The contribution of Qumran to historical Hebrew linguistics : Evidence from the syntax of participial negation

During the late Second Temple period Judea was multilingual and culturally diverse. Although Hebrew remained the language of Jewish religious tradition and of nationalistic Jews, Aramaic became the main language of public life from the Persian period. After hellenisation, Greek played a central role in administration and politics, whilst, under the Romans, Latin was also utilised. The Qumran texts, which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, reflect this multilingual and cultural diversity and are significant for providing a window into the linguistic environment of the late Second Temple period.1 The texts written in Qumran Hebrew have refuted the previously accepted view that Hebrew was a non-living language during 200 BCE and 68 CE (see Blau 2000:20–25; Goodspeed 1944:59; Qimron 2000).2 Furthermore, a variety of information concerning a stage of the language about which little or nothing was known before the discovery of the texts became available and thereby filled what had previously been a gap in our knowledge of Hebrew. Chronologically, this language, Qumran Hebrew,3 falls between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.4 It provides a unique opportunity to observe a language in a state of transition and to assess the impact of dialectical and other linguistic influences (Fitzmyer 1979:57–84).


Introduction
During the late Second Temple period Judea was multilingual and culturally diverse.Although Hebrew remained the language of Jewish religious tradition and of nationalistic Jews, Aramaic became the main language of public life from the Persian period.After hellenisation, Greek played a central role in administration and politics, whilst, under the Romans, Latin was also utilised.The Qumran texts, which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, reflect this multilingual and cultural diversity and are significant for providing a window into the linguistic environment of the late Second Temple period. 1 The texts written in Qumran Hebrew have refuted the previously accepted view that Hebrew was a non-living language during 200 BCE and 68 CE (see Blau 2000:20-25;Goodspeed 1944:59;Qimron 2000). 2 Furthermore, a variety of information concerning a stage of the language about which little or nothing was known before the discovery of the texts became available and thereby filled what had previously been a gap in our knowledge of Hebrew.Chronologically, this language, Qumran Hebrew, 3 falls between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. 4It provides a unique opportunity to observe a language in a state of transition and to assess the impact of dialectical and other linguistic influences (Fitzmyer 1979:57-84).
b.The archaic passive Qal is replaced by the Niphal.c. Periphrastic verbal syntax (the verb hyh 'to be' used with the participle) becomes more common.6. Use of classical Hebrew lexemes with later Hebrew and Aramaic syntax.For example, the relative ʾšr 'that' is used in a manner similar to the š-of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic dy, d-. 7. Use of asyndetic syntax almost disappears (i.e.relative particles, especially ʾšr and sometimes š-, coordinate clauses).Naudé (1994bNaudé ( :139-163, 1996) ) demonstrated that the distribution of independent personal pronouns in Qumran Hebrew is more restricted than in Biblical Hebrew and shows similarities with Biblical Aramaic.
The premise of this paper is that Qumran Hebrew reflects a stage in the development of Hebrew which has unique features (contra Rezetko & Young 2014;Young, Rezetko & Ehrensvärd 2008).It is further assumed that these unique features are able to assist us to understand the nature of the development of Biblical Hebrew in a more precise way. 6  Joosten (2010:357) claims that the [verbal] 'system as a whole is clearly evolving toward the Mishnaic system where the participle becomes the default tense and yiqtol takes on all modal nuances'.However, in his analysis of the participle, Geiger (2012:518) concludes that the BH tense system continues to be used in Qumran Hebrew, whilst there is a clear difference between the tense system of Qumran Hebrew and that of Mishnaic Hebrew.To determine which one of these claims is the most plausible, the specific focus will be an investigation on the nature of negated participle clauses in Qumran Hebrew in comparison to Biblical Hebrew.The main aim of this paper is to show how Qumran Hebrew can contribute to the understanding of specific constructions and thus to our knowledge of Hebrew grammar.
Several opinions have been expressed on the typology of Qumran Hebrew, which features Biblical Hebrew forms side by side with Mishnaic Hebrew.Some of these viewpoints will be exposed in the next section.

