
in Isaksson, Studies, pp. 33-36, 65, 68, 72, 77, 78.

"And they gave them drink in vessels of gold

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:

' 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

'and the word of Mordecai Esther did'
Esther 3.2
. . .
' a n d all the servants of the king ... knelt and bowed low ...'
Esther 8.17

'And many from the peoples of the land became Jews/pretended
to be Jews'
Esther 9.3
...
" 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 ( , '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 characteri-
zation. Esther 9.19 supplies an example:
..." That
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-ex-
ilic narrative, it is reasonable to support in general terms the conclu-
sion 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:

"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 par-
ticiples, as in Zech. 2.7:

'And there, the angel who was speaking to me left,

And another angel left to meet him.
The case of Ezra 4.2 includes the past up to the time of the speaker:

'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, post-

exilic direct discourse uses the predicative participle to render circum-
stances contemporary with the preceding verb (Hag. 1.9; 2.5). Like

84
Eskhult, Studies, p. 113.
85
Eskhult, Studies, p. 113.
86
Reading ;see 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 de-
scribing 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

'All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces
know ...'
Esther 6.5

'See, Haman is standing in the c o u r t . . . '
Esther 7.9
. ..
'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

'Why do you transgress the king's commandment?'
Esther 4.14

' . . . a n d w h o knows ...'
Other post-exilic works contain a number of interrogatives in the pre-
sent 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 pre-
sent conditions:

'There is a certain people

scattered and dispersed among the peoples

in all the provinces of your realm,

and their laws differ from every people's (laws)'.
Insofar as this clause uses 11/- + subject + participle, this example re-
calls 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 *yiqtl followed by accompany-
ing 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 characteri-
zations 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:

' 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

'Also today I announce (that) double I will repay you'
Mai. 1.7

'You offer defiled food on my altar'
Ezra 10.6

'For he was mourning the trespass of (those of) the exile.
It is to be noted that these examples comprise both narrative and di-
rect 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 Qo-
helet 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; Ams-
terdam: 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 sam-
pie 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.
clause: 38.15 (cf. Lev. 25.2).
clause: 30.20.
clauses: 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).
clauses: 40.3,4.
clause: 40.4b.
- clause.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.

90
For the sake of convenience, examples are taken from The Book of Ben Sira:
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).
91
MS A reads apparently for ;so 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 Explo-
ration 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:

'The little foxes (that) ruin the vineyards.'
uses the participle for past time-frame (following *qtal):
47.8 ()

'And in all his deeds he offered thanks ...

With all his heart he [David] loved his Maker.
The usage of participle for past time-frame following *qtal 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 character-
ize the subject.
10.1 (A)

'The judge of a people establishes his people ...'
10.31 (A and B)

'The one honoured in his poverty, is in his wealth honoured
(all the) more'
11.30 (A expansion)

'So a violent person comes
][
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 na-
ture of positive and negative behaviour and attitudes. A perusal of
Proverbs 10-14, for example, turns up many similar sorts of predica-
tive 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 un-
clear whether Ben Sira uses proportionately more predicative partici-
pies t h a n P r o v e r b s , a n d both s h o w *yiqtl for g e n e r a l
characterizations (gnomic present).

Subsequent Usage. General characterization can be applied in a subse-

quent or future time-frame.
13.6(A)

'when he needs (literally, with) you, he will please you,

he will humour you and gain your trust'

96
See the examples cited in Sect. I from the Song of Stings.
 13.12 (A)

cruel one exercises power and he will not have mercy,

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) conclusion (20.4; 38.8; cf. the
attributive use in the nominal clause in 12.14); (2) interrogative
(16.21; 34.10); and (3) interrogative (37.2). All three of these types
are attested in BH. Of the types of dependent clauses, asyndetic, ,
and clauses with the predicative participle are attested in biblical
literature. The others, , ( but see in Genesis and in
Qohelet noted above) and are not.
As with BH pre-exilic and post-exilic passages, Ben Sira 47.8 (B)
omits a named subject:

'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 un-
necessary to revisit the evidence in those texts. Instead, the clear in-
stances 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, written for the im-
perative . 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:(QpIsali1.5.
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 :
.11.4 :
10.11:(cf. 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)
: 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 recon-
structed), B64-65 (reconstructed largely on the basis of B55), B68,107

99
C D MS contains no examples. 4QD^'111 contain t w o forms with insuffi-
cient context: and . is often u s e d w i t h the participle in bib-
lical texts (see above), but it also p r e c e d e s *qtal. For w i t h *qtal, 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. Mhr [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 predica-
tive 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 editions b y .. McCarter and E. Puech are in progress. In the mean-
time, o n e m a y consult A. Wolters, The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Trans-
lation (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 forma-
tion 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, * , 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); C2.
Dependent usage (8 cases):
: C9.
-: BIO, B39, B40 (partially reconstructed), B59, B81 (2x, plural ending
of the second form is reconstructed).
-: 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

'through it they were cut off]U
CD A 5.6-7

and they also they (continually) polluted the sanctuary
... and they (habitually) lay with ...

Concurrent Use
CD A 5.13

'... they are speaking against them.
CD A 9.2-4

'and anyone who enters into the covenant...

h e is taking vengeance a n d bearing a grudge ..."
CD A 9.20

'and if there are two and they witness ...'.

108
There is insufficient context to adjudicate the participles in 4Q403 1:2.7,12.
109
C. N e w s o m , Songs of tlw Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; At-
lanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 110,136.
no N e w s o m , Songs, pp. 168-69.
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

'... those w h o pass into the covenant will say ...'
1QM 1.11

' 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 *yiqtl forms (
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 dis-
course. Given the limited character of the corpus examined, little con-
elusion 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:

'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'( 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 *and is therefore
predicative in nature.
The description of prayer in 4QShirO1atShabb likewise s h o w s
concurrent use:

'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 ( . . . , 'Your glory ... Your kingship).
Other predicative participles in the psalms of this corpus are not pro-
vided 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 inor-
dinate 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 predica-
tive participles, including reconstructed forms: (1) the positions that
' w e hold'([ B2 [?], B8 [?], B29, B36 [?], B37, B42 [?], with re-
versed word-order]), ' w e say'([ B55, B64-65 [?], B73]), and
' w e recognize' ( [ C20]); and (2) the situation of the ad-
dressee that 'you know'( [ B38 [?], B46 [?], B68 B80; C7 [?],
C8 [?]). 112 (The majority of d e p e n d e n t clauses involve clauses de-
p 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, is
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:
,
which may be translated: 'and the sound of blessing from all its divi-
sions relates his glorious firmaments'. 1 1 5 The line evidently echoes Ps.
19.2a, with its o w n predicative participle:

'The heavens relate the glory of God'.
Qimron and Strugnell point to one possible modal use in 4QMMT
B31: ][, 'one should take out', but they note that "the text is bro-
ken 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. in

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 -* 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 Docu-
ment 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 dif-
ference that the predicative participle may have been a standard form
of direct discourse and more common than in literary Hebrew, espe-
cially 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 He-
brew in the biblical and early post-biblical period may represent a
small portion of the material that was actually produced in ancient Is-
rael, 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 impor-
tant to identify some inherent difficulties in this survey, before draw-
ing 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.
119
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.
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 *yiqtl
and *qtal 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 *yiqtl 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 He-
brew. 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 de-
velopment 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., gov-
erning 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.
122
See Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 22.
123
See A.J.C. Verheij, Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of the He-
brew 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 direc-
tion of replacement by the participle; Verheij also lists cases w h e r e the partici-
pie is replaced by *qiital, *wayyiqtl 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. Wern-
berg-Moller, 'Observations on the Hebrew Participle', Z A W 7 1 (1959), pp. 54-
67.
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 speech-
o 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 1p 'uinh
,
She calls to Shapshu her mother( CAT 1.100.2);
tqr'u 1p '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 pred-
icative 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 inner-
Hebrew 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.
127
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 Mmoire, 77; Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilizations, 1988], p. 205, n. 18). Sivan notes the alterna-
tive 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).
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. *to seek
We may return to, and expand upon, the parade example of *in
Gen. 37.15-16, cited at the outset of this essay. The older usage with
*yiqtl form occurs in the question in Gen. 37.15. In contrast,
the answer in 37.16, , shows the newer usage with the pred-
icative participle. The older usage can continue in post-exilic BH as in
Qoh. 3.15:

'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:

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

'and the Lord seeks from his hand').

2. ' *to do, to make'

Pre-exilic BH direct discourse shows the predicative participle of this
root in independent usage:

'but Israel shall do valiantly' (Num. 24.18; cf. NAB); and

'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:

"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:

'so a pharmacist yrtyares pharmaceuticals'.
DSS usage of the predicative participle with *appears in both in-
dependent 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 . , 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 *. For example,
, '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 prob-
lematic 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, . This form may be taken as
present or incipient future. 1 3 2 Post-exilic contexts include BH post-ex-
ilic 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. *to 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 post-
exilic examples of the predicative participle of this root in the BH cor-
pus.)

It may be noted that comparable distributions of the predicative par-

ticiple in pre- and post- exilic BH can be found in other common
verbs, such as *to weep' (pre-exilic: Num. 25.6; 2 Sam. 15.23; ex-
ilic: Lam 1.16; post-exilic: Ezra 3.12; Neh. 8.9; cf. Job 30.31);( *pre-
exilic: 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 *to 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 *yiqtl.
BH manifests a further type of replacement of *yiqtl by the pred-
icative 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 Pro-
fessor N. A. van Uelielen (ed. J. Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelo-
damensis, 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, and 134. Clearly then this
usage predates biblical Hebrew. Ugaritic literature, for example, at-
tests: '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:
,
contextually but no one from any of the people would answer him
(cf. * and there is not an answerer', or idiomatically 'with no
one to answer in Judg. 19.28,1 Kgs 18.26, 29; Isa. 50.2,66.4; Job 32.12).
Unlike Ugaritic, 136 BH develops the participle as predicate with-
out 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 ' *to succeed'. In Gen. 24.42 the
participle is used with a particle of existence. In contrast, the case of
Gen. 39.3 = 23 shows the extension of the use of the participle without
a particle of existence. Additionally, the post-exilic verse, Ps. 1.3,
reflects the traditional use of *yiqtl with ( *C-stem).
Gen. 24.42

'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 partici-
pie 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 ] are etymologically related (UT 19.149). According
to J. Blau Ugaritic 'it and BH d o not correspond etymologically; instead,
Ugaritic 'it corresponds etymologically to Aramaic 'yt (cf. the negative lyt),
w h i l e BH corresponds to the Arabic negative laysa, and Akkadian iS, '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 or iti but entered Arabic (as a loan)
from Akkadian (1aSu). 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 11 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

'... and every thing that he [Joseph] would do, Yahweh would
cause success by his h a n d
Cf. Ps. 1.3:

'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):

'(the man who is at ease) and succeeds in all'.
Finally, it is to be noted that the predicative participle may re-
place the *yiqtl form in at least one dependent usage. Ugaritic uses a
nominal sentence with a particle governing *yiqtl in order to express
identification of a person with an action:
CAT 1.4 VII 49-50
'ahdy dymlk
alone am the one who reigns over gods'.
To express the same sort of identification, Biblical Hebrew uses the
predicative participle following after the subject. 137
Gen. 2.13 (JM, 154fc, . 1)

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

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

Replacement of* q t a l by the predicative participle

Replacement by the predicative participle applies as well to *qtal.
One instance involves a prime verb of mental activity, ' 'to
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 *qtal
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 1.13.10
yd'in lyd't ank yd't'
'you do not know' know 1

Pre-exilic BH (older usage)

Gen. 39.8 Jer 17.16 1 Sam. 17.55

'my master does not know' 1 4 1 you / you know ... if I know'.

Pre-exilic BH (newer usage)

Gen. 3.5 (cf. Ps. 37.18)

' F o r G o d knows ...
Gen. 33.13

' M y lord knows ...'
1 Sam. 23.17

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

' . . . w h o knows ...'

Post-exilic BH
Qoh. 6.12 Jonah 1.12

'For w h o knows ...? ' F o r I know . . .
Esther 4.11

'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 am-
biguous; 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, 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 per-
son example, see 1 Kgs 1.11.

' . . . a n d w h o knows ...'

Ben Sira
16.21 (A)

' 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 4QMMT B38 (?), B46 (?), 4Q200 [4QTob e ] 4.3
B68, B80; C7 (?), C8 (?);
11QrsAp a 2.7
142
a n d h e knows' ' y o u know' know'
1QS 6.25143

a n d h e knoivs'
By comparing forms of ' *to know', it is evident that the predica-
tive participle replaced *cjtal as a present tense in pre-exilic Hebrew
(but not Ugaritic) down through DSS.

Another verb denoting verbal activity that shows a comparable pat-

tern of distribution from *qtnl to *qtcl for the present is ' *to plan,
devise, think'.

BH *cjtal (older usage)

job 144 35.2: , 'Do you think it j u s t . . . ? '

Pre-exilic BH *qtl (newer usage)

Micah 2.3

"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 n u m b e r of the forms in this sec-
tion, see further J.A. Nnud, 'Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumrnn He-
brew 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 pre-exilic date for Job, only that the exnmple here
would represent continuation of pre-exilic usnge. The dnte of Job is notori-
ously difficult to pin d o w n , nlthough commentntors seem to favor generally a
post-exilic date.
Jer 18.11145

"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

'you a n d the Jews are planning to rebel ...'
(cf. 6.2:
'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)

' w e think'

The BH distribution of *qtal 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 *qtal of in
the present, or the rate of change was different for this root. In either
case, however, both *and *demonstrate 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, *, that uses the predicative participle for a concurrent
time-frame.

Two verbs involving emotional activity 146 are ' *to hate' and *

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):

'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 Ameri-
can 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, hat-
ing, 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 par-
ticiples 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, * a n d *, these t w o also s h o w a shift
f r o m *qtal ( 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.

*N' *,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 *qtal
A m o s 5.21 G e n . 27.9

A n d I will m a k e t h e m t a s t y
'1 h a t e , I s p u r n y o u r f e s t i v a l s ' 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
M a i . 2.16

" F o r I d e t e s t d i v o r c e " (NJFS) '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'

BH *qtl
D e u t . 19.4, 6 1 4 9 (cf. 4.42) 2 S a m . 13.4
. . . )(
' a n d h e d o e s n o t hate h i m . . . ' ' 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 *qtl

dividuals under his definition of 'mental life.'

147
To be sure, the *theme vowel is more prevalent with the *qtal of *.
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 per-
haps 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 ren-
der 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) 34.2 ()

'For also God hates the wicked' 'and whoever hides
counsel loves only himself'
34.13 (B)

'God hates an evil eye'

Like Ugaritic, BH attests the older usage. Yet BH also shows the inno-
vation of the predicative participle to express the time-frame contem-
porary 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 *yiqtl usage may last into the post-ex-
ilic period. 150 Indeed, the prevalence of the literary usage of *yiqtl in
both biblical poetry and DSS literary texts as opposed to BH direct
discourse and 4QMMT may be the reason why the predicative par-
ticiple 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 par-
ticiples 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 grammati-
cally 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 ver-
bal 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 sen-
tence, 155 came to function as a verb in ways hardly different from verb
forms. Like the attributive participle, which may convey a present sit-
uation (or what W. R. Garr calls "situational immediacy" 1 5 6 ) or char-
acterization, so too the predicative participle shows 'immediacy' espe-
dally 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 differ-
ently, how the rise of the participle for the present time-frame is to be
explained, if the *yiqtl 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 *yiqtl indicative and volitive verbal forms required a new
verbal opposition in order to distinguish volitive (present by dfini-
tion) from indicative present. For Steiner, the *yiqtl continued to
represent the volitive while the participle served to express the indica-
tive present: 'When the need arose, the indicative-volitive distinction
could be made clear through the use of the Participle or the new peri-

153 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. , under the
issue of omission of subject. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical He-
brew 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 methodologi-
cal 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 ( see 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 attrac-
tive. 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 pred-

icative participle may be sketched in the following manner. The par-
ticiple 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 in-
eluded 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
*yiqtl and *qtal forms. For *yiqtl these roles were the present in pre-

