Lamentations 1-5: The Corpus Introduction · 2009. 6. 29. · Lamentations 1-5: The Corpus Introduction The Tiberian tradition does not provide unmediated access to the text it transmits

Lamentations 1-5: The Corpus Introduction

The Tiberian tradition does not provide unmediated access to the text it transmits. MT

Lam 1-5, it is safe to assume, now contains a number of errors of the kind that accumulate in texts copied by hand. The orthographic consistencies reflected in MT are datable to the 4th cent. BCE at the earliest. They differ in systematic ways from the orthographic consistencies of the corpus of ancient Hebrew inscriptions (8th-6th cent. BCE). The received orthography reflects an interpretation of earlier orthographic instantiations of the text, the ambiguities of which in all probability were not always rightly disambiguated. The pronunciation and stress rules of Tiberian Biblical Hebrew (TBH) do not align with the pronunciation and stress rules of ancient Hebrew as known to us from a variety of sources. Because the Hebrew language evolved, the original sound orchestration of the poetry of Lam 1-5 is obscured in TBH. Finally, the prosody of MT Lam 1-5 and that of the underlying text of Lam 1-5 do not align except at an inchoate level. For all of these reasons, MT is an imperfect reflection of the text that once was.

The ideal basis for a study of Lam 1-5 insofar as it represents a corpus of ancient Hebrew literature would be a reconstruction of the text, orthography, pronunciation, and prosody one would expect it to have had at the time of composition. A reconstruction along these lines requires making decisions and testing hypotheses in a number of fields of inquiry: prosodic theory, the history of orthographic conventions, the history of phonology, and text criticism. A reconstruction of the text, orthography, pronunciation, and prosody of Lam 1-5 is offered below.1

The text-critical and prosodic reconstruction of Lam 1-5 offered here is not different in kind from that found in Hillers, BHS, BHQ, or the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh.2 An orthographic and phonological reconstruction of Lam 1-5, on the other hand, has not been offered before. As argued in the body of this essay, retroversion to the orthography and phonology the text would have had in origin is integral to proper text-critical methodology, a prerequisite to serious study of the text as Hebrew literature belonging to a specific time and place. Among other things, phonological reconstruction enables the critic to tend the ear for potential textual error resulting from aural misapprehension. Insufficient allowance is made for aural error by a majority of text critics.3

1 Text critical characterizations and related sigla are modeled on those of BHQ. A list of abbreviations and

expanded source references are provided below. Fuller discussions and more ample citation of ancient witnesses are found in BHQ, CTAT, and Bertil Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text (Studia Theologica Lundensia 21: Lund: Gleerup, 1963).

2 Delbert R. Hillers, Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2d rev. ed., AB 7A; New York: Doubleday, 1992; Wilhelm Rudolph, “Threni איכה,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] (ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph; 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1997 [11967-77]) 1354-67; Rolf Schäfer, “Lamentations איכה,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta [BHQ], Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megillot (ed. Adrian Schenker; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004); JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999) 1749-64. The appearance of OHB Lamentations, to be edited by F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp and Eunny Lee, is eagerly awaited.

3 For an attempt to address the issue, see David Toshio Tsumura, “Scribal Errors or Phonetic Spellings? Samuel as an Aural Text,” VT 49 (1999) 390-411.

2

To be sure, many will dismiss out of hand the task of phonological reconstruction of pre-Tiberian Hebrew. In the same way, the vocalization of Ugaritic offered by Pardee and others is often greeted with suspicion. Pardee provides a spirited defense of the work of phonological reconstruction.4 His arguments, which will not be repeated here, have never been rebutted. They apply no less to the work undertaken here.

Even those who recognize the value of phonological reconstruction are likely to be bewildered by a presentation of Lam 1-5 in reconstructed phonological dress. On grounds of familiarity alone, the MT as found in BHS, BHQ, or the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, reformatted against the neumes as the prosody of the underlying text seems to require, with proposed changes to textual content in an apparatus rather than in the text itself, will remain the text of choice for a majority of its students. But revised editions of MT like the aforementioned three mislead the incautious user. They set aside the prosody of MT on numerous occasions, but do not make a note of it when they do, and provide no information as to why MT’s prosody is sometimes followed and sometimes set aside. They tempt the naïve reader into taking Tiberian phonology at face value, as if it represented the sounds of the text in the 6th cent. BCE, whereas what we know for sure is that it represents the sounds of the text in a reading tradition of the 8th-10th cent. CE.

A reproduction of MT’s orthography, vowels, consonantal diacritics,5 cantillation marks, and other prosodic signals, with departures from MT’s prosody marked as such in the text, would represent an advance over revised editions of MT currently in use. A prosodic workup of TBH Lam 1-5 along these lines is offered below.

MT and reconstructed Lam 1-5 are presented below in congruent configurations. The differences one will find by reading a line of reconstructed text and comparing it with MT have their justification, in terms of prosody, in the body of this essay; in terms of orthography and phonology, in the observations below; in terms of text, in the apparatus.

In the work of text-criticism below, matters of orthography, phonology, and prosody receive more than the usual attention. P. Kyle McCarter’s text-critical methodology is otherwise followed. According to him, it is wrong to assume that textual criticism is unnecessary when the meaning of MT is clear. Semantically unobjectionable readings are not necessarily original. Conversely, it is wrong to assume that when MT seems awkward or corrupt, it should nonetheless be accepted. Objectionable readings are not necessarily original. The basic principle of text criticism is another: “Which reading is more likely to have given rise to the other(s)?”6 This principle, rather than reliance on the alleged superiority of MT vis-à-vis attested or conceivable alternatives, is the basis for sound textual reconstruction.

An unattested reading which stands a fair chance of having given rise to the attested reading(s) is sometimes reconstructible. Reconstruction of a reading that adequately explains attested readings is to be welcomed. To be sure, a hypothetical text is and should be cause for concern. But MT is a hypothesis, too, when retrojected to a time frame for which textual witnesses are lacking. In the case of Lam, witnesses are lacking for the first

4 Dennis Pardee, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‛nt I and Proverbs 2) (VTSup 39; Leiden: Brill, 1988) 1, n. 3.

5 Per the usual, except for rafe as a marker of spirantized stops and quiescent gutturals. 6 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Guides to Biblical

Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 13-14; 72-75.

3

four hundred years of the text’s presumed existence. All texts are hypothetical within that time frame. Retrojection of MT to that period without remainder is a particularly weak hypothesis.7

Few deny the value of sound text-critical reconstruction. The same judgment should be rendered with respect to the value of prosodic reconstruction. A text’s prosody needs to be understood if the text as an act of communication is the object of study. This is obvious in the case of verse. By definition a versed text is subdivisible into continuously recurring segments of approximately equal length. In the course of transmission, faulty prosodic subdivision, it is safe to assume, sometimes occurred in the mind of copyists. Faulty prosodic subdivision is the result of textual misunderstanding and sets the stage for textual corruption. Conversely, comprehension of a text’s prosodic structure acts as a safeguard of the text’s semantic organization, enabling the interpreter to avoid misinterpretation. The masoretes did very well in preserving through notation a prosodic map of the text as they understood it. If we fail to do so in accordance with our best understanding of the text, we have chosen not to follow in their footsteps. MT is an extraordinary linguistic artifact with a prosody and phonology of unparalleled beauty, but to refrain on those grounds from restoring the beauty one assumes the text had in an earlier life is a non sequitur. MT’s disjunctives and conjunctives are deployed below for the purpose of representing the prosodic structure Lam 1-5 would have had ab initio.

The reconstruction of the orthography and phonology Lam 1-5 once would have had is based on a comparative study of 8th-6th cent. BCE Hebrew inscriptions, cuneiform, Greek and Latin transcriptions of Hebrew words, and the DSS, Secunda, Palestinian, Babylonian, and Tiberian Hebrew traditions. What these data sets tell us about the history of sound change in the Hebrew language is the subject of ongoing debate. One can do little more than formulate testable hypotheses.

The system of seven simple vowels plus schwa of the Tiberian tradition makes phonological distinctions not all of which are phonemic.8 Minimal pairs demonstrate a:i:u:o and a:i:e:o:ai:au contrasts. Examples קטל (noun) : קטיל (adj) : ול :(inf abs) קט יסוס : סוסי : סוסה ;(Gp ptcp) קטול -But ε:e minimal pairs are non .סוסיו : סוסי : סוסו : existent. Also non-existent: å:o and å:a minimal pairs, except when, on independent grounds, it can be shown that å ≠ *o and å ≠ *a, respectively. ε:e and å:a reflect non-phonemic phonological distinctions which occur or do not occur depending on closed/open and stressed/unstressed syllable contrasts. That å:a is a non-phonemic distinction is confirmed by the verb forms that co-occur with qåtål nouns of the same root: G qåtal verb forms are hardly found. Instead, we find G qåtel; D; and/or H. In short, å:a and ε:e are lexically and morphologically unproductive distinctions, i.e., non-phonemic in nature.

7 A few scholars emend far more often than considered prudent here. The reconstructions of Frank Moore

Cross are a case in point (“Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of Lamentation 1:1-22,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman [ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983] 129-55; idem, “The Prosody of Lamentations 1 and the Psalm of Jonah,” in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998] 99-134).

8 In this discussion, Tiberian vowels are represented as follows: i:e:ε:a:å:o:u = א:א:א:א:א:א/ In the .ו/א:וreconstructions below, i:e˘:e:a:a˘:o:u = א:א:א:א:א:א/ .ו/א:ו

4

It is logical to assume on the basis of the evidence just discussed that the Tiberian qualitative non-phonemic å:a and ε:e distinctions evolved from pre-Tiberian quantitative non-phonemic distinctions. In the reconstructions, א = a, א = a˘, א = e, and א = e˘. The o vowel in closed, unstressed syllables, a well-attested non-Tiberian feature reflecting a pre-Tiberian stage of phonological evolution, appears as א.

A five vowel i:e:a:o:u system (plus schwa) is attested in the vocalization of Geniza fragments of Palestinian piyyuṭim studied by Y. Yahalom. The fragments are 8th-9th cent CE, predate vocalized biblical texts for the most part, and do not represent a א / א or א / distinction. Sáenz-Badillos pointed out the importance of this data set for an אunderstanding of the history of the Hebrew language.9

Original i:e:a:o:u vowels reduced to schwa in TBH show up fitfully but systematically with their original coloring in Secunda Hebrew.10 In this regard and others, Secunda Hebrew reflects a less advanced stage of the language than TBH. In pre-TBH, it appears that i:e:a:o:u vowels reduced to schwa in TBH shorten without change in quality in some contexts, and share in the quality of the following vowel in others. A cross-linguistic comparison may be helpful. The word potato has five major realizations in American English: (1) hypercorrect poteItoU; (2) careful poteItoU; (3) unmarked pɘteItoU; (4) casual pteItoU; and (5) substandard pɘteItɘ. In my view, pretonic shortened vowels in Lam 1-5 in origin would have been pronounced like the initial vowel in poteItoU. The repertoire of reduced vowels in MT is unsuitable for the purpose of representing the ultrashort vowels to which Secunda Hebrew bears witness. The ḥatephim express a three way א:א:א rather than five way distinction and leave the impression that the quality of the vowels in question are a cross between å and schwa, a and schwa, and ε and schwa, respectively. In the reconstruction, superscript rafe (ב) in conjunction with the five subscript signs which mark the i:e:a:o:u vowels serve to mark ultrashort versions of same; rafe in conjunction with ε serves to mark *e and *a in *qatal and *qetel nouns (further discussion below).

The dagesh is used to express gemination in medial and final positions (marked also in Babylonian Hebrew), not a contrast (non-existent in ancient Hebrew) between spirantized and non-spirantized allophones of the /b/ /g/ /d/ /k/ /p/ /t/ stop sequence.

In Karaite transcriptions of biblical texts in Arabic characters, vowels are long in open unstressed syllables and in stressed syllables, open and closed; they are short in closed unstressed syllables.11 Vowel length is thus not an independent phonological variable, but a function of syllable type and stress. The Karaite transcriptions describe universal tone-lengthening, but in pre-Tiberian Hebrew, the evidence of Secunda Hebrew suggests that

9 Joseph Yahalom, Palestinian Vocalised Piyyut Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Genizah Series 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (tr. John Elwode; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 89.

