Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics
Editorial Board
VOLUME 74
By
Aaron D. Hornkohl
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hornkohl, Aaron D.
Ancient Hebrew periodization and the language of the Book of Jeremiah : the case for a sixth-century
date of composition / by Aaron D. Hornkohl.
pages cm. — (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics, ISSN 0081-8461 ; VOLUME 74)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-90-04-26964-4 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-26965-1 (e-book)
1. Bible. Jeremiah—Language, style. 2. Bible. Jeremiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.
BS1525.52.H67 2013
224’.2066—dc23
2013050613
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0081-8461
isbn 978 90 04 26964 4 (hardback)
isbn 978 90 04 26965 1 (e-book)
Acknowledgements viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Biblical Hebrew: Variety in the Face of Unifying Forces 1
1.2 Fundamental Difficulties in the Description of Biblical
Hebrew 1
1.3 Historical Development as a Factor in Biblical Hebrew
Variety 2
1.4 Non-Diachronic Factors and Linguistic Variety in the Hebrew
Bible 16
1.5 Recent Criticism of the Diachronic Approach to Biblical
Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts 27
2 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah 51
2.1 History of Research 52
2.2 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah from a Diachronic
Perspective 53
2.3 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah and the Question of Regional
Dialects 62
2.4 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah and the Question of
Diglossia 64
2.5 Jeremiah’s Language, Composition, and Literary
Development 65
3 Orthography and Phonology 72
3.1 The Plene Spelling of Medial o (< u) 73
3.2 Other Non-standard Spellings of o 77
3.3 Non-standard Spellings with and without ʾalef 78
3.4 זע"קversus ‘ צע"קcry out; muster’ 78
3.5 The Theophoric Endings יה- and יהו- 83
3.6 רּוׁש ַליִם
ָ ְ יversus ִרּוׁש ַלם
ָ ְ‘ יJerusalem’ 91
3.7 ׂשח"קversus ‘ צח"קlaugh; play; mock; Isaac’ 95
3.8 ( נבוכדנאצרwith nun) versus ( נבוכדראצרwith resh)
‘Nebuchadnezzar’ 99
3.9 Derivatives of ‘ רפ"אheal’ on the ל"יPattern 103
4 Pronominal Morphology 108
4.1 1cs: ֲאנִ יand ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ 108
4.2 2fs: ( אתיktiv) for ַא ְּת, ִכי- for ְך-, and ִּתי- for and ְּת- ‘you; your’ 112
4.3 3fs: קטלתfor קטלה120
vi contents
Bibliography 374
Abbreviations 374
Primary Sources 376
Secondary Sources 378
Introduction1
The works that comprise the Hebrew Bible were composed in diverse histori-
cal, geographical, social, and cultural contexts. In light of their various origins,
the degree of linguistic uniformity they exhibit is striking. This relative homo-
geneity likely stems in great part from the employment of BH in the hands of
professional scribes as a standard literary language, a situation that led to a
general leveling of the linguistic variety to be expected in such a composite
corpus.2 Even so, this linguistic uniformity is not complete, and variety is man-
ifested in every linguistic domain: orthography and phonology; pronominal,
nominal, and verbal morphology; syntax; and lexicon. Along with differences
in language which may be defined as purely ‘stylistic’—for example, the lin-
guistic idiosyncrasy of an individual writer or the similarity in formulation and
jargon characteristic of writers of a specific genre or belonging to a given liter-
ary school—there are also dissimilarities that reflect diachronic, geographical,
and register distinctions.
consists of written material alone and, as such, represents only limited aspects
of a type of language that may have differed substantially from the spoken
tongue. Third, due to the dearth of direct evidence, it is frequently necessary
to have recourse to indirect evidence, for instance, sources representing later
historical phases of the language (in the case of BH, the Hebrew of the DSS,
RH, and Samaritan Hebrew)3 or cognate languages (in the case of BH, other
ancient Semitic languages). It is clear, however, that information drawn from
such sources constitutes no more than ‘circumstantial evidence’, the value of
which is limited.
In the specific case of BH (and in the majority of the other ancient Semitic
languages) the orthography is also problematic, as it only partially represents
the sounds of the language. The Tiberian vowel representation is useful, likely
preserving a natural development of earlier pronunciation, but evidently a
later tradition than that reflected in the consonantal text, which represents
only some vowel sounds, often inconsistently, and ambiguously (each of the
matres lectionis generally representing multiple realizations). This ortho-
graphic difficulty is particularly vexing in the case of early epigraphic material
in Hebrew (see below, §1.5.2).
3 On the late character of the Hebrew of the Samaritan Pentateuch see Ben-Ḥayyim 2000: §0.4
and Tal and Florentin 2010: 25–28.
4 Consider, for example, the following discussion of month names: שמות חדשים עלו בידם
מיכן והילך . . . בראשונה ״בירח זיו״ . . . בראשונה ״בירח בול״ . . . בראשונה ״בירח האיתנים״.מבבל
״בחודש העשירי הוא חודש. ״ויהי בחודש כסליו שנת עשרים״.״ויהי בחודש ניסן שנת עשרים״
‘ טבת״the names of the months came up with them [= the exiles returning to Palestine] from
Babylon: originally in the month of Ethanim [1 Kgs 8.2]. . . . Originally in the month of Bul [1 Kgs
6.38]. . . . Originally in the month of Ziv [1 Kgs 6.1, 37]. . . . Subsequently, and it came to pass in
the month of Nisan [Neh 2.1] . . .; and it came to pass in the month of Kislev [Neh 1.1] . . .; in the
tenth month, which is the month of Tevet [Est 2.16]’ (Y Rosh Ha-Shana 1.2, 56d [Venice ed.]). I
am grateful to Prof. Avi Hurvitz for having brought this citation to my attention.
introduction 3
and the Aramaic targums.5 The works of the foremost grammarians and
commentators of the 19th century—the likes of Gesenius (1815: §10),6 Ewald
(1855: §3d), Delitzsch (1877: 190 et passim), and Wellhausen (1885: §§IX.III.1–
IX.III.2), to name but a few—also reveal awareness of the historical develop-
ment evident in BH (admittedly, with differences of opinion on significant
details). But prior to the 20th century, the most comprehensive and influential
discussion of historical evolution within BH was that of S.R. Driver (1898). In
his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament Driver took pains to
assemble lists of linguistic features especially characteristic of the later books
of the Hebrew Bible over against earlier biblical literature. He noted that in
contrast to the language of works from before the Exile, post-exilic BH was
characterized by unequivocal traces of both internal development and exter-
nal influence, that is to say linguistic traits especially characteristic of RH or of
the Aramaic dialects of the Second Temple Period.7
Despite the important contributions made by Driver and others, and not-
withstanding the potential for employment of diachronic linguistics in the crit-
ical research related to the Graf-Wellhausian Documentary Hypothesis which
was then a focus in biblical studies, the scientific value of many early attempts
to date biblical texts on the basis of their language was severely diminished
by (a) the relatively small amount of primary material available to scholars
and (b) the lack of a controlled methodology for the identification of linguistic
features especially distinctive of post-exilic BH and for the identification of
compositions characterized by their use.8 While well-known reference books
from the early part of the 20th century recognized the distinction between the
pre-exilic and post-exilic phases of BH, they generally did not provide detailed
discussion of the issue.9
The period extending from the end of the 19th through the 20th century wit-
nessed the unearthing of many discoveries relevant to the diachronic invest
igation of BH. Some cast light on the pre-classical phase of the language (such
5 “Ego tamen Solomonis esse non puto, sed scriptum serius sub illius Regis, tanquam poenitentia
ducti, nomine. Argumentum eius rei habeo multa vocabula, quae non alibi quam in Daniele,
Esdra ed Chaldaeis interpretibus reperias.”
6 See the recent assessment by Joosten (2013a) of Gesenius’ (1815) diachronic approach, which
in several significant respects methodologically anticipates the current standard approach
described below.
7 Two further significant studies were published at the beginning of the 20th century: BDB’s
lexicon (in 1906) and Kropat’s (1909) investigation of late syntactic phenomena in Chronicles.
8 See, for example, S.R. Driver’s (1882) review of Giesebrecht 1881 and Nöldeke’s (1903) review
of Kautzsch 1902.
9 Bergsträsser 1918–1929: I §§2h–k; Bauer and Leander 1922: §2q; Joüon 1923: §§3a–b; Segal
1927: §§7, 17.
4 chapter 1
as the El Amarna documents and the texts from Ugarit), others illuminated the
language of the classical period (such as the inscriptional material found at
Samaria, Arad, and Lachish), and still others aided in the clarification of texts
from the late period (such as the cache from Elephantine, the material from
the Judean Desert, and texts from the Cairo Geniza). Among these findings,
special diachronic importance attaches to the Hebrew of the DSS, as it was the
discovery of this unprecedented corpus of primary material—which provides
evidence of post-biblical Hebrew untouched by the hands of the medieval
scribes assumed by many to have corrupted the Masoretic textual tradition—
that led to renewed interest in diachronic research after several decades of
virtual neglect.10 Indeed, on the basis of a comparison between BH as it is
preserved in the representative Tiberian codices and the Hebrew of the DSS
(whether in biblical or non-biblical texts), it is clear in the majority of cases
that the former is typologically earlier than the latter.11 Additionally, despite
the variety in textual traditions represented in the biblical material from the
Judean Desert, the presence there of text types very similar or identical to texts
of the Masoretic tradition (which have been labeled ‘Proto-Masoretic’) largely
confirms the relative antiquity of this tradition.12
Also worthy of mention are developments in the study of RH, espe-
cially the discovery and linguistic description of important inscriptions and
manuscripts13 and the methodological transition in research from reliance on
printed editions, the language of which had often been ‘corrected’ in accor-
dance with the norms of BH, to utilization of such manuscripts, which better
preserve the particular characteristics of post-biblical Hebrew.
Notwithstanding the importance of these discoveries and developments
for diachronic enquiry into BH, there was as yet no strict procedure for the
identification of linguistic features especially characteristic of the late phases
of ancient Hebrew and for distinguishing between early and late texts on the
basis of those features. Arguments made on the basis of diachronic linguistics
were often subjective and lacking in scientific rigor. There was a need for a
methodology that would introduce into the diachronic approach to BH con-
trols for the identification of late linguistic elements and of late texts, and in
this way reduce the degree of subjectivity. Since the 1960s, the Israeli scholar
Avi Hurvitz has dedicated the bulk of his research efforts to the develop-
ment, application, and illustration of just such a methodology. His approach
is based on the language of material—biblical and extra-biblical, Hebrew and
non-Hebrew—the late date of which, i.e., post-exilic/Persian Period, is agreed
upon unanimously. It allows for the detection and collection of linguistic fea-
tures distinctively characteristic of what is generally termed LBH (Late Biblical
Hebrew) and post-biblical Hebrew, as opposed to CBH (Classical Biblical
Hebrew; used throughout this study synonymously with SBH [Standard
Biblical Hebrew])14 and, likewise, for the diachronic classification of biblical
and extra-biblical texts of unknown date based on their respective linguistic
profiles. This methodology has become standard among specialists who deal
with the history of ancient Hebrew (for a detailed description of the methodol-
ogy see below, §1.3.2; for a brief description of the linguistic features especially
Add.470.1), and Paris (328/9). See Kutscher and Breuer 2007: 640–642, 649–650; for bib-
liography see ibid. 682–683. Important manuscripts of other rabbinic sources have also
been examined in detailed linguistic studies (see Bar-Asher 1992: 658–659).
14 CBH is commonly considered the Hebrew of the First Temple Period, basically the lan-
guage of the prose material from Genesis–Kings and from the pre-exilic prophets. LBH
is the linguistic stratum represented by Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
and, according to most scholars, Qohelet, along with a few other texts with late linguistic
profiles. It is admitted that such terms are labels of convenience, generalizations based on
shared linguistic traits of individual compositions considered ‘snapshots’ of a common
linguistic reservoir. There are those who object to such labels on theoretical grounds, e.g.,
Naudé (2003; 2012) and Holmstedt (2012: 101–104), and while some of their criticism is not
without merit, it seems premature to abandon what a majority of Hebraists take to be
reasonable labels. The accepted nomenclature and the linguistic reality it seeks to depict
are adopted here as both convenient and historically descriptive of the basic pre- and
post-exilic contours of BH.
6 chapter 1
typical of LBH and a list of biblical texts characterized by their use see below
§1.3.3.3).
To this point the discussion of diachronic development in BH has focused
exclusively on the classical as opposed to the post-classical phase. Yet addi-
tional historical strata have been proposed, specifically a pre-classical, archaic
phase (see below, §1.3.3.1) and a transitional phase linking the classical and
post-classical stages (see below §1.3.3.4).
1.3.2 The Standard Methodology for the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts
As stated above, the standard methodological approach to the linguistic dating
of biblical texts is associated with Avi Hurvitz. It consists of a three-pronged
procedure for the identification of linguistic elements distinctively charac-
teristic of post-exilic Hebrew and a fourth prong for dating texts of unknown
chronological provenance on the basis of their linguistic profiles.
15 For example, the word ‘ ַׁש ִּליטruler’ occurs in Gen 42.6, whereas the distribution of the
majority of the occurrences of words derived from the same root is limited to unquestion-
ably late material in biblical as well as extra-biblical material, in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Likewise, the form ‘ נְ ָכ ִסיםpossessions’ is found in Josh 22.8, but, again, is especially typical
of post-exilic Hebrew and Aramaic. See also the discussion on (‘First’) Isaiah’s unexpected
affinity for the term ‘ ְׁש ָארremnant’ below, §§1.4.1; 5.2. While it is possible to ascribe the
apparently early use of these and other characteristically late features to late editorial
and/or textual modification, this is often theoretically gratutitous, since a number of
(though not all) typically post-exilic linguistic traits existed long before they gained wide-
spread currency.
introduction 7
absence from (or rarity in) presumed early biblical (and inscriptional) mate-
rial is more than just an accidental result of the narrow scope of the relevant
sources. It is important to bear in mind that an element’s non-occurrence in
earlier texts may stem from diachronic factors (i.e., it was not yet available for
use or was available but little used), yet may also reflect no more than mere
chance (i.e., opportunity for the element’s use never arose in the Bible and/
or in the relevant extra-biblical material). One must therefore demonstrate
the existence of linguistic opposition between the apparently late feature and
an alternative (or alternatives) in presumed early material. Opposition of this
sort shows that the presumed early material indeed presented opportunities
for use of the feature in question, but employed an alternative (or alterna-
tives) instead. Parallel texts (like those in Chronicles and Samuel–Kings) and
formulations are particularly useful for demonstrating linguistic opposition.
This criterion eliminates from consideration those elements whose exclusively
late distribution is no more than a product of their chance exclusion from pre-
sumed early material.
16 In the present study, unless stated otherwise, the terms ‘Bible’ and ‘biblical’ (including
linguistic labels incorporating BH) refer to the Tiberian Masoertic Text (MT), which
label is itself shorthand for the Hebrew Bible as represented in Codex Leningradensis
(a.k.a. Petropolitanus) B19a, as reproduced in BHS. Other sources of information include
the Hebrew of non-Masoretic biblical material, e.g., the biblical DSS, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and of and extra-biblical sources, e.g., First Temple inscriptions, the non-bib-
lical DSS, Ben Sira, and RH, as well as the language of non-Hebrew material whether bibli-
cal, e.g., BA, Peshiṭta, Targumic Aramaic, or non-biblical, e.g., various dialects of Second
Temple Aramaic.
8 chapter 1
17 A major source of contention in this regard is Qohelet, the language of which most schol-
ars consider definitive proof of its late composition, but which a minority, in favor of a
pre-exilic date, attempt to account for on alternative grounds (see the bibliographical
references below, n. 32).
18 To be sure, however, the methodology set forth in Notarius 2013 is certainly a step in the
right direction.
19 See already Gesenius 1815: 26: “Reinheit der Sprache kann also nie zu einem sichern
Kriterium des Alterthums dienen, wiewohl umgekehrt eine chaldaisirende Sprache
sicher auf ein spateres Zeitalter fuhrt.”
20 Cf., however, Hurvitz 1985 and Notarius 2013, on the genuine versus contrived use of typi-
cally pre-classical features. On the diagnostic value of characteristically classical features
see also Joosten 2013a: 102–104; 2013b.
21 Robertson 1972; Kutscher 1982: §§111–116; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 70–72; Blau 2010: §§1.3.3–1.3.7;
Notarius 2012; 2013; Joosten 2013a: 101–102; 2013b.
introduction 9
is fraught with difficulty, and other less ancient, mainly poetic, texts also
contain archaic (or, at any rate, archaistic) usages.22 ABH features appear to
hark back to a stage of Hebrew earlier than CBH and often have parallels in
Ugaritic, Amarna Canaanite, or Old Aramaic. Compositions considered espe-
cially representative of ABH include: The Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49), The Song
of the Sea (Exod 15), The Balaam Oracles (Num 23–24), The Song of Moses
(Deut 32–33), The Song of Deborah (Jdg 5), The Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2.1–10),23
David’s Song of Thanksgiving (2 Sam 22 || Ps 18), and perhaps also Hab 3 and
Ps 78.24 Characteristic features include:25 archaic suffixes, e.g., the 3ms posses-
sive -ō written ◌ׁה- (for ֹו-) ‘his’, e.g., ( ִעיר ֹהfor ‘ ) ִעירֹוhis donkey’ and ( סּותֹהfor
‘ )סּותֹוhis covering’ (Gen 49.11, both ktiv); the 3mpl possessive/object suffix מֹו-
(for הם- ֶ or ם-) ‘their, them’, e.g., ֹלהימֹו ֵ ( ֱאfor יהם ֵ ‘ ) ֱאtheir gods’ (Deut 32.37),
ֶ ֹלה
( ִּכ ָּסמֹוfor (‘ ) ִּכ ָּסםthe sea) covered them’ (Exod 15.10); the 2fs qaṭal suffix ּתי- ִ (for
ְ ), e.g., ( ַק ְמ ִּתיfor ‘ ) ַק ְמ ְּתyou (fs) arose’ (Jdg 5.7); the 3fs qaṭal suffix ַ◌ת- (for
ּת-
ָ◌ה-), e.g., ( ָאזְ ַלתfor (‘ ) ָאזְ ָלהtheir might) is gone’ (Deut 32.36); the 3fpl qaṭal suf-
fix ָ◌ה- (for epicene ּו-), e.g., ( ָּבנֹות ָצ ֲע ָדהfor (‘ )* ָּבנֹות ָצ ֲעדּוhis) branches climbed’
(Gen 49.22); retention of the reflexes of obsolete case endings on the head
nouns of construct phrases (and the like), e.g., the ִ◌י- suffix in ( ְּבנִ י ֲאתֹנֹוfor ֶּבן
‘ ) ֲאתֹנֹוhis donkey foal’ (Gen 49.11) or the ֹו- suffix in ( ְּבנֹו ְבעֹרfor ן־ּבעֹור ְ ‘ ) ֶּבson
of Beʿor’ (Num 24.3; 24.15); use of the short yiqṭol verbal form as a simple past
tense without conversive waw, e.g., ( יַ ֵּצבfor ‘ ) ִה ִּציבhe established’ (Deut 32.8)
and ( יָ ֶׁשתfor ‘ ) ָׁשתhe set’ (Ps 18.12); non-assimilation of he to energic nun, e.g.,
יִ ְּצ ֶרנְ הּו . . . ( יְ ס ְֹב ֶבנְ הּוfor יִ ְּצ ֶרּנּו . . . ּ‘ )יְ ס ְֹב ֶבּנוhe surrounded him . . . he guarded him’
(Deut 32.10); retention of root-final consonantal yod in ל"יforms, e.g., ( ָח ָסיּוfor
‘ ) ָחסּוthey took refuge’ (Deut 32.37); the frequent absence of the definite article
- ַה, the accusative marker ֵאת, and the relativizer ( ֲא ֶׁשרwith parataxis or asyn-
desis in absence of the latter), e.g., רֹומי ָׂש ֶדה ֵ זְ ֻבלּון ַעם ֵח ֵרף נַ ְפׁשֹו ָלמּות וְ נַ ְפ ָּת ִלי ַעל ְמ
(for רֹומי ַה ָּׂש ֶדה ֵ ‘ )*זְ ֻבלּון ַעם ֲא ֶׁשר ֵח ֵרף ֵאת נַ ְפׁשֹו ָלמּות וְ נַ ְפ ָּת ִלי ַעל ְמZebulon is a people
that disdained his own soul even to death and also Naphtali—up on the high
ground of the land’ (Jdg 5.18); זֶ הor זּוas relative pronouns, e.g., ( ַעם־זּו ָקנִ ָיתfor
ית ָ ִ*ה ָעם ֲא ֶׁשר ָקנ ָ ) ‘the people whom you purchased’ (Exod 15.16); ַּבלfor negation
of the verb, e.g., ( ַּבל־יָ ֻקמּוfor * ֶּפן יָ קּומּו/* ַאל/‘ )לֹאthey must not/may not/lest they
rise’ (Isa 14.21); ( ָׂש ַדיfor ‘ ) ָׂש ֶדהfield’ (Deut 32.13).
22 Young 2003c: 342–343; Bloch 2009; 2012; Vern 2011; Mandell 2013; Notarius 2013.
23 Cf. the merely archaizing language of Ps 113.5–9, on which see Hurvitz 1985.
24 For this list see the studies cited above, n. 21; consensus is lacking as to the genuinely
archaic status of many of these texts.
25 See the list of studies cited above, n. 21, for these and other characteristic linguistic
features.
10 chapter 1
26 For the classical dating of P see Hurvitz 1974b; 1982; 1983c; 1988; 2000b; Grintz 1976a–c;
Rendsburg 1980b; Zevit 1982; Milgrom 1991–2001: 5–13 et passim cf. Ryssel 1878; Giesebrecht
1881; Wellhausen 1885: §§IX.III.1–IX.III.2; S.R. Driver 1898: §155–157, n. †; Polzin 1976;
Guenther 1977; Hill 1981; Levine 1983; Blenkinsopp 1996: 508–518; Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd 2008: II 11–17. On J see Wright 2005.
27 Rabin 1971: 69; Hurvitz 1997a:307–310; 1999; cf. Young 2003b.
introduction 11
clearest form in material composed after the Restoration, i.e., after 450 bce,28
e.g., Esther, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles (in which the parallels
with Samuel–Kings are particularly illustrative).29 Other biblical texts exhibit-
ing an accumulation of characteristically late linguistic features include Pss
103; 117; 119; 124; 125; 133; 144; and 145;30 the narrative framework of Job (Job 1–2;
42.7–17);31 and Qohelet.32
Linguistically, much more unites CBH and LBH than separates them.
However, along with the majority of elements common to both strata, LBH
contains a minority of characteristically late linguistic features—orthographic,
phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical (genuine neologisms and
instances of semantic development). Many features are the result of external
influence, especially that exerted by the lingua franca of the day—namely,
Imperial Aramaic—whereas others appear to be the results of internal devel-
opment. In not a few cases the relevant factors are unclear or may consist of a
combination of the internal and external.33
28 For opinions that vary slightly see S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 504–506, especially n. * on p. 505;
Rabin 1976: 1015; Ginsberg 1982: 68; Hurvitz 1982: 152–153, n. 36; 2007: 25, n. 6; Talshir 2003;
Wright 2005: 154.
29 For linguistic approaches to the dating of these texts see the following: Esther – Gesenius
1815: §10; S.R. Driver 1898: 484–485; Payton 1908: 62–63; Bergey 1983; Daniel – Gesenius
1815: §10; Pusey 1864: 33–40, 55–57; S.R. Driver 1898: 504–508; Montgomery 1927: 13–15;
Ezra and Nehemiah – Gesenius 1815: §10; S.R. Driver 1898: 553; Chronicles – Gesenius 1815:
§10; S.R. Driver 1898: 535–540; Kropat 1909; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 27–36; Yaphet 1968;
1993: 41–42; Polzin 1976; Williamson 1977: 37–59; cf. Rezetko 2003; 2007.
30 Hurvitz 1972.
31 Hurvitz 1974a; cf. Young 2009. Joosten (2013b) classifies this material’s language as transi-
tional between CBH and LBH.
32 Delitzsch 1877: 190–199 et passim; Driver 1898: 474–475; Hurvitz 1990; 2007; Schoors 1992–
2004; Seow 1996; cf. Fredericks 1988; Young 1993: 140–157.
33 For useful discussions of exogenous and endogenous change see Holmstedt 2012: 104–112;
Pat-El 2012: 246–252.
12 chapter 1
which evidently began in the late pre-exilic period, with the expansion into
Judah of the Assyrian Empire. Second Temple Period Hebrew material—
biblical and extra-biblical alike—is marked by borrowings both from and via
Aramaic, calques based on Aramaic usage, and the intensified use of certain
features native to Hebrew but more common in Aramaic. For example, use of
the word ָא ַחז, which normally means ‘to grasp’ in ancient Hebrew, in the mean-
ing ‘to close’ (most frequently associated with ָסגַ רin classical literature) in
Neh 7.3 is almost certainly a loan translation based on Aramaic ‘ אחדto close’.34
Many such features are late in Aramaic itself, being absent from Old Aramaic.
Even so, not every apparent ‘Aramaism’ in BH necessarily indicates Aramaic
influence. Moreover, not every instance of genuine Aramaic influence is nec-
essarily late. First, as stated, Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages; since
both derive from Semitic stock, they naturally share many features. Second,
as previously mentioned, users of the two languages were in contact—and
thus exercised mutual influence—long before the late pre-exilic period. Third,
while a Hebrew writer’s use of Aramaic-looking forms may reflect Aramaic’s
late influence on his language, it may alternatively reflect a conscious stylis-
tic choice. For example, for purposes of the lexical variety required by par-
allelism, ancient Hebrew poetry regularly employs words that are rare in
non-poetic texts, but common in Aramaic. Thus, the use of such lexemes as
( ָחזָ הfor ‘ ) ָר ָאהsee’ (Num 24.4, 18), ( ֱאנֹוׁשfor ן־א ָדם
ָ ‘ ) ֶּבman’ (Deut 32.26), and ָא ָתה
(for ‘ )ּבֹואcome’ (Deut 33.2, 21) in CBH poetry is almost certainly not the result
of Aramaic influence. On the other hand, Wisdom Literature, with its eastern
associations, may exhibit genuine Aramaic influence that dates to the classical
period (see below, §1.4.1). In other genres, too, stylistic motivation may have
favored the employment of Aramaic or Aramaic-like forms. When dating texts
on the basis of apparent ‘Aramaisms’, then, care must be taken to determine,
first, whether or not there is real Aramaic influence and, second, whether this
influence is late.35
As already intimated, Aramaic also served as a conduit into Hebrew for
linguistic elements from other languages. Of special significance for the dia-
chronic approach are Persian loanwords (e.g., ָּדת, זַ ן, נִ ְׁש ְּתוָ ן, ) ַּפ ְר ֵּדס, which prob-
ably entered Hebrew no earlier than the time of the Persian conquest.36
Proper names: the full spellings ( ָּדוִ ידfor ‘ ) ָּדוִ דDavid’ and רּוׁש ַליִ ם
ָ ְ( יfor
ָ ְ‘ )יJerusalem’ (the vocalization consistently reflects the pronunciation
ִרּוׁש ַלם
yĕrūšå̄layim, but the spelling without yod almost certainly reflects something
along the lines of yĕrūšå̄lēm; cf. ‘ ָׁש ֵלםSalem’ Gen 14.18; Ps 76.3; see below, §3.6);
the short theophoric suffix, e.g., ( יִ ְר ְמיָ הfor ‘ )יִ ְר ְמיָ הּוJeremiah’ (see below, §3.5);
ַ ֵ( יfor הֹוׁש ַע
ׁשּוע ֻ ְ‘ )יYeshua (‘Joshua’)’; ( ַּד ְר ֶמ ֶׂשקfor ‘ ) ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשקDamascus’.
Morphology: increased frequency of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern, e.g., ‘ ְּכ ָתבwrit-
ing’ (see below, §5.2); increased frequency of abstract nouns ending in ּות-, e.g.,
( ַמ ְלכּותfor ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, לּוכה
ָ ְמ, or the infinitive construct forms -מ ְלכ/ֹלְך
ָ ‘ ) ְמkingdom,
reign, rule’ (see below, §8.6); the piʿel (rather than polel) forms of י/ ע"וverbs,
e.g., ( ִקּיֵ םfor קֹומם
ֵ or ‘ ) ֵה ִקיםestablish, fulfill’.
Syntax: the appositional word order ‘ ְׁשֹלמֹה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךSolomon the king’ (for ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך
‘ ְׁשֹלמֹהking Solomon’; see below, §7.7); the double plural construct, e.g., ּבֹורי ֵ ִּג
( ֲחיָ ִליםfor ּבֹורי ַחיִ ל
ֵ ִ‘ )ּגmighty warriors, heroes’ (see below, §7.11); increased fre-
quency of accusative -( לfor ; ֵאתsee below, §7.2); increased substitution of the
preposition ‘ ַעלupon, over’ for ‘ ֶאלto’ and vice versa (see below, §7.5).
Lexicon (a very partial list): ִאּגֶ ֶרתand ( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָ ןfor ‘ ) ֵס ֶפרletter’; the Babylonian
month names (for the earlier Canaanite names or ordinal numbers); ָּדתor
( ַמ ֲא ָמרfor ][ה ֶּמ ֶלְך
ַ ‘ ) ְּד ַברcommand, (royal) decree’; ( ּבּוץfor (‘ ) ֵׁשׁשfine) linen’; זְ ַמן
(for מֹועד ֵ or (‘ ) ֵעתappointed) time’; ( זַ ןfor ‘ ) ִמיןkind, type’; ( ִח ָּפהfor ‘ ) ִצ ָּפהover-
lay’; ( ְּכ ֶא ָחדfor יַ ַחד, יַ ְח ָּדו, or ‘ ) ְּכ ִאיׁש ֶא ָחדtogether’; ( כנ"סfor אס"ף, קב"ץ, or )קה"ל
‘gather’; ( עמ"דfor ‘ )קו"םstand up’; ( ַּפ ְר ֵּדסfor ‘ )ּגַ ןpark, orchard, garden’; ( ָצ ִפירfor
‘ ) ָׂש ִעירhe-goat’; ( שב"חfor ‘ )הל"לpraise’; ( של"טfor מש"ל, etc.) ‘rule’; ( תק"ףfor
חז"ק, etc.) ‘be strong’.37
It is worth mentioning that the above list is representative rather than
exhaustive; numerous features could be added.38
37 Many of these forms are included in the list of the Late Biblical Hebrew Lexicon Project,
under the direction of Prof. Avi Hurvitz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the results
of which are currently in the process of being published.
38 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd’s (2008: II 162–214) rather expansive and somewhat indis-
criminate list boasts 372 entries.
39 The language of the book of Kings has yet to be investigated thoroughly from a diachronic
perspective. Regarding the rest of the compositions listed see the following studies:
introduction 15
‘Second Isaiah’ – Cheyne 1895: 255–270; S.R. Driver 1898: 240, 505; Hurvitz 1983a: 215; Paul
2008: 31–33; 2012; cf. Rooker 1996; Jeremiah – S.R. Driver 1898: 505–506; Gropp 1991: 46;
Hurvitz 2003: 26, n. 4; C. Smith 2003; Wright 2005: 238–239; Fassberg 2006: 57, 64; 2011: 98;
Ezekiel – Gesenius 1815: 35–36; S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 505–506; Hurvitz 1982; Rooker 1990;
Fassberg 2011: 98; Haggai – S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 505–506; Hurvitz 1983a:215; Shin 2007;
Rendsburg 2012; Zechariah – S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 505–506; Hill 1982; Hurvitz 1983a:215;
Shin 2007; Malachi – S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 505–506; Hill 1981; Hurvitz 1983a:215–216; Shin
2007; and Lamentations – Dobbs-Allsopp 1998.
Naudé (2000; 2003) objects to use of the term ‘transitional’ to describe the lan-
guage of the works listed above, on the grounds that languages are never static, but in
a state of perpetual change, so that, by definition, TBH is no more transitional than CBH
or LBH. This should be borne in mind, and alternative labels might be sought, but as
Hurvitz (1997b:86 n. 35) argues, from the perspective of works written in the classical
and late forms of BH, TBH is a fitting and useful designation for the language of the mate-
rial that links those phases; see above, n. 14; see also Joosten 2013a: 99–100; cf. Kim 2012:
159–160.
40 Seow 1996: 647. A few do, however, mention Persian historical figures: ּכֹורׁשֶ ‘Cyrus’ (Isa
44.28; 45.1); ‘ ַּד ְריָ וֶ ׁשDarius’ (Hag 1.1, 15; 2.10; Zech 1.1, 7; 7.1).
16 chapter 1
slight adjustment must be made to it to broaden the first criterion (on late
biblical distribution, see above §1.3.2.1.1). In other words, the precondition for
being included as a potential feature of TBH is exclusive (or predominant) dis-
tribution in exilic or post-exilic texts, within the Bible or without.
While it is true that many cases of linguistic variation in the Hebrew Bible are
most reasonably ascribed to the historical development of the language, this is
not the only explanation, nor the most convincing in some cases.
41 See the following for linguistic approaches to the works listed here: Jonah – S.R. Driver
1898: 322; Brenner 1979; Qimron 1980b; Landes 1982; 1999; Dan 1996; Dobbs-Allsopp 1998:
2, 35; Proverbs – Yoder 2000; the poetic sections of Job – Gesenius 1915: 33–35; Hurvitz
1968: 236; 2003: 33; Pope 1973: 27; Song of Songs – S.R. Driver 1898: 448–450; Rabin 1973:
272–273; 1975: 215–216; Hurvitz 1983a: 217–218; Dobbs-Allsopp 2005; Noegel and Rendsburg
2009: 174–179; Ruth – S.R. Driver 1898: 454–456; Hurvitz 1976; 1983a: 218; 1983b; Zevit 2005:
592; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 58–60.
introduction 17
Isaiah’s idiosyncratic use of ְׁש ָארin no way contradicts the claim that the qĕṭå̄l
pattern constitutes a distinguishing feature of LBH. Nor does it support the
claim that Isaiah 1–39 is a late composition.42
And, of course, the same logic applies to certain stylistic tendencies shared
by groups of writers. For example, the use of particular forms and vocabulary
more typical of Aramaic than Hebrew typifies several of the biblical works that
belong to the category of Wisdom Literature.43 This situation has led a number
of scholars to posit a post-exilic date of composition for some of this material.44
However, in view of the traditions associating wisdom with areas to Israel’s
east,45 it is doubtful whether these Aramaic loans serve as a reliable indicator
of late provenance.46
Clearly, the possibility that linguistic variation in the Hebrew Bible may
reflect stylistic differences must be borne in mind. As the above example with
qĕṭå̄l ְׁש ָארdemonstrates, though, this possibility merely complicates the detec-
tion of historical development in BH. Given appropriate methodological stric-
tures, the challenges afforded by instances of non-diachronic linguistic variety
in no way render impossible the identification of cases of historical develop-
ment in the language.47
48 Consider also the wordplay in Amos 8.2, which apparently plays on similarity (or iden-
tity?) in pronunciation between ‘ ַקיִ ץsummer (fruit), figs’ and ‘ ֵקץend’ in the northern
idiom of the prophet’s audience.
49 See, for example, Harris 1939: 64; Speiser 1942; Kutscher 1982: §22; Rendsburg 1986; 1992c;
2013a; for further bibliography see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 189–190.
50 Burney 1918: 171–176; Kutscher 1982: §45 (cf. ibid.: §100); Rendsburg 1990b: 128; cf. Young
1995.
51 Burney 1903: 208–209; Young 1993: 171–172; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997; Rendsburg
2002a; cf. Young 1995.
52 S.R. Driver 1898: 188 n. *, 449 n. *, 553 n. †; GKC §2w; Bersträsser 1918–1929: I §2g; Bauer
and Leander 1922: §28v; Harris 1939: 75; Dahood 1952a; 1952b; 1958; 1962; 1966; C. Gordon
1954; 1955; Rainey 1964; Archer 1969; Rabin 1981; Ginsberg 1982: 163*; Kutscher 1982: §§22,
41, 44–45, 79, 81, 90–91, 94, 99, 100, 104; Rendsburg 1988; 1989; 1990b; 1991; 1992a; 1992b;
1992c; 1992d; 2002b; 2003; 2006a; 2006b; Garr 1985; Gevirtz 1986; 1987; Fredericks 1988;
Davila 1990; Baran 1992; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 43–44, 61–62, 65, 71; Gianto 1996; Yoo 1999;
Chen 2000; C. Smith 2003; Wright 2003; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 180–195.
introduction 19
53 Jonah – Landes 1982: 163*; Song of Songs – Driver 1898: 449; Qohelet – Archer 1969;
Fredericks 1988.
54 Thus, the supposed northern character of the language of Qohelet does not necessarily
imply its pre-exilic composition; see Dahood 1952a; 1952b; 1958; 1962; Rainey 1964.
20 chapter 1
has survived the processes of editing and transmission represents but a small
fraction of what was once discernible.55 Thus, even in texts widely believed
to be northern the use of standard linguistic features is much more common
than the use of distinctively northern features.56 Put differently, the linguistic
commonalities of apparently standard and northern texts are far more numer-
ous than their distinguishing features.
55 Schniedewind and Sivan 1997: 313; cf. Rendsburg 1990a: 174; 1990b: 1.
56 Rabin (1981) concludes that Amos is written in the standard literary register of ancient
Hebrew, whereas on the basis of a few linguistic phenomena considered distinctive of
the north he views Hosea as more characteristically northern. See also Young 1995; Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 194.
57 Gevirtz 1987; Rendsburg 1992b.
58 Rendsburg 1988; 1989.
59 Rendsburg 1990b.
60 Rabin 1981.
61 Burney 1903: 208–209; 1918: 171–176; C. Gordon 1954; 1955; Ginsberg 1982: 36–37; and espe-
cially Rendsburg 1988; 1989; 1990b; 1992a; 1992b; 1992d; 2002a; 2003.
introduction 21
Gary Rendsburg, who has developed a methodology for identifying such dis-
tinctively northern linguistic features and for distinguishing between northern
and southern, i.e., standard, biblical compositions. His methodology, which is
intended to ensure objectivity, is a modified version of Hurvitz’ approach to the
identification of late linguistic features and the classification of early and late
biblical texts on the basis of their linguistic profile (described above, §1.3.2).
According to the methodology proposed by Rendsburg, a linguistic phe-
nomenon is to be considered distinctively characteristic of northern BH (what
Rendsburg and others term ‘Israelian’) if (a) it exhibits an exclusively (or pre-
dominantly) northern distribution, that is it occurs only (or mainly) in north-
ern contexts, (b) there exists a corresponding element that serves in its place
in non-northern contexts, and (c) it is documented in extra-biblical sources of
northern affiliation, i.e., in a selection of other Northwest Semitic languages or
in RH. Once a number of such distinctive linguistic features have been identi-
fied, it is possible to localize texts of unknown geographical provenance based
on their linguistic profile. A text is to be considered northern only if (d) it con-
tains a concentration of distinctively northern linguistic features.
While there is little doubt that BH as represented in the Tiberian Masoretic
tradition conceals viable linguistic phenomena especially typical of north-
ern users of ancient Hebrew, and while Rendsburg’s methodology certainly
provides for some measure of scientific rigor, for a number of reasons it can-
not promise the same degree of objectivity offered by Hurvitz’ diachronic
approach. First, the corpus of biblical compositions of assuredly northern prov-
enance is much smaller than the corpus of biblical works of firmly late date.
It is therefore nearly impossible to assemble a lexicon and grammar certain
to be distinctively characteristic of the northern dialect. Second, as indicated
above (§1.4.2.2), a sizable portion of the textual corpus considered northern
consists of poetry, which is problematic for purposes of linguistic description.
Third, the extra-biblical corpora that Rendsburg utilizes for control purposes
have less evidential value in relation to northern BH than do the extra-biblical
corpora that Hurvitz utilizes as controls in relation to LBH. The chronological
and geographical affinity between LBH, on the one hand, and DSS Hebrew,
RH, and Imperial Aramaic, on the other, is close and it is clear that the extra-
biblical sources shed light on LBH. Considerably more distant, in terms of both
time and geography, is the relationship between Israelian Hebrew, on the one
hand, and Ugaritic, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, Syriac, and RH, on the other, a
fact that somewhat diminishes the value of these extra-biblical sources as wit-
nesses to the linguistic character of the northern dialect of BH.62
62 Schniedewind and Sivan 1997: 306–311; see also Young 1995; 1997; Fredericks 1996; Talshir
2003; Hurvitz 2007.
22 chapter 1
Some claims regarding northern linguistic elements and texts thus seem
to go further than the evidence warrants, a state of affairs that has led to an
amount of justified criticism.63 Despite, however, the doubts raised here and
elsewhere, one ought to resist an extreme version of the opposing view, i.e., the
total rejection of a regional dimension to BH variety. A reasonable approach to
this linguistic variety must weigh the possibility that a part of it indeed reflects
areal differences, but will also recognize that the linguistic evidence serving
as the basis for diachronic classification is firmer than that which serves as
the basis for geographical classification. In sum and once more, the reality of
geographical diversity only complicates, but does not negate the diachronic
dimension.64
63 See, for instance, Schniedewind and Sivan (1997: 311): “The criteria of distribution and
concentration easily lend themselves to circular reasoning. Rendsburg, for example, takes
a maximalist view of Northern Hebrew and consequently considers almost all texts of
disputed linguistic character to be northern (e.g., Qoheleth, Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs).
In addition any narrative that is set in the north or that speaks about northerners is con-
sidered by Rendsburg evidence for Northern Hebrew, as is any text that speaks about
foreigners, whether they be Philistines or Babylonians.”
64 Dresher 2012: 31; Holmstedt 2012: 117.
65 See above, §1.1, n. 2.
66 Segal 1927: §14; Sznejder 1935–1936; Melamed 1949; Bendavid 1951: 69–73 (cited on the
basis of Rabin 1970: 314); G.R. Driver 1957; 1970; Chomsky 1964: 161; Ullendorff 1971: 11;
MacDonald 1975; Rendsburg 1990a:1–33; 1992b; Young 1993: 76–79; Blau 1997: 26; S. Smith
2000; Polak 2003: 59–60; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 173–179.
67 Sznejder 1935–1936; Melamed 1949; G.R. Driver 1957: 273; MacDonald 1975; see also Polak
2003: 59–60.
68 Rendsburg 1990a: 18–21, 159–161; Moshavi 2010: 4.
introduction 23
Hebrew. A few of the DSS, e.g., the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and Miqṣat Maʿaśe
ha-Torah (4QMMT), along with the Bar Kokhba letters, are written in a non-
literary register.69 It is widely assumed that their language is to some extent
representative of the spoken Hebrew of the day, an early form of RH, which
would eventually evolve into the written medium of rabbinic literature.70
Due, however, to the late provenance of these sources, their evidential value
vis-à-vis the spoken register of the pre-exilic period is uncertain. Where their
language differs from CBH it is difficult to determine if the deviation is a func-
tion of register, historical development, or some other factor or combination
thereof.
To illustrate, consider the BH conversive tenses, still used widely in the
Hebrew of the DSS, but eschewed in RH, where they are used only in quota-
tions from the Bible or in imitation thereof. Is their absence from RH due to
diachronic development, or is it a carry-over from pre-exilic colloquial Hebrew,
in which, some assume, they were not employed?71 The nature of the available
evidence all but precludes a definitive answer. Regardless, the probable differ-
ence between spoken and literary registers must be taken into account in the
diachronic analysis of BH.
Nowadays, there is unanimous agreement among Hebraists that the written
medium known as RH is but the literary preservation of a natural living lan-
guage that served as a spoken medium during (at least) the first two-hundred
years of the Common Era.72 Around the same time a type of Hebrew, similar
to that found in the majority of the DSS, served as a higher literary register.73
69 On the language of the Copper Scroll see Rabin 1958: 156; 1972: 358; 1976: 1017–1018;
Bendavid 1967–1971: I 99; Qimron 2000; Lefkovits 2000: 18–19, especially n. 71. On that of
Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah see Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 65–108. On the Hebrew of the Bar
Kokhba letters see Kutscher 1961b.
70 For differing views on the relationship between DSS Hebrew and RH compare, for exam-
ple, Blau 1997 and Qimron 2000.
71 The absence of the conversive tenses in RH should evidently not be attributed to genre-
related factors, specifically to the general lack of narrative in rabbinic literature, since this
would affect only the use of the wayyiqṭol form. RH provides numerous opportunities for
the use of weqaṭal (for example, in procedural instructions), but does not employ it either.
72 Segal 1908; Kutscher 1982: §§193–194; see also Steiner 1992: 17–18, 21–26 for an extensive
bibliography of modern scholars who see RH as the literary reflection of what was once a
living and natural spoken language.
73 As noted above, the language of the Copper Scroll and that of Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah are
considered by many sorts of proto-RH. The presence of the latter at Qumran adds weight
to the claim that the writers of the scrolls spoke a form of early RH while they most often
wrote in a language similar to BH. Cf., however, the opinion of Qimron (2000), who sees in
24 chapter 1
the standard Hebrew of the DSS, i.e., that employed in the majority of the scrolls, a vital
spoken idiom.
74 According to the broadest definition of the term.
75 Even if the chronological and typological order of these phases is generally clear, it should
be noted that the relationship between them is not necessarily genetic or linear.
introduction 25
the basis of the spoken Hebrew of the first two centuries ce, while worthy and
interesting, should not be expected to produce unambiguous results. In addi-
tion, while the situations of diglossia in Arabic and Ethiopic no doubt illumi-
nate certain aspects of the assumed situation of diglossia in ancient Israel, it
is clear that these furnish no more than ‘circumstantial evidence’. One should
also take into consideration the overlap between the category of late features
and that of vernacular elements. It is reasonable to assume that the vicissi-
tudes of the Exile led to change (some would say, deterioration) in scribal con-
ventions, such that literary style became more ‘vulnerable’ than before to the
infiltration of vernacular elements.
These limitations do not invalidate all research dealing with First Temple
forms of spoken Hebrew, but it must be acknowledged that the unknown far
outweighs the known with regard to this register. For this reason discussions
of the Hebrew spoken during the biblical period should be characterized by an
appropriate degree of caution. Nonetheless, the recognition that some amount
of the linguistic variety in the Hebrew Bible may derive from its absorption of
colloquial elements in no way contradicts, but rather complements, the dia-
chronic approach to the language.
1.4.4 Genres
In the discussion of linguistic variety within BH in general and of the linguis-
tic dating of biblical compositions more specifically factors related to genre
should not be ignored.76 For example, as already intimated, ancient Hebrew
poetry (like that in many languages) is characterized by stylistic conventions,
often concerned with form—e.g., rhythm, word- and sound-play, parallel-
ism, archaic forms and structures—that distinguish its language from that of
(most) non-poetic genres. From a more specifically diachronic perspective, BH
poetry is known for exhibiting two opposing tendencies that directly affect
the degree to which it may be expected to represent contemporary linguistic
norms—namely, stylistic and linguistic conservatism, on the one hand, and
poetic license, on the other. Both tendencies should raise doubts as to the
advisability of over-reliance on poetic texts for purposes of linguistic descrip-
tion. Stylistic conservatism within the poetic genre likely resulted in the pres-
ervation of linguistic features characteristic of an early stage of the language
which had become obsolete in then-current non-poetic genres. Thus, there are
many linguistic parallels between the epic poetry from Ugarit (destroyed in
the early 12th century bce) and the poetry of the Hebrew Bible. On the other
hand, some features, particularly in the realm of the lexicon and morphology,
resemble the Aramaic borrowings so characteristic of LBH, but are in reality
וְ ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּוin Ezra 10.41. However, it is a near certainty that this form resulted from
scribal error, according to which
ּוׁש ַמ ְריָ ה
ְ עזַ ְר ֵאל וְ ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ ה
ֲ > ֲעזַ ְר ֵאל וְ ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּו ְׁש ַמ ְריָ ה
‘Azarel and Shelemiah and Shemariah’ ‘Azarel and Shelemiahu, Shemariah’
reflecting a change that involves no more than spacing (see below, §3.5, and
especially n. 40). Clearly, in the discussion of linguistic variation caused by dia-
chronic linguistic development, sensitivity to the potential for scribal interfer-
ence is a must (but see below, §1.5.2).
Since the beginning of the scholarly attempt to date biblical texts on the basis
of their language there have been differences of opinion on the respective
dates of certain works, for example, the Priestly source of the Pentateuch, the
different parts of Isaiah, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, and Qohelet, to name just
a few. Notwithstanding significant documentary and inscriptional discoveries
and methodological refinements made during the 20th century, the linguis-
tic approach to dating cannot provide a solution for every problem. As indi-
cated above (§1.3.3.5), the linguistic status of several biblical texts is equivocal.
Moreover, in view of the many factors playing into the linguistic heterogene-
ity of BH, it is clear that not all instances of variation are to be explained in
terms of diachronic development (see above, §1.4).
Recently, however, an extreme, seemingly ‘anti-linguistic’ diachronic posi-
tion has been articulated in scholarly literature.80 A relatively small number
of Hebraists and biblical scholars have for some time taken issue with certain
aspects of the diachronic approach to BH,81 but the most thoroughgoing and
sustained effort to refute the methodology as a whole has been made by the
trio of Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, most prominently in
their 2008 two-volume work Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew.82 In this work
they offer what is by far the most fundamental, comprehensive, and detailed
critique of the standard linguistic approach for dating biblical literature and,
as such, may be taken as broadly representative of critics of the approach. The
book in question has generated mixed responses, with Hebraists offering gen-
erally unfavorable reviews.83 The present monograph is not the forum for such
a review, but it is nevertheless worthwhile to dedicate some discussion to the
specific criticisms and general approach laid out in the book and elsewhere.
The following paragraphs discuss the principal contentions of scholars who
object to the standard linguistic approach to dating biblical books.84
82 See also Ehrensvärd 2003; 2006; P. Davies 2003; Young 2003a; 2003b; 2005; 2008; 2009;
Naudé 2003; 2004; Rezetko 2003; 2007; 2010; 2013; and Lust 2006.
83 See, especially, Joosten 2012a and Zevit 2012. See also Dresher 2012; Holmstedt 2012;
Joosten 2012b; and Pat-El 2012.
84 Kim (2012: 154–156), who applies sociolinguistic variation analysis to the diachronic prob-
lem of BH, makes a laudable attempt to adjudicate between what he sees as two extreme
positions, adopting an intermediate stance. On the one hand, examining a selection of
allegedly late linguistic developments, he acknowledges that the differences between
EBH (= CBH) and LBH are indeed chronological rather than merely stylistic. On the other
hand, he concludes that linguistic dating is impossible. This latter view is based on the
observation that the writers of individual texts may have been early or late adopters
with regard to the general linguistic trends of a period and on the argument that only
unconsciously adopted changes ‘from below’, as opposed to reversible changes ‘from
above’, are chronologically reliable markers. There are several problems with Kim’s line
of argumentation. First, he bases his conclusion on an examination of a selection of just
eight features. However, since seven of these are considered authentic changes, and three
of these seven irreversible, unconscious changes from below, it stands to reason that an
examination of a larger sampling may very sell result in a large number of diachronically
meaningful developments. Second, as Kim himself admits, the classification of features
as ‘from above’ or ‘from below’ is not unambiguous. Even a single case of recategoriza-
tion would substantially alter Kim’s conclusions. Third, the simple fact that a late feature
was imposed ‘from above’ and/or consciously adopted by a writer does not automatically
cancel out its diagnostic value as a chronological marker, since, in many cases, this situa-
tion of freedom to choose between alternatives is exactly what characterizes late sources.
Fourth, as shown below, neither the sporadic early use of characteristically late features
nor the late persistence of classical features negates the validity of linguistic dating proce-
dures. Finally, Kim (ibid.:157, n. 6) rather uncritically accepts the premise that text-critical
issues fatally undermine attempts to date texts linguistically (see below).
introduction 29
85 See, e.g., Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 48–49, 55–57, 92–93, 129–130. See also
P. Davies 2003: 154.
86 At this point it seems advisable to deal with objections to this assertion. Ehrensvärd (2003:
175–186) argues on the basis of ‘Second Isaiah’, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi that
post-exilic writers were in fact capable of writing good CBH after the Exile. Citing the lan-
guage of Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), Young (2008) opines that the classical style could
be successfully imitated at about the time of the beginning of the Common Era. There
are serious problems with both claims. First, all of the biblical works cited by Ehrensvärd
exhibit a certain accumulation of late linguistic features which, though not as conspicu-
ous as that typical of still later works, certainly cannot be considered characteristic of
CBH. It should come as no surprise that the transition from CBH to LBH was a gradual
process that spanned many years, so that works composed between the periods in which
these two linguistic entities dominated exhibit forms of Hebrew presenting more or less
pronounced marks of historical development, i.e., phases of TBH (see above, §1.3.3.4).
On Young’s claims regarding the supposedly purely classical language of 1QpHab, see
Rendsburg forthcoming, which identifies within Pesher Habakkuk an impressive assort-
ment of linguistic features especially representative of LBH and post-biblical Hebrew, as
well as Joosten 2012b: 283–291.
87 Cf. Young (2003b: 292–298), who, on the basis of a comparison between the Hebrew of
pre-exilic inscriptions, CBH, and LBH, attempts to minimize the similarity between First
Temple Period inscriptional sources and BH, while highlighting the presence of features
30 chapter 1
linguistic research.89 They raise three principal arguments. First, the likelihood
that Second Temple orthographic revision extended beyond spelling: in com-
parison to epigraphic material from the First Temple Period, which exhibits a
high degree of scriptio defectiva, biblical orthography, while far from consis-
tent, is nevertheless comparatively plena, displaying a relatively late character.
This being the case, on the assumption that the Hebrew Bible indeed contains
early material, one is forced to explain its current orthography as the result of
a process of updating carried out by scribes in the Second Temple Period. In
view of the high probability that just such a revision was undertaken in the
realm of orthography, one may be inclined to assume the perpetration of a
more general linguistic revision, which would presumably have resulted in a
blurring of the linguistic picture presented by the MT, so that it should be dis-
qualified from consideration as a reliable linguistic witness.90
Second, textual differences: in light of the many textual differences that sur-
face in a comparison of passages in the MT and other ancient witnesses (both
Hebrew and non-Hebrew), one must posit a high degree of textual instability
and fluidity in the transmission of the biblical writings, so that it is difficult
to put faith in the Masoretic textual tradition (or in any ancient version) as a
trustworthy witness with regard to the details of Hebrew as it was used in the
First Temple Period.
89 For such suspicious views see, for example, Knauf 1990; Cryer 1994: 186–192; T. Thompson
1995: 110; Young 2003b:310; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 16–18, 63–64, 341–360,
II 100–101. These views are by no means isolated, but are shared by a number—perhaps
even a majority—of text critics, who maintain that all extant Hebrew witnesses are the
product of manifold, though—and this is significant—largely undocumented, literary
and textual modification, which, it is argued, has led to the hopeless muddling of early
and late textual and linguistic elements. Obviously, such a pessimistic textual perspective
is at odds with the more optimistic approach adopted herein. While there is no denying
a degree of literary and textual development, unequivocally evidenced in the concrete
textual witnesses of a few exceptional cases (e.g., the DSS Jeremiah material), the vast
majority of instances of literary and textual development suggested by scholars remain
conjectural, unreflected in extant manuscript sources, or derive from the often ambigu-
ous evidence of the ancient translations. Ancient manuscripts in Hebrew and other lan-
guages do not present identical texts and the differences between them are sometimes
genuinely textual, i.e., reflect differences at the level of the relevant Hebrew source texts.
Even so, only in a minority of cases do the extant manuscript sources indicate that serious
literary and/or textual development has taken place and that this may interfere with lin-
guistic profiling. Moreover, even in these cases, it is arguably possible to separate and date
linguistically the separate component layers. At any rate, no literary, textual, or linguistic
approach should be based on sweeping generalizations; rather, specific instances must be
dealt with case-by-case to build up a broader approach.
90 Young 2003b: 310; Naudé 2004: 96–97.
32 chapter 1
On the issue of the alleged instability of the biblical text, Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvärd (2008) emphasize the pluriformity of the textual traditions
arising from the ancient textual witnesses. How can one justify dependence
on the MT in the face of the existence of so many other—and different—tex-
tual traditions? The question is not without merit. On the one hand, it can be
claimed that in view of such a complex textual situation, it is virtually impos-
sible to know anything with certainty. On the other hand, most of the ancient
witnesses agree on most of the biblical text. Further, with specific regard to
the Masoretic textual tradition, a number of biblical scrolls from among the
DSS, the texts of which are either very similar or identical to that of the MT,
demonstrate the antiquity of the tradition reflected in the latter, which, after
all, was the one adopted by mainstream Judaism as its official text. In any case,
it is doubtful whether any answer to such a general and theoretical question
can contribute much of value to the discussion. The relevance of all such tex-
tual approaches must be checked in specific connection to linguistic elements
that have been suggested as characteristic markers of LBH. When this is done,
in many cases the picture that emerges from the non-Hebrew textual wit-
nesses is equivocal—it is difficult to ascertain whether an apparent difference
between the MT and another version reflects a genuine textual difference, or,
alternatively, should be attributed to the activity of the translator.94 Further,
some linguistic features are entirely opaque in translations. Second, contrary
to the insinuation of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, namely, that proponents
of the accepted diachronic approach routinely ignore textual issues, these are
regularly examined where relevant. At times the textual situation is decisive
or raises questions about a given diachronic explanation.95 In many instances,
however, the textual situation has no bearing on diachronic conclusions
ries in which, due to differences between CBH, on the one hand, and BH as it was pro-
nounced in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition, on the other, the vocalization is apparently
not a late reflex of ancient phonology. Consider, for example, the qal internal passive,
which is sometimes pointed as a puʿal or hofʿal (see also Blau 1997: 26–27). It may also be
that the lack of symmetry in the paradigms of יְ ַּד ֵּבר-מ ַד ֵּבר-ר
ְ ִּד ֶּבin binyan piʿel and -ּד ֵֹבר
ּד ֻבר-ָך
ָ ְּב ָד ְב ְרin binyan qal reflects a difference between the classical language—in which
there were perhaps complete paradigms in both piʿel and qal—and Tiberian Masoretic
Hebrew—which recognized piʿel alone, resorting to qal mainly where the consonantal
text precluded pointing as a piʿel (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1958: 237; Fassberg 2001: 252).
94 One must also consider the possibility of textual corruption within the individual trans-
mission histories of the ancient witnesses.
95 For examples, see above, §1.4.6, and the relevant sections listed there.
34 chapter 1
96 Thus even Rezetko’s (2013) apparently impressive statistical argument demonstrating the
frequency of textual divergences between the MT and the biblical DSS texts is irrelevant,
since it does not show that this instability has irremediably altered the distribution of
classical and late features in the biblical text. A comprehensive linguistic comparison of
the MT and the biblical DSS remains a desideratum. Based on the limited number of cases
surveyed in research for the present monograph, when there are diachronically meaning-
ful differences between the Masoretic and DSS versions of biblical texts, in the majority
of cases the MT has the typologically classical feature and the DSS edition the typologi-
cally later counterpart. This state of affairs would seem to justify considering the MT an
extremely conservative textual tradition, despite the fact that its oldest complete copies
are more recent than the relevant DSS by approximately one-thousand years.
97 See Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 348–358 and n. 18. Space precludes detailed
treatment of all of their examples at this juncture, though a number of them mentioned
there, p. 348, n. 18, are dealt with in the case studies that follow. An attempt is made here
to respond in brief to their five principal examples.
On the issue of the preposition ‘ ִמןfrom’ with assimilated or unassimilated nun (I 348–
349, based, inter alia, on Young 2001: 123) their statistics for MT Song, where the classical
form with assimilated nun dominates, and 4QCantb, where the majority of the forms have
the more typically post-classical form with unassimilated nun, are consummate with the
standard diachronic approach. Moreover, the three scholars reasonably account for the
lack of מןwith unassimilated nun in the Samaritan Pentateuch versus its four occurrences
in the Masoretic Pentateuch as due to “the tendency in the SP to harmonise irregularities
by replacing unusual linguistic forms with the standard ones.”
Their discussion of the “Decrease of הof Direction” (I 350–351), which focuses on MT
and DSS Samuel, succeeds in illustrating (a) the difficulties presented to the diachronic
approach by linguistic differences between manuscripts, which seem especially severe in
the case of Samuel, (b) that late editors and scribes modified the language of texts, and
(c) that late scribes could make proper use of classical features. However, as is demon-
strated below (§7.3), in the case of other late texts, both the non-use and the promiscuous
use of directional הis clear. The complexity of the literary, textual, and linguistic situation
in the case of Samuel is undeniable, but it should not be assumed to be generally repre-
sentative of late sources.
A similar argument could be made regarding MT’s ‘ זָ ֵקןold’ versus the purported זקף
‘erect’ behind the Greek at 1 Sam 28.14 and MT’s ָע ֶרָךversus the expected צרךboth ‘your
enemy’ or some other alternative at v. 16 (I 351–352). Alternatively, both MT readings
may be correct, the latter a dialectal oddity, in which case these have no real bearing on
linguistic dating.
Their discussion of ֵעתversus ִע ִּתיםand of ֲאנִ יversus ( ָאנ ִֹכיI 352–353) is interesting,
though of questionable probity. First, it is based on Lust’s (2003) view that a single Greek
version of Ezekiel as preserved in p(apyrus)967 reflects an earlier Hebrew edition of the
introduction 35
book than does the MT (along with other witnesses). Second, even if Lust is correct—and
this is by no means certain—it shows merely that, in individual cases, late expanders
made use of both typically late— ִע ִּתיםand — ֲאנִ יand characteristically classical—— ָאנ ִֹכי
features. This doubtless complicates matters in those specific cases where, according to
the sources, there is evidence of textual and linguistic modification. It does not, however,
irremediably obscure the linguistic profile of the entire biblical text.
Finally, their treatment of the parallel texts of 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Chr 18 (I 353–358) cor-
rectly stresses both the dominant shared linguistic component of Kings and Chronicles
and the Chronicler’s skill at employing classicisms. However, the fact that Kings should
share with Chronicles some late features is not surprising, given that the former probably
took shape during the Exile or soon thereafter. Furthermore, in light of the Chronicler’s
self-conscious penchant for archaizing and retouching his sources, it is to be expected
that his product might sometimes appear more classical than Kings. Finally, as a text
based on earlier sources, it is no wonder that Chronicles adheres to classical style to a
greater degree than other LBH and post-biblical Hebrew texts. The crucial point, however,
is explicitly admitted by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (I 358 and elsewhere): “. . . the
core postexilic books of Esther–Chronicles are set apart by an overall higher accumula-
tion of LBH features than we find in other biblical books and especially in the books of
Genesis–Kings.”
98 Consider, for example, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd’s (2008:348, n. 18) acceptance of
the argument of Lust (2006:162–165) regarding ֶאלand ַעלin Ezekiel as detailed below,
§7.5, n. 148.
99 See, for example, Rezetko’s (2003: 233–235) discussion of the weqaṭal verb form. Despite
explicitly recognizing the classical iterative/durative function of the form, he evidently
does not exclude these cases from his totals of past weqaṭal forms. This is problematic,
because according to accepted theory, it is only the increased use of perfective past
weqaṭal forms that especially characterizes late biblical and extra-biblical material (see
below, §7.9). Also questionable is the same writer’s treatment (2003: 229–230; 2007:
173–174) of the order of the appositional element in combinations of the type ְׁשֹלמֹה
‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךSolomon the king’ versus ‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְׁשֹלמֹהKing Solomon’ (see below, §7.7).
36 chapter 1
accumulations are lacking generally deal with the First Temple Period.100 Were
the instability of the biblical text, i.e., the activity of post-biblical copyists, a
decisive factor in the penetration of late linguistic features into BH, we should
expect these features to be scattered throughout the canon more or less evenly,
not concentrated precisely in late material, as all of biblical literature, and not
just the latest, was subject to the vagaries of transmission in the hands of post-
biblical copyists. Whatever the level of textual instability in the ancient wit-
nesses to the Hebrew Bible, including the MT, it does not so blur or distort the
linguistic picture that one cannot reconstruct the general linguistic reality of
the biblical period on their basis with a high degree of probability.101
And finally, for most of the books in the Hebrew Bible, the MT obviously
presents the final version. For some books, it is true, there is evidence of
intermediate stages of literary development. Be that as it may, this does not
necessarily disqualify the Masoretic textual tradition from serving as a viable
linguistic witness for the various phases of BH. Indeed, linguistic arguments
have been brought to bear for purposes of dating the literary components
of several biblical compositions thought to be composite, for example, the
Priestly and Yahwistic material in the Pentateuch, ‘Second (or, according to
some, ‘Second’ and ‘Third’) Isaiah’, and the two halves of Zechariah.102 Or,
consider S.R. Driver’s (1898: 454–455) identification of a scribal gloss in Ruth
4.7, based partially on the presence there of the characteristically late form
‘ ִקּיֵ םestablish, confirm’. With specific regard to the language of the book of
Jeremiah, the difference between literary layers reflecting the ipsissima verba
of the prophet, the work of his scribe(s), and later insertions and additions,
especially section headings belonging to the editorial framework and the so-
called Masoretic pluses in comparison to the Greek text, for example, must
all be taken into consideration in a thorough diachronic examination. Again,
however, these issues merely complicate the diachronic picture; they do not
invalidate it. Historical linguistics has much to contribute to the discussion of
the literary formation of biblical texts and vice-versa.
100 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 24) entertain the possibility that it is late scribes
who are responsible for the relative lack of characteristically late linguistic features in
material generally considered early: “We do not know to what extent ‘late’ words found
only in LBH books may once have appeared in EBH books.” Aside from the impression
that this seems something of a rather implausible ‘conspiracy theory’, Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvärd furnish no evidence indicating that characteristically late forms in classi-
cal biblical texts were replaced with classical forms by late editors/copyists.
101 Hurvitz 2000a: 160, n. 63.
102 For linguistic approaches to dating P and J see above, n. 26; on ‘Second Isaiah’ and
Zechariah see above, n. 39.
introduction 37
103 The appreciation of creative historical conjecture within certain circles of biblical studies
is vividly illustrated in a critique by Albertz (2001) of Lemche 1993, in which the former
complains not of too much speculation on the part of the latter, but of too little: “During
all these years, I have to state, Lemche has not worked out any historical reconstruction
of the Hellenistic period. . . . I am no longer sure whether Niels Peter Lemche is interested
in Israelite and Jewish history at all, apart from deconstructing it. For the period when the
formative historical development of Judaism took place, according to his view, he has no
historical imagination” (Albertz 2001:37). Imagination and speculation are not unknown
in linguistic studies. To be sure, assumptions must be made where there are holes in the
data, and even where information is ample interpretations often involve at least some
degree of inventiveness. Even so, Hurvitz’ (1982:19) admonition seems apt: “It is true that
a certain measure of ingenuity is useful—and, perhaps, even necessary—in studies seek-
ing to interpret texts written millennia ago. But it should be borne in mind that whenever
speculation becomes the dominant element in one’s argumentation, it does more harm
than good.”
38 chapter 1
104 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: 129–142; Young 2008: 21–26; 2009: 621–626.
105 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 130.
106 See Dresher (2012: 24–30) for an example from the development of English and its rel-
evance to BH; see also Holmstedt 2012: 103. For examples of the early, sporadic use of
characteristically late linguistic features see above, n. 15.
introduction 39
since Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd they take great pains to provide non-
diachronic explanations for linguistic diversity in the Hebrew Bible. Due atten-
tion to multiple factors must precede mechanical tabulation.
Third, the selection of characteristically late linguistic features on which
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd base their counts is maximal, mixing late
elements of undisputed diachronic significance with elements of more dubi-
ous diagnostic value.
Fourth, the treatment of individual linguistic elements is sometimes super-
ficial, glossing over important details (see below).
Lastly, one wonders if the five-hundred-word limit provides for too small
a sampling to be representative of the language of some of the longer texts,
particularly in light of the aforementioned factor of frequency.107
At this point in the discussion it may be helpful to illustrate the aforemen-
tioned criticisms with concrete examples. Since they may be dated extra-
linguistically, the Arad Ostraca provide a useful test-case. According to a recent
test performed by Young (2009: 623–626), the Arad Ostraca (with a total of nine
late linguistic features) had the sixth highest incidence of late linguistic fea-
tures in the selection of texts examined, following portions of Ezra (25), Daniel
(24), Chronicles (22), Nehemiah (20), and Esther (17), but lower than (inter
alia) Pesher Habakkuk (6), Ben Sira (4), and Zechariah (3). Space precludes a
detailed examination of the evidence behind all these statistics, but brief com-
ment can be made on the specific collection of late linguistic features detected
in the Arad Ostraca.108 In several cases it is not the mere presence of the fea-
ture that indicates late linguistic tendencies—as these are in fact documented
in texts thought to be classical—but their increased or frequent use. This is
true of the placement of the substantive before the numeral; use of עלclassi-
cally ‘on, above, etc.’ instead of another preposition; the phrase ‘ על ידinto the
hand of’; unassimilated nun of ‘ מןfrom, of’; רצהmeaning ‘want’; לק"חin nifʿal
rather than qal internal passive meaning ‘be taken’; and theophoric יה- names.
Moreover, there are exegetical difficulties with many of these cases and others
107 Note the criticism of Zevit (2012: 464), that the five-hundred-word span is half that recom-
mended by Biber (1990: 258–261) for representing common grammatical features.
108 Young 2009: 623, 625, n. 66. According the totals given in Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd
(2008: I 132–136) the Arad Ostraca rank earlier than such texts as the Temple Scroll, por-
tions of Chronicles, and a copy of the Damascus Document, have a diachronically similar
profile to the Community Rule and the War Scroll, and pattern as later than such texts as
Pesher Habakkuk and Ben Sira. It is imperative to realize that this statistical methodology
is not simply the objective quantification of the standard diachronic approach, but itself
a subjectively selective mechanism the results of which often skew linguistic reality (see
further, below).
40 chapter 1
in the Arad Ostraca that raise questions concerning their relevance to the dis-
cussion or the significance of the statistics based thereupon. For instance, the
reading of past-oriented we-qaṭálti, rather than future-oriented we-qaṭaltí in
Arad 3.2–3 and 16.4 is a matter of exegetical and linguistic judgment—rightly
informed by diachronic considerations—and not a given.109 This, in turn,
affects the interpretation (and relevance) of the u-ḇ-qåṭlō-type infinitive with-
out preceding ‘ וַ יְ ִהיand it was’ in Arad 16.3, since the latter would certainly not
be expected in reference to the future and the same infinitive structure in ref-
erence to the future without preceding ‘ וְ ָהיָ הand it will be’ is not uncommon in
CBH. Besides, even if the reference is to the past, one wonders if the absence of
וַ יְ ִהיcould not be a product of genre: the document in question is a rather mat-
ter-of-fact, quotidian letter of instruction, not a piece of narrative literature.
In the case of the supposed theophoric יה- names in Arad 107.2 and 110.1–2,
even if these are correct readings and genuine examples of the category,110 the
statistics fail to disclose the fact that they are in any case vastly outnumbered
in the Arad corpus by the approximately 65 cases of names ending in more
typically classical יהו-. Significantly, problems and doubts of these kinds attach
to the late features tabulated in the other textual selections. The promising and
apparently objective statistical presentation is thus inadequate to the task. It
mechanically counts features without sensitivity to frequency (characteristic
versus uncharacteristic use) or to the full and complex array of factors contrib-
uting to linguistic diversity in ancient Hebrew. Further, it does not distinguish
between clear-cut cases and exegetical/linguistic cruxes. Since the interpreta-
tions of the latter are invariably characterized by some measure of subjectivity,
the statistics that represent them must not be viewed with the same certainty
as those representing unambiguous examples. Obviously, some of these prob-
lems are inherent in the method, while others involve the practitioner. It seems
clear that the former requires modification that goes beyond mere fine-tuning
and that its effective employment will demand more thoughtful and judicious
application than has hitherto been given. What is more, even with improve-
ment in the aforementioned areas, it is plain that the proposed method still
entails a substantial human—and, therefore, subjective—component.
It is also significant that, as noted above, the amount of linguistic material
shared by the classical and post-classical forms of ancient Hebrew is much
greater than that which divides them. This means that late linguistic features
in post-exilic texts will nearly always constitute a small minority of the totality
of features, the majority of which will be common to many historical strata
of Hebrew, the classical layer included. Also, whereas characteristically early
features in certain linguistic domains, especially vocabulary, were doubtless
fairly easy to imitate, the simulation of others, e.g., morphology and syntax,
was evidently much more challenging. With this in mind, it seems likely that
statistical presentations can provide a helpful picture only in the case of com-
monly occurring phenomena, but not necessarily in the case of the odd clas-
sical or post-classical lexeme or even a concentration of individual lexemes.
These observations do not negate the value of statistical measurement when
it comes to the diachronic approach to BH and the linguistic dating of biblical
texts, but they do demonstrate the danger of an overly simplistic statistical
method. The attempt of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd is somewhat reminis-
cent of that made by Giesebrecht (1881), which prompted the famous review
by S.R. Driver (1882: 203):
Giesebrecht’s facts are (with a few exceptions) correct: the use made
of them is not sufficiently discriminating. The tabular synopsis is plau-
sible and impressive: as the eye glances over it, the inferences which it
is intended to carry home seem clear and unanswerable. The same may
be said of the figures occurring so frequently in the later parts of the arti-
cle. But both labour under a radical defect: they number words instead
of weighing them; and when individual cases are examined, some cause
which cannot be tabulated may appear for the presence or absence of a
given word in a particular writing. In other words, the ostensible cause,
apparent from the table or the enumeration, may not be the real cause
which led to the employment of the word or phrase [emphasis in the
original].
for dating flawed, especially uncritical claims regarding the classification and
chronological significance of ‘Aramaisms’.111 The diagnostic value of loans from
Akkadian and Persian must also be properly estimated.112 There is thus general
agreement that a reasonable approach to the periodization of BH and biblical
texts should entail a balanced view of the relevance of foreign loanwords. It
is interesting to note that the cautious approach with which practitioners of
the current diachronic method treat potential loanwords deviates very little
from that adopted by S.R. Driver more than a century ago: the accumulation of
genuine foreign loanwords from Aramaic, (late) Akkadian, or Persian is a reli-
able indicator of a late date of composition.113
In light of the circumspect approach to foreign loans already regularly prac-
ticed in the diachronic investigation of BH, the assessment of Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvärd regarding their significance for purposes of dating biblical
texts114 seems excessively critical and negative. Their discussion creates an
impression of great uncertainty in this realm, which, while not a complete mis-
representation of the situation, fails to convey the crucial fact that in most of
the relevant cases a foreign lexeme’s origin and late penetration into Hebrew
emerge clearly from the ancient sources. A minority of uncertain cases does
not invalidate a majority of sure evidence.
Somewhat emblematic of their approach is the attempt to undermine the
diagnostic value of Persianisms for the late dating of texts. To this end, Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd emphasize the apparently early attestation in BH
of forms whose Persian pedigree is dubious at best,115 among them the well-
111 See S.R. Driver’s (1882) review of Giesebrecht 1881; Nöldeke’s (1903) review of Kautzsch
1902; Hurvitz’ (1968) and Kutscher’s (1971: 358–361) reviews of Wagner 1966. See also
Kutscher 1982: §100; Hurvitz 2003.
112 Consider the careful and balanced formulation of Eskhult (2003: 12): “[T]he excess of
Akkadian and Persian loanwords is a clear characteristic of the later language” [emphasis
added: ADH].
113 Note the thoughtful discussion in S.R. Driver 1882; 1913: 156, 449–450, 501, n. *. On loan-
words in general in biblical literature see Tur-Sinai 1938a; Ellenbogen 1962; Rabin 1962;
Kutscher 1982§§69–76, 105. On loanwords from specific languages see the following:
Aramaic – Kautzsch 1902; Wagner 1966; Egyptian – Lambdin 1953; Muchiki 1999; Akkadian
– Mankowski 2000; Persian – Seow 1996: 646–654; Eskhult 2003: 12–14; Wright: 2005: 113–
120. On the issue of dating biblical compositions on the basis of foreign loans see Tur-
Sinai 1965; Hurvitz 1968; 2003; Kutscher 1982: §§70, 75, 105; Seow 1996: 646–654, 657–660;
Mankowski 2000: 173–175; Eskhult 2003; Young 1993: 66–72; 2003c: 314–317; Wright 2005:
113–120; Holmstedt 2012: 104–109.
114 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 280–311.
115 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 303–309 (see also Young 1993: 69–71). In their
opinion biblical scholars have not given sufficient consideration to the potential Persian
extraction of certain terms of unknown origin precisely because they predetermined the
introduction 43
known crux ( ֵאׁש ָּדתDeut 33.2 qre; ktiv: )אשדת, which, with the support of most
of the Ancient Versions, the three scholars take as obvious and unassailable
evidence for the use of the Persian word ‘ ָּדתlaw’ in the Pentateuch.116 Such an
approach, of course, is extremely problematic. As they themselves point out,
there is no unanimity among the Ancient Versions.117 Even the testimony of
the MT is divided, as the difference between the written and reading traditions
demonstrates.118 Finally, there are numerous alternative solutions for the prob-
lem, not all of them requiring textual emendation.119 In sum: a few individual
forms of unknown origin are not sufficient to negate the diagnostic value of
foreign loans in general.
impossibility of an early Persian loan in the Bible. However, even if one accepts the theo-
retical possibility of a Persian loanword in CBH (see, for example, S.R. Driver 1913: 449,
n. †, and the cautions formulation of Eskhult already cited above, n. 112), the Persian
origin of the alleged Persianisms listed by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd remains far
from certain. To be sure, in the majority of cases, alternative explanations seem much
more likely. At any rate, it should be stressed that the use of Persian loanwords—whether
potential or certain—is not nearly as characteristic of works considered classical as it is of
works considered post-classical. Therefore, on the basis of the provisional linguistic pro-
file of books considered early, the proposed Persian extraction of early loans of question-
able origin should be resisted in favor of more probable alternative explanations. On the
diagnostic status of Persian loans for the late dating of biblical compositions see Hurvitz
1974a: 17; 1983a: 219; Seow 1996: 647; Eskhult 2003; Noegel and Rendsburg 2009: 174–179;
Holmstedt 2012: 107.
116 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: 303–304.
117 The Samaritan Pentateuch: ( אשדתktiv), ( אש דתqre); the Vulgate: ignea lex; Targum
Onkelos: ( אישתא אוריתאsee also the other targums); cf. the Greek: ἄγγελοι μετ᾿ αυτοῦ;
the Peshiṭta: ܝܗܒ ݂ .
118 Margulis 1969: 206.
119 For a variety of suggestions see, among others, Ball 1896: 119; Cassuto 1928: 235; Nyberg
1938: 335; Cross and Freedman 1948: 199, n. 11; Beeston 1951; Miller 1964: 242; Seeligman
1964: 77; Dahood 1965: 52; G.R. Driver 1967: 50–51; Freedman 1980; Rendsburg 1980a;
Steiner 1996: 693–696.
44 chapter 1
122 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: II 84–85) attempt to exploit the case of ַמ ְלכּות
‘kingdom, reign’ to critique the accepted diachronic model. Unfortunately, the model
they scrutinize is not the cautious and nuanced one generally advocated by Hebraists,
but rather a crude oversimplification thereof. In their estimation, if a feature is defined
as characteristically late, then any text in which it is found should also be so defined;
conversely, if it can be shown on the basis of a feature’s appearance in classical material—
even sporadic appearance—that it was available for use at an early date, then the word
cannot be classified as characteristically late. Of course, such arguments are facile; they
betray an approach to linguistic change that does not comprehend the complex reality of
historical development. The determination of the exact initial date of use of a suspected
late feature is not unimportant, but in many cases of greater import is the determination
of when the usage of said feature became especially characteristic of the speech or writ-
ing of a generation of language users. In the specific case of ַמ ְלכּותit is clear that this was
not the classical period, since, despite its availability and notwithstanding many contexts
affording opportunities for its use, it is extremely rare. In the later period, on the other
hand, its use is typical of various languages, cultures, and genres (for details see below,
§8.6).
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (ibid.) assert that the issue is merely one of style.
But matters of style can also have diachronic significance, especially if the stylistic fea-
ture in question is reflected widely in the language of a specific generation of language
users, but appears only sporadically—i.e., not characteristically—in the language of an
earlier or later generation of users (see Polak 2003). An illustrative example involves the
Babylonian month names, which served in Akkadian already in the pre-biblical period,
and which, therefore, were—at least theoretically—available for use by writers of CBH
(there is documentation of the use of these names in Canaan in Assyrian tablets from the
7th century bce discovered at Gezer; see De Vaux 1965: I 185). Be that as it may, as is well
46 chapter 1
feature is only one piece of evidence in the linguistic argument for late
composition, which must be confirmed or refuted on the basis of an accumula-
tion of multiple features. The possibility that a given late feature in an other-
wise apparently classical context is a result of literary or textual development
should also be considered (see above, §1.4.6).
known, these names do not appear in biblical material considered classical (which occa-
sionally employ the old Canaanite names, but more commonly use ordinal numbers).
Their use in Hebrew is known only from biblical and extra-biblical texts from after the
Exile (see Hurvitz 2012: 268–269; forthcoming).
123 S.R. Driver 1898: 504–505, n. *; Hurvitz 1982: 152–153, n. 36; 2007: 25; Talshir 2003; Wright
2005: 154. See also Knauf 2006: 310–311.
introduction 47
124 See the convenient introduction in Wenham 1979: 8–13. The introduction in Hartley
1992: xxxv–xliii reflects the complex nature of the various approaches to the origin of the
Priestly material and the difficulty of finding a consensus. See also Zevit 1982 and the list
of scholars provided in Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 13. Of course, it should
also be noted that there is a lack of consensus on the date of P even among practitioners
48 chapter 1
Third, contrary to the claim that those involved in the diachronic inves-
tigation of BH rely exclusively on linguistic evidence, Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd themselves (2008: I 62–63) note examples of the integration of
various sorts of evidence by proponents of the linguistic approach.125 The
contention of the present study is not that the dating of biblical texts need
be purely linguistic, but that whatever non-linguistic approaches are adopted,
it is to their detriment that they ignore the linguistic dimension. Given the
nature of the data—limited, often fragmentary, and frequently ambiguous
even where abundant—it is inevitable that there be differences of opinion,
sometimes significant, regarding exactly how such methodologies are to be
integrated. Yet, if the certainty of conclusions reached on the basis of the con-
trolled linguistic methods described and applied herein is undermined by the
difficult conditions of working with ancient Semitic texts, how much more so
conclusions reached by means of non-linguistic approaches, in which schol-
ars’ subjective interpretations of these same data seems the chief component.
The call here is for serious attention to linguistic evidence in the pursuit of
literary periodization.
of the linguistic approach, with several arguing for an exilic or post-exilic date of compo-
sition (see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 16–17).
125 For an instructive example see above, §1.4.6, and the more detailed discussion below cited
there. Supporters of the diachronic approach routinely consider non-diachronic explana-
tions. Moreover, their treatment of these non-diachronic explanations is frequently much
more detailed and thorough than that of the dissenters. See, for example, S.R. Driver 1898:
188, n. *, 449, n. *, 553, n. †; Hurvitz 1968; 1972: 179–181; 2003; Kutscher 1982: §§79, 99;
Rendsburg 1990a; 1990b; 1991; 1992a; 1992b; 1995; 2002a; 2002b; 2006a; 2006b; Schniedewind
and Sivan 1997; Wright 2003. The apparent preference for diachronic explanations among
those involved in the issue should not necessarily be interpreted as deriving from preju-
dice in favor of the diachronic approach, but from serious consideration of the alternative
explanations, according to which the former is judged more reasonable than the latter.
126 One line of criticism found in both Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: passim) and
several of the studies critical of their book, e.g., Holmstedt 2012 and Naudé 2012, is the fail-
ure in much diachronic research on Hebrew to interact seriously with current approaches
to historical linguistics based on the study of non-Semitic languages. This is a valid point
introduction 49
and the addition of research in this vein, such as the aforementioned studies, along with
Dresher 2012 and Kim 2012, is a welcome development. However, incorporation of the
theories and methods developed in studies of this sort brings with it no guaranty of reli-
able conclusions, as Zevit (2012: 462–465) has demonstrated by detailing the superficial
treatment and misapplication of several relevant studies in the research by Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd.
127 Major examples include criticism of what they consider the standard superficial approach
to loanwords and the need for considering non-diachronic alternatives to the diachronic
explanation of non-standard linguistic features and compositions characterized by the
use of non-standard language.
128 This superficiality manifests itself in different ways: a few lines of perfunctory refutation
of detailed arguments that have taken well-respected scholars pages to lay out; the fail-
ure to distinguish between more and less meaningful data (for example, most scholars
would consider the concentration of Persian vocabulary in a given text a sure sign of late
provenance, whereas the fluctuation between the prepositions ֶאלand ַעל, though indeed
more common in late than in early texts, should probably be considered less securely
diagnostic, as it occurs a not inconsiderable number of times in works considered early,
including, perhaps, pre-exilic inscriptional evidence; see below, §7.5).
129 Consider, for example, the reference made by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 60) to
Blau (1976: 1), cited explicitly in opposition to the accepted linguistic approach to the peri-
odization of BH: “We do not possess any objective criteria for fixing the accurate date of the
50 chapter 1
biblical books” (emphasis that of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd). Now, in light of Blau’s
opinion as expressed later in the same work (ibid.: 2) and in studies dealing specifically
with the historical phases of the Hebrew language (1978; 1997; 1998), which argue, cru-
cially, that three historical phases can be discerned in BH, it would seem that Blau’s point
was that there are no objective criteria for fixing the absolute date at which each biblical
book was composed—on which there is unanimous consensus among those involved
in diachronic research—and not that objective criteria for the relative dating of biblical
literature are totally lacking.
130 See Tiemeyer (2011), who, though accepting a post-exilic date of composition for such
prophetic passages as Isa 18–23, 24–27, 56–66, Ezek 7 and 28, and Zech 9–14, perceptively
underscores the highly subjective nature of literary arguments for the Hellenisitc dating
of such material. It is hoped that the present work’s responses to criticism of the linguistic
approach to dating biblical texts will suffice to assuage at least some of the doubts raised
by Tiemeyer (ibid.: 256–261) regarding this methodology.
chapter 2
The principal objective of the present study is to situate the language of the
book of Jeremiah within the broader history of the Hebrew language. As argued
in the introductory chapter, attempts (some recent) to discredit the standard
linguistic approach to dating biblical and extra-biblical texts, while no-doubt
judged by some as conclusively damning, are here considered unconvincing.1 It
remains a valuable paradigm and, as such, is adopted in the present study with
slight modification so that the language of Jeremiah may be correctly located
not only within BH, but within ancient Hebrew more generally. For this rea-
son, the criterion of Late Distribution is understood here to include Jeremiah
and other likely exilic/transitional material as well as LBH, non-Masoretic, and
post-biblical Hebrew, and late Aramaic, rather than just LBH.
Comparison with other texts proceeds from those biblical and extra-
biblical sources that can be unequivocally dated—both linguistically and non-
linguistically—to the later period through those extra-biblical inscriptions
that can be dated—non-linguistically—to the early period to bodies of biblical
text dated linguistically to the classical, transitional, and late periods. Since the
linguistic approach to dating has been deemed viable both here and elsewhere
in recent scholarship, its results regarding the classical dating of large portions
of the Hebrew Bible, e.g., the Torah and the Former Prophets, are accepted as
reliable. This is not to say that the Hebrew of, say, Genesis–Kings is homog-
enous, nor that this material is entirely lacking in characteristically late fea-
tures, but that notwithstanding fluctuations, these texts present a consistently
more classical linguistic profile than transitional and LBH sources. Statistically
speaking, a given corpus, for instance, P, may betray a typically late tendency
in one or even a few categories, e.g., use of ֲאנִ יrather than ( ָאנ ִֹכיsee below, §4.1),
which may or may not necessitate a diachronic explanation, but these pale
in comparison to the multiple categories of characteristically late elements
present in high concentrations in all extant LBH, late non-Masoretic, and post-
biblical Hebrew sources. Summary judgments regarding the date of a given
composition based on only one or a few features must be avoided in favor of
descriptions taking into account accumulations of multiple features.
1 Far from being the isolated view of the present author, this opinion seems to hold general
sway among Hebrew specialists, as seen in the majority of the relevant articles in such col-
lections as Young 2003a, Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) and 47 (2006), and Miller-Naudé and Zevit
2012, as well as in Joosten 2012a.
While the book of Jeremiah has garnered a great deal of scholarly attention
over the years—with research focused on such topics as its theology; the per-
sonality of the prophet and the nature of his prophecy; the historical portrait
presented by the book; its literary development, editing, and textual transmis-
sion (especially in view of the striking differences between the MT and the
Greek, on which see below, §9); and its dependence on, use of, or affiliation
with other biblical material2—its language has been relatively little discussed.
This is not to say that scholars have totally ignored linguistic issues in relation
to the book. Some who have investigated the aforementioned topics, espe-
cially those who have sought to identify the book’s component literary layers
and those interested in uncovering connections between the book and other
biblical material, like Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, have
displayed sensitivity to language. By and large, however, these studies have
focused on style (e.g., characteristic vocabulary and phraseology), refraining
from a comprehensive examination of the language of the book from the per-
spective of historical linguistics.
The three most significant studies of the language of Jeremiah are articles
by Stipp (1997) and Joosten (2008), both of which deal with linguistic differ-
ences between the purported short Hebrew text thought to stand behind
the Greek translation and the longer Masoretic edition (see below, §9.2.2), and
C. Smith’s (2003) dissertation, which focuses mainly on morphology and high-
lights what the author considers linguistic features especially characteristic of
Jeremiah’s Benjaminite dialect (see below, §2.3).
2 Space precludes a detailed bibliographical survey of these topics. Besides the various
introductions to biblical literature and the relevant commentaries, the interested reader is
encouraged to consult Robinson 1924; Bright 1951; 1966; Holladay 1960; 1975; Hyatt 1961; 1967;
Weinfeld 1972; Thiel 1973–1981; Weippert 1973; Perdue 1984; Lundbom 1992; Friedman 1997;
Lipiński and Sperling 1997; Parke-Taylor 2000.
the language of the book of jeremiah 53
For the most part, the language of the book of Jeremiah exhibits a classical
aspect. It lacks unequivocal linguistic marks of post-exilic composition, e.g., a
striking accumulation of characteristically late features relative to its length.
There are no obvious Persianisms or Grecisms, though, it should be noted that
still later texts, including, for example, many of the non-biblical DSS, also lack
such obvious signs of lateness. The book’s language does, however, present
a considerable number of cases of late Aramaic influence together with fea-
tures especially characteristic of the latest phases of ancient Hebrew, such as
LBH, DSS Hebrew, and RH. It even contains a few features first documented in
Jeremiah that are totally lacking in LBH proper and which are not found again
until post-biblical sources. Now, one should not necessarily chalk up every
non-standard linguistic feature in the book of Jeremiah to historical develop-
ment of the language; alternative factors, such as regional variation, diglos-
sia, literary device, genre, and editorial or scribal intervention must also be
weighed. Be that as it may, evidence of diachronic development often proves
more convincing than other types of evidence.
Orthography and phonology: the plene spellings ‘ יעקובJacob’ (§3.1.1) and the
strong qal infinitive construct §( (ל)קטול3.1.3); the shift from צto זin deriva-
tives of the root ‘ זע"קcry out, muster’ (§3.4); proper names ending in the
abbreviated theophoric suffix יה- (§3.5); the spelling/pronunciation ירושלים
‘Jerusalem’, with the triphthong ayi marked by §( י3.6); the shift from צto ׂשin
derivatives of ‘ ׂשח"קlaugh, play’ (§3.7); ‘ נבוכדנאצרNebuchadnezzar’ with nun
(§3.8); derivatives of the root ‘ רפ"אheal’ on the ל"יpattern (§3.9).
Pronominal morphology: the preference for 1cs ֲאנִ יover ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ and the condi-
tioned use of the latter (§4.1); 1cpl ‘ אנוwe’ (§4.3); 3mpl ‘ ֵה ָּמהthey’ (§4.5); 3mpl
יהם
ֶ ֹות-/ם
ֵ ֶ ◌ ֵׁת- ‘their’ (§4.6).
יה
Nominal morphology: the qå̄ṭōl pattern (§5.1); the qĕṭå̄l pattern (§5.2).
Verbal morphology: the full/long yiqṭol form in wayyiqṭol (§6.1); verbal forms
derived from the root ‘ חי"יlive’ on the ל"יpattern (§6.2).
54 chapter 2
Syntax: the accusative particle -אֹות/- אֹתin place of the preposition -‘ ִאּתwith’
(§7.2); non-standard use of directional he (ָ◌ה-; §7.3); use of the preposi-
tion - לwith verbs denoting locative movement (§7.4); interchange of the
prepositions ֶאלand §( ַעל7.5); accusative use of the preposition -§( ל7.5);
the order of the appositive in the expression ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX ‘X the king’ (§7.7); use
of weqaṭal to mark perfective past (§7.9); use of the infinitive absolute in
place of finite verbal forms (§7.10); the double plural construct chain (§7.11);
combinations of the type X- ְ וX (‘ )ּכֹלall/every X’ with distributive force
(§7.12).
Lexicon: ‘ ִּד ֵּברword of God’ (§8.1); the plural of ‘ ַחיִ לforce’ (§8.2); ‘ ח ִֹריםnobles’
(§8.3); the semantic shift of the gentilic הּודי ִ ְ‘ יJudahite, Jew’ (§8.4); nominal
use of יֹומם
ָ ‘day’ (§8.5); ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom’ (§8.6); ‘ נט"רwatch, guard’ (§8.7); ער"ב
‘be pleasant’ (§8.8); ‘ ֲע ֶת ֶרתwealth’ (§8.9); ּוסגָ נִ ים
ְ ‘ ַּפחֹותgovernors and prefects’
(§8.10); ‘ ַרבgreat man, noble, officer’ (§8.11); רּוח ַ ‘cardinal direction’ (§8.12); ָרץ
‘messenger’ (§8.13).
Late linguistic features found in Jeremiah, LBH, and post-biblical Hebrew: the
plene spellings of the proper name ‘ יעקובJacob’ (§3.1.1) and of the strong qal
infinitive construct §( (ל)קטול3.1.3); the shift from צto זin derivatives of the
root ‘ זע"קcry out, muster’ (§3.4); proper names ending in the abbreviated
theophoric suffix יה- (§3.5); the spelling/pronunciation ‘ ירושליםJerusalem’
(§3.6); ‘ נבוכדנאצרNebuchadnezzar’ with nun (§3.8); derivatives of the root רפ"א
‘heal’ on the ל"יpattern (§3.9); the preference for ֲאנִ יover ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ and the con-
ditioned use of the latter (§4.1); ‘ ֵה ָּמהthey’ (§4.5); ֹות ֶיהם-/ם
ֵ ֶ ◌ ֵׁת- ‘their’ (§4.6);
יה
̄
the qĕṭål pattern (§5.2); the long yiqṭol form in wayyiqṭol (§6.1); verbal forms
derived from the root ‘ חי"יlive’ on the ל"יpattern (§6.2); the accusative par-
ticle -אֹות/- אֹתin place of the preposition -‘ ִאּתwith’ (§7.2); non-standard use of
directional he (ָ◌ה-; §7.3); use of the preposition - לwith verbs denoting locative
movement (§7.4); interchange of the prepositions ֶאלand §( ַעל7.5); accusative
use of the preposition -§( ל7.6); the order of the appositive in the expression
ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX ‘X the king’ (§7.7); use of weqaṭal to mark perfective past (§7.9); use of
the infinitive absolute in place of finite verbal forms (§7.10); the double plural
construct chain (§7.11); combinations of the type X- ְ וX (‘ )ּכֹלall/every X’ with
distributive force (§7.12); the plural of ‘ ַחיִ לforce’ (§8.2); ‘ ח ִֹריםnobles’ (§8.3);
the semantic shift of the gentilic הּודי ִ ְ‘ יJudahite, Jew’ (§8.4); nominal use of
יֹומםָ ‘day’ (§8.5); ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ (§8.6); ‘ נט"רwatch, guard’ (§8.7); ַּפחֹות
ְ ‘governors and prefects’ (§8.10); ‘ ַרבgreat man, noble, officer’ (§8.11); רּוח
ּוסגָ נִ ים ַ
‘cardinal direction’ (§8.12).
Late linguistic features found in Jeremiah and post-biblical Hebrew, but not in
LBH: the shift from צto ׂשin derivatives of ‘ ׂשח"קlaugh, play’ (§3.7); ‘ אנוwe’
(§4.4); the qå̄ṭōl pattern (§5.1); ‘ ִּד ֵּברword of God’ (§8.1); ‘ ער"בbe pleasant’
(§8.8); ‘ ֲע ֶת ֶרתwealth’ (§8.9).
Late linguistic features found in Jeremiah and LBH, but not in post-biblical
Hebrew: ‘ ָרץmessenger’ (§8.13).
אמ ֣רּון ְל ֔הֹום ְ ‘ ִּכ ְדנָ ֙ה ֵּתThus will you say to them:
ְ “ ֱא ָל ַ֣ה ָּ֔יא ִ ּֽדThe gods who did not make the heavens
י־ׁש ַמ ָּי֥א וְ ַא �ר ָ ְ֖קא ָל֣א ֲע ַ ֑בדּו
and the earth—
ן־ּת ֥חֹות ְׁש ַמ ָּי֖א ֵ ֽא ֶּלה׃
ְ ּומ ֧ ַ ֵ יthese will perish from the earth and
ִ אבדּו ֵ ֽמ ַא ְר ָ ֛עא
from under the heavens.” ’5
5 Some commentators see this verse as a late addition to Jer 10 (e.g., McKane 1986–1996: I 218).
Others consider it an integral part of the chapter (e.g., Holladay 1986–1989: I 322–335) or,
at the very least, an independent expression that was inserted into the context at or near
the time of the chapter’s composition (Lundbom 1999–2004: I 593–595; in Codex Leningrad,
Codex Aleppo, and 4QJerb there are spaces before and after the verse). It is noteworthy that
the verse is reflected in all of the ancient textual witnesses, including the two fragments from
the DSS that include the relevant section (4QJera and 4QJerb). It is also worth pointing out
that the last two lines of the verse have a chiastic structure: a-b-c-d || d′-c′-b′-a′. Accordingly,
‘ ֵ ֽא ֶּלהthese’ at the end of the verse does not modify ‘ ְׁש ַמ ָּי֖אheavens’, but rather serves as the
subject of its clause (corresponding chiastically to ‘ ֱא ָל ַ֣ה ָּ֔יאgods’; this interpretation is sup-
ported by the disjunctive accent [ṭip̄ ḥa] on the word ‘ ְׁש ַמ ָּי֖אheavens’ in the last line). On
the assumption that evidence of the verse’s date may be drawn from its language (although,
admittedly, its brevity makes this a highly speculative enterprise), it should be noted that the
Aramaic word for ‘earth’ is written in both its early form, ( ארקcf. the same spelling in the
inscriptions from Tell Fekheriye [KAI 309.2] and Tel Dan [KAI 310.4] from the 9th century
bce, from the inscriptions of Zakkur [KAI 202 B.26], Panamu [KAI 214.5, 6, 7, 10; 215.5, 7, 14],
Barrakib [Zinjirli; KAI 216.4; 217.2], and Sefire [KAI 222 A1.26, 28; A2.27; B1.8; C.6] from the 8th
century bce, and from the Saqqara papyrus [KAI 266.2] from the end of the 7th or beginning
of the 6th century bce), and in its later form, ( ארעwhich is apparently first documented
in the Elephantine material from the 5th century bce). It is interesting that there is other
material from the 5th century bce that, like Jer 10.11, exhibits a mixture of this word’s classi-
cal and late spellings, e.g., ‘Whoever shall institute against you (suit) in my name about that
land ( )ארקאshall give you silver, 20, that is twenty, karsh by the stone(-weight)s of the king,
silver 2 q(uarters) to the ten, and that land ( )וארקאis likewise yours and you are withdrawn
from any suit (in) which they shall complain against you on account of that land (’)ארעא
(TAD B2.2 14–16, which is dated to the 21st year of Xerxes I, i.e., to approximately 465 bce).
Baumgartner (1927: 101) proposed a 5th-century date of composition for Jer 10.11; cf. Coxon
(1979: 17), who warns against conclusions that go beyond the evidence. The combination
‘ מארעאfrom the earth’ is a hapax legomenon in Aramaic; 4QJerb has the more common מן
ארעא. The form ‘ אלהthese’ was once considered an obvious Hebraism, but several cases
have since been discovered in Egyptian Aramaic (e.g., TAD A3 9.5; A6 11.3).
58 chapter 2
(a) Aramaic loans: the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern (§5.2); ‘ ח ִֹריםnobles’ (§8.3);
nominal use of יֹומם ָ ‘day’ (§8.5); ‘ נט"רwatch, guard’ (§8.7); ‘ ַרבgreat man,
noble, officer’ (§8.11).
(b) Loans from Akkadian introduced via Aramaic: ‘ נבוכדנאצרNebuchadnez-
zar’ with nun (§3.8); ּוסגָ נִ ים ְ ‘ ַּפחֹותgovernors and prefects’ (§8.10); רּוח
ַ ‘car-
dinal direction’ (§8.12); ‘ ָרץmessenger’ (§8.13).
(c) Aramaic influence and the late preference for certain native Hebrew ele-
ments: the shift from צto זin derivatives of the root ‘ זע"קcry out, muster’
(§3.4); the preference for ֲאנִ יover ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ and the conditioned use of the
latter (§4.1); ֹות ֶיהם-/ם
ֵ ֶ ◌ ֵׁת- ‘their’ (§4.6); the qå̄ṭōl pattern (§5.1); verbal
יה
forms derived from the root ‘ חי"יlive’ on the ל"יpattern (§6.2); the accusa-
tive particle -אֹות/- אֹתin place of the preposition -‘ ִאּתwith’ (§7.2); use of
the preposition - לwith verbs denoting locative movement (§7.4); accu-
sative use of the preposition -§( ל7.6); the order of the appositive in the
expression ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX ‘X the king’ (§7.7); the plural of ‘ ַחיִ לforce’ (§8.2); ַמ ְלכּות
‘kingdom, reign’ (§8.6).
(d) The role of Aramaic in the late reappearance of archaic Hebrew ele-
ments: the 2fs endings ִ◌י- in ‘ אתיyou’ (ktiv), כי- ִ , and ּתי-
ִ (§4.2); 3fs קטלת
(§4.3); 3fpl §( קטלה4.7).
the language of the book of jeremiah 59
The admixture of classical and late linguistic elements: זע"קand ‘ צע"קcry out,
muster’ (§3.4); proper names ending in both forms of the theophoric suffix,
יה- and יהו- (§3.5); the spellings/pronunciations ירושליםand ‘ ירושלםJerusalem’
(§3.6); ‘ נבוכדנאצרNebuchadnezzar’ with nun and resh (§3.8); derivatives of the
root ‘ רפ"אheal’ on the ל"יand ל"אpattern (§3.9); ֲאנִ יand ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ (§4.1); ֵה ָּמהand
‘ ֵהםthey’; §4.5); יהם ֶ ֹות-/ם
ֵ ֶ ◌ ֵׁת- and ֹותם-/ם
יה ָ ◌ ָׁת- ‘their’ (§4.6); the qå̄ṭōl pattern
and other nominal patterns for the nomen agentis (§5.1); the short and long
yiqṭol form in wayyiqṭol (§6.1); verbal forms derived from the root ‘ חי"יlive’ on
the ל"יand the ע"עpatterns (§6.2); use of the preposition ‘ ֵאתwith’ (§7.1) and
its replacement with the accusative particle -אֹות/- אֹתin the sense ‘with’ (§7.2);
standard and non-standard use of directional he (ָ◌ה-; §7.3); use of the prepo-
sition - לalong with classical alternatives with verbs denoting locative move-
ment (§7.4); interchange of the prepositions ֶאלand §( ַעל7.5); nominal and
adverbial use of יֹומם ָ ‘day’ and nominal use of §( יֹום8.5); ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’
and classical alternatives (§8.6); ‘ נט"רwatch, guard’ and classical alternatives
(§8.7); ֲע ֶת ֶרתand ‘ עׁש"רwealth’ (§8.9); ַרבand classical alternatives ‘great man,
noble, officer’ (§8.11); ‘ ָרץmessenger’ and classical alternatives (§8.13).
60 chapter 2
‘property, wealth’; ָל ַקח ִא ָּׁשה( נָ ָׂשא ִא ָּׁשה16.2; 29.6) ‘marry, take as wife’; נִ ְׁש ְּתוָ ן
( ֵס ֶפר29.1, 25, 29) ‘letter’; ֵקץ( סֹוף13.6; 34.14; 42.7; 50.26; 51.13) ‘end’; - ַעד( ַעד לfre-
quently) ‘until’; ָח ֵצר( ֲעזָ ָרה19.14; 26.2) ‘courtyard, enclosure’; קו"ם( עמ"ד1.17; 6.17,
and frequently) ‘stand up, arise; erect’; ֵח ֶפץ) צ ֶֹרְך22.28; 48.38); ָׁש ַמע( ִק ֵּבל2.4;
3.13, 25, et al.; ָל ַקח2.30; 5.3; 7.28, et al.) ‘receive’; ֵה ִקים( ִקּיֵ ם11.5; 23.20; 28.6; 29.10;
30.24; 33.14; 34.18; 35.16; 44.25) ‘erect, establish’; ספ"ן( קר"י22.14) ‘form a ceiling’;
Babylonian month names (month names corresponding to ordinal numerals
1.3; 28.1, 17; 36.9, 22; 39.1, 2; 41.1; 52.4, 6, 12); חז"ק( תק"ף5.3; 8.5; 10.4 et al.; גב"ר9.2;
עצ"ם30.14, 15) ‘attack, overpower’.
Other classical tendencies to be noted in the language of Jeremiah include:6
consistent use of weqaṭal rather than yiqṭol in verb-initial apodoses of condi-
tional clauses (in clauses headed by ‘ ִאםif’ weqaṭal heads the apodosis in 12
of 14 cases);7 frequent use of the particle of entreaty or logical consequence
( נָ א30x total);8 preservation of nun paragogicum (8x);9 regular employment
of imperatival (11x)10 and, especially, paronomastic infinitives absolute (62x);11
repeated employment of sequences of commands of the type imperative +
weqaṭal (15x) and of the type infinitive absolute + weqaṭal (11 of the 16 exam-
ples in the Hebrew Bible).12
6 The author expresses his gratitude to the anonymous reviewer who suggested that this
study would be more comprehensive if it included reference to the phenomena discussed
in this paragraph.
7 Weqaṭal: Jer 4.1–2; 7.5–7(?); 12.16, 17; 17.24–25, 27; 22.4; 26.4–6; 38.17, 18; 42.10, 15–16. Yiqṭol:
Jer 15.19 (2x?). After — ִּכיweqaṭal: Jer 5.19; 15.2; 16.10–11; 23.33; 25.28; 29.13–14; 38.25–26.
See Kropat 1909: 70–71, 73–74; Rooker 1990 120–122; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; Van Peursen
2004: 134–135, 354–357, 359; 361–362; 407–408; JM §176. For a potential example, see below
§6.2.1, n. 491.
8 2x with ‘ אֹויalas’, 1x after the volitional negator ַאלwith a negative command, 27x with a
cohortative, command, or jussive. See Bendavid 1967–1971: I 67; Polzin 1976: 145; Eskhult
1990: 87, 107; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117; Van Peursen 2004: 192–193, 199, 407.
9 S.R. Driver 1913: 30–31; Qimron 1986: 15; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 118, 142; C. Smith 2003: 72–79;
Van Peursen 2004: 100–101, 402; JM §§44e–f. See C. Smith 2003: 72–79 for an attempt to
account for the presence of this nun with object suffixes on the basis of regional variation.
10 For the relevant citations see Hornkohl 2012: 279, n. 1396. More generally see Kropat 1909:
23, 72; Polzin 1976: 43–44; Hurvitz 1982: 121–123, 166–167; Kutscher 1982:§122; Qimron 1986:
47–48; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 118, 126; Van Peursen 2004: 277, 282, 402; JM §§49b, 123u.
11 For the relevant citations see Hornkohl 2012: 279, n. 1396. See also Polzin 1976: 43–44;
Hurvitz 1982: 121–123, 166–167; Qimron 47–48; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 118, 144–145; Van
Peursen 2004: 277, 279–280; JM §§49b, 123d.
12 Fassberg 2006: 57. To be sure, the dominant sequence in Jeremiah is imperative +
imperative (about 70 cases), which, while not unknown in CBH, becomes the dominant
sequence in LBH with the decreased usage of both the weqaṭal and the infinitive absolute,
62 chapter 2
13 The differences between urban and rural dialects, like those in the colloquial Arabic of
Israel and Palestine today, should also be kept in mind. In this case, too, however, the
validity of any argument is severely handicapped by a dearth of incontrovertible evidence
for ancient village dialects.
the language of the book of jeremiah 65
shift from צto ׂשin derivatives of ‘ ׂשח"קlaugh, play’ (§3.7); derivatives of the
root ‘ רפ"אheal’ on the ל"יpattern (§3.9); the preference for ֲאנִ יover ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ and
the conditioned use of the latter (§4.1); ‘ אנוwe’ (§4.4); ֹות ֶיהם-/ם
ֵ ֶ ◌ ֵׁת- ‘their’
יה
(§4.6); ‘ זאתהthis’ (ktiv; §4.7) non-standard use of directional he (ָ◌ה-; §7.3); ִּד ֵּבר
‘word of God’ (§8.1).
to its linguistic profile, the second half of the book appears to be a later
composition than the first half, a situation that would appear to confirm the
relevant pillar in the classical approaches of Duhm (1901) and Mowinckel
(1914), who held that the poetic material in chapters 1–25 is based on authen-
tic Jeremianic material, with most of the rest of the book made up of various
later component parts. Even so, one should not demand from the data more
than they can provide: generally speaking, the linguistic character of the first
half of the book corresponds to a date of composition near the end of the First
Temple Period or in the Exile, while the linguistic character of the second half
of the book—again, generally—appears to be later, but not as late as that of
the books of the distinctive LBH corpus. Worded differently, it would seem
that the two halves of Jeremiah were composed by different hands represent-
ing different linguistic milieux, but on the basis of the linguistic profile of the
second half it is difficult to date it to a period much later than the Exile. It
is also important to note that neither of the two halves of the book is a uni-
fied composition, both giving clear indications—linguistic and otherwise—of
their composite nature.
14 Duhm 1901: 219–220; Holladay 1986–1989: I 570, II 114; Hoffman 2001: 533; Lundbom 1999–
2004: II 100.
68 chapter 2
15 On the internal order of the oracles see the modern commentaries along with Rofé 1989
and Fischer 1991. On their placement in the book: most convincing is the argument that
the unit of oracles against the nations was originally a separate scroll or scrolls associated
with Jeremiah that was appended to the early Hebrew editions behind both the MT and
the Greek, but inserted in different locations; see Mowinckel 1914: 14–16; Nötscher 1934:
301; Birkland 1938: 45; Bright 1965: lxxviii, 307; Janzen 1973: 115–116; J. Thompson 1980: 686;
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers 1995: 276; cf. Rietzschel 1966: 93; McKane 1986–1996: II 1109.
the language of the book of jeremiah 69
style, has its own peculiar linguistic character and contains, inter alia, a few
elements typical of post-exilic Hebrew: plene ‘ יעקובJacob’ (§3.1.1); ‘ זע"קcry out,
muster’ (§3.4); 3fpl §( קטלה4.7); non-standard use of directional he (ָ◌ה-; §7.3);
use of the preposition - לwith verbs denoting locative movement (§7.4); inter-
change of the prepositions ֶאלand §( ַעל7.5); accusative use of the preposition
-§( ל7.6); the double plural construct chain (§7.11); combinations of the type
X- ְ וX (‘ )ּכֹלall/every X’ with distributive force (§7.12); ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’
(§8.6); רּוח
ַ ‘cardinal direction’ (§8.12); ‘ ָרץmessenger’ (§8.13). In general, the
accumulation of non-standard linguistic elements in these six chapters indi-
cates a process of composition not only independent of, but apparently also
later than that of most of the rest of the book. Be that as it may, once more, the
evidence is far from unequivocal; one should bear in mind that the material in
question is both poetic and ostensibly directed at foreign audiences (though,
of course, it was actually intended for Judahite eyes and ears). In the discus-
sion of the passages’ language, origin(s), and date(s), these factors must not
be ignored, because they may help to account for their unique linguistic char-
acter.16 Furthermore, even if all of the non-standard linguistic phenomena in
these chapters are considered genuinely representative of a late date, there
is no decisive linguistic evidence that this date is much later than that of the
majority of the rest of the book, i.e., that the oracles against the nations were
composed in the post-Restoration period or later.
