Version classiqueVersion mobile

Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions

 | 
Aaron D. Hornkohl
, 
Geoffrey Khan

The Development of the Hebrew Wayyiqṭol (‘Waw Consecutive’) Verbal form in Light of Greek and Latin Transcriptions of Hebrew

Benjamin Kantor

Texte intégral

1.0. Introduction

1Hebrew is counted among the few languages of the world that have a specific ‘sequential’ past tense verbal form. What is particularly unique about the morphology of this Hebrew verbal form, however, is that it appears to be constructed from the conjunction waw (-ְ ו /v-/ ‘and. CONJ’) and a verb in the prefix conjugation (henceforth referred to as the ‘yiqṭol’ form), which is elsewhere used for non-past semantics (e.g., future, jussive). What is more, the conjunction waw is normally connected to this ‘sequential’ verbal form by means of gemination, a feature occurring in no other context following the conjunction waw. This verbal form has come to be known as either the ‘waw consecutive’, or, as a more neutral term mirroring the morphological shape of the verb, the wayyiqṭol form (Table 1):

Table 1

Image

  • 1 For an introduction to the issues, see Smith (1991, 1–15).

2The questions and issues surrounding the wayyiqṭol form are primarily concerned with the form’s history and morphology. From a historical perspective, the questions regarding the wayyiqṭol form relate to its grammatical origins and development within Biblical Hebrew. From a morphological perspective, the questions regarding the wayyiqṭol form relate to the status of the conjunction waw as a component of the form, the presence of a full vowel after the conjunction waw, and the morphological derivation of the gemination in the following consonant.1 Though neither of these topics can be addressed without addressing the other, at least in cursory fashion, the focus of this paper will be on the latter.

3In particular, this paper will analyse all attestations of the wayyiqṭol form in ancient Greek and Latin transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew in order to determine when, why, and how the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form came to be realised distinctly from the realisation of the conjunction waw elsewhere, with respect to both its vocalisation with pataḥ (instead of shewa) and the doubling of the following consonant. After a brief review of scholarship (§§2.0–4.0), the relevant data from the transcriptions will be presented and analysed (§5.0). Based on the findings, a plausible diachronic reconstruction will be suggested (§6.0). The paper will conclude by outlining the implications that such a reconstruction has for understanding the development of the Biblical Hebrew reading tradition (s) in the Second Temple period more broadly.

2.0. Review of Scholarship: Grammatical Development

  • 2 This identity applies only to strong roots. Note that a number of weak roots (e.g., II-w/y, III-w/y(...)
  • 3 For a comprehensive treatment, see Smith (1991).

4Though not the focus of this paper—focused, as it is, on the morphological development of the form, rather than its grammatical origins—it behoves us to briefly rehearse the generally accepted view of how this ‘sequential’ past tense form developed from a grammatical perspective before more extensively detailing the various theories regarding the form’s morphology. According to most researchers, Proto-Central Semitic had both a long *yaqṭulu verb form, essentially used for indicative non-past semantics, and a short *yaqṭul verb form, used for both indicative past (preterite) and volitive meanings (jussive). These forms eventually fell together in Hebrew (in most paradigms) and both came to be vocalised as yiqṭol.2 Syntactically, the short/preterite yiqṭol form (< *yaqṭul) gradually came to be replaced by qaṭal (< *qaṭala) as the more common regular past-tense verb. It was only following the conjunction waw that short/preterite yiqṭol (< *yaqṭul) continued to serve regularly as a past tense verbal form.3 Its relegation to this syntactic slot has often been associated with its most common role as a narrative past tense.

3.0. Review of Scholarship: Morphological Development

  • 4 In the 1cs form, we find a qameṣ and singleton consonant instead of pataḥ and gemination due to com (...)

5We must begin by providing a bit more background regarding the particular morphological features of the wayyiqṭol form which the various theories attempt to explain. In Tiberian Hebrew, following the conjunction waw, the preterite yiqṭol form is distinguished from the jussive yiqṭol form by means of two features: (1) the conjunction waw is vocalised with pataḥ instead of shewa and (2) the prefix consonant of the verbal form is geminated (Table 2):4

Table 2

Image

6It should be noted, however, that because vocalic shewa was generally realised in the Tiberian tradition as [a], it was more the gemination of the verbal prefix than the preceding full vowel that distinguished these forms in actual pronunciation. Moreover, according to the phonotactics of Tiberian Hebrew, a geminated consonant must be preceded by a full vowel and cannot be preceded by shewa. Accordingly, while both the vocalisation of the conjunction waw with pataḥ and the gemination of the following consonant are characteristic morphological features of the wayyiqṭol form, it is primarily the gemination that should be regarded as the essential marker of this form over against a non-past or jussive yiqṭol, at least in Tiberian Hebrew.

  • 5 Though they discuss the morphological nature of the full vowel and gemination, I have intentionally (...)
  • 6 For a comprehensive review, see Smith (1991, 1–15); Andrason (2011, 37–38).

7Theories for explaining the gemination in the Hebrew wayyiqṭol verbal form are as numerous as they are diverse. With respect to diachrony (i.e., when gemination developed in this form), the range of possible dates suggested for this innovation spans so extensively, that it is not helpful at all, with some scholars suggesting that gemination in the form is as old as Proto-Hebrew and others suggesting that it was introduced by the Masoretes in the Middle Ages. The various explanations, though numerous, are all essentially variations on one of two main theories.5 One group of scholars regards the gemination in the form as deriving etymologically from a distinct morpheme of its own, most of them suggesting that it results from an assimilated nun. Another group of scholars sees the gemination in the form not as deriving etymologically from a distinct morpheme, but rather as a phonetic phenomenon emerging for various morphosyntactic reasons.6

8The most well-known proponents of the first view are Young (1953) and Gordon (1957, 275–76), who understand the doubling to be the result of an assimilated nun, i.e., *wan-yiqṭol > wayyiqṭol. They arrive at this conclusion by comparing the waw in wayyiqṭol to the Egyptian particle ˀiw, both of which they argue have a common Proto-Afro-Asiatic source. According to their theory, Egyptian ˀiw is a sentence adverbial which can affect the time reference of a verbal form. In particular, they look to the following Egyptian verbal structure for a morphological cognate to Hebrew wayyiqṭol: ˀiw sḏm-n-f (ˀiwa. adv hear-past-3ms) ‘when he has heard’. By rearranging the order of the morphemes in this structure, they can derive Hebrew wayyiqṭol from a perfect morphological cognate to the Egyptian form: * (ˀi) wa-n-yi-qtol ( [ˀi] wa-past-3ms-kill. yiqṭol). The gemination, then, is the result of the Proto-Afro-Asiatic past tense marker /n/ assimilating to the following pronominal element at a very early stage of the language. This argument is taken up by Rendsburg (1981, 668–69; 1993, 204–5), who notes in further support of it that a waw-consecutive structure tends to crop up most in Semitic languages spoken in those areas in which Egyptian administration was strongest during the New Kingdom. Brenner (1986, 14, 21, 24, 34) also follows Young and Gordon, but suggests that the form in Hebrew is borrowed from Egyptian rather than inherited from an earlier stage of the language. Maag (1953, 86–88) also suggests that the gemination is the result of an assimilated nun, but appeals to the Hebrew demonstrative particle ןה ‘look! ’ rather than the Egyptian form: *wəhanyiqtul > *wanyiqtul > wayyiqṭol.

9Hetzron (1969, 9–10) also suggests that the gemination is the result of an assimilated consonant, yet he opts for /j/ rather than /n/. This is based on the claim that the morpheme wa- in wayyiqṭol does not derive from the conjunction waw, but rather from a shortened form of the verb *haway was-3ms. qaṭal ‘he was’, e.g., * (ha) way yāqom (was-3ms. qaṭal get.up-3ms. yiqṭol) > wayyāqom (get.up-3ms. wayyiqṭol) ‘he got up’. Accordingly, gemination is the result of the assimilation of the third radical /j/ of the 3ms. qaṭal form of the verb *haway ‘to be’.

10The most well-known proponent of the second view is Lambdin (1971, 322–25), who suggests that the gemination in the wayyiqṭol form is an example of “junctural doubling,” a phonetic phenomenon that occurs when a short word is closely connected or bound to the following word. Though Lambdin’s theory of ‘junctural doubling’ emerged primarily to explain gemination in the definite article, he also suggested that it would apply to the wayyiqṭol form, since the form reflects the close bonding between the conjunction *wa- and the preterite yiqṭol verbal form. Later scholars dealing with the wayyiqṭol form often accept Lambdin’s morphological explanation (see, e.g., Smith 1991, 6).

11A similar theory, which has not, in my opinion, received adequate attention, is that of Loprieno (1980, 10). According to Loprieno, the conjunction waw, which was vocalised as *wa- in all environments at an earlier stage of Hebrew, became a grammaticalised part of the preterite yiqṭol verbal form, i.e., *wa-yiqṭol > *wayiqṭol. Preceding the jussive *yiqṭol form, however, the conjunction waw did not become grammaticalised. Accordingly, when the vowel of the conjunction waw reduced to shewa, i.e., *wa- > *w (ə)-, it affected jussive *wa-yiqṭol, but not preterite *wa-yiqṭol, i.e., preterite yiqṭol: *wa-yiqṭol > *wayiqṭol; jussive yiqṭol: *wa-yiqṭol > *w (ə)-yiqṭol. Thus, when the Tiberian Masoretes inherited the grammaticalised form *wayiqṭol, the phonotactics of their tradition of Hebrew could preserve the initial /a/ vowel only by doubling the following consonant. In other words, rather than gemination being the principle characteristic of the wayyiqṭol form as in Tiberian, at an earlier stage of Hebrew it was only the vowel of the conjunction waw that distinguished the forms. Baranowski (2016, 12–13) accepts the proposal of Loprieno, stating that the gemination is a phonetic phenomenon utilised to preserve the “grammaticalized preposition wa” and thus mark the (past) meaning of the wayyiqṭol form. In other words, the gemination prevents the reduction of the /a/ vowel to shewa. He goes on to note, however, that “it is impossible to establish whether the doubling appeared as a phonetic development already in Proto-Hebrew or in Hebrew spoken in biblical times, or whether the Masoretes created it as an artificial device to keep the wayyiqṭol pattern distinct.” Joüon and Muraoka (2009, 128) also seem to agree with this claim in their statement that the pataḥ “must be considered primitive” and that the gemination is “a device [introduced] to preserve this primitive vowel.”

Revell (1984) makes a similar claim, but suggests that the distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form arose due to stress patterns. Just as the conjunction waw is prone to lengthen before monosyllabic stressed nouns, e.g., טֽן בֹ Image ‘good and evil’ (Gen. 2.9), so too it lengthened before certain weak wayyiqṭol forms with initial stress, such as Image vaɟˈɟɔːqɔm ‘and he got up’ and Image vaɟˈɟiːvɛn ‘and he built’. This distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw was then transferred to other instances of waw preceding preterite yiqṭol forms as a mark of the past meaning. Because other yiqṭol forms had final stress, it was necessary to geminate the prefix consonant as a way of maintaining the syllable’s length. He compares this phenomenon to the gemination in compounds such as Image ‘in what…? ’ and Image ‘how much/long…? ’. He suggests that such a distinction arose as a development of the reading tradition toward the end of the biblical period to distinguish the past meaning of yiqṭol, which was no longer used in the spoken language.

  • 7 Note that short/preterite yiqṭol forms in poetry not following the conjunction waw are never preced (...)

12A number of comments are warranted regarding the views outlined above. To begin, one should be cautious in accepting any permutation of the first view, due to lack of supporting evidence elsewhere in Hebrew. These theories all require positing an additional morpheme between the conjunction waw and the yiqṭol verbal form, even though such a morpheme with a similar function is not attested, even vestigially, anywhere in Hebrew.7 Moreover, Revell (1984, 443–44) and Smith (1991, 3–5) have outlined a number of problems with the hypothesis that Hebrew *wa- ought to be connected to Egyptian ˀiw.

  • 8 Pat-El (2009) has argued persuasively that the definite article is to be derived from the deictic p (...)