10A. Juditzky, “Reduced Vowels in the Transcriptions from Hebrew in the Hexapla”, Lešonénu 67 (2005), 121-141, discussed by Shai Heijmans, “The Short Vowels of the Hexapla,” http://hebphil.blogspot.com (2005). In an early treatise on Tiberian pronunciation attributed by some to Moshe Ben Asher, the schwa is described as a set of allophones of the seven vowels (Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [Subsidia biblica 14; Rome:Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991]) 52, n. 6). The theory which requires a univalent interpretation of schwa in Tiberian Hebrew is not supported by ancient witnesses.

11 Geoffrey Khan, “Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 32 (1987) 23-82.

http://hebphil.blogspot.com/

5

vowels were short in stressed, doubly closed syllables. Counterexamples are not available. On the other hand, it is best not to claim, as Janssens does, that e and o are not tone-lengthened in stressed, singly closed syllables. Many counterexamples, in which e = η and not ε, and o = ω and not ο, suggest the contrary.12 In the history of the language, antecedent tone-lengthening coincident with word-final stress was lost as the e, a, and o vowels split in two (e:ε, a:å, and o:å, respectively). Later on, vowels under maximal stress were tone-lengthened again and across the board, as the Karaite transcriptions show. In brief, the six putative proto-Semitic vowel phonemes, short and long a, i, and u, were not completely neutralized in the history of the Hebrew language, but preservation depended on doubly closed/closed/open and stressed/ unstressed contrasts.

A transcription of Lam 1:1-7 incorporating the working hypotheses just outlined will be found below.13 Other aspects of ancient Hebrew phonology are discussed further on.

Statistics regarding syllable counts and other parameters are offered at the bottom of each page of reconstructed text. Cumulative statistics appear at the end of every chapter and following Lam 1-4. The results of a data analysis may be summarized as follows.

The four poems of Lam 1-4 are examples of verse written in what one may refer to as qinah meter. Qinah poetry is dominated by lines with a syncopated second half, where “halves” are defined as the text on either side of the major caesura (in a three verset line, the third or “c” verset constitutes the second half). Length is most easily measured at the prosodic word (ω) level; indeed, a 3:2 line is typical in qinah poetry. But syncopation may be achieved in more subtle ways. Lines with halves of equal length in terms of ω, or a second half longer than the first, usually have a shorter second half in terms of syllables (σ) and/or absolute words (w). “Compensation,” as I will term it, also occurs in reverse, such that lines with halves of equal length or a second half longer than the first in terms of σ often have a shorter second half in terms of ω. Lam 1 contains many compensatable lines; Lam 3 relatively few, an index of style. Lines whose second half is not shorter than the first half in terms of ω or σ are uncommon in qinah meter.

Lam 5 is an example of verse written in mashal meter. Mashal poetry is dominated by lines with halves of approximately equal length, where “halves” are defined as the text on either side of the major caesura as above, and “approximately equal” is defined as plus or minus 3, or in some cases, 2 σ. Versets, furthermore, are characteristically 4 to 8 σ in length. The parameters of mashal meter are more defined than those of common meter. Versets in common meter vary more in absolute (2 to 10 σ) and relative length (plus or minus 6 σ). Isa 40-66, for example, is common meter poetry.

It is not necessary to reference foot (f) counts or w counts in order to define qinah, mashal, or common meter. ω and σ counts are sufficient indicators of phonological length in most cases; rarely, absolute word (w) counts are diagnostic. f counts per verset and line

12 Gerard Janssens, Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics Based on Origen’s Secunda (Orientalia

Gandensia 9; Leuven: Peeters, 1982) 132. Counterexamples include: θηληχ (teqtel *tiqtil), εσμωρ (eqtol), φαλητ (qattel inf abs), ηλ (qel *qil), εκκης (qittel noun), βλωμ (qətol inf constr), βχωρ (*qotol *qutul

*qutl noun). Janssens classifies these as errors, derives them from originally open syllables as if examples like εχαζεβ (aqattel), ερδοφ (yiqtol), μαλλαμεδ (malammed) might not also be so described, or fails to note they contradict his rule.

13 The conventions used in the transcription build on those proposed by Matthew P. Anstey, “Towards a Typological Representation of Tiberian Hebrew,” HS 46 (2005) 71-128.

6

are constrained quantities but within less stringent parameters (2 to 4 per verset and 4 to 7 per line, excluding outliers) than ω counts (2 to 3 per verset and 4 to 7 per line, with no outliers). f and w counts across the components of a line do not with the same regularity exhibit the stylized relative proportions that ω and σ counts do. f and w counts are given below so that the grounds for this conclusion will be easily reviewable.14 W counts are given only when they differ from ω counts; x = “a” verset; y = “b” verset; z = “c” verset. For definitions of ω, f, and σ, see the body of this essay.

Additional Notes on Orthography and Phonology Ancient Hebrew phonology and orthography as understood here was introduced above.

Three additional working hypotheses govern the reconstruction. (1) So-called penultimate stress obtained in the 6th cent. BCE and before both in context and in pause, where MT preserves in pause only. (2) By the 6th cent., to a lesser extent earlier, to a greater extent later, ay and aw diphthongs reduced to ē and ō, respectively, in some words and contexts but not others, with monophthongization more widespread in the case of ay than aw. A parallel process is documented in Aramaic of the same time frame. (3) Final unstressed vowels in ancient Hebrew, as in Old and Imperial Aramaic, went unindicated in more circumstances than usually thought.15

Orthographic standards were not always adhered to in antiquity. Examples of non-adherence provide a window into the world of actual pronunciation. Orthographic variation in the relatively large and varied corpus of Persian period Aramaic documents is enlightening in this regard.16 It is plausible to assume that a text like Lam was written down in accordance with established conventions applicable to the transmission of a high status text. On the continuum of strict versus relaxed adherence to established spelling tradition, one would expect it to locate on the stricter, more conservative side. I reconstruct Lam’s orthography accordingly.

In 8th–6th cent. BCE Hebrew inscriptions, medial ו and י and final י ,ו, and ה stand either for consonants, for consonants that have become vowels, or, in final position from the start and medial position subsequently, for vowels that were such from the beginning. A medial ו or י is an historical spelling if it was no longer pronounced as a consonant at the time of the text’s production. Probable examples from the inscriptions include Hurr. ewir ‘lord’ = Ug. iwr *’ūr in cun. u-ri-ia-a; אוריהו (Arad 31:2; Ophel 1:8) next to Arad 26) אריהו , Ein Gedi 1:1); the former is the historical spelling, the latter, a phonetic

14 For additional specifics on varieties of ancient Hebrew poetry, and an explanation of terms like ‘line’ and ‘verset,’ see the present writer’s “Regularities in Ancient Hebrew Verse: An Overview,” available online at www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com.

15 Assumption (1) is not controversial, even if the prosodic implications of reconstructing ancient Hebrew phonology in accord with it have rarely been explored. Important discussions of the problematic addressed in (2) include W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 35-40, 91-93, 97-99, 101-103, 106-111; Margaretha L. Folmer, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation (OLA 68; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 173-188; Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 26-38; for (3), see Edward M. Cook, “The Orthography of Final Unstressed Long Vowels in Old and Imperial Aramaic,” in Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert (ed. Edward M. Cook; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990 [= Maarav 5-6 (1990)] 53-67.

16 Folmer, Aramaic in the Achaemenid Period, 49-188, 691-705.

http://www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/

7

spelling; *‘āy(i)r (reflected in the rare pl םיעיר and in MH תועיר ) ‘īr in העיר (Arad 24:16-17) and העירה (Lachish 4:7) next to הער (Avigad [1976] 3:1; Barkay [1977] 1:1); the former is a historical spelling, the latter phonetic. Historical spellings and defective spellings exist side by side in the orthography and vocalization of MT. For example, cun. ḫaurānu חורן (ḥawrān Ezek 47:6, 8) ḥōwrōn in םיחורנ (Isa 15:5; Jer 48:5) םרניח (Jer 48:34); contrast *gāwyum Akk. Mari gā(’/w/y)um *gāw(i)y MT גוי with ו in virtually every instance (gōwy; *gāw(i)y in the 6th cent. is possible, but so is gōwy; pl *gawāyīm rather than גוים is unlikely; cf. תומ vs. וימת [Isa 53:9]).

By analogy with its established use for ū in final position, ו is sporadically but increasingly used for medial ū. Examples include ארור (Silwan 2:2) and יהוד] [ (Arad 40:13) beside יהד (cun. ya’ūdu; יהד Kh. Beit Lei [per Avigad], coins and jar handles; יהוד in later texts: Eg. Aram.; coins and jar handles; Bib. Aram.; in my view, yahūdu [nom.]

היהד yahūda [oblique] ;יהוד and יהד Kh. Beit Lei [per Cross] / הדיהו Kh. Beit Lei [per Lemaire] יהודה [accent shift yielding a final ā] DSS; MT.

By analogy with its established use for ī in final position, י is sporadically but increasingly used for medial ī. For example, אש (Siloam 1:2, 4) is replaced by איש (Lachish 3:9-10; Arad 40:7, 8). In Arad 24:14-15, we find (הפקידם=) הבקידם; traces of the earlier spelling without a mater are found in MT (Jer 36:20; 37:21; Gen 39:4; with mater in Josh 10:18; 1 Chr 26:32). Epigraphic ים is a phonetic spelling (yōm), as is קל (qōl), it seems to me, whereas the usual biblical orthography יום and קול reflects later widespread use of ו to mark an ō vowel of whatever origin.

Monophthongization had occurred or was occurring in some words and environments but not others in 8th-6th cent. BCE Judahite Hebrew. The triphthong awa/aya of final י/ו verbs (with a few exceptions) is reduced to a; the ay in the 3 sg sfx to pl nouns ayhuwa (ay+huwa) is also reduced to a, the uwa to u, with syncopation of h. In a few heavily used monosyllabic nouns (yōm, qōl), aw is reduced to ō. It may be conjectured that unstressed ay ē if preposed to syllable(s) with a weight of three morae or more. Thus, in somewhat later Hebrew, we find αιναν (= ןינע ; MT ןינע ), but ηναιμ (= יםינע ). Spelling of the inflected preposition * ןיב in conservative examples of biblical orthography points in the same direction; Persian Period Aramaic attests to the same phenomenon.17 Based on

[ ]ךאל in Arad 3:9 where we would expect אליך (cf. לפניך in Arad 7:6), it seems likely that the stressed plural marker ay also reduced to ē, or was in the process of doing so. Stressed and unstressed aw and stressed ay otherwise, on the other hand, retained, so far as we know, diphthongal force in First Temple Judahite Hebrew. יין would have been pronounced yáy(i)n (incipient anaptyxis), as MT has it: ןיי .

Vowel dissimilation in nominal and verbal forms is more advanced in TBH than in other attestations of ancient Hebrew. The effect of the dissimilation is pleasing to the ear, an application of what phonologists call the Obligatory Contour Principle. The reconstruction reverts to the undissimilated form if such a form, with regard to a particular lexeme, is attested in cuneiform, Greek, or Latin transcriptions, and/or non-Tiberian Hebrew traditions. The following noun formations are in play: *qatlā *qitlā

17 Folmer, Aramaic in the Achaemenid Period, 175-76.

8

qitlå; *maqtāl *miqtāl *miqtål; *qutqōt *qotqōt *qitqāt qitqåt; *qatlōn qitlōn; *qatlān *qitlān qitlån; *qutlā *qåtlå *qitlå; *qutlān *qatlān

qitlån, *qutlōn qitlōn.

The application of Philippi’s law, whereby (*i e ) ε a in a stressed word final syllable closed by a consonant/consonant cluster, plus/minus a following unstressed a, i, o, or u, is frequent but not universal in TBH and Babylonian Hebrew. The reconstruction reverts to pre-Tiberian forms, partially preserved in Secunda Hebrew. It is assumed that word final i lowered to e by the 8th cent. BCE. Thus dibbér as in MT pausal, derived from *dibbír, not MT contextual dibbέr or qittál, as often; bet as in LXX βηθσαβεε (= MT עבבת־ש ), not MT bát. The older phonology is occasionally preserved in MT, as in abs. and constr. leb (alongside constr. lεb), not *lab, and təqattélna, not *təqattálna.