16 For example, the poetic nature of the section may explain the archaistic use of the 3fpl
קטלהform (for standard § ;קטלו4.7), while the fact that chapter 51 addresses Babylon
may have favored the use there of the foreign titles ּוסגָ נִ ים
ְ ‘ ַּפחֹותgovernors and prefects’
(§8.10). Neither of these factors, though, justifies the atypical plene spelling ‘ יעקובJacob’
(for defective § ;יעקב3.1.1). About other features it is difficult to be certain.
70 chapter 2
Jer 21.1—theophoric names with the short ending יָ ה- (as opposed to יָ הּו-;
§3.5). This is the only verse prior to chapter 27 that contains names ending in
the short theophoric suffix. Indeed, in chapters 1–26, names with the long end-
ing outnumber their shorter counterparts by a ratio of 50:3 (all occurrences of
the short form in Jer 21.1). In the rest of the book the short form occurs 80 times,
as opposed to 191 cases of the long form. Other cases in which a section head-
ing contains such short forms are: Jer 27.1; 28.1 (2x), 12 (3x); 29.1–3 (5x); 49.34;
51.59 (4x). The long form is much more frequent in section headings.
Jer 26.1—‘ ַמ ְמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ (§8.6, n. 68). The form in question is not
necessarily characteristic of any diachronic layer of ancient Hebrew, but the
occurrence in Jer 27.1 is a hapax legomenon within the book that contrasts with
17 instances of ‘ ַמ ְמ ָל ָכהkingdom, reign’ (twice in editorial headings: 27.1, 28.1),
three instances of ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ (one in an editorial heading: 49.34),
and four instances of the infinitive construct ‘ ָמ ְלכֹוhis reign, ruling’ (all of them
in editorial headings: 1.2; 51.59; 52.1, 4).
Jer 29.2—the order of the appositive in the expression ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX ‘X the king’
(§7.7). This same characteristically late order of constituents comes once
more, in a case of direct speech, which perhaps displays a certain similarity to
an editorial heading, in Jer 3.6. For purposes of linguistic opposition, the alter-
native order of constituents, X ‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךthe king X’ comes 17 times in the book,
twice (21.1; 34.8) in editorial headings.
Jer 33.19—the quotative frame ‘ לאמורto say, saying’ (§3.1.3). This plene
orthography is represented once more in the book, in the framework of direct
speech in Jer 18.5, which bears some resemblance to an editorial heading. For
purposes of linguistic opposition, the standard defective spelling comes 115
times in the book, including editorial headings (e.g., 21.1; 26.1; et al.).
Jer 49.34—‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ (§8.6). See above, on Jer 26.1—ַמ ְמ ְלכּות
‘kingdom, reign’.
Four of the five aforementioned non-standard linguistic phenomena are
especially characteristic of the later phases of ancient Hebrew (the exception
being ) ַמ ְמ ְלכּות. Thus, to the extent that it is possible to judge on the basis of such
short passages of text, the headings in question apparently exhibit a linguistic
profile later than that reflected in the units of text that they head. Against that,
however, it should also be noted that the headings in general—like the rest of
the book—exhibit a mixture of classical and post-classical linguistic features.
Such a state of affairs is given to various explanations. For example, perhaps—
like the majority of the book—this editorial layer reflects the mixed language
known from the Bible’s transitional compositions. Alternatively, there is no
proof that the headings necessarily belong to a single editorial stratum; it is
possible that they were added gradually. Conceivably, since the insertions are
the language of the book of jeremiah 71
generally very short, they could also be very late, the editor(s) being spared
from exposing his (their) linguistic milieu(x) by the brevity of what he (they)
added. The nature of the material all but precludes certainty.
1 The factors that led to the emergence of the use of matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew are
not entirely clear. It has long been argued that it is the result of persistence in traditional
spelling practices: the use of waw and yod marking vowels that had contracted from diph-
thongs extended to words which never had such diphthongs. For example, qawl > qol, but
both written קול, in which waw originally represented the off-glide of the the diphthong aw
and came to be associated with o after contraction of the diphthong. Presumably, even cases
of yod for i and waw for u are to be so explained, i.e., due to monophthongization of iy and
uw, respectively. On the other hand, the very early marking of both final and medial vowels
with matres lectionis in the Aramaic Tell Fekheriye inscription (9th century bce) may very
well be the result of intentional innovation for the purpose of facilitating reading. Such a
practice may also lie behind the relatively widespread use of vowel letters in personal names,
the pronunciation of which is often not readily retrievable from the context. See Ariel 2013
for a summary discussion and the references cited there.
2 For proposed dates for such a revision see Freedman 1962: 102; Andersen and Forbes 1986:
318–321; Barr 1989: 203.
3.1.1 ‘ יעקובJacob’
The name of the patriarch Jacob appears some 350 times in the MT, in all but
five occurrences written defectively, i.e., יעקב. It is spelled יעקובin Lev 26.42;
Jer 30.8; 33.26; 46.27; and 51.19. The core LBH material contains no examples
of the plene spelling, but it should be borne in mind that the patriarch is men-
tioned only twice in this corpus.8 The characteristic lateness of the orthogra-
phy is, however, confirmed by its frequency in non-Masoretic and post-biblical
sources, especially in Hebrew and Aramaic material from the Judean Desert, in
3 Zevit 1980: 32; Andersen and Forbes 1986: 60, 68, 318–328; Freedman 1992; Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 346–347 and n. 14; Tov 2012: 208–218; Khan 2013: 331–332.
4 See, most recently, Forbes and Andersen 2012; Andersen and Forbes 2013.
5 For discussions see Gesenius 1815: 30; Kutscher 1974: 5, 99; Qimron 1978a: 146; 1986: 91;
Freedman 1983; Greenfield and Naveh 1984: 120–121; Andersen and Forbes 1986: 6–9; Rooker
1990: 68–71; JM §3a, n. 5; Hornkohl forthcoming.
6 Ezekiel – 5/15 plene; Narrative Framework of Job – 2/2 plene; Esther – 7/9 plene; Daniel –
4/4 plene; Chronicles – 33/84 plene. The remaining cases come in Numbers (1/5 plene),
Deuteronomy (2/7 plene), Joshua (1/2 plene), Samuel (1/21 plene), Proverbs (1/2 plene), and
Job’s poetry (1/1). Andersen and Forbes 1986: 9–10 (cf. Barr 1989: 149–54); Hornkohl forth-
coming. The statistics here are based on a computerized count of the Leningrad Codex; the
statistics given by Andersen and Forbes, as well as those given by Barr, differ slightly.
7 For more detailed presentations on these features see Hornkohl forthcoming.
8 1 Chr 16.13, 17.
74 chapter 3
which the full spelling is almost twice as common as the defective.9 Notably,
the defective form is the norm in the Peshiṭta, while the plene spelling domi-
nates in the Aramaic targums. It is difficult to determine whether the occur-
rences of the full biblical spellings reflect some stage in the respective books’
composition or are accidents attributable to post-biblical scribal transmission.
With specific regard to Jeremiah: the plene form comes in four of 16 cases,
which are confined, perhaps significantly, to the second half of the book,
specifically to material that some scholars see as later additions to Jeremiah’s
authentic prophecies (namely, two occurrences out of eight in the consolation
material of chs. 30–33 and two occurrences out of four in the oracles against
the nations in chs. 46–51). There is scant difference relating to the spelling in
question between the MT and the Greek: against a 4:12 plene to defective ratio
in the former, the proportion is 3:9 in the latter.10 The ratio is thus a propor-
tionately identical 1:3 in the supplementary material present in the MT and
unparalleled in the Greek.
3.1.2 (ו)יקטול
Andersen and Forbes (1986: 194) and Barr (1989: 103–105) discuss the relative
rarity of the plene spelling of the o vowel in the relevant forms (1cs, 2ms, 3ms,
3fs, and 1cpl) of qal yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol strong verbs in the MT. According to
Andersen and Forbes (1986: 194), excluding פ"נverbs, this orthography obtains
in only 125 of 1481 cases.11 Barr (1989: 103–105) lists several corpora with rela-
tively high incidences of plene spelling in relevant forms (Ezekiel, the Twelve,
Job, Proverbs) as well as verbs in which the spelling is particularly common
(‘ ָח ַמלspare, have mercy on’, ‘ ָע ַברcross, pass’, ‘ ָׁש ַכןdwell’), weighing various fac-
tors, though in the case of no corpus or verb is the full orthography dominant.
As argued above, extreme caution must be exercised in the discernment of any
trend in the historical development of spelling practices, because it is difficult
9 The ratio of plene:defective is about 115:65. In the non-biblical DSS it is 50:20, 65:45 in the
biblical scrolls. The full form also occurs twice in the Bar Kokhba letters and very rarely—
no doubt due to adherence to biblical spelling conventions—in RH (though these refer-
ences are not necessarily to the biblical patriarch).
10 The MT defective spelling is unparalleled in the Greek at Jer 30.10 (2x) and 33.26b; the MT
plene spelling has no parallel at Jer 33.26a.
11 The full spelling of the o vowel in פ"נverbs is significantly more common than in the
case of strong verbs: 44 out of 236 cases according to Andersen and Forbes (ibid.) (my
own count puts the same figure at approximately 40 out of 90). Andersen and Forbes
(1986: 195) write that the stronger tendency to plene spelling in such forms “represents a
tendency to triconsonantalism on the purely orthographic level”.
orthography and phonology 75
3.1.3 (ל)קטול
Throughout the MT the qal infinitive construct of strong verbs, i.e.,
(li)qṭōl, is regularly written defectively.14 There are approximately 1835 cases of
the infinitive construct in the pattern (lV)qṭōl in the Hebrew Bible. In just
under 950 of them the form in question is the quotative frame ‘ ֵלאמֹרto say,
saying’, which is written plene on only three occasions.15 Leaving aside the
verb לאמ(ו)ר, approximately 175 of 885 cases, or about 20 percent, are plene.
The percentages of infinitives spelled with a mater lectionis waw in the various
parts of the Bible are as follows: Pentateuch – 1 percent; Former Prophets – 14.4
percent; Latter Prophets without TBH material – 14.8 percent; TBH – 25.6 per-
cent; LBH and Qohelet – 49.7 percent.16 For the situation in non-Masoretic and
extra-biblical sources, see the table: 17
Pre-exilic Inscriptions17 6 0 0
Ben Sira 35 14 40
Biblical DSS 179 96 53.6
Non-biblical DSS 307 261 85
Mishna 315 305 96.8
14 This definition includes all construct infinitive forms of the (lV)qṭol pattern, except
those from ל"יroots (and ל"א, when formed as if from ל"יroots); פ"נforms are normally
included; ע"עforms are included only in cases where they take the form of a strong verb;
י/ ע"וforms are excluded, as are many פ"יand stative forms, i.e., those with infinitives
in the (lə)qVṭlå̄ pattern and the few in the (li)qṭolet pattern. Forms with suffixes are also
excluded. In cases of ktiv-qre mismatch, the statistics here reflect the ktiv.
15 Gen 48.20; Jer 18.5; 33.19. The last case comes in a long section not reflected in the Greek.
16 Hornkohl forthcoming.
17 The small number of infinitive construct forms in the corpus of pre-exilic inscriptions,
the rarity of which is likely due not only to the paucity of material, but to factors related
to genre as well (i.e., a lack of prose texts), obviously diminishes the statistical signifi-
cance of the uniformly defective spelling there. Be that as it may, the overall dearth in
pre-exilic epigraphic material of potential examples of mater lectionis waw representing
medial o (or u) supports the contention that the sampling, while small, is nevertheless
representative.
orthography and phonology 77
From the perspectives of both biblical and extra-biblical sources it is clear that
the plene spelling is much more characteristic of late material than of classical
material, notwithstanding the likelihood that the biblical material has under-
gone an orthographic revision of some type.18 In Jeremiah, 22 of the 59 poten-
tial cases, or 37.3 percent, are written plene.19 This proportion of plene spellings
is more similar to that of the core LBH books than to that characteristic of CBH
texts.20 In cases paralleled by the Greek the same proportion is 17 out of 47, or
36.1 percent. In that material found in the MT but not paralleled in the Greek
the proportion is a very similar five out of 12, or 41.7 percent.21
to be sure, it exhibits no further signs of lateness). Cf. the instances of ְׁשמֹונִ ים
‘eighty’ in Gen 5.26 and 1 Kgs 6.1, in both of which the Greek reads otherwise.
3.4.1 The ΜΤ
It has been noted that the distribution of derivatives of the roots צע"קand
‘ זע"קcry out; muster’ in the Bible is not casual, but exhibits an unmistakable
diachronic trend.26 Both roots are represented throughout the entire Hebrew
Bible and likewise in post-biblical Hebrew. In the Bible צע"קoccurs around 75
times and זע"קabout 90. Yet while derivatives of צע"קare especially common
in pre-exilic texts, these forms are by and large replaced by derivatives of זע"ק
in later texts. Thus in the Pentateuch cases of צע"קoutnumber those of זע"ק
by a margin of 27:2, but the ratio changes to 34:67 in the Prophets (20:30 in the
Former Prophets, 14:37 in the Latter Prophets), and to 3:11 in the distinctive LBH
corpus. See table 3.4.1.
25 For detailed discussions of the following phenomena see Hornkohl 2012: §5.1.
26 Kutscher 1974: 34, 233; Polzin 1976: 137; Qimron 1980a: 244; Bergey 1983: 119–122; Rooker
1990: 134–138. Cf. Hazel 1980: 114–115; Albertz 1997: 1088–1089; Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd 2008: II 104. Some have sought to explain the various forms on the basis of
regional dialects (e.g., Bauer and Leander 1922: §2v; Sperber 1966: 478, n. 4; Bendavid
1967–1971: I 33; Rooker 1990: 138; Albertz 1997: 1088–1089), but the data are no more indica-
tive of a dialectal difference than of one resulting from historical development. Besides,
the explanatory power of geographical factors in some cases does not necessarily exclude
a diachronic dimension (Dresher 2012: 31; Holmstedt 2012: 117).
orthography and phonology 79
ִה ְצ ִעיק נִ ְצ ַעק ִצ ֵעק ָצ ַעק ְצ ָע ָקה צע"ק ִהזְ ִעיק נִ זְ ַעק זָ ַעק זע"ק זְ ָע ָקה
Genesis 3 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 1 1
Exodus 10 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 0 1
Numbers 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Deuteronomy 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Joshua 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Judges 2 0 4 0 0 6 7 4 2 0 13
Samuel 0 0 1 1 2 4 12 1 2 0 15
Kings 7 1 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1
Isaiah 5 0 0 0 1 6 6 0 0 3 9
Jeremiah 3 0 0 0 4 7 8 0 0 6 14
Ezekiel 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 5
Hosea 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Joel 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Jonah 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
Micah 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Habakkuk 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Zephaniah 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Zechariah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Psalms 5 0 0 0 1 6 5 0 0 0 5
Proverbs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Job 2 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 1 1 3
Lamentations 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
Qohelet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Esther 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Ezra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nehemiah 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 4
Chronicles 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4
Total 47 1 6 1 21 76 60 6 7 18 91
80 chapter 3
ִה ְצ ִעיק נִ ְצ ַעק ִצ ֵעק ָצ ַעק ְצ ָע ָקה צע"ק ִהזְ ִעיק נִ זְ ַעק זָ ַעק זע"ק זְ ָע ָקה
Pentateuch 19 0 0 0 8 27 1 0 0 1 2
Prophets 18 1 6 1 8 34 45 6 6 10 67
Former 10 1 6 1 2 20 20 6 4 0 30
Latter 8 0 0 0 6 14 25 0 2 10 37
LBH 2 0 0 0 1 3 7 0 0 5 11
Gen 27.34 and he cried a cry ( )וַ ּיִ ְצ ַעק ְצ ָע ָקהgreat and bitter
Est 4.1 and he cried a cry ( )וַ ּיִ זְ ַעק זְ ָע ָקהgreat and bitter
Exod 8.8 and Moses cried out ( )וַ ּיִ ְצ ַעקto Yhwh
2 Chr 18.31 and Jehoshaphat cried out ( )וַ ּיִ זְ ַעקand Yhwh helped him
Apparently, the two roots served one alongside the other during the early
period, with a slight preference for צע"ק. Even so, to judge from texts consid-
ered earlier and/or transitional, צע"קwas already in decline by the late First
Temple Period. The distinctive LBH trait is thus not the mere use of זע"ק, nor
even necessarily preference for it, but the increasing tendency for the exclusive
use of זע"קat the expense of צע"ק, though mixed usage continues.
Exod 14.15 Yhwh said to Moses, “Why do you cry out ( ) ִּת ְצ ַעקto me?”
4Q365 f6ai.4 [Yh]wh [said] [t]o Moses, “Why do you cry out ( )תזעקto me?”
Exod 15.24–25 the people grumbled against Moses . . . and he cried out ()וַ ּיִ ְצ ַעק
4Q365 f6aii+6c.10 the people grumbled aga[inst Moses] . . . and Moses cried out ()ויזעק
orthography and phonology 81
Deut 22.24 on account of the fact that she did not cry out ( ) ָצ ֲע ָקהin the city
11Q19 66.2–3 on account of the fact that she did not cry o[ut] (] )זעק[הin the city
Deut 22.27 for in the field he found her; the engaged girl cried out () ָצ ֲע ָקה
11Q 19 66.7–8 for in the field he found her; the engaged girl cried out ()זעקה
Cases of זע"קoutnumber those of צע"קin the biblical DSS as well; in this mate-
rial the ratio of צע"קto זע"קis 11:27, with five cases in which biblical צע"קis
replaced with זע"ק, e.g.,
Isa 42.2 he does not cry out ( ) ְיִצ ַעקnor raise nor make heard his voice
1QIsaa 35.11 he does not cry out ( )יז̇ עקnor raise nor make heard his voice
Ps 107.28 they cried out ( )וַ ּיִ ְצ ֲעקּוto Yhwh in their trouble
4Q88 3.19–21 they cried out (עקו̇ ̇ )ויזto Yhwh in their tr[ouble]27
The Hebrew of other non-Masoretic and post-biblical sources, e.g., Ben Sira,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, and, for the most part, RH, evinces the preservation
of צע"קin the face of the encroachment of זע"ק.28
In Aramaic sources, conversely, the preference for זע"קis very strong.
Egyptian Aramaic in documents from the 5th century bce contain deriva-
tions of both roots, but nearly all other late material, including BA, Qumran
Aramaic, and Syriac in general, employ זע"קto the exclusion of צע"ק. Notably,
the targums favor זע"קeven where the MT has צע"ק. It seems clear that Aramaic
played an influential role in the late Hebrew drift to preference for זע"קover
צע"ק.
27 The other three instances of interchange are 1QIsaa 27.7 (|| Isa 33.7); 39.12 (|| Isa 46.7); and
52.21 (|| Isa 65.14). The opposite interchange is documented only once: 4Q11 f3–4.4 (|| Exod
2.23).
28 The four occurrences of צע"קin fragments of Ben Sira are not especially surprising, given
the author’s archaistic predilection. In the case of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the pres-
ervation of צע"קmerely reflects the antiquity of this version’s source (further harmo-
nized so as to exclude the two cases of זע"קin the Masoretic Pentateuch). The situation
in RH, on the other hand, is somewhat puzzling. Perhaps the ‘revitalization’ of classical
צע"קin these sources is to be explained as a result of what Kutscher (1982: §234) termed
“a resistance to wholesale Aramaization,” though it should be emphasized that the exam-
ple which he adduced, namely the preservation of ּגֶ ֶׁשםin the face of Aramaic מטר, both
‘rain’, is not entirely parallel, as ָמ ָטר, while native in Hebrew, never became standard
under the influence of its Aramaic cognate in any phase of ancient Hebrew, but remained
something of a poetic alternate for ּגֶ ֶׁשם.
82 chapter 3
3.4.3 Jeremiah
On the one hand, like most of the rest of the books of the Prophets (the excep-
tion being Kings), particularly the Latter Prophets, and unlike the books of
the Pentateuch, Jeremiah displays a preference for ( זע"ק14 cases) over צע"ק
(seven cases). On the other hand, like the Former Prophets and Isaiah (both
‘First’ and ‘Second’), Jeremiah’s mixed usage contrasts with the decisive
preference for זע"קin Ezekiel, the distinctive corpus of LBH books, the DSS,
and most of the relevant Aramaic corpora. From the perspective of use and
distribution, then, Jeremiah’s language patterns as a form of TBH, linking the
CBH best exemplified by the Pentateuch and the LBH of the distinctively late
books.
The transitional status of Jeremiah’s language is also manifest in its use of
derivatives of the two roots in question side by side in the same context or in
parallel formulations, e.g.,
Jer 25.34 wail you shepherds and cry out ()וְ זַ ֲעקּו
Jer 25.36 the sound of the cry of ( ) ַצ ֲע ַקתthe shepherds
Jer 48.3–5 The sound of a cry ( ) ְצ ָע ָקהfrom Horonaim. Devastation and great
destruction! Moab is broken, Her little ones have sounded out a
cry ()ּזְ ָע ָקה. For by the ascent of Luhith weeping they will ascend;
for at the descent of Horonaim they have heard the anguished
cry of ( ) ַצ ֲע ַקתdestruction.
Jer 51.54 the sound of a cry ( )זְ ָע ָקהfrom Babylon and great destruction
from the land of the Chaldeans
29 Cf. Ginsberg 1938: 25. While the majority of names with the theophoric suffix in Aramaic
sources are indeed short—for example, most of those recorded in the Elephantine cache,
in BA, in the targums, and in Syriac—one must bear in mind that these are by and large
late sources, i.e., from the 5th century bce of thereafter. The long form does occur, for
instance, in the 9th-century bce Tel Dan inscription (KAI 310.8) as well as in later material.
30 It should be noted that the general picture as sketched by Tur-Sinai and Kutscher has been
confirmed by more recent epigraphic findings. For example, according to Schniedewind’s
(2008) electronic database of inscriptions and stamp seals from 1200 to 586 bce, names
with the long form outnumber those with the short form 657: 25 (excluding names with
doubtful, i.e., broken, endings). Cf. Young (2003b: 297, n. 17), who lists fourteen cases of
pre-exilic יה- (of which the apparent cases on the Gezer Calendar [margins and reverse]
84 chapter 3
form gained ascendency in writing only in the 5th or 4th century bce. It is
important to note, however, that use of the long form never ceased completely
(see below).
Several additional points are in order. First, most of the epigraphic evidence
for the two forms of the theophoric suffix consists of seals and bullae, objects
on which the writing surface is very limited. Despite these narrow confines,
however, it is significant that names ending in the long suffix dominate not
only in longer inscriptions, but in seals and bullae as well. Moreover, it is note-
worthy that according to the dates given in the collection of G. Davies (1999–
2004), all of the certain examples of names bearing the short ending attested
in sources from before the 6th century bce are found on seals or bullae, and up
to the 3rd century only three cases of the short form are found outside of this
sort of material. In other words, the majority of the cases of names ending in
the short suffix in the period prior to the 3rd century bce involve inscriptions
made on objects the writing surface of which offered limited space. Only from
the 3rd century on is it possible to speak of a genuine ‘explosion’ in use of the
short ending in longer pieces of writing.
Second, despite the dominance of names with the short suffix in material from
after the Exile, even then the long form was still available for use, though, cru-
cially, its employment by late writers was conditioned. For example, in contrast
to the scribe responsible for the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa), who
preferred the short form to the long,31 the names ending in the theophoric suffix
in 1QIsab (1Q8)—‘ חזקיהוHezekiah’ 15.4; 16.9, 11 (MT 37.10; 38.22; 39.1) and ישעיהו
are uncertain, because they are reconstructions and, in any case, the orthography of the
inscription is thought by most to be purely consonantal, while the apparent cases in the
Tell Jamma ostraca [2.3, 4] are not certainly Israelite names) and Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd (2008: I 167), who propose three additional pre-exilic short names (but אשיה
in Arad 107.2 comes at the end of the line in a stamp seal in which there is clear evi-
dence of an attempt to conserve space in נאשיה/[‘ לאלשבbelonging] to ʾlšb son of ʾšyh’,
where a consonantal yod is evidently missing and a bet must do double duty as the final
letter in אלשבand the initial letter in )בנאשיה. Cf. also Zevit (1983), who accepts Tur-
Sinai’s general approach, but on the basis of the biblical text and epigraphic material
unavailable to Tur-Sinai, emphasizes the early existence of the short form in ancient
Hebrew. Of course, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd rightly warn against the danger of
circular arguments, according to which a stamp seal is given a late date on the basis of
the short ending and then used as evidence for the late character of the short ending.
Obviously, factors other than spelling, e.g., stratigraphy and paleography, must be consid-
ered in the dating of inscriptional material. However, once these are established, then the
late character of the short ending may also serve as evidence for late provenance.
31 Kutscher 1974: 4, 122–123.
orthography and phonology 85
‘Isaiah’ 16.8, 15 (MT 38.21; 39.3)—are all long.32 Similarly, the four instances of
the long suffix in the non-biblical DSS come in the names of well-known biblical
figures from the First Temple Period ‘ ירמיהוJeremiah’ (CD 8.20; 4Q285 f7.1;
PAM43685 f65.1) and ‘ ישעיהוIsaiah’ (4Q385a fb.1). Especially instructive is the
situation in Ben Sira (B), where all of the relevant names are those of bibli-
cal figures: names belonging to First Temple personages all bear the long
ending—thus, ‘ אליהוElijah’ (48.4), ‘ יחזקיהוHezekiah’ (48.17, 22, 49.4), ישעיהו
‘Isaiah’ (48.20), ‘ יאשיהוJosiah’ (49.1, 4), and ‘ ירמיהוJeremiah’ (49.7)—while the
lone short ending occurs in the name ‘ נחמיהNehemiah’ (49.13), which, belong-
ing to a figure of Second Temple times, consistently takes the short ending in
the Bible as well. From this survey it emerges that despite the dominance of
names ending in יה- in the late period, יהו- was still readily available for use in
the names of known personages from earlier times or as a convenient means
of lending an air of antiquity to a Second Temple Period historical account of
earlier times. The late use of the long suffix is thus a clear example of artificial
archaization.
Before turning to the MT data, a related theophoric ending, יו-, merits brief
discussion. This form, widely believed to represent the pronunciation -yaw
is thought to have developed from elision in the pronunciation of the [h] in
-yahu. Based primarily on the Samaria Ostraca, already in the first half of last
century Diringer (1934: 40) suspected that the two pronunciations, -yaw and
-yahu, reflected regional variation. Not long afterwards, Tur-Sinai (1938b: 25)
explicitly classified the former as ‘northern’. Since then many scholars have fol-
lowed suit.33 However, while there is no doubt that the name-final orthogra-
phy יו- is characteristic of the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew, more recent
discoveries appear to show that it is not exclusively characteristic of the dialect
of this area, as a not insignificant number of examples have been unearthed at
non-northern sites, most notably Kuntillat Ajrud in the Sinai.34
3.5.2 The ΜΤ
The chronological relationship between names ending in the two forms
of the theophoric suffix is also reflected in their biblical distribution. Despite
mixed usage in several books and certain exceptional patterns—both of which
situations may a priori reflect contemporary linguistic patterns, later scribal
intervention, or a combination of the two (see below)—the picture is clear.
The long form dominates in the Bible in general by a ratio of 839:672. The
books of the Torah and Joshua present no examples of names with either end-
ing, apparently reflecting a time before the use of such names was prevalent.35
Other books also have no cases36 or so few that it is difficult to draw any firm
conclusions.37 The long form is numerically superior in books that deal with
events of the pre-exilic period, for example (‘First’) Isaiah (62:1),38 Kings (248:77),
and Jeremiah (241:83), whereas the short form prevails in material securely
35 To be sure, the Pentateuch has only two names containing any form of the tetragramma-
ton, in both cases a prefix: הֹוׁש ַע
ֻ ְ‘ יJoshua’ and יֹוכ ֶבד
ֶ ‘Jochabed’ (it is interesting that they
appear to reveal awareness of the divine name before its explicit ‘revelation’ in Exod 3 and
6 in that they serve in material not attributed to the Yahwist [see Segal 1967: 4]). That the
Pentateuch indeed reflects the early pre-exilic situation receives striking confirmation
from the extra-biblical sources, which show very few instances of use of these names
prior to the 8th century bce, followed by a relatively sudden proliferation in their use.
Despite popular explanations of its etymology, the toponym מֹורּיָ ה ִ ‘Moriah’ (Gen 22.2;
2 Chr 3.1) is generally not considered relevant.
36 These are excluded from Table 3.5.2.
37 Consider, for example, the book of Samuel. At first glance, this book contains four cases
of names with the long ending in the face of 51 cases of names with the short ending. As
it turns out, however, the majority of the names ending in יָ ה- are not germane. Thus, the
names ‘ ְצרּויָ הZeruiah’ (15x), ‘ ַאּיָ הAjah’ (4x), and אּורּיָ ה
ִ ‘Uriah’ (24x) are not theophoric.
The ratio of long to short names in Samuel is then 4:8, a total so small for a book of this
size that it shows no more than that such theophoric names were not yet in fashion.
With specific regard for the name אּורּיָ ה ִ ‘Uriah’: it comes a total of 36 times in the
Bible, 26 of them referring to Uriah the Hittite. As the name of a foreigner, it is thought
that this name, at least when used in reference to a non-Israelite, does not bear the short
theophoric suffix יה-; see Gustavs 1913: 201–205; Noth 1928: 168, n. 1; Kutscher 1982: §89;
HALOT 25b. The statistics here exclude use of this name when it refers to Uriah the
Hittite.
38 In MT Isaiah all 63 occurrences of names ending in the theophoric element come in
chapters 1–39 and of them only one is short: אּורּיָ ה ִ ‘Uriah (the priest)’ (Isa 8.2; under the
influence of the foreign name discussed in the previous note?; 4Q59 f4–10.1 has the long
form of the name); this same verse contains two other theophoric names, both long. In
contrast, 1QIsaa contains only two cases of names with the long ending—one in the head-
ing in 1QIsaa 1.1 (MT Isa 1.1) and the other an addition by a second hand at 32.14 (MT 38.21;
see Kutscher 1974: 4, 122–123)—against 61 instances of names with the short ending.
orthography and phonology 87
dated to the post-exilic period, such as Zechariah (1:13), Daniel (0:9),39 Ezra
(1:77),40 and Nehemiah (0:185). See Table 3.3.2.
Table 3.5.2 Biblical distribution of names ending in the long and short theophoric suffixes
Book long (%) short (%) Book long (%) short (%)
There are two major exceptions to the trend outlined above: the Twelve and
the book of Chronicles.
39 This sum refers to the Hebrew portion of Daniel; there are two additional short forms in
the Aramaic section.
40 These sums refer to the Hebrew material in Ezra; there are two additional short forms in
the Aramaic sections. The exception to the rule in Ezra–Nehemiah is the form ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּו
‘Shelemiah’ (Ezra 10.41), the only name ending in the long suffix in over 260 potential
cases in the two books combined. However, as claimed above (§1.4.6), a glance at the
occurrence in context is sufficient to demonstrate that it has almost certainly arisen from
scribal corruption, according to which ‘ ֲעזַ ְר ֵאל וְ ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּו ְׁש ַמ ְריָ הAzarel and Shelemiah,
Shemariah’ < ּוׁש ַמ ְריָ ה
ְ ‘ * ֲעזַ ְר ֵאל וְ ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הAzarel and Shelemiah and Shemariah’. The emen-
dation assumes an error in spacing alone—the conjunction -‘ ּוand’ preceding the third
name was inadvertently attached to the end of the second name—necessitating a change
in neither consonants nor even vocalization; see Japhet 1968: 339, n. 3, but cf. the Ancient
Versions.
88 chapter 3
3.5.2.2 Chronicles
The situation in Chronicles is curious.42 On the one hand, Chronicles contains
more short forms than any other book. This is not unexpected, as Chronicles’
contents date the book to the post-exilic period. On the other hand, long forms
outnumber short forms in the book by a margin of 275:202, making Chronicles
the only post-exilic book to contain a sizable proportion of names ending in
יָ הּו-. As bewildering as these statistics may seem, they are not wholly inexpli-
cable. First, approximately half of the long forms refer to kings, prophets, or
officials from the First Temple Period, a situation corresponding to the afore-
mentioned conditioned and archaistic use of the long form in post-biblical
times.43 Second, it is significant that 60 percent of the short names in the book
come in the genealogical material that comprises its first nine chapters, a sec-
tion in which 93 percent of the relevant names are short. Throughout the rest
of the book, conversely, the general tendency is to archaize when it comes
to these names (so pronounced was the Chronicler’s penchant for archaiza-
tion that he routinely lengthened names that were short in the parallel pas-
sages in Kings).44 In fact, disregarding 1 Chr 1–9, the proportion of long names
41 See above on the archaistic use of the long form by late extra-biblical writers.
42 For discussions see Sperber 1939: §131a; Burrows 1949: 204, n. 25; Japhet 1968: 338–340;
Kutscher 1974: 122–123; Zevit 1983: 5–8; Talshir 1988: 175–176.
43 Kutscher 1974: 122–123; Talshir 1988: 175–176; cf. Japhet 1968: 339.
44 One may consult the lists in Sperber 1939: 249a, §131a, and Japhet 1968: 339, n. 4. However,
Sperber’s is not exhaustive, while Japhet incorrectly dismisses the case reported by
Sperber at 2 Kgs 14.21 ‘ עזריהAzariah’ || 2 Chr 26.1 ‘ עזיהוUzziah’, omits the case 2 Kgs 22.12
|| חלקיה2 Chr 34.20 ‘ חלקיהוHilkiah’, and includes 2 Chr 36.22 || ירמיהוEzra 1.1 ירמיה
orthography and phonology 89
3.5.3 Jeremiah
The diachronic distinction between the two forms of the theophoric end-
ing having been clarified for both biblical and extra-biblical sources,45 it is
now possible to turn to the situation in Jeremiah. First, like classical biblical
and extra-biblical sources, Jeremiah exhibits an unmistakable preference for
the long ending, which outnumbers the short 241:83 (25.6 percent short), or
approximately 3:1. However, the relative frequency of short forms, similar to
the situation in the book of Kings and very unlike that in (‘First’) Isaiah, would
seem to correspond to the period of Jeremiah’s late pre-exilic to exilic setting
‘Jeremiah’, which, since Japhet is explicitly dealing with Chronicles and Kings, is irrel-
evant. Japhet (ibid., n. 6) may be correct to discount the instance reported by Sperber
involving 2 Sam 23.30 || בניה1 Chr 11.31 ‘ בניהוBeniah’, on the grounds that the latter form
probably resulted from the misdivision of words during scribal transmission (cf. the rest
of the relevant names in the list in both books), but the text is difficult.
45 Tur-Sinai 1938b: 24–25; Kutscher 1974: 4, 122–123; 1982: §§89, 153; Qimron 1986: 91, 94;
Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 121, 134; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §3.5.2.28; cf. Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd (2008: I 43, 86–87; 107–109; 156–157; 167; 357) who oppose a diachronic expla-
nation for the two forms. Their arguments are, on the one hand, that despite the abso-
lute dominance of the long form in pre-exilic epigraphic sources, the existence of a not
insignificant minority of short forms proves that the latter was early on available for use,
and, on the other, that the continued use of the long form in late material (biblical and
extra-biblical) demonstrates that this form was not exclusively characteristic of the pre-
exilic period. These claims are true, but unpersuasive. The central question involves not
when the short form began to appear, nor when use of the long form ceased, but which
of the two was characteristic of the classical and post-classical periods, respectively. To
this question the answers that emerge from both the biblical and extra-biblical material
are unequivocal, even taking into consideration a few exceptional situations requiring
particular explanations.
90 chapter 3
and/or composition. Second, while the distribution of the long ending יהו-
is fairly even throughout the book, the distribution of the shorter יה- is not.
There is no instance of the short suffix at all before chapter 21 and there are
only three—all in the editorial heading at the beginning of chapter 21—prior
to chapter 27. In contrast, there are 19 cases of names with the long ending
before chapter 21 and 50 before chapter 27. Therefore, in the first half of the
book the ratio between long and short names is 50:3 (94.3 percent long); in
the second half, conversely, the same ratio is 191:80 (70.5 percent long). Third,
within the second half of the book, chapters 27–29 merit special mention. In
this section—and in no other—long names are outnumbered by short names,
by a ratio of 8:34 (against 232:49 in the rest of the book). These three chap-
ters contain 34 of the 83 cases (approximately 41 percent) of the short names
in the book. They also contain a greater variety of short names than the rest
of the book;46 in many cases, short names occurring here are found nowhere
else or very rarely in Jeremiah, but are common in LBH. The most striking
example is none other than the name of the prophet by which the book is
known. The form ‘ יִ ְר ְמיָ הּוJeremiah’ comes 122 times in the book and another
four times in Chronicles. The prophet is referred to as יִ ְר ְמיָ הonly nine times
in the book of Jeremiah, all of them in chapters 27–29, and twice more in LBH
proper.47 There are a further seven cases of the short form of the name refer-
ring to somebody other than the prophet, all of these in late material as well.48
This pattern of generally late attestation also holds for the other short names
in these chapters.49
46 S.R. Driver 1898: 272, n. *; Duhm 1901: 221; Lundbom 1999–2004: II 304; Hoffman 2001: II
532.
47 Dan 9.2; Ezra 1.1.
48 Neh 10.3; 12.1, 12, 34; 1 Chr 5.24; 12.5, 11.
49 ‘ יְ ָכנְ יָ הJeconiah’, ‘ ִצ ְד ִקּיָ הZedekiah’, ‘ ֲחנַ נְ יָ הHananiah’, ‘ ִח ְל ִקּיָ הHilkiah’, ‘ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשיָ הMaaseiah’,
‘ ְצ ַפנְ יָ הZephaniah’, ‘ ְׁש ַמ ְעיָ הShemaiah, ‘ ּגְ ַמ ְריָ הGemariah’.
orthography and phonology 91
arguably reflecting the activity of the Greek translator(s) are removed from
consideration, then the proportion of long to short names in the supplemen-
tary material is 36:21 (36.8 percent short),50 which is substantially higher than
the tendency for the abbreviated suffix in the rest of the book.51
50 It is no simple matter to distinguish between those cases of mismatch that reflect genuine
textual variation and those that derive from the activity of the Greek translator(s). The
basic criterion adopted in the preparation of the following lists is approximate representa-
tion. In other words, if a proper name ending in יָ ה- or יָ הּו- in the MT is at all represented
in the Greek, whether by a proper noun, a common noun (i.e., a title), a pronoun, or even
verbal morphology, the lack of a corresponding proper name in Greek is considered a
stylistic, rather than textual matter. While this may seem a crude and simplistic standard
for distinguishing between textual and stylistic variation, it has the advantage of being
completely objective, so that, at the very least, it provides for a classification on the basis
of which more refined judgments can be made. Differences of opinion on specific cases
are possible, but it is difficult to imagine a reclassification so deviant as to necessitate a
wholly different conclusion. Stylistic differences—יָ הּו-: 20.2; 25.2; 26.23; 32.26; 35.12; 37.16,
17, 21; 38.6 (3x), 10, 13, 14 (2x), 15, 16, 17, 24; 40.2, 6; 52.8; יָ ה-: 28.12, 17. Textual differences—
יָ הּו-: 7.1; 27.1; 32.6; 33.19, 23; 35.1, 18; 36.9, 14, 26, 32 (2x); 37.1, 14, 18, 21; 38.5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 24;
39.4, 5, 6, 7, 11; 41.3, 9; 46.1, 2; 47.1; 50.1; 51.64; 52.3; יָ ה-: 27.1; 28.15; 29.21 (2x); 36.8; 38.1; 40.14,
15; 41.2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 (2x), 18; 49.34; 52.24 (2x).
51 It is also significant that 33 of the 75 cases in the MT in which a theophoric name with
the long suffix is not paralleled by a proper name in the Greek involve the form יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו
‘Jeremiah’, while only two of the 32 cases of mismatch of names with the short ending
involve the form יִ ְר ְמיָ ה. In other words, the statistical dominance of names ending in the
long form in the supplementary material is probably somewhat deceptive because it so
often involves insertion of the name Jeremiah, the long form of which, due to its frequent
mention, dominates the short by a margin of 122:9 in the book as a whole. If cases of the
name in question are excluded from consideration, the writer(s) of for the supplementary
material is (are) shown to be even more prone to opt for the short suffix than the writer(s)
of for the short edition. The relevant ratios of long to short are as follows: supplementary
material 24:21 (46.7 percent short); book as a whole 119:74 (38.3 percent short); short edi-
tion 95:53 (35.6 percent short).
92 chapter 3
directional he), without a yod to mark the glide in the triphthong ayi demanded
by the Tiberian reading tradition. There is little doubt that the orthography
without yod represents a pronunciation different from that reflected in the
vocalization, since biblical orthographic convention requires the presence
of a consonant to mark the glide of a diphthong or triphthong.52 The spell-
ing without yod is thought to represent a pronunciation along the lines of
yerušali/em,53 which resembles forms of the name in other ancient languages,
e.g., Akkadian Urusalimmu (Sennacherib), Canaaniteܶ Urusalim ܶ (El-Amarna),
ܺ ܿ ܺܽ
BA רּוׁש ֶלם
ְ ְי, Targumic Aramaic לם-/ם ְ ְי, Syriac ܐܘܪܫܠܡ/ܐܘܪܫܠܡ, Greek
ָ רּוׁש ַל
Ιερουσαλημ, and Latin Hierusalem.54 Consider also the Tiberian pronunciation
of the related place name ‘ ָׁש ֵלםSalem’ (Gen 14.18; Ps 76.3).
Some have argued that the pronunciation with the triphthong ayi did not
arise before the Middle Ages,55 but the existence of the spelling with yod in the
DSS would apparently lend support to the antiquity of this pronunciation and
of the corresponding orthography in the mt. Of course, the spelling in ques-
tion was not exclusive to the triphthong ayi; theoretically, it may also indicate
i or even e.56 However, in light of the testimony furnished by the Masoretic
tradition of vocalization, there seems little reason to doubt that ירושליםreflects
yerušalayim, a pronunciation employed not only in the few cases where the
consonantal text admits it, but in every case of the name; hence the mismatch
between consonantal skeleton and vocalization in the dominant biblical form
ָ ְי, where the lamed is pointed with two vowels, both pataḥ and ḥiriq. On
ִרּוׁש ַלם
the basis of the foreign pronunciations of the name listed in the preceding
paragraph it is reasonable to reconstruct a developmental process for pronun-
ciation of the final syllable along the lines of ayi < ay < e < i.57 The shift i to e is
well known in Hebrew, as is the resolution, i.e., expansion, of the diphthong ay
to the triphthong ayi, while various explanations for the development e to ay
have been proposed.58
52 Compare the forms ( ֲא ִביגַ יִ ל1 Sam 25.23ff) and ‘ ֲא ִביגַ לAbigail’ (1 Sam 25.32; 2 Sam 3.3 [ktiv];
17.25 [not referring to David’s wife]). For further examples, see below, n. 58.
53 GKC §88c; Bauer and Leander 1922: §63c′; Freedman 1962: 97; HALOT 437a; JM §416f.
54 HALOT 437a.
55 Payne 1980.
56 Freedman 1962: 97. The representation of i with yod is very common in all traditions.
Regarding e: spellings like ‘ ) ֵעד =( עידwitness’, ‘ ) ְּב ֵארֹות =( בירותwells’, אׁשית =( רישית ִ ) ֵר
‘beginning’, and ‘ ) ֵקץ =( קיץend’ are known from the DSS and are standard in certain
Aramaic traditions, for example, various manifestations of Targumic Aramaic.
57 See, e.g., Blau 2010: §3.5.10.5.
58 Here follows a selection of suggested explanations: dual ending (König 1881–1895: I 120, II
437; Urbach 1968; Derby 1997); Zerdehnung, i.e., the spontaneous (?) expansion of a long
vowel into a diphthong (GKC §88c and the references cited there); hypercorrection based
orthography and phonology 93
with yod may conceivably be plene, the spelling without it defective, for e or i.
It is relevant (though by no means decisive) that the spelling ירושליים, which
would unambiguously mark a diphthong/triphthong, is not found in the DSS,
though the corresponding spelling ‘ מצרייםEgypt’ is.
On the assumption that the five biblical instances of the spelling ירושלים
are authentic, i.e., represent authorial activity rather than copyist intervention
(and the restriction of the feature to relatively late texts may favor an authorial
explanation), it is reasonable to conclude that the pronunciation with ay arose
during the period in which Jeremiah was composed. In any case, it would seem
that Jeremiah furnishes the earliest testimony for the phenomenon in ques-
tion, which, though exemplified in LBH proper, did not become common until
post-biblical times. After all, even in those biblical sources in which the spell-
ing with yod may be found, it is rare (three in 151 cases in Chronicles, one in
108 in Jeremiah; Esther offers only one potential case). It emerges that biblical
writers (and later scribes) adhered to the classical spelling convention repre-
sentative of the pronunciation without the triphthong even if, at some point,
this spelling no longer reflected the toponym’s pronunciation in certain circles
of Hebrew speakers. Nevertheless, absolute prevention of the penetration of
the spelling explicitly representing the triphthong proved impossible, so that
the rare cases of this spelling in Jeremiah, Esther, and Chronicles are early fore-
runners of a trend eventually to take hold in the post-biblical period.
3.6.3 Jeremiah
Outside Esther and Chronicles, the late provenance of which is confirmed not
only by their language, but by their content, the only biblical occurrence of the
spelling ירושליםoccurs in Jer 26.18. Interestingly, this verse is an explicit quota-
tion attributed to the prophet Micah of Moresheth, who prophesied about a
century before the prophet Jeremiah. Despite its status as a quotation, the ver-
sion in Jeremiah differs from that in Micah:
Mic 3.12 Zion will be plowed as a field and Jerusalem (ִירּוׁש ַלם
ָ ִ )וwill be heaps of ruins
Jer 26.18 Zion will be plowed as a field and Jerusalem (ירּוׁש ַליִם
ָ ִ )וwill be heaps of ruins63
Modern commentators view Jer 26–29 and 34–46 as a sort of literary unit
composed of stories and prophecies. There is no consensus regarding their date
of composition, and the material’s language is by no means unified, but there
are a few linguistic indications of a relatively late date of composition for some
63 The reason for the nunation rather than mimation in the plural suffix of the form ִעּיִ יִ ן
‘heaps of ruins’ in Micah’s edition of the verse remains unclear.
orthography and phonology 95
3.7.2 The MT
The Masoretic, non-Masoretic, and extra-biblical distribution of the two roots’
derivatives is not casual.65 The verbs ‘ ָצ ַחקlaugh’ and ‘ ִצ ֵחקplay, joke, mock’ come
in the MT six and seven times, respectively. All but one of these 13 cases is in the
Pentateuch, the exception in Judges. The noun (or perhaps infinitival form) ְצחֹק
‘laugh, laughter’ appears only twice, once each in Genesis and Ezekiel. Turning
to forms derived from ׂשח"ק: the verbs ‘ ָׂש ַחקlaugh’, ‘ ִׂש ֵחקplay, make sport,
celebrate (dance?, play music?)’, and ‘ ִה ְׂש ִחיקmock’ occur 36 times between
64 See also Kutscher 1961a: 104–106; Greenfield 1962: 292–293; cf. Bartelmus 2004: 59.
65 For a helpful discussion see Brenner 1990: 46–48. More recently see Kim 2012: 144–150.
96 chapter 3
them, the noun (or infinitival form) ‘ ְׂשחֹ(ו)קlaughter, mocking’ comes 15 times,
and ‘ ִמ ְׂש ָחקobject of derision’ once, in the books Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah,
Zechariah, Habakkuk, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Lamentations, Chronicles, but—
significantly—never in the Pentateuch. In all, taking into account verbal as well
as nominal forms (but leaving aside the proper name יִ ְׂש ָחק/‘ יִ ְצ ָחקIsaac’), ’צח"קs
distribution is limited mainly to the Pentateuch (13 of 15 cases), the exceptions
in Judges and Ezekiel. The situation in the case of ׂשח"קis very different. First,
forms representing this root outnumber those representing צח"קby the sub-
stantial ratio of 53:15. Second, derivatives of the two roots occur almost exclu-
sively in complementary distribution.66 Further, while there are a few cases (six)
of ׂשח"קin sources widely considered classical (such as Judges and Samuel), a
large proportion (30) come in late material (from the period of the Exile at
the earliest, e.g., Jeremiah, Zechariah, Lamentations, Qohelet, Chronicles) or
in sources for whose language some sort of Aramaic influence may safely be
assumed (such as the books belonging to the corpus of Wisdom Literature).
66 Except in the case of Jdg 16.25–27, where derivatives of both forms of the verb are found
in the span of a few verses. See Brenner 1990: 47, n. 3.
67 Based on a search of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language Academy, there
are approximately 145 occurrences of ׂשח"קin rabbinic literature up to the Babylonian
Talmud against only 20 of צח"ק. See Brenner 1990: 47–48.
68 Ackroyd 1977: 74; Allen 1997: 1228.
orthography and phonology 97
69 The fact that these DSS fragments preserve the spelling ישחקin exactly the same verses
as it is preserved in the MT is impressive evidence for both the antiquity and conservative
nature of the Masoretic textual and linguistic tradition and the general stability of the
biblical text despite the vicissitudes of scribal transmission.
70 The spelling with ś also occurs once in the marginal material of Targum Neofiti to Exod
12.42.
71 For example, while in rabbinic orthography waw is routinely employed to mark o vowels,
in deference to biblical spelling patterns, such spellings generally do not obtain in fre-
quently occurring biblical names like ‘ משהMoses’ and ‘ אהרןAaron’, and even in certain
very frequent common nouns, like ‘ אלהיםGod’ and ‘ כהןpriest‘; see Ryzhik 2013: 938.
98 chapter 3
3.7.5 Jeremiah
Jeremiah presents seven instances of words derived from ׂשח"ק, with no rep-
resentation of צח"קat all. This is to be expected given the relatively early
replacement of צח"קwith ׂשח"ק. The presence of the non-standard spelling of
the proper name יִ ְׂש ָחק, however, is unexpected (the standard form יִ ְצ ָחקis not
found in the book). Though the spelling of this name in Amos may conceivably
be attributed to dialectal factors, this seems less likely in the case of Jeremiah.74
More reasonable seems the possibility that the literary register of the book was
penetrated by an unconventional popular spelling which was later to become
much more prevalent, a situation that emerges in the case of several phenom-
ena discussed in this study.75
§9.2.1. One of the difficulties in judging the significance of the form יִ ְׂש ָחקin this
section is the absence of the name from the rest of the book. In other words, it
is impossible to know how the name would have been spelled by the writer(s)
responsible for the short edition, because the name is nowhere mentioned.
3.8.2 The mt
Any explanation of the distribution of נבוכדראצרand נבוכדנאצרmust account
for the striking distribution of the two forms in the Bible. The form with resh
has a very limited distribution: 33 occurrences confined to the Bible and there
only in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In contrast, the spelling with nun was used more
widely, both within and outside the Bible. It comes six times in the last two
chapters of Kings, eight times in Jeremiah, and 13 times in LBH proper: Esther,
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Also, as noted above, all 31 cases of the
name in question in BA are spelled with nun. In all, then, 44 of the 58 instances
of the spelling with nun in the mt come in late compositions.83
80 S.R. Driver 1898: 272, n. *, 507, n. *; Price 1899: 27–28, n. 1; Duhm 1901: 169, 219–220; BDB
613a; J. Thompson 1980: 467; Bula 1983: 262; Holladay 1986–1989: I 570, II 114; Wiseman
1985: 3; McKane 1986–1996: I 496; Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard 1991: 285; Hoffman 2001: II
553; Lundbom 1999–2004: II 100.
81 The Tiberian vocalization, on the other hand, is further from the Babylonian pronuncia-
tion than the Greek and Latin transcriptions given above (n. 78).
82 For various less than convincing suggestions see Price 1899: 27–28, n. 1; Wilson 1939: 2172;
Van Selms 1974: 225ff.
83 These statistics include both Hebrew and Aramaic. On the remaining 14 cases in Kings
and Jeremiah see below.
84 The form with nun occurs in CD 1.6 and 2Q12 f3–4.2 (|| אּצר ַ בּוכ ְד ֶר
ַ ְ נJer 43.10).
85 Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifre Devarim, Tosefta. Frequently, the spelling in rabbinic sources is
נבוכד־נצר.
86 Sperber (1959–1973: II 133–263) has the spelling with nun throughout Jeremiah.
orthography and phonology 101
resh, along the lines of the confusion between resh and dalet in such cases as
‘ הדרעזרHadarezer’ < ‘ הדדעזרHadadezer’ known from some Hebrew manu-
scripts and from the Greek. However, while the character shapes involved in
the latter example were indeed very similar during certain periods, the pur-
ported similarity between nun and resh is not at all obvious in any period. No
more convincing is the suggestion (Van Selms 1974: 122ff) that the Akkadian
component kudurru ‘heir, first born’ was replaced by opponents of the dynasty
with kudannu/kūdanu(m) ‘mule’ as a form of ridicule, since there is no evi-
dence for the derogatory epithet in Babylonian sources. Another rather fanci-
ful idea (Wilson 1939: 2127) is that the form with n resulted from an attempt
to translate the perceived Babylonian meaning ‘Nabu, guard your servant’
into Aramaic (presumably on the basis of the root k-d-n, known from Syriac).
Again, however, this is no more than conjecture.
The simplest and most convincing explanation is phonetic. Interchange
between liquids (l-m-n-r) is a well-known linguistic phenomenon in general
and is represented by numerous cases across the Semitic languages more
specifically. Examples of interchange between resh and nun include Hebrew
ֵּבןvs. Aramaic ‘ ברson’ and Hebrew ִמזְ ָרחvs. Aramaic ‘ מדנחeast’. It is reason-
able to assume that the interchange between the same two consonants in the
name נאצר/ נבוכדרis a further case of the phenomenon in question.87 König
(1881–1895: II 465) supposes that in the specific case of the shift > נבוכדנאצר
נבוכדראצר, the shift was the result of a process of dissimilation (between the
two r consonants in )נבוכדראצר.88
In accounting for the distribution of the two forms of the name one must
exercise caution. First, it should be borne in mind that the historical figure in
question lived around the time that CBH began to experience the effects of the
processes that would eventually lead to the dominance of LBH. For this reason
no form of the name can be classified as purely ‘classical’. Be that as it may,
a diachronic explanation of the evidence is arguably the simplest and most
convincing. As noted above, the spelling with resh is relatively rare, in the Bible
only in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in a minority of the parallel passages in Targum
Jonathan, and in an Aramaic ostracon (KAI 227 a.5) dated to the first half of
the 6th century bce; the spelling with nun, in contrast, occurs in the historical
appendix comprising the last two chapters of Kings (from 562–560 bce at
the earliest, since it mentions Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Amel-Marduk [= Evil-
Merodach]), chs. 27–29 in Jeremiah (on which see below), and then becomes
the standard form in indisputably late corpora, including LBH, BA, the biblical
and non-biblical material from the Judean Desert, the targums (both where
they parallel the biblical original and where they expand on it), and the Syriac,
Greek, and Latin biblical and extra-biblical material. It is, of course, unclear
whether the penetration into Hebrew of the form with resh preceded that of
the form with nun or whether the two forms entered during approximately the
same period and co-existed for some time;89 what is clear, however, is that the
form with nun had almost completely displaced its counterpart by the period
of the Restoration and thereafter never relinquished this dominant status.
Thus, while use of the spelling with resh cannot unequivocally be character-
ized as earlier than that with nun in absolute terms, exclusive use of the form
with nun can be defined as characteristically late.
3.8.5 Jeremiah
Jeremiah is the only text that attests both spellings, the ratio of forms with resh
to those with nun 29:8. If the spelling with nun can justly be considered char-
acteristically later than the spelling with resh, then Jeremiah’s employment
of both would seem to come as rather striking evidence of the transitional
nature of its language. Yet, given the discussion above, the characterization of
the spelling with resh as earlier than the spelling with nun must be considered
reasonable, but unproven. Despite this, it is surely noteworthy that the spell-
ing with resh dominates in Jeremiah, whereas the spelling with nun is limited
to chs. 27–29, a cluster of material which uses this spelling almost exclusively
and which—uniquely in Jeremiah—is also characterized by the dominant use
of the characteristically post-classical short theophoric suffix יה- (see above,
§3.5). Whatever the chronological status of the two forms under discussion,
89 Even if he agrees that the spelling with resh is closer than the spelling with nun to the
original pronunciation, Wiseman (1985: 2–3) cautions against concluding that the latter
spelling is necessarily later than the former, since “the writing of the name with n is pos-
sibly attested in an Aramaic tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-fourth year” (ibid.
2). However, Wiseman is referring to the Aramaic Sefire ostracon, published by Dupont-
Sommer and Starcky (1958), the image of which unmistakably reads [נ]בוכדרצר. Even
so, resemblance to the original Babylonian form and distribution (see below) cannot be
taken as unassailable evidence of the chronological priority of Hebrew נבוכדראצרin rela-
tion to נבוכדנאצר.
orthography and phonology 103
it seems clear that the compositional history of chs. 27–29 differs from that
of the rest of the book. However, in terms of historical development, one can
summarize as follows: the spelling נבוכדנאצרoccurs in the Bible only in the
decidedly post-classical material written in LBH proper and BA, a section of
Jeremiah the language of which apparently post-dates that of the majority of
the rest of the book, and a historical appendix in Kings that could only have
been penned well into the Exile at the earliest.
3.9.1 The mt
If the Masoretic consonantal text and the Tiberian vocalization may be relied
upon to give any indication of the pronunciation of Hebrew during the First
and Second Temple Periods, then one may conclude that, in general, speakers
of the language succeeded in distinguishing between derivatives of the root
רפ"י, on the one hand, and derivatives of רפ"א, on the other. Words represent-
ing רפ"יcome some 50 times in the Bible and include forms that can be classi-
fied as verbal (‘ ָר ָפהbe weak, slack, sink, relax’, ‘ ִר ָּפהmake slack’, ‘ ִה ְר ָּפהabandon,
let go’, ‘ נִ ְר ָּפהbe lazy’, ‘ ִה ְת ַר ָּפהbe lazy, put off’), adjectival (‘ ָר ֶפהweak’), and nomi-
nal (‘ ִר ְפיֹוןweakness’). There is only one certain case testifying to interchange
with the root הּוא־מ ַר ֵּפא ֶאת־יְ ֵדי ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה—רפ"א
ְ ‘he is weakening the hands
of the warriors’ (Jer 38.4)—in which the written and reading traditions agree
on the derivation from רפ"א.
90 Jer 24.1; 27.6; 32.1; 34.1; 35.11; 37.1; 39.1; 43.10; 44.30; 46.2, 13; 49.28; 51.34; 52.4.
104 chapter 3
91 Some posit the existence of the lexeme ַמ ְר ֵּפאII ‘softness, mildness’ at Prov 14.30; 15.4; and
Qoh 10.4.
92 Due to the uncertainty of their etymology, excluded from the category of related proper
names are the eponym ‘ ָר ָפאRapha’ (1 Chr 20.6, 8 || [ ָר ָפה2 Sam 21.20, 22]) as well as the
plural form ְר ָפ ִאיםin both of its meanings, i.e., ‘dead people’ and ‘tribe of giants’.
93 In light of the survival of the ṣere vowel in such forms as ‘ יִ ָ ּ֫ק ֵרא ָלְךyou will be called’ (Isa
1.26), ‘ וַ ֵּ֫י ֵצא ָלְךand your (fame) went out’ (Ezek 16.14), and יִּמ ֵצא ָלְך
ָ֫ ‘he will be found by
you’ (1 Chr 28.9), it would seem that the appearance of segol in ֫ר ֹ ֶפא ָלְךis to be attributed
not to the effects of nesiga (i.e., retraction of syllable-stress), but to pronunciation of the
ל"אform as if it were ל"י.
orthography and phonology 105
or in the post-exilic period. If so, then perhaps the interchange רפ"א < רפ"יis
more typical of post-classical Hebrew than of CBH.94
3.9.3 Jeremiah
Forms testifying to elision of the ʾalef in derivatives of the root רפ"אare not
found in the Pentateuch and are nearly absent from the Former Prophets.95
The second half of the book of Kings contains a single clear example in the ktiv
and an additional pair of qre cases (see above). Jeremiah is thus the earliest text
to exhibit a significant concentration of the interchange under discussion. In
more than a third of the relevant cases—six of 17, to be exact—the consonan-
tal form reflects a ל"יderivation. Generally in these cases, if the consonantal
skeleton allows for it, the vocalization reflects a ל"אderivation, with an excep-
tion in ת־ּב ֶבל וְ לֹא נִ ְר ָּפ ָתה
ָ ‘ ִר ִּפינּו ֶאwe have treated Babylon, but she did not heal’
(Jer 51.9 qre; ktiv )רפאנוin which the qre form is influenced by the obvious ל"י
consonantal form ‘ נִ ְר ָּפ ָתהwas healed’. With this orthography Jeremiah reveals
a feature shared with post-exilic and post-biblical phases of Hebrew. The fea-
ture in question should perhaps be explained as the result of the penetration
of colloquial, spoken forms into the literary register. The popular character of
the spelling in certain of the DSS and in RH in general fit well with such an
explanation for the shift רפ"א < רפ"י. However, the possibility of Aramaic influ-
ence should not be discounted. As is well known, already as early as Imperial
Aramaic (e.g., BA), ל"אand ל"יforms had coalesced into a single pattern.
95 Cf. the interchange between ‘ קר"אto call, read’ and ‘ קר"יto befall, happen’, which is
amply attested in CBH. It is worth mentioning that in Jeremiah meanings generally associ-
ated with קר"יare consistently represented by forms derived from קר"א: Jer 4.20 (though
some interpret ‘call’ here); 13.22; 32.23; 41.6; 44.23 (on the use of the ending ת- rather than
ָ◌ה- see below, §4.3). Since this interchange is already found in what are widely consid-
ered classical texts, it cannot be considered especially characteristic of the late period.
Even so, the consistency of the phenomenon in Jeremiah is noteworthy.
orthography and phonology 107
Jer 6.14 they have healed ( )וַ יְ ַר ְּפאּוthe wound of my people superficially
Jer 8.11 they have healed ( )וַ יְ ַרּפּוthe wound of the daughter of my people superficially
The experts have varying and contradictory opinions on the origin of this dou-
blet, but it is somewhat less than surprising that in the version of the line miss-
ing from the Greek the derivative from רפ"אshould appear as if derived from
רפ"י, a feature more characteristic of late than of early material.
chapter 4
4.1.1 The MT
Of the two forms of the 1cs independent subject pronoun in BH, ָאנ ִֹכיand ֲאנִ י
both ‘I’, the latter, shorter form is the more common, with 874 occurrences,
compared to 359 of its longer counterpart. The dominance of ֲאנִ יis especially
conspicuous in texts composed during or after the time of the Exile. For exam-
ple, in the core LBH books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles
cases of ֲאנִ יoutnumber those of ָאנ ִֹכי76:3. Exclusive use of ֲאנִ יis characteris-
tic of such late (i.e., exilic or post-exilic) works as Lamentations (4x), Haggai
(4x), Zechariah 1–8 (9x), Ezra (2x), Esther (6x), and Qohelet (29x). In other late
material ָאנ ִֹכיis used but once: Ezekiel (against 169 cases of ) ֲאנִ י, Nehemiah
(against 15 cases of ) ֲאנִ י, Daniel (against 23 cases of ) ֲאנִ י, and Chronicles (against
30 cases of ) ֲאנִ י. In the corpus just described, ֲאנִ יdominates ָאנ ִֹכיby a ratio of
291:4.1 The four exceptional instances of ָאנ ִֹכיin this late corpus are all attribut-
able to archaization: the cases in Mal 3.23 and Dan 10.11 come in divine speech,
that in Neh 1.6 occurs in a prayer, and the one in 1 Chr 17.1 reflects the classical
source material in 2 Sam 7.1–2.2 In Isaiah, too, there is a decided preference
for the short form (79:26), but this dominance is really only characteristic of
‘Second Isaiah’ (71:21; it is 8:5 in ‘First Isaiah’).
Earlier biblical material exhibits widely divergent tendencies. For example,
numbers of the two forms are fairly balanced in the books of Judges (17 ָאנ ִֹכי:
12 ) ֲאנִ י, Samuel (50 ָאנ ִֹכי: 50 ) ֲאנִ י, ‘First Isaiah’ (5 ָאנ ִֹכי: 8 ) ֲאנִ י, and Hosea (11 ָאנ ִֹכי:
12 ) ֲאנִ י. In the combined JE material ָאנ ִֹכיis more common than ( ֲאנִ י81:48),3
while Deuteronomy even more strongly favors ( ָאנ ִֹכי56:9), but the Priestly
material shows an extreme proclivity for ( ֲאנִ י130:1).4 It seems clear that the fac-
1 See Segal 1936: §67; Seow 1996: 661; Yoder 2000: 26–27; cf. Rezetko 2003: 225–226.
2 In all other cases the Chronicler replaces the ָאנ ִֹכיof his source with ֲאנִ י: 1 Chr 17.16 || 2 Sam
7.18; 1 Chr 21.10, 17 || 2 Sam 14.12, 17; 2 Chr 34.27 || 2 Kgs 22.19.
3 The statistics are those of BDB 59b.
4 The lone exception is Gen 23.4. Against the claim that P’s virtually exclusive use of ֲאנִ י
necessarily implies a late date of composition (Giesebrecht 1881: 251–258; S.R. Driver 1898:
155–156, n. †), one should not ignore the fact that a large proportion of these cases involve
tors bearing on the choice between the two forms include, but are not limited
to, chronology. For example, the preference for ֲאנִ יin the Psalms, while perhaps
in some cases evidence of late composition, corresponds to the situation of
the cognate forms known from Ugaritic, where ʾank serves in prose, and ʾan in
poetry (for further discussion of non-diachronic factors in the choice between
the two forms see below).
the repeated formula '‘ ֲאנִ י הI am Yhwh’ (for example, of the 71 cases of ֲאנִ יin Leviticus,
52 involve some form of this phrase) or other expressions in which ֲאנִ יis more common
than ָאנ ִֹכיthroughout biblical literature (see S.R. Driver 1882: 222ff). It also bears repeating
that, according to the accepted linguistic methodology for dating biblical texts, a work of
unknown chronological provenance may be dated to the post-exilic period only on the basis
of an accumulation of multiple late linguistic features. P’s all but exclusive use of ֲאנִ יis not
to be ignored, but neither should its significance be exaggerated. For example, Hurvitz (1982:
169 n. 35) notes that even H, the antiquity of which is generally acknowledged by late-daters
of P, also makes exclusive use of ( ֲאנִ יsee also S.R. Driver 1882: 222ff). On the pre-exilic charac-
ter of P’s language in general see Hurvitz 1974b; 1982; 1988; 2000b; Grintz 1976a–c; Rendsburg
1980b; Zevit 1982; Milgrom 1991–2001: 5–13 and passim; 1999; 2007.
5 In the non-biblical DSS cases of אניoutnumber those of אנכיby a margin of approximately
150:40, most of the cases of אנכיreferring to God or some other divine speaker. In the Mishna
אניdominates אנכי298:3. On the use of the 1cs independent subject pronouns in the DSS see
du Plessis 1971: 173; Whitley 1979: 14; Qimron 1986: §321.11; Seow 1996: 661; Yoder 2000: 26–27;
Wright 2005: 79–82; Kutscher 2007: 640. On their use in rabbinic literature see Segal 1936: §67;
Rosén 1975: 280; Haneman 1980: §51.111; Kutscher 1982: §§40, 201; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 148; Seow
1996: 661; Fernández 1997: 18; Yoder 2000; 26–27; Wright 2005: 79–82; Kutscher 2007: 643.
6 4x; see Wright 2005: 79–82.
7 אניappears in Arad 88.1; אנכיis read by some in Lachish 6.8–9 (see Pardee 1982: 100, 244, 315;
Aḥituv 2005: 72–74 [with hesitation]; cf. Garr 1985: 79; Gogel 1998: 153).
110 chapter 4
4.1.4 Jeremiah
In Jeremiah cases of ֲאנִ יoutnumber those of ָאנ ִֹכיby a ratio of 54:37, each
form coming in a variety of genres throughout the book’s various apparent
component parts. Rooker (1990: 72) attributes preference for the short form to
diachronic factors; that is, like the core LBH books, Jeremiah prefers ֲאנִ יto ָאנ ִֹכי
because it was written at a time when the longer form had fallen into disuse.
But even if the numerical superiority of ֲאנִ יin Jeremiah is clear—and all the
more striking in contrast to the dominance of ָאנ ִֹכיin the book of Deuteronomy,
with some form of which the writer(s) of Jeremiah was (were) almost certainly
familiar—it is far from absolute. Cases of ָאנ ִֹכיare by no means rare in the book
and the two forms many times appear together in the same section and twice
even in a single verse.14 In any case, as argued above, the mere prevalence of ֲאנִ י
in a given biblical work is not unequivocal evidence of a late linguistic profile.
In terms of absolute numbers the relative regularity of ָאנ ִֹכיin Jeremiah con-
trasts with this form’s rarity in LBH proper and other late material, arguably
highlighting Jeremiah’s linguistically transitional character.
Be that as it may, the affinity of the book’s language to post-classical Hebrew
is nonetheless manifest, specifically in the conditioned choice between
the two pronouns. While ֲאנִ יis placed in the mouths of a wide variety of
speakers, 35 of the 37 cases of ָאנ ִֹכיappear in divine speech,15 a fact that would
seem to indicate that use of the form in question was no longer natural, but
had become archaistic, especially associated with formal speech contexts, as
in LBH proper (see above, §4.1.1). It may thus be argued that the distinction
between Jeremiah’s language and LBH with regard to the 1cs independent pro-
nouns is due only to the amount of divine speech in Jeremiah. In this Jeremiah’s
language resembles that of some of the DSS, like the Temple Scroll (11Q19), in
which all instances of the 1cs independent pronouns occur in divine speech
and cases of אנכיoutnumber those of אני23:9.
4.2 2fs: ( אתיktiv) for אַ ְּת, ִכי- for ְך-, and ִּתי- for and ְּת- ‘you; your’
17 There are 15 cases in the Bible in which a 2fs (we)qaṭal form has an attached object suffix.
In nine of them the verbal ending is vocalized with an i vowel (and in four of these the
orthography has a corresponding yod): ‘ ִה ְכ ַר ְע ִּתנִ יyou (fs) have brought me low’ (Jdg 11.35);
יתנִ י
ִ (‘ ִר ִּמwhy) have you (fs) deceived me’ (1 Sam 19.17), ‘ ְּכ ִל ִתנִ יyou (fs) have restrained me’
(ibid. 25.33); אתים ִ ‘ ְמ ָצyou (fs) did not find them’ (Jer 2.34), ‘ יְ ִל ְד ִּתנִ יyou (fs) bore me’ (ibid.
15.10); ‘ ּונְ ַת ִּתיהּוyou (fs) have placed it’ (Ezek 16.19), אתים ִ ‘ נְ ָׂשyou (fs) bore them’ (ibid. v.
58); ‘ ִל ַּב ְב ִּת(י)נִ יyou (fs) have captured my heart’ (Song 4.9 [2x]). Consider also the ktiv
form ‘ ילדתניyou (fs) have given birth to me’ (Jer 2.27). Five of the six cases in which the
vocalization does not reflect an i vowel have the 1cpl suffix: ‘ ִה ְׁש ַּב ְע ָּתנּוyou (fs) have put
us under oath’ (Josh 2.17, 20; Song 5.9); הֹור ְד ֵּתנּו ַ ‘you (fs) lowered us’ (Josh 2.18); וַ ֲה ֵבאתֹו
‘you (fs) will bring him’ (2 Sam 14.10); ‘ יְ ִל ְד ָּתנּוyou (fs) have given birth to us’ (Jer 2.27 qre).
Perhaps the ṣere in הֹור ְד ֵּתנּו ַ ‘you (fs) have lowered us’ (Josh 2.18) derives from contraction
of a diphthong containing an original i vowel.
pronominal morphology 113
but rather, that it was by and large pronounced, just not written, so that, for
example, the orthography קטלתin reality represented something like qaṭalti, a
pronunciation obscured by the Tiberian pronunciation with no final i.18 From
this perspective, forms of the type קטלתיare merely plene spellings of what
were generally written defectively.19 Whatever their exact nature, the non-
standard orthographical forms were often standardized in the reading tradi-
tion, i.e., read without a final vowel, except where they were simply interpreted
as something other than a 2fs form, e.g., ( ַק ְמ ִּתיJdg 5.7) interpreted to mean
‘I arose’ rather than ‘you (fs) arose’.
4.2.1 The mt
In light of the uncertainties just raised regarding the degree of correspondence
between the written and oral traditions, the ensuing discussion will focus on
written forms whose consonantal spelling—with final yod—unambiguously
marks a final i vowel. Observations regarding the distribution of such forms
may, in turn, contribute to the discussion above.
18 I am indebted to Prof. Elisha Qimron for having acquainted me with this approach in cor-
respondence dated 23 February 2012.
19 Cf. the 2ms qaṭal ending and the object/possessive suffix, generally written ת- and ך-,
respectively, but pronounced with a final a vowel (matching the corresponding indepen-
dent subject pronoun ַא ָּתה, rarely spelled )אתin the Tiberian reading tradition and sev-
eral other reading traditions, and sometimes even written תה- and כה-, respectively, in
the Hebrew Bible. Kahle’s (1959: 78–86, 100, 171–179) extreme view, according to which
these a endings were 1st-millennium CE imports into Hebrew from Arabic, is disproven
by the standard usage of the תה- and כה- spellings in the DSS, as noted by Kutscher (1959:
34–36; 1982: §46). However, the argument from the opposite extreme, namely that all
instances of defective spelling, whether for 2ms or 2fs, are necessarily to be seen as end-
ing in a vowel, also seems dubious. Had those presumably Second Temple Period scribes
responsible for the final orthographic revision of the biblical text been acquainted with
a reading tradition in which final i was standard in 2fs pronominal forms, it is difficult
to understand why they would not have added a corresponding final yod, especially in
light of the corresponding yiqṭol and imperative forms that did end in a yod (the same
doubt arises regarding the defective 2ms forms). Given the complicated and somewhat
contradictory nature of the evidence—the biblical consonantal tradition, the Tiberian
vocalization, and evidence from the DSS and non-Tiberian reading traditions—it seems
probable that forms both with and without a final vowel were in use in the First and
Second Temple Periods, so that the dominant spelling without final matres lectionis is at
times representative and at times defective. In any case, there seems little doubt that the
last word on this issue has yet to be uttered.
114 chapter 4
( אתיktiv) ‘you (fs)’ – seven instances in 57 potential cases: Jdg 17.2; 1 Kgs 14.2;
2 Kgs 4.16, 23; 8.1; Jer 4.30; Ezek 36.13.
ִכי-/כי- (ktiv) – 16 instances in 1565 potential cases: ‘ לכיto you (fs)’ (2 Kgs 4.2
ktiv), ‘ שכנכיyour (fs) neighbor(s)’ (ibid. v. 3 ktiv), ‘ נשיכיyour (fs) debt’ (ibid.
v. 7 ktiv), ‘ בניכיyour (fs) children’ (ibid. ktiv); ‘ ָר ָע ֵת ִכיyour (fs) wickedness’
(Jer 11.15); ‘ ֲעֹונֵ ִכיyour (fs) sin’ (Ps 103.3), ‘ ַת ֲח ֻל ָאיְ ִכיyour (fs) diseases’ (ibid.),
‘ ַחּיָ יְ ִכיyour (fs) life’ (ibid. v. 4), (‘ ַה ְמ ַע ְּט ֵר ִכיthe one) who crowns you (fs)’ (ibid.),
עּוריְ ִכיָ ְ‘ נyour (fs) youth’ (ibid. v. 5); נּוחיְ ִכי ָ ‘ ִל ְמyour (fs) rest’ (ibid. 116.7), ‘ ָע ָליְ ִכיto/
upon you (fs)’ (ibid.), תֹוכ ִכי ֵ ( ְּבibid. 19); תֹוכ ִכי ֵ ‘ ְּבwithin you (fs)’ (ibid. 135.9); ֶאזְ ְּכ ֵר ִכי
‘(if I do not) remember you (fs)’ (ibid. 137.6); (‘ לכיget) yourself (fs) (up)’(Song
2.13 ktiv).20
(וְ ) ָק ַט ְל ִּתי/( (ו)קטלתיktiv – 23 instances in 211 potential cases: ‘ ַׁש ַּק ְמ ִּתיyou (fs)
arose’ (Jdg 5.7 [2x]); ‘ ָׁש ַב ְר ִּתיyou (fs) broke’ (Jer 2.20), ‘ נִ ַּת ְק ִּתיyou (fs) tore off’
(ibid.), ‘ למדתיyou (fs) have taught’ (ibid. v. 33 ktiv); ‘ קראתיyou (fs) called’ (ibid.
3.4 ktiv), ‘ דברתיyou (fs) spoke’ (ibid. v. 5 ktiv); ‘ שמעתיyou (fs) heard’ (ibid. 4.19
ktiv); ‘ הלכתיyou (fs) walked’ (ibid. 31.21 ktiv); ‘ הרביתיyou (fs) have multiplied’
(ibid. 46.11 ktiv); ‘ אכלתיyou (fs) ate’ (Ezek 16.13 ktiv), ‘ נתתיyou (fs) offered’ (ibid.
v. 18 ktiv), ‘ זכרתיyou (fs) (did not) remember’ (ibid. v. 22 ktiv, v. 43 ktiv), עשיתי
‘you (fs) made/committed’ (ibid. v. 31 ktiv, v. 43 ktiv, v. 47 ktiv, v. 51 ktiv), ‘ הייתיyou
(fs) have (not) been’ (ibid. v. 31 ktiv), ‘ ָר ִא ִיתיyou (fs) saw’ (ibid. v. 50); וְ ַה ֲח ַר ְמ ִּתי
‘and you (fs) will devote’ (Mic 4.13); ‘ וירדתיand you (fs) will descend’ (Ruth 3.3
ktiv), ‘ ושכבתיand you (fs) will lie down’ (ibid. v. 4 ktiv).
The first thing to notice in the distribution of the forms is that they occur
in only a minority of the potential cases: the spelling אתיcomes in 12.3 percent
of the potential cases, כי- in only about 1 percent, and תי- in approximately
11 percent. Further, rather than being strewn haphazardly along the length of
biblical literature, they tend to be concentrated in specific books. However,
even in these books it is clear that the standard forms dominate. See the fol-
lowing table:
20 This final case is in doubt, because it is unclear if the form in question consists of a prepo-
sition with the 2fs pronominal suffix or of a 2fs imperative.
pronominal morphology 115
Also, it should be noted that the concentrations within individual books are
often actually limited to specific chapters. The clearest examples of this phe-
nomenon are 2 Kgs 4 (and 8.1–6), Ezek 16, Ps 103, and Ps 116, which together
account for 25 of the 46 combined cases of the relevant 2fs morphemes end-
ing in yod. Finally, since no one section or book contains concentrations of all
three non-standard 2fs morphemes, the possibility should be entertained that
use of one may not have been motivated by the same factors as use of another.
The forms in question have been explained alternatively as
Turning to specific examples where one or more of these factors seem pertinent:
Jdg 5: zero instances of אתיin zero potential cases (– percent), zero instances
of כי- in zero potential cases (– percent), two instances of תי- in two potential
cases (100 percent) = total two of two cases (100 percent). The Song of Deborah
21 The possibility that certain forms have arisen due to scribal corruption should also be
entertained. However, it is no less likely that a few viable cases of the forms in question
may have been corrupted themselves; consider, by way of example, the combination
‘ ֵמ ָע ָליִ ְך ִּכיfrom you (fs); for’ (Jer 11.15)—a notoriously difficult verse—which may conceiv-
ably reflect an original ‘ מעליכיfrom you (fs)’.
116 chapter 4
2 Kgs 4 and 8.1–6: three instances of אתיin four potential cases (75 percent),23
four instances of כי- in 14 potential cases (28.6 percent), zero instances of תי-
in three potential cases (0 percent) = total seven instances in 21 potential cases
(33.3 percent). The section narrates the exploits of Elisha, which, significantly,
concern the northern kingdom of Israel. Several scholars have argued that cer-
tain non-standard linguistic forms here (and elsewhere), among them the 2fs
forms under discussion, are either authentically dialectal forms preserved in
stories originally written in the north or are literary devices meant to reflect a
northern dialect.24 The case of אתיin 1 Kgs 14.2 also comes in a northern setting
(in the mouth of king Jeroboam son of Nebat), though it should be noted that
there are no instances of כי- in six potential cases in the same chapter or of תי-
in four potential cases.
Ezek 16: zero occurrences of אתיin nine potential cases (0 percent), zero occur-
rences of כי- in 175 potential cases (0 percent), ten occurrences of תי- in 36
potential cases (27.8 percent) = total ten instances in 220 potential cases (4.5
percent). The use of the non-standard 2fs forms in Ezekiel is probably not to be
attributed to dialect, but rather to exilic or early-post-exilic Aramaic influence,
as this book was most likely composed at a time when Aramaic—many dia-
lects of which preserve a final i vowel in their relevant 2fs forms—was in use
by the higher classes, including the literati, as the lingua franca of the empire.25
It should be noted, however, that this is not a pure loan from Aramaic, as the
feature already existed in Hebrew. Of course, this explanation (among many)
22 Burney 1918: 171–176; Kutscher 1982: §§45, 54 (cf. §100); Rendsburg 1990b: 128; see also
above, §§1.3.3.1, 1.4.2; cf. Young 1995.
23 In the case of the apparently exceptional use within 2 Kgs 4 of the standard form ַא ְּתin
ּנֹותר
ָ ּובנַ יִ ְך ִת ְחיִ י ַּבָ ‘ וְ ַא ְּתand you and your children can live on the remainder’ (2 Kgs 4.7 qre)
it may be that the ktiv preserves the original reading, according to which אתshould be
read not as a 2fs independent subject pronoun, but as the marker of the direct object, i.e.,
ּנֹותר
ָ ‘ *וְ ֶאת בָּ נַ יִ ִכי ְת ַחּיִ י ַּבand your children keep alive with the remainder’.
24 Burney 1903: 208; BDB 61b; Harris 139: 75; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997: 332–333;
Rendsburg 2002a: 37–38; C. Smith 2003: 57–50, 149–158.
25 Kutscher 1974: 25–26, 188–190.
pronominal morphology 117
hardly accounts for the exclusive concentration of 2fs qaṭal verbal forms end-
ing in i in Ezek chapter 16.
Ps 103: zero instances of אתיin zero potential cases (– percent), five instances of
ִכי- in six potential cases (84.3 percent),26 zero instances of תי- in zero potential
cases (– percent) = total five instances in six potential cases (83.3 percent). The
late date of this psalm has been established linguistically by Hurvitz (1972: 107–
130). According to Hurvitz’ line of argumentation (ibid. 116–119), on the basis of
the generally late linguistic profile of this psalm, the use of 2fs ִכי- here, which
in a more neutral context may be classified as a true archaism preserved in
poetry, is rather to be seen as a native, but unproductive Hebrew form pressed
into archaistic poetic duty perhaps on the basis of late Aramaic influence.
Ps 116: zero occurrences of אתיin zero potential cases (– percent), three occur-
rences of ִכי- in three potential cases (100 percent), zero occurrences of תי- in
zero potential cases (– percent) = total three instances in three potential cases
(100 percent). Hurvitz (1972: 172–176) includes this psalm in a list of those char-
acterized by an insufficient number of distinctively late linguistic features to
be securely classified as late (in addition to 2fs ִכי-, this psalm contains two
additional probable Aramaisms: the 3ms possessive suffix ִֹוהי- ‘his’ and the
taqṭul-pattern lexeme ‘ ַּתגְ מּולbenefit, recompense’). Likewise, the case of ִכי-
in Ps 135.9 (which also exhibits the use of the relativizer -‘ ֶׁשthat, which’ with
the participle and the collocation ֹלהינּוֵ ‘ ֵּבית ֱאhouse of our God’; ibid.). Finally,
while Ps 137, which also contains an instance of ִכי- (v. 6), does not present an
accumulation of characteristically late linguistic features (in addition to ִכי-,
only the relativizer -‘ ֶׁשthat, which’ [3x]), it is clearly transitional at the earliest,
set as it is in the Exile.
This rather striking distribution, limited almost exclusively to archaic
poetry, northern prose, and late poetry must be seen as evidence against the
notion that the forms of the relevant morphemes with the i ending were wide-
spread in ancient Hebrew pronunciation. For if they had been, then one must
ask why relevant spellings were preserved specifically in northern prose and
archaic and late poetry, when they should be fairly evenly scattered through-
out biblical literature.
26 The form ֶע ְדיֵ ְךin Ps 103.5 is suspect from more than one perspective; see the BHS appara-
tus and the commentaries.
118 chapter 4
4.2.3 Jeremiah
The following verses in Jeremiah contain the morphemes in question:
Jer 2.20 for of old you broke ( ) ָׁש ַב ְר ִּתיyour yoke, you tore off ( )נִ ַּת ְק ִּתיyour
bonds
Jer 2.33 even to the evil (women) you have taught (ktiv: ;למדתיqre ) ִל ַּמ ְד ְּת
your ways
Jer 3.4–5 Have you not now called (ktiv: ;קראתיqre ) ָק ָראתto me “My father,
you are the God of my youth! Will he rage forever, will he be angry
for eternity?” Behold you have spoken (ktiv ;דברתיqre ) ִד ַּב ְר ְּת, but
you did as much evil as you could.
27 The non-biblical material exhibits the following proportions: את: אתי0:1 (?), ך-:כי- 37:19,
ת-:תי- 0:2; the same ratios in the biblical material are 8:3, 494:28, and 39:20.
28 The ratio of את: אתיin the Samaritan Pentateuch is 1:6 (the apparent case of אתis not
interpreted by Samaritan grammarians as a 2fs pronoun), ך-:כי- 54:1, ת-:תי- 5:5.
29 Hurvitz 1972: 116–119; Kutscher 1974: 25–26, 188–190, 208–209; Qimron 1979: 365.
30 See Gzella 2013; I am indebted to Paul Noorlander for pointing out the relevance of this
discussion.
31 On DSS Hebrew see Yalon (1950–1951: 168–169). On Samaritan Hebrew see Ben-Ḥayyim
(2000: §2.0.13), who argues that the forms in question are authentic survivals, not bor-
rowings from Aramaic, that were nevertheless preserved in Samaritan Hebrew with the
help of Aramaic, which served as the spoken language of the Samaritans; cf. Ben-Ḥayyim
1943–1944: 125.
pronominal morphology 119
Jer 4.19 for you have heard (ktiv ;שמעתיqre ) ָׁש ַמ ַע ְּת, my soul, the sound of
the horn
Jer 4.30 and you (ktiv ;ואתיqre )וְ ַא ְּת, devastated one, what will you do?
Jer 11.15 when you (do) evil () ָר ָע ֵת ִכי, then you exult
Jer 31.21 attend to the highway, the road you have walked (ktiv ;הלכתיqre
) ָה ָל ְכ ְּת
Jer 46.11 in vain have you multiplied (ktiv ;הרביתיqre ) ִה ְר ֵּביתremedies
It is first to be noted that all these non-standard forms come in poetic pas-
sages. Further, while the presumably unique nature of Jeremiah’s Benjaminite
dialect has been suggested as a factor worthy of consideration,32 it seems pref-
erable to explain these cases on other grounds. Given the period in which the
prophet was active and in which the book bearing his name was subsequently
composed, Aramaic influence must be considered likely. Be that as it may, the
influence in question need not have been subconscious, but may rather have
consisted in the deliberate use of Aramaic/archaistic forms for purposes of
euphony. An argument for such motivation is particularly convincing in the
case of Jer 4.30 above, where 11 out of 22 words end in i.33
32 See C. Smith, who in his 2003 dissertation, explains a number of Jeremiah’s linguistic
peculiarities as features of his Benjaminite dialect, explains כי- and תי- as dialectal (2003:
56–57, 155–158), but opts for a slightly more nuanced literary explanation in the case of
( אתיibid.: 40–47). More generally on the approach to detecting dialects in BH see above,
§1.4.2.
33 י־ת ְק ְר ִעי ַבּפּוְך ֵעינַ יִ ְך ַל ָּׁשוְ א
ִ י־ת ְע ִּדי ֲע ִדי־זָ ָהב ִּכ
ַ י־ת ְל ְּב ִׁשי ָׁשנִ י ִּכ
ִ ה־ּת ֲע ִׂשי ִּכ
ַ וְ ַא ְּת] ָׁשדּוד ַמ:ואתי [קרי
סּו־בְך עֹגְ ִבים נַ ְפ ֵׁשְך ַיְב ֵּקׁשּו ָ יַּפי ָמ ֲאִ ‘ ִּת ְתAnd you, who are doomed to ruin, What do you
accomplish by wearing crimson, By decking yourself in jewels of gold, By enlarging your
eyes with kohl? You beautify yourself in vain: Lovers despise you, They seek your life!’
(NJPS).
34 Jer 2.2, 17; 7.16; 15.6; 23.37; 30.14, 15 (2x); 31.21; 34.14; 48.7; 49.34.
120 chapter 4
The primitive suffix for the 3fs (we)qaṭal form in proto-Hebrew was evidently
identical to the primitive suffix of the fs substantive, namely -at. This ending
is preserved in most Semitic languages. In Hebrew, on the other hand, the t
consonant in this suffix (unlike final t sufformative after other vowels, e.g.,
-et, -it, -ot, and -ut) is regularly elided in word-final position both in the verb,
e.g., ָק ְט ַלת > ָק ְט ָלה, and in nominal forms, e.g., סּוסה
ָ > סּוסת
ַ . The t in question is
preserved when not word-final, as in 3fs verbs preceding an attached object
suffix, e.g., ‘ ּגְ נָ ָב ַתםshe stole them’ (Gen 31.32) and in fs nouns in construct, e.g.,
‘ ַחּיַ ת ָה ָא ֶרץbeast of the earth’ (Gen 1.25), including construct combinations with
a possessive suffix, e.g., ‘ ַּכ ָּלתֹוhis bride’ (Gen 11.31).35
4.3.1 The mt
The Bible contains only a few forms (15) in which the feminine t in ques-
tion has survived in final position in the 3fs (we)qaṭal form: ‘ ֻה ָבאתshe was
brought’ (Gen 31.11); ‘ וְ ָח ָטאתand she will sin’ (Exod 5.16 [?]); ‘ וְ ָע ָׂשתand it will
yield’ (Lev 25.21); ‘ וְ ִה ְר ָצתand (the land) will satisfy’ (Lev 26.34); ‘ וְ ָק ָראתand
(calamity) will befall (you)’ (Deut 31.29); (‘ ָאזְ ַלתmight) is gone’ (Deut 32.36);
‘ והיתand (Jezebel’s carcass) will be’ (2 Kgs 9.37 ktiv); ‘ וְ ָק ָראתand she will call’
(Isa 7.14); ‘ וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחתand (Tyre) will be forgotten’ (Isa 23.15 [?; the form could be
construed as a participle]); (‘ ָהגְ ָלתJudah) has been exiled’ (Jer 13.19 [2x]); ָק ָראת
‘(this calamity) has befallen (you)’ (Jer 44.23); ‘ ֶה ְל ָאתshe has wearied’ (Ezek
24.12); ‘ וְ ָׁש ַבתand it shall revert’ (Ezek 46.17); ‘ נִ ְפ ָלאתis wonderful’ (Ps 118.23).
At first glance, these instances appear to account for the smallest proportion
of cases (about one percent) of the approximately 1325 occurrences of 3fs
(we)qaṭal forms. Yet, one should note that in 12 of the 15 cases the verb in ques-
tion is either ל"יor ( ל"אincluding ֻה ָבאתGen 31.11, which is also )ע"ו. When only
verbs of this type are considered, the percentage of potential cases increases
35 The t in question is also regularly preserved in the 3fs (we)qaṭal forms of ל"יverbs. These
forms have double, i.e., redundant, feminine morphological marking in the form of (a) the
feminine ת-, representing -at, and (b) the additional feminine suffix ָ◌ה-, itself apparently
having developed from -at, which was added as compensation for what was felt to be a
missing syllable in analogy to the 3fs forms of strong verbs in (we)qaṭal, i.e., ַקנַ ת < ַקנַ ַתת
in analogy to ַק ַט ַלת, after which the final t in both forms stopped being pronounced and
was eventually no longer written. Alternatively, perhaps ַק ַט ַלת > ַק ַט ַלה, but ַקנַ תdid not
undergo the same process until later (as similar 3fs forms are known from RH); see GKC
§75i; Bergsträsser 1918–1927: II §30r; Bauer and Leander 1922: §57u; Harris 1939: 57–59;
Bendavid 1967–1971: I 133, II §107; Blau 1980: 18–20; 2010: §§4.3.3.4.6–4.3.3.4.8n, 4.3.8.6.4.2;
Kutscher 1982: §§95, 100, 212.
pronominal morphology 121
(12 out of approximately 530, or about 2.5 percent of the cases), though it is
still negligible. One may also consider only those verbs in which the t ending
is actually preserved, and omit cases of the very common verbs ָהיָ הand ָע ָׂשה,
each of which, it is true, occurs once with a t ending (in 210 and 30 potential
cases, respectively). Filtered in this way, forms ending in -at come in ten of
the 16 relevant cases: ‘ ֻה ָבאתwas brought’ 1/1, ‘ ָח ָטאתsinned’ 1/5, ‘ ִה ְר ָצתsatisfied’
1/1, ‘ ָק ָראתoccurred’ 2/2, ‘ ָאזְ ַלתleft’ 1/1, ‘ ָהגְ ָלתwas exiled’ 2/3, ‘ ֶה ְל ָאתwearied’ 1/1,
‘ נִ ְפ ָלאתbe wonderful’ 1/2. It is possible that the use of 3fs (we)qaṭal forms end-
ing in -at was still fairly common in the case of certain verbs (in certain con-
texts), but was regularized to ָ◌ה- in the majority of verbs (in most contexts).
4.3.3 Explanations
The forms in question have been explained in two basic ways. On the one
hand, since the ending in question is typologically more primitive than the
standard תה-, and since several of its occurrences are found in archaic or at
least classical poetry, e.g., ָאזְ ַלתin Deut 32.36,39 it has been argued that these
represent genuine archaisms, i.e., old forms preserved in old contexts. On the
other hand, one must bear in mind that the ending in question is also the norm
in various dialects of Aramaic, including Second Temple dialects. With this in
mind, one must ask whether certain cases of the t ending in Hebrew—within
the Bible and in extra-biblical sources—are not better explained as a result of
36 Against the claim (GKC §75m, n. 1) that היתmay represent a vowel-final pronunciation,
Renz and Röllig (1995: I 187, n. 9) argue that the inscription in question consistently marks
final vowels with matres lectionis.
37 Non-biblical material: 4Q394 f3–7i.12; 4Q418 f127.2; biblical material: 1QIsaa 1.10 (|| Isa 1.8
[?]); 14.3 (|| Isa 17.1); 15.21 (|| Isa 19.17); 40.13 (|| Isa 48.8 [?]); 4Q26c 2.3 (|| Lev 26.34); 11Q4
f3b+6.5 (|| Ezek 5.15).
38 Segal 1927: 91–94; 1936: 152–154; Haneman 1974: 314–320; Kutscher 1982: §212; Blau 1983;
Bar-Asher 1993. Haneman (1974: 315–316) notes that this principle does not hold in the
case of the verb ָהיָ ה, which normally comes in the 3fs form ָהיְ ָתה.
39 Kutscher 1974: 191; 1982: §55.
122 chapter 4
late Aramaic influence, for instance, those in Ezekiel and in the Great Isaiah
Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa).40 Be that as it may, the explanation that attri-
butes the late revival (or survival) of ת- to Aramaic influence does not fit all late
instances of the suffix. For example, regarding the situation in RH Kutscher
(1982: §212) explains:
4.3.4 Jeremiah
Jeremiah contains over 165 cases of 3fs (we)qaṭal forms, 52 of them ל"יverbs. In
only three cases does the form in question end in ת-:
Jer 13.19 Judah has been completely exiled () ָהגְ ָלת, exiled ( ) ָהגְ ָלתentirely
Jer 44.23 therefore this calamity has befallen ( ) ָק ָראתyou
On the form ‘ ָהגְ ָלתwas exiled’ (Jer 13.19 [2x]): the expected standard form is
ָהגְ ְל ָתה, as in Est 2.6. It is difficult to determine whether the form is genuinely
archaic or late. Though it preserves the primitive suffix, comes in binyan hofʿal,
which is more characteristic of early sources than of late ones, and is found in
a poetic context, the suffix in question is characteristic of Aramaic, examples
of which influence are found both in the book in general and in the immediate
context, and the use of hofʿal was still alive and well in BA, in all likelihood a
form of that language later than the one that exerted influence on the language
of Jeremiah. A certain combination of explanations is possible: perhaps, for
reasons of style connected to poetic composition, the poet adopted an archaic
form, but was influenced in doing so by the morphology of Aramaic. If so, then
the form would not be characteristic of the writer’s language, but, in Kutscher’s
from the phonetic similarity between derivations of the two roots, the degree
of which rose with the silencing of the glottal stop in syllable-final position
in forms of קר"א, and from a certain semantic similarity: compare ‘ ָק ָראinvite’
(e.g., Gen 12.8; 41.8; Exod 10.24) and ‘ נִ ְק ָראbe invited’ (Isa 31.4; Est 2.14; 3.12; 4.11
[2x]; 8.9) to ‘ ָק ָרהoccur, meet, meet with’ and ‘ נִ ְק ָרהoccur, meet’.48 The mixture
of the two roots is especially striking in the case of the infinitive construct of
קר"י, ‘ ִל ְק ַראתto meet’, which serves as a quasi-preposition in the sense of ‘oppo-
site, toward’. This form comes in the spelling לקרת, with no ʾalef, in the Siloam
inscription (ln. 4), but in the Bible is consistently written with ʾalef.49 The
majority of this form’s peculiarities can be explained,50 but the consistency
of the biblical spelling with ʾalef is surprising, and raises the suspicion that we
are dealing with the result of post-biblical orthographic leveling. However, it
should be noted that the spelling with ʾalef is dominant in the DSS as well,51 a
state of affairs that proves that the spelling in question is not simply an inven-
tion of the Masoretes, but rather was widespread already before the start of the
Common Era. In the book of Jeremiah, קר"יis consistently replaced with קר"א,
to the total exclusion of the former from the book.52
48 An etymological connection is not أout of the question, as according to HALOT (1131a) the
ق ق
basic meaning of the Arabic verb �‘ �رread’ is apparently ‘gather’ (like )�ر�ى.
49 The expected form, ( ִל) ְקרֹות, is not documented in the Bible at all. The infinitive construct
of ‘ ָק ָראcall, read’, in contrast, is ( ִל) ְקרֹא.
50 The morphological uniqueness of the infinitive ִל ְק ַראתis explained by its belonging to
the nominative pattern qaṭlatu, from which the infinitives of many stative-class verbs are
formed, e.g., ‘ ְל ַא ֲה ָבהto love’, ‘ ְל ַא ְׁש ָמהto be guilty’, ‘ זִ ְקנָ הto be old’, ‘ ְליִ ְר ָאהto fear’, ְל ִר ְב ָעה
‘to be hungry’, ‘ ְל ִׂשנְ ָאהto hate’. Due to the lack of a guttural letter in first or second posi-
tion the vowel of the first root letter was attenuated from a to i. In the specific case of
ִל ְק ַראתthe final tav was preserved because the form is always in construct. The vowel pat-
tern is explained as follows: due to weakening of the ʾalef qarʾat > qarat; due to its being in
an open, unaccented syllable in construct (far from the word-stress) qarat > qĕrat (liqrat)
(GKC §§19k, 45d; Bauer and Leander 1922: Nachträge und Verbesserung (Schluß.), p. II, n.
to p. 425, ln. 8ff). The exact pronunciation of the form in the biblical period, i.e., with or
without an audible ʾalef, is unclear; the vocalization matches the pronunciation in RH.
51 There are 23 cases of לקר(א)תin the Scrolls: 18 times with ʾalef, twice, perhaps three times
without. In the remaining cases the fragmentary nature of the text makes it impossible to
ascertain the precise spelling.
52 ל־ׁש ֶבר נִ ְק ָרא
ֶ ‘ ֶׁש ֶבר ַעdisaster occurs on top of disaster’ (Jer 4.20) (there are those who
interpret with a nuance of ‘call’ here); ּדּוע ְק ָר ֻאנִ י ֵא ֶּלה ַ ‘ ַמwhy have these things befallen
me?’ (13.22); ל־ה ָר ָעה ַהּזֹאת ָ ‘ וַ ַּת ְק ֵרא א ָֹתם ֵאת ָּכand all this calamity happened to them’
(32.23); אתם ָ ‘ וַ ּיֵ ֵצא יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל ֶּבן־נְ ַתנְ יָ ה ִל ְק ָרand Ishmael son of Netanya went out to meet
them’ (41.6); ל־ּכן ָק ָראת ֶא ְת ֶכם ָה ָר ָעה ַהּזֹאת ֵ ‘ ַעit is for this reason that this calamity has
befallen you’ (44.23); ּומּגִ יד ִל ְק ַראת ַמּגִ יד ַ את־רץ יָ רּוץ ָ ‘ ָרץ ִל ְק ַרrunner to meet runner runs
and herald to meet herald’ (51.31 [2x]).
pronominal morphology 125
The diachronic status of the form ָק ָראתis unclear. On the one hand, it comes
with a verbal sufformative common in Aramaic. On the other hand, the ending
is also typologically more primitive than the standard ending, ָתה-. Moreover,
there is consensus that the appearance of the ending ת- in similar forms in
RH consists in the preservation of an early feature, and is not the result of late
Aramaic influence. It is also germane to note that the form in Jeremiah appears
in an allusion to Deuteronomy:
This being the case, it is possible that the form in question does not represent
the language of Jeremiah at all, but was simply adopted from an earlier source.
To summarize: the linguistic status of the 3fs verbal ending ת- in Jeremiah
is not sufficiently clear. It may constitute a genuine archaism or a result of late
Aramaic influence. Whatever the case may be, the form is quite rare in the
book, especially in comparison to the many cases of the standard ending ָ◌ה-.
4.4.1 The mt
In the mt the 1cpl independent subject pronoun is usually ( ֲאנַ ְחנּו120 cases,
including pausal ) ֲאנָ ְחנּו, rarely ( נַ ְחנּוfive times including pausal )נָ ְחנּו,53 and
once ( אנוJer 42.6 ktiv) all ‘we’.
53 A further case of נַ ְחנּוis possible at 2 Sam 17.12, but it is not clear if the form in question
is a pronoun (HALOT 689b) or a verb (BDB 59b). נחנוalso appears in the Lachish let-
ters (4.10–11). According to one approach, נחנוis the primitive form, the initial ʾalef hav-
ing been added on the basis of analogy to the 1cs pronouns אניand ( אנכיBrockelmann
1908–1913: I 299; Barth 1913: §3c; Blau 1972: 93–94; 2010: §4.2.2.6.1; HALOT 689b; JM §39a).
As evidence of the antiquity of the form without ʾalef JM note that נַ ְחנּוappears four times
in the Pentateuch and that its appearance in Lamentations should not be considered dia-
chronically diagnostic, because the form without ʾalef was needed for purposes of the
acrostic there. Others (e.g., Harris 1939: 78–79; Kutscher 1982: §42) think the form begin-
ning with ʾalef the earlier of the two.
126 chapter 4
4.4.3 Etymology
As for the etymological origin of ָאנּו, there are two main views. On the one
hand, there are those who see it as a popular creation that developed out of
analogy to the short 1cs independent pronoun ֲאנִ י.58 Conceivably, the verbal
ending/object suffix/possessive suffix נּו- may also have played a role, i.e.,
Alternatively, some have claimed that the 1cpl object/possessive suffix itself
developed from ָאנּו.60 Whatever the exact course of development, it is clear
that ָאנּוis the result of inner-Hebrew development and not of external, i.e.,
Aramaic, influence.61
54 These figures are based on Abegg’s (2002–2012) concordance. Cf. Qimron 1986: §321.14;
Rendsburg 1990a: 139; C. Smith 2003: 45; Kutscher 2007: 636.
55 Segal 1908: 655–656; 1936: §68; Haneman 1980: §51.123; Kutscher 1982: §201; 2007: 642;
Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 184; Hadas-Label 1995: 160; Fernández 1997: 18. Segal (1935–1936: 114)
also lists a single instance of אנוin Ben Sira (8.7), but according to both his edition (1953)
and that of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (1973), this would appear to be a mis-
take. It should also be noted that, according to the most reliable sources, the ʾalef in אנו
should be vocalized with a full vowel (qamaṣ or pataḥ), and not with ḥataf pataḥ; Segal
1936: §68; Orlinsky 1942–1943: 285, n. 31; Haneman 1980: §51.123; Rendsburg 1990a: 139, n. 2.
56 Segal (1936: §68) lists a few examples, but admits the existence of textual variants.
According to Haneman (1980: §51.123), ֲאנַ ְחנּוis not found at all in the Parma A manuscript
of the Mishna. The same is true of the Kaufmann manuscript.
57 Segal 1936: §68; Fernández 1997: 18.
58 Gesenius 1847: 63b; Segal 1908: 655–656; 1935–1936: 114; 1936: §68; Brockelmann 1908–1913:
I 299; Barth 1913: §3c; Blau 1972: 94; 2010: §4.2.2.6.1; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 184; Fernández
1997: 18.
59 Segal 1908: 655–656; 1935–1936: 114; 1936: §68; Kutscher 1982: §201; Sáenz-Badillos 1993:
184; Fernández 1997: 18.
60 Gesenius 1847: 63b; GKC §32d.
61 Kutscher 1982: §201; 2007: 636; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 184; Hadas-Label 1995: 160; Fernández
1997: 18.
pronominal morphology 127
4.4.4 Jeremiah
Jer 42.6 whether good or bad, the voice of Yhwh, our God, to whom we (ktiv
;אנוqre ) ֲאנַ ְחנּוsend you, we will obey
Various approaches to the ktiv form אנוin Jer 42.6 have been proposed.
According to one the form does not reflect an authentic linguistic usage from
the days of the Bible,62 but has arisen as a result of scribal corruption that was
left uncorrected due to its similarity to a genuine form in post-biblical Hebrew.63
It is true that the infrequency of אנוin the Bible, along with its absence from
the Masoretic reading tradition, arouses suspicion regarding its authenticity.
Even so, its fairly regular occurrence in the non-biblical DSS and its standard
usage in RH testify to its status as a viable form in the centuries straddling the
beginning of the Common Era and, in this way, increase the chances that the
biblical form reflects the linguistic milieu of an earlier period.
Yet even if there is broad consensus on the plausibility of the form’s genu-
ineness in its lone appearance in the Bible,64 there is still debate on the form’s
linguistic character. For example, in one discussion Segal (1908: 565) argues
that it penetrated into the book of Jeremiah as a popular addition in the long
course of the book’s literary crystallization. If so, the form is indeed authentic,
in that it is not a scribal error, but it is evidently not representative of the lan-
guage of the writer.65
According to others the form accurately represents the linguistic milieu of
the period of the Bible. Formulated in one way, this approach holds that the
presence of אנוin Jeremiah is evidence of the colloquial character of this pro-
noun in approximately the year 600 BCE. In favor of this view, it should be noted
that the form comes specifically in the speech of the people.66 Accordingly,
the ancient sources testify to a process of development whereby the colloquial
form succeeded gradually to penetrate the language’s literary register, even-
tually displacing completely its counterpart ֲאנַ ְחנּוin the post-biblical period.
62 Duhm 1901: 320; Orlinsky 1942–1943: 284–286 (according to Orlinsky, Bergsträsser [1918–
1929: I §§2o, 3g] and Joüon [1923: §39] also doubt the form’s genuineness, but to the best
of my understanding, the former does not render an opinion one way or the other, while
the latter does not deal with the form at all).
63 Orlinsky 1942–1943: 284–286.
64 Gesenius 1847: 63b; GKC §32d; Segal 1935–1936: 114; 1936: §68; Meyer 1969–1992: I §30,
1b; Blau 1972: 94; 2010: §4.2.2.6.1; Kutscher 1982: §42; Rendsburg 1990a: 139–140; Sáenz-
Badillos 1993: 184; Hadas-Label 1995: 160; Fernández 1997: 18; Kaddari 2006: 56a; Bar-Asher
2010: 299.
65 Segal presents a less detailed, more moderate position in his other publications (1927:
§68; 1935–1936: 114; 1936: §68).
66 Kutscher 1982: §42; Rendsburg 1990a: 139; see also Young 1993: 92–93.
128 chapter 4
This explanation fits well with the rare use of אנוin the Bible and its increased
employment in the DSS and RH.67
Despite the logic of the approach presented in the preceding paragraph,
it leaves several details concerning the use of אנחנוand אנוin the DSS unex-
plained. For instance, in 4QMMT, the language of which is thought in some
ways to be more representative of the spoken Hebrew of the period of the
DSS—and more similar to RH—than the Hebrew of other scrolls,68 the 1cpl
independent pronoun employed is אנחנו,69 while אנוis found in other, appar-
ently more literary texts.70
In the opinion of C. Smith (2003: 45–47) this unexpected use of the two
forms in the language of the DSS demonstrates that the difference between
them is not one of register, i.e., literary versus colloquial. For Smith, who
accepts אנוin Jer 42.6 as genuinely authorial, the distinction is one of dialect,
אנוbeing indicative—either truly or literarily—of the specific border dialect
of the residents of Anathoth.
The lack of evidence from the biblical period precludes certainty on the
nature of the form in question. There seems no convincing reason to doubt
its authenticity in Jeremiah. In light of its growing use in the DSS and its
dominance in RH, the notion that we are dealing with a vernacular form that
gradually penetrated the literary register is perhaps the most convincing of the
arguments proposed.71
67 This view is based on the claim that RH was a living spoken language (proven by Segal in
his seminal 1908 study), with origins in the spoken language of the period of the Bible. See
also Rendsburg 1990a: 139: “The greater use of אנוin the DSS is an indication that as time
passed written Hebrew become more susceptible to the incursion of vernacular forms.”
68 Morag 1988; Qimron and Strugnell 1994.
69 Qimron 1986: §321.14.
70 See Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §§3.3.1.1.2, 3.7.2A; Schniedewind 1999: 251–252.
71 On this assumption, the qre at Jer 42.6 would involve the rejection of a seemingly ‘unbib-
lical’ form. It is interesting to note that in Modern Israeli Hebrew the forms אנחנוand
אנוhave exchanged roles, with the former dominant in everyday speech and the latter
reserved for more formal, especially written, contexts.
pronominal morphology 129
72 Barth 1913: 20; Brockelmann 1908–1913: I 305; Moscati 1964: §13.12; Kutscher 1974: 434–435.
Cf. Qimron’s (2000: 241–242) approach, which is presented in detail below, and that of
Fassberg (2009), who explains the shift e/ɛ < i as the result of a process of phonetic dis-
similation that took place prior to the general loss of final short vowels, i.e., * < ֵהםhim <
*himu < *humu < *humū̆.
130 chapter 4
73 To be sure, the consistency of the Samaritan written tradition—which always has the
short form—and the consistent mismatch with the reading tradition also arouse suspi-
cion. It is arguably the variety reflected in the MT that most strongly supports its linguistic
authenticity. Scribes tended to level linguistic differences, not to create them (except by
means of accidental corruption). Finally, forms like כתבת ָ ‘you (ms) wrote’, ‘ סוסָךyour
(ms) horse’, and ָ ‘ תקטלןyou/they (fpl) will kill’ (alongside forms like כתבתה, סוסכה, and
תקטלנה, respectively) prove that the vocalizers were willing to add final a vowels even
where these were not borne out by the orthography.
74 BDB 241a; Lambert 1938: §306; HALOT 250a; JM §39a. The two forms come in the same
verse on several occasions.
75 BDB 241a; HALOT 250a; JM §39a. Cases of ההםoutnumber those of ההמה46:12. Other
combinations exhibiting a noticeable preference include ‘ ֵא ֶּלה ֵהםthese are the ones’, 10x,
always short; ל־ס ֶפר
ֵ תּובים ַע
ִ ֵה ָּמה ְּכ/א־הם
ֵ ֹ ‘ ֲהלare these not written in the book’, 29 out of
32 cases short.
76 BDB 241a.
pronominal morphology 131
4.5.2 The mt
The following table presents the distribution of the two forms in question
within the mt.
