[Pre-publication draft] Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of Tiberian and Qumran Hebrew: The Preservation of Early Linguistic Features in Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Hebrew (STDJ

Diachronic Exceptions in the Comparison of Tiberian and Qumran Hebrew:

The Preservation of Early Linguistic Features in Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Hebrew1

Aaron D. Hornkohl, University of Cambridge

1. Introduction: Consensus and Opposition

While there are significant differences in scholarly opinion as to the exact nature of Dead Sea

Scrolls (= DSS) Hebrew, for example, whether its salient features are best explained as reflecting an

artificial literary idiom, an authentic spoken register, or an intentionally distinctive ‘anti-language’,2

there is widespread consensus that it represents a form of Second Temple Hebrew characterized by

a special, diachronically meaningful kinship with other post-classical forms of Hebrew, e.g., Late

Biblical Hebrew (= LBH) as evidenced in the Masoretic Text (= MT), Samaritan Hebrew, the

Hebrew of Ben Sira, and Rabbinic (specifically, Tannaitic) Hebrew (= RH), as well as with

contemporary forms of Aramaic. Though all forms of Second Temple Hebrew display features also

typical of Classical Biblical Hebrew (= CBH) as preserved in the MT, and, on occasion, even

phenomena that appear, at least typologically, to predate standard alternatives in Masoretic CBH,3

1 I wish to express my gratitude at having been afforded the opportunity to take part in the Seventh International

Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, Strasbourg, June 22–25, 2014, and for the penetrating

questions and constructive comments of conference participants in response to the paper that I read in that forum, of

which the present article is an updated and expanded revision. A special word of thanks to Prof. Jan Joosten for having

extended me the invitation to participate. 2 To be sure, the terms ‘DSS Hebrew’ and ‘Qumran Hebrew’ are too broad to be of much help in the description of the

language of certain Qumran texts, such as 4QMMT (i.e., Miqṣaṭ Maʿaśe ha-Torah; see E. Qimron, “The Language,” in

Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah [ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 65–

108; A. Yuditsky, “Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah (4QMMT),” in EHLL 2, 644–46) and 3Q15 (i.e., the Copper Scroll; see

J.K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll—3Q15: A Reevaluation; A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary [Leiden:

Brill, 2000], 18–19 and n. 71; J. Lübbe, “The Copper Scroll and Language Issues,” in Copper Scroll Studies [ed. G.J.

Brooke and P.R. Davies; JSPSup 40; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 155–62; A. Wolters, “Copper Scroll

[3Q15],” in EHLL 1, 621–22). More generally see Sh. Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Typological Observations,” VT 38

(1988): 148–64; S.E. Fassberg, “Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features,” EHLL 1, 663–69. 3 For example, the standard RH demonstrative זו ‘this (f)’ is thought by some to represent a typologically more

primitive—and, presumably, chronologically earlier—form than standard CBH זאת; see, e.g., C. Brockelmann,

Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.; Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908–13), I

§107tβ; H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des alten Testamentes (Halle:

Niemeyer, 1922), §30d; M.Z. Segal, Diqduq Lešon ha-Mišna (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1936), 49; Ch. Rabin, “The Historical

Background of Qumran Hebrew,” SH 4 (1958): 144–61 (145, n. 3); A. Hurvitz, Ben Lašon le-Lašon: Le-Toldot Lešon

ha-Miqra b-Ime Bayit Šeni (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972), 41; E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language

(Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1982), §203; M. Bar-Asher, “ʾAḥdutah ha-Hisṭorit šel ha-Lašon ha-ʿIvrit u-

Meḥqar Lešon Ḥakamim,” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 1 (1985): 75–100 (90–91); ibid., “Lešon Ḥakamim: Divre Mavo,” in

Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rav Mordechai Breuer: ʾAsupat Maʾamarim be-Madaʿe ha-Yahadut (2 vols.; ed. M. Bar-Asher;

Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), II 657–88 (663); W.R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e.

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 83–84; E.Y. Kutscher and Y. Breuer, “Hebrew Language:

Mishnaic,” EJ2 8, 639–49 (643); cf. GKC §34b; J. Barth, Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen

(Hildesheim: Olms, 1913), 105; Z.S. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic

History (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1939), 70; S.J. du Plessis, “Aspects of Morphological

Peculiarities of the Language of Qoheleth,” in De Fructu Oris Sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (ed. I.H.

Eybers, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 164–80 (174); T. Muraoka, “The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early

Aramaic,” Abr-Nahrain 22 (1984): 79–117 (93–94, but cf. 84); J. Blau, Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew

(LSAWS 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), §§4.2.4.5.1–2.

2

Hebraists generally view the linguistic profile of Masoretic Biblical Hebrew (= BH) as earlier than

that of DSS Hebrew, whether in biblical or non-biblical material.4

This may seem counterintuitive. After all, the DSS date to between the third century BCE and

the second century CE, while the representative Masoretic codices were not produced until the

beginning of the second millennium CE. Since the DSS were discovered in situ, the textual and

linguistic traditions documented therein were spared some thousand years of the vagaries and

vicissitudes associated with the editing and transmission to which of the MT was subject. Does it

not then strain credibility to maintain, with most Hebraists, that the Hebrew preserved in medieval

Masoretic sources more accurately represents the literary language of the First and early Second

Temple Periods than does that found in the much earlier DSS? Does not this enormous discrepancy

in exposure to modification in the course of copying, coupled with the innumerable instances of

apparent textual variation arising from a comparison of the MT, the DSS, and other ancient

witnesses, imply that Hebrew language scholars should re-evaluate the privilege they almost

universally afford Masoretic BH in linguistic studies?

In several recent publications, certain scholars have responded to these questions with a very

forceful affirmative. They argue that the nearly ubiquitous evidence of literary development, textual

fluidity, and linguistic modification in the course of the transmission of biblical texts renders them

unsuitable for any sort of philological analysis intended to describe the linguistic milieu in which

the original texts were composed. Consider a recent expression of this view:

Historical linguistic analysis of ancient Hebrew has habitually proceeded on the assumption that

the Hebrew language of the MT represents largely unchanged the actual language used by the

original authors of biblical writings…. This assumption, however, is out of line with the

4 Important discussions include Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, “Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the

Dead Sea Scrolls,” SH 4 (1958): 200–14; Rabin, “Historical Background;” E.Y. Kutscher, Ha-Lašon ve-ha-Reqaʿ ha-

Lešoni šel Megilat Yišʿayahu ha-Šelema mi-Megilot Yam ha-Melaḥ (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959); ibid., The Language

and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974); J. Blau, “Hirhurav šel

ʿArabisṭan ʿal Hištalšelut ʿIvrit ha-Miqra u-Sʿifoteha,” Leš 60 (1997): 21–32; ibid., “A Conservative View of the

Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the

Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 20–25; W.M.

Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52; ibid., “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran

Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea

Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 245–55; A. Hurvitz, “Was QH a

Spoken Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third

International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; STDJ

36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 110–14; E. Qimron, “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers

at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed.

T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 232–44; ibid., “The Language and Linguistic Background

of the Qumran Compositions,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (ed. M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009),

551–60 (in Hebrew); and J. Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of

the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 351–74. For summary

overviews and further bibliography see J. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language

Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark,

2003), 189–214 (195–96); Fassberg, “Dead Sea Scrolls”; and E. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of

Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (SBLRBS 76; Atlanta, GA: Society for Biblical Literature, 2014), 13–21.

3

consensus view of specialists on the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible, who consider that

the details of the biblical writings were so fluid in their textual transmission that we have no way

of knowing with any degree of certainty what the original of any biblical composition looked

like.5

Such sentiment obviously flies in the face of the aforementioned agreement among Hebraists that,

based on their salient features, DSS Hebrew is a patently later linguistic stratum than Masoretic

CBH (and perhaps LBH, as well). It also contradicts the notion, again generally accepted among

Hebraists and sympathetic biblical scholars, that ancient Hebrew compositions, whether biblical or

extra-biblical, may be dated, at least relatively, on the basis of their linguistic profiles. Clearly,

whatever a text’s original linguistic contours, if these have been eroded, built up, or otherwise

altered by means of more recent activity in some even remotely thoroughgoing way, any attempt at

linguistic periodization can hope to date no more than the derivative editing, modification, and

transmission, not the original composition. The extent to which specialists in the relevant fields

have accepted this decidedly negative assessment of our ability to discern the original linguistic

profile of the extant ancient Hebrew sources remains unclear. To judge from recent publications, the

various arguments and counterarguments have done little to alter the respective approaches of

concerned Hebrew philologists and biblicists.6

5 R. Rezetko and I. Young, Historical Linguistics & Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward and Integrated Approach (ANEM

9. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014), 59–60. See also, idem., 59–116; I. Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew

Inscriptions,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 276–311 (310);

ibid., “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach,” in Feasts and Fasts: A

Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. M. Dacy, J. Dowling, and S. Faigan; Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2005), 81–

139 (350–51); J. Naudé, “A Perspective on the Chronological Framework of Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 30 (2004): 87–

102 (96–97); J. Lust, “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker by the Editors of Biblia

Hebraica Quinta (VTSup 110; ed. Y.A.P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, and R.D. Weis; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 153–67

(162–65); I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; London: Equinox,

2008), I 343–48; R. Rezetko, “The Spelling of ‘Damascus’ and the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,” SJOT 24

(2010): 110–28 (124–26); ibid., “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and

Historical Linguistics,” JHS 13.2 (2013): 1–69. 6 On the one hand, philologists, linguists, and sympathetic biblical scholars still seem, by and large, to accept the

premise that, given appropriate methodological strictures, the MT can usefully be employed as a linguistic artifact

representative of authentic First and Second Temple Hebrew; see, e.g., the relevant studies in I. Young (ed.) Biblical

Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003); Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) and 47 (2006);

C. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit (eds.), Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012)

as well as J. Joosten, Review of I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London:

Equinox, 2008), Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 535–42; A.D. Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of

the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition (SSLL 74. Leiden: Brill, 2014), 26–27, 30–

37; ibid., “Characteristically Late Spellings in the Hebrew Bible: With Special Reference to the Plene Spelling of the o-

vowel in the Qal Infinitive Construct, JAOS 134.4 (2014): 1–28; ibid., “All Is Not Lost: Linguistic Periodization in the

Face of Textual and Literary Pluriformity,” in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Papers from the 16th WCJS, Jerusalem

2013 (LSAWS; ed. T. Notarius and A. Moshavi; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), xxx–xx; and Rezetko and

Young’s own critical survey of “Recent Discussions of Textual Criticism by Hebrew Language Scholars” in Historical

Linguistics, 83–110. Others, by contrast, seem to proceed with text- and literary-critical reconstructions, including very

specific conclusions regarding datation, with little or no attention being given to issues of language, apparently

oblivious to the intense discussion that has been going on for more than a decade, or, more disconcerting, convinced

that the last—damning—word has already been spoken. See Hornkohl, Language, 372–73, n. 1, for reference to a few

such studies.

4

With specific regard to comparing BH as it is preserved in the MT and in the DSS, recent

scholarship not surprisingly reveals widely divergent and contradictory opinions. On one side are

those scholars who highlight the proto-Masoretic character of certain DSS manuscripts,

emphasizing that these latter testify to the antiquity of the Masoretic tradition and its linguistic

profile. On the other side are those who see in the very textual and linguistic variety among DSS

manuscripts and between the DSS and the MT unavoidable evidence of profound and pervasive

textual and linguistic instability, so that no detail of any text can be relied upon to represent an

initial textual form.7

How can scholars looking at the same bodies of material propose such drastically disparate

interpretations of the data? Admittedly, each comes with his/her own set of presuppositions.