Some qVtl nouns exhibit considerable variation in the quality of the vowel, both synchronically and cross-linguistically. The reconstruction tends to be conservative in such cases, on the hypothesis that analogical sound changes via lexical diffusion in TBH are only one or two steps removed from the situation in 6th cent. Judahite Hebrew, not a full nine yards. Proto-segholates are vocalized with minimal anaptyxis (an ultrashort vowel, not a full vowel, as in TBH). In TBH, the epenthetic vowel in qatl, qitl, and qotl nouns is ε. Vowel harmony in this context, as in Akkadian, is attested in DSS Hebrew for qotl: qotol, and is assumed original. The epenthetic vowels in qatal and qetel (assuming vowel harmony, as in qotol) would have willy nilly been pronounced in near identical fashion. In the reconstruction, both appear as qvtεl. Tone-lengthening is assumed to occur in pause: thus qvtvl in context, qv˘tvl in pause.

The case for the view that unstressed final vowels in conservative orthography went unindicated in a number of contexts is strong. Examples: the spelling ך for the 2 sg sfx, all of which are attested in ,קטלתה alongside קטלת and ,את for the 2 m sg pronoun אתEpigraphic Hebrew (-ka, /átta, qat álta, respectively); a probable example: עת for ÷áta in MT; particularly instructive is the spelling הית for hayáta (Siloam 1:3). Comparable phenomena in Old and Imperial Aramaic are documented.

The 3 m sg pronoun, attested as הא in epigraphic Hebrew, and by analogy, the 3 f sg pronoun, were pronounced hú˘/a and hí˘/a, respectively, based on cun. yahūa for MT

אוהי ‘Jehu.’ The 3 m pl sfx with final unstressed a is attested in DSS Hebrew ( המה- ) and is probably a hangover from an earlier stage of the language. As a working hypothesis, I assume the long form was retained in pause in the 8th-6th cent. BCE.

The pronunciation of toponyms poses difficulties. The citation forms of Syro-Palestinian toponyms in cuneiform and Egyptian sources are sometimes relatively fixed with an u or a ending, sometimes not; forms with final unstressed -a occur in MT as well regardless of clause syntax: התטבי התאפר ; הדהגדג ; alongside דר הגדגח התתמנ ; alongside ] In my view, yahūda and yahūdu .תמנה yehūd] coexisted as citation forms from the start, though a spelling with final ה is not attested with certainty before the Hellenistic period. Evidence for the existence of a byform of םלירוש with a final -a is suggestive only (final α in Greek transcriptions may be nothing more than a reflex of the nativization process); as a working hypothesis, it is restored in pause.

9

Notes on Text Presentations

Symbols __

A strophe made up of three lines, 1:(1:1) in structure concludes a strophe; a sub-stanza; a stanza; a

section

2:(2:2) A line consisting of three versets of two stress units each; the last two form a pair. Reference to a location within the text. * MT, if preserved, would violate the general rule or the length rule. +m or –m Addition or subtraction of a maqqeph vis-à-vis MT. cv כל Change in vocalization vis-à-vis MT; change following. cj G נה .Conjecture based on witness; conjecture following וירדvd, ld Change in verset division, or line division, vis-à-vis MT. =BHS, BHQ Scansion is in agreement with BHS, BHQ; at odds with NJV, AB, and HCOT 4/9/24 A stanza consisting of 4 lines, 9 versets, and 24 stress units. 40/90/216 17/6/2/1 A poetic unit made up of 40 lines, 90 versets, and 216 stress units, with a total of 17 strophes, 6 stanzas, and 2 sections.

The first workup reproduces MT with deviations suggested by prosodic analysis noted in the margin. When MT’s accents and use of maqqeph (־), by which conjoined words receive a single dominant stress, clash with the proposed scansion, the fact is noted.18 With respect to division into versets and lines, agreements with earlier authorities are noted.19 Unasterisked revisions to MT are based on a reconstruction of stress retention and deletion patterns in ancient Hebrew. The rule of twos and threes would not be violated if in these cases MT were retained.

The first workup departs from MT if and only if prosodic criticism so suggests. The second workup goes its own way more often based on a global textual analysis. On the left hand margins, prosodic word counts are given first, then foot counts, then syllable counts, and then absolute word counts if they differ from prosodic word counts; x = “a” verset; y = “b” verset; z = “c” verset.

18 For “lines,” “stress,” “parallelism,” other technical terms, abbreviations, and full bibliographical

references, see “Retaining and Transcending the Classical Description,” “Stress in Ancient Hebrew,” “Parallelism,” “Glossary,” “Abbreviations,” and “Annotated Bibliography,” respectively, available online at www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com. For a first orientation to the prosodic information encoded by the masoretic accents, see Bezalel Elan Dresher, “The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents,” Language 70 (1994) 1-52; “The Word in Tiberian Hebrew,” in The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky (ed. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas; Cambridge: MIT Press, in press); online: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/tibhebword.pdf.

19 Expanded references for BHS, NJ(PS)V, BHQ, AB, and HCOT are found at the conclusion of the Corpus.

http://www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/%7Edresher/tibhebword.pdf

10

Lamentations 1:1-7 Prosodic Workup of MT

ה 1 ד ׀ איכ ה בד שב ם י תי ע HCOT, BHQ 3:3= העיר רבה כאלמ ית ם נהה תי בגוי ld =all 2:2* רבתי במדינ ה ותשר ית ס׃ ה 22: }ס{ למ 3/6/14

ילה 2 ה בל ל בכו תבכ ה ודמעתה ע חי m 3:2+ לין ם־א ה מנח יה־כלמ ל הב m cv -m; vd = all; 3:2-*כל אה גדו ב יה ב ה כל־רע יו ל ים׃ ה יב 6/1/63 33: }ס{ לא

ני 3 ה מע ה יהוד לת ה ג ב עבד BHS, HCOT, BHQ 3:2= ומרם ה בגוי שב יא י ה מנוח ה צא א מ 3:3 ליה השיגוה דפ ין המצ כל־ר ים׃ב 15/63/ 22: }ס{ ר

י ציון אבלות 4 ד דרכ י מוע 3:3 מבלי באין יה שוממ ים כל־שער אנח הניה נ 2:2 כ

יה נוגות יא מר בתולת ה׃־וה m- :32 5/1/63 }ס{ ל

יה לראש 5 יה שלו היו צר יב 3:2 אה הוגה י־יהו יה כ ל רב־פשע 2:2 ע

יה לכועולל י ה ר׃ שב HCOT, BHS= d v :22 }ס{ לפני־צ 3/6/13

א 6 ה־כל ציון־תב מןויצ m cv ketiv; -m; vd = all; 3:2-*כל הדריה א כאילים היו שר ה־ל vd =all; –m 3:3 מצאו מרעח ף׃ וילכו בלא־כ 5/1/63 22: }ס לפני רוד

ה ירושל 7 כר יה םז י עניה ומרוד 2:3 ימיה חמד ל מ ר כ דם היו אש ימי ק )NJV≈d v 2)::22 מר ה ביד־צ ל עמ ה בנפ ין עוזר ל 3:3 ואים חקו ראוה צר ל ש HCOT, NJV, BHS=d v :23 2/29/4 }ס{ ה׃משבת ע

22/45/110 6/12/30 + 6/12/30 + 6/12/28 + 4/9/22 8/4/2/1

11

Lamentations 1:1-7 A Reconstruction

היא 1 ד׀ כ בה בד תי ע יש s 6:5 f 3:3 3:3 םהעיר רב s 6:5 f 3:3 2:2 תי בגויםרב האלמנ כתההי תי במ ידשר ס תנ s :2 3f 2:2 /14/63 6:4 }ס{ ׃ היתה למ

ה־ עלהתעדמו ילהה בלה תבכבכ 2 w 3:3 s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 לחיםה מל ןיא ל נח s 5:5 f 3:3 3:2 היבהא מכהיל־רעכ ה ה בגדו ב יו ל ילה םא 4w 7:6 s :4 4f 3:3 /16/63 3: }ס{ ׃ ב

תה י 3 ני׀ דהגל בו מע ה עמר s 6:6 f 3:2 3:2 בדא םה בה בגוי א מצ יש s 6:5 f 4:3 3:3 אה מנחלדכ ם׃ ן המיב הה השגיפל־ר w :57 s :3 4f :22 /15/63 2:3 }ס{ צר

רד 4 י צי י ממב בלתן אכ דולי בא s 8:6 f 4:3 3:3 עןיערל־שכ ה ה שממ םינכ w 3:2 s 7:6 f 4:4 2:2 ה נאנח נהילתתב או תג רה ה׃ מ 6s :3 3f 3:2 /15/63 4: }ס{ ל

י לראש ׀ היהיו צר 5 s 6:4 f 3:3 3:2 שלו היבאי־יהו ב הגוה הכ w 3:3 s 5:4 f 3:2 2:2 העשפ על־ר

ר־ילפנבי ש כויה הלעלל 32w :4 5s :3 3f 2:2 3/1/63: }ס{ ׃צ

־ב מן׀אויצ 6 ל ןת צי w 4:2 s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 הדרה כ םאיל כהיו שרהי s 8:5 f 4:3 3:3 הרעאו ממצ אלכו ב ח־לאויל ף׃ כ w :4 6s :2 3f 2:2 5/1/63 23: }ס{ לפני רד

7 s 8:6 f 4:3 3:2 הידרמוניה ע היהו םשלר ירהכזולכ י והי רשא הימדמח דמ )23( f2 :):22:(: s3 )45:(:4 םמי ק הןיאו רצ־ידב הל עמפבנ w 4:3 s 8:5 f 4:3 3:3 עזר ל 4:6s :3 3f :23 /229/4 }ס{ ׃המשבת לע קו שחה צרםרא

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/12/30 + 6/12/28 + 4/9/22 22/45/110

ודמ› 1:2 תה‹ ה [ ע פש› M assim-usu ║ 5 ודמעת Mkett מן־בת M assim-usu ║ 6 פשעיה [ עה‹ kkeet מבת [Mqere 4QLam assim-usu ║ 7 זכרה ירושלם ימי [ זכרה ירושלם יהוה M aur; רהזכו יהוה 4QLam homoi

‹›║ ירו⌒יהו הימחמד כלו הימדחמ [ ל־כ M aur; 4 כל מכאובנוQLam facil of M ║ ‹ משבתה › ] ║ M vocal משבתה

x,y x = 5 to 8 y = 4 to 7 x+y = 9 to 14 x-y = -1 to 3 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 5 y =4 z = 4 (x+y)+z = 13 (x+y)-z = 5

compensatable lines: 14 of 22 lines compensatable in reverse: 4 of 22 σ (y+1 to 3):y compensations: 13x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 3x f (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 8x f (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 1x w (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 6x w (y+1):y with σ (x=y-1): 1x

12

1:2 ‹ דמו תה‹ ה [ ע M assim-usu ודמעתThe archaic fem sfx āta occasionally attested in poetry (Ex 15:16; Hos 8:7; Job 5:16; Ps 3:3; etc.; a vestige of the time when the case endings ātu/i/a were operative) was misunderstood as a pron sfx when it ceased to be used at all in the language of the day. The pron sfx is tautological in the context, as Cross pointed out (“Lamentations 1,” 107-108). דמעה is a collective sg. Cp Lam 2:18; Ps 126:5.

פש› 1:5 יהפשע [ עה‹ M assim-usu

On this proposal, the text originally read פשעה; subsequently, the pl marker י was added to bring the text into line with a more common idiom. פשע is a collective sg in affine texts (Isa 24:20; 53:5; Mic 1:5; 3:5; Ps 89:33; Job 8:4) and suits the context here. Bound structures of the type רב + collective sg noun + pron sfx are attested (Jer 30:14, 15; Ezek 28:18; Hos 9:7; cp Ps 25:11). Bound structures of the type רב + pl noun + pron sfx, however, are the norm, and the pl of פשע is attested in Lam 1:14, 22. Vis-à-vis M, is read, the “b” verset becomes one syllable shorter than פשעה represents the more difficult rdg. If פשעהthe corresponding “a” verset. In qinah meter, “b” versets are often shorter than “a” versets. Furthermore, end-rhymes with the preceding verset. Rhyme-schemes, while not obligatory, are ubiquitous in the פשעהcontext. None of these arguments is decisive, but the balance of probability favors פשעה.

Mkett מן־בת 1:6 kkeet Mqere 4QLam assim-usu מבת [

The ketiv reflects an unusual construction. The poet may have chosen it to achieve a 3:2 line.