Book הֵ ם הֵ ּ ָמה Book הֵ ם הֵ ּ ָמה Book הֵ ם הֵ ּ ָמה
Several facts are immediately apparent from the statistics in the table. First,
both forms occur throughout the Hebrew Bible. Even so, certain preferences
and tendencies are apparent. The Pentateuch exhibits a striking preference for
the short form, as do Judges and Kings; Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve,
and Psalms prefer the long form; in the core late books usage of the two forms
is nearly identical. At first glance, one may be hard-pressed to find any pattern
in the distribution. It would certainly be a gross oversimplification to claim
that diachronic development alone explains the statistics presented here. If
there is any discernible pattern owing to something more significant than per-
sonal taste, then it is bound to involve a number of factors. Before discussing
these, however, it will be useful to survey use of the two forms of the 3mpl
pronoun in the extra-biblical sources. 77
78 Though from the use of final yod and he, it would seem that these letters were used to
mark final vowels when such were pronounced. Note, especially, ‘ מהדבהMedeba’ and
‘ ללהnight’.
79 כמש.לפני.המ.‘ ואסחבand I dragged them before Chemosh’ (ln. 18).
80 On the well-known penchant for content and grammatical harmonization in the
Samaritan Pentateuch see Tov 2001: 84–93, especially 89–90, and Tal and Florentin 2010:
28–34.
81 Ben-Ḥayyim 2000: §3.1.6.
82 1Q6 f5–6.4 (|| ִהּנָ םJdg 9.31); 1Q7 f2.2 (|| ֵהם2 Sam 20.8); 1QIsaa 1.3 (|| ֵהםIsa 1.2); 31.20
(|| ֵהםIsa 38.1); 41.21 (|| ֵהםIsa 49.21); 43.7 (|| ֵהּנָ הIsa 51.19); 46.23 (|| ִלנְ ּב ַֹח חֹזִ יםIsa 56.10); 47.5
pronominal morphology 133
הםagainst MT המהonly four times.83 The short form is preferred in the admit-
tedly few potential cases in Ben Sira, is decidedly dominant in RH,84 and is the
regular form in the Secunda of Origen’s Hexapla.85
4.5.4 Explanation
Kutscher suggested an explanation incorporating both historical development
and register. Describing the Great Isaiah Scroll’s (1QIsaa) virtually exclusive use
of המהover הםhe observes:
In later Bibl. Hebr. one finds a marked tendency toward the use of the
form המה. Striking proof of this is the fact that whereas in the Pentateuch
the ratio between הן:( המהsic: הם: = )המהover 80 : over 20, or about 4:1, in
Chron the ratio is 14:18, or 1:1 1/3! It is this tendency which is responsible
for the fact that the Scr. contains המהalmost exclusively. The question
is whether this reflects the colloquial usage then current, or whether it
is not rather a literary nuance, affected for the very reason that in the
spoken idiom—Rab. Hebr.—the short form had become dominant. . . .
(Kutscher 1974: 434–435; see also 59–50).
(|| ֵהם ֵהםIsa 57.6); 50.7 (|| ֵהםIsa 61.9); 51.29 (|| ָּת ִמיד ז ְֹב ִחיםIsa 65.3); 53.7 (|| ֵהםIsa 65.24);
53.18 (|| ֵהםIsa 66.5); 4Q14 1.42 (|| ֵהםExod 8.17); 4Q22 3.33 (|| ֵהםExod 8.17); 4Q40 f1–3.4
(|| ֵהםDeut 3.20); 4Q80 f17.1 (|| ֵהםZech 8.6).
83 1Q8 24.29 (|| ֵה ָּמהIsa 56.11); 28.7 (|| ֵה ָּמהIsa 65.23); 4Q51 8a–b.11 ( ַההּוא1 Sam 8.18); 4Q88 2.11
(|| י־ה ְמרּו
ִ ִּכPs 107.11).
84 In Codex Kaufmann of the Mishna the form הןhas to a large extent become the 3cpl
independent subject pronoun (thereby replacing both הםand המהin their role as the
3mpl independent subject pronoun). The statistics above thus represent the minority of
cases in which הםstill occurs. The two occurrences of המה, in Sukka 5.4 and Soṭa 7.5, not
surprisingly, come in citations from the Bible (Ezek 8.16 and Deut 11.30, respectively). See
Segal 1936: §§66, 69.
85 Sperber 1966: 219.
86 For these counterarguments see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 104.
134 chapter 4
the two forms may have been conditioned at least in part by motivations of
genre, whereby ֵה ָּמהwas used in poetic and/or lofty style. This, taken together
with the rabbinic propensity for a short form (whether הןor )הם, may help to
account for both the biblical and extra-biblical distribution of the two forms.
It seems that both forms were available during the entire biblical period, but
that two conflicting tendencies were at work in the Hebrew of the Second
Temple Period, namely (a) a tendency to employ ֵה ָּמהin high, poetic, and—
eventually—simply literary texts and (b) a tendency to employ ( ֵהםor ) ֵהןin the
vernacular. Though the suggested explanation is highly conjectural, it has the
advantage of accounting for general trends in the chronological distribution of
the two forms and for certain genre-conditioned distributional patterns in the
Bible, as well as for the tendencies specific to post-biblical material considered
pseudo-classical (i.e., the DSS) and for that more authentically representative
of the vernacular (i.e., RH).
4.5.5 Jeremiah
As may be gleaned from the preceding discussion, Jeremiah, like the Latter
Prophets in general, shows a much greater tendency to use ֵה ָּמהthan does most
earlier material. The distinction in this regard between Jeremiah ( ֵהם:= ֵה ָּמה
17:51) and Deuteronomy (17:5), with some form of which the writer(s) of
Jeremiah was (were) familiar, is especially striking. This pronounced change
is probably to be accounted for in terms of factors related to both chronol-
ogy and register/genre, though it is difficult to determine whether Jeremiah’s
decided preference for ֵה ָּמהis a ‘natural’ reflection of the book’s high propor-
tion of poetic, prophetic, and oratory discourse or, alternatively, an affected
and self-conscious attempt at high literary style. The fact that the long form
occurs not only in the poetry and speeches of the book, but is the only form
that appears in its narrative sections as well,87 may be evidence of somewhat
artificially archaistic use of ֵה ָּמה.
4.6.2 The MT
The ֹותם-
ָ ending would appear to be chronologically prior to the יהם ֵ - ending
ֶ ֹות
not only in terms of linguistic typology, but in terms of actual distribution as
88 GKC §91m; Bauer and Leander 1922: §29q′; Kutscher 1974: 451 and n. 1; Hurvitz 1982: 24–27;
Qimron 1986: §322.182; Bar-Asher 2004: 138, n. 6; Wright 2005: 28; JM §94g; Kim 2012:
99–107. Cf. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: II 156), who consider יהם ֶ ֹותֵ - typologi-
cally more primitive than ֹותם ָ -. Their logic is that in the former ending the consonant ה
is preserved, whereas in the latter it has been elided. The suggested development of ָ◌ם-
from הם- (whatever its vocalization) via elision of the הis eminently reasonable. However,
one must note that the early form with הis generally preserved only in post-vocalic posi-
tion, for example, regularly in forms like יהם ֶ ‘ ֲא ִבtheir father’, יהם
ֶ ‘ ֲא ִחtheir brother’, יהם ֶ ִּפ
‘their mouth’, ‘ ) ָּבם >( ַּב ֶהםin/with them’, ‘ ָל ֶהםto/for them’, and infrequently in some other
forms, e.g., ‘ ֻּכ ָּל ַהםall of them’ (only 2 Sam 23.6). This הis also preserved in the form of the
3mpl possessive suffix that attaches to substantives with plural forms that normally end
in ִ◌ים-, because, with the shedding of the mimation, here, too, the ending comes after a
vowel. In the case of the suffix ֹות-, however, there is no reason for the preservation of the
ה, because the 3mpl possessive suffix is now attached to a form ending in a consonant.
The presumed precursor of ֹותם ָ - is not יהם ֶ ֹות
ֵ -, but something along the lines of -āthVm.
The late character of the ending יהם ֶ ֹות
ֵ - is precisely the insertion of a vowel between the
endings ֹות- and ֶהם-/ ָ◌ם-, apparently due to analogy with forms such as יהם ֶ סּוס
ֵ , which
permits the preservation or reinsertion of the הand double marking of the plural. This
same late tendency is evident in the non-possessive forms ִע ָּמ ֶהםand יהם ֶ ( ַּת ְח ֵּתagainst
ִע ָּמםand ַּת ְח ָּתם, respectively); see BDB 767a, 1065a; Hurvitz 1982: 25, n. 9; HALOT 771a,
1026a; Wright 2005: 28. n. 37.
89 Bendavid 1967–1971: II 452, n. °°; Hurvitz 1982: 25; Wright 2005: 28.
136 chapter 4
well. The ending ֹותם- ָ is found throughout the Bible as well as in post-biblical
sources; conversely, ֹות ֶיהם-
ֵ is rare in material considered early (i.e., pre-exilic)
and appears with regularity (though not necessarily dominance) only in texts
dated to the Exile and beyond. In the Bible ֹותם ָ - is the more frequently used of
the two, with approximately 450 occurrences, against only about 150 cases of
יהם ֵ -. As noted, both forms appear in all chronological phases of BH, but not
ֶ ֹות
in equal proportions. While the short form dominates in the early books (in
the Pentateuch the ratio of ֹותם-ָ to יהם ֵ - is 209:990 and in the Former Prophets
ֶ ֹות
it is 67:15), use of the long form steadily increases in the later books (in the
core LBH books the ratio of ֹותם- ָ to יהם ֵ is 49:61). Seen from a different per-
ֶ ֹות-
spective, approximately 100 of the 150 cases of ֹות ֶיהם- ֵ , i.e., two-thirds, come in
texts composed around the time of the Exile or afterwards (including ‘Second
Isaiah’, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the core LBH books).91 See the following table: 92
It should be noted that in the case of a few substantives with the plural ending
ֹות- the longer ending יהם ֶ ◌ֵ - is standard throughout all periods of BH, including
classical texts. For example נֹות ֶיהם ֵ ‘ ְּבtheir daughters’ appears 21 times, against
a single case of ‘ ְּבנ ָֹתםtheir daughters’. When it comes to other substantives
with the relevant plural ending, forms with the suffix ֵ◌ ֶיהם- are especially,
sometimes exclusively, characteristic of late material. For example, בֹות ֶיהם ֵ ֲא
‘their fathers’ comes 33 times in the Bible, 29 of them in Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles, whereas ֲאב ָֹתםis fairly standard the entire length of the Bible.93
Finally, the long possessive forms of certain substantives (the short forms of
which do occur in the Bible) are absent from the Bible, occurring only in post-
biblical sources, e.g., מֹות ֶיהם
ֵ ‘ ְׁשtheir names’ and יהם
ֶ דֹות ְ ‘their generations’
ֵ ּתֹול
(see below).
Ben Sira 11 1
Biblical DSS 60 29
Non-biblical DSS 124 57
Samaritan Pentateuch 202 12
Mishna 11 78
also (2010: 290, n. 28) notes the possibility that the employment there of forms such as
שמותיהםreflects a broader preference for longer, apparently more literary forms, and
thus constitutes something of an artificial archaism. On this latter phenomenon more
generally see Fassberg 2003.
95 For example, in some cases the rather common use of the longer, characteristically late
ending in Psalms may conceivably be due to poetic, rather than historical factors.
pronominal morphology 139
biblical DSS there are 66 cases in which a Masoretic form with ֹותם ָ - is repre-
sented in one way or another; in 59 of them it is paralleled by a form with
)ותם(ה-, in seven by a form with )ותיהם(ה-.96 Conversely, the biblical DSS have 23
cases in which a Masoretic form with ֹות ֶיהם ֵ - is represented one way or another;
in 22 of them the ending is )ותיהם(ה-, in only one )ותם(ה-.97 Comparing the
MT with the DSS, this means that when the two differ with regard to the end-
ings under discussion, the DSS show the later form in seven of 66 cases (10.6
percent), and the MT in one of 23 (4.4 percent). Neither proportion is over-
whelming, but, clearly, in cases where the two corpora differ with respect to
the ending the DSS are more than twice as likely to have the later ending. This
arguably qualifies as ‘a trend in the direction of replacement’. Put differently, in
seven of the eight cases of divergence, the biblical DSS have the characteristi-
cally later form.
Such a drift is also discernible when comparing the MT and the non-biblical
DSS. Again, while the latter show a pronounced affinity for )ותם(ה-, their num-
bers of )ותיהם(ה- are by no means insignificant, showing a clear increase in the
employment of the longer ending in relation to CBH. This is especially clear in
citations of the Bible and in allusions thereto in the non-biblical scrolls. Thus,
BH knows only the form ּדֹורֹותם ָ , which is also favored in the non-biblical DSS.
But 11Q19 (the Temple Scroll) four times has ‘ דורותיהמהtheir generations’.98 In
the Bible the phrase ‘ אלהי אבותםGod of their fathers’ comes four times, three
of them in CBH, once in LBH, whereas אלהי אבותיהםcomes 16 times, all in LBH;
the sole occurrence of the phrase in the non-biblical DSS, in 4Q385a f18ia–
b.9, is אלהי אבותיהם. In 11Q19 2.5–6 the Temple Scroll makes a clear allusion to
Exod 34.12–13, but whereas the latter has ת־מזְ ְּבח ָֹתם ִּתּתֹצּון
ִ ‘ ֶאtheir altars you will
tear down’, the former reads [את מזבחו] ̇תיהםה תתוצון. Similarly, 4Q368 f2.4–5
is based on Exod 34.12–13, but has ‘ מצבותיהםtheir standing stones’ against the
MT’s ַמ ֵּצב ָֹתם. It is not inconsequential that in the case of three of the four exam-
ples just adduced the MT does itself, at some point, show an instance of the
characteristically later form. More important, however, is the fact that when
the forms of the MT and biblical allusions in the DSS differ, the latter corpus
is much more likely than the former to show the demonstrably late feature.99
96 The seven exceptions are 1QIsaa 48.19 (2x; || Isa 59.7–8); 53.15 (|| Isa 66.4); 2Q12 f1.7 (|| Deut
10.11); 4Q45 f15–16.2 (|| Deut 12.3); 4Q50 f2–3.8 (|| Jdg 21.22); 11Q5 fEii.1 (|| Ps 104.22). A fur-
ther example is [‘ [ויונק]ו֯ תיהמהand] their [bab]ies’ 1QIsaa 53.28 (|| ‘ וִ ינַ ְק ֶּתםand you [mpl]
will nurse’ Isa 66.12), though in this case the forms are not entirely parallel; cf. the Greek.
97 4Q56 f2.2 (|| Isa 2.4).
98 11Q19 21.9; 22.14; 27.5; 11Q20 6.7.
99 Despite searching, I have been unable to find an instance in which the non-biblical DSS
quote or allude to the Bible and show an )ותם(ה- ending against יהם ֶ ֹות
ֵ - in the MT.
140 chapter 4
In sum, despite the archaistic tendencies of the biblical and non-biblical DSS
scribes regarding the endings ֹותם
ָ - and יהם ֵ -, their use of the latter is typical of
ֶ ֹות
the Second Temple linguistic milieu.
The late tendency to replace ֹותם ָ - with יהם ֵ - is illustrated in the following
ֶ ֹות
parallel or similarly phrased texts:
1 Kgs 8.34 and return them to the land that you gave their fathers (בֹותםָ ) ַל ֲא
2 Chr 6.25 and return them to the land that you gave them and their fathers ()וְ ַל ֲאב ֵֹת ֶיהם
Ps 104.22 they gather and lie down in their dens () ְמעֹונ ָֹתם
11Q5 fEii.2 they gather and lie down in their dens ()מעונותיהם
Deut 12.3 tear down their altars ( ) ִמזְ ְּבח ָֹתם. . . break their standing stones () ַמ ֵּצב ָֹתם
Sam Pent tear down their altars ( )מזבחותיהם. . . break their standing stones ()מצבתיהם
Exod 27.21 a perpetual ordinance throughout your generations () ְלדֹר ָֹתם
Lev 7.36 a perpetual ordinance throughout your generations () ְלדֹר ָֹתם
11Q19 21.9 a perpetual [ordinance] throughout your generations ()לדורותיהמה
11Q19 22.14 perpetual ordinances throughout your generations ()לדורותיהמה
11Q19 27.4–5 perpetual ordinances throughout your generations ()לדורותיהמה
11Q20 6.6–7 perpetual [ordinances] throughout your generations ()לדורותיהמה100
100 It may very well be that the formulation with ותיהמה- in these DSS passages was influ-
enced by the form of the 2mpl suffix in יכם ֶ ְלדֹר ֵֹתin Lev 3.17; 6.11; 10.9; 23.14; 23.31,41; 24.3;
Num 10.8; 15.15; and 18.23. However, this is exactly the sort of analogical influence not typi-
cal of classical sources.
pronominal morphology 141
which, as mentioned above, is used throughout the Bible, to the virtual exclu-
sion of נֹותם ָ ְּב. In the case of other words, it is impossible to determine whether
the form in question is especially characteristic of late material, as it is rare or
unique in the Bible and occurs in only one of the two possible forms. This is the
situation in the case of ‘ ִאּמ ָֹתםtheir mothers’ (Jer 16.3; Lam 2.12 [2x]), ֲחלֹומ ָֹתם
‘their dreams’ (Jer 23.27), and ‘ מרצותםtheir courses’ (Jer 8.6 ktiv), which end
only in the short form in BH, and in the case of ּגֹות ֶיהם ֵ ַ‘ ּגtheir roofs’ (Jer 19.13;
32.29), יעֹות ֶיהם
ֵ ‘ יְ ִרtheir curtains’ (Jer 49.29), יהם ֵ ‘ ִּכ ְלtheir kidneys’ (Jer 12.2),
ֶ יֹות
יהםֶ ׁשּובֹות
ֵ ‘ ְמtheir backslidings’ (Jer 5.6), and יהם ֶ ‘ נְ ֻער ֵֹתtheir youth’ (Jer 32.30),
which end in only the long form in BH. Of course, the mere fact that among
these forms ֹות ֶיהם ֵ - appears more frequently than ֹותם ָ - may itself have signifi-
cance. More specifically, the following forms in Jeremiah are particularly illus-
trative regarding the chronological development of the language:
ֲאב ָֹתםversus יהם ֵ ‘ ֲאtheir fathers’—as previously noted, the long form has a
ֶ בֹות
decidedly late distribution in BH. Aside from the 29 occurrences in core LBH
books there are only four cases: one in Kings and three in Jeremiah.101 The form
also comes in post-biblical Hebrew. Jeremiah contains 11 cases of the same
noun with the short ending.
ֲעֹונ ָֹתםversus יהם ֵ ‘ ֲעtheir sins, guilt’—the long form’s distribution within and
ֶ ֹונֹות
outside the Bible points to an increase in its usage in the late period.102 In the
word’s lone appearance in Jeremiah it has the long ending.
ְׂשד ָֹתםversus יהם ֵ ֹ ‘ ְשtheir fields’—the short form occurs only in Neh 11.25, the
ֶ דֹות
long in Jer 8.10 and Neh 5.11 within the Bible and rather frequently in RH.
בֹותם
ָ ּתֹוע
ֲ versus בֹות ֶיהם
ֵ ּתֹוע
ַ ‘their abominations’—the short form comes five
times in the Bible, the long form six times—always in texts composed no ear-
lier than the late pre-exilic period.103 The latter form is also documented in
post-biblical sources.104
101 1 Kgs 14.15; Jer 19.4; 24.10; 50.7. It may be significant that the occurrence in 1 Kgs 14.15 comes
as part of an extensive section with no parallel in the Greek.
102 Jer 33.8; Ezek 43.10; Lam 5.7; Ps 107; CD 4.10; 4Q266 f3i.4; 11Q13 2.6.
103 Jer 16.18; Ezek 6.9; 11.21; 12.16; Ezra 9.1, 11.
104 1Q22 f1i.7; 4Q169 f3–4iii.1; 4Q219 2.28.
142 chapter 4
4.7.1 The MT
Generally in BH the (we)qaṭal verbal ending agreeing with both 3mpl and 3fpl
subjects is the epicene ּו-, e.g., ‘ ָּכ ְתבּוthey (c) wrote’. However, in light of the
forms in other Semitic languages, e.g., Geʿez, Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian,
it is reasonable to assume that ancient Hebrew at one time made a morpho-
logical distinction between the two. This assumption finds confirmation in a
series of approximately 25 cases in BH in which a (we)qaṭal verbal form ending
in ה- rather than ו- (sometimes only in the ktiv) has a fpl subject. Evidently,
the 3mpl ending succeeded in supplanting its 3fpl counterpart, a phenomenon
known from Semitic in general and from Hebrew more specifically. However,
unlike the situation of the (way)yiqṭol and the pronominal forms, for which the
distinction between 3mpl and 3fpl is still for the most part maintained in BH,
the specific (we)qaṭal 3fpl ending had nearly fallen into oblivion by the biblical
period. It is found, and then only sporadically, in texts considered ancient or
in material, such as poetry, where preservation or imitation of old style is com-
mon, and also in late material thought to exhibit Aramaic influence. A list of
suggested occurrences follows:105
105 This list is based on the following studies: GKC §44m; Lambert 1938: §695; Rendsburg
1982a: 51, n. 54; 2001: 31, n. 18; Blau 2001: 166–167; C. Smith 2003: 164.
pronominal morphology 143
‘ ועיני ישראל כבדהand Israel’s eyes were heavy’ (Gen 48.10 Sam Pent); ָּבנֹות ָצ ֲע ָדה
‘branches climb (?)’ (Gen 49.22);106 וְ ָהיָ ה. . . ּוׁש ֵּתי ַט ְּבעֹת זָ ָהב ַּת ֲע ֶׂשה־ּלֹו
ְ ‘and two
rings of gold you will make for it . . . and they shall be’ (Exod 30.4); ּתֹוצא ָֹתיו ְ והיה
‘and its limits will be’ (Num 34.4 ktiv); ‘ יָ ֵדינּו לֹא שפכהour hands did not shed’
(Deut 21.7 ktiv); ‘ והיה ּת ְֹצאֹותand the limits of . . . will be’ (Josh 15.4 ktiv); והיה
‘ ּת ְֹצא ָֹתיוand its limits will be’ (Josh 18.12 ktiv, 14 ktiv, 19 ktiv); ‘ וְ ֵעינָ יו ָק ָמהand his
eyes were fixed’ (1 Sam 4.15); [‘ נשברה ֳאנִ ּיֹותthe] boats were wrecked’ (1 Kgs 22.49
ktiv);107 אותינּו ָענְ ָתה ָּבנּו
ֵ ֹ ‘ וְ ַחּטand our sins have testified against us’ (Isa 59.12);
‘ ָע ָריו נצתהhis cities were burnt’ (Jer 2.15 ktiv); ‘ ָע ִרים לֹא נושבהcities (which)
were not inhabited’ (Jer 22.6 ktiv); ‘ נִ ְל ְּכ ָדה ַה ְּק ִרּיֹותthe towns have been captured’
(Jer 48.41); ‘ וְ ַה ְּמ ָצדֹות נִ ְת ָּפ ָׂשהand the fortresses have been captured’ (Jer 48.41);
'ל־ּב ֶבל ַמ ְח ְׁשבֹות ה
ָ ‘ ָק ָמה ַעYhwh’s purposes against Babylon stand’ (Jer 51.29);
ָ ‘ ִח ְּת ָתה ַק ְּׁשtheir bows have been snapped’ (Jer 51.56); ‘ נִ ְׁש ְּב ָרה ַּד ְלתֹותthe
תֹותם
gates of . . . are broken’ (Ezek 26.2); (‘ ( ַּד ְלתֹות) נָ ֵס ָּבהthe gates of the . . .) have
swung’ (Ezek 26.2); י־ב ָאה ָ יה ִּכ
ָ ּכֹות
ֶ נּוׁשה ַמָ ‘ ֲאher wounds are incurable for they
have come’ (Mic 1.9 [?]); א־ע ָׂשה ְ ‘and the fields have not produced’
ָ ֹ ּוׁש ֵדמֹות ל
(Hab 3.17); חּוׁשה זְ רֹוע ָֹתי ָ ְ‘ וְ נִ ֲח ָתה ֶק ֶׁשת־נand my arms have bent a bronze bow’
(Ps 18.35); ‘ ַּכנְ ֵפי יֹונָ ה נֶ ְח ָּפהwings of a dove were covered’ (Ps 68.14); שפכה ֲא ֻׁש ָרי
‘my feet/steps slipped’ (Ps 73.2 ktiv);108 ‘ ָּפנַ י חמרמרהmy face became red’
(Job 16.16 ktiv);109 ‘ ְמנָ יֹות ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם לֹא נִ ָּתנָ הthe Levites’ portions had not been given’
(Neh 13.10).110
Isa 3.9 their recognition ( ) ַה ָּכ ַרתof faces testified ( ) ָענְ ָתהagainst them
1QIsaa 3.13 their recognitions ( )הכרותof faces testified ( )ענתהagainst them112
Isa 4.1 seven women will take hold of ( )וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יקּוone man
1QIsaa 4.4 seven women will take hold of ( )והחזיקהone man
Isa 48.3 the former things . . . I told and from my mouth they came forth ()יָ ְצאּו
1QIsaa 40.8 the former things . . . I told and from my mouth they came forth ()יצאה
Isa 48.15 and on his way ( ) ַּד ְרּכֹוhe will succeed ()וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַיח
1QIsaa 40.20 and his ways ( )דרכוהיwill succeed ()והצליחה113
Yalon (1950–1951: 168) apparently sees in the use of these forms in the Great
Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) an early linguistic phenomenon, as he opines “it is pos-
sible that the presence of forms like this in Aramaic aided in their preservation
in the scroll” (italics added). Kutscher (1959: 144–145) rejects this explanation;
in his opinion, the many instances of Aramaic influence in the scroll make
it more likely that the usage in question is a penetration from Aramaic. If
this is so, then the phenomenon in question is more like use in Hebrew of
the transparently Aramaic 3ms possessive suffix והי- than like the use of other
Aramaic-like morphological forms discussed to this point, e.g., 1cs ֲאנִ י, 2fs אתי,
ִכי-, and ִתי-, and 3mpl יהם ֵ -, all of which, already occurring in Hebrew, seem
ֶ ֹות
only to have been given new life due to contact with Aramaic. Theoretically,
one might view the 3fpl use of קטלהthe same way, except that 3fpl forms are
so rare, it is difficult to imagine the archaic form persisting long enough in the
language to be re-drafted into service due to Aramaic pressure. Then again,
perhaps the fact that the form is limited to high and poetic language (cf. the
more colloquial register preserved in RH) testifies precisely to such a context
for its preservation.
4.7.3 Jeremiah
The number of cases of 3fpl קטלהin Jeremiah—six—is greater than in any
other book of the Bible: ‘ ָע ָריו נצתהhis cities were burnt’ (Jer 2.15 ktiv); ָע ִרים לֹא
‘ נושבהcities (which) were not inhabited’ (Jer 22.6 ktiv); ‘ נִ ְל ְּכ ָדה ַה ְּק ִרּיֹותthe towns
have been captured’ (Jer 48.41);114 ‘ וְ ַה ְּמ ָצדֹות נִ ְת ָּפ ָׂשהand the fortresses have been
captured’ (Jer 48.41); 'ל־ּב ֶבל ַמ ְח ְׁשבֹות ה
ָ ‘ ָק ָמה ַעYhwh’s purposes against Babylon
nomen rectum פניהם, in which case they constitute an example of the characteristically
late double plural construct (see below, §7.11), supports the reading of a plural form here.
113 Note the characteristically Aramaic 3ms possessive suffix והי-, use of which supports the
view that use of the 3fpl qaṭal ending ה- is also an Aramaism.
114 If the form in question is indeed in the plural, like its parallel ‘ וְ ַה ְּמ ָצדֹות נִ ְת ָּפ ָׂשהand the
fortresses have been captured’, in the same verse; see also Jer 48.24. Even if the form in
question is a proper noun, this does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of its being
plural. Cf. Rendsburg 2001: 31, n. 18.
pronominal morphology 145
115 On the intransitive/stative meaning of the piʿel form here see GKC §52k.
116 Blau 1972: 122; cf. Blau 2010: §4.3.3.4.10n.
117 For versions of these approaches see Lambert 1938: §685; Kutscher 1974: 191–192; 1982: §56.
See also C. Smith 2003: 169.
118 Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §107tβ; Bauer and Leander 1922: §§14r, 30d; Blau 2010: §4.2.4.5.1
(cf. §4.2.4.5.1n). In the opinion of Barth (1913: 104) the quality of the vowel in the mascu-
line Proto-Semitic form is uncertain; see also Garr 1985: 82–83.
119 Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §107tβ; Bauer and Leander 1922: §30d; Segal 1936: 49; Bar-Asher
1985: 90–91; 1992: 663. Rabin (1958: 145, n. 3), Hurvitz (1972: 41), Kutscher (1982: §203; 2007:
146 chapter 4
of RH, namely זֹו,120 which preserves the more primitive form, whereas in זֹאת
BH exhibits a strong tendency in favor of a form that is the result of secondary
development. According to an alternative explanation the component ת- is not
a feminine morpheme at all, but an ancient deictic marker.121 If so, זֹו/ זֹהis not
more ancient than זֹאת, despite being typologically simpler from a morpho-
logical perspective.122 There are also those who see in זֹו/ זֹהa linguistic feature
especially characteristic of the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew.123 Others
speak in terms of a vernacular feature.124 Of course, it may be that זֹו/ זֹהis char-
acteristic of the northern dialect in early material and of the penetration of
vernacular Hebrew into the written register in later texts.
4.8.1 Jeremiah
Whatever the original meaning/function of the ת- in זֹאת, there is consensus
that it was in the course of time interpreted as a feminine marker. However,
that marker seems itself eventually to have lost its feminine force in the minds
of language users, because the anomalous form זאתהpops up in Jer 26.6 (ktiv):
643), and Garr (1985: 83–84) also see in the demonstrative זֹה/ זֹוa form typologically
simpler and more ancient than זֹאת, but do not discuss the origin or original function of
the ת-.
120 For the statistical data on RH see Bar-Asher 1985: 90, n. 67.
121 In the opinion of Blau (2010: §§4.2.4.5.1–4.2.4.5.2) Proto-Semitic demonstrative pronouns
did not mark gender differences, so that ḏī and ḏā each served for both masculine and
feminine. Only with the misunderstanding of the originally deictic particle -t as a femi-
nine marker was the form זֹאתtaken as feminine (see also Harris 1939: 70). According to
Blau the ʾalef in this form is also a deictic morpheme; cf. Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §107tα.
Barth (1913: 105) considers the -t a specifically feminine deictic morpheme. In view of the
orthography זאתin the Aramaic inscription from Tell Fekheriye Muraoka (1984: 93–94; cf.
ibid. 84) suggests the developmental process zā < zāʾ < zāʾt < zāʾtī, according to which the
form זאתprecedes זאand the shedding of the -t is to be explained as a result of analogy
to the loss of -t on the absolute form of feminine nouns.
122 Cf. GKC (§34b) and du Plessis (1971: 174), who see זֹה/ זֹוas a secondary abbreviation of זֹאת.
123 S.R. Driver 1898: 188, n. *; Burney 1903: 207–208; Segal 1927: 41 (cf. Segal 1936: 49, which is
less precise regarding the geographical location of the dialect); Rabin 1981: 124; Kutscher
1982: §44; Tyler 1988: 103–104; Fredericks 1988: 107; Rendsburg 1990b: 89; 2002a: 105;
Schoors 1992–2004: I 53; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997: 327; C. Smith 2003: 79; cf. Young
1995: 64, 66.
124 Segal 1936: 49; Hurvitz 1972: 41; Levine 1978: 160, n. 33; Rendsburg 1990a: 133–136. Segal
(1927: 41) and Kutscher (1982: §§44, 203; 2007: 643) define the form as dialectal princi-
pally in northern speech. Gordis (1968: 110), Bendavid (1967–1971: I 77), Davila (1991: 821),
Schoors (1992–2004: I 53), and Sáenz-Badillos (1993: 124) raise the possibility of the late
influence of RH, by which they presumably mean a colloquial form of the language spo-
ken in the early Second Temple Period. See also Tyler 1988: 103–104.
pronominal morphology 147
and I will make this house like Shiloh, and this (ktiv ;הזאתהqre ) ַהּזֹאתcity
I will make a curse to all nations of the earth
Assuming that the ktiv here represents more than a mere corruption,125 the
form in question seems to have resulted from the addition of a redundant
marker of the feminine: זֹו < זֹאת < זאתה/ < זֹהḏā.126 The addition of a superflu-
ous feminine morpheme for purposes of creating a more transparently femi-
nine form is perhaps best explained as a vernacular phenomenon.127 If so, the
form in question may very well constitute a unique incursion from the spoken
form of ancient Hebrew, which, however—and this is not to be glossed over—
is undocumented anywhere else in the history of the language. Of course, on
the basis of such meager evidence, this conclusion must be seen as tentative
in the extreme.
125 Lambert 1938: 123, n. 3; Orlinsky 1942–1943: 286–287; the Greek has no parallel for the form
in question (see below); cf. C. Smith 2003: 80, n. 59. Jeremiah contains 94 cases of the
standard זֹאתand 41 of them involve the expression ‘ ָה ִעיר ַהּזֹאתthis city’.
126 Bauer and Leander 1922: §28b, d; Segal 1936: 49; Bar-Asher 1985: 90–91, n. 68. For an alter-
native explanation, assuming influence of a vernacular register, see G.R. Driver 1951a:
244–245. Janzen (1973: 45) and Holladay (1986–1989: II 100) view the form as authentic
Hebrew, but think that it penetrated from a different scribal tradition.
127 One might compare the addition of the apparently adjectival suffix ִ◌י- to a form that
already serves as an adjective, e.g., ‘ ַא ְכזָ רcruel’ > ‘ ַא ְכזָ ִריcruel’ in BH. Cf. also the colloquial
Modern Israeli Hebrew form אתי ִ ֹּ‘ ַהזthis’ (< ‘ ַהּזֹאת ִהיאthis one is’), as in השמלה הזאתי
‘this dress’, in which the -i ending gives the demonstrative a more pronounced adjectival
(and perhaps feminine—cf. the verbal ending on fs commands and future forms) charac-
ter than has standard זֹאת.
128 The figure includes only those cases in which the demonstratives in question have no
parallel in the Greek.
129 Janzen 1973: 45; C. Smith 2003: 80, n. 59. Cf. Holladay 1986–1989: II 100.
chapter 5
Nominal Morphology
Among the many substantives in Hebrew with the qå̄ṭōl pattern, one group that
stands out semantically, morphologically, and phonologically is the nominal
template qå̄ṭōl for marking the nomen agentis. Semantically, nouns in this pat-
tern typically refer to an occupation or some other persistent characteristic.1
Morphologically, the plural forms of nouns in this pattern take ֹות- rather than
ִ◌ים-, even in the masculine. Phonologically, the initial å̄ vowel in nouns of this
type—against the norm in Hebrew—is preserved as a full vowel even when,
due to the addition of a plural or feminine suffix, it is more than one syllable
distant from the primary word stress. The origin, etymology, and date of devel-
opment of the pattern within Hebrew are all disputed issues.2
5.1.1 The mt
There is some debate among scholars concerning which words—biblical and
otherwise—belong to the category in question.3 For purposes of the discus-
sion here forms included must (a) have a first root letter vocalized with qamaṣ
1 More common biblical nominal patterns with the same meaning include the participle of
the various active binyanim and qaṭṭå̄l.
2 See, e.g., Barth 1894: §§27g, 122d; Nöldeke 1904: §107; Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §§128, n. 4,
131; GKC §84ak; Bauer and Leander 1922: §61kα; Segal 1936: §114; Kutscher 1950–1951: 21; Ben-
Ḥayyim 1957–1977: III 109, nn. 79–80; Wernberg-Møller 1959; Bravmann 1971; Yalon 1971: 14;
Avineri 1976: 344–346; Bar-Asher 1977: 94–97; 1985: 94–95; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 187; J. Fox
2003: 184, 242–243; JM §88Ea.
3 Avineri (1976: 344–345), who holds that the nominal pattern in question can also refer to
‘instruments’, considers ‘ ֲארֹוןchest, ark’ a member of the class, despite the vocalization of the
first syllable (see also Segal 1936: §114; JM §88Ea). Bar-Asher (1977: 96, n. 76) gives a convinc-
ing argument against including instruments, which would also apply to קֹוע ַ ‘ ָּתhorn, trumpet’
(Ezek 7.14). The amended form דֹודה ָ *ׁש
ָ ‘destroyer’ (Ps 137.8), replacing the apparently pas-
sive דּודה ָ ְׁש, has also been proposed as a member of this class. Indeed, the context would
seem to call for an active, rather than passive form. Be that as it may, active meanings are not
unknown in the case of på̄ʿūl )(ּפעּול ָ forms; cf. ידּוע ח ִֹלי
ַ ִ‘ וand familiar with disease’ (Isa 53.3),
‘ ֲא ֻחזֵ י ֶח ֶרבwielders of swords’ (Song 3.8), and י־ע ָפר ֲאנָ ְחנּו
ָ (‘ זָ כּור ִּכhe) remembers that we are
dust’ (Ps 103.14); cf. such English forms as learnéd, experienced, and drunk. Since the vocaliza-
tion as it stands is admissible, it seems preferable to avoid emendation.
and (b) refer semantically to a vocation or persistent attribute. Along with the
suggested qå̄ṭōl form, its meaning, and references, the following list includes
classical alternatives:
‘ ָאמֹוןartisan, craftsman’ (Jer 52.15; Prov 8.30)4 ≈ ( ח ֵֹׁשבExod 40.20), ( ָח ָרׁשExod
28.11), ( ח ֵֹרׁש1 Kgs 7.14), ( י ֵֹד ַע1 Kgs 9.27), and ( ָח ָכםIsa 40.20); גֹודה ָ ‘ ָּבtraitress’
(Jer 3.7, 10) ≈ ( ּבֹגֵ ָדהJer 3.8, 11); ‘ ָּבחֹוןassayer’ (Jer 6.27)5 ≈ ( ּב ֵֹחןJer 11.20; 17.10;
20.12; Ps 7.10; Prov 17.3; 1 Chr 29.17);6 ‘ * ָחלֹוםdreamer’ (Jer 27.9; 29.8; Zech 10.2
[?])7 ≈ ( ח ֵֹלםDeut 13.5–6), ( ַּב ַעל ֲחלֹומֹותGen 37.19); ‘ ָחמֹוץoppressor’ (Isa 1.17)8 ≈
ֵ (Ps 73.21); ‘ יָ קֹוׁשfowler’ (Hos 9.8)9 ≈ ( י ֵֹקׁשPs 124.7), ( יָ קּוׁשJer 5.26; Ps 71.3;
חֹומץ
Prov 6.5);10 ‘ ָעכֹורtroubler’ (Josh 7.24–26)11 ≈ עֹוכר ֵ (1 Chr 2.7); ‘ ָעׁשֹוקoppressor’
4 Cf. ‘ ָא ָּמןartisan’ (Song 7.2). Textual debate attaches to the form in Jer 52.15 (cf. 2 Kgs 25.11
and Jer 39.9) and semantic debate to that in Prov 8.30. There are several potential early
synonyms, especially ָח ָרׁש.
5 The verse is difficult. Arguably, the most attractive interpretation assumes a double enten-
dre, according to which ָּבחֹוןshould be understood to denote both ‘assayer’ and ‘tower’;
see Qimḥi; Avravranel; Bula 1983: 87; Kaddari 2006: 94a.
6 The active participle in these cases may also be interpreted as a verbal, rather than nomi-
nal form.
7 All purported cases are disputed, though a form referring to an occupation ‘dreamer’
is arguably more appropriate in each case than a form referring to ‘dream’. This seems
especially true of the two cases in Jeremiah, where both the immediate context and the
literary dependence on Deut 13.2–6 seem to call for reference to a dreamer. The ֹות- plural
ending is also thus explained. Many ancient and modern interpreters render accordingly.
The loss of a full vowel with the first root letter is to be explained (with Bar-Asher 1992:
660, n. 13) as a result of “quantitative dissimilation,” according to which ḥālōmōṯēḵem >
ḥălōmōṯēḵem due to the sequence of multiple long vowels. Bar-Asher compares the form
‘ ֵצ ְדנִ ּיֹותSidonian women’ (1 Kgs 11.1), which he opines has the form ṣēḏniyyōṯ rather than
ṣēḏōniyyōṯ for the same reason.
8 The verse is difficult in part because of the verb ַא ְּׁשרּו, which is taken variously. Some take
ָחמֹוץas a passive, ‘oppressed’, as if it should have been vocalized ָחמּוץ, but see above n. 3.
9 Based on the qaṭal form of this verb, e.g., ‘ יָ ק ְֹׁש ִּתיI have set a trap’ (Jer 50.24), which pre-
serves the paʿol pattern, it is not impossible that the apparent qå̄ṭōl form in question is in
reality the participle/verbal adjective of the paʿol form.
10 The active force of ‘ יָ קּוׁשfowler’ is admittedly unexpected, but see above, n. 3.
11 The relevance of this form, a toponym, is somewhat doubtful. The place name is
explained in Josh 7.24 in a wordplay involving the personal name ‘ ָע ָכןAchan’ and the
verb ‘ ָע ַכרto trouble’. The same individual is referred to as עֹוכר יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלֵ ‘ ָע ָכרAchar the
troubler of Israel’ in 1 Chr 2.7. It seems farfetched to construe the etiological explanation
of a toponym as evidence for the early use of the qå̄ṭōl pattern to mark the nomen agentis.
However, it is not out of the question that a late writer, such as the Chronicler, may have
interpreted a name like ָעכֹורas just such a form, though this is admittedly unnecessary
for the wordplay in question.
150 chapter 5
(Jer 22.2)12 ≈ עֹוׁשק ֵ (Jer 21.12); ‘ ָצרֹוףmetalsmith, refiner’ (Jer 6.29) ≈ ( צ ֵֹרףe.g.,
Jdg 17.4);13 ‘ ָרזֹוןruler’ (Prov 14.4) ≈ ( ר ֹזֵ ןe.g., Jdg 5.3);14 ‘ ָׁשתֹויweaver’ (Isa 19.10)15 ≈
( א ֵֹרגe.g., Exod 28.32).
12 The active force of the form ָעׁשֹוקin Jer 22.3 is clear from both the immediate context—
‘ וְ ַה ִּצילּו גָ זּול ִמּיַ ד ָעׁשֹוקand you will rescue the robbed from the oppressor’—and the paral-
lel in Jer 21.3, which has the active participle עֹוׁשק ֵ instead of ָעׁשֹוק.
13 The phrase in question; ַל ָּׁשוְ א ָצ ַרף ָצרֹוףis somewhat ambiguous, in that ָצרֹוףcan be read
as an infinitive absolute; but it seems preferable to read it as the subject of the sentence,
i.e., ‘in vain the metalsmith has refined’ ََ زُ ن
14 The root in question is unproductive in Hebrew, but seems to be related to Arabic �� ر
‘be significant, important, respected’.
15 For an explanation of this form as a qå̄ṭōl form marking the nomen agentis see Yalon 1950–
1951: 14–15. The word has been explained variously, but Yalon’s solution has the advantage
of accounting for the preservation of the qamaṣ in the first syllable as well as for the
modification of a plural form with ֹות- by means of a masculine adjective. Yalon posits a
slight contraction of the expected form יה ָ תֹויֹות
ֶ *ׁש
ָ to יה
ָ תֹות
ֶ ָׁש.
16 Qimron (1986: §500.3) has identified potential cases in ‘ ידועיthose who know’ (4Q405
f3ii.1; f8–9.3), which seems promising in light of the use of the active participle in 4Q405
f3ii.9, but could just as well be another case of the active use of the passive på̄ʿūl )(ּפעּול ָ
pattern (see above, n. 3). ( בחוןCD 13.3 [2x]) is usually analyzed as a passive participle, i.e.,
‘qualified’ rather than ‘examines, examiner’.
17 Segal 1936: §114; Bar-Asher 1977: 95–97; 1985: 93–94; 1992: 660.
18 Among those who see in the Hebrew use of the nominal pattern a result of Aramaic influ-
ence (at the very least in terms of the preservation of the qamaṣ with the addition of suf-
fixes): Barth 1894: §122d; Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §131; GKC §84ak; Segal 1936: §114 (with
reservation); Kutscher 1950–1951: 21; Avineri 1976: 346; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 187.
19 The pattern is already represented in BA (‘ ָּכרֹוזherald’ [Dan 3.4]) and is the standard form
for denoting the nomen agentis—replacing the participle—in the Targumic Aramaic of
Onkelos and Jonathan (Bar-Asher 1977: 97), Samaritan Aramaic (Kutscher 1950–1951: 21;
Ben-Ḥayyim 1957–1977: III 109, nn. 79–80), and Syriac (Nöldeke 1904: §107).
nominal morphology 151
5.1.4 Jeremiah
Jeremiah contains a total of six nomen agentis qå̄ṭōl forms accounting for eight
occurrences between them. Both totals are by far the highest among biblical
texts. In Hebrew only rabbinic sources exhibit a comparable affinity. It should
be borne in mind, however, that Jeremiah still shows a preference for more stan-
dard forms of the nomen agentis, e.g., the active participle and the qaṭṭå̄l form.
Significantly, alongside four of the nomen agentis qå̄ṭōl forms there employed
one also finds (sometimes more frequent use of) more standard forms, e.g.,
ָ ָּבversus ּבֹגֵ דהboth ‘traitress’, ָּבחֹוןversus ּב ֵֹחןboth ‘assayer’,21 ָעׁשֹוקversus
גֹודה
ֵ עboth ‘oppressor’, ָצרֹוףversus ֹ(ו)רף
ֹ(ו)ׁשק ֵ צboth ‘metalsmith, refiner’, and ָאמֹון
versus ָח ָרׁשboth ‘artisan, craftsman’. In several cases the qå̄ṭōl and its respec-
tive standard alternative appear in the same context. This state of affairs would
seem to reflect the transitional status of Jeremiah’s language, though, admit-
tedly, since the core LBH books contain no examples, Jeremiah’s linguistic pro-
file seems to be intermediate more specifically between CBH and RH.
It should be noted that the forms are scattered along the length of the book,
so that no section contains a striking concentration. Whether Jeremiah’s unpar-
alleled use of this pattern in BH stems from late external pressure (Aramaic) or
results from late internal development (penetration of vernacular Hebrew), or
is a result of multiple factors, the special linguistic link embodied in this feature
between Jeremiah’s Hebrew and RH, on the one hand, and between Jeremiah’s
Hebrew and some of the late Aramaic dialects, on the other, is undeniable.
5.2.1 The MT
The biblical distribution of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern points unambiguously to
its status as a linguistic feature especially characteristic of the Second Temple
Period.24 It is true that it occasionally crops up in early sources and in texts
of undetermined date. Yet these potentially early occurrences are clearly
non-standard and uncharacteristic of CBH. Moreover, one cannot ignore the
pattern’s striking proliferation in biblical material composed during the later
period, that is to say from the close of the First Temple Period, through the
Exile, into the period of the Restoration, and beyond.
22 The sole case in which a nomen agentis qå̄ṭōl form in the MT is rendered with something
other than a Greek nomen agentis form is that of יכם ֶ ‘ ֲחֹלמ ֵֹתyour dreamers’ in Jer 29.8. MT’s
יכם ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ֶּתם ַמ ְח ְל ִמים
ֶ ‘ ֲחֹלמ ֵֹתyour dreamers that you cause to dream’ is rendered τὰ ἐνύπνια
ὑμῶν ἃ ὑμεῖς ἐνυπνιάζεσθε = יכם ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ֶּתם ח ְֹל ִמים ֶ ‘ ֲחֹלמ ֵֹתyour dreams that you dream’.
23 The parallel verse in Jer 39.9 also goes unrepresented in the Greek, which has a long minus
at Jer 39.4–13. It should be noted, however, that στηρίγματος ‘pillar, column’ in 2 Kgs 25.11
provides support for the reading there of collective ‘ האמוןthe artisans, craftsman’ rather
than ‘ ההמוןthe crowd’, in that the Greek word is used to translate, among other things,
)‘ ֱאמּונֵ י (יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלthe faithful (of Israel)’ (2 Sam 20.19), a consonantal match for the nomen
agentis qå̄ṭōl form ָאמֹון.
24 Bauer and Leander 1922: 470lα n. 1; Hurvitz 1972: 58–59 n. 158; Kutscher 1982: §103; Bergey
1983: 92–93, 103–105, 142–145; Rooker 1990: 141; Schoors 1992–2004: I 60–61; Hadas-Lebel
1995: 111; J. Fox 2003: 185; Wright 2005: 90–92, 143; JM §88Ef. See also individual entries in
Kautzsch 1902; BDB; Wagner 1966; Bendavid 1967–1971; Zevit 1984: 43–44; Sáenz-Badillos
1993: 127; Seow 1996: 652 n. 49. Cf. Nöldeke 1903: 416; Young 1993: 109; 2003b: 288, 293;
Young, Rezekto, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 114, 292.
nominal morphology 153
The rarity of the pattern in classical sources is explained by the fact that
it most often reflects the Proto-Semitic qaṭāl (*qVṭāl) nominal pattern, which
in Aramaic developed phonologically into qĕṭå̄l, but, in accordance with the
Canaanite shift, took the form qǝṭōl (or, alternatively, qaṭṭōl or qå̄ṭōl) in CBH. In
other words, the phonological norms of ancient Hebrew prevented the devel-
opment of qĕṭå̄l from Proto-Semitic qaṭāl (*qVṭāl) until the Canaanite shift was
no longer operative or, alternatively, the shift in question was not applied in
the case of recognized loanwords. In any event, Aramaic-looking qĕṭå̄l forms
multiply only in the post-classical phases of ancient Hebrew and there is broad
scholarly consensus that ancient Hebrew, especially in its later phases, owes its
use of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern to Aramaic influence.25
The 22 words that apparently belong to the pattern account for approxi-
mately 125 occurrences in the Bible. Of these, some are found in texts generally
considered classical. However, in a large proportion of these apparently early
cases of the pattern’s use there is doubt as to whether the word in question
really belongs to the pattern. In other instances, the use would appear to be
genuinely early, but is still anomalous. For example, ‘ ֲאנָ ְךplumb line (?), tin (?)’
(Amos 7.7 [2x], 8 [2x]) is a technical term related to architecture, apparently
of foreign origin, that was evidently borrowed into Hebrew at an early date.26
As is well known, foreign words are often exempt from, or at least resistant to,
a language’s standard phonological processes. In the case of ‘ ְמ ָצדstronghold’
(Jdg 6.2; 2 Sam 23.14, 19; 24.1; Isa 33.16) it is noteworthy that use of the singu-
lar is limited to late contexts (1 Chr 11.7; 12.9, 17), all non-late forms involving
the plural. Is ְמ ָצדֹותthe plural of ְמ ָצד, or might it rather be the plural of an
undocumented singular *מ ָצ ָדה ְ , apparently reflected in later Greek Μασάδα27
and Aramaic ?מצדתא28 The word ‘ ֲענָ קcollar, necklace’ (Jdg 8.26; Prov 1.9; Song
4.9), like the aforementioned ֲאנָ ְך, seems to be a technical term, perhaps also of
25 Kautzsch 1902: 36–41, 44, 70, 77–78; BDB 490b () ְּכנָ ת, 508a () ְּכ ָתב, 714b () ֲע ָבד, 898a ( ;) ְק ָרבGKC
§§84an, 93ww; Rabin 1962: 1075; Wagner 1966: 62–63, 69, 78–79, 88–89, 102–103, 122;
Hurvitz 1972: 58–59, n. 158; Kutscher 1982: §103; Bergey 1983: 103–105, 142–145; Zevit 1984:
43–44; Rooker 1990: 141, n. 53; Schoors 1992–2004: I 60–61; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 111; Seow
1996: 652; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 127; J. Fox 2003: 185; Wright 2005: 91; JM §88Ef; Holmstedt
2012:1 06.
26 BDB 59; Rabin 1962: 1079; Ellenbogen 1962: 31–32.
27 See, e.g., Josephus Antiquities 14.296, etc.; Wars 1.264, etc.
28 Consider, e.g., במצדת עין־גדי ַ ‘in the stronghold of Ein Gedi’ (Targum Jonathan to 1 Sam
24.1 || ‘ ִּב ְמ ָצדֹות ֵעין־ּגֶ ִדיin the strongholds of Ein Gedi’). It has also been suggested that
the consonantal form מצדותrepresents the pronunciation ְמ ֻצדֹות, but was vocalized in
accordance with later pronunciation, itself a result of Aramaic influence (Schoors 1992–
2004: I 61, n. 99).
154 chapter 5
foreign origin, and, like ְמ ָצד, is apparently represented in early material only by
a plural, whose corresponding singular is uncertain. The Aramaic-type singu-
lar is limited to Song of Songs, a composition widely considered either late or
northern or both. The seemingly early occurrence of ‘ ְק ָרבbattle’ (2 Sam 17.11)
is dubious not only because of its unique status in pre-exilic material, but also
because in contrast to its presence in the MT, it is not reflected in any of the
principal Ancient Versions, pointing to a likely scribal corruption in the MT.29
The word ‘ ְׁש ָארremnant’ comes 13 times in classical material, all cases in ‘First
Isaiah’ (Isa 7.3; 10.19, 20, 21 [2x], 22; 11.11, 16; 14.22; 16.14; 17.3; 21.17; 28.5). This
anomalous early usage is apparently to be explained in terms of high literary
usage of a foreign term. Both ‘ ְׂש ָלוquail’ (Exod 16.13; Num 11.31, 32) and ְׂש ָרד
((‘ ) ִּבגְ ֵדיclothes of) service (?), woven (clothes) (?)’ (Exod 31.10; 35.19; 39.1, 41)
appear to be early foreign loans.30 To summarize: one should not ignore early
biblical instances of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern, but its use, which is in any
case rare given the amount of CBH material, is in no way characteristic of that
phase of the language.31
Up to 25 apparent cases of the qĕṭå̄l pattern come in material that does not
belong to the core LBH sources and whose date of composition is thus debat-
able, i.e., Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Song of Songs. It should be borne in mind,
however, that the relevance of some of these forms is questionable, since they
may actually represent other nominal patterns. Also, the late provenance of
some of them is not out of the question; for example, Ps 144, which contains
one instance of ‘ ְק ָרבbattle’, has been classified as late on the basis of its overall
linguistic profile.32 In other cases one may posit early Aramaic influence. This
seems a reasonable explanation in the case of both poetic material, where
non-standard forms are often employed, and Wisdom Literature, with its tra-
ditionally eastern affiliation. Generally speaking, none of the relevant sources
can be said to employ standard CBH. Consider the following list: ‘ *זְ ָמםscheme’
(Ps 140.9);33 *ט ָהר ְ ‘splendor’ (Ps 89.45);34 ‘ *יְ ָהבburden’ (Ps 55.23); ‘ יְ ָקרglory’
(Ps 49.13, 21; Prov 20.15; Job 28.10); *מ ָדן ְ ‘strife’ (Prov 6.14 ktiv, 19; 10.12);35 ְמנָ ת
‘portion’ (Ps 11.6; 16.5; 63.11); ( ְס ָתיוqre; ktiv: ‘ )סתוwinter, rainy season’ (Song 2.11);
‘ ֲענָ קcollar, necklace’ (Prov 1.9; Song 4.9); ‘ ְק ָרבbattle’ (Ps 55.19, 22; 68.31; 78.9;
144.1; Job 38.23); ‘ ְׁש ָארremnant’ (Zeph 1.4); ‘ ְׂש ָלוquail’ (Ps 105.40).36 Whatever
the exact date each of the genuine qĕṭå̄l forms became available for use in
Hebrew, it is clear that none can be termed characteristic of classical literature.
The post-classical explosion in the use of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern is
striking (the following list includes the form, its gloss, reference, and classi-
cal equivalents): ‘ יְ ָעףflight’ (Dan 9.21; עֹופף ;עּוף ֵ ); ( יְ ָקרJer 20.5; Ezek 22.25; Zech
11.13; Est 1.4, 20; 6.3, 6 [2x], 7, 9 [2x], 11; 8.16; ‘ ְּכנָ ת ;)ע ֶֹׁשר ; ְּפ ֵאר ; ָּכבֹודfriend, other’
(Ezra 4.7; זּולת ; ָע ִמית ; ָח ֵבר ָ ; ‘ ְּכ ָתב ;) ֵר ַעwriting, letter’ (Ezek 13.9; Est 1.22; 3.12, 14;
4.8; 8.8, 9 [2x], 13; 9.27; Dan 10.21; Ezra 2.62; 4.7; Neh 7.64; 1 Chr 28.19; 2 Chr
2.10; 35.4; ‘ ְמנָ ת ;) ֵס ֶפר ; ִמ ְכ ָּתבlot, portion’ (Jer 13.25; Neh 12.44, 47; 13.10; 2 Chr 31.3,
4; ּגֹורל
ָ ; ‘ ְמ ָצד ;) ָמנָ הfortress’ (Jer 48.41 [plural]; 51.30 [plural]; Ezek 33.27 [plu-
ral]; 1 Chr 11.7; 12.9, 17; צּודה ָ ‘ ְס ָפר ;) ְמcounting, census’ (2 Chr 2.16; ֲע ָבד ;) ִמ ְפ ָקד
‘deed’ (Qoh 9.1; ‘ ( ִמ) ְק ָצת ;) ַמ ֲע ֶׂשהsmall portion, end’ (Dan 1.2, 5, 15, 18; Neh 7.69;
‘ ְק ָרב ;) ָק ֶצה ; ֵקץ ; ְמ ַעטwar, battle’ (Zech 14.3; Qoh 9.18; ‘ ְׁש ָאט ;) ִמ ְל ָח ָמהcontempt,
derision’ (Ezek 25.6, 15; 36.5; ‘ ְׁש ָאר ;) ַל ַעג ;ּבּוזremnant’ (Mal 2.15; Est 9.12, 16; Ezra
3.8; 4.7; Neh 10.29; 11.1, 20; 1 Chr 11.8; 16.41; 2 Chr 9.29; 24.14; ) ֶיֶתר.37
LBH ≈ 70 cases
non-LBH Writings ≈ 25 cases
rest of the Bible ≈ 30 cases
At first glance, such a distribution may not seem particularly indicative of pur-
portedly post-classical phenomenon. However, considering that well over half
of the qĕṭå̄l forms occur in the extremely limited LBH corpus, which accounts
for only about 14 percent of the biblical text in terms of graphic words, its use
must be considered especially characteristic of the post-450 BCE linguistic
milieu, all the more so when irrelevant forms are excluded from the count and
the total of instances occurring in exilic and post-exilic material not consid-
ered core LBH texts is taken into consideration.38
since they are foreign proper names that are not necessarily subject to the phonological
norms characteristic of common noun patterns; the adverb ‘ ְּכ ָברalready’ (Qoh 1.10; 2.12,
16; 3.15 [2x]; 4.2; 6.10; 9.6, 7)—since the form in question is not a noun and, in any case, is
etymologically unclear. It should be noted, however, that all of the above are distinctively
characteristic of post-classical sources, so that their inclusion would only strengthen the
argument that the qĕṭå̄l pattern is especially typical of the latest phrase of BH.
38 Since the distinction between qĕṭå̄l and alternative forms is purely one of vocaliza-
tion, some, doubting the reliability of the testimony regarding First and Second Temple
Hebrew afforded by the Tiberian vocalization, may view the distribution of the qĕṭå̄l pat-
tern as rather tenuous diachronic evidence. However, aside from the fact that there is no
basis for wholesale pessimism regarding the historical validity of the Tiberian pronun-
ciation tradition, were the pointing of qĕṭå̄l and alternative biblical forms the result of
a reading tradition lacking a historical connection to the ancient pronunciation of the
texts, these forms might be expected to be more or less evenly scattered throughout the
text, rather than especially concentrated in LBH.
39 For example, some of the BH forms listed above have identical forms in Aramaic: יְ ָקר,
ְּכ ָתב, ְק ָצת, ְק ָרב, and ְׁש ָארall come in both BA and Targumic Aramaic; ְּכנָ תcomes in BA;
ְס ָפרis common in Targumic Aramaic.
nominal morphology 157
5.2.3 Jeremiah
As in the case of other apparent instances of Aramaic influence in BH, the
transitional period between CBH and LBH proper seems to have been the time
when qĕṭå̄l nominal forms became viable alternatives to their standard classi-
cal alternatives. This is especially clear from the appearance of relevant forms
in the book of Ezekiel. However, the sporadic use of the pattern in Jeremiah
also points to its growing employment in the transitional period. Jeremiah
exhibits two potential examples: ‘ יְ ָקרglory, honor, wealth’ and ‘ ְמנָ תportion’. In
general, the two words exhibit a similar distribution: they are found mainly in
late material (lbH and BA and post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic), together
with sporadic occurrences in biblical poetry and Wisdom Literature.
The form יְ ָקרis apparently found in Jer 20.5:41
And I will give all the wealth of this city and all of its toil and all of its
splendor ( ;)יְ ָק ָרּהand all of the treasures of the kings of Judah I will give
into the hand of their enemies and they will take them and bring them
to Babylon.
In this verse it serves as a synonym for several words from the same seman-
tic field. One is apparently to conclude that the writer, in need of an addi-
tional term referring to wealth, enlisted it from Aramaic. Be that as it may, it
should be noted that the word has no parallel in the Greek.42 Thus, perhaps
the lexeme does not represent the language of the writer, but that of a later
hand. Alternatively, given the presence of additional late Aramaic elements in
the language of Jeremiah, even in sections that are represented in the Greek
40 The Hebrew of the non-biblical DSS appears to contain cases of זְ ָמם, ְט ָהר, יְ ָקר, ְּכ ָתב, ְמ ָדן,
ְמנָ ת, ְמ ָצד, ֲענָ ק, ( ִמ) ְק ָצת, ְק ָרב, and ְּכ ָתב ; ְׁש ָארand ְק ָרבappear in Ben Sira; ְק ָצתand ְׁש ָאר
come in the Bar Kokhba letters; and ְט ָהר, ְּכ ָתב, ְמנָ ת, ְס ָפר, ְק ָצת, and ְׁש ָארare found in the
Mishna.
41 It is, however, not impossible that the form in question is a nominalization of the classical
adjective ‘ יָ ָקרdear, precious (thing)’, as apparently in רֹותיָך ֑ ֶ ‘ ִּביִ ְּקamong your honored
(women)’ (Ps 45.10).
42 For the MT’s ת־ּכל־יְ ָק ָרּה ָ יעּה וְ ֶא ָ ִת־ּכל־יְ ג
ָ וְ ֶאlit. ‘all her toil and all her glory’ Targum Jonathan
presents ‘ וית כל עמלה וית כל ליאותהall her work and all her toil’, which apparently con-
sists of a double translation of יעּה ָ ִ‘ יְ גher toil’. The readings of the Vulgate and the Peshiṭta,
pretium and ܐܝܩܪܗ, respectively, both of which signify ‘(her) precious thing’, correspond
to the MT.
158 chapter 5
(including the lexeme ְמנָ תdiscussed below), the book’s use of the word is not
completely out of character. The possibility that this difference between the
MT and the Greek is due to omission rather than addition cannot be ruled out.
A second example of the qĕṭå̄l pattern in Jeremiah, in the form of ְמנָ ת,
occurs in 13.25:
“This is your lot, your portion ( ) ְמנָ תof measure from me,” declares Yhwh,
“since you forgot me and trusted in falsehood.”
Against the possible claim that the form in question is merely the construct
of ָמנָ ה, the classical term for ‘portion’, it is to be noted that the plural forms for
that word are ָמנֹותand - ָמנֹות, with no shortening of the å̄ vowel. According to
its vocalization, then, ְמנָ תhas the look of a loan from Aramaic, which, not sur-
prisingly occurs predominately in later texts and sporadically in poetry.
Verbal Morphology
There is widespread agreement among scholars that the various BH yiqṭol pat-
terns, despite identical forms in the case of many verbs, developed from more
than one Proto-Semitic template. Thus, the yiqṭol used for encoding the future
(indicative and modal), the general present, and imperfective past, is thought
to derive from Proto-Semitic yaqṭulu. Conversely, the yiqṭol form that appears
in the wayyiqṭol and the jussive (including the negative imperative usually
negated with ) ַאלapparently developed from consonant-final yaqṭul.1 Already
at an early stage, due to the general loss of final short vowels in Hebrew, the
respective yiqṭol patterns of most verbs coalesced, so that the formal distinc-
tion between what will be here termed ‘full’ and ‘short’ yiqṭol was obliterated,
remaining evident only in certain forms of select weak patterns, e.g., י/ ע"וqal
and ל"יpatterns, as well as of the hifʿil binyan. The existence of a third yiqṭol
form in BH has also been proposed. Ostensibly deriving from Proto-Semitic
yaqṭula,2 it serves almost exclusively in 1st person forms, especially (but not
only) for marking volition (i.e., the cohortative), as well as in wayyiqṭol forms.3
This form is termed here ‘lengthened’.
The distribution pattern of the three forms within biblical and extra-biblical
sources changes with the passage of time. Diachronic development is particu-
larly evident in the case of the wayyiqṭol. Since the specific patterns employed
and their distributions differ depending on person, especially 1st person versus
2nd and 3rd, these are discussed separately here. The discussion and statistics
reflect consonantal form, though the pronunciation tradition reflected in the
vocalization (and accentuation) will also be treated briefly. Specifically, dis-
tinctive short forms may obtain in the 1cs ()אקטל, 1cpl ()נקטל, 2ms/3fs ()תקטל,
and 3ms ( )יקטלforms of ל"י, hifʿil, and י/ ע"וqal verbs, and some other weak
patterns; distinctive cases of the full pattern may obtain in the same types;
lengthened forms may obtain in the same forms of all verbs except for the ל"י
class (but see below). Put differently, ל"יforms may be either short or full, but
not lengthened (but see below); י/ ע"וqal and non- ל"יhifʿil forms may be short,
full, or lengthened; other verbs may be full or lengthened, but not short; some
weak patterns show a distinction between short and full forms in vocalization
and/or accent only. Where a distinction is made between full weak verbs and
strong verbs without the ◌-ָ suffix, the latter are here termed ‘unlengthened’.
Table 6.1.1.1a M T, non-Masoretic, and extra-biblical distribution of short 1st person wayyiqṭol
forms: short/all cases (percentage short)
mt DSS Samaritan
Torah Prophets LBH + Qoh Biblical Non-biblical Pentateuch
4 Gen 24.47; Exod 19.4; Lev 20.23, 26; Deut 9.21; 10.5.
5 These figures include the perhaps problematic form ( וַ ּנַ ִּׁשיםNum 21.30), which is generally
considered an Aramaizing hifʿil form of ;שמ"םfor similar forms see Jer 49.20; 50.45; more
verbal morphology 161
Summarizing the mt data in the table, a short consonantal form comes in the
Torah in 35 of 39 cases (89.7 percent),6 in the Prophets in 49 of 115 cases (42.6
percent),7 and in the core LBH books and Qohelet in only 10 of 66 cases (15.2
percent).8 The downward historical trend is obvious.9
The distribution of the lengthened 1st person wayyiqṭol pattern, which can
obtain in all verbs except ( ל"יbut see below), contrasts markedly with that of
its short counterpart. The relevant statistics are given in table 6.1.1.1b.
typically Hebraic forms occur in 1 Sam 5.6 and Ezek 20.26. It may be worth noting that all
three of the Aramaizing forms occur in contexts dealing with foreigners, a fact which may
have invited the use of non-standard language. It should also be pointed out, however, that
some scholars, on the basis of the readings of the Ancient Versions here, suppose textual
corruption. The possibility of an archaic or archaizing hifʿil of נש"י, with preservation of the
radical yod and a 3mpl object suffix (cf. וַ ּנִ ָירםat the beginning of the verse) is also not out of
the question. For further discussion see Bloch 2007: 149–150 and the references he cites.
6 —ל"יshort: Gen 24.46; 31.10; 41.22; Exod 6.3; 9.15; Num 13.33; 23.4; Deut 2.1, 8, 33; 3.1 (2x), 18;
9.15, 16; 10.3 (2x), 5; full: Gen 24.48; Deut 1.16, 18; hifʿil—short: Gen 43.7, 21; 44.24; Exod 19.4; Lev
20.26; 26.13; Num 31.50; Deut 2.34; 3.6; 9.21; 29.4; full: Num 21.30 (?); י/—ע"וshort: Gen 24.42;
Lev 20.23; Num 13.33; Deut 1.19; 10.5.
7 —ל"יshort: Josh 7.21 (qre); 24.3 (ktiv); Jdg 18.4; Isa 64.5; Jer 3.8; 11.5; 15.6; 20.7; 35.10; Ezek 1.4,
15, 27; 11.16; 12.7; 20.9, 22; 23.13; 24.18; 43.8; 44.4; Hos 13.7; Zech 2.1, 5; 4.4, 11, 12; 5.9; 6.4; full: Josh
7.21 (ktiv); 9.24; 24.3 (qre); Jdg 12.3; 1 Sam 10.14; 13.12; 26.21; 2 Sam 7.6, 9; 11.23; 12.22; 22.24; 1 Kgs
8.20; 11.39; Isa 6.1; Jer 13.2; 25.17; 31.26; 32.9, 13; 44.17; Ezek 1.1, 28; 2.9; 8.2, 7, 10; 10.1, 9; 11.1; 16.8;
20.14; Hos 11.4; Amos 4.10; Zech 5.1; 6.1; 11.7 (2x); hifʿil—short: Josh 14.7; 24.3, 10; Jdg 6.9; 1 Kgs
2.42; 18.13; Jer 5.7; 32.10; 35.4; 42.21; Ezek 28.18; 31.15; 39.23, 24; Amos 2.10; Zech 11.8; full: Josh
24.6, 8 (qre); Jdg 2.1; 6.8; 1 Sam 10.18; 12.1; 15.20; Isa 48.5; Jer 2.7; 11.8 (not represented in the
Greek); Ezek 16.50; 36.19; Amos 2.9, 11; Zech 11.13; lengthened: Josh 24.8 (ktiv); Jdg 10.12; 2 Sam
7.9; י/—ע"וshort: 1 Kgs 3.21; 8.20, 21; Jer 13.2; Zech 6.1; full: 1 Sam 10.14; 28.21; Isa 51.16; Ezek 3.15,
23; 8.10; 16.8; Zech 5.1; Mal 1.3; lengthened: Jdg 12.3.
8 —ל"יshort: Dan 10.5; Neh 1.4b; 2.11, 13, 15 (2x); 4.8; full: Qoh 4.1, 7; Dan 8.2 (2x), 3, 27; 9.4; 10.8;
Ezra 8.15, 17 (qre); Neh 1.4a; 3.38; 7.2; 12.31; 13.25; 1 Chr 17.5, 8; 2 Chr 6.10; hifʿil—short: Ezra 10.2;
1 Chr 17.10; full: Neh 2.18, 20; 4.3, 7 (2x); 6.4; 7.1; 13.15; 1 Chr 17.8; lengthened: Ezra 8.17 (ktiv), 24;
Neh 6.12; 12.31; 13.8, 9, 21, 30; י/—ע"וshort: Neh 4.9 (qre); full: Dan 8.27; Ezra 8.22; Neh 2.9, 11, 12,
15 (3x); 4.8, 9 (ktiv); 13.7a, 25; 2 Chr 6.10, 11; lengthened: Ezra 8.15, 17, 23; Neh 5.7; 13.7, 11, 17.
9 Rounding out the biblical picture, in those books of the Writings not considered core LBH
books, i.e., Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, and Lamentations, the relevant statis-
tics are seven short forms versus ten full/lengthened ones: —ל"יshort: Ps 18.24; 38.15; 69.12, 21;
73.14; Job 30.9; Prov 7.7; long—Ps 69.11; 102.8; Job 7.20; Prov 8.30 (2x); 24.32; hifʿil: lengthened—
Ps 119.59; י/ע"ו: long: Job 38.15; lengthened—Ps 62.21; 90.10.
162 chapter 6
mt DSS Samaritan
Torah Prophets LBH + Qoh Biblical Non-biblical Pentateuch
As can be seen from the table, in the MT lengthened 1st person wayyiqṭol forms
are very rare in the Pentateuch,10 about twice as common, but still quite infre-
quent in the Prophets,11 and significantly more common in post-exilic material,
appearing in just over half the potential cases in LBH and Qohelet.12 Outside
of the core LBH material there is also a striking accumulation of lengthened
forms in texts with a characteristically late linguistic profile; ten of the 18 cases
of the lengthened pattern in those works among the Writings not considered
core LBH material come in Ps 119 (6x) and the narrative framework of Job (4x),
both of which have been dated to the post-exilic period on the basis of their
respective linguistic profiles.13 Use of the short form is characteristic of the
Torah; disuse of the short form and use of the lengthened form are character-
istic of late material.
ל"יwyqṭl forms in the Moabite of the Mesha Stele, all of which are short: ואעש
‘and I did/made’ (lns. 3, 9), ‘ ואראand I saw’ (ln. 7), and ‘ ואבנand I built’ (ln. 9).14
For the later period there is a good deal more non-Masoretic and extra-
biblical evidence. Thus, with regard to use of the short 1st person wayyiqṭol, the
downward trend discernible in the Bible is confirmed by such Second Temple
sources as the biblical15 and non-biblical DSS16 and the Samaritan Pentateuch17
(see above, table 6.1.1.1a). The rarity of short forms in the non-biblical DSS is
unsurprising, since their language may be assumed to have been less influ-
enced by conventions specific to BH than that of their biblical counterparts.
More striking in contrast to the dominance of the short form in the MT Torah
is their near total lack in the Samaritan Pentateuch, where classical influence
might be expected.18
The late non-Masoretic Hebrew and extra-biblical material also furnishes
corroborative testimony for the characteristically late distribution of the
14 The orthography ‘ ואשמand I set’ in the Aramaic of the Tel Dan inscription (KAI 310) prob-
ably should not be adduced as additional evidence of use of the short (as opposed to the
full) form of the 1st person wayyiqṭol in the early period, since medial vowels do not seem
to be marked in this text. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that final vowels are marked,
the use of a lengthened form here may be discounted.
15 —ל"יshort: 4Q31 2.4 (|| Deut 3.18); Mur2 f1i.3 (|| Deut 10.3a); 5/6Hev1b f6–7.10 (|| Ps 18.24);
full: 1QIsaa 51.19 (|| Isa 64.5 short); 4Q51 f42a.1 (|| 1 Sam 26.21); 4Q70 f21–22i.3 (|| Jer 13.2);
4Q73 f2.10 (|| Ezek 11.1); 4Q80 f14–15.2 (|| Zech 5.9 short); 4Q112 f14.12 (|| Dan 8.2); 4Q114 1.7
(|| Dan 10.8) (in two cases the scrolls have a full form parallel to a short form in the MT);
hifʿil—lengthened: 1QIsaa 40.10 (|| Isa 48.5 full); 11Q5 9.1 (|| Ps 119.59 lengthened); י/—ע"ו
short: 4Q56 f36.2 (|| Isa 51.16 full); 4Q70 f21–22i.3 (|| Jer 13.2 short); lengthened: 4Q51 9e–i.16
(|| 1 Sam 10.14 full).
16 —ל"יshort: 4Q364 f26bi.6 (|| Deut 9.15); full: 1QHa 10.10, 12, 16, 17; 11.8; 14.27; 16.28; 4Q364
f24a–c.15; hifʿil—full: 4Q364 f26bii+e.1; 4Q389 f2.2; lengthened: 1QHa 17.9; 4Q385a f1a–
bii.1, 3; 4Q387 f1.7; 4Q389 f6.1; י/—ע"וlengthened: 1QHa 12.37; 4Q504 f1–2Rv.17; 11Q5 28.5.
17 —ל"יshort: Num 13.33a (also short in MT); full: Gen 24.46, 48; 31.10; 41.22; Exod 6.3; 9.15;
Num 23.4; Deut 1.16, 18; 2.1, 8b, 33; 3.1 (2x), 18; 9.15, 16; 10.3 (2x), 5 (of the 21 full forms in the
Samaritan Pentateuch, only three are paralleled by a full form in the MT: Gen 24.48; Deut
1.16, 18); hifʿil—full: Gen 43.7, 21; 44.24; Exod 19.4; Lev 20.26; 26.13; Num 31.50; Deut 29.4;
lengthened: Deut 2.34; 3.6; 9.21; י/—ע"וshort: Lev 20.23 (also short in MT); full: Gen 24.42,
47; Deut 1.19; 10.5; lengthened: Gen 35.3; 43.8; 44.21; 50.5; Exod 4.18; Deut 10.5.
18 On the other hand, too much should not be made of the apparent rarity of the short pat-
tern in the biblical DSS. It is true that they twice give a full ל"יform where the MT has a
short form (see above, n. 15) and that short forms are outnumbered by a margin of ten to
five overall, but this seems at least partially due to the fragmentary nature of the Scrolls
and to the casual fact that most of the full forms preserved in the fragments are also full
in the MT.
164 chapter 6
lengthened 1st person wayyiqṭol seen in the mt. It obtains in a notable minor-
ity of the relevant cases in the biblical DSS material19 and the Samaritan
Pentateuch,20 and, again unsurprisingly, in a striking majority of the non-bib-
lical material from the DSS.21
Consider the following representative examples:
Exod 9.15 I struck ( )וָ ַאְךyou and your people with plague
Sam Pent I struck ( )ואכהyou and your people with plague
[Neh 13.25 I struck ( )וָ ַא ֶכהmen from among them]
19 1QIsaa 6.2 (|| Isa 6.8 unlengthened), 5 (|| Isa 6.11 unlengthened); 34.12 (|| Isa 41.9
unlengthened); 40.10 (|| Isa 48.5 full); 42.8 (|| Isa 50.7 unlengthened); 51.20 (|| Isa 64.5 short);
4Q13 f3ii+5–6i.8 (|| Exod 3.17 unlengthened); 4Q51 3a–e.25 (|| 1 Sam 2.28 lengthened),
9e–i.16 (|| 1 Sam 10.14 full), f61ii+63–64a–b+65–67.3 (|| 2 Sam 4.10 lengthened); 4Q80
f8–13.19 (|| Zech 4.4 unlengthened), f14–15.2 (|| Zech 5.9), 4 (|| Zech 5.10 unlengthened);
4Q83 f19ii–20.31 (|| Ps 69.12 lengthened); 4Q113 f16–18i+19.5 (|| Dan 8.3 unlengthened); 11Q5
9.1 (|| Ps 119.59 lengthened); 11.2 (|| Ps 119.106 lengthened); 12.4 (|| Ps 119.131 lengthened); 13.9
(|| Ps 119.158 lengthened); 20.2 (|| Ps 139.11 unlengthened). In 12 cases the biblical DSS have
a lengthened form against a short, full, or unlengthened form in the MT; in only two cases
does the MT have a lengthened form where the corresponding DSS text does not: 4Q3
f1ii.18 (|| Gen 41.11); 4Q112 f15.18 (|| Dan 10.19).
20 Gen 32.6 (MT lengthened); Exod 3.8 (MT unlengthened), 17 (MT unlengthened); 6.5 (MT
unlengthened); Lev 26.13 (MT unlengthened); Num 8.19 (MT lengthened); Deut 1.19 (2x;
MT both unlengthened), 43 (MT unlengthened); 2.1 (MT unlengthened), 8a (MT ---), 8b
(2x; MT both unlengthened), 13 (MT unlengthened), 26 (MT unlengthened), 34 (2x; MT
both unlengthened); 3.4 (MT unlengthened), 6 (MT unlengthened), 23 (MT unlength-
ened); 9.15 (MT unlengthened), 17 (MT unlengthened), 18 (MT unlengthened), 20 (MT
unlengthened), 21 (3x; MT all unlengthened), 25 (MT unlengthened), 26 (2x; MT both
unlengthened); 10.3 (MT unlengthened), 5 (2x; MT unlengthened and short) 22.14 (MT
unlengthened). On 31 occasions the Samaritan Pentateuch has a lengthened form against
a short or unlengthened form in the MT. On one occasion the Samaritan Pentateuch has a
lengthened form with no parallel in the MT. In two cases only does the MT have a length-
ened form against an unlengthened form in the Samaritan Pentateuch: Gen 41.11; 43.21.
21 1QHa 12.37; 14.9, 10; 15.23; 17.9, 10; 1Q49 f1.1; 4Q364 f26bi.8; 4Q385 f2.9; 4Q385a f1a–bii.1, 6,
7, f15i.5; 4Q387 f1.7; 4Q389 f2.4, 5, f6.1; 4Q390 f1.6 (2x); 4Q437 f2ii.13; 4Q504 f1–2rv.17; 11Q19
65.8; unlengthened: 4Q364 f23a–bi.6, 14, f24a–c.8, f26bii+e.1, 2; 4Q386 f1ii.2; 4Q389 f2.2;
4Q391 f36.2.
verbal morphology 165
Exod 3.17 I said ( )וָ א ַֹמרI will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt
Sam Pent I said ( )ואמרהI will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt
4Q13 f3ii+5–6i.8 I said (ואו̇ ̇מ ̇רה
̇ ) [I will bring yo]u [up]from the affliction of Egypt
[Dan 10.16 I said ( )וָ א ְֹמ ָרהto the one standing before me]
[Ezra 8.28 I said ( )וָ א ְֹמ ָרהto them you are holy to Yhwh]
Lev 26.13 and I broke ( )וָ ֶא ְשבֹר. . . your yoke and made you walk (אֹולְך
ֵ ָ )וerect
Sam Pent and I broke ( )ואשברה. . . your yoke and made you walk ( )ואוליךerect
6.1.1.3 Discussion
The respective and contrasting distribution patterns of the short and length-
ened forms seem straightforward, but several explanations have been offered.
Though arguments based on phonological and prosodic factors have been
suggested and may have explanatory power in a limited number of cases,22
as general theories they have been effectively refuted23 and in any case fail
to explain the rather clear-cut diachronic trends presented above. But even
focusing on explanations based on historical typology one finds multiple sug-
gestions. According to one, 1st person wayyiqṭol forms were at an early date
different from the corresponding 2nd and 3rd person forms; specifically, 1st
person forms were lengthened, while 2nd and 3rd person forms were short.
In the course of time, so it is claimed, 1st person forms were shortened due to
analogical pressure from the short pattern dominant in 2nd and 3rd person.24
This approach may account for the sporadic employment of lengthened forms
in apparently early texts, but it seems extremely unlikely in light of the gener-
ally clear picture of diachronic development discernible in the data. One is
forced to assume that lengthened forms were regularly used throughout BH,
but were only explicitly written as such in post-exilic orthography, the rele-
vant verbs in the Pentateuch and Prophets being pronounced without final
a in the reading tradition due only to their lacking a final mater lectionis he.
However, this scenario seems improbable from the perspective of the standard
Masoretic consonantal representation of final a vowels, which are regularly
marked. Indeed, the consistent pronunciation of final a in the absence of a
mater lectionis, as in the standard 2ms endings ָת- and ָך-, is suspect. Note also
that final a is marked in the Mesha Stele and—presumably—missing from the
1cs wayyiqṭol forms there.
The most widely accepted opinion is thus that the short pattern is the earli-
est in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person forms. Later, users of the language sensed a cer-
tain asymmetry between the wayyiqṭol and modal paradigms. This was because
in 2nd and 3rd person the wayyiqṭol forms very closely resembled the parallel
jussive forms, both short where possible; conversely, in 1st person wayyiqṭol
was short, whereas the corresponding cohortative involved the length-
ened pattern. On the basis of analogy to this lengthened cohortative, then,
the ◌- ָ ending was appended to the originally short 1st person wayyiqṭol
forms so that classical וָ ָ֫א ָקםand וַ ָּ֫נ ָקםwere replaced with קּומה
ָ וָ ָאand קּומה
ָ ָוַ ּנ,
respectively.
Turning to the use of full forms, the situation is more complex. The pro-
cess by which full forms gradually replaced short forms in 1st person wayyiqṭol
verbs where such a distinction exists is difficult to explain. One problem
relates specifically to ל"יverbs. According to the Masoretic reading tradition
these verbs have no lengthened form ending in ◌- ָ (and no morphologically
distinctive cohortative form either). Even so, it has been suggested that the
full consonantal spelling of ל"יwayyiqṭol (and cohortative yiqṭol) forms with
ה-, e.g., ואגלה, may very well have once represented both וָ ֶאגְ ֶלהand *וָ ֶאגְ ָלה, but
that the latter was not preserved in the reading tradition, in which case at least
some current וָ ֶאגְ ֶלהforms may be assumed to represent *וָ ֶאגְ ָלה.25 If so, then it
is possible that three of the four full spellings of 1st person wayyiqṭol forms in
the Pentateuch—i.e., those that end in ה-—actually reflect lengthened forms.
There is an additional difficulty concerning the relationship between
the consonantal orthography and the Tiberian vocalization. Could it not be
claimed that the increased use of full spelling in 1st person wayyiqṭol forms is
the result of nothing more than a change in orthographical conventions and
that this does not necessarily indicate any sort of morphological development?
The question should certainly be entertained, but a morphologically sensi-
tive spelling comparison reveals that the issue is not purely orthographical in
nature. In 1st person forms the degree of divergence between spelling (defec-
tive) and vocalization (long) is much greater in the case of wayyiqṭol in hifʿil
and י/ ע"וqal than in the parallel forms of yiqṭol. There are some 76 instances
of the relevant wayyiqṭol forms and in 25 of them (32.9 percent) the spelling
does not match the vocalization. In yiqṭol forms, conversely, there are a mere
70 cases of mismatch in approximately 1145 instances (6.1 percent). One must
therefore assume that the discrepancy between consonantal spelling and pro-
nunciation in the case of 1st person hifʿil and י/ ע"וqal wayyiqṭol forms reflects
more than just a shift in spelling practices. Differences in spelling practice
appear rather to reflect underlying morphological differences, whereby full
25 Bergsträsser 1918–1927: II §5f. See also Revell 1988: 423; Bloch 2007: 150, n. 33, 155.
verbal morphology 167
Former Prophets, but was erased and replaced there with the short pattern by
later scribes intent on linguistic purity.
As for the first claim: along with the four occurrences of the lengthened pat-
tern in the Pentateuch, there are four occurrences of the full pattern: וָ ֶא ְׁש ַּת ֲחוֶ ה
‘and I bowed down’ (Gen 24.48); ‘ וַ ּנַ ִּׁשיםand we laid waste’ (Num 21.30); and וָ ֲא ַצּוֶ ה
‘and I commanded’ (Deut 1.16, 18). Unless the three relevant ל"יforms mask
lengthened forms, their testimony for early use of the full pattern is nearly as
strong as that for the early use of the lengthened pattern. If so, there seems
little reason to claim that the former necessarily developed from the latter.
On the situation in the Prophets: vis-à-vis the Torah these books exhibit a
significant decrease in the use of the short pattern, but it is less significant
than the decline characteristic of the core LBH material. Concurrently, these
books show a decided increase in comparison to the Pentateuch in the use
of full forms and a more gradual increase with regard to lengthened forms,
both of which are tendencies that become even more pronounced in the core
LBH books. On the basis of these facts, it seems reasonable to posit two con-
tradictory processes of analogy that operated contemporaneously. In one pro-
cess, already explained above, the modal paradigm influenced the wayyiqṭol
paradigm; in particular, the lengthened cohortative pattern took the place of
the originally short pattern in 1st person wayyiqṭol forms. Accordingly, קּומה ָ וָ ָא
and the like replaced וָ ָ֫א ָקםin weak verbs and וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלהreplaced וָ ֶא ְקטֹלin strong
verbs. The developmental processes may be schematized as follows:
וָ אָ קו ָּמה: קּומהָ ָא:: וַ ָּ֫י ָקם: וָ ָ֫א ָקם > יָ קֹם: קּומה
ָ ָא:: וַ ָּ֫י ָקם: יָ קֹם
וָ אֶ ְק ְטלָ ה: ֶא ְק ְט ָלה:: וַ ּיִ ְקטֹל: וָ אֶ ְקטֹל > יִ ְקטֹל: ֶא ְק ְט ָלה:: וַ ּיִ ְקטֹל: יִ ְקטֹל
Any symmetry lost when the 1st person wayyiqṭol pattern deviated from the
pattern of the 2nd and 3rd person was gained with the creation of one-to-one
correspondence between the modal and wayyiqṭol paradigms.
In the second analogical process, which, as noted, seems to have worked
at cross purposes with the first, the indicative paradigm more generally influ-
enced the modal paradigm. In this way the full pattern invaded the domain of
the short pattern in both its modal and wayyiqṭol functions. In other words,
language users exchanged the explicitly short forms of the minority of verbs
where these existed for their full forms, thus creating correspondence between
the weak verbs and their more common, strong counterparts. This process is
here schematized:
וָ אָ קוּם: ָאקּום:: וָ ֶא ְקטֹל: וָ ָ֫א ָקם > ֶא ְקטֹל: ָאקּום:: וָ ֶא ְקטֹל: ֶא ְקטֹל
verbal morphology 169
It should be noted that the effects of this process were not restricted merely
to 1st person forms, but evidently acted upon the relevant 2nd and 3rd person
forms as well, though in a more limited fashion (see below §6.1.2).
Distribution patterns indicate that both processes began early on. However,
while the results of the second are very well documented in the Prophets—
where both short and lengthened forms are in the minority, but the latter
are very rare indeed—the results of the second are much less pronounced.
Conversely, both processes are well represented in post-exilic literature. It
remains only to explain the difference between the two processes: why the
second took hold already in the Prophets, but the first only in LBH. Or, put dif-
ferently: why the sudden explosion of lengthened forms in LBH in contrast to
both the Torah and the Prophets? The process that produced וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלהis just as
‘natural’ as the process that produced וָ ָאקּום, but the sudden increase in the use
of וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלהin the late writings seems anything but ‘natural’.
In all probability, the surprising intensification in use of the lengthened
wayyiqṭol is to be explained, at least partially, as a result of intentional archaiza-
tion. The very persistence of wayyiqṭol at all in LBH is likely due to literary
convention increasingly imitative, artificial, and archaistic and progressively
removed from the spoken form of the language.28 If so, in the case of 1st person
forms, late writers tended to choose between one of two options: on the one
hand, the majority form, i.e., the full forms וָ ֶא ְקטֹל, וָ ָאקּום, וָ ָא ִקים, and וָ ֶא ְקנֶ ה, all
corresponding to the ‘normal’ yiqṭol; on the other hand, a form which, due to
its inclusion of an old suffix that had lost its potency, gave the appearance of
antiquity, i.e., the lengthened forms וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלה, קּומה
ָ וָ ָא, and ימה ָ וָ ָא ִק. The length-
ened pattern had an advantage over the full pattern: it differed from standard
yiqṭol, and could thus be considered a more ‘transparent’ wayyiqṭol form. But
this only raises the question as to why writers in search of a transparent form
did not return to the original short pattern. In view of a whole host of other
late forms, particularly pronouns, it would seem that the late preference was
quite simply for lengthening, not shortening. Further, given the then-current
plene spelling conventions, outside of verbs ל"יit would have been difficult
to distinguish short from full forms (particularly in the case of qal ע"ו, less
so in qal ע"יand hifʿil). To summarize: the late use of the full form should
be seen, at least in part, as the fruit of a gradual process whereby the short
pattern, originally reserved for the jussive and wayyiqṭol in all the persons,
was supplanted by the more general, full form. Conversely, the late use of the
28 Cf. Qimron 2008: 153–154. Of course, there are those who maintain that the conversive
tenses were never employed in the vernacular, even at an early date.
170 chapter 6
6.1.1.4 Jeremiah
Jeremiah exhibits tendencies fairly typical of the Prophets. It has consonan-
tally short forms in five of the 11 ל"יforms,31 in four of six of the hifʿil forms (not
including )ל"י,32 and in the sole case of י/ ע"וin qal.33 In total, then, Jeremiah has
short forms in ten of 18 cases (55.6 percent). This proportion is similar to that
found in the Prophets more generally and is in line with the classification of the
book’s language as transitional between the classical and late phases of BH.34
The lengthened pattern is represented twice in Jeremiah’s 53 potential cases
(3.8 percent): ‘ וָ ֵא ָ ֫ד ָעהand I knew’ (11.18)35 and ‘ וָ ֶא ְׁש ֲק ָלהand I weighed’ (32.9).36
In this the language of the book resembles CBH.
29 See Kutscher (1974: 326–327) for an explanation of the use of lengthened yiqṭol in the DSS
and its rejection in RH.
30 The figures for the individual books of the Prophets are as follows: Joshua 5/10 full; Judges
3/5 full; Samuel 11/13 full; Kings 2/7 full; Isaiah 3/4 full; Jeremiah 8/18 full; Ezekiel 16/32 full;
Hosea 1/2; Amos 3/4 full; Zechariah 6/15 full; Malachi 1/1 full.
31 Short: Jer 3.8; 11.5; 15.6; 20.7; 35.10; full: 13.2; 25.17; 31.26; 32.9, 13; 44.17.
32 Short: Jer 5.7; 32.10; 35.4; 42.21; full: 2.7; 11.8.
33 Jer 13.2.
34 However, from the perspective of the linguistic feature under discussion it is to be noted
that the language of the entire corpus of the Former and Latter Prophets has the appear-
ance of a stage linking the CBH of the Torah and the LBH of the distinctively post-exilic
books.
35 It is to be noted that the Greek, Targum Jonathan, and the Peshiṭta render this form as a
future, apparently reading וְ אדעה.
36 It is not impossible that the ◌- ָ suffix on this form was added for purposes of euphony,
to prevent the piling up of l sounds in something like ;*וָ ֶא ְׁשקֹל־ּלֹוsee GKC §49e.
verbal morphology 171
6.1.2.1 The MT
Full forms are rare in the Hebrew Bible. ל"י: there are some 2200 instances of
ל"יwayyiqṭol forms in the 2ms, 3ms, and 2fs and just 53 of them exhibit the full
pattern, i.e., with final ה-. None of these cases comes in the Torah (in 662 pos-
sible cases), 48 come in the Prophets (in 1140 cases),39 and three come in the
core LBH material (in 269 cases).40 Hifʿil: two41 out of 684 cases. ע"ו:42 three43
of 456 cases. ע"י: no example in 122 cases.
40 2 Chr 16.12; 21.13; 26.6. Another apparently late instance may be found in Job 42.16 (qre), in
the book’s narrative framework, which has been judged late on the basis of its linguistic
profile; see Hurvitz 1974a; cf. Young 2009. The remaining case comes in Lam 3.33, the lan-
guage of which is probably transitional between CBH and LBH; see Dobbs-Allsopp 1998.
Note that the number of potential cases in the three sections of Scripture drops to 460,
606, and 160, respectively, if forms of the verb ‘ ָהיָ הbe’, which, apparently due to frequency
of use, never appears in the full pattern, are removed from consideration.
41 ‘ וַ ֵּיָביאand he brought’ (Ezek 40.3 against the vocalization); ‘ וַ ִּיָביאand he brought’ (Neh
8.2). In an additional 11 cases the consonantal spelling testifies to a short form, but the
vocalization to a full form: (‘ וַ ָּת ִקאthe land) has vomited’ (Lev 18.25); ּיֹוצא ִ ַ‘ וand he brought
out’ (Deut 4.20); ‘ וַ ָּ֫ת ִרץand it crushed’ (Jdg 9.53); ‘ וַ ַּת ֲח ִטאand you have caused to sin’ (1 Kgs
16.2; 21.22); ‘ וַ ַּת ְח ִּבאand she hid (her son)’ (2 Kgs 6.29); ּיֹוצא ִ ַ‘ וand he brought out’ (11.12);
‘ וַ ּיַ ֲח ִטאand he caused to sin’ (21.11); ּיֹוצא
ִ ַ‘ וand he brought out’ (Ps 78.16); ‘ וַ ּיַ ְח ִׁשְךand he
made it/and it became dark’ (105.28), ּיֹוצא ִ ַ( ו43) ‘and he brought out’. Note that a majority
of the forms end in ʾalef (see the following note).
42 Forms of the qal verb ‘ ּבֹואcome’ are excluded from these counts. Given the weakness of
final ʾalef, this verb apparently ended in an open accented syllable, the type of syllable
that scribes tended to write plene, especially in post-biblical sources. It is in any case dif-
ficult to know whether there was a difference in pronunciation between the respective
yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms of this verb. Be that as it may, it is worth giving the biblical
distribution of the full forms of the verb in question. Including 1st person forms, out of
313 cases in the Bible, 40 are spelled plene: none may found in the Torah (in 60 cases), 29
come in the Prophets (in 200 cases), and 14 (out of 38 cases) come in the core LBH books.
In the corpus composed of the distinctive LBH material and Ezekiel, 25 of 58 cases are full.
43 ‘ ותלושand she kneaded’ (2 Sam 13.8 ktiv); ‘ וַ ּיָ צֹוםand he fasted’ (1 Kgs 21.27); ‘ וַ ָּתמֹוגand it
melted’ (Amos 9.5).
44 1QHa 21.10; 4Q223–224 f1i.4; 4Q225 f1.3.
45 1Q7 f4.2 (|| 2 Sam 23.10), 3 (|| 2 Sam 23.10), 5 (|| 2 Sam 23.10); 1QIsaa 4.13 (|| Isa 5.2), 14 (|| Isa
5.2), 16 (|| Isa 5.4); 5.13 (|| Isa 5.25); 16.24 (|| Isa 21.9); 23.19 (|| Isa 29.1), 23 (|| Isa 29.13); 30.19
(|| Isa 37.14); 31.23 (|| Isa 38.3); 32.16 (‘ ויחיהand he lived’ || Isa 39.1 ‘ וַ ּיֶ ֱחזָ קand he recovered’);
4Q13 f3i–4.5 (‘ ותראהand she saw’ || Exod 2.6 ‘ וַ ִּת ְר ֵאהּוand she saw him’); 4Q14 3.15 (|| Exod
10.13); 4Q51 f61ii+63–64a–b+65–67.20 (|| 2 Sam 5.9); 4Q60 f8.1 (|| Isa 5.25); 4Q72 f6.2 (|| Jer
10.13 ‘ וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶלהand he caused to rise’). Only in Jer 10.13 does a full form in the DSS correspond
to a full form in the MT.
46 ‘ וישתחויand he bowed down’ (Gen 18.2; 19.1; 23.7, 12; 24.26, 52; 33.3; 47.31; Exod 18.7; 34.8;
Num 22.31; Deut 17.3); ‘ ויראהand he appeared’ (Gen 26.2, 24; 35.9; Lev 9.23); ‘ ותקשהand
she had difficulty’ (Gen 35.16); ‘ ותשתהand (the congregation) drank’ (Num 20.11); ויכי
verbal morphology 173
‘and he struck’ (22.23). Thus, in the Samaritan consonantal tradition, use of the full pat-
tern in ל"יforms is restricted to the verbs ( השתחוה12x), ( נראה4x), שתה,קשה, and הכה.
47 Cf. Qimron 1986: §100.33 on the representation of the vowel e with mater lectionis yod.
48 ‘ ותציתand it kindled (?)’ (4Q163 f4–7i.13); ‘ ויגידand he hold’ (4Q223–224 f2v.21, 22); ויהיר
‘and it shone (?)’ (4Q381 f1.5); ‘ ויביאand he brought’ (4Q386 f1iii.1).
49 ‘ ויביאand he brought’ (1QIsaa 25.25 || וַ ֵּיָבאIsa 31.2); ‘ ויגידand he told’ (40.19 || ‘ ִהּגִ ידhe told’
Isa 48.14); ‘ ויוציאand he brought out’ (11Q5 15.13 || וַ ּי ֵֹצאPs 136.11). Cf. above n. 47. The defec-
tive spelling of relevant hifʿil yiqṭol forms in the biblical DSS is not common. From this one
may surmise that the mater lectionis yod in these forms indicates i rather than e.
50 ‘ ויצמיחand he made sprout’ (Gen 2.9); ‘ ויולידand he fathered’ (5.22; 6.10; 11.10; 44.20);
‘ ויריחand he smelled’ (8.21; 27.27); ‘ ותורידand she put down’ (24.20 || mt ‘ וַ ְּת ַערand she
emptied’); ‘ ותגידand she told’ (24.28); ‘ ויזידand he stewed’ (25.29); ‘ ותלבישand she dressed
(trans.)’ (27.15); ‘ וילבישand he dressed (trans.)’ (41.42), ‘ וישבירand he bought grain’ (56 ||
mt ‘ ויוציא ;)וַ ּיִ ְׁשּבֹרand he brought out’ (43.23); ‘ ויסתירand he hid’ (Exod 3.6); ‘ ויקריבand
he sacrificed’ (Lev 8.6, 13, 16, 22, 24; 9.15, 17; Num 16.10; 27.5); ‘ ויגישand he offered’ (Lev
8.14, 18 || mt )וַ ּיַ ְק ֵרב, ‘ ויקטירand he kindled’ (20, 21, 28; 9.13). However, it is important to
note that the Samaritan reading tradition preserves no distinction between full yiqṭol and
short wayyiqṭol in the relevant forms of binyan hifʿil: the vowel with the second root letter
is ĕ whether it is spelled with a mater lectionis yod or not; there is also no difference in the
pronunciation of the preceding waw conjunction, i.e., conjunctive waw versus conversive
waw; see Ben-Ḥayyim 2000:§2.9.5.
51 ‘ ותשוךand you protected’ (1QHa 10.23); ‘ ותגורand she sojourned’ (11.26), ‘ ותשוטand it
spread’ (31); ‘ ויקוםand he arose’ (4Q160 f1.3); ‘ וישובand he returned’ (4Q254a f3.4). It
is not clear whether the medial waw in these cases represents o or u, but according to
Qimron (1986:§100.2), it does not represent å (in contrast to the relevant vowel according
to Tiberian pronunciation).
52 ‘ ויעוףand he flew’ (1QIsaa 5.28 || Isa 6.6); ‘ וישובand he returned’ (1QIsaa 30.12 || Isa 37.8;
1QIsaa 30.13 || — Isa 37.9; 1QIsaa 31.17 || Isa 37.37; 4Q51 f8–10a–b+11.9 || 1 Sam 15.31; 4Q80
f8–13.15 || Zech 4.1); ‘ ותשובand it returned’ (1QIsaa 31.29 || Isa 38.8); ‘ ויקוםand he arose’
(4Q27 f1–4.1 || Num 11.32; 4Q51 f44.3 || 1 Sam 28.23; 4Q51 f102ii+103–106i.28 || 2 Sam 13.31;
4Q53 f5ii–7i.15 || 2 Sam 14.31; 4Q82 f78ii+82–87.12 || Jon 3.3); ‘ וירוץand he ran’ (4Q27 f11.6 ||
Num 17.12; 4Q51 5a.5 || 1 Sam 4.12); ‘ וימותand he died’ (4Q27 f80–84.11 || Num 35.20; 4Q27
f80–84.15 || Num 35.23; 4Q51 f61i+62.7 || 2 Sam 3.27; 4Q51 f68–76.9 || 2 Sam 6.7; 4Q51 f88.2 ||
2 Sam 10.18; 4Q51 f93–94.3 || 2 Sam 11.17); ‘ וינוחand he rested’ (4Q41 4.6 || Exod 20.11); ותלוש
‘and she kneaded’ (4Q51 f44.4 || 1 Sam 28.24); ‘ ותמוגand it melted’ (Mur88 11.1 || Amos 9.5).
As noted in the preceding footnote, in light of spelling conventions in the DSS (such that
they are), for all but a few of these forms, e.g., ‘ וינוחand he rested’ (4Q41 4.6 || וַ ָּי֖נַ חExod
20.11 [but even here there is doubt]), it is difficult to determine if the reading tradition
174 chapter 6
Table 6.1.2.2 The full wayyiqṭol pattern in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs in ל"י, hifʿil, and qal י/ע"ו
mt DSS Samaritan
Torah Prophets LBH Non-biblical Biblical Pentateuch
6.1.2.3 Explanations
At the risk of oversimplifying scholarly treatment of the issue, there are three
principal approaches to the use of the full pattern in the 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs
wayyiqṭol. Tropper (1998: 166–167) proposes a phonological explanation. For
full wayyiqṭol forms in binyan hifʿil (excluding ל"יforms) and for י/ ע"וforms
in qal he adduces two explanations: (a) the quality of the vowel between the
second and third root letters is influenced by these consonants; (b) full forms
tend to come instead of their short counterparts in pause. As for the first expla-
nation: in contrast to the situation in 1st person (see above, §6.1.1), this factor
appears to be valid in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs:56 two cases of plene spelling involve
the verb ‘ ויביאand he brought’ and in nine of the 11 cases in which the vocal-
ization alone reflects a full form the third radical is ʾalef (see above, n. 41). The
second factor also has explanatory power: the two cases of plene spelling in qal
ע"וforms (see above, n. 43) and one of the two cases in hifʿil in which the third
radical is not ʾalef and in which the vocalization testifies against the conso-
nantal orthography and uses the full pattern ( וַ ּיַ ְח ִׁשְךPs 105.28) come in pause.57
represented therein made a distinction between yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms. Excluding
cases of the verb ּבֹואthe proportion is 23 of 62 (37.1 percent) full.
53 CD 20.9; 4Q223–224 f2v.30. But see above n. 47.
54 ‘ ותשיםand she put’ (4Q13 f3i–4.2 || Exod 2.3). But see above n. 47.
55 ‘ ותשיםand she put’ (Exod 2.3 [2x]); ‘ ותקיאand it vomited’ (Lev 18.25).
56 Cf. Bloch 2007: 146, n. 20.
57 Cf. Bloch 2007: 145–146.
verbal morphology 175
Thus the factors identified by Tropper hold for 14 of the 15 biblical cases of the
full pattern in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs forms of wayyiqṭol in hifʿil (excluding )ל"יand
י/ ע"וof qal.58 Even so, it must be noted that these factors appear less relevant in
the case of the 96 instances in the DSS and the Samaritan Pentateuch.59
Tropper’s explanation for the preservation of the final vowel in the relevant
ל"יforms, e.g., full וַ ְּיִבנֶ הrather than short וַ ֶּיִבןboth ‘and he built’, is more difficult
to accept. In his opinion this vowel is the reflex of a long vowel that developed
from an original word-final diphthong. Normally, this vowel was shortened,
and due to its brevity, dropped. But in rare cases, argues Tropper, it kept its
length and was preserved as ◌ה- ֶ . In other words, Tropper derives the yiqṭol
forms in words like וַ ֶּיִבןand וַ ְּיִבנֶ הfrom the same Proto-Hebrew ancestor—
*yibnay—but the regular yiqṭol form ‘ ְיִבנֶ הhe builds, will build’ from a different
Proto-Hebrew ancestor—*yibnayu. Accordingly, a form such as וַ ְּיִבנֶ הis to be
considered archaic, since it preserves a typologically earlier pattern than וַ ֶּיִבן.
This approach is problematic from several angles. For the problems connected
to the proposed phonological development see Bloch’s (2007: 153–154, n. 40)
discussion along with the references he cites. A second problem involves dia-
chronic distribution: if a form like וַ ְּיִבנֶ הis indeed a relic, why is it so rarely used
in classical material? Its biblical distribution is limited almost exclusively to
the Prophets, especially to texts composed around the end of the First Temple
Period or during the Exile (like Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel). Further, the use
of these forms became even more regular in later sources, like the DSS and the
Samaritan Pentateuch.
An additional phonological explanation for the full pattern of ל"יverbs in
wayyiqṭol may be found in JM (§79m). According to this explanation, forms
like וַ ְּיִבנֶ הtend to come (a) in pause or (b) before a guttural letter. Stipp (1987:
129–131, 143–144) favors the second factor, but advises caution in the face of
scribal inconsistency.60
The second sort of approach is textual, running something like this. Scribes
in the late period—during which an early form of RH or some closely related
dialect served as the vernacular—spoke a language from which the short
yiqṭol had disappeared. Thus, in their copying of the biblical text and in their
composing of literary texts in imitation of the Bible, they made every effort
to write in classical biblical style, including the use of short yiqṭol in the rel-
evant wayyiqṭol forms, but under the influence of colloquial Hebrew, did not
always succeed. In this case, biblical forms like וַ ְּיִבנֶ הdo not reflect the lan-
guage of the biblical writers, but originated in slips of the pen of post-biblical
scribes. This approach has been adopted in varying degrees by several scholars.
For example, Stipp (1987: 121, 126–127) explains five cases of full wayyiqṭol in
Ezekiel as scribal corruptions. Likewise, JM (§79m) think that a we-yiqṭol form
was replaced by a wayyiqṭol form in several cruces in which a recurring action
is described. A more comprehensive textual explanation has been proposed by
Bloch (2007: 156–165): in specific reference to use of the full pattern in the 2ms,
3ms, and 3fs of verbs ל"יhe notes that the majority of the relevant cases are
limited to the books of Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These three books contain
additional cases of non-standard spelling (e.g., the spelling of the negator לוא
as opposed to לא, suffixed forms of ‘with’ spelled - אותas opposed to -) ִאּת, and
Bloch concludes that in contrast to the scribes responsible for copying the rest
of the Bible, those who transmitted the three aforementioned books were not
precise in their work, allowing themselves to be influenced by contemporary
linguistic habits.61 The rest of the cases he accounts for as results of textual cor-
ruption of one sort or another (ibid. 163–165).62
There is little doubt but that late scribes, under the influence of contempo-
rary spoken Hebrew, sometimes substituted an authentic classical form with
an ‘updated’ one more characteristic of their time. It is thus very tempting to
adopt a sweeping explanation like Bloch’s. Be that as it may, the approach in
question may be extreme. While one should not deny the possibility of tex-
tual corruption in specific cases, it seems prudent to delay the adoption of
such a thoroughgoing explanation until alternative explanations have been
exhausted—all the more so in the case of an all-encompassing textual solu-
tion. A textual resolution may be warranted in a portion of the cases of the
full wayyiqṭol pattern, but it seems premature to assume its general suitability.
In the case of full 1st person wayyiqṭol forms Bloch (2007: 147) correctly
accepts the explanation according to which the form was generated through
analogy already in the biblical period. Why, then, does he reject a similar pos-
sibility in relation to the full pattern in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs in favor of a whole-
sale textual explanation? The fact that some of the cases discussed above are
given to phonological explanations would seem to point to the possibility of a
linguistic phenomenon rooted in BH itself, thereby rendering unnecessary the
assumption of a linguistic update enacted by late copyists. If one is obliged to
consider the processes that led from וָ ֶא ְקטֹלto וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלהand from וָ ָ֫א ָקםto וָ ָאקּום
61 Stipp (1987: 144–145) suggests such a sweeping textual explanation for the books of Kings
and Jeremiah. Bloch (2007: 156, n. 47) observes that a full form that appears in a verse
paralleled elsewhere never comes in both verses.
62 For a textual explanation for hifʿil (excluding )ל"יand qal י/ ע"וforms see Bloch 2007: 152.
verbal morphology 177
in 1st person developments that began in BH itself and continued in the later
phases of Hebrew (see above, §6.1.1), then why should the process that led
from וַ ֶּיִבןto וַ ְּיִבנֶ הnot be viewed as a similar development, rooted in BH?63 One
is entitled to ask whether a form such as וַ ְּיִבנֶ הmay have come about as a result
of the collapse of the modal paradigm in BH: due to the general elision of final
short vowels, in the case of a majority of verbs the short and full yiqṭol forms
became identical. This situation in strong verbs gradually influenced the situ-
ation in weak verbs. In the classical period writers still tended to distinguish
between the short and full forms of these verbs, in spite of the loss of final
short vowels; the later period, in contrast, is characterized by an increase in the
non-standard use of short and full forms, i.e., short ones for the indicative and
full ones for the jussive and in wayyiqṭol.
In light of the statistics brought above any across-the-board textual approach
is liable to raise doubts. Unlike the lengthened pattern in 1st person, which
shows a gradual but definite increase in usage starting with the Torah through
the Prophets and ending with late material (biblical and extra-biblical), the
use of the full pattern increases in the Prophets and especially in the late extra-
biblical material in comparison to the Pentateuch, but it is not especially char-
acteristic of LBH proper. Why do the core LBH books fail to show the expected
full wayyiqṭol patterns in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs when they do exhibit use of the full
pattern in 1st person forms? This is no doubt at least partially due to the fact
that 1st person wayyiqṭol forms are less frequent than the 3ms and 3fs forms
(and the 2ms is identical to the 3fs). Additional factors may also be at work.
First, the book of Chronicles has the greatest number of potential forms, but its
author is known for his intentionally archaistic style.64 It is true that Chronicles
contains three cases of the full pattern, but in six more cases the Chronicler
arguably ‘corrected’ his source.65 Second, in the remaining core LBH mate-
rial there are relatively few cases in which full wayyiqṭol could have obtained.