13The second view, which regards the gemination as purely a phonetic phenomenon, is naturally more economical and persuasive. Not all permutations of this view, however, are equally convincing. With respect to Lambdin’s ‘junctural doubling’, for example, it is difficult to explain why it would occur at the juncture of the conjunction waw and the preterite form, but not the jussive form. Moreover, the gemination after the definite article, which the theory was originally developed to explain, likely has another explanation altogether.8 If ‘junctural doubling’ is not even a valid explanation for the phenomenon it was primarily developed to explain, one must wonder how productive it was and if perhaps other apparent instances of ‘junctural doubling’ also have more satisfactory explanations. The theory of Loprieno (and Baranowski) is less problematic from a theoretical perspective, though it leaves much wanting in terms of diachrony and absolute chronology. Revell’s theory is most promising, especially in terms of absolute chronology and motivating factors, though it is not without problems. These theories will be picked up and discussed further in the analysis of the transcription material below.

4.0. Review of Scholarship: Wayyiqṭol in the Transcriptions

14Before proceeding to analyse the evidence of the transcriptions, it is worth noting how previous scholars who have worked on the transcriptions see the data from the Secunda and Jerome fitting into the various stages of development outlined above.

15In the Secunda, parallels to Tiberian wayyiqṭol forms are not represented consistently. A vowel is transcribed after the conjunction waw less than half the time and gemination is rarely represented. These points of data are interpreted in one of two ways (or some combination thereof). The first interpretation suggests that not all instances of wayyiqṭol in the Tiberian tradition were identified and/or vocalised as such in the Secunda. The second interpretation suggests that though the forms are ancestors of wayyiqṭol and do express past semantics, gemination of the prefix consonant of the wayyiqṭol form was not (yet) a regular feature of Secunda Hebrew (Brønno 1943, 235–36; Janssens 1982, 84– 85; Yuditsky 2017, 232; Kantor 2017, 244, 280, 337, 346–48).

16Particularly noteworthy here is Yuditsky’s (2017, 232) theory, that ancient Hebrew had no pronunciation distinction between the conjunction waw before a non-past/jussive yiqṭol form and before a preterite yiqṭol form (i.e., Tiberian wayyiqṭol). The evidence from the Secunda reflects the initial stages of such a distinction coming into being, i.e., a transitional period during which the preterite form *w (a)-yiqṭol was gradually shifting to wayyiqṭol. During this transitional period, a distinction would be present in some preterite yiqṭol verbal forms and absent in others. Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 171), when dealing with the lack of distinction between ‘waw consecutive’ and ‘waw conjunctive’ in Samaritan Hebrew, also points to the Secunda as evidence of an earlier stage of Hebrew, in which such a distinction did not exist.

17While Yuditsky’s theory is generally sound, it lacks two things. First, though he acknowledges that the gemination in wayyiqṭol is secondary and still developing at the time of the Secunda, he offers no explanation for how or why the distinction came to be. Second, he does not avail himself of the evidence supplied by Jerome regarding wayyiqṭol, though it supports the diachronic trajectory he outlines. In this paper, we will take Yuditsky’s theory as a starting point, but will revise and build upon it, dealing with the issues in a more comprehensive manner.

18With respect to the Latin transcriptions of Hebrew in Jerome, no scholar has yet analysed or even enumerated the attestations of the wayyiqṭol form in his writings. As far as I can see, this is mainly a result of two factors. First, there appear to be only six attestations of the wayyiqṭol form in all of Jerome’s writings. Second, none of these attestations is found in his commentaries, which served as the main source for some of the early publications on the transcriptions of Hebrew in Jerome. Four of the six attestations are found in his letters and the other two are from his Prologus Galeatus (‘Helmeted Preface’), that is, the introduction to the books of Kings. To the best of my knowledge, these six wayyiqṭol forms are first enumerated and analysed here. Though six attestations constitute a relatively small sample size, their consistency is sufficient to support the diachronic argument which will be made below.

5.0. Wayyiqṭol in the Transcriptions

19Because the distinctive features of the wayyiqṭol form are the vocalisation of the conjunction waw (with the full vowel pataḥ as opposed to shewa) and the presence of gemination (in the prefix consonant of the verb), there are three issues that must be understood with respect to the Greek and Latin transcriptions in order to rightly interpret the data regarding wayyiqṭol:

  1. The distribution, status, and representation of ‘shewa
  2. The distribution of the various representations of the conjunction waw
  3. The distribution and representation of gemination

20In the following sections, first these three principles will be addressed, with respect to both the Greek transcriptions of Hebrew in the Secunda (§5.1) and the Latin transcriptions of Hebrew in Jerome (§5.3). Following this, all attestations of the wayyiqṭol form will be presented and analysed (§§5.2; 5.4).

5.1. ‘Shewa’, the Conjunction Waw, and Gemination in the Secunda

5.1.1. Shewa

21For purposes of this paper, we must consider if the data from the Secunda are sufficient to convey whether the conjunction waw is vocalised with shewa or a full vowel. In the Secunda, the parallel to Tiberian vocalic shewa is in most cases left unrepresented (i.e., the transcriptions present a consonant cluster; Table 3):

Table 3

Image

22At the same time, it is also frequently represented by Greek α or ε. Most instances of α also correspond to an etymological */a/ vowel (Table 4):

Table 4

Image

  • 9 In the twentieth century, virtually every Secunda scholar took it for granted that ‘shewa’ was a re (...)

23While not all Secunda scholars agree that it is appropriate to refer to ‘shewa’ in the Secunda,9 most see significance in the presence or lack of a vowel after the conjunction waw (see below).

5.1.2. Conjunction waw

  • 10 In light of contemporary Greek pronunciation, the digraph ου likely indicates that the conjunction (...)

24If we are to ascribe importance to the transcription of a vowel after the conjunction waw (represented by ου) in the Secunda, we must establish that the same does not occur elsewhere, or, if it does, that it is governed by consistent rules. It turns out that in the Secunda, the conjunction waw is almost always represented by the Greek digraph ου (= /w-/ [(ʔ) u (ː)-]) with no subsequent vowel (more than 100x) (Table 5; Yuditsky 2017, 230–31; Kantor 2017, 346):10

Table 5

Image

  • 11 Instances of a vowel after the conjunction waw when it precedes yiqṭol verbal forms are not include (...)
  • 12 As to why ουδαρηεμ ְ׀ (...)

25Instances in which a vowel (α or ε) is transcribed after the conjunction waw (fewer than 10x) are governed by two rules, both of which are based on syllable structure:11 (1) the conjunction waw precedes a word-initial consonant cluster or (2) the conjunction waw precedes a monosyllabic stressed noun (Table 6–7; Yuditsky 2017, 230–31; Kantor 2017, 346–50):12

Table 6: Rule (1): Conjunction waw before word-initial consonant cluster

Image

Table 7: Rule (2): Conjunction waw before stressed monosyllabic word

Image

The transcriptions categorised under rule (1) are probably best interpreted as reflecting vowel syncope (v → Ø / Cv̌C_Cv̌ (C)) and thus should be vocalised as warʕēm, walšōnī, waḏʕū, and weḇrob, respectively. Parallels to such vocalisations are also found in Babylonian Hebrew, e.g., Imagewaḇmīšōr ‘and with uprightness’ (Mal. 2.6); Imagewiḇyōm ‘and in the day of (cstr.)’ (Isa. 49.8) (Yeivin 1985, 1152). The transcriptions categorised under rule (2) are best interpreted as reflecting pre-tonic lengthening of the conjunction waw, which coheres with their vocalisation with qameṣ in both Tiberian and Babylonian Hebrew.

It is worth noting that in both environments, Tiberian and Babylonian vocalise the conjunction waw with a full vowel rather than shewa. It seems, then, that the conjunction waw is written as ουα- (less frequently ουε-) only when the corresponding forms/environments in Tiberian and Babylonian might also have a full vowel. Aside from such cases, the conjunction waw is normally written as ου-, generally corresponding to cases in which Tiberian and Babylonian have a simple vocal shewa. Finally, we should also mention that just because instances with a vowel transcribed after the conjunction waw occur within the confines of these two rules, that does not mean that every instance of the conjunction waw that fits within these two rules will be transcribed with a vowel, e.g., ουμσουδαθι Image‘and my fortress’ (Ps. 31.4); ουοζ Image ‘and strength’ (Ps. 29.1).

5.1.3. Gemination

  • 13 For slightly different views, note how Yuditsky (2017, 36–44) generally accepts at face value the S (...)

26As stated above, gemination in the prefix consonant is the most regular and significant morphological indicator of a wayyiqṭol form in the Tiberian tradition. If we are to rely on the Secunda for accurate information regarding this feature, we must first establish that gemination is consistently indicated therein. Though scholars differ as to the extent to which gemination is accurately represented in the Secunda, most agree that the representation of gemination is generally reliable.13 There are, however, several consonants which cannot be represented as geminates due to the limitations and conventions of Greek orthography: the gutturals /ʔ/, /h/, /ħ/, /ʕ/, the consonant /z/, and the semi-vowels /w/ and /j/. In addition to this, it should be kept in mind that Hebrew /r/ cannot be geminated in most traditions of Biblical Hebrew.

  • 14 See also Yuditsky (2017, 233). Yuditksy does not, however, include all the attestations cited here. (...)

27We can demonstrate the relevance and reliability of the Secunda transcriptions for accurately conveying the presence or lack of gemination in the wayyiqṭol form by examining all attestations of the definite article. Like the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form, the definite article is a monosyllabic morpheme made up of one consonant, the vowel [a], and gemination in the following consonant. Excluding the consonants listed above, which cannot be represented as geminates in the Secunda, the definite article is attested twenty times, in eighteen of which (90 percent) gemination is represented and in just two of which (10 percent) it is not (Tables 8–9):14

Table 8: Definite article with gemination

Image

Table 9: Definite article without gemination

Image

28This high degree of consistency with respect to the transcription of gemination after the definite article suggests that we can rely on the Secunda for the information it conveys about gemination after the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms as well. However, this applies only to the prefixes /t/ (2S, 3FS, 2PL, 3FPL) and /n/ (1PL), since neither /ʔ/ (1S) nor /j/ (3MS, 3MPL) can be represented as geminate in Greek.

5.2. Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda

29In order to appropriately analyse the data from the Secunda, we must survey not only all the attestations of wayyiqṭol forms (in comparison with Tiberian Hebrew) therein, but all attestations of any yiqṭol form following the conjunction waw. It is not enough to observe how the vocalisation of the conjunction waw before preterite yiqṭol may differ from its vocalisation elsewhere. We must also observe how the vocalisation of the conjunction waw before preterite yiqṭol differs both from its vocalisation elsewhere and, more specifically, from its vocalisation before other non-preterite yiqṭol verbs. This, of course, also raises the question regarding whether or not a waw + yiqṭol form was interpreted as a preterite or non-preterite form in the Second Temple period. A number of tools will be utilised to answer such a question, not least the ancient translations.

30In the following sections, we will deal with the material in a three-step process. First, we will enumerate all attestations of waw + yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol in the Secunda according to the Tiberian tradition. Variations between the vocalisation traditions and ancient translations will be taken into account in order to arrive at a final count in accordance with how these forms are presented in the Secunda. Second, we will analyse each of these groups with respect to the vocalisation of the conjunction waw. Third, we will analyse each group with respect to the presence or lack of gemination in the prefix consonant. Finally, conclusions will be drawn regarding the nature of the wayyiqṭol form as opposed to that of the waw + yiqṭol form in the Secunda.

5.2.1. Waw + yiqṭol in the Secunda

31In the Secunda, thriteen forms are attested corresponding to Tiberian waw + yiqṭol (Table 10):

Table 10: Waw + yiqṭol in the Secunda according to the Tiberian tradition

Image

  • 15 Aquila never translates with a past tense, Symmachus renders only Ps. 18.38 and Ps. 18.43 as past, (...)

