THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Definiteness in Qumran Aramaic

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures

School of Arts and Sciences

Of The Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

©

Copyright

All Rights Reserved

By

William B. Fullilove

Washington, D.C.

2014

Definiteness in Qumran Aramaic

William B. Fullilove, Ph.D.

Director: Edward M. Cook, Ph.D.

The morphological marking, or non-marking, of the definiteness of a noun phrase in the Aramaic

language has changed over time. At the time of Imperial Aramaic (IA) the emphatic state of the noun

was used to indicate definiteness, a usage that was passed on to other dialects due to the pervasive

influence of IA. By the time of at least some later Aramaic dialects, such as Syriac, however, the

emphatic state clearly had lost such a function. This breakdown occurred at different paces in different

Aramaic dialects. This study analyzes how nominal states do or do not correlate with the definiteness of

the noun phrase in Qumran Aramaic (QA), a dialect stemming from the Middle Aramaic (MA) period.

Each QA noun phrase is morphologically categorized according to the state of the noun or nouns in the

phrase and semantically categorized according to the definiteness of the phrase. The combination of

these two categorizations reveals the continued categorical dependence of state upon definiteness in

QA. By and large, the emphatic state is used for semantically definite nouns and the absolute state for

semantically indefinite nouns. The exceptions to this connection are in the area of semantically definite

absolute nouns but almost never in the area of semantically indefinite emphatic nouns, indicating that

the emphatic state had not begun to encroach upon the domain of the absolute state in any real way.

Various types of the noun phrase are considered separately, including abstract nouns, generic nouns,

and genitive phrases. The behavior of state and definiteness is also considered in relationship to various

other factors, including genre; translational versus non-translational texts; and the gender, number, and

other characteristics of the noun phrase. Finally, the implications of this study for the Aramaic

background of the New Testament phrase “the son of man” are considered, as they cast doubt on

Maurice Casey’s proposed “Solution to the Son of Man Problem.”

ii

This dissertation by William B. Fullilove fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral

degree in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures approved by Edward M. Cook, Ph.D.,

as Director, and by Andrew D. Gross, Ph.D. and Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D. as Readers.

Signature Page

__________________________________________

Edward M. Cook, Ph.D., Director

__________________________________________

Andrew D. Gross, Ph.D., Reader

__________________________________________

Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D., Reader

iii

Dedication

I dedicate this study to those who made it possible:

To my loving and wonderful – and patient – wife Jill, who endured the absence and preoccupation of

her husband for so long on this project.

To my adorable and beloved children, Caroline and Evelyn, who love their daddy no matter what

work he does.

To our endlessly loving and supportive parents, Tom, Donna, Richard, and Ellen, each of whom

supported us through this long endeavor.

There are none like them, and I am grateful to God that we are a family.

iv

Table of Contents

Signature Page ii

Dedication iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Abbreviations v

List of Qumran Aramaic Texts vi

Acknowledgements x

Introduction 1

Chapter One: Background and Methodology 12

Chapter Two: Simple Definites and Indefinites 53

Chapter Three: Genitive Phrases 99

Chapter Four: Translational Forms 125

Chapter Five: Implications 154

Appendix 1: Simple Noun Phrases 174

Appendix 2: Definite Construct Phrases with an Emphatic Nomen Rectum 380

Bibliography 390

v

List of Abbreviations

frag. fragment

col. column

impf. Imperfect

impv. Imperative

ptc. participle

m masculine

f feminine

[ ] lacuna in a text

< > missing element in the text that needs to be inserted

{ } removed element from the text due to scribal error

vi

List of Qumran Aramaic Texts

Text Number Title (Other Common Sigla)

1Q20 Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar, GenAp)

1Q21 The Words of Levi (1QTLevi)

1Q23 The Book of Giants (1QEnGiantsa)

1Q24 The Book of Giants (1QEnGiantsb)

1Q32 A Vision of the New Jerusalem (1QNJ)

1Q63-68 Unclassified Aramaic Fragments

2Q24 Description of the New Jerusalem (2QNJ)

2Q26 The Book of Giants (2QEnGiants)

3Q12-14 Aramaic Groups

4Q156 Targum of Leviticus (4QtgLev)

4Q157 Targum of Job (4QtgJob)

4Q196 Tobit (4QToba ar)

4Q197 Tobit (4QTobb ar)

4Q198 Tobit (4QTobc ar)

4Q199 Tobit (4QTobd ar)

4Q201 The Book of Enoch (4QEna ar)

4Q202 The Book of Enoch (4QEnb ar)

4Q203 The Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsa ar)

4Q204 The Book of Enoch (4QEnc ar)

4Q205 The Book of Enoch (4QEnd ar)

4Q206 The Book of Enoch (4QEne ar)

4Q207 The Book of Enoch (4QEnf ar)

4Q208 Astronomical Enoch (4Q Enastra ar)

4Q209 Astronomical Enoch (4Q Enastrb ar)

4Q210 Astronomical Enoch (4Q Enastrc ar)

vii

4Q211 Astronomical Enoch (4Q Enastrd ar)

4Q212 The Book of Enoch (4QEng ar)

4Q213 The Words of Levi (4QLevia ar)

4Q213a The Words of Levi (4QLevib ar)

4Q213b The Words of Levi (4QLevic ar)

4Q214 The Words of Levi (4QLevid ar)

4Q214a The Words of Levi (4QLevie ar)

4Q214b The Words of Levi (4QLevif ar)

4Q242 The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QprNab ar)

4Q243 The Vision of Daniel (4Qpseudo-Daniela ar)

4Q244 The Vision of Daniel (4Qpseudo-Danielb ar)

4Q245 The Vision of Daniel (4Qpseudo-Danielc ar)

4Q246 The Son of God Text (4QapocrDan ar)

4Q318 Brontologion (4QZodBront ar)

4Q339 List of False Prophets (4QFalProph ar)

4Q342-60 (parts) Alleged Qumran Texts (4QLetter ar)

4Q488 Aramaic Apocryphon (4QpapApocr ar)

4Q489 Aramaic Apocalypse (4QpapApoc ar)

4Q490 Aramaic Fragments (4QpapFrgs ar)

4Q529 The Words of Michael (4QWordsMich ar)

4Q530 The Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsb ar)

4Q531 The Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsc ar)

4Q532 The Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsd ar)

4Q533 The Book of Giants (4QEnGiantse ar)

4Q534-6 Elect of God or Birth of Noah (4QBirthNoaha-c ar)

4Q537 Jacob at Bethel (4QTJacob ar)

4Q538 Words of Benjamin; formerly: Testament of Judah (4QTJudah ar)

viii

4Q539 Testament of Joseph (4QTJoseph ar)

4Q540 The Words of Levi (4QapocrLevia ar)

4Q541 The Words of Levi (4QapocrLevib ar)

4Q542 The Last Words of Kohath (4QTQah ar)

4Q543 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmrama ar)

4Q544 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmramb ar)

4Q545 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmramc ar)

4Q546 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmramd ar)

4Q547 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmrame ar)

4Q548 The Vision of Amram (4QVisAmramf ar)

4Q549 Hur and Miriam (4QVisAmramg ar)

4Q550 The Tale of Patireza and Bagasraw (4Q Proto-Esthera ar)

4Q550 a-e The Tale of Patireza and Bagasraw (4Q Proto-Estherb-f ar)

4Q551 Aramaic Fragment (4QDanSuz ar)

4Q552 The Vision of the Four Trees (4QFourKingdomsa ar)

4Q553 The Vision of the Four Trees (4QFourKingdomsb ar)

4Q554 A Vision of the New Jerusalem (4QNJa ar)

4Q554a A Vision of the New Jerusalem (4QNJb ar)

4Q555 A Vision of the New Jerusalem (4QNJc ar)

4Q556 Prophetic History (4QPropetiea ar)

4Q556 a Prophetic History (4QPropetieb ar)

4Q557 Prophetic History (4QPropetiec ar)

4Q558 Prophetic History (4QPropetied ar)

4Q559 A Biblical Chronology (4QpapBibChron ar)

4Q560 An Aramaic Incantation (4QExorcism ar)

4Q561 An Aramaic Horoscope (4QPhysHor ar)

4Q562 An Aramaic Text on the Persian Period (4QUnidA ar)

ix

4Q563 A Priestly Vision (4QUnidB ar)

4Q564-575 Unidentified Aramaic Texts (4QUnidC-M ar)

4Q580 Aramaic Testament? (4QTestamenta ar/4QUnidN ar)

4Q581 Aramaic Testament? (4QTestamentb ar)

4Q582 Aramaic Testament? (4QTestamentc ar)

4Q583 Aramaic Testament? (4QTestamente ar)

4Q584 Unidentified Fragments A

4Q585 Unidentified Fragments B

4Q586 Unidentified Fragments C

4Q587 Aramaic Testament? (4QTestamentd ar)

5Q15 A Vision of the New Jerusalem (5QNJ ar)

5Q24 Unidentified Fragment (5QUnid)

6Q8 The Book of Giants (6QEnGiants ar)

6Q14 Apocalypse (6QApoc ar)

6Q19 Genesis Text? (6QGen (?) ar)

6Q23 Unidentified Fragment (6QUnidA ar)

6Q26 Unidentified Fragment (6QUnidB ar)

6Q31 Unidentified Fragment (6QUnidB ar)

11Q10 Targum Job (11QtgJob)

11Q18 A Vision of the New Jerusalem (11QNJ ar)

x

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to so many, more than can be ever listed. A few, though, should receive a

special acknowledgement due to their tireless help:

Douglas M. Gropp and the late M.P. O’Connor, whose presence first brought me to the

Semitics department at The Catholic University of America.

Monica Blanchard, who has the keys to the kingdom (the Semitics library, that is).

Father Sidney H. Griffith, who held our department together during a time when its future

was unclear.

Andrew D. Gross, who patiently read through manuscript upon manuscript with a keen and

meticulous eye for detail.

And most prominently, Edward M. Cook, my advisor, who is a most exceptional scholar of

Aramaic and Qumran but who is even more a kind gentleman. His care for his students and

his willingness to put their needs above his own are unmatched.

May I exemplify all these traits in my own work, out of gratitude to God for them.

1

Introduction

The Need for this Study

The 1947 discovery by Bedouin of scrolls in caves near the Wadi Qumran, the texts

commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, fundamentally reshaped biblical scholarship,

providing a new window into the world of Palestine just before the turn of the first millennia.

Approximately 800 texts were found at Qumran, many in very fragmentary condition. Seven

longer scrolls were originally found in what became later known as Cave 1. The majority of the

texts were then found in the early 1950’s in the same region in Caves 2-10. Finally, Cave 11 was

discovered in 1956, yielding the last texts, including an Aramaic Targum of the book of Job.

These texts mainly date to the first century B.C.E., though there is debate about the exact dating

of some manuscripts. They include mainly religious texts, comprising translations of biblical

texts, commentaries, apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts, community procedures, and others.

The majority of these texts are written in a dialect of Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew (QH); a

significant portion in a dialect of Aramaic, Qumran Aramaic (QA); and a few in other languages.

QA is therefore a dialect stemming from the Middle Aramaic (MA) period, which lasted from

approximately 200 BCE to 200 CE. The Aramaic texts that make up the corpus of QA comprise

approximately 105 of the 800 texts, providing a new source of information to assess the Aramaic

language shortly before the time of Christ.

The data from QA are helpful because the morphological marking, or non-marking, of

definiteness in the Aramaic language has changed over time. In proto-Aramaic, for example,

2

there was no morphological marking of definiteness, while in some dialects of Old Aramaic

(OA) (e.g. Sefire), the emphatic state was used to indicate definiteness.1 Huehnergard traces the

development of the emphatic state as a definite article, originating as a “marginally distinctive

phonological reflex” in proto-Aramaic and then spreading to eventually become “seemingly

most characteristic of all Aramaic features.”2 Na’ama Pat-El proposes that the emphatic state

originated as a marker of non-predicative adjectives, only later being attached to nouns and

reanalyzed as showing definiteness.3 However exactly the early development of the emphatic

state as a marker of definiteness proceeded, at the time of Imperial Aramaic (IA) the emphatic

state was used to indicate definiteness, a usage that was passed on to other dialects due to the

pervasive influence of IA. By the time of at least some later Aramaic dialects, such as Syriac,

however, the emphatic state clearly had lost such a function. This breakdown occurred at

different paces in different Aramaic dialects, with eastern Aramaic losing the correlation more

quickly than western Aramaic.4 Kuty summarizes the common understanding of this

development:

As was noted above…, in O[ld] A[ramaic (OA)] determination and indetermination

were indicated by the use of the st.emph. and st.abs. respectively. OA thereby

established a standard that was maintained until the MA period. By the advent of

the L[ate] A[ramaic] period, towards the beginning of the Christian Era, a

significant change had occurred. This change is usually analysed along geographic

1 What is here termed the “emphatic” state is often termed the “determined” state. The choice of the term

“emphatic” is an attempt to not pre-judge the question of whether the form indicates definiteness. Nonetheless,

some terminology is necessary for the ease of readability of this study. In reality, the choice of a particular label is

both arbitrary and irrelevant. The term “emphatic” here is simply a term for a morphological feature marking a

particular state of the noun. To ascertain what this morphological feature does and does not semantically indicate

is the purpose of this study. 2 John Huehnergard, “What Is Aramaic?,” ARAM Period. 7, no. 2 (1995): 270. 3 Naʼama Pat-el, “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic Approach,” J. Semit. Stud. 54, no. 1

(2009): 43. 4 Joseph H. Greenberg, “How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers?,” in Univers. Hum. Lang. (Stanford:

Stanford UP, 1978), 47–82.

3

lines: whereas the Western Aramaic dialects preserved the original state of affairs,

in the Eastern Aramaic dialects the st.emph. saw its determining force weakened.

Having become unmarked semantically, the st.emph. had come to do double duty

with the st.abs., and had largely ousted it. The st.emph. had therefore become the

basic, unmarked form of the noun, and the sta.abs. was confined to certain

grammatical contexts in which it could maintain its sway.5

The question to be addressed in this study is how those nominal states do or do not correlate to

the definiteness of the noun phrase in QA.

The exact status of the relationship between nominal state and definiteness in QA has

been a matter of debate since early publications about the Qumran scrolls. One school of

thought, exemplified by Kutscher’s study of the language of the Genesis Apocryphon, argues

that the emphatic state correlates with definiteness in QA. He states, “The most outstanding trait

[of the Genesis Apocryphon] is the nearly always correct use of the determination.”6 The other

school of thought, exemplified by Joseph Fitzmyer, argues that the correlation between the

emphatic state and definiteness is mainly strong, but shows some blurring. He states, “The

emphatic state usually expresses the definite or determinate quality of the noun…. However, the

determinate character of the emphatic state is on the wane….. In this case [of abstract ideas] the

fluctuating use of the absolute and emphatic states is attested, but it not otherwise usual.”7 In

both schools of thought, one must note, the debate is around the margins – it is understood that

definiteness is mainly still shown by the emphatic state of the noun. This is mainly because the

absolute state of the noun remains in common use. Fitzmyer states, “Syntactically, the absolute

5 Renaud Jean Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” Doctoral thesis, January 30, 2008, 63,

n.p. [cited 2 October 2013]. Online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12588. 6 E.Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study,” in Asp. Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta

hierosolymitana 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1958), 10 n.43. 7 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 290.

4

state is very much alive, expressing indeterminate or indefinite quality of the noun, as in earlier

Aramaic. It is scarcely moribund, as often in later Syriac.”8

In service of his approach to the “Son of Man Problem,” however, Maurice Casey has

more aggressively advanced the claim that the emphatic state no longer correlated as strongly

with the definiteness of a noun. Central to Casey’s argument is the contention that בר אנש and

,were freely interchangeable phrases at the time of Jesus. In support of that contention בר אנשא

he uses the imagery of a “breakdown” between the nominal states:

An outstanding problem is the state of (א)אנש in this idiom. This is difficult,

because surviving examples come from a period when the difference between the

absolute and emphatic states of the Aramaic noun had in general broken down.

However, there is good reason to conjecture that in the time of Jesus the absolute

and emphatic states of (א)בר אנש were already in use in this idiom without any

difference in meaning…. The breakdown of the difference between the absolute

and emphatic states of the Aramaic noun was already under way long before the

time of Jesus.9

Casey understands this breakdown to be of a gradual character, with the predominant

development being the increase of the use of the emphatic state and the loss of the use of the

absolute state: “The difference between the definite and indefinite states gradually broke down,

and this breakdown took the form of increasing use of the definite state.”10 In particular support

of his thesis, and regarding QA, Casey states, “The breakdown of the difference between the

8 Ibid., 289. 9 Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, 1980), 227–8. 10 P. M. Casey, “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the

Teaching of Jesus,” J. Study New Testam. 9, no. 29 (1987): 27–28.

5

absolute and emphatic states was already underway long before the time of Jesus, being evident

already in 11QTgJob and more advanced in 1QApGen.”11

Casey’s contention regarding the phrasing of “(the) son of man” in Aramaic has been

challenged by Paul Owen and David Shepherd precisely on the basis of Qumran Aramaic,

arguing, “The Qumran evidence, which provides us with the most reliable information

concerning Aramaic idiom in Palestine at the time of Jesus, verifies the fact that the emphatic

state of Aramaic nouns was still in common use with determinative force.”12 This disagreement

has led to a robust discussion including Casey’s 2002 response “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of

Man Problem,”13 and the recent Who is This Son of Man? edited by Larry Hurtado and Paul

Owen.14

The essence of Casey’s response to Owen and Shepherd’s critique has been to back off,

though not abandon, his initial claim. He states:

In previously published work, I have used the metaphor of ‘breakdown’ to describe

the decreasing difference between the absolute and emphatic states in some

circumstances. Since then, more very early texts have been discovered, and more

work has been done on early texts that were already known. We still need the

metaphor of ‘breakdown’ to describe what happened over a period of centuries,

because it remains clear that in some late Jewish Aramaic texts and even more in

Syriac, the distinction between the absolute and emphatic states did to a large extent break down. Two things are not however as clear as they seemed years ago. First,

it is no longer clear that the generic use of the emphatic state is part of that

breakdown, rather than a possibility from the earliest times. The same applies to

some unique items such as the heavens and the earth. These have in common with

11 Casey, Son of Man, 228. 12 P. Owen and D. Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common

Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?,” J. Study New Testam. 81 (2001): 120–1. 13 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study New

Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 3. 14 Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen, Who Is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of

the Historical Jesus (T&T Clark Int’l, 2011).

6

generic expressions that the use of the absolute or emphatic state cannot affect the

meaning. We accordingly find variation in Aramaic….15

The question of the definiteness of the emphatic form, then, remains a matter of debate. The

issues surrounding the phrase “son of man” and its purported Aramaic expression are not

identical to that debate, but most certainly related, as they relate to issues of both generic phrases

(as Casey argues) and the function of the construct phrase.

The Present Study

This debate demonstrates the need for the present study. Due to its lack of precision, the

general understanding of the development of definiteness in Aramaic will not suffice to address

this particular question in New Testament scholarship. In its place is the need to be as precise as

possible about what breakdown occurred, when, and where. This is clearly the case with the

issues of the emphatic state and its relation to the Son of Man sayings: one must attempt to

determine what words the historical Jesus would have said (presumably in Aramaic) in the first

century CE in Judea.

All parties agree that Qumran Aramaic is crucial for the question of the Aramaic

background to the New Testament due to both its geographical and temporal proximity to first

century Judea. For example, it is the broad scholarly consensus that, due to the geographical

knowledge displayed in the text, the Genesis Apocryphon was written in the land of Israel.16

Qumran Aramaic is, of course, still not a perfect analog for first century Judean Aramaic, as it is

15 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 12. 16 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 8.

7

slightly older and also may not be perfectly representative of Judean speech patterns.

Nonetheless, it is the closest analog available to modern interpreters and therefore receives pride

of place.

Both Owen and Shepherd and Maurice Casey provide examples from Qumran Aramaic

to support their contentions. Of necessity, however, the discussion has been partial, due to the

limits of a journal article and to the work involved. Owen and Shepherd use the Genesis

Apocryphon and the Targum Job as the basis for their study.17 Casey’s work throughout uses a

wide range of Aramaic data with mentions of Qumran.18 What has not yet been accomplished,

however, is a comprehensive analysis of Qumran Aramaic as regards its indication of

definiteness. With the full publication of the corpus in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert

series, such a comprehensive study can now be undertaken. If the determined and absolute states

in Qumran Aramaic both indicated indefiniteness, or if both were able to equally indicate

definiteness or indefiniteness, then a crucial pillar of Casey’s argument will hold. On the other

hand, if the determined and absolute states in Qumran Aramaic had distinct force, with the

determined state indicating definiteness and the absolute state indicating indefiniteness, then

Owen and Shepherd’s critique of Casey will gain currency.

There are levels of this question that must be addressed. First, at the broadest level, the

definiteness of the emphatic form as a whole is under debate.19 Of necessity, then, this study will

need to also examine the use of the absolute state, as these states exist in a system, a

17 Owen and Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man,” 99. 18 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 7. 19 Albert Lukaszewski, “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of

Scholarship,” in Who This Son Man Latest Scholarsh. Puzzling Expr. Hist. Jesus (ed. Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L.

Owen; T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 23.

8

paradigmatic relationship. Second, the phrase “son of man,” is a genitive relationship, so the

more-specific question is the definiteness of forms within the construct phrase or genitive phrase

marked with די. This study will therefore examine the specific question of how these nominal

states act within the genitive phrase in regards to definiteness. Third, Casey’s most recently-

stated position puts more emphasis on his view of (א)בר אנש as a generic phrase. Accordingly,

this study will examine the particular question of the use of the emphatic and absolute states in

various specific types of noun phrases, including, but not limited to, generic expressions.

Secondary literature regarding these issues must be sifted for its relevance. Indeed,

Casey regularly complains about “antiquated secondary literature” regarding definiteness and

Aramaic.20 Casey’s concern has been challenged on the point that he himself brings no such

studies to bear. For example, Owen notes, “Casey is unable to appeal to any existing body of

scholarship in Aramaic studies to counter the … positions of Owen and Shepherd. He is content

to offer his own isolated conjectures based on individual examples.”21 This critique of Casey

holds substantial weight, mainly based on the absence of studies in Casey’s corner. However, it

is true that studies of Aramaic from before the discoveries at Qumran and Bar Kokhba are quite

limited in their usefulness, as these more recent finds substantially developed the modern

understanding of the linguistic milieu of Aramaic in the first and second centuries B.C.E. and

A.D.22 Studies of Aramaic published after the discoveries of Qumran and Bar Kokhba, however,

20 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 18. 21 Paul Owen, “Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution,’” in Who This Son Man Latest Scholarsh. Puzzling Expr. Hist. Jesus

(ed. Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen; T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 33. 22 Albert Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

St. Andrews, 2004), 62.

9

can be used quite profitably, though one should note that many of them were done before the

fairly-recent full publication of the Qumran corpus.

What remains, then, is the need to do a full analysis of Qumran Aramaic and definiteness.

As Lukazewski states, “[T]here is a need for an assessment based on the grammar (especially the

construct phrases) therein attested, to provide the scientific underpinning of any alleged Aramaic

forerunner to ὁ υἱὸϛ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.”23 This study aims to fill that need, taking advantage of

recent advances in linguistics regarding the study of definiteness and applying them to the now-

available complete corpus of Qumran Aramaic. Each noun phrase from Qumran Aramaic is

analyzed, so long as the reading of the text is either certain or the restoration of a text is virtually

certain, to understand both its morphological state and its function as regards definiteness.

Limits of This Study

This study makes no attempt to address the Son of Man problem in its totality, nor does it

attempt to fully address the linguistic issues surrounding the phrase. As such, it only aims to

address one subsection of the larger Son of Man debate that has bedeviled scholars for centuries.

Further, this study does not address the various methodological critiques of Casey’s work

that have been offered. Those critiques mainly have addressed the question of whether Casey

can validly use later Aramaic texts to fill gaps where Qumran Aramaic or earlier Aramaic is

silent due to the haphazard nature of preservation of ancient texts. Much of the debate between

Owen and Shepherd and Casey is over what proximity (both geographically and temporally) of

23 Lukaszewski, “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of Scholarship,”

19.

10

texts is “close enough to count.” Casey is quite willing to base his analysis off of texts from later

Aramaic if Middle Aramaic is silent on the issue, to which Owen and Shepherd strenuously

object.24 This methodological question is crucial to the success or failure of Casey’s argument –

can later Aramaic texts be validly used in a reconstruction of first-century Judean Aramaic? This

author’s personal answer is “only with incredible caution,” but those questions have been

addressed by others and are outside the scope of this current work. Instead, this work focuses

specifically on building the data for and understanding of definiteness in Qumran Aramaic, as a

much more modest contribution to the ongoing discussion.

Likewise, this study does not address the question of the initial aleph which Casey also

proposes is optional in the phrase, as he renders it, (א)בר (א)נש. Lukazewski notes, “Contrary to

the forms espoused by Vermes and as Fitzmyer has previously noted, the initial aleph of אנש has

not yet disappeared in Qumran Aramaic. The only exception to this is the plural absolute of the

lexeme, נשין (1QapGen 20.7; 4Q201 3.14; 4Q202 2.18).”25

Finally, this study makes no attempt to address every detail of definiteness in Aramaic.

To adequately address issues such as the “breakdown” of the distinction between the emphatic

and absolute states – when and how it occurred – would require duplicating the analysis of this

study for every (or at least most every) known Aramaic corpus, whether as a whole or in

reference to a representative sample. Instead, the present study focuses specifically on the

question of definiteness in Qumran Aramaic, with the hope that its results will therefore

24 Owen and Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man,” 91–2. 25 Lukaszewski, “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of Scholarship,”

23.

11

contribute initially to Aramaic studies and secondarily to the ongoing study of the Son of Man

problem in New Testament scholarship.

12

Chapter One: Background and Methodology

Semantic and Grammatical Definiteness

The general term “definiteness” needs to be considered under two separate headings,

semantic and grammatical definiteness. Semantic definiteness is a contextual concern – based on

one’s understanding of the nature of definiteness (see discussion below), does the noun phrase in

question evidence the trait or traits that would be termed “definite”? Grammatical definiteness,

on the other hand, is a morphological category, a feature encoded in a language, whether this is

done by a free-standing definite article, an affixal definite article, or some other feature.

A bevy of examples and arguments support the distinction between grammatical and

semantic definiteness. At the root of all of them is the point that a morphological category does

not guarantee semantic use. First, the identical referent can be grammatically definite in one

language and indefinite in another. The following examples are taken from Löbner:

(1) English: He kept his hand in his pocket.

German: Er hatte die Hand in der Tasche.

French: Il avait la main à la poche.1

(2) English: She goes to church.

German: Sie geht in die Kirche.2

1 Sebastian Löbner, “Definites,” J. Semant. 4 (1985): 280. 2 Ibid., 307.

13

(3) English: He came after lunch.

German: Er kam nach dem Mittagessen.3

Second, collective and abstract nouns are often marked grammatically as definite in one

language and not so marked in another, even though they refer to the same concept. Krámský

cites the following examples, originally from Biard:

(4) English: Truth is the daughter of time.

German: Die Wahrheit ist die Tochter der Zeit.

French: La vérité est la fille du temps.

(5) English: One must love justice before everything.

German: Man soll vor allem die Gerechtigkeit lieben.

French: On doit aimer la justice avant tout.

(6) English: One must yield to necessity.

German: Man muss der Notwendigkeit gehorchen.

French: Il faut obéir à la nécessité.

3 Ibid.

14

(7) English: One ought to despise danger and death.

German: Man soll der Gefahr und dem Tod trotzen.

French: Il faut mépriser le danger et la mort.4

Lyons compares English and Ewe and finds the same types of variations.5

Examples could be multiplied almost endlessly, especially regarding proper nouns.

Colloquial German, for instance, marks personal names with the definite article, while English

only so marks artificial names (e.g.: the London Symphony Orchestra).6 The referent of the

personal names in such comparisons is identical, so this shows a difference in the grammatical

definiteness (the range of use of the definite article), not a difference in semantic definiteness

(the intended communication of the noun phrase).7

Third, though it is relatively rare, a language can instead morphologically mark

subcategories within definiteness. Givón notes, for instance, that Frisian and Malagasy have two

definite articles which map the distinction between what he terms “transparent” and “opaque”

definiteness.8 Likewise, Löbner notes that some dialects of German in the Rhineland also have

two different definite articles, as does the Frisian dialect Fering.9 These examples indicate that

4 Jiří Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), 52. 5 Christopher Lyons, Definiteness (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics; Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University

Press, 1999), 160. 6 Löbner, “Definites,” 299. 7 Lyons, Definiteness, 337. 8 Talmy Givón, “Definiteness and Referentiality,” in Univers. Hum. Lang. (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1978), 314. 9 Löbner, “Definites,” 312.

15

definiteness as a grammatical category does not completely overlap with any semantic/pragmatic

category.

The implication of this distinction is that semantic definiteness can be expressed without

regularly encoding it in a language via a morpheme. As Lyons states, “It is clear that this notion

[semantic/pragmatic definiteness] plays a significant part in many languages which lack formal

marking of definiteness, but, as pointed out, it seems to be broader than the grammatical

definiteness associated with lexical or morphological marking by an article, since it embraces all

generically interpreted noun phrases.”10 Besides the definite article, there are many other

devices that can express definiteness, including word order, verb typology, numeral classifiers,

demonstratives, and others.11

In other words, languages without the definite article still express definiteness, because

the article is only one way of many to express determination.12 Examples of such semantic

definiteness in languages that lack any formal article abound. Slavic languages, for instance,

other than some Russian dialects and Bulgarian, express definiteness mainly via word order.13

Polish ultimately shows semantic definiteness by context, but it uses word order and information

structure to create default assumptions of definiteness and indefiniteness.14 Finnish has no

articles, but it does show a hierarchy of methods to indicate definiteness, with context being the

10 Lyons, Definiteness, 236. 11 Givón, “Definiteness and Referentiality,” 306. 12 Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, 9. 13 Ibid., 187–191. 14 Andrew Chesterman, On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish (Cambridge studies

in linguistics 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 184.

16

dominant factor.15 Likewise, Mandarin has a complex array of devices to show definiteness.16

Definiteness as a semantic/pragmatic concept, then, exists in all languages, whether or not they

have a definite article.17

In a given language, therefore, a noun or noun phrase could be semantically definite

without its definiteness being morphologically encoded by a definite article.18 For example,

even in English, which has a well-developed articular system, proper names, which are

considered inherently definite, have no definite article attached. Further, the semantic concept of

definiteness need not necessarily be tied to any morphological marker at all in a language – some

languages have no grammatical category of definiteness, even though all languages have the

semantic category.19

Grammatical Definiteness

Grammatical definiteness is expressed differently in different languages, some using

independent words and others using affixes. Krámský’s 1972 survey establishes a typology of

languages that express determinedness and indeterminedness via independent words, affixes, a

combination of affixes and independent words, and by non-morphological means.20 For

example, Arabic indicates definiteness by an affixal article, whereas English indicates

definiteness via “the,” which popularly is considered a separate lexeme but which shows

consistent proclitic use.

15 Ibid., 2. 16 Givón, “Definiteness and Referentiality,” 306. 17 Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, 55. 18 Löbner, “Definites,” 279. 19 Lyons, Definiteness, 226, 275. 20 Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language.

17

Further, even languages with independent articular systems deploy them in different ways

vis-à-vis marking semantic definiteness. In addition to examples 1-7 above, one can consider the

examples Lyons provides of class nouns.

(9) English: She loves detective novels

French: Elle adore les romans policies

(10) English: Cotton is easy to wash

French: Le cotton est facile à laver21

Proper nouns, too, provide a common example of the different marking of grammatical

definiteness, with German and French marking proper names with the article regularly, whereas

English does not do so.22

In fact, though, as argued above, semantic definiteness is universal, languages can both

acquire and lose grammatical definiteness. The paradigmatic example of this is, in fact, the issue

that brings the need for the current study: the “emphatic” state in Official Aramaic (OA) is

generally agreed to indicate definiteness, but by the time of at least some later Aramaic dialects,

such as Syriac, it clearly had lost such a function. Joseph Greenberg, for example, uses Aramaic

as one of his proof cases of the development and loss of the definite article in languages. He

argues for three stages of the development of a definite article in a language: Stage I, in which it

indicates definiteness; Stage II, in which the article is no longer referential; and Stage III, in

21 Lyons, Definiteness, 51. 22 Löbner, “Definites,” 299.

18

which the article becomes a gender or nominal marker.23 He argues that the earliest recorded

Aramaic represents Stage I, while the Aramaic of the early Christian period is Stage I in the

western dialects but Stage II in the eastern dialects. Finally, he argues that modern western

Aramaic dialects now represent Stage II, while modern eastern Aramaic dialects represent Stage

III.24 The question of this dissertation, of course, is, should Greenberg’s general view be correct,

where Qumran Aramaic fits in this typology.

Aramaic is not an isolated example of such change. English and German gradually

acquired definite articles.25 Bemba as a language did not grammatically mark the distinction

between definite and indefinite, but it did evolve towards marking them, as seen in Dzamba.26

Schuh has found support in dialects of Bade for a definite article showing a range of function

that matches Greenberg’s Stage II.27 Romanian and Hausa also represent a Stage II function of

the article.28 Serbo-Croat also shows a definite form becoming instead a standard nominal

form.29

Even more to the point of this study, in the process of its development (whether or not

Greenberg has captured that development exactly correctly), the grammatical feature of

definiteness can change the range of function it represents. First, it can spread within the

semantic range which is generally understood to be definite. As noted above, languages that

23 Joseph H. Greenberg, “How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers?,” in Univers. Hum. Lang. (Stanford:

Stanford UP, 1978), 47–82. 24 Ibid. 25 Löbner, “Definites,” 311. 26 Givón, “Definiteness and Referentiality,” 301–2. 27 Russell G. Schuh, “Bade/Ngizim Determiner System,” Afroasiat. Linguist. 4, no. 3 (1977): 1–74. 28 Lyons, Definiteness, 339. 29 Ibid., 82–84.

19

mark definiteness vary noticeably in which semantically definite items they treat as

grammatically definite. Lyons considers this to be the development of the grammatical feature

“from textual-situational ostension to wider definite use…expansions which do not yet take the

article beyond the domain of definiteness.”30 In many Romance languages, for instance French,

grammatical definiteness has spread to include generics.31 Lyons proposes the following

diachronic progression for the use of the grammatical marking of the definite article:

1 (English): simple definite

2 (French): simple definite, generic

3 (Italian): simple definite, generic, possessive

4 (Greek): simple definite, generic, possessive, proper noun32

Lyons does acknowledge that it would be over-claiming to argue that this diachronic progression

is universal, but he does argue that there is some progression in it, for instance that languages

would not mark proper nouns with the article unless it was already used very commonly

elsewhere.33

Second, the use of the definite article can spread into areas where its use is outside the

range of semantic definiteness. Lyons states, “The expansion of a definite article from an initial

limited range of uses to the more general definite value of English the does not stop at that point.

An article may even expand in use to the point where it ceases to be a definite article.”34 Such an

30 Ibid., 336. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., 337. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., 336.

20

occurrence would mean that the language in question had lost grammatical definiteness, but not

that it had lost semantic definiteness. Lyons goes on to say:

Definiteness itself can expand its range of application, taking in generics, specifics etc., and a point can come at which its exponent is reanalyzed as grammatically and semantically empty (perhaps leading to its being pressed into service with some other function). At this point, unless a new article emerges with a reduced function to renew the category, the definite-indefinite distinction collapses. Not only can languages acquire the category of definiteness; they can also lose it.35

In relation to Greenberg’s three stages of development from definite article to nominality marker,

one should note, with Lyons, that Greenberg’s Stage II and Stage III are not sufficiently

distinct.36 Further, these stages are not necessarily linear; a language can move from Stage I to

Stage II without fully exhausting the range of definite article uses possible in Stage I.37 One

should also note that indefinite articles can also expand in their range of use, even into areas of

non-singular use.38

Semantic definiteness

The variety of ways semantic definiteness can be indicated leads to the basic question:

pragmatically, what is the nature of definiteness? How can a form be judged to be “semantically

definite”?

Identifiability and Inclusiveness

A long research tradition has sought to answer precisely this question with a unifying

summary of definiteness as a concept. For instance, Löbner takes as his starting point, “The

35 Ibid., 340. 36 Ibid., 339. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 336.

21

meaning of the definite article is essentially the same in different languages.”39 The summary

approach of Lyons, which groups these types of proposals into the categories of identifiability

and inclusiveness, is followed here for simplicity.40 Approaches which consider the nature of

definiteness to be identifiability consider definiteness to be, in essence, the ability of the hearer

of a noun or noun phrase to identify the referent of the phrase. Such identification could occur in

multiple ways. It could be due to the hearer understanding the referent of the noun phrase from

an ongoing discourse.41 Alternately, the identification could be from the hearer’s general

familiarity with the item the noun phrase references.42 Ultimately, the challenge to this approach

is that it explains many (even most) cases of definiteness, but not all, meaning it cannot serve as

a single, unifying theme of definiteness.43

An alternate set of proposals as to the nature of definiteness falls into the category that

Lyons calls “inclusiveness.” This category originated in proposals that view the essence of

definiteness as uniqueness. The major exponent of this approach is Hawkins. He states, “I now

believe that it is desirable to extend the uniqueness generalization to all definite N[oun] P[hrase]s

[(NPs)], thereby achieving a general definition of definiteness, and to view the differences

between subtypes of definite NPs as resulting from different realizations of this common

generalization in language performance.”44 Many definites, if not most, are still identifiable

under Hawkins’ system, but he views them as identifiable because of their uniqueness. For an

39 Löbner, “Definites,” 280. 40 Lyons, Definiteness, 260. 41 Irene Heim, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases (New York: Garland Pub, 1988), 276–284. 42 Löbner, “Definites,” 320. 43 John A. Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction,” J. Linguist. 27, no. 2

(1991): 415. 44 Ibid., 416.

22

item to be “unique” in Hawkins’ system, it need not be absolutely unique, but simply unique

within a situation, physical location, or the like.45 Often, this uniqueness will be in the area in

which the speaker and hearer share “common ground.”46

Lyons argues that the uniqueness claim should be reformatted as “inclusiveness” to

include more examples.47 This label is in line with Hawkins’ own terminology in his 1978

study.48 Lyons particularly contends that this would improve the ease with which Hawkins’

theory deals with plural or mass nouns, because the concept of uniqueness can be assimilated to

inclusiveness.49 Others have adopted similar positions. Kadmon, for example, reformulates the

same basic insight as “maximality,” arguing that pragmatically-supplied material creates

uniqueness in a discourse context.50 Similar is the quantificational approach proposed by

Barwise and Cooper, which argues that all noun phrases are quantifiers, with “the” being an

expression of uniqueness.51

Just as with identifiability, there are also problems with an account of definiteness as

inclusiveness. First, it is possible for a noun phrase to have the definite article but not be

unique.52 Second, the indefinite article can meet the same criteria. Even Hawkins notes that

noun phrases with the indefinite article can be seemingly unique, offering the examples of “My

45 Ibid., 408–409. 46 Jeanette K. Gundel, “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse,” Language 69, no. 2

(1993): 274–307. 47 Lyons, Definiteness, 265. 48 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 409. 49 Lyons, Definiteness, 11–12. 50 Nirit Kadmon, “Uniqueness.,” Linguist. Philos. 13, no. 3 (1990): 282. 51 Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper, “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language,” Linguist. Philos. 4 (1981): 159–

219. 52 Renaat Declerck, “Two Notes on the Theory of Definiteness,” J. Linguist. 22, no. 1 (1986): 35.

23

car comprises a steering wheel, a hood, a clutch, etc.” and “There is a pizza in the fridge, and a

cake in the pantry.”53 Hawkins views these as such marginal cases that they do not significantly

harm his thesis of uniqueness as the nature of definiteness. Many others, however, see this as a

fatal flaw. For instance, Löbner argues strongly that, if the indefinite article can meet the same

uniqueness criteria Hawkins proposes for definiteness, then uniqueness cannot be essential to

definiteness.54 Third, the uniqueness explanation requires a different theory for the working of

definiteness via the article than via pronouns and demonstratives.55

There is always the possibility of another unifying principle of definiteness still to come.

Indeed, this seems to be the aim of studies that begin with the use of the definite article and then

attempt to enunciate the commonality among all those uses. To date, however, no single theory

of definiteness seems to account for all examples of definite noun phrases. Presumably, such an

attempt would attempt to combine the ideas of identifiability and inclusiveness into one more

general category. Lyons objects to precisely such attempts:

[L]et us settle for a view of definiteness as involving either identifiability or inclusiveness, or both: if the reference of a noun phrase is characterized by either property, then that noun phrase should be definite. Bear in mind, however, that the two properties are in principle independent of one another, even if in many examples the presence of one follows from the presence of the other; the two theories make quite distinct claims…. A number of writers present definiteness in terms which suggest an attempt to combine or reconcile the two accounts, characterizing definites as “uniquely identifying.” One should not be misled by this; it either represents a failure to appreciate the difference between uniqueness and identifiability, or is merely equivalent to “identifying”, or “identifying unambiguously”.56

53 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 416–421. 54 Löbner, “Definites,” 290. 55 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 416. 56 Lyons, Definiteness, 15.

24

Ultimately a single, unified theme as to the nature of definiteness seems unlikely. Continuing

the thoughts developed above, Lyons states, “It appears that identifiability and inclusiveness are

both required to account for the facts of the use of the, and it seems improbable that either one

can be reduced to the other.”57 Identifiability and inclusiveness describe definiteness, but neither

does so completely and subsumes the other.

Scalar Approaches to Definiteness

The impasse regarding a single, unifying understanding of semantic definiteness has led

to the need for a scalar understanding of definiteness. For instance, Smith makes the claim, “My

book is more definite than the book.”58 This cannot be simply a binary division between definite

and indefinite because of the distinctions between indefinites: “some,” “a,” and “zero

indefinites” are not all indefinite in the same way.59 A scalar understanding of definiteness is

therefore required. Chesterman states, “Evidence from many languages suggests that both

definiteness and reference are scalar phenomena.”60

Multiple scalar proposals regarding definiteness have been advanced. Four

representative proposals are outlined here. First, Jespersen distinguishes a range from complete

familiarity (e.g.: a proper name), to “nearly complete familiarity” (e.g.: “the gentleman’), to

57 Ibid., 158. 58 Carlota S. Smith, “Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Gramme[a]r of English,” Lang. J. Linguist.

Soc. Am. 40, no. 1 (1964): 37. 59 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 6. 60 Ibid., 9.

25

complete unfamiliarity (e.g.: “a gentleman).61 Second, de la Grasserie gives a scale of thirteen

degrees of determination, from surindetermination up to surdetermination:

1. Homme, hommes (complete indetermination)

2. Du boeuf, du cheval (partitive)

3. Un homme, des hommes (normal indetermination)

4. Un homme (number – “one”)

5. L’homme (genus)

6. L’homme + adjective (category)

7. L’homme d’Europe (narrower meaning)

8. Le fils de Primus (kinship)

9. L’homme qui est venu chez moi hier (relative clause)

10. Cet homme, l’homme celui-ci (demonstrative)

11. Homme-moi, homme-toi, homme-il (demonstrative with closer relation)

12. Son fils, son père (surdetermination – must be individual)

13. Primus (absolute determination – unique individual)62

As Krámský notes, the formation of these degrees of determination is by means beyond just the

article.63 Third, Chesterman lays out a scale for English covering five articles:

61 Otto Jespersen and Niels Haislund, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Syntax, Completed and

Published by Niels Haislund (Heidelburg: C. Winter, 1949), 437. 62 R. de la Grasserie, “De L’article,” in Memoires Soc. Linguist. Paris IX, n.d., 285–322. 63 Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, 47.

26

most indefinite ----------------------------------------------- most definite

zero some a the null64

Chesterman notes that the line between “a” and “the” is the implied line between definite and

indefinite, but he argues that the underlying phenomenon is a continuum, not a clear

opposition.65 In support of this point, he notes that English and Finnish, the two major languages

of his study, have different “cutoff burdens” as to where they place the distinction between

definiteness and indefiniteness on this scale.66 Surface articles are only required in the middle of

the scale, a fact that Chesterman relates to Levinson’s “Informativeness Principle,” the principle

that speakers say as little as needed to convey their point.67 Fourth, Gundel et al. lay out a

“Givenness Hierarchy” in which they scale forms of reference within a discourse structure: in

focus, activated, familiar, uniquely identifiable, referential indefinite, and type identifiable.68

Cluster Approaches to Definiteness

Lyons takes a somewhat different approach, questioning whether a proposed hierarchy of

definiteness actually would be a single continuum. Accordingly, he argues that definiteness

should be understood as more of a cluster of properties, not a clear hierarchy. 69 Chesterman

ultimately comes to a similar position near the end of his study. Though he views definiteness as

64 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 182. 65 Ibid., 183. 66 Ibid., 200. 67 Ibid. 68 Gundel, “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse,” 274–305. 69 Lyons, Definiteness, 215.

27

a scale, he concludes that reference is, in fact, a cluster of noun phrase types with multiple

distinctions.70 Even the scale of definiteness is ultimately compositional, according to

Chesterman, covering the three areas of locatability, inclusiveness, and extensivity.71

Accordingly, Chesterman takes any specific article as covering a cluster of semantic/pragmatic

components, not a single concept.72 This implies, for him, that “definite” and “indefinite” are

not really the summary of a spectrum, but instead cover terms for a cluster of concepts.73

Regardless of whether definiteness is ultimately scalar, as Chesterman still holds, or

simply a cluster of semantic features, as Lyons seems to hold, the concept of definiteness is

understood to have a core use, as well as possible additional uses. Lyons argues that the range of

definiteness covers (semantically) what is either identifiable or inclusive, but that articles only

encode a subset of that range:

Thus for languages in general there is a range of noun phrase uses which can in principle be characterized as definite, because they can be described in terms of identifiability or inclusiveness. These uses represent “semantic definiteness,” but this is not what articles encode. A given language need not treat the full range of these uses as grammatically definite; so the feature specification [+Def] can segment the semantic field at different points in different languages, its range in a particular language being shown by which uses require the presence of a definite article or other definiteness marker.74

Grammatical definiteness, he argues, can cover a range of uses within these areas:

What emerges…is that there is no evidence for ambiguity in the definite article relating either to the various uses of definites distinguished in Chapter 1 or to specificity. There is hyponymy, however. I have suggested a primary division of

70 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 189–90. 71 Ibid., 64. 72 Ibid., 183. 73 Ibid. 74 Lyons, Definiteness, 159.

28

definiteness between what I term textual-situational ostension on the one hand and all other uses on the other. The former of these itself divides into anaphoric and immediate situation uses. Languages may represent these finer distinctions within definiteness morphologically or lexically, but need not.75

Even if one does not follow Lyons’ proposal in all its details, this point is valid.76 Ultimately,

this dissertation does not need to declare a theory of definiteness per se. Instead, one must

simply note that there is an array of items that can trigger being in the realm (an intentionally

neutral term) of definiteness. In essence, if a noun or noun phrase can be validly argued to be

either identifiable or inclusive, it can be considered semantically definite.

Practical Tests for Semantic Definiteness

The ultimate criterion to identify a noun phrase as semantically definite is whether it fits

– however the case can be made – one of these two broad categories of identifiability and

inclusiveness. Fortunately, however, the research tradition on definiteness has elucidated many

common patterns which allow a provisional judgment that a given form is semantically definite.

Some of these patterns come from discourse structure, while others are often called “definiteness

effects.” “Definiteness effects” are when a position or context within an utterance requires a

noun phrase to be definite or viewed as definite. Definiteness effects, then, test for a

pragmatic/semantic category of definiteness, not grammatical definiteness.77 Common discourse

elements and definiteness effects that can be used as provisional tests for semantic definiteness

include:

75 Ibid., 198. 76 Other parts of Lyons’ proposal include that definite determiners are syntactically, not lexically, specified (Lyons

1999:288) and that person and definiteness should be combined into a single person-definiteness hierarchy (Lyons

1999:320). 77 Lyons, Definiteness, 240, 246.

29

• Anaphoric Reference – these are references to a noun or noun phrase previously

mentioned in the linguistic context (in the case of QA, in the document).78 For example,

in GenAp 19:14-16, a date palm and cedar are introduced in line 14 and then referenced

in lines 15-16:

דא (15)ותמראחד ארזוחזית בחלמי [וה]א bעקר …ח bץ ולמ b[ני] אנוש אתו ובעון למק bזאוב bל[א]ר bק bב bש bולמ

^ת^א bר bמ bתמרתאואכליאת (16)בלחודיהה ת bו bושביק …ארי תרינא מן שרש ל[א]רזאואמרת אל תקוצ

תמרתאבטלל ארזא

“I saw in my dream, and right there were a cedar and a date palm … and men came and

they were seeking to cut down and uproot the cedar and to leave the date palm by itself,

but the date palm shouted and said, ‘Do not cut down the cedar, for the two of us

sprouted from one root….’ So the cedar was spared with the help of the date palm.”

A reference in the text to an item previously introduced, such as the cedar and the date

palm in lines 15-16, is an anaphoric reference and identifiable and therefore semantically

definite.

• Cataphoric Reference – these are references where the noun or noun phrase is identifiable

not because of a previous mention in a discourse, but instead because something which

will follow in the discourse makes it identifiable. For example in 1Q20 17:13, one has

the phrase:

78 The corpus of QA, from which these examples are taken, will be defined below.

30

איא די בגו לשנא דן

“the island which is in the gulf”

This island has not been mentioned previously, but it is identified via cataphoric

reference by the words which following, making it semantically definite.

• Uniquely Denoting – these are cases where the noun or noun phrase is identifiable

because it references a unique item. Such a necessarily unique entity typically prevents

the use of an indefinite article in languages that have one.79 4Q209 7 iii 1-2 provides an

example of a uniquely denoting nominal form. The text reads:

שמשא למהך כל חרתיה די בתרעא קדמיא (2) בליליא דן אשל[מת]

“In this night the sun finish[es] going through all the sections of the first gate.”

Because the sun is a unique item (from the perspective of the document) this form is

identifiable and therefore semantically definite. As noted above by Hawkins, items do

not have to be absolutely unique in order to be uniquely denoting. Instead, they must be

uniquely denoting in a context. For example, in GenAp 19:11-12, one reads:

רא (12)חד מן bה bראשי נ

“one of the heads of the river”

Though there are many rivers, in the context of Egypt, “the river” is uniquely denoting

and therefore identifiable and semantically definite.

79 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 433.

31

• Associative Use – these are cases where there is not an explicit item to which the noun

phrase in question refers, but there has been the mention of something that would cause

the reader to expect the presence of another item. For example in 4Q214 2:3, Levi is

instructed:

ראשא [ל]ק[דמין]

“[Put on] the head f[i]rst.”

Even from what little remains of the column, and certainly from correlating it with

4Q214b and with the Mt. Athos manuscript,80 it can be seen that this column addresses

proper animal sacrifice. Therefore, though “the head” has not been previously

mentioned, the reader is conditioned by the knowledge that animals have heads to be able

to expect the presence of a head and to identify that head when the narrative mentions it.

This is then identifiable and semantically definite through an associative process, also

sometimes referred to as “bridging cross-reference.”81

• Shared Situation – these are cases in which the speaker/author and hearer/reader share a

common situation which makes the reader able to identify the noun or noun phrase in

question. For example in 4Q537 1:4, the angel says to Jacob:

[סב] לוחא מן ידי

“[Take] the tablet from my hand.”

80 The Mt. Athos manuscript is a Greek text Testament of Levi that translates some passages directly from the

Aramaic textual tradition of The Words of Levi reflected in Qumran texts 4Q213, 4Q213a-b, 4Q214, 4Q214a-b,

4Q540-541, and 1Q21. 81 Lyons, Definiteness, 4.

32

In the context of a command from the angel to take the tablet from his hand, this tablet

would be mutually manifest to both Jacob and the angel. Accordingly, this form is

definite because it is identifiable in the shared situation.

• General Knowledge – these are cases in which the shared situation is, in effect, shared by

everyone, such that something is identifiable by general knowledge. For example, in

4Q209 23:3 Enoch says to Methuselah:

ר רבאמוקרין לדרו bא דרום בדיל לתמן דא

“And they call the south, ‘South’ because the Great One dwells there.”

Methusaleh (as any potential audience) would be expected to know the directions of the

compass. This form is therefore identifiable by general knowledge and therefore

semantically definite.

• Inclusive Set – these are cases in which the referent of the noun or noun phrase is

inclusive, referencing all of a particular group or item. Lyons says, “What this means is

that the reference is to the totality of the objects or mass in the context which satisfy the

description.”82 For example, 4Q212 1 ii 24 has the phrase:

bו[הי ו]לדריא אחריא לכול י[תבי יבשתא]בנ

“his sons and to the future generations, all who will dwell upon the earth”

This context makes it clear that all future generations to come are indicated, making this

form inclusive and semantically definite. One should note that inclusive nouns can be

either singular or plural.83

82 Ibid., 11. 83 Ibid., 10.

33

There are certainly many times when a noun phrase will qualify as definite based on

several of these categories, and there are certainly times when these categories are not terribly

distinct. The point is not to view them as a mutually-exclusive tree structure, but instead to

understand them more as a series of overlapping circles. To give just one example, ארעא (“the

earth”) is both uniquely denoting and identifiable by general knowledge. No effort will be made

in this study to attempt to enunciate which definiteness criteria are dominant in QA, as the point

of this study is simply to identify whether or not each noun phrase is semantically definite and to

compare that judgment to its morphological state. These criteria, though, will serve as common

(though not exclusive!) justifications for the categorization of a given form as “semantically

definite.”

Similarly, certain “definiteness effects” require the judgment that a phrase is semantically

indefinite. The two most commonly cited are existential sentences and first mention uses of

nouns. First, existential sentences usually require an indefinite noun phrase.84 For example:

There is a God.

*There is the God.

The second form is considered ungrammatical, and indeed, existential sentences regularly take

the indefinite article in English and in other languages which have it. This definiteness effect is

so pronounced that many regard it as the defining criteria for definiteness.85 Second, first

84 Ibid., 236. 85 Ibid., 237.

34

mentions of an item in a narrative, because they are unknown to the reader, are usually

semantically (and grammatically, in languages which so encode) indefinite.86

One must note that none of the tests mentioned, either for semantic definiteness or

indefiniteness, are fail-safe. For instance, it is possible to have a definite in an existential

sentence, a phenomenon usually called list readings.87 Woisetschlaeger provides other examples

of definite noun phrases in existential sentences.88 Further, first mention definites can actually

occur in a variety of settings.89 Definiteness tests then, generate a provisional semantic

judgment. 90 In fact, most definiteness effects actually generate a larger pool of semantic

definites than are grammatically marked as definite in any particular language: “What we have

seen here is that most definiteness effects identify a definite or strong class which is considerably

broader than the class of noun phrases in which definiteness is encoded.”91 One ought, then, to

view these tests as provisional judgments, but when determining semantic definiteness and

indefiniteness they must always be contextually conditioned, not assumed to be absolute

standards.

Relating Semantic and Grammatical Definiteness in QA

One cannot simply examine all the emphatic forms in Qumran Aramaic and be done with

the question. Instead, one must work to simultaneously understand and delineate two systems,

both the expression of definiteness and that of indefiniteness. Hawkins argues that a correct

86 Ibid., 262. 87 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 421. 88 Erich Woisetschlaeger, “On the Question of Definiteness in ‘An Old Man’s Book’,” Linguist. Inq. 14, no. 1 (1983):

137–154. 89 Lyons, Definiteness, 263. 90 Ibid., 252. 91 Ibid., 251.

35

understanding of the implicature of “a” is based on noticing that it is the non-use of “the.”92

Whether or not Hawkins’ statement can be applied as generally as he argues, the basic point is

solid, that definiteness and indefiniteness are part of a system and must be understood in tandem.

This system of expression of both definiteness and indefiniteness must be mapped against the

paradigmatic system of nominal states in Qumran Aramaic. This is why all nominal forms in

Qumran Aramaic are potentially relevant; the question is if – and if so, how – these two systems

relate to each other in the corpus in question.

Dealing with definiteness and indefiniteness as a system is a substantial challenge.

Definiteness and indefiniteness are not perfectly parallel, as indefiniteness is more complex as a

phenomenon than is definiteness.93 There is a huge variability of interpretations of indefinite

noun phrases, more than the range of interpretation of definite noun phrases.94

Further, though definiteness and indefiniteness do form a system, one should not expect

this to be a perfectly parallel and regular correspondence. In general, languages are neither a

well-defined nor perfectly regular system.95 Sapir phrased this most memorably: “All grammars

leak.”96 The pragmatic nature of semantic definiteness explains some of this variation in article

usage.97 The difference can be considered to be that of language (not always regular) versus

logic (perfectly regular).98 More specifically, even if a language has both a definite and

indefinite article, it would not follow that the language has a clear, parallel, and binary system

92 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 417. 93 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 40. 94 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 405. 95 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 4. 96 Edward Sapir, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1921), 39. 97 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 181. 98 Ibid., 192.

36

relating the two. Such a language would theoretically have at least a three-way system:

indefinite, definite, and zero-indication. This is even more the case when dealing with Qumran

Aramaic, which has almost no explicit articles, but instead nominal states.99

In that regard, as relates to Aramaic in particular, we must note that even Biblical

Aramaic, which is widely said to still indicate definiteness with the emphatic state, has

exceptions. In Daniel 2:19, for instance, the MT has בחזוא די־ליליא, which is typically translated

“in a vision of the night,” even though חזוא is in the emphatic form. One might rightly argue our

need to beware of the bias of English in such a situation, as English has a well-developed

articular system, which Aramaic does not. As long as one is aware of the danger, though, there

is heuristic value in the exercise. Lyons notes, in regards to the study of individual languages:

Of course it cannot be assumed that what resembles definiteness in certain languages is exactly the same semantic category as observed in other languages, and we must examine the semantic content as well as the form of the articles considered. In fact it turns out that semantic distinctions very close to those identified for English do occur widely, but distinctions are also found which divide the general semantic area in question differently.100

The attempt here will be to enunciate the system of QA as regards to definites on its own terms,

but reference to translation into a language (English) whose well-developed articular system

forces translational choices is not entirely without use, so long as the limits of the exercise are

kept in mind.

99 As will be discussed in chapter 3, the numeral (“one”) very occasionally functions as an indefinite article in QA,

as seen in the example from 1Q20 19:14 above. 100 Lyons, Definiteness, 47.