For example, there are only 23 potential ל"יcases combined in Esther, Daniel,
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Qohelet. This being the case, the relative infrequency of
the full pattern in LBH appears to result from both archaization and chance.
If the majority of cases of the full wayyiqṭol pattern are not to be explained
textually, how ought the striking accumulation of such forms in the books of
Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel be explained? The following discussion will focus
on ל"יforms, since these forms account for the majority of the cases of the
full wayyiqṭol pattern in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs. First, it should be noted that the
raw data are liable to mislead. Though Kings contains 23 cases of the pattern
in question, these come in 234 potential cases.66 In other words, the propor-
tion of full forms in Kings is similar to that of Isaiah (two out of 22),67 about
10 percent in both cases, and only slightly greater than that of Joshua (two
out of 27). The only books that reveal a genuine accumulation are Jeremiah
(ten out of 22) and Ezekiel (five out of 24). In Stipp’s (1987: 121, 126–127, 144–
145) opinion the situation in the former derives from the textual variety among
the editions of Jeremiah, while the situation in the latter results from copyist
errors. Bloch (2007: 157–165), on the other hand, attributes use of the full pat-
tern in both books to the penetration of a late, popular form into the biblical
text during the post-biblical period in which these books were copied.68 The
logic of the analogy may be illustrated as follows:
וַ ִ ּי ְקנֶה: יִ ְקנֶ ה:: וַ ּיִ ְקטֹל: וַ ִ ּי ֶקן > יִ ְקטֹל: יִ ְקנֶ ה:: וַ ּיִ ְקטֹל: יִ ְקטֹל
This change probably occurred first in the spoken language and only later
in the written register. That is to say, the full yiqṭol pattern, which served to
mark future and habitual past and present, the jussive, and the simple past
(in wayyiqṭol) in the majority of verbs (i.e., the strong verbs), but only future
and habitual past and present in ל"יverbs, started to be used to mark the jus-
sive and simple past (in wayyiqṭol) in ל"יverbs as well due to influence of the
spoken language, or, at the very least, due to the activity of scribes who were
no longer capable of imitating pure classical style. Thus the theory according
to which the full wayyiqṭol pattern is in some way related to the late spoken
register is reasonable. However, this influence or penetration should not nec-
essarily be dated to the post-biblical period. In light of the biblical evidence,
there seems no reason to deny the possibility that forms like וַ ְּיִבנֶ הhad already
penetrated the literary register in the period during which the biblical texts
were being composed.69 The relative lack of similar forms in LBH proper is
either casual or derives from a conscious rejection of such forms in the spirit
of linguistic purism.
66 Cf. JM §79m, n. 18. These figures exclude forms of the verb ‘ ָהיָ הbe’, which never appears
in a full form in 2nd or 3rd person.
67 It should be noted that the recurring form ‘ וַ ּיְ ַצּוֶ הand he commanded’ accounts for four of
these cases. The non-standard 3fs form ‘ וַ ִּתזְ נִ יand she prostituted herself’ (Jer 3.6) might
also be added (despite its vocalization; see below).
68 Noting the use of the full wayyiqṭol pattern in the DSS and the Samaritan Pentateuch,
Bloch claims—correctly— that both betray a popular linguistic profile.
69 GKC §75t; Kutscher 1974: 328; C. Smith 2003: 183–185.
verbal morphology 179
6.1.2.4 Jeremiah
The relevant cases in Jeremiah are listed and discussed in what follows:
Jer 3.7 And I said, after she had done all these things, “To me return,” but
she did not return; and she saw (ktiv ;ותראהqre )וַ ֵּת ֶראa traitress, her
sister, Judah.
This is the sole case of the verb ‘ ָר ָאהsee’ in wayyiqṭol in 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs. It
occurs in the 1cs in Jer 3.8 and 31.26, in short and full forms, respectively. In Jer
3.7 the ktiv form perhaps implies ‘* *וַ ִּת ְר ֶא ָהand she saw her’, with a proleptic
object suffix.
Jer 10.13 At the sound of his setting thunder in the water of the heavens, he
brought up ( )וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶלהclouds from the end of earth (qre the earth).
The parallel verse in Jer 51.16 presents the short form. Cf. the qal form וַ ַּת ֲע ֶלהJer
44.21 (see below). It is worth noting that the parallel in 4Q72 (i.e., 4QJerc) f6.2
also reads ותעלה, proving that use of the full pattern here goes back to at least
the end of the 1st century BCE.70
Jer 20.2 And Pashhur struck ( )וַ ּיַ ֶּכהJeremiah the prophet and put him in stocks.
In the two relevant cases (here and Jer 52.27; see below) the verb comes in
its full form. In the present case the Greek perhaps reflects *וַ ּיַ ֵּכ ֻה וַ ּיִ ֵּתן אֹתֹו ַעל־
‘* ַה ַּמ ְה ֶּפ ֶכתand he struck him and put him in stocks’.
Jer 32.20 . . . who performed signs and wonders in the land of Egypt until this
day, and in Israel and among mankind; and you made for yourself
(ה־ּלָך
ְ )וַ ַּת ֲע ֶׂשa name, as at this day.
The short pattern is reflected four times in the (admittedly more common)
form ‘ וַ ּיַ ַעׂשand he did’ (Jer 36.8; 38.12; 40.3; 52.2) and once in ‘ וַ ּנַ ַעׂשand we did’
(Jer 35.10).
70 For the date of 4QJerc see Cross 1975: 308; Tov 1997: 182. There are two additional cases
in which a biblical verse containing a full wayyiqṭol form in the MT is represented in the
biblical DSS and in both the scrolls show a short form: ( וַ ּיַ ֶּכהIsa 37.36 || ויך1QIsaa 31.16);
( וַ ַּת ֲע ֶׂשהHab 1.14 || ותעש1QpHab 5.12).
180 chapter 6
A case of the full pattern in 1st person occurs in Jer 32.13; the only short example
in the book comes in Jer 39.11. Additional instances of the full form in 1st per-
son come in Deut 1.16, 18; Ezra 8.17 (qre); Neh 7.2; another case of the full pat-
tern in 3rd person is found in 2 Kgs 16.15 (qre).
Jer 44.21 Them Yhwh remembered and brought ( )וַ ַּת ֲע ֶלהto mind.
Jer 52.27 And the king of Babylon struck ( )וַ ּיַ ֶּכהthem.
Jer 3.6 And Yhwh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen
that which backsliding Israel has done. Going upon every high hill
and beneath every verdant tree, she has prostituted herself there
(י־ׁשם
ָ ִ)וַ ִּתזְ נ.”71
71 Compare ‘ צּור יְ ָל ְדָך ֶּת ִׁשיyou (ms!) have forgotten the rock that bore you’ (Deut 32.18 ?);
ל־ּת ְמ ִחי
ֶ ‘ ַאdo not blot out (ms)’ (Jer 18.23). See GKC §75ii for textual explanations; Tropper
(1998: 166–167) suggests a phonological solution (cf. Bloch 2007: 153, n. 39). Might the ktiv
in these cases reflect the pronunciation ◌י- ֶ , a spelling known from the DSS, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and RH (see Kutscher 1974: 328)?
verbal morphology 181
The morphological shape of words derived from the root חי"יin the Bible con-
stitutes an interesting problem. The root in question belongs simultaneously
to the ל"יand geminate categories. It is therefore no surprise that derivations
along both lines can be found in ancient sources.
In the domain of the noun formation generally adheres to the geminate
pattern.72 In the domain of the verb, in contrast, most forms are conjugated on
the basis of ל"י. Thus are derived all the piʿel and hifʿil forms, along with most
of the forms in qal—including future and related forms (short yiqṭol/jussive,
wayyiqṭol, imperative, and both types of infinitive). In (we-)qaṭal qal forms, con-
versely, the situation is complex. No relevant forms in 1st person are documented.
2nd person forms (2ms, 2mpl) follow the ל"יpattern.73 3rd person forms show
alternation. As such, the discussion here will focus on 3rd person forms. In the
3mpl, the form ‘ ָחיּוthey lived’ follows the ל"יpattern,74 whereas the 3ms and 3fs
present forms following both the ל"יand geminate pattern. See table 7.2.75767778
ל"י Geminate
72 Geminate: ‘ ַחּיִ יםlife’, ַחּיָ הI ‘animal’, ַחּיָ הII ‘community’ (2 Sam 23.13), (‘ ( ַא ְל ָמנּות) ַחּיּותwid-
owhood of) living’, and the adjective ּיה–חי ַ ים–ח
ַ ִּיֹות–חּי
ַ ‘ ַחalive, live’. Cf. the ל"יforms ָחיֹות
‘lively, vigorous’ (Exod 1.19) and ‘ ִמ ְחיָ הpreservation of life, subsistence’.
73 Deut 30.16; Ezek 37.5, 6, 14.
74 Num 4.19; 14.38; Zech 10.9.
75 Jer 21.9 (qre); 38.2a (qre), 17b; Ezek 18.23; 33.11; Qoh 6.6; Est 4.11; Neh 9.29. Possibly also
Exod 1.16 (see below, n. 78).
76 Gen 3.22; 5.5; 11.12, 14; 25.7; Exod 33.20; Lev 18.5; 25.35, 36; Num 21.8, 9; Deut 4.42; 5.24; 19.4, 5;
2 Sam 12.22; Jer 38.2b; Ezek 18.13, 24; 20.11, 13, 21; 47.9; Neh 6.11. There are those who amend
‘ וְ ֵחיand he will live’ (Lev 25.36), which is vocalized like a substantive in construct, to the
more transparently verbal וָ ַחיas in the preceding verse; see GKC §76i and compare the
ancient translations. Others read וְ ֵחיas a verbal form; see Böttcher 1866–1868: §1181f (fol-
lowed by BDB 310b–311a); Bauer and Leander 1922: §57t″; Bula 1992: 250, n. 33; HALOT 310a.
77 Gen 12.13; Jer 38.17a.
78 In Exod 1.16 the gender of the consonantal form is somewhat ambiguous in the context,
since it could be a masculine form used in reference to a general ‘it’ or a feminine geminate
form. The accentuation marks it as the latter. On the vocalization without gemination
of the yod see GKC §76i; Bauer and Leander 1922: §57t″; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: II §27p.
182 chapter 6
6.2.1 The mt
The derivatives of the root חי"יfollowing the ל"יpattern, on the one hand, and
those following the geminate pattern, on the other, do not occur side by side in
the biblical text, but instead display a rather clear pattern of diachronic com-
plementary distribution: the geminate forms dominate in First Temple litera-
ture, whereas use of the ל"יforms expands only in those works composed from
the period of the Exile on.79 Table 6 .2.1 presents the distribution of the relevant
forms according to the books in which they are found.80
The data presented in the table can be summarized as follows:
(a) The 3rd person form that dominates in early material is built on the basis
of the geminate pattern. Out of 17 cases, 16 are formed in this way, leaving
one case in the ל"יpattern.
(b) The core LBH books and Qohelet, in contrast, are characterized by the
opposite tendency, according to which most of the relevant forms (three
of four) are formed on the ל"יpattern.
(c) Additionally, out of the nine cases formed on the ל"יpattern, eight come
in books composed during the Exile or thereafter.
(d) The tendency toward formation on the ל"יrather than geminate pat-
tern begins to take hold in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.81 These two books deal
with the end of the First Temple Period and the Exile and were probably
79 Lambert 1938: §1142, n. 3; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 65, 84; Haneman 1974: 24–26; Hurvitz 1982:
46–48; Bergey 1983: 35–36; Rooker 1990: 82; Rendsburg 1991: 363; Schoors 1992–2004: I 99;
JM §79s, n. 23.
80 Cf. the figures given in Haneman 1974: 24–26 and n. 6, according to which the two qre
forms in Jer 21.9 and 38.2 are not counted. The same is true of Hurvitz 1982: 46–48, where
the case in Ezek 47.9 is also excluded. The two qre forms in Jeremiah merit a brief discus-
sion. It is true that most commentators prefer the ktiv ‘ יחיהhe will live’, a reading that
creates symmetry between the two halves of the verse in both cases: ַהּי ֵֹׁשב ָּב ִעיר ַהּזֹאת
יִ ְחיֶ ה. . . ׂשדים
ִ ל־ה ַּכ
ַ וְ ַהּי ֵֹצא וְ נָ ַפל ַע. . . ‘ יָמּותthe one who dwells in the city will die . . . and the
one who leaves and surrenders to the Chaldeans . . . will live’; see, e.g., Duhm 1901: 170–171,
302; Holladay 1986–1989: I 573, II 266; Lundbom 1999–2004 II 94, n. 1, III 64, n. 1. However,
there are those who recognize the possibility of the qre; see Rudolph 1968: 136; Holladay
1986–1989: I 573. See also Gordis 1971: 145, n. 440 (p. 193), who adduces support for the pri-
macy of the qre (citing S.R. Driver 1892: 136–138 and BDB 254b–255a). Whether one reads
according to the qre or the ktiv, it should be noted that both forms fit a relatively late date:
‘ וְ ָחיָ הand he will live’ on the ל"יpattern and yiqṭol rather than weqaṭal in the apodosis of a
conditional clause are both phenomena especially typical of late material (see JM §176f).
81 It should be noted that three of the four cases of geminate, i.e., classical, formation in
Ezekiel involve quotations from Leviticus (see below).
verbal morphology 183
Table 6.2.1 Distribution of the 3ms and 3fs (we)qaṭal forms of חי/ה
ַ ָ‘ ָחיlive’ on the ל"יand gemi-
nate patterns according to the MT
Genesis 1 5
Exodus 0 2
Leviticus 0 3
Numbers 0 2
Deuteronomy 0 4
Torah 1 16
Samuel 0 1
Jeremiah 3 1
Ezekiel 2 4
Qohelet 1 0
Esther 1 0
Nehemiah 1 1
Prophets and Writings 8 7
Core LBH and Qohelet 3 1
Total 9 23
Lev 18.5 by the doing of which a man will live ()וָ ַחי85
Sam Pent by the doing of which a man will live ()וחיה
Ezek 20.11 by the doing of which a man will live ()וָ ַחי86
Neh 9.29 by the doing of which a man will live ()וָ ָחיָ ה
CD 3.15–16 by the doing of which a man will live ()וחיה
4Q266 f11.12 by the doing of which a man will live ()וחיה
Lev 18.5, 11, 13, and 21 present the classical form. The book of Ezekiel preserves
the classical forms in a citation of Leviticus (three times), but sometimes
makes use of the characteristically late form, even in the same context as
the ancient form.87 The book of Nehemiah, the Damascus Covenant, and the
Samaritan Pentateuch, in contrast, ‘modernize’ the verse,88 though it is impor-
tant to point out that use of the classical form persists in late sources.
83 In the non-biblical DSS there are five ל"יforms (CD 3.16; 2Q19 f1.4; 4Q200 f1ii.2; 4Q251
f12.4; 4Q266 f11.12) against two geminate forms (4Q266 f1a–b.7; 4Q504 f6.17). In the bibli-
cal scrolls the forms mirror their counterparts in the MT— ל"יin one case only (4Q109
f1ii+3–6i.3 [|| Qoh 6.6]), geminate in five cases (4Q37 3.6 [|| Deut 5.24]; 4Q129 f1R.13 [||
Deut 5.24]; 4Q135 f1.3 [|| Deut 5.24]; 4Q137 f1.29 [|| Lev 25.35]; XQ2 1.5 [|| Deut 5.24]). In RH
the qaṭal form on the geminate pattern disappeared completely and even the participle
was affected: the form ַחי, on the geminate pattern, is limited to substantival usages (noun
and adjective) alone. Against this a new ל"יverbal participle was created, i.e., ( ָחיֶ הsee
Haneman 1974).
84 There are also exceptional cases, as in 4Q196 f18.14. The Samaritan Targum preserves (ו)חי.
85 See also Lev 18.11, 13, 21.
86 See also Ezek 20.13, 21.
87 Compare ( וְ ָחיָ הEzek 18.23) and ( וָ ָחיv. 24), in the span of two verses.
88 The Samaritan Pentateuch also ‘updates’ Exod 1.16: וְ ָחיָ ה < וחיתה.
89 Haneman 1974: 24.
verbal morphology 185
6.2.4 Jeremiah
There are four cases of 3ms or 3fs ַחי/ ָחיָ הin Jeremiah:
Jer 21.9 Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine, and plague,
but whoever goes out and surrenders to the Chaldeans besieging
you will live (ktiv ;יחיהqre )וְ ָחיָ הand have his soul as plunder.
Jer 38.2 Thus says Yhwh: “Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword,
famine, and plague, but whoever goes out to the Chaldeans will live
(ktiv ;יחיהqre )וְ ָחיָ הand have his soul as plunder and live (”)וָ ָחי.
Jer 38.17 And Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: “Thus says Yhwh, God of Hosts, God
of Israel, ‘If you go out to the king of Babylon’s officers, your soul will
live ( )וְ ָחיְ ָתהand this city will not be burnt in fire and you and your
house will live.’ ”
Three of the four cases involve forms on the ל"יpattern. The qre form וְ ָהיָ הin Jer
21.2 and 38.2 appears authentic on account of its weqaṭal form, especially in the
light of וָ ָחיat the end of Jer 38.2.91 The form ( וְ ָח ָיְתהJer 38.17) may be explained
as a result of grammatical attraction to the 2ms form ‘ וְ ָחיִ ָתהand you will live’
in the continuation of the verse; a similar explanation may also be valid in the
case of וְ ָחיָ הin Jer 21.9 (attraction to ‘ וְ ָהיְ ָתהand it will be’ later in the verse), but
the proximity between וְ ָחיָ הand וָ ָחיmilitates against attributing too much influ-
ence to the force of attraction. It may very well be that the formation according
to the ל"יpattern was already the norm when Jeremiah was composed, whereas
the form וָ ָחי, which is in pause, was preserved in a prosodic position associated
with the conservation of archaic forms.92 Whatever the case may be, the book
of Jeremiah apparently bears witness to the earliest regular use of forms like
ָחיָ הand יְתהָ ָח, making its language similar to LBH proper, but at the same time
shows continued, though perhaps conditioned and archaistic, use of the gemi-
nate pattern. A similar situation arises in Ezekiel, where the classical geminate
forms occur in quotations (Ezek 20.11, 13, 21) of Leviticus 18.5 and independently
in pause in Ezek 18.24, but the late form also appears in parallel verses (Ezek 18.23;
33.11), significantly in pause, even in close proximity to the classical form (וְ ָחיָ ה
Ezek 18.23 beside וָ ָחיEzek 18.24).
91 If so, the qre preserves an early syntactic feature in the use of weqaṭal while at the same
time wearing a late morphological form in ( וְ ָהיָ הon the ל"יpattern). The ktiv form is gram-
matically possible, but somewhat suspect both because it may easily be explained as a
result of graphic confusion (between waw and yod) and because it coincides with the
post-biblical form expected in the context. Of course, these considerations are far from
definitive and the facts are given to alterative explanations.
92 The only case of the geminate pattern in the core LBH books, Neh 6.11, also comes in pause.
chapter 7
Syntax
7.1.1 The mt
As is well known, BH knows two comitative prepositions having the basic
meaning ‘with’, i.e., ֵאתand ִעם.1 Overall in the Bible ִעםappears some 1050 times
and ֵאתsome 900,2 both in material considered classical.3 However, these rela-
tively balanced figures are not equally characteristic of the various diachronic
phases of BH. The books of the Torah and the Former Prophets exhibit use of
both prepositions, with a slight preference for ֵאתin the Torah,4 and a more
pronounced, though by no means extreme, general preference for ִעםin the
Former Prophets.5 A similar picture arises from Isaiah 1–39 (‘First Isaiah’),
in which the ratio between ֵאתand ִעםis 11:14. A completely different situa-
tion emerges in the core LBH books and Qohelet. In this material ִעםcomes
some 243 times, the preposition ֵאתonly 40 times.6 What is more, out of these
40 late occurrences, 25 come in Chronicles, whose author’s archaistic penchant
is known: in 15 of the 25 cases of ֵאתthe Chronicler apparently inherited the
formulation from his sources,7 and in two additional cases he seems to have
1 Not to be confused with instrumental -ב, which often corresponds to English ‘with’ and func-
tionally similar prepositions in other languages.
2 In the absence of any note to the contrary, the statistics presented in this discussion are
based on the table in Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 112–113; cf. the totals arrived
at by others cited there. It is unclear whether their data include cases in which - ִאּתwas
replaced with -אֹות/-אֹת.
3 Hebrew ֵאתand ִעםfind early cognates in Akkadian itti and Ugaritic ʿm, respectively.
4 In this corpus that ratio between ֵאתand ִעםis 284:243. Among these there are books that
exhibit a preference for ֵאתover ִעם, e.g., Genesis (135:83) and Numbers (52:26), for ִעםover
ֵאת, e.g., Deuteronomy (27:65), and balanced usage, e.g., Exodus (44:49) and Leviticus (26:26).
5 The ratio of ֵאתto ִעםin the Former Prophets is 271:364. In the corpus comprising the Torah
and the Former Prophets the same ratio is 555:607.
6 The ratios of ֵאתto ִעםin the core LBH books are as follows: Esther 4:11; Daniel 2:17; Ezra 2:24;
Nehemiah 6:13; Chronicles 25:170. In Qohelet the same ratio is 0:8.
7 1 Chr 17.6 (|| 2 Sam 7.7); 2 Chr 6.4 (|| 1 Kgs 8.15), 10.6 (|| 1 Kgs 12.6), 8 (2x; || 1 Kgs 12.8), 10b
(|| 1 Kgs 12.10b); 11.4 (|| 1 Kgs 12.24); 16.3 (|| 1 Kgs 15.19); 18.23 (|| 1 Kgs 22.24), 30 (3x; || 1 Kgs
22.31); 22.5 (|| 2 Kgs 8.28), 12 (|| 2 Kgs 11.3); 23.7 (|| 2 Kgs 11.8). The occurrence at 1 Chr 16.16
(|| Ps 105.9), not mentioned by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: II 112–113), might also be
added to this list. Young et al. (ibid.) also fail to mention the occurrence at 2 Chr 10.6 (|| 1 Kgs
had in mind the homonymous marker of the definite direct object.8 If so, the
core LBH books and Qohelet contain just 22 independent cases of the preposi-
tion ֵאת.9 For purposes of illustrating the development according to which the
use of ֵאתceased in the late period the following passages from Chronicles and
earlier books may be compared:10
12.6) and one of the cases in 2 Chr 10.8 (1 Kgs 12.8). Of the ten remaining cases in which
the Chronicler presents ֵאתindependently of his source, three come in opposition to the
parallel in Samuel–Kings: 1 Chr 20.5 (|| 2 Sam 21.19); 2 Chr 6.18 (|| 1 Kgs 8.27); 10.10a (|| 1 Kgs
12.10a).
8 In the two cases in 2 Chr 18.30 the Chronicler evidently read the preposition in his source
(1 Kgs 22.31) as the definite direct object marker, since he twice added the otherwise
unnecessary definite article: ת־קטֹן וְ ֶאת־ּגָ דֹול ָ ‘ לֹא ִּת ָּל ֲחמּו ֶאyou will not fight with small
or great’ > ת־הּגָ דֹול
ַ ת־ה ָּקטֹן ֶאַ ‘ לֹא ִּת ָּל ֲחמּו ֶאyou will not fight the small or the great’ (cf.
Josh 10.25; 1 Kgs 20.25).
9 Est 1.10; 2.20; 3.1; Dan 1.19; 9.13 (?); Ezra 8.19; 9.8; Neh 5.7 (2x); 6.16; 13.11, 17; 1 Chr 2.23; 16.16;
20.5 (|| ִעם2 Sam 21.19); 29.8; 2 Chr 6.18 (|| 1 Kgs 8.27); 10.10a (|| 1 Kgs 12.10a); 24.24; 29.29;
33.12 (?). The statistics in JM §103j are thus imprecise. See also Malessa 2003: 339, n. 23.
The figures given here differ slightly from those of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008:
II 112–113): the particles in ּומ ַח ְּל ִלים ֶאת־יֹום ַה ַּׁש ָּבת
ְ ‘and desecrate the Sabbath’ (Neh 13.17b)
and ת־יֹואב
ָ ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֶא
ַ ‘ ִּכי־נִ ְת ַעב ְּד ַבbecause the command of the king was abhorrent to
Joab’ (1 Chr 21.6) are not here considered cases of the preposition. Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd (ibid.) admit the rarity of the preposition ֵאתin the late biblical books, but
downplay the diachronic significance of this fact, arguing that the choice between ִעם
and ֵאתwas basically stylistic. There is no doubt that stylistic factors should be taken
into account. Obviously, the choice between the two prepositions in early material, where
both are used, was at least partially a matter of subjective choice. Likewise, even in late
material there existed something of a choice: whether to adhere to prevailing or to past
linguistic conventions. Nevertheless, the recognition of stylistic factors does not negate
the possibility of identifying diachronically significant linguistic developments, including
’ ֵאתs descent into oblivion in the later period.
In JM (§103j, n. 30), the editor compares the situation in spoken Modern Israeli Hebrew,
which, in his view, exhibits the opposite tendency, with אתי, etc., instead of עמי, etc. The
observation is correct as far as it goes, but it should also be noted that the replacement of
עםwith אתin Modern Israeli Hebrew is generally restricted to forms with a pronominal
suffix. Additionally, the compound preposition מאתis much more common than מעם.
In all other cases, however, עםis used to the total exclusion of את, in both speech and
writing. The two prepositions thus complement one another in something of a suppletive
paradigm in Modern Israeli Hebrew.
10 In certain parallel verses ֵאתis replaced with ִעם, but other times the Chronicler sim-
ply omitted the preposition or adopted an alternative formulation. Outside of parallel
sections, i.e., in the Chronicler’s ‘independent’ material, preference for ִעםis clearer. For
special uses of ִעםon the part of the Chronicler see Kropat 1909:40.
syntax 189
Josh 21.34 the remaining Levites from the tribe of Zebulon (בּולן
ֻ ְ) ֵמ ֵאת ַמ ֵּטה ז
1 Chr 6.62 those remaining from the tribe of Zebulon (בּולן
ֻ ְ) ִמ ַּמ ֵּטה ז
2 Sam 7.12 when your days are fulfilled and you lie with ( ) ֶאתyour ancestors
1 Chr 17.11 when your days are fulfilled to go with ( ) ִעםyour ancestors
2 Sam 10.19 they were defeated before Israel and made peace with ( ) ֶאתIsrael
2 Chr 19.19 they were defeated before Israel and made peace with ( ) ִעםDavid11
Exod 34.27 I have made a covenant with you ( ) ִא ְּתָךand with ( )וְ ֶאתIsrael
4Q271 f4ii.3 I have made a covenant with you ( )עמכהand with ([)ועמIsrael
11 The cases presented here come from a check of Bendavid 1972. For additional examples
see 1 Kgs 15.23 || 2 Chr 16.12; 2 Kgs 12.6 || 2 Chr 24.5. There are also instances of the opposite
substitution, i.e., of ִעםwith ֵאת, in 2 Sam 21.19 || 1 Chr 20.5 (see also 1 Kgs 12.10 || 2 Chr 10.10,
in which ֵאתreplaces ) ֵאל.
12 ִעם: Arad 3.3; Kuntillet Ajrud 19.9; Moussaieff 2.4; ֵאת: Arad 3.6; 5.2; 16.7; 24.17, 19; 40.8;
Kuntillet Ajrud 19.4; Meṣad Ḥašavyahu (Yavne Yam) 10; Siloam Tomb 2.2.
13 According to the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, the fig-
ures for Ben Sira differ slightly from those given in the concordance published in 1973.
Also somewhat different are the figures of the electronic concordance of Abegg (2008) in
the Accordance program.
14 Bava Meṣiʿa 9.12 (2x), quoting Lev 19.13; Makkot 2.2, quoting Deut 19.5.
190 chapter 7
1 Sam 21.2 And he said to him, “Why are you alone, no man with you (”?) ִא ָּתְך
4Q52 f6–7.15–16 And he said to him, “Why are you alone,] no man with you (”?)עמך
Ps 105.9 . . . that he made with ( ) ֶאתAbraham, and his oath to Isaac.
11Q5 fEiii.14 . . . [that he made] with ( )עםAbraham, and his oath to Isaac.15
The reduced usage of the preposition ֵאתis generally attributed to the influ-
ence of Aramaic, which knows a cognate of ִעםbut not of ֵאת.16 See the follow-
ing examples from the targums:17
15 See also Isa 53.9 || 1QIsaa 44.16. The opposite substitution, i.e., of עםwith את, occurs in
4Q51 f52a–b+53.3 || 2 Sam 2.6. Perhaps this latter change was made for purposes of harmo-
nization, to concord with the use of ֵאתin the continuation of the verse, וְ גַ ם ָאנ ִֹכי ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה
ּטֹובה ַהּזֹאת
ָ ‘ ִא ְּת ֶכם ַהbut I, too, will show you this same favor’, but the fragmentary nature
of the Qumran text precludes certainty.
16 JM §183j.
17 There is no need to multiply examples from the targums, as עםis the standard Aramaic
rendering of the BH preposition ֵאת.
syntax 191
Ezekiel exhibits a definite preference for classical ֵאת.18 The biblical trend
according to its historical periods is thus apparently (1) balanced use of the
two prepositions in the classical period; (2) almost exclusive use of ֵאתin the
transitional period; (3) near exclusive use of ִעםin the core LBH books and
post-biblical compositions.
As mentioned above, the difference between stages (1) and (3) can be
accounted for on the assumption of external influence. Aramaic has only one
comitative preposition meaning ‘with’, namely, ;עםhence, apparently, the
late tendency to favor ִעםin ancient Hebrew.19 In any case, the possibility of
internal development should not be dismissed out of hand. It may be that at
a certain point in the history of Hebrew, language users—perhaps only the
speakers, at first—no longer tolerated the similarity between the preposition
ֵאתand the often homonymous definite direct object marker, the same simi-
larity that led to the many cases of confusion between the two particles (see
below, §7.2), and, in the name of simplification, abandoned completely the use
of the preposition ֵאת, a situation clearly seen in RH. If so, perhaps the exter-
nal pressure of Aramaic merely accelerated an inner-Hebrew process that
had already begun. Of course, this hypothesis is not necessary to explain the
gradual disappearance of the preposition ֵאתfrom the later strata of ancient
Hebrew, since Aramaic influence is sufficient as a decisive factor. However,
this supposition may help to explain why transitional biblical compositions
are characterized by virtually exclusive use of classical ֵאת, in opposition to the
marked tendency in later biblical and extra-biblical material. The employment
of ֵאתin works of the transitional period may point to a distinction between
the spoken and literary registers, and, more precisely, to a degree of resistance
to the preposition ִעם, which had acquired the ‘odor’ of a colloquial form, in
contrast to literary ֵאת. The lofty, sometimes poetic or quasi-poetic style of the
prophetic books would seem a fitting context for the employment of archaistic
forms. The striking accumulation of cases of the preposition ֵאתin transitional
material is therefore, perhaps, an example of pseudo-archaization, i.e., hyper-
correction, according to which a perfectly valid classical form that had become
18 The ratios of ֵאתto ִעםin the individual TBH corpora are as follows: ‘Second Isaiah’ 35:1;
Jeremiah 96:7; Ezekiel 54:0. The total is 185:8. It is worth noting that also in the apparently
transitional books of Haggai (3:0), Zechariah (15:4), and Malachi (3:0) there is a clear pref-
erence for ֵאתover ִעם.
19 The occurrence in MT Jer 39.12 has no parallel in Greek, as this is part of a long minus in
the latter.
192 chapter 7
the lone vernacular option was replaced by another classical form that speak-
ers of the language had by then largely discarded. Only at a later stage, under
the influence of Aramaic belles lettres, did ִעםfinally supplant ֵאתin Hebrew
literature, e.g., LBH and post-biblical Hebrew.
7.1.4 Jeremiah
In terms of its striking preference for ֵאתover ִעם, the language of Jeremiah
differs markedly from LBH proper. However, this partiality, also characteristic
of other prophetic material from the transitional period, may also speak to a
linguistic self-consciousness on the part of the writer(s), according to which a
form no longer typical of the spoken register was chosen over one that, while
perfectly classical, had become dominant in speech. In this way, the transi-
tional stratum in Jeremiah and similar prophetic books deviated from classical
style, where both prepositions were used fairly commonly.20
7.2.1 The MT
Related to the discussion in the previous section (§7.1) is the phenomenon
according to which declined forms of the preposition ‘ ֵאתwith’ were replaced
with forms of the definite accusative marker ֵאת. As is known, despite their
development from separate and phonetically distinct Proto-Semitic par-
ticles, the respective undeclined forms of the two are identical.22 Not so in
20 Compare, in particular, the case of Deuteronomy, with some form of which the writers of
Jeremiah were evidently familiar. In the former cases of ִעםoutnumber cases of ֵאת65:27.
21 The following occurrences in the MT have no parallel in the Greek: Jer 7.1; 21.2, 4; 26.22;
27.1; 29.16; 30.11 (2x); 32.5, 40; 33.9, 21 (2x); 34.12; 35.2; 36.1; 39.5; 40.4, 6; 41.3, 7; 42.8.
22 This is the situation in the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation tradition. In his Greek transla-
tion Aquila also seems to have identified the two particles as one, since he renders both
σύν. In the Samaritan and Babylonian reading traditions, on the other hand, the distinction
syntax 193
the case of their respective declined forms; generally, the preposition returns
to - ִאּתbefore suffixes, whereas the accusative particle comes as -אֹת/-אֹות/
- ֶאת. However, the mt also exhibits a number of cases, in the neighborhood
of 60 to 70, in which declined forms of the accusative particle ( ֵאת-אֹת/-)אֹות
come in the meaning ‘with’, in place of declined forms of the preposition
( ֵאת-) ִאּת. These are listed here:
ֹלהים
ִ ר־ּד ֶּבר אֹתֹו ֱא ֵ ‘ ַלat the time that God spoke with him’
ִ ּמֹועד ֲא ֶׁש
or ‘at the time God said’ (Gen 21.2 [?]);23 ‘ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּכב א ָֹתּהand he lay with
her’ or ‘and he bedded her’ (34.2),24 ‘ וְ ִה ְת ַח ְּתנּו א ָֹתנּוand they will marry
between the two particles is maintained even in their respective undeclined forms (see
JM §103j, n. 29).
23 If the object suffix refers to Abraham, then ֵאתhere is a preposition. However, the pro-
nominal suffix more likely refers to מֹועד ֵ . In this case, ֵאתis the accusative marker (see
Morag 1974a: 129, n. 83). If the verse in question is removed from consideration, there are
63 biblical cases of the collocation ִּד ֶּבר ֵאתin the meaning ‘ ִּד ֶּבר ִעםspeak with’. In 31 of
them the vocalization reflects use of the preposition (Gen 17.3, 22, 23; 23.8; 34.6, 8; 35.13,
14, 15; 42.7, 30; 45.15; Exod 25.22; 31.18; 34.29, 32, 33, 34, 35; Num 7.89; Josh 22.15; 2 Sam 3.27;
2 Kgs 25.6, 28; Jer 38.25; 39.5; 52.9, 32; Dan 1.19; 2 Chr 10.10 [|| 2 Kgs 12.10 )] ֵא ָליו, in 17 of them
the particle is undeclined, and its grammatical status cannot be determined with cer-
tainty (Gen 41.9; Num 3.1; Deut 5.24; Josh 22.21; 2 Sam 7.7 [|| 1 Chr 17.6]; 1 Kgs 8.15 [|| 2 Chr
6.4]; Jer 7.22; 9.7; 34.3; Ezek 20.3; 33.30 [2x]; Zech 8.16; Ps 12.3; 127.5; 1 Chr 17.6 [|| 2 Sam 7.7];
2 Chr 6.4 [|| 1 Kgs 8.15]), whereas in 15 cases the vocalization points to use of the accusa-
tive particle (Num 26.3; 1 Kgs 22.24 [|| 2 Chr 18.23]; Jer 1.16; 4.12; 5.5; 12.1; 35.2; Ezek 2.1; 3.22,
24, 27; 14.4; 44.5; 2 Chr 18.23 [|| 1 Kgs 22.24]) and in nine of the latter cases the consonantal
orthography, with mater lectionis waw, matches the vocalization (1 Kgs 22.24 [cf. 2 Chr
18.23]; Jer 1.16; 4.12; 5.5; 12.1; 35.2; Ezek 3.22, 27; 14.4).
24 In nine of the 16 occurrences of the collocation ָׁש ַכב ֵאתit is impossible to determine
the status of the particle -( ִאּתGen 19.33, 34; 26.10; 34.7; 35.22; Lev 20.11, 12, 20; 1 Sam 2.22).
On the one hand, the collocation - ָׁש ַכב ִאּתis not at all documented. On the other hand,
though, several facts point to the possibility that the particle serving in this expression
is in any case a preposition: (a) use of the expression ( ָׁש ַכב ִעםGen 19.32, 34, 35; 30.15,
16; 39.7, 12, 14; Exod 22.15, 18; Lev 15.33; Deut 22.22 [2x], 23, 25 [2x], 28, 29; 27.20, 21, 22, 23;
1 Sam 11.4, 11; 12.11, 24; 13.11); (b) the use of ָׁש ַכב ֵאתwith an indefinite object (Lev 18.22;
19.20; 20.13, 18); (c) the use of ָׁש ַכב ִעםand ָׁש ַכב ֵאתin the same context (Gen 19.32–35; 2
Sam 13.11–14); (d) the rarity of the plene spelling - אֹותin the expression in question (only
in Ezek 23.8). On these grounds it is reasonable to assume that -אֹות/-( ָׁש ַכב אֹתGen 34.2;
Lev 15.18, 24; Num 5.13, 19; 2 Sam 13.14; Ezek 23.8) is a result of the interchange under
discussion, whether by the writer or a later vocalizer. There are those who hold that ָׁש ַכב
ֵאתwith the accusative serves specifically to indicate rape (e.g., Gen 34.2; 2 Sam 13.14), in
contradistinction to ָׁש ַכב ִעם, perhaps due to influence of the expression ( ָׁשגַ ל ֵאתthus
perhaps the object suffix in the qre form יִ ְׁש ָּכ ֶבּנָ הshould be seen as a reflex if the ktiv
)ישגלנה, but most of the cases of -אֹות/- ָׁש ַכב אֹתdo not involve rape (Lev 15.18, 24; Num
5.13, 19; Ezek 23.8). Additionally, ָׁש ַכב ִעםcan also indicate rape (Exod 22.15; Deut 22.25);
194 chapter 7
with us’ (9);25 ‘ וְ ִא ָּׁשה ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְׁש ַּכב ִאיׁש א ָֹתּהand a woman with whom a man should
lie’ (Lev 15.18), ‘ וְ ִאם ָׁשכֹב יִ ְׁש ַּכב ִאיׁש א ָֹתּהbut if a man should lie with her’ (24);
ל־ּב ֵה ָמה ְל ִר ְב ָעה א ָֹתּה ָ ‘ וְ ִא ָּׁשה ֲא ֶׁשר ִּת ְק ַרב ֶאand a woman who approaches any
ְ ל־ּכ
beast to lie with it’ (20.16 [?]);26 ‘ וְ ָׁש ַכב ִאיׁש א ָֹתּהand a man lies with her’ (Num
5.13), ‘ ִאם־לֹא ָׁש ַכב ִאיׁש א ָֹתְךif a man has not lain with her’ (19); וַ יְ ַד ֵּבר מ ֶֹׁשה וְ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר
‘ ַהּכ ֵֹהן א ָֹתםand Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them’ (26.3); ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ֶּתם
ָ ‘ נִ ְל ָח ִמיםwith whom you are fighting’ (Josh 10.25);27 אֹותי
אֹותם ַ ‘if Yhwh
ִ 'אּולי ה
is with me’ (14.12);28 ‘ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּכב א ָֹתּהand he lay with her’ (2 Sam 13.14); י־קנֹו ָ לֹא ִּכ
ְ ‘ ֶא ְקנֶ ה ֵמno, but I will surely buy from you at a price’ (24.24);29 ַּכ ַחיִ ל
אֹותָך ִּב ְמ ִחיר
ָ ‘ ַהּנ ֵֹפל ֵמlike the force that fell from you’ (1 Kgs 20.25), אֹותם ַּב ִּמיׁשֹור
אֹותְך ָ וְ נִ ָּל ֲח ָמה
‘that we may fight with them on the plain’ (ibid.); ‘ וְ נִ ְד ְר ָׁשה ֵמאֹותֹוthat we might
enquire of him’ (22.7 || ֵמאֹתֹו2 Chr 18.6), ‘ ִל ְדר ֹׁש ֶאת־ה' ֵמאֹתֹוto enquire of Yhwh
by him’ (8 || 2 Chr 18.7), אֹותְך ָ ‘ ְל ַד ֵּברto speak with you’ (24 || א ָֹתְך2 Chr 18.23);
see König 1881–1895: II 297; BDB 85a, 1012a; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §10.3.1c; HALOT
1487b; Kaddari 2006: 80b.
25 See König 1881–1895: II 297; cf. Morag 1974a: 129, n. 83.
26 Cf. the object suffix in א־ת ֲעמֹד ִל ְפנֵ י ְב ֵה ָמה ְל ִר ְב ָעּה ַ ֹ ‘ וְ ִא ָּׁשה לand a woman will not stand
before a beast to lie with it’ (Lev 18.23). König (1881–1895: II 297) also compares to ָר ַבץ ִעם
‘lie with’ in ם־ּכ ֶבׂש וְ נָ ֵמר ִעם־ּגְ ִדי יִ ְר ָּבץ
ֶ ‘ וְ גָ ר זְ ֵאב ִעand the wolf will live with the sheep and
the leopard with the kid will lie’ (Isa 11.6), but that verse does not involve sexual relations.
27 The collocation ל ַחם ֵאת/ם ָ ‘ נִ ְל ַחfight with’ comes 23 times in the Bible. In 14 cases the par-
ticle is not declined (Josh 24.8; 2 Sam 21.15 [2x]; 1 Kgs 22.31 [3x; || 2 Chr 18.30]; 2 Kgs 8.29;
9.15; Jer 32.5; 33.5; 2 Chr 18.30 [3x; || 1 Kgs 22.31]; Ps 35.1). However, in two of these cases
it would seem that the particle was understood as the accusative marker: in לֹא ִּת ָּל ֲחמּו
ת־הּגָ דֹול
ַ ת־ה ָּקטֹן ֶא
ַ ‘ ֶאyou will not fight with the small or with the great’ (2 Chr 18.30), as
compared to the parallel ת־קטֹן וְ ֶאת־ּגָ דֹול ָ ‘ לֹא ִּת ָּל ֲחמּו ֶאyou will not fight with small or
great’ (1 Kgs 22.31), the addition of the definite article would seem to point in this direc-
tion. In seven cases the particle is vocalized as a preposition (Josh 24.8; 1 Sam 17.9; 1 Kgs
20.23; 2 Kgs 19.9; Isa 37.9; Jer 21.5; 37.10). Finally, in two cases the consonantal form reflects
the accusative particle (Josh 10.25; 1 Kgs 20.25).
28 The expression ‘ ה' ֵאתYhwh is with’ comes nine times in the Bible: in four of them the
particle is not declined (Gen 39.2, 21; Josh 6.27; Jdg 1.19), in three it is vocalized as a prepo-
sition (Gen 39.3, 23; Num 14.9), and in two it is vocalized as the accusative particle (Josh
14.12; Jer 20.11). Cf. also the expression ‘ ה' ִעםYhwh is with’, which comes some 25 times in
the Bible.
29 The compound preposition ‘ ֵמ ֵאתfrom (with)’ appears 180 times in the Bible. In 126 cases
the relevant particle ֵאתis not declined (consult the concordances), in 46 it is vocal-
ized -( ִאּתsee the concordances), and in eight it is vocalized -אֹות/-( אֹת1 Kgs 20.25; 22.7
[|| 2 Chr 18.6], 8 [|| 2 Chr 18.7]; 2 Kgs 3.11; 8.8; Isa 54.15; 2 Chr 18.6 [|| 1 Kgs 22.7], 7 [|| 1 Kgs
22.8]; in five of these eight cases the particle is spelled plene (1 Kgs 20.25; 22.7 [against 2
Chr 18.6]; 2 Kgs 3.11; 8.8; Isa 54.15).
syntax 195
‘ ֵרד אֹותֹוgo down with him’ (2 Kgs 1.15),30 ‘ וַ ּיֵ ֶרד אֹותֹוand he went down with him’
(ibid.); ‘ וְ נִ ְד ְר ָׁשה ֶאת־ה' ֵמאֹותֹוthat we may enquire of Yhwh by him’ (3.11), יֵ ׁש אֹותֹו
'‘ ְּד ַבר־הthe word of Yhwh is with him’ (12), ע־מאֹות ִאיׁש ֵ ‘ וַ ּיִ ַּקח אֹותֹו ְׁש ַבand he took
with him seven hundred men’ (26);31 אֹותם ָ ‘ ַר ִּבים ֲא ֶׁשר ִא ָּתנּו ֵמ ֲא ֶׁשרmore numer-
ous are those with us than are those with them’ (6.16);32 וְ ָד ַר ְׁש ָּת ֶאת־ה' ֵמאֹותֹו
‘and you will enquire of Yhwh by him’ (8.8); אֹותי ִ ‘ ֵהן ּגֹור יָ גּור ֶא ֶפס ֵמif he attacks,
it is not from me’ (Isa 54.15); אֹותם ָ יתי ִ ‘ זֹאת ְּב ִרthis is my covenant with them’
(59.21);33 אֹותם ָ ‘ וְ ִד ַּב ְר ִּתי ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ַטיand I will speak my judgments with them’
(Jer 1.16); אֹותְך ָ ‘ ִהנְ נִ י נִ ְׁש ָּפטbehold I enter into judgment with you’ (2.35);34 ם־אנִ י ֲ ַּג
ָ ‘ ֲא ַד ֵּבר ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ִטיםI too with speak judgment with them’ (4.12); אֹותם
אֹותם ָ וַ ֲא ַד ְּב ָרה
‘I would speak with them’ (5.5); אֹותם ָ יטיב ֵאין ֵ ם־הֵ ַ‘ וְ גneither is there (the abil-
ity) to do good with them’ (10.5);35 אֹותְך ָ ‘ ַאְך ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ִטים ֲא ַד ֵּברbut judgments I will
speak with them’ (12.1); אֹותם ָ ‘ ָל ֶׁש ֶבתto sit with them’ (16.8);36 יטיב אֹותֹו ִ ‘ ְל ֵהto do
good with him’ (18.10 [?]);37 אֹותְך ָ ‘ ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ַהה ְֹל ִכיםthe men who walk with you’
(19.10);38 אֹותי ְּכגִ ּבֹור ָע ִריץ ִ '‘ וַ הand Yhwh is with me like a mighty warrior’ (20.11);
אֹותנּו ְּכ ָכל־נִ ְפ ְלא ָֹתיו
ָ 'אּולי יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ה ַ ‘would that Yhwh would do with us according
30 Cf. the collocation -‘ יָ ַרד ִאּתgo down with’ (Gen 44.23; 1 Sam 26.6; Ezek 31.17; 32.30); יָ ַרד ִעם
‘go down with’ (Gen 42.38; 46.4; Jdg 3.27; 1 Sam 26.6; 29.4; 2 Sam 19.17; 21.15).
31 Cf. -‘ ָל ַקח ִאּתtake with’ (Gen 31.23; 48.1; Exod 13.19; 14.6; Deut 9.9; Josh 8.1; Jdg 4.6; 1 Kgs 1.33;
11.18; Hos 14.3); ‘ ָל ַקח ִעםtake with’ (Gen 22.3; Exod 17.5; 1 Sam 9.3).
32 The collocation -‘ ֲא ֶׁשר ִאּתthat is with’ comes over 65 times in the Bible; ‘ ֲא ֶׁשר ִעםthat is
with’ over 25 times.
33 Cf. -‘ ְּב ִרית ִאּתcovenant with’ (Gen 6.18; 9.9, 11; 17.4, 19; Exod 6.4; 34.27; Lev 26.9, 44; Deut
5.3; 28.69; 29.13; 31.16; Jdg 2.1; 2 Sam 3.12, 13, 21; 2 Kgs 17.35, 38; Jer 14.21; Ezek 16.62; 17.13, 16;
Mal 2.5); ‘ ְּב ִרית ִעםcovenant with’ (Gen 26.28; Exod 24.8; Deut 4.23; 5.2; 9.9; 29.11, 24; 1 Sam
20.8; 1 Kgs 8.21; Hos 2.20 [2x]; 12.2; Job 5.23; 40.28; Neh 9.8; 2 Chr 6.11; 23.3).
34 -‘ נִ ְׁש ַּפט ִאּתenter into judgment with’ (1 Sam 12.7; Ezek 17.20; 20.35, 36; 38.22); נִ ְׁש ַּפט ִעם
‘enter into judgment with’ (Joel 4.2; 2 Chr 22.8).
35 Collocations of the type ַל ֲעׂשֹותX ‘ ֵאין ִעםthere is not with X to do’ come in 2 Chr 14.10;
20.6.
36 The collocation -‘ יָ ַׁשב ִאּתsit, dwell with’ appears in Gen 24.55; 34.10, 16, 22, 23; Jdg 19.4; 1
Sam 22.23; 2 Sam 16.18; 2 Kgs 6.32; Jer 40.5, 6; Job 2.13; Prov 3.29.
37 The most common rection in the case of the verb יטיב ִ ‘ ֵהdo good’ is with the preposition
-ל, e.g., Exod 1.20; Num 10.32; there are nine cases of the collocation יטיב ֵאת ִ ֵהin which
the particle is not declined: Exod 30.7; Jdg 19.22; 1 Sam 2.32; 20.13 (?); 1 Kgs 1.47; 2 Kgs 9.30;
Jer 7.6 (2x); Ps 41.20. All these cases involve a non-human object. יטיב ִעם ִ ‘ ֵהdo good with’
comes in Gen 32.10, 13; Num 10.32; Mic 2.7; יטיב ֵאת ִ ( ֵהwith the particle vocalized as the
accusative marker) comes in Deut 28.63 and refers to a human object.
38 Both - ָה ַלְך ִאּתand ‘ ָה ַלְך ִעםgo, walk with’ are common in the Bible.
196 chapter 7
to his wonders’ (21.2);39 א־א ֱע ֶׂשה ָכ ָלה ֶ ֹ ‘ א ְֹתָך לwith you I will not make an end’
(30.11);40 אֹותם ָ ִ ‘ ְל ֵהmy doing good with them’ (32.40 [?]), אֹותם
יט ִיבי ָ ‘ ְל ֵה ִטיבto
do good with them’ (41 [?]); ּטֹובה ֲא ֶׁשר ָאנ ִֹכי ע ֶֹׂשה א ָֹתם ַ ‘ ָּכall the good that I
ָ ל־ה
do with them’ (33.9); אֹותם ָ ‘ וְ ִד ַּב ְר ָּתand you will speak with them’ (35.2); וְ א ְֹתָך
ֶ ֹ ‘ לbut with you I will not make an end’ (46.28); ‘ וַ ֲא ַד ֵּבר א ָֹתְךthat I
א־א ֱע ֶׂשה ָכ ָלה
may speak with you’ (Ezek 2.1), אֹותְך ָ ‘ ְס ָר ִבים וְ ַסּלֹונִ יםthough briers and thorns are
with you’ (6); אֹותְך ָ ‘ ֲא ַד ֵּברI will speak with you’ (3.22), ‘ וַ יְ ַד ֵּבר א ִֹתיand he spoke
with me’ (24), אֹותָך ְ ּוב ַד ְּב ִרי ְ ‘and when I spoke with you’ (27); אֹותם ָ ִמ ַּד ְר ָּכם ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה
‘according to their way I will do with them’ (7.27); אֹותם ָ רֹומם יֵ רֹוּמּו
ָ ּוב ְ ‘when they
arose, they arose with them’ (10.17); ר־אֹותם ָ ‘ ַּד ֵּבspeak with them’ (14.4); וָ ָאבֹוא
‘ ִב ְב ִרית א ָֹתְךand I entered into covenant with you’ (16.8), אֹותְך ָ יתי ִ ‘ וְ ָע ִׂשand I will
do with you’ (59 qre; ktiv ‘ ועשיתand you will do’), אֹותְך ָ יתי ִ ‘ ְּב ִרmy covenant with
you’ (60); ‘ וְ לֹא ְב ַחיִ ל ּגָ דֹול ְּוב ָק ָהל ָרב יַ ֲע ֶׂשה אֹותֹו ַפ ְרעֹה ַּב ִּמ ְל ָח ָמהand Pharaoh will not
do with (i.e., help) him in the battle with large force or a great multitude’ (17.17
[?]); אֹותם ָּכ ָלה ָ יתי ָ ֹ ‘ וְ לand I did not make with them an end’ (20.17); ַלּיָ ִמים
ִ א־ע ִׂש
ָ ‘ ֲא ֶׁשר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹׂשהin the days that I will deal with you’ (22.14); אֹותּה ָׁש ְכבּו
אֹותְך ָ ִּכי
יה ֶ ְ‘ ִבנbecause with her they lay in her youth’ (23.8), אֹותם
ָ עּור ָ ל־ּבנֵ י ַאּׁשּור ְ ‘ ָּכall the
Assyrians are with them’ (23), אֹותְך ְּב ֵח ָמה ָ ‘ וְ ָעׂשּוand they will deal with you in
fury’ (25), אֹותְך ְּב ִׂשנְ ָאה ָ ‘ וְ ָעׂשּוand they will deal with you in hatred’ (29); ְּב ִרית
אֹותםָ עֹולם יִ ְהיֶ ה ָ ‘an everlasting covenant there will be with them’ (37.26); וְ ַע ִּמים
ָ ‘ ַר ִּביםand many peoples are with you’ (38.9); יתי א ָֹתם
אֹותְך ִ יהם ָע ִׂש ֶ ּוכ ִפ ְׁש ֵע
ְ ְּכ ֻט ְמ ָא ָתם
‘according to their defilement and according to their crimes I have dealt with
them’ (39.24); ‘ ֲאנִ י ְמ ַד ֵּבר א ָֹתְךI am speaking with you’ (44.5); ‘ וְ נִ ְד ְר ָׁשה ֵמאֹתֹוthat
we might enquire of him’ (2 Chr 18.6 || ֵמאֹותֹו1 Kgs 22.7), ‘ ִל ְדר ֹׁש ֶאת־ה' ֵמאֹתֹוto
enquire of Yhwh by him’ (7 || 1 Kgs 22.8), ‘ ְל ַד ֵּבר א ָֹתְךto speak with you’ (23 || אֹותְך ָ
1 Kgs 22.24).
According to the list there are nine instances of interchange in the books
of the Pentateuch, 17 in the Former Prophets, 41 in the Latter Prophets,
and three in the core LBH books. These data are too raw, however, to be of
much help, as only three books—Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—present true
39 The collocation -‘ ָע ָׂשה ִאּתdo, deal with’ comes in Deut 1.30; 10.21; Jdg 11.27; 1 Sam 12.7;
24.19; 2 Sam 2.6; 2 Kgs 18.31; Isa 36.16; Jer 5.18; Ezek 20.44; Zech 1.6; Ps 109.21. The colloca-
tion ‘ ָע ָׂשה ִעםdo, deal with’ occurs some 50 times in the Bible. The specific expression
‘ ָע ָׂשה נִ ְפ ָלאֹות ִעםdo wonders with’ comes in Neh 9.17.
40 See the previous note. The normal rection in the case of the specific collocation ָע ָׂשה ָּכ ָלה
‘make an end (of) varies: ָע ָׂשה ָּכ ָלה ֵאתwith undeclined particle (Ezek 11.13; Zeph 1.18);
יתם ָּכ ָלה
ָ ֲע ִׂשwith object suffix (Neh 9.31); קֹומּה ָּכ ָלה ָ ָע ָׂשה ְמwith object noun phrase (Nah
1.8); -( ָע ָׂשה ָּכ ָלה ִאּתJer 5.18); -( ָע ָׂשה ָכ ָלה ְּבJer 30.11; 46.28); -( ָע ָׂשה ָּכ ָלה א ְֹתJer 30.11; 46.28;
Ezek 20.17).
syntax 197
Genesis 3 1 0 82 3.66 0
Leviticus 3 1 0 16 18.75 0
Numbers 3 0 0 27 11.11 0
Joshua 2 0 2 9 22.22 22.22
Samuel 2 0 1 64 3.13 1.56
Kings 13 0 12 60 21.67 20
Isaiah 2 0 2 19 10.52 10.52
‘Second’
Jeremiah 17 3 14 51 33.33 27.45
Ezekiel 22 1 17 37 59.46 45.95
Chronicles 3 0 0 12 25 0
TOTALS 70 6 48 377 18.57 12.73
41 The figures in this column include cases in which the preposition ֵאתis declined, with
the exception of the 2mpl and 2fpl forms, in which, even in the case of interchange, an o
vowel would not be expected.
198 chapter 7
Isa 30.8 now go, write it on a tablet with them () ִא ָּתם
1QIsaa 24.15 now go, write it on a tablet with them ()אותם
2 Sam 12.17 but he was not willing and did not eat bread with them () ִא ָּתם
4Q51 f100–101.4 [but he was not wi]lling and [did no]t eat bread with them ()אותם
Ps 66.20 who has not turned away . . . his kindness from me () ֵמ ִא ִּתי
4Q83 f14ii.31 w]ho has not [turned away . . . his] kindness from me ()מאותי42
7.2.3 Explanations
Several explanations for the use of -אֹת/- אֹותin place of - ִאּתhave been offered.
According to one, it is unnecessary to seek any solution more complicated
than textual corruption, according to which late copyists substituted forms of
the preposition - ִאּתwith accusative forms such as -אֹת/-אֹות.43 This suggestion
42 See also 1QIsaa 12.21 (|| Isa 14.20); 4Q51 2a–d.6 (|| 1 Sam 1.24); 8Q3 f26–29.21 (|| Deut 11.12);
8Q4 f1.11 (|| Deut 10.21). In the non-biblical DSS see Ben Sira 32.7 (SirF); 4Q503 f3ii.17. In
some of these cases the verb is also different. In such instances it is not clear whether
the particle was changed because of the change of the verb or vice versa. For example,
against ‘ ותעל אותוand she brought him up’ (4Q51 2a–d.6), the MT reads וַ ַּת ֲע ֵלהּו ִע ָּמּה
‘and she brought him up with her’ (1 Sam 1.24), and the Greek has καὶ ἀνέβη μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ =
ִעּמֹו/‘ וַ ַּת ַעל ִאּתֹוand she went up with him’. It may be that the form אותוin 4Q51 is a genu-
ine example of the interchange -אֹת/-( ִאּת < אֹותand qal < hifʿil), but it is not impossible
that the scribe responsible for the scroll, like the MT scribe and unlike the Greek transla-
tor, saw in ותעלa hifʿil form, and clarified the status of the following particle with a mater
lectionis. I am grateful to Jason Driesbach for having brought to my attention several of
the examples here.
43 S.R. Driver 1898: 188, n. *; Bauer and Leander 1922: §81o′; Stipp 1987: 139–141; HALOT 101a;
Bloch 2007: 157–162, n. 54.
syntax 199
is based on the fact that late Hebrew sources are characterized by a marked
reduction in the use of the preposition ֵאתin comparison to earlier material
(see above, §7.1). In this way late writers eschewed the use of the preposi-
tion ֵאתin general, other than instances of allusion to the Bible or imitation
thereof, and when they used it often declined it according to the declension of
the accusative particle ֵאת. Consequently, in the case of odd collocations like
-‘ ְל ַד ֵּבר אֹותto speak with’, '‘ יֵ ׁש אֹותֹו ְּד ַבר־הthe word of Yhwh is with him’, and
אֹותָך
ְ יתיִ ‘ ְּב ִרmy covenant with you’ the original writers intended the preposition
ֵאת, and its replacement with the accusative particle is to be attributed to the
activity of late copyists who were no longer accustomed to the use of ֵאתas a
preposition.
Though the idea of textual corruption should not be dismissed out of hand
as an explanation, especially for individual cases of substitution, it seems
rather doubtful as a comprehensive solution, since it fails to account for the
special distribution of the phenomenon. Of the seventy cases listed above,
13 come in the Torah, 52 come in Kings (13), Jeremiah (17), and Ezekiel (22),
and there is no independent case in LBH proper (the three cases in Chronicles
coming also in its source material). Moreover, a clear acceleration in the trend
can be seen starting with Kings, through Jeremiah, and ending with Ezekiel, a
trend that virtually demands a chronological explanation. Despite this, it may
be worthwhile to entertain another possibility. Rather than a textual corrup-
tion, it may be possible to claim that the shift from - < אות- אתderives from an
editorial policy44 according to which, for some reason, a later editor, or per-
haps a school of editors, who reworked a specific corpus—in the present case,
that containing Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—tended to replace the declined
cases of the preposition ֵאתwith the relevant forms of the accusative particle.
There is evidence of similar editorial policies, for example the dominance of
theophoric names ending in יָ ה- rather than יָ הּו- in the Twelve (see above, §3.5,
and especially §3.5.2.1). Even so, this type of explanation is not particularly
convincing in the present case. It is first of all not clear why Kings, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel should form an editorial corpus, especially without Isaiah. Second,
if an editorial policy were indeed responsible for the interchange in question,
it must be remarked that the policy was carried out with remarkably little con-
sistency even in those books that reveal a certain accumulation of relevant
cases. Finally, the theory does not explain why such a policy would have been
enacted precisely upon a group of books that focus on events from the end of
the First Temple Period and the Exile.
44 Clearly, only in cases of plene spelling can alleged cases of late editorial activity be
discerned.
200 chapter 7
45 JM (§103j) raise the possibility of confusion stemming from the compound preposition
‘ ֵמ ֵאתfrom (with)’ (cf. ‘ ִמןfrom’), in which the force of the particle ‘ ֵאתwith’ had disap-
peared completely. Maybe collocations of the type ‘ ָׁש ַכב ֵאתlie with’ and the like, in
which the verb became transitive due to misunderstanding of the following particle, also
contributed.
46 Bloch (2007: 157–162, n. 54) sees the replacement as a result of the activities of late
copyists, but he does not explain why the majority of the cases are restricted to the three
books in question. If textual corruption were responsible, one might legitimately expect
the cases of substitution to be scattered in a more or less uniform fashion throughout the
Bible (at least in those books presenting a relatively large number of potential cases), not
concentrated in only a few books; see König 1881–1895: II 296; G. Cooke 1936: 36; Morag
1974a: 129; 1974b: 313b).
47 Though, as JM (§103j, n. 29) note, the use of the accusative particle is rare in Aramaic texts
from this period.
48 According to the formulation of JM, the phenomenon does not necessarily involve exter-
nal forces.
syntax 201
49 At this stage it is fitting to note that out of the 13 cases of interchange in the Torah, Joshua,
and Samuel, the orthography is plene in only three cases: אֹותם ָ ‘ נִ ְל ָח ִמיםfighting with
them’ (Josh 10.25); אֹותיִ 'אּולי ה
ַ ‘if Yhwh is with me’ (14.12); אֹותָך ִּב ְמ ִחיר
ְ י־קנֹו ֶא ְקנֶ ה ֵמָ לֹא ִּכ
‘no, but I will buy from you at a price’ (24.24). This means that at least in these cases the
replacement of the preposition with the accusative marker should not be laid at the feet
of the vocalizer.
50 The evidence is decidedly less impressive in the case of ‘Second Isaiah’.
51 As indicated above (§7.1), the tendency in late sources is to eschew use of the preposition
ֵאתin favor of ִעם. However, in Ezekiel the ratio of ֵאתto ִעםis 54:0; in ‘Second Isaiah’ it is
35:1 (the statistics are those of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 112).
202 chapter 7
this same preposition is very rare in Jeremiah. This rarity was explained above
(§7.1) as the result of internal factors (preference for a transparently literary
form over one used in both literature and the vernacular). It is, of course, legiti-
mate to suggest different explanations for the absence of ִעםin Ezekiel, on the
one hand, and Jeremiah, on the other, but such explanatory inefficiency seems
undesirable unless it cannot be avoided.
7.2.4 Jeremiah
If the replacement of - ִאּתwith -אֹת/- אֹותis to be explained as the relatively late
penetration of a vernacular feature into the literary stratum, then Jeremiah
exhibits a later stage than the Pentateuch or the Former Prophets (with the
possible exception of Kings). However, as argued above, the book also seems to
demonstrate an archaistic penchant for use of the preposition ֵאתto the near
total exclusion of ִעם. Even if this linguistic self-consciousness bespeaks the
post-classical status of Jeremiah’s language, its preference for ֵאתis striking in
comparison to the marked preference for ִעםin LBH proper and post-biblical
sources.
52 Jer 21.2; 30.11; 33.9. In Jer 46.28 א ְֹתָךis apparently reflected by the accusative pronoun σὲ
‘you’.
syntax 203
53 E.g., חּוצה ָ ‘ וַ ּיָ נָ ס וַ ּיֵ ֵצא ַהand he fled and went outside’ (Gen 39.12).
54 E.g., ‘ נָ ַתן ָׁש ָּמהhe put (it) there’ (Exod 16.33; 40.30; 2 Kgs 12.10).
55 More rarely the same suffix is attached to nouns indicating time, e.g., ימה ָ יָמ
ִ ִמּיָ ִמים
‘from time to time’ (Exod 13.10; Jdg 11.40; 21.19; 1 Sam 1.3; 2.19); ד־אנָ ה ָ ‘ ַעtill when’ (Exod
16.28; Num 14.11 [2x]; Josh 18.3; Jer 47.6; Hab 1.2; Ps 13.2 [2x], 3 [2x]; 62.4; Job 18.2; 19.2); cf.
ד־אן
ָ ‘ ַעtill when’ (Job 8.2). The same suffix may also serve in the words ‘ ָח ִל ָילהfar be it’ and
‘ ַליְ ָלהnight’ (but on the latter see below). In a few cases the suffix in question is accented
in the Tiberian tradition: ‘ ִמזְ ְר ָ ֖חהto the east’ (Deut 4.41); ‘ ּגִ ָ ּ֥תהto Gath(-hepher)’ and ִע ָ ּ֣תה
‘to Eth(-kazin)’ (Josh 19.13); ‘ ַמ ְע ָר ָב ֩הwestward’ (2 Chr 33.14 [?]). In some cases it may be
that -ɛ < -å̄, e.g., ‘ נ ֶֹבהto Nob’ (1 Sam 21.2; 22.9); ‘ ָאנֶ הwhither’ (1 Kgs 2.36, 42); ‘ ְּד ָדנֶ הto
Dedan’ (Ezek 25.13).
56 For example, ‘ וַ ּיַ ּכּו ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא ַּב ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים ִמ ִּמ ְכ ָמׂש ַאּיָ ֹלנָ הand they struck down Philistines
that day from Michmas to Aijalon’ (1 Sam 14.31); יתם ֵק ְד ָמה ֶ ִיהם ֵק ְד ָמה וְ ֵה ָּמה ִמ ְׁש ַּת ֲחו
ֶ ֵּופנ
ְ
‘ ַל ָּׁש ֶמׁשand they were facing eastward and bowing down eastward toward the sun’ (Ezek
8.16); ּובנָ יוָ ל־מֹועד ִמזְ ָר ָחה מ ֶֹׁשה וְ ַא ֲהר ֹן
ֵ ‘ וְ ַהחֹנִ ים ִל ְפגֵ י ַה ִּמ ְׁש ָּכן ֵק ְד ָמה ִל ְפנֵ י א ֶֹהand those camp-
ing in front of the tabernacle to the east in front of the tent of meeting eastward: Moses,
Aaron, and his sons’ (Num 3.38).
57 GKC §§90c–e; Bauer and Leander 1922: §§65n–x; Joüon 1923: §§93c–f; Lambert 1938:
§§245–250.
58 Harris 1939: 59–60; Meek 1940: 230; Moscatti 1964: §12.67; Garr 1985: 63; Sáenz-Badillos
1993: 43, 48; Steiner 1997: 153. A short accusative -a ending may be preserved in the word
‘ ַא ְר ָצהland’ in ‘ ָּכ ֵעת ָה ִראׁשֹון ֵה ַקל ַא ְר ָצה זְ ֻבלּון וְ ַא ְר ָצה נַ ְפ ָּת ִליas in past times when he
humbled the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali’ (Isa 8.23 [2x]). In this verse there
is no movement, the nouns in question have the grammatical status of direct objects, and
the survival of the final short vowels may be explained as a result of their being ‘protected’
within a construct chain. Be that as it may, this suggestion is only one among several pos-
sible solutions.
204 chapter 7
destination or direction, but simple presence at a location, like -‘ ְּבin, at’66 or
‘ ֵא ֶצלat, near’,67 or, with a partitive preposition, indicates distancing or separa-
tion, like ‘ ִמןfrom’,68 so that the suffix is wholly inappropriate. According to
the general approach adopted here, in its standard use the suffix in question
indicates destination, direction, or orientation while deviations from this rule
are to be explained as exceptions.69
Meek (1940), who labels the suffix ‘terminative’, has recourse to a variety
of explanations to account for its non-standard uses: (1) confusion with the
feminine ending, e.g., ‘ ָא ְמנָ הtruly’ (Gen 20.12; Josh 7.20 [ibid.: 231]); (2) addition
of an emphatic -a ending, e.g., ‘ ַה ַח ְׁש ַמ ָלהamber, electrum, glowing metal’ (Ezek
8.2); ׁשּוע ָתהָ ְ‘ יdeliverance’ (Jon 2.10; Ps 3.3 [ibid.]); (3) contraction of a diph-
thong, e.g., ‘ ַליְ ָלהnight’ (ibid.); (4) development from a deictic or demonstrative
t—thus Meek explains non-directional ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’ (ibid.: 232–233);70 (5) mis-
identification of the suffix as an integral part of the host name, e.g., ( ֶא ְפ ָרת2x)
versus ( ֶא ְפ ָר ָתה8x) ‘Ephrath’ and ( ִּת ְמנָ ה3x) versus ( ִּת ְמנָ ָתה9x) ‘Timnah’ (ibid.:
232);71 (6) scribal corruption, e.g., ‘ ַא ְר ָצהland’ (Job 34.13; 37.12 [ibid.]).
Some of these explanations are more convincing than others. Particularly
problematic is the claim that ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’ contains not directional he, but rather
a he that developed from deictic t, so that there is no semantic difference
between ָׁש ָּמהand ָׁשםboth ‘there’. Against this view, it may be noted that in the
majority of the cases of the former (approximately two-thirds)72 it does indeed
mark destination or direction.73 What is more, in 13 of the 42 exceptions the
use of he is explicable as a result of attraction.74 And finally, as already men-
tioned, *מ ָּׁש ָּמהִ *‘from there, whence’ is nowhere attested in the Bible, though
there are over one-hundred instances of ‘ ִמ ָּׁשםfrom where, whence’. On the
assumption that ָׁש ָּמה = ָׁשםone might expect at least a few cases of ִמ ָּׁש ָּמה. This
latter is attested in the DSS. It seems likely that language users did not generate
ִמ ָּׁש ָּמהuntil directional he had lost most of its force, which is widely agreed to
have occurred in the later period.75
70 See also Blau 1985: 296; C. Gordon 1998: 102, n. 4; Sivan 2001: 180. Kutscher (1974: 414) dis-
tinguishes between the suffix in forms such as ‘ ַא ְר ָצהto the land’ (locative or directional
he) and the suffix in ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’ (accusative a). Though such an approach is not to be
dismissed out of hand, the generally complementary distribution of ָׁשםand ָׁש ָּמה, where
the former is used chiefly to mark location of presence or activity and the latter direc-
tion or destination, should not be ignored. And again, the combination ‘ ִמ ָּׁשםfrom there,
whence’ comes 116 times in the Bible, to the total exclusion of *מ ָּׁש ָּמה ִ .
71 See Hoftijzer 1981: 9, n. 26, and 126ff.
72 According to Even-Shoshan (1977: 1165–1166) in 35 of 107 cases ָׁשם = ָׁש ָּמה. To his count seven
more cases should be added: Gen 14.10; Josh 7.3; 2 Kgs 4.11b; 5.18; 23.8; Jer 27.22; Ezek 1.12.
73 Blau (1985: 296), followed by Sivan (2001: 180), suggests the possibility that purely locative
ָׁש ָּמהderives from ṯmt, while directional ָׁש ָּמהfrom ṯm + directional he. Of course,
according to this line of argumentation there is no such thing as non-standard use of
directional he in ָׁש ָּמה. See also Speiser 1954: 109; Hoftijzer 1981: 213–214.
74 Gen 43.16; Josh 2.1, 16; 2 Kgs 4.11b; 5.18; 9.16; Isa 22.18 (2x); Jer 13.7; 18.2; 27.22; Ezek 1.12; 33.30.
In these cases ָׁש ָּמהfollows mention of a place name serving as the destination of a verb
of movement, a preposition denoting destination or direction, or an additional instance
of directional he.
75 In the DSS there is evidence that directional he was reduced from a locative particle
to a more generally adverbial particle, even serving in words such as ‘ מאודהvery’ (see
Kutscher 1974: 414). On the other hand, this latter usage may have a distinct origin.
syntax 207
One might also object to Meek’s view of some examples as legitimate exam-
ples of the standard use of the suffix. For example, Meek renders ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ָחה
‘burn on the altar’ (which comes some 30 times in the Bible) “to turn a sacrifice
into smoke toward the altar”. This translation is unnatural and forced. The altar
was the spot on which the sacrifice took place. While this certainly involved
movement, that this movement could be thought of as being ‘in the direction
of’, ‘to’, or ‘toward’ the altar seems doubtful. Alternative readings, such as וְ ִה ְק ִטיר
‘ ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַחand he will burn (on) the altar’ (Lev 6.8) and ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח
ַ ‘ וַ ּיַ ְק ֵטר ַעand he
burnt on the altar’ (Lev 9.13, 17), though not as frequent, seem to give the correct
understanding in a more predictable syntactic structure (significantly with-
out the notion of ‘toward’). It seems preferable either to posit a more general
locative meaning for directional he—an approach to which Meek objects—
or, alternatively, to accept the development hypothesized here, namely that
the general locative meaning developed from the earlier and more specific
meaning associated with destination and direction.76 In the end it seems
that the morpheme acquired a broad adverbial nuance, as seen in the DSS.
76 Speiser (1954: 109) agrees with Meek as to the basic sense of the particle (“the goal of
motion”), but argues that Meek has gone too far: “It is inherently probable that ‘whither’
may on occasions shade off into ‘wherein’, so that a locative develops from a termina-
tive.” Of course, different languages exhibit different processes. In English, for example,
where supplanted whither. In spoken Modern Israeli Hebrew there are opposing tenden-
cies: on the one hand ָׁש ָּמהliterally ‘thither’ very frequently appears in place of ‘ ָׁשםthere’
to indicate stationary location; on the other hand, ‘ ֵאיפֹהwhere’ often substitutes for ְל ָאן
‘whither’.
77 Joosten 2005: 337–338; cf. Rezetko 2013: 48–56.
78 Bendavid 1967–1971: I 65.
79 Qimron 1978b: 94–96; 1986: §340; Thorion 1984: 579–580; cf. Rezetko 2013: 48–56.
208 chapter 7
usage is very normal in biblical material considered classical, but rare in post-
exilic sources. For example, in the core LBH books there are only 21 cases, all
of them in Chronicles,80 and of these eight are apparently already found in
the Chronicler’s sources,81 whereas in four more cases the use of the particle
seems non-standard.82 In the non-biblical DSS there are only three cases of a
80 See Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 80. Despite the archaistic efforts of the
Chronicler, his regular use of characteristic late linguistic features is clear, e.g., colloca-
tions of the type verb of movement + - ְל+ toponym (see below, §7.4).
81 ‘ יַ ְה ָצהJahaz’ (1 Chr 6.63 || Josh 21.36); ‘ ֵיָב ָׁשהto Jabesh’ (10.12 || 1 Sam 31.12); ‘ ֶח ְברֹונָ הto Hebron’
(11.1, 3 || 2 Sam 5.1, 3); אֹופ ָירה ִ ‘to Ophir’ (2 Chr 8.18 || 1 Kgs 9.28); יׁשה ָ ‘ ָל ִכto Lachish’ (25.27
[2x]; || 2 Kgs 8.19 [2x]); יְמה ָ רּוׁש ַל
ָ ְ‘ יto Jerusalem’ (2 Chr 32.9 || רּוׁש ַל ְָמה ָ ְ יIsa 36.2). It is true,
there are a few cases in which the Chronicler employs directional he independently of his
sources—‘ ֶח ְברֹונָ הto Hebron’ (1 Chr 12.24, 39); ‘ ָּב ֵב ָלהto Babylon’ (2 Chr 33.11; 36.6, 10)—or
even uses it correctly against his sources—ל־ק ְריַת יְ ָע ִרים ִ וַ ּיַ ַעל ָּדוִ יד וְ ָכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַּב ֲע ָל ָתה ֶא
ֹלהיםִ יהּודה ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ִמ ָּׁשם ֵאת ֲארֹון ָה ֱא ָ ‘ ֲא ֶׁשר ִלand David and all Israel went up to Baalah,
to Kirjath Jearim, which belongs to Judah, to bring from there the ark of God’ (1 Chr 13.6
|| ֹלהים ִ הּודה ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ִמ ָּׁשם ֵאת ֲארֹון ָה ֱא ָ ְל־ה ָעם ֲא ֶׁשר ִאּתֹו ִמ ַּב ֲע ֵלי י ָ ‘ וַ ּיָ ָקם וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ָּדוִ ד וְ ָכand David
and all the people with him arose and went from Baale Judah to bring up from there the
ark of God’ 2 Sam 6.2); ‘ וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ְׁש ֵכ ָמהand he went to Shechem’ (2 Chr 10.1 || ‘ ְׁש ֵכםShechem’
1 Kgs 12.1); יְמה ָ יאהּו ִמ ְצ ָרֵ ‘ וַ ִיְבand he brought him to Egypt’ (2 Chr 36.4 || ‘ וַ ּיָבֹא ִמ ְצ ַריִםand
he came to Egypt’ 2 Kgs 23.34), but he also reformulates so that directional he is elimi-
nated, e.g., ת־ּכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר ַהּיַ ְר ֵּדן וַ ּיָבֹא ֲא ֵל ֶהם וַ ּיַ ֲער ְֹך ֲא ֵל ֶהם וַ ּיַ ֲער ְֹך
ָ וַ ּיֻ ּגַ ד ְל ָדוִ יד וַ ּיֶ ֱאסֹף ֶא
‘ ָּדוִ יד ִל ְק ַראת ֲא ָרם ִמ ְל ָח ָמה וַ ּיִ ָּל ֲחמּו ִעּמֹוand it was told to David and he gathered all Israel
and crossed the Jordan and came to them and arrayed (for battle) before them; so David
arrayed for battle toward Aram and they fought with him’ (1 Chr 19.17 || וַ ּיֻ ּגַ ד ְל ָדוִ ד וַ ּיֶ ֱאסֹף
אמה וַ ּיַ ַע ְרכּו ֲא ָרם ִל ְק ַראת ָּדוִ ד וַ ּיִ ָּל ֲחמּו ִעּמֹוָ ת־הּיַ ְר ֵּדן וַ ּיָבֹא ֵח ָל
ַ ת־ּכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר ֶא ָ ‘ ֶאand it
was told to David and he gathered all Israel and crossed the Jordan and came to Helam
and Aram arrayed [for battle] toward David and they fought with him’ 2 Sam 10.17); וַ ּיֵ ְלכּו
ל־ה ָּק ָהל ִעּמֹו ַל ָּב ָמה ֲא ֶׁשר ְּבגִ ְבעֹון ַ ‘ ְׁשֹלמֹה וְ ָכand Solomon and all the congregation with him
went to the high place that was in Gibeon’ (2 Chr 1.3 || ‘ וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ּגִ ְבעֹנָ ה ִלזְ ּב ַֹח ָׁשםand
the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there’ 1 Kgs 3.4); ת־ׁש ַמע ְׁשֹלמֹה ֵ ת־ׁש ָבא ָׁש ְמ ָעה ֶא ְ ּומ ְל ַּכ
ַ
ירּוׁש ַלםִ ְּב ַחיִ ל ָּכ ֵבד ְמאֹדָ ת־ׁשֹלמֹה ְב ִחידֹות ִּב ְ ‘ וַ ָּתבֹוא ְלנַ ּסֹות ֶאand the Queen of Sheba heard
the rumor about Solomon and came to test Solomon with riddles in Jerusalem with a
very great company’ (9.2 || רּוׁש ַל ְָמה ְּב ַחיִ ל ָּכ ֵבד ְמאֹד ָ ְ‘ וַ ָּתבֹא יand she came to Jerusalem
with a very great company’ 1 Kgs 10.2); ‘ וַ יְ ַח ְּב ֵרהּו ִעּמֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות ֳאנִ ּיֹות ָל ֶל ֶכת ַּת ְר ִׁשיׁשand he
partnered with him to build boats to go to Tarshish’ (20.36 || הֹוׁש ָפט ָע ָׂשה ֳאנִ ּיֹות ַּת ְר ִׁשיׁש ָ ְי
אֹופ ָירהִ ‘ ָל ֶל ֶכתJehoshaphat built [qre; ktiv ]’?‘ עשרboats of Tarshish to go to Ophir’ 1 Kgs
22.49); ל־ה ֶר ֶכב ִעּמֹו ָ ם־ׂש ָריו וְ ָכ
ָ הֹורם ִע ָ ְ‘ וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר יand Joram crossed with all his officers and all
his chariotry with him’ (21.9 || ל־ה ֶר ֶכב ִעּמֹו ָ יֹורם ָצ ִע ָירה וְ ָכ ָ ‘ וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹרand Joram crossed to Zair,
and all his chariotry with him’ 2 Kgs 8.21); ‘ וַ ּיָ ָׁשב ׁש ְֹמרֹוןand he returned to Samaria’ (25.24
|| ‘ וַ ּיָ ָׁשב ׁש ְֹמרֹונָ הand he returned to Samaria’ 2 Kgs 14.14).
82 ‘ וְ ַעד־ּגַ זְ ָרהand up to Gezer’ (1 Chr 14.6); ְך־צֹובה ֲח ָמ ָתה ָ ת־ח ַד ְד ֶעזֶ ר ֶמ ֶל
ֲ ‘ וַ ּיַ ְך ָּדוִ יד ֶאand David
struck Hadadezer king of Zova as far as Hamath’ (18.3 || 2 Sam 8.3); ַל ֲח ִצי ַה ְמנַ ֶּׁשה ּגִ ְל ָע ָדה
syntax 209
proper name with directional he,83 and there are no such cases in Ben Sira or
the Mishna. In these sources the use of collocations like ִירּוׁש ַלם ָ ‘ ָע ָלה ִלgo up to
Jerusalem’, i.e., verb of movement + - ְל+ toponym—which are very rare in CBH
and entirely absent from the admittedly limited corpus of pre-exilic inscrip-
tions—becomes very common. Of the 62 cases in the Bible, 50 come in the
core LBH books (see below, §7.4). The structure is also known from the non-
biblical DSS84 and is common in RH (see below, §7.4).85
The gradually increasing tendency in certain late sources to make non-
standard use of directional he emerges clearly from a statistical survey of its
use in the various phases of the language. The non-standard use is rare in the
Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, more frequent in the Latter Prophets
and in the core LBH books, and accounts for nearly half the cases in the DSS.
Statistics of the non-standard use of directional he in relation to its stan-
dard use are presented here for the various stages of BH (see above, n. 69, for
the references) and for the DSS, along with notes on RH and the Samaritan
Pentateuch. Torah: approximately 17 percent (63 out of 395; these figures are
somewhat misleading, because all 24 of the non-standard cases in Leviticus
involve the recurring phrase ‘ ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ָחהburn on the altar’; excluding these
examples the percentage drops to under ten); Former Prophets: 14.1 percent
(51 out of 361 cases); Latter Prophets: 41.7 percent (88 out of 211; however, here,
too, the raw statistics are misleading, since there is a peculiar concentration
of 33 non-standard cases in the final two chapters of the book of Ezekiel, and
most consist of construct phrases of the type ‘ ְּפ ַאת ֵק ְד ָמהeastern side’; if these
‘ יִ ּדֹו ֶּבן־זְ ַכ ְריָ הּוfor the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead: Iddo son of Zechariah’ (27.21); ֵּבין
ּובין ְצ ֵר ָד ָתה ֵ ‘ ֻסּכֹותbetween Sukkot and Zeredah’ (2 Chr 4.17 || ּובין ָצ ְר ָתן ֵ ‘ ֵּבין ֻסּכֹותbetween
Sukkot and Zarethan’ 1 Kgs 7.46).
83 ‘ ] ֯בא אל עיתהhe came to Aiath’ (4Q161 f5–6.5 || ל־עּיַ ת ַ ָּבא ַעIsa 10.28); אש[ור] ֯ה֗ בו] ֗אכה
‘as you come to Assyria’ (4Q364 f1a–vb.1); מרת ֗ה ֯ ‘ ו֗ י֯ בואוand they came to Marah’ (4Q365
f6aii+6c.9 || Exod 15.23).
84 ‘ בביאה מירחו לסככאas you come from Jericho to Secacah’ (3Q15 5.13); [ו] ֯בא למצרים ומכר
[‘ את עפרהand] he will come to Egypt and sell her land’ (4Q248 f1.6), למצרי֯ [ם ֗ ‘ ושבand
he will return to Egypt’ (8); ‘ ועלו לנגבand they will go up to the Negev’ (4Q365 f32.10); ֯לו֗ ֗א
֯‘ [יכל]נ[ו לבו] ֯א[ לצי]ו֯ ןwe could not come to Zion’ (4Q522 f9ii.2).
85 In the Mishna alone there are dozens of examples, to say nothing of the rest of rabbinic
literature. A few examples will suffice: חּוצה ָ יאין ְל ִ מֹוצ
ִ סּוריה וְ ֵאיןְ יאין ְל
ִ ּמֹוצ
ִ ָׁש ַמ ְעּתי ְּב ֵפירּוׁש ֶׁש
‘ ָל ָא ֶרץI have heard explicitly that they may export to Syria, but they may not export out-
side the land’ (Sheviʿit 6.5); ִירּוׁש ַלם ָ עֹולה ִלֶ ‘ ֶּכ ֶרם ְר ָב ִעיa fourth vintage goes up to Jerusalem’
(Maʿaser Sheni 2.3); ּוכ ֶׁש ָּבאּו ְליַ וְ ונֶ ה ְ ‘and when they came to Yabneh’ (Rosh ha-Shana 2.8);
ִירּוׁש ַלם
ָ ‘ ִמ ָּׁש ָעה ֶׁשּנִ ְכנְ סּו ַהּגֹויִ ם ִלfrom the time that gentiles entered Jerusalem’ (Ketubbot 2.9);
יהיּנָ ם ִ ֵיֹור ִדים ְלג ְ ‘ ַּת ְל ִמ ָידיו ֶׁש ְּל ִב ְל ָעםthe disciples of Balaam descend to Gehenna’ (ʾAvot 5.19).
210 chapter 7
instances are excluded, the relevant percentage drops to 30.9); core LBH mate-
rial: 34.4 percent (33 out of 96 cases). It is also relevant to point out that the
poetic books of the Bible exhibit a pronounced non-standard use of directional
he. In the corpus composed of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Song of Songs use of
the particle deviates from the standard in 18 of 22 cases (81.8 percent). This is
clearly related to poetic style. Doubtless, some of the non-standard cases in
other books containing poetry, such as Isaiah, should also be ascribed to poetic
factors.
In the DSS 45.6 percent of the instances of directional he (123 out of
272 cases) deviate from standard usage. This non-standard usage is more com-
mon in non-biblical texts—64.8 percent (59 of 94 cases)—than in biblical
texts—35.9 percent (65 of 181 cases [in 33 cases the non-standard usage in the
DSS matches that in the MT]). Here follow the references from the DSS (forms
such as מאודהare excluded).86
In RH directional he is regularly replaced by - ְל,87 but continues to serve
(superfluously) in several fixed phrases, e.g., -מחוצה ל/ל/ בand (מ)למעלה.
It bears repeating that the use of directional he in the DSS and in RH is
restricted almost exclusively to fixed forms and phrases or to instances of
86 Non-biblical texts: 1QHa 15.27; 1Q22 f1i.2, f1ii.10; 3Q15 10.2; 4Q158 f1–2.3; 4Q161 f5–6.5;
4Q177 f1–4.13, f10–11.8, 9; 4Q200 f6.6, 8; 4Q223–224 f2v.7; 4Q270 f7i.12; 4Q272 f1i.3; 4Q364
f27.4; 4Q365 f6aii+6c.11, f27.4, f31a–c.6, f32.11; 4Q365a f2ii.4, 9, f3.4; 4Q369 f1ii.1; 4Q372
f16.3; 4Q377 f2ii.7; 4Q393 f3.6; 4Q397 f3.3; 4Q405 f15ii–16.6, f31.3; 4Q410 f1.5; 4Q418 f107.2,
f148ii.5; 4Q491 f1–3.9, f8–10i.17; 4Q524 f6–13.3; 8Q5 f2.4; 11Q19 3.15; 6.2; 7.9, 12; 10.11, 13; 16.12,
13; 32.11; 37.14; 38.10; 42.16; 45.6; 52.20; 53.9; 56.9; 59.3, 20; 60.13, 14; 63.2; 11Q20 5.8; 9.2; bibli-
cal texts (instances in which the non-standard use in the DSS is paralleled in the MT are
marked with an asterisk [*]): 1QIsaa 5.22 (|| Isa 6.2); 6.26* (|| Isa 7.11); 8.15* (|| Isa 8.21); 10.15
(|| Isa 10.28); 11.28 (|| Isa 13.20), 29 (|| Isa 13.21); 12.15 (|| Isa 14.13); 13.17* (|| Isa 16.1); 17.11*
(|| Isa 22.7), 26** (2x; || Isa 22.18 2x); 27.7* (|| Isa 33.7); 28.12 (|| Isa 34.12), 14 (|| Isa 34.14),
15* (|| Isa 34.15), 24 (2x; || Isa 35.8 2x), 25 (|| Isa 35.9); 38.14 (|| Isa 45.8); 40.21 (|| Isa 48.16);
42.20 (|| Isa 51.6); 43.18 (|| Isa 52.4), 26 (|| Isa 52.11); 47.4 (|| Isa 57.6); 52.11 (|| Isa 65.9); 53.2
(|| Isa 65.20); 1Q8 8c–e.10** (2x; || Isa 22.18 2x); 2Q13 f7–8.14 (|| Jer 47.7); 2Q16 f4ii–5i.1*
(|| Ruth 2.19); 4Q11 f35.5* (|| Exod 27.9); 4Q17 f2ii.15 (|| Exod 40.19); 4Q22 30.31* (|| Exod
27.13); 4Q23 f32i+34i–43.11* (|| Num 4.6); f74.2* (|| Num 35.5); 4Q24 f8.4* (|| Lev 3.11);
4Q25 f4.5* (|| Lev 4.26); 4Q26 f4.3 (|| Lev 17.3); 4Q27 f3ii+5.13 (|| Num 13.22); f75–79.27
(|| Num 35.5); 4Q30 f10.4* (|| Deut 10.7); f48.2* (|| Deut 28.13); 4Q38a f5.5 (|| Deut 26.2);
4Q51 f3–5.7* (|| 1 Sam 14.32); 4Q55 f11ii+15.19* (|| Isa 22.18); 4Q56 f22–23.4* (|| Isa 37.31);
4Q57 f9ii+11+12i+52.17 (|| Isa 23.12); 4Q70 f21–22i.4* (|| Jer 13.7), 7* (|| Jer 13.4); 4Q74 f1–4.5*
(|| Ezek 1. 11), f6ii.6* (|| Ezek 1. 22); 4Q103 f7ii+11–14.6* (|| Prov 15.24); 4Q137 f1.22 (|| Deut 5.15);
4Q138 f1.27 (|| Deut 11.10); 11Q5 fEii.5 (|| Ps 104.25); 23.10 (|| Ps 133.3); 11Q7 f4–7.6* (|| Ps 13.2),
7* (|| Ps 13.3), 14 (|| Ps 14.5); XQ1 1.3 (|| Exod 12.46); Mur88 19.13* (|| Hab 3.11); 5/6Hev1b
f1iv+3.12* (|| Ps 13.2), 13* (|| Ps 13.3), 14* (|| Ps 13.3); Mas1d 3.14* (|| Ezek 37.8).
87 Bendavid 1967–1971: I 129, 371, II 452–453; Qimron 1978b: 95, n. 71.
syntax 211
imitation of the Bible or allusion thereto. In other words, despite its con-
tinued appearance in these sources, it is no longer a vibrant element of the
morphology.
The use of directional he in the Samaritan Pentateuch is complicated. There
are some 400 cases in the MT against about 410 in the Samaritan Pentateuch.
There are 61 cases in which the two editions present differing versions of the
same verse (excluding cases where the editions present completely differ-
ent readings). In 45 cases the ending occurs in the MT and is missing in the
Samaritan Pentateuch and in 16 cases this situation is reversed. Three principal
categories may be discerned in which the suffix is omitted in the Samaritan
version: (a) certain collocations composed of a verb + ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’ (19 cases);88
(b) syntagms consisting of nomen regens + directional he + nomen rectum
(11 cases, generally preserved in the case of the collocation ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ְּכנַ ַעןto the land
of Canaan’);89 (c) rarer miscellaneous forms (14 cases).90 Most of those cases in
which directional he occurs in the Samaritan written tradition, but is missing in
the MT involve frozen forms.91 In the Samaritan reading tradition the consonan-
tal forms שםand שמהare both pronounced šamma (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000: §7.2).
Be that as it may, diachronic conclusions should be drawn with caution,
since, though relatively fewer, the number of apparently early examples is not
insignificant. Especially illustrative is the distribution of the relevant forms of
adverbial ‘ ַמ ַעלabove, up’. The forms ‘ ִמ ַּמ ַעלfrom above’ and ‘ ַמ ְע ָלהupward’ are
88 ‘ נָ ַפלfall’ (Gen 14.10; Exod 21.33); ‘ ָק ַברbury’ (Gen 23.13; 25.10; 49.31 [3x]; 50.5); ‘ נֶ ֱא ַסףbe
gathered’ (Gen 29.3); הֹוריד ִ ‘send, put down’ (Gen 39.1; 42.2); ‘ ָּב ָכהweep’ (Gen 43.30); נָ ַתן
‘give’ (Exod 16.33; 30.18; 40.30); ‘ ֵה ִביאbring’ (Exod 26.33; Deut 12.11); ‘ נִ ְד ַרׁשbe enquired of’
(Exod 29.43 || mt נֹועד ַ ‘meet with’); ‘ יָ ָצאgo out’ (Num 33.54).
89 ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ַהּנֶ גֶ בto the land of the Negev’ (Gen 20.1); תּואל ֵ יתה ְב ָ ‘ ֵּבto the house of Bethuel’
(28.2); י־ק ֶדם ֶ ֵ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ְבנto the land of the children of the east (29.1); ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ְׂש ִעירto the land
of Shinar’ (32.4); ‘ ְּב ֵא ָרה ָׁש ַבעto Beersheba’ (46.6), ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ג ֶֹׁשןto the land of Goshen’ (28);
‘ ַא ְר ָצה ִמ ְצ ָריִ םto the land of Egypt’ (Exod 4.20); יָּמה סּוף ָ ‘to(ward) the Red Sea’ (10.19); נַ ְח ָלה
‘ ִמ ְצ ָריִ םto(ward) the Wadi of Egypt’ (Num 34.5); ‘ ַא ְר ָצה ְּכנַ ַעןto the land of Canaan’ (35.10);
‘ ִמזְ ְר ָחה ָׁש ֶמׁשto(ward) the shining of the son’ (Deut 4.41).
90 יְמהָ ‘ ָׁש ַמskyward’ (Gen 15.5; 28.12; Exod 9.8, 10; Deut 4.19; 30.12); ‘ ַה ֶּפ ְת ָחהto the opening’
(Gen 19.6); ‘ ָה ַעיְ נָ הto the spring’ (Gen 24.16, 45); ‘ ַהיְ א ָֹרהto(ward) the Nile’ (Exod 1.22);
יְמה ָ ‘ ַה ַּמto the water’ (Exod 7.15; 8.16); ‘ ֵא ִיל ָמהto(ward) Elim’ (Exod 15.27; Num 33.27).
There is also an exceptional case in which || בא אהלmt ‘ ָּבא א ֵֹה ָלהto (the) tent’ (Exod
33.9).
91 Ten of 16 concern the names of the cardinal directions: ‘ קדמהeast’ (Gen 25.6); נגבה
‘south’ (Exod 27.9; 36.23; 38.9; Num 34.3 [2x]; 35.5); ‘ צפונהnorth’ (Num 34.9; 35.5); ימה
‘west’ (Num 35.5). Another instance involves the word ‘ חוצהoutside’ (Deut 23.13). The
five remaining cases are ‘ אשימך שמהI will put you there’ (Gen 46.3); ‘ נסב מעצמונהit
turned from Azmon’ (Num 34.5); ‘ בא חמתהcome to Hamath’ (Num 34.8); ‘ משפמהfrom
Shepham’ (Num 34.11); ‘ והירדנהand the Jordan’ (Deut 3.17).
212 chapter 7
7.3.2 Jeremiah
In the book of Jeremiah there are 50 instances of directional he. In 12 of them
its employment deviates from standard usage as defined above.
Jer 1.13 And I said, “A boiling pot I see and its face is from the north () ָצפֹונָ ה.”
Jer 1.15 “For behold I call to all clans of kingdoms of the north () ָצפֹונָ ה,” says
Yhwh.
Jer 13.7 And I went to the Perath and dug and took the belt from the place
where I had hid it (ר־ט ַמנְ ִּתיו ָׁש ָּמה ַ ) ִמ.
ְ ן־ה ָּמקֹום ֲא ֶׁש
Jer 18.2 Arise and go down to the potter’s house and there ()וְ ָׁש ָּמה
I will make my words known to you.
Jer 23.8 . . . but as surely as Yhwh, who brought you up and brought the seed
of Israel from the land of the north () ָצפֹונָ ה, lives . . .
Jer 27.16 Behold the utensils if the temple of Yhwh will be brought back from
Babylon ( ) ִמ ָּב ֶב ָלהnow, quickly.
Jer 27.22 To Babylon they will be brought and there ( )וְ ָׁש ָּמהthey will be until
the day of my taking account of them.
Jer 29.15 For you said, “Yhwh has raised up for us prophets in Babylon
() ָּב ֶב ָלה.”94
Jer 31.37 If the heavens above ( ) ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלהcan be measured and the founda-
tions of earth below can be plumbed.95
Jer 46.6 Let not the swift flee, nor the warrior take refuge; in the north
() ָצפֹונָ ה, beside the Euphrates River, they have stumbled and they
will fall.96
Jer 48.21 And justice is coming to the land of the plain, to Holon and to Jahaz
( )וְ ֶאל־יַ ְה ָצהand to Mephaath (qre; ktiv ‘ מופעתMo/uphaath’)97
Jer 52.10 And the king of Babylon slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before
his eyes and also all the officers of Judah he slaughtered in Riblah
() ְּב ִר ְב ָל ָתה.98
(Josh 16.6);106 ּכּותה ָ ‘ ִּמfrom Kuth’ (2 Kgs 17.24);107 ‘ ִמ ֶּס ַלע ִמ ְד ָּב ָרהfrom Sela of the
desert’ (Isa 16.1);108 ‘ ִמ ָּב ֶב ָלהfrom Babylon’ (Jer 27.16); ‘ ִמ ִּמ ְד ַּבר ִּד ְב ָל ָתהfrom the
desert of Diblah’ (Ezek 6.14).109
Construct phrases of the type ָצפֹונָ ה+ X in Jeremiah also appear typologi-
cally late. The construction nomen regens + nomen rectum + directional he
appears some 50 times in the Bible.110 In a large proportion of the occurrences
the nomen rectum is a name of a cardinal direction and the nomen regens is
ִמ) ְּפ ַאת/‘ ( ִלside’ (38x), ‘ ּגְ בּולborder’ (5x), ‘ ִמ ְק ֵצהfrom the end of’, or ‘ ִמ ְּפנֵ יbefore,
facing’. In the majority of the remaining cases the suffix seems to have been taken
as an integral element of the name to which it is attached.111 Of the 50 cases,
35 come in Ezekiel, where the construction nearly always involves one of the
nomina regentes listed above. Though the structure in question is known form
classical material, the three cases in Jeremiah—‘ ִמ ְּפנֵ י ָצפֹונָ הaway from the
north’ (1.13), ‘ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ָצפֹונָ הkingdoms of the north’ (15); ‘ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפֹונָ הfrom the
land of the north’ (23.8)—have an arguably late aspect, since they are not fixed
phrases.112
On ָׁש ָּמהin the sense of ‘ ָׁשםthere’ in general see the discussion above. In the
three relevant cases in Jeremiah—13.7 (cf. v. 4: ;) ָׁשם18.2; 27.2—it may be that
106 The vocalization testifies to a construct phrase. Perhaps the consonantal text intends
נֹוחה
ָ ָ ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח י, i.e., ‘from/on (the) east to Janoah’?
107 On the assumption that this is the same place mentioned in v. 30. However, many modern
translations distinguish between the two.
108 This collocation is given to two basic interpretations: ‘from Sela of the desert’ and ‘from
Sela to/across the desert’. See the commentaries.
109 The vocalization testifies to a construct phrase, but the possibility that the consonan-
tal tradition intends ‘ ִמ ִּמ ְד ָּבר ִּד ְב ָל ָתהfrom (the) desert to Diblah’ must be considered.
Additionally, the place name *ּד ְב ָלה ִ is a hapax in the Bible (but see above, n. 98); it has
been suggested that the text is referring to ‘ ִר ְב ָלהRiblah’, a toponym with a strong ten-
dency to end in directional he whether the latter’s use is grammatically necessary or not
(see below, n. 114).
110 This figure is based on Groves and Wheeler 2005, but their count mistakenly includes
יָּמה
ָ ‘ ַהּגְ בּולthe border seaward’ (Josh 15.4) and excludes the relevant ‘ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפֹונָ הfrom
the land of the north’ (Jer 23.8).
111 ‘ ֶּד ֶרְך ִּת ְמנָ ָתהthe way to Timnah’ (Gen 38.14); נֹוחה ָ ָ‘ ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח יon the east of Janoah’ (Josh
15.6; see above, n. 106); ‘ ֶּכ ֶתף לּוזָ הthe ridge of Luz’ (18.13, under the influence of לּוזָ הin
the same verse); ד־ּכ ְר ֵמי ִת ְמנָ ָתה ַ ‘ ַעuntil the vineyards of Timnah’ (Jdg 14.5). The vocaliza-
tion of ‘ ַל ְמ ַצד ִמ ְד ָּב ָרהto the fortress of the desert’ (1 Chr 12.9) is unexpected, the first con-
stituent vocalized as a definite nomen regens; perhaps the consonantal text intends ַל ְמ ָצד
ִמ ְד ָּב ָרה, i.e., ‘to the fortress in the desert’. On ‘ ִמ ִּמ ְד ַּבר ִּד ְב ָל ָתהfrom east of Diblah’ (Ezek
6.14) see above, n. 109.
112 Cf. ‘ ִמ ִּמ ְד ַּבר ִּד ְב ָל ָתהfrom east of Diblah’ (Ezek 6.14); ‘ ַל ְמ ַצד ִמ ְד ָּב ָרהto the fortress of the
desert’ (1 Chr 12.9; on this last see the preceding note).
216 chapter 7
the use of ָׁש ָּמהis due to grammatical attraction to preceding words indicating
movement toward a place.
On ‘ ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלהabove, upward’ in general see the discussion above. There are
four cases of ‘ ִמ ַּמ ַעלabove, upward’ in Jeremiah: 4.28; 35.4; 43.10; 52.32. Compare
especially ‘ וְ ָק ְדרּו ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ַּמ ַעלand the skies above darken’ (Jer 4.28) and ם־יִּמּדּו
ַ ִא
‘ ָׁש ַמיִם ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלהif the heavens above can be measured’ (31.37).113
The non-standard use of directional he in the prepositional phrases ֶאל־יַ ְה ָצה
‘to Jahaz’ (Jer 48.21) and ‘ ְּב ִר ְב ָל ָתהin Riblah’ (52.10) should be compared to simi-
lar employment in the toponyms ‘ ִּת ְמנָ ָתהTimnah’ and ‘ ֶא ְפ ָר ָתהEphrath’, which
was described above. This is to say that the former usage may also stem from a
misinterpretation of the suffix as an integral element of the names.114
To sum up, from the perspective of the use of directional he, the language
of the book of Jeremiah reveals both classical and late tendencies. On the one
hand, the book still exhibits relatively routine usage of the suffix. Also, some of
the non-standard uses of the suffix in the book are attested in material generally
considered classical, including its use in toponyms of which it came to be con-
sidered an integral part, in the names of the cardinal directions, and in forms
such as ‘ ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלהabove, upward’ and ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’. On the other hand, despite
their sporadic appearance in earlier material, it should be noted that some of
the relevant usages become common only in the later stages of the language,
like he’s routine addition to the names of the cardinal directions (Ezekiel and
Chronicles), ( ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלהwhich eventually becomes the preferred form), and
( ָׁש ָּמהnot necessarily late in the Bible, but certainly increasingly frequent
with the passage of time). Other non-standard usages, like the suffix’s attach-
113 The expression ‘ ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ַּמ ַעלthe heavens above’ appears six more times in the Bible—
Exod 20.4; Deut 4.39; 5.8; Josh 2.11; 1 Kgs 8.23; Isa 45.8—whereas ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלהis found
only here in the Bible, but also comes in 1QIsaa 38.14 (|| ִמ ַּמ ַעלIsa 45.8); 1Q22 f1ii.10.
114 The place name ‘ יַ ַהץJahaz’ is mentioned nine times in the Bible, twice without the
suffix (Isa 15.4; Jer 48.34), seven times with the suffix (Num 21.23; Deut 2.32; Josh 13.18;
21.36; Jdg 11.20; Jer 48.21; 1 Chr 6.63). In at least five cases use of the suffix is grammatically
questionable (Josh 13.18; 21.36; Jdg 11.20; Jer 48.21; 1 Chr 6.63; possibly also Deut 2.32). It
is worth pointing out that in one of the two occurrences of the place name without
the suffix, namely, קֹולם ָ ד־א ְל ָע ֵלה ַעד־יַ ַהץ נָ ְתנּו
ֶ ‘ ִמּזַ ֲע ַקת ֶח ְׁשּבֹון ַעfrom the cry of Heshbon
to Elealeh to Jahaz they gave their voice’ (Jer 48.34), influence of the verse וַ ִּתזְ ַעק ֶח ְׁשּבֹון
קֹולם
ָ ‘ וְ ֶא ְל ָע ֵלה ַעד־יַ ַהץ נִ ְׁש ַמעand Heshbon cried out and Elealeh to Jahaz their voice was
heard’ (Isa 15.4) is likely. On this assumption, the occurrence in the latter is the only indepen-
dent example of this name without the suffix. The verse ל־א ֶרץ ַה ִּמיׁש ֹר ֶאל־חֹלֹון ֶ ּומ ְׁש ָּפט ָּבא ֶא
ִ
‘ וְ ֶאל־יַ ְה ָצה וְ ַעל־מופעתAnd justice is coming to the land of the plain, to Holon and to Jahaz
( )וְ ֶאל־יַ ְה ָצהand to Mephaath (qre; ktiv ‘ מופעתMo/uphaath’)’ (Jer 48.21) contains the only
biblical example of the construction ◌ה- ָ X + ) ֶאל.
syntax 217
ment to nomina recta (when not involving specific nomina regentes, such as
ִמ] ְּפ ַאת/‘ [ ִלside, corner’) and its use in prepositional phrases with - ְּבand ִמן
(when not dealing with place names in which the suffix has been incorpo-
rated) seem late. It should also be noted that the ‘free’ use of non-standard
directional he is especially common in LBH, forms occurring outside of poetry
(see above, n. 69) being limited predominantly (14 of 15 cases) to the books of
Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles.
Jeremiah reveals a certain freedom and originality in its use of the suffix in
that about half of the cases involve expressions found nowhere else, e.g., ִמ ְּפנֵ י
‘ ָצפֹונָ הaway from the north’ (1.13), ‘ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ָצפֹונָ הkingdoms of the north’ (15);
‘ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפֹונָ הfrom the land of the north’ (23.8); ‘ ִמ ָּב ֶב ָלהfrom Babylon’ (27.16);
‘ ָּב ֶב ָלהBabylon’ (29.15); ‘ ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלהheavens above’ (31.37). This stylistic
uniqueness can be variously explained, but one should not ignore the transi-
tional nature of Jeremiah’s language as a link between CBH and LBH proper. In
comparison to post-biblical sources, the use of the suffix is still alive and well
in Jeremiah, but more than in earlier sources, the original directional meaning
of the suffix seems to have become blurred. Still, in Jeremiah (and even in later
biblical sources) use of the suffix has not arrived to the level of promiscuously
adverbial marking characteristic of the DSS or to the non-use typical of RH.
115 Tov (1979: 90) considers these words (along with other words in Jer 27 that have no paral-
lel in the Greek) late secondary additions.
116 Instances of non-standard use in the short edition are 11 in number (‘ ָּב ֶב ָלהBabylon’ 27.16;
29.15; ‘ יַ ְה ָצהJahaz’ 48.21; ‘ ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלהabove, upward’ 31.37; ‘ ָצפֹונָ הnorth’ Jer 1.13, 15; 23.8; 46.6;
‘ ְּב ִר ְב ָל ָתהin Riblah’ 52.10; ‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’ 13.7; 18.2) out of 125 potential cases (8.8 percent);
218 chapter 7
Jon 1.1–2 “Arise, go to Nineveh () ֵלְך ֶאל־נִ ינְ וֵ ה. . . .” So Jonah arose to flee to
Tarshish (יׁשה
ָ ) ִל ְבר ַֹח ַּת ְר ִׁש. . . and went down to Joppa ( )וַ ּיֵ ֶרד יָפֹוand
found a boat going to Tarshish () ָּב ָאה ַת ְר ִׁשיׁש. . . . So he set off to go
with them to Tarshish (יׁשה ָ ) ָלבֹוא ִע ָּמ ֶהם ַּת ְר ִׁש. . .
The phrase ‘ ֵלְך ֶאל־נִ ינְ וֵ הgo to Nineveh’ is an example of (a) the use of a verb
of motion + the preposition יׁשה ; ֶאל ָ ‘ ִל ְבר ַֹח ַּת ְר ִׁשto flee to Tarshish’ and . . . ָלבֹוא
ָ ‘ ַּת ְר ִׁשto go . . . to Tarshish’ involve (b) a verb of motion + a toponym ending in
יׁשה
directional he; and both ‘ וַ ּיֵ ֶרד יָ פֹוand (he) went down to Joppa’ and ָּב ָאה ַת ְר ִׁשיׁש
‘going to Tarshish’ present (c) motion verbs + a toponym in the accusative of
place. Examples of all these types may be found throughout the Bible along with
less common constructions, for example, those employing other prepositions,
like ‘ ַעדuntil, as far as’ and ַעלusually ‘upon, above’, but not infrequently ‘to’ (the
latter sometimes in place of ; ֶאלsee below, §7.5), though a noticeable reduction
in the use of ( ֶאלsee below, §7.5) and in the standard use of directional he
(see above, §7.3) is evident in late material. This same later material evinces a
contemporaneous increase in the use of motion verbs with the preposition -ל.118
in the supplementary material there is one instance of non-standard usage (‘ ָׁש ָּמהthere’
Jer 27.22) in fifteen potential cases (6.7 percent). In addition to those listed above, the
number of potential cases includes all instances in which the six forms that occur with
the non-standard ending in Jeremiah (a) lack the ending and (b) do not mark a destina-
tion or direction (in the following list an asterisk [*] indicates that the case in question
is not reflected in the Greek): ‘ ָּב ֶבלBabylon’ (excluding instances of the phrase ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל
‘king of Babylon’) – 27.16; 28.6; 29.10, 15, 22; 50.1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42, 45,
46; 51.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 (2x), 24, 29 (2x), 30, 33, 35, 37, 41, 42, *44 (2x), *47, *48, *49 (2x), 53,
54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 64; 52.32; ‘ ַמ ַעלup’ – 4.28; 35.4; 43.10; 52.32; ‘ ָצפֹוןnorth’ – 1.14; 3.18; 4.6;
6.1, 22; 10.22; 13.20; 15.12; 16.15; 23.8; 25.9, 26; 31.8; 46.10, 20, 24; 47.2; 50.3, 9, 41; *51.48; ִר ְב ָלה
‘Riblah’ – *39.6; 52.27; ‘ ָׁשםthere’ – 2.6; 3.6; *7.2, 12; *8.14, 22; 13.4, 6 (2x); 16.13; 19.2; *20.6
(2x); 22.1, 24, 26 (2x); 29.6; 32.5; 35.7; 36.12; 37.12, 13, 16, 20; 38.11, 26; 41.1, 3; 42.14, 15, **16 (3x),
17, 22; 43.2, 12; 44.8, *12, **14 (2x), 28; 46.17; 47.7; 49.16, 18, 33, 38; 50.9, 40.