158
Steiner, 'Ancient Hebrew Modal System', p, 258.
159
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. Ara-
maic 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 indi-
cates, 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 imper-
feet 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 at-
tributive participles, see Gen. 49.14, 21, Judg. 5.9; for participial forms sub-
stantized 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. ' cursed' 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; JSOT-
Sup, 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 222-26.
exilic and post-exilic direct discourse, as well as the past durative in
post-exilic narrative. The basic role previously held by the *qtal sub-
sequently 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 *qtal 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 op-
position 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 docu-
ments, 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 are at stake on the
one hand, and the , , and , 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 Unguis-
tics (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 ad-
dressees a m o n g the public. As remarked above, the mishnaic ad-
dressees 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 accom-
panying participial forms are, without exception, in the third person
singular or plural. Whenever forms of the first and second person sin-
gular and plural denoting rabbis occur, they appear, for example, in
narrative passages (ina'asim) or in conventionally formulated dispute-
patterns (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 corre-
spond 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 , ,
and are completely dissimilar to the of the .
The precepts of the Mishnah in their turn have an expressly ca-
suistic character and consequently are discursively e m b e d d e d , be-
cause, 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:
Miqat 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 Doc-
ument Reconsidered, ed. M. Broshi; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Soci-
e 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 ha-
lakhic statements.
More often than not this conspicuous textual method finds its
concrete expression in what generally is called the , the par-
ticular 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 , either functioning as a
means of halakhic decision-making or as a didactic exercise in tra-
dition 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
, 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 and 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 Proceed-
ings 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, withI hope to be per-
mitted this simplificationconservative or not-so-conservative schol-
ars 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 Hel-
lenistic 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: Re-
flections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 585-
606; T.L. Thompson, Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Schol-
arship?', 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 re-
mained 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 in-
eluding 2 Kings), Ezra and Daniel, originated in this tradition; for oth-
ers this is likely, though it has not yet been demonstrated. 5 The most
sensational of these derivations, very important for the study of his-
tory 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. Ehrensvrd, 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 at-
tention, 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 depen-
dence 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 struc-
ture 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 writ-
ten 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 gen-
eral 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. Schfer, 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 . . . ( Vol. 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 tradi-
tion. 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 consid-
erations 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 devel-
opment of the Hebrew language on purely linguistic grounds (apart
from the fact that it must be earlier than works that reflect its Unguis-
tic forms), because from this simple fact it appears that this type of
Hebrew was still written very well after the period when political cir-
cumstances caused its rise and flourishing, so well indeed that no one
has yet been able to formulate criteria that distinguish it from pre-
exilic 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 consid-

10
For example in the books by Kutscher and Senz-Badillos mentioned in
note 1.
11
See, for example, E.A. Knauf, 'War "Biblisch-Hebrisch" eine Sprache? Em-
pirische Geschichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annherungan die Sprache der
althebrische Literatur, 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 '
or 'non-P'.
erable influence on the linguistic options of the authors w h o com-
posed new books. A field in which this is especially discernible is the
spelling of the Hebrew Bible, which exhibits some variety and devel-
opment, 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 under-
stand 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 be-
tween various books, especially in lexicon and syntax. All this is com-
plicated 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 of-
ten 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. lafsson, '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 prob-
lems.
Unlike the authors of post-biblical writings, who were only mov-
ing 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 ac-
cepted as canonical. They probably wrote their books with the inten-
tion, 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 His-
tory, 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 Heb-
rew 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 ac-
cepted into the canon, would provide potential authors with a prece-
dent 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 for 'to rise' (for
which SBH would normally use ), 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 was probably indeed used both for 'to
stand' and for 'to rise, influence what they wrote, though the distinc-
tion 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 indi-
vidual 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 for '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
'wood' and ' tree', which is found in Rabbinic Hebrew, as against
the use in the Hebrew Bible of for both, may well have been in ef-
feet 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 spo-
ken language in SBH started, for one can hardly imagine highly capa-
ble 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 de-
cided to do so. With some hesitation I would like to present the possi-
bility that the tension between SBH, which after all was at least three
centuries old by the time of writing of Primary History, and the spo-
ken dialects of Hebrew was already effective in the late fifth and early
fourth century BCE, and that one or more books with linguistic influ-
ence 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 JzefTadeusz 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 Sympo-
sium 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 ' to 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 ad-
vances 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 24.15 94 41.18 301 23.3 169