Additionally, interpretation is at least somewhat subjective. Yet surely the facts ought to speak for

themselves. Some (though assuredly not all) of the disagreement stems from differences in

emphasis and focus. By way of example, Young usefully tabulates and discusses the frequency of

textual variation in DSS biblical texts.8 However, as Rezetko astutely points out, “Not all textual

variants are linguistic variants….”9 For his part, Rezetko provides a convenient statistical

presentation and explanation of linguistic variants between MT Judges and the relevant DSS

manuscripts, seeking thereupon to demonstrate “that the empirical manuscript data clearly support

the idea of substantial and coincidental linguistic fluidity in the transmission of biblical writings.”10

This may very well be (or not, depending on the specific biblical book and DSS manuscript in

question). It still does not necessarily follow that all traces of diachronically meaningful linguistic

patterns have been obliterated. If it is true that not all textual variants are linguistically meaningful,

it is also true that not all linguistic variants are diachronically significant.

For the past year and a half, the present writer has been engaged in a large-scale project

involving the diachronic comparison of Hebrew as it is represented, on the one hand, in the MT

(represented by the Leningrad Firkovitch B19 Codex) and, on the other, in the DSS. Part of the

impetus for this undertaking has been the recent controversy regarding the feasibility of a

diachronic approach to BH, in which, among other things, much is made of both the relatively late

date of the representative medieval Masoretic codices and the numerous apparent textual and

linguistic differences arising from a comparison of these latter and other textual witnesses.

While the aforementioned survey has been completed, there remains a great deal of work in

analysis, quantification, and publication. Even so, certain general, if preliminary and tentative,

7 Rezetko and Young’s chapter on “Text Criticism: Prelude to Cross-Textual Variable Analysis of Biblical Hebrew,” in

Historical Linguistics, 59–116, gives a representative survey of the current scholarly divide. Compare, especially, their

sections 3.5 “Current Scholarship on the Text of the Hebrew Bible” (71–83) and 3.6 “Recent Discussions of Textual

Criticism by Hebrew Language Scholars” (83–115). 8 Young, “The Biblical Scrolls.”

9 Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls,” 64, n. 262.

10 Ibid., 65.

5

conclusions may be offered. First, though it is probably not surprising, for obvious reasons, there

are fewer linguistic differences separating Masoretic BH and DSS BH than there are separating

Masoretic BH and the Hebrew of the non-biblical DSS.11

Despite significant linguistic, textual, and

literary differences among DSS biblical manuscripts and between the latter and the MT, it is clear

that copyists generally attempted to produce a more consistently classical literary form of Hebrew

than they did in many of the non-biblical manuscripts.

Second, with specific regard to DSS biblical material, while there are, as mentioned above,

important dissimilarities in language, text, and literary structure, it is of critical importance that the

amount of shared material between parallel texts dwarfs the amount of divergent material. This fact,

which also applies to comparisons of the MT with the ancient translations, is, unfortunately, often

overlooked in textual discussions. However, taken together with the recognition that each and every

alleged textual variant must be assessed both on its own merit and with broader awareness of the

global tendencies of the specific witness in which it appears, this understanding helps in the

development and cultivation of a balanced approach to apparent textual issues, especially insofar as

they relate to language.

Third, as mentioned above, with regard to the status of the extant Hebrew witnesses (whether

the MT, a DSS manuscript, or the Samaritan Pentateuch) as artifacts whose language is genuinely

representative of First and early Second Temple Hebrew, it must be emphasized that the vast

majority of the differences between parallel texts relate only to spelling. Among cases of disparity

that are not merely orthographical in nature (and, admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish

these from phonologically meaningful distinctions in spelling), only a portion can be characterized

as reflecting true differences in language, and of these a still smaller minority appear to result from

the infiltration of later Hebrew into the language of an otherwise classical or early post-classical

text. This relative linguistic stability should come as no surprise, given the fact that we are dealing

with the transmission of venerated texts, for some of which certain (though by no means uniform)

textual traditions had taken root. Against this background it is of crucial relevance that no scholar

has succeeded in substantiating the claim that the textual instability and linguistic fluidity to which

biblical texts were undoubtedly subject have, through the rampant interchange of distinctively

classical and post-classical features, irremediably obscured their diachronic profiles. It is not

enough simply to demonstrate widespread textual development or even frequent linguistic

modification—the reality of which has been established (though, to be sure, the relevant

argumentation is often long on theory, expert opinion, and allusions to consensus, and rather short

on supporting data). To counter the argument that Hebrew texts are relatively datable on the basis of

11

In the present discussion, DSS BH is defined maximally. That is to say, it refers not only to Hebrew material in the

so-called ‘biblical’ DSS, i.e., apparent copies of texts included in the Hebrew Bible, but also to biblical citations in

otherwise non-biblical texts. For obvious reasons, examples of the former in this study vastly outnumber those of the

latter.

6

their language, one must show that the posited linguistic modification affected diachronically

significant features specifically and that it did so on a large scale.12

Fourth, with continued and more in-depth study of the various DSS biblical manuscripts, it has

become clear that there was no single, uniform approach among scribes to copying and representing

their source texts. Certain manuscripts, like 1QIsaa, are, arguably, rather extreme examples of

linguistic ‘updating’ or ‘modernization’. Thus, probably more than other manuscripts, they provide

a window into contemporary linguistic practices. At the other extreme are manuscripts that seem to

have been copied in an extremely conservative manner from extremely conservative source texts,

such as 4Q31 (4QDeutd || Deut 2.24–4.1), in which the orthography is consistently more defective

than in the parallel Masoretic material and which, presumably at least, reflects an orthographical

tradition characteristic of pre-Masoretic spelling habits. Other manuscripts probably lie somewhere

between these two extremes. In any case, one should not expect a complete departure from classical

norms in any text, since, whatever the tendencies of the individual copyists, in the nature of things

copies of older texts will generally adhere to traditional linguistic conventions to a greater extent

than wholly new compositions, in the latter of which, it may reasonably be supposed, contemporary

individual and corporate style will usually be more evident.

As Kutscher did for 1QIsaa in relation to MT Isaiah, Rezetko and Rezetko and Young,

respectively, have contributed valuable linguistic commentaries on the DSS Judges and Samuel

manuscripts vis-à-vis the corresponding Masoretic books.13

One may, of course, quibble with

certain details of their studies or with their more general conclusions related to textual criticism

and/or linguistic periodization.14

But even if one accepted the whole of their analyses regarding the

specific DSS manuscripts and parallel MT material on which they focus, the descriptions and

conclusions still could not reasonably be taken as generally representative of the relationship

between the rest of the DSS biblical manuscripts and parallel Masoretic material. The scribes

responsible for copying these DSS manuscripts, like those responsible for copying others, may have

succeeded in doing exactly what copyists are generally supposed to have been capable of doing, i.e.,

producing a manuscript identical or at least very similar to its source text.15

Likewise, perhaps the

respective Masoretic editions of these two books are especially problematic. Whatever the case may

be, this in no way implies the problematic nature of the entire MT or that all DSS scribes saw their

12

For recent studies focusing on the interaction of diachronic linguistics and textual criticism see J. Joosten, “Textual

Developments and Historical Linguistics,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts; The

Historical Books (ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 21–31; Rezetko, “The

Qumran Scrolls”; Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost.” 13

Kutscher, Ha-Lašon; ibid., The Language; Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls”; Rezetko and Young, Historical

Linguistics, 171–210, 453–592. 14

See below, on the 3mpl possessive suffix added to plurals ending in -ות . 15

Indeed, elsewhere (Hornkohl, “Characteristically Late Spellings,” 11–12) I have attempted to demonstrate on the

basis of striking similarities between Masoretic and DSS manuscripts that scribes were capable of the consistent

replication of even minute details.

7

role as merely one of copying or, even if they did, that they managed consistently to perform their

task without slips of the pen. It is precisely these deviations, whether intentional or accidental, that

prove most interesting in terms of linguistic analysis.

Comparing the MT biblical books and parallel material in the DSS, most of the linguistic

differences have absolutely no apparent diachronic import. All the same, there are a limited number

of clear-cut cases where classical linguistic features in one or more textual witnesses to a given

biblical text are paralleled by characteristically late alternatives in other manuscripts. Significantly,

where the Masoretic and DSS biblical material indeed differ with regard to a diachronically

meaningful feature—and this is an important point to consider not just in philological research, but

in textual and literary enquiries as well—more often than not it is the medieval Tiberian tradition

that preserves the characteristically more classical element—at least in the consonantal text, if not

in the pronunciation tradition as well—and the DSS rendition that presents the later alternative.

It should be noted that this characterization is based not merely on raw counts or even

proportions of features, which, given the fragmentary state of many of the DSS manuscripts, may

prove misleading. It is also based on the ‘general direction of replacement’ in different renditions of

given texts, which, though often involving only a handful of cases, rather consistently point one

way and not the other. Formulated differently, to the extent patterns can be detected in the use of

diachronically meaningful alternants, a discernible trend emerges: BH as represented in numerous

Dead Sea manuscripts is unambiguously influenced by Second Temple linguistic practices,

indicating that the language of these manuscripts is very much a product of the period in which they

were copied, so that even the Hebrew of the older biblical works represented therein often displays

striking affinities with Late Biblical and post-Biblical Hebrew and with post-classical Aramaic.

Conversely, BH as preserved in the Masoretic tradition appears to be more conservative, its

constituent works reflecting not the medieval age of its representative manuscripts, nor even the late

Second Temple era of the DSS, but rather the First and early Second Temple periods. This is not to

say, contra how the argument is sometimes framed, that the MT represents the original biblical

autographs essentially unchanged,16

but merely that despite changes, useful philological analysis,

including linguistic periodization, remains feasible.

Does this all prove definitively that those Masoretic editions of biblical texts with more classical

linguistic profiles than parallel DSS manuscripts in fact represent earlier, i.e., more original,

renditions thereof? Perhaps not. It is not impossible to imagine a scenario whereby the language of

biblical texts deemed to be too ‘contemporary’, ‘vulgar’, or ‘popular’ was archaized in line with

what was perceived to be a more dignified style.17

But this seems an unnecessarily complicated

16

Thus, repeatedly, Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 59–116. 17

One might compare the linguistic ‘corrections’ made to RH texts in line with Masoretic BH to be found in printed

editions of the Mishna, as opposed to the more pristine medieval manuscripts; see Kutscher, A History, §195; A. Sáenz-

8

theory. If, in terms of language, many of the DSS biblical scrolls show themselves to be products of

the late Second Temple period, while the parallel Masoretic material appears to reflect First Temple

and early Second Temple linguistic practices, it seems simpler to proceed on the assumption that

this is the case, at least until clear and convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. At this point,

since challengers to the regnant diachronic linguistic approach claim to have presented just such

evidence, it is worth providing an explicit definition. The sort of evidence required would consist of

copious amounts (not just an example or two) of non-linguistically datable post-classical

compositions (not just copies of earlier material) employing pure CBH. It is not merely that the

quantity of such evidence is meager; it is non-existent. No text securely datable on non-linguistic

grounds to the Second Temple Period fails to exhibit a conspicuous accumulation of distinctive

post-classical linguistic features.

2. Examples of MT Hebrew Conservatism and DSS Hebrew Development

While the full and final results of the large-scale comparison mentioned above have yet to be

published, the discernibly later character of DSS BH relative to MT BH may be provisionally

illustrated on the basis of two phenomena, one morphological, the other syntactical.