117 See Austel 1970: 4–13.
118 BDB 511a; Kropat 1909: 43–44, 74; Austel 1970: xxii, 51, 84, 113, 124, 140, 211, 243, 334–336,
342; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 369–370, II 453, n. *; Brin 1979: 24–25; Qimron 1986: §500.1;
syntax 219
7.4.1 The mt
In those books of the Bible generally considered classical, use of the prepo-
sition ֶאל, directional he, and the accusative of place is standard with verbs
of motion to indicate movement in the direction of a place. The parallel use
of the preposition -ל, conversely, is highly restricted not only numerically, but
also in terms of the variety of collocations in which it appears. In the corpus
comprising the books of the Torah and the Former Prophets there are 68 cases
of collocations composed of a verb of motion + - ל+ a location.119 Of these 57
may be placed in one of five categories: the word referring to the destination
of movement is ‘ ָמקֹוםplace’, ‘ ֶא ֶרץland’, ‘ א ֶֹהלtent’, or ‘ ַּביִתhouse’, or the colloca-
tion is of the type ֹו-X-‘ ִאיׁש ְלeach man to his X’.120 Apart from these colloca-
tions, there are only 11 relevant cases in this classical corpus. Of these only two
involve a toponym (i.e., a proper noun used as a place name).121
Talshir 1988: 179–180; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §3.5.2.2; Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 42, 80, II 158. The most comprehensive investigation is
the doctoral dissertation of Austel (1970), but as already noted by Qimron and Strugnell
(1994: §3.5.2.2), this work is flawed in that it excludes all hifʿil motion verbs.
119 The statistics here include the following verbs (and their respective passive forms, where
relevant): ‘ ָא ַסףgather’, ‘ ּבֹואcome, enter’, ‘ ָּב ַרחflee’, ‘ ֵה ִביאbring, insert’, ‘ ִהּגִ ַיעarrive, make
touch’, ‘ ִהגִ ָלהexile’, הֹוביל ִ ‘lead’ (הּובל ַ ‘be led’), הֹוציא ִ ‘take/bring out’, הֹוריד ִ ‘lower, put
down’, ‘ ָה ַלְךgo, walk’, ‘ ִהּנִ ַיחset down’, ‘ ֶה ֱע ָלהraise up’, ‘ ָה ַפְךturn over’, ‘ ֵה ִׁשיבreturn (trans.),
‘ ִה ְׁש ִליְךcast’ (‘ ֻה ְׁש ַלְךbe cast’), ‘ זָ ָרהscatter’, ‘ יָ ָצאgo out, leave’, ‘ יָ ַרדdescend’, ‘ יִ ֵּׁשרlevel’,
‘ נֶ ֱא ַסףbe gathered’, ‘ נִ ְב ַּדלbe separated’, ‘ נִ גְ ַּדעbe cut’, ‘ נּוסflee’, ‘ נָ ַפלfall, dismount’, נִ ְק ַהל
‘be assembled’, ‘ נִ ְקוָ הbe collected’, ‘ סּורturn aside’, ‘ ָע ַברcross’, ‘ ָע ָלהascend’, ‘ ּפּוץscatter’,
‘ ָּפנָ הturn’, ‘ ָּפ ַרׂשspread’, ‘ רּוץrun’, ‘ ָר ַמסtrample’, ‘ ִׁש ַּברshatter’, ‘ ׁשּובreturn (intrans.)’, ָׁש ַלח
‘send’, ‘ ִׁש ַּלחsend away/off’. The situation in the case of the verbs ‘ ּגָ ָלהbe uncovered,
exiled’, ‘ ֵה ִסירremove’, ‘ ֵה ִפיץscatter’, ‘ נָ ַסעtravel’, ‘ ָק ַבץgather’, ‘ ִק ֵּבץgather’, ‘ ָק ַהלassemble’,
and ‘ ָר ַדףchase’ was also checked, but they are not attested in the relevant collocations. Cf.
the lists in BDB 511a–b and in Austel 1970. Verbs of giving and transfer of ownership, which
regularly take - לin all historical phases of Hebrew, have been excluded.
120 BDB 511a. There is some overlap between cases of the ֹו-X- ִאיׁש ְלstructure and the other
four types of collocations; these are marked with an asterisk (*) in the citation lists and
counted only once, in one of the first four columns, in the totals at the bottom of the
table. In the ֹו-X- ִאיׁש ְלcolumn the figure in parentheses represents the number of cases
overlapping with one of the other categories (see below, n. 129).
121 For purposes of distinguishing, all destinations of motion verbs containing a proper name
and labels referring to such names in the immediate context are considered toponyms,
e.g., '‘ ֵּבית הtemple of Yhwh’ and ֹלהים ִ ‘ ֵּבית ֱאtemple of God’ (see BDB 511a).
220 chapter 7
122123124125126127128129
Table 7.4.1 The biblical distribution of motion verb + - ל+ destination according to the MT
ָמקוֹ ם122 אֶ ֶרץ123 אֹהֶ ל124 ּ ַביִ ת125 ֹו-X- ִאישׁ ְל126 Miscellaneous127 Proper Total129
Noun128
Torah 4 1 2 4 1 (1) 5 0 17
Former 13 4 13 12 18 (3) 4 2 51
Prophets
Latter 0 14 0 0 4 (1) 17 8 40
Prophets
LBH 2 4 4 2 9 (5) 21 50 88
Other books 0 4 0 1 3 (1) 17 2 25
Total 19 27 19 19 35 (11) 64 62 221
122 Gen 18.33; 29.3; 30.25; 32.1; Josh 4.18; Jdg 7.7*; 9.55*; 19.28; 1 Sam 2.20; 5.3, 11; 6.2; 14.46; 26.25;
2 Sam 19.40; 1 Kgs 12.24*; 14.12; 2 Chr 25.10 (2x).
123 Gen 32.10; Josh 1.15; 1 Kgs 10.13; 2 Kgs 3.27; 19.7; Isa 14.12; 21.9; 25.12; 28.2; 63.6; Jer 12.15*; 23.15;
37.7; 50.16*; 51.9*; Ezek 19.12; 26.11; Amos 3.14; 5.7; Hag 1.9; Ps 7.6; Qoh 3.21; Lam 2.2, 10; Dan
11.28; 2 Chr 9.12; 30.9; 32.21. See also Ps 74.7; 89.40 (with the verb ‘ ִח ֵּללprofane’). Excluded
here are examples of the collocation ‘ יָ ַׁשב ָל ָא ֶרץsit down on the ground’ (Isa 3.26; 47.1;
Job 2.13, etc.), because it is not clear that these involve movement toward a destination.
124 Deut 5.30; 16.7; Josh 22.4; Jdg 7.8; 19.9; 20.8; 1 Sam 4.10; 13.2; 2 Sam 18.17; 19.9; 20.22; 1 Kgs
8.66; 12.16; 2 Kgs 8.21; 14.12; 2 Chr 7.10; 10.16; 24.6; 25.22.
125 Deut 20.5, 6, 7, 8; Josh 2.3; Jdg 19.21; 20.8*; 1 Sam 10.25*, 26; 23.18; 25.35; 2 Sam 6.19;* 11.8;
14.8; 1 Kgs 1.53; 22.17; Job 7.10; Ezra 2.68; 1 Chr 16.43*; 2 Chr 11.4*; 18.16*. This list does not
include the expressions ' ֵּבית הand ֹלהים ִ ֵּבית ֱא, which, for purposes of the present study,
are considered proper nouns (see below, n. 128).
126 Deut 3.20; Josh 24.28; Jdg 2.6; 7.7*, 8*; 9.55*; 20.8 (2x)**; 1 Sam 4.10*; 8.22; 10.25*; 13.2*;
2 Sam 6.19*; 18.17*; 19.9*; 20.22*; 1 Kgs 12.24*; 22.17*; 2 Kgs 14.12*; Jer 12.15 (2x)**; 50.16*;
51.9*; Ruth 1.8; Ezra 2.1; Neh 7.6; 13.10; 1 Chr 16.43*; 2 Chr 11.4*; 18.16*; 25.22*; 31.1 (2x).
127 Exod 25.20 (?); 32.27; 37.7 (?); Lev 25.27, 28; Jdg 1.34; 5.11; 7.13; 1 Sam 9.12; Isa 8.21; 22.1; 59.7;
Jer 31.17; 49.32, 36; Ezek 5.3, 10, 12; 12.14; 28.8; 40.40; Joel 4.5; Jon 2.7; Mic 7.9; Nah 3.10; Zech
9.12; Ps 18.20; 41.7; 68.19; 74.5; 96.8; 132.7; 146.4; Job 10.19; 12.22; 20.6; 21.32; Prov 6.18; Song
4.16; 5.1; 6.2; Qoh 3.21 (2x); Est 6.4; Dan 8.8; 11.4, 18 (ktiv), 19; Neh 13.12; 1 Chr 12.9; 2 Chr 1.3,
13; 22.1; 24.10; 25.12; 28.9; 29.4, 27; 30.8, 27 (2x); 32.30 (2x); 33.13.
128 Jdg 20.10; 2 Sam 23.11 (?); Isa 59.20; Jer 3.17; 44.28; 51.2; Hos 10.6; 12.2; Mic 1.12; Zech 1.16;
Ps 9.18; 88.4; Ezra 1.3, 11; 2.1 (2x); 3.8; 8.17, 30 (2x); Neh 7.6 (2x); 10.35, 36, 37, 39; 12.27; 13.7;
1 Chr 4.39, 42; 5.26; 9.1; 12.1, 17 (- ;) ַעד־ל21.15; 24.19; 2 Chr 8.17; 11.14 (2x); 14.12; 18.2; 19.1; 20.20,
22, 26; 24.5; 28.8, 9, 27; 29.16, 17, 31; 30.1, 3, 10, 11, 14; 31.16; 32.23; 34.7; 36.7. Excluded from this
list are cases in which the reference to a destination is by means of a pronominal suffix,
especially when the destination has been personified (e.g., Isa 60.4, 5, 7).
129 In the figures in this column cases of overlap between the category ֹו-X- ִאיׁש ְלand the
other categories are counted only once; hence the difference between the sums in this
column and the totals in the preceding columns.
syntax 221
In the Latter Prophets, too, the use of collocations of the type motion verb + -ל
+ destination is limited. However, in comparison to the situation in the Torah
and the Former Prophets there is an increase in usages that do not correspond
to the five categories listed above, including use of the type motion verb + - ל+
proper noun: out of 40 cases, only 15 belong to the aforementioned categories,
25 are of different sorts, and eight of the latter involve the use of a destination
referred to by a proper noun.130
The core LBH books are characterized by opposing tendencies. On the
one hand, use of structures of the type motion verb + - ל+ destination in the
five categories common in CBH persists. On the other hand, in comparison
to material considered classical, the late sources reveal a marked increase in
the use of the same structure outside of the five classical categories. Out of 88
cases, 71 do not belong to those categories and 50 involve a destination referred
to by means of a proper name. From a different perspective, out of the 126
cases of relevant collocations not belonging to the five classical categories,
more than half come in the limited corpus of the core LBH books. Focusing
further on those collocations in which the destination is a proper noun, 50 of
62 come in LBH. On the basis of these facts it is reasonable to hypothesize that
an increased use of verbs of motion with the preposition - לto mark movement
toward a destination, particularly one referred to by means of a proper noun, is
a linguistic feature especially characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew.131 Here fol-
low examples of parallel verses and similar formulations contrasting classical
and post-classical sources:
2 Sam 24.16 the angel sent forth his hand toward Jerusalem (ִרּוׁש ַלם
ָ ְ )יto destroy it
1 Chr 21.15 God sent forth an angel to Jerusalem (ִירּוׁש ַלם
ָ ) ִלto destroy it
1 Kgs 9.24 Pharaoh’s daughter came up . . . to her house (ל־ּב ָיתּה
ֵ ) ֶא. . .
2 Chr 8.11 Solomon brought up Pharaoh’s daughter . . . to the house ( ) ַל ַּביִת. . .
130 It may be that the relatively high frequency of cases in the ‘Miscellaneous’ category in
these books is connected to their poetic character; compare the situation in the ‘Other
books’ in the table, which is composed of that material in the Writings not considered
part of the core LBH corpus. See BDB 511a.
131 BDB 511a; Kropat 1909: 43–44, 74; Austel 1970: xxii, 51, 84, 113, 124, 140, 211, 243, 334–336, 342;
Bendavid 1967–1971: I 369–370, II 453, n. *; Brin 1979: 24–25; Qimron 1986: §500.1; Talshir
1988: 179–180; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §3.5.2.2. Even Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 42, 80, II 158), who routinely object to diachronic expla-
nations, acknowledge the distinctively late status of the structure in question.
222 chapter 7
2 Kgs 21.12 and he cast their dust into the Kidron Wadi () ֶאל־נַ ַחל ִק ְדרֹון
2 Chr 30.14 and they cast (it) into the Kidron Wadi () ְלנַ ַחל ִ ק ְדרֹון
132 ‘ בא ביתהcome to the house of’ (Arad 17.1–2); שמה. . . (‘ תבאlest Edom) should come
there’ (24.20); (‘ לבא מצרימהhe went down) to come to Egypt’ (Lachish 3.15–16); ויעלהו
‘ העירהand he brought him up to the city’ (4.7), (‘ שלח שמהI am not) sending there (the
witness)’ (8); ‘ שמהthere’ (5.7) comes in a broken context.
133 אל:
ֶ ‘ וילכו המימ מנ המוצא אל הברכהand the water ran from the spring to the pool’
(Siloam Tunnel 5–6); -ל: שמנ ושלח לזפ1 [ו]עת בא ביתה אלישב בנ אשיהו ולקחת משמ
[‘ מהרהand] now: go to Elyashib son of Ashayahu’s house and take from there 1 oil and
send (it) to Ziph quickly’ (Arad 17.1–5).
134 Chomsky 1952: xii; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 369–370, II 453, n. *. The post-biblical use of the
accusative of place with verbs of motion is not discussed here; an investigation of the
topic remains a desideratum.
syntax 223
Gen 46.6 and they came to Egypt ()וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ִמ ְצ ָר ָיְמה
2 Kgs 23.34 and they came to Egypt (ֹא מ ְצ ַריִם
ִ )וַ ּיָ ב
4Q248 f1.6 [and he] will come to Egypt (ו]בא למצרים ֯ )
Lev 19.23 and when you (pl) come to the land (ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ָ )וְ ִכ
ָ י־תבֹאּו ֶא
Deut 17.14 and when you (s) come to the land (ל־ה ָא ֶרץ
ָ י־תבֹא ֶ אָ ) ִּכ
T Qiddushin 1.12 until they have come to the land ()עד שלא באו לארץ
Deut 24.10 you will not enter his house (ל־ּביתֹו ָ ֹ )ל
ֵ א־תבֹא ֶא
M Ketubbot 6.5 when you enter my house ()כשתבוא לביתי
M Bava Meṣiʿa 9.13 and you will enter his house ()ולא יכנס לביתו
Isa 38.2 and Hezekiah turned his face to the wall (ל־ה ִּקיר
ַ ָּפנָ יו ֶא. . . )וַ ּיַ ֵּסב
Y Berakhot 4.4 a man must turn his face to the wall ( )להסב פניו לכותלto pray
Deut 24.11 take not any of the meat from the house outside (חּוצה
ָ . . . א־תֹוציא
ִ ֹ )ל
4Q37 10.1 take not any of the meat from the house outside ( לחוץ. . . )לא תוציא137
135 ‘ בביאה מירחו לסככאas one goes from Jericho to Secacah’ (3Q15 5.13); [ו] ֯בא למצרים ומכר
[‘ את עפרהand] (he) will come to Egypt and sell her land’ (4Q248 f1.6), למצרי֯ [ם ֗ ‘ ושבand
he will return to Egyp[t’ (8); ‘ ועלו לנגבand they went up to the Negev’ (4Q365 f32.10).
136 In the Mishna alone there are dozens of cases, not to mention the rest of rabbinic literature.
A few examples will suffice: ִירּוׁש ַלם ָ עֹולה ִל
ֶ ‘ ֶּכ ֶרם ְר ָב ִעיa fourth vintage goes up to Jerusalem’
(Maʿaser Sheni 2.3); חּוצה ָל ָא ֶרץ ָ יאין ְל ִ מֹוצ
ִ סּוריה וְ ֵאין ְ יאין ְל
ִ ּמֹוצ
ִ ‘ ָׁש ַמ ְעּתי ְּב ֵפירּוׁש ֶׁשI have
heard explicitly that they may export to Syria, but they may not export outside the land’
(Sheviʿit 6.5); ּוכ ֶׁש ָּבאּו ְליַ וְ ונֶ ה
ְ ‘and when they came to Yabneh’ (Rosh ha-Shana 2.8); ִמ ָּׁש ָעה
ִירּוׁש ַלם
ָ ‘ ֶׁשּנִ ְכנְ סּו ַהּגֹויִ ם ִלfrom the time that gentiles entered Jerusalem’ (Ketubbot 2.9);
יהיּנָ ם
ִ ֵיֹור ִדים ְלג
ְ ‘ ַּת ְל ִמ ָידיו ֶׁש ְּל ִב ְל ָעםthe disciples of Balaam descend to Gehenna’ (ʾAvot 5.19).
137 ‘ לחוץout(side)’ is known only from post-biblical Hebrew, e.g., biblical and non-biblical
DSS, the Mishna.
224 chapter 7
The late tendency to make use of the preposition - לfor marking movement
toward a destination is often chalked up to the influence of Aramaic, in which
there is no directional he and in whose late dialects the preposition ֶאלis
extremely rare. Indeed, the replacement of ֶאל, ◌ה-
ׇ, and the accusative of place
in post-exilic Hebrew very nicely parallels the situation in Aramaic, where the
use of - לand עלfor this purpose is normal. This situation emerges clearly form
a comparison of BH with the targums and the Peshiṭta:
2 Kgs 24.15 and he exiled Jehoiachin to Babylon ()וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל ֶאת־יְ הֹויָ ִכין ָּב ֶב ָלה
Tg Jonathan and he exiled Jehoiachin to Babylon ()ואגלי ית יהויכין לבבל
Peshiṭta and he exiled Jehoiachin to Babylon ()ܘܓܠܝ ܠܝܘܝܟܝܢ ܠܒܒܠ
[≈ Ezra 5.12 (and its people he) exiled to Babylon (]) ַהגְ ִלי ְל ָב ֶבל
7.4.3 Jeremiah
Preserving classical style, the language of Jeremiah exhibits a preference for
structures indicating movement toward a destination employing the prepo-
sition ( ֶאלor its surrogate ) ַעל, directional he, and the accusative of place.
However, a not inconsiderable number of collocations with the preposition
- לare also found therein:
Jer 3.17 In that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of Yhwh and
all the nations will be gathered to it in the name of Yhwh—
to Jerusalem (ִירּוׁש ָלם ָ ִל. . . )וְ נִ ְקוּו.
Jer 31.17 “And there is hope for your future,” says Yhwh, “and children will
return to their border (בּולם ָ ְ ִלג. . . )וְ ָׁשבּו.”
Jer 44.28 And all of Judah’s remnant, the ones going to the land of Egypt
(ץ־מ ְצ ַריִ ם
ִ ) ַה ָּב ִאים ְל ֶא ֶרto live there, will know whose word will stand,
mine or theirs.
Jer 49.32 And their camels will be for plunder and the crowd of their herds
for spoil, and I will scatter them to every wind (צּוצי ֵ ל־רּוח ְק
ַ וְ זֵ ִר ִתים ְל ָכ
) ֵפ ָאה. . .
Jer 49.36 And I will bring to (against) Elam four winds from the four corners
of heaven, and I will scatter them to all these winds (וְ זֵ ִר ִתים ְלכֹל
) ָה ֻרחֹות ָה ֵא ֶּלה.
syntax 225
Jer 51.2 And I will send away to Babylon ( )וְ ִׁש ַּל ְח ִּתי ְל ָב ֶבלand they will winnow
her . . .
138 In addition to their occurrences in Jeremiah, each of the two expressions has a late dis-
tribution pattern: ִירּוׁש ַלםָ ‘ ִלto Jerusalem’ (Zech 1.16; Ezra 1.3, 11; 2.1; 3.8; 8.30; Neh 7.6; 12.27;
13.7; 1 Chr 21.15; 2 Chr 11.14; 19.1; 30.3, 11; 32.23; 34.7); ‘ ְל ָב ֶבלto Babylon’ (Ezra 2.1; 2 Chr 36.7).
In both cases the more classical alternative is with directional he, whereas collocations
with the preposition ֶאלdo not have a characteristically classical distribution: רּוׁש ַל ִָמה ָ ְ‘ יto
Jerusalem’ (1 Kgs 10.2; 2 Kgs 9.28; Isa 36.2; Ezek 8.3; 2 Chr 32.9); ִרּוׁש ַלם ָ ְ‘ ֶאל־יto Jerusalem’
(Jer 39.1; Ezek 14.21; Zech 14.2, 17; Ezra 3.1; 7.7, 9; Neh 2.11; 1 Chr 15.3; 28.1; 2 Chr 5.2; 12.5;
20.27; 23.2); ‘ ָּב ֶב ָלהto Babylon’ (2 Kgs 20.17; 24.15 [2x], 16; 25.13; Isa 43.14; Jer 20.4, 5; 27.18, 20,
22; 28.4; 29.1, 3, 4, 20; 39.7; 40.1, 7; 52.11, 17; Ezek 12.13; 17.12, 20; 2 Chr 33.11; 36.6, 10); ל־ּב ֶבל
ָ ֶא
‘to Babylon’ (Jer 51.60; 2 Chr 36.20). Of course, Babylon does not come onto the biblical
scene until relatively late.
226 chapter 7
139 In addition to the occurrence in Jeremiah, it comes only three times: Ezek 19.4; 30.25; Hos
11.5. The only relevant case of ל־מ ְצ ַריִם ִ ‘ ֶאto Egypt’ comes in Gen 26.22; the real classical
alternative is יְמה ָ ‘ ִמ ְצ ַרto Egypt’ (Gen 12.10, 11, 14; 26.2; 37.25, 28; 39.1; 41.57; 46.3, 4, 6, 7, 8,
26, 27; 48.5; 50.14; Exod 1.1; 4.21; 13.17; Num 14.3, 4; 20.15; Deut 10.22; 17.16; 26.5; 2 Chr 36.4).
140 Janzen 1973: 97, 222–223.
141 Short edition: Jer 31.17; 44.28; 49.32, 36; 51.2; supplementary material: Jer 3.17. In addition
to the preceding instances, the list of potential cases (based on Austel 1970 and on the
present writer’s own counts) includes all cases of movement verbs with complements
(a) preceded by ֶאל, (b) preceded by ( ַעלwhere it is assumed that ) ַעל = ֶאל, (c) followed
by directional ◌ה- ָ , or (d) in the accusative of place (in the following list an asterisk [*]
indicates that the case in question is not reflected in the Greek): (a) Jer 2.7; 3.6; 4.5; 7.12;
8.14; 19.2; 21.4; *26.22; *27.22; 28.3, *4, 6; 29.10, *14, 26 (2x); 31.9, 21; 32.8, 37; 34.22; 35.4, 11;
36.23; 37.16 (2x), 18; 38.6, 7, *9, 11 (2x), 14; 39.1, *14; 41.7 (2x); 42.12; 48.8, 21 (3x; ?), 44 (2x);
49.19, 28, 36; 50.6, 19, 44; 51.9, 12, 60, 63; (b) Jer 1.7; 3.18 (?); 16.13 (?), 15; 20.2 (?); 22.7 (?), 26,
28; 23.3; 24.6; 36.12; 48.21 (?), 22 (3x; ?), 23 (3x; ?), 24 (4x; ?); 51.51 (?); (c) Jer 13.4, 6, 7; 16.15;
*20.4, 5; *22.27; *27.18, *20, 22; *28.4; *29.1, 3, 4, 7, *20; 31.39; 36.20; *39.5, *7; 40.1, *4, 6, 7, 8,
12, 13; 41.1; 46.6 (?), 28; 52.9, 11, 17, 26; (d) Jer 6.25; 8.3; 14.18; 16.5, 8; 18.2, 3; 19.14; *20.6; 22.1,
11, 12, 27; 23.3, 8; 24.1, 9; 26.10, 21, 22; 27.3; *28.3; *29.14, *18, 28; *30.11; 31.6; 32.5, 24, 37; 34.3;
35.11; 36.5, 12; 37.12; 38.11; *39.9; *40.4 (2x), 12; 41.9, 17; 42.14, 19; 43.2, 3, *5, 7; *44.12, 14, 28;
45.5; 49.36; 51.53, 59, 61.
syntax 227
142 On the uses of the preposition ַעלin general see Soreq 1999: 44–59; on the interchange
between ֶאלand ַעלsee ibid.: 52–53, 59.
143 Thus, Sperber (1943: 241–242) rightly objects to gratuitous textual emendations based on
an artificially clear-cut semantic and functional distinction between the two particles,
but goes too far in claiming that the alleged distinction between the two is an invention
of Hebrew grammar books.
144 See, especially, BDB 41, §§ 4–8, which treat uses of ֶאלnormally associated with ( ַעלcf.
pp. 752–758). See also Mitchell 1888: 47; Sperber 1943: 239–242; Hurvitz 1972: 22, n. 25;
Williams 1976: §308; Greenfield 1977: 371, n. 6; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §11.2.13b; Hadas-
Lebel 1995: 190, n. 116; Soreq 1999: 59; Fassberg 2000: 103–104; JM §133b.
145 Barton 1908: 196; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 193; Soreq 1999: 52; Rendsburg 2003a: 32–36.
228 chapter 7
146 Samuel – BDB 41a; S.R. Driver 1913: 12, 101; Kings – BDB 41a; Montgomery and Gehman
1951: 85; Jeremiah – BDB 41a; Bula 1983: 4 et passim; Ezekiel – BDB 41a; Cooke 1936: 26–27;
Jeremiah and Ezekiel – Cooke 1936: 26–27; Gesenius18 58a.
147 BDB 41a; Hurvitz 1972: 22, n. 25; JM 133b.
148 Cooke 1936: 26–27 (cf. Berry 1915: 25); Kutscher 1974: 410; Cohen 1970: 206–207; Davila 1991:
822; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 190, n. 116; JM §133b. See Kutscher 1974: 57–60 for a balanced and
thoroughgoing discussion of the weakening of the gutturals in the Hebrew and Aramaic
of the Second Temple Period.
The problematic nature of the assumption that the interchanges in question neces-
sarily result from post-biblical scribal tendencies is usefully illustrated by the arguments
of Lust (2006: 163), cited by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 348, n. 18) as evi-
dence that the uncertain textual status of biblical works makes linguistic dating impos-
sible. Lust argues that the common interchange of אלand עלin Ezekiel was “[m]ost
likely . . . due to Aramaic influence obscuring the difference between עלand ”אלand
“probably did not happen in the times of the original author, but rather in a much later
period when scribes used to writing Aramaic transmitted the text.” This seems an emi-
nently reasonable assumption. However, significantly, in view of the earliest manu-
script evidence, it must be judged no more than an assumption. To be sure, due to its
fragmentary nature, the evidentiary value of the DSS Ezekiel material is limited. Even
so, these fragments make a noteworthy, if modest, contribution. In all, they contain 38
unambiguous cases of the prepositions in question: 14 of אלand 24 of ( עלsee Hornkohl
forthcoming, Appendix for the references). Admittedly, this corresponds to but a fraction
of the over 900 combined occurrences of the two prepositions in MT Ezekiel. Further,
the DSS Ezekiel manuscripts contain only one of the cases of apparent interchange listed
by Lust—41.4 (= 4Q73 f4–5.3). All the same, it is to be noted that, with regard to the use
of the prepositions אלand על, the DSS Ezekiel material—which apparently consists of
fragments from five separate scrolls—corresponds to the MT in all 38 cases preserved.
Now, while this disproves neither the general assumption of linguistic modification at the
hands of post-biblical scribes nor the assumed scribal nature of the על/ אלinterchange
in Ezekiel or elsewhere, it is surely significant that the distribution of the prepositions
אלand עלin MT Ezekiel is confirmed by the (admittedly fragmentary) testimony of the
oldest Hebrew witnesses to the book’s text in every single instance preserved in the latter.
This would seem to indicate that at least a certain number of the pre-Masoretic scribes
syntax 229
affected the language of the biblical writers is unclear (but see below).
In the opinion of still other scholars the interchange between the two
prepositions stems from their graphic similarity.149
(4) It has been noted that texts written after the Exile (biblical and non-
biblical) are characterized by a significantly reduced usage of the prepo-
sition ֶאל.150 In LBH and in the Hebrew of the DSS there is a tendency
to substitute it with the prepositions - ְלand ַעלand in RH with - ְלand
ֵא ֶצל.151 Against the background of this decreased use of ֶאל, some scholars
have noted late cases of hypercorrection in which the writer (or editor or
copyist) incorrectly replaced ַעלwith ֶאלout of exaggerated devotion to
classical style.152 The decline in the use of ֶאלand its replacement with
ַעלapparently stem, at least in part,153 from the influence of Aramaic, in
the late dialects of which אלis very rare.154 The various Aramaic dialects
have several alternatives for ֶאל, including ל־, לות, and, of course, על. The
Aramaic-like use of ַעלin place of Hebrew ֶאלis briefly illustrated here
with similar passages or translations:
1 Kgs 21.11 as written in the letters that she sent to them () ָׁש ְל ָחה ֲא ֵל ֶיהם
Ezra 4.11 this is a copy of the letter that they sent to him ( לֹוהי
ִ ) ְׁש ַלחּו ֲע
Jer 40.6 And Jeremiah came to Gedaliah ( ֶאל־ּגְ ַד ְליָ ה. . . )וַ ּיָבֹא
Dan 2.24 Daniel came to Arioch (ל־א ְריֹוְך ַ ) ַעל ַע
responsible for c opying biblical texts were capable of faithful transmission of even the
smallest details. More generally, it demonstrates that despite the pluriformity, instability,
and fluidity associated with transmission of the biblical text, along with the potential for
linguistic modification that these entail, this state of affairs should not simply be assumed
to be relevant to the specific cases of elements considered characteristic of LBH.
149 JM §133b.
150 Segal 1927: 142, 171; Bendavid 1967–1971: II 453, n. *; Qimron 1980a: 252.
151 On - לin LBH and/or the DSS: Kutscher 1974: 408; Bendavid 1967–1971: II 453, n. *; Fassberg
2000: 104. On ַעלin LBH and/or the DSS: BDB 757a; Kropat 1909: 41–42; Bendavid 1967–1971:
I 30–31, 71, II 453, n. *; Hurvitz 1972: 22, n. 25; Greenfield 1977: 371, n. 6; Qimron 1980a:
252; Bergey 1983: 46–49; Talshir 1986b;169; Rooker 1990: 127–131; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120;
Hadas-Lebel 1995: 190, n. 116; Fassberg 2000: 103–104. On - לin RH: Segal 1927: 173; Fassberg
2000: 103–104. On ֵא ֶצלin RH: Segal 1927: 142, 171; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 71, II 453, n. *;
Talshir 1986b: 169; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120.
152 Greenfield 1977: 371, n. 6; JM §133b, n. 2.
153 BDB 757a; Kropat 1909: 41–42; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 183; Kutscher 1974: 410; Bendavid
1967–1971: I 30–31, 61, 71, II 453, n. *; Qimron 1980a: 252; Talshir 1986b: 169; Hadas-Lebel
1995: 190, n. 116; Fassberg 2000: 103–104; JM §133b.
154 Hadas-Lebel 1995: 190, n. 116; JM §133b.
230 chapter 7
Isa 54.14 for it will not come near you (א־ת ְק ַרב ֵא ָליִ ְך
ִ ֹ )ל
Tg Jonathan for it will not come near you ( )לא ייעול עלך
(5) Generally speaking, in the Bible the interchange ֶאל > ַעלis more common
than the opposite interchange.155
(6) An explanation of interchange on the basis of dialectal variation has also
been tentatively proposed.156
A few additional comments are in order. First, potential support for the con-
tention that the interchange in question in the Bible represents the language
or orthography of the original writers, and not necessarily those of the post-
biblical copyists, may be adduced from apparent examples of the interchange
in pre-exilic inscriptions, though these are far from certain:
Arad 3.2–5 and Hananiah will order you to Beer Sheba ( על באר. . . וצוכ
)שבעwith the load of a pair of donkeys157
Lachish 4.10–11 for the smoke signals of Lachish we are watching (אל משאת
)לכיש נחנו שמרמ158
A further argument against the view that most of the examples of interchange
reflect post-biblical scribal changes relates to their distribution within the
Bible. If late copyists were responsible for the lion’s share of the cases of inter-
change, these should be expected to crop up more or less evenly throughout
the entire biblical text. The fact that they accumulate in a few books, espe-
cially in exilic and post-exilic texts, would seem to point to a linguistic—rather
than merely scribal—origin, though the possibility of scribal corruption cer-
tainly should be entertained in individual cases. Also, while historical linguis-
tic development may account for some of the picture, the situation is likely
more complicated.159 For example, the concentrations of cases of interchange
in Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and LBH proper can probably be ascribed to dia-
chronic language change, while the fact that the core LBH books show rela-
tively fewer examples is attributable to their general decreased use of ֶאל. The
situation in the book of Samuel, on the other hand, is unlikely to have resulted
from the same process and deserves closer scrutiny, especially in light of the
relevant material from the DSS.
7.5.2 Jeremiah
On the basis of these principles the relevant cases in the book of Jeremiah may
be discussed. It goes without saying, first off, that the detection of a given case
of interchange is often no simple matter and depends on interpretation and
on distinguishing between shades of meaning. For example, in the verse ‘But
know that if you put me to death, you will be spilling innocent blood on your-
selves ( ) ָדם נָ ִקי ַא ֶּתם נ ְֹתנִ ים ֲע ֵל ֶיכםand on this city (ל־ה ִעיר
ָ )וְ ֶאand on its inhabitants
()וְ ֶאל־י ְֹׁש ֶב ָיה, because Yhwh has truly sent me to/against you ( ) ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י ה' ֲע ֵל ֶיכםto
speak these words in your ears’ (Jer 26.15) it is rather clear given the expression
‘innocent blood you will be spilling on yourselves’ that ַעלwas replaced with
ֶאלin the continuation of the sentence, ‘and on this city and on its inhabitants’.
However, it is more difficult to discern the exact nuance of the preposition
in the expression ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י ה' ֲע ֵל ֶיכםin the same verse—is the meaning ‘loaded’,
i.e., ‘to send against (in order to accuse)’, or more neutral, i.e., ‘to send to (as
an emissary)’? The choice is influenced by both the immediate and the wider
159 See Cooke 1936: 26–27 on the situation in Ezekiel. It is not impossible that the relevant
differences between blocks of biblical material in the MT derive from differing degrees of
precision among the post-biblical copyists who transmitted the texts. This may explain
the relative rarity of the interchange in question in the Torah, on the one hand, versus
its frequency in Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, on the other. But this explanation
would not account for the relative infrequency of the interchange in the book of Isaiah,
which presumably belongs to the same block as the latter two books.
232 chapter 7
context, but in the end remains subjective.160 In the following lists the second,
i.e., neutral, alternative is adopted in this case,161 but another reader of the text
may favor the first, i.e., ‘loaded’, connotation.
What is more, in the case of certain fixed phrases that occur with both
prepositions, it is often difficult to determine which, if any, is the basic, under-
lying formulation. The semantic and functional overlap between the two
prepositions has already been mentioned. Consider, by way of example, the
expression ֶאל/ נָ ַפל ַעלin the sense ‘surrender, turn oneself over to the enemy’,
which takes ַעלseven times in the Bible and ֶאלfive times, sometimes in
the same context or in parallel passages (the expression is not included in the
lists below).162 The lists presented below were constructed based on the
assumption that ַעלis ‘more felicitous’ than ֶאלin cases in which the sense
is ‘against (in enmity)’, ‘in addition to’, ‘regarding’, ‘according to’, and ‘beside,
at, near’—this despite sporadic cases of ֶאלin these meanings in biblical
sources widely considered classical163—while ֶאלis considered more suit-
able than ַעלfor the general sense of direction.164 With some hesitation and in
spite of several doubtful cases, the situation in the book of Jeremiah emerges
clearly. There are 501 cases of ַעלin the book and in 38 of them ; ֶאל < ַעל
conversely, there are 525 instance of ֶאל, and in 99 of them ַעל < ֶאל.165 Put
differently, there are 600 cases calling for the use of ַעלand in 99 of them
(16.5 percent) ֶאלappears; against this, there are 560 cases calling for ֶאלand
in 38 of them (6.8 percent) ַעלwas written. In all, the ֶאל/ ַעלinterchange takes
place in 137 out of 1160 potential cases (11.8 percent). However, these data are
too raw to be of much value; in order to obtain a more useful picture of the
trends in the book, it is necessary to examine the distribution of the cases of
interchange within the book.
ַעל > ֶאל: this interchange has no remarkable distribution. While it is more
common in the first half of the book (chs. 1–25) than in the second (chs. 26–52)
160 In the immediate context the words ‘to speak in your ears (יכם ֶ ֵ ’) ְל ַד ֵּבר ְּב ָאזְ נand the pre-
ceding declarations may hint at the neutral meaning. From a broader perspective, ‘And
I, behold, I have sent you today as a fortified city and as an iron column and as walls of
bronze against all the land, for the kings of Judah, for her officers, for her priests, and for
the people of the land’ (Jer 1.18) supports the ‘loaded’ meaning; see also Jer 15.20.
161 Sh. Gordon 1936: 184; Bula 1983: 336.
162 נָ ַפל ַעל: 2 Kgs 25.11; Jer 21.9; 37.14; 39.9; 1 Chr 12.20, 21; 2 Chr 15.9. נָ ַפל ֶאל: 2 Kgs 7.4; Jer 37.13;
38.19; 52.15; 1 Chr 12.20. The two forms of the expression are used in the same context in Jer
37.13–14; 1 Chr 12.20–21. They are used in parallel texts in 2 Kgs 25.11 || Jer 39.9 || Jer 52.15.
163 BDB 41, §§4–8.
164 BDB 757, §c.
165 In two more cases ַאל < ֶאל: Jer 51.3 (2x). Cf. Exod 10.8; Deut 2.9; Josh 22.19.
syntax 233
by a ratio of 23:15, this fact has no obvious significance. The interchange is given
to several possible explanations: scribal corruption; late or Aramaic spell-
ing at the hands of post-biblical copyists; the beginning of the process of the
ַעל > ֶאלinterchange known from Second Temple Hebrew and attributable
to the biblical writers themselves; or, of course, some combination of these
options. There is no way of determining which of these is correct whether gen-
erally or in specific cases. Yet, given the rarity of the interchange in most early
material and the well-known influence of Aramaic in late pre-exilic, exilic,
and post-exilic times, there seems no reason to exclude the possibility that the
interchange was already at work in the language of the book’s writer(s).
‘ ָא ַמר ַעל > ָא ַמר ֶאלsay to’166 18.11 ( ַעל. . . ;) ֶאל23.35 ( ֶאל. . . ;) ַעל36.29; 44.20 (3x;
ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ‘ ּבֹוא ַעל > ּבֹוא ֶאל ;) ֶאלcome to’167 3.18;168 14.3; 47.5; 48.8; 51.51;169
‘ ִּד ֶּבר ַעל > ִּד ֶּבר ֶאלspeak to’170 6.10; 10.1 (?);171 11.2 ( ַעל. . . ;) ֶאל25.2 ( ֶאל. . . ;) ַעל172
26.2 ( ֶאל. . . ;) ַעל32.42; 42.19; ִה ְׁש ִליְך ֶאל/ ִה ְׁש ִליְך ַעל > ֵה ִטיל/‘ ֵה ִטילcast to’173 16.13;
166 The expression ָא ַמר ַעלis given to different connotations, among them ‘say concerning’,
e.g., Jer 11.21; 34.4 (?); 36.29 (?); ‘say against’, e.g., Jer 22.6 (?); and ‘say to’. In many cases, e.g.,
Jer 36.29, it is difficult to determine the exact nuance.
167 In CBH the expression ּבֹוא ַעלserves to denote a negative act against an object, e.g., attack
(Jer 6.26; 37.19; 49.14; 51.56 [2x]; 52.4) or the arrival of a calamity (Jer 5.12; 23.17; 46.21). This
same expression in the phrase ל־ׁש ָפיִ ם ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר ָּבאּו ׁש ְֹד ִדים ְ ל־ּכ ָ ( ַעJer 12.12) can be inter-
preted as referring to a simple arrival, to an attack, or—and this seems preferable—to
movement to high ground.
168 Cf. Deut 4.21; 17.14; 18.9; 26.1, 3; 27.3; 31.7.
169 'ל־מ ְק ְּד ֵׁשי ֵּבית ה
ִ י־ׁש ַמ ְענּו ֶח ְר ָּפה ִּכ ְּס ָתה ְכ ִל ָּמה ָּפנֵ ינּו ִּכי ָּבאּו זָ ִרים ַע
ָ ּב ְֹׁשנּו ִּכ. Among transla-
tors and commentators, both ancient and modern, there are those who see in this verse
a reference to an attack. However, in the context it seems that the reproach in question
stems not from the attack on the city, but from the profaning of the holy place due to the
encroachment of foreigners, an interpretation arguably more aptly conveyed by ּבֹוא ֶאל
than by ּבֹוא ַעל.
170 Similar to the expression ָא ַמר ַעלdiscussed above (n. 166), so in the case of ִּד ֶּבר ַעל, it
is sometimes difficult to decide between the possible meanings ‘speak about’, ‘speak
against’, and ‘speak to’.
171 In light of the content of the following verses, the meaning here is ‘speak to’ and not
‘speak about’.
172 See Jer 25.3 for the interpretation ‘speak to’ here.
173 The expression ִה ְׁש ִליְך ַעל/ ֵה ִטילin its classical uses denotes (a) the casting of objects on/at
a person, especially in attack: spear (Num 35.20, 22; 1 Sam 20.33), stone (Josh 10.11; Jdg 9.53;
2 Sam 11.21); the scattering of a powdered substance (2 Kgs 23.6; Ezek 43.24); detestable
things (Neh 3.6); treading with the feet (Ps 60.10; 105.10); a metaphorical attack (Job 27.22);
(b) causing a person to fall (Ezek 28.17); (c) covering a person (2 Sam 20.12); (d) placing
responsibility on a person (Ps 22.11; 55.23). In Jeremiah the expression denotes exile to
another land, e.g., ‘And I will cast you from upon ( )וְ ֵה ַט ְל ִתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵמ ַעלthis land upon () ַעל
234 chapter 7
22.26, 28; ‘ ָהיָ ה ַעל > ָהיָ ה ֶאלreceive (word of God)’174 25.1; ‘ ָה ַלְך ַעל > ָה ַלְך ֶאלgo
to’175 1.7; 3.18; ‘ ִה ְק ִׁשיב ַעל > ִה ְק ִׁשיב ֶאלlisten to’176 6.19; ‘ ֵה ִׁשיב ַעל > ֵה ִׁשיב ֶאלreturn
(trans.) to’177 16.15; 23.3; 24.6; ‘ ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע ַעל > ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע ֶאלmake known to’178 4.16 (?);
‘ יָ ַרד ַעל > יָ ַרד ֶאלgo down to’ 36.12; ‘ נָ ַתן ַעל > נָ ַתן ֶאלgive to’ 20.2;179 ׁשּוב > ׁשּוב ֶאל
‘ ַעלreturn (intrans.) to’ 11.10;180 22.27;181 ‘ ָׁש ַלח ַעל > ָׁש ַלח ֶאלsend to’182 26.15; 29.31;
‘ ָׁש ַמע ַעל > ָׁש ַמע ֶאלlisten to, obey’183 23.16; 26.5; 35.18.
ֶאל > ַעל: at first glance, the number of cases of this interchange in Jeremiah
may seem surprising. It should be noted, however, that 59 of the 99 instances
come in five chapters—26 (ten out of 26), 48 (nine out of 14); 49 (six out of 11);
50 (25 out of 30); 51 (9 out of 14). In the other 47 chapters of the book there are
only 40 instances of the interchange, a number explainable in various ways:
confusion of the writer, corruption in transmission, hypercorrection according
to which late writers unsuccessfully (and inconsistently) attempted to simu-
late classical style. This last explanation may apply both to original writers and
to later copyists, since Aramaic influence was operative in both the late biblical
and post-biblical period. And, again, a combination of factors is also possible.
In contrast to the interchange ַעל > ֶאלdiscussed above, the interchange
ֶאל > ַעלhas an uneven distribution pattern. First, most of the cases come in
the second half of the book (in chs. 1–25 there are a mere 11 examples). Second,
whereas in most of the chapters the interchange comes in a tiny minority of
the potential cases, in the five chapters mentioned above it is much more com-
mon. For example, in chs. 46–51 (the block of ‘Oracles to the Foreign Nations’)
a land that neither you nor you fathers have known’ (Jer 16.13). Especially illustrative is the
comparison to ‘And Yhwh uprooted them from upon ( )וַ יִ ְת ֵשם ה' ֵמ ַעלtheir land… and cast
them to ( ) ֶאלa different land . . .’ (Deut 29.27).
174 Cf. Jer 7.1; 11.1; 18.1; 21.1; 30.1; 32.1; 34.1, 8; 35.1; 40.1; 44.1.
175 In its classical senses ָה ַלְך ַעלdenotes (a) ‘walking upon (a way, hill, the feet)’ or (b) ‘the
going out (of the army) against’, e.g., 1 Kgs 22.6.
176 Cf. Jer 18.18, 19.
177 Cf. Gen 48.21; 1 Kgs 8.34; Jer 27.22; 28.3, 4, 6; 29.10, 14; 30.3; 32.37; 34.22; 42.12.
178 Cf. Isa 62.11 with ; ֶאלAmos 3.9 with ַעל.
179 Cf. Jer 29.26 (2x); 37.18.
180 The expression ׁשּוב ַעל ָעֹוןis unique in the Bible and apparently denotes ‘return to sin’,
but cf. the expression from Modern Israeli Hebrew חזר עלin the sense of ‘repeat, do
again’.
181 Cf. Jer 46.16.
182 ָׁש ַלח ֶאלis common in Jeremiah, e.g., 29.1, 28. ָׁש ַלח ַעל, in its classical sense ‘send against’,
comes in Jer 26.15.
183 Cf. Jer 7.26, 27; 11.11; 14.12; 16.12; 17.24, 27; 25.7; 26.4; 27.9 (5x), 14, 16, 17; 29.8, 12, 19; 34.14, 17;
35.13, 14, 15, 16; 36.25; 37.2, 14; 38.15; 44.16.
syntax 235
184 The expression ‘ ּבֹוא ָר ָעה ַעלevil come against/upon’ comes nine times in the Bible (1 Sam
20.9; 2 Sam 19.8; Isa 47.11; Jer 5.12; 23.17; Mic 3.11; Job 2.11; Dan 9.13; 2 Chr 20.9), as opposed
to two occurrences of the same expression with ( ֶאלJer 2.3; 51.60).
185 Cf. Jer 7.8; 28.15; 29.31.
186 Both expressions, ‘ ִּד ֶּבר טֹוב ֶאלspeak good to’ and ‘ ִּד ֶּבר טֹוב ַעלspeak good about’, exist in
the Bible (see both in Josh 23.14–15), but the second seems more appropriate both in the
general context (Jeremiah prophesied many years after the exile of the northern king-
dom; therefore, God did not speak through him ‘to’ the House of Israel) and in the imme-
diate context (the prophet is probably referring to his prophecy in the previous verses,
e.g., 33.7, in which he foretells the joint captivity of Judah and Israel).
187 According to an alternative interpretation ֶאלhere begins the complement of the verb
‘ ָע ָׂשהmake, do’.
188 Cf. Jer 17.18; 19.3; 23.12; 42.17; 44.2 (2x); 45.5; 49.37; 51.64.
189 The expression ‘ ֵה ִביא ָר ָעה ַעלbring evil against’ comes 28 times in the Bible (1 Kgs 9.9;
21.29; 2 Kgs 21.12; 22.16, 20; Jer 17.8 [ ;]יֹום ָר ָעה19.3, 15; 23.12; 36.31 [2x]; 42.17; 44.2 [2x]; 45.5;
49.37; 51.64; Ezek 14.22; Job 42.11; Dan 9.12, 14; Neh 13.18 [2x]; 2 Chr 7.22; 34.24 [2x], 28 [2x]),
as opposed to 13 occurrences of the same expression with ( ֶאל2 Sam 17.14; 1 Kgs 14.10; 21.21;
S
2 Kgs 22.16; Jer 6.19; 11.11, 23; 19.15; 32.42; 35.17 [2x]; 36.31; 39.16).
190 The status of the prepositional phrase ‘ ֶאל ָה ִעיר ַהּזֹאתto this city’ in this verse is ambigu-
ous. It may be a complement of the verb ‘ ֵה ִביאbring’ (this is the interpretation adopted
here), or, alternatively, it might describe the noun ‘ ְּד ָב ַריmy words’. The division of the
verse according to the Masoretic accents corresponds to the first option.
191 Cf. Jer 23.12; 46.21.
192 Cf. Jer 23.30, 31, 32; Ezek 5.8; 26.3; 28.22; 29.3. ִהנְ נִ י ֶאלoccurs also in Ezek 13.8, 20; 21.8;
29.10; 30.22; 34.10; 35.3; 38.3; 39.1; Nah 2.14; 3.5. It is true that cases of the expression with
ֶאלoutnumber those with ַעל, but since ִהנְ נִ י ֶאלdoes not seem to express opposition, it is
236 chapter 7
50.21; 51.25; ‘ ֵה ִעיר ֶאל > ֵה ִעיר ַעלarouse against’ 51.1 ( ֶאל. . . ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע > ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע ַעל ;) ַעל
‘ ֶאלmake be heard against’193 49.2; 50.29; ‘ זִ יד ֶאל > זִ יד ַעלact proud against’ 50.29
(2x);194 ‘ זָ ַעק ֶאל > זָ ַעק ַעלcry against’ 48.31; ‘ ָח ַמל ֶאל > ָח ַמל ַעלtake pity upon’195
50.14; 51.3; ‘ ֶח ֶרב ֶאל > ֶח ֶרב ַעלa sword against’196 50.35 (3x; ֶאל. . . ֶאל. . . ֶאל. . . ) ַעל,
36 (2x), 37 (4x); ‘ ָח ַׁשב ֶאל > ָח ַׁשב ַעלthink about’197 49.20; 50.45; יָ ָדה > יָ ָדה ַעל
‘ ֶאלdraw, shoot (bow) against’ 50.14 (?); ‘ יָ ַעץ ֶאל > יָ ַעץ ַעלtake counsel against’198
49.20; 50.45; ‘ יָ ַׁשב ֶאל > יָ ַׁשב ַעלsit upon’199 29.16; 35.15; ‘ ָּכ ַתב ֶאל > ָּכ ַתב ַעלwrite
upon’ 30.2; 36.2; 51.60; ‘ ָמ ַׁשל ֶאל > ָמ ַׁשל ַעלrule over’ 33.26; ‘ נִ ָּבא ֶאל > נִ ָּבא ַעלproph-
esy against’ 26.11, 12 (2x); 28.8 ( ַעל. . . ‘ נָ ַהר ֶאל > נָ ַהר ַעל ;) ֶאלshout for joy about’
31.12 ( ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ‘ נִ ַחם ֶאל > נִ ַחם ַעל ;) ֶאלrepent, regret concerning’200
26.3, 13, 19; 42.10; ‘ נִ ְל ַחם ֶאל > נִ ְל ַחם ַעלfight against’ 1.19; 15.20; 34.7 (2x; ַעל. . . ַעל
. . . ֶאל. . . ;) ֶאל201 ‘ נִ ְק ַהל ֶאל > נִ ְק ַהל ַעלbe gathered against’ 26.9;202 נָ ָׂשא ֶאל > נָ ָׂשא ַעל
‘raise upon’ 51.12; ‘ נִ ַּתְך ֶאל > נִ ַּתְך ַעלpour upon’ 7.20 ( ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ַעל. . . ;) ֶאל203
‘ נָ ַתן ֶאל > נָ ַתן ַעלset (spill blood) upon’ 26.15 (2x; ֶאל. . . ֶאל. . . ָע ָלה ֶאל > ָע ָלה ַעל ;) ַעל
‘go up upon’204 35.11; 49.28; 50.21 ( ֶאל. . . ַעל. . . ‘ ָע ַמד ֶאל > ָע ַמד ַעל ;) ַעלstand upon’
48.19; ‘ ָענָ ה ֶאל > ָענָ ה ַעלanswer against’ 25.30;205 ‘ ָּפ ַקד ֶאל > ָּפ ַקד ַעלpunish’ 46.25;
reasonable to assume that the negative connotation associated with ִהנְ נִ י ֶאלderives from
; ִהנְ נִ י ַעלsee Brownlee 1986: 189.
193 Cf. Jer 51.27.
194 Cf. Exod 18.11; 21.14.
195 ַעל: Exod 2.6; 1 Sam 15.3, 9, 15; 22.21; 2 Sam 21.7; Jer 15.5; Ezek 16.5; 36.21; Joel 2.18; Zech 11.5,
6; Mal 3.17 (2x); Job 20.13; 2 Chr 36.15, 17; ֶאלIsa 9.18; Jer 50.14; 51.3.
196 The noun ‘ ֶח ֶרבsword’ is accompanied by the preposition ֶאלsome 14 times in the Bible
(Isa 2.4; Jer 50.35 [3x], 36 [2x], 37 [4x]; Ezek 14.21; 21.9; Mic 4.3); it is accompanied by the
preposition ַעלsome 22 times (Exod 20.25; Lev 26.25; Isa 34.5 [2x]; Jer 25.29; 50.35; Ezek
5.17; 6.3; 11.8; 14.17; 28.7, 23; 29.8; 30.11; 33.2, 3; 38.21; Zech 11.17 [2x]; 13.7 [2x]; 2 Chr 20.9).
197 Cf. Jer 49.30.
198 Cf. Jer 49.30.
199 Cf. Jer 13.13; 17.25; 22.2, 4, 30; 23.8; 25.5; 30.18; 33.17; 36.30.
200 Cf. Jer 18.8.
201 Cf., e.g., Deut 20.10, 19; Isa 7.1; 37.8; Jer 21.2; 32.24, 29; 34.1, 7, 22; 37.8.
202 The expression ‘ נִ ְק ַהל ֶאלbe gathered to’ is possible here; see, e.g., 2 Kgs 8.2; 2 Chr 5.3.
However, in light of the people’s reaction described in the preceding verse, the expression
is to be read in the sense of נִ ְק ַהל ַעלas in Exod 32.1; Num 16.3 (2x), 19 (hifʿil); 17.7 (2x);
20.2 (2x).
203 Cf. Jer 42.18.
204 The collocation ‘ ָע ָלה ֶאלgo up to’ is frequent in the Bible, but not in the sense ‘to go up
against’, as in the present verse. Cf. Jer 50.3.
205 Cf. Jer 51.14.
syntax 237
50.18 (3x); miscellaneous: 36.23 ( ַעל. . . ;) ֶאל41.12; 46.10; 47.1; 48.1, 11, 40;206 49.34;
50.31,207 38;208 51.25, 35 ( ֶאל. . . ) ַעל.
edition, in which 37 of 495 (7.5 percent) potential cases of ֶאלare written ַעל
and 91 of 545 (16.7 percent) potential cases of ַעלare written ֶאל. Jeremiah thus
contains 1025 cases of the two prepositions combined, and they interchange
133 times.212 Yet the rate of interchange is more than twice as common in
the short edition of the book, where it occurs in 125 of 904 potential cases
(13.6 percent), than it is in the supplementary material, where it obtains in only
eight of 121 potential cases (6.6 percent). In other words, like classical texts, the
supplementary material uses the two prepositions frequently and correctly,
whereas it is the short edition that reveals the characteristically later propen-
sity for interchange.213
As is well known, the Jeremianic material from Qumran is very fragmentary,
so that most of the instances of interchange listed above have not been pre-
served. Be that as it may, the text corresponding to Jer 22.26–27 has been pre-
served in 4QJerc (4Q72 f19–21.15–16). In both cases the scroll supports the MT’s
ַעל. In Jer 31.12, conversely, the same scroll has ‘ ונהרו על טובand they will rejoice
about good’ against the MT’s וְ נָ ֲהרּו ֶאל־טּוב. The scroll’s reading may result from
a correction for purposes of maintaining consistency in the series . . . ועל. . . על
ועל. . . ועלin this verse, but there is no certainty to be had in this.
7.6.1 The mt
Among the distinctive linguistic features of LBH is the expanded use of the
preposition - לfor marking the direct object (i.e., the accusative case).214 This
development is widely considered a result of late Aramaic influence.215 It
should be noted, however, that the phenomenon in question is not restricted
212 For the references, as well as the grounds on which they were identified, see Hornkohl
2012: 239–243.
213 It should be noted that this difference in concentration between the short edition and
the supplementary material militates against ascribing the phenomenon to post-biblical
copyists. Were these latter responsible, the instances of interchange would presumably
be more or less evenly distributed throughout the entire book and not especially concen-
trated in one of the two layers.
214 König 1897: §§289a–m; BDB 511b–512a; Brockelmann 1908–1913: II 317–318; Kropat 1909:
35; GKC §117n; Lambert 1938: §1203; Hurvitz 1972: 95, n. 70; Polzin 1976: 64–66; Rendsburg
1980b: 72; Kutscher 1982: §122; Rooker 1990: 97–99; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; HALOT
509b–510a; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 109; JM §125k.
215 Ewald 1855: §§277e, 292e; BDB 512a; Brockelmann 1908–1913: II 317–318; Kropat 1909: 35;
Bauer and Leander 1922: §2r; Bendavid 1967–1971: 71, 453, n. ; Polzin 1976: 65; Kutscher
1982: §122; Rooker 1990: 99; Schoors 1992–2004: I 187; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 109; JM §125k, n. 35.
syntax 239
216 Thus collocations like -‘ ָא ַהב ְלlove’ (Lev 19.18, 34); -‘ ָעזַ ר ְלhelp’ (2 Sam 8.5); and -ָה ַרג ְל
‘kill’ (2 Sam 3.30) should not be taken as evidence of the lateness of the texts in which they
occur. For balanced approaches see Lambert 1938: §1203, n. 3; Polzin 1976: 66; JM §125k, n. 35.
217 With -ל: Gen 27.26, 27; 29.11, 13; 31.28 (2x); 32.1 (2x); 45.15; 48.10; 50.1; Exod 4.27; 18.7; 2 Sam
14.33; 15.5; 19.40; 20.9; 1 Kgs 19.18, 20 (2x); Job 31.27; Prov 7.13. With ֵאת: 1 Sam 20.41. With ַעל:
Gen 41.40. With ֶאל: Ezek 3.13 (hifʿil). With an object suffix: Gen 33.1; 1 Sam 10.1; Song 1.2;
8.1. With no intervening particle: Hos 13.2; Ps 2.12; 85.11; Prov 24.26. Note that the use of a
verb with an object suffix is not unequivocal evidence of rection without a preposition;
in BH there are numerous examples of verbs that normally take certain prepositions, but
that also appear with object suffixes, e.g., -‘ נָ גַ ע ְּבtouch, harm’ as opposed to ‘ נְ גַ ֲענּוָךwe
have not harmed you’ (Gen 26.29) and ‘ ְל ִב ְל ִּתי־נָ גְ ֵעְךnot to harm you’ (Ruth 2.9); see JM
§§125b–ba.
218 See, e.g., ‘And he called all his brothers (ל־א ָחיו ֶ ת־ּכ
ָ )וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ֶא, the sons of the king, and to all
the men of Judah (הּודה ָ ְל־אנְ ֵׁשי י
ַ ּול ָכ
ְ ), servants of the king’ (2 Kgs 1.9).
219 The collocation -‘ ִה ֵּלל לpraise’ is found only in late texts—in the Bible: Ezra 3.11 || 2
Chr 5.13 (?; infinitive); 1 Chr 16.4, 36; 20.19, 21 (?); 23.5, 30; 25.3; 29.13; 30.21; in the DSS:
4Q401 f1–2.2; 4Q403 f1ii.33; 4Q405 f8–9.2; 11Q17 8.6; RH: Final ʿAmida Prayer, Blessing 18; Y
Berakhot 2.3.
The appearance of the preposition - לwith participial and infinitival forms of verbs
that normally take a direct object is not clear-cut evidence of the accusative use of -ל,
since these forms are quasi-nominal and the - לis usually given to various alternative
grammatical interpretations. For example, in ‘ וְ ֵאין ְמ ַק ֵּבר ָל ֵה ָּמהand they had no one to
bury them’ (Jer 14.16) the - לevidently belongs to the collocation -‘ ֵאין לnot have’, whereas
in ל־ה ַּמ ֲחנֹת
ַ ‘ ְמ ַא ֵּסף ְל ָכrearguard for all the camps’ (Num 10.25) it is reasonable to interpret
it as an example of the dativus commodi; likewise, in דֹולה ְב ַה ֵּלל ָ ְרּועה ג
ָ ל־ה ָעם ֵה ִריעּו ְת
ָ וְ ָכ
'‘ ַלהand all the people raised a great shout in praise for Yhwh’ (Ezra 3.11 || 2 Chr 5.13) the
infinitive can be taken as a noun and the -ל, again, as marking the dativus commodi (in
which case the preposition belongs not to ‘ ַה ֵּללpraise’, but to ‘ ֵה ִריעּוraise [a shout]’). On
the special status of causative hifʿil forms with accusative - לsee BDB 511b.
240 chapter 7
1 Kgs 12.6 to return this people word (ם־הּזֶ ה ָּד ָברַ ת־ה ָעָ ) ְל ָה ִׁשיב ֶא
2 Chr 10.6 to return to this people word (ם־הּזֶ ה ָּד ָבר
ַ יב ל ָע
ָ ) ְל ָה ִׁש
1 Kgs 22.13 the angel who went to call Micaiah ( ) ִל ְקרֹא ִמ ָיכיְ הּוspoke . . .
2 Chr 18.12 the angel who went to call Micaiah ( ) ִל ְקרֹא ְל ִמ ָיכיְ הּוspoke . . .
Exod 21.15 he who strikes his father or mother ( )ּומ ֵּכה ָא ִביו וְ ִאּמֹו. . .
ַ
Tg Onkelos he who strikes his father or mother ( )ודימחי לאבוהי ולאמיה. . .
Tg Neofiti he who strikes his father or mother ( )ומן דימחי לאבוי ולאמה. . .
Peshiṭta he who strikes his father or mother ( )ܕܢܡܚܐ ܠܐܒܘܗܝ ܘܠܐܡܗ. . .
Num 20.11 Moses raised his hand and struck the rock (ת־ה ֶּס ַלע
ַ )וַ ּיַ ְך ֶא
Peshiṭta Moses raised his hand and struck the rock ()ܘܡܚܗ ܠܟܝܦܐ
[Dan 2.35 the stone that struck the statue (]) ְמ ָחת ְל ַצ ְל ָמא
Ps 21.9 your right hand will find those who hate you () ִּת ְמ ָצא ׂש ֹנְ ֶאיָך
Tg Psalms your right hand will find all those who hate you ()תשכח לכל סנאך
Peshiṭta your right hand will find those who hate you ()ܬܫܟܚ ܠܣܢܐܝܟ
7.6.3 Jeremiah
The preposition - לsometimes marks the accusative in Jeremiah. Here follow-
ing is a list of the cases that may reflect late diction along with a brief discus-
sion of each:
220 For examples from DSS Hebrew see above, n. 219; cf. Rooker 1990: 98, n. 121. On RH see
Bendavid 1967–1971 453, n. ; Polzin 1976: 65–66; Rooker 1990: 98; cf. Segal 1927: §351.
221 Ewald 1855: §292e; König 1897: §289m; BDB 512a; Brockelmann 1908–1913: II 317–318; GKC
§117n; Segal 1936: §382; Rooker 1990: 99; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; HALOT 509b–510a. The
syntagm comes 20 times in the limited corpus of BA: Dan 2.10, 12, 14, 19, 25, 34; 3.2, 19, 27;
4.22 (3x?), 33; 5.2, 23 (3x); 7.2; Ezra 5.2; 6.7; 7.25 (principally with participial and infinitival
forms).
syntax 241
222 Deut 12.5, 30; 2 Sam 11.3; Ezek 14.7; Ps 142.5; Job 10.6; Ezra 4.2; 6.21; 1 Chr 22.19; 2 Chr 15.13;
17.3, 4; 20.3; 31.21; 34.3. On the late character of the collocation see BDB 512a; GKC §117n;
Rooker 1990: 97, n. 113; JM §125k; cf. Lambert 1938: §1203, n. 3.
223 4Q385a f16a–b.7, f18ii.3; 4Q511 f2ii.2; f10.9.
224 Deut 23.7; Jer 29.7; Ezra 9.12.
225 Jer 10.21; 21.2; 29.7; 30.14.
226 BDB 512a.
227 Josh 10.6; Jdg 7.2; 10.14, 19; 1 Sam 10.19; 25.26, 31, 33; 2 Sam 10.11; Isa 59.16; 63.5; Jer 11.12; Ezek
34.22; Ps 44.4; 72.4; 86.16; 98.1; 116.6; Job 40.14; Prov 20.22; 1 Chr 18.6. About half of these
cases involve a reflexive action, which always takes -ל.
228 Non-biblical DSS: CD 9.10; 1QS 6.26; 4Q288 f1.5; 4Q381 f15.2, f42.2; 4Q385a f18ii.10; CD 9.10.
229 Jer 31.7; 42.11.
242 chapter 7
may be, the imperative ‘ ָה ֵכן ְלָךprepare yourself’ may be a late alterna-
tive for the nifʿal command ‘ ִהּכֹוןprepare yourself!’, but in the absence of
additional evidence, such a suggestion remains speculative. The verb ֵה ִכין
‘prepare’ takes ֵאתin Jer 10.23.
(4) -‘ ִה ְכ ִרית לcut off’ in ‘ ְל ַמ ַען ַה ְכ ִרית ָל ֶכםin order to cut you off’ (Jer 44.8). The
case is somewhat questionable, because the verse is a continuation of
what precedes, which includes the phrase ‘ ְל ַה ְכ ִרית ָל ֶכם ִאיׁש־וְ ִא ָּׁשהto cut
off for you man and woman’. Perhaps - ַה ְכ ִרית לin v. 8 should be read as an
elliptical dativus incommodi.230 However, there are commentators who
read the phrase as an accusative like הּודה ָ ְת־ּכל־יָ ‘ ְל ַה ְכ ִרית ֶאto cut off all of
Judah’ in v. 11.231
(5) -‘ ִה ְרּגִ יז לupset’ in ת־ה ָא ֶרץ וְ ִה ְרּגִ יז ְלי ְֹׁש ֵבי ָב ֶבל
ָ ‘ ְל ַמ ַען ִה ְרּגִ ַיע ֶאin order to calm
the land and to upset the inhabitants of Babylon’ (Jer 50.34). The verb
takes a direct object in Isa 13.13; 23.11; and Job 9.6; the present case with -ל
is unique in the Bible.232 Additionally, according to the parallelism with
‘ ִה ְרּגִ ַיע ֶאתcalm’, the accusative meaning is expected. If so, the expansion
of - לinto the domain of ֵאתallowed the poet to exercise a degree of vari-
ety within the parallel structure.
(6) -‘ זָ ַכר לremember’233 in אתם לֹא ֶאזְ ָּכר־עֹוד ְ ‘ ִּכי ֶא ְס ַלח ַל ֲעֹונָ םfor I will
ָ ּול ַח ָּט
forgive their guilt and their sins I will remember no more’ (Jer 31.34).
Generally, ‘ זָ ַכרremember’ takes ֵאתin the Bible; but - זָ ַכר לis well attested
in both CBH and LBH.234 In Jeremiah most of the relevant cases take a
230 Bula 1983: 427, n. 17; Lundbom 1999–2004: III 152, 159; cf. Jer 47.11.
231 See the Greek (which renders with a passive); the Peshiṭta; Graf 1862: 496; Sh. Gordon
1936: 270; Bula 1983: 427, n. 17. Some read the - לas a reflexive preposition: Graf 1862: 496;
J. Thompson 1980: 672; Holladay 1986–1989: II 277. Others suggest a textual emendation,
e.g., Duhm 1901: 329; Ehrlich 1912: 350; BHS; see also the discussion in McKane 1986–1996:
II 1071. Another potential occurrence of accusative - ִה ְכ ִרית לmay be found in Mal 2.12, but
here, too, the text is difficult.
232 But cf. the apparently synonymous qal form in ל־א ֶּלה ֵ י־לי ְּב ָכ
ִ ִ‘ וַ ִּת ְרּגְ זand you upset me with
all these’ (Ezek 16.43). In other cases (e.g., 1 Sam 28.15) the verb ends in a pronominal suffix
(see above, n. 217) or wears the form of a participle (e.g., Job 12.6). The grammatical status
of the participle in ‘ ֲהזֶ ה ָה ִאיׁש ַמ ְרּגִ יז ָה ָא ֶרץis this the man, the upsetter of the land/the
one who upsets the land?’ (Isa 14.16) is ambiguous: verbal form with direct object or noun
in construct. On the late status of this expression see BDB 511b.
233 BDB 512a; JM §125k.
234 Exod 32.13 (3x); Deut 9.27 (4x); Ps 25.7; 136.23; Neh 5.19; 6.14 (4x); 13.14, 22, 29, 31; 2 Chr 6.42.
syntax 243
235 Jer 2.2 (with - לmarking dativus commodi); 14.10; 17.2; 18.20; 23.36; 44.21; 51.50. Thrice the
verb comes with an object suffix: Jer 15.15; 20.9; 31.21. In Jer 3.16 rection is with the preposi-
tion -ב.
236 On its late status see König 1897: §289l; BDB 512a; GKC §117n; cf. Giesebrecht 1907: 212. Cf.
2 Chr 23.1, in which - לis used to mark the accusative in the case of appositional elements,
a usage characteristic of the Chronicler (Kropat 1909: 49).
237 ֵאת: 1 Sam 12.7; Ezek 17.20; 20.35, 36 (2x); 38.22; Prov 29.9. ִעם: Joel 4.2; 2 Chr 22.8. DSS
Hebrew knows -נִ ְׁש ַּפט ב: 1QHa 17.34.
238 1 Sam 4.9; 2 Sam 16.19.
239 See the lexicons. For purposes of comparison there are 29 cases of )ֹלהים ִ ָע ַבד ֶאת־ה' ( ֱא
‘serve/worship Yhwh (God)’: Exod 10.7, 8, 11, 24, 26 (2x); 12.31; 23.25; Deut 6.13; 10.12, 20; 13.5;
28.47; Josh 24.14 (2x), 15 (2x), 18, 19, 21, 22; Jdg 10.16; 1 Sam 7.4; 12.14, 20, 24; 2 Sam 15.8; Jer
30.9; Ps 2.11; 100.2; 102.23; 2 Chr 30.8; 33.16; 34.33; 35.3; five of ֹלהים
ִ ‘ ָע ַבד ֶאת־( ָה) ֱאserve/wor-
244 chapter 7
in the verse under discussion and in Jdg 2.13 does - ָע ַבד לrefer to deity
worship. The case in Jeremiah is somewhat suspect, not only because the
book knows the classical formation (30.9), but because the Greek has no
parallel for the word ‘ ַל ֲעבֹדto serve/worship’ in this verse.240
7.7 Word Order in Apposition: X הַ ּ ַמלְ ּ ָכה/ הַ ּ ֶמלֶ ְךvs. הַ ּ ַמ ְל ּ ָכה/ הַ ּ ֶמלֶ ְךX241
7.7.1 The MT
“In Hebrew the word in apposition generally follows the noun: אהרן הכהן,
ישעיהו הנביא, et sim., but in connection with the word מלךboth orders are
ship God’: Exod 3.12; 23.33; Deut 7.16; 29.17; Jdg 3.6; nine of ַה ְּב ָע ִלים/ת־ה ַּב ַעל
ַ ‘ ָע ַבד ֶ אserve/
worship Baal/the Baals’: Jdg 2.11; 3.7; 10.6, 10; 1 Sam 12.10; 1 Kgs 16.31; 22.54; 2 Kgs 10.18;
17.16; and one case each of ת־הּגִ ֻּל ִלים
ַ ‘ ָע ַבד ֶאserve/worship the idols’ (2 Kgs 21.21), ָע ַבד
ָ ‘ ֶאserve/worship the Ashera poles’ (2 Chr 24.18), and יהם
ת־ה ֲא ֵׁש ִרים ֶ ת־ע ַצ ֵּב
ֲ ‘ ָע ַבד ֶאserve/
worship their idols’ (Ps 106.36).
240 Talmon 1960: 158; Barthélemy 1986: 752; McKane 1986–1996: II 1070; cf. Lundbom (1999–
2004: III 157–158), who claims that the word is found in 2QJer (2Q13 f5.5). However, the
context is broken and the scroll’s editor (Baillet 1962: 64) opines that the remaining mark
may be interpreted as either dalet (as in the MT’s ‘ לעבדto serve/worship’) or resh (as in
the Greek’s θυμιᾶν = ‘ לקטרto burn’).
241 I am grateful to Prof. Alexander Rofé for having directed my attention to this issue in the
language of Jeremiah.
syntax 245
242 Kutscher 1974: 429. See also BDB 573a; Kropat 1909: 48; GKC §131g; Hurvitz 1972: 45; Bergey
1983: 58–60; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; Kim 2012: 116–122. Cf. Rezetko 2003: 229–230; Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 103.
243 Because different studies give various figures, the relevant cases, including those with
the feminine form ‘ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכהthe queen’, all of which come in Esther, are listed here.
X ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך: 2 Sam 3.31; 5.3; 6.12, 16; 7.18; 8.8, 10, 11; 9.5; 13.21; 16.5, 6; 17.17, 21; 19.12, 17;
1 Kgs 1.1, 13, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 47, 51 (2x), 53 (2x); 2.19, 22, 23, 25, 29, 45; 4.1; 5.7
(2x), 27; 6.2; 7.13, 14, 40, 45, 51; 8.1, 2, 5; 9.11, 15, 26, 28; 10.10, 13 (2x), 16, 21, 23; 11.1, 27; 12.2, 6, 18
(2x); 14.25, 27; 15.1, 18, 20, 22 (2x); 2 Kgs 3.6; 11.2, 10; 12.7, 8; 16.10 (2x), 11 (2x), 15, 16, 17; 18.9, 13,
17; 19.1, 5; 20.14; 21.24; 22.3; 23.23, 29; 25.2, 8; Isa 6.1; 14.28; 36.1, 2; 37.1, 5; 39.3; Jer 21.1; 26.21, 22,
23; 34.8; 37.3, 17, 18, 21; 38.5, 14, 16, 19; 41.9; 52.5, 12, 20; Ezek 1.1; Ps 98.6; Song 3.9, 11; Est 1.2, 9,
10, 12, 15 (2x), 16, 17, 19; 2.1, 12, 16, 21; 3.1, 7, 8, 12; 6.2; 7.5; 8.1, 7, 10, 12; 9.2, 20; 10.1, 3; Ezra 1.7; 4.3;
7.11; 1 Chr 15.29; 17.16; 18.10, 11; 21.24; 27.24, 31; 29.24; 2 Chr 4.11, 16; 5.6; 7.5; 8.10, 18; 9.9, 12, 15,
20, 22; 10.6, 13, 18 (2x); 12.2, 10, 13; 13.1; 16.4; 19.2; 20.15; 22.11; 23.9; 28.16, 22; 29.19; 33.25; 35.16,
23; 36.10, 13. ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX: 1 Sam 18.6; 2 Sam 23.39; 1 Kgs 2.17; 2 Kgs 8.29; 9.15; Jer 3.6; 29.2;
Hag 1.1, 15; Zech 1.1; Est 1.9, 11, 16, 17; 2.22; 5.2, 3, 12; 7.1, 2, 3, 5, 6; 8.1, 7; 9.12, 29, 31; Dan 1.21; 8.1;
Ezra 7.7; 8.1; Neh 2.1; 5.4; 1 Chr 24.31; 26.26, 32; 28.3; 29.1, 9, 24, 29; 2 Chr 2.11; 7.6; 10.2; 15.16;
16.6; 24.22; 26.18, 21; 29.18, 20, 30; 31.13; 32.20. Kropat’s (1909: 48) claim that in Chronicles
ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךgenerally comes in apposition after the proper name is incorrect. Likewise, the sta-
tistics adduced by Kutscher (1974: 429) and the lists given by Bergey (1983: 58–60) are inac-
curate. Despite this, the general conclusions of Kropat, Kutscher, and Bergey are correct.
244 And of these five, two are somewhat suspect: ‘ ָׁשאּול ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךSaul the king’ (1 Sam 18.6) is
not reflected in the Greek and ‘ ָּדוִ ד ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךDavid the king’ (2 Sam 13.39) is paralleled by τὸ
πνεῦμα τοῦ βασιλέως ‘the spirit of the king’ in the Greek, the latter with the apparent sup-
port of ‘ רו]ח המלךthe spir]it of the king’ (4Q51 f102ii+103–106i+107–109a–b.40).
245 Rezetko (2003: 229) puts this figure at 23, but provides no list. The parallel cases are 2 Sam
6.16 || 1 Chr 15.29; 7.18 || 17.16; 8.10 || 18.11; 8.11 || 18.11; 1 Kgs 7.40 || 2 Chr 4.11; 7.45 || 4.16; 8.5 ||
5.6; 9.28 || 8.18; 10.10 || 9.9; 10.13 || 9.12; 10.16 || 9.15; 10.21 || 9.20; 10.23 || 9.22; 12.6 || 10.6; 12.18 ||
10.18; 14.25 || 12.2; 14.27 || 12.10; 15.1 || 13.1; 15.20 || 16.4; 2 Kgs 11.10 || 23.9; 21.24 || 33.25.
246 chapter 7
paralleled by the same order in Samuel–Kings the ratio of the classical to the
late order in the core LBH books is 49:45.246 See the table:
Table The biblical distribution of the appositive ַמ ְל ָּכא/ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךaccording to the MT
Hebrew Aramaic
X הַ ּ ַמ ְל ּ ָכה/הַ ּ ֶמלֶ ְך הַ ּ ַמ ְל ּ ָכה/ הַ ּ ֶמלֶ ְךX X ַמ ְל ּ ָכא ַמ ְל ּ ָכאX
Samuel 16 2
Kings 82 3
Isaiah 7 0
Jeremiah 17 2
Ezekiel 1 0
Haggai 0 2
Zechariah 0 1
Psalms 1 0
Song of Songs 2 0
Esther 27 18
Daniel 0 2 7 15
Ezra 3 2 0 15
Nehemiah 0 2
Chronicles 40 21
TOTAL 196 55 7 30
LBH 70 45 7 30
246 A further 27 cases come in Esther, in which the distribution of the classical and late pat-
terns merits a brief discussion. In Esther all 25 of the occurrences of apposition with the
masculine form ‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךthe king’, along with two instances with the feminine ‘ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכהthe
queen’, have the classical order. All 18 of the instances of the late pattern involve the femi-
nine form. It would seem that the writer managed successfully to imitate classical style in
the case of the masculine, which is, after all, much more common in the Bible, but suc-
cumbed to the influence of contemporary linguistic conventions in the case of the femi-
nine, for which, significantly, there was no biblical precedent. On the archaizing character
of Esther’s LBH see Polzin 1976: 74–75.
syntax 247
Especially illustrative are the (albeit) rare cases when the Chronicler presents
a word order that differs from that in Samuel–Kings:
1 Kgs 12.2 . . . Jeroboam . . . had fled from king Solomon ( ) ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְׁשֹלמֹה. . .
2 Chr 10.2 . . . Jeroboam . . . had fled from Solomon the king () ְׁשֹלמֹה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך. . .
1 Kgs 15.22 King Asa ( )וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָא ָסאproclaimed to all of Judah and carried . . .
2 Chr 16.6 Asa the king ( )וְ ָא ָסא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךtook all of Judah and carried . . .
Seen from a different angle, of the 55 instances of the order ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX in
the Hebrew Bible, 48 come in compositions that explicitly date themselves to
the post-exilic period, i.e., Haggai, Zechariah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Chronicles. Rezetko’s (2003: 229–230) objection to this reading of the data,
based on the sporadic early appearance of ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX and on the continued use
of X ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךin late material, is unpersuasive. While the order ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX may very
well have been available to pre-exilic writers, it was clearly not characteris-
tic of their style. Moreover, the persistence of a classical linguistic feature in
late sources, even in the face of the increased usage of a characteristically late
counterpart, is to be expected, especially in the case of authors endeavoring to
write in an old and venerable style, and in no way contradicts the special post-
exilic status of the characteristically late feature.
Even if both inscriptions are genuine,247 they do little to alter the picture out-
lined above on the basis of the biblical sources, since this latter material itself
shows that the order especially characteristic of late texts was also available,
though used relatively rarely, during the classical period.
247 There is substantial debate concerning the authenticity of the Moussaieff Ostraca; see
Berlejung and Schüle 1998; Eph’al and Naveh 1998; Rollston 1998; 2003; 2006; Young
2003b: 296.
248 chapter 7
Isa 14.28 In the year of the death of king Ahaz () ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָא ָחז
Tg Jonathan In the year of the death of king Ahaz ()מלכא אחז
1QIsaa 12.31 In the year of the death of king Ahaz ()המלכ אחז
4Q163f8 10.11 In the year of the dea]th of king Aha[z (אח[ז
֗ )המלך
The same order obtains in even later material in imitation of biblical style,
particularly in reference to pre-exilic biblical personages, e.g.,
Yet, even in works dependent on the Bible there is evidence of the late ten-
dency to employ the order ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX, e.g.,
Isa 37.1 And it was when king Hezekiah ( ) ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִחזְ ִקּיָ הּוhad heard
1QIsaa 30.4 And it was when king Hezekiah ( )חוזקיה המלךhad heard
Peshiṭta And it was when king Hezekiah ( )ܚܙܩܝܐ ܡܠܟܐhad heard248
248 The Peshiṭta presents the opposite of the order found in the MT 15 times: in 13 cases the
order in the Syriac is ܡܠܟܐX when it is X ַמ ְל ָּכא/ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךin the MT: 2 Sam 13.21; 2 Kgs 16.11b;
18.17; 19.1; 20.14; Isa 6.1; 14.28; 36.1, 2; 37.1, 5; 39.3; Jer 21.1. In only two cases is the order
X ܡܠܟܐin the Peshiṭta and X ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךin the MT: 2 Sam 13.39; 1 Kgs 2.17. The Syriac also has
the late order in cases where it inserts the word ܡܠܟܐnext to a proper name or other-
wise reads differently from the MT, e.g., Num 24.7; Ruth 4.22; 1 Sam 15.33; 16.19; 2 Sam 14.1;
2 Kgs 14.5; 16.12; Jer 21.3 (this list is not exhaustive). According to Nöldeke (1904: §212), in
general the placement of the appositive is flexible in Syriac.
syntax 249
Since the characteristically late order ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX appears sporadically in CBH, its
origin is probably to be sought within Hebrew. However, it seems reasonable
249 In the targums placement of the appositive מלכאnormally follows that in the Hebrew.
Generally, then, it is possible to detect the order characteristic of the translators’ linguistic
milieu(x) only when their renderings become expansive and explanatory.
250 ַמ ְל ָּכאX: Dan 3.1, 2 (2x), 3, 5, 7, 9, 24, 31; 4.25, 28; 5.1, 30; 6.7, 26; Ezra 4.8, 11, 23; 5.6, 7, 13 (2x),
14, 17; 6.1, 3 (2x), 13, 15; 7.21. X ַמ ְל ָּכא: Dan 2.28, 46; 3.16; 4.15; 5.9, 11; 6.10.
250 chapter 7
to assume that Aramaic influence played a role in the late proliferation of this
order at the expense of X ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך, as ַמ ְל ָּכאX dominates in Aramaic epigraphy
(though, it is to be admitted that the vast majority of the potential cases come
in post-exilic inscriptions).251
7.7.3 Jeremiah
The situation in Jeremiah is clear. Out of 19 cases only two exhibit the charac-
teristically late order ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךX. From the perspective of this feature, then, the
language of Jeremiah stands in the classical tradition known from such books
as Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah, not yet revealing the trend recognizable in LBH
proper and later sources.
The two exceptions come in אׁשּיָ הּו ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך
ִ ֹ ימי י ֶ ֹ ‘ וַ ּיAnd Yhwh said
ֵ אמר ה' ֵא ַלי ִּב
to me in the days of Josiah the king’ (Jer 3.6) and ה־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַ ָ‘ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֵצאת יְ ָכנְ יAfter
Jechoniah the king left’ (29.2). No particular reason for the deviation from clas-
sical style is obvious in the first case. It is a first-person retrospective heading,252
the non-classical style of which, though rare in the book, is not overly surpris-
ing given the relatively late start to Jeremiah’s ministry at the end of the First
Temple Period.
The same explanation may hold for the second case, but another is also wor-
thy of consideration. As part of the editorial heading introducing Jeremiah’s let-
ter to the early exiles in Babylon, a heading written during the years of the Exile
at the earliest, this case may represent a later literary stratum than the ensuing
material. This would not be the only feature in either the Bible in general or
Jeremiah more specifically whereby part of the editorial framework displays a
linguistic profile later than that of the content framed therewith.253 The verse
also comes within a section of material—chs. 27–29—distinguished linguisti-
cally from the rest of the book by a certain concentration of late features.254
7.8.1 The MT
In BH, when a definite common noun is modified by both an adjective and a
demonstrative pronoun functioning as an adjective, the order of the constitu-
ents is normally noun + adjective + demonstrative pronoun, e.g., ַה ַּמ ְר ֶאה ַהּגָ דֹול
‘ ַהּזֶ הthis great sight’ (Exod 3.3).256 This order alone serves in books generally
considered classical and persists in later texts, though this later material also
exhibits some flexibility with regard to the order of the elements:257
255 Jer 26.22, 23; 37.17, 18, 21; 38.5, 14, 16, 19; 52.12.
256 Including the aforementioned example there are 46 cases in the Bible: Exod 2.23; 33.4;
Num 14.27, 35; 16.26; 20.5; Deut 1.35; 2.7; 3.5; 4.6, 22, 32; 5.25; 9.6; 13.12; 17.5; 18.16; 19.20; 29.2,
23; Josh 23.13, 15; 24.17; Jdg 15.18; 1 Sam 4.6, 8; 6.20; 12.16; 14.45; 1 Kgs 3.6, 9; 5.21; 14.15; 20.13,
28; 2 Kgs 8.13; Jer 8.3; 22.8; 24.5; Jon 1.12; Qoh 9.15; Dan 10.8; Neh 13.17; 2 Chr 20.12, 15.
257 Muraoka 1972: 194, n. 17; Steiner 1997: 165; JM §143h. This list includes cases, such as Ezek
36.35, in which the adjective takes the form of a participle. It does not, however, include
cases in which the participle serves as a verb in a quasi-relative sentence where the article
- הfunctions like ‘ ֲא ֶׁשרthat, which’, e.g., ל־ה ֵע ָדה ָה ָר ָעה ָ ֲאנִ י ה' ִּד ַּב ְר ִּתי ִאם־לֹא זֹאת ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה ְל ָכ
ּנֹוע ִדים ָע ָלי
ָ ‘ ַה ּ֔ז ֹאת ַהI, Yhwh, have spoken: I swear to do this to all this evil congregation
gathered against me’ (Num 14.35); ן־ה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ָה ֵ֔הם ַהה ְֹל ִכים ָ יהֹוׁש ַע ִּבן־נּון וְ ָכ ֵלב ֶּבן־יְ ֻפּנֶ ה ָחיּו ִמ
ֻ ִו
ת־ה ָא ֶרץ
ָ ‘ ָלתּור ֶאand Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived from among
those men who went to spy out the land’ (38); ט־ּבם ִּכי ֵאין ָּבנּו ּכ ַֹח ִל ְפנֵ י ָ ֹלהינּו ֲהלֹא ִת ְׁש ָּפ ֵ ֱא
‘ ֶה ָהמֹון ָה ָרב ַה ֶּז֖ה ַה ָּבא ָע ֵלינּוOur God, will you not judge them, for we have no power
in the face of this great crowd coming against us’ (2 Chr 20.12) (in all three cases note
the disjunctive accent separating the demonstrative from the following participle). Also
excluded is ֹלהים ִּת ַיקר־נָ א נַ ְפ ִׁשי וְ נֶ ֶפׁש ֲע ָב ֶדיָך ֵא ֶּלה ֲח ִמ ִּׁשים ְּב ֵעינֶ יָך
ִ ‘ ִאיׁש ָה ֱאMan of God, let
my life and the lives of these fifty servants of yours be precious in your sight’ (2 Kgs 1.13),
because the word following the demonstrative is a cardinal numeral, not an adjective.
252 chapter 7
Ezek 36.35 that desolate land ( ) ָה ָא ֶרץ ַה ֵּלזּו ַהּנְ ַׁש ָּמהwas like the Garden of
Eden
Est 9.29 this second letter about Purim (ּפּורים ַהּזֹאת ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית ִ ) ִאּגֶ ֶרת ַה
2 Chr 1.10 for who may judge this great people of yours ( ) ַע ְּמָך ַהּזֶ ה ַהּגָ דֹול258
1 Kgs 3.9 for who can judge this great people of yours () ַע ְּמָך ַה ָּכ ֵבד ַהּזֶ ה
11Q19 63.4–5 all the elders of that city near ( )העיר ההיא הקרובהto the corpse . . .
Deut 21.6 all the elders of that city, the ones near ()ה ִעיר ַה ִהוא ַה ְּקר ִֹבים
ָ to the corpse . . .
in which the comparison with parallel material from the Torah highlights the
difference in order and—presumably—interpretation. 258
Finally, unlike the rest of the corpora, in Syriac there are many examples
of nouns modified by adjectives and demonstratives and the order according
to which the demonstrative precedes the adjective is common. For example,
in 29 of the MT’s 46 cases of the classical order with the adjective before the
258 On the unexpected affixing of the definite article to a demonstrative modifying a noun
with a pronominal suffix see S.R. Driver 1892: 283, §209, n.; G.R. Driver 1951a: 245, n. 1.
syntax 253
demonstrative the Peshiṭta presents the post-classical order with the demon-
strative before the adjective.259 Here follow a few examples:
Exod 3.3 this great sight () ַה ַּמ ְר ֶאה ַהּגָ ד ֹל ַהּזֶ ה || ܚܙܘܐ ܗܢܐ ܪܒܐ
Deut 4.5 this great nation () ַהּגֹוי ַהּגָ דֹול ַהּזֶ ה || ܥܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܪܒܐ
7.8.3 Jeremiah
The book of Jeremiah contains four cases of relevance. In three of them the
word order follows the expected classical pattern:
Jer 8.13 this evil clan () ַה ִּמ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה ָה ָר ָעה ַהּזֹאת
Jer 22.8 to this great city (דֹולה ַהּזֹאת ָ ְ) ָל ִעיר ַהּג
Jer 24.5 like these good figs () ַּכ ְּת ֵאנִ ים ַהּטֹבֹות ָה ֵא ֶּלה
259 Exod 3.3; 33.4; Num 14.27, 35; 16.26; 20.5; Deut 1.35; 3.25; 4.6, 22; 5.25; 9.6; 13.12; 17.5; 19.20,
23; Josh 23.15; Jdg 15.18; 1 Sam 6.20; 12.16; 1 Kgs 3.9; 5.21; 2 Kgs 8.13; Jer 8.3; 22.8; Qoh 9.15;
Dan 10.8; Neh 13.17; 2 Chr 20.15. It is interesting that according to Codex Ambrosianus, this
order does not obtain in Est 9.29 and 1 Chr 1.10 (in the latter case ‘ ܠܥܡܟ ܗܢܐ ܥܡܐfor
this people of yours people’ is evidently an error). According to Muraoka (1972: 194), the
tendency in Syriac is to place the demonstrative immediately before or after the modified
noun and cases in which an adjective separates them are rare.
260 The potential example in ין־א ָדם וְ ַעד־ ָ ֹה־א ַמר ה' ְצ ָבאֹות עֹוד יִ ְהיֶ ה ַּב ָּמקֹום ַה ֶּ֗זה ֶה ָח ֵרב ֵמ ֵא
ָ ּכ
ל־ע ָריו נְ וֵ ה ר ִֹעים ַמ ְר ִּב ִצים צֹאן
ָ ּוב ָכ
ְ ‘ ְּב ֵה ָמהThus says Yhwh of Hosts: “There will again be in
this place, desolate without man and beast, and in each of its cities a pasture for shep-
herds resting sheep” ’ (Jer 33.12) has been excluded on the grounds that the definite adjec-
tive ‘ ֶה ָח ֵרבthe desolate’ appears to head a sort of relative clause in which -‘ ֲא ֶׁשר ≈ ֶהthat,
which’ (see above, n. 257).
254 chapter 7
The reasons for this deviation from the expected word order are not obvious.
In light of the rarity of this order in Aramaic (with the exception of Syriac),
its influence seems unlikely. Internal causes and convergence of features in
Hebrew and Aramaic should not be ruled out, though the number of examples
is far too small to speak with any certainty. Whatever the case may be, Jeremiah
joins Ezekiel, Esther, Chronicles, and post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic
sources in exhibiting this rare and apparently late order.
As is well known, according to the norms of the biblical verb system, in the
sphere of the past the weqaṭal form encodes various shades of imperfectivity,
e.g., the habitual, repetitive, continuous, or durative.264 It is thus a semantic
261 The Aramaic ‘ עמא הדין דעובדיהון בישיןthis people whose deeds are evil’, Latin populum
istum pessimum ‘this evil people’, and Syriac ‘ ܥܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܝܫܐthis evil people’ all basi-
cally reflect the Masoretic reading.
262 On the difference see König 1897: §334η; Giesebrecht 1897: 80; Duhm 1901: 121; Volz 1928:
148; Holladay 1986–1989: I 394, 397.
263 In the MT the words ת־ּד ָב ַרי ְ מֹוע ֶא
ַ ‘ ַה ֵּמ ֲאנִ ים ִל ְׁשwho refuse to hear my words’ etc. modify
‘ ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה ָה ָרעthis evil people’. In the Greek the reading is, though not impossible, more
difficult, since the clause ת־ּד ָב ַריְ מֹוע ֶא
ַ ‘ ַה ֵּמ ֲאנִ ים ִל ְׁשwho refuse to hear my words’ must be
interpreted as a sort of appositive for רּוׁש ַלםִ ָה ָרב ַהּזֶ ה ָ ְהּודה וְ ֶאת־ּגְ אֹון י
ָ ְ‘ ֶאת־ּגְ אֹון יthe pride
of Judah and this great pride of Jerusalem’, which seems unlikely, or as a direct object in
the series of direct objects of the verb ‘ ַא ְׁש ִחיתI will destroy’, in which case the particle ֵאת
is used to mark the direct objects in v. 9, but not those in v. 10.
264 For a discussion of imperfectivity see the Excursus, §7.13.
syntax 255
match for (we-)X+yiqṭol and for the periphrastic tense ָהיָ ה+ participle,265 as
well as for the bare participle in some of its uses.266 Conversely—and unlike
the situation in RH—BH is characterized by a striking absence of uncoverted
we+qaṭal, i.e., simple conjunctive waw with the suffix conjugation/perfect for
marking perfective past, a function usually reserved for wayyiqṭol and (we)
X+qaṭal.267
Be that is it may, the lack in BH of perfective we+qaṭal is apparently not
total. In a minority of cases—many of them in poetry—the typical biblical
convention of using wayyiqṭol and (we)X+qaṭal for perfective past actions gives
way to a style which would ultimately dominate in RH.268 The replacement of
265 The verbal use of the ָהיָ ה+ participle construction to mark past imperfective actions is
seen by some as a late linguistic feature, but the syntagm is actually quite common in CBH,
appearing to be characteristically late only due to the disuse of past imperfective weqaṭal
and (we-)X-yiqṭol in the later phases of ancient Hebrew (Joosten 2006). Characteristically
late use of ָהיָ ה+ participle involves its non-standard employment, i.e., where CBH writers
would have resorted to alternative means, e.g., Est 2.15; 9.21; Dan 10.9; Neh 2.13–15; 13.22;
2 Chr 24.12. Some of these examples anticipate the expanded use of the syntagm in RH. In
Jeremiah the construction is used four times, always in classical fashion: 26.18, 20; 32.30;
44.26 (see below).
266 The differences between weqaṭal and yiqṭol are rooted in syntax and pragmatics. From a
syntactic standpoint, weqaṭal comes clause-initially, while (we-)X+yiqṭol serves when a
clause constituent (symbolized here by X) precedes the verb, thereby preventing the use
of weqaṭal; see Blau 1970: 109; 1976: §20.3; 1977: 24. From a pragmatic perspective weqaṭal
serves to preserve discourse continuity, whereas (we-)X+yiqṭol serves either to break that
continuity and/or to mark the fronted constituent as topical or focal; see Buth 1992: 103–
104; 1995: 97–100; van der Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze 1999: 164–165; Hornkohl 2005: 96, 112.
267 Of course, from the standpoint of the inner consistency of the BH verb system the non-
use of past perfective we+qaṭal is understandable. The form’s imperfective meanings dis-
qualify it from use as a perfective form, since one would not expect a form to mark both
a value and its polar opposite. Additionally, given the existence of two forms for mark-
ing the perfective past, wayyiqṭol and (we)X+qaṭal, we+qaṭal in this function would be
redundant.
It should also be noted that while weqaṭal and (we)X+yiqṭol are explicitly imperfective
in the past timeframe, wayyiqṭol and (we)X+qaṭal are perhaps better considered aspectu-
ally neutral, but characterized by a high degree of correlation with perfective actions, as is
common for languages in which aspectual marking is not obligatory. In other words, in BH
the default past (and future) forms are perfective, whereas imperfectivity must be marked
(this is not, however, the case in the present tense—whether the actual, i.e., immediate,
present or the general present—where imperfectivity is virtually a sine qua non).
268 Segal 1936: §§217, 222. RH’s lack of wayyiqṭol may, apparently, be explained as a casual
result of the rarity of narrative there. However, the use of conversive tenses in BH is
not restricted to narrative. Had these tenses been in use in RH, there were sufficient
256 chapter 7
wayyiqṭol with we+qaṭal in the marking of the perfective past is part of broader
process of simplification of the verb system according to which, among other
things, use of the conversive verbal forms ceased.269 The shift is unlikely to
have been sudden, but probably took place over an extended period of time,
possibly involving the literary adoption of vernacular language habits, and it
should thus be possible to detect signs of the gradual change in Masoretic and
non-Masoretic biblical and extra-biblical sources, especially in LBH, the DSS,
and other material from the Judean Desert, and perhaps even in earlier sources.
Unlike RH, LBH and DSS Hebrew for the most part still reflect the classi-
cal biblical usage of the conversive tenses in general and of imperfective past
weqaṭal more specifically.270 Even so, there is broad consensus that unmistak-
able traces of this development in the verb system can be discerned in these
corpora.271 The evolution is especially evident in parallel or similar verses from
different periods, particularly in the substitution of wayyiqṭol or qaṭal with
we+qaṭal for the marking of the perfective past:272
o pportunities for the use of future-oriented weqaṭal. See Rabin (1958: 155; 1972: 371–373;
1976: 1015–1016, n. 2) on the rare attestation of conversive forms in Talmudic narrative.
269 Ewald 1881: §§231c; 343c; S.R. Driver 1892: §§130–134; Lambert 1893: 59; Davidson 1901: §58;
Kropat 1909: 22, 73–74; GKC §§113pp–uu; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: II §9n; Segal 1936: §§190;
215; 217; 222; Harris 1939: 47; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 129, 381, II §274; Kutscher 1974: 41–42,
353–358; 1982: §§67; 104; 122; 129; 161; Polzin 1976: 56–58; Williams 1976: §182; Hurvitz
1982: 121; Bergey 1983: 65–7; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §32.3; Rooker 1990: 100–102;
Meyer 1969–1992: II §§100.3d–e; 101.7; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; Gibson 1994: §85; Hughes
1994: 67–71; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 106; Eskhult 2000: 84–85, n. 3; Van Peursen 2004: 154–165;
Moomo 2005: 98; JM §119za; Cohen 2013: 77–94; cf. Ehrensvärd 2003: 171–175; Rezetko 2003:
233–237; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 150–155.
270 S.R. Driver 1892: §133; Eskhult 2000: 84–85, nn. 2, 4, 92; Van Peursen 2004: 154–165.
271 Stade 1885:291–292; S.R. Driver 1892:§133; Lambert 1893:59; Kropat 1909:22; Kutscher 1974:
353–358; Spieckermann 1982: 128; Revell 1985: 279–280; Eskhult 1990: 111; 2000: 84–85, n. 3;
Rooker 1900: 100–102; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 120; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 106; Van Peursen 2004:
154–165; Moomo 2005: 98; JM §119za. See also Ben-Ḥayyim’s (2000: §2.9.3) note on the situ-
ation in the Samaritan Pentateuch.
272 For additional examples, including cases not involving parallel verses, see the lists in
Lambert 1893: 59; Kropat 1909: 22; Kutscher 1974: 353–358; Spieckermann 1982: 127–128;
Eskhult 1990: 111; 2000: 84–85, n. 3; Rooker 1990: 100–101, n. 123, 129. It is true that in com-
parison to their early counterparts, late texts exhibit a marked increase in the non-stan-
dard use of weqaṭal. One should not, however, exaggerate its usage in these texts, since,
in general, weqaṭal serves there according to classical norms. Also, certain cases identi-
fied as non-standard examples of perfective marking, including some in the aforemen-
tioned lists, are given to alternative explanations. For example, in two of the three cases
of the replacement of wayyiqṭol with weqaṭal mentioned by Rooker (1990: 100–101) the
action depicted actually invites the use of an imperfective form, so that the late read-
ing merely employs more explicitly imperfective morphology (2 Chr 24.11 as opposed to
syntax 257
1 Kgs 9.3 I have heard your prayer . . . I have sanctified ( ) ִה ְק ַּד ְׁש ִּתיthis temple
2 Chr 7.12 I have heard your prayer and I have chosen ( ) ָּוב ַח ְר ִּתיthis place
2 Kgs 23.6 and he removed the Asherah . . . and smashed ()וַ ּיָ ֶדק
2 Chr 34.4 and the Asherahs . . . and smashed ()וְ ֵה ַדק
Isa 9.5 rule came to be on his shoulders and his name was called ()וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא
1QIsaa 8.23–24 rule came to be on his shoulders and his name was called ()וקרא
Isa 66.2 all these my hand made and these things came into being ()וַ ּיִ ְהיּו
1QIsaa 53.11 all these my hand made and these things came into being ()והיו273
273
The biblical text that gives the clearest example of the non-use of the con-
versive tenses is without a doubt Qohelet. In this text wayyiqṭol is routinely
replaced with we+qaṭal in the sphere of the past274 and weqaṭal is sometimes
replaced with we-yiqṭol in the sphere of the future.275 The core LBH books also
2 Kgs 12.11; 4Q51 f112–114.3 as opposed to 2 Sam 15.2). Rooker (ibid.: 101, n. 129) also identifies
as perfective several uses that are better seen as imperfective (see below, Excursus, §7.13).
In another case (1 Chr 21.2 as opposed to 2 Sam 24.2) weqaṭal is replaced by we-yiqṭol (not
wayyiqṭol), but here, too, the late replacement fits the context (purpose clause); see Van
Peursen 2004: 157, n. 11. In sum, late writers made an effort to write according to classical
conventions and, for the most part, succeeded; they betray the antiquated nature of the
conversive tenses in relatively rare slips of the pen.
Cohen (2013: 77–94, esp. pp. 84–86), convincingly situates the use of perfective past
we+qaṭal within the broader use of qaṭal for marking consecution. He makes a similar
observation regarding (we-)yiqṭol (ibid.: 171–173). See also his discussion on the dimin-
ished use of standard weqaṭal in LBH (ibid.: 193–210, esp. 193–195, 203–207).
273 Note also the replacement of wayyiqṭol with qaṭal and of weqaṭal with (we-)yiqṭol:
Isa 12.2 and he has been ( )וַ יְ ִהיmy deliverance
1QIsaa 11.8 he has been ( )היהאmy deliverance
Isa 56.4 . . . who keep my Sabbaths and choose (ּוב ֲחרּו
ָ ) that which I desire
1QIsaa 46.15 . . . who keep my Sabbaths and choose ( )ויבחורוthat which I desire
Isa 16.12 and it will be ( )וְ ָהיָ הthat when (Moab) is
1QIsaa 13.29 and it will be ( )יהיהthat when (Moab) is
Compare also Lev 20.3 and 11Q1 fJ.4.
274 There are only three cases of wayyiqṭol in the book—1.17; 4.1, 7—against 31 cases of perfec-
tive past we+qaṭal.
275 For a balanced corrective to extreme views see Schoors (1992–2004: I 86–89), who lists
only 15 cases of classical weqaṭal in the book; to his list one should add Qoh 1.5 (2x); 8.10;
and 10.3.
258 chapter 7
exhibit a growing tendency to make use of perfective past we+qaṭal, but none
to the extent of Qohelet.276
There are those who see in this process the hand of Aramaic.277 And, indeed,
while the use of wayyiqṭol to mark the perfective past is known in Aramaic
from the 9th century BCE, this usage was already rare in comparison to the
use of we+qaṭal.278 In the words of Garr (1985: 185) “the syntactic situation in
Old Aramaic of the ninth century is comparable to Hebrew in the sixth; the
perfect usurped the function of the consecutive imperfect as a narrative, his-
torical past tense.” Thus in Second Temple Aramaic, including BA, we+qaṭal
and not wayyiqṭol serves to mark perfective past. It is reasonable to assume
that in its capacity as the language of government and administration of the
Neo-Assyrian and Persian Empires it would exert some influence on literary
Hebrew.
Others, however, minimize that role of Aramaic, arguing that the marking
of perfective past by means of we+qaṭal was characteristic of First Temple
spoken Hebrew and that use of the conversive tenses was merely a literary
convention.279 A certain combination of factors may also have been at work:
276 See below, Excursus, §7.13, for details. Cf. Ehrensvärd 2003: 171–175; Rezetko 2003: 233–237;
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 150–155. The interpretation of the data presented
in these three scholarly works is somewhat problematic. For example, Rezetko (2003:
233–234) adduces statistics that purportedly show that the perfective past use of we+qaṭal
is no more characteristic of LBH than it is of CBH, but his approach is misleading, since he
makes no effort to distinguish between cases marking imperfective past and those mark-
ing simple past (see below, Excursus, §7.13).
277 S.R. Driver 1892: 162–163; Kropat 1909: 22, 74; GKC §112pp; Spieckermann 1982: 120–130;
Eskhult 1990: 111; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §32.2d; Rooker 1990: 102.
278 Garr 1985: 184–105; M. Smith 1991: 18–20. According to the extant data there was a sin-
gle conversive form in Aramaic, i.e., wayyiqṭol. It is possible that the lack of conversive
weqaṭal in Old Aramaic facilitated the replacement of wayyiqṭol with we+qaṭal.
279 Meyer 1959: 114–123; Blau 1970:20; Rendsburg 1981; van Keulen 1996: 165–167; Ehrensvärd
2003: 171–175; Rezetko 2003: 233–237; van Keulen 2004: 156–157; Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd 2008: II 150–155. These scholars cite as evidence certain cases from pre-exilic
BH, especially from archaic poetry, e.g., ּומ ֲח ָצה וְ ָח ְל ָפה ַר ָּקתֹו
ָ יס ָרא ָמ ֲח ָקה רֹאׁשֹו
ְ וְ ָה ְל ָמה ִס
‘and she struck Sisera, crushed his head, and smashed and pierced his temple’ (Jdg 5.26),
and inscriptional Hebrew, e.g., ב וצוכ חנניהו על באר שבע/// ‘ תנ מנ היינgive from the
wine three baths and Hananiah will order you to Beer Sheba’ (Arad 3.2–4) (but this may
be interpreted in reference to the future); ‘ ועת כצאתי מביתכ ושלחתיAnd now, when I
leave from your house, I will send’ (Arad 16.3–5) (but this, too, may refer to the future); see
Gogel 1998: 263, 267); and perhaps ‘ ויקצר עבדכ ויכל ואסמand your servant reaped and
finished and stored’ (Meṣad Ḥašavyahu 4–5) (though many see the final form as an infini-
tive absolute; see the bibliography in van Keulen 1996: 165–166, n. 11).
syntax 259
Deut 33.2 From Sinai he has come and he has shone ( ) ָּבא וְ זָ ַרחfor them from
Seir, he has appeared (הֹופ ַיע
ִ ) from Mount Paran and he has come
( )וְ ָא ָתהfrom Revivot Qodesh.
Isa 1.2 children I have raised and brought up (רֹומ ְמ ִּתי
ַ֫ ְ)ּגִ ַּד ְל ִּתי ו
Isa 40.12 Who has measured ( ) ָמ ַדדin the hollow of his hand (the) waters
and with his little finger gauged ( ) ִּת ֵּכןthe heavens and contained
( )וְ ָכלin the measure the dust of the earth and weighed ( )וְ ָׁש ַקלin the
scales mountains and hills in the balance?
Isa 41.4 Who has acted and done (?) ָפ ַעל וְ ָע ָׂשה
Ps 34.5 I sought ( ) ָּד ַר ְׁש ִּתיYhwh and he answered me ()וְ ָענָ נִ י, from all of my
fears he rescued me () ִה ִּצ ָילנִ י.281
Ps 148.5 Let them praise the name of Yhwh, for he commanded and they
were created () ִצּוָ ה וְ נִ ְב ָראּו.
280 S.R. Driver 1892: §131; König 1897: §§370d–k; Rubinstein 1963: 62–63; Williams 1976: §182;
Johnson 1979: 72–83; Revell 1985: 279; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §§32.2a–c; Van Peursen
2004: 155.
281 Theoretically, the form וְ ָענָ נִ יmay be interpreted with future reference—‘I sought Yhwh
and he will answer me’—but the past tense reference of ילנִ י ָ ‘ ִה ִּצhe saved me’ would seem
to indicate that וְ ָענָ נִ יhas the same reference, i.e., ‘and he answered me’.
260 chapter 7
In this light, perhaps the poetic use of perfective past we+qaṭal should be seen
as part of a broader style typical of some examples of biblical poetry whereby
verbs with opposing TAM values are used in the same line, e.g.,
Jon 2.4 And you cast me ( )וַ ַּת ְׁש ִל ֵיכנִ יinto the deep, in the heart of the seas,
and (the) current surrounded me ()יְ ס ְֹב ֵבנִ י. All your breakers and
your waves passed above me () ָע ָברּו.
Ps 2.1 Why do the nations rage ( ) ָרגְ ׁשּוand peoples plot ( )יֶ ְהּגּוin vain?282
Deut 2.30 for Yhwh your God hardened ( ) ִה ְק ָׁשהhis spirit and made obsti-
nate ( )וְ ִא ֵּמץhis heart
1 Sam 12.2 I have grown old and gray ()זָ ַקנְ ִּתי וָ ַׂ֫ש ְב ִּתי
1 Kgs 3.11 . . . on account of the fact that you have asked ( ) ָׁש ַא ְל ָּתfor this thing,
and you have not asked (א־ׁש ַא ְל ָּת ָ ֹ )וְ לfor yourself long life and you
have not asked (א־ׁש ַא ְל ָּת ָ ֹ )וְ לfor yourself wealth and you have not
asked ( )וְ לֹא ָׁש ַא ְל ָּתfor the life of your enemies, but you have asked
( )וְ ָׁש ַ֫א ְל ָּתfor yourself understanding to hear justice . . .284
2 Kgs 19.22 Whom have you blasphemed and reviled (?) ֵח ַר ְפ ָּת וְ גִ ַ ּ֫ד ְפ ָּת285
And finally, there are cases of biblical weqaṭal that are widely interpreted as
marking perfective past, but which are given to interpretation—and some-
times even more reasonably explained—as marking imperfective past, e.g.,
Gen 15.6 And Abraham trusted ( )וְ ֶה ֱא ִמןin Yhwh and he credited to him as
righteousness.286
Gen 37.3 And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was the
son of his old age. And he would make ( )וְ ָע ָׂשהhim a long-sleeved
tunic.287
dismissed out of hand: ‘for our forefathers transgressed and did/would do evil in the eyes
of Yhwh our God, and they abandoned him’. The following wayyiqṭol would then serve
as a perfective of global summary. Likewise, it is very possible that in a verse like וְ ַע ָּתה
ד־עֹולם
ָ יֹות־ׁש ִמי ָׁשם ַע
ְ ַ ( ָּב ַח ְר ִּתי וְ ִה ְק ַ ּ֫ד ְׁש ִּתי ֶא2 Chr 7.16) the two verbs ָּב ַח ְר ִּתי
ת־ה ַּביִת ַהּזֶ ה ִל ְה
וְ ִה ְק ַּד ְׁש ִּתיboth mark perfective past action. Yet, in light of the continuation of the verse,
one should not ignore a possible future-oriented meaning for the second verb, thus ‘I have
chosen and will consecrate this house, so that my name will be there forever’. Whatever
the exact interpretation, the examples involve the elevated, almost poetic, style of biblical
direct speech.