A survey of the ancient translations indicates that these forms were overwhelmingly interpreted as non-past yiqṭol forms in the Second Temple period.15 There are two exceptional forms, however, which should probably be removed from this list. First, the form ουϊκαρ in Ps. 49.9 is universally interpreted as the noun Image ‘preciousness; price’ in the ancient translations (Greek: τιμή ‘price’; Latin: pretium ‘price’; Aramaic: רקי ‘honour’). Second, the form ουαϊ is more likely to reflect waw + qaṭal, parallel to Image than waw + yiqṭol, parallel to ו ִ חי ִ י . On the other hand, the Secunda parallel to Tiberian Image ‘ [God] helps it (fs)’ (Ps. 46.6), transcribed as ουεζρα, likely reflects a waw + yiqṭol form and thus should be included in the list even though it is without the conjunction in Tiberian. This is supported by the Hexaplaric translations, which render the form as future (Table 11):

Table 11: ְָ י ַ זע ֶ ר ֥ ה (Ps. 46.6) in the Hexapla

Image

Yuditksy (2017, 184–85) interprets ουεζρα as reflecting Image ‘and its (fs) help’, but it is perfectly consistent with the phonology and orthographic conventions of the Secunda to suggest that ουεζρα reflects /w-jeʕzrā (h)/, parallel to Image ‘and will help (3MS) her’ (Kantor 2017, 234–35). In addition, as will be explained below, the form ουϊεδαββερ Image ‘and he subdued’ (Ps. 18.48) is probably better interpreted as a waw + yiqṭol form than as a wayyiqṭol form in the Secunda. This results in thirteen total attestations of waw + yiqṭol (non-preterite) forms in the Secunda.

5.2.2. Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda

32In the Secunda, nineteen forms are attested corresponding to Tiberian wayyiqṭol (Table 12):

Table 12: wayyiqṭol in the Secunda according to the Tiberian tradition

Image

While the overwhelming majority of the ancient translations interpret these forms as past tense, the following three forms exhibit mixed evidence: ουϊεδαββερ Image (Ps. 18.48); ουιαρδου Image (Ps. 49.15); ουιεκρα Image (Isa. 9.5) (Table 13): In the case of ουϊεδαββερ, only the LXX and the Vulgate render with past tense. The other translations have a present or future. In light of the fact that it also deviates from the Tiberian form in terms of verbal stem, i.e., piʿel and instead of hifʿil, it is probably better to regard this form as regular waw + yiqṭol rather than wayyiqṭol—this is tabulated in the final count of the waw + yiqṭol list above.

Table 13: Ancient translations interpretation of ουϊεδαββερ, ουιαρδου, and ουιεκρα (Aq. = Aquila, Sy. = Symmachus, LXX = Septuagint, V. = Quinta, Th. = Theodotion, VL = Vetus Latina/Old Latin, Vul. = Vulgate, Tar. = Targum)

ουϊεδαββερ (ps. 18.48) ουιαρδου (Ps. 49.15) ουιεκρα (Isa. 9.5)
aq. (καὶ) συνοδώσει
conj fut
‘and he will lead’
καὶ ἐπικρατήσουσ (ιν)
conj fut
‘and they will rule over’
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν
conj past. act
‘and he called’
Sy. καὶ ὑποτάσσω (ν)
conj pres. ptcp
‘and subjecting’
καὶ ὑποτάξουσι (ν)
conj fut
‘and they will subject’
καὶ κληθήσεται
conj fut. pass
‘and will be called’
lxx καὶ ὑποτάξας
conj past. ptcp
‘and having subjected’
καὶ κατακυριεύσωσι (ν)
conj subj
‘and let them lord over’
καὶ καλεῖται
conj fut. med-pass
‘and is called’
V. (καὶ) ὑποτάσσων
conj pres. ptcp
‘and subjecting’
(καὶ) κατακυριεύσωσιν
conj subj
‘and let them lord over’
-
Th. - καταχθήσονται
fut. pass
‘they will be lead down’
(καὶ ἐκάλεσεν)
conj past. act
‘and he called’
VL et subdidisti
conj past. act
‘and you subjected’
et obtinebunt
conj fut
‘and they will hold fast’
et vocatur
conj pres. pass
‘and is called’
Vul. et congregas
conj pres. act
‘and you gather’
et subicient
conj fut
‘and they will subject’
et vocabitur
conj fut. pass
‘and will be called’
Tar. רבתמו
ְ conj ptcp
ְ ‘and breaking’
ורבתו
conj past
‘and they broke’
ירקתאו
conj past. pass
‘and was called’

The form ουιαρδου is rendered as past only in the Targum. The remaining translations render it as a future (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Old Latin, Vulgate) or a jussive (LXX [but note that other LXX MSS have a regular future form: κατακυριεύσουσιν ‘they will rule/lord over’], Quinta). Another problem with a Tiberian interpretation of ουιαρδου is that the initial vowel of the verb is α instead of the expected η for the yiqṭol form. A more likely interpretation, therefore, is waw + qaṭal indicating future tense, i.e., Image (Yuditsky 2017, 117). Such an interpretation would assume some degree of root contamination between דר " י and רי " ד , but similar root confusion is attested elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, this form is excluded from our analysis altogether.

33Finally, the form ουιεκρα presents several interpretive problems, even apart from looking at the transcriptions or the ancient translations. First, it is found in a prophetic context, which can lead to the semantic meaning (past) being different from the pragmatic meaning (future). Second, it is used in an impersonal sense, which can also lead to translations oscillating between an active verb and a passive verb. These mixed approaches are both attested in the ancient translations. While there is a strong case for interpreting the form as a waw + yiqṭol, the fact that Aquila, Theodotion, and the Targum all translate the form as past should give pause in doubting the MT here. Accordingly, this form should remain in our tabulation of wayyiqṭol forms.

34We are left with seventeen wayyiqṭol forms in the Secunda. Having analysed and categorised the data into waw + yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms, then, we may now proceed to analyse the data statistically with respect to both the presence of a transcribed vowel after the conjunction and gemination of the prefix consonant.

5.2.3. Conjunction waw + vowel in the Secunda

35As might be expected in light of our earlier discussion regarding the conjunction waw in the Secunda (§5.1.2), the waw + yiqṭol forms almost never have a vowel transcribed after the conjunction waw (Tables 14–15):

Table 14: Waw + yiqṭol in the Secunda: Conjunction waw + vowel

Image

Table 15: Waw + yiqṭol in the Secunda: Vowelless conjunction waw

Image

  • 16 This has parallels in the distribution and realisation of the conjunction waw /w-/ as [u-] and [w-] (...)

The only instance in which the conjunction waw in a waw + yiqṭol form has a vowel, ουειεσομου Image ‘and let them rejoice’ (Ps. 35.27), probably has an explanation specific to its environment. The preceding word ends in a long unstressed /ū/ (ιαροννου ουειεσομου Image and thus the conjunction /w-/ might not have been pronounced at all if it was not consonantal (Kantor 2017, 347–48).16 In other words, if the conjunction waw had been pronounced with the expected vocalic realisation of [(ʔ) u (ː)] in the sequence *yāronnū (ʔ) ū-yesomħū, it would have been prone to elision or misperception, so that the entire sequence would have sounded more like *yāronnū yesomħū (i.e., without a conjunction before the second verb). It may be, then, that the consonantal allophone of the conjunction waw was used to prevent such confusion.

36The wayyiqṭol forms, on the other hand, are transcribed with a vowel in nearly half the attestations (Tables 16–17):

Table 16: Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda: Conjunction waw + vowel

Image

Table 17: Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda: Vowelless conjunction waw

Image

37The data with respect to the vocalisation of the conjunction waw, both in waw + yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms, may be summarised in the following chart (Table 18):

Table 18: Distribution of a vowel after the conjunction waw in waw + yiqṭol and wayyiqṭol forms in the Secunda

ου- ουα-/ουε- Total
waw + yiqṭol 12 (92 %) 1 (8 %) 13
wayyiqṭol 10 (59 %) 7 (41 %) 17
Total 22 8 30

38The chart clearly indicates that there is a much greater tendency full vowel with the waw of a preterite wayyiqṭol form (transcribed with α in all but one case) than with that of a non-preterite waw + yiqṭol form. At the same time, however, this tendency affects fewer than half of the forms, with most forms of the conjunction waw exhibiting no difference when preceding a preterite yiqṭol form as opposed to a non-preterite yiqṭol.

5.2.4. Conjunction waw + gemination in the Secunda

39Because there is no way of indicating a geminated yod in the transcriptions, only the 3FS and 2MS forms are given to an analysis with respect to gemination. This amounts to one form of waw + yiqṭol and six forms of wayyiqṭol (Tables 19–21):

Table 19: Waw + yiqṭol in the Secunda: Singleton prefix consonant

Image

Table 20: Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda: Singleton prefix consonant

Image

Table 21: Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda: Geminated prefix consonant

Image

It is no surprise, of course, that the waw + yiqṭol form is not transcribed with gemination. Of the 6 wayyiqṭol forms which could possibly exhibit gemination in the Greek transcriptions, however, only 1 is transcribed with gemination: ουαθθεμας Image ‘and you rejected’ (Ps. 89.39). The data may be summarised in the following chart (Table 22):

Table 22: Distribution of geminated θθ after the conjunction waw in 3FS/2MS waw + yiqṭol/wayyiqṭol forms in the Secunda

θ θθ Total
waw + yiqṭol 1 (100 %) 0 (0 %) 1
wayyiqṭol 5 (83 %) 1 (17 %) 6
Total 6 1 7

40This chart indicates that the gemination of the prefix consonant, though attested and present in the language, was by no means regular in the Hebrew of the Secunda.

41To be fair, however, we might also note that only three of the six instances of a 3FS or 2MS form have a vowel transcribed after the conjunction waw. Among the attested Biblical Hebrew reading traditions, a geminated consonant must be preceded by a full vowel. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to suggest that of those instances which could possibly reflect a double letter in the Secunda, only one in three (33 percent) exhibit gemination. The two instances without gemination may have alternative explanations (see §5.6.2).

Finally, it should be noted that although Greek script is incapable of explicitly indicating a geminated yod, there are certain conventions which always accompany geminated yod. For example, while singleton (consonantal) /j/ may be written with regular iota (ι) or iota with diaeresis (ϊ) in the Secunda, geminated /jj/ seems to have been written only with ϊ (Yuditsky 2017, 32–33). Thus, it is likely that gemination is also reflected in 3M forms, such as ουαϊαλεζ Image ‘and [my heart] trusted’ (Ps. 28.7) and ουεϊεριβου Image ‘and they opened wide’ (Ps. 35.21).

5.3. ‘Shewa’, the Conjunction Waw, and Gemination in Jerome

5.3.1. Shewa

42While the Secunda normally leaves the parallel to Tiberian shewa unrepresented, and less frequently transcribes it with an /a/ or /e/ vowel, Jerome tends to transcribe the parallel to shewa with a vocalic grapheme more often than not, most frequently with a and slightly less frequently with e (Table 23):

Table 23

Image

  • 17 There are, however, a few examples in which a does not correspond to the historical vowel (e.g., za (...)

43Most examples of a corresponding to Tiberian vocalic shewa also happen to correspond to the historical vowel (e.g., macoma, saridim).17 This may indicate that e was the normal representation of a reduced vowel and that instances of a actually reflect the preservation of the historical vowel rather than a reduced ‘shewa’ vowel.

44There are also examples, especially in the environment of sibilants and sonorants, in which the parallel to vocalic shewa is omitted in transcription (Table 24; Kantor 2017, 328):

Table 24

Image

45It might seem that because the parallel to shewa in Jerome is represented with a vocalic grapheme more often than not, the significance of a vocalic grapheme being transcribed after the conjunction waw before potential wayyiqṭol forms would be diminished. Based on the behaviour of the conjunction waw in Jerome’s transcriptions, however, this is not the case (see below).

5.3.2. Conjunction waw

46In Jerome’s transcriptions, the conjunction waw is normally represented by u with no subsequent vowel (Table 25; Kantor 2017, 348):

Table 25

Image

47As with the Secunda, instances in which the conjunction waw is transcribed with a subsequent vowel occur in two environments: (1) preceding a word-initial consonant cluster or (2) preceding a monosyllabic stressed noun in a natural linguistic pair (Tables 26–27; Kantor 2017, 348):

Table 26: Rule (1): Conjunction waw before word-initial consonant cluster

Image

Table 27: Rule (2): Conjunction waw before stressed monosyllabic word

Image

  • 18 The singular exception to these rules is uares(...)

48In sum, a vowel is transcribed after the conjunction waw in Jerome’s transcriptions according to the same distribution as in the Secunda. If anything, the transcriptions of Jerome exhibit even more consistency and fewer exceptions.18 Therefore, if we find a vowel transcribed after the conjunction waw before a yiqṭol verbal form, it is unlikely to reflect a phonological reality parallel to vocalic shewa in Tiberian or Babylonian.