24.15f. 297 41.44 140 23.9 211
Genesis 24.27 41 42.9 288 24.5 8
24.30 297, 42.14 288 26.24 251
1.6 199 302 42.16 288 26.30 290
2.13 324 24.42 323 42.34 288 27.8 290
3.1 138 24.43 297 45.12 288 28.2 6
3.20 182 24.45 297 47.15f. 236 28.28 7
3.20f. 7 , 2 0 24.62 292, 48.2 288 28.37 7
3.5 192,325 294 48.16 263 28.40 6
4.2ff. 291 26.28 265 48.22 8 29.33f. 138
4.13 14 27.9 329 49.7 287 32.4 97
6.5 89 27.15 8 49.26 9 32.11 232
6.18 268 28.10ff. 292 49.29 300 32.16 97
7.3 103 29.2 201, 50.25 180 32.28 153
8.21 89 288 33.11 149
9.4 138 29.9 80 Exodus 33.22 79
9.11 267, 31.29 155 34.3 236
271 31.42 186 2.6 288 37.19 290
9.12ff. 267 31.47 291 2.13 288 38 8 , 2 0
11.6 177 32.7 298 3.14 263 39.21 7
13.7 294 33.13 325 4.25 265, 39.31 7
14.10 69 37.2 209 273 40.23 89
14.12 294 37.7 281 5.16 301 f.
14.13 68f., 37.15 192, 5.22 15 Leviticus
294 283,292, 6.27 324
15.2 227 302, 304 8.25 299 5.2 218
15.12 295 37.15f. 285, 9.17 166 6.26 169
15.18ff. 291 297,321 11.4 299 7.15 214
17.7 268 37.16 192, 12.4 263 8.26 214
17.9ff. 272 283 12.9 138 9.22 208
17.11 267 37.17 303 12.11 198 11.24ff. 216
17.13 271 38.13 288 12.19 190, 12.3 272
17.14 265 38.24f. 291 272 14.4 89
17.19 268f. 38.25 192 12.43 138 14.6 89
17.23ff. 272 39.3 285, 14.14 174 14.8 218
18.1 294 296, 323 14.15 232 14.49 89
18.8 294 39.4f. 10 15.6 164 14.51f. 89
18.9 303 39.7 172 15.15 103 16.19 85
18.16 295 39.8 328 19.18f. 294 16.30 1 6 , 8 5
18.17 299, 39.22 304 20.1 ff. 294 19.3 186
321 39.23 285, 20.12 186 19.5 214
19.32 103 296,323f. 20.13 139 19.14 144
20.17 14 40.19 70 20.18 294 19.15 169f.
22.1 ff. 272 41.1 302, 21.5 328 19.19 219
23.8 229 304 21.13 182f. 19.29 220
24.13 297 41.2 301 22.27 144 19.31 144
21.8 185f. 9.7 200 Judges 20.8 269
21.14 220 9.22 200 20.14 260
22.16 214 9.24 200 1.19 136 20.15 260,
22.29 214, 10.12 184ff. 2.2 275 265
219 10.16 272 3.1 81 20.17 260
23.10 192 11.8 192 3.25f. 291 23.1 297
23.46 218 11.21 275 3.26 79 23.17 325
26.32 198 12.23f. 138 5.8 161 23.20 155
27.29f. 214 12.31 219 6.30 265 24.22 262
13.1 135 6.36 192 26.19 287
Numbers 13.15 152 7.5 149 30.3 290
15.2f. 153f. 8.4 301 30.16 290,
1.50 10 16.19 192 9.8 17 304
5.10 264 17.4 152 11.27 321 31.1 293
6.24ff. 11 17.11 138 14.6 225
9.6 263 19.4 328 17.5 153 2 Samuel
11.1 15 19.5 272 18.9 174,
11.2 209 19.6 328 212 1.18 293
11.12 149 20.5 316 20.46 264 7.15 257
14.19 92 21.17 154f. 22.17 85 8.10 174
15.27 218 21.22 70 11.25 264
15.30f. 218 23.2ff. 85 1 Samuel 12.22 325
15.31 265 23.7 144 12.23 300
15.38 7 23.15 42, 2.11 296 13.4 328
16.29 180f. 198 2.18 296 14 .13 90
19.3f. 215 23.19 139 2.21 296 14.19 155
19.6 89 24.10 134 2.26 296 15.13 68, 70
19.8ff. 215 26.16 186 3.7 94 15.28 299
19.21 215 28.29 149 3.1 If. 290 16.3 302
20.13 16 28.50 169 6.3 303 16.11 297
23.19 224 29.17 95 6.20 135 17.12 149
24.18 321, 29.28 44 9.14 295 18.12 300
329 30.12 34 10.3 284 18.22 300
27.8 226 31.3 299 10.5 299 18.24 293
31.7 164 10.8 299 19.2 298
Deutero- 31.27 200 10.11 304 20.1 231
nomy 32.21 224 11.2 271 23.4 226
33.16 9 12.3 175 f. 24.3 300
1.31 149 34.7 179 12.14 140
4.12 87 14.8 299 1 Kings
4.22 211 Josh un 14.18 291
5.2 265 14.19 80 2.2 283
5.29 138 5.14 283 14.39 323 2.20 280
6.5 184f. 6.4 27 16.1 284 3.6 258
7.1 192 6.6 27 17.23 294 5.22 164
7.3 139 7.9 262 17.25 302 8.9 265
7.21 42 7.10 283 17.34 200 8.13 12
7.24 135 8.29 68ff. 17.55 325 8.21 265
7.26 138, 10.13 80 18.16 328 8.39 12
219 23.6 138 19.2 297 8.43 12
9.4 143 23.7 134 19.11 192, 9.11 155
9.5 314 299 11.2 134,
9.6 190 19.17 233 139
11.41 305 27.1 93 62.3 7 14.4-5 102
12.16 231 27.6 94f. 63.7 91 16.8 269
14.14 251 27.13 92 63.14 16 16.22 200
17.14 89 28.2 104 65.2 104 16.29 267
17.20 107 28.15 265 18.10 101
18.5 272 28.21 82 Jeremiah 19.10 200
18.21 283 29.6 92 20.37 269
20.36 73 29.20 236 2.3 219 22.6 155
22.3 174 29.23 186 2.34 95 23.12 251
30.6 150 7.11 101 24.13 85
2 Kings 30.8 258 7.19 86 27.10 81
30.12 8 6 , 9 3 9.23 258 27.24 251
2.9 154f. 30.20 199 11.8 269 27.27 81
4.13 155 30.30 104 12.4f. 162 31.12 82
7.8 109 34.6 92 15.5 174f. 36.25 85
9.22 80 34.9 99 16.5 260 36.33 85
10.4 161 35.8 101 16.5ff. 134
10.21 101 35.9 101 17.4 154 Hosea
17.29f. 199 36.4 92 17.16 325
21.16 101 36.13 92 17.21 135 2.16 299
36.18 230 17.27 135 2.25 303
Isaiah 38.3 92 18.11 327 3.5 186
40.20 259 18.22 101 4.1 40
1.4 102 40.29 227 20.13 95 4.4 139
1.7 82 41.12 81 23.19 106 4.15 134
1.16 108 41.24 151 23.20 88 5.13 85
3.4 248 42.22 235 23.28 152 6.4 149
4.5 13,21 44.13 5 , 8 , 23.38 143 7.4 291
5.8 236 181,251 25.6 144 7.6 284
5.9 93 44.18 86 25.31 40 9.7 291
5.29 235 48.19 262, 26.3 327 9.15 291
6.3 15,21 265 29.7 175 10.12 80,
8.1 9 2 , 9 7 50.10 86 30.24 88 258
8.13 186 52.1 101 31.36 103 10.13 28
9.1 92 54.7 93 32.19 92 12.1 291
9.4 28 54.10 257 33.8 85 12.2 265
9.6 260 54.12 11 33.21 265 13.15 251
10.12 4 54.14 260 34.10 269
10.32 181 54.15 97 34.18 271 Amos
11.9 149 55.3 260 38.6 103
12.6 92 55.10 150 38.19 230 5.5 144
13.8 7 55.11 182 38.22 103 5.21 328
13.11 82 56.2 263 46.6 236 6.10 136
13.19 4 56.4f. 262f. 49.3 105 7.8 283
14.2 199 56.12 92 49.12 229 8.2 283
14.22 262 57.1 235 50.30 81
14.23 111 59.2 199 51.12 177 Obadiah
16.4 236 59.5 85, 51.51 103
16.5 259f. 150f. 9 265
17.11 105 59.17 244, Ezekiel
19.6 82 250
20.5 4 60.21 11 7.22 101
26.10 235 61.3 11 13.1 Off. 100
Jonah Malachi 82.3 95 15.17 78
83.17 86 15.20 106
1.12 325 1.11f. 212 85.11 259 15.32 234
1.15 83 1.7 310 86.14 82 18.9 101
4.2 79 2.12 265 88.12 257 20.16 150
4.8 83 2.16 328 89.3 257 21.2 251
3.16 97 89.14 164 21.8 103
Micah 3.18 99f. 89.15 257, 23.10 102
3.2 106 259 28.14 226
1.4 109,149 3.3 102 89.30 275 30.26 100
1.12 100 90.2 94 31.1 232
2.3 326 Psalms 92.12ff. 11 32.13 230
4.9 265 93.1 259 35.2 326
1.3 285, 95.10 80 36.18 230
Nahum 323f. 96.10 259 37.9 85
2.4 178 97.7 210 37.12 251
1.3 92 7.3 95 102.29 103 38.6 103
1.6 135 8 10 103.17 258 38.32 85
2.1 101 8.5 96 104.5 259 39.22 177f.
