An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

otherwise dropped. 1 The articles are not always used in English to mark definites or
indefinites. Nouns in some syntactic structures are inherently definite (e.g., ‘I went
home’) or indefinite (e.g., ‘Tigers are dangerous animals’). As the examples show, a
definite noun or noun phrase may have a unique reference (## 1–2) or a particular
reference (## 3–4); rather infrequently, an English definite may have a generic
reference (# 5).
1. I saw Moses.
2. I saw the sun.
3. I saw the man I was looking for.
4. I saw the father of the prophet.
5. The tiger is a dangerous animal.
An indefinite noun or noun phrase is usually non-specific (# 6), but may be
specific (# 7).
6. I’m looking for a tent, but I can’t find one.
7. I’m looking for a tent, but I can’t find it.
In # 6, the pronoun ‘one’ is non-specific and shows that the phrase ‘a tent’ is also
nonspecific; in # 7, ‘it’ must refer to a particular tent and so also must the phrase ‘a
tent.’
b With these facts in mind, we may turn to the Hebrew system, which presents many
similarities to the English, so many, in fact, that it is important for students to bear in
mind the many differences between the languages. 2 The basic opposition of the
categories definite: indefinite is similar: in Hebrew, as in English, the definite noun
directs attention to the referent’s identity, while the indefinite noun focuses on the
class to which the referent belongs, its quality and character. In # 8 the use of an
indefinite (or anarthrous) noun emphasizes the class to which the referent belongs,
1 German, a close relative of English, uses an unreduced form of ‘one,’ ‘ein,’ as the
indefinite article; Yiddish shows the same usage as English,’a.’
2 These similarities are an important basis for the claims of the Reformation
translators that Hebrew “goes better” into English than into Latin. Compare Tyndale’s
famous remark, “The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin
[which has no article]. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand
times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one;
so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate into the English, word for
word: when thou must seek a compass in the Latin.” Quoted by S. L. Greenslade,
“English Versions of the Bible, A.D. 1525–1611,” The Cambridge History of the
Bible. 3. The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. L. Greenslade
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963) 141–74, at 145. On the article in general
grammatical theory, see W. P. Schmid, MPD. esp. 94–95; in Hebrew, see Richter.
GAHG2.9–11.