The relationship between Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew
The communis opinio is that there were two major types of Hebrew, namely classical Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, whilst all other variations (such as Qumran Hebrew) were hybrids of these two.In this view, the authors of the Qumran texts endeavoured to write Biblical Hebrew, but under the influence of the spoken language a type of Mishnaic Hebrew emerged, or alternatively, texts which were originally written in Mishnaic Hebrew were altered so 6.Goshen-Gottstein (1958) already demonstrates that Qumran Hebrew shows internal diversity within specific scrolls but also differences among them.This may reflect stylistic features of individual authors and scribes, but one must acknowledge that Qumran Hebrew shares a distinct language system.
as to render them more in accord with Biblical Hebrew.Therefore, some scholars consider Qumran Hebrew as an artificial entity that developed in the course of an archaisation process, the product of an attempt to revive Biblical Hebrew by writing Qumran Hebrew in an archaic/ old-fashioned style (Kutscher 1974(Kutscher :8-9, 12, 1982:82, 99, 131;:82, 99, 131;Rabin 1965:144-161;Segal 1970:13).Accordingly Qumran Hebrew has been regarded not as spoken Hebrew, but as an imitation of Biblical Hebrew by speakers of Mishnaic Hebrew.However, others view Qumran Hebrew as a direct continuation of Late Biblical Hebrew (Hurvitz 1965:225;Young 1993:83) or that the living substratum is not proto-Mishnaic Hebrew but presents a dialect hitherto unknown (Joosten 2010:355).
Two texts, namely 3Q15 and 4QMMT, are important in considering the classification of Qumran Hebrew.Some classify 3Q15 as belonging to classical Mishnaic Hebrew (Sharvit 1967:135;Wolters 1990).Others claim that it should be regarded as a distinct Mishnaic dialect: the Mishnaic dialect of the Jordan (Milik 1962:222-223) or Copper Scroll Hebrew (Morag 1988).Others are of the opinion that 4QMMT reflects the real spoken Qumran Hebrew (Qimron & Strugnell 1994:101-108).The outcome of such a view is that the other texts must then of necessity be imitations of Biblical Hebrew.However, a closer look at the data (Muchowski 1994;Qimron & Strugnell 1994:101-108) shows that the language of 3Q15 and 4QMMT are not so far removed from Qumran Hebrew (as reflected in other Qumran texts) and Late Biblical Hebrew.
Although, logically, Qumran Hebrew as a living spoken language should reflect more generally prevailing linguistic phenomena of that time, the sociological and historic contexts in which it existed must be taken into account.On the one hand it has to be borne in mind that according to dating, Qumran Hebrew existed over a considerable period, more than 200 years in fact, and therefore shows some linguistic diversity.On the other hand, it would be incorrect to assume that the linguistic features of Qumran Hebrew are representative of all the Hebrew that was written and spoken at the time.Rather these features form an exponent of a dialectal continuum of Hebrew. 7It is therefore essential to theoretically accommodate the linguistic varieties of Qumran Hebrew as far as possible theoretically, when grammatical descriptions and explanations of problematic data are offered. 8 Drawing upon modern linguistic research in language change, Naudé (2003Naudé ( :189-202, see also 2000aNaudé ( , 2000bNaudé ( , 2000cNaudé ( :61-65, 2012;;and Ehrensvärd 2003:186-187) first defines the concept 'language' and subsequently the concept 'change'.Language is best seen as idiolect, the output of a single speaker, because language as a socio-political concept has proved to be of little value in linguistic research.
Regarding the concept 'change', Naudé stresses the importance of distinguishing between the concept of 'change' and that of 'diffusion'.'Change' is the imperfect transmission of language from parents to child, giving rise to hitherto unknown forms, whereas 'diffusion' is the spread of such forms.Within this theoretical framework, no change within the domain of syntax occurred between Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew -what happened was a diffusion of changes in Late Biblical Hebrew that had already taken place in Early Biblical Hebrew.Qumran Hebrew does not show many changes from Late Biblical Hebrew, but rather a large diffusion of forms which changed in the transition of Hebrew towards Late Biblical Hebrew (Naudé 2000b:128).Diffusion also involves the parameter of time: Qumran Hebrew is datable to a narrow chronological window and thereby provides a firm point to which certain features of Hebrew can be situated (Naudé 2012:70-73).However, Qumran Hebrew represents a situation where different unique grammars (i.e.idiolects) co-existed next to one another in the author's and/or speaker's mind (Naudé 2000b:116).Naudé (2012:70-73) adds also the factor of the nature of written language.The diversity of Qumran Hebrew is confirmed by the classification of texts according to scribal practices by Tov (2004:279-288, 339-343) and the exposition of Reymond (2014) on the orthography, phonology and morphology of Qumran Hebrew, which is especially opposed to the view of Qimron (1986Qimron ( , 2000:232-244:232-244) that Qumran Hebrew is a single vernacular dialect (Reymond 2014:1).
According to the chronological model (adapted from the general consensus as represented in Young et al. 2008:13-14; see also Hurvitz 1972Hurvitz , 1973Hurvitz , 1974Hurvitz , 1982Hurvitz , 2000Hurvitz , 2006)), the position of Qumran Hebrew in the language development of Hebrew is as follows: 7.The relation between languages (or dialects) is no longer done by drawing up a precise family tree or determining a proto-language to explain the common features, since these features go beyond the evidence of the extant linguistic data.The actual situation is better explained by reference to dialect geography, according to which the spread of linguistic features generally moves from the centre outwards towards the perimeters, resulting in clear differences between the dialects from one zone to another (see Garr 1985).
8.See Goshen-Gottstein (1958), especially the important observations on the differences displayed by the major texts from Qumran in their most significant linguistic features.On account of these observations one should avoid generalisations and refrain from any attempt to incorporate the idiosyncrasies of a given text into the overall description of the language no matter how important that text appears to be.In recent years, the generally accepted view concerning the chronological division of the Hebrew Bible has been challenged.This will be the topic of the next section.