2.1. The 3mpl possessive suffixes added to words ending in -ות ם- : versus - יהם

From the perspective of morphology, the diachronically significant distribution of the alternant

3mpl possessive suffixes that attach to plural nouns ending in -ות , i.e., -ם and -יהם , is well

documented and need not be rehearsed here.18

The consensus view is that while both suffixes occur

in classical as well as late sources, only in late sources is the longer ending dominant. Significantly,

in DSS biblical material there are 72 cases in which a Masoretic form with -ם ות is represented in

one way or another; in 62 of them it is paralleled by a form ending in -)ותם)ה , in ten by a form

terminating with -)ותיהם)ה . Conversely, the DSS biblical material exhibits 23 cases in which a

Masoretic form with -יהם ות is represented one way or another; in 22 of them the ending is -

ותם)ה(- in only one ,ותיהם)ה( . Not surprisingly, in the majority of parallel cases the forms in the two

corpora correspond. However, of the eleven cases where they differ, the DSS show the

characteristically later form in ten.

in their highways’ (1QIsa‘ במסלותיהמהaם || (48.19 לות מס (MT Isa 59.7) ב

Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J.F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 174;

and, especially, Kutscher and Breuer, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” for discussion and updated bibliography. 18

BDB 3a; GKC §91n; A. Bendavid, Lešon ha-Miqra u-Lšon Ḥakamim (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967–71): II 452; A.

Cohen, “מכתך,” BM 20 (1975): 303–305; Hurvitz, Ben Lašon le-Lašon, 24–27; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea

Scrolls (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 63; C. Smith, “With an Iron Pen and a Diamond Tip: Linguistic

Peculiarities of the Book of Jeremiah,” PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 2003), 69–72; R.M. Wright, Linguistic

Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (LHB/OTS 419. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005),

26–30; Joüon-Muraoka §94g; Hornkohl, The Language, 135–42; ibid., “All Is Not Lost,” xx–xxx. A forceful and

thoroughgoing attempt to refute the diachronic significance of the alternation is found in Rezetko and Young, Historical

Linguistics, 351–74, which also provides more extensive bibliography.

9

הבמעגלותיהמ ‘in their paths’ (1QIsaaם || (48.19 (MT Isa 59.8) במעגלות

and their fears’ (1QIsa‘ ובמגורותיהםהaם || (53.15 (MT Isa 66.4) ומגורת

ם || to their fathers’ (2Q12 f1.7)‘ לאבותיהמ]ה (MT Deut 10.11) לאבת

ם || their standing stones’ (4Q45 f15–16.2)‘ מצבותיהם בת (MT Deut 12.3) מצ 19

]םאבותיה ‘thei[r] fathers’ (4Q50 f2–3.8) || ם (MT Jdg 21.22 ) אבות

ם || and their bows’ (4Q171 f1–2ii.16)‘ וקשתותיהם (MT Ps 37.15) וקשתות

המהית]ו[במלוא (4Q365 f12biii.12) || ם את ל (MT Exod 39.13) במ

ם || and their bows’ (4Q437 f2i.3)‘ וקשתותיהם (MT Ps 37.15) וקשתות

ם || their [dens]’ (11Q5 fEii.1)‘ מעונותי[הם (MT Ps 104.22) מעונת

Consider also:

their [bab]ies’ (1QIsa [and]‘ ]ויונק[ותיהמהaינקתם || (53.28 ,and you will nurse’ (MT Isa 66.12)‘ ו

though in this case the forms are not entirely parallel; cf. the Greek.

The lone instance in which the biblical DSS present a short form that contrasts with a long one

in the MT is

יהם || and their spears’ (4Q56 f2.2)‘ וחניתתם יתות .(MT Isa 2.4) וחנ20

Formulated differently, the biblical DSS exhibit the characteristically late form in ten of 72

cases (13.9 percent), the MT in just one of 23 (4.4 percent). Neither proportion is overwhelming,

but, clearly, in cases where the two corpora differ with respect to the suffixal forms under

discussion the DSS are more than three times as likely to opt for the typically post-classical one.

Pace Rezetko, this plainly qualifies as “a trend in the direction of replacement.”21

2.2. The Infinitive Construct as Verbal Complement with and without a Preceding

Preposition ל- 22

A similarly striking pattern emerges in the case of the infinitive construct serving as a verbal

complement with and without a prefixed prepositional ל- . A comparison of Masoretic BH, Second

Temple Aramaic/Syriac, and RH reveals unmistakable evolution in the morphosyntax of the

infinitive construct. In BH the infinitive may occur with or without a preceding preposition. In RH

and Targumic Aramaic, conversely, unless serving as the nomen rectum of a construct phrase (e.g.,

אתך יום צ ‘the day of your leaving’ M Berakhot 1.5), the infinitive is obligatorily preceded by a

19

Cf. מצבתיהם SP Deut 12.3. 20

It may well be that the choice between -ותיהם and -ותם in some of these cases was dictated, or at partially least

influenced, by grammatical attraction to similar forms in the immediate context. Thus, the adoption of במסלותיהמה and

at 1QIsa במעגלותיהמהa 48.19 is explicable as a result of grammatical harmonization with the nearby forms רגליהמה

‘their feet’ (|| MT יהם יהם their thoughts’ (|| MT‘ מחשבותיהמה ,(רגל their paths’ (|| MT‘ נתיבותיהמה and ,(מחשבות

יהם יבות However, in these cases it is arguably the MT’s morphological diversity that testifies to its linguistic .(נת

authenticity. Indeed, in the sole case of biblical DSS -ותם versus MT -ותיהם and their spears’ may reasonably‘ וחניתתם ,

be explained as a result of harmonization in the opposite direction, i.e., due to חרבותם ‘their swords’ (|| MT ם in (חרבות

the preceding line (cf. the apparent harmonization in the opposite direction in Mic 4.3 and M Shabbat 6.4). 21

Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls,” 56–58. Cf. Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics, 368–69. 22

This discussion is an abridgement of A.D. Hornkohl, “Diachronic Observations on the Infinitive Construct in the

History of Hebrew” (in preparation).

10

preposition, the default being ל- , which may even follow another preposition, e.g., ן ,Evidently .מ

with the passage of time, the preposition ל- came to be considered an integral morphological

component of the infinitive construct.23

This is not to say that the infinitive construct prefixed with ל- is itself a late feature. Indeed,

infinitival forms with and without it are found in both classical inscriptions and Masoretic CBH.

Moreover, within BH the infinitive with ל- is far more common as a verbal complement than the

infinitive without it. The chronological development in question consists not, therefore, in mere use

of the infinitive with ל- , but rather in abandonment of the bare infinitive. This late tendency is

manifest in the distribution within Masoretic BH of the syntagm <preposition + ל- + infinitive>,

which occurs only thirteen times, ten of them in LBH.24

More striking still is the distribution of the

infinitive construct with and without ל- functioning as a verbal complement within the MT (see

table A),25

in non-Masoretic biblical material, in extra-biblical Hebrew, and in non-Hebrew sources

(see table B). Tabl e A: MT di st r i but i on of t he i nf i ni t i ve const ruct as verbal compl ement wi t h and wi t hout -ל

Book לט ק לט ק ל Book לט ק לט ק ל Book לט ק לט ק ל

Genesis 8 41 Ezeki el 1 6 Rut h 0 4

Exodus 8 31 Hosea 1 4 Song of Songs 0 8 Levi t i cus 0 3 Amos 4 2 Qohelet 0 8 Numbers 9 13 Jonah 0 2 Lament at i ons 1 3

Deut eronomy 12 31 Nahum 0 1 Esther 0 8

Pentateuch 37 119 Habakkuk 1 0 Daniel 0 1 Joshua 1 12 Zephaniah 0 1 Ezra 0 2

Judges 2 34 Zechar i ah 0 3 Nehemi ah 0 6

Samuel 4 57 Latter Prophets 38 19 Chronicles 0 26

Ki ngs 2 24 Prophets 47 183 Writings w/o LBH+Qohelet 20 37

Former Prophets 9 127 Psal ms 10 15 LBH+Qohelet 0 51 I sai ah 21 14 Job 7 2 Writings 20 88 Jeremi ah 10 23 Proverbs 2 5 TOTAL 104 390

23

The Tiberian vocalization also testifies to a stronger perceived link between the infinitive and ל- than between the

infinitive and other prepositions. First, in strong qal קטל infinitival forms with a begedkefet consonant as second root

letter, this consonant is regularly pronounced as its ‘hard’ allophone (with dagesh) when the form as a prefixed ל- , but

‘soft’ (without dagesh) in forms with the prefixed prepositions ב- and כ- (implying that the ל- was treated similarly to a

yiqṭol prefix, i.e., as an integral part of the form), e.g., נפל כתב ,to fall’ (e.g., Num 14.3)‘ ל ,to write’ (e.g., Deut 31.24)‘ ל

שכב נפל to lie down’ (e.g., Gen 34.7) versus‘ ל נפל/ב ,in/after the falling of’ (e.g., Isa 30.25; 2 Sam 17.9, respectively)‘ כ

כתוב שכב ,in writing’ (Ps 87.6)‘ ב -ל after the lying down of’ (e.g., 1 Kgs 1.21), respectively. Second, the‘ כ of י"פ (and

similar) qal infinitives is pointed with qamaṣ (due to pretonic lengthening), while prefixed ב- and כ- are vocalised with

shewa, e.g., לדת יו ל ח את־א ‘to give birth to his brother’ (Gen 4.2) versus ם בלדת את ‘in giving birth to them’ (Gen 25.26). 24

1 Kgs 18.29; 2 Kgs 23.10; Hab 3.14; Ezra 10.14; 1 Chr 5.9; 19.3; 28.20; 2 Chr 24.10 (?); 26.8; 26.16; 29.28; 31.1 (?);

32.24. Most of these involve cases of קטל עד ל , on which see A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew

(VTSup 160; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 196–98. Apparent cases involving the toponym ת לבוא חמ ‘Lebo Hamath’ are

excluded here, since it has been shown that the first component of this name is not composed of ל- + infinitive, but is

rather a proper name (see idem. and the references adduced there). 25

These figures, with slight differences, are based on M. Malessa, Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im biblischen

Hebräisch (SSN 49; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 150–66. As in Malessa’s study, only those verbs represented by

infinitives occurring both with and without ל- are considered. However, cases involving the verb יל ,be willing‘ הוא

begin’ (without ל- : Deut 1.5; with ל- : Gen 18.7, 29; Exod 2.21; Josh 17.12; Jdg 1.7, 35; 17.11; 1 Chr 17.27), which were

omitted there, are included here. Also, in these sums multiple infinitives following a single verb are counted separately.

Finally, there are a few differences in interpretation. Despite this, the conclusions drawn here accord well with those

reached by Malessa; see also Joüon-Muraoka §124l, n. 9.

11

In the MT forms with ל- outnumber forms without in nearly every book. Factors related to genre

would seem to be at work, the bare infinitive as verbal complement being relatively more common

in poetic material, e.g., the Latter Prophets and the Writings (excepting LBH and Qohelet), than in

non-poetic material, e.g., the Torah and the Former Prophets. However, there is also an

unmistakable diachronic pattern: while the infinitive as verbal complement without ל- occurs in a

minority of the potential cases in most of the Hebrew Bible, it is entirely absent from LBH and

Qohelet, despite over fifty instances in which it could have been employed.

Confirmation that this apparent neglect is no mere accident of the limited scope of LBH, but is

indeed representative of a broad post-Restoration linguistic trend, emerges from late extra-biblical,

non-Hebrew, and non-Masoretic biblical material.

In BA, Targumic Aramaic, and Syriac the infinitive as verbal complement without ל- is exceedingly

rare.26

The same holds true for such extra-biblical Hebrew material as Ben Sira,27

the non-biblical

DSS,28

and the Mishna.29

26

BA: אשתדר ‘strive’ (Dan 6.15); א ל ;need’ (Dan 3.16)‘ חשך ;seek, request’ (Dan 6.5)‘ בע ,be able’ (Dan 2.10, 27‘ יכ

47; 3.17, 29; 4.15, 34; 5.16 [4x]; 6.5, 21); כהל ‘be able’ (Dan 2.26; 5.8 [2x], 15); א ף ;desire’ (Dan 7.19)‘ צב grow‘ תק

strong’ (Dan 5.20). An exhaustive list and statistics are not provided here for the targums and the Peshiṭta. It should

suffice to note that in the vast majority of cases where these translations do not completely reformulate phrases

containing a BH infinitive construct without ל- , they render using an infinitive with ל- . Sporadic exceptions include

Targum Jonathan to Isa 8.4, and to Jer 6.15 and 8.12 (all involving renderings of דע know how’). Against these, there‘ י

are cases in which the translations present an infinitive construct with ל- parallel to a form without ל- that may be an

infinitive absolute or noun, e.g., Targum Onkelos to Deut 2.31, Targum Jonathan to 1 Sam 3.2, and Targum Job 21.14. 27

;desire’ (6.35A; 6.35C‘ חפץ ;seek, request’ (7.6A; 7.6C)‘ בקש ;delay (5.7A; 5.7C; 6.21A)‘ אחר ;desire’ (6.33A)‘ אבה

7.13A); יכל ‘be able’ (8.17A; 8.17D; 31.10B [2x]); מהר ‘hasten’ (5.11A; 6.7A; 6.7C). Consider also ץוא ‘hasten’

(11.10A; 11.10B); בוש ‘be ashamed’ (4.26A); האיץ ‘hasten’ (7.17A); הפליא ‘do wonderfully’ (31.9B; 50.22B); כלה ‘finish’ (32.8B; 50.14B, 19B; צרך ‘need’ (32.17E; 32.17F); רבה ‘become great’ (32.9B); שנה ‘repeat’ (50.21B). More

generally, see W.Th. van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004),

255–65. 28

Without ל- ;be able’ (1QpHab 5.2 || MT Hab 1.13)‘ יכל ;be willing, begin’ (4Q364 f20a–c.7–8 || MT Deut 1.5)‘ הואיל :

-ל hasten’ (4Q417 f2ii+23.6 [?]). With‘ מהר ;add, do again’ (4Q252 1.20–21 || MT Gen 8.12)‘ יסף desire’ (4Q221‘ אבה :

f7.9 [?]); אחר ‘delay’ (11Q19 53.11); בקש ‘seek, request’ (4Q169 f3–4i.2; 4Q171 f1–2ii.17; f3–10iv.14 [?]; 4Q174 f4.5;

4Q177 f7.2; 4Q223–224 f2i.52; 11Q19 58.3); הואיל ‘be willing, begin’ (1QHa 8.26); החל ‘begin’ (1QS 9.10; 1QM 9.1;

16.8, 11 [2x]; 17.14; 4Q274 f1i.1; 4Q317 f2.29; 4Q491 f11ii.9; 4Q514 f1i.4, 7; 11Q20 5.20); חפץ ‘desire’ (4Q380

f1ii.6); ידע (4Q286 f7i.6; 4Q394 f8iv.4; 4Q396 f1–2ii.5 [?]); יכל ‘be able’ (1QS 11.20; 1QHa 7.26, 27, 34; 15.32; 19.27;

4Q365 f6aii+6c.9; 4Q511 f30.6; 11Q19 43.13–14 [2x]; 66.11); הוסיף/יסף ‘add, do again’ (4Q252 1.19); למד ‘teach’

(11Q19 62.16); מאן ‘refuse’ (4Q171 f1–2ii.3); מהר ‘hasten’ (4Q267 f5iii.3 [?]); נתן ‘permit’ (4Q381 f45a+b.2 [?]; 5Q13

f2.7 [?]).

Table B: Masoretic, cognate, extra-biblical, and non-Masoretic biblical distribution of the infinitive construct as verbal complement with and without ל- according to corpus

MT non-Hebrew, non-Masoretic, and late extra-biblical corpora

Corpus לט ק לט ק ל לט ק ל % Corpus לט ק לט ק ל לט ק ל %

Pentateuch 37 119 76% BA 0 21 100%

Former Prophets 9 127 93% Ben Si ra 0 16 100%

Latter Prophets 38 56 60% Mishna 0 269 100%

Writings w/o LBH + Qohelet 20 37 65% Non-bi bl i cal DSS 4 43 92%

LBH 0 51 100% Bi bl i cal DSS 29 72 71%

BH TOTAL 104 390 79%

12

Turning to the biblical DSS, the ratio of verbal complement infinitives construct with ל- to those

without is comparable to the ratio in the MT. However, these statistics are deceptive, the relative

frequency of the form without ל- probably resulting at least partially from the fragmentary nature of

the Scrolls. In his discussion of infinitival forms in a comparison of MT Isaiah and the Great Isaiah

Scroll from Qumran Cave 1 (1QIsaa), Kutscher observed that infinitives construct without ל- in the

former were regularly paralleled by any number of alternative forms (the infinitive construct

preceded by ל- , imperfect, wayyiqṭol, imperative, perfect, participle) in the latter.30

While 1QIsaa’s

penchant for linguistic ‘updating’ far exceeds the slips in favor of contemporary Second Temple

Hebrew discernible in most DSS biblical material, whether biblical texts or citations thereof in non-

biblical texts, the general move away from using the infinitive construct as a verbal complement

without prefixed ל- is evidenced in both 1QIsaa and in other DSS texts.

לשלחה ויוסף[ חרים]א ימים שבעת עוד ויחל (4Q252 1.15–16) || MT חלו ת עוד י בע ים ש מ ים י ר סףו אח ח י האת־ה של יונ (Gen

8.10) ‘and he waited another seven days and he again sent it/the dove forth’

עוד לשוב יספה[ ולואה]יונה ת[א שלח]ים רחא...שבעת ימים (4Q252 1.18–19) || MT ...ת בע ים ש מ ים י ר האת־ה שלח וי אח יונ

ה ספ א־י יו־שוב ול ל וד א ע (Gen 8.12) ‘…seven more days (and) he sent forth the dove, but it did not return again’

לכלותמה לכ [ו ת לוא (4Q40 f5.6) || MT ם א תוכל כלת ’you will not be able to finish them off‘ (Deut 7.22) ל

[ל לשתותוכ לא (1Q4 f12.2 || MT תו ’you cannot carry it‘ (Deut 14.24) לא תוכל שא

לרמוס מידכם תאזו בקש מי (1QIsaa 1.14–15) || MT י ר ס חצ ם רמ ידכ את מ ש ז ק י־ב Who has asked this of‘ (Isa 1.12) מ

you, to trample my courts?’31

להביא תוסיפו לוא (1QIsaa 1.15) || MT יא ב יפו ה א תוס ’you will not continue to bring‘ (Isa 1.13) ל

לקראו הנער ידע בטרם (1QIsaa 7.22) || MT י מ י וא ב א א ער קר ע הנ ד ם י ’before the child knows how to call‘ (Isa 8.4) בטר

לשמוע אבו ולוא (1QIsaa 22.13–14) || MT וע וא שמ ב א א ’but they did not want to hear‘ (Isa 28.12) ול

לשמוע אבו לוא (1QIsaa 24.16) || MT וע ו שמ ב א־א ’they did not want to hear‘ (Isa 30.9) ל

לכפרה תוכלי לוא (1QIsaa 39.31) || MT ה י כפר א תוכל ’for which you will not be able to atone‘ (Isa 47.11) ל

לקום אוכל לוא (4Q111 3.6) || MT ום ל ק ’I cannot arise‘ (Lam 1.14) לא־אוכ

29

;begin’ (Sheqalim 1.3 [2x]‘ התחיל ;seek, request’ (Kilayim 3.3, 6, 7; Yoma 1.7; Sheqalim 2.4; Soṭa 8.6)‘ בקש

Nedarim 8.4 [2x]; Nazir 7.2; Kelim 8.28; ʿUqṣin 2.5 [2x], 6); חפץ ‘desire’ (Yevamot 12.6 || MT Deut 25.8); ידע ‘know

how’ (Bikkurim 3.7 [2x]; Bava Meṣiʾa 2.8; Sanhedrin 6.2; Berakhot 3.2 [2x], 5 [3x]; 4.5 [2x]; Peʾa 2.2 [2x]; 7.8 [2x];

Demai 6.4 [2x], 8, 9, 10; Sheviʿit 3.8 [2x], 9; 5.8; 6.3; Terumot 8.9, 10; Maʿaśer Sheni 1.5; 5.11, 12 [2x]; Ḥalla 2.3 [2x];

ʿOrla 1.3 [2x]; Bikkurim 1.4, 5; 4.5; Shabbat 4.2; 10.5; 13.6; 15.1; 16.4 [2x], 5; ʿEruvin 4.5, 10; 5.4; Pesaḥim 2.3; 3.7

[3x]; 4.6; 8.6, 7 [2x]; Sukka 2.2, 3, 6 [2x]; Beṣa 3.3; Rosh ha-Shana 1.9; 4.2; Moʿed Qaṭan 1.10; Ḥagiga 1.1 [3x], 6

[2x], 7 [3x]; Yevamot 1.1, 2; 12.2; 13.2; Ketubbot 1.5; 6.6; 7.8 [2x]; 7.10 [4x]; 9.5; 12.3 [2x]; 13.5, 8; Nedarim 5.1, 2;

8.7 [2x]; 9.4; 10.4, 8; 11.2, 3 [2x], 4, 9 [3x]; Giṭṭim 2.4; 6.2; Nazir 2.4; 4.1, 2, 5 [4x]; Soṭa 2.4; 4.3 [3x]; 7.8; 8.5;

Qiddushin 3.13; 4.14; ʿ2.4; 6 5, 6; Bava Qamma 9.12; Bava Meṣiʾa 2.10; 4.2 [2x]; 5.7; 6.8; 7.1; 8.6; 10.6 [3x]; Bava

Batra 2.3 [4x]; 3.6 [4x]; 5.6 [4x]; 8.7 [2x]; 9.7; 10.1; 10.7 [2x]; Sanhedrin 3.1 [2x], 2 [4x]; 4.1 [2x]; 5.5 [2x]; 7.10; 9.1

[2x]; Makkot 2.3; 3.11 [2x]; Shevuʿot 4.3 [2x], 4; 5.2 [2x]; 7.8; ʿEduyyot 1.5 [2x], 13; ʿAvoda Zara 1.4; Avot 5.1 [2x];

Zevaḥim 8.2; Menaḥot 3.3; 12.4 [2x]; Bekhorot 8.4, 5; 9.7; ʿ3.3; 12 6.2; Qinnim 3.2 [2x]; Kelim 3.7; 4.1, 2, 3; 5.10; 6.3;

17.3, 4; 18.2; 26.1 [2x]; ʾ3.7; 4 3.2; 4.2; 6.2 [3x]; 8.2, 5; 18.4, 5, 6, 7 [2x], 8; Para 5.9; 11.1; Ṭoharot 7.2 [2x], 3 [2x], 4

[4x]; Miqvaʾot 4.5; Nidda 6.11; 7.1 [4x], 2 [2x]; 8.2 [3x], 3 [2x]; Zavim 3.3; 4.7 [2x]; ʿUqṣin 2.10; 3.8 [2x]); יסף ‘add,

do again’ (Soṭa 8.5 || MT Deut 20.8; Makhshirin 2.4); למד ‘teach’ (Sukka 6.4); מאן ‘refuse’ (Yevamot 12.6 || MT Deut

,permit’ (Megilla 4.9 || MT Lev 18.21). More generally see Segal‘ נתן ;hasten’ (Avot 5.12 [4x]; Niddah 5.9)‘ מהר ;(25.7

Diqduq, 135–38; Bendavid, Lešon, 496–97. 30

Kutscher, The Language, 346–48. 31

Technically, the case in 1QIsaa 1.14–15 occurs in apposition to the definite object of the matrix verb.

