An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

called nota accusativi.” 30 A. M. Wilson late in the nineteenth century concluded
from his exhaustive study of all the occurrences of this[Page 178] debated particle
that it had an intensive or reflective force in some of its occurrences. 31 Many
grammarians have followed his lead. 32 On such a view, תא is a weakened
emphatic particle, corresponding to the English pronoun ‘self’ in locutions such as
30
Muraoka, Emphatic Words, 146. It is occasionally proposed that ˒t serves as a glossmarker,
for example, in Hag 2:5 (where the opening clause as a whole would then be
taken as a gloss on the preceding verse); see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in
Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 48–51, cf. 193.
31
A. M. Wilson, “The Particle תא ֵ in Hebrew,” Hebraica 6 (1889–90) 139–50, 212–
24. There is an enclitic t (ta or ti) attested in Amorite and possibly in Hebrew; see C.
R. Krahmalkov, “The Amorite Enclitic Particle TA/I,” Journal of Semitic Studies 14
(1969) 201–4; Krahmalkov, “The Enclitic Particle TA/I in Hebrew,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 89 (1970) 218–19; cf. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 213.
32
This is more or less the position of Joüon §125j / p. 370; N. Walker, “Concerning the
Function of ˒t,” Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955) 314–15; P. P. Saydon, “Meanings and
Uses of the Particle תא, Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964) 192–210; John Macdonald,
“The Particle תא in Classical Hebrew,” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964) 263–75; R.
Meyer, “Bemerkungen zur syntaktischen Funktion der sogenannten Nota accusativi,”
Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift für Kurt Elliger, ed. H. Gese and H.-P. Rüger
(Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973) 137–42; J.
Hoftijzer, “Remarks Concerning the Use of the Particle ˒t in Classical Hebrew,”
Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965) 1–99 (though Hoftijzer is dubious about notions
of emphasis and prefers a historical explanation, he does recognize ˒t with the
nominative and allows it a special role). Studies of the syntax of late Biblical Hebrew
(especially Chronicles) recognize the emphatic use and its importance in later texts;
see Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner
Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909) 2–3, cf. 33–36;
Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical
Hebrew Prose (Missoula: Scholars Press. 1976) 32–37, cf. 28–31 on the decreased
use of suffixed forms of ˒t in late texts.
John Macdonald observes that ˒t is used with the nominative in the Classical
Hebrew text known as the Samaritan Chronicle II, a historical account intended to
follow the (Samaritan) Pentateuch. Note, for example, in this text’s version of Josh
7:9: wšm˓w ˒t yšby ˒rṣ kn˓n wsbw bnw lhšmydnw mn h˒rṣ,’The inhabitants of the land
of Canaan will hear and will surround us in order to eradicate us from the land.’
Macdonald remarks, “We now have absolute proof that, in the later form of Northern
Israelite (Classical) Hebrew at least, תא did come in for a much wider range of
usages than has hitherto been allowed by the great majority of commentators” (p.
275). The text Macdonald cites is now published by him as The Samaritan Chronicle
No. II (or: Sepher Ha-Yamin) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969).