37

When analyzing the expression of definiteness and indefiniteness, then, one should

expect a system, but not a perfect system. What one can do is look for prototypical functions of

articles or nominal states. One must simply realize that contrasts which hold at the prototypical

level may not hold as well, if at all, once one reaches the periphery of use of a given state or

article.101

The Corpus of Qumran Aramaic

This corpus consists of over one hundred Aramaic texts from the finds in the area of the

Qumran community, the Aramaic portion of what are commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

They consist of both larger and shorter texts. The larger texts include the Genesis Apocryphon,

the Targum Job, the Enoch literature, Tobit, the New Jerusalem texts, the Vision of Amram, and

fragments of a Levi Document.102 The shorter texts include the Prayer of Nabonidus, Pseudo-

Daniel ar, the “son of God text” and others.103

This study is focused synchronically, looking at Qumran Aramaic as a whole. However,

one should not necessarily assume complete synchronicity among the documents that together

make up the corpus of Qumran Aramaic. They could conceivably differ by geography of origin,

by community of origin, and by time. Further, there is always a diachronic question hanging

behind the synchronic analysis – where in the evolution of Aramaic more broadly does Qumran

Aramaic fit?

101 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 204. 102 Edward M. Cook, “The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years Compr. Assess. (ed. Peter

Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: E J Brill, 1998), 359. 103 Edward M. Cook, “The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years (Boston; Cologne: Brill,

1998), 359.

38

In that regard, Qumran Aramaic ultimately represents a library, not a dialect. The scrolls

could be from multiple origins both geographically and temporally, which has led to debate over

whether QA represents one or multiple dialects.104 Further some of the scrolls are translations,

while others were likely composed in Aramaic. Some are poetry, others prose. Given these

issues, the study will not assume that there is homogeneity across documents as regards to issues

of definiteness, but will test to see if there is a unified approach to definiteness among these

scrolls. Likewise, one cannot assume a priori that there is homogeneity even within certain

documents. For example, one ought not presume that the GenAp is a unity in terms of its

sources or its exegetical approach.105 It may be that the GenAp should be divided into books

with different sources, especially given shifts from first to third person, style changes, and

changes in translational strategy.106

Giving the above points their full due, and still intending to test the homogeneity of the

corpus as it relates to definiteness, there is enough consistency in QA to allow analysis of it as a

single corpus. Fitzmyer states, “The Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon conforms closely to

that of the other Aramaic fragments found in the Qumran caves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11.”107 In the

case of the issue at hand, Lukazewski argues that there is substantial consistency within QA,

especially in the function of the construct and absolute states of nouns and adjectives.108 The

104 Albert Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

St. Andrews, 2004), 23. 105 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 7. 106 Stephen A. Reed, “The Use of the First Person in the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Aramaic Postbiblical Jud. Early

Christ. Pap. 2004 Natl. Endow. Humanit. Summer Semin. Duke Univ. (ed. Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher and Eric M.

Meyers; Duke Judaic studies series v. 3; Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 208–9. 107 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 29. 108 Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament,” 23.

39

better approach, he argues, is not to view the documents of QA as different dialects, but as all

part of Judean Literary Aramaic, just with minor heterogeneity, what one might call “variations

on a theme.”109

Methodology

If the generally-agreed upon picture is correct, that the emphatic state eventually lost its

determinative force in some dialects of Aramaic, the question at hand is the question of where on

this type of process Qumran Aramaic stands. The test is to understand the function of the

emphatic state. Does it overlap with identifiability and inclusiveness, generics, or other

functions? Has it become a nominal marker or included other functions that are not semantically

definite? If the emphatic state has expanded its range of use, what other pragmatic means did

this dialect of Aramaic use to indicate semantic definiteness?

This study therefore represents a complete study of all relevant nominal forms in the

corpus of Qumran Aramaic. Each form is analyzed both morphologically and syntactically.

This cannot be limited to only nominal forms which are in the emphatic state. Instead it must, at

least potentially, include all nominal forms. Further, adjectives are also relevant to this

discussion, as the agreement rules for attributive adjectives (agreement in gender, number, and

state) can help disambiguate unclear forms. Each usable noun phrase is classified according to

both its morphological state and its semantic definiteness. The end goal is to describe both

systems and the relationship between them, delineating how (if it does) nominal state relates to

semantic definiteness in QA.

109 Ibid., 26.

40

A noun phrase is considered usable for this study if it is either full or partially restored,

but with high confidence in the restoration. If the relevant form for this analysis is entirely

restored, the noun phrase is not used. Likewise, if the end of a word, which determines its state,

is broken, the noun phrase is not used. For example, 4Q212 1 ii 8 has the form [א]ארחת קשט

(“(the) ways of truth”). Because the aleph, which gives us the necessary data to determine the

state of the noun, is restored this form is not included in the analysis. Even though these

restorations often seem quite certain, such forms are excluded from this study in order to be

careful to be working off only the extant data. If a form is 100% restored based on the evidence

of a parallel text, it is cataloged under the evidence of that parallel text, not the restoration.

Likewise, incomplete construct phrases are not included in this analysis if the nomen rectum is

missing or if its state cannot be determined.

Hebraisms are excluded from this analysis. Stadel 2008 is used as the basic resource to

determine Hebraisms, though other authors are consulted on specific forms.110 Hebraisms

assimilate into Aramaic in different ways and to different degrees, making them a bias in the

analysis, as they could appear to be in the absolute state but actually simply be indeclinable in

Aramaic.111

Nominal forms in Qumran Aramaic are morphologically in one of three states, the

emphatic, absolute, and construct states. This paradigm inflects differently for singular and

plural:

110 Christian Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer” (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag

Winter, 2008). 111 Renaud Jean Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” Doctoral thesis, January 30, 2008, 45,

n.p. [cited 2 October 2013]. Online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12588.

41

Singular Forms Masculine Feminine

Absolute --- -ה / א-

Construct --- -ת

Emphatic -ה / א- תא-

Plural Forms Masculine Feminine

Absolute -ין ן- / אן -

Construct -י ת- / את -

Emphatic -יא תא- / אתא -

The only occasional exception to this paradigm is the occasional appearance of the Hebrew

ending 112.-ים If a dual ending exists in Qumran Aramaic, it is indistinguishable from the

masculine plural ending except by agreement.113

The construct state indicates a special syntactic situation as regards definiteness, it being

a nominal state which is marked for its genitive relationship with the following word. The

construct phrase as a whole is typically understood to take its definiteness from the final term,

the nomen rectum. Nouns in construct, then, are not immediately relevant to the discussion at

hand. Construct phrases, on the other hand, are quite relevant, as the purported bar (e)nash(a)

would be a construct phrase. Construct phrases and analytic genitives, then, are analyzed

separately, to avoid assuming they behave in the same fashion as other nominal phrases. These

separate conclusions are then brought together in the summary conclusions of this study.

112 Cook, “The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 369. 113 Ibid., 246.

42

Nominal states in Aramaic are not iconic, but arbitrary symbols. Given that this

paradigm represents a morphological category, and its overlap with semantic categories is the

issue to be tested, there is a danger of misleading labels. What is here termed the “emphatic”

state is often termed the “determined” state. The choice of the term “emphatic” is an attempt to

not pre-judge the question of whether the form indicates definiteness, and some terminology is

necessary for the ease of readability of this study. In another sense, though, the choice of a

particular label is both arbitrary and irrelevant. The term “emphatic” here is simply a term for a

morphological feature marking a particular state of the noun. To ascertain what this

morphological feature does and does not semantically indicate is the purpose of this study.

Distinctions Between Noun Phrases

This study deals with noun phrases, defined as a noun plus its accompanying modifiers.

A noun phrase could be as short as a single noun itself, or it could stretch to some length, should

relative clauses and the like be used to modify it. Simply put, not all noun phrases are created

equal, nor do they necessarily behave in the same way. For example, in English, singular and

plural nouns behave differently regarding definiteness.114 Noun phrases in this study, then, are

categorized according to their types in order to subdivide the analysis and test if specific types of

noun phrases behave differently regarding definiteness than the overall pattern of the language.

The major categorizations follow below.

The broadest distinction between types of noun phrases is the distinction between simple

and complex definites. In that regard, this study will use the working definition of “simple

114 Randolph Quirk, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London; New York: Longman, 1985), 265.

43

definite” proposed by Christopher Lyons. Lyons defines a simple definite as a noun phrase that

contains the definite article or its equivalent in a language that has such an equivalent.115

Normally these would be noun phrases including the article (or its equivalent) and a common

noun. A complex definite, on the other hand, is a semantic definite that does not meet the

criteria for a simple definite. A complex definite does not necessarily have more words than a

simple definite nor a more complex phrase structure. Instead, it is merely a phrase without “the”

(or its equivalent) which is semantically definite. Complex definites, as will be discussed below,

therefore include many other types of noun phrases: demonstratives, proper nouns, (some)

possessives, personal pronouns, and universals.

Simple Definites

Several distinctions among simple noun phrases have the potential to be relevant to the

study of definiteness. First, the obvious distinction is the question of number. For many

languages there is a clear difference in the behavior of definiteness between singular and plural

nouns. In English, for example, one can say “The bird is an animal with wings” or “Birds are

animals with wings.” In each case, the communication is that of a generic statement, but one

uses the definite article and the other is anarthrous. In the Aramaic of the Targum Jonathan of

Samuel, for another example, Kuty finds the singular/plural distinction to be a clear divider in

the function of determination.116

Second, one must take note of the difference between mass and count nouns. Count

nouns are those (such as “pencil”) which can be discretely numbered, while mass nouns are those

115 Lyons, Definiteness, 2. 116 Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” 30.

44

(such as “butter”) which resist counting. Mass nouns are morphologically singular (“butter”) but

they do not semantically behave as singulars.117 One must also note that the distinction between

mass and count nouns is not inherent to the noun itself, but a question of usage. For example, if

one pushes the context far enough, even “butter” can be turned into a count noun, e.g.: (at the

supermarket) “Pick me up three butters while you’re on aisle three.” Also for example, “wind”

is a mass noun in the clause, “The wind is strong,” while it is a count noun in the clause “The

four winds blew.” Mass nouns can always be given a count sense and count nouns can always

be given a mass sense if one creates the correct context.118 Related to the mass/count distinction

is the question of collective nouns. Collective nouns are those used for a group of objects, for

example, “a school of fish.” Collectives are not the same as mass nouns, as they can be

pluralized, but instead are a subset of count nouns.

Third, there is a difference between referential and property nouns. Referential nouns, no

surprise, refer. They reference an item, whether definite or indefinite. Predicate nominatives

that describe, on the other hand, are property nouns. For example, GenAp 22:15 has והוא הוא כהן

,Priest” here is a property of Melchizedek“ .(”.And he was a priest of God Most High“) לאל עליון

not a reference to some particular priest. As with mass and count nouns, the distinction

between referential and property nouns is a distinction of usage, not a feature inherent to a

lexeme itself. כהנא רבא (“the high priest”) in 11Q18 14.ii.5 refers, even though it is the same

lexeme as the example cited previously. Fourth is the distinction between abstract and concrete

nouns. Abstract nouns relate to a concept, whereas concrete nouns relate to something physical.

117 Lyons, Definiteness, 277. 118 Francis Jeffry Pelletier, “Non-Singular Reference: Some Preliminaries,” in Mass Terms Some Philos. Probl.

(Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co, 1979), 5–6.

45

Finally, one must note the area of genericity. “Genericness” is a particularly nebulous

term, traditionally understood to refer to a type of object, being, or the like.119 For example, the

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics provides the definition of “generic” as, “(Expression

etc.) referring to an entire class of individuals, events, etc., rather than to specific members.”120

In practice, however, there seem to be a manifold number of readings for generic noun phrases,

and linguists have reached little consensus on a more precise definition. This may well be

because it is a cover term for “a variety of readings with different quantitative extensions.”121

Without doubt (consider the example of “the bird…” and “birds…” above), genericity is

a category that overlaps with various of the above categories. Many languages have both

singular and plural, definite and indefinite ways to make a generic statement. By their nature,

generics make a claim to apply to an entire class and are therefore semantically definite, though

not necessarily grammatically so.122 Consider in English, for example:

(1) A mouse is a small creature.

(2) Mice are small creatures.

(3) The mouse is a small creature.

One can see a sense, then, in which genericity may not simply cross the categories mentioned

above, but even internal to a given language it may blur the line between definite and indefinite,

119 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 3. 120 P. H Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University

Press, 2007). 121 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 3, 63. 122 Lyons, Definiteness, 198.

46

at least as far as grammatical definiteness is concerned. It is no surprise, then, that languages

vary in how they handle generics nouns and statements.

One must also note that many authors use these term “generic” overly broadly, even

encompassing collective nouns or mass nouns. For example, Casey notes Daniel 5:1, where the

king drank חמרא (“wine”) as a generic use of a noun form.123 One must object, though, as there

is no generic statement about wine being made in Daniel 5:1 – merely the reference that the king

drank some amount of wine. The area of genericity is a difficult area to define precisely, but

greater precision is needed, as will be addressed in chapter 2.

Complex Definites

The question of definiteness is more than simply an analysis of the definite article and

simple definites. Beyond the article, there are many other grammatical features that can trigger

semantic definiteness, including, for example, demonstratives, possessive pronouns, and

others.124 These matter because both the definite and indefinite articles can overlap in function

with other determiners and quantifiers.125 Lyons develops an understanding of definiteness

based on position, which causes him to argue that such words are not technically determiners.126

Whether or not he is correct in the strict sense of grammatical definiteness, these various words

pragmatically do function to create determination, and these are what he terms “complex

definites.”

123 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study

New Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 13. 124 Krámský, The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, 31. 125 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 183. 126 Lyons, Definiteness, 133.

47

First, proper nouns are semantically definite. They are often understood to be “uniquely

referring expressions,” the “equivalent to definite descriptions.”127 Context, of course, is

essential, as there is more than one Paris (Paris, France; Paris, TX, etc.). But in use proper nouns

are treated “as if they were absolutely unique.”128 For that reason, proper nouns are understood

to be semantically definite.129

Second, demonstratives are generally regarded as semantically definite.130 This is

because they are based on a degree of awareness of the hearer.131 Demonstratives therefore

trigger identifiability, causing them to be definite semantically.132 Further supporting this idea is

the fact that languages without a definite article often use proportionally more demonstratives

than those which have a definite article.133 Lyons develops the argument that demonstratives

may be grammatically adjectival, even in languages that express definiteness.134 Whether or not

that is the case, demonstratives remain semantically definite.

Third, various terms related to quantity or categorization can create semantic

definiteness. Universal quantifiers are words such as “all,” “every,” or “each.” These are

understood to be semantically definite in that they express totality in some way.135 Superlatives

127 Ibid., 21. 128 Ibid. 129 Löbner, “Definites,” 299. 130 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 414. 131 Löbner, “Definites,” 321. 132 Lyons, Definiteness, 279. 133 Ibid., 236. 134 Ibid., 323. 135 Ibid., 32.

48

are understood as inherently definite in that they make an inherent claim to the uniqueness of

their referent.136

Fourth, possessives are generally considered definite, both grammatically and

semantically. This is due to the fact that possessives cannot occur in existential sentences, which

normally exclude definite noun phrases.137 Likewise, noun phrases containing genitives occur in

structures that only permit definite noun phrases.138 In languages that contain inalienable

possession constructions, those are readily understood to be definite.139

However, contrary to the general treatment detailed above, not all possession is definite.

In some languages, possessives are adjectival, not functioning as definite determiners.140

Possessive noun phrases can be used in cases where a definite noun phrase is considered

unacceptable. For instance, Declerck offers the following examples:

John is my friend, and so is Bill.

This object is my microscope, and so is that one over there.

Yes, this is my book, and so is that one.

Not only John but also Bill is Mary’s sister’s friend.141

Lyons accounts for this by recognizing possessives as neither pragmatically nor grammatically

definite, but arguing that they indicate definiteness by their position in a phrase.142

136 Hawkins, “On (In)definite Articles,” 420. 137 Declerck, “Two Notes on the Theory of Definiteness,” 31. 138 Ibid., 32. 139 Lyons, Definiteness, 324–5. 140 Ibid., 285–9. 141 Declerck, “Two Notes on the Theory of Definiteness,” 33. 142 Lyons, Definiteness, 321.

49

These various subdivisions of complex definite are obviously not mutually exclusive, as a

noun phrase could fall into more than one of these categories. Additionally, many of these

complex definites will be part of construct phrases, necessitating their analysis in conjunction

with that of the genitive relationship.

One must also note that he or she is actually dealing with the uses of nouns, not nouns

themselves. What must be analyzed are noun occurrences, not nouns in the abstract.143

Pragmatic factors are therefore paramount.144 Collective nouns, as discussed above, are

grammatically singular, though they have a plural referent. Further, some nouns can be either

count or mass depending on their contextual use. For example, “wind” is a mass noun in the

clause, “The wind is strong” while it is a count noun in the clause “The four winds blew.”

Further, some nouns, such as “trousers,” invert the usual relation, being semantically mass, yet

grammatically count plural.145 Similarly, Pelletier notes the phrase “Pass the (mashed) potatoes”

is syntactically plural yet used in a mass sense.146 Mass nouns can always be given a count sense

if one creates the correct context.147 Likewise, given the right context, one can always find a

mass use of even count nouns that have a physical referent.148 Every noun, then, has at least a

hidden count and mass sense; if one pushes the context far enough, that sense can be

demonstrated.149

143 Harry Bunt, Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics (Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1985), 10. 144 Chesterman, On Definiteness, 202. 145 Lyons, Definiteness, 277. 146 Pelletier, “Non-Singular Reference: Some Preliminaries,” 2. 147 Ibid., 5. 148 Ibid., 6. 149 Ibid.

50

Value and Limitations of this Study

This study, then, seeks to provide value in the following three areas: 1) a greater

understanding of Qumran Aramaic, 2) the ability to evaluate proposed reconstructions and

questionable readings vis-à-vis definiteness, and 3) an enhanced linguistic background to

questions of New Testament background, especially with an eye towards the debate over the Son

of Man question.

Nonetheless, this study is limited, as are all linguistic studies of ancient languages. Five

limitations exist. First, unlike modern linguistics, which is carried out primarily on spoken

languages, this study is dependent on texts. The lack of living informants and dependence on

written records means pronunciation and stress are unknown. Some forms of linguistic

communication, such as tone and gesture, are lost when one enters the register of written

communication. Particularly as regards the question of definiteness, some forms of reference,

such as immediate situation reference, cannot be noted or known with certainty from a written

document.150 Similarly, without the ability to interact with a native speaker, modern linguists are

limited to the positive evidence. One can know what sentences were used, but one cannot ask a

live informant which forms would have been ungrammatical. Doubtlessly, some forms that are

unrecorded are so because they were ungrammatical, but other forms are unrecorded simply by

the accident of preservation.

Second, in the case of the Semitic languages, one is often working with unclear

manuscripts. In some cases, the evidence that remains of the Qumran scrolls is in the form of old

150 Lyons, Definiteness, 334.

51

photographs, as many documents have further decayed since the time of their initial

photography. More recent, high resolution photographs are available and helpful, but at times

they show less than the older negatives. New techniques have corrected many old readings, but

these techniques do not always provide the ability to check previous readings.151 Third, there is

the challenge of working with incomplete documents. The poor state of preservation of many

portions of the corpus means large portions of a text under consideration are missing. Such gaps

make the assessment of criteria such as anaphoric reference (see above) quite difficult to assess.

Fourth, there is the challenge of doing such analysis on ancient documents. Some items

that were once considered general knowledge may escape the modern reader, and some items the

modern reader things are general knowledge may be anachronistic interpretations. Finally, fifth,

there is the scarcity of Aramaic Poetry. Poetry is, in most any language, a quite distinct literary

register, often with different syntactic and semantic constraints. The corpus of Aramaic poetry is

quite limited, so generalizable statements must be carefully couched due to the small sample

size.152 Many linguists would therefore argue that linguistic analysis is impossible in such a

situation. Better would be to say that the analysis is possible, but with limits as to the certainty

of its conclusions.

The summary conclusions of this analysis follow in the successive chapters. Unless

serving as an example or requiring a particularly significant discussion, the analysis of individual

forms is addressed in the appendices that follow. The appendices do not attempt to be perfectly

151 M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron, and D. Sivan, “The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,”

Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995): 31. 152 Peter Lee, “Aramaic Poetry at Qumran” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America,

2011), 14.

52

complete, as forms which are self-evident in their analysis are not included. For example, a clear

anaphoric reference which is therefore semantically definite may not be noted, as the reader can

easily discern the semantic definiteness for himself or herself. The appendices do attempt,

however, to include a discussion of every questionable case.

53

Chapter Two: Simple Definites and Indefinites

Simple Noun Phrases

As detailed above, simple noun phrases, which are analyzed in this chapter, are

negatively defined, being noun phrases which are not complex. In effect, this means simple

noun phrases consist of a bare noun or a noun plus modifiers such as attributive adjectives or

relative clauses. Substantivized adjectives are included as noun phrases, but attributive

adjectives are relevant to this study only as part of the noun phrase in which they occur, not

separately. Not included in this chapter’s analysis are complex definites such as superlatives,

demonstratives, possessives, proper nouns, etc. Genitive phrases are also handled separately, as

this study seeks to test how they perform regarding state and definiteness, not assume they

follow the same pattern as simple definites. Translational forms are addressed separately in

chapter 4, as the latter may not reflect natural Aramaic and therefore require consideration of

additional issues.

Overall Categorical Dependence

In considering simple noun phrases, one can immediately see an overall categorical

dependence between state and definiteness. Simply put, state and definiteness do relate in the

simple noun phrase in QA. The corpus contains 1311 usable simple noun phrases, following the

standard from chapter one. Of those, in 374 cases the context is not sufficient to determine

semantic definiteness, leaving 937 data points for the analysis of non-translational simple noun

phrases. The distribution of state and semantic definiteness leaves little doubt that the general

connection between state and definiteness is very much alive, as seen in figure 1.

54

Figure 1: Non-Translational Simple Definites

Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

Absolute 129 (14%) 274 (29%)

Emphatic 523 (56%) 11 (1%)

In the case of QA, even when evaluating all the extant data, as this study does, a modern

researcher is dealing with only a subset of the actual data, that being the subset of the original

QA corpus that has survived the ravages of time and remains legible. The hypothesis of this

study is that the connection shown above is a real feature of QA and not an accident of

preservation. In statistical analysis, a Chi Square test is used to test for categorical dependence

of one variable upon another in a two-by-two matrix. In other words, the Chi Square test

assesses the likelihood that the data distribution seen reflects an actual relationship between two

variables and not a false connection due to the random subset of the data considered. In this test,

a high Chi Square value and low P value indicate dependence. In the distribution above, the Chi

Square value is 458.631 and the resulting P value is less than .0001. A P value less than .05

indicates a 95% confidence that a hypothesis to be tested is true and that the distribution in

question is not due to random chance.

In the case of state and definiteness in QA, then, one can confidently say that the

hypothesis – that semantic definiteness is categorically dependent on state – is true, as this result

is quite statistically significant. Far and away, the emphatic state still indicates definiteness in

QA, and translators can continue assuming an emphatic state shows a definite noun unless there

is compelling reason to translate differently. This connection is more than just a “rule of thumb.”

55

Patterns of nominal use in QA also support this judgment. First, as discussed in chapter

one, first-mentions of nouns in a narrative or conversation are usually semantically indefinite.

Such first mention noun phrases in QA are repeatedly in the absolute state. Three examples from

the Enoch literature illustrate this point. 4Q201 1.iii.13-14 reads [נסבו להן] נשין (“[and they took]

women [for themselves]”), that being the first mention in the text of the women with whom the

fallen angels cohabited. Likewise, 4Q201 1.iv.7 reads דם סגי שפ[יך על ארע]א R[וחז]ו (“[and they

sa]w [mu]ch blood being shed [upon the ear]th”), with that blood being a newly-introduced item

in the text. Finally, 4Q204 1.vi.23 reads [ב][עד ד]י אדבקת לביא ר (“[until] I drew near to a gr[eat]

house”), with that house being newly-mentioned in the narrative.

Second, as also discussed in chapter 1, in existential sentences, those which establish the

existence of an item, the item in question is usually semantically indefinite. Those again mainly

occur in QA in the absolute state. For example, in 4Q550a, one of the documents that preserves

the Tale of Patireza and Bagasraw, the king asks זא בר Rאיתי לפתרי (“Does Patireza have a son?”),

which is both a first mention use of the noun בר and an existential sentence. Similarly, 4Q212

1.iv.26 reads [די לא] איתי סוף (“for there will be no end”), and 4Q213 1-2.ii.4 reads ולא איתי [כ]ל

.(”and there is not any price“) מחיר

Third, information assumed to be known by the reader – and therefore semantically

definite as shared information – is reported in the emphatic state in QA. This is illustrated well

in columns 16-17 of the Genesis Apocryphon. These columns detail the division of the earth,

and noun phrases given as landmarks are assumed to be recognizable. Some are potentially

identifiable to the modern audience, such as the Sea of Suph possibly corresponding to the

56

modern Red Sea or the Gulf of Suez.1 Even if these landmarks are not identifiable to the modern

audience, however, by their very nature as landmarks, they would have been shared information

between the author and original audience and therefore identifiable to the original readers.

Machiela proposes that this is due to a common Ionian map of the world which was followed by

the author.2 Whether one accepts this thesis or not, there clearly was meant to be some shared

understanding between author and audience. Otherwise the communication of the columns

would fail. Correspondingly, the forms that are landmarks in these columns are in the emphatic

state. Similarly, Abram’s walking tour of the land in column 22 shows boundaries similar to

those envisioned for the “promised land” in use at the time of the text.3

Fourth, repeated lexemes in a text provide the ability to discern the pattern followed by

absolute and emphatic noun forms. These are, as Kuty states, “instances of Topic

Introduction/Maintenance…, i.e. instances where a noun (or, strictly speaking, its referent) is

introduced into the discourse for the first time and is therefore semantically indeterminate, to be

mentioned again later as part of the story, this time as a determinate term because its referent is

deemed available to the addressee.”4 QA regularly introduces a new topic with a noun form in

the absolute state and then continues with references in the emphatic state, matching the noun

phrase’s pattern of semantic indefiniteness and then definiteness (in this case via anaphoric

1 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 109 n.34. 2 Ibid., 87. 3 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 221. 4 Renaud Jean Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” Doctoral thesis, January 30, 2008, 31

n.24, n.p. [cited 2 October 2013]. Online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12588.

57

reference). For example, in 4Q205, wild asses are introduced in 2.i.25 with an absolute form

and the two subsequent references to them in line 28 are given in the emphatic form ,(ערדין)

In 4Q554’s description of the New Jerusalem, 1.iii.15 begins with a reference to a .(ערדיא)

previously-mentioned atrium and then introduces a new atrium into the narrative. The former is

given in the emphatic form and the latter is introduced with the absolute form: ואעלני לגוא אספא

.(”.He brought me into the atrium, and behold, there was another atrium“) והא אסוף אחרן

Likewise, Abram’s dream in column 19 of the GenAp is introduced into the narrative with an

absolute form (חלם, line 17) and then referenced later with emphatic forms (חלמא, lines 18 and

19, both of which are also demonstratives). Finally, note the example of the cedar and the date

palm from GenAp 19:14-16, cited in chapter one, which shows the same pattern.

Implications

This overall categorical dependence is an important conclusion to note at the outset for

three reasons. First, it sets the context for the remainder of the discussion of state and

definiteness in QA. Any exceptional or questionable cases must be judged within an overall

context in which, when people read the emphatic state at Qumran, they were conditioned to think

“definite,” and when they read the absolute state, they were conditioned to think “indefinite.”

Second, this finding is relevant to the discussion at hand regarding Casey’s claims. One

can imagine Casey immediately objecting, as he did to Owen and Shepherd: “As far as we can

58

tell, usage changed over time, with increasing use of the emphatic state. This does not however

mean that the emphatic state lost its force in all kinds of expression.”5 Likewise, he later states:

Owen and Shepherd’s approach to the relationship between the absolute and emphatic states has three major problems. One is their standard of judgment. They repeatedly seek to establish whether the emphatic state had lost its determinative force and become moribund as in Syriac…. They correctly regard [examples from Job 30.15] as evidence that the absolute state was still in normal use for the author of 11QTgJob as it was not in Syriac, and that the emphatic state had not lost its force to the extent that it did in some later Jewish texts. I have not suggested otherwise. For example, Fitzmyer suggested that the determinate character of the definite state was ‘on the wane’, and I argued that ‘the breakdown of the difference between the absolute and emphatic states of the Aramaic noun was already under way…’ Both opinions are much milder than the one that Owen and Shepherd seek to refute, and they are not undermined by examples like this one.6

Casey’s point is literally true. Or differently put, the denotation of his statement is as he states.

However, the connotation of Casey’s argument is more extreme than his denotation. For starters,

Casey cuts the quote of his own words at “already under way…,” leaving out the full end of the

sentence: “already under way long before the time of Jesus, being evident already in 11QTgJob

and more advanced in 1QApGen.”7 While the denotation of Casey’s argument remains to be

tested below, the connotation of his words should be dismissed at the outset. Even if there is a

breakdown of the states underway in QA, one should not view it as very much underway or

anything of the like. Instead, as Muraoka states, the absolute state is “still very much alive.”8

The quantified data above validate Muraoka’s observation.

5 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study New

Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 13. 6 Ibid., 14–15. 7 Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, 1980), 228. 8 T Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 157.

59

Third, one should note that statistics do matter in this type of analysis, for multiple

reasons. First, as noted in chapter 1, even a number of exceptions do not prove a merger of the

states or a breakdown in the system of state and definiteness. A system need not – and in

language, will not – have 100% correspondence between a grammatical feature and a semantic

feature, even when those features correspond. Second, the use of an overall statistical summary

allows the inclusion of many more lexemes into the discussion of state and definiteness. Given

the fragmentary nature of so many of the documents from Qumran, in many cases modern

readers have only an absolute singular, an emphatic singular, etc. for a given noun in what

remains of a document. With the use of a comprehensive analysis of this type, the pattern can be

confirmed even when there are relatively few repeated lexemes. Third, semantic definiteness is a

contextual determination, based – as described in chapter 1 – on a reader’s assessment of the

identifiability or inclusiveness of a noun phrase. Such determinations are, in the end, a judgment

call, one that in many cases is quite clear but in frustratingly many cases is not necessarily so.

The overwhelming demonstration of categorical dependence above, though, indicates that even if

a different reader were to reverse some of the judgment calls made by this study to determine

semantic definiteness, the overall conclusions developed here would be unchanged. A reversal

of the findings above would require wholesale reversal of decisions about semantic definiteness,

a reversal that would involve many more forms than simply the “questionable cases.”

Exceptions to the Overall Pattern

Having made the argument for the importance of the overall categorical dependence of

definiteness upon the nominal state in QA, one must also note that overall statistics do not

address the entire question at hand. As argued, exceptions to linguistic systems do happen, in

60

any language, so the existence of exceptional cases does not invalidate the existence of a system.

One must, however, check for patterns in those exceptional cases. Should all the exceptions, or a

significant number of them, have common features, it may be that there are genuine areas of

exception to the overall connection of state and definiteness. On the other hand, should there be

no discernible commonality to the exceptional data points, then one can conclude that the system

had not begun to “break down” in any significant way.

Semantically Definite Absolutes

In this regard, the main category of exception in the corpus of QA is not semantically

indefinite empathic forms – as Casey’s claim would lead one to expect – but instead is a group of

semantically definite absolute forms. Of the 140 cases that are exceptions in the chart above,

over 92% of those exceptions are absolute forms which are semantically definite. Emphatic

forms which are semantically indefinite represent less than 8% of the exceptional forms and only

1.2% of simple noun phrases in QA. No single commonality binds all these absolute definites

together, though one major category and several minor categories can be seen.

Abstract Nouns (110 data points)

Of the 129 cases of semantically definite absolutes, 110 of them are abstract nouns.

Prominent among them, though not exclusive, are prepositional phrases of an adverbial type, for

example:

in truth,” 11 occurrences in the GenAp, twice with lamed instead of beth and“) בקושט •

once with the spelling קושט; also as קושט in 4Q212 1.iv.17)

61

forever,” 4Q197“) לעלם and (forever,” 4Q534 1.i.11, 4Q534 1ii+2.8, 4Q542 1.i.4“) לעלמין •

4.i.14, 4Q213a.3-4.6)

.(in peace,” 4Q546 12.3“) בשלם •

Such phrases seem to be adverbial and to include nouns that are abstract. They are semantically

definite in that they reference a general concept which would be identifiable to a reader by

general knowledge.

One should note that there may be lexical factors impacting some of these cases. For

example, 20 of the semantically definite absolute forms are due to the use of 11) קשט times

spelled קושט, seven times spelled קשוט, and twice as 16 ,(קשט forms are 9 ,שלם are 6 ,חכמה are דין,

and 5 more are forms of עלם. Specific lexical conditioning therefore could be driving part of this

category. In Targum Jonathan of Samuel (TJS), for example, Kuty notes that בשלם is

mandatorily in the absolute state, which he argues indicates the phrase is idiomatic, as other

adverbial prepositional phrases in TJS can include an emphatic noun phrase.9 Whether בשלם is

idiomatic in QA is difficult to judge; however, the uses of בקושט show that adverbial

prepositional phrases are not absolute by rule in QA. בקושט often alternates and occurs in

parallel contexts with בקושטא (e.g.: 2:5, 2:7, 2:10, 2:18, and 2:22). One must, then, view these

forms as something close to free variation. Accordingly, whether or not בשלם itself is idiomatic,

such adverbial prepositional phrases certainly do not require the absolute state for every lexeme.

9 Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” 55–56.

62

Further, special lexical conditioning is most likely not driving the entire category, as there are

over 45 different roots included in the list of semantically definite absolutes.

Similar to the above, but not in adverbial prepositional phrases, are semantically definite

absolute forms that refer to an abstract concept. For example, these include:

(warfare,” 4Q246 1.ii.4, 4Q246 1.ii.6, 4Q318 viii.7“) חרב •

(magic,” 4Q201 1.iv.2“) חרטמו •

(sorcery,” 4Q201 1.iii.15“) חרשה •

(sorcery,” 4Q201 1.iv.2“) כשפו •

iniquity,” 4Q537 1+2+3.2, though one should note that this could have been“) עול •

originally part of a phrase with kol)

(evil,” 4Q204 1.v.3“) עולה •

These forms are identifiable because they point to an abstract concept, one that a reader could

presumably be expected to know of as shared information. This area of exception will be

discussed further below, especially as קושט is one of the examples Fitzmyer uses to argue for the

beginning of a breakdown in the connection of state and definiteness.

Absolute Nouns Followed by a Relative Clause (5 data points)

In five cases, an absolute form is followed by a relative clause that identifies it, making it

semantically definite. Fitzmyer states, “[O]ne sometimes finds the absolute state as an

63

antecedent of a relative clause, where one might have expected the emphatic state.”10 The five

occurrences of this construction are:

This instance may be – (the place where you are staying,” 1Q20 21.9“) אתר די אנתה יתב •

driven by the fact that this noun phrase is in apposition to a proper noun. Fitzmyer states,

“One might have expected אתר to be emph. sg. in apposition with the proper noun,

Bethel, and antecedent of די, but this use of an abs. in apposition with a proper noun or

name is found in all periods of Aramaic (Sf I B y; AP 3:15; BMAP 1:2; 4:2; 6:2).”11 The

corresponding NP in the MT of Gen 13:14 is also grammatically definite. Kutscher

argues that this is in fact a construct phrase because similar phrases exist elsewhere in

Aramaic.12

The following – (the day you went out from Haran,” 1Q20 22.28“) יום די נפקתה מן חרן •

relative clause makes the specific day identifiable. Accordingly, this use is definite as a

cataphoric reference. Lukaszewski treats this as a genitive phrase, with a relative clause

as the nomen rectum.13

די יתבו The relative clause – (the time when they sat down,” 2Q24 4.19“) עדן די יתבו •

("when they sat down") follows, identifying this noun and making it cataphorically

definite.

10 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 289. 11 Ibid., 220. 12 E.Y. Kutscher, “Review of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I,” Orientalia 39, no. 1

(1970): 182. 13 Albert Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

St. Andrews, 2004), 201.

64

The following clause – (the day when they are judged," 4Q206 1.xxii.2") יום די יתדינן •

identifies יום, making it cataphorically definite.

• Rי [י]נדע תלתת ספריא Rעדן ד (“the time that he [kn]ows the three books,” 4Q534 1.i.4-5) – The

relative clause identifies the time in question, making this form semantically definite.

As Kutscher and Lukaszewski argue, respectively, regarding the first two of these cases,

Muraoka argues that all these should be treated as cases where the di- clause is the nomen rectum

of a construct phrase.14 He bolsters this case by providing the comparison to 1Q20 21.1: “Cp.

I reached Bethel to the place in which I had built there‘ דבקת לבית אל לאתרא די בנית תמן בה מדבחא

the altar’ ib. XXI, 1 where the st. det. of אתרא and the resumptive בה are to be noted.”15

Given this line of argumentation, one should naturally consider the idea that these five

cases may not be absolute singular forms at all, but construct singular forms. Instead, Muraoka

argues that these are to be understood as absolute forms. In support of that conclusion he notes,

“No example has turned up in which a noun unambiguously marked as fem. sg. cst., e.g., נתש ,

occurs as the nomen regens.”16 This lack of explicit evidence of a construct form in such a

construction causes Muraoka to argue these forms should be considered absolute singulars, not

construct singular forms. Leading to a similar conclusion, Pat-El has argued that the relative

pronoun replaced the construction “construct head+sentence.”17 If so, then the presence of the

relative particle here would indicate that these are genuine absolute forms, though exceptional to

14 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 192. 15 Ibid., 192 n.29. 16 Ibid., 192. 17 Naʼama Pat-el, “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic Approach,” J. Semit. Stud. 54, no. 1

(2009): 43.

65

the system because they are semantically definite. One should note that four of these five cases

are temporal in nature, in which a temporally-referring noun is followed by די to mean “when.”

These forms may be lexical precursors to such forms as בעדן די “when,” which are

grammaticalized as temporal conjunctions in later Aramaic.

Pseudo-names (5 data points)

Certain forms that appear to be absolute forms may have become lexicalized as names.

For example, Muraoka notes, “אל, though always referring to the unique God of Israel, is

indeclinable, having become almost a proper noun.”18 Muraoka cites the phrase אל רבא (“the

great God,” 4Q246 1.ii.7) from the “Son of God Text,” as an example of a less full naturalization

of the process.19 Equally importantly, this form also indicates the semantic definiteness of the

noun, as the agreeing adjective is in the emphatic state. In fact, אל does not always refer to the

God of Israel, as shown by הוא אל טב (“He is a good god,” 4Q538 3:3). For this reason instances

of אל that reference the God of Israel are excluded from the analysis of this chapter, being

considered, by virtue of being proper nouns, complex definites. On the other hand, uses of אל as

a common noun are included in the data set considered here.

Other nouns may have undergone a similar process to אל, having lost, or being in the

process of losing, their sense as a common noun. Four times עירין occurs (4Q203 7b.i.4, 4Q206

1.xxvii.19, 4Q532 2.7, 4Q 534 1ii+2.15) in a context where it inclusively references the

Watchers as a class. As an inclusive reference, one would treat it as a semantically definite

18 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 160. 19 Ibid., 157.

66

absolute, but the form could have become a proper noun in the context of QA, similar to אל.

Similarly, קדישין (“the Holy Ones,” 4Q204 5.ii.26) references the whole group, but could have

become lexicalized as a name. Likewise, ש[ב]ע (“the Se[v]en,” 4Q209 23.9) may well have

become a proper noun. To the extent that these forms have possibly become proper nouns, then

they would no longer be genuine exceptions to the correlation of state and definiteness.

Vocatives (2 data points)

As particles of address, vocatives are semantically definite because of the shared situation

of the speaker and hearer. Each knows the referent of the noun in the vocative case. In QA

vocatives mainly take the emphatic state.20 However, some vocatives are given in the absolute.

For instance, 4Q560, an Aramaic prayer of exorcism, reads in 1.i.4 אשא ועריה ואשת לבב (“O fever-

demon and chills-demon and pain of the heart-demon”). These should be considered potential

exceptions; however, the broken context of line four leaves question here, as differing

restorations could cause one not to view these forms as vocatives. Later in 4Q560 the

unambiguous vocative רוחא (“o spirit,” 4Q560 1.i.6) is in the emphatic state. It is possible, then,

that these are not actually vocative forms, which otherwise in QA are in the emphatic.

Uncategorized Exceptions (7 data points)

Finally, one must note that some of the semantically definite absolutes match none of the

above categorizations:

20 Ibid., 159.

67

naturally means all the houses in that block of the New (the houses,” 5Q15 1.ii.6“) באתין •

Jerusalem, which fits with the context of the line. Accordingly, this form is inclusive

within its frame of reference.

is used in an inclusive sense, with Enoch being shown a (dew,” 4Q204 1.xiii.26“) טל •

portal for all dew.

has all celestial wastelands in view and is therefore (the deserts,” 4Q209 23.9“) מדברין •

inclusive and semantically definite.

.is identifiable by general knowledge (the east wind,” 4Q210 1.ii.4“) רוח קדים •

seems to be elliptical for either a possessive (“its height”) or (height,” 4Q554a 1.ii.6“) רום •

for a prepositional phrase (“in height”).

.is identifiable by general knowledge (the north,” 4Q210 1.ii.1“) שמאל •

.is uniquely denoting (heaven,” 4Q530 7.ii.11“) שמין •

Interestingly, six of these seven uncategorized exceptions are from the Enoch literature.

Implications

The fact that absolute definites, not emphatic indefinites, are the main category of

exception means that the situation in QA is far from one in which the ascendance of the emphatic

state into non-definite areas is well underway. This situation is the reverse of the situation in

later dialects, such as Targum Jonathan, where Kuty’s study of TJS indicates that the main

pattern is emphatic state nouns that are semantically indefinite.21 Such cases as are normal in

TJS are rare in QA, though not impossible. This finding again pushes against Casey’s original

21 Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” 35.

68

claims as to the evolution of definiteness in Aramaic, as he had stated, before somewhat revising

his position, “this breakdown [of state] took the form of increasing use of the definite state [at the

expense of the absolute state].”22

Semantically Indefinite Emphatics

Semantically indefinite emphatic forms represent a small portion of all simple noun

phrases, 11 of the 937 data points in this portion of the study. These noun phrases are roughly

split into three groups. One set contains abstract uses of the nouns in question, the second

concrete nouns that are mass, and the third concrete nouns that are count. The noun phrases in

question are:

Abstract:

The question is whether this form is a substantivized – (evil,” 4Q583 1.1“) באישתה •

adjective (serving as the subject of the sentence) or if it is attributive, with its noun

suppressed (e.g.: “the evil [X]”). If the former, then the evil which comes from the north

is not all evil (inclusive) nor an identified evil, leaving this form semantically indefinite.

If the latter, this would be a semantically definite form and no longer an exception.

In seeking wisdom from Abram, the men are not – (wisdom,” 1Q20 19.25“) חכמתא •

seeking all wisdom (inclusive) nor wisdom on some specific issues (identifiable).

Instead, they are seeking wisdom as a general item. See below for additional discussion.

22 P. M. Casey, “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the

Teaching of Jesus,” J. Study New Testam. 9, no. 29 (1987): 28.

69

in seeking truth from Abram, the men are ,חכמתא As with – (truth,” 1Q20 19.25“) קושטא •

not seeking all truth (inclusive) nor truth on some specific issues (identifiable). Instead,

they are seeking truth as a general item. Again, see below for additional discussion.

This is not a generic reference to all war (inclusive), and it is – (war,” 4Q544 1.4“) קרבא •

both a first-mention use of the noun and an existential sentence, both of which would lead

towards the provisional that this form is semantically indefinite. There is the outside

chance that this refers to the war in Amram’s life, and is hence meant to be identifiable,

but the text as it stands makes this form more likely semantically indefinite.

One should note that all four of these exceptions, while arguably semantically indefinite in their

texts, could be considered identifiable as a concept, even if not in specific. This will be

discussed further below.

Concrete and Mass:

,This is not all rain nor anything identifiable to the reader – (rain,” 4Q201 1.ii.4“) מטרה •

but an indeterminate amount.

The sheep who leads the flock (i.e.: Moses) gives the – (water,” 4Q206 4.iii.18“) מיא •

flock water to drink, which is clearly an indeterminate amount (not inclusive). This form

is a new introduction of water to the narrative, not a reference to previously-mentioned

water. (A comparison to 1 Enoch 89:28-30 confirms this.) Accordingly, this form is

semantically indefinite. Note that this is the only plural form among these exceptions,

but that is likely due to a lexical factor, as this form is always plural.

70

א • Rעמ (“a people,” 4Q549 2.8) – Given that the aleph is a significantly obscured reading,

one wonders if it might be misread or be part of a following word. However, as the text

can best be read, this appears to be the introduction of new information to the narrative

and therefore semantically indefinite. Given the fragmentary character of this text,

though, this data point should be weighted somewhat lightly in the final analysis.

This is not every cloud nor anything identifiable to the – (clouds,” 4Q201 1.ii.4“) עננה •

reader, but an indeterminate set of clouds.

Concrete and count:

”.DJD 27:79 translates as “the other tree - (another tree,” 4Q553 3+2ii+4.5“) אלנא אחרנא •

However, in the thrust of the vision, that translation seems surprising, given that only one

of four trees has previously been discussed, leaving 3 additional trees to describe.

Instead, the natural reading would be to think of the second tree as “another tree.” This is

a provisional judgment, however, as the document is very fragmentary, meaning that the

context is difficult to establish. Other readings may be possible.

Given the context of this document, this – (a severe boil,” 4Q242 1-3.2“) שחנא באישא •

seems a clear first mention use of the noun and therefore semantically indefinite. It is

possible that this skin inflammation/boil of the king was understood to be an item of

general knowledge, as it impacted the king and is the assumed basis for the king’s

absence from the capital city, but such a claim seems to stretch beyond what the text of

the document states. More likely, this instance is driven by the combination of general

knowledge and lexical factors. Common diseases are identifiable by general knowledge.

Such diseases can be absolute or emphatic by lexeme, all being identifiable. It may be

71

the case, then, that everyone knew the disease known as “the boil.” (Compare English, “I

had the flu.”) If so, this form may not even be an exception.

in the text, this is שחנא Though this is the second use of – (a boil,” 4Q242 1-3.6“) שחנא •

not an anaphoric reference to line 2, as this use of the noun is in the context of the written

document Nabonidus was commanded to make. In that document, this is a first-mention

use of the noun, making it again semantically indefinite.

Definiteness by Type of Noun Phrase

The method of analysis above was to work through exceptions and categorize them as

best as could be done. With that information, a second piece of analysis now is necessary, which

is to work through categories of noun phrases to see what portion of each type of noun phrase

follows or diverges from the connection between state and definiteness. The combination of

these two analyses is necessary to accurately reflect whether there are systematic exceptions to

the general connection between, respectively, the emphatic state and definiteness and the

absolute state and indefiniteness. For example, knowing that a type of noun phrase represents

50% of exceptions sounds remarkable, but if that same type of noun phrase also represented 50%

of all noun phrases, then, in fact, that data would mean nothing.

Several subdivisions of the simple noun phrase were tested through this analysis, as there

was potential reason to think that they might impact definiteness. Those included: genre,

document, gender, number, referential vs. property nouns, count vs. mass nouns, and abstract vs.

concrete nouns. Finally, the issue of genericity was considered. Of these tests, most yielded no

difference from the overall pattern, indicating that the corpus of QA is relatively homogenous

72

when addressing the issue of state and definiteness. Exceptions will be noted in the categories

below.

Genre

The corpus was divided into three genres: prose, direct discourse recorded in prose, and

poetry, as each of those could reasonably be expected to represent a different register. This

division was done at the level of the noun phrase, as a given text can contain multiple genres.

The Genesis Apocryphon, for instance, contains all three of these genres. The genre of prose

includes narrative writing and what Reed terms “self report,” when a first person narrator reports

events.23 The dream reports of the Genesis Apocryphon, following VanderKam, are also

considered to be prose, not poetry.24 Following Peter Lee’s dissertation on Aramaic Poetry at

Qumran, the poetic texts were defined to be the relevant portions of the following: 4Q246 (the

“Son of God” text), 4Q213 and 4Q541 (portions of the Aramaic Levi document), 4Q534 (the

“Elect of God” text), 4Q542 (the Testament of Qahat), and 1Q20 20:2-6 (the poem in the

Genesis Apocryphon celebrating Sarai’s beauty).25 This represents a greater corpus of poetic

texts than has typically been proposed for Qumran Aramaic, for defense of which the reader is

referred to Dr. Lee’s work. Nonetheless, this is still a relatively small sample of poetry, as the

Targum Job is covered in the section of this chapter relating to translational Aramaic. Note that

Dr. Lee does not consider lines 7-8 of 1Q20 column 20 as poetic, instead viewing them as

23 Stephen A. Reed, “The Use of the First Person in the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Aramaic Postbiblical Jud. Early

Christ. Pap. 2004 Natl. Endow. Humanit. Summer Semin. Duke Univ. (ed. Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher and Eric M.

Meyers; Duke Judaic studies series v. 3; Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 201. 24 James C. VanderKam, “The Poetry of I Q Ap Gen, XX, 2-8a,” Rev. Qumran 10, no. 1 (1979): 57. 25 Peter Lee, “Aramaic Poetry at Qumran” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America,

2011).

73

elevated prose.26 This conclusion is accepted here for the sake of simplicity. One should note

that no significant change to the following chart would occur if lines 7-8a were also considered

poetry.

Figure 2: Distribution by Genre

Definite Indefinite

Prose

Absolute 77 (10%) 202 (27%)

Emphatic 450 (61%) 10 (1%)

Direct Discourse in Prose

Absolute 15 (16%) 37 (39%)

Emphatic 41 (44%) 1 (1%)

Poetry

Absolute 37 (36%) 35 (34%)

Emphatic 32 (31%) 0 (0%)

Prose, then, follows a very similar pattern to the overall system, with even proportionally fewer

exceptions than the overall data.

Direct discourse in prose shows a higher incidence of absolute forms than prose. In terms

of testing categorical dependence, as was done above, a Chi Square test would cease to be as

reliable, given the smaller sample size. Instead, a different test, known as a Fisher’s test, is

commonly used to assess the same issue when the sample size is small. Unfortunately, the single

26 Ibid., 367.

74

data point in the emphatic/indefinite cell is problematic for statistical analysis even with a

Fisher’s test, so statistical conclusions are avoided in this section. One can qualitatively note the

higher propensity for absolute definites in direct discourse in prose, but without claiming it as a

statistical observation.

Poetry yields a much higher portion of absolute forms in general, but, somewhat

surprisingly, no semantically definite absolutes. One should note, though, that the small sample

size, as well as the fact that at least some of the poetry involved (e.g.: the description of Sarai’s

beauty) focuses mainly on description, which would generate more property nouns, which are

absolute by rule. One is left with the qualitative observation that poetry may (but see the

previous comment about the small sample size) use more absolute forms, including more

absolute definites.

Text

As stated in chapter 1, due to the fact that QA ultimately represents a library, this study

has avoided assuming the homogeneity of QA as a corpus when it comes to definiteness.

Instead, this has been tested based on the data accumulated.

Figure 3: Distribution by Text

Definite Indefinite

GenAp (1Q20)

Absolute 31 (13%) 72 (30%)

Emphatic 137 (57%) 2 (1%)

Enoch Literature (1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q201-212, 4Q530-533, 6Q8)

75

Definite Indefinite

Absolute 26 (12%) 66 (30%)

Emphatic 123 (56%) 3 (1%)

New Jerusalem (2Q24, 4Q554, 4Q554a, 11Q18)

Absolute 2 (2%) 19 (23%)

Emphatic 61 (74%) 0 (0%)

Amram (4Q543-8)

Absolute 3 (14%) 5 (24%)

Emphatic 12 (57%) 1 (5%)

Levi (1Q21, 4Q213-214b)

Absolute 19 (36%) 10 (19%)

Emphatic 24 (45%) 0 (0%)

Tobit (4Q196-8)

Absolute 8 (17%) 21 (46%)

Emphatic 17 (37%) 0 (0%)

All Others

Absolute 40 (15%) 81 (29%)

Emphatic 149 (54%) 5 (2%)

Note: chart only includes non-translational portions of GenAp.

Overall, the text (or text group) in question has little impact on the intersection of state and

definiteness. In most of these cases, the counts are too small to do statistical analysis; however,

prima facie the data indicate no major discrepancies from the overall pattern, with the closest to

a discrepancy being the higher number of absolutes in general for Amram, Levi, and Tobit.

76

Accordingly, the corpus of non-translational simple definites can be considered homogenous for

purposes of analysis of state and definiteness within the simple noun phrase.

Similarly, because the Genesis Apocryphon cannot be assumed to be a single

homogenous text, it was analyzed by column regarding state and definiteness. Only the eight

columns have enough analyzable forms to be worthwhile data, and one should be cautious of

even these columns, as the sample sizes are still quite small.

Figure 4: Distribution in Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon

Definite Indefinite

Col. 2

Absolute 4 (29%) 6 (43%)

Emphatic 4 (29%) 0 (0%)

Col. 5

Absolute 4 (31%) 4 (31%)

Emphatic 5 (38%) 0 (0%)

Col. 6

Absolute 4 (17%) 8 (35%)

Emphatic 11 (48%) 0 (0%)

Col. 12

Absolute 0 (0%) 6 (40%)

Emphatic 9 (60%) 0 (0%)

Col. 19

Absolute 0 (0%) 3 (20%)

Emphatic 10 (67%) 2 (13%)

77

Definite Indefinite

Col. 20

Absolute 5 (14%) 15 (42%)

Emphatic 16 (44%) 0 (0%)

Col. 21

Absolute 5 (20%) 8 (32%)

Emphatic 12 (48%) 0 (0%)

Col. 22

Absolute 3 (23%) 6 (46%)

Emphatic 4 (31%) 0 (0%)

Note: Covers only non-translational forms in the GenAp. Translational

forms are considered below.

The remainder of the columns have too few data points to report, as even the percentage

presentation of the data could be overly biased by a single form or two. The only remarkable

difference from pattern in the Genesis Apocryphon is a high percentage of absolute definites in

columns 2 and 5; however, that percentage is driven almost entirely by the form קושט which was

discussed above. While no comment is made here on the potential composite nature of the

Genesis Apocryphon, one can again conclude that it has no major variances regarding

definiteness and state.

78

Gender

Gender could impact the question of definiteness and state. Kuty, for instance, found that

gender in TJS drove two different systems of the noun’s interaction with definiteness.27 In the

case of QA, however, gender has little impact on the intersection of state and definiteness.

Figure 5: Distribution by Gender

Definite Indefinite

Feminine

Absolute 31 (14%) 67 (29%)

Emphatic 129 (57%) 2 (1%)

Masculine

Absolute 98 (14%) 207 (30%)

Emphatic 379 (55%) 9 (1%)

Varies (e.g.: שמשא)

Absolute 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Emphatic 16 (100%) 0 (0%)

Number

Number can also impact the behavior of nouns regarding definiteness. For instance in

English, as noted in chapter 1, one can say, “The bird is an animal with wings” or “Birds are

animals with wings.” In each case, the communication is that of a generic statement, but one

uses the definite article and the other is anarthrous. In the Aramaic of the TJS, for another

example, Kuty finds the singular/plural distinction to be a clear divider in the function of

27 Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” 35.

79

determination.28 In QA, number does seem to drive significant differences in state and

definiteness:

Figure 6: Distribution by Number

Definite Indefinite

Singular

Absolute 117 (16%) 199 (27%)

Emphatic 420 (56%) 10 (1%)

Plural

Absolute 12 (6%) 75 (39%)

Emphatic 103 (54%) 1 (~0%)

However, two notes are in order. First, to belabor the point, the exceptions that occur are

semantically definite absolutes. Second, many of these semantically definite absolutes are the

abstract nouns mentioned above, e.g.: חכמה, which do not, except in exceptional circumstances,

pluralize.

Count/Mass

Because mass nouns do not normally pluralize, the above comparison of the behavior of

singular and plural nouns requires also the consideration of the count/mass distinction.

28 Ibid., 30.

80

Figure 7: Count/Mass Distribution

Definite Indefinite

Count

Absolute 33 (5%) 197 (33%)

Emphatic 371 (61%) 4 (1%)

Mass

Absolute 96 (29%) 76 (23%)

Emphatic 153 (46%) 7 (2%)

Unsurprisingly, when these two data sets are combined, the semantically definite absolutes

cluster in the category of singular mass nouns:

Figure 8: Absolute Definites Count/Mass and Singular/Plural Distribution

Singular Plural

Count 97 (75%) 1 (1%)

Mass 20 (16%) 11 (9%)

Note: plural mass nouns seem to be a self-contradictory category.

These are words which are morphologically plural, yet mass, e.g.: מיא

(“water”), שמיא (“heaven”).

Abstract Nouns

What remains, then, is to explore the major area of exception that was noted above, that

of abstract nouns. Unlike a concrete noun, which refers to something physical, an abstract noun

81

indicates something intangible. Examples include קושטא (“truth”), חכמתא (“wisdom”), and the

like. Abstract nouns show more absolute forms as a whole and noticeably more semantically

definite absolute forms.

Figure 9: Abstract/Concrete Distribution

Definite Indefinite

Abstract

Absolute 104 (41%) 61 (24%)

Emphatic 84 (33%) 4 (2%)

Concrete

Absolute 25 (4%) 213 (31%)

Emphatic 439 (64%) 7 (1%)

The nature of an abstract noun, then, does seem to create more absolute forms, and more forms

that are absolute yet semantically definite. When combined with the analysis of the mass/count

and singular/plural distinctions above, the data therefore show that the predominant area of

exception to the correlation between state and definiteness is semantically definite absolutes that

are abstract singular mass nouns.

