Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah

Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics

Editorial Board

A.D. Rubin and C.H.M. Versteegh

VOLUME 74

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

 Ancient Hebrew Periodization
and the Language of the Book of
Jeremiah
The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition

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)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material used in this work.
In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from
copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle
other permission matters.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents

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

4.4 1cpl: ‫( אנו‬ktiv) for ‫‘ ) ֲא)נַ ְחנּו‬we’  125

4.5 3mpl: ‫ ֵה ָּמה‬and ‫‘ ֵהם‬they’  129
4.6 3mpl: ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ - and ‫ֹותם‬ ָ - ‘their’ 135
4.7 3fpl: ‫ קטלה‬for ‫  קטלו‬142
4.8 ‫( זאתה‬ktiv) for ‫‘ זֹאת‬this’  145
5 Nominal Morphology  148
5.1 The qå̄ṭōl (‫ ) ָקטֹול‬Nominal Pattern (for the nomen agentis)  148
5.2 The qĕṭå̄l (‫ ) ְק ָטל‬Nominal Pattern  152
6 Verbal Morphology  159
6.1 Use of the Short, Full, and Lengthened wayyiqṭol  159
6.2 Derivatives of ‫חי"י‬: Geminate versus ‫ ל"י‬Forms  181
7 Syntax  187
7.1 The Propositions ‫ ִעם‬and ‫‘ ֵאת‬with’  187
7.2 Replacement of the Preposition ‫ ֵאת‬with the Definite Direct
Object Marker ‫   ֵאת‬192
7.3 The Non-standard Use of Directional he  203
7.4 -‫ ל‬with Motion Verbs Indicating Movement toward a Place  218
7.5 Interchange of the Prepositions ‫ ַעל‬and ‫   ֶאל‬227
7.6 Accusative -‫  ל‬238
7.7 Word Order in Apposition: X ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬vs. ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X  244
7.8 Position of the Demonstrative Adjective within the Clause  251
7.9 Perfective Past weqaṭal  254
7.10 The Infinitive Absolute, Especially in Place of a Finite Verbal
Form  266
7.11 The Double Plural Construct  273
7.12 Expressions of the Type X- ְ‫ ו‬X (‫‘ )ּכֹל‬every X’  282
7.13 Excursus: Imperfectivity in Biblical Hebrew with Special Reference to
Problematic weqaṭal Forms  287
8 Lexical Features  294
8.1 ‫‘ ִּד ֵּבר‬divine word’  294
8.2 ‫ ַחיִ ל‬in the Plural  298
8.3 ‫‘ ח ִֹרים‬nobles, officers’  301
8.4 Semantic and Functional Development of the Gentilic ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫‘ י‬Judahite,
Judean, Jew(ish)’  305
8.5 Nominal ‫יֹומם‬ ָ ‘day’  314
8.6 ‫‘ ַמ ְלכּות‬kingdom, reign’  318
8.7 ‫נָ ַטר( נט"ר‬/‫‘ ) ַמ ָּט ָרה‬keep, guard’  325
8.8 ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’  332
8.9 ‫‘ ֲע ֶת ֶרת‬wealth, abundance’  336
contents vii

8.10 ‫‘ ֶּפ ָחה‬governor’ and ‫‘ * ֶסגֶ ן‬prefect’  340

8.11 ‫‘ ַרב‬great man, noble, officer’  344
8.12 ‫רּוח‬
ַ ‘cardinal direction’  347
8.13 ‫‘ ָרץ‬messenger’  352
9 The Linguistic Profiles of the Short Edition and the Supplementary
Material of Jeremiah  356
9.1 Features and Their Significance  361
9.2 Dating the Two Strata on the Basis of Their Respective Linguistic
Profiles  366
10 Conclusion  370

Bibliography  374
Abbreviations  374
Primary Sources  376
Secondary Sources  378

Index of Foreign Words and Phrases  423

Passage Index  448
Subject Index  501
Acknowledgments

Since the present work is a revised translation of my Hebrew University of Jerusalem

doctoral dissertation, it goes without saying that I would like to thank here all whom I
acknowledged in that study. More specifically, at this juncture I would like to highlight
Dr. Randall Buth of the Biblical Language Center, who laid the foundation on which
all of my subsequent Hebrew studies have been based; Prof. Steven E. Fassberg of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who was immensely helpful but pleasantly non-
invasive in his capacity as my PhD supervisor and who remains a source of encour-
agement, wisdom, and knowledge; Prof. Avi Hurvitz of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, who first introduced me to the diachronic study of Hebrew and afforded me
the opportunity for hands-on research in his Late Biblical Hebrew Lexicon Project; and
Prof. Geoffrey Khan of the University of Cambridge, who, as my faculty and division
chair over the last year and more has of his own initiative supported me in my investi-
gations and writing even while actively assisting me in securing teaching and research
positions. My gratitude is also due to Stephanie Paalvast and Debbie de Wit of Brill for
their help in the publishing process, to series editor Prof. Aaron Rubin, and to the two
anonymous readers, who provided me with invaluable suggestions for improvement.
I would also like to thank my parents, my wife’s family, and our US, Italian, and Israeli
congregations for their continual, loving, and faithful support. I come now to my wife
and three children. Anna, you have been as constant, loving, and supportive a part-
ner as I could have desired. I could, of course, write a good deal more on this subject,
but to do it justice would require a work substantially longer than this already quite
lengthy study. Suffice it to say that you are truly ‫ת־ׂש ֶכל וִ ַיפת ּת ַֹאר‬ ַ ‫ ִא ָּׁשה‬. Yoni, Yoeli,
ֶ ‫טֹוב‬
and Emily, this book would almost certainly have been completed sooner had you not
been around, but I believe very strongly that it is, thanks to your presence, the prod-
uct of a more well-rounded scholar than would otherwise have been the case. Lastly,
‫אודכה אדוני כי סמכתני בעוזכה‬.
 chapter 1

Introduction1

1.1 Biblical Hebrew: Variety in the Face of Unifying Forces

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.

1.2 Fundamental Difficulties in the Description of Biblical Hebrew

Given the basic linguistic variety just discussed, it is not unreasonable to

assume the theoretical possibility of distinguishing between biblical texts
from different periods, regions, and registers. However, what seems so simple
in theory is exceedingly complicated in practice. As is well known, the evi-
dence on which a description of BH must be based presents daunting chal-
lenges. Generally speaking, such challenges are part and parcel of the research
on any ancient language. First, the amount of material—both biblical and
extra-biblical—is comparatively meager, and, as such, necessarily allows for
a description of the language that is at best partial. Second, the testimony

1 This chapter is an expanded revision of Hornkohl 2013.

2 See, among others, GKC §vii; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: I 11; Bauer and Leander 1922: 25–26;
Harris 1939: 22–23; Barr 1987: 206; Knauf 1990; Rendsburg 1990a: 1–33; Young 1993: 76–79;
Sáens-Badillos 1993: 52; Schniedewind and Sivan 1997: 313; JM §3a; Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd 2008: I 45–48, 58–60, 173–179; Blau 2010: §1.2.2.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_��2

2 chapter 1

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).

1.3 Historical Development as a Factor in Biblical Hebrew Variety

1.3.1 History of Research

Talmudic writings already testify to an awareness of BH linguistic variety
stemming from diachronic development.4 Yet it was only in the 17th century
that this knowledge was put to use for the dating of biblical compositions of
unknown chronological provenance. This was when the Dutch scholar Hugo
Grotius (1644: 434–435) cited language as chief among his reasons for reject-
ing the Solomonic authorship of Qohelet. As proof Grotius noted the book’s
frequent use of words characteristic of late compositions, like Daniel, Ezra,

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

10 Rooker 1990: 29–30; Hurvitz 1997b: 83–84.

11 Kutscher 1974; Qimron 1986. A thorough, diachronically sensitive study of the DSS biblical
scrolls has yet to be undertaken. However, a preliminary survey reveals that, outside of
purely orthographical phenomena (which are not always easy to filter out), where the two
corpora differ in terms of a diachronically significant feature, the MT more often than the
DSS text has the typologically earlier feature. This is significant, but such a general picture
requires further refinement, as the manuscripts of individual books must be compared
in their MT and Judean Desert forms. It is true that the Hebrew of the DSS sometimes
exhibits linguistic phenomena that appear to be typologically earlier than those standard
in BH, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Also, the typologically earlier
feature is not necessarily the most authentic, but may result from a scribal penchant for
harmonization. Finally, not every linguistic difference between the two corpora is given
to a diachronic explanation.
12 It thus seems that the textual tradition preserved in manuscripts of the Masoretic type is
at least as old as those represented by the Hebrew sources that stood behind the Ancient
Greek translation (commonly known as the Septuagint; henceforward ‘Greek’), even if
the oldest complete Masoretic manuscript, i.e., Codex Leningrad (MS Firk. I B 19a), is hun-
dreds of years more recent than the earliest extant complete Greek manuscripts (Codices
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both dated to the 4th century ce).
13 Especially noteworthy are synagogue inscriptions and the medieval manuscripts known
as Kaufmann (A50), Parma A (de Rossi 138), Parma B (de Rossi 497), Lowe (or Cambridge;
introduction 5

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.

1.3.2.1 Criteria for Identifying Late Biblical Hebrew Linguistic Traits

A given linguistic feature must satisfy three criteria to be considered distinc-
tively characteristic of LBH.

1.3.2.1.1 Late Biblical Distribution

The prerequisite for consideration as a linguistic feature distinctively charac-
teristic of LBH is a given element’s exclusively (or predominantly) late distri-
bution within the Bible. However, a characteristically late element’s sporadic
appearance in presumed early material (including early inscriptions) does not
automatically disqualify it from consideration, since a form used rarely in one
phase of a language may become especially characteristic of a later phase.15

1.3.2.1.2 Linguistic Opposition

An element’s exclusively (or predominantly) late distribution in the Hebrew
Bible is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for classification as a linguistic
feature distinctively characteristic of LBH. It must also be shown that its

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.

1.3.2.1.3 Extra-biblical Corroboration

A given late element is considered particularly characteristic of LBH only if it is
also employed in late non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-biblical sources,
such as the book of Ben Sira, the DSS, rabbinic literature, BA, the Aramaic
targums, the Syriac Peshiṭta, or epigraphic and documentary sources of the
Second Temple Period.16 This criterion serves to eliminate from consideration
possibly idiosyncratic linguistic features typical of certain biblical writers’
individual or even corporate styles that were not, however, characteristic of
post-exilic Hebrew in general.

1.3.2.2 The Linguistic Dating of Chronologically Problematic Texts:

Accumulation
Finally, a given composition of unknown date may be judged late only if
its language exhibits an accumulation of linguistic features distinctively

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

characteristic of LBH, the presence of which cannot otherwise be explained

(e.g., due to issues of dialect, register, genre, literary strategy, or editorial/scribal
intervention). Conversely, a text lacking such an accumulation is judged to be
early, i.e., pre-exilic.
While there is general consensus that texts exhibiting an accumulation
of characteristically late linguistic features must be dated to the post-exilic
period,17 the corollary claim, namely, that the identification of classical texts
may be established on the basis of their general lack of such a concentration, is
perhaps the most controversial aspect of Hurvitz’ approach (see below, §‎1.5.1).
It should be noted that no methodology of comparable rigor exists for the
identification of ABH texts.18 This is due mainly to the lack of a Hebrew cor-
pus objectively datable to the pre-classical period on non-linguistic grounds.
Logically, whereas an otherwise unexplained accumulation of late features
is incontrovertible evidence of late provenance, a similar accumulation of
archaic features is more ambiguous, since classical (and even late) writers
could employ archaisms atypical of their own linguistic milieu.19 It is often
difficult to distinguish between the truly archaic and the merely archaistic, i.e.,
the authentic use of elements characteristic of the pre-classical age versus the
contrived use of obsolete forms in imitation of pre-classical style.20

1.3.3 The Historical Phases of Biblical Hebrew in Detail

1.3.3.1 Archaic Biblical Hebrew
There is widespread scholarly consensus that certain linguistic elements espe-
cially characteristic of the pre-classical phases of BH are preserved in biblical
poetry, particularly in a few works thought to be relatively early,21 though it
should be admitted that the dating—linguistic or otherwise—of such texts

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

As mentioned above, it is difficult to prove the pre-classical status of

a given biblical portion on the basis of its language, as it is not always
possible to discern between linguistic phenomena that reflect authentically
early provenance and those employed by classical or post-classical scribes
to lend their works an air of elevated antiquity, in imitation of archaic style.
Given that poetic style often incorporates vocabulary and grammar charac-
teristic of bygone days, it is to be expected that biblical poetry would preserve
many pre-classical features, even if the majority of it may have been written in
the classical or post-classical period (see below, §‎1.4.4, for further discussion of
genre as a source of linguistic variation).

1.3.3.2 Classical (or Standard) Biblical Hebrew

CBH (or SBH) is generally defined as the language of biblical and extra-biblical
material from the First Temple Period (10th[?]–6th centuries bce): the bulk of
the Pentateuch;26 the Deuteronomistic History (i.e., Joshua–Kings); with some
hesitation, due to the difficulty of dating poetry, ‘First Isaiah’ (Isa 1–39), Hosea,
Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, various Psalms; and
the relevant epigraphic material.27 The sporadic appearance of a characteristi-
cally late feature in a CBH work is not sufficient to prove late provenance, since
an early writer could conceivably have employed a feature extant but atypical
of his time, which would only later gain wider currency. Some CBH works also
apparently contain late glosses and/or longer interpolations, the language of
which is demonstrably later than that of the work as a whole (e.g., the editorial
framework in certain of the prophetic books). For the characteristic features of
CBH the reader may consult the relevant lexicons and grammars as well as the
CBH alternatives in §‎1.3.3.1 above and §‎1.3.3.3 below.

1.3.3.3 Late Biblical Hebrew

LBH is evident to different degrees in texts the content of which dates
them unequivocally to the Persian Period or beyond, that is to the period
extending from the end of the 6th century bce. However, it is exhibited in its

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

1.3.3.3.1 External Influence

External influence on LBH resulted mainly from the dominance of Imperial
Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic were related languages, various dialects of
which were spoken by neighboring peoples, and were likely mutually influen-
tial from the earliest period of contact between their speakers. However, there
is no denying that Hebrew texts from the post-exilic period exhibit a marked
increase in Aramaic influence in comparison to earlier texts, a development

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

34 Kutscher 1982: §106.

35 Driver 1882; Nöldeke 1903; Hurvitz 1968; 1969b; 2003; Pat-El 2012: 246–248.
36 Kutscher 1961a:21–24; Rabin 1962: 1079; Hurvitz 1974a:17a; Seow 1996: 647; Eskhult 2003:
12–14; cf. Young 1993: 69–71. It is not inconceivable that the odd Persian word found its way
into Hebrew already in the classical period (consider, for example, Hurvitz’ [1983a:218]
hesitation regarding the occurrence of ‫‘ ַּפ ְר ֵּדס‬park, orchard, garden’ in Song 4.13). Be that
introduction 13

1.3.3.3.2 Internal Developments

Not every linguistic development distinguishing LBH from CBH came about
as a result of external influence. In some cases it would seem that the impetus
for change came from within the language, often in the form of analogical
pressure. A clear case of late internal development in LBH and, especially, RH
is the nufʿal passive pattern, which arose in analogy to the u–a vowel pattern in
other passive binyanim (i.e., puʿal and hufʿal) as a more transparently passive
form than nifʿal, e.g., ‫נּוּלדּו‬
ְ ‘they were born’ (1 Chr 3.5; 20.8) (for nifʿal ‫נֹולדּו‬
ְ or the
obsolete qal internal passive ‫)יֻ ְּלדּו‬.

1.3.3.3.3 Developments of Unknown Origin or Reflecting Multiple Factors

In certain instances it is difficult to ascertain why a given linguistic develop-
ment occurred. In others there would seem to have been a convergence of
factors. For example, while the term ‫‘ ַמ ְלכּות‬kingdom, reign’ (like other nouns
ending in ‫ּות‬-) seems to have been part of the ancient Hebrew lexicon from ear-
liest times, it did not become a particularly productive lexeme until the post-
exilic period, and this probably under the influence of Aramaic, in which it was
standard for the relevant meanings (see below, §‎8.6). In this case, Aramaic was
not responsible for the introduction of a late feature, but certainly played a sig-
nificant role in its increased usage in later periods. Consider also the redundant
employment of the plural morpheme -‫ֵ◌י‬- before the 3pl possessive suffixes
on plural forms ending in ‫ֹות‬-, e.g., ‫בֹותם‬ָ ‫יהם > ֲא‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא‬. There is little doubt that
ֶ ‫בֹות‬
the insertion of the second and superfluous plural morpheme -‫ֵ◌י‬- is an early
development born out of analogy to plural forms with the ‫ִ◌ים‬- ending, e.g.,
‫יהם‬ֶ ‫ ַמ ְל ֵּכ‬, since the phenomenon in question is documented in texts generally
considered classical. Be that as it may, the fact that Aramaic used the 3mpl pos-
sessive suffix ‫הֹון‬- with all nominal forms may have been a contributing factor
to the increased employment of forms like ‫בֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא‬in post-exilic Hebrew texts
(see below, §‎4.6).

1.3.3.3.4 Characteristic Late Biblical Hebrew Features

Examples of characteristically late features are seen in the following categories:

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);

as it may, the unmistakable concentration of Persian words in post-exilic texts is a telling

fact; see below, §‎1.5.4.
14 chapter 1

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

1.3.3.4 Transitional Biblical Hebrew

Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH) refers to the language of compositions that
date to a period extending from the close of the First Temple Period, through
the Exile, until the period of the Restoration, i.e., a span of time approximately
coterminous with, but somewhat longer than, the 6th century bce. Such works
apparently include the final chapters of the book of Kings; ‘Second Isaiah’ (Isa
40–66); Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi; and Lamentations.39

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

TBH consists of an admixture of a dominant component of CBH with forerun-

ners of the inner Hebrew developments and results of foreign influence more
characteristic of LBH. In some cases the persistent use of classical features in
TBH material clearly distinguishes it from LBH sources, e.g., the preference for
‫( ֵאת‬for ‫‘ ) ִעם‬with’ (see below, §‎7.1). A few cases of mixed usage also appear to be
particularly characteristic of compositions from the transitional period, e.g.,
the particular distribution of the 1cs pronominal forms ‫ ֲאנִ י‬and ‫( ָאנ ִֹכי‬see below,
§‎4.1) and the use of both the short and long theophoric suffixes in names
like ‫יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬/‫( יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬see below, §‎3.5). For the most part, however, the distinction
between TBH and CBH, on the one hand, and between TBH and LBH, on the
other, is one of degree.
As in LBH, the late linguistic features characteristic of TBH run the entire
gamut, but grammatical development is often more obvious than lexical
expansion. It is also significant that TBH compositions lack Persian loan-
words.40 In many cases TBH reveals the beginning of a trend (sometimes even
a lone example) later to become more prevalent in LBH; occasionally, how-
ever, further usage is unattested until post-biblical Hebrew, e.g., ‫( אנו‬for ‫) ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬
‘we’ (Jer 42.6; ktiv; see below, §‎4.4); ‫ּומּפֹה‬ ִ  . . . ‫( ִמּפֹה‬for ‫ּומּזֶ ה‬
ִ  . . . ‫‘ ) ִמּזֶ ה‬on this
side . . . and on that side’ (Ezek 40.10), etc. TBH texts also occasionally contain
sub-standard, colloquial elements that were never to take hold in later strata
of the language.
Obviously, if one is to adopt Hurvitz’ general methodology for purposes
of the identification of linguistic features distinctively characteristic of TBH,

‘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.

1.3.3.5 Biblical Texts with Chronologically Problematic Linguistic Profiles

Finally, there are works the language of which defies straightforward attempts
at dating, including Jonah, many of the Psalms, Proverbs, the poetic sections
of Job, Song of Songs, and Ruth (though 4.7 is clearly late).41 In some cases the
difficulty arises from the brief span of the text, which is too limited to give a
representative picture of the writer’s linguistic milieu. In other cases an accu-
mulation of non-standard features obtains, but is not unambiguously attribut-
able to late provenance or can be reasonably explained otherwise.

1.4 Non-Diachronic Factors and Linguistic Variety in the Hebrew Bible

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.

1.4.1 Personal or Corporate Style

The appearance of a non-standard linguistic feature may be idiosyncratic to
a specific author’s personal style but more generally uncharacteristic of con-
temporary usage. For example, despite sporadic occurrences of the qĕṭå̄l nomi-
nal pattern in presumed early literature, the marked increase in its use in late
works (probably under Aramaic influence) qualifies it as a characteristic fea-
ture of post-exilic Hebrew. However, a probable exception to this late trend is
the frequent (13x) and apparently classical use of the keyword ‫‘ ְׁש ָאר‬remnant’
in Isaiah (1–39). Isaiah’s fondness for this particular lexeme is doubly unique.
First, no other pre-exilic text exhibits a comparable accumulation of this word
or pattern. Second, (‘First’) Isaiah shows no fondness for the qĕṭå̄l pattern in
general (or for other late features), but only for the word ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬. Thus, (‘First’)

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

1.4.2 Regional Dialects (Especially Northern, i.e., Israelian, Biblical

Hebrew)
The modern dominance in some countries of relatively monolithic, trans-
regional languages (such as English, French, Spanish, etc.), as opposed to a
situation characterized by a multiplicity of regional dialects, is evidently a
rather recent turn of events, due in part to political developments and in part
to modern innovations, such as public education, mass media, and ease of
travel. Despite these leveling factors, however, regional dialects survive and, in
some places, thrive. A priori, then, it seems reasonable to assume the existence
of regional dialects in ancient Israel.
Scholars generally agree on the existence in the First Temple Period of a
Judahite or Jerusalemite dialect in central Canaan, which probably exerted
profound influence on the literary register in which most of the extant biblical

42 Kutscher 1982: §103.

43 Consider, for instance, Prov 31.1–9, with ‫( ָּבר‬for ‫ ) ֵּבן‬in v. 1 (3x) and the plural ending ‫ִ◌ין‬-
(for ‫ִ◌ים‬-) in v. 3.
44 E.g., Yoder 2000: 17–48.
45 See, e.g., 1 Kgs 5.10; Jer 49.7; Obad 8; Dan 2.12, et passim.
46 Tur-Sinai 1965: 594; Kutscher 1982: §100; 2007: 346–347; Young 1993: 138–140; Hurvitz 2003:
32–33; see also below, §1.4.5.
47 See below, §2, and especially §2.1.1.3.
18 chapter 1

text is written, along with traces of a northern, Israelian dialect. However,

while it is possible to glean a certain amount of information on actual dia-
lectal differences between these two regional varieties from the available
biblical and extra-biblical sources, the paucity of Hebrew material of unde-
niably northern extraction precludes certainty regarding all but a few dialec-
tal features. The Samaria Ostraca show that the northern dialect of ancient
Hebrew, in contrast to the standard dialect, shared certain features with
Aramaic and Phoenician, e.g., contraction of the diphthong ay > ē (or a [?]) in
words such as ‫‘ בת‬house’ (for Tiberian ‫ ) ַּביִת‬and ‫‘ ינ‬wine’ (for Tiberian ‫)יַ יִ ן‬,48 and
with Moabite, e.g., retention of the feminine nominal suffix ‫ת‬- (for Tiberian
‫ָ◌ה‬-) and the form of the word ‫‘ שת‬year’ (for Tiberian ‫) ָׁשנָ ה‬, reflecting assimila-
tion of the nun and a syllable structure different from that known from SBH.
Turning to biblical literature, while notoriously difficult to explain in terms
of dialect geography,49 the shibboleth-sibboleth episode of Jdg 12.1–7 clearly
provides evidence of ancient awareness of regional linguistic diversity. There is
also widespread consensus that many of the non-standard linguistic features in
the Song of Deborah (Jdg 5) reflect an early northern dialect of Hebrew, among
them the following: the relativizing particle -‫( ַׁש‬v. 7 bis); the 2fs qaṭal suffix ‫ּתי‬- ִ
(for ‫ּת‬-
ְ ) in ‫‘ ַק ְמ ִּתי‬you (fs) arose’ (v. 7 bis); the plural suffix ‫ִ◌ין‬- (for ‫ִ◌ים‬-) in ‫ִמ ִּדין‬
‘cloths, blankets, rugs’ (v. 10); the root ‫( תנ"י‬for ‫ )שנ"י‬in ‫‘ יְ ַתּנּו‬they (would) repeat,
chant’ (v. 11); the form ‫‘ ָמ ֲח ָקה‬she struck’ (for ‫ ; ָמ ֲח ָצה‬v. 26);50 possibly also the
pronunciation ‫‘ יְ ַרד‬he descended’ (for ‫ ;יָ ַרד‬v. 13 bis), though many derive from
‫ רד"י‬and translate along the lines of ‘rule’. Northern linguistic features have also
been identified in the Elijah-Elisha cycle in the book of Kings51 and elsewhere.52

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

Linguistic diversity stemming from dialectal differences is an important factor to

consider in the diachronic study of BH, because, among other things, both LBH
and (early) northern BH exhibit features common in Aramaic. Consequently,
what one scholar considers characteristically late may be deemed early and
northern by another. For example, most scholars consider the non-standard
linguistic features in Jonah, the Song of Songs, and Qohelet to be indicative
of late provenance, but some explain the non-standard features as pre-exilic
and dialectal.53 Conceivably, a given feature may be both late and northern.54
In sum, consideration of the possibility that linguistic variation in BH stems
from dialectal diversity is a sine qua non of sound diachronic analysis.
The explanatory power of arguments based on the dialect geography of
ancient Canaan must not, however, be overestimated. While the expectation
that biblical texts dealing with diverse regions might exhibit dialectal differ-
ences is entirely reasonable, the whole issue is fraught with uncertainty. It is
very difficult to identify distinctively dialectal features and, thus, to discern
characteristically dialectal texts. Theoretically, it is logical to assume that a text
focusing on the north was penned by a northerner and that the text’s language
should reflect, at least to some extent, the distinctive traits of the northern dia-
lect. Thus, any non-standard linguistic element occurring in a story or poetic
work dealing with the north may be considered a feature especially charac-
teristic of the northern dialect. In practice, however, the extent to which the
language of biblical texts set in the north actually reflects the particular idiom
of northern climes remains unclear.

1.4.2.1 Linguistic Leveling

First, there is no doubt that the biblical text has undergone a measure of
‘linguistic leveling’ (see above, §‎1.1), so that some amount of the dialectal dif-
ferences that must have originally characterized texts from different regions,
particularly that phonological portion manifest in the orthography, was elimi-
nated by editors and scribes in Jerusalem in the process of compilation and
transmission. It is likely that a further portion is masked by the Tiberian vowel
points, which reflect a remarkably uniform pronunciation that cannot possi-
bly have been shared by all the texts of the Hebrew Bible at the place and time
each was composed. If so, then, despite the renowned conservatism of the
Masoretic scribes and pointers, it is possible that the dialectal variation that

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.

1.4.2.2 The Problem of Poetry

A second difficulty stems from the fact that a large percentage of the bibli-
cal texts thought to be northern are poetic compositions, such as The Song
of Deborah (Jdg 5; see above, n. 50), The Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49),57 The Last
Words of David (2 Sam 23.1–7),58 certain Psalms,59 and the book of Hosea.60
Evidence drawn from poetry is problematic for two reasons: first, it is diffi-
cult to determine whether the presence of non-standard linguistic features in
poetry dealing with the north derives from dialectal factors or, alternatively,
from stylistic factors. Indeed, even biblical poetry not considered northern
regularly exhibits linguistic phenomena that deviate from the conventions of
the standard language of biblical prose. The fact, then, that a unique linguistic
form occurs in a poetic piece dealing with the north does not necessarily imply
that the element in question is distinctively northern. Second, there is doubt
regarding the degree to which the language of northern poetry is typical of the
language of northern prose or of the northern spoken register.

1.4.2.3 Methodological Problems

An additional difficulty involves methodology. Persuaded of the notion that
any text dealing with the north is a potential repository of forms characteristic
of the northern idiom, several scholars have attempted to write a lexicon and
grammar of this dialect.61 Subsequently, on the basis of this lexicon and gram-
mar, some have sought to assign northern provenance to biblical compositions
of questionable geographical extraction. Special mention should be made of

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

1.4.3 Registers (Especially Spoken Vernacular and Diglossia)

BH was a literary register65 that almost certainly differed to some extent from
forms of the contemporary vernacular.66 The extent of any such difference,
however, is unclear, since, in the nature of things, unambiguous evidence for
the spoken register of an ancient language preserved only in written form
is hard to come by. Quoted speech in the Bible may theoretically preserve
authentic colloquial features,67 but it is often couched in literary, even poetic
style unlikely to reflect everyday speech.68 Consequently, most of the available
evidence for ancient colloquial Hebrew derives from extra-biblical correspon-
dence and other non-literary documents from the biblical and post-biblical
period, though it should be borne in mind that the language of these, too, as
written artifacts, may not accurately mirror forms of contemporary spoken

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

In other words, the post-biblical period was characterized by a situation of

diglossia,74 in which a register similar to RH served as the spoken medium and
one similar to DSS Hebrew as the literary language. To what extent this situation
of diglossia can be projected back into the linguistic reality of the First Temple
Period is unclear. Some scholars are confident that the situation of diglossia of
the Second Temple Period provides a window into a similar situation in First
Temple times. Thus Rendsburg (1990a: 22–25) has proposed a methodology
according to which colloquial linguistic elements can be detected in BH. The
criteria are that the element be (a) rare in BH, but common in RH, and (b)
lacking or rare in post-exilic literary sources (Ben Sira, Daniel, the DSS), and
(c) that a similar case of colloquial and literary alternatives exists in a related
language (e.g., Arabic or Ethiopic).
Notwithstanding the apparent logic of the guidelines just described, it is
clear that they cannot provide unequivocal answers to many of the complex
questions related to the issue. An early form of RH was indeed a spoken ver-
nacular and a form of Hebrew similar to that used in the majority of the DSS
apparently served as a contemporaneous literary medium. It is reasonable to
assume (a) that some situation of diglossia, according to which the spoken
language differed to some extent from the written language, also existed dur-
ing the First Temple Period, (b) that BH, despite its literary nature, yet pre-
serves linguistic elements especially characteristic of the spoken register,
and (c) that RH, the vernacular of the post-exilic period, along with situa-
tions of diglossia in other Semitic languages, may prove useful in discerning
instances in which spoken elements penetrated the otherwise literary regis-
ter of BH. But one must exercise great caution in determining which specific
elements might characterize a colloquial form of First Temple Hebrew and
admit the very speculative nature of any conclusions drawn. It is well known
that the literary register of ancient Hebrew saw significant development over
the course of time, so that the language of the DSS differs from LBH, which,
in turn, differs from CBH and the language of First Temple inscriptions.75 If
such marked development could take place within a literary register—and
generally literary registers change more slowly than their spoken counter-
parts—then how much more must the spoken form(s) of ancient Hebrew
have developed and changed over the centuries. With this in mind, the project
of determining the customs of the spoken Hebrew of the 6th century bce on

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

76 Blau 1998: 13.

26 chapter 1

simply features common to both languages, typical of Aramaic, rare in Hebrew,

employed for poetic variety or effect.77 Because non-standard linguistic ele-
ments in ancient Hebrew poetry are often given to several alternative (and
often contradictory) explanations, great caution must be exercised in the
dating of poetic language and texts.78 Moreover, as previously observed, the
eastern associations of Wisdom Literature may also have favored the use of
non-standard, especially Aramaic forms (§‎1.4.1).

1.4.5 Literary Strategies

On occasion biblical writers exploited linguistic diversity for literary purposes,
by adapting a text’s language to fit a (contrived) foreign audience, to reflect
the speech of a foreigner, or to simulate a foreign setting.79 Obviously, sound
diachronic analysis must recognize the possibility that a certain amount of lin-
guistic variation in the Bible reflects the writers’ conscious use of non-standard
language for literary effect.

1.4.6 Literary and Textual Development

Though the surprising degree of general linguistic uniformity exhibited
throughout the biblical text no doubt stems from the fact that its individual
component parts were edited and copied by scribes who engaged in some
amount of linguistic leveling, thereby obliterating a percentage of the linguis-
tic variety expected in such a composite work (see above, §‎1.1), it almost goes
without saying that these same scribes may also have been responsible for the
introduction of a certain amount of linguistic variation, especially in the form
of textual corruptions. A potential example involves the occurrence of the
term ‫‘ ְק ָרב‬battle’ in MT 2 Sam 17.11. Since virtually all other instances of this spe-
cific term, along with most cases of the qĕṭå̄l nominal pattern in general, come
in indisputably late compositions, and since the other Ancient Versions point
unanimously to alternative readings at 2 Sam 17.11, chances are good that it
represents a scribal corruption (see below, §‎5.2, and especially n. 29). Likewise,
the only example of a theophoric name ending in the long suffix ‫יָ הּו‬- in the
approximately 260 potential cases in Ezra and Nehemiah comes in the form

77 Tur-Sinai 1965: 593–594.

78 Hurvitz 1968: 236. For attempts to date poetic texts linguistically see Hurvitz 1965; 1967;
1972; Polzin 1967; Robertson 1972; Notarius 2013.
79 Baumgartner 1959: 228 n. 3; Kaufman 1988: 54–56; Rendsburg 1995; 2013b; Hurvitz 2003:
31–32. The use of such literary strategies has been identified in Gen 24 (Rendsburg 2002a),
Isa 21.11–14 (Tur-Sinai 1965: 594; Rabin 1967: 304–305; Kutscher 1982: §100; Kaufman 1988:
54–56; Rendsburg 1995: 181–182), and certain prophetic oracles directed against foreign
nations (Rendsburg 1995: 184–188), to list but a few examples.
introduction 27

‫ 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).

1.5 Recent Criticism of the Diachronic Approach to Biblical Hebrew

and the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts

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

80 To be precise, the approach in question denies neither the historical development of

ancient Hebrew, nor the chronological variety found in the Hebrew Bible, nor that the
distinction between what are traditionally termed CBH and LBH, for example, has a dia-
chronic dimension. Its principal objection is rather to the viability of language typology
as a reliable indicator of date of composition. For details, see below.
81 The likes of Levine (1983), Knauf (1990), P. Davies (1992: 102–105), Cryer (1994),
T. Thompson (1995: 110), and Blenkinsopp (1996) represent attempts to undermine spe-
cific aspects of the accepted diachronic approach or its ramifications for the dating of
individual biblical compositions. See the responses to Levine 1983 in Hurvitz 1983c, to
Cryer 1994 in Ehrensvärd 1997, and to Blenkinsopp 1996 in Milgrom 1999 and Hurvitz
2000b.
28 chapter 1

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

1.5.1 The Post-Exilic Emulation of Classical Style

In the opinion of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, one of the central claims
of supporters of the accepted diachronic approach to BH—namely, that late
writers were incapable of producing texts written in pure CBH, untainted by
the linguistic developments and innovations of the linguistic milieu in which
they lived and worked—is an unfounded assumption. Against this stands the
alternative hypothesis, that some late writers, perhaps even many, were indeed
adept practitioners of the classical idiom, so that the main difference between
works written in what is called ‘CBH’ and those written in what is called ‘LBH’ is
merely stylistic: a tendency for conservatism versus a penchant for innovation.85
In reality, however, the idea that late writers could not help but betray the
linguistic norms of the era in which they wrote emerges quite clearly from
the relevant texts, whereas unambiguous documentary evidence that they
could successfully imitate classical style is lacking. The accepted asser-
tion regarding the inability of late writers to mimic classical linguistic style
is a conclusion firmly supported by actual biblical and extra-biblical texts
unanimously dated to the post-exilic period, as these consistently manifest
an accumulation of linguistic features especially characteristic of post-clas-
sical Hebrew,86 an accumulation not found in texts of assuredly early date
(e.g., pre-exilic inscriptions).87 To be sure, from the perspective of logical

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

argumentation, any attempt to prove a negative—in this case, that no late

writer could write in passable CBH—is difficult (but not necessarily impos-
sible); but, until unequivocal evidence to the contrary is adduced, the burden
of proof must lie with those who suppose that late writers were able to imitate
the classical style without betraying their late context.88

1.5.2 The Reliability of the Masoretic Textual Tradition as a Linguistic

Witness
Frequently, opponents of the accepted diachronic approach voice doubts as to
the reliability of the Masoretic textual tradition as a witness to authentic BH,
criticizing the naïveté of those who seek to employ it as a basis for diachronic

considered especially characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew in the inscriptions. As he him-

self points out, however, while “[i]t is initially quite surprising to see how many links can
be suggested between the inscriptions and LBH . . . this discovery can be seen in harmony
with the biblical evidence. Scholars of LBH have always admitted that LBH forms could be
found in EBH works. It is only the accumulation of such features which marks a work as
LBH” (ibid.: 298–299). He notes further that “[t]he accumulation of LBH forms discussed
in this section do [sic] not, in my judgment, indicate a special relationship between the
inscriptions and LBH. . . . [O]ne does not find a concentration of LBH features in one
inscription comparable with the core LBH texts. . . . [T]he inscriptions are like SBH in that
they avoid a heavy concentration of LBH features” (ibid.: 299) and finally “[t]he generally
close link between the language of the Bible and that of the inscriptions shows that it is
plausible that something similar to SBH was the language of the monarchic period. The
inscriptional evidence is not drastically inconsistent with a pre-exilic origin of those bib-
lical books whose contents suggest such a dating” (ibid.: 308).
88 Hurvitz 2000a: 154ff. Cf. Ehrensvärd (2003: 165, n. 8), who quotes Blau (1997: 28) regarding
late writers of Arabic, who were capable of mimicking Classical Arabic without anachro-
nistic errors. This state of affairs apparently proves the theoretical possibility of late imi-
tation of classical language. However, there is a crucial difference between the situation
in ancient Arabic and that in ancient Hebrew, namely, that there exists classically formu-
lated Arabic material that can be securely dated to the late period on the basis of non-lin-
guistic evidence (such as a colophon mentioning the date of the composition or the name
of the writer), but no classically formulated Hebrew material securely dateable to the late
period on non-linguistic grounds. To be sure, the markedly late character of the Hebrew
of late writers is evident even in cases in which they obviously strove to simulate the
classical style in order that their works might be considered authoritative (Hurvitz 2000a:
155–156), for example, the writer of the Temple Scroll (11Q19), who presents the content of
his work as the words of God revealed to Moses at Sinai (Qimron 1978b; 1980a: 239ff; Yadin
1983: I 34), or the poet responsible for the apocryphal Ps 151 (11Q5 28), a Hebrew copy of
which was found at Qumran, which is sung by King David (Carmignac 1963: 377; Hurvitz
1967; Polzin 1967; Schuller 1986: 9; M. Smith 1997).
introduction 31

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

Third, literary development: due to the complicated literary character of

many biblical texts, it is doubtful whether the Masoretic textual tradition,
which reveals only the final version of most of the biblical texts, presents them
in their purest, most ancient forms, free of later additions and modifications.
At first glance, it would seem that the textual situation of the Hebrew Bible
is plagued by such complexity and doubt that the MT cannot possibly serve as
the basis for serious enquiry into ancient Hebrew as used in the biblical period.
Upon further reflection, however, it turns out that the uncertainties men-
tioned above remain to a large degree merely theoretical and that opponents
of the diachronic method have exaggerated their ramifications for diachronic
research on BH. With reference to the assumed orthographical modernization
and the possibility of a more comprehensive linguistic revision: the MT indeed
appears to have undergone a spelling update and it is possible to envision a
situation in which the scribes responsible for the revision extended their work
beyond orthographical issues to include the domains of phonology, morphol-
ogy, syntax, and lexicon. In point of fact, however, scholars who emphasize
these doubts provide few concrete examples of the phenomenon91 and, in
any case, overstate their significance with regard to the value of the linguistic
testimony furnished by the Masoretic textual tradition (and by other ancient
textual witnesses).92 The hypothesis that the MT is the product of a compre-
hensive linguistic revision should by all means be considered. However, even
if this hypothesis were proven, its relevance for the specific linguistic ele-
ments that have been classified as distinguishing features of LBH should not
be simply assumed, but tested on a case-by-case basis. For in the majority of
instances, it will be found to have little or no relevance.93

91 See especially Young 2003b: 308–309.

92 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 346–347) themselves apparently disavow the
idea of a wholesale linguistic revision, arguing instead that “scribes modified individual
linguistic elements occasionally and unsystematically” (see also Cryer 1994: 193, n. 25).
That said, certain of their statements could reasonably be interpreted as support for just
such a view, e.g., “[t]he vastly different editions of biblical books which were produced by
scribal reworking . . . raise the likelihood that all features of the biblical text were subject
to extensive editorial revision during the Second Temple Period . . .” (Young 2003b: 310).
93 At this juncture it is worthwhile to relate to the linguistic value of the Masoretic vocal-
ization. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the pointing reflects a relatively late
reading tradition that in many cases does not tally with the pronunciation reflected in
the consonantal text. On the other hand, though, it is clear that the pronunciation of this
reading tradition was no mere invention of the Masoretes, but was inherited from their
predecessors. Barr (1987: 188–222) presents a balanced discussion; see also Morag 1974a;
1974b. Cf. Lambert 1893: 55–62; Ginsberg 1934; 1936; and Hughes 1994 for specific catego-
introduction 33

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

regarding a specific linguistic feature or text.96 The concrete examples adduced

as evidence that textual problems severely distort the linguistic picture depicted
in the MT are very few indeed and, in any case, either fail to substantiate the
approach or are less than convincing.97 Occasionally, they do indicate textual

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

development, but do not come close to confirming a degree of textual instabil-

ity so severe as to render impossible serious linguistic description. Other times,
the claims are based on non-linguistic grounds of highly speculative character,
with little or no supporting documentary evidence.98 In addition, there are not
a few cases in which the treatment of a given feature suffers from superficial-
ity, rendering it of questionable scientific value or misleading.99 Lastly, even
if the high degree of textual instability posited by opponents of the accepted
diachronic approach is conceded, it is incumbent upon them to explain why,
despite all this fluidity, it is precisely the corpus of texts of indisputably late
provenance that exhibits a marked concentration of linguistic elements dis-
tinctively characteristic of post-classical Hebrew, whereas texts attributed to
the period of the Exile bear lesser accumulations, and those in which such

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

To sum up the discussion on the reliability of the MT as a witness to the

linguistic situation of ancient times: Masoretic orthography represents a com-
paratively late stage relative to the supposed date of composition for classical
biblical literature, the text that it presents is not free of errors, and it exhib-
its only the latest stage in the literary development of the composite texts
included therein. Be that as it may, it is reasonable in linguistic research to
utilize the MT as a point of departure, since its text actually exists and since
the majority of cases of doubt have no bearing on the validity of the diachronic
approach to BH. The limitations of the Masoretic textual tradition are not to
be ignored, and one may certainly profit from the use of other sources where
appropriate. However, one should refrain from exaggerating the severity of
the problems, from contenting oneself with theoretical possibilities, and from
relying on speculation when facts are available.103

1.5.3 The Concept of ‘Accumulation’

As has been stated, all Hebrew works securely datable on non-linguistic
grounds to the post-exilic period are characterized by an accumulation of lin-
guistic features especially distinctive of post-classical Hebrew. In the opinion
of Hurvitz (1973: 76), this accumulation is not given to objective statistical
quantification. This is due, at least in part, to the diverse degrees of linguistic
competence exhibited by late writers, whose skills in recreating the classical
idiom varied greatly, as well as to the extent to which each actually aimed to
imitate the classical idiom, as stylistic tendencies range from conservatism to
innovation. This is to say that post-exilic language and style are by no means
uniform, but in any case exhibit a common denominator of some concentra-
tion of characteristically late language. Several recent studies have emphasized

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

the subjectivity inherent in the non-quantifiable criterion of accumulation

employed in the standard linguistic approach to dating biblical texts, implying
its unreliability. They propose a procedure for quantification, and, on the basis
of the suggested method, purportedly demonstrate that accumulation rates
of late linguistic features among allegedly classical and post-classical mate-
rial vary widely, with core classical and post-classical corpora exhibiting the
expected high and low concentrations of late features, respectively, but with
many cases of similar rates among allegedly early and later compositions. To
their mind, these similar rates nullify the value of the criterion of accumula-
tion and, with it, the validity of the entire linguistic approach to dating.104
The aim of establishing objectively quantifiable accumulation benchmarks
is certainly commendable, but the procedure must be sensitive to an intricate
array of interrelated factors. The methodology proposed by Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvärd (2008: 129–142), which totals the number of characteristically
late linguistic features in textual selections of various pieces of biblical litera-
ture five-hundred words in length and then compares the results, is straight-
forward enough, but too simplistic for such a complex linguistic situation. The
following theoretical criticisms are followed by practical examples.
First, the proposed method fails to take into account the frequency with
which a given late linguistic element is employed in a text, since “[o]nce an
author has demonstrated the possibility of using a particular LBH feature,
there is no reason it cannot be repeated as many times as opportunity presents
itself”.105 This is true, but precludes distinguishing in a given text between rare
and uncharacteristic use of a feature and recurring and characteristic linguis-
tic predilections. For this reason, a sound statistical approach must recognize
and properly weight the repeated use of a late linguistic feature in compari-
son to its sporadic use.106 The failure to make allowance for frequency also
prevents the detection of linguistic trends, e.g., the increased usage of a given
feature along the axis of time, from classical to late sources.
Second, the procedure does not distinguish between diachronic and non-
diachronic factors, such as regional dialect, social register, literary device,
individual or corporate style, and scribal or editorial intervention, but consid-
ers all characteristically late features as if their presence in a given text may
be explained only on the basis of historical development. This is surprising,

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

109 See below, §‎7.9, n. 279.

110 ‫ אשיה‬in Arad 107.2 comes at the end of a line, which may have necessitated its abbrevia-
tion; the relevance of ‫ שמיה‬is questionable, as it may not in fact belong to the category of
names ending in the theophoric element. See below, §‎3.5, n. 30.
introduction 41

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].

1.5.4 The Significance of Loanwords

In the course of the history of the diachronic approach to BH a strong empha-
sis has been placed on the significance of loanwords as a reliable indicator of
lateness, especially loans from Aramaic, Akkadian, and Persian (and, in a few
doubtful cases, from Greek). Unfortunately, the identification of such loans
and their attribution to a given foreign tongue have at times been determined
rather too rashly, without due consideration having been given to alternative
explanations. Other times, unwarranted conclusions have been drawn on the
basis of genuine or alleged loanwords. A number of scholars involved in the dia-
chronic investigation of BH have criticized studies in which the identification
of loanwords was methodologically suspect and/or the associated arguments
42 chapter 1

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.

1.5.5 Classical Language in Late Texts and Late Language in Classical

Texts
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 82–87 et passim) point out, on the
one hand, that late writers continued to make use of characteristically clas-
sical elements, i.e., tried and true linguistic features alongside which newer
alternatives had already arisen, whereas, on the other, many characteristically
late features are not limited to late texts, but occur in compositions considered
classical. In their opinion, this situation militates against the accepted dia-
chronic view that distinguishes between the classical and post-classical strata

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

of BH, because—evidently to their mind—the distinction in question must be

a clearly defined border, such that late compositions consistently employ late
forms to the exclusion of their classical counterparts and classical texts are com-
pletely free of linguistic elements especially characteristic of the late period.
This view seems to reveal a flawed understanding of the historical devel-
opment of languages in general and of ancient Hebrew more specifically. On
the issue of the continued use of classical features by late writers, the facts
seem rather obvious. First, as previously observed, overall, the similarities
between CBH and LBH far outnumber the differences; in other words, inno-
vation and/or development attach to a relatively small minority of linguistic
features. Second, the process by which a linguistic innovation comes into use
in a given language need not necessarily involve the total abandonment of its
earlier alternative(s). This seems especially relevant in the case of writings of a
religious character, where a high degree of linguistic and stylistic conservatism
should come as no surprise. By way of example, in no way does the post-exilic
use of classical ‫ ֵעת‬and ‫מֹועד‬
ֵ for ‘time’ impugn the characteristically late sta-
tus of ‫זְ ַמן‬. One should thus not expect a distinction between the classical and
post-classical phases of the language whereby late writers completely forsook
classical style. On the contrary, many late writers strove to lend their works a
classical air.120
As Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 88 et passim) themselves note,
in general the difference between CBH and LBH does not involve the substi-
tution of an old element with a new one so much as the addition of a new
element to the linguistic repertoire available to late writers. This accords with
the consensus view among proponents of the standard diachronic approach,
as represented long ago by S.R. Driver (1882: 236): the historical development
of a language is gradual and, even after many years, the use of early elements
often persists—frequently alongside that of their more recent counterparts.
Above all, despite the palpable differences between CBH and LBH, it should be
borne in mind that they are historical strata of the same written language, which
was probably more stylistically conservative than the related vernacular(s).
In conclusion, the continued late appearance of classical linguistic features in
no way affects the validity of the accepted diachronic approach to BH.121

120 Greenfield and Naveh 1984: 120–122; Joosten 2012b: 285.

121 For a broad discussion and further bibliography see Hurvitz 2000b: 185–188, where it is
stressed, inter alia, that the admixture of classical and late linguistic features is character-
istic of a wide variety of post-classical works, including late biblical literature, Ben Sira,
and the DSS.
introduction 45

Turning to the problem of encountering characteristically late linguistic fea-

tures in material of apparently classical provenance: as mentioned above, the
approach of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd is hamstrung by its disregard for
the criterion of frequency. In the case of an absolute neologism, the first docu-
mented use must of necessity serve as a chronological marker (though, obvi-
ously, it is simplistic to believe that the first documented use is necessarily the
first actual usage). In the case of old words rarely employed in classical texts that
later on, perhaps due to external influence, gained currency in and, therefore,
became particularly characteristic of post-classical style, clearly the theoretical
availability of the element is much less important for arguments concerning
linguistic periodization than its characteristic, i.e., frequent, use in practice. The
unproductive appearance of a distinctively late linguistic feature in biblical
material of either presumed classical extraction or unknown date does not
constitute the characteristic usage necessary for dating either an individual
feature or a text.122 Even a writer’s frequent use of an individual late linguistic

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).

1.5.6 The Language of Texts from the Transitional Period

Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 56–57) contend that the presence
of late linguistic features in compositions from the close of the First Temple
Period and the period of the Exile fatally blurs the supposedly clear distinc-
tion between CBH and LBH. They evidently expect a sharply defined linguistic
border between the two strata. Of course, this sort of expectation is unrealistic
in the case of linguistic development. It is true that the destruction of the first
temple, the Babylonian Exile, and the Restoration were among the most influ-
ential events in the history of ancient Israel (and later Judaism), affecting the
language as well as other aspects of the culture; it is just as plain, however, that,
generally speaking, the linguistic changes associated with these events were
not instantaneous, but gradual. Indeed, scholars are agreed that the processes
that led to the transition from CBH to LBH had begun already towards the end
of the First Temple Period, i.e., around the beginning of the 6th century bce,
and continued at an accelerated pace during the Exile and Restoration, but are
recognizable especially in that material written after the Restoration, i.e., after
approximately 450 bce.123 It is therefore not surprising in the least that com-
positions from the end of the First Temple Period, from the period of the Exile,
and from the Restoration period should already exhibit linguistic tendencies
more characteristic of the corpus of indisputably late material from the post-
Restoration period. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (ibid.: 57) are aware of the
differences in frequency and accumulation of late elements in the classical,
transitional, and late corpora, but, again, deny the significance of the differ-
ences, thereby ignoring important yardsticks helpful in distinguishing the fore-
runners of linguistic tendencies later to become widespread from those that
have already become common and characteristic and, therefore, between TBH
from LBH proper.

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

1.5.7 Linguistic and Non-linguistic Research

Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: I 16, 60–62; II 1–71) reject the supposed
objectivity of the linguistic approach to the periodization of biblical literature
and demand that research of this type be based on linguistic as well as non-
linguistic evidence, the latter category including, but not limited to, literary,
theological, historical, textual, archaeological, sociological, and anthropologi-
cal evidence. To their mind the dates of composition determined on the basis
of the linguistic approach contradict many of the ‘consensus’ dates reached
on the basis of alternative approaches, so that the linguistic approach stands
in virtual isolated opposition to the rest of biblical scholarship. This presen-
tation of the scholarly landscape is arguably misleading. First, while the call
for an interdisciplinary approach is both reasonable and laudable, it should
be noted that the majority of those involved in the dating of biblical litera-
ture on non-linguistic grounds routinely disregard linguistic evidence or give it
only cursory treatment. Second, the current scholarly state of affairs is not as
straightforward as that depicted by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, i.e., with
proponents of the linguistic approach on one side of the issue and proponents
of the rest of the approaches on the other. As their own survey (2008: II 1–71)
demonstrates, there are non-linguistic arguments on every side of the dispute
and it is often difficult to find any consensus among those involved in non-
linguistic research.
For example, in their discussion of the date of the Priestly material in
the Pentateuch (= P), Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008: II 12–17) stress
the relatively recent role played by the linguistic evidence. In their estimation,
the results of certain investigations that conclude that P is composed mainly
of early material are dubious because they fly in the face of the late date
assigned to this material by most scholars. However, notwithstanding their list
of modern scholars who see in P a pre-exilic composition, Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd virtually ignore the fact that there have always been doubts regard-
ing the late dating of P along the lines of the Graf-Wellhausian Documentary
Hypothesis and that these doubts have not necessarily involved issues of
language. To this day arguments for the classical provenance of P include
both the linguistic and the non-linguistic. It is thus evident that the linguistic
approach to the periodization of biblical literature contradicts certain non-
linguistic approaches, but harmonizes quite well with others.124

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.

1.5.8 Critical Summary of the ‘Anti-linguistic’ Approach

The recent attempt to undermine the validity of the historical linguistic
approach to the periodization of biblical literature and to its results, conve-
niently represented by the recent (2008) two-volume publication of Young,
Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, raises important methodological issues and makes a
number of valid considerations and proposals.126 However, the argumentation

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

suffers from numerous fundamental flaws. In the face of an accepted theory

securely founded on an abundance of solid data, the counterarguments often
consist of little more than the suggestion of potential alternatives, which are all
too often, due to the absence of clear and concrete documentary evidence, left
in the realm of theory and conjecture. Actual examples, whether in support of
alternative approaches or against the standard diachronic model are few, often
controversial, and frequently irrelevant or unconvincing. A modest proportion
of the criticism hits the mark, especially in connection to the more facile and
shallow arguments of diachronic and non-diachronic character adduced over
the years. Even so, in the majority of these cases similar or identical points and
corrections had already been voiced by competent scholars engaged in dia-
chronic research, so that one wonders if the critics of the linguistic approach
are aware of the non-novel status of their criticism.127 More frequently, criti-
cism leveled against serious and thorough diachronic investigations reveals a
lack of understanding of the issues and/or an overly simplistic treatment of
the basic linguistic facts.128 There are also cases in which the critics ‘build a
straw man’ by presenting a weaker and more extreme version of the opposing
position than is warranted. Likewise, one must be wary of the distortion of
assertions made by proponents of the diachronic approach in support of views
that they may not hold.129

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

The standard linguistic approach to the dating of ancient Hebrew texts is

not full-proof. Nor does its implementation remove the need for interpreta-
tion and judgment, which are of necessity subjective. For this reason, there is
some room for disagreement among practitioners of this method and between
practitioners of it and adherents to alternative avenues of research, the results
of which may complement or contradict conclusions based on linguistic study.
However, despite recent attempts to undermine it, the linguistic approach to
dating remains the regnant standard among Hebraists and for some bibli-
cists as well. While there is a degree of risk and uncertainty inherent in any
research program in which subjectivity plays a part, the linguistic approach
to dating ancient Hebrew texts is certainly no more subjective than alterna-
tive approaches.130 Indeed, in the opinion of many scholars it involves a good
deal less subjectivity than competing lines of argumentation. Its repute among
Hebrew specialists and Bible scholars alike continues to make it a viable area
of research, notwithstanding the recent attacks it has endured. In light of the
current scholarly emphasis on variegated and multidisciplinary approaches to
biblical studies, the dating of biblical texts should incorporate not only non-
linguistic methods, but those linguistic methods pioneered in the 19th century
and more recently refined, but so often ignored in recent critical scholarship.
Unfortunately, a consequence of the anti-linguistic arguments reviewed above
is likely to be the conclusion, particularly among those less familiar with the
linguistic data, that language may safely be ignored when it comes to ques-
tions of periodization. However, discarding the most objective corrective to
the creative and interesting, but highly speculative, results of non-linguistic
approaches can hardly be considered a methodological improvement. What
is needed is more serious integration of linguistic and non-linguistic evidence,
lending to each no more than the amount of credence due it.

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 Language of the Book of Jeremiah

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.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_��3

52 chapter 2

While non-diachronic explanations for some of the non-standard linguistic

features in Jeremiah—dialect, register, textual corruption, literary device—
are considered in the following studies, in line with doubts regarding the cer-
tainty of their respective methodologies as outlined in the Introduction these
are often judged less convincing than diachronic explanations. The bulk of
the non-standard features in Jeremiah are here ascribed to the book’s having
been written in a transitional form of BH linking CBH and LBH, approximately
reflecting the Hebrew of the 6th century bce.

2.1 History of Research

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

2.2 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah from a Diachronic

Perspective

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.

2.2.1 Characteristically Late Linguistic Features

The lists that follow present the non-standard, i.e., non-classical, linguistic fea-
tures in the book of Jeremiah that are found exclusively or especially in LBH
and/or in other post-classical phases of ancient Hebrew.

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).

2.2.2 Differences in the Distribution Patterns of Late Features in Jeremiah

The majority of Jeremiah’s linguistic elements especially characteristic of
post-exilic Hebrew are also found both in the LBH corpus proper and in non-
Masoretic and post-biblical sources (whether Hebrew, Aramaic, or both).
Generally, use of these elements is sporadic in Jeremiah (and sometimes also
in other transitional books or earlier material) and gradually increases in post-
biblical material. In light of such a distribution pattern, the status of the rel-
evant linguistic elements as features distinctively characteristic of post-exilic
Hebrew is virtually certain. However, several linguistic phenomena appear in
Jeremiah and in extra-biblical post-exilic sources, but not in the distinctive
LBH corpus. The characteristically late nature of these it is also possible to
establish with a reasonably high degree of certainty, as the LBH corpus is quite
limited and it is not surprising that a given number of characteristically late
linguistic features recorded in Jeremiah and post-biblical sources may have
failed to appear in the LBH corpus proper as a chance consequence of its very
limited scope. Conversely, Jeremiah also shares with LBH a linguistic element
possibly to be seen as characteristic of post-classical Hebrew that is (nearly)
absent from post-biblical sources. Regarding the supposed characteristically
late status of this feature one must entertain serious doubts, since its absence
from the broader corpus of post-biblical material raises the suspicion that it
may represent an ephemeral linguistic trend or involve the merely sporadic
use of an element not particularly characteristic of any era. There is also a
the language of the book of jeremiah 55

single linguistic element of potential diachronic import recorded exclusively

in the book of Jeremiah; its status as a marker of post-classical Hebrew is based
solely on typological considerations and, as such, is obviously a matter of the
highest speculation.

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).

Typologically late linguistic features found exclusively in Jeremiah: ‫‘ זאתה‬this’

(ktiv, for ‫§ ;זֹאת‬‎4.8).
56 chapter 2

2.2.3 Factors Contributing to the Development of Late Features

The language of Jeremiah is marked by the results of both internal develop-
ment and external influence.

Internal Development. Some linguistic phenomena characteristic of post-

exilic Hebrew and found in the book of Jeremiah are most likely the result of
internal development: ‫‘ אנו‬we’ (§‎4.3); the long yiqṭol form in wayyiqṭol (§‎6.1);
non-standard use of directional he (‫ָ◌ה‬-; §‎7.3); the double plural construct
chain (§‎7.11); the plural of ‫‘ ַחיִ ל‬force’ (§‎8.2); the semantic shift of the gentilic
ִ ְ‫‘ י‬Judahite, Jew’ (§‎8.4); ‫‘ ער"ב‬be pleasant’ (§‎8.8).
‫הּודי‬

Aramaic Influence. According to biblical testimony, already in the classi-

cal period (the First Temple Period or before) biblical writers demonstrated
acquaintance with Aramaic (indicating a certain expected acquaintance there-
with among their readership). For example, the placement of the toponym ‫יְ גַ ר‬
ָ ‫ ַׂש ֲה‬, literally ‘the mound of testimony’ (|| ‫‘ ּגַ ְל ֵעד‬mound of witness’ Gen
‫דּותא‬
31.47), in the mouth of Laban the Aramean points to a measure of knowledge
of (Old) Aramaic among Hebrew users, as does the employment of Aramaic or
seemingly Aramaic forms in the speech of other foreigners, in foreign contexts,
and in addresses ostensibly directed at foreign audiences. With the successive
rise and expansion of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Empires—in all
of which Aramaic served as a major language of trade and administration—
Aramaic influence on the languages of the Ancient Near East, among them
Hebrew, only increased. Aramaic’s official status is poignantly manifest in
the request of King Hezekiah’s ministers to Assyrian king Sennacherib’s rep-
resentative, Rab-Shakeh (‘commander’), that the latter parley with them in
Aramaic.3 In the post-exilic period the extent of Aramaic influence on biblical
literature is observable in entire sections written in that language4 as well as
numerous linguistic forms that penetrated Hebrew either from or via Aramaic
or that were native to Hebrew but became more widespread due to their simi-
larity to a feature common in Aramaic.
The book of Jeremiah, which, as is well known, deals with events of the late
First Temple Period and the Exile, when Aramaic already enjoyed the status
of a lingua franca shared by many and diverse people groups spread over an
extensive area, exhibits a significant number of linguistic phenomena reveal-
ing Aramaic influence. The book also contains one entire verse in Aramaic
(Jer 10.11):

3 2 Kgs 18.26 || Isa 36.11.

4 Dan 2.4b–7.28; Ezra 4.8–6.18; 7.12–26
the language of the book of jeremiah 57

‫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

It should be emphasized, however, that the extent of Aramaic influence in

Jeremiah is not as great as that discernible in some of the books that comprise
the distinctive LBH corpus.

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

Among the phenomena in Jeremiah considered ‘Aramaisms’ there are those

that apparently came into existence in Hebrew due to Aramaic influence.
However, not every development linked to Aramaic began its existence in
Hebrew in this way. In many cases linguistic phenomena defined as ‘Aramaisms’
are indeed especially characteristic of Aramaic, but are already sporadically
documented in classical biblical sources, which, generally speaking, are free
of unequivocal signs of Aramaic influence. Many of these phenomena are
apparently purely Hebrew, which is to say that their use in both Hebrew and
Aramaic derives from the fact that the two languages share a common Semitic
heritage. Genuine Aramaic influence is discernible in the more frequent use of
these elements in later phases of ancient Hebrew (biblical and post-biblical),
beginning with the late First Temple Period, after which the influence exerted
by Aramaic on Hebrew increased considerably.
In other cases, employment of an archaic Hebrew form ceased in CBH only
to make a comeback during the late period as a merely archaistic usage, per-
haps under the influence of Aramaic, in which the use of the form in question
had never ceased. However, it is often difficult to distinguish between the vari-
ous kinds of Aramaic influence discussed here.

(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

2.2.4 Linguistic Traits Especially Characteristic of Transitional Biblical

Hebrew
The difference between CBH and LBH is not a difference between black and
white. Theoretically, any linguistic element that appeared in an early layer of
the language could also serve in later phases. At all events, LBH (and other
post-classical strata of ancient Hebrew) always exhibit a mixture of classical
and late language. Distinguishing between LBH and TBH thus involves the spe-
cific character of the late linguistic phenomena contained in a given text as
well as their concentration therein.
The language of Jeremiah is characterized by a number of traits that indi-
cate its status as a transitional phase between CBH and LBH. In certain cases
Jeremiah and other apparently exilic works exhibit a combination of early and
late features not found in either CBH or LBH works. In others Jeremiah is the
sole composition that presents a mixture of a given classical linguistic element
and its late counterpart. In still other cases, the book’s language displays fea-
tures that herald the future expansion of a particular phenomenon. Finally,
there are tendencies in Jeremiah that demonstrate the persistence of the clas-
sical form of the language in the face of developments that eventually led to
the dominance of later forms of ancient Hebrew.

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

Sporadic forerunners of linguistic elements destined to become characteristic of

later strata of Hebrew and/or Aramaic: ‫‘ אנו‬we’ (§‎4.4); the qå̄ṭōl pattern (§‎5.1);
‫‘ ִּד ֵּבר‬word of God’ (§‎8.1); ‫‘ ער"ב‬be pleasant’ (§‎8.8); ‫‘ ַרב‬great man, noble, officer’
(§‎8.11); ‫רּוח‬
ַ ‘cardinal direction’ (§‎8.12).

Distinctively classical linguistic tendencies. The language of the book of

Jeremiah exhibits its classical stamp in its general employment of classical
features instead of their late counterparts. Now, while the value of such an
argument from silence should not be overestimated—indeed, nearly every
composition securely datable to the post-classical period on non-linguistic
grounds preserves the use of classical and even archaic usages—it is surely
worth noting that the book eschews the use of such characteristically post-
classical elements as the following (listed together with their classical alterna-
tives and cases in Jeremiah): ‫ ִאּגֶ ֶרת‬and ‫ ֵס ֶפר( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָ ן‬29.1, 25, 29) ‘letter’; ‫ֻסּגַ ר( ָא ַחז‬
[qal internal passive] 13.19) ‘close’; ‫(ּכל־)זֹאת‬ ַ ֶ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֵכן( ַא ַחר ז‬16.16; 21.7;
ָ ‫א ֲח ֵרי‬/‫ה‬
34.11; 46.26; 49.6) ‘after that’; ‫ה ְב ִהיל‬/‫ל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה ִריץ( ִּב ֵה‬49.19; 50.44 [qre]) ‘frighten’; ‫ִּבּזָ ה‬
(‫ ַּבז‬2.14; 15.13; 17.3; 30.16; 49.32; ‫ ָׁש ָלל‬21.9; 38.2; 39.18; 45.5; 49.32; 50.10) ‘plunder’;
‫ ַא ְרמֹון( ִּב ָירה‬6.5; 9.20; 17.27; 30.18; 49.27; ‫ ַּביִת‬7.2, 10, 11, 14, 30 and frequently) ‘pal-
ace’; ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ ‫אֹוצר( ֵּבית‬ָ 10.13; 38.11; 50.25; 51.16) ‘treasury’; ‫ ֵּבית [ה']( ֵּבית ִמ ְק ָּדׁש‬7.2
and frequently; ]'‫ ִמ ְק ָּדׁש [ה‬17.12) ‘temple’; ‫ ֶק ֶבר( ֵּבית ְק ָברֹות‬5.16; 8.1; 20.17; 26.23)
‘grave’; ‫ ָאז( ְּב ֵכן‬11.15, 18; 22.15, 16, 22; 31.13; 32.2; 44.18; ‫ ָל ֵכן‬2.9 and frequently) ‘so,
then, therefore’; ‫ ַּביִת( ִּבנְ יָ ן‬7.2, 10, 11, 14, 30 and frequently) ‘building’; ‫ּגַ נְ זַ ְך‬/‫ּגֶ נֶ ז‬
(‫אֹוצר‬
ָ 10.13; 38.11; 50.25, 51.16) ‘treasure, treasury’; ‫ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק( ַּד ְר ֶמ ֶׂשק‬49.23, 24, 27)
‘Damascus’; ‫חֹק‬/‫מ ְצֹות‬/‫ּתֹורה‬ִ + ‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש‬seek (i.e., interpret) + law/command/statute’
('‫[את־]ה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש‬seek Yhwh’ 10.21; 21.2; 29.13; 37.7); ‫הֹוׁשיט יָ ד‬ ִ (‫ ָׁש ַלח יָ ד‬1.9) ‘extend
a hand’; ‫ ִּפּנָ ה( זָ וִ ית‬31.38, 40; 51.26) ‘corner’; )‫(ל)טֹוב(ה‬ ְ ‫ זָ ַכר( זָ ַכר‬2.2; 15.15; 18.20;
‫ ָּפ ַקד‬15.15; 27.22; 29.10) ‘remember (positively)’; ‫מֹועד( זְ ַמן‬ ֵ 8.7; 46.17; ‫ ֵעת‬2.17 and
frequently) ‘(appointed) time’; ‫ ָעֹון( חֹוב‬2.22; 3.13; 5.25, and frequently) ‘sin’;
-‫)חּוצה ְל‬
ָ ‫(מ‬ ִ (-‫ ִמחּוץ ְל‬21.4) ‘outside of’; ‫ ִמ ִּב ְל ָע ֵדי( חּוץ ִמן‬44.19) ‘except’; ‫ ָא ַׁשם( ִחּיֵב‬2.3;
50.7; ‫ ָר ַָשע‬5.26; 25.31) ‘be guilty’; ‫יֹותר ִמן‬ ֵ (‫ ִמן‬4.13; 7.26; 15.8; 16.12; 17.9; 31.11; 46.23;
48.2 [?]) ‘(more) than’; ‫ יַ ְח ָּדו( ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬3.18 and frequently) ‘together’; ‫אס"ף( כנ"ס‬
8.2, 13, and frequently; 23.3 ‫ קב"ץ‬et al.; ‫ קה"ל‬26.9 et al.) ‘gather’; ‫ ֵס ֶפר( ְּכ ָתב‬3.8)
‘(product of) writing’; ‫ וְ ֵאין( ְל ֵאין‬4.4; 5.21; 7.33; 9.21; 13.19; 21.12; 30.10; 46.23, 27;
49.5; 50.32) ‘without’; )‫(מאֹד‬ ְ ‫[מאֹד]( ְל ַה ְר ֵּבה‬ ְ ‫ ַה ְר ֵּבה‬40.12) ‘exceedingly’; ‫ִה ְל ִעיג( ָל ַעג‬
20.7) ‘deride’; ‫ ִּבינָ ה( ַמ ָּדע‬23.20; ‫ ַּד ַעת‬10.14; 51.17; ‫ ֵּד ָעה‬3.15; ‫ ָח ְכ ָמה‬8.9; 9.22; 10.12; 49.7
[2x]; 51.15; ‫ ְּתבּונָ ה‬10.12; 51.15) ‘knowledge, wisdom’; ‫ ִה ְפ ִקיד( ִמּנָ ה‬1.10; 40.5, 7, 11;
41.2, 10, 18; ‫ נָ ַתן‬1.5, 18; 3.15; 6.27; 15.20; 29.26) ‘appoint’; ‫בּואה‬ ָ ְ‫( נ‬/'‫ה‬/‫ּד ְב ֵרי [יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬/‫ר‬
ִ ‫ְּד ַב‬
]‫ נָ ִביא‬1.1, 2; 18.18; 23.16; 26.5; 27.14, 16; 28.9 and frequently; ‫ ָחזֹון‬14.14; 23.16) ‘proph-
ecy’; ‫( נִ ְב ַעת‬33.9 ‫ ; ָּפ ַחד‬36.16, 24) ‘fear, be afraid’; ‫ ַּת ַער( נָ ָדן‬47.6) ‘scabbard, sheath’;
‫אֹוצר( נְ ָכ ִסים‬
ָ 15.13; 17.3; 20.5; 38.11; 48.7; 49.4; 50.25, 37; 51.13; ‫ ַחיִ ל‬15.13; 17.3; 34.1 [?])
the language of the book of jeremiah 61

‘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

The language of Jeremiah even exhibits classical tendencies in connection

with many of its late linguistic features, for example (the following list is not
exhaustive), continued use of ‫( צע"ק‬despite the increased use of ‫§ ;זע"ק‬‎3.4)
‘cry out, muster’; regular use of names ending in the long theophoric suffix ‫יָ הּו‬-
(despite a not insignificant number of names ending in the short suffix ‫יָ ה‬-;
§‎3.5); preference for the spelling/pronunciation ‫ נבוכדראצר‬with resh (despite
the use of ‫ נבוכדנאצר‬with nun; §‎3.8) ‘Nebuchadnezzar’; regular (though con-
ditioned) use of ‫( ָאנ ִֹכי‬despite the more natural use of ‫§ ; ֲאנִ י‬‎4.1) ‘I’; persistence
of ‫ֹותם‬-/‫ם‬
ָ ‫◌ ָׁת‬- (in face of the growing tendency for ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬-/‫ם‬
ֵ ֶ ‫◌ ֵׁת‬-; §‎4.6) ‘their’;
‫יה‬
use of the short (rather than the long or lengthened) yiqṭol pattern in 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd person wayyiqṭol forms (§‎6.1); continued use of the preposition ‫( ֵאת‬in
the face of a growing trend to opt for ‫§ ; ִעם‬‎7.1) ‘with’; preference for the apposi-
tional order X ‫‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬the king X’ (despite the rare occurence of late ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X ‘X the
king’; §‎7.6); continued classical use of imperfective past weqaṭal (§‎7.7); vibrant
and apparently natural use of the infinitive absolute; §‎7.10); the decided pref-
erence for classical ‫ ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬, ‫לּוכה‬
ָ ‫ ְמ‬, and -‫מ ְלּכ‬/‫ֹלְך‬
ָ ‫( ְמ‬despite the sporadic appear-
ance of ‫§ ; ַמ ְלכּות‬‎8.6) ‘kingdom, reign, rule’.

2.3 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah and the Question of

Regional Dialects

In contrast to C. Smith (2003), whose research on the language of Jeremiah

is characterized by a high degree of optimism concerning the prospects of
identifying linguistic features especially characteristic of the various regional
dialects employed in ancient Israel, the present investigation takes a much
more sober view, regarding many such attempts as highly conjectural. Indeed,
according to the results of this study, Jeremiah contains no non-standard lin-
guistic element that can be securely classified as dialectal. This is due in part to
the lack of a corpus of ancient Hebrew texts the language of which is demon-

especially in command sequences. Significantly, Fassberg (ibid.) compares the situa-

tion in Jeremiah to that of Ezekiel, “a book of similar length and roughly the same time
period, . . . where there are no sequences of infinitive absolute and waw consecutive as
opposed to forty-three passages with imperative and waw consecutive, and forty passages
with strings of imperatives.” From the standpoint of the selection of types of command
sequences, then, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel appear to be transitional between CBH and
LBH, since both make fairly regular use of the imperative + weqaṭal string. Jeremiah’s lan-
guage appears to be more classical in terms of its employment of the infinitive absolute
+ weqaṭal sequence.
the language of the book of jeremiah 63

strably characteristic of a specific region, and in part to the overlap between

features thought to constitute characteristic dialectal elements, on the one
hand, and late, colloquial, and archaic features, on the other (see above, §‎1.4.2).
Again, there seems little doubt that the Hebrew Bible in general and the book
of Jeremiah more specifically contain a number of region-specific linguistic
forms. All the same, the likelihood that the modern researcher can accurately
identify those elements and, on their basis, sort texts into groups represent-
ing various regional dialects seems questionable given the current paucity of
sources with undeniable geographic provenance.
The suggestion that Jeremiah’s language is especially representative of the
idiom of Benjamin merits further comment. It is true that the book deals with
the life of a prophet who hailed from the village of Anathoth, located in the
tribal allotment of Benjamin, and that the language of the book displays a not
insignificant number of non-standard linguistic features. However, while one
should not discount the possibility that certain of these non-standard ele-
ments reflect the local dialect of the prophet’s hometown, considering the
numerous and broad gaps in the data mentioned above, one must give seri-
ous consideration to the viability of alternative explanations. In principle,
because the life of the prophet extended from the close of the First Temple
Period into the Exile, i.e., a time when Imperial Aramaic was already beginning
to exert a profound influence on Hebrew, prima facie the theory according to
which the non-standard character of his language derives from its being a par-
ticular regional dialect is no more reasonable than that according to which its
non-standard character derives from the historical factors, including Aramaic
influence, that would eventually lead to the dominance of LBH. On the con-
trary, since the methodology for the identification of late linguistic features
is sounder than that for the identification of dialectal elements, the burden
of proof remains with those who would attribute the non-standard linguistic
features in Jeremiah to regional factors.
Of course, these considerations are even weightier when one takes into
consideration the fact that only a portion of the book named for the prophet
Jeremiah is explicitly attributed to him in the book. There is no need at this
point to enter into a discussion of the work’s complicated literary develop-
ment; it should suffice to point out that (a) Jeremiah’s Anathothite extraction
does not necessarily indicate a similar origin for the rest of those responsible
for the book and (b) if it is possible to detect late features in the prophet’s own
words, then how much more in the words of a later contributor, be he amanu-
ensis, writer, editor, compiler, copyist, or some combination thereof.
The specific geographical reality involved also merits discussion. Many
scholars identify the standard biblical dialect with that of Jerusalem or Judah.
64 chapter 2

Yet it is doubtful whether the dialect of Jerusalem exactly represented that of

Judah in general, since even if the kings of the southern kingdom, along with a
large number of their courtiers, came from Judah, Jerusalem itself was a border
town near that region’s boundary with Benjamin.13 It is therefore reasonable to
assume that the dialect that served Jerusalem’s scribes indeed gained official
and literary supremacy, but nevertheless differed to some extent from the cen-
tral Judahite dialect(s).
Moreover, while Anathoth may be found within the tribal inheritance of
Benjamin, it, like Jerusalem, lies very near the Judahite frontier. Furthermore,
the distance separating the two sites is only about seven kilometers, with
the central hills acting as a very modest barrier between them. This does not
mean that the dialect spoken in Anathoth should be thought of as identical to
the one spoken in Jerusalem—to be sure, differences can be detected in the
dialects of neighboring villages in many parts of the world today, even in the
absence of natural barriers—but considering the distances involved, one may
reasonably posit a great deal of similarity between the two.
Finally, there are a few linguistic phenomena recorded in Jeremiah which,
in other contexts, probably do reflect (northern) dialectal tendencies, but in
Jeremiah are perhaps better explained along other lines: the 2fs endings ‫ִ◌י‬-
in ‫‘ אתי‬you’(ktiv), ‫כי‬-ִ , and ‫§( ָק ַט ְל ִּתי‬‎4.2); ‫‘ נט"ר‬watch, guard’ (§‎8.7); and ‫ער"ב‬
‘be pleasant’ (§‎8.8).

2.4 The Language of the Book of Jeremiah and the Question of

Diglossia

As argued above (§‎1.4.3), it is very difficult to substantiate the claim that a

given linguistic phenomenon in the literary register of the Hebrew Bible is
the result of influence of the spoken register of ancient Hebrew, since, in the
nature of things, all the potential evidence for such a spoken dialect comes in
written form. Even so, a few developments in the language of Jeremiah might
be accounted for as penetrations from the vernacular, though in nearly all of
these cases there seems no convincing reason to prefer this over alternative
explanations: proper names ending in the abbreviated theophoric suffix ‫יה‬-
(§‎3.5); the spelling ‫‘ ירושלים‬Jerusalem’ and pronunciation with ayi (§‎3.6); the

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).

2.5 Jeremiah’s Language, Composition, and Literary Development

Given the acknowledged complexity of the compositional history of Jeremiah,

not to mention the many and diverse theories on the development and assem-
bly of its various component parts, it might be imagined that a thorough inves-
tigation of the book’s language would allow for some contribution, however
modest, to the unraveling of these processes. This contribution is limited
mainly to the identification of distinctive linguistic tendencies exclusive to
or especially characteristic of certain literary sections in contrast to others.
However, it is essential to point out that distinguishing between component
sections of a text on the basis of their language—whether said language rep-
resents diverse authors or the work of post-authorial editors, compilers, or
copyists—is possible only if (a) the section of text contains a concentration
of non-standard linguistic features not characteristic of the rest of the book
and (b) the remainder of the book presents linguistic alternatives for the non-
standard features in question. In addition, one must consider the possibility
that differences in language arise from differences in genre (e.g., poetry versus
prose). Beyond this, if a section of text is marked by a concentration of linguis-
tic features especially characteristic of LBH or another late phase of ancient
Hebrew, then there is a foundation for the claim that it constitutes a late, sec-
ondary addition. Considering these limitations, it is no surprise that the sec-
tions of text in Jeremiah showing signs of unmistakable linguistic uniqueness
are very few. This state of affairs does not necessarily imply that the remain-
ing material, in some of which scholars have detected non-linguistic evidence
indicative of complicated literary consolidation, was originally unified, but
only that the linguistic approach cannot make a definitive contribution in
these cases due to lack of evidence.

2.5.1 The Linguistic Profiles of Various Component Sections of the Book

Notwithstanding these caveats, there are a few sections of Jeremiah that,
from a linguistic perspective, set themselves apart from the rest. In the case of
each the linguistic evidence appears to confirm arguments of a non-linguistic
nature (e.g., literary or textual) that the material in question is secondary.
66 chapter 2

However, the linguistic confirmation of the secondary character of a given

section should not necessarily be taken as evidence that it is the result of late
post-exilic expansion. As is discussed in what follows, while the language of the
linguistically unique sections of Jeremiah is sufficiently distinct from that of
the rest of the book to warrant classification as secondary and later, in no case
does it exhibit the degree of development characteristic of LBH proper, the
Hebrew literary register of the Persian Period, i.e., of the 5th century bce, or of
later forms of ancient Hebrew. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the bulk
of Jeremiah—including both the earlier material and secondary additions—is
a product of the 6th century bce, i.e., that it was composed before LBH had
become the standard written register in Hebrew (for details see below, §9).

2.5.1.1 The Two Halves of Jeremiah

The majority of the non-standard linguistic features in Jeremiah discussed in
the present study come in both the first and second halves of the book, i.e.,
chapters 1–26 and 27–52, respectively. Yet there is a not insignificant number,
including an impressive list of features especially characteristic of the later
strata of ancient Hebrew, that appear exclusively, or predominantly, in the sec-
ond half of the book, i.e., chapters 27–52: plene ‫‘ יעקוב‬Jacob’ (§‎3.1.1); proper
names ending in the abbreviated theophoric suffix ‫יה‬- (§‎3.5); the spelling/
pronunciation ‫‘ ירושלים‬Jerusalem’ (§‎3.6); ‫‘ נבוכדנאצר‬Nebuchadnezzar’ with
nun (§‎3.8); use of the preposition -‫ ל‬with verbs denoting locative movement
(§‎7.4); accusative use of the preposition -‫§( ל‬‎7.6); the double plural construct
chain (§‎7.9); combinations of the type X- ְ‫ ו‬X (‫‘ )ּכֹל‬all/every X’ with distributive
force (§‎7.12); the plural of ‫‘ ַחיִ ל‬force’ (§‎8.2); the semantic shift of the gentilic
ִ ְ‫‘ י‬Judahite, Jew’ (§‎8.4); nominal use of ‫יֹומם‬
‫הּודי‬ ָ ‘day’ (§‎8.5); ‫‘ נט"ר‬watch, guard’
(§‎8.7); ‫‘ ער"ב‬be pleasant’ (§‎8.8); ‫‘ ֲע ֶת ֶרת‬wealth’ (§‎8.9); ‫ּוסגָ נִ ים‬
ְ ‫‘ ַּפחֹות‬governors
and prefects’ (§‎8.10); ‫‘ ַרב‬great man, noble, officer’ (§9.11); ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‘cardinal direc-
tion’ (§‎8.12); ‫‘ ָרץ‬messenger’ (§‎8.13).
The linguistic profile of the second half of Jeremiah distinguishes it from the
first half. This is likely due in part to the fact that a large proportion of the first
half of the book consists of poetry, which, as is known, tends to preserve (or
imitate) classical and archaic style. Genre, however, is not the sole factor that
emerges as significant. For example, the difference in the use of theophoric
names ending in the short suffix ‫יָ ה‬- (as opposed to ‫יָ הּו‬-; §‎3.5) is the most con-
spicuous sign that the two halves reflect different writers. In chapters 1–26 the
proportion of long names to short is 50:3 (94.3 percent long)—the three cases
of names with the short ending all occurring in a single verse: significantly, the
editorial heading at the beginning of chapter 21 (see below, §‎2.5.1.5)—whereas
in chapters 27–52 the same proportion is 191:80 (70.5 percent long). According
the language of the book of jeremiah 67

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.

2.5.1.2 Chapters 27–29

From a literary perspective it has been argued that chs. 26–29 and 34–45 form a
unit, namely, a group of stories about the prophet Jeremiah, interrupted by the
consolatory message in chs. 30–33. However, within the former division, and
within Jeremiah more generally, chapters 27–29 exhibit unmistakable linguis-
tic exceptionality:14 these chapters alone in the book display a preference for
theophoric names with the short ending ‫יָ ה‬- (as opposed to ‫יָ הּו‬-; §‎3.5), with a
ratio of long names to short of 8:35 (18.6 percent long). In the rest of the book,
the same ratio is 233:50 (82.3 percent long). In these chapters alone does the
short form of the name Jeremiah appear—nine times (with three occurrences
of the long form at the end of chapter 29) against 119 occurrences of the long
form in the rest of the book—a form distinctively characteristic of late sources
(§3.5). The same section contains eight instances of the spelling/pronuncia-
tion ‫‘ נבוכדנאצר‬Nebuchadnezzar’ with nun, against one case of ‫ נבוכדראצר‬with
resh, when the rest of the book knows only ‫ נבוכדראצר‬with resh (§3.8). Finally,
chapters 27–29 contain one of two occurrences in the book of the ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X ‘X the
king’ appositional word order so characteristic of late sources (§7.7) and one of
two cases of ‫‘ חֹר‬noble’ (though, significantly, neither of these latter is reflected
in the Greek; see below, §‎§8.3, 9).

14 Duhm 1901: 219–220; Holladay 1986–1989: I 570, II 114; Hoffman 2001: 533; Lundbom 1999–
2004: II 100.
68 chapter 2

Once more, however, sweeping conclusions are to be resisted. The afore-

mentioned phenomena are indeed characteristic of LBH and of later Hebrew
strata, but it should be emphasized that chapters 27–29 exhibit no further lin-
guistic marks of lateness. Thus, though they do contain individual concentra-
tions of two linguistic features typical of post-exilic Hebrew, concentrations
that likely demonstrate that this material was composed by a hand different
from and later than those responsible for much of the rest of the book, the
evidence is not sufficient to prove that this material was written long after that
which makes up the rest of the book. In other words, the linguistic distinctive-
ness of Jer 27–29 is strong evidence of their independence, but cannot sub-
stantiate a date of composition later than the Restoration. A date at the end of
the Exile or during the Restoration period seems much more appropriate given
the (albeit limited) data.

2.5.1.3 Chapter 33.14–26

For a detailed discussion of the linguistic profile of this material see below,
§‎9.2.1.

2.5.1.4 The Oracles against the Foreign Nations in Chapters 46–51

In the Greek translation of Jeremiah, the location and internal order of the
unit corresponding to chs. 46–51 differ from those in the MT and many schol-
ars see in this material an addition that was appended to the book sometime
during its literary consolidation,15 but placed and ordered differently in the
two textual traditions that served as the basis for the extant Masoretic and the
Greek versions, respectively. Of course, one might claim that the placement
and order of this material in one of the editions are original, and that only in
the other are they secondary. Whatever the exact literary history of the mate-
rial in question, there is linguistic evidence that hints at its independent char-
acter. In this case, as opposed to that of chapters 27–29 discussed above, the
nature of the evidence is not a selection of linguistic features exclusive to this
section, but a significant accumulation of non-standard linguistic phenomena
(not, however, necessarily indicative of a late post-exilic date). This relatively
brief span of text, consisting of a mere six chapters in predominantly poetic

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.

2.5.1.5 The Editorial Framework

Dating editorial headings and glosses in the Hebrew Bible on the basis of their
language demands great caution. As a rule they are short and isolated lines or
even mere words and, due to their brevity, it is often difficult to discern a mean-
ingful distinction between their language and the language of the surrounding
bodies of text. There is also arguable evidence that the linguistic profile of an
editorial framework may eventually bleed into the corpus of text it envelopes
or vice versa, depending on scribal practices. This being the case, it is also hard
to establish differences in date, relative or absolute, on the basis of their lan-
guage. All the same, a few editorial headings in Jeremiah exhibit non-standard
linguistic phenomena which are absent from the bodies of text which they
head or which appear only in other passages characterized by non-standard
linguistic style.

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.

