3rd-line (Wiki: 4th-line) - נמלאה
כאשר נמלאה נדבת לב אש
The root מלא, in "Niphal" form, appears in the Bible 36 times, which 35 of them are in the "imperfect" form.
We read the Bible with pointing marks, and so we see these 35 cases as Niphal.
But of course, since the text did not come originally with vowels, this verbs' original form may have another pronunciation (Not Niphal).
The spelling of a word like ימלא could be voweled as:
1. Yimmale - Niphal
2. Yimla - Qal
The Masoretic voweled the text according to the evolution of the language, and changed some of the Qal forms to be read as Niphal.
(Only when they had the chance to do so, and that is that according to the words' spelling).
We can compare two similar verses, which one is Qal and one is Niphal (which probably is not really Niphal)
Gen. 6:11 מלאה הארץ חמס (here מלאה=mal*'a is Qal)
Gen. 6:13 ותמלא הארץ חמס (here תמלא=timmale is voweled as Niphal)
We should wonder, how come?
The only pure "no-question-asked" Niphal form comes only in the text of Song of Solomon 5:2.
שראשי נמלא טל.
This text (as it is written) is considered to be late.
And indeed, in the post-biblical texts, there was a common usage of the Niphal of מלא in the meaning of "change of state".
And so, this Niphal form in this Biblical late text represents the late evolution for this root usage.
But when we see all of the other imperfect forms in the old texts. and we don't see any pure Niphal form (as "perfect or Participle), it comes to mind that there was no old usage of מלא as Niphal, but only as Qal.
It is only that the Masoretic voweled them as Niphal because of an evolution in the language.
and this Evolution can be seen already in the late Song of Solomon.
Therefore, when the Script, which claims to be from 9th century BC, write נמלאה in pure Niphal form, this raised questions because we don't expect that form from that time.
And if we would say it is fake, we surely can understand the mistake that the man who wrote that did.
He was focusing on the Masoretic vowels and saw them as representing an ancient Niphal for that root.
And so, he figured to use that Niphal form too.
As I said, not everything is decisive, but that raises the first question that gives us doubts about the authenticity of that script.
I'll continue to write more "weird" stuff" later.