Comprehension and grammar

What the comprehension and grammar questions ask#

FoundationAQA 7677 section 2.2 — answer comprehension and grammar questions on a passage of unseen prose (25 marks); on a passage of unseen poetry (25 marks)AQA 7677 section 4.4.1 — questions will target accurate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew text; the split between comprehension and grammar questions will be approximately evenAQA 7677 section 3.1 — present relevant information in a clear, concise and logical manner using appropriate terminology in English

Two questions of 25 marks each, one in Section A on a passage of unseen prose and one in Section B on a passage of unseen poetry, make 50 marks — a third of Paper 1 and exactly as much as the composition. The specification is unusually explicit about what is inside them: questions will target accurate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew text, and the split between comprehension and grammar questions will be approximately even. So roughly twelve or thirteen marks in each question test whether you have understood what the passage says, and roughly twelve or thirteen test whether you can name what it is doing. It is worth writing that arithmetic down at the start of the course, because it means that about twenty-five marks of Paper 1 — a sixth of the paper — depend on the seventy-three-item terminology list and on nothing else.

The passage used for these questions is not the passage you translated. In each section there are two unseen passages: one to translate and a second for comprehension and grammar. Both come with one or two sentences of English background, both have their names glossed, and both gloss very rare or unusually used words where the meaning cannot be derived from the text. The practical consequence is that you meet twice as much unseen Hebrew as the translation questions alone suggest, and that time spent reading the second passage carefully is not wasted on a question you have already answered. It also means the second passage is chosen for its grammatical interest rather than for its translatability, so expect it to contain forms worth asking about.

Comprehension questions are questions about the Hebrew, not about the English. That distinction decides how they should be answered. A question asking why a character did something wants an answer drawn from what the passage says, quoted or referred to precisely; a question asking what a phrase means wants the meaning of the Hebrew phrase, not a paraphrase of the surrounding narrative. The specification asks for information presented in a clear, concise and logical manner using appropriate terminology in English, which is licence to answer in note form where notes are clearer than sentences. Long answers are not rewarded; precise ones are. Where a question carries two or three marks, it is asking for two or three separate points, and the safest structure is to make them separately and visibly.

The mark allocation is the best guide to length, and candidates consistently ignore it. A one-mark question wants one fact and one line. A three-mark question wants three points, and the third is usually the one that requires you to look at the Hebrew rather than at the story. Where a question asks you to refer to the Hebrew, quoting the word or phrase is part of the answer and not an ornament: an examiner cannot give credit for a claim about a word you have not identified. Where a question asks how you know something, it is asking for the linguistic evidence — a form, a particle, an ending — and an answer that gives only the sense will score half.

Finally, the two questions differ in character even though they carry the same marks. The prose passage is generous with signposts and its comprehension questions can be answered from the narrative logic; its grammar questions will tend to concern the vav consecutive, the binyanim, the weak roots, the construct chain and the clause types. The poetry passage gives less away and its comprehension questions will more often turn on an image or on the relation between two lines; its grammar questions will tend to concern parallelism, ellipsis, pausal form, unusual word order and archaic or short forms. Preparing the same set of answers for both would leave half the marks unaddressed, which is one more reason the two halves of the paper need separate preparation.

Worked example

Answering five questions on a short prose passage

Constructed teaching Hebrew, not a quotation. The passage is: וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּקְרָא אֶל־הַנַּעַר לֵאמֹר לֵךְ וּקְרָא אֶת־כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר׃ Answer: (a) What prompted the priest to act? (1 mark) (b) Whom did he summon, and whom was that person to summon? (2 marks) (c) Explain the form וַיִּקְרָא. (3 marks) (d) What kind of clause is אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר, and what must the English supply? (2 marks) (e) State the function of לֵאמֹר. (2 marks)

