Vetus

Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 497-498 brill.com/vt

Verb Transitivity and Ancient Hebrew ׁ‫מו‬

in Zechariah 3:9

Max Rogland
Erskine Theological Seminary
rogland@erskine.edu

Abstract
This study argues that the verb ׁ‫ מו‬is used intransitively in Zech 3:9 with the sense of “to depart”
and that the particle ‫ את‬is best interpreted as the preposition “with” rather than as the nota accu-
sativi.

Keywords
Zechariah 3:9, ׁ‫מו‬, verb transitivity, nota accusativi, direct object marker, Day of Atonement,
intertextuality, scapegoat

In the Qal stem, the ancient Hebrew verb ׁ‫ מו‬typically means “to depart” and
is used intransitively in Biblical Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the extant
Hebrew text of Ben Sira, whereas the transitive meaning “to remove” occurs in
the Hifil stem.1 A rare exception is alleged in Zech 3:9 ‫ּמ ְׁ ִּי את־עון הארץ־ההיא‬
ַ
‫“ ביום אחד‬and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day” (RSV ). This is
often classified as a transitive usage of the Qal stem having a meaning essen-
tially identical to the Hifil.2 Such an analysis is unlikely, however, seeing that
the Qal stem is both well-attested in the Classical corpora and is consistently

1) See BDB, p. 559; for the attestation, see DCH vol. 5, pp. 189-90. Note that all the examples are
classified as Qal stem by W. Gesenius and F. Buhl, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das alte Testament (17th ed.; Leipzig, 1921), pp. 408-9, and therefore some instances of the
transitive Hifil are included in the entry.
2) So, e.g., BDB, p. 559; DCH, p. 190; E. König, Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum
Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 214-5. In his Sefer Ha-Shorashim D. Qimchi described ׁ‫ מו‬as
a ‫ פועל עומד‬but in Zech 3:9 he calls it a ‫ ;פועל יוצא‬see Jo. H. R. Biesenthal and F. Lebrecht (eds.),
‫( ספר השרשים לרבי דויד בן יוסף קמחי הספרדי‬Bern, 1847), p. 188.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685330-12341123
498 M. Rogland / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 497-498

intransitive in its usage elsewhere.3 Textual emendations have occasionally

been proposed for ‫ּמ ְׁ ִּי‬,
ַ though very little objective data exists to support
them.4 Until further ancient attestations of ׁ‫ מו‬come to light, then, the best
interpretation of the Masoretic Text of Zech 3:9 as it currently stands is to
understand the verb as having its regular intransitive meaning of “to depart”
and, accordingly, to interpret the particle ‫ את‬as the preposition “with” rather
than as the nota accusativi. The clause would therefore be best translated: “And
I will depart with the guilt of that land in a single day.”
Despite the many exegetical challenges of Zechariah 3, the high priestly
imagery of the chapter is unmistakable. Moreover, a number of scholars have
argued with a good deal of plausibility that this pericope, including v.9 in par-
ticular, contains intertextual references to the Day of Atonement.5 If the gram-
matical interpretation of ‫ּמ ְׁ ִּי‬
ַ proposed here is correct, it appears that the
clause is intended to present YHWH as in some sense taking on the role of the
“scapegoat”.

3) Cf. P. Joüon, “Notes Philologiques sur le Texte Hébreu de Osée (etc.)”, Bib 10.4 (1929) 417-420,
esp. p. 420.
4) See A. Gelston (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta, XIII: The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart, 2010),
p. 121. Joüon (“Notes Philologiques”, p. 420) proposes ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ּמ ִח‬
ָ “I will wipe out” and HALAT (vol. 2,
p. 532) tentatively suggests a Hifil stem ‫( וְ ֵה ַמ ְׁ ִּי‬cf. n.1 above), but these are purely conjectural.
One of the Qumran Minor Prophets fragments (4QXIIe [4Q80]) has ‫ומשיתי‬, from the verb ‫מׁה‬,
thus: “I will draw out” (cf. M. Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible [New York,
1999], p. 472). The LXX and Peshitta appear to have read ‫ּמׁ ִֹתי‬ ַ (from the verb ׁׁ‫ ;מ‬cf. HALAT,
ibid.), but this makes little sense, as pointed out by W. Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja
9-14-Maleachi (KAT XIII/4; Gütersloh, 1976), p. 99.
5) See, inter alia, M. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8 (LHBOTS 506; New York/London,
2009), p. 170; B. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road. The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Tra-
jectory Analysis (SBL 25; Leiden/Boston, 2006), p. 136; L.-S. Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic
Rage. Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT 2/19; Tübingen, 2006), pp. 248-55; idem,
“The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3)”, in: C. Tuckett (ed.), The Book of Zechariah and its Influence
(Aldershot, 2003), pp. 1-19, esp. pp. 8-11; M. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (Grand Rapids, 2004), p. 258;
Rudolph, Sacharja 1-8, p. 101; cf. A. Petterson, Behold Your King: Hope for the House of David in the
Book of Zechariah (LHBOTS 513; New York/London, 2009), p. 97.