Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

44 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
it replaces the ואקטל forms of the M.T.44 However, neither of the forms is
ואומר (13 times) appears alongside ואומרה Ezr.-Neh. exclusive in these texts. In
(7 ואתנה times)45 (3 times) with ‎46‎‏,ואתן and so on.47 The main feature is the
absence of uniformity in the linguistic usage.
The opposite is true in Chr. Here ואקטלה is totally absent. Not once does
the Chr. lengthen a full form found in his sources and not once does he utilize
it himself.48 Moreover, the form ואקטלה does occur once in his sources and it
is altered.
ואכרית 1 Chr. xvii 8
ואכרתה 2 Sam. vii 9
The difference between Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. is not one of measure but of principle.
The main point is not the existence of these forms in Ezr.-Neh. and their
absence in Chr. but the presence of a normative linguistic principle which is
applied in Chr. in contrast to all the other texts of the same period.49
44) Sperber cites nineteen examples of such changes, op. cit., p. 228-232. Kutscher brings about
twenty, but has no intention of exhausting all the examples. Op. cit., p. 250-252.
45) Neh. i 5; ii 3, 5; iv 14 (8); 19 (13).
46) Neh. v 7.
47) As ‏.‏Neh‏—ואריבה xiii 11, 17 and ואריב Neh. xiii 25; ‏.‏Neh‏—ואעידה xiii 15, ‏.‏Neh‏—ואעיד xiii 21.
Both examples are in the same chapter.
48) The fact is well known, cf. Bergsträsser, op. cit., p. 23, Kropat, op. cit., p. 75. Nevertheless,
it has escaped Gerleman’s attention when dealing with the same question. He states that:
“A peculiarity common to Samaritanus and Chronicles is found in the formation of Imperfectum
consecutivum . . . As we know the first person singular and plural sometimes having the ending
being thus formed in analogy to the so-called cohortative . . . The same form of the imperfect ־ָה
is typical also of Samaritanus” (op. cit., p. 15). Among the examples, taken from Deut. Gerleman
cites also the following: Deut. iii 1, MT ונעל ‏,ונפן Sam. ונעלה ‏.ונפנה First of all it should be
stated that this last example does not belong here. The ה״א is not a part of the ־ָה cohortative as
in ‏,ואקטלה but belongs to the root itself. The form is therefore a full form and not a lengthened
one. Secondly, and this is much more important, Gerleman’s opinion does not do justice to the
linguistic facts. It was stated before by Kropat and Bergsträsser that ואקטלה is nowhere to be
found in Chronicles. It can hardly be described as a “peculiarity common to Samaritanus and
Chronicles”. The same is true about the example נעלה“‏ ‏.”ונפנה Although it does not belong here,
it was shown above that Chr. deliberately avoids such forms! (Supr. p. 334 f.).
49) This raises the question whether the much used terms very common now in textual studies,
such as “vulgar text” and “vulgar language” can be applied in connection with Chr. (Cf. Gerleman.
op. cit., pp. 3-7).