Morphological Variation in the Imperfect of hewâ in Onqelos and Jonathan

Long ago, G. Dalman i called attention to the fact that Targum Onqelos preserves two types of the peal imperfect for the verb hewâ, one form with the waw of the root, for example yihweyan 2, and one with the syncopation of the waw of the root, for example yehon 3. He observed that the feminine plural always uses the waw form and that the first common singular uses it occasionally. Dalman observed this phenomenon in Targum Onqelos only, but drew no conclusions from it, apart from gender distinction in the plural.

that waw forms of the second mascuHne singular, third masculine singular and third feminine singular also appear, together with their syncopated counterparts, howbeit marginally. In recent literature, E. M. Cook has remarked that these syncopated forms are unique to the language of Onqelos and Jonathan 4.
In the second and third person plural, as correctly observed by Dalman, the two morphological types distinguish gender. The waw forms are used for the feminine, while the syncopated forms are used for the masculine. For example: 2FP ... Knnin'' n*' ]i^'n ]nnn ID {Exod 1: 16) when you assist the Jewish women in giving birth ... 2MP xbni ]inn ^mpn n^n^pi {Lev 19:30) and you shall be reverencing my sanctuary 3FP x^-D^ ]"' in' ' Kmnrcij nip {Num 35:11) they shall be cities of refuge for you 3MP iDinn ^DD -p iin" i^nt {Deut 28:40) you shall have olive trees (lit. there shall be olive trees for you) throughout your territory.
In the first common plural, only the syncopated form nehê is attested (e.g. Ezek 20:32).
In the second and third person singular, the two morphological types do not distinguish gender. For the 3MS both yehê and yihwê appear; for 3FS, both tehê and tihwe; and for 2MS both tehê and tihwe. In the second feminine singular, only the sycopated form tehan appears (e.g. Ezek 23:32). For ICS, both 'ehe ' (vocalized with either sere or shewa after the initial aleph) and Hhwê -'ahwê = 'ehwê (Vat. 448) appear 5.
In this essay, I will explore the usage of the two morphological types in the ICS, 2MS, 3MS and 3FS in Onqelos and Jonathan and propose a working model for explaining their coexistence. First, I will consider their numerical distribution in the corpus; then, their contextual distribution. I used the edition of A. Sperber collated against MS Vat. 448 for Onqelos and against the editions of E. Martinez Borobio for Joshua -2 Samuel, and of J. Ribera Florit for the Latter Prophets 6. The relevant readings of the new Babylonian editions where extant agree with those found in Sperber without exception. Only relevant variants are cited in the material quoted.

STATISTICS
A statistical computation of the one type over against the other is useful. Because of multiple MSS, some of which contain the counter-form as a variant and some of which contain midrashic pluses not found in other MSS, the exact statistical count may vary, depending on how one counts cases. However, the big picture is clear. For the ICS, there is about an equal amount of 'ehe''s as 'ihwe^'s. In Onqelos, 'ihwe appears more often than 'ehe' by a ratio of about 2:1, but in Jonathan the ratio is reversed. All together, there is a slight preference for the waw form over against the syncopated form for the ICS. By contrast, the 3MS yehê is the preferred form, appearing about 99% of the time in our corpus. Only 6 cases of yihwê appear {Gen 18:18; Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7; 29:12; 2 Kgs 2:10 var; 7:2 var). The same can be said for 3FS tehê and 2MS tehê, each of which appear about 98% of the time. Only 4 cases of 3FS tihwê appear {Num 30:7; 2 Sam 12:12 var; 24:17; Ezek 1:12 var), while only one case of 2MS tihwê is found (2 Sam 5:2). In summary, while there is a slight preference for the waw form of the ICS over against its syncopated counterpart, the waw forms of the 3MS, 3FS and 2MS are marginal as compared to their syncopated counterparts.