3.3 84 10.2 88 105.2 98 40.28 265
12.7 108 109.21 262
Habakkuk 15.2 9 117.2 257 Proverbs
15.5 107 118 119
1.4 161 17.4 101 118.6 231 1.5 251
2.6 225 18.5 106 P s 1 1 9 160 1.8 127f.
3.10 104 18.51 329 119.41 257 1.10 127
19.2 317 119.53 87, 2.1 127
Zephaniah 21.12 88 103 2.12 251
32.9 227 119.76 257 3.1 127
1.4 262 33.5 258 122.2 200 3.3 257, 260
2.2 93 33.22 257 122.6 175 3.5 8 6 , 9 3
3.5 161 35.25 143 132 17 3.11 127,
36.1 258 138.1 262 139
Haggai 36.5 104 140.3 97 3.25 236
36.8 257 140.6 101 3.28 143
2.4 272 37.10 111 141.10 80 4.1 127f.
37.12 90 142.4 101 4.9 7
Zechariah 40.3 111 144.3 96 4.10 127f.
40.11 f. 257f. 145.7 91 4.14 134
1.6 177 44.16 86 145.8 92 4.20 127
2.7 308 45.2 322, 147.5 226 5.1 127f.
5.7 308 329 148.3ff. 140 5.7 127
9.6 85 49.7ff. 176 f. 5.23 234
9.9 306 51.4 85 Job 6.1 127
9.12 310 54.5 82 6.3 127
9.16 304 68.36 251 1.18 80 7.1 127
10.1 288 69.8 86 5.3 95 7.24 127
10.5 288 72.13 95 5.6 101 8.5 127
13.2 262 72.19 16 7.17 96 8.25 9 4 , 1 0 3
13.5 288 76.8 135 7.19 79 8.32 127
13.8 154 77.9 236 12.24 226 9.6 127
77.20 111 15.11 251 10.31 248
80.10 95 15.14 96 11.14 251
12.3 259 Ecclesiastes 9.3 307 9.8 265, 272
12.5 251 9.13 70 10.1 272
12.9 178 1.4ff. 310 9.19 281, 10.32 153f.
12.21f. 183 1.10 78 308 10.34 89
16.12 260 3.14 135, 9.20ff. 148 12.31 251
16.29 104 227 9.24 90 13.14 156
16.31 7 3.15 321 9.25 70 13.18 212
17.3 102 6.10 262 9.28 310 13.22 156
18.14 106 6.12 325 10.2 305 13.29 156
19.10 167 7.17 234 10.3 281 13.30 85
19.19 92 7.27 78 13.31 156
19.27 127 7.29 78 Daniel
20.9 85 8.9 78 1 Chronicles
20.18 251 9.5 287 1.10 233
20.28 257 2.9 107 2.30 226
21.7 110 Lamenta- 2.10 15 2.32 226
21.21 258 tions 2.34 234 3.5 147
22.24 125, 5.19 104 5.1 136
139 2.7 82 6.16 137, 9.32 89
23.7 235 2.16 177 228 15.2 136f.,
23.10 135 3.17 82 6.27 104 230
23.15 127 3.21 82 8.5 224 1C 16.9 98
23.26 127 8.27 224 16.30 259
24.6 251 Esther 9.7 86 20.8 147
24.13 127 9.13 264 21.17 136
24.14 272 1.7 306 11.4 157f. 22.4 237
24.21 127, 1.9 98 11.14 101 23.26 135f.
139 2.9 207 12.13 165 23.29 89
24.23 235 2.11 307 28.9 8 2 , 8 9
26.18 84 2.19f. 307f. Ezra 29.5 153
26.20 235 2.23 70 29.13 16
27.11 127 3.2 307 3.3f. 287 29.18 89
27.21 102 3.3 309 3.12 307
31.4 229 3.8 309 4.2 308 2 Chronicles
31.17 164 3.14 308 6.8 136f.
31.25 178 4.2 1 3 4 , 2 2 7 7.23 233 2.15 164
4.3 305 9.15 135 5.10 265
Song of 4.11 309, 10.6 310 6.2 12
Stings 325 6.30 12
4.14 309, Nehemiah 6.32 12
1.6 284 325 6.39 12
1.7 2 3 3 , 2 8 4 4.16 234 1.4 199 11.14 82
1.13 210 5.1 306 2.4 280 13.9 153
2.8f. 284 5.14 70 3.15 190 13.11 89
5.2 284 6.4 70 5.18 199 14.10 227f.
5.5 284 6.5 309 5.19 156 19.7 169f.
5.12 284 7.8 306 6.6 327 20.6 135,
5.13 210 7.9 309 6.14 156 228
7.8 284 7.10 70 7.3 79f. 20.25 237
8.4 232 8.7 70 8.5 334 23.3 265
8.13 284 8.16 8 8.10 227 25.24 251
8.17 305, 9.5 16 26.16ff. 208
307 9.7 272 26.18 207,
 215 4.27 122 8.8 120 11.34 60,
29.19 82 4.28 119f., 8.9 57 120
32.21 86 130 8.15 122f. 12.1 60
34.3 85 5.1 9 3 , 1 5 5 8.15ff. 131 12.2 119,
35.21 81 5.2 56 8.16 122f., 250
5.3 321 235 12.5 123,
Ben Sira 5.4 231 8.17ff. 122ff. 154,160f.,
5.5 59, 122, 9.1 ff. 131, 233
1.10 124 130 144 12.6 329
1.15 124 5.7 56 9.3 122 12.12 233
3.1 124 5.8 59 9.3ff. 131 12.15 106
3.5 124 5.10 130 9.4f. 122 13.2 232
3.6 121 5.11 119, 9.8 225 13.6 312
3.6f. 185 121,130, 9.9 122f. 13.8 62
3.8 125f., 199 9.13 125, 13.9 120
128 5.12 225 236 13.11 59
3.10 12,122, 5.14f. 122ff. 9.14 120f. 13.12 313
224f. 6.5f. 173ff. 9.16 9 13.13 60f.
3.11 12,124, 6.8 236 10.1 312 13.17 232
185 6.13 62,119, 10.6 122ff. 13.22 225
3.12 12, 121 10.9 232 14.3 166f.
125f. 6.15 227 10.13 167 14.4 163
3.14 122ff., 6.21 56 10.16 111 14.6 229,
236 6.22 225 10.22 9, 95 250
3.16 185 6.26 184, 10.23 144, 14.10 166
3.17 125f., 186 227, 238 14.11 126f.,
128 6.28 53 10.24f. 53 155
3.18 119 6.29 7 10.27 178 14.12 226
3.21 122ff. 6.30 7,11 10.28 126, 14.13 120f.
3.22 119, 6.31 17 128 14.14 123f.
226 6.32 127 10.29 126 14.16 144,
3.23 122 6.35 119, 10.31 161 f., 228
3.25 235 121 312 14.18 149
3.26 166 6.37 120, 11.4 10,122 15.12 230
3.27 106 186 11.5 235 15.13ff.
3.28 228 7.1 236 11.6 120 182 f., 187
4.1 95,126f. 7.3ff. 130 11.7 122 15.14 6 0 , 8 8
4.2f. 122ff. 7.10 122f., 11.8
11.8 123, 15.16 120
4.4 125,144, 131 126f. 15.20 225
238 7.17 120, 11.9 82,107, 16.If. 163
4.7 119,121, 131 123f., 235, 16.3 5 9 , 1 2 2
131 7.21 53 238 16.13 236
4.9 119 7.24 62 11.10 126f., 16.16 161
4.13 12 7.26 123 232 16.21 326
4.14 124 7.27ff. 184ff. 11.12 100, 16.24 57,
4.20 121, 7.29 120f., 178 120f.
124,126, 186 11.20 126 18.32 154
171 7.30 120, 11.27 123 18.33 225
4.21 12 125 11.29 225, 19.1 107
4.22 130, 7.31 ff. 119f. 228 20.4 149,
170,171 8.1 233 11.30 312 321
4.23f. 121 8.1 ff. 131 11.33 125, 20.6 227
4.25f. 171 8.3 122 233 20.16 121
 20.18 121 32[35].4 33[36].18 40.27 13
20.22 171 123,232, 165 40.28 89,
23.4 1 72f. 234f. 33[36].21 126,166
23.9f. 124 32[35].7 119 40.29 229
24 3 , 7 , 1 1 126f. 33[36].22 41.1 324
24.17 124 32[35].9 182 41.Iff. 261 ff.
24.21 124 107,123f. 33[36].24ff. 41.2 227,
24.23 9 32[35].10 53 236, 238
25.6 124 161,167 33[36].25 41.4 232
25.9 121, 32[ 35],11 235 41.10 236
124 120f., 33 [36 ].26 41.11 237,
25.18 234 123f., 182 226f., 238 261, 277
27.10 124 32[35].12 37.3 127 41.14 121,
27.13 121 59,123f. 37.6 122 127
30.8 124 32.12-13 37.8 62, 41.15 109
30.12 233 [35.14ff.] 120f. 41.16 53,
30.19 223, 169f. 37.10 120 167f., 225
232 32[35].13 37.19 53 41.19 160f.
30.20 149 120, 250 37.22 53 41.21 173f.
30.23 120 32[35].15 37.24 53 41.22 107
30.24 234 228 37.27 124, 42.1 167,
30.27 126f. 32[35] 16 126,128 170f.
30.31 [33.23] 164 37.28 225 42.1ff. 168
120 32[35].16- 37.31 62, 42.2 123f.
31[34].2 329 33[36].2 234 42.5 161
31[34].7 9 53ff. 38.1 161 42.8 6 0 , 6 1 ,
31 [34], 10 9f. 32[35].19 38.4 123, 162
31[34].12 234,238 236 42.9f. 230
126f. 32[35].19f. 38.6 10 42.10 230f.,
31[34].13 123f. 38.8 321 239