Challenges to the chronological model Biblical Hebrew: Studies in chronology and typology (Young 2003a)
In a collection of essays edited by Young (2003a), the chronological model was challenged by the claim that all biblical literature has its origin in the Persian era or later.Davies (2003) argues that Persian-period scribes wrote several varieties of Hebrew, and therefore it is conceivable that classical Hebrew was one of these.Young (2003b:314-317) provides the following outline based on the work of Talshir (2003:251-275): a) Early Biblical Hebrew continued to be the language of Yehud until the Persian period, especially in those sources without an eastern bias, such as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; b) Late Biblical Hebrew is connected with the eastern diaspora; proto-Late Biblical Hebrew features first began to make their presence felt strongly in literary Hebrew associated with the exiles in the eastern diaspora (Ezekiel being the first example); c) in the days of the Second Temple period, political separation saw the development of a separate dialect, Tannaitic (Mishnaic) Hebrew in the lowlands, whilst in Yehud proper, Hebrew remained more conservative.Although neither Qumran Hebrew nor Mishnaic Hebrew is identical to Late Biblical Hebrew, there are important isoglosses which they share with Late Biblical Hebrew in opposition to Early Biblical Hebrew (see also Rezetko 2003).Rezetko and Young (2014:115-116, 210) further claim that it should not be postulated that the Masoretic text reflects the original text of the biblical books better or more frequently than any other text.As a result, it also should not be postulated that the language of the Masoretic text reflects the original language of the biblical authors better or more frequently than any other text.For them, neither the Masoretic text, nor any other biblical text is likely to preserve the authentic details of the language of any biblical author (Rezetko & Young 2014:406).They claim that there are many late adjustments and additions to biblical writings.For example, by taking into account Qumran Samuel, the book of Samuel must have a complex history of production that lasted from early in the First Temple period until late in the Second Temple period, with the implication that the language of the book is a witness to written Hebrew throughout this entire extended period of time (Rezetko & Young 2014:210).Their interpretation is that the largest proportion of linguistic variations between the Masoretic text and Qumran Samuel are individual variants, as opposed to large-scale systematic variations which do not support the conventional historical linguistic perspective of viewing each corpus as a coherent whole in its own right with an unambiguously distinctive linguistic profile (Rezetko & Young 2014:210, 328).However, Rezetko and Young (2014:403) acknowledge that it is difficult or impossible to know the precise reasons behind the linguistic variations in the Hebrew Bible.They do not attribute all variation to style, but they keep the explanation on the table (Rezetko & Young 2014:408).

The linguistic dating of biblical texts (Young et al. 2008)
In the following sections, we examine one aspect of Hebrew syntax within Qumran Hebrew, namely the syntax of the negation of the participle in order to discover to what extent Qumran Hebrew is the same or different from Biblical Hebrew (see Muraoka 2000 for a similar approach) and whether linguistic variation should be attributed solely to style.