2.5.1.6 The Masoretic and Greek Editions of the Book

For details on diachronically meaningful linguistic differences between the
longer Masoretic edition of Jeremiah and the shorter edition that evidently
served as the Vorlage of the Old Greek, see the relevant sections in the dis-
cussions of the individual linguistic phenomena in §§3–8 below and, espe-
cially, the summary discussion in §‎9. In deference to the majority approach,
in what follows material common to both the Masoretic and Greek versions
is described as belonging to the ‘short edition’, whereas textual matter repre-
sented in the Masoretic tradition (and similar witnesses), but apparently lack-
ing in the Greek, is labeled ‘supplementary material’ (for summary discussions
of this and alternative approaches see below, §‎9).
 chapter 3

Orthography and Phonology

The relevance of spelling for the dating of biblical texts is a much-debated

issue. It is widely agreed that ancient Hebrew orthography became more plene
with time, so that later texts may be expected to exhibit more extensive usage
of matres lectionis, especially in the marking of medial vowels, than earlier
texts. This is made strikingly evident by the study of extra-biblical inscriptions
and documents: the spelling in pre-exilic sources is highly defective, that in
post-exilic material much fuller.1
However, the biblical orthographical situation is complicated by the fact
that many—if not all—biblical texts evidently no longer exhibit their original
spelling, so that no biblical text, no matter how early, exhibits orthography as
defective as that known from the pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptional corpus. This
may be interpreted in two ways: either the entire biblical text is significantly
later than the aforementioned pre-exilic inscriptional corpus or—what is
more likely—a significant proportion, if not all, of the biblical text has under-
gone some form of orthographical update,2 which, though far from consistent,
has obscured the earlier orthographic picture, presumably bringing the origi-
nally more defective spelling of early material into line with the fuller spelling

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.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_��4

orthography and phonology 73

of late material.3 Despite this state of affairs, a general chronological trend is

evident,4 with striking cases of orthographic development in specific cases.
For example, in the pre-exilic and exilic material of Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Amos the full spelling of the proper name ‫דויד‬
‘David’ is rare (six occurrences against approximately 700 instances of defective
‫)דוד‬, but the full spelling of this name is extremely common in LBH (272 cases
against a single occurrence of ‫דוד‬, in Qohelet).5 A similar situation obtains in
the case of plene forms of the numerals ‘three’, i.e., ‫( שלוש‬for ‫ )שלש‬and ‫שלושה‬
(for ‫)שלשה‬, and ‘thirty’, i.e., ‫( שלושים‬for ‫)שלשים‬, which are found in 51 of 59
cases in TBH, LBH, or other late material.6 The above characteristically late bib-
lical plene spelling phenomena are even more typical of post-biblical sources,
but—crucially—begin occurring with some frequency in TBH sources.7
There are also late spelling trends that, unlike the purely orthographical
developments discussed above, reflect phonological innovations.

3.1 The Plene Spelling of Medial o (< u)

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

to determine whether these were in vogue at the time of composition of the

texts in question or represent the work of later editors, compilers, or copy-
ists. Be that as it may, it is probably significant that in the Bible the spelling is
extremely uncommon in the Pentateuch (2x) and Former Prophets (6x), and
somewhat more common in the much more limited corpus of LBH (13x) and
other late material, such as Ezekiel (19x), ‘Second Isaiah’ (13x), and Qohelet (7x),
though, it should also be noted that certain biblical compositions of unknown
date also exhibit relatively high concentrations of the spelling in question, e.g.,
Job (32x), Proverbs (15x), Psalms (12x), and the Twelve (28x). Needless to say,
the spelling is extremely common in non-Masoretic and post-biblical sources,
such as the DSS12 and rabbinic literature.13 In light of these data it seems rea-
sonable to posit at least some correlation between the full spelling of (way)
yiqṭol forms and a late date of composition. In core CBH and LBH works, then,
the relevant incidence of plene spelling is in line with their respective dates of
composition, while in the blocks of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, on the one hand,
and the Twelve, on the other, both of which are treated as literary units in
Jewish tradition, the high incidence of plene spelling seems attributable to the
(albeit inconsistent) application of a policy of spelling revision at the hands
of editors, compilers, or copyists. The book of Jeremiah presents 67 cases of
relevant (way)yiqṭol forms, and in eight the ktiv represents plene spelling of the
o vowel: ‫‘ ֶאּטֹור‬I will (not) rage, nurse a grudge’ (Jer 3.12); ‫‘ אסלוח‬I will forgive’
(5.7 ktiv); ‫‘ ֶאּתֹוׁש‬I will uproot’ (12.14; 24.6; 42.10); ‫‘ ֶא ְחמֹול‬I will spare, have mercy
on’ (13.14); ‫‘ ִּת ְׁשּכֹון‬she/it will dwell, be inhabited’ (33.16; 50.39). Four of the cases
involve a ‫ פ"נ‬verb. Two involve verbs which, for whatever reason, fairly com-
monly present a plene spelling in the relevant forms (‫‘ ָח ַמל‬spare, have mercy
on’ and ‫‘ ָׁש ַכן‬dwell’). It is interesting that the Greek lacks parallels for the two
cases of ‫‘ ִּת ְׁשּכֹון‬she/it will dwell, be inhabited’ (33.16; 50.39); it also lacks transla-
tions for three cases in which the relevant forms are spelled defectively (‫יִ ְפקֹד‬
‘he will take account of, remember’ Jer 14.10; ‫‘ ִּת ְׁשּכֹן‬it will be inhabited’ 46.26;
‫‘ יִ ּׁש ֹם‬he will be appalled’ 49.17). This means that the ratio of plene to defective
spellings in the three literary strata of the book are as follows: MT 8:59; short
edition 6:56; supplementary material 2:3. Obviously, the mere five cases found
in the MT but unparalleled in the Greek represent too small a sampling to sus-
tain any firm conclusion. Even so, it may be significant that the supplementary
material has a full spelling in two of five cases.

12 Qimron 1986: §100.2.

13 Segal 1936: §41.
76 chapter 3

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

Table ‎3 .1.3 Extra-biblical use of plene spelling of qal infinitive construct

Corpus Total infinitives Total plene forms Percentage

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

3.2 Other Non-standard Spellings of o

Jeremiah exhibits a few other non-standard spellings of the o vowel, though in

most of these cases no discernible diachronic pattern emerges. The relevant
phenomena include high incidence of the spelling ‫ לוא‬for ‫( לא‬excluding the
particle ‫)הלוא‬,22 ‫‘ רעו‬his friend’ (Jer 6.21) for ‫רעהו‬,23 and the 3ms suffix ‫ה‬- for
‫ו‬-, often in the form ‫‘ ֻּכֹּלה‬all of it, every one’.24 One possible exception is the
full spelling of forms of the numeral ‘eight’. The standard spellings are ‫ְׁשמֹנֶ ה‬
used with femine nouns, ‫ ְׁשמֹנָ ה‬used with masculine nouns, and ‫‘ ְׁשמֹנִ ים‬eighty’.
The relevant plene spellings come in under a third of the potential cases (47 of
147), but 39 of these appear in the exilic or post-exilic works of Jeremiah (1/6),
Ezekiel (2/4), Qohelet (1/1), Esther (1/1), and Chronicles (34/36). In Jeremiah
the only case of the full spelling occurs in a passage (52.27b–30) unparalleled
in the Greek: Jer 52.29 (which also contains an example of the defective spell-
ing). This may indicate the late, secondary character of this material (though,

18 For further detail see Hornkohl forthcoming.

19 Plene cases: Jer 1.10 (4x); 11.10, 19; 13.10; 16.5; 18.7 (2x); 19.11, 15; 22.17; 25.34; 28.12; 31.28 (3x);
36.23; 40.9; 47.4; 51.40 (‫ לאמור‬18.5; 33.19).
20 Including only those texts with ten or more potential cases, the percentages are as fol-
lows: Gen 1.7; Exod 0; Num 4.3; Deut 0; Josh 11.1; Jdg 25; Sam 20.5; Kgs 4.6; Isa 14.7 (‘First’
12.5; ‘Second’ 17.9); Ezek 10; the Twelve 25.7; Ps 15.7; Prov 19.2; Job 16.7; Qoh 55.8; Est 33.3;
Ezra–Neh 39.1; Chr 52.2.
21 The Greek has no parallel for a plene form in Jer 1.10; 18.7; 19.11; 31.28 (2x). The Greek also
has no parallel for plene ‫ לאמור‬at Jer 33.9, but does represent it at 18.5. Two of 114 cases
of the verb are plene in MT Jeremiah; in the Greek this proportion is one out of 85; in the
supplementary material the proportion is one out of 29.
22 Hornkohl 2012: §4.2.2.3.
23 Hornkohl 2012: §4.2.1.4.
24 Hornkohl 2012: §4.2.1.1.
78 chapter 3

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.

3.3 Non-standard Spellings with and without ʾalef 25

Non-standard spellings involving ʾalef include forms of ‫‘ וְ ִּת ֶּׂשנָ ה( נש"א‬that

they may take up [a lament]’ Jer 9.17; ‫‘ נָ ׂשֹוא יִ נָ ׂשּוא‬they must be carried’ 10.5);
the ktiv ‫ בור‬and qre ‫‘ )?באר <( ביר‬well, cistern’ (Jer 6.7); the collocations ‫מבי אל‬
‘(behold I am) bringing upon’ (Jer 19.15 ktiv), ‫‘ החטי את‬cause to sin’ (32.35 ktiv),
and ‫(‘ מבי את‬behold I am) bringing’ (39.16 ktiv); ‫ה)אזִ ִּקים‬/ ָ ‘([in] the) chains’
ָ ‫(ּב‬
(Jer 40.1, 4) for ‫‘ מלכת ;זִ ִּקים‬queen of (?)’ read as ‫אכת‬ֶ ‫‘ ְמ ֶל‬handiwork of’ (Jer 7.18;
44.17, 18, 19, 25); ‫‘ פרה‬wild ass’ (Jer 2.24) for ‫‘ ַא ְׁש ֵּכים ;פרא‬early’ (Jer 25.3) for
‫ ַה ְׁש ֵּכים‬. See also below, §‎3.9.

3.4 ‫ זע"ק‬versus ‫‘ צע"ק‬cry out; muster’

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

Table ‎3 .4.1 ΜΤ distribution of derivatives of ‫ צע"ק‬and ‫זע"ק‬

‫ִ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

Table ‎3 .4.1 (Continued)

‫ִ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

Especially illustrative are parallel or similar formulations from classical and

post-classical biblical texts, e.g.,

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 3.7 and their cry (‫ ) ַצ ֲע ָק ָתם‬I heard

Neh 9.9 and their cry (‫ )זַ ֲע ָק ָתם‬you heard

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.

3.4.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The situation described above for the biblical material is generally characteris-
tic of the late non-Masoretic and extra-biblical sources as well, in both Hebrew
and Aramaic. ‫ צע"ק‬is entirely absent from the non-biblical DSS, where ‫זע"ק‬
comes 16 times, four of them in place of ‫צע"ק‬:

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

3.4.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents a parallel for most of the cases of ‫ צע"ק‬and ‫ זע"ק‬in Jeremiah.
It is worth mentioning that γελάσομαι ‘I will laugh’ (Jer 20.8) probably reflects
a reading of ‫א ְׂש ַחק‬/‫ק‬
ֶ ‫ ֶא ְצ ַח‬, against the MT’s ‫‘ ֶאזְ ַעק‬I cry out’. In Jer 48.4 the form
‫‘ זְ ָע ָקה‬cry’ has no Greek parallel; it is difficult to establish whether this is due
to the translator(s) or his (their) source. The same can be said for Jer 30.15, the
first part of which has no parallel in the Greek. If the Masoretic readings in
these two cases indeed reflect additions, it is not surprising that the insertions
make use of ‫ זע"ק‬rather than ‫צע"ק‬. However, this remains highly conjectural,
as the apparent disparity between the two texts may not stem from different
Vorlagen. Even if it does, the mere two potential opportunities for use of ‫זע"ק‬
or ‫ צע"ק‬in the supplementary material are too few to make up a representative
sampling. Summarizing, in the short edition ‫ זע"ק‬outnumbers 12:7 ‫צע"ק‬, while
both potential occurrences in the supplementary material involve ‫זע"ק‬.
orthography and phonology 83

3.5 The Theophoric Endings ‫יה‬- and ‫יהו‬-

3.5.1 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

Given the abundance of the relevant non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-
biblical evidence, it is appropriate to begin the discussion with this material,
which, significantly, was not subject to the vagaries of scribal transmission.
The pre- and post-exilic extra-biblical sources present a very clear picture of
the classical use of the theophoric ending ‫יהו‬- and of its post-classical replace-
ment with ‫יה‬-. Evidence of overwhelming preference for the long form in the
First Temple Period comes from Hebrew and non-Hebrew inscriptional evi-
dence, including, but not limited to, the Lachish Letters, the Arad Ostraca,
Israelite and Judahite stamp seals and bullae, and Assyrian inscriptions. That
the long ending was largely superseded by its abbreviated counterpart in later
times emerges from such sources as the DSS, the ancient translations of the
Hebrew Bible (especially the targums and the Peshiṭta), rabbinic literature,
and other Second Temple epigraphic, documentary, and numismatic material.
For example, the short suffix outnumbers the long 131:4 in the non-biblical DSS
and 74:21 in the biblical scrolls. The conclusion is unavoidable: the long ending
dominated in pre-exilic times, whereas the short ending, while not unheard
of before the Exile, only later became common, eventually almost completely
supplanting the earlier form.
In the opinion of Tur-Sinai (1938b: 24–25), the short form is Aramaic in ori-
gin and from that tongue penetrated into Hebrew.29 Based on the evidence
found in a single copy of column III of the Sennacherib prism, which reads
Ḫazaqia instead of Ḫazaqiau, and in a pair of Israelite stamp seals from the
days of King Hezekiah (or slightly thereafter) Kutscher (1982: §89) dated the
penetration of the short form into Hebrew to the end of the 8th or the begin-
ning of the 7th century bce.30 Though available prior to the Exile, the short

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

32 Throntveit 1982: 216.

33 See, especially, Cross (2003: 108): “All Hebrew seals from Northern Israel use -yaw-, and
the same is true of ostraca of northern provenience”. See also Avigad 1965: 231; Cody 1970:
325, n. 1, 337–340; Coogan 1973: 187; McCarter 1974: 5; Silverman 1985: 219; cf. Ginsberg 1938:
24–25. Northern sites other than Samaria include Hazor, Shechem, Dan, Bethsaida, and
Mizpah.
34 See Mastin 2007. There is no unequivocal evidence for the use of this spelling in BH, but
note ‫‘ ַא ְחיֹו‬Ahio’ (2 Sam 6.3, 4; 1 Chr 8.14, 31; 9.37; 13.7).
86 chapter 3

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 (%)

Judges 2 (100) — Zephaniah 1 (20) 4 (80)

Samuel 4 (33.3) 8 (66.7) Zechariah 1 (7.1) 13 (92.9)
Kings 248 (76.3) 77 (23.7) Malachi — 1 (100)
 (1 Kings 102 [85.7] 17 [14.3]) Proverbs — 1 (100)
 (2 Kings 146 [70.9] 60 [29.1]) Esther — 1 (100)
Isaiah 62 (96.9) 1 (3.1) Daniel — 9 (100)
Jeremiah 241 (74.4) 83 (25.6) Ezra 1 (1.3) 77 (98.7)
Ezekiel 4 (66.7) 2 (33.3) Nehemiah — 185 (100)
Hosea — 2 (100) Chronicles 275 (57.6) 202 (42.4)
Amos — 4 (100)  (1 Chronicles 85 [33.5] 169 [66.5])
Obadiah — 1 (100)  (2 Chronicles 190 [85.2] 33 [14.8])
Micah — 1 (100) Total 839 (55.5) 672 (44.5)

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

3.5.2.1 The Twelve

An apparent exception to the distribution patterns emerging from the above
survey is found in the Twelve, where the short form dominates the long by
the admittedly surprising margin of 26:2. This dominance is expected in books
like Zechariah and Malachi, but certainly not in the likes of Hosea and Amos.
However, it is noteworthy that 14 of the short forms occur in the first verse of a
literary section; these probably belong to an editorial framework of somewhat
later origin than the core material in each book. It is reasonable to assume that
the use of the short form in this editorial framework subsequently influenced
the spelling of the relevant names throughout the Twelve during the processes
of consolidation, editing, and/or revision. It is probably worth mentioning that
the only two long forms, also apparently in editorial headings, belong to the
well-known First Temple king ‫אׁשּיָ הּו‬ ִ ֹ ‫‘ י‬Josiah’ (Zeph 1.1) and Zechariah’s father
‫‘ ֶּב ֶר ְכיָ הּו‬Berechiah’ (Zech 1.7).41

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

to short names in the book is 265:67, or approximately 3:1, which is greater

than that in either Kings or Jeremiah. The Chronicler’s use of long names was
a simple and effective way of lending an air of antiquity to the history he was
recounting (though he could not avoid revealing markers of his own contem-
porary linguistic milieu in the use of many other distinctively late forms), but
he did not resort to this sort of archaism in the genealogies of chapters 1–9,
which presumably more accurately reflect the language of his day.
The exceptional mixture of short and long names in Chronicles skews the
data. Including Chronicles, the distinctive LBH corpus accounts for 276 of the
839 cases of names bearing the long suffix in BH (or approximately 33 per-
cent of the cases). Removing Chronicles from consideration, the same corpus
accounts for a single case out of the remaining 564 (0.17 percent of the cases),
namely, the aforementioned dubious instance at Ezra 10.41.

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

3.5.4 The MT and the Greek

The preference for the long form over the short is characteristic of the short
edition and of the supplementary material alike: 183:60 (24.7 percent short) in
the former, 57:23 (28.8 percent) in the latter. Though the short ending is used
with greater relative frequency in the supplementary material than in the short
edition, this may fall within the margin of statistical error. However, this statis-
tical picture may be somewhat misleading, since, in all probability, not every
case of mismatch between the MT and the Greek version involving theophoric
names stems from bona fide textual disparity. If instances of mismatch

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

3.6 ‫ יְ רו ׁ ָּשלַ יִ ם‬versus ‫‘ יְ רו ׁ ָּש ִ ַלם‬Jerusalem’

3.6.1 Preliminary Issues

The earliest mention of the toponym Jerusalem is in Egyptian and Assyrian
sources from before the First Temple Period. In extra-biblical Hebrew mate-
rial the name is first documented, as ‫ירשלמ‬, in a late-6th-century bce inscrip-
tion from Khirbet Beit Lehi (5.2). The dominant spelling in the MT (638 of
643 cases) is ‫( ירושלם‬including pausal forms and ‫ ירושלמה‬when ending in

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

3.6.2 The Diachronic Status of the Spelling with yod

Whatever the exact developmental process that produced the spelling and pro-
nunciation ‫רּוׁש ַליִם‬
ָ ְ‫י‬, there is general agreement among scholars that they are
late innovations.59 Whereas the spelling without yod comes in the vast major-
ity of the relevant cases in the Bible as well as in the most reliable manuscripts
of the Mishna, the spelling with yod comes only five times in the MT, with a
generally late distribution—Jeremiah (1x), Esther (1x), Chronicles (3x)—and
becomes widespread only in non-Masoretic and post-biblical sources, e.g., the
DSS,60 coins from the Second Temple Period,61 and rabbinic literature.62 It is
not impossible that the different spellings employed in the post-exilic period
represent different pronunciations—with and without a triphthong, respec-
tively—but given the mixture of forms in certain texts, for example, 1QIsaa,
which exhibits 33 with yod and 16 cases without it, it seems more likely that
the name was at this time consistently pronounced, at least by some speakers,
perhaps with a diphthong or triphthong, in which case instances of the orthog-
raphy without yod are merely historical spellings. Alternatively, the spelling

on a false analogy to authentic forms in which e < ay as a result of monophthongiza-

tion (Bauer and Leander 1922: §63c′); locative ending -aym/-ayn, as in ‫‘ ּד ָֹתיְ נָ ה‬to Dothan’
(Gen 37.17), ‫‘ שמרין‬Samaria’ (Aramaic), ‫‘ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Egypt’ (Barth 1894: §194c1, n. 5; GKC §88c;
Brockelmann 1908–1913: I §216); phonological development of ay < a after l, n, or r, and
before m or n (Demsky 2002); it also seems worth pointing out that four of the five occur-
rences of the spelling ‫‘ ירושלים‬Jerusalem’ occur in pause and that one ends in directional
he. Of course, some combination of the aforementioned factors may also have caused or
at least promoted the development of the pronunciation in question, for example, the
reanalysis of a locative ending as the dual suffix.
59 Bauer and Leander 1922: §63c′; Fohrer 1972: 296; Kutscher 1974: 5; 1982: §§118, 153; Bergey
1983: 43–45; Bar-Asher 1985: 94; Qimron 1986: 91; Demsky 2002: 17; cf. Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd (2008: I 43), who refer to the spelling with yod as ‘plene’ and cite a number
of works dealing with the characteristically late status of scriptio plena. Strictly speak-
ing, however, unless the spelling with yod is envisioned as representing yerušalem or
yerušalim, it is not plene, as the yod represents the glide between the two vowels in a
triphthong, and thus does not serve as a mere mater lectionis. Cf. their discussion (ibid. I
183) of the spelling ‫‘ ינ‬wine’ in the Samaria Ostraca, generally deemed to represent yan or
yen, which—problematically—they claim may represent the pronunciation yayn.
60 In the DSS the orthography with yod is more common than the one without by a margin
of approximately 95:60.
61 See Meshorer 1982: II 109, plates 17–19.
62 The dominant biblical orthography seems to have influenced spelling patterns in some
corpora of rabbinic literature. For example, in the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishna
only 13 of the 120 cases of the name have a yod (though it should be noted that some forms
of the name are abbreviated and in some cases the yod appears to be a later insertion); see
Bergey 1983: 44, n. 2; Ryzhik 2013: 938.
 94 chapter 3

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

of the material, e.g., ‫( ירושלים‬for ‫ )ירושלם‬in chapter 26 and theophoric names

ending in the short suffix ‫יה‬- (for ‫יהו‬-; see above, §‎3.5) and the spelling ‫נבוכדנאצר‬
‘Nebuchadnezzar’ (for ‫ ;נבוכדראצר‬see below, §‎3.8) in chapters 27–29.

3.6.4 The MT versus the Greek

There is no difference between the language of the short edition and that of
the supplementary material related to the spelling ‫ירושלים‬, as the form in ques-
tion is reflected in both in all cases. The 19 instances in which mention of the
city in MT Jeremiah is not reflected by use of the city name in the Greek all
involve the spelling ‫( ירושלם‬Jer 2.2; 3.17; 8.5; 27.18, 20, 21; 29.1, 2, 20, 25; 33.16;
34.8, 19; 35.11 [ἐκεῖ = ‫‘ ָׁשם‬there’]; 36.9; 37.5; 38.28; 40.1; 52.3, 13 [τῆς πόλεως = ‫ָה ִעיר‬
‘the city’], 29).

3.7 ‫ שׂ ח"ק‬versus ‫‘ צח"ק‬laugh; play; mock; Isaac’

3.7.1 Preliminary Issues

The name of the patriarch Isaac is mentioned 112 times in the Hebrew Bible. In
108 of the occurrences it is written ‫יִ ְצ ָחק‬, with ṣade, whereas in four cases—Jer
32.26; Amos 7.9, 16; and Ps 105.9—the spelling is ‫יִ ְׂש ָחק‬, with śin. How should
the shift ṣ > ś in this name be explained and does it serve as evidence of the
linguistic character of Jeremiah?
Obviously, one must not deal with the shift ṣ > ś in the proper name ‫יִ ְצ ָחק‬
without first investigating this shift in derivatives of the roots ‫ צח"ק‬and ‫ׂשח"ק‬
more generally.
 According to Brockelmann (1908–1913: §§55dα, 88a) the Arabic
form   preserves the most ancient consonants, the Hebrew form ‫ ָצ ַחק‬hav-

ing resulted from assimilation—the emphatic q < k, due to partial assimilation
to pharyngeal ḥ and emphatic ṣ—and ‫ ָׂש ַחק‬, for its part, from dissimilation—
ś < ṣ—to avoid a sequence of three emphatic/pharyngeal consonants.64

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).

3.7.3 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The distribution of the two roots in non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-
biblical sources confirms the trend that emerges in the mt. The roots are, of
course, unattested in pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew. It is of some significance,
though, that the cognate forms in Ugaritic and Akkadian begin with ṣ and/or
ẓ. The late situation is clearer. In the DSS cases of ‫( שח"ק‬or ‫ )סח"ק‬outnumber
those of ‫ צח"ק‬by a ratio of 10:1. ‫ שח"ק‬occurs four times in Ben Sira, while ‫צח"ק‬
is not documented there at all. In rabbinic literature, too, ‫ ׂשח"ק‬is much more
common than ‫צח"ק‬.67 In light of these distribution patterns, one is led to con-
clude that the two roots coexisted during the early period, but that already
then ‫ ׂשח"ק‬had begun to supplant ‫צח"ק‬, so that by the post-exilic period the
former had become dominant68 and use of the latter was a stylistic hold-over.
In view of the relatively early date of the shift and the proposed mechanism
based on phonetic dissimilation (see above), along with the fact that Aramaic
lacks ‫ׂשח"ק‬, the development in question seems to have been of the internal
variety.

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

3.7.4 Forms of the Proper Name

The distribution of the two forms of the relevant proper name, ‫ יִ ְצ ָחק‬and ‫יִ ְׂש ָחק‬,
does not line up with the distribution of the two roots as described above.
Indeed, despite the growing obsolescence of ‫ צח"ק‬already in CBH sources, the
form ‫ יִ ְצ ָחק‬is dominant not only in the Pentateuch, but throughout the Hebrew
Bible, including LBH, though it is worth pointing out that references to the
patriarch are rare (14 occurrences) outside the Pentateuch. For their part, the
four occurrences of the alternate form, ‫יִ ְׂש ָחק‬, do not appear especially charac-
teristic of any diachronic phase, regional dialect, or social register.
Be that as it may, some help may be garnered from non-Masoretic, non-
Hebrew, and extra-biblical sources, where the spelling with ś is much more
common than it is in the MT. Thus, in the non-biblical material from the DSS
‫( ישחק‬or ‫ )יסחק‬comes 20 times in Hebrew (against four occurrences of ‫)יצחק‬
and twice more in Aramaic (against a single occurrence of ‫)יצחק‬. In the biblical
material from the Judean Desert the form of the name in question generally
parallels that in the MT, so that ‫ יצחק‬is dominant, whereas ‫ ישחק‬appears only
in texts parallel to those biblical texts where it also occurs, i.e., Amos 7.9 (2x)
and Ps 105.9.69 The form ‫ ישחק‬also twice appears in a version of Exod 3.15–16,
against the Masoretic spelling. In all, cases of ‫ ישחק‬in the DSS outnumber those
of ‫ יצחק‬by a margin of 28:15.
The Aramaic targums for the most part reflect the forms in their respective
Hebrew Vorlagen, so that ‫ ישחק‬comes three times in Targum Jonathan, always
parallel with ‫ יִ ְׂש ָחק‬in the MT (though the targum of Ps 105.9 has standard ‫יצחק‬
against Masoretic ‫)יִ ְׂש ָחק‬.70 ‫ ܐܝܣܚܩ‬is also standard in Syriac. RH, conversely,
preserves the classical form, as is customary in the case of well-known biblical
figures.71
The foregoing discussion reveals a linguistic discrepancy between the pro-
cess according to which verbal and common nominal derivatives of the root
‫ ׂשח"ק‬replaced those of ‫ צח"ק‬already at a relatively early point in time and the
persistence of the orthography of the proper name ‫ יצחק‬with ṣ. Why was the

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

process of dissimilation by means of which ṣ > ś operative in the case of verbs

and common nouns, but not in the case of the proper noun? It may be that the
shift in question did in fact occur in the pronunciation of the name, but that
because it belonged to a well-known figure, scribes clung to traditional spell-
ing conventions. From this perspective, the orthography with śin (and samekh)
may constitute a popular phonetic spelling72 that bespeaks a lack of acquain-
tance with or simple disregard for the norms of scribal tradition, a situation
that, it may be assumed, grew more common in the post-biblical period among
certain circles of scribes. With specific regard to the two occurrences of ‫ יִ ְׂש ָחק‬in
the book of Amos: the possibility should not be excluded that these reflect an
authentically northern pronunciation or were at least meant to represent one.73

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

3.7.6 The MT and the Greek

The section of text containing the form ‫יִ ְׂש ָחק‬, Jer 33.14–26, is the longest con-
tinuous portion not represented in the Greek (though it is represented in the
‘proto-Masoretic’ 4QJerc fragment). For a brief discussion on the language of
this section, which exhibits a series of non-standard linguistic features unchar-
acteristic of the rest of the book and which for this and other reasons is consid-
ered by many a secondary addition to the early edition of Jeremiah, see below,

72 Van Selms 1964–1965: 158–159.

73 Both possibilities, along with further bibliography, are brought in Harper 1905: 166–167­.
On the language of Amos in general see Rabin 1981.
74 C. Smith’s (2003) doctoral dissertation, focusing on morphology, argues that a num-
ber of Jeremiah’s non-standard features represent the border dialect of Benjamin, but
many of his conclusions seem highly speculative (see above, §‎1.4.2). In any case, he dis-
cusses neither the root ‫ ׂשח"ק‬nor the proper name ‫יִ ְׂש ָחק‬.
75 See above §‎2.4.
orthography and phonology 99

§‎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 ‫( נבוכדנאצר‬with nun) versus ‫( נבוכדראצר‬with resh) ‘Nebuchadnezzar’

3.8.1 Preliminary Issues

The Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (562–604 bce) is known from both
biblical and extra-biblical sources. His name in Babylonian, Nabū-kudurru/i-
uṣur, while once interpreted to mean ‘O, [the god] Nabu, preserve the border’,76
is today more commonly understood as ‘O, [the god] Nabu, preserve the first-
born/offspring/heir’.77 The different biblical forms of the name are a linguistic
problem of special relevance to an investigation of the language of Jeremiah.
Most modern languages have inherited a form based on Hebrew ‫נבוכדנאצר‬,
with nun, but this is not the only form in the Bible. A spelling with resh,
‫נבוכדראצר‬, is also known.
The name appears in one form or another 91 times in Scripture, 60 times in
Hebrew and 31 times in Aramaic. The forms in Aramaic reflect rather unified
traditions of pronunciation and spelling, the form bearing nun in all cases. The
variety of spellings in Hebrew, on the other hand, reflects different pronuncia-
tion traditions presumably already during the biblical period. The two most
common forms in the Hebrew Bible are ‫נבוכדראצר‬, written with resh (33x),
and ‫נבוכדנאצר‬, written with nun (27x).78 The instability in the spelling and pro-
nunciation traditions is hardly surprising, as this is often the case with foreign
names that deviate from native patterns.79
On the basis of forms of the name in Babylonian sources, it emerges that
the spelling with resh offers a closer match to the Akkadian than the form with

76 BDB 613a; see Gesenius 1847: 527a for further suggestions.

77 Van Selms 1974: 225; Wiseman 1985: 43; HALOT 660a–b; Kaddari 2006: 689a.
78 There are a few further variations, especially in the inclusion or exclusion of a mater lec-
tionis waw for the u vowel in the second syllable. There are also several cases in which
the ʾalef has been omitted. Finally, twice (Jer 49.28 and Ezra 2.1) the ktiv has a form with a
mater lectionis waw in the last syllable, evidently corresponding to a pronunciation with
o, similar to that found in Greek (Ναβουχοδονοςορ) and Latin (Nabuchodonosor), or, alter-
natively, to a pronunciation with u, as in Akkadian Nabū-kudurru/i-uṣur.
79 Compare the situation of the foreign name ‫‘ ֲא ַרוְ נָ ה‬Araunah’, mentioned twice in 2 Sam
24.16–24, and later Hebraized to ‫‘ ָא ְרנָ ן‬Ornan’ in its 12 occurrences in 1 Chr 21.15–28 and 2
Chr 3.1.
100 chapter 3

nun,80 as the Hebrew consonantal form ‫אצר‬-‫כדר‬-‫ נבו‬closely corresponds to

Babylonian Nabū-kudurru/i-uṣur.81 If so, how to account for the form with nun?82
Further, how should the biblical distribution of the two forms be explained?

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

3.8.3 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

While the Akkadian scribes of Babylon seem consistently to have written
the name in question with r, spellings reflecting n are very common in late
non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-biblical sources, for example, the
DSS84 and rabbinic literature.85 This is also the preferred form in the Aramaic
targums,86 the Syriac Peshiṭta, and that generally reflected in Greek and Latin
transliterations.

3.8.4 Explanations of the Shift r > n and Its Diachronic Ramifications

A variety of proposals for the shift r > n in the name in question have been
advanced. According to one (Price 1899: 27–28, n. 1) the interchange is no more
than a scribal corruption arising from the graphic similarity between nun and

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

87 Thus Bula 1983: 262; Wiseman 1985: 2–3.

88 See also Ružička 1909: 24 (as cited in HALOT 660a). LaSor (1987: 506) rejects this expla-
nation on the grounds that—in his words—the interchange is always Hebrew nun >
Aramaic resh, as in ‫ ֵּבן‬vs. ‫בר‬. Yet the opposite interchange is also known, as in Hebrew
‫ ִמזְ ָרח‬vs. Aramaic ‫מדנח‬. According to Wiseman (1983: 2–3), there is no need to assume
that the interchange of the two letters in the name in question was caused by the pro-
nunciation in Aramaic, because the shift from r > n occurs in additional transliterations
of Babylonian names.
102 chapter 3

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.

3.8.6 The MT and the Greek

Out of the 37 cases of the name ‫נאצר‬/‫ נבוכדר‬in the MT, only 14 are paralleled
in the Greek.90 Of these 14, all but one are spelled with resh (the exception
is Jer 27.6). This means that in the material common to both editions the
ratio between the form with resh and the form with nun is 13:1, whereas in the
material reflected only in the MT the same two forms occur at a ratio of 16:7,
though, admittedly, some portion of these instances may be stylistic omissions
rather than genuine textual differences. Thus, the latter, supplementary mate-
rial, while still favoring the spelling with resh, exhibits a tendency toward the
spelling with nun—30.4 percent—more than four times greater than that of
the material common to both editions—7.1 percent—a noticeable shift in the
direction of patterns known from decidedly post-classical compositions.

3.9 Derivatives of ‫‘ רפ"א‬heal’ on the ‫ ל"י‬Pattern

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

The situation is more complicated in the case of derivatives of the root

‫רפ"א‬. This root is represented some hundred times in the Bible, relevant forms
including verbs (‫‘ ָר ָפא‬heal [transitive]’, ‫‘ ִר ֵּפא‬heal [transitive], repair’, ‫נִ ְר ָּפא‬
‘heal [intransitive], be healed’, ‫‘ ִה ְת ַר ֵּפא‬heal [intransitive], be healed’), com-
mon nouns (‫ ַמ ְר ֵּפא‬, ‫פּואה‬ ָ ‫ ְר‬, ‫ ִר ְפאּות‬, ‫רּופה‬
ָ ‫ ְּת‬all ‘cure, treatment, remedy’),91 and
proper nouns (‫‘ יִ ְר ְּפ ֵאל‬Irpeel [literally ‘may God heal’]’, ‫‘ ָר ָפא‬Rapha [literally
‘he has healed’]’, ‫‘ ְר ָפ ֵאל‬Raphael [literally ‘God has healed’]’, ‫‘ ָרפּוא‬Raphu [liter-
ally ‘healed’]’, ‫‘ ְר ָפיָ ה‬Rephaiah [literally ‘Yah has healed’]’).92 In the majority of
cases both the written and oral traditions bear witness to the pronunciation
of the radical ʾalef. However, in a not insignificant minority of cases—18 out
of one-hundred—the consonantal text, the vocalization signs, or a combina-
tion of the two testifies to a tradition according to which ʾalef was not pro-
nounced: ‫אתי ַל ַּמיִם ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬ ִ ‫‘ ִר ִּפ‬I have healed this water’ (2 Kgs 2.21); ‫‘ וַ ּיֵ ָרפּו ַה ַּמיִם‬and
the water was healed’ (ibid. v. 22); ‫‘ ִהנְ נִ י ֫ר ֹ ֶפא ָלְך‬Behold, I am healing you’ (ibid.
20.5);93 ‫‘ ֶא ְר ָּפה ְמׁשּוב ֵֹת ֶיכם‬I will cure your backsliding’ (Jer 3.22); ‫ת־ׁש ֶבר‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ַרּפּו ֶא‬
ַ ‫‘ ַּב‬They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people’ (ibid. 8.11);
‫ת־ע ִּמי‬
‫‘ ַמ ְר ֵּפה‬healing’ (ibid. v. 15); ‫א־יּוכל ְל ֵה ָר ֵפה עֹוד‬ַ ֹ ‫‘ ל‬it can no more be repaired’ (ibid.
19.11); ‫ת־ּב ֶבל וְ לֹא נִ ְר ָּפ ָתה‬
ָ ‫‘ ִר ִּפינּו ֶא‬we treated Babylon, but she was not healed’ (ibid.
51.9 [2x] qre; ktiv ‫‘ וְ נִ ְרּפּו ַה ַּמיִ ם ;)רפאנו‬and the water was healed’ (Ezek 47.8 qre;
ktiv ‫רּופה ;)ונרפאו‬ ָ ‫‘ ִל ְת‬for healing’ (ibid. v. 12); ‫יה‬ ָ ‫‘ ְר ָפה ְׁש ָב ֶר‬mend the fractures!’
(Ps 60.4); ‫‘ ְיִמ ַחץ וְ יָ ָדיו ִּת ְר ֶּפינָ ה‬he will strike, but his hands will heal’ (Job 5.18 qre;
ktiv ‫‘ ְר ָפיָ ה ;)וידו‬Rephaiah’ (Neh 3.9; 1 Chr 3.21; 4.42; 7.2; 9.43). In nine instances
(2 Kgs 2.22; Jer 8.11; 51.9b; Ezek 47.12; Neh 3.9; 1 Chr 3.21; 4.42; 7.2; 9.43) the writ-
ten and oral traditions agree on elision of the ʾalef; in four cases (Jer 3.22; 8.15;
19.11; Ps 60.4) the written tradition reflects omission of the ʾalef against the pro-
nunciation tradition, where the vocalization preserves its reflex; in another
four cases (2 Kgs 2.21; 20.5; Jer 51.9a; Ezek 47.8) the reading tradition testifies
to the non-pronunciation of ʾalef against the consonantal text; and in one case
(Job 5.18) the written tradition has no ʾalef, whereas the oral tradition is ambig-
uous. The distribution of the aforementioned forms is striking: the majority
occur in texts composed at the end of the First Temple Period, during the Exile,

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

3.9.2 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

The hypothesis that the interchange in question is more characteristic of late
texts than of early ones receives confirmation from non-Masoretic and extra-
biblical sources, which are also characterized by the use of derivatives of ‫רפ"א‬
in which the ʾalef was no longer pronounced, sometimes indicating formation
according to patterns characteristic of the ‫ ל"י‬pattern. Consider the following:
nominal forms—‫‘ מרפה‬healing’ (4Q176 f30.3 [?]; 4Q216 6.13), ‫‘ תרופות‬remedies’
(Ben Sira 38.4 [SirB 8r.10], ‫‘ ִריּפּוי‬healing’ (M Bava Qamma 8.1 [2x]; M ʿAvoda
Zara 2.2 [2x]); verbal forms—‫‘ ונרפו‬and they will be healed’ (1QIsaa 15.30 || ‫וְ ָרפֹוא‬
[Isa 19.22]), ‫‘ ורפתיהו‬and I shall heal him’ (1QIsaa 47.19 || ‫אתיו‬ ִ ‫[ ְּור ָפ‬Isa 57.19]),
‫‘ ורפתיו‬and I shall heal him’ (4Q58 12.3 || ‫אתיו‬ ִ ‫[ ְּור ָפ‬Isa 57.19]), ‫‘ רפאני ה' וארפה‬heal
me, Yhwh, and I shall be healed’ (4Q70 f26–28.5 || ‫[ ְר ָפ ֵאנִ י ה' וְ ֵא ָר ֵפא‬Jer 17.14]),
‫(‘ ִמ ְת ַר ִפים‬they) would be healed’ (M Rosh Ha-Shana 3.8), ‫‘ ְל ַרּפֹאותה‬to heal
her’ (M Ketubbot 4.9), ‫ּומ ַר ֵּפהּו‬ ְ ‘and he heals him’ (M Nedarim 4.4), ‫ְל ַר ְּפֹותֹו‬
‘to heal him’ (M Bava Qamma 8.1 [2x]), ‫‘ ְל ַרּפֹותֹו‬to heal him’ (ibid.), ‫ִמ ְת ַר ִּפין‬
‘they let themselves be healed’ (M ʿAvoda Zara 2.2), ‫רֹופה‬ ֵ ‫‘ ָה‬the physician’
(M Bekhorot 4.4).
This tendency is also evident in other examples of rabbinic literature,
e.g., the Tosefta, the Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifre Bemidbar, and the Babylonian and
Jerusalem Talmuds. The spelling without ʾalef and vocalizations reflecting its
elision are by no means standard in these sources, but they come in a sizeable
minority of the cases.
It is true that some Masoretic, non-Masoretic, and extra-biblical forms may
be explained merely as phonetic (versus historical) spellings, which have no
real significance regarding morphological derivation. For example, in the form
‫(‘ ִּת ְר ֶּפינָ ה‬his hands) will heal’ (Job 5.18), the pronunciation would not change
whether the ʾalef were written or not, since ʾalef in syllable-final position is
generally elided. Likewise in the case of the proper name ‫‘ ְר ָפיָ ה‬Rephaiah’. In
other instances, for example, ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫‘ ִר ִּפ‬I healed’ (2 Kgs 2.21), the vocalization
alone reflects a ‫ ל"י‬derivation, while the consonantal form reflects that of a
‫ ל"א‬form. Be that as it may, there are sufficient forms spelled without ʾalef that
do reflect ‫ ל"י‬pronunciation and derivation—like ‫‘ וַ ּיֵ ָרפּו‬and they were healed’
(2 Kgs 2.22), ‫‘ וַ יְ ַרּפּו‬and they have healed’ (Jer 8.11), ‫‘ נִ ְר ָּפ ָתה‬she was healed’ (ibid.
51.9), ‫רּופה‬ ָ ‫‘ ְּת‬remedy’ (Ezek 47.12)—to postulate—already in the exilic and
post-exilic periods—the beginnings of the process that would eventually lead

94 Ps 60 and of the poetic sections of Job are difficult to date linguistically.

106 chapter 3

to the fairly regular post-biblical use of forms such as ‫‘ ִריּפּוי‬healing’, ‫‘ לרפות‬to

heal’, and ‫‘ להתרפות‬to heal oneself’.

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.

3.9.4 The MT and the Greek

The Ancient Greek translation presents parallels in five of the six cases in
which the consonantal text of Jeremiah omits the ʾalef in forms of ‫רפ"א‬. Only
the form ‫‘ וַ יְ ַרּפּו‬and they have healed’ (Jer 8.11) has no parallel in the Greek.
This form comes as part of a doublet in the MT—Jer 6.13–15 || Jer 8.10b–12—of
which only the first case—reflecting the consonantal ʾalef—is reflected in the
Greek.

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

Pronominal Morphology (Pronouns, Pronominal

Suffixes, and Verbal Endings)

4.1 1cs: ‫ אֲ נִ י‬and ‫‘ אָ נ ִֹכי‬I’

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

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/978900426965�_�05

pronominal morphology 109

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).

4.1.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

A similar tendency to that described above for the late biblical material also
obtains in non-Masoretic and post-biblical Hebrew sources, such as the DSS
and rabbinic literature, in both of which ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬comes only in imitation of the
Bible or in citations thereof,5 and the book of Ben Sira, which employs only
‫ ֲאנִ י‬.6 The picture that emerges from the pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptions, on the
other hand, is not entirely clear, there being few unequivocal examples in the
extant sources.7
Ancient cognate languages use either only a cognate of ‫( ֲאנִ י‬Aramaic, Arabic,
Ethiopic, and apparently Amorite and Eblaite as well), only a cognate of ‫ָאנ ִֹכי‬
(Amarna Canaanite, Phoenician [Punic], and the extremely limited corpus
of Moabite), or cognates of both (Akkadian, Ugaritic, both of which reserve a
form parallel to ‫ ֲאנִ י‬for poetry).

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

4.1.3 Explanations for the Use of the Two Forms

A diachronic explanation according to which the form ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬largely fell into dis-
use in the post-exilic period accounts for the state of affairs during the late
period. It seems reasonable to assume that Aramaic, which in the later period
exerted profound influence on Hebrew by virtue of its status as an imperial
lingua franca, and which had only a cognate of ‫ ֲאנִ י‬, played some role in this
process. However, internal factors related to register should not be ignored.
On account of the late distribution patterns many have seen the preference
for ‫ ֲאנִ י‬as distinctively characteristic of the late phases of ancient Hebrew.
But a more nuanced description of the situation is required: all late texts are
indeed characterized by a decided preference for or even exclusive use of ‫ ֲאנִ י‬,
but since ‫ ֲאנִ י‬was clearly available for use during earlier periods, its frequent or
even exclusive employment in a text of unknown date does not—against what
some have claimed8—point unequivocally to a late date of composition. Since
a purely chronological explanation cannot account for the mixed usage of the
two forms in CBH, alternative theories, invoking dialect,9 register,10 syntax,11
and pragmatics,12 have been proposed, some accounting for the data more
successfully than others. Not surprisingly, some scholars see no functional dif-
ference between the two forms.13

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

8 See, for example, Giesebrecht 1881: 251–258; Cheyne 1895: 256–257.

9 Isaksson (1987: 142) argues that ‫ ֲאנִ י‬is more characteristically northern; cf. Rendsburg
1990a: 142–143.
10 Segal 1936: §67; Harris 1939: 74; Kutscher 1982: §40; Schoors 1989: 72; 1992–2004: I §1.1.1.1;
Rendsburg 1990a: 143–144 (hesitantly); Hadas-Lebel 1995: 148.
11 Cassuto (1953: 44–45) identified syntactic factors behind the use of the two forms based
on a study of the book of Genesis, but as Rendsburg (1990a: 142, n. 10) correctly observes,
the validity of these factors does not hold for the rest of the Bible.
12 On the basis of a study of the Pentateuch Rosén (1975) presented a rather complicated
pragmatic system involving information structure, expectation and intention, temporal
progression, and syntax, but this was at least partially disproven by Revell (1995: 199, n. 1),
who adduced counter-examples from outside the Pentateuch. For his part, Revell (ibid.:
200–216) has developed an explanation based on speaker status and information struc-
ture, though it should be noted that counter-examples can be furnished to demonstrate
the non-universality of his system.
13 Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §16.3a. See also Wellhausen 1885: 390.
pronominal morphology 111

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.

4.1.5 The MT and the Greek

The mixed usage of ‫ ֲאנִ י‬and ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬characterizes both the short edition of Jeremiah
and the supplementary material.16 Furthermore, each layer is characterized by
the same archaistic usage of ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬.

14 Jer 24.7 and 25.29.

15 The two exceptions are Jer 1.6, in the prophet’s initial conversation with God, and Jer 28.7,
in the prophet’s public confrontation with Hananiah.
16 It is difficult to provide precise statistics for the use of the two forms in each stratum
because it is not always possible to determine whether a given instance of mismatch
between the Masoretic and Greek versions reflects genuine textual difference or the
activity of the translator(s). ‫ ֲאנִ י‬finds no explicit parallel in the Greek corresponding to Jer
1.11, 13, 18; 13.26; 28.4; 30.11; 36.18; and 38.14; ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬finds no explicit parallel in Jer 1.17; 27.6;
29.11 (2x); 30.22; and 32.42. Whatever the exact statistics may be, it seems clear that the
supplementary material, like the short edition, makes use of both forms.
112 chapter 4

4.2 2fs: ‫( אתי‬ktiv) for ‫אַ ְּת‬, ‫ ִכי‬- for ‫ ְך‬-, and ‫ ִּתי‬- for and ‫ ְּת‬- ‘you; your’

A certain lack of symmetry characterizes the standard set of 2fs suffixes

in Tiberian BH. In the yiqṭol (‫ ) ִּת ְק ְט ִלי‬and imperative (‫ ) ִק ְט ִלי‬these forms end
with an i vowel, whereas the relevant independent subject pronoun (‫) ַא ְּת‬,
object/possessive pronominal suffix (‫ְך‬-), and qaṭal verbal ending (‫ ְּת‬-) all
terminate with a consonant. There is, however, evidence—both external and
internal—that the latter endings may also at one time have regularly ended
in a vowel in Hebrew. The external evidence consists of the parallel endings
in cognateْ َ‫ أ‬languages, many of which end in i, e.g., Akkadian (attī, -ki, -āti),
‫نت‬ ‫ت‬
Arabic (�ِ ܿ � � ,ܰ ‫ك‬-, ِ various
ِ �-), ܿ dialects of Aramaic (‫אנתי‬/‫אתי‬, ‫כי‬-, ‫תי‬-), including
Syriac (‫ܐܢܬܝ‬, ‫ ܼܟܝ‬-, ‫ܬܝ‬- [written tradition only]), Ethiopic (ánti, -ki, -ki), and
Samaritan Hebrew (independent subject pronoun ‫ אתי‬and qaṭal verbal end-
ing ‫תי‬- only). BH also exhibits forms with a final i, quite regularly in the case
of the qaṭal verbal ending when followed by an object suffix, e.g., ‫‘ ּונְ ַת ִּתיהּו‬you
(fs) have placed it’ (Ezek 16.19) and ‫‘ ִל ַּב ְב ִּתינִ י‬you (fs) have captured my heart’
(Song 4.9).17 Other biblical vestiges of the suffixes under discussion are non-
standard and merit discussion.
The accepted explanation for the general loss of the i vowel in question is
that, as an anceps vowel (a vowel pronounced alternatively long or short), it
was retained when long and dropped when short, the latter in accordance with
the shedding of final short vowels that is known to have taken place in the
history of ancient Hebrew. This approach assumes the correspondence of the
written and pronunciation traditions, i.e., that orthographic forms ending in
a consonant were indeed pronounced without a final vowel. Alternatively, it
has been argued that the i vowel in question was not actually lost from BH,

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

Book ‫אתי‬/‫את‬+‫( אתי‬%) ‫כי‬-/‫ך‬-+‫כי‬- (%) ‫תי‬-/‫ת‬-+‫תי‬- (%)

Judges 1/5 (20%) 0/21 (0%) 2/11 (18.2%)

Kings 4/9 (44%) 4/72 (5.6%) 0/12 (0%)
Jeremiah 1/8 (12.5%) 1/179 (0.6%) 8/30 (26.7%)
Ezekiel 1/13 (7.7%) 0/448 (0%) 10/67 (14.9%)
Psalms — 10/65 (15.4%) 0/2 (0%)
Song of Songs 0/1 (0%) 1/71 (1.4%) 0/2 (0%)
Micah — 0/16 (0%) 1/3 (33.3%)
Ruth 0/4 (0%) 0/40 (0%) 2/22 (9.1%)

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

(a) genuine archaisms, i.e., old forms in old texts,

(b) authentic dialectal features characteristic of the north,
(c) pseudo-dialectal forms meant to represent a non-standard dialect,
(d) pseudo-archaisms under the late influence of Aramaic (sometimes for
purposes of euphony), and
(e) various combinations of the above.21

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

is considered to be both genuinely archaic and authentically dialectal, either

or both of which factors may explain the preservation of the primitive non-
standard 2fs qaṭal form twice in v. 5.22 The case of ‫ אתי‬in Jdg 17.2 also comes
in a northern setting (Ephraim), though it should be noted that there are no
examples of either ‫כי‬- or ‫תי‬- in two potential cases of each.

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

4.2.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The relevant 2fs morphemes ending in i are fairly common in DSS Hebrew27
and in the Samaritan Pentateuch are the norm in the case of ‫ אתי‬and quite
common in the case of ‫תי‬-.28 Furthermore, as already stated, the endings were
preserved in various Aramaic dialects and orthographies. According to one
view, then, such forms are the result of late Aramaic influence on these types of
Hebrew.29 This would presumably qualify as a case of ‘linguistic convergence’,30
since the Hebrew forms are not pure loans from Aramaic. According to
another view, the sources in question preserve an ancient feature of Hebrew
obscured by the Tiberian vocalization of the MT.31 The absence of the endings
in question from RH may indicate that their employment in the DSS and the
Samaritan Pentateuch, not to mention late texts in the mt, is more a literary
affectation than a feature genuinely representative of the vernacular. However,
the situation may have been more complex than this, with multiple vernacular
dialects, some in which the final vowel was pronounced and others in which
it was not.

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

4.2.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents parallels for all instances of 2fs ‫אתי‬, ‫ ִכי‬-, and ‫ ִּתי‬- in Jeremiah,
indicating that this is not one of the features distinguishing the short edition
from the supplementary material. All cases of MT ‫ ַא ְּת‬and ‫ (וְ ) ָק ַט ְל ְּת‬are also
reflected in one way or another in the Greek. There are 12 instances in which
the MT 2fs object/possessive suffix is not reflected in the Greek,34 but in all of
these the Tiberian form is ‫ְך‬-. If any number of these latter are to be considered
part of the supplementary material, then from this perspective its language is
entirely standard.

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

4.3 3fs: ‫ קטלת‬for ‫קטלה‬

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).

4.3.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

In early Hebrew epigraphic sources there is a single relevant case, ‫ הית‬in the
Siloam Tunnel inscription (ln. 3).36 The form ‫ ֯הית‬in the Mesha Stele (ln. 12),
though not Hebrew, is also worthy of note. In later material, though the ‫ה‬- end-
ing dominates, the ‫ת‬- ending has yet to fall into oblivion. The latter occurs in a
minority of cases in the DSS.37 RH alone is characterized by the regular, though
conditioned, use of the ending in question: in the most reliable manuscripts
the ‫ קנת‬pattern regularly replaces the ‫ קנתה‬pattern in the majority of ‫ ל"י‬verbs.38

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:

Since in BH the earlier form is extremely rare, it would be very difficult to

explain it as a survival in MH. It would also be difficult to assume Aramaic
influence here since we can not explain why it should have affected only
the ‫ ל"י‬verbs. Perhaps we shall have to fall back again upon dialect mix-
ture as the explanation, and to assume that in some Hebrew dialect a
form of the type ‫ ָקנָ ת‬survived for phonological reasons that can not be set
forth here, and from that dialect it was taken over by MH.41

We may thus be dealing with a confluence of various factors, internal and

external.42

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

40 Kutscher 1974: 191; 1982: §55; Rendsburg 1992d: 230.

41 See also Rendsburg 1992d: 229–230; C. Smith 2003: 159–162; cf. Blau 1983.
42 See the useful approach to ‘linguistic convergence’ in Gzella 2103.
pronominal morphology 123

(1982: §54) terminology, would constitute a ‘mirage form’, borrowed from

Aramaic in imitation of archaic Hebrew.43 One might also weigh the possibil-
ity that the non-standard usage represents a literary device whereby the poet
made use of an Aramaic-type form to hint at exile to eastern lands, where this
language was spoken.44
Regarding ‫‘ ָק ָראת‬she called’ (Jer 44.23): the issue of derivatives of ‫ קר"א‬and
‫ קר"י‬in Hebrew is interesting. In the early epigraphic sources ‫ קר"א‬is repre-
sented by seven examples, all of them in the sense ‘speak in an audible voice,
interpret a written text’,45 whereas ‫ קר"י‬is represented by two examples, both
in the sense ‘occur, happen, befall, meet’.46 Also in the Bible derivations of the
two roots tend to come in their respective meanings, though there are not a
few instances in which derivations of ‫ קר"א‬come in meanings normally associ-
ated with ‫קר"י‬, i.e., ‘occur, happen, befall, meet’.47 This interchange arises both

43 Rendsburg 1992d: 230; C. Smith 2003: 162.

44 C. Smith 2003: 262. GKC (§75m) hints at a phonological solution, according to which ‫ת‬-
replaces ‫תה‬- for purposes of euphony before the letters ʾalef and yod. It should be noted,
however, that in the majority of cases words beginning with these letters are preceded by
3fs (we)qaṭal forms ending in standard ‫תה‬-.
45 ‫‘ קל אש ק[ר]א אל רעו‬voice of a man ca[ll]ing to his companion’ (Siloam 2–3); ‫לא ידעתה‬
֯ ‫‘ ֯קרא ֯ס‬you do not know how to read a letter’ (Lachish 3.8–9), ‫חיהוה אמ נסה איש לקרא‬
‫פר‬
‫‘ לי ספר‬As surely as Yhwh lives nobody has tried to read me a letter’ (9–10), ‫כל ספר אשר‬
‫‘ יבא אלי אמ קראתי אתה‬every letter that comes to me I have surely read it’ (11–12); ‫עבדכ‬
‫‘ כלב כי שלח אדני א[ת ספ]ר המלכ [ואת] ספרי השר[מ לאמ]ר קרא נא‬your servant is a dog
that my lord has sent the [lett]er of the king [and] the letters of the officer[s say]ing read
now’ (6.3–5), ‫‘ מ]אז קרא עבדכ את הספר[מ‬since your servant read the letter[s] (13–14);
‫[‘ [ס]פר [ח]י יהוה [כ]י אי ק[ר]אתי [א]תה‬le]tter [as surely as] Yhwh [liv]es [I swe]ar that I
re[a]d [i]t’ (12.1–4).
46 ‫‘ הכו החצבמ אש לקרת רעו‬the hewers struck each man to meet his fellow’ (Siloam 4);
‫והבקידמ על יד אלישע בנ ירמיהו ברמת נגב פנ יקרה את העיר דבר‬ ֯ ‘and he will entrust
them into the hand of Elisha son of Jeremiah in Rammat Negev, lest something happen to
the city’ (Arad 24.14–17).
47 According to Even-Shoshan’s (1977) concordance there are in the Bible some 740 instances
of ‫ קר"א‬in the sense ‘call, read’ (1026–1029), 22 cases of ‫‘ קר"י‬occur, happen, befall, meet’
(1034), and 17 cases of finite verbs derived from ‫ קר"א‬in the sense ‘occur, happen, befall,
meet’ (1029). In ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫יק ֵר‬ ְ ִ‫‘ נִ ְקרֹא נ‬I simply chanced upon’ (2 Sam 1.6) there is a combination
of the forms derived from the two roots in the sense ‘occur, happen, befall, meet’; in ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ּוב‬
ָ
ַ ‫‘ ַל ֲה ִבינְ ָך ֵאת ֲא ֶׁשר־יִ ְק ָרה ְל ַע ְּמָך‬I have come to make you understand what
‫ּבא ֲח ִרית ַהּיָ ִמים‬
will happen to your people in the future’ (Dan 10.14) the consonantal text reflects a ‫ל"י‬
derivation, the vocalization a ‫ ל"א‬derivation, the latter apparently under the influence of
Jacob’s prophecy in ‫‘ ֵה ָא ְספּו וְ ַאּגִ ָידה ָל ֶכם ֵאת ֲא ֶׁשר־יִ ְק ָרא ֶא ְת ֶכם ְּב ַא ֲח ִרית ַהּיָ ִמים‬gather that
I may tell you what will happen to you in the future’ (Gen 49.1). On the infinitival form/
preposition ‫‘ ִל ְק ַר(א)ת‬to meet/toward’, see below.
124 chapter 4

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:

Deut 31.29 calamity will befall (‫ )וְ ָק ָראת‬you in the future

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-.

4.3.5 The MT and the Greek

The three forms in question are paralleled in the Greek of Jeremiah
(though the second case of ‫‘ ָהגְ ָלת‬was (fs) exiled’ in Jer 13.19 was evidently
understood as the nominal form ‫‘ * ַהּגָ ֻלת‬the exile’. Conversely, the 12 (we)qaṭal
forms in MT Jeremiah unparalleled in the Greek (Jer 7.28; 10.7; 16.4; 23.10; 38.28;
48.1, 39; 49.24; 50.12, 14; 51.44; 52.3) all end in ‫ה‬-.

4.4 1cpl: ‫( אנו‬ktiv) for ‫‘ ) ֲא)נַ ְחנּו‬we’

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

4.4.2 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

In the non-biblical DSS ‫ אנחנו‬comes 35 times, ‫ נחנו‬once, and ‫ אנו‬22 times.54 In
RH ‫ ָאנּו‬is the preferred 1cpl independent pronoun,55 while ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬comes only in
prayers, blessings, and the like,56 or as a consequence of the copyists’ tendency
to mimic biblical style.57

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.,

just as ‫ ָק ַט ְל ִּתי‬: ‫ק ַט ְלנּו‬,ָ ‫ ְק ָט ַלנִ י‬: ‫ק ָט ַלנּו‬, ִ so ‫ ֲאנִ י‬: ‫ ָאנּו‬.59

ְ ‫ ִמ ֶּמּנִ י‬: ‫מ ֶּמּנּו‬,

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

4.4.5 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents an independent pronoun parallel to ‫( אנו‬ktiv) / ‫אנחנו‬
(qre) in Jer 42.6, but it is obviously impossible to determine which form the
translator(s) had before him (them). All ten instances of ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬in MT Jeremiah
are paralleled in the Greek.

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

4.5 3mpl: ‫ הֵ ּ ָמה‬and ‫‘ הֵ ם‬they’

4.5.1 Preliminary Issues

The 3mpl independent pronoun comes in two forms in the mt, ‫ ֵהם‬and ‫ֵה ָּמה‬
‘they’. The long form is slightly more common than the short (by a propor-
tion of 290:273). There is widespread scholarly consensus on the development
of the short form: hem < him < humu; that is to say, loss of final u, due to the
general loss of final short vowels in ancient Hebrew, and the shift i < u, due to
analogy to the 3fpl independent pronoun.72
On the development of the long form opinions vary. According to Kutscher
(1959: 344) it developed from a form like ‫*המת‬, as in Ugaritic and Phoenician.
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000: §3.0) posits two basic forms in ancient Hebrew, one end-
ing in long a, which developed into ‫ המה‬in Tiberian Hebrew and to imma in
the Samaritan Hebrew reading tradition, and one ending in short a, which
developed into ‫ הם‬in Tiberian Hebrew and disappeared from Samaritan
Hebrew (with the possible exception of the orthography, which consistently
has ‫)הם‬. Qimron’s (2000: 241–242) view also deserves mention. On the basis
of the pronunciation of ‫ הם‬as imma in Samaritan Hebrew, along with the fre-
quency of the ending ‫ה‬- on pronouns, verbal endings, pronominal suffixes, and
other forms in the DSS—which, according to Morag (1988: 157–159), should
be considered genuinely representative of some non-standard dialect, and not
merely an exaggerated attempt of archaization—Qimron takes ‫ המה‬to be more
primitive than ‫הם‬, arguing that at least some portion—perhaps most—of the
cases of ‫ הם‬in the Bible are in reality instances of defective spelling, where the
pronunciation was hemma. Qimron reconstructs the process of development
hem < hemma < himma < humu, in which the first shift results from analogy to
the 3fpl independent pronoun and the rest of the steps parallel that pronoun’s
development: hen < henna < hinna. In light of the late status of the short 3fpl
independent subject pronoun ‫ הן‬hen in Hebrew, one must posit a similarly late
development of ‫ הם‬hem. In Qimron’s opinion the consistently long pronuncia-
tion reflected in Samaritan imma is more authentic than the sometimes long,
sometimes short pronunciation reflected in the MT, which, in his words, is
completely dependent on the orthography.

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

It is difficult to decide between the aforementioned approaches, as all

involve a certain measure of reconstruction and speculation. This seems
especially true in the case of Qimron’s. There is little doubt that the 3fpl pro-
noun exerted some influence on its 3mpl counterpart, since there seems no
other way of explaining the shift in theme-vowel from u > i (unless, of course,
Fassberg is correct in suggesting that this may be due to dissimilation from
the original final u vowel; [see above, n. 72]). In any case, the possibility that
‫ המה‬was shortened to ‫ הם‬out of analogy to the development ‫ הנה < הן‬is reason-
able, but no more so than the possibility that ‫ הנה‬was shortened to ‫ הן‬due to
the late dominance of ‫( הם‬especially in the spoken register, as indicated by
the exclusive use of this form in RH [see below]). Finally, the value placed by
Qimron on the evidence adduced from the Samaritan reading tradition seems
unwarranted. The consistency with which this tradition reads imma arouses at
least as much suspicion as the MT’s consistent vocalization according to writ-
ten form.73 Whatever the exact course of development of the two forms, for
the time being, it would seem prudent to assume natural, rather than forced,
correspondence between the Masoretic orthographical and reading traditions.
In terms of semantics or function, it is difficult to discern a distinction
between the two forms,74 though certain tendencies have been noticed. For
example, the short form is preferred in combinations with the definite article.75
Likewise, it seems in some instances that one form was better suited to the
specific rhythm of a clause or phrase.76 Finally, diverging tendencies have been
noted in different parts of the Bible (see below).

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.

Table 4.5.2 mt distribution of ‫ ֵהם‬and ‫ֵה ָּמה‬

Book ‫הֵ ם‬ ‫הֵ ּ ָמה‬ Book ‫הֵ ם‬ ‫הֵ ּ ָמה‬ Book ‫הֵ ם‬ ‫הֵ ּ ָמה‬

Genesis 18 4 Isaiah77 9 12 Psalms 3 25

Exodus 19 5 Jeremiah 17 51 Proverbs 6 4
Leviticus 18 1 Ezekiel 8 56 Job 1 3
Numbers 23 10 Hosea 6 7 Song of Songs 1 1
Deuteronomy 17 5 Joel 0 2 Ruth 0 1
Pentateuch 95 25 Micah 0 1 Lamentations 1 1
Joshua 7 6 Nahum 0 1 Qohelet 2 4
Judges 16 8 Habakkuk 0 1 Esther 3 1
Samuel 11 24 Zephaniah 0 2 Daniel 2 0
Kings 48 15 Zechariah 4 8 Ezra 1 0
Former Prophets 272 103 Malachi 0 1 Nehemiah 10 8
Latter Prophets 44 142 Chronicles 22 22
Writings 52 70
Core LBH 40 35
TOTALS 273 290

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

77 In chapters 1–39 the ratio is 5:3; in chapters 40–66 it is 7:6.

132 chapter 4

4.5.3 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

Consider the following pattern of distribution in non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew,
and extra-biblical sources:

Table 4.5.3 Non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-biblical distribution of ‫ הם‬and ‫המה‬

Source ‫הם‬ ‫המה‬

Mesha Stele (Moabite) 1 (?) 0

Samaritan Pentateuch (qre) 118 (0) 0 (118)
Ben Sira 3 1
Non-biblical DSS 69 117
Biblical DSS 38 54
Mishna 47 2

There is a single case of the 3mpl independent pronoun in extra-biblical

sources from the First Temple Period, though not in Hebrew, but Moabite: ‫המ‬.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine with certainty whether or not this
form was pronounced with a final vowel.78 Moreover, the form in question is
not an independent subject pronoun, but an object pronoun,79 further calling
into question its relevance to the discussion.
Evidence from later material is more plentiful, but not necessarily less
complicated. As already mentioned, the written tradition of the Samaritan
Pentateuch makes consistent use of the short form, but aside from the doubts
that arise from what appears to be an artificial degree of consistency (achieved
by replacing the minority ‫ המה‬forms with ‫)הם‬,80 the Samaritan pronunciation
tradition consistently reads imma.81 For their part, the DSS reveal a tendency in
favor of the long form; this is especially marked in non-biblical material. Even
in the biblical material, though, there is a marked shift toward the long form:
on 16 occasions the Dead Sea material has ‫ המה‬against the MT;82 it presents

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).

As previously noted, the diachronic explanation is not without its problems.

Some ostensibly classical material displays a preference for ‫ ֵה ָּמה‬, while LBH
use of ‫ ֵהם‬, though proportionally less frequent than that in the Torah, is by no
means negligible; indeed, it is to some degree comparable to use of the two
forms in material thought to be early.86 Still, it is premature to discard the dia-
chronic explanation. As Kutscher himself intimated, other factors also seem
to be at work. For example, the dominance of the long form in texts such as
Psalms and the Latter Prophets arouses the suspicion that the choice between

(|| ‫ ֵ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.

4.5.6 The MT and the Greek

A comparison of the MT and Greek editions reveals little of interest concern-
ing the two forms of the 3mpl independent subject pronoun. Both editions
appear to contain both forms, with no marked preference for one of them,
though, naturally, it is impossible to determine on the basis of the Greek which
form, short or long, the translator(s) had before him (them).

87 Jer 40.7, 8; 42.5.

pronominal morphology 135

4.6 3mpl: ‫ ֹו ֵתיהֶ ם‬- and ‫ ֹו ָתם‬- ‘their’

4.6.1 Preliminary Matters

In BH the 3mpl possessive suffix that attaches to plural substantives ending in
‫ֹות‬- comes in two forms: ‫ ָ◌ם‬-, as in ‫‘ ֲאב ָֹתם‬their fathers’, ‫‘ ַמ ֵּצב ָֹתם‬their standing
stones’, ‫‘ ִמ ְׁש ְּפח ָֹתם‬their clans’, and ‫ ֵ◌ ֶיהם‬-, as in ‫‘ ֲאב ֵֹת ֶיהם‬their fathers’, ‫ַמ ֵּצב ֵֹת ֶיהם‬
‘their standing stones’, and ‫‘ ִמ ְׁש ְּפח ֵֹת ֶיהם‬their clans’. There is general consensus
among scholars that the former ending is the typologically more primitive of
the two and that the latter, which exhibits double, i.e., redundant, marking
of the plural in its use of both ‫ֹות‬- and -‫ֵ◌י‬-, was created by language users out of
analogy to the 3mpl possessive suffix that attaches to substantives whose abso-
lute forms end in ‫ִ◌ים‬-, i.e., ‫◌יהם‬ ֶ ֵ -.88 If so, the shift in question may constitute an
inner-Hebrew development. It is also possible, however, that the longer form,
which occurs sporadically in texts thought to be classical, became more fre-
quent in the post-exilic period thanks in part to the influence of Aramaic, in
which the consonant he is not elided in the corresponding possessive suffix ‫הֹון‬-.89

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

Table 4.6.2 Biblical distribution of ‫ֹותם‬

ָ - and ‫יהם‬
ֶ ‫ֹות‬
ֵ - according to the MT

Book ‫ותם‬- ‫ותיהם‬- Book ‫ותם‬- ‫ותיהם‬- Book ‫ותם‬- ‫ותיהם‬-

Genesis 22 2 Isaiah92 12 9 Malachi 1 0

Exodus 35 2 Jeremiah 18 19 Psalms 24 14
Leviticus 13 1 Ezekiel 28 15 Proverbs 5 3
Numbers 132 2 Hosea 10 1 Job 5 1
Deuteronomy 7 2 Joel 1 1 Lamentations 5 1
Joshua 40 3 Amos 2 1 Esther 0 1
Judges 10 4 Micah 4 4 Ezra 3 6
Samuel 2 4 Nahum 1 0 Nehemiah 3 14
Kings 15 4 Zephaniah 3 0 Chronicles 43 40
TOTALS 444 154

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,

90 The count of 110 cases of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬

ֵ - in the Torah given by Bar-Asher (2004: 139) is obviously a
typographical error.
91 BDB 3a; GKC §91n; Bendavid 1967–1971: II 452; Cohen 1975: 303–305; Hurvitz 1982: 24–27;
Qimron 1986: §322.182; C. Smith 2003: 69–72; Wright 2005: 26–30; JM §94g.
92 In chs 1–39 the ratio of ‫ֹותם‬
ָ - to ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬
ֵ - is 4:2; in chs. 40–66 it is 8:7.
pronominal morphology 137

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).

4.6.3 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

The increased use of ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬-
ֵ is characteristic of LBH, non-Masoretic, and post-
biblical Hebrew, but it is important to note that the use of ‫ֹותם‬-
ָ also persists
in these sources; indeed, in the majority of the relevant corpora examined for
the present study (Ben Sira, the biblical and non-biblical DSS, the Samaritan
Pentateuch), the short form dominates (the exception being the Mishna). Even
so, similar to the situation in the core LBH books, the majority of the non-
Masoretic and post-biblical corpora exhibit a tendency to employ the long
form much stronger than that found in biblical books generally considered
classical. Consider the following table.

Table 4.6.3 Extra-biblical distribution of ‫ֹותם‬-

ָ and ‫יהם‬
ֶ ‫ֹות‬-
ֵ

Corpus ‫ותם‬- ‫ותיהם‬-

Ben Sira 11 1
Biblical DSS 60 29
Non-biblical DSS 124 57
Samaritan Pentateuch 202 12
Mishna 11 78

The situation that emerges is one of contradictory trends in the post-exilic

period: the markedly increased use of ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ֵ - versus the successful preservation
of ‫ֹותם‬
ָ -. In light of the nearly absolute hegemony of ‫יהם‬ ֵ - in the Mishna, it is
ֶ ‫ֹות‬
reasonable to suppose that this form represents a vernacular trait. The rest of
the sources are more literary and probably reflect more archaic or archaistic
style, though the possibility that ‫ֹותם‬ ָ - continued to be employed in spoken
Hebrew should not be discounted.94

93 See Hurvitz 2013: 113–114.

94 Bar-Asher (2004: 113–114) attributes the dominance of short forms such as ‫ שמותם‬in the
biblical DSS to a continued preference for literary, rather than vernacular, features. He
138 chapter 4

In a wide-ranging discussion of the book of Judges as preserved in the MT

and Qumran manuscripts Rezetko (2013: 56–58) rejects the diagnostically late
status of ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬
ֵ - vis-à-vis ‫ֹותם‬ָ -. He notes that the late ending is, in fact, attested
in apparently early material, e.g., Gen 49.5, while the classical ending persists,
and in some cases remains dominant, in late corpora. He also observes that
even if ‫ֹותם‬
ָ - is rightly considered the typologically older form (cf. the opinion
of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd presented above in n. 88), the typologically
older form need not necessarily be the chronologically older form. Rezetko’s call
for consideration of non-chronological factors is also justified.95 Nonetheless,
as Rezetko himself admits, “[t]here is clearly a different ratio of occurrence of
these forms in core EBH and LBH writings, Genesis–Kings preferring ‫ֹותם‬ ָ - forms
and Esther–Chronicles preferring ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ - forms” (ibid.: 57, n. 235). Whenever
each of the two forms may have come into being, there is no doubt that the
longer one is more typical of late texts than it is of early texts. On its own, this
means little. Taken together with accumulations of other late features, though,
it has significance. The degree of concentration in a given book is also relevant.
Rezetko (ibid.) makes much of the fact that Samuel has two short forms and
four long ones, but these cases are far too few to be statistically meaningful.
As seen in table 4.6.2 above, many biblical books contain ten or more poten-
tial occurrences of the characteristically late suffix, and nearly all those that
exhibit a sizable proportion thereof are exilic or post-exilic.
There are also certain inaccuracies in Rezetko’s discussion. For example, he
(ibid.: 56–58) cites the now outdated figures from Qimron’s (1986: §322.182)
study of only a limited corpus of Qumran material—some 70 cases of ‫ֹותם‬ ָ -
against only 15 of ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ - (cf. the updated figures in table 4.6.3 above). As
already noted, it is true that the DSS, both biblical and non-biblical, show a
preference for classical ‫ֹותם‬ ָ -; but they also resort to ‫יהם‬ ֵ - with far greater rela-
ֶ ‫ֹות‬
tive frequency than does CBH. Moreover, with specific reference to the occur-
rence of ‫אבותי֯ ֯ה[ם‬
̇ ‘their fathers’ (4Q50 f2–3.8) versus ‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫( ֲא‬Jdg 21.22), Rezetko
(2013: 58) maintains that “the absence of a trend in the direction of replace-
ment weakens any claim that 4QJudga’s ‫ אבותיהם‬is simply a linguistic mod-
ernization”. It is difficult to determine any trend on the basis of only one or a
few cases, but even given DSS Hebrew’s penchant for preservation of the clas-
sical ending, ‘a trend in the direction of replacement’ can be discerned. In the

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

Isa 59.7 ruin and destruction on their highways (‫ּלֹותם‬

ָ ‫) ִּב ְמ ִס‬
1QIsa 48.18 ruin and destruction and violence on their highways (‫)במסלותיהם‬
a

Isa 59.8 and there is no justice on their paths (‫לֹותם‬

ָ ְ‫) ְּב ַמ ְעּג‬
1QIsa 48.19 and there is no justice on their paths (‫)במעגלותיהמה‬
a

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

Gen 25.13 by their names (‫ ) ִּב ְׁשמ ָֹתם‬according to their generations

CD 4.4 their names (‫ )שמותיהם‬according to their generations

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

4.6.4 Jeremiah 100

From a purely numerical perspective the ratio of ‫ֹותם‬ ָ - to ‫יהם‬ ֵ - in Jeremiah is
ֶ ‫ֹות‬
18:19, similar to that in the core LBH books. Like them, Jeremiah, too, contains
a significant number of cases of the long ending. However, it is to be noted
that six of the relevant occurrences involve the form ‫נֹות ֶיהם‬
ֵ ‫‘ ְּב‬their daughters’,

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

Summary: discounting the wholly predictable use of ‫נֹות ֶיהם‬

ֵ ‫‘ ְּב‬their daughters’,
Jeremiah exhibits a preference for the short ‫ֹותם‬
ָ - ending. However, like that
of the core LBH books, the language of Jeremiah employs ‫ֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ - to a degree

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

unknown in classical material. Moreover, Jeremiah contains four specific

forms, accounting for a total of six occurrences—‫דֹות ֶיהם‬
ֵ ֹ ‫ ְש‬, ‫יהם‬
ֶ ‫בֹות‬ ַ , ‫יהם‬
ֵ ‫ּתֹוע‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא‬,
ֶ ‫בֹות‬
‫יהם‬ ֵ ‫— ֲע‬the employment of which is particularly characteristic of late
ֶ ‫ֹונֹות‬
sources. The transitional to late status of Jeremiah’s language can thus be said
to manifest itself in the use of the two endings under discussion.

4.6.5 The MT and the Greek

With regard to the forms in question there are two differences between the MT
and the Greek. The late form in ‫בֹות ֶיהם‬ֵ ‫‘ וְ ַל ֲא‬and to their ancestors’ (Jer 24.10)
finds no parallel in the Greek translation, though forms of this word with the
long ending are reflected in the Greek on two other occasions. The Greek also
has no parallel for the classical ‫חֹותם‬
ָ ‫‘ ִמזְ ְּב‬their altars’ (Jer 17.2). Clearly, the dif-
ference between the two editions with regard to the feature in question is not
significant enough to sustain any solid conclusion regarding differences in
their relative dates of composition.

4.7 3fpl: ‫ קטלה‬for ‫קטלו‬

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

4.7.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The 3fpl we(qaṭal) ending ‫ה‬- is standard in various Aramaic dialects (including
Targumic Aramaic and the qre in BA).111 Relevant forms with this ending come
in a minority of cases in the Hebrew of the DSS, especially 1QIsaa:

Isa 3.9 their recognition   (‫ ) ַה ָּכ ַרת‬of faces testified (‫ ) ָענְ ָתה‬against them
1QIsaa 3.13 their recognitions (‫ )הכרות‬of faces testified (‫ )ענתה‬against them112

106 Cf. Rendsburg 2001: 31, n. 18.

107 Cf. GKC §44m.
108 Cf. Ps 37.31.
109 Cf. GKC §44m.
110 Contra Rendsburg (1982a: 51, n. 54) and C. Smith (2003: 164, 169), ‫‘ צֹאן א ְֹבדֹות היה ַע ִּמי‬lost
sheep were my people’ (Jer 50.6 ktiv) is not included in the list, because the subject of the
verb is the morphologically singular ‫‘ ַע ִּמי‬my people’, not the feminine collective/plural
‫צֹאן א ְֹבדֹות‬, which is the predicate.
111 Ben-Ḥayyim 1951; Kutscher 1974: 191–192.
112 Unless ‫ הכרות‬here is to be interpreted as a singular with the commonly abstract -ut suf-
formative. However, the fact that ‫ הכרות‬is a nomen regens in construct with the plural
144 chapter 4

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

stand’ (Jer 51.29); ‫תֹותם‬

ָ ‫‘ ִח ְּת ָתה ַק ְּׁש‬their bows have been snapped’ (Jer 51.56).115
Of course, these cases are a small minority when compared to the 37 instances
in which a fpl subject is accompanied by a ‫ (ו)קטלו‬verbal form. It is to be noted
that all six of the cases of 3fpl ‫ קטלה‬come in poetic contexts. One should nev-
ertheless resist the temptation to conclude that they necessarily constitute
genuine archaisms.116 It seems more reasonable to assume that the form in
question disappeared from Hebrew and then arose anew under the influence
of Aramaic or perhaps even penetrated from Aramaic as a genuine morpho-
logical loan.117

4.7.4 The MT and the Greek

All six occurrences of 3fpl ‫ קטלה‬forms in the MT have parallel forms in the
Greek, though the nouns in question are not always rendered as plurals, e.g.,
Jer 48.41; 51.29, and 56. For purposes of comparison, there is no instance of a fpl
subject with a ‫ (ו)קטלו‬verb form without a parallel in the Greek.

4.8 ‫( זאתה‬ktiv, for ‫‘ )זֹאת‬this’

In BH the dominant forms of the proximal singular demonstrative pronouns

are ms ‫ זֶ ה‬and fs ‫ זֹאת‬both ‘this’ (the two of which double as demonstrative adjec-
tives). This same situation also obtains in the Hebrew of the DSS. Apparently,
the masculine form developed from Proto-Semitic ḏī and parallels Aramaic ‫ֵּדין‬
‫ٰذ ذ ذ‬
and Arabic ‫ ِ� ��ي‬/‫ ِ� ِه‬/‫( �ه ِ�� ِه‬even if the Arabic forms denote the feminine).118 The
development of the Hebrew feminine form is debated. Scholars agree that
the initial component of ‫ זֹאת‬is the ancient demonstrative ‫זֹה‬/‫זֹא‬, which evi-
dently developed ٰ from Proto-Semitic ḏā and is cognate with Aramaic ‫ ָּדא‬and
Arabic ‫�ذَا‬/‫( �ه��ذَا‬the latter of which denotes the masculine). Regarding the ‫ת‬-
ending, on the other hand, there is less agreement. Some see it as a redundant
marker of feminine gender added to a particle without clear feminine mor-
phological marking for purposes of creating a more transparently feminine
form.119 According to this explanation, it is that demonstrative characteristic

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.

4.8.2 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents no parallel for the form ‫ הזאתה‬in Jer 26.6. According to
the electronic database of Tov and Polak (2004), of the approximately 230
cases of ‫ זֶ ה‬and ‫ זֹאת‬in MT Jeremiah, 35 are not represented in the Greek.128 In
theory, then, the lack of a parallel here may be either stylistic or an omission
on the part of the translator. However, the context seems to warrant use of
the demonstrative.129 In any case, even if ‫ הזאתה‬belongs to the supplementary
material, its rarity makes it distinctively characteristic of no form of Hebrew, so
that it provides little help in distinguishing the language of the supplementary
layer from that of the rest of the book.

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

5.1 The qå̄ṭōl (‫ )ָקטֹול‬Nominal Pattern (for the nomen agentis)

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.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_�06

nominal morphology 149

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).

5.1.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The nominal pattern in question is evidently rare in the DSS,16 but fairly com-
mon in RH,17 where its increased employment is often chalked up to the influ-
ence of Aramaic,18 in some dialects of which the cognate nominal template is
a standard means of denoting the nomen agentis.19 However, since the pattern
is not unknown in BH, Bar-Asher (1977: 96, n. 71) is surely correct to assert that
the claim of Aramaic provenance merits further examination. It seems much
more likely that Aramaic influence led to the increased frequency of a native,
but rarely used Hebrew pattern in late sources.

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

5.1.3 Diachronic Status

Primarily on the basis of its frequency in RH and the later Aramaic dialects
several scholars view use of the qå̄ṭōl nominal pattern for marking the nomen
agentis, or at least its increased usage, as a characteristically post-classical phe-
nomenon in BH.20 The difficulties with this view are two: on the one hand, the
pattern in question evidently appears—albeit sporadically—in early texts; on
the other hand, it is not found in the core LBH books. Now, admittedly, use of
the qå̄ṭōl nomen agentis pattern is widespread in no historical phase of BH.
Moreover, as it turns out, the core LBH books offer very few opportunities for
use of the pattern in question. The prevalence of the form in RH may also indi-
cate a vernacular usage not deemed suitable for literary texts.

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.

20 Segal 1936: §114; Bar-Asher 1985: 93–94; JM §88Ea.

21 The active participle in Jer 11.20 may also be interpreted as a verbal form; cf. Jer 17.10; 20.12.
152 chapter 5

5.1.5 The MT and the Greek

The Greek translation presents a parallel for seven of the eight instances of
nomen agentis qå̄ṭōl forms in MT Jeremiah, usually representing them with a
Greek nomen agentis.22 The only form not represented in the Greek is ‫‘ ָאמֹון‬arti-
san, craftsman’ in Jer 52.15, most of which verse is unparalleled in the Greek.23
Clearly, then, the short edition already bears witness to use of the nomen agen-
tis qå̄ṭōl, meaning that, from the perspective of this feature, its linguistic profile
seems no more classical than that of the supplementary layer. For purposes of
comparison, and limiting the search for alternative forms marking the nomen
agentis in Jeremiah to those listed above in §5.1.1, there are no standard forms
in the MT without parallels in the Greek.

5.2 The qĕṭå̄l (‫ ) ְק ָטל‬Nominal Pattern

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

29 MT: ‫ּופנֶ יָך ה ְֹל ִכים ַּב ְק ָרב‬

ָ ‘and your presence goes into the battle’. Cf. the Greek καὶ τὸ
πρόσωπόν σου πορευόμενον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν = ‫ּופנֶ יָך ה ְֹל ִכים ְּב ִק ְר ָּבם‬
ָ ‘and your presence goes
among them’; Targum Jonathan: ‫‘ ואת תהי אזיל ברישנא‬and you will be going at our head’;
Peshiṭta: ‫‘ ܘܐܢܬ ܐܙܠ ܒܡܨܥܬܐ‬and you are going in the midst’; Vulgate: et tu eris in
medio eorum ‘and you will be in their midst’.
30 On the former see BDB 969a as well as Rendsburg 1999: 30–31, the latter of which sees
‫ ְׂש ָלו‬as the broken plural of an otherwise unattested segholate singular, in which case its
relevance to the present discussion is doubtful. The latter has been understood variously
(see the lexicons), but may derive from the name of a people group known for producing
fine linen, which, according to Herodotus, was called λίνον Σαρδωνικὸν in Greek (see
Forbes 1964: 27; HALOT 1353b–1354b).
31 On the basis of Zevit’s (1984: 43–44) reading, Young (1993: 109; 2003b: 288, 293) sug-
gests the presence of ‫ ְּכ ָתב‬in the Khirbet El Qom inscription from the first half of the
8th century BCE, but most scholars read this as a verb, while Zevit himself vocalizes
‫ ָּכ ָתב‬. The following words are excluded from the count here: ‫*ּכ ָרע <( ְּכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬
ְ ?) ‘(animal)
legs’, since it comes only in the dual form and it is impossible to determine whether the
singular belongs to the nominal pattern in question; cf. ‫( ֶּכ ַרע‬M Kelim 18.7) and ‫ְּכ ַרע‬
(M Negaʿim 14.6); ‫‘ ֲע ַרב‬wasteland, steppe, Arabia’ (Isa 21.13), because the contextual form
has pataḥ under the second root letter, and the word is in any case a (foreign?) place
name; ‫קצוות‬/‫‘ )? ְק ָצת <( ְק ָצֹות‬ends’ (Exod 37.8 ktiv; 38.5; 39.4 ktiv), since the dominant
singular form in the Bible is ‫ ָק ֶצה‬, while sure cases of the singular ‫ ( ִמ) ְק ָצת‬are limited to
undisputed late material.
nominal morphology 155

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

32 Hurvitz 1972: 164–169.

33 This form may or may not be relevant, as ‫ זְ ָממֹו‬may conceivably represent ‫זָ ָמם‬.
34 The form ‫ ִמ ְּט ָהרֹו‬is taken by some as representing the noun ‫ ִמ ְט ָהר‬.
35 The word is always in the plural, ‫ ְמ ָדנִ ים‬, which may conceivably represent an alternative
singular nominal pattern.
36 The form ‫‘ ) ְק ָצת <( ְק ָצֹות‬ends, remote places’ (Ps 65.9) has been excluded from the list (see
above, n. 31).
37 Despite their apparent relevance to the discussion of the nominal pattern in question,
the following words have been excluded from consideration: ‫‘ זְ ַמן‬time’ (Qoh 3.1; Est 9.27,
31; Neh 2.6)—the word represents a separate nominal pattern, with the second root
letter vocalized with pataḥ and gemination in the final root letter (the vocalization with
qamaṣ comes only in pause; see Muraoka 1993: 131; Hurvitz 2007: 28, n. 10); the Babylonian
month names ‫‘ ֲא ָדר‬Adar’ (Est 3.7, 13; 8.12; 9.1, 15, 17, 19, 21) and ‫‘ ְׁש ָבט‬Shevat’ (Zech 1.7)—
156 chapter 5

Based on the rather maximal counts given above—which include forms of

somewhat doubtful relevance—the following portrait of distribution emerges:

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

5.2.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

As noted above, words belonging to the pattern in question are particularly
common in the various Aramaic dialects.39 Post-biblical forms of Hebrew also
testify to the pattern’s status as a characteristically post-classical linguistic ele-

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

ment, though it should be emphasized that a certain amount of speculation is

unavoidable in the classification of unvocalized forms.40

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.

