Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Syntactical Searches in Qumran Hebrew Texts?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Just a quick note to point out (as is implied in Glenn's response of 03:18 PM) that the Hebrew of the Qumran scrolls (the sectarian ones, not the biblical ones) is different in several ways from that of the TaNaK. One of these is the disuse of the waw-consecutive construction. I'm a little surprised that there are some waw-consecutive imperfects (but it's been a long time since I looked closely at the scrolls), and the lack of waw-consecutive perfects is to be expected. Even in the later books of the Hebrew Bible, the waw-consecutive is falling out of use, and the Qumran writers, later still, perhaps only use it when they are intentionally trying to sound "biblical" (the same was some English-speaking Christians will pray using "thee" and "thou"). In the Hebrew of the Mishnah, of course, the waw-consecutive is gone for good.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004


    Thank you, David, for that information about the waw-consecutive in the DSS. i was not aware of that development in the Hebrew language. Now the lack of search hits makes sense.

    Glenn Weaver

    For technical support, please contact Customer Support.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004


    Thanks, Glenn, for your input. While away from the internet I did some searching on my own. Apparently there are no waw-consecutive perfect labeled as such in QSM. Instead, QSM simply has a waw followed by a perfect. E.g. in CD Damascus Document 7:6 the last word is labeled:
    (A00 7:6 QSM)
    Similarly in the very next verse this happens twice.

    It may be helpful to look at CD Damascus Document 7:16. It paraphrases Amos 9:11
    tl,p,_NOh; dywID" tK;su-ta, ~yqIa' (Amo 9:11 WTT)
    tlpwnh dwd tkws ta ytwmyqhw (A00 7:16 QST)

    As you can see (once you switch to a Hebrew font), the Dead Sea Scroll replaces the imperfect of Amos with a waw+perfect. So you might expect it to be labeled as a waw consecutive perfect. But QSM instead labels it:
    w>@Pc+SxxxExHxR000000000N ~wq@vhp1cs+SxxxJxCxAxExHxR000000000N (A00 7:16 QSM)
    Without searching farther, it appears that QSM does not use q to designate waw consecutive perfects. (Glenn did this search for you.)

    There does appear to be a glitch in QSM. The first time I searched for .*@v?p* I got an error message. But after working in QSM for a while when I made the same search again, it worked.

    Also (as Glenn stated) the command line assistant does not work for QSM, so it is not easy to see if q is ever used in the third spot after @, where it refers to waw consecutive perfect in WTM.
    I searched for .*@??q* and came up with two verses in Noncanonical Psalms A. But both of those in QST are mostly numerals, while in QSM there a many words, but the meaning of the morphology does not display in the analysis window.

    Mark Eddy

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re.

    Dear Glenn,

    Many thanks for all your quick and helpful replies.

    Best wishes,

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts