An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

f During the more fluid stages of the text we might also expect confusion between
forms such as I-yod verbs where the initial yod on the purely graphic level is
ambiguous between the prefix and suffix conjugations. MT pairs like ב ָשָׁי and
ב ֵשֵׁי or עדָי ַ and עדֵי ַ require careful attention. The “hidden” definite article with
the inseparable preposition also illustrates the problem (cf. םדָ אָ ְל in Gen 2:20).
g The validity of the MT. The Masoretic tradition, including the vowel points,
represents the overall grammatical systems current during the period when biblical
literature was being created. We may say this, despite the problems we have
reviewed, because of a considerable body of evidence indicating that the
traditioning function was taken seriously and that the linguistic data of the MT
could not be faked. 74
h On the labors that culminated in the Tiberian manuscripts, consider a talmudic
passage that evinces the concern for accuracy:
It is written: “For Joab and all Israel remained there until he had cut off every male in
Edom [1 Kings 11:16].” When Joab came before David, David said to him, “Why
have you acted thus?” He replied, “Because it is written, ‘Thou shalt blot out the
males [ר ַכז ְ ] of Amalek [Deut 25:19].” ’David said, “But we read,’the remembrance
[ר ֶכז, ֵ with MT] of Amalek.’ ” He replied, “I was taught to say ר ַכז.” ְ He [Joab] then
went to his teacher and asked, “How did you teach me to read?” He replied, “ר ַכז.” ְ
Thereupon Joab drew his sword and threatened to kill him. “Why are you doing
that?,” asked the teacher. He replied, “Because it is written, ‘Cursed be he that does
the work of the Law negligently.’ ” 75
This anecdote suggests that teachers in Israel were expected to pass on
faithfully the received vocalization.
i A complex body of evidence indicates that the MT could not, in any serious or
systematic way, represent a reconstruction or faking of the data. The first clue that
the Masoretes and their predecessors were preservers and not innovators lies in the
history of Hebrew. By the time of the Qumran community, Biblical Hebrew was
no longer a spoken language; Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic were the vernaculars
of Palestine. The[Page 27] scribes were dealing with linguistic material they
understood well but could use with no more spontaneity than we can speak
English of the Tudor-Stuart period.
Sanmartín, “Die angebliche ug.-he. Parallele spsg//, sps(j)g(jm),” Ugarit-Forschungen
8 (1976) 37–40. For a similar case involving 2 Sam 1:21, see M. O’Connor, Hebrew
Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 231.
74 We lean heavily in what follows on Barr, Comparative Philology, 207–22.
75 Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 21a-b; cf. Barr, Comparative Philology, 213–14.