Sun Feb 11 14:56:54 1996

From majordom  Sun Feb 11 14:56:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA02405; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:56:54 +0500
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:54:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Suffixes at Qumran
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1377
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Richard Weis wrote:

> 10 February, 1996,
> 
> In addition to Andrew Gross's comments in reply to Mark and Beth
> LaRocca-Pitts, one might add two things.
> 
> 1.  -hmh is a very common Qumran substitute for the suffix -hm.  Likewise
> -hnh for -hn, -kmh for -km, etc..
> 
> 2.  In general, a more up-to-date reference for the grammar of Qumran Hebrew
> than Kutscher is Elisha Qimron's _The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (HSS,
> 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986).
> 
> Richard Weis


One thing to keep in mind when using Qimron's grammar is that he only
covers the non-Biblical Hebrew texts from Qumran.  I believe the idea was
to isolate features of "Qumran" Hebrew as distinct from Classical Hebrew. 
I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether or not the tradents (or is it
"tradants"?) at Qumran used a more "conservative" (keeping in mind the
potential anachronisms of using such a word in this context) orthography
for the Biblical texts than for the other Hebrew texts found at Qumran.  

For what it's worth, Emanuel Tov does says this, "Although there is no
characteristic representative of this group, 1QIsa(a), which contains the
longest Qumran text of a Biblical book and whose practice is described
thoroughly by Kutscher, is often referred to (incorrectly) as if it were
the main text written in the Qumran practice." 


cheers,


andrew gross

Back