5.3.3. Gemination

49In Jerome’s transcriptions, much like the Secunda, the representation of gemination is generally reliable. Unfortunately, because all of the wayyiqṭol forms attested in Jerome are 3MS forms, the Latin script does not explicitly indicate whether the form was read with a geminate or singleton yod. Nevertheless, certain principles of syllable structure may indicate gemination in at least one form (see below).

5.4. Wayyiqṭol in Jerome

50Due to the nature of the data, the present section on Jerome is significantly less detailed than the previous section on the Secunda with respect to two points. First, because there are no waw + yiqṭol (non-preterite) forms in Jerome, we are unable to compare the behaviour of the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms to its behaviour before a regular yiqṭol form. Second, because there are no verbal forms beginning with a prefix consonant other than yod, the section on gemination contains only a tentative suggestion based on syllable structure rather than a statistical analysis. Nevertheless, the data from Jerome’s transcriptions concerning the presence of a vowel after the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form are relevant and given to analysis.

5.4.1. Wayyiqṭol in Jerome

51In Jerome’s transcriptions, six forms are attested which correspond to wayyiqṭol in the Tiberian tradition (Table 28; but cf. the forms without the conjunction in §6.2.3):

Table 28: Wayyiqṭol in Jerome according to the Tiberian tradition

Image

52Because every example here is found in a clear narrative past context, there is no reason to suggest that any of these forms would be waw + yiqṭol (non-preterite).

5.4.2. Conjunction waw + vowel in Jerome

53It is significant that all six instances (100 percent) of wayyiqṭol are preceded by the conjunction waw with the vowel a transcribed after it (ua-). While we have no waw + yiqṭol (non-preterite) forms to which we may compare the conjunction waw in these forms, we may reiterate the standard rules for the vocalisation of the conjunction waw in Jerome’s transcriptions: the conjunction waw (1) is generally vocalised as u-, (2) before an initial consonant cluster is vocalised as ua-, and (3) before a monosyllabic stressed noun is vocalised as ua-. Aside from the transcriptions uaiedabber and uaibarcheu, the verbal part of which could be interpreted as beginning with a consonant cluster (see §5.4.3 for the significance of this), there is no reason for any of the other forms to be transcribed with a vowel after the conjunction waw.

54Accordingly, we may conclude that the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms in Jerome was normally pronounced with a full vowel, which is markedly distinct from its pronunciation elsewhere. The presence of this vowel probably also indicates following gemination, though this is not explicitly indicated (see §§5.4.3; 5.6).

5.4.3. Conjunction waw + gemination in Jerome

55The only evidence regarding the potential gemination of the prefix consonant in Jerome’s transcriptions is based on syllable structure. As stated above, there are two instances of wayyiqṭol in Jerome’s transcriptions in which the verbal prefix is vocalised with shewa in the Tiberian tradition (Table 29):

Table 29

Image

56In the case of uaiedabber, Jerome actually transcribes the very same form elsewhere, but without a prefixed waw (Table 30):

Table 30

Image

57There is a tendency in the ancient transcriptions for the parallel to yod with vocalic shewa in Tiberian to be represented merely with Greek ι (without diaeresis ¨) or Latin i without any subsequent vowel. By comparing the representation of the prefix yod in yiqṭol forms of the piʿel with its representation in the qal, I have argued elsewhere that this representation indicates an initial cluster realised phonemically as /jC-/ and phonetically as [(ʔ) i (ː) C-] (Kantor 2017, 334–38).

58Therefore, it may be possible to explain the different representations of the vocalisation of yod in uaiedabber and idabber on the basis of gemination. In the form idabber, the initial id- was most likely vocalised as something like /jd-/ [(ʔ) i (ː) ð-]. In the form uaiedabber, however, gemination may have preserved the consonantal realisation of the yod, i.e., /wajjed-/ [wajjɪð-]. The form uaibarcheu, on the other hand, might represent the lack of gemination (or degemination) due to the fact that yod is not transcribed with a following vowel. It should be noted, however, that such an argument is only speculative, since there is variation in the representation of the parallel to word-initial yod with shewa elsewhere in Jerome. Nevertheless, the contrast between uaiedabber and idabber is compelling. Also, the fact that gemination is already evidenced in the Secunda, though rare, would suggest that if the full vowel had become universal in Jerome’s tradition, then gemination likely had as well.

5.5. Diachrony: Comparing the Secunda and Jerome

  • 19 See Kantor (2017, 38–47).

59A clear diachronic trajectory in the development of the conjunction waw in these forms is evident on the basis of a comparison between the transcriptions of wayyiqṭol in the Secunda and in Jerome. Though both operated in Palestine, nearly two centuries separates Origen from Jerome; the original text of the Secunda itself likely pre-dates Origen by a century or more.19

60Due to the nature of the evidence in Jerome’s transcriptions, it is not possible to compare the two traditions with respect to the presence of gemination or lack thereof in the wayyiqṭol form. Nevertheless, there are ample data for comparing the presence or lack of a vowel following the conjunction waw in these forms.

5.5.1. Conjunction waw + vowel in wayyiqṭol Forms in the Secunda and Jerome

61From the transcriptions of the Secunda to those of Jerome, there is a clear increase in the frequency with which the conjunction waw is transcribed with a vowel (Table 31):

Table 31: Transcription of a vowel following the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms in the Secunda and Jerome

Secunda (ca. 1st–3rd CE) Jerome (4th/5th CE) Total
ου- or u- 10 (59 %) 0 (0 %) 10
ουα-/ουε- or ua- 7 (41 %) 6 (100 %) 13
Total 17 6 23

62Not only does the frequency with which the conjunction waw vocalised with a following vowel increase from the Secunda to Jerome, it seems to become universally standardised before all wayyiqṭol forms, with 100 percent of cases transcribed as ua-.

63While one could argue that such a discrepancy could be the result of a statistical coincidence due to the dearth of the material, a subset of the data would argue against this. It just so happens that two of the six forms in Jerome have exact (or near exact) parallels with forms found also in the Secunda, in which all are attested without a following vowel (Table 32):

Table 32

Image

  • 20 For more on this list and its various attestations, see Audet (1950); Torrey (1952); Jepsen (1959); (...)

64Though not from the Secunda, additional evidence is found in an early list of the Hebrew names of the books of the Bible transcribed into Greek. In this list, which should probably be dated to the first or second century CE, an alternative name of the Book of Numbers transcribed into Greek (taken alongside that of Jerome) also seems to exhibit the same development:20

Table 33

Image

65All of this evidence would seem to suggest that the vocalisation of the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form changed over time. While some would argue that these differences could also be ascribed to mere differences in contemporaneous but distinct traditions, there are a number of reasons for regarding such a theory as less plausible. First, Origen (and most likely the original text of the Secunda) and Jerome both operated in Palestine. While multiple traditions did exist within Palestine in late antiquity, the chronological difference here is far more apparent than any potential geographical or communal one. Second, aside from its behaviour in wayyiqṭol forms, the vocalisation of the conjunction waw has the same distribution and is governed by the same rules in the Secunda and Jerome. Rule (1) is especially significant, since the behaviour of the conjunction waw before an initial cluster (i.e., shewa) is not identical between Tiberian, Babylonian, Palestinian, and Samaritan. The fact that both the Secunda and Jerome exhibit similarity here would suggest that the distinct behaviour of the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms is not likely to be attributed solely to Jerome representing a contemporaneous yet distinct tradition. Therefore, while we cannot entirely discount the possibility that the Secunda transcriptions and Jerome merely represent different Hebrew traditions existing contemporaneously, their geographic proximity, yet chronological distance, together with their close affinity in the vocalisation of the conjunction waw elsewhere, suggest that clear trajectories of change from Origen to Jerome (with respect to the wayyiqṭol form) are best explained as a function of diachrony rather than contemporaneous linguistic diversity.

66If one were to disregard the data of Jerome, one could suggest that both a full vowel and gemination were original to the wayyiqṭol form and that the Secunda reflects a tradition in which a distinct wayyiqṭol pronunciation was fading away due to the fact that the regular use of wayyiqṭol had faded out of the language in Late Biblical Hebrew. However, because we can discern a clear diachronic trajectory from the Secunda to Jerome, it is far more likely that there was originally no distinction in pronunciation between the conjunction waw before a preterite yiqṭol form and a non-preterite yiqṭol form in earlier stages of Hebrew. This diachronic reconstruction is further supported by the evidence from Samaritan Hebrew (see below).

5.5.2. Primacy of the Vowel or Gemination?

67Finally, we must also consider the question as to whether it was primarily the full vowel or gemination that first distinguished the conjunction waw in the preterite *w-yiqṭol form at the time of the Secunda. After all, of the six forms which could possibly indicate gemination in the Secunda, three are transcribed with a following vowel and only one is transcribed with gemination (Table 34):

Table 34: Wayyiqṭol in the Secunda: Forms with vowel and/or gemination in 2MS/3FS forms

Image

68Because a vowel can be transcribed without gemination in wayyiqṭol forms in the Secunda, one might argue that this distribution actually suggests that the presence of a full vowel has primacy over gemination. On the other hand, the presence of a vowel after each of the other two forms cited here (ουεθαζερηνι, ουαθετ) actually accords with the normal rules governing the presence of a vowel after the conjunction waw elsewhere in the Secunda (§5.1.2). In the case of ουεθαζερηνι, the conjunction waw precedes an initial cluster (assuming /ʔ/ had not elided). In the case of ουαθετ, the conjunction waw precedes a monosyllabic stressed word. These might be sporadic instantiations of such rules playing out, since they are by no means universal in the Secunda. One might also explain the omission of transcribed gemination in these forms in light of its occurrence on a morpheme boundary. Moreover, although it cannot be explicitly indicated by the script, it should be noted that gemination is also probably present in some of the 3M preterite *w-yiqṭol forms (see §5.2.4).

At the same time, the transcriptions with a vowel and no gemination may indeed point to the primacy of the full vowel in the development of these forms. On this point, however, the claims of Loprieno (1980, 10) and Joüon and Muraoka (2009, 128) that gemination was introduced to preserve the original historical short (but full) vowel */a/ of the conjunction waw seem to be contradicted by the form ουαθθεμας Image (Ps. 89.39). Gemination would not have been necessary to preserve such a vowel according to the phonotactics of the Secunda (see §§5.2.3; 6.1). Further, the idea that the full /a/ vowel was an integral (or grammaticalised) part of the form seems to be contradicted by the conception of the morphological elements of these forms in late antiquity (see §6.2.3).

  • 21 According to Janda and Joseph (2003), sound changes first occur in a “highly localized context” and (...)

Revell’s (1984) account, on the other hand, which suggests that the distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw constituted (initially) a lengthened vowel in pre-tonic position, is worth further consideration. The only wayyiqṭol form with word-initial stress with which we could test this claim, ουαθετ Image (Ps. 44.19), would seem to support his theory, in that it exhibits a vowel and no following gemination. Presumably, the gemination in ουαθθεμας Image (Ps. 89.39) would be explained by Revell as a way of maintaining the lengthened first syllable even though the conjunction waw did not precede a stressed syllable. Finally, for what it’s worth, the compounds Image and Image both exhibit gemination in the transcriptions, e.g., bammaImage ‘in what…? ’ (Isa. 2.22); χαμμα Image ‘how much/long…? ’ (Ps. 35.17). Revell’s theory is admittedly appealing, especially because it posits a limited and isolated environment consistent with the phonotactics of the language (the conjunction in pre-tonic position) as the launchpad for the more widespread morphophonological change.21 Nevertheless, there are several reasons for questioning Revell’s theory and for continuing to regard gemination as the primary innovation in these forms.