רהזכו יהוה ;M aur זכרה ירושלם ימי [ זכרה ירושלם יהוה 1:7 4QLam homoi ירו⌒יהוThe rdgs of M and 4QLam may be explained as corruptions of the proposed rdg. Once the long impv was misconstrued as a qatal vb form with Jerusalem as subj, the stage was set for a reapprehension of yahwé˘ as yamé˘. The reinterpretation would have been facilitated by affine texts (Deut 32:7; Ps 137:7). A PN direct obj complement to זכר is unusual but clearly attested (Gen 8:1; Ps 105:42; cf. Jer 15:15). Ps 105:42 demonstrates the possibility of non-isosemantic obj complements in sequence with זכר. The long impv הזכר occurs in entreaties of later literature (2 Chr 7:42; Neh 5:1; 6:1, etc.). The shorter rdg of 4QLam was

caused by parablepsis. Cp 4QLam’s omission further on of עניה ומרדיה. For a semantic-syntactic parallel to the line as reconstructed here, cp Lam 3:61.

הימחמד ‹› הימדמח [ כלו ל־כ M aur; 4 כל מכאובנוQLam facil of M

In M and 4QLam, the phrase beginning with ל־כ must be the object of זכר. This is semantically unfitting in the case of MT, and explains why 4QLam has מכאובנו instead of הימחמד . M may be explained as an aural misapprehension of the proposed rdg. 4QLam attests to the same misapprehension, and to the omission, by parablepsis, of היעניה ומרד , or of עניה ו and הימחמד and הימרד הימכאב An evocation of Jerusalem’s state of impoverishment is expected at this point. The proposed rdg .מכאובנוprovides it. Cp Lam 5:1-3. For הכל here – “finished are her coveted objects,” see Gen 41:30; Isa 15:6.

משבתה › M vocal משבתה [ ‹

The proposed rdg is in fact the virtual ketiv of M. In Tiberian Hebrew, after the application of the reverse of Philippi’s law (the so-called law of attenuation), the vocalization would have been משבתה. “Demise” seems an appropriate gloss for the lemma, a hapax legomenon. The qere assimilates, one might assume, to a non-extant idiomatic expression.

Alternative reconstructions of lines of Lam 1:1-7, the pros and cons of which will not be argued here:

כויעלל 5 ר׃ יבי לפנש ה הל 2w :4 5s :3 3f 3:2 3: }ס{ צ

ף׃ חכ לאכו בויל 6 23w :4 6s :2 3f :23: }ס{ לפני רדי יוה רשא הימדמח ולכ 7 דמ s:4 4f 3:3 6:7 םמי ק

13


The reconstruction of the phonology of 6th century BCE Hebrew is a matter of educated conjecture. Allowance for stress shifts and adherence to the principle that Babylonian, Palestinian, Secunda and DSS Hebrew sometimes provide access to less advanced linguistic forms than does Tiberian Hebrew characterize the reconstruction. A block of text = U. A line = I. A half-line (in a tripartite line, a third of a line) = φ. A free standing orthographical unit = ω. An intonational break within a φ: "; at the conclusion of a φ: a blank space. Hypothetical lengthening of vowel or consonant at the conclusion of an I: ˘˘. Vowels marked v carry maximal stress; v, medium stress; plain v, minimal stress; ultrashort vowels are superscripted and are not stress bearing. Words with a maximum and a medium stress are double-footed. The right foot consists of a non- or minimally stressed syllable followed by the maximally stressed syllable if preceded by another foot. Subscript h, y, w, and / refer to orthography.

1:1 /aj˘.ká˘h " ja˘.Sá˘bah ba˘.dá˘d ha˘.÷í˘yr " rab.bá˘ti

y ÷á˘ ˘m ha˘.já˘ta

h " ka./àl.ma˘.ná˘h rab.bá˘.tiy " bàg.go˘w.jí˘˘m

śa˘.rá˘tiy " bàm.mi.di˘y.nó˘t ha˘.já˘ta

h " la˘.más˘˘

1:2 ba˘.kó˘h tib.ké˘h " bal.lájilah wa.dim.÷á˘ta

h " ÷àl.leħ.já˘˘h /ájin lá˘h " mi.naħ.ħé˘m mik.kó˘l " /o˘.he.bé˘˘yha

kòl.re˘.÷é˘yha " ba˘.gá˘duw bá˘h há˘.ju

w lá˘h " la./ò˘.je.bí˘˘m

1:3 ga˘.lá˘tah ja˘.hú˘da " me˘.÷ó˘ni

y wa.me˘.rób˘ " ÷o.bo˘.dá˘˘h hí˘/a " ja˘.Sá˘ba

h bàg.go˘w.jí˘m ló˘/ ma˘.ts÷á˘/ah " ma˘.nó˘˘ħ

kòl.ro˘.de.pé˘yha " hìś.śi˘.gú˘ha bájin " hàm.mi.ts÷a˘.rí˘˘m

1:4 da˘.ra.ké˘y ts÷ij.jó˘n " /a.be˘.ló˘t mib.bé˘liy " ba˘./é˘y maw.÷é˘˘d

kòl.Sa.÷a˘.ré˘yha " Sò˘.me˘.mí˘n kò˘.he.né˘yha " nè/.na˘.ħí˘˘m bu.tù˘.lo˘.té˘yha " nù˘gó˘t wa.hí˘/a " már˘ lá˘˘h

1:5 ha˘.jú˘w ts÷a˘.ré˘yha " la˘.rò/ S /ò˘.je.bé˘yha " Sa˘.lú˘˘w

kì˘y.jah.wé˘h " haw.gá˘h ÷al.rób˘ " piS.÷á˘˘h ÷ò˘.la˘.lé˘yha " ha˘.lá˘ku

w Sé˘biy " lip.nè˘y.ts÷á˘˘r

1:6 wàj.je˘.ts÷é˘/ " min.bé˘t ts÷ij.jó˘n kó˘l " ha.da˘.rá˘˘h ha˘.jú˘w śa˘.ré˘yha " ka./àj.ja˘lí˘m ló˘/ ma˘.ts÷á˘/u

w " mar.÷é˘˘h

wàj.je˘.lé˘kuw " ba.lo˘/.kó˘ħ lip.né˘y " ro˘.dé˘˘p

1:7 zo.kó˘rah ju.rù˘.Sa˘.lé˘m " jah.wé˘h ÷on.já˘h " wì.mi.ru˘.dé˘ ˘yha

ka˘.lú˘w " màħ.mu˘.dé˘yha /aSé˘r " ha˘.jùw mí.ja.mè˘y " qé˘˘dεm bì.no.pó˘l ÷am.má˘h " bi.jad.ts÷á˘r wa./ájin " ÷o˘.zé˘r lá˘˘h ra˘./ú˘ha ts÷a˘.rí˘m " śa˘.ħá˘qu

w ÷ál " màS.ba˘.tá˘˘h

14


ט 8 טא ח םח ה היתה אה ירושל ן לניד 3:3 על־כיה הזילוה ל־מכבד ה כ 2:2 כי־ראו ערותיא ה גם־ה שב אחור׃ נאנח 14/63/ 2:2 }ס{ ות

יה 9 ה בשול א ז טמאת הל 2:3 כרה אחריתרד ים ות ם לה פלא ין מנח 2:3 אי ה יהוה את־עני י רא יל אויב׃ כ m+ 2:3 5/1/63 }ס{ הגד

ר 10 רש צ יה ידו פ ל כל־מחמד 3:2 עה גויםכ ה י־ראת או מקדש 2:2 ביתה ר צו או־לא אש ך׃ יב ל ל )NJV, ≈BHSd v; m- 2:):22 }ס{ בקה

3/7/15

ה נאנחים 11 חם כל־עמ ים ל 2:2 מבקשחמ תנו מ כלדיהונ יב נפש ם בא 3:2 להש

יטה הב ה יהוה ו י רא יתי כ ה׃ הי m+ 2:3 4/1/63 }ס{ זולל

12/25/58 4/2/1

15


ח 8 ן לע םשלראה י חטאט w 3:4 s 8:7 f 4:3 3:3 ה היתהנדל־כה הה הזלידכבמ־לכ י־ראו ערות w 3:3 s 8:6 f 5:4 2:2 כא ש החנ נאגם־ה 3w :45 s :22f :22 4/1/63 2: }ס{ ר׃ב אחות

ה 9 א זכ הילשב טמאת הרה אחל s 6:6 f 3:4 2:3 רתםד פרות הן מיא לא ם ל s 6:5 f 3:3 2:3 נחה יהוה את־ער יא 4w :57s :34f 2:3 3: }ס{ יב׃ ל אהגד-יכ ני 5/1/63

רהיד 10 רש צ w 3:3 s 5:5 f 3:3 3:2 הידממח לכ־על פר או מ גויםהתאכ הב s 6:4 f 3:3 2:2 קדש התיר צושא ךקהב אויב אל 22(f 2:):22( 5/17/3:(:s 3)34:(:4 }ס{ ׃ ל ל

ם לבקמ נחםה נאעמ־לכ 11 w 3:2 s 6:5 f 3:3 2:2 םחשכ בםהידמנו מחנת פל לא ב נ s 8:4 f 4:2 3:2 שהשה יהוה ור טהא ה׃ תי זיהי-יכ הב 3w :67s 4:3f :23 4/1/63 3: }ס{ לל

12/25/58 6/12/29 + 6/13/29 4/2/1

1:8 אחט אוחט [ 4QLam; חטא M assim-usu ║ 9 ‹ ו ד‹ רד [ σ' V תר ‹› M assim-ctext ║ 10 ות הידמחמ ] הידממח M vocal ║ ‹› האתכר ‹› M aural ║ 11 כי־ראתה [ יהםדממח Mket ] םמדיהחמ Mqere

vocal

x,y x = 5 to 8 y = 4 to 7 x+y = 9 to14 x-y = 0 to 4 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 4 y = 3 z = 4 (x+y)+z = 11 (x+y)-z = 3

compensatable lines: 7 of 12 lines compensatable in reverse: 3 of 12 σ (y+1 to 4):y compensations: 6x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 1x f (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 2x σ (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 1x w (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 3x w (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 1x

1:8 אחט אוחט [ 4QLam; חטא M assim-usu M’s vocalization assimilates the text to a frequent cognate accusative construction (vb חטא with חטא,

תאטח , or האטח ). The inf abs construction, otherwise unattested for this verb, represents the more difficult rdg, and is more suitable semantically. Cp Lam 1:2; 3:20. Long before the discovery of 4QLam, Ehrlich proposed to read אחט here (Randglossen VII, 31); cited by Cross (“Lamentations 1,” 141).

1:9 ‹ ד‹ו רד [ σ' V תר M assim-ctext ות The vocalization proposed is a conceivable qere of the consonantal txt; σ' V translate accordingly. M represents a syntactical assimilation to the preceding line. If רדות is read, the “a” verset becomes one syllable longer than the corresponding “b” verset. In qinah meter, “b” versets are often shorter than “a” versets. None of these arguments are decisive, but the balance of probability favors רדות .

1:10 ‹› הידמחמ הידממח [ M vocal On this proposal, in classical Hebrew דמחמ ‘coveted object’ was distinct from דמחמ ‘darling, object of delight.’ דמחמ fits in Lam 1:7, 10; דמחמ in Lam 2:4. For 1:11, see below.

‹› ר האתכ ה [ י־ראת M aur כ

16

M’s כי clause seems inappropriate in context. It is explainable as a misinterpretation of an original consonantal txt כראתה facilitated by aural congruities and prevailing orthographic conventions (final ה came to signal –a almost without exception). In the proposed rdg, the sfx to the inf is proleptic vis-à-vis .מקדש

11 ‹› יהםדממח Mket ] םמדיהחמ Mqere vocal

הםידמחמ ‘their coveted objects’[= ketiv] is preferable to ‘their darlings = children sold into slavery” [= qere]. The latter seems over the top, especially if we follow Hurowitz and take the following ללהז to mean ‘beggar’ (“Lamentations 1:11,” 544).