286 GKC §112ss; Wenham 1987–1994: I 327; Buth 2005: 156; Moomo 2005: 94–95.
287 Cf. יׁשּה ִלזְ ּב ַֹח ֶאת־זֶ ַבח ָ ת־אִ לֹותּה ֶא ָ ימה ַּב ֲע ָ יָמ
ִ ּומ ִעיל ָקטֹן ַּת ֲע ֶׂשה־ּלֹו ִאּמֹו וְ ַה ַע ְל ָתה לֹו ִמּיָ ִמים ְ
‘ ַהּיָ ִמיםAnd a small coat his mother would make him and she would bring it up to him
from time to time in her coming up with her husband to perform the annual sacrifice’
(1 Sam 2.19) and ילים ִ נֹות־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַה ְּבתּוֹלת ְמ ִע
ַ יה ְּכתֹנֶ ת ַּפ ִּסים ִּכי ֵכן ִּת ְל ַּב ְׁשן ָ ְב
ָ ‘ וְ ָע ֶלand on her
was a long-sleeved tunic, because thus would the virgin daughters of the king wear coats’
(2 Sam 13.18); see S.R. Driver 1892: 162, n. 1; GKC §112h.
288 Among those sporadic cases not easily explicable according to the factors mentioned
here and below are Gen 21.25; Josh 9.12; Jdg 3.23; 7.13; 16.18; 1 Sam 3.13; 17.38; 2 Sam 7.11; 13.18;
19.18; 23.20; 1 Kgs 3.11; 20.21, 27; 2 Kgs 8.10; 14.7; 18.4 (2x). At this point, it is worth noting that
there are various approaches to these forms: textual corruption or editorial gloss (Stade
1885: 291–292; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: II §§9b–k; Rubinstein 1952; 1963); replacement of
an infinitive absolute with a weqaṭal form (Lambert 1893; Huesman 1956b; Hughes 1994:
67–71; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 150–155); literary climax (Longacre 1994:
83–84); change of subject and interruption of the chronological sequence (Murray 2001:
250–252); result (Rainey 2003: 15–16).
262 chapter 7
289 Ehrensvärd 2003: 171–175; Rezetko 2003: 233–237; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008:
II 150–155.
290 For a list of proposed cases and factors see the list in the Excursus, §7.13.
291 After filtering out apparently perfective past we+qaṭal forms that can be accounted for on
literary grounds (see below, the Excursus, §7.13) it becomes clear that the core LBH books
and Qohelet exhibit a much higher tendency for the use of non-standard we+qaṭal than
do the books normally considered representative of CBH. The following table gives the
statistics for the relevant books, including the poetic sections in each book:
Several conclusions can be drawn on the basis of these data regarding the non-standard
use of we+qaṭal: (a) it is relatively rare throughout the Bible, except for Qohelet, where
it is the dominant usage; (b) it is more common in later books than in the books of the
syntax 263
7.9.2 Jeremiah
In Jeremiah the vast majority of weqaṭal forms come in the expected mean-
ings of future, habitual or constant present, and imperfective past.292 Among
the exceptional cases, many are attributable to grammatical attraction due
to synonymous verbs or hendiadys, often in poetry:293 ָא ְב ָדה ָה ֱאמּונָ ה וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה
יהםֶ ‘ ִמ ִּפfaithfulness has gone missing and has been cut off from before them’
(Jer 7.28b); י־א ְכלּו ֶאת־יַ ֲעקֹב וַ ֲא ָכ ֻלהּו וַ יְ ַכ ֻּלהּו וְ ֶאת־נָ וֵ הּו ֵה ַׁשּמּו ָ ‘ ִּכfor they have con-
sumed Jacob and eaten him and finished him and his pasture made desolate’
(10.25);294 אׁשם ָ ֹ ‘ ּבֹׁשּו וְ ָה ְכ ְלמּו וְ ָחפּו רthey are ashamed and humiliated, they cov-
ered their heads’ (14.3; 2x);295 ] באה:ֻא ְמ ְל ָלה י ֶֹל ֶדת ַה ִּׁש ְב ָעה נָ ְפ ָחה נַ ְפ ָׁשּה ָּבא [כתיב
ּבֹוׁשה וְ ָח ֵפ ָרה
ָ יֹומם ָ ‘ ִׁש ְמ ָׁשּה ְּבעֹדForlorn is she who bore seven; her breath is blown
out; her sun has set while still daytime; she is ashamed and humiliated’ (15.9);
ּוצ ָד ָקה ְ ‘ ָא ִביָך ֲהלֹוא ָא ַכל וְ ָׁש ָתה וְ ָע ָׂשה ִמ ְׁש ָּפטYour father—did he not eat and drink
and perform296 justice and righteousness?’ (22.15) (it is not clear whether the
form ‘ וְ ָע ָׂשהand perform’ has perfective or imperfective aspect), הּוטלּו הּוא ֲ ּדּוע
ַ ַמ
‘ וְ זַ ְרעֹו וְ ֻה ְׁש ְלכּוWhy have he and his seed been cast and thrown?’ (28); ָצפֹונָ ה ַעל־
ר־ּפ ָרת ָּכ ְׁשלּו וְ נָ ָפלּוְ ‘ יַ ד נְ ַהnorthward near the Euphrates River they stumbled and
fell’ (46.6); יׁשה ַה ִּמ ְׂשּגָ ב וָ ָח ָּתה ָ יָתיִם ה ִֹב ָ ‘ הֹוי ֶאל־נְ בֹו ִּכי ֻׁש ָּד ָדה ה ִֹבWoe to
ָ יׁשה נִ ְל ְּכ ָדה ִק ְר
Nebo, for it has been destroyed; Kiriathaim has been shamed and captured;
the stronghold has been shamed and dismayed’ (48.1); אּצר ַ בּוכ ְד ֶר
ַ ְיכם נ ֶ ִּכי־יָ ַעץ ֲע ֵל
עליהם] ַמ ֲח ָׁש ָבה:יכם [כתיב ֶ ְך־ּב ֶבל ֵע ָצה וְ ָח ַׁשב ֲע ֵל ָ ‘ ֶמ ֶלfor Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, has plotted against you and has devised against you a plan’ (49.30);
Torah or the Former Prophets (the difference is especially striking in light of the amount
of material in each corpus, particularly the amount of narrative material); (c) among the
core LBH books only Chronicles exhibits a pattern of usage similar to that of the CBH
material. These statistics, however, are not the whole story; see Joosten 2006 on the disap-
pearance of imperfective past weqaṭal from LBH.
292 For detailed lists, see Hornkohl 2012: §9.10.2, nn. 1370–1372.
293 It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between poetic and non-poetic texts in Jeremiah.
Most of the verses listed here are considered poetic on the basis of Rudolph’s alignment
of the text in BHS. In any case, all of the instances come in speeches and prophecies char-
acterized by an elevated style, including poetic features, especially parallelism.
294 This case may be due to textual corruption, as the Greek has no parallel for the form
‘ וַ ֲא ָכ ֻלהּוand (they) have eaten him’.
295 The last four words have no parallels in the Greek.
296 The expression ‘ ָאכֹול וְ ָׁשתֹהeat and drink’ is relatively common in the Bible. It comes in
reference to the past 14 times. In all of them the second verb comes in the same form as
the first: 13 times אכל וַ ּיֵ ְׁש ְּת
ַ ֹ ‘ וַ ּיand he ate and drank’ (Gen 24.54; 25.34; 26.40; Exod 24.11;
Jdg 9.27; 19.4, 21; 1 Kgs 19.6, 8; 2 Kgs 6.23; 7.8; 9.34; 1 Chr 29.22) and once ָא ַכל וְ ָׁש ָתה
(Jer 22.15; cf. the Greek here, which has a very different reading).
264 chapter 7
ד־ׁש ָח ִקים ַ ‘ ִּכי־נָ גַ ע ֶאfor its judgment has reached the sky
ְ ל־ה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ָטּה וְ נִ ָּׂשא ַע
and ascended to the clouds’ (51.9).
Other instances also involve poetry, but not parallelism: מּוּלה גְ ד ָֹלה ִה ִּצית ָ ְלקֹול ֲה
ּיֹותיו
ָ יה וְ ָרעּו ָּד ִל ָ ‘ ֵאׁש ָע ֶלfor with the sound of a great roar a fire kindled against it
and its doors shattered’ (Jer 11.16); ֹלמָך ָה ְט ְּבעּו ַבּבֹץ ַרגְ ֶלָך נָ סֹגּו ֶ ִה ִּסיתּוָך וְ יָ ְכלּו ְלָך ַאנְ ֵׁשי ְׁש
‘ ָאחֹורallies have enticed and vanquished you; your feet have sunk in the mud;
they turned back’ (38.22);297 ת־ׁש ְמ ָעם וְ ָרפּו יָ ָדיו ָצ ָרה ֶה ֱחזִ ַיק ְתהּו ִחיל ִ ְך־ּב ֶבל ֶא ָ ָׁש ַמע ֶמ ֶל
ֵ ‘ ַּכthe king of Babylon has heard their report and his hands have become
ּיֹול ָדה
weak; anguish has seized him, pangs like a woman in childbirth’ (50.43).
In some cases the problematic weqaṭal form in question is וְ ָהיָ ה: וְ ָהיָ ה ִמּקֹל
ת־ה ֵעץ ָ ת־ה ֶא ֶבן וְ ֶא ָ ת־ה ָא ֶרץ וַ ִּתנְ ַאף ֶא ָ ְ‘ זand it was from the lightness of
ָ נּותּה וַ ֶּת ֱחנַ ף ֶא
her prostitution that she polluted the stones and trees’ (Jer 3.9); וְ ָהיָ ה ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר
ָ ְ‘ נִ ְל ְּכ ָדה יand it was when Jerusalem was captured’ (38.28);298 'וַ ֵּיָבא וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ה
ִרּוׁש ָלם
דבר] ַהּזֶ ה:א־ׁש ַמ ְע ֶּתם ְּבקֹולֹו וְ ָהיָ ה ָל ֶכם ַה ָּד ָבר [כתיב ְ ֹ אתם ַלה' וְ ל ֲ ‘ ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֵּבר ִּכand
ֶ י־ח ָט
Yhwh has brought and done as he spoke, because you sinned against Yhwh and
you did not obey his voice; and so this thing would happen’ (40.3).299 It may
be that these cases arise from scribal errors— והיהfor —ויהיbut one should not
dismiss the possibility that the use of וְ ָהיָ הin one or more of these cases is inten-
tional and serves to emphasize an extended duration of time (Jer 3.9 and 40.3)
or a situation serving as the background for events recounted in the context
(Jer 38.28). If so, these examples are acceptable uses according to classical style
as defined above (see below, the Excursus, §7.13).
The rest of the apparently problematic cases may also reasonably be
explained as classical usages:
פּוה וְ ֵאת
ָ ּוׂש ָרְ ת־ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת ָּב ֵאׁש
ָ ל־ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת וְ ִה ִּציתּו ֶא ָ ּובאּו ַה ַּכ ְׂש ִּדים ַהּנִ ְל ָח ִמים ַע
ָ
אֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ַמ ַען ַה ְכ ִע ֵסנִ י
ִ יהם ַל ַּב ַעל וְ ִה ִּסכּו נְ ָס ִכים ֵל ֵ ַ‘ ַה ָּב ִּתים ֲא ֶׁשר ִק ְּטרּו ַעל־ּגand
ֶ ּגֹות
the Chaldeans fighting against this city will come and they will set this city on
fire and burn it and the houses on the roofs of which they sacrificed to Baal
and they (routinely) poured out libations to other gods with the result that
they angered me’ (Jer 32.29): here the form ‘ וְ ִה ִּסכּוand they poured out’ refers
to a customary practice; the problem is rooted in the preceding form, ִק ְּטרּו
‘they sacrificed’, which has a perfective form, but in the present context, also
presumably refers to a repeated custom. This involves a known literary strat-
egy, whereby the writer begins a description of customary practice with an
297 The Greek translator appears to have read וְ יָ ְכלּוas a future-oriented purposive form.
298 The Greek does not present parallels for these words.
299 The Greek does not present parallels for the last four words in this verse.
syntax 265
(1) paronomastic use for emphasis of a finite form of the same verb/root,
e.g., אכל ַ ‘ ִמּכֹל ֵעfrom any tree of the garden you may certainly
ֵ ֹ ץ־הּגָ ן ָאכֹל ּת
eat’ (Gen 2.16);
(2) more general adverbial use, e.g., ‘ וַ ֵּת ֶׁשב ָלּה ִמּנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְר ֵחקand she sat down
opposite (him) at a distance’ (Gen 21.16);304 sometimes with multiple
infinitives, e.g., ‘ וַ ּיָ ֻׁשבּו ַה ַּמיִם ֵמ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ ָהלֹוְך וָ ׁשֹובand the waters receded
from upon the earth gradually’ (Gen 8.3);
(3) imperatival use, e.g., ‘ זָ כֹור ֶאת־יֹום ַה ַּׁש ָּבת ְל ַק ְּדׁשֹוremember the Sabbath day,
to sanctify it’ (Exod 20.8); ‘ ָׁשמֹור ֶאת־יֹום ַה ַּׁש ָּבת ְל ַק ְּדׁשֹוkeep the Sabbath day,
to sanctify it’ (Deut 5.12);305
(4) substitutionary use for finite verbal forms,306 especially after an initial
finite form, whether preceded by waw or not, e.g., וַ ּיַ ְר ֵּכב אֹתֹו ְּב ִמ ְר ֶּכ ֶבת
ֶ ‘ ַה ִּמ ְׁשנֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר־לֹו וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו ְל ָפנָ יו ַא ְב ֵרְך וְ נָ תֹון אֹתֹו ַעל ָּכand he had
ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם
him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command and they called before
him “Abrek!” and he put him in charge of the entire land of Egypt’ (Gen
41.43); י־ת ְמ ְּכרּו ִמ ְמ ָּכר ַל ֲע ִמ ֶיתָך אֹו ָקנֹה ִמּיַ ד ֲע ִמ ֶיתָך
ִ ‘ וְ ִכand when you sell goods
to your fellow countryman or buy (them) from the hand of your fellow
304 Some infinitives absolute became genuine adverbs, e.g., ‘ ַמ ֵהרfast, quickly’ (alternatively,
this may be adverbial use of an adjective), ‘ ַה ְר ֵּבהmuch, many’, יטב ֵ ‘ ֵהwell, thoroughly,
rightly’, ‘ ַה ְר ֵחקfar’.
305 More general modal usage also occurs in the third person, e.g., וְ ִכי־יָ גּור ִא ְּתָך ּגֵ ר וְ ָע ָׂשה
‘ ֶפ ַסח ַלה' ִהּמֹול לֹו ָכל־זָ ָכרand when a foreign resident resides with you and participates in
Yhwh’s Passover, all of his males must be circumcised’ (Exod 12.48).
306 The relevant finite verbal forms are qaṭal, yiqṭol, wayyiqṭol, and weqaṭal. The imperative is
also, of course, a finite form, but the imperatival usage of the infinitive absolute is listed
above separately.
syntax 267
307 ‘ ָאכֹל ְּד ַבׁש ַה ְרּבֹות לֹא־טֹובeating much honey is not good’ (Prov 25.27).
308 יטב ֵ ( ִל ְמדּו ֵהIsa 1.17) in the meaning ‘learn to do good’ as opposed to ‘learn well’.
309 ‘ וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי ָׁשתֹהand after drinking’ (1 Sam 1.9).
310 ‘ ְּב ַהנְ ֵחל ֶע ְליֹון ּגֹויִ םin the Most High’s apportioning the nations’ (Deut 32.8).
311 In general on the infinitive absolute see GKC §113; Williams 1976: §§201–212; Waltke and
O’Connor 1990: §35; Zohari 1991; JM §123; Fassberg 2008: 47–49.
312 Ewald 1881: §351c; Kropat 1909: 23; Segal 1936: 135–136; Bendavid 1967–1971: 68–69, 72–73,
84, 133; Kutscher 1974: 41, 346–348; Polzin 1976: 43–44; 1982: §§122; 210; Carmignac 1986;
Qimron 1986: §310.14; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §35.1a, n.2; Zohari 1991: 122–126; Sáenz-
Badillos 1993: 118, 143–145, 157, 159, 173, 193; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §3.4.2.4; Hadas-
Lebel 1995: 106; Ben-Ḥayyim 2000: §§2.14.3–2.14.5; Muraoka 2000: 195; M. Smith 2000;
Eskhult 2003: 163; 2008: 35; Van Peursen 2004: 245–250; JM §123e, n. 9; Fassberg 2008: 50–52;
Cohen 2013: 253–255 (with qualifications). According to Groves and Wheeler (2005), cases
of the infinitive absolute in the core LBH books number 57: Esther 17; Daniel 6; Ezra 1;
Nehemiah 8; Chronicles 25. Apparently, the relatively small number in Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Chronicles is representative of their linguistic milieu, whereas the relatively large
number in Esther reflects an attempt at archaization (likewise the 19 cases in Qohelet).
For purposes of comparison, in the 5853 verses of the Torah there are some 240 cases of
the infinitive absolute; against this, in some thirty-thousand lines of the non-biblical DSS
there are about 120 cases. As is well known, the form is no longer a vital element in RH.
313 In Aramaic, see ‘ נכה תכוהyou must strike him’ in Sefire (KAI 222) C12–13; in the opinion
of Fitzmyer (1995: 212) this usage is a product of the influence of Canaanite. On Ugaritic
see Sivan 2001: 123–125.
268 chapter 7
7.10.2 Jeremiah
Given the assumed status of the language of Jeremiah as a transitional phase
linking CBH and LBH, it should come as no surprise that the book exhibits both
classical and post-classical traits with regard to the phenomenon in question.
On the one hand, similar to the language of classical material and in marked
contrast to the situation in LBH, the infinitive absolute is alive and well in all of
its various uses in the language of Jeremiah. Indeed, in terms of sheer numbers,
no biblical book has more cases of the infinitive absolute than Jeremiah.316 On
the other hand, as in LBH, Jeremiah shows a strikingly high proportion of cases
of the infinitive absolute used in place of finite verbal forms. In Jeremiah there
are at least 11 cases with a preceding waw that also follow a finite form:317
314 Dalman 1905: 279–339–340; Kuty 2008: 215–218; cf. Bombeck 1997: 19, 192–196. Despite the
existence of an infinitive absolute in Targumic Aramaic, there is virtually no doubt that its
extensive use in the targums is not representative of contemporary Aramaic, but a reflec-
tion of BH style.
315 GKC §113z; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: II §12m; Rubinstein 1952; Polzin 1976: 44, n. 32; Qimron
1986: §310.14; 1992: 358–359; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §35.1.2b, n. 2; Schoors 1992–2004:
I 178–180; Qimron and Strugnell 1994: §3.4.2.1; M. Smith 2000 (with hesitation); JM §§123u–
x, n. 33; Fassberg 2008: 50–52; cf. Ehrensvärd 2012: 188–190. The reader is invited to consult
the lists of Rubinstein (1952: 363), Zohari (1991:101–104), and M. Smith (2000: 258–260), all
three of which testify in some measure to the increase in this usage in LBH (but note that
there are significant differences between the lists due to differences in approach); accord-
ing to Rubinstein’s figures, out of 45 cases, 34 come in the books Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai,
Zechariah, Qohelet, Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Chronicles (according to Fassberg’s
[2008: 50] reckoning the count is 36 of 46); in Zohari’s eyes the proportion is 62 of 109. For
numerous LBH examples and a fresh discussion of the place of the predicative infinitive
absolute within the late biblical verb system see Cohen 2013: 253–272. Cf. Huesman 1956a:
286; Fredericks 1988: 84–85, 133–134.
316 There are 137 cases according to Groves and Wheeler 2005.
317 The presence of a finite verbal form preceding the infinitive absolute is essential since the
former determines the tense value of the latter. Rubinstein (1952: 363) lists ten verses in
Jeremiah containing infinitives absolute replacing finite verbal forms, but does not count
individual cases; his list also includes Jer 7.18, but here the infinitive follows a participle
(which is not considered a finite verbal form). Fassberg (2008: 50) apparently accepts
Rubinstein’s numbers.
syntax 269
(1) Jer 3.1 ‘ וְ ַא ְּת זָ נִ ית ֵר ִעים ַר ִּבים וְ ׁשֹוב ֵא ַליand you prostituted yourself with
many lovers and you would return to me’; expected form
weqaṭal ‘ וְ ָׁש ְב ְּתand you would return’
(2) Jer 13.16 ‘ וְ ִקּוִ ֶיתם ְלאֹור וְ ָׂש ָמּה ְל ַצ ְל ָמוֶ ת וְ ִׁשית ַל ֲע ָר ֶפלand you will hope for
light, but he will turn it to darkness and will make it gloom’;
expected form weqaṭal ( וְ ָׁשתor the ktiv ‘ ישיתhe will make’)
(3) Jer 14.5 א־היָ ה ֶּד ֶׁשא ַ ַ‘ ִּכי גfor even the hind in
ָ ֹ ם־אּיֶ ֶלת ַּב ָּׂש ֶדה יָ ְל ָדה וְ ָעזֹוב ִּכי ל
the field has given birth and abandoned (her young) because
there is no grass’; expected form wayyiqṭol ‘ וַ ַּת ֲעזֹבand (she) has
abandoned’ (?) or weqaṭal/we+qaṭal ‘ וְ ָעזְ ָבהand will abandon/
abandons’ (?)318
(4) Jer 19.13 ְלכֹל ַה ָּב ִּתים ֲא ֶׁשר ִק ְּטרּו ַעל־ּגַ ּג ֵֹת ֶיהם ְלכֹל ְצ ָבא ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם וְ ַה ֵּסְך נְ ָס ִכים
אֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ִ ‘ ֵלto all the houses on the roofs of which they sac-
rificed to the entire host of heaven and poured out libations
to other gods’; expected form wayyiqṭol ‘ וַ ּיַ ִּסכּוand they poured
out’ (?) or weqaṭal ‘ וְ ִה ִּסיכּוand they would pour out’ (?)319
(5) Jer 22.14 ׁשֹוח
ַ ּומ ָ ה־ּלי ֵּבית ִמּדֹות וַ ֲע ִלּיֹות ְמ ֻרּוָ ִחים וְ ָק ַרע לֹו ַחּלֹונָ י וְ ָספּון ָּב ָא ֶרז ִ ֶֶא ְבנ
“ ‘ ַּב ָּׁש ַׁשרI will build myself a large house and wide upper cham-
bers” and he would cut for it windows and (make it) paneled
with cedar and paint (it) in red’; expected form weqaṭal ּומ ַׁשח ָ
‘and (he) would paint’320
(6) Jer 32.33 ‘ וַ ּיִ ְפנּו ֵא ַלי ע ֶֹרף וְ לֹא ָפנִ ים וְ ַל ֵּמד א ָֹתם ַה ְׁש ֵּכם וְ ַל ֵּמד וְ ֵאינָ ם ׁש ְֹמ ִעיםand they
turned their back on me and not their faces; though I would
teach them early and often, they are not listening’; expected
318 The verse comes as part of a prophetic section containing a large number of cases of the
so-called ‘prophetic perfect’, on which see Rogland 2003: 78–79.
319 In terms of the tense value of the preceding verb one expects a form marking the per-
fective past. Yet, cf. the parallel formulation in ל־ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת ָ ּובאּו ַה ַּכ ְׂש ִּדים ַהּנִ ְל ָח ִמים ַע
ָ
יהם ַל ַּב ַעל וְ ִה ִּסכּו נְ ָס ִכים
ֶ ּגֹות
ֵ ַפּוה וְ ֵאת ַה ָּב ִּתים ֲא ֶׁשר ִק ְּטרּו ַעל־ּג
ָ ּוׂש ָר
ְ ת־ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת ָּב ֵאׁש
ָ וְ ִה ִּציתּו ֶא
אֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ַמ ַען ַה ְכ ִע ֵסנִ י
ִ ‘ ֵלand the Chaldeans fighting against this city will come and
they will set this city on fire and burn it and the houses on the roofs of which they sacri-
ficed to Baal and they (routinely) poured out libations to other gods with the result that
they angered me’ (Jer 32.29), which apparently supports an imperfective past reading.
320 The verse is difficult, perhaps due to scribal corruption according to which ‘ ַחּלֹונָ י וְ ָספּוןmy
windows and paneled’ (?) < *חּלֹונָ יו וְ ָספֹון ַ *‘its windows and (he) panels’ (haplography of
the waw indicating the 3ms possessive suffix and the misreading of an infinitive absolute
as a passive participle). If so, this may be an additional example of the infinitive absolute
replacing the weqaṭal: ‘ וְ ָס ַפןand (he) panels’.
270 chapter 7
It is unsurprising that in all 11 of the cases listed above the infinitive absolute
comes in place of an expected conversive form. This situation corresponds
exactly to Rubinstein’s (1952:365) explanation, according to which the infini-
tive absolute in its role as a replacement for finite verbal forms principally
replaces converted forms. Rubinstein argues that this substitution came as the
result of the influence of the late copyists’ spoken language. According to this
approach, these scribes received texts with converted tenses, but since these
were not employed in their vernacular, they did not always recognize them
and simply replaced them with a more flexible form from the spoken register.323
321 The grammatical status of the form replaced by the infinitive absolute here is not clear.
In 26 cases in the Bible a combination of two infinitives absolute of the type ַה ְׁש ֵּכם וְ ַל ֵּמד
‘rising up and teaching’ indicates recurrent or continual action in the past. In 19 of these
cases the infinitive combination comes with (usually after) a verb form indicating the
perfective past: Gen 8.3, 5, 7; 12.12; Jdg 12.9; 1 Sam 6.12; 17.16; 2 Sam 3.16; 5.10; Jer 7.13, 25; 11.7;
25.3; 29.19; 35.14, 15; 44.4. In the seven remaining cases the infinitive combination comes
with a past imperfective verb: Josh 6.9, 13; 2 Sam 15.30; 2 Kgs 2.11; Isa 3.16; Jer 25.4; 26.5.
Perhaps one should posit weqaṭal ‘ וְ ִל ַּמ ְד ִּתיand I will teach’ on the basis of the (negated)
participle (‘ (וְ ֵאינָ ם) ׁש ְֹמ ִעיםbut they are not) listening’ in the continuation of the verse.
However, this wording is unique within Jeremiah (cf. 7.13; 25.3, 4; 26.5; 29.19; 35.14).
322 Cf. Joüon 1923: §123x, n. 1.
323 Qimron (1992: 358–359) reasons similarly. Regarding the relatively common use of the
form in DSS Hebrew he remarks: “Its predicative use is neither an imitation nor a literary
invention.”
syntax 271
(12) Jer 4.18 ּומ ֲע ָל ַליִ ְך ָעׂשֹו ֵא ֶּלה ָלְך ַ ‘ ַּד ְר ֵּכְךyour way and your deeds have done
these to you’; expected form qaṭal (‘ ָעׂשּוthey) have done’
(13) Jer 7.9 . . . ‘ ֲהגָ נֹבWill you steal . . .’
(14) . . . ָרצ ַֹח. . . ‘. . . murder . . .’
(15) . . . וְ נָ אֹף. . . ‘. . . and commit adultery . . .’
(16) . . . וְ ִה ָּׁש ֵב ַע ַל ֶּׁש ֶקר. . . ‘. . . and swear falsely . . .’
(17) . . . וְ ַק ֵּטר ַל ָּב ַעל. . . ‘. . . and sacrifice to Baal . . .’
(18) ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא־יְ ַד ְע ֶּתם ִ וְ ָהֹלְך ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא. . . ‘. . . and walk after
other gods whom you do not know?’; expected forms yiqṭol
‘ ֲה ִתגְ נְ בּוwill you steal’, ‘ ִּת ְר ְצחּוwill you murder’ (?); weqaṭal
‘ ּונְ ַא ְפ ֶּתםand committed adultery’, ‘ וְ נִ ְׁש ַּב ְע ֶּתםand swear’, ּוק ַּט ְר ֶּתם ְ
‘and sacrifice’, ‘ וַ ֲה ַל ְכ ֶּתםand walk’ (?); participle ‘ ( ַא ֶּתם) ּגֹנְ ִביםdo
you steal’, ‘ ר ְֹצ ִחיםkill’, ‘ וְ נ ֲֹא ִפיםand committed adultery’, וְ נִ ְׁש ָּב ִעים
‘and swear’, ּומ ַק ְּט ִרים ְ ‘and sacrifice’, ‘ וְ ה ְֹל ִכיםand walk’ (?)327
(19) Jer 7.18 ת־ה ֵאׁש וְ ַהּנָ ִׁשים ָלׁשֹות ָּב ֵצק ָ ַה ָּבנִ ים ְמ ַל ְּק ִטים ֵע ִצים וְ ָה ָאבֹות ְמ ַב ֲע ִרים ֶא
אֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ִ ‘ ַל ֲעׂשֹות ַּכּוָ נִ ים ִל ְמ ֶל ֶכת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם וְ ַה ֵּסְך נְ ָס ִכים ֵלthe chil-
dren gather wood and the fathers tend the fire and the women
knead the dough to make cakes for the handiwork of heaven
and pour out libations to other gods’; expected form participle
ּומ ִּסיכֹות ַ /יכים ַ ‘and pour out’
ִ ּומ ִּס
(20) Jer 8.15 ‘ ַקּוֵ ה ְל ָׁשלֹום וְ ֵאין טֹובwe have hoped for peace, but there is no
good’; expected form qaṭal ‘ ִקּוִ ינּוwe have hoped’
(21) Jer 14.19 ּדּוע ִה ִּכ ָיתנּו וְ ֵאין ָלנּו ַמ ְר ֵּפא ַקּוֵ ה ְל ָׁשלֹום וְ ֵאין טֹוב ַ ‘ ַמWhy have you
struck us, when there is no healing, hoping for peace, when
there is no good?’; expected form qaṭal ‘ ִקּוִ ינּוwe have hoped’
(22) Jer 22.19 . . . בּורת ֲחמֹור יִ ָּק ֵבר ָסחֹוב ַ ‘ ְקwith the burial of a donkey will he be
buried, dragged . . .’
(23) ָ ְ וְ ַה ְׁש ֵלְך ֵמ ָה ְל ָאה ְל ַׁש ֲע ֵרי י. . . ‘. . . and cast beyond the gates of
ִרּוׁש ָלם
Jerusalem’; expected forms yiqṭol ‘ יִ ָּס ֵחבhe will be dragged’ or
‘* * ָסחּובdragged’ and weqaṭal ׁשלְך ַ וְ ֻה/ׁשלְך
ַ ‘ וְ ָהand will be cast’ or
the participle ּומ ְׁש ָלְך ֻ ‘and cast’
(24) Jer 31.2 ‘ ָמ ָצא ֵחן ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר ַעם ְׂש ִר ֵידי ָח ֶרב ָהלֹוְך ְל ַה ְרּגִ יעֹו יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלa people of sur-
vivors of war has found favor in the wilderness, when Israel was
traveling to find rest for themselves’; expected form qaṭal ָה ַל ְכ ִּתי
‘I went’, (‘ ָה ַלְךIsrael) went’ (?); infinitive construct ‘ ְּב ָה ְלכֹוin its
going’ (?)328
(25) Jer 44.17 ל־ה ָּד ָבר ֲא ֶׁשר־יָ ָצא ִמ ִּפינּו ְל ַק ֵּטר ִל ְמ ֶל ֶכת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ַ ת־ּכ
ָ ִּכי ָעׂש ֹה נַ ֲע ֶׂשה ֶא
ָ ‘ וְ ַה ֵּסfor we will certainly do all that came out of our
יְך־לּה נְ ָס ִכים
mouth, to sacrifice to the handiwork of heaven and to pour out
libations to them’; expected form infinitive construct ְּול ַה ִּסיְך
‘and to pour out’
327 See GKC §113ee for the use of the infinitive absolute in “emphatic promises” and “indig-
nant questions.” If these cases of the infinitive absolute replacing a weqaṭal are correct,
then they should be omitted from this list and added to the previous one.
328 The meaning of the verse is not clear (see the commentaries) and it is therefore difficult
to determine the verbal form ‘replaced’ by the infinitive absolute here.
syntax 273
The character of the use of the infinitive absolute in Jeremiah would seem to
fit the theory according to which the book’s language occupies a transitional
spot between CBH and LBH, since it simultaneously exhibits classical and late
tendencies.
329 The Greek has no parallel for an infinitive absolute in Jer 2.2; 7.13 (2x); 8.12; 11.7 (3x), 12;
13.17; 23.17, 39; 29.19 (2x); 30.11; 35.15 (2x); 42.22; 44.18, 29. In some of these cases the Greek
minus is probably stylistic; others are embedded in longer sections not represented in the
translation.
330 E.g., Exod 6.14; the expression ‘* * ָּב ֵתי ( ָה) ָאבfamilial houses’ does not occur in the Bible.
331 1 Kgs 12.31; 2 Kgs 17.29, 32; cf. 1 Kgs 13.32; 2 Kgs 23.19. Compare ( ֵּבית ְס ָפ ִריםfor normative
) ַּב ֵּתי ֵס ֶפרin colloquial Modern Israeli Hebrew meaning ‘schools’ (not to be confused with
the rarer and normative singular synonym of ‘ ִס ְפ ִרּיָ הlibrary’).
274 chapter 7
of both elements of the construct, e.g., ‘ ֻלחֹת ֲא ָבנִ יםtablets of stone’, ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים ֵ ִּג
‘mighty warriors’.332 The third type comes predominantly in phrases in which
the nomen rectum is always plural, whether the entire construct refers to
a singular entity or multiple entities, e.g., ‘ ּגְ ָדיֵ י ִעזִ יםgoat kids’ versus ּגְ ִדי ִעּזִ ים
‘goat kid’ or ‘ זִ ְב ֵחי ְׁש ָל ִמיםpeace offerings’ versus ‘ זֶ ַבח ְׁש ָל ִמיםpeace offering’,333
and in phrases in which both nomina refer to genuinely plural entities, e.g.,
‘ נְ ֵׁשי ָּבנָ יוthe wives of his sons’ versus ‘* * ֵא ֶׁשת ְּבנֹוthe wife of his son’ and ְׁשמֹות
עאל ֵ ‘ ְּבנֵ י־יִ ְׁש ָמthe names of the sons of Ishmael’ versus עאל ֶ ‘* * ֵׁשthe
ֵ ם־ּבן־יִ ְׁש ָמ
name of the son of Ishmael’. This same pattern is fairly common in phrases
composed of the name of an object and the name of the material of which
it is made, e.g., ּמּודי ִׁש ִּטים ֵ ‘ ַעposts of acacia wood’, ‘ ַח ְרבֹות ֻצ ִריםswords of flint’,
and ‘ ֻלחֹת ֲא ָבנִ יםtablets of stone’. None of these cases is particularly significant
from the perspective of the evolution of ancient Hebrew. There is, however,
an additional class of construct phrases the plural form of which is very rel-
evant to the discussion of the language’s diachronic development: those that
in the singular are composed of two singular nouns and that in the plural are
composed of two plural nouns, e.g., ‘ ּגִ ּבֹור ַחיִ לmighty warrior’ versus ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים ֵ ִּג
‘mighty warriors’.
7.11.1 The mt
Semantically, in construct phrases like ‘ ּגִ ּבֹור ַחיִ לmighty warrior’ pluralization
involves only the nomen regens, and thus in CBH the plural of ‘ ּגִ ּבֹור ַחיִ לmighty
warrior’ is ּבֹורי ַחיִ ל
ֵ ִ‘ ּגmighty warriors’. In the later phases of ancient Hebrew,
conversely, there emerges a growing tendency to make use of the double plu-
ral, e.g., ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים
ֵ ִ‘ ּגmighty warriors’, in construct phrases of this type, i.e.,
construct phrases that in CBH would be made plural by pluralization of the
nomen regens only, e.g., ּבֹורי ַחיִ לֵ ִ‘ ּגmighty warriors’. Notwithstanding their spo-
radic appearance in texts generally considered classical, including phrases that
typically pluralize only the nomen regens in CBH,334 there are many construct
phrases whose double plural is especially characteristic of the later strata of
ancient Hebrew, so that this structure may be considered especially typical of
LBH and post-biblical Hebrew. These are listed here alphabetically:335
ַא ְבנֵ י ְק ָל ִעים 2 Chr 26.14 ַא ְבנֵ י ֶק ַלע Zech 9.15; Job 41.20
‘slinging stones’ ‘slinging stones’
ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמּדֹות Num 13.32; ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ָּדה Isa 45.14
‘men of stature’ 1QIsaa 38.21 ‘men of stature’
ַאנְ ֵׁשי ְׁשמֹות 1 Chr 5.24; ַאנְ ֵׁשי ֵׁשם Gen 6.4; Num 16.2
‘men of renown’ 12.31 ‘men of renown’
כֹורי ְב ָק ֵרינּו
ֵ ְּב Neh 10.37 ְּבכֹר ֹת ְּב ַק ְר ֶכם Deut 12.6
‘the first-born ‘the first-born [fpl]
[mpl] of our cattle’ of your [mpl] cattle’
ְּבכֹר ֹת ְּב ָק ְרָך Deut 12.17; 14.23
‘the first-born [fpl]
of your [ms] cattle’
ְּבנֵ י ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם 1 Chr 15.15; ְּבנֵ י ( ַה) ֵלוִ י Gen 46.11; Exod
‘the sons of the 24.30 ‘the sons of (the) 6.16; 32.26, 28;
Levites’ Levi(te)’ Num 3.15, 17; 4.2;
16.7, 8, 10; 18.21;
Deut 21.5; 31.9; Josh
21.10; 1 Kgs 12.31;
Ezek 40.46; Mal
3.3; Ezra 8.15; Neh
10.40; 12.23; 1 Chr
5.27; 6.1; 9.8; 12.27;
23.6, 24, 27; 24.20
ְּבנֵ י ֲענָ ִקים Deut 1.28; 9.2a ְּבנֵ י ֲענָ ק Num 13.33; Deut
‘the sons of the ‘the sons of Anak’ 9.2b; Josh 15.14; Jdg
Anakites’ 1.20
ְּבנֵ י ַה ְּק ָה ִתים 2 Chr 20.19; ְּבנֵ י ַה ְּק ָה ִתי Num 4.34; 1 Chr
‘the sons of the 34.12 ‘the sons of the 6.18; 9.32; 2 Chr
Kohathites’ Kohathite’ 29.12
(Continued)
276 chapter 7
table (Continued)
(Continued)
syntax 277
table (Continued)
ַע ֵּמי ָה ֲא ָרצֹות Ezra 3.3; 9.1, 2, ַע ֵמי ָה ָא ֶרץ Deut 28.10; Josh
‘peoples of the 11; Neh 10.29 ‘peoples of the land/ 4.24; 1 Kgs 8.43, 53,
land(s [?])/earth’ earth’ 60; Ezek 31.12; Zeph
3.20; Est 8.17; Ezra
10.2, 11; Neh 10.31,
32; 1 Chr 5.25; 2 Chr
6.33; 32.19
ָע ֵרי ִמ ְב ָצ ֶריָך Jer 5.17; 2Q22 ָע ֵרי ( ַה) ִמ ְב ָצר Num 32.17; Josh
‘your fortified 1.3 ‘(the) fortified cities’ 10.20; 19.35; Jer
cities’ 4.5; 8.14; 34.7; 2
Chr 17.19; cf. ִמ ְב ָצ ֵרי
ְמעּוּזיִ םDan 11.39
ָע ֵרי ְמצּורֹות 2 Chr 11.10, 23; ָע ֵרי ָמצֹור Mic 7.12; 2 Chr 8.5;
‘besieged cities’ 12.4; 21.3 ‘besieged cities’ ָ ָע ֵרי ְמ2 Chr
צּורה
14.5; cf. ִמ ְב ָצ ֵרי ְמעּוּזיִ ם
Dan 11.39
ִקירֹות ַה ָּב ִּתים 1 Chr 29.4 ִקירֹות ַה ַּביִת Lev 14.37, 39; 1 Kgs
‘walls of the ‘walls of the house’ 6.5, 6, 15, 29
house(s [?])’
ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ִּס ִּפים 1 Chr 9.19; ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף 2 Kgs 12.10; 22.4;
‘guards of the cf. ׁש ֲֹע ִרי ַה ִּס ִּפים ‘guards of the 23.4; 25.18;
threshold’ ‘gatekeepers’ threshold’ Jer 52.24; Est 2.21;
2 Chr 23.4 6.2; 2 Chr 34.9
ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֲחיָ ִלים 1 Kgs 15.20; 2 ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ַחיִ ל 2 Sam 24.4 [2x]; 2
‘captains of the Kgs 25.23; Jer ‘(the) captains of the Kgs 9.5; Neh 2.9; 2
force’ 40.7, 13; 41.11, force’ Chr 33.14
13, 16; 42.1, 8;
43.4, 5; 2 Chr
16.4
ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ְצ ָבאֹות Deut 20.9; 2 Kgs ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ָצ ָבא 1 Kgs 1.25; 1 Chr
‘(the) captains of 2.5; 1 Chr 27.3; ‘(the) captains of the 25.1; 2 Chr 26.26;
the army’ 11Q19 62.5 army’ 33.33
278 chapter 7
If only those construct phrases that come in both the ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַחיִ לand ַאנְ ֵׁשי ֲחיָ ִלים
patterns are taken into consideration, cases of the latter exhibit a principally
late distribution. On the basis of the list above, 31 of 61 cases of the double
plural appear in the restricted corpus of LBH proper, with a further 16 cases in
Kings (4), ‘Second Isaiah’ (1), and Jeremiah (11). In other words, 47 of 61 cases
come in works composed from the close of the First Temple Period on.336 The
late extension of the plural to include the nomen rectum is evident from com-
parison of early and late parallel or similarly worded passages:
Gen 6.4 they were the heroes of yore, men of renown () ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ֵּׁשם
1 Chr 5.24 and they were . . . mighty men, men of renown () ַאנְ ֵׁשי ֵׁשמֹות
Num 3.17 and these were the Levites (י־לוִ י ֵ ֵ ) ְבנby their names
1 Chr 24.30 these were the Levites ( ) ְּבנֵ י ַה ְלוִ ּיִ םby their clans
Josh 10.7 . . . all (of them were) mighty warriors (ּבֹורי ֶה ָחיִ ל
ֵ ִ)ּג
1 Chr 7.11 all these were . . . mighty warriors (ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים ֵ ִ)ּג
2 Sam 5.11 Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers . . . and woodworkers ()וְ ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵעץ
1 Chr 14.1 Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers . . . and woodworkers ()וְ ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵע ִצים
336
This development apparently stems from an inner-Hebrew process of gram-
matical attraction,337 according to which the plural marking on the nomen
regens, felt by language users to be insufficiently transparent, was applied
to the nomen rectum as well, thereby creating a more strikingly plural
construction.338 It is worth pointing out that the late tendency to employ the
double plural in construct phrases is probably part of a broader late process
336 There are a few additional possible, but dubious, cases of double plural construct phrases
in what are widely considered classical works; see König 1881–1895: II 438, §α. On the
other hand, there are additional late examples of the double plural construct for which
specific cases of classical plural opposition cannot be found, e.g., ‘ ָּב ֵּתי ְכ ָל ִאיםprisons’
(Isa 42.22) (cf. ‘ ֵּבית ֶּכ ֶלאprison’ 2 Kgs 17.4; 25.27; Isa 42.7) and ‘ ָׂש ֵרי ִמ ְל ָחמֹותcaptains of
war’ (2 Chr 32.6).
337 Partial evidence for this claim may be found in the relevant renderings of the Aramaic
targums, which sometimes follow the grammatical number of the plural nomen rectum in
Hebrew and sometimes render with a singular.
338 JM §136o.
syntax 279
339 Kropat 1909: 8–10; Hurvitz 1972: 100–104, 173–174, nn. 299, 302; 1982: 43–46; Polzin 1976:
42–43; Qimron 1986: 68, 88–89, 91, 93–94; Rooker 1990: 75–77; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117–118;
Wright 2005: 68–71, 129; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: I 262.
340 Assuming the correctness of the reconstruction, ‘ ש[מעת] שלמt[idings] of peace’
(Lachish 9.2) would also be a typically classical usage. Neither may ‘ ספרי השר[מletters of
the officers’ (Lachish 6.4) or ‘ דברי ה[שרמwords of the[officers’ (Lachish 6.5, if the recon-
struction is correct) be considered counterexamples, since the two respective nouns in
each both refer to genuine plurals.
341 Non-biblical dss: רוק ֯מו֯ [ת ̇ ‘ בגדיembroidered clothes’ (4Q161 f8–10.19 [?]) versus
תם-/ְך
ָ ‘ ִּבגְ ֵדי ִר ְק ָמ ֵתyour [fs]/their [mpl] embroidered clothes’ (Ezek 16.18; 26.16); דורות
‘ עולמיםeverlasting generations’ (4Q176 f17.2 [?]; 4Q219 2.33; 4Q433a f2.6; cf. Isa 51.9) ver-
sus עֹולם ָ ‘ ּדֹר ֹתibid.’ (Gen 9.12); ‘ יורדי ימיםsailors’ (1QHa 11.15; 4Q432 f5.1 [?]) versus יֹור ֵדי ְ
‘ ַהּיָ םthe sailors’ (Isa 42.10; Ps 107.23); ‘ גבורי מלחמותwar heroes’ (1QHa 14.36) versus ּבֹורי ֵ ִּג
‘ ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמהthe war heroes’ (2 Chr 13.3); ‘ כלי מלחמותimplements of war’ (1QpHab 6.4; 1QHa
10.28; 14.34; 4Q402 f4.8) versus ‘ ְּכ ֵלי ִמ ְל ָח ָמהibid.’ (Deut 1.41; Jdg 18.11, 16, 17; 1 Sam 8.12; 2 Sam
1.27; Jer 21.4; 51.20; Ezek 32.27; 1 Chr 12.34); )צ ָבאֹות ְ (ה
ַ (‘ ָׂש ֵריthe) army officers’ (11Q19 6.5;
cf. Deut 20.9; 2 Kgs 2.5; 1 Chr 27.3) versus ]צ ָבא ָ [ה ַ ‘ ָׂש ֵריibid.’ (1 Kgs 1.25; 1 Chr 25.1; 2 Chr
26.26; 33.33); perhaps also the following double plural construct phrases, which, however,
have no classical plural counterparts: ‘ גבורי אליםmighty/divine warriors’ (4Q286 f2.2);
‘ מלאכי המשטמותmessengers of hatred’ (4Q387 f2iii.4; 4Q390 f1.11; f2i.7); שמחות עולמים
‘everlasting joy’ (4Q427 f7i.17). Biblical dss: ‘ מאורות צפעוניםvipers’ dens’ (1QIsaa 10.26)
|| אּורת ִצ ְפעֹונִ יַ ‘ ְמviper’s den’ (Isa 11.8); ‘ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמּדֹותgiants’ (1QIsaa 38.21) || ‘ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ָּדהibid.’
(Isa 45.14; cf. Num 13.32); ‘ חטאי רביםsins of many’ (1QIsaa 44.22 || 1Q8 23.25 || 4Q58 8.22)
|| א־ר ִּבים ַ ‘ ֵח ְטsin of many’ (Isa 53.12); ‘ בצי צפעוניםviper eggs’ (1QIsaa 48.15) || יצי ִצ ְפעֹונִ י ֵ ֵּב
‘ibid.’ (Isa 59.5); ‘ מעשי ידי אדםworks of hands of men’ (4Q92 1.5) || ‘ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יְ ֵדי ָא ָדםwork
of hands of man’ (Ps 135.15); ‘ מזוזות בתיכהthe doorposts of your houses (?)’ (4Q142 f1.23)
|| יתָך ֶ ‘ ְמזּוזֹת ֵּבthe doorposts of your house’ (Deut 6.9); ‘ ממלכות האליליםkingdoms of
idolatry’ (1QIsaa 9.24) || ‘ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹת ָה ֱא ִלילibid.’ (Isa 10.10); ‘ עשי דבריוdoers of his words’
(4Q84 f25ii.2) || ‘ ע ֵֹׂשי ְד ָברֹוdoers of his word’ (Ps 103.20); ‘ במעשי ידיכהon the works (?) of
your hands’ (11Q5 25.11) || ‘ ְּב ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ֶדיָךon the work of your hands’ (Ps 143.5); ומעשי ידיכה
‘and the works (?) of your hands’ (11Q5 fCii.8) || ּומ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ֶדיָך ַ ‘and the work of your hands’
(Ps 102.26).
280 chapter 7
Deut 6.9 and you will write them on the doorposts of your house () ְמזּוזֹת ֵּב ֶיתָך
4Q142 f1.23 and yo]u will write them on the doorposts of your houses (?) ()מזו֯ ז֯ ו̇ ̇ת ̇בתיכה
Isa 11.8 . . . and a baby will put his hand on an adder’s den (אּורת ִצ ְפעֹונִ י
ַ ) ְמ
1QIsaa 10.25–26 . . . and a baby will put his hand on adders’ dens ()מאורות צפעונים
There are additional late sources that reveal the growing tendency for use of
the double plural construct, e.g., the Samaritan Pentateuch and RH.342
7.11.3 Jeremiah
The potentially relevant cases in the book of Jeremiah are:
‘ ֲע ֵרי ִמ ְב ָצ ִריםfortified cities’ (Jer 5.17)—The classical plural, ֲע ֵרי ( ַה) ִּמ ְב ָצר,
comes eight times in the Bible, three of these in Jeremiah.343 The passage in
Jer 5.17 speaks of a nation that ‘will destroy the fortified cities ( ) ֲע ֵרי ִמ ְב ָצ ֶריָךin
which you trust with the sword’. A further case of the same expression in the
double plural occurs in the DSS: [. . . for this was a w]ar to capture fortified cities
(( ’)ערי מבצרים2Q22 1.3).344 Cf. also ‘ ִמ ְב ָצ ֵרי ְמעּוּזיִ םfortified strongholds’ (Dan
11.39).
ִ ‘ ַעregarding the drought’ (Jer 14.1)—It is not inconceivable
ל־ּד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּב ָּצרֹות
that both components of this construct phrase refer to genuinely plural enti-
ties. However, in the case of both words, the plural is somewhat unexpected;
cf. ‘ ִעּתֹות ַּב ָּצ ָרהtimes of drought’ (Pss 9.10; 10.1). The expression ל־ּד ְב ֵרי
ִ ַעhere
342 The proclivity for use of the double plural construct in the Samaritan Pentateuch is not
especially strong, but is nevertheless felt in the following instances: ‘ ובחדרי משכביךand
in your bedrooms’ (Exod 7.28 || MT ּוב ֲח ַדר ִמ ְׁש ָּכ ְבָך ַ ‘and in your bedroom’); ובבתי עבדיך
‘and in the houses of your servants’ (Exod 7.28 || MT ּוב ַבית ֲע ָב ֶדיָך ְ ‘and in the house of your
servants’); ‘ במכסות נפשותaccording to the number of people’ (Exod 12.4 || MT ְּב ִמ ְכ ַסת
‘ נְ ָפׁשֹותibid.’); ‘ ספחי קציריךaftergrowth of your harvests’ (Lev 25.5 || MT ְס ִפ ַיח ְק ִצ ְירָך
‘aftergrowth of your harvest’); ‘ מזזות בתיךthe doorposts of your houses’ (Deut 11.20 || MT
יתָך
ֶ ‘ ְמזּוזֹות ֵּבthe doorposts of your house’); ‘ גרושי ירחיםcrops of the moons (?)’ (Deut
33.14 || MT ‘ ּגֶ ֶרׁש יְ ָר ִחיםibid.’). I am not aware of any counterexamples, i.e., cases of MT dou-
ble plurals parallel to plurals of the classical type in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Regarding
RH, the phenomenon, often exemplified with ‘ בתי כנסותsynagogues’ and בתי מדרשות
‘rabbinic schools’, is well known; see Segal 1936: §155.
343 Num 32.17, 26; Josh 10.20; 19.35; Jer 4.5; 8.14; 34.7; 2 Chr 17.19.
344 Hurvitz 1972: 38, n. 82.
syntax 281
means ‘regarding, concerning, due to’; the phrase is usually singular, ל־ּד ַבר ְ ַע.345
It comes in the plural on two occasions in addition to the present verse: 'וַ ה
יכם
ֶ ל־ּד ְב ֵר
ִ ף־ּבי ַע ִ ֶ‘ ִה ְת ַאּנand Yhwh was angry with me on account of you (or per-
haps ‘on account of your words’)’ (Deut 4.21) and עֹולה וָ זָ ַבח ִ ‘ ַעconcerning
ָ ל־ּד ְב ֵרי
burnt offerings and sacrifices’ (Jer 7.22). It is worth observing that the first of
these involves a plural pronominal suffix and the second a compound nomen
rectum.
‘ ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֲחיָ ִליםmilitary officers’—The classical form of the expression, ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ַחיִ ל,
comes five times in the Bible.346 The double plural version comes 13 times, the
majority of the occurrences in compositions that date to the exilic or post-
exilic period, with nine of these in Jeremiah (all in chs. 40–43).347 There are
those who see in the form ֲחיָ ִליםa genuine plural referring to individual mili-
tary units,348 but the fact that this plural comes in the majority of its occur-
rences—18 of 20—precisely in construct phrases with a plural nomen regens349
arouses the suspicion that the phrase ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ֲחיָ ִליםis no more than a late syn-
onym for ( ַה) ָּצ ָבא/ ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ַחיִ ל, and does not indicate a multiplicity of individual
military units (though one may well surmise on the basis of biblical testimony
that the army of Judah had in fact been reduced to small groups of soldiers in
the wake of the Babylonian invasions). The Greek would appear to confirm
this interpretation: in all nine cases of the double plural construct ָׂש ֵרי ֲחיָ ִליםin
the book of Jeremiah the Greek has οἱ ἡγμόνες τῆς δυνάμεως ‘the officers of the
force’, as opposed to οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν δυνάμεων ‘the officers of the forces’ (1 Kgs
15.20; 2 Kgs 25.26; see below, §8.2).350
345 Gen 12.17; 20.11, 18; 43.18; Exod 8.8; Num 17.14; 25.18 (3x); 31.16; Deut 22.24 (+ ; ֲא ֶׁשר2x); 23.5
(+ ;) ֲא ֶׁשר2 Sam 13.22 (+ ;) ֲא ֶׁשר18.5; Ps 45.5; 79.9.
346 2 Sam 24.4 (2x); 2 Kgs 9.5; Neh 2.9; 2 Chr 33.14.
347 1 Kgs 15.20; 2 Kgs 25.23, 26; Jer 40.7, 13; 41.11, 13, 16; 42.1, 8; 43.4, 5; 2 Chr 16.4.
348 Qimḥi; Meṣudat David; Meṣudat Ṣion; Duhm 1901: 314–315; BDB 299a; Bright 1965: 253;
Nicholson 1973–1975: II 133–135; J. Thompson 1980: 654; Bula 1983: 498; Holladay 1986–
1989: 271, 295; Hoffman 2001–2004: 720.
349 The exceptional cases are Qoh 10.10 and Dan 11.10, both texts widely considered late. The
form יל ֶהם ֵ ( ֵחIsa 30.6) is excluded here, due to its ambiguity: its pronominal suffix and
vocalization are those of a plural, but its consonantal spelling is that of a singular. It is
also apparently not reflected in the (admittedly loose) Greek rendering. For the proposed
lateness of the plural form ֲחיָ ִליםin general see below, §8.2.
350 Generally (in 31 of 35 cases) the plural form τῶν δυνάμεων (in the genitive) parallels a plu-
ral form in Hebrew. The exceptions are Jdg 6.12; 1 Sam 10.26; Jer 52.25; 1 Chr 12.19. In some
cases the Greek appears to reflect ֹלהים ְצ ָבאֹות ִ ֱא, but this divine appellation is missing in
the MT: 1 Kgs 17.1; 2 Kgs 19.20; Isa 42.13.
282 chapter 7
Scholars agree that in comparison to CBH the late phases of ancient Hebrew—
that is, LBH and the various varieties of the language that make up post-
biblical Hebrew—are characterized by expanded use of expressions of the
type X- ְ וX in the distributive meaning ‘each X, every X, all Xs’.352 Thus, if
asyndetic constructions, such as ‘ ִאיׁש ִאיׁשevery man’ and ‘ ִעיר ִעידevery city’,
351 Potential cases include the above in addition to any others in which the nomen regens is
plural and the nomen rectum could have been pluralized (in the following list an asterisk
[*] marks cases not reflected in the Greek): 2.4, 18; 4.4, 5, 14, 19; 5.24; 6.4, 16; 7.8, 22; 8.14, 23;
13.16; 14.18 (2x); 15.4, 7; 18.15, 16 (qre); 21.4; 23.9, 20, 32; 24.9; 25.12, *22, *24 (?), *26, 37; 26.6,
18; 28.13; 29.11, *18; 30.13, 24; 31.2, 12; 32.44; 33.9, 13; *34.1, 7, 17; 38.4, 22; *39.4; *41.3, 16; 44.8,
28 (2x); 46.21, *26; 48.14; 49.13, 16, 26; 50.30, 39; 51.20, 26, 32, 49, 62; 52.7, 25, 33.
352 S.R. Driver 1898: 538, no. 35; BDB 481b; Kropat 1909: 13; GKC §123c; Hurvitz 1972: 70–73;
Polzin 1976: 47–51; Rendsburg 1980b; 68–69; Bergey 1983: 68–70; Qimron 1986: §400.15*;
Wright 2003: 136–138; 2005: 48–42; cf. Gevirtz 1986: 26–28; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd
2008: I 125–126. Of course, there are distributive alternatives not based on the repetition of
the noun involved, most notably X-‘ ָּכלevery X, all Xs’.
syntax 283
7.12.1 The mt
The asyndetic construction is the norm in early texts. Of the 35 cases in the
Bible, 26 come in the Torah or the Former Prophets, with a single case only in
the core LBH books; the rest of the cases are in Isaiah (ch. 58), Ezekiel, Psalms,
and Proverbs.353
The two syndetic constructions, on the other hand, are characteristic of late
material. Polzin (1976: 47–48) provides lists of the relevant cases.354 Regarding
X- ְ וX: of 56 cases in the Bible, 28 come in the core LBH material. It is true
that, at first glance, this proportion, while certainly slanted toward the much
smaller late corpus, does not seem strikingly indicative of a late linguis-
tic feature. It must be noted, however, that the specific expression ּדֹור וָ דֹור
‘every generation’ is the sole example of this construction that comes with
any frequency outside of late sources.355 S.R. Driver (1898: 538, no. 35) saw
in this expression the beginning of the process that later led to the prolifera-
353 ‘ ִאיׁש ִאיׁשevery man’ (Exod 36.4; Lev 15.2; 17.3, 8, 10, 13; 18.6; 20.2, 9; 22.4, 18; 24.15; Num
1.4; 4.19, 49; 5.12; 9.10; Ezek 14.4, 7); ‘ ּגֹוי ּגֹויevery nation’ (2 Kgs 17.29 [2x]); ‘ ; ּדֹור ּדֹורevery
generation forever (?)’ (Exod 3.15; 17.16; Prov 27.24 ktiv); ‘ יֹום יֹוםevery day’ (Gen 39.10;
Exod 16.5; Isa 58.2; Ps 61.9; 68.20; Prov 8.30, 34); ‘ ֵע ֶדר ֵע ֶדרevery flock/herd’ (Gen 32.17); ִעיר
‘ ִעירevery city’ (Josh 21.42); ‘ ַׁש ַּבת ַׁש ָּבתevery Sabbath’ (1 Chr 9.32); ‘ ָׁשנָ ה ָׁשנָ הevery year’
(Deut 14.22). The statistics adduced by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 126) differ
slightly, but they do not provide a list of occurrences for comparison.
354 ‘ ִאיׁש וָ ִאיׁשevery man’ (Est 1.8; Ps 87.5); ‘ ּדֹור וָ דֹורevery generation, forever (?)’ (Deut 32.7;
Isa 13.20; 34.17; 58.12; 60.15; 61.4; Jer 50.39; Joel 2.2; 4.20; Ps 10.6; 33.11; 49.12; 61.7; 77.9; 79.13;
85.6; 89.2, 5; 90.1; 100.5; 102.13; 106.31; 119.90; 135.13; 146.10; Prov 27.24 qre; Lam 5.19); יֹום
‘ וָ יֹוםevery day’ (Est 3.4); ּוכפֹור ְ ‘ ִל ְכפֹורfor every bowl’ (1 Chr 28.17 [2x]); ּומ ִדינָ ה ְ ְמ ִדינָ ה
‘every country’ (Est 1.22; 3.12 [2x]; 8.9; 9.28); נֹורה ָ ּומ
ְ נֹורה
ָ ‘ ְמevery lamp’ (1 Chr 28.15 [2x]);
ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה
ִ ‘ ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ָחהevery family’ (Est 9.28); ‘ נַ ֲע ָרה וְ נַ ֲע ָרהevery young woman’ (Est 2.12);
בֹודה
ָ בֹודה וַ ֲע ָ ‘ ֲעevery (kind of) service’ (1 Chr 28.14 [2x]; 2 Chr 34.13); ‘ ִעיר וָ עיִ רevery city’
(Est 9.28; Ezra 10.14; 2 Chr 19.5); ‘ ַעם וָ ַעםevery people’ (Est 1.22; 3.12 [2x]; 8.9; Neh 13.24);
‘ ֻׁש ְל ַחן וְ ֻש ְל ָחןevery table’ (1 Chr 28.16); ‘ ַׁש ַער וָ ָׁ֫ש ַערevery gate’ (1 Chr 26.13; 2 Chr 8.14; 35.15).
Polzin’s list also includes several irrelevant cases, i.e., expressions in which the meaning
is not distributive, namely, (‘ ֶא ֶבן וָ ֶא ֶבןone) stone and (another) stone’ (Deut 25.13; Prov
20.10); יפה ָ יפה וְ ֵא
ָ (‘ ֵאone) ephah and (another) ephah’ (Deut 25.14; Prov 20.10); ‘ ִמי וָ ִמיwho
and who (else)?’ (Exod 10.8); ‘ ֵׁשׁש וָ ֵׁשׁשsix (on one) and six (on the other)’ (2 Sam 21.20)
355 It comes 27 times (excluding the three cases of ; ָּכל־ּדֹור וָ דֹורsee below, n. 358). The asyn-
detic alternative ּדֹור ּדֹורcomes only three times (see above, n. 353).
284 chapter 7
tion of similar ones. He also observed that, despite the early appearance of
ּדֹור וָ דֹור, most of this idiom’s occurrences are found precisely in texts composed
around the time of the Exile or afterwards.356 Polzin (1976: 50–51) has an alter-
native approach. In his opinion ּדֹור וָ דֹורis a “stock poetic phrase” devoid of
the distributive force of other expressions of this type; in other words, it is idi-
omatic for ‘forever’ and does not literally mean ‘each and every generation’.357
Whether or not the use of the characteristically late distributive structure X- ְ וX
began with early ּדֹור וָ דֹור, it is clear that this phrase indeed occurs sporadically
in early material, predominantly in poetic contexts. Be that as it may, it is the
exception that proves the rule. For if cases of ּדֹור וָ דֹורare excluded from con-
sideration, of the remaining 29 cases, 28 come in core LBH books. Moreover,
these 28 cases generally do not involve poetry (the exception is ‘ ִאיׁש וָ ִאיׁשevery
man’ Ps 87.5). Leaving aside the specific expression ּדֹור וָ דֹור, the non-poetic use
of the distributive construction X- ְ וX turns out to be exclusively characteristic
of post-exilic texts.
Turning to X- ְ וX ּכֹל, the situation is even clearer. There are 16 cases of expres-
sions of this type and 14 of them come in core LBH material, the two excep-
tions in the poetry of Psalms.358
356 It bears mentioning that the four examples repeating the word ּדֹורin Ben Sira come in the
characteristically late syndetic pattern—44.14 (B); 44.14 (Mas1h); 44.16 (B); 51.30 (B)—as
do the nine examples in the non-biblical DSS: 1QHa 9.19; 1Q34bis f2+1.4; 4Q270 f2ii.21;
4Q397 f14–21.11; 4Q418 f68.1; 4Q436 f1a+bi.3; 4Q509 f3.8; 11Q5 22.3; 26.9. In BA see Dan 3.33;
4.31.
357 Cf. Rendsburg 1980b: 68; Gevirtz 1986: 27.
358 ּוב ֵה ָמה
ְ ל־ּב ֵה ָמה
ְ ‘ ְל ָכfor all kinds of livestock’ (2 Chr 32.28); ‘ ְב ָכל־דֹור וָ דֹורin every genera-
tion’ (Ps 45.18; 145.13; Est 9.28); ּוב ָכל־יֹום וָ יֹום
ְ ‘and on every day’ (Est 2.11); ּומ ִדינָ ה
ְ ל־מ ִדינָ ה
ְ ְּב ָכ
‘in every country’ (Est 3.14; 4.3; 8.13, 17); ל־עיר וָ ִעיר ִ ‘ ָּכevery city’ (Est 8.11, 17; 2 Chr 11.12;
28.25; 31.19); ל־ׁשנָ ה וְ ָׁשנָ ה
ָ ‘ ְּב ָכin every year’ (Est 9.21, 27). Unsurprisingly, one of the two
cases outside of lbh proper, namely, that in Ps 145.13, comes in a psalm with other linguis-
tic marks of lateness (see Hurvitz 1972:70–106). It should also be noted—against the claim
of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 126, n. 28)—that the apparent instance of this
structure in Jer 48.8 is irrelevant. The case in question involves two separate clauses, וְ ֙יָב ֹא
ל־עיר ָ ‘ ׁש ֵ ֹ֜דד ֶאand a destroyer will come to every city’ and יר ֣ל ֹא ִת ָּמ ֔ ֵלט
ִ ֗ ל־ּכ ֙ ‘ וְ ִעand no city
will escape’, as is clear from the syntax, vocalization (- ְ וrather than - ָ וfor ‘and’), and the
disjunctive accent after the first occurrence of ‘ ִעירcity’. There is widespread agreement
on this interpretation in the translations and commentaries, ancient and modern.
syntax 285
biblical DSS there are just four cases of the asyndetic structure359 against 31 of
the syndetic type. Of these latter, 23 are of the type X- ְ וX360 and eight of the
type X- ְ וX ּכֹל.361 In the biblical scrolls use of the asyndetic structure persists,
of course, but there are also cases in which an asyndetic structure in the MT is
replaced in the DSS with its syndetic counterpart:
Exod 17.16 Yhwh has a war against Amalek for every generation () ִמּד ֹר ּד ֹר
4Q22 18.1 Yhwh has a war against Amalek for every generation ()עד דור ודו[ר
Similar replacements are also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch.362 The pref-
erence for the syndetic structure—and especially for X- ְ וX —ּכֹלis moreover
typical of other late sources, such as Ben Sira (see above, n. 356) and RH.363
Aramaic texts from the Second Temple Period also exhibit the tendency for
syndetic structures, a fact that emerges very clearly from a comparison of the
targums with the MT:364
Exod 3.15 and this is my memorial for all generations () ְלד ֹר ּד ֹר
Tg Onkelos and this is my memorial for all generations ()לכל דר ודר
Tg Jerusalem and this is my memorial for all generations ()לכל דר ודר
Sam Tg J and this is my memorial for all generations ()לדר ודר
Sam Tg A and this is my memorial for all generations ()לדר ודר
359 4Q299 f6ii.13 (?); 4Q365 f28.3; 4Q385a f18ii.8; 11Q20 1.12.
360 CD 12.21; 1QS 9.12 (2x); 1QHa 9.19; 1Q34bis f2+1.4; 4Q177f1–4.11; 4Q270 f2ii.21; 4Q387a f9.2
(2x); 4Q397 f14–21.11; 4Q417 f1i.5; 4Q418 f1.2; f68.1; f206.4; 4Q436 f1a+bi.3; 4Q509 f3.8; 11Q5
22.3; 26.9; 11Q19 15.1; 23.7; 24.7; 34.12; PAM44102 f36.2.
361 1QM 7.17; 4Q471 f1.4; 11Q5 27.6; 11Q19 17.12; 36.5; 40.8; 42.13, 14.
362 X X || X- ְ וX: Gen 39.10; Exod 3.15; 16.5; 17.16; X X || X- ְּבX: Deut 14.22; X X || X: Num 4.19.
363 See Hurvitz 1972: 70–73 for examples.
364 Additional examples: X X || X- ְ וX: Deut 14.22 Neofiti; X X || X- וX כל: Tg Prov 8.30, 34. In the
Peshiṭta the asyndetic structure is replaced in 14 of 35 cases, most of the cases involving
an adverbial of time (Gen 39.10; Exod 3.15; 16.5; 17.16; Deut 14.22; Isa 58.2; Ps 61.9; 68.20;
Prov 8.30, 34; 27.24; 1 Chr 9.32; see also Lev 20.9; Ezek 14.7), but the substitute struc-
ture is never X- ܘX or X- ܘX ܟܠ, but rather one of a variety of alternative constructions
(the Syriac of the New Testament also has no knowledge of these syndetic expressions, pre-
serving the asyndetic one only in the case of certain phrases, e.g., ‘ ]ܟܠ] ܚܕ ܚܕeach one’ and
‘ ܐܢܫ ܐܢܫeach man’).
286 chapter 7
Exod 16.5 and it will be double what they collect each day ()יֹום יֹום
Tg Jerusalem and it will be for you double what they collect each day ()יומא ויומא
Sam Tg J and it will be double what they collect each day ()יום ויום
Sam Tg A and it will be double what they collect each day ()יום ויום
Despite the sporadic use of the two syndetic structures under discussion in
sources of unknown date, and notwithstanding the continued use of the asyn-
detic structure in late sources, there is no doubt that the former are especially
characteristic of late texts and the latter of classical sources.365 The frequency
of the syndetic structures in Aramaic may be evidence of this tongue’s contrib-
uting role in their increased use in the late stages of ancient Hebrew. Even so,
the possibility of internal development should not be ignored.
7.12.3 Jeremiah
The book of Jeremiah presents only one example of the syndetic expres-
sions listed above and no examples of the asyndetic structure in question.
Furthermore, the single relevant case of X- ְ וX is
Jer 50.39 Therefore desert creatures with hyenas will live there, and ostriches
will dwell in it, and it will no longer be inhabited ever, nor settled for
all generations ()ּדֹור וָ דֹור.
As noted above, the phrase ּדֹור וָ דֹורis the sole example of the X- ְ וX routinely
attested in classical sources, to the point that it is more common than its asyn-
detic counterpart. Moreover, here, as in the majority of the cases of this expres-
sion, the context is poetic. The specific prepositional phrase ַעד־ּדֹור וָ דֹורcomes
twice more in the Bible, in Isa 13.20 and Ps 100.5, neither of which exhibits a
particularly late linguistic profile. To be sure, Jer 50.39b is an exact quotation of
Isa 13.20. This being the case, the use of the expression in Jeremiah is not espe-
cially characteristic of any diachronic stratum and, inherited from a source, is
apparently not even representative of the book’s language. An instance where
one of the two syndetic alternatives could potentially have occurred comes in
the following verse, which, however, employs a classical alternative:
365 Cf. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 125–126), who dismiss the proposed late status
of X- ְ וX on the basis of the early use of ּדֹור וָ דֹורand even cast doubt on the characteristi-
cally late status of X- ְ וX ּכֹלon the grounds that it occurs in Jer 48.8 (but see above, n. 358)
and Ps 45.18.
syntax 287
Jer 52.34 And his fare was a perpetual meal that was given to him by the king
of Babylon, each thing on its day () ְּד ַבר־יֹום ְּביֹומֹו, until the day of his
death.
The notion ‘imperfectivity’ merits elaboration, since not every action or situa-
tion which Hebrew writers chose to express by means of verb forms associated
with the imperfective past are generally expressed by such forms in other lan-
guages, including those into which BH is translated. There is little doubt that
writers of BH exercised a certain degree of liberty in their literary choices—
whether to mark an action or situation by means of an explicit imperfective
past form or to make use of a more general (or perfective) past form, such
as wayyiqṭol or qaṭal—so that different biblical writers could present similar
actions and situations in different ways and with different verbal forms.
Scholars are agreed that the weqaṭal and yiqṭol forms frequently serve to
mark past actions that are habitual or repetitious, e.g., Gen 2.6; 29.2–3; Exod
17.11; 18.25–26; 33.7–11; Josh 18.11–20; Isa 6.1–4. Yet, one must also recognize other
uses in which writers were free to choose such imperfective forms for reasons
associated with the presentation of events and situations in their accounts.
These cases do not necessarily involve habitual or repeated actions in the past,
but actions or situations which, for literary reasons the author has chosen to
depict using imperfective forms. Here follows a brief list of legitimate imper-
fective uses of the weqaṭal (and yiqṭol) beyond those of habitual or repeated
past action:
288 chapter 7
tions can be viewed globally, as completed wholes, e.g., David ruled for
forty years (e.g., 2 Sam 5.4; 2 Chr 9.30), in which a perfective form is quite
natural in both English and the BH equivalent, while extremely instan-
taneous events can be described using imperfective forms, e.g., “Great
video showing a water balloon being popped” (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=TdMIsCF_7p0&feature=related, accessed 9 April 2013 [italics
added]).
Reference Factor
Gen 21.25
38.5 textual corruption? the Greek appears to reflect וְ ִהיא
49.23 poetry
Exod 36.29 architecture
30 architecture
38 architecture; multiple objects
38.28 (2x) architecture; multiple objects
39.3 architecture; multiple objects
Num 21.15 geographical description
20 geographical description
23.19 poetry
20 poetry
Deut 2.30 attraction
33.2 (2x) poetry
Josh 9.12
15.3–15 (29x) geographical description
16.2–8 (11x) geographical description
17.7 geographical description
9 geographical description
(Continued)
290 chapter 7
table (Continued)
Reference Factor
table (Continued)
Reference Factor
23.4 process
5 process
8 process
10 process
12 process
14 process
15 process
24.14 multiple objects; process
25.29 long period
Ezek 9.7 (2x) process; multiple subjects and objects
11.6 attraction due to the poetic synonym; multiple objects
13.6 (?)
17.18
24 attraction
19.12 attraction
20.22
22.29 attraction
23.40 attraction
41
25.12
28.14
31.10 attraction
37.2
40.24 (?)
35 (?)
41.3
8
13
15
42.15 (3x)
Qoh 1.13
16
2.5 multiple objects
9 (2x)
11 multiple objects
12 (Continued)
292 chapter 7
table (Continued)
Reference Factor
13
14
15 (2x)
17
18
20
3.22
4.1
4
7
5.13 (2x)
18
8.10
15
17
9.14 (3x)
15 (2x)
16
12.9 (2x??)
Est 8.15 attraction
9.24
25 (?)
27 hendiadys
Dan 8.17
11
27 attraction?
9.5 (2x [ktiv: 3x]) attraction
10.1 infinitive absolute?
7
14
15 attraction
12.5
Ezra 3.10
6.22
8.30
36 (Continued)
syntax 293
table (Continued)
Reference Factor
9.2
6 attraction
13
Neh 9.7 (2x)
8
10.33 multiple objects
12.39 (?)
13.1
30 multiple objects
1 Chr 7.21
8.7
9.26
11.22 (|| 2 Sam 23.20)
17.17 (cf. 2 Sam 7.19)
22.18 (2x??)
23.1 attraction
28.2
29.17
2 Chr 1.8
3.7 multiple objects; architecture
7.12
16 attraction; future?
12.10 (|| 1 Kgs 14.27) multiple objects
19.3
29.6 attraction
19 attraction
31.21 attraction
33.4 (|| 2 Kgs 21.4) multiple objects
33.14 architecture
19 multiple objects
34.4 attraction
chapter 8
Lexical Features
In a situation different from that of the core lbh works, characteristically late
lexical features in Jeremiah are relatively rare. Further, their evidential value
often seems less impressive than that of features belonging to the other, non-
lexical realms of the language. This may be due in part to the comparative ease
of avoiding late vocabulary as opposed to, say, late morphology and syntax. The
following case studies of more or less characteristically late lexical items in
Jeremiah are presented in alphabetical order.
As is well known, among the late parallels for the biblical expression ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת
‘ ַה ְּד ָב ִריםthe Ten Commandments’ is עשרת הדיברות.1 Consider the following:
Mekh Wayyassaʿ 1 “. . . to the voice of Yhwh your God” (Exod 15.26). These
are the Ten Commandments ()עשרת הדברות, which
were given from mouth to mouth in ten utterances.
Mekh Baḥodeš 8 How were the Ten Commandments (עשרת
)דיברותgiven? Five on this tablet and five on that
tablet.
Seder ʿOlam Rab 5 In the third (month) on the sixth (day) of the month
the Ten Commandments ( )עשרת הדברותwere given
and it was a Friday.2
B Shabbat 86.2 On the sixth (day) of the month the Ten
Commandments ( )עשרת הדברותwere given to Israel.
Exod 34.28 . . . the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments () ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת ַה ְּד ָב ִרים
Tg Jerusalem . . . the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments ()עישרתי דביריא
Tg Neofiti . . . the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments ()עשירתי דביריה
Deut 10.4 he wrote . . . like the first writing, the Ten Commandments () ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת ַה ְּד ָב ִרים
Tg Jerusalem he wrote . . . like the first writing, the Ten Commandments ()עשרתי דביריא
Tg Neofiti he wrote . . . like the first writing, the Ten Commandments ()עשרתי דביריה
These expressions all incorporate the Hebrew word ( ִּד ֵּברthe plural of which is
) ִּד ְּברֹותor Aramaic ּד ִּב ָירא/א ִ ִּד ְּב ָר, in the sense ‘divine word’.
ֶ ּד ִּב ָיר/א
8.1.1 The mt
In the view of some scholars this word makes a singular biblical appearance
in רּוח וְ ַה ִּד ֵּבר ֵאין ָּב ֶהם ִ ‘ וְ ַהּנְ ִבand the prophets will be like wind and the
ַ יאים יִ ְהיּו ְל
divine word is not in them’ (Jer 5.13).3 R. Steiner (1992) has thoroughly dis-
cussed this verse in a detailed article, marshaling an impressive quantity of
evidence from post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, from the Tiberian reading
tradition,4 from the old Greek and Latin translations,5 and from biblical lit-
erature itself in order to show (a) that the word in question should indeed be
read as vocalized and identified with the characteristically post-biblical noun
‘ ִּד ֵּברdivine word’ and (b) that this understanding is appropriate in the con-
text. Additionally, Steiner attempts to explain the unique usage of the word in
Jer 5.13 as intentional imitation of popular speech. Therefore—according to
Steiner—the word serves specifically in a complaint attributed to the people
of Jerusalem, whereas the wording in God’s response employs the more literary
‘ ָּד ָברword’ (‘ ְּד ָב ִריmy word’).
3 Greek: λόγος κυρίου ‘word of the Lord’; Vulgate: responsum ‘answer’; Rashi: והדבור של קדושה
‘and the speech of holiness’; Qimḥi: ‘ כלו' רוח הקדשthat is to say, the Holy Spirit’; see also
Rudolph 1968: 39; Gruber 1982: 19; Bula 1983: 68; Holladay 1986–1989:I 187; Craigie, Kelley, and
Drinkard 1991: 89–90; Lundbom 1999–2004: I 390.
4 As Steiner (1992: 12) notes, the Masoretic vocalization does not allow for a verbal interpreta-
tion, as the required form ‘ ִּד ֵּברhe spoke’, with ṣere, comes only in pause, while the contextual
form is ִּד ֶּבר, with segol. See Steiner (ibid.) in response to those who read the article on ִּד ֵּברas
an interrogative he.
5 There is no consensus regarding whether the Greek λόγος κυρίου ‘word of the Lord’ reflects a
precise understanding of ַה ִּד ֵּברas ‘the divine word’, a contextually explanatory rendering of
ַה ָּד ָבר, or a different text, i.e., '‘ ְּד ַבר הword of Yhwh’. On the Latin rendering: Jerome did not
frequently employ the term responsum, and it may be that he reserved this term especially
for divine revelation; cf. the Vulgate at Mic 3.7. Be that as it may, it is impossible to establish
what form lay before the translators and, if it was הדבר, how exactly it was pronounced.
296 chapter 8
Mekh Pasḥa 1 From “And Yhwh said to Moses and to Aaron in the
land of Egypt, saying . . .” (Exod 12.1) I understand that
the divine word ( )הדיברcame to (both) Moses and to
Aaron. (However,) when he says “And it was on the
day Yhwh spoke (' ) ְּביֹום ִּד ֶּבר הto Moses in the land of
Egypt,” (Exod 6.28) (it is clear that) the divine word
( )הדיברcame to Moses, but the divine word ()הדיבר
did not come to Aaron.6
Mekh Pasḥa 11 How does this divine word ( )הדיברdiffer from all the
divine words ( )הדיברותthat are in the Torah? In all the
divine words ( )הדברותthat are in the Torah the word
( )הדברis from the mouth of Moses saying to all of
Israel and also here the divine word ( )הדיברis from the
mouth of Moses saying to all of Israel . . .
Sifre Bemidbar 72 “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver” (Num 10.2).
Why was this said? Since he says “At the word of Yhwh
they will camp and at his word they will travel” (Num
9.20, 23) I understand that because they travel accord-
ing to the divine word ( )הדיברand camp according to
the divine word ( )הדיברthey did not need trumpets.
“Make for yourself” teaches us. The verse says that
though they travel and camp according to the divine
word ()הדיבר, they needed the trumpets.
In the targums the word דביראeven comes to serve for indirect reference to
God, similar to the term מימרא. For example,
6 The second claim of this argument appears to rest not only on the similarity between the
verb ‘ ִּד ֶּברspeak’ and the noun ‘ ) ִּד ֵּבר( דיברdivine word’, but on the grammatical structure of
'‘ ְּביֹום ִּד ֶּבר הon the day Yhwh spoke’, in which the noun ‘ יֹוםday’ is in a construct relationship
with the verb ‘ ִּד ֶּברspeak’.
Lexical Features 297
Num 7.89 and when Moses came to the tent of meeting to speak with him,
Tg Jerusalem and when Moses would come to the tent of meeting to speak with him,
Tg Neofiti and when Moses would come to the tent of meeting to speak with him,
Num the cover that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two
Tg Jerusalem the cover that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two
Tg Neofiti the cover that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two
The above collection of cases is the smallest of samples of a use that is exceed-
ingly common in RH and Jewish Aramaic.
8.1.3 Jeremiah
In the absence of additional evidence, Steiner’s argument is difficult conclu-
sively to prove (or disprove). Even so, the reading of ‘ ִּד ֵּברdivine word’ in Jer 5.13
is attractive for three reasons. First, the language of Jeremiah contains not a
few features rare in CBH, but characteristic of later phases (see above, §2.2.1).
Second, scholars have noted several linguistic affinities between Jeremiah and
RH without the evident mediation of LBH (see above, §2.2.2). Third, the lan-
guage of Jeremiah exhibits additional examples of what appear to be charac-
teristically colloquial usages (see above, §2.4).
8.2.1 The MT
The vocable ‘ ַחיִ לforce, strength, army, wealth’ comes some 245 in BH, the vast
majority of the occurrences in the singular. The plural form comes only about
20 times, with a relatively late distribution pattern.9 It should also be noted
that in 18 of the 20 cases it comes as the nomen rectum of a plural nomen regens
( ָׂש ֵריor ּבֹורי
ֵ ִ )ּגin what is often termed the ‘double plural construct chain’, itself
a characteristically post-classical syntagm (see above, §7.11). Compare the fol-
lowing similarly worded or parallel usages:
Josh 10.7 . . . and all (of them) mighty warriors (ּבֹורי ֶה ָחיִ ל
ֵ ִ)ּג
1 Chr 7.11 . . . and all of these . . . mighty warriors (ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים
ֵ ִ)ּג
2 Sam 24.4 Joab and the military officers ( )וְ ָׂש ֵרי ַה ַחיִ לwent out before the king
2 Kgs 9.5 he came and behold the military officers ( ) ָׂש ֵרי ַה ַחיִ לwere sitting
7 Bendavid 1967–1971: I 70, 369, II 450–451; see also Polzin 1976: 42–43; Hurvitz 1982: 43–46;
Rooker 1990: 77.
8 Kropat 1909: 9–10; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 70, 369, II 450–451; Hurvitz 1972: 100–103, 173; 1982:
43–46; Polzin 1976: 42–43; Rendsburg 1980b: 67, 73; Qimron 1986: 68, 88–89, 91, 93–95; Rooker
1990: 77; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117–118; Wright 2005: 68–71.
9 1 Kgs 15.20; 2 Kgs 25.23, 25; Jer 40.7, 13; 41.11, 13, 16; 42.1, 8; 43.4, 5; Qoh 10.10; Dan 11.10; 1
Chr 7.5, 7, 11, 40; 11.26; 2 Chr 16.4. The form יל ֶהם ֵ ‘ ֵחtheir wealth’ (Isa 30.6), which is apparently
not reflected in the (admittedly dynamic) Greek, is ambiguous: its pronominal suffix and its
vocalization are those of a plural, but its consonantal spelling is that of a singular. The pres-
ervation of the he of the 3pl possessive suffix is rare after a consonant, but not unknown in
BH: see, e.g., ‘ ְל ִמינֵ ֶהםaccording to their kinds’ (Gen 1.21); ‘ ְל ַב ְּד ֶהןby themselves’ (21.28); ֶח ְל ְּב ֶהן
‘their fat’ (Lev 8.16, 25); ‘ ָּפ ְת ֵהןtheir scalps’ (Isa 3.17); ‘ ִמ ִּל ְּב ֶהןfrom their own heart’ (Ezek 13.17);
ית ֶהן
ְ ‘ ְׁש ִבtheir captivity/fortunes’ (16.53). Alternatively, it may be that the yod that normally
marks the plural was either omitted, e.g., ‘ וְ נִ ְס ֵּכ ֶהםand their libations’ (Num 29.33) (if to be
read as a plural), or misplaced, e.g., ‘ וַ ֲא ֵׁש ֵיר ֶהםtheir Asherah poles’ (Deut 7.5).
Lexical Features 299
2 Kgs 25.26 all the people, small to great, and the military officers ()וְ ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֲחיָ ִלים
arose
2 Chr 16.4 he sent the military officers ( ) ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֲחיָ ִליםthat he had to the cities
of Israel
Exod 15.4 and his force ( )וְ ֵחילֹו he cast into the sea
Sam Pent and his forces ( )וחיליו he cast into the sea
Tg Jerusalem and his forces ( )וחילוותיה he cast into the sea
Tg Neofiti and his forces ( )וחיילוותיה he shot with fiery arrows in the sea
Exod 6.26 Bring out the Israelites . . . by their regiments () ִצ ְבא ָֹתם
Tg Onkelos Bring out the Israelites . . . by their regiments ()חיליהון
Tg Jerusalem Bring out the Israelites redeemed . . . by their regiments ()חיליהון
Tg Neofiti Bring out the Israelites . . . by their regiments ()חילותיהן
Peshiṭta Bring out the Israelites . . . all of their regiments ()ܚܝܠܘܬܗܘܢ
On the basis of the frequency of the Aramaic cognate’s plural form it may
be correct to assume Aramaic involvement in the rise of the plural form in
Hebrew. Even so, the fact that such a high percentage of the occurrences in
BH come as part of the double plural construct chain may indicate an inner-
Hebrew development due to grammatical attraction to the plural nomina
regentes ּבֹורי
ֵ ִ‘ ּגwarriors of’ and ‘ ָׂשריofficers of’. A combination of factors is also
not out of the question.
8.2.3 Jeremiah
The book of Jeremiah knows both the singular ַחיִ לand the plural ֲחיָ ִלים. The
former occurs 23 times in the book, in the meanings ‘wealth’, ‘army’, and ‘force,
10 Ben Sira 16.3 (B). RH: Mekh Bešallaḥ 1; Seder ʿOlam Rabba 23; Sifre Bemidbar 82; Sifre
Devarim 3; etc. Aramaic: 4Q543 f24.1. There are dozens of examples in the targums and in
the Peshiṭta in addition to those cited above.
300 chapter 8
strength’.11 The plural form is used in Jeremiah only in reference to ‘army, mili-
tary unit’. It is also worth noting that the two forms occur in complementary
distribution: the nine instances of the plural are restricted to chs. 40–43 (the
episode recounting the assassination of Gedaliah and the flight to Egypt), a
section of text that does not attest to use of the singular. Thus, from the per-
spective of this linguistic feature, the unit of chs. 40–43 reveals a unique char-
acter that distinguishes it from the rest of the book. This fact is in line with the
theory according to which composition of the book of Jeremiah was a lengthy
process that took place during the transition from CBH to LBH and that the
book is composed from various sources. The plural form ֲחיָ ִליםalso shows a
restricted grammatical distribution: it comes exclusively in the double plural
construct phrase ‘ ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֲחיָ ִליםmilitary officers’.12
As already observed in §7.11 above, there are those who view ֲחיָ ִליםin the
aforementioned construct phrases as a genuine plural, ostensibly referring to
individual military units.13 However, the fact that it comes so frequently pre-
cisely in double plural construct phrases, its complementary distribution with
the singular form in Jeremiah, and its generally late distribution in the Bible
all arouse the suspicion that )חיָ ִלים ַ ָׂש ֵריis no more than a late synonym for
ֲ (ה
)ּצ ָבא
ָ (ה/ל
ַ ִ)חי ַ ‘ ָׂש ֵריarmy commanders, military commanders’, and does not
ַ (ה
refer to the military leaders of separate bands of soldiers. The Greek supports
this approach: all nine cases of ָׂש ֵרי ֲחיָ ִליםin Jeremiah are rendered οἱ ἡγμόνες
τῆς δυνάμεως ‘the officers of the force’, as opposed to οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν δυνάμεων
‘the officers of the forces’ (e.g., 1 Kgs 15.20; 2 Kgs 25.26).14
11 ‘Wealth’: Jer 15.13; ‘army’: Jer 32.2; 34.1, 7, 21; 35.11 (2x); 37.5, 7, 10, 11 (2x); 38.3; 39.1, 5; 46.2;
52.4, 8 (2x), 14; ‘force, strength’: Jer 36.22; 38.14.
12 Cf. י־חיִ ל
ַ ‘ ַאנְ ֵׁשmighty warriors’ (Jer 48.14).
13 Qimḥi; Meṣudat David; Meṣudat Ṣion; Duhm 1901: 314–315; BDB 299a; Bright 1965: 253;
Nicholson 1973–1975: II 133–135; J. Thompson 1980: 654; Bula 1983: 498; Holladay 1986–
1989: 271; 295; Hoffman 2001–2004: 720.
14 Generally (in 31 of 35 cases) the plural genitive τῶν δυνάμεων ‘of the forces’ parallels a plu-
ral form in Hebrew. The exceptions are Jdg 6.12; 1 Sam 10.26; Jer 52.25; 1 Chr 12.19. In some
cases the Greek appears to reflect ֹלהים ְצ ָבאֹות ִ ‘ ֱאGod of hosts’, when this divine appella-
tion is not found in the parallel MT verse: 1 Kgs 17.1; 2 Kgs 19.20; Isa 42.13.
Lexical Features 301
8.3.1 The mt
The term ‘ חֹרnoble, officer’ is relatively rare in the Bible, represented by just
13 examples.15 Its distribution pattern would seem to be that of a late, dialec-
tal, or borrowed term. The word appears seven times in the core LBH book
of Nehemiah, where it is used in reference to the nobles of Judah. A further
almost certainly late occurrence comes in Qohelet. In apparently CBH con-
texts the word refers either to foreign (specifically, Edomite) nobles (Isa 34.12)
or to nobles of the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 21.8, 11). The two remaining cases,
Jer 27.20 and 39.6, are thus, to all appearances, the only instances in which the
term indicates nobles of Judah before the era of LBH proper. However, there
is evidence that may point to the secondary nature of these cases (see below).
Standard classical alternatives include ‘ ּגָ דֹולgreat one’, ‘ ַׂשרofficer’, ‘ נִ ְכ ָּבדhon-
ored one’, and ‘ ָא ִצילnoble’. Consider the following illustrations of semantic
opposition:
Giṭṭin 4.5 he who is half-slave and half-free ( )בן חוריןserves his master one
day and himself one day
Giṭṭin 4.6 he who sells his slave to gentiles or abroad—he (the slave)
hereby goes forth a free man ()בן חורין
ʾAvot 2.16 you are not required to finish the work nor are you free ()בן־חורין
to cease from it
15 1 Kgs 21.8, 11; Isa 34.12; Jer 27.20; 39.6; Qoh 10.17; Neh 2.16; 4.8, 13; 5.7; 6.17; 7.5; 13.17. The
Greek evidently reflects an additional case at Neh 5.5: the MT’s ‘ ַל ֲא ֵח ִריםto the others’ is
paralleled by τοῖς ἐντίμοις, which apparently renders ; ַלח ִֹריםsee BHK; BHS; and Gesenius’
Lexicon18 391.
302 chapter 8
In post-biblical usage from the Mishna the expression is also employed in ref-
erence to objects, e.g.,
Exod 21.5 . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”) ָח ְפ ִׁשי. . .
Tg Onkelos . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”)בר חורין. . .
Tg Jerusalem . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”)לבר חורין. . .
Sam Tg J . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”)חראי. . .
Sam Tg A . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”)חראי. . .
Peshiṭta . . . if the slave says “I love my master . . .; I will not go free ( ”)ܒܪ ܚܐܪܐ. . .
Deut 15.13 and when you set him free () ָח ְפ ִׁשי, do not send him off empty-handed
Tg Onkelos and when you set him free ()בר־חורין, do not send him off empty-handed
Tg Jerusalem and when you set him free ()בר חורי, do not send him off empty-handed
Sam Tg J and when you set him free ()חראי, do not send him off empty-handed
Peshiṭta and when you set him free ()ܒܪ ܚܐܖܐ, do not send him off empty-handed16
The word is also used more independently in the Hebrew of Ben Sira, RH, and
in Aramaic documentary and inscriptional sources.17 Derivatives of the same
root occur in other Semitic languages as well.18
There is obviously a semantic difference between the biblical and post-
biblical uses of the term חֹר. In biblical usage, it refers to a nobleman, while
its post-biblical meaning seems more broadly to indicate freedom from
obligation.19
16 See also the Syriac New Testament: Matthew 17.26; John 8.33, 36; 1 Corinthians 7.22; 9.1;
12.13; Galatians 3.28; Ephesians 6.8; 1 Timothy 1.10; 1 Peter 2.16; Revelation 6.15.
17 Ben Sira: 10.25 (B); Aramaic: TAD A4 7.19; 8.18; C2 3.48; D4 2.2; D11 4.2; Genesis Rabba 92; B
Bava Meṣiʾa 13.1; Y Bava Qamma 7.2.
18 See the dictionaries. It should be noted that the feminine noun ḫry ‘freedom (?)’ is appar-
ently attested in Ugaritic; see C. Gordon 1965: §17, no. 896, as cited in HALOT 348b.
19 On the semantics see van der Ploeg 1950: 57–59; Copps 1980; DCH III 305a–b; Schoors
1992–2004: II383–384; Olivier and Aitken 1997. It is interesting that the presumed basic
meaning of the term, ‘free’, does not occur in the Bible. One wonders if the earliest mean-
ing was otherwise, i.e., ‘noble’, in which case the meaning of the term was ‘watered down’
as it was applied more generally; cf. the Modern Israeli Hebrew use of ‘ ָאדֹוןsir’ and ָמר
Lexical Features 303
8.3.3 Jeremiah
The two occurrences of the word in Jeremiah are somewhat unexpected, refer-
ring as they do to the nobles of Judah. This usage is known only from Hebrew
and Aramaic texts of the late 5th century BCE, while Jeremiah would seem
to have been composed during the previous century. Even so, this would not
be the only case of Jeremiah attesting relatively early forerunners of linguistic
features destined to proliferate in later stages of the language. The transitional
status of Jeremiah’s language certainly fits such a scenario. Be that as it may,
before drawing any conclusions, due attention should be given to the testi-
mony of the Greek.
‘Mr.’ (likely influenced by similar processes in foreign languages, e.g., gentleman, governor,
monsieur, signore). Alternatively, perhaps the cultural concept of ‘freedom’, once associ-
ated exclusively (or predominantly) with nobles, evolved and expanded over time (the
use of the aforementioned foreign titles has certainly expanded beyond reference to
nobility). Note the following targumic rendering:
1 Sam 17.25 and (the king) will make his familial house exempt from taxes () ָח ְפ ִׁשי
Tg Jonathan and (the king) will make his familial house nobles ()רברבין
20 TAD A4 7.19; 8.18.
21 Delitzsch 1877: 191; S.R. Driver 1898: 533, n. †; Kautzsch 1902: 32–34; Gordis 1968: 373; Copps
1980; Fredericks 1988: 224–225. Cf. Nöldeke (1903: 416), who raises phonological and mor-
phological problems. In light of Syriac (‘Aramaic’ in his terms) ܚܐܪܐ, he sees targumic
חוריןas a loan from Hebrew. Wagner (1966) does not discuss the word and in Schoors’
(1992–2004: II 383) opinion there is insufficient evidence to decide whether the word is
an Aramaism or not. Aramaic influence of some sort seems likely given the rarity of the
term and related words in CBH, their commonness in various Aramaic dialects, and their
proliferation in RH.
304 chapter 8
material added to the shorter, underlying text.22 Consider the first case, the
MT edition given in parallel with a Hebrew back-translation of the Greek (in
the English gloss that follows, words not paralleled in the Greek are in square
brackets):
ִירּוׁש ָלם
ָ ִהּודה ו
ָ ְירּוׁש ַלםִ ָּב ֶב ָלה וְ ֵאת ָּכל־ח ֵֹרי י
ָ הּודה ִמ
ָ ְ בן־יְ הֹויָ ִקים ֶמ ֶלְך־י
ֶ Jer
-------- ------ ---- -- ---- ------ מירושלם------ ---- ------- -- Greek
. . . [Nebuchadnezzar] the king of Babylon did not take them in his exil-
ing of Jechoniah [son of Jehoiakim king of Judah] from Jerusalem [to
Babylon and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem]23
In the second case, Jer 39.6 comes as part of a long minus, Jer 39.4–13, in the
Greek.
In light of the arguments adduced above for the non-standard and/or late
status of the word in BH, it is tempting to conclude that its use in these two
verses in Jeremiah is due to late, secondary expansion. From this perspective,
the supplementary material uses the term in question in two of six potential
cases, while, to all appearances, the short edition does not employ it in about
forty potential cases.24 This would then serve as evidence for the primacy of
the short edition of Jeremiah, best reflected in the Greek, over against the lon-
ger Masoretic edition.
The situation may not be so simple, however; even if use of the term is due to
a secondary supplement, it is by no means obvious that the addition was made
many years after the short edition of the book was completed. For the short
edition, too, has its fair share of relatively late features, including Aramaisms
especially typical of Second Temple times.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Greek version itself
may reflect use of the term חֹרwhere the MT reads otherwise. In Jer 29.2 the
Greek rendering parallel to ‘ וְ ֶה ָח ָרׁש וְ ַה ַּמ ְסּגֵ רand the craftsmen and the metal-
22 S.R. Driver 1898: 553, n. †; Janzen 1973: 47; Tov 1979: 90; Stipp 1997: 190; Joosten 2008: 98.
23 The Greek reads ὧν οὐκ ἔλαβεν βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος ὅτε ἀπῴκισεν τὸν Ιεχονιαν ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ.
24 The potential cases include the two cases of ח ִֹריםin addition to cases of the term ָׂש ִרים
employed in reference to the nobles of Judah and/or Jerusalem (there is no parallel for
the latter in the Greek of Jer 29.2; 34.19; 36.19; and 38.4, though in the last two cases the
difference may reflect stylistic rather than textual factors).
Lexical Features 305
smiths’ is καὶ παντὸς ἐλευθέρου καὶ δεσμώτου καὶ τεχνίτου ‘and all the freemen/
nobles and prisoners and craftsmen’, which may represent *וְ ָכל־חֹר וְ ַה ַּמ ְסּגֵ ר
וְ ֶה ָח ָרׁש.25 If this is true, then the term is found in both the short edition and
the supplementary material. Of course, this possibility is far from certain, and
even if proved, does little to undermine the argument that use of the term is
much more characteristic of the supplementary material than of the rest of
the book. It would, however, seem to indicate a linguistic affinity between the
book’s short edition and the supplementary material, so that mere sporadic
mention of the term חֹר, as opposed to regular usage thereof, should not be
taken as unequivocal evidence of a pronounced diachronic difference between
these two layers of material.
25 See Ziegler 1958: 92; Tov 1979: 90; Stipp 1997: 190, n. 18. Indeed, Tov (ibid.) explains the
appearance of ח ִֹריםin Jer 27.20 on the basis of its usage in the (reconstructed) Hebrew
purportedly standing behind the Greek at Jer 29.2. For use of ἐλεύθερος as an equivalent
of חֹרsee 1 Kgs 21.8, 11; Qoh 10.17; Neh 13.17. This Greek word generally represents Hebrew
‘ ָח ְפ ִׁשיfree’: Exod 21.2, 5, 26, 27; Deut 15.12, 13, 18; Jer 34.9, 14, 16; Ps 88.6; Job 39.5. In Deut
21.14 the word parallels ‘ )וְ ִׁש ַּל ְח ָּתּה ְל(נַ ְפ ָׁשּהyou will send her where she wishes’, which the
translator apparently read (or interpreted) as ‘ )וְ ִׁש ַּל ְח ָּתּה ְל( ָח ְפ ִׁשיyou will send her free’.
Given this reading—perhaps based on graphic confusion—it is possible that ἐλεύθερος in
Jer 29.2 represents not חֹר, but rather derives from an incorrect reading (or understand-
ing) of ָח ָרׁשas ָח ְפ ִׁשי, perhaps under the influence of the interpretation of ַמ ְסּגֵ רas ‘pris-
oner’ rather than ‘artisan’. In other words, the Greek need not represent חֹרat all here. For
the use of δεσμώτης ‘prisoner’ as a rendering of ַמ ְסּגֵ רsee Jer 24.1. ַמ ְסּגֵ רis translated with
another word for ‘prisoner’, i.e., συγκλείοντες, in 2 Kgs 24.14, 16. This interpretation is based
on the usage in Isa 24.22; 42.7; Ps 142.8. For the use of τεχνίτης ‘artisan’ to render ָח ָרׁשsee
Deut 27.15; Jer 10.9; 24.1; 1 Chr 29.5.
26 2 Kgs 16.6; 25.25; Jer 32.12; 34.9; 38.19; 40.11, 12; 41.3; 43.9; 44.1; 52.28, 30; Zech 8.23; Est 2.5;
3.4, 6, 10, 13; 4.3, 7, 13, 14, 16; 5.13; 6.10, 13; 8.1, 3, 5, 7 (2x), 8, 9 (2x), 11, 13, 16, 17 (2x); 9.1 (2x), 2,
3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 (2x), 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 10.3 (2x); Neh 1.2; 2.16; 3.33,
34; 4.6; 5.1, 8, 17; 6.6; 13.23, 24; 1 Chr 4.18. The feminine form is used either adjectivally or
adverbially in reference to the Judahite dialect of Hebrew/Canaanite in 2 Kgs 18.26 || Isa
36.11; 2 Kgs 18.28 || Isa 36.13 || 2 Chr 32.18; Neh 13.24 (Gesenius 1847: 337a; BDB 397b; GKC §8;
306 chapter 8
the Bible (excluding references to the individual of the same name).27 Clearly,
ִ ְ יwas not the most common CBH term for designating affiliation with the
הּודי
tribe or territory of Judah.
This is very different from the post-biblical situation, in which הּודי
ִ ְ יis used
quite regularly in general reference to affiliation with Israel, regardless of ethnic
extraction, and in which the term takes on a distinctive religious connotation.
8.4.1 The mt
The most commonly used biblical expression for the people of Israel is ְּבנֵ י
‘ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלchildren of Israel’, which comes some 640 times. Occasionally, this col-
location is used in strict reference to residents of the northern kingdom (e.g.,
Jer 32.30, 32; 50.33), but in most of its occurrences the referent is the people
of greater Israel. This is also true of אנְ ֵׁשי־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל/יׁש
ַ ‘ ִאman/men of Israel’ (59x;
geographically limited in 1 Sam 17.52; 2 Sam 19.42–44; 20.2). The expressions ְּבנֵ י
הּודהָ ְ‘ יchildren of Judah’ and הּודה ָ ְאנְ ֵׁשי־י/יׁש
ַ ‘ ִאman/men of Judah’, conversely,
always have a restricted geographical meaning.
At this point it is also worth mentioning the special status of the gentilic
‘ ִע ְב ִריHebrew’. This term has a rather restricted distribution in the Bible.
It comes 34 times, serving the special purpose of designating Israelites in
contradistinction to foreigners.28 It is often put into the mouths of foreign-
ers speaking about Israelites or into the mouths of Israelites dealing with for-
eigners, but is also occasionally used by the narrator in reference to Israelites
in a foreign context or in legal material to distinguish between treatment
of Israelites and foreigners.29 The usage is limited to the following contexts:
Abraham among foreign powers in Canaan (Gen 14), Joseph/Israel in Egypt
(Gen 39–Exod 10), laws and related material concerning the treatment of
Hebrew and foreign slaves (Exod 21.10; Deut 15.12; and Jer 34.8–16),30 Israel
versus the Philistines (1 Sam 4–29), and Jonah among presumably foreign
sailors (Jon 1.9).31
Weinberg 1980: 187; Kaddari 2006: 404b). The form occurs elsewhere as the proper name
of an individual.
27 Even-Shoshan 1977: 437–439.
28 Gen 14.13; 39.14, 17; 40.15; 41.12; 43.32; Exod 1.15, 16, 19; 2.6, 7, 11, 13; 3.18; 5.3; 7.16; 9.1, 13; 10.3;
21.2; Deut 15.12 (2x); 1 Sam 4.6, 9; 13.3, 7, 19; 14.11, 21; 29.3; Jer 34.9 (2x), 14; Jon 1.9. The form
occurs elsewhere as the proper name of an individual.
29 BDB 720a; HALOT 782b.
30 See Na’aman 1986: 286; Freedman, Fabry, and Willoughby 1999; cf. Lemche 1975.
31 Somewhat problematic usages include those in 1 Sam 13.3, 7, and 14.21. All come in the
context of Israelite-Philistine relations, but are atypical. In 1 Sam 13.3, Saul unexpectedly
Lexical Features 307
Turning back to the term )הּודי(ם ִ ְי: in its first occurrences, employed in sto-
ries recounting events that took place near the end of the period of the divided
monarchy, it seems to serve as a synonym for such expressions as הּודה ָ ְ ְּבנֵ י יand
הּודה
ָ ְאנְ ֵׁשי־י/יׁש
ַ ִא. In other words, it is an ethno-geographic or political term des-
ignating a person affiliated with the territory, tribe, and/or kingdom of Judah.32
In these contexts, too, the feminine form designates the related Canaanite/
Hebrew dialect. Despite the sporadic use of הּודי ִ ְ יin material dealing with the
end of the First Temple Period, it is clear on the basis of the word’s distribution
and on the basis of the existence and frequency of alternative expressions that
the term was not the preferred means of referring to Israelites in CBH.
This situation changes in later sources. As already stated, the vast major-
ity of the cases of הּודי ִ ְ יcome in the core LBH texts, the remainder in texts
from transitional material dating to the close of the First Temple Period at the
earliest. There is also evidence of a late semantic development. In addition
to the proliferation in use of the term at the expense of classical alternatives,
especially ‘ ִע ְב ִריHebrew’,33 and despite the persistence of its ethno-geograph-
ical meaning,34 the term acquired new connotations, including a distinctive
addresses Israel as ִע ְב ִרים. It has been suggested that this refers specifically to Israelites
in the service of the Philistines (Kiel 1981: 114) or to mercenaries (Gottwald 1979: 417–425)
or may have been meant to incite Israel to revolt (Kiel 1981: 114). Interestingly, the Greek
has δοῦλοι ‘servants’ here, presumably reflecting עבדים, a reading preferred by some (H.P.
Smith 1899: 91–93; S.R. Driver 1913: 98; McCarter 1980–1984: 224–227).
The occurrence of ִע ְב ִריםin 1 Sam 13.7 is difficult because it seems, arguably, to refer to
some group other than the ‘ ִאיׁש יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלmen of Israel’ and ‘ ָה ָעםthe people’ mentioned in
the preceding verse. Arguments similar to those proffered for 1 Sam 13.3 have been made
here as well; additionally, Kiel (1981: 116) posits wordplay with the verbal form ‘ ָע ְברּוthey
crossed’ as a factor. For its part, the Greek here, οἱ διαβαίνοντες, seems to reflect ע ְֹב ִרים
‘ones crossing over’.
Finally, in 1 Sam 14.21 the line ‘ וְ ָה ִע ְב ִרים ָהיּו ַל ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתיםand the Hebrews became
Philistines (?)’, embedded in a syntactically difficult clause, has aroused a great deal of
discussion. For Gottwald (1979: 417–425) this is an important proof text for the existence
of a group of mercenaries within Israel. For a fresh attempt to explain the three difficult
passages see Freedman, Fabry, and Willoughby 1999.
32 2 Kgs 16.6; 25.25; Jer 32.12; 38.19; 40.11, 12; 41.3; 43.9; 44.1; 52.28, 30.
33 ִע ְב ִריis lacking in LBH proper, but, like other classical terms designating Israel, continues
to be used in post-biblical literature.
34 Indeed, Lowe (1976: 105) shows that the geographical connotation remained the principal
one in cases of the Greek word Ἰουδαῖοι in the New Testament. In his estimation (ibid.: 104,
n. 11), in 1st-century CE usage this sense was especially relevant for Jews living in Palestine,
who referred to themselves collectively as ‘ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלIsrael’, but also distinguished between
308 chapter 8
Zech 8.23 Thus says Yhwh of hosts: “In those days . . . ten men from every
language of the nations will take hold of the fringe of a Jew (הּודי
ִ ְ)י
saying ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with
you’ ”
and no less in the book of Esther, where the distinctive religious aspects of
Judaism are emphasized. Esther also provides a useful example of the erosion
the Jewish populations of different regions, for example, between Ἰουδαῖοι ‘Judeans’
and Γαλιλαῖοι ‘Galileans’. Jews of the diaspora, however, came to refer to themselves col-
lectively as Ἰουδαῖοι, a usage indicating a degree of erosion in the classical geographic
significance.
35 To be sure, הּודי ִ ְי, along with other terms that serve to designate the people of Israel,
always bore some religious content, but probably no more than corresponding terms
referring to foreign populations, e.g., ‘ ִמ ְצ ִריEgyptian’, מֹוא ִבי ָ ‘Moabite’, ‘ ַעּמֹונִ יAmmonite’,
and the like, each of which conveyed its own specific cultural, linguistic, geographical,
and religious connotations. Later, however, the religious component of הּודי ִ ְ יseems to
have become more notionally central. A corresponding semantic and functional shift
involves the term ‘ ּגֹויnation’, which in classical usage was synonymous with ‘ ַעםpeople,
nation’, but which eventually came to be employed specifically for ‘foreign people, nation’
in contradistinction to ‘Israel’. In other words, ּגֹוי, like הּודי ִ ְי, (a) acquired religious import,
i.e., that of ‘idol worshipper’, as opposed to ‘Jew’, and (b) came to apply generally to people
of diverse ethnicities, places of origin, and places of residence who shared the aforemen-
tioned religious affiliation (in the case of ּגֹויthat of being non-הּודי ִ ְ)י. In this way a lin-
guistic dichotomy not known in the earlier sources became very typical of later ones; see
Hirschler 1930: 257; Bar-Asher 1999: 76–77.