Negation of the participle in Qumran Hebrew
In this section we survey the syntax of the negation of the participle in Qumran Hebrew.As is well-known, the participle has both nominal morphology (indicating number, gender, and state) and verbal morphology (differentiating the stem formations).Syntactically, the participle may also function nominally or verbally (see Andersen & Forbes 2007;Dyk 1994).It is therefore not surprising that the participle can be negated both by the negative particle ʾên, which is ordinarily used to negate nominal clauses, and less frequently by the negative particle lōʾ, which is the ordinary negator of verbal clauses.In previous research (Miller-Naudé & Naudé 2015), we have demonstrated that the uses of ʾên and lōʾ as negators of the participle are syntactically distinct in Biblical Hebrew.In this paper, we examine the Qumran data to determine what contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of Hebrew. 10 Before presenting the data on negation, it is important to introduce the concept of scope of negation.The scope of the negation in a language is determined by the syntactic relations between phrasal projections and especially by the relation of the negative marker to subsequent constituents.In Afrikaans, the scope of negation is clearly marked by the particle nie at both the beginning and end of the negative phrase.In Biblical Hebrew, there are two kinds of negative scope: sentence negation and constituent negation (Naudé & Rendsburg 2013;Snyman 2004;Snyman & Naudé 2003).In sentence negation, the scope of negation extends to the entire predication, as illustrated in (1): (1) Jeremiah 23:21 ‫ִים‬ ‫ִא‬ ‫ְב‬ ‫ַּנ‬ ‫ֶת-ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ְּתִ‬ ‫ַח‬ ‫ָל‬ ‫ֹלא-ׁש‬ I did not send the prophets.
The entire sentence is negated.Sentence negation in Biblical Hebrew is indicated by the negative marker immediately preceding the verb.By contrast, in constituent negation, the scope of negation applies only to a single constituent within the sentence, as illustrated in ( 2): (2) Genesis 45:8
The scope of the negative marker extends only to the subject constituent, which consists of the independent personal pronoun.In contrast to (1), the entire sentence in (2) is not negated.Rather, the speaker states that it was not his addressees who sent him, but he does not deny that he was sent.Constituent negation in Biblical Hebrew is also determined by word order -the negative marker immediately precedes the non-verbal constituent.The scope of negation extends only to the constituent that follows the negative and not to the entire sentence.

ʾên with a pronominal suffix as the subject of the participle
The most common construction in Biblical Hebrew is also attested at Qumran, namely, ʾên followed by a pronominal suffix as the subject of the participle, as illustrated in (3): (3) 4Q396 f1-2i:1

‫במקדש‬ ‫שוחטים‬ ‫אי]נם‬
'they do [no]t slaughter in the temple' The scope of negation extends to the entire sentence.
The usual word order in this construction is ʾên with a pronominal suffix (the subject) and the participle, followed 10.It is astounding that in a study of the 'evolution' of the meanings of the participle from Biblical Hebrew to Modern Hebrew, Andrason (2013Andrason ( , 2014) ) does not include any data from Qumran.His study considers only 'three historical époques' (2013:84) of Hebrew -Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew and Modern Hebrew.
by possible objects and adjuncts (e.g.prepositional phrases).
In two variants to this word order, a non-verbal constituent occurs in a position before the negative particle.In the first construction, the constituent is moved to the front of the sentence, but remains within the sentence.This construction is referred to as the topicalisation of the constituent (Holmstedt 2009(Holmstedt , 2014)).Topicalisation is typically used either to highlight the informational topic of the sentence, which orients a reader or hearer to the theme from the context, or to the focus of the sentence, which instructs a reader or hearer to contrast information with other alternatives (Holmstedt 2009).In the second construction, the constituent occurs outside of the boundary of the sentence and a resumptive pronoun within the sentence refers to it.This construction is referred to as left dislocation (see Holmstedt 2014;Naudé 1990).

‫רואים‬ ‫אינם‬ ‫]א]שם‬
'[the sin] offering these do not see' The object of the sentence ‫)אׁשם(‬ occurs before the negative particle and participle; there is no resumption of the topicalised object in the sentence (contra Geiger 2012:306).
There are two very interesting diachronic facts concerning this construction.Firstly, in a number of cases involving parallel texts in Biblical Hebrew, the earlier text uses lōʾ followed by a yiqtol form, whereas the later text uses ʾên with a pronominal suffix followed by the participle (see We can therefore see development in Qumran Hebrew from Biblical Hebrew, as a new construction is introduced, namely, ʾên with an independent subject pronoun, which becomes very common in Mishnaic Hebrew (Segal 1927(Segal /1970:162):162).