First, his theory is largely predicated on regarding VːC and VCː as equivalent. Some have raised questions, however, about whether there is even such a phenomenon as ‘quantitative metathesis’ in Semitic (Huehnergard 2005, 463). In fact, the opposite often occurs in Biblical Hebrew, with just such a contrast (VCː instead of VːC) serving as a phonetic device developed in the reading tradition to distinguish the meaning of otherwise homophonous forms, known as dagesh mavḥin ‘distinguishing dagesh’ (see §6.2.2). Second, there is no apparent reason why forms such as Image with a lengthened vowel due to word-initial stress, would later be revocalised with gemination as Image If the forms with gemination are to be regarded as mere extensions of the form with the long vowel, but modified according to the phonotactics of the language, it is unlikely that gemination would later be generalised across the entire paradigm. This especially in light of the fact that three of the most common six wayyiqṭol verbs Image have initial stress in their most frequently attested forms. Moreover, a distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw is not necessary as a distinguishing marker in such cases, since the vowel pattern is already unique to the preterite yiqṭol form. Third, if the vowel of the conjunction waw regularly lengthened before yiqṭol forms with word-initial stress, it is difficult to explain the contrast between forms like Image [viˈjiːvɛn] ‘and let him build!’ (Ezra 1.3) and Image [vaɟˈɟiːvɛn] ‘and he built’ (Gen. 10.11). If the lengthening of the conjunction was originally a purely phonological development, both of these forms would presumably have undergone the same development. Fourth, and finally, positing gemination as the primary distinguishing feature is simply more economical. The complete uniformity of the Jewish reading traditions (Tiberian, Babylonian, Palestinian) with respect to gemination in wayyiqṭol is hard to reconcile with Revell’s reconstruction, which must posit a stage in which thousands of forms were vocalised with a long vowel and thousands were vocalised with gemination before gemination eventually won out. One would expect at least vestigial attestations of forms such as Image if Revell’s theory were correct.

5.5.3. Summary

69In sum, then, the claim that gemination developed as the primary distinguishing mark of the wayyiqṭol form remains more plausible. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that Revell’s theory or a variation thereof may prove correct. As more data come to light, future research may indeed reveal that the origins of the full vowel [a] are bound up in a more sophisticated explanation than that of merely accompanying the gemination. Nevertheless, based on the evidence from the transcriptions, we may state the following about the realisation of the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol forms:

  1. First Temple Period: The diachronic trajectory implied by (2)– (3) (see below) would suggest that the conjunction waw was pronounced identically before a preterite yiqṭol and non-preterite yiqṭol form, probably with the original etymological */a/ vowel:
    • preterite: *wa-yiqṭol
    • non-preterite: *wa-yiqṭol
  2. Late Second Temple Period: The conjunction waw was usually pronounced identically before a preterite yiqṭol and non-preterite yiqṭol form, namely, with no full vowel or following gemination. Nevertheless, the conjunction waw was also frequently pronounced distinctly before a preterite yiqṭol form, being vocalised with a full vowel and (probably) gemination:
    • preterite: *w-yiqṭol; *wa (y)-yiqṭol
    • non-preterite: *w-yiqṭol
  3. Early Byzantine Period: The conjunction waw was always pronounced distinctly before a preterite yiqṭol form (as opposed to before a non-preterite yiqṭol), being vocalised with a full vowel and (probably) gemination:
    • preterite: *wa (y)-yiqṭol
    • non-preterite: *w-yiqṭol

70This reconstruction suggests that up to some point in the Second Temple period, yiqṭol in the sequence *w-yiqṭol was a polysemous form, indicating either past or non-past (usually jussive) semantics according to context. In the coming sections, the evidence from the transcriptions will be utilised to suggest a plausible path of development for the distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form.

6.0. Reconstruction: The Morphological Development of Wayyiqṭol

71In this final section, it will be argued that gemination was introduced into the preterite *w-yiqṭol form (> wayyiqṭol) during the Second Temple period to distinguish preterite yiqṭol from non-preterite yiqṭol after the conjunction waw. After re-evaluating the theories regarding the morphological development of wayyiqṭol in light of the evidence from the transcriptions, we will further elaborate on this theory in full.

6.1. Review of Scholarship in Light of Evidence from Transcriptions

72In an earlier section of this paper (§3.0), we suggested that theories for explaining the morphological development of the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form can be categorised into two main groups: those which regard the gemination as deriving from an early Hebrew or Afro-Asiatic morpheme and those which regard the gemination as a phonetic development due to morphosyntactic factors.

73Based on the evidence from the transcriptions, we can immediately dismiss almost every theory which suggests that the dagesh in the prefix consonant is the result of an assimilated /n/ or /j/ of an independent morpheme. This is because most of these theories require that the developments in question occurred at an early stage in Semitic (not even in Hebrew!). Moreover, even Brenner, who suggests that the form entered Hebrew via Israelite scribes as a borrowing from Egyptian, must date the development to the Second Temple period at the latest. If any of these theories were correct, it would be highly unusual that both a full vowel and gemination would be absent in the majority of forms in the Secunda and yet be present (at least with respect to the full vowel) in all forms in Jerome. After all, gemination in the definite article, which likely derives from an assimilated /n/ (from *han-) and was introduced into the language during roughly the same period in which Brenner suggests wayyiqṭol was adopted, is almost always represented in the Secunda.

Theories that regard the gemination as a phonetic development based on morphosyntactic factors are thus far more plausible. With respect to ‘junctural doubling’, however, the evidence of the transcriptions should caution against accepting such a proposal. In Lambdin’s original article, he suggested that the following four phenomena were all examples of junctural doubling: (1) gemination following the definite article; (2) gemination following the conjunction waw in the wayyiqṭol form; (3) gemination following the relative particle Image ; and (4) gemination in deḥiq constructions. While there are no examples in the transcriptions by which we can evaluate (3), examples of (1), (2), and (4) are all attested. In the case of (1), it has been demonstrated above that the definite article was overwhelmingly realised with gemination in the Secunda (see §5.1.3). In the case of (2), on the other hand, gemination in the wayyiqṭol form occurs in only a minority of cases (see §5.2.4). Finally, in the case of (4), the only example we have exhibits lack of gemination (Table 35):

Table 35: Deḥiq in the Secunda

Image

74Three of the four phenomena cited by Lambdin as examples of ‘junctural doubling’ all appear to be at different stages of development at the time of the Secunda. In my view, this suggests that there are serious problems with accepting that ‘junctural doubling’ may explain all that it claims to explain.

  • 22 Though not mentioned by Loprieno, one might compare the Persian loanword (...)

Loprieno’s theory, which suggests that grammaticalised *wayiqṭol was received into Tiberian as wayyiqṭol due to phonotactic constraints, also deserves further comment. While there is much to commend in his theory,22 the transcriptions do not support his precise reconstruction. According to Loprieno, the conjunction *wa- was grammaticalised with the full vowel in preterite *wayiqṭol before the vowel of the conjunction underwent reduction in other environments; the grammaticalisation is what prevented its reduction before the preterite yiqṭol form. However, the evidence from the Secunda seems to reflect a stage in which the vowel of the conjunction waw had reduced when preceding both preterite yiqṭol and non-preterite yiqṭol. Moreover, neither is Loprieno’s suggestion that gemination was introduced to preserve the full vowel due to phonotactic constraints supported by the evidence from the Secunda. The Secunda exhibits gemination in at least one wayyiqṭol form (ουαθθεμας Image [Ps. 89.39]) while not being bound by the same phonotactic constraints as Tiberian—note that a full /a/ vowel can exist far from the stress without gemination in the Secunda, e.g., φανη Image ‘the face of (cstr.)’ (Ps. 18.43); νακαμωθ Image ‘vengeances’ (Ps. 18.48).

75With respect to Revell’s theory, which is based on stress patterns, see the critique in §5.6.2.

76It would seem, then, that none of the theories put forward to explain the full vowel and gemination in the wayyiqṭol form are consistent with the earliest vocalisation evidence we have, namely, the transcriptions. In the following section, we will propose an alternative solution.

6.2. An Alternative Proposal: Dagesh Mavḥin ‘Distinguishing Dagesh23

  • 23 The theory that the gemination in the wayyiqṭol form is a dagesh mavḥin was originally suggested al (...)

77In this final section, we will argue that the gemination (and thus the preceding full vowel) was an innovative phonetic device which began to be added to the preterite *w-yiqṭol form during the mid- to late Second Temple period to distinguish it from the non-preterite *w-yiqṭol form. This development may be compared to what is referred to in the literature as dagesh mavḥin ‘distinguishing dagesh’. The introduction of gemination was motivated by the need to preserve and distinguish the past verbal semantics of a form that was falling (or had already fallen) out of use in the spoken language. Such a desire for preservation points to the introduction of gemination in the form being a product of the reading tradition rather than of the living language.

78This reconstructed scenario is built on three pieces of supporting evidence, which will form the outline of the rest of this section: the disappearance of the sequential tenses from the living language (§6.2.1); parallels of gemination distinguishing homophonous forms attested in other traditions of Hebrew (§6.2.2); and the conception of the morphological components of the wayyiqṭol verbal form in late antiquity (§6.2.3). Finally, conclusions and implications for understanding the historical development of the Hebrew reading traditions will be summarised (§§6.2.4– 6.2.5).

6.2.1. Diachronic Considerations Regarding the Sequential Tenses

  • 24 Personal communication with Aaron Hornkohl. For more on the development of the sequential forms in (...)

79In the Second Temple period, the Hebrew verbal system had two sequential tenses, *w (a)-yiqṭol (> wayyiqṭol) for the past and *w (a)-qaṭal for the future. As suggested by the transcriptions, the yiqṭol form following the conjunction waw during this period would have been semantically polysemous, with past and jussive meanings, the semantics of each given form being recognised and differentiated only according to context. Nevertheless, the use of the sequential tenses was stable and pervasive; they are attested and used consistently in a wide array of genres in the biblical text and are found in numerous extra-biblical inscriptions. At some point after the exile (i.e., the Second Temple period), however, the Hebrew verbal system began to reconfigure. One of the results of this reconfiguration was that the sequential tenses began to gradually fade out of common use. This is most apparent in the distribution and function of consecutive forms in Late Biblical Hebrew. However, non-biblical compositions from Qumran clearly indicate that the sequential tenses were still known and used at a relatively late period, even if due only to the literary character of the compositions rather than to the living language.24 By the first few centuries CE, as evidenced from Rabbinic Hebrew, use of the sequential tenses had disappeared entirely from the language, being absent even from the literary register. In the syntactic slot following the conjunction waw, the ‘non-converted’ forms came to fill the role previously filled by the sequential tenses (i.e., *w-yiqṭol for conj + future and *w-qaṭal for conj + past). Nevertheless, the sequential tenses continued to be recognised and ‘used’ in the recitation of the Bible and liturgical texts.

80In the Secunda (ca. first–third c. CE), the process by which the conjunction waw in preterite *w-yiqṭol forms came to be realised distinctly is attested, but incomplete. It is most probable, then, that the initial stages of this innovation began at some point during the Second Temple period or Roman period. It seems hardly coincidental that a phonetic innovation distinguishing an otherwise homophonous form came into being during precisely the same period in which the use of that form was diminishing.

81Indeed, this fact brings us to a point of tension between the morphophonological developments of the wayyiqṭol form and its syntactic status and usage in the language. On one hand, the preterite *w-yiqṭol form was becoming less and less familiar to users of the language. Simultaneously, *w-yiqṭol with a non-past meaning was becoming the more natural way to read a yiqṭol form in this syntactic position. On the other hand, it is precisely during this period that the preterite *w-yiqṭol form begins to be pronounced distinctly in the attested vocalisation of Biblical Hebrew, and that not by means of any identifiable morpheme attested elsewhere in the language.

  • 25 The claim that phonetic features such as gemination could be introduced—apart from their being asso (...)

82Taken together, these two points suggest that the distinct pronunciation of the preterite *w-yiqṭol form by means of gemination was not a natural development of the living language, but rather a deliberate innovation of the reading tradition. While Hebrew speakers would not have had difficulty in distinguishing preterite *w (a)-yiqṭol from non-preterite *w (a)-yiqṭol in the Second Temple period, the form *w-yiqṭol was sounding less and less naturally like a preterite as the Second Temple period progressed and the sequential tenses fell out of use. It would seem, then, that the introduction of gemination was innovated in the reading tradition to preserve the distinct meaning of a past tense form that otherwise might have been perceived as non-past/future.25

83This reconstruction is also supported by the development of the preterite *w-yiqṭol form in Samaritan Hebrew, with respect to both absolute chronology and parallel development. Unlike the Jewish reading traditions (Tiberian, Babylonian, Palestinian), the Samaritan vocalisation exhibits no indication of an original full vowel or gemination in preterite *w-yiqṭol forms. Indeed, in the strong verb, there is no difference between a historically preterite *w-yiqṭol form and a historically non-preterite *w-yiqṭol form (Table 36; Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 108–9, 171–73):

Table 36

waw yiqṭol *w-yiqṭol (non-preterite) *w-yiqṭol (preterite)
-  ו רמשי רמשיו רמשיו
w yišmår wyišmår wyišmår
  • 26 For background regarding the establishment of the Samaritan community and the origins of their vers (...)
  • 27 According to Steiner (2005; 2007), the secondary fricative articulations of the bgdkpt consonants i (...)