Indirect evidence of the semantic shift in question may be gleaned from English equiv-
alents for the word הּודי ִ ְ יin translations of the Bible, where translators attempt to avoid
anachronistic renderings influenced by Second Temple religious concepts. Compare,
e.g., the translations of הּודים ִ ְ יin 2 Kgs 15.6—NAS, NJB: ‘Jud(a)ens’; NET: ‘Judahites’; NJPS:
‘Judites’; NIV, NKJV, RSV: ‘men of Judah’—and הּודי ִ ְ יin Est 2.5—routinely rendered ‘Jew’
or ‘Jewish man’.
36 Bar-Asher 1999. It seems likely that the process described above resulted at least partially
from the conquest of the northern kingdom, which, from the standpoint of biblical histo-
riography, ceased to exist, thereby leaving Judah the lone representative of the people of
Israel, a historical situation reflected linguistically in the eventual equation of הּודים ִ ְ יwith
ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל.
Lexical Features 309
Est 2.5 A Jewish man (הּודי ִ ְ )יlived in Susa the citadel and his name
was Mordecai son of Jair the son of Shimei, son of Kish, the
Benjaminite () ִאיׁש יְ ִמינִ י.
Compare the more classical coupling of gentilic terms in the following verse:
Lev 24.11 And the Israelite woman’s son (ן־ה ִא ָּׁשה ַהּיִ ְׂש ְר ֵא ִלית
ָ ) ֶּבblasphemed
the name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses (now the
name of his mother was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe
of Dan ]ה־דן ְ ).
ָ [ל ַמ ֵּט
The book of Esther exhibits one further aspect of development. Whatever the
exact meaning of the hitpaʿel verb ‘ ִה ְתיַ ֵהדconvert to Judaism (?), pretend to be
Jewish (?)’ in Est 8.17, its usage indicates that people could somehow take on
the requisite characteristics.38 It seems unlikely that such a verb could have
developed until the related concept had become primarily cultural-religious.
37 Bar-Asher 1999.
38 The two principal suggestions are ‘convert to Judaism’ and ‘pretend to be Jewish’; see the
lexicons, commentaries, and Bar-Asher 1999: 77.
310 chapter 8
Ezra 5.1 And Haggai the prophet and Zechariah son of Iddo the
prophet prophesied concerning the Jews that were in
Judah and in Jerusalem (הּודיֵ א דִּ י ִביהּוד ִּובירּושְׁ ֶלם
ָ ְ ) ַעל־יin
the name of the God of Israel who was over them.
Gen 43.32 The Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews () ָה ִע ְב ִרים
Tg Jerusalem The Egyptians could not eat food with the Jews ()יהודאי
Gen 49.8 You are Judah; your brothers will praise you (הּודה ַאתָּ ה יֹודּוָך ַא ֶחיָך
ָ ְ)י
Tg Neofiti Judah, it is you your brothers will praise and by your name all Jews
( )יהודיםwill be called
Tg Jerusalem You are Judah . . . it is you your brothers will praise and Jews
( )יהודאיןwill be called by your name40
Exod 1.15 And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives () ַל ְמיַ ְּלד ֹת ָה ִע ְב ִרּית
Tg Onkelos And the king of Egypt said to the Jewish midwives () ַל ָח ָיָתא יְ ֻה ַוד ָיָתא
Exod 2.13 And he went out . . . and saw two Hebrew men (י־אנָ ִׁשים ִע ְב ִרים ֲ ֵ ) ְׁשנfighting
Tg Onkelos And he went out . . . and saw two Jewish men (ברין יְ ֻה ָוד ִאין
ִ ֻ ) ְת ֵרין גfighting
1 Sam 4.6 What is this loud shouting in the camp of the Hebrews (?) ָה ִע ְב ִרים
Tg Jonathan What is this loud shouting in the camp of the Jews (?)יְ ֻה ָוד ֵאי
Aramaic influence likely played a role in the expanded use of הּודי ִ ְ יin the
later stages of ancient Hebrew. This is not to say that the usage originated in
Aramaic—indeed, the historical background of the change probably led to
a gradual inner-Hebrew development that was likely to have been borrowed
into Aramaic from Hebrew—but the territory of Judah was known in Second
39 Unlike the Jewish targums, the Peshiṭta and the Samaritan targums do not replace ִע ְב ִרי
with cognates of הּודי
ִ ְי. The same is true of the Greek and the Vulgate.
40 The recognition of members of other tribes as ethnic יהודיםserves as the basis for the
targumic expansion on the words ‘ יֹודּוָך ַא ֶחיָךyour brothers will praise you’ (Gen 49.8).
For this note, as well as several of the foregoing examples, the writer would like to
express gratitude to Avi Hurvitz and to the other members of the “Late Biblical Hebrew
Lexicon Project” of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with whom he conducted fruitful
research over a period of several years.
312 chapter 8
8.4.3 Jeremiah
The gentilic הּודי ִ ְ יcomes ten times in Jeremiah, against only three instances of
ִע ְב ִרי/ ִע ְב ִרּיָ ה.43 Such a concentration of the former term is reminiscent of that
characteristic of LBH material. There are cases in which the word comes in its
restricted ethno-geographical sense, especially Jer 52.28–30, where the people
of Judah are distinguished from those of Jerusalem.44 In other cases the exact
nuance is difficult to pin down.45 However, in Jer 34.9ff the usage seems to
foreshadow the characteristically late semantic and functional development
described above. This section of Jeremiah deals with the lot of Hebrew slaves
whose period of service, according to Mosaic Law, was to have ended after six
years, as stipulated in
Deut 15.12 When your Hebrew brother ( ) ָא ִחיָך ָה ִע ְב ִריor Hebrew (sister)
( ) ָה ִע ְב ִרּיָ הis sold to you, he will serve you six years and in the
seventh year you will send him off free from your midst.
In a post-exilic discussion of Hebrew slaves the term ִע ְב ִריis replaced with הּודי
ִ ְי:
Neh 5.8 And I said to them, “We have bought our Jewish brothers (ַא ֵחינּו
ִ ְ ) ַהּיwho were sold to the gentiles to the extent that we
הּודים
41 BA (Dan 3.8, 12; Ezra 4.12, 23; 5.1, 5; 6.7 [2x], 8, 14), Egyptian Aramaic (TAD A3 8.12; A4 1.1,
10; 3.12; 7.19, 22, 26; B2 2.3, 9, 10; 4.2 [?]; 9.2, 3; B3 1.3; 6.2; 13.2; B5 5.2 [?]; C3a 15.1; D2 5.2; 12.4
[?]), and DSS Aramaic (4Q242 f1–3.4; 4Q550 f5+5a.3; 4Q584 fx.1 [?]; Mur19 f1iR.7; f1iiR.19).
42 ּובנֵ י־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל
ְ (Ezra 6.16); ( ַע ָּמה יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל7.13); ( בני ישראל4Q243 f13.1); ( בני ישראל4Q244 f12.1);
( ̇בנ̇ י̇ י̇ ̇רשאלsic) (XHev/Se7 f1R.2). Of course, the targums and other sources dependent on
BH style often render with more characteristically classical alternatives.
43 See above, nn. 26 and 28, for the respective references.
44 The same meaning is probable, but not certain, in Jer 32.12 and 38.19.
45 For example, Jer 40.11–12 relates to הּודים ִ ְ יdwelling in territories surrounding Judah. It
seems reasonable to assume that these are genuine Judahites, refugees from Judah who
fled in the face of the Babylonians, and not descendants of the northern kingdom. If so,
the gentilic comes in its classical meaning. Even so, there is room to claim that even these
uses constitute a sort of linguistic development, as הּודי ִ ְ יhas arguably penetrated into the
domain classically occupied by alternative expressions, such as הּודה ָ ְ( ְּבנֵ י יe.g., Neh 11.4 ||
1 Chr 9.3), ( ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלe.g., Exod 12.49), and ( ִע ְב ִריsee above).
Lexical Features 313
could, and now you also would sell your brothers so that they
will have to be sold back to us?”
Jer 34.9 every man must send forth his male or female Hebrew servant
(ת־ׁש ְפ ָחתֹו ָה ִע ְב ִרי וְ ָה ִע ְב ִרּיָ ה ַ ) ֶאfree, that no one should
ִ ת־ע ְבּדֹו וְ ִאיׁש ֶא
keep his fellow Judahite (= Hebrew?) (יהּודי ִ ) ִּבenslaved
There can be no doubt that this and surrounding verses are based on Deut
15.12, since the verbal similarity between them is clear.46 However, it should be
noted that in addition to the allusion to ‘ ִע ְב ִריHebrew (ms)’ and ‘ ִע ְב ִרּיָ הHebrew
(fs)’ from Deut 15.12, Jer 34.9 provides the explanatory gloss הּודיִ ְ‘ יJudahite’. On
the one hand, it should probably not be concluded that the word ‘ ִע ְב ִריHebrew’
had ceased to be understood, since, though absent from LBH, it is used in RH.
On the other hand, the writer (whether quoting the prophet or putting words
into his mouth), for whatever reason, felt the need to elucidate the law being
cited by inserting the term הּודי
ִ ְי, thus foreshadowing a linguistic tendency later
to become very common. This snapshot of an intermediate stage in the devel-
opment of the linguistic feature in question lines up nicely with Jeremiah’s
presumed status as a work written in a form of ancient Hebrew transitional
between CBH and LBH.
represented in the Greek. On the assumption that the translator’s edition was
similar to the MT in those places where both have a gentilic, it is interesting
to note the inconsistency in his renderings: Ἰουδαῖος ‘Judahite’ (Jer 32.12; 38.19;
40.11; 41.1; 44.1) versus ἀνήρ ἐξ Ιουδα ‘man of Judah’ (Jer 34.9) and ἀνδρῶν Ιουδα
‘Judahite man’ (Jer 43.9). In the short edition, only seven of 23 cases involve
ִ ְ ;יin the supplementary material three of four (or perhaps six)49 cases
הּודי
involve the late term. Here, then, is an additional linguistic feature from the
perspective of which the language of the supplementary may be seen as some-
what later than that of the short edition.
8.5.1 The mt
The adverbial ending ◌ם- ָ occurs over 115 times in BH, but only in a limited
number of words, namely ( ָא ְמנָ םor ‘ ) ֻא ְמנָ םtruly’, ּדּומם
ָ ‘in silence’, ‘ ִחּנָ םin vain,
freely’, ‘ ֵר ָיקםempty-handed’, and יֹומם
ָ ‘by day, daily’.50 The latter term appears
some 50 times in the Bible.51 The adverbial function of this form is generally
clear, but a few potentially exceptional cases have been noted in biblical and
extra-biblical sources. In these instances it would appear that the form in ques-
tion serves not as an adverb, but as a simple noun. Here follow the biblical
verses in which יֹומם ָ apparently functions as a nominal:
Jer 15.9 She who bore seven is forlorn; her breath is faint; her sun has
set while it is still day (יֹומם
ָ ) ְּבעֹד. . .52
49 הּודי
ִ ְ יhas no parallel in the Greek at Jer 40.12; 52.28, 30. The supplementary material uses
ְּבנֵ י־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאלin Jer 32.30. It is unclear whether the lack of a parallel for the word ִאיׁשin the
idiom הּודה ָ ְ ִאיׁש יin Jer 44.26–27 reflects a genuine textual difference or activity of the
translator.
50 GKC §§100g–h and nn. 1–2. The ֹם- ending in ‘ ִּפ ְתאֹםsuddenly’ may also be related.
51 The figures given in HALOT (401b), i.e., 150, and in Piovanelli (1997: 273, n. 62), i.e., 149, are
inaccurate.
52 Piovanelli (1997: 273, n. 62) and Joosten (2008: 95–96, n. 15) see in יֹומם ָ here an adverbial
usage. In Joosten’s opinion, the absence of the definite article is decisive. He compares to
ת־ּדוִ ד ֶל ֶחם ְּבעֹוד ַהּיֹום
ָ ל־ה ָעם ְל ַה ְברֹות ֶא
ָ ‘ וַ ּיָבֹא ָכand all the people came to eat bread with
David while it was still that day’ (2 Sam 3.35) and ‘ וַ ָּת ָקם ְּבעֹוד ַליְ ָלהand she gets up while
it is still night’ (Prov 31.15). For Joosten the use of the definite article in the former marks
the word יֹוםas a noun, whereas the lack of the article in the latter marks the word ַליְ ָלה
as an adverb. Yet it would seem that both cases involve nominal rather than adverbial
forms, and that the presence or absence of the article depends on the specific meaning
Lexical Features 315
Jer 33.20 If you can break my covenant with the day and my cove-
nant with the night, so that day and night do not come at
their times (יֹומם־וָ ַליְ ָלה ְּב ִע ָּתם ְ )
ָ ּול ִב ְל ִּתי ֱהיֹות
Jer 33.25 Just as I have established my covenant with day and night
(יֹומם וָ ָליְ ָלה
ָ יתיִ ) ְב ִר. . .
Ezek 30.16 And I will set a fire in Egypt; Sin will writhe and No will be
breached, and Noph (will face) troubles of day (יֹומם ָ ) ָצ ֵרי.
Neh 9.19 And you in your many mercies did not abandon them in
the desert; the pillar of cloud did not depart from above
them by day (יֹומם ָ ) ְּב. . . 53
1QM 14.13–14 . . . with the entrance of day and night ()עם מ[בו]א יומם ולילה
and the exit of evening and morning54
4Q408 f3+3a.8 . . . you who created the morning, a sign to reveal the king-
dom of light at the border of the day ()לגבול יֹומם.55
4Q503 f1–6iii.10 . . . light of day ( )אור היומם. . .56
intended: ַליְ ָלה, without the article, is general, i.e., ‘at night’ while ַהּיֹוםrefers specifically
to ‘that day’. It is the use of the prepositional ( ְּב(עֹודwith each of the nouns that creates
an adverbial phrase. Likewise in the case of יֹומם ָ ְּבעֹד: this is an adverbial phrase, but from
a syntactic perspective, when following ( ְּב)עֹוד, the constituent יֹומם ָ functions as a noun,
so that the apparently adverbial ending ָ◌ם- is superfluous. A mere ‘ ְּבעֹד יֹוםwhile still day’
would have sufficed just as well.
53 There are those who also see in יֹומם ָ in Jer 31.35 a purely nominal usage: ּכֹה ָא ַמר ה' נ ֵֹתן
כֹוכ ִבים ְלאֹור ָליְ ָלה
ָ ְיֹומם ֻחּקֹת יָ ֵר ַח ו
ָ ֶׁש ֶמׁש ְלאֹור. The Greek, Latin, and Syriac renderings of
this verse may reflect an understanding of the verse according to which יֹומם ָ was taken as
a noun and the phrase יֹומם ָ ְלאֹורas a construct phrase; see also Qimḥi, who rephrases כה
אמר ה' נותן שמש לאור יום. According to these readings the verse is understood as ‘Thus
says Yhwh, who gives sun for the light of day, laws of moon and stars for light of night’.
However, the verse may also be read ‘Thus says Yhwh, who gives sun for light daily, laws of
moon and stars for light nightly’.
54 See also 1QHa 20.10.
55 See also 4Q392 f1.6 (?).
56 See also 4Q503 f7–9.1; f10.3; f14.1; f15–16.6; f33i+34.1; f51–55.6a.
316 chapter 8
Gen 1.5 And God called the light ‘day’ ()יֹום, whereas the dark he called . . .
4Q7 f1.4 And God called the light ‘day’ ()יומם, whereas the dark he call[ed . . .
Gen 8.22 All the earth’s days . . . summer and winter, day ( )וְ יֹוםand night will not cease.
Sam Pent All the earth’s days . . . summer and winter, day ( )יומםand night will not cease.57
In Joosten’s (2008: 95–97) estimation, the adverbial force of the ◌ם- ָ ending was
no longer perceived in the later stages of BH and in post-biblical Hebrew, so
that language users saw in the form יֹומם ָ a simple noun. One can draw a com-
parison to the process by means of which the function of the word ֵר ָיקם, origi-
nally ‘empty-handed, emptily’ expanded in RH, and apparently in DSS Hebrew
as well, from an exclusively adverbial to adjectival sense.58 Joosten also raises
the possibility of the influence of Aramaic, in certain dialects of which there
exists a semantic opposition between the form יומא/‘ יוםday (24 hours)’ and
יממא/‘ ימםdaytime (as opposed to nighttime)’.59 It is also worth noting at this
point that in all of the apparent cases of nominal יֹומם
ָ listed above (except that
in Ezek 30.16, which is difficult), יֹומם
ָ stands in opposition to ַליְ ָלה, which is to be
expected if the former refers only to the daytime hours of a 24-hour יֹום. Cf. the
following example, in which the Aramaic and Syriac translations show both
usages against the CBH example with יֹוםalone:
Gen 1.5 And God called the light ‘day’ () ַהּיֹום, whereas the dark he
Tg Onkelos And Yhwh called the light ‘day’ ()יממא, whereas the dark he
Tg Neofiti And the Word of Yhwh called the light ‘day’ (')איממ, whereas the dark he
Tg Jerusalem And God called the light ‘day’ ()יממא, whereas the dark he
Sam Tg J And God called the light ‘day’ ()אימם, whereas the dark he
Sam Tg A And God called the light ‘day’ ()אימם, whereas the dark he
Peshiṭta And God called the light ‘day’ ()ܐܝܡܡܐ, whereas the dark he
Gen called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יֹום.
Tg Onkelos called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יֹום.
Tg Neofiti called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יום.
Tg Jerusalem called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יומא.
Sam Tg J called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יומה.
Sam Tg A called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()יומה.
Peshiṭta called ‘night’. And there was evening and morning, the first day ()ܝܘܡܐ.
Thus, the nominal use of יֹומםָ may be explained as the result of the reinter-
pretation of a form bearing an obsolete and opaque adverbial morpheme, or,
alternatively, as the result of the borrowing of a word from Aramaic to fill a
semantic gap in Hebrew. A certain combination of these factors, such as that
suggested by Joosten, may also be possible. Whatever the case may be, the
usage is unlikely to be native to CBH; for if it were, the distribution would not
be concentrated in later sources.
8.5.3 Jeremiah
Jeremiah knows both the classical adverbial use of יֹומם ָ 60 and the classical
nominal use of יֹוםagainst ַליְ ָלהin specific reference to the daylight hours of the
24-hour day.61 The use of nominal יֹומם ָ , conversely, is represented in three, and
perhaps four, verses in the book.62 The mixture of classical and post-classical
features characteristic of both late and transitional material is evident even in
the span of a single verse:
Jer 33.20 If you can break my covenant with the day ( ) ְּב ִר ִיתי ַהּיֹוםand my
covenant with the night, so that day and night do not come at
their times (יֹומם־וָ ַליְ ָלה ְּב ִע ָּתם ְ ). . .
ָ ּול ִב ְל ִּתי ֱהיֹות
63 The potential cases include those listed above, plus those in which יֹוםrefers explicitly
to ‘daytime’ and is not adverbial. Since most cases of the word in Jeremiah refer to a ‘cal-
endar day’, there are only two potential cases not listed above, namely *33.20 and 36.30
(where a hypothetical ּיֹומם
ָ ַּבcould conceivably have been used instead of ) ַּביֹום.
64 This conclusion differs from that of Joosten (2008: 95–97), who, treating יֹומם
ָ in Jer 15.9 as
an adverb, concludes that the distribution pattern of nominal יֹומם ָ in Jeremiah is limited
exclusively to the supplementary material.
65 Lust 1994: 37–38; Piovanelli 1997: 273–275; Joosten 2008: 97; cf. Lundbom 1999–2004: II
537–539.
66 See, e.g., Gesenius 1815: 29; S.R. Driver 1898: 506, 536; BDB 574b; Bauer and Leander 1922:
§61oι; Wagner 1966: 130–131; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 68, 279, II 442 n. *; Hurvitz 1972: 79–88,
110–113, 175; Polzin 1976: 142; Kutscher 1982:§§65, 121, 123; Bergey 1983: 31–34; Greenfield
and Naveh 1984: 121; Qimron 1986: 66; Davila 1991: 823; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 116–117; HALOT
592b; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 111; C. Smith 2003: 137–143; Polak 2006: 121 n. 23; Dresher 2012:
Lexical Features 319
8.6.1 The MT
Though the term ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ appears sporadically in biblical mate-
rial considered classical, as well as in chronologically problematic texts, the
vast majority of its occurrences are found in the core LBH compositions or
in additional material widely regarded as late. A total of 78 of 91 occurrences
come in the core LBH corpus, with another three in Jeremiah, one in Qohelet,
and five in a pair of psalms that both exhibit an accumulation of late linguistic
features (Pss 103 and 145 [4x], on which see Hurvitz 1972), for a total of 87 of 91
occurrences in late contexts. Individual cases in Numbers, Samuel, Kings, and
Psalm 45 account for the remaining four instances.67
In classical biblical literature alternatives like ַמ ְמ ָל ָכהand לּוכה ָ ְמboth ‘king-
dom, reign’, and the infinitive construct ‘ ְמֹלְךrule, ruling’ in its various forms
are much more common. Thus, in the Torah and Prophets, against the six
instances of ַמ ְלכּות, there are 86 cases of ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, 21 cases of לּוכה
ָ ְמ, and 31 cases
of the infinitive construct -מ ְלכ/ֹלְך
ָ ְמin the relevant usages.68 These same classi-
cal alternatives also occur in LBH: 24 cases of ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, two cases of לּוכה ָ ְמ, and 27
cases of the infinitive construct -מ ְלכ/ֹלְך
ָ ְמin the relevant usages. These figures
are given in table 8.6.1.
Table 8.6.1 The biblical distribution of ַמְלכּותand its classical alternatives according to the MT
Genesis 2 0 1 0
Exodus 1 0 0 0
Numbers 2 0 0 1
Deuteronomy 7 0 0 0
Joshua 2 0 0 0
Judges 12 7 3 1
Kings 17 8 24 1
Isaiah 14 2 0 0
(Continued)
24–30; Kim 2012: 133–140. Cf. Rezetko 2003: 224; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008:
I 21–22, 83–86, 126, II 84–85.
67 For more detailed statistical presentations see Polak 2006: 121, n. 23.
68 There are also nine instances of the curious construct form ַמ ְמ ְלכּות. For various explana-
tions see Bauer and Leander 1922: §505pι; Margain 1974: 39; HALOT 595b; C. Smith 2003:
137–143.
320 chapter 8
table (Continued)
Jeremiah 17 1 3 3
Ezekiel 4 2 0 0
The Twelve 8 1 0 0
Psalms 6 1 0 6
Lamentations 1 0 0 0
Qohelet 0 0 0 1
Esther 0 0 1 26
Daniel 0 1 1 16
Ezra 1 0 0 6
Nehemiah 1 0 0 2
Chronicles 22 1 25 28
Total 117 24 58 91
LBH 24 2 27 78
Torah+Prophets 258 50 143 260
Overall, the core LBH books exhibit a marked preference—78:53—for ַמ ְלכּות
over its classical alternatives. This predilection is especially strong in the case
of Esther (26:1), Daniel (16:2), and Ezra–Nehemiah (8:2). Not surprisingly,
Chronicles presents a different picture. On the one hand, there is no biblical
book with more examples of characteristically late ( ַמ ְלכּות28), which appears
there more frequently than any one of the classical alternatives. On the other
hand, the Chronicler persists in using the classical alternatives, such that their
combined total exceeds the total number of cases of ַמ ְלכּותby a margin of 48:28.69
On the basis of the biblical evidence, it would seem that the word ַמ ְלכּות
was available, but rarely used early on. Perhaps significantly, two of its four
apparently early occurrences—Num 24.7 and Ps 45.7—appear in poetic texts.
From the status of a marginal vocabulary item in CBH the lexeme became
quite common in LBH and, as will be shown, in post-biblical Hebrew as well.
2 Sam 7.12 I will establish your seed after you . . . and prepare his kingdom () ַמ ְמ ַל ְכּתֹו
1 Chr 17.11 I will establish your seed after you . . . and prepare his kingdom )) ַמ ְלכּותֹו
1 Kgs 6.1 the fourth year . . . of Solomon’s reign () ִל ְמֹלְך ְׁשֹלמֹה
2 Kgs 25.1 the ninth year of his reign () ְל ָמ ְלכֹו
Peshiṭta the ninth year of his reign ()ܠܡܠܟܘܬܗ
1 Chr 26.31 the thirty-ninth year of his reign () ְל ַמ ְלכּותֹו
2 Chr 35.19 the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign (אׁשּיָ הּו
ִ ֹ ) ְל ַמ ְלכּות י
Ezra 4.24 the second year of the reign ( ) ְל ַמ ְלכּותof Darius
Ezra 6.15 the sixth year of the reign ( ) ְל ַמ ְלכּותof Darius
70 On DSS Hebrew see Qimron 1986: §330.1c. There are some 50 unequivocal cases in the
non-biblical Hebrew DSS (1QSb 3.5; 4.26; 5.21; 1QM 12.7; 19.7, 8; 1QHa 3.27; 4Q169 f34iv.3;
4Q172 f3.2; 4Q200 f6.5; 4Q252 5.2, 4; 4Q286 f7i.5; 4Q299 f9.3; 4Q301 f5.2; 4Q365 fK.2; 4Q381
f19i.5; 4Q388a f7ii.4; 4Q400 f1ii.1, 3; f2.1, 3, 4; 4Q401 f1–2.4; f14i.6, 7; 4Q403 f1i.8, 14, 25, 32;
f1ii.10; 4Q405 f3ii.4; f7.3; f20ii–22.2; f23i.3; f23ii.11; f24.1, 3; f35.4; 4Q458 f2ii.6; 4Q492 f1.8;
4Q509 f51.1; 4Q510 f1.4; 4Q521 f2ii+4.7; f12.2; 4Q524 f6–13.3; 11Q19 59.17, 21) along with eight
cases in the biblical Hebrew material (most parallel to similar forms in the MT: 4Q51
f8–10a–b+11.6 [|| ַמ ְמ ְלכּות1 Sam 15.28]; 4Q112 f1i+2.8 [|| Dan 1.20]; 4Q114 1.16 [|| Dan 10.13],
2.16 [|| Dan 11.2]; 4Q117 f1.6 [|| Ezra 4.6]; 6Q7 f2–5.10 [|| Dan 10.13]; 11Q5 17.1 [2x; || Ps 145.13])
and 20 cases in the biblical Aramaic material. In the non-biblical Hebrew material there
are 31 cases of ( ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה1QHa 14.10; 4Q160 f3–4ii.5; 4Q169 f3–4ii.11; 4Q174 f1–2i.10; 4Q176
f1–2i.2; 4Q378 f13i.3; 4Q382 f96.1; 4Q385a f4.5; 4Q387 f2ii.5, 7, 9, f2iii.1; 4Q389 f8ii.2, f8ii.10;
4Q390 f1.5; 4Q392 f1.1; f2.3; 4Q393 f1ii–2.9; 4Q401 f5.5; f21.2; 4Q403 f1ii.3; 4Q405 f20ii–22.4;
f23ii.11; 4Q416 f1.5; 4Q418 f212.1; 4Q448 2.8; 3.6; 4Q462 f1.13; 6Q9 f57.1; 11Q16 f2.3; 11Q19 56.20),
five of לּוכהָ ( ְמ1QM 6.6; 1Q25 f5.6; 4Q418 f206.4 [2x]; 4Q491 f14–15.7), and two of ַמ ְמ ְלכּות
(4Q491 f16.3; 4Q503 f33i+34.8; there are further examples of the classical alternatives in
the Hebrew of the biblical DSS). The statistics given by Polzin (1976: 142) and Bergey
(1983: 33) are not exhaustive. In Targumic Aramaic ( מלכו(תis the standard reflex not only
for Hebrew ַמ ְלכּות, but also for ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, לּוכהָ ְמ, and — ַמ ְמ ְלכּותcognates of which do not
appear in the targums—but not for the relevant uses of the infinitive construct -/ְמֹלְך
ָמ ְלכ. As for RH: ַמ ְלכּותcomes 18 times in the Mishna, while ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, לּוכה ָ ְמ, - ָמ ְלכ/ ְמֹלְך,
and ַמ ְמ ְלכּותgo unattested there; see Hurvitz 1972: 80; Polzin 1976: 142; Bergey 1983: 33.
71 ַמ ְלכּות: Ben Sira 10.8 (A); 44.3 (B); ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה: 46.13 (B); 47.11 (B), 21 (B).
322 chapter 8
Deut 17.18 And it will be when he sits on his throne () ִּכ ֵּסא ַמ ְמ ַל ְכּתֹו72
Tg Onkelos And it will be when he sits on his throne ()כורסי מלכותיה73
Tg Neofiti And it will be when he sits on his throne ()כורסי מלכותיה
Tg Jerusalem And it will be if . . . he will sit . . . on his throne ()כורסי מלכותיה
Sam Tg J And it will be when he sits on his throne ()כרסי מלכותיה
Peshiṭta And when he sits on his throne ()ܟܘܪܣܝܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ
cf.
Est 1.2 . . . when King Ahasuerus was sitting on his throne (ֹ מ ְלכּותו ַ ) ִּכ ֵּסא. . . 74
Dan 5.20 . . . he was deposed from his throne (כּותּה
ֵ ) ָּכ ְר ֵסא ַמ ְל
11Q19 59.17 . . . a man sitting from among his sons on the throne ) (כסא מלכותof Israel75
72737475
There can be little doubt that the increased usage of the lexeme ַמ ְלכּותat the
expense of the classical alternatives לּוכה
ָ ְמ, ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה, and -מ ְלכ/ֹלְך
ָ ְמis one of the
most clearly diagnostic features of LBH and post-biblical Hebrew.76 There is
broad consensus that, though native to Hebrew, the preponderance of the
word’s employment in the late stages of ancient Hebrew is due to the influ-
ence of Aramaic, where the word had fewer competitors and was exceedingly
common.77
8.6.3 Jeremiah
Jeremiah shows a decided preference for the relevant classical forms. In 26
opportunities ַמ ְלכּותcomes just thrice. These may be no more than transitional-
period forerunners of a lexeme later to become very common. Alternatively,
the situation may be somewhat more complex. According to the raw statistics,
it seems that the short version makes use of ַמ ְלכּותin two of 20 opportunities,
the supplementary material in one of six, proportions in line with the view
according to which each stratum is written in a transitional phase of BH. But
these data are not the whole story. Each of the three verses containing the
word ַמ ְלכּותhas the look of a secondary addition.
72 See also 2 Sam 7.13; 1 Kgs 1.46; 9.5; Hag 2.22; 2 Chr 23.20.
73 See also Targum Onkelos to Gen 41.40; Exod 11.5; 12.29; and frequently in the targums.
74 See also Est 5.1; 1 Chr 22.10; 28.5; 2 Chr 7.18.
75 See also 4Q405 f20ii–22.2; 4Q521 f2ii+4.7.
76 Contra Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008: II 84–85.
77 Barth 1894: 414; Bauer and Leander 1922: 27r; 505oι; Bendavid 1967–1971: II 442, n. *;
Hurvitz 1972: 79; Margain 1974: 39; Rendsburg 1991: 363–364; Schoors 1992–2004: I 65;
Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 124; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 111; Seybold, Ringgren, and Fabry 1997: 360;
Yoder 2000: 30; C. Smith 2003: 137–143; JM §88Mj.
Lexical Features 323
Jer 10.7 belongs to the doxology in chapter 10, which, in the view of sev-
eral scholars, disturbs the rhetorical force of the polemic against idol worship
in that chapter. This view gains support from the Greek translation and from
4QJerb, in both of which the doxology is absent.
Jer 52.31 comes in the historical appendix that closes the book, which, in
all probability, was imported—with slight modification—from the book of
Kings.78 The section’s secondary status in Jeremiah is confirmed (a) by its rep-
etition of what was already recounted in chapter 39 and (b) by the explicit dec-
laration in Jer 51.64: ד־הּנָ ה ִּד ְב ֵרי יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו
ֵ ‘ ַעup to here the words of Jeremiah’. One
of the differences between the renditions of the section in Kings and Jeremiah
involves the substitution in one of its three occurrences of the infinitive con-
struct in Kings with ַמ ְלכּותin Jeremiah. The infinitival form is used three times
in Kings and in the first two occurrences in Jeremiah. ַמ ְלכּותin the third occur-
rence in Jeremiah is thus suspicious. Should it be attributed to a later editor
or copyist under the influence contemporary Hebrew? Compare the parallel
editions of 2 Kgs 24.18; 25.1, 31 and Jer 52.1, 4, 27, respectively:79
. . . ִירּוׁש ָלם
ָ כו וְ ַא ַחת ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ָׁשנָ ה ָמ ַלְך ִּב ֶ ֶּב18 2 Kgs 24
ֹ ן־ע ְׂש ִרים וְ ַא ַחת ָׁשנָ ה ִצ ְד ִקּיָ הּו ְב ָמ ְל
. . . ִירּוׁש ָלם
ָ כו וְ ַא ַחת ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ָׁשנָ ה ָמ ַלְך ִּבֹ ן־ע ְׂש ִרים וְ ַא ַחת ָׁשנָ ה ִצ ְד ִקּיָ הּו ְב ָמ ְל
ֶ ֶּב1 Jer 52
אּצר ֶמ ֶלְך־
ַ בּוכ ְד ֶר
ַ ְ ָ ּבא נ. . . כו ִ וַ יְ ִהי ִב ְׁשנַ ת ַה ְּת ִׁש1 2 Kgs 25
ֹ יעית ְל ָמ ְל
אּצר ֶמ ֶלְך־ַ ֶ ָ ּבא נְ ֻב ַכ ְדנ. . . כוֹ וַ יְ ִהי ַב ָּׁשנָ ה ַה ְּת ִׁש ִעית ְל ָמ ְל4 Jer 52
ֹ נָ ָׂשא ֱאוִ יל ְמר ַֹדְך ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ָמ ְל. . . הּודה
כו ִ ְ י2 Kgs 25
ָ ְהֹויָכין ֶמ ֶלְך־י
ֹ ֻ נָ ָׂשא ֱאוִ יל ְמר ַֹדְך ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ַמ ְלכ. . . הּודה
תו ָ ְהֹויָכן ֶ מ ֶלְך־י
ִ ְי Jer 52
The third case of ַמ ְלכּותin Jeremiah also gives the appearance of a secondary
addition. Jer 49.34 serves as an editorial heading for the eighth oracle in the
series of pronouncements against the foreign nations. Embedded as it is in
the editorial framework of this section—which, as is well known, is both situ-
ated and arranged differently in the Hebrew and Greek editions of the book,
and which apparently constitutes an independent literary composition—it
is doubtful whether its language is representative either of the passage spe-
cifically or of the book in general. The chances of this material being second-
ary seem to increase upon comparison of the Hebrew and Greek versions of
the verse in question. Among other things, the verse is divided in two in the
Greek.80 It is also worth noting that the Greek term that corresponds to ַמ ְלכּות,
βασιλεύοντος, is not the usual rendering of this Hebrew word, but normally
reflects the consonantal form ( מלךwhether the infinitive construct [‘ ְמֹלְךto]
rule, ruling’, the noun ‘ ֶמ ֶלְךking’, or the active participle ‘ מ ֵֹלְךruling’).81 It is
therefore not unlikely that late ַמ ְלכּותreplaced an earlier form in the course of
the text’s editing or transmission.
Based on the considerations presented above, it may be that all three cases
of the word ַמ ְלכּותin Jeremiah are secondary. It is true, in two of them the
Greek does in fact present a corresponding form, but, as has been argued, odds
are good that the Greek in these instances actually renders a classical form
that was only later, i.e., during the process of editing or copying, replaced with
ַמ ְלכּות. If so, then the short edition fails to exhibit the word in 20 chances, and
all instances of the word can be attributed to the activity of late editors or
copyists. Of course, the scenario just presented is highly speculative.
material’s one of six, giving the latter material a slightly later, though not nec-
essarily statistically significant, linguistic profile. Also, the term’s distribution
in Jeremiah would seem to indicate that the expansion by means of which the
supplementary material was introduced into the short edition did not precede
the addition of the historical appendix in Jer 52.
8.7.1 The MT
In 17 of 25 of its occurrences in the Bible the Hebrew root נט"רis a biform of
the more common נצ"ר.82 These involve the four cases of ‘ נָ ַטרto keep, guard’ in
Song of Songs and the noun (‘ ַמ ָּט ָרהplace of) guarding’, which comes 11 times
in Jeremiah and twice in Nehemiah.83 Because derivations of נט"רare com-
mon in the later dialects of Aramaic (see below), its use in the sense ‘keep,
guard’ in Hebrew is frequently explained as a result of late Aramaic influence.84
Alternatively, in some cases scholars ascribe its use to a northern dialect of
Hebrew.85
Regarding the eight remaining cases of derivatives of נט"רthere is a lack
of consensus. At issue are five instances of the verb נָ ַטרin the meaning ‘to
become angry’ (perhaps with the specific connotation ‘to bear a grudge’, but
see below)86 and the three cases of the noun ַמ ָּט ָרהin the meaning ‘target’.87
The question is whether the three meanings connected to נט"ר, i.e., ‘to keep,
guard’, ‘to become angry’, and ‘target’ should be seen as representing a single
root or two or more homographic (though not necessarily originally homopho-
82 The verb ( נָ ַצרaround 60x in the Bible) is, in its turn, a synonym for the more common
( ָׁש ַמרapproximately 420 occurrences) both ‘to keep, guard’. The former is particularly
common in the poetry or lofty prose of the Latter Prophets and Writings, appearing in
parallelism with ָׁש ַמרin some dozen verses.
83 Song 1.6 (2x); 8.11, 12; Jer 32.2, 8, 12; 33.1; 37.21 (2x); 38.6, 13, 28; 39.14, 15; Neh 3.25; 12.39.
84 S.R. Driver 1898: 448, n. *, 449, n. *; Wagner 1966: 83; M. Fox 1985: 189; W. von Soden 1986:
412; Madl 1998: 403; Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 27–28; 2005: 57. Cf. Pope 1977: 34; Kaddari 2006:
713a.
85 S.R. Driver 1898: 448, n. *, 449, n. *; Cathcart 1973: 43, n. 46.
86 Lev 19.18; Jer 3.5, 12; Nah 1.2; Ps 103.9. Some also amend ַאּפֹו. . . ‘ וַ ּיִ ְטר ֹףand (in) his anger
(he) tore’ (Amos 1.11) to ַאּפֹו. . . ‘ וַ ּיִ ּטֹרand he kept his anger’ on the basis of the testimony of
the Peshiṭta’s ‘ ܘܢܛܪand he kept’; see especially Held 1971; cf. W. von Soden (1986: 413, n. 1),
who cites (‘ ַאּפֹו ָט ַרףin) his anger (he) tore’ (Job 16.9) as evidence for preserving the MT as
it stands.
87 1 Sam 20.20; Job 16.12; Lam 3.12 (spelled ) ַמ ָּט ָרא.
326 chapter 8
nous) roots. The question is complicated because, (a) though the meanings are
quite distinct, they can (and in fact have long been) connected by commen-
tators), (b) the grapheme טis known to represent multiple Semitic sounds,
and (c) the cognate languages, especially Arabic and Akkadian, present several
words from different roots to which the Hebrew words under discussion may
be linked, including:
There are two principal approaches among scholars, though among the sup-
porters of each approach differences of opinion can be found. First are those
who assign the three meanings to a single polysemous root, for example, Madl
(1998: 403) and Dobbs-Allsopp (1998: 28; 2005: 57). According to the latter
(1998: 28), the Proto-Semitic root nẓr in the basic sense ‘to look’ developed into
‘to guard’. Gesenius (1847: 467b, 547b) apparently assumed a semantic develop-
ment in the opposite direction, i.e., ‘to keep, guard’ > ‘to look’.88 Regardless of
these differences, all adherents to this view agree that ‘ נָ ַטרto become angry’ is
the result of ellipsis in an idiomatic expression like ֶע ְב ָרה/‘ נָ ַטר ַאףto keep anger’.
Apparent support for this approach may be found in such biblical expressions
as ‘ וְ ֶע ְב ָרתֹו ְׁש ָמ ָרה נֶ ַצחand his anger—he keeps it forever’ (Amos 1.11)89 and ֲהיִ נְ טֹר
ָ ‘ ְלwill he be angry forever, will he keep (a grudge) for eter-
עֹולם ִאם־יִ ְׁשמֹר ָלנֶ ַצח
nity?’ (Jer 3.5).
ن ن
88 Gesenius mentions the two Arabic roots ���طرand � ظ���ر. Among those who derive ‘ נט"רbe/
become angry’ and ‘ נט"רkeep, guard’ from the same root are Barth 1902: 29–30; BDB 643a–
b; GB 1921: 502a; König 1931: 275b; Ben-Yehuda 1948–1959: 3640a; KB II (Supplement and
Corrections) 172a; Wagner 1966: §190, n. 1; KB3 656b; DCH 413a; HALOT 575a, 695a; Kaddari
2006: 606a, 713a. Sauer (1997: 762) links ‘ נָ ַטרto keep, guard’ and ַמ ָּט ָרהin both of its mean-
ings ‘(place of) guarding’ and ‘target’, but is unsure regarding ‘ נָ ַטרto become angry’.
89 There are those who amend ‘ ְׁש ָמ ָרהhe kept it’ > ‘ ָׁש ְמ ָרהshe kept’ (G.R. Driver 1931: 361;
Held 1971: 50–51) or ‘ ְׁש ָמ ָרה נֶ ַצחhe kept it forever’ > ‘ ָׁש ַמר ָלנֶ ַצחhe kept (it) forever’ (GKC
§58g; BHS). On the assumption that the form consists of a 3ms verb with a 3fs object suf-
fix, the lack of a mappiq in the he can be explained as a result of nesiga (JM §61i; for an
alternative explanation see GKC §91e).
Lexical Features 327
Yet, the idea of derivation from a single root is not universally accepted. In
particular, the proposed common origin for words meaning ‘to keep, guard’
and ‘to become angry’ has been criticized. Rössler (1962: 126), for example,
claims that the root ‘ נט"רto be/become angry’ is unrelated to נצ"ר/‘ נט"רto
keep, guard’, describing the alleged semantic/idiomatic development ‘to nurse
a grudge’ > ‘to be/become angry’ as naïve. If this is so, at least two roots are rep-
resented.90 One form of this approach was apparently first suggested by Haupt
(1907a: 21; 1907b: 284) and further elaborated by G.R. Driver (1931: 361–363) and
Held (1969: 73, n. 19; 1971). According to it one must distinguish between נט"רI
‘keep, guard’, which is indeed an Aramaic/dialectal biform of standard Hebrew
נצ"ר, and נט"רII ‘be/become angry’, which is related to Akkadian nadārum
of similar meaning.91 Proponents of this theory have difficulty seeing ‘ נָ ַטרto
be/become angry’ as an elliptical or abbreviated idiomatic expression92 and
argue that the supposed semantic connection between ‘keep, guard’ and ‘be/
become angry’ found in ‘hold a grudge’ is the result of popular etymology that
could only have taken place in the post-classical period, after נצ"ר > נט"רunder
the influence of Aramaic.
They have also furnished a response to the apparent evidence for ‘ נָ ַטרto
bear a grudge’ seen by some in its use together with the verb ‘ ָׁש ַמרto keep,
guard’ in contexts concerning anger: Akkadian has not only a verb nadārum
in the relevant meaning, but also a synonymous šamārum. In light of the
Akkadian testimony, the verb ָׁש ַמרin Amos 1.11 and Jer 3.5 (along with the verb
נָ ַטרin the latter) may both mean ‘to be/become angry’, whereas the extended
duration of the emotion would be indicated only by the adverbs ( ָל)נֶ ַצחand
ָ ְלboth ‘forever’. The use of ָׁש ַמרin contexts of anger (and in parallelism
עֹולם
with )נָ ַטר, therefore, does not suffice as proof that נָ ַטרmeans ‘to bear a grudge’
as opposed to more basic ‘to be/become angry’.
The main obstacle to linking Hebrew ‘ נָ ַטרto be/become angry’ and Akkadian
nadārum is phonological, namely, the infrequency of cases in which Akkadian
d parallels Hebrew ṭ.93 Haupt (1907a: 21) argues that the original Akkadian
form was in fact naṭārum, but that it was regularly given the graphic repre-
sentation nadārum. G.R. Driver (1931: 362–363) raises the possibility that נָ ַטר
90 See Thomas 1951: 394; Zorell 1951: 514b; Leslau 1958: 34 (with hesitation); KB I 613a;
Odendaal 1966; Cathcart 1973: 42–44; DCH 679; Gesenius18 813a.
91 These scholars are, in turn, followed by those listed in the previous footnote.
92 G.R. Driver (1931: 361) notes that on the assumption that ‘ נָ ַטרto be/become angry’ derives
from ellipsis in an idiomatic expression, it is surprising that there is not a single example
of the full expression, either with נָ ַטרor נָ ַצר.
93 Von Soden 1986: 412–43; Madl 1998: 403.
328 chapter 8
‘to be/become angry’ was borrowed into Hebrew from Akkadian, adducing
several examples of the shift Akkadian d > Hebrew ṭ (ibid.: 363, n. 2),94 but
he prefers to view the two verbs as independent developments of a single
Proto-Semitic root. With some hesitation, Held (1971: 54–55), too, leans toward
explaining the phonological shift as an inner-Akkadian phenomenon, citing
several examples,95 though he also entertains alternative explanations.
Von Soden (1986: 412–414) presents another version of this approach. He,
too, posits two separate roots for the three meanings of Hebrew נט"ר, namely,
‘be/become angry’, ‘keep, guard’, and ‘target’. On the one hand, on semantic
grounds, he rejects entirely the alleged nuance ‘bear a grudge’. On the other
hand, given the phonological difficulty discussed above, he also rejects the
supposed connection to Akkadian nadārum. In his opinion, ‘ ַמ ָּט ָרהtarget’ is
َ
related to the same root as the Arabic noun ‘ َوطرobject(ive), goal’.96 He thus
assumes the existence of a Hebrew root וט"רand, likewise, the developmental
process ‘ ַמ ָּט ָרהtarget’ > ‘ *נָ ַטרto aim an arrow’ > ‘ נָ ַטרto be/become angry’.97
On the basis of these arguments it is possible that the three meanings in
question reflect two or even three separate roots: (a) נט"רI: ‘ נָ ַטרbe/become
angry’; (2) וט"ר: ‘ ַמ ָּט ָרהtarget’; (3) נט"ר > נצ"רII: ‘ נָ ַטרto keep, guard’ and ַמ ָּט ָרה
‘(place of) guarding’. Clearly, in the face of these etymological possibilities
extreme care is called for in the derivation of the relevant words and the trac-
ing of their semantic development.
Returning to the question of biblical distribution, ‘ ַמ ָּט ָרהtarget’ is rare, but its
appearance in the book of Samuel would seem to indicate a classical origin.98 Of
the five cases of נָ ַטרI ‘to be/become angry’, two—Lev 19.18 and Nah 1.2—come
in contexts that belong linguistically to CBH, while two more come in Jer 3, and
the last in Ps 103.99 נט"רII ‘to keep, guard’, conversely, is restricted exclusively
Lev 8.35 And you will keep the charge (ת־משְׁ ֶמ ֶרת
ִ )ּושְׁ ַמ ְרתֶּ ם ֶאof Yhwh
Tg Onkelos And you will keep the charge ( )ותיטרון ית מטרתof the Word of Yhwh
Tg Neofiti And you will keep the charge ( )ותטרון ית מטרתהof Yhwh
Tg Jerusalem And you will keep the charge ( )ותיטרון ית מיטרתof the Word of Yhwh
Sam Tg J & A And you will keep the charge ( )ותטרון ית מטרתof Yhwh
Peshiṭta And keep the charge ( )ܘܛܪܘ ܡܛܪܬܗof the Lord
8.7.3 Jeremiah
The biblical distribution of the derivatives of the roots in question has another
aspect worthy of consideration. On the assumption that נט"רin all its deriva-
tions and meanings constitutes a biform of נצ"ר, one should reasonably expect
to encounter a situation of complementary distribution, according to which a
writer who makes use of derivatives from one would not employ derivatives of
the other. And indeed, in most of the relevant biblical sources, this situation
obtains. However, words derived from both roots come together in Jeremiah
102 See Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 28; 2005: 57 and the bibliography adduced there.
Lexical Features 331
103 נָ ַצרcomes in Jer 4.16 and 31.6 and in Nah 2.2. On the possibility of a נצ"רII see the com-
mentaries and Rabin 1966: 44ff.
332 chapter 8
The root ער"בhas for some time been a focus of scholarly enquiry. The prin-
cipal question has been whether the many relevant words with their various
semantic values derive from a single root or from two or more different roots.104
Among the derivatives of this root are the verbs *ע ֵרב/ב
ָ ָ ‘to be pleasant’105
*ע ַר
and ‘ ֶה ֱע ִריבto make pleasant’.
8.8.1 The MT
The terms in question are common in no historical stage of Hebrew. In the
Bible their distribution is as follows:106
Jer 6.20 Your offerings are not acceptable and your sacrifices do not
please ( ) ָע ְרבּוme
Jer 31.26 . . . and my sleep was pleasant ( ) ָע ְר ָבהto me
Ezek 16.37 Therefore I am about to gather all of your lovers with whom you
have taken pleasure () ָע ַר ְב ְּת
Hos 9.4 . . . and your sacrifices will not please ( )יֶ ֶע ְרבּוhim107
Mal 3.4 And the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will please ()וְ ָע ְר ָבה
Yhwh
Ps 104.34 May my meditation be pleasing ( )יֶ ֱע ַרבto him
Prov 3.24 And your sleep will be pleasant ()וְ ָע ְר ָבה
Prov 13.19 Desire fulfilled is sweet ( ) ֶת ֱע ַרבto a soul
Prov 20.17 Bread of deceit is sweet ( ) ָע ֵרבto a man
Song 2.14 . . . for your voice is sweet () ָע ֵרב
104 Gesenius (1847: 650b–652b) proposes four separate roots; BDB (786a–788a) six; HALOT
(876b–881a) five; DCH (546b–553b) six; Kaddari (2006: 827a–829b) five; cf. Ben-Ḥayyim
(1980;1982), who argues for derivation of all words and meanings from a single root.
105 In this discussion the form ָע ֵרב, which is defined by some as an adjective, is considered
the participle of the related qal verb.
106 The list includes participial/adjectival forms (see above, n. 105).
107 This occurrence is a matter of controversy. It may be that יהם ֶ ‘ = וְ לֹא יֶ ֶע ְרבּו־לֹו זִ ְב ֵחand
your sacrifices will not be pleasant to him’ (BDB 787a; Ben-Ḥayyim 1982: 230b), but in
light of the parallelism with ‘ לֹא־יִ ְּסכּו ַלה' יַ יִ ןthey will not pour out to Yhwh wine’ it may
be preferable to interpret ‘and they will not bring him their sacrifices’ (presumably with
hifʿil instead of qal; see, e.g., HALOT 877b; Fabry and Lamberty-Zielinsky 2001: 333) or, on
the basis of comparison with 'י־ל ְח ָמם ְלנַ ְפ ָׁשם לֹא יָבֹוא ֵּבית הַ ‘ ִּכfor their bread will be for
themselves/their hunger; it will not enter the house of Yhwh’ from the end of the same
verse, ‘and your sacrifices will not come to him’ (see, e.g., Ben-Ḥayyim 1982: 230b). In the
latter two cases, ָע ַרבmeans ‘to come, enter’.
Lexical Features 333
Aside from the questionable occurrence of the word in Hosea (the language
of which contains a few possible markers of a northern dialect),108 use of
‘ ער"בpleasant, sweet’ is confined in the Bible to rather late compositions—
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Malachi—and to works of the poetic and wisdom genres,
the language of both of which does not exemplify standard CBH, whatever its
diachronic origin.109
Jer 6.20 Your offerings are not acceptable and your sacrifices do
not please ( ) ָע ְרבּוme
Lev 1.4 and he will place his hand on the head of the offering and
it will be accepted ( )וְ נִ ְר ָצהfor him to make atonement for
him
Lev 19.5 and when you make a peace offering to Yhwh, make it a
sacrifice acceptable for you () ִל ְרצֹנְ ֶכם
Lev 22.20 All that has a defect you will not offer, because it will not
be acceptable ( ) ְל ָרצֹוןfor you
Hos 8.13 The sacrifices of my gifts—they sacrifice meat that they
have eaten. Yhwh has not accepted them () ָר ָצם
While not all of the above references are equally classical, each of the alterna-
tives to ער"בin the meaning ‘pleasant, sweet’ is attested in classical material.
In contrast to many linguistic phenomena characteristic of the later phases
of ancient Hebrew, use of ‘ ער"בpleasant, sweet’ is evidently not the result
of external influence, as the root is unattested in other Semitic languages in
the meaning under discussion. It is true that derivatives of the root in the
meaning in question have been identified in Aramaic, but in most of these
cases there is doubt as to whether the relevant form really has the required
meaning: Tg Neofiti to Gen 34.15, 22, 23; Tg Geniza to Gen 34.22; Tg Prov 20.17;
Tg Song 2.14; Qohelet Rabba 1.3 (see Jastrow 1903: 1117a). In the targums to
Gen 34 it would seem that the Aramaic verb ‘ = אתערבto accept, be willing,
agree’, a nuance close to that of ‘ ער"בpleasant, sweet’, e.g., in the context of
sacrifices, since it serves to render the Hebrew verb ‘ נֵ אֹותto consent, agree’.
111 The verb ‘ ָמ ַתקto be sweet’ has early attestation in Exod 15.23, whereas the verb ‘ נָ ַעםto be
pleasant’ has it in Gen 49.15.
Lexical Features 335
112 This interpretation is clear in the Geniza Targum, in which -‘ נֵ אֹות ְלto agree with’ is ren-
dered -‘ אשתוה לto become equal to’ in vv. 15 and 23, and ‘ אתערבto be mixed’ in v. 22.
McNamara (1992: 163) translates ‘mingle’ in all three occurrences in Tg Neofiti. Compare
the interpretation of נֵ אֹותwith ὁμοιόω ‘be made like’ in the Greek.
113 Tg Prov 20.17 renders הכין נתמלי פומיה חצצא-ערב לגברא לחמא דיגאלא ובתר. Ben-Ḥayyim
(1980: 93), basing his words on a slightly different reading, argues that the translation is
taken from the Peshiṭta, which reads ܥܪܒ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܒܠܚܡܐ ܕܓܠܐ ܘܒܬܪ ܗܝܕܝܢ ܢܬܡܐ
ܦܘܡܗ ܚܨܨ. The Syriac translator understood ערבnot in the sense of ‘pleasant, sweet’,
but of ‘surety, responsibility’. Lamsa (1957) translates ‘He who becomes surety for a man
by means of deceitful gain will afterwards have his mouth filled with gravel’ and Ben-
Ḥayyim (1980: 93) explains בלחמא דגלאas ‘with the wage of bread of deceit’.
On the basis of Sperber’s version, the relevant part of Tg Song 2.14 is ארום קליך מערב
‘ בצלותא בבית מקדשאbecause your voice is mixed with prayer in the Temple’. The printed
editions read עריבא, perhaps under the influence of the Hebrew source text.
114 See von Rad (1962: 261, n. 170), who characterizes ער"בin Jer 6.20, Hos 9.4, and Mal 3.4 as
a technical term related to the cult and in Ps 104.34 as a result of semantic expansion.
115 Compare colloquial -‘ בא לacceptable to, like’ in Modern Israeli Hebrew.
336 chapter 8
from an earlier meaning of the root would help to explain the absence of the
root in the meaning in question in classical sources.116
In light of the evidence adduced above, the use of ‘ ער"בpleasant, sweet’ is
characteristic, on the one hand, of late material, and, on the other, of poetic
and wisdom texts (which may also be late). Even so, it should be noted that the
root is not at all attested in the discussed meaning in the core LBH books. As
such, the usage presents a further example of an apparently late phenomenon
linking the language of Jeremiah with post-biblical Hebrew without the docu-
mented mediation of LBH (see above, §2.2.2).
8.8.3 Jeremiah
Jer 6.20 deals with the acceptability of sacrifices, a context in which deriva-
tives of the root ‘ רצ"יaccept, desire’, the verb ‘ ָח ֵפץdesire’, and the expression
ַ ִ‘ ֵר ַיח נpleasing aroma’ are more common. Indeed the verse presents both
יחֹוח
classical and post-classical expressions, ֹלֹות ֶיכם לֹא ְל ָרצֹוןֵ ‘ עyour offerings are not
acceptable’ parallel to א־ע ְרבּו ִלי ֶ ‘ וְ זִ ְב ֵחand your sacrifices do not please me’.
ָ ֹ יכם ל
Similar usages come in Mal 3.4 and perhaps in Hos 9.4 (but see above).
8.9.1 The MT
In the majority of its occurrences in the Bible, the root עת"רhas to do with
prayer: ( ָע ַתרExod 8.26; Job 33.26) and ( ֶה ְע ִּתירJob 22.27) both ‘to pray’; ‘ נֶ ְע ַּתרto
be answered, to accede’ (Isa 19.22; 1 Chr 8.20; 2 Chr 33.19). Mention should also
be made of the nominal form ֲע ָת ַריapparently ‘those who pray to me, my wor-
shippers’ (Zeph 3.10). In the lexicons this entry is often denoted עת"רI.
A meaning connected to prayer is not appropriate in the case of Jer 33.6:
‘Behold I will bring to her health and healing; and I will heal them and reveal
to them abundance of peace and truth (’) ֲע ֶת ֶרת ָׁשלֹום וֶ ֱא ֶמת. On the basis of the
MT as it stands (see below), many commentators interpret ֲע ֶת ֶרתhere as ‘abun-
116 Cf., however, Ben-Ḥayyim (1980: 97–98), who reasons that ‘ ער"בpleasant, sweet’ could
have been expected to appear earlier on, since the root’s most basic meaning, ‘come,
enter’, had apparently been forgotten before the composition of the earliest biblical texts.
Lexical Features 337
Exod 30.15 The rich ( ) ֶה ָע ִׁשירwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
Tg Onkelos The rich ( )דעתירwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
117 Qimḥi; Graf 1862: 418; Sh. Gordon 1936; 223; Bula 1983: 423; McKane 1986–1996: 853, 857
(hesitantly and with the specific connotation of ‘long time’); so also many modern English
translations.
118 See the lexicons for discussions of these verses.
119 Though it should be noted that numerous commentators interpret * ָע ָתרhere as ‘pleasant
aroma’ (see the lexicons, the commentaries, and the modern translations). Be that as it
may, the cognate root in Arabic is ( �ع��طرdespite the apparent mismatch of the second root
letter). Others propose a suitable meaning for עת"רI, e.g., ‘beg, entreat, pray’.
120 The root is represented by more than 50 occurrences of its verbal and substantival
derivatives.
338 chapter 8
Tg Neofiti The rich ( )דעתירwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
Tg Jerusalem The rich ( )דעתירwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
Sam Tg J The rich ( )עתירהwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
Sam Tg A The rich ( )דעתירwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
Peshiṭta The rich ( )ܕܥܬܝܪwill not pay more and the poor not less than
half a shekel
1 Sam 17.25 the king will enrich him ( )יַ ְע ְׁש ֶרּנּוwith great wealth ()ע ֶֹׁשר
Tg Jonathan the king will enrich him ( )יעתרניהwith great wealth ()עותר
Peshiṭta the king will enrich him ( )ܢܥܬܪܝܘܗܝwith great wealth ()ܥܘܬܪܐ
It almost goes without saying that the above examples demonstrate that עׁש"ר
is the principal classical alternative of עת"רII.
The fact that the Aramaic cognate of CBH עׁש"רshould occur precisely in the
three books Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Proverbs is not particularly surprising. With
specific reference to Proverbs, it is relevant that already at an early date there
were traditions connecting wisdom to the east in general and to Aramaic more
specifically, traces of which are apparently preserved in the relatively frequent
use of Aramaisms in biblical Wisdom Literature.121 In the opinion of Tur-Sinai
(1965: 594) it is reasonable to assume that some of the sayings included in the
book of Proverbs also served in the language(s) of the people(s) of the east and
passed into Hebrew from without. If so, then generally speaking, the Aramaic
influence discernible in the book of Proverbs is not necessarily late.122
Even so, there is evidence that derivatives of עת"רII may indeed constitute
late Aramaisms, as according to the extant sources Proto-Semitic ṯ was repre-
sented by the grapheme שin Old Aramaic, that is until the middle of the 1st
millennium BCE, and written as תonly in the post-exilic period.123 This dating
receives confirmation form the distribution of instances of עת"רII in Jeremiah
and Ezekiel. There is no reason to doubt that the Aramaic influence detectable
in the language of these books reflects the time of their composition (rather
121 See above, §1.4.1. Cf. the approach of Yoder (2000: 28–33, 39 and passim), who sees in
Prov 1–9 and 31 linguistic traits distinctively characteristic of Imperial Aramaic.
122 Tur-Sinai 1965: 594; Kutscher 1982: §100.
123 Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §§46nα–β; Moscatti 1964: §8.18; Garr 1985: 28–30.
Lexical Features 339
than that of their transmission), since this coincides with the ascension of
Aramaic to the position of regional lingua franca.124
8.9.3 Jeremiah
One should be wary of drawing unwarranted conclusions based on the avail-
able evidence. The use of the Aramaic root עת"רin Jeremiah and Ezekiel is in
line with the linguistic milieu in which the books were likely composed, but
both books also continue to use the classical Hebrew root עש"ר: Jer 5.27; 9.22
(2x); 17.11; Ezek 27.33. In this way both are characterized by a mixture of classi-
cal and post-classical alternatives typical of transitional books. It is to be noted
that LBH proper does not evince use of עת"רII, nor is its employment doc-
umented in post-biblical Hebrew before the time of the Babylonian Talmud
(circa 500 CE).125
124 Cf. Rabin (1962: 1075), who raises the possibility that the word in Jeremiah was borrowed
not from Aramaic, but from a northern Hebrew dialect that shared isoglosses therewith.
125 See, e.g., ‘ עתירי בבל יורדין גיהנםthe wealthy of Babylon descend to Hades’ (B Beṣa 4.4).
126 See the relevant note in the critical apparatus of BHS.
127 Hoffman 2001: 636.
128 See the relevant note in the critical apparatus of BHS.
340 chapter 8
‘treasures’ (cf. Isa 10.13 ktiv/qre),129 *ע ְתר ֹת ַ ‘footprints (> way)’,130 ‘ ָע ֶת ֶרתpleasant
aroma’ (on the basis of the alleged meaning of *ע ָתר ָ mentioned above in ֲע ַתר
ַ ַ ֲענEzek 8.11),131 *עת ֶרוַ ח
ן־ה ְּקט ֶֹרת ע ֶֹלה ֵ *‘time of relief’,132 ‘ עטרת = עתרתcrown’,133
‘* *עת פדותtime of redemption’.134 Whatever its meaning, the fact that it is par-
alleled in the Greek means that it was included in the alleged short edition of
Jeremiah, as are three cases of עש"רin Jeremiah.
8.10.1 The mt
The biblical distribution of ֶּפ ָחהincludes 28 occurrences in the books of
Kings (3), Isaiah (1), Jeremiah (3), Ezekiel (3), Haggai (4), Malachi (1), Esther (3),
Ezra (1), Nehemiah (8), and Chronicles (1).138 Most instances are obviously post-
classical, i.e., exilic or later. Potentially early cases and even some later ones are
139 This would certainly apply to the usages at 1 Kgs 20.24, 2 Kgs 18.24, and Isa 36.9, since all
of these are placed in the mouths of foreigners (see Hurvitz 1972: 22, n. 24), and possibly
to the occurrence at 1 Kgs 10.15 (|| 2 Chr 9.14) as well. While the narrator’s use in 1 Kgs 10.15
(|| 2 Chr 9.14) of ֶּפ ָחהin the days of Solomon is viewed by some as anachronistic (e.g.,
Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 220), the early adoption of other Akkadian terms, e.g.,
יכל
ָ ‘ ֵהtemple, palace’ (originally from Sumerian) and ‘ ָס ִריסeunuch, official’ should serve
as warning against hasty conclusions. On the possible representation of Akkadian šaknu
in early West Semitic skn see below.
140 Isa 41.25; Jer 51.23, 28, 57; Ezek 23.6, 12, 23; Ezra 9.2; Neh 2.16 (2x); 4.8, 13; 5.7, 17; 7.5; 12.40;
13.1.
342 chapter 8
141 1QIsaa 29.12 (|| Isa 36.9); 4Q77 f3.8 (|| Hag 1.1); 4Q80 f2.2 (|| Hag 2.21); Mur88 21.24 (|| Hag
1.1); 22.7 (|| Hag 1.14), 16 (|| Hag 2.1); 23.24 (|| Hag 2.21).
142 Avigad and Sass 1997: 176, seal 419.2.
143 Bikkurim 3.3; Taʿanit 4.5.
144 KAI 266 9.
145 Dan 3.2, 3, 27; 6.8; Ezra 5.3, 6, 14; 6.6, 7, 13.
146 WDSP7 f1–6.17; WDSP8 1.10.
147 TAD A1 9; A3 3.4; 6.2; A4 7.1, 29; C2 3.31; C3a 12.16; C38 4.14.
148 E.g., Bikkurim 3.3; Pesaḥim 1.6; Yoma 3.9; Sheqalim 6.1; Ketubbot 2.8.
149 1QIsaa 35.4 (|| Isa 41.25).
150 TAD A6 2.9, 10, 21; B2 3.13; B3 1.13, 18; 10.19; 11.13; 12.28; B4 6.14; B5 4.2, 5.
151 Dan 2.48; 3.2, 3, 27; 6.8.
152 1Q72 f1–2.8 (|| Dan 3.27); 4Q112 f7.4 (|| Dan 2.48).
153 WDSP8 1.12; WDSP10 1R.10.
154 Tg Jonathan 2 Kgs 23.4; 25.18; Jer 20.1; 29.26; 52.24; Tg Jerusalem: Num 19.3; 35.25; Tg Esther
Sheni 1.2.
155 The same etymon may also be reflected in West Semitic skn, but consensus is lacking on
the identity of the latter with šaknu/סגן. The BH participle ס ֵֹכןcomes in 1 Kgs 1.2, 4 and
Isa 22.15 (with potentially related verbal forms in Ps 139.3; Job 15.3; 22.2, 21; 34.9; 35.3) and
apparent cognates occur in Amarna Canaanite, Old Aramaic, and early Phoenician (and
possibly Ugaritic) as well; see BDB s.v. ָס ַכןI; Rainey 1971: 171; Kaufman 1974: 97–98; DNWSI
s.v. sgn1 and skn2; Mankowski 2000: 112–114; HALOT s.v. ס ֵֹכןfor discussion and further
bibliography.
Lexical Features 343
The words in question are obviously very old in Akkadian. Given the use of
Aramaic in the administration of the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian
empires, early use of the term ֶּפ ָחהin Aramaic specifically, and rather extensive
use of both ֶּפ ָחהand * ֶסגֶ ןin various late Aramaic dialects, it is reasonable to
attribute the penetration into Hebrew of these two Akkadian terms to Aramaic
mediation.
8.10.3 Jeremiah
The terms ֶּפ ָחהand * ֶסגֶ ןeach appear three times in Jeremiah, always in tan-
dem: 51.23, 28, and 57. Significantly, all of these occurrences are embedded in
contexts detailing the fortunes of foreign nations (Babylon, Media) and their
officers. As such, use here of the terms in question would seem to be that typi-
cal specifically of the transitional stage between the classical period, when
the word would presumably have been unknown to most readers, and the late
period, when it came to be used to denote Judahite/Judean officers. Readers
were evidently familiar enough with Babylonian military and/or political cul-
ture to recognize the terms, but these were not yet applicable to the inner-
Judahite political and military situation. Interestingly, in Jer 51.57 the phrase
יה
ָ ֶּוסגָ נ
ְ יה ֶ ‘ ַּפits governors and prefects’ is preceded by the more general
ָ חֹות
יהָ ‘ ָׂש ֶרits officials’, which constitutes the two terms’ principal native classical
alternative.
In RH the adjective ַרב, with the basic meaning ‘great’, is used commonly in the
nominal senses ‘lord’, ‘master’, and ‘teacher’, for example:
M Giṭṭin 4.5 He who is half-slave and half-free works for his master () ַרּבֹו
one day and for himself one day
M Makkot 2.2 excluded is the father who hits his son and the master ()וְ ָה ָרב
who strikes his disciple
While this usage is rare in the Bible, its development can nevertheless be dis-
cerned there as well.
8.11.1 The MT
The term ַרבis, of course, attested in CBH, in which it is used frequently as an
adjective in the senses ‘great’, ‘honored’, ‘much, many’. Its biblical use as an
honorific, conversely, is restricted chiefly to composite terms of rank applied to
foreign officials: ‘ ַרב ַּביִ תpalace steward’, ‘ ַרב ַהח ֵֹבלship captain’, ב־ט ָּב ִחים
ַ ‘ ַרhead
bodyguard’, ב־מג
ָ ‘ ַרhigh official (?)’, ב־ס ִריס
ָ ‘ ַרhead eunuch, official’, and ב־ׁש ֵקה ָ ַר
‘commander, Rab-Shakeh’.156 Most of these occurrences come in later, i.e.,
exilic or post-exilic, sources, paralleling the increase of foreign involvement
in Judah in the late First Temple, exilic, and post-exilic periods, though a few
are classical, e.g., ב־ׁש ֵקה
ָ ַרin the time of Hezekiah.157 As calques or translitera-
tions of foreign rank designations, however, none of these expressions seems
particularly characteristic of standard Hebrew usage.
On two occasions, however, this same term is used in reference to an official
outside of a foreign title:
Jer 39.13 And Nebuzaradan the head bodyguard (ב־ט ָּב ִחים ַ ) ַרand
Nebushazban the chief officer (ב־ס ִריס ָ ) ַרand Nergal-Sar-ezer the
high official (ב־מג ָ ) ַרand all the officials of the king of Babylon
(ְך־ּב ֶבל
ָ )וְ כֹל ַר ֵּבי ֶמ ֶלsent . . .
Jer 41.1 And it was in the seventh month that Ishmael son of Nethaniah
son of Elishama from royal seed, along with the officials of the
king ( )וְ ַר ֵּבי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךand ten men with him, came to Gedaliah
156 ַרב ַּביִ תEst 1.8; ַרב ַהח ֵֹבלJon 1.6; ב־ט ָּב ִחים
ַ ַר2 Kgs 25.8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20; Jer 39.9, 10, 11, 13;
40.1, 2, 5; 41.10; 43.6; 52.12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30; ב־מג ָ ַרJer 39.3, 13; ב־ס ִריס
ָ ַר2 Kgs 18.17; Jer
39.3, 13; Dan 1.3; ב־ׁש ֵקה ָ ַר2 Kgs 18.17, 19, 26, 27, 28, 37; 19.4, 8; Isa 36.2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 22; 37.4, 8.
157 BDB 913b; Joosten 2008: 101.
Lexical Features 345
2 Kgs 10.11 Jehu slew all those left in Ahab’s house . . . and all his nobles ()ּגְ ד ָֹליו
Tg Jonathan Jehu slew all those left in Ahab’s house . . . and all his nobles ()רברבוהי
Peshiṭta Jehu slew all those left in Ahab’s house . . . and all his nobles ()ܪܘܪܒܢܘܗܝ
8.11.3 Jeremiah
As noted above, Jeremiah presents the only two cases of the use of honorific ַרב
outside of fixed foreign titles. However, it should be noted that the book shows
a much stronger propensity for use of classical ( ַׂשר56x) (in reference to both
Judahite and foreign officials) and ( ּגָ דֹול9x).164
While it is difficult to explain exactly how the difference between the three
passages arose,168 for purposes of the present discussion it is clear from both of
the cases discussed that the short edition of Jeremiah utilizes the classical ָׂש ֵרי
( ַה) ֶּמ ֶלְך, in contrast to the supplementary material, which twice has recourse to
later ַר ֵּבי ( ַה) ֶּמ ֶלְך.169
Like many basic words in BH, the lexeme רּוח ַ is polysemous, indicating, inter
alia, physical referents, like ‘wind’ and ‘breath’, and more abstract psychologi-
cal or supernatural referents, like ‘life’, ‘spirit’, ‘divine presence’, and ‘prophetic
power’. These meanings come throughout the Bible, so that even if it is reason-
able to assume that the more concrete meanings preceded the more abstract
ones, from the perspective of their biblical distribution, it is impossible to dis-
tinguish early from late. Even so, in the case of an additional usage, one can
detect a specifically late linguistic development: the use of רּוח ַ meaning ‘direc-
tion, side, part facing a cardinal direction’.170
167 καὶ ἐγένετο τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ ἦλθεν Ισμαηλ . . . ἀπὸ γένους τοῦ βασιλέως.
168 See the commentaries, as well as the bibliographical references in Hornkohl 2012: 343.
169 Taking into account only the word ַׂשר, the short edition of Jeremiah presents 50 poten-
tial cases. Including the two cases of ַרבdiscussed here, the supplementary material
includes eight potential cases (instances of ַׂשרwith no parallel in the Greek translation
of Jeremiah are found in 29.2; 34.19; 36.19; 38.4, 18; 52.25, but in a few cases [36.19; 38.4;
52.25] the difference may reflect stylistic rather than textual factors).
170 BDB 924b; Ben-Yehuda 1948–1959: XIII 6482, n. 1; Qimron 1980a: 251; 1986: §500.1; Talshir
2003: 263, n. 15.
348 chapter 8
8.12.1 The mt
In the meaning ‘direction, side, part facing a cardinal direction’ רּוח
ַ is restricted
to relatively late texts within the Bible:
Jer 49.32 And their camels will be for spoil and the multitude of their
livestock for plunder, and I will scatter them to every wind
(רּוח
ַ ) . . .
Jer 49.36 And I will bring upon Elam four winds from the four ends
of the heavens, and I will scatter them to all these winds
( ) ָה ֻרחֹות. . .
Jer 52.23 And there were ninety-six pomegranates on the side (רּוחה ָ ),
the total number of pomegranates on the capital one-hundred
around.
Ezek 5.10, 12 And I will exercise judgment on you and I will scatter your
remnant to every wind (רּוח ַ ) . . . . A third part of you will die
from plague or perish in your midst from famine and a third
will fall by the sword around you and I will scatter a third to
every wind (רּוח ַ ) and I will unsheathe a sword after you.
Ezek 12.14 And I will scatter all those around him—his help and all his
troops—to every wind (רּוח ַ ).
Ezek 17.21 All his fugitives in all his troops will fall by the sword and
those left will be scattered to every wind (רּוח ַ ).
Ezek 37.9 And he said to me: “Prophesy to the wind, prophesy, son of
man, and say to the wind ‘Thus says Lord Yhwh, “From the
four winds ( )רּוחֹותcome, O wind, and blow on those killed,
that they may live.”’”
Ezek 42.16–20 He measured the east side (רּוח ַהקָּ ִדים ַ ) with the measuring
reed, five-hundred reeds with the measuring reed around.
He measured the north side (רּוח ַהצָּ פֹון ַ ), five-hundred reeds
with the measuring reed around. The south side (רּוח ַהדָּ רֹום ַ )
he measured five-hundred reeds with the measuring reed. He
turned to the west side (רּוח ַהיָּ ם ַ ). He measured five-hundred
reeds with the measuring reed. He measured the four sides
( ) ְל ַא ְרבַּ ע רּוחֹות. . .
Dan 8.8 And the male goat grew very great. But when he grew strong,
his large horn was broken and in its place there arose four
conspicuous ones toward the four winds of heaven (ְל ַא ְרבַּ ע
)רּוחֹות ַהשָּׁ ָמיִ ם.
Dan 11.4 And after he stood, his kingdom was broken and it was par-
celed out to the four winds of heaven ( ) ְל ַא ְרבַּ ע רּוחֹות ַהשָּׁ ָמיִ ם. . .
Lexical Features 349
1 Chr 9.24 To the four winds ( ) ְל ַא ְרבַּ ע רּוחֹותthe four gatekeepers will
be: east, west, north, and south.
1QM 9.13 They will [sur]round the tower on three sides ()רוחות
4Q448 2.1–9 Awake, O Holy One, for Jonathan, the king, and all the con-
gregation of Your people Israel that is in the four winds of
the heavens (בא ֗ר ֗בע רוחות שמים ֗ ), let peace be on all of them
and Your kingdom. May Your name be blessed.
11Q19 38.13–14 The length of its eastern wall (לרוח הקדם ֗ ) shall be four hun-
dred eighty cubits, the same dimension applying to all its
sides ()רוחותי֗ ֗ה: south, west, and north
11Q19 40.8–9 At a length of about one-thousand six [hundred] cubits
from corner to corner (it will be). Every side ( ) ֗רו֗ ח ורוחwill
be this measure.
M Kilʾayim 3.1 A garden bed that is six handbreadths by six handbreadths—
they sow in it five (kinds of) seeds, four (along) the four sides
( )רּוחֹותof the garden bed and one in the middle.171
The post-biblical Aramaic dialects also bear witness to the late usage of the
idiom.172
In the Aramaic targums, especially Targum Onkelos, רוחis a regular parallel
of Hebrew ֵּפ ָאהin architectural and geographical contexts:
Exod 26.20 the other side wall of the Tabernacle, on the north side () ִל ְפ ַאת
Tg Onkelos the other side wall of the Tabernacle, on the north side ()לרוח
Tg Jerusalem the other side wall of the Tabernacle, on the north side ()לרוח
Peshiṭta the other side wall of the Tabernacle, on the north side ()ܪܘܚܐ
Num 35.5 You will measure . . . the east side ( ) ְּפ ַאת. . . and the south side ( ) ְּפ ַאת. . .
Tg Onkelos You will measure . . . the east side ( )רוח. . . and the south side ( )רוח. . .
Tg Jerusalem You will measure . . . the east side . . . and the south side ( )רוח. . .
171 Additional examples may be found in the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of the
Hebrew Language.
172 4Q210 f1ii.14; 4Q554 f1ii.11–13; B Bava Batra 2.2.
350 chapter 8
Num and the west side ( ) ְּפ ַאת. . . and the north side ( ) ְּפ ַאת. . .
Tg Onkelos and the west side ( )רוח. . . and the north side ( )רוח. . .
Tg Jerusalem and the west side ( )רוח. . . and the north side ( )רוח. . .
These examples also show that ֵּפ ָאהserved as a classical alternative for רּוח
ַ as
an indicator of ‘direction, side, part facing a cardinal direction’.
From the distribution and examples above, the late development of the
meaning and usage under discussion seems clear. But how did the usage
develop within Hebrew? One should apparently seek the origins of the idiom
in Akkadian. It has been noted that already at a very early stage Akkadian šāru
‘wind’ served to indicate ‘(cardinal) direction’,173 e.g.,
ABL 281.9 Ulaj ana šupal ša-a-ru ītebir ‘he crossed the Ulaj river in the
south (lit. ‘to the lowland wind’)’
Gilg. XI 155 ušēṣīma ana erbetti im.meš attaqi niqâ ‘I sent forth (every-
thing) to the four winds, I made an offering’
OIP 2 102.78 pūtu qablītu šanītu muḫḫurti šá-a-ri amurri ‘the second inner
side facing the west (lit. ‘Amorite wind’)’174
The picture sketched thus far is one of early use of ‘wind’ as an indicator of
direction in Akkadian, in contrast to late usage of the same in ancient Hebrew
and Aramaic. In Hebrew the idiom is documented starting in the last years
of the First Temple Period or the Exile into the Persian Period and beyond; in
Aramaic, on the other hand, possibly due to the very small amount of material
from the Persian Period, the first attestation comes in the DSS. Since the use in
question is not documented before the end of the First Temple Period, at which
point, as is well known, there was an increase in Aramaic influence on Hebrew,
it is reasonable to characterize the idiom as an Akkadianism that penetrated
Hebrew via the mediation of Aramaic around the end of the 6th century BCE
or during the Exile. Of course, in the absence of further evidence, especially
Aramaic evidence from before the time of the DSS, this line of development
must remain conjectural. All the same, it is clear from the sources—biblical
and extra-biblical, Hebrew and Aramaic—that רוּח ַ in the function discussed
is a linguistic feature distinctively characteristic of the later phases of ancient
Hebrew (and Aramaic).
173 Ben-Yehuda 1948–1958: XIII 6482, n. 1; Qimron 1980a: 251; Talshir 2003: 263, n. 15.
174 These and further examples may be found in CAD XVII(b) 136–137.
Lexical Features 351
8.12.3 Jeremiah
The language of the book of Jeremiah presents two aspects of the lexeme in
question. Two cases involve actual reference to the wind: ‘and I will scatter
them to every quarter (ל־רּוח ַ ) ְל ָכ, those clipped of hair’ (Jer 49.32) and ‘and I
will bring upon Elam four winds from the four quarters of the heavens (ֵמ ַא ְרבַּ ע
) ְקצֹות ַהשָּׁ ַמיִ םand I will scatter them to these four quarters () ְלכֹל ָה ֻרחֹות ָה ֵאלֶּ ה
(36).175 In these cases it is very possible that the context, concerned with for-
eign nations, including some defeated by Babylon, is what led to the use of
an Akkadianism. It should also be noted that the relevant idiom, ל־רּוח ַ זָ ָרה ְל ָכ
‘scatter to every wind (i.e., direction)’, is always metaphorical, dealing with
divine judgment, and, admittedly, is based on a meteorological phenomenon.
In other words, these cases do refer to directions, but are not necessarily used
in place of another word, like ֵּפ ָאה, referring to a side or part of an object.
A more concrete example is ‘And there were ninety-six pomegranates on
the side (רּוחה ָ ), the total number of pomegranates on the capital one-hundred
around’ (Jer 52.23).176 Here רּוח ַ apparently refers to the side of a physical object
(the capital of a column)177 with no reference to atmospheric conditions. Of
course, in comparison to the cases discussed in the previous paragraph, this
usage represents a step forward in the semantic and functional development
of the word רּוח ַ : ‘wind’ > ‘direction from which the wind blows’ > ‘side facing
the direction from which the wind blows’ > ‘side, part of an object’. This same
use of the word is not attested in the core LBH texts and is also absent from the
DSS, but is characteristic of RH and Targumic Aramaic. It is therefore one fur-
ther example of a linguistic link between Jeremiah and RH without the media-
tion of LBH (see above, §2.2.2).
175 The phrase ְלכֹל ָה ֻרחֹות ָה ֵאלֶּ הis most reasonably understood as ‘to the four corners of the
heavens’, on the assumption that the preposition - לhere indicates movement in a direc-
tion (see above, §7.4). Alternatively, one might render ‘by (means of) all these winds’, but
this interpretation seems less plausible.
176 The verse is difficult and is lacking from the parallel description in 2 Kgs 7.16–20. Some see
it as corrupt (e.g., Rudolph 1968: 322; BHS; see also the following footnote). Bright (1965:
365) and J. Thompson (1980: 778, n. 10) correct to * ֶרוַ חin the sense ‘evenly spaced’. The
word is unparalleled in the Peshiṭta.
177 Greek: μέρος = ‘edge, side, part’; Targum Jonathan: ‘ עברתאpart, side’; see Rashi and Qimḥi
(cf. Sh. Gordon 1936: 340). Duhm 1901: 380; McKane 1986–1996: II 1376; Keown, Scalise, and
Smothers 1995: 375, 377; Lundbom 1999–2004: III 528. Bula (1983: 654) and Hoffman (2001:
875) interpret according to the sense ‘one of the four cardinal directions’; the same is true
of Volz (1928: 374) and Holladay (1986–1989: II 439), who also propose an emendation
(Volz thinks the verse a late addition).
352 chapter 8
8.13 ‘ ָרץmessenger’
8.13.1 The MT
In the Bible the participle ָרץserves not only as a verb, but, like many parti-
ciples, as a nomen agentis, denoting a persistent characteristic or occupation.
The exact meaning of the word in its nominal function in classical sources may
be discerned from the following examples:
1 Sam 22.17 And the king said to the guards ( ) ָל ָר ִציםat his side . . .
1 Kgs 14.27–28 And King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them
and he assigned them to the commanders of the guards
( ) ָה ָר ִציםwho were guarding the entrance to the royal pal-
ace. And whenever the king went to Yhwh’s temple, the
guards ( ) ָה ָר ִציםwould bear the shields, and afterward they
would return them to the guardroom () ָּתא ָה ָר ִצים.
2 Kgs 10.25 Then it was that once he had finished offering the burnt
offering, Jehu said to the guards ( ) ָל ָר ִציםand to the royal
officers, “Enter, kill them; no one will come out.” And they
killed them with the edge of the sword; and the guards
( ) ָה ָר ִציםand the royal officers threw them out, and went to
the inner room of the house of Baal.
2 Kgs 11.11 And the guards ( ) ָה ָר ִציםstood each with his weapons in his
hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the
house, by the altar and by the house, around the king.
178 The latter word serves in Greek to denote both ‘wind’ and ‘the direction from which the
wind blows, cardinal direction’.
Lexical Features 353
From these examples it emerges that the term ָרץserved to indicate the official
role of a ‘bodyguard’ or ‘royal guard’ in the military or court.179
This meaning is also known from the core LBH material (in texts based on
classical sources), but the post-classical phase of the language is also familiar
with an additional nuance of the word, of which there is no hint in CBH. This
connotation is clear in the following texts:
Jer 51.31 Messenger to meet messenger (את־רץ ָ ) ָרץ ִל ְק ַרruns and herald
to meet herald to tell the king of Babylon that his city has
been captured in its entirety.
Est 3.13–15 And letters were sent by couriers ( ) ָה ָר ִציםto all the king’s
provinces to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews. . . .
The couriers ( ) ָה ָר ִציםwent out . . .
Est 8.10–14 And he wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it
with the king’s ring, and sent letters by couriers ( ) ָה ָר ִציםon
horses, riding on steeds sired by the royal studs. . . . The couri-
ers () ָה ָר ִצים, riding on the royal steeds, went out hastened and
impelled by the king’s command . . .
2 Chr 30.6–10 And the couriers ( ) ָה ָר ִציםwent with letters from the hand of
the king and his officials throughout all Israel and Judah. . . .
And the couriers ( ) ָה ָר ִציםwere passing from city to city in the
land of Ephraim and Menasseh as far as Zebulon.
1 Sam 11.7 And he took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces, and sent
them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of
messengers () ַה ַּמ ְל ָא ִכים.
179 Beyond the verses listed above, the word comes in this meaning in 2 Kgs 11.4, 6, 13, 19
(2x); 2 Chr 23.12. See the lexicons. See also 2 Sam 15.1; 1 Kgs 1.5. The exact rendering in the
various translations is less important than the function of the role in each case, which,
significantly, does not involve the relaying of messages.
180 BDB 930; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 474.
354 chapter 8
2 Kgs 19.14 (|| Isa 37.14) Then Hezekiah took the letters from the hand of
the messengers ( ) ַה ַּמ ְל ָא ִכיםand read them . . .
Jer 27.2–3 Thus said Yhwh to me: “Make for yourself bonds and yokes
and put them on your neck, and send them to the king of
Edom and to the king of Moab and to the king of the sons of
Ammon and to the king of Tyre and to the king of Sidon by
messengers ( ) ַמ ְל ָא ִכיםtraveling to Jerusalem to Zedekiah king
of Judah.
The striking semantic differences between the two senses of ָרץnoted here,
the distribution of the word in the sense ‘messenger’, and the existence of clas-
sical alternatives in that meaning may all be construed as evidence that this
is indeed a characteristically late semantic innovation. It is also worth noting
that the use of ַמ ְל ָאְךin the meaning ‘(terrestrial) messenger’ gradually declines
in the late period in the face of the meaning ‘angel’. It is replaced with ָׁש ִל ַיח
in Hebrew sources181 and with אזגדin Aramaic (and Syriac; sometimes also
with שליח, but in Christian dialects this term serves especially to denote one
of Jesus’ twelve apostles). Despite the convincing nature of this confluence of
evidence for the diagnostically late status of ָרץin the sense ‘messenger’, things
are not as unequivocal as one might wish.
Jdg 5.28b Why does his chariot delay in coming? Why are the
Tg Jonathan Why does the chariot of my son delay in coming? Why are the
The translation deviates markedly from the Hebrew original, making indepen-
dent usage of the Aramaic =( רהטHebrew ) ָרץin the meaning ‘messenger’, as in
LBH.182 While the use of ‘ ָרץmessenger’ is attested in more than one LBH com-
position, it was evidently not prevalent in post-biblical Hebrew or Aramaic.
A second problem, not unrelated to the first, involves explaining the devel-
opment of the word’s meanings in Hebrew. It is not immediately clear why
CBH ָרץshould mean ‘bodyguard, royal guard’. Is one to imagine that the word
originally applied to a soldier who ran alongside the horse or chariot of his
commander? The later meaning, ‘messenger’, seems less difficult to account for
from the standpoint of semantics, but one wonders why there is no evidence
of its having developed earlier. Whatever the case may be, several explanations
for the late meaning have been proposed. Gesenius (1847: 763a) suggested that
the use in Esther reflects the book’s Persian historical context, referring spe-
cifically to messengers on horseback. Of course, Persian influence is also con-
ceivable in the case of Chronicles, but, while not impossible, less likely in the
case of Jeremiah. For the latter book (if not for all three) perhaps an alterna-
tive source of the change might be sought. For example, in Akkadian the word
lāsimu(m), participle of lasāmu ‘to run’, was already in early sources used in
the sense ‘messenger’.183 The possibility of internal development should also
not be ruled out.
8.13.3 Jeremiah
Jeremiah knows the word ַמ ְל ָאְךfor ‘messenger’ (Jer 27.3) as well as ִצירin the
same meaning (Jer 49.14), the latter itself an Akkadianism. Yet in ‘Messenger
to meet messenger (את־רץ ָ ) ָרץ ִל ְק ַרruns and herald to meet herald to tell the
king of Babylon that his city has been captured entirely’ (Jer 51.31) the word ָרץ
appears in its late meaning, a connotation confirmed by the parallelism with
( ַמּגִ ידshowing that the runners in question are not merely guards making haste,
but messengers hurrying to deliver evil tidings). The verse comes as part of the
long oracle against Babylon. In light of the foreign context perhaps the use
of ‘ ָרץmessenger’ here reveals Akkadian influence, or, alternatively, involves
intentional coloring of the language for purposes of creating a Babylonian
scene. Whatever the case may be, given the general linguistic profile of the
book of Jeremiah, Akkadian seems more likely than Persian influence.
The marked disparity between the Masoretic and Old Greek versions of the
book of Jeremiah has long interested scholars.1 The two versions differ in terms
of both the order and amount of material they present, the Hebrew version
being significantly longer than the Greek. The difference between them has
been estimated at approximately three-thousand graphic words or between
one-sixth and one-eighth the length of the Masoretic version of the book.2
On the basis of DSS fragments that present striking similarities to both the
MT and the reconstructed Hebrew source text on which the Greek translation
is based, respectively,3 it is today agreed that in the last centuries before the
Common Era Jeremiah was represented in (at least) two Hebrew editions—a
long edition, best reflected in the Masoretic tradition (a form of which also
served as the Vorlage for most of the Ancient Versions), and a short edition,
most completely represented in the Greek.4
1 For a convenient historical survey of the relevant scholarship up to 1973 see Janzen 1973: 1–9.
2 Graf (1862: xliii) estimated the Greek version to be 2700 words shorter than the Masoretic
version; Min (1977: 1) puts the total at 3097, approximately one-seventh the total of the
Masoretic edition; according to Tov (2001: 320) the Masoretic version is one-sixth longer than
the Hebrew text reflected in the Greek.
The most conspicuous difference between the two versions concerning the order in which
they present material common to both involves the location and internal arrangement of the
oracles against the nations, chs. 46–51 in the MT, but coming after Jer 25.13 in the Greek (i.e.,
chs. 25.14–31.44). This difference affects chapter numeration between Jer 25.13 and 51.64 and
there are also differences in the numeration of individual verses, e.g., Jer 49.34 MT = Jer 25.14
+ Jer 25.20 in the Greek. Even outside this section there are differences, e.g., MT Jer 23.7–8
come after Greek 23.40.
3 Despite their fragmentary nature, it has been argued convincingly that 4QJerb (Janzen 1973:
181–184; Tov 1997: 171–176) and 4QJerd (Tov 1997: 203–205) resemble the Vorlage of the Old
Greek version at important points where the latter deviates from the MT. 2QJer (Baillet 1962:
62–69), 4QJera (Tov 1997: 145–170), 4QJerc (ibid.: 177–201), and 4QJere (ibid.: 172, 207), on the
other hand, are considered ‘proto-Masoretic’. See also Cross 1975: 308–309.
4 It was formerly believed by some that there had been a single, long edition of Jeremiah
and that the brevity of the Greek version arose—whether intentionally or accidentally—
during the process of translation, e.g., Graf 1862: xv–lvii. Given the Greek translator’s fairly
According to the prevailing view, the short edition is the earlier of the two,
whereas the majority of the material in the Masoretic tradition not reflected
in the Greek is generally thought to be the result of later, secondary literary
expansion.5 In deference to the majority view, the two basic literary compo-
nents of the book are termed here ‘the short edition’ and ‘the supplementary
material’, respectively.
It is worth noting that the opinion that assigns priority to the short edition
has traditionally been based principally on literary-historical considerations.
For example, it has been observed that the long edition, in contrast to the
short, is characterized by a heightened emphasis on certain issues, such as the
identity of the king and nation—respectively, Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar—
chosen by God as instruments of Judah’s discipline; the temporary nature—
70 years—of the punishment in question; and the recompense later to be vis-
ited upon Babylon. Of course, the claim that such emphasis necessarily implies
the secondary character of the material in question—not to mention its late
origin—enjoys less than universal acceptance.6 To be sure, even if the afore-
mentioned themes are not emphasized in the short edition, they are neverthe-
less explicitly mentioned therein.7
literal style, however, this explanation was always deemed problematic by certain scholars.
The existence of DSS texts resembling, respectively, both the long and short editions shows
that, while certain differences may indeed reflect the work of the Greek translator, major
omissions and differences in order are more plausibly explained on the assumption that the
Vorlage of the Greek translation differed substantially from the Hebrew text represented in
the MT. For the view that the Greek translation of Jeremiah is the work of two translators see
Thackeray 1903 and, more recently, Tov (1976), according to whose lists none of the phenom-
ena discussed in this study are affected by the divergent translation styles.
5 Even prior to the discovery of the Qumran evidence several scholars had postulated the exis-
tence of two editions of the book in the last centuries before the Common Era, with the
shorter preceding the longer. See, e.g., Workman 1889: 280–281; Streane 1896: 1–26. For mod-
ern adherents to the view, in addition to most of the relevant commentaries, see Janzen 1973;
Tov 1979; 1981; 1985; 1999; 2001: 319–327; Bogaert 1981b; Lust 1981; Schenker 1994; Piovanelli
1997. For alternative approaches proposed by modern scholars see below, n. 6.
6 Lundbom (1999–2004: I 57–62, III xiv; 2005), who maintains that the bulk of the minuses in
the Greek version stem from its dependence on a Hebrew Vorlage rife with scribal omissions,
is perhaps the most prominent among modern dissenters. Rofé’s (1975; 1986; 1989; 1991; 2008;
2009a: 326–328, 338–339) represents something of an intermediate position, according to
which no textual witness accurately represents the earliest edition of the book, but the MT
is closer to it than the purported Hebrew text underlying the Greek (for earlier intermediate
positions see the list of scholars in Janzen 1973: 6–7; see also S.R. Driver 1898: 269–273 and
Gesundheit 2012).
7 Consider, for example, ִּכי־כֹה ָא ַמר ה' ִּכי ְל ִפי ְמלֹאת ְל ָב ֶבל ִׁש ְב ִעים ָׁשנָ ה ֶא ְפקֹד ֶא ְת ֶכם וַ ֲה ִקמ ִֹתי
ל־ה ָּמקֹום ַהּזֶ ה
ַ ת־ּד ָב ִרי ַהּטֹוב ְל ָה ִׁשיב ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא
ְ יכם ֶא
ֶ ‘ ֲע ֵלFor thus says Yhwh, “For before the com-
358 chapter 9
In view of the subjective nature of such arguments, the current lack of con-
sensus on the issue is not surprising. Hence the impetus to approach the prob-
lem from a linguistic perspective, which, it has been hoped, will provide for
evidence of a more objective nature. While it is true that such an approach has
already been adopted in a few studies, for various reasons, chief among them
the fact that they were not done in the context of a comprehensive survey of
the language of Jeremiah, and thus lacked adequate controls against which to
gauge the alleged lateness of the linguistic profile of the supplementary mate-
rial vis-à-vis that of the rest of the book, the issue has not yet received satisfac-
tory treatment.8
pletion of seventy years for Babylon I will take note of you and I will bring to pass upon
you my good word, to return you to this place’ (Jer 29.10). This verse, which makes explicit
reference to Babylon, to the temporary nature of the Exile, to its length of 70 years, and to
restoration, is part of the short edition, i.e., is reflected in both the MT and the Greek. While
proposing a post-exilic date of composition for what he terms ‘Edition II’ (i.e., the longer,
Masoretic edition that includes the supplementary material), Tov (1985: 236) himself notes
the possibility of exilic and post-exilic elements in ‘Edition I’ (i.e., the short edition, best
represented by the Greek). Furthermore, whatever the exact date of the addition of the sup-
plementary material to the short edition, Tov (ibid.: 215–216, 219–221, 223, 237) repeatedly
emphasizes the former material’s potential Jeremianic authenticity.
8 The most comprehensive investigations are those of Stipp (1997) and Joosten (2008). Stipp
sets for himself the modest goal of demonstrating the independent nature of the supple-
mentary material in Jeremiah on linguistic/stylistic grounds. To this end he highlights 37
linguistic and/or stylistic features exclusive to the long edition of the book. Joosten (2008)
accepts Stipp’s basic premise and goes one step further, arguing on the basis of eight linguis-
tic features which he classifies as characteristically late that the supplementary material is a
product of post-exilic times. There is no doubt that these two studies make a valuable con-
tribution to the discussion and dating of the supplementary material in Jeremiah; that said,
however, their investigations are far from exhaustive. For his part, Stipp says relatively little
on the subject of dating (197). Joosten’s study, in contrast, though focusing precisely on the
question of date, nevertheless leaves room for further inquiry. As mentioned above, he holds
that the linguistic profile of the supplementary material indicates a decidedly post-classical
date of composition, specifically within the Persian (101) or even the Hellenistic (104) period.
Yet Joosten’s argumentation is not entirely convincing, and this for a few reasons. First, as
Joosten readily admits (104), not all of the features he identifies as characteristically late have
the same diagnostic value. In the present study, only five of the eight features he discusses
(nominal יֹומםָ ‘day’; - לwith verbs of movement; הּודה ָ ְ‘ ח ֵֹרי יnobles of Judah’; the ktiv form
‘ זאתהthis’; and ‘ ַר ֵּבי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְךofficials of the king’) are considered characteristically late features;
the other three (imperative + nun + 3rd person suffix pronoun, e.g., ‘ ַק ֵחּנָ הtake it’, that does
not mark movement toward or benefit of the speaker; the modification of אּומה ָ ‘ ְמsomething’
with an adjective; and the word order ‘ ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר יְ ַד ֵּבר ֵא ֶליָך ֵּכן ֲע ֵׂשה ִעּמֹוas he tells you thus do
with him’) are excluded for lack of sufficient evidence that they are indeed characteristi-
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 359
cally late features. Second, on more than one occasion a feature that Joosten defines as dis-
tinctively characteristic of the supplementary material in Jeremiah also arguably occurs in
the short version (nominal יֹומם ָ ; - לwith verbs of movement; and possibly the term ח ִֹריםin
reference to the nobles of Judah). Finally, and most importantly, Joosten’s study is not com-
prehensive, concentrating (understandably) on late features especially characteristic of the
supplementary material without, however, paying sufficient attention to late features that
occur throughout the entire book, i.e., in both layers, or that are found exclusively in the
short edition. To be sure, Joosten is not unaware of the relatively late linguistic profile of the
book of Jeremiah in general (for example, he mentions [98–99] that the ktiv form אנו, rather
than ‘ ֲאנַ ְחנּוwe’, and the noun ‘ ִּד ֵּברprophetic word’ are found in the short edition); due to the
brevity of his study, though, the comparison between the respective linguistic profiles of the
supplementary material and the rest of the book is (of necessity) highly selective, omitting a
great deal of relevant data. For these reasons, although Joosten provides highly useful infor-
mation, his conclusions must be considered tentative and preliminary.
360 chapter 9
use of late linguistic elements characterizes not only those parts of Jeremiah
reflected exclusively in the Masoretic tradition, but the entire book. From the
outset, then, it is clear that a valid appraisal of the linguistic profile of the sup-
plementary material can be made only in relation to the linguistic profile of
the book as a whole.
On the basis of the criteria of late distribution, linguistic opposition, and
extra-biblical corroboration, 39 linguistic usages, representing the full range
of linguistic phenomena—orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax, and
lexicon—especially characteristic of post-exilic compositions have been iden-
tified in the book of Jeremiah (§2.2.1). From the standpoint of methodology,
implementing the fourth criterion, accumulation, a criterion which serves as
the basis for establishing the late provenance of a text of unknown date, is
somewhat tricky. It is clear that one cannot always rely on raw statistics. For
example, a comparison of the book’s two layers based simply on the number of
late linguistic usages contained in each is inadequate; at this stage the criterion
of linguistic opposition must be re-applied, and this in order to ensure that one
layer’s use of a given late element versus the other’s non-use of the same is dia-
chronically meaningful, and not merely a result of the vagaries of opportunity.9
It also goes without saying that the diagnostic value of the statistics generated
by an analysis of this sort is relative. One must gauge the significance of a late
feature’s usage, and likewise the significance of its non-usage, in relation to the
number of opportunities for use. Clearly, the larger the sampling of cases of
potential use, the more representative the statistics will be; but the amount of
text in question, especially that comprising the supplementary material, is lim-
ited. Further, it is worth keeping in mind that the linguistic differences between
the two literary layers are often not contrasts between black and white, but
between shades of gray; that is to say, they frequently involve more or less pro-
nounced tendencies and preferences, rather than absolute situations of pres-
ences versus absence. Finally, it should be borne in mind that certain data defy
statistical representation and/or must first be filtered and refined.
9 Consider, for example, use of the spelling ישחקrather than ‘ יצחקIsaac’ in Jer 33.26. This
feature, rare in BH, appears in the longest continuous passage of Jeremiah material not repre-
sented in the Greek, Jer 33.14–26. Given the striking accumulation of non-standard linguistic
features in this passage (for details on which see below, §9.2.1), it could be argued that the
rather rare orthography —ישחקwhich, though not found in the corpus of indisputably late
biblical books, is nevertheless documented in post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic—consti-
tutes further evidence of the independent and late character of the supplementary material
in Jeremiah. The problem is that the patriarch’s name is nowhere else mentioned in the book,
so that it is impossible to determine how the writer(s) responsible for the short edition would
have spelled/pronounced the name.
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 361
(a) late phenomena that appear throughout the entire book and are not
especially characteristic of either of the two literary strata (features 1–5 in
table 9.1);
(b) late phenomena especially characteristic of the short edition (features
6–8 in table 9.1); and
(c) late phenomena especially characteristic of the supplementary material
(features 9–17 in table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Diachronically characteristic linguistic features in the two literary layers of Jeremiah
(Continued)
362 chapter 9
Table (Continued)
8 )חיָ ִלים
ֲ (ה
ַ ָׂש ֵריfor )חיִ ל
ַ (ה
ַ ָׂש ֵרי 12/82 12/74 0/8
and the like §7.11 (14.6%) (16.2%) (0%)
9 plene yiqṭol §3.1.2 8/67 6/62 2/5
(11.9%) (9.7%) (40.0%)
10 plene (li)qṭol §3.1.3 22/59 17/47 5/12
(37.3%) (36.2%) (41.7%)
11 זע"קfor § צע"ק3.4 14/21 12/19 2/2
(66.7%) (63.2%) (100%)
12 theophoric יָ ה- for יָ הּו- §3.5 83/324 60/244 23/80
(25.6%) (24.6%) (28.8%)
refined 21/57
(36.8%)
13 אּצר
ַ ֶבּוכ ְדנ
ַ ְ נfor אּצר
ַ בּוכ ְד ֶר
ַ ְ§ נ3.8 8/37 1/14 7/23
(21.6%) (7.1%) (30.4%)
14 ח ִֹריםfor § ָׂש ִרים8.3 2/47 0/40 2/6
(4.3%) (0) (?) (33.3%)
15 הּודי
ִ ְ יfor ע ְב ִרי,ִ etc. §8.4 10/36 (or 39) 7/32 3/4 (or 6)
(27.8% [or 25.6%]) (21.9%) (75% [or 50%])
16 nominal יֹומם
ָ §8.5 3/5 1/2 2/3
(60%) (50%) (66.7%)
17 ַרבfor § ַׂשר8.11 2/58 0/50 2/8
(34.5%) (0%) (25%)
18 ַמ ְלכּותfor מ ְמ ָל ָכה,ַ לּוכה
ָ מ,ְ 3/26 2/20 1/6
מֹלְך/-
ְ § ָמ ְל ְכ8.6 (11.5%) (10%) (16.7%)
refined 1/26 0/20 1/6
(3.9%) (0%) (16.7%)
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 363
9.1.1 Late Features Characteristic of the Entire Book (Table 9.1, 1–5)
As an example of a late phenomenon characteristic of both layers, especially
illustrative is the case of the 1st person independent subject pronoun in its two
forms, ָאנ ִֹכיand ֲאנִ י. As demonstrated above (§4.1), both forms (or their respec-
tive cognates) are documented in early material—in the Bible and in extra-
biblical material, in Hebrew and in other Semitic languages. The diachronic
aspect of the situation, then, lies not—as some have claimed—in the mere use
of ֲאנִ י, nor necessarily even in the preference for its use, but in the disappear-
ance of ָאנ ִֹכיin the late phases of ancient Hebrew, apparently under the influ-
ence of Aramaic, which employs only a parallel of ֲאנִ י, and also, perhaps, due
to pressure from ancient colloquial Hebrew. For its part, Jeremiah presents a
transitional stage linking the early situation, in which the two forms were used
side by side, and the late situation, in which ֲאנִ יalone was used. This state of
affairs manifests itself in Jeremiah in conflicting tendencies. On the one hand,
like classical sources and unlike late ones, Jeremiah exhibits mixed usage, with
a definite, though by no means overwhelming, preference for ֲאנִ י. On the other
hand, its use of ָאנ ִֹכי, while not insignificant, is nevertheless conditioned and
archaistic, a state of affairs that points to this form’s antiquated character: ָאנ ִֹכי
is employed exclusively in formal settings in Jeremiah, principally—in 35 of 37
occurrences—in divine speech. Significantly, the mixed usage of ֲאנִ יand ָאנ ִֹכי
characterizes the short edition of Jeremiah and the supplementary material
alike. Even more striking, each layer is characterized by the same archaistic
usage of ָאנ ִֹכיin divine speech.
Similar instances of linguistic affinity between the two layers obtain in the
case of other diachronically characteristic usages, including the plene spelling
of the name §( יעקוב3.1.1), non-standard use of directional he (◌ה- ָ ; §7.3), use
of - לwith verbs of movement, particularly in the case of toponyms (§7.4), the
use of accusative -§( ל7.6), and more.10 The similarities in usage between the
two layers of the book of Jeremiah, the short edition and the supplementary
material, reflect an overall linguistic affinity the significance of which should
not be ignored. First, generally speaking, the resemblance in question is not
to be attributed to mere stylistic imitation of the former on the part of the
10 The 3mpl possessive suffix יהם ֶ ◌ֵ - (rather than ָ◌ם-) ‘their’ on plural forms ending in ֹות-
(18 of 35 cases in the short edition; one of two cases in the supplementary material); the
full pattern in 1c wayyiqtol forms (seven of 16 cases in the short edition; one of two cases
in the supplementary material). Due to the small number of potential occurrences of
these elements in the supplementary material the statistical sampling is not sufficiently
representative to sustain firm conclusions. Be that as it may, they are in line with use in
the short edition.
364 chapter 9
writer responsible for the latter, since the similarities involve, for the most part,
grammatical, not lexical features, and the specific tendencies in usage would
be difficult to reproduce artificially. It is much more reasonable to assume that
this likeness reflects a common linguistic milieu. Second and more specifically,
the mixed usage of ֲאנִ יand ָאנ ִֹכיin particular testifies not only to a common
linguistic background, but to a date of composition no later than the begin-
ning of the Persian/post-exilic period, as no later Hebrew work makes regular
use of ָאנ ִֹכי.11
9.1.2 Late Features Characteristic of the Short Edition (Table 9.1, 6–8)
As stated above, contrary to expectation, it is the short edition of Jeremiah,
rather than the supplementary material, that reveals a stronger tendency to
employ certain late linguistic features. Examples include interchange between
the prepositions ֶאלand §( ַעל7.5), placement of the appositive ֶמ ֶלְךin expres-
sions like §( ְׁשֹלמֹה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך7.7), and use of the so-called double plural construct,
e.g., )חיָ ִלים ַ §( ָׂש ֵרי7.11). All three of these phenomena, which are more char-
ֲ (ה
acteristic of late than early material, occur in the short edition of Jeremiah, but
are rare or entirely absent from the supplementary material, though the latter
certainly affords opportunities for their use. The significance of these and simi-
lar phenomena is two-fold. On the one hand, they serve to confirm a degree
of linguistic disparity between the two layers, adding weight to the claim that
we are indeed dealing with separate literary strata. On the other hand, though,
they appear to contradict the argument that the linguistic profile of the supple-
mentary material is consistently and substantially later than that of the short
edition. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that these cases are few and that in
each of them the statistical significance of the data is somewhat impugned by
the relatively low incidence of the feature in the short edition, relatively few
potential cases in the supplementary material, or both.
11 Cf. the transitional works of Zechariah and ‘Second Isaiah’, both of which use ָאנ ִֹכי, but
prefer ֲאנִ יfor ‘I’.
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 365
yiqṭol (§3.1.2) and infinitive construct forms (§3.1.3) of strong verbs, as well as
the lone full spelling of ‘ ְׁשמֹונֶ הeight’ in Jer 52.29. In the domain of phonology:
theophoric names ending in the abbreviated suffix יה- (§3.5) and the name
Nebuchadnezzar written נבוכדנאצרwith nun (§3.8). Possible lexical cases
include the terms ‘ חֹרnoble’ (§8.3) and ‘ ַרבlord, master’ (§8.11), הּודי ִ ְ‘ יJudahite,
Judean, Jew’ (§8.4), nominal יֹומם ָ ‘day’ (§8.5), and ‘ ַמ ְלכּותkingdom, reign’ (§8.6).
It should be noted, however, that the significance of several of these features is
anecdotal, rather than statistical.
There are still other features the use of which in the supplementary mate-
rial agrees with the late origin of this stratum, but which, for various reasons,
constitute somewhat less convincing evidence of late composition than the
aforementioned features. For example, it is perhaps not surprising that such
features as the following come only or mainly in the supplementary material:
‘ זע"קcry out’ (§3.4); ( זאתהktiv) ‘this’ (§4.8), the qĕṭå�l nominal pattern as seen
in ‘ יְ ָקרsplendor’ (§5.2), and ‘ ּדֹור וָ דֹורevery generation’ (§7.12). The first appears
in all potential cases in the supplementary material, but the number of poten-
tial cases is only two. The second, if genuine, has no other example in Hebrew
literature and so is of very questionable significance. An example of the third
is found in the short edition as well as the supplementary material. And the
fourth, while perhaps more frequent in later texts than in earlier ones, happens
to be the only phrase of its kind found with any frequency in CBH. Even so,
based on their respective linguistic profiles, the supplementary material would
seem to present a slightly later portrait than the short edition.
Of course, it is not impossible that the developmental history of the book
of Jeremiah is more complicated than the accepted two-strata theory posits.
While various sections of what has here been termed ‘supplementary mate-
rial’ display a later linguistic profile than that exhibited in the portion of MT
Jeremiah also reflected in the Greek, there is no reason beyond the practicality
of limiting our approach to extant traditions—for only two of which, admit-
tedly, there exists documentary evidence—to discount the possibility that
both the MT and the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Greek are products of literary
evolution, both products of modification, one mainly of expansion, the other
mainly of abridgment. There is certainly no definitive linguistic evidence that
the supplementary material is itself a single layer. Indeed, from the perspective
of language, there seems little reason to doubt that some differences between
the MT and the Greek are best accounted for on the assumption of the omis-
sion of relatively early material from the Hebrew source underlying the latter.
Consider, for example, the claim of Gesundheit (2012), who argues that meth-
odological blindness in the face of the two extant traditions has prevented
scholars from properly reconstructing the developmental history of the text of
Jeremiah as it is represented in both the MT and the Greek.