ʾên negating a participle with an explicit noun phrase subject
In the second construction ʾên is followed by an explicit noun phrase subject and then the participle, as in ( 8): (8) 4Q277 f1ii:11

‫במים‬ ‫שט[ו]פות‬ ‫יד[יוי]‬ ‫וא]ין‬
'and his hands are not washed with water' As in Biblical Hebrew, this construction involves sentential negation and the basic word order is ʾên, subject, participle.
In the first two constructions with ʾên, there is an overt subject, either a pronoun as in the first construction, or an explicit noun phrase as in the second construction.Syntactically, participles functioning as verbs need to have a subject, since, unlike finite verbal forms, the participle does not indicate a subject in its morphology.

‫רעתמה‬ ‫מפני‬ ‫מושיע‬ ‫ואין‬
'and no one saves (them) because of their wickedness' 12 The participle functions syntactically as the predicate of the clause in the sense that it governs an adjunct, the prepositional phrase ‫רעתמה‬ ‫מפני‬ ('because of their wickedness').Semantically, 11.In Biblical Hebrew, an independent personal pronoun occurs in this construction in Nehemiah 4:17; see Miller- Naudé and Naudé (2015:174-176) for a discussion of this syntactically problematic example.
12.Parry and Tov (2014:701) translate: 'and there shall be no one to help'.
the subject of the predicative participle must be interpreted as 'no one'.Syntactically, we understand the negative marker ʾên to be in construct with the zero subject of the participle (i.e. a zero noun phrase).Evidence for this analysis comes from examples in which there is a constituent which modifies the zero noun phrase, as in ( 10): (10) 4Q405 f23i:10

‫חוק‬ ‫עלי‬ ‫דולג‬ ‫במה‬ ‫ואין‬
'and no one among them omits a regulation' In this example, the prepositional phrase ‫במה‬ ('among them') is dependent upon the zero noun phrase.
In this third construction with ʾên, the scope of negation is only the noun phrase subject and not the entire predication.
Again, the negative ʾên is followed by a prepositional phrase which modifies the zero subject noun phrase.
It is possible for a constituent other than the participle to be topicalised so that it appears before the negative particle: (12) 1Q33 XIV:11 (= 1QM)

‫מנוס‬ ‫אין‬ ‫ולקליהם‬ ‫מציל‬ ‫אין‬ ‫גבוריהם‬ ‫לכול‬
'For all their heroes there is no one saving, and for their swift ones is there no one escaping'.
So far we have seen examples that are syntactically identical to those in Biblical Hebrew.In one example in Qumran Hebrew, this construction with ʾên followed by a zero subject and a participle is attested as the embedded object of a clause: (13) 4Q381 f45:1

‫אׁשכיל‬ ‫מבין‬ ‫ואין‬ ‫אבינא‬
'And I shall understand and whoever does not understand I shall teach' In this example, the clause ‫מבין‬ ‫ואין‬ ('and no one understands') is the object of the verb ‫אׁשכיל‬ ('I shall teach').

Negation of the participle with lōʾ
The negative particle lōʾ is used much less frequently with the participle in Biblical Hebrew and it has syntactic patterns that are distinct from those of ʾên.The same is true at Qumran.Note that the negative particle does not occur initially in the clause, but rather it immediately precedes the two predicates.
The negative has scope only over the predicate constituents.

lōʾ negating a sentence with a participial predicate
At Qumran the use of the negative lōʾ to negate a sentence with a participial predicate is increasing, especially when the participle is passive rather than active, as in ( 15): (15) 4Q365a f5i:4

