Construct מְאַת versus Absolute מֵאָה

The 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.