161,179, 32[35].20f. 38.9 126ff. 42.11 126,
329 131 38.10 120f. 128
31[34].14 32[35].21 38.12 236 42.12 123f.
123 120 38.16f. 42.16 15
31[34].15 32[35].22 126ff. 42.17 1 4 , 1 9
120f. 120,232 38.21 232 42.19 162
31[34].16 33[36].1ff. 38.25 10, 43.3 105
125 12f., 126 232 43.5 161
31[34].18 33[36].2ff. 39.19f. 226 43.9 84
123 62 39.21 143, 43.12 12
31[34].22 33[36].3 61 226f. 43.13 82, 84,
80,120, 33[36].4 120 39.25 161 161
126,128 33[36].6f. 39.34 143, 43.17 64
31[34].24- 164 145, 227, 43.25 164
32[35].7 33[36].10 229, 239 43.26 182
54 165 39.35 120f. 44.1 2
31[34].25 33.10- 40.1 182 44.2 1 3 , 9 2
123 11 [36.10- 40.12ff. 44.7 6
31[34].27 22] 165 257ff. 44.8 86
161 33[36].14 40.17 257, 44.12 267
32[35].1ff. 13,17,20 261, 277 44.13 13
263 33[36].17 40.26 143, 44.17f.
32[35].3 126 236 227 264ff.
44.19 13, 50.11 6f.,13, IQpHab 3.32 193
268 17 4.8 80
44.20 63, 50.12 11 3.4f. 37, 80 4.9 90
273 50.13ff. 14f. 3.12 83 4.10 8 8 , 9 0 ,
44.20f. 50.20 10f. 10.9 36 108
268ff. 50.22 120 11.12 36 4.13 86, 93
44.21 236 50.23 277 4.13f. 88
44.23 5 , 1 2 50.24 3 , 1 5 3 , 1QApCen 4.14 3 9 , 9 5
45 11 269,274ff. 4.18f. 102
45.3 19 50.25 224 22.1 69 4[12).20f.
45.4 5 51.4 237 22.33 227 226
45.6f. 19ff. 51.7 225 4.22 37
45.8 6f., 10, 51.8 99 1QH a (15, 4.23 79, 86,
13,18 51.12 119, 77ff.) 100,102
45.10 7 244 4.24 194
45.11 11 51.13 94 1.2 92 4.26 90, 98,
45.12 7 , 1 3 , 51.18 177 1.6 107 101
16,18 51.25 234 1.7 94 4.29 95f.,
45.16 5 , 1 0 51.26 120 1.10f. 93 101
45.17 267 51.30 1 20f. 1.11 84 4.29f. 41
45.20 1 3 , 1 9 1.12 83 4.30f. 31 f.
45.25 14, Tobit 1.19f. 93 4.33 103
18f., 21 1.24 97f., 4.34 109
46.19 175 3.6 39 101 4.34ff. 97,
47.2 149 11.11 36 1.26f. 45 101
47.4 4 13.1 35 1.28 93 4.36f. 86
47.8 13,17, 1.32 92f. 5.4 27
312f. Jubilees (5) 2:1.9 92 5.6 88
47.20 13 2.5 194 5.10 96
48.4 10 3.27 8 2.10 193 5.13f. 95
48.8 250 23.21 162 2.22 29 5.16 102,
48.9 64 36.10 83 2.23 28f.,96 108
48.12 154f., 2.27 8 5 , 1 0 4 5.18 95
164 Ethiopie 2.28 150 5.21f. 110f.
48.14 164 Enoch 2.29 101 5.26 88
48.17f. 181 f. 2.32 95 5.30 8 7 , 1 0 3
48.25 162 14.20 17 2.33 28 5.35 86
49.2 162 25.3 17 2.34 95 5[13].37 237
49.5 13, 20 36.4 17 3.3 96 6.3 84f.
49.6 11 102.3 17 3.4 109 6.8 8 5 , 1 0 8
49.12 13 3.8 101f. 6.8f. 38
49.14 4 Dead Sea 3.12 40,150 6.20f. 101f.
49.14ff. Scrolls 3.13 193 6.21 107
179ff. 3.15 109f. 6.22 89
49.15 4, 6, 9 lQIsa3 3.17 106, 6.23 83
49.16 4ff., 150 6.25 194
8ff., 20 9.8 92 3.18 150 6.27 103,
50.1 6 , 9 10.12 92 3.21 85 105
50.4 60 16.14 165 3.24 79 6[14].28 237
50.5ff. 8 29.5 82 3.25 95, 110 6.29 81
50.7 7 , 1 1 , 29.9 105 3.27 106 6.35 80f.
149 38.17 185 3.31 40,99, 7:2.10 96
50.10 149 54.15 97 102 7.2 103,111
 7.4 83 11.11 109 1.11 316 17.5 31
7.7 81 11.17f. 29 1.12 81 17.7 40
7.9 104f. 11.23 99 2.1 198f. 17.8 212
7[15].11 226 11.29ff. 91 ff. 2.2 199 17.15 81
7.12 96, 12.5 92 2.9 35 18.13 27
100f.,110 12.9 31 2.10 3 5 , 8 1 19.2 104
7.17 96 12.10 87 3.11 81
7.25 42 12.21 100, 4.2ff. 30f. 1QS
7.30 92 102 4.8 92
7.32 87 12[ 20],30 4.12 81 1.6 9 0 , 2 3 0
7.32f. 92 228 5.3f. 38 1.7 193f.
8.6f. 94 12.30f. 139 5.6f. 29 1.8 1 0 9 , 1 9 3
8.9 105 12.35 107 5.8 36 1.12 184
8.30 108 13.11 94 5.1 Off. 38 1.13 228
8.31 9 6 , 1 0 6 13.16 96 6.2f. 84 1.13ff. 137
8.32 109 13.17 92 6.10f. 38 1.16 190
8.33 96 14.2 100 7.4 41 1.18 196
8.34 140 14.9 100 7.6 40 1.20 316
8.35 84 14.12 99, 7.11 38 1.22 99
8.37 84 102 7.14 27 2.1 190
9.1 96 14.14 100 7.14f. 38 2.7 237
9.3 107 14.16 1(X) 8.4f. 30 2.10 316
9.4 37 14.17 92 9.1 194 2.19 198
9.5 106 14.18 100 9.5 81 2.25 193f.
9.7 82 14.23 92f. 9.14 38 3.2 28
9.8 105 15.7 92 10.1 42 3.2f. 40
9.9 96 15.12 96 10.3 81 3.4 108
9.11 82, 84f. 15.13 32, 10.4 316 3.15 3 1 , 9 4
9.13 105 194 11.1 29 3.16 228
9.16 96 15.14 94 11.4 28 3.16f. 31
9.18 193 15.17 96 11.10 31 3.19 44
9.20 8 6 , 9 0 , 15.18 104 12.1 40 3.20 4 , 4 5 ,
98,101 15.19 92 12.2 36 181
9.22 86 15.20f. 92 12.3 97 3.22f. 35f.
9.30f. 37 15.21 96 12.7 42 4.4 86
9.32 152 15.22 31 12.8f. 3 7 , 3 9 4.6ff. 45
9.33f. 30 16.9 28 12.10 104 4.11ff. 36
10.4 28 16.12 91ff. 12.12 163 4.17ff. 39
10.5 89 17.14 103 12.12f. 39 4.22 27
10.9 87 17.20 29 13.5f. 37 4.23 4 , 2 7 ,
10[18].10f. 17.25 96 13.7 42 181
14 18.14 95 13.10 39 5.6 194
10.16 91ff. 18.18 78 13.12 27 5.9 193
10.17 86 18.21 96 13.13f. 28 5.11 193
10.23 96 18.23 96 14.17 92 5.14 39f.
10.32 37 18.26 78ff. 15.1 81 5.17 234
10.33 103 19.2f. 96 15.1f. 45 5.18 2 5 , 9 3
11.5 9 8 , 1 0 2 30.2 105 15.9f. 27 5.19f. 36
11.7 9 2 , 1 0 5 15.12 81 5.20 38
11.7f. 31 1QM 16.9 8 1 , 3 1 4 6.13 193f.
11.8 45 16.14 81 6 .14 80
11.9 3 7 , 4 5 1.8 92 17.2 212 6.25 326
11.10 85 1.10 81 17.4 212 7.9 4 4 , 1 9 4
7.10f. 44 2.7f. 34 4Q179 155 4QDa
7.15 194 2.11f. 36 [4Q266]
8.1 193 3.9f. 36 4Q180 94
8.1f. 29 4.6ff. 33 I.1 103
8.8 104f. 6.5f. 29 4Q182 36 II.16 98,
8.15 193 6.1 Iff. 33 101
8.18 108 8.4ff. 33 4Q183 103 6:1.15 89
8.18f. 43 9.1 ff. 33
9.10 109 9.14ff. 34 4Q184 83, 4QDd
9.13 193 9.17ff. 33 172 [4Q269]
9.16 139 10.1f. 36 215
9.19 193 10.9 105 4Q185 212
9.24 8 7 , 1 9 3 11.9f. 34 4QDe
e
9.25f. 99f. 12.1 36 4QTob [4Q270]
10.4 29 12.10 36 [4Q200]
10.8 39 12.11 38 1:1.1 88
10.9 37, 99 1:1.4 39 6:4.19 80
10.16 93 4QPs f 4.3 326
10.16f. 32 [4Q88] 5 2 36 4QD8
10.18 32 157 6 5 35 [4Q272]
10.22 39 89
10.24 193 4QpIsa b 4QEnoch c
11.2 28 [4Q162] [4Q204] 4Q274 108,
11.4 28, 36 244 184
104f., 193
11.4f. 31 4QpIsa C 4Q215a 93 4QBer f
11.5 28,39, [4Q163] [4Q280]
193 36,104 4QIub h 90
11.9 42 [4Q223-
11.10 45 4QpIsa d 24] 83 4QBer a
11.1 Of. 28 [4Q164] [4Q286]
11.11f. 42 313 4Q225 197
11.12 37 1.5 92
11.14 92 4QpHas3 4Q253a 100 7:2.7 88
11.18 87 [4Q166]
11.21 28 186 4QS b 4QMystb
[4Q256] [4Q300]
1QSa 4QpNah 29 94
[4Q169]
1.9 109 4QS C 4Q306 98
2.7 162 1.8 70 [4Q257]
3:2.8 250 28,40 4Q325 27
1Q29 89
4QpPs a 4QS d 4Q369 31
1Q34bis 140 [4Q171] [4Q258]
90, 208 4Q370 88
1QHb 4:1.1 29
[1Q35] 92 4QF10r 4:1.8 37 4Q372 93
[4Q174]
3Q15 (32) 91 4Q375 42