5.2.4 The MT and the Greek

Since the short edition of Jeremiah as represented by the Greek presents a
form parallel to one of the two qĕṭå̄l forms in the book, it is difficult on the
basis of this feature to discern any meaningful linguistic difference between
the short and long editions. It is also hard to compare with all potential
semantic alternatives in the short edition and the supplementary material of
Jeremiah. However, it is worth noting that ‫’יְ ָקר‬s approximate classical synonym
ָ ‘treasure’ has no parallel in the Greek at Jer 17.3.
‫אֹוצר‬
 chapter 6

Verbal Morphology

6.1 Use of the Short, Full, and Lengthened wayyiqṭol

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

1 For a recent bibliographic survey see Bloch 2007: 142, n. 3.

2 See Rainey 1986: 4, 8–10; JM §§114a–f, 116a–c; Bloch 2007: 143. For explanations of the preser-
vation of the final (anceps) a vowel in this form see Blau 2010: §4.3.3.3.4 and the note there.
There are also those who attribute this form to one ending in energic nun; see Blau 2010:
§4.3.3.3.4 and the note there for bibliography and discussion.
3 Presumably, the a vowel of the lengthened imperative is related.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_�07

160 chapter 6

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’.

6.1.1 1st Person

6.1.1.1 The MT
In the mt 1st person (1cs and 1cpl) wayyiqṭol forms appear in all three of the pat-
terns in question—short (e.g., ‫וָ ָ֫א ָקם‬, ‫[ וָ אגדל‬routinely vocalized ‫]וַ ַאגְ ִּדל‬, ‫)וָ ֶ֫א ֶקן‬, full
(e.g., ‫וָ ֶא ְקטֹל‬, ‫וָ ָאקּום‬, ‫וָ ַאגְ ִּדיל‬, ‫)וָ ֶא ְקנֶ ה‬, and lengthened (e.g., ‫וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלה‬, ‫קּומה‬
ָ ‫וָ ָא‬, ‫—)וָ ָאגְ ִּד ָילה‬
but not uniformly throughout the various historical stages of BH. Use of the
short pattern is particularly characteristic of classical biblical material, espe-
cially the Torah, and extra-biblical sources with a classical linguistic profile;
its usage can be seen to decline gradually in later material. In the case of verbs
with both short and full patterns, the full pattern is not commonly used in
the consonantal text of the Torah, but is often reflected, where possible, in its
vocalization,4 and is fairly standard in the consonantal text of the Prophets.
Examples of the lengthened pattern occur sporadically in the Pentateuch, are
only slightly more common in the Prophets, but become dominant in the core
LBH books. See table 6‎ .1.1.1a for details.5

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

‫ל"י‬ 18/21 28/66 7/25 3/10 1/9 1/21

(85.7%) (42.4%) (28%) (30%) (11.1%) (4.8%)
hifʿil 12/13 16/34 2/19 0/2 0/7 0/11
(92.3%)5 (47.1%) (10.5%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
‫י‬/‫ע"ו‬ 5/5 5/15 1/22 2/3 0/5 1/11
(100%) (33.3%) (4.6%) (66.7%) (0%) (9.1%)
TOTAL 35/39 49/115 10/66 5/15 1/21 2/43
(89.7%) (42.6%) (15.2%) (33.3%) (4.8%) (4.7%)

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

Table 6.1.1.1b M T, non-Masoretic, and extra-biblical distribution of lengthened 1st person

wayyiqṭol forms: lengthened/all cases (percentage short)

mt DSS Samaritan
Torah Prophets LBH + Qoh Biblical Non-biblical Pentateuch

4/105 19/255 59/116 20/54 22/30 32/103

(3.8%) (7.5%) (50.9%) (37.0%) (73.3%) (31.1%)

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.

6.1.1.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

There are no 1st person wayyiqṭol forms in the admittedly limited corpus of
First Temple Hebrew inscriptional evidence. Still, the ancient character of
this situation in the Torah is confirmed to some degree by the four relevant

10 Gen 32.4; 41.11; 43.21; Num 8.19.

11 Josh 24.8 (ktiv); Jdg 6.9, 10; 10.12; 12.3 (2x); 1 Sam 2.28; 28.15; 2 Sam 4.10; 7.9; 12.8 (2x); 22.24;
Jer 11.18; 32.9; Ezek 3.3; 9.8; 16.11; Zech 11.13.
12 Qoh 1.17; Dan 8.13, 15, 17; 9.3, 4 (2x); 10.16 (2x), 19; 12.8; Ezra 7.28; 8.15, 16, 17a (ktiv), 17b, 23
(2x), 24, 25, 26, 28, 31; 9.3 (2x), 5 (2x), 6; Neh 1.4; 2.1, 6, 9, 13; 5.7 (2x), 8, 13; 6.3, 8, 11, 12; 7.5;
12.31; 13.7, 8, 9 (2x), 10, 11 (2x), 13, 17 (2x), 19 (2x), 21 (2x), 22, 30.
13 Lengthened forms obtain in 18 of the potential 37 cases (48.7 percent): Ps 3.6; 7.5; 69.12, 21;
73.16; 90.10; 119.55, 59, 106, 131, 147, 158; Job 1.15, 16, 17, 19; 19.20; 29.17. On the linguistic profile
of Ps 119 see Hurvitz 1972: 131–152; on that of the narrative framework of Job see Hurvitz
1974a; cf. Young 2009; Joosten 2013b.
verbal morphology 163

‫ 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]

Gen 43.21 we have returned  (‫ )וַ נָ ֶשב‬it in our hand

Josh 14.7 I have returned  (‫ )וָ ָא ֵשב‬him word
Neh 2.20 I have returned (‫ )וָ ָא ִשיב‬him word
Neh 6.4 I have answered (‫ )וָ ָא ִשיב‬him in the same way
[Ps 119.59 I have returned (‫ )וָ ָא ִש ָיבה‬my feet to your testimonies]
[Neh 13.9 I have returned (‫ )וָ ָא ִש ָיבה‬there the temple utensils]

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.

22 Tropper 1998: 166–167.

23 Bloch 2007: 145–147, 152–154.
24 Ungnad 1907: 58, n. 1.
166 chapter 6

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

spellings represent pronunciations with long vowels and defective spellings,

in turn, pronunciations with short vowels. Conversely, the full vocalization
of consonantally short forms, especially characteristic of the Torah, is appar-
ently a case in which the Masoretic vocalization obscures diachronic linguistic
variation.
How then to reconcile the use and distribution of the full 1st person
wayyiqṭol pattern with its short and lengthened counterparts? Bergsträsser
(1918–1929: II §5d) explains the use of forms like ‫ וָ ָאקּום‬as a result of the same
process that gave rise to lengthened forms like ‫קּומה‬ ָ ‫וָ ָא‬, but—frustratingly—
provides no details as to how the two forms are connected.26 Talshir (1986a: 7;
1987: 590) suggests the process of development ‫קּומה > וָ ָ֫א ָקם‬ ָ ‫וָ ָאקּום > וָ ָא‬. He
agrees with Bergsträsser that the transition from the first to the second stage
was based on analogy to the modal paradigm.27 In Talshir’s opinion it may be
that the lengthened form already served frequently at an early date, but was
rejected and erased from biblical writings by purist scribes. He accounts for
the third phase of the process by attributing the shift from lengthened to full
forms to the general collapse of the modal paradigm in ancient Hebrew, due
to which writers used the formerly distinct modal and indicative patterns pro-
miscuously, with little or no semantic distinction, a phenomenon especially
characteristic of LBH and late extra-biblical sources, but not entirely unknown
in material generally considered classical. It is important to note that Talshir
explains the relatively high frequency of full forms in the Prophets, as against
the relative rarity of lengthened forms in the same corpus, as a result of scribal
policy, according to which, for some reason, the full form was preferred there,
over against the preference for the lengthened form in LBH proper.
Talshir’s approach convincingly accounts for a majority of the relevant
issues, but slight adjustments may be suggested. First of all, despite the
assumption of overlap between the second and third stages in his suggested
process of development, the model seems overly linear. The identification of
the short form as the typologically earliest is acceptable. It is also clear that its
use gradually declined with the passage of time, thus favoring use of the other
two patterns. Additionally, since the lengthened pattern is sporadically docu-
mented in apparently early material, if it indeed resulted from analogical pres-
sure, the beginning of the process of analogy must be dated to a relatively early
period. However, two of Talshir’s claims are somewhat less convincing, namely,
(a) that the full pattern is not to be found in the Torah, and as such constitutes
a development based on the lengthened pattern, which is indeed documented
there, and (b) that the lengthened pattern once enjoyed widespread use in the

26 Cf. Qimron 1997: 177.

27 See also Rainey 1986: 13–14; Bloch 2007: 147, 155; Cf. S.R. Driver 1892: §72.
168 chapter 6

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

lengthened pattern is to be seen as a sort of pseudo-archaism in which late

writers adopted a genuinely classical form, but extended and exaggerated its
use. The literary character of the late use of lengthened wayyiqṭol (and yiqṭol)
emerges from a comparison of the works in which it is frequent, e.g., LBH, the DSS,
and the Samaritan Pentateuch, all literary corpora with relatively late linguistic
profiles, and RH, generally considered to represent a formerly vernacular
Second Temple register, which does not use wayyiqṭol.29
For purposes of dating, it is not the mere appearance of the full and length-
ened patterns that constitutes a distinctive feature of late texts, but the inten-
sification in their usage. The regular use of the full form is characteristic of
First Temple material, especially the Prophets (but not the Torah),30 and of
late material. The frequent use of the lengthened pattern, on the other hand, is
characteristic only of late texts. Likewise, the complete or near complete non-
use of the short form is a distinctively late feature.

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

6.1.1.5 The MT and the Greek

The shorter version represented by the Greek is characterized by approxi-
mately the same distribution as the longer MT version, with the former show-
ing no parallel for only two cases, one short and one full.37 Both of the two
lengthened forms are represented.

6.1.2 2nd and 3rd Person

In contrast to the 1st person wayyiqṭol, the originally short form of which, due
to various analogical processes, biblical writers and later scribes were, as time
passed, unable to preserve (see above, §‎6.1.1), in the case of 2nd and 3rd person
forms—specifically, those without endings, i.e., 2ms, 3ms, and 3fs—the short
wayyiqṭol pattern was routinely maintained where it could obtain, while the
lengthened pattern is virtually undocumented in the sources.38 The full pat-
tern, on the other hand, is found in a minority of cases with an interesting
distribution.
The full pattern is represented principally by ‫ ל"י‬forms. It is apparently
revealed, albeit less frequently, in hifʿil and qal ‫י‬/‫ ע"ו‬forms in the Bible, though
it is difficult to be certain in such cases that plene spellings (i.e., those with
matres lectionis waw or yod) necessarily reflect full pronunciations and defec-
tive spellings (i.e., those without the matres lectionis) necessarily reflect short
pronunciations. This same hesitation is valid, perhaps even more so, with
respect to post-biblical sources, where the spelling is generally fuller than in
the Bible, including yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms. Given this uncertainty, one
must approach the evidence collected below for the full pattern in hifʿil and
qal ‫י‬/‫ ע"ו‬with a suitable amount of caution.

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

37 Short: Jer 42.21; full: Jer 11.8.

38 ‫‘ וַ ַּת ְעּגְ ָבה‬she lusted’ (Ezek 23.16 qre, 20). See also the yiqṭol forms ‫יׁשה‬ ָ ‫‘ יָ ִח‬let him hasten’
and ‫בֹואה‬ ָ ‫‘ ָּת‬let it come’ (Isa 5.19); ‫(‘ ְּת ֻע ָפה‬though) it be dark (?)’ (Job 11.17). See GKC §48d;
JM §45a, n. 1.
39 Josh 10.40; 19.50; Jdg 19.2; 1 Sam 1.7; 7.9 (ktiv); 17.42; 2 Sam 23.15; 1 Kgs 10.29; 14.9; 16.17, 25;
17.15; 18.32, 42; 19.8; 22.24, 34, 35, 54; 2 Kgs 1.10; 2.8, 14 (2x); 3.2; 5.21; 6.23; 8.21; 13.11; 16.15 (qre);
22.19; Isa 37.36; 57.3; Jer 3.7 (ktiv); 10.13; 20.2; 32.20; 36.5, 26; 37.21; 38.10; 44.21; 52.27; Ezek
16.36; 18.14, 19, 28; 23.19; Hab 1.14.
172 chapter 6

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.

6.1.2.2 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

The use of the full pattern is also known from non-Masoretic and extra-biblical
sources. ‫ל"י‬: non-biblical DSS—three44 out of 65 cases; biblical DSS—1845 out
of 361 cases; Samaritan Pentateuch—1946 out of 662 cases. With specific regard

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

to the Samaritan Pentateuch, it is worth noting that according to Ben-Ḥayyim

(2000: §2.9.6) there are also cases in which the reading tradition testifies to full
forms against the consonantal tradition. Hifʿil: non-biblical DSS47—five48 out
of 41 cases; biblical DSS—three49 out of 64 cases; Samaritan Pentateuch—3050
out of 121 cases; ‫ע"ו‬: non-biblical DSS—five51 out of 11 cases; biblical DSS—
2352 out of 62 cases; Samaritan Pentateuch—no examples in 144 cases; ‫ע"י‬:

‘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

‫ל"י‬ 0/662 48/1140 3/269 3/65 18/261 19/662

hifʿil 0/215 1/305 1/104 5/41 3/64 30/121
‫ע"ו‬ 0/122 3/261 0/57 5/11 23/62 0/144
‫ע"י‬ 0/44 0/63 0/9 2/15 1/12 3/38
Totals 0/1043 52/1769 4/439 15/132 45/399 52/965

non-biblical DSS—two53 out of 15 cases; biblical DSS—one54 out of 12 cases;

Samaritan Pentateuch—three55 out of 38 cases.
Biblical and extra-biblical statistics are summarized in Table 6.1.2.2.

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

58 The exception is ‫‘ וַ ָּ֫ת ִרץ‬and it crushed’ (Jdg 9.53).

59 On the former see above, nn. 48–49, 51–54, on the latter, nn. 50 and 54.
60 For example, in the first two-thirds of the book of Jeremiah forms like ‫ּיִבן‬ ֶ ַ‫ ו‬come before
guttural letters, whereas forms like ‫ּיִבנֶ ה‬ ְ ַ‫ ו‬before other consonants; in the final third, in
contrast, the opposite situation emerges (see Stipp 1987: 129–131, 143–144).
176 chapter 6

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

63 See Kutscher 1974: 328.

64 Consider his treatment of theophoric names ending in ‫יה‬-/‫יהו‬- (see above, §‎3.5, esp.
§‎3.5.2.2).
65 1 Chr 11.17 (|| 2 Sam 23.15); 2 Chr 18.23 (|| 1 Kgs 22.24), 33 (|| 1 Kgs 22.34), 34 (|| 1 Kgs 22.35);
21.9 (|| 2 Kgs 8.21); 34.27 (|| 2 Kgs 22.18).
178 chapter 6

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).

Jer 36.5 And Jeremiah commanded (‫ )וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה‬Baruch

Jer 36.26 And the king commanded (‫ )וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה‬Jerahmeel

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

Jer 37.21 And king Zedekiah commanded (‫)וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה‬

Jer 38.10 And the king commanded (‫ )וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה‬Ebed-Melek, the Ethiopian

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.

See above on Jer 10.13.

Jer 52.27 And the king of Babylon struck (‫ )וַ ּיַ ֶּכה‬them.

See above on Jer 20.2.

One should perhaps also add the form ‫‘ וַ ִּתזְ נִ י‬and she prostituted herself’ in
the following passage:

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

6.1.2.5 The MT and the Greek

While it is virtually impossible to determine the exact form seen by the Greek
translator(s) in any given case, it is significant that all the verses listed above
find parallels in the Greek version. In contrast, disregarding the form ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, which
goes unparalleled eight times in the Greek edition of Jeremiah, there are three
instances in which a 3ms wayyiqṭol form has no parallel in the Greek—‫‘ וַ יְ ַצו‬and
(Nebuchadnezzar . . .) commanded’ (39.11); ‫‘ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬and he did’ (52.2); and ‫‘ וַ ּיִ גֶ ל‬and
(Judah) was exiled’ (52.27)—all of which are short (there are no relevant 2ms
or 3fs forms lacking a parallel).

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

6.2 Derivatives of ‫חי"י‬: Geminate versus ‫ ל"י‬Forms

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

Table 6.2 The verb ‫חי‬/‫ה‬

ַ ָ‫ ָחי‬in 3ms and 3fs

‫ל"י‬ Geminate

3ms ‘he lived’ ‫ ָ חיָ ה‬75 ‫ ָחי( ַחי‬in pause)76

3fs ‘she lived’ ‫ ָחיְ ָתה‬77 ‫ ָ֫חיָ ה‬78

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

Book ‫ל"י‬ Geminate

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

composed during the Exile or at the beginning of the Restoration period,

Jeremiah before Ezekiel.

6.2.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-Biblical Sources

The conclusions detailed above regarding the diachronic development from
‫ ַחי‬on the pattern of the geminates to ‫ ָחיָ ה‬on the ‫ ל"י‬pattern in Masoretic BH
receive confirmation from non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-biblical
material. For example, in the Samaritan Pentateuch there are three cases of
forms following the ‫ ל"י‬pattern82 against only one in the MT. The DSS and

82 Gen 12.13; Exod 1.16; Lev 18.3.

184 chapter 6

Rabbinic literature also demonstrate a marked preference for ‫ ל"י‬formations.83

And finally, formation on the ‫ ל"י‬pattern is standard in Aramaic, e.g., the tar-
gums.84 An illustrative example of this diachronic development emerges in the
different versions of the weqaṭal forms in the following parallel verses:

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.

6.2.2 Explanation for the Development

The shift from ‫ ַחי > ָחיָ ה‬is to be explained as result of the power of analogy. In
CBH, conjugation of the (we)qaṭal qal derivative of ‫ חי"י‬involved a suppletive
paradigm: the form for each person was derived as if either ‫ ל"י‬or g­ eminate.89 In
the course of time, however, since the majority of the members of the paradigm
were formed on the ‫ ל"י‬pattern, and possibly since ‫ ל"י‬forms are more plentiful

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

in the language in general, language users created a more unified paradigm on

the basis of analogy. In this way, the 3ms and 3fs forms, which had previously
patterned as if geminate, were brought into line with the rest of the paradigm,
as ‫ ל"י‬forms. The unification process due to analogy c­ ontinued in the later
stages of the language until in RH even the (verbal) participle changed ‫ ַחי > ָחיֶ ה‬.90
It is also possible that Aramaic had a hand in the development in question.
The ‫ ל"י‬formation ‫‘ וְ ָחיְ ָתה‬and (my soul) will live’ (Gen 12.13), it is true, comes as
evidence of the early employment of this pattern. However, as noted above,
this form is unique in the pre-exilic corpus of biblical texts (the Pentateuch and
Samuel). It is therefore reasonable to posit that the influence of Aramaic, in
which formation on the ‫ ל"י‬pattern is standard throughout the qaṭal paradigm,
furthered—i.e., reinforced and accelerated—an early inner-Hebrew process,
so that only in texts composed at a relatively late date—when Aramaic influ-
ence was pronounced—can a real accumulation of 3ms and 3fs qaṭal forms on
the ‫ ל"י‬pattern be found in Hebrew. One may also, of course, assume a devel-
opmental process devoid of Aramaic pressure, but such an explanation would
not explain why forms like ‫ ָחיָ ה‬and ‫ ָחיְ ָתה‬become common precisely in the late
period, when Aramaic had acquired the status of lingua franca in the Ancient
Near East. The contrast between CBH and Aramaic is illustrated in the follow-
ing example:

Gen 11.14 and Shelah lived     (‫ ) ַחי‬thirty years

Tg Onkelos and Shelah lived  (‫ )חיה‬thirty years
Tg Neofiti and Shelah lived  (‫ )חיה‬thirty years
Tg Jerusalem and Shelah lived  (‫ )חיא‬thirty years
Peshiṭta and Shelah lived (‫ )ܚܝܐ‬thirty years

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

90 See above, n. 80.

186 chapter 6

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).

6.2.5 The MT and the Greek

To judge from the Greek, the Hebrew edition behind it included all of the rele-
vant forms, though it is naturally difficult to reconstruct the exact form that lay
before the translator(s). For example, in Jer 21.9 the situation is unclear, since
the Greek (καὶ) ζήσεται may equally represent ‫(ו)יחיה‬, ‫(ו)חי‬, or ‫(ו)חיה‬. A similar
ambiguity attaches to Jer 38.2 and 17. In all events, from the perspective of the
phenomenon in question, there is evidently no significant difference between
the MT and the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Greek.

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 The Propositions ‫ ִעם‬and ‫‘ אֵ ת‬with’

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

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004269651_�08

188 chapter 7

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

7.1.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The portrait of use of the prepositions ‫ ִעם‬and ‫ ֵאת‬painted above for the mt
is confirmed by a similar non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and extra-biblical
picture. Both prepositions are documented in early extra-biblical sources.12
Later extra-biblical material, conversely, demonstrates a tendency similar to
that known from LBH, i.e., rare usage of ‫ ֵאת‬. For example, in the non-biblical
DSS, the ratio of ‫ ֵאת‬to ‫ ִעם‬is 75:515 and in Ben Sira it is approximately 10:70.13
The process reaches is natural conclusion in RH, where ‫ ֵאת‬has fallen into com-
plete disuse, except for in quotations from the Bible or imitation of its style. In
the Mishna, the ‫ ֵאת‬to ‫ ִעם‬ratio is 3:455—the three cases of ‫ ֵאת‬in quotations of
the Bible.14 There is evidence of similar development in the DSS; see the fol-
lowing parallel verses and similar formulations:

Gen 35.22 and he lay with (‫ ) ֶאת‬Bilhah, his father’s concubine

4Q252 4.5–6 he lay with   (‫  )עם‬Bilhah, his concubine

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

Gen 9.9 I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )א ְּת ֶכם‬

ִ and with (‫ )וְ ֶאת‬ your seed
Tg Onkelos I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )עימכון‬ and with (‫ )ועם‬ your seed
Tg Jerusalem I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )עמכון‬ and with (‫ )ועם‬ your seed
Tg Neofiti I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )עמכון‬ and with (‫ )ועם‬ your seed
Sam Tg J I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )עמכון‬ and with (‫ )ועם‬ your seed
Sam Tg A I now establish my covenant with you (‫)עמוכון‬
Peshiṭta I now establish my covenant with you (‫ )ܥܡܟܘܢ‬ and with (‫ )ܘܥܡ‬your seed

Though the assumption of Aramaic influence seems reasonable, before adopt-

ing this conclusion, it is worth examining the use of the prepositions in the
transitional books whose language links CBH and LBH.

7.1.3 The Transitional Period

In light of the foregoing discussion detailing the process of linguistic develop-
ment that led from the classical to the late phase of ancient Hebrew, accord-
ing to which writers gradually ceased using the preposition ‫ ֵאת‬, one might
expect that works written during the intervening period would be character-
ized by an increasing tendency to avoid ‫ ֵאת‬to the benefit of ‫ ִעם‬. Be that as
it may, such a situation does not materialize. Rather, and surprisingly, the
corpus of material comprised of Isa 40–66 (‘Second Isaiah’), Jeremiah, and

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

7.1.5 The MT and the Greek

Of the seven cases of ‫ ִעם‬in the MT of Jeremiah, six have parallels in the Greek.21
Conversely, out of the 96 instances of the preposition ‫ ֵאת‬in MT Jeremiah,
78 have parallels in the Greek. This means that in the material reflected only
in the MT the ratio of ‫ ֵאת‬to ‫ ִעם‬is 22:1, while it is 78:6 in the material common
to both editions. The use of ‫ ִעם‬is rare in both, pointing to a similar linguistic
profile.

7.2 Replacement of the Preposition ‫ אֵ ת‬with the Definite Direct Object

Marker ‫אֵ ת‬

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

accumulations; the two occurrences in Isaiah are restricted to chapters 40–66;

the three cases in LBH come in Chronicles, but the Chronicler inherited all of
them from his sources (he also evidently wrote them all defectively, against
two cases of plene spelling in his sources). The phenomenon should not be
seen merely as a mismatch between consonantal orthography and vocaliza-
tion, since in most of the cases the spelling is plene, i.e., the o vowel is marked
by means of a mater lectionis waw. For a tabular depiction of the biblical distri-
bution of the interchange see table ‎7.2.1:41

Table 7.2.1 mt distribution of the interchange -‫אֹת‬/-‫ < אֹות‬-‫ִאּת‬

Number of % of replaced forms

according to
Book Cases Questionable Plene spelling Potential qre ktiv
cases cases41

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

7.2.2 Non-Masoretic Sources

The replacement of forms of the preposition ‫‘ ֵאת‬with’ with forms of the accu-
sative particle ‫ ֵאת‬is not documented in epigraphic material from the First
Temple Period (though it should be noted that the distinction between the two
particles’ respective exponents would likely be neutralized due to the defective
spelling of medial vowels in that material). Also in late non-Masoretic material
it is difficult to find convincing examples of the interchange in question. This
is due in large part to the general disappearance of the preposition ‫ ֵאת‬in favor
of ‫ ִעם‬in that period (see above, §‎7.1). Be that as it may, a few examples can be
adduced:

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

Given the doubts attached to attempts to ascribe the interchange in ques-

tion to post-biblical copyists and editors, perhaps one should weigh the possi-
bility that the substitution was a fairly early one45 that became more frequent
around the end of the First Temple Period and during the Exile, and then
ceased completely after that, along with the general decline of the preposition
‫ ֵאת‬into oblivion. But then the question is asked: why specifically the books of
Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel?46 In the opinion of König (1881–1895: II 296) the
language in these three books is especially influenced by the vernacular. In
Morag’s (1974a: 128–141; 1974b: 313–315) view, the interchange involves foreign
influence: on the one hand, the interchange in the books of Kings and Jeremiah
arises from the influence of Aramaic, in which there is both an accusative
particle47 and a cognate of ‫ ִעם‬, but no cognate of the preposition ‫ ; ֵאת‬on the
other hand, the interchange in Ezekiel and ‘Second Isaiah’ (two instances) is to
be explained on the basis of the influence of Akkadian, which knows a cognate
of the preposition ‫ ֵאת‬, but lacks both a cognate of the preposition ‫ ִעם‬and an
accusative particle. JM (§103j, n. 29) make the (hesitant) proposal whereby the
situation in all four books is to be attributed to Aramaic influence.48
All of the explanations mentioned in the preceding paragraph ascribe the
interchange in question to processes that took place within BH itself rather
than to activities associated with the editing and transmission of the biblical
text. In light of the phenomenon’s distribution, such an approach seems pref-
erable to textual and editorial theories, at least as a preliminary hypothesis.
Perhaps there is truth in each of these linguistic explanations. The similarity
(or identity?) between the undeclined forms of the two particles ‫ ֵאת‬and the
availability of a preposition synonymous with ‫ ֵאת‬in the form of ‫ ִעם‬doubtless

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

cooperated to create a situation in which the preposition ‫ ֵאת‬became vulnerable.

This being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that the process by means
of which -‫אֹת‬/-‫ אֹות‬replaced -‫ ִאּת‬for ‘with’ began in the spoken register. One can
discern the initial stages of this process in the few instances of replacement in
the early books of the Bible, though the possibility of mismatch between the
consonantal form and vocalization should not be dismissed;49 neither should
one deny the possibility of textual corruption in individual cases.
As for the concentration of cases of replacement in the three books of
Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel: even if there is logic in explaining the begin-
ning of the process on the basis of internal factors, external influence must
apparently be assumed to have played a decisive role in the marked increase
of the phenomenon in the transitional period between CBH and LBH. Aramaic
influence may well be responsible in the case of Kings and Jeremiah. The situ-
ation in Ezekiel is less clear. The evidence adduced by Morag (1974a; 1974b)
for Akkadian influence on Ezekiel’s language is impressive:50 not only the fre-
quent employment of the collocations ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫‘ ֶּב‬son of man’, evidently a calque
on the widespread expression mar awīlum ‘ibid.’ in Akkadian, and ‫ָה ֵרי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
literally ‘mountains of Israel’ in the meaning ‘regions of the land of Israel’, due
to the use of Akkadian šadū ‘mountain’, a cognate of Hebrew ‫‘ ַׂש ֶדה‬field’, but
also the complete disuse of the preposition ‫ ִעם‬in contrast to the marked late
preference for this proposition over synonymous ‫ ֵאת‬.51 The Akkadian influence
on the language of Ezekiel is indeed noteworthy, but is it the best explana-
tion for the replacement of -‫ ִאּת‬with -‫אֹת‬/-‫ ?אֹות‬There are two weaknesses in
this theory. First, according to its biblical distribution, the substitution began
before the period in which decisive Akkadian pressure might be expected, i.e.,
in the period of Kings and Jeremiah. The strong Aramaic influence seen in
Kings and Jeremiah did not cease in the time of the composition of Ezekiel. It
may be that Akkadian i­nfluence is indeed the decisive factor in the use of ‫ֵאת‬
rather than ‫ ִעם‬in Ezekiel, but that the confusion between -‫ ִאּת‬and -‫אֹת‬/-‫אֹות‬
should be sought in Aramaic influence. Second, perhaps Akkadian influence
explains the infrequency of ‫ ִעם‬in Ezekiel, but it must be borne in mind that

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.

7.2.5 The MT and the Greek

Generally speaking, the Greek presents parallels for the cases in which
-‫אֹת‬/-‫ אֹות‬comes instead of -‫ ִאּת‬in the MT, though, not unexpectedly, the
translator(s) renders (render) according to the requirements of the context.
That said, it should be noted that in certain cases the collocation in question
is not paralleled in the Greek. Thus, in three of the four cases of the expres-
sion -‫‘ ָע ָׂשה אֹות‬deal with’ the collocation is not represented by a parallel in the
Greek.52 In Jer 32.40 there is no rendering of the collocation ‫אֹותם‬ ָ ִ ‫‘ ֵה‬do
‫יטיב‬
good with them’, but the expression is represented in the next verse. Finally,
ָ ‫‘ ִּד ֶּבר‬speak with them’ (Jer 35.2) finds no parallel in the Greek, but is rep-
‫אֹותם‬
resented in Jer 1.16; 4.12; 5.5; and 12.1. Even if the Greek does not have a parallel
for each and every case of the substitution in question, it does represent each
of the individual expressions listed above. Of course, it is impossible to estab-
lish the exact consonantal orthography in each case—-‫את‬, -‫אות‬, or some other
form—but it is clear that the deviation between the MT and the Greek in rela-
tion to the interchange under discussion cannot be interpreted as evidence for
the lateness of the supplementary material found only in the MT.

52 Jer 21.2; 30.11; 33.9. In Jer 46.28 ‫ א ְֹתָך‬is apparently reflected by the accusative pronoun σὲ
‘you’.
syntax 203

7.3 The Non-standard Use of Directional he

In BH the (generally) unaccented ‫◌ה‬- ָ is normally suffixed to a word (typically a

proper noun, common noun, or adverb) functioning as the adverbial adjunct53
or complement54 of a verb denoting movement in order to mark direction
or destination55 and basically serves as an alternative to prepositions like ‫ֶאל‬
‘to’, ‫‘ ַעד‬until’, and -‫‘ ְל‬to’. However, in a significant minority of cases there is no
direction or destination of movement to speak of, but only stationary orienta-
tion or location relative to a point in space.56
The development of the suffix has been explained variously. In the past
there was a tendency to see it as a remnant of the old accusative a case end-
ing.57 This theory, though, is problematic for several reasons. First, according to
the prevailing view today the case endings were marked by short vowels, and
final short vowels dropped at a very early period.58 In addition, the use of a -h

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

for the parallel suffix in Ugaritic, in which the orthography is predominantly

consonantal,59 is convincing proof that the suffixed ‫ה‬- in question was, at least
at one time, no mere mater lectionis, but a genuine consonant.60
There is also controversy regarding the basic meaning of the suffix under
discussion. Is it a restricted locative sense, limited to direction, or, alterna-
tively, a more general locative sense, covering both direction and stationary
presence in a location? There is no simple answer to this question. On the one
hand, in the majority of its occurrences the suffix is attached to a word serving
as the adverbial adjunct or complement of a verb of movement, such as ‫ּבֹוא‬
‘come, enter’, ‫‘ ָה ַלְך‬go, walk’, ‫‘ ָׁש ַלח‬send’, and the like, and could be replaced by
a preposition indicating destination or direction. Thus, the pre-exilic Hebrew
epigraphic material from Arad and Lachish testifies almost exclusively to use
of the suffix with a verb of movement.61 On the other hand, the Bible presents
not a few exceptional examples. There are cases in which the suffixed word
indicates the location of an event.62 In some instances the suffix is rendered
superfluous by its attachment to a word employed with a preposition that
itself indicates destination or direction, like ‫‘ ֶאל‬to’,63 ‫‘ ַעד‬until’,64 and -‫‘ ְל‬to’.65
In other cases the suffixed word comes with a preposition that indicates not

59 For discussion and references see Sivan 2001: 12–15.

60 Meek 1940: 229; Speiser 1954: 108; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §10.5a; Gibson 1994: §27;
Rosik 2001: 208; Arnold and Choi 2003: 4–5, n. 2; JM §93c. One may compare the Akkadian
suffix -iš, which is also used to mark direction (Hebrew ‫ ה‬corresponds to Akkadian š here,
in the 3rd person pronouns, e.g., ‫‘ הּוא‬he’, ‫‘ ִהיא‬she’, ‫‘ ֵהם‬they (m)’, and ‫‘ ֵהּנָ ה‬they (f)’ versus
šū, šī, šunu, and šina, respectively, and in the causative verb patterns Hebrew hifʿil and
Akkadian šafel); on the morphological (but not etymological) link between the Hebrew
and Akkadian suffixes see Speiser 1954. Blau (1972: 22) has suggested a compromise expla-
nation of sorts. In his opinion directional he consists only of a consonant, without a char-
acteristic vowel of its own, and was added to nouns ending in the accusative case ending,
which in any case marked direction. According to this approach the a vowel before direc-
tional he is indeed a remnant of the pre- or proto-Hebrew case system, like many archaic
Hebrew suffixes preserved in non-final position.
61 ‫‘ בא ביתה‬come to the house of’ (Arad 17.1–2); ‫ שמה‬. . . ‫(‘ תבא‬lest Edom) should
come . . . there’ (24.20); ‫‘ לבא מצרימה‬to come to Egypt’ (Lachish 3.15–16); ‫ העירה‬. . . ‫לקחת‬
‘to take . . . to the city’ (4.7). ‫‘ שלח שמה‬he sent there’ (8); ‫‘ שמה‬thither’ (5.7 [?]) comes in
a broken context.
62 For example, ‫‘ ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ָחה‬on the altar’ (Exod 29.13 and some 30 more times); ‫יְמה‬ ָ ָ‫(‘ ַמ ֲחנ‬in)
Mahanaim’ (1 Kgs 4.14); ‫‘ ָׁש ָּמה‬there’ (Gen 43.30 and frequently elsewhere; see BDB 1906:
1027b s.v. ‫ ;שם‬Even-Shoshan 1977: 165–166; cf. the discussion below).
63 For example, ‫ל־ה ָּצפֹונָ ה‬
ַ ‫‘ ֶא‬to the north’ (Ezek 8.14).
64 For example, ‫ד־אנָ ה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַע‬how long’ (Exod 16.28); ‫ד־א ֵפ ָקה‬ ֲ ‫‘ ַע‬until Aphek’ (Josh 13.4).
65 For example, ‫‘ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬upward’ (58x); ‫אֹולה‬ָ ‫‘ ִל ְׁש‬to Sheol’ (Ps 9.18).
syntax 205

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

66 For example, ‫‘ ַּבּנֶ גְ ָּבה‬in the south, Negev’ (Josh 15.21).

67 For example, ‫‘ ֵא ֶצל ָצ ְר ַתנָ ה‬next to Zarethan’ (1 Kgs 4.12).
68 For example, ‫‘ ֵמ ֶעגְ לֹונָ ה‬from Eglon’ (Hos 10.36).
69 This approach is justified in light of the dominant use of the suffix and on the basis of
the character of the cases of non-standard use. In the vast majority of the cases in which
directional he serves it marks destination, direction, or orientation, while the major-
ity of the cases of its non-standard usage are restricted to specific and recurring words
and phrases (with minor differences the figures here are based on Groves and Wheeler
2005: they include the word ‫‘ ָאנָ ה‬whither’, exclude ‫ילה‬ ָ ‫‘ ָח ִל‬far be it’, and disagree regard-
ing the relevance of individual forms here and there, e.g., ‫‘ ַא ְר ָצה‬land (of)’ Isa 8.23 [2x;
see above, n. 58]; ‫‘ ַה ַּת ְחּתֹונָ ה‬the lower’ Ezek 40.19 [see GKC §80k; JM §93k]; ‫‘ ֶעזְ ָר ָתה‬help’
Ps 44.27; 63.8; 94.17; ‫‘ נֶ גְ ָדה־נָ א‬in the presence of [?]’ Ps 116.14, 18 [but cf. Fokkelman and
Rendsburg 2003]; ‫‘ ַמ ְע ָר ָבה‬to the west’ 2 Chr 33.14). There are approximately 1090 cases of
the suffix in the Bible. A startlingly high number of them—255—can be defined as devia-
tions from the above norms. However, on closer inspection it turns out that a majority of
these exceptions involve one of a few specific types; 227 of the 255 exceptional cases are
(a) quasi-frozen forms, in which the suffix became inseparable from its host, e.g., the
names of the cardinal directions, ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַּב‬home, inside’, and ‫חּוצה‬ ָ ‘outside’ (66x: Exod 27.13;
38.9; Num 35.5; Deut 25.5; Josh 15.5 [2x], 10, 12, 21; 18.12, 15, 20; 19.11; Jdg 21.19; 1 Kgs 6.15; 8.8;
Isa 33.7; Jer 1.13, 15; 23.8; 46.6; Ezek 8.14; 34.21; 40.40 [2x], 44; 45.7 [2x]; 46.9; 47.8, 15, 18, 19;
48.1, 2, 3 [2x], 4 [2x], 5 [2x], 6, 7, 8 [3x], 16, 21 [2x], 23 [2x], 24 [2x], 25 [2x], 26 [2x], 27 [2x],
32, 33, 34; 1 Chr 26.17 [2x]; 2 Chr 5.9; 31.14; 32.5); ‫‘ ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬above, upward’ (59x: see the
concordances); ‫‘ ָׁש ָּמה‬there’ (42x: see below); ‫ד־אנָ ה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַע‬until where, when’ (14x: see below);
or (b) in fixed phrases, like ‫‘ ִה ְק ִטיר ִמזְ ֵּב ָחה‬burn on the altar’ (29x: Exod 29.13, 18, 25;
Lev 1.9, 13, 15, 17; 2.2, 9; 3.5, 11, 16; 4.19, 26, 31, 35; 5.12; 7.5, 31; 8.16, 21, 28; 9.10, 14, 20; 14.20; 16.25;
Num 5.26; 2 Chr 29.24). There are also 16 cases in which use of the suffix may be explained
as a result of attraction or misunderstanding; in these cases the ending was taken as an
integral part of the word to which it is attached: Deut 10.7; Josh 10.36, 39; 13.18; 18.13; 19.43;
21.36; Jdg 11.20; 14.1, 2, 5; 1 Sam 31.13; 2 Sam 20.15; Jer 48.21; 52.9; 1 Chr 6.63. In only 26 cases
is there ‘free’ non-standard use of directional he (and some of these cases are question-
able): Josh 13.4; 19.22 (?), 29 (?); Jdg 3.22 (?); 14.18 (?); 1 Kgs 4.12, 14; 2 Kgs 16.29; 17.24; Isa 16.1;
22.7; Jer 27.16; 29.15; Ezek 6.14; 25.9; 29.5; Hab 3.11; Ps 9.18; 68.7; 124.4; Job 34.13; 37.12; 1 Chr
1.7; 12.9 (?); 14.16; 18.3; 2 Chr 4.17. Eight of these are found in poetry, in which use of the
non-standard form might be attributed to stylistic factors (rhythm, sound, archaization).
206 chapter 7

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.

7.3.1 Late Sources

The semantic and functional development of the suffix in question comes to
expression in two apparently contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, there
is a marked general reduction in the use of directional he in late sources, in
many of which it is variously replaced by alternative means for marking direc-
tion and destination, e.g., increased use of the preposition -‫‘ ְל‬to’ (see below,
§‎7.4). This trend is felt in LBH77 and is unmistakable in RH, where use of the
morpheme is restricted to fixed forms and phrases.78 On the other hand, there
was also an increase in the non-standard use of directional he, whereby late
writers attempted to mimic classical style for purposes of archaization, but
went to an extreme. This propensity is somewhat characteristic of LBH, but
is especially typical of the Hebrew of the DSS.79 These two trends are particu-
larly noticeable in the case of use of directional he with proper names. This

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

characterized by a predominantly classical distribution in the Bible,92 while

the use of ‫‘ ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬above, upward’, characterized by a redundancy involving
both the proposition -‫‘ ל‬to’ and directional he, begins in the classical books,
but multiplies strikingly only in late sources, where it becomes the preferred
form.93 One may therefore conclude that in its classical use, directional he
indeed generally marked destination or direction, but already in CBH there
are deviations from this usage in the form of more generally locative meanings
and addition to words in prepositional phrases.

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

92 Out of 53 cases only four come in late material.

93 Out of 58 cases more than half come in late material: 14 come in Ezekiel (against one
case of ‫ּומ ַּמ ַעל‬
ִ ), 16 in Chronicles (against three cases of ‫)וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬, and one in Ezra. Compare
expressions of the type ‫ ָׁשנָ ה וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬X‫ ִמ ֶּבן־‬, normal throughout the entire Bible and in the
DSS, and ‫ּול ַמ ְע ָלה‬
ְ ‫ ָׁשנָ ה‬X‫( ִמ ֶּבן־‬1 Chr 23.27; 2 Chr 31.16, 17). Compare also ‫ ִמ ֶּבן־ח ֶֹדׁש וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬,
nine times in the book of Numbers, and ‫ מבן חודש ולמעל[ה‬4Q365 f27.4. But there are also
13 cases of ‫ (ּו)( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬in the Torah; see Hurvitz 2013: 109–113. Cf. Hoftijzer 1981: 220–221.
94 This case is not to be seen as an example of standard usage. The ancient versions interpret
‘in Babylon’. Cf. GKC §90d “to Babylon” (!); Meek 1940: 228. This verse comes before a
section (Jer 29.16–20) which has no parallel in the Greek and many researchers think that
it is not in its original location; see McKane 1986–1996: II 735–740; Holladay 1986–1989:
II 133–135; Lundbom 1999–2004: II 344–346.
syntax 213

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

The cardinal direction ‫‘ ָצפֹון‬north’ is mentioned 25 times in Jeremiah. In four

cases (1.13, 15; 23.8; 46.6) it terminates with an ill-fitting directional he.99 Similar
to certain toponyms on which directional he tended to become ‘frozen’—like
the aforementioned ‫‘ ִּת ְמנָ ָתה‬Timnah’ and ‫‘ ֶא ְפ ָר ָתה‬Ephrath’—in BH the names
of the cardinal directions also frequently end in directional he, even when
there is no explicit or implicit movement in that direction.100 This is a natural

95 Apparently the originally directional he in ‫‘ ַמ ָּטה‬down(ward)’ very early on became

inseparable from its host; cf. ‫ מט‬in Phoenician. In ‫‘ ָה ְל ָאה‬beyond’ the he ending has
evidently also been lexicalized, since -‫ ֵמ ָה ְל ָאה ל‬occurs in Gen 35.21; Jer 22.19; and Amos
5.27. The same may be true of ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַּב‬inside’ in ‫יְתה‬
ָ ‫‘ ִמ ַּב‬on the inside’ (1 Kgs 6.15).
96 The use of directional he here is problematic according to the biblical accents, which
mark a division between the words ‫ ַהּגִ ּבֹור‬and ‫ ָצפֹונָ ה‬. The Greek translator, conversely,
placed the pause after the word ‫ ָצפֹונָ ה‬, thus avoiding any difficulty. See the commentaries.
97 It is worth noting that the transcription in the Greek is Ιασσα, which evidently reflects an
understanding of the toponym according to which the final he was taken to be an integral
part of the name.
98 The Greek has the transcription Δεβλαθα. On the shift ‫ ִר ְב ָלה < ִּד ְב ָלה‬, arising from the
graphic similarity between dalet and resh (which are similar in several forms of the
alphabet used to write BH) see below, n. 109. Again, the Greek apparently reflects a name
in which directional he was taken as integral.
99 The usage is apparently felicitous in ‫ת־ה ְּד ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה ָצפֹונָ ה‬
ַ ‫את ֶא‬
ָ ‫( ָהֹלְך וְ ָק ָר‬Jer 3.12), as the
verse involves the symbolic declaration announced from Jerusalem towards the north.
There are, however, those who interpret ‫ ָצפֹונָ ה‬here as ‘in the land of the north’ (Targum
Jonathan; Rashi).
100 Meek 1940: 226; Qimron 1978b: 95. Concerning the suffix Qimron (ibid.) observes
“Especially frequent is its use in the names of the cardinal directions (‫מזרחה‬, ‫קדמה‬, ‫נגבה‬,
‫תימנה‬, ‫ימה‬, ‫מערבה‬, ‫ ”)צפונה‬adding (ibid., n. 68) “In all these names come over 200 times
with directional he, and only a few times without it.” However, according to Even-Shoshan
(1977) these names end in directional he 221 times and come without it 241 times. The
figures specific for each cardinal direction name are as follows: ‫ ִמזְ ָר ָחה‬32 versus ‫ִמזְ ָרח‬
214 chapter 7

development, since the lexeme in question by its nature refers to a direction,

though not necessarily movement toward it. Thus already in pre-exilic bibli-
cal literature one meets with marginal uses of directional he, especially in the
construct phrase ‫‘ ( ִל) ְּפ ַאת ָצפֹונָ ה‬the northern quarter’ and the like.101 However,
with the exception of this expression, the non-standard use of ‫‘ ָצפֹונָ ה‬north’ is
limited to relatively late sources—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles.102
On three occasions (Jer 1.13; 23.8; 27.16) directional he serves despite a parti-
tive nuance of distancing or separation indicated by the preposition ‫‘ ִמן‬from’.
Collocations of this type come approximately 25 times in the Bible,103 the lion’s
share (15 cases) in Ezekiel, which was composed no earlier than the Exile. In
most of these cases (11 in Ezekiel) the problematic suffix is attached to the
name of a cardinal direction,104 to which the addition of directional he seems
a natural development. In three cases it seems to have been added as a result
of attraction or was possibly simply mistaken as an integral part of the host
toponym.105 This leaves a handful of cases: ‫נֹוחה‬ ָ ָ‫‘ ִמ ִּמזְ ַרח י‬from the east of Janoah’

42; ‫ ֵק ְד ָמה‬26 versus ‫ ֶק ֶדם‬29; ‫ נֶ גְ ָּבה‬29 versus ‫ נֶ גֶ ב‬21; ‫ימנָ ה‬

ָ ‫ ֵּת‬13 versus ‫ימן‬ָ ‫ ֵּת‬11; ‫יָּמה‬ָ 4 versus ‫יָם‬
10; ‫ ַמ ֲע ָר ָבה‬4 versus ‫ ַמ ֲע ָרב‬10; ‫ ָצפֹונָ ה‬53 versus 100 ‫( ָצפֹון‬these figures are based on Even-
Shoshan 1977). In about one-third of the 153 cases of the word ‫ ָצפֹון‬in the Bible it ends with
directional he. Compare the situation in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in which all 19 cases
of the word have the ending (in the MT Torah eight of 16 instances terminate in the suffix).
101 ‫( ( ִל) ְּפ ַאת ָצפֹון‬Exod 26.20; 27.11; 36.25; 38.11; Num 35.5; Ezek 47.17; 48.16, 30); ‫( ִל) ְּפ ַאת ָצפֹונָ ה‬
(Josh 15.5; 18.12; Ezek 47.15). The following expressions are also found in the Torah: ‫ִל ְפ ַאת‬
‫ימנָ ה‬ָ ‫‘ נֶ גְ ָּבה ֵת‬the southern side’ (Exod 26.18); ‫‘ ִל ְפ ַאת ֵק ְד ָמה ִמזְ ָר ָחה‬the eastern side’ (27.13;
38.13); ‫ת־ק ְד ָמה‬ ֵ ‫‘ ְּפ ַא‬the eastern side’ (Num 35.5).
102 Ezek 8.14; 40.40; 46.9; 47.2; 48.1; 1 Chr 26.17. The form also comes in the expression ‫ִמ ְּצפֹונָ ה‬
‫ית־אל‬
ֵ ‫‘ ְל ֵב‬north of Bethel’ (Jdg 21.19), as part of a literary unit composed of apparently
early stories, but which may betray a few signs of late editing, for example, ‫ַעד־יֹום ּגְ לֹות‬
‫‘ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬until the day of the land’s exile’ (Jdg 18.30). Use of the structure -‫ ְל‬+ ‫◌ה‬- ָ X + ‫ ִמן‬,
where X is a cardinal direction, is otherwise limited to late texts: -‫חּוצה ְל‬ ָ ‫‘ ִמ‬outside of’
(Ezek 40.40, 44; 4Q26 f4.3 || -‫ ִמחּוץ ְל‬Lev 17.3; 4Q491 f1–3.9); -‫‘ מביתה ל‬inside’ (4Q405
f15ii–16.6; 11Q17 5.5; cf. -‫‘ ֵמ ָה ְל ָאה ל‬further on from’ Gen 35.21; Jer 22.19; Amos 5.27, where,
however, the directional he in ‫ ָה ְל ָאה‬has undergone lexicalization). The expression ‫חּוצה‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬
-‫ ְל‬is also attested in RH. Be that as it may, the conclusion of Edenburg (2003: 138–196),
namely that Jdg 19–21 was composed under the influence of LBH, seems excessively based
on the linguistic data.
103 Deut 10.7; Josh 10.36; 16.1, 7; Jdg 21.19; 1 Kgs 6.15; 2 Kgs 17.24; Isa 16.1; Jer 1.13; 23.8; 27.16; Ezek
6.14 (according to the pointing; see below); 40.40, 44; 45.7; 48.1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.
104 Josh 15.10; Jdg 21.19; 1 Kgs 6.15; Ezek 45.7; 48.1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.
105 ‫ן־הּגֻ ְדּג ָֹדה‬
ַ ‫ּומ‬
ִ ‘and from Gudgod’ (Deut 10.7, under the influence of the first part of the
verse); ‫‘ ֵמ ֶעגְ לֹונָ ה‬from Eglon’ (Josh 10.36, under the influence of v. 34); ‫נֹוחה‬ ָ ָ‫‘ ִמּי‬from Janoah’
(Josh 16.7, under the influence of the preceding verse).
syntax 215

(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.

7.3.3 The MT and the Greek

The Greek exhibits a parallel to each of the cases of non-standard usage listed
above, with the exception of ‫ וְ ָׁש ָּמה‬in the verse ‘to Babylon they will be brought
and there (‫ )וְ ָׁש ָּמה‬they will be until the day of my accounting of them’ (Jer 27.22).115
Excluding the two transliterated place names that apparently reflect forms
with the suffix (Jer 48.21; 52.10), it is difficult to determine the exact form that
lay before the translator, i.e., whether it terminated in the suffix or not. Be
that as it may, the fact that the Greek presents a parallel in the majority of the
cases shows that from the perspective of the non-standard use of directional
he, there is no significant difference between the short and long editions of
the book of Jeremiah. This is confirmed by a detailed statistical examination,
according to which in both the short edition and the supplementary material
its employment is that of a still active and productive morpheme, each of the
two sections showing relatively infrequent cases of non-standard use.116

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

7.4 -‫ ל‬with Motion Verbs Indicating Movement toward a Place

BH presents several types of rection with verbs of motion to express movement

towards a place, most commonly (a) the preposition ‫‘ ֶאל‬to’, (b) directional he,
somewhat similar to English ‘-ward’, and (c) the so-called accusative of place.117
All three are conveniently exemplified in

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

2 Sam 17.20 and they returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫רּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫)י‬

2 Sam 20.22 he returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫רּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫)י‬
2 Kgs 23.20 and he returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫רּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫)י‬
Zech 1.16 I have returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ַלם‬
ָ ‫) ִל‬
Ezra 2.1 and they returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ַלם‬
ָ ‫) ִל‬
Neh 7.6 and they returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ַלם‬
ָ ‫) ִל‬
2 Chr 19.1 and he returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ‫) ִל‬
2 Chr 34.7 and he returned to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ‫) ִל‬

7.4.2 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

The extra-biblical material confirms the biblical picture sketched above. In
pre-exilic epigraphic material directional he appears a few times,132 while
attestations of ‫ ֶאל‬and -‫ ל‬are rare, limited to one of each.133 To the best of my
knowledge, the accusative of place is not exemplified in the same corpus.
For their part, late extra-biblical corpora are characterized by varying ten-
dencies. Directional he is frequently employed in the DSS, but its use there is
very often superfluous or non-standard. In the non-biblical DSS its use with
proper nouns is rare. These facts may show that the suffix no longer served
in the vernacular, with the possible exception of certain frozen forms, but
was artificially inserted into literary works in order to create an impression of
antiquity. In RH directional he is uncommon; it is affixed only to certain words
in fixed expressions and is not attached to proper nouns, except in imitation of
biblical style or in citation of the Bible (see above, §‎7.3). As for the preposition
‫ ֶאל‬: it is used in the DSS, but almost never in RH (see below, §‎7.5).134

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

In comparison to BH, the incidence of the preposition -‫ ל‬with verbs of

motion is more common in post-biblical Hebrew, though frequency varies
according to corpus. Its use in the DSS remains marginal,135 but is widespread
in RH.136 Consider the following cases of parallel or similar formulations from
biblical and post-biblical sources:

Exod 16.35 their entrance into a land (‫ל־א ֶרץ‬

ֶ ‫ ) ֶא‬inhabited
4Q379 f12.5–6 their entrance into the land (‫  )לארץ‬of Canaan

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:

Jer 39.1 Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem (ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬

ָ ְ‫   ֶאל־י‬. . . ‫) ָּבא‬
Tg Jonathan Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem (‫    לירושלם‬. . . ‫)אתא‬
Peshiṭta Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem (‫ ܠܐܘܪܫܠܡ‬. . . ‫)ܐܬܐ‬
[≈ Ezra 4.12 the Jews . . . have come to Jerusalem (‫ירּוׁש ֶלם‬
ְ ‫]) ֲאתֹו    ִל‬

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 . . .

Several comments on these cases are in order:

First, the collocation ‫ ּגְ בּול‬+ -‫ ל‬+ ‫‘ ׁשּוב‬return to a border’ (Jer 31.17) is of dubi-
ous diachronic significance. Despite the existence of parallel formulations with
‫ ֶאל‬in presumably earlier material (e.g., Josh 16.2, 3) and in material of unknown
date (e.g., Ps 78.54; Job 38.20), the collocation with -‫ ל‬is too rare to determine
whether or not it should be considered characteristically late. Moreover, the
use of -‫ ל‬with verbal derivatives of ‫ שו"ב‬to mark movement toward a destina-
tion is fairly common in CBH. Finally, it should be borne in mind that the case
in question appears in poetry, in which features more marginal in early non-
poetic genres tend to crop up.
The two cases of ‫ ָהרּוחֹות‬/‫ ּכֹל רּוח‬+ -‫ ְל‬+ ‫‘ זָ ָרה‬scatter to every wind/all the winds’
(Jer 49.32, 36) have a late feel, though not only due to their use of -‫ל‬. The use of
‫‘ רּוח‬wind’ to indicate a cardinal direction has been classified as a distinctively
late linguistic feature (see below, §‎8.12). Even so, the context is poetic, so per-
haps a certain amount of license for variation should be given. Whatever the
case, the expressions are not unexpected in an exilic book like Jeremiah.
In the three remaining cases—ִ‫ירּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ‫  ִל‬. . . ‫‘ וְ נִ ְקּוּו‬will be gathered . . . to
Jerusalem’ (Jer 3.17); ‫ץ־מ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ִ ‫‘ ַה ָּב ִאים ְל ֶא ֶר‬those going to the land of Egypt’
(44.28); and ‫‘ וְ ִׁש ַּל ְח ִּתי ְל ָב ֶבל‬and I will send to Babylon’ (51.2)—the verbal com-
plement is a proper noun preceded by -‫ל‬. The collocations motion verb + -‫ ל‬+
ָ ְ‫‘ י‬to Jerusalem’ and motion verb + -‫ ל‬+ ‫‘ ָב ֶבל‬to Babylon’ both have late
ִ‫רּוׁש ָלם‬
distributions, especially in contrast to the alternative means with directional
he.138 In the case of the complement ‫‘ ְל ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬to the land of Egypt’ the

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

situation is unclear due to the relative rarity of the collocation in general.139

The use in Jeremiah of these characteristically late expressions and their classi-
cal alternatives, along with the continued general use of ‫ ֶאל‬, directional he, and
the accusative of place, fits nicely with the view according to which Jeremiah’s
language is seen as a transitional stage between CBH and LBH.

7.4.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek of Jeremiah reflects most the cases listed above. An exception is ‘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 ְקוּו‬Jer 3.17),
in which the words ‘in the name of Yhwh—to Jerusalem (ִ‫ירּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ‫ ’) ְל ֵׁשם ה' ִל‬have
no parallel. Furthermore, the Syriac has no parallel for the second occurrence
of ִ‫ירּוׁש ָלם‬
ָ ‫‘ ִל‬to Jerusalem’ here (the first used classically after the verb ‫‘ יִ ְק ְראּו‬they
will call’). In view of the syntax, which is arguably more felicitous without the
three words unparalleled in the Greek, it is possible that they consist of a sec-
ondary addition.140 It is perhaps significant that this characteristically late fea-
ture appears in the longer, Masoretic edition of the book. Even so, overall, this
late feature is not common in Jeremiah in either of its strata: it occurs in only
five of 147 potential cases (3.4 percent) in the short edition and in only one of
26 (3.9 percent) in the supplementary material.141 Again, both layers exhibit
pronounced classical affinities.

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

7.5 Interchange of the Prepositions ‫ ַעל‬and ‫אֶ ל‬

7.5.1 The MT versus Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and

Extra-biblical Sources
In most of their occurrences the prepositions ‫ ֶאל‬and ‫ ַעל‬come with their
expected functions and meanings of ‘to’ and ‘above, on, at, against’, respectively.
In a not insignificant number of cases, however, the two prepositions appear
to have interchanged.142 Examination of this interchange requires a nuanced
approach. First, a certain measure of semantic and functional affinity between
the two prepositions even in their standard functions must be acknowledged.
In other words, in some usages ‫ ֶאל‬and ‫ ַעל‬are synonymous particles and, there-
fore, a degree of overlap in usage is to be expected. Even so, the extent of legiti-
mate synonymy should not be exaggerated: according to usage in the majority
of their respective cases there was a genuine, though sometimes slight, differ-
ence between the two. The fact that biblical writers and post-biblical copy-
ists managed, for the most part, to maintain a clear and consistent distinction
between the two testifies to this difference.143 Second, a balanced approach
will admit the linguistic reality behind the interchange and resist unnecessary
textual emendation.
There are several recurring lines of argumentation in scholarly literature.

(1) Many investigators emphasize that there already existed a degree of

semantic and functional overlap between the two prepositions in the
First Temple Period.144
(2) Be that is it may, in comparison to other biblical material several bibli-
cal texts exhibit remarkable concentrations of the interchanges ‫ַעל > ֶאל‬
and ‫ ֶאל > ַעל‬. Some scholars point generally to late texts,145 whereas
others restrict their comments to the individual books Samuel, Kings,

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

Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, or to some combination thereof, especially the

latter pair.146
(3) In view of the fact that the biblical text was transmitted by copyists, it is
difficult to determine to what extent the interchanges in question may
represent the language and/or orthography of the original biblical writ-
ers and to what extent they may represent the language and/or orthogra-
phy of post-biblical scribes.147 Indeed, there are those who attribute the
interchange to the weakened pronunciation of the guttural letters in the
language of the scribes who copied and transmitted the texts—whether
Hebrew, Aramaic, or both.148 The degree to which a similar weakening

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:

‫ַעל > ֶאל‬

Arad 3.2–5 and Hananiah will order you to Beer Sheba (‫ על באר‬. . . ‫וצוכ‬
‫ )שבע‬with the load of a pair of donkeys157

‫ֶאל > ַעל‬

Lachish 4.10–11 for the smoke signals of Lachish we are watching (‫אל משאת‬
‫)לכיש נחנו שמרמ‬158

155 BDB 41a; JM §133b; cf. Rendsburg 2003a: 32.

156 Rendsburg 2003a: 32–36.
157 In light of the continuation of the line, the most reasonable interpretation of the words
‫ וצוכ על באר שבע‬is ‘and (he) will order you to Beer Sheba’ (there is no reason to read
‫ וצוכ‬as an unconverted qaṭal, i.e., following simple waw; cf. the conversive forms ‫וצררת‬
‘and you will bind’ (ln. 5) and ‫‘ ולקחת‬and you will take’ (ln. 8) in the continuation of the
same text); cf. ‘And Yhwh spoke to Moses and to Aaron and ordered them to the children
of Israel and to Pharaoh king of Egypt (‫ל־ּפ ְרעֹה ֶמ ֶלְך ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬ ַ ‫ל־ּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ֶא‬
ְ ‫( ’)וַ יְ ַצּוֵ ם ֶא‬Exod
6.13; for this understanding of the verse see the long commentary by Rabaʿ); ‘And you will
order them to their masters (‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־א ֽד ֹנ‬
ֲ ‫ית א ָֹתם ֶא‬
ָ ִ‫( ’)וְ ִצּו‬Jer 27.4); ‘And Esther told Hathach
and she ordered him to Mordecai (‫ל־מ ְר ֳּד ָכי‬ ָ ‫( ’)וַ ְּת ַצּוֵ הּו ֶא‬Est 4.10); ‘And I ordered them to
Iddo the chief (‫ל־אּדֹו ָהרֹאׁש‬
ִ ‫אֹותם ַע‬ ָ ]‫ ואוצאה‬:‫( ’)וָ ֲא ַצּוֶ ה [כתיב‬Neh 8.17). See Pardee 1978:
299; 1982a: 35; Gogel 1998: 213–214, n. 276; Schüle 2000: 137; Lindenberger 2003: 122–123; cf.
Aharoni 1975: 18; Lemaire 1977: 164; Aḥituv 2005: 90.
158 The dominant expression in BH is ‫‘ ָׁש ַמר ֵאת‬guard, watch’. For ‫ ָׁש ַמר ַעל‬see 1 Sam 26.16;
Job 14.6; Prov 2.11; 6.22; but cf. ‘you have not guarded your master (‫ל־אד ֹנֶ יָך‬ ֲ ‫’)לֹא ָׁש ַמ ְר ָּת ֶא‬
(1 Sam 26.15); ‘And it was while Joab was besieging the city (‫ל־ה ִעיר‬ ָ ‫יֹואב ֶא‬ ָ ‫’)וַ יְ ִהי ִּב ְׁשמֹור‬
(2 Sam 11.16). There may be a semantic difference between ‫‘ ָׁש ָמר ַעל‬to protect, keep
watch’ and ‫‘ ָׁש ַמר ֶאל‬to keep a look out, watch for’.
syntax 231

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

the interchange takes place in 50 of 82 potential cases (about 61 percent).

Ch. 26, too, exhibits a relatively high proportion of interchange, though this is
anomalous, since the interchange is rare in chs. 27–29 and 34, which are con-
sidered by many part of the same literary unit. It is clear that this accumulation
in chs. 46–51 should not be attributed to copyists; if they were responsible, the
cases of interchange would be more evenly distributed along the length of the
book. The concentration in these chapters probably dates to before the period
of their transmission. It also supports the view that these have an independent
literary history.
‫‘ ָא ַמר ֶאל > ָא ַמר ַעל‬say against’ 27.19 (‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫ ;) ֶאל‬32.36; ‫ּבֹוא > ּבֹוא ַעל‬
‫‘ ֶאל‬come against’184 2.3; 6.3; 39.1; 48.21 (3x; ‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫  ֶאל‬. . . ‫  ֶאל‬. . . ‫ָּב ַטח > ָּב ַטח ַעל ;) ֶאל‬
‫‘ ֶאל‬rely on’ 7.1;185 ‫‘ ִּד ֶּבר ֶאל > ִּד ֶּבר ַעל‬speak against’ 33.14 (‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫;) ֶאל‬186 36.7; 40.2,
16; 50.1 (2x); 51.12,187 62; ‫‘ ֵה ִביא ֶאל > ֵה ִביא ַעל‬bring upon, against’188 6.19;189 11.11,
23; 19.15 (‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫ ;) ֶאל‬32.42 (‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫ ;) ֶאל‬35.17 (2x); 36.31 (‫  ֶאל‬. . . ‫  ַעל‬. . . ‫ ;) ַעל‬39.16;190
48.44 (2x);191 49.36; ‫‘ ִהנְ נִ י ֶאל > ִהנְ נִ י ַעל‬here I am against, in opposition to’192 21.13;

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.

7.5.3 The MT and the Greek

In many instances it is impossible to determine on the basis of the render-
ings in the Greek (and in other translations, for that matter) which of the two
prepositions lay before the translator(s). There are cases in which the transla-
tion apparently agrees in its reading with the MT against the expected preposi-
tion. For example, the Greek evidently reflects the interchange ‫ ַעל > ֶאל‬twice
in Jer 3.18. In most cases, however, the translator(s) appears (appear) to have
rendered according to the meaning required by the context in line with the
demands of Greek grammar and style. By way of example, out of the 24 cases
of ‫ ֶאל > ַעל‬interchange in ch. 50, the Greek renders with ἐπὶ ‘on, upon’ 21 times,
lacks a parallel on two occasions, and reads πρὸς ‘to’ only once. Theoretically,
each and every relevant instance of disagreement between the MT and the
Greek could conceivably reflect a different Vorlage for the Greek,209 but it
seems more reasonable to assume that the translator simply allowed for the
reality of the interchange and translated as required by the context. For this
reason it is hard to determine whether the cases of interchange in question
are relatively more frequent in the supplementary material than in the short
edition of the book.
Be that as it may, comparing the MT and the Greek with regard to the two
prepositions, the following situation becomes manifest. There are 48 cases in
which the Greek lacks a parallel for MT ‫ ַעל‬, and in a single (questionable) case
of these ‫; ֶאל < ַעל‬210 conversely, there are 72 cases in which the Greek lacks a
parallel form MT ‫ ֶאל‬, and in eight of these ‫ ַעל < ֶאל‬.211 In other words, the sup-
plementary material contains 55 potential cases of ‫ ַעל‬and in eight of them
(14.5 percent of the cases) it reads ‫ ֶאל‬instead, and 65 potential cases of ‫ ֶאל‬,
of which only one (1.5 percent of the cases) is replaced with ‫ ַעל‬. Based on the
totals given above, these figures are significantly lower than those of the short

206 Cf. Jer 49.22.

207 ‫ ִהנְ נִ י ַעל‬in the sense ‘I go out against, oppose’: Jer 23.30, 31, 32; Ezek 5.8; 26.3; 28.22; 29.3.
‫ ִהנְ נִ י ֶאל‬: Jer 21.13; 50.31; 51.25; Ezek 13.8, 20; 21.8; 29.10; 30.22; 34.10; 35.3; 38.3; 39.1; Nah
2.14; 3.5.
208 ‫‘ ח ֶֹרב ַעל‬drought upon’ (Hag 1.11; Mal 3.22). ‫‘ ח ֶֹרב ֶאל‬dryness on/to’ (Jdg 6.39, 40; Jer 50.38).
209 Thus, for example, reasons Cooke (1936: 26–27) regarding the book of Ezekiel. Cf. Berry
1915.25.
210 Jer 36.29.
211 Jer 27.13, 19; 28.16; 29.16; 33.14, 26; 48.40; 50.36.
238 chapter 7

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 Accusative -‫ל‬

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

exclusively to the core LBH books, being documented sporadically in earlier

strata of Hebrew as well, where it presumably developed independently of
external pressure.216 Thus there are transitive verbs that routinely take the
preposition -‫ ל‬in BH which are paralleled by verbs in other languages that take
direct objects, for example, ‫נִ ַּׁשק‬/‫‘ נָ ַׁשק‬kiss’.217 In the case of other verbs the
rection is flexible, sometimes direct and other times with -‫ל‬, e.g., ‫‘ ָק ָרא‬call’.218
In late sources the increased use of accusative -‫ ל‬often involves verbs that in
earlier literature tend to take direct objects (with ‫ ֵאת‬or no intervening par-
ticle), e.g., ‫‘ ִה ֵּלל‬praise’.219 This diachronic development is especially evident
in the case of parallel verses from different historical strata of the language,
such as:

2 Sam 8.6 and Yhwh gave David victory (‫ת־ּדוִ ד‬

ָ ‫ )וַ ּי ַֹׁשע ה' ֶא‬wherever he went
1 Chr 18.6 and Yhwh gave David victory (  ‫ּיֹוׁשע ה' ְל ָדוִ יד‬
ַ ַ‫ )ו‬wherever he went

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 . . .

7.6.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

In comparison with CBH, DSS Hebrew and RH are also characterized by
expanded use of accusative -‫ל‬.220 As mentioned above, there is widespread
scholarly consensus that the late extension of the use of the preposition in
Hebrew came as a result of the influence of Aramaic, in the later dialects of
which this usage is very common indeed.221 Consider the following Aramaic
translations and similar formulations:

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

)1( -‫‘ ָּד ָרׁש ְל‬seek’ in ‫ם־ל ָר ָעה‬

ְ ‫‘ ָה ִאיׁש ַהּזֶ ה ֵאינֶ ּנּו ד ֵֹרׁש ְל ָׁשלֹום ָל ָעם ַהּזֶ ה ִּכי ִא‬this man is
not seeking peace for this people, but evil’ (Jer 38.4). Generally the verb
‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש‬seek, request’ takes a direct object or the preposition -‫ב‬. Beyond
its occurrence in Jeremiah, examples with -‫ ל‬come some 15 times in the
Bible, mainly in late contexts.222 The expression also comes in the DSS.223
The specific collocation ‫ ָׁשלֹום‬+ ‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש‬seek + peace’ appears four times in
the Bible: on three occasions ‫ ָּד ַרׁש‬takes a direct object;224 only in the
present verse does it take -‫ל‬. It is also worth noting that Jeremiah knows
the expression ‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש ֵאת‬seek’ in general225 and )‫ת־שלֹום ( ָה ִעיר‬ ְ ‫‘ ָּד ַרׁש ֶא‬seek
peace (of the city)’ (Jer 29.7) more specifically.
(2) -‫הֹוׁש ַיע ל‬
ִ 226 ‘deliver, make victorious’ in ‫א־יֹוׁשיעּו ָל ֶהם ְּב ֵעת ָר ָע ָתם‬ ִ ֹ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ל‬ ֵ ְ‫‘ ו‬but
they will by no means deliver them in the time of their calamity’ (Jer
11.12). It is true that in the majority of its occurrences in the Bible the verb
ִ ‘deliver, make victorious’ takes a direct object (or ends in an object
‫הֹוׁש ַיע‬
pronoun; see above, n. 217). The approximately 20 cases of -‫הֹוׁש ַיע ל‬ ִ are in
the minority.227 Even so, the distribution of the collocation with -‫ ל‬is not
especially characteristic of a late expression. Moreover, in post-biblical
Hebrew this verb’s rection with -‫ ל‬is rather rare.228 Jeremiah also knows
ִ .229
‫הֹוׁש ַיע ֵאת‬
(3) -‫‘ ֵה ִכין ל‬prepare’ in ‫‘ ִה ְתיַ ֵּצב וְ ָה ֵכן ָלְך‬station and prepare yourself!’ (Jer 46.14).
The -‫ ל‬here (and in Ezek 38.7) has reflexive force. It apparently substi-
tutes for ‫ ֵאת‬in ‫ּוק ָׁשתֹות‬ ְ ‫כֹוב ִעים וְ ִׁש ְרי ֹנֹות‬
ָ ְ‫ל־ה ָּצ ָבא ָמגִ ּנִ ים ְּור ָמ ִחים ו‬
ַ ‫וַ ּיָ ֶכן ָל ֶהם ֻעּזִ ּיָ הּו ְל ָכ‬
ְ ‘and Uzziah prepared them for the entire army—shields and
‫ּול ַא ְבנֵ י ְק ָל ִעים‬
swords and helmets and armor and bows and stones for slinging’ (2 Chr
26.14). Even if in the first case ‫‘ ָל ֶהם‬them’ is taken as ‘for them’ in reference
to ‫ל־ה ָּצ ָבא‬ ַ ‫‘ ָכ‬the entire army’ rather than ‫‘ ָמגִ ּנִ ים‬shields’ etc., the second
instance of -‫ל‬, in ‫‘ ְּול ַא ְבנֵ י ְק ָל ִעים‬and stones for slinging’, certainly marks a
direct object (and furnishes support for the view that ‫‘ ָל ֶהם‬them’ at the
beginning of the verse likewise marks a direct object). Whatever the case

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

direct object.235 This example may also involve grammatical attraction

due to -‫‘ ָס ַלח ל‬forgive’.
(7) -‫‘ ָל ַקח ל‬take’ in ‫ב־ט ָּב ִחים ְליִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬
ַ ‫‘ וַ ּיִ ַּקח ַר‬and the captain of the royal guard
took Jeremiah’ (Jer 40.2). This case is remarkable and almost unique in
the Bible.236 In the rest of the cases of this verb in Jeremiah it takes a
direct object. Cf. especially ‫ת־ׂש ָריָ ה‬ ְ ‫ב־ט ָּב ִחים ֶא‬ ַ ‫‘ וַ ּיִ ַּקח ַר‬and the captain of the
royal guard took Seraiah’ (Jer 52.24). This usage is very common in the
Syriac of the Peshiṭta, where ‫ ָל ַקח ֵאת‬is regularly rendered -‫ܕܒܪ ܠ‬.
(8) -‫‘ נִ ְׁש ַּפט ל‬judge (?)’ in ‫ל־ּב ָׂשר‬
ָ ‫  ִּכי ִריב ַלה' ַּבּגֹויִם נִ ְׁש ָּפט הּוא ְל ָכ‬. . . ‘for Yhwh has a
quarrel against the nations, he is judging all flesh’ (Jer 25.31). This phrase
is a biblical hapax legomenon. The verb ‫ נִ ְׁש ַּפט‬generally takes the preposi-
tions ‫ ֵאת‬or ‫ ִעם‬.237 Jeremiah contains two exceptional cases: -‫ נִ ְׁש ַּפט ל‬here
and ‫( נִ ְׁש ַּפט ֵאת‬with the accusative marker) in 2.35. The dearth of evidence
precludes certainty, but ‫אֹותָך‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְׁש ַּפט‬in Jer 2.35 may have arisen from the
interchange -‫ > ִא ְּת‬-‫אֹות‬ ְ , a phenomenon relatively common in the book (see
above, §‎7.2), -‫ נִ ְׁש ַּפט ל‬representing the penetration of -‫ ל‬into the domain of
accusative ‫ ֵאת‬. The claim of a semantic difference between ‫ ִעם‬/-‫נִ ְׁש ַּפט ִאּת‬
and -‫ ְל‬/-‫ נִ ְׁש ַּפט אֹת‬may be tenable. In most cases of the former the refer-
ence is to the process of judgment, i.e., to a discussion between the par-
ties, whereas the latter refers to the outcome.
(9) -‫‘ ָע ַבד ל‬serve, worship’ in ‫ִמ ְּפנֵ י ָר ָע ָתם ֲא ֶׁשר ָעׂשּו ְל ַה ְכ ִע ֵסנִ י ָל ֶל ֶכת ְל ַק ֵּטר ַל ֲעבֹד‬
‫אֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ִ ‫‘ ֵל‬because of the evil that they have done to anger me, going
to burn (sacrifices) to serve/worship other gods’ (Jer 44.3). This combina-
tion appears several times in the Bible, but the -‫ ל‬principally conveys the
sense of the dativus commodi, the meaning being ‘to perform a service
for someone’s benefit’.238 Here the sense is ‘to serve/worship other gods’
and in most cases of this meaning the verb takes a direct object.239 Only

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

Some of the aforementioned collocations with accusative -‫ ל‬have a late char-

acter, being found exclusively or predominantly in late contexts. It seems likely
that the late tendency to employ -‫ ל‬to mark direct objects had a role in this
phenomenon in Jeremiah. It should also be noted, though, that Jeremiah often
employs the corresponding classical expression.

7.6.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek has parallels for eight of the nine cases listed above, the exception
being number (9) -‫ ָע ַבד ל‬. Though the missing case may be considered evidence
for the late linguistic profile of the supplementary material found in the MT
and missing from the shorter Hebrew edition behind the Greek, the latter’s
use of accusative -‫ ל‬militates against seeing the longer version as significantly
later than the shorter version. Overall, the phenomenon occurs in only eight of
87 cases in the short edition and in only one of 12 cases in the supplementary
material. With respect to the phenomenon in question, then, both strata reveal
a markedly classical tendency.

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

possible—and this is so in Aram. and Accad. as well.”242 In the Bible the

order X ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬king/queen X’ is dominant, with 196 cases, against 55
of ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X ‘X the king/queen’.243 The numerical superiority of the for-
mer structure is characteristic of both classical and late material. Be that as
it may, in comparison to compositions generally considered pre-exilic, post-
exilic works reveal a significant increase in use of the order ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X. For
example, in the three books Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah, the order X ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬comes
105 times, ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X only five.244 In the core LBH books, conversely, the latter
order becomes much more common: the ratio there is X ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬70 times,
‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X 45 times. These figures are somewhat deceptive, though, since
21 of the cases of the classical order in Chronicles were likely inherited from the
Chronicler’s sources, while further examples there may have been influenced
by their general style.245 Excluding cases of the classical order in Chronicles

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.

7.7.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

Pre-exilic inscriptional material offers very few potential cases of the feature
under discussion. Interestingly, in the only two apparent cases, the order is the
characteristically late ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X:

Kuntillat Ajrud 18.1 Ashiyaw the king (‫המלכ‬

֯ ‫ )אשיו‬said
Moussaieff Ostraca 1.1–2 As Ashiyahu the king (‫ )אשיהו·המלכ‬has commanded
you

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

In non-Masoretic, non-Hebrew, and post-exilic extra-biblical sources, con-

versely, the picture sketched above of the growing tendency to make use of the
appositional order ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X finds rather strong confirmation. It is true
that use of the classical order persists in post-biblical material, especially in
works dependent on BH, like the biblical DSS, the Aramaic targums, and the
Peshiṭta. For example,

1 Kgs 1.32 and king David (‫ ) ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָּדוִ ד‬said

Tg Jonathan and king David (‫ )מלכא דויד‬said
Peshiṭta and king David (‫ )ܡܠܟܐ ܕܘܝܕ‬said
5Q2 f1a–c.34 and king David (‫ ) ̇המלך דוד‬said

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.,

M Sanhedrin 2.3 and king David   (‫)והמלך דוד‬

Seder ʿOlam Rabba 14 king David (‫)המלך דוד‬
Seder ʿOlam Rabba 19 king Uzziah (‫)המלך עזיהו‬
B Sukka 3.10 king Josiah (‫)המלך יאשיהו‬

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

Ps 87.5 Each man (‫ ) ִאיׁש וְ ִאיׁש‬ was born in it

Tg Psalms David the king (‫ )דוד מלכא‬and Solomon his son were raised in it249

Qoh 3.12 I know that . . .

Tg Qoh Solomon the king (‫ )שלמה מלכא‬said, “I know in the spirit of prophecy that . . .

If in comparison to writers of CBH writers of LBH reveal a penchant for the

more frequent use of the appositional word order ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬/‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X, this becomes
the preferred order in post-biblical sources not dependent on the Bible. While
the relevant sources offer relatively few potential examples, the trend is still
rather clear. For example: ‫‘ אחאב ֗ה[מלך‬Ahab the [king’ (4Q382 f2.2); ‫יונתן המלך‬
‘Jonathan the king’ (4Q448 2.2); ‫המל[ך‬ ֗ ‫‘ ליונתן‬for Jonathan the kin[g’ (3.8); ‫יהונתן‬
‫‘ המלך‬Jonathan the king’ (Alexander Jannaeus coin); ‫‘ אגריפס המלך‬Agrippa the
king’ (M Bikkurim 3.4); ‫‘ מנבז המלך‬Monobases the king’ (M Yoma 3.10); ‫הילני‬
‫‘ המלכה‬Helene the queen’ (M Nazir 3.6); ‫‘ אגריפס המלך‬Agrippa the king’ (M
Soṭa 7.8); ‫‘ לתלמי המלך‬for Ptolemy the king’ (Mekh Pasḥa 14.51); ‫שלמצו המלכה‬
‘Shelomzion the queen’ (Sifra Beḥuqqotai 1.2); ‫‘ שלמה המלך‬Solomon the king’
(Sifre Bemidbar 78); ‫‘ עזיה המלך‬Uzziah the king’ (Sifre Bemidbar 99); ‫יאשיהו‬
‫‘ המלך‬Josiah the king’ (Tosefta Soṭa 13.1); ‫‘ דוד המלך‬David the king’ (Y Berakhot
1.1); ‫‘ שלמציון המלכה‬Shelomzion the queen’ (B Shabbat 1.1). 249
Finally, this same order is dominant in Second Temple Aramaic. For exam-
ple, in BA the expression ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכא‬X comes 30 times between Daniel and Ezra,
against only seven cases of the alternative order.250 Consider also the following
examples from extra-biblical Aramaic sources:

4Q196 f2.9 Esarhaddon the [ki]ng (‫)אסרחדון [מל]כא‬

4Q550 f1.6a Dar]ius the king (‫)דר]יוש מלכא‬
4Q550 f1.6b Darius the king (‫)דריוש מלכא‬
Y Berakhot 6.1 Diocletian the king (‫)דוקליטיינוס מלכא‬
Y Berakhot 11.2 Jannaeus the king (‫)ינאי מלכא‬

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

251 According to Schwiderski (2004–2008: I 503–513) cases of ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכא‬X outnumber those of

X ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכא‬86:4. See also Degen 1969: 90–91; Hug 1993: 95–98; Muraoka and Porten 2003: §70c.
252 Though it should be noted that scholars have suggested that some cases of the 1cs suf-
fixed preposition ‫ ֵא ַלי‬in Jeremiah may represent misunderstandings of the abbreviation
)‫‘ אל י(רמיהו‬to J(eremiah)’; see the critical notes to Jer 28.1 and 32.6 in BHS. In that case,
the line may belong to the editorial framework; conceivably, it may be editorial in nature
even if formulated in the first person.
253 Consider, for example, the use of theophoric names with the short ending ‫יָ ה‬- in Jer 21.1
and in the Twelve (see above, §‎3.5.2.1, and, more generally, §2.5.1.5).
254 These include a predominance of theophoric names with the short ending ‫יָ ה‬- (see above,
§‎3.5), the spelling ‫ נבוכדנאצר‬rather than ‫‘ נבוכדראצר‬Nebuchadnezzar’ (see above, §‎3.8),
and, perhaps, use of the word ‫‘ חֹר‬nobleman’ (see below, §‎8.3).
syntax 251

7.7.4 The MT and the Greek

The MT and the Greek of Jeremiah frequently differ in cases of apposition
involving the title ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬and a proper name. In about half of the cases of this
sort of apposition the Greek has no parallel for the title ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, the name of the
king, or both.255 However, in all of these cases the MT order is the classical
X ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, while the two cases of ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X are paralleled in the Greek. If the differ-
ences are considered additions to the longer Hebrew edition assumed to be
reflected in the MT, they betray a thoroughly classical style.

7.8 Position of the Demonstrative Adjective within the Clause

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

Compare the final example to:

1 Kgs 3.9 for who can judge this great people of yours (‫) ַע ְּמָך ַה ָּכ ֵבד ַהּזֶ ה‬

7.8.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

Suitable examples are difficult to come by in many non-Masoretic sources.
It is unsurprising that the two exceptional corpora from this perspective are
the biblical DSS and the Aramaic targums, in both of which the word order in
the structure in question reflects classical conventions. Thus the renderings
of the three exceptional biblical examples of the order noun + demonstrative
+ adjective are themselves exceptional in the targums. Be that as it may, the
non-Masoretic sources also reveal the aforementioned flexibility, according to
which the demonstrative precedes the adjective. In the Aramaic of the DSS
one finds:

1Q20 20.28 that this evil spirit (‫באיש ̇תא‬

֯ ‫ )רוחא דא‬may be exorcized from us

And the Hebrew scrolls include

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

Consider also these examples from the Syriac New Testament:

Matthew 5.19 these smallest commandments (‫ || ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܙܥܘܪܐ‬τῶν

ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων)
Galatians 1.4 this evil world (‫ || ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܝܫܐ‬τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος
πονηροῦ)

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

In the fourth instance the demonstrative precedes the adjective, as sometimes

happens in late sources:260

Jer 13.10 this evil people (‫) ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה ָה ָרע‬

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.

7.8.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek rendering of Jer 13.9–10 differs significantly from the Hebrew of
the MT.261 The Greek has τάδε λέγει κύριος οὕτω φθερῶ τὴν ὕβριν Ιουδα καὶ τὴν
ὕβριν Ιερουσαλημ 10 τὴν πολλὴν ταύτην ὕβριν τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους ὑπακούειν τῶν
λόγων μου . . . = ‫ ָה ָרב ַהּזֶ ה‬10 ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫הּודה וְ ֶאת־ּגְ אֹון י‬
ָ ְ‫*ּכֹה ָא ַמר ה' ָּכ ָכה ַא ְׁש ִחית ֶאת־ּגְ אֹון י‬
. . . ‫ת־ּד ָב ַרי‬ ַ ‫‘ ַה ֵּמ ֲאנִ ים ִל ְׁש‬Thus says Yhwh: “So will I destroy the pride of Judah
ְ ‫מֹוע ֶא‬
and this great pride of Jerusalem, who refuse to listen to my words . . .” ’.262 It
is tempting to argue on the basis of this difference that the MT betrays a later
linguistic stratum than the Greek. But while this may indeed be the case, the
exact nature of the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Greek is far from certain and
the reconstructed Hebrew has its own problems.263

7.9 Perfective Past weqaṭal

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

an inner-Hebrew evolutionary process may have been accelerated by external

pressure.