Alternative reconstructions of lines of Lam 1:8-11 the pros and cons of which will not be argued here:

א זכ הילשב האת אמט 9 הרה אחל s 7:6 f 3:4 3:3 רת

התיוצש 10 ךב אויב א ל ל ל 46s 3:3f 3:2: }ס{ ׃ קה


ברי דרך ם לוא אליכ 12 NJV 2:2= כל־ע וורא יטוהב all≠ ld :22 מכאובש אם־י all ld 2:2≠ יל לעול ראש יכמכאב 8/18/4 3:3 }ס{ ון אפו׃ום חרבי הה יהוהוג אשר

לחממר 13 נהי בעצמת שא־ום ש m; vd = all; cj G 3:2- נהדריו וירד 3:2 ורני אחהשיב שת לרגליש רפר ממנינתנ ה׃הי־כל ה ש m cv - :32כל }ס{ ום דו 3/6/15

י 14 ל פשע רג נשקד ע vd =all 3:2 ובידו ישתי י עלו על־צואר יל כח 2:2 הכשי י ביד ל קום׃־לא נתנני אדנ m-; NJV, BHS= vd 3:3 }ס{ אוכ

3/6/15

ה כל 15 י ׀ ־סל י אביר m cv 3:2-כל אדני בקרבד י מוע א על י קר ר בחור 3:2 לשב

י ך אדנ ת דר ה׃ לבתולת ג 5/1/63 2:3 }ס{ בת־יהוד

לה 16 י בו על־א ה׀ אנ ים ׀ עיני עיני כי רדה מ (2:2):3 ים ני מנח ק ממ י־רח י כ יב נפש 3:2 מש

ים היו בני י שוממ ר אויב׃ כ m+ :23 7/17/3 }ס{ גב

יה 17 ה ציון ביד רש ה פ ין מנחם ל 3:3 אב צוה יהוה יו ליעק יו צר 3:2 סביבה ירושלם ה הית ם׃ לנד 5/1/63 2:2 }ס{ ביניה

יק הוא יהוה 18 י צד יתי כ יהו מר m 3:2+ פים־שמעו־נא כל י עמ יםה וראו מכאב ים qere עמ ketiv 2:2 עמ

17

י י ובחור בי׃ בתולת 31/6/3 2:2 }ס{ הלכו בש

22/45/108 4/8/18 + 18/39/90 8/4/2/1

18

Lamentations 1:12-18

A Reconstruction

אל 12 בכ םכיל אאל w 3:3 s 5:5 f 3:2 3:2 ךררי דל־עטו ו w :45s :2 3f :22 32: באם־יש מכא אורהב s 6:3 f 3:2 2:2 יל ללע רשאי מכאבכ 5:6s :2 3f 2:3 18//84 }ס{ ׃ הנרח םיב ה יהוהגור השא

13 נהרוי יעצמתב שא חלם שממר s 6:7 f 3:3 3:2 דר s 6:5 f 3:2 3:2 רני אחשבה ית לרגלשש רפהתננ ממ לכ ני ש ה׃ם הי 56s :33f :32 /15/63: }ס{ דו

ל פהשקנ 14 s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 גו ישתרהידב ישע עיאעל־צו ו◌לע העל יכשה ר w 4:2 s 8:4 f 4:2 3:2 ל כח י בידדניני אתננ 48s :3 3f 3:3 6/1/63: }ס{ ם׃ קל אוכ אל

s 6:6 f 4:2 3:2 יקרבי בדנא יאבר ל כ׀הסל 15א על דוי מקר ח ע ר ב ילשב s 6:5 f 3:3 3:2 ריך את דרג 3w 7:6s 4:3f :23 /15/63 :3 }ס{ ד׃הת־ית בלתלב דנ

מרפ 17 הן מיא הידן בה צי s 6:5 f 3:3 3:3 נחם לביעה יהוה לפצ וובבס ק s 7:4 f 3:2 3:2 צרה בל םשלרתה יהי 6:6s 3: 3f :22 /15/63 }ס{ ׃םהייננד

לה 16 ייע הכיב ׀ על־א ר נייע נ w 4:3 s 7:6 f 4:3 3:3 םידה מיי־רח ני מכ םק ממ י נח ב נפש w 4:3 s 8:4 f 4:2 3:2 משםי שהיו בנ w :57s 3:4 f :23 3:3 }ס{ יב׃ר אגב-יכ ממ 6/16/3

ק ה 18 יהו מר-יכ היהו אצד s 5:4 f 3:2 3:2 תייפםע־לכ ׀אנ־עומש ירו מ w 4:2 s 6:6 f 4:4 2:2 או מכאבחוי לתתב 4:8s :24 f :22 3/16/3 }ס{ י׃ בכו בשהל ירב

22/44/108 4/8/18 + 18/38/90 8/3/2/1

1:12 אל ‹ אל אול [ ‹ M homoi לא⌒לא ║ ‹ רנח ואפ ;4QLam [חרו]נו [ה‹ M assim-usu║ 1:13 חרון ‹›דנה וירדנה[ G יור M metath ║ 1:14 ‹ הנקש › T* ]נשקד M metath, ד/ה confusion; הרנקש 4QLam

assim-ctext ║ ‹ע ל עלה ◌ו › GL ] ולוע 4QLam σ' homoi עלו ;על⌒על M homoi על⌒על, assim-ctext ║ 1:17 before 1:16 4QLam ] after 1:16 M assim-usu ║ ‹ הידן בפרמה צי ║ M crrp פרשה ציון בידיה [ ‹ ‹ הפצ › 4QLam ] הצו M ו/פ confusion ║ ‹סבבו [ בכיה M assim-ctext ║ 1:16 סביביו [ ‹ ובכ 4QLam assim-ctext; אני בוכיה M ampl ║ 1:18 םיעמ Mket ] Mqere םיהעמ assim-usu

19

x,y x = 5 to 8 y = 4 to 7 x+y = 9 to14 x-y = -1 to 4

compensatable lines: 9 of 22 lines compensatable in reverse: 7 of 22 σ (y+1 to 5):y compensations: 7x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y or y-1): 4x f (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 4x f (y+1 or 2):y with σ (x=y or y-1): 3x w (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 2x w (y+1):y with σ (x=y or y-1): 1x

1:12 אל ‹ אל אול [ ‹ M homoi לא⌒לא

On this hypothesis, the volitive particle אל (spelled thus in 2 Sam 18:12; 19:7, cj Job 9:33; אול in 1 Sam 14:30; Isa 48:18; 63:19; otherwise לו), perhaps after the second לא dropped out by haplography (homoi לא⌒לא) and ו was added, was misread as אול by the tradition preserved in M (contrast σ' V T).

‹ רנח M assim-usu חרון אפו׃ [ 4QLam ה‹

M assimilates to the more common חרון אפו (Isa 13:13; Jer 4:26; Jon 3:9; Nah 1:9; Ps 69:25; Lam 4:11; etc.). The bare חרונו or equivalent, while rare, is attested (Ex 15:7; Ps 2:5; 88:17; Ezek 7:14).

‹›דנה 1:13 M metath וירדנה [ G יור Graphic confusion of י/ו and later disuse of post positive yiqtol in reference to past events would have facilitated the corruption. BHS, NJV, AB, HCOT, and BHQ concur in reading בעצמתי ‘in my bones’ [virtual ketiv ‘in my strength,’ but this fits the context poorly] with the verb following.

1:14 ‹ הנקש › T* ]נשקד M metath, ד/ה confusion; הרנקש 4QLam assim-ctext

On this hypothesis, לע נקשה על הרנקש 4QLam by assimilation to the semantics of the “b” verset, even though the resultant grammar is forced, whereas נשקד נקשה M by metathesis and ד/ה confusion. The result, understood as קדנש ‘keep watch’ (G MMss), is awkward at best. קדנש (L, MMss), on the other hand, is unintelligible. T* translates as if it read נקשה (though נשקד may have stood in its Vorlage). For further discussion and alternative solutions, see Schäfer, “Lamentations,” 118*.

ע› ל עלה ◌ו › GL] ולוע 4QLam σ' homoi עלו ;על⌒על M homoi על⌒על, assim-ctext GL translates as if it read ע ל .by hapl, in any case, is plausible עלה cf. Num 19:2. A loss of ;עלה ◌ו4QLam reads ולוע alone and assimilates the preceding pl verb to the sg that leads off. σ' also reads ולע . M reads עלו, an assimilation to the preceding verb. The semantic parse preserved in M 1:14a-b is clumsy and results in three versets where we expect four.

1:17 before 1:16 4QLam ] after 1:16 M assim-usu

It is more probable that the unusual ע – פ sequence was changed to the usual sequence than the reverse.

‹ הידן בפרמה צי M crrp פרשה ציון בידיה [ ‹ M is awkward if not impossible. Reminiscence of Lam 1:10 and the rarity of the vb םרפ (Lev 10:6; 13:45; 21:10) and noun בדים (Ezek 9:3; cp Lev 16:32) would have facilitated מ ב and ש Stripped .ביof the accoutrements of her former state, humbled to the point of wearing linen vestments only (see y. Yoma 7:3; cited by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1016), Zion rends these in an act of abject grief.

‹ הפצ › 4QLam ] צוה M ו/פ confusion The superiority of 4QLam’s rdg is clear. M is strained. For צפה ל with the same sense, see Ps 37:32. As Cross notes (“Lamentations 1,” 147), M צוה may have been triggered by התיצו (reminiscence) in 1:10.

סבבו› M assim-ctext סביביו [ ‹

20

M is syntactically awkward but necessary following צוה. It appears to be a creative misconstrual of an original consonantal txt סבבו which often elsewhere was expanded to סביביו in later orthography. For objectless סבב ‘gathered round,’ see Gen 37:7; Judg 16:2; 2 Sam 18:15.

ובכ [ בכיה 1:16 4QLam assim ctext; אני בוכיה M ampl The absence of אני in 4QLam may reflect a more original text than M. אני in M may be a misguided amplification. 4QLam is otherwise inferior to M in 1:16a; נייע occurs once only, by haplography; ובכ rather than בכיה appears, an adjustment necessary once the unusual sg נייע was construed as du (cp the construal of Lam 1:2 sg לחיה as du in pc Mss GVST); מים is replaced by a facilitating דמעתי. The proposed rdg is syntactically compelling: ‘Over these things my eye is weeping my eye streams with water.’ M, on the other hand, reproduces an unparalleled and seemingly awkward idiom: ‘my eye, my eye, it streams with water.’ For a discussion of the ancient versions, see Schäfer, “Lamentations,” 119*.

םיעמ 1:18 Mket ] Mqere םיהעמ assim-usu

The ketiv represents the unusual construction. The qere is an assimilation to the usual. The poet may have chosen the anarthrous construction to achieve a quadruple syncopation at the end of 1:12-18.

Alternative reconstructions of lines of Lam 1:12-18 the pros and cons of which will not be argued here:

ודי בדניני אתננ 14 49s :3 3f :33: }ס{ ם׃ קלאוכ אללה 16 ני בעל־א ה׀ א ר ניי׀ עןיע כי f (4:2):2 s (6:3):4 w 6:4 2:(3:2) יםדה מיםל־כ אנ עומש 18 ירו עמ w 4:2 s 7:6 f 4:4 3:2 או מכאב


מאהבי 19 אתי ל מה רמוני קר 2:2 הי הני וזקנ יר גועו כ 2:2 בעמו כל ל י־בקשו א יבו כ ם׃ ויש 3/1/63 23: }ס{ את־נפש

ה יהוה 20 י־צר־ רא רו ליכ י חמרמ m; ≈all (2:2):2- מעך י נהפ י לבי בקרב יתי כ m 3:2+ מרו מררב־מחוץ שכלה ות׃ ח ית כמ m- :23 6/17/3 }ס{ בב

י 21 מעו כ ה א ש אנח י נינ ין מנחם ל m 3:3+* אמעו י ש יב שו כל־א עתי ש vd; cj 2:2תיערבld; ≠all ; רי ית כ ה עש את יום את את־הב ני׃ קר היו כמ +m- ;m }ס{וי

2):3:2( 7/17/3

11 יךתב ם לפנ עת מו א כל־ר 3:2 ועולל לי לת ל ר עול אש י כ ל כל־פשע 3:2 ע

י־רבות י כ י׃ אנחת י דו 2:2 }פ{ ולב 4/1/63

12/26/60 4/2/1

21


מה רמ יבאהמאתי לקר 19 s 7:3 f 3:2 2:2 ניהה s 7:4 f 4:2 2:2 עו גוירבע יקנזי ונכ3w 6: 6s :3 3f :23 :3 }ס{׃ םנפשאת־ בוישו המל לכ אישקבכ 3/16/3

י־צ הה יהואר 20 י ח לי רכ רומע w (2:3):2 s (4:3):3 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 מרמיך לבי בנהפ w 3:3 s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 תיי מרהמר־יכ קרב s 2:3 f :23 /16/73 4:5 }ס{ ת׃ ות כמיבב ברח להץ שכמח

נינא־יעו כשמ 21 ה א ין מיא נח w 4:3 s 7:5 f 4:3 3:3 נחם לעתב עו שמיביל־אכ יר w 4:4 s 6:5 f 3:3 2:2 שוש ני׃ו אתרק םאת יהב תיתה עשי־אכ היו כמ s2 :)3:2( f2 ):3:2( 7/17/3 }ס{ י

(4:5):5

א כ 22 ם לתב עת מעו ךיפנל־ר w 4:2 s 9:4 f 4:2 3:2 הלל לילר עשאכ יפ לכ־על לת ל w 3:3 s 6:5 f 3:2 3:2 שעי־רב י׃ ו יתת אנחכ י דו 3w 5:6 s 2:4 f 2:2 /14/63 2: }פ{ לב

12/26/60 6/13/29 + 6/13/31 4/2/1

1:19 ‹ שיבקכ י־בקשו [ ‹ ב›רעתי confusion ║ 1:21 ו/י ,M assim-ctext כ ║ hapl ב/ו M רעתי [ ‹

x,y x = 5 to 9 y = 3 to 5 x+y = 9 to 14 x-y = 0 to 5 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 4 y = 3 to 5 z = 3 to 5 x+y+z = 10 to 14 (x+y)-z = 4

compensatable lines: 5 of 12 lines compensatable in reverse: 1 of 12 σ (y+1 to 4):y compensations: 5x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 1x f (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 5x w (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 2x

1:19 ‹ ישבקכ confusion ו/י ,M assim-ctext כי־בקשו [ ‹ On this hypothesis, M reflects the assimilation of an original inf construct with Zion as subj (cp 1:19a) to the vb forms of the immediate context. In the process an awkward כי clause was created, which in turn occasioned the gloss וולא מצא reflected in G S. After a main clause, a כי clause with a concessive or temporal rather than a causal function is unexampled. See Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of כי,” confusion and uneasiness, perhaps, with the anthropomorphism of the original, would have ו/י .205-208facilitated the assimilation.

ב›רעתי 1:21 hapl ב/ו M רעתי [ ‹ M appears to present a garbled text. The vb מעש does not permit a noun like רעתי as obj. The vb on the other hand, is left hanging. The proposed rdg restores order by assuming the accidental ,ששוomission of ב following the similar (5th-4th cent BCE), contiguous ו. The remainder of v 21 in consequence appears to form a three verset line with the following sense: “Since you are the one who wrought it you brought the day you announced may they become as I have.” So understood, 1:21 line c leads into 1:22 lines a and b.

Listed below is an alternate reconstruction of a line of Lam 1:19-22:

22

י־בק 19 א מצו םנפשבו ויש המל לכשו אכ 2:4( f(:s 2) 5:5:(4 }ס{׃ ואל (3:2):2 א 22 ם ל תב עת מעו ךיפנר s 8:4 f 4:2 3:2 הלל ל

23

Aggregate Statistics for Lamentations 1

Comprehensive

x,y x = 5 to 9 y = 3 to 7 x+y = 9 to14 x-y = -1 to 5 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 3 to 5 y = 3 to 5 z = 3 to 5 (x+y)+z = 10 to 14 (x+y)-z = 3 to 5

Outlying Versets: 6 of 140 (less than 5%) 9 σ “a” versets: 1:22 line a 3 σ “b” versets: 1:12 line c, 1:19 line a 7 σ “b” versets: 1:2 line c, 1:8 line a, 1:13 line a

Outlying Lines: 2 of 68 (less than 3%) “b” versets 1 σ longer than “a” versets: 1:2 line c, 1:13 line a “b” versets 5 σ shorter than “a” versets: 1:22 line a

Excluding Outliers

x,y x = 5 to 8 y = 4 to 6 x+y = 9 to14 x-y = 0 to 4 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 3 to 5 y = 3 to 5 z = 3 to 5 (x+y)+z = 10 to 14 (x+y)-z = 3 to 5

Macro Symmetries

1:1-11 22/45/110 + 12/25/58 = 34/70/168 1:12-22 22/44/108 + 12/26/60 = 34/70/168

1:1-22 24/12/4/2/1 68/140/336 68 = (2 x 12) + (2 x 22) 140 = 5 x 28 336 = 12 x 28

(12, 22, and 28 are recurrent numbers in the compositional technique of ancient Hebrew verse)

Stanzas are uniform in length and structure: 6 lines, 12 to 13 versets, 28 to 31 ω’s, with a “target” range of ω’s of from 29 to 30 4 lines, 8 to 9 versets, 18 to 22 ω’s

6/13/31 1:21-22 (1x) 6/13/29 1:10-11; 16-18; 19-20 (3x) 6/12/31 1:13-14 (1x) 6/12/30 1:1-2; 3-4; 13-14; 15, 17; 16, 18 (3x) 6/12/29 1:8-9 (1x) 6/12/28 1:5-6 (1x)

4/9/22 1:7 (1x) 4/8/18 1:12 (1x)

Strophes: 3 lines, 6 to 7 versets, 13 to 17 ω’s, with a “t” range of ω’s of from 14 to 16 2 lines, 4 to 5 versets, 9 to 11 ω’s

3/7/17 1:21 (1x) 3/7/16 1:20 (1x) 3/7/15 1:10 (1x) 3/6/16 1:2; 14, 16 (3x) 3/6/15 1:3; 4; 6; 9; 13; 14; 15; 17 (8x) 3/6/14 1:1; 8; 11; 22 (4x) 3/6/13 1:5; 18, 19 (3x)

2/5/11 1:7a (1x) 2/4/11 1:7b (1x) 2/4/9 1:12a; 12b (2x)

There is a tendency to finish a strophe with a maximally syncopated 4 σ verset: 11 of 24

24


יב באפו 1 3:3 אדני את־בת־ציון ׀ איכה יעיך רץ השל ים א ל משמ רת ישרא 3:2 תפאר א־זכ יו ול 17/73/ )22::(2 }ס{ ביום אפו׃ הדם־רגל

י 2 ע אדנ ל בל א חמ ת כל־נאות ל ב א 3:(2:2) יעקס בעברתו ה הר י בת־יהוד 2:2 מבצריע רץ הג ל לא יה׃ חל ה ושר vd :23 /16/73 }ס{ ממלכ

ע ג 3 ףד חרי־א ל ב ל כ רן ישרא m 3:2+ קיב 3:2 מפני אויב אחור ימינו השר ביעקב ש ויבע ה כא הב יב׃ ל ה סב כל )vd 2)::22 }ס{ א

3/7/16

ך קשתו כאוי 4 ר בדר ב ימינו כצ 3:3 נצג יהר ין ו חמדי־ע ל מ cj one word missing 2:2 כהל בת־ציון ך בא ש חמתו׃ שפ vd :23 }ס{ כא 3/6/16

4/2/1 6/14/33 + 6/13/32 12/27/65


ת את־באדני הבאפ בע י׀היכא 1 s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 ןצי s 6:5 f 4:3 3:2 לרת ישראפאת רץ איםך משמהשל 22( f 2)::22( 7/17/3:(:s 2 )44:(:4 }ס{ ׃ הם אפבי ורגל םהד רזכ אול

יבל 2 ע אדנ בת יענא לכ־תא לא חמל s (5:3):6 f (2:2):3 (2:2):3 קי בת־יה הס בעברתהר s 6:6 f 3:4 2:2 דמבצרל רץ חל ע לא ה ושר הג 6s 2:3 f 2:3 6/17/3 :6 }ס{ ׃ הממלכ

ף ריח ב׀עגד 3 ל א לק־כ s 5:5 f 3:3 3:2 רן ישראב אח s 6:5 f 4:3 3:2 יבמפני א הר ימנהשש קביער בויבע הל כא באכ הב s 4:4 f 3:3 6/17/3 7:8 }ס{ ׃לה סב

ב כאהך קשתדר 4 רהימנב ץח י s 7:7 f 3:4 3:3 כצג ךוי ין חמדימ־לכ ויהר s 5:5 f 3:3 2:2 עהל בת־צ בא ש חמת ךן שפי s :2 4f :23 51/6/3 5:7 }ס{ ׃הכא

4/2/1 6/14/33 + 6/13/31 12/26/64 הבימנ 2:4 ץח ב ימינונצ [ M graph err; div ║ ךיו ויהרג ג [ יהר ⌒וי M homoi ו יו

הבימנ 2:4 ץח ב ימינונצ [ M graph err; div

25

M is unintelligible. The emendation adopted here was proposed by . ךיו ויהרג ג [ יהר ⌒וי M homoi ו יו On prosodic grounds, M seems defective. The emendation proposed here builds on an earlier proposal by Delbert Hillers. Listed below is an alternate reconstruction of a line of Lam 2:4:

ב כאהך קשתדר 4 רהימנב ץח י ג כצ יהר ין חמדיל־מכ ו f (3:4):5 s 3:(3:3)ע(7:6):8

הל בת־צ בא ש חמת ךן שפי s :2 4f :23 4/15/2 5:7 }ס{ ׃הכא

4/2/1 6/14/33 + 5/12/32 11/26/65


ה אדני 5 לבל ׀ כאיב הי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 ע ישראו היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח

רב בבת 6s 4: 3f :23 5/1/63 6: }ס{ ׃ניהיה ואנתא דיה וי

ס כגן שכ 6 ת מו הויחמ s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 העדשחתמו ׀ בצין ח יהוהשכ ד ושב s 7:5 f 3:2 3:2 עלך וכה האפ עםץ בזוינא s :24 f :23 /15/63 47: }ס{ ׃ןמ

ח אדני 7 ר מ הזבח׀ מ זנ s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 הקדשנא בא דהסגר בי ת ארמנח י s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 יהתמ

נוק 22( f 2)::22( /16/73:(:s 2 )43:(:4 }ס{ דעמום יכ יהוה יתבב ל נת

ח ׀ להשחת הב יהוחש 8 ת בת־צי s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןמו נטה ק עהיד בהש אל s (3:3):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 מבלל וח לבויא הח לויחד מ 4:7s :3 4f :23 /16/73 }ס{ ׃ו אמל

s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 יהר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ה ושר ין תכהנב יה בגויםמלכ הום א s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 ראגם־נבא או יה ל 5:7s :3 4f 2:3 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז מצ

רץ ידמו 10 בו לא זקני בת־צ יש s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםהע ם לו עפר על־ראש רו שק s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 חגןוה רץ ראש דו לא 6s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7: }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94

2:9 Listed below is an alternate reconstruction of a line of Lam 2:9 the pros and cons of which will not be argued here:

26

יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שבה תאני ה בבת־יהודרביו וית מבצריה שחכל־ארמנות ל בלעע ישרא בל׀ כאויב יה אדנהי

וץ בזעם־אפת וינאד ושב מוען׀ בציו היהו חו שכת מעדו שח שכס כגןויחמ ו {ס{ואניה׃ ו ול נתניה קת ארמנותב חומביד־אוי ו הסגירר מקדש נא׀ מזבחו יח אדנזנ ז {ס{לך וכהן׃ מ

ו יב ידו לא־השק טהון נת בת־צי חומחית׀ להש הב יהוחש ח {ס {ום מועד׃כי הבבית־יהוה יה מלכר בריחושב דיה אב שעררץו באבעט ט {ס{ו אמללו׃ יחד הל וחומע ויאבל־חמבלי זקנרץ ידמוו לאישב י {ס{ון מיהוה׃ ו חזה לא־מצאיה גם־נביאתור ין איה בגויםושר

׃ת ירושלםבתול ן ראשרץידו לאים הורו שקם חגר על־ראשעפר וון העלבת־צי

27


ה אד 5 לבל יב׀ כא ניהי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 ע ישראו היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח

רב בבת s 4: 3f :23 5/1/63 6:6 }ס{ ׃ניהאניה ותא דיה וי

ס כגן שכ 6 ת מ הויחמ s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 העדושחתומ ן׀ בצי ח יהוהשכ ד ושב s 7:5 f 3:2 3:2 עןמ האפ עםץ בזוינא s :24 f :23 /15/63 47: }ס{ ׃לך וכה