84From a diachronic perspective, it is especially instructive that the Samaritan tradition alone has preserved the homophonous realisation of preterite *w-yiqṭol and non-preterite *w-yiqṭol. As a distinct community, the Samaritans likely split off from the rest of Judaism at some point between the fourth and second centuries BCE.26 The Samaritan Pentateuch has its origins during this time (ca. third c. BCE) and certain other linguistic innovations, shared by Jewish Hebrew, but absent in Samaritan, suggest that the Samaritans had their own distinct form of Hebrew by the beginning of the common era at the very latest.27

85Accordingly, it is almost certainly the case that at the time when the Samaritans split off from the rest of Judaism and began to develop a language tradition of their own, there was still no distinction in the pronunciation of the conjunction waw before preterite yiqṭol and non-preterite yiqṭol. In terms of absolute chronology, this suggests that the introduction of gemination into these forms in the Jewish Hebrew tradition (s) began at some point between the fourth century BCE and the first or second centuries CE. If it had occurred earlier, we would expect some remnant of a distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw before a preterite yiqṭol form to be attested, at least vestigially, in Samaritan as well.

  • 28 For a full discussion of this phenomenon, see Florentin (1996, 218– 21; 2016, 126–27); Ben-Ḥayyim ( (...)

86How, then, did the Samaritans deal with a form in the biblical text (i.e., preterite *w-yiqṭol) which signified the temporal opposite of the same form in their spoken language (i.e., future *w-yiqṭol)? The tension between the natural impulse to interpret preterite *w-yiqṭol forms as future coupled with the awareness that preterite *w-yiqṭol was indeed part of the biblical register led the Samaritans to introduce artificial (or non-etymological) distinctions in pronunciation to mark the preterite *w-yiqṭol form as signifying past (but only in certain weak verbs). While a number of different strategies for the morphophonological restructuring of the form are discussed in the literature (such as reappropriating coexisting patterns), the most prevalent among them is superimposing the vowel pattern of the past tense (i.e., fāqåd, faq̄ādu) over the yiqṭol form, even unto the disruption of the root (Table 37):28

Table 37

Image

87It would seem, then, that once the sequential tenses fell out of use in the living language, it was not unusual to introduce non-etymological features to preserve the original past meaning of preterite *w-yiqṭol. In light of the evidence examined here, such a phenomenon appears to have developed in parallel in both the Jewish Hebrew reading traditions and the Samaritan Hebrew reading tradition, though not by means of the same device. While the Jewish Hebrew reading traditions distinguished the form by means of gemination, Samaritan Hebrew utilised variant vowel patterns.

6.2.2. Dagesh Mavḥin

88A similar function of non-etymological gemination for distinguishing meaning is attested in other forms of Hebrew as well. Such gemination is referred to in the literature as dagesh mavḥin ‘distinguishing dagesh’. Simply put, dagesh mavḥin is an innovative phonetic feature (i.e., gemination) added to an existing form to distinguish it from an otherwise homophonous form.

In Tiberian Hebrew, apparent instances of dagesh mavḥin can essentially be divided into two categories: (1) distinguishing between two distinct lexemes that have homophonous realisations (or between the various meanings of one polysemous lexeme) and (2) distinguishing between sacred and profane referents (e.g., divine as opposed to human, the true God as opposed to idols) for one particular lexeme. Examples of the former include the distinction between the negative particle ל ֹּ א ‘not’ and the preposition Image ‘to’ with the 3MS suffix, i.e., ל ֹ ו ‘to him’29 and the distinction between the interjection Image ‘please’ and the interrogative particle Image ‘to where?’.30 Other examples of the former include distinguishing between two potential meanings of the same verb, such as Image ‘he placed’ and Image ‘he gave rest’.31 Examples of the latter are found in the geminated בּ in Image ‘powerful’ (human) as opposed to Image ‘Mighty One’ (divine)32 and the geminated בּ in Image ‘idols’ (foreign gods) as opposed to Image ‘toils’.33 It can also be used in a verb to signify a human referent as opposed to a divine referent, as found in the geminated ּ ר in Image ‘vexing her’ (human) as opposed to Image ‘thundered (3ms)’ (divine).34 In addition to such examples, Khan (2018, 337– 47) has also recently argued that the dagesh in the word Image ‘houses’ is actually an early (pre-Hebrew) innovation to distinguish the plural noun *bātīm/*bātīn ‘houses’ from the verbal adjective *bātīm/*bātīn ‘spending the night (mp)’.

In Babylonian Hebrew, the use of dagesh mavḥin is in fact far more widespread, though its function and the contexts in which it occurs parallel that of Tiberian, e.g., Imageʔelōhīm ‘God (of Israel)’ vs. Imageʔellōhīm ‘ (foreign) gods’ (Yeivin 1985, 355– 63). It is likely that instances of dagesh mavḥin in Babylonian were not merely orthographic, but were actually pronounced and are best interpreted as “innovative additions to existing forms rather than morphological variants” (Khan 2018, 344). A similar phenomenon is also attested in Rabbinic Hebrew (e.g., Image ‘cutting’; Image‘piece’), Samaritan Hebrew (e.g., ādāni ‘Lord’; ādanni ‘master’), and the Yemenite tradition of Aramaic (e.g., Image‘living’ [referring to God]; Image ‘living’ [referring to humans]) (Khan 2018, 342–47).

  • 35 But note the exceptional case of the dagesh in (...)
  • 36 There are a few forms with non-Tiberian gemination attested in the transcriptions which one might s (...)

89Dagesh mavḥin seems primarily to be a feature of the reading tradition.35 This claim is underscored by the high frequency of dagesh mavḥin in Babylonian as opposed to Tiberian. One might thus object to positing dagesh mavḥin as the reason for gemination in the wayyiqṭol form on the grounds that it may not yet have been a productive feature of the language in the Second Temple period. Such an objection naturally leads to the following question: Is there any evidence for dagesh mavḥin in the ancient transcriptions? Unfortunately, the number of forms in the transcriptions in which the presence or absence of gemination would be relevant for assessing the potential existence of dagesh mavḥin are few.36 They are presented below (Table 38):

Table 38: Possible instances of dagesh mavḥin in the transcriptions

Image

  • 37 Moreover, its specific referent in 2 Kgs 23.7 is to some sort of cultic ‘hangings’ and not the conv (...)

If Image is indeed an example of dagesh mavḥin, the transcriptions αννα and anna would suggest that the phenomenon was already present in late antiquity. The form Image, on the other hand, was likely geminated even in pre-Hebrew. Accordingly, its gemination (βεθθιειμ) in the Secunda is of little significance.37

Another relevant piece of evidence may be found in Jerome’s discussion regarding the words Image ‘in/by what…? ’ and Image ‘high place’ in his comments on Isa. 2.22. Although the distinction between Image and Image is not typically regarded as an example of dagesh mavḥin—nor should it be—the way in which Jerome discusses the issue seems to indicate that such a concept was not unfamiliar to him (bolded emphasis mine):

  • 38 Ubi nos diximus excelsus reputatus est ipse, Aquila interpretatus est ≪in quo reputatus est iste?≫. (...)

What we have rendered as, he is regarded as exalted, Aquila has interpreted as ≪in what is he regarded?≫. The Hebrew word bama means either υψωμα, that is, ‘high place’, about which we read in the Books of Kings and Ezekiel, or indeed ≪in what?≫ and it is written with the same letters: beth mem he. [The correct reading is determined] according to the nature of the passage. If we want to read ≪in what?≫, we say bamma, but if we [want to read] ≪high place≫ or ≪exalted one≫, we read bama.38

It is worth noting that Jerome discusses the words Image and Image not as two separate words, but as one word with two distinct meanings and pronunciations according to the context: ‘the Hebrew word bama means either ‘high place’… or ‘in what? ’… and it is written with the same letters: beth mem he’. At the same time, however, we should not read too much significance into this passage, since it is entirely possible that Jerome’s comments simply reflect a conception of words based on the consonantal spelling rather than lexical identity or vocalisation.

6.2.3. Ancient Conception of Wayyiqṭol Forms

90The final piece in the puzzle for explaining the gemination in wayyiqṭol as dagesh mavḥin concerns the conception of the form in late antiquity: How did users of Hebrew conceive of wayyiqṭol with respect to its morphological elements? One of the essential characteristics of dagesh mavḥin is that it is introduced into one of two homophonous forms that would otherwise not be distinguished, whether because two distinct lexemes are pronounced identically or because one individual lexeme is polysemous. In this case, we are arguing that when preceded by the conjunction waw, yiqṭol was polysemous with past and non-past meanings. The gemination is not ultimately responsible for the past tense meaning, but serves merely to mark one of the two meanings already intrinsic in the yiqṭol form (in a particular syntactic slot). There are other scholars, however, who argue that the gemination does indeed bear an intrinsic morphemic value, which in combination with the preceding conjunction serves to convey past semantics. What is at stake here between the two views is the question of which morphological element of the form would have been regarded as being responsible for the past meaning. Is the past tense to be found in the gemination (in combination with the conjunction) or is it to be found in the yiqṭol form itself? Presumably, only the latter would be consistent with the explanation of dagesh mavḥin.

91Remarkably, we find relatively consistent evidence for addressing such a question in the writings of Jerome, who happens to be the figure from late antiquity about whose Hebrew learning we know the most. If we survey every instance in which Jerome mentions a wayyiqṭol form in his writings, we find a curious and consistent pattern. When Jerome quotes a full verse or passage in which a wayyiqṭol form appears in context, it is vocalised as we would expect with the preceding conjunction ua- (Table 39). When he quotes a wayyiqṭol form out of context to address the correct translation of the word, however, the verbal element yiqṭol is transcribed by itself without the prefixed conjunction waw (Table 40) (bolded emphasis mine):

Table 39: Wayyiqṭol in context

Image

  • 39 antequam de quaestione dicamus, rectum uidetur, ut editiones interpretum singulorum cum ipso hebrai (...)
  • 40 uerum quia amanter interrogas et uniuersa, quae didici, fidis auribus instillanda sunt, ponam et he (...)

Note39 40

92In each instance above, the wayyiqṭol form, which is transcribed with the prefixed conjunction ua-, is included within a larger context of a full biblical quotation. This reflects how the passage would have been read or recited. The situation is different when wayyiqṭol forms are quoted as isolated transcriptions not within a larger context:

Table 40: Wayyiqṭol out of context

Image

  • 41 in eo autem loco, ubi scriptum est ut conciperent in uirgis, et in hebraeo habet iaamena, uim uerbi (...)
  • 42 et pro eo quod nos diximus: cecidit super me manus domini, symmachus transtulit: incidit mihi manus (...)
  • 43 LXX: … et ascendit in eam… et uel: descendit in eam, ut proprie continetur in hebraico - iered enim (...)

Note41,42 43

93In each of these three cases, the wayyiqṭol form, transcribed without the prefixed conjunction ua-, is quoted as an isolated transcription apart from the wider context of the verse. Moreover, in two of the three instances in which Jerome quotes a wayyiqṭol form by itself (Ezek. 8.1 and Jonah 1.3), the wayyiqṭol forms are explicitly rendered into Latin with the perfect tense, which indicates past perfective action. Especially instructive on this point are Jerome’s comments on Jonah, in which the individual word iered is explicitly translated as descendit ‘he went down’.

94The singular exception to this rule occurs when Jerome quotes the titles of the books of Leviticus and Numbers, which also happen to be wayyiqṭol forms (Table 41):

Table 41: Wayyiqṭol in titles

Image

  • 44 primus apud eos liber uocatur bresith, quem nos genesim dicimus; secundus hellesmoth, qui exodus ap (...)
  • 45 scriptum est in ultima parte uoluminis numerorum, quod apud hebraeos appellatur ‘uaiedabber’ (Epist (...)

