The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tiberian Reading Tradition Shared Departures from the Masoretic Written Tradition

The most authentic portrait of Second Temple Hebrew is afforded by the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially by those texts actually composed in Hellenistic and Roman times. On salient linguistic points Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew agrees with the vocalization of the Tiberian reading tradition against the testimony of the written, i.e., consonantal, tradition of Masoretic Classical Biblical Hebrew material. This article presents a case study. On the one hand, these Dead Sea-Tiberian vocalization affinities are evidence of therelativelylatecharacterof theirrespectivelinguistictraditionsandof thesecondary character of the developments in the Tiberian reading tradition vis-à-vis the classical biblical written tradition. On the other hand, these same affinities demonstrate that the Tiberian pronunciation tradition is plausibly regarded as one that crystallized in the Second Temple Period, rather than in Byzantine or medieval times. Lastly, since joint Dead Sea-Tiberian reading departures from the classical biblical consonantal tradition constitute a tiny minority of their relevant linguistic data, most of which are characterized by historical continuity and/or linguistic heterogeneity of comparable historical depth, it is clear that the Second Temple crystallization of Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew and the Tiberian reading tradition in no way preclude their routine preservation of authentic Iron Age features.

The claim that there is a degree of dissonance between the Tiberian written (consonantal) and reading (vocalization) traditions is by no means new or radical. It has long been a subject of scholarly enquiry.3 To be sure, Masoretic codices explicitly signal mismatch between the written and reading traditions. Whatever the explanation of individual cases of ketiv-qere, fundamentally, these are instances of acknowledged divergence between the written and pronunciation traditions, the latter superseding the former.4 The ketiv-qere phenomenon is relevant to the current discussion because many of these divergences involve secondary developments in the reading tradition vis-à-vis the corresponding older consonantal feature. Also, despite their secondary character, and notwithstanding the fact that the ketiv-qere mechanism is undocumented prior to medieval manuscripts, the qere forms specific to the reading tradition are clearly rooted in antiquity; i.e., they are not merely Byzantine or medieval developments. Indeed, both qere-and ketiv-type forms are routinely reflected in ancient witnesses.5 Finally-and most crucially in the present connection-the extent of divergence between the Tiberian written and reading traditions far exceeds recognized instances of ketiv-qere. Indeed, the feature discussed below manifestly involves secondary linguistic deviation from the Masoretic written tradition, but is not traditionally labeled ketiv-qere.
Given the variety of single-and double-article constructions with nouns and attributive adjectives in the DSS, it will come as no surprise that both formulations of ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ with an attributive ordinal occur there. The symmetrical, doublearticle formulation obtains in (25)-(27) 3 2) The alternative, single-article formulation is represented in (28) Excluded here are the many ambiguous syntagms in the DSS where ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ has a cliticized preposition, the ambiguous phonetic realization of which makes it impossible to determine whether the construction includes one or two articles.
Having surveyed Masoretic BH and the DSS, we now consider Rabbinic (i.e., Tannaitic) Hebrew (RH). Double-article determined noun + determined adjective syntax is not uncommon in Tannaitic sources, whether preceded by a clitic preposition or not. Even so, scholars consider single-article undetermined noun + determined adjective syntax especially characteristic of RH,15 e.g., With specific regard to RH combinations of ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ with an attributive ordinal, it is relevant that in Codex Kaufmann of the Mishna one encounters suppletion similar to that in Tiberian BH. In most cases, the expression is preceded by a clitic preposition and vocalized with the pataḥ of the elided definite article, resulting in a symmetrical double-article structure. However, on the three occasions when there is no clitic preposition the single-article alternative obtains. These all appear in a single passage, where the double-article alternative is also attested, highlighting the suppletion: is treated as an indivisible compound. Pat-El argues from a broader Semitic and cross-linguistic perspective, holding that definiteness marking was first applied to attributive adjectives and only later spread to nouns, in which case single-article structures should be considered fossils representative of a linguistic phase before the double-article syntax became normative.19 Holmstedt considers the article on modifying noun phrases a subordinating particle, according to which approach its use on adjectives after anarthrous nouns is explicable in terms of the relative syntactic simplicity of the subordinate noun phrase.20 In his discussion of ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ש‬ ‫י‬ and similar "pseudo-construct" expressions in ancient Hebrew and Arabic, Borg offers what might be considered a mediating position.21 Like Pat-El, he maintains that the single-article structure was inherited from early Semitic. However, Borg holds that this genuinely old Semitic structure was preserved, reanalyzed as a construct phrase, and repurposed for the lexicalization of referents from a limited range of semantic categories, namely: "spatial designations," "time orientation," "religious technical terms," and "stock phrases and designations for items of material culture."22