7.9.1 Different Types of Perfective Past weqaṭal Forms

However the development of perfective past we+qaṭal is to be explained, it
would seem that the phenomenon was known already, though in limited fash-
ion, in First Temple Hebrew. Several apparent cases come in poetry, e.g.,

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

The preceding examples do not involve a series of actions, but synonymous

verbs referring to a single action, to different aspects of the same action, or to
actions related to each other in a non-sequential manner. Certain cases may
also be considered instances of hendiadys, in which the form of the second
verb mechanically follows that of the first.280
However, on occasion such usages do involve a series of sequential actions,
e.g.,

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

Some cases may also be due to grammatical attraction permissible in poetry,

but not in non-poetic texts. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the poetic
use of verb forms in the Bible sometimes deviates from their use in non-poetic
genres.
These same factors—attraction in the case of synonymous verbs, hendiadys,
the description of various aspects of a single action, the lack of chronological
sequence, poetic license—might also be adopted as explanations of cases of
non-standard we+qaṭal in non-poetic contexts,283 e.g.,

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

282 On this style see Held 1962; Buth 1986.

283 It is true that the case in question is not, strictly speaking, poetry, but direct speech.
However, direct speech in the Bible often has poetic affinities.
284 Note the millʿel stress. All the same, perhaps the form can be read as a modal ‘you would
ask’; cf. the NJPS translation of ‫‘ וְ ִה ְׁש ַּב ֶּתם‬and you would have them cease’ (Exod 5.5);
cf. also ‫‘ וְ ִׁש ַּלח‬and he was about to send (?)’ (Gen 28.6).
285 However, the advice of Buth (2006: 162–163) should not be ignored. He notes that there
is no proof that the author of a verse like ‫( וַ ֲאנִ י זָ ַקנְ ִּתי וָ ַׂ֫ש ְב ִּתי‬1 Sam 12.2) did not intend
‘I have become (am) old and have been graying’, that is a combination of perfective past
(or stative present, in this case) and imperfective past. Note also ‫י־מ ֲעלּו ֲאב ֵֹתינּו וְ ָעׂשּו ָה ַרע‬ ָ ‫ִּכ‬
‫ֹלהינּו וַ יַ ַעזְ ֻבהּו‬
ֵ ‫ה'־א‬
ֱ ‫( ְב ֵעינֵ י‬2 Chr 29.6). The form ‫ וְ ָעׂשּו‬apparently has the same tense and
aspectual value as ‫ ָמ ֲעלּו‬and ‫וַ ּיַ ַעזְ ֻבהּו‬, i.e., perfective past, but the possibility of intentional
use of the weqaṭal for emphasis of the habitual nature of the evildoing should not be
syntax 261

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

In a decisive majority of the cases in which weqaṭal apparently has perfective

past force in CBH, the action or situation is suitable for imperfective presenta-
tion (as defined below in the Excursus, §‎7.13)288 or involves attraction (gener-
ally in poetry or semi-poetic prophecy), a case of hendiadys, or poetic factors.
In light of these exceptions in CBH, there are those who minimize the value

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

of perfective past we+qaṭal as a distinctive marker of LBH.289 It is true that

LBH generally preserves the classical usage of the conversive forms, among
them wayyiqṭol, but it cannot be denied that (a) the late books still exhibit a
relative increase in the phenomenon in question,290 (b) this increase includes
exceptions not attributable to the explanations just discussed, and (c) even if
perfective past we+qaṭal was characteristic of some, presumably early, ancient
Hebrew colloquial register, it is clear that its regular penetration into the writ-
ten register is a phenomenon characteristic only of the Second Temple Period.291

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:

CBH Ezekiel, Qohelet, and LBH

Book Problematic Potential % Book Problematic Potential %

weqaṭal cases of weqaṭal cases of
forms wayyiqṭol forms wayyiqṭol

Genesis 3 2108 0.14 Ezekiel 16 530 3.02

Exodus 0 888 0 Qohelet 30 33 90.91
Leviticus 0 189 0 Esther 3 162 1.85
Numbers 0 750 0 Daniel 7 105 6.67
Deuteronomy 2 256 0.78 Ezra 6 92 6.52
Joshua 1 593 0.17 Nehemiah 5 269 1.86
Judges 6 1145 0.52 Chronicles 12 1464 0.61
Samuel 7 2380 0.29 Total 79 2655 2.98
Kings 5 1262 0.4 Total w/o 49 2622 1.87
Qohelet
Total 24 9571 0.26 Total w/o 67 1191 5.63
Chronicles

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

aspectually neutral or perfective form300 and proceeds with the description

using one or more explicitly imperfective forms.301
ָ ‘and they built the high places in the Topheth’ (Jer 7.31): on
‫ּובנּו ָּבמֹות ַהּת ֶֹפת‬
the basis of the nearly parallel ‫ת־ּבמֹות ַה ַּב ַעל‬ ָ ‘and they built the high places
ָ ‫ּובנּו ֶא‬
of Baal’ (Jer 19.5) a textual error seems unlikely. It is certainly possible that with
the weqaṭal form the writer intended to describe a habit, a process composed of
many individual actions, or a situation that held true over a protracted period
of time (a use known from the other cases in which architectural projects are
described).302 Likewise in ‫ת־ה ָּמקֹום ַהּזֶ ה ַּדם נְ ִקּיִ ם‬ ָ ‘and they filled this place
ַ ‫ּומ ְלאּו ֶא‬
with the blood of innocents’ (Jer 19.4)—involving a process taking place over
a long period of time; ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ְצפּו ַה ָּׂש ִרים ַעל־יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו וְ ִהּכּו אֹתֹו וְ נָ ְתנּו אֹותֹו ֵּבית ָה ֵאסּור‬
‘and the officers were angry at Jeremiah and struck him and put him in prison’
(37.15)—in which the imperfective form ‫‘ וְ ִהּכּו‬and struck’ is appropriate for the
multiple subjects and the multiplicity of the blows involved and ‫‘ וְ נָ ְתנּו‬and put’
may serve to emphasize the duration of the imprisonment; ‫וְ ִׁשּנָ ה ֵאת ִּבגְ ֵדי ִכ ְלאֹו‬
ֵ ‫‘ וְ ָא ַכל ֶל ֶחם ְל ָפנָ יו ָּת ִמיד ָּכ‬and he changed his prison clothes and he would
‫ל־יְמי ַחּיָ ו‬
always eat bread before him, all the days of his life’ (52.33)—the parallel verse
in 2 Kgs 25.29 provides support for the reading as it is. Because the section is
obviously exilic at the earliest, there are those who see in it an example of the
late perfective past use of we+qaṭal. Yet there is no doubt that ‫‘ וְ ָא ַכל‬and (he)
would eat’ refers to a habitual action in agreement with the adverbial ‫ָּת ִמיד‬
ֵ ‫‘ ָּכ‬always, all the days of his life’.303 It may be that the form of ‫‘ וְ ִׁשּנָ ה‬and
‫ל־יְמי ַחּיָ ו‬
he changed’ serves to emphasize the duration of the effect of the action, or
alternatively, that the prisoner is being depicted as regularly changing out of
his prison clothes to eat with the king.
In sum, of the 487 potential cases of wayyiqṭol in Jeremiah, a truly non-
standard we+qaṭal comes only thrice, or in 0.6 percent of the cases. From this
perspective, Jeremiah’s language resembles CBH, not LBH.

300 See above, n. 267.

301 Compare Num 11.8; Jdg 2.18; 2 Kgs 6.10; 18.4a (?); Ruth 4.7; 2 Chr 12.11. See S.R. Driver 1892:
§114(α); GKC §112g; JM §§166o, n. 14, p; 167g, n. 11; Buth 2006: 144. It should be noted that
the Greek presents exact aspectual parallels for the two Hebrew verbs: ‫ = ִק ְּטרּו‬ἐθυμιῶσαν
‘they sacrificed’ (aorist) and ‫ = וְ ִה ִּסכּו‬ἔσπενδον ‘they would pour out’ (imperfect).
302 Cf. Exod 36.29, 30, 38; 38.28 (2x); 39.3; 1 Kgs 6.32, 35; 2 Kgs 21.4; 1 Chr 3.7; 2 Chr 33.4.
303 The Greek represents the form ‫‘ וְ ָא ַכל‬and (he) would eat’ by means of the imperfect ἤσθιεν
in Jer 52.33 and 2 Kgs 25.29. See also v. 34.
266 chapter 7

7.9.3 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents parallels for the majority of the problematic we+qaṭal
forms in Jeremiah. In five cases such a form finds no parallel in the Greek: Jer
10.25; 14.3 (2x); 38.28; 40.3 (see above), a fact which may support the idea that
the supplementary material found in the MT has a later linguistic profile than
the rest of the book. Be that as it may, each of these problematic uses finds
parallels in CBH. By way of comparison, there is no Greek parallel for over 50
cases of the wayyiqṭol in MT Jeremiah.

7.10 The Infinitive Absolute, Especially in Place of a Finite Verbal Form

The infinitive absolute has several common uses in BH:

(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

countryman’ (Lev 25.14); ‫רּוׁש ָלםִ ּגָ נֹון וְ ִה ִּציל‬

ָ ְ‫ְּכ ִצ ֳּפ ִרים ָעפֹות ֵּכן יָ גֵ ן ה' ְצ ָבאֹות ַעל־י‬
‫‘ ָּפס ַֹח וְ ִה ְמ ִליט‬like flying birds, so does Yhwh of Hosts protect Jerusalem, he
will protect and rescue, pass over and give refuge’ (Isa 31.5).

Less frequently the infinitive absolute may serve as a quasi-substantive,

whether the subject of the sentence307 or its direct object,308 in so doing tak-
ing on some of the functions normally associated with the infinitive construct
in its role as a verbal complement; very rarely the infinitive absolute follows a
preposition309 or appears as a nomen regens in a construct phrase, exactly as
the infinitive construct310 (and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
these two roles).311

7.10.1 Late Sources

A number of scholars have noted that use of the infinitive absolute in most
of its functions gradually declines with time, so that it becomes rare in LBH
and post-biblical Hebrew.312 This trend corresponds to the situation in late
Aramaic, which has no parallel for the Hebrew infinitive absolute (the classi-
cal use of the form has parallels in both Old Aramaic and Ugaritic;313 Targumic

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

Aramaic also exhibits a parallel).314 In opposition to this general trend, the

specific use of the infinitive absolute as a substitute for finite verbal forms
increases in post-classical sources,315 apparently as the result of a combination
of factors, among them the collapse of the classical verb system and the desire
on the part of late writers to simulate classical style (see below).

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

form wayyiqṭol ‫‘ וָ ֲא ַל ֵּמד‬and I taught’ (?) or weqaṭal ‫‘ וְ ִל ַּמ ְד ִּתי‬and

I would teach’ (?)321
(7) Jer 32.44 . . . ‫‘ ָׂשדֹות ַּב ֶּכ ֶסף יִ ְקנּו וְ ָכתֹוב ַּב ֵּס ֶפר‬fields with silver they will buy
and deeds they will write . . .’
(8)  . . . ‫ וְ ָחתֹום‬. . . ‘. . . and they will seal . . .’
(9)  ‫ וְ ָה ֵעד ֵע ִדים‬. . . ‘. . . and witnesses will witness (them)’; expected
forms weqaṭal (3x) ‫‘ וְ ָכ ְתבּו‬and they will write’, ‫‘ וְ ָח ְתמּו‬and they
will seal’, ‫‘ וְ ָה ִעידּו‬and (witnesses) will witness’
(10) Jer 36.23 ‫הּודי ָׁשֹלׁש ְּד ָלתֹות וְ ַא ְר ָּב ָעה יִ ְק ָר ֶע ָה ְּב ַת ַער ַהּס ֵֹפר וְ ַה ְׁש ֵלְך‬ ִ ְ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִּכ ְקרֹוא י‬
‫ל־ה ֵאׁש‬ ָ ‫‘ ֶא‬and it was after Jehudi had read three or four col-
umns, (the king) would cut (the letter) with a scribe’s knife
and toss (them) into the fire’; expected form weqaṭal ‫וְ ִה ְׁש ִליְך‬
‘and (he) would toss’
(11) Jer 37.21 ‫ר־ל ֶחם‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ַצּוֶ ה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִצ ְד ִקּיָ הּו וַ ּיַ ְפ ִקדּו ֶאת־יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַּב ֲח ַצר ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה וְ נָ תֹן לֹו ִכ ַּכ‬
‫‘ ַלּיֹום‬and king Zedekiah commanded and they put Jeremiah in
the prison court and they would give him a loaf of bread per
day’; expected form weqaṭal ‫‘ וְ נָ ְתנּו‬and (they) would give’322

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

Fassberg (2008: 55–60) understandably objects to this approach. First, why

should one insist that the biblical instances of the phenomenon necessarily
reflect the work of post-biblical copyists, when these same scribes generally suc-
ceeded in reproducing conversive verbal forms (whether or not these existed
in their spoken language)?324 Second, is it reasonable to assume that the spe-
cific use of the infinitive absolute in place of a finite verb remained a vibrant
feature of the spoken Hebrew of post-biblical scribes when more generally the
form was in decline in all of its other uses in the written language, where it was
eventually employed only in biblical quotations and in imitation of classical
style?325 It may be that the gradual collapse of the classical biblical verb sys-
tem indeed contributed to the sporadic replacement of conversive tenses with
infinitive absolute forms, but the expected colloquial replacement is surely not
the infinitive absolute, but the qaṭal and yiqṭol, whether with or without pre-
ceding (simple) waw.326 More convincing is Fassberg’s (ibid.: 57–60) explana-
tion, which attributes use of we + infinitive absolute in place of finite forms to
the errant attempt on the part of late scribes to simulate antiquated biblical
style with its conversive forms. Most of the time they succeeded. However, they
occasionally betrayed their vernacular with simple forms instead of conversive
forms and sometimes replaced perfectly good classical forms with the obso-
lete, but transparently archaic, infinitive absolute. From this perspective, the
increased use of the infinitive absolute in place of finite verbal forms is neither
the preservation of an authentically ancient literary style, nor an inexplicable
vernacular trait, but the result of an exaggerated policy of archaism.
Additionally, there are 16 cases in which an infinitive absolute serves as a
‘wildcard’ for other verbal forms:

(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 . . .’

324 See Hammershaimb 1963: 91, n. 1.

325 Against Qimron’s (1992: 358–359) approach see the discussion in M. Smith (2000: 266–
267), who emphasizes the limited attestation of the phenomenon and the restricted syn-
tactical context in which it serves.
326 See Eskhult 2008: 38–40, 45. The RH future structure, ‫ ָע ִתיד ִל ְקטֹל‬, exists in neither LBH
nor DSS Hebrew. For a discussion of simple we+qaṭal in ancient Hebrew in general and in
Jeremiah more specifically see above, §‎7.9.
272 chapter 7

(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

(26) Jer 44.18 . . . ‫ְך־לּה נְ ָס ִכים‬

ָ ‫ן־אז ָח ַד ְלנּו ְל ַק ֵּטר ִל ְמ ֶל ֶכת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם וְ ַה ֵּס‬ ִ ‘and since we
ָ ‫ּומ‬
ceased sacrificing to the handiwork of heaven and pouring out
libations to them . . .’; expected form infinitive construct ‫ְּול ַה ִּסיְך‬
‘and pouring out’
(27) Jer 44.19 . . . ‫י־אנַ ְחנּו ְמ ַק ְּט ִרים ִל ְמ ֶל ֶכת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם ְּול ַה ֵּסְך ָלּה נְ ָס ִכים‬
ֲ ‫‘ וְ ִכ‬for when we
were sacrificing to the handiwork of heaven and pouring out
libations to them . . .’; expected form participle ‫‘ ַמ ִּס ִיכים‬pouring
out’

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.

7.10.3 The MT and the Greek

Both the short edition of Jeremiah, with 118 cases, and its supplementary mate-
rial, with 19 cases, use the infinitive absolute.329 From this perspective, both
layers have basically classical linguistic profiles.
Of the 27 cases of substitution for a finite form listed above, the Greek has
a parallel for 26 (each translated according to the exigencies of the context).
The exception is ‫‘ וְ ַה ֵּסְך‬and pour out (a libation)’ (Jer 44.18). This case, however,
comes between additional cases in vv. 17 and 19, both of which are paralleled
in the Greek. The usage in question is thus in no way especially characteristic
of the supplementary material.

7.11 The Double Plural Construct

Pluralization of a construct chain is accomplished in one of three ways in BH:

pluralization of the nomen regens alone, e.g., ‫‘ ֻלחֹת ֶא ֶבן‬tablets of stone’, ‫ּבֹורי‬ֵ ִ‫ּג‬
‫‘ ַחיִ ל‬mighty warriors’; pluralization of the nomen rectum alone, e.g., ‫ֵּבית ָאבֹות‬
‘familial houses’,330 ‫‘ ֵּבית ַה ָּבמֹות‬shrines of the high places’;331 and pluralization

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

332 König 1881–1895: II438–439; GKC §§124p–r; JM §§136m–o.

333 Such cases also include those in which the nomen rectum is a purely grammatical, but not
semantic, plural, e.g., ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫‘ ֱא‬God’, ‫‘ ָׁש ַמיִ ם‬sky’, ‫‘ ַמיִ ם‬water’, etc.
334 E.g., ‫(‘ לּוחֹות ( ָה) ֲא ָבנִ ים‬the) tablets of stone’; for further examples see Gevirtz 1986: 28–29.
335 This list is based on the following discussions: König 1881–1895: II 438–439; Kropat 1909:
8–9; Segal 1936: §155; Bendavid 1967–1971: I 70, II 451–452; Hurvitz 1972: 37–38; 1982: 45, n. 62;
Kutscher 1974: 399; 1982: §§122; 214; Polzin 1976: 42–43; Qimron 1986: 74–75; Rooker 1990:
75; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117–118; Hadas-Lebel 1995: 107; JM §136o; Young, Rezetko, and
Ehrensvärd 2008: I 105, 262; Paul 2008: 33; cf. Gevirtz 1986: 28–29; Rezetko 2003: 231–232.
syntax 275

Double Plural Construction Contrasting Construction with Singular nomen

rectum

‫ַ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)

Double Plural Construction Contrasting Construction with Singular nomen

rectum

‫ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים‬

ֵ ִ‫ּג‬ 1 Chr 7.5, 7, 11, ‫ּבֹורי ַחיִ ל‬
ֵ ִ‫ּג‬ Josh 1.14; 6.2; 8.3;
‘warriors of might’ 40; 11.26 ‘warriors of might’ 10.1; 2 Kgs 15.20;
24.14; Neh 11.14;
1 Chr 7.2, 9; 8.40;
9.13; 12.9, 22, 26,
31; 2 Chr 14.7;
17.13, 14; 26.12; cf.
4Q286 f2.2 ‫גבורי‬
‫אלים‬
‫ִּד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּב ָּצרֹות‬ Jer 14.1 ‫ִעּתֹות ַּב ָּצ ָרה‬ Ps 9.10; 10.1
‘the words of the ‘times of drought’
droughts’
‫עֹול ִמים‬
ָ ‫ּד ֹרֹות‬ Isa 51.9; 4Q176 ‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ּדֹר ֹת‬ Gen 9.12
‘generations of f17.2 (?); 4Q219 ‘generations of
eternity’ 2.33; 4Q433a eternity’
f2.6
‫ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵע ִצים‬ 1 Chr 14.11 ‫ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵעץ‬ 2 Sam 5.11; 2 Kgs
‘workers of wood’ ‘workers of wood’ 12.12
‫לּוחּות ָה ֲא ָבנִ ים‬ Exod 34.1, 2 ‫לּוחֹות ָה ֶא ֶבן‬ Exod 24.12; 31.18
‘tablets of stone’ (2x); Deut 4.13; ‘tablets of stone’
5.22; 9.9, 10, 11;
10.1, 3; 1 Kgs
8.9
‫ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ָה ֲא ָרצֹות‬ 1 Chr 29.30; 2 ‫ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ Deut 28.25; 2 Kgs
‘kingdoms of the Chr 12.8; 17.10; ‘kingdoms of the 19.15, 19; Isa 23.17;
land(s [?])/earth’ 20.29 land/earth’ 37.16, 20; Jer 15.4;
24.9; 25.26; 29.18;
34.17; Ps 68.33; Ezra
1.2; 2 Chr 36.23

(Continued)
syntax 277

table (Continued)

Double Plural Construction Contrasting Construction with Singular nomen

rectum

‫ַ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

involving a more general expansion in the use of plural forms, especially in

cases where earlier linguistic strata would have made do with the singular.339

7.11.2 Non-Masoretic and Extra-biblical Sources

Extra-biblical material confirms the description given thus far. Early epigraphic
inscriptions contain few relevant cases in unbroken contexts. The phrase ‫שמעת‬
‫‘ ֯ט ֯ב‬tidings of good’ (Lachish 8.1–2) could conceivably have had a plural nomen
rectum, but, to the best of my knowledge, no similar phrase is attested in the
Hebrew of any period.340
Later extra-biblical material is more instructive. Consider the following par-
allel constructions from the MT and the DSS:341

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

Jdg 18.16 their implements of war  (‫) ְּכ ֵלי ִמ ְל ַח ְמ ָּתם‬

1QpHab 6.4 their implements of war (‫)כלי מלחמותם‬
1QHa 10.28 their implements of war (‫)כלי מלחמותם‬

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

ֵ ‘lions’ cubs’ Jer 51.38—The relevance of this example is probable

‫ּגּורי ֲא ָריֹות‬
on the basis of a comparison to similar cases. For example, in other construct
phrases referring to animals the pluralization of the nomen rectum is the norm,
whatever the status of the nomen regens: ‫‘ ּגְ ִדי ִעּזִ ים‬goat kid’ versus ‫‘ ּגְ ָדיֵ י ִעּזִ ים‬goat
kids’, ‫‘ ְׂש ִעיר ִעּזִ ים‬goat kid’ versus ‫‘ ְש ִע ֵירי ִעּזִ ים‬goat kids’, ‫‘ ֵׂשה ִעּזִ ים‬goat’, ‫שה כבשים‬
‘sheep’. Conversely, the singular of ‫ּגּורי ֲא ָריֹות‬ ֵ ‘lions’ cubs’ is ‫‘ ּגּור ַא ְריֵ ה‬lion cub’
and not ‫( ּגּור ֲא ָריֹות‬Gen 49.9; Deut 33.22; Neh 2.12). Cf. also ‫‘ ְּבנֵ י ָל ִביא‬lion cubs’
(Job 4.11).
To sum up: Jeremiah would appear to offer a relatively significant number
of linguistic forerunners representative of a trend destined to become more
pronounced in later sources.

7.11.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents parallels for all of the potentially relevant cases of the dou-
ble plural construct in Jeremiah. Also—significantly—all 12 (out of 74 poten-
tial cases) come in the material that comprises the short edition, whereas the
supplementary material provides no examples (in eight potential cases).351
Thus, from the perspective of the phenomenon in question, the supplemen-
tary material again exhibits an apparently more classical linguistic profile than
the short edition.

7.12 Expressions of the Type X- ְ‫ ו‬X (‫‘ ) ּכֹל‬every X’

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

prevail in classical material, the use of syndetic alternatives, ‫ ִאיׁש וָ ִאיׁש‬and

‫ ִעיר וָ ִעיד‬, respectively, come to dominate later on. Furthermore, post-classical
texts reveal a tendency to emphasize the distributive force of these expressions
by means of the addition of a preceding ‫‘ ּכֹל‬every’, e.g., ‫ל־עיר וָ ִעיר‬
ִ ‫‘ ָּכ‬every city’.

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

7.12.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

Non-Masoretic and post-biblical Hebrew also reveal a propensity for the
employment of the syndetic rather than asyndetic structure. In the non-

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

Isa 58.2 but me every day  (‫ )יֹום יֹום‬they seek

1QIsaa 47.23 but me every day (‫ )יום ויום‬they seek

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

Ps 68.20 blessed is Yhwh; every day (‫ )יֹום יֹום‬he bears us

Tg Psalms blessed is Yhwh; every day (‫ )כל יומא ויומא‬he bears us

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.

7.12.4 The MT and the Greek

It is interesting that the Greek has no parallel for the last five words of
Jer 50.39, ‫‘ וְ לֹא ִת ְׁשּכֹון ַעד־ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬and it will not be settled for all generations’. In
light of the early poetic distribution of this phrase, and especially its domi-
nance over the asyndetic alternative, the expression’s presence in the MT and
apparent absence from the shorter Hebrew text behind the Greek is of dubious
diachronic significance. This doubt only increases when one takes into account
the evidently borrowed nature of the phrase, which was probably based on
the verbal similarity between ‫א־ת ֶׁשב ָלנֶ ַצח‬ ֵ ֹ ‫‘ ל‬and it will not be inhabited for-
ever’ (Isa 13.20) and ‫א־ת ֵׁשב עֹוד ָלנֶ ַצח‬ ֵ ֹ ‫‘ וְ ל‬and it will no longer be inhabited ever’
(Jer 50.39). If a late addition (and note also the plene spelling ‫‘ ִּת ְׁשּכֹון‬be set-
tled’; cf. §‎3.1.2), the syndetic nature of the formula ‫ ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬is certainly to be
expected, though, to be sure, far from probative.

7.13 Excursus: Imperfectivity in BH with Special Reference to

Problematic weqaṭal Forms

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

(a) Durative, continual, or continuous past actions and situations (see

S.R. Driver 1892: §120, observation 1). This choice between perfective and
imperfective forms is similar to the choice between used to and the sim-
ple past in such English clauses as the river used to flow versus the river
flowed and the border used to run versus the border ran, respectively. There
is obviously a difference between the clauses with used to and those with
the simple past, in that the former emphasize that the situation described
no longer holds, a nuance not necessarily conveyed by the latter. In BH
this usage of the weqaṭal is especially common in geographic and archi-
tectural descriptions, e.g., Gen 2.10; 15.6; Exod 36.29–30 (note the use of
yiqṭol there as well); Num 21.15, 20; Josh 15.3–11 (29x); 16.2–8 (11x); 17.7, 9;
18.12–19 (21x), 21; 19.11–34 (21x); Ezek 41.7 (2x).
(b) Presentation of an action (even a punctiliar action) as the immediate
background of another action (in a sort of ‘circumstantial clause’, a usage
associated normally, but not exclusively, with the active participle): Gen
38.5; 1 Sam 1.12; 10.9; 17.48; 25.20; 2 Sam 6.16; 19.19 (?); 1 Kgs 21.12 (?); Ezek
37.7, 8, 10 (?).
(c) Presentation of a situation that lasted for a time or of individual actions
considered components of a longer process (composed of multiple
steps or of an action involving multiple objects and/or subjects; this use
is common in the case of actions related to building and architecture,
on the one hand, and of those related to extensive destruction, on the
other, both multi-step processes that demand some time to complete):
Exod 36.38; 38.28 (2x); 39.3; Josh 22.3; 1 Kgs 6.32 (2x), 35 (2x); 12.32; 2 Kgs
3.25 (see also the use of yiqṭol in the context); 12.10–17; 14.14 (?); 17.21 (?);
18.4 (‫‘ וְ ִׁש ַּבר‬and [he] shattered’?), 36; 19.18; 23.4, 5, 8, 10 (?), 12, 14, 15; 24.14;
compare also lines 4–6 from the Mesha Stele: ‫ויענו את מאב ימנ רבנ כי יאנפ‬
‫‘ כמש בארצה‬and (he) afflicted Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry
with his land’, which evidently makes use of the narrative perfective
wyqṭl ‫‘ ויענו‬and (he) afflicted’ together with imperfective ‫(‘ יאנפ‬he) was
angry’, the latter to emphasize the lengthy duration of Chemosh’s anger
against Moab. The words of Comrie (1976: 30) support the reality of the
authorial choice in presenting a past event with perfective or imperfec-
tive verb forms: “[A]ny situation that can be protracted sufficiently in
time, or can be iterated a sufficient number of times over a long enough
period—this means, in effect, almost any situation—can be expressed as
a habitual. . . .” While certain types of events, actions, and situations may
more readily lend themselves to perfective or imperfective ‘packaging’,
this choice between grammatical aspects remains subjective. In other
words, perfectivity and imperfectivity, unlike Aktionsart or lexical aspect,
are very much in the eye of the beholder. For this reason, lengthy situa-
syntax 289

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]).

In the discussion of non-standard uses of the weqaṭal, i.e., uses in which it is

identified as simple conjunctive we + perfective qaṭal, allowances for the afore-
mentioned imperfective, but not classically habitual uses of the form must be
made, which, obviously, will reduce the number of perfective past we+qaṭal
forms. While there is no denying the subjective nature of distinguishing
between standard and non-standard weqaṭal forms, such a distinction must
be attempted if the discussion is to move beyond the realm of theory. Here
follows a list of the cases in which, in the eyes of the present writer, we+qaṭal
marks the perfective past in the Torah, Former Prophets, Ezekiel, the core LBH
books, and Qohelet (literary factors for which the usage may be justified are
included in parentheses):

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

18.12–21 (22x) geographical description

19.11–34 (21x) geographical description
Jdg 3.23 ‫‘ וְ נָ ַעל‬and he was locking’ for the closing of a scene; cf.
2 Sam 13.18
5.26 (3x) poetry
7.13
16.18
1 Sam 4.19
5.7
12.2 attraction
17.38
24.11
2 Sam 12.32
13.18 ‫‘ וְ נָ ַעל‬and he was locking’ for the closing of a scene; cf.
Jdg 3.23
19.18 long process
19 circumstantial clause
23.20 (|| 1 Chr 11.22)
1 Kgs 3.11 modal
6.32 (2x) architecture
35 (2x) architecture
12.32 multiple objects?
14.26 (|| 2 Chr 12.10) multiple objects?
20.21 long process
27 attraction
21.12
2 Kgs 8.10
14.7
14 multiple objects
18.4 (3x) long process
19.22 attraction
24 attraction, but future reference is also possible; cf. ‫וְ ַא ְח ִרב‬
‘and I will make desolate’ in the continuation of the verse
25 attraction
21.4 (|| 2 Chr 33.4) multiple objects
(Continued)
syntax 291

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.

8.1 ‫‘ דִּ ּ ֵבר‬divine word’

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.

The corresponding Aramaic expression is ‫עשרת דביריא‬, as is clear from several

of the Aramaic targums:

1 Gruber 1982; Steiner 1992.

2 Some manuscripts have “and it was a Sabbath.”

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004269651_009

 Lexical Features 295

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

8.1.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The word ‫ ִּד ֵּבר‬is used not only in reference to the Ten Commandments, but for
other cases of divine speech as well, in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Consider
the following Hebrew examples:

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

Exod 19.3 and Moses ascended . . . and Yhwh ('‫ )ה‬called to him

Tg Neofiti and Moses ascended . . . and the word of Yhwh (‫ )דבירה דייי‬called to him

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 he heard the voice speaking to him above

Tg Jerusalem he heard the voice of the spirit that was speaking with him above
Tg Neofiti he would hear the voice of the Word (‫ )דבירה‬speaking with him above

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

Num cherubim and he spoke to him

Tg Jerusalem cherubim and from there the Word (‫ )דבירא‬would speak with him
Tg Neofiti cherubim and from there the Word (‫ )דבירה‬would speak with him

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).

8.1.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek rendering for MT ‫ ִּד ֵּבר‬in λόγος κυρίου ‘word of the Lord’ has already
been discussed (see above, n. 5). Obviously, the translator’s Vorlage can only be
reconstructed approximately, with no certainty as to whether the translation
reflects a precise rendering of ‫ ִּד ֵּבר‬, a contextual clarification of ‫ ָּד ָבר‬, or a literal
equivalent of '‫ ְּד ַבר ה‬. It is, however, clear that both the long and short editions
of the book had some form at this spot.
298 chapter 8

8.2 ‫ חַ יִ ל‬in the Plural

Post-biblical Hebrew is characterized by a marked tendency to pluralize nouns,

often abstract or collective, that tend to come in the singular in BH (sometimes
with a slight semantic distinction), e.g., ‫ ֲח ָס ִדים‬versus ‫‘ ֶח ֶסד‬grace/act(s) of gra-
ciousness’; ‫ ּגְ ָש ֹ ִמים‬versus ‫‘ ּגֶ ֶׁשם‬rain(s)’; ‫ ְר ָמ ִׂשים‬versus ‫‘ ֶר ֶמׂש‬crawling creatures’.7
It is possible to discern the initial stages of this tendency already in LBH, e.g.,
ָ versus ‫עֹולם‬
‫עֹול ִמים‬ ָ ‘eternity’; ‫ ְּפ ָס ִחים‬versus ‫‘ ֶּפ ַסח‬Passover sacrifice(s)’; ‫ ּגְ זֵ לֹות‬ver-
sus ‫‘ ּגְ זֵ ָלה‬stolen thing(s)’ (many more examples could be added).8

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

8.2.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The suspicion that the phenomenon in question is distinctively characteristic
of late texts, that is of texts from the exilic or post-exilic period, receives confir-
mation from non-Masoretic and late extra-biblical material, such as Ben Sira,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, RH, and the Aramaic of the DSS and the targums
(including the Peshiṭta).10 See the following renderings:

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

8.2.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek shows parallels for all cases of the plural form ‫ ֲחיָ ִלים‬in Jeremiah.
Conversely, the Greek has no parallel for the singular form in Jer 17.3 and 39.5.
In two potential cases, then, the supplementary material employs the classical
alternative.

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 ‫‘ ח ִֹרים‬nobles, officers’

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:

Neh 6.17 the nobles of Judah (‫הּודה‬

ָ ְ‫)ח ֵֹרי י‬
2 Kgs 10.6 the great ones of the city (‫)ּגְ ד ֵֹלי ָה ִעיר‬
Jer 34.19 the officers of Judah (‫הּודה‬ָ ְ‫ ) ָׂש ֵרי י‬and the officers of Jerusalem
(ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬
ָ ְ‫)וְ ָׂש ֵרי י‬
Exod 24.11 the nobles of the children of Israel (‫) ֲא ִצ ֵילי ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
Isa 23.8, 9 honored ones of the land (‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫)נִ ְכ ָּב ֵד‬

8.3.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The word ‫ חֹר‬is common in post-biblical Hebrew, especially in the expression
‫‘ בן חורין‬free, free from obligation’, e.g., the following cases from the Mishna:

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.,

Giṭṭin 5.2 payment is not to be exacted from mortgaged property in a case

in which there is non-mortgaged (‫ )בני חורין‬property

The same expression is widespread in post-biblical Aramaic, as can be seen in

the targums:

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

The reference to the nobles of Judah as ‫ חֹרים‬occurs with relative frequency

only in late sources, namely the biblical book of Nehemiah and the Elephantine
documents (on the two occurrences in Jeremiah see below).20 This, the appar-
ently non-standard use of the term in CBH, and the commonness of both the
word and the root in post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic raise the suspicion of
Aramaic influence in the development of the term within Hebrew,21 though
the purported existence of the root in Ugaritic should serve to caution the
assumption of a direct borrowing.

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.

8.3.4 The MT and the Greek

In the Greek translation of Jeremiah, significantly, there is no parallel for either
of the occurrences of the word ‫ חֹר‬in the MT. For this reason, several scholars
see use of the word in Jeremiah as evidence that it belongs to supplementary

‘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):

]‫ יכוניה‬:‫אּצר ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל ַּבגְ לֹותֹו ֶאת־יְ ָכנְ יָ ה [כתיב‬

ַ ֶ‫בּוכ ְדנ‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ל‬. . . Jer 27.20
ַ ְ‫א־ל ָק ָחם נ‬
‫ מלך בבל בגלותו את יכניה‬----------- ‫ לא לקחם‬. . .  Greek

ִ‫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.

8.4 Semantic and Functional Development of the Gentilic ‫יְ הו ִּדי‬

‘Judahite, Judean, Jew(ish)’

The gentilic ‫הּודי‬

ִ ְ‫‘ י‬Judahite, Judean, Jew(ish)’ appears 76 times in the Bible,
never before texts dealing with the divided monarchy, and 63 of its cases are
found in the core LBH books.26 This distribution pattern is interesting in light
of that of the tribal/territorial name ‫הּודה‬
ָ ְ‫י‬, which comes more than 750 times in

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

religious component previously lacking.35 It also came to denote all of Israel,

rather than just those affiliated with the southern kingdom.36
The development of a distinctively religious connotation is evidenced by
such passages as

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

of the geographical component of the term, Mordecai being called both

‫‘ ִאיׁש יְ ִמינִ י‬Benjaminite’ and a ‫הּודי‬
ִ ְ‫‘ י‬Jew’, which would presumably have been
absurd in earlier times, when both terms indicated tribal or territorial extrac-
tion; by the time of Esther’s composition the latter had clearly lost some of its
territorial content, which had been replaced by very specific religious mean-
ing.37 Consider:

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.

8.4.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

Not surprisingly, BA bears witness to the same late tendencies as LBH. The
religious aspect is emphasized in the particular behavior of Daniel’s three
friends in:

Dan 3.12 There are Jews (‫הּודאיִ ן‬

ָ ְ‫ )י‬whom you appointed over the work of
the kingdom of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Those men do not heed you, O King. Your gods they do not wor-
ship and to the image of gold that you have erected they do not
bow down.

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

And the erosion of geographical content is evidenced in the following verse,

where the need to specify the ‫הּודיֵ א‬
ָ ְ‫ י‬of Judah and Jerusalem makes clear the
existence of other ‫הּודיֵ א‬
ָ ְ‫י‬:

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.

The correspondence of classical ‫ ִע ְב ִרי‬and late ‫הּודיֵ א‬

ָ ְ‫ י‬can be seen in a compari-
son of:

Gen 39.14 Look, he has brought us a Hebrew (‫ ) ִע ְב ִרי‬to mock us

Gen 39.17 The Hebrew slave (‫ ) ָה ֶע ֶבד ָה ִע ְב ִרי‬that you brought to us
came to me . . . 
Gen 41.12  . . . and there with us was a Hebrew lad (‫)נַ ַער ִע ְב ִרי‬
Ezra 4.12 Let it be known to the king that the Jews (‫הּודיֵ א‬ ָ ְ‫ )י‬who
came up from you to us have arrived in Jerusalem
Dan 3.12 There are Jewish men (‫הּודאיִ ן‬ָ ְ‫ )ּגֻ ְב ִרין י‬. . . 

The widespread use of ‫הּודי‬

ִ ְ‫ י‬and ‫הּודיֵ א‬
ָ ְ‫ י‬is also attested in post-biblical Hebrew
and Aramaic:

Hasmonean Coin Jonathan the high priest, head of the commonwealth of

the Jews (‫)חבר היהדים‬
4Q333 f2.1 . . . a Jewish man (‫יהודי‬
̇ ‫ )איש‬. . . 
M Ketubbot 7.6 And these (women) go forth without (the payment of)
the marriage contract: she that transgresses the law of
Moses and Jewish law (‫ )דת משה ויהודים‬. . . and what is
Jewish law (‫ ?)דת יהודים‬. . . 
T ʿAvoda Zara 5.6 A gentile who was holding a feast for his son went and
invited all the Jews (‫ )היהודים‬living in his city . . . 
Y Berakhot 9.1 An event concerning a ship of the gentiles (‫ )שלגוים‬that
was sailing out on the Great Sea. On board was a Jewish
child (‫)תינוק אחד יהודי‬
 Lexical Features 311

Consider also the renderings in the Aramaic targums:39

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

Jon 1.9 And he said to them, “I am a Hebrew (‫) ִע ְב ִרי‬.”

Tg Jonathan And he said to them, “I am a Jew  (‫)יְ ֻה ָוד ָאה‬.”

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

Temple Aramaic as ‫ יהוד‬and the form )‫ יהודי(א‬is common in several dialects

of Imperial and later Aramaic,41 whereas alternative terms are relatively rare.42

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?”

The relevant formulation in Jeremiah would seem to present a linguistic stage

transitional between the classical wording of Deuteronomy and the post-clas-
sical wording in Nehemiah:

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.

8.4.4 The MT and the Greek

In addition to the 28 instances in which Jeremiah utilizes classical gentilic
terms for all or part of the people of Israel,47 ‫הּודי‬
ִ ְ‫ י‬occurs there an additional
ten times.48 In most of the cases of ‫הּודי‬
ִ ְ‫ י‬in Jeremiah—seven out of ten—the
Greek presents a parallel. In Jer 40.11 the Greek has no parallel for the first half
of the verse, while the cases in Jer 52.28 and 30 come as part of a section not

46 Contrast Exod 21.10.

47 ‫הּודה‬
ָ ְ‫ ִאיׁש י‬Jer 4.3, 4; 11.2, 9; 17.25; 18.11; 32.32; 35.13; 36.31; 44.26, 27; ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ ְּבנֵ י י‬7.30; 32.30, 32;
50.4, 33; ‫ ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬3.21; 16.14, 15; 23.7; 32.30 (2x), 32; 50.4, 33; ‫ ִע ְב ִרי‬34.9 (2x), 14.
48 See above, n. 26, for the references. These may all have a primarily geographical, rather
than religious, connotation, but it seems clear that ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫ י‬has come to refer to the entire
populace, no matter their current place of residence (Jer 40.11–12), and has become as
common as, if not more common than, alternate modes of expression.
314 chapter 8

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 Nominal ‫‘ ֹיו ָמם‬day’

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

8.5.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The same apparently nominal usage is known from post-biblical sources as
well, e.g., the non-biblical DSS:

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

There is even an instance in the biblical DSS material—

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 . . . 

—as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch:

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

Finally, the phenomenon is known from RH:

ʿAravit Creator of day and night (‫)בורא יומם ולילה‬.

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:

57 Hendel 1998: 140; Joosten 2008: 96, n. 18.

58 Bar-Asher 2003: 73–78; Joosten 2008: 96, n. 19.
59 Jastrow 1903: 580a (cf. 569a–b); Joosten 2008: 96; note also Syriac ‫ܐܝܡܡ‬/‫ܐܝܡܡܐ‬, on
which see Payne-Smith 1902: 13b, 190a. In addition to Qumran Aramaic and Targumic
Aramaic, the opposition evidently exists in Nabatean as well. Note also that Modern
Israeli Hebrew evinces the opposite distinction in meaning, with ‫ יֹום‬signifying both gen-
eral ‘day’ and more specific ‘daytime’, and ‫ יְ ָמ ָמה‬signifying ‘day’ in the sense of 24 hours.
 Lexical Features 317

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:

60 Jer 8.23; 14.17; 15.13; 31.35 (?).

61 Jer 33.20; 36.30.
62 Jer 15.9; 31.35 (?); 33.20, 25 (see above, §‎8.5.1, n. 53).
318 chapter 8

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

8.5.4 The MT and the Greek

Jeremiah presents at least three cases of nominal ‫יֹומם‬
ָ . One (15.9) occurs in the
short edition (in two potential cases), the other two (33.20, 25) come in the lon-
gest continuous section without a parallel in the Greek (Jer 33.14–26; in three
potential cases).63 The phenomenon in question thus appears with slightly
greater relative frequency in the supplementary material than in the short
edition,64 but this is of only dubious statistical import. It has been noted that
two of the instances of nominal ‫יֹומם‬ָ occur in the longest continuous section
of text not paralleled in the Greek translation of Jeremiah, namely Jer 33.14–26
(this section is, however, evidently reflected in the fragmentary 4QJerc [4Q72
f55ii.1–5]). The material in question has several linguistically unique features
and, for this reason, is seen by some as a late addition (see above, §‎2.5.1.3). In
terms of the specific features under discussion here, were the use of nominal
ָ restricted in Jeremiah to this section, it would constitute arguable evi-
‫יֹומם‬
dence for the late origin of the material.65 However, as noted, the same feature
is attested at least once and possibly twice more, in material common to both
the short and long editions of the book.

8.6 ‫‘ ַמ ְלכוּת‬kingdom, reign’

There is widespread consensus regarding the status of ‫ ַמ ְלכּות‬as a distinctive

indicator of post-classical Hebrew.66

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

‫ַמ ְמלָ כָ ה‬ ‫ְמלוּכָ ה‬ -‫ ָמ ְלכ‬/‫ְמל ְֹך‬ ‫ַמ ְלכוּת‬

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)

‫ַמ ְמלָ כָ ה‬ ‫ְמלוּכָ ה‬ -‫ ָמ ְלכ‬/‫ְמל ְֹך‬ ‫ַמ ְלכוּת‬

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.

69 It should be noted, however, that in 25 of the 48 cases of classical alternatives, the

Chronicler apparently inherited the relevant form from his sources.
 Lexical Features 321

8.6.2 Non-Masoretic, Non-Hebrew, and Extra-biblical Sources

The post-classical uptick in usage of ‫ ַמ ְלכּות‬discernible within BH is confirmed
by late non-Hebrew and extra-biblical material, where the term is employed
with even greater relative frequency. Its cognate appears 57 times in the very
limited corpus of BA, which does not employ cognates of the classical alterna-
tives, and the word or its cognate is common in DSS Hebrew and Aramaic, as
well as Targumic Aramaic, Syriac, and RH.70 Ben Sira also knows the usage.71
Consider the following comparisons of parallel passages, similarly worded
verses, and targumic renderings:

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

ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִב ְׁש‬31 . . . ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬

‫ֹלׁשים וָ ֶׁש ַבע ָׁשנָ ה ְלגָ לּות‬ ֵ ‫ ָּב ֶבל הּוא וְ ָכ‬2 Kgs 25
ָ ְ‫ל־חילֹו ַעל־י‬
ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִב ְׁש‬27  ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬
‫ֹלׁשים וָ ֶׁש ַבע ָׁשנָ ה ְלגָ לּות‬ ָ ְ‫ל־חילֹו ַעל־י‬
ֵ ‫ָּב ֶבל הּוא וְ ָכ‬ 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

‫הּודה        ִ מ ֵּבית ֶּכ ֶלא׃‬ ִ ְ‫ ֶאת־רֹאׁש י‬2 Kgs 25

ָ ְ‫הֹויָכין ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬
‫ הכליא]׃‬:‫הּודה וַ ּי ֵֹצא אֹותֹו ִמ ֵּבית ַה ְּכלּוא [כתיב‬
ָ ְ‫הֹויָכין ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬
ִ ְ‫ֶאת־רֹאׁש י‬ Jer 52

78 See the commentaries.

79 ‘Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king (‫ ) ְב ָמ ְלכֹו‬and he ruled in
Jerusalem twenty-one years. . . . And it was in the ninth year of his rule (‫ ) ְל ָמ ְלכֹו‬. . . that
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came—he and all his army—against Jerusalem. . . .
And it was in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin, king of Judah . . . that Evil-
Merodach, king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king (‫) ָמ ְלכֹו || ַמ ְל ֻכתֹו‬, raised up the
head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, (and brought him forth) from prison.’
324 chapter 8

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.

8.6.4 The MT and the Greek

Given the MT as it is, from the perspective of use of the characteristically post-
classical word ‫ ַמ ְלכּות‬, both short edition and the supplementary material would
appear to reflect the transitional period of BH. However, if the—admittedly
conjectural—considerations above are accepted, the original version of the
short edition shows no cases in 20 opportunities, against the supplementary

80 Jer 49.34 MT = 25.14 + Jer 25.20 in the Greek.

81 The masculine singular active participle of Greek βασιλεύω ‘to rule’ parallels a three-letter
form (qaṭal, active participle, infinitive construct, infinitive absolute, or the noun ‫ֶמ ֶלְך‬
‘king’) in nearly all of the occurrences for which a Hebrew rendering is extant: Gen 37.8;
1 Sam 12.14; 24.21; 1 Kgs 4.1; 14.25; 15.1; 2 Kgs 8.13; Isa 36.1; Jer 22.11; Job 34.30; Est 1.3; 1 Chr
16.31. In Exod 15.18 it parallels a yiqṭol form. Only in Dan 8.1 does βασιλεύοντος apparently
parallel ‫‘ ַמ ְלכּות‬kingdom’, but even here the correspondence is uncertain, as it may (also)
represent ‫‘ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬the king’, which otherwise has no equivalent in the Greek text.
Lexical Features 325

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 ‫נ ַָטר( נט"ר‬/‫‘ ) ַמ ּ ָט ָרה‬keep, guard’

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:

َ َ‫نَظ‬ َ ََ‫ن‬ َ َ َ‫ن‬ ََ

Arabic: ‫‘ ����ر‬look’, ‫‘ ���طر‬to keep, guard’, ‫‘ ����صر‬to save, guard, protect’, ‫وطر‬
‘object(ive), goal’;
Akkadian: naṣārum ‘to keep, guard, protect’, maṣṣartum ‘guarding’, nadārum
‘to become angry, enraged’;
Aramaic: ‫‘ נְ ַטר‬to keep, guard’, ‫‘ ַמ ָּט ָרא‬guarding, prison’;
ܰ ‘to keep, guard’, ‫ܕܪܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳܳ ܽ
Syriac: ‫ܢܛܪ‬ ‫‘ ܡܢ‬angry, enraged’, ‫ܘܕܪܐ‬ ‫‘ ܢ‬anger, rage’;
Phoenician: ‫‘ נצר‬to keep, guard’;
Ugaritic: nǵr ‘to keep, guard’.

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

94 Sumerian dub.sar = Akkadian d/ṭupšarru = Hebrew ‫‘ ִט ְפ ָסר‬marshall’; Akkadian ladanu =

Hebrew ‫‘ ֹלט‬myrrh’; perhaps Akkadian dublu = Hebrew ‫‘ ְטבּול‬turban’.
95 Consider durru/ṭurru ‘rope’ and derû (durrû)/ṭerû (ṭurrû) ‘to strike with a rod’.
96 On the connection between derivatives of ‫ פ"נ‬and ‫י‬/‫ פ"ו‬roots see Nöldeke 1910: 177ff; GKC
§77a, 2; Bergsträsser 1918–1929: §26m; Blau 2010: §§4.3.1.4, 4.3.8.4.2.
97 Cf. the English colloquial expression to look daggers at.
98 Cf. Dobbs-Allsopp 1998: 28, n. 159. The word’s occurrences in Lamentations and Job do
not constitute unequivocal evidence of diachronic lateness, since in Dobbs-Allsopp’s
own estimation (ibid.: 34–35) the language of Lamentations is an example TBH, while the
poetic language of Job is extremely difficult to date (see Hurvitz 1968: 236; 2003: 33; Pope
1973: 27).
99 On the date of P see above, §§‎1.3.3.2, n. 26, and ‎1.5.7; on Nahum see Driver 1898: 335–336;
the language of Jeremiah is argued here to be transitional between CBH and LBH; Ps 103
has been classified as late on the basis of its linguistic profile (see Hurvitz 1972: 107–130).
Lexical Features 329

to relatively late texts (Jeremiah, Nehemiah) and/or to books written in a non-

standard dialect of Hebrew (Song of Songs),100 all of which makes it a promis-
ing candidate for consideration as an Aramaism.101 Classical alternatives to ‫נָ ַטר‬
II include ‫ שָׁ ַמר‬and ‫נָ ַצר‬, whereas classical synonyms for the noun ‫(‘ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬place
of) guarding’ are ‫ ַאשְׁ מ ֶֹרת‬, ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָמר‬, ‫( ִמ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת‬see especially ‫ית־מ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת‬
ִ ‫‘ ֵּב‬house of
guarding’ 2 Sam 20.3), all of which are translated into Aramaic as ‫(בית) מטרא‬.

8.7.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

As noted above, ‫‘ נט"ר‬keep, guard’ is quite common in both verbal and nominal
forms in the later dialects of Aramaic, e.g., BA (Dan 7.28), Targumic Aramaic,
and Syriac. For example, consider the following translations:

Gen 4.9 Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫) ֲהׁש ֵֹמר‬

Tg Onkelos Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)הנטר‬
Tg Neofiti Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)הא נטורא‬
Tg Jerusalem Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)דילמא נטיר‬
Sam Tg J Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)הנטור‬
Sam Tg A Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)הנטור‬
Peshiṭta Am I my brother’s keeper (. . . ‫)ܢܛܘܪܗ‬

Exod 34.7 . . . maintaining  (‫ )נ ֵֹצר‬covenantal faithfulness . . . 

Tg Onkelos . . . maintaining  (‫ )נטר‬ goodness . . .
Tg Neofiti . . . maintaining  (‫ )נטר‬covenantal faithfulness and goodness . . . 
Tg Jerusalem . . . maintaining (‫ )נטיר‬covenantal faithfulness and goodness . . . 

100 On the linguistic classification of Song of Songs see above, §‎1.3.3.5.

101 Cf. the approach of Noegel and Rendsburg (2009: 11–13, 58, 174–175): in their opinion
the use of ‫‘ נָ ַטר‬to keep, guard’ and ‫(‘ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬place of) guarding’ perhaps reflects genuine
Aramaic influence in the case of Nehemiah, but in the case of Jeremiah, Song of Songs,
and perhaps even Nehemiah they attribute this non-standard linguistic usage to the
dialectal affinity between Aramaic and the specific regional dialects reflected in these
works. This approach is most promising in the case of Song of Songs, since this work
mentions not a few northern place names, including ‫‘ ְל ָבנֹון‬Lebanon’, ‫‘ ּגִ ְל ָעד‬Gilead’, ‫ֲא ָמנָ ה‬
‘Amanah’, ‫‘ ְׂשנִ יר‬Senir’, ‫‘ ֶח ְרמֹון‬Hermon’, ‫‘ ִּת ְר ָצה‬Tirzah’, ‫‘ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‬Heshbon’, ‫‘ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק‬Damascus’,
‫‘ ַּכ ְר ֶמל‬Carmel’, ‫‘ ָׁשרֹון‬Sharon’, ‫‘ ַה ַּמ ֲחנָ יִ ם‬Mahanaim’, and ‫‘ ׁשּונֵ ם‬Shunem’ (though, to be sure,
the more geographically central names ‫‘ ֵעין־ּגֶ ִדי‬Ein-Gedi’ and ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫‘ י‬Jerusalem’ are also
mentioned; on the place names in Song of Songs see Noegel and Rendsburg 2009: 9–10).
Even so, the use of the Persian word ‫‘ ַּפ ְר ֵּדס‬orchard’ should not be overlooked. This almost
certainly points to a (final) date of composition in the Persian Period (cf. Pope 1977: 27).
Nehemiah is better seen as LBH than Israelian Hebrew. On Jeremiah and the question of
its being written in a non-standard regional dialect, see above §‎1.4.2.
 330 chapter 8

Sam Tg J . . . maintaining (‫ )נטר‬goodness . . . 

Sam Tg A . . . maintaining (‫ )נטר‬goodness . . . 
Peshiṭta . . . maintaining (‫ )ܢܛܪ‬goodness . . . 

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

Gen 42.17  he gathered them in custody ( ‫ ) ִמ ְׁש ָמר‬for three days

Tg Onkelos  he gathered them in the house of custody (‫ )מטרא‬for three days
Tg Neofiti And he bound them in custody (‫ )מטרא‬for three days
Tg Jerusalem And he gathered them in the house of . . . custody (‫ )מטרא‬for three days
Sam Tg J And he gathered them in custody (‫ )מטר‬for three days

It should also be noted that the phonological/graphemic shift ‫ צ < ט‬within

Aramaic itself would seem to testify to the lateness of ‫‘ נט"ר‬keep, guard’.102 In
contrast, in post-biblical Hebrew sources (the DSS, the Mishna, the Jerusalem
Talmud) use of the verb ‫ נָ ַטר‬is limited almost exclusively to interpretation
of the biblical occurrences. Thus it frequently occurs in the meaning ‘to be/
become angry, bear a grudge (?)’ (CD 7.2; M Nedarim 9.4), but also in the sense
‘to keep, guard’ (y ʿEruvin 3.8, interpreting Song of Songs, and perhaps also
4Q200 f9.2). The noun ‫ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬is not attested in post-biblical Hebrew in any of its
meanings until texts from the 7th century CE.

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

and Nahum.103 In the latter the presence of derivatives of ‫‘ נצ"ר‬keep, guard’

and ‫ נט"ר‬I ‘be/become angry’ is unproblematic, as it is very likely that these
represent separate roots. The book of Jeremiah, though, presents cases of ‫נָ ַטר‬
I ‘to be/become angry’, ‫‘ נָ ַצר‬to keep, guard’, and also ‫(‘ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬place of) guarding’,
the last of which obviously derives from the Aramaic or Aramaic-like ‫ נָ ַטר‬II ‘to
keep, guard’. The presence of ‫ נצ"ר‬and ‫ נט"ר‬II with the same meaning in the
same book demands an explanation.
It may be that this situation should be chalked up to the transitional period
in which the book was composed, in which classical features were still the
norm, but late features, notably the results of Aramaic influence, were on the
rise. It is also worth considering the possibility that the apparently compos-
ite nature of the text of Jeremiah preserves features of more than one linguis-
tic period. Finally, it should be noted that ‫ נט"ר‬II is restricted in Jeremiah to
nominal usage in the expression ‫(ח ַצר) ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה‬
ֲ ‘the (court of) guarding’. The
occurrence of this word in a technical phrase in the context of administra-
tion (in reference to a structure that was part of the palace) may not be rep-
resentative of the prevailing linguistic patterns of the time, but may rather be
an Aramaism in official usage due the prestige that language had acquired in
Jerusalem even before the Exile.
To summarize: Jeremiah makes use of ‫(ח ַצר) ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה‬
ֲ to indicate some sort of
holding area for prisoners. There are reasons to consider Hebrew ‫ נט"ר‬II ‘keep,
guard’ a late import from Aramaic. Even if apparently classical occurrences of
‫ נט"ר‬I ‘be/become angry’ are considered derivatives of the same root, there is
no avoiding the conclusion that the substantive ‫(‘ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬place of) guarding’ is
late and more characteristic of Aramaic than of Hebrew. Outside of Jeremiah
it is used only in Neh 3.25 and 12.39, but it is rather common in the later stages
of Aramaic.

8.7.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek translation of Jeremiah presents parallels for all cases of ‫ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬in the
MT, both instances of MT ‫נָ ַצר‬, both occurrences of MT ‫נָ ַטר‬, and 13 of 14 cases of
MT ‫( ָׁש ַמר‬the exception in Jer 35.18).

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

8.8 ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’

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

8.8.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The infrequent, but predominantly post-exilic usage pattern of ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant,
sweet’ that emerges in BH finds an amount of confirmation in continued use of
derivatives of the root in the relevant meaning in post-biblical sources:

Ben Sira 6.5 (A) Pleasant words (‫ערב‬ֵ ‫ )חיך‬multiply friends

Ben Sira 40.21 (B) Flute and harp make sweet (‫ )יעריבו‬song
3Q6 f1.2 And their song will please (‫ )יערב‬you
4Q88 8.7–8 Sweet (‫ )ערבה‬in the nose is your praise, O Zion
4Q372 f3.4 May my meditation [be ple]asing (‫יע]רב‬ ̇ ]) to him (|| Ps
104.34)
4Q372 f3.5 for my words are [swee]ter than honeycomb, more pleas-
ant (‫ )יערבו‬than wine
11Q5 22.11 Sweet (‫ )ערבה‬in the nose is your praise, O Zion110

BH presents a variety of apparently classical alternatives depending on the

context, including ‫‘ נִ ְר ָצה‬be accepted, acceptable’, ‫‘ ָר ָצה‬accept, desire’, ‫ְל ָרצֹון‬
‘acceptable’, -‫ה ִיטיב ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬/‫טֹוב‬
ֵ ‘be good in the eyes of’, ‫‘ נָ ַעם‬be pleasant’, ‫‘ ָמ ַתק‬be
sweet’, and ‫יחֹוח‬
ַ ִ‫‘ ֵר ַיח נ‬pleasing aroma’. See the following examples:

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

108 Rabin 1981.

109 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980: 90, 98; Hill 1981: 123. Noegel and Rendsburg (2009: 38, n. 154) are of the
opinion that ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ is a feature of the northern Israelian dialect, especially
in its participial/adjectival use, though they also list cases that do not come in northern
contexts.
110 Also in the biblical DSS, matching the MT: 4Q72 f47–48ii+51–54.18 (|| Jer 31.26); 4Q76 2.19
(|| Mal 3.4); 4Q86 5.17 (|| Ps 104.34); 4Q107 f1.9 (|| Song 2.14); 11Q5 fEii.12 (Ps 104.34).
334 chapter 8

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

11Q5 22.11 Sweet (‫ )ערבה‬in the nose is your praise, O Zion

Gen 8.21 And Yhwh smelled the sweet aroma (‫) ֵר ַיח ַהּנִ יח ַֹח‬
Exod 29.18 And you will burn the ram on the altar; it is an offering to
Yhwh, a sweet aroma (‫יחֹוח‬
ַ ִ‫) ֵר ַיח נ‬

Prov 20.17 Bread of deceit is sweet (‫ ) ָע ֵרב‬to a man

Prov 9.17 Stolen water is sweet (‫ )יִ ְמ ָּתקּו‬and hidden bread is pleas-
ant (‫)יִ נְ ָעם‬111
Ps 104.34 May my meditation be pleasing (‫ )יֶ ֱע ַרב‬to him
Gen 34.18 And their words were good in the eyes of (‫וַ ּיִ ְיטבּו ִד ְב ֵר ֶיהם‬
‫ ) ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬Hamor
Ps 141.6 and they will listen to my words because they are pleas-
ant (‫)נָ ֵעמּו‬

Jer 31.26 . . . and my sleep was pleasant (‫ ) ָע ְר ָבה‬to me

Qoh 5.11 The sleep of a laborer is sweet (‫תּוקה‬
ָ ‫) ְמ‬

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

Yet the actual connection to ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ is probably only apparent,

and it is close to certain that Aramaic ‫ אתערב‬here = ‘to become mixed, equal’.112
The occurrences in Tg Prov, Tg Song, and Qohelet Rabba have been discussed
by Ben-Ḥayyim (1980: 90, 92–93, n. 23). In his opinion, the translators did not
understand ‫ ער"ב‬in the first two instances in the sense ‘pleasant, sweet’, while
regarding the third there are textual doubts.113 Be that as it may, even if these
three cases do testify to the use of ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ in Aramaic, in two of
them the usage is borrowed from the Hebrew. One should perhaps conclude
that ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ in Aramaic is due to Hebrew influence.
If Hebrew ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ was not borrowed from without, it must
be explained as an inner-Hebrew development. There are those who posit the
existence of a specific Hebrew root, separate from other homographic roots,
meaning ‘pleasant, sweet’ (e.g., BDB 787a).114 Yet on the assumption that the
relevant meaning was not borrowed from without and is not some develop-
ment from another root ‫ער"ב‬, one wonders why derivations of the root were
not used until such a relatively late date. Hence the alternative approach (e.g.,
Gesenius 1847: 651a), according to which the sense ‘pleasant, sweet’ is argued
to have arisen from the earlier sense ‘(well) mixed’ (i.e., in the sense of per-
fume). On the basis of a form of the same root in an Arabic dialect Ben-Ḥayyim
(1980: 93–94) suggested another possible semantic development: ‫‘ ער"ב‬come,
enter’ > ‘suitable, fitting’ > ‘good’.115 Whatever its exact course of development,
the assumption that ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ only at a relatively late time evolved

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).

8.8.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents parallels for both cases of ‫‘ ער"ב‬pleasant, sweet’ in Jeremiah.
It lacks a parallel for the classical alternative ‫ טֹוב‬in Jer 6.20 and for ‫ ֵה ִיטיב‬in Jer
32.40.

8.9 ‫‘ עֲ ֶת ֶרת‬wealth, abundance’

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

dance, wealth’,117 a meaning apparently found in two additional cases of the

root, namely, ‘And you vaunted against me with your mouths and you made
abundant (‫ )וְ ַה ְע ַּת ְר ֶּתם‬against me your words . . . (Ezek 35.13) and ‘The wounds
of (i.e., inflected by) one who loves are faithful, but abundant (‫ )וְ נַ ְע ָּתרֹות‬are the
kisses of one who hates’ (Prov 27.6),118 and possible in a fourth verse, ‘and the
abundance of the cloud of incense (‫ן־ה ְּקט ֶֹרת‬ ַ ַ‫ )וַ ֲע ַתר ֲענ‬was ascending (?)’ (Ezek
8.11).119 The relevant root may be termed ‫ עת"ר‬II ‘abundance, wealth’. Given
the linguistic situation from the close of the First Temple Period on, in which
Imperial Aramaic enjoyed the primacy of an official language employed by the
respective bureaucracies of a series of empires, the identification of ‫ עת"ר‬II as
an Aramaism is reasonable.

8.9.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

‫ עת"ר‬II ‘abundance, wealth’ is cognate with standard Hebrew ‫( עׁש"ר‬appear-
ing in ‫‘ ֶה ֱע ִׁשיר‬to enrich’, ‫‘ ע ֶֹׁשר‬wealth’, and ‫‘ ָע ִׁשיר‬rich’), both representing Proto-
Semitic ʿṯr. While ‫ עׁש"ר‬is common in the Bible120 and in post-biblical Hebrew,
‫ עת"ר‬II is rare in Hebrew, but common in the later Aramaic dialects, for exam-
ple, in Targumic Aramaic. Consider the following examples:

Gen 14.23 . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ ) ֶה ֱע ַׁש ְר ִּתי‬Abram”

Tg Onkelos . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ )עתרית‬Abram”
Tg Neofiti . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ )עתרית‬Abram”
Tg Jerusalem . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ )אעתרית‬Abram”
Sam Tg J . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ )אעתרת‬Abram”
Peshiṭta . . . lest you say “I enriched (‫ )ܐܥܬܪܬ‬Abram”

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

8.9.4 The MT and the Greek

Jer 33.6 is an interpretive crux. Against MT ‫‘ ֲע ֶת ֶרת‬abundance of’ the Ancient
Versions reveal a variety of readings. The Greek has ποιήσω ‘I will do/make’,
which perhaps reflects a reading along the lines of ‫ *ועבדתי‬according to its
meaning in Aramaic,126 or, alternatively, ‫*ע ַּת ְד ִּתי‬
ִ ‘I prepared’ (cf. Prov 24.27
and several cases in RH). The Vulgate gives deprecationem ‘entreaty, prayer’, an
interpretation that reflects understanding of the word as a derivative of ‫ עת"ר‬I.127
It is interesting to observe that, despite the routine attestation of ‫ עת"ר‬II in the
Aramaic dialects, neither Targum Jonathan nor the Peshiṭta thus read in the
verse in question. The former presents the expansive to ‫ואגלי להון תרע תיובתא‬
‫‘ ואחוינון דיהכון באורח שלם וקשוט‬and I will reveal to them the gate of repentance
and I will show them that they may walk on the way of peace and truth’, appar-
ently on the basis of the graphic similarity between ‫ עתרת‬and ‫תרע‬, the latter
Aramaic for ‘gate’, and/or perhaps due to the reading of ‫ עתרת‬as ‫‘ נתבת‬path’,128
while the latter reads ‫‘ ܘܐܓܠܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܫܒܝܠܐ ܕܫܠܡܐ ܘܕܗܡܢܘܬܐ‬and
I will reveal to them the way of peace and of faithfulness’. Among the emen-
dations proposed by modern commentators one may consider ‫ע ֻתד ֹת‬/‫ֹת‬ ֲ ‫ֲע ִתד‬

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 ‫‘ ּ ֶפחָ ה‬governor’ and ‫‘ *סֶ גֶן‬prefect’

The administrative titles ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬and ‫*סגֶ ן‬

ֶ ,135 traditionally rendered, respectively,
‘governor’ and ‘prefect’, but apparently referring to officials of various (politi-
cal and/or military) ranks, are commonly considered Akkadian loanwords in
Hebrew.136 Regardless of their antiquity in Akkadian, their general distribution
in ancient Hebrew, especially in reference to Judahite or Judean officials, favors
their consideration as characteristically late lexemes.137

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

129 Duhm 1901: 272; Bright 1965: 292, 296.

130 Ehrlich 1901: 248 (cf. the Targum and the Peshiṭta).
131 Holladay 1986–1989: II 222–223, 225; Keown, Scalise, and Smothers 1995: 164, 166; Lundbom
1999–2004: II 529, 532. Cf. above, n. 119.
132 Rudolph 1968: 214.
133 J. Thompson 1980: 597.
134 Volz 1928: 312.
135 The singular does not occur in the Bible, but (in its absolute form) is (most often) pointed
‫ ֶסגֶ ן‬in Codex Kaufmann of the Mishna; cf. ‫ ְסגַ ן‬in the printed editions. In Modern Israeli
Hebrew two terms have been differentiated on the basis of their vocalization: ‫‘ ֶסגֶ ן‬lieuten-
ant’ and ‫‘ ְסגַ ן‬vice-, deputy (e.g., minister)’.
136 ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬is an abbreviation of bēl pī/āḫāti ‘lord of a district’; see Ellenbogen 1962: 131; Kaufman
1974: 82, n. 263; Mankowski 2000: 128–129. ‫ * ֶסגֶ ן‬derives from šaknu ‘governor, prefect’; see
Ellenbogen 1962: 120; Kaufman 1974: 97–98; Mankowski 2000: 106–107.
137 Bendavid 1967–1971: I 64; Hurvitz 1972: 21–22, n. 24; Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 117.
138 1 Kgs 10.15 (|| 2 Chr 9.14); 20.24; 2 Kgs 18.24; Isa 36.9; Jer 51.23, 28, 57; Ezek 23.6, 12, 23; Hag
1.1, 14; 2.2, 21; Mal 1.8; Est 3.12; 8.9; 9.3; Ezra 8.36; Neh 2.7, 9; 3.7; 5.14 (2x), 15, 18; 12.26; 2 Chr
9.14 (|| 1 Kgs 10.15).
Lexical Features 341

probably to be considered non-standard loans used with specific reference to

foreign officials, comparable to reference to Philistine rulers by means of the
term ‫‘ ֶס ֶרן‬ruler’ or to Babylonian officials with composite titles including the
word ‫‘ ַרב‬lord, master’ (see below, §‎8.11). Such terms would presumably have
been recognized as foreign and should not be considered characteristic of the
contemporary Hebrew linguistic milieu.139 By the time the latest texts were
composed, however, the term had evidently been adopted into normal Hebrew
administrative jargon, with Judahites or Judeans now filling the roles in the
Persian governmental system, e.g., ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫יאל ַּפ ַחת י‬ ְ ‫‘ זְ ֻר ָּב ֶבל ֶּב‬Zerubbabel
ֵ ‫ן־ׁש ַא ְל ִּת‬
son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah’ (Hag 1.1) and ‫‘ נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ַה ֶּפ ָחה‬Nehemiah the
governor’ (Neh 12.26).
For its part, ‫ * ֶסגֶ ן‬comes 17 times in the Bible: ‘Second Isaiah’ (1); Jeremiah
(3); Ezekiel (3); Ezra (1); Nehemiah (9).140 Needless to say, this distribution is
more strikingly post-classical than that of ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬. However, as in the case of this
latter term, so in the case of ‫* ֶסגֶ ן‬: exilic and early post-exilic texts (‘Second
Isaiah’, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) use the term only in contexts involving foreign offi-
cials, while by the time of the writing of post-Restoration era material, the
term had evidently become part and parcel of domesticated Hebrew political
terminology.
It would thus seem that biblical employment of the terms discloses three
linguistic phases: (a) the classical phase, in which the terms were entirely
unknown to biblical writers and audiences; (b) a transitional phase, in which
they were known, but used only in reference to foreign officials; and finally, (c)
the late phase, when they had become nativized Hebrew administrative terms.
Since the use of ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬and ‫*סגֶ ן‬
ֶ reflects a political situation that typified a
specific post-classical historical period, these terms lack exact classical alter-
natives. However, the closest in meaning and function to ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬, i.e., a word
designating a ruler himself subject to a king, is probably Hebrew ‫‘ שַׂ ר‬officer’,
perhaps also ‫‘ נָ ִציב‬officer’.

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

‫‘ שַׂ ר‬officer’ may also suffice as a classical alternative for ‫*סגֶ ן‬

ֶ , though assum-
ing it designated a rank inferior to that indicated by ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬, the targums’ tendency
to render ‫‘ ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה‬secondary officer’ in this way, while no doubt anachronistic, is
altogether understandable. ‫‘ ָס ִריס‬eunuch, official’ and ‫‘ ָּפ ִקיד‬officer, official’ are
also potential classical alternatives.

8.10.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The extra-biblical distribution of the terms under discussion corroborates
their apparently late biblical distribution. Aside from cases in the biblical DSS,141
‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬occurs in Hebrew on a 4th-century BCE stamp seal142 and is found twice
in the Mishna.143 In Aramaic it occurs in the 7th–6th-century BCE Saqqara
inscription,144 BA,145 both the biblical and non-biblical DSS,146 and Egyptian
Aramaic.147
For its part ‫ * ֶסגֶ ן‬occurs in extra-biblical Hebrew in the Mishna,148 where,
however, it acquired the specific meaning of ‘second-order priest’, and in the
biblical DSS.149 In Aramaic it occurs in Egyptian Aramaic,150 BA,151 both bib-
lical152 and non-biblical texts from the Judean desert,153 and the targums,154
where, as in RH, it refers to a ‘second order priest’.155

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.

8.10.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek has parallels for MT ‫ ֶּפ ָחה‬in two of its three occurrences in Jeremiah,
and for ‫ * ֶסגֶ ן‬in all three. The exception is Jer 51.57, where the translator appears
to have lost his way, rendering ‫‘ וְ ִה ְׁש ַּכ ְר ִּתי‬and I will make drunk’ as if from the
root ‫‘ ׂשכ"ר‬hire, recompense’, leaving out equivalents for two (‫חֹות ָיה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ַּפ‬its gover-
nors’, ‫ּבֹור ָיה‬
ֶ ִ‫‘ וְ ג‬its warriors’) of the five referents in the series ‫יה‬ ָ ‫חֹות‬
ֶ ‫יה ַּפ‬ ָ ‫יה וַ ֲח ָכ ֶמ‬
ָ ‫ָׂש ֶר‬
‫יה‬
ָ ‫ּבֹור‬
ֶ ִ‫יה וְ ג‬ ְ ‘its officials and its wise men, its governors and its prefects and its
ָ ֶ‫ּוסגָ נ‬
warriors’, and failing entirely to represent ‫ת־עֹולם וְ לֹא יָ ִקיצּו‬
ָ ַ‫‘ וְ יָ ְׁשנּו ְׁשנ‬and they will
sleep an everlasting sleep and they will no more awaken’ (due to his misunder-
standing of ‫ וְ ִה ְׁש ַּכ ְר ִּתי‬at the beginning of the verse?). Why exactly ‫חֹות ָיה‬ ֶ ‫ ַּפ‬goes
unrepresented is not entirely clear, but its use in Jer 51.23 and 28 shows that its
omission should not be taken as evidence of a discernible diachronic linguistic
difference between the long and short editions of Jeremiah. The more classical
‫ ָׂש ִרים‬goes unrepresented in Jer 38.18.
344 chapter 8

8.11 ‫‘ ַרב‬great man, noble, officer’

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

In both cases ‫ ַרב‬comes as an apparently late surrogate for an expected classi-

cal equivalent, such as ‫‘ ַׂשר‬officer, official’ or ‫‘ ּגָ דֹול‬great one, noble’. In the first
instance one may claim that the honorific use of ‫ ַרב‬was a result of attraction
to the foreign terms of rank mentioned earlier in the verse. After all, the verse
deals with foreign officials. Even so, in all other general references to officials
of the Babylonian king use is made of the more classical formulation ‫ָׂש ֵרי ֶמ ֶלְך‬
‫‘ ָּב ֶבל‬officials of the king of Babylon’ (see further below).158
For its part, Jer 41.1 is the lone biblical example of ‫ ַרב‬used in reference to
Israelite or Judahite officials.
The two aforementioned cases of ‫ ַרב‬in the sense ‘great man, noble, offi-
cer’ are evidently the earliest examples of a process of semantic development
that would eventually lead to the common honorific use of the term in RH.159
Interestingly, the usage in question is unattested in LBH proper.

8.11.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The honorific use of ‫ ַרב‬in Hebrew is most probably an import from Aramaic,
its nominalized use in this language being common in various dialects from
different historical periods.160 It is already documented as early as the 8th-
century BCE Sefire texts161 and continued to serve into the later phases of
Aramaic,162 including Syriac, e.g.,

Gen 12.15 And Pharaoh’s officials (‫ ) ָׂש ֵרי      ַפ ְרעֹה‬saw her

Tg Onkelos And Pharaoh’s officials (‫ )רברבי  פרעה‬saw her
Tg Jerusalem And Pharaoh’s officials (‫ )רברבי  פרעה‬saw her
Tg Neofiti And Pharaoh’s officials  (‫ )רברבנוי דפרעה‬saw her
Sam Tg J & A And Pharaoh’s officials (‫ )רבני    פרעה‬saw her
Peshiṭta And Pharaoh’s officials (‫ )ܪܘܪܒܢܝ  ܦܪܥܘܢ‬saw her

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

158 Jer 38.17, 22; 39.3 (2x).

159 Gesenius 1847: 743a–b.
160 See HALOT 1172b–1173c.
161 KAI 222 A1.39, 40, 41 (?); B1.7; B2.3; B3.15–16.
162 BA: Dan 2.14; 4.6, 33; 5.1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 23; 6.18. Non-biblical DSS: 1Q20 19.24. See also TAD
A5 5.7; B4 3.11; C1 1.33 (= Aḥiqar); C2 3.4 (= Bisitun); D5 33.5; D22 25.1; 27.1.
346 chapter 8

These parallels also furnish evidence of the classical alternatives to nominal-

ized ‫ ַרב‬, namely ‫ ַׂשר‬and ‫ּגָ דֹול‬. It is probably not coincidental that the rise of
nominalized ‫ ַרב‬in Hebrew should coincide with the beginning of foreign hege-
mony in Judah,163 of which the book of Jeremiah apparently offers some of the
earliest testimony.

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

8.11.4 The MT and the Greek

Of the two cases of nominalized ‫ ַרב‬in Jeremiah, interestingly, neither is
reflected in the Greek. The case in Jer 39.13 comes at the end of a fairly lengthy
passage (Jer 39.4–13) with no parallel in the Greek. In this verse, ‫ְך־ּב ֶבל‬ ָ ‫ַר ֵּבי ֶמ ֶל‬
‘officials of the king of Babylon’ is used along with ‫ב־ט ָּב ִחים‬ ַ ‫‘ ַר‬head bodyguard’,
ָ ‫‘ ַר‬head eunuch, official’, and ‫ב־מג‬
‫ב־ס ִריס‬ ָ ‫‘ ַר‬high official (?)’ to refer collectively
to officials not already mentioned in the verse. Because the term refers to for-
eign officials at least some of whose titles contain the term ‫ ַרב‬, one might be
inclined to exclude this particular usage from the discussion. However, it is
to be noted that while the use of ‫ְך־ּב ֶבל‬ ָ ‫ ַר ֵּבי ֶמ ֶל‬here may stem from a kind of
linguistic attraction, the phrase in question is not a borrowed foreign title. It
is further to be noted that Jer 39.3, which presents a similar list of Babylonian
officials, and for which the Greek does provide a parallel, employs the more
classical formulation ‫שָׂ ֵרי ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל‬.165 Compare:

ָ ּ ‫ וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ּכֹל שָׂ ֵרי ֶמלֶ ְך‬

. . . ‫־בבֶ ל וַ ּיֵ ְׁשבּו ְּב ַׁש ַער ַה ָּתוֶ ְך‬ Jer 39.3
ַ ְ‫ב־ט ָּב ִחים ּונ‬
‫בּוׁשזְ ָּבן‬ ַ ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח נְ בּוזַ ְר ֲא ָדן ַר‬ Jer 39.13

 ‫ל־ׁש ֵא ִרית שָׂ ֵרי ֶמלֶ ְך ּ ָבבֶ ל׃‬

ְ ‫ב־מג וְ ָכ‬
ָ ‫ר־א ֶצר ַר‬
ֶ ‫ב־ס ִריס נֵ ְרגַ ל ַׂש‬ ָ ‫ַ ר‬ 39.3
166‫־בבֶ ל׃‬ָ ּ ‫ ַר ּ ֵבי ֶמלֶ ְך‬ ‫ב־מג וְ כֹל‬ ֶ ‫ב־ס ִריס  וְ נֵ ְרגַ   ַׂש‬
ָ ‫ר־א ֶצר ַר‬ ָ ‫ַר‬ 39.13

163 Joosten 2008: 97, 101.

164 Jer 5.5; 6.13; 8.10; 16.6; 31.34; 42.1, 8; 44.12; 52.13 (?).
165 See also Jer 38.17, 18, 22.
166 ‘And all the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the Middle Gate: . . . Rab-saris,
Nergal-sar-ezer the Rab-mag, and all the rest of the officials of the king of Babylon.’ Jer
39.13 is translated above.
Lexical Features 347

In this light, ‫ְך־ּב ֶבל‬

ָ ‫ ַר ֵּבי ֶמ ֶל‬has every appearance of being a late gloss for ‫שָׂ ֵרי ֶמ ֶלְך‬
‫‘ ָּב ֶבל‬officials of the king of Babylon’.
The second occurrence is in Jer 41.1, where the form )‫ ַר ֵּבי ( ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, used in refer-
ence to Judahite nobility, has a parallel in neither the corresponding passage in
2 Kings nor the Greek translation to Jeremiah.

‫לּוכה וְ ַר ּ ֵבי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬

ָ ‫  ִמּזֶ ַרע ַה ְּמ‬. . . ‫יעי ָּבא יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל‬
ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַּבח ֶֹדׁש ַה ְּׁש ִב‬ Jer 41.1
167‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬------ -------- ‫  ִמּזֶ ַרע‬. . . ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַּבח ֶֹדׁש ַה ְּׁש ִב ִיעי ָּבא יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל‬ Greek
----- ------ ‫לּוכה‬ ָ ‫  ִמּזֶ ַרע ַה ְּמ‬. . . ‫יעי ָּבא יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל‬
ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַּבח ֶֹדׁש ַה ְּׁש ִב‬ 2 Kgs 25.25

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

8.12 ַ‫‘ רוּח‬cardinal direction’

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.

8.12.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

The same usage is known from post-biblical Hebrew material, e.g., Ben Sira,
the DSS, and RH:

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

8.12.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents parallels for all three of the cases of ‫רּוח‬ ַ in the sense in
question, though it should be noted that in the first two instances discussed
above the translator renders literally, using the words πνεῦμα and ἄνεμος,
­respectively, both ‘wind’.178 In the third case he uses μέρος ‘side, part’. Regardless,
from the perspective of this usage, there is no difference between the long and
short editions of Jeremiah. For its part, the more classical alternative ‫ ֵּפ ָאה‬is
represented in the Greek on three of four occasions (the exception being Jer
48.45, part of a section of material not reflected in the Greek)

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.

In these contexts, too, the word ‫ ָרץ‬denotes an official capacity; however, it is

no longer that of ‘body guard’, but rather of ‘messenger’. It would thus seem
that in later times the word acquired a meaning overlapping that classically
borne by such terms as ‫ ַמ ְל ָאְך‬and ‫ ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר‬.180 Compare the use of ‫ ָרץ‬in Esther and
Chronicles above with that of ‫ ַמ ְל ָאְך‬in earlier material:

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.

8.13.2 Non-Hebrew and Extra-biblical Sources

First, ‫‘ ָרץ‬messenger’ is virtually unattested in post-biblical sources, whether
Hebrew or Aramaic. It is true that it appears in the Aramaic targums to the
afore-cited cases of ‫‘ ָרץ‬messenger’ in Esther and Chronicles, but this is hardly
probative. More promising is Targum Jonathan to Jdg 5.28:

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

Jdg hoof beats of his chariots late?

Tg J messengers (‫ )רהטיא‬who would bring me a letter of victory late?

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.

181 Bendavid 1967–1971: 7, 277, no. 14, 353.

182 Another example may be found in the Targum Sheni to Est 4.11, but this is relatively late
and is not entirely independent, since Esther itself employs ‫ ָרץ‬in the meaning ‘messenger’.
Lexical Features 355

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.

8.13.4 The MT and the Greek

The Greek presents a parallel form ‫ ָרץ‬in Jer 51.31, rendering rather literally with
the participle διώκων ‘(one who) runs, chases’. It also presents parallels for the
classical alternative ‫ ַמ ְל ָאְך‬as well as for ‫ ִציר‬.

183 CAD IX 106b; von Soden 1965–1981: 539a.

 chapter 9

The Respective Linguistic Profiles of the Short

Edition and the Supplementary Material of
Jeremiah

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

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004269651_010

Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 357

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

The present work is the product of a more comprehensive investigation of

the language of Jeremiah, principally from a diachronic perspective. In the
course of the research for this monograph an effort has been made to compare
the language of the short edition to that of the supplementary material and
to discern any special correlation between the linguistic profile of the supple-
mentary layer and the Hebrew characteristic of indisputably late material from
the Bible and extra-biblical sources.
According to the accepted linguistic approach for dating biblical material
(see above, §1.3.2), the date of composition of a text of unknown chronologi-
cal provenance is to be established on the basis of its linguistic profile in rela-
tion to the linguistic profile of those sources unanimously agreed to be late,
namely the corpus of indisputably post-exilic biblical books and late extra-
biblical material. As argued above, on the basis of such a comparison, it is usu-
ally possible to distinguish between First Temple and post-exilic compositions.
However, the distinction between the two categories is not always clear-cut.
Nor should one expect it to be. Jeremiah, for instance, deals with events that
took place over a period of time extending from the closing years of the First
Temple Period into the Exile. Moreover, it exhibits traces of linguistic devel-
opments especially characteristic of the latest phase of biblical literature, i.e.,
that corpus of biblical material comprised of Esther, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah,
and Chronicles. Nevertheless, in light of Jeremiah’s own linguistic profile, the
book apparently belongs not to this latest literary collection, but to a transi-
tional stratum of biblical literature that bridges the gap between the classical
and late strata. This information is immanently relevant to the issue of dat-
ing the supplementary material in Jeremiah against the backdrop of the mate-
rial that makes up the book’s short edition, because it demonstrates that the

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

9.1 Features and Their Significance

According to the results of the investigation undertaken, late linguistic usages

in the book of Jeremiah can be divided into three categories on the basis of
their distribution:

(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

occurrences/potential occurrences (%)

whole book short edition supplementary
feature
material

1 plene ‫§ יעקוב‬3.1.1 4/16 3/12 1/4

(25%) (25%) (25%)
2 ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬vs. ‫§ ֲאנִ י‬4.1 54/81 ‫אני‬ 46/67 ‫אני‬ 8/14 ‫אני‬
(66.7%) (68.7%) (57.1%)
3 non-standard directional ‫◌ה‬-
ָ §7.3 12/140 11/125 1/15
(8.6%) (8.8%) (6.7%)
4 movement verb + -‫ ל‬+ toponym 6/171 5/147 1/26
§7.4 (3.5%) (3.4%) (3.9%)
5 accusative -‫§ ל‬7.6 9/99 8/87 1/12
(9.1%) (9.2%) (8.3%)
6 ‫אל‬/‫ על‬interchange §7.5 133/1025 125/904 8/121
(13%) (13.8%) (6.6%)
7 ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X for X ‫§ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬7.7 2/19 2/9 0/10
(10.5%) (22.2%) (0%)

(Continued)
 362 chapter 9

Table   (Continued)

occurrences/potential occurrences (%)

whole book short edition supplementary
feature
material

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.

9.1.3 Late Features Characteristic of the Supplementary Material

(Table 9.1, 9–18)
Notwithstanding the aforementioned examples, which serve to illustrate the
relatively late character of the language of the book of Jeremiah in general
and of the short edition more specifically, there is nonetheless linguistic evi-
dence suggestive of the still later character of the language of the supplemen-
tary material. In the realm of orthography, though quite limited in extent, the
supplementary material appears to show a stronger tendency than the short
edition to plene spelling of the o vowel in certain verb forms, specifically qal

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

9.2.1 The Case of Jer 33.14–26

The 13 verses of Jer 33.14–26 constitute the longest continuous section of MT
Jeremiah not represented in the Greek. This material is, however, reflected in
4QJerc. It exhibits an impressive array of late linguistic features, some unchar-
acteristic of the book as a whole, which hint at a later provenance than the
rest of the book, including a striking accumulation of plene spellings in ‫תשכון‬
‘you/she will dwell’ (v. 16; §3.1.2), ‫‘ לאמור‬saying’ (v. 19; also in the short edition
at 18.15; §3.1.3), and ‫‘ יעקוב‬Jacob’ (v. 26; also in the short edition at 30.18; 46.27;
51.19; §3.1.1); the interchange of ‫ ֶאל‬and ‫( ַעל‬vv. 14, 26 [?]; §7.5); nominal ‫יֹומם‬ ָ ‘day’
(vv. 20, 25; §8.5); as well as the non-standard spelling ‫‘ ישחק‬Isaac’ (v. 26; §3.7)
and the unusual syntagm ‫‘ ְמ ָׁש ְר ֵתי א ִֹתי‬those who serve me’ (v. 22). The structure
‫יֹומם‬/‫ּיֹום‬
ָ ‫יתי ַה‬ ִ ‫‘ ְּב ִר‬my covenant with the day’ (vv. 20, 25) is also unique within the
book, though similar to ‫ת־ּב ִר ִיתי‬ ְ ‫יתי יִ ְצ ָחק וְ ַאף ֶא‬
ִ ‫ת־ּב ִר‬
ְ ‫יתי יַ ֲעקֹוב וְ ַאף ֶא‬
ִ ‫ת־ּב ִר‬
ְ ‫וְ זָ ַכ ְר ִּתי ֶא‬
‫‘ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶאזְ ּכֹר וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶאזְ ּכֹר‬And I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also
my covenant with Abraham I will remember. And the land I will remember’
(Lev 26.42) (which also contains the only instance of plene-spelled ‫‘ יעקוב‬Jacob’
outside Jeremiah).12

9.2.2 The Short and Long Editions in General

In light of the linguistic disparity between the short edition of Jeremiah and
the supplementary material, the latter’s independent, secondary, and r­ elatively
late character can be discerned. Be that as it may, one should not exaggerate
this lateness relative to that of the rest of the book. Overall the language of
Jeremiah shows much greater affinity to CBH than to LBH and the characteris-
tically late linguistic elements that do appear here and there in the book con-
stitute a distinct minority relative to its size. Furthermore, these tend to be
distributed throughout the book, rather than being confined to a single liter-
ary stratum. On the evidence of certain key linguistic features, it emerges that
both the short edition and the supplementary material are characterized by
admixtures of classical and post-classical tendencies that point rather deci-
sively to a shared linguistic background in the transitional period between
CBH and LBH proper.13 Finally, there is no comparison between the only rela-

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

16 See, for example, Hurvitz 2000a: 154–157.

17 See Hurvitz 1972: 131–151 on the psalm’s linguistic profile.
18 See Hurvitz 1974a on the linguistic profile of this material; cf. Young 2009.
19 See Hurvitz 1967 and 1965, respectively, on these psalms’ respective linguistic profiles;
note that all statistics related to biblical material presented here reflect the ktiv and those
related to the DSS exclude reconstructions.
Linguistic Profiles Of Jeremiah 369

ten consecutive graphic words, nine involve sequences of at least 40 consecu-

tive graphic words, and three contain at least 100 consecutive graphic words.20
These longer additions account for well over half of the total supplementary
material. Again, on the assumption that this material postdates the Restoration
period, there is no basis for the claim that it should not exhibit the sort of accu-
mulation of late linguistic features typical of every other composition securely
datable on non-linguistic grounds to this period and beyond. The fact that it does
not bear such a linguistic profile is persuasive evidence that the supplemen-
tary material is, in point of fact, not a late post-exilic composition, but, like the
rest of Jeremiah, a product of the transitional period.21
The foregoing scenario does not preclude the possibility of literary develop-
ment during the Hellenistic period, but if this did take place, it is unlikely to
have involved the addition of more than short interpolations. Likewise, the
later integration of Persian-period material cannot be excluded. Thus, from the
perspective of its linguistic profile, the lion’s share of the supplementary mate-
rial apparently used to augment the short edition of Jeremiah, has the look and
feel of a 6th-century composition.