The question, then, becomes whether this category represents an area in which the

state/definiteness connection fluctuates. Put differently, is this a subset of noun phrases in which

the absolute and emphatic forms have no distinction? In fact, there are cases where an abstract

noun shows a fluctuation in state without a fluctuation in definiteness. The main locus of this

discussion has been around the forms בקושטא and בקושט. Fitzmyer comments on these forms:

82

is the emph. sg., as in 2:22; 6:2; 19:25. With no apparent difference of syntax קושטאor meaning, the abs. קושט occurs in 2:[6], 7, 10, 18; 3:13; 5:8, 9; 6:1, 23; 15:20; 4QEnc 1 v 7; 5 ii 22, 30; 4QEng 1 iv 17; pace Muraoka, who is even forced to admit that his distinction between the two forms is “evasive.” It may seem at first that the latter instances are simply scriptio defectiva for the former… However, the situation is not so simple. As in earlier Aramaic, abstract nouns were used sometimes in both the abs. and emph. forms apparently without distinction; so too here.29

The basic thrust of Fitzmyer’s point can be taken, though one should note that the form קושטא in

6:2 may well be an anaphoric reference to line 1, given the context. Muraoka, in the argument

referenced by Fitzmyer, had stated:

Fitzmyer is of the opinion that…the difference in the state [is] being neutralized. However it is not entirely impossible to recognize a certain measure of differentiation between the two sets of examples….A certain distinction, evasive may it be, seems to be maintained between BQWŠŢ’ and BQWŠŢ, and this distinction can be said to derive from the difference between the two states of the substantive involved.30

He clarifies this position later in the addenda:

Our argument for a possible distinction between QWŠŢ’ and QWŠŢ may be phrased somewhat differently. Of course we are not claiming that the morphological differentiation between absolutus and emphaticus directly results in a lexical (semantic) differentiation, or in other words, QWŠŢ’ and QWŠŢ always mean “honesty” and “truth” respectively whatever the context may be. The fact is that “honesty” and “truth” are two related connotations of a single concept. In the case of the examples under discussion, the choice between the two alternative renderings depends on the syntax of the forms concerned in that BQWŠŢ is directly linked with the verb (of speaking), BQWŠŢ’ with KWL’, which is qualified by the former.31

Note that the context of this particular discussion is mainly that of forms in adverbial

prepositional phrases. In this debate, the modern reader runs up against one of the earlier cited

29 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 129. 30 Takamitsu Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Rev. Qumran 8, no. 1 (1972): 13. 31 Ibid., 51.

83

limitations of linguistic analysis on ancient texts – the lack of a native speaker to question. In the

net, this argument cannot be finally resolved. If one wishes, as Muraoka, to read the emphatic

and absolute forms as correlating with a shade of difference, the reading could be plausible. On

the other hand, if one wishes, as Fitzmyer, to see them as freely interchangeable forms in this

situation, that reading is also plausible. Muraoka’s distinction, then, is possible, but cannot be

proved. What one thinks of the entire system of state and definiteness will drive the decision in

this instance. Likewise, the modern reader cannot ascertain for certain whether these terms have

become lexicalized as adverbs or are part of a living declension.

Several other abstract nouns in the corpus show a similar variation, including:

• “violence” occurs as חמס (absolute) in 4Q541 9.i.7 (poetry) and חמסא (emphatic) in

4Q212 1.iii.25 and 4Q204 5.ii.28, all being semantically definite as a generally

identifiable concept.

• “forever/eternity” occurs as עלם (absolute) in 4Q197 4.i.14, 4Q201 1.ii.11, and 4Q213a 3-

4.6 and as אמעל (emphatic) in 4Q209 23.4 and 6Q23 1.1.

• “wisdom” is written as חכמתא (emphatic) in 4Q213 1.i.13, 1.ii.5 and 19.25 yet as החכמ

(absolute) in 4Q213 1.i.9, 10, 12 and 14; 1.ii.5 and 9 with no clear change in referent or

meaning.

• “falsehood/deceit” occurs as שקר (absolute) in 4Q541 9.i.7 and as שקרא (emphatic) in

4Q212 1.iii.25, again, both being semantically definite as a generally identifiable concept.

Many other abstract mass singular nouns in the corpus occur only in one state, either absolute or

emphatic, but in a context where they are basically as identifiable as is קושט above.

84

How can these data be explained? The scalar nature of definiteness, discussed in chapter

1, may be useful in considering this area. The reader will no doubt have noticed, for instance,

that the absolute form קושט (many occurrences) was argued to be semantically definite and later

the emphatic form קושטא in 1Q20 19.25 was argued to be semantically indefinite, though with

the reservation that it could be definite by general knowledge. In fact, abstract forms such as

may be considered as semantic definites because they are identifiable as a general קושט or קושטא

concept. However, the adverbial phrase קושטב / קושטאב does not occupy as clearly a definite or

indefinite spot semantically as many noun phrases do. While wanting to be careful to avoid

analyzing Aramaic as if it were English, English grammar, with an articular system that includes

the definite, indefinite, and null articles, is instructive in this regard. These terms could be

equally validly translated into English with or without “the,” e.g.: “in truth” or “in the truth.”

Possibly, then, one should consider an abstract form to be semantically definite because of the

general knowledge of the concept to which it refers, but less definite (in a scalar sense) than

some other semantic definites.

Other abstract nouns that refer to concepts have much the same semantic analysis. For

example, consider 1Q20 20.11: כדי דבירת מני שרי באונס (“because Sarai was taken from me by

force”). As a general concept, anyone knows what “force” is, so the noun is in a sense

identifiable to the reader as a general concept. However, the reader cannot identify the particular

force or the specific force used. Again note that the form is an adverbial prepositional phrase.

The reference, in the context of the adverbial phrase, is to a type, a category, in this case, the type

of action that is forceful, the category of forceful action. Such a category is identifiable, whether

or not the specific action is so. One then, should consider this form semantically definite in a

85

sense, because it is identifiable as a general concept, but less semantically definite than a form

such as 1Q20 20.21-22: באדין אתה עלי חרקנוש ובעא מני די אתה ואצלה על מלכא (“Then Hirqanos came

to me and entreated me that I should come and pray over the king.”). In this latter case, מלכא is

also definite by identifiability, but much more strongly and specifically, as it is an anaphoric

reference to Pharaoh Zoan, identified earlier in the narrative. Abstract nouns, then, can be

considered intermediately semantically definite, as they refer to a category, which is knowable

by general knowledge, but somewhat less so than many other forms of identifiability.

Similarly, one can consider these examples from the Vision of Amram. First, 4Q548

1.ii_2.13-14 states הכון Rוכל בני חש[וכא לחשוכא למותא] ולאבדנא י (“And all the children of dark[ness]

will go [to darkness, to death,] and to destruction.”). Though the text is fragmentary, one can

discern that Melchizedek tells Amram that those who follow light will be saved from death and

destruction. “Destruction” as such is a general concept, identifiable to the audience, but the

particular destruction is not specified nor identifiable to the audience. Second, 4Q548 1.ii_2.4

has [בדנא]מן מותא ומן א (“from death and de[struction]”). Though the text is again fragmentary,

“death” is a general concept, identifiable to the audience, but again not with the specificity of

“the king” in the example above. Moving from a binary understanding of semantic definiteness

to scalar understanding of the semantic phenomenon helps set these observations in context.

Generics

Casey has repeatedly referenced “generic” nouns as part of his theory of the blurring of

state and definiteness in Aramaic. For instance, he states:

We must therefore consider next the optional use of the emphatic state in generic expressions, as well as with some unique items such as the heavens and the earth,

86

where also the meaning cannot be affected by which state of the noun is employed…. Among abundant examples of the generic use of the emphatic state from before the time of Jesus, we find in the proverbs of Ahiqar דגנא וחנטתא for ‘עדן and wheat’, שיעאר for a generically wicked person and עתירא for a generically rich person (Ahiqar lines 129, 171, 207)…. Similarly at Qumran, we find… חזוא for a vision at 1QapGen XXI,8; צדקתא, ‘righteousness’ at 4Q542 I i 12; and חמסה, ‘violence’ at 4Q Ena 1 iv 8 (1 En. 9.1)…. The emphatic state was however optional for such expressions. So we find in the proverbs of Ahiqar מלך for a generic king, and צדקה for a generically righteous person (lines 107-8, 126)…. At Qumran, Noah’s vineyard produces חמר (1QapGen XII, 13) and חכמה is used in the absolute state for ‘wisdom’ (11QTgJob XXX,2, MT Job 38.4 בינה)…. It is therefore natural to find that (א)בר (א)נש may be used in either state, since it is a generic expression.32

A more detailed examination of genericity is therefore in order.

First, “generic” must be properly defined. Chesterman noted, as quoted in chapter 1, that

“genericness” is a particularly nebulous term, and the term may well resist definition because it

is a cover term for “a variety of readings with different quantitative extensions.”33 Chesterman’s

conclusion is certainly borne out by this study. Genericity is an overlapping category to many of

the previous distinctions. For example, a generic noun phrase can be either concrete or abstract

and either mass or count.

Subdivisions within the general term “generic” must therefore be considered. Krifka et

al. note in their work “Genericity: An Introduction” that there are two ways to make a generic

statement, one utterance based and the other nominally based:

In the history both of philosophy of language and of linguistics, there have been two quite distinct phenomena that have been referred to or classified as ‘genericity’. The first is reference to a kind – a genus – as exemplified in (1). The underlined noun phrases (NPs) do not denote or designate some particular potato or group of

32 Maurice Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem (Library of New Testament studies 343; London: T&T

Clark, 2007), 59–61. 33 Andrew Chesterman, On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish (Cambridge studies

in linguistics 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 3, 63.

87

potatoes, but rather the kind Potato (Solanum tuberosum) itself. In this usage a generic NP is an NP that does not refer to an “ordinary” individual or object, but instead refers to a kind.

(1) a. The potato was first cultivated in South America.

b. Potatoes were introduced into Ireland by the end of the 17th century.

c. The Irish economy became dependent on the potato.

We will call NPs like potatoes or the potato in these sentences kind-referring

NPs….The second phenomenon commonly associated with genericity are propositions which do not express specific episodes or isolated facts but instead report a kind of general property, that is report a regularity which summarizes groups of particular episodes or facts….This second notion of genericity is clearly a feature of the whole sentence (or clause), rather than of any one NP in it; it is the whole generic sentence that expresses regularities which transcend particular facts…. We will call sentences like these characterizing sentences.34

The distinction, then, is between generic reference because the NP references a kind and generic

reference because the clause references a regularity. They further state:

It is quite obvious that reference to kinds and characterizing sentences have something in common: with kinds we abstract away from particular objects, whereas with characterizing sentences we abstract away from particular events and facts…. Nonetheless, it is important to keep these two types of generic phenomena apart, since it turns out that there are linguistic differences between them.35

Finally, they conclude:

Perhaps the most important result is that genericity is not a uniform concept. We must distinguish between kind reference on the one hand and characterizing predication on the other. Each of these has been called ‘genericity’ in the past, and there are certain intuitive similarities between them. Furthermore, they may interact with one another. However, we think that it will be crucial for future research to keep these notions separated.36

34 Manfred Krifka et al., “Genericity: An Introduction,” in Generic Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995),

2–3. 35 Ibid., 4. 36 Ibid., 122.

88

In the case of this analysis of nominal state in QA, the type of genericity being considered is the

first, kind-referring noun phrases.

Second, one must note the difficulty in identifying generic noun phrases as generics when

working with the corpus of QA. In English, as has been previously mentioned, there are three

common ways to make a generic phrase. Wanting to make a generic statement about elephants,

a speaker could say any of the following:

(1) Elephants are large animals.

(2) The elephant is a large animal.

(3) An elephant is a large animal.

The challenge in working with QA, however, is that the reader is in the reverse situation. As a

reader only, one has statements, but one must then infer whether or not those statements are

generic.

In this regard, not everything called “generic” by various authors is actually a generic.

The difficulty comes from the fact that generic phrases are rarely encoded in language in

unambiguous ways:

If we look at the linguistic realization of kind-referring NPs and characterizing sentences, we find that they seldom are encoded in an unambiguous way. Not only are there many linguistically distinct ways to state a particular generic sentence, but also it often happens that a given sentence can have both a particular and a characterizing reading.37

37 Ibid., 5.

89

No doubt this difficulty contributes not only to genericity being a poorly understood area, as

noted above, but also to false characterizations of various noun phrases as “generic.” For

example, as mentioned in chapter 1, Casey notes Daniel 5:1, where the king drank חמרא (“wine”)

as a generic use of a noun form.38 One must object, though, as there is no generic statement

about wine being made in Daniel 5:1 – merely the reference that the king drank some amount of

wine. The reference in Daniel 5:1 could be argued to be indefinite – an indeterminate amount of

wine – or, as this author would consider it – associatively definite, as wine normally is expected

at a king’s banquet. Whether indefinite or definite, however, the reference in Daniel 5:1 is not

generic.

In other words, a generic reference is not the same as an indefinite reference. The former

is to a kind, whereas the latter is to a subset of that kind. For example, in 4Q206 1.xxvi.17-18

Enoch recounts: רד טב וצפר וקרדמן [ופ]לפליןנ[אחז]ית טורין אחרנין [מלאין[ (“I was [shown] other

mountains, [full of] good [n]ard, and mastic and cardamom [and p]epper.”). No generic

statement is being made about the kind “pepper” or the kind “mastic,” etc. in this line (compare

to “the potato is…” above), but merely an indefinite reference that there was much of each

substance there. Neither is a generic reference the same as a definite reference. There is

potential overlap at the level of inclusive definite references, but many definite references are

specific and not generic, including, in this author’s analysis, Daniel 5:1’s reference to חמרא.

38 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 13.

90

A generic reference, then, must be identified contextually. A simple noun alone, with

possible rare exception, is not a generic. What matters is the use of that noun. For example, in

English, compare:

(1) The ant over there is red.

(2) The ant is a very small animal.

(3) An ant crawled on my arm.

(4) An ant is a very small animal.

Statements (1) and (3) are not generic references, while statements (2) and (4) are.

In light of these difficulties Krifka et al. suggest various tests for genericity of a noun

phrase. Of those tests, three help distinguish kind-referring (and therefore generic) uses of a

noun phrase from non-generic uses. First, certain predicates (e.g.: “to be extinct,” “to die out”)

by their nature only take kind-referring NPs. They state:

This test determines which types of NPs can be used as kind-referring terms. There are some predicates with argument places that can be filled only with kind-referring NPs. Examples are the subject argument of die out or be extinct and the object argument of invent or exterminate. The reason is, of course, that only kinds (not objects) can die out or be invented….[W]hen a general term is used as subject NP, the kind-referring interpretation of the NP has at least priority over the object referring interpretation…. We observe, for example, that definite singular NPs such as in (23a), bare plural NPs such as in (23b), and definite singular NPs such as in (23c) pass this test, whereas indefinite NPs such as in (23d) fail, except in the taxonomic reading in (23e) (see also Smith 1975):

(23) a. The lion will become extinct soon

b. Lions will become extinct soon.

c. Bronze is a metal / was invented as early as 3000 B.C.

d.* A lion will become extinct soon. (nontaxonomic reading)

91

e. A (certain) lion (namely the Berber lion) will become extinct soon. (taxonomic reading)

This result is quite important, as definite NPs like the lion, bare plural NPs like lions, ad indefinite singular NPs like a lion have often been considered the three main types of ‘generic noun phrases’… But obviously, given the unacceptability of (23d), indefinite singular NPs have to be treated differently, a point that will be substantiated with other tests below. Therefore we will not consider indefinite NPs as kind-referring (except in their taxonomic reading).39

Second, kind-referring NPs must be connected to a well-established kind to which they refer. If

the kind is barely or not identified, the reference would fail. They state:

Basically, the noun or complex nominal constituent must be semantically connected with a “well-established kind” to which the noun phrase then can refer. A contrast like the following (from Carlson 1977b, who attributes it to Barbara Partee) is quite striking; it can be traced back to the fact that there exists a well-established kind for Coke bottles, but there is no well-established kind for green bottles:

(24) a. The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.

b. ??The green bottle has a narrow neck.

The test can be used to show that certain NPs which can be kind-referring according to our second test [the one listed previously], namely bare plurals and bare singular NPs, might have an object-referring reading as well, even in characterizing sentences…. NPs…which do not refer to well-established kinds pattern with indefinite singular NPs like a green bottle, rather than with definite NPs.40

Third, a generic kind-reference NP cannot be replaced with a more general NP without making

the resulting utterance false. Krifka et al. detail this test:

Previous observations made in the literature (Lawler 1973, Heyer 1987, Laca 1990) suggest another test for distinguishing between kind-referring and object-referring NPs. In upward-entailing contexts (roughly, non-negative contexts), indefinite object-referring NPs show the usual monotonicity effects: they can be replaced by

39 Krifka et al., “Genericity: An Introduction,” 10. 40 Ibid., 11.

92

“less informative” NPs without making the sentence false, as (30a). This is not possible with generic NPs, as shown in (30b):

(30) a. Berber lions escaped from the zoo � Lions escaped from the zoo

b. Berber lions are extinct -/-> Lions are extinct

However, this test only works when the kind-referring NP is not also in a characterizing sentence.41

Among the cumulative impact of these tests is that indefinite singulars need to be in a

characterizing sentence to be generic: “We have seen that indefinite singular NPs cannot be

simply considered as kind-referring or ‘generic’ in and of themselves (in contrast to some earlier

analyses). The reason is that they get an apparent ‘generic’ interpretation only when occurring in

a characterizing sentence (if we exclude the taxonomic interpretation). The locus of genericity is

not in the indefinite singular NP, but rather in the sentence itself; and therefore this type of

genericity is outside the nominal system.”42

For this study, the importance of these tests is that they can be used on a case-by-case

basis to assess whether noun phrases labelled as “generic” by various authors really are so. For

example, the noun in adverbial phrases such as בקושט is therefore not a generic reference. As

argued above, such a phrase is identifiable to the reader by general knowledge and therefore

semantically definite. However, “truth” is not connected to a “well-established kind” (test 2).

Instead, it is a kind. When one says “the truth” in “the truth will set you free,” one does not

reference “the genus of which truth is part,” but the abstract (singular) concept of “truth.” On the

other hand, when one says “the ant” in “The ant is a small animal,” one does reference the well-

41 Ibid., 13–14. 42 Ibid., 14.

93

established kind, the genus of which any species of ant is part. Reference to concept, then, is not

the same as reference to kind. It is questionable whether truth even can have a kind; it is just a

unitary concept, identifiable and therefore semantically definite, but not a kind-referring generic.

The same can be true for concrete nouns. For example, consider 4Q206 4.iii.18 ויהב לה[ון] מיא

[א] R[למש]ת (“And he gave th[em] water to [dri]n[k].”). “Water” can be replaced with another

more general term “liquid” (test 3) and the sentence still is true. This is also confirmed by the

test of the addition of the modifier “some.” One could say “And he gave them some water to

drink,” which is necessarily indefinite, with no change in meaning. Accordingly, water is an

example of an indefinite noun, not a kind-referring generic.

Similarly, an inclusive reference is not necessarily a generic reference. Inclusivity is a

reference to all of a group, whereas genericity is a reference to that group as a kind. For

example:

The boys went to the store.

In a given context, “the boys” would be an inclusive reference to all the relevant boys, however,

it would not be a generic reference to boys as a kind. In QA 4Q206 4.ii.15 references דיא Rער (“the

wild asses”) as a group, not a type, as does 4Q205 2.i.28. Likewise 1Q20 7.2 references עיריא

(“the Watchers”) again as a group, not a kind, so it is an inclusive reference, but not generic.

Many of the forms Casey lists as generics from QA, in fact, are not properly so. Leaving

aside translational forms, which are addressed below, Casey claims the following as generics:

(a vision,” 1Q20.xxi.8“) חזוא •

(wine,” 1Q20.xii.13“) חמר •

94

(righteousness,” 4Q542.ii.12“) צדקתא •

(violence,” 4Q201 1.iv.8“) חמסה •

((truth,” 1Q20 2.5, 2.10; also in 4Q212 4.12 and 2.20“) קשט and קושטא •

43(joy,” 4Q542 1.1.3 and 1.i.11“) שמח and שמחא •

Many of these examples are not, in fact, generics. חזוא (“a vision,” 1Q20 xxi 8) will be more

properly covered in the genitive chapter, but in the context one can see that it is an indefinite

phrase: ואתחזי לי אלהא בחזוא די ליליא (“And God appeared to me in a vision of the night.”).

Similarly, חמר (“wine,” 1Q20 xii 13-14) is also clearly indefinite, even being modified by the

quantifier “much”: Rא Rי Rג Rש Rולשנין ארבע עבד לי חמר (“In the fourth year it produced for me much

wine.”). The other four cases are all instances where the form is not a generic, but, as detailed

above, a reference to an abstract concept.44 Importantly, though, Casey is correct that אנש, at

least when referencing “mankind,” is, in fact, by definition a generic reference. Not discussing

Aramaic, but discussing the conceptual import of the reference, Krifka et al. offer the following

statement:

Are there any NPs which can only be interpreted as kind-referring? An example is the English NP (not the common noun) man:

(8) Man has lived in Africa for more than 2 million years.

There are other unequivocal cases, like this kind of tiger and each species of fish. But beyond such idiosyncratic examples as man and these systematic NPs with

43 Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, 59–60. 44 Note that Casey may not mean to indicate קושט in particular as a generic. The natural flow of his argument

seems to lump it as such; however, he begins the section discussing generics and “some other uses,” and

throughout the section he does not always distinguish when he feels a term is generic and when it is one of those

“other uses.” Nonetheless, the basic argument he makes seems to lump these as generics, and the overall

conclusion of his argument is that (א)בר (א)נש fits in this context “since it is a generic expression” (p.61).

95

special lexical content, no NPs appear to demand unequivocal reference to kinds, at least not at first sight.45

The net result is that there are actually fewer generics than might be expected in this corpus.

(Note that 11QtgJob is not included in this analysis, since it is translational and handled below.)

Generic forms are semantically definite by their nature, as they are an inclusive reference to all

of a type and because that type is (per rule 2 above) a well-known kind. Again, however, one

ought to note the scalar nature of definiteness. Generic statements are different than universally

quantified statements, as the latter admit no exceptions, whereas the former can permit

occasional exceptions without losing their truth status (e.g.: not every elephant is large – some

are babies).46 Again, the scalar nature of definiteness comes into play, as generic statements can

be considered semantically definite, but not at the extreme end of the continuum.

Under the more restrictive (at least vis-à-vis Casey) definition of “generic” adopted in

this study, there are 18 simple noun phrases that are generics, and interestingly, all 18 of them

are in the emphatic state.

(mankind,” 1Q20 1.27, 6.26; 4Q201 1.iii.19; 4Q531 2+3.9; 4Q536 2i+3.7“) אנשא •

(the cattle,” 1Q20 6.26“) בעירא •

(the beasts,” 1Q20 6.26“) חיותא •

(silver,” 4Q202 1.ii.27“) כספא •

(kohl, antinomy,”4Q202 1.ii.28“) כוחלא •

(myrtle,” 4Q241b 2-6.5“) אדסא •

45 Krifka et al., “Genericity: An Introduction,” 6. 46 Ibid., 4.

96

(the lowly ones,” 1Q20 0:7“) שפליא •

(the birds,” 1Q20 6.26“) עופא •

(the snow,” 4Q209 23.10“) תלגא •

(mastic,” 4Q241b 2-6.4“) סוגדה •

(cypress,” 4Q241b 2-6.5“) ברותא •

(thekaka,” 4Q241b 2-6.5“) תככה •

(mist,” 4Q541 9.i.5“) ערפלא •

(the wicked,” 4Q556a 5.i-ii.10“) רשעיא •

The remainder of the corpus remains to be evaluated, and the construct phrase must be taken into

account, but it initially appears that generics may be more regular in state than first presumed.

Other Categories

The other three categories of exception noted above were nouns with a following relative

clause, pseudo-names, and vocatives. These quickly can be determined not to drive categorical

areas of exception to the system:

• Relative clause following – A following relative clause does not create a general rule of

an absolute definite. There are at least 31 cases where a relative clause follows a simple

noun in QA, and in 26 of those cases, the noun is in the emphatic state and the following

clause makes it semantically definite.

• Pseudo-names – Proper nouns in QA do not inflect.

• Vocatives – Vocatives are regularly in the emphatic state in Aramaic as a whole. QA

shows emphatic vocatives as well. These include אלהא (“God,” 1Q20 22.32), סכלא (“o

97

fool,” 4Q536 2.ii.11), and רוחא (“o spirit,” 4Q560 1.ii.6). There may be absolute

vocatives in 4Q560, but the context is limited.

Summary

Before moving on to examine complex definites and construct phrases, then, five

conclusions can be drawn from this study of simple definites. First, as a whole, semantic

definiteness and indefiniteness are categorically dependent on state. Second, this indicates that,

before forming a construct phrase, the basic understanding of a reader at Qumran would be that

the emphatic state indicates definiteness and the absolute state indefiniteness for a simple noun

phrase.47 Third, where exceptions do occur in QA, as they do in all languages, the bulk of those

exceptions are formally absolute nouns that are semantically definite, not formally emphatic

nouns that are semantically indefinite. Only 11 of 933 simple definites in this portion of the

study (1.2%) are emphatic forms that are semantically indefinite. This is the reverse of dialects

where the emphatic has “taken over,” such as TJS, which Kuty describes by stating, “Finally, it

is noteworthy that the bulk of the exceptions feature semantically indeterminate items being

rendered by formally determinate nouns rather than the opposite: this is therefore consonant with

the notion that it is the st.emph. that encroaches on the territory of the st.abs. rather than the other

way round.”48 Fourth, these exceptions cluster in the category of abstract mass singular nouns.

It is in this area that there can be variation, even within a single lexeme, between the absolute

and emphatic states without change in semantic definiteness. This is likely due to the fact that,

47 Chapter three will examine the effects when these noun phrases become the nomen rectum of a construct

phrase. 48 Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” 33 n.30.

98

in a scalar conception of semantic definiteness, abstract nouns, especially when they reflect a

concept or type (e.g.: קושט), while semantically definite, are somewhat “less definite” than other

semantic definites. Finally, fifth, generic phrases actually show surprisingly little variation,

when properly defined, with generic phrases being given in the emphatic state. Casey focused

his efforts on proving that the emphatic form could be used to indicate a generic noun, leading to

his view that the emphatic state was optional in generic constructions.49 Far more interesting, at

this juncture – before analyzing the construct phrase – is how few absolute generics occur in the

corpus.

In sum, then, there are a certain number of noun phrases, usually abstract concepts, that

occupy a slightly ambiguous level of definiteness. By their very nature, they are identifiable, as

they are abstract concepts, references to a type, so they count more to the definiteness side

semantically, if one must to choose in a binary sense. In a scalar sense, however, these noun

phrases are more towards the middle of the semantic definiteness spectrum. The

intermediateness of them is semantic, meaning that a speaker could choose one of two ways to

express them, either via a grammatical emphatic or a grammatical absolute. This conception

does not at all say that the emphatic and absolute have merged, but only that certain concepts can

be expressed either way. The question then becomes whether (א)בר אנש is a term of this type, as

opposed to only a generic. That answer will have to be delayed until after the discussion of

complex definites and construct phrases.

49 Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, 61.

99

Chapter Three: Genitive Phrases

Preliminaries

The genitive relationship in QA is expressed by more than just the construct phrase, also

being expressed by the analytic genitive (the use of די to join the two terms in question). That

said, the vast majority of genitive connections between nouns in QA are made via the construct

phrase, which is “still very much in use.”1 Alongside 275 construct phrases, only 28 analytic

genitives were found in the corpus.2 Lukaszewski previously had found only 10 analytic

genitives in the whole corpus.3 While this study finds a greater number, it mainly supports his

conclusion that the use of the analytic genitive is “exceptionally rare in QA.”4 Even if

“exceptionally” is slightly strong as a description for the rarity of the analytic genitive, the

construct phrase still is the dominant expression of the genitive relationship.

These two expressions of the genitive relationship are practically interchangeable, though

not identical. In terms of use, there is no “functional opposition” between the two types.5 For

instance, Fitzmyer notes the interchange of מלך סודם (“the king of Sodom”) in 1Q20 22:12, 20,

and 25 andמלכא די סודם (“the king of Sodom”) in 22:18 “with no apparent difference of

meaning.”6 The two constructions are not identical in every respect, however. The genitive

1 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 289. 2 Note that these counts only include construct phrases and analytic genitives which include common nouns.

Proper nouns will be occasionally mentioned in this analysis, but because they cannot be parsed, they do not

contribute, except anecdotally, to the discussion of state and definiteness. 3 Albert Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

St. Andrews, 2004), 199. 4 Ibid., 45. 5 T Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 193. 6 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 289.

100

relationship as a whole shows a “remarkably variety of relationships” between the two nouns in

the construction.7 Some of those relationships are present only in the construct phrase or only in

the analytic genitive in the corpus, likely because the nominal relationship more easily lent itself

to one form or the other.8 For this reason, the construct phrase and analytic genitive will initially

be analyzed separately, in order to avoid the presumption that they show the same behavior

regarding definiteness and state.

Complex Noun Phrases

In addressing the genitive phrase, this study uses the standard nomen rectum/nomen

regens terminology often used in Semitic language study for construct phrases, with the nomen

rectum being the last term of the phrase, which can show state in QA, and the nomen regens

being the first term, which itself is in the construct state. The nomen rectum can be a simple

noun phrase or a complex noun phrase. Likewise, the first and second terms of the analytic

genitive can be either simple noun phrases or complex noun phrases. Before undertaking an

analysis of the genitive phrase, then, a brief analysis of state and definiteness within complex

noun phrases is in order. Such noun phrases show a quite regular connection of state and

definiteness, so the analysis can be much more brief than that which preceded.

7 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 187. 8 Ibid., 193.

101

Quantified NPs

Cardinal Numbers

Cardinal numbers, often thought of as “counting numbers,” normally follow a noun in the

absolute state.9 The majority of such noun phrases are of an ambiguous definiteness, e.g.: תרתין

רהאמין ארבע עש or (ten staffs,” 5Q15 1.i.3“) קנין עשרה ,(two years,” 1Q20 20.18“) שנין (“fourteen

cubits,” 5Q15 1.i.16). In such a case, the counted item is not identifiable in any specific sense,

i.e.: which fourteen cubits, but it is identifiable in the general sense that a reader knows the

definition of a cubit. Only very occasionally is the noun in such a phrase in the emphatic state.

Fitzmyer states that, when it does occur, this is “because of the definite idea involved.”10

Similarly, Muraoka states that such situations are “syntactically and contextually conditioned.”11

In such a situation, Muraoka notes that a preceding cardinal numeral is then placed in the

construct state.12 He provides the following examples:

(the three parts,” 1Q20 17.11“) תלתת חולקיא •

(the seven sources of this river,” 1Q20 19.12“) שבעת ראשי נהרא דן •

יR תלתת שרש • Rוה (“its three roots,” 6Q8 2.1)

(its [s]even reeds,” 11Q18 32.4“) [ש]בעת קניה •

• Rתלתת ספריא (“the three books,” 4Q534 1.i.5)

One can potentially add to his list the following:

9 Ibid., 158. 10 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 252. 11 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 158. 12 Ibid., 201.

102

(the two upper rooms,” 11Q18 21.3“) תרתי עליתא •

(the three men who went with me,” 1Q20 22.23-24“) תלתת גבריא די אזלו עמי •

Also potentially in this category, though unable to be formally distinguished from an absolute

form of the number, are ארבע רוחי שמיא (“the four winds of heaven,” 1Q20 13.16) and חמש שניא

.(these five years,” 1Q20 19.23“) אלן

In QA חד (“one”) also follows its head noun and is in the absolute state.13 It has a single

referent, but it is not uniquely denoting nor identifiable, meaning it usually is part of a

semantically indefinite noun phrase. For instance, 1Q20 19.16 has שרש חד (“one root”), with that

root not identifiable to the audience of the date palm’s statement, and 5Q15 1.i.5 has שוק חד

(“one street”) with that street not being identifiable to the reader. In at least five cases חד could

plausibly be beginning to serve as an indefinite article:

(a cedar,” 1Q20 19.14“) ארז חד •

(a date palm,” 1Q20 19.14-15“) תמרא חדא •

(an angel,” 4Q213a 2.18“) מלאך חד •

(a ewe lamb,” 11QtgJob 38.7“) אמרה חדה •

(a nose ring,” 11QtgJob 38.8“) קדש חד •

Given that all of the above instances combine חד with a noun in the absolute state, as do all of the

cases where it serves as a number, the reading פריא חדא (“one fruit,” 1Q20 3.11, as proposed by

Machiela)14 should be questioned. חד can also be combined with מן to create an expression that

13 Ibid., 199. 14 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 38.

103

functions with the singulative sense, calling one out of a group, as in חד מן ראשי נהרא (“one of the

heads of the river,” 1Q20 19.11-12) or חד מן בני ביתי (“one of the sons of my house,” 1Q20

22.33).

Ordinal numbers

Ordinal numbers (e.g.: “first, second, etc.”) are necessarily identifiable as they are used to

distinguish one of an item from any others. As identifiable noun phrases, they are semantically

definite. Ordinals typically pair with a noun in the emphatic state, with the ordinal functioning

as an attributive adjective, as in תרעא שתיתיא (“the sixth gate,” 4Q209 26.2) and שתא חמישיתא

(“the fifth year,” 1Q20 12.15). Of the 36 ordinals included in the data set, 33 modify a noun

phrase in the emphatic state and are semantically definite. The only case of a semantically

definite ordinal with the absolute state is שמין קדמין (“the first heavens,” 4Q212 1.iv.23-34). The

other two noun phrases are שבוע תמיני (“an eighth week,” Q212 1.iv.15) and שבוע תשעי (“a ninth

week,” 4Q212 1.iv.19). These forms are most likely semantically indefinite, as each of them is

new information being introduced into the discourse, though one should note that 1 Enoch 91, to

which these forms correspond, can be read in such a way as to consider each week definite (cf.

Isaac’s translation of the Ethiopic).15 In this regard, then, Machiela’s proposed readings of בר

in 1Q20 14.12 and 14.1316 are somewhat suspect. They do not follow the standard pattern קדמיא

of an ordinal, as they are absolute in form; however, the sons have been introduced into column

15 E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse Of) Enoch,” in Old Testam. Pseudepigr. (ed. James H Charlesworth; Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 74. 16 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 60.

104

14 already in line 10. If Machiela’s readings here are accepted, they would have to be as the

construct of בר, though such a reading seems forced in comparison to the examples above.

One other construction should be noted that communicates something similar to an

ordinal number. In cases when a noun is in the construct state before a numeral which serves as

its nomen rectum, Muraoka suggests this is for use as a “numbering label.”17 Such uses are

necessary because there are no formal ordinals after “tenth.” As an example, he notes בשנת מאה

This usage is very much like an ordinal number in .(in year 136,” 4Q545 1a-b.ii.2“) ותלתין ושת

the meaning it communicates, e.g.: “the 136th year.” Several other cases that might appear to be

semantically definite absolutes are in fact more like this pattern of nouns in the construct state.

Muraoka notes these examples: בלילא תמניה (“on night 8,” 4Q209 1.i.5), ביום חד לרגלא קדמיא (“day

1 of the first feast,” 1Q20 12.14), and עד יום ארבעת עשר (“until day 14,” 4Q210 1.iii.4). Likewise

should be understood not as an absolute definite (the tenth day,” 4Q580 1.ii.14“) [ע]דR יום עשרתא

but as a construct phrase.

כול

in QA is a universal quantifier. One would expect, given the (”each, every, any“) כול

patterns of state and definiteness in the simple noun phrase, that כול with a noun phrase in

absolute state would be indefinite (roughly equivalent to a translation of “any”), and כול plus a

noun phrase in the emphatic state would be definite (roughly equivalent to a translation of

“every”). In fact, however, the situation is more complex, as the English translations of “any”

and “all” can be deceiving in this circumstance. Both “any” and “all” can, in fact, be inclusive

17 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 188.

105

references in English. For example, 4Q542 1.i.8-9 reads ין ודכין מן כול[ ער]ברוב Rוהוא קד[י]ש (“Be

holy and pure from any/all intermingling.”). In each noun phrase in QA, then, the phrase must

be contextually determined as to its identifiability and inclusiveness to ascertain its semantic

definiteness.

As a whole, the presence of כול most often makes a noun phrase semantically definite,

usually by making it inclusive. At times, the noun phrase governed or modified by כול might be

ambiguous on its own regarding semantic definiteness. For example, in the phrase בני כולהון (“all

my sons,” 1Q20 12.13), בני on its own could be ambiguous as to whether it is an inclusive

reference or a reference to a subset of Noah’s sons. The addition of כולהון, however, makes the

reference unambiguously inclusive. The data show that a noun phrase containing כול with an

emphatic noun is always semantically definite, while a noun phrase containing כול and an

absolute noun is more often definite, but can be indefinite.

Figure 11: Semantic Definiteness of Noun Phrases with כול

Definite Indefinite

Noun in Absolute 32 10

Noun in Emphatic 113 0

Noun in Construct (All are Possessives)

42 0

Not all uses of כול with an absolute noun are inclusive and therefore semantically definite, as

seen by examples such as Bittenosh’s statement that the baby is לא מן כול זר (“not from any

stranger,” 1Q20 2.16). In fact, the presence of negation seems to be the criterion that makes a

106

phrase including כול semantically indefinite, as all 10 indefinite forms in the chart above are

negated.

Demonstratives

Demonstratives are words with a pointing function, e.g.: “this, that, these” in English. As

such they are by definition semantically definite because they make a noun phrase specific and

identifiable. This noun phrase can be identifiable in a text or in the surrounding situation of an

utterance. Muraoka states, “A noun expanded by an attributively used demonstrative pronoun

invariably appears in the st. det.: זרעא דן ‘this seed’ 1Q20 II,15; חמש שניא אלן ‘those five years’ ib.

XIX,23.”18

Of the 141 demonstratives in the corpus (including both translational and non-

translational forms), only one is in the absolute state: שאר ימם דן (“the remainder of this day,”

4Q208 19+21.2). Muraoka suggests the possibility that interference from Mishnaic Hebrew may

explain this form.19 Given the otherwise universal prevalence of the form שאר ימםא דן, however,

which occurs in 4Q209 2.ii.11, 7.ii.5, 7.ii.8, 7.ii.11, 7.iii.4, and 9.2, this one instance of the form

this“) ליליה דן may simply be a scribal error. The only other possible exception isשאר ימם דן

night,” 4Q208 19+21.4); however, in this case, given that ליליא is almost universally in the

emphatic state in Aramaic, one should simply read the heh as being the mark of the emphatic

state instead of the normal aleph. For this reason, several new readings recently proposed by

Machiela in the Genesis Apocryphon ( 1 ,בכול שנא דנהQ20 7.3;20 1 ,בפרית דאQ20 17.9;21 מדינה דן,

18 Ibid., 158. 19 Ibid., 197–8. 20 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 47. 21 Ibid., 67.

107

1Q20 19.922) should be considered highly suspect, as they would produce absolute

demonstratives, and as the last also produces a disagreement in gender between the noun and its

demonstrative.

Possessives

Possessives in QA are predominantly indicated by the base form of the noun plus a

possessive suffix. This suffix displaces the position of the emphatic state in a complementary

distribution. As such, it is unsurprising that it serves as a quasi-determiner. Possessive forms are

usually semantically definite, often because a character will already have been mentioned in a

narrative or because of an associative reference in a text. Further, first and second person

possessive forms usually will be definite by necessity, as the speaker and hearer will share a

mutual environment that makes the referent of the noun phrase identifiable. As expected, then,

QA possessives are semantically definite, for example, אבוהי (“his father,” 4Q545 1a.i.12) or

This observation is supported by cases in which an attributive .(his face,” 4Q544 1.14“) אנפיוה

adjective is given in the emphatic state, agreeing with the determined nature of the possessed

noun, e.g.: קדישא[ וי]קירא Rשמך (“your holy [and g]lorious name,” 4Q196 6.7), מרנא רבא (“our

great Lord,” 4Q202 1.iii.14), and שמה רבא (“his great name,” 4Q542 1.i.1).

However, Lyons notes that, though generally considered semantically definite,

possessives are not always so.23 This is true in a logical sense, as the kinship phrase ברי (“my

son”) would, without context, not identify (e.g.: should the speaker have two or more sons). In

22 Ibid., 70. 23 Christopher Lyons, Definiteness (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics; Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University

Press, 1999), 321.

108

actual occurrence in QA, however, such phrases always occur in a contextual setting where they

do identify. For example, in the phrase לוט בר אחי (“Lot, the son of my brother,” 1Q20 21.7 and

many other occurrences) the potential ambiguity is not relevant, as Abram is recorded as having

only one brother, and Lot being the only son of his brother. Likewise, 4Q545 1.ai.1 describes

Amram as בר קהת (“the son of Qahat”). The noun phrase בר קהת itself might not be identifying in

a logical sense, but it is used in an identifying way, to distinguish “Amram, the son of Qahat,”

from any others who might bear the name “Amram.” Such kinship terms are often used as

descriptors that identify, in an appositional construction after a proper name

Proper Nouns

Proper nouns are inherently semantically definite. Within an immediate context, they are

uniquely denoting, making them both identifiable and inclusive. For example, Abram and Lot

can be identified as unique individuals within the context of the Genesis Apocryphon. Proper

nouns usually do not inflect for state in QA.24 For example, 1Q20 21:29-30 provides an

identifiable form איל פרן די במדברה (“El Paran, which is in the desert”) without inflection of the

proper noun. For this reason, אל עליון (“God Most High”) found throughout the Genesis

Apocryphon should be considered not just a Hebraism, but most likely also a proper noun.

The only proper nouns that inflect for state are gentilics and some geographical features.

Gentilics originate as adjectives but can be substantivized via the emphatic state in QA, e.g.:

1Q20 21:29: [י ב]שוה הקריות ולחוריא די Rד Rא Rקרנין ולזו^מ^זמיא די בעמן ולאימי Rד Rא Rר Rלרפאיא די בעשת Rו Rח Rומ

And they struck the Rephaim who were in Ashterah-Karnaim and the Zumzammim“) בטורי גבל

24 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 160.

109

who were in Ammon and the Emim w[ho were in] Shaveh-Hakerioth and the Hurrians who were

in the hill country of Gebal”). Geographical names also can show state, most likely if they were

lexicalized from some other form, e.g.: חלתא רבתא (“the Great Valley,” 1Q20 22.4), which is also

a superlative. ימא רבא (“the Great Sea,” 1Q20 14.21, 21.11; 4Q540 1.3, 4Q541 7.3) and מדברא

the Red“) ימא שמוקא ,show the same effect. Similarly (the Great Desert,” 4Q530 7.ii.5“) רבא

Sea,” 1Q20 17.7-8, 21.17, 21.18) shows an emphatic state but in usage acts as a proper noun.

When an analytic genitive (see below) is a geographical name, it can show determination, as in

.(the Valley of Siddim,” 1Q20 21.25, 21.32“) עמקא די סדיא

Superlatives

Superlatives are uniquely identifying and therefore semantically definite. In QA,

however, this determination is entirely contextual, as there is no morphological marking of the

superlative form. Like proper nouns, a noun need not be absolutely superlative, but can function

as a superlative within an assumed context, understood by the reader. Superlatives in QA take

the emphatic state, as in בא Rר Rי Rר Rב (“my oldest son,” 1Q20 12.10). The agreement of the adjective

indicates that even though the possessive form displaces the emphatic marker on בר, the form is

considered determined in use. The only potential exception is אל עליון, which, as argued above, is

a proper noun.

Construct phrases

Included in this section are construct phrases in non-translational sections of QA. The

impact of כול on a phrase was previously discussed, but if the complement of כול is itself a

construct phrase, then that phrase is included here. Cases where the state of the nomen rectum

110

cannot be determined are excluded. Likewise excluded are cases where the nomen rectum is a

proper noun, though a few such cases will be noted in passing.

The construct phrase presents a special challenge in the analysis of definiteness. The

nomen regens is the head of the phrase, determining the definiteness of the whole phrase, just as

it does the gender and number of the phrase.25 However, because the nomen regens is marked

with the construct state, it cannot show the variation of absolute and emphatic that corresponds

with the definiteness of the simple noun phrase. The nomen rectum, on the other hand can show

state. The question addressed in the remainder of this chapter, then, is whether the state of the

nomen rectum is connected to the definiteness of the construct phrase as a whole.

For this portion of the corpus, the analysis undertaken works in much the same way as

that for the simple noun phrase. Each nomen rectum is analyzed for state, and then both it and

the construct phrase as a whole are analyzed for semantic definiteness. The same criteria for the

determination of semantic definiteness still apply. For example, 1Q20 20.16-17 introduces the

afflicting spirit that God sent upon Pharaoh Zoan: בליליא דן שלח לה אל עליון רוח מכדש למכתשה ולכול

On that night God Most High sent a spirit of plague to afflict him and all the“) אנש ביתה רוח באישא

men of his house hold, an evil spirit…”). As a first mention use this form is semantically

indefinite. The subsequent reference to the spirit in line 20 (הוא רוחא, “that spirit”) is then

semantically definite as an anaphoric reference.

The challenge in the analysis of the construct phrase is the extreme flexibility of the

genitive construction. As noted above, Muraoka notes the “remarkably rich variety of [logico-

25 Elizabeth Ritter, “A Head-Movement Approach to Construct-State Noun Phrases,” Linguist. Interdiscip. J. Lang.

Sci. 26, no. 6 [298] (1988): 909.

111

semantic] relationships” between the nomen regens and the nomen rectum that modifies it in

some way.26 Because the nomen rectum is in essence a modifier in its function, a construct

phrase as a whole often will show different characteristics than its nomen rectum. For example,

a plural nomen rectum can be part of a singular construct phrase, e.g.: מלך כול עלמיא (“the king of

all the ages,” 1Q20 10.10). Similarly, a nomen rectum may be a count noun phrase, yet the

construct phrase of which it is part may be mass, e.g.: דלידיהא (“the work of her hands,” 1Q20

20.7). Likewise, the reverse can occur, with a mass nomen rectum being included in a construct

phrase which is count, e.g.: כול עבדי חמסא ורשעא ושקרא (“all the doers of violence, wickedness,

and deception,” 1Q20 11.14). As these examples show, the nomen regens provides the

characteristics of the phrase, such as gender and number – and also such as mass or count,

concrete or abstract.

Likewise, the construct phrase takes its definiteness from the nomen regens, its initial

term. However, as noted above, it cannot mark definiteness on the term. Accordingly, the

general assumption of interpreters has been that the construct phrase as a whole marks its

definiteness via the state of the second noun, the nomen rectum. For example, Muraoka states,

“The determination of the construct phrase as a whole is effected by putting the nomen rectus in

the emphatic state.”27 As with the simple definite, the task is to determine the extent to which

this connection between state and definiteness holds in QA. In the main, this study indicates that

the definiteness of the construct phrase drives the state of the nomen rectum:

26 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 187. 27 Takamitsu Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Rev. Qumran 8, no. 1 (1972): 13.

112

Figure 12: Semantic Definiteness and State of Nomen Rectum

Semantic Definiteness of Construct Phrase

State of Nomen Rectum Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

Absolute 18 (7%) 34 (13%)

Emphatic 203 (78%) 6 (2%)

Such phrases show basically the same overall alignment of state and definiteness as did the

simple noun phrase, with the majority of the phrases following the pattern of categorical

dependence seen earlier. 91% of the construct phrases in this section of analysis are either

emphatic definites or absolute indefinites. There is a shift, however – compared to the simple

noun phrase, there are substantially more emphatic definites and fewer absolute forms in general.

The corpus contains 34 construct phrases which have an absolute nomen rectum and are

semantically indefinite. They are:

The phrase is indefinite, which is seen in the – (a ram of the flock,” 2Q24 4.18“) איל ען •

fact that איל is quantified by חד.

.New information in the narrative – (a staircase,” 4Q554 1.iii.20“) בית דרג •

• Rבית עגנון (“a place of imprisonment,” 4Q206 1.xxii.1) – New information in the narrative.

The nomen rectum is identifiable by general – (a place of refuge,” 4Q530 1.i.3“) בית פלטא •

knowledge, but בית פלטא is not identifiable as a particular place. Note that this phrase is

113

the object of kol: כל בית פלטא (“any place of refuge”), but the line is broken such that it

cannot be determined if the form is negated.

[ני] אנוש • Rב (“s[ons of] man,” 1Q20 19.15) – The phrase is indefinite, as it is a new

introduction into the narrative of some undetermined group of men.

As a term “mankind” is both uniquely – (sons of mankind,” 4Q531 14.4“) בני אנש •

denoting and generally identifiable. The phrase as a whole, however, only shows a type:

“sons of mankind,” meaning humans, but neither being an identifiable group of humans

nor an inclusive reference to all humanity.

.Deceit” is identifiable as a general concept“ – (sons of deceit,” 5Q548 1ii-2.8“) בני שקר •

The reference with the phrase בני שקר, however, is not generic, but specific. Note also

that this form is a predicate nominative giving a descriptive name to a particular group.

above, the reference is to בני אנש As with – (daughters of men,” 1Q20 6.20“) בנת אנוש •

human women as a type, not an inclusive reference to all human women as the “some”

test shows: the Nephilim are understood to have cohabited with some human women, not

all.

Note that this is part of a quantified phrase with – (a son of man,” 1Q20 19.23“) בר אנוש •

any son of man” and is negated.28 The nomen rectum names the class of“ כול בר אנוש :כול

which the nomen regens is part. This is not a reference to any particular man, nor to all

men, but to an indefinite person.

.New information to the narrative – (a pleasant smell,” 4Q204 1.xii.29“) [בש]ם ריח •

28 Note that Fitzmyer (The Genesis Apocryphon, p.98) restores בר אנוש but Machiela validates this reading as

visible, though significantly obscured (The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, p.72).

114

This is a description of the type of – (righteous judgment,” 4Q212 1.iv.16“) דין קשוט •

judgment involved, not an inclusive reference to every righteous judgment. It is a newly-

introduced element in the narrative.

This phrase does not reference any identifiable – (a true judgment,” 4Q213a 2.9“) דין קשט •

judgment but instead the type of judgment. Note that it could be read as inclusive,

meaning Levi’s desire always to offer proper judgment, but the text does not envision

Levi offering all judgments eternally, so the phrase is more likely semantically indefinite.

ות אנשR דמ • (“an image of a man,” 4Q209 26.5)

(a form of a rose blossom,” 11Q18 14.ii.4“) דמות נץ ורד •

• Rדמות חזי (“a likeness of a mirror,” 4Q209 26.4)

פיאן שגיאן • Rו Rע Rי Rו Rז (“splendor of many leaves,” 1Q20 13.13) – The phrase is admittedly

difficult because of the difficulty of reading the first word. Nonetheless, whatever the

reading, it is new information in the narrative.

.Eternity” is identifiable by general knowledge“ – (eternal glory,” 4Q213 1.i.10“) יקר עלם •

The phrase as a whole is not an inclusive statement about all eternal glory, but that the

sons of Levi will have themselves eternal glory, so the phrase is semantically indefinite.

Note, however, in line with the scalar nature of definiteness that “eternal glory” is, in

some sense, still identifiable to a reader, even if not specifically identifiable.

The nomen rectum is identifiable – (s of knowledge,” 4Q204 1.vi.12[word]“) [מל]י מנדע •

by general knowledge, but the phrase as a whole is neither inclusive nor identifiable.

115

Eternity” is identifiable by general“ – (an eternal kingdom,” 4Q246 1.ii.5“) מלכות עלם •

knowledge, but this form is a property noun in the predicate position: מלכותה מלכות עלם

(“Its kingdom will be an eternal kingdom.”)

• Rט Rש Rנצבת קו (“an upright plant,” 1Q20 14.13) – קושט is identifiable by general knowledge,

but the phrase as a whole is a newly-introduced item in the narrative and unidentifiable.

(a half of a seventh,” 4Q208 10a.6, 10a.10; 4Q209 2.ii.5, 2.ii.7, 6.8“) פלג שביע •

(halves of sevenths,” 4Q201 1.iii.6“) פלגי שביעין •

.An indeterminate amount of fine flour – (fine flour,” 11Q18 13.3“) קמח סולת •

(a spirit of a dead man,” 4Q206 1.xxii.3-4“) רוח אנש מת •

The phrase as a whole is a newly-introduced – (a spirit of plague,” 1Q20 20.16“) רוח מכדש •

item in the narrative and unidentifiable.

Necessarily indefinite based on the – (a great number of lies,” 4Q541 9.i.6“) שגה [כדב]ין •

lexical meaning.

is again identifiable by general קשט – (witnesses of truth,” 4Q212 1.iv.12“) שהדי קשט •

knowledge, but the phrase as a whole is a property noun phrase and descriptive, not

identifying.

above, “eternity” is מלכות עלם As with – (an eternal rule,” 4Q246 1.ii.9“) שלטן עלם •

identifiable by general knowledge, but this form is a property noun in the predicate

position: שלטנה שלטן עלם (“Its rule will be an eternal rule.”)

.Newly-introduced to the narrative – (a joyful name,” 4Q541 24.ii.5“) שם חדוא •

בשמועת קר • (“a rumor of war,” 4Q545 1a-b.ii.16) – New information in the narrative.

116

Many of these nomina recta are, themselves, identifiable, e.g: מנדע (“knowledge,” 4Q204

1.vi.12) and Rט Rש Rקו (“uprightness,” 1Q20 14.13). Nonetheless, the construct phrases are indefinite

because the nomina regens are neither inclusive nor identifiable. The presence of a semantic

definite as a genitive element, then, does not make a construct phrase as a whole definite, as that

definiteness or indefiniteness is driven by the nomen regens. Such a situation is common with

attributive genitives (e.g.: דין קשט (“a true judgment,” 4Q213a 2.9)) and with phrases that identify

the type or class to which an item belongs (e.g.: בר אנוש (“a son of man,” 1Q20 19.23)).

As far as exceptions to this categorical dependence go, 7% of construct phrases have an

absolute nomen rectum yet are semantically definite. They are:

This form is a superlative and therefore uniquely – (God of gods,” 4Q542 1.i.1“) אל אלין •

denoting.

The nomen rectum is identifiable as a general – (the ways of error,” 4Q537 5.2“) ארחת טעו •

concept, and the phrase as a whole is an inclusive reference.

As discussed in chapter 2, “truth” is – (the ways of truth,” 4Q213a 1.12“) ארחת קשט •

identifiable as a generally-known concept. Its ways is then an inclusive reference.

(eternal generations,” 4Q212 1.iv. 18, 4Q542 1.ii.4, 4Q543 2a-b.2, 4Q547 9.7“) דרי עלמין •

– “Eternity” is identifiable as a general concept, as are generations. As there is no

adjective meaning “eternal,” the genitive form was required.

מת אנש • R[ח]כ (“human wisdom,” 4Q536 2i+3.5) – For “mankind” see above. The “wisdom

of mankind” is identifiable as a type. Note that the fragmentary nature of the line means

this form could be semantically indefinite. It is tentatively considered semantically

definite because of the parallel phrase [ין] Rכול חכימ (“all [the?] wise”) in the line.

117

see עלמין For – (the sins of all the sinners of the ages,” 4Q542 1.ii.6“) חובת כול חיבי עלמין •

above. The quantifier כול makes the phrase inclusive.

לי [עירין] וקדישין כלה • Rמ (“the words of [the Watchers] and all the Holy Ones,” 4Q201 1.i.3)

– Both nomen recta are inclusive. עירין is lexicalized, serving as a proper noun. קדישין

seems to be lexicalized as well, though in each case, it is interesting to note that the

lexicalized form does not follow the gentilic pattern noted above, in which the adjective

was substantivized via the emphatic plural state. These forms, then, are a borderline case

which could be excluded from the above counts if עירין and קדשין are considered to be

proper nouns.

קדשין • Rין ו Rממר עיר (“the word of the Watchers and the Holy Ones,” 4Q212 1.iii.21) – As in

the previous example, both nomina recta are inclusive. Though the line again is

fragmentary, the phrase as a whole seems inclusive.

שי כוכבין • R[נ]ח (“the [di]vinations of the stars,” 4Q201 1.iv.3 – This form could arguably be

indefinite, meaning “some divinations of the stars.” However, given the context of the

book of Enoch, with the fallen angels introducing evil to humans, it is judged more likely

to be an inclusive reference to an identifiable type of divination: “the celestial

divinations.”

The two years has been mentioned – (the end of two years,” 1Q20 20.18“) סוף תרתין שנין •

immediately previously in the line, making the nomen rectum an anaphoric reference.

There can be only one end of the two years, so the phrase as a whole is uniquely

denoting.

118

The wicked” are identifiable by“ – (the time of the wicked,” 4Q536 2.ii.13“) עדן רשיעין •

general knowledge, and their time likewise.

• Rן Rק Rרב עז (“the chief of the signet rings, 4Q196 2.7) – The signet rings of the king are an

inclusive reference, and the chief of them a unique reference. Given that the previous

phrase ה Rשק Rב Rר (“the chief cupbearer,” 4Q196 2.7) is an Akkadianism and possibly to be

translated as a title (“the Rabshakeh”), a similar situation may pertain with this form.

Note that this construct phrase is also a predicate, making it absolute by rule.

למין • Rרחצן ע (“eternal security,” 4Q537 10.2) – Both the nomen rectum and the entire phrase

are identifiable by general knowledge.

As argued earlier, this form should – (the rest of this day,” 4Q208 19+21.2“) שאר ימם דן •

be considered a scribal error.

.above ארחת טעו As with – (the paths of violence,” 1Q20 6.5“) שבילי חמס •

One should note that the list provided here of semantically definite absolutes is a maximal list.

For example, דרי עלמין (“eternal generations,” 4Q212 1.iv. 18, 4Q542 1.ii.4, 4Q543 2a-b.2,

4Q547 9.7) is classed here as semantically definite due to its generally identifiable and inclusive

nature, which stems from its lexical meaning. However, the use of the term is usually as a

newly-introduced element in the discourse, meaning it could be analyzed to be semantically

indefinite. Similarly, all the attributive genitive forms included here are understood in an

inclusive sense but one could equally understand them as semantic indefinites (e.g.: ארחת קשט

(“the ways of truth,” 4Q213a 1.12) meaning “all the ways of truth,” but potentially understood as

meaning “true ways”). Given this, as well as the analyses of לי [עירין] וקדישין כלה Rמ (“the words of

[the Watchers] and all the Holy Ones,” 4Q201 1.i.3), Rן Rק Rרב עז (“the chief of the signet rings,

119

4Q196 2.7), and שאר ימם דן (“the rest of this day,” 4Q208 19+21.2), then, the actual number of

semantically definite construct phrases with absolute nomina recta may be significantly lower

than reported here.

There are six cases where a construct phrase with an emphatic nomen rectum is

semantically indefinite. They are:

אמברכת על • (“eternal blessings,” 4Q542 1.ii.3) – אמעל (“eternity”) is identifiable by general

knowledge, but the phrase is indefinite, neither referring to identifiable blessings nor to

all eternal blessings.