366 chapter 9
9.2 Dating the Two Strata on the Basis of Their Respective Linguistic
Profiles
12 On the language of this section see Holladay 1986–1989: II 228–231; Lust 1994: 37–38;
Piovanelli 1997: 273–275; Joosten 2008: 97.
13 Especially the use of ֲאנִ יand ‘ ָאנ ִֹכיI’ and of theophoric names ending in יה- and יהו-.
Consider, too, the marked preference for the preposition ֵאתover ‘ ִעםwith’ in Jeremiah,
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 367
tively late nature of Jeremiah’s language—in both of its strata—and the much
later nature of those sources written in LBH proper.
Turning to the more specific—and thornier—issue of determining the abso-
lute date of composition for the supplementary material: both quantitatively
and qualitatively, the characteristically late linguistic features in this stratum
are indicative of a historical stage earlier than that reflected in LBH proper, the
representative corpus of which was composed after 450 BCE.14 The language
of the early post-exilic works of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, which all dis-
play unmistakable instances of late features, but in concentrations far lower
than those typical of later books, is also typologically later than that of either
of the editions of Jeremiah. Even the language of apparently exilic Ezekiel is
demonstrably later than the language of Jeremiah’s supplementary stratum.
The years from 500–450 BCE are often given as the period during which LBH
replaced CBH; while LBH finds its most representative expression in literature
from after the Restoration, innovations common in this material had already
begun to take hold during the Exile, and perhaps even during the closing years
of the First Temple Period.15 It would thus seem that the period extending from
just before the close of the First Temple Period, through the Exile, to the begin-
ning of the post-exilic period, that is, a period of time approximately cotermi-
nous with—but slightly longer than—the 6th century BCE may usefully be
considered a transitional period between CBH and LBH. With this in mind,
and assuming that no late writer, even a skilled scribe intent on employing
which runs counter to the propensity for ִעםin late works and characterizes both the
short edition of Jeremiah and the supplementary material.
14 It is here admitted that the determination of absolute dates for linguistic stages and liter-
ary periods, not to mention the composition of individual texts, is a complicated enter-
prise, often involving the fixing of points or periods more precise than the—all too often
meager—evidence warrants. The dates proposed here are based on what is known about
the various diachronic stages of ancient Hebrew, as well as its regional dialects and social
registers. Obviously, however, a great deal about ancient Hebrew remains unknown.
Though this writer is perhaps more optimistic about what can be concluded diachronic-
ally on the basis of what is known than are other students of the subject, there is no doubt
that proposing exact dates involves more risk than does speaking in relative terms. It is
under the conviction that a clearly stated conclusion is of more value to the field than
hedged generalities that the following dates are offered. To quote Rainer Albertz (2001:38):
“Of course I am aware of the fact that by elaborating a thesis I expose myself to the danger
of being refuted, but I think that is our job as biblical scholars.”
15 For various renditions of this view see S.R. Driver 1898: 156, 504–506, especially 505 n. *;
Rabin 1976: 1015; Ginsberg 1982: 68; Hurvitz 1982: 152–153 n. 36; 2007: 25 n. 6; Young 1993:
84–85; Talshir 2003: 254–255; Wright 2005: 154.
368 chapter 9
traditional diction, could help but betray the language of his age by means
of deviations from classical style,16 the book of Jeremiah—in both of its edi-
tions—must be assigned on the basis of its language to this linguistically
transitional period, the supplementary material having been added near the
beginning of the Persian Period or in the early post-exilic period at the latest.
The limited scope and special character of the supplementary material—
much of which, it is true, consists of very brief interpolations apparently mod-
eled after and inserted into older text—may lead some to entertain the notion
that despite its classical/transitional appearance, this material may neverthe-
less have been composed at a very late date, i.e., the late Persian or Hellenistic
period, by a scribe who was uniquely adept at mimicking the language of the
short edition to which his supplements were added, thereby leaving it without
the characteristic accumulation of late linguistic features common to all com-
positions securely dated to the late post-classical period. However, as noted
above, in terms of its extent, the supplementary material consists of approxi-
mately three-thousand graphic words, corresponding to between one-eighth
and one-sixth of the book. This amount of material is comparable to that of
other biblical compositions which, despite their length, nevertheless betray
numerous indications of linguistic lateness, for example, Esther (3068 graphic
words), Qohelet (2991 graphic words), and the Hebrew of Daniel (2324 graphic
words). To be sure, striking accumulations of late linguistic features occur in
much shorter spans of text, for instance, Ps 119 (1064 graphic words),17 the nar-
rative framework of the book of Job (754 graphic words),18 and the apocryphal
Pss 151 (11Q5 28; 106 graphic words) and 153 (11Q5 27; 116 graphic words) from
Qumran.19 Clearly, the extent of the supplementary material from Jeremiah is
sufficient to warrant the expectation that it would exhibit a significant accu-
mulation of late linguistic features were it indeed a product of the late Persian
or Hellenistic period.
Concerning the special character of the supplementary material: while it
is true that much of it involves brief insertions—such as names, titles, and
individual words and phrases—and that little can be learned from the major-
ity of such additions, it is to be emphasized that a sizeable proportion of the
additions are lengthy: 35 of them involve the insertion of sequences of at least
20 See Hornkohl 2012: 63 n. 249 for the relevant references and statistics.
21 It should be noted that the position advocated in this study regarding the dating of
Jeremiah in general and the short edition and supplementary material more specifically
in no way contradicts McKane’s (1986–1996) now widely accepted ‘rolling corpus’ theory
of the book’s composition. It is generally accepted that the bulk of this process of accre-
tion took place over an extended period during the years of the Exile. This conclusion
is very much in line with the results of the present study, according to which the book’s
principal literary components were by and large complete by 500–450 BCE. After this
point it seems safe to conclude that only relatively brief interpolations and additions
could have been made, since longer ones would have betrayed the unmistakable marks of
the late contemporary linguistic milieu in which they were produced.
chapter 10
Conclusion
non-linguistic approach, this is surely welcome. In any case, while the datation
of biblical texts on the basis of their language flies in the face of some older
and newer paradigms of a non-linguistic stamp, it also accords quite will with
others. Finally, while no approach to the dating of ancient texts is free of sub-
jective judgment, the accepted linguistic approach to dating BH texts arguably
provides more objective controls than non-linguistic alternatives.
This is not to say that the application of the standard diachronic method is
always simple and straightforward. One must grapple with the possibility that
linguistic variety, including the employment of non-standard features espe-
cially typical of late sources, stems from non-diachronic factors, such as dia-
lect, register, personal or corporate style, and genre, not to mention the
potential for textual corruption and/or literary development. Exegetical sub-
jectivities are also often relevant. Notwithstanding these very real difficulties—
the ramifications of which should be neither ignored nor exaggerated—
numerous chronologically meaningful linguistic characteristics, along with
the more general profiles that they comprise, can be perceived. Non-standard
elements possibly representing the penetration of vernacular forms into the
literary register or used as literary devices have also been suggested. The reality
of regional dialects and their role in linguistic variety in the Bible is also fully
accepted here, though in the case of the specific features discussed, dialectal
arguments often seem less persuasive than alternative explanations. It has also
been emphasized that the fact that a given feature is best explained diachron-
ically in one one context but alternatively in another is no real argument
against the general validity of the standard diachronic method. Even in a single
context a confluence of multiple factors is frequently not inconceivable.
On the basis of a detailed examination of over forty linguistic features—
representing the full spectrum of linguistic categories: orthography, phonol-
ogy, morphology, syntax, and lexicon—the conclusion of the present study is
that, though likely composite, the extant book of Jeremiah was written in a
form of TBH, the literary medium employed in works composed in the span of
time linking the First and Second Temple Periods, probably approximately
conterminous with the 6th century BCE. The book’s language is quite classi-
cal—indeed, more so than that of other apparently transitional material, such
as Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—but nevertheless shares certain
unmistakable traits with other TBH, LBH, and post-biblical Hebrew texts. The
features discussed include internal developments apparently independent of
foreign influence, internal developments likely accelerated by foreign influ-
ence, and elements probably borrowed from abroad. The foreign influence is
predominantly Aramaic or Akkadian, the latter evidently by means of the for-
mer. Some of these features are rare in Jeremiah, others more frequent. Several
372 chapter 10
connect Jeremiah to both LBH and post-biblical Hebrew, a few directly to post-
biblical Hebrew, apparently without the mediation of LBH. Many of these fea-
tures occur throughout the book, but a few are restricted to what seem to be
discrete literary units, a fact which likely reflects the book’s complicated liter-
ary development and composite nature.
Of special note in this vein are diachronically significant features character-
istic of the Masoretic edition of Jeremiah, but apparently unreflected in the
Greek translation. These appear to indicate that the Greek edition is based on
a Hebrew Vorlage shorter and somewhat earlier than the text reflected in the
MT. However, based on a comparison with the rest of Jeremiah and the core
LBH books, the composition of the supplementary material found in the MT
and unparalleled in the Greek is to be dated not to the post-Restoration period
with LBH proper, but, like the rest of Jeremiah, to the transitional period. In
other words, the short edition of Jeremiah and the supplementary material
both appear to be products of the transitional phase between the classical and
post-classical periods.
There are several subjects that invite further inquiry. First, in a few cases,
examination of the language of Jeremiah is hampered by a lack of in-depth
studies on the language of other biblical and post-biblical texts. For example,
as yet there exists no detailed diachronic study of the books of Kings or Isaiah
(especially ‘Second Isaiah’), nor of the biblical DSS. Second, there are also fea-
tures investigated in the present study which have yet to be adequately exam-
ined in other corpora, so that comparison was difficult. Third, now that a more
solid philological foundation has been laid, the time seems ripe for literary and
textual studies of Jeremiah that integrate the linguistic results in a serious
manner. While a large proportion of recent diachronic discussion has centered
precisely on the incompatibility of the results of the linguistic and (certain
representative examples of) non-linguistic approaches, both are necessary.
Too long have scholars paid little or no attention to the linguistic dimension in
dating biblical texts, often simply accepting and then reinforcing entrenched,
but problematic conclusions reached on the basis of non-linguistic arguments
that are contradicted, or, at the very least, called into question, by the linguistic
evidence. Surely, no benefit may be derived from continued ignorance of the
linguistic dimension. Such disregard, though, is a predictable outcome of the
recent anti-linguistic movement critiqued herein, especially among research-
ers unfamiliar with the linguistic data, who, once merely ignorant of the lin-
guistic evidence, may now feel justified in their active neglect thereof.1 Only
1 Consider, by way of example, Gonzalez’ (2013) recent arguments for the Ptolemaic dating of
Zech 9–14. Despite the spotlight lately shone on diachronic linguistics, and notwithstanding
Conclusion 373
the fact that Gonzalez explicitly critiques an article by Tiemeyer (2011) in which linguistic
evidence is brought to bear, the author’s case ignores the linguistic dimension, instead rely-
ing on literary and textual evidence to support a Hellenistic dating and disprove a Persian
one. Similarly, Pakkala (2009) assigns the oldest section of Deuteronomy (in chapter 12) a
post-586 date wih no reference to linguistic periodization. Ganzel (2011) posits a post-exilic
context for the book of Joel, between Ezekiel and Haggai, and long before Malachi, but her
linguistic evidence is limited to lexical affinities (13, n. 45), with nary a mention of diachronic
linguistics. Nearly as disconcerting is the virtual neglect of language diachrony by scholars
who evidently assume that the doubts and objections raised by opponents of the linguistic
dating of biblical texts are the last word on the issue, citing only such works as Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008. No critique is proffered here on the conclusions of such stud-
ies. The point is rather that they have apparently been reached without due attention having
been paid to the linguistic dimension.
Bibliography
Abbreviations
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Ed. D.N. Freedman. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
B Babylonian Talmud
BCE Before Common Era (= BC, i.e., Before Christ)
BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ed. F. Brown, S.R.
Driver, and C.A. Briggs Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.
BH Biblical Hebrew
BHK Biblia Hebraica. Ed. R. Kittel. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt,
1962.
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th edition. Ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago. 20 vols. Ed. I.J. Gelb et al. Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1956–2006.
CBH Classical Biblical Hebrew
CE Common Era (= AD, i.e., Anno Domini)
DCH The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Ed. David J.A. Clines.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2007.
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2009.
DNWSI Dictionary of the North-West Semitic inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden / New
York: Brill.
DSS Dead Sea Scrolls
EHLL Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Ed. Geoffrey Khan.
Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2013.
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd edition. 22 vols. Ed. M. Berenbaum and
F. Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007.
EM ʾEnṣiqlopedya Miqraʾit: ʾOṣar ha-Yediʿot ʿal ha-Miqra u-Tqufato. 9 vols.
Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950–1988.
GB Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über
das Alte Testament. 17th edition. Ed. F. Buhl. Leipzig: Vogel, 1921.
Gesenius18 Wilhelm Gesenius hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über
das Alte Testament. 18th edition. Ed. R. Meyer et al. Berlin: Springer,
1987–.
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Ed. E. Kautzsch. Trans. A.E. Cowley.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910.
375
HALOT he Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Rev. W.
T
Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm et al.; trans. and ed. M.E.J. Richardson.
Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.
IBE The International Bible Encyclopedia. 5 vols. Ed. J. Orr. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1939.
ISBE The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Ed. G.W. Bromiley.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982–1988.
JM Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27). Trans.
and rev. by T. Muraoka. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006.
KAI Kanaanische und Aramaische Inschriften, Vol. 1. Ed. H. Donner and
W. Röllig. 5th edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002. See also
Schniedewind 2004; Gibson 1971–1982.
KB Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Ed. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner.
2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1958.
KB3 Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd edition.
Ed. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996.
LBH Late Biblical Hebrew
M Mishna
Mekh Mekhilta
Mekh dRSh Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimʿon
MT Masoretic Text
NAS New American Standard Bible. La Habra: Foundation Press Publications,
The Lockman Foundation, 1977.
NET New English Translation. Biblical Studies Foundation, 2005. Available at
<http://www.netbible.org/>.
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.
5 vols. Ed. W. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
NIV Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
NJB New Jerusalem Bible. Ed. H. Wansbrough. London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1985.
NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1985.
NKJ New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.
RH Rabbinic Hebrew
RSV Revised Standard Version. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan and
Eerdmans.
Sam Pent Samaritan Pentateuch
T Tosefta
SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew
376 bibliography
Primary Sources
Extra-biblical Sources
Hebrew Inscriptions and Seals
Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy. Ed. F.W. Dobbs-
Allsopp, J.J.M. Roberts, C.L. Seow, and R.E. Whitaker. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2004. See also Aḥituv 1992; 2005; 2008; G. Davies 1991–2004; Schniedewind
2008.
Corpus of West Semitic Seals. Ed. N. Avigad. Revised and completed B. Sass. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1997.
Northwest Semitic Inscriptions
KAI
TAD
Sefire
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rev. edition. Ed. J.A. Fitzmyer. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1995.
DSS – cited according to the latest edition of each individual text in
The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries
in the Judaean Desert Series (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 39). Ed. E. Tov,
27–114. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.
Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean
Desert and Related Material. 2 vols. Ed. A. Yardeni. Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, the Ben-Tzion Dinur Center for the Study of the History
of Israel, 2000. See also Abegg 2001; 2009a.
378 bibliography
Ben Sira
Sefer Ben Sira: Ha-Maqor, Qondordanṣya ve-Nituaḥ ʾOṣar ha-Milim (Mifʿal ha-Milon
ha-Hisṭori la-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language
and the Shrine of the Book. See also Segal 1953; Abegg 2009b.
Rabbinic Sources
Mishna: Codex Kaufmann according to Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex
Kaufmann A 50, mit Genehmigung der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Budapest. Ed. G. Beer. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1929. See also Abegg 2008. Other
rabbinic sources according to the Historical Archives of the Academy of the
Hebrew Language at http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il.
Medieval Jewish Interpreters
Cited according to the versions of the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project at
http://responsa.co.il.
Secondary Sources
Abegg, Martin G., Jr.
2001 Qumran (Non-Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran). Accordance
module.
2002–2010 The Dead Sea scrolls Concordance. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.
2008 MISH-T (Mishna Codex Kaufmann A 50). Accordance module.
2009a DSSB-C/DSSB-M (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Canonical/Manuscript
Order). Accordance module.
2009b Bensira-C/Bensira-M. Accordance module.
Academy of the Hebrew Language
1959– Archive of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. http://
hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il.
1973 Sefer Ben Sira: Ha-Maqor, Qonqordanṣya ve-Nituaḥ ʾOṣar ha-Milim.
Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language and Heḵal
ha-Sefer.
Ackroyd, Peter R.
1977 “A Judgment Narrative between Kings and Chronicles? An
Approach to Amos 7.9–17.” Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Tes-
tament Religion and Theology, ed. G.W. Coats and B.O. Long, 71–87.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Aharoni, Yohahan
1975 Ketovot ʿArad. Jerusalem: Bialik.
Aḥituv, Shmuel
1992 ʾAsupat Ketovot ʿIvriyot (Sifriyat ha-ʾEnṣiqlopedya ha-Miqraʾit
7). Jerusalem: Bialik and ha-Ḥevra la-Ḥaqirat ʾEreṣ-Yiśraʾel
va-ʿAtiqoteha.
bibliography 379
Bar-Asher, Moshe
1977 “Ṣurot Nedirot bi-Lšon ha-Tanaʾim.” Lĕšonénu 41:83–102.
1985 “ʾAḥdutah ha-Hisṭorit šel ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit u-Meḥqar Lešon
Ḥaḵamim.” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 1:75–100.
1992 “Lešon Ḥaḵamim: Divre Mavo.” Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rav Mordechai
Breuer: ʾAsupat Maʾamarim be-Madaʿe ha-Yahadut. 2 vols. Ed. M.
Bar-Asher, vol. 2, 657–688. Jerusalem: Academon.
1993 “Ha-Nisteret be-ʿAvar be-Foʿole ל"י—ל"אbi-Lšon ha-Tnaʾim.”
Meḥqare Talmud 2:39–84.
1999 “איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה.” Lĕšonénu 50:76–79.
2003 “On Several Linguistic Features of Qumran Hebrew.” Hamlet on a
Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka
on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M.F.J. Baasten and
W. Th. van Peursen, 73–93. Leuven: Peeters.
2004 “Lešon Qumran ben ha-Miqra li-Lšon Ḥazal (ʿIyun bi-Sʿif be-Mor-
fologya).” Meghillot 2:137–149.
2010 “Ha-ʿIvrit bi-Mgilot Midbar Yehuda u-Meḥqar Lešon Ḥaḵamim.”
Meghillot 8–9:287–317.
Barr, James
1987 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament: With Addi-
tions and Corrections. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (originally pub-
lished Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).
1989 The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Bartelmus, Rüdiger
2004 “ׂש ַחק/ק ָ צ ַח.”
ָ TDOT 14, 58–72.
Barth, Jakob
1894 Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1902 Wurzeluntersuchungen zum hebräischen und aramäischen Lexicon.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1913 Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Hildesheim:
Olms.
Barthélemy, Dominique
1986 Critique Textuelle de L’Ancient Testament 2: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamenta-
tions (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 50/2). Fribourg: Éditions Universi-
taires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Barton, George A.
1908 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes
(International Critical Commentary 22). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
bibliography 381
2009 “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry—
A Re-Evaluation.” Vetus Testamentum 59:34–70.
2012 “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun -mw and
Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Miller-
Naudé and Zevit 2012, 147–170.
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice
1981a (ed.) Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et Son Milieu, les Oracles et Leur
Transmission. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
1981b “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les Deux Rédactions Conservées du Livre de
Jérémie.” Bogaert 1981a, 168–173.
Bombeck, Stefan
1997 Das althebräische Verbalsystem aus aramäischer Sicht: Masore-
tischer Text, Targume und Peschitta (Europäische Hochschul-
schriften Reihe 23. Theologie 591). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Böttcher, J. Freidrich
1866–1868 Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. 2 vols. Leipzig:
Barth.
Bravmanm, Meir M.
1971 “The Aramaic Nomen Agentis qātōl and Some Similar Phenomena
of Arabic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
34:1–4.
Brenner, Athalya
1979 “Lešono šel Sefer Yona ke-Madad li-Qviʿat Zman Ḥiburo.” Beit Mikra
24:396–405.
1990 “On the Semantic Field of Humour, Laughter and the Comic in
the Old Testament.” On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible
(Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 92),
ed. Y.T. Radday and A. Brenner, 39–58. Sheffield: Almond.
Bright, John
1951 “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Lit-
erature 70:15–35.
1965 Jeremiah (Anchor Bible Commentary). Garden City: Doubleday.
1966 “The Prophetic Reminiscence: Its Place and Function in the Book
of Jeremiah.” Biblical Essays, Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of ‘Die
Ou-Testamentische Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika’, 11–30.
Brin, Gershon
1979 “Heʿarot Lešoniyot li-Mgilat ha-Miqdaš.” Lĕšonénu 43:20–28.
Brockelmann, Carl
1908–1913 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
2 vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.
384 bibliography
Bula, Menaḥem
1983 Sefer Yirmeya (Daʿat Miqra). Jerusalem: Harav Kook.
1992 Sefer Vayiqra (Daʿat Miqra). 2 vols. Jerusalem: Harav Kook.
Burney, Charles F.
1903 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon.
1918 The Book of Judges. London: Rivingtons.
Burrows, Millar
1949 “Orthography, Morphology, and Syntax of the St. Mark’s Isaiah
Manuscript.” Journal of Biblical Literature 68:195–211.
Buth, Randall
1986 “The Taxonomy and Function of Hebrew Tense-Shifting in the
Psalms (qāṭal-yiqṭol-yiqṭol-qāṭal, Antithetical Grammatical Paral-
lelism). Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 15:26–32.
1992 “The Hebrew Verb in Current Discussions.” Journal of Translation
and Textlinguistics 5:91–105.
1995 “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated,
Textlinguistic Approach to Syntax.” Discourse Analysis of Bibli-
cal Hebrew: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W.R. Bodine, 77–102.
Atlanta: Scholars.
2006 “The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax.” Living Biblical Hebrew 3: Selected
Readings with 500 Friends. Jerusalem / Zeeland: Biblical Language
Center.
Carmignac, Jean
1963 “La forme poetique du Psaume 151 de la grotte 11.” Revue de Qumrân
4:371–378.
1986 “L’infinitif absolu chez Ben Sira et à Qumrân.” Revue de Qumrân
12:251–261.
Cassuto, Umberto
1928 “Il Capitolo 33 del Deuteronomio e la Festa del Capo d’Anno
nell’Antico Israele.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 11:233–253.
1953 Torat ha-Teʿudot ve-Siduram šel Sifre ha-Tora. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Cathcart, Kevin J.
1973 Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press.
Chen, Yiyi
2000 “Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Proverbs.” PhD dissertation, Cor-
nell University.
Cheyne, Thomas K.
1895 Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. London: A. & C. Black.
bibliography 385
Chomsky, William
1952 David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol), Systematically Presented
and Critically Annotated. New York: Bloch.
1964 Hebrew: The Eternal Language. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America.
Cody, Aelred
1970 “A New Inscription from Tell Ā l-Rimaḥ and King Jehoash of Israel.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32:325–340.
Cohen, Amotz
1970 “ עלbi-mqom אל.” Beit Mikra 15:206–207.
1975 “מּכ ְֹתָך.” ַ Beit Mikra 20: 303–305.
Cohen, Ohad
2013 The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose (Harvard
Semitic Studies 63). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Coogan, Michael D.
1973 “Patterns in Jewish Personal Names in the Babylonian Diaspora.”
Journal for the Study of Judaism 4:183–191.
Cooke, George A.
1936 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (Inter-
national Critical Commentary 21). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Coxon, Peter W.
1979 “The Problem of Consonantal Mutations in Biblical Aramaic.”
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 129:8–22.
Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr.
1991 Jeremiah 1–25 (Word Biblical Commentary 26). Dallas: Word.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
1975 “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Qumran and the History
of the Biblical Text, ed. F.M. Cross and Sh. Talmon, 306–320. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
2003 “The Seal of Miqnêyaw, Servant of Yahweh.” Leaves from an Epig-
rapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Pal-
aeography and Epigraphy, 105–111. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., and David Noel Freedman
1948 “The Blessing of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 67:191–210.
386 bibliography
Cryer, Frederick H.
1994 “The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Dan-
iel.” In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Its
Period (Festschrift Benedikt Otzen), ed. K. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen, and
B. Rosendal, 185–198. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Curtis, Edward L. and Albert A. Madsen
1910 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles
(International Critical Commentary 11). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dahood, Mitchell
1952a “Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth.” Biblica 33:30–52,
191–221.
1952b “The Language of Qoheleth.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14:227–232.
1958 “Qoheleth and Recent Discoveries.” Biblica 39:302–318.
1962 “Qoheleth and Northwest Semitic Philology.” Biblica 43:349–365.
1965 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications
(Biblica et Orientalia 17). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1965–1970 Psalms (Anchor Bible Commentary 16, 17, 17a). 3 vols. New York:
Doubleday and Co.
1966 “Phoenician Background of Qoheleth.” Biblica 47:264–282.
Dalman, Gustaf
1905 Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch: Nach den Idiomen
des palästinischen Talmud, des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum
und der Jerusalemischen Targume. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Dan, Barak
1996 “Lešon Sefer Yona be-Sifrut ha-Meḥqar: ʿIyun ve-Haʿaraḵa Nosafim.”
Beit Mikra 41:344–368.
Davidson, Andrew B.
1901 Hebrew Syntax. 3rd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Davies, Graham I.
1991–2004 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. 2 vols. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Philip R.
1992 In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-
ment Supplement Series 148). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
2003 “Biblical Hebrew and the History of Ancient Judah: Typology, Chro-
nology and Common Sense.” Young 2003a, 150–163.
Davila, James R.
1990 “Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew.” Maarav 5–6:69–87.
1991 Review of Fredericks 1988. Journal of the American Oriental Society
111:821–824.
bibliography 387
Degen, Rainer
1969 Altaramäische Grammatic der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh.v. Chr.
(Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft Abhandlungen für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes 38, 3). Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Delitzsch, Franz
1877 Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Trans. M.G.
Easton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Derby, Josiah
1997 “From Yerushalem to Yerushalayim.” Jewish Bible Quarterly
25:241–245.
de Vaux, Roland
1965 Ancient Israel. 2 vols. New York: McGraw Hill.
Diringer, David
1934 Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi: Raccolte e illustrate (Pubbli-
cazione della R. Università degli Studi Firenze. Facoltà de Lettere e
Filosofia 3:2). Florence: Felice Le Monnier.
Dobbs-Allsopp, Frederick W.
1998 “Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations.” Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 26:1–36.
2005 “Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs.” Perspectives on the
Song of Songs, ed. A.C. Hagedorn, 27–77. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dresher, B. Elan
2012 “Methodological Issues in the Dating of Linguistic Forms: Consid-
erations from the Perspective of Contemporary Linguistic Theory.”
Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 19–38.
Driver, Godfrey Rolles
1931 “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament III.” Journal of
Theological Studies 32:361–366.
1951 “Hebrew Notes.” Vetus Testamentum 1:241–250.
1957 “A Lost Colloquialism in the Old Testament (I Samuel XXV.6).” Jour-
nal of Theological Studies 8:272–273.
1967 “Hebrew Homonyms.” Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 16:50–64.
1970 “Colloquialisms in the Old Testament.” Mélanges Marcel Cohen, ed.
D. Cohen, 232–239. The Hague: Mouton.
Driver, Samuel Rolles
1882 “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist.” Journal of
Philology 11:201–236.
1892 A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntac-
tical Questions. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
388 bibliography
Fischer, Georg
1991 “Jer 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche: Unterschiede zwischen
hebräischem und griechischem Text.” Biblica 72:474–499.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1995 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rev. ed. (Biblica et Orientalia
19/A). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press.
Fohrer, Georg
1972 “Ἰερουσαλήμ, Ἱεροσόλυμα, Ἱεροσολυμίτης.” TDNT 7, 292–319.
Fokkelman, Jan P. and Gary A. Rendsburg
2003 “( נגדה נא לכל עמוPsalm cxvi 14b, 18b).” Vetus Testamentum
53:328–336.
Forbes, A. Dean and Francis I. Andersen
2012 “Dwelling on Spelling.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 127–145.
Forbes, Robert J.
1964 Studies in Ancient Technology. 2nd rev. edition. Vol. 4. Leiden: Brill.
Fox, Joshua
2003 Semitic Noun Patterns (Harvard Semitic Studies 52). Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Fox, Michael V.
1985 The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Fredericks, Daniel C.
1988 Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date (Ancient
Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3). New York: Mellen.
1996 “A North Israelite Dialect in the Hebrew Bible? Questions of Meth-
odology.” Hebrew Studies 37:7–20.
Freedman, David Noel
1962 “The Masoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthogra-
phy.” Textus 2:87–102.
1980 “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of Deuteronomy 33.” The
Bible World, ed. G. Rendsburg et al., 25–46. New York: Ktav and New
York University, Institute of Hebrew Culture and Education.
1983 “The Spelling of the Name ‘David’ in the Hebrew Bible.” Hebrew
Annual Review 7:89–104.
1992 “The Evolution of Hebrew Orthography.” Studies in Hebrew and Ara-
maic Orthography, ed. D.N. Freedman, A.D. Forbes, and F.I. Ander-
sen, 3–15. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Freedman, David N., Heinz-Josef Fabry, and B.E. Willoughby
1999 “ע ְב ִרי.” ִ TDOT 10, 430–445.
bibliography 391
Haneman, Gideon
1974 “Ha-ʾAḥada ve-ha-Bidul be-Toldot Šne Peʿalim ʿIvriyim.” ʿErḵe ha-
Milon he-Ḥadaš le-Sifrut Ḥazal 2, 24–30 (reprinted in Maʾamarim
be-Lašon Ḥazal 2, ed. M. Bar-Asher, vol. 2, 8–14. Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Faculty of the Humanities, the
Department of Hebrew Language).
1980 Torat ha-Ṣurot šel Lešon ha-Mišna ʿal pi Masoret Ketav-Yad Parma
(de Rossi 138). Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Harper, William R.
1905 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (Interna-
tional Critical Commentary 23). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Harris, Zellig S.
1939 Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic
History. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Hartley, John E.
1992 Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4). Dallas: Word.
Haupt, Paul
1907a “The Book of Nahum.” Journal of Biblical Literature 26:1–53.
1907b “Eine alttestamentliche Festliturgie für den Nikanortag.” Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61:257–297.
Held, Moshe
1962 “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical
Hebrew and Ugaritic.” Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A.
Neuman, ed. M. Ben-Horin, 281–290. Leiden: Brill.
1969 “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.” Eretz-Israel
9:71–79.
1971 “Studies in Biblical Homonyms in the Light of Akkadian.” Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 3:46–55.
Hill, Andrew E.
1981 “The Book of Malachi: Its Place in Post-Exilic Chronology Linguisti-
cally Considered.” PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
1982 “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination.” Hebrew
Annual Review 6:105–134.
Hirschler, Gershon
1930 Megilat ʾEster (Tora, Neviʾim u-Ḵtuvim 11). Tel-Aviv: Meqorot.
Hoffman, Yair
2001 Yirmeya (Miqra le-Yiśraʾel). 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved and Jerusa-
lem: Magnes.
bibliography 395
Hoftijzer, Jacob
1981 A Search for Method: A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-Locale in
Classical Hebrew (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 12).
Leiden: Brill.
Holladay, William L.
1960 “Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Prob-
lem in the Book of Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79:351–367.
1975 “A Fresh Look at ‘Source B’ and ‘Source C’ in Jeremiah.” Vetus Testa-
mentum 25:394–412.
1986–1989 Jeremiah (Hermeneia). 2 vols. Philadelphia / Minneapolis: Fortress.
Holmstedt, Robert D.
2012 “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.” Miller-Naudé and
Zevit 2012, 97–124.
Hornkohl, Aaron D.
2005 “The Pragmatics of the X+Verb Structure in the Hebrew of Genesis:
The Linguistic Functions and Associated Effects and Meanings of
Intra-Clausal Fronted Constituents.” Ethnorêma 1:35–122.
2012 “Lešon Sefer Yirmeya ve-Toldot ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit.” PhD disserta-
tion, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
2013 “Hebrew Language: Periodization.” EHLL 1, 315–325.
forthcoming “Characteristically Late Spellings in the Hebrew Bible: With Special
Reference to the Plene Spelling of the o Vowel in the Qal Infinitive
Construct.” Journal of the American Oriental Society.
Huesman, John E.
1956a “Finite Uses of the Infinitive Absolute.” Biblica 37:271–295.
1956b “The Infinitive Absolute and the Waw + Perfect Problem.” Biblica
37:410–434.
Hug, Volker
1993 Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jhs. V. Chr. (Hei-
delberger Studien zum Alten Orient 4). Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Orientverlag.
Hughes, Jeremy
1994 “Post-Biblical Features of Biblical Hebrew Vocalization.” Language,
Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, ed. S.E. Bal-
entine and J. Barton, 67–80. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hurvitz, Avi
1965 “Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm
from Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 5:225–232.
1967 “Lešono u-Zmano šel Mizmor 151 mi-Qumran.” Eretz-Israel 8:82–87.
396 bibliography
Japhet, Sara
1968 “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehe-
miah Investigated Anew.” Vetus Testamentum 18:330–371.
Jastrow, Marcus
1903 Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic
Literature. London: Luzac.
Johnson, Bo
1979 Hebräisches Perfekt und Imperfekt mit vorangehendem we (Coniec-
tanea Biblica Old Testament Series 13). Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Joosten, Jan
2005 “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as
Reflected in Syntax.” Hebrew Studies 46:327–339.
2006 “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew
Verbal System.” Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006, 135–147.
2008 “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post clas-
sique.” Joosten and Rey, 93–108.
2012a Review of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008. Babel und Bibel
6:535–542.
2012b “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence
of Pseudoclassicisms.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 281–292.
2013a “Wilhelm Gesenius and the History of Hebrew in the Biblical Period.”
Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: Das “Hebräisch-
deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und
Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach
seiner ersten Auflage, ed. S. Schorch and E.-J. Waschke, 94–106. Ber-
lin / Boston: de Gruyter.
2013b “Linguistic Clues as to the Date of the Book of Job: A Mediating
Position.” Interested Readers. FS David Clines, ed. J.K. Aitken, J.M.S.
Clines, and C.M. Maier, 347–357. Atlanta: SBL.
Joosten, Jan and Jean-Sébastien Rey
2008 (eds.) Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the
Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium
on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the
Tests of the Desert of Judah 73). Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Joüon, Paul
1923 Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Kaddari, Menahem Z.
2006 Milon ha-ʿIvrit ha-Miqraʾit: ʾOṣar Lešon ha-Miqra me-ʾAlef ʿad Tav.
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
bibliography 399
Kahle, Paul E.
1959 The Cairo Geniza. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaufman, Stephen A.
1974 The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Assyriological Studies of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 19). Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
1988 “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the bibli-
cal Period and Some Implications Thereof.” Proceedings of the Ninth
World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Ara-
maic, 41–57. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Kautzsch, Emil
1902 Aramäismen im Alten Testament. Halle: Niemeyer.
Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers
1995 Jeremiah 26–52 (Word Biblical Commentary 27). Dallas: Word.
Khan, Geoffrey
2013 “Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Background of Masoretic Text.” EHLL 1,
304–315.
Kiel, Yehuda
1981 Sefer Šemuʾel (Daʿat Miqra). 2 vols. Jerusalem: Harav Kook.
Kim, Dong-Hyuk
2012 Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variabil-
ity: A Socialinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical
Texts (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 156). Leiden: Brill.
Knauf, Ernst A.
1990 “War ‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache? Empirische Gesicht-
spunkte zur linguistischen Annäherung an die Sprache der althe-
bräichen Literatur.” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 3:11–23.
2006 “Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature.”
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and
M. Oeming, 291–349. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
König, Eduard
1881–1895 Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1897 Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig:
Hinrichs.
Kropat, Arno
1909 Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen:
Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. Giessen: Alfred
Töpelmann.
400 bibliography
Lefkovits, Judah K.
2000 The Copper Scroll—3Q15: A Reevaluation: A New Reading, Transla-
tion, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
Lemaire, André
1977 Inscriptions hébraïques (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient
9). Paris: Cerf.
Lemche, Niels P.
1975 “The ‘Hebrew Slave’: Comments on the Slave Law Ex. Xxi 2–11.” Vetus
Testamentum 25:129–144.
1993 “The Old Testament—A Hellenistic Book?” Scandinavian Journal of
the Old Testament 7:163–193.
Leslau, Wolf
1958 Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon (Uni-
versity of California Publications in Semitic Philology 20). Berkeley /
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Levine, Baruch A.
1978 “Peraqim be-Toldot ha-ʿIvrit ha-Meduberet.” Eretz-Israel 14:155–160.
1983 “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical
Observations.” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish
Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21, 1981: Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and
Hebrew Language, 69–82. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Lindenberger, James A.
2003 Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd edition (Society of Bibli-
cal Literature Writings from the Ancient World Series 14). Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature.
Lipiński, Edward and S. David Sperling
1997 “Jeremiah: The Composition of the Book.” EJ 11, 128–133.
Longacre, Robert E.
1994 “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-Modular
Approach.” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R.D. Ber-
gen, 50–98. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Lowe, Malcolm
1976 “Who were the Ἰουδαῖοι?” Novum Testamentum 18:101–130.
Lundbom, Jack
1992 “Jeremiah, Book of.” ABD 3, 706–721.
1999–2004 Jeremiah. 3 vols. (Anchor Bible Commentary 21a, 21b, 21c). New
York: Doubleday.
2005 “Haplography in the Hebrew ‘Vorlage’ of LXX Jeremiah.” Hebrew
Studies 46:301–320.
402 bibliography
Lust, Johan
1981 “ ‘Gathering and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Bogaert 1981a,
119–142.
1994 “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer
33 as a Test Case.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20:31–48.
2006 “The Ezekiel Text.” Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker
by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Supplements to Vetus Tes-
tamentum 110), ed. Y.A.P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, and R.D. Weis,
153–167. Leiden: Brill.
MacDonald, John A.
1975 “Some Distinctive Characteristics of Israelite Spoken Hebrew.” Bib-
liotheca Orientalis 32:162–175.
McKane, William
1986–1996 Jeremiah (International Critical Commentary 14). 2 vols. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark.
McNamara, Martin
1992 The Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Aramaic Bible 1a). Collegeville: Litur-
gical Press.
Malessa, Michael
2003 “Biblisch-Hebräisch -ל/ל ְ ִּד ֶּבר ֵאund את/ם
ֵ ִּד ֶּבר ִעim Vergleich.”
Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T.
Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M.F.J. Baas-
ten and W. Th. van Peursen, 333–340. Leuven: Peeters.
Mandell, Alice
2013 “Biblical Hebrew, Archaic.” EHLL 1, 325–329.
Mankowski, Paul V.
2000 Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Harvard Semitic Studies
47). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Margain, Jean
1974 “Observations sur 1 Chr 22: À props des Anachronismes Linguis-
tiques dans la Bible.” Semitica 24:35–43.
Margulis, B.
1969 “Gen. XLIX 10/Deut. XXXIII 2–3: A New Look at Old Problems.”
Vetus Testamentum 19:202–210.
Mastin, Brian A.
2007 “The Theophoric Elements yw and yhw in Proper Names in Eighth-
Century Hebrew Inscriptions and the Proper Names at Kuntillet
ʿAjrud.” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 17–20 (2004–2007):109–135.
McCarter, P. Kyle
1974 “ ‘Yaw, Son of ‘Omri’: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology.”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216:5–7.
bibliography 403
Notarius, Tania
2012 “The Archaic System of Verbal Tenses in ‘Archaic’ Biblical Poetry.”
Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 193–207.
2013 The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and
Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Studies in Semitic Lan-
guage and Linguistics 68). Leiden: Brill.
Noth, Martin
1928 Die israelitischen Personnamen in Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Nötscher, Friedrich
1934 Das Buch Jeremias (Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes 7).
Bonn: Hanstein.
Nyberg, Henrik S.
1938 “Deuteronomion 33, 2–3.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 92:320–344.
Odendaal, Willem J.
1966 “A Comparative Study of the Proto-Semitic Root nṭr.” MA thesis,
University of Stellenbosch.
Olivier, Johannes P.J. and Kenneth T. Aitken
1997 “חֹר.” NIDOTTE 2, 255–256.
Orlinsky, Harry M.
1942–1943 “The Biblical Prepositions taḥat, ben, baʿad, and the Pronouns ʾanu
(or ʾanu), zoʾtah.” Hebrew Union College Annual 17:267–292.
Pakkala, Juha
2009 “The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy.” Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121:388–401.
Pardee, Dennis
1978 “Letters from Tel Arad.” Ugarit-Forschungen 10:289–336.
1982 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition (Sources for
Biblical Study 15). Chico: Scholars.
Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H.
2000 The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring
Phrases. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Pat-El, Naʿama
2012 “Syntactic Aramaisms as a Tool for the Internal Chronology of Bibli-
cal Hebrew.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 245–263.
Paul, Shalom
2008 Yišʿaya 40–66 (Miqra le-Yiśraʾel). 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved.
2012 “Signs of Late Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66.” Miller-Naudé and
Zevit 2012, 293–299.
bibliography 407
Payne, J. Barton
1980 “רּוׁש ַליִם ָ ְי/ִרּוׁש ַלם
ָ ְי.” TWOT, no. 912.
Payne-Smith (Margoliouth), Jessie
1902 A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perdue, Leo G.
1984 “Jeremiah in Modern Research: Approaches and Issues.” A Prophet
to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, ed. L.G. Perdue and B.W.
Kovacs, 1–32. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Piovanelli, Pierluigi
1997 “JrB 33,14–26 ou la continuité des institutions à l’époque maccabée-
nne.” The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception, ed. A.H.W. Curtis and
Th. Römer, 255–276. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Polak, Frank H.
2003 “Style is More than the Person: Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture
and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative.” Young
2003a, 38–103.
2006 “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background
of Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 47:115–162.
Polzin, Robert
1967 “Notes on the Dating of the Non-Massoretic Psalms of 11QPsa.” Har-
vard Theological Review 60:468–476.
1976 Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical
Hebrew Prose. Missoula: Scholars.
Pope, Marvin H.
1973 Job. 3rd edition (Anchor Bible Commentary 15). Garden City:
Doubleday.
1977 Song of Songs (Anchor Bible Commentary 7c). Garden City:
Doubleday.
Price, Ira M.
1899 “The Book of Daniel.” The Biblical World 14:27–35.
Pusey, Edward B.
1864 Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of
the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes. Oxford: John Henry and
James Parker.
Qimron, Elisha
1978a “Li-Lšon Bayit Šeni be-Sefer Tehilim.” Beit Mikra 23:139–150.
1978b “Lešonah šel Megilat ha-Miqdaš.” Lĕšonénu 42:83–98.
1979 Review of Ben-Ḥayyim 1977. Kiryat Sefer 54:363–370.
1980a “Le-Milonah šel Megilat ha-Miqdaš.” Šnaton la-Miqra u-l-Ḥeqer
ha-Mizraḥ ha-Qadum 4, ed. M. Weinfeld, 239–262. Jerusalem:
Neuman.
408 bibliography
1980b “Lešono šel Sefer Yona ke-Madad li-Qviʿat Zman Ḥiburo.” Beit Mikra
25:181–182.
1986 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1992 “Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.–
200 C.E.) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents.” The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport.
Leiden: Brill and Jerusalem: Magnes, The Hebrew University, and
Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi.
1997 “A New Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect without Per-
sonal Endings.” Muraoka and Elwolde 1997, 174–181.
2000 “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH.” Mura-
oka and Elwolde 2000, 232–244.
2008 “The Type וָ ֶא ְבנֶ הin the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Joosten
and Rey, 149–154.
Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell
1994 Qumran Cave 4: V, Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert 10). Oxford: Clarendon.
Rabin, Chaim
1958 “The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew.” Rabin and Yadin
1958, 144–161.
1962 “Milim Zarot.” EM 4, 1070–1080.
1966 “Noṣerim.” Textus 5:44–52.
1967 “An Arabic Phrase in Isaiah.” Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia offerti al P.
Giovanni Rinaldi nel 60° compleanno, 303–309. Genoa: Scuola Tipo-
grafica S. G. Emiliani di Rapello.
1970 “Hebrew.” Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 6, ed. by Thomas A.
Sebeok, 304–346. The Hague: Mouton.
1971 “ʿIvrit.” EM 6, 51–73.
1972 “Ha-Reqaʿ ha-Hisṭori šel ha-ʿIvrit šel Qumran.” Qoveṣ Maʾamarim
bi-Lšon Ḥazal 1:355–382.
1973 “The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry.” Studies in Religion 3:205–219.
1975 “Qešarim Hodiyim šel Šir ha-Širim.” Sefer Baruch Kurzweil, ed.
A. Saltman et al., 264–274. Tel-Aviv: Shocken.
1976 “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century.” The Jewish People in
the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social,
Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, ed. S. Safrai and M.
Stern, 1007–1039.
1981 “Lešonam šel ʿAmos ve-Hošeaʿ.” ʿIyunim be-Sefer Tre ʿAśar, ed.
B. Luria, 117–136. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.
bibliography 409
1995 “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible.”
Language and Culture in the Near East (Israel Oriental Studies 15),
ed. S. Izreʾel and R. Drory, 177–190. Leiden: Brill.
1999 “Hebrew Philological Notes (I).” Hebrew Studies 40:27–32.
2001 “Once More the Dual: With Replies to J. Blau and J. Blenkinsopp.”
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 38:28–41.
2002a Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Occasional Publications of
the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish
Studies, Cornell University 5). Bethesda: CDL.
2002b “Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew
Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36.” Journal of Bib-
lical Literature 121:23–46.
2003 “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexi-
con.” Orient 38:5–35.
2006a “Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch.” Hebrew Studies
47:163–176.
2006b “Israelian Hebrew in the Song of Songs.” Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006,
315–323.
2012 “Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai.” Language and Nature:
Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th
Birthday, ed. R. Hasselbach and Naʿama Pat-El, 329–344. Chicago:
Oriental Institute.
2013a “Shibboleth.” EHLL 3, 556–557.
2013b “Style-Switching.” EHLL 3, 633–636.
Forthcoming “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher
Habakkuk (1QpHab).” The Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period
between the Bible and the Mishnah (Studies on the Texts of the Des-
ert of Judah), ed. P. Van Hecke and E. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill.
Renz, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig
1995 Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche.
Revell, E. John
1985 “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect
Forms in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 9:277–300.
1988 “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive.” Vetus Testa-
mentum 38:419–426.
1995 “The Two Forms of First Person Singular Pronoun in Biblical
Hebrew: Redundancy or Expressive Contrast?” Journal of Semitic
Studies 40:199–217.
bibliography 411
Rezetko, Robert
2003 “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel–Kings and Chron-
icles.” Young 2003a, 215–250.
2007 Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark:
Text, Language and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15–16
(Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 470). London /
New York: T. and T. Clark.
2010 “The Spelling of ‘Damascus’ and the Linguistic Dating of Biblical
Texts.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24:110–128.
2013 “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Tex-
tual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics.” Journal of Hebrew Scrip-
tures 13, article 2:1–69.
Rietzschel, Claus
1966 Das Problem der Urrolle: Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des
Jeremiasbuches. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn.
Robertson, David A.
1972 Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Society of Bib-
lical Literature Dissertation Series 3). Missoula: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Robinson, Theodore H.
1924 “Baruch’s Roll.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
42:209–221.
Rofé, Alexander
1975 “ʿIyunim bi-Šʾelat Ḥiburo šel Sefer Yirmeya.” Tarbiz 44:1–29.
1986 “Yirmeyahu ve-Sifro: Divre Sikum.” Beit Mikra 31:308–315.
1989 “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” Zeitschrift für die Alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 101:390–398.
1991 “The Name YHWH ṢĔ BĀ ʾÔT and the Shorter Recension of Jere-
miah.” Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Fest-
schrift für Siegfried Herrmann, ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner, 307–316.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
2008 “Biqoret ha-Nusaḥ ke-Ḥeleq min ha-Limud ha-Filologi-Hisṭori:
Li-Šʾelat Šne ha-Nusaḥim šel Sefer Yirmeya.” Tarbiz 78:5–25.
2009 Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem Biblical
Studies 9). Jerusalem: Simor.
Rogland, Max
2003 Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 44). Assen: Royal Van Gorcum.
Rollston, Christopher
1998 “Are They Genuine?” Near Eastern Archaeology 61:8–9.
412 bibliography
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel
1993 A History of the Hebrew Language. Trans. J. Elwolde. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sauer, G.
1997 “ נצרnṣr to guard.” TLOT 2, 762–763.
Schenker, Adrian
1994 “La redaction longue du livre de Jérémie doit-elle être datée au
temps des premiers Hasmonéens?” Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 70:281–293.
Schniedewind, William M.
1999 “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” Journal of Biblical Literature
118:235–252.
2004 Northwest Semitic Inscriptions: Text and Grammatical Tags.
2008 Hebrew Inscriptions: Text and Grammatical Tags. Version 3.0. Fur-
ther revisions by M.G. Abegg, Jr.
Schniedewind, William M. and Daniel Sivan
1997 “The Elijah-Elisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect
of Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87:303–337.
Schoors, Antoon
1989 “The Pronouns in Qoheleth.” Hebrew Studies 30:71–90.
1992–2004 The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study in the Language
of Qoheleth. 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 41, 143). Leu-
ven: Departement Orientalistiek.
Schüle, Andreas
2000 Die Syntax der althebräischen Inschriften: Ein Beitrag zur histo-
rischen Grammatik des Hebräischen (Alter Orient und Altes Testa-
ment 270). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Schuller, Eileen M.
1986 Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection
(Harvard Semitic Studies/Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 28).
Atlanta: Scholars.
Schwiderski, Dirk
2004–2008 Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften. 2 vols. (Fontes et sub-
sidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 2, 4). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Seeligman, Isaac L.
1964 “A Psalm for Pre-Regal Times.” Vetus Testamentum 14:75–92.
Segal, Moshe H.
1908 “Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Ara-
maic.” Jewish Quarterly Review 20:647–737.
1927 A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon.
1935–1936 “Meḥqarim be-Lašon.” Lĕšonénu 7:100–120.
414 bibliography
Soreq, Naʿama
1999 “Maʿamadah šel עלben Milot ha-Yaḥas ba-ʿIvrit ha-Miqraʾit: Biru-
rim Taḥbiriyim, Semanṭiyim u-Miloniyim.” MA thesis, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Speiser, Ephraim A.
1942 “The Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6).” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 85:10–13.
1954 “The Terminative-Adverbial in Canaanite-Ugaritic and Akkadian.”
Israel Exploration Journal 4:108–115.
Sperber, Alexander
1939 “Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission.”
Hebrew Union College Annual 14:153–249.
1943 Hebrew Grammar: A New Approach. New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America.
1959–1973 The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.
1966 A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems
with Suggestions to Their Solution. Leiden: Brill.
Spieckermann, Hermann
1982 Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129). Göttingen:
Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stade, Bernhard
1885 “Mischellen.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
5:275–299.
Steiner, Richard C.
1992 “A Colloquialism in Jer. 5:13 from the Ancestor of Mishnaic Hebrew.”
Journal of Semitic Studies 37:11–26.
1996 “ ָּדתand עין:ֵ Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing
(Deuteronomy 33:2, 28).” Journal of Biblical Literature 115:693–698.
1997 “Ancient Hebrew.” The Semitic Languages, ed. R. Hetzron, 145–173.
Stipp, Hermann-Josef
1987 “Narrativ-Langformen 2. und 3. Person von zweiradikaligen Basen
nach qalY im biblischen Hebräisch: Eine Untersuchung zu mor-
phologischen Abweichungen in den Büchern Jeremia und Könige.”
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 13:109–149.
1997 “Linguistic Peculiarities of the Masoretic Edition of the Book of Jer-
emiah: An Updated Index.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
23:181–202.
Streane, Annesley W.
1896 The Double Text of Jeremiah (Massoretic and Alexandrian Com-
pared). Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co.
416 bibliography
Sznejder, M. B.
1935–1936 “He-Hayta ha-Lašon ha-Miqraʾit Lašon Meduberet?” Lĕšonénu
8:112–122.
Tal, Abraham and Moshe Florentin
2010 (eds) The Pentateuch—The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic
Version. Tel-Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press.
Talmon, Shemaryahu
1960 “Double Readings in the Masoretic Text.” Textus 1:144–184.
Talshir, David
1986a “ʿAl Yiḥude Taḥbir be-Lašon ha-Miqra ha-Meʾuḥeret.” Proceedings of
the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, part 4, vol. 1, 5–8. Jerusa-
lem: The World Union of Jewish Studies.
1986b “Maʿamadah šel ha-ʿIvrit ha-Miqraʾit ha-Meʾuḥeret ben Lešon ha-
Miqra li-Lšon Ḥaḵamim.” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 2–3:161–172.
1987 “Hitpatḥut Maʿareḵet he-ʿAtid ha-Mehupaḵ be-Ziqa ʾel ha-Maʿareḵet
ha-Modalit.” Tarbiz 56:585–591.
1988 “A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chroni-
cles and Ezra–Nehemiah.” Vetus Testamentum 38:165–193.
2003 “The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple
Period.” Young 2003a, 251–275.
Thackeray, Henry St. J.
1903 “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah.” Journal of Theological Studies
4:245–266.
Thiel, Winfried
1973–1981 Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia . . .” 2 vols. (Wissen-
schäftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41, 45).
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Thompson, John A.
1980 The Book of Jeremiah (New International Commentary on the Old
Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Thompson, Thomas L.
1995 “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Mono-
theism in Persian Period Palestine.” The Triumph of Elohim: From
Yahwism to Judaism, ed. in D. V. Edelman, 107–124. Kampen: Pharos.
Thorion, Yohanan
1984 “Neue Bermerkungen über die Sprache der Qumran-Literatur.”
Revue de Qumrân 11:579–582.
Throntveit, Mark A.
1982 “Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles,
Ezra and Nehemiah.” Vetus Testamentum 32:201–216.
bibliography 417
Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia
2011 “Will the Prophetic Texts from the Hellenistic Period Stand Up,
Please!” Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to
Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE) (Library of Second Temple Studies 75),
ed. L.L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits, 255–279. New York: T. & T. Clark.
Tov, Emanuel
1976 The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion
of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8
(Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 8) Missoula: Scholars.
1979 “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27
(34).” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 91:73–93.
1981 “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of
Jeremiah.” Bogaert 1981a, 145–167.
1985 “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Tex-
tual History.” Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. J.H. Tigay,
211–237. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1997 “70. 4QJera–72b. 4QJere.” Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (DJD 15),
ed. E. Ulrich et al., 145–207. Oxford: Clarendon.
1999 “ʾIfyun ha-Roved ha-ʿOdef šel Nusaḥ ha-Masora be-Sefer
Yirmeyahu.” Eretz-Israel 26:55–63.
2001 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. edition. Minneapolis:
Fortress and Assan: Royal Van Gorcum.
2012 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd rev. and exp. edition. Min-
neapolis: Fortress.
Tov, Emanuel and Frank Polak
2004 (eds.) The Revised CATSS (Computer-Assisted Tools for Septuagint
Studies) Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.
Tropper, Josef
1998 “Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem.” Zeitschrift für
Althebräistik 11:153–190.
Tur-Sinai, Naftali H. (= Harry Torczyner)
1938a Milim Šeʾulot bi-Lšonenu: Pirqe Lešon ha-ʿAm. Jerusalem: Reuben
Mass.
1938b The Lachish Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1965 “Hašpaʿat ha-ʾAramit ʿal ha-ʿIvrit šel ha-Miqra.” EM 1, 593–595.
Tyler, Louis R.
1988 “The Language of Ecclesiastes as a Criterion for Dating.” PhD dis-
sertation, University of Texas, Austin.
418 bibliography
Ullendorff, Edward
1971 “Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?” Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 34:241–255.
Ungnad, Arthur
1907 “Zum hebräischen Verbalsystem.” Beiträge zur Assyriologie und
semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, ed. F. Delitzsch and P. Haupt,
55–62. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Urbach, Ephraim
1968 “Yerušalayim šel Maṭa v-Irušalayim šel Maʿala.” Yerušalayim le-
Doroteha: Ha-Kinus ha-ʾArṣi ha-25 l-Idiʿat ha-ʾAreṣ. Ed. Y. Aviram,
156–171. Jerusalem: Ha-Ḥevra la-Ḥaqirat ʾEreṣ-Yiśraʾel va-ʿAtiqoteha.
van der Merwe, Christo H.J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze
1999 A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew
3). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
van der Ploeg, Jan
1950 “Les chefs du people d’Israël et leurs titres.” Revue Biblique 57:40–61.
van Keulen, Percy S.F.
1996 Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh
Account (2 Kings 21:1–18) & the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic
History (Oudtestamentische Studien 38). Leiden: Brill.
2004 Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relation-
ship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11 (Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum 104). Leiden / Boston: Brill.
van Peursen, Wido Th.
2004 The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics 41). Leiden: Brill.
van Selms, Adrianus
1964–1965 “Isaac in Amos.” Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika
7–8:157–165.
1974 “The Name Nebuchadnezzar.” Travels in the World of the Old Testa-
ment: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of His
65th Birthday, ed. M.S.J.G. Heerma van Voss, Ph.H.J. Houwink ten
Cate, and N.A. van Uchelen, 223–229. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Vern, Robyn C.
2011 Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic
Arguments (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contents
10). Piscataway: Gorgias.
Volz, Paul
1928 Der Prophet Jeremiah. 12th ed. (Kommentar zum Alten Testament
10). Leipzig: Scholl.
bibliography 419
Wilson, R. Dick
1939 “Nebuchadnezzar; Nebuchadrezzar.” IBE 3, 2127.
Wiseman, Donald
1985 Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Schweich Lectures 1983). Oxford /
New York: Oxford University Press.
Workman, George C.
1889 The Text of Jeremiah: A Critical Investigation of the Greek and
Hebrew, with the variations in the LXX retranslated into the original
and explained. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Wright, Richard M.
2003 “Further Evidence for North Israelite Contributions to Late Biblical
Hebrew.” Young 2003a, 129–148.
2005 Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source
(Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 419) London / New
York: T. & T. Clark International.
Yadin, Yigael
1983 The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Yalon, Hanoch
1950–1951 Review of Burrows 1950–1951. Kiryat Sefer 27:163–176.
1971 Pirqe Lašon. Jerusalem: Bialik.
Yoder, Christine E.R.
2000 “Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of
Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31.” PhD dissertation, Princeton University.
Yoo, Yoon J.
1999 “Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Hosea.” PhD dissertation, Cornell
University.
Young, Ian
1993 Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Forschungen zum Alten Testament
5). Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
1995 “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings.” Zeitschrift
für Althebräistik 8:63–70.
1997 “Evidence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew.” Hebrew Stud-
ies 38:7–20.
2001 “Notes on the Language of 4QCantb.” Journal of Jewish Studies
52:122–131.
2003a (ed.) Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. London:
T. & T. Clark.
2003b “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions.” Young 2003a, 276–
311. London: T. & T. Clark.
bibliography 421
(transliterated words and phrases are listed according to Latin alphabetical order)
A. Semitic Languages
1. Hebrew
2. Aramaic
3. Samaritan Reading Tradition
4. Syriac
5. Moabite
6. Akkadian
7. Arabic
8. Ugaritic
9. Phoenician
10. Canaanite
11. Ethiopic
12. Proto-Semitic
B. Non-Semitic Languages
1. Greek
2. Latin
3. Sumerian
173n52ויעוף 104ונרפאו
260n285וַ ּיַ ַעזְ ֻבהּו 105ונרפו
וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶלה 172n45, 179 104וְ נִ ְרּפּו
וַ ּיַ ַעׂש 179, 180 264וְ נִ ָּׂשא
104n93וַ ֵּ֫י ֵצא ָלְך 164וַ נָ ֶשב
173n49וַ ּי ֵֹצא וַ ּנַ ִּׁשים 160n5, 168
180וַ יְ ַצו 120וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחת
178–180וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה 266וְ נָ תֹון
172n43וַ ּיָ צֹום 270וְ נָ תֹן
173n50ויצמיח 265וְ נָ ְתנּו
ויקום 173n51, n52 )ּ 112(nונְ ַת ִּתיהּו
173n50ויקטיר 269n320וְ ָספּון
וַ ּיִ ְקטֹל 168, 178 339ועבדתי
168וַ ּיָ ָקם 208n82וְ ַעד־ּגַ זְ ָרה
178וַ ּיִ ֶקן 269וְ ָעזֹוב
178וַ ּיִ ְקנֶ ה ) 259(n281וְ ָענָ נִ י
173n50וַ ּיַ ְק ֵרב וְ ָע ָׂשה 261, 263
173n50ויקריב 260n285וְ ָעׂשּו
172n46ויראה 120וְ ָע ָׂשת
114וירדתי 258n279וצוכ
173n52וירוץ 271וְ ַק ֵּטר
173n50ויריח 257וקרא
107וַ יְ ַר ְּפאּו 264וְ ָרעּו
וַ ּיֵ ָרפּו 104, 105 אתיו ְּ 105ור ָפ ִ
104–107וַ יְ ַרּפּו 264וְ ָרפּו
173n50וישביר 105וְ ָרפֹוא
173n50וַ ּיִ ְׁשּבֹר 105ורפתיהו
וישוב 173n51, b52 105ורפתיו
172n46וישתחוי 260וְ ָׁש ַ֫א ְל ָּת
259וְ ָכל 288וְ ִׁש ַּבר
270וְ ָכתֹוב 120וְ ָׁש ַבת
260וְ לֹא ָׁש ַא ְל ָּת 269וְ ׁשֹוב
ּול ַה ֵּסְך ְ 273 269וְ ִׁשית
269וְ ַל ֵּמד 114ושכבתי
ּומ ֲח ָצה ָ 258n279 260n284וְ ִׁש ַּלח
ּומ ְלאּו ָ 265 258n279ושלחתי
ּומ ַּמ ַעל ִ 212n93 ּוׁש ַמ ְריָ ה ְ 27
ן־הּגֻ ְדּג ָֹדה ּומ ַ
ִ 214n105 265וְ ִׁשּנָ ה
212n93וָ ַמ ְע ָלה 259וְ ָׁש ַקל
ּומ ַר ֵּפהּו ְ 105 ּ- 14ות
ׁשֹוח
ּומ ַ ָ 269 ֹ-ות 13, 135(n88), 148, 149n7,
271וְ נָ אֹף 150n15, 363n
143וְ נִ ֲח ָתה 173n51ותגור
161n5וַ ּנִ ָירם 173n50ותגיד
263וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה 173n50ותוריד
298n9וְ נִ ְס ֵּכ ֶהם י־ׁשם 180וַ ִּתזְ נִ ָ
179וַ ּנַ ַעׂש וַ ִּתזְ נִ י 178n67, 180
קּומה 166וַ ּנָ ָ 172n41וַ ַּת ְח ִּבא
166וַ ּנָ ָקם 172n41וַ ַּת ֲח ִטא
index of foreign words and phrases 431
יהם
ֹות ֶ
ֵ - 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 65, 135–141, 114זכרתי
144 זְ ָמם 154n31, 157n40
173n50ותלביש 155n33זָ ָמם
ותלוש 172n43, 173n52 155n33זְ ָממֹו
ֹותם ָ - 59, 62, 135–141 זְ ַמן 14, 44, 60, 155n37
וַ ָּתמֹוג 172n43, 173n52 זַ ן 12, 14
171n38וַ ַּת ְעּגְ ָבה זע"ק 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 69, 78–82,
198n42ותעל 362, 365
198n42וַ ַּת ַעל זָ ַעק 79, 80
179ותעלה זְ ָע ָקה 79, 80, 82
וַ ַּת ֲע ֶלה 179, 180 78זִ ִּקים
198n42וַ ַּת ֲע ֵלהּו 34n97זָ ֵקן
173n50וַ ְּת ַער 124n50זִ ְקנָ ה
179n70ותעש ) 260(n285זָ ַקנְ ִּתי וָ ַׂ֫ש ְב ִּתי
ה־ּלָך
179וַ ַּת ֲע ֶׂש ְ 34n97זקף
) 179(n70וַ ַּת ֲע ֶׂשה 219n119זָ ָרה
173n48ותצית
172n41וַ ָּת ִקא ח
174n55ותקיא ָ 155ח ֵבר
172n46ותקשה ֶ 208n81ח ְברֹונָ ה
179וַ ֵּת ֶרא 60חֹוב
ותראה 172n45, 179 248חוזקיה המלך
179וַ ִּת ְר ֶא ָה חֹומץ
ֵ 149
172n45וַ ִּת ְר ֵאהּו 60חּוץ ִמן
וַ ָּת ִרץ 172n41, 175n58 חּוצה ְל- ָ 60, 210
173n52ותשוב 211n91חוצה
173n51ותשוט חּוצהָ 205n69
173n51ותשוך ָ 12חזָ ה
ותשים 174n54, n55 ָ 60חזֹון
יכנִ י
260וַ ַּת ְׁש ִל ֵ חז"ק 14, 61
78וְ ִּת ֶּׂשנָ ה 84חזקיהו
172n46ותשתה 234n180חזר על
279n341חטאי רבים
ז א־ר ִּבים ֵ 279n341ח ְט ַ
145זֹא ָ 120, 121ח ָטאת/וְ ָח ָטאת
145–147זֹאת חי 184n84, 186
זאתה 55, 65, 145–147, 358n8, 365 ָ 181חי
274זֶ ַבח ְׁש ָל ִמים ַחי 181(n72), 183–185
274זִ ְב ֵחי ְׁש ָל ִמים ִ 60חּיֵב
זֶ ה 145, 147 186חיה
145–147זֹה ָחיָ ה 181, 183–185
145–147זֹו ַ 181n72חּיָ ה
60זָ וִ ית ָחיֶ ה 184n83, 185
זּולת
ָ 155 ָ 181n72חיֹות
148n3זָ כּור ַ 181n72חּיֹות
266זָ כֹור ַ 181n72חּיּות
60זָ ַכר ( ְל)טֹוב(ה) חי"י 53, 55, 58, 59, 181–186
זָ ַכר ְל- 242, 243 ַ 114חּיָ יְ ִכי
60זָ ַכר ַ 181n72חּיִ ים
432 index of foreign words and phrases
ְ 105ר ָפ ֵאנִ י ה' וְ ֵא ָר ֵפא ׂשח"ק 53, 55, 65, 95, 96(n67),
105רפאני ה' וארפה )98(n74
אתי ִר ִּפ ִ 104, 105 ָׂ 95ש ַחק
ָר ָפה 103, 104n92 ִׂ 95ש ֵחק
ִ 103ר ָּפה ָׁ 193n24ש ַכב
ָ 103ר ֶפה ְׁ 208n81ש ֵכם
ְ 104ר ָפה ְׁ 208n81ש ֵכ ָמה
ָ 104רפּוא ָׁש ַכן 74, 75
פּואהְ 104ר ָ 114שכנכי
רפ"י 103, 104, 106, 107 ׂ 343שכ"ר
ְר ָפיָ ה 104, 105 14של"ט
ִ 103ר ְפיֹון ְׂש ָלו 154, 155
ִר ִּפינּו 104, 106 73שלוש
ָרץ 54, 55, 58, 59, 66, 69, 73שלושה
352–355 73שלושים
39רצה ָׁש ַלח 204, 219n119
ָר ָצה 333, 334 ִׁ 219n119ש ַּלח
ָ 271רצ ַֹח ָׁ 60ש ַלח יָ ד
336רצ"י ֻׁ 283n354ש ְל ַחן וְ ֻש ְל ָחן
ָ 352–355ר ִצים ָׁ 354ש ִל ַיח
ָ 60ר ָׁשע ַׁ 6n15ש ִּליט
ָׁ 60ש ָלל
ש ָׁש ֵלם 13, 92
ֶׁ 117ש- ְׁשֹלמֹה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך 14, 35n99, 247, 249, 364
ַׁ 18ש- ֶׁ 87n40ש ֶל ְמיָ ה
ָׁ 245n244שאּול ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֶׁש ֶל ְמיָ הּו 27, 87n40
ְׁ 155ש ָאט 249שלמציון המלכה
ָׁ 260ש ַא ְל ָּת 73שלש
ְׁש ָאר 6n15, 16, 17, 154, 155, 73שלשה
156n39, 157n40 73שלשים
14שב"ח 211שם
ְׁ 155n37ש ָבט ָׁשם 95, 204n62, 206(n70,
ית ֶהן ְׁ 298n9ש ִב ְ n72), 207n76, 215,
ִׁ 219n119ש ַּבר 217n116
ָׁש ַב ְר ִּתי 114, 118 עאל ם־ּבן־יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵֵׁ 274ש ֶ
ַׁ 283n353ש ַּבת ַׁש ָּבת שמה 204n61, 211(n91),
ָׁ 193n24שגַ ל 222n132
ָׂש ֶדה 9, 201 ָׁש ָּמה 204n62, 205n69,
דּודה ְׁ 148n3ש ָ 206(n70, nn72–74),
דֹודה ָׁ 148n3ש ָ 207n76, 211, 212,
יהם דֹות ֶ
ְש ֹ ֵ 135n88, 142 215–217
ָׂ 9ש ַדי ְׁ 365שמֹונֶ ה
ְׂ 141שד ָֹתם ְׁ 78שמֹונִ ים
282שה כבשים ָׁ 266שמֹור
ֵׂ 282שה ִעּזִ ים עאל ְׁ 274שמֹות ְּבנֵ י־יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵ
ׁ 219n119שּוב שמותיהם 138n94, 140
ׁ 329n101שּונֵ ם יהם מֹות ֶ
)ְׁ 137(n94ש ֵ
ְׂ 96שחֹ(ו)ק מֹותם ְׁ 137n94ש ָ
96שח"ק 279n341שמחות עולמים
442 index of foreign words and phrases
קֹוע
ָּ 148n3ת ַ 249דוד מלכא
ִּ 112ת ְק ְט ִלי 249דוקליטיינוס מלכא
130n73תקטלן ָ ֵּ 145דין
130n73תקטלנה 249דריוש מלכא
רּופה ְּת ָ 104, 105
105תרופות ה
ִּת ְר ֶּפינָ ה 104, 105 - 143ה
ִּ 329n101ת ְר ָצה - 135n88הֹון
ֶּ 180nת ִׁשי
ִּת ְׁשּכֹון 75, 287 ו
ִּ 75ת ְׁשּכֹן 163n14ואשמ
154n29ואת תהי אזיל ברישנא
2. Samaritan Reading Tradition - 144והי
imma 129, 132
šamma 211 ז
146n121זאת
3. Aramaic 81זע"ק
ַ Xמ ְל ָּכא )246, 249, 250(n251
Xוְ X- 285n364 ח
303n21חורין
א 185חיא
354אזגד 185חיה
12אחד 299חילו(ו)תיה
317אימם 299חיליהון
43n117אישתא אוריתא 299חיליו
57nאלה 302חראי
ֵ 57nא ֶּלה
ֱ 57nא ָל ַ֣הּיָ א י
112אנתי דּותא 56יְ גַ ר ַׂש ֲה ָ
249אסרחדון [מל]כא 312יהוד
אעתר 337, 338 311יהודאי
57nארע הּודאיִ ן יְ ָ 309, 310
57nארעא 311יהודאין
57nארק 312יהודי(א)
57nארקא הּודיֵ א 310יְ ָ
335n112אשתוה ל- 311יהודים
112אתי יָתא 311יְ ֻה ַוד ָ
אתערב )334, 335(n112 יום 316, 317
יומא 316, 317
ב 286יומא ויומא
312n42בני ישראל 317יומה
) ָּבר( בר )17n43, 101(n88 286יום ויום
302בר חורין 316ימם
יממא 316, 317
ד 249ינאי מלכא
ָּ 145דא 97יצחק
295–297דבירא/דבירה 156n39יְ ָקר
295דברא רּוׁש ֶלם 92יְ ְ
444 index of foreign words and phrases
רּוׁש ַלם
92יְ ְ ע
רּוׁש ָלם
92יְ ְ 351n177עברתא
97ישחק 338עותר
229על
כ 312n42עמ ישראל
- 112כי 190n17עם
285n364כל XוX- 254עמא הדין דעובדיהון בישין
286כל יומא ויומא 157n42עמלה
ְּ 156n39כנָ ת 335n113ערב
ָּ 150n19כרֹוז 335n113עריבא
ְּ 156n39כ ָתב 294עשרת דביריא
עתיר 337, 338, 339n125
ל 338עתירה
229ל- עת"ר 337, 339
224לבבל 337עתר
ְ 224ל ָב ֶבל 339עתרת
285לדר ודר
229לות צ
157n42ליאותה 81צע"ק
224לירושלם
ירּוׁש ֶלם
ִ 224ל ְ ק
285לכל דר ודר ְ 156n39ק ָצת
ְ 156n39ק ָרב
מ
57nמארעא ר
) 101(n88מדנח 345רבני פרעה
81n28מטר 345רברבוהי
ַמ ָּט ָרא/מטר 326, 329, 330 303n19רברבין
296מימרא 345רברבי פרעה
ַמ ְל ָּכא X 246, 250n251 345רברבנוי דפרעה
248מלכא אחז 354רהט
248מלכא דויד רוח 349, 350
ַמ ְלכּות 321, 322
57nמן ארעא ש
335n113מערב ְׁ 156n39ש ָאר
153מצדתא 354שליח
249שלמה מלכא
נ ְׁ 57nש ַמּיָ א
329נטור 93n58שמרין
329נטורא
329נטיר ת
326נְ ַטר - 112תי
329נטר 339תרע
267n313נכה תכוה
4. Syriac
ס Xܡܠܟܐ 248n
ְ 156n39ס ָפר XܘX- 285n364
index of foreign words and phrases 445
ܶ ܺܽ
ܐܘ ܺܪܫܠ ܶܡ 92 ואעש163
ܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܿ 92 וארא163
ܐܝܡܡ316n59 ויענו288
ܐܝܡܡܐ 316n59, 317 יאנפ288
ܐܝܣܚܩ97 ללה132n78
ܐܝܩܪܗ157n42 מהדבה132n78
ܐܢܫ ܿ ܐܢܫ285n364
ܰܐܢܬܝ112 6. Akkadian
ܐܥܬܪ337 -āti 112
ܒܪ ܚܐܪܐ302 attī 112
- ܕܒܪ ܠ243 bēl pī/āḫāti 340n136
ܘܐܢܬ ܐܙܠ ܒܡܨܥܬܐ154n29 d/ṭupšarru 328n94
ܚܐܪܐ303n21 derû 328n95
ܚܕ ܚܕ285n364 dublu 328n94
ܚܙܘܐ ܗܢܐ ܪܒܐ253 durru 328n95
ܚܙܩܝܐ ܡܠܟܐ248 durrû 328n95
ܚܝܐ185 Ḫazaqia 83
ܚܝܠܘܬܗܘܢ299 Ḫazaqiau 83
݂ܝܗܒ43n117 -iš 204n60
ܝܘܡܐ317 itti 187n3
ܼܟܝ- 112 -ki 112
X- ܘX ܟܠ285n364 ladanu 328n94
ܟܠ ܚܕ ܚܕ285n364 lasāmu 355
ܠܐܘܪܫܠܡ224 lāsimu(m) 355
ܠܒܒܠ224 mar awīlum 201
X ܡܠܟܐ248n maṣṣartum 326
ܡܠܟܐ ܕܘܝܕ248 Nabū-kudurru/i-uṣur 99(n78)
ܡܠܟܘܬ 321, 322 nadārum 326, 327
ܳ ܰ
ܡܢܕܪܐ 326 naṣārum 326
ܳܳ ܽ
ܘܕܪܐ ܢ326 naṭārum 327
ܢܛܘܪܗ329 šadū 201
ܢܛܪ326 šaknu 340n136, 341n139,
ܢܛܪ ܰ 330 342n155
ܥܘܬܪܐ338 šamārum 327
ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܝܫܐ253 šāru 350
ܥܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܪܒܐ 253, 254n261 šī 204n60
ܥܪܒ335n113 šina 204n60
ܥܬܝܪ338 šū 204n60
ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܙܥܘܪܐ253 šunu 204n60
ܪܘܚܐ349 ṭerû 328n95
ܪܘܪܒܢܘܗܝ345 ṭurru 328n95
ܦܪܥܘܢ ܪܘܪܒܢܝ345 ṭurrû 328n95
ܿ
ܬܝ- 112 Urusalimmu 92
294
5. Moabite 7. Arabic
֯הית121
112
המ132
112
-
ואבנ163 145
446 index of foreign words and phrases
145
B. Non-Semitic Languages
145
150n14
1. Greek
95
ἄγγελοι μετ᾿ αυτοῦ 43n117
337n119 αἰῶνος 253
124n48 ἀνδρῶν Ιουδα 314
124n48 ἀνήρ ἐξ Ιουδα 314
112
-
βασιλεύοντος 324(n81)
326 βασιλεύω 324n81
326 Γαλιλαῖοι 308n34
326 γελάσομαι 82
326 γένους τοῦ βασιλέως 347n167
326 Δεβλαθα 213n98
145
δεσμώτης 305
145
δεσμώτου 205
326, 328 διαβαίνοντες 307n31
δυνάμεων 281n350,
8. Ugaritic 300n14
ʾan 109 ἐκεῖ 95
ʾank 109 ἐλαχίστων 253
ḫry 302n18 ἐλεύθερος 305n25
nǵr 326 ἐλευθέρου 305
ʿm 187n3 ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν 154n29
ἐνεστῶτος 253
9. Phoenician ἐντολῶν 253
נצר326 ἐνύπνια ὑμῶν 152n22
ἐνυπνιάζεσθε 152n22
10. Canaanite ἐπὶ 237
Urusalim 92 ἔσπενδον 265n301
ζήσεται 186
11. Ethiopic θυμιᾶν 244n240
ánti 112 Ιερουσαλημ 92
-ki 112 Ἰουδαῖοι 308n34
Ἰουδαῖος 314
12. Proto-Semitic καὶ ἀνέβη μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ 198n42
ḏā 145–147 καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου
ḏī 145, 146n121 πορευόμενον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν 154n29
nẓr 326 λίνον Σαρδωνικὸν 154n30
qawl 72n1 λόγος κυρίου 295n5, 297
ṯm 206n73 Μασάδα 153
ṯmt 206n73 μέρος 351
ʿṯr 337 Ναβουχοδονοςορ 99n78
yaqṭul 159 οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν δυνάμεων 281, 300
yaqṭula 159 οἱ ἡγμόνες τῆς δυνάμεως 281, 300
yaqṭulu 159 ὁμοιόω 335n112
ποιήσω 339
πονηροῦ 253
index of foreign words and phrases 447
29.1 60, 61, 95, 225n, 30.14 61, 119n34, 32.30 141, 255n265,
226n141, 241n225 306, 313n47,
234n182 30.15 61, 119n34 314n49
29.2 70, 95, 245n243, 30.16 60 32.32 306, 313n47
250, 304, 305n24, 30.18 60, 236n199, 366 32.33 269
306n25, 347n169 30.22 111n16 32.35 78
29.3 225n, 226n141 30.24 61, 282n351 32.36 235
29.4 225n, 226n141 31.2 272, 282n351 32.37 226n141,
29.6 61, 218n116 31.6 226n141, 331n 234n177
29.7 226n141, 241n224, 31.7 241n229 32.40 192n21, 196,
n225 31.8 218n116 202, 336
29.8 149, 152n22, 31.9 226n141 32.41 196
234n183 31.11 60 32.42 111n16, 233,
29.10 60, 61, 218n116, 31.12 236, 238, 282n351 235(n189)
226n141, 234n177, 31.13 60 32.44 270, 282n351
357–358n7 31.17 220n127, 224, 33.1 325n83
29.11 111n16, 282n351 225, 226n141 33.5 194n27
29.12 234n183 31.21 114, 119n34, 33.6 336, 339
29.13–14 61n7 226n141, 243n235 33.7 235n186
29.13 60 31.26 161n7, 170n31, 179, 33.8 141n102
29.14 226n141, 234n177 332, 333n110, 334 33.9 60, 77, 192n21,
29.15 205n69, 212, 31.28 77n19 196, 202n,
217n116, 218n116 31.34 242, 346n164 282n351
29.16–20 212n94 31.35 315n53, 317n60, 33.12 253n260
29.16 192n21, 236, n62 33.13 282n351
237n211 31.37 213, 216, 217n116 33.14–26 68, 98, 318, 360n,
29.18 226n141, 276, 31.38 60 366
282n351 31.39 226n141 33.14 61, 235, 237n211,
29.19 234n183, 270n321, 31.40 60 366
273n329 32.1 103n, 234n174 33.16 75, 95, 366
29.20 95, 225n, 226n141 32.2 60, 300n11, 33.17 236n199
29.22 218n116 325n83 33.19 70, 76n15, 77n19,
29.25 60, 61, 95 32.5 192n21, 194n27, 366
29.26 60, 226n141, 218n116, 226n141 33.20 315, 317n61, n62,
234n179, 342n154 32.6 250n252 318(n63), 366
29.28 226n141, 234n182 32.8 226n141, 325n83 33.21 192n21
29.29 60, 61 32.9 161n7, 162n11, 33.22 366
29.31 234, 235n185 170(n31) 33.25 315, 317n62, 366
30–33 67, 74 32.10 161n7, 170n32 33.26 73, 74n10, 236,
30.1 234n174 32.12 305n26, 307n32, 237n211, 360n,
30.2 236 312n44, 314, 366
30.3 234n177 325n83 34–45 67
30.8 73 32.13 161n7, 170n31, 180 34–46 94
30.9 226n141, 243n239 32.20 171n39, 179 34 234
30.10 60, 74n10 32.23 106n, 124n52 34.1 60, 103n, 234n174,
30.11 111n16, 192n21, 32.24 226n141, 236n201 236n201,
196, 202n, 32.26 95 282n351, 300n11
226n141, 273n329 32.29 141, 236n201, 264, 34.3 193n23, 226n141
30.13 282n351 269n319 34.4 233n166
466 passage index
26.6 (33.6) 147, 282n351 29.18 (—) 226n141, 33.14–26 (—) 98, 318,
26.10 (33.10) 226n141 282n351 360n, 366
26.18 (33.18) 282n351 29.19 (—) 273n329 33.14 (—) 237n211, 366
26.21 (33.21) 226n141 29.20 (—) 95, 226n141 33.16 (—) 75, 95, 366
26.22 (33.22) 192n21, 29.22 (36.22) 218n116 33.19 (—) 76n15,
226n141, 29.25 (36.25) 95 91n50, 366
251n255 29.26 (36.26) 226n141 33.20 (—) 317n62, 366
26.23 (33.23) 91n50, 29.28 (36.28) 226n141 33.21 (—) 192n21
251n255 30.9 (37.9) 244 33.22 (—) 366
27.1 (—) 91n50, 30.10 (—) 74n10 33.23 (—) 91n50
192n21 30.11 (—) 111, 192n21, 33.25 (—) 317n62, 366
27.3 (34.3) 226n141 202, 226n141, 33.26 (—) 74n10,
27.6 (34.6) 103(n), 111 273n329 237n211,
27.13 237n211 30.13 (37.13) 282n351 360n, 366
27.16 (34.16) 217, 218n116 30.14 (37.14) 119 34.1 (41.1) 103, 282n351
27.18 (34.18) 95, 226n141 30.15 (37.16) 82, 119 34.3 (41.3) 226n141
27.19 (34.19) 237n211 30.18 (37.18) 366 34.7 (41.7) 282n351
27.20 (34.20) 95, 226n141, 30.24 (37.24) 282n351 34.8 (41.8) 95
304n23, 31.2 (38.2) 282n351 34.9 (41.9) 305n25, 314
305n25 31.4 (38.4) 82 34.12 (41.12) 192n21
27.21 (34.21) 95 31.6 (38.6) 226n141 34.14 (41.14) 119, 305n25
27.22 (34.22) 217, 226n141 31.8 (38.8) 218n116 34.15 (41.15) 335n112
28.3 (35.3) 226n141 31.9 (38.9) 226n141 34.16 (41.16) 305n25
28.4 (35.4) 111, 226n141 31.12 (38.12) 282n351 34.17 (41.17) 282n351
28.6 (35.6) 218n116, 31.17 (38.17) 226n141 34.19 (41.19) 95, 304n24,
226n141 31.21 (38.21) 119, 226n141 347n169
28.12 (35.12) 91n50 31.28 (38.28) 77n21 34.22 (41.22) 226n141,
28.13 (35.13) 282n351 31.35 (38.35) 315n53 335n112
28.15 (35.15) 91n50 31.37 (38.37) 217 34.23 (41.23) 335n112
28.16 (35.16) 237n211 31.39 (38.39) 226n141 35.1 (42.1) 91n50
28.17 (35.17) 91n50 32.1 (39.1) 103n 35.2 (42.2) 192n21, 202
29.1 (36.1) 95, 226n141 32.5 (39.5) 192n21, 35.4 (42.4) 226n141
29.2 (36.2) 95, 305(n24), 218n116, 35.7 (42.7) 218n116
305n25, 226n141 35.11 (42.11) 95, 103n,
347n169 32.6 (39.6) 91n50 226n141
29.3 (36.3) 226n141 32.8 (39.8) 226n141 35.12 (42.12) 91n50
29.4 (36.4) 226n141 32.12 (39.12) 314 35.15 (42.15) 273n329
29.6 (36.6) 218n116 32.24 (39.24) 226n141 35.18 (42.18) 91n50, 331
29.7 (36.7) 226n141 32.26 (39.26) 91n50 36.1 (43.1) 192n21
29.8 (36.8) 152n22 32.29 (39.29) 264, 265n301 36.5 (43.5) 226n141
29.10 (36.10) 218n116, 32.37 (39.37) 226n141 36.8 (43.8) 91n50
226n141, 32.40 (39.40) 192n21, 202, 36.9 (43.9) 91n50, 95
358n7 336 36.12 (43.12) 218n116,
29.11 (36.11) 282n351 32.44 (39.44) 282n351 226n141
29.14 (36.14) 226n141 33.6 (40.6) 339 36.14 (43.14) 91n50
29.15 (36.15) 217, 218n116 33.9 (40.9) 77 n21, 192n21, 36.19 (43.19) 304n24,
29.16–20 (—) 212n94 202, 282n351 347n169
29.16 (—) 192n21 33.13 (40.13) 282n351 36.20 (43.20) 226n141
passage index 495
Assyria(n) 12, 46, 56, 83, 91, 258, 343 Chronicler 35n97, 88–89, 108n2, 149n11,
asyndesis/asyndetic 9, 282–287 177, 187–188, 196–197, 208, 243n236,
attraction 186, 205, 206, 214, 216, 243, 245–247, 320
260, 261, 263, 278, 289–293, 300, 345, Chronicles 3n7, 5n14, 7, 11, 35n97, 39,
346 73n6, 77, 79, 87–90, 93, 94, 96, 100, 108, 131,
a vowel (see vowel: a) 136, 138, 177, 187, 188, 197, 199, 208, 212n93,
å vowel (see vowel: å) 214, 216, 217, 245–247, 254, 262, 263n291,
å� vowel (see vowel: å� ) 267n312, 268n315, 319, 340, 353–355, 359
Babylon(ian) 56, 69, 99–102, 225n, 250, circumstantial clause 288, 290
281, 312n45, 341, 343–346, 351, 355, 357, classical alternative 225n, 226n139, 286,
358n7 321, 338, 341, 343, 346, 350, 352, 354, 355
Babylonian month names 14, 45n122, 61, Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) (see Hebrew:
155n37 Biblical: Classical)
Babylonian reading tradition (see reading Codex Leningradensis (see Leningrad [Codex])
tradition: Babylonian) cohortative verb (see verb[al]: cohortative)
Bar Kokhba 23, 74n9, 157n40 coin (see also numismatic) 93, 249, 310
Barrakib 57n colloquial (see also non-literary; popular
Benjamin(ite) (see dialect: Benjamin[ite]) speech; spoken; vernacular) 15, 22–25,
Ben Sira 7, 24, 39, 44n121, 76, 81, 85, 96, 63–65, 106, 127–128, 133, 144, 146n124,
109, 126n55, 132, 133, 137, 157n40, 189, 209, 147n127, 175, 191, 262, 271, 273n331, 297,
284n356, 285, 299, 302, 321, 349 328n97, 335n115, 363
Biblical Aramaic (see Aramaic: Biblical) comitative preposition (see preposition:
biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (see Dead Sea comitative)
Scrolls: biblical) command (see also imperative) 61, 62n12,
Biblical Hebrew (BH) (see Hebrew: Biblical) 147n127
binyan common noun 91n50, 97n71, 98, 104, 203,
hifʿil 159–176, 181, 198n42, 204n60, 251
219n118, 236n202, 239n217, 332n107 Community Rule 39n108
hitpaʿel 309 compiler (see also amanuensis; copyist;
hofʿal/hufʿal 13, 33n93 editor; scribe; vocalizer; writer) 63,
nifʿal 13, 39, 242 65, 75
nufʿal 13 complement (see verb[al]: complement)
piʿel 14, 33n93, 145n115, 181 complementary distribution 96, 182,
polel 14 206n70, 300, 330
puʿal 13, 33n93 concentration (see also accumulation) 8,
qal 33n93, 53, 55, 74, 76, 159, 160, 166, 13n, 21, 22n63, 30n87, 36, 37–41, 49n128,
169–171, 172n42, 174, 175, 176n62, 179, 59, 65, 68, 75, 106, 115–116, 138, 151, 201, 209,
181, 184, 198n42, 242n232, 332n105, n107, 227, 231, 235, 238n213, 312, 367
364 conditional 61, 182n80
qal internal passive 13, 33n93, 39, 60 conjunctive waw (see waw: conjunctive/
bullae (see also stamp seal) 83, 84 simple)
calque (see also loan translation) 11, 201, consecutive verb (see verb[al]: conversive/
344 consecutive)
Canaanite 9, 92, 109, 267n313, 306n26, consecutive waw (see waw: conversive/
307, 342n155 consecutive)
Canaanite month names 14, 46n conservative/conservatism/conservation
Canaanite shift (see shift: Canaanite) 19, 25, 29, 34n96, 37, 44–45, 97n69, 186
case ending 9, 203, 204n60 consonantal orthography (see orthography:
causative verb (see verb[al]: causative) consonantal; spelling: consonantal)
subject index 503
Isaiah 6n15, 16, 27, 73, 79, 82, 86, 87, 89, supplementary material 71, 74, 75,
108, 131, 136, 170n30, 178, 196, 197, 199, 210, 77n21, 82, 90–91, 95, 103, 111, 119, 147, 152,
231n, 245, 246, 250, 283, 319, 340, 372 158, 202, 217, 218n116, 226, 237, 238, 244,
1–39 (‘First Isaiah’) 6n, 10, 16–17, 86, 266, 273, 282, 303–306, 314, 318, 322,
89, 108, 131n, 136n92, 154, 187 324, 325, 347, 359–369, 372
40–66 (‘Second Isaiah’) 14, 29n86, 36, Jeroboam son of Nebat 116
75, 108, 131n, 136, 190, 191n18, 197, 200, Jerusalem(ite) 13, 17, 19, 53, 55, 59, 63–64,
201nn50–51, 278, 283, 341, 364n, 372, 66, 91–95, 208n81, 213n99, 225n, 295,
373n 305n24, 310, 311, 329n101
55/56–66 (‘Third Isaiah’) 36 Jew(ish) 54, 55, 56, 66, 75, 306–314, 365
Israel(ite) 17, 25, 46, 62, 64n, 83–84, 116, Jewish Aramaic (see Aramaic: Jewish)
235n186, 305–314, 345 Job 22n63, 27, 74, 75, 77n20, 79, 96, 131,
northern 85n33 136, 154, 161n9, 210, 328n98
Israelian (dialect; see also northern) narrative framework 11, 73n6, 162, 368
17–22, 329n101, 333n109 poetry 15–16, 16n41, 73n6, 105n94,
i-vowel (see vowel: i) 328n98
J (see Yahwist) Joel 29n86, 79, 131, 136, 373n
JE (see Yahwist and Elohist) Jonah 16, 19, 79, 306
Jeremiah 14, 36, 51–67, 73–75, 77, 79, Joshua 10, 13, 73n6, 79, 86, 131, 136, 170n30,
82, 86–90, 93–96, 98–103, 106, 110, 111, 178, 197, 201n49, 262, 319
115, 118, 119, 122–125, 127, 128, 131, 134, 136, Judah(ite) 12, 17, 54, 55, 56, 63–64, 66, 69,
140–142, 144, 146, 147n125, 149n7, 151, 157, 83, 235, 281, 301, 303, 304, 305n24, 306–314,
170, 175–179, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 191n18, 340, 341, 343–347, 357, 358–359n8, 365
192, 196, 197, 199–202, 212–218, 224–226, Judean 306–314, 340–343, 365
228, 231–235, 237, 240–244, 246, 250, 253, Judean Desert 4, 73, 97, 102, 256
254, 255n265, 263, 265, 266, 268, 270n321, Judges 79, 87, 95, 96, 108, 115, 131, 136, 138,
271n326, 273, 278, 280–282, 286, 297, 299, 170n30, 262, 319
300, 303, 304, 312, 313, 318, 320, 322–324, jussive (see verb[al]: jussive)
328n99, 329–331, 336, 339–341, 341, 343, Kaufmann (manuscript) 4n13, 93n62,
346, 346, 347, 351–352, 356–369, 371–372 126n56, 133n84, 340n135
Benjaminite dialect (see dialect: Khirbet Beit Lehi 91
Benjaminite) Khirbet El Qom 154n31
Dead Sea Scrolls material (see Dead Kings 5n14, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 35n97, 51, 73,
Sea Scrolls: Jeremiah; see also 79, 82, 86–89, 100, 102, 103, 106, 115, 131,
2QJer; 4QJera; 4QJerb; 4QJerc; 4QJerd; 136, 138, 141, 170n30, 175–178, 188, 196, 197,
4QJere) 31n89 199–202, 217, 227, 228n146, 231, 245–247,
Greek (edition; translation) (see also 250, 262n291, 278, 319, 323, 340, 372
Jeremiah: short edition) 68, 71, 82, ktiv ( )כתיב9, 15, 43, 55, 58, 64, 65, 75,
106, 119, 125, 128, 147, 152, 158, 170, 192, 76n14, 78, 92n52, 99n78, 104, 106, 112,
226, 251, 266, 281, 282, 301, 304, 305, 313, 114, 116n23, 117–120, 125, 127, 128, 141–147,
318, 331, 336, 343, 346–347, 347n169 154n31, 155, 161nn7–8, 162nn11–12, 171n39,
name 13, 67, 85, 88n44, 91n51 172n43, 179, 180n, 182n80, 185, 186n91,
prophet 36, 52, 63, 67, 74, 90, 94, 194n24, 196, 197, 208n81, 213, 216n114,
111n15, 119, 235n186, 250, 313 220n127, 230n157, 263, 264, 269, 283n353,
short edition 71, 75, 82, 90, 91n51, 95, 292, 304, 325, 340, 358–359n8, 367, 368n19
98, 111, 119, 152, 158, 170, 217, 226, 237, Kuntillat Ajrud 85
238, 244, 273, 282, 304, 314, 318, 324, 340, Laban 56
347, 356–368, 372 Lachish (Letters) 4, 83, 204
508 subject index
morpheme 13, 115, 117, 118, 146, 147, 207, northern (dialect; kingdom; setting)
217, 317 17–22, 64, 85, 98, 110n9, 116–117, 146, 154,
morphology 1, 14, 25, 32, 41, 52, 53, 91n50, 235n186, 301, 306, 308n36, 312n45, 325,
98n74, 122, 211, 256n272, 360, 371 329n101, 333, 339n124
motion verb (see verbs: of movement/ northern speech (see speech: northern)
motion) Northwest Semitic (see Semitic: Northwest)
Nahum 10, 131, 136, 328n99, 331 nufʿal (see binyan: nufʿal)
narrative framework of Job (see Job: narrative Numbers 73n6, 79, 131, 136, 183, 187n4, 197,
framework) 212n93, 262n291, 319
Nebuchadnezzar 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, numismatic (see also coin) 83
95, 99, 102, 250n254, 359, 365 nun ( ;נn) 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 93n58,
negation 9 99–103, 358n8, 365
negative command 61n8, 159 assimilation/non-assimilation 18,
negator 61n8, 176 34n97, 39
Nehemiah 5n14, 11, 26, 39, 79, 85, 87, 100, energic 9, 159n2
108, 131, 136, 137, 177, 183, 184, 187n6, 246, paragogic 61
247, 262n291, 267n312, 268n315, 301, 303, Obadiah 10, 87
313, 320, 325, 329, 340, 341, 359 object pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
nesiga 104n93, 326n89 object)
nifʿal (see binyan: nifʿal) object suffix (see suffix: object)
nomen agentis 148, 149n11, 150–152, 352 Old Aramaic (see Aramaic: Old)
nomen rectum/nomina recta 144n112, 211, oracles to foreign peoples 26n79, 68–69,
215, 217, 273–279, 281, 282, 298 74, 234, 356n2
nomen regens/nomina regentes 211, 215, order (word, constituent) 14, 35n99, 54,
217, 267, 273, 274, 278, 281, 282, 298, 299 55, 58, 62, 67, 70, 244–254, 258, 358n8
nominal pattern 14, 16, 26, 58, 148, ordinal numbers 14, 45n122, 61
150–155 orientation 203, 205
non-assimilation (see assimilation: Origen 133
non-assimilation) orthography (see also spelling) 1, 2, 19, 31,
non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (see Dead Sea 37, 53, 70, 72–74, 84n30, 85, 92, 93, 97, 104,
Scrolls: non-biblical) 106, 112n, 113, 129, 130n73, 146n121, 163n14,
non-Israelite 86n37 166, 174, 193n23, 197, 201n49, 202, 203, 228,
non-linguistic (dating; evidence) 8, 230, 360, 364, 371
30n88, 35, 37, 47, 48, 50, 51, 60, 65, 369–373 consonantal 166, 174, 193n23, 197,
non-literary register 23 202
non-Masoretic sources 53, 73, 75, 76, 80, o-vowel (see vowel: o)
81, 83, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 105, 109, 118, 121, P (see Priestly material)
126, 132, 137, 143, 150, 156, 160, 162, 163, 172, paleography 84n30
183, 189, 198, 222, 227, 240, 247, 248, 252, Palestine 64n, 307n34
256, 279, 284, 299, 315, 320 Panamu 57n
non-standard (linguistic feature) 16, p(apyrus) 967 34n97
18–20, 26, 49n127, 52–56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66 paradigm 33n93, 51, 166–168, 177, 184, 185,
, 68–70, 78, 98, 115, 116, 119, 123, 152, 155, 161, 188n9, 371
176, 177, 178n67, 203, 205, 206n73, 207–210, paragogic nun (see nun: paragogic)
214, 216–218, 222, 255n265, 256n272, 260, parallelism 12, 25, 242, 263n293, 264,
262n291, 289, 304, 305, 329n101, 341, 360n, 325n82, 327, 332n107, 355
361, 363, 366, 371 parataxis 9
non-Tiberian reading tradition (see reading Paris (manuscript) 5n13
tradition: non-Tiberian) Parma A (manuscript) 4n13, 126n56
510 subject index
short vowel (see vowel: short) style 7, 8, 10, 16, 22, 25, 29, 30, 35n97, 37,
Sifra 100n85, 105 38, 44, 45, 52, 66, 69, 103, 122, 126, 134, 137,
Sifre Bemidbar 105 142, 175, 177, 178, 189, 192, 207, 210, 222, 224,
Sifre Devarim 100n85 229, 234, 237, 245, 246n, 247, 248, 250, 251,
Siloam Tunnel 121 255, 260, 261n285, 263n293, 264, 268, 271,
simple waw (see waw: conunctive/simple) 312n42, 347n169, 357n4, 358n8, 363, 368,
simplification 191, 256 371
šin ( ;ׁשš) 204n60 stylistic variation (see variation: stylistic)
śin ( ;ׂשś) 53, 55, 65, 95, 98 subject pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
Sinaiticus (codex) 4n12 subject)
sociolinguistic variation analysis 28n84 suffix(es) (see also ending; sufformative)
Song of Songs 16, 19, 22n63, 27, 115, 131, 76n14, 112, 120, 135n88, 140n, 160, 170n36,
154, 161n9, 210, 246, 325, 329, 330 176, 193, 203–207, 211, 213n100, 214–217, 222,
sound 2, 25, 170n36, 205n69, 326 250m252
speech 22, 26, 45n122, 56, 70, 111, 128n71, adjectival 147n127
134, 188n9, 192, 260n283, 261n285, 263n293, archaic 9, 169
295 dual 93n58
divine 108, 111, 296, 363 feminine 18, 120n, 148
northern 146n124 object 9, 61n9, 112, 113n19, 119, 120, 126,
spelling 31, 32, 53, 55, 57n, 59, 62, 64, 66, 161n5, 179, 193, 194n24, n26, 196n40,
67, 72–77, 84n30, 85n34, 88, 91–95, 97–103, 239n217, 243n235, 326n89, 358n8
105, 113n19, 114, 117, 124, 166–167, 173n52, plural 18, 94n, 135–142 148
176, 180, 233, 250, 360n, 366 possessive 9, 13, 77, 112, 113n19, 117, 119,
consonantal 113, 166, 172n41, 281n349, 120, 126, 135, 137, 138, 140n, 144, 269n320,
298n9 298n9, 363n
defective 31, 70, 72–77, 94, 113n19, 129, pronominal 112, 114n, 129, 188n9,
166–167, 171, 197–198 193n23, 220n128, 242n232, 252n, 281,
full (see also spelling: plene) 13, 73–75, 298n9
166–167, 171 qaṭal 9, 13, 112, 113n19, 120, 122, 126
historical 93, 105 theophoric 13, 15, 26–27, 53, 55, 59, 62,
phonetic 98, 105 64, 66, 70, 83–91, 94–95, 102, 362, 365,
plene (see also spelling: full) 31, 53, 55, 366n13
66, 69n, 70, 72–77, 93n59, 94, 113, 169, suffix conjugation (see verb[al]: suffix
171, 172n42, 173n49, 174, 193n24, 194n29, conjugation)
197, 199n, 201n49, 287, 361–364, 366 suffix pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
popular 98, 106 suffix)
spelling/orthographic convention 74n9, sufformative (see also ending; suffix) 120,
92, 94, 97, 166, 169, 173n52 125, 143n112
spoken (see also colloquial; non-literary; Sumerian 328n94, 341n139
popular speech; vernacular) 2, 20, supplementary (layer; material) (see
22–25, 64, 106, 118n31, 128, 130, 133, 137, Jeremiah: supplementary material)
146n124, 147, 169, 175, 176, 178, 188n9, 191, suppletion/suppletive 184, 188n9
192, 201, 207n76, 258, 270, 271 symmetry 33n93, 112, 166, 168, 182n80
stamp seal 83–85, 342 syndetic/syndesis 282–287
Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) (see Hebrew: syntagm 211, 240n221, 255n265, 298, 366
Biblical: Classical) syntax/syntactic 1, 3n7, 11, 14, 32, 41,
stative (see verb[al]: stative) 54, 110, 186n91, 207, 226, 255n266, 258,
stratigraphy 84n30 271n325, 284n358, 306n31, 315n52, 360,
strong verb (see verb[al]: strong) 371
514 subject index
conversive/consecutive 9, 23, 62n, strong 74, 76, 120n, 160, 168, 177, 178,
169n, 173n50, 230n157, 255n268, 365
256–258, 262, 270, 271 suffix conjugation 255
ending/sufformative 112, 117, 125, 126, system 254–256, 268, 271
129, 142, 147n127 transitive 200n45, 239
finite 54, 123n47, 266, 268, 270, 271 verb-initial 61
fpl (ו)קטלה145 (lə)qVṭlå� 76n14
fpl (ו)קטלו145 (li)qṭōl 76, 362
geminate (see also verb[al]: )ע"ע (li)qṭolet 76n14
181–186 (lV)qṭōl 76
imperative(al) 61–62, 112, 113n19, 114n, qaṭal 9, 18, 112, 113n19, 116, 120–123, 125,
159, 181, 242, 266, 358n8 142–144, 149n9, 181, 183–185, 230n157,
imperative + weqaṭal 61–62 255, 256, 257n273, 266, 269, 271, 272,
imperfective(ity) 159, 254–266, 287, 289, 324n81
269n319, 270n321, 287–293 (way)yiqṭol 75, 142
indicative (verb form, paradigm) 159, wayyiqṭol 23n71, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 74,
167–168, 177 159, 160–179, 181, 255–258, 261, 262, 265,
infinitive(al) 95, 123n47, 124n50, 181, 266, 269, 270, 287, 363n
239n219, 240n221 weak 160, 168, 177
infinitive absolute 54, 55, 61, 62, we + infinitive absolute 271
150n13, 258n279, 261n288, 266–273, 292, weqaṭal 23n71, 35n99, 40, 54, 55, 61,
324n81 62, 112n, 120–123, 125, 142, 182n80, 183,
imperatival 61 184, 186, 254–266, 269, 270, 272, 287,
paronomastic 61, 266 289
infinitive construct 14, 40, 53, 55, 70, (we)qaṭal 112n, 120–123, 125, 142, 183,
76–77, 124, 267, 272–273, 319, 321n70, 184
323, 324, 324n81, 365 we+qaṭal 40, 255, 269, 271n326
intransitive 145n115 (we-)X+yiqṭol 255
jussive 61n8, 159, 166, 169, 177, 178, we-yiqṭol 176, 257n272, n273, 257
181 (we-)yiqṭol 257n273
morphology 1, 53, 91n50, 159 wyqṭl 163, 288
negation of 9 yaqṭul 159
of giving/transfer of ownership yaqṭula 159
219n119 yaqṭulu 159
of movement/motion 55, 58, 59, yiqṭol 61, 74, 75, 112, 113n19, 142, 159,
66, 69, 203, 204, 206n74, 208n80, 209, 166, 170–171, 172n42, 173n49, n52, 175,
218–222, 225, 226n141, 358–359n8, 361, 176, 182n80, 255, 257n272, n273, 258,
363 266n306, 271, 272, 287, 288, 324n81,
participle 117, 120, 148n1, 149n6, 362, 365
n9, 150n12, n16, n19, 151, 184n83, 185, full 53, 62, 159–180, 363n
242n232, 251n257, 255, 268n317, lengthened 62, 159–171, 177
269n320, 270n321, 272, 273, 288, 325, long 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 161n9, 166
332n105, 342n155, 352, 355 short 9, 59, 62, 159–175, 177, 179–181
perfective 256n72, 257n272, 263, 264, ל"א59, 76n14, 104n93, 105, 106, 120,
287–289 123n47
perfective past 35n99, 54, 55, 254–263, ל"י9, 53, 55, 58, 59, 65, 76n14, 103–106,
265, 269n319, 270n321 120–123, 159–161, 163, 166, 168–178,
rection 195n37, 196n40, 218, 239, 241, 181–186
243n235 י/ ע"ו14, 76n14, 159–161, 163, 166, 170,
stative 76, 124n50, 145n115, 260n285 171, 174–176
516 subject index
( ע"עsee also verb[al]: geminate) 59, o 9, 72n1, 73–78, 97n71, 99n78, 173n51,
76n14 197, 364
פ"י76n14 u 13, 72n1, 73, 76n17, 99n78, 129, 130,
פ"נ74–75, 76n14, 328n96 173n51
vernacular (see also colloquial; non-literary; ḥataf pataḥ 126n55
popular speech; spoken) 22–25, 44, ḥiriq 92
64, 118, 128, 134, 137, 146, 147, 151, 169n, 170, pataḥ 92, 126n55, 154n31, 155n37
175, 192, 200, 202, 222, 256, 270, 271, 371 qamaṣ 126n55, 148, 150n15, n18, 155n37
version 5, 7n, 26, 31–33, 34n96, 35n97, segol 104n93, 295n4
36, 43, 68, 71, 81n28, 87n40, 90, 94, 97, 107, ṣere 104n93, 112n, 295n4
111n16, 154, 161n5, 171, 180, 211, 212n94, 244, Vulgate (see also Latin) 43n117, 154n29,
305, 322, 324, 335n113, 339, 356, 357n6, 359n 157n42, 295n3, n5, 311n39, 339
vocabulary (see also lexicon) 10, 16, 41, War Scroll 39n108
49n128, 52, 321 waw ( ;וw) 72n1, 76, 97n71, 99n78, 171,
vocalization (see also pointing) 13, 173n51, 186n91, 193n23, 197, 266, 268,
32–33n93, 87n40, 92, 100n81, 103–106, 112n, 269n320, 271
113n19, 118, 123n47, 124n50, 126n55, 127, 130, conjunctive/simple 173n50, 230n157,
135n88, 148, 149n8, 153n28, 154n31, 155n37, 255, 271
156, 158–160, 166, 167, 172n41, 174, 178n67, conversive/consecutive 9, 62n,
181n76, n78, 193n23, n24, 194nn27–29, 173n50, 230n157
195n37, 197, 201, 215n106, n109, n111, (way)yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (way)yiqṭol)
281n349, 284n358, 295, 298n9, 340n135 wayyiqṭol (see verb[al]: wayyiqṭol)
vocalizer (see also amanuensis; compiler; weak verb (see verb[al]:weak)
copyist; editor; scribe; writer) 130n73, we + infinitive absolute (see verb[al]: we +
193n24, 201n49 infinitive absolute)
volition(al) 61n8, 159 weqaṭal (see verb[al]: weqaṭal)
Vorlage 71, 82, 97, 186, 237, 254, 297, 356, (we)qaṭal (see verb[al]: (we)qaṭal)
357n4, n6, 365, 372 we+qaṭal (see verb[al]: we+qaṭal)
vowel 2, 13, 19, 72, 74, 75, 77, 92, 93n59, West Semitic (see Semitic: West)
97n71, 99n78, 104n93, 112, 113, 116, 118, 120, (we-)X+yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (we-)X+yiqṭol)
121n36, 124n50, 126n55, 130, 135n88, we-yiqṭol (see verb[al]: we-yiqṭol)
145n118, 148, 149n7, 173n50, n51, 174, 175, (we-)yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (we-)yiqṭol)
204n60 Wisdom Literature 12, 17, 26, 96, 155, 157,
anceps 112, 159n2 333, 338
final 72n1, 112, 113, 116, 118, 121n36, 129, word order (see order)
130, 132, 159, 163, 175, 177, 203 writer (see also Chronicler; amanuensis;
long 92n58, 112, 149n7, 166–167, 175 compiler; copyist; editor; scribe;
medial 72, 73, 76n17, 163n14, 173n51, vocalizer) 1, 7, 12, 16, 26, 28n84,
198 30n88, 46, 63, 72n1, 94, 167, 169, 171, 176,
short 112, 129, 159, 167, 177, 203 190, 193n24, 199, 227–230, 233, 264, 287,
a 13, 18, 113n19, 130n73, 159n2, n3, 330, 341
204n60, n58, 206 CBH/classical/early 8, 10, 45n122, 56,
å 173n51 177, 247, 249, 255n265
å� 148, 158, 203n55 LBH/late/post-exilic 8, 29, 30, 37, 44,
e 18, 92, 93n58, 94, 129n, 173n47, n49 45, 77, 84, 88n41, 149n11, 167, 169, 199,
ɛ 129n, 203n55 207, 234, 249, 257n272, 268, 367
ĕ 173n50 of Esther 246n
i 72n1, 92, 94, 112–113, 116–119, 124n50, of Jeremiah 111, 122, 127, 134, 157, 192,
129, 130, 147n127, 173n49 233, 234, 265, 313
subject index 517
of short edition 91n51, 99, 360n yiqṭol (see verb[al]: yiqṭol: full; lengthened;
of supplementary material 91n51, long; short)
364 yod ( ;יy) 9, 13, 72n1, 53, 64, 84n30, 91–94,
of the DSS 23n73 112n, 113, 115, 123, 132n78, 161n5, 171, 173n47,
of the Temple Scroll 30n88 n49, n50, 181n78, 186n91, 298n9
of the two halves of Jeremiah 66 ẓ 96
Writings 131, 156, 161n9, 162, 183, 221n130, zayin ( ;זz) 53, 55, 58
325n82 Zakkur 57n
wyqṭl (see verb[al]: wyqṭl) Zechariah 14, 29n86, 36, 39, 79, 87–88, 96,
Yahwist (J) 10n26, 36, 86n35 108, 131, 170n30, 191n18, 246, 247, 268n315,
Yahwist and Elohist (JE) 108 364n, 367, 371
yaqṭul (see verb[al]: yaqṭul) Zephaniah 10, 79, 87, 131, 136
yaqṭula (see verb[al]: yaqṭula) Zerdehnung 92n58
yaqṭulu (see verb[al]: yaqṭulu) Zinjirli 57n