Some of the orthographic phenomena we encounter stem from archaic forms which else-
where have fallen out of use.^91 It is certainly permissible, then, that linguistic differences
underlie some variations in orthography. However, the issue is clouded by evidence that
certain copyists used orthographic conventions to demarcate texts linguistically, as has
been suggested for some of the Qumran Scrolls.^92
In the cuneiform documents we are presented with a different set of linguistic phenomena
that raise essentially the same methodological issue. We have already mentioned the oc-
currences of phonetic complements that may be seen as more linguistic than orthographic
phenomena. In general, case endings in the cuneiform sources are often irregularly em-
ployed, and in some instances vary when the sense of the text clearly remains the same.^93
(^91) E.Y. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background (^) , 438, suggests that the long form of the third person
masculine singular independent pronoun h)wh retained the Proto-Semitic ending, softened to ‘-ah.’ In con-
trast this ending has disappeared from Biblical Hebrew. Against this we find a mixture of long and short
forms of this pronoun in different sectarian documents. The long form is used exclusively in 1QS (fifteen
times), while the short form is used exclusively in 1QH (six times) and 11QT (36 times, although there is
one instance of the long form in 11QTb [11Q20] v 21). The few occurrences in 1QM are mixed (two in-
stances of the short form against four of the long form). 92
See W.M. Schniedewind, "Qumran Hebrew," 235-252; S. Weitzman, "Why Did the Qumran Community
Write in Hebrew?," Journal of the American Oriental Society 119, 1 (1999); and previously S. Morag,
"Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations," Vetus Testamentum 38, 2 (1988). Schiedewind con-
siders that a characteristic system of orthography operated as an ‘antilanguage,’ employed by the copyists
to define themselves culturally through an artificially imposed diglossia. V. de Caën, "Hebrew Linguistics
and Biblical Criticism: A Minimalist Programme," Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2001) 10-25 rejects
this interpretation, instead considering the phenomena reflective of diachronic development within the lan-
guage. 93
In MUL.APIN tablet I ii 9, BM86278 reads “MUŠEN aribu MUL dAdad,” while the parallel document
BM32311 reads “MUŠEN aribi MUL dAdad.” In the next line “dŠubulu” appears in the former text against
“dŠubula” in the latter. In both cases the taxonomic style of the text suggests no difference in declination is