אמ[ד]רי על • (“eternal generations,” 4Q196 17.ii.15) – Likewise, אמעל is identifiable via

general knowledge, but the phrase as a whole is neither identifying nor inclusive.

א • Rדרי קושט (“generations of truth,” 4Q204 5.ii.28) – Similarly, though the nomen rectum is

identifiable by general knowledge, the phrase as a whole is not identifiable.

ן קושטא וחכמתא • Rי Rחז (“a vision of truth and wisdom,” 1Q20 6.4) – Both “truth” and

“wisdom” are identifiable by general knowledge, but the phrase as a whole is singular

and not identifying.

[י]נא דינפרשגן לוחא ת • (“a copy of the se[co]nd tablet of…,” 4Q203 8.3) – Even though the

ultimate nomen rectum is lost, this phrase still shows the change in definiteness from the

identifiable לוחא תן[י]נא (“the se[co]nd tablet”) to the phrase as a whole: “a copy of…”.

One could consider this to be the only copy, and hence semantically definite, though an

indefinite reading seems more natural in this author’s opinion.

120

Many of these forms also are attributive genitives. As with the previous list, many of these

forms involve abstract singular mass nouns. As the comparison of these two lists shows,

especially the attestation of both קשט/ קשטא and עלם/ אמעל , the alternation of the emphatic and

absolute states for certain abstract nouns, which was observed for simple definites, also occurs

when those forms are the nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

The connection of state and definiteness therefore remains strong when a noun or noun

phrase is the nomen rectum of a construct phrase. Usually, a definite noun, when put in construct

as the nomen regens, will have its nomen rectum in the emphatic state, and an indefinite noun,

when put into construct, will have its nomen rectum in the absolute state. It has been previously

noted that an emphatic nomen rectum does not always indicate a semantically definite construct

phrase. For example, Lukaszewski stated in 2011, “The evidence thus suggests that definiteness

was clearly present in cases where the emphatic occurs as a nomen rectum, but it may not always

be present.”29 Given the findings of chapter 2, this is no surprise; however, the percentage of

exceptions to this rule is less for the construct phrase than it is for the simple noun phrase.

Analytic Genitives

The analytic genitive is a construction where two nouns are joined via the particle די,

which also can be prefixed to the second noun as ד. This construction is used in what seems to

be free variation with the construct state, as demonstrated the phrases מלך סודם and מלכא די סודם

cited at the beginning of this chapter. Nonetheless, due to the structure of the analytic genitive,

29 Albert Lukaszewski, “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of

Scholarship,” in Who This Son Man Latest Scholarsh. Puzzling Expr. Hist. Jesus (ed. Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L.

Owen; T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 24 n.98.

121

in which each noun is capable of showing state, this type of phrase is theoretically capable of

providing gradients of meaning that a construct phrase, due to its grammatical form, cannot.30 In

Biblical Aramaic, for example, the phrase “a great king of Israel” is מלך לישראל רב, as the phrase

would be naturally be understood as “the great king of Israel.” In that regard, as מלך ישראל רב

Muraoka states, the analytic genitive is not a “mere free variant of the older synthetic” structure

(the construct phrase).31 Instead, it is at least potentially capable of resolving ambiguities such as

could arise with the use of a demonstrative or an attributive adjective used in conjunction with a

construct chain, as such a modifier would ambiguously follow the nomen rectum of a construct

phrase.32 Similarly, the noun forms in both positions of the analytic genitive in QA show state,

so this type of noun phrase could potentially resolve ambiguities in state and definiteness.33

There are more analytic genitives in the corpus than those analyzed below, but the remainder

involve proper nouns, which do not inflect for state in QA and are therefore not relevant to the

study at hand.

Aramaic as a whole shows a strong tendency for both terms of the analytic genitive to

have the same state. QA is no exception, as the analytic genitives in the data set agree in state

for both terms.34 Of those cases, 17 show both terms of the analytic genitive in the same state.

The only potential exception is זוית די מדנחא (“the eastern corner,” 4Q554 1.ii.9). As written, זוית

is a construct form, almost certainly a scribal error for זויתא. Separate from state, but as this

study has borne out, related, there is a strong tendency in most dialects of Aramaic to have the

30 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 194–5. 31 Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” 15. 32 Ibid., 11, 15. 33 Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament,” 200. 34 The remainder have one or the other term in the construct state, usually as a possessive form.

122

two nouns in the analytic genitive agree in definiteness. For example, in TJS, Kuty notes only

seven exceptions to this agreement, all of which are genitives of material.35 In the corpus of QA

there is a slightly greater variety of semantic definiteness with the analytic genitive, as seen in

figure 5.

Figure 13: Semantic Definiteness of Component Nouns in Analytical Genitives

Term 2

Term 1 Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

Semantically Definite 11 0

Semantically Indefinite 4 3

The forms in which the two noun forms do not agree in semantic definiteness are:

This construction is the only one of the – (a vision of the night,” 1Q20 21:8“) חזוא די ליליא •

four to involve a semantically indefinite emphatic, חזוא (“a vision”). In that regard, one

should note the influence of Biblical Aramaic, as this phrase is an addition to the text (at

least in comparison to the text preserved in the MT). Fitzmyer notes, “The phrase ‘vision

of the night’ is borrowed from Dan 2:19; 7:7.”36 As such, this phrase may not reflect

spoken Aramaic of the time. Muraoka explains the form as being situationally

determinate.37 This explanation is difficult to follow, as the phrase is a first mention in

the text, such that an idea of being situationally determinate appears as special pleading.

35 Renaud Jean Kuty, “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” Doctoral thesis, January 30, 2008, 51,

n.p. [cited 2 October 2013]. Online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12588. 36 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 220. 37 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 159.

123

Casey claims this as an example of a generic noun.38 That claim is more questionable

than Muraoka’s, as the reference is clearly to a specific vision. See further discussion in

chapter 4.

is definite because the type of פרזל – (swords of iron,” 4Q202 1.ii.26“) חרבן די פרזל •

material is known from general knowledge. חרבן, however, is indefinite. This

construction is an attributive genitive, even more specifically a genitive of material.

Both “linen” and – (much purple and linen clothing,” 1Q20 20.31“) לבוש שגי די בוץ וארגואן •

“purple” are identifiable by general knowledge. The adjective שגי confirms that this is an

indeterminate amount and that לבוש is semantically indefinite. This is again an attributive

genitive, specifically a genitive of material.

יני <ד> קשוטשבוע תמ • (“an eighth week <of> righteousness,” 4Q212 1.iv.15) – The second

term, קשוט, is identifiable by general knowledge. This week represented by the first term,

.is newly-introduced into the narrative and therefore semantically indefinite ,שבוע תמיני

The dalet is a modern editorial correction. Milik states, “The scribe seems first to have

written שביעי ד, which he then carefully deleted (with the exception of the Beth) and then

replaced with תמיני; however, he forgot to write ד again before , “that of justice’.”39 This

is plausibly an attributive genitive as well.

These forms are all potentially attributive genitives. The other three are clearly so, and even חזוא

.could be considered as such די ליליא

38 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study New

Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 13. 39 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 266.

124

Generics

A construct phrase can include a nomen rectum that is itself a generic noun without itself

being a generic phrase. For example, 4Q543 2.ii.9 reads עדן רשיעין (“the time of the wicked”).

The nomen rectum רשיעין (“the wicked”) is generic, but the construct phrase as a whole refers to

a particular time (one that, in the thought of the text, will end), not a generic time of the wicked.

In the non-translational forms in the corpus, the generic construct phrase has an emphatic nomen

rectum. For example, 1Q20 13.8 mentions ת ברא Rו Rי Rח (“the beasts of the field”) and ש יבישת Rארח

(“the creeping things of the dry land”), both references to a kind.

Summary on the Genitive Construction

In the genitive constructions in QA, then, state and definiteness remain very much

connected. In most cases the state of the nomen rectum reflects the definiteness of the entire

phrase, which is driven by the nomen regens. Though analytic genitives show the potential for

greater variety of expression, not all of that potential is used, and they remain a relatively small

portion of the genitives in the corpus. The major exceptions to the categorical dependence of

definiteness on state continue to be the absolute forms. Compared to the simple noun phrase, the

genitive constructions show proportionally more emphatic forms in general and a more regular

pattern connecting state and definiteness. As with the simple noun phrase, the strikingly rare

form in genitive phrases in QA is the semantically indefinite emphatic state.

125

Chapter Four: Translational Forms

Simple Noun Phrases

Data from translational documents are simultaneously more and less helpful in answering

the question at hand. On the one hand, translational data are helpful, as one can compare the

Aramaic forms to Hebrew, which has a grammatical definite article. On the other hand,

translational data are less helpful, simply because one is not reading natural Aramaic, but instead

Aramaic influenced by Hebrew.

In the following analysis, four limitations must be kept in mind. First, the article in

Hebrew does not perfectly overlap with semantic definiteness, as Hebrew, like all linguistic

systems, does not have a 100% correlation between the grammatical form (the definite article)

and the semantic concept (definiteness).1 Second, there is no guarantee that the translator’s

Vorlage matches the current Masoretic Text (MT). This second concern is mitigated in the case

of the documents in question because the translator of Targum Job seems to have had a

consonantal Hebrew text quite similar to the current MT.2 Similarly, the portions of the Genesis

Apocryphon that are translational show a strong similarity to the MT, though Fitzmyer notes

that, until the final column, it is often only in a specific phrase, not a continuous translation.3

While this concern is mitigated, then, one must recognize that the translator’s Vorlage did not

1 Bruce K Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 240. 2 Michael Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Bar-Ilan University, 1975), 6. 3 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 43.

126

always match the current MT. Third, Hebrew poetry often omits the definite article, even in

situations where the noun in the poetic text is clearly definite and the article would be present in

a prose text.4 Given that a large portion of the translational data available is from 11QtgJob, this

issue has the potential to be quite consequential. Finally, fourth, the Masoretic tradition may

have increased the number of readings that reflect the article, at least in cases where it could be

indicated merely by the vocalization on a proclitic preposition.5 None of these limitations

prevents the following analysis from being useful, but they must be kept in mind when

investigating particular forms.

Forms without a Clear Connection to MT

In 27 instances, the noun phrase in translational QA does not show a clear connection to

the current MT. This could be because the translator had a different Vorlage, but it could also be

the result of translational techniques, such as when the translator collapses cola or translates

more freely. These instances, then, can only be analyzed as above, testing the connection of state

and definiteness, but they do not translate any words in the extant MT.

Figure 14: Distribution of Forms Not Matching MT

Definite Indefinite

Absolute 6 16

Emphatic 4 1

4 Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 250. 5 Naʼama Pat-el, “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic Approach,” J. Semit. Stud. 54, no. 1

(2009): 35.

127

Seven of these cases are exceptions to the usual dependence and bear analysis; six are absolute

definites; and one is an indefinite emphatic:

.Identifiable by general knowledge – (strength,” 11QtgJob 29.7, MT 37:16“) גבורה •

Identifiable by general knowledge – (hunger,” 11QtgJob 29.4, MT 37:13) כפן •

This could be considered a type noun (“with – (a cord,” 11QtgJob 35.8, MT 40:29“) חוטא •

thread”) or to be situationally definite, being the thread one would use in tying.

However, חוטא is parallel in usage to many other semantic absolutes in the column, so it

is here judged more likely semantically indefinite, though it is a borderline case.

Identifiable by general – (safety,” 11QtgJob 9.5, MT uncertain, and 27.1, MT 36:7“) רחצן •

knowledge. This form may be translating תקוה from MT Job 11:18 or possibly מספר from

MT Job 25.3. Due to the uncertainty, it is classed here instead of below.

Identifiable – (strength,” 11QtgJob 16.2, MT 30:14, and 11QtgJob 37.4, MT 42:2“) תקף •

by general knowledge.

Forms that Correspond to the MT

The remainder of the translational noun phrases present special challenges in

interpretation regarding state and definiteness. Though their translational character means they

are not necessarily natural Aramaic, they provide the advantage of comparison to the Hebrew

text’s use and non-use of the definite article, subject to the cautions mentioned above. Given the

connection of state and definiteness in QA as a whole, the most interesting cases for analysis will

be those in which the translator either A) uses an absolute form when the MT indicates a definite

article, or B) uses an emphatic form when the MT indicates no definite article, as these represent

potential changes in the definiteness indication of the Hebrew text.

128

Unsurprisingly, in the majority of cases, QA has an emphatic form where the MT

indicates a definite article and an absolute form where the MT does not. There are, however, 50

exceptional cases to potentially consider:

Figure 15: Distribution of Translational Forms vs. MT

QA Absolute QA Emphatic

MT Does Not Indicate Definite Article

99 39

MT Indicates Definite Article 11 25

The inclusion of semantic definiteness in the above chart, though, reveals a more complex

situation:

Figure 16: Distribution of Translational Forms vs. MT (State and Definiteness)

QA Absolute and Indefinite

QA Absolute and Definite

QA Emphatic and Indefinite

QA Emphatic and Definite

MT Does Not Indicate Definite Article

76 23 5 34

MT Indicates Definite Article

4 7 2 23

The 76 instances where the translator reflected an indefinite MT with an absolute form that is

semantically indefinite require no explanation, as the translator was simply matching the Hebrew

text. Similarly, the 23 instances where the translator reflected a definite MT with an emphatic

129

form that is semantically definite simply match the MT as well. However, instead of 50

exceptional forms, there are now 75 forms that require some explanation.

MT Definite/QA Absolute and Semantically Indefinite

In seven cases, the MT indicates a definite article, but the translator gives an absolute

form that is semantically indefinite. In these seven cases, the definite article does not appear in

the consonantal text but instead the vocalization of the text indicates the elision of the Hebrew

consonant heh. The seven instances are all similar: נהור (“light,” 11QtgJob 23.7, MT 33:28),

עפר ,(a valley,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT39:21“) בקע ,(pleasantness,” 11QtgJob 27.6, MT 36:11“) עדנין

(“dust,” 11QtgJob 34.9, MT 40:13), צפר (“a bird,” 11QtgJob 35.8, MT 40:29), דהב (“gold,”

1QGenAp 20.33, MT Gen. 13:22), and כסף (“silver,” 1QGenAp 20.33, MT Gen. 13:22). Two

potential scenarios can be offered to explain these data points.

First, the translator could have been intentionally changing a Hebrew definite form into

an Aramaic indefinite form. In this scenario, one would assume that the translator, looking at an

unvocalized text, had a strong command of Hebrew, including the “rules” for when the definite

article was used, “rules” that approximated those followed in the Tiberian tradition.

Accordingly, the translator would have assumed the presence of a definite article (though not

indicated in the consonantal text) on these seven forms. Given the findings of chapter two, the

translator, in translating these nouns into Aramaic, would have been consciously choosing to

make them indefinite, and portraying that via the Aramaic absolute state. Why the translator

would choose to do so would be a useful enquiry, but not one essential to the analysis of this

study.

130

Second, the translator may have followed a reading tradition that was less close to the

Tiberian tradition than assumed in the first option above. Given that these forms are

semantically indefinite in the Aramaic, and given that the translator would have been using an

unvocalized Hebrew text, in this scenario, one would conjecture that the translator simply read

the Hebrew text, understood it as a semantic indefinite, and reflected that form with an Aramaic

absolute. In either of these two scenarios, the evidence of these seven forms supports the idea

that state and definiteness were still connected in QA, as the translator was using absolute forms

for semantic indefinites in the Aramaic.

MT Definite/QA Absolute and Semantically Definite

In four cases, the translator matched a definite in the MT with a seemingly semantically

definite absolute form instead of an emphatic:

ל :The MT is definite by vocalization only – (God,” 11QtgJob 34.5, MT 40:9“) אלה • כא

(“like God”). Regarding the Targum, Sokoloff states, "k'lh is probably a mistake for the

det. form k'lh' by haplography with the following 'yty (eds.). Elsewhere in Tg1 and in

QA, the det. form of this word is exclusively used. The same is true of BA where the

indet. form is employed only in conversations with pagans...or in speeches by them....

Otherwise, the God of Israel is always called 'lh'."6 This form, then, is likely a scribal

error, not a genuine exception.

This form is inclusive and therefore – (the lame,” 11QtgJob 14.10, MT 29:15“) חגיר •

semantically definite. The MT indicates the presence of the definite article in its

6 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 158.

131

vocalization of the preposition. Sokoloff feels an aleph should be restored here.7 The

editors in DJD (23:114) indicate space before the break in the text; however, an

examination of plate XII indicates the break immediately after the resh, making

Sokoloff’s suggestion plausible. This form, then, also is likely not an exception.

The MT vocalization indicates the presence – (the wind,” 11QtgJob 16.4, MT 30:15“) רוח •

of a definite article, which would make the MT a generic reading (“the wind”). It is

possible, however, that the translator read the Hebrew as indefinite, which, if so, would

make this data point unexceptional.

,This form is definite by vocalization in the MT – (glory, 11QtgJob 27.6, MT 36:11“) יקר •

and the Aramaic form is semantically definite as a general concept. Note that the MT

correspondence here is to the Hebrew word טוב.

Only the last of these forms, then, represents a genuine exception to the connection between state

and definiteness, an exception which is in line with the discussion of abstract nouns above.

MT Indefinite/QA Absolute and Semantically Definite

In 23 cases, on the other hand, the translator uses an absolute form, but that form is

semantically definite. Unlike the analysis above, there is no single, unifying circumstance for

this set of noun phrases. They are:

This most naturally reads as a generic – (the ear,” 11QtgJob 14.5, MT 29:11“) אדן •

reference to any ear (as metonymy for any person who heard), as such it is considered

7 Ibid., 54.

132

semantically definite. Note, however, that the Hebrew text possibly could be interpreted

as a semantic indefinite (“any ear”).

This form is identifiable by general – (fear,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT 39:20“) אימה •

knowledge.

This is identifiable by general knowledge in – (pride,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) גוה •

both the Hebrew and Aramaic and therefore semantically definite.

.Identifiable by general knowledge – (terror,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT 39:20“) דחלה •

In both Hebrew and Aramaic the concept of – (fear,” 11QtgJob 33.3, MT 39:22“) דחלא •

fear is identifiable through general knowledge and therefore semantically definite.

Identifiable through general knowledge in – (glory,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) הדר •

both Hebrew and Aramaic.

Identifiable through general knowledge in – (splendor,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) זוי •

both Hebrew and Aramaic.

In both cases, the – (sin,” 11QtgJob 22.3, MT 33:9; 11QtgJob 24.1, MT 34:6“) חטא •

reference is to sin as a general concept, which would therefore be identifiable in both the

Hebrew and Aramaic.

In the first – (power,” 11QtgJob 16.8, MT 30:18; 11QtgJob 33.3, MT 39:21“) חיל •

instance, the Hebrew form is a construct phrase. In the second, the Hebrew form is a

possessive, but identifiable because it is the strength of the horse being described in the

speech. The Aramaic form is identifiable via general knowledge.

Identifiable – (wisdom,” 11QtgJob 30.2, MT 38:4; 11QtgJob 37.4, MT 42:2“) חכמה •

through general knowledge in both Hebrew and Aramaic.

133

The Hebrew and Aramaic words both can – (boundary,” 11QtgJob 10.1, MT 26:10“) חסוך •

be interpreted to be semantically definite, even though absolute forms, as the boundary

between light and darkness is indicating a unique referent. Sokoloff argues to read a šin

as the second letter.8 However, the editors in DJD 23 argue the letter cannot be šin, as an

examination of plate XI bears out.9 The translation of "darkness," which Sokoloff’s

reading would provide, makes contextual sense, but it is ruled out on the physical

grounds of the letter form.

Identifiable through general knowledge in – (honor,” 11QTgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) יקר •

both Hebrew and Aramaic.

Given the parallel terms in these lines, this – (the waters,” 11QtgJob 31.7, MT 38:30“) מין •

is an inclusive reference, with both the Hebrew and Aramaic being semantically definite.

,The Hebrew text is a construct phrase – (the poor,” 11QtgJob 25.4, MT 34:28“) מסכנין •

with no definite article on the nomen rectum. Contextually, the form is semantically

definite as an inclusive reference in both the Hebrew and Aramaic.

.above אדן See analysis of – (the eye,” 11QtgJob 14.5 MT 29:11“) עין •

Like it, the .(”terror“) דאבה The Hebrew is – (power,” 11QtgJob 36.8, MT 41:14“) עלימו •

Aramaic is identifiable as a general concept, though the two nouns do not correspond

exactly.

8 Ibid., 117. 9 Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11 (Discoveries in the

Judaean desert 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 107.

134

This form is a generic reference – (swift clouds,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25“) עננין קלילין •

and inclusive. It is parallel to the generic use of מטרא (“rain”) in the same line, which is

in the emphatic state. This form corresponds to the construct phrase חזיז קלות in the MT.

The reference is inclusive, as all – (sovereignty,” 11QtgJob 9.4, MT 25:2“) רבו •

sovereignty is with God. The MT is פחד (“fear”), without the definite article.

The QA form is absolute, but clearly – (the winds,” 11QtgJob 33.8, MT 39:26“) רוחין •

inclusive, so much that Sokoloff translates “to (all the) directions.”10 The MT form is

semantically definite, though the vocalization does not show the definite article. One

also should note that the MT (with vocalization) reads ן .לרוחות not ,(”to the south“) לתימ

In the thought world of the text, all – (rulership,” 11QtgJob 9.4, MT 25:2“) [ש]לטן •

rulership is with God, so this form is uniquely denoting and inclusive and therefore is

semantically definite.

נחש בריח The Hebrew text is – (the fleeing serpent,” 11QtgJob 10.4, MT 26:13“) תנין ערק •

(“the fleeing serpent”). In the mythological context of God's battle with Rahab, this is an

identifiable reference and therefore semantically definite. Note that both the Hebrew and

Aramaic forms are absolute, though semantically definite. The translator read the

Hebrew adjective as a participle, but that does not impact the analysis here.

In all of these cases, the MT was semantically definite as well, but the translator has not reflected

that semantic definiteness with an emphatic form. These forms indicate cases where the

Aramaic translator did not consistently reflect semantic definiteness with the emphatic state, so

10 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 93.

135

they are genuine exceptions. Regarding the debate at hand, though, one should note that they

are, again, exceptions that are absolute definites, not emphatic indefinites.

MT Indefinite/QA Emphatic and Semantically Definite

There are 34 cases where the MT has no indication of a definite article, yet the translator

rendered the Aramaic with an emphatic state that is also semantically definite. In all of these

cases, the Hebrew text is semantically definite, and they again show the translator matching

Aramaic state to the semantic definiteness of the Hebrew text he translated.

of these cases are accounted for by the targumist in 11QTgJob changing Hebrew 13 – אל •

in Hebrew is uniquely denoting, these forms were אל Given that .אלהא to Aramaic אל

already semantically definite.

,the earth,” 11QtgJob 24.7, MT 34:13; 11QtgJob 30.2, MT 38:4; 11QtgJob 31.2“) ארעא •

MT 38:24) – In these three cases the noun is semantically definite in both the Hebrew and

Aramaic text because it is uniquely denoting. Note that in the latter two cases, the

Hebrew is ארץ, while in the former it is תבל.

This form clearly indicates mankind as a – (mankind,” 11QtgJob 22.6, MT 33:12“) אנשא •

whole, a mass noun, and is identifiable and semantically definite in Hebrew.

This form corresponds to the Hebrew – (the south,” 1Q20 21.9, MT Gen 13:14“) דרומא •

directional heh of the MT. The Hebrew is not marked with the definite article, but all the

compass directions are identifiable by general knowledge, making this form semantically

definite in both the Hebrew and Aramaic.

136

אמי • (“the sea,” 11QtgJob 30.6, MT 38:8) – The Hebrew text is semantically definite as an

inclusive reference. This seems a likely case of Hebrew poetry omitting the definite

article.

.The form is inclusive in Hebrew – (the stars,” 11QtgJob 9.8, MT 25:5“) כוכביא •

The Hebrew text is generic, and adverbial – (the rock,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:28“) כפא •

in sense.

He“) ורמה עליהון בליליא The text reads – (night,” 1Q20 22.8, MT Gen. 14:15“) ליליא •

attacked them at night.”). This use is somewhat more difficult to pin down in terms of

semantic definiteness. Complicating the discussion is the fact that the lexeme ליליא is

almost always in the emphatic state in Aramaic, with very few exceptions. This is not a

generic statement about all nights, so it is not inclusive. Further, the night in question is

not identifiable to the audience in any strict sense, as there is no previous mention of this

specific night. Given those statements, one might argue that this is a semantically

indefinite form. However, a reading of this as semantically definite also works easily.

Though English translations often distort an analysis such as this, here they can be

illustrative. ליליא here is the object of the preposition ב. The English translations “in the

night” (using the definite article) and “at night” (using neither the definite nor indefinite

articles) are possible, but “on a night” (using the indefinite article) is an unnatural

translation. This illustrates that this use of the noun phrase is associative – a reader

inherently knows that time has days and nights, and the reference “in the night” naturally

is identifiable to a reader in the sense that there is some night associated with the time in

which Abraham caught up with the eastern kings. This use is therefore considered

137

semantically definite, but with the note that the scalar nature of definiteness makes it in a

sense “less definite” than many other semantic definites discussed in this study.

.above דרומא see – (the east,” 1Q20 21.9, MT Gen 13:14“) מדנחא •

.above דרומא see – (the west,” 1Q20 21.9, MT Gen 13:14“) מערבא •

The Hebrew text is a generic use and – (the hawk,” 11QtgJob 33.7, MT 39:26“) נצא •

therefore semantically definite.

This form is a generic and therefore – (sapphire,” 11QtgJob 12.3, MT 28:6“) ספירא •

semantically definite.

This form is a generic and therefore – (the vulture,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:27“) עוזא •

semantically definite.

אמעל • (“eternity,” 11QtgJob 3.5, MT 20:4) – This form is uniquely denoting and therefore

semantically definite.

This form is a generic and therefore – (the wild donkey,” 11QtgJob 32.4, MT 39:5“) פראה •

semantically definite.

.above דרומא see – (the north,” 1Q20 21.9, MT Gen 13:14“) צפונא •

This is an anaphoric reference to the earlier – (the war,” 11QtgJob 33.6, MT 39:25“) קרבה •

lines of the column, which detail the excitement of the war horse towards battle. Note

that the MT is מלחמה and not קרב.

The Hebrew is generic and – (the honest one,” 11QtgJob 11.8, MT 27:17“) קשיטה •

semantically definite.

The Hebrew is generic and – (the wasteland,” 11QtgJob 31.4, MT 38:26“) שיתא •

semantically definite.

138

In summary, then, in these forms as well, the translator reflects semantic definiteness with the

emphatic state in Aramaic. Further, most of these cases may be explained either by the specific

lexical approach to אלהא or by the tendency of Hebrew poetry to omit the definite article, even on

semantically definite words.

QA Emphatic Indefinites

All of the above sets the context for the discussion here – cases where the translator used

an indefinite emphatic form. These are the cases that would support Casey’s original thesis of

the emphatic state beginning to take over in QA, the original metaphor of “breakdown.” At the

outset of the discussion, it must be noted that these represent very few cases, less than 4% of all

the translational forms.

MT Definite/QA Emphatic and Indefinite

In two cases, the translator used emphatics as semantic indefinites and in doing so

matches the definiteness of the MT:

;The MT is also vocalized as definite – (a vision,” 1Q20 22.27, MT Gen 15:1 “) חזוא •

however, in both the Hebrew and Aramaic, this form is semantically indefinite, as the

vision is not identifiable, yet singular. In that regard, this form is remarkable, as the

translator did not follow the usual practice, as noted above, of reflecting a semantic

indefinite with the absolute form if the Hebrew article was only indicated by vocalization.

This phrase regularly occurs in a standard form, however, as is seen in 21:8 חזוא די ליליא

(“a vision of the night”), which matches the phrasing from Dan 2:19 and 7:7. This

instance is a lexical issue, as – noted above – ליליא is almost wholly in the emphatic state

139

in Aramaic. Given the pan-Aramaic tendency for the two terms of an analytic genitive to

match in state (see chapter 3), the emphatic state of חזוא is a lexical and grammatical, not

semantic issue.

The MT indicates the presence of the definite – (cattle,” 11QtgJob 1.6, MT 18:3“) בעירא •

article only by vocalization, as it has a prefixed preposition kaph. As a comparison, this

is not all cattle in view, nor any identifiable cattle, so this form is judged semantically

indefinite. As a type noun, however, this could easily be debated and considered

semantically definite. The same questions of semantic definiteness or indefiniteness

apply to the Hebrew text.

In these instances, then, the emphatic seems to be semantically indefinite. The first is a much

stronger case than the second, because the first cannot be a semantically definite reading, but it

has special lexical conditioning, as shown by the parallels from Biblical Aramaic in Daniel 2 and

7. Neither of these exceptions, then, is strong evidence of the emphatic state beginning to

encroach on the domain of the absolute.

MT Indefinite/QA Emphatic and Indefinite

In five other cases, the translator seems to have changed the MT absolute into an

emphatic form in QA, even though the noun is semantically indefinite:

This form may be biased by the Hebrew – (cloudiness,” 4Q157 1.i.2, MT Job 3:5“) עננא •

of Job. The MT of Job 3:5 has עננה, which is a feminine form without the definite article.

However, this form is a hapax legomenon, and ןענ in Hebrew is masculine. It is quite

140

possible that the Hebrew form influenced the translator to write the emphatic singular

form of the Aramaic noun in this case.

The semantic definiteness of this form is – (a thread,” 11QtgJob 30.3, MT 38:5“) חוטא •

difficult to determine. On the one hand, the form certainly seems like new information,

which would tend to make it semantically indefinite. In that vein, Sokoloff translates “a

cord.”11 On the other hand, this form could be taken to be associatively definite, in the

sense of indicating the thread necessary to measure the earth. On balance, viewing this as

a semantic indefinite seems more likely, but the opposite judgment is possible.

In this instance, the translator has combined the – (fire,” 11QtgJob 36.4, MT 41:10“) נורא •

two cola of the MT into one in Aramaic, so there is not a real correspondence.

Depending on one’s viewpoint regarding the description of Leviathan, the fire between

his eyes could be considered a generally known feature. If so, then this form would

become semantically definite.

The noun is neither referencing a – (astonishment,” 11QtgJob 4.5, MT 21:6“) תמהא •

specific, identifiable astonishment, nor is it inclusive of all astonishment, so the form is

semantically indefinite. Further, the form is not a generic, as there is no comment about

astonishment as a whole or a type. Instead, it is an abstract indefinite noun.

ויהי רעב The MT of Gen 12:10 reads - (a famine,” 1Q20 19.10, MT Gen. 12:10“) כפנא •

והוא כפנא בארעא ,while 1Q20 19.10 reads ,(”.And there was a famine in the land“) בארץ

(“And there was famine in the land.”). Fitzmyer reads this, noting the use of the

emphatic form in place of the Hebrew absolute, and cites it as one of his proofs that the

11 Ibid., 87.

141

“determinate character of the emphatic state is on the wane.”12 Muraoka responded,

“Against Fitzmyer’s interpretation, the present writer is inclined to see here the usage

parallel to that of the Hebrew article as in 1Sm. 1, 4…on which S. R. Driver pertinently

comments…: ‘the definite article, where we should use the indefinite, is in accordance

with the Hebrew manner of thought: in the mind of the Hebrew narrator, the day is

connected in anticipation with the events about to be described, as happening upon it, and

is thus regarded as defined.’”13 Casey claims this form is a generic, an argument that has

been disputed above.14 Possibly more validly, he complains against Owen and Shepherd,

“Nothing is explained by describing it as ‘a functional parallel to the sort of anticipatory

determination found in Hebrew.’”15 In this Casey may be partially correct. “Anticipatory

determination” is the equivalent of cataphoric reference, so if this can be construed as a

genuine cataphoric reference, then the emphatic state would make sense of this as a

semantically definite form. However, a cataphoric reference based on the

momentousness of events that follow seems to be stretching the description of

“cataphoric” quite far. In a different vein, the text could be read to indicate “the famine”

in the sense of the famous famine of Abram’s life, which certainly became famous in

later literature, including, for example Josephus. This is less likely, however, because of

the first person storytelling of the column – for Abram to say “the famine” in the sense of

the later famous famine would require Abram and the reader to be sharing knowledge of

12 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 290. 13 Takamitsu Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Rev. Qumran 8, no. 1 (1972): 12. 14 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study New

Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 13. 15 Ibid., 17.

142

the famine, something that would be out of character for first person report. An

alternative explanation is the cross-linguistic tendency of disease words to be consistently

definite or indefinite, as in “the boil” discussed in chapter two. כפנא as “the famine”

could analogously bear such lexical conditioning.

Of these forms, then, which are the essential exception to note if Casey’s contentions about the

evolution of definiteness in QA are to be supported, there are only seven exceptions, and even of

those, though this author views them as exceptions, only 2-4 are certainly so, and the others

could be potentially argued instead to be semantic definites.

Finally, there are eight instances where the Aramaic translator translated a proper noun,

two that translated a Hebrew possessive, and one an adverb. Two of these are potentially

exceptional: תנין (“the sea serpent,” in 11QtgJob 35.4, MT 40:25), which translates the proper

noun Leviathan with an absolute, and רוח (“a spirit,” 11QtgJob 2.6, MT 19:17), which translates

the possessive רוחי in the Hebrew. The first is exceptional, but could possibly be considered as a

proper noun in Aramaic, and the second could simply be a scribal error.

Abstract Nouns in Translation

Overall, an analysis of the translational data across abstract and concrete nouns shows the

same basic tendencies as did non-translational forms. Again, the main exception to the

correlation of state and definiteness is the category of semantically definite absolute forms.

What is noticeably absent, however, is the evidence of lexemes shifting state without shifting

definiteness (e.g.: קושט and טאקוש ). This absence, however, is due to almost a complete lack of

143

repeated lexemes in this corpus. Within abstract nouns, only occasionally is a lexeme even

repeated a few times, so there is little opportunity for any shifting of state to be evident.

Generics in translation

Though translational forms are a smaller portion of the corpus, because of the literary

character of Job, especially God’s speeches later in the book, there are more generics than in the

non-translational portion of the corpus. Once again, not everything claimed to be a generic is

actually so. Casey cites כפנא (“famine”) from 11Q20 19.10 as a “generic use of the emphatic

state.”16 However, there is no generic statement about famine being made, but merely the

reference that there was a famine. This most likely should, as argued above, be considered a

semantic indefinite, possibly even a semantic definite, but it is not a generic. Likewise, Casey

contends that Noah’s vineyard’s production of חמר (“wine”) is a generic use of the noun.17

Again, however, the reference is just that it produced an indefinite amount of wine, possibly even

a frame-specific associative reference to wine; but no generic statement about wine as a kind is

made.

As with non-translational forms, the preponderance of generic nouns are indicated in the

emphatic state. Unlike the non-translational forms, however, there are a few forms in the

translational portion of the corpus which may be absolute generics. Of 23 generics in this

portion of the corpus, 16 are in the emphatic state: אנשא (“mankind,” 11QtgJob 22.6, MT 33:12),

,(cyndodon grass,” 11QtgJob 9.1, MT 24:24“) יבלא ,(the frost,” 11QtgJob 31.6, MT 38:29“) גלידא

16 Maurice Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem (Library of New Testament studies 343; London: T&T

Clark, 2007), 59. 17 Ibid., 60.

144

מטרא ,(the night,” 11QtgJob 26.6, MT 35:10“) ליליא ,(the rock,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:28“) כפא

(“the rain,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25; 11QtgJob 31.5, MT 38:27), נצא (“the eagle,” 11QtgJob

33.7, MT 39:26), סדא (“the stocks,” 11QtgJob 22.5, MT 33:11), ספירא (“sapphire,” 11QtgJob

12.3, MT 28:6), עוזא (“the vulture,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:27), פראה (“the wild donkey,”

11QtgJob 32.4, MT 39:5), צפריא (“the birds,” 11QtgJob 26.6, MT 35:11), קשיטה (“the honest

one,” 11QtgJob 11.8, MT 27:17), רוחא (“the wind,” 11QtgJob 13.6, MT 28:25), שיתא (“the

wasteland,” 11QtgJob 31.4, MT 38:26).

The other seven generics bear special examination, as they appear in the absolute form,

contra both the overall pattern in translational forms and the uniform pattern in non-translational

forms. They are:

This most naturally reads as a generic – (the ear,” 11QtgJob 14.5, MT 29:11“) אדן •

reference to any ear (as metonymy for any person who heard). Note, however, that the

Hebrew text possibly could be interpreted as a semantic indefinite (“any ear”).

This is a Persian loanword.18 As such, it – (the steppe,” 11QtgJob 32.5, MT 39:6“) דחשת •

may be incompletely assimilated to the Aramaic noun paradigm, as loan words are often

presented in the absolute state, without declension.

As noted above an aleph should be – (the lame,” 11QtgJob 14.10, MT 29:15“) חגיר •

restored here. This form, then, is likely not actually an absolute generic.

the cry of the“) צעקת־דל The MT has – (the poor,” 11QtgJob 25.4, MT 34:28“) מסכנין •

poor”), with the construct phrase not showing a definite article, though the phrase is

18 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 152.

145

generic in its use in the MT. As the text of column 25 is broken just before this form, it

may well be part of a construct phrase, and hence to be analyzed in the section below on

genitive phrases.

.above אדן See discussion of – (the eye,” 11QtgJob 14.5, MT 29:11“) עין •

This form seems a genuine – (the swift clouds,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25“) עננין קלילין •

generic reference and inclusive. It is parallel to the generic use of מטרא (“rain”) in the

same line, which is in the emphatic state. One should note the difficulty of translation the

targumist faced with this verse. The MT has ודרך לחזיז קלות (“and a way for the

thunder”). The targumist seems to have read the unpointed Hebrew קלות as “swift,”

possibly because of the difficulty of יזחז as a rare word.

As the text stands, this form seems to – (the sea serpent,” 11QtgJob 35.4, MT 40:25“) תנין •

behave like a generic. However, this form translates the Hebrew proper noun לויתן.

Given that the Hebrew is singular, it is possible that the targumist read this either as a

singular reference, not a kind reference. Likewise, it is possible that תנין in the Aramaic

is meant to be a proper noun as well.

In sum, then, simple noun generics in the translational data are more often in the emphatic state,

but absolute state generics may occur. That said, many of the seven data points which may

represent such forms can be reasonably explained in an alternative manner.

Genitive Constructions

Excluding forms that include proper nouns or possessives, there are 46 construct phrases

and one analytical genitive phrase in the translational portion of the QA corpus. On the whole,

146

the semantic definiteness of the phrase can be seen to be marked by placing the nomen rectum in

the emphatic state, as seen in Figure 17.

Figure 17: State of Nomen Rectum and Definiteness of Construct Phrase: Translational

Forms

Semantic Definiteness of Construct Phrase as a Whole

State of Nomen Rectum Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

Absolute 8 (17%) 16 (35%)

Emphatic 20 (43%) 2 (4%)

In nine of these construct phrases, the Targum does not correspond closely to the MT, so these

nine noun phrases can be analyzed for semantic definiteness and state but not compared to the

Hebrew, as is reflected in Figure 18:

Figure 18: State of Nomen Rectum and Definiteness of Construct Phrase: Translational

Forms without a Clear Correspondence to MT

Semantic Definiteness of Construct Phrase as a Whole

State of Nomen Rectum Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

Absolute 2 5

Emphatic 2 0

As the exception to the connection of state and definiteness, the area of interest is that of the two

semantically definite absolutes. They are:

147

DJD 23:137 suggests that – (wicked mankind,” 11QtgJob 25.6, MT 34:30“) אנש רשיעיא •

this is either a collective noun or a genitive phrase. The challenge to the first approach is

that אנש functions elsewhere as a mass noun, whereas collectives are grammatically a

subset of count nouns. As such, it would have to be collective in sense, but not

grammatically so. Alternately, this could be an attributive genitive. Challenging that

approach, however, attributive genitives with a plural nomen rectum are relatively rare in

QA, representing only 9 of the 60 plus attributive genitives attested in the corpus.

Further, those 9 construct phrases with a plural nomen rectum are entirely due to

attributive genitives with either עלמין or שמין as the nomen rectum. Whichever approach

is taken, the phrase is inclusive and therefore semantically definite, though it may be a

simple noun phrase and not a genitive. Given the emphatic state of the adjective, it may

be that this form should be emended to אנשא.

-This phrase is a kind – (the haughty of spirit,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) רם רוח •

referring noun, referencing the group of those haughty of spirit. It is therefore

semantically definite.

In 23 more cases, the Targum matches the state of the Aramaic noun with the grammatical

definiteness of the MT.

148

Figure 19: State of Nomen Rectum and Definiteness of Construct Phrase: Translational

Forms Which Match Definiteness of the MT

Semantic Definiteness of Construct Phrase as a Whole

State of Nomen Rectum Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite

QA Absolute (Parallel phrase in MT has no indication of definite article)

6 11

QA Emphatic (Parallel phrase in MT indicates a definite article)

6 0

The largest area of interest is again that of the semantically definite absolutes. They are:

(the gates of the city,” 11QtgJob 14.1“) תרעי קריא •

(the complaint of the afflicted,” 11QtgJob 25.4, MT 34:28“) קבילת ענין •

(the [pr]ide of the [wi]cked,” 11QtgJob 26.7-8, MT 35:12“) [ג]אות [ב]אישין •

(the face of the world,” 11QtgJob 29.3, MT 37:12“) אנפי תבל •

(the stars of the morning,” 11QtgJob 30.5, MT 38:7“) כוכבי צפר •

[יו]מי שנה • (“the [da]ys of the year,” 4Q157 1.i.3, MT Job 3:6)

In all of these instances, the corresponding noun phrase in the MT, though not showing the

definite article, is semantically definite. These instances of non-correspondence with the MT,

then, most likely are due to the tendency of Hebrew poetry to omit the definite article.

149

Finally, in 14 cases, the Targum changes the definiteness of the MT, providing an

emphatic form where the MT does not indicate a definite article.19 Twelve of these instances are

semantically definite while two are semantic indefinites. The twelve semantic definites are:

(the hand of God,” 11QtgJob 11.1, MT 27:11“) [י]דq אלהא •

(the place of cunning,” 11QtgJob 13.1, MT 28:20“) אתר ערימותא •

(the cords of the poor,” 11QtgJob 27.2, MT 36:8“) חבלי מסכניא •

(the powerful works of God,” 11QtgJob 29.5, MT 37:14“) גבורת אלהא •

דתאה צמחי • (“the shoots of grass,” 11QtgJob 31.5, MT 38:27)

(the clouds of dew,” 11QtgJob 31.6, MT 38:28“) [ע]נני טלא •

(the wild goats of the rock,” 11QtgJob 32.1, MT 39:1“) יעלי כפא •

(the bonds of the wild ass,” 11QtgJob 32.4, MT 39:5“) חנקי ערדא •

(the sound of the horn,” 11QtgJob 33.5, MT 39:25“) קל קרנא •

,the Lord of heaven and earth, 1Q20 22.16, MT Gen. 14:19; 1Q20 22.21“) מרה שמיא וארעא •

MT Gen. 14:22)

מנא • qמשכן ז (“the tent of meeting, 4Q156 2.4, MT Lev. 16:20)

In all of these cases as well, the MT is also semantically definite. The only questionable case is

that of צמחי דתאה (“the shoots of grass,” 11QtgJob 31.5, MT 38:27), which could be considered

either definite, as a generic, or indefinite. Given its parallel position in the column to several

19 There were no cases where the Targum uses an absolute form to correspond to an area where the MT has a

definite article indicated.

150

other generic phrases, it is judged most likely to also be a generic reading and therefore

semantically definite in both the Hebrew and Aramaic. The two semantic indefinites are:

מי תשב^ר^א • q[י]ו (“days of affliction,” 11QtgJob 16.6, MT 30:16) – The nomen rectum is

semantically definite by general knowledge, but the phrase as a whole is semantically

indefinite in both the Hebrew and the Aramaic. See below.

• qעבדי שקרא (“doers of falsehood,” 11QtgJob 24.2, MT 34:8) – Note that Sokoloff does not

provide the final aleph in his edition.20 However, the editors note in DJD 23:133, “After

reš, one can see the tip of the keraia of ’alep.”21 A consideration of plate XIV certainly

indicates the plausibility of an aleph, though one should note that, if there, it is a small

trace.

In this subset of the data these last two cases are the only examples which would support the

contention of the empathic state being used beyond its traditional boundaries.

Analytic Genitive

There is only one analytic genitive in the translational corpus that does not involve a

proper noun, ערקא דמסאן (“a strap of a sandal,” 1Q20 22.21, MT Gen. 14:23). This form is

somewhat ambiguous vis-à-vis semantic definiteness. The second term, מסאן (“a sandal”), is

semantically indefinite, being both a first-mention in the narrative and purposely indefinite in the

sense of Abram’s oath. The first term, ערקא (“strap”), could either be considered also

semantically indefinite (“a strap of a sandal”) or semantically definite in an associative sense,

20 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 77. 21 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and Woude, Qumran Cave 11, 133.

151

that all sandals have straps (“the strap of a sandal”). Either reading would contextually make

sense in Abram’s oath as well. One should note that this phrase is part of an oath formula whose

syntax resembles Hebrew much more than natural Aramaic.

Generics

As noted in chapter 3, a construct phrase can include a nomen rectum that is itself a

generic noun without itself being a generic phrase. This also is a common occurrence with אנש.

1Q20 21.13, for instance, reads י לא ישכח כול בר אנוש לממניה qד (“which no man can number”). The

phrase בר אנוש is indefinite, not generic. Casey implies this form is a generic, stating, “Here the

fact that בר אנוש represents the Hebrew איש must mean that it was felt to be especially suitable for

a general statement.”22 That is fine, as far as it goes, but the “general statement” of a negated

indefinite is not linguistically identical to a generic statement, contra Casey’s repeated assertion

that follows. Likewise in 11QtgJob 26.3 בר אנש is indefinite (“a son of man”), not generic.

In the non-translational forms in the corpus, the generic construct phrase has an emphatic

nomen rectum, as discussed above. Translational forms, however, show more leeway. Due to

the nature of the speeches in Job, particularly God’s speeches, there are proportionally more

generic forms. In the 11 instances in translational Aramaic where a construct phrase as a whole

is a generic noun phrase, 3 of them have an absolute form as the nomen rectum, and 8 have an

emphatic form as the nomen rectum. These 3 cases are:

(the complaint of the afflicted,” 11QtgJob 25.4“) קבילת ענין •

22 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 29.

152

[ג]אות [ב]אישין • (“the [pr]ide of the [wi]cked,” 11QtgJob 26.7-8)

(the haughty of spirit,” 11QtgJob 34.6“) רם רוח •

Whatever the origin of the difference, 11QtgJob does show a slightly different behavior vis-à-vis

the generic construct phrase than does the remainder of the corpus.

Summary of translational data

As with the case of non-translational forms, the translational forms show much the same

dependence of state upon semantic definiteness. The initial judgment of the publishers of

Targum Job in 1971 was that the absolute and emphatic states showed little difference in

meaning.23 This conclusion can be rejected. In that regard, the data was analyzed independently,

but Jongeling’s study of 11QTgJob is reaffirmed in his conclusions. He states (as also quoted by

Owen and Shepherd):

1) Dans la plupart des cas…le traducteur a suivi le TM fidèlement. Aussi le problème de la détermination et de l’indétermination concerne-t-il moins le targum que le texte hébreu... 2) Dans les cas où le targum diffère du TM, on peut souvent expliquer la divergence en observant que le targumiste a voulu clarifier le texte; 3) Le problème est des lors plutôt un problème de traduction que de structure grammaticale interne; 4) Enfin: la tendance à déterminer les substantifs est beaucoup plus marquée dans le deuxième targum de Job, mais ce dernier se situe dans une période plus tardive.’24

The largest area of exception, as with non-translational forms, is again semantically definite

absolutes. Further, if anything, the translator seems sometimes to be using some absolute forms

23 J. P. M. vander Ploeg, Le Targum de Job de La Grotte XI de Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 4. 24 B. Jongeling, “Détermination et Indétermination Dans 11QtgJob,” in Qumrân Sa Piété Sa ologie Son Milieu (ed.

M. Delcor; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978), 136.

153

to match the Hebrew even when it would have made sense to use emphatic forms because the

word was semantically definite. These do not prove the encroachment of the emphatic state into

areas beyond its initial purview of semantic definiteness, but – if anything – prove the reverse.

Only a maximum of seven semantically indefinite emphatic noun phrases occur, and of those

only 2-4 are solid, as the others may not even be exceptional. The translational data, then,

likewise offer little proof of a breakdown in state with the emphatic beginning to take over.

154

Chapter Five: Implications

Definiteness, Indefiniteness, and State

As has been noted throughout this study, there is a clear categorical dependence of

definiteness upon state in QA. That is true for the simple noun phrase as well as for complex

noun phrases and construct phrases. Though similar behavior of differing types of noun phrases

regarding definiteness and state was not assumed at the outset, it has now been demonstrated,

and summary data on state and definiteness can be presented.

Figure 20: Definiteness and State (All Usable NPs)

Semantically Definite Semantically Indefinite Absolute 202 (13%) 411 (26%) Emphatic 946 (60%) 27 (<2%)

Note: Chart includes demonstratives.

Further, the counts above are conservative, including many examples of semantically indefinite

emphatics which are only questionably so, as detailed in chapters 2-4. In other words, even the

most charitable approach towards finding semantically indefinite emphatic forms yields less than

2% of forms in QA being such a construction. This is most clearly not a situation where the

encroachment of the emphatic state upon the semantic range previously held by the absolute is

far underway, as Casey had argued when he stated, “The breakdown of the difference between

the absolute and emphatic states of the Aramaic noun was already under way long before the

155

time of Jesus.”1 Indeed, far more prevalent is the presence of the absolute state taking a

semantically definite role.

This finding invalidates Casey’s initial claim, but it does not fully address the question at

hand of definiteness and state. As Williams allowed in his critique of Casey, “Even if the

Aramaic definite state was breaking down, this does not mean that it was breaking down at the

same rate and in the same way for all nouns simultaneously.”2 In that vein, as noted in the

introduction, Casey has somewhat revised his claims, arguing that certain types of noun phrases

show a fluctuating state. To quote him again:

In previously published work, I have used the metaphor of ‘breakdown’ to describe the decreasing difference between the absolute and emphatic states in some circumstances. Since then, more very early texts have been discovered, and more work has been done on early texts that were already known. We still need the metaphor of ‘breakdown’ to describe what happened over a period of centuries, because it remains clear that in some late Jewish Aramaic texts and even more in Syriac, the distinction between the absolute and emphatic states did to a large extent break down. Two things are not however as clear as they seemed years ago. First, it is no longer clear that the generic use of the emphatic state is part of that breakdown, rather than a possibility from the earliest times. The same applies to some unique items such as the heavens and the earth. These have in common with generic expressions that the use of the absolute or emphatic state cannot affect the meaning. We accordingly find variation in Aramaic….3

What must be asked then, is whether such a fluctuation in state occurs in QA, and if so, in what

types of noun phrase it occurs. In that regard, this study has shown that the area most apt to such

1 Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, 1980), 227–8. 2 P.J. Williams, “Expressing Definiteness in Aramaic: A Response to Casey’s Theory Concerning the Son of Man

Sayings,” in Who This Son Man Latest Scholarsh. Puzzling Expr. Hist. Jesus (ed. Larry W. Hurtado and Paul Owen;

T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 72. 3 Maurice Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd.,” J. Study New

Testam. 25, no. 1 (2002): 12.

156

a fluctuation is that of absolute singular abstract nouns. These nouns refer to a “type,” and are

therefore identifiable as a type, leading to an overall evaluation of them as semantically definite.

Nonetheless, that semantic definiteness may be, in a scalar sense of definiteness, “less definite”

than a noun phrase such as a demonstrative. Beyond these categories, there are a few exceptions

which are marginal to the system. Such forms, as noted in the introduction, are expected in all

languages. Some may be from particular lexical contexts, others from an attempt to imitate

Biblical Aramaic, and some may be forms which were in the process of becoming lexicalized.

Implications for Readings of QA Texts

Before addressing the question of בר אנש versus בר אנשא, one should note that these

conclusions benefit the study of QA, independent of any implications for New Testament

scholarship. First, several proposed readings are supported by this analysis.

• In 1Q20 22:4, Fitzmyer editorially supplies די in ארחא <די> חלתא רבתא (“the way of the

Great Valley”). Given the emphatic state of both nouns and the behavior of analytic

genitives outlined above, this emendation is justified.

• Fitzmyer restores 1Q20 21:31 with the common idiom for making war עבדו קרבא (“they

fought the battle,” Fitzmyer’s translation).4 Machiela, on the other hand, follows Puech

in stating, “However, Puech (p.591) is correct in his paleographic analysis, stating that

‘traces de toutes les letters, pé, taw, het ligature avec taw’ are visible on the plate in AY

(as well as in BZ21B). F[itzmyer] may be correct that the root פתח has not previously

been known to carry this meaning, but it seems best to follow the physical evidence of

4 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et

Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 238.

157

the manuscript. Despite its lack of previous attestation, the verb פתח makes good sense in

context here, referring to the act of ‘entering into’ or ‘engaging’ the battle.”5 The

attestation of the nominal form קרבא in this line is undebated, and this form lends

credence to Puech and Machiela’s reading. If the verb is פתח and not בדע , then the use of

in the קרב here is naturally read as an anaphoric reference to line 25’s mention of קרבא

absolute state. קרבא has now become not a general concept, but a specific battle, a

semantically definite anaphoric reference, identifiable to the audience from its earlier

mention. Not only should the physical evidence have priority, as Machiela argues, but

the switch to use of the emphatic state here as a semantic definite fits well with the

reading of the verb as פתח, while at the same time, the physical reading of פתח supports

the understanding that what is referenced is a specific, definite battle.

• In reading (“the ways of the paths of truth”) for רחת קושט Xא Xמסלי in 1Q20 6:3,6 Machiela

worries about the presence of an absolute form of קושט. He states, “I take ארחת to be part

of an extended construct chain (so also B3; for this form cf. Dan. 4:34, 5:23), although

the defective spelling is uncharacteristic, and the indefinite קושט seems odd (but cf. the

following נתיב שקר, which must be translated as definite to make sense).”7 Given the

behavior of abstract nouns detailed in chapter 2, the presence of the absolute state in this

phrase is not out of line with QA practice.

5 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 80. 6 Machiela here reads a resh where previous interpreters have read a waw. 7 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 43.

158

Second, the conclusions of this study call other readings into question:

• Greenfield and Qimron read ם Xר Xכ at the beginning of 1Q20 12:8.8 Fitzmyer critiques this

reading, stating “that hardly seems correct, since the planting of the vineyard is

mentioned below in line 13.”9 One can add to Fitzmyer’s contextual argument the note

that the later introduction of the vineyard in line 13 is with an absolute form. Given the

results of this study, had the vineyard been introduced in line 8, then the reference in line

13 would have been anaphoric and would have been in the emphatic state.

• Machiela’s proposed new reading of א Xב Xם ר Xלי (“to the Great Sea”) in 1Q20 14.18 is

questionable simply from the non-agreement of the attributive adjective in state with its

head noun. Further, as a noun phrase identifiable by general knowledge, one would

expect this form to be in the emphatic state, as it is in 1Q20 14.21, 19.13, 21.11, 4Q540

1.3, and 4Q541 7.3.

• Machiela’s proposed new reading of 1Q20 4.11-12 as Xק Xי Xם ד Xש Xא Xש X[ד]י (“the name of the

Great H[o]ly One”)10 should be rejected, as it does not match the conventions of the

analytic genitive phrase outlined in chapter 3. שם would need both to be in the emphatic

state and not have a final form mem, each of which would be visible, even in the very

fragmentary state of column 4, as the word occurs at the end of line 11.

8 Takamitsu Muraoka, ed., “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII,” in Stud. Qumran Aramaic (Abr-Nahrain 3; Louvain:

Peeters, 1992), 70–77. 9 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 158. 10 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 40.

159

• Additionally, as argued in chapter 3, the readings 1 ,בכול שנא דנהQ20 7.3;11 בפרית דא,

1Q20 17.9;12 and 1 ,מדינה דןQ20 19.913 recently proposed by Machiela in the Genesis

Apocryphon should be considered highly suspect, as they would produce absolute

demonstratives (as well as creating non-agreement between the noun and adjective in 7:3

and 19:9).

• Also as argued in chapter 3, Machiela’s proposed readings of בר קדמיא in 1Q20 14.12 and

14.1314 are suspect, as they do not follow the standard pattern of an ordinal, being instead

absolute in form.

Third, regarding Western Aramaic more generally, this study strengthens the argument that this

dialect preserved the determining function of the emphatic state. As was noted early in this

study, QA represents a collection of documents, not a dialect per se, and as such, it contains

documents which likely originated in multiple locations. Given that QA does not necessarily

represent a unified corpus in terms of origin, yet does show a unified approach to definiteness

and state, this is an additional data point in favor of the argument that the connection between

state and definiteness remained strong in Western Aramaic at this time period.

Implications for the “Son of Man Debate”

Owen and Shepherd’s Debate with Casey

One major tenet of Casey’s argument regarding the son of man problem is that בר אנש and

were interchangeable and equivalent phrases, hence his insistence on always using the בר אנשא

11 Ibid., 47. 12 Ibid., 67. 13 Ibid., 70. 14 Ibid., 60.

160

form (א)בר (א)נש in his publications. He bases this contention on the argument that the phrase is

a generic expression, which can optionally be expressed in either the absolute or emphatic

state.15 He uses this identification to sift the son of man sayings in the gospels as to their

authenticity, considering statements to be from the historical Jesus if they can be seen to be “in

accordance with a normal Aramaic idiom, in general statements that referred especially to the

speaker, or the speaker and some of his associates.”16

As indicated in the introduction, there are methodological questions upon which Casey

has been critiqued, but this study concentrates on a second area of critique, that of Owen and

Shepherd regarding the data from QA. They particularly attack Casey’s solution to the Son of

Man problem with two contentions: 1) that Casey claims a merger of the absolute and emphatic

states which has not occurred, and 2) the absence in QA of the form בר אנשא, which Casey’s

argument indicates should exist.17 In response to Owen and Shepherd, Casey softened his

original argument, but he did not abandon it. He noted that the metaphor of breakdown was still

necessary, but that fluctuation between the absolute and emphatic states for the expression of a

generic noun phrase was evident in even the earliest forms of Aramaic.18 Both Casey and Owen

and Shepherd give examples from QA to support their positions, with Owen and Shepherd

arguing that the corpus supports the continued use of the emphatic state for definite noun phrases

and Casey arguing that the corpus supports his assertions of blurring between the emphatic and

absolute states in certain types of noun phrases.

15 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 3–4. 16 Ibid., 4. 17 P. Owen and D. Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common

Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?,” J. Study New Testam. 81 (2001): 120–1. 18 Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” 12–3.

161

This study concludes, as regards Qumran and definiteness, that the metaphor of a

breakdown between the states should not be applied to QA. QA shows a quite clear categorical

dependence of state on definiteness. The idea that the absolute and emphatic states have merged

or that the distinction between them had substantially broken down was an overstatement by

Casey. This conclusion matters, not simply for the understanding of QA, but also for the Son of

Man debate. The relationship between the phrases בר אנשא or בר אנש, whatever it may be, is

inside a dialect of Jewish Aramaic. QA, though not identical to that dialect, is the closest

approximation of it with significant texts available to the modern interpreter, and in QA the

emphatic and absolute states as a whole still reflect definiteness and indefiniteness quite strongly.

That point being made, Casey is correct in stating that the debate between himself and

Owen and Shepherd is ultimately at the specific level of the generic noun phrase. He had

argued, or at least implied, a broader “breakdown,” but his argument as revised must be fully

considered. On its face, this revised claim is much more plausible, not that the emphatic state

had lost force everywhere, but that it had lost force in particular types of phrases. Regarding the

particular phrase “Son of Man” he argues, “The nature of the idiom is such that this variation

[between an emphatic and absolute nomen rectum] could not affect the meaning.”19 This claim

in particular must be considered in the context of the entire system of state and definiteness in

QA.

At the outset of this evaluation one must determine what the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

would be in Aramaic. Potentially complicating the discussion, multiple retroversions would be

19 Casey, Son of Man, 228.

162

possible, as detailed by Lukaszewski.20 While some of his potential retroversions are more likely

than others, with some seeming almost ungrammatical, all such retroversions have in common

that they are genitive phrases in which the nomen rectum/second term is a form of enash.21

Three key questions must be answered: 1) Were אנש and אנשא interchangeable? 2) What, if

anything, would change when they are used in a genitive construction? and 3) How does one

account for the fact that only בר אנש occurs in the corpus of QA?

Usage of אנש and אנשא

“Man” as a species is necessarily kind-referring,22 meaning many uses of אנש or אנשא

should be considered generic uses of it or its noun phrase. Accordingly, the results of this study

vis-à-vis generics must be considered. In this regard, as argued above, not all forms claimed by

various authors to be “generic” are actually generic uses of the noun or noun phrase. אנש and

then, are generics according to usage, not in every occurrence. This lexeme is a singular ,אנשא

tantum, meaning that it is not attested in the plural.23

This form often shows the influence of Hebrew, as אנוש. The Aramaic or Hebrew origin

of the form אנוש is debated. Fitzmyer, for instance, includes it in his list of “clear instances” of

Hebraisms.24 He bases his argument on the existence of אנש in Aramaic, which would indicate

20 Albert Lukaszewski, “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of

Scholarship,” in Who This Son Man Latest Scholarsh. Puzzling Expr. Hist. Jesus (ed. Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L.

Owen; T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 22–3. 21 As such, this study will use the construct phrase as its discussion, which is highly likely as the correct

retroversion, given the relative paucity of analytic genitives in the corpus. The construct phrase, though, can be

considered as a stand in for other genitive constructions, as the issues raised here would be the same in an analytic

genitive. 22 Manfred Krifka et al., “Genericity: An Introduction,” in Generic Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995),

6. 23 T Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 161. 24 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 34.

163

that אנוש was not the natural form.25 Another school of thought, however, views אנוש as the

result of an assimilation in Aramaic, from ’unāš to ’unōš.26 Fassberg argues that the use of the

form in Nabatean and Palmyrene indicate that the form is most likely Aramaic but that the

Biblical Aramaic occurrences of the form may be impacting its use in Qumran.27 Accordingly, it

should be noted as a potential Hebraism.

Of the 42 uses of the lexeme אנש in QA that have enough context to determine semantic

definiteness, 9 have the mater and are therefore considered potential Hebraisms.28 Three are

simple noun phrases:

semantically indefinite – (a man,” 4Q204 4.10“) אנוש •

ש • X[א]נו (“a [m]an,” 4Q534 1.i.4) – semantically indefinite

]י מן מצרין[וננאנוש די ינפק • (“men who would esc[ort me from Egypt],” 1Q20 20.32) –

semantically indefinite, as the men are described, but not identified, by the following

relative clause.

Three are quantified:

ל אנושכו • (“any person,” 1Q20 6.12) – This form is negated and, following the analysis in

chapter 3, semantically indefinite.

25 Ibid., 223. 26 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (2. rev. print.; Porta linguarum orientalium. Neue Serie 5;

Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1963), 21. 27 Steven E. Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” in Stud. Qumran Aramaic (Louvain:

Peeters, 1992), 58. 28 Though this study has excluded Hebraisms from its analysis, exception is made for these forms given their

potential relevance to the Son of Man questions addressed in this section.

164

This form is not negated and, following the – (all humanity,” 4Q212 1.v.17“) כול אנוש •

analysis in chapter 3, is therefore semantically definite. Here אנוש refers to humanity as a

whole and is therefore generic.

As in the above record, this form is – (all humanity,” 4Q212 1.v.22“) כול אנוש •

semantically definite, and אנוש refers to humanity as a whole and is therefore generic.

The generic nature of the phrase is due to the quantification by כול, as otherwise it would

be, based on the form אנוש and the results of this study, more likely indefinite.

The other three uses are as the nomen rectum of construct phrases:

Because this form is used in the context of – (any son of man,” 1Q20 19.23“) כול בר אנוש •

negation, it is semantically indefinite. The greater question is whether אנוש is used with

generic reference. This phrase could be conceptualized as “any son of mankind” or “any

son of a man.” Note also that this reading is from Machiela only, as only כול is read by

Fitzmyer.29 As such, this may not even be a valid reading.

.Similar to the instance above – (any son of man,” 1Q20 21.13“) כול בר אנוש •

ים אנושא • X[ח]כ (“the wisest of men,” 4Q212 1.ii.23) – The context is somewhat sparse, but

the phrase as a whole seems to be superlative. This is the only form of אנוש in the

emphatic state. The nomen rectum is identifiable by general knowledge (and is a generic

use), and the phrase as a whole would be semantically definite as a superlative.

The Hebraism of אנוש, then, is mainly used as an indefinite absolute, but it can be used as a

generic noun, either in the emphatic state or via quantification by כול.

29 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 98.

165

The natural Aramaic forms אנש and אנשא occur fourteen times as a simple noun phrase in

the corpus. Three are absolute forms:

.indefinite – (a man,” 4Q157 1.ii.2“) אנש •

.indefinite – (a wicked man,” 11QtgJob 11.3, MT 27:13“) אנש רשיעין •

.indefinite – (a man,” 11QtgJob 31.4, MT 38:26“) אנש •

Two other forms are in the absolute form and quantified:

.This form is negated and semantically indefinite – (any person,” 4Q213b 1.3“) כל אנש •

ול אנש • Xכ (“any person,” 4Q550c 1.iii.2) – This form is likely inclusive and semantically

definite, in its context, as it is not negated. Again, however, the quantification makes the

form inclusive. The relative clause that follows describes which individuals fit in this

category: סרו X[ באי]שא על בג Xדי ימר מלה (“who speaks [ev]il about Bagastraw”), so it is not a

reference to humankind as a whole.

Neither of these forms is a generic reference, though the second shades towards it.

Six forms are in the emphatic state, all semantically definite and all generically

referencing humankind as a whole. Because humankind is being addressed as a totality, all are

identifiable to the reader by general knowledge.

שאאנ • (“mankind,” 1Q20 1.28)

(mankind,” 1Q20 6.26“) אנשא •

(mankind,” 4Q201 1.iii.19“) אנשא •

(mankind,” 4Q531 2+3 9“) אנשא •

166

(mankind,” 4Q536 2i+3 7“) אנשא •

• Xאנשא (“mankind,” 11QtgJob 22.6,MT 33:12)

Three more forms are quantified, all also being generic reference and semantically definite:

• Xכול אנשא (“all the men,” 1Q20 22.15) – The relevant group is defined by the following

clause די עמה (“who were with him”), making it semantically definite as an identifiable

group in its context, but not a reference to all humanity.

ל אנשא • Xכ (“all mankind,” 11QtgJob 28.2, MT 36:25) – The reference is to all of humanity

beholding God’s work, making this a generic reference.

follows, likely די The context is broken, though – (all humanity,” 11Q18 26.1“) כול אנשא •

introducing a relative clause.

Eight of the nine simple definites in the emphatic form, then, are generic reference.

In nineteen cases, אנש or אנשא are used as part of a construct phrase. Seven of those cases

are not relevant to the discussion of בר אנשא and בר אנש because אנש is the nomen regens of the

phrase and therefore in the construct state. For the remaining twelve, six of those cases have אנש,

the absolute form, as the nomen rectum:

As noted in chapter 3, this use – (a spirit of a dead man,” 4Q206 1.xxii.3-4“) רוח אנש מת •

of אנש is semantically indefinite. This use is not generic.

is semantically אנש Similarly, this use of – (an image of a man,” 4Q209 26.5“) דמות אנש •

indefinite. This use also is not generic.

This use is definite, being identifiable as a – (the sons of mankind,” 4Q531 14.4“) בני אנש •

type, but not generic in the sense of making a statement about all humans.

167

מת אנש • X[ח]כ (“human wisdom,” 4Q536 2i+3 5) – This is an attributive genitive, “human

wisdom,” not a generic reference to all mankind’s wisdom.

אנש [ב]ר • (“a son of man,” 11QtgJob 9.9, MT 25:6) – This form is arguably generic, given

the universal nature of the statements in the speeches in the book of Job. Alternately,

however, Bildad’s entire (short) speech can be read as comparing God’s majesty to the

situation of “a man” in an indefinite sense. Either interpretation is plausible based on

11QtgJob 9.9 alone. However, given the semantic indefiniteness pf every other case of a

construct phrase which takes the absolute state for its nomen rectum, this is considered

most likely indefinite as well.

This use is indefinite, not generic, as – (a son of man,” 11QtgJob 26.3, MT 35:8“) בר אנש •

seen by the parallelism of the verse in the MT.

The other six cases have אנשא, the emphatic form, as the nomen rectum:

.Generic use – (the sons of mankind,” 1Q20 6.9“) בני אנשא •

• Xמל כל בני אנשא Xע (“the labor of all the sons of mankind,” 4Q201 1.iii.18) – Generic use.

.Generic use – (all the sons of mankind,” 4Q206 1.xxii.1“) כל בני אנשא •

.Generic use – (the sons of mankind,” 4Q209 23.8“) בני אנשא •

.Generic use – (the mysteries of mankind,” 4Q534 1.i.8“) רזי אנשא •

This use is generic, as seen – (the sons of mankind,” 11QtgJob 28.2, MT 36:25“) בני אנשא •

by the parallelism of both the Targum and the MT.

A strong correspondence can immediately be seen in these forms. If the nomen regens of the

construct phrase is singular, the absolute form אנש is used, and such phrases are indefinite. If the

168

nomen regens is plural, the emphatic form אנשא is used. The only exception is בני אנש in 4Q531,

a reading which is clear.30 4Q536 is particularly instructive, as the text uses אנשא (“mankind”) in

2i+3 7 for a simple noun phrase yet gives מת אנש X[ח]כ (“the [wi]sdom of mankind”) in line 5 as a

construct phrase. Further, the absolute אנש can potentially serve as a generic noun, depending on

one’s reading of 11QtgJob 9.9, but in six of the seven cases of generic reference, the generic is

expressed with the emphatic form, which leads to the strong suspicion that 11QtgJob 9.9 should

be interpreted as an indefinite form, not a generic.

Uses of בר

There are only a few cases where בר and ברא are used as simple noun phrases. These

cases follow the pattern for simple nouns established in chapter 2: בר in 1Q20 12.10; 4Q196 6.1,

6.11, 6.12; and 4Q550a 1.3, all semantically indefinite, and ברא in 4Q562 9-10.4, insufficient

context. Far more often, בר is used as part of a possessive form or a construct phrase. The

possessive forms are an interesting example of the phenomenon noted in chapter 1, that

possessives are generally treated as semantically definite, though they are not logically so. For

most ANE fathers, the phrase “my son,” would reference several individuals and therefore not,

logically, be a unique reference (though it often would have been so in a shared situation). When

such a phrase is used descriptively, it cannot be said to be identifying. However, the most

common uses of the phrase are in vocative situations (e.g.: ברך “your son”) in which they are

uniquely identifying because of the situation of the utterance.

30 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (Texte und Studien

zum antiken Judentum 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 155.

169

Construct phrases with בר show a similar dynamic. The use of בר as a nomen regens can

be used to call out a member of a class. For example, 1Q20 22.34 has either [ביתי] בר (“a son of

my household”), should one follow Fitzmyer’s reading, or בר דמשק (“a son of Damascus”),

should one follow Machiela’s reading.31 In either case, the phrase could be considered

semantically indefinite, as it simply indicates a member of the class: “some son of my

household” or “some son of Damascus.” Even though both proposed nomina recta are

semantically definite (the first as a unique entity and the second as a proper noun), the phrase as

a whole has an indefinite reference.

In the usage of בר as a construct noun in QA, however, every other phrase is identifiable

in context. This is due mainly to the use of בר plus a nomen rectum in apposition to a proper

name. In such situations, the appositional descriptor is used to identify. The construct phrase

specifies exactly which person is referenced, e.g.: ר לוי Xעמרם בר קהת ב (“Amram, the son of Qahat,

the son of Levi,” 4Q 545 1a.i.1). Such a situation is doubly true with the common phrase in

1Q20 לוט בר אחי (“Lot, the son of my brother”) as in the biblical account Lot was the only son of

Abram’s deceased brother. This is again just the identification of membership in a set: “Amram,

the Amram who is a member of the set of the sons of Qahat.” When used appositionally, though,

the phrase, which is of an indefinite character, functions to identify, but it is the appositional

context that makes it identifying. The construct phrase with בר as the nomen regens as a whole is

descriptive and therefore necessarily indefinite.

31 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 84.

170

בר אנשא and בר אנש

Casey’s argument regarding the Son of Man question rests on the contentions that: 1) the

emphatic state can be used for generic reference, 2) the construct phrase בר אנשא can also be

generic in reference, and 3) the two terms בר אנשא and בר אנש were interchangeable in the

Aramaic of Jesus’ time.

QA is not the full answer to this question, as it is not of necessity identical to the Aramaic

Jesus would have spoken in approximately C.E. 30. The texts at Qumran preserve earlier works,

not purely works from the community at Qumran, so they may not be identical to speech patterns

in that community.32 In that regard, further research on other dialects and on the Bar Kochba

letters and other epigraphic material is necessary.33 The methodological debates mentioned, but

not addressed, in this study relate mainly to the question of how much other dialects of Aramaic

should enter the discussion, with Casey accepting more and later texts than other authors find

wise. Regardless of how those debates are resolved, QA is the most central substantial corpus of

data available for the question at hand, as it represents the closest significant corpus of Aramaic,

in terms of the combination of geography and time, to the Aramaic that Jesus would have

spoken. In that regard, QA does receive pride of place in reference to this issue. As

Lukaszewski concludes, “The Aramaic dialect most relevant for the New Testament Aramaic

problem is thus shown to be Qumran Aramaic, a part of Judaean Literary Aramaic.”34

32 Albert Lukaszewski, “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

St. Andrews, 2004), 15. 33 Ibid., 15 n.49. 34 Ibid., 31.

171

In QA, this study supports Casey’s first contention, that אנשא can be used for generic

reference. The emphatic state is, in fact, by far the more common state of the noun in generic

noun phrases, if not exclusive. On the second and third contentions, however, the evidence of

QA is less supportive. As Owen and Shepherd had pointed out in their critique that gave rise to

this study, the specific phrase בר אנשא is not present in QA, though other generic expressions for

“mankind” certainly are, specifically the phrase 35.בני אנשא Casey’s response to this critique is

that the absence of the form בר אנשא is an accident of preservation, that everything about

Aramaic indicates the form should exist in QA, and therefore modern interpreters can assume it

did exist, only being lost because of the fragmentary nature of the documents that make up the

corpus: “[W]e must conclude that the absence of this idiom from contemporary Aramaic sources

is simply due to the small quantity of Aramaic surviving from our period.”36

Speaking only for QA, this study supports the following observations, relevant to Casey’s

second and third contentions. First, regarding the simple noun phrase, one would expect אנש and

to be different in semantic definiteness, with the absolute form being semantically אנשא

indefinite and the emphatic form being semantically definite. Second, one would expect the

generic simple noun phrase to use אנשא, following the pattern for generic simple noun phrases

shown in chapter 2. Third, in general, as shown in chapter 3, it is much more common for a

construct phrase to have an emphatic nomen rectum than an absolute nomen rectum. Fourth, in

generic construct phrases in the corpus of QA, the nomen rectum is in the emphatic state, that

being the case in all 25 non-translational forms. Translational forms show a similar behavior,

35 Owen and Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man,” 121. 36 P. M. Casey, “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the

Teaching of Jesus,” J. Study New Testam. 9, no. 29 (1987): 23.

172

though not quite as strong, with 3 of 12 generic construct phrases showing an absolute nomen

rectum. Given the high overlap between translational forms and poetry in the corpus, driven by

11QtgJob, it is possible that this relates to these forms being translational and also possible that it

is due to these forms being in a poetic context.

Certainly, this study does prove Casey’s contention that the emphatic form could be

generic. The question then becomes how one puts the remainder of the pieces together. In fact,

this study proves far more than simply that QA can use emphatic for generic. Instead, it

indicates that one almost always would use the emphatic state for a generic, whether a simple

noun phrase or a genitive phrase, and rarely the absolute. The only area of potential exception is

in translational literature. By definition, however, if one is discussing the historical Jesus, the

Aramaic that he would have spoken, then one should be discussing natural Aramaic, not

translational Aramaic. In a question such as the Son of Man debate, then, the evidence from

11QtgJob is less relevant than the remainder of the corpus.

In this situation, Owen and Shepherd’s argument suddenly gains steam. Given the

patterns of non-translational Aramaic summarized in the four points above, one should expect

the generic phrase to be indicated, if indicated at all with בר, by the phrase בר אנשא. This phrase

would match the clear leaning of the corpus towards the generic being expressed in the emphatic

state. It is much more common for the generic expression to be in the emphatic, and even for

adjectival construct phrases to have an emphatic nomen rectum. However, even though the

corpus often shows the form אנשא for simple definites and often as the nomen rectum of בני אנשא,

one never finds the form בר אנשא. Though the uses of בר אנש are few, in each case, should the

patterns seen in this study be correct, the author’s language pattern would have led to the writing

173

of בר אנשא should a generic meaning have been intended. Nonetheless, בר אנש was written in

every instance that survives, none of which are generic. It seems that, when a construct phrase

was employed, the generic was expressed with בני אנשא alone.

Is this simply an accident of preservation? To understand the data as such, one would

have to assume that there were three (or more) exceptions to the pattern written as בר אנש, all of

which were generic in reference (a point already disputed) along with many more instances of

was lost to the ravages of the decay of the scrolls. Such a בר אנשא yet every instance of ,בר אנשא

construal of events is, admittedly possible, but it seems highly unlikely. One must always be

cautious with arguments from silence, as they are at best probabilistic. However, speaking

probabilistically, more than an accident of preservation, the extant data – including the absence

of בר אנשא – appears to be an intentional choice by those who wrote the QA documents. For

whatever reason one wishes to speculate, QA appears to avoid the form בר אנשא, even though the

other tendencies of the dialect lead one to expect it. In the end, then, this study reinforces the

argument of Owen and Shepherd against Casey; the absence of בר אנשא in QA casts doubt on his

solution.

174

Appendix 1: Simple Noun Phrases

Included in the appendix are analyses of simple noun phrases not addressed in the main

text of this study, should a reader wish to understand how a particular phrase was analyzed.

Every simple noun phrase included in the analysis is indicated below. Should the semantic

definiteness or indefiniteness of a noun phrase be self-evident, the phrase is simply listed with its

accompanying judgment. However, justifications are given for the understanding of semantic

definiteness if it is considered potentially debatable. Noun phrases are categorized alphabetically

by lexeme.

אב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Interrogative – (a father,” 11QtgJob 31.5, MT 38:28“) אב

context, implying an unknown father.

אבדן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (destruction,” 4Q204 1.vi.17“) אבדן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (perdition,” 4Q531 18.2“) אבדן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (destruction,” 4Q580 1.i.12“) אבדן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that column 12 – (the destruction,” 1Q20 12.17“) אבדנא

is post-flood, this is most likely an anaphoric reference to the flood, the textual mention of

which is now lost in the previous columns.

175

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (destruction,” 4Q548 1ii-2.14“) אבדנא

אבן

ןבא (“(a) stone,” 2Q24 8.3) – Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context

ןבא (“a stone,” 5Q15 1.i.6) – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the

narrative.

ןבא (“a stone,” 11QtgJob 36.9, MT 41:16) – Absolute Singular, Indefinite

Empathic Singular, Definite – As a dream report, this is – (the stones,” 1Q20 13.9“) אבניא

likely definite, being a reference to stones previously seen in the dream, as are the other

materials mentioned in lines 9 and 10. Note that Fitzmyer translates as “stones” with an

indefinite sense,1 while Machiela translates as “the stones” implying a definite sense.2 The

plural form shows that this noun is here count, not mass.

Empathic Singular, Insufficient Context – (stones,” 4Q 542 3.ii.11 (the)“) אבניא

אדן

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 4 – (the ear,” 11QtgJob 14.5, MT 29:11“) אדן

1 Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20): A Commentary (3. ed.; Biblica et Orientalia 18/ B; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2004), 89. 2 Daniel Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” PhD diss. (The University of Notre Dame, 2007), 116.

176

אדסא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Read as a generic reference – (myrtle,” 4Q214b 2-6.5“) אדסא

and therefore inclusive, as all myrtle wood is acceptable to be placed on the altar.

אוחידואן

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (riddles,” 4Q541 2.i.7“) אוחידואן

narrative.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (riddles,” 4Q541 4.i.4“) אוחידואן

speech, not an anaphoric reference to fragment 2.

אונס

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 2 – (force,” 1Q20 20.11“) אונס

אור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (light,” 4Q243 38.1“) אור

אורח

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Even a basic – (the journey,” 4Q196 13.1“) אורחא

correspondence between the text of Tobit at Qumran and the text in Sinaiticus is enough to

be confident that the journey was already in place by this point in the narrative, which

reflects Tobit 6:6-8. The journey is therefore both anaphorically and situationally definite.

177

אורכ

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (length,” 1Q20 3.2 (the)“) אורכא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is the length of the – (the length,” 4Q554 1.ii.11“) אורכא

block mentioned earlier in the line, and since every block would have both length and width,

it is associatively identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

אח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a brother,” 4Q196 6.11“) אח

narrative.

אחר

,Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Substantivized adjective – (others,” 4Q554 13.17“) אחרין

modified by שגיאן (“many”). Therefore semantically indefinite.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Substantivized adjective – (the other,” 2Q24 4.16“) אחריתא

Identifiable as the other loaf of bread, since the narrative has just shown the first of two being

given away.

אי

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – According to Morgenstern – (the island,” 1Q20 17.13“) איא

Qimron, and Sivan, “The reading איא seems certain, in which case this must be the emphatic

178

form of the word אי …. This is the earliest, and probably only occurrence of this word in

Aramaic, and is suspect of being a Hebraism.”3 The word originally was Egyptian, being

loaned into Hebrew, and “appearing here with an Aramaic ending.”4 The full phrase is איא די

.making the noun cataphorically definite ,(”the island that is in this tongue“) בגו לשנא דן

איל

.See chapter 3 .חד Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Quantified by – (a ram,” 2Q24 4.18“) איל

Note the significantly broken context.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (rams,” 11Q18 33.2 (the)“) איליא

אלן / אילן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The trees have been – (the tree,” 4Q552 2.ii.2“) אילנא

introduced in the line 1, so this is most likely an anaphoric reference and semantically

definite.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – As above – (the tree,” 4Q552 2.ii.4“) אילנא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (trees,” 4Q204 1.xii.26“) אילנין

narrative.

3 M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron, and D. Sivan, “The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Abr-

Nahrain 33 (1995): 34. 4 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 176.

179

Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 2. Note the – (a tree,” 4Q553 3+2ii+4.5“) אלנא

very lacunose context. Potentially semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Based on the parallel with – (the trees,” 4Q553 3+2ii+4.2“) אלניא

4Q552, the trees were introduced in the break just before this word, which makes this an

anaphoric reference.

אימה

Absolute Singular, Definite – (fear,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT 39:20“) אימה

אל

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Predicate descriptor – (a god,” 4Q538 3.3“) אל

.Proper noun; see chapters 2 and 3 – אל עליון

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Haplography for – (God,” 11QtgJob 34.5, MT 40:9“) אלה

.See chapter 4 .אלהא

,God,” 1Q20 21:3 (2x), 8; 22:27, 32; 4Q551 1.4; 11QtgJob 4.8, 8.2, 9.4, 9.7, 10.8“) אלהא

19.13, 21.5, 22.6, 24.3, 34.4, 24.6, 26.4, 28.3, 29.6, 34.2, 37.3, 38.2 (2x), 38.3, 38.7 (2x)) –

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the religious milieu of the text, “God” is uniquely denoting

and hence definite.

180

םא

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (outer gutter,” 4Q554a 1.ii.8 (the)“) אמה

אמה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a cubit,” 11Q18 8.2“) אמה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (cubits,” 4Q554 1.ii.12“) אמין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (cubits,” 4Q554 2.i.15“) אמין

אמר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Based on comparison with 1 – (the sheep,” 4Q204 4.4“) אמרה

Enoch 89, this sheep was likely mentioned in the broken portion of line 3 (as well as before

that), so this reference is anaphoric and semantically definite. The heh is marking the

masculine emphatic singular in place of the more common aleph.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Based on the Ethiopic text, the – (lambs,” 4Q206 4.ii.14“) אמרין

these sheep are newly introduced to the narrative and therefore unidentifiable and

semantically indefinite.

אמרה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Modified – (an ewe lamb,” 11QtgJob 38.7, MT 42:11“) אמרה

by חדה, showing the feminine gender.

181

אנדר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associative – (the threshing floor,” 4Q529 1.8“) אנדרא

reference, as an offering would be expected at harvest time.

אנפין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (face,” 4Q565 1.2“) אנפין

אנוש / אנש

אנוש די Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (men,” 1Q20 20.32“) אנוש

The latter part of this phrase is .(”men who would escort me out of Egypt“) ינפק[ונני מן מצרין]

both significantly obscured and includes a restoration, which has yielded a range of

proposed readings.5 However, the words אנוש די are clear. If אנוש is read as a count noun,

then the phrase would be translated “a man who would escort me from Egypt” (so

Machiela).6 If אנוש is read as a mass noun, however, then the phrase would be translated

“men to escort me out of Egypt” (so Fitzmyer).7 Here אנוש is read as a mass noun to

correspond with Genesis 12:20 (MT), which uses an indefinite plural, however either option

is possible. In either case, the phrase remains semantically indefinite, as the man/men are

5 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 164. 6 Ibid., 128. 7 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 103.

182

neither identifiable to the reader nor inclusive of an entire group. (Pharaoh presumably did

not send all his men to escort Abraham out of Egypt, but only some men.)

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 4Q204 4.10“) אנוש

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The relative clause that follows – (a man,” 534 1.i.4“) אנוש

,describes, but does not identify, this man ("…who does not know anything") די לא ידע מדעם

so the form is semantically indefinite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (humanity,” 4Q539 2-3.7“) אנושא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 4Q157 1.ii.2“) אנש

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (man,” 4Q550 1.1 (a)“) אנש

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 11QtgJob 31.4, MT 38:26“) אנש

.See chapter 4 – אנש רשיעין

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though the column is – (mankind,” 1Q20 1.27“) אנשא

broken, the general thrust of the narrative is about the delivery of evil to mankind.

Accordingly, here אנוש is a mass noun indicating all of humanity. It is semantically definite

in the sense of being inclusive.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The line contains three other – (mankind,” 1Q20 6.26“) אנשא

terms parallel to לאנשא ולבעירא ולחיותא לעופא :אנשא (“…to mankind, and to the cattle and to

183

the animals, to the birds…”). The nature of these terms indicates that אנשא here is a mass

noun indicating all of humanity. It is semantically definite in the sense of being inclusive.

Fitzmyer notes regarding this line, “The plural חיותא shows that the singular nouns, אנשא and

are to be understood as collective singulars. Compare 4Q370 1:6 for a similar בעירא

destruction of mankind, animals, and birds; also Gen 6:7; 7:23.”8 Though this study argues

that the more proper term for these singular nouns is “generic,” Fitzmyer’s point about the

parallel nature of the singular and plural forms in this line is completely accurate.

is restored here by Fitzmyer.9 Though it could [אנש]א – (mankind,” 1Q20 21.30“) אנשא

quite likely be correct, given that the entire word other than the last aleph is restored, this is

conjectural and therefore not included in the data set of this study.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference to all – (mankind,” 4Q201 1.iii.19“) אנשא

humankind.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference to all – (mankind,” 4Q531 2+3. 9“) אנשא

humankind.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference to all – (mankind,” 4Q536 2i+3.7“) אנשא

humankind.

8 Ibid., 149. 9 Ibid., 106.

184

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic – (mankind,” 11QtgJob 22.6, MT 33:12“) אנשא

reference to all humankind.

אנתה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (wife,” 1Q20 6.7“) אנתה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (wife,” 1Q20 20.27“) אנתה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (wife,” 1Q20 20.34“) אנתה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Sarah acquires the status of – (wife,” 1Q20 20.9“) אנתה

“wife,” a concept that is identifiable to the normal reader as an abstract term. Note that this

term could alternately be interpreted as “a wife.” (After all, Sarah was certainly not

Pharaoh’s only wife.) The form here is feminine singular absolute, with the final aleph in

place of the more common heh.10

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (wife,” 4Q196 6.12“) אנתה

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (wife,” 4Q213a 3-4.3 (a)“) אנתה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a wife,” 4Q544 1.8“) אנתה

narrative.

10 Ibid., 200.

185

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a wife,” 4Q545 1a.i.6“) אנתה

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a woman,” 4Q197 4.i.13“) אנתה

discourse. The referent is necessarily indefinite because the medicine is to work for anyone

who is in the condition described.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (women,” 4Q214 3.3 (the)“) נשיא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – In both cases, the identity of – (women,” 1Q20 6.8, 6.10“) נשין

the wives is not at issue. Instead, this is merely a statement that it was time for Noah’s sons

to find some wives.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (women,” 4Q201 1.iii.14; 4Q202 1.ii.18“) נשין

אנתו

.Excluded from the data set as a quite questionable reading – אנתו

אסף / אסוף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to – (an atrium,” 4Q554 1.iii.15“) אסוף

the narrative, as proved by the modifier: אסוף אחרן (“another atrium”).

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the – (an atrium,” 5Q15 1.i.18“) אסף

narrative, as proved by the modifier: אסוף אוחרן (“another atrium”).

186

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the atrium,” 4Q554 1.iii.14“) אספא

line 12.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the atrium,” 4Q554 1.iii.15“) אספא

line 12.

איאספ (“the atrium,” 5Q15 2.3) – Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to the

atria from fragment 1.

אסור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a binding,” 4Q532 2.14“) אסור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – The reading is – (a prisoner?,” 1Q20 1.21“) אסיר

questionable, as אסור would be expected.

is clearly a property אסירין – Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (prisoners,” 1Q20 0.15“) אסירין

noun in the phrase אנחנא אסירין (“We are prisoners.”) By its nature as a descriptive

predicate it is semantically indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (prisoners,” 11QtgJob 27.2, MT 36:8“) אסירין

אסין

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a healer,” 4Q569 1-2.1“) אסין

187

אע

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form is modified by a – (the wood,” 1Q20 14.11“) אעא

prepositional phrase: aה aנ aעא מ aא (“the wood from it”). The offshoot of the stump has just been

mentioned earlier in the line, making the wood here identifiable by an associative process.

Note, however, that the context is quite broken and judgments are therefore somewhat

tentative on this form.

ארב

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – Given the – (treachery?,” 4Q530 2.24“) ארבא

difficulty of understanding this line (see Machiela and Perrin, 2011), any judgment on the

semantic definiteness of this form is best reserved.

ארז

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first-mention use of – (a cedar,” 1Q20 19.14“) ארז

which is beginning ,חד unidentifiable and referencing a single tree. It is quantified by ,ארז

to function similarly to an indefinite article.11 It is therefore semantically indefinite.

ארזא רבא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the cedar,” 1Q20 14.9“) ארזא

.(”the great cedar which was standing before you in your dream“) די הוא קאם לקובלך בחלמך

The bottom of the word די is visible on BZ14T and BZ14M, invalidating the restoration by

11 Ibid., 274.

188

Fitzmyer, which repeats ארזא a second time.12 The cedar, then, is identifiable based on the

following relative clause, which makes it cataphorically definite. Further, the existence of

this cedar is previously known to the audience based on the content of this phrase, so there

is also a sense in which this word is definite by anaphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – This is the – (cedar,” 1Q20 14.27 (the)“) ארזא

only identifiable word on the line, so context does not permit a determination regarding

semantic definiteness.

refers ארזא Emphatic Singular, Definite – This instance of – (the cedar,” 1Q20 19.15“) ארזא

to the preceding ארז חד from line 14, so it is clearly semantically definite because of the

anaphoric reference. Muraoka uses this as his textbook example of anaphoric reference.13

ארזא Emphatic Singular, Definite – This instance of – (the cedar,” 1Q20 19.16“) ארזא

occurs in the context of reported speech and is identifiable to the hearers (the ones who

came to uproot the cedar). It is thereby definite based on the immediate and shared

situation of the speaker and hearers.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This – (the cedar,” 1Q20 19.16 (second occurrence)“) ארזא

instance of ארזא refers to the preceding ארז חד from line 14, so it is clearly semantically

definite as an anaphoric reference.

12 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 152. 13 T Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 158.

189

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (the cedars,” 4Q554 9.1“) ארזיא

ארח

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (way,” 4Q205 2.iii.30 (a)“) ארח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a way,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25“) ארח

ארי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in – (the lion,” 4Q318 7.1, 7.6, 8.2“) אריא

context (the zodiac).

ארע

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (an area,” 4Q537 12.5“) ארע

narrative.

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the earth,” 1Q20 1.10-14.10 (20 occurrences)“) ארעא

These twenty references all refer to the whole earth. (The occurrences in 3:11, 3:12, and

14:10 do not have enough context to determine semantic definiteness, though they likely

follow the pattern of the other seventeen instances here.) The 17 remaining uses of ארעא

reference the entire land surface of the earth and are therefore both inclusive and uniquely

denoting and hence definite.

190

ארעא די בין Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the earth,” 1Q20 17.9“) ארעא

As Machiela notes “When paired .(”the land which is between the two rivers“) תרין נהריא

with the following allotment of Arpachshad, it is clear that this refers to the middle and

upper regions of Mesopotamia, and north into modern Kurdistan and Armenia.”14 The

following relative clause makes this a cataphoric reference and therefore semantically

definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is qualified by a – (the earth,” 1Q20 17.12“) ארעא

following relative clause: כול ארעא די משקה פורת (“all the land which the Euphrates waters”),

which makes it identifiable and semantically definite. This “is a technical reference to

southern Mesopotamia, approximately from Hit southward.”15

ארעה Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the earth,” 1Q20 19.11“) ארעא

The following relative clause makes this a .(”the land which is in Egypt“) דבמצרין

cataphoric reference and thereby semantically definite. Note that most readers have read

this as a shorter construct phrase, though this reading is supported by Machiela, who argues

that there is too much space for the shorter reading of a construct phrase.16 If this were

read as a construct phrase, it would not change the overall conclusions of this study, as it

would match the pattern delineated in chapter three.

14 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 266. 15 Ibid., 267. 16 Ibid., 159.

191

Emphatic Singular, Definite – These two – (the earth,” 1Q20 21.10, 21.15“) ארעא

references refer to the land promised to Abraham. Accordingly, ארעא is being used as a

count noun in these instances (the land promised to Abraham in opposition to other lands).

Both of these references are anaphoric to the phrase ולזרעך כול ארעא דא די אנה יהב לך (“all this

land which I am giving to you and to your seed”) from lines 9-10.

;the earth,” 1Q21 26.1, 1Q23 25.5, 9+14+15.3; 4Q201 1.iv.5; 4Q202 1.iii.8, 1.iv.11“) ארעא

4Q203 2.ii.11, 2.16, 4.4, 8.9; 4Q204 1.i.20, 1.i.27, 5.ii.20, 5.ii.21, 5.ii.22, 5.ii.28; 4Q206

4.i.17, 4.i.18, 4.ii.4, 4Q209 23.8; 4Q210 1.ii.2; 4Q211 1.i.2, 1.i.3) – Emphatic Singular,

Definite – These all refer to the whole earth and are therefore uniquely denoting.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (land,” 4Q243 35.2 (the)“) ארעא

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the land,” 4Q246 1.i.4, 1.i.7, 1.ii.3, 1.ii.6 (2x)“) ארעא

These all refer to the land of the Jewish people and are therefore identifiable in context.

the earth,” 4Q531 2+3.2; 4Q532 2.5, 2.11, 2.12; 4Q533 4.1, 4.3; 4Q537 5.1; 4Q541“) ארעא

4.ii.1, 9.i.5; 4Q542 1.ii.7; 4Q545 4.15) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – These all refer to

the whole earth and are therefore uniquely denoting.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (land,” 4Q545 10.3 (the)“) ארעא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of a letter from – (the land,” 4Q550 1.6“) ארעא

Darius to his nobles, this form would be clearly referencing the Persian Empire and

identifiable to the audience of the letter (his nobles). It is therefore semantically definite.

192

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (land,” 4Q558 10.1, 33.ii.5 (the)“) ארעא

Emphatic – (the earth,” 4Q560 1.ii.7, 4Q571 1.2, 11QtgJob 24.7, 29.4, 30.2, 31.2“) ארעא

Singular, Definite – These all refer to the whole earth.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – These all refer to – (the earth,” 4Q201 1.ii.1, 1.iii.17“) ארעה

the whole earth.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (the lands,”4Q544 2.16“) ארעיא

ארעי

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (depth,” 4Q544 2.16“) ארעיא

אשה

,Absolute Singular, Definite? – Potentially a vocative – (fever,” 4Q560 1.i.4“) אשא

however see chapter 2.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (fire,” 11QtgJob 23.2, MT33:24“) אשה

את

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (a sign,” 1Q20 12.1“) את

narrative.

193

אתר

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (a place” 1Q20 21.9“) אתר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This place is new – (a place,” 4Q205 1.xi.3“) אתר

information in the narrative and, being so, is semantically indefinite. The adjective אחרן

("another") may well follow, though only the aleph remains.

,Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This form is descriptive – (a place,” 4Q206 4.iii.16“) אתר

being a property of the wilderness.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (place,” 4Q541 4.i.6 (a)“) אתר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (place,” 4553a 8.i.3 (a)“) אתר

אתרא די Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the place,” 1Q20 21.1“) אתרא

is further identified by the אתרא .(”the place where I had built the altar“) בנית תמן בה מדבחא

relative clause and is therefore cataphorically definite. The corresponding construct NP in

the MT of Gen 13:4 is also definite.

בהשה / באישה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (evil” 11QtgJob 16.3, MT 30:14“) באישה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (evil” 1Q20 4.3 (the)“) באישתא

194

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Evil as a whole is in view – (evil” 4Q204 5.ii.28“) באישתא

making this form inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (evil” 4Q550e 1.1 (the)“) באישתא

.Emphatic Singular, Indefinite? – See chapter 2 – (evil” 4Q550e 1.1“) באישתא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (evil” 4Q212 1.ii.25“) בהשתא

באשושה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (stinkweed,” 11QtgJob 20.2, MT 31:40“) באשושה

בדיה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (falsehoods,” 4Q541 9.i.6“) בדיאן

הבהת

Absolute Singular, Definite – (shame,” 4Q213a 3-4.4“) בהתא

בוצ

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (linen,” 11Q18 16.i.2“) בוצ

195

בטן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Interrogative – (a womb,” 11QtgJob 31.6, MT 38:29“) בטן

context makes the semantic indefiniteness clear.

בי

.Absolute Plural, Definite – See chapter 2 – (the houses,” 5Q15 1.ii.6“) באתין

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is the normal form of the – (a house,” 1Q20 21.6“) בי

absolute state, seen both in Official Aramaic and “found as early as the 8th century B.C.E.

(Bar-Rekab inscription, line 16).”17 As a new introduction of this house to the narrative,

this form is semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The house is new – (a house,” 4Q204 1.vi.23“) ביא

information in the narrative and is semantically indefinite. The following word is broken,

but is likely the attributive adjective רב ("great").

ביתא די Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the house,” 4Q540 1.4“) ביתא

ד בה מנהיתיל ("the house into which he was born"), with the following relative clause

making this a clear case of cataphoric reference. The form is therefore semantically

definite.

17 Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Semitic study series new ser., no. 4; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 104.

196

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that this story seems – (the house,” 4Q551 1.4“) ביתא

to be parallel to that of the murdered concubine in Judges 19, the house has most likely

been mentioned in the previous (now broken) portion of the column, making this a

probably anaphoric reference.

בכי

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a weeping,” 1Q20 20.11“) בכי

בנין

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a building,” 4Q566 2“) בניאן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a building,” 4Q243 10.3“) בנין

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a building,” 11Q18 9.4“) בנין

narrative.

בסרון

Absolute Singular, Definite – (contempt,” 4Q213 1.i.11“) בסרון

בעיר

here is a generic בעירא – Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the cattle,” 1Q20 6.26“) בעירא

noun. It is semantically definite because it inclusive of all members of the genus. It

occurs in a list with three other generic nouns. Note comments on אנשא above.

197

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The column is – (the animals,” 4Q531 2+3.6“) בעירא

dealing with universals as the angles exploit the fruitfulness of the earth. Accordingly,

this form indicates the small animals in general and is therefore inclusive and semantically

definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic use of the – (the cattle,” 11QtgJob 1.6“) בעירא

noun.

בקעה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a valley,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT 39:21“) בקע

information in the discourse. This form should be emended to בקעה. See immediately

below.

" ,Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Sokoloff states – (a valley,” 11QtgJob 32.9, 39:10“) בקעה

The word recurs in 33:2 in the form bq' which would lead us to analyze the noun before us

as the det. form and that in 33:2 as the abs. But the only attested form of this word in A

(OA, BA, QA, MA) is bq'h (KBL 1059a; for QA, see GAp 21:5; 22:14). Furthermore the

use of h to indicate the det. state is unusual... - though not unique - in Tg1. Therefore I

would take bq'h here to be the abs. form and would emend in 33:2 bq'<h>."18

18 Michael Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Bar-Ilan University, 1975), 154.

198

בר

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (sons,” 1Q20 12.9, 22.33; 4Q546 12.2; 4Q549 2.11“) בנין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (sons,” 4Q546 12.2“) בנין

.Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the narrative – (sons,” 4Q549 2.11“) בנין

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – First-mention use – (a son,” 1Q20 12.10“) בר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a son,” 4Q196 6.1, 11, 12“) בר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a son,” 4Q550a 1.3“) בר

narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the son,” 4Q562 9-10.4“) ברא

ברה

daughters,” 1Q20 12:9, 12:11 (2x), 12:12 – Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Unlike the“) בנן

sons in this column, the daughters are not identified in any way, making this reference

semantically indefinite. This phrase functions simply to show their existence and is

therefore more like an existential sentence, which is usually treated as indefinite. The word

is likely to also be restored in 6:7.19 Though the expression is “strange, because it specifies

19 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 147.

199

that the daughters…were ‘female’,”20 this strangeness presents no difficulties in terms of its

semantic definiteness.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (a daughter,” 4Q197 4.i.17“) ברא

discourse.

ברות

Emphatic Singular, Definite – All cypress wood is – (cypress,” 4Q214b 2-6.5“) ברותא

acceptable to be placed on the altar, so the form is inclusive and semantically definite.

ברכה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Neither all blessing nor – (a blessing,” 4Q204 1.v.7“) ברכה

a specific blessing is indicated, so this form is semantically indefinite.

ברק

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (lightning,” 4Q558 51.ii.5“) ברקא

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (lightning bolts,” 1Q24 1.7 (the)“) ברקיא

בשר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (flesh,” 4Q531 19.3“) בשר

20 Ibid., 160.

200

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (meat,” 4Q531 17.5 (the)“) בשרא

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (the body,” 4Q560 1.i.3“) בשרא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the meat,” 11Q18 13.6“) בשרא

בתולה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (virgins,” 4Q534 1ii+2.12“) בתולן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in – (the virgin,” 4Q318 7.2, 8.3“) בתולתא

context (the zodiac).

גבורה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (strength,” 4Q213a 1.14“) גבורה

knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable – (strength,” 11QtgJob 29.7, MT 37:16“) גבורה

by general knowledge.

גבר

is used as a descriptor for גבר – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 1Q20 6.6“) גבר

Noah and is therefore semantically indefinite.

201

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a man,” 4Q197 4.i.13“) גבר

discourse. Necessarily indefinite because the medicine is to work for anyone who is in the

condition described.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The relative clause that – (a man,”4Q213 1.i.14“) גבר

follows די אלף חכמה ("who studies wisdom") only describes גבר, but does not identify.

Therefore this form is semantically indefinite as it is not identifiable (and clearly not

inclusive).

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (man,” 4Q534 7.6 (a)“) גבר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information to the – (a man,” 4Q536 2.ii.13“) גבר

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (man,” 4Q544 1.2 (a)“) גבר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information to the – (a man,” 4Q550c 1.i.2“) גבר

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a reference to an – (a man,” 4Q550c 1.i.5“) גבר

hypothetical man, therefore neither identifiable nor inclusive, which makes this form

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (man,” 4Q551 1.1 (a)“) גבר

202

רגב (“a man,” 11QtgJob 15.3, MT 29:25) – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The relative

clause that follows (at least if the text resembles the MT) describes but does not identify,

making this form semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 11QtgJob 23.7, MT 33:29“) גבר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is an – (a man,” 11QtgJob 24.3, MT 34:9“) גבר

hypothetical man for the sake of the statement, therefore semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information – (a man,” 11QtgJob 30.1, MT 38:3“) גבר

in the discourse.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a man,” 11QtgJob 34.3 (MT 40:7), 38.7, 38.8“) גבר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This section provides the – (the man,” 1Q20 15.10“) גברא

interpretation of Noah’s dream, which is no longer preserved in the extant pieces of the

scroll. Accordingly, this man has been mentioned previously and this use of גברא is

semantically definite because it is an anaphoric reference. Muraoka instead treats this as a

case of semantic definiteness due to a shared situation.21 While this works as an

explanation in that the interpreter and Noah have both seen the same vision, the explanation

of this as an anaphoric reference is more straightforward. Machiela notes that the spacing

of the line requires a second word following גברא, most likely the adjective 22.רבא

21 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 159. 22 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 153.

203

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This refers anaphorically – (the man,” 4Q197 4.i.17“) גברא

back to Raguel, mentioned in the previous line.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Both the man and his good – (the man,” 4Q550c 1.i.4“) גברא

deed have been mentioned in the previous line, making this an anaphoric reference and

semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Though the context is – (the giants,” 4Q203 7a.7“) גבריא

admittedly thin due to the broken nature of the column, it seems that all the giants are in

question, as the context is the coming judgment on all of them. Accordingly, this form is

considered inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (men,” 4Q213a 3-4.2 (the)“) גבריא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – At the time of – (the giants,” 4Q530 2.ii.3, 2.ii.13, 2.15“) גבריא

the text the group/race of the giants would have been identifiable by general knowledge.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the giants,” 4Q530 2.16“) גבריא

knowledge. The editio princeps (DJD v.31, p.28) has a waw for the fourth letter. This is

most likely either a copyist error or a case of an elongated yod, as the waw does not fit with

the masculine plural noun.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the giants,” 4Q530 2.16“) גבריא

knowledge. Also an anaphoric reference.

204

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (men,” 4Q530 14.2“) גבריא

,Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is a first mention use – (men,” 1Q20 22.6“) גברין

therefore not identifiable to the reader. Nor is this use inclusive of all men. Therefore it is

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (men,” 4Q243 8.2“) גברין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – This is very likely the – (giants,” 4Q531 1.2“) גברין

first introduction of the giants in the narrative, which would make it semantically indefinite

and would explain the absolute form. However, as the context of the line is broken, this

judgment cannot be made with certainty, so the form is considered as not having enough

context to determine semantic definiteness.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information to – (men,” 11QtgJob 14.2, MT 29:8“) גברין

the speech.

גדי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in – (the kid,” 4Q318 4.9, 7.8, 8.4“) גדיא

context (the zodiac).

גו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associative – (.the interior,” 5Q15 1.i.13, 1.ii.4, etc“) גוא

reference, as buildings and courts are expected to have interiors.

205

גוה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (pride,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) גוה

general knowledge.

גזירוא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Though the decree is – (a decision,” 4Q204 1.vi.14“) גזירוא

a prior experience for Enoch (and prior information to the reader), it is new information to

the audience of his utterance, the Watchers, so in the context of this dialog it is a semantic

indefinite for his intended audience.

גזר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a diviner,” 4Q242 1-3.4“) גזר

narrative.

גט

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (document,” 4Q534 1ii+2.19 (the)“) גטטא

גיד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Given as the thing to which – (a tendon,” 4Q546 13.5“) גיד

something is compared, so indefinite.

206

גיור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Depending on – (sojourner,” 1Q20 0.2 (a)“) גיור

the vocalization of this word, it could be translated either as “sojourner” or “adulterer.” In

either case, however, the lack of context in this column means that semantic definiteness

cannot be determined for this word.

גוים

This form is a proper noun, as shown by its use in 1Q20 21:23-4 where “the copula – גוים

hw’ is obviously singular and so gwym cannot mean ‘nations,’ but must be the name of a

place.”23

גלגל

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (sphere,” 1Q32 14.3 (the)“) גלגלא

גליד

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic – (the frost,” 11QtgJob 31.6, MT 38:29“) גלידא

reference.

23 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1960): 282.

207

גמרה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information – (coals,” 11QtgJob 36.6, MT 41:13“) גמרין

in the discourse.

גנון

וכל Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (a bridal chamber,” 1Q20 20.6“) גנון

is גנון .(”and any virgin or bride who enters into a bridal chamber“) בתולן וכלאן די יעלן לגנון

here is used in an indefinite sense. The equally-possible English translations (“enters into a

bridal chamber” and “enters into the bridal chamber”) illustrate the fine line between a

generic and an indefinite reference. Lange argues this sentence to be a gloss because of its

prose form and lack of parallelism.24

גנן

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – As part of an existential – (gardeners,” 4Q530 2.ii.7“) גננין

sentence (א גננין aהו, (“There were gardeners.”)), this form is semantically indefinite, as it is

being introduced to the narrative.

24 A. Lange, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger, “1QGenAp XIX10-XX32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactic Narrative,” in Qumranstudien. Vorträge Und Beiträge Der Teilnehmer Des Qumranseminars Auf Dem Internationalen Treffen

Der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.-26 : Juli 1993 (ed. H.-J Fabry; Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 192.

208

גפן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (vine,” 11Q18 14.ii.1 (a)“) גפן

גרם

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (bones,” 4Q531 19.3“) גרמין

דב

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This line corresponds to – (the wolves,” 4Q206 4.ii.17“) דביא

Enoch 89:14. Based on the Ethiopic text, the wolves have been mentioned previously in 1

Enoch 88:10, which would correspond to lines 6-9 of this column, which are missing, so

this is most likely an anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

דבב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (enmity,” 4Q560 1.i.1“) דבב

דבח

Emphatic Plural, Definite – In the context of the – (the sacrifices,” 4Q537 12.2“) דבחיא

vision of the Temple and the priests (see line 1), sacrifices are expected and this form is

therefore associatively definite.

209

דבש

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (honey,” 4Q558 30.2“) דבש

דהב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Sarah is given an indeterminate – (gold,” 1Q20 20.31“) דהב

amount (שגיא - “much”) of silver and gold by the king. Accordingly, this noun phrase is

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Similarly, Abram goes up out of – (gold,” 1Q20 20.33“) דהב

Egypt with a large, but indeterminate, amount of silver and gold, so this use is also

semantically indefinite. Interestingly, the MT of Genesis 13:2, which corresponds to this

phrase, contains the definite article.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (gold,” 4Q554 2.ii.15“) דהב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (gold,” 11Q18 10.i.2, 10.i.6, 11.4“) דהב

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The use of the plural – (the gold (things),” 1Q20 13.9“) דהביא

shows that this is a count noun (“the gold things”), not a mass noun referring to the

material (“gold”). This line comes near the end of the first section of the dream, much of

which is reported in lines 1-7, which are missing. This is almost certainly an anaphoric

reference to gold items which are mentioned in the lost section. The second use of דהביא in

this line is clearly an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

210

דול

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely – (the water bucket,” 4Q318 7.9, 8.5“) דולא

denoting in context (the zodiac).

דהלה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (fear,” 4Q318 8.9“) דחלה

knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (fear,” 11QtgJob 33.3, MT 39:21“) דחלא

general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (fear,” 11QtgJob 33.2, MT 39:20“) דחלה

general knowledge.

דחשת

Absolute Singular, Definite – Note that, as – (the steppe,” 11QtgJob 32.5, MT 39:6“) דחשת

a Persian loan word, this form may well not inflect. See chapter 4.

דין

is דין Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The use of – (judgment,” 1Q20 4.11, 20.13, 20.14“) דין

similar in all three occurrences, serving as the object of a form of the verb עבד, an idiomatic

211

use.25 This NP illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing semantic definiteness in the case

of generics and abstracts. “Judgment” initially seems similar to “truth” (which itself shows

free alternation of the emphatic and absolute forms) in being both an abstract and a generic

noun. However, some degree of difference can be discerned. If an English (or Aramaic)

sentence were to say “Judgment is getting what one deserves,” then “judgment” would

clearly be a generic noun, standing for all cases of judgment, and it would be semantically

definite because it is then inclusive. As the object of עבד, however, judgment is here an

abstract concept, yet without making a universal statement about judgment. Therefore

these instances are, though tentatively, understood to be semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This judgment is new – (judgment,” 4Q530 2.18“) דין

information in the narrative and therefore semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This – (judgment,” 4Q530 2.18 (second instance)“) דין

reference to judgment is still part of the introductory formula for the giving of the judgment

on the giants. It is therefore still unidentifiable and semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (judgment,” 4Q541 12.2“) דין

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (judgment,” 4Q542 1.ii.5“) דין

narrative.

25 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 202.

212

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (judgment,” 4Q543 2a-b.5“) דין

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (judgment,” 11Q18 24.2“) דין

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is definite by – (the right,” 4Q197 4.i.19“) דינא

associative reference. Given that that Tobias has just been told that he is the closest

relative to the young girl, such that he should marry her, his “right” in this regard has been

invoked by the narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (judgment,” 4Q553 2.i.1 (the)“) דינא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The modifier indicates – (the judgment,” 4Q553 2.i.1“) דינא

that this is a singular, superlative judgment: דינא רבא (“the great judgment”). It is therefore

identifiable and semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (judgments,” 4Q552 3.12, 4Q568 1.1“) דינין

דיץ

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (celebration,” 4Q542 1.i.11“) דיאץ

narrative.

דכא

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (chamber,” 5Q15 1.ii.1“) דכא

213

דכר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (male,” 4Q531 2+3.9“) דכר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a male,” 4Q560 1.i.5“) דכר

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – This is quite – (ram,” 4Q205 2.iii.29 (the)“) דכרא

possibly the first word in an analytic genitive construction.

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Based on the Ethiopic text – (the ram,” 4Q206 4.ii.16“) דכרא

the ram has been mentioned previously, in what would be the broken portion of line 12, so

this is most likely an anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in – (the ram,” 4Q318 8.1, 8.6“) דכרא

context (the zodiac).

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference to any – (the male,” 4Q560 1.i.3“) דכרא

male.

דכרן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (memorandum,” 4Q550d 2.2 (a)“) דכרון

דם

,(”much“) סגי Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Modified by – (blood,” 4Q201 1.iv.7“) דם

therefore semantically indefinite.

214

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (blood,” 4Q206 3.1, 3.i.6“) דם

is followed by a דמא Emphatic Singular, Definite – Here – (the blood,” 1Q20 6.19“) דמא

relative clause: דמא די אשדו נפיליא (“the blood that the Nephilim poured out”), making it

cataphorically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the blood,” 4Q156 1.6“) דמא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (blood,” 4Q531 32.2 (the)“) דמא

דמו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Context of comparison makes – (a form,” 4Q209 26.4“) דמו

this newly introduced to the text.

דמע

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associative reference, as – (the offering,” 4Q529 1.8“) דמעא

harvest time would lead to an expected offering.

דעה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (knowledge,” 4Q534 1.i.3“) דעה

knowledge.

215

דפרן

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (juniper,” 4Q214b 2-6.4“) דפרנא

דר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – In translations – (a generation,” 4Q201 1.i.4“) דר

of the Aramaic, this is treated as an indefinite noun phrase: "a far off generation" (e.g.:

Milik, Cook et al). However, one should note that the Ethiopic has a cataphoric

identification of the second generation: "but for the distant one that is coming"

(Charlesworth translation). Given that the text of most of the remainder of the line is

restored, it is possible that the Aramaic text would follow as does the Ethiopic, making this

a cataphoric reference and therefore identifiable and semantically definite. For this reason,

this noun phrase is classified as "not enough data to determine semantic definiteness."

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This noun is neither – (a generation,” 4Q204 5.ii.27“) דר

inclusive of all generations nor identifiable as any particular generation. Therefore it is

semantically indefinite.