Note44,45

95This is hardly an exception, since titles often become frozen forms, and, much like proper names, are not given to separation into morphological elements.

96All of this evidence cuts against the idea that something inherent in the conjunction waw or the following gemination was what conveyed past semantics in the wayyiqṭol form. For Jerome and/or his Jewish informants, it seems that the yiqṭol verbal element itself was regarded as a polysemous form capable of carrying past semantics by itself, apart from the conjunction waw and following gemination, at least when occurring in the syntactic position under discussion. This is what we would expect if the gemination was introduced as a marker of one specific meaning of a polysemous form rather than as a past-orienting morpheme in itself. The conjunction waw and preceding gemination were not, at least conceptually, inherently connected to the past semantics of the form as late as the early Byzantine period. Thus, the conception of the form in late antiquity supports the theory that the gemination is the result of a dagesh mavḥin and not the addition of an independent morpheme.

6.2.4. Conclusions: Summary of Developments

97When attempting to draw solid conclusions from the evidence of the transcriptions, it must always be kept in mind that ancient Israel has been home to many different Hebrew dialects and reading traditions throughout the centuries. The Hebrew traditions reflected in the Secunda and Jerome’s writings are not necessarily precursors to any of the medieval Hebrew reading traditions, but may have actually existed side-by-side with their precursors. Nevertheless, the transcriptional evidence examined in this paper is sufficient for making a number of general claims about the historical development of the wayyiqṭol form.

98In the Second Temple period, *yiqṭol in phrase-initial position immediately following the conjunction waw was a polysemous form, capable of indicating either past or jussive meanings. As the verbal system began to reconfigure during the Second Temple period, it gradually became less and less natural for Hebrew speakers to recognise *w-yiqṭol as a preterite form, interpreting it more naturally as a non-preterite form instead. In order to distinguish and preserve the preterite meaning of the polysemous *w-yiqṭol form, the conjunction waw gradually came to be pronounced distinctly, being vocalised with a full vowel and following gemination. We have suggested that the introduction of gemination into this form was a product of the reading tradition rather than the living language; it should be compared to the phenomenon of dagesh mavḥin attested in both Tiberian and Babylonian Hebrew.

99From a diachronic perspective, three key pieces of evidence help to triangulate the absolute chronology of these developments. First, in the Hebrew tradition of the Samaritans, who split off from the rest of Judaism between the fourth and second centuries BCE, there is no distinction in pronunciation between the conjunction waw in preterite *w-yiqṭol and non-preterite *w-yiqṭol. Second, the evidence from the Secunda (ca. first–third c. CE) indicates that the introduction of the full vowel and gemination was underway, but still not universal in the mid- to late Roman period. Third, and finally, the transcriptions of Jerome (fourth/fifth c. CE) reflect the general standardisation of a distinct pronunciation of the conjunction waw before a preterite yiqṭol form by the early Byzantine period. These developments may be summarised in the following chart (Table 42):

Table 42: Development of waw + preterite yiqṭol and waw + jussive yiqṭol

Image

6.2.5. Conclusions: History and Development of the Reading Traditions

100This study has a number of important ramifications for our understanding of the development of the Biblical Hebrew reading traditions in late antiquity, with respect to both the historical depth of ‘reading-tradition’ features and the relationship between the diverse traditions of antiquity.

101There has been a tendency in Hebrew scholarship to associate linguistic innovation of the ancient period with the living language, on the one hand, and linguistic innovation of the medieval period with the reading tradition, on the other. In reality, this is not necessarily the case. Our findings have demonstrated that a particular morphophonological innovation’s development within the reading tradition should not necessarily be attributed to the medieval Masoretes. Rather, the data from the transcriptions show that certain developments of the reading tradition may be as old as the Second Temple period. Naturally, this implies that there were different communities transmitting different reading traditions already in the Second Temple period. Such transmission, of course, continued into the Middle Ages. In fact, the regularity of the dagesh in wayyiqṭol forms in both Tiberian and Babylonian points to a common origin in Second Temple period Palestine. It may very well be, then, that already at the time of the Secunda there existed a more careful and authoritative reading tradition in which gemination had already come to be regular in the wayyiqṭol forms.

102The linguistic division between the Jewish reading traditions (Tiberian, Babylonian, Palestinian) and the Samaritan reading tradition with respect to the treatment of the wayyiqṭol form has been evident from the medieval and modern vocalisation data. What this study has done, however, is demonstrate that this linguistic division already existed in the mid- to late Second Temple period. It is probably not the case that the development of wayyiqṭol is an isolated feature. Rather, it is most plausible that Samaritan Hebrew had split from Jewish Hebrew by this time as well. Also, because the presence of gemination in the wayyiqṭol form was an innovation of the reading tradition and not a natural development of the living language, the uniformity of the Jewish traditions with respect to this feature might suggest that they have a common ancestor reading tradition, or, alternatively, perhaps merely a common ancestral complex of general ‘reading-tradition’ features. It may be that certain such ‘reading-tradition’ features emanated from one particular tradition regarded as authoritative and influenced the others, but this is impossible to tell. The chronological and geographical relationship of such a hypothesised ancestor Jewish reading tradition both to the Hebrew traditions reflected in the ancient transcriptions and to the precursors of the medieval traditions is an intriguing area of research with much fertile ground still to be cultivated. The present study has managed to tend to just a small corner of this field.

103In sum, this study has analysed the development of only one morphophonological feature in the reading traditions of late antiquity. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that the ancient transcriptions reflect an image, albeit a faint one, of the period in which many of the ‘reading-tradition’ features that come to be relatively standardised in the medieval traditions were still developing.

Bibliographie

7.0. References

Adriaen, M. 1969–1970. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera Exegetica 6: Commentarii in Prophetas Minores. 2 volumes. Turnhout: Brepols.

Andrason, Alexander. 2011. ‘Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqṭol: A Dynamic Definition’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (8): 1– 58.

Audet, Jean-Paul. 1950. ‘A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription’. The Journal of Theological Studies 1 (2): 135–54.

Baranowski, Krzysztof J. 2016. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqṭol and the Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Canaan’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 16 (3): 1–18.

Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns.

Blau, Joshua. 1984. ‘Review: ספר חדש על הטור השני במשושה של אוריגנס’. Leshonenu 48–49: 76–80.

Brenner, J. 1986. ‘Egyptian Elucidation of the Hebrew Particle WA’. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

Brønno, Einar. 1943. Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der Mercatischen Fragmente der Zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origenes. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 28. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.

Eskhult, Mats. 2018. ‘Tense Forms and Time Frames in Qumran Hebrew Prose and Poetry’. In The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period, edited by Jan Joosten, Daniel Machiela, and Jean-Sébastien Rey, 16–29. Leiden: Brill.

Florentin, Moshe. 1996. ‘:עיונים בתורת הצורות של עברית השומרונים בידולים סמנטיים באמצעים מורפולוגיים’. Lešonénu 59: 217-41.

——. 2016. ‘Samaritan Tradition’. In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, edited by Randall W. Garr and Steven E. Fassberg, 1: 117–32. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Glorie, François. 1964. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera Exegetica 4: Commentariorum in Hiezechielem: Libri XIV. Turnhout: Brepols.

Goodblatt, David. 1982. ‘Audet’s “Hebrew-Aramaic” List of Books of the OT Revisited’. Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1): 75–84.

Gordon, Cyrus H. 1957. ‘Egypto-Semitica’. RSO 32 (= Scritti in Onore di Giuseppe Furlani) 269–77.

Gryson, Roger. 1993–1999. Commentaires De Jerome Sur Le Prophete Isaie. 5 volumes. Freiburg: Herder.

Hatav, Galia. 2004. ‘Anchoring world and time in biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Linguistics 40: 491–526.

Hetzron, Robert. 1969. ‘The evidence for perfect *Y’AQTUL and jussive *YAQT’UL in Proto-Semitic’. Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 1–21.

Hayward, C. T. R. 1995. Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Oxford: Clarendon.

Hilberg, Isidorus. 1910–1918. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. 3 volumes. Vindobonae; Lipsiae: Tempsky.

Huehnergard, John. 2005. ‘Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule’. In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff (Babel und Bibel 2), edited by L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko, 459–74. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Janda, Richard D., and Brian D. Joseph. 2003. ‘Reconsidering the Canons of Sound-Change: Towards a “Big Bang” Theory’. In Historical Linguistics 2001. Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 13–17 August 2001, edited by Barry Blake and Kate Burridge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Janssens, Gerard. 1982. Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics Based on Origen’s Secunda. Orientalia Gandensia 9. Leuven: Peeters.

Jepsen, A. 1959. ‘Zur Kanongeschichte des Alten Testaments’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 71: 114–36.

Joüon, P., and T. Muraoka. 2009. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press.

Kantor, Benjamin. 2017. ‘The Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla in Light of Greek Pronunciation’. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.

Kartveit, Magnar. 2009. The Origin of the Samaritans. Leiden: Brill.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1991. ‘Morphological Markers of Individuation in Semitic Languages and Their Function in the Semitic Tense System’. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress: Band 2, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, Semitic, edited by Hans G. Mukarovsky, 235–44. Vienna: Afro-Pub.

——. 2013. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition. 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

——. 2018. ‘How was the dageš in Biblical Hebrew בָּחִּים Pronounced and Why is it There?’ Journal of Semitic Studies 43 (2): 323–51.

de Lagarde, Paul, Germain Morin, and Marcus Adriaen. 1959. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera Exegetica 1: Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos; Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum; Commentarioli in Psalmos; Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Turnhout: Brepols.

Lambdin, Thomas O. 1971. ‘The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article’. In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, edited by Hans Goedicke, 315–33. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Loprieno, Antonio. 1980. ‘The Sequential Forms in Late Egyptian and Biblical Hebrew’. Afroasiatic Linguistics 7 (5): 1–20.

Maag, V. 1953. ‘Morphologie des hebräischen Narratives’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 65: 86–88.

Margolis, Max L. 1909. ‘The Pronunciation of the Shewa according to New Hexaplaric Material’. American Journal of Semitic Languages 26: 62–70.

Mercati, Giovanni. 1958. Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae. Vatican: Bybliotheca Vaticana.

——. 1965. Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae, Osservazioni: Commento Critico Al Testo Dei Frammenti Esaplari. Vatican City: Bybliotheca Vaticana.

Pat-El, Na‘ama. 2009. ‘The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic Approach’. Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (1): 19–50.

Pummer, Reinhard. 2012. Review of The Origin of the Samaritans, by Magnar Kartveit. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12: 592– 99.

Rendsburg, Gary. 1981. ‘Evidence for a Spoken Hebrew in Biblical Times’. PhD dissertation, New York University.

——. 1993. Review of The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran, by Mark S. Smith. Hebrew Studies 34: 202–6.

Revell, E. J. 1984. ‘Stress and the Waw “Consecutive” in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 437– 44.

Smith, Mark S. 1991. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Suchard, Benjamin. 2019. ‘Back to the Future: Reconsidering the Morphology of the Biblical Hebrew Consecutive Perfect (wqāṭaltī́)’. Paper presented at the Conference on Hebrew Language and Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, July 8–10 2019.

Steiner, Richard C. 2005. ‘On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ > Ḥ and *Ġ > ˁ) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith)’. Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2): 229–67.

——. 2007. ‘Variation, Simplifying Assumptions, and the History of Spirantization in Aramaic and Hebrew’. In Shaarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, edited by Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer, 52–65. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

Torrey, Charles C. 1952. ‘Ein griechisch transkribiertes und interpretiertes hebräisch-aramäisches Verzeichnis der Bücher des Alten Testaments aus dem 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr’. The-ologische Literaturzeitung 77 (4): 249–54.

Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson. 2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Yeivin, Israel. 1985.מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי. Je rusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Young, Douglas W. 1953. ‘The Origin of the Waw Conversive’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (4): 248–52.

Yuditsky, Alexey. 2005. ‘התנועות החטופות בתעתיקי הטור השני של המשושה’. Lešonénu 67: 121–41.