13

Listed above are twelve clear-cut cases in which a bare infinitive construct serving as verbal

complement in the MT corresponds to the same with a prefixed ל- in a parallel DSS passage. One

might also consider the following cases, which, for one reason or another, have been excluded from

the above list, but which also exhibit the preference for infinitival forms with ל- :

1QIsa) ולוא אבו בדרכיו להלוךa 36.7) || MT לוך יו ה כ דר ו ב ב א־א and they did not want to walk in his‘ (Isa 42.24) ול

ways’

יוכל לוא לאשקוט כיא (1QIsaa 47.20) || MT ל א יוכ ט ל י השק ’which cannot rest‘ (Isa 57.20) כ

]◦צממל דרכיך]ו[ת מעש וכבתה (4Q67 f1.4) || MT וא חפצך מצ יך מ כ ות דר עש בדתו מ and you honor it [by‘ (Isa 58.13) וכ

refraining] from going your own ways and from finding your own pleasure’

[ערותהמלכסות את] ופישתיצמרי והצלתי (4Q166 2.9) || MT י וה י צלת י צמר שת ותלכ ופ ס ת האת־ערו (Hos 2.11) ‘and I will

take away my wool and my linen from covering/to cover your nakedness’

In 1QIsaaלוך to go, walk’ parallels the infinitive absolute‘ להלוך 36.7 in MT Isa 42.24 (one ה

wonders whether the Masoretic consonantal form was meant to be read הלוך). The infinitive

construct with ל- in 1QIsaa 47.20 may parallel an infinitive absolute in the MT: defective השקט ‘to

be quiet’ would appear to be the dominant spelling of the infinitive construct in the MT—in Isa

30.15; 57.20; Jer 49.23; Job 37.17 the form functions as such; in Isa 32.17 and Ezek 16.49 it seems

to function as an infinitive absolute; only in Ps 94.13 do we find יט The use of an infinitive .להשק

construct both prefixed with ל- and following another preposition, as in 4Q67 f1.4 || Isa 58.13 and

4Q166 2.9 || Hos 2.11, is much more common in LBH than in CBH (see above, n. 24) and is

standard in RH and the post-classical Aramaic dialects.

To be sure, there are a few cases in which an infinitive construct with ל- in the MT is paralleled

by a form without ל- in corresponding biblical material from the DSS:

א את־ MT || (11Q1 fJ.4–5) כי מזרעו נתנ למלכ למענ ט]מא א[ת מקדשי וחלל את שמ ק]דשי ען טמ לך למ ן למ ת זרעו נ י מ כ

י דש ם ק ל את־ש י ולחל ש קד for he gave of his offspring to Molech so as to defile my holy place and to‘ (Lev 20.3) מ

profane my holy name’ בלבבך אשר את ולדעת נסותך[ ענתך למען במדבר] שנה ארבעים זה אלהיך יהוה הוליכך (4Q30 f5.2–3) || MT ה יכך יהו הל

תך לנס ען ענ ר למ דב ה במ נ ים ש ע יך זה ארב בך אלה לב ר ב עת את־אש ד תך ל (Deut 8.2) ‘the Lord God has led you for forty

years in the wilderness in order to humble you, to test you, to know that which is in your heart’

בער ויהיה (1QIsaa 4.17) || MT ר ע ה לב י ’and it will be to graze‘ (Isa 5.5) וה

In three cases, however, the infinitive serves not as a verbal complement, but to mark purpose in a

final clause, where a form with ל- is arguably more felicitous than a form without it. Indeed, in

4Q30 f5.2–3 and 11Q1 fJ.4–5 the form without ל- comes second in a series of infinitives marking

purpose, the first of which is bare and preceded by למען. In 1QIsaa 4.17, on the other hand, the

infinitive was evidently replaced with a participle.

To sum up, then, in at least twelve cases the difference between the MT and parallel material in

the DSS centers on the presence or absence of ל- preceding an infinitive construct in service as a

verbal complement. In all twelve the DSS text has the ל- and the MT the bare infinitive.

* * *

14

Sweeping conclusions are not to be reached on the basis of just a couple features, even if a trend

in the direction of replacement is especially striking. With regard to a comparison between BH as

represented in the MT and as represented in the DSS, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that these

examples are far from isolated. Furthermore, the greater the number of patterns of this sort, the

greater the probability that such differences between MT and DSS BH are attributable to diachronic

factors.

Regarding the broader question of the feasibility of serious philological enquiry in general and of

diachronic linguistics more specifically in the face of textual instability and linguistic fluidity—to

be sure, indications of orthographic, linguistic, textual, and literary development in Masoretic and

pre-Masoretic times are to be investigated and the results integrated in any diachronically sensitive

study. However, it must be recognized that most concrete instances of these phenomena have no

direct bearing on diachronic linguistics or linguistic periodization. Further, the ramifications for

historical linguistics of the limited number of textual or literary cruces that do involve

diachronically relevant features should not be overblown. In other words, it is incumbent upon the

Hebrew philologist to deal with tangible, which is to say documented, textual and literary

complications to diachronic linguistics; far-reaching conclusions based on overgeneralizations and a

few dubious and/or irrelevant difficulties merit a response, but pose no real threat to the current

paradigm.

3. Linguistic Innovations in the Tiberian Reading Tradition and the Preservation of Old

Forms in DSS Hebrew

The Tiberian reading tradition merits special comment. Though apparently reflecting certain

comparatively late traits sometimes at odds with the phonology and morphology of the consonantal

text—or with the pronunciation thought to underlie that text (where reasonably certain

reconstruction is possible)32

—generally speaking, it is best considered the natural offspring of an

authentic—though by no means solitary—Second Temple pronunciation with roots extending even

32

For specific categories in which the vocalization appears to reflect a different, perhaps later, linguistic tradition than

the consonantal text, e.g., the phenomenon of asymmetry in the paradigms of the qal internal passive, the qal and piʿel

forms of the root ר"דב and others, the substitution of the infinitive absolute for finite forms of the verb, and several

other possibly relevant features see, inter alia, M. Lambert, “Le Vav Conversif,” RÉJ 26 (1893): 47–62 (55–62); H.L.

Ginsberg, “Mi-beʿad la-Masoret,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 209–23; ibid., “Nosafot le-‘Mi-beʿad la-Masoret’,” Tarbiz 7 (1936):

543; Ben-Ḥayyim, “Traditions,” 237; J. Hughes, “Post-Biblical Features of Biblical Hebrew Vocalization,” in

Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (ed. S.E. Balentine and J. Barton; Oxford:

Clarendon, 1994), 67–80; Blau, “Hirhurav,” 26–27; S.E. Fassberg, “The Movement of Qal to Pi‘el in Hebrew and the

Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive, Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 243–55; ibid., “The Infinitive Absolute as Finite

Verb and Standard Literary Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in 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 (STDJ 73; ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 47–60; G. Khan, A Short Introduction

to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013a), 45–52.

15

farther back, embodying an extremely conservative tradition that safeguards early textual and

linguistic details.33

Despite the generally conservative linguistic character of the MT, however, there can be no

doubt but that it also contains relatively late features uncharacteristic of the language environment

in which its more classical portions were written. To judge from pre-exilic epigraphic material,

Masoretic orthography throughout the biblical corpus is entirely too plene to be considered

representative of actual First Temple spelling practices; if classical biblical works really derive from

the pre-exilic period, their comparatively profuse employment of matres lectionis can only have

resulted from a rather late orthographical revision. But clear indications of regular spelling

modernization hardly constitute damning evidence of rampant linguistic modernization.34

And, in

any case, most—though assuredly not all—of the (late Second Temple Period) DSS material reveals

more advanced use of plene spelling than does the (medieval) MT. In all events, such orthographic

development proves only that transmission sometimes involved more than just copying, not that all

scribes routinely engaged in the replacement of outmoded linguistic elements with more current

ones.

As the ancient Hebrew writing system only partially and ambiguously represents its vowel

sounds, phonology would seem a promising, though not entirely unproblematic, area in which to

seek linguistic features whose Tiberian Masoretic representation appears developmentally more

evolved than the corresponding DSS Hebrew depiction. However, before treating the following

examples, it is imperative to stress that cases such as these are to be seen as exceptions to the

general rule illustrated above, according to which, more often than the contrary, the DSS present a

somewhat more advanced stage of BH than does the MT.

3.1. The DSS Contextual Use of Forms Reserved for Pausal Environments in the MT: יקטולו

versus קטלו י

The regular contextual use in the DSS of certain forms that in the MT are reserved for pausal

duty arguably qualifies as a case in which DSS Hebrew presents a linguistic alternative

developmentally more primitive than the corresponding one found in the Tiberian tradition. For

example, based on both inner-Hebrew and cognate evidence, it seems reasonable to view the so-

called ‘pausal’ pattern of qal yiqṭol forms, e.g., 3mpl יקטולו yiqṭolu, with its full vowel in the second

33

J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament: With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987; originally published Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 188–22; Sh. Morag, “Ha-Masoret

ha-Ṭavranit šel Lešon ha-Miqra: Homogenyut ve-Heṭerogenyut,” Peraqim: Sefer ha-Šana šel Mekon Šoqen 2 (1974):

105–44; ibid., “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94 (1974): 307–15; Khan

2013, A Short Introduction, 43–65. 34

F.H. Cryer, “The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel,” in In the Last Days: On Jewish and

Christian Apocalyptic and Its Period (Festschrift Benedikt Otzen) (ed. K. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen, and B. Rosendal;

Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994), 185–98 (193, n. 25); Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating, I

346–47; G. Khan, “Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Background of Masoretic Text,” EHLL 1, 304–315 (305); Hornkohl,

“Characteristically Late Spellings.”

16

syllable, as representative of an earlier stage in pronunciation development than the MT’s analogous

לוט ק י , with middle vowel reduced to shewa.35

Of course, it is not impossible that the reduced form

was itself an ancient development, perhaps rooted in the vernacular and/or in fluent reading, and

that the DSS Hebrew predilection for full vowels over shewa might be classified as a sort of

artificial pseudo-archaism. It seems just as likely—if not more so—however, that pronunciations of

the type yiqṭolu, limited to pausal environments in the Tiberian reading tradition, had been at an

early stage standard in Hebrew (biblical and otherwise),36

in which case the dominant consonantal

spelling in the MT—without waw—is merely defective, not indicative of a contraction to shewa.