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – The context is broken – (a generation,” 4Q201 1.i.4“) דרה

but, based on the Ethiopic version (1:2), דרה is likely part of a demonstrative noun phrase.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The full phrase is – (the generations,” 4Q212 1.ii.24“) דריא

his sons and to the future generations, all who will") בנו[הי ו]לדריא אחריא לכול י[תבי יבשתא]

216

dwell upon the earth"). This context makes it clear that all future generations to come are

indicated, making this form inclusive and semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (generations,” 4Q196 17.ii.14 (2x)“) דרין

דרג

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the stairway,” 4Q554 1.iii.21“) דרגא

to line 19.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Based on the parallel – (the stairway,” 4Q554a 1.ii.1“) דרגא

with 5Q15, this is an anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the stairway,” 5Q15 1.ii.4“) דרגא

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the stairway,” 5Q15 1.ii.5“) דרגא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (stairway,” 11Q18 21.6 (the)“) דרגא

דרום

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (south,” 4Q209 23.3“) דרום

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (south,” 4Q210 1.ii.15“) דרום

is semantically דרומא – Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the south,” 1Q20 17.12“) דרומא

definite because it is a universal concept (“the south”).

217

is semantically דרומא – Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the south,” 1Q20 19.9“) דרומא

definite because it is a universal concept (“the south”). Machiela here reads דרומא מורה

(“south of Moreh”).26 However, the use of the emphatic form as the nomen regens would

be exceptional. (See, for example: ימין ארעא in 14:17, 15:10, and 15:11; מדנח חורן ושניר in

דרמשקשמאל in 21:8-9; and שמאל ביתאל ;in 14:17 שמאל ארעא ;in 21:20 מדנח צפון חברון ;21:12

in 22:10.) Accordingly מורה is better read with the following (illegible) word, though one

is hard pressed to supply a reconstruction that fits the available space and is contextually

feasible. Further, only the mem and the resh are relatively clear letters in the proposed

reading of מורה, and the others are significantly effaced. Machiela connects this line with

Genesis 12:6.27 It should be noted, however, that the nomen regens in the MT for Genesis

12:6 is אלון (“the oak”), not דרומא.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – As above. The MT for – (the south,” 1Q20 21.9“) דרומא

Genesis 13:14, which corresponds to this line, does not use the definite article in the

corresponding form.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – As above. As has often – (the south,” 1Q20 21.18“) דרומא

been noted, the geography of this line seems not to fit, given Abraham’s travel as

previously reported in the column, leading Fitzmyer to suggest that this is a term for the

south of the Promised Land.28 If this explanation is correct, the NP would still be

26 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 94, 123. 27 Ibid., 158. 28 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 227.

218

semantically definite, though it would be due to the shared situation of the readers and the

author, not by being a universal concept.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Methusaleh – (the south,” 4Q209 23.3, 4Q210 1.ii.15“) דרומא

(as any potential audience) would be expected to know the directions of the compass. This

form is therefore identifiable by general knowledge and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the south,” 4Q554 1.i.15“) דרומא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the south,” 11Q18 6.3“) דרומא

דרע

-Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly – (an arm,” 11QtgJob 34.5, MT 40:9“) דרע

introduced in the discourse.

דש

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (doors,” 4Q554 1.iii.16“) דשין

narrative.

יןדש (“doors,” 5Q15 1.i.19) – Absolute Plural, Indefinite – One could argue for this form

being semantically definite by an associative process, however since this is a construction

that conveys possession, it functions more in the vein of an existential sentence, making the

form semantically indefinite.

219

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly-introduced – (doors,” 11QtgJob 30.6, MT 38:8“) דשין

in the discourse

דת

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Given – (law,” 11QtgJob 7A.8, MT 23:7“) דת

that the Targum text at this point does not strictly follow the MT, and given the

fragmentary nature of this line, no judgment can be made regarding semantic definiteness.

דתא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (grass,” 1Q20 11.12“) דתא

הבל

לא a[ה]ב (“futility,” 11QtgJob 26.8, MT 35:13) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable

by general knowledge. This would be a double translation into Aramaic of the Hebrew שוא

from MT Job 35:13. Note, however, that Sokoloff reads ]לאח]ד , stating, “The eds. read

here [h]bl’ “la [va]nité;” however, from the photograph it is clear that there is no b, and that

the line below the letter belongs to a broken letter in 1.9.”29 If Sokoloff’s reading were

followed, this would be an epithet for God and therefore semantically definite, so the

statistics of this study would not change.

29 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 137.

220

הדר

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (glory,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) הדר

general knowledge.

הובן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (ebony,” 11Q18 12.i.7, 16.1.1“) הובן

הוכחה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (reproof,” 11QtgJob 7A.5, MT 23:4“) הוכחה

information to the discourse.

היכל

Emphatic – (the Temple,” 2Q24 4.3; 11Q18 19.1, 19.3, 20.2, 31.ii.6, 32.3, 32.6“) היכלא

Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in context, as, given the monotheistic context of the

document, the city would have only one temple.

המרכל

.Absolute Singular, Definite – Loanword – (chief accountant,” 4Q196 2.7“) המרכל

Semantically definite given the parallel position to the terms רב שקה ("the chief cupbearer,"

possibly to be understood as a proper noun) and רב עזקן ("the chief of the signet rings").

221

הריה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Most editions have – (the conception,” 1Q20 2.1“) הריאתא

though other suggestions were offered in the past by Kutscher and Qimron. As , הריאתא

Machiela states, “Since an Aramaic form similar to ours is known from 11QtgJob 4:9

it seems that in this line we find the standard Aramaic word, while that used in ,(הריתהון)

is a Hebraism.”30 While the material preceding this text is mainly lost, the (הריונא) 2.15

broad outline of the story is clear even from the remainder of column 2 that is preserved.

This NP anaphorically refers to the conception of Noah and is therefore semantically

definite.

זיו

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Omitted from the – (splendor,” 1Q20 13.13“) זוי

data set due to the uncertainty of the reading.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (splendor,” 11QtgJob 34.6, MT 40:10“) זוי

general knowledge. This is a scribal mistake for 31.זיו

30 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 137. 31 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 159.

222

זוז

– Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (money,” 11QtgJob 11.7, MT 27:16“) זוזיא

This seems to translate what is reflected as "silver" in the MT. It is an Akkadian loan.32

זוי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associatively definite – (the corner,” 4Q554a 1.ii.3“) זוזיא

and likely also anaphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the corner,” 5Q15 1.ii.7“) זוזיא

זון

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that the text relates the – (the food,” 4Q556 1.8“) זונא

events of Antiochus Epiphanies’' persecution of the Jews, which prominently included

issues of dietary laws and forced eating of unclean foods, this reference would most likely

have also been identifiable to the audience of the complete text, making it most likely

semantically definite.

זיק

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Identified by the following – (the meteors,” 4Q246 1.ii.1“) זיקיא

relative clause די חזותא ("which you saw").

32 Ibid., 119.

223

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information – (lightning flashes,” 4Q204 1.vi.20“) זיקין

in the narrative.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information – (sparks,” 11QtgJob 36.6, MT 41:13“) זיקין

in the discourse.

זית

– Emphatic Singular, Definite (second instance) – (the olive tree,” 1Q20 13.13 (2x)“) זיתא

Because lines 1-7 of column 13 are basically lost, it is difficult to get a full sense of the

dream being reported in the extant portion of the column. The first occurrence of זיתא

likely refers to a previous mention of the olive tree in this lost section, but this cannot be

proved, and it is therefore classed as “not enough data to determine semantic definiteness.”

The second occurrence is anaphoric and hence semantically definite. Muraoka treats this

as a first-mention definite, saying, “[T]he topic of the story about to be told is announced at

the start.”33 While first-mention definites are possible, they are atypical of semantic

definites, and this interpretation is therefore relatively unlikely.

זכו

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the text – (merit,” 4Q542 1.ii.13“) זכו

Though Stadel considers this a Hebraism,34 the word could be Aramaic.

33 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 159. 34 Christian Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer” (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008), 58–9.

224

זמם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly – (a muzzle,” 11QtgJob 35.5, MT 40:26“) זמם

introduced to the discourse.

זמן

,Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Sokoloff notes – (a time,” 11QtgJob 23.8, MT 33:29“) זמן

“The expression is probably elliptical and should be translated, '(one) time, two (times),

three (times).'"35

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Though the – (a time,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25“) זמן

Targumist does not translate the Hebrew closely, the translation does use the absolute state

where the MT lacks the definite article.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (times,” 1Q21 3.2“) זמנין

זנו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (fornication,” 4Q213a 1.13“) זנותא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (fornication,” 4Q542 3.ii.12“) זנותא

35 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 133.

225

זעיר

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Substantivized adjective – (the lesser,” 4Q540 1.1“) זעירא

The implied comparison in the noun means this individual would have been identifiable

from the previous (now lost) text.

זר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The identification of the – (a stranger,” 1Q20 2.16“) זר

particular stranger is not the point of Bittenosh’s comment. Instead, she protests that

Noah’s conception was not from any stranger, making this form semantically indefinite.

Fassberg terms this a potential Hebraism because the use of the root זור to indicate being a

stranger is not known from Aramaic.36 Fitzmyer is more definitive, listing it as a “clear”

Hebraism.37 Muraoka notes it similarly, though noting its occurrence in the Zenjirli

inscription, and concludes that this likely explains the singular form: “The rather strange

singular number followed by two parallel plural nouns…may be accounted for by such

assumption, for a loanword that is not completely naturalized will not easily undergo

inflectional modifications…. If, then, ZR is a Hebraism, it must be excluded from the list

of nouns in st. abs.”38 Contra these analyses, Stadel concludes, “Aber auch wenn es eine

seltene Form war, ist nicht auszuschließen dass es orignär aramäisch ist.”39

36 Steven E. Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” in Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Louvain: Peeters, 1992), 62. 37 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 34. 38 Takamitsu Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” Revue de Qumran 8, no. 1 (1972): 12. 39 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 16.

226

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The point of the dialog – (a stranger,” 1Q20 5.14“) זר

between Methuselah and Enoch is whether or not Noah’s conception is from Methuselah or

some unknown other being. Accordingly, זר here is semantically indefinite because it

references any stranger.

זרע

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a seed,” 4Q211 1.i.2“) זרע

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (seed,” 4Q580 1.ii.8 (a)“) זרע

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Avigad and Yadin read a heh – (the seed,” 1Q20 2.1“) זרעא

at the beginning of this word, but Qimron pointed out that it was actually the combination

of a zayin and a resh, which is confirmed by the image on BZ1-2T.40 Beyer’s reading of

refers to a singular זרעא ,does not fit the text preserved here.41 In this context רזא

conception, not all of Methuselah’s offspring, and is therefore a count noun. It may well be

an anaphoric reference to a previous NP which is now lost from column 1, which would

make it semantically definite. Even if not, the use of עולימא דנא “this child” in line 2

indicates that the child has already been named. As each child has a conception, this could

also be an associative use and therefore semantically definite. It is not necessary to decide

40 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 137. 41 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 125.

227

which of these is the case here, as they both yield an understanding of the noun phrase as

semantically definite.

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – As with 2:1, in this context – (the seed,” 1Q20 5.14“) זרעא

refers to a singular conception, not all of Methuselah’s offspring, and is therefore a זרעא

count noun. It is semantically definite by anaphoric reference, as it is the whole premise of

the dialog in column 5.

I חבל

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (corruption,” 4Q532 2.9“) חבל

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The following relative – (the harm,” 4Q203 8.11“) חבלא

clause makes this form identifiable and therefore semantically definite as a cataphoric

reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The corruption has – (the corruption,” 4Q204 5.ii.22“) חבלא

been detailed in the previous lines, such that, even though the word itself is not evident in

the preceding text, the concept is, and the referent of this noun phrase is therefore

identifiable, making it semantically definite.

II חבל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a rope,” 11QtgJob 35.4, MT 40:25“) חבל

information in the discourse.

228

חבר

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The – (conjurer,” 4Q547 3.5, 3.6 (the)“) חברא

context is so lacking that even the gloss here is quite uncertain.

חגיר

Absolute? Singular, Definite – Generic reference and – (the lame,” 11QtgJob 14.10“) חגיר

therefore semantically definite. This may be a broken emphatic form. See chapter 4.

חדוה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (joy,” 4Q542 1.i.3, 1.i.10“) חדוא

knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (joy,” 4Q546 15.ii.3“) חדוא

,Absolute Singular – (joy,”4Q197 5.1, 4Q534 1ii+2.18, 4Q543 16.2, 4Q558 63.3“) חדוה

Insufficient Context

חדר

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The chambers were – (the chambers,” 4Q206 4.ii.2“) חדריא

mentioned in column 1, line 17, so this is an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

229

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is a new – (the chambers,” 4Q206 4.i.17“) חדרין

introduction of the chambers to the narrative, making them unidentifiable and semantically

indefinite.

חוב

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference – (sins,” 4Q534 1ii+2.16“) חוביא

חובה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (guilt,” 4Q534 7.3“) חובה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (guilt,” 4Q536 2.ii.12“) חובה

narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (guilt,” 4Q213 4.3 (the)“) חובתא

חוט

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The asservative formula here – (a thread,” 1Q20 22.21“) חוט

is clearly indefinite, with the oath being that not any thread would be taken. Which thread

is neither identifiable, nor necessary, to the point of the oath. The MT of Genesis 14:23 is

indefinite. One should note, though, that this formula itself follows more of a Hebrew than

an Aramaic syntax, so the relevance of this form for questions of Aramaic is limited.

230

– Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – (a thread,” 11QtgJob 30.3, 35.8; MT 38:5, 40:29“) חוטא

However, see chapter 4.

חולק

חולקא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the portion,” 1Q20 17.15“) חולקא

is therefore semantically definite חולקא .(”the portion which he gave to him“) די פלג לה

because it has a cataphoric reference.

חורב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (destruction?,” 4Q537 18.1“) חורב

I (masculine) חזו

Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – This emphatic singular is – (a vision,” 1Q20 22.27“) חזוא

semantically indefinite, providing a clear case where an emphatic state noun is not definite.

Interestingly, however, the MT of Genesis 15:1 also uses the definite article for this noun

phrase (cf. also Dan. 8.2), even though the context makes it semantically indefinite.

Avigad and Yadin read a yod for the fourth letter, but all other studies have recognized it as

a waw.42 See chapter 2.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the vision,” 4Q547 9.8“) חזוא

42 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 166.

231

Absolute Singular?, Indefinite – These occurrences are – (a vision,” 1Q20 6.11, 6.14“) חזיון

both semantically indefinite, as they are neither identifiable to the audience nor are they

inclusive (presumably) of all visions given to Noah in his life. Only the tops of the letters

are visible in line 11, and the yod and waw are obscured in line 14. Accordingly, it is

possible that חזוין should be the correct reading. If so, these two instances would both be

absolute plurals, still semantically indefinite, and it would not change the overall

conclusion of this study.

,Absolute Plural, Indefinite – These are new information – (visions,” 4Q213a 2.15“) חזיון

both to the narrative and to Levi, hence semantically indefinite.

II (feminine) חזו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The vision itself is mostly – (the vision,” 4Q530 1.i.7“) חזותא

lost (other than the fragment of 2Q26 that remains). Nonetheless, this would be a reference

back to that lost section and therefore an anaphoric reference which is semantically

definite.

חזיה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Though the vision is a – (a seeing,” 4Q204 1.vi.13“) חזיה

prior experience for Enoch (and prior information to the reader), it is new information to

his audience, the Watchers, so in the context of this utterance it is a semantic indefinite for

his intended audience.

232

חזיר

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This noun is followed by – (boars,” 4Q205 2.iii.28“) חזירין

which indicates that it is only some of the ,(many," with the last letter restored") שגיאין

previously-mentioned wild boars. Accordingly, this is neither inclusive of the whole group

nor an identifiable set. This use of the noun is therefore semantically indefinite.

I חטא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Specific – (a sin,” 11QtgJob 18.4, MT 31:11“) חטא

reference, therefore indefinite.

– Absolute Singular, Definite – (a sin,” 11QtgJob 22.3, 24.1; MT 33:9, 34:6“) חטא

Reference to the concept/type, therefore identifiable by general; knowledge and

semantically definite. See chapter 4.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (sins,” 4Q547 6.3“) חטאין

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The phrase is followed by a – (the sins,” 4Q531 7.4“) חטיא

relative clause (partially broken) that makes it cataphorically identifiable and therefore

semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (sins,” 11QtgJob 24.1, MT 34:7 (the)“) חטיא

233

II חטא

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (sinners,” 4Q531 20.3, 35.2“) חטין

טהח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (wheat,” 11QtgJob 20.1, MT 31:40“) חטא

חיב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the sinner,” 4Q530 2.ii.2“) חיבא

חיוה

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This plural form is an – (the wild animals,” 1Q20 6.26“) חיותא

inclusive reference to all animals and is therefore semantically definite. See the entries for

.above בעירא and אנשא

חיין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – This is – (life,” 11QtgJob 23.9, MT 33:30“) חיין

probably the nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

חיל

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a – (strength,” 11QtgJob 16.8, MT 30:18“) חיל

general concept.

234

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a – (power,” 11QtgJob 33.3, MT 39:21“) חיל

general concept.

חכה

כאח (“a hook,” 11QtgJob 35.3, 35.4; MT 40:24, 40:25) – Absolute Singular, Indefinite –

Any hook, semantically indefinite.

חכמה

is modified by the חכמא – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (wisdom,” 1Q20 20.7“) חכמא

attributive adjective שגיא (“much”), which agrees in state with the noun. Both are absolute

singular.43 This adjective makes the noun phrase semantically indefinite and also indicates

that this is not a generic use of the noun.

wisdom,” 4Q212 1.iv.13; 4Q213 1.i.9, 1.i.10, 1.i.12, 1.i.14; 1.ii.5, 1.2.9; 4Q213a“) חכמה

1.14; 4Q531 2+3.10; 4Q543 2a-b. 2; 11QtgJob 30.2, 37.4) – Absolute Singular, Definite –

Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (wisdom,” 1Q20 19.25; 4Q213 1.i.13, 1.ii.5“) חכמתא

Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

43 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 196.

235

חלה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (valley,” 4Q205 1.xii.5 (a)“) חלה

חלם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first mention use of – (a dream,” 1Q20 19.14“) חלם

.unidentifiable and therefore semantically indefinite ,חלם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Though only three lines – (a dream,” 1Q20 19.17“) חלם

later, this is also a first mention use of חלם, because Abraham is now speaking to Sarah and

informing her of the dream, of which she has no knowledge

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is likewise a first – (a dream,” 1Q20 20.22“) חלם

mention use of חלם, as Abraham has no knowledge of the dream until it is reported to him.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The dream is further – (the dream,” 4Q204 1.vi.10“) חלםא

identified by the following relative clause, which, though incomplete, begins with די אנה

("which I…"), making it semantically definite by cataphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The dream was mentioned – (the dream,” 4Q530 2.15“) חלםא

in the preceding line, making this reference anaphoric and semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (dreams,” 4Q530 2.ii.3“) חלמין

narrative.

236

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (dreams,” 11QtgJob 22.9, MT 33:15“) חלמין

חלפה

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first mention use – (a sprout,” 1Q20 14.10“) חלפא

The relative clause that follows describes, but does not identify. This must be a singular

form given the singular possessive pronoun on רמה (“its height”) which follows. Given that

this section provides the interpretation of a dream (see the beginning of line 9), it is

possible that this reference is anaphoric, which would indicate that the form is semantically

definite. Fitzmyer notes that the form should be understood “as a fem. collective sg., as the

rest of the line demands.”44

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This references the – (the sprout,” 1Q20 14.14“) חלפתא

previously-mentioned sprout and is therefore semantically definite because it is an

anaphoric reference.

חלץ

is modified by the חלץ – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (distress/passion,” 1Q20 2.8“) חלץ

attributive adjective תקיף (“great”). It is therefore not inclusive of all distress (meaning it is

not a generic use of the noun), nor is it identifiable to the audience. It is therefore

semantically indefinite.

44 Ibid., 167.

237

חמס

is modified by the חמס – Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (violence,” 1Q20 5.18“) חמס

attributive adjective שגי (“much”). This noun phrase is therefore not inclusive. The

fragmentary nature of the column makes other determinations difficult, but enough can be

read to see that this is part of a description of the causes of the coming judgment, not a

recitation of previously-mentioned topics. Accordingly, this is semantically indefinite.

Machiela argues that the aleph read by Fitzmyer and others on שגי is not actually present,

but is in fact a crack.45

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (violence,” 4Q203 5.2“) חמס

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a general – (violence,” 4Q541 9.i.7“) חמס

concept.

.שגיא Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Modified by – (violence,” 4Q531 19.2“) חמס

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Violence – (violence,” 4Q204 5.ii.28, 4Q212 1.iii.25“) חמסא

as a whole is in view, making this form inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The following relative – (the violence,” 4Q201 1.iv.8“) חמסה

clause makes the violence in question identifiable to the reader and therefore semantically

definite.

45 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 141.

238

I חמר

חמר שגיא Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (wine,” 1Q20 12.13“) חמר

(“much wine”). The adjective “much” requires this to be an indeterminate amount.

Further this is a first mention use. For both reasons it is semantically indefinite. Machiela

notes that the aleph in שגיא is speculative, given the broken nature of the line.46 Even if the

aleph is not written, nothing in the analysis presented here would change, as it is commonly

omitted in QA.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Wine is newly introduced at this – (wine,” 4Q214 2.8“) חמר

point in the column, making it unidentifiable and semantically indefinite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an anaphoric reference – (wine,” 1Q20 12:14“) חמרא

to the mention of חמר שגיא in line 13-14.

חמר Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (wine,” 1Q20 12:19“) חמרא

יאשג in line 13-14.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The broken line – (wine,” 1Q20 19:27“) חמרא

does not provide enough context to determine the semantic definiteness of חמרא in this

instance.

46 Ibid., 150.

239

II חמר

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (the donkeys,” 1Q24 1.4“) חמריא

חן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – “Favor” is neither here used as – (violence,” 1Q20 6.23“) חן

a generic (all favor in the world) or in an identifiable way (which specific favor Noah

found). Accordingly, it is semantically indefinite.

חנך

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (palate,” 11QtgJob 14.4, MT 29:10 (a)“) חנך

חסד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a reproach,” 4Q196 6.5“) חסד

חסוך

Absolute Singular, Definite – See – (the boundary,” 11QtgJob 10.1, MT 26:10“) חסוך

chapter 4.

חספיא

,the clay things,” 1Q20 13.9 – Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – Though“) חספיא

given this is a dream report, one would strongly suspect this to be a case of anaphoric

240

reference, given the missing lines at the beginning of column 13, one cannot make a

definitive judgment on the semantic definiteness of this noun phrase. The plural form

shows that this noun is here count, not mass.

חסרן

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a general – (poverty,” 4Q540 1.2“) חסרון

concept.

חרב

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as – (warfare,” 4Q246 1.ii.4, 1.ii.6“) חרב

reference to a general concept.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as reference to a – (warfare,” 4Q318 8.7“) חרב

general concept.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (sword,” 4Q562 1.1 (a)“) חרב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a sword,” 11QtgJob 33.3, 33.4; MT 39:21, 39:22“) חרב

חרבן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (destruction,” 4Q210 1.ii.14“) חרבן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (destruction,” 4Q531 18.2“) חרבן

241

חרטמו

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (magic,” 4Q201 1.iv.2“) חרטמו

חררה

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – Broken text – (scales,” 4Q197 4.i.15“) חרריא

immediately precedes this noun.

חרש

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable in that the noun – (sorcery,” 4Q202 1.iii.2“) חרש

references an abstract concept.

יןחרש (“sorceries,” 1Q20 1.9) – Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Though the end of

this word is restored, which would normally invalidate it for this study, the fact that is

parallel with סמין and כשפין makes this a solid reconstruction that can be used for data.

Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the rest of the column does not permit a decision

on the semantic definiteness of the phrase.

חרשה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable in that the – (sorcery,” 4Q201 1.iii.15“) חרשה

noun references an abstract concept. See chapter 2.

242

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable in that the – (sorcery,” 4Q201 1.iii.15“) חרשתא

noun references an abstract concept.

חשבון

Absolute Singular, Definite – As a Hebraism, this – (the calculation,” 1Q20 6.9“) חשבון

form is not included in the summary statistics for this study, as it does not necessarily

reflect Aramaic syntax. It most naturally reads as a semantically definite form, as the full

phrase is חשבון די חשבת (“the calculation which I calculated”), which would be definite by

cataphoric reference.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient – (calculation,” 4Q209 25.3, 26.7; 4Q534 1.i.13 (a)“) חשבון

Context – As a Hebraism, this form is not included in the summary statistics for this study.

חשוך

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (darkness,” 4Q542 2.11“) חשוך

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable in that the – (darkness,” 4Q580 1.i.12“) חשוך

noun references an abstract concept.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This darkness is – (the darkness,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.21“) חשוכא

meant to be universally understood as the darkness above the earth (further still than "high

above the Red Sea), recognizable to all and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (darkness,” 4Q212 1.iii.16 (the)“) חשוכא

243

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This reference is inclusive – (darkness,” 4Q541 9.i.4“) חשוכא

of all darkness and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This – (darkness,” 4Q541 9.i.4 (second occurrence)“) חשוכא

reference is anaphoric to the mention of darkness earlier in the line and therefore

semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (darkness,” 4Q548 1ii-2.10, 15“) חשוכא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Darkness has been – (darkness,” 4Q544 2.14“) חשוכה

mentioned in the preceding word of the line, making this an anaphoric reference and

therefore semantically definite.

טב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Substantivized adjective. Though – (good,” 1Q20 21.3“) טב

the good that God Most High has done for Abraham is partly detailed in the preceding

columns, this form is general and is not pointing to any specifically identifiable good.

Hence it is semantically indefinite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The noun is identified – (the good things,” 1Q20 21.3“) טבתא

by the following relative clause: טבתא די יהב לי (“the good things which he had given me”).

244

טור

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (a mountain,” 1Q20 15.17“) טור

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to – (a mountain,” 4Q204 1.xii.27“) טור

the narrative.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (mountain,” 4Q205 1.xii6; 4Q531 39.2 (a)“) טור

here is modified by טורא – Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the mountain,” 1Q20 19.8“) טורא

In the religious environment implied by this text, this is a specific mountain, and .קדישא

identifiable (“the holy mountain”), and therefore semantically definite. It is debated

whether this refers to Jerusalem or a mountain between Bethel and Ai.47 It is not necessary

to resolve this debate here. In fact, the existence of the debate over the precise

identification of the mountain shows implicitly that commentators believe this mountain is

meant to be identifiable, even if modern readers cannot be sure which mountain is

intended. Fitzmyer also argues that the lamed preceding this noun phrase is the marker of

the direct object, not a prepositional use.48 Muraoka treats it as an indirect object marked

by a proleptic suffix, which would therefore be semantically definite.49 Either analysis

would further strengthen the judgment that this noun phrase is semantically definite.

47 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 180. 48 Ibid. 49 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 196.

245

Though the preceding verb could be reconstructed as either first or second person, in either

case the analysis of the noun phrase as semantically definite would be unchanged.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – “The mountains” here is – (the mountains,” 1Q20 7.1“) טוריא

all-inclusive, part of a list of areas of rule that are universal. Accordingly, this use is

contextually definite because of its inclusive nature.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – This is most – (mountains,” 1Q20 11.9 (the)“) טוריא

likely similar to the usage in 7:1, however due to the lack of context, it is classed as “not

enough data to determine semantic definiteness.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – As in previous lines in – (mountains,” 4Q204 1.xii.30“) טורין

this column, this form introduces new mountains to the narrative and is therefore

semantically indefinite.

אחרנין Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Modified by – (mountains,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.17“) טורין

(“other”), showing that it is new information in the narrative.

ריןטו (“mountains,” 11QtgJob 32.7, MT 39:8) – Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Note that the

previous nouns in context were inclusive and given in the emphatic state, while this non-

inclusive noun is given in the absolute.

246

טין

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (clay,” 11QtgJob 11.7; MT 27:16“) טינא

– see chapter 4.

טל

Absolute Singular, Definite – All dew is in view here, so the – (dew,” 4Q204 1.xiii.26“) טל

term is inclusive and semantically definite. See chapter 2.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (dew,” 4Q210 1.ii.8“) טל

טלול

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is followed by – (the ceiling,” 4Q554a 1.ii.13“) טלולא

the relative clause די עליהון ("which was over them"), making it identifiable by cataphoric

reference.

טלופח

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (mole,” 4Q534 1ii+2.2 (the)“) טלופחא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (moles,” 4Q534 1.i.2“) טלופחין

narrative.

247

טלל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (shade,” 4Q201 1.ii.7“) טלל

טעו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (error,” 4Q245 2.3“) טעו

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (false gods,” 4Q541 2.i.2“) טעואן

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (error,” 1Q21 31.1“) טעותא

טעם

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (decree,” 4Q545 2.2 (the)“) טעמא

יבל

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic – (cynodon grass,” 11QtgJob 9.1; MT 24:24“) יבלא

reference.

יבשה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to – (the dry land,” 4Q197 4.i.8“) יבשא

the narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The text – (dry land,” 1Q20 1.12 (the)“) יבישתא

here follows Machiela, who argues for this reading because of the preposition על at the end

248

of the previous line.50 Fitzmyer instead reads as ובישתא which is equally possible

paleographically.51 Fitzmyer’s reading would also lack the necessary context to make a

definitive conclusion regarding semantic definiteness.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This reference is based on – (the land,” 4Q541 9.i.5“) יבישתא

the shared situation of audience and author, recognizing that the land of Israel is in

question, therefore making the form semantically definite.

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – All dry land is in view – (the dry land,” 4Q197 4.i.8“) יבשתא

making the form inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

יד

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Even from the remnant – (the forequarters,” 4Q214 2.5“) ידיא

of the column that survives, it can be seen that this text concerns the performance of an

animal sacrifice. The forequarters then, would be identifiable by an associative process,

making this form semantically definite.

,Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This phrase is used adverbially – (hands,” 4Q206 4.i.12“) ידין

to characterize the binding of the fallen angels, so it is descriptive, not identifying any

particular hands or feet.

50 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 136. 51 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 66.

249

יום

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (the day,” 1Q20 22.28“) יום

יום די Absolute Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the day,” 4Q206 1.xxii.2“) יום

making this noun cataphorically definite, as the ,("the day when they are judged") יתדינן

following relative clause makes it identifiable. See chapter 2.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (day,” 4Q243 24.5 (the)“) יוםא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This noun is followed by a – (the day,” 4Q550b 1.2“) יוםא

relative clause that identifies it, making it semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (day,” 4Q555 1b.3 (the)“) יוםא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (days,” 11QtgJob 15.4, MT30:1“) יומין

ילד

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (children,” 4Q533 3.1“) ילדין

ילדה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (midwife,” 4Q560 1.i.2 (the)“) ילדתה

250

ים

however ,לשנא Emphatic Singular, Definite – Most read – (the sea,” 1Q20 16.9“) ימא

Machiela notes, “Whatever the letter preceding the aleph, it is not a nun or yod….

Graphically, the letter looks more like a typical kaph, but the following mem of מן looks

very similar, and a mem makes better sense of the word….I see no clear evidence of a

lamed at the beginning of the word in any of the photographs.”52 This form is specified by

the following relative clause די מן ביניהן (“which is from between them”), making it

identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This reference, part of – (the sea,” 1Q20 16.9“) ימא

Abraham’s travelogue in column 21, could easily be argued to be a superlative (and hence

classified as a complex definite) as the sea, without other qualifiers, meant the

Mediterranean. However, given the presence of the phrase ימא רבא (“the Great Sea”) in line

11, it is more likely that this is an anaphoric reference back to that noun phrase. One could

also choose to read the preceding ליד as the preposition lamed plus יד in construct, instead

of as a phrase that has become frozen and lexicalized. If so, then this would again be

classified as a complex definite, but as above, it would remain identifiable. In any of these

cases, this refers to the Mediterranean, which is clear because Abram is travelling north

from Egypt.53 This is a semantic definite because it is identifiable.

52 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 154. 53 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 225.

251

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Referential and – (the sea,” 11QtgJob 10.3; MT 26:12“) ימא

uniquely denoting in the implied context of this verse, that of God winning a cosmic battle.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Referential and – (the sea,” 11QtgJob 30.6, MT 38:8“) ימא

uniquely denoting.

טוריא is used in parallel with ימיא – Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the seas,” 1Q20 7.1“) ימיא

(“the mountains”) and following the phrase … תשלט עליהון ארעא וכול די עליהא ב (“And you

shall rule over them – the earth and all that is upon it, in…). The reference is clearly then

all-inclusive, making this usage semantically definite. Muraoka wishes to “assume a

scribal error for BYWMY’” and translate “In these days….”54 There is no need to assume

a scribal error when an acceptable interpretation of the text as it stands can be made.

Further, the parallel object טוריא in the same structure makes Muraoka’s suggestion less

plausible.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The text views the flood as – (the seas,” 4Q203 8.13“) ימיא

wiping out all life, wherever it is, meaning that all seas are included, which makes the form

inclusive and semantically definite.

54 Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” 48.

252

ימם

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This represents the first – (the day,” 4Q208 10a.8“) ימימא

lunar day,55 therefore recognizable and semantically definite.

אמימי (“the day,” 4Q209 3.3) – Emphatic Singular, Definite

אמימי (“the day,” 4Q209 26.5) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive reference to all

daytime.

אמימי (“the day,” 4Q535 3.5; 4Q536 1.2) – Emphatic Singular, Definite

ימין

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (right,” 11Q18 12.i.8 (the)“) ימין

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (right,” 4Q531 22.1 (the)“) ימינא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the right,” 5Q15 1.i.12“) ימינא

knowledge.

55 Stephen J Pfann and Alexander, Qumran Cave 4. XXVI, Part 1 / by Philip Alexander, Magen Broshi, Esther Chazon

... [et Al.]. XXVI, Part 1 / by Philip Alexander, Magen Broshi, Esther Chazon ... [et Al.]. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 114.

253

יסוד

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Note that – (foundation,” 4Q545 8.1 (a)“) יסוד

Stadel also considers this a probable Hebraism.56

יענה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Stadel – (the ostrich,” 11QtgJob 17.6, MT 30:29“) יענה

considers this a Hebraism from the Vorlage of the Targum.57 As such, it is excluded from

the analysis of this study.

יצבה

Absolute Singular, Definite – This represents another – (certainty,” 1Q20 2.20“) יצבא

borderline case in the determination of semantic definiteness. “Certainty” could be

considered indefinite, as the certainty of Methuselah is difficult to pin down in any specific

way. However, certainty as a concept is what is referenced here, as it is the object of the

preposition ב. In that regard, certainty is a universally-identifiable concept, so this form is

understood to be semantically definite due to general knowledge.

56 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 25, 58. 57 Ibid., 111.

254

יקר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (glory,” 1Q20 7.5“) יקר

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable – (glory,” 4Q213 1.i.10, 1.i.12, 1.i.17, 2.16“) יקר

as a type. See chapter 2.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (glory,” 4Q214 3.1“) יקר

קרי (“glory,” 4Q242 1-3.5) – Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a type.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (glory,” 4Q214 3.1“) יקר

Absolute Singular, Definite – See – (glory,” 11QtgJob 27.6, 34.6; MT 36:11, 40:10“) יקר

chapter 4.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (glory,” 11Q18 19.3, 25.3“) יקרא

ירותה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This noun is – (the inheritance,” 4Q542 1.i.4“) ירותתא

followed by two relative clauses, די מ^{{א}}^^ה^שלמא לכון ("which has been entrusted to

you") and די יהבו לכון אבהתכון ("which your ancestors have given to you"), that identify it,

making this a cataphoric reference and semantically definite.

255

ירח

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The fact that the – (the moon phases,” 4Q210 1.iii.6“) ירחיא

moon has phases is universally known, so this form is definite by common knowledge, a

form of shared experience.

ירכה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Even from the remnant of – (the thigh,” 4Q214 2.6“) ירכתא

the column that survives, it can be seen that this text concerns the performance of an animal

sacrifice. The side then, would be identifiable by an associative process, making this form

semantically definite.

ירק

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (vegetation,” 11QtgJob 15.7, MT 30:3“) ירק

ישירו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Even from the – (integrity” 4Q542 1.i.9, 1.i.12“) ישירותא

remnant of the column that survives, it can be seen that this text concerns the performance

of an animal sacrifice. The side then, would be identifiable by an associative process,

making this form semantically definite.

256

כדב

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (lies,” 1Q20 2:6, 2:7, 3:13; 4Q204 5.ii.30“) כדבין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (lies,” 4Q533 4.2“) כדבין

כדכוד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (chalcedony,” 4Q554 2.ii.15“) כדכוד

כדן

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (small jugs,” 1Q21 59.2 (the)“) כדניא

כהונה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Excluded from the – (the priesthood,” 4Q542 1.i.13“) כהונתא

data set as a Hebraism.58

כהן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Though “priest” can easily be – (a priest,” 1Q20 22.15“) כהן

used to refer, this usage is a classic example of a property noun: והוא הוא כהן לאל עליון (“And

he was a priest for God Most High.”) The MT of Genesis 14:18, to which this sentence

corresponds, also uses an indefinite form, as the definite article is not present in the verse.

58 Ibid., 57.

257

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly – (a priest,” 4Q545 4.16, 4.19; 4Q547 9.6“) כהן

introduced to the narrative in each case.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (priest,” 4Q546 18.2 (the)“) כהנא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is part of the – (the priest,” 11Q18 14.ii.5, 20.6“) כהנא

noun phrase כהנא רבא (“the high priest”) and is therefore uniquely denoting.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the priesthood,” 4Q562 1.2“) כהנה

knowledge.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the priests,” 2Q24 4.14“) כהניא

previous line.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the priests,” 4Q562 2.4“) כהניא

fragment 1.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the priests,” 11Q18 16ii+17.2“) כהניא

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (priests,” 4Q213 2.12“) כהנין

כוה

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the window,” 5Q15 1.ii.12“) כותא

258

כוחל

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of the column – (kohl,” 4Q202 1.ii.28“) כוחלא

the angels are teaching humankind how to make various items, and antimony is being

viewed as a substance, therefore identifiable and semantically definite.

כוכב

is here used in a list of כוכביא – Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the stars,” 1Q20 7.2“) כוכביא

all-inclusive items and is therefore semantically definite.

is here used in parallel כוכביא – Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the stars,” 1Q20 13.11“) כוכביא

with the sun and the moon, indicating that it means all the stars. It is therefore semantically

definite by inclusiveness.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the stars,” 4Q210 1.ii.16“) כוכביא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the stars,” 4Q213 3.2“) כוכביא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Based on the – (the stars,” 4Q206 4.i.11“) כוכביא

correspondence with 1 Enoch 88, the stars have been previously mentioned, making this an

anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive – (the stars,” 11QtgJob 9.8, MT24:6“) כוכביא

reference.

259

,(”many“) שגיאין Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Modified by – (the stars,” 4Q207 1.4“) כוכבין

so necessarily indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (the stars,” 4Q209 23.5“) כוכבין

כור

,Absolute Singular, Definite – Excluded from the data set – (the womb,” 4Q541 10.4“) כור

as the word is being used in accordance with a Qumran Hebrew meaning, not its Aramaic

meaning, which is “furnace.”59

כיור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (paneling,” 11Q18 11.8“) כיור

כילאין

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the – (assimilation,” 4Q542 1.i.6“) כילאין

discourse.

כסי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Whether this – (the cover,” 4Q156 1.6 (2 occurrences)“) כסיא

is a separate sacred object or simply the cover for the ark (see Kasher's comments in DJD

VI, p.92-93), it was a singular object understood by author and audience alike to be in the

59 Ibid., 17–18.

260

Tabernacle. The form is therefore, in its context, uniquely identifying and semantically

definite.

כסל

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (loin,” 4Q558 34.2 (the)“) כסלא

כסף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Sarah is given an indeterminate – (silver,”1Q20 20.31“) כסף

amount (שגיא - “much”) of silver and gold by the king. Accordingly, this noun phrase is

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Similarly, Abram goes up out – (silver,”1Q20 20.33“) כסף

of Egypt with a large, but indeterminate, amount of silver and gold, so this use is also

semantically indefinite. Interestingly, the MT of Genesis 13:2, which corresponds to this

phrase, contains the definite article.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – All silver is in view here, as – (silver,”4Q202 1.ii.27“) כספא

this is the preposed topic of the following clause. Accordingly, this is an inclusive use of

the noun and therefore semantically definite.

איכספ (“silver,”1Q20 13.9 (2 occurrences)) – Emphatic Plural, Definite – The use of the

plural shows that this is a count noun (“the silver things”), not a mass noun referring to the

material (“silver”). This line comes near the end of the first section of the dream, much of

261

which is reported in lines 1-7, which are missing. This is almost certainly an anaphoric

reference to silver items which are mentioned in the lost section. Note also that כספיא here

is marked with ל, indicating that it is a definite direct object. The second use of כספיא here

is clearly an anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

I כף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information – (a hand,” 11QtgJob 14.3, MT 29:9“) כף

in the speech and not an inclusive reference.

II כף

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic – (the rock,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:28“) כפא

reference.

כפל

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Necessarily indefinite because – (doubles,”1Q20 22.29“) כפלין

of the interrogative: כמן כפלין (“how many doubles”).

כפן

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (famine,” 4Q318 8.8“) כפן

knowledge.

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 4 – (hunger,” 11QtgJob 29.4, MT 37:13“) כפן

262

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – See chapter 4 – (famine,” 1Q20 19.10“) כפנא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (famine,” 1Q20 19.26“) כפנא

כרם

here is not accepted. As כרם Fitzmyer’s restoration of – (a vineyard,” 1Q20 12.8“) כרם

Machiela notes, “In BZ12T the letters preceding this are unreadable. The mention of a

vineyard (כרם) here would be odd, given its introduction in line 13.”60

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first mention use – (a vineyard,” 1Q20 12.13“) כרם

and semantically indefinite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Machiela notes that the – (the vineyard,” 1Q20 12.16“) כרמא

reconstruction of the beginning of this line by Fitzmyer, [בתר מב]ולא (“after the flood”) is

undermined by the lack of a lamed and that כרמא is, while not absolutely certain, a

relatively sure reading from BZ12M.61 This form is then an anaphoric reference to line 13,

and therefore semantically definite. If Fitzmyer’s reconstruction were to be correct, there

would be no change to this analysis, as “the flood” would still be an anaphoric reference,

though to a different noun phrase.

60 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 150. 61 Ibid.

263

כורסי / כרסה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the context of a – (the throne,” 11Q18 32.1“) כורסיא

vision of God’s New Jerusalem, the throne would be expected to be a unique item.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Should there be even – (the throne,” 4Q204 1.viii.27“) כרסא

rough correspondence between the Aramaic and Ethiopic versions of this text, then the

throne will have been previously mentioned in the 26 lines lost at the beginning of this

column. This noun phrase, then, is likely an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

Note that this may be the nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (throne,” 4Q545 5.3 (the)“) כרסא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (thrones,” 4Q530 2.17“) כרסון

narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that the context is – (the throne,” 4Q246 1.i.1“) כרסיא

a discussion with the king (see line 2), the throne is expected and therefore semantically

definite by an associative process. It is possible that the reference is anaphoric, referring

back to the lost earlier portion of the text. Either way, the form is semantically definite.

264

כשף

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Unfortunately, the – (sorceries,” 1Q20 1.9“) כשפין

fragmentary nature of the rest of the column does not permit a decision on the semantic

definiteness of the phrase.

כשפו

.Absolute Singular, Definite– See chapter 2 – (sorcery,” 4Q201 1.iv.2“) כשפו

כתב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Note that the – (writing,” 4Q197 5.10 (a)“) כתב

Greek here has a definite article on the corresponding phrase (τὸ χειρόγραφον αὐτοῦ ),

anaphorically definite by reference to line 2. It is therefore possible that this form here is

an anaphoric reference to lost text in lines 3-6.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (writing,” 4Q245 1.i.4 (a)“) כתב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The relative clause that – (a writing,” 4Q536 2.ii.12“) כתב

follows די לא יבלא ("that would not wear out") describes, but does not identify, so this form

is semantically indefinite.

עוד Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The context, with – (a writing,” 4Q541 2. i.6“) כתב

("again") preceding, makes this most likely the introduction of a new writing and therefore

semantically indefinite.

265

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (writing,” 11Q18 19.6“) כתב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The word is followed – (the writing,” 4Q204 1.vi.19“) כתבא

by a relative clause which identifies it: די אנה כתבת ("which I have written"), making this

identifiable by cataphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

כתון

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a tunic,” 11QtgJob 14.9, MT 29:14“) כתון

information in the speech.

כתפה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (shoulder piece,” 4Q531 13.1 (the)“) כתפתה

תלכ

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This noun is followed by – (the wall,” 11Q18 11.2“) כותלא

the beginnings of a relative clause: די סחר ("which surrounds…"). This clause identifies the

wall, making it a cataphoric reference and semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (sides,” 2Q24 8.3 (the)“) כותליא

לבב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a heart,” 4Q542 1.i.9 (2 occurrences), 1.i.10“) לבב

266

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (heart,” 4Q543 18.2; 4Q560 1.i.1 (a)“) לבב

לבונה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is possibly a Hebraism – (incense,” 1Q20 10.16“) לבונא

according to Stadel,62 which is unsurprising in the context of worship, so its utility for

determining Aramaic syntax may be limited. However, it is clearly semantically indefinite,

as it is neither an identifiable portion of incense nor a universal statement about incense

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associatively definite – (the incense,” 11Q18 20.5“) לבונתא

as incense would be expected in the context.

להו

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (trouble,” 11QtgJob 4.1, MT 21:2“) להותא

לוח

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (tablet,” 2Q26 1 (the)“) לוחא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The tablet has – (the tablet,” 2Q26 3 (2 occurrences)“) לוחא

been mentioned in line 1, making this an anaphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of a – (the tablet,” 4Q537 1+2+3.4“) לוחא

command from the angel to take the tablets from his hand, these tablets would be mutually

62 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 20.

267

manifest to both Jacob and the angel. Accordingly, this form is definite because it is

identifiable in the shared situation.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (tablet,” 4Q546 20.2 (the)“) לוחא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – In the context of a – (the tablets,” 4Q537 1+2+3.3“) לוחיא

command from the angel to take the tablets from his hand, these tablets would be mutually

manifest to both Jacob and the angel. Accordingly, this form is definite because it is

identifiable in the shared situation.

לוט

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (curse,” 1Q21 12.1, 4Q530 1.i.2 (a)“) לוט

לחם

Absolute Singular, Insufficient – (bread/food,” 1Q68 3.1, 4Q530 1.i.6, 4Q541 12.4“) לחם

Context

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (food,” 11QtgJob 6.7, 38.6“) לחם

אמלח (“the bread,” 2Q24 4.5) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of describing

Temple offerings, the bread would be expected. This form is therefore associatively

identifiable and semantically definite.

268

אמלח (“the bread,” 2Q24 4.9) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line

5.

אמלח (“the bread,” 2Q24 4.14) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to lines

5 and 9.

אמלח (“the bread,” 2Q24 4.15) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to

previous line.

אמלח (“the bread,” 11Q18 8.3) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is quite possibly an

anaphoric reference to lost text. However, given the context of the document, the

description of the Temple in the New Jerusalem, the bread would be expected and therefore

an associative reference. Either way, then, this form is semantically definite.

להלי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the night,” 4Q208 15.1“) לילא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (night,” 11Q18 25.2 (the)“) לילה

.See immediately below – (the night,” 1Q20 10.2“) ליליא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – Note that – (the night,” 1Q20 10.3“) ליליא

Fitzmyer and others read this form in line 2 as well, but Machiela argues that the ink

269

remains and spacing do not permit its presence there.63 In either case, however, there is not

enough context to determine semantic definiteness.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full sentence is – (the night,” 1Q20 19.17“) ליליא

This is an associative (”.And I woke up in the night from my sleep“) ואתעירת בליליא מן שנתי

use of the noun, as the audience knows that sleep is generally associated with the nighttime.

It is therefore semantically definite.

ליליא כדי Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the night,” 1Q20 20.11“) ליליא

This night is therefore .(”the night Sarai was taken from me by force“) דבירת מני שרי באונס

identifiable because of the following relative clause, which makes it semantically definite

by cataphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This use is somewhat more – (the night,” 1Q20 22.8“) ליליא

difficult to pin down in terms of semantic definiteness. This is not a generic statement

about all nights, so it is not inclusive. Further, the night in question is not identifiable to

the audience in any strict sense, as there is no previous mention of this specific night.

Given those statements, one might argue that this is a semantically indefinite form.

However, a reading of this as semantically definite also works easily. Though English

translations often distort an analysis such as this, here they can be illustrative. ליליאhere is

the object of the preposition ב. The English translations “in the night” (using the definite

article) and “at night” (using neither the definite nor indefinite articles) are possible, but

63 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 147.

270

“on a night” (using the indefinite article) is an unnatural translation. This illustrates that

this use of the noun phrase is associative – a reader inherently knows that time has days and

nights, and the reference “in the night” naturally is identifiable to a reader in the sense that

there is some night associated with the time in which Abraham caught up with the eastern

kings. This use is therefore recorded as semantically definite, but with the note that the

scalar nature of definiteness makes it in a sense “less definite” than many other semantic

definites discussed in this study.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form is definite by – (the night,” 1Q20 22.9“) ליליא

anaphora, given the use of the noun in line 8.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Definite by general – (the night,” 4Q535 3.2“) ליליא

knowledge.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the night,” 4Q541 19.2“) ליליא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the night,” 11QtgJob 26.6, MT 35:10“) ליליא

לכוש

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a brazier,” 11QtgJob 36.6, MT 41:12“) לכוש

information.

271

לפיד

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Following – (torches,” 11QtgJob 36.4, MT 41:12“) לפידין

Sokoloff, this is a genuine Aramaic word, not a loan from Hebrew.64 Stadel reached the

same conclusion.65 New information to the narrative.

לשן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the setting of the – (the gulf,” 1Q20 17.17“) לשנא

column – the division of the land between the sons of Noah – the geographical markers are

all meant to be identifiable to the reader, as they are presented as markers to which the

reader is to relate the borders of the various allotments. לשנא here is identified by the

following phrase: [די] ל[י]ד ל[ו]ד. This is the Aegean Sea.66 This phrase is therefore

identifiable and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This – (the gulf,” 1Q20 17.17 (second occurrence)“) לשנא

gulf is likewise identifiable, given its geographic relationship to the gulf in line 17, as the

Adriatic Sea.67 It is therefore also semantically definite.

64 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 164. 65 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 122–3. 66 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 269. 67 Ibid.

272

מאה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Possibly to – (hundreds,” 4Q209 23.5 (2 occurrences)“) מאין

be classed with quantifiers, but an indeterminate number of hundreds.

מאכל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is half of the “prosaic – (food,” 1Q20 22.15“) מאכל

Aramaic expression, ‘food and drink.’”68 This is a first mention of the food and drink

which Melchizedek provided and is semantically indefinite.

מבול

Fassberg notes this form as a Hebraism, as Targum Onqelos and the – מבולא and מבול

Peshitta do not use it, though he notes that it does occur in the Palenstinian Targumim and

in Galilean Aramaic.69 Classed as a clear Hebraism by Stadel as well.70 Accordingly,

these forms are not included in the analysis of this study.

מגדל

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (tower,” 4Q243 10.2, 4Q244 9.2 (the)“) מגדלא

68 Fitzmyer, “Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon,” 281. 69 Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” 59. 70 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 27.

273

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the towers,” 4Q554 2.ii.22“) מגדליא

line 15.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the towers,” 5Q15 1.i.13“) מגדליא

line 12 (and earlier).

מגל

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Because this section is the – (the sickle,” 1Q20 15.10“) מגלא

interpretation of a vision, מגלא is most likely an anaphoric reference to a previous mention

and therefore semantically definite. Muraoka treats this as a case of semantic definiteness

due to a shared situation.71

מגלה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is new information in – (a scroll,” 4Q550 1.5“) מגלה

the narrative and therefore unidentifiable and semantically indefinite. Note that this form

may be followed by חדה.

מגמר

-Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly – (a censer,” 11QtgJob 36.6, MT 41:12“) מגמר

introduced to the discourse.

71 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 159.

274

מגן

ואנה מגן Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full sentence is – (a shield,” 1Q20 22.31“) מגן

This use in a verbless clause is a clear case of a (”.And I will be a shield over you“) עליך

property (not referential) use of the noun.

מדבח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first-mention use – (an altar,” 1Q20 21.20“) מדבח

and semantically indefinite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is most likely an – (the altar,” 1Q20 10.15“) מדבחא

anaphoric reference to a previous mention of the altar that is now lost. It is also possible,

however, that it is an associative reference, as Noah is offering atonement, and it would be

assumed this would involve the use of an altar. In either case, the use would be

semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the altar,” 1Q20 10.16“) מדבחא

previous line.

275

is commonly reconstructed here, but only the final מדבחא – (the altar,” 1Q20 19.7“) מדבחא

letter is present, and even that is usually marked as unclear.72 Machiela, however, notes a

clear final nun preceding the following word, which would invalidate the reconstruction.73

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This use is anaphoric – (the altar,” 1Q20 21.1“) מדבחא

referring to a previously-built altar, as shown by the following clause: ובניתה תניאני (“And I

built it a second time.”). Genesis 12:8 (MT) records the first building of this altar, which

must have been mentioned in the missing lines at the beginning of column 19.74 Genesis

13:4 (MT) corresponds to this line of the Genesis Apocryphon, and has the definite article

as part of this noun phrase.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This text – (the altar,” 4Q214a 1.2, 4Q214b 4-6.3“) מדבחא

concerns the performance of an animal sacrifice. The presence of an altar, then, would be

identifiable by an associative process, making this form semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of the vision – (the altar,” 4Q537 12.2“) מדבחא

of the Temple and the priests (see line 1) and sacrifices (this line) the altar is expected and

this form is therefore associatively definite.

72 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 98. 73 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 158. 74 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament.,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99, no. 1 (1980): 179.

276

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Either anaphoric or – ( the altar,” 11Q18 13.4“) מדבחא

associatively definite.

מדבר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This could be meant – (the wilderness,” 1Q20 21.30“) מדברא

to be an identifiable wilderness, as it comes at the end of the report of the route of the

invading kings. An audience mentally following the direction of their attack would be able

to identify the relevant wilderness, making it semantically definite. Alternately, this could

be a use of “wilderness” as a concept accessible by general knowledge. In either case, the

phrase would be semantically definite. The corresponding phrase in the MT of Genesis

14:6 is marked with the definite article.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the wilderness,” 4Q530 7.ii.5“) מדברא

making this form semantically identifiable. This form may ,(”the great desert“) מדברא רבא

well be a proper noun.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – The – (the wildernesses,” 1Q20 11.9“) מדבריא

plural form here indicates that this use is as a count noun. Though the chain of terms

to (the) mountains, and (the) wildernesses, (the) hinterlands“) לטוריא ודמדבריא לעובריא ודא[יא]

and (the) coasts”) makes one strongly suspect these are universals, and therefore semantic

definites, this cannot be proved due to the lack of context. Therefore this usage is classed

as “not enough data to determine semantic definiteness.”

277

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The text views the flood – (the deserts,” 4Q203 8.13“) מדבריא

as wiping out all life, wherever it is, meaning that all deserts are included, which makes the

form inclusive and semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Definite – All deserts seem to be in – (the deserts,” 4Q209 23.9“) מדברין

view, given the context of the column, so this form is considered inclusive and therefore

semantically definite. See chapter 2.

מדה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The resh Avigad and Yadin – (tribute,” 1Q20 21.26“) מדא

read in this word is a misprint.75

מדינה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a nation,” 4Q246 1.ii.3 (2 occurrences)“) מדינה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (nations,” 4Q534 1ii+2.12“) מדינן

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the nations,” 4Q246 1.i.5“) מדינתא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric to the lost word – (the city,” 4Q318 8.7“) מדינתא

in line 6.

75 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 165.

278

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form is followed by – (the land,” 4Q556 1.6“) מדינתא

the relative clause די שבה ("which he took captive") making it identifiable and therefore

semantically definite.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the land,” 4Q571 1.2“) מדינתא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (country,” 4Q21a 2-3.1 (the)“) מדיתא

מדנח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a name in the context of – (East,” 4Q209 23.7“) מדנח

Enoch offering an etymology for each of the compass directions.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The remainder – (the east,” 1Q20 16.20“) מדנחא

of the line is missing, so no determination of semantic definiteness is possible.

the east,” 1Q20 21.9, 21.16, 21.17; 4Q156 1.6; 4Q554 1.i.11, 1.ii.15, 3.1; 5Q15“) מדנחא

1.i.3) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge. Note that

Genesis 13:14 (MT), which corresponds to the occurrence in 1Q20 21:9, does not use the

definite article.

מדר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The following word is – (a dwelling,” 4Q540 1.4“) מדר

with the last letter restored. This makes the form unidentifiable and ,("another") אחר[ן]

semantically indefinite.

279

מהמה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (tumult,” 11QtgJob 32.6, MT 39:7“) מהמא

מוזנין

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Uniquely denoting in the – (the scales,” 4Q318 7.2, 7.7“) מוזניא

context of constellation names.

מומה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – First mention in the – (an oath,” 1Q20 20.30“) מומה

narrative.

מוסר

Hebraism and therefore – (instruction,” 4Q213 1.i.9; 2.5; 11QtgJob 27.4, MT 36:10“) מוסר

not included in this analysis.76

מות

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (death,” 4Q548 1ii-2.4“) מותא

76 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 42.

280

מותב

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (seat,” 4Q552 3.12“) מותבה

מזרח

Hebraism.77 – (east,” 4Q209 23.7“) מזרח

מחה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the plague,” 4Q560 1.i.5“) מחתא

מחוז

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the shared situation – (the harbor,” 4Q552 2.ii.10“) מחוזא

of speaker (the seer) and audience, this harbor would be identifiable to both and the phrase

therefore semantically definite.

מטלה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (shelters,” 4Q558 33.11.2“) מטלין

מטמר

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (hiding places,” 4Q214b 8.2 (the)“) מטמריא

77 Ibid., 92.

281

מטר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (rain,” 4Q211 1.i.2“) מטר

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the rain,” 1Q24 5.4“) מטרא

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the rain,” 11QtgJob 31.3, 31.5; MT 38:25, 38:28“) מטרא

Generic.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (the rain,” 4Q201 1.ii.4“) מטרה

מין

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (water,” 1Q24 4.1“) מיא

here is an anaphoric מיא – Emphatic Plural, Definite – (the water,” 1Q20 13.12“) מיא

reference to the construct phrase containing מיא as the nomen rectum in the preceding line.