‫החוץ‬ ‫אל‬ ‫האופנים‬ ‫נראים‬ ‫לוא‬
'the wheels were not visible outside' Note that the negative occurs in the initial position in the sentence; the scope of negation is thus the entire sentence.It is also important to note that, in contrast to sentences negated with ʾên, the word order is verb-subject rather than subject-verb.
An important way in which the Hebrew of Qumran has developed from Biblical Hebrew involves the absence of an explicit subject in participial sentences negated with lōʾ.This occurs in particular with passive participles, as illustrated in ( 16): (16) CD V:3-4 ‫אשר‬ ‫והזקנים‬ ‫וישוע‬ ‫ויהושוע‬ ‫אלעזר‬ ‫מות‬ ‫מיום‬ ‫בישראל‬ ‫נפתח‬ ‫{נפ°°}‬ ‫לא‬ ‫כי‬ ‫העשתרת‬ ‫את‬ ‫עבדו‬ 'For it had not been opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar and Jehoshua and Joshua and the elders who worshipped Ashtaroth' In the history of the development of Hebrew, this is significant because pro-drop (the absence of an overt subject with a finite verb) is an important syntactic feature.However, it is not present in Biblical Hebrew on participles, since participles do not index subjects in their morphology, apart from gender and number.At Qumran, the process is not complete and often occurs in contexts where the subject can be inferred from the preceding context, as in ( 17): (17) 11Q14 f1ii:11-12 ‫בתבואתיה‬ ‫יראה‬ ‫לוא‬ ‫וירקון‬ ‫שדפון‬ ‫מוחלה‬ ‫ולוא‬ ‫בארצכם‬ ‫משכלה‬ ‫ואין‬ 'and no one will miscarry (feminine) in your land and (she) will not be sick, 13 blight and mildew will not be seen in its (lit.her) harvests' 13.Parry and Tov (2014:310) translate: 'and none be sick'.
In the first sentence, the negative ʾên is used to negate the zero subject noun phrase before a feminine participle.In the second sentence, the negative lōʾ is used before the participle, but no subject is expressed.However, from the context, the subject must be the same as that of the preceding sentence, namely a female animal.The import of the two sentences is: 'No female animal will miscarry in your land, nor even be sick'.
A similar example occurs in ( 18), where a coordinate sentence is actually modifying a preceding noun phrase: (18) CD IX:10-12 ‫בשבועת‬ ‫בעליו‬ ‫ישביע‬ ‫בו‬ ‫גנב‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫המחנה‬ ‫ממאד‬ ‫גנבו‬ ‫מי‬ ‫נודע‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫האובד‬ ‫וכל‬ ‫האלה‬ 'and every lost object -and it is not known who stole it from the property of the camp in which it was stolen -its owner should make a maledictory oath' The clause with lōʾ could have been expressed as a relative clause modifying the preceding noun phrase, but rather than being subordinate, it is paratactic.This example illustrates that, whereas the participle in Qumran Hebrew is beginning to exhibit features that we would expect of a finite verb, it is doing so within highly constrained syntactic contexts and specifically in contexts of syntactic embedding or subordination.
The In the MT version, the verb ‫ה‬ ‫תָ‬ ָ ‫ׁש‬ is a perfect form used in a modal sense.In the Qumran version of Isaiah from Cave 1, the participial form ‫שותה‬ is used.Again, it seems as if the participle at Qumran can be used with pro-drop; in other words, it is beginning to have the syntactic characteristics of a finite verb.

lōʾ negating constituent within a prepositional phrase
In the same way that lōʾ can negate a constituent within the clause; it can also negate a constituent within a prepositional phrase, as in (20): (20) 1QH a XVI:10-1114

‫רזו‬ ‫הותם‬ ‫נודע‬ ‫ובלא‬ ‫נחשב‬ ‫בלוא‬ ‫סותר‬ ‫אמת‬ ‫למטעת‬ ‫ק[ו]דש‬ ‫נצר‬ ‫ומפריח‬
'he who causes the holy shoot to grow in the true plantation hides, without being considered, and without being known, its sealed mystery' In the two examples in this passage, a prepositional phrase takes as its object a passive participle negated with lōʾ.The following passage is similar, again with a passive participle: The passive participle is feminine and the implicit subject must be the noun 'tongue' from the previous sentence.
In (22), the passive participle is negated within a prepositional phrase, but there is an unmarked headless relative clause between the prepositional and the negated clause.( 22) 4Q418 f69 ii:5

‫נוסד‬ ‫ללוא‬ ‫משפט‬ ‫ומה‬ ‫היה‬ ‫ללוא‬ ‫השקט‬ ‫ומה]‬
'And what is] rest to (one who) has not come into being?And what is righteousness to (one who) has not been founded?' We must understand that the prepositional phrase means 'to the one who has not come into being' even though the head of the relative clause is not overt and the relative marker is also not overt.