1.5ff. 32 4Q176 93, 4Q376 36

2.5f. 30 162
4Q379 93 5 8 138 4Q416 10:2.12 81
B 5 8 f f . 213 11:1.13 87
4Q380 313 59 36 1.13 80 11:1.14 37
B 6 4 f f . 218 2:3.8 87 11:1.18 37
4QN0nCan 68 207, 1 1 : 2 . 8 81
Psb 211,326 4 Q 4 1 7 89 11:2.18 3 7
[4Q381] 71 138 11:2.19 81
B 7 5 f f . 219 4Q418
14.3 140 80 207, 4Q444 85
45.2-3 90 211,326 2.5 80
46.6 82 82 207, 81.2 103 4Q446 93
47.3 313 216 81.19 92
C Iff. 219 103:2.7,8 98 4Q460 82
4QpsEzek3 C 4 219f.
[4Q385] C 5 f f . 220 4Q424 4Q501 87
111 C 7 211
C 8 207 I.4 104 4Q504 87
4QApocJer c C 8 f . 220 3.4 9 8
[4Q385b] C 27f. 31 4QShir b
a
197 4QH [4Q511]
4QShir [4Q427]
4Q393 229f. Shabb a 1.8 106
[4Q400] 3:1.8 92 2:2.4 86
4QMMT 3:2.2 163 35.1 83
(26, 335) 1:1.17-18 30 7:1.13 93 52:3.2 92
2.1 316 7:1.21 92
A 1 . 4 f f . 29 2.2 316 7:2.14 96 4Q512 102
A 2 . 3 f f . 29
A 2 . 6 f f . 26 4Q401 316 4QHb 4QBat
A 3 . 6 f f . 29 [4Q428] [4Q525]
A 4 . 3 f f . 29 4Q402 32
A 5 . 2 f f . 26 3.7 99 7.17 163
B 9 f f . 215 4QShir I I . 7 109 11.4 89
1 If. 207 Shabb d 14:2.15 250
12 9 8 , 1 9 8 [4Q403] 4QHC
13 214 [4Q429] 4Q542 244
B 1 3 f f . 215 1:1.3 245
16 198 1:1.8 92 1.2.3 108 5QRg1e
B 1 6 f . 207 1:1.31 245 1:3.8 88 [5Q13]
17 9 8 1:1.32 28 1:4.3 88
B 1 7 f f . 216 4.2 108
B 2 5 f . 207 4QShir 4Q434 83 26.3 103
26 98 Shabb f
29 3 2 7 [4Q405] 4Q436 83 11QPs 8
31 3 1 7 30, 39, [11Q5]
37 327 106,317 4 Q 4 3 7 103 (177,184)
3 8 207,
211, 217 4Q415-418 4QMa 19.1 99
39 85
313 [4Q491] 19.3 99
46 207,
19.14 59
211, 217
1-3.10 40 19.22 59
48 207,
1.14 81 21.11 94
216
1 0 : 2 . 1 0 81 22.5 99
11QT 11QShir 12.15ff. 335 Rabbinic
[11Q19- Shabb 13.2ff. 335 Literature
20] [11Q17] 13.3 28
13.6f. 28 Mishnah
17.10 29 3-4.3 106 13.17 43
18.8 198 8:1.5 6 14.20 326 A v o t 3.17
20.12f. 214 15.6f. 43 224
20.15f. 74 Murabba'at 15.13 287 A v o t 5.17
27.4 198 16.12 43 336
33.10f. 39 3.13 198 18.1 149 A v o t 5.20
34.6ff. 335 24:2.15 198 19.13f. 44 86,168
34.12 36 42.6 197 19.20 102 A v o t 6.2 97
34.13 3 6 , 4 3 42.6 197 19.27 314
35.13 200 19.28f. 44 Bava Mesia
36.12f. 30 CD 19.30f. 29, 1.4 74
38.15 30 44 Bava Mesia'
39.13ff. 30 1.1 128 20.1 f. 43 1.19 100
40.11f. 39 1.2 40 20.8f. 43 Bava Mesia'
40.13f. 30 1.15 226 20.12 43, 4.6 250
41.5ff. 30 1.16ff. 335 107 Bava Mesia'
42.11 335 2.1 36 20.13ff. 42 6.1 250
42.12 198 2.2 128 20.14 80
43.5 198 2.4f. 39 20.20 100 Berakhot 1.1
46.15 198 2.7 94 336
46.18 3 1 , 4 1 2.10 31 Genizah Berakhot 9.2
48.11 190 2.14 128 Psalms 83f.
48.17 3 1 , 4 1 2.16 90 Berakhot 9.5
49.12 250 3.1 149,315 1.24 103 184
50.5ff. 335 3.13 35 2.13 78
51.12 57 3.18 35 3.23 99 Eduyyot
51.13 192 3.20 4 , 3 6 1.14 91
51.17 57 4.6 107 Inscriptions, E d u y y o t 6.3
54.8ff. 335 4.11 139 etc. 91
55.5 152 5.6f. 315
55.20 152 5.7 317 Yavneh Gittin 5.6
57.1 Iff. 38 5.10 287 Yam 229
57.20 57 5.13 315 inscr. 200
59.4 198 6.10 87 Hagigah 2.1
60.6ff. 44 6.1 Of. 80 Sefire inscr. 209
61.14 190 6.14f. 103
64.8ff. 70 8.1 44 3.6 201 Hullin 4.4
8.8 102 91
11QPs b 8.14 314 Proverbs of Hullin 9.1 f.
[11Q6] 59 8.16 44 Ahiqar 216
8.17f. 2 9 , 4 4 128f. Hullin 9.4
11QApPs3 8.18f. 43 91
[11Q11] 9.2ff. 315 Hermopolis Hullin 12.3
9.11 184 papyri 106
2.7 326 9.20 315 Hullin 12.5
2.8 211 10.10 80 5.8 73 91
12.2ff. 335 A6.1:3 200
12.4f. 29 D7.6:10 200 Kelim 3.8
12.10 184 91
Kelim 9.4 Pesahim 4.1 Yoma 189
91 336 Yoma 4.2 16
Kelim 10.3 Terumot 3.1
106 Rosh Zavim 2.2 100
Kelim 21.2 Hashanah 100 Terumot 7.9
91 2.9 234 Zavim 3.2 100
91
Kilaim 4.9 Sanhdrin Zavim 4.3 Uqsin 3.6
72 5.5 105 91 101