It is therefore semantically definite in this use.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – The second half of this – (water,” 1Q20 14.10“) מיא

line is largely missing, so the context is not sufficient to determine semantic definiteness.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Washing has just been mentioned – (the water,” 2Q26 2“) מיא

in the previous line, so the reader can naturally infer the presence of water, making this

reference identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line 2 – (the water,” 2Q26 3“) מיא

282

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line – (the water,” 4Q206 4.i.20“) מיא

18.

,Emphatic Plural, Definite – Based on the Ethiopic text – (the water,” 4Q206 4.iii.13“) מיא

the water mentioned here has been previously introduced in the mission lines at the start of

column 3. This is not an anaphoric reference to the water in column 2, line 19, but instead

an anaphoric reference to water mentioned in these missing lines.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line – (the water,” 4Q206 4.iii.15“) מיא

13

Emphatic Plural, Indefinite – This form is a new – (water,” 4Q206 4.iii.18“) מיא

introduction of water to the narrative, not a reference to previously-mentioned water. (A

comparison to 1 Enoch 89:28-30 confirms this.) Accordingly, this form is semantically

indefinite. See chapter 2.

,Emphatic Plural, Definite – This is an inclusive use – (the waters,” 4Q210 1.ii.3“) מיא

indicating all bodies of water on the earth, and therefore semantically definite.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line 1 – (water,” 11Q18 10.i.3“) מיא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Neither all water nor any – (water,” 4Q206 4.i.18“) מין

specifically identifiable water is meant, making this form semantically indefinite.

283

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Neither all water nor any – (water,” 4Q206 4.ii.19“) מין

specifically identifiable water is meant, making this form semantically indefinite. It is not

a reference back to the water in line 20 of column 1, but a new introduction of water in the

narrative.

,Absolute Plural – (water,” 4Q534 1ii+2.14; 11Q18 10.i.1; 11QtgJob 11.11“) מין

Insufficient Context

Absolute Plural, Definite – Given the – (the waters,” 11QtgJob 31.7, MT 38:30“) מין

parallel phrases in this column, likely inclusive.

מך

Emphatic Plural, Definite – A crack runs through the – (the humble ones,” 1Q20 0.7“) מכיא

first three letters, but enlargements of the photos available through Inscriptifact show a

clear portions of the mem and kaph.78 Given that the anger mentioned in the preceding line

seems to be God’s anger, the “humble ones” here would be all humble ones, and this form

is then semantically definite due to inclusiveness.

78 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 135.

284

מכאב

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Stadel lists this – (wounds,” 4Q541 2.ii.3“) מכאבין

as a potential Hebraism.79

מכילה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a measure,” 11QtgJob 13.7, MT 28:25“) מכילה

information in the discourse.

מכתש

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a plague,” 11QtgJob 29.3, MT 37:13“) מכתש

information. With Sokoloff this form is taken as nominal, not as an infinitive.80

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This use is anaphoric, in – (the plague,” 1Q20 20.29“) מכתשא

reference to line 18. It is, however, singular instead of plural. One could choose to view it

as a subset of the plagues mentioned in line 18.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This is an anaphoric – (the plagues,” 1Q20 20.18“) מכתשיא

reference to line 16, which mentions רוח מכדש למכתשה (woodenly: “a spirit of plague to

plague him”).

79 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 48. 80 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 143.

285

מלאך

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This noun phrase – (an angel,” 4Q213a 2.18“) מלאך

includes חד, acting as an indefinite article.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the angel,” 4Q553a 2.3; 4Q558 2.2“) מלאכא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The phrase is followed by – (the angels,” 4Q552 1.5“) מלאכיא

.making it most likely that a relative clause follows, which identifies it ,די הוו

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (angels,” 4Q553a 2.2; 4Q558 1.2 (the)“) מלאכיא

מלה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Sokoloff (p.29) – (a word,” 11QtgJob 1.5, MT 18:2“) מלא

reads as an absolute plural,81 but DJD (33:90) reads with an aleph.82 He comments, "No

traces of the ‘ read by the eds. is (sic) visible on the photograph."83 Because of the

uncertainty of the ending, this noun is excluded from the data set of this study. In either

case, the word would be in the absolute state.

,(”many“) שגיאן Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Modified by – (words,” 4Q541 9.i.5“) מלין

making it necessarily indefinite.

81 Ibid., 29. 82 J. P. M. vander Ploeg, Le Targum de Job de La Grotte XI de Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 90. 83 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 107.

286

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (words,” 11QtgJob 21.6, MT 32:14“) מלין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (words,” 11QtgJob 25.10, MT 34:34“) מלין

מלח

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Salt is expected as part of the – (salt,” 1Q20 10.17“) מלחא

offering as seen in both Leviticus 2:13 and Ezekiel 43:24. Accordingly, this is an

associatively definite reference. In the MT, Lev 2:13a has the definite article on a first-

mention use of salt, however Lev 2:13c (MT) does not have the definite article on a parallel

phrasing. Ezek 43:24 (MT) does not have the definite article on מלח.

I מלך

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (king,” 4Q570 1.i.4, 1.ii.4, 6.5 (a)“) מלך

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that Pharaoh Zoan was – (the king,” 1Q20 20.8“) מלכא

mentioned in 19:24, this reference is anaphoric, even if the word מלכא has not been used

previously in the text. It is also possible that מלכא is used in the missing text at the end of

column 19 or the beginning of column 20. In either case, this form is semantically definite.

,the king,” 1Q20 20.10, 20.22, 20.23 (2 occurrences), 20.24, 20.25, 20.26, 20.30“) מלכא

20.31) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – These forms are all anaphoric references.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In Nineveh, there would be – (the king,” 4Q196 2.9“) מלכא

one king, making this form identifiable.

287

מלכא רבא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the king,” 4Q196 18.5“) מלכא

(“the great king”) making the reference singular.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the – (the king,” 4Q243 3.2, 4Q244 1-3.4“) מלכא

context of 4Q243 and 4Q244, this is a reference to King Belshazzar, previously mentioned,

and hence semantically definite. This form could also be a vocative.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the king,” 4Q246 1.i.2“) מלכא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the king,” 4Q543 16.5“) מלכא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This – (the king,” 4Q550 1.6 (2 occurrences)“) מלכא

appositional construction is identifying, not merely descriptive.

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form is self-referential – (the king,” 4Q550a 1.1“) מלכא

therefore identifying and semantically definite.

Emphatic – (the king,” 4Q550a 1.3; 4Q550b 1.2, 4Q550c 1.ii.7, 1.iii.3; 4Q550d 1.1“) מלכא

Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference, as the king has been mentioned multiple times in

the narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (king,” 4Q552 1.8, 4Q572 1.1, 1.2 (the)“) מלכא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The full phrase is – (the kings,” 1Q20 21.26, 21.32“) מלכיא

The following relative clause makes these .(”the kings who were with him“) מלכיא די עמה

288

forms identifiable by cataphoric reference as the kings listed in 21:23. These two forms are

therefore semantically definite

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This form is an anaphoric – (the kings,” 1Q20 22.4“) מלכיא

reference to the invading kings from 21:23.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Kings are newly introduced to – (kings,” 4Q213 1.i.12“) מלכין

the wisdom poem in this line, which makes this form unidentifiable and semantically

indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (kings,” 4Q213 2.12“) מלכין

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (kings,” 11QtgJob 27.1, MT 36:7“) מלכין

II מלך

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (counsel,” 4Q531 26.1“) מלך

מלכו

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (kingship,” 4Q558 22.3“) מלכות

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (kingdom,” 4Q243 16.4, 17.i.2 (the)“) מלכותא

מנדע

Absolute Singular, Definite – (knowledge,” 4Q212 1.iv.13“) מדע

289

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (knowledge,” 4Q531 2+3.10“) מדעא

Absolute Singular, Definite – (knowledge,” 4Q213a 1.14“) מנדע

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (knowledge,” 4Q580 3.2“) מנדע

מנה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (portion,” 4Q536 2i+3.13 (a)“) מנתה

מנחה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This form is – (an offering,” 1Q20 21.2, 21.20“) מנחא

feminine absolute singular, written with final aleph.84

מנין

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (number,” 4Q243 26.2“) מנין

מנתנה

is מנתנן Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Though the final letter of – (gifts,” 1Q20 20.30“) מנתנן

restored, Machiela notes that it is modified by the attributive adjective שגיאן, which, though

effaced in some of its letters, has a relatively clear final nun.85 Accordingly, the nominal

84 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 217. 85 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 163.

290

reconstruction is sufficiently trustworthy to be included in the data set as an absolute plural

form. Fitzmyer argues that שגיאן is “not found on the photograph of this column.”86 The

word is, however, quite visible in the plates, “as noticed by all other editions.”87

מסבת

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The if/then structure of the – (a siege,” 4Q318 8.6“) מסבת

line shows that this is new information and therefore semantically indefinite, even should

another reading be warranted.

מסכן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a poor person,” 11QtgJob 8.5; 24:14“) מסכן

information to the narrative. Clearly not inclusive, as every poor person is not in evidence.

This is an Akkadian loan word.88

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – Most likely the – (poor,” 4Q197 2.1 (the)“) מסכנא

nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

Absolute Plural, Definite – Inclusive – (the poor,” 11QtgJob 25.4, MT 34:28“) מסכנין

reference. See chapter 4.

86 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 214. 87 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 163. 88 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 115.

291

מסתר

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This may be a Hebraism.89 – (shelter,” 4Q201 1.ii.7“) מסתרין

מערב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (west,” 11Q18 12.i.5 (the)“) מערב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – Machiela – (west,” 1Q20 13.17 (the)“) מערב

argues against all previously-proposed reconstructions of the beginning of line 17 because

the letter preceding מערב is neither an aleph nor nun, most likely being a mem.90 This

argument is buttressed by his note of what appears to be מן at the end of line 16, which

would invalidate the reconstructions of line 17 that place it there.91 Given that the other

three instances in 1Q20 of a preposition plus a form of מערבא have all used the emphatic

form, it would be expected here as well if מן were directly preceding it. This provides

corroborating support to Machiela’s argument.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (west,” 11Q18 12.i.5 (the)“) מערב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In all three – (the west,” 1Q20 17.8, 17.10, 21.9“) מערבא

instances the nominal form is the object of a preposition and refers to “the west” in a way

identifiable by general knowledge. 17:10 has previously been read without the preposition

89 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 85. 90 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 152. 91 Ibid., 151.

292

lamed, but it is visible on BZ17T,92 which renders Fitzmyer’s comment about the contrast

between this line and line 8 moot.93 These forms are therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the west,” 4Q209 23.5; 4Q552 2.ii.7; 4Q554 1.i.17“) מערבא

– Definite by general knowledge.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (west,” 2Q24 4.10 (the)“) מערבה

מערה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (cave,” 4Q558 56.1 (a)“) מערה

מעשר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Genesis 14:20 (MT), which – (a tenth,” 1Q20 22.17“) מעשר

corresponds to this line, does not have a definite article on מעשר.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – This form may be – (a tenth,” 1Q21 4.1“) מעשר

the nomen regens of a construct phrase.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The Temple context – (the tithes,” 11Q18 12.i.2“) מעשריא

would make tithes expected and associatively definite.

92 Ibid., 157. 93 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 175.

293

מפת

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Hebraism.94 – (miracles,” 4Q546 10.2“) מפתין

המציע

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The fact – (the middle,” 4Q554 1.ii.7; 4Q554a 1.ii.5“) מציעיא

that an item (wall, gate, etc.) would have a middle is known to all, so these are associative

references, easily identifiable to the audience and therefore semantically definite.

מקדש

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the context of the – (the temple,” 4Q540 1.5“) מקדשא

section, discussing high priests, there is only one temple in view, making the form

identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in its – (the temple,” 11Q18 9.6“) מקדשא

context.

מרע

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (sickness,” 4Q318 8.9“) מרע

knowledge.

94 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 61.

294

מרפסה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (gallery,” 11Q18 13.8 (the)“) מרפסתא

מררה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the gall,” 4Q197 4.i.14“) מררתא

line 10.

משח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This refers to an indeterminate – (oil,” 1Q20 10.16“) משח

and unidentifiable amount of oil.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (oil,” 11Q18 29.4“) משח

משחה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a measurement,” 5Q15 1.ii.4“) משחה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the measurement,” 4Q554 1.iii.12“) משחתא

משכן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in – (the tabernacle,” 4Q243 34.1“) משכנא

an Israelite religious context.

295

משרת

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (service?,” 11Q18 15.1“) משרתא

משתה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is half of the “prosaic – (drink,” 1Q20 22.15“) משתה

Aramaic expression, ‘food and drink.’”95 This is a first mention of the food and drink

which Melchizedek provided and is semantically indefinite.

משתו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an – (the wedding feast,” 4Q197 4.ii.4“) משתותא

associative reference, given that Tobias is being encouraged to marry the young woman.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – It would be – (the wedding feast,” 4Q545 1a.i.6“) משתותא

expected that a father having given his daughter in marriage would make a wedding feast,

so this form is associatively definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an – (the wedding feast,” 4Q545 1a.i.7“) משתותא

anaphoric reference to the wedding feast mentioned in the previous line and is therefore

semantically definite.

95 Fitzmyer, “Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon,” 281.

296

מתל

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a parable,” 4Q541 9.i.1“) מתל

מת

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (lands?,” 4Q536 2i+3.6 (the)“) מתתא

נביא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the setting of the – (the prophet,” 4Q556 1.7“) נביאא

document, with history written in the form of prophecy, one can reasonably assume that the

prophet had been introduced at the beginning of the text (which is now lost), accordingly,

this form would be an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though the following – (the prophet,” 4Q562 7.1“) נביאה

word is lost, the text precedes to reference Zech. 2:8, so the prophet is identifiable and the

form is therefore semantically definite.

נגב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – At least in the – (the dry (wind),” 4Q210 1.ii.8“) נגבה

conception of the text, this is the common name for the southerly wind, so it is identifiable.

297

Note that, should the idea here relate more to the southern direction instead of dryness, this

would be classified as a Hebraism.96

נגד

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This is an associative – (the afflictions,” 1Q20 20.18“) נגדיא

use, parallel to מכתשא: there has not been a previous mention of נגדיא as a noun, which

would be required to understand this as an anaphoric reference. However, line 16 mentions

The afflictions mentioned .(”woodenly: “a spirit of plague to plague him) רוח מכדש למכתשה

here, then, would be expected by the audience and are definite because of the associative

relationship between them and the spirit of plague.

נגה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (dawn,” 4Q552 1.ii.1 (the)“) נוגהא

נהור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (light,” 4Q209 1.i.2, 1.i.12; 4Q531 13.6“) נהור

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (light,” 11QtgJob 23.7; MT 33:28“) נהור

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Since light has just been – (light,” 4Q548 1i-2.13“) נהורא

mentioned in the previous line, this is most likely an anaphoric reference.

96 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 93.

298

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (light,” 4Q580 3.3“) נהורא

נהירו

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (light,” 4Q548 1ii-2.14“) נהירותא

נהר

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (river,” 1Q24 1.3 (the)“) נהרא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (rivers,” 4Q531 7.6“) נהרין

נון

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Uniquely denoting in the context – (the fish,” 4Q318 7.9“) נוניא

of zodiac signs.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (fish,” 4Q531 2+3.3 (the)“) נוניא

נור

is further described נור – Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (fire,” 1Q20 0.13“) נור

by a relative clause: נור די אתחזי (“(a) fire which is seen”). Unfortunately, the lack of

surviving text around this phrase means that no decision can be made on the semantic

definiteness or indefiniteness of the form.

299

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information. This is the – (fire,” 1Q20 5.13“) נור

predicate of a verbless clause and hence is descriptive of the child, functioning as a

property noun. As a descriptor, it is semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – This word is quite – (fire,” 4Q204 1.vi.22“) נור

possibly the nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though this could be an – (the fire,” 1Q20 10.14“) נורא

anaphoric reference to a use of נורא in the missing text before this, there is relatively little

missing text between the end of line 12 and the current text. More likely, then is that this is

an associative use: in the context of making atonement (line 13), fire is expected, so נורא is

semantically definite due to an associative reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Because this section – (the fire,” 1Q20 15.10“) נורא

interprets a dream, this mention of נורא is most likely an anaphoric reference to a previous

mention. Unfortunately, the report of the dream is now lost in the missing material before

this section. Muraoka interprets this as a case of semantic definiteness due to a shared

situation.97

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This could be an anaphoric – (the fire,” 1Q20 15.12“) נורא

reference to the mention of נורא in line 10. Alternately, and more likely given the judgment

scene at this point of the dream, it could be a reference to the fire expected with judgment.

This is regularly combined in biblical passages with the Lord’s coming in judgment from

97 Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 159.

300

the south, e.g.: Deut 33:1-3, Ps 18:5-20, Ps 50:1-6, 68.98 Accordingly, the reference here is

most likely associative. In either case, this would be a semantic definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – If one accepts a basic – (the fire,” 4Q205 1.xi.5“) נורא

correspondence between the Aramaic of this column and Enoch 23 in Ethiopic, then the

fire would have been previously mentioned in line 4, making this an anaphoric reference

and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This references the fire in – (the fire,” 4Q530 2.ii.10“) נורא

line 9, making it an anaphoric reference.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that a form of the verb – (the fire,” 4Q556 1.4“) נורא

is used earlier in the line, this is an anaphoric reference, identifiable and semantically יקד

definite.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – See chapter 4 – (the fire,” 11QtgJob 36.4, MT 41:10“) נורא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the order in which a – (the fire,” 11Q18 13.3“) נורא

sacrifice is described in the biblical literature, the fire would have been built first, so this is

most likely an anaphoric reference to text that precedes (possibly at the end of column 12)

and is now lost. Alternately, this could simply be an associative reference, as fire is

expected as part of the sacrifice ritual.

98 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 196, n.261.

301

– Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (fire,” 11QtgJob 8.3, MT 24:13 (the)“) נורה

The translator read the Hebrew text אור as "fire," not as "light" as it is vocalized in the MT

(DJD 23:104).

נחל

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Assuming even a basic – (ravines,” 4Q204 1.xii.25“) נחליא

correspondence between the Aramaic and Ethiopic versions of Enoch, this passage sits in a

series of passages where Enoch sees various mountains and valleys. It is quite likely,

therefore, that this is an anaphoric reference to a valley previously mentioned and therefore

is semantically definite. Note that many restorations of the beginning of the next line

provide the demonstrative pronoun, so this could be part of a demonstrative noun phrase.

נחשירו

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (slaughters,” 4Q2046 1.i. 5“) נחשירון

ניח

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as – (calmness,” 11QtgJob 35.6, MT 40:27“) ניח

a concept by general knowledge.

נכסין

לחדא Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The noun is modified by – (wealth,” 1Q20 20.33“) נכסין

indicating a large but indeterminate number. This usage is therefore ,(”very many“) שגיאין

302

semantically indefinite. Genesis 13:2 (MT), which is loosely parallel to this verse, is

vocalized to indicate a definite noun.

שגיאין Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The noun is modified by – (wealth,” 1Q20 20.34“) נכסין

(“many”), indicating a large but indeterminate number. This usage is therefore

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The emphasis is on the – (wealth,” 1Q20 22.32“) נכסין

vastness of Abram’s wealth, but not on an identifiable amount. Therefore this usage is

semantically indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is the introduction – (possessions,” 4Q212 1.iv.17“) נכסין

of possessions to the narrative and therefore unidentifiable and semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (possessions,” 4Q540 1.1, 1.2, 1.3“) נכסין

נכרי

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (strangers,” 4Q542 1.i.5“) נכראין

discourse.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to – (a foreigner,” 4Q213 1.i.16“) נכרי

the poem.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (strangers,” 4Q318 8.9 (the)“) נכריא

303

נסי

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (leader,” 4Q569 1.5 (a)“) נסי

נפיל

Emphatic Plural, Definite – This reference is to the – (the giants,” 1Q20 6.19“) נפיליא

Nephilim (the giants) as a group and is therefore inclusive, making it semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference to all – (the giants,” 4Q530 2.ii.6“) נפיליא

the monsters/giants as a group.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the giants,” 4Q531 1.8“) נפיליא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The reference is to some of the – (giants,” 1Q20 2.1“) נפילין

giants. Though the last two letters of this noun form are restored, this form is parallel to

earlier in the line, so the restoration is sufficiently certain to include in this קדישין and עירין

analysis. Though the origin of the name is obscure, this was a defined group known

generally from Genesis 6:4 and referenced in much other literature from Qumran.99

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – This is very likely the – (giants,” 4Q531 1.2“) נפילין

first introduction of the Nephilim in the narrative, which would make it semantically

indefinite and would explain the absolute form. However, as the context of the line is

99 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 125.

304

broken, this judgment cannot be made with certainty, so the form is considered as not

having enough context to determine semantic definiteness.

נפש

נפשא“ ,Emphatic Singular, Definite – As Fitzmyer says – (the people,” 1Q20 22.19“) נפשא

is a fem. collective sg., reflecting the Hebrew הנפש of Gen 14:21; cf. Josh 10:28, 30, 32; AP

24:27, 30.”100 As with all collective nouns, this form could be pluralized, so it is a count

noun, collectively standing for all the people who were captured. The full phrase is נפשא די

the persons that are mine, who are captive with“) א^י^תי לי די שביא עמך די אצלתה מן מלך עילם

you, whom you saved from the king of Elam”). The referent of this noun is therefore

identifiable because of the following relative clauses, making this form definite by

cataphoric reference.

נפתן

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Cataphoric – (the sumptuous food,” 4Q196 2.11“) נפתניא

definite, as a relative clause follows that identifies.

נץ

אנצ (“the eagle,” 11QtgJob 33.7; MT 39:26) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic

reference.

100 Ibid., 251.

305

נקבה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a female,” 4Q531 2+3.9“) נקבה

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (women,” 1Q20 1.1 (the)“) נקבתא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive – (the female (spirit),” 4Q560 1.i.3, 1.i.5“) נקבתא

reference.

נרד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (nard,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.18“) נרד

נשר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (eagle,” 4Q558 22.2 (an)“) נשר

סב

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (leaders,” 4Q201 2.2“) סבין

סגן

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New – (officials,” 11QtgJob 14.4, MT 29:10“) סגנין

information in the speech.

306

סד

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable – (the stock,” 11QtgJob 22.5; MT 33:11“) סדא

by general knowledge.

סדר

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (rows,” 2Q24 4.7“) סדרין

סוגד

Emphatic Singular, Definite – All mastic wood is – (mastic,” 4Q214b 2-6.4“) סוגדה

acceptable to be placed on the altar, so the form is a generic reference, inclusive, and

therefore semantically definite.

סולת

סולת Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (fine flour,” 1Q20 10.16“) סולת

The attributive adjective and following .(”pure flour, soaked in oil“) נשיפא פילא במשח

participle are both feminine absolute singular, the feminine singular adjective being written

with aleph instead of the more common heh.

סוף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (an end,” 4Q212 1.iv.26“) סוף

narrative.

307

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (an end,” 4Q213 2.14“) סוף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information – (an end,” 11QtgJob 1.5, 25.1, 28.4“) סוף

in each of the respective speeches.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (end,” 4Q209 27.1 (the)“) סופא

I סיף

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (end,” 4Q558 31.1 (the)“) סיאפא

II סיף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a sword,” 4Q536 2.ii.10“) סיף

narrative.

סכל

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – As a vocative expression – (o fool,” 4Q536 2.ii.11“) סכלא

situationally identifiable.

סכנה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (useful portion,” 11Q18 12.i.3 (the)“) סכנתא

סליחה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (forgiveness,” 4Q196 17.ii.5“) סליחא

308

סם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – In the context of an – (medicine,” 4Q197 4.i.12“) סם

interrogative question מה סם ("what medicine…?) this form is semantically indefinite.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (medicine,” 1Q20 1.9“) סמין

סעד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The promise of God in lines – (a help,” 1Q20 22.31“) סעד

30-31 is what he will be for Abram. Accordingly, this is a property use of the noun.

ספיר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (sapphire,” 4Q196 18.7; 4Q554 2.ii.15“) ספיר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive – (sapphire,” 11QtgJob 12.3, MT 28:6“) ספירא

reference. Because a related form is present in Syriac, "[T]his is probably not an ad hoc

borrowing from H[ebrew]."101

101 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 120.

309

ספר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The reading taught to the – (reading,” 4Q213 1.i.9“) ספר

children (context borrowed from Cairo Geniza) is not any particular reading (therefore

identifiable) nor is it inclusive of all reading, hence this form is semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (reading,” 4Q213 2.5“) ספר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (reading,” 4Q214a 2-3.5“) ספר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Fitzmyer instead reads – (learning,” 1Q20 19.15“) ספרא

for this form.102 Following Bernstein, Machiela argues from the (”knowledge“) מנדעא

similarity of the samek to that in 19:23 to either the reading here or “the equally plausible

.brilliance, understanding.’ Either word makes good sense in the present context‘ ,סברא

The resh is sure in BZ19BM and BZ19B, rendering all earlier proposals untenable.”103

Whichever of these readings one wishes to follow, the noun refers to the concept of

knowledge/brilliance as a whole and is therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (books,” 4Q213 2.9 (the)“) ספריא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The books were mentioned – (the books,” 4Q2550 1.5“) ספריא

in the previous line, making this an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

102 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 98. 103 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 161.

310

סרטן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting – (the crab,” 4Q318 7.1, 7.6, 8.2“) סרטנא

in context (constellation names).

סתר

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (secret places,” 3Q14 6.1“) סתרין

עבד

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (servants,” 4Q213 2.11“) עבדין

עבור

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This use is semantically – (grain,” 1Q20 11.12“) עבור

indefinite, simply describing the goodness of the post-flood land. The verbal construction

requires an indefinite complement indicating the type of contents that were involved (מלא)

in the filling.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Earlier readings from Avigad – (grain,” 1Q20 19.10“) עבור

and Yadin that read the first letter as tet have been disproved.104 The correct reading is

disputed. Fitzmyer attaches the aleph to the following word and reconstructs the particle of

existence.105 Machiela attaches the aleph to this form, arguing that this is clear “since in

104 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 182. 105 Ibid., 98.

311

both BZ19TM and IMneg. 3856 the resh and aleph can be seen touching each other.”106

This noun is neither identifiable nor inclusive of all grain, and therefore semantically

indefinite. This phrasing may be related to Genesis 42:1-2 via “associative

harmonization,” in which the “translation or adaptation of a biblical text is affected

linguistically by another passage which is analogous to it or with which it shares common

elements.”107 Such a harmonization would be most likely unconscious, though it could be

conscious.108 The MT of Genesis 42:1, which is such an analogous construction (with the

Hebrew noun שבר) does not have the definite article in the corresponding construction.

עבורי

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (transgression?,” 4Q531 25.3“) עבורי

עגי

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Note that various readings of this – (pits,” 1Q20 21.33“) עגיאין

word are proposed, with this study following Fitzmyer.109 Regardless of the reading, the

form would remain in the absolute state and is the introduction of a new element into the

narrative, making it semantically indefinite.

106 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 159. 107 M. J. Bernstein, “Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon,” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 1 (1996): 48. 108 Ibid. 109 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 238.

312

עגל

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Based on the Ethiopic text – (the calf,” 4Q206 4.ii.12“) עגלא

the calf has been mentioned previously, in what would be the broken portion of line 11, so

this is most likely an anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (calves,” 4Q553a 10.2“) עגלין

עדב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – “By lot” is the method of – (a lot,” 1Q20 16.12“) עדב

distribution, but the specific lot used is not identifiable to the audience.

I עדן

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a general – (pleasantness,” 1Q20 11.12“) עדן

concept. Because עדן is the subject of the verbless clause, it is used referentially – to refer

to the concept – not as a property noun phrase. Fassberg argues this as a possible Hebraism

due to the absence of the noun in Aramaic sources, though he notes that the verbal form of

the root is attested in Old Aramaic and Syriac.110 Stadel likewise considers the form a

possible Hebraism.111 Given that the root is well-attested in Aramaic, however, this form is

110 Fassberg, “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran,” 60. 111 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 26.

313

included in the data set, though the potential for it to be a Hebraism should not be

forgotten.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The MT – (pleasantness,” 11QtgJob 27.6, MT 36:11“) עדנין

vocalization reflects an elided definite article, but this form is semantically indefinite in the

MT. The Targumist, looking at an unpointed text, could quite rightly have been expected

to read this form as semantically indefinite. What seems odd here is not the Targumist's

treatment, but the vocalization of the MT. This form may be a Hebraism, given that the

plural does not occur in other Aramaic dialects.112

II עדן

די יתבו Absolute Singular, Definite – The relative clause – (the moment,” 2Q24 4.19“) עדן

("when they sat down") follows, identifying this noun and making it cataphorically

definite. See chapter 2.

Absolute Singular, Definite – The relative clause that – (the time,” 4Q534 1.i.4“) עדן

follows ]י]נדע תלתת ספריא די ("that he knows the three books") identifies this time, making

this form semantically definite. See chapter 2.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Likely anaphoric reference – (the time,” 4Q198 1.10“) עדנא

112 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 138.

314

די יתיב Emphatic Singular, Definite – Followed by the phrase – (the time,” 4Q198 1.9“) עדנא

("when he will bring [them] back"), making it semantically definite.

עובד

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – Not only is this – (deed,” 1Q20 6.27 (the)“) עבדא

form significantly effaced, but Machiela proposes the reconstruction of כול before it, which

would make this noun phrase a complex definite.113

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The Ethiopic text (2:2) has – (the work,” 4Q201 1.ii.1“) עבדה

a relative clause following in a phrasing that would approximately fit the same space

available in the Aramaic text here. Accordingly, this is more likely a phrase identified by

the following relative clause and therefore semantically definite. The heh also could be

interpreted as a possessive pronoun.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (wonders,” 4Q206 1.xxvii.21“) עבדין

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This line is read here – (the deed,” 1Q20 1.11“) עובדא

following Machiela as עובדא די עד כען (“the deed which until now”), with the last two

characters are restored.114 Fitzmyer instead reads עובדא די עבדו (“the deed which they did”),

113 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 83. 114 Ibid., 136.

315

with the last letter restored.115 In either case, the following phrase or clause makes the

reference cataphorically definite.

עוברה

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – The plural – (thickets?,” 1Q20 11.9 (the)“) עובריא

form here indicates that this use is as a count noun. Fitzmyer translates “thickets,” working

from the noun עוברה (“branch”).116 Machiela argues instead for a gloss of “intermediate

regions” or “plains,” based on geographic extrapolations of the Aramaic עובר (“transient,

passerby”) and עיבר (“traveler, border, side”).117 In either case, the referents are

topographical and they therefore would function similarly as regards their semantic

definiteness. Though the chain of terms [יא]לטוריא ודמדבריא לעובריא ודא (“to (the)

mountains, and (the) wildernesses, (the) thickets and (the) coasts”) makes one strongly

suspect these are universals, and therefore semantic definites, this cannot be proved due to

the lack of context. Therefore this usage is classed as “not enough data to determine

semantic definiteness.”

עוז

זאעו (“the vulture,” 11QtgJob 33.9, MT 39:27) – Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic

reference.

115 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 66. 116 Ibid., 155. 117 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 149.

316

עול

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (iniquity,” 1Q20 6.1“) עול

.Absolute Singular, Definite – Inclusive reference – (iniquity,” 4Q537 1+2+3.2“) עול

עולה

;Absolute Singular, Definite – Inclusive reference – (wrongdoing,” 4Q204 1.v.3“) עולה

wrongdoing as a whole is indicated in God's command for destruction.

עון

Absolute Singular, Definite – Excluded from the data set as – (iniquity,” 4Q560 1.i.4“) עואן

a Hebraism.118

עוף

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This singular form indicates an – (fowl,” 1Q20 6.26“) עופא

inclusive reference to birds and is therefore semantically definite. See the entries for אנשא,

.above חיותא and בעירא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (fowl,” 4Q541 4.i.5“) עופא

118 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 104.

317

עופיה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (branches,” 1Q20 13.13“) עופיאן

עור

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (blindness,” 4Q245 2.3“) עור

knowledge.

עזרה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Uniquely – (the Temple courtyard,” 2Q24 8.7“) עזרתא

denoting. Hebraism.119

עין

– Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (the eye?,” 1Q20 16.8, 16.9, 16.15, 16.17“) עין

Though some of the uses of have substantially complete context around them, it is difficult

to understand the sense of this phrase in the geographical sense it is used: “a spring” (?),

elliptical for “as the eye sees” (?), something else (?). Accordingly, one cannot even

determine if this is a concrete or abstract noun, nor is its semantic definiteness clear.

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 4 – (the eye,” 11QtgJob 14.5, MT 29:5“) עין

119 Ibid., 67.

318

עיק

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (agony” 4Q204 1.v.1“) עיקא

עיר

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (watcher” 4Q204 1.v.19 (the)“) עירא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The beginning of the – (the watcher” 4Q206 1.xxii.5“) עירא

relative clause די עמי הוה ("who was with me"), mostly restored, is visible, making this an

identifiable watcher and holy one. Further, the name Raphael immediately precedes,

making this an appositional identification of Raphael.

עירא רבא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The phrase is – (the watcher” 1Q20 6.13“) עירא

(“the great watcher”), most likely implying an identifiability.

ריאעי (“the watchers” 1Q20 7.2) – Emphatic Plural, Definite – Fitzmyer treats עיריא as

beginning a new sentence.120 Machiela, on the other hand, treats it as an item in the list of

things being ruled.121 If עיריא begins a new sentence, it is likely an anaphoric reference, as

the Watchers have been previously mentioned in the text. This would make it a semantic

definite. If it is part of the list of things being ruled, then it represents the entire category,

which would also make it a semantic definite.

120 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 79. 121 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 109.

319

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – This is likely – (the watchers” 4Q202 1.iv.6“) עיריא

the nomen rectum of a construct phrase.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The Watchers are a known – (the watchers” 1Q20 2.1“) עירין

class of beings (see, for example, 4Q510 and 4Q511), as well as contemporary Jewish

literature.122 This group therefore would be identifiable to both author and audience via the

shared situation of their religious milieu. What is in view in column 2 is the question of

whether some watchers were part of the conception of Noah, not all the Watchers together

as a class.

– (the watchers” 4Q203 7b.i.4; 4Q206 1.xxvii.19; 4Q532 2.7; 4Q 534 1ii+2.15“) עירין

Absolute Plural, Definite – See chapter 2.

עלה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in – (a burnt offering” 1Q20 21.20“) עלא

the narrative.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is a first mention – (burnt offerings” 1Q20 21.2“) עלואן

use of עלואן, providing new information.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The context of – (the burnt offering” 4Q214b 2-6.6“) עלתא

the column is animal sacrifice, so this form, even if not previously mentioned (which

122 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 124.

320

would make it definite by anaphoric reference), would be expected by the audience,

making it identifiable by an associative process.

עלי

,Emphatic Singular – (the Most High” 1Q20 2.4, 6.9, 6.24, 10.18; 4Q550c 1.iii.1“) עליא

Definite – Substantivized adjectives. As epithets for God, these are uniquely denoting.

עלי

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (upper room” 11Q18 9.1 (the)“) עליתא

עלים

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is an – (youth,” 11QtgJob 23.3, MT 33:25“) עולים

anaphoric reference to Noah, the subject of the discourse, and therefore semantically

definite. It should be noted, however, that both this word and line are heavily

reconstructed.

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the youth,” 1Q20 5.10“) עולימא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Even a – (the youth,” 4Q196 13.2; 4Q197 4.i.7“) עולימא

basic correspondence between the text of Tobit at Qumran and the text in Sinaiticus is

enough to be confident that this youth (Tobias) had been previously introduced by this

point in the narrative, which reflects Tobit 6:6-8. The youth is therefore anaphorically

definite.

321

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference – (the youth,” 4Q197 4.i.16“) עולימא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Sokoloff – (young men,” 11QtgJob 14.2, MT 29:8“) עלימין

notes, "'lymyn…should be read here instead of the impossible 'lwmyn."123

עלימו

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (virility,” 11QtgJob 36.8, MT 41:14“) עלימו

general knowledge.

עלל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information to – (an entranceway,” 5Q15 1.ii.1“) עלל

the narrative.

עלם

Absolute Singular, Definite – (eternity,” 4Q197 4.i.14; 4Q201 1.ii.11; 4Q213a 3-4.6“) עלם

– See chapter 2.

– (eternity,” 1Q20 5.17, 8.4; 4Q209 23.4; 4Q246 1.i.2, 1.i.3; 4Q547 6.4; 6Q23 1.1“) עלמא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – the very nature of the word עלמא implies both a unity and an

inclusiveness. See chapter 2.

123 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 121.

322

Emphatic Plural, Definite – the very nature – (eternity,” 1Q20 17.19; 4Q196 18.11“) עלמיא

of the word implies both a unity and an inclusiveness. See chapter 2.

Absolute – (eternity,” 1Q23 20.3; 4Q201 1.ii.11; 4Q534 1.i.11, 1ii+2.8; 4Q542 1.i.4“) עלמין

Plural, Definite – the very nature of the word implies both a unity and an inclusiveness.

See chapter 2.

עלעול

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (storm winds,” 4Q530 7.ii.4“) עלעולין

עם

Absolute – (a people,” 4Q213 1.i.21; 4Q246 1.ii.3 (2 occurrences); 11QtgJob 25.5“) עם

Singular, Indefinite

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (people,” 11QtgJob 28.6, MT 36:28 (a)“) עם

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – For 6.24 – (people,” 1Q20 1.26, 6.24 (the)“) עמא

several different readings have been proposed. Machiela reads עמא עלמא (“the eternal

people”).124 As read, עלמא must be an attributive adjective, as עמא is not in construct.

Machiela notes the aleph as being significantly effaced, but even if this is not an aleph,

there is some letter present, meaning this cannot be a construct phrase.

124 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 144.

323

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the people,” 4Q541 9.i.7“) עמא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (people,” 4Q548 1ii+2.14 (the)“) עמא

.Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 2 – (the people,” 4Q549 2.8“) עמא

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (peoples,” 4Q546 11.7; 6Q14 1.7“) עמין

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (people,” 4Q540 3.1 (the)“) עממא

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the peoples,” 4Q243 24.3“) עממיא

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (peoples,” 4Q556a 5.i-ii.2 (the)“) עממיא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the peoples,” 4Q556a 5.i-ii.5“) עממיא

line 2.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (peoples,” 6Q19 2 (the)“) עממיא

.Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information – (peoples,” 4Q246 1.ii.8“) עממין

,Absolute Plural – (peoples,” 4Q537 16.1; 4Q554 13.22; 4Q556a 1.i.3; 4Q558 20.2“) עממין

Insufficient Context

עמוד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Both cases – (a pillar,” 4Q554 1.iii.21; 5Q15 1.ii.4“) עמוד

are new information into their narratives.

324

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (pillar,” 5Q15 2.5 (2 occurrences) (a)“) עמוד

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (pillars,” 5Q15 2.4“) עמודיא

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (pillars,” 5Q15 2.4“) עמודין

עמיק

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information into – (deep (things),” 4Q541 3.3“) עמיקין

the narratives. Substantivized adjective.

עמל

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (trouble,” 4Q318 8.7“) עמל

knowledge.

ען

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though this fragment of – (the flock,” 4Q204 4.3“) ענא

4Q204 that remains is small, it can be located as part of 1 Enoch 89, the whole chapter of

which has been using the flock as an image of Israel. Accordingly, this would be an

anaphoric reference to the flock which had been previously mentioned in a portion of the

document which no longer remains.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The flock has been – (the flock,” 4Q204 4.5, 4.7“) ענא

previously referenced, so this noun is an anaphoric reference and semantically definite.

325

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though this fragment of – (the flock,” 4Q205 2.ii.29“) ענא

4Q205 that remains is small, it also can be located as part of 1 Enoch 89, the whole chapter

of which has been using the flock as an image of Israel. Accordingly, this would be an

anaphoric reference to the flock which had been previously mentioned in a portion of the

document which no longer remains.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The column is dealing with – (the flock,” 4Q531 2+3.6“) ענא

universals as the angels exploit the fruitfulness of the earth. Accordingly, this form

indicates small livestock in general and is therefore inclusive and semantically definite.

עני

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (poor (person),” 11QtgJob 14.6, MT 29:12“) ענא

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (poor (person),” 4Q569 1.8“) עני

ענן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a cloud,” 11QtgJob 16.4, MT 30:15“) ענן

– Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (cloud,” 11QtgJob 29.2, MT 37:11 (a)“) ענן

Sokoloff notes that the translator read the consonantal Hebrew text as an absolute form.125

125 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 143.

326

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Some read with a heh – (the cloud,” 1Q20 12.1“) עננא

though the aleph is clear.126 Given the parallel phrasing of Genesis 9:13 (MT), the

restoration of a form of עננא in the lacuna earlier in line 12 seems justified. If so, then the

form attested here is an anaphoric reference back to that form and semantically definite.

Note, however, that Machiela sees no room for the necessary letters to all be restored in the

space of the lacuna, following Greenfield and Qimron “with hearty reservation, although

the general import is, no doubt, correct.127 The MT vocalization of Genesis 9:13 also

indicates the presence of the definite article on ענן.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The placement of incense on – (the cloud,” 4Q156 1.4“) עננא

the fire would be expected to produce a cloud, so this expected cloud is identifiable in the

associative sense and the form is therefore semantically definite. Note that the MT has ענן

in construct with the following הקטרת. The Targum either shortens the phrase to simply

.or had an analytic genitive phrase in the broken remainder of the line ענןא

.Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 4 – (the cloud,” 4Q157 1.i.2“) עננא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (cloud,” 11QtgJob 34.2, MT 40:6 (the)“) עננא

is ענן Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – Given that – (the cloud(s),” 4Q201 1.ii.4“) עננה

masculine in QA, the form is emphatic singular. Milik notes this as a collective subject.128

126 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 149. 127 Ibid. 128 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 148.

327

Note that it comes from a detached fragment which has been judged to fit in this location.

See chapter 2.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the clouds,” 4Q560 1.ii.7“) ענניא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive – (the clouds,” 11QtgJob 3.8, MT 20:6“) ענניא

reference.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (clouds,” 11QtgJob 30.7, MT 38:9“) עננין

.Absolute Plural, Definite – See chapter 4 – (clouds,” 11QtgJob 31.3, MT 38:25“) עננין

עפר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (dust,” 11QtgJob 34.9, 37.8; MT 40:13, 42:6“) עפר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the dust,” 4Q157 1.ii.4“) עפרא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (dust,” 4Q531 27.3; 4Q536 2i+3.11 (the)“) עפרא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – "Dust" here is the object of – (the dust,” 4Q201 1.ii.8“) עפרה

the verb "tread," and walking would be expected to include stepping on and through dust.

Accordingly, this is an associative use of the noun.

328

עקה

תובא Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Based on the context – (tribulation,” 4Q540 1.1“) עקא

this is a new instance of tribulation, therefore not identifiable ,("again it will come") תתה

and therefore semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (distress,” 4Q561 6.3“) עקא

.Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the text – (trouble,” 4Q246 1.i.4“) עקה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (distress,” 4Q57 8 (the)“) עקתא

עקרב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting – (the scorpion,” 4Q318 7.2, 7.7“) עקרבא

in the context of constellation names.

ער

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (laurel,” 4Q214b 2-6.5“) ערא

ערב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New introduction of a boat – (a boat,” 4Q206 4.i.14“) ערב

to the narrative. The noun is quantified by חדה acting as an indefinite article.

329

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the boat,” 4Q206 4.i.15 (2 occurrences), 4.i.20“) ערבא

Anaphoric references to line 14.

ערבל

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (sieves,” 11Q18 12.i.1 (the)“) ערבליא

ערד

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The – (the wild asses,” 4Q205 2.i.28 (2 occurrences)“) ערדיא

wild asses were introduced in row 25, so this form is identifiable and semantically definite

by anaphoric reference.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Based on the Ethiopic – (the wild asses,” 4Q206 4.ii.15“) ערדיא

text, the wild asses have been mentioned previously, in what would be the broken portion

of line 11, so this is most likely an anaphoric reference.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Given the – (wild asses,” 4Q20 2.i.25“) ערדין

absolute form of the noun and the patterns seen in this study, one suspects that this is a first

mention use of the noun. The fragmentary nature of the text before this, however, means

that suspicion cannot be proved.

עריה

.Absolute Singular, Definite? – See chapter 2 – (chill,” 4Q560 1.i.4“) עריה

330

ערימה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (heap,” 4Q560 1.i.4 (a)“) ערימה

ערפל

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (cloud,” 11QtgJob 29.8, MT 37:18 (the)“) ערפלא

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive of all mist – (the mist,” 4Q541 9.i.5“) ערפלא

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (mists,” 11QtgJob 30.7, MT 38:9“) ערפלין

עשב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This use is semantically – (herbage,” 1Q20 11.12“) עשב

indefinite, simply describing the goodness of the post-flood land.

עתר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Abram’s wealth is not – (wealth,” 1Q20 22.32“) עתר

identifiable to the audience in any specific sense, as the emphasis is that he has much

wealth. The focus of this phrase is not on the entirety of his wealth but instead merely on

the existence of it. This is therefore similar to an existential sentence and semantically

indefinite.

331

פחת

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (pit,” 11Q18 37.3 (the)“) פחתא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The semantic definiteness – (the pits,” 4Q206 1.xxii.1“) פחתיא

of this form is difficult to judge. Given the correspondence of this fragment with Enoch

22:3-7, it is quite likely the pits were mentioned in the preceding few verses. For this

reason, the form is tentatively considered semantically definite. Should this be new

information in the narrative, however, this form would be semantically indefinite.

פיל

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Based on the Ethiopic – (the elephants,” 4Q206 4.i.21“) פיליא

text, the elephants have been mentioned previously, in 1 Enoch 88, so this is most likely an

anaphoric reference and therefore semantically definite.

פלפל

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Most likely referencing – (peppers,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.18“) פלפלין

an indefinite amount of peppers.

פסח

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (Passover offerings,” 11Q18 27.3 (the)“) פסחיא

332

פקר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (madness,” 4Q560 1.i.2“) פקר

פרא

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the wild donkey,” 11QtgJob 32.4, MT 39:5“) פראה

Generic reference and therefore inclusive. Sokoloff states, "Though this word does not

occur elsewhere in A[ramaic], there is no reason to suspect a loanword, since it occurs also

in Arabic and in Akkadian…. Rather, it should be considered cognate."129

פרזא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Stadel – (a block,” 4Q554 1.ii.14 (2 occurrences)“) פרזא

concludes that this word is not a Hebraism.130

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line – (the blocks,” 11Q18 6.4“) פרזיא

2.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the block,” 4Q554 1.ii.13“) פרזיתא

line 11.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric – (the block,” 5Q15 1.i.1, 1.ii.2, 1.ii.6“) פרזיתא

references. The two instances from column 2 are clearly anaphoric because of the

129 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 152. 130 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 67.

333

reference in column 1. Based on comparison with 4Q554, the form in column 1 is also an

anaphoric reference.

פרזל

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is almost certainly an – (the iron,” 1Q20 13.10“) פרזלא

anaphoric reference back to a previous mention when the dream was reported in lines 1-7

(now lost). It is the only singular form in a chain of emphatic plurals, which seems

surprising, but indicates that it should be taken as a mass noun. If the form were an

emphatic plural (a scribe having omitted a yod) it would still be semantically definite. The

form is marked with the lamed marker of the definite direct object.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive – (iron,” 11QtgJob 36.9, MT 41:15“) פרזלא

reference.

פרי

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (fruit,” 4Q541 2.i.9 (the)“) פריא

פרכת

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely – (the Temple curtain,” 4Q156 1.3“) פרכתא

denoting. Excluded from the data set as a Hebraism.131

131 Ibid., 105.

334

פשע

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (transgression,” 4Q560 1.i.4“) פשע

knowledge.

פתגם

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (command,” 4Q533 3.3 (a)“) פתגם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (an utterance,” 11QtgJob 9.2, MT 24:25“) פתגם

information to the discourse.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (statement,” 4Q556a 2.11 (the)“) פתגמא

פתור

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associatively definite, as – (the table,” 4Q196 2.11“) פתורא

the line has already recounted him reclining to eat, so the table is expected and identifiable

by an associative process.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (table,” 4Q555 1b.2 (the)“) פתורא

פתי

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is the width of the – (the breadth,” 4Q554 1.ii.11“) פתיא

block mentioned earlier in the line, and since every block would have both length and

width, it is associatively identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

335

פתכר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is the predicate of a – (an idol,” 4Q556a 5.i-ii.3“) פתכר

sentence, making it most likely new information and semantically indefinite.

צבו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (pleasure,” 11QtgJob 5.2, MT 21:21“) צבו

צבין

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (pleasure,” 11QtgJob 15.6, MT 30:2“) צבין

צבען

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (dyed material,” 4Q544 1.13“) צבענין

צדו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The largely missing – (the desolation,” 1Q20 12.9“) צדותא

text in lines 2-7 prevents knowledge of whether this form is an anaphoric reference. Even

if the reference is not anaphoric, though, it would be an associative reference to the

destruction caused by the flood, given the flood story which has preceded this portion of

the narrative. In either case, then, it would be a semantically definite form.

336

צדיו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This reference is to – (the breadth,” 4Q206 4.iii.16“) צדיותא

the wasteland that would be expected to surround any habitable area in the ancient near

east. Therefore, even though it is not specifically identifiable by reference, it is expected in

an associative sense and is therefore semantically definite.

צדיק

– Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (righteous (one),” 1Q20 15.23 (the)“) צדיקא

Substantivized adjective. If this is a singular and referential noun, then it would be a

superlative. Context is lacking, however, to make any judgments.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – This – (righteous,” 4Q556a 1.i.6 (the)“) צדיקא

form is most likely inclusive, but it cannot be proved so from the context.

צדקה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (alms,” 4Q198 1.1“) צדקה

– Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (righteousness,” 4Q213 1.i.7“) צדקתא

Unfortunately, restoration form the Cairo Geniza version of this text does not aid in this

determination, as it is broken in the section that would correspond to the remainder of the

sentence which includes this word.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (righteousness,” 4Q542 1.i.12“) צדקתא

337

צהה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly – (a thirsty person,” 11QtgJob 6.6, MT 22:7“) צהא

introduced to the speech.

צורה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is in the context of a – (the form,” 4Q552 2.ii.3“) צורתא

shared situation, so both speaker and audience would know which form was in question,

making the form identifiable (to them) and therefore semantically definite.

ציר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – As Fitzmyer says, “The – (a messenger,” 1Q20 6.13“) ציר

word בציר , if correctly read, is problematic, because it would be a Hebraism, ציר,

‘messenger,’ known from the MT of Isa 18:2; 57:9, and especially Prov 13:17 (where it

stands in parallelism to ‘angel’); it is apparently not otherwise attested in Aramaic.”132

This reading is, however, confirmed by Machiela.133 Stadel confirms this as a Hebraism.134

132 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 148. 133 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 83. 134 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 21.

338

צלו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a prayer,” 11QtgJob 14.8, MT 29:13“) צלו

צלם

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (images,” 4Q243 31.2“) צלמין

צמיד

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Hebraism.135 – (bracelets,” 4Q202 1.ii.27“) צמידין

צער

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (sorrow,” 4Q530 1.i.2“) צער

general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (sorrow,” 4Q580 4.5“) צער

צפון

– (the north,” 1Q20 17.7, 17.8, 17.11, 17.16, 21.9; 4Q550e 1.1; 4Q583 1.1“) צפונא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge. Stadel argues that this is

135 Ibid., 86.

339

a Hebraism.136 However, here this study does not follow Stadel, viewing the word instead

as a common culture word from the region.

I צפר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a bird,” 11QtgJob 35.8, MT 40:29“) צפר

information in the speech.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive – (the birds,” 11QtgJob 26.6, MT 35:11“) צפריא

II צפר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (mastic,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.18“) צפר

III צפר

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – This is part – (mornings,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.18“) צפרין

of a double translation of the MT.137

צץ

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Whether the translation – (the lamella?,” 4Q541 24.ii.5“) צצא

is "the priestly head plate" (e.g.: Beyer 2004:469) or "nail" (DJD 31:253) or "lamella"

136 Ibid., 31. 137 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 121.

340

(Cook 2012), this is clearly an item known to the implied audience of Levi's testimony,

which makes it identifiable and therefore semantically definite.

קבל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (darkness,” 11QtgJob 8.6, MT 24:15“) קבל

קדיש

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an – (the Holy One,” 1Q20 6.2; 4Q203 8.5“) קדישא

epithet for God.138 It is therefore uniquely identifying and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The beginning of – (the Holy One,” 4Q206 1.xxii.5“) קדישא

the relative clause די עמי הוה ("who was with me"), mostly restored, is visible, making this

an identifiable watcher and holy one. Further, the name Raphael immediately precedes,

making this an appositional identification of Raphael.

Emphatic – (the Holy One,” 1Q20 0.11, 2.14, 4.12, 7.7, 7.20, 12.17; 4Q530 2.17“) קדישא

Singular, Definite – This is an epithet for God: קדישא רבא (“the Great Holy One”), therefore

uniquely denoting.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an epithet for – (the Holy One,” 4Q201 1.i.5“) קדישה

God: קדישה רבה (“the Great Holy One”), therefore uniquely denoting.

138 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 146.

341

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – In context, this “is a – (holy ones,” 1Q20 2.1, 6.20“) קדישין

name for angels, as in Dan 4:10, 14, 20, [etc.].”139 Some “holy ones” are in view in each

case, not every member of the angelic class. Daniel 4:14 (MT) has a parallel phrasing,

.Absolute Plural, Definite – See chapter 2 – (holy ones,” 4Q204 5.ii.26“) קדישין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (holy ones,” 4Q213a 3-4.7“) קדישין

קדל

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (nape,” 4Q531 20.1 (the)“) קדלא

קדש

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (holiness,” 4Q580 2.3“) קדשא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – These places are – (the holy places,” 4Q542 1.i.13“) קדשיא

identifiable as heaven based on the common religious milieu of the text, making the noun

form semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (holiness,” 4Q542 1.i.13“) קודשא

knowledge.

139 Ibid., 125.

342

קומה

ומתהק (“stature,” 4Q561 1.ii.8) – Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context

קורב

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (nearness?,” 4Q587 1.3“) קורבא

קטו

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (hut,” 11QtgJob 11.9, MT 27:18 (the)“) קטותא

קטם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (ash,” 11QtgJob 37.9, MT 42:6“) קטם

קים

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a covenant,” 11QtgJob 35.7, MT 40:28“) קים

information in the discourse.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (covenant,” 4Q243 40.3 (the)“) קיםא

קל

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This voice is singular and – (a voice,” 1Q20 6.15“) קל

previously unidentified. It is therefore semantically indefinite as a first mention use.

343

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information – (a voice,” 11QtgJob 34.5, MT 40:9“) קל

in the discourse.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The broken text – (cry,” 4Q202 1.iii.6 (the)“) קלא

before this makes it impossible to know if this cry is previously mentioned. Isaac, for

instance, translates the Ethiopic as "And (the people) cried, and their voice reached unto

heaven."140 There is room for a restoration similar to this, which would make the form

semantically definite. However, Milik's reconstruction of "[And because part of mankind

was perishing from] the earth, the cry [was going up to heaven.]"141 would make this a

semantic indefinite, as there would be no previous reference to the cry.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (voice,” 4Q201 1.iv.9 (the)“) קלה

קלל

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (curse,” 1Q20 1.24 (a)“) קלל

קללה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a reproach,” 4Q534 1ii+2.17“) קללה

140 E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse Of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H Charlesworth; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 16. 141 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 171.

344

קצף

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The context is quite – (wrath,” 4Q530 1.i.6“) קצף

fragmentary, however the form is modified by שגיא (“much”), showing it to be semantically

indefinite.

קרב

,Absolute Singular – (war/battle,” 1Q20 21.24, 21.25, 22.6; 4Q246 1.ii.8; 4Q531 22.4“) קרב

Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge, especially in the fixed phrase עבד קרב (“make

war”). Genesis 14:2 (MT), which corresponds to 1Q20 21:24, does not have the definite

article on מלחמה (“war”)

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (battle,” 4Q562 1.1“) קרב

.Emphatic Singular, Definite – See chapter 5 – (the battle,” 1Q20 21.31“) קרבא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (war,” 1Q21 51.1“) קרבא

.Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 2 – (war,” 4Q544 1.4“) קרבא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associative – (the war,” 11QtgJob 33.6, MT 39:25“) קרבה

reference.

345

יןקרב

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Even from the remnant of – (the entrails,” 4Q214 2.7“) קרביא

the column that survives, it can be seen that this text concerns the performance of an animal

sacrifice. The entrails then, would be identifiable by an associative process.

קרבן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (offering,” 2Q24 4.2 (an)“) קורבן

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (offering,” 4Q547 8.4 (the)“) קורבנא

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (offering,” 4Q213a 3-4.8 (an)“) קרבן

קרדמן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (cardamom,” 4Q206 1.xxvi.18“) קרדמן

בקרי

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a kinsman,” 4Q196 6.11“) קריב

narrative.

קריה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (city,” 4Q244 8.4 (a)“) קריה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a city,” 4Q571 1.1“) קריה

346

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (city,” 4Q537 12.3 (the)“) קריתא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The entire – (the city,” 4Q554 1.ii.11, 1.ii.22“) קריתא

document has been describing the New Jerusalem, making this reference obviously

identifiable and semantically definite.

קשט

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (truth,” 4Q542 1.ii.1“) קושוט

knowledge. See chapter 2.

(truth,” 1Q20 2:7, 2:10, 2:18, 3:13, 5:7, 5:8, 5:9, 5:10, 6:1 (2x), 15:20; 4Q204 1.v.7“) קושט

– Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge. See chapter 2.

,Emphatic Singular – (truth,” 1Q20 2.5, 2.22, 6.2, 6.6, 19.25; 4Q542 1.i.9, 1.i.12“) קושטא

Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge. See chapter 2.

,Emphatic Singular – (truth,” 4Q196 17.ii.3, 17.ii.9; 4Q212 1.ii.20; 4Q564 1.ii.1“) קושטא

Insufficient Context

;truth,” 1Q20 3.13; 4Q204 5.ii.22, 5.ii.30; 4Q212 1.iv.17; 4Q 246 1.ii.5; 4Q537 14.3“) קשוט

4Q550b 1.3) – Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge. See

chapter 2.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by – (truth,” 4Q213 1.ii.8; 4Q246 1.ii.6“) קשט

general knowledge. See chapter 2.