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

Recently targeted for sustained criticism, the standard diachronic approach to

BH and the linguistic methodology for dating of biblical texts have all but been
given up for dead by a number of biblical scholars. For their part, leading
Hebraists, along with sympathetic biblicists, have responded to the criticism in
one of two ways. On the one hand, many, perhaps most, have largely ignored it
as something of a passing intellectual fad, only briefly responding to its claims
if at all. On the other hand, the relatively few who have responded at length,
while admitting the validity of individual points within the critique, have gen-
erally upheld the results of the standard methodology if applied in a circum-
spect, cautious, and nuanced manner. In the opening chapter of the present
work an attempt has been made to summarize and respond to the most funda-
mental claims against the standard theory and method. Additional evidence in
support of the accepted approach has been noted throughout the subsequent
discussions of individual phenomena. Needless to say, the present author
remains unconvinced of the major thrust of those arguments marshaled
against the viability of linguistic dating, which often seem born of a precon-
ceived notion that certain dating conclusions reached on the basis of non-lin-
guistic methods are necessarily preferable, if for no other reason than there
exists in certain circles something approaching scholarly consensus in their
regard and in regard to the idea that the results of the linguistic approach, if
accepted, would render rather fanciful the conclusions of a great deal of both
traditional and more recent critical biblical scholarship. Put differently, it
sometimes seems as if opponents of the standard diachronic approach, having
begun with the idea that its results cannot possibly be valid—since they con-
trovert certain long-held tenets of traditional critical scholarship and conclu-
sions reached along more contemporary lines of inquiry—have set out to
prove what they already assumed to be the case. The position adopted in this
study is, rather, that of one persuaded that a linguistic distinction between pre-
and post-exilic Hebrew can indeed be reliably detected on the basis of rigor-
ously identified characteristic features and that biblical texts can be dated
relatively and, to some extent, absolutely on the basis of their linguistic pro-
files. It is further maintained here that certain constellations of features point
to composition in a transitional period between pre- and post-exilic Hebrew,
i.e., approximately the 6th century BCE. Where integration with the results of
non-linguistic dating procedures requires a re-assessment of the linguistic or

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004269651_011

Conclusion 371

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

through a combination of methodologies—linguistic and non-linguistic—

may we move beyond the merely technical character of linguistic studies (such
as the present) and the often very speculative nature of non-linguistic lines of
inquiry to an approach that gives solidly undergirded historical and exegetical
meaning to the texts that lie at the heart of our endeavors. In this way, the pres-
ent analysis comes not against, but in service to other approaches, for which, it
is hoped, it may provide a useful framework and reliable data for further
research.

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

TAD extbook of Aramaic Documents. Ed. B. Porten and A. Yardeni 4

T
vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Faculty of
Humanities, the Department of the History of the People of Israel,
1986–1999.
TBH Transitional Biblical Hebrew
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Ed. and trans. G.W.
Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965–1978.
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Ed. G.J. Botterweck,
H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Trans. J.T. Willis and D.E. Green. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Tg Targum
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Ed. E. Jenni and
C. Westermann. Trans. M.E. Biddle. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Ed. R.L. Harris, G.L.
Archer, and B.K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
Y Jerusalem Talmud

Primary Sources

Bible, Textual Witnesses, and Ancient Translations

Masoretic Text
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th edition. Ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.
Samaritan Pentateuch
The Pentateuch—The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version. Ed. A. Tal and
M. Florentin. Tel-Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press, 2010.
Ancient and Medieval Translations
Greek
Septuaginta (Old Greek Jewish Scriptures). Ed. A. Rahlfs. Stuttgart: Württembergische
Bibelanstalt / Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935.
Vulgate
Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Ed. R. Weber, B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H.F.D.
Sparks, and W. Thiele. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Targum Onkelos
Miqra⁠ʾot Gedolot ha-Keter. Ed. M. Cohen. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1992.
Targum Jonathan
Miqra⁠ʾot Gedolot ha-Keter. Ed. M. Cohen. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1992.
bibliography 377

Targum Jerusalem (a.k.a. Pseudo-Jonathan)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Ed. E. Clarke
et al. New York: Ktav, 1984.
Targum Neofiti
Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinese ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Ed. A. Diez Macho.
(Textos y estudios del Seminaria Filológico Cardenal Cisternos 7–11, 20). Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968–1979.
Samaritan Targum J and A
Ha-Targum ha-Šomroni la-Tora: Mahadura Biqortit. Ed. A. Tal. 3 vols. Tel-Aviv: Tel-
Aviv University, 1980–1983.
Targum Sheni of Esther
The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A critical edition based on MS. Sassoon 282
with critical apparatus. Ed. B. Grossfeld. Brooklyn: Sepher-Harmon, 1994.
Peshiṭta
Antonio M. Ceriani, Translatio Syro Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano
sec. fere VI. photolithographice edita. London: Williams and Norgate, 1876–1883.

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

2005 Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Miḵtav (Sifriyat ha-ʾEnṣiqlopedya ha-Miqra⁠ʾit 21).

Jerusalem: Bialik.
2008 Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Bib-
lical Period (Carta Handbook). Jerusalem: Carta.
Albertz, Rainer
1997 “‫צעק‬.” NIDOTTE 3, 1088–1089.
2001 “An End to the Confusion? Why the Old Testament Cannot Be a
Hellenistic Book!” Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and
Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, ed. L.L. Grabbe, 30–46. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Allen, Leslie C.
1997 “‫ׂשחק‬.” NIDOTTE 3, 1228–1230.
Andersen, Francis I. and A. Dean Forbes
1986 Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
2013 “Matres Lectionis: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 2, 607–611.
Archer, Gleason L.
1969 “The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesiastes.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 12:167–181.
Ariel, Chanan
2013 “Orthography: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 2, 940–948.
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi
2003 A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Austel, Hermann J.
1970 “Prepositional and Non-Prepositional Complements with Verbs of
Motion in Biblical Hebrew.” PhD dissertation, University of Califor-
nia at Los Angeles.
Avigad, Nahman
1965 “Seals of Exiles.” Israel Exploration Journal 15:222–232.
Avineri, Yitzhak
1976 Heḵal ha-Mišqalim. Tel-Aviv: Yizreʿel.
Baillet, Maurice
1962 “13. Jérémie.” Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3). 2 vols., ed.
M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, 62–69. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ball, Charles J.
1896 “The Blessing of Moses (Deut. XXXIII).” Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 18:116–137.
Baran, Mordechai
1992 “Mišqal ‫ קטלון‬be-Sefer Qohelet.” MA thesis, The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem.
380 bibliography

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

Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander

1922 Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des alten Testamen-
tes. Halle: Niemeyer.
Baumgartner, Walter
1927 “Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentli-
che Wissenschaft 45:81–133.
1941 “Was wir heute ven der hebräischen Sprache und ihrer Geschichte
wissen.” Anthropos 35:593–616 (reprinted in Baumgartner 1959,
208–239).
1959 Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Ausgewählte und Aufsätze.
Leiden: Brill.
Beeston, Alfred F.L.
1951 “Angels in Deuteronomy 33.2.” Journal of Theological Studies
2:30–31.
Bendavid, Abba
1951 Lešon ha-Miqra ʾo Lešon Ḥaḵamim? Tel-Aviv: Maḥberot le-Sifrut.
1967–1971 Lešon ha-Miqra u-Lšon Ḥaḵamim. 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: Dvir.
1972 Maqbilot ba-Miqra. Jerusalem: Carta.
Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev
1943–1944 “ʿIvrit Nusaḥ Šomron.” Lĕšonénu 12:45–6-, 113–126.
1951 “Ha-Nistarot ba-ʾAramit ha-Qadmonit.” Eretz-Israel 1:135–139.
1957–1977 ʿIvrit va-ʿAramit Nusaḥ Šomron. 5 vols. Jerusalem: The Academy of
the Hebrew Language.
1958 “Masoret ha-Šomronim ve-Ziqatah le-Masoret ha-Lašon šel Megilot
Yam ha-Melaḥ u-li-Lšon Ḥazal.” Lĕšonénu 22:223–245.
1980 “Ha-Šoreš ‫ערב‬.” Lĕšonénu 44:85–99.
1982 “Ha-Milon ha-Hisṭori la-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit: Maḥberet le-Dugma—
ha-Šoreš ‫ערב‬.” Lĕšonénu 46:163–267.
2000 A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer, et al.
1948–1959 Milon ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit ha-Yešana ve-ha-Ḥadaša. 17 vols. Tel-Aviv:
La-Am.
Bergey, Ronald L.
1983 “The Book of Esther—Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of Post-
Exilic Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in Late Biblical Hebrew.” PhD
dissertation, Dropsie College of Cognate Learning.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf
1918–1929 Hebräische Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig: Vogel.
382 bibliography

Berlejung, Angelika and Andreas Schüle

1998 “Erwägungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung Moussaïeff.”
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11:68–73.
Berry, George R.
1915 “The Authorship of Ezekiel 40–48.” Journal of Biblical Literature
34:17–40.
Biber, Douglas
1990 “Methodological Issues Regarding Corpus-Based Analysis of Lin-
guistic Variation.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 5:257–269.
Blau, Joshua
1970 Diqduq ʿIvri Šiṭati. Jerusalem: Ha-Maḵon ha-ʿIvri le-Haśkala bi-Ḵtav
be-Yiśra⁠ʾel.
1972 Torat ha-Hege ve-ha-Ṣurot. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
1976 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 12).
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1977 “Marginalia Semitica III.” Israel Oriental Studies 7:14–32.
1978 “The Historical Periods of the Hebrew Language.” Jewish Languages:
Themes and Variations, ed. Herbert H. Paper. Cambridge: Associa-
tion for Jewish Studies.
1980 “The Parallel Development of the Feminine Ending -at in Semitic
Languages.” Hebrew Union College Annual 51:17–28.
1983 “Ha-ʾim Ṣurot Nisteret me-ʿAyin ‫ ָהיָת‬še-bi-Lšon Ḥaḵamim Ṣurot
Qedumot Hen?” Lĕšonénu 47:158–159.
1997 “Hirhurav šel ʿArabisṭan ʿal Hištalšelut ʿIvrit ha-Miqra u-Sʿifoteha.”
Lĕšonénu 60:21–32.
1998 “On the History and Structure of Hebrew.” Topics in Hebrew and
Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes.
2001 “Klum Ništamru ʿIqvotav šel ha-Zugi bi-Tḥum ha-Kinuyim ve-ha-
Poʿal be-ʿIvrit ha-Miqra?” Lĕšonénu 52:165–168.
2010 Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in
Ancient West Semitic 2). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1996 “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Mate-
rial in the Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 108:495–518.
Bloch, Yigal
2007 “From Linguistics to Text-Criticism and Back: Wayyiqṭōl Construc-
tions with Long Prefixed Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew
Studies 48:141–170.
bibliography 383

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

1898 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Rev. edition.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
1913 Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel.
2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon.
Duhm, Bernhard
1901 Das Buch Jeremia (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
11). Tübingen / Leipzig: Mohr.
du Plessis, S. J.
1971 “Aspects of Morphological Peculiarities of the Language of Qohe-
leth.” De Fructu Oris Sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms, ed.
I.H. Eybers, et al., 164–180. Leiden: Brill.
Dupont-Sommer, Andre and Jean Starcky
1958 Les inscriptions araméennes de Sefiré (stèles I et II). Paris: Imprime­
rie nationale.
Edenburg, Cynthia
2003 “Parašat ‘Pilegeš be-Givʿa’ (Jdg 19–21)—Tahaliḵ Ḥiburah,
Meqoroteha ve-Heqšerah ha-Hisṭori.” MA thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
Ehrensvärd, Martin
1997 “Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew.” Scandina-
vian Journal of the Old Testament 11:29–40.
2003 “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew.” Young 2003a, 164–188.
2006 “Why Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically.” Hebrew Studies
47:177–189.
2012 “Discerning Diachronic Change in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal Sys-
tem.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 181–192.
Ehrlich, Arnold B.
1901 Miqra ki-Fšuto. Vol. 3: Divre Nevuʾa. Berlin: Pappelvier.
1912 Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, Band 4: Jesaia, Jeremia. Leipzig:
Hinrichs.
Ellenbogen, Maximillian
1962 Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology.
London: Luzac.
Eph’al, Israel and Joseph Naveh
1998 “Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieff Ostraca”. Israel
Exploration Journal 48:269–273.
Eskhult, Mats
1990 Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew
Prose (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsalien-
sia 12). Uppsala: Uppsala University and Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
bibliography 389

2000 “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew.” Muraoka and Elwolde

2000, 84–93.
2003 “The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts.”
Young 2003a, 8–23.
2008 “Some Aspects of the Verbal System in Qumran Hebrew.” Joosten
and Rey 2008, 29–46.
Even-Shoshan, Avraham
1977 Qonqordanṣya Ḥadaša la-Tanaḵ. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.
Ewald, Heinrich
1855 Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes.
2nd edition. Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
1881 Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Trans. J. Ken-
nedy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef and Hedwig Lamberty-Zielinski
2001 “‫ערב‬.” TDOT 11, 331–334.
Fassberg, Steven E.
2000 “The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judean Desert as
Reflected in a Comparison of Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts.”
Muraoka and Elwolde 2000, 94–109.
2001 “The Movement of Qal to Piʿel in Hebrew and the Disappearance of
the Qal Internal Passive.” Hebrew Studies 42:243–255.
2003 “Haʿadafat Ṣurot Moʾoraḵot bi-Mgilat Midbar Yehuda.” Meghillot
1:227–240.
2006 “Sequences of Positive Commands in Biblical Hebrew: ‫הֹלְך וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬,ָ
‫לְך וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬,ֵ ‫לְך ֱאמֹר‬.”
ֵ Fassberg and Hurvitz 2006, 51–64.
2008 “The Infinitive Absolute as Finite Verb and Standard Literary
Hebrew of the Second Temple Period.” Joosten and Rey 2008, 47–60.
2009 “Vowel Dissimilation in Plural Pronouns in Biblical Hebrew.” Orien-
talia 78:326–335.
2011 “Lešon ha-Miqra.” Sifrut ha-Miqra: Mevoʾot u-Meḥqarim, ed. Z. Tal-
shir, 87–104. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi.
Fassberg, Steven E. and Avi Hurvitz
2006 (eds.) Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting. Jerusa-
lem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press and Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Fernández, Miguel Pérez
1997 An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Trans. J. Elwolde.
Leiden: Brill.
390 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

Friedman, Richard Elliott

1997 Who Wrote the Bible? 2nd edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Ganzel, Tova
2011 “The Shattered Dream. The Prophecies of Joel: A Bridge between
Ezekiel and Haggai?” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11.6, http://
www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_153.pdf.
Garr, W. Randall
1985 Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1815 Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine philologisch-­
historische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der
hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig: Vogel.
1847 Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scrip-
tures. Trans. and ed. S.P. Tregelles. London: Samuel Bagster and
Sons.
Gesundheit, Shimon
2012 “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analy-
sis.” Vetus Testamentum 62:29–57.
Gevirtz, Stanley
1986 “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’—‘Old Canaanite’
Connection.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18:25–29.
1987 “Asher in the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis XLIX 20).” Vetus Testamen-
tum 38:154–163.
Gianto, Agustinus
1996 “Variations in Biblical Hebrew.” Biblica 77:493–508.
Gibson, John C. L.
1971–1982 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.
1994 Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax. 4th edition.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Giesebrecht, Friedrich
1881 “Zur Hexateuchkritik: Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen
Elohisten.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
1:177–276.
1907 Das Buch Jeremia (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3). Gött­
ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ginsberg, Harold L.
1934 “Mi-beʿad la-Masoret.” Tarbiz 5:209–223.
1936 “Nosafot le-‘Mi-beʿad la-Masoret’.” Tarbiz 7:543.
392 bibliography

1938 “Lachish Notes.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 71:24–27.
1982 “Ha-Śafot ha-Šemiyot ha-Ṣfon-Maʿaraviyot.” Ha-Hisṭorya šel ʿAm
Yiśra⁠ʾel, vol. 2: Ha-ʾAvot, ed. B. Mazar, 62–75. Jerusalem: Alexander
Pil’i and Am Oved.
Gogel, Sandra L.
1998 A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study
23). Atlanta: Scholars.
Gonzalez, Hervé
2013 “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah during the
Ptolemaic Period.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13.9, http://www
.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_189.pdf.
Gordis, Robert
1968 Koheleth: The Man and His Word. 2nd augmented edition (Texts and
Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 19). New
York: Block.
1971 The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. 2nd edi-
tion. New York: Ktav.
Gordon, Cyrus
1954 “Hašpaʿa Ṣefon-Yiśreʾelit ʿal ha-ʿIvrit še-le-ʿaḥar-Galut Bavel.” Eretz-
Israel 3:104–105.
1955 “North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew.” Israel Exploration
Journal 5:85–88.
1965 Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform
Selections, Glossary, Indices (Analecta Orientalia 38). Rome: Pontifi-
cal Biblical Institute.
1998 Ugaritic Grammar. Revised Reprint (Analecta Orientalia 38). Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Gordon, Shmuel L.
1936 Divre Yirmeyahu. Tel-Aviv: Gordon.
Gottwald, Norman K.
1979 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel.
Maryknoll: Orbis.
Graf, Karl H.
1862 Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weigel.
Greenfield, Jonas C.
1962 “Studies in Aramaic Lexicography I.” Journal of the American Orien-
tal Society 82:290–299.
1977 “The Prepositions ʿad/ʿal in Aramaic and Hebrew.” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 40:371–372.
bibliography 393

Greenfield, Jonas C. and Joseph Naveh

1984 “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period.” The Cambridge His-
tory of Judaism, ed. W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, vol. I, 115–129.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grintz, Yehoshua M.
1976a “Munaḥim Qedumim be-‘Torat Kohanim’. Ḥeleq 1.” Lĕšonénu
39:5–20.
1976b “Munaḥim Qedumim be-‘Torat Kohanim’. Ḥeleq 2.” Lĕšonénu
39:163–181.
1976c “Munaḥim Qedumim be-‘Torat Kohanim’. Ḥeleq 3.” Lĕšonénu
40:5–32.
Gropp, Douglas M.
1991 “The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.”
Hebrew Annual Review 13:45–62.
Grotius, Hugo
1644 Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum. Ed. G. Vogel, vol. 1, 434–435.
Halle: Curt, 1875–1876.
Groves, J. Alan, and Dale Wheeler
2005 Groves-Wheeler Westminster Theological Seminary Hebrew Mor-
phology Database, version 4.14. Glenside: J. Alan Groves Center for
Advanced Biblical Research.
Gruber, Meir
1982 “Šinuy ha-Šem ‫עשרת הדברים‬.” Beit Mikra 27:16–21.
Guenther, Allen R.
1977 “A Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew Prose Syntax: An Analysis
of the Verbal Clause in Jeremiah 37–45 and Esther 1–10.” PhD dis-
sertation, University of Toronto.
Gustavs, Arnold
1913 “Hethitische Parallelen zum Namen ‫אּורּיָ ה‬.”
ִ Zeitschrift für die Alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 33:201–205.
Gzella, Holger
2013 “Convergence.” EHLL 1, 607–608.
Hadas-Lebel, Mireille
1995 Histoire de la langue hébraïque des origines à l’époque de la Mishna.
4th edition. Paris / Louvain: Peeters.
Hammershaimb, E.
1963 “On the So-Called Infinitivus Absolutus in Hebrew.” Hebrew and
Semitic Studies Presented to G.R. Driver, ed. D.W. Thomas and W.D.
McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon.
394 bibliography

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

1968 “The Chronological Significance of ‘Aramaisms’ in Biblical Hebrew.”

Israel Exploration Journal 18:234–240.
1972 Ben Lašon le-Lašon: Le-Toldot Lešon ha-Miqra b-Ime Bayit Šeni. Jeru-
salem: Bialik.
1974a “The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered.”
Harvard Theological Review 67:17–34.
1974b “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code.” Revue Bib-
lique 81:24–56.
1976 “ʿAl ‘šelifat-ha-naʿal’ bi-Mgilat Rut.” Shnaton la-Miqra u-l-Ḥeqer
ha-Mizraḥ ha-Qadum 1:45–49.
1973 “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts.” Hebrew
Abstracts 14:74–79.
1982 A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and
the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Cahiers de la
Revue Biblique 20). Paris: Gabalda.
1983a “Ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit ba-Tqufa ha-Parsit.” Ha-Hisṭorya šel ʿAm Yiśra⁠ʾel:
Šivat Ṣiyon—Yeme Šilṭon Paras, ed. Ch. Tadmor, 210–233, 306–309.
Jerusalem: Alexander Pil’i.
1983b “Ruth 2:7: A Midrashic Gloss?” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 95:121–123.
1983c “The Language of the Priestly Source and Its Historical Setting: The
Case for an Early Date.” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress
of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21, 1981: Panel Sessions: Bible
Studies and Hebrew Language, 83–94. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies.
1985 “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Exami-
nation of 1 Sam 2:1–10 and Ps 113:5–9.” Biblical and Related Studies
Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser, 115–121.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
1988 “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Bibli-
cal Hebrew: A Century after Wellhausen.” Zeitschrift für die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 100 Supplement, 88–100.
1990 Review of Fredericks 1988. Hebrew Studies 31:144–154.
1997a “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evi-
dence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.”
Vetus Testamentum 47: 301–315.
1997b “The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and
Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects.” Muraoka and Elwolde
1997, 62–86.
bibliography 397

1999 “Further Comments on the Linguistic Profile of Ben Sira: Syntactic

Affinities with Late Biblical Hebrew.” Muraoka and Elwolde 1999,
132–145.
2000a “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically?” Congress Volume Oslo
1998 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 80), ed. A. Lemaire and
M. Saebø, 143–160. Leiden: Brill.
2000b “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the
Pentateuch and Its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp.”
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112:180–191.
2003 “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Ara-
maisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible.” Young 2003a,
24–37.
2007 “The Language of Qoheleth and Its Historical Setting within Bibli-
cal Hebrew.” The Language of Qohelet in its Context: Essays in Hon-
our of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed.
A. Berlejung and P. Van Hecke, 23–34. Leuven: Peeters.
2012 “The ‘Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts’: Comments on Method-
ological Guidelines and Philological Procedures.” Miller-Naudé and
Zevit 2012, 265–279.
2013 “Terminological Modifications in Biblical Genealogical Records
and Their Potential Chronological Implications.” Hebrew in the Sec-
ond Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other
Contemporary Sources (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
108), ed. S. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher, and R. Clements, 105–116. Leiden:
Brill.
forthcoming Handbook of Late Biblical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill.
Hyatt, J. Philip
1951 “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah.” Vanderbilt Studies in the
Humanities 1, ed. R.C. Beatty, J.P. Hyatt, and M.K. Spears. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University.
1967 “Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah.” Harvard Theological
Review 60:433–467.
Isaksson, Bo
1987 Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the
Verbal System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10). Uppsala: Uppsala
University.
Janzen, J. Gerald
1973 Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 6).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
398 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

Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel

1950–1951 “Meḥqarim ba-ʾAramit ha-Glilit.” Tarbiz 21:192–205; 22:53–63, 185–
192; 23:36–60.
1959 Ha-Lašon ve-ha-Reqaʿ ha-Lešoni šel Megilat Yišʿayahu ha-Šelema mi-
Megilot Yam ha-Melaḥ. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1961a Milim ve-Toldotehen. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.
1961b “Lešonan šel ha-ʾIgarot ha-ʿIvriyot ve-ha-ʾAramiyot šel Bar Kosiba
u-Vne Doro. Ma⁠ʾamar Šeni: Ha-ʾIgarot ha-ʿIvriyot.” Lĕšonénu 26:7–23.
1971 “Aramaic.” Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. Thomas Sebeok, vol. 6,
347–412. The Hague: Mouton.
1974 Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)
(Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 6). Leiden: Brill.
1982 A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden:
Brill.
2007 “Hebrew Language: Biblical.” EJ 8, 626–639.
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel and Yochanan Breuer
2007 “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic.” EJ 8, 639–649.
Kuty, Renaud J.
2008 “Remarks on the Syntax of the Participle in Targum Jonathan on
Samuel.” Gzella and Folmer 2008, 207–220.
Lambdin, Thomas O.
1953 “Egyptian Loanwords in the Old Testament.” Journal of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society 73:145–155.
Lambert, Meir
1893 “Le Vav Conversif.” Revue des Études Juives 26:47–62.
1938 Traité de Grammaire Hébraïque. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Lamsa, George
1957 The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts: Containing the Old
and New Testaments, Translated from the Peshitta, the Authorized
Bible of the Church of the East. Philadelphia: Holman.
Landes, George M.
1982 “Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah.” Eretz-Israel
16:147–170.
1999 “A Case for the Sixth-Century BCE Dating for the Book of Jonah.”
Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in
Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P.H. Williams,
Jr. and T. Hiebert, 100–116. Atlanta: Scholars.
LaSor, William S.
1987 “Nebuchadrezzar.” ISBE 3, 506–509.
bibliography 401

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

1980–1984 I–II Samuel. 2 vols. (Anchor Bible Commentary). Garden City:

Doubleday.
Meek, Theophile J.
1940 “The Hebrew Accusative of Time and Place.” Journal of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society 60:224–233.
Melamed, E.Z.
1949 “Śiḥatam šel ʾAvot be-Sefer Berešit.” Tarbiz 20:8–28.
Meshorer, Yaʿakov
1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. New York: Amphora.
Meyer, Rudolf
1959 “Auffallender Erzahlungsstil in einem angeblichen Auszug aus
‘Chronik der Könige von Juda’.” Festschrift für Friedrich Baumgärtel
zum 70. Geburtstag, 14. Januar 1958 (Erlanger Forschungen Reihe
A: Geisteswissenschaften 10), 114–123. Erlangen: Universitätsbund
Erlangen.
1969–1992 Hebräische Grammatik. 4 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Milgrom, Jacob
1991–2001 Leviticus. 3 vols. (Anchor Bible Commentary). New York: Doubleday.
1999 “The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkin-
sopp.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111:10–22.
2007 “The Case for the Pre-Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of
Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.” Reading the Law: Studies in Hon-
our of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J.G. McConville and K. Möller, 48–56.
New York / London: T. & T. Clark.
Miller, Jr., Patrick D.
1964 “Critical Notes on Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 33.” Harvard Theo-
logical Review 57:240–243.
Miller-Naudé, Cynthia and Ziony Zevit
2012 (eds.) Diachony in Biblical Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in Ancient
West Semitic 8). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Min, Young-Jin
1977 “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as
Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possi-
ble Origins”. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mitchell, Henry G.
1888 “The Preposition ‫אל‬.” ֶ Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis 8:43–120.
Montgomery, James A.
1927 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Inter-
national Critical Commentary 22). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
404 bibliography

Montgomery, James A. and Henry S. Gehman

1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (Inter-
national Critical Commentary 9). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Moomo, David O.
2005 “The Imperfective Meaning of Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 31:89–106.
Morag, Shelomo
1974a “Ha-Masoret ha-Ṭavranit šel Lešon ha-Miqra: Homogeniyut
ve-Heṭerogeniyut.” Peraqim—Sefer ha-Šana šel Meḵon Šoqen
2:105–144.
1974b “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 94:307–315.
1988 “Qumran Hebrew: Typological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum
38:148–164.
Moscati, Sabatino
1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lan-
guages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Moshavi, Adina
2010 Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause (Linguistic Studies
in Ancient West Semitic 4). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Mowinckel, Sigmund
1914 Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiania: Dybwad.
Muchiki, Yoshiyuki
1999 Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 173). Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Muraoka, Takamitsu
1972 “Remarks on the Syntax of Some Types of Noun Modifier in Syriac.”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31:192–194.
1984 “The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic.” Abr-
Nahrain 22:79–117
1993 Review of Schoors 1992–2004, vol. 1. Abr-Nahrain 31:129–135.
1999 “The Participle in Qumran Hebrew with Special Reference to Its
Periphrastic Use.” Muraoka and Elwolde 1999, 188–204.
2000 “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew.”
Muraoka and Elwolde 2000, 193–214.
Muraoka, Takamitsu and John F. Elwolde
1997 (eds.) The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings
of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, December 1995. Leiden:
Brill.
bibliography 405

1999 (eds.) Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second Interna-

tional Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira,
and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 1997. Leiden: Brill.
2000 (eds.) Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Sym-
posium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden:
Brill.
Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten
2003 A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. 2nd rev. edition (Handbuch der
Orientalistik 32). Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Murray, Donald F.
2001 “Of all the Years the Hopes—or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon
(2 Kings 25:27–30). Journal of Biblical Literature 120:245–265.
Na’aman, Nadav
1986 “Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary
Sphere.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45:271–288.
Naudé, Jacobus A.
2000 “The Language of Ezekiel: Biblical Hebrew in Transition?” Old Tes-
tament Essays 13:46–71.
2003 “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language
Change and Diffusion.” Young 2003a, 189–214.
2004 “A Perspective on the Chronological Framework of Biblical Hebrew.”
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 30:87–102.
2012 “Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and a Theory of Language Change
and Diffusion.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 61–81.
Nicholson, Ernest W.
1973–1975 The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 2 vols. (Cambridge Bible Com-
mentary of the New English Bible). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Noegel, Scott B. and Gary A. Rendsburg
2009 Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of
Songs (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 1). Atlanta: Society of Bibli-
cal Literature.
Nöldeke, Theodor
1903 Review of Kautzsch 1902. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 57:412–420.
1904 Compendious Syriac Grammar. Trans. J.A. Crichton. London: Wil-
liams and Norgate.
1910 Neue Beiträge zur semitichen Sprachwissenschaft. Strasburg:
Trübner.
406 bibliography

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

Rabin, Chaim and Yigael Yadin

1958 (eds.) Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4).
Jerusalem: Magnes.
Rainey, Anson F.
1964 “A Study of Ecclesiastes.” Concordia Theological Monthly 35:148–157.
1971 “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar.” Ugarit-Forschungen 3:151–172.
1986 “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah
Canaanite.” Hebrew Studies 27:4–19.
2003 “The Suffix Conjugation Pattern in Ancient Hebrew: Tense and
Modal Functions.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40:3–42.
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1980a “Hebrew ʾšdat and Ugaritic išdym.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan-
guages 8:81–84.
1980b “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P’,” Journal of the Ancient
Near Eastern Society 12:65–80.
1981 “Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew as Revealed through Compound
Verbs.” Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics, in
Memory of J. Alexander Kerns (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory
and History of Linguistic Science 4), ed. Y.L. Arbeitman and A.R.
Bomhard, 665–677.
1982a “Dual Personal Pronouns and Dual Verbs in Hebrew.” Jewish Quar-
terly Review 73:38–58.
1986 “More on Hebrew šibbōlet.” Journal of Semitic Studies 33:255–258.
1988 “The Northern Origin of ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam 23,1–7).”
Biblica 69:113–121.
1989 “Additional Notes on ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam. 23, 1–7).”
Biblica 70:403–408.
1990a Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (American Oriental Series 72). New
Haven: American Oriental Society.
1990b Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (SBL
Monograph Series 43). Atlanta: Scholars.
1991 “The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9.” Biblica 72:348–366.
1992a “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew.”
Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter Bodine, 65–88. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
1992b “Israelian Hebrew Features in Genesis 49.” Maarav 8:161–170.
1992c “Shibboleth.” ABD 5, 1210–1212.
1992d “The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew.” The Galilee in Late
Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine, 225–240. New York / Jerusalem: The J­ ewish
Theological Seminary of America and Cambridge and Massachu-
setts / London: Harvard University Press.
410 bibliography

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

2003 “Non-provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest

Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests.” Maarav
10:135–193.
2006 “Navigating the Epigraphic Storm: A Palaeographer Reflects on
Inscriptions from the Market”. Near Eastern Archaeology 68:69–72.
Rooker, Mark F.
1990 Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel
(Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 90).
Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press.
1996 “Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?”
Westminster Theological Journal 58:303–312.
Rosén, Haiim B.
1975 “‫ אנכי‬et ‫אני‬: Essai de Grammaire, Interprétation et Traduction.”
Mélanges André Neher, ed. E.A. Lévy-Valensi, et al., 253–272.
Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient (reprinted in East and
West: Selected Writings in Linguistics by Haiim B. Rosen. 2 vols., 262–
281 Munich: Fink, 1982–1984).
Rosik, Mariusz
2001 “The Meaning and the Function of He-Locale.” The Polish Journal of
Biblical Research 1:205–211.
Rössler, Otto
1962 “Die Präfixkonjugation Qal der Verba Iae Nûn im Althebräischen
und das Problem der sogenannten Tempora.” Zeitschrift für die Alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 74:125–141.
Rubinstein, Arie
1952 “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Biblical
Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 2:362–367.
1963 “The Anomalous Perfect with Waw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew.”
Biblica 44:62–69.
Rudolph, Wilhelm
1968 Jeremia. 2nd edition (Handbuch zum Alten Testament). Tübingen:
Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Ružička, Rudolf
1909 Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitiscen Sprachen (Beiträge
zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 6/4). Leipzig:
Hinrichs.
Ryssel, Viktor
1878 De Elohistae Pentateuchici Sermone: Commentario Historico-critica.
Leipzig: Fernau.
Ryzhik, Michael
2013 “Orthography: Rabbinic Hebrew.” EHLL 2, 949–956.
bibliography 413

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

1936 Diqduq Lešon ha-Mišna. Tel-Aviv: Dvir.

1953 Sefer Ben Sira ha-Šelema. Jerusalem: Bialik.
1967 The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Bibli-
cal Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Seow, Choon L.
1996 “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 115:643–666.
Seybold, Klaus, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry
1997 “‫מ ֶלְך‬.” ֶ TDOT 8, 346–375.
Shin, Seoung-Yun
2007 “A Lexical Study on the Language of Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi
and Its Place in the History of Biblical Hebrew.” PhD dissertation,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Silverman, Michael
1985 Religious Values in the Jewish Proper Names at Elephantine. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Butzon.
Sivan, Daniel
2001 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. 2nd impression with correc-
tions (Handbuch der Orientalistik 28). Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature and Leiden: Brill.
Smith, Colin J.
2003 “With an Iron Pen and a Diamond Tip: Linguistic Peculiarities of
the Book of Jeremiah. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
Smith, Henry P.
1899 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Inter-
national Critical Commentary 8). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Smith, Mark S.
1991 The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest
Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (Harvard Semitic Studies
39). Atlanta: Scholars.
1997 “How to Write a Poem: The Case of Psalm 151a (11QPsa 28.3–12).”
Muraoka and Elwolde 1997, 182–208.
2000 “The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the
Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey.” Muraoka and Elwolde
2000, 256–267.
Smith, Scobie P.
2000 “The Question of Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew.” Diglossia and Other
Topics in New Testament Linguistics (Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement Series 193; Studies in New Testament
Greek 6), 37–52. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
bibliography 415

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

von Rad, Gerhard

1962 Old Testament Theology, Vol 1. (Old Testament Library). Trans.
D.M.G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
von Soden, Wolfram
1965–1981 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch: Unter Benutzung des lexikalischen
Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (1868–1947). 3 vols. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
1986 “Hebräisch nāṭar I und II.” Ugarit-Forschungen 17:412–414
Wagner, Max
1966 Die Lexikalischen und Grammatikalischen Aramaismen im Alttesta-
mentlichen Hebräisch. Berlin: Töpelmann.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Weinberg, Werner
1980 “Language Consciousness in the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92:185–204.
Weinfeld, Moshe
1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon.
Weippert, Helga
1973 Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132). Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Wellhausen, Julius
1885 Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Trans. J.S. Black and A. Menzies.
Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black.
Wenham, Gordon J.
1979 The Book of Leviticus (New International Commentary on the Old
Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1987–1994 Genesis. 2 vols. (Word Biblical Commentary 1, 2). Dallas: Word.
Wernberg-Møller, Preben
1959 “Observations on the Hebrew Participle.” Zeitschrift für die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 71:54–67.
Whitley, Charles F.
1979 Koheleth: His Language and Thought. Berlin (West): de Gruyter.
Williams, Ronald J.
1976 Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd edition. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Williamson, Hugh G.M.
1977 Isreal in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
420 bibliography

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

2003c “Concluding Reflections.” Young 2003a, 312–317.

2005 “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically.” Hebrew Studies
46:341–351.
2008 “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk.” Journal
of Hebrew Scriptures 8.25:1–38.
2009 “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?” Vetus Testamen-
tum 59:606–629.
Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd
2008 Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox.
Zevit, Ziony
1980 Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs (American Schools
of Oriental Research Monograph Series 2). Cambridge: American
Schools of Oriental Research.
1982 “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P.” Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:502–509.
1983 “A Chapter in the History of Israelite Personal Names.” Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 250:1–16.
1984 “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess.” Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 255:39–47.
2005 “Dating Ruth: Legal, Linguistic and Historical Observations.”
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117:574–600.
2012 “Not-So-Random Thoughts on Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in
Biblical Hebrew.” Miller-Naudé and Zevit 2012, 455–489.
Ziegler, Joseph
1958 Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta (Mitteilungern des Septuaginta-
Unternehmens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 6).
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Zohari, Menahem
1990 Ha-Maqor ha-Muḥlaṭ ve-Šimušav ba-Śafa ha-ʿIvrit. Jerusalem: Karmel.
Zorell, Franz
1951 Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti. Rome: Pontifi-
cal Biblical Institute.
Index of Foreign Words and Phrases

(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

A. Semitic Languages ‫אֹופ ָירה‬ ִ 208n81

‫אֹוצר‬
ָ 60, 158
1. Hebrew ‫אּורּיָ ה‬
ִ 86n37, n38
‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬X 54, 55, 58, 62, 67, 70, 244–251, ‫ ָאז‬60
361 ‫ ֶאזְ ְּכ ֵר ִכי‬114
‫ ָאזְ ָלה‬9
‫א‬ ‫ ָאזְ ַלת‬ 9, 120, 121
‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫בֹות‬
ֵ ‫ ֲא‬ 13, 135, 137, 138, 141, 142 ‫ ֶאזְ ַעק‬82
‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫ ֲא‬ 13, 135, 137, 138, 141 ‫ אחאב ׂה[מלך‬249
‫ ֲא ִביגַ יִ ל‬92n52 ‫ ָא ַחז‬ 12, 60
‫ ֲא ִביגַ ל‬92n52 ‫ ֲא ֻחזֵ י ֶח ֶרב‬148n3
‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ִב‬135n88 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ִח‬135n88
‫ ֶא ֶבן וָ ֶא ֶבן‬283n354 ‫ ַא ְחיֹו‬85n34
‫ ַא ְבנֵ י ֶק ַלע‬275 ‫ ֶא ְחמֹול‬75
‫ ַא ְבנֵ י ְק ָל ִעים‬275 ‫ ַא ַחר זֶ ה‬60
‫ אגריפס המלך‬249 ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי ( ָּכל־)זֹאת‬60
‫ ִאּגֶ ֶרת‬ 14, 60 ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֵכן‬60
‫ ָאדֹון‬302n19 ‫ ֶאּטֹור‬75
‫ ֲא ָדר‬155n37 ‫ ַאּיָ ה‬86n37
-‫ ָא ַהב ְל‬239n216 ‫ ֵא ִיל ָמה‬211n90
‫ א ֶֹהל‬ 211n90, 219, 220 ‫ ַאּיָ ֹלנָ ה‬203n56
‫ א ֵֹה ָלה‬211n90 ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫יפה וְ ֵא‬ָ ‫ ֵא‬283n354
‫ אהרן‬97n71 ‫ ֵאיפֹה‬207n76
‫ אֹוי‬61n8 ‫ ִאיׁש ִאיׁש‬ 282, 283n353
‫‪424‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫)‪ִ 283(n354‬איׁש וָ ִאיׁש‬ ‫ ֲאנִ י‬ ‫‪15, 34–35n97, 53, 55, 58,‬‬

‫יְמינִ י‬
‫‪ִ 309‬איׁש ִ‬ ‫‪59, 62, 65, 108–111, 126,‬‬
‫‪ִ 307n31‬איׁש יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫‪144, 361, 363, 364(n),‬‬
‫הּודה‬ ‫‪ִ 306, 307, 313n47‬איׁש‪ַ /‬אנְ ֵׁשי־יְ ָ‬ ‫‪366n13‬‬
‫‪ִ 306‬איׁש‪ַ /‬אנְ ֵׁשי־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ ֲאנִ י ה'‬ ‫‪109n4, n7‬‬
‫ ִאיׁש ְל‪ֹ-X-‬ו‬ ‫‪219(n120), 220‬‬ ‫‪ֲ 153‬אנָ ְך‬
‫‪ָ 263n296‬אכֹול וְ ָׁשתֹה‬ ‫ אנכי‬ ‫‪109n5, n7, 111, 125n‬‬
‫‪ַ 147n127‬א ְכזָ ר‬ ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬ ‫‪15, 34–35n97, 53, 55, 58,‬‬
‫‪ַ 147n127‬א ְכזָ ִרי‬ ‫‪59, 62, 65, 108–111, 361,‬‬
‫)‪ָ 263(n296‬א ַכל וְ ָׁש ָתה‬ ‫‪363, 364(n), 366n13‬‬
‫אכל‬ ‫‪ָ 266‬אכֹל ּת ֹ ֵ‬ ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ( ַה) ֵׁשם‬ ‫‪275, 278‬‬
‫‪ָ 267n307‬אכֹל‬ ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַחיִ ל‬ ‫‪278, 300n11‬‬
‫‪ 114‬אכלתי‬ ‫‪ַ 278‬אנְ ֵׁשי ֲחיָ ִלים‬
‫ל־ה ָּצפֹונָ ה‬‫‪ֶ 204n63‬א ַ‬ ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ָּדה‬ ‫‪275, 279n341‬‬
‫‪ 250n252‬אל י(רמיהו)‬ ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמּדֹות‬ ‫‪275, 279n341‬‬
‫ ֶאל־יַ ְה ָצה‬ ‫‪208n81, 213, 216(n114),‬‬ ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ְׁשמֹות‬ ‫‪275, 278‬‬
‫‪217n116‬‬ ‫ אס"ף‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬
‫ ֶאל‬ ‫‪14, 35n98, 49n128, 54,‬‬ ‫‪ 75‬אסלוח‬
‫‪55, 59, 69, 203, 204, 218,‬‬ ‫‪ָ 219n119‬א ַסף‬
‫‪222, 224, 225n, 226(n141),‬‬ ‫‪ַ 326‬אף‬
‫‪227–238, 361, 364, 366‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 206‬א ְפ ָרת‬
‫ ַאל‬ ‫‪9, 61n8, 159‬‬ ‫ ֶא ְפ ָר ָתה‬ ‫‪206, 213, 216‬‬
‫‪ֵ 130n75‬א ֶּלה ֵהם‬ ‫‪ֶ 82‬א ְצ ַחק‬
‫‪ 139‬אלהי אבותיהם‬ ‫‪ָ 301‬א ִציל‬
‫‪ 139‬אלהי אבותם‬ ‫‪ֲ 301‬א ִצ ֵילי ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
‫יהם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬‫‪ֱ 9‬א ֵ‬ ‫‪ֵ 205‬א ֶצל‬
‫ֹלהים ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ‫ ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪281n350, 300n14‬‬ ‫‪ֵ 205n67‬א ֶצל ָצ ְר ַתנָ ה‬
‫‪ 97n71‬אלהים‬ ‫‪ָ 168‬אקּום‬
‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪274n333, 334‬‬ ‫קּומה‬‫‪ָ 168‬א ָ‬
‫ֹלהימֹו‬ ‫‪ֱ 9‬א ֵ‬ ‫‪ֶ 168‬א ְקטֹל‬
‫‪ֵ 250n252‬א ַלי‬ ‫‪ֶ 168‬א ְק ְט ָלה‬
‫‪ 85‬אליהו‬ ‫‪ 150‬א ֵֹרג‬
‫‪ 84n30‬אלשב‬ ‫‪ֲ 148n3‬ארֹון‬
‫‪ִ 61‬אם‬ ‫‪ֲ 99n79‬א ַרוְ נָ ה‬
‫ ָאמֹון‬ ‫)‪149, 151, 152(n23‬‬ ‫‪ַ 60‬א ְרמֹון‬
‫‪ֱ 152n23‬אמּונֵ י (יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל)‬ ‫‪ָ 99n79‬א ְרנָ ן‬
‫‪ָ 149n4‬א ָּמן‬ ‫‪ֶ 104‬א ְר ָּפה‬
‫‪ָ 206‬א ְמנָ ה‬ ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪219, 220‬‬
‫‪ֲ 329n101‬א ָמנָ ה‬ ‫ ַא ְר ָצה‬ ‫‪203n58, 205n69, 206,‬‬
‫‪ָ 314‬א ְמנָ ם‬ ‫‪211n89‬‬
‫‪ֻ 314‬א ְמנָ ם‬ ‫‪ַ 211‬א ְר ָצה ְּכנַ ַען‬
‫ ָאנֶ ה‬ ‫‪203n55, 205n69‬‬ ‫‪ 43‬אשדת‬
‫‪ָ 126‬אנּו‬ ‫‪ֵ 43‬אׁש ָּדת‬
‫ אנו‬ ‫‪15, 53, 55, 56, 60, 65,‬‬ ‫אש[ור] ֯ה‬ ‫‪֗ 209n83‬‬
‫‪125–128, 359n‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 82‬א ְׂש ַחק‬
‫‪ֱ 12‬אנֹוׁש‬ ‫ אשיה‬ ‫‪40n110, 84n30‬‬
‫ אנחנו‬ ‫‪126, 128‬‬ ‫‪ 247‬אשיהו·המלכ‬
‫ ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬ ‫‪15, 125–128, 359n‬‬ ‫המלכ‬ ‫‪ 247‬אשיו ֯‬
‫ אני‬ ‫‪109n5, 111, 125n‬‬ ‫‪ַ 78‬א ְׁש ֵּכים‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪425‬‬

‫‪ָ 60‬א ַׁשם‬ ‫‪ִּ 60‬בינָ ה‬

‫‪ַ 329‬א ְשמ ֶֹרת‬ ‫יצי ִצ ְפעֹונִ י‬ ‫‪ֵּ 279n341‬ב ֵ‬
‫ ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫‪9, 253n260‬‬ ‫‪ 78‬ביר‬
‫‪ַ 149n8‬א ְּׁשרּו‬ ‫‪ִּ 60‬ב ָירה‬
‫‪ֵ 274‬א ֶׁשת ְּבנֹו‬ ‫‪ 92n56‬בירות‬
‫ ַא ְּת‬ ‫‪112, 116n23, 119‬‬ ‫‪ֵּ 273‬בית ָאבֹות‬
‫ את‬ ‫‪113n19, 115, 116n23,‬‬ ‫אֹוצר‬‫‪ֵּ 60‬בית ָ‬
‫‪118n27, n28‬‬ ‫ֹלהינּו‬ ‫‪ֵּ 117‬בית ֱא ֵ‬
‫ ֵאת‪ִ /‬אּת‪-‬‬ ‫‪15, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 176,‬‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ ֵּבית ה'‪ֱ /‬א ִ‬ ‫‪60, 219n121, 220n125‬‬
‫‪187–202, 243(n237),‬‬ ‫‪ֵּ 273‬בית ַה ָּבמֹות‬
‫‪366n13‬‬ ‫‪ֵּ 278n336‬בית ֶּכ ֶלא‬
‫‪ֵ 9, 14, 54, 55, 58, 59, 176,‬את‪ֶ /‬את‪/-‬אֹת‪/-‬אות‪-‬‬ ‫‪ֵּ 60‬בית ִמ ְק ָּדׁש‬
‫‪187n2, 192–202, 243‬‬ ‫ית־מ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת‬ ‫‪ֵּ 329‬ב ִ‬
‫‪ָ 12‬א ָתה‬ ‫‪ֵּ 273n331‬בית ְס ָפ ִרים‬
‫‪ַ 113n19‬א ָּתה‬ ‫‪ֵּ 60‬בית ְק ָברֹות‬
‫‪ֶ 75‬אּתֹוׁש‬ ‫ ַּביִת‬ ‫‪18, 60, 219, 220‬‬
‫ אתי‬ ‫‪58, 64, 112, 114–119, 144‬‬ ‫ ביתה‬ ‫‪204n61, 222n132‬‬
‫יְתה‬ ‫ ַּב ָ‬ ‫‪205n69, 213n95‬‬
‫ב‬ ‫‪ָּ 211n88‬ב ָכה‬
‫ ְּב‪-‬‬ ‫‪187n1, 205, 243n235‬‬ ‫כֹורי ְב ָק ֵרינּו‬ ‫‪ְּ 275‬ב ֵ‬
‫‪ָּ 259‬בא וְ זָ ַרח‬ ‫‪ְ 284n348‬ב ָכל־דֹור וָ דֹור‬
‫‪ָ 143‬ב ָאה‬ ‫ּומ ִדינָ ה‬ ‫ל־מ ִדינָ ה ְ‬‫‪ְּ 284n348‬ב ָכ ְ‬
‫‪ָּ 78‬באזִ ִּקים‬ ‫ל־ׁשנָ ה וְ ָׁשנָ ה‬ ‫‪ְּ 284n348‬ב ָכ ָ‬
‫‪ 335n115‬בא ל‪-‬‬ ‫‪ְּ 60‬ב ֵכן‬
‫‪ 78‬באר‬ ‫‪ְּ 275‬בכֹר ֹת ְּב ָק ְרָך‬
‫‪ְּ 211n89‬ב ֵא ָרה‬ ‫‪ְּ 275‬בכֹר ֹת ְּב ַק ְר ֶכם‬
‫‪ְּ 92n56‬ב ֵארֹות‬ ‫‪ַּ 9‬בל‬
‫‪ָּ 218n116‬ב ֶבל‬ ‫‪ָּ 135n88‬בם‬
‫ ָּב ֵב ָלה‬ ‫‪208n81, 212, 217(n216),‬‬ ‫‪ 280n342‬במכסות נפשות‬
‫‪225n‬‬ ‫‪ְּ 280n342‬ב ִמ ְכ ַסת נְ ָפׁשֹות‬
‫ ּבֹגֵ ָדה‬ ‫‪149, 151‬‬ ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ‫ ֶּב ָ‬ ‫‪12, 201‬‬
‫‪ 279n341‬בגדי רוק̇ ֯מו֯ [ת‬ ‫‪ֶּ 9‬בן ֲאתֹנֹו‬
‫‪ִּ 279n341‬בגְ ֵדי ִר ְק ָמ ֵתְך‪ָ -/‬תם‬ ‫ן־ּבעֹור‬ ‫‪ֶּ 9‬ב ְ‬
‫גֹודה‬ ‫ ָּב ָ‬ ‫‪149, 151‬‬ ‫ בן חורין‬ ‫‪301, 302‬‬
‫‪ְּ 33n93‬ב ָד ְב ְרָך‬ ‫ ֵּבן‬ ‫)‪17n43, 101(n88‬‬
‫‪ִּ 60‬ב ֵהל‬ ‫‪ 84n30‬בנאשיה‬
‫‪ַּ 135n88‬ב ֶהם‬ ‫‪ַּ 205n66‬בּנֶ גְ ָּבה‬
‫‪ְּ 267n310‬ב ַהנְ ֵחל‬ ‫‪ְּ 9‬בנֹו ְבעֹר‬
‫ ּבֹוא‬ ‫‪12, 172n42, 174n42, 204,‬‬ ‫ ָּבנֹות ָצ ֲע ָדה‬ ‫‪9, 143‬‬
‫‪219n119‬‬ ‫‪ָּ 9‬בנֹות ָצ ֲעדּו‬
‫‪ּ 155‬בּוז‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫נֹות ֶ‬ ‫ ְּב ֵ‬ ‫‪136, 140, 141‬‬
‫‪ּ 14‬בּוץ‬ ‫נֹותם‬ ‫ ּב ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪141‬‬
‫‪ 78‬בור‬ ‫‪ְּ 9‬בנִ י ֲאתֹנֹו‬
‫‪ַּ 60‬בז‬ ‫ ְּבנֵ י ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ ‫‪275, 278‬‬
‫‪ִּ 60‬בּזָ ה‬ ‫ ְּבנֵ י ( ַה) ֵלוִ י‬ ‫‪275, 278‬‬
‫ ָּבחֹון‬ ‫‪149(n5), 151‬‬ ‫‪ְּ 275‬בנֵ י ַה ְּק ָה ִתי‬
‫‪ 150n16‬בחון‬ ‫‪ְּ 275‬בנֵ י ַה ְּק ָה ִתים‬
‫ ּב ֵֹחן‬ ‫‪149, 151‬‬ ‫‪ 302‬בני חורין‬
‫‪ָּ 261n285‬ב ַח ְר ִּתי וְ ִה ְק ַּד ְׁש ִּתי‬ ‫הּודה‬ ‫ ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫‪306, 307, 312n45, 313n47‬‬
‫‪426‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫ ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬

‫‪306, 308n36, 312n45,‬‬ ‫‪ּ 219n119‬גָ ָלה‬
‫‪313n47‬‬ ‫‪ּ 329n101‬גִ ְל ָעד‬
‫‪ְּ 282‬בנֵ י ָל ִביא‬ ‫‪ּ 56‬גַ ְל ֵעד‬
‫‪ְּ 275‬בנֵ י ֲענָ ק‬ ‫‪ּ 208n82‬גִ ְל ָע ָדה‬
‫‪ְּ 275‬בנֵ י ֲענָ ִקים‬ ‫‪ּ 90n49‬גְ ַמ ְריָ ה‬
‫‪ 89n44‬בניה‬ ‫‪ּ 14‬גַ ן‬
‫‪ 89n44‬בניהו‬ ‫‪ּ 120‬גְ נָ ָב ַתם‬
‫ בניכי‬ ‫‪114, 116n23‬‬ ‫‪ּ 267‬גָ נֹון‬
‫‪ִּ 60‬בנְ יָ ן‬ ‫‪ּ 60‬גֶ נֶ ז‬
‫ ְּבנ ָֹתם‬ ‫‪136, 140‬‬ ‫‪ּ 60‬גַ נְ זַ ְך‬
‫‪ַּ 149‬ב ַעל ֲחלֹומֹות‬ ‫‪ 280n342‬גרושי ירחים‬
‫‪ַּ 208n81‬ב ֲע ָל ָתה‬ ‫‪ּ 280n342‬גֶ ֶרׁש יְ ָר ִחים‬
‫‪ 279n341‬בצי צפעונים‬ ‫ ּגֶ ֶׁשם‬ ‫‪81n28, 298‬‬
‫ ְּב ִר ְב ָל ָתה‬ ‫‪213, 216, 217n116‬‬ ‫‪ּ 298‬גְ ָש ֹ ִמים‬
‫‪ָּ 219n119‬ב ַרח‬ ‫‪ּ 203n55‬גִ ָּתה‬
‫‪ֶּ 88‬ב ֶר ְכיָ הּו‬
‫‪ 18‬בת‬ ‫ד‬
‫תֹוכ ִכי‬‫‪ְּ 114‬ב ֵ‬ ‫ ִּד ְב ָלה‬ ‫‪213n98, 215n109‬‬
‫‪ָּ 273n330‬ב ֵתי ( ָה) ָאב‬ ‫ ִּד ְב ָל ָתה‬ ‫‪215(n109, n111,‬‬
‫‪ָּ 278n336‬ב ֵּתי ְכ ָל ִאים‬ ‫)‪n112‬‬
‫‪ 280n342‬בתי כנסות‬ ‫‪ְּ 297‬ד ַבר ה'‬
‫‪ 280n342‬בתי מדרשות‬ ‫‪ְּ 14‬ד ַבר ( ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך)‬
‫‪ַּ 273n331‬ב ֵּתי ֵס ֶפר‬ ‫‪ְּ 287‬ד ַבר־יֹום ְּביֹומֹו‬
‫ ָּד ָבר‬ ‫‪295, 297‬‬
‫ג‬ ‫‪ 33n93‬ד ֵֹבר‬
‫‪ 61‬גב"ר‬ ‫‪ָּ 33n93‬ד ֻבר‬
‫‪ּ 215‬גְ בּול‬ ‫ ִּד ֶּבר‬ ‫‪33n93, 295n5‬‬
‫‪ּ 274‬גִ ּבֹור ַחיִ ל‬ ‫ ִּד ֵּבר‬ ‫‪54, 55, 59, 65,‬‬
‫‪ 279n341‬גבורי אלים‬ ‫‪294–297, 359n‬‬
‫ּבֹורי ֶה ָחיִ ל‬
‫ ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫‪278, 298‬‬ ‫‪ְּ 60‬ד ַבר‪ִּ /‬ד ְב ֵרי (יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‪/‬ה'‪/‬נָ ִביא)‬
‫ּבֹורי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬‫‪ּ 279n341‬גִ ֵ‬ ‫‪ִּ 276‬ד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּב ָּצרֹות‬
‫ּבֹורי ַחיִ ל‬‫ ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫‪14, 273, 274, 276‬‬ ‫‪ 279n340‬דברי ה[שרמ‬
‫ּבֹורי ֲחיָ ִלים‬ ‫ ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫‪14, 274, 276, 278, 298‬‬ ‫‪ִ 118‬ד ַּב ְר ְּת‬
‫‪ 279n341‬גבורי מלחמות‬ ‫ דברתי‬ ‫‪114, 118‬‬
‫ּבֹורי‬
‫ ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫‪298, 299‬‬ ‫‪ְּ 203n55‬ד ָדנֶ ה‬
‫יהם‬ ‫ּגֹות ֶ‬
‫‪ּ 141‬גַ ֵ‬ ‫‪ 73‬דוד‬
‫ ּגָ דֹול‬ ‫‪301, 345, 346‬‬ ‫‪ָּ 13‬דוִ ד‬
‫ ּגְ ִדי ִעּזִ ים‬ ‫‪274, 282‬‬ ‫ ָּדוִ ד ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫‪245n244, 249‬‬
‫ ּגְ ָדיֵ י ִעּזִ ים‬ ‫‪274, 282‬‬ ‫ דויד‬ ‫‪13, 73‬‬
‫‪ּ 301‬גְ ד ֵֹלי ָה ִעיר‬ ‫‪ָּ 13‬דוִ יד‬
‫רֹומ ְמ ִּתי‬
‫‪ּ 259‬גִ ַּד ְל ִּתי וְ ַ֫‬ ‫ּדּומם‬
‫‪ָ 314‬‬
‫‪ּ 283n353‬גֹוי ּגֹוי‬ ‫‪ּ 284n356‬דֹור‬
‫‪ּ 308n35‬גֹוי‬ ‫ ּדֹור ּדֹור‬ ‫‪283n353, n355‬‬
‫‪ּ 282‬גּור ַא ְריֵ ה‬ ‫ ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬ ‫‪283(n354), 284,‬‬
‫‪ּ 282‬גּור ֲא ָריֹות‬ ‫‪286(n365), 365‬‬
‫ּגּורי ֲא ָריֹות‬ ‫‪ֵ 282‬‬ ‫‪ 279n341‬דורות עולמים‬
‫ּגֹורל‬
‫‪ָ 155‬‬ ‫‪ 139‬דורותיהמה‬
‫‪ּ 298‬גְ זֵ ָלה‬ ‫ּדֹורֹותם‬
‫ָ‬ ‫‪ 139‬‬
‫‪ּ 298‬גְ זֵ לֹות‬ ‫ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק‬ ‫‪14, 60, 329n101‬‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪427‬‬

‫‪ֵּ 60‬ד ָעה‬ ‫‪ַ 147‬הּזֹאת‬

‫‪ַּ 60‬ד ַעת‬ ‫‪ 147‬הזאתה‬
‫עֹול ִמים‬‫‪ּ 276‬ד ֹרֹות ָ‬ ‫אתי‬ ‫‪ַ 147n127‬הז ֹ ִ‬
‫‪ַּ 15n40‬ד ְריָ וֶ ׁש‬ ‫ ִהזְ ִעיק‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬
‫‪ 144‬דרכוהי‬ ‫חּוצה‬ ‫‪ַ 203n53‬ה ָ‬
‫ ַּד ְר ֶמ ֶׂשק‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬ ‫‪ 78‬החטי את‬
‫‪ָּ 60‬ד ַרׁש ( ֶאת־)ה'‬ ‫‪ַ 206‬ה ַח ְׁש ַמ ָלה‬
‫‪ָּ 241‬ד ַרׁש ְל‪-‬‬ ‫‪ִ 204n60‬היא‬
‫ּתֹורה‪ִ /‬מ ְצֹות‪/‬חֹק‬
‫‪ָּ 60‬ד ַרׁש ‪ָ +‬‬ ‫‪ַ 211n90‬היְ א ָֹרה‬
‫עֹולם‬
‫ ּדֹר ֹת ָ‬ ‫‪276, 279n341‬‬ ‫ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫‪121(n38), 172n40, 178n66‬‬
‫ ָּדת‬ ‫‪12, 14, 43‬‬ ‫‪ַ 314–315n52‬הּיֹום‬
‫‪ּ 93n58‬ד ָֹתיְ נָ ה‬ ‫יטב‬ ‫ ֵה ֵ‬ ‫‪266n304, 267n308‬‬
‫יטיב‬ ‫ ֵה ִ‬ ‫‪333, 334, 336‬‬
‫ה‬ ‫‪ 114‬הייתי‬
‫‪◌ֶ - 175‬ה‬ ‫יכל‬ ‫‪ֵ 341n139‬ה ָ‬
‫ ‪-‬ה‬ ‫‪77, 121, 125, 129,‬‬ ‫‪ 249‬הילני המלכה‬
‫‪144n113, 166‬‬ ‫ הית‪/‬והית‬ ‫)‪120, 121(n36‬‬
‫‪ׁ◌- 9‬ה‬ ‫יְתה‬ ‫‪ָ 121n38‬ה ָ‬
‫ ‪◌ָ -‬ה‬ ‫‪9, 18, 34n97, 54–56,‬‬ ‫‪ 173n46‬הכה‬
‫‪59, 65, 69, 106n, 120n,‬‬ ‫ ֵה ִכין ְל‪-‬‬ ‫‪241, 242‬‬
‫‪166, 170n36, 203–217,‬‬ ‫)‪ִ 242(n231‬ה ְכ ִרית ְל‪-‬‬
‫‪226n141, 361, 363‬‬ ‫‪ִ 112n‬ה ְכ ַר ְע ִּתנִ י‬
‫ ַה‪-‬‬ ‫‪9, 253n260‬‬ ‫‪ 14‬הל"ל‬
‫‪ָ 78‬האזִ ִּקים‬ ‫א־הם‬ ‫‪ֲ 130n75‬הל ֹ ֵ‬
‫‪ 152n23‬האמון‬ ‫א־ה ָּמה‬ ‫‪ֲ 130n75‬הל ֹ ֵ‬
‫ ֻה ָבאת‬ ‫‪120, 121‬‬ ‫ ָה ְל ָאה‬ ‫‪213n95, 214n102‬‬
‫‪ִ 60‬ה ְב ִהיל‬ ‫ ֶה ְל ָאת‬ ‫‪120, 121‬‬
‫ ֵה ִביא‬ ‫‪211n88, 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ 77‬הלוא‬
‫‪ִ 173n49‬הּגִ יד‬ ‫‪ָ 266‬הלֹוְך וָ ׁשֹוב‬
‫‪ִ 219n119‬הּגִ ַיע‬ ‫‪ָ 272‬הלֹוְך‬
‫‪ִ 219n119‬הגִ ָלה‬ ‫ ָה ַלְך‬ ‫‪204, 219n119‬‬
‫ ָהגְ ָלת‬ ‫‪120–122, 125‬‬ ‫‪ָ 119‬ה ָל ְכ ְּת‬
‫‪ָ 122‬הגְ ְל ָתה‬ ‫‪ 119‬הלכתי‬
‫‪ֲ 271‬הגָ נֹב‬ ‫)‪ִ 239(n219‬ה ֵּלל‬
‫‪ 295n3‬הדבור של קדושה‬ ‫‪ִ 60‬ה ְל ִעיג‬
‫‪ 101‬הדדעזר‬ ‫ הם‬ ‫‪129, 130, 132, 133, 134‬‬
‫‪ 296‬הדיבר‬ ‫‪- 135n88‬הם‬
‫‪ 101‬הדרעזר‬ ‫ ֵהם‬ ‫‪59, 129, 131, 133, 134, 204n60‬‬
‫‪ 130n75‬ההם‬ ‫ ‪ֶ -‬הם‬ ‫‪9, 135n88‬‬
‫‪ 130n75‬ההמה‬ ‫ המה‬ ‫‪129, 130, 132, 133‬‬
‫‪ 152n23‬ההמון‬ ‫ ֵה ָּמה‬ ‫‪53, 55, 59, 129, 131, 133, 134‬‬
‫‪ 204n60‬הּוא‬ ‫‪ִ 266n305‬הּמֹול‬
‫הֹוביל‬‫‪ִ 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ַ 207‬ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬
‫הּובל‬
‫‪ַ 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ַ 204n62‬ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ָחה‬
‫הֹוציא‬ ‫‪ִ 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ַ 329n101‬ה ַּמ ֲחנָ יִ ם‬
‫הֹור ְד ֵּתנּו‬
‫‪ַ 112n‬‬ ‫יְמה‬ ‫‪ַ 211n90‬ה ַּמ ָ‬
‫הֹוריד‬ ‫ ִ‬ ‫‪211n88, 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ַ ( 324n81‬ה) ֶמ ֶלְך‬
‫הֹוׁשיט יָ ד‬ ‫‪ִ 60‬‬ ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ‪X‬‬ ‫‪62, 70, 244–251, 361‬‬
‫הֹוׁש ַיע ְל‪-‬‬
‫‪ִ 241‬‬ ‫‪ַ 248‬ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָא ָחז‬
‫‪428‬‬
‫‪ַ 248‬ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָּדוִ ד‬
‫‪ַ 248‬ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִחזְ ִקּיָ הּו‬
‫‪ 248‬המלך עזיהו‬
‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְׁשֹלמֹה‬
‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬
‫‪ַ 114‬ה ְמ ַע ְּט ֵר ִכי‬
‫ הן‬
‫‪ֵ 134‬הן‬
‫ הנה‪ֵ /‬הּנָ ה‬
‫‪ִ 219n119‬הּנִ ַיח‬
‫‪ֵ 219n119‬ה ִסיר‬
‫‪ָ 211n90‬ה ַעיְ נָ ה‬
‫‪ָ 95‬ה ִעיר‬
‫ העירה‬
‫‪ָ 147n125‬ה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת‬
‫‪ֶ 219n119‬ה ֱע ָלה‬
‫‪ָ 307n31‬ה ָעם‬
‫‪ֶ 332‬ה ֱע ִריב‬
‫‪ֶ 337‬ה ֱע ִׁשיר‬
‫ ֶה ְע ִּתיר‬
‫‪ֵ 219n119‬ה ִפיץ‬
‫‪ָ 219n119‬ה ַפְך‬
‫‪ִ 60‬ה ְפ ִקיד‬
‫‪ַ 211n90‬ה ֶּפ ְת ָחה‬
‫‪ִ 9‬ה ִּציב‬
‫)‪ִ 259(n281‬ה ִּצ ָילנִ י‬
‫ ִה ְצ ִעיק‬
‫‪ִ 207‬ה ְק ִטיר ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬
‫‪ִ 205n69, 207, 209‬ה ְק ִטיר ( ַה) ִמזְ ֵּב ָחה‬
‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬
‫‪ִ 207‬ה ְק ִטיר ַע ַ‬
‫ ֵה ִקים‬
‫‪ִ 260‬ה ְק ָׁשה‬
‫ ַה ְר ֵּבה ( ְמאֹד)‬
‫‪ִ 119‬ה ְר ֵּבית‬
‫ הרביתי‬
‫‪ָ 239n216‬ה ַרג ְל‪-‬‬
‫‪ִ 242‬ה ְרּגִ יז ְל‪-‬‬
‫‪ִ 242‬ה ְרּגִ יז‬
‫רֹופה‬ ‫‪ָ 105‬ה ֵ‬
‫)‪ַ 266(n304‬ה ְר ֵחק‬
‫‪ָ 201‬ה ֵרי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
‫‪ֵ 60‬ה ִריץ‬
‫‪ִ 103‬ה ְר ָּפה‬
‫ ִה ְר ָצת‪/‬וְ ִה ְר ָצת‬
‫‪ִ 112n‬ה ְׁש ַּב ְע ָּתנּו‬
‫‪ִ 95‬ה ְׂש ִחיק‬
‫‪ֵ 219n119‬ה ִׁשיב‬
‫‪ַ 78‬ה ְׁש ֵּכים‬
‫ ַה ְׁש ֵּכם וְ ַל ֵּמד‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬
‫ ַה ְׁש ֵּכם‬ ‫‪269, 270n321‬‬
‫‪ִ 219n119‬ה ְׁש ִליְך‬
‫‪ֻ 219n119‬ה ְׁש ַלְך‬
‫‪14, 35n99, 247‬‬ ‫)‪ַ 216(n113‬ה ָש ַמיִם ִמ ַּמ ַעל‬
‫)‪245n243, 246(n246‬‬ ‫‪ 173n46‬השתחוה‬
‫‪ַ 205n69‬ה ַּת ְחּתֹונָ ה‬
‫‪129, 130, 133n84, 134‬‬ ‫‪ִ 309‬ה ְתיַ ֵהד‬
‫‪ִ 104‬ה ְת ַר ֵּפא‬
‫‪130, 204n60‬‬ ‫‪ִ 103‬ה ְת ַר ָּפה‬
‫ו‬
‫‪ 87n40‬ו‪-‬‬
‫‪- 77‬ו‬
‫‪204n61, 222n132‬‬ ‫‪ֹ- 9‬ו‬
‫‪( 74‬ו)יקטול‬
‫‪( 119‬וְ ) ָק ַט ְל ְּת‬
‫‪( 114‬ו)קטלתי‬
‫‪( 114‬וְ ) ָק ַט ְל ִּתי‬
‫‪ 160‬וָ ַאגְ ִּדיל‬
‫‪336, 337‬‬ ‫‪ 160‬וָ ָאגְ ִּד ָילה‬
‫‪ 160‬וָ אגדל‬
‫‪ 160‬וַ ַאגְ ִּדל‬
‫‪ 166‬ואגלה‬
‫‪ 166‬וָ ֶאגְ ֶלה‬
‫‪ 166‬וָ ֶאגְ ָלה‬
‫‪ 170n35‬וְ אדעה‬
‫‪79, 80‬‬ ‫‪ 170‬וָ ֵא ָד ָעה‬
‫‪ 165‬ואוליך‬
‫אֹולְך‬
‫‪ 165‬וָ ֵ‬
‫ואֹוׂמׂרה‬ ‫‪̇ 165‬‬
‫‪14, 61‬‬ ‫‪ 60‬וְ ֵאין‬
‫‪ 164‬וָ ַאְך‬
‫‪60, 266n304‬‬ ‫‪ 164‬ואכה‬
‫‪ 164‬וָ ַא ֶכה‬
‫‪114, 119‬‬ ‫)‪ 265(n303‬וְ ָא ַכל‬
‫‪ 263‬וַ ֲא ָכ ֻלהּו‬
‫‪ 260‬וְ ִא ֵּמץ‬
‫‪ 165‬וָ א ַֹמר‬
‫‪ 165‬ואמרה‬
‫‪ 165‬וָ א ְֹמ ָרה‬
‫‪ 247‬וְ ָא ָסא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬
‫‪ 258n279‬ואסמ‬
‫‪ 168‬וָ ֲא ַצּוֶ ה‬
‫‪120, 121‬‬ ‫ וָ ָאקּום‬ ‫‪160, 167–169, 176‬‬
‫קּומה‬ ‫ וָ ָא ָ‬ ‫‪160, 166–169‬‬
‫ וָ ֶא ְקטֹל‬ ‫‪160, 168, 169, 176‬‬
‫ וָ ֶא ְק ְט ָלה‬ ‫‪160, 168, 169, 176‬‬
‫‪ 169‬וָ ָא ִקים‬
‫‪269, 270n321‬‬ ‫ימה‬ ‫‪ 169‬וָ ָא ִק ָ‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪429‬‬

‫ וָ ָא ָקם‬ ‫‪160, 166–168, 176‬‬ ‫‪ 181n76‬וְ ַחי‬

‫‪ 160‬וָ ֶא ֶקן‬ ‫ וָ ַחי‬ ‫)‪181n76, 184(n87‬‬
‫ וָ ֶא ְקנֶ ה‬ ‫‪160, 169‬‬ ‫‪ 186‬וָ ָחי‬
‫‪ 164‬וָ ָא ֵשב‬ ‫‪ 181n76‬וְ ֵחי‬
‫‪ 165‬וָ ֶא ְשבֹר‬ ‫ וחיה‬ ‫‪184, 186‬‬
‫‪ 165‬ואשברה‬ ‫ וְ ָחיָ ה‬ ‫‪182n80, 184–186‬‬
‫‪ 164‬וָ ָא ִשיב‬ ‫‪ 184n88‬וחיתה‬
‫‪ 164‬וָ ָא ִש ָיבה‬ ‫יְתה‬ ‫ וְ ָח ָ‬ ‫‪185, 186‬‬
‫‪ 298n9‬וַ ֲא ֵׁש ֵיר ֶהם‬ ‫יִתה‬ ‫‪ 186‬וְ ָח ָ‬
‫‪ 170n36‬וָ ֶא ְׁשקֹל־ּלֹו‬ ‫‪ 258n279‬וְ ָח ְל ָפה‬
‫‪ 170‬וָ ֶא ְׁש ֲק ָלה‬ ‫‪ 263‬וְ ָחפּו‬
‫‪ 168‬וָ ֶא ְׁש ַּת ֲחוֶ ה‬ ‫‪ 263‬וְ ָח ֵפ ָרה‬
‫‪ 119‬וְ ַא ְּת‬ ‫‪ 278‬וְ ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵעץ‬
‫‪ 259‬וְ ָא ָתה‬ ‫‪ 278‬וְ ָח ָר ֵׁשי ֵע ִצים‬
‫‪ 119‬ואתי‬ ‫‪ 263‬וְ ָח ַׁשב‬
‫ּוב ַבית ֲע ָב ֶדיָך‬ ‫‪ְ 280n342‬‬ ‫‪ 263‬וָ ָח ָּתה‬
‫‪ 280n342‬ובבתי עבדיך‬ ‫‪ 270‬וְ ָחתֹום‬
‫ּוב ֲח ַדר ִמ ְׁש ָּכ ְבָך‬‫‪ַ 280n342‬‬ ‫‪ 328‬וט"ר‬
‫‪ 280n342‬ובחדרי משכביך‬ ‫אכל וַ ּיֵ ְׁש ְּת‬
‫‪ 263n296‬וַ ּי ֹ ַ‬
‫ּוב ַח ְר ִּתי‬
‫‪ָ 257‬‬ ‫‪ 173n49‬וַ ֵּיָבא‬
‫ּוב ָכל־יֹום וָ יֹום‬ ‫‪ְ 284n348‬‬ ‫ ויביא‬ ‫‪173n48, n49, 174‬‬
‫ּובנּו‬‫‪ָ 265‬‬ ‫‪ 172n41‬וַ ִּיָביא‬
‫‪ 261‬וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן‬ ‫‪ 172n41‬וַ ֵּיָביא‬
‫‪ 112n‬וַ ֲה ֵבאתֹו‬ ‫ וַ ֶּיִבן‬ ‫‪175(n60), 177‬‬
‫‪ 257‬וְ ֵה ַדק‬ ‫‪ 175–178‬וַ ְּיִבנֶ ה‬
‫‪ 144‬והחזיקה‬ ‫ ויגיד‬ ‫‪173n48, n49‬‬
‫‪ 114‬וְ ַה ֲח ַר ְמ ִּתי‬ ‫‪ 173n50‬ויגיש‬
‫ֹוהי‬‫ ‪ִ -‬‬ ‫‪117, 143n113‬‬ ‫‪ 180‬וַ ּיִ גֶ ל‬
‫ והיה‬ ‫‪143, 264‬‬ ‫ידּוע ח ִֹלי‬ ‫‪ 148n3‬וִ ַ‬
‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫‪40, 143, 264‬‬ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫‪40, 180, 264‬‬
‫‪ 257‬והיו‬ ‫‪ 173n48‬ויהיר‬
‫‪ 211n91‬והירדנה‬ ‫‪ 173n50‬ויוליד‬
‫‪ 265‬וְ ִהּכּו‬ ‫ּיֹוצא‬‫‪ 172n41‬וַ ִ‬
‫‪ 263‬וְ ָה ְכ ְלמּו‬ ‫ ויוציא‬ ‫‪173n49, n50‬‬
‫‪ 272‬וְ ָהֹלְך‬ ‫‪ 173n50‬ויזיד‬
‫‪ 258n279‬וְ ָה ְל ָמה‬ ‫‪ 172n45‬וַ ּיֶ ֱחזָ ק‬
‫‪ 247‬וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָא ָסא‬ ‫‪ 172n41‬וַ ּיַ ֲח ִטא‬
‫‪ 272‬וְ ַה ֵּסיְך‬ ‫ ויחיה‬ ‫‪172n45, 186‬‬
‫ וְ ַה ֵּסְך‬ ‫‪269, 272‬‬ ‫ וַ ּיַ ְח ִׁשְך‬ ‫‪172n41, 174‬‬
‫ וְ ִה ִּסכּו‬ ‫‪264(n301), 269n319‬‬ ‫‪ 179n70‬ויך‬
‫‪ 307n31‬וְ ָה ִע ְב ִרים ָהיּו ַל ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬ ‫‪ 179‬וַ ּיַ ֵּכ ֻה‬
‫‪ 270‬וְ ָה ֵעד‬ ‫ וַ ּיַ ֶּכה‬ ‫‪179(n70), 180‬‬
‫‪ 261n287‬וְ ַה ַע ְל ָתה‬ ‫‪ 172n46‬ויכי‬
‫‪ 144‬והצליחה‬ ‫‪ 264‬וְ יָ ְכלּו‬
‫‪ 271‬וְ ִה ָּׁש ֵב ַע‬ ‫‪ 173n50‬וילביש‬
‫‪ 260n284‬וְ ִה ְׁש ַּב ֶּתם‬ ‫‪ 173n52‬וימות‬
‫ וְ ַה ְׁש ֵלְך‬ ‫‪270, 272‬‬ ‫‪ 173n52‬וינוח‬
‫‪ 263‬וְ ֻה ְׁש ְלכּו‬ ‫‪ 173n52‬וַ ּיָ נַ ח‬
‫ וחי‬ ‫‪184n84, 186‬‬ ‫‪ 173n50‬ויסתיר‬
‫‪430‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫‪ 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

‫ ַחיִ ל‬ ‫‪54–56, 58, 60,‬‬ ‫‪ֵ 260‬ח ַר ְפ ָּת וְ גִ ַ ּ֫ד ְפ ָּת‬

‫‪66, 298–300‬‬ ‫‪ 149‬ח ֵֹרׁש‬
‫‪ֵ 281n349,‬ח ֵיל ֶהם‬ ‫ ָח ָרׁש‬ ‫‪149(n4), 151, 304, 305n25‬‬
‫‪298n9‬‬ ‫‪ָ 276‬ח ָר ֵׁשי ֵעץ‬
‫‪ֲ 281(n349),‬חיָ ִלים‬ ‫‪ָ 276‬ח ָר ֵׁשי ֵע ִצים‬
‫‪298–300‬‬ ‫‪ 149‬ח ֵֹׁשב‬
‫‪ַ 120‬חּיַ ת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ֶ 329n101‬ח ְׁשּבֹון‬
‫ ָחיְ ָתה‬ ‫‪181, 185‬‬ ‫ ִח ְּת ָתה‬ ‫‪143, 145‬‬
‫‪ָ 149‬ח ָכם‬
‫‪ָ 60‬ח ְכ ָמה‬ ‫ט‬
‫‪ֶ 298n9‬ח ְל ְּב ֶהן‬ ‫‪ְ 328n94‬טבּול‬
‫ ָחלֹום‬ ‫‪149, 152n22‬‬ ‫ ְט ָהר‬ ‫‪155, 157n40‬‬
‫‪ֲ 141‬חלֹומ ָֹתם‬ ‫ טֹוב‬ ‫‪333, 334, 336‬‬
‫‪ָ 203n55,‬ח ִל ָילה‬ ‫יטיב ְּב ֵעינֵ י‪-‬‬
‫ טֹוב‪ֵ /‬ה ִ‬ ‫‪333, 334‬‬
‫‪205n69‬‬ ‫‪ִ 328n94‬ט ְפ ָסר‬
‫‪ִ 220n123‬ח ֵּלל‬
‫‪ 149‬ח ֵֹלם‬ ‫י‬
‫יכם ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ֶּתם ַמ ְח ְל ִמים‬
‫‪ֲ 152n22‬חֹלמ ֵֹת ֶ‬ ‫ ‪◌ֵ -‬י‪-‬‬ ‫‪13, 135‬‬
‫‪ 88n44‬חלקיה‬ ‫ ‪◌ִ -‬י‬ ‫‪9, 58, 64, 180‬‬
‫‪ִ 90n49‬ח ְל ִקּיָ ה‬ ‫‪ 249‬י(ה)ונתן המלך‬
‫‪ 88n44‬חלקיהו‬ ‫‪ 85‬יאשיהו‬
‫‪ָ 149n8‬חמּוץ‬ ‫אׁשּיָ הּו‬
‫‪ 88‬י ֹ ִ‬
‫)‪ָ 149(n8‬חמֹוץ‬ ‫‪ 249‬יאשיהו המלך‬
‫ ָח ַמל‬ ‫‪74, 75‬‬ ‫אׁשּיָ הּו ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬
‫ י ֹ ִ‬ ‫‪249, 250‬‬
‫‪ 143‬חמרמרה‬ ‫‪ְ 175‬יִבנֶ ה‬
‫‪ֲ 208n82‬ח ָמ ָתה‬ ‫‪ֵ 208n81‬יָב ָׁשה‬
‫‪ 211n91‬חמתה‬ ‫יעּה‬ ‫‪ 157n42‬יְ גִ ָ‬
‫‪ִ 314‬חּנָ ם‬ ‫‪ 33n93‬יְ ַּד ֵּבר‬
‫‪ֲ 90n49‬חנַ נְ יָ ה‬ ‫‪ 150n16‬ידועי‬
‫‪ֶ 298‬ח ֶסד‬ ‫‪ 149‬י ֵֹד ַע‬
‫‪ֲ 298‬ח ָס ִדים‬ ‫ ‪-‬יה‬ ‫‪39, 40, 53, 55, 59, 64,‬‬
‫‪ָ 9‬חסּו‬ ‫‪66, 83(n30), 85, 86n37,‬‬
‫‪ָ 9‬ח ָסיּו‬ ‫‪89, 95, 102, 177n6, 365,‬‬
‫‪ִ 14‬ח ָּפה‬ ‫‪366n13‬‬
‫‪ָ 336‬ח ֵפץ‬ ‫ ‪-‬יָ ה‬ ‫‪62, 66, 67, 70, 86n37,‬‬
‫‪ֵ 61‬ח ֶפץ‬ ‫‪91n50, 199, 250n253,‬‬
‫ ָח ְפ ִׁשי‬ ‫‪302, 303n19,‬‬ ‫‪n254, 362‬‬
‫‪305n25‬‬ ‫‪ 155‬יְ ָהב‬
‫‪ָ 61‬ח ֵצר‬ ‫‪ 260‬יֶ ְהּגּו‬
‫‪ֲ ( 331‬ח ַצר) ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה‬ ‫ ‪-‬יָ הּו‬ ‫‪26, 62, 66, 67, 70, 91n50,‬‬
‫‪ 60‬חֹק‬ ‫‪199‬‬
‫ חֹר‬ ‫‪67, 250n254,‬‬ ‫ ‪-‬יהו‬ ‫‪40, 59, 83, 85, 89, 95,‬‬
‫‪301–305, 365‬‬ ‫‪177n6, 362, 366n13‬‬
‫‪ַ 274‬ח ְרבֹות ֻצ ִרים‬ ‫הּודי‬
‫ יְ ִ‬ ‫‪54–56, 66, 305–314, 362,‬‬
‫הּודה‬ ‫‪ 301,‬ח ֵֹרי יְ ָ‬ ‫‪365‬‬
‫‪358–359n8‬‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע‬
‫ יְ ֻ‬ ‫‪14, 86n35‬‬
‫ ח ִֹרים‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58,‬‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫ ‪ֶ ◌ֵ -‬‬ ‫‪135, 136, 363n‬‬
‫‪301–305, 362‬‬ ‫‪ 216n114‬יַ ַהץ‬
‫‪ֶ 329n101‬ח ְרמֹון‬ ‫‪- 85‬יו‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪433‬‬

‫יֹוכ ֶבד‬ ‫‪ֶ 86n35‬‬ ‫‪ 74‬יקטול‬

‫ יֹום‬ ‫‪59, 314n52, 316(n59), 317‬‬ ‫ יִ ְקטֹל‬ ‫‪168, 178‬‬
‫‪ 285‬יום ויום‬ ‫‪ 168‬יָ קֹם‬
‫‪ 283n354‬יֹום וָ יֹום‬ ‫‪ 178‬יִ ְקנֶ ה‬
‫ יֹום יֹום‬ ‫‪283n353, 285, 286‬‬ ‫ יְ ָקר‬ ‫‪155, 157(n40), 365‬‬
‫יֹומם‬ ‫ ָ‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58, 59, 66,‬‬ ‫‪ 157n41‬יָ ָקר‬
‫‪314–318, 358–359n8, 362,‬‬ ‫‪ 104n93‬יִ ָ ּ֫ק ֵרא ָלְך‬
‫‪366‬‬ ‫‪ 157‬יְ ָק ָרּה‬
‫יֹומם־וָ ַליְ ָלה‬ ‫ ָ‬ ‫‪315, 316, 318‬‬ ‫‪ 149‬י ֵֹקׁש‬
‫יֹור ֵדי ַהּיָ ם‬ ‫‪ְ 279n341‬‬ ‫‪ 149n9‬יָ ק ְֹׁש ִּתי‬
‫‪ 279n341‬יורדי ימים‬ ‫‪ 18‬יְ ַרד‬
‫יֹותר ִמן‬ ‫‪ֵ 60‬‬ ‫ יָ ַרד‬ ‫‪18, 219n119‬‬
‫‪ 14‬יַ ַחד‬ ‫‪ 94‬ירושליים‬
‫ יַ ְח ָּדו‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬ ‫ ירושלים‬ ‫‪53, 55, 59, 64, 66, 91, 92,‬‬
‫‪ 85‬יחזקיהו‬ ‫‪94, 95‬‬
‫ יחיה‬ ‫‪182n80, 185, 186‬‬ ‫רּוׁש ַליִ ם‬‫ יְ ָ‬ ‫‪13, 93‬‬
‫יׁשה‬ ‫‪ 171n38‬יָ ִח ָ‬ ‫יְמה‬ ‫רּוׁש ַל ָ‬
‫‪ 208n81‬יְ ָ‬
‫‪ 18‬יַ יִ ן‬ ‫ ירושלם‬ ‫‪59, 91, 94, 95‬‬
‫‪ 90n49‬יְ ָכנְ יָ ה‬ ‫רּוׁש ַלםִ‬‫ יְ ָ‬ ‫‪13, 92, 329n101‬‬
‫ה־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫‪ 250‬יְ ָכנְ יָ ַ‬ ‫רּוׁש ַל ְָמה‬ ‫ יְ ָ‬ ‫‪208n81, 225n‬‬
‫‪ 13‬יֻ ְּלדּו‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫יעֹות ֶ‬
‫‪ 141‬יְ ִר ֵ‬
‫‪ 112n‬יְ ִל ְד ָּתנּו‬ ‫‪ 88n44‬ירמיה‬
‫‪ 112n‬ילדתני‬ ‫ יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ‫‪14, 15, 90, 91n50‬‬
‫‪ 112n‬יְ ִל ְד ִּתנִ י‬ ‫ ירמיהו‬ ‫‪85, 88n44‬‬
‫ ‪◌ִ -‬ים‬ ‫‪13, 17n43, 18, 135(n88),‬‬ ‫ יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬ ‫‪14, 15, 90, 91n50‬‬
‫‪148‬‬ ‫‪ 104‬יִ ְר ְּפ ֵאל‬
‫‪ 214n100‬יָם‬ ‫‪ 91‬ירשלמ‬
‫ ימה‬ ‫‪211n91, 213n100, 214n100‬‬ ‫‪ 220n123‬יָ ַׁשב‬
‫יְמ ָמה‬ ‫‪ָ 316n59‬‬ ‫ׁשּוע‬
‫‪ 14‬יֵ ַ‬
‫יִּמ ֵצא ָלְך‬ ‫‪ָ֫ 104n93‬‬ ‫ׁשּוע ָתה‬ ‫‪ 206‬יְ ָ‬
‫ ‪◌ִ -‬ין‬ ‫‪17n43, 18‬‬ ‫ ישחק‬ ‫‪97(n69), 360n, 366‬‬
‫‪ 18‬ינ‬ ‫‪ 95–99‬יִ ְׂש ָחק‬
‫נֹוחה‬ ‫‪ 214‬יָ ָ‬ ‫‪ 75‬יִ ּׁש ֹם‬
‫‪ 9‬יְ ס ְֹב ֶבנְ הּו ‪ . . .‬יִ ְּצ ֶרנְ הּו‬ ‫ ישעיהו‬ ‫‪84, 85‬‬
‫‪ 9‬יְ ס ְֹב ֶבּנּו ‪ . . .‬יִ ְּצ ֶרּנּו‬ ‫‪ 219n119‬יִ ֵּׁשר‬
‫‪ 260‬יְ ס ְֹב ֵבנִ י‬ ‫‪ 307n34‬יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
‫‪ 97‬יסחק‬ ‫‪ 9‬יָ ֶׁשת‬
‫‪ 155‬יְ ָעף‬ ‫יְתּנּו‬ ‫‪ַ 18‬‬
‫ יעקב‬ ‫‪69n, 73‬‬ ‫יֶתר‬ ‫‪ֶ 155‬‬
‫ יעקוב‬ ‫‪53, 55, 66, 69(n), 73, 361,‬‬
‫‪363, 366‬‬ ‫כ‬
‫‪ 75‬יִ ְפקֹד‬ ‫ ‪-‬ך‬ ‫‪113n19, 115, 118n27, n28,‬‬
‫‪ 219n119‬יָ ָצא‬ ‫‪119‬‬
‫‪ 144‬יצאה‬ ‫ ‪ְ-‬ך‬ ‫‪112, 119‬‬
‫‪ 9‬יַ ֵּצב‬ ‫‪ָ- 165‬ך‬
‫ יצחק‬ ‫‪97, 360n‬‬ ‫ ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬
‫‪ 95–98‬יִ ְצ ָחק‬ ‫‪ְּ 14‬כ ִאיׁש ֶא ָחד‬
‫)‪ 149(n10‬יָ קּוׁש‬ ‫‪ 143‬כבדה‬
‫‪ 149‬יָ קֹוׁש‬ ‫‪ָּ 155‬כבֹוד‬
‫‪434‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫‪ְּ 156n37‬כ ָבר‬ ‫ לאמור‬ ‫‪70, 76, 77n19, n21, 366‬‬