ר מ הזבח׀ מ ח אדניזנ 7 s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 הדשקנא בא דהסגר בי ת ארמנח י s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 יהתמ

22( f 2:):22( /16/73:(:s 2 )43:(:4 }ס{ דעמום יכ יהוה יתבב נול נתק

ח ׀ להשחת הב יהוחש 8 ת בת־צי s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןמו נטה ק עהיד בהש אל s (3:3):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 מבלל וח לבויא הח לויחד מ 4:7s :34 f :23 /16/73 }ס{ ׃ו אמל

s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 היר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ה ושר הון תיאם כהנב יה בגויםמלכ s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 רגם־נבא 5:7s :34 f :23 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז אומצ איה ל

רץ ידמויש 10 זקני בת־צ בו לא s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםהע םחג לו עפר על־ראש s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 רו שקןוה רץ ראש דו לא s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7:6 }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94


יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שב

28


ה אדנ 5 לבל ׀ כאיב יהי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 ע ישראו היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח

רב בבת 6s 4: 3f :23 5/1/63 6: }ס{ ׃ניהניה ואתא דיה וי

ס כגן שכ 6 ת מו הויחמ s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 העדשחתמו ׀ בצין ח יהוהשכ ד ושב s 7:5 f 3:2 3:2 ען האפ עםץ בזוינא לך וכה s :24 f :23 /15/63 47: }ס{ ׃מ

ח אדני 7 ר מ הזבח׀ מ זנ s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 השקדנא בא דהסגר בי ת ארמנח י s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 יהתמ



s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 יהר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ה ושר ין תכהנב יה בגויםמלכ הום א s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 ראגם־נבא או יה ל 5:7s :3 4f :23 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז מצ

רץ ידמו 10 בו לא זקני בת־צ יש s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםהע ם לו עפר על־ראש רו שק s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 חגןוה רץ ראש דו לא 6s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7: }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94


יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שב ק ויונף עוללי בעטבר בת־עמי על־שכבד רץך לאי נשפו מע חמרמרות עיניו בדמעכל

יר ות ע ברחבם כחללבהתעטפ יןן ויה דגו אי יאמרלאמתם יב {ס{ות קריה׃ ברחב ה אשוה־לךמ םושל ירך הבתה אדמה־לך מאעידמה־ יג {ס{יק אמתם׃ ם אל־חנפש ךבהשתפל וא ותפ שזו לךיך חנביא יד {ס{י ירפא־לך׃ ך מם שברול כיכי־גד וןת בת־ציך בתולואנחמו ספק טו {ס{וא ומדוחים׃ ות שמשא ךחזו לוי) ךשבות(יב שביתך ך להשנ�על־עו וולא־גל

ילת כליר שיאמרוהע אתם הזת ירושלם על־בעו ראש וינשרקו רךברי ד כל־עיםיך כפעלך ענו או בלן אמרויחרקו־ש יך שרקויב כל־איך פיהםו עלפצ טז {ס{כל־הארץ׃ וש לפי משי׃אנו ראינוהו מצשקוינ וםה היז

29


ה אדני 5 ללב ׀ כאיב הי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 ע ישראו היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח


ס כגן שכ 6 ת מו הויחמ s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 הדעשחתמו ׀ בצין ח יהוהשכ ד ושב s 7:5 f 3:2 3:2 ען האפ עםץ בזוינא לך וכה s :24 f :23 /15/63 47: }ס{ ׃מ



ח ׀ להשחת הב יהוחש 8 ת בת־צי s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןמ ונטה ק עהיד בהש אל s (3:3):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 מבלל וח לבויא הח לויחד מ 4:7s :3 4f :23 /16/73 }ס{ ׃ו אמל

s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 יהר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ין תכהנב יה בגויםה ושרמלכ הום א s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 ראגם־נבא או יה ל 5:7s :3 4f :23 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז מצ

רץ ידמו 10 בו לא זקני בת־צ יש s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםלו הע ם עפר על־ראש רו שק s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 חגןוה רץ ראש דו לא 6s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7: }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94


יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שב ק ויונף עוללי בעטבר בת־עמשי על־כבד רץך לאי נשפו מע חמרמרות עיניו בדמעכל

יר ות ע ברחבם כחללבהתעטפ יןן ויה דגו אי יאמרלאמתם יב {ס{ות קריה׃ ברחב ה אשוה־לךמ םושל ירך הבתמה־לה אדך ממה־אעיד יג {ס{יק אמתם׃ ם אל־חנפש ךבהשתפל וא ותפ שזו לךיך חנביא יד {ס{י ירפא־לך׃ ך מם שברול כיכי־גד וןת בת־ציך בתולואנחמו ספק טו {ס{וא ומדוחים׃ ות שמשא ךחזו לוי) ךתשבו(יב שביתך ך להשנ�על־עו וולא־גל

ילת כליר שיאמרוהע אתם הזת ירושלם על־בעו ראש וינשרקו רךברי ד כל־עיםיך כפעלך ענו או בלן אמרויחרקו־ש יך שרקויב כל־איך פיהםו עלפצ טז {ס{וש לכל־הארץ׃ פי משי׃אנו ראינוהו מצשקוינ וםה היז

30


ה אדני 5 לע ישרבל ׀ כאיב הי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 או היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח



ח אדני 7 ר מ הזבח׀ מ זנ s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 הקדשנאבא דגר ביהס ת ארמנח י s 6:6 f 3:3 3:2 יהתמ



s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 יהר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ה ושר ין תכהנב ה בגויםימלכ הום א s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 ראגם־נבא או יה ל 5:7s :3 4f :23 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז מצ

רץ ידמו 10 בו לא זקני בת־צ יש s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםלו עפר על־ראהע ם ש רו שק s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 חגןוה רץ ראש דו לא 6s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7: }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94


יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שב בי אויךח עלל וישמא חמס ולדם הרמימי־ק הר צו אשע אמרתום בצר זמה אשה יהועשילה ם ול יומחל דמעהכנ ידייון הורת בת־צי חומם אל־אדנק לבצע יח {ס{רן צריך׃ ים קהר

י שפכ ותר אשמלראש) ילהבל( ני בליל׀ ר ומיק יט {ס{ם בת־עינך׃ אל־תד ך לי פוגתאל־תתנאש בר בים ברעיך העטופ עוללפשיך על־נכפ יוי אלי שאי אדנכח פנך נ לביםכמ

ים י טפח עללםים פרילנה נשם־תאכא הלת כי עוליטה למ והבה יהוהרא כ {ס{כל־חוצות׃ י ובחור ין בתולתער וזק נרץ חוצותו לאשכב כא {ס{ן ונביא׃ י כהש אדנבמקד גאם־יהר

א יב ול מסבד מגוריום מועי כתקרא כב {ס{חמלת׃ א חת לטב ךום אפ ביגתרב הרו בחנפל {פ{י כלם׃ יתי איבורב חתייד אשר־טפיט ושרה פלום אף־יהובי ההי

31

Lamentations 2:17-22 Reconstruction

ה אדני 5 לבל ׀ כאיב הי s 8:5 f 3:3 3:2 ע ישראו היתארמנ לע כבל ת מבצר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 שח






s (4:5):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 יהר ברחושב דאב יהשער רץעו באטב 9ה ין תכהנב יה בגויםושרמלכ הום א s 8:7 f 4:4 3:3 ראגם־נבא או יה ל 5:7s :3 4f :23 /177/3 }ס{ ׃ן מיהוהחז מצ

רץ ידמו 10 בו לא זקני בת־צ יש s 7:5 f 3:3 3:2 ןיםלו עפרהע ם על־ראש רו שק s 7:4 f 4:2 3:2 חגןוה רץ ראש דו לא 6s :3 4f :23 /15/63 7: }ס{ םשללת ירבת ר

8/4/2/1 6/12/30 + 6/14/32 + 6/13/32 18/39/94


יה 9 רץ שער בעו בא יה ודבא ט ר ברח s 7:7 f 3:3 3:3 שב ב אוייךח עלישמל וא חמלס ודם הרמימי־ק הר צו אשע אמרתום בצר זמה אשה יהועשילה ם ול יומחל דמעהכנ ידייון הורת בת־צי חומם אל־אדנק לבצע יח {ס{רן צריך׃ ים קהר

י שפכ ות אשמרלראש) ילהבל(ני בליל ׀ ר ומיק יט {ס{ם בת־עינך׃ אל־תד ך לי פוגתאל־תתנאש בר בים ברעיך העטופ עוללפשיך על־נכפ יוי אלי שאי אדנכח פנך נ לביםכמ

ים י טפח עללים פריםלנה נשאם־תאכ ה כלתי עוליטה למ והבה יהוהרא כ {ס{כל־חוצות׃ י ובחור ין בתולתער וזק נרץ חוצותו לאשכב כא {ס{ן ונביא׃ י כהש אדנבמקד גאם־יהר

א יב ול מסבד מגוריום מוע כיתקרא כב {ס{א חמלת׃ ת לחטב ךום אפ ביגתרב הרו בחנפל {פ{י כלם׃ יתי איבורב חתייד אשר־טפיט ושרה פלום אף־יהובי ההי

32


אה ע רב הגניא 1 בב ניר s (3:3):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 ׃הט עברתש ךל ויגי נהתא 2 ך ושח 6s :3 3f 2:3 :4 אור׃־אל ךפ יהי ישבב־אך 3 w 5: 6s 3: 3f 2:3 6/17/3 3:4 }ס{ ם׃ הי־ל כהידה בשרי וע 4 יבל י׃ר עצמשב ור s :3 3f 2:3 5:8 תאש ו ףי ויקבנה על 5 ה׃ר s 7:5 f 4:3 3:2 תלאם הבמח 6 ם׃ נישבושכ י על s 2: 4f 2:2 4/1/63 5:7 }ס{ כמתיר בעגד 7 או ד א אצ הכב ל י׃יד נח s (4:4):5 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 שתי אזעק־גם 8 עוא כ י׃שת שו w 4:2 s 7:6 f 4:3 3:2 ם תפלתיתר דרכגד 9 בת י בגז ה׃נת s :33 f :23 6/17/3 58: }ס{ י עו

10 בד יאה ב אר ם׃ במריא ל s (3:2):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 סתר יכרד 11 ר ו נישפי סר ם׃שמ ח s 2: 4f :23 4:8 ני שמך קשת 12 ניהדר ץ׃ ויצב א לח s :34 f 2:3 6/17/3 6:8 }ס{ כמטרי 13 6s :3 3f :22 :5 ׃הי אשפתבנ הביא בכליתי ללכ הייתי שחק 14 ם עמ s (4:4):7 f (2:2):4 (2:2):2 ׃היום־לכנגנתםני במרהשבע 15 ה׃ני לעהרו ר s 2:4 f 2:2 4/17/3 47: }ס{ נחצץ שנ 16 ס ב פר׃הכפש יויגר s 8:5 f 4:2 3:2 ני באחזנות 17 י משל יתי ט ם נפש ה׃נש s 8:4 f 5:2 3:2 באמ 18 יר אבו י מוות ד נצח s 4:4 f :23 /15/63 7:7 }ס{ יהוה׃חלת

8/4/2/1 (9+9 lines; 20+20 versets; 47+45 prosodic words) 18/40/92

י› 1:11 י נשפו ח ר ‹ ‹› סר יכרד ני [ יפשח ר ו י סור ‹› M vocal ║ 17 דרכ חזנות ║ M vocal ותזנח [

x,y x = 6 to 8 y = 4 to 7 x+y = 10 to 14 x-y = 0 to 4 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 3 to 4 y = 2 to 4 z = 5 to 7 (x+y)+z = 10 to 14 (x+y)-z = 0 to 3

compensatable lines: 4 of 18 lines compensatable in reverse: 2 of 18 σ (y+1 to 3):y compensations: 4x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y or x+y=z): 2x f (y+1 or 2):y compensations: 2x f (y+1):y with σ (x+y=z): 1x

י› 1:11 י נשפו ח ר ‹ ‹› סר יכרד ני [ יפשח ר ו י סור M vocal דרכ

If M is retained, the verset is uniquely long (10 σ). The proposed rdg is an equally conceivable qere.

17 ‹› חזנות M vocal ותזנח [ M seems awkward. The proposed rdg presupposes a rarer form but is an equally conceivable qere.