——. 2017. דקדוק העברית של תעתיקי אוריגנס. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Ziegler, J. 1983. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Notes

1 For an introduction to the issues, see Smith (1991, 1–15).

2 This identity applies only to strong roots. Note that a number of weak roots (e.g., II-w/y, III-w/y) and the hifʿil stem still exhibit two distinct forms, one ‘long’ (< *yaqṭulu) and one ‘short’ (< *yaqṭul).

3 For a comprehensive treatment, see Smith (1991).

4 In the 1cs form, we find a qameṣ and singleton consonant instead of pataḥ and gemination due to compensatory lengthening, e.g., Image‘and I wrote’ (Jer. 32.10).

5 Though they discuss the morphological nature of the full vowel and gemination, I have intentionally left off synchronic interpretations of the wayyiqṭol form, such as Hatav’s (2004), due to the fact that they do not approach the problem from a historical perspective.

6 For a comprehensive review, see Smith (1991, 1–15); Andrason (2011, 37–38).

7 Note that short/preterite yiqṭol forms in poetry not following the conjunction waw are never preceded by any distinct morpheme, such as *-n-, *hVn, or *haway, in order to mark them as past.

8 Pat-El (2009) has argued persuasively that the definite article is to be derived from the deictic particle *han and that the following gemination is the result of the assimilation of the final /n/ of *han.

9 In the twentieth century, virtually every Secunda scholar took it for granted that ‘shewa’ was a reality in the transcriptions, some suggesting that it was realised as [ĕ] (Brønno 1943, 327, 329, 333; Janssens 1982, 89–110), others as [æ] (Blau 1984), and still others that its quality was unstable (Margolis 1909). Only recently was it suggested that there is no ‘shewa’ in the Secunda at all, but only the preservation of etymological short vowels, even if they were occasionally realised with extremely short durations (Yuditsky 2005). I argued recently that inconsistencies in previous scholarship may be reconciled if we make a distinction between mid-central shewa (i.e., phonetic [ə]) and variable shewa (i.e., a qualitatively indistinct vowel that assimilates to its environment), on the one hand, and between acoustic reduction (i.e., centralisation of vowels when pronounced with short duration far from the stress) and lexical reduction (i.e., the quality of a reduced vowel merging with that of a phonemic vowel), on the other. I argued for three general principles regarding shewa in the Secunda: (1) a reduced centralised vowel (i.e., vocalic shewa) was generally realised as [ə] or [ɛ]; (2) assimilatory tendencies in vocalic shewa point towards a variable realisation in certain contexts; and (3) the preservation of historical /a/ in ‘shewa-vowel’ slots demonstrates that the Secunda transcriptions provide a ‘snapshot’ during the transition from acoustic reduction to lexical reduction (Kantor 2017, 315–26).

10 In light of contemporary Greek pronunciation, the digraph ου likely indicates that the conjunction waw was realised phonetically as [(ʔ) u (ː)], even though its phonemic realisation was probably consonantal /w-/. Such a phonemic and phonetic realisation has parallels in modern dialects of Arabic and Aramaic (Kantor 2017, 228–32, 346–50).

11 Instances of a vowel after the conjunction waw when it precedes yiqṭol verbal forms are not included.

12 As to why ουδαρηεμ ְ׀ Image ‘and after them’ (Ps. 49.14), which should be emended to *ουααρηεμ, is likely not an exception, see (Kantor 2017, 347).

13 For slightly different views, note how Yuditsky (2017, 36–44) generally accepts at face value the Secunda transcriptions’ representation of gemination or lack thereof, whereas Kantor (2017, 237–48) argues that cross-linguistic speech perception may be a significant factor in inaccurate representations. Nevertheless, Kantor still acknowledges that the representation of gemination and lack thereof is generally reliable, even if not infallible.

14 See also Yuditsky (2017, 233). Yuditksy does not, however, include all the attestations cited here. Moreover, he includes examples that are not from the Hexapla’s second column.

15 Aquila never translates with a past tense, Symmachus renders only Ps. 18.38 and Ps. 18.43 as past, the LXX renders only Ps. 18.46 as past, and the Quinta renders only Ps. 18.46 as past.

16 This has parallels in the distribution and realisation of the conjunction waw /w-/ as [u-] and [w-] in Syrian Arabic (Kantor 2017, 347–48).

17 There are, however, a few examples in which a does not correspond to the historical vowel (e.g., zanunim ְזנוּנִים [< *zunūnīm/*zinūnīm]).

18 The singular exception to these rules is uaresImage ‘and earth’ (Gen. 14.19). According to rule (2), we might expect this word to be transcribed as **uaares. However, it is also possible that the singular a grapheme could represent a long vowel with elision of the guttural.

19 See Kantor (2017, 38–47).

20 For more on this list and its various attestations, see Audet (1950); Torrey (1952); Jepsen (1959); Goodblatt (1982).

21 According to Janda and Joseph (2003), sound changes first occur in a “highly localized context” and then subsequently spread.

22 Though not mentioned by Loprieno, one might compare the Persian loanword Image ‘his palace’ (Dan. 11.45). Though the /p/ in the original Persian word apadâna is singleton and not geminate, it seems that the only way the Tiberian tradition could accurately reflect the [p] sound after a vowel was by marking the consonant with a dagesh. In this case, then, gemination serves to accurately reproduce an ‘inherited’ form that would not otherwise conform to Tiberian Hebrew phonotactics.

23 The theory that the gemination in the wayyiqṭol form is a dagesh mavḥin was originally suggested almost three decades ago by Khan (1991, 241; 2013, 43).

24 Personal communication with Aaron Hornkohl. For more on the development of the sequential forms in Qumran Hebrew, see Eskhult (2018).

25 The claim that phonetic features such as gemination could be introduced—apart from their being associated with any particular morpheme—solely for the purpose of distinguishing homophonous forms may seem difficult to accept. It is worth noting, however, that the advancement of the stress to the ultima in the other sequential tense likely reflects just such a phenomenon, e.g., Image [kʰɔːˈθaːavtʰiː] ‘I wrote’ (Exod. 24.12), but cf.Image [vaχɔːθavˈtʰiː] ‘and I will write’ (Exod. 34.1) (Revell 1984; but cf. Suchard [2019], who sees the advancement of stress in such forms as the result of sound change). The alternative, that some unidentifiable morpheme with inherent past tense semantics was introduced into the *w-yiqṭol form to indicate past tense at a late stage of development, seems far less likely.

26 For background regarding the establishment of the Samaritan community and the origins of their version of the Pentateuch, see Kartveit (2009); Pummer (2012).

27 According to Steiner (2005; 2007), the secondary fricative articulations of the bgdkpt consonants in Hebrew did not develop all at once. Spirantisation, which was likely due to the influence of Aramaic, first affected the labial stops /b/, /p/ and dental stops /d/, /t/. Only later, after the uvular fricatives /ġ/ and /ḫ/ had merged with the pharyngeal fricatives /ʕ/ and /ḥ/, were the velar stops /g/ and /k/ also spirantised. Steiner dates the loss of /ḫ/ to the first century BCE and the loss of /ġ/ much earlier. Therefore, the fact that Samaritan Hebrew does not have fricative realisations of the velar stops, but does have fricative realisations of the labial and dental stops, probably indicates that it had already split off from Jewish Hebrew by this time. Alternatively, it could have split off much earlier.

28 For a full discussion of this phenomenon, see Florentin (1996, 218– 21; 2016, 126–27); Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 108–9, 170–73).

29 E.g., Image‘not his own’ (Prov. 26.17).

30 E.g., Image ‘please forgive your brothers’ transgression! ’ (Gen. 50.17); Image ‘where did the people go?’ (Josh. 2.5).

31 E.g., Image ‘and the priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God’ (Deut. 26.4); Image ‘and now, the Lord your God has given rest to your brothers’ (Josh. 22.4).

32 E.g., Image ‘and there was a man there… the chief of Saul’s shepherds’ (1 Sam. 21.8); Image ‘which he swore to the Lord, vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob’ (Ps. 132.2).

33 E.g., Image ‘and they served their idols’ (Ps. 106.36); ImageImage ‘bread of toil’ (Ps. 127.2).

34 E.g., Image ‘and her adversary angered her exceedingly in order to vex her’ (1 Sam. 1.6); Image ‘the God of glory thundered’ (Ps. 29.3).

35 But note the exceptional case of the dagesh in Image which pre-dates Hebrew (Khan 2018).

36 There are a few forms with non-Tiberian gemination attested in the transcriptions which one might speculatively suggest are relevant for the discussion on dagesh mavḥin: ουαλλα Image‘and upon it (fs)’ (Ps. 7.8) (to distinguish from Image‘and he will go up’?); χαφφειρ Image‘frost’ (Ps. 147.16) (to distinguish from Image ‘lion’?); assurim ‘bands’ Image (Eccl. 7.26) (to distinguish from Image ‘those bound; prisoners’?). However, the lack of supplementary evidence makes such a hypothesis entirely speculative.

37 Moreover, its specific referent in 2 Kgs 23.7 is to some sort of cultic ‘hangings’ and not the conventional ‘houses’. In light of its contextual meaning, the unexpected initial vowel (ε instead of α) and the unexpected bisyllabic plural ending (-ιειμ) may point to a different lexeme entirelyImage

38 Ubi nos diximus excelsus reputatus est ipse, Aquila interpretatus est ≪in quo reputatus est iste?≫. Verbum hebraicum bama uel υψωμα dicitur, id est excelsum, quod et in Regnorum libris et in Hiezechihel legimus, uel certe ≪in quo≫, et eisdem litteris scribitur beth mem he, ac pro locorum qualitate, si uoluerimus legere ≪in quo≫, dicimus bamma, sin autem ≪excelsum≫ uel ≪excelsus≫, legimus bama (In Isaiam, I.66.1–2).

39 antequam de quaestione dicamus, rectum uidetur, ut editiones interpretum singulorum cum ipso hebraico digeramus, quod facilius sensus scripturae possit intellegi: uaiomer lo adonai lachen chol orec cain sobathaim ioccamo (Epistula XXXVI, 54.269.19–22).

40 uerum quia amanter interrogas et uniuersa, quae didici, fidis auribus instillanda sunt, ponam et hebraeorum opinionem et, ne quid desit curiositati, ipsa hebraica uerba subnectam: umelchisedech melech salem hosi lehem uaiain, uhu cohen lehel helion: uaibarcheu uaiomer baruch abram lehel helion cone samaim uares: ubaruch hel helion eser maggen sarach biadach uaiethen lo maaser mecchol (Epistula LXXIII, 55.18.3–10).

41 in eo autem loco, ubi scriptum est ut conciperent in uirgis, et in hebraeo habet iaamena, uim uerbi hebraici nisi circuitu exprimere non possum. iaamena enim proprie dicitur extremus in coitu calor, quo corpus omne concutitur et patranti uoluptatem uicinus est finis (Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libro Geneseos, 49.22–26) (translation in consultation with Hayward 1995, 68).

42 et pro eo quod nos diximus: cecidit super me manus domini, symmachus transtulit: incidit mihi manus domini, quod in hebraico dicitur ‘thephphol’ (Commentarii in Ezechielem, III.8.1).

43 LXX: … et ascendit in eam… et uel: descendit in eam, ut proprie continetur in hebraico - iered enim descendit dicitur, ut fugitiuus sollicite latebras quaereret -, uel ascendit, ut scriptum est in editione uulgata; ut quocumque nauis pergeret, perueniret, euasisse se putans, si iudaeam relinqueret (Commentarii in prophetas minores, In Jonam, 1.106).

44 primus apud eos liber uocatur bresith, quem nos genesim dicimus; secundus hellesmoth, qui exodus appellatur; tertius uaiecra, id est leuiticus; quartus uaiedabber, quem numeros uocamus; quintus adda-barim, qui deuteronomium praenotatur (Prologus in libro Regum [Weber 2007]).

45 scriptum est in ultima parte uoluminis numerorum, quod apud hebraeos appellatur ‘uaiedabber’ (Epistula LXXVIII, 55.51).

Auteur

(PhD, University of Texas, 2017) is a postdoctoral researcher in Biblical Hebrew philology at the University of Cambridge. His PhD is in Hebrew Bible, with a dissertation on ‘The Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla in Light of Greek Pronunciation’. This was completed after receiving his BA in Classical Studies with an emphasis in Greek from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2012. He specializes in the historical phonology of Hebrew and Greek in Late Antiquity.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search