According to this scenario, the DSS plene orthography represents a living—whether natural or

archaistic, it is difficult to determine—preservation of the same yiqṭolu pronunciation defectively

reflected in the consonantal MT or, at the very least, one similar to it. On the basis of transcriptional

evidence, it is clear that the secondary, reduced pronunciation standard in the Tiberian tradition

was, for its part, also already a viable alternative during the late Second Temple Period or, at any

rate, soon would be.37

(It is admitted here that this approach may account for some, but not all

pausal-like DSS forms.38

)

3.2. The Form of the 3ms Object/Possessive Suffix on Words Ending in -י יהו - : versus -יו

Another feature from the perspective of whose use DSS Hebrew seems to present an earlier

picture than that depicted in Masoretic Hebrew involves the form of the 3ms pronominal suffix

when attached to words ending in the sound -י -i, namely the object pronoun attached to 1cs

(we)qaṭal forms and the possessive pronoun attached to the construct forms of the nouns ב א

‘father’, ח mouth’. In the MT the dominant 3ms suffix on these forms is written‘ פה brother’, and‘ א

with waw alone, as in יו ב his father’. This ending is most reasonably explained as owing to‘ א

ellipsis of the he in a suffix resembling the alternative Masoretic -הו , as in יהו ב the evolution ,א

running something like - יהו -ihu to -i(y)u to -יו -iw. See table C.

Table C: Distribution of -יהו -ihu per corpus and trends of replacement

35

S.E. Fassberg, “Pausal Forms,” EHLL 3, 54–55 (54). 36

The exact pronunciation of such forms in DSS Hebrew is uncertain. E.Y. Kutscher interprets them as equivalent to

Tiberian pausal forms, but I. Yeivin holds them to be more similar to the contextual forms of the Babylonian reading

tradition, which retained a medial vowel o-vowel even in non-pausal environments; compare the former’s “Hebrew

Language: Dead Sea Scrolls,” EJ 8, 634–39 (637), and the latter’s “The Verbal Forms יקוטלנו, יקטולנו in DSS in

Comparison to the Babylonian Vocalization,” in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History

Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (ed. B. Uffenheimer; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1971), 256–76 (in

Hebrew). Needless to say, the frequent waw mater in the DSS orthography does not necessarily indicate the millʿel

stress pattern of Tiberian pausal status. 37

E. Brønno’s data from the Hexapla give evidence of pronunciations resembling both pausal and contextual forms of

the Tiberian tradition; see his Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der mercatischen

Fragmente der zweiten Kolumne der Hexaplades Origenes (AKM 28; Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1943), 429–32. 38

Incidentally, the appearance of pausal-type forms in certain manuscripts in RH is rather different, both quantitatively

and qualitatively; see M. Bar-Asher, “Ṣurot Heqšer ve-Ṣurot Hefseq bi-Lšon ha-Mišna (ʿal pi Mesoret Ketav-Yad

Parma B),” Meḥqarim be-Lašon 4 (1990): 51–100; Kutscher and Breuer, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” 644.

17

MT non-biblical DSS bi bl i cal DSS BDSS -הו | | MT -ו (et c.) BDSS -ו || MT -הו (etc.)

קטלתיהו(ו) 18/91 2/4 19/35 17 (18) 1 (1)

(1) 0 (2) 2 2/15 25/27 7/227 אביהו

(0) 0 (5) 4 5/22 19/23 4/117 אחיהו

(0) 0 (4) 3 10/21 33/34 22/77 פיהו

TOTALS 51/512 79/88 36/93 26 (29) 1 (2)

Crucially, while in the MT forms terminating in - יהו occur in only a minority of the potential

cases—approximately ten percent—these are much more common in the DSS. This is especially

true in non-biblical material, where a he appears in nearly ninety percent of the potential cases.39

The incidence in the biblical DSS is decidedly lower than this—just under forty percent—and there

is pronounced variation among the four relevant categories, but nevertheless forms ending in - יהו

are still significantly more frequent than in the MT—proportionally, almost four-times as common.

Now, it is important to point out that this is not an instance in which the statistical difference is

attributable to distortion due to the fragmentary state of the Scrolls, since the trend of replacement

in Masoretic and DSS editions of the same text shows a decisive shift toward -יהו in the Scrolls:

there are 26 cases in which -יהו in DSS biblical material parallels - וי in the MT, just one example

of the contrary.40

In the present case as well, then, the DSS seem to conserve the more ancient

element, this time not just in relation to the Tiberian reading tradition, but as regards the Masoretic

consonantal text, too—if, that is, one assumes at least some correlation between orthography and

pronunciation, namely, that spellings of the ending with he actually reflect pronunciation therewith;

there are scholars who see all forms as more or less representative of a pronunciation without he.41

39

והקטלתי(ו) : 11q19 59.18; 61.1; (ו)קטלתיו : 4Q388a f7ii:5; 4Q522 f9ii:11; ואביה : 1Q19 f3.4; 4Q221 f4.1, 2, 10; 4Q223–

224 f2iii.16; f2iv.15; 4Q364 f3i.1; 4Q365 fH.1; 4Q416 f2iii.16; 4Q418 f9+9a–c.17; 4Q502 f4.2; f15.1; 4Q524 f15–

22.2; 11Q19 15.16; 25.16; 57.16, 17, 19; 64.2, 3; 66.12 (bis), 14, 15; 11Q20 1.22; ואבי : 4Q225 f2ii.4; 4Q474 f1.2;

CD 5.8, 19; 6.20; 7.1, 2; 14.5; 19.18; 1QS 6.10; 4Q215 f1–3.7; 4Q223–224 f2i.50; 4Q223–224 f2ii.10; 4Q267 :אחיהו

f9v.8; 4Q426 f1i.6; 4Q524 f15–22.2; 11Q19 61.10 (bis), 13 (bis); 66:17; אחיו: CD 8.6; 20.18; 4Q251 f17.3; 4Q422 3.9;

;CD 10.1; 13.3, 4; 14.10; 16.15; 1QS 9.9, 25; 1QSa 2.10; 1Q22 f1ii.6; 1Q26 f2.3; 4Q159 f1ii.5; 4Q266 f9ii.14 :פיהו

f10ii.3; 4Q270 f6iv.13; 4Q299 f59.3; f76.2; 4Q372 f1.20; 4Q377 f2ii.11; 4Q381 f14+5.3; f69:9; 4Q392 f1.3; 4Q403

f1i.35, 39; 4Q405 f4–5.3; 4Q417 f2i.20; 4Q418 f7b.3; f126ii.14; 4Q421 f2.1; 4Q423 f3.3; 4Q513 f17.2; 11Q19 53.15;

58.19 (bis); 4 :פיוQ381 f1.3. 40

Due to concerns of space, the following list includes only those instances in which a DSS biblical form differs from

that in the parallel MT version (* indicates that the corresponding MT form ends with something other than - יו or -יהו ). DSS (ו)והקטלתי : 1QIsa

a 36.16 (tris) || MT Isa 43.7 (tris); 1QIsa

a 40.20 || MT Isa 48.15; 1QIsa

a 42:15 || MT Isa

51.2; 1QIsaa 43.12 || MT Isa 51.23*; 1QIsa

a 45.23 || MT Isa 55.4; 1QIsa

a 47.19 || MT Isa 57.19; 4Q5 f8.2 (bis) || MT Isa

43.9 (bis); 4Q27 f20–22.5 || MT Num 22.11; 4Q51 1b.2 || MT 1 Sam 1.11; 4Q51 2a–d.3 || MT 1 Sam 1.22; 4Q57 f30.2 ||

MT Isa 48.15; 4Q57 f44–47.14 || MT Isa 55.4; 4Q107 f1.15 || MT Song 3.1; 4Q113 f16–18i+19.12 || MT Dan 8.7;

4Q175 1.16 (?) || MT Deut 33.9; DSS (ו)קטלתיו : 4Q52 f4.6 || MT 1 Sam 16.7; DSS 4 :אביהוQ72 f14–18.8 || MT Jer

22.11; 4Q364 f11.14 || MT Gen 43.23; DSS 1 :אביוQIsaa 7.23 || MT Isa 8.4*; 1 :אחיהוQIsa

a 3.8 || MT Isa 3.6; 1QIsa

a

34.9 || MT Isa 41.6; 4Q51 f61i+62.8 || MT 2 Sam 3.27; 4Q265 f3.2 || MT Mal 2.10; 4Q364 f10.5 || MT Gen 44.33*;

1QIsa :פיהוa 28.17 || MT Isa 34.16*; 1QIsa

a 44.13 || MT Isa 53.7; 1QIsa

a 44.14 || MT Isa 53.7; 4Q175 1.6 || MT Deut

18.18. 41

Qimron, The Hebrew, 60; Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” 356. On the basis of occurrences of the

orthography with he in DSS manuscripts that attest numerous vernacular, apparently phonetically-inspired spellings,

Reymond deems it likely that the he was pronounced when written; see his Qumran Hebrew, 144.

18

3.3. Second Thoughts

While the two foregoing cases may seem convincing examples of DSS Hebrew conservation

versus Tiberian Hebrew development, the matter is perhaps not so simple or straightforward as this.

The main problem is that the supporting evidence, though arguably indicating linguistic change

over time, does not manifest this change in any unambiguously datable way. In the history of

Hebrew, pronunciations along the lines of yiqṭolu almost certainly predate those of the yiqṭəlu type,

and the former, yiqṭolu—or something like it—may indeed have been the standard pronunciation

accompanying classical Hebrew texts—biblical and non-biblical alike, in contextual as well as

pausal environments; but the relevant manuscripts and epigraphs, with their often defective

consonantal orthographies, are in many respects phonologically opaque, often precluding

determination of vocalic reality. In any case, according to an eminently plausible reading of the

evidence, DSS Hebrew merely represents with plene spelling a pronunciation standard in all

environments in First Temple Hebrew, the middle vowel of which was only later reduced in

contextual environments according to the Tiberian reading tradition (cf. the Babylonian tradition,

where the full middle vowel was preserved).

Similarly, though the majority Masoretic ending -יו -iw, as in יו ב is probably a secondary ,א

development by means of elision from - יהו -ihu, as in יהו ב which serves as the majority ending ,א

in the DSS, there is little in the way of documentary evidence to support the contention that the

elided form may be used to differentiate between CBH, on the one hand, and LBH or late extra-

biblical Hebrew, on the other. To the best of my knowledge, First Temple inscriptions furnish only

a single potential example—apparently אחיו ‘his brother’, which, however, could conceivably be

read יו his brothers’, and, at any rate, is found in one of the much maligned Mousaieff‘ אח

inscriptions. More importantly, within BH as represented in the MT, a clear-cut diachronic

distribution of either majority -יו -iw or minority - יהו -ihu is lacking. The spelling without he is

dominant in the best Rabbinic manuscripts and is apparently the only one employed in the

consonantal tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch. For its part, the geminated -iyyu of the Samaritan

reading tradition may preserve a reflex of he, though this form can also be otherwise explained.42

There really is no proof that the evidently evolutionarily-later elided form was especially

42

According to Ben-Ḥayyim: “It cannot be determined whether the form of the pronominal suffix is derived from ihu or

from -iw, since the diphthong iw is likely to split into two syllables, restoring the original situation;” see his A Grammar

of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 231. See also idem., 65: “The

form iyyu may develop directly from ihu (e.g., פיהו), and so it is impossible to rule definitively that in every case it

results in the splitting of the diphthong, though spelling considerations would seem to support such an opinion.” With

“spelling considerations’ Ben-Ḥayyim is presumably referring to the consistent absence of he in the relevant endings

throughout the consonantal Samaritan Pentateuch. The problem is that even in the Masoretic tradition of the Pentateuch

the ending - יהו -ihu is exceptional (only two cases—Exod 4.15; Num 11.12—against over 170 of - יו -iw), and the

levelling and harmonizing tendencies of the Samaritan tradition are well known; see Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar, 3–4; A.

Tal and M. Florentin (eds.), The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel-Aviv: The Haim

Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press), 25–28; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd edition, revised and

expanded; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 82–87.

19

characteristic of Second Temple Hebrew, so that, from the perspective of this feature, DSS Hebrew

must be considered more archaic than its Tiberian counterpart.