Listed below are alternate reconstructions of Lam 3:1, 7, 10, 14 which will not be discussed here:

י הג 1 בט עברת יאדנה ער בראנ s (3:5):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 ׃הבשם החמב 7 ניושכ ם׃ שב י על 4w 7:6 s :4 4f 3:3 3: }ס{ כמת

10 בד יאה ב אר ם׃מרי בא ל s (3:2):5 f (2:2):3 (2:2):2 סתר

33


י ו רזכ 19 ימרעני אש׃לע ד s 8:4 f 4:2 3:2 נה ורי׃על חי ותשרר תזכזכ 20 s 2: 3f 2:3 4:7 י נפשי 21 יב אל־לב את אש ן א ז יל׃ועל־כ w 4: 6s 2: 3f 2:3 /15/63 3:4 }ס{ חי יהוה 22 סד ־כי ח ־כי ומתמ אל ו׃כלו רח אל s (4:4):6 f (2:2):3 (2:2):3 מםח 23 ה אמ דשם לבקר w 6: 7s :33 f :22 )32:(:4 ך׃נתרבי יהוה 24 יאמ חל ק ן רה נפש ילואעל־כ 22( f 3)::22( /18/83:(:s 3 )4:4(:5}ס{ לו׃חוט 25 נו׃נל ב יהוה לקו w (2:2):4 s 6:5 f 3:3 3:2 פש תדרשםב ויחיל ודט 26 s :33 f :23 6:7 ת יהוה׃עלתש מי־ישברב לגט 27 ל בנע א כ ו׃ע w 5:6 s :34 f :23 /15/63 2:4 }ס{ רם 28 ב בדד ויד ו׃נט־יכ יש s 3:3 f :23 5:7 ל עליהו 29 עפר פ ן ב ה׃לא ית s 6:5 f 3:3 3:3 י יש תקוהו ל 30 ן למכ ה׃ישב חיית s 2:3 f :23 5:6 }ס{ ע בחרפ /16/63 י־ 31 כ w 4:2 s 7:5 f 3:2 3:2 ׃םאד יאדנ םל לעא יזנחלי־ 32 ו׃כר ם ורחגהוה םאכ w 5:7 s 2: 3f :23 2:4 ב חסדי־ 33 א ענה מלבכ יש׃הגווי הל w 6:7 s :2 4f :23 3:4 }ס{ בני־א /15/63ולדכא ת 34 רץ׃סח לכ חת רגל s 3:3 f :33 5:6 ירי א ברג־טשפת מלהט 35 נ י עלי w 3:3 s 6:5 f 3:3 2:3 ן׃גד פנה׃ הלעות אדם ברב 36 א רא s 3:3 f 3:3 /17/63 6:8 }ס{ אדני ל

8/3/2/1 12/26/64 + 6/12/32 18/38/96

חיש › 3:20 › חיותש Mqere graph ותשוח [Mket GL V ות G σ' facil ║

x,y x = 6 to 8 y = 4 to 6 x+y = 11 to 14 x-y = 1 to 4 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 4 y = 4 z = 5 to 6 (x+y)+z = 13 to 14 (x+y)-z = 2 to 3

compensatable lines: 5 of 18 lines compensatable in reverse: 0 σ (y+1 to 2):y compensations: 5x

34


א צו היר ותזה אמ־מי 37 w 4:3 s 6:6 f 3:3 3:3 ה׃אדני לי עלי 38 א ןמפ א תצ רע ל )22( f 2)::22:(:s 3) 3:4:(6 ב׃ת והטהימה־יתא 39 ם ח s :34 f 2:3 7/1/73 4:7 }ס{ ׃האטבר על־חג נן אד

רהנחפ 40 נחק נו ו w 6:8 s :3 3f 2:3 33: ה׃ובה עד־יהוונש שה דרכנו 41 א לבב יםא נש ים׃ ל־כפ ל בשמ w 4:3 s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 אל־אינווענו חנו פשנ 42 חת׃א מר א סל 6s :3 3f 3:3 6/1/63 :4 }ס{ תה ל

נוסכות באף ו 43 לת׃הר תרדפ א חמ s 8:5 f 4:3 3:3 גת לך 44 ענן ל עב סכות ב ה׃מ s 6:6 f 4:3 3:2 ר תפלנוחי ומאס 45 ים׃ב ק ס תשמ עמ s :3 3f :23 57: }ס{ רב ה /166/3

נו פיה 46 נו׃ לכ םפצו על יב s 6:4 f 3:3 3:2 אנו חתחד ופפ 47 יה ל בר׃ ה את והש )22( f 2)::22:(:s 2) 3:3:(5 השי 48 ד ענ ים תר י׃על־ש פלגי־מ w 5:8 s 3:4 f 2:3 6/1/73 4:4 }ס{בר בת־עמ

49 י נג הו רהענ א תדמ s (4:4):5 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 ת׃ן הפגימא ל s 3:4 f :23 5:7 ׃יעני יםמשמ הורא יה וי עד־ישקיף 50י לולע ללע 51 י׃ לנפש ל בנות עיר s :3 3f 3:3 7/1/73 6:7 }ס{ מכם׃ רדוני כצפד צצ 52 י חנ יב s 2: 4f :23 5:6 איצמ 53 י׃א וויד תו בבור חי s 6:5 f 3:3 3:3 בן בימ פוצ 54 רתי׃אמ ים על־ראש s 2: 4f :23 6/1/63 45: }ס{ רתי נגז

8/4/2/1 (9+9 lines; 19+20 versets; 49+49 prosodic words) 18/39/98

x,y x = 5 to 8 y = 4 to 6 x+y = 9 to 14 x-y = 0 to 4 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 3 to 4 y = 3 to 4 z = 5 to 6 (x+y)+z = 11 to 13 (x+y)-z = 1 to 3

compensatable lines: 5 of 18 lines compensatable in reverse: 2 of 18 σ (y+1 to 3):y compensations: 4x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y or x+y=z): 1x f (y+1):y compensations: 1x f (y+1):y with σ (x+y=z): 1x w (y+1):y compensations: 1x w (y+1):y compensations: 1x

Listed below is an alternate reconstruction of Lam 3:39 which will not be discussed here:

ימה־יתא 39 ם ח s 7:4 f 3:3 3:2 3/7/17 }ס{ ׃האטבר על־חג נן אדים לגיפ 48 י מ ד ענ י׃ תר בר בת־עמ w 4:4 s (4:4):5 f (3:2):3 (2:2):2}ס{על־ש 3/8/16 5s :3 3f :22 5: ׃יםמשמ הויה רא ויעד־ישקיף 50ילולע ינע 51 י׃ לנפש ל בנות עיר s 6:6 f 3:3 3:3 3/7/17 }ס{ מכ

35


אתי שמ 55 s 6:5 f 3:3 3:2 ת׃ר תחתימב הוהך יקר תעל לא עת שמליק 56 י ךם אזנ )3:2( f 2):3:2(:s 3) 5:4:(6 תי׃עושלרוחתקר 57 ךבת בי א׃ לרת אאמ ם אקרא s :34 f 3:3 8/1/73 5:7 }ס{ תירי בת אדניר 58 י נפש )2:2( f 2)::22(:s 2) 4:4:(4 לת חיי׃גא רבי 59 תת ית יהוה עו י׃טה מפש רא s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 שפטית כ 60 םנ לרא י׃כ קמת ם ל 3w 6:6 s 3: 4f :23 6/17/3 3: }ס{ ל־מחשבתי׃כ העת חרפתם יהושמ 61 ם על w 3:3 s 7:7 f 4:3 3:2 ל־מחשבתי קמ 62 םי והגישפת w 3:3 s 8:5 f 4:3 3:2 ל־היום׃י כעל ניטה 63 מתם הב ם ו ק ם׃ני מנגא שבת s :34 f :23 6/16/3 58: }ס{ נתיב לה 64 ה ידהכמע גמול יהוה םתש s (4:4):6 f (2:2):2 (2:2):2 ׃םשן לה 65 ב םתת s 8:6 f 4:3 3:2 ׃םהלעך לתתא מגנת־לםתרד 66 s 2: 4f :23 4:8 }פ{ ׃ ךישמחת מת ף באף ותשמד /16/73

8/4/2/1 6/14/34 + 6/13/32 12/27/66

x,y x = 6 to 9 y = 5 to 7 x+y = 11 to 14 x-y = 0 to 3 x,y,z (x+y)+z x = 4 y = 4 to 5 z = 5 to 7 (x+y)+z = 12 to 15 (x+y)-z = 2 to 4

compensatable lines: 1 of 12 lines compensatable in reverse: 2 of 12 σ (y+2):y compensations: 1x ω (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 2x f (y+1):y with σ (x=y): 2x

Listed below are alternate reconstructions of Lam 3:56, 60, 64, and 66 which will not be discussed here:

י ןז אםתעל לא עת שמליק 56 )3:2( f 2)::22(:s 3) 4:4:(6 תי׃עושלרוחתית כ 60 םנ לרא s 3: 4f :23 /16/73 56: }ס{ ׃ם מחשבת לכ קמתן לה 64 s 8:6 f 4:3 3:2 ׃םהלעך לתתא נגנתםמ םתתםתרד 66 s :3 4f :33 6:8 }פ{ה׃יהו ךישמחת מת ף באף ותשמד /16/73

36

Aggregate Statistics for Lamentations 3

Comprehensive


Outlying Versets: 4 of 144 (less than 3%) 2 σ “b” verset in (x+y)+z: 3:10 7 σ “b” or “c” versets: 3:14; 18; 61

Outlying Lines: 1 of 66 (less than 2%) longer than 14 σ: 3:56 (15 σ)

Excluding Outliers


Macro Symmetries

3:1-36 18/40/92 + 18/38/96 = 36/78/188 3:37-54 18/39/98 + 12/27/66 = 30/66/164

1:1-22 24/12/4/2/1 66/144/352 66 = 3 x 22 144 = 12 x 22 352 = 16 x 22

(12 and 22 are recurrent numbers in the compositional technique of ancient Hebrew verse)

Pro forma stanzas are uniform in length and structure: 6 lines, 12 to 14 versets, 29 to 34 ω’s, with a “target” range of ω’s of from 31 to 33

6/14/34 3:55-60 (1x) 6/14/33 3:19-24 (1x) 6/14/32 3:7-12 (1x) 6/13/33 3:37-42; 49-54 (2x) 6/13/32 3:43-48; 61-66 (2x) 6/13/31 3:1-6 (1x) 6/13/29 3:13-18 (1x) 6/12/32 3:31-36 (1x) 6/12/31 3:25-30 (1x)

Pro forma strophes: 3 lines, 6 to 8 versets, 14 to 18 ω’s, with a “t” range of ω’s of from 15 to 17

3/8/18 3:21-23 (1x) 3/7/18 3:55-57 (1x) 3/7/17 3:1-3; 37-39; 49-51 (3x) 3/7/16 3:7-9; 10-12; 46-48; 58-60; 64-66 (5x) 3/7/14 3:13-15 (1x) 3/6/17 3:34-36 (1x) 3/6/16 3:28-30; 40-42; 43-45; 52-54; 61-63 (5x) 3/6/15 3:16-18; 19-21; 25-27; 31-33 (4x) 3/6/14 3:4-6 (1x)

A strophe often finishes with a highly syncopated [σ (x-y) or σ (x+y)-z = 2 to 4] verset: 14 of 22

37

Expanded References

AB. See Hillers, Lamentations. Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of יכ ” Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 105 (1986) 193-209. BHQ. See Schäfer, “Lamentations.” BHS. See Rudolph, “Threni.” Cross, “Lamentations 1” Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. “The Prosody of Lamentations 1 and the Psalm of Jonah.” Pages 99-134 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998 [revision of earlier articles]. Ehrlich, Randglossen Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritiches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. 7 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908-1914. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968. HCOT. See Renkema, Lamentations. Hurowitz, “Lamentations 1:11” Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “זוללה = Peddler/Tramp/Vagabond/Beggar: Lamentations I 11 in light of Akkadian zilulû,” VT 49 (1999) 542-45. Milgrom, Leviticus Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 vols. AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2000. NJV Schäfer, “Lamentations” Schäfer, Rolf. “Lamentations.” Pages 113*-136* in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megillot. Edited by Adrian Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004.

Documents

Lamentations 1-5: The Corpus Introduction · 2009. 6. 29. · Lamentations 1-5: The Corpus Introduction The Tiberian tradition does not provide unmediated access to the text it transmits