Qumran Hebrew March 11, 2004 Ken Penner

• Discovery: almost 900 manuscripts, a quarter biblical; 100 Aramaic; the rest (550?) Qumran
Hebrew.
o Religious thought
o Language
What Hebrew did we know?
• Bible
• Rabbinics (Talmud, Midrashim, etc.)
• Inscriptions
• Cairo Genizah scrolls - medieval?
o Sirach
o Damascus Document
What was known from the middle period (traditional dating: 400BC-200AD)
• Daniel.
• 6 centuries of almost emptiness?
• The gap is larger than the span either before or after
No wonder scholars thought Hebrew had died out and was resuscitated as an
artificial language by the rabbis
Imagine the excitement at the discovery of complete ancient scrolls from the
middle of this period!
• Now all they had to do was read them.
• Are they more like the earlier Biblical or later Mishnaic Hebrew?
o A main difference: the verbal system
o Indicate aspect (most popular theory for Biblical Hebrew since Driver) or tense
(Mishnaic)?
The question has not been totally answered; assumptions often fall along Israeli-
Non-Israeli lines.
• Those who speak Modern Hebrew are more likely to see Qumran Hebrew
like Modern (and Mishnaic) Hebrew.
• Those who read Biblical Hebrew see more similarities with that language.
Now a consensus is emerging among those who have examined the question
(even Israeli scholars):
• QH is more like BH, with the exception of MMT and the Copper Scroll,
which are more like Mishnaic.
• Literary or Vernacular language?
o The question is debated to what extent Qumran Hebrew reflects a spoken language.
o The tendency has been to see QH as a literary language imitating Biblical Hebrew, but
betraying the influence of a spoken dialect like Mishnaic Hebrew.
o To be more precise, the spoken language of Qumran was not the parent of Mishnaic
Hebrew, but more like a bachelor uncle or spinster aunt.
• Initial difficulties for those familiar with Biblical Hebrew:
o Unpointed
Working with Qumran Hebrew gives me:
• Greater confidence in the consonantal text (MT is more ancient than QH
biblical texts)
• Less confidence in the vocalization (MT vowels reflect pronunciations
later than Qumran’s indications of vowels).
o The dialect(s) reflected in Qumran is/are not the exactly the same as in the MT.
o Longer sentences make translation more cumbersome.
Qumran Hebrew March 11, 2004 Ken Penner

References are to sections in E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars,
1986). Also see
M. Abegg, “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (eds. P.
Flint and J. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:325–358;
E. Kutscher, “Hebrew Language,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 16:1583–1590 (Jerusalem, 1972);
A. Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (tr. J. Elwolde; Cambridge UP, 1993).

QH=Qumran Hebrew
MT or BH=the Tiberian tradition of the biblical text

Waw for U or O
• A U-class vowel (o or u, regardless of length) is almost always spelled with .
• Note both and ; and ; ; even for MT
• Waw sometimes also occurs where the Tiberian tradition has Qamets, patah, or segol. (3p
pronominal suffix), especially next to a labial or liquid ( ) (200.26).

Yod for long I, or e

• A long i is almost always spelled with .
• Yod can also represent an e sound: for MT .
• Construct states (plurals, and singulars of 1- verbs) are spelled with .
• Radical yod can sometimes be dropped.

Aleph for A, e, i, o.
• In combination with yod or waw, in medial position indicates radical aleph.
• In combination with yod or waw in final position ( ), is simply to lengthen the word.
• By itself in medial position, mostly indicates a: (orphan)
• Radical aleph can be dropped after a vowel.
• Can represent a, e, medial i, o.

Final He for A or E
• Can represent or segol.
• Usually does not represent o vowels.
• In final position, usually represents a or e (as in the Bible).

Summary
• Don’t take pronunciation too seriously. For waw, say “OO” (usually o); for yod, say “EE”;
otherwise say “ah”.
• Don’t take spelling too seriously. Use your ears. “Head” can be , , , or .
Qumran Hebrew March 11, 2004 Ken Penner

Stress probably tended to be penultimate (unlike MT) (200.27): (but also .

Gutturals were weakened; common misspellings involve omitting or using alef (instead of he), and
to a lesser extent, ayin, et, and even resh. Alef is elided when it follows shewa. This is much like
Samaritan pronunciation, and the Talmudic stories about the Jews of Beth-Shean and Haifa, who
didn’t distinguish these well, either.
Nasals: final Mem/Nun interchanges indicate both turned into a nasalized vowel. Sometimes open
final syllables are spelled with final Mem, or a final Nun is missing. The nun in does not
assimilate as often as in BH.
Sibilants: Sin, Shin, and Samekh interchanges indicate all three were pronounced alike.

Person/ Gender/ Number S.C. P.C. with waw; modal P.C. without waw
3ms (short) (long)
3fs (short) (long)
2ms (short) (long)
2fs (short)
1cs (long)
3cp
2mp ,
1cp
The waw marking the theme vowel in the PC can precede rather than follow the second radical
when pronominal suffixes are added (like the imperative and infinitive in BH): (311.13)
Infinitive construct almost always has an affix (preposition or pronoun); sometimes the (in the
nifal, hitpael, and hifil) is missing (310.145).
Passives Pual, Hofal, Qal passive are rare (except as participles). Nifal and Hitpael are used instead
(310.16).
Sometimes the participle beginning with does not lose the following (in Hifil).

Independent Personal: The most notable feature is that all of these except 1cp and can have
an extra or on the end. I: , but for God. You singular: is normal. He: She:
We: both forms. You plural: ; They masc.: is more common.
Suffixed Personal: Usually results in no change to the attached word’s vowels, but sometimes the
is missing from the 3pl verb ending. 2ms is spelled full: for MT . 3ms often is where MT
would have simply .

As with infinitives, imperatives, and PCs with suffixes, the vowel may appear in a different place
than in MT (before the 2nd radical, rather than after), or an extra vowel may appear: .
Qumran Hebrew March 11, 2004 Ken Penner

• Infinitive absolute is almost absent.

• Infinitive construct is very common, and correspondingly, sentences tend to be longer and
with more subordinate elements.
• Directives and prohibitions are often expressed by infinitives.

Semantics of the Conjugations

Waw on verbs tends to be conversive (not really consecutive), but when a verb is sentence-initial it
usually has a waw, and therefore usually will take the opposite Tense/Aspect/Mood value of the
same form without waw. The strongest correlations with TAM are with modality or absolute time (if
modality is understood to include future and habitual uses, usually considered indicative). PC is then
future/modal, and SC is for single events that happen prior to the reference time, thus including
simple past and perfect.
Note that in MMT, the participle is taking on the some of the functions the -yqtl has in other
documents in the present/future.
Like Biblical Hebrew but in contrast to Mishnaic Hebrew, the function of waw+SC verbs is very
close to that of PC verbs. (In the Mishnah waw+SC expresses consecutive actions in the past).
Like Mishnaic Hebrew, the PC is not used for past events with non-perfective aspect; this function is
covered by the copula with participle.

Emphasis is achieved by fronting: new material is placed in sentence-initial position (Holst, 2004).
The decision to use e.g., yqtl rather than wqtl is thus determined by subject matter, not because it is
mainline rather than offline.