One may reasonably opine that the shift from - יהו -ihu to -יו -iw was a comparatively early

development, so that by post-classical times, the two alternatives served as contemporary variants.

It is tempting to hypothesize a sociolinguistic motivation for the frequency of -יהו -ihu in the DSS,

namely that the relevant scribes were attracted to the form that least resembled the one

characteristic of the vernacular, as reflected primarily in RH. If so, the high frequency of -יהו -ihu in

the non-biblical Scrolls shows that they were undeterred in this by the fact that the dominant spoken

form also served as the principal biblical one.43 As noted above, the preference for - יהו -ihu over -

יו -iw is apparent, though less marked, in the admittedly fragmentary biblical DSS, evidently

because the elided ending really was the dominant biblical form and scribes were less prone to

substitute -יהו -ihu there than they were to employ it in non-biblical compositions.

Of course, these explanations, though not entirely devoid of documentary support, remain

speculative in the extreme, as the data are far from complete. For example, perhaps issues related to

regional dialects should also be taken into consideration; after all, both the elision and retention of

intervocalic he have been identified as characteristic northern features in pre-exilic epigraphic

sources and in the MT.44

Alternatively, maybe scribes were partially influenced by the spelling of

the corresponding Aramaic ending -והי -ohi. Whatever the case may be, notwithstanding the

appearance of an uncomplicated diachronic typology, it emerges on the basis of the extant Hebrew

sources that this is hardly a simple case of ‘early versus late’ or even of ‘literary versus spoken’.

3.4. The Spelling and Pronunciation of the 3mpl Gentilic Ending: - י (םי) versus -ים

Turning to a final example—the typical Hebrew gentilic ending is the nisba -י -i, as in יר ב ע

‘Hebrew’. On the basis of the relevant fs and fpl gentilic forms in Tiberian BH, namely -ה י -iyyå

and -יות -iyyot, respectively, in both of which the yod is consonantal (and geminated),45

as well as

cognate evidence (see below), the expected mpl form is - י (םי) -iyyim, with consonantal yod, e.g.,

ים י ש ים Ethiopians’ and‘ כ י שת and Philistines’ (both Amos 9.7). Yet this ending is exceedingly‘ ופל

43

Note that Schniedewind, “Antilanguage,” 237–238, 245, 248, attributes the Qumran use of forms ending in—what he

terms—“preclassical” - יהו -ihu to “an underlying language ideology that did not look to the classical period (as the

Hasmoneans did), but to the preclassical period” (248). He continues: “There is no reason to believe that such an

orthography would arise without a strong ideological motivation” (ibid.). 44

On the elision of he in the theophoric suffix found in northern (and other) personal names, i.e., -יו , presumably -yaw,

rather than standard -הו י -yåhu, see F.M. Cross, “The Seal of Miqnêyaw, Servant of Yahweh,” in Leaves from an

Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 105–11 (108); B. Mastin, “The Theophoric Elements yw and yhw in Proper Names in Eighth-

Century Hebrew Inscriptions and the Proper Names at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” ZAH 17–20 (2004–2007): 109–35; see also

Hornkohl, Language of Jeremiah, 85, for further bibliography. For the retention of he as a marker of Israelian Hebrew

see G. Rendsburg, “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical

Hebrew (ed. W. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 65–88 (76–77). 45

All of these forms involve the addition of a suffix beginning with a vowel to the - י -i gentilic ending. The alternative

Tiberian fs suffix - ית is not relevant, because it is composed of the gentilic ending plus the merely consonantal

sufformative -ת -t. I am grateful to my friend and colleague Dr. Michael Rand for input on this point.

20

rare according to the Masoretic tradition, occurring just fifteen times in the consonantal text, mainly

(nine times) in LBH, eight of these ktiv forms for which the qre demands the standard pronunciation

םי - -im.46

To these should be added the four post-Restoration cases of the spelling -)י( ים א -iʾim,

with ʾalef, in which pronunciation of the sequence iyi was apparently facilitated by means of the

insertion of a glottal stop (or hiatus?), resolving -iyyim to -iʾim (or -iim?).47

Though forms such as

ם י Levites’ (which does not contain the gentilic ending in question) testify to a pronunciation‘ לו

identical to the one anticipated for the mpl gentilic, to wit, -iyyim, on gentilics ending in the nisba,

this form is reflected in the qre a mere seven times, the standard mpl gentilic ending according to

the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition being the single-syllable monophthong - םי -im, as in

ים שת ים ,’Philistines‘ פל בר ים ,’Hebrews‘ ע צר Egyptians’, examples of which occur some 460 times‘ מ

in the Hebrew Bible.48

How is the rarity of the expected form, along with its predominantly late

distribution (thirteen of nineteen cases), to be explained?

Extra-biblical sources are instructive. For example, the sixth-century BCE Arad Ostraca present

several cases of a gentilic spelled כתימ ‘Kittites’. At first glance, this orthography would seem to

confirm the standard Tiberian BH ending -ים against the minority form -( י (םי (and -ים יא ). Upon

further review, however, the ostensible support proves illusory. It turns out that there are no

examples of the plural suffix -im written plene, i.e., -ימ , in the Arad Ostraca.49

It thus stands to

reason that the spelling there כתימ represents not kittim, but kittiyyim with consonantal yod, thereby

corroborating the non-standard and predominantly late Tiberian spelling/pronunciation with

consonantal yod. This same logic also holds for spellings of mpl gentilic forms with yod in cognate

languages, such as Ugaritic ʾugrtym ‘Ugaritites’, etc., and the Phoenician דננימ ‘Danunites’, in both

of which, in view of orthographical conventions, the yod of the plural suffix is to be considered no

mere mater lectionis, but consonantal.

46

Exod 3.18; 1 Kgs 11.17; Isa 23.12 (ktiv); Jer 2.10; Amos 9.7 (2x); Est 4.7 (ktiv); 8.1 (ktiv), 7 (ktiv), 13 (ktiv); 9.15

(ktiv), 18 (ktiv); 1 Chr 12.3; 14.10 (ktiv); 2 Chr 26.7 (ktiv). In Ezek 27.6 the qre calls for ים י ת Kittites’, but the ktiv has‘ כ

?might this be due to pausal status in verse-final position ;כתים47

ים(י)ההגר א ‘the Hagrites’ (1 Chr 5.10, 19, 20; cf. ים ים and [the] Hagrites’ Ps 83.7) and‘ והגר יא ערב the Arabians’ (2‘ ה

Chr 17.11; cf. ים ערב - and the Arabians’ Neh 4.1; 2 Chr 21.16). The spelling in question reflects either -iy(y)im or‘ וה

iʾim, both of which tally with the minority long MT suffixes -ים י and -ים )י(א , against standard -ים .There is a dispute

regarding the phonetic reality represented by the various spellings, i.e., -ים יים- , , and -)אים)י . Qimron, The Hebrew, 24,

holds that these all basically represent -im or -i-im. It was also suggested by members of the audience present for the

oral version of this paper that the dagesh in several forms of the gentilic ending in the Tiberian vocalization may not, in

fact, represent gemination, or, at any rate, that such gemination may be just a natural development often associated with

glides; see Sh. Morag, “Li-Vʿayat Hikaflutam šel Hagaye-ha-Maʿavar,” Tarbiz 23 (1952): 100–103. The present study

proceeds, however, in agreement with Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 120–22, who contends, not without evidence, that

“different spellings… reflect different pronunciations.” 48

The same holds true for other (sometimes substantivized) adjectives, including ordinal numbers, that incorporate the

nisba ending, such as ים פש ים ,free’ (Isa 58.6; Jer 34.9, 10, 11, 16)‘ ח כר foreign’ (Isa 2.6; Obad 11; Lam 5.2; Prov‘ נ

20.16 ktiv), ים יר ים ,barren’ (Lev 20.20, 21)‘ ער ימ ים ,inner’ (1 Chr 28.11)‘ פנ ,ancient’ (Ezek 38.17; Job 18.20)‘ קדמנ

ים יע ים ,fourth (generations)’ (2 Kgs 10.30; 15.12)‘ רב ים foot soldiers’ (Jer 12.5), and‘ רגל ש third’ (Gen 6.16; Num‘ של

2.24; 1 Sam 19.21; 1 Kgs 6.8; 2 Kgs 1.13; Ezek 42.3). The exceptions are ם י second’ (Gen 6.16; Num 2.16) and‘ שנ

ם י .lower’ (Gen 6.16)‘ תחת49

More generally, see S.L. Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 61–73.

21

In the case of late extra-biblical Hebrew and non-Masoretic BH, the situation is somewhat

complex. The two relevant examples in Ben Sira, both references to the Philistines written with a

single yod, and thus corresponding to the dominant biblical spelling, were presumably pronounced

pelištim rather than pelištiyyim (though, of course, there can be no certainty here). In Codex

Kaufmann of the Mishna, there are 58 relevant cases: in ten of them the spelling and accompanying

vocalization is -ים י -iyyim, in the remaining 48 the more standard -ים -im, the vocalization always

matching the orthography.50

For their part, the written and reading traditions of the Samaritan

Pentateuch treat the ending as a typically unaccented mpl suffix.51

Intriguingly, however, forms

spelled with two yods, presumably reflecting a consonantal pronunciation of the letter, are standard

in the non-biblical DSS and come in the majority of cases in the biblical manuscripts as well.52

50

יים- ים : י ים ;Babylonians’ (Yoma 6.4)‘ בבל י ים ;Jerusalemites’ (Menaḥot 7.2)‘ ירושלמ י צר ;Egyptians’ (Pesaḥim 10.5‘ מ

Avot 5.4); ים י ם Arabians’ (Menaḥot 5.9; Kelim 5.10; 26.4; 29.1; Oholot 18.10; see also‘ ערב י ינונ ’intermediate‘ ב

Negaʿim 2.1; ם י ם ;southerners’ Sheqalim 6.3; Middot 2.6‘ דרומ י ח זר ים ;eastern’ Tamid 3.9; 6.1‘ מ י ימ ;inner’ Nazir 6.2‘ פנ

Tamid 2.4; ין י ים- .(second’ Yadayim 2.2, 3 [4x]; 3.2‘ שנ ים : ים ;Ashkelonites’ (Kelim 13.7; Ṭevul Yom 4.6)‘ אשקלונ יל גל‘Galileans’ (Kelim 2.2); ים ים ;Jews’ (Ketubbot 7.6 [2x]; Nedarim 11.12 [3x])‘ יהוד נ ים ;Greeks’ (Giṭṭim 9.6 [2x], 8)‘ יו כות‘Kutheans’ (Demai 5.9 [5x]; 7.4; Sheviʿit 8.10; Rosh ha-Shana 2.2; Nedarim 3.10 [3x]; Giṭṭim 1.5; Oholot 17.3; Nidda

ים ;(4 ,7.3 ;4.1 ים ;Canaanites’ (Maʿśer Sheni 4.4; ʿEruvin 7.6; Bava Mesiʾa 1.5; 7.6; ʿArakin 8.4)‘ כנענ בר ’Hebrews‘ ע

(Maʿaśer Sheni 4.4; Giṭṭim 9.6, 8; ʿEruvin 7.6; Bava Mesiʾa 1.5; 7.6); ים שת ;Philistines’ (Nedarim 3.11; Nazir 1.2‘ פל

Soṭa 1.8; 8.1, 6 [2x]); ים ים ;Sadducees’ (Yadayim 4.7 [2x])‘ צדוק ילק ין Cilicians’ (Maʿaśerot 5.8; see also‘ ק ימ ’inner‘ פנ