CONDITIONING
How can one explain this phenomenon? An analysis of the cases of the singular with the waw forms reveals conditioning in its usage to a large extent. That conditioning seems the same, regardless of person or gender. Functional opposition does not appear to explain its appearance. Rather, the choice appears to be stylistic in most of the cases.
The unsyncopated waw forms of the singular appear in the following contexts: 1) In the covenant formula in reference to God. In Onqelos, ICS 'ihwê only appears in the covenant formula: ròìà ^inb nnKi «and I will be to them a God» {Gen 17:8; Exod 29:45); x^ob "' inKi nb^b «and I will be to you a God» {Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12), In the only case of 3MS, yihwê appears in the best witnesses, although some poorer witnesses -mostly prints-read yehê\ nn*' Kim rt^^ "]^ On" :b d g k 1 n) «and he shall be to you a God» {Deut 29:12). Historically, the waw form is the older form, attested in Old Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic and Biblical Aramaic, and seems to be used in Onqelos and Jonathan to give an impression of solemnity, as the speaker of English might use «thou» in reference to God.
2) In the Lord's solemn promise to King David concerning his offspring: "ÛD "Dip "n" Kim DKD n^' p ("in^K :f ;"nK :b) nnK KDK «I will be as a father to him and he shall be before me as a son» (2 Sam 7:14). The variant 'hy found only in the first Biblia Rabbinica published by Bomberg in Venice in 1515-1517 (= witness b) is surely secondary, since it stands alone against the MSS. It is interesting to observe that in this example the waw form 'ahwê appears in reference to God, while the syncopated form yehê appears in reference to David's son. Structurally, this example is similar to the covenant formula.
3) In the prohibition against having another god apart from Yahweh in the ten commandments, which, too, is structurally similar to the covenant formula: •' ]D nn ]"inK rii^b ^ nn'' K' ? {Exod 20:3 = Deut 5:7) «You shall not have another god apart from me». Witnesses k, 1, and n to Exod, and witness i to Deut read the syncopated form yehê, which reading is certainly secondary s. In both These are the only two cases where a singular form of the imperfect of hewâ appears immediately after the infinitive absolute in the corpus. While one might therefore claim syntactic conditioning, solemnity characterizes both of these contexts, so that the choice of the one form over against the other may have been stylistic.
To summarize, roughly two thirds of the cases of singular waw forms fall into the four categories described above. Their usage in these environments gives the impression of solemnity to the reader/hearer. 5) In other instances where the unsyncopated waw form appears (Jonathan only): The following cases do not fit into this stylistic scheme so easily. All but one of the following cases come from the Former Prophets. a) Six instances should be excluded from consideration due to poor attestation: 1) Josh 1:5 var. "|M nnK «I will be with you», instead of "H"' -|i:;on nQ"' D «my Word will be your help». The Lord speaks to Joshua. This variant, a different set of words, is attested in two prints, the First Rabbinic Bible of 1515-1517 (= witness b) and the Leira print of the former prophets of 1494 {-witness d), but is not found in any MS. Its origin, then, may have been external to Onqelos and Jonathan. 2) 2 Sam 12:12 plus nn^n ''DT] PDHK in bi) w^^' nnDKi KD' :^! «And because you said, Let him repay four times, so it will be». These are the words of Nathan to King David in his reproof of David for his sin with Bathsheba. Responding to the allegory about a rich man taking a poor man's lamb, David had said that the rich man should repay the lamb he stole fourfold (v. 6). David's fourfold repayment would be the lives of four of his sons. Only witness c (= MS p. 116 of the Montefiore Library, Jews' College, London) contains this midrashic plus. In all probability, this case does not belong to the early Jonathan tradition, but entered later from the outside. Consequently, it should be excluded from consideration. In his study of targumic toseftot, R. Kasher classifies the language of this addition as mixed 9.