Makhshirin Shabbat 1-5 Zebahim 7.6 Babylonian

1.6 91 189ff. 85 Talmud
Makhshirin Shabbat 24.5
3.1 f. 91 72 Tosefta Bava Batra
Makhshirin 134b 162
3.6 106 Sotah 8.1 Avodah
Makhshirin 212 Zarah 2.3 Bava Mesia'
6.2 91 100 104a 249
Sukkah 2.5 Avodah
Miqwa'ot 72 Zarah 6.5 Bava
1.7f. 91 Sukkah 5.4 81 Qamma
Miqwa'ot 250 82b 105
4.1 91 Bava Mesia'
Miqwa'ot Ta'anit 3.8 6.18 107 Berakhot
4.3 106 83,194 Bava Meia' 58b 84
Miqwa'ot 7.3 88 Berakhot
5.3f. 91 Taharot 3.8 59a 83
Miqwa'ot 91 Bava
9.2 91 Taharot 5.2 Qamma Eruvin 54a
91 6.14 250 97,226
Mo'ed Taharot 8.1 Bava
Qatan 1.5 91 Qamma Makkot 23a
107 7.8 250 179f.
Terumot 1.1 Bava
Nazir 9.2 85 224 Qamma Megillah 3a
Terumot 2.7 7.22f. 90 249
Nega'im 100 Bava
7.4f. 85 Qamma Pesahim
Nega'im Uqsin 1.4 8.1 90 113b 173
13.1 91 91 Pesahim 22b
Uqsin 3.6 Berakhot 185
N i d d a h 9.10 101 1.11 81
85 Uqsin 3.12 Qiddushin
336 Kippurim 66a 166
Oholot 18.6 4.4 100
83 Yadaim 4.5 Sanhdrin
250 Parah 3.7 100b 163,
Parah 3.7 Yadaim 4.6 215 231
215 216
Parah 11.8 Sotah 14.8 Sotah 42b 4
91 Yevamot 100
16.6 73 Yevamot
Pe'ah 5.5 74 Taharot 11.5 63b 163
Palestinian 1.44-46 81 Sifre Hekhalot
Talmud Pishn 11.24- Numbers Rabbati
26 16
Berakhot 9 Pisha 16.56 76.2 81 35.4 210
(14b) 185 100 86.1 209
Shirata 4.56 92.4 96 Tanhuma
Bikkurim 33 83
(65x) 174 Wayyassa' Sifre Deut- Shofetim 8
1.88 250 eronomy 210
Gittin 1.2 Wayyassa'
(43c) 172 6.6 81 32 100 Genesis
Gittin 50.3 38 212 Rabbah
194 Mekhilta of 42 83
Simeon b. 76 96 91.5 172
Shevi'it 9.5 Yohai 192 212
(39a) 174 199 81 Leviticus
20.17 86 321 81 Rabbah
A v o t of
Rabbi Sifra Sifre Zutta 21.8 174
Nathan
Behuqqotay 18.29 (299) Numbers
2.10 209 3.1 212 100 Rabbah
Mek. Mil- 30.14 (328)
Mekhilta of lu'im to 100 19.32 101
Rabbi Lev. 9.22
Ishmael 209 Seder 'Olam Midrash
S a w 12.1 Rabbah Bereshit
Bahodesh 214
3.121 84 23.3 ( H o v a h 11.8 81 81.13 210
Bahodesh 9.1) 100 17.7 81
5.10 81 92.3 (Ahare 20.5 107 Midrash
Bahodesh Mot 8.3) 25.5 81 Tehillim
9.88 168 100 30.11 81
Bahodesh 98.1 (Emor Ps. 18.5 106
11.110 6.1) 100 Pesiqta
(100) Rabbati
Beshallah 20 210

INDEX OF HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC WORDS A N D PHRASES

289 ,127
173 f f . , 327ff. 164 f .
297,322 267
161 f. 152
223
133 f f . , 223ff., 287, 323 85,150
331 289
134 f f . , 223ff. 289,274,
 311,313 102 f .
264,99 f . 83 f./
- 2 0 6 , 2 1

97 Iff.
235,238 f . 87 f . , 103
313 88 ff.
297 90 f.,98
163 98 f.
167 f . 82 f.
5 9 , 8 6 83
322 99
183 162 f f .
183 103 f f .
223 f f . 84 f.
2 3 4 , 2 3 8 164
214 f f . 164 f .
214 f f
. 104
297,321 103,274
287 161
256 ff. 257 f f .
84 166
95 f.,271f. 268,62,198 f f . ,
86 59
172 f . 97 f .
92 f . 90 f.,326ff.
96 f. 60
297 11 Of.
59,104 103 f .
- 6 8 f f . , 284, 288ff., 305, 316f., 324 85,91,108 f .
1 0 , 1 3 , 1 7 86,91 ff., 99f.
127 8 6 , 1 0 0
195 f f . 101
162 101,109
313 f f . ((93
297 95
f f . ((288 297,324 f f .
3 ff. 297
78 f . , 95f. 327
80 ff. 2 8 7 , 3 2 3
96 f . , 109f. 2 9 2 , 2 9 7
102 64-
60 149,311,313
6 0 , 1 2 0 3 ff.
87 4 , 1 8 1
104 f f . 84
 259 f . 163 f.
28 f . , 40f., 47, 289ff., 296f., 304f., 102 f .
311, 313ff. 178 f .
314 63
162 63
5 , 7 , 1 0 175 ff.
167 f . 62
313 297
10,176 161
256 f f . 62
305- 8 6 , 9 3 -
134 f f . , 167,223ff. 168 f f .
237, 239 322
155 148
2 8 9 , 3 1 3 78 f f . , 258f., 3 1 1 , 3 1 3
166 62
134 ff. 287
- 2 0 6
2 f f. . , 176, 258ff., 264 f
7 18
160 f. 89
237 f f . 297
231 ff. 297,343 f .
260 68 f f . , 344
57 321
184 183 f f .
336 154 f .
68 ff. 68 ff.
314 223 f f .
231 ff. 165
259 4,10,179 f f .
272 62
164 142
336 257 f f .
89 f. 15
160 f . f . 288,284
313 343
153 297
80 f. 288 f .
6 0 , 6 4 , 3 1 1 207 ff.,220
166 f. 297
62, 269, 333, 335 1 6 5 , 1 7 5
153 f . 182 f .
3 3 3 , 3 3 5 177 f .
3 3 3 , 3 3 5 57 f .
165 62
327ff. 181
- 3 1 248
7,315,313,305,311
315 - 62
322 335 f .
173 f f . 164
244 4 ff.
63 5,179
57 58 f .
234 58
322 244ff.

I N D E X OF SUBJECTS

addressing system 334f. existential clause 25,33f.

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.
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.
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 annot, avec une introduction.
1959. ISBN 90 04 02196 5
3. Mansoor, M. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Translated and Annotated with an Intro-
duction. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02197 3
5. Koffmahn, E. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wste Juda. Recht und Praxis der jdi-
sehen Papyri des 1. und 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. samt bertragung der Texte
und Deutscher bersetzung. 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 18-
21 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") reprsen-
tierten 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, . Weisheit und Prdestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prdestination
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, Jerus-
alem, 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 Rvaluation. A new R e a d i n g ,
Translation, and Commentary. ISBN 90 04 10685 5 (In preparation)
25. Glemer, U. Die Ideale Kultordnung. 24 Priesterordnungen in den Chronikbchern,
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 Inter-
national 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