Conclusions
Geiger, who has written an important volume on the participle in Hebrew recently, claims that in the negation of the participle at Qumran, the constructions using ʾên and lōʾ are formally different but functionally the same (Geiger 2012:298-299). 16 As we conclude, we examine briefly this claim, because if true, it would provide support to Rezetko and Young's claims (2014) that the differing constructions in Hebrew relate only to language variation and style rather than to syntactically different functions or to diachronic development.Geiger uses the following example to illustrate that there is no functional difference between ʾên and lōʾ: (23) 1QH a XV:11 17

‫אשמה‬ ‫[ב]ני‬ ‫לכול‬ ‫לשון‬ ‫מענה‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫הוות‬ ‫לרוח‬ ‫פה‬ ‫אין‬
'there is no word for the spirit of destruction, nor is there a reply of the tongue of all the [so]ns of guilt' (García-Martínez & Tigchelaar 1997:179) The translation of García-Martínez and Tigchelaar supports the claim of Geiger by translating the two sentences identically 'there is no word ...' and 'there is no reply of a tongue ...' However, we want to argue that the two sentences are not identical.The first sentence with ʾên is a negative 15. Parry and Tov (2014:315) translate 'unrestrained'.
16.As Geiger notes, there are differences between Qumran texts in their use of the two negative particles (e.g.MMT and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice use only ʾên whereas Sirach and the Rule of the Community use only lōʾ) and differences relating to syntactic context (e.g.relative sentences are negated only with ʾên whereas periphrastic participial constructions with hyh use only lōʾ) (Geiger 2012:299).17.Line 14 in Parry and Tov (2014:308-309).
existential sentence, literally 'there does not exist a mouth belonging to the spirit of destruction'.The second sentence, by contrast, is a negative predication: 'a tongue does not answer all of the sons of guilt'.The two sentences are thus neither formally nor functionally identical.
In other cases as well, the variation between ʾên and lōʾ can be seen to relate to functional differences, as in ( 24 The clause negated with ʾên is a possessive clause in which the participle is functioning nominally.There is therefore a clear distinction in synta x between the passage in Exodus and Nehemiah, which is not related to diachronic considerations but rather to syntactic ones. We believe that a complexity approach to Qumran Hebrew that recognises both language variation and language change and diffusion whilst paying close attention to syntactic structures and functions, especially those that are not immediately apparent on the surface, reveals that there is both syntactic differentiation and syntactic development that can be seen in the Qumran texts (see Naudé 2012:61-81).We hope in the future to extend our research to include a comprehensive analysis of the syntactic structures found in Qumran Hebrew.
(21) 1QH a XVI:36 ‫נאספה‬ ‫בלא‬ ‫בפ[י]‬ ‫הגברתה‬ ‫ולשון‬ 'But you have made the tongue in [my] mouth strong, without being taken away' 15 two tendencies among scribes of the biblical period: conservative and non-conservative.The authors and scribes who composed and transmitted works in Early Biblical Hebrew exhibit a tendency to conservatism in their linguistic choices, in the sense that they only rarely use forms outside a narrow core of what they considered literary forms.At Qumran too, the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll fall somewhere in the middle between Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew.The other samples of Qumran (especially Pesher Habakkuk) and Ben Sira studied byYoung et al. (2008:250-279)fall in the mid to high end of the Early Biblical Hebrew scale, even further from the core Late Biblical Hebrew books.
(Naudé 2012)Young (2014)Naudé 2010)argue that Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew do not represent different chronological periods in the history of Biblical Hebrew, but instead represent coexisting styles of literary Hebrew throughout the biblical period and are best taken as 9.Van Peursen (1999) argues for the uniqueness of the Hebrew of Ben Sira.representingThis is a reaction to viewpoints in Miller-Naudé and Zevit (2012)Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew.It is clear that many of the suggestions and ideas of the authors find a place in the volume ofRezetko and Young (2014)(seeRezetko & Young  2014:593-599), for example, their integrated approach versus the idea of complexity theory(Naudé 2012)as well as the ideas concerning the terms change, diffusion, variation, idiolects, etc. as explicated in Chapter 1.Rezetko and Young (2014:10-11) now use the phrase 'Classical Hebrew' for the four premishnaic corpora: the Hebrew inscriptions, Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Hebrew Bible.Instead of the two main types or periods of Biblical Hebrew (Golden Age, Early, Classical, or Standard Biblical Hebrew on the one hand, and Silver Age or Late Biblical Hebrew on the other hand) they use the a better history of ancient Hebrew.Their main contention is that historical linguistic study of Biblical Hebrew should aim to target, record, organise, and evaluate individual linguistic items, their processes of variation and change in specific compositions and manuscripts, not only or mainly in the Masoretic Text or in assemblages of biblical books or from the perspective of the conventional (or any other) periodisation of Biblical Hebrew.