‫‪- 113n19‬כה‬ ‫‪ֵ 76‬לאמֹר‬
‫‪ 97n71‬כהן‬ ‫‪ְ 207n76‬ל ָאן‬
‫ּכֹורׁש‬‫‪ֶ 15n40‬‬ ‫‪ 223‬לארץ‬
‫‪- 114–119‬כי‬ ‫ץ־מ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ‫ ְל ֶא ֶר ִ‬ ‫‪224, 225‬‬
‫ ‪ִ -‬כי‬ ‫‪58, 64, 112, 114, 119, 144‬‬ ‫‪ְ 124n50‬ל ַא ְׁש ָמה‬
‫‪ִּ 61n7‬כי‬ ‫)‪ְ 225(n‬ל ָב ֶבל‬
‫ )ּכֹל( ‪ X‬וְ ‪X-‬‬ ‫‪54, 55, 66, 69, 282–287‬‬ ‫)‪ִ 112(n‬ל ַּב ְב ִּת(י)נִ י‬
‫‪ָּ 283n355‬כל־ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬ ‫‪ְ 298n9‬ל ַב ְּד ֶהן‬
‫ל־עיר וָ ִעיר‬ ‫ ָּכ ִ‬ ‫‪283, 284n348‬‬ ‫‪ַ 221‬ל ַּביִת‬
‫‪ּ 283‬כֹל‬ ‫‪ 223‬לביתו‬
‫‪ֻּ 77‬כֹּלה‬ ‫‪ַ 208n81‬ל ָּב ָמה‬
‫‪ֻּ 135n88‬כ ָּל ַהם‬ ‫‪ְ 329n101‬ל ָבנֹון‬
‫‪ְּ 279n341‬כ ֵלי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ‫בּולם‬ ‫ ִלגְ ָ‬ ‫‪224, 225‬‬
‫‪ 279n341‬כלי מלחמות‬ ‫יהיּנָ ם‬ ‫ ְלגֵ ִ‬ ‫‪209n85, 223n136‬‬
‫‪ 280‬כלי מלחמותם‬ ‫‪ 140‬לדורותיהמה‬
‫‪ְּ 280‬כ ֵלי ִמ ְל ַח ְמ ָּתם‬ ‫‪ְ 285‬לד ֹר ּד ֹר‬
‫יהם‬ ‫יֹות ֶ‬‫‪ִּ 141‬כ ְל ֵ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫‪ְ 140n‬לדֹר ֵֹת ֶ‬
‫‪ַּ 120‬כ ָּלתֹו‬ ‫‪ְ 140‬לדֹר ָֹתם‬
‫‪ְּ 112n‬כ ִל ִתנִ י‬ ‫‪ָ 135n88‬ל ֶהם‬
‫ כנ"ס‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬ ‫‪ְ 60‬ל ַה ְר ֵּבה ( ְמאֹד)‬
‫ ְּכנָ ת‬ ‫‪153n25, 155‬‬ ‫‪ְ 104‬ל ֵה ָר ֵפה‬
‫‪ִּ 9‬כ ָּסם‬ ‫‪ 106‬להתרפות‬
‫‪ִּ 9‬כ ָּסמֹו‬ ‫ לוא‬ ‫‪77, 176‬‬
‫‪ַּ 329n101‬כ ְר ֶמל‬ ‫‪ 215n111‬לּוזָ ה‬
‫‪ְּ 154n31‬כ ַרע‬ ‫ לּוחֹות ( ָה) ֲא ָבנִ ים‬ ‫‪274n334, 276‬‬
‫‪ְּ 154n31‬כ ָרע‬ ‫‪ 276‬לּוחֹות ָה ֶא ֶבן‬
‫‪ֶּ 154n31‬כ ַרע‬ ‫‪ 276‬לּוחּות ָה ֲא ָבנִ ים‬
‫‪ְּ 154n31‬כ ָר ַעיִ ם‬ ‫ לחוץ‬ ‫‪223, 223n137‬‬
‫‪ָּ 263‬כ ְׁשלּו וְ נָ ָפלּו‬ ‫חּוצה‬ ‫ ְל ָ‬ ‫‪209n85, 223n136‬‬
‫ ְּכ ָתב‬ ‫‪14, 60, 153n25, 154n31, 155,‬‬ ‫‪ֻ 273‬לחֹת ֶא ֶבן‬
‫‪157n40‬‬ ‫‪ֻ 274‬לחֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬
‫‪ָּ 154n31‬כ ָתב‬ ‫‪ֹ 328n94‬לט‬
‫‪ָּ 142‬כ ְתבּו‬ ‫ ְליַ וְ ונֶ ה‬ ‫‪209n85, 223n136‬‬
‫כתבת‬
‫ָ‬ ‫‪ 130n73‬‬ ‫ ַליְ ָלה‬ ‫‪203n55, 206, 314–317‬‬
‫‪ 130n73‬כתבתה‬ ‫‪ְ 124n50‬ליִ ְר ָאה‬
‫ירּוׁש ַלםִ‬ ‫ ִל ָ‬ ‫‪209(n85), 221–226‬‬
‫ל‬ ‫‪ 223‬לכותל‬
‫ ל‪-‬‬ ‫‪14, 54, 55, 58, 59, 66, 69, 203,‬‬ ‫‪ 114‬לכי‬
‫‪204, 207, 208n80, 209, 210,‬‬ ‫יׁשה‬ ‫‪ָ 208n81‬ל ִכ ָ‬
‫‪212, 218–226, 229, 238–244,‬‬ ‫ּוב ֵה ָמה‬ ‫ל־ּב ֵה ָמה ְ‬
‫‪ְ 284n348‬ל ָכ ְ‬
‫‪358–359n8, 361, 363‬‬ ‫ ְלכֹל ָה ֻרחֹות‬ ‫‪224, 225‬‬
‫ (ל)קטול‬ ‫‪53, 55, 76‬‬ ‫ל־רּוח‬
‫ַ‬ ‫ ְל ָכ‬ ‫‪224, 225‬‬
‫‪ִ ( 124n49‬ל) ְקרֹא‬ ‫‪ָ 60‬ל ֵכן‬
‫‪ִ ( 124n49‬ל) ְקרֹות‬ ‫ּוכפֹור‬ ‫‪ִ 283n354‬ל ְכפֹור ְ‬
‫ לא‬ ‫‪77, 176‬‬ ‫‪ִ 118‬ל ַּמ ְד ְּת‬
‫‪ 9‬לֹא‬ ‫ למדתי‬ ‫‪114, 118‬‬
‫‪ְ 124n50‬ל ַא ֲה ָבה‬ ‫‪ְ 298n9‬ל ִמינֵ ֶהם‬
‫‪ְ 60‬ל ֵאין‬ ‫נּוחיְ ִכי‬ ‫‪ִ 114‬ל ְמ ָ‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪435‬‬

‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪204n65, 205n69, 210,‬‬ ‫‪ְ 353‬מ ַב ֵּשר‬

‫‪212, 216‬‬ ‫‪ַ 355‬מּגִ יד‬
‫ למצרים‬ ‫)‪209n84, 223(n135‬‬ ‫‪ְ 33n93‬מ ַד ֵּבר‬
‫ לנגב‬ ‫‪209n84, 223n135‬‬ ‫ ִמ ְד ָּב ָרה‬ ‫)‪215(n111, n112‬‬
‫‪ְ 222‬לנַ ַחל‬ ‫‪ִ 18‬מ ִּדין‬
‫סּוריה‬ ‫ ְל ְ‬ ‫‪209n85, 223n136‬‬ ‫ּומ ִדינָ ה‬ ‫‪ְ 283n354‬מ ִדינָ ה ְ‬
‫ לסככא‬ ‫‪209n84, 223n135‬‬ ‫ ְמ ָדן‬ ‫‪155, 157n40‬‬
‫‪ 244n240‬לעבד‬ ‫‪ְ 155n35‬מ ָדנִ ים‬
‫‪ָ 60‬ל ַעג‬ ‫‪ַ 60‬מ ָּדע‬
‫עֹולם‬
‫ ְל ָ‬ ‫‪326, 327‬‬ ‫‪ִ 285‬מּד ֹר ּד ֹר‬
‫‪ַ 155‬ל ַעג‬ ‫ ֵמ ָה ְל ָאה ל‪-‬‬ ‫‪213n95, 214n102‬‬
‫‪ 39‬לק"ח‬ ‫‪ַ 266n304‬מ ֵהר‬
‫‪ָ 61‬ל ַקח‬ ‫‪- 9‬מו‬
‫‪ָ 61‬ל ַקח ִא ָּׁשה‬ ‫מֹוא ִבי‬ ‫‪ָ 308n35‬‬
‫‪ָ 243‬ל ַקח ְל‪-‬‬ ‫מֹועד‬
‫ ֵ‬ ‫‪14, 44, 60‬‬
‫‪ 244n240‬לקטר‬ ‫מֹורּיָ ה‬ ‫‪ִ 86n35‬‬
‫ ִל ְק ַראת‬ ‫)‪123n47, 124(n50, 51‬‬ ‫ ִמזְ ֵּב ָחה‬ ‫‪204n62, 205n69, 207, 209‬‬
‫ לקרת‬ ‫)‪123n45, n47, 124(n51‬‬ ‫‪ 139‬מזבחותיהם‬
‫‪ְ 124n50‬ל ִר ְב ָעה‬ ‫ ִמזְ ְּבח ָֹתם‬ ‫‪139, 142‬‬
‫‪ְ 105‬ל ַרּפֹאותה‬ ‫ּומּזֶ ה‬ ‫‪ִ 15‬מּזֶ ה ‪ִ  . . .‬‬
‫‪ 106‬לרפות‬ ‫יתָך‬ ‫ ְמזּוזֹות ֵּב ֶ‬ ‫‪279n341, 280‬‬
‫‪ְ 105‬ל ַרּפֹותֹו‬ ‫‪ 279n341‬מזוזות בתיכה‬
‫‪ְ 105‬ל ַר ְּפֹותֹו‬ ‫‪ 280‬מזו֯ ז֯ ו̇ת̇ ב̇תיכה‬
‫ ְל ָרצֹון‬ ‫‪333, 334, 336‬‬ ‫יתָך‬ ‫‪ְ 280n342‬מזּוזֹת ֵּב ֶ‬
‫אֹולה‬‫‪ִ 204n65‬ל ְׁש ָ‬ ‫‪ 280n342‬מזזות בתיך‬
‫‪ְ 124n50‬ל ִׂשנְ ָאה‬ ‫ ִמזְ ָרח‬ ‫‪101(n88), 213n100‬‬
‫רּופה‬ ‫‪ִ 104‬ל ְת ָ‬ ‫ ִמזְ ְר ָחה‬ ‫‪203n55, 211n89‬‬
‫‪ִ 213n100‬מזְ ָר ָחה‬
‫מ‬ ‫ ִמחּוץ ְל‪-‬‬ ‫‪60, 214n102‬‬
‫ ‪◌ָ -‬ם‬ ‫‪135n88, 314–316, 363n‬‬ ‫‪ִ 181n72‬מ ְחיָ ה‬
‫‪- 9‬ם‬ ‫יְמה‬ ‫‪ַ 204n62‬מ ֲחנָ ָ‬
‫חּוצה ְל‪-‬‬ ‫ ( ִמ) ָ‬ ‫‪60, 210, 214n102‬‬ ‫‪ָ 18‬מ ֲח ָצה‬
‫ ( ִמ) ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪205n69, 210, 212, 213,‬‬ ‫‪ָ 18‬מ ֲח ָקה‬
‫‪216, 217n116‬‬ ‫‪ַ 213n95‬מ ָּטה‬
‫ ( ִמ) ְק ָצת‬ ‫‪154n31, 155, 157n40‬‬ ‫‪ִ 155n34‬מ ְט ָהר‬
‫ מאודה‬ ‫‪206n75, 210‬‬ ‫‪ִ 155n34‬מ ְּט ָהרֹו‬
‫אּומה‬ ‫‪ְ 358n8‬מ ָ‬ ‫‪ָ 81n28‬מ ָטר‬
‫ מאורות צפעונים‬ ‫‪279n341, 280‬‬ ‫‪ַ 325n87‬מ ָּט ָרא‬
‫אּורת ִצ ְפעֹונִ י‬
‫ ְמ ַ‬ ‫‪279n341, 280‬‬ ‫ ַמ ָּט ָרה‬ ‫‪325, 326n88, 328–331‬‬
‫‪ַ 14‬מ ֲא ָמר‬ ‫‪ִ 283n354‬מי וָ ִמי‬
‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ‫‪215(n110), 217‬‬ ‫ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫‪274n333, 334‬‬
‫ ִמ ָּב ֶב ָלה‬ ‫‪212, 215, 217‬‬ ‫ימה‬ ‫יָמ ָ‬ ‫‪ִ 203n55‬מּיָ ִמים ִ‬
‫‪ 78‬מבי אל‬ ‫‪ִ 14‬מין‬
‫‪ 78‬מבי את‬ ‫נֹוחה‬ ‫‪ִ 214n105‬מּיָ ָ‬
‫‪ 214n102‬מביתה ל‪-‬‬ ‫ּכּותה‬ ‫‪ִּ 215‬מ ָ‬
‫‪ִ 60‬מ ִּב ְל ָע ֵדי‬ ‫‪ִ 155‬מ ְכ ָּתב‬
‫ּול ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪ִ 212n93‬מ ֶּבן־‪ָׁ X‬שנָ ה ְ‬ ‫‪ַ 353–355‬מ ְל ָאְך‬
‫‪ִ 212n93‬מ ֶּבן־‪ָׁ X‬שנָ ה וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪ 279n341‬מלאכי המשטמות‬
‫‪ִ 280‬מ ְב ָצ ֵרי ְמעּוּזיִ ם‬ ‫אכת‬ ‫‪ְ 78‬מ ֶל ֶ‬
‫‪436‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫‪ִ 298n9‬מ ִּל ְּב ֶהן‬ ‫‪ַ 279n341‬מ ֲע ֵׂשה יָ ֶדיָך‬

‫לּוכה‬‫ ְמ ָ‬ ‫‪14, 62, 319, 322, 362‬‬ ‫‪ַ 155‬מ ֲע ֶׂשה‬
‫‪ִ 155‬מ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ‫‪ 279n341‬מעשי ידי אדם‬
‫ ְמֹלְך‪ָ /‬מ ְלכ‪-‬‬ ‫‪14, 62, 319, 321, 322–324,‬‬ ‫‪ 279n341‬מעשי ידיכה‬
‫‪362‬‬ ‫‪ַ 90n49‬מ ֲע ֵׂשיָ ה‬
‫ ָמ ְלכֹו‬ ‫‪70, 321, 322, 323‬‬ ‫ּומּפֹה‬ ‫‪ִ 15‬מּפֹה ‪ִ  . . .‬‬
‫ ַמ ְלכּות‬ ‫‪13, 14, 45n122, 54, 55, 58,‬‬ ‫ ִמ ְּפנֵ י ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ‫‪215, 217‬‬
‫‪59, 62, 69, 70, 318–325,‬‬ ‫‪ִ 155‬מ ְפ ָקד‬
‫‪362, 365‬‬ ‫אתים‬ ‫‪ְ 112n‬מ ָצ ִ‬
‫יהם‬ ‫‪ַ 13‬מ ְל ֵּכ ֶ‬ ‫‪ 139‬מצבותיהם‬
‫‪ 78‬מלכת‬ ‫‪ 140‬מצבתיהם‬
‫נֹוחה‬ ‫ ִמ ִּמזְ ַרח יָ ָ‬ ‫‪214, 215n106, n111‬‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫‪ַ 135‬מ ֵּצב ֵֹת ֶ‬
‫ ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬ ‫‪14, 62, 70, 319, 321, 322,‬‬ ‫ ַמ ֵּצב ָֹתם‬ ‫‪135, 139‬‬
‫‪362‬‬ ‫ ְמ ָצד‬ ‫‪153–155, 157n40‬‬
‫‪ 279n341‬ממלכות האלילים‬ ‫‪ְ 153‬מ ָצ ָדה‬
‫‪ַ 276‬מ ְמ ְלכֹות ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ְ 153‬מ ָצדֹות‬
‫‪ַ 276‬מ ְמ ְלכֹות ָה ֲא ָרצֹות‬ ‫צּודה‬ ‫ ְמ ָ‬ ‫‪153n28, 155‬‬
‫ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ‫‪215, 217‬‬ ‫‪ִ 60‬מ ְצֹות‬
‫ ַמ ְמ ְלכּות‬ ‫‪70, 319n68‬‬ ‫‪ִ 308n35‬מ ְצ ִרי‬
‫‪ַ 279n341‬מ ְמ ְלכֹת ָה ֱא ִליל‬ ‫‪ 94‬מצריים‬
‫‪ִ 126‬מ ֶּמּנּו‬ ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ‫‪208n81m 226n139‬‬
‫ ִמ ַּמ ַעל‬ ‫)‪211, 216(n113‬‬ ‫ מצרימה‬ ‫‪204n61, 208n81, 222n132‬‬
‫ מן‬ ‫‪34n97, 39‬‬ ‫יְמה‬ ‫‪ִ 226n139‬מ ְצ ָר ָ‬
‫ ִמן‬ ‫‪34n97, 60, 205, 214‬‬ ‫‪ִ 60‬מ ְק ָּדׁש (ה')‬
‫‪ 249‬מנבז המלך‬ ‫ ָמקֹום‬ ‫‪219, 220‬‬
‫ ָמנָ ה‬ ‫‪155, 158‬‬ ‫‪ִ 215‬מ ְק ֵצה‬
‫‪ִ 60‬מּנָ ה‬ ‫‪ָ 302n19‬מר‬
‫נֹורה‬ ‫ּומ ָ‬
‫נֹורה ְ‬‫‪ְ 283n354‬מ ָ‬ ‫‪ 105‬מרפה‬
‫ ְמנָ ת‬ ‫‪155, 157(n40), 158‬‬ ‫‪ְ 103‬מ ַר ֵּפא‬
‫ ַמ ְסּגֵ ר‬ ‫‪304, 305n25‬‬ ‫)‪ַ 104(n91‬מ ְר ֵּפא‬
‫‪ 140‬מסלותיהם‬ ‫‪ַ 105‬מ ְר ֵּפה‬
‫ּלֹותם‬ ‫‪ְ 140‬מ ִס ָ‬ ‫‪ 141‬מרצותם‬
‫ ֵמ ֶעגְ לֹונָ ה‬ ‫‪205n68, 214n105‬‬ ‫מרת ֗ה‬ ‫‪֯ 209n83‬‬
‫‪ 140‬מעגלותיהמה‬ ‫‪ 97n71‬משה‬
‫לֹותם‬ ‫‪ַ 140‬מ ְעּגְ ָ‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫ׁשּובֹות ֶ‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫‪ְ 141‬מ‬
‫‪ 140‬מעונותיהם‬ ‫‪ִ 96‬מ ְׂש ָחק‬
‫‪ְ 140‬מעֹונ ָֹתם‬ ‫‪ 14‬מש"ל‬
‫‪ְ 155‬מ ַעט‬ ‫)‪ִ 206(n70‬מ ָּׁשם‬
‫ ַמ ַעל‬ ‫‪211, 217n116‬‬ ‫)‪ִ 206(n70‬מ ָּׁש ָּמה‬
‫‪ַ 211‬מ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪ִ 329‬מ ְׁש ָמר‬
‫‪ָ 260n285‬מ ֲעלּו‬ ‫‪ִ 329‬מ ְׁש ֶמ ֶרת‬
‫‪ 115n‬מעליכי‬ ‫‪ִ 342‬מ ְׁשנֶ ה‬
‫‪ֵ 115n‬מ ָע ָליְך ִּכי‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה‬ ‫‪ִ 283n354‬מ ְׁש ָּפ ָחה ִ‬
‫‪ 211n91‬מעצמונה‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫‪ִ 135‬מ ְׁש ְּפח ֵֹת ֶ‬
‫‪ַ 214n100‬מ ֲע ָרב‬ ‫‪ִ 135‬מ ְׁש ְּפח ָֹתם‬
‫‪ 213n100‬מערבה‬ ‫‪ 211n91‬משפמה‬
‫ ַמ ְע ָר ָבה‬ ‫‪203n55, 205n69,‬‬ ‫ ָמ ַתק‬ ‫)‪333, 334(n111‬‬
‫‪214n100‬‬ ‫‪ִ 105‬מ ְת ַר ִפים‬
‫‪ַ 279n341‬מ ֲע ֵׂשה יְ ֵדי ָא ָדם‬ ‫‪ִ 105‬מ ְת ַר ִּפין‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪437‬‬

‫נ‬ ‫ נֶ ַצח‬ ‫‪326(n89), 327‬‬

‫‪ 61‬נָ א‬ ‫‪ 341‬נָ ִציב‬
‫ נֵ אֹות‬ ‫‪334, 335n112‬‬ ‫ נִ ְצ ַעק‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬
‫ נֶ ֱא ַסף‬ ‫‪211n88, 219n119‬‬ ‫ נצ"ר‬ ‫‪325, 327, 328‬‬
‫‪ 219n119‬נִ ְב ַּדל‬ ‫ נָ ַצר‬ ‫‪325n82, 326, 327n92, 329,‬‬
‫‪ 203n55‬נ ֶֹבה‬ ‫)‪331(n‬‬
‫בּואה‬ ‫‪ 60‬נְ ָ‬ ‫ נצתה‬ ‫‪143, 144‬‬
‫ נבוכדנאצר‬ ‫‪53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67,‬‬ ‫‪ 219n119‬נִ ְק ַהל‬
‫‪95, 99–103, 250n254, 362,‬‬ ‫‪ 219n119‬נִ ְקוָ ה‬
‫‪365‬‬ ‫‪ 124‬נִ ְק ָרא‬
‫‪ 100n85‬נבוכד־נצר‬ ‫‪ 124‬נִ ְק ָרה‬
‫ נבוכדראצר‬ ‫‪62, 67, 95, 99–103, 250n254,‬‬ ‫‪ 173n46‬נראה‬
‫‪362‬‬ ‫‪ 104‬נִ ְר ָּפא‬
‫‪ 60‬נִ ְב ַעת‬ ‫‪ 103‬נִ ְר ָּפה‬
‫‪ 214n100‬נֶ גֶ ב‬ ‫‪ 104–106‬נִ ְר ָּפ ָתה‬
‫ נגבה‬ ‫‪211n91, 213n100‬‬ ‫ נִ ְר ָצה‬ ‫‪333, 334‬‬
‫‪ 214n100‬נֶ גְ ָּבה‬ ‫‪ 78‬נש"א‬
‫‪ 205n69‬נֶ גְ ָדה־נָ א‬ ‫‪ 61‬נָ ָׂשא ִא ָּׁשה‬
‫‪ 219n119‬נִ גְ ַּדע‬ ‫אתים‬ ‫‪ 112n‬נְ ָׂש ִ‬
‫‪ 239n217‬נָ גַ ע‬ ‫‪ 143‬נשברה‬
‫‪ 60‬נָ ָדן‬ ‫‪ 143‬נִ ְׁש ְּב ָרה‬
‫‪ 211n88‬נִ ְד ַרׁש‬ ‫‪ 78‬נָ ׂשֹוא יִ נָ ׂשּוא‬
‫נֹולדּו‬‫‪ְ 13‬‬ ‫‪ 274‬נְ ֵׁשי ָּבנָ יו‬
‫נּוּלדּו‬‫‪ְ 13‬‬ ‫‪ 114‬נשיכי‬
‫‪ 219n119‬נּוס‬ ‫)‪ 243(n237‬נשפט ְל‪-‬‬
‫ נושבה‬ ‫‪143, 144‬‬ ‫‪ 239‬נָ ַׁשק‬
‫ נִ זְ ַעק‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬ ‫‪ 239‬נִ ַּׁשק‬
‫‪ 211n89‬נַ ְח ָלה‬ ‫ נִ ְׁש ְּתוָ ן‬ ‫‪12, 14, 60, 61‬‬
‫‪ 85‬נחמיה‬ ‫‪ 339‬נתבת‬
‫ נחנו‬ ‫‪125n, 126‬‬ ‫‪ 60‬נָ ַתן‬
‫)‪ 125(n‬נַ ְחנּו‬ ‫‪ 143‬נִ ָּתנָ ה‬
‫‪ 143‬נֶ ְח ָּפה‬ ‫ נִ ְת ָּפ ָׂשה‬ ‫)‪143, 144(n114‬‬
‫ נט"ר‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66,‬‬ ‫ נִ ַּת ְק ִּתי‬ ‫‪114, 118‬‬
‫‪325–331‬‬ ‫‪ 114‬נתתי‬
‫‪ 325–331‬נָ ַטר‬
‫‪ 301‬נִ ְכ ָּבד‬ ‫ס‬
‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ 301‬נִ ְכ ָּב ֵד ָ‬ ‫‪ 342n155‬סגן‬
‫ נְ ָכ ִסים‬ ‫‪6n15, 60‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 340–343‬סגֶ ן‬
‫ נִ ְל ְּכ ָדה‬ ‫‪143, 144‬‬ ‫‪ְ 340n135‬סגַ ן‬
‫‪ 143‬נָ ֵס ָּבה‬ ‫‪ָ 12‬סגַ ר‬
‫‪ 219n119‬נָ ַסע‬ ‫‪ֻ 60‬סּגַ ר‬
‫עּוריְ ִכי‬‫‪ 114‬נְ ָ‬ ‫סּוסה‬ ‫‪ָ 120‬‬
‫ נָ ַעם‬ ‫)‪333, 334(n111‬‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫סּוס ֶ‬
‫‪ֵ 135n88‬‬
‫‪ 283n354‬נַ ֲע ָרה וְ נַ ֲע ָרה‬ ‫‪ 130n73‬סוסָך‬
‫יהם‬ ‫‪ 141‬נְ ֻער ֵֹת ֶ‬ ‫‪ 130n73‬סוסכה‬
‫ נֶ ְע ַּתר‬ ‫‪336, 337‬‬ ‫סּוסת‬ ‫‪ַ 120‬‬
‫ נָ ַפל‬ ‫‪211n88, 219n119‬‬ ‫‪ 61‬סֹוף‬
‫ נִ ְפ ָלאת‬ ‫‪120, 121‬‬ ‫‪ 219n119‬סּור‬
‫‪ 305n25‬נַ ְפ ָׁשּה‬ ‫‪ 9‬סּותֹה‬
‫‪438‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫‪ 9‬סּותֹו‬ ‫עֹוׁשק‬ ‫ ֵ‬ ‫‪150(n12), 151‬‬

‫‪ָ 272‬סחֹוב‬ ‫‪ 249‬עזיה המלך‬
‫‪ 96‬סח"ק‬ ‫‪ 88n44‬עזיהו‬
‫‪ָ 342n155‬ס ַכן‬ ‫‪ֲ 61‬עזָ ָרה‬
‫‪ 342n155‬ס ֵֹכן‬ ‫‪ 88n44‬עזריה‬
‫‪ָ 243‬ס ַלח ְל‪-‬‬ ‫‪ָ 239n216‬עזַ ר ְל‪-‬‬
‫‪ 61‬ספ"ן‬ ‫‪ֶ 205n69‬עזְ ָר ָתה‬
‫‪ 280n342‬ספחי קציריך‬ ‫‪ 340‬עטרת‬
‫‪ְ 280n342‬ס ִפ ַיח ְק ִצ ְירָך‬ ‫‪ 92n56‬עיד‬
‫ ֵס ֶפר‬ ‫‪14, 60, 61, 155‬‬ ‫‪ִ 94n‬עּיִ ין‬
‫ ְס ָפר‬ ‫‪155, 157n40‬‬ ‫‪ֵ 329n101‬עין־ּגֶ ִדי‬
‫‪ 279n340‬ספרי השר[מ‬ ‫‪ִ 9‬עיר ֹה‬
‫ ָס ִריס‬ ‫‪341n139, 342‬‬ ‫‪ִ 9‬עירֹו‬
‫‪ֶ 341‬ס ֶרן‬ ‫ ִעיר וָ ִעיד‬ ‫‪282, 283n354‬‬
‫‪ 155‬סתו‬ ‫ ִעיר ִעיד‬ ‫‪282, 283n353‬‬
‫‪ְ 155‬ס ָתיו‬ ‫‪ 209n83‬עיתה‬
‫)‪ָ 149(n11‬עכֹור‬
‫ע‬ ‫‪ָ 149n11‬ע ָכן‬
‫ ֲע ָבד‬ ‫‪153n25, 155‬‬ ‫‪ָ 149n11‬ע ַכר‬
‫‪ 307n31‬עבדים‬ ‫ ַעל‬ ‫‪14, 35n98, 49n128, 54,‬‬
‫ ָע ַבד ְל‪-‬‬ ‫‪243(n239), 244‬‬ ‫‪55, 59, 69, 218, 224,‬‬
‫בֹודה‬ ‫בֹודה וַ ֲע ָ‬
‫‪ֲ 283n354‬ע ָ‬ ‫‪226n141, 227–238, 361,‬‬
‫ ָע ַבר‬ ‫‪74, 219n119‬‬ ‫‪364, 366‬‬
‫‪ֶ 326‬ע ְב ָרה‬ ‫‪ 39‬על‬
‫‪ָ 260‬ע ָברּו‬ ‫ל־ּד ַבר‬ ‫‪ַ 281‬ע ְ‬
‫‪ָ 307n31‬ע ְברּו‬ ‫ל־ּד ְב ֵרי‬
‫‪ַ 280‬ע ִ‬
‫ ִע ְב ִרי‬ ‫‪306, 307(n33), 310–313, 362‬‬ ‫ל־ּד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּב ָּצרֹות‬
‫‪ַ 280‬ע ִ‬
‫ ִע ְב ִרּיָ ה‬ ‫‪312, 313‬‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ל־ּד ְב ֵר ֶ‬
‫‪ַ 281‬ע ִ‬
‫‪ 307n31‬ע ְֹב ִרים‬ ‫עֹולה וָ זָ ַבח‬‫ל־ּד ְב ֵרי ָ‬
‫‪ַ 281‬ע ִ‬
‫ ִע ְב ִרים‬ ‫‪307n31, 311‬‬ ‫‪ָ 219n119‬ע ָלה‬
‫ד־אן‬
‫‪ַ 203n55‬ע ָ‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬
‫‪ַ 207‬ע ַ‬
‫ד־אנָ ה‬ ‫ ַע ָ‬ ‫‪203n55, 204n64, 205n69‬‬ ‫‪ 39‬על יד‬
‫ד־א ֵפ ָקה‬ ‫‪ַ 204n64‬ע ֲ‬ ‫‪ָ 114‬ע ָליְ ִכי‬
‫‪ 285‬עד דור ודו[ר‬ ‫ל־עּיַ ת‬‫‪ַ 209n83‬ע ַ‬
‫ ַעד־ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬ ‫‪286, 287‬‬ ‫ ִעם‬ ‫‪15, 62, 187–192,‬‬
‫ ַעד‬ ‫‪61, 203, 204, 218‬‬ ‫‪243(n237), 366–367n13‬‬
‫‪ֵ 92n56‬עד‬ ‫‪ַ 308n35‬עם‬
‫‪ֶ 117n‬ע ְדיֵ ְך‬ ‫ עמ"ד‬ ‫‪14, 61‬‬
‫ ַעד ל‪-‬‬ ‫‪61, 120n128‬‬ ‫‪ִ 135n88‬ע ָּמ ֶהם‬
‫‪ֵ 283n353‬ע ֶדר ֵע ֶדר‬ ‫ּמּודי ִׁש ִּטים‬ ‫‪ַ 274‬ע ֵ‬
‫עֹוכר‬ ‫)‪ֵ 149(n11‬‬ ‫‪ַ 308n35‬עּמֹונִ י‬
‫עֹולם‬ ‫‪ָ 298‬‬ ‫‪ַ 283n354‬עם וָ ַעם‬
‫עֹול ִמים‬ ‫‪ָ 298‬‬ ‫ית‬ ‫‪ַ 9‬עם־זּו ָקנִ ָ‬
‫‪ָ 60‬עֹון‬ ‫‪ַ 277‬ע ֵמי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬
‫יהם‬ ‫ֹונֹות ֶ‬
‫ ֲע ֵ‬ ‫‪141, 142‬‬ ‫‪ַ 277‬ע ֵּמי ָה ֲא ָרצֹות‬
‫‪ֲ 114‬עֹונֵ ִכי‬ ‫‪ָ 155‬ע ִמית‬
‫‪ֲ 141‬עֹונ ָֹתם‬ ‫‪ִ 135n88‬ע ָּמם‬
‫‪ 155‬עּוף‬ ‫ ֲענָ ק‬ ‫‪153, 155, 157n40‬‬
‫עֹופף‬‫‪ֵ 155‬‬ ‫‪ 143‬ענתה‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪439‬‬

‫‪ָ 143‬ענְ ָתה‬ ‫‪ֶּ 340–343‬פ ָחה‬

‫‪ 61‬עצ"ם‬ ‫ּוסגָ נִ ים‬
‫ ַּפחֹות ְ‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58, 66, 69n,‬‬
‫ ער"ב‬ ‫‪54–56, 60, 64, 66, 332–336‬‬ ‫‪340–343‬‬
‫‪ֲ 154n31‬ע ַרב‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫‪ִּ 135n88‬פ ֶ‬
‫‪ָ 332‬ע ֵרב‬ ‫‪ֶּ 9‬פן‬
‫‪ָ 332‬ע ַרב‬ ‫‪ָּ 219n119‬פנָ ה‬
‫ ֲע ֵרי ( ַה) ִּמ ְב ָצר‬ ‫‪277, 280‬‬ ‫‪ִּ 60‬פּנָ ה‬
‫ ֲע ֵרי ִמ ְב ָצ ֶריָך‬ ‫‪277, 280‬‬ ‫ פניהם‬ ‫‪144n112‬‬
‫‪ 280‬ערי מבצרים‬ ‫‪ָּ 267‬פס ַֹח‬
‫‪ֲ 280‬ע ֵרי ִמ ְב ָצ ִרים‬ ‫‪ֶּ 298‬פ ַסח‬
‫‪ָ 277‬ע ֵרי ָמצֹור‬ ‫‪ְּ 298‬פ ָס ִחים‬
‫צּורה‬‫‪ָ 277‬ע ֵרי ְמ ָ‬ ‫‪ָ 259‬פ ַעל וְ ָע ָׂשה‬
‫‪ָ 277‬ע ֵרי ְמצּורֹות‬ ‫‪ָּ 60‬פ ַקד‬
‫‪ָ 34n97‬ע ֶרָך‬ ‫‪ָּ 342‬פ ִקיד‬
‫ ָע ָׂשה‬ ‫‪121, 143‬‬ ‫‪ 78‬פרא‬
‫‪ָ 271‬עׂשֹו‬ ‫ ַּפ ְר ֵּדס‬ ‫‪12(n36), 14, 329n101‬‬
‫ ָעׁשֹוק‬ ‫‪149, 150n12, 151‬‬ ‫‪ 78‬פרה‬
‫‪ 279n341‬ע ֵֹׂשי ְד ָברֹו‬ ‫‪ָּ 219n119‬פ ַרׂש‬
‫‪ 279n341‬עשי דבריו‬ ‫‪ִּ 314n50‬פ ְתאֹם‬
‫‪ָ 337‬ע ִׁשיר‬ ‫‪ָּ 298n9‬פ ְת ֵהן‬
‫‪ 114‬עשיתי‬
‫ עׁש"ר‬ ‫‪59, 337–340‬‬ ‫צ‬
‫ ע ֶֹׁשר‬ ‫‪155, 337‬‬ ‫‪ֵ 149n7‬צ ְדנִ ּיֹות‬
‫‪ֲ 294‬ע ֶׂש ֶרת ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬ ‫‪ִ 90n49‬צ ְד ִקּיָ ה‬
‫‪ 294‬עשרת הדיברות‬ ‫ ִצּוָ ה וְ נִ ְב ָראּו‬ ‫‪259‬‬
‫ ֵעת‬ ‫‪14, 34n97, 44, 60‬‬ ‫ צח"ק‬ ‫‪95–98‬‬
‫‪ 340‬עת פדות‬ ‫‪ְ 95‬צחֹק‬
‫‪ֵ 340‬עת ֶרוַ ח‬ ‫‪ִ 95‬צ ֵחק‬
‫‪ֲ 339‬ע ִתד ֹת‬ ‫‪ָ 95‬צ ַחק‬
‫‪ֲ 339‬ע ֻתד ֹת‬ ‫‪ִ 355‬ציר‬
‫‪ִ 339‬ע ַּת ְד ִּתי‬ ‫‪ָ 208n81‬צ ִע ָירה‬
‫‪ִ 203n55‬ע ָּתה‬ ‫ צע"ק‬ ‫‪59, 62, 78–82, 362‬‬
‫ ִעּתֹות ַּב ָּצ ָרה‬ ‫‪276, 280‬‬ ‫ ִצ ֵעק‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬
‫‪ָ 271n326‬ע ִתיד ִל ְקטֹל‬ ‫ ָצ ַעק‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬
‫‪ִ 34–35n97‬ע ִּתים‬ ‫ ְצ ָע ָקה‬ ‫‪79, 80‬‬
‫‪ 336–340‬עת"ר‬ ‫‪ִ 14‬צ ָּפה‬
‫ ָע ַתר‬ ‫‪336, 337‬‬ ‫ ָצפֹון‬ ‫‪213, 214n100, 217n116‬‬
‫ ָע ָתר‬ ‫‪337n119, 340‬‬ ‫ צפונה‬ ‫‪211n91, 213n100‬‬
‫‪ֲ 336‬ע ָת ַרי‬ ‫ ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ‫‪212–215, 217n116‬‬
‫‪ַ 340‬ע ְתר ֹת‬ ‫‪ָ 14‬צ ִפיר‬
‫‪ָ 340‬ע ֶת ֶרת‬ ‫‪ְ 90n49‬צ ַפנְ יָ ה‬
‫ ֲע ֶת ֶרת‬ ‫‪54, 55, 59, 66, 336–340‬‬ ‫‪ְ 209n82‬צ ֵר ָד ָתה‬
‫‪ְ 86n37‬צרּויָ ה‬
‫פ‬ ‫ ָצרֹוף‬ ‫‪150(n13), 151‬‬
‫‪ֵּ 349–352‬פ ָאה‬ ‫‪ 34n97‬צרך‬
‫‪ְּ 155‬פ ֵאר‬ ‫‪ 61‬צ ֶֹרְך‬
‫ ְּפ ַאת‬ ‫‪209, 214(n101), 215‬‬ ‫ צ ֵֹרף‬ ‫‪150, 151‬‬
‫‪ּ 219n119‬פּוץ‬ ‫‪ָ 209n82‬צ ְר ָתן‬
‫‪ָּ 60‬פ ַחד‬ ‫‪ָ 205n67‬צ ְר ַתנָ ה‬
‫‪440‬‬ ‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬

‫ק‬ ‫‪ָ 124‬ק ָרה‬

‫‪ִ 61‬ק ֵּבל‬ ‫ קר"י‬ ‫‪61, 106n, 123(n47), 124‬‬
‫ קב"ץ‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬ ‫‪ 173n46‬קשה‬
‫‪ִ 219n119‬ק ֵּבץ‬
‫‪ָ 219n119‬ק ַבץ‬ ‫ר‬
‫‪ָ 211n88‬ק ַבר‬ ‫ ָר ָאה‬ ‫‪12, 179‬‬
‫‪ֶ 60‬ק ֶבר‬ ‫יתי‬ ‫‪ָ 114‬ר ִא ִ‬
‫‪ֶ 214n100‬ק ֶדם‬ ‫אׁשית‬ ‫‪ֵ 92n56‬ר ִ‬
‫ קדמה‬ ‫‪211n91, 213n100‬‬ ‫ ַרב‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58–60, 66, 341,‬‬
‫‪ֵ 214n100‬ק ְד ָמה‬ ‫‪344–347, 362, 365‬‬
‫ קה"ל‬ ‫‪14, 60‬‬ ‫)‪ַ 344(n156‬רב ַּביִת‬
‫‪ָ 219n119‬ק ַהל‬ ‫)‪ַ 344(n156‬רב ַהח ֵֹבל‬
‫‪ַ 272‬קּוֵ ה‬ ‫ב־ט ָּב ִחים‬ ‫ ַר ַ‬ ‫‪443(n156), 346‬‬
‫‪ 72n1‬קול‬ ‫ ַר ֵּבי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫‪344, 347, 358n8‬‬
‫ קו"ם‬ ‫‪14, 61‬‬ ‫ְך־ּב ֶבל‬ ‫ ַר ֵּבי ֶמ ֶל ָ‬ ‫‪346, 347‬‬
‫קֹומם‬ ‫‪ֵ 14‬‬ ‫ ִר ְב ָלה‬ ‫‪213n98, 215n109, 217n116‬‬
‫‪ַ 358n8‬ק ֵחּנָ ה‬ ‫ב־מג‬ ‫ ַר ָ‬ ‫‪344(n156), 346‬‬
‫ קטלה‬ ‫‪58, 69(n), 120, 142, 144, 145‬‬ ‫ב־ס ִריס‬ ‫ ַר ָ‬ ‫‪344(n156), 346‬‬
‫‪ָ 120‬ק ְט ָלה‬ ‫ב־ׁש ֵקה‬ ‫)‪ַ 344(n156‬ר ָ‬
‫ קטלו‬ ‫‪69n, 142, 145‬‬ ‫‪ָ 260‬רגְ ׁשּו‬
‫‪ִ 112‬ק ְט ִלי‬ ‫‪ 18‬רד"י‬
‫‪ְ 126‬ק ָט ַלנּו‬ ‫‪ָ 219n119‬ר ַדף‬
‫‪ָ 126‬ק ַט ְלנּו‬ ‫‪ 245n244‬רו]ח המלך‬
‫‪ְ 126‬ק ָט ַלנִ י‬ ‫‪ 295n3‬רוח הקדש‬
‫ קטלת‬ ‫‪58, 113, 120‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 351n176‬רוַ ח‬
‫‪ָ 120‬ק ְט ַלת‬ ‫רּוח‬‫ ַ‬ ‫‪54, 55, 58, 60, 66, 69,‬‬
‫‪ 113‬קטלתי‬ ‫‪347–352‬‬
‫‪ָ 64‬ק ַט ְל ִּתי‬ ‫רּוחה‬ ‫ ָ‬ ‫‪348, 351‬‬
‫‪ִ 264‬ק ְּטרּו‬ ‫‪ָ 150‬רזֹון‬
‫ ִקּיֵ ם‬ ‫‪14, 36, 61‬‬ ‫‪ 150‬ר ֹזֵ ן‬
‫‪ 92n56‬קיץ‬ ‫יחֹוח‬‫ ֵר ַיח נִ ַ‬ ‫‪333, 334, 336‬‬
‫‪ַ 18n48‬קיִ ץ‬ ‫ ִריּפּוי‬ ‫‪105, 106‬‬
‫‪ִ 277‬קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ‫ ֵר ָיקם‬ ‫‪314, 316‬‬
‫‪ִ 277‬קירֹות ַה ָּב ִּתים‬ ‫‪ 92n56‬רישית‬
‫ ָק ָמה‬ ‫‪143, 144‬‬ ‫יתנִ י‬ ‫‪ִ 112n‬ר ִּמ ִ‬
‫‪ַ 9‬ק ְמ ְּת‬ ‫‪ָ 219n119‬ר ַמס‬
‫ ַק ְמ ִּתי‬ ‫‪9, 18, 113‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 298‬ר ֶמׂש‬
‫‪ָ 266‬קנֹה‬ ‫‪ְ 298‬ר ָמ ִׂשים‬
‫‪ 121‬קנת‬ ‫‪ֵ 155‬ר ַע‬
‫ ֵקץ‬ ‫‪18n48, 61, 155‬‬ ‫‪ 77‬רעהו‬
‫ ָק ֶצה‬ ‫‪154n31, 155‬‬ ‫‪ 77‬רעו‬
‫‪ 154n31‬קצוות‬ ‫ ָר ָע ֵת ִכי‬ ‫‪114, 119‬‬
‫ ְק ָצֹות‬ ‫‪154n31, 155n36‬‬ ‫ רפ"א‬ ‫‪53, 55, 59, 65, 103–107‬‬
‫ ְק ָצת‬ ‫‪154n31, 155(n36), 157n40‬‬ ‫)‪ָ 104(n92‬ר ָפא‬
‫ קר"א‬ ‫‪106n, 123(n47), 124‬‬ ‫‪ִ 104‬ר ֵּפא‬
‫ ָק ָרא‬ ‫)‪124(n49), 239(n218‬‬ ‫‪ִ 104‬ר ְפאּות‬
‫‪ָ 118, 120–123, 125‬ק ָראת‪/‬וְ ָק ָראת‬ ‫‪ְ 104n92‬ר ָפ ִאים‬
‫ קראתי‬ ‫‪114, 118‬‬ ‫‪ְ 104‬ר ָפ ֵאל‬
‫ ְק ָרב‬ ‫‪26, 153n25, 154, 155, 157n40‬‬ ‫)‪֫ 104(n93‬ר ֹ ֶפא ָלְך‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪441‬‬

‫‪ְ 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

‫‪ 40n110‬שמיה‬ ‫‪ָׂ 278n336‬ש ֵרי ִמ ְל ָחמֹות‬

‫ ָׁש ַמיִ ם‬ ‫‪274n333, 334‬‬ ‫‪ָׂ 345–347‬ש ֵרי ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֶבל‬
‫יְמה‬ ‫‪ָׁ 211n90‬ש ַמ ָ‬ ‫‪ָׂ 345‬ש ֵרי ַפ ְרעֹה‬
‫ ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫‪216n113, 217‬‬ ‫‪ֵׁ 14‬שׁש‬
‫‪ְׁ 77‬שמֹנֶ ה‬ ‫‪ֵׁ 283n354‬שׁש וָ ֵׁשׁש‬
‫‪ְׁ 77‬שמֹנָ ה‬ ‫‪ 18‬שת‬
‫‪ְׁ 77‬שמֹנִ ים‬ ‫‪ָׁ 9‬שת‬
‫‪ָׁ 61‬ש ַמע‬ ‫‪ 173n46‬שתה‬
‫‪ְׁ 90n49‬ש ַמ ְעיָ ה‬ ‫‪ָׁ 267n309‬שתֹה‬
‫‪ָׁ 119‬ש ַמ ַעת‬ ‫‪ָׁ 150‬שתֹוי‬
‫‪ 279‬שמעת ֯ט ֯ב‬ ‫יה‬
‫תֹויֹות ָ‬
‫ֶ‬ ‫‪ָׁ 150n15‬ש‬
‫ שמעתי‬ ‫‪114, 119‬‬ ‫יה‬‫תֹות ָ‬
‫‪ָׁ 150n15‬ש ֶ‬
‫‪ 279n340‬ש[מעת] שלמ‬
‫ ָׁש ַמר‬ ‫‪325n82, 326n89, 327,‬‬ ‫ת‬
‫‪329, 331‬‬ ‫ ‪-‬ת‬ ‫‪18, 106n, 113n19, 115, 118n27,‬‬
‫‪ְׁ 326n89‬ש ָמ ָרה‬ ‫‪n28, 120n, 121–123(n44),‬‬
‫‪ָׁ 326n89‬ש ְמ ָרה‬ ‫)‪125, 145, 146(n119‬‬
‫‪ׁ 208n81‬ש ְֹמרֹון‬ ‫‪◌ַ - 9‬ת‬
‫‪ׁ 208n81‬ש ְֹמרֹונָ ה‬ ‫ ‪ְּ -‬ת‬ ‫‪9, 18, 112‬‬
‫‪ׁ 277‬ש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף‬ ‫‪ָ - 165‬ת‬
‫‪ׁ 277‬ש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ִּס ִּפים‬ ‫בֹואה‬ ‫‪ָּ 171n38‬ת ָ‬
‫‪ְׁ 27‬ש ַמ ְריָ ה‬ ‫‪ְּ 60‬תבּונָ ה‬
‫‪ָׁ 283n353‬שנָ ה ָׁשנָ ה‬ ‫‪ַּ 117‬תגְ מּול‬
‫‪ָׁ 18‬שנָ ה‬ ‫ ‪-‬תה‬ ‫‪113n19, 121, 123n44, 125‬‬
‫‪ 18‬שנ"י‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫דֹות ֶ‬ ‫ּתֹול ֵ‬‫‪ְ 137‬‬
‫‪ְׂ 329n101‬שנִ יר‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫בֹות ֶ‬ ‫ּתֹוע ֵ‬‫‪ַ 141‬‬
‫‪ָׂ 14‬ש ִעיר‬ ‫בֹותם‬ ‫ּתֹוע ָ‬‫‪ֲ 141‬‬
‫‪ְ 282‬ש ִע ֵירי ִעּזִ ים‬ ‫‪ּ 60‬תֹורה‬
‫‪ְׂ 282‬ש ִעיר ִעּזִ ים‬ ‫‪ַ 114‬ת ֲח ֻל ָאיְ ִכי‬
‫‪ַׁ 283n354‬ש ַער וָ ָׁ֫ש ַער‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫‪ַּ 135n88‬ת ְח ֵּת ֶ‬
‫‪ׁ 277‬ש ֲֹע ִרי ַה ִּס ִּפים‬ ‫‪ַּ 135n88‬ת ְח ָּתם‬
‫‪ 143‬שפכה‬ ‫ ‪-‬תי‬ ‫‪112, 114–119‬‬
‫‪ַׁ 114‬ש ַּק ְמ ִּתי‬ ‫ ‪ִּ -‬תי‬ ‫‪9, 18, 58, 112, 119, 144‬‬
‫ ַׂשר‬ ‫‪301, 341, 342, 345, 346,‬‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫ ‪ֵ ֺ ◌-‬ת ֶ‬ ‫‪53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 65‬‬
‫‪362‬‬ ‫ימן‬ ‫‪ֵּ 214n100‬ת ָ‬
‫‪ְׂ 154‬ש ָרד‬ ‫‪ 213n100‬תימנה‬
‫‪ָׁ 329n101‬שרֹון‬ ‫ימנָ ה‬ ‫‪ֵּ 214n100‬ת ָ‬
‫ ָׂש ֵרי‬ ‫‪298, 299‬‬ ‫‪ִּ 261n287‬ת ְל ַּב ְׁשן ָ‬
‫ ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ַחיִ ל‬ ‫‪277, 281, 298, 362‬‬ ‫‪ 249‬תלמי המלך‬
‫‪ָׂ 300‬ש ֵרי ( ַה) ַחיִ ל‪ַ (/‬ה) ָּצ ָבא‬ ‫ ‪ָ ֺ ◌-‬תם‬ ‫‪59, 62‬‬
‫ ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ֲחיָ ִלים‬ ‫‪277, 281, 299, 300, 362,‬‬ ‫‪ֶּ 180n‬ת ְמ ִחי‬
‫‪364‬‬ ‫ל־יְמי ַחּיָ ו‬ ‫‪ָּ 265‬ת ִמיד ָּכ ֵ‬
‫‪ָׂ 345‬ש ֵרי ( ַה) ֶמ ֶלְך‬ ‫‪ִּ 206‬ת ְמנָ ה‬
‫ ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ָצ ָבא‬ ‫‪277, 279n341, 281‬‬ ‫ ִּת ְמנָ ָתה‬ ‫‪206, 213, 215n111, 216‬‬
‫ ָׂש ֵרי ( ַה) ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ‫‪277, 279n341‬‬ ‫‪ 18‬תנ"י‬
‫הּודה‬ ‫‪ָׂ 301‬ש ֵרי יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ְּ 171n38‬ת ֻע ָפה‬
‫רּוׁש ַלםִ‬
‫‪ָׂ 301‬ש ֵרי יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ַּ 60‬ת ַער‬
‫ ָׂש ִרים‬ ‫‪304n24, 343, 362‬‬ ‫ תק"ף‬ ‫‪14, 61‬‬
‫‪index of foreign words and phrases‬‬ ‫‪443‬‬

‫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

πορευόμενον 154n29 2. Latin

πρὸς 237 deprecationem 339
πρόσωπόν 154n29 et tu eris in medio eorum 154n29
σὲ 202n Hierusalem 92
στηρίγματος 152n23 ignea lex 43n117
συγκλείοντες 305n25 Nabuchodonosor 99n78
σύν 192n22 populum istum pessimum 254
τεχνίτης 305n25 pretium 157n42
τεχνίτου 305 responsum 295n5
τῆς πόλεως 95
τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ βασιλέως 245n244 3. Sumerian
τούτων 253 dub.sar 328n94
Passage Index

A. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament A. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

1. Tiberian Masoretic Tradition
2. Samaritan Pentateuch 1. Tiberian Masoretic Tradition
B. Judean Desert Sources and Ben Sira Genesis
1. Qumran and Judean Desert 1.5 316, 317
2. Book of Ben Sira 1.21 298
C. Inscriptional, Documentary, and 1.25 120
Numismatic Sources 2.6 287
1. Hebrew 2.10 288
2. Moabite 2.16 266
3. Aramaic 3.22 181n76
D. Rabbinic Sources 4.9 329
1. Prayers and Blessings 5.5 181n76
2. Mishna 5.26 78
3. Mekhilta 6.4 275, 278
4. Genesis Rabba 6.18 195n33
5. Sifra 8.3 266, 270n321
6. Sifre 8.5 270n321
7. Tosefta 8.7 270n321
8. Jerusalem Talmud 8.21 334
9. Babylonian Talmud 8.22 316
E. Ancient and Medieval Translations 9.9 190, 195n33
1. Greek (LXX) 9.11 195n33
2. Latin Vulgate 9.12 276, 279n341
3. Syriac Peshiṭta 11.12 181n76
4. Targum Onkelos 11.14 181n76, 185
5. Targum Jerusalem (a.k.a. 11.31 120
Pseudo-Jonathan) 12.8 124
6. Targum Neofiti 12.10 226n139
7. Geniza Targum 12.11 226n139
8. Samaritan Targum J 12.12 270n321
9. Samaritan Targum A 12.13 181n77, 185
10. Targum Jonathan 12.14 226n139
11. Targum Psalms 12.15 345
12. Targum Proverbs 12.17 281n345
13. Targum Song of Songs 14 306
14. Targum Qohelet 14.10 206n72
15. Targum Esther Sheni 14.13 306n28
F. Other Sources 14.18 13, 92
1. Josephus 14.23 337
2. Akkadian Texts 15.5 211n90
15.6 261, 288
17.3 193n23
17.4 195n33
passage index 449

17.19 195n33 28.12 211n90 39.1 226n139

17.22 193n23 29.2–3 287 39.2 194n28
17.23 193n23 29.3 220n122 39.3 194n28
18.33 220n122 29.11 239n217 39.7 193n24
19.6 211n90 29.13 239n217 39.10 283n353,
19.32 193n24 30.15 193n24 285n362, n364
19.32–35 193n24 30.16 193n24 39.12 193n24, 203n53
19.33 193n24 30.25 220n122 39.14 193n24,
19.34 193n24 31.10 161n6 306n28, 310
19.35 193n24 31.11 120 39.17 306n28, 310
20.1 211n89 31.23 195n31 39.21 194n28
20.11 281n345 31.28 239n217 39.23 194n28
20.12 206 31.32 120 40.15 306n28
20.18 281n345 31.47 56 41.8 124
21.2 193 32.1 220n122, 41.9 193n23
21.16 266 239n217 41.11 162n10, 164n19,
21.25 261n288, 289 32.4 162n10 n20
21.28 298 32.6 164n20 41.12 306n28, 310
22.2 86n35 32.10 195n37, 210n86, 41.22 161n6
22.3 195n31 220n123 41.40 239n217,
23.4 108n4 32.13 195n37 322n73
23.8 193n23 32.17 283n353 41.43 266
23.13 211n88 33.1 239n217 41.56 173n50
24 26 34 334 41.57 226n139
24.16 211n90 34.2 193(n24) 42.2 211n88
24.20 173n50 34.6 193n23 42.6 6n
24.42 161n6 34.7 193n24 42.7 193n23
24.45 211n90 34.8 193n23 42.17 330
24.46 161n6 34.9 194 42.30 193n23
24.47 160n4 34.10 195n36 42.38 195n30
24.48 161n6, 163n17, 34.15 334 43.7 161n6
168 34.16 195n36 43.16 206n74
24.54 263n296 34.18 334 43.18 281n345
24.55 195n36 34.22 195n36, 334 43.21 161n6, 162n10,
25.7 181n76 34.23 195n36, 334 164(n20)
25.10 211n88 35.13 193n23 43.30 204n62
25.13 140 35.14 193n23 43.32 306n28, 311
25.34 263n296 35.15 193n23 44.23 195n30
26.2 226n139 35.21 213n95, 214n102 44.24 161n6
26.10 193n24 35.22 189, 193n24 45.15 193n23,
26.22 226n139 37.3 261 239n217
26.28 195n33 37.8 324n81 46.3 226n139
26.29 239n217 37.17 93n58 46.4 195n30,
26.40 263n296 37.19 149 226n139
27.26 239n217 37.25 226n139 46.6 223, 226n139
27.27 239n217 37.28 226n139 46.7 226n139
27.34 80 38.5 288, 289 46.8 226n139
28.6 260n284 38.14 215n111 46.11 275
450 passage index

46.26 226n139 4.27 239n217 15.4 299

46.27 226n139 5.3 306n28 15.10 9
48.1 195n31 5.5 260n284 15.16 9
48.5 226n139 5.16 120 15.18 324n81
48.10 239n217 6 86n35 15.23 209n83, 334n
48.20 76n15 6.3 161n6 15.24–25 80
48.21 234n177 6.5 164n20 15.27 211n90
49 9, 20 6.13 230n157 16.5 283n353,
49.1 123n47 6.14 273n330 285n362, n364,
49.5 138 6.16 275 286
49.8 311n40 6.26 299 16.13 154
49.9 282 6.28 296 16.28 203n55, 204n64
49.11 9 7.15 211n90 16.33 203n54
49.15 334n 7.16 306n28 16.35 223
49.22 9, 143 7.28 280n342 17.5 195n31
49.23 289 8.8 80, 281n345 17.11 287
49.31 211n88 8.16 211n90 17.16 283n353,
50.1 239n217 8.17 133n82 285n362, n364
50.5 163n17, 211n88 8.26 336 18.7 239n217
50.14 226n139 9.1 306n28 18.11 236n194
9.8 211n90 18.25–26 287
Exodus 9.10 211n90 19.3 297
1.1 226n139 9.13 306n28 19.4 160n4, 161n6
1.15 306n28, 311 9.15 161n6, 164 20.4 216n113
1.16 181n78, 184n88, 10.3 306n28 20.8 266
306n28 10.7 243n239 20.11 173n52
1.19 181n72, 306n28 10.8 232n165, 20.25 236n196
1.20 195n37 243n239, 21.2 305n25, 306n28
1.22 211n90 283n354 21.5 302, 305n25
2.3 175n54 10.11 243n239 21.10 306, 313n46
2.6 172n45, 10.13 172n45 21.14 236n194
236n195, 10.19 211n89 21.15 240
306n28 10.24 124, 243n239 21.26 305n25
2.7 306n28 10.26 243n239 21.27 305n25
2.11 306n28 11.5 322n73 21.33 211n88
2.13 306n28, 311 12.1 296 22.15 193n24
2.23 81, 251n256 12.4 280n342 22.18 193n24
3 86n35 12.29 322n73 23.25 243n239
3.3 251, 253n259 12.31 243n239 23.33 244n239
3.7 80 12.42 97n70 24.8 195n33
3.8 164n20 12.46 210n86 24.11 263n296, 301
3.12 244n239 12.48 266n304 24.12 276
3.15–16 97 12.49 312n45 25.20 220n127
3.15 283n353, 13.10 203n55 25.22 193n23
285n362, n364 13.17 226n139 26.18 214n101
3.17 164n20, 165 13.19 195n31 26.20 214n101, 349
3.18 306n28 14.6 195n31 26.33 211n88
4.20 211n89 14.15 80 27.9 210n86
4.21 226n139 15 9 27.11 214n101
passage index 451

27.13 205n69, 38.11 214n101 14.39 277

210n86, 214n101 38.13 214n101 15.2 283n353
27.21 140 38.28 265n302, 288, 15.18 193n24, 194
28.11 149 289 15.24 193n24, 194
28.32 150 39.1 154 15.33 193n24
29.13 204n62, 39.3 265n302, 288, 16.25 205n69
205n69 289 17.3 210n86,
29.18 205n69, 334 39.4 154n31 214n102,
29.25 205n69 39.41 154 283n353
29.43 211n88 40.19 210n86 17.8 283n353
30.4 143 40.20 149 17.10 283n353
30.7 195n37 40.30 203n54 17.13 283n353
30.15 337 18.5 181n76, 184
30.18 211n88 Leviticus 18.6 283n353
31.10 154 1.4 335 18.11 184n85
31.18 193n23, 276 1.9 205n69 18.13 184n85
32.1 236n202 1.13 205n69 18.21 184n85
32.13 242n234 1.15 205n69 18.22 193n24
32.26 275 1.17 205n69 18.23 194n26
32.27 220n127 2.2 205n69 18.25 172n41
32.28 275 2.9 205n69 19.5 334
33.4 251n256, 3.5 205n69 19.13 189
253n259 3.11 205n69, 210n86 19.18 239n216,
33.7–11 287 3.16 205n69 325n86, 328
33.9 211n90 3.17 140n 19.20 193n24
33.20 181n76 4.19 205n69 19.23 223
34.1 276 4.26 205n69, 210n86 19.34 239n216
34.2 276 4.31 205n69 20.2 283n353
34.7 329 4.35 205n69 20.3 257
34.12–13 139 5.12 205n69 20.9 283n353,
34.27 189, 195n33 6.8 207 285n364
34.28 295 6.11 140n 20.11 193n24
34.29 193n23 7.5 205n69 20.12 193n24
34.32 193n23 7.31 205n69 20.13 193n24
34.33 193n23 7.36 140 20.16 194
34.35 193n23 8.16 205n69, 298 20.18 193n24
35.19 154 8.18 173n50 20.20 193n24
36.4 283n353 8.21 205n69 20.23 160n4, 161n6,
36.23 211n91 8.25 298 163n17
36.25 214n101 8.28 205n69 20.26 160n4, 161n6
36.29–30 288 8.35 330 22.4 283n353
36.29 265n302, 289 9.10 205n69 22.18 283n353
36.30 265n302, 289 9.13 207 22.20 334
36.38 288, 289, 9.14 205n69 23.14 140n
265n302 9.17 207 23.31 140n
37.7 220n127 9.20 205n69 23.41 140n
37.8 154n31 10.9 140n 24.3 140n
38.5 154n31 14.20 205n69 24.11 309
38.9 205n69 14.37 277 24.15 283n353
452 passage index

25.5 280n342 14.9 194n28 33.27 211n90

25.14 267 14.11 203n55 33.54 211n88
25.21 120 14.27 251n256, 34.4 143
25.27 220n127 253n259 34.5 211n89, n91
25.28 220n127 14.35 251n256, n257, 35.5 205n69,
25.35 181n76, 184n83 253n259 210n86,
25.36 181n76 14.38 181n74, 251n257 214n101, 349,
26.9 195n33 15.15 140n 350
26.13 161n6, 164n20, 16.2 275 35.20 173n52, 233n173
165 16.3 236n202 35.22 233n173
26.25 236n196 16.7 275 35.23 173n52
26.34 120, 121n37 16.8 275
26.42 73, 366 16.10 275 Deuteronomy
26.44 195n33 16.19 236n202 1.16 161n6, 163n17,
16.26 251n256, 168, 180
Numbers 253n259 1.18 161n6, 163n17,
1.4 283n353 17.7 236n202 168, 180
3.1 193n23 17.12 173n52 1.19 161n6, 164n20
3.15 275 17.14 281n345 1.28 275
3.17 275, 278 18.21 275 1.30 196n39
3.38 203n56 18.23 140n 1.35 251n256
4.2 275 20.2 236n202 1.41 279n341
4.6 210n86 20.5 251n256, 1.43 164n20
4.19 181n74, 253n259 2.1 161n6, 163n17,
283n353, 20.11 240 164n20
285n362 20.15 226n139 2.7 251n256
4.34 275 21.8 181n76 2.8 161n6, 163n17,
4.49 283n353 21.9 181n76 164n20
5.12 283n353 21.15 288, 289 2.9 232n165
5.13 193n24, 194 21.20 288, 289 2.13 164n20
5.19 193n24, 194 21.23 216n114 2.26 164n20
5.26 205n69 21.30 160n5, 161n6, 2.30 260, 289
7.89 193n23, 297 168 2.32 216n114
8.19 162n10, 164n20 23–24 9 2.33 161n6, 163n17
9.10 283n353 23.4 161n6 2.34 161n6, 164n20
9.20 296 23.19 289 3.1 161n6, 163n17
9.23 296 23.20 289 3.4 164n20
10.2 296 24.3 9 3.5 251n256
10.8 140n 24.4 12 3.6 161n6, 164n20
10.25 239n219 24.7 248n, 320 3.17 211n91
10.32 195n37 24.15 9 3.18 161n6, 163n17
11.8 265n301 24.18 12 3.20 133n82,
11.31 154 25.18 281n345 220n126
11.32 154, 173n52 26.3 193n23, 194 3.23 164n20
13.22 210n86 29.33 298 3.25 253n259
13.32 275, 279n341 31.16 281n345 4.5 253
13.33 161n6, 275 31.50 161n6 4.6 251n256,
14.3 226n139 32.17 275, 280n343 253n259
14.4 226n139 32.26 280n343 4.13 276
passage index 453

4.19 211n90 10.11 139n96 21.6 252

4.20 172n41 10.12 243n239 21.7 143
4.21 233n168, 281 10.20 243n239 21.14 305n25
4.22 251n256 10.21 196n39, 198n42 22.14 164n20
4.23 195n33 10.22 226n139 22.22 193n24
4.32 251n256 11.10 210n86 22.23 193n24
4.39 216n113 11.12 198n42 22.24 81, 281n345
4.41 203n55 11.20 280n342 22.25 193n24
4.42 181n76 11.30 133n84 22.27 81
5.2 195n33 12.3 139n96, 140 22.28 193n24
5.3 195n33 12.5 241n222 22.29 193n24
5.8 216n113 12.6 275 23.5 281n345
5.12 266 12.11 211n88 23.7 241n224
5.15 210n86 12.17 275 23.13 211n88, n91
5.22 276 12.30 241n222 24.10 223
5.24 181n76, 184n83, 13.2–6 149n7 24.11 223
193n23 13.5–6 149 25.5 205n69
5.25 251n256, 13.5 243n239 25.13 283n354
253n259 13.12 251n256, 25.14 283n354
5.30 220n124 253n259 26.1 233n168
6.9 279n341, 280 14.22 283n353, 26.2 210n86
6.13 243n239 285n362, n364 26.3 233n168
7.5 298 14.23 275 26.5 226n139
7.16 244n239 15.12 305n25, 27.3 233n168
9.2 275 306(n28), 312, 27.15 306n25
9.6 251n256, 313 27.20 193n24
253n259 15.13 303, 305n25 27.21 193n24
9.9 195n31, 273 15.18 305n25 27.22 193n24
9.10 273 16.7 220n124 27.23 193n24
9.11 273 17.5 251n256, 28.10 277
9.15 161n6, 164n20 253n259 28.13 210n86
9.16 161n6, 163n17 17.14 223, 233n168 28.25 276
9.17 164n20 17.16 226n139 28.47 243n239
9.18 164n20 17.18 322 28.63 195n37
9.20 164n20 18.9 233n168 28.69 195n33
9.21 160n4, 161n6, 18.16 251n256 29.2 251n256
164n20 19.4 181n76 29.4 161n6
9.25 164n20 19.5 181n76, 189n14 29.11 195n33
9.26 164n20 19.20 251n256, 29.13 195n33
9.27 242n234 253n259 29.17 244n239
10.1 273 19.23 253n259 29.23 251n256
10.3 161n6, 164n20, 20.5 220n125 29.24 195n33
273 20.6 220n125 29.27 234n173
10.4 295 20.7 220n125 30.12 211n90
10.5 160n4, 161n6, 20.8 220n125 31.7 233n168
163n17, 164n20 20.9 277, 279n341 31.9 275
10.7 205n69, 20.10 236n201 31.16 181n73, 195n33
210n86, 20.19 236n201 31.29 120, 125
214n103, n105 21.5 275 32–33 9
454 passage index

32.7 283n354 10.39 205n69 21.34 189

32.8 9, 267n310 10.40 171n39 21.36 205n69,
32.10 9 13.4 204n64, 208n81, 216n114
32.13 9 205n69 21.42 283n353
32.18 180n 13.18 205n69, 22.3 288
32.26 12 216n114 22.4 220n124
32.36 9, 120, 121 14.7 161n7, 164 22.8 6n
32.37 9 14.12 194, 201n49 22.15 193n23
33.2 12, 43, 259, 289 15.3–15 289 22.19 232n165
33.14 280n342 15.3–11 288 22.21 193n23
33.21 12 15.4 143, 215n110 23.13 251n256
33.22 282 15.5 205n69, 23.14–15 235n186
214n101 23.15 251n256,
Joshua 15.6 215n111 253n259
1.14 275 15.10 205n69, 24.3 161n7
1.15 220n123 214n104 24.6 161n7
2.1 206n74 15.12 205n69 24.8 161n7, 162n11,
2.3 220n125 15.14 275 194n27
2.11 216n113 15.21 205n66 24.10 161n7
2.16 206n74 16.1 214n103 24.14 243n239
2.17 112n 16.2–8 288, 289 24.15 243n239
2.18 112n 16.2 225 24.17 251n256
2.20 112n 16.3 225 24.18 243n239
4.18 220n122 16.6 215 24.19 243n239
4.24 277 16.7 214n103, n105 24.21 243n239
6.2 275 17.7 288, 289 24.22 243n239
6.9 270n321 17.9 288, 289 24.24 201n49
6.13 270n321 18.3 203n55 24.28 220n126
6.27 194n28 18.11–20 287
7.3 206n72 18.12–21 290 Judges
7.20 206 18.12–19 288 1.19 194n28
7.21 161n7 18.12 143, 205n69, 1.20 275
7.24–26 149 214n101 1.34 220n127
7.24 149n11 18.13 205n69, 215n111 2.1 161n7, 195n33
8.1 195n31 18.14 143 2.6 220n126
8.3 275 18.15 205n69 2.11 244n239
9.12 261n288, 289 18.19 143 2.13 244
9.24 161n7 18.20 205n69 2.18 265n301
10.1 275 18.21 288 3.6 244n239
10.6 241n227 19.11–34 288, 290 3.7 244n239
10.7 278, 298 19.11 205n69 3.22 205n69
10.11 233n173 19.13 203n55 3.23 261n288, 290
10.20 277, 280n343 19.22 205n69 3.27 195n30
10.25 188n8, 194, 19.29 205n69 4.6 195n31
201n49 19.35 277, 280n343 5 9, 18, 20, 115
10.34 214n105 19.43 205n69 5.3 150
10.36 205n69, 19.50 171n39 5.7 9, 113, 114
214n103, n105 21.10 275 5.11 220n127
passage index 455

5.18 9 18.30 214n102 7.4 243n239

5.26 258n279, 290 19–21 214n102 7.9 171n39
5.28 354 19.2 171n39 8.12 279n341
6.2 153 19.4 195n36, 8.22 220n126
6.8 161n7 263n296 9.3 195n31
6.9 161n7, 162n11 19.9 220n124 9.12 220n127
6.10 162n11 19.21 220n124, n125, 10.1 239n217
6.12 281n350, 263n296 10.9 288
300n14 19.22 195n37 10.14 161n7, 163n15,
6.39 237n208 19.28 220n122 164n19
6.40 237n208 20.8 220nn124–126 10.18 161n7
7.2 241n227 20.10 220n128 10.19 241n227
7.7 220n122, n126 21.19 203n55, 10.25 220n125, n126
7.8 220n124, n126 205n69, 10.26 220n125,
7.13 220n127, 214nn102–104 281n350,
261n288, 290 21.22 138, 139n96 300n14
8.26 153 11.4 193n24
9.27 263n296 1 Samuel 11.7 353
9.31 132n82 1.3 203n55 11.11 193n24
9.53 172n41, 175n58, 1.7 171n39 12.1 161n7
233n173 1.9 267n309 12.2 260n285, 290
9.55 220n122, n126 1.12 288 12.7 195n34, 196n39,
10.12 161n7, 162n11 1.24 198n42 243n237
10.14 241n227 2.1–10 9 12.10 244n239
10.16 243n239 2.19 203n55, 12.11 193n24
10.19 241n227 261n287 12.14 243n239,
11.20 205n69, 2.20 220n122 324n81
216n114 2.22 193n24 12.16 251n256,
11.27 196n39 2.28 162n11, 164n19 253n259
11.35 112n 2.32 195n37 12.20 243n239
11.40 203n55 3.13 261n288 12.24 193n24,
12.1–7 18 4–29 306 243n239
12.3 161n7, 162n11 4.6 251n256, 13.2 220n124, n126
12.9 270n321 306n28, 311 13.3 306n28, n31
14.1 205n69 4.8 251n256 13.7 306n28, n31
14.2 205n69 4.9 243, 306n28 13.11 193n24
14.5 205n69, 215n111 4.10 220n124, n126 13.12 161n7
14.18 205n69 4.12 173n52 13.19 306n28
15.18 251n256, 4.15 143 14.11 306n28
253n259 4.19 290 14.21 306n28, n31
16.18 261n288, 290 5.3 220n122 14.31 203n56
16.25–27 96n66 5.6 161n5 14.32 210n86
17.2 114, 116 5.7 290 14.45 251n256
17.4 150 5.11 220n122 14.46 220n122
18.4 161n7 6.2 220n122 15.3 236n195
18.11 279n341 6.12 270n321 15.9 236n195
18.16 279(n340) 6.20 251n256, 15.15 236n195
18.17 279n341 253n259 15.20 161n7
456 passage index

15.31 173n52 2 Samuel 10.19 189

15.33 248n 1.6 123n47 11.3 241n222
16.19 248n 1.27 279n341 11.8 220n125
17.9 194n27 2.6 190n15, 196n39 11.17 173n52
17.16 270n321 3.3 92n52 11.21 233n173
17.25 303n19, 338 3.12 195n33 11.23 161n7
17.38 261n288, 290 3.13 195n33 12.8 162n11
17.42 171n39 3.16 270n321 12.17 198
17.48 288 3.21 195n33 12.22 161n7, 181n76
17.52 306 3.27 173n52, 193n23 12.32 290
18.6 245n244 3.30 239n216 13.8 172n42
19.17 112n 3.31 245n243 13.11–14 193n24
20.8 195n33 3.35 314n52 13.14 193n24, 194
20.9 235n184 4.10 162n11, 164n19 13.18 261n287,n288,
20.13 195n37 5.1 208n81 290
20.20 325n87 5.3 208n81, 13.21 245n243, 248n
20.33 233n173 245n243 13.22 281n345
21.2 190, 203n55 5.4 289 13.31 173n52
22.9 203n55 5.9 172n45 13.39 245n244, 248n
22.17 352 5.10 270n321 14.1 248n
22.21 236n195 5.11 276, 278 14.8 220n125
22.23 195n36 6.2 208n81 14.10 112n
23.18 220n125 6.3 85n34 14.12 108n2
24.1 154 6.4 85n35 14.17 108n2
24.11 290 6.7 173n52 14.31 173n52
24.19 196n39 6.12 245n243 14.33 239n217
24.21 324n81 6.16 245, 288, 15.1 353n179
25.20 288 245n243, n245 15.2 257n272
25.23ff 92n52 6.19 220n125, n126 15.5 239n217
25.26 241n227 7.1–2 108 15.8 243n239
25.31 241n227 7.6 161n7 15.30 270n321
25.32 92n52 7.7 187n7, 193n23 16.5 245n243
25.33 112n, 241n227 7.9 161n7, 162n11 16.6 245n243
25.35 220n125 7.11 261n288 16.18 195n36
26.6 195n30 7.12 189, 321n70 16.19 243
26.15 230n158 7.13 322n72 17.11 26, 154(n29)
26.16 230n159 7.18 108n2, 17.12 125n
26.21 161n7, 163n15 245n243, n245 17.14 235n189
26.25 220n122 7.19 293 17.17 245n243
28.14 34n97 8.3 208n82 17.20 222
28.15 162n11, 242n232 8.5 239n216 17.21 245n243
28.16 34n97 8.6 239 17.25 92n52
28.21 161n7 8.8 245n243 18.5 281n345
28.23 173n52 8.10 245n243, n245 18.17 220n124, n126
28.24 173n52 8.11 245n243, n245 19.8 235n184
29.3 306n28 9.5 245n243 19.9 220n124, n126
29.4 195n30 10.11 241n227 19.12 245n243
31.12 208n81 10.17 208n81 19.17 195n30,
31.13 205n69 10.18 173n52 245n243
passage index 457

19.18 261n288, 290 1.28 245n243 6.32 265n302, 288,

19.19 288, 290 1.31 245n243 290
19.40 220n122, 1.32 245n243, 248 6.35 265n302, 288,
239n217 1.33 195n31 290
19.42–44 306 1.34 245n243 6.37 2
20.2 306 1.37 245n243 6.38 2
20.3 329 1.38 245n243 7.13 245n243
20.9 239n217 1.39 245n243 7.14 245n243
20.12 233n173 1.43 245n243 7.40 245n243, n245
20.15 205n69 1.46 322n72 7.45 245n243, n245
20.19 152n23 1.47 195n37, 7.46 209n82
20.22 220n124, n126, 245n243 7.51 245n243
222 1.51 245n243 8.1 245n243
21.7 236n195 1.53 220n125, 8.2 245n243
21.15 194n27, 195n30 245n243 8.5 245n243, n245
21.19 188n7, 189n11 2.17 245n243, 248n 8.8 205n69
21.20 104n92, 2.19 245n243 8.9 276
283n354 2.22 245n243 8.15 187n7, 193n23
21.22 104n92, 220 2.23 245n243 8.20 161n7
22 9 2.25 245n243 8.21 161n7, 195n33
22.24 161n7, 162n11 2.29 245n243 8.23 216n113
23.1–7 20 2.36 203n55 8.27 188n7
23.6 135n88 2.42 161n7, 203n55 8.34 140, 234n177
23.10 172n45 2.45 245n243 8.43 277
23.11 220n128 3.4 208n81 8.53 277
23.13 181n72 3.6 251n256 8.60 277
23.14 153 3.9 251n256, 252, 8.66 220n124
23.15 171n39, 177n65 253n259 9.3 257
23.19 153 3.11 260, 261n288, 9.5 322n72
23.20 261n288, 290, 290 9.9 235n189
293 3.21 161n7 9.11 245n243
23.30 89n44 4.1 245n243, 9.15 245n243
23.39 245 324n81 9.24 221
24.1 153n28 4.12 205n67 9.26 245n243
24.2 257n272 4.14 204n62, 9.27 149
24.4 277, 281n346, 205n69 9.28 208n81,
298 5.7 245n243 245n243, n245
24.16–24 99n79 5.10 17n45 10.2 208n81, 225n
24.16 221 5.21 251n256, 10.10 245n243, n245
24.24 194 253n259 10.13 220n123,
5.27 245n243 245n243, n245
1 Kings 6.1 23, 78, 321 10.15 340n138,
1.1 245n243 6.2 245n243 341n139
1.2 342n155 6.5 277 10.16 245n243, n245
1.4 342n155 6.6 277 10.21 245n243, n245
1.5 353n179 6.15 205n69, 213, 10.23 245n243, n245
1.13 245n243 214n103, n104, 10.29 171n39
1.25 245, 277, 277 11.1 149n7, 245n243
279n341 6.29 277 11.27 245n243
458 passage index

11.39 161n7 19.18 239n217 3.11 194n29, 195

12.1 208n81 19.20 239n217 3.12 195
12.2 245n243, 247 20.13 251n256 3.25 288
12.6 187–188n7, 240, 20.21 261n288, 290 3.26 195
245n243, n245 20.23 194n27 3.27 220n123
12.8 187–188n7 20.24 340n138, 4 115, 116n23
12.10 187–188n7, 341n139 4.2 114
189n11 20.25 188n8, 194(n29) 4.3 114
12.16 220n124 20.27 261n288, 290 4.7 114, 116n23
12.18 245n243, n245 20.28 251n256 4.11 206n72, n74
12.24 187n7, 220n122, 21.8 301n, 305n25 4.16 114
n126 21.9 235 4.23 114
12.31 273n331, 275 21.11 229, 301, 5.18 206n72
12.32 288, 290 305n25 5.21 171n39
13.32 273n331 21.12 288, 290 6.10 265n301
14.2 114, 116 21.21 235n189 6.16 195
14.9 171n39 21.22 172n42 6.23 171n39,
14.10 235n189 21.27 172n43 263n296
14.12 220n122 21.29 235n189 6.29 172n41
14.15 141n101, 22 35n 6.32 195n36
251n256 22.6 234n175 7.8 263n296
14.25 245n243, n245, 22.7 194n29, 194, 196 7.16–20 351n176
324n81 22.8 194n29, 194, 196 8.1–6 115, 116
14.26 290 22.13 240 8.1 114
14.27 245n243, n245, 22.17 220n125, n126 8.2 236n202
293 22.24 171n39, 177n65, 8.8 194n29, 195
14.27–28 352 187n7, 193n23, 8.10 261n288, 290
15.1 245n243, n245, 194, 196 8.13 251n256,
324n81 22.31 187n7, 188n8, 253n259,
15.18 245n243 194n27 324n81
15.19 187n7 22.34 171n39, 177n65 8.19 208n81
15.20 245n243, n245, 22.35 171n39, 177n65 8.21 171n39, 177n65,
277, 281n347, 22.49 143, 208n81 208n81,
298n9, 301 22.54 171n39, 220n124
15.22 245n243, 247 244n239 8.28 187n7
15.23 189n11 8.29 194n27,
16.2 172n41 2 Kings 245n243
16.17 171n39 1.9 239n218 9.5 277, 281n346,
16.25 171n39 1.10 171n39 298
16.31 244n239 1.13 251n257 9.15 194n27,
17.1 281n350, 1.15 195 245n243
300n14 2.5 277, 279n341 9.16 206n74
17.15 171n39 2.8 171n39 9.28 225n
18.13 161n7 2.14 171n39 9.30 195n37
18.32 171n39 2.11 270n321 9.34 263n296
18.42 171n39 2.21 104, 105 9.37 120
19.6 263n296 2.22 104, 105 10.6 301
19.8 171n39, 3.2 171n39 10.11 345
263n296 3.6 245n243 10.18 244n239
passage index 459

10.25 352 18.4 261n288, 23.4 277, 288, 291,

11.2 245n243 265n301, 288, 342n154
11.3 187n7 290 23.5 288, 291
11.4 353n179 18.9 245n243 23.6 233n173, 257
11.6 353n179 18.13 245n243 23.8 206n72, 291
11.8 187n7 18.17 245n243, 248n, 23.10 288, 291
11.10 245n243, n245 344n156 23.12 288, 291
11.11 352 18.19 344n156 23.14 288, 291
11.12 172n41 18.24 340n138, 23.15 288, 291
11.13 353n179 341n139 23.19 273n331
11.19 353n179 18.26 56n3, 305n26, 23.20 222
12.6 189n11 344n156 23.23 245n243
12.7 245n243 18.27 344n156 23.29 245n243
12.8 245n243 18.28 305n26, 23.34 208n81, 223
12.10–17 288 344n156 24.14 276, 288, 291,
12.10 193n23, 203n54, 18.31 196n39 306n25
277 18.36 288 24.15 224, 225n
12.11 257n272 18.37 344n156 24.16 225n, 306n25
12.12 276 19.1 245n243, 248n 24.18 323
13.11 171n39 19.4 344n156 25.1 321, 323
14.5 248n 19.5 245n243 25.2 245n243
14.7 261n288, 290 19.7 220n123 25.6 193n23
14.12 220n124, n126 19.8 344n156 25.8 344n156
14.14 208n81, 288, 19.9 194n27 25.10 344n156
290 19.14 354 25.11 149n4, 152n23,
14.21 88n44 19.15 276 232n162,
15.6 308n35 19.18 288 344n156
15.20 276 19.19 276 25.12 344n156
16.6 305n26, 307n32 19.20 281n350, 25.13 225n
16.10 245n243 300n14 25.18 277, 342n154,
16.11 245n243, 248n 19.22 260, 290 344n156
16.12 248n 19.24 290 25.20 344n156
16.15 171n39, 180, 19.25 290 25.23 277, 281n347,
245n243 20.5 104 298n9
16.16 245n243 20.14 245n243, 248n 25.25 298n9, 305n26,
16.17 245n243 20.17 225n 307n32,
16.29 205n69 21.4 265n302, 290, 347(n167)
17.4 278n336 293 25.26 281n347, 299,
17.16 244n239 21.12 222, 235n189 301
17.21 288 21.21 244n239 25.27 278n336
17.24 205n69, 21.24 245n243, n245 25.29 265, 291
214n103, 215 22.3 245n243 25.31 323
17.29 273n331, 22.4 277
283n353 22.12 88n44 Isaiah
17.30 215n107 22.16 235n189 1–39 10, 86n38, 131n,
17.32 273n331 22.18 177n65 136n92
17.35 195n33 22.19 108n2, 171n39 1.1 86n38
17.38 195n33 22.20 235n189 1.2 132n82, 259
460 passage index

1.8 121n37 14.21 9 35.9 210n86

1.17 149, 267n308 14.22 154 36.1 245n243, 248n,
1.26 104n93 14.28 245n243, 248(n) 324n81
2.4 139n97, 236n196 15.4 216n114 36.2 208n81, 225n,
3.9 143 16.1 205n69, 210n86, 245n243, 248n,
3.16 270n321 214n103, 215 344n156
3.17 298n9 16.12 257n273 36.4 344n156
3.26 220n123 16.14 154 36.9 340n138, 341n139,
4.1 144 17.1 121n37 342n141
5.2 172n45 17.3 154 36.11 56n3, 305n26,
5.4 172n45 18–23 50n130 344n156
5.19 171n38 19.10 150 36.12 344n156
5.25 172n45 19.17 121n37 36.13 305n26, 344n156
6.1–4 287 19.22 105, 336 36.16 196n39
6.1 161n7, 245n243, 21.9 172, 220n123 36.22 344n156
248n 21.11–14 26 37.1 245n243, 248(n)
6.2 210n86 21.13 154n31 37.4 344n156
6.6 173n52 21.17 154 37.5 245n243, 248n
6.8 164n19 22.1 220n127 37.8 173n52, 236n201,
6.11 164n19 22.7 205n69, 210n86 344n156
7.1 236n201 22.15 342n155 37.9 173n52, 194n27
7.3 154 22.18 206n74, 210n86 37.10 84
7.11 210n86 23.8 301 37.14 172n45, 354
7.14 120 23.9 301 37.16 276
8.2 86n38 23.11 242 37.20 276
8.21 210n86, 220n127 23.12 210n86 37.31 210n86
8.23 203n58, 205n69 23.15 120 37.36 171n39, 179n
9.5 257 23.17 276 37.37 173n52
9.18 236n195 24–27 50n130 38.1 132n82
10.10 279n341 24.22 306n25 38.2 223
10.13 340 25.12 220n123 38.3 172n45
10.19 154 28.2 220n123 38.8 173n52
10.20 154 28.5 154 38.21 85, 86n38
10.21 154 29.1 172n45 38.22 84
10.22 154 29.13 172n45 39.1 84, 172n45
10.28 209n83, 210n86 30.6 281n349, 298n9 39.3 85, 245n243,
11.6 194n26 30.8 198 248n
11.8 279n341, 280 31.2 173n49 40–66 14, 131n, 136n92,
11.11 154 31.4 124 190, 191n18
11.16 154 31.5 267 40.12 259
12.2 257n273 33.7 81n27, 205n69, 40.20 149
13.13 242 210n86 41.4 259
13.20 210n86, 283n354, 33.16 153 41.9 164n19
286, 287 34.5 236n196 41.25 341n140, 342n149
13.21 210n86 34.12 210n86, 301n 42.2 81
14.12 220n123 34.14 210n86 42.7 278n336, 306n25
14.13 210n86 34.15 210n86 42.10 279n341
14.16 242n232 34.17 283n354 42.13 281n350, 300n14
14.20 198n42 35.8 210n86 42.22 278n336
passage index 461

43.14 225n 60.15 283n354 2.7 161n7, 170n32,

44.28 15n40 61.4 283n354 226n141
45.1 15n40 61.9 133n82 2.9 60
45.8 210n86, 216n113 62.11 234n178 2.14 60
45.14 275, 279n341 63.5 241n227 2.15 143, 144
46.7 81n27 63.6 220n123 2.17 60, 119n34
47.1 220n123 64.5 161n7, 163n15, 2.18 282n351
47.11 235n184 164n19 2.20 114, 118
48.3 144 65.3 133n82 2.22 60
48.5 161n7, 163n15, 65.9 210n86 2.24 78
164n19 65.14 81n27 2.27 112n
48.8 121n37 65.20 210n86 2.30 61
48.14 173n14 65.23 133n83 2.33 114, 118
48.15 144 65.24 133n82 2.34 112n
48.16 210n86 66.2 257 2.35 195, 243
49.21 132n82 66.4 139n96 3 328
50.7 164n19 66.5 133n82 3.1 269
51.6 210n86 66.12 138 3.4–5 118
51.9 276, 279n341 3.4 114
51.16 161n7, 163n15 Jeremiah 3.5 114, 325n86,
51.19 132n82 1–26 66, 70 326, 327
52.4 210n86 1–25 234 3.6 70, 178, 180,
52.11 210n86 1.1 60 218n116,
53.3 148n3 1.2 60 226n141,
53.9 190n15 1.3 61 245n243, 250
53.12 279n341 1.5 60 3.7 149, 171n39, 179
54.14 230 1.6 111n15 3.8 60, 149, 161n7,
54.15 194n29, 195 1.7 226n141, 234 170n31, 179
56–66 50n130 1.9 60 3.9 264
56.4 257n273 1.10 60, 77n19 3.10 149
56.10 132n82 1.11 111n16 3.11 149
56.11 133n83 1.13 111n16, 3.12 75, 213n99,
57.3 171n39 205n69, 212, 325n86
57.6 133n82, 210n86 213, 214n103, 3.13 60, 61
57.19 105 217n116 3.15 60
58.2 283n353, 1.14 218n116 3.16 243n235
285n364 1.15 205n69, 212, 3.17 95, 220n128,
58.12 283n354 213, 217n116 224, 225,
59.5 279n341 1.16 193n23, 195, 202 226(n141)
59.7–8 139n96 1.17 61, 111n16 3.18 60, 218n116,
59.7 140, 220n127 1.18 60, 111n16, 226n141, 233,
59.8 140 232n160 234, 237
59.12 143 1.19 236 3.21 313n47
59.16 241n227 2.2 60, 95, 119n34, 3.22 104
59.20 220n128 243n235, 3.25 61
59.21 195 273n329 4.1–2 61n7
60.4 220n128 2.3 60, 235(n184) 4.3 313n47
60.5 220n128 2.4 61, 282n351 4.4 60, 282n351,
60.7 220n128 2.6 218n116 313n47
462 passage index

4.5 226n141, 277, 7.1 192n21, 234n174, 9.22 60, 339

280n343, 282n351 235 10 57n, 323
4.6 218n116 7.2 60, 218n116 10.1 233
4.12 193n23, 195, 202 7.5–7 61n7 10.4 61
4.13 60 7.6 195n37 10.5 77, 195
4.14 282n351 7.8 235n185, 282n351 10.7 125, 323
4.16 234, 331n 7.9 271 10.9 306n25
4.18 271 7.10 60 10.11 56, 57
4.19 114, 119, 282n351 7.11 60 10.12 60
4.20 106n, 124n51 7.12 218n116, 226n141 10.13 60, 171n39,
4.28 216, 218n116 7.13 270n321, 273n329 172n45, 179, 180
4.30 114, 119(n33) 7.14 60 10.14 60
5.3 61 7.16 119n34 10.21 60, 241n225
5.5 193n23, 195, 202, 7.18 78, 268n317, 272 10.22 218n116
346n164 7.20 236 10.23 242
5.6 141 7.22 193n23, 281, 10.25 263, 266
5.7 75, 161n7, 170n32 282n351 11.1 234n174
5.12 233n167, 235n184 7.25 270n321 11.2 233, 313n47
5.13 295, 297 7.26 60, 234n183 11.5 61, 161n7, 170n31
5.16 60 7.27 234n183 11.7 270n321, 273n329
5.17 277, 280 7.28 61, 125, 263 11.8 161n7, 170n32,
5.18 196n39 7.30 60, 313n47 171n37
5.19 61n7 7.31 265 11.9 313n47
5.21 60 7.33 60 11.10 7n19, 234
5.24 282n351 8.1 60 11.11 234n183,
5.25 60 8.2 60 235(n189)
5.26 60, 149 8.3 226n141, 251n256, 11.12 241n227,
5.27 339 253n259 273n329
6.1 218n116 8.5 61, 95 11.15 60, 114, 115n, 119
6.3 235 8.6 141 11.16 264
6.4 282n351 8.7 60 11.18 60, 162n11, 170
6.5 60 8.9 60 11.19 77n19
6.7 77 8.10–12 106 11.20 149, 151
6.10 233 8.10 141, 346n164 11.21 233n166
6.13–15 106 8.11 104, 105, 106, 107 11.23 235(n189)
6.13 346n164 8.12 273n329 12.1 193n23, 202
6.14 107 8.13 60, 253 12.2 141
6.16 282n351 8.14 218n116, 226n141, 12.12 233n167
6.17 61 277, 280n343, 12.14 75
6.19 234, 235(n189) 282n351 12.15 220n123, n126
6.20 332, 333, 335n114, 8.15 104, 272 12.16 61n7
336 8.22 218n116 12.17 61n7
6.21 77 8.23 282n351, 317n60 13.2 161n7, 163n15,
6.22 218n116 9.2 61 170n33
6.25 226n141 9.7 193n23 13.4 210n86, 218n116,
6.26 233n167 9.17 77 226n141
6.27 60, 149 9.20 60 13.6 61, 218n116,
6.29 150 9.21 60 226n141
passage index 463

13.7 206n74, 16.5 77n19, 226n141 19.3 235n188, n189

210n86, 212, 16.6 346n164 19.4 141n101, 265
217n116, 16.8 195, 226n141 19.5 265
226n141 16.10–11 61n7 19.10 195
13.9–10 254 16.12 60, 234n183 19.11 77n19, 104
13.10 77n19, 253 16.13 218n116, 19.13 141, 269
13.13 236n199 226n141, 19.14 61, 226n141
13.14 75 234n173 19.15 77n19, 78,
13.16 269, 282n351 16.14 313n47 235(n189)
13.17 273n329 16.15 218n116, 20.1 342n154
13.19 60, 120, 122, 125 226n141, 234, 20.2 171n39, 179, 180,
13.20 106, 218n116 313n47 226n141, 234
13.22 106n, 124n52 16.16 60 20.4 225n, 226n141
13.25 155, 158 16.18 141n103 20.5 60, 155,
13.26 111n16 17.2 142, 243n235 157(n42), 225n,
14.1 276, 280 17.3 60, 158, 301 226n141
14.3 233, 263, 266 17.8 235n189 20.6 218n116,
14.5 269 17.9 60 226n141
14.9 272 17.10 149, 151n21 20.7 60, 161n7,
14.10 75, 243n235 17.11 339 170n31
14.12 234n183 17.12 60 20.8 82
14.14 60 17.14 105 20.9 243n235
14.17 317n60 17.18 235n188 20.11 194n28, 195
14.16 239n219 17.24–25 61n7 20.12 149, 151n21
14.18 226n141, 17.24 234n183 20.17 60
282n351 17.25 236n199, 21.1 70, 234n174,
14.21 195n33 313n47 245n243, 248n,
15.2 61n7 17.27 60, 61n7, 250n253
15.4 276, 282n351 234n183 21.2 60, 186, 192n21,
15.5 236n195 18.1 234n174 196, 202n,
15.6 119n34, 161n7, 18.2 206n74, 212, 236n201,
170n31 217n116, 241n225
15.7 282n351 226n141 21.3 150n12, 248n
15.8 60 18.3 226n141 21.4 60, 192n21,
15.9 263, 314, 18.5 70, 76n15, 226n141,
317n62, 77n19 279n341,
318(n64) 18.7 77n19 282n351
15.10 112n 18.8 236n200 21.5 194n27
15.12 218n116 18.10 195 21.7 60
15.13 60, 300n11, 18.11 233, 313n47 21.9 60, 181n75,
317n60 18.15 282n351, 366 182n80, 185,
15.15 60, 243n235 18.16 282n351 186, 232n162
15.19 61n7 18.18 60, 234n176 21.12 60, 150
15.20 60, 232n162, 18.19 234n176 21.13 235, 237n207
236 18.20 60, 243n235 22.1 218n116,
16.2 61 18.23 180n 226n141
16.3 141 19.2 218n116, 22.2 150, 236n199
16.4 125 226n141 22.3 150n12
464 passage index

22.4 61n7, 236n199 24.1 103n, 226n141, 26.20 255n265

22.6 143, 144, 233n166 305n25, 306n25 26.21 226n141, 245n243
22.7 226n141 24.5 251n256, 253 26.22 192n21, 226n141,
22.8 251n256, 253n259 24.6 75, 226n141, 234 245n243, 251n255
22.11 226n141, 324n81 24.7 111n14 26.23 60, 245n243,
22.12 226n141 24.9 226n141, 276, 251n255
22.14 61, 269 282n351 27 70, 217
22.15 60, 263n296 24.10 141n101, 142 27–29 67, 68, 90, 94,
22.16 60 25.1 234 102–103, 234, 250
22.17 77n19 25.2 233 27–52 66
22.19 213n95, 214n102, 25.3 78, 233n172, 27.1 70, 192n21
272 270n321 27.2–3 354
22.22 60 25.4 270n321 27.2 215
22.24 218n116 25.5 236n199 27.3 226n141, 355
22.26–27 238 25.7 234n183 27.4 230n157
22.26 218n116, 226n141, 25.9 218n116 27.6 103(n), 111n16
234 25.12 282n351 27.9 149, 234n183
22.27 226n141, 234 25.13 356n2 27.13 237n211
22.28 61, 226n141, 234, 25.17 161n7, 170n31 27.14 60, 234n183
263 25.22 282n351 27.16 60, 205n69, 212,
22.30 236n199 25.24 282n351 214n103, 215,
22.31 236 25.26 218n116, 276, 217n116, 218n116,
22.32 236 282n351 234n183
23.3 60, 226n141, 234 25.28 61n7 27.17 234n183
23.7–8 356n2 25.29 111n14, 236n196 27.18 95, 225n, 226n141
23.7 313n47 25.30 236 27.19 235, 237n211
23.8 205n69, 212, 213, 25.31 60, 243 27.20 95, 225n,
214n103, 215n110, 25.34 77n19, 82 226n141, 301n,
217n116, 218n116, 25.36 82 304, 305n25
226n141, 236n199 25.37 282n351 27.21 95
23.9 282n351 26–52 232 27.22 60, 206n74, 212,
23.10 125 26–29 94 217, 218n116,
23.12 235n188, n189, 26 94, 234 225n, 226n141,
n191 26.1 70 234n177
23.15 220n123 26.2 61, 233 28.1 61, 70, 250n252
23.16 60, 234 26.3 236 28.3 226n141, 234n177
23.17 233n167, 26.4–6 61n7 28.4 111n6, 225n,
235n184, 273n329 26.4 234n183 226n141, 234n177
23.20 60, 61, 282n351 26.5 60, 234, 270n321 28.6 61, 218n116,
23.27 141 26.6 146, 147, 282n351 226n141, 234n177
23.30 235n192, 237n207 26.9 60, 236 28.7 111n15
23.31 235n192, 237n207 26.10 226n141 28.8 236
23.32 235n192, 26.11 236 28.9 60
237n207, 282n351 26.12 236 28.12 70, 77n19
23.33 61n7 26.13 236 28.13 282n351
23.35 233 26.15 231, 234n182, 236 28.15 235n185
23.36 243n235 26.18 94, 255n265, 28.16 237n211
23.37 119n34 282n351 28.17 61
23.39 273n329 26.19 236 29.1–3 70
passage index 465

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

34.7 236(n201), 36.16 60 38.11 60, 218n116,

277, 280n343, 36.18 111n16 226n141
282n351, 300n11 36.19 304n24, 347n169 38.12 179
34.8–16 306 36.20 226n141 38.13 325n83
34.8 70, 95, 234n174, 36.22 61, 300n11 38.14 111n16, 226n141,
245n243 36.23 77n19, 226n141, 245n243,
34.9 305n25, 305n26, 237, 270 251n255, 300n11
306n28, 312, 36.24 60 38.15 234n183
313(n47), 314 36.25 234n183 38.16 245n243, 251n255
34.11 60 36.26 171n39, 179 38.17 61n7, 181n75, 185,
34.12 192n21 36.29 233n166, 237n210 186, 345n158,
34.14 61, 119n34, 36.30 236n199, 317n61, 346n165
234n183, 305n25, 318n63 38.18 61n7, 343,
313n47 36.31 235(n189), 346n165, 347n169
34.16 305n25 313n47 38.19 232n162,
34.17 234n183, 276, 37.1 103n 245n243,
282n351 37.2 234n183 251n255, 305n26,
34.18 61 37.3 245n243 307n32, 312n44,
34.19 95, 301, 304n24, 37.5 95, 300n11 314
347n169 37.7 60, 220n123, 38.22 264, 282n351,
34.21 300n11 300n11 345n158, 346n165
34.22 226n141, 234n177, 37.8 236n201 38.25–26 61n7
236n201 37.10 194n27, 300n11 38.25 193n23
35.1 234n174 37.11 300n11 38.26 218n116
35.2 192n21, 193n23, 37.12 218n116, 226n141 38.28 95, 125, 264, 266,
196, 202 37.13–14 232n162 325n83
35.4 161n7, 170n32, 37.13 218n116, 232n162 39 323
216, 218n116, 37.14 232n162, 234n183 39.1 61, 103n, 224,
226n141 37.15 82, 265 225n, 226n141,
35.7 218n116 37.16 218n116, 226n141 235, 300n11
35.10 161n7, 170n31, 179 37.17 245n243, 251n255 39.2 61
35.11 95, 103n, 226n141, 37.18 226n141, 234n179, 39.3 345n158,
236, 300n11 245n243, 251n255 346(n166)
35.13 234n183, 313n47 37.19 233n167 39.4–13 152n23, 304, 346
35.14 234n183, 270n321 37.20 218n116 39.4 282n351
35.15 234n183, 236, 37.21 171n39, 180, 39.5 192n21, 193n23,
270n321, 273n329 245n243, 226n141, 300n11,
35.16 61, 234n183 251n255, 270, 301
35.17 235(n189) 325n83 39.6 218n116, 301n,
35.18 234, 331 38.2 60, 181n75, 304
36.1 192n21 180n80, 185, 186 39.7 225n, 226n141
36.2 236 38.3 300n11 39.9 149n4, 152n23,
36.5 171n39, 179, 38.4 103, 241, 282n351, 226n141, 232n162,
226n141 304n24, 347n169 344n156
36.7 235 38.5 245n243, 251n255 39.10 344n156
36.8 179 38.6 226n141, 325n83 39.11 180, 344n156
36.9 61, 95 38.7 226n141 39.12 191n19
36.12 218n116, 226n141, 38.9 226n141 39.13 344n156, 346
234 38.10 171n39, 180 39.14 226n141, 325n83
passage index 467

39.15 325n83 42.1 277, 281n347, 44.18 60, 78, 273(n329)

39.16 78, 235(n189) 298n9, 346n164 44.19 60, 78, 273
39.18 60 42.5 134n 44.20 233
40.1 78, 95, 225n, 42.6 15, 125, 127, 128 44.21 171n39, 179,
226n141, 234n174, 42.7 61 180, 243n235,
344n156 42.8 192n21, 277, 243n235
40.2 235, 243, 344n156 281n347, 298n9, 44.23 106n, 120, 122,
40.3 179, 264, 266 346n164 123, 124n52
40.4 78, 192n21, 42.10 61n7, 75, 236 44.25 61, 78
226n141 42.11 241n229 44.26–27 314n49
40.5 60, 195n36, 42.12 226n141, 234n177 44.26 255n265, 313n47
344n156 42.14 218n116, 226n141 44.28 218n116, 220n128,
40.6 192n21, 226n141, 42.15–16 61n7 224, 225, 226n141,
229 42.15 218n116 282n351
40.7 60, 134n, 225n, 42.16 218n116 44.29 273n329
226n141, 277, 42.17 218n116, 235n188, 44.30 103n
281n347, 298n9 n189 45.5 60, 226n141,
40.8 134n, 226n141 42.18 236n203 235n188, 189
40.9 77n19 42.19 226n141, 233 46–51 234, 235, 356n2
40.11–12 312n45, 313n48 42.21 161n7, 170n32, 46.2 103n, 300n11
40.11 60, 305n26, 171n37 46.6 205n69, 213,
307n32, 313, 314 42.22 218n116, 273n329 217n116, 226n141,
40.12 60, 226n141, 43.2 218n116, 226n141 263
305n26, 307n32, 43.3 226n141 46.10 218n116, 237
314n49 43.4 277, 281n347, 46.11 114, 119
40.13 226n141, 277, 298n9 46.13 103n
281n347, 298n9 43.5 226n141, 277, 46.14 241
40.16 235 281n347, 298n9 46.16 234n181
40–43 281 43.6 344n156 46.17 60, 218n116
41.1 61, 218n116, 43.7 226n141 46.20 218n116
226n141, 314, 344, 43.9 305n26, 307n32, 46.21 233n167, 235n191,
347 314 282n351
41.2 60 43.10 100, 103n, 216, 46.23 60
41.3 192n21, 218n116, 218n116 46.24 218n116
282n351, 305n26, 43.12 218n116 46.25 236
307n32 44.1 234n174, 305n26, 46.26 60, 75, 282n351
41.6 106n, 124n52 307n32, 314 46.27 60, 73, 366
41.7 192n21, 226n141 44.2 235n188, n189 46.28 196, 202n,
41.9 226n141, 245n243 44.3 243 226n141
41.10 60, 344n156 44.4 270n321 47.1 237
41.11 277, 281n347, 44.8 218n116, 242, 47.2 218n116
298n9 282n351 47.4 77n19
41.12 237 44.11 242 47.5 233
41.13 277, 281n347, 44.12 218n116, 226n141, 47.6 60, 203n55
298n9 346n164 47.7 210n86, 218n116
41.16 277, 281n347, 44.14 218n116, 226n141 47.11 242n230
282n351, 298n9 44.16 234n183 48 234
41.17 226n141 44.17 78, 161n7, 170n31, 48.1 125, 237, 263
41.18 60 272, 273 48.2 60
468 passage index

48.4 82 49.34 70, 119n34, 237, 50.44 60, 226n141

48.3–5 82 324n80, 356n2 50.45 160n5, 218n116,
48.7 60, 119n34 49.36 220n127, 224, 236
48.8 226n141, 233, 225, 226n141, 235, 50.46 218n116
284n358, 286n 348 50 237
48.11 237 49.37 235n188, n189 51 234
48.14 282n351, 300n12 49.38 218n116 51.1 218n116, 236
48.19 236 50 234 51.2 220n128, 225,
48.21 205n69, 213, 50.1 218n116, 235 226n141
216(n114), 50.2 218n116 51.3 232n165,
217n116, 226n141, 50.3 218n116, 236n204 236(n195)
235 50.4 313n47 51.6 218n116
48.22 226n141 50.6 143n110, 226n141 51.7 218n116
48.23 226n141 50.7 60, 141n101 51.8 218n116
48.24 144n114, 226n141 50.8 218n116 51.9 104, 105, 106,
48.31 236 50.9 218n116 218n116, 220n123,
48.34 216n114 50.10 60 n126, 226n141,
48.38 61 50.12 125 264
48.39 125 50.13 218n116 51.11 218n116
48.40 237(n211) 50.14 125, 218n116, 51.12 218n116, 226n141,
48.41 143, 144, 145, 155 236(n195) 235, 236
48.44 226n141, 235 50.16 218n116, 220n123, 51.13 60, 61
49 234 n126 51.14 236n205
49.2 236 50.18 237 51.15 60
49.4 60 50.19 226n141 51.16 60, 179
49.5 60 50.21 236 51.17 60
49.6 60 50.23 218n116 51.19 73, 366
49.7 17n45, 60 50.24 149n9, 218n116 51.20 282n351
49.13 282n351 50.25 60 51.23 340n138, 341n140,
49.14 233n167, 355 50.26 61 343
49.16 218n116, 282n351 50.28 218n116 51.24 218n116
49.17 75 50.29 218n116, 236 51.25 236(n207), 237
49.18 218n116 50.30 282n351 51.26 60, 282n351
49.19 60, 226n141 50.31 237(n207) 51.27 236n193
49.20 160n5, 236 50.32 60 51.28 340n138, 341n140,
49.22 237n206 50.33 306, 313n47 343
49.23 60 50.34 218n116, 242 51.29 143, 145, 218n116
49.24 60, 125 50.35 218n116, 51.30 155, 218n116
49.26 282n351 236(n196) 51.31 124n52, 353, 355
49.27 60 50.36 236(n196), 51.32 282n351
49.28 99n78, 103n, 237n211 51.33 218n116
226n141, 236 50.37 60, 236(n196) 51.34 103n
49.29 141 50.38 237(n208) 51.35 218n116, 237
49.30 236n197, n298, 50.39 75, 283, 286, 287, 51.37 218n116
263 282n351, 283n354 51.38 282
49.32 60, 220n127, 224, 50.40 218n116 51.40 77n19
225, 226n141, 348, 50.41 218n116 51.41 218n116
351 50.42 218n116 51.42 218n116
49.33 218n116 50.43 264 51.44 125, 218n116
passage index 469

51.47 218n116 52.25 149, 281n350, 7 50n130

51.48 218n116 282n351, 300n14, 7.14 148n3
51.49 218n116, 282n351 347n169 7.27 196
51.50 243n235 52.26 226n141, 344n156 8.2 161n7, 206
51.51 226n141, 233 52.27–30 77 8.3 225n
51.53 218n116, 226n141 52.27 171n39, 179, 180, 8.7 161n7
51.54 82, 218n116 218n116, 323 8.10 161n7
51.55 218n116 52.28–30 312 8.11 337, 340
51.56 143, 145, 218n116, 52.28 305n26, 307n32, 8.14 204n63, 205n69,
233n167 313, 314n49 214n102
51.57 340n138, 341n140, 52.29 77, 95, 365 8.16 133n84, 203n56
343 52.30 305n26, 307n32, 9.7 291
51.58 218n116 313, 314n49, 9.8 162n11
51.59 70, 226n141 344n156 10.1 161n7
51.60 218n116, 225n, 52.31 323 10.9 161n7
226n141, 235n184, 52.32 193n23, 216, 10.17 196
236 218n116 11.1 161n7, 163n15
51.61 226n141 52.33 265, 282n351 11.6 291
51.62 235, 282n351 52.34 265, 287 11.8 236n196
51.63 226n141 11.13 196n40
51.64 218n116, 235n188, Ezekiel 11.16 161n7
n189, 323, 356n2 1.1 161n7, 245n243 11.21 141n103
52 325 1.4 161n7 12.7 161n7
52.1 323 1.11 210n86 12.13 225n
52.2 179, 180 1.12 206n72 12.14 220n127, 348
52.3 95, 125 1.15 161n7 12.16 141n103
52.4 61, 103n, 233n167, 1.22 210n86 13.6 291
300n11, 323 1.27 161n7 13.8 235n192, 237n207
52.5 245n243 1.28 161n7 13.9 155
52.6 61 2.1 193n23, 196 13.17 298n9
52.7 282n351 2.6 196 13.20 235n192, 237n207
52.8 300n11 2.9 161n7 14.4 193n23, 196,
52.9 193n23, 205n69, 3.3 162n11 283n353
226n141 3.13 239n217 14.7 241n222,
52.10 213, 216, 217n116 3.15 161n7 283n353,
52.11 225n, 226n141 3.22 193n23, 196 285n364
52.12 61, 245n243, 3.23 161n7 14.17 236n196
251n255, 344n156 3.24 193n23, 196 14.21 225n, 236n196
52.13 95, 346n164 3.27 193n23, 196 14.22 235n189
52.14 300n11, 344n156 5.3 220n127 16 115, 116–117
52.15 149n4, 152, 5.8 235n192, 237n207 16.5 236n195
232n162, 344n156 5.10 220n127, 348 16.8 161n7, 196
52.16 344n156 5.12 220n127, 348 16.11 162n11
52.17 225n, 226n141 5.15 121n37 16.13 114
52.19 344n156 5.17 236n196 16.14 104n93
52.20 245n243 6.3 236n196 16.18 114, 279n341, 280
52.23 348, 351 6.9 141n103 16.19 112(n)
52.24 243, 277, 6.14 205n69, 214n103, 16.22 114
342n154, 344n156 215n111n 112 16.31 114
470 passage index

16.36 171n39 23.8 193n24, 196 33.30 193n23, 206n74

16.37 332 23.12 340n138, 341n140 34.10 235n192, 237n207
16.43 114, 242n232 23.13 161n7 34.21 205n69
16.47 114 23.16 171n37 34.22 241n227
16.50 114, 161n7 23.19 171n39 35.3 235n192, 237n207
16.51 114 23.20 171n37 35.13 337
16.53 298n9 23.23 196, 340n138, 36.5 155
16.58 112n 341n140 36.13 114
16.59 196 23.25 196 36.19 161n7
16.60 196 23.29 196, 291 36.21 236n195
16.62 195n33 23.40 291 36.35 251n257, 252
17.12 225n 23.41 291 37.2 291
17.13 195n33 24.12 120 37.5 181n73
17.16 195n33 24.18 161n7 37.6 181n73
17.17 196 25.6 155 37.7 288
17.18 291 25.9 205n69 37.8 210n86, 288
17.20 195n34, 225n, 25.12 291 37.9 348
243n237 25.13 203n55 37.10 288
17.21 348 25.15 155 37.14 181n73
17.24 291 26.2 143 37.26 196
18.13 181n76 26.3 235n192, 237n207 38.3 235n192, 237n207
18.14 171n39 26.11 220n123 38.7 241
18.19 171n39 26.16 279n341 38.9 196
18.23 181n75, 184n87, 27.33 339 38.21 236n196
186 28 50n130 38.22 195n34, 243n237
18.24 181n76, 184n87, 28.7 236n196 39.1 235n192, 237n207
186 28.8 220n127 39.23 161n7
18.28 171n39 28.14 291 39.24 161n7, 196
19.4 226n139 28.17 233n173 40.3 172n41
19.12 220n123, 291 28.18 161n7 40.10 15
20.3 193n23 28.22 235n192, 237n207 40.19 205n69
20.9 161n7 28.23 236n196 40.24 291
20.11 181n76, 184, 186 29.3 235n192, 237n207 40.35 291
20.13 181n76, 184n86, 29.5 205n69 40.40 205n69, 214n102,
186 29.8 236n196 n103, 220n127
20.14 161n7 29.10 235n192, 237n207 40.44 205n69, 214n102,
20.17 196 30.11 236n196 n103
20.21 181n76, 184n86, 30.16 315, 316 40.46 275
186 30.22 235n192, 237n207 41.3 291
20.22 161n7, 291 30.25 226n139 41.4 228n148
20.26 161n5 31.10 291 41.7 288
20.35 195n34, 243n237 31.12 277 41.8 291
20.36 195n34, 243n237 31.15 161n7 41.13 291
20.44 196n39 31.17 195n30 41.15 291
21.8 235n192, 237n207 32.27 279n341 42.15 291
21.9 236n196 32.30 195n30 42.16–20 348
22.14 196 33.2 236n196 43.8 161n7
22.25 155 33.3 236n196 43.10 141n102
22.29 291 33.11 181n75, 186 43.24 233n173
23.6 340n138, 341n140 33.27 155 44.4 161n7
passage index 471

44.5 193n23, 196 11.5 226n139 4.3 236n196

45.7 205n69, 214n103 12.2 195n33, 220n128 4.13 114
46.9 205n69, 214n102 13.2 239n217 7.9 220n127
46.17 120 13.7 161n7 7.12 277
47.2 214n102 14.3 195n31
47.8 104, 205n69 Nahum
47.9 181n76, 182n80 Joel 1.2 325n86, 328
47.12 104, 105 2.2 283n354 1.8 196n40
47.15 205n69, 214n101 2.18 236n195 2.2 331n
47.17 214n101 4.2 195n34, 243n237 2.14 235n192, 237n207
47.18 205n69 4.5 220n127 3.5 235n192, 237n207
47.19 205n69 4.20 283n354 3.10 220n127
48.1 205n69, 214n102,
n103, n104 Amos Habakkuk
48.2 205n69 1.11 325n86, 326, 327 1.2 203n55
48.3 205n69, 214n103, 2.9 161n7 1.14 171n39, 179n
n104 2.10 161n7 3 9
48.4 205n69, 214n103, 2.11 161n7 3.11 205n69, 210n86
n104 3.9 234n178 3.17 143
48.5 205n69, 214n103, 3.14 220n123
n104 4.10 161n7 Zephaniah
48.6 205n69 5.7 220n123 1.1 88
48.7 205n69 5.27 213n95, 214n102 1.4 155
48.8 205n69, 214n103, 7.7 153 1.18 196n40
n104 7.8 153 3.10 336
48.16 205n69, 214n101 7.9 95, 97 3.20 277
48.21 205n69 7.16 95
48.23 205n69, 214n103, 8.2 18n48 Haggai
n104 9.5 172n43, 173n52 1.1 15n40, 245n243,
48.24 205n69, 214n103, 340n138, 341,
n104 Obadiah 342n141
48.25 205n69, 214n103, 8 17n45 1.9 220n123
n104 1.11 237n208
48.26 205n69, 214n103, Jonah 1.14 340n138, 342n141
n104 1.1–2 218 1.15 15n40, 245n243
48.27 205n69, 214n103, 1.6 344n156 2.1 342n141
n104 1.9 306(n28), 311 2.2 340n138
48.30 214n101 1.12 251n256 2.10 15n40
48.32 205n69 2.4 260 2.21 340n138, 342n141
48.33 205n69 2.7 220n127 2.22 322n72
48.34 205n69 2.10 206
3.3 173n52 Zechariah
Hosea 1.1 15n40, 245n243
2.20 195n33 Micah 1.6 196n39
8.13 334 1.9 143 1.7 15n40, 88, 155n37
9.4 332, 335n114, 336 1.12 220n128 1.16 220n128, 222,
9.8 149 2.7 195n37 225n
10.6 220n128 3.7 295n3 2.1 161n7
10.36 205n68 3.11 235n184 2.5 161n7
11.4 161n7 3.12 94 4.1 173n173
472 passage index

4.4 161n7, 164n19 7.5 162n13 62.21 161n9

4.11 161n7 7.6 220n123 63.8 205n69
4.12 161n7 7.10 149 63.11 155
5.1 161n7 9.10 276, 280 65.9 155n36
5.9 161n7, 163n15, 9.18 204n65, 205n69, 66.20 198, 285
164n19 220n128 68.7 205n69
5.10 164n19 10.1 276, 280 68.14 143
6.1 161n7 10.6 283n354 68.19 220n127
6.4 161n7 11.6 155 68.20 283n353,
7.1 15n40 12.3 193n23 285n364, 286
8.6 133n82 13.2 203n55, 210n86 68.31 155
8.16 193n23 13.3 203n55, 210n86 68.33 276
8.23 305n26, 308 14.5 210n86 69.11 161n9
9–14 50n130, 372n 15.7 77 69.12 161n9, 162n13,
9.12 220n127 16.5 155 164n19
9.15 275 18 9 69.21 161n9, 162n13
10.2 149 18.12 9 71.3 149
10.9 181n74 18.20 220n127 72.4 241n227
11.5 236n195 18.24 161n9, 163n15 73.2 143
11.6 236n195 18.35 143 73.14 161n9
11.7 161n7 21.9 240 73.16 162n13
11.8 161n7 22.11 233n173 73.21 149
11.13 155, 161n7, 162n11 25.7 242n234 74.5 220n127
11.17 236n196 33.11 283n354 74.7 220n123
13.7 236n196 34.5 259 76.3 13, 92
14.2 225n 35.1 194n27 77.9 283n354
14.3 155 37.31 143 78 9
14.17 225n 38.15 161n9 78.9 155
41.7 220n127 78.16 172n41
Malachi 41.20 195n37 78.54 225
1.3 161n7 44.4 241n227 79.9 281n345
1.8 340n138 44.27 205n69 79.13 283n354
2.5 195n33 45.5 281n345 85.6 283n354
2.12 242n231 45.7 320 85.11 239n217
2.15 155 45.10 157n41 86.16 241n227
3.3 275 45.18 284n358, 286n 87.5 249, 283n354,
3.4 332, 333n110, 49.12 283n354 284
335n114, 336 49.13 155 88.4 220n128
3.17 236n195 55.19 155 88.6 305n25
3.22 237n208 55.22 155 89.2 283n354
3.23 108 55.23 155, 233n173 89.5 283n354
60 105n 89.40 220n123
Psalms 60.4 104 89.45 155
2.1 260 60.10 233n173 90.1 283n354
2.11 243n239 61.7 283n354 90.10 161n9, 162n13
2.12 239n217 61.9 283n353, 94.17 205n69
3.3 206 285n364 96.8 220n127
3.6 162n13 62.4 203n55 98.1 241n227
passage index 473

98.6 245n243 119.158 162n13, 164n19 10.19 220n127

100.2 243n239 124 11 11.17 171n37
100.5 283n354, 286 124.4 205n69 12.6 242n232
102.8 161n9 124.7 149 12.22 220n127
102.13 283n354 125 11 14.16 230n158
102.23 243n239 127.5 193n23 15.3 342n155
102.26 279n341 132.7 220n127 16.9 325n86
103 11, 115, 117, 319, 133 11 16.12 325n87
328 133.3 210n86 16.16 143
103.3 114 135.9 114, 117 18.2 203n55
103.4 114 135.13 283n354 19.2 203n55
103.5 114, 117n 135.15 279n341 19.20 162n13
103.9 325n86 136.11 173n49 20.6 220n127
103.14 148n3 136.23 242n234 20.13 236n195
103.20 279n341 137 117 21.32 220n127
104.22 139n96, 140 137.6 114 22.2 342n155
104.25 210n86 137.8 148n3 22.21 342n155
104.34 332, 333n110, 334, 139.3 342n155 22.27 336
335n114 139.11 164n19 27.22 233n173
105.9 95, 97, 187n7, 190 140.9 155 28.10 155
105.10 233n173 141.6 334 29.17 162n13
105.28 172n41, 174 142.5 241n222 30.9 161n9
105.40 155 142.8 306n25 31.27 239n217
105.43 172n41 143.5 279n341 33.26 336
106.31 283n354 144 11, 155 34.9 342n155
106.36 244n239 144.1 155 34.13 205n69, 206
107 141n102 145 11, 319 34.30 324n81
107.11 133n83 145.13 284n358, 321n70 35.3 342n155
107.23 279n341 146.4 220n127 37.12 205n69, 206
107.28 81 146.10 283n354 38.15 161n9
109.21 196n39 148.5 259 38.20 225
113.5–9 9n23 38.23 155
116 115, 117 Job 39.5 305n25
116.6 241n227 1–2 11 40.14 241n227
116.7 114 1.15 162n13 40.28 195n33
116.14 205n69 1.16 162n13 41.20 275
116.18 205n69 1.17 162n13 42.7–17 11
116.19 114 1.19 162n13 42.11 235n189
117 11 2.11 235n184 42.16 172n40
118.23 120 2.13 195n36, 220n123
119 11, 162, 368 4.11 282 Proverbs
119.55 162n13 5.18 104, 105 1–9 338n121
119.59 161n9, 162n13, 5.23 195n33 1.9 153, 155
163n15, 164(n19) 7.10 220n125 2.11 230n158
119.90 283n354 7.20 161n9 3.24 332
119.106 162n13, 164n19 8.2 203n55 3.29 195n36
119.131 162n13, 164n19 9.6 242 6.5 149
119.147 162n13 10.6 241n222 6.14 155
474 passage index

6.18 220n127 2.13 114 8.10 257n275, 291

6.19 155 2.14 332, 333n110 8.15 291
6.22 230n158 3.8 148n3 8.17 291
7.7 161n9 3.9 245n243 9.1 155
7.13 239n217 3.11 245n243 9.6 156n37
8.30 149n4, 161n9, 4.9 112(n), 153, 155 9.7 156n37
283n353, 4.13 12n36 9.14 291
285n364 4.16 220n127 9.15 251n256,
8.34 283n353, 5.1 220n127 253n259, 291
285n364 5.9 112n 9.16 291
9.17 334 6.2 220n127 9.18 155
10.12 155 7.2 149n4 10.3 257n275
13.19 332 8.1 239n217 10.4 104n91
14.4 150 8.11 325n83 10.10 281n349, 298n9
14.30 104n91 8.12 325n83 10.17 301n, 305n25
15.4 104n91 12.9 291
15.24 210n86 Qohelet
17.3 149 1.5 257n275 Lamentations
20.10 283n354 1.10 156n37 2.2 220n123
20.15 155 1.13 291 2.10 220n123
20.17 332, 334 1.16 291 2.12 141
20.22 241n227 1.17 162n12, 257n274 3.12 325n87
24.26 239n217 2.5 291 3.33 172n40
24.27 339 2.9 291 5.7 141n102
24.32 161n9 2.11 291 5.19 283n354
25.27 267n307 2.12 156n37, 291
27.6 337 2.13 291 Esther
27.24 283n353, n354, 2.14 291 1.2 245n243, 322
285n364 2.15 291 1.3 324n81
29.9 243n237 2.16 156n37 1.4 155
31 338n121 2.17 291 1.8 283n354,
31.1–9 17n43 2.18 291 344n156
31.1 17n43 2.20 291 1.9 245n243
31.3 17n43 3.1 155n37 1.10 188n9, 245n243
31.15 314n52 3.12 249 1.11 245n243
3.15 156n37 1.12 245n243
Ruth 3.21 220n123, n127 1.15 245n243
1.8 220n126 3.22 291 1.16 245n243
2.9 239n217 4.1 161n8, 257n274, 1.17 245n243
2.19 210n86 291 1.19 245n243
3.3 114 4.2 156n37 1.20 155
3.4 114 4.4 291 1.22 155, 283n354
4.7 16, 37, 265n301 4.7 161n8, 257n274, 2.1 245n243
4.22 248n 291 2.5 305n26, 308n35,
5.11 334 309
Song of Songs 5.13 291 2.6 122
1.2 239n217 5.18 291 2.11 284n358
1.6 325n83 6.6 181n75, 184n83 2.12 245n243,
2.11 155 6.10 156n37 283n354
passage index 475

2.14 124 8.1 245n243, Daniel

2.15 255n265 305n26 1.2 155
2.16 245n243 8.3 305n26 1.3 344n156
2.20 188n9 8.5 305n26 1.5 155
2.21 245n243, 277 8.7 245n243, 305n26 1.15 155
2.22 245n243 8.8 155, 305n26 1.18 155
3.1 188n9, 245n243 8.9 124, 155, 283n354, 1.19 188n9, 193n23
3.4 283n354, 305n26 305n26, 340n138 1.20 321n70
3.6 305n26 8.10–14 353 1.21 245n243
3.7 155n37, 245n243 8.10 245n243 2.4b–7.28 56n4
3.8 245n243 8.11 284n358, 305n26 2.10 240n221
3.10 305n26 8.12 155n37, 245n243 2.12 17n45, 240n221
3.12 124, 155, 8.13 155, 284n358, 2.14 240n221,
245n243, 305n26 345n162
283n354, 8.15 292 2.19 240n221
340n138 8.16 155, 305n26 2.24 229
3.13–15 353 8.17 277, 284n358, 2.25 240n221
3.13 155n37, 305n26 305n26, 309 2.28 249n250
3.14 155, 284n358 9.1 155n37, 305n26 2.34 240n221
4.1 80 9.2 245n243, 305n26 2.35 240
4.3 284, 305n26, 9.3 305n26, 340n138 2.46 249n250
284n358 9.5 305n26 2.48 342n151, n152
4.7 305n26 9.6 305n26 3.1 249n250
4.8 155 9.10 305n26 3.2 240n221,
4.10 230n157 9.12 155, 245n243, 249n250,
4.11 124, 181n75, 305n26 342n145, n151
354n182 9.13 305n26 3.3 249n250,
4.13 305n26 9.15 155n37, 305n26 342nn145, 151
4.14 305n26 9.16 305n26 3.4 150n19
4.16 305n26 9.17 155n37 3.5 249n250
5.1 322n74 9.18 305n26 3.7 249n250
5.2 245n243 9.19 155n37, 305n26 3.8 312n41
5.3 245n243 9.20 245n243, 305n26 3.9 249n250
5.12 245n243 9.21 155n37, 255n265, 3.12 309, 310,
5.13 305n26 284n358 312n41
6.2 245n243, 277 9.22 305n26 3.16 249n250
6.3 155 9.24 292, 305n26 3.19 240n221
6.4 220n127 9.25 292, 305n26 3.24 249n250
6.6 155 9.27 155n37, 284n358, 3.27 240n221,
6.7 155 292, 305n26 342n145, n151,
6.9 155 9.28 283n354, n152
6.10 305n26 284n358, 305n26 3.31 249n250
6.11 155 9.29 245n243, 252, 3.33 284n356
6.13 305n26 253n259, 305n26 4.6 345n162
7.1 245n243 9.30 305n26 4.15 249n250
7.2 245n243 9.31 155n37, 245n243, 4.22 240n221
7.3 245n243 305n26 4.25 249n250
7.5 245n243 10.1 245n243 4.28 249n250
7.6 245n243 10.3 245n243, 305n26 4.31 284n356
476 passage index

4.33 240n221, 345n162 10.19 162n12, 164n19 5.17 249n250

5.1 249n250, 10.21 155 6.1 249n250
345n162 11.2 321n70 6.3 249n250
5.2 240n221, 345n162 11.4 220n127, 348 6.6 342n145
5.3 345n162 11.10 281n349, 298n9 6.7 240n221, 312n41,
5.9 249n250, 11.18 220n127 342n145
345n162 11.19 220n127 6.8 312n41
5.10 345n162 11.28 220n123 6.13 249n250,
5.11 249n250, 11.39 277, 280 342n145
345n162 12.5 292 6.14 312n41
5.20 322 12.8 162n12 6.15 249n250, 321
5.23 240n221, 345n162 6.16 312n42
5.30 249n250 Ezra 6.21 241n222
6.7 249n250 1.1 88n44, 90n47 6.22 292
6.8 342n145, n151 1.2 276 6.28 220
6.10 249n250 1.3 220n128, 225n 7.7 225n, 245n243
6.18 345n162 1.7 245n243 7.9 225n
6.26 249n250 1.11 220n128, 225n 7.11 245n243
7.2 240n221 2.1 99n78, 220n126, 7.12–26 56n4
7.28 329 n128, 222, 225n 7.13 312n42
8.1 245n243, 324n81 2.62 155 7.21 249n250
8.2 161n8, 163n15 2.68 220n125 7.25 240n221
8.3 161n8, 164n19 3.1 225n 7.28 162n12
8.7 292 3.3 277 8.15 161n8, 162n12, 275
8.8 220n127, 348 3.8 155, 220n128, 8.16 162n12
8.11 292 225n 8.17 161n8, 162n12,
8.13 162n12 3.10 292 180, 220n128
8.15 162n12 3.11 239n219 8.19 188n9
8.17 162n12 4.2 241n222 8.22 161n8
8.27 161n8, 292 4.3 245n243 8.23 161n8, 162n12
9.2 90n47 4.6 321n70 8.24 161n8, 162n12
9.3 162n12 4.7 155 8.25 162n12
9.4 161n8, 162n12 4.8–6.18 56n4 8.26 162n12
9.5 292 4.8 249n250 8.28 162n12, 165
9.12 235n189 4.11 229, 249n250 8.30 220n128, 225n,
9.13 188n9, 235n184 4.12 224, 310, 312n41 292
9.14 235n189 4.23 249n250, 312n41 8.31 162n12
9.21 155 4.24 321 8.36 292, 340n138
10.1 292 5.1 310, 312n41 9.1 141n103, 277
10.5 161n8 5.2 240n221 9.2 277, 293, 341n140
10.7 292 5.3 342n145 9.3 162n12
10.8 161n8, 163n15, 5.5 312n41 9.5 162n12
251n256, 253n259 5.6 249n250, 9.6 162n12, 293
10.9 255n265 342n145 9.8 188n9
10.11 108 5.7 249n250 9.11 141n103, 277
10.13 321n70 5.12 224 9.12 241n224
10.14 123n47, 292 5.13 249n250 9.13 293
10.15 292 5.14 249n250, 10.2 161n8, 277
10.16 162n12, 165 342n145 10.11 277
passage index 477

10.14 283n354 5.15 340n138 12.23 275

10.41 27, 87n 5.17 305n26, 341n140 12.26 340n138, 341
5.18 340n138 12.27 220n128, 225n
Nehemiah 5.19 242n234 12.31 161n8, 162n12
1.1 2 6.3 162n12 12.34 90n47
1.2 305n26 6.4 161n8, 164 12.39 293, 325n83, 331
1.4 161n8, 162n12 6.6 305n26 12.40 341n140
1.6 108 6.8 162n12 12.44 155
2.1 2, 162n12, 6.11 162n12, 181n76, 12.47 155
245n243 186n92 13.1 293, 341n140
2.6 155n37, 162n12 6.12 161n8, 162n12 13.7 161n8, 162n12,
2.7 340n138 6.14 242n234 220n128, 225n
2.9 161n8, 162n12, 6.16 188n9 13.8 161n8, 162n12
277, 281n346, 6.17 301n, 301 13.9 161n8, 162n12, 164
340n138 7.1 161n8 13.10 143, 155, 162n12,
2.11 161n8, 225n 7.2 161n8, 180 220n126
2.12 161n8, 282 7.3 12 13.11 161n8, 162n12,
2.13–15 255n265 7.5 162n12, 301n, 188n9
2.13 161n8, 162n12 341n140 13.12 220n127
2.15 161n8 7.6 220n126, n128, 13.13 162n12
2.16 301n, 305n26, 222, 225n 13.14 242n234
341n140 7.64 155 13.15 161n8
2.18 161n8 7.69 155 13.17 161n8, 162n12,
2.20 161n8, 164 8.2 172n41 188n9, 251n256,
3.6 233n173 8.17 230n157 253n259, 301n,
3.7 340n138 9.7 293 305n25
3.9 104 9.8 195n33, 293 13.18 235n189
3.25 325n83, 331 9.9 80 13.19 162n12
3.33 305n26 9.17 196n39 13.21 161n8, 162n12
3.34 305n26 9.19 315 13.22 162n12, 242n234,
3.38 161n8 9.29 181n76, 184 255n265
4.3 161n8 9.31 196n40 13.23 305n26
4.6 305n26 10.3 90n47 13.24 283n354, 305n26
4.7 161n8 10.29 155, 277 13.25 161n8, 164
4.8 161n8, 301n, 10.31 277 13.29 242n234
341n140 10.32 277 13.30 161n8, 162n12,
4.9 161n8 10.33 293 293
4.13 301n, 341n140 10.35 220n128 13.31 242n234
5.1 305n26 10.36 220n128
5.4 245n243 10.37 220n128, 275 1 Chronicles
5.5 301n 10.39 220n128 1–9 88, 89
5.7 161n8, 162n12, 10.40 275 1.7 205n69
188n9, 301n, 11.1 155 1.10 253n259
341n140 11.4 312n45 2.7 149n11
5.8 162n12, 305n26, 11.14 276 2.23 188n9
313 11.20 155 3.5 13
5.11 141 11.25 141 3.7 265n302
5.13 162n12 12.1 90n47 3.21 104
5.14 340n138 12.12 90n47 4.18 305n26
478 passage index

4.39 220n128 12.20–21 232n162 21.10 108n2

4.42 104, 220n128 12.20 232n162 21.15–28 99n79
5.24 90n47, 275, 278 12.21 232n162 21.15 220n128, 221,
5.25 277 12.22 276 225n
5.26 220n128 12.24 208n81 21.17 108n2
5.27 275 12.26 276 21.24 245n243
6.1 275 12.27 275 22.10 322n74
6.18 275 12.31 275, 276 22.18 293
6.62 189 12.34 279n341 22.19 241n222
6.63 205n69, 208n81, 12.39 208n81 23.1 293
216n114 13.6 208n81 23.5 239n219
7.2 104, 276 13.7 85n34 23.6 275
7.5 276, 298n9 14.1 278 23.24 275
7.7 276, 298n9 14.6 208n82 23.27 212n93, 275
7.9 276 14.11 276 23.30 239n219
7.11 276, 278, 298(n9) 14.16 205n69 24.19 220n128
7.21 293 15.3 225n 24.20 275
7.40 276, 298n9 15.15 275 24.30 275, 278
8.7 293 15.29 245n243, n245 24.31 245n243
8.14 85n34 16.4 239n219 25.1 277, 279n341
8.20 336 16.13 73n8 25.3 239n219
8.31 85n34 16.16 187n7, 188n9 26.13 283n354
8.40 276 16.17 73n8 26.17 205n69, 214n102
9.1 220n128 16.31 324n81 26.26 245n243
9.3 312n45 16.36 239n219 26.31 321
9.8 275 16.41 155 26.32 245n243
9.13 276 16.43 220n125, n126 27.3 277, 279n341
9.19 277 17.1 108 27.21 209n82
9.24 349 17.5 161n8 27.24 245n243
9.26 293 17.6 187n7, 193n23 27.31 245n243
9.32 275, 283n353, 17.8 161n8 28.1 225n
285n364 17.10 161n8 28.2 293
9.37 85n34 17.11 189, 321n70 28.3 245n243
9.43 104 17.16 108n2, 245n243, 28.5 322n74
11.7 153, 155 n245 28.9 104n93
11.8 155 17.17 293 28.14 283n354
11.17 177n65 18.3 205n69, 208n82 28.15 283n354
11.22 290, 293 18.6 239, 241n227 28.16 283n354
11.26 276, 298n9 18.10 245n243 28.17 283n354
11.31 89n44 18.11 245n243, n245 28.19 155
12.1 220n128 19.17 208n81 29.1 245n243
12.5 90n47 20.5 188n9, 189n11 29.4 277
12.9 153, 155, 205n69, 20.6 104n92 29.5 306n25
215n111, n 112, 20.8 13, 104n92 29.8 188n9
220n127, 276 20.19 239n219 29.9 245n243
12.11 90n47 20.21 239n219 29.13 239n219
12.17 153, 155, 220n128 21.2 257n272 29.17 149, 293
12.19 281n350, 300n14 21.6 188n9 29.22 263n296
passage index 479

29.24 245n243 9.14 340n138, 341n139 17.13 276

29.29 245n243 9.15 245n243, n245 17.14 276
29.30 276 9.20 245n243, n245 17.19 277, 280n343
30.21 239n219 9.22 245n243, n245 18 35n
9.29 155 18.2 220n128
2 Chronicles 9.30 289 18.6 194(n29), 196
1.3 208n81, 220n127 10.1 208n81 18.7 194(n29), 196
1.8 293 10.2 245n243, 247 18.12 240
1.10 252 10.6 187n7, 240, 18.16 220n125, n126
1.13 220n127 245n243, n245 18.23 177n65, 187n7,
2.10 155 10.8 187–188n7 193n23, 194, 196
2.11 245n243 10.10 187–188n7, 18.30 187n7, 188n8,
2.16 155 189n11, 193n23 194n27
3.1 86n35, 99n79 10.13 245n243 18.31 80
3.7 293 10.16 220n124 18.33 177n65
4.11 245n243, n245 10.18 245n243, n245 18.34 177n65
4.16 245n243, n245 11.4 187n7, 220n125, 19.1 220n128, 222,
4.17 205n69, 209n82 n126 225n
5.2 225n 11.10 277 19.2 245n243
5.3 236n202 11.12 284n358 19.3 293
5.6 245n243, n245 11.14 220n128, 225n 19.5 283n354
5.9 205n69 11.23 277 19.19 189
5.13 239n219 12.2 245n243, n245 20.3 241n222
6.4 187n7, 193n23 12.4 277 20.6 195n35
6.10 161n8 12.5 225n 20.9 235n184, 236n196
6.11 161n8, 195n33 12.8 276 20.12 251n256, n257
6.18 188n9 12.10 245n243, n245, 20.15 245n243,
6.25 140 290, 293 251n256, 253n259
6.33 277 12.11 265n301 20.19 275
6.42 242n234 12.13 245n243 20.20 220n128
7.5 245n243 13.1 245n243, n245 20.22 220n128
7.6 245n243 13.3 279n341 20.26 220n128
7.10 220n124 14.5 277 20.27 225n
7.12 257, 293 14.7 276 20.29 236, 276
7.16 261n285, 293 14.10 195n35 20.36 208n81
7.18 322n74 14.12 220n128 21.3 277
7.22 235n189 15.9 232n162 21.9 177n65, 208n81
8.5 277 15.13 241n222 21.13 172n40
8.10 245n243 15.16 245n243 22.1 220n127
8.11 221 16.3 187n7 22.5 187n7
8.14 283n354 16.4 245n243, n245, 22.8 195n34, 243n237
8.17 220n128 277, 281n347, 22.11 245n243
8.18 208n81, 245n243, 298n9, 299 22.12 187n7
n245 16.6 245n243, 247 23.1 243n236
9.2 208n81 16.12 172n40, 189n11 23.2 225n
9.9 245n243, n245 17.3 241n222 23.3 195n33
9.12 220n123, 17.4 241n222 23.4 277
245n243, n245 17.10 276 23.7 187n7
480 passage index

23.9 245n243, n245 30.11 220n128, 225n 35.19 321

23.12 353n179 30.14 220n128, 222 35.23 245n243
23.20 322n72 30.27 220n127 36.4 208n81, 226n139
24.5 189n11, 220n128 31.1 220n126 36.6 208n81, 225n
24.6 220n124 31.3 155 36.7 220n128, 225n
24.10 220n127 31.4 155 36.10 208n81, 225n,
24.11 256n272 31.13 245n243 245n243
24.12 255n265 31.14 205n69 36.13 245n243
24.14 155 31.16 212n93, 220n128 36.15 236n195
24.18 244n239 31.17 212n93 36.17 236n195
24.22 245n243 31.19 284n358 36.20 223, 225n
24.24 188n9 31.21 241n222, 293 36.22 88n44
25.10 220n122 32.5 205n69 36.23 276
25.12 220n127 32.6 278n336
25.22 220n124, n126 32.9 208n81, 225n 2. Samaritan
25.24 208n81 32.18 305n26 Pentateuch
25.27 208n81 32.19 277 Genesis
26.1 88n44 32.20 245n243 2.9 173n50
26.6 172n40 32.21 220n123 5.22 173n50
26.12 276 32.23 220n128, 225n 6.10 173n50
26.14 241, 275 32.28 284n358 8.21 173n50
26.18 245n243 32.30 220n127 8.22 316
26.21 245n243 33.4 265n302, 290, 11.10 173n50
26.26 277, 279n341 293 12.13 183n
28.8 220n128 33.11 208n81, 225n 14.10 211n88
28.9 220n127, n128 33.12 188n9 15.5 211n90
28.16 245n243 33.13 220n127 18.2 172n46
28.22 245n243 33.14 203n55, 205n69, 19.1 172n46
28.25 284n358 277, 281n346, 293 19.6 211n90
28.27 220n128 33.16 243n239 20.1 211n89
29.4 220n127 33.19 293, 336 23.7 172n46
29.6 260n285, 293 33.25 245n243, n245 23.12 172n46
29.12 275 33.33 277 23.13 211n88
29.16 220n128 34.3 241n222 24.16 211n90
29.17 220n128 34.4 257, 293 24.45 211n90
29.18 245n243 34.7 220n128, 222, 25.10 211n88
29.19 245n243, 293 225n 27.27 173n50
29.20 245n243 34.9 277 24.20 173n50
29.24 205n69 34.12 275 24.26 172n46
29.27 220n127 34.13 283n354 24.28 173n50
29.29 188n9 34.20 88n44 24.42 163n17
29.30 245n243 34.24 235n189 24.46 163n17
29.31 220n128 34.27 108n2, 177n65 24.47 163n17
30.1 220n128 34.28 235n189 24.48 163n17
30.3 220n128, 225n 34.33 243 24.52 172n46
30.6–10 353 35.3 243n239 25.6 211n91
30.8 220n127, 243n239 35.4 155 25.29 173n50
30.9 220n123 35.15 283n354 26.2 172n46
30.10 220n128 35.16 245n243 26.24 172n46
passage index 481

27.15 173n50 8.16 211n90 20.11 172n46

28.2 211n89 9.8 211n90 22.23 173n50
28.12 211n90 9.10 211n90 22.31 172n46
29.1 211n89 9.15 163n17, 164 23.4 163n17
29.3 211n88 10.19 211n89 27.5 173n50
31.10 163n17 12.4 280n342 31.50 163n17
32.4 211n89 15.4 299 33.27 211n90
32.6 164n20 15.27 211n90 33.54 211n88
33.3 172n46 16.5 285n362 34.3 211n91
35.3 163n17 16.33 211n88 34.5 211n89, n 91
35.9 172n46 17.16 285n362 34.8 211n91
35.16 172n46 18.7 172n46 34.9 211n91
39.1 211n88 19.4 163n17 34.11 211n91
39.10 285n362 21.33 211n88 35.5 211n91
41.11 164n20 26.33 211n88 35.10 211n89
41.22 163n17 27.9 211n91
41.42 173n50 29.43 211n88 Deuteronomy
41.56 173n50 30.18 211n88 1.16 163n17
42.2 211n88 33.9 211n90 1.18 163n17
43.7 163n17 34.8 172n46 1.19 163n17, 164n20
43.8 163n17 36.23 211n91 1.43 164n20
43.21 163n17, 164n20 38.9 211n91 2.1 163n17, 164n20
43.23 173n50 40.30 211n88 2.8 163n17, 164n20
43.30 211n88 2.13 164n20
44.20 173n50 Leviticus 2.26 164n20
44.21 163n17 8.6 173n50 2.33 163n17
44.24 163n17 8.13 173n50 2.34 163n17, 164n20
46.3 211n91 8.14 173n50 3.1 163n17
46.6 211n89 8.16 173n50 3.4 164n20
46.28 211n89 8.18 173n50 3.6 163n17, 164n20
47.31 172n46 8.22 173n50 3.17 211n91
48.10 143 8.24 173n50 3.18 163n17
49.31 211n88 9.15 173n50 3.23 164n20
50.5 163n17, 211n88 9.17 173n50 4.19 211n90
9.23 172n46 4.41 211n89
Exodus 18.3 183n 9.15 163n17, 164n20
1.16 183n, 184n88, 185 18.5 184 9.16 163n17
1.22 211n90 18.25 174n55 9.17 164n20
2.3 174n55 20.23 163n17 9.18 164n20
3.6 173n50 20.26 163n17 9.20 164n20
3.8 164n20 25.5 280n342 9.21 163n17, 164n20
3.15 285n362 26.13 163n17, 164n20, 9.25 164n20
3.17 164n20, 165 165 9.26 164n20
4.18 163n17 10.3 163n17, 164n20
4.20 211n89 Numbers 10.5 163n17, 164n20
6.3 163n17 4.19 285n362 11.20 280n342
6.5 164n20 8.19 164n20 12.3 140
7.15 211n90 13.33 163n17 12.11 211n88
7.28 280n342 16.10 173n50 14.22 285n362
482 passage index

17.3 172n46 3.13 143 31.20 132n82

22.14 164n20 4.4 144 31.23 172n45
23.13 211n91 4.13 172n45 31.29 173n50
29.4 163n17 4.14 172n45 32.14 86n38
30.12 211n90 4.16 172n45 32.16 172n45
33.2 43n117 5.13 172n45 34.12 164n19
33.14 280n342 5.22 210n86 35.4 342n149
5.28 173n50 35.11 81
6.2 164n19 38.14 210n86,
B. Judean Desert 6.5 164n19 216n113
Sources and Ben Sira 6.26 210n86 38.21 275, 279n341
8.15 210n86 39.12 81n27
1. Qumran and Judean 8.23–24 257 40.8 144
Desert 9.24 279n341 40.10 163n15,
Damascus Document (CD) 10.15 210n86 164n19
1.6 100n84 10.25–26 280 40.13 121n37
3.15–16 184 10.26 279n341 40.19 173n50
3.16 184n83 11.8 257n273 40.20 144
4.4 140 11.28 210n86 40.21 210n86
4.10 141n102 11.29 210n86 41.21 132n82
7.2 330 12.15 210n86 42.8 164n19
8.20 85 12.21 198n42 42.20 210n86
9.10 241n228 12.31 248 43.7 132n82
12.21 285n360 13.17 210n86 43.18 210n86
13.3 150n16 13.29 257n273 43.26 210n86
20.9 174n53 14.3 121n37 44.16 190n15
15.21 121n37 44.22 279n341
War Scroll (1QM) 15.30 105 46.15 257n273
7.17 284 16.24 172n45 46.23 132n82
9.13 349 17.11 210n86 47.4 210n86
12.7 321n70 17.26 210n86 47.5 132n82
14.13–14 315 23.19 172n45 47.19 105
19.7 321n70 23.23 172n45 47.23 285
19.8 321n70 24.15 198 48.15 279n341
25.25 173n50 48.18 140
Community Rule (1QS) 27.7 81n27, 210n86 48.19 139n96, 140
6.26 241n228 28.12 210n86 50.7 133n82
9.12 285n360 28.14 210n86 51.19 163n15
28.15 210n86 51.20 164n19
Rule of the Blessing (1QSb) 28.24 210n86 51.29 133n82
3.5 321n70 28.25 210n86 52.11 210n86
4.26 321n70 29.12 342n141 52.21 81n27
5.21 321n70 30.4 248 53.2 210n86
30.12 173n50 53.7 133n82
Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) 30.13 173n50 53.11 257
1.1 86n38 30.19 172n45 53.15 139n96
1.3 132n82 31.16 179n 53.18 133n82
1.10 121n37 31.17 173n50 53.28 139n96
passage index 483

Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHa) 16.15 85 4Q3

3.27 321n70 24.29 133n83 f1ii.18 164n19
9.19 284n356, 28.7 133n83
285n360 4Q7
10.10 163n16 Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) f1.4 316
10.12 163n16 19.24 345n162
10.16 163n16 20.28 252 4Q11
10.17 163n16 f3–4.4 81
10.23 173n51 1Q22 f35.5 210n86
10.28 279n341, 280 f1i.2 210n86
11.8 163n16 f1i.7 141n104 4Q13
11.15 279n341 f1ii.10 210n86, f3i–4.2 174n54
11.26 173n51 216n113 f3i–4.5 172n45
11.31 173n51 f3ii+5–6i.8 164n19, 165
12.37 163n16, 164n21 1Q25
14.9 164n21 f5.6 321n70 4Q14
14.10 164n21 1.42 133n82
14.27 163n16 1Q34bis 3.15 172n45
14.34 279n341 f2+1.4 284n356,
14.36 279n341 285n360 4Q17
15.23 164n21 f2ii.15 210n86
15.27 210n86 1Q49
16.28 163n16 f1.1 164n21 4Q22
17.9 163n16, 164n21 3.33 133n82
17.10 164n21 2Q12 18.1 285
17.34 243n237 f1.7 139n96 30.31 210n86
20.10 315n54 f3–4.2 100n84
21.10 172n44 4Q23
2QJer (2Q13) f32i+34i–43.11 210n86
Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) f5.5 244n240 f74.2 210n86
5.12 179n f7–8.14 210n86
6.4 279n341, 280 4Q24
2Q16 f8.4 210n86
1Q6 f4ii–5i.1 210n86
f5–6.4 132n82 4Q25
2Q19 f4.5 210n86
1Q7 1.4 184n83
f2.2 132n82 4Q26
f4.2 172n45 2Q22 f4.3 210n86,
f4.3 172n45 1.3 277 214n102
f4.5 172n45
3Q6 4Q26c
1QIsab (1Q8) f1.2 333 2.3 121n37
8c–e.10 210n86
15.4 84 Copper Scroll (3Q15) 4Q27
16.8 85 5.13 209n84, f1–4.1 173n52
16.9 84 223n135 f3ii+5.13 210n86
16.11 84 10.2 210n86 f11.6 173n52
484 passage index

f75–79.27 210n86 f93–94.3 173n52 4Q73

f80–84.11 173n52 f100–101.4 198 f2.10 163n15
f102ii+103–106i.28 173n52 f4–5.3 228n148
4Q30 f102ii+103–106i+
f10.4 210n86  107–109a–b.40 245n244 4Q74
f48.2 210n86 f112–114.3 257n272 f1–4.5 210n86
f6ii.6 210n86
4Q37 4Q52
3.6 184n83 f6–7.15–16 190 4Q76
10.1 223 2.19 333n110
4Q53
4Q38a f5ii–7i.15 173n52 4Q77
f5.5 210n86 f3.8 342n141
4Q55
4Q40 f11ii+15.19 210n86 4Q80
f1–3.4 133n82 f2.2 342n141
4Q56 f8–13.15 173n52
4Q41 f2.2 139n97 f8–13.19 164n19
4.6 173n52 f22–23.4 210n86 f14–15.2 163n15,
f36.2 163n15 164n19
4Q45 f14–15.4 164n19
f15–16.2 139n96 4Q57 f17.1 133n82
f9ii+11+12i+52.17 210n86
4Q50 4Q82
f2–3.8 138, 4Q58 f78ii+82–87.12 173n52
139n96 8.22 279n341
12.3 105 4Q83
4QSama (4Q51) f14ii.31 198
2a–d.6 198n42 4Q59 f19ii–20.31 164n19
3a–e.25 164n19 f4–10.1 86n48
5a.5 173n52 4Q84
8a–b.11 133n83 4Q60 f25ii.2 279n341
9e–i.16 163n15, f8.1 172n45
164n19 4Q86
f3–5.7 210n86 4Q70 5.17 333n110
f8–10a–b+11.6 321n70 f21–22i.3 163n15
f8–10a–b+11.9 173n52 f21–22i.4 210n86 4Q88
f42a.1 163n15 f21–22i.7 210n86 2.11 133n83
f44.3 173n52 f26–28.5 105 3.19–21 81
f44.4 173n52 8.7–8 333
f52a–b+53.3 190n15 4QJerc (4Q72)
f61i+62.7 173n52 f1–2.8 342n152 4Q103
f61ii+63–64a–b+ f6.2 172n45, f7ii+11–14.6 210n86
 65–67.3 164n19 179
f61ii+63–64a–b+ f19–21.15–16 238 4Q107
 65–67.20 172n45 f47–48ii+51–54.18 333n110 f1.9 333n110
f68–76.9 173n52 f55ii.1–5 318
f88.2 173n52
passage index 485

4Q109 4Q163 4Q223–224

f1ii+3–6i.3 184n83 f4–7i.13 173n48 f1i.4 172n44
f8 10.11 248 f2v.7 210n86
4Q112 f2v.21 173n48
f1i+2.8 321n70 4Q169 f2v.22 173n48
f7.4 342n152 f3–4ii.11 321n70 f2v.30 174n53
f14.12 163n15 f3–4iii.1 141n104
f15.18 164n19 f34iv.3 321n70 4Q225
f1.3 172n45
4Q113 4Q172
f16–18i+19.5 164n19 f3.2 321n70 4Q242
f1–3.4 312n41
4Q114 4Q174
1.7 163n15 f1–2i.10 321n70 4Q243
1.16 321n70 f13.1 312n42
2.16 321n70 4Q176
f1–2i.2 321n70 4Q244
4Q117 f17.2 276, 279n341 f12.1 312n42
f1.6 321n70 f30.3 105
4Q248
4Q129 4Q177 f1.6 209n84,
f1R.13 184n83 f1–4.11 285n360 223n135
f1–4.13 210n86 f1.8 209n84,
4Q135 f10–11.8 210n86 223n135
f1.3 184n83 f10–11.9 210n86
4Q251
4Q137 4Q196 f12.4 184n83
f1.22 210n86 f2.9 249
f1.29 184n83 f18.14 184n83 4Q252
4.5–6 189
4Q138 4Q200 5.2 321n70
f1.27 210n86 f1ii.2 184n83 5.4 321n70
f6.5 321n70
4Q142 f6.6 210n86 4Q254a
f1.23 279n341, 280 f6.8 210n86 f3.4 173n51
f9.2 330
4Q158 4Q266
f1–2.3 210n86 4Q210 f1a–b.7 184n83
f1ii.14 349n172 f3i.4 141n102
4Q160 f11.12 184n83, 184
f1.3 173n51 4Q216
f3–4ii.5 321n70 6.13 105 4Q270
f2ii.21 284n356,
4Q161 4Q219 285n360
f5–6.5 209n83, 2.28 141n104 f7i.12 270
210n86 2.33 276,
f8 10.19 279n341 279n341 4Q271
f4ii.3 189
486 passage index

4Q272 fK.2 321n70 f16a–b.7 241n223

f1i.3 210n86 f18ia–b.9 139
4Q365a f18ii.3 241n223
4Q285 f2ii.4 210n86 f18ii.8 285n359
f7.1 85 f2ii.9 210n86 f18ii.10 241n228
f3.4 210n86
4Q286 4Q386
f2.2 276, 279n341 4Q368 f1ii.2 164n21
f7i.5 321n70 f2.4–5 139 f1iii.1 173n48

4Q288 4Q369 4Q387

f1.5 241n228 f1ii.1 210n86 f1.7 163n16,
164n21
4Q299 4Q372 f2ii.5 321n70
f6ii.13 285n359 f3.4 333 f2ii.7 321n70
f9.3 321n70 f3.5 333 f2ii.9 321n70
f16.3 210n86 f2iii.1 321n70
4Q301 f2iii.4 279n341
f5.2 321n70 4Q377
f2ii.7 210n86 4Q387a
4Q333 f9.2 285n360
f2.1 310 4Q378
f13i.3 321n70 4Q388a
4Q364 f7ii.4 321n70
f1a–vb.1 209n83 4Q379
f23a–bi.6 164n21 f12.5–6 223 4Q389
f23a–bi.14 164n21 f2.2 163n16,
f24a–c.8 164n21 4Q381 164n21
f24a–c.15 163n16 f1.5 173n48 f2.4 164n21
f26bi.6 163n16 f15.2 241n228 f2.5 164n21
f26bi.8 164n21 f19i.5 321n70 f6.1 163n16,
f26bii+e.1 163n16, f42.2 241n228 164n21
164n21 f8ii.2 321n70
f26bii+e.2 164n21 4Q382 f8ii.10 321n70
f27.4 210n86 f2.2 249
f96.1 321n70 4Q390
4Q365 f1.5 321n70
f6ai.4 80 4Q385 f1.6 164n21
f6aii+6c.9 209n83 f2.9 164n21 f1.11 279n341
f6aii+6c.10 80 f2i.7 279n341
f6aii+6c.11 210n86 4Q385a
f27.4 210n86, f1a–bii.1 164n21 4Q391
212n93 f1a–bii.3 163n16 f36.2 164n21
f28.3 285n359 f1a–bii.6 164n21
f31a–c.6 210n86 f1a–bii.7 164n21 4Q392
f32.10 209n84, fb.1 85 f1.1 321n70
223 f4.5 321n70 f1.6 315n55
f32.11 210n86 f15i.5 164n21 f2.3 321n70
passage index 487

4Q393 f20ii–22.2 321n70, 4Q448

f1ii–2.9 321n70 322n75 2.1–9 349
f3.6 210n86 f20ii–22.4 321n70 2.2 249
f23i.3 321n70 2.8 321n70
4Q394 f23ii.11 321n70 3.6 321n70
f3–7i.12 121n37 f24.1 321n70
f24.3 321n70 4Q458
4Q397 f31.3 210n86 f2ii.6 321n70
f3.3 210n86 f35.4 321n70
f14 21.11 284n356, 4Q462
285n360 4Q408 f1.13 321n70
f3+3a.8 315
4Q400 4Q471
f1ii.1 321n70 4Q410 f1.4 285n361
f1ii.3 321n70 f1.5 210n86
f2.1 321n70 4Q491
f2.3 321n70 4Q416 f1–3.9 210n86,
f2.4 321n70 f1.5 321n70 214n102
f8–10i.17 210n86
4Q401 4Q417 f14–15.7 321n70
f1–2.2 239n219 f1i.5 285n360 f16.3 321n70
f1–2.4 321n70
f5.5 321n70 4Q418 4Q492
f14i.6 321n70 f1.2 285n360 f1.8 321n70
f14i.7 321n70 f68.1 284n356,
f21.2 321n70 285n360 4Q503
f107.2 210n86 f1–6iii.10 315
4Q402 f127.2 121n37 f3ii.17 198n42
f4.8 279n341 f148ii.5 210n86 f7–9.1 315n56
f206.4 285n360, f10.3 315n56
4Q403 321n70 f14.1 315n56
f1i.8 321n70 f212.1 321n70 f15–16.6 315n56
f1i.14 321n70 f33i+34.1 315
f1i.25 321n70 4Q427 f33i+34.8 321n70
f1i.32 321n70 f7i.17 279n341 f51–55.6a 315n56
f1ii.3 321n70
f1ii.10 321n70 4Q432 4Q504
f1ii.33 239n219 f5.1 279n341 f1–2rv.17 163n16,
164n21
4Q405 4Q433a f6.17 184n83
f3ii.1 150n16 f2.6 276, 279n341
f3ii.4 321n70 4Q509
f3ii.9 150n16 4Q436 f3.8 284n356,
f7.3 321n70 f1a+bi.3 284n356, 285n360
f8–9.2 239n219 285n360 f51.1 321n70
f8–9.3 150n16
f15ii–16.6 210n86, 4Q437 4Q510
214n102 f2ii.13 164n21 f1.4 321n70
488 passage index

4Q511 11.2 164n19 16.13 210n86

f2ii.2 241n223 12.4 164n19 17.12 285n361
f10.9 241n223 13.9 164n19 21.9 139n96, 140
15.13 173n49 22.14 139n96, 140
4Q521 17.1 321n70 23.7 285n360
f2ii+4.7 321n70, 322n75 20.2 164n19 24.7 285n360
f12.2 321n70 22.3 284n356, 27.4–5 140
285n360 27.5 139n96
4Q524 22.11 333 32.11 210n86
f6–13.3 210n86, 321n70 23.10 210n86 34.12 285n360
25.11 287 36.5 285n361
4Q543 26.9 284n356, 37.14 210n86
f24.1 299n 285n360 38.10 210n86
27 (Ps 153) 368 38.13–14 349
4Q550 27.6 285n361 40.8–9 349
f1.6 249 28 (Ps 151) 30n88, 368 40.8 285n361
f5+5a.3 312n41 28.5 163n16 42.13 285n361
fCii.8 287 43.14 285n361
4Q554 fEii.1 139n96 42.16 210n86
f1ii.11–13 349n172 fEii.2 140 45.6 210n86
fEii.5 210n86 52.20 210n86
4Q584 fEii.12 333n110 53.9 210n86
fx.1 312n41 fEiii.14 190 56.9 210n86
56.20 321n70
5Q2 11Q7 59.3 210n86
f1a–c.34 248 f4–7.6 210n86 59.17 321n70, 322
f4–7.7 210n86 59.21 321n70
6Q7 f4–7.14 210n86 59.20 210n86
f2–5.10 321n70 60.13 210n86
11Q13 60.14 210n86
6Q9 2.6 141n102 62.5 277
f57.1 321n70 63.2 210n86
11Q16 63.4–5 252
8Q3 f2.3 321n70 65.8 164n21
f26–29.21 198n42 66.2–3 81
11Q17 66.7–8 81
8Q4 5.5 214n102
f1.11 198n42 8.6 239n219 11Q20
1.12 285n359
8Q5 Temple Scroll (11Q19) 5.8 210n86
f2.4 210n86 2.5–6 139 6.6–7 140
3.15 210n86 6.7 139n96
11Q1 6.2 210n86 9.2 210n86
fJ.4 257 6.5 279n341
7.9 210n86 PAM43685
11Q4 7.12 210n86 f65.1 85
f3b+6.5 121n37 10.11 210n86
10.13 210n86 PAM44102
11QPsalmsa (11Q5) 15.1 285n360 f36.2 284
9.1 163n15, 164n19 16.12 210n86
passage index 489

Mur2 10.25 302n17 88.1 109n7

f1i.3 163n15 16.3 299n 107.2 40n110, 84n30
32.7 198n42 110.1–2 40
Mur19 38.4 105
f1iR.7 312n41 40.21 333 Khirbet Beit Lehi
f1iiR.19 312n41 44.3 321n71 5.2 91
44.14 284n356
Mur88 44.16 284n356 Kuntillet Ajrud
11.1 173n52 46.13 321n71 18.1 247
19.13 210n86 47.11 321n71 19.4 189n12
21.24 342n141 47.21 321n71 19.9 189n12
22.7 342n141 48.4 85
22.16 342n141 48.17 85 Lachish
23.24 342n141 48.20 85 3.8–9 123n45
48.22 85 3.9–10 123n45
5/6Hev1b 49.1 85 3.11–12 123n45
f1iv+3.12 210n86 49.4 85 3.15–16 204n61,
f1iv+3.13 210n86 49.7 85 222n132
f1iv+3.14 210n86 49.13 85 4.7 204n61,
f6–7.10 163n15 51.30 284n356 222n132
4.8 204n61,
XQ1 222n132
1.3 210n86 C. Inscriptional, 4.10–11 125, 230
Documentary, and 5.7 204n61,
XQ2 Numismatic Sources 222n132
1.5 184n83 6.3–5 123n45
1. Hebrew 6.4 279n340
XHev/Se7 Arad 6.5 279n340
f1R.2 312n42 3.2–3 40 6.8–9 109n7
3.2–4 258n279 6.13–14 123n45
Mas1d 3.2–5 230 8.1–2 279
3.14 210n86 3.3 189n12 9.2 279n340
3.5 230n157 12.1–4 123n45
WDSP7 3.6 189n12
f1–6.17 342n146 3.8 230n157 Meṣad Ḥašavyahu
5.2 189n12 (Yavne Yam)
WDSP8 16.3–5 258n279 4–5 258n279
1.10 342n146 16.3 40 10 189n12
1.12 342n153 16.4 40
16.7 189n12 Moussaieff Ostraca
WDSP10 17.1–2 204n61, 1.1–2 247
1R.10 342n153 222n132 2.4 189n12
17.1–5 222n133
2. Book of Ben Sira 24.14–17 123n46 Siloam Tunnel
Ben Sira 24.17 189n12 2–3 123n45
6.5 333 24.19 189n12 3 121
8.7 126 24.20 204n61, 222 4 123n46, 124
10.8 321n71 40.8 189n12 5–6 222n132
490 passage index

Siloam Tomb B3.15–16 345n161 B2

2.2 189n12 C.6 57n 2.3 312n41
C.12–13 267n313 2.9 312n41
Tell Jamma 2.10 312n41
2.3 84n30 KAI 227 2.14–16 57n
2.4 84n30 a.5 101 3.13 342n150
4.2 312n41
Hasmonean Coin 249 KAI 266 (Saqqara) 9.2 312n41
2 57n 9.3 312n41
2. Moabite 9 342n144
Mesha B3
3 163 KAI 309 (Tell Fekheriye) 1.3 312n41
4–6 288 2 57n 1.13 342n150
7 163 1.18 342n150
9 163 KAI 310 (Tel Dan) 6.2 312n41
12 121 4 57n 10.19 342n150
18 132n79 8 83n29 11.13 342n150
9 163n14 12.28 342n150
3. Aramaic 13.2 312n41
KAI 202 (Zakkur) TAD
B.26 57n A1 B4
9 342n147 3.11 345n162
KAI 214 (Panamu) 6.14 342n150
5 57n A3
6 57n 3.4 342n147 B5
7 57n 6.2 342n147 4.2 342n150
10 57n 8.12 312n41 4.5 342n150
9.5 57n 5.2 312n41
KAI 215 (Panamu)
5 57n A4 C1
7 57n 312n41 1.33 345n162
14 57n 1.10 312n41
3.12 312n41 C2
KAI 216 (Barrakib [Zinjirli]) 7.1 342n147 3.4 345n162
4 57n 7.19 302n17, 302n20, 3.31 342n147
311 3.48 302n17
KAI 217 (Barrakib [Zinjirli]) 7.22 312n41
2 57n 7.26 312n41 C3a
7.29 342n147 12.16 342n147
KAI 222 (Sefire) 8.18 302n17, 302n20 15.1 312n41
A1.26 57n
A1.28 57n A5 C38
A1.39 345n161 5.7 345n162 4.14 342n147
A1.40 345n161
A1.41 345n161 A6 D2
A2.27 57n 2.9 342n150 5.2 312n41
B1.7 345n161 2.10 342n150 12.4 312n41
B1.8 57n 2.21 342n150
B2.3 345n161 11.3 57n
passage index 491

D4 Sukka ʿAvoda Zara

2.2 302n17 5.4 133n84 2.2 105

D5 Rosh ha-Shana ʾAvot

33.5 345n162 2.8 209n85, 2.16 301
223n136 5.19 209n85,
D11 3.8 105 223n136
4.2 302n17
Taʿanit Bekhorot
D22 4.5 342n143 4.4 105
25.1 345n162
27.1 345n162 Ketubbot Kelim
2.8 342n148 18.7 154n31
2.9 209n85,
D. Rabbinic Sources 223n136 Negaʿim
4.9 105 14.6 154n31
1. Prayers and 6.5 223
Blessings 7.6 310 3. Mekhilta
Final ʿAmida Prayer, Blessing Pasḥa
18 239n219 Nedarim 1 296
4.4 105 11 296
ʿAravit 316 9.4 330 14.51 249

2. Mishna Nazir Bešallaḥ

Kilʾayim 3.6 249 1 299n
3.1 349
Soṭa Wayyassaʿ
Sheviʿit 7.5 133n84 1 294
6.5 209n85, 7.8 249
223n136 Baḥodeš
Giṭṭin 8 294
Maʿaser Sheni 4.5 301, 344
2.3 209n85, 4.6 301 4. Genesis Rabba
223n136 5.2 302 92 302n17

Bikkurim Bava Qamma 5. Sifra

3.3 342n143, n148 8.1 105 Beḥuqqotai
3.4 249 1.2 249
Bava Meṣiʿa
Pesaḥim 9.12 189n14 6. Sifre
1.6 342n148 9.13 223 Bemidbar
72 296
Sheqalim Sanhedrin 78 249
6.1 342n148 2.3 248 82 299n
99 249
Yoma Makkot
3.9 342n148 2.2 189n14, 344 Devarim
3.10 249 3 299n
492 passage index

7. Tosefta Bava Batra 24.21 324n81

Soṭa 2.2 349n172 28.14 34n97
13.1 249
2 Samuel
Qiddushin E. Ancient and 13.39 245
1.12 223 Medieval Translations 17.11 154n29
20.19 152n23
ʿAvoda Zara 1. Greek (LXX)
5.6 310 according to MT versification 1 Kings
(Greek versification in 4.1 324n81
Seder ʿOlam Rabba parentheses where 6.1 77
5 294 different; the symbol — 14.15 (—) 141n101
14 248 represents an entire verse 14.25 324n81
19 248 not reflected in the Greek) 15.1 324n81
23 299n Genesis 15.20 281, 301
5.26 77 17.1 281n350,
Qohelet Rabba 34.15 334 300n14
1.3 334 34.22 334 21.8 (20.8) 305n25
34.23 334 21.11 (20.11) 305n25
8. Jerusalem Talmud 37.8 324n81
Berakhot 38.5 289 2 Kings
1.1 249 8.13 324n81
2.3 239n219 Exodus 19.20 281n350,
4.4 223 15.18 324n81 300n14
6.1 249 21.2 305n25 24.14 306n25
9.1 310 21.5 305n25 24.16 306n25
11.2 249 21.26 305n25 25.11 152n23
21.27 305n25 25.25 347(n167)
ʿEruvin 25.26 281, 301
3.8 330 Deuteronomy 25.29 265n303
15.12 305n25
Sukka 15.13 305n25 Isaiah
3.10 248 15.18 305n25 24.22 306n25
21.14 305 30.6 281n349, 298n9
Rosh ha-Shana 27.15 306n25 36.1 324n81
1.2 2n4 33.2 43n117 42.7 306n25
42.13 281n350,
Bava Qamma Judges 300n14
7.2 302n17 6.12 281n350,
300n14 Jeremiah
9. Babylonian Talmud 1.7 226n141
Shabbat 1 Samuel 1.10 77n21
1.1 249 1.24 198n42 1.11 111
86.2 294 10.26 281n350, 1.13 111, 217
300n14 1.14 218n116
Beṣa 12.14 324n81 1.15 217
4.4 339n124 13.3 306–307n31 1.16 202
13.7 306–307n31 1.17 111
Bava Meṣiʾa 14.21 306–307n31 1.18 111
13.1 302n17 18.6 245 2.2 95, 119, 273n329
passage index 493