347

Absolute Singular, Insufficient – (truth,” 4Q545 2.2; 4Q 580 1.i.10; 11QtgJob 7A.8“) קשט

Context

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (truth,” 4Q212 1.iii.24“) קשטא

knowledge. See chapter 2.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (truth,” 4Q213 1.i.7; 4Q565 1.5“) קשטא

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the honest (person),” 11QtgJob 11.8, MT 27:17“) קשיטה

Generic reference.

קשי

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Substantivized – (harsh (things),” 4Q201 1.ii.13“) קשין

adjective. The proud and difficult words spoken against God are not identified in any way,

making this semantically indefinite.

קשת

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in the – (the archer,” 4Q318 7.8“) קשתא

context of constellation names.

ראש

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (head,” 1Q21 45.1 (the)“) ראשא

348

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Even from the remnant of – (the head,” 4Q214 2.3“) ראשא

the column that survives, it can be seen that this text concerns the performance of an animal

sacrifice. The head, then, would be identifiable by an associative process.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (rulers,” 4Q213 2.10“) ראשין

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (rulers,” 4Q542 1.i.7“) ראשין

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (head,” 4Q553a 3.i.1“) ריש

רב

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a chief,” 4Q246 1.i.5“) רב

narrative.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – As an – (the Great One,” 4Q204 1.vi.11; 4Q209 23.3“) רבא

epithet for God, this substantivized adjective is uniquely denoting and therefore

semantically definite.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information – (nobles,” 11QtgJob 14.3, MT 29:9“) רברבין

in the narrative.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (nobles,” 11QtgJob 25.1, MT 34:24“) רברבין

349

רבו

,Absolute Singular – (greatness,” 1Q20 6.23; 4Q213 1.i.12; 11QtgJob 9.4, MT 25:2“) רבו

Definite – Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept – (greatness,” 4Q205 1.xi.2“) רבותא

by general knowledge.

רבנו

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (authority,” 4Q537 19.1“) רבנות

general knowledge.

רגז

– Absolute Singular, Definite – (anger,” 4Q246 1.i.2; 11QtgJob 18.3, MT 31:11“) רגז

Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

רגל

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (foot,” 11QtgJob 12.1, MT 28:4“) רגל

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (feet,” 11QtgJob 14.10, MT 29:15“) רגלין

350

רוזן

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Hebraism.142 – (the tyrant,” 4Q542 2.13“) רוזנא

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Inclusive reference – (the tyrants,” 4Q530 2.ii.2“) רוזניא

Hebraism.

I רוח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The form here “is treated as – (a spirit,” 1Q20 20.16“) רוח

abs. sg. fem., -modified by the adj. באישא (a fem. with final aleph instead of he, as in 19:14;

20:7).”143 This is the same spirit as mentioned in a construct phrase earlier in line 16, but

this use is appositional to that mention, which was a first use semantic indefinite.

Accordingly, this appositional reference to that semantic indefinite is also semantically

indefinite.

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (the (east) wind,” 4Q210 1.ii.4“) רוח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a spirit,” 4Q538 1-2.4“) רוח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a spirit,” 4Q542 1.i.10“) רוח

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (wind,” 4Q560 1.ii.5; 6Q23 1.3 (a)“) רוח

142 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 97. 143 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 205.

351

Absolute Singular, Definite – This form – (a spirit,” 11QtgJob 2.6, MT 19:17“) רוח

corresponds to a possessive form in the MT. One wonders if the yod may have been

missing in the Vorlage of the Targum at this point. Sokoloff notes, "The abs. form

corresponding to MT rwhy is difficult. Is this possibly a mistake for rwh<y> or a

haplography for rwh<h>?"144 See chapter 4.

.Absolute Singular, Definite – Generic reference – (wind,” 11QtgJob 16.4, MT 30:15“) רוח

See chapter 4.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a wind,” 11QtgJob 36.2, MT 41:8“) רוח

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an anaphoric – (the spirit,” 1Q20 20.20“) רוחא

reference to the spirit introduced in line 16 and is therefore semantically definite. Against

this reading, Muraoka points out that it requires הוא, read as a form of the verb “to be,” to

be separated from the participle, which does not occur elsewhere in this text, while there

are 16 cases of the periphrastic construction with the participle immediately following the

verb.145 This is no small objection, and Fitzmyer follows him, reading as “that spirit,” a

demonstrative.146 However, it should also be noted that this would be the only case in the

Genesis Apocryphon in which the demonstrative pronoun preceded its referent, which

would be equally anomalous.

144 Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, 108. 145 Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” 10. 146 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 207.

352

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though this form is – (the spirit,” 1Q20 20.29“) רוחא

reconstructed, it is not debated, mainly due to the attributive adjective באישתא (“evil”)

which immediately follows. The adjective’s agreement in case confirms that this nominal

form would be an emphatic singular. It is also an anaphoric reference to the spirit

introduced in line 16 and therefore is semantically definite.

רוחא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the spirit,” 4Q210 1.ii.9“) רוחא

All north winds as a group are in view, making the form .(”the north wind“) גריביתא

inclusive and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (o spirit,” 4Q560 1.ii.6“) רוחא

previous line. Further, if this is a vocative, is necessarily definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (spirit,” 6Q8 26.2 (the)“) רוחא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Inclusive – (the wind,” 11QtgJob 13.6, MT 28:25“) רוחא

reference.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Anaphoric reference to line – (the winds,” 1Q20 13.17“) רוחיא

16.

.Absolute Plural, Definite – See chapter 4 – (the winds,” 1Q20 13.17“) רוחין

353

II רוח

רוחא Emphatic Singular, Definite – The full phrase is – (the quarter,” 4Q209 23.4“) רוחא

.which would be uniquely denoting in context ,(”the Great Quarter“) רבא

רויו

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (saturation,” 11Q18 27.6“) רויו

רום

.Absolute Singular, Definite – See chapter 2 – (height,” 4Q554a 1.ii.6“) רום

רושם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a mark,” 4Q530 2.19“) רושם

narrative.

רושמה

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (mark,” 2Q24 4.12 (the)“) רושמתא

רז

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (a mystery,” 1Q20 5.25“) רז

knowledge: Methuselah spoke ברז (“in secret”).

354

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The following – (mystery,” 1Q20 1.3 (the)“) רזא

likely introduces a relative clause and makes this a cataphoric reference and therefore די

semantically definite. The text after the די is lost, however, meaning this point cannot be

proven and this form is therefore classed as “not enough data to determine semantic

definiteness.”

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an anaphoric – (the mystery,” 1Q20 1.7“) רזא

reference to the use of רזא in line 3.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given that this section is – (the mystery,” 1Q20 14.19“) רזא

the interpretation of a dream, the reference is most likely anaphoric to a previously-

discussed mystery and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the secret,” 4Q536 2i+3.8“) רזא

line 8.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (mysteries,” 4Q201 1.iv.5“) רזין

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (mysteries,” 4Q536 2i+3.8“) רזין

narrative.

רחם

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (love,” 4Q539 1.1“) רחמא

355

רחמין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (mercy,” 4Q557 7“) רחמין

Absolute Plural, Definite – Identifiable by – (mercy,” 11QtgJob 38.3, MT 42:10“) רחמין

general knowledge.

רחצן

– Absolute Singular, Definite – (security,” 11QtgJob 9.5, 27.1; MT 25:3, 36:7“) רחצן

Identifiable by general knowledge.

ריח

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (smell,” 11Q18 22.5, 33.1 (a)“) ריח

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associatively definite in – (the smell,” 11Q18 13.7“) ריחא

the context of meat being cooked on a fire.

רם

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient – (haughty (ones),” 11QtgJob 5.4, MT 21:23 (the)“) רמיא

Context – Substantivized adjective.

356

רמה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – The Aramaic context is – (hills,” 4Q201 1.i.8“) רמן

unfortunately too broken to determine semantic definiteness. In the Ethiopic (1:6), this is

the indefinite subject of a sentence.

רעוא

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – In apposition to an – (an acceptable one,” 2Q24 4.2“) רעוא

indefinite noun.

שור

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (authority,” 4Q569 2.5“) רשותא

רשע

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (wickedness,” 1Q20 15.5“) רשע

general knowledge.

here רשע Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Note that – (a wicked one,” 4Q157 1.ii.8“) רשע

translates the word that has come into the MT as אויל. This may be due to a different

Vorlage, or it may simply be interpretive.

357

רשע Absolute Singular, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (wickedness,” 4Q204 5.ii.25“) רשע

This wickedness is newly introduced to the narrative and .(”stronger wickedness“) תקיף

therefore unidentifiable and semantically indefinite.

could either be רשעא – Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the wickedness,” 1Q20 15.12“) רשעא

an anaphoric reference to line 5 (“the evil,” so Fitzmyer),147 or a superlative (“the evil one,”

so Machiela).148 In either case, it would be a semantic definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – In the context of – (wickedness,” 4Q245 2.2, 2.6“) רשעא

being "exterminated" (מסף), this form is inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient – (wickedness,” 4Q558 33.ii.3; 4Q580 1.i.6, 1.i.13“) רשעא

Context

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Wickedness as a – (wickedness,” 4Q204 5.ii.28“) רשעה

whole is in view, making this form inclusive and therefore semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Definite – In terms of the text – (the wicked,” 4Q556a 5.i-ii.10“) רשעיא

that remains, this form is identifiable only associatively, but it was probably originally

identifiable anaphorically. Either way, semantically definite.

147 Ibid., 93. 148 Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees,” 119.

358

שבח

Absolute Singular, Definite – Excluded from the data set – (praise,” 1Q20 11.13“) שבח

because the reading is very uncertain.149

שבט

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (tribes,” 4Q548 1ii-2.1“) שבטין

שבי

,Emphatic Singular, Definite – Associatively expected – (captivity,” 1Q20 22.2“) שביא

given that the kings had come plundering in column 21. Fitzmyer considers this a noun

form which “is certainly an emph. form, and so has to be understood as masc.”150 He

explains the feminine verb which follows in line 25 as due to the influence of the form

.in the same line שביתא

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (captivity,” 4Q196 17.ii.3“) שביא

שביב

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (flame,” 4Q531 12.3“) שביב

149 The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of

Columns 13-17 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79; Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009), 54. 150 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 241.

359

שבל

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – The placement of – (streams,” 4Q204 1.vii.1“) שבלין

this fragment is not certain. Accordingly contextual decisions regarding semantic

definiteness are not made for this form.

שבק

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a sidewalk,” 2Q24 1.2“) שבק

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to – (a sidewalk,” 4Q554 1.ii.13“) שבק

the narrative.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the – (a sidewalk,” 5Q15 1.i.1“) שבק

narrative, based on comparison with 4Q554.

שד

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a demon,” 4Q196 14.i.5“) שד

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a demon,” 4Q197 4.i.13“) שד

narrative. Necessarily indefinite because the medicine is to work for anyone who is in the

condition described.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (demon,” 4Q547 3.1 (a)“) שד

360

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the demon,” 4Q196 14.i.12“) שדא

line 5.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Based on the parallel of – (the demon,” 4Q197 4.ii.9“) שדא

this line with 4Q196 14.i.4, this form would have been followed by the relative clause די

.making it identifiable and therefore semantically definite ,("which loves her") רחמה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (demons,” 4Q564 1.ii.2“) שידין

שוא

– Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (emptiness,” 11QtgJob 26.8, MT 35:13“) שוא

Hebraism.151

שומה

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (mark,” 4Q534 1.i.1 (a)“) שומה

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – New information in the – (markings,” 4Q534 1.i.3“) שומן

description.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (markings,” 4Q534 1ii+2.5“) שומן

151 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 114.

361

שוק

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a street,” 4Q554 1.ii.13, 1.ii.15; 5Q15 1.i.1“) שוק

שקיא Emphatic Plural, Definite – The full phrase is – (the streets,” 4Q554 1.ii.15“) שקיא

The existence of many streets in the city has been established .(”the main streets“) רברביא

by lines 11-15. The fact that a city would have some which are larger streets would be

easily understood by hearers, making this noun expected and therefore associatively

identifiable.

שור

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – This section is the – (a wall,” 1Q20 15.14“) שור

report of a vision, not the interpretation, so this noun use may be the first introduction of

,in the column, which would likely make it a semantic indefinite. Unfortunately שור

though, the broken nature of the text in this column does not permit that judgment with

enough certainty to include this form in the data set.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – This second – (a wall,” 1Q20 15.15“) שור

instance of שור could be conceived of as an anaphoric reference to the first use in line 14.

The context is lacking, however, to understand if this is the same wall or a new reference to

a separate wall, or even if the meaning of this usage of שור is even “wall.” Because of the

absolute form, the latter is more likely, but that is due to the conclusions of this study, not

362

the data, and this form is classed in the data set as “not enough context to determine

semantic definiteness.”

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (wall,” 2Q24 8.2; 11Q18 12.i.6 (the)“) שורא

שורה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric reference to – (the wall,” 11Q18 11.7“) שורתא

line 2.

שחן

.Emphatic Singular, Indefinite – See chapter 2 – (a boil,” 4Q242 1-3.2, 1-3.6“) שחנא

שיזפן

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – This – (the credit accountant,” 4Q196 2.6“) שיזפן

form could be semantically definite given the parallel position to the terms רב שקה ("the

chief cupbearer") and רב עזקן ("the chief of the signet rings"), but it could equally well be

“the chief…the chief…and a credit accountant.”

שיטו

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (scorn,” 4Q213 1.i.11“) שיטו

general knowledge.

363

שיציא

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (destruction,” 4Q530 1.i.5“) שיציא

שית

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Generic – (the thorn,” 11QtgJob 31.4, MT 38:27“) שיתא

reference.

שלט

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a quiver,” 11QtgJob 33.4, MT 39:23“) שלט

שלטן

– Absolute Singular, Definite – (authority,” 4Q196 2.6; 11QtgJob 9.4, MT 25:2“) שלטן

Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (authority,” 4Q243 11.ii.3“) שלטן

שליאו

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (rest,” 4Q205 1.xi.5“) שליאו

364

שליט

– (ruler,” 1Q20 20.13 (2x); 4Q542 1.i.2; 4Q546 4.2; 4Q550c 1.iii.1; 4Q552 2.ii.6“) שליט

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – In all cases this is a predicate nominative and therefore

absolute by rule.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is a predicate nominative – (rulers,” 1Q20 22.24“) שליטין

and therefore absolute by rule.

שלם

;peace,” 1Q20 21.4, 21.19 (2x); 1Q21 8.2; 1Q24 8.2; 4Q196 14.ii.7 (2x), 18.12“) שלם

4Q197 4.i.2, 4.iii.4 (2x); 4Q201 1.ii.14; 4Q204 1.v.6; 4Q246 1.ii.6; 4Q544 1.9; 4Q546

12.3; 4Q550 1.6, 1.7) – Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general knowledge.

See chapter 2.

שם

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is the object of the verb – (a name,” 1Q20 3.29“) שם

and new, unidentifiable information, hence semantically indefinite.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a name,” 4Q542 1.i.10“) שם

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a name,” 4Q553a 3.ii.2“) שם

365

שמין

heaven,” 1Q20 6.11, 6.12, 7.19, 10.17, 11.15; 1Q21 32.1, 37.3; 3Q12 1.3; 4Q202“) שמיא

1.iii.6; 4Q204 5.ii.27; 4Q206 1.xxii.4; 4Q209 23.2; 4Q210 1.ii.16, 1.iii.3; 4Q212 1.iv.24;

4Q213a 1.8; 4Q531 45.4; 4Q553a 9.1; 4Q582 4.2) – Emphatic Plural, Definite – Uniquely

denoting.

.Emphatic Plural, Definite – Uniquely denoting – (heaven,” 4Q201 1.iii.21“) שמיה

.Absolute Plural, Definite – Uniquely denoting – (heaven,” 4Q530 7.ii.11“) שמין

שמש

,the sun,” 1Q20 5.12, 7.2, 13.10, 15.21; 4Q208 10a.1 10a.2, 10a.9; 4Q209 7.iii.2“) שמשא

7.iii.5, 34.2, 35.1; 4Q560 1.i.5; 11Q18 24.1, 27.4) – Emphatic Singular, Definite –

Uniquely denoting.

שן

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – The – (tooth,” 4Q560 1.i.5 (the)“) שנא

interpretation of this phrase is quite uncertain, so any attempt to determine contextual

definiteness is avoided.

שנה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a year,” 4Q201 1.ii.11“) שנה

366

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (years,” 4Q209 25.1; 4Q543 17.1 (the)“) שניא

– (years,” 4Q243 19.1, 21.1; 4Q547 9.11; 4Q559 1.3; 4Q560 2.2; 4Q562 8.2, 8.3“) שנין

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context

שעה

שען שגיאן Absolute Plural, Indefinite – The full phrase is – (hours,” 1Q20 13.13“) שען

(“many hours”), which is necessarily indefinite, as it is neither identifiable nor inclusive by

nature of the adjective.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The moment has just – (the moment,” 4Q550 1.3“) ש<ע>תא

been described in the narrative, making this reference identifiable and semantically

definite. The ayin is missing in where there is a crack in the leather.152

שפט

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – Hebraism.153 – (judges,” 4Q213 2.10“) שפטין

שפל

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The form is parallel to – (the lowly ones,” 1Q20 0.7“) שפליא

Given that the anger mentioned in .(”the simple ones“) פתיא and (”the humble ones“) מכיא

152 Émile Puech, Textes Araméens ; Pt. 2, 4Q550-4Q575a, 4Q580-4Q587 et Appendices, 2009, 13. 153 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 43.

367

the preceding line seems to be God’s anger, the “lowly ones” here would be all lowly ones,

and this form is then semantically definite due to inclusiveness.

שפלו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a humble state,” 4Q542 1.i.6“) שפלו

שפר

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (beauty,” 1Q20 20.7“) שופר

knowledge. This form contextually must be taken to function adverbially, meaning

something such as “in beauty.” Jongeling, Labuschange, and van der Woude term this “a

figura etymologica in which the noun šwpr intensifies the verbal form (feminine participle)

šprh.”154 Fitzmyer considers it an abstract noun, “used to intensify the ptc. ... of the same

root,…thus resembl[ing] the inf. Abs. in Hebrew or in Old Aramaic inscriptions.”155

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (beauty,” 4Q553a 9.1“) שפרא

שפש

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (door,” 4Q554 4.2 (the)“) שפשא

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (doors,” 5Q15 1.i.8 (the)“) שפשיא

154 Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 94. 155 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 196.

368

,(”many“) שגישין Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Modified by – (doors,” 4Q554 3.2“) שפשין

making the form semantically indefinite.

שקר

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (falsehood,” 4Q196 9.3“) שקר

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (falsehood,” 4Q541 9.i.7“) שקר

general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (falsehood,” 4Q562 9-10.1“) שקר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a lie,” 11QtgJob 24.4, MT 34:10“) שקר

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept – (deceit,” 4Q212 1.iii.25“) שקרא

by general knowledge.

שרו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New information in the – (a meal,” 4Q196 2.1“) שרו

narrative.

שרש

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – Newly-introduced to the – (shoots,” 4Q530 2.ii.8“) שרשין

narrative.

369

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (roots,” 4Q558 21.2“) שרשין

שש

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (alabaster,” 5Q15 1.i.7“) שש

שב

די בהון Emphatic Plural, Definite – The relative clause – (the elders,” 2Q24 4.13“) שביא

("who were with us") follows, identifying this noun and making it cataphorically definite.

שהדו

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – New – (a testimony/witness,” 4Q542 1.ii.12“) שהדו

information in the narrative.

שהר

,Emphatic Singular – (the moon,” 1Q20 7.2, 13.10;4Q209 7.iii.6; 4Q213 3.4“) שהרא

Definite – Uniquely denoting.

שימה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a treasure,” 4Q213 1.i.20“) שימה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the treasure,” 4Q213 1.ii.3“) שימתה

370

שכלו

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (folly,” 1Q20 7.20“) שכלותא

שמאל

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the north,” 4Q210 1.ii.1“) שמאל

knowledge

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (the north,” 5Q15 1.i.12“) שמאלא

knowledge.

שמחה

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept – (joy,” 4Q542 1.i.3, 1.i.11“) שמחא

by general knowledge.

שנא

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a – (enemy/hatred,” 4Q541 24.ii.6“) שנאא

concept by general knowledge.

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (enemy,” 4Q543 15.3“) שנאין

שערה

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (hairs,” 4Q561 1.i.16“) שערן

371

שתו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable by general – (winter,” 4Q211 1.i.4“) שתוא

knowledge.

תאום

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Uniquely denoting in the – (the twins,” 4Q318 8.9“) תאומיא

context of constellation names.

תבו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is near the end of the – (the ark,” 1Q20 10.12“) תבותא

flood narrative, so תבותא is almost certainly an anaphoric reference to a previous mention

and therefore semantically definite.

תגר

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the – (a dispute,” 1Q20 10.12“) תגר

narrative.

תהום

Emphatic Plural, Definite – All abysses are – (the abysses,” 4Q542 1.ii.710.12“) תהומיא

included, as shown by the parallel phrases in the line.

372

תולעה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (a worm,” 11QtgJob 1.1“) תולעה

תור

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Uniquely denoting in the – (the ox,” 4Q318 7.5, 8.1“) תורא

context of constellation names.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (the bull,” 11Q18 13.1“) תורא

Emphatic Plural, Definite – The bulls were mentioned in – (the bulls,” 4Q206 4.i.19“) תוריא

line 13, so this is an anaphoric reference.

תותב

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – This is new information in – (foreigners,” 4Q542 1.i.7“) תותבין

the narrative, making it semantically indefinite. Note that the form has endured quite a lot

of correction in the manuscript of 4Q542. Note also that Stadel concludes this is not a

Hebraism.156

תחום

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (boundaries,” 11QtgJob 30.8, MT 38:10“) תחומין

156 Stadel, “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer,” 54.

373

תכונה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Hebraism.157 – (jewelry,” 4Q202 1.ii.27“) תכונא

תכך

Emphatic Singular, Definite – All thekaka – (thekaka (type of tree),” 4Q214b 2-6.5“) תככה

wood is acceptable to be placed on the altar, so the form is inclusive and semantically

definite.

תלג

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (snow,” 4Q204 1.vi.24“) תלג

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Snow is here referred to in a – (snow,” 4Q204 1.vi.26“) תלגא

generic sense, with the referent being all snow. This is therefore treated as being

semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form could be either – (snow,” 4Q209 23.10“) תלגא

semantically definite ("The snow," meaning all snow in a generic sense) or semantically

indefinite ("snow," meaning some indeterminate amount of snow). The decision between

the two depends on one's view of the context of the column. Because the entire remainder

157 Ibid., 86.

374

of the column has been discussing all of various items (deserts, stars, humankind, etc.) it is

more likely that this form is inclusive and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Snow is here referred to in a – (snow,” 4Q204 1.vii.2“) תלגא

generic sense, with the referent being all snow.

תמה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a – (wonder,” 11QtgJob 4.5, MT 21:6“) תמהא

concept by general knowledge.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – These wonders are newly – (wonders,” 6Q8 1.6“) תמהין

introduced to the discussion between Ohya and Mahawai, making them new information

and semantically indefinite.

תמימו

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a – (perfection,” 4Q542 1.i.13“) תמימותא

concept by general knowledge.

תמרה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a first-mention – (a date palm,” 1Q20 19.14“) תמרא

use of תמרא, unidentifiable and referencing a single tree. It is therefore semantically

indefinite. The noun is absolute singular because it is feminine in gender. As Fitzmyer

states, “Though תמרא ends in an aleph, it is abs. sg. Fem., as the following numeral חדא

375

shows. Cf. 19:15, 16 (emph. sg. fem.).”158 Further, referring to line 15, Fitzmyer notes,

“The fem. gender of תמרתא is clear, since the scribe deliberately wrote the ת of the emph.

ending above the line as an afterthought.”159

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This is an anaphoric – (the date palm,” 1Q20 19.15“) תמרתא

reference to the date palm which is introduced in the previous line with an absolute form.

It is therefore semantically definite. The second taw is elevated and the work of a

corrector, which makes it clear that this is a feminine emphatic singular form. It could be

that the scribe simply noticed a spelling error. Alternately, the scribe may have

disambiguated the form, as the form without the second taw could have been read as a

feminine absolute singular.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Anaphoric – (the date palm,” 1Q20 19.16 (2x)“) תמרתא

reference to lines 14-15.

תמרירו

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (bitterness,” 1Q64 1.2“) תמרירותא

158 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. (1Q20), 185. 159 Ibid., 185.

376

תנין

Absolute Singular, Definite – See – (the sea serpent,” 11QtgJob 10.4, MT 26:13“) תנין

chapter 4.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (sea serpent,” 11QtgJob 12.5, MT 28:8“) תנין

Absolute Singular, Definite – See – (the sea serpent,” 11QtgJob 35.4, MT 40:25“) תנין

chapter 4.

תנן

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – First mention in – (smoke,” 11QtgJob 36.5, MT 41:12“) תנן

the discourse.

תקף

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (force,” 1Q20 20.14“) תוקף

general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Definite – Identifiable as a concept by – (force,” 1Q20 13.16“) תקוף

general knowledge.

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – This is a descriptive – (strength,” 1Q20 22.31“) תקף

predicate.

377

– Absolute Singular, Definite – (strength,” 11QtgJob 16.2, 37.4; MT 30:14, 42:2“) תקף

Identifiable as a concept by general knowledge.

תקל

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – (shekels,” 4Q580 1.ii.11“) תקלין

תרב

Emphatic Singular, Definite – The slaughter of an animal – (the fat,” 1Q20 10.14“) תרבא

for sacrifice would be understood to involve the burning of the fat, and it would be

understood that an animal naturally had fatty portions. This form is therefore an

associative reference and semantically definite. Further, as this sacrifice anachronistically

tracks the Levitical law, this burning of fat would be expected by the audience and be

identifiable and semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – (fat,” 11Q18 22.2 (the)“) תרבה

תרע

,Absolute Singular – (a gate/door,” 4Q554 1.iii.18; 4Q554a 1.ii.3; 5Q15 1.ii.6“) תרע

Indefinite

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (a gate/door,” 11Q18 11.6, 11.7 (2x)“) תרע

378

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Given the context of – (the gate/door,” 4Q208 36.2“) תרעא

Astronomical Enoch, where the gates represent "sections of the horizon where the sun or

the moon appears or sets,"160 the gates are known locations, and therefore this form is most

likely semantically definite, particularly given its location late in the document.

Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the gate/door,” 4Q554 1.iii.17, 1.iii.18, 2.ii.21“) תרעא

– Emphatic Singular, Definite – (the gate/door,” 5Q15 1.i.13, 1.i.18, 1.ii.7“) תרעא

Anaphoric references to line 12 (and earlier).

Emphatic Singular, Definite – Though – (the gate/door,” 4Q554 1.i.13, 1.i.20, 1.ii.8“) תרעא

the next words are lost, the repetitive nature of the document allows us to confidently

restore די מערבא ("which is in the west"), which cataphorically identifies this gate, making

the form semantically definite.

Emphatic Singular, Insufficient Context – Given – (the gate/door,” 4Q554 1.iii.15“) תרעה

the very regular use of the absolute form to introduce new information in this description of

the New Jerusalem, it is most likely that this form, being emphatic, reflects a gate already

introduced to the narrative in the lost earlier portion of the column. This cannot be proven,

however, so the form is classed as not having enough information to identify semantic

definiteness.

160 Pfann, Qumran Cave 4. XXVI, Part 1 / by Philip Alexander, Magen Broshi, Esther Chazon ... [et Al.]. XXVI, Part 1 /

by Philip Alexander, Magen Broshi, Esther Chazon ... [et Al.]., 100.

379

Emphatic Plural, Definite – Further identified by – (the gates/doors,” 11Q18 19.1“) תרעיא

the following relative clause, which makes the form semantically definite.

Emphatic Plural, Insufficient Context – (gates/doors,” 4Q554 2.ii.20 (the)“) תרעיא

Absolute Plural, Insufficient Context – The column – (gates/doors,” 4Q204 1.xiii.23“) תרעין

is lost ahead of this word, and most of the rest of the line is broken as well, leaving no

context with which to determine semantic definiteness.

Absolute Plural, Indefinite – (gates/doors,” 5Q15 1.ii.4“) תרעין

תשבח

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – Newly introduced to the – (praise,” 4Q542 1.i.11“) תשבוחא

narrative.

Absolute Singular, Insufficient Context – (praise,” 4Q201 1.ii.10“) תשבחה

Absolute Singular, Indefinite – (praise,” 4Q204 1.i.29“) תשבחה

Emphatic Singular, Definite – This form could be argued – (praise,” 1Q20 11.13“) תשבחתא

to be a semantic indefinite because the praise is unidentifiable to the audience. However,

this is stereotyped religious language, with the point being that all praise is due to the Lord

of heaven. This form is therefore a semantic definite.

380

Appendix 2: Semantically Definite Construct Phrases with an Emphatic

Nomen Rectum

All semantically indefinite construct phrases and all semantically definite construct phrases with

an absolute nomen rectum were included in the main text of this study. The following construct

phrases were considered semantically definite and have an emphatic nomen rectum. They are

included here for the sake of completeness of the data set.

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the base of the altar 1Q20 10 15 איסוד מדבחא

the eternal God 4Q213b 1 6 אל עלמיא

the God of the ages 4Q542 1 1 2 אלה עלםיה

אלהי כסףא ודהבא...אעא אבןא

חסףא

the gods of silver and

gold…wood, stone, and

pottery

4Q242 1-3 7-8

the face of the earth 1Q20 4 12 אנפי ארעא

the four winds of heaven 1Q20 13 16 ארבע רוחי שמיא

the way of eternal truth 4Q212 1 4 22 ארח קשט עלםא

the length of the house 4Q554a 1 2 4 ארך בתיא

the desolate land 4Q556a 5 1-2 12 ארע צדותא

the foundations of אשי חמסא

violence

4Q212 1 4 14

the chosen one of God 4Q534 1 1 10 בחיר אלהא

the sons of men 4Q209 23 8 בני אנשא

the sons of mankind 1Q20 6 9 בני אנשא

the exiles 4Q244 12 4 בני גלותא

the children of darkness 4Q548 1ii-2 11 בני חשוכא

381

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the young of the בני שפנינא

turtledove

1Q20 10 15

the request of the giants בעות ארכת גבריא

for respite

4Q530 7 2

the cattle of the land 1Q20 13 8 בעיר אדמא

the son of a righteous בר גברא קשיט[א]

man

4Q197 4 3 9

eternal blessings 4Q542 1 2 3 ברכת עלםא

swine flesh 4Q556a 5 1-2 8 בשר חזירא

the midst of the coasts 1Q20 14 18 גא איא

the righteous man 1Q20 11 14 גבר צדיקא

the stump of the cedar 1Q20 14 11 גדם ארזא

the inside of the atrium 5Q15 1 1 18 גוא אספא

the inside of the atrium 5Q15 1 1 17 גוא אספא

the inside of a henna גוא כפרה

flower

11Q18 14 2 3

the course of the sun 4Q209 26 3 דבר שמשא

the signs of winter 4Q201 1 2 3 דגלי שתוא

eternal judgment 4Q212 1 4 23 דין עלםא

the generations of truth 4Q542 1 2 8 דרי קושטא

the generations of truth 4Q542 1 1 3-4 דרי קושטא

the court of the king 4Q318 8 7 דרת מלכא

א -ה על---דת חוק עלמא די

אנשא לבני

the custom of the eternal

statute which the Most

High gave to mankind

1Q20 6 8-9

the time of the day of the זמן יום קץא

end

4Q206 1 22 2

seed of the earth 4Q531 2+3 5 זרע ארעא

382

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the heat of the time 1Q20 2 10 חום ענתא

the appearance of the חזית חזויא

vision

4Q213a 2 16

the living things of the חיות ברא

field

4Q531 22 8

the beasts of the field 1Q20 13 8 חיות ברא

eternal darkness 1Q20 6 3 חשוך עלמא

תמרתאטלל the help of the date palm 1Q20 19 16

the right side 4Q554 1 3 15 יד ימינא

the inner wall 5Q15 1 1 18 יד כותלא גויה

the inner wall 4Q554 1 3 15 יד כתלא גויא

the day of judgment 4Q205 1 11 1 יום דינא

the days of the wedding יומי משתותא

feast

4Q545 1a 1 8

the days of evil 4Q536 2 2 11 יומי רשעא

the Sea of the East 1Q20 17 10 ים מדנחא

the south of the land 1Q20 15 11 ימין ארעא

the south of the land 1Q20 15 10 ימין ארעא

the south of the land 1Q20 14 17 ימין ארעא

the stars of heaven 4Q209 23 5 כוכבי שמיא

,all the land of the north כול ארע צפונא כולהא

all of it

1Q20 16 10

all the sons of all the earth 4Q212 1 4 20 כול בני ארעא כלה

all the children of the כול בני עלםא

world

4Q547 9 6

all the behavior of the כול לכת בני ארעא

sons of the earth

1Q20 6 16

383

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

all the constellations of כול מזלת שמיא

the heavens

1Q20 7 2

-all the kings of the earth 1Q20 20 15 כול מלכי ארעא

16

the true teaching 4Q542 1 2 2 כול ממר קושטא

,all the doers of violence כול עבדי חמסא ורשעא ושקרא

wickedness, and

deception

1Q20 11 14

all the peoples of the כול עממי ארעא

earth

1Q20 15 15

all the ends of the earth 4Q541 9 1 4 כול קצוי ארעא

the sides of the altar 4Q214b 2-6 8 כותלי מדבחא

all the men of the city 4Q551 1 4 כל אנש קרתא

all the children of light 4Q548 1ii-2 16 כל בני נהורא

every generation of כל דר דריא

generations

4Q202 1 3 15

all eternal generations 4Q213a 3-4 7 כל דרי עלמא

all the accounting of the כל המרכלות מלכא

king

4Q196 2 6

every bird and beast of כל כנף וחיות ארעה

the earth

4Q201 1 3 20

all the giants of the earth 4Q530 7 2 8 כל נפילי ארעא

all the ships of heaven 4Q209 23 6 כל ערבי שמיא

all the ends of the earth 4Q201 1 1 7 כל קצות ארעה

the heart of the fish 4Q197 4 1 12 לבב נונא

the heart of the fish 4Q196 13 3 לבב נונא

the tongue of the Great לשן ים מלחא רבא

Salt Sea

1Q20 16 16-

17

384

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the tongue of the sea that לשן ימא די פנה למצרין

faces Egypt

1Q20 16 18

the vessels of heaven 4Q209 23 7 מאני שמיא

the east of the earth 4Q206 1 26 19 מדנח ארעא

the east of heaven 4Q210 1 2 17 מדנח שמיא

the east of heaven 4Q209 23 6 מדנחי שמיא

the waters of the Great מי ימא רבא

Sea

1Q20 16 11

the waters of this tongue 1Q20 16 17 מי לשנא דן

the words of the Lord of מלי מרה שמיא

Heaven

1Q20 7 7

the words of the prayer 4Q242 1-3 1 מלי ץלתא

the words of the Holy מלי קדשא

One

4Q212 1 5 16

the king of all the ages 1Q20 10 10 מלך כול עלמיא

the king of the heavens 1Q20 8 10 מלך שמיא

the king of the heavens 1Q20 2 14 מלך שמיא

the kings of the peoples 4Q243 24 4 מלכי עממיא

the number of the מנין שארא

remnant

4Q536 2i+3 13

the array of all living מסרת כול חייא

things

4Q534 1 1 9

the middle of the house 5Q15 1 2 9 מציעת ביתא

the middle of the city 5Q15 1 1 5 מציעת קריתא

the Lord of all that is מרא כול םעבדיא

done

4Q542 1 1 2

the Lord of eternity 4Q202 1 3 14 מרא עלםא

the lord of the flock 4Q204 4 4 מרא ענא

385

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the Lord of everything 1Q20 10 1 מרה כולא

the Lord of everything 1Q20 5 23 מרה כולא

the Lord of eternity 1Q20 0 18 מרה עלמא

the mighty Lord 1Q20 15 11 מרה רבותא

the mighty Lord 1Q20 2 4 מרה רבותא

the Lord of heaven 1Q20 12 17 מרה שמיא

-the Lord of heaven 1Q20 11 12 מרה שמיא

13

the Lord of heaven 1Q20 0 14 מרה שמיא

the measurement of all משחת פרזיא כלהן

the blocks

5Q15 1 1 2

the measurement of the משחת תרעא בריא

outer gate

5Q15 1 2 2

the measurement of the משחת תרעא בריא

outer gate

4Q554 1 3 19

the measurement of the משחת תרעא בריא

outer gate

4Q554 1 3 16

the light of the world 4Q541 24 2 6 נהיר עלםא

the boughs of the first one 1Q20 14 17 נוף קדמיתא

the boughs of the first one 1Q20 14 16 נוף קדמיתא

eternal fire 1Q20 10 12 נור עלמא

the souls of all the sons of נפשת כל בני אנשא

mankind

4Q206 1 22 1

-plant of uprightness 4Q212 1 3 19 (the) נצבת יצבתא

20

the planting of this fruit 1Q20 2 15 נצבת פריא דן

the plant of eternal נצבת קשט עלםא

righteousness

4Q212 1 4 12-

13

386

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the end of the dream 4Q530 2 20 סוף חלםא

the end of the dream 4Q530 2 2 12 סוף חלםא

the end of these five years 1Q20 19 23 סוף חמש שניא אלן

the edges of the earth 4Q568 1 1 סיאפי ארעא

the noted scribe 4Q530 2 14 ספר פרשא

the noted scribe 4Q203 8 4 ספר פרשא

the work of deceit 4Q212 1 4 14 עבד שקרא

the makers of royal עבדי לבוש מלכותא

garments

4Q550 1 2

the works of truth 4Q580 1 1 11 עבדי קשטא

the ones who wield עבדי שלטנא

authority

4Q550 1 7

the ones who wield עבדי שלטנא

authority

4Q550 1 6

the business of the king 4Q550 1 3 עבידת מלכא

the time of the dawn 4Q580 1 2 15 עדני נגהא

the birds of the heavens 1Q20 13 8 עוף שמיא

the foliage of all the trees 4Q211 1 1 4 עלי כל אילניא

the labor of all the sons of עמל כל בני אנשא

mankind

4Q201 1 3 18

the breadth of the land 1Q20 21 16 פותי ארעא

the width of the wall 5Q15 1 2 12 פותי כותלא

the branch of the other פסגת חלפתא אחריתא

shoot

1Q20 14 15

קושטאפרדס the paradise of

righteousness

4Q209 23 9

the interpretation of the פשר חלמיא

dreams

4Q530 2 23

387

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the command of God 4Q242 1-3 2 פתגם אלהא

-the width of the street 4Q554 1 2 18 פתי שוקא

19

the width of the street 4Q554 1 2 16 פתי שוקא

קדישיאקדישי the Holy of Holies 11Q18 15 5

the cinnamon spice 4Q204 1 12 25 קונם בשםא

the time of the great קץ דינא רבא

judgment

4Q212 1 4 23

the end of the earth 1Q20 2 23 קצ ארעא

the ends of the earth 4Q201 1 1 7 קצות ארעה

the ends of the earth 1Q20 15 9 קצי ארעא

the holy city 4Q196 17 2 8 קרית קדשא

the head of the three ראיש תלתת חולקיא

portions

1Q20 17 11

the top of that rock 4Q204 4 3 ראש כףא דן

the leaders of the tens 4Q201 1 3 13 רבני עסרתא

the leaders of the tens 4Q202 1 2 17 רבני עשרתא

the nobles of the king 4Q244 1-3 1 רברבני מלכא

the south wind 4Q204 1 13 26 רוח דרוםא

the Western Quarter 4Q209 23 4 רוח מערבא

the putrid spirit 1Q20 20 26 רוח שחלניא

the height of the window 4Q554a 1 2 13 רום כותא

י Xרז רשעא ד the mystery of

wickedness which…

1Q20 1 2

the mysteries of mankind 4Q534 1 1 8 רזי אנשא

the secrets of all the רזי כול חייא

living

4Q534 1 1 8

388

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the creeping things of the רחש יבישתא

dry land

1Q20 13 8

the rest of this day 4Q209 9 2 שאר ימםא דן

דן שאר ימםא the rest of this day 4Q209 7 3 4

the rest of this day 4Q209 7 2 11 שאר ימםא דן

the rest of this day 4Q209 7 2 8 שאר ימםא דן

the rest of this day 4Q209 7 2 5 שאר ימםא דן

the rest of this day 4Q209 2 2 11 שאר ימםא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 9 1 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 3 6 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 3 3 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 2 13 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 2 10 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 2 7 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 7 2 4 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 6 8 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 5 5 שאר ליליא דן

the rest of this night 4Q209 2 2 10 שאר ליליא דן

the paths of eternal truth 1Q20 6 2 שבילי אמת עלמא

שבעת ראשי נהרא דן די בתר

ימא רבה די מלחא עלל בגא

the seven heads of this

river which afterwards

enters into the Great Sea

of Salt

1Q20 19 12-

13

the ruler of heaven 4Q530 2 16 שלטן שמיא

the name of God 1Q20 21 2 שם אלהא

the name of God 1Q20 19 7 שם אלהא

389

Text Translation Document Frag. Col. Row

the name of the Lord of שם מרה עלמיא

the Ages

1Q20 21 2

the name of this gate 4Q554 1 1 14 שם תרעא דן

the north of the land 1Q20 14 17 שמאל ארעא

the left of this entrance 5Q15 1 2 2 שמאל מעלה דן

the left of this entrance 4Q554 1 3 19 שמאל מעלה דן

the north of the temple 4Q554 1 2 17 שמאל מקדשא

the everlasting sun 4Q541 9 1 3 שמש עלמה

the bases of this mountain 1Q20 12 8 שפולי טורא דן

the swarming things of שרץ ארעא

the land

1Q20 13 11

the swarming things of שרץ מיא

the water

1Q20 13 11

the creeping things of the שרצ ארעא

earth

4Q531 2+3

the borders of the city 4Q554 2 1 17 תחומי קריתא

the strongholds of the sea 4Q552 2 2 10 תקפי יםא

the outer door of the ark 1Q20 11 1 תרע תיבותא באריא

the gates of heaven 4Q574 2 תרעי שמיא

the gates of heaven 4Q574 1 תרעי שמיא

the gates of heaven 4Q213a 2 18 תרעי שמיא

the gates of heaven 1Q20 6 25 תרעי שמיא

the gates of heaven 4Q201 1 4 10 תרעי שמיה

390

Bibliography

Aramaic Dialects

Cook, Edward M. “Aramaic Language and Literature,” Pages 178-184 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Near Eastern Archaeology. Edited by E.M. Myers. New York/Oxford: Oxford University, 1997.

Creason, Stuart. “Aramaic,” Pages 391–426 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s

Ancient Languages. Edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Phases of the Aramaic Language,” Pages 57-84 in A Wandering

Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBL Monograph Series 25. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

Huehnergard, John. “What Is Aramaic?” ARAM Periodical 7, no. 2 (1995): 261–82. Kaufman, Stephen A. “Aramaic,” Pages 114–30 in The Semitic Languages. Edited by Robert

Hetzron. London: Routledge, 1997. ---. “Languages (Aramaic),” Pages 173–78 in volume 4 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited

by D.N. Freedman. 5 vols. New York: Yale UP, 1992. Kutscher, E. Y. “Aramaic.” Pages 347-412 in Current Trends in Linguistics 6: Linguistics in

South West Asia and North Africa. Edited by T. A. Sebeok. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1970.

---. “Aramaic,” Columns 259-287 in Encyclopedia Judaica III. New York: MacMillan, 1971. Kuty, Renaud Jean. “Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel.” Doctoral thesis,

January 30, 2008. No pages. Cited 2 October 2013. Online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12588.

Pat-el, Naʼama. “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic Approach.”

Journal of Semitic Studies 54, no. 1 (2009): 19–50. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 2. rev. print. Porta linguarum orientalium.

Neue Serie 5. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1963. Waltke, Bruce K. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns,

1990.

391

Qumran Aramaic

Alexander, P.S. et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady. Miscellanea, Part 1.

Discoveries in the Judean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Avigad, N., and Y. Yadin. A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea:

Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX-XXII. Jerusalem: Magnes Press of the Hebrew University and Heikhal ha-Sefer, 1956.

Baillet, M. Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). Discoveries in the Judean Desert 7. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1982. Baillet, M., J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân. Discoveries in the

Judean Desert 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Barthélemy, D., and J.T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 1. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1955. Bernstein, M. J. “Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the

Genesis Apocryphon.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 1 (1996): 37–57. Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem

Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, deutsch-aramäische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Brooke, G.J. et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical

Texts, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Broshi M. et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts,

Part 2. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Cook, Edward. “The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Pages 359-378 in The Dead Sea Scrolls

After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Volume 1. Edited by P. Flint and J. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Cotton, H.M., and A. Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal

Hever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (The Seiyâl Collection II). Discoveries in the Judean Desert 27. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

Cross, F.M. “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus,” Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984):

260ff.

392

Delcor, M. Qumrân : sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Paris: Duculot, 1978. Diamant, D. "Not 'The Testament of Judah' but 'The Words of Benjamin' - On the Nature of

4Q538." Pages I:10ff in Sha'arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar Asher. Edited by: A. Maman, S. Fassberg, and Y. Breuer. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007.

Eisenman, R.H., and M. Wise (eds). The Dead Sea scrolls uncovered : the first complete

translation and interpretation of 50 key documents withheld for over 35 years. New York : Penguin Books, 1993.

Fassberg, Steven E. “Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran.” Pages 48–69 in

Studies in Qumran Aramaic. Louvain: Peeters, 1992. Fitzmyer, J.A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary, Third

Edition. Biblica et Orientala 18b. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 2004. ---. “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 99, no. 1 (1980): 5–21. Fitzmyer, J.A., and D.J. Harrington. A manual of Palestinian Aramaic texts : (second century

B.C.-second century A.D.). Rome : Biblical Institute Press, 1978. García Martínez, F. "The Last Surviving Columns of 11QNJ." Pages 178-92 in The Scriptures

and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. Van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C.J. Labuschagne. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

García Martínez, F., E.J.C. Tigchelaar, and A.S. van der Woude. Qumran Cave 11.II: (11Q2-18,

11Q20-31). Discoveries in the Judean Desert 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Greenfield, J.C., and E. Qimron. "The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," Pages 70-77 in Studies in

Qumran Aramaic. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3. Louvain: Peeters, 1992.

Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse Of) Enoch.” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by

James H Charlesworth. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Jongeling, B. “Détermination et Indétermination Dans 11QtgJob.” Pages 131–36 in Qumrân: Sa

Piété, Sa Théologie et Son Milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978.

393

Kutscher, E.Y. “Review of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I.” Orientalia 39, no. 1 (1970): 178–83.

---. “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study,” Pages 1-35 in Aspects of

the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripta hierosolymitana 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958. Lee, Peter. “Aramaic Poetry at Qumran”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington, DC: The Catholic

University of America, 2011. Machiela, Daniel. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with

Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17. Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah v. 79. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2009.

Milik, J.T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. With the collaboration

of Matthew Black. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ---. "Le modèles araméens du livre d'Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân," Revue de Qumran 15

(1991-92): 321ff. ---. "Prière de Nabonide," Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 409. ---. “Problèmes de la literature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân,”

Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 333-78. ---. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea. Studies in Biblical Theology 26.

London: SCM, 1959. Morgenstern, M., E. Qimron, and D. Sivan. “The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis

Apocryphon,” Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995): 30-54. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. ---. “Further Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Revue de Qumran 16, no. 1

(1993): 39–48. ---. “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Revue de Qumran 8, no. 1 (1972): 7–

51. ---. ed. “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII.” Pages 70–77 in Studies in Qumran Aramaic. Abr-

Nahrain 3. Louvain: Peeters, 1992. Naveh, J. "Fragments of an Aramaic Magic Book from Qumran," Israel Exploration Journal 48

(1998): 252-61.

394

Nickelsburg, G.W.E. Review of The Books of Enoch. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):

411-19. Pfann, S.J. Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 36. Oxford:

Clarendon, 2000. Ploeg, J. P. M. vander. Le Targum de Job de La Grotte XI de Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Puech, É. “Fragments d'un apocryphe de Le'vi et le personnage eschatologique. 4QTestLévi et

4QAJa,” Pages 489-90 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21, March, 1991, vol. 2. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992.

---. "Le Testament de Qahat en araméen de la grotte 4(4QTQah),” Revue de Qumran 15 (1991):

23ff. ---. Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579). Discoveries in the

Judean Desert 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. ---. Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529-549. Discoveries in the

Judean Desert 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ---. Qumran Cave 4.XXVII: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550-575, 580-582.

Discoveries in the Judean Desert 37. Oxford: Clarendon, 2008. Reed, Stephen A. “The Use of the First Person in the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 193–215 in

Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity Papers from the 2004 National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar at Duke University. Edited by Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher and Eric M. Meyers. Duke Judaic studies series v. 3. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2010.

Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Bar Ilan

University Press, 1990. ---. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Bar Ilan University Press, 2003. ---. "Notes on the Aramaic Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 4," MAARAV 1 (1978-79):

199-200. ---. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1974.

395

Stadel, Christian. “Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer”. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary.

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. VanderKam, James C. “The Poetry of I Q Ap Gen, XX, 2-8a.” Revue de Qumran 10, no. 1

(1979): 57–66. Definiteness

Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language.” Linguistics

and Philosophy 4 (1981): 159–220. Bunt, H. “Ensembles and the Formal Semantic Properties of Mass Terms,” Pages 249-77 in

Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Edited by F.J. Pelletier. Dordrect: Reidel, 1979.

---. Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Burton-Roberts, N. “On the Generic Indefinite Article,” Language 52 (1976): 427-48. Chesterman, A. On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Clark, H.H., and C. Marshall. “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge,” Pages 10-63 in

Elements of Discourse Understanding. Edited by A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, and I.A. Sag. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.

Dahl, Östen. “Some Notes on Indefinites,” Language 46 (1970): 33-41. Declerck, R. “The Manifold Interpretations of Generic Sentences,” Lingua 68 (1986): 149-88. ---. “The Origins of Genericity,” Linguistics 29 (1991): 79-102. ---. “Two Notes on the Theory of Definiteness,” Journal of Linguistics 22 (1986): 25-39. Delorme, E., and R.C. Dougherty. “Appositive NP Constructions: we, the men, we men, I, a

man, etc.,” Foundations of Language 8 (1972): 2-29. Diesing, M. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

396

Donnellan, K.S. “Reference and Definite Descriptions,” Philosophical Review 75 (1966): 281-304.

---. “Speaker Reference, Descriptions, and Anaphora,” Pages 47-68 in Syntax and Semantics,

Vol. 9: Pragmatics. Edited by P. Cole. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Enç, Mürvet. “The Semantics of Specificity,” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1983): 1-25. Fodor, J.D., and I.A. Sag. “Referential and Quantificational Indefinites,” Linguistics and

Philosophy 5 (1982): 355-98. Gil, D. “Definiteness, Noun Phrase Configurationality, and the Count-Mass Distinction,” Pages

254-69 in The Representation of (In)definiteness. Edited by E.J. Reuland and A.G.B. ter Meulen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.

Givón, T. “Definiteness and Referentiality,” Pages 291-330 in Universals of Human Language,

Vol. 4: Syntax. Edited by J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson, and E.A. Moravcsik. Stanford: Stanford UP: 1978.

---. “Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement.” Pages 149–88 in Subject and Topic. New

York: Academic, 1976. Grasserie, R. de la. “De L’article.” Pages 285–322, 381–94 in Memoires de La Societe de

Linguistique de Paris IX, n.d. Greenberg, Joseph H. “How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers?” Page III:47 in

Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1978. Gundel, Jeanette K. “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.”

Language 69, no. 2 (1993): 274. Hawkins, J.A. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality

Prediction. London: Croom Helm, 1978. ---. “On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction,” Journal of

Linguistics 27 (1991): 405-42. Heim, I.R. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York: Garland, 1988. Hukari, T.E., and R.D. Levine. “On the Definiteness of Trace,” Linguistic Inquiry 20 (1989):

506-12.

397

Ioup, G. “Specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers,” Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 233-45.

Jespersen, Otto, and Niels Haislund. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles:

Syntax, Completed and Published by Niels Haislund. Heidelburg: C. Winter, 1949. Kadmon, Nirit. “Uniqueness.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13, no. 3 (1990): 273–324. Kempson, R.M., and A. Cormack. “Ambiguity and Quantification,” Linguistics and Philosophy

4 (1981): 259-309. Krámsky, Jiri. The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Languages. The Hague: Mouton

1972. Krifka, M. et al. “Genericity: an Introduction,” Pages 1-124 in The Generic Book. Edited by

G.N. Carlson and F.J Pelletier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Löbner, S. “Definites,” Journal of Semantics 4 (1985): 279-326. Lyons, C. Definiteness. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

1999. Matthews, P. H. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford [England]; New York:

Oxford University Press, 2007. Papafragou, A. “On Generics,” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (1996): 165-98. Payne, J. “The Headedness of Noun Phrases: Slaying the Nominal Hydra,” Pages 114-39 in

Heads in Grammatical Theory. Edited by G.G. Corbett, N.M. Fraser, and S. McGlashan. Cambridge: Cambridge UP: 1993.

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. “Non-Singular Reference: Some Preliminaries.” Pages 1–14 in Mass

Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co, 1979. Pelletier, F.J., and L.K. Schubert. “Mass Expressions,” Pages 327-407 in Handbook of

Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4. Edited by D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989.

Prince, E.F. “On the Inferencing of Indefinite-this NPs.” Pages 231-50 in Elements of

Discourse Understanding. Edited by A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, and I.A. Sag. Cambridge: Cambridge UP: 1981.

Quirk, Randolph. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London; New York:

Longman, 1985.

398

Reuland, E.J., and A.G.B. ter Meulen. The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 1987. Ritter, E. “A Head-Movement Approach to Construct-State Noun Phrases,” Linguistics 26

(1988): 909-29. ---. “Cross-linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (1992):

197-218. ---. “Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew,” Pages 37-

62 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. Edited by S.D. Rothstein. San Diego: Academic Press, 1991.

Rouchota, V. “On Indefinite Descriptions,” Journal of Linguistics 30 (1994): 441-75. Sapir, Edward. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace

and Co, 1921. Schuh, Russell G. “Bade/Ngizim Determiner System.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 4, no. 3 (1977): 1–

74. Smith, Carlota S. “Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Gramme[a]r of English.”

Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 40, no. 1 (1964): 37–52. Van Deemter, K., and S. Peters (eds.). Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford:

Center of the Study of Language and Information, 1996. Wilson, G. “On Definite and Indefinite Descriptions,” Philosophical Review 87 (1978): 48-76. Woisetschlaeger, Erich. “On the Question of Definiteness in ‘An Old Man’s Book’.” Linguistic

Inquiry 14, no. 1 (1983): 137–54. The “Son of Man” Problem with Reference to Qumran or Western Aramaic

Bauckham, R. “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or “Someone’?” Journal for the Study

of the New Testament 23 (1985): 23-33. Black, M. “Aramaic Barnasha and the ‘Son of Man,” Expository Times 95 (1994): 200-206. Brown, J. “The Son of Man: ‘This Fellow’,” Biblica 58 (1977): 361-87.

399

Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.

Casey, P.M. “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and

Shepherd,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1 (2002): 3-32. ---. “Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings,” Expository Times 96 (1985): 233-36. ---. “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources

and in the Teaching of Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 21-56.

---. “Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem,” New Testament Studies

41 (1995): 164-82. ---. “Method in Our Madness and Madness in Their Methods: Some Approaches to the Son of

Man Problem in Recent Scholarship,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 42 (1991): 17-43.

---. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. ---. Son of Man: the Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. ---. “The Use of the Term (א) בר (א) נש in the Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Bible,”

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 54 (1994): 87-118. Cross, F.M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1958. Dalman, G. Die Worte Jesu. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898. Díez Macho, A. “L’Usage de la troisième personne au lieu de la première dans le Targum,”

Pages 61-89 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by P. Casetti et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981.

Fitzmyer, J.A. “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament,” Journal of

Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 5-21. ---. “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” New Testament

Studies 20 (1973/74): 382-407.

400

---. “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” Pages 143-60 in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBL Monograph Series 25. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

---. Review of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30

(1968): 417-28. Formesyn, R.E.C. “Was there a Pronominal Connection for the ‘Bar Nasha’ Self Designation?”

Novum Testamentum 8 (1966): 1-35. Hurtado, Larry W., and Paul L. Owen. Who Is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a

Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. T&T Clark Int’l, 2011. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse Of) Enoch.” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by

James H Charlesworth. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Le Déaut, R. “Le substrat araméen des Evangiles: scolies en marge de l’Aramaic Approach de

Matthew Black,” Biblica 50 (1968): 388-99. Lindars, B. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in

Light of Recent Research. London: SPCK, 1983. ---. “Response to Richard Bauckham: The Idiomatic Use of Bar Enasha,” Journal for the Study

of the New Testament 23 (1985): 25-41. Lukaszewski, Albert. “A Viable Approach to the Aramaic of the New Testament”. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 2004. ---. “Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind Ὁ Υἱὸϛ Τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of

Scholarship.” Pages 1–27 in Who Is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen. T&T Clark Int’l, 2011.

Owen, P. Review of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Review of

Biblical Literature 2 (2009): 351-55. ---. “Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution.’” Pages 28–49 in Who Is This Son of Man?’: The Latest

Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen. T&T Clark Int’l, 2011.

Owen, P., and D. Shepherd. “Speaking Up for Qumran, Dalman, and the Son of Man: Was Bar

Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 81 (2001): 81-122.

401

Schwarz, G. Jesus “der Menschensohn”: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen

Menschensohnworten Jesu. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 119. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986.

Sjöberg, E. “Ben ’adam und bar ’enash im Hebräischen und Aramäischen,” Acta Orientalia 21

(1953): 57-65, 91-107. Thompson, G.H.P. “The Son of Man – Some Further Considerations,” Journal of Theological

Studies 12 (1961): 203-209. ---. “The Son of Man: The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Expository Times 72

(1960/61):125. Vermes, G. “Appendix E: The Use of בר נשא / בר נש in Jewish Aramaic,” Pages 310-330 in An

Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd Edition. Edited by Matthew Black. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

---. “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1 (1978): 19-32 Williams, P.J. “Expressing Definiteness in Aramaic: A Response to Casey’s Theory Concerning

the Son of Man Sayings.” Pages 61–77 in Who Is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul Owen. T&T Clark Int’l, 2011.