21st Century Bible Hebrew -- surviving grammar

One of the important things about epistemics is that they look in two directions.  The evidentiary/certainty version not only certifies information to the audience, it also promises that the narrator wouldn’t use it if he didn’t know the audience knew he was right.

The uncertainty epistemic admits that the “speaker” might not know something but, as I said in the last lesson, it also admits that the audience might not know something. And it lets people off the hook, as with Gd’s vow to Avraham. This comes out in Deuteronomy 7:5 in a big way:

ה כִּ֣י אִם־כֹּ֤ה תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ לָהֶ֔ם מִזְבְּחֹֽתֵיהֶ֣ם תִּתֹּ֔צוּ וּמַצֵּֽבֹתָ֖ם תְּשַׁבֵּ֑רוּ וַֽאֲשֵֽׁירֵהֶם֙ תְּגַדֵּע֔וּן וּפְסִֽילֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֥וּן בָּאֵֽשׁ:

The highlighted verbs basically mean overthrow, break, cut down, and burn. Now that you know about the uncertainty epistemic (and the etnach under t’shaberu), you can see that this verse means something quite different from what you thought.

The difference in the two halves of the verse have to do with experience and law. Altars made of stone are vulnerable to robbing out the stone for building. The same is true for a matsevah. Any altars built by the patriarchs or matsevot set up by them, disappeared long ago. The Israelites have a right to suspect any of these they find in the Holy Land were put up recently for pagan worship, and they have to destroy them.

An Asherah is different. It might be a fruit tree. There is a verse in Deuteronomy which prohibits destroying fruit trees (a concept called bal tashkhit). The Israelite has to find evidence that a fruit tree has been worshipped before cutting it down.

A pesel is even stickier. If you don’t remember the story of Mikayahu’s pesel, read Judges 17-18. As with an Asherah, there has to be an investigation to see if a pesel was made by a Jew or a pagan.

Now look at Exodus 34:13; it’s missing the last two and has tikhrotun instead of t’gadeun for asherot. But it’s still an uncertainty epistemic and still is governed by the ruling about not destroying all trees.

This legalistic use of the uncertainty epistemic continues on into Mishnah and is illustrated in the first mishnah of the first chapter of the first tractate of the first sedra. The Mishnaic epistemic is the only one that survived the Babylonian Captivity, and its only form ends in -in. But it is used in rulings and in cases made up for discussion. When Mishnah discusses an actual event or case, it uses non-epistemics. This is also illustrated in that same mishnah.

א מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִים לֶאֱכֹל בִּתְרוּמָתָן, עַד סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר, חַיָּבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת. וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. וְכָל הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵירָה:

Now that you know about the uncertainty epistemic, you can see which of these verbs refers to something in the law – which might not happen – and which verbs reflect actual events.

The wording of Mishnah was fixed about 100 CE. The same grammatical split shows up in Midrash Rabbah, which cites to the same rabbis and was written down during the European Dark Ages. The persistence of grammar – and what doesn’t survive – tells us that BH grammar in the entire Tannakh is the product of the people who lived before the Babylonian Captivity. Tannakh is a record of Jewish narratives and the laws they illustrate, as they existed when the First Temple was destroyed. The stark change in grammar after that – to a tense language, not an aspectual one – is another part of the evidence. Anybody who tells you differently needs to come into the 21^st century.