2.4 282n351 11.7 (—) 273n329 20.8 82

2.6 218n116 11.8 161n7, 171n37 21.2 192n21,
2.7 226n141 11.12 273n329 202
2.17 119 12.1 202 21.4 192n21,
2.18 282n351 13.4 218n116, 226n141,
3.6 218n116, 226n141 282n351
226n141 13.6 218n116, 21.9 186
3.17 95, 226(n141) 226n141 22.1 218n116,
3.18 218n116, 13.7 217, 226n141 226n141
226n141, 237 13.9–10 254 22.7 226n141
4.4 282n351 13.16 282n351 22.11 226n141,
4.5 226n141, 13.17 273n329 324n81
282n351 13.19 125 22.12 226n141
4.6 218n116 13.20 218n116 22.15 263n296
4.12 202 13.26 111 22.24 218n116
4.14 282n351 14.3 263, 266 22.26 218n116,
4.19 282n351 14.10 75 226n141
5.5 202 14.18 226n141, 22.27 226n141
5.13 295n3, 298 282n351 22.28 226n141
5.24 282n351 15.4 282n351 23.3 226n141
6.1 218n116 15.6 119 23.7–8 (23.41–42) 356n2
6.4 282n351 15.7 282n351 23.8 (23.42) 217,
6.16 282n351 15.9 317n62 218n116,
6.20 336 15.12 218n116 226n141
6.22 218n116 16.4 125 23.9 282n351
6.25 226n141 16.5 226n141 23.10 125
7.1 (—) 91n50, 192n21 16.8 226n141 23.17 273n329
7.2 218n116 16.13 218n116, 23.20 282n351
7.8 282n351 226n141 23.32 282n351
7.12 218n116, 16.15 218n116, 23.37 119
226n141 226n141 23.39 273n329
7.13 273n329 17.2 (—) 142 23.40 356n2
7.16 119 17.3 (—) 158, 301 24.1 103n, 104,
7.22 282n351 18.2 217, 226n141 226n141,
7.28 125 18.3 226n141 305n25,
8.3 226n141 18.5 77n21 306n25
8.5 95 18.7 77n21 24.6 226n141
8.11 (—) 106 18.15 282n351, 366 24.9 226n141,
8.12 (—) 273n329 18.16 282n351 282n351
8.14 218n116, 19.2 218n116, 24.10 142
226n141, 226n141 25.2 91n50
282n351 19.11 77n21 25.9 218n116
8.22 218n116 19.14 226n141 25.12 282n351
8.23 282n351 20.2 91n50, 179, 25.13 356n2
10.7 (—) 125, 323 226n141 25.22 (32.22) 282n351
10.9 306n25 20.4 226n141 25.24 (32.24) 282n351
10.22 218n116 20.5 157, 226n141 25.26 (32.26) 218n116,
10.25 263n294, 20.6 218n116, 282n351
266 226n141 25.37 (32.27) 282n351
494
26.6 (33.6) 147, 282n351
26.10 (33.10) 226n141
26.18 (33.18) 282n351
26.21 (33.21) 226n141
26.22 (33.22) 192n21,
226n141,
251n255
26.23 (33.23) 91n50,
251n255
27.1 (—) 91n50,
192n21
27.3 (34.3) 226n141
27.6 (34.6) 103(n), 111
27.13 237n211
27.16 (34.16) 217, 218n116
27.18 (34.18) 95, 226n141
27.19 (34.19) 237n211
27.20 (34.20) 95, 226n141,
304n23,
305n25
27.21 (34.21) 95
27.22 (34.22) 217, 226n141
28.3 (35.3) 226n141
28.4 (35.4) 111, 226n141
28.6 (35.6) 218n116,
226n141
28.12 (35.12) 91n50
28.13 (35.13) 282n351
28.15 (35.15) 91n50
28.16 (35.16) 237n211
28.17 (35.17) 91n50
29.1 (36.1) 95, 226n141
29.2 (36.2) 95, 305(n24),
305n25,
347n169
29.3 (36.3) 226n141
29.4 (36.4) 226n141
29.6 (36.6) 218n116
29.7 (36.7) 226n141
29.8 (36.8) 152n22
29.10 (36.10) 218n116,
226n141,
358n7
29.11 (36.11) 282n351
29.14 (36.14) 226n141
29.15 (36.15) 217, 218n116
29.16–20 (—) 212n94
29.16 (—) 192n21
29.18 (—) 226n141,
282n351
29.19 (—) 273n329
29.20 (—) 95, 226n141
29.22 (36.22) 218n116
29.25 (36.25) 95
29.26 (36.26) 226n141
29.28 (36.28) 226n141
30.9 (37.9) 244
30.10 (—) 74n10
30.11 (—) 111, 192n21,
202, 226n141,
273n329
30.13 (37.13) 282n351
30.14 (37.14) 119
30.15 (37.16) 82, 119
30.18 (37.18) 366
30.24 (37.24) 282n351
31.2 (38.2) 282n351
31.4 (38.4) 82
31.6 (38.6) 226n141
31.8 (38.8) 218n116
31.9 (38.9) 226n141
31.12 (38.12) 282n351
31.17 (38.17) 226n141
31.21 (38.21) 119, 226n141
31.28 (38.28) 77n21
31.35 (38.35) 315n53
31.37 (38.37) 217
31.39 (38.39) 226n141
32.1 (39.1) 103n
32.5 (39.5) 192n21,
218n116,
226n141
32.6 (39.6) 91n50
32.8 (39.8) 226n141
32.12 (39.12) 314
32.24 (39.24) 226n141
32.26 (39.26) 91n50
32.29 (39.29) 264, 265n301
32.37 (39.37) 226n141
32.40 (39.40) 192n21, 202,
336
32.44 (39.44) 282n351
33.6 (40.6) 339
33.9 (40.9) 77 n21, 192n21,
202, 282n351
33.13 (40.13) 282n351
passage index
33.14–26 (—) 98, 318,
360n, 366
33.14 (—) 237n211, 366
33.16 (—) 75, 95, 366
33.19 (—) 76n15,
91n50, 366
33.20 (—) 317n62, 366
33.21 (—) 192n21
33.22 (—) 366
33.23 (—) 91n50
33.25 (—) 317n62, 366
33.26 (—) 74n10,
237n211,
360n, 366
34.1 (41.1) 103, 282n351
34.3 (41.3) 226n141
34.7 (41.7) 282n351
34.8 (41.8) 95
34.9 (41.9) 305n25, 314
34.12 (41.12) 192n21
34.14 (41.14) 119, 305n25
34.15 (41.15) 335n112
34.16 (41.16) 305n25
34.17 (41.17) 282n351
34.19 (41.19) 95, 304n24,
347n169
34.22 (41.22) 226n141,
335n112
34.23 (41.23) 335n112
35.1 (42.1) 91n50
35.2 (42.2) 192n21, 202
35.4 (42.4) 226n141
35.7 (42.7) 218n116
35.11 (42.11) 95, 103n,
226n141
35.12 (42.12) 91n50
35.15 (42.15) 273n329
35.18 (42.18) 91n50, 331
36.1 (43.1) 192n21
36.5 (43.5) 226n141
36.8 (43.8) 91n50
36.9 (43.9) 91n50, 95
36.12 (43.12) 218n116,
226n141
36.14 (43.14) 91n50
36.19 (43.19) 304n24,
347n169
36.20 (43.20) 226n141
passage index
36.23 (43.23) 226n141
36.26 (43.26) 91n50
36.29 (43.29) 237n210
36.30 (43.30) 317n62
36.32 (43.32) 91n50
37.1 (44.1) 91n50, 103n
47.5 (44.5) 95
37.12 (44.12) 218n116,
226n141
37.13 (44.13) 218n116
37.14 (44.14) 91n50
37.15 (44.15) 82
37.16 (44.16) 91n50,
218n116,
226n141
37.17 (44.17) 91n50,
251n255
37.18 (44.18) 91n50,
226n141,
251n255
37.20 (44.20) 218n116
37.21 (44.21) 91n50,
251n255
38.1 (45.1) 91n50
38.2 (45.2) 186
38.4 (45.4) 282n351,
304n24,
347n169
38.5 (45.5) 91n50,
251n255
38.6 (45.6) 91n50,
226n141
38.7 (45.7) 226n141
38.9 (45.9) 91n50,
226n141
38.10 (45.10) 91n50
38.11 (45.11) 218n116,
226n141
38.12 (45.12) 91n50
38.13 (45.13) 91n50
38.14 (45.14) 91n50, 111,
226n141,
251n255
38.15 (45.15) 91n50
38.16 (45.16) 91n50,
251n255
38.17 (45.17) 91n50, 186
38.18 (45.18) 343, 347n169
38.19 (45.19) 91n50,
251n255,
314
38.22 (45.22) 264n297,
282n351
38.24 (45.24) 91n50
38.26 (45.26) 218n116
38.28 (45.28) 95, 125,
264n298,
266
39.1 (46.1) 103n, 224,
226n141
39.3 (46.3) 346
39.4–13 (—) 152n23, 304,
346
39.4 (—) 91n50,
282n351
39.5 (—) 91n50,
192n21,
226n141,
301
39.6 (—) 91n50,
218n116, 304
39.7 (—) 91n50,
226n141
39.9 (—) 152n23,
226n141
39.11 (—) 91n50, 180
39.12 (—) 191n19
39.13 (—) 346
39.14 (46.14) 226n141
40.1 (47.1) 95, 226n141
40.2 (47.2) 91n50
40.3 (47.3) 264n299,
266
40.4 (47.4) 192n21,
226n141
40.6 (47.6) 91n50,
192n21,
226n141
40.7 (47.7) 226n141
40.8 (47.8) 226n141
40.11 (47.11) 313, 314
40.12 (47.12) 226n141,
314n49
40.13 (47.13) 226n141
40.14 (47.14) 91n50
40.15 (47.15) 91n50
495
41.1 (48.1) 218n116,
226n141, 314,
347
41.2 (48.2) 91n50
41.3 (48.3) 91n50,
192n21,
218n116,
282n351
41.6 (48.6) 91n50
41.7 (48.7) 91n50,
192n21,
226n141
41.9 (48.9) 91n50,
226n141
41.10 (48.10) 91n50
41.12 (48.12) 91n50
41.15 (48.15) 91n50
41.16 (48.16) 91n50,
282n351
41.17 (48.17) 226n141
41.18 (48.18) 91n50
42.6 (49.6) 128
42.8 (49.8) 192n21
42.12 (49.12) 226n141
42.14 (49.14) 218n116,
226n141
42.15 (49.15) 218n116
42.16 (49.16) 218n116
42.17 (49.17) 218n116
42.19 (49.19) 226n141
42.21 (49.21) 171n37
42.22 (49.22) 273n329
43.2 (50.2) 218n116,
226n141
43.3 (50.3) 226n141
43.5 (50.5) 226n141
43.7 (50.7) 226n141
43.9 (50.9) 314
43.10 (50.10) 103n
43.12 (50.12) 218n116
44.1 (51.1) 314
44.3 (51.3) 243
44.8 (51.8) 218n116, 242,
282n351
44.12 (51.12) 218n116,
226n141
44.14 (51.14) 218n116,
226n141
496 passage index

44.17 (51.17) 273 49.16 (30.1) 218n116, 51.1 (28.1) 218n116

44.18 (51.18) 273n329 282n351 51.2 (28.2) 226n141
44.19 (51.19) 273 49.17 (30.11) 75 51.6 (28.6) 218n116
44.26–27 49.19 (30.13) 226n141 51.7 (28.7) 218n116
 (51.26–27) 314n49 49.24 (30.24) 125 51.8 (28.8) 218n116
44.28 (51.28) 218n116, 49.26 (30.32) 282n351 51.9 (28.9) 218n116,
226n141, 49.28 (30.23) 103n, 226n141
282n351 226n141 51.11 (28.11) 218n116
44.29 (51.29) 273n329 49.32 (30.27) 226n141 51.12 (28.12) 218n116,
44.30 (51.30) 103n 49.33 (30.28) 218n116 226n141
45.5 (51.35) 226n141 49.34 51.19 (28.19) 366
46–51  (25.14 + 25.20) 91n50, 51.20 (28.20) 282n351
 (25.14–31.44) 356n2 119, 51.23 (28.23) 343
46.1 (—) 91n50 324n80, 51.24 (28.24) 218n116
46.2 (26.2) 91n50, 356n2 51.26 (28.26) 282n351
103n 49.36 (25.16) 226n141 51.28 (28.28) 343
46.6 (26.6) 213n96, 49.38 (25.18) 218n116 51.29 (28.29) 145, 218n116
217, 50 (27) 237 51.30 (28.30) 218n116
226n141 50.1 (27.1) 91n50, 51.31 (28.31) 355
46.10 (26.10) 218n116 218n116 51.32 (28.32) 282n351
46.13 (26.13) 103n 50.2 (27.2) 218n116 51.33 (28.33) 218n116
46.17 (26.17) 218n116 50.3 (27.3) 218n116 51.34 (28.34) 103n
46.20 (26.20) 218n116 50.6 (27.6) 226n141 51.35 (28.35) 218n116
46.21 (26.21) 282n351 50.8 (27.8) 218n116 51.37 (28.37) 218n116
46.24 (26.24) 218n116 50.9 (27.9) 218n116 51.41 (28.41) 218n116
46.26 (—) 75, 282n351 50.12 (27.12) 125 51.42 (28.42) 218n116
46.27 (26.27) 366 50.13 (27.13) 218n116 51.44 (28.44) 125, 218n116
46.28 (26.28) 202, 50.14 (27.14) 125, 51.47 (—) 218n116
226n141 218n116 51.48 (—) 218n116
47.1 (29.1) 91n50 50.16 (27.16) 218n116 51.49 (28.49) 218n116,
47.2 (29.2) 218n116 50.19 (27.19) 226n141 282n351
47.7 (29.7) 218n116 50.23 (27.23) 218n116 51.51 (28.51) 226n141
48.1 (29.8) 125 50.24 (27.24) 218n116 51.53 (28.53) 218n116,
48.4 (31.4) 82 50.28 (27.28) 218n116 226n141
48.7 (31.7) 119 50.29 (27.29) 218n116 51.54 (28.54) 218n116
48.8 (31.8) 226n141 50.30 (27.30) 282n351 51.55 (28.55) 218n116
48.14 (31.14) 282n351 50.34 (27.34) 218n116 51.56 (28.56) 145, 218n116
48.21 (31.21) 213n97, 50.35 (27.35) 218n116 51.57 (28.57) 343
217, 50.36 (27.36) 237n211 51.58 (28.58) 218n116
226n141 50.39 (27.39) 75, 51.59 (28.59) 226n141
48.22 (31.22) 226n141 282n351, 51.60 (28.60) 218n116,
48.23 (31.23) 226n141 287 226n141
48.24 (31.24) 226n141 50.40 (27.40) 218n116 51.61 (28.61) 226n141
48.39 (31.39) 125 50.41 (27.41) 218n116 51.62 (28.62) 282n351
48.40 (31.40) 237n211 50.42 (27.42) 218n116 51.63 (28.63) 226n141
48.41 (31.41) 145 50.44 (27.44) 226n141 51.64 (28.64) 91n50,
48.44 (31.44) 226n141 50.45 (27.45) 218n116 218n116,
49.13 (30.7) 282n351 50.46 (27.46) 218n116 356n2
passage index 497

52.2 180 Nehemiah 6.26 299

52.3 (—) 91n50, 95, 5.5 301 16.5 285n364, 286
125 13.17 305n25 17.16 285n364
52.4 103n 21.5 302
52.7 282n351 1 Chronicles 21.15 240
52.8 91n50 12.19 281n350, 26.20 349
52.9 226n141 300n14 30.15 337
52.10 213n98, 16.31 324n81 33.4 253n259
217 29.5 306n25 34.7 330
52.11 226n141
52.12 251n255 Leviticus
52.13 95 Greek New Testament 8.35 330
52.17 226n141 Matthew 9.20 285n364
52.23 351n177 5.19 253
52.24 91n50 Numbers
52.25 281n350, Galatians 14.27 253n259
282n351, 1.4 253 14.35 253n259
300n14, 16.26 253n259
347n169 2. Latin Vulgate 20.5 253n259
52.26 226n141 Deuteronomy 33.2 43n117 20.11 240
52.27 180, 24.7 248n
218n116 2 Samuel
52.27b–30 (—) 77 17.11 154n29 Deuteronomy
52.28 (—) 314n49 1.35 253n259
52.29 (—) 77, 95 Jeremiah 3.25 253n259
52.30 (—) 314n49 5.13 295n3 4.5 253n259
52.32 218n116 13.9–10 254n261 4.22 253n259
52.33 265n303, 20.5 157n42 5.25 253n259
282n351 31.35 315n53 9.6 253n259
52.34 265n303 33.6 339 13.12 253n259
14.22 285n364
Psalms Micah 15.13 303
88.6 (87.5) 305n25 3.7 295n5 17.5 253n259
142.8 (141.8) 306n25 17.18 322
3. Peshiṭta 19.20 253n259
Job Genesis 19.23 253n259
34.30 324n81 1.5 317 33.2 43n117
39.5 305n25 4.9 329
9.9 190 Joshua
Qohelet 11.14 185 23.15 253n259
10.17 305n25 12.15 345
14.23 337 Judges
Esther 39.10 285n364 15.18 253n259
1.3 324n81
Exodus 1 Samuel
Daniel 3.3 253n259 6.20 253n259
8.1 324n81 3.15 285n364 12.16 253n259
498 passage index

15.33 248n 33.6 340n130 John

16.19 248n 39.1 224 8.33 302n16
17.25 338 44.8 242 8.36 302n16
52.23 351n176
2 Samuel 1 Corinthians
13.21 248n Ezekiel 7.22 302n16
13.39 248n 14.7 285n364 9.1 302n16
14.1 248n 12.13 302n16
17.11 154n29 Amos
1.11 325n86 Galatians
1 Kings 1.4 253n259
1.32 248 Psalms 3.28 302n16
2.17 248n 21.9 240
3.9 253n259 61.9 285n364 Ephesians
5.21 253n259 68.20 285n364 6.8 302n16

2 Kings Proverbs 1 Timothy

8.13 253n259 8.30 285n364 1.10 302n16
10.11 345 8.34 285n364
14.5 248n 20.17 335n113 1 Peter
16.11 248n 27.24 285n364 2.16 302n16
16.12 248n
18.17 248n Ruth Revelation
19.1 248n 4.22 248n 6.15 302n16
20.14 248n
24.15 224 Qohelet 4. Targum Onkelos
25.1 321 9.15 253n259 Genesis
1.5 317
Isaiah Esther 4.9 329
6.1 248n 9.29 253n259n259 9.9 190
14.28 248n 11.14 185
36.1 248n Daniel 12.15 345
36.2 248n 10.8 253n259 14.23 337
37.1 248(n) 41.40 322n73
37.5 248n Nehemiah 42.17 330
39.3 248n 13.17 253n259
58.2 285n364 Exodus
1 Chronicles 1.15 311
Jeremiah 1.10 253n259n259 2.13 311
3.17 226 9.32 285n364 3.15 285
8.3 253n259 6.26 299
11.8 170 2 Chronicles 11.5 322n73
13.9–10 254n261 20.15 253n259 12.29 322n73
20.5 157n42 21.5 302
21.1 248n Matthew 21.15 240
21.3 248n 5.19 253n259 26.20 349
22.8 253n259 17.26 302n16 30.15 338
31.35 315n53 34.7 329
passage index 499

Leviticus 6. Targum Neofiti 21.5 302

8.35 330 Genesis 30.15 338
1.5 317 34.7 330
Numbers 4.9 329
35.5 349, 350 9.9 190 Leviticus
11.14 185 8.35 330
Deuteronomy 12.15 345
15.13 303 14.23 337 Deuteronomy
17.18 322 34.15 334 15.13 303
33.2 43n117 34.22 334 17.18 322
34.23 334
5. Targum 42.17 330 9. Samaritan
Jerusalem (a.k.a. 49.8 311 Targum A
Pseudo-Jonathan) Genesis
Genesis Exodus 1.5 317
1.5 317 6.26 299 4.9 329
4.9 329 15.4 299 9.9 190
9.9 190 19.3 297 12.15 345
11.14 185 21.15 240
12.15 345 30.15 338 Exodus
14.23 337 34.7 329 3.15 285
42.17 330 34.28 294 16.5 286
43.32 311 21.5 302
49.8 311 Leviticus 30.15 338
8.35 330 34.7 330
Exodus
3.15 285 Numbers Leviticus
6.26 299 7.89 297 8.35 330
15.4 299
16.5 286 Deuteronomy 10. Targum Jonathan
21.5 302 10.4 295 Judges
26.20 349 14.22 285n364 5.28 354
30.15 338 17.18 322
34.7 329 1 Samuel
34.28 294 7. Geniza Targum 4.6 311
Genesis 17.25 303n19, 338
Leviticus 34.22 334 24.1 153n28
8.35 330
8. Samaritan Targum J 1 Kings
Numbers Genesis 1.32 248
7.89 297 1.5 317
19.3 342n154 4.9 329 2 Kings
35.5 349, 350 9.9 190 10.11 345
35.25 342n154 12.15 345 23.4 342n154
14.23 337 24.15 224
Deuteronomy 42.17 330 25.18 342n154
10.4 295
15.13 303 Exodus Isaiah
17.18 322 3.15 285 14.28 248
16.5 286 54.14 230
500 passage index

Jeremiah 12. Targum Proverbs F. Other Sources

3.12 213n99 8.30 285n364
11.8 170 8.34 285n364 1. Josephus
13.9–10 254n261 20.17 334 Antiquities
20.1 342n154 14.296 153n27
20.5 157n42 13. Targum Song of
29.26 342n154 Songs Wars
33.6 340n130 2.14 334, 335n113 1.264 153n27
39.1 224
52.23 351n177 14. Targum Qohelet 2. Akkadian Texts
52.24 342n154 3.12 249 ABL
281.9 350
Jonah 15. Targum Esther
1.9 311 Sheni Gilg.
1.2 342n154 XI 155 350
11. Targum Psalms 4.11 354n182
21.9 240 OIP 2
68.20 286 102.78 350
87.5 249
Subject Index
2QJer  356n3
4QJera  57n, 356n3
4QJerb  57n, 323, 356n3
4QJerc (4Q72)  98, 179, 238, 318, 356n3, 366
4QJerd  356n3
4QJere  356n3
4QMMT  22, 128
accumulation (see also concentration)   335, 337n119
7–8, 11, 16, 29, 30n87, 35, 42, 46, 46, 51, 53,
68, 69, 109n4, 117, 138, 162, 177, 178, 185, 191,
197, 199, 234, 319, 360, 366, 368, 369
accusative  198, 200
‫   ֵאת‬9, 198, 202n, 243
‫ ֵאת‬versus preposition ‫   ֵאת‬54, 55, 58,
59, 192–202
-‫  ל‬14, 54, 55, 58, 66, 69, 238–244, 361,
365
case  203, 204n60, 206n70, 238
of place  218–219, 222, 224, 226
addition (see also gloss; insertion;
interpolation)  32, 36, 57n, 65–66, 68,
70–71, 74, 82, 86n38, 98, 127, 158, 217, 226,
251, 287, 304–305, 318, 322–325, 351n177,
358n7, 368–369, 372
adjectival suffix (see suffix: adjectival)
Akkadian(ism)  41–42, 46n46, 58, 92, 96,
99–101, 109, 112, 142, 187, 200–202, 204n60,
326–328, 340, 343, 350, 355, 372
Aktionsart (see also lexical aspect)  288
ʾalef (‫ ;א‬ʾ)  78, 99n78, 104–106, 123–124,
125n, 126, 146, 172nn41–42, 174, 342n155
allusion (see also quotation)  125, 139, 199,
211, 313
amanuensis (see also compiler; copyist;
editor; scribe; vocalizer; writer)  63
Amarna  3, 9, 92, 109
Amorite  109
Amos  10, 20n56, 73, 87, 88, 98, 136, 170n30
analogy  13, 92n58, 120n, 125n, 126,
129–130, 135, 140n, 146n121, 165–168, 171, 176,
178, 185
Anathoth  63–64, 128
anceps vowel (see vowel: anceps)
apocryphal psalm
Ps 151 (11Q5 28)  30n88, 368
Ps 153 (11Q5 27)  368
apodosis(es)  61, 182
apposition/appositive  14, 35n99, 54, 55,
58, 62, 67, 70, 243n236, 244–251, 254n263,
364
Aquila  192n22
Arabic  24–25, 30n88, 64n, 95, 109, 112,
113n19, 124n48, 142, 145, 150n14, 326, 328,
Arabic verb (see verb[al]: Arabic)
Arad (Ostraca)  4, 39–40, 83, 204
Aramaic (influence)  3, 11–13, 16–18, 21, 26,
51, 53, 56–58, 60, 63, 96, 106, 109, 110, 112,
115–119, 122–123, 125, 135, 142–145, 150–151,
153–158, 185, 190–192, 200–202, 224,
228–229, 233–234, 238–240, 250, 258, 286,
300, 303, 311, 316, 317, 323, 325–327, 329, 331,
342, 343, 350, 363, 371
Biblical (BA)  7, 81, 83n29, 92, 100, 102,
103, 106, 122, 143, 150n19, 156n39, 157,
240, 249, 258, 284n356, 299, 302, 309,
312n41, 321, 329, 342, 345n162
extra-biblical  157
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) (see also Aramaic:
Qumran)  252, 299, 312n41, 321
Imperial  11, 19, 63, 337, 338n121
Jewish  297
Old  9, 12, 56, 72n1, 258, 267, 338,
342n155
Qumran (see Aramaic: Dead Sea Scrolls)
81, 316n59
Samaritan (targums)  150n19, 311n39
Targumic  7n, 92, 143, 150n19, 156n39,
267–268, 316n59, 321, 329, 337, 351
Aramaism (loan/borrowing)  12, 17,
25–26, 41–42, 56, 58, 81n28, 116, 304, 317,
329, 331, 337, 338, 345
archaic suffix (see suffix: archaic)
archaization/archaistic  9, 35n97, 58, 63,
69n, 81n28, 85, 88, 108, 111, 117, 119, 129, 134,
138n94, 139, 161n5, 169, 177, 186, 187, 191,
202, 205n69, 207, 208n80, 246n, 267n312,
363
assimilation (see also assimilation/
non-assimilation of nun)  18, 34n97, 95
non-assimilation  9, 34n97, 39
partial  95
502
Assyria(n)  12, 46, 56, 83, 91, 258, 343
asyndesis/asyndetic  9, 282–287
attraction  186, 205, 206, 214, 216, 243,
260, 261, 263, 278, 289–293, 300, 345,
346
a vowel (see vowel: a)
å vowel (see vowel: å)
å� vowel (see vowel: å� )
Babylon(ian)  56, 69, 99–102, 225n, 250,
281, 312n45, 341, 343–346, 351, 355, 357,
358n7
Babylonian month names  14, 45n122, 61,
155n37
Babylonian reading tradition (see reading
tradition: Babylonian)
Bar Kokhba  23, 74n9, 157n40
Barrakib  57n
Benjamin(ite) (see dialect: Benjamin[ite])
Ben Sira  7, 24, 39, 44n121, 76, 81, 85, 96,
109, 126n55, 132, 133, 137, 157n40, 189, 209,
284n356, 285, 299, 302, 321, 349
Biblical Aramaic (see Aramaic: Biblical)
biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (see Dead Sea
Scrolls: biblical)
Biblical Hebrew (BH) (see Hebrew: Biblical)
binyan
hifʿil  159–176, 181, 198n42, 204n60,
219n118, 236n202, 239n217, 332n107
hitpaʿel  309
hofʿal/hufʿal  13, 33n93
nifʿal  13, 39, 242
nufʿal  13
piʿel  14, 33n93, 145n115, 181
polel  14
puʿal  13, 33n93
qal  33n93, 53, 55, 74, 76, 159, 160, 166,
169–171, 172n42, 174, 175, 176n62, 179,
181, 184, 198n42, 242n232, 332n105, n107,
364
qal internal passive  13, 33n93, 39, 60
bullae (see also stamp seal)  83, 84
calque (see also loan translation)  11, 201,
344
Canaanite  9, 92, 109, 267n313, 306n26,
307, 342n155
Canaanite month names  14, 46n
Canaanite shift  (see shift: Canaanite)
case ending  9, 203, 204n60
causative verb (see verb[al]: causative)
subject index
Chronicler  35n97, 88–89, 108n2, 149n11,
177, 187–188, 196–197, 208, 243n236,
245–247, 320
Chronicles  3n7, 5n14, 7, 11, 35n97, 39,
73n6, 77, 79, 87–90, 93, 94, 96, 100, 108, 131,
136, 138, 177, 187, 188, 197, 199, 208, 212n93,
214, 216, 217, 245–247, 254, 262, 263n291,
267n312, 268n315, 319, 340, 353–355, 359
circumstantial clause  288, 290
classical alternative  225n, 226n139, 286,
321, 338, 341, 343, 346, 350, 352, 354, 355
Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) (see Hebrew:
Biblical: Classical)
Codex Leningradensis (see Leningrad [Codex])
cohortative verb (see verb[al]: cohortative)
coin (see also numismatic)  93, 249, 310
colloquial (see also non-literary; popular
speech; spoken; vernacular)  15, 22–25,
63–65, 106, 127–128, 133, 144, 146n124,
147n127, 175, 191, 262, 271, 273n331, 297,
328n97, 335n115, 363
comitative preposition (see preposition:
comitative)
command (see also imperative)  61, 62n12,
147n127
common noun  91n50, 97n71, 98, 104, 203,
251
Community Rule  39n108
compiler (see also amanuensis; copyist;
editor; scribe; vocalizer; writer)  63,
65, 75
complement (see verb[al]: complement)
complementary distribution  96, 182,
206n70, 300, 330
concentration (see also accumulation)  8,
13n, 21, 22n63, 30n87, 36, 37–41, 49n128,
59, 65, 68, 75, 106, 115–116, 138, 151, 201, 209,
227, 231, 235, 238n213, 312, 367
conditional  61, 182n80
conjunctive waw (see waw: conjunctive/
simple)
consecutive verb (see verb[al]: conversive/
consecutive)
consecutive waw (see waw: conversive/
consecutive)
conservative/conservatism/conservation
19, 25, 29, 34n96, 37, 44–45, 97n69, 186
consonantal orthography (see orthography:
consonantal; spelling: consonantal)
subject index
consonantal spelling (see orthography:
consonantal; spelling: consonantal)
construct  9, 120, 124n50, 158, 181n76,
203n58, 209, 214–215, 296n, 315n53, 319n68
double plural  14, 54–56, 66, 69,
144n112, 273–282, 298, 300, 364
continual/continuous  254, 270n321, 287
continuity (discourse)  255n266
convergence  118, 254
conversive (waw; tense) (see also verb[al]:
conversive/consecutive; waw: conversive/
consecutive)  9, 23, 169n, 173n50,
230n157, 255–258, 262, 270–271
Copper Scroll (3Q15)  23
copyist (see also amanuensis; compiler;
editor; scribe; vocalizer; writer)  36, 63,
65, 75, 94, 126, 176, 178, 198–200, 227–231,
233–235, 238n213, 270, 271, 323, 324
corruption  26, 33n94, 52, 87n40, 100,
115n, 127, 147, 154, 161n5, 176, 198–201, 206,
231, 233–234, 261n288, 263n294, 269n320,
289, 371
dalet (‫ ;ד‬d)  101, 213n98, 244n240, 327
Daniel  2, 5n14, 11, 24, 39, 73n6, 87, 100,
108, 131, 177, 187n6, 246, 247, 249, 262n291,
267n312, 268n315, 320, 359, 368
dativus commodi  239n219, 243
dativus incommodi  242
David  30n88
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) (see also Hebrew:
Dead Sea Scrolls; Aramaic: Dead Sea
Scrolls)  4n11, 7, 23, 24, 33, 34n96,
44n121, 75, 82, 83, 92, 94, 96, 97, 100, 106,
109, 111, 113n19, 118, 121, 124, 128, 129, 132, 134,
138, 150, 170, 175, 178n68, 180, 183, 189, 206,
207, 209–211, 212n93, 217, 222, 223, 229n151,
231, 239n219, 240, 241, 256, 279, 280, 285,
330, 349, 350, 351, 368n19
biblical  34n96, 76, 81, 132, 137–140,
140n, 163n18, 164, 172–174, 179n, 248,
252, 279n341, 315, 321n70, 333n110, 342,
372
Ezekiel  228n148
Jeremiah (see also 2QJer; 4QJera; 4QJerb;
4QJerc; 4QJerd; 4QJere)  31n89, 57n,
356
Judges  138
non-biblical  53, 74n9, 76, 80, 83, 84,
97, 102, 109n5, 118n27, 121n37, 126, 127,
503
132, 137–140, 157n40, 160, 162–164,
172–174, 183n84, 189, 198n42, 208–210,
222, 223n137, 241n228, 267n312,
279n341, 283n356, 284, 315, 321n70,
342, 345n162
Samuel  34n97
Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic (see Aramaic:
Dead Sea Scrolls)
Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew (see Hebrew:
Dead Sea Scrolls)
Dead Sea Scrolls reading tradition
(see reading tradition: Dead Sea Scrolls)
defective spelling (see spelling: defective)
definite article  9, 130, 188n8, 194n27,
251n257, 252n, 295n4, 314–315n52
deictic  146, 206
demonstrative  145–147, 206, 251–253
demonstrative pronoun (see pronoun/
pronominal: demonstrative)
Deuteronomistic History  10, 52
Deuteronomy  52, 73n6, 79, 108, 111, 125,
131, 134, 136, 183, 187n4, 192n20, 262n291,
313, 373n
dialect  8, 17–21, 38, 52, 63–64, 85, 97,
98n74, 110, 115–116, 119, 122, 128–129,
146, 175, 306n26, 307, 325, 327, 329, 333,
339n124, 371
Benjamin(ite)  52, 63, 98n74, 119
Jerusalemite  17, 63–64
Judahite  17, 63–64
northern  17–22, 64, 85, 98, 110n9,
116–117, 146, 153, 325, 333, 339n124
rural  64n
southern  17, 20
dialectal variation (see variation: dialectal/
regional)
diglossia  22–25, 53, 64–65
diphthong  18, 72n1, 92–94, 112n, 175, 206
aw  72n1
ay  18, 93n58
iy  72n1
uw  72n1
direct object  116n23, 117n26, 188, 191, 192,
238–243, 254n263, 267
directional he  54– 56, 59, 65, 69, 92,
93n58, 203–219, 222, 224–226, 361, 363
dissimilation  95–98, 101, 129n, 130, 149n7
distributive  54, 55, 66, 69, 282, 283n354,
284
504
diversity (linguistic)  18–19, 26, 39, 40
divine speech (see speech: divine)
document(tary sources)  3, 7, 22, 27, 29,
35, 40, 49, 72, 81, 83, 303–304
Documentary Hypothesis  3, 47
double entendre  149n5
double plural construct (see construct:
double plural)
dual  58–59n92, 154n31
dual suffix (see suffix: dual)
durative  35n99, 254, 287
Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) (see Hebrew:
Biblical: Early)
Eblaite  109
Ecclesiastes (see Qohelet)
editor (see also amanuensis; compiler;
copyist; scribe; vocalizer; writer)  19,
34n97, 36n100, 63, 65, 71, 75, 188n9, 199,
200, 229, 323, 324
editorial activity  8, 199n
editorial framework  10, 36, 69–71, 88,
250, 325
editorial heading  36, 66, 69–70, 88–89,
250, 325
editorial policy  199
Edomite  301
Egyptian  42n113, 91
Elephantine  4, 57n, 83n29, 303
Elijah-Elisha cycle  18
Elisha  116
ellipsis  326
emphatic  95, 206
ending (see also suffix; sufformative; verb[al]:
ending)  147n127
endogenous change  11n33
energic nun (see nun: energic)
entreaty  61
epigraphic (sources; see also
inscription[al])  2, 7, 10, 31, 76n17, 83,
84, 89n, 96, 121, 123, 198, 204, 222, 250, 279
Esther  5n14, 11, 35n97, 39, 73n6, 77, 79, 87,
93, 94, 100, 108, 131, 136, 138, 177, 183, 187n6,
245n243, 246, 247, 254, 262n291, 267n312,
268n315, 308, 309, 320, 340, 353–355, 359,
368
Ethiopic  24, 25, 109, 112
etymology  86n35, 104n92, 124n48, 126,
148, 156n37, 204n60, 327, 328
euphony  115, 119, 123n44, 170n36
subject index
e vowel (see vowel: e)
ɛ vowel (see vowel: ɛ)
ĕ vowel (see vowel: ĕ)
Exile  3, 14, 25, 29n86, 35n97, 35, 46, 56,
63, 67–68, 83–84, 96, 103–104, 108, 117, 136,
152, 175, 182, 183, 197, 199, 214, 229, 250, 284,
331, 350, 358n7, 359, 367, 369n21
exilic 15, 51, 59, 73, 77, 89, 105, 108, 116, 138,
156, 225, 231, 281, 299, 340, 341, 344, 358n7,
367
Exodus  79, 131, 136, 183, 187n4, 262, 319
exogenous change  11n33
external (factor/influence)  3, 11–13, 45,
56, 122, 126, 151, 191, 200n48, 201, 239, 259,
334
extra-biblical Aramaic (see Aramaic:
extra-biblical)
extra-biblical corroboration  7, 360
extra-biblical Hebrew (see Hebrew:
extra-biblical)
Ezekiel  14, 34n97, n98, 62n, 73–75, 77, 79,
82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 101, 108, 115, 116, 122, 131,
136, 157, 170n30, 172n42, 175–178, 182–184,
186, 191, 195–202, 209, 212n93, 214–217, 228,
231, 237n209, 246, 254, 262n291, 268n315,
283, 289, 320, 333, 338, 340, 341, 367, 371,
373n
Ezra  2, 5n14, 11, 26, 39, 79, 87, 100, 108, 131,
136, 137, 177, 187n6, 212n93, 246, 247, 249,
262n291, 267n312, 320, 340, 341, 359
feminine suffix (see suffix: feminine)
final vowel (see vowel: final)
finite verb (see verb[al]: finite)
First Isaiah (see Isaiah: 1–39)
First Temple Hebrew (see Hebrew: First
Temple)
First Temple Period  5n14, 10, 14, 17, 24,
29n87, 31, 32, 36, 46, 56, 58, 63, 67, 80, 83,
85, 88, 91, 104, 132, 152, 175, 182, 198, 199, 227,
250, 278, 307, 337, 350, 359, 367, 371
fixed phrase  205n69, 210, 215, 232
foreign(er)  15, 22n63, 26, 41–43, 56,
68–69, 86nn37–38, 92, 99, 153–154, 155n37,
161n5, 200, 233n169, 234, 301, 302n19, 306,
325, 341, 343–346, 353, 357, 372
Former Prophets (see Prophets: Former)
frequency  73
frozen form  205n69, 211, 222
full spelling (see spelling: full)
subject index
Galilean  308n34
geminate (see verb[al]: geminate)
gender  146n121
genealogical material  88–89
Genesis  5n14, 35n97, 51, 79, 95, 110n11, 131,
136, 138, 183, 187, 197, 262, 319
Genesis–Kings  5n14, 35n97, 51, 138
Geniza (Cairo)  4
genre  1, 8, 10, 12, 23n71, 25–26, 40, 45n122,
53, 65–66, 76n17, 110, 134, 225, 260, 333, 371
gentilic  54–56, 66, 305, 306, 309, 311–314
glide  92
gloss (see also addition; insertion;
interpolation) 10, 36, 69, 155, 261n288,
304, 314, 347
grammar  10, 20–21, 237
grapheme(ic)  326, 330, 338
graphemic shift (see shift: graphemic)
Great Isaiah Scroll  84, 122, 144
Grecism  53
Greek  4n12, 34n97, 36, 41, 52, 67, 68, 71,
74, 75, 76n15, 77, 82, 90, 91n50, n51, 92, 95,
98, 99n78, 101, 103, 106, 107, 111, 119, 125, 128,
134, 139n96, 141n101, 142, 145, 147, 152, 153,
154n29, n30, 157, 158, 161n7, 170n35, 171, 179,
180, 186, 191n19, 192, 198n42, 202, 212n94,
213nn96–98, 217, 218n116, 226, 237, 242n231,
244, 245n244, 251, 254, 263nn294–296,
264nn297–299, 265n301, n303, 266, 273,
281, 282, 287, 289, 295, 297, 301, 303–305,
306n31, 307n34, 311n39, 313, 314, 315n53,
318, 323, 324, 331, 336, 339, 340, 343, 346,
347, 351n177, 352, 355–357, 358n7, 360n,
365, 366, 372
Habakkuk  10, 79, 96, 131
habitual  178, 254, 260n285, 263, 265,
287–289
Hadadezer  100
Haggai  14, 29n86, 108, 191n18, 246, 247,
268n315, 340, 367, 371, 373n
hapax legomenon  57n, 70, 243
harmonization  4n11, 132n80, 190n15
ḥataf pataḥ (see vowel: ḥataf pataḥ)
he (‫ ;ה‬h) (see also directional he; interrogative
he)  9, 34n97, 54–56, 59, 65, 69, 85,
91, 93n58, 132n78, 135, 203–217, 218–226,
295n4, 298n9, 326n89, 361, 365
ḥet (‫ ;ח‬ḥ)  95
Hebraism  57n
505
Hebrew (ethnicity)  305–314
Hebrew (language)
Biblical (BH)  1–6, 7n, 8, 12, 15n39,
17–19, 21–25, 27–30, 32, 33n93, 36,
38n106, 41–44, 48, 49n129, 51, 85n34,
89, 108, 112, 119n32, 122, 135–137, 139, 141,
142, 145, 146, 150, 151, 156, 157, 159, 160,
163, 170, 176, 177, 183, 187, 190n17, 200,
203, 209, 213, 218, 223, 224, 230n158,
238, 239n217, 248, 251, 255, 258n279,
266, 268n314, 273, 287, 289, 298, 300,
304, 312n42, 314, 316, 321, 322, 324, 333,
342n155, 347, 360n, 370–371
Archaic (ABH)  8–10
Classical (or Standard) (CBH or SBH)
5, 8, 10–13, 15, 23, 24, 27n80, 28n8,
29, 30, 33n93, 40, 43n115, 44–46, 52,
58, 59, 61n12, 62n, 75, 77, 82, 97, 101,
105, 106n, 110, 138, 139, 151–155, 157,
170, 172n40, 184, 185, 190, 201, 209,
212, 217, 221, 225, 226, 233n167, 240,
242, 249, 255n265, 258n276, 261,
262–263n291, 265, 266, 268, 273, 274,
282, 297, 300, 301, 303, 306, 307, 313,
316, 317, 320, 328, 333, 338, 344, 353,
355, 366, 367
Early (EBH)  28n84, 30n87, 36n100,
138
Late (LBH)  5–8, 10–13, 15, 17, 19, 21,
24–25, 27n80, 28n84, 29, 30n87, 32,
33, 35n97, 36n100, 38, 44–46, 51–55,
57, 59, 61n12, 62n, 63, 65–68, 73,
75–78, 80, 82, 89, 90, 94, 97, 100–103,
108, 111, 131, 133, 136–141, 151, 154, 156,
157, 160–162, 165, 167–170, 172, 174,
177, 178, 182, 183, 186–192, 196, 197,
199, 201, 202, 207–210, 214n102, 217,
220, 221, 226, 229, 231, 239, 242, 245,
246, 249, 250, 256, 257, 262n291,
263n291, 265, 267, 268, 271, 273,
274, 278, 282–284, 289, 294, 297,
298, 300, 301, 305, 307, 309, 312, 313,
319–323, 328n99, 329n101, 336, 339,
345, 351, 353, 354, 367, 371, 372
Transitional (TBH)  14–16, 29n86,
46, 59, 73, 76, 82, 191n18, 303,
328n98, 371
extra-biblical  7n, 157, 302, 342
First Temple  24, 156n38, 162, 259
506
Modern Israeli  128n71, 147n127, 188n9,
207n76, 234n180, 273n331, 302n19,
316n59, 335n115, 340n135
non-Masoretic  7n, 51, 105, 137, 284
of Ben Sira  7n
of biblical DSS  7n
of Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)  2, 4, 21, 23,
24, 53, 118, 138, 143, 145, 207, 229, 240,
243n237, 256, 270n323, 271n326, 316,
321
of First Temple inscriptions  7n
of non-biblical DSS  7n
of Samaritan (Pentateuch)  2, 7n,
34n97, 43n117, 81, 112, 118, 129, 130, 132,
137, 160, 162–164, 170, 172–175, 178, 180n,
183, 184, 193, 209, 211, 214, 256n271, 280,
285, 299, 316
post-biblical  4, 5, 15, 29n86, 55, 78,
109, 127, 137, 141, 192, 222, 223n137, 241,
254, 267, 274, 282, 284, 295, 298, 302,
303, 310, 316, 320, 323, 330, 336, 337, 339,
349, 354, 360n, 371–372
post-exilic  6n, 7, 13, 16, 30n87, 54, 56,
68, 69, 221, 224, 370, 373n
pre-biblical  165
pre-classical  3, 6, 8–9
pre-exilic  3, 5n14, 19, 23, 30, 72, 96, 109,
204, 258n279, 370
proto-  120, 175, 204n60
proto-Rabbinic 23n73
Rabbinic (RH)  2–4, 7n, 13, 21, 23, 24,
53, 74n9, 81, 97, 106, 118, 120n, 121, 122,
124n50, 125–128, 130, 133, 134, 141, 144,
146, 150, 151, 170, 175, 180n, 183n84, 185,
189, 191, 207, 209–211, 214n102, 217, 222,
223, 229, 239n219, 240, 255, 256, 267,
271n326, 280, 285, 297, 299, 302, 304n21,
313, 316, 321, 339, 342, 344, 349, 351
Second Temple  12, 156n38, 233
Hellenistic period  358n8, 368, 369, 373n
hendiadys  259–261, 263, 292
Herodotus  154n30
Hexapla  133
Hezekiah  83, 344
hifʿil (see binyan: hifʿil)
ḥiriq (see vowel: ḥiriq)
historical appendix  101–103, 323, 325
historical linguistics  36, 49, 52
subject index
historical spelling (see spelling: historical)
hitpaʿel (see binyan: hitpaʿel)
hofʿal (see binyan: hofʿal/hufʿal)
homographic roots  325, 335
homophonous roots  325
Hosea  10, 20, 73, 79, 87–88, 108, 131, 136,
170n30, 333
hufʿal (see binyan: hofʿal/hufʿal)
hypercorrection  92n58, 191, 229, 234
idiomatic (expression)  284, 326
imitation  8, 10, 23, 25, 29–30, 37, 41, 66,
109, 123, 142, 169, 175, 178, 189, 199, 211, 222,
246n, 248, 270n323, 271, 296, 363
imperative (see verb[al]: imperative)
imperative + weqaṭal (see verb[al]: imperative
+ weqaṭal)
imperfective(ity) (see verb[al]:
imperfective[ity])
Imperial Aramaic (see Aramaic: Imperial)
indicative (see verb[al]: indicative)
infinitive(al) (see verb[al]: infinitive[al])
infinitive absolute (see verb[al]: infinitive
absolute)
infinitive construct (see verb[al]: infinitive
construct)
inner-Hebrew (development/process; see also
internal [factor/development])  126,
135, 185, 191, 259, 278, 300, 311, 335
innovation  15, 17, 29, 37, 44, 72n1, 73, 93,
354, 367
inscription(al) (see also epigraphic [sources])
3, 4, 6, 7, 24, 27, 29n87, 49n128, 51, 57n,
72, 76n17, 83, 84, 91, 109, 121, 124, 146n121,
154n31, 162, 163n14, 209, 230, 247, 250,
258n279, 279, 303, 342
insertion (see also addition; gloss;
interpolation)  13, 36, 57, 68n, 70–71,
82, 91n51, 93n62, 248n, 368
instrumental -‫  ב‬187n1
internal (factor/development)  3, 12–13,
56, 110, 122, 151, 191, 201–202, 254, 286, 355,
371
internal passive  13, 33n93, 39, 60
interpolation (see also addition; gloss;
insertion)  10, 368, 369
interrogative he  295n4
intransitive (see verb: intransitive)
ipsissima verba  36
subject index
Isaiah  6n15, 16, 27, 73, 79, 82, 86, 87, 89,
108, 131, 136, 170n30, 178, 196, 197, 199, 210,
231n, 245, 246, 250, 283, 319, 340, 372
1–39 (‘First Isaiah’)  6n, 10, 16–17, 86,
89, 108, 131n, 136n92, 154, 187
40–66 (‘Second Isaiah’)  14, 29n86, 36,
75, 108, 131n, 136, 190, 191n18, 197, 200,
201nn50–51, 278, 283, 341, 364n, 372,
373n
55/56–66 (‘Third Isaiah’)  36
Israel(ite)  17, 25, 46, 62, 64n, 83–84, 116,
235n186, 305–314, 345
northern  85n33
Israelian (dialect; see also northern)
17–22, 329n101, 333n109
i-vowel (see vowel: i)
J (see Yahwist)
JE (see Yahwist and Elohist)
Jeremiah  14, 36, 51–67, 73–75, 77, 79,
82, 86–90, 93–96, 98–103, 106, 110, 111,
115, 118, 119, 122–125, 127, 128, 131, 134, 136,
140–142, 144, 146, 147n125, 149n7, 151, 157,
170, 175–179, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 191n18,
192, 196, 197, 199–202, 212–218, 224–226,
228, 231–235, 237, 240–244, 246, 250, 253,
254, 255n265, 263, 265, 266, 268, 270n321,
271n326, 273, 278, 280–282, 286, 297, 299,
300, 303, 304, 312, 313, 318, 320, 322–324,
328n99, 329–331, 336, 339–341, 341, 343,
346, 346, 347, 351–352, 356–369, 371–372
Benjaminite dialect (see dialect:
Benjaminite)
Dead Sea Scrolls material (see Dead
Sea Scrolls: Jeremiah; see also
2QJer; 4QJera; 4QJerb; 4QJerc; 4QJerd;
4QJere)  31n89
Greek (edition; translation) (see also
Jeremiah: short edition)  68, 71, 82,
106, 119, 125, 128, 147, 152, 158, 170, 192,
226, 251, 266, 281, 282, 301, 304, 305, 313,
318, 331, 336, 343, 346–347, 347n169
name  13, 67, 85, 88n44, 91n51
prophet  36, 52, 63, 67, 74, 90, 94,
111n15, 119, 235n186, 250, 313
short edition  71, 75, 82, 90, 91n51, 95,
98, 111, 119, 152, 158, 170, 217, 226, 237,
238, 244, 273, 282, 304, 314, 318, 324, 340,
347, 356–368, 372
507
supplementary material  71, 74, 75,
77n21, 82, 90–91, 95, 103, 111, 119, 147, 152,
158, 202, 217, 218n116, 226, 237, 238, 244,
266, 273, 282, 303–306, 314, 318, 322,
324, 325, 347, 359–369, 372
Jeroboam son of Nebat  116
Jerusalem(ite)  13, 17, 19, 53, 55, 59, 63–64,
66, 91–95, 208n81, 213n99, 225n, 295,
305n24, 310, 311, 329n101
Jew(ish)  54, 55, 56, 66, 75, 306–314, 365
Jewish Aramaic (see Aramaic: Jewish)
Job  22n63, 27, 74, 75, 77n20, 79, 96, 131,
136, 154, 161n9, 210, 328n98
narrative framework  11, 73n6, 162, 368
poetry  15–16, 16n41, 73n6, 105n94,
328n98
Joel  29n86, 79, 131, 136, 373n
Jonah  16, 19, 79, 306
Joshua  10, 13, 73n6, 79, 86, 131, 136, 170n30,
178, 197, 201n49, 262, 319
Judah(ite)  12, 17, 54, 55, 56, 63–64, 66, 69,
83, 235, 281, 301, 303, 304, 305n24, 306–314,
340, 341, 343–347, 357, 358–359n8, 365
Judean  306–314, 340–343, 365
Judean Desert  4, 73, 97, 102, 256
Judges  79, 87, 95, 96, 108, 115, 131, 136, 138,
170n30, 262, 319
jussive (see verb[al]: jussive)
Kaufmann (manuscript)  4n13, 93n62,
126n56, 133n84, 340n135
Khirbet Beit Lehi  91
Khirbet El Qom  154n31
Kings  5n14, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 35n97, 51, 73,
79, 82, 86–89, 100, 102, 103, 106, 115, 131,
136, 138, 141, 170n30, 175–178, 188, 196, 197,
199–202, 217, 227, 228n146, 231, 245–247,
250, 262n291, 278, 319, 323, 340, 372
ktiv (‫  )כתיב‬9, 15, 43, 55, 58, 64, 65, 75,
76n14, 78, 92n52, 99n78, 104, 106, 112,
114, 116n23, 117–120, 125, 127, 128, 141–147,
154n31, 155, 161nn7–8, 162nn11–12, 171n39,
172n43, 179, 180n, 182n80, 185, 186n91,
194n24, 196, 197, 208n81, 213, 216n114,
220n127, 230n157, 263, 264, 269, 283n353,
292, 304, 325, 340, 358–359n8, 367, 368n19
Kuntillat Ajrud  85
Laban  56
Lachish (Letters)  4, 83, 204
508
lamed (‫ ;ל‬l)  92, 93, 101, 170n36
Lamentations  14, 15n39, 79, 96, 108, 125n,
131, 136, 161n9, 320, 328n98
Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (see Hebrew:
Biblical: Late)
late distribution  6, 7, 51, 93, 110, 141, 163,
225, 278, 298, 301, 360
Latin (see also Vulgate)  92, 99n78, 100,
102, 254n261, 295, 315n53
Latter Prophets (see Prophets: Latter)
lengthened imperative  159n3
Leningrad (codex)  4n12, 7n, 57n, 73n6
(lə)qVṭlå� (see verb[al]: (lə)qVṭlå� )
leveling  1, 17, 19–20, 26, 124
Leviticus  109n4, 131, 136, 182n81, 183, 184,
186, 187n4, 197, 209, 262
lexical aspect  288
lexicon (see also vocabulary)  1, 13, 14, 20,
21, 25, 32, 54, 360, 371
lingua franca  11, 56, 110, 116, 185, 339
linguistic milieu  8, 16, 29, 71, 89, 127, 139,
156, 249n249, 267n312, 339, 341, 364,
369n21
linguistic opposition  6–7, 70, 360
linguistic profile  21, 35n97, 43n115, 51,
66–70, 111, 117, 151, 152, 155, 160, 162, 172,
178n68, 192, 244, 250, 266, 282, 286, 325,
328n99, 355, 358–360, 365, 368nn17–19,
369–371
linguistic self-consciousness  192, 202
linguistic variation (see variation: linguistic)
(li)qṭōl (see verb[al]: (li)qṭōl)
(li)qṭolet (see verb[al]: (li)qṭolet)
liquid  101
literary device  39, 52, 53, 116, 123, 371
literary effect/strategy  8, 26, 264
literary language/register  1, 17, 19n56,
22–24, 64, 66, 98, 106, 127, 128, 178, 191, 371
literati  116
l-m-n-r  101
loan(word)  12, 15, 17, 41–43, 49n127, 58,
116, 118, 145, 153, 154, 158, 304n21, 340
loan translation (see also calque)  12
local dialect (see also regional dialect)  63
locative  54, 55, 58, 59, 66, 69, 93n58, 204,
206n70, n73, n75, 207, 212
logical consequence  61
long vowel (see vowel: long)
Lowe (manuscript)  4n13
subject index
(lV)qṭōl (see verb[al]: (lV)qṭōl)
LXX (see Greek)
Malachi  14, 15n39, 29n86, 87–88, 131, 136,
170n30, 191n18, 333, 340, 367, 371, 373n
mappiq  326n89
marking  72, 120n, 135, 145, 159, 207, 217,
255n267, 256n272, 278, 316
Masoretic reading tradition (see reading
tradition: Tiberian/Masoretic)
Masoretic Text (MT)  4n11, 7n, 26, 31–37,
43, 52, 68, 73–79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 90–93,
95–97, 98, 100, 103, 106, 108, 111, 113, 118–120,
125, 128, 129–136, 138, 139, 142, 145, 147,
148, 152, 154, 158, 160–164, 170, 171, 172n45,
173n50, 174, 179n, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189,
191n19, 192, 193, 197, 198n42, 202, 210, 211,
214n100, 217, 219, 220, 226, 227, 228n148,
231n, 237, 238, 244, 246, 248n, 251, 254,
266, 273, 274, 279, 280n342, 281n350, 282,
283, 285, 287, 295, 297, 298, 301, 304–306,
313, 314, 318, 319, 321n70, 324, 325, 331, 332,
333n110, 336, 339, 340, 343, 346–348, 352,
355, 356, 357n4, n6, 358n7, 365, 365, 372
Masoretic tradition  4, 21, 33n93, 71, 92,
356, 357, 360
mater(matres) lectionis  2, 72, 76, 93n59,
99n78, 113n19, 121n36, 171, 173n47, n49, n50,
193n23, 197, 198n42, 204
medial vowel (see vowel: medial)
Mekhilta  100n85, 105
mem (‫ ;מ‬m)  93n58, 101
Mesha Stele  121, 132, 163, 288
Micah  10, 79, 87, 94, 115, 131, 136
Middle Ages  92
millʿel  260n284
mimation  94n, 135n88
minus  152n23, 191n19, 273n329, 305,
359n6
Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah (4QMMT)  23
Mishna  76, 93, 109n5, 126n56, 132, 133n84,
137, 157n40, 189, 209, 223n136, n137, 301,
302, 321n70, 330, 340n135, 342
Moabite  18, 109, 132, 163
modal  159, 166–168, 177, 260n284,
266n305, 290
Modern Israeli Hebrew (see Hebrew: Modern
Israeli)
monophthongization  72n1, 93n58
Moriah  86n35
subject index
morpheme  13, 115, 117, 118, 146, 147, 207,
217, 317
morphology  1, 14, 25, 32, 41, 52, 53, 91n50,
98n74, 122, 211, 256n272, 360, 371
motion verb (see verbs: of movement/
motion)
Nahum  10, 131, 136, 328n99, 331
narrative framework of Job (see Job: narrative
framework)
Nebuchadnezzar  53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67,
95, 99, 102, 250n254, 359, 365
negation  9
negative command  61n8, 159
negator  61n8, 176
Nehemiah  5n14, 11, 26, 39, 79, 85, 87, 100,
108, 131, 136, 137, 177, 183, 184, 187n6, 246,
247, 262n291, 267n312, 268n315, 301, 303,
313, 320, 325, 329, 340, 341, 359
nesiga  104n93, 326n89
nifʿal (see binyan: nifʿal)
nomen agentis  148, 149n11, 150–152, 352
nomen rectum/nomina recta  144n112, 211,
215, 217, 273–279, 281, 282, 298
nomen regens/nomina regentes  211, 215,
217, 267, 273, 274, 278, 281, 282, 298, 299
nominal pattern  14, 16, 26, 58, 148,
150–155
non-assimilation (see assimilation:
non-assimilation)
non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (see Dead Sea
Scrolls: non-biblical)
non-Israelite  86n37
non-linguistic (dating; evidence)  8,
30n88, 35, 37, 47, 48, 50, 51, 60, 65, 369–373
non-literary register  23
non-Masoretic sources  53, 73, 75, 76, 80,
81, 83, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 105, 109, 118, 121,
126, 132, 137, 143, 150, 156, 160, 162, 163, 172,
183, 189, 198, 222, 227, 240, 247, 248, 252,
256, 279, 284, 299, 315, 320
non-standard (linguistic feature)  16,
18–20, 26, 49n127, 52–56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66
, 68–70, 78, 98, 115, 116, 119, 123, 152, 155, 161,
176, 177, 178n67, 203, 205, 206n73, 207–210,
214, 216–218, 222, 255n265, 256n272, 260,
262n291, 289, 304, 305, 329n101, 341, 360n,
361, 363, 366, 371
non-Tiberian reading tradition (see reading
tradition: non-Tiberian)
509
northern (dialect; kingdom; setting)
17–22, 64, 85, 98, 110n9, 116–117, 146, 154,
235n186, 301, 306, 308n36, 312n45, 325,
329n101, 333, 339n124
northern speech (see speech: northern)
Northwest Semitic (see Semitic: Northwest)
nufʿal (see binyan: nufʿal)
Numbers  73n6, 79, 131, 136, 183, 187n4, 197,
212n93, 262n291, 319
numismatic (see also coin)  83
nun (‫ ;נ‬n)  53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 93n58,
99–103, 358n8, 365
assimilation/non-assimilation  18,
34n97, 39
energic  9, 159n2
paragogic  61
Obadiah  10, 87
object pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
object)
object suffix (see suffix: object)
Old Aramaic (see Aramaic: Old)
oracles to foreign peoples  26n79, 68–69,
74, 234, 356n2
order (word, constituent)  14, 35n99, 54,
55, 58, 62, 67, 70, 244–254, 258, 358n8
ordinal numbers  14, 45n122, 61
orientation  203, 205
Origen  133
orthography (see also spelling)  1, 2, 19, 31,
37, 53, 70, 72–74, 84n30, 85, 92, 93, 97, 104,
106, 112n, 113, 129, 130n73, 146n121, 163n14,
166, 174, 193n23, 197, 201n49, 202, 203, 228,
230, 360, 364, 371
consonantal  166, 174, 193n23, 197,
202
o-vowel (see vowel: o)
P (see Priestly material)
paleography  84n30
Palestine  64n, 307n34
Panamu  57n
p(apyrus) 967  34n97
paradigm  33n93, 51, 166–168, 177, 184, 185,
188n9, 371
paragogic nun (see nun: paragogic)
parallelism  12, 25, 242, 263n293, 264,
325n82, 327, 332n107, 355
parataxis  9
Paris (manuscript)  5n13
Parma A (manuscript)  4n13, 126n56
510
Parma B (manuscript)  4n13
pataḥ (see vowel: pataḥ)
partial assimilation (see assimilation: partial)
partitive  205, 214
participle (see verb[al]: participle)
på� ʿūl  148n3, 150n16
Pentateuch (see also Torah)  80, 82, 96,
160, 162, 166, 168, 177, 185, 196, 202, 209
perfect  255, 258
prophetic perfect  269n318
perfective (see verb[al]: perfective)
perfective past (see verb[al]: perfective past)
Persian  355
Persian conquest  12
Persian Empire  56, 258, 343
Persian government  341
Persian Period  5, 10, 66, 329n101, 350,
358n8, 364, 368, 369, 373n
Persianism (loanword)  12, 15, 41–43,
49n128, 53, 329n101
periodization  42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 373n
Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab)  29n86, 39
Peshiṭta  (see also Syriac)  7, 43n117,
74, 83, 100, 154n29, 157n42, 170n35, 185, 190,
224, 240, 242n231, 243, 248, 253, 285n364,
299, 302, 303, 311n39, 317, 323, 325n86,
335n113, 339, 339, 351n176
pharyngeal  95
Phoenician  18, 21, 109, 129, 213n95, 326,
342n155
phonetic/phonological shift (see shift:
phonetic/phonological)
phonetic spelling (see spelling: phonetic)
phonology(ical)  1, 19, 33n93, 53, 72, 73,
93n58, 122, 123n44, 148, 153, 155n37, 165,
174–176, 180n, 304n21, 327, 330, 360, 365,
371
piʿel (see binyan: piʿel)
place name (see also toponym)  92,
149n11, 154n31, 206n74, 215n109, 216n114,
217, 219, 329n101
plene spelling (see spelling: plene)
plural suffix (see suffix: plural)
poetry/poetic (effect; genre; style; text; etc.)
8–10, 12, 15, 19, 20–22, 25, 26, 65–69, 73n6,
81n28, 105n94, 109, 117, 119, 121, 122, 134,
138n95, 142, 144, 145, 155, 157, 158, 191,
205n69, 210, 217, 221n130, 225, 255, 258n279,
259–264, 284, 286, 287, 289–291, 320,
328n98, 333, 336
subject index
poetic license  25, 260
poetry of Job (see Job: poetry)
pointing (see also vocalization)  19,
32–33n93, 92, 156n38, 214n103, 340n135
polel (see binyan: polel)
popular (form; speech) (see also colloquial;
non-literary; spoken; vernacular)  126,
127, 178, 295
popular etymology  327
popular spelling (see spelling: popular)
possessive pronoun (see pronoun/
pronominal: possessive)
possessive suffix (see suffix: possessive)
post-biblical Hebrew (see Hebrew:
post-biblical)
post-exilic Hebrew (see Hebrew: post-exilic)
pragmatic(s)  110, 255n266
pre-biblical Hebrew (see Hebrew:
pre-biblical)
pre-classical Hebrew (see Hebrew:
pre-classical)
pre-exilic Hebrew (see Hebrew: pre-exilic)
preposition  114, 198, 204, 205, 206n74,
239n217
comitative  187, 191
reflexive  242n231
‫   ֶאל‬14, 35n98, 49n128, 54, 55, 59, 69,
189n11, 203, 204, 216n114, 218, 219, 222,
224–238, 239n217, 250n252, 361, 364,
366
‫ ֵאת‬/-‫   ִאּת‬15, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 176,
187–202, 243, 366n13
-‫  ב‬187n1, 205, 217, 239n217, 241,
243n235, n237, 285n362, 315n52
-‫  ל‬14, 54, 55, 58, 61, 66, 69, 114, 195n37,
203, 204, 207, 298n80, 209, 210, 212,
213n95, 214n102, 218– 222, 224, 225,
229, 238–244, 351n175, 358–359n8, 361,
363
‫   ִל ְק ַר(א)ת‬123n47, 124
‫   ֵמ ֵאת‬188n9, 194n29, 200n45
‫   ִמן‬34n97, 39, 57n, 60, 200n45, 205,
214, 217
‫   ֵמ ִעם‬188n9
‫   ַעד‬61, 203, 204, 205n69, 218, 220n128
‫   ַעל‬14, 35n98, 39, 49n128, 54, 55, 59, 69,
218, 224, 226n141, 227–238, 239n217, 361,
364, 366
‫   ִעם‬15, 62, 187–196, 198, 200–202, 243,
366–367n13
subject index
preservation  23, 25, 61, 81, 116, 125, 135n88,
137, 138, 142, 144, 150n15, n18, 159n2, 161n5,
175, 271, 298n9
Priestly material (P)  10n26, 27, 36, 47, 51,
108, 109n4, 328n99
primitive (form)  116, 120–122, 125, 129,
135, 146
proleptic pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
proleptic)
pronominal suffix (see pronoun/pronominal:
suffix; suffix: pronominal)
pronoun/pronominal  1, 15, 53, 91n50,
108, 111, 113n19, 118, 126–134, 142, 169,
204n60
demonstrative  145–147, 251–253
object  112, 132, 202n, 241
possessive  112
proleptic  179
relative(izer)  9, 18, 117
subject  108, 109n5, 112, 113n19, 116n23,
125, 129, 132, 133n84, 134, 363
suffix  112, 114n, 129, 188n10, 193n23,
220n128, 242n232, 252n, 281, 298n9,
358n8
pronunciation  2, 13, 18, 19, 32–33n93,
53, 55, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 72n1, 85, 92–94,
97–99, 100n81, 101n88, 102n89, 103–105,
112, 113, 117, 118, 120n, 121n36, 124n50, 129,
132, 153n28, 156n38, 159, 166–167, 171,
172n42, 173n50, n51, 180n, 192n22, 211,
228, 295n5
proper name  13, 53, 55, 59, 64, 66, 73,
91n50, n 51, 95–98, 104n92, 105, 155n37,
207, 209, 219n121, 221, 245n243, 248, 251,
306n26, 306n28
proper noun  91n50, 97–98, 104, 144n114,
203, 219–222, 225
prophet(ic)  5n14, 18n48, 26n79, 36, 52, 63,
67, 88, 90, 94, 111n15, 119, 134, 191, 235n186,
269n318, 313
prophetic books  10, 191
prophetic perfect  269n318
Prophets  78, 80, 82, 160–162, 165, 167–171,
172n42, 174, 175, 177, 183, 319, 320
Former  51, 75–76, 78, 80, 82, 106, 131,
136, 168, 187, 196, 202, 209, 219, 221,
263n291, 283, 289
Latter  76, 78, 80–82, 131, 133, 134,
170n34, 196, 209, 220, 221, 325n82
proto-Hebrew (see Hebrew: proto-)
511
proto-Masoretic  98, 356n3
proto-Rabbinic Hebrew (see Hebrew:
proto-Rabbinic)
Proto-Semitic  145, 146n121, 153, 159, 192,
326, 328, 337, 338
Proverbs  16, 22n63, 74, 75, 79, 87, 96, 131,
136, 154, 161n9, 210, 283, 338
Psalms  10, 16, 20, 75, 79, 96, 109, 115, 131,
133, 136, 138n95, 154, 161n9, 210, 246, 283,
284, 320
pseudo-archaization  170, 191
Ptolemaic dating  372n
puʿal (see binyan: puʿal)
Punic  21, 109
purity/purist/purism  168, 178
qal (see binyan: qal)
qal internal passive (see binyan: qal internal
passive)
qamaṣ (see vowel: qamaṣ)
qaṭal (see verb[al]: qaṭal)
qaṭāl  142, 153
qaṭal suffix (see suffix: qaṭal)
qaṭlatu  124n50
qå� ṭōl  53, 55, 58–60, 148–153
qaṭṭå� l  148n1, 151
qaṭṭōl  153
qĕṭå� l  14, 16, 17, 152–158
Qohelet (Ecclesiastes)  2, 5n14, 8n17, 11, 19,
27, 73, 75–77, 79, 96, 108, 131, 161, 162, 177,
182, 183, 187, 188, 257, 258, 262n91, 267n312,
268, 289, 301, 319, 320, 368
qre (‫  )קרי‬43, 60, 76, 78, 104, 106, 112n,
116n23, 118, 119, 127, 128, 132, 143, 147, 155,
161n7, n8, 171n38, n39, 172n40, 179, 180,
181n75, 182n80, 185, 186, 193n24, 197,
208n81, 213, 216n114, 282n351, 283n354,
340
quantitative dissimilation  149n7
Qumran  23n73, 30n88, 84, 122, 138,
190n15, 238, 357n5, 368
Qumran Aramaic (see Aramaic: Qumran)
quotation (see also allusion)  93, 94,
139n99, 182n81, 186, 189, 271, 286
quoted speech  22
qVṭāl  153
Rabbinic Hebrew (RH) (see Hebrew:
Rabbinic)
rabbinic literature  7, 23, 75, 83, 93, 96,
100, 105, 109, 184, 209n85, 223n136
Rab-Shakeh  56, 344
512
reading tradition  113n19
Babylonian  192n22
DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls)  173n52
non-Tiberian  113n19
Samaritan  129, 130, 192n22, 211
Tiberian/Masoretic  32n93, 91–92,
103, 104, 113, 130, 156n38, 166, 173,
295
reanalysis  93n58
rection (see verb[al]: rection)
redundant (marker; morpheme)  13, 120n,
135, 145, 147, 212, 255n267
reflexive preposition (see preposition:
reflexive)
regional (dialects; variation) (see also
variation: dialectal/regional)  17,
18, 22, 38, 53, 61n9, 62, 63, 78n26, 85, 97,
329n101, 371
register  1, 8, 22–25, 38, 52, 66, 97, 110, 128,
133, 134, 371
colloquial  128, 130, 144, 262
literary  20n56, 22–24, 64, 66, 98, 106,
127, 128, 137n94, 178, 191, 371
non-literary  23
northern spoken  20
spoken  20, 22–25, 64, 130, 137, 178, 191,
192, 201, 270
vernacular  147n126, 170
written  66, 146, 178, 262
relative clause  253n260
relative pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
relative)
relativizer  9, 18, 117
resh (‫ ;ר‬r)  59, 62, 67, 93n58, 99–103,
213n98, 244n240
Restoration  11, 14, 46, 68, 69, 102, 152, 182,
183, 341, 358n7, 367, 369, 372
retraction  93
revision
linguistic  31, 32
orthographic/spelling  31, 32, 72n2, 75,
77, 113n19
rhythm  25, 130, 205n69
rolling corpus  369n21
Ruth  16, 27, 115, 131, 161
ṣade (‫ ;צ‬ṣ)  53, 55, 58, 65, 95–98, 330
Samaria  4, 85n33
Samaria Ostraca  18, 85, 93n59
Samaritan (Pentateuch) Hebrew (see Hebrew:
Samaritan)
subject index
Samaritan (targumic) Aramaic (see Aramaic:
Samaritan)
Samaritan reading tradition (see reading
tradition: Samaritan)
samekh (‫ ;ס‬s)  98
Samuel  7, 11, 34n97, 73, 79, 86n37, 87,
96, 108, 131, 136, 138, 170n30, 183, 185, 188n7,
197, 201n49, 227, 228n146, 231, 245–247,
250, 262n291, 319, 328
Saqqara  57, 342
scribe(al) (see also amanuensis; compiler;
copyist; editor; vocalizer; writer)  
1, 4, 8, 10, 19, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, 36n100, 36,
38, 53, 64, 69, 74, 83–86, 87n40, 88n44,
94, 97, 98, 100, 113n19, 115n, 127, 130n73,
139, 147n126, 154, 167, 168, 171, 172n42,
175, 176, 178, 198n42, 206, 228, 231, 233,
264, 269n319, 270, 271, 357n6, 368
scriptio defectiva (see spelling: defective)
scriptio plena (see spelling: plene)
secondary  65, 66, 68, 98, 146, 217n115,
226, 301, 305, 306, 322–324, 359, 366
Second Isaiah (see Isaiah: 40–66)
Second Temple Hebrew (see Hebrew:
Second Temple)
Second Temple Period  3, 7, 11, 24, 31,
32n92, 85, 93, 103, 113n19, 134, 146n124, 152,
228n148, 262, 285, 371
Secunda  133
Sefire  57n, 102n89, 345
segol (see vowel: segol)
semantic shift (see shift: semantic)
Semitic  2, 12, 24, 58, 101, 120, 142, 302,
326, 334, 363
Northwest  21
West  341n139, 342n155
Sennacherib  56
Sennacherib prism  83, 92
Septuagint (see Greek)  4n12
ṣere (see vowel: ṣere)
shibboleth-sibboleth episode  18
shift
Canaanite  153
graphemic  330
phonetic/phonological  53, 55, 56,
58, 64, 92, 95–98, 100, 101, 106, 129, 130,
328, 330
semantic  54–56, 66, 308n35
short edition (Jeremiah) (see Jeremiah: short
edition)
subject index
short vowel (see vowel: short)
Sifra  100n85, 105
Sifre Bemidbar  105
Sifre Devarim  100n85
Siloam Tunnel  121
simple waw (see waw: conunctive/simple)
simplification  191, 256
šin (‫ ;ׁש‬š)  204n60
śin (‫ ;ׂש‬ś)  53, 55, 65, 95, 98
Sinaiticus (codex)  4n12
sociolinguistic variation analysis  28n84
Song of Songs  16, 19, 22n63, 27, 115, 131,
154, 161n9, 210, 246, 325, 329, 330
sound  2, 25, 170n36, 205n69, 326
speech  22, 26, 45n122, 56, 70, 111, 128n71,
134, 188n9, 192, 260n283, 261n285, 263n293,
295
divine  108, 111, 296, 363
northern  146n124
spelling  31, 32, 53, 55, 57n, 59, 62, 64, 66,
67, 72–77, 84n30, 85n34, 88, 91–95, 97–103,
105, 113n19, 114, 117, 124, 166–167, 173n52,
176, 180, 233, 250, 360n, 366
consonantal  113, 166, 172n41, 281n349,
298n9
defective  31, 70, 72–77, 94, 113n19, 129,
166–167, 171, 197–198
full (see also spelling: plene)  13, 73–75,
166–167, 171
historical  93, 105
phonetic  98, 105
plene (see also spelling: full)  31, 53, 55,
66, 69n, 70, 72–77, 93n59, 94, 113, 169,
171, 172n42, 173n49, 174, 193n24, 194n29,
197, 199n, 201n49, 287, 361–364, 366
popular  98, 106
spelling/orthographic convention  74n9,
92, 94, 97, 166, 169, 173n52
spoken (see also colloquial; non-literary;
popular speech; vernacular)  2, 20,
22–25, 64, 106, 118n31, 128, 130, 133, 137,
146n124, 147, 169, 175, 176, 178, 188n9, 191,
192, 201, 207n76, 258, 270, 271
stamp seal  83–85, 342
Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) (see Hebrew:
Biblical: Classical)
stative (see verb[al]: stative)
stratigraphy  84n30
strong verb (see verb[al]: strong)
513
style  7, 8, 10, 16, 22, 25, 29, 30, 35n97, 37,
38, 44, 45, 52, 66, 69, 103, 122, 126, 134, 137,
142, 175, 177, 178, 189, 192, 207, 210, 222, 224,
229, 234, 237, 245, 246n, 247, 248, 250, 251,
255, 260, 261n285, 263n293, 264, 268, 271,
312n42, 347n169, 357n4, 358n8, 363, 368,
371
stylistic variation (see variation: stylistic)
subject pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
subject)
suffix(es) (see also ending; sufformative)
76n14, 112, 120, 135n88, 140n, 160, 170n36,
176, 193, 203–207, 211, 213n100, 214–217, 222,
250m252
adjectival  147n127
archaic  9, 169
dual  93n58
feminine  18, 120n, 148
object  9, 61n9, 112, 113n19, 119, 120, 126,
161n5, 179, 193, 194n24, n26, 196n40,
239n217, 243n235, 326n89, 358n8
plural  18, 94n, 135–142 148
possessive  9, 13, 77, 112, 113n19, 117, 119,
120, 126, 135, 137, 138, 140n, 144, 269n320,
298n9, 363n
pronominal  112, 114n, 129, 188n9,
193n23, 220n128, 242n232, 252n, 281,
298n9
qaṭal  9, 13, 112, 113n19, 120, 122, 126
theophoric  13, 15, 26–27, 53, 55, 59, 62,
64, 66, 70, 83–91, 94–95, 102, 362, 365,
366n13
suffix conjugation (see verb[al]: suffix
conjugation)
suffix pronoun (see pronoun/pronominal:
suffix)
sufformative (see also ending; suffix)  120,
125, 143n112
Sumerian  328n94, 341n139
supplementary (layer; material) (see
Jeremiah: supplementary material)
suppletion/suppletive  184, 188n9
symmetry  33n93, 112, 166, 168, 182n80
syndetic/syndesis  282–287
syntagm  211, 240n221, 255n265, 298, 366
syntax/syntactic  1, 3n7, 11, 14, 32, 41,
54, 110, 186n91, 207, 226, 255n266, 258,
271n325, 284n358, 306n31, 315n52, 360,
371
514
Syriac (see also Peshiṭta)  7n, 21, 81, 83n29,
92, 97, 100–102, 112, 150n19, 226, 243, 248n,
252–254, 285n364, 302n16, 304n21, 315n53,
316, 321, 326, 329, 335n113, 345, 354
TAM  260
taqṭul  117
targum(ic)  2, 7, 43n117, 74, 81, 83, 97,
100, 102, 184, 190, 224, 248, 249n249, 252,
267n314, 278n337, 285, 294, 296, 299, 302,
304n21, 311, 312n42, 320, 322n73, 329, 334,
335, 337, 342, 349, 351, 354
Samaritan  184n84, 311n39
Targum Jonathan  97, 101, 150n19,
153n28, 154n29, 157n42, 170n35, 213n99,
339, 351n177, 354
Targum Neofiti  97n70
Targum Onkelos  43n117, 150n19,
322n73, 349
Targum Proverbs  285n364
Targum Psalms  97
Targum Sheni to Esther  354n182
Targumic Aramaic (see Aramaic: Targumic)
tav (‫ ;ת‬t)  124n50, 120–125, 145, 146, 206,
338
ṭet (‫ ;ט‬ṭ)  326, 328, 330
ṯ  338
Tel Dan inscription  57n, 83n29, 163n14
Tell Fekheriye inscription  57n, 72n1,
146n121
Temple Scroll (11Q19)  30n88, 39n108, 111,
139
Ten Commandments  294–296
terminative  205, 207n76
textual (corruption, fluidity, modification)
(see also variation: textual)  6n,
26, 31–37, 44, 46, 47, 52, 65, 90, 91n50,
103, 111n16, 126n56, 161n5, 175–178, 180n,
198–201, 227, 228n148, 242n231, 261n288,
263n294, 265, 289, 314n49, 335, 347n169,
357n6, 371, 372, 373n
theophoric (name; suffix) (see also suffix:
theophoric)  14, 15, 26, 40, 53, 55, 59,
62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 83–91, 95, 102, 177n64,
199, 250n253, n254, 362, 365, 366n13
Third Isaiah (see Isaiah: 55/56–66)
Tiberian (tradition; vocalization)
(see also reading tradition: Tiberian/
Masoretic)  2, 4, 7n, 18, 19, 21,
32–33n93, 91, 92, 100n81, 103, 112, 113, 118,
119, 129, 156n38, 166, 173n51, 192n22, 295
subject index
ṭip̄ ḥa  57n
toponym (see also place name)  56,
86n35, 91, 94, 149n11, 208n80, 209, 213n97,
214, 215n109, 218, 219, 361
Torah  51, 86, 133, 136n90, 160–163,
165–171, 172n42, 174, 177, 183, 187, 199,
201n49, 209, 212n93, 214n100, n101, 219–221,
231n, 252, 263n291, 267n312, 283, 289, 319,
320
Tosefta  100n85, 105
Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH)
(see Hebrew: Biblical: Transitional)
transitive verb (see verb[al]: transitive)
transliteration  100, 101n88, 217, 344
transmission  20, 31, 33n94, 36, 52, 74, 83,
89n44, 97n69, 200, 229n148, 234, 235, 325,
340
triconsonantalism  74n11
triphthong  53, 91–94
Twelve, the  74, 75, 77n20, 87, 88, 131, 199,
250n253, 320
u-ḇ-qåṭlō  40
Ugarit(ic)  3, 8, 21, 25, 96, 109, 129, 187n3,
203, 267, 302n18, 303, 326, 342n155
unassimilated nun  34n97, 39
u-vowel (see vowel: u)
variation  99n78
dialectal/regional  19, 53, 61n9, 85,
230
linguistic  10, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27, 167
stylistic  91n50, 225
textual  91n50
Vaticanus (codex)  4n12
verb(al)  9, 53–55, 58, 59, 74, 75, 95–97,
103, 105, 116, 120, 121, 125n, 143n110, 149n6,
n8, n11, 151n21, 154n31, 159–161, 166, 168,
172n40, n42, 173n46, 174, 177–179, 181,
195n37, 198n42, 220n123, 226, 235n187,
n190, 238, 239, 241–243, 251n257, 254n263,
255, 259, 260, 261n285, 263, 265n301, 266,
269–272, 287, 295n4, 296n, 306n31, 309,
325n82, 325, 326n89, 327–330, 332, 334,
336, 337n120, 342n155, 352, 358–359n8, 361,
363, 364, 365
adjective  149n9
Arabic  124n48
causative  204n60, 239n219
cohortative  61n8, 159, 166, 168
complement  203, 204, 225, 226,
235n187, 235n190, 267
subject index
conversive/consecutive  9, 23, 62n,
169n, 173n50, 230n157, 255n268,
256–258, 262, 270, 271
ending/sufformative  112, 117, 125, 126,
129, 142, 147n127
finite  54, 123n47, 266, 268, 270, 271
fpl ‫  (ו)קטלה‬145
fpl ‫  (ו)קטלו‬145
geminate (see also verb[al]: ‫)ע"ע‬
181–186
imperative(al)  61–62, 112, 113n19, 114n,
159, 181, 242, 266, 358n8
imperative + weqaṭal  61–62
imperfective(ity)  159, 254–266,
269n319, 270n321, 287–293
indicative (verb form, paradigm)  159,
167–168, 177
infinitive(al)  95, 123n47, 124n50, 181,
239n219, 240n221
infinitive absolute  54, 55, 61, 62,
150n13, 258n279, 261n288, 266–273, 292,
324n81
imperatival  61
paronomastic  61, 266
infinitive construct  14, 40, 53, 55, 70,
76–77, 124, 267, 272–273, 319, 321n70,
323, 324, 324n81, 365
intransitive  145n115
jussive  61n8, 159, 166, 169, 177, 178,
181
morphology  1, 53, 91n50, 159
negation of  9
of giving/transfer of ownership
219n119
of movement/motion  55, 58, 59,
66, 69, 203, 204, 206n74, 208n80, 209,
218–222, 225, 226n141, 358–359n8, 361,
363
participle  117, 120, 148n1, 149n6,
n9, 150n12, n16, n19, 151, 184n83, 185,
242n232, 251n257, 255, 268n317,
269n320, 270n321, 272, 273, 288, 325,
332n105, 342n155, 352, 355
perfective  256n72, 257n272, 263, 264,
287–289
perfective past  35n99, 54, 55, 254–263,
265, 269n319, 270n321
rection  195n37, 196n40, 218, 239, 241,
243n235
stative  76, 124n50, 145n115, 260n285
515
strong  74, 76, 120n, 160, 168, 177, 178,
365
suffix conjugation  255
system  254–256, 268, 271
transitive  200n45, 239
verb-initial  61
(lə)qVṭlå�   76n14
(li)qṭōl  76, 362
(li)qṭolet  76n14
(lV)qṭōl  76
qaṭal  9, 18, 112, 113n19, 116, 120–123, 125,
142–144, 149n9, 181, 183–185, 230n157,
255, 256, 257n273, 266, 269, 271, 272,
287, 289, 324n81
(way)yiqṭol  75, 142
wayyiqṭol  23n71, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 74,
159, 160–179, 181, 255–258, 261, 262, 265,
266, 269, 270, 287, 363n
weak  160, 168, 177
we + infinitive absolute  271
weqaṭal  23n71, 35n99, 40, 54, 55, 61,
62, 112n, 120–123, 125, 142, 182n80, 183,
184, 186, 254–266, 269, 270, 272, 287,
289
(we)qaṭal  112n, 120–123, 125, 142, 183,
184
we+qaṭal  40, 255, 269, 271n326
(we-)X+yiqṭol  255
we-yiqṭol  176, 257n272, n273, 257
(we-)yiqṭol  257n273
wyqṭl  163, 288
yaqṭul  159
yaqṭula  159
yaqṭulu  159
yiqṭol  61, 74, 75, 112, 113n19, 142, 159,
166, 170–171, 172n42, 173n49, n52, 175,
176, 182n80, 255, 257n272, n273, 258,
266n306, 271, 272, 287, 288, 324n81,
362, 365
full  53, 62, 159–180, 363n
lengthened  62, 159–171, 177
long  53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 161n9, 166
short  9, 59, 62, 159–175, 177, 179–181
‫  ל"א‬59, 76n14, 104n93, 105, 106, 120,
123n47
‫  ל"י‬9, 53, 55, 58, 59, 65, 76n14, 103–106,
120–123, 159–161, 163, 166, 168–178,
181–186
‫י‬/‫  ע"ו‬14, 76n14, 159–161, 163, 166, 170,
171, 174–176
516
‫( ע"ע‬see also verb[al]: geminate)  59,
76n14
‫  פ"י‬76n14
‫  פ"נ‬74–75, 76n14, 328n96
vernacular (see also colloquial; non-literary;
popular speech; spoken)  22–25, 44,
64, 118, 128, 134, 137, 146, 147, 151, 169n, 170,
175, 192, 200, 202, 222, 256, 270, 271, 371
version  5, 7n, 26, 31–33, 34n96, 35n97,
36, 43, 68, 71, 81n28, 87n40, 90, 94, 97, 107,
111n16, 154, 161n5, 171, 180, 211, 212n94, 244,
305, 322, 324, 335n113, 339, 356, 357n6, 359n
vocabulary (see also lexicon)  10, 16, 41,
49n128, 52, 321
vocalization (see also pointing)  13,
32–33n93, 87n40, 92, 100n81, 103–106, 112n,
113n19, 118, 123n47, 124n50, 126n55, 127, 130,
135n88, 148, 149n8, 153n28, 154n31, 155n37,
156, 158–160, 166, 167, 172n41, 174, 178n67,
181n76, n78, 193n23, n24, 194nn27–29,
195n37, 197, 201, 215n106, n109, n111,
281n349, 284n358, 295, 298n9, 340n135
vocalizer (see also amanuensis; compiler;
copyist; editor; scribe; writer)  130n73,
193n24, 201n49
volition(al)  61n8, 159
Vorlage  71, 82, 97, 186, 237, 254, 297, 356,
357n4, n6, 365, 372
vowel  2, 13, 19, 72, 74, 75, 77, 92, 93n59,
97n71, 99n78, 104n93, 112, 113, 116, 118, 120,
121n36, 124n50, 126n55, 130, 135n88,
145n118, 148, 149n7, 173n50, n51, 174, 175,
204n60
anceps  112, 159n2
final  72n1, 112, 113, 116, 118, 121n36, 129,
130, 132, 159, 163, 175, 177, 203
long  92n58, 112, 149n7, 166–167, 175
medial  72, 73, 76n17, 163n14, 173n51,
198
short  112, 129, 159, 167, 177, 203
a  13, 18, 113n19, 130n73, 159n2, n3,
204n60, n58, 206
å  173n51
å�   148, 158, 203n55
e  18, 92, 93n58, 94, 129n, 173n47, n49
ɛ  129n, 203n55
ĕ  173n50
i  72n1, 92, 94, 112–113, 116–119, 124n50,
129, 130, 147n127, 173n49
subject index
o  9, 72n1, 73–78, 97n71, 99n78, 173n51,
197, 364
u  13, 72n1, 73, 76n17, 99n78, 129, 130,
173n51
ḥataf pataḥ  126n55
ḥiriq  92
pataḥ  92, 126n55, 154n31, 155n37
qamaṣ  126n55, 148, 150n15, n18, 155n37
segol  104n93, 295n4
ṣere  104n93, 112n, 295n4
Vulgate (see also Latin)  43n117, 154n29,
157n42, 295n3, n5, 311n39, 339
War Scroll  39n108
waw (‫ ;ו‬w)  72n1, 76, 97n71, 99n78, 171,
173n51, 186n91, 193n23, 197, 266, 268,
269n320, 271
conjunctive/simple  173n50, 230n157,
255, 271
conversive/consecutive  9, 62n,
173n50, 230n157
(way)yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (way)yiqṭol)
wayyiqṭol (see verb[al]: wayyiqṭol)
weak verb (see verb[al]:weak)
we + infinitive absolute (see verb[al]: we +
infinitive absolute)
weqaṭal  (see verb[al]: weqaṭal)
(we)qaṭal (see verb[al]: (we)qaṭal)
we+qaṭal (see verb[al]: we+qaṭal)
West Semitic (see Semitic: West)
(we-)X+yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (we-)X+yiqṭol)
we-yiqṭol (see verb[al]: we-yiqṭol)
(we-)yiqṭol (see verb[al]: (we-)yiqṭol)
Wisdom Literature  12, 17, 26, 96, 155, 157,
333, 338
word order (see order)
writer (see also Chronicler; amanuensis;
compiler; copyist; editor; scribe;
vocalizer)  1, 7, 12, 16, 26, 28n84,
30n88, 46, 63, 72n1, 94, 167, 169, 171, 176,
190, 193n24, 199, 227–230, 233, 264, 287,
330, 341
CBH/classical/early  8, 10, 45n122, 56,
177, 247, 249, 255n265
LBH/late/post-exilic  8, 29, 30, 37, 44,
45, 77, 84, 88n41, 149n11, 167, 169, 199,
207, 234, 249, 257n272, 268, 367
of Esther  246n
of Jeremiah  111, 122, 127, 134, 157, 192,
233, 234, 265, 313
subject index
of short edition  91n51, 99, 360n
of supplementary material  91n51,
364
of the DSS  23n73
of the Temple Scroll  30n88
of the two halves of Jeremiah  66
Writings  131, 156, 161n9, 162, 183, 221n130,
325n82
wyqṭl (see verb[al]: wyqṭl)
Yahwist (J)  10n26, 36, 86n35
Yahwist and Elohist (JE)  108
yaqṭul (see verb[al]: yaqṭul)
yaqṭula (see verb[al]: yaqṭula)
yaqṭulu (see verb[al]: yaqṭulu)
517
yiqṭol (see verb[al]: yiqṭol: full; lengthened;
long; short)
yod (‫ ;י‬y)  9, 13, 72n1, 53, 64, 84n30, 91–94,
112n, 113, 115, 123, 132n78, 161n5, 171, 173n47,
n49, n50, 181n78, 186n91, 298n9
ẓ  96
zayin (‫ ;ז‬z)  53, 55, 58
Zakkur  57n
Zechariah  14, 29n86, 36, 39, 79, 87–88, 96,
108, 131, 170n30, 191n18, 246, 247, 268n315,
364n, 367, 371
Zephaniah  10, 79, 87, 131, 136
Zerdehnung  92n58
Zinjirli  57n