2.4
Diachrony Borg's analysis opens up a possibility that may help to account for the diachronic distribution of expressions of the type is not found prior to LBH and the DSS; see (23)-(24) and (25)-(27), respectively.25 Circumstantial evidence of the Second Temple character of the Hebrew symmetrical determined noun + determined ordinal construction comes from Aramaic and Syriac. The Targumim and the Peshiṭta, respectively, rather consistently present double-article constructions-including, notably, in most of their renderings of the eight cases of Masoretic CBH single-article formulations. Additionally, "definiteness agreement" in noun+ordinal expressions is routine in those languages outside of biblical translations, too. The fact that the LXX presents a "Hebraistic" combination of article-noun + article-adjective in six of the eight cases of the CBH single-article syntagms is also in line with the LBH and DSS consonantal evidence for doublearticle constructions. See the table for versional evidence on the facing page. 23 Moshavi and Rothstein ("Indefinite Numeral Construct Phrases," 116, n. 54) note the possibility that certain RH "pseudo-constructs" were used as proper names, i.e., underwent onymization. 24 In agreement with GKC §126w, n. 9, on single-article ‫י‬ ‫וֹ‬ ‫ם‬ +ordinal syntax: "The omission of the article from the substantive is not to be regarded in this instance as an indication of late style, and consequently cannot be put forward as a proof of the late origin of the 'Priestly Code' … On the other hand, the common omission of the article from the substantive before a determinate adjective (e.g., expressions does not continue into RH. In other words, judging from the extant data, double-article ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ +ordinal constructions without prepositions came and went from ancient Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Their failure to take hold in RH was probably due to a combination of factors: their rarity in BH; the prestige of the Pentateuchal passages in which the alternative structure appears; the fact that in RH ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ +ordinal expressions often feature in the conservative and formulaic context of prayers and blessings; the fertile ground for the preservation of single-article expressions afforded by RH's apparent openness to lexicalized pseudo-constructs. Whatever the reason, the simple fact is that the suppletive Tiberian BH situation of with clitic prepositions is also characteristic of RH (though one may question the authenticity of the double-article vocalization in the latter).
Dead Sea Discoveries 27 (2020) 410-425 ing in line with standard BH noun-adjective concord, which would presumably also be responsible for the unequivocal DSS and LBH consonantal evidence for double-article ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ +ordinal structures. In his discussion of terms for "time orientation," Borg speculates: "given the secondary origin of the vowellings of this particle in the Masoretic text, all the examples cited from the DSS stand a good chance of being genuine pseudo-constructs."27 In other words, despite unambiguous LBH and DSS double-article expressions of the type is almost certainly evidence of secondary development; likewise the CBH mix in close proximity of double-and single-article structures, respectively, with and without clitic prepositions. Beyond this, though, it is difficult to be sure of much. One problem is that, in the nature of things, formulations with clitic prepositions account for 126 of 136 biblical cases. The mere ten tokens without a clitic preposition are a meager sample on which to base diachronic conclusions. The general point is perhaps best made in Barr's well-reasoned treatment of alleged differences between the Tiberian written and reading traditions involving representation of the definite article in poetry, which is here quoted at some length: [A]lthough we cannot assume that every 'article' marked upon a preposition b, k, or l in early poetry was 'really' there, it is unwise scepticism to suppose that none of them were really there or that only those marked 27 Borg, "Some Observations," 33.
with the consonantal h can be taken as actual … Though the reading tradition was not always 'right' , this is not an adequate reason for supposing that in this respect it was always wrong … [T]he rules and practices of use of the article, even in the central biblical period, were more fluid, varied and illogical than traditional explanation has suggested. The use of the article was in a process of change during-perhaps one should even say 'throughout'-the biblical period; and I have said nothing of the post-biblical usage, which certainly deserves to be taken into consideration here as well. This could mean that some of the reconstitution of patterns in the later reading tradition was in continuity with processes that were taking place during biblical times; it could even mean that some of this reconstitution was already under way within the formation of the Bible.28 We know on the basis of consonantal evidence that the double-article ‫ה‬ could be variously double-or single-article constructions. 28 Barr, "Determination," 330.

Conclusion
The feature discussed in this study is one of many on which DSSH and the Tiberian reading tradition jointly deviate from an apparently older alternative in the Masoretic CBH written tradition. While such deviations demonstrate a degree of anachronism in the Tiberian pronunciation tradition vis-à-vis the Masoretic written tradition, linguistic affinity with the DSS confirms the plausibility of the Second Temple crystallization of the Tiberian reading tradition. The uniformity of the Tiberian vocalization where it disagrees with the written tradition, including consistent double-article ‫ַב‬ ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ש‬ ‫י‬ vocalization, is reasonably explained only as a secondary development. However, since departures from the Masoretic CBH written tradition common to both DSSH and the Tiberian pronunciation tradition are regularly attested in Masoretic LBH consonantal material, it emerges that even the relevant secondary developments manifest remarkable historical depth. Indeed, some features of this type are evidenced in CBH consonantal material and/or Iron Age epigraphy.29 Their dominance in the Tiberian reading tradition may well be secondary, but it seems to have resulted from standardization born of the expanded use of genuinely old minority forms in accord with late conventions. Finally, secondary features comprise just a small portion of DSSH and of the Tiberian reading tradition. The fact that such features are often anticipated in Persian Period and Iron Age sources has profound implications for assessing the historical authenticity of the remaining majority of features that comprise these corpora's respective linguistic profiles, to which no suspicion of anachronism attaches. There are many such features, among them the recasting of I-y weqatal forms as we-yiqṭol forms (Joosten,"Textual Developments,(30)(31)(32)(33), univerbalization of the infinitive construct with the preposition ‫ל‬ - (Hornkohl,Discord,, vowel-final 2ms verbal and pronominal endings (idem, 261-62), and -av realization of the 3ms suffix (idem, 257-73).