3) 1 Kgs 22:22 var. ^nvn] ^D men np^i nrb (nnKi :y b) IO^HKI piDi< «I will go out and become a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets». An evil spirit is speaking to the Lord. Only witnesses y (= BM MS Or. 2371) and b (First Rabbinic Bible, Bomberg, Venice 1515-1517) support the waw form. 4) 2 Kgs 2:10 var. p ^ (nn^ :f) ^n*' "[HI' PD nnnD K]K"I TI'' nnn DK •' H' Kb IK' P m.^ «if you see me when I am being taken from you, it will be so to you; but if not, it will not be». Only the first instance of yehê has the variant yhwy, attested only in witness f (= Codex Reuchlinianus). 5) 2 Kgs 7:2 var. :var.) "rr^n '^'m p K D I C D n' ' nDi ]nD nriD ^r I' PK inn KQ^nsD (•' in' ' n «If the Lord would open the windows and cause goodness to descend from heaven, would there be as this matter?». The form appears in a rhetorical question. Only witness j (= MS Sassoon 332) attests the waw form, which appears to be secondary. 6) Ezek 1:12 var. (nnnn :b g) iinnn inK'p K' :' m KHSK b'2pb i<nm K' pm b'inb KIPI pr\ «and the creature was going forward, to the 9 R. KASHER, Targumic Toseftot to the Prophets (Jerusalem 1996) p. 114, #63. 10 KASHER Targumic (p. 136, #90b) reads w'h\ His full text reads: 'pwq w'h' rwh sqr bsdqyh br kn'nh wbs'r nby'y sqr' «I will go out and be a false spirit in Zedekiah son of Chenaanah and in the rest of the false prophets».
(C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional place where it was (var. would be) pleasing to go it was going».
Only the prints b (= First Rabbinic Bible) and g (= Second Rabbinic Bible) read the imperfect thwy, which reading is certainly secondary, in place of the participle hawê. b) Five instances are well documented and need explanation: 1) Jdg 11:9: ' ' Q"Tp ]inn^ •' •' noDn ]ID:: "nn Knnp Kn]Kb TI" xy^nu DK tijn'7 ^di (•' HK :f) nnK KDK «if you are restoring me to wage war against the Ammonites and the Lord should deliver them before me, I will become a chief to you!». Jephthah speaks to the elders of Gilead. 'Ahwê appears in the apodosis of a conditional sentence. Structurally, this sentence is similar to the covenant formula and has the independent personal pronoun as subject in initial position. Contrast: ^n'p K]^ ^nm «and (that) you might become a chief to us» (v. 8), while similar in structure, lacks an initial independent personal pronoun. Further, contrast: ons'p ]']'ph 'r\' Kim «and he will be to them a leader» {Ezek 34:23), and y^ n^b •' nn DKI iDmno'p -p •' n*' Kin «and he will be to you an interpreter and you will be to him a chief» {Exod 4:16), both of which contain the independent personal pronoun as subject in initial position. 2a) Jdg 16:7 inD ' ' inKi mbn^^ IÜ^T '^b'\ ]n"' CD-i ]nn'' ni;nrà '^mo^' n^ Kü]K 'Tin «if they bind me with seven wet cords which have not dried, then I will become weak and be like one of the mortals». 2b) Jdg 16:11 KnT' ni: ]inn ni''ni:nK K'^I ]mn pni-^ •']]Ì"ID'''' no-' Q DK my^ •' HD inD nnKi CDi ' : ' nK"i «if indeed they bind me with new ropes with which work has not been performed, then I will become weak and be like one of the mortals». 2c) Jdg 16:17 KÜ]K bo'Z) "inKi mbr]^^ 'b^n 'in ni^n n^:iK DK «if I shave, my strength will pass from me and I will become weak and be like any mortal». Samson speaks to Delilah. 'Ahwê appears in the apodosis of a conditional sentence. Contrast: ' 7KnîD' ' n ìì^'m p "THD "^nn DKI «and you will be as one of the fools in Israel» (2 Sam 13:13), which is similar but not identical in structure.
These four cases are the only instances where the ICS imperfect of hewâ appears in Judges.