Berakot 3.2; ים יע ים ;fourths’ Ḥalla 3.1‘ רב יש ,.third’ Ḥagiga 3.8). Vocalization in the Mishna follows the spelling; i.e‘ של

yod is consonantal only where the spelling with double yod makes this necessary. However, this is not the case in forms

such as ם(ו)לו י ‘Levites’, in which the yod is consonantal despite the possibility of its having been treated as a mater. 51

In Exod 3.18, the only case in which the Masoretic Torah has the - ים י ending, the Samaritan consonantal text

presents the standard העברים ‘Hebrews’. According to the Samaritan reading tradition, the ending corresponding to

Tiberian - ים is realized as unaccented -em; this also applies to such forms as לוים ‘Levites’, which is pronounced libem. 52

In the biblical material forms with -יים outnumber those with -ים 23:18— יים- (unless otherwise stated, the MT forms

in the following lists end in - ים םייהודי :( ‘Judahites’ (2Q13 f3–4.2 || MT Jer 43.9); כשדיים ‘Chaldeans’ (1QIsaa 11.26 ||

MT Isa 13.19; 1QIsaa 18.19 || MT Isa 23.13; 1QIsa

a 36.25 || MT Isa 43.14; 1QIsa

a 39.20 || MT Isa 47.1; 1QIsa

a 39.24 ||

MT Isa 47.5; 1QIsaa 40.19 || MT Isa 48.14; 1QIsa

a 40.25 || MT Isa 48.20; 4Q72 f10–12.8 || MT Jer 21.9; 4Q72 f19–

21.14 || MT Jer 22.25); ם]כשיי ‘Ethiopians’ (Mur88 8.19 || ים י ש Kittites’ (1QIsa‘ כתיים ;(MT Amos 9.7 כa 18.6 || MT Isa

23.1; 1QIsaa 18.17 || 4Q57 f9ii+11+12i+52.17 || MT Isa 23.12); מדיניים ‘Midianites’ (4Q27 f31–33i.25 || MT Num

Syenes’ (1QIsa‘ סוניים ;(25.17aים || 49.12 ינ 1QIsa) פלשתיים ;(MT Isa 49.12 ס

a 11.3 || MT Isa 11.14; 2Q13 f7–8.10 || MT

Jer 47.4; 4Q51 5a.1 || MT 1 Sam 4.9; 4Q51 9a–d.1 || MT 1 Sam 9.16; 4Q51 f6.1 || MT 1 Sam 14.47; 4Q51 f43.9 || MT 1

Sam 28.1; 4Q51 f61ii+63–64a–b+65–67.30 || MT 2 Sam 5.18; see also םישיחופ ‘free’ 1QIsaa 47.29 || MT Isa 58.6;

ייםמנ [הקד ‘the ancient’ 4Q51 f26–27.1 || י foreign’ 1QIsa‘ נכריאים ;MT 1 Sam 24.14 קדמנa 2.15 || MT Isa 2.6; םאכריו נ

‘foreign’ 5Q6 f1iv.6 || MT Lam 5.2); -ים Gebites’ (1QIsa‘ גבים ;Ephrathites’ (4Q104 f1.3 || MT Ruth 1.2)‘ אפרתים :a

10.17 || MT Isa 10.31); ודניםד ‘Dudanites’ (1QIsaaים || 16.30 נ Hagrites’ (Mas1e‘ הגרים ;(Dedanites’ MT Isa 21.13‘ דד

2.20 || MT Ps 83.7); ניםו י ‘Greeks’ (Mur88 2.27 || MT Joel 4.6); םי ת כר ‘Cherethites’ (Mur88 20.16 || MT Zeph 2.5);

דים כש ‘Chaldeans’ (1Q71 f1ii.1 || MT Dan 2.2; Mur88 18.4 || MT Hab 1.6); לובים ‘Lybians’ (Mur88 17.17 || MT Nah

) סבאים ;Moabites’ (4Q35 f7.3 || MT Deut 2.29)‘ מואבים ;(3.9 באיםש ) ‘Sabeans’ (1QIsaaא || 36.12 ;Seba’ MT Isa 43.3‘ סב

1QIsaa 38.21 || MT Isa 45.14; Mur88 2.30 || ם אי ;(MT Joel 4.8 שב

Philistines’ (1Q7 f4.2 || MT 2 Sam 23.10, 1Q7‘ פלשתים

f4.5 || MT 2 Sam 23.11; 1QIsaa 2.14 || MT Isa 2.6; Mur88 9.30 || MT Obad 19); יםקהת ‘Kohathites’ (4Q23 f56.6 || MT

Num 10.21; see also חפשים ‘free’ 1Q8 25.14 || MT Isa 58.6; נכרים ‘foreign’ Mur88 9.17 || MT Obad 11; םי נ [ש ‘second’

6Q1 f1.5 || MT Gen 6.16). In the non-biblical material forms with -יים outnumber those with -ים 11:3 (30:3 if spellings

with an inserted ʾalef are counted)— יים- Chaldeans’ (4Q252 2.9; see‘ כשדיים ;Canaanites’ (Pam43692 f85.1)‘ כנעניים :

also 1 כשדאיםQpHab 2.11); כתיים ‘Kittites’ (1QM 18.4; 19.10; 4Q169 f3–4i.3; 4Q247 f1.6; 4Q285 f3.4; f4.5; f7.6; see

also כתיאים ‘Kittites’ 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 6.1, 10; 9.7; 1Q16 f9–10.4; 4Q161 f8–10.3, 7, 8; 4Q332 f3.2;

4Q491 f10ii.10, 12; f11ii.8; f13.5); פלשתיים ‘Philistines’ (1QM 11.3; 6Q9 f32.1; see also שייםישל ‘third’ 4Q267 f9v.9;

ים- ;(second’ 4Q267 f9v.7; 4Q403 f1ii.19‘ שניים יםגב ;Ophirites (?)’ (4Q472 f2.6; 4Q491 f11i.18)‘ אופירים : ‘Gebites’

(4Q161 f5–6.8; see also שנים ‘second’ CD 14.4, 5).

22

Some of the correspondences between the Hebrew strata and corpora mentioned above are

expected: the predilection for consonantal yod in the DSS and in the minority Masoretic

orthography/pronunciation known chiefly from LBH; the preference for -ים in standard Masoretic

orthography/pronunciation and in RH. One correspondence, however, is especially surprising: the

employment of an ending with consonantal yod in the DSS and LBH, on the one hand, and in early

extra-biblical Hebrew (Arad) and cognate sources (Ugaritic, Phoenician), on the other. While it is

not impossible that the early extra-biblical ending with consonantal yod had already reduced to a

single syllable in CBH, only later to split anew in LBH, which form thereafter became dominant in

some (e.g., the DSS), but not all (e.g., RH and Ben Sira) types of post-biblical Hebrew, this scenario

hardly recommends itself as the simplest or most likely. More plausible is the hypothesis that the

classical BH orthography -ים was originally intended as a purely consonantal, defective

representation of -iyyim, as in the standard Masoretic spelling of ם י Levites’, with a single‘ לו

consonantal yod. The minority LBH and dominant DSS spelling with double yod ( יים- ) would thus

constitute no more than a plene spelling transparently representing this pronunciation. The

dominant DSS ending, then, would be a late orthographical representation of early phonology.

It is difficult to date the resolution of -iyyim to -im with anything resembling precision or

certainty. Conceivably, it may be an ancient, presumably popular, contraction that began to creep

into literary Hebrew as early as the First Temple Period. However, the inscriptional evidence, along

with forms spelled -יים in LBH and the DSS, in contrast to the standard form -ים in RH, seem to

point to a rather late date of adoption. Moreover, the dominance of the orthography -ים in the MT,

originally defective for -iyyim, apparently shows that the truncation to -im predated (at least part of)

the orthographical revision discussed above, since the spelling -יים would presumably have been

much more common in the MT than it is, had the pronunciation -iyyim been standard among the

revisers. It would seem that when those copyists responsible for the spelling update came to add the

mater lectionis yod of the standard plural ending -ים , in the case of gentilics and related forms, with

their previously consonantal yods, the scribes encountered spellings that, in line with the contracted

pronunciation -im in contemporary Hebrew, already seemed to be written plene. In other words, the

originally defective -ים ending of a gentilic was simply appropriated without change, because it

could readily be reanalyzed as a plene spelling for -im. Meanwhile, the few plene -יים forms that

had managed to penetrate into (mainly late) Masoretic biblical texts were (with a few exceptions)

retouched (according to the qre) within the standard reading tradition. Such is arguably the most

obvious interpretation of the facts, but alterative solutions are no doubt possible; for example,

perhaps the rarity of the double-yod spelling in the MT is less a function of phonology, and more

one of orthographical convention, according to which the writing of double yod in suffixes was

deemed undesirable in the eyes of the revisers. It is readily admitted here that this leap from data to

explanation involves not a little conjecture. Whatever the case may be, in this instance, only the

23

Masoretic vocalization seems to present a version of the feature more advanced than that reflected

in the spelling with double yod in DSS Hebrew, which itself displays in later, plene spelling what

was arguably the pronunciation intended for the Masoretic consonantal tradition with its single,

presumably consonantal yod.

4. Summary and Conclusion

Summing up, the present study has dealt with three features that, contrary to the norm, tend to

show up in DSS BH in a form developmentally more primitive than the corresponding Masoretic

one. In two cases—יקטולו yiqṭolu (versus קטלו יים- yiqṭəlu) and mpl gentilic י -iyyim (versus -ים -

im)—it is difficult to decide whether we are dealing with natural and unaffected preservation of

early Hebrew features on the part of DSS scribes or with instances of intentional archaization, since

the antiquity of the respective standard alternatives and the contemporary extent of their diffusion is

hard to determine. Regular use of the remaining feature in the biblical DSS—the 3ms ending -יהו -

ihu (rather than -יו –i(y)u/-iw)—is more probably the result of a conscious attempt to avoid what

was actually a perfectly classical form that had also, however, come to be identified with the

vernacular.

However, as has been repeatedly emphasized during this study, none of these cases is plain or

unambiguous. First, the potential for mismatch between the Masoretic consonantal text and the

Tiberian reading tradition opens the possibility that only the Tiberian vocalization of a given word

is comparatively late, not its consonantal form or presumed earlier pronunciation (where this can be

reconstructed), with respect to DSS Hebrew. Also problematic is the absolute dating of a form

considered developmentally secondary, which may conceivably have arisen very early on, in which

case its employment, even its exclusive employment, has nothing to contribute to distinguishing

between pre- and post-exilic ancient Hebrew. Moreover, it is well-nigh certain that the extant

sources furnish only a small sampling of the many sorts of Hebrew employed in the relevant times,

regions, and contexts. For this reason it is very difficult to be sure, for example, that apparently

secondary features in the Tiberian reading tradition were not already in use in someone’s Hebrew

somewhere during the late Second Temple Period, in which cases they may conceivably have

served alongside the developmentally more classical alternatives preserved in DSS Hebrew. Finally,

it is now common knowledge among experts that the distinction between CBH and DSS Hebrew

cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional schematic depicting a straight and uninterrupted sequence

of discrete linguistic stages. In other words, though we are dealing with historical phases of Hebrew

separated by time, the relationship between the two strata in question is not one of simple

chronological linearity, with LBH serving as the joining link. Rather, there are numerous factors

beyond the merely diachronic that demand consideration, including, but not limited to, genre,

dialect, and sociolect. The problems of textual and literature development must also be addressed,

24

without, however, being overemphasized. While it is imperative that the existence of such

dimensions not be misused to explain away genuine evidence of historical development, they do

both complicate and complement diachronic research, and it is thus only to the detriment of that

research that they are ignored.