we are surely correct to see this as a minor orthographic variation that simply reflects the
tendency of some scribes to represent the vowel ‘ō’ graphically, while others do not.^89
An ostensibly similar phenomenon occurs with the second person masculine suffix con-
jugation in Hebrew, written as ht- in many Qumran texts, as opposed to the more famil-
iar t- that occurs in the vast majority in the MT. However, it is likely that in the second
instance the addition of the letter h to the suffixed form of the verb marks a change in the
linguistic profile of the copyist, reflecting a living dialectal difference, and not an ortho-
graphic convention.^90
The point of difference between the spelling of the word )l with or without mater lec-
tionis, and masculine verbs ending in afformative ht- or t-, is between orthographic
convention on one hand, and the representation of the spoken language on the other. The
difficulty lies in determining whether the scribe is recording what a particular ortho-
graphic convention dictates, or graphically representing the audible form of the spoken
language. In truth we can never be absolute in our determination one way or the other.
(^89) According to E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (^) (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1959) 20, the spelling )wl did in fact represent a linguistic difference, serving as an indica-
tion to avoid the pronunciation of the negative particle as in Aramaic. For a variation on this theory see
W.M. Schniedewind, "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage," Journal of Biblical Literature 118, 2 (1999)
- 90
See note below.