Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

4. Construct מְאַת versus Absolute מֵאָה

  • Aaron D. Hornkohl (author)
Chapter of: Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrew(pp. 89–106)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title4. Construct מְאַת versus Absolute מֵאָה
ContributorAaron D. Hornkohl (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0433.04
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0433/chapters/10.11647/obp.0433.04
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightAaron D. Hornkohl
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-11-11
Long abstractThe cardinal numeral ‘hundred’ in ancient Hebrew presents two distinct forms: construct מְאַת and absolute מֵאָה. Their usage is not random, as evidenced by the distribution in biblical and extrabiblical texts. In Iron Age II epigraphic Hebrew, the construct form appears in a single instance, whereas the Masoretic Text (MT) shows a notable difference in the ratio of construct to absolute forms, with the construct outnumbering the absolute in the Pentateuch (27:5), but being less common in other parts of the MT (3:48). The analysis reveals that certain nouns only co-occur with one of the forms, and among the nouns that appear with both, the overall ratio is relatively balanced at 26:21, although the Torah significantly favours the construct. The examination of various sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), further elucidates the evolution of these forms. Due to harmonistic tendencies, the SP shows a higher occurrence of the construct form than the MT, while RH exhibits a strong preference for the absolute form. Notably, RH seldom uses the construct outside of direct allusion to Biblical Hebrew. The diachronic data indicates that while both forms were used in Classical Biblical Hebrew, the construct form fell out of favour in later sources. The linguistic distinction between the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible also emerges as a significant observation, revealing a preference for the construct in the Torah that is not mirrored in other texts, highlighting the unique characteristics of the linguistic context in which the Torah was composed or, at the very least, the conservatism of its linguistic tradition.
Page rangepp. 89–106
Print length18 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Aaron D. Hornkohl

(author)
Associate Professor in Hebrew at University of Cambridge
https://www.ames.cam.ac.uk/people/dr-aaron-d-hornkohl

Aaron D. Hornkohl (PhD, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012) is University Associate Professor in Hebrew, Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge. His research focuses on ancient Hebrew philology and linguistics, especially historical linguistics and ancient Hebrew periodisation; the components of the standard Tiberian Masoretic biblical tradition; and that tradition’s profile in the context of other biblical traditions and extrabiblical sources. This is his third single-author monograph after The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2023) and Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Book of Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill 2014). He has also co-edited several volumes and written numerous articles.