(a) one mark, one fact, from the passage
The answer is that he heard these words — הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה — and the temporal clause introduced by כַּאֲשֶׁר makes the hearing the trigger for the calling. One line is enough, and quoting the two Hebrew words costs three seconds and makes the answer unambiguous. What would not score is any speculation about what the words were, since the passage does not say.
(b) two marks, two facts, kept separate
First fact: he summoned the young man, הַנַּעַר, marked as the addressee by אֶל. Second fact: the young man was to summon all the people who are in the city, אֶת־כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר. Write them as two numbered points. A candidate who runs both into a single sentence risks the examiner reading one point where two were made, and the fix costs nothing.
(c) three marks, so three elements of the parse
The three elements are the construction, the form and the root. It is a vav consecutive with the imperfect — vav conversive is an accepted alternative, vav hahipuch is not — giving past narrative sense; it is the qal, third person masculine singular; and its root is קרא, to call. A fourth observation is available if you want insurance: the strong dagesh in the yod is the mark of the vav consecutive. Nothing here needs a sentence; four short clauses will do.
(d) two marks, and the second is the English
First mark: it is a relative clause, introduced by the invariable relative particle אֲשֶׁר. Second mark: it is also verbless, so the English must supply the verb to be — who are in the city. Two of the specification's listed constructions therefore sit in two words, and saying so explicitly is what earns both marks. Note also that בָּעִיר contains the preposition with the article absorbed into it, which is worth a clause if you have room.
(e) two marks for a word that is not translated
First mark: לֵאמֹר is the qal infinitive construct of אמר with the inseparable preposition lamed. Second mark: it functions as a marker introducing direct speech, and it is not represented by a separate word in an idiomatic English translation. This is a favourite question because it tests both morphology and idiom, and because a candidate who translates it as saying to say has shown that they parsed it but not that they understood it.

Result: (a) He heard these words. (b) He summoned the young man; the young man was to summon all the people in the city. (c) Vav consecutive with the imperfect, qal, third masculine singular, root קרא. (d) A relative clause introduced by asher, and also verbless, so English supplies are. (e) Qal infinitive construct of אמר with lamed, functioning as a marker of direct speech and not separately translated.

Typical mistakes

Answering a comprehension question from general knowledge of the biblical story rather than from the passage printed on the paper.
Writing a paragraph for a one-mark question and a sentence for a four-mark one, which loses marks at both ends.
Making a claim about a word without quoting or identifying it, so the examiner cannot tell which word is meant.

Active revision

Take any passage of unseen prose and write your own comprehension and grammar question paper on it, to a total of 25 marks with the split approximately even. Set at least four grammar questions that can only be answered in the terminology of section 3.3.2, and at least four comprehension questions whose answers require a quotation from the Hebrew. Then put it away for a fortnight and sit it. Writing the questions teaches you what an examiner can see in a passage, which is the most transferable thing you can learn about this paper.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 2.2 and 4.4.1 (AQA) · GCE AS and A level subject content for ancient languages (Department for Education)

Answering a grammar question in the specification's own words#

StandardAQA 7677 section 3.3.2 — the Term column defines the vocabulary that will be used in examination, either within the question asked or as part of the answer required; students will not be penalised for correctly using any of the acceptable alternative terms but should not use unacceptable alternativesAQA 7677 section 3.2 — up to two explanations of the meaning of any complex, ambiguous or uncommon word or phrase, supported by contextual and/or grammatical justification

Grammar questions are the most predictable marks in Paper 1 because their answers are drawn from a closed list. Section 3.3.2 says so directly: the Term column defines the vocabulary that will be used in examination, either within the question asked or as part of the answer required. That is a contract in both directions. The examiner will use those words in the question, so you must recognise them; and the examiner expects those words in the answer, so you must produce them. Acceptable alternatives are safe — the specification states that students will not be penalised for correctly using any of them — and unacceptable alternatives are not. Since the unacceptable column is almost entirely Hebrew grammatical vocabulary, a candidate who learned grammar in Hebrew has one specific, finite piece of relearning to do, and it is worth doing early.

The reliable shape of an answer is three clauses: the form, the category, and the word that governs it or that it agrees with. For a verb that means construction if any, binyan, aspect or mood, person, number and gender, and root. For a noun it means gender, number and state, plus the word it stands in construct to if it does. For a particle it means what kind of particle and what it introduces. Adding a translation costs a few seconds and often rescues a mark when the terminology is imperfect, because an examiner can see that you understood the form even if you mislabelled it. Adding an explanation of your reasoning costs time you do not have and earns nothing, unless the question has asked for it.

Questions come in a small number of recognisable types and each has a shape of answer. Identify or parse wants the full label. State the root wants three consonants in dictionary order, which for a weak verb means reconstructing an assimilated or vocalised letter. Explain the form wants the label plus the mechanism, which is where the weak-root rules earn their keep. What is the function of asks not what the form is but what it does in the clause, so the answer names a role — subject, object, adverbial, the verb of a relative clause — using the terms of section 3.3.2.5. Why is the vowel or the dagesh as it is asks for a pointing rule, and the answer should name it: the guttural cannot be doubled, the article doubles what follows it, the letter is one of the six and follows a silent sheva.

One kind of question deserves separate treatment because the specification invites it explicitly. Section 3.2 says that students should study up to two explanations of the meaning of any complex, ambiguous or uncommon word or phrase, supported by contextual and grammatical justification. That is an instruction to hold ambiguity rather than to resolve it prematurely, and a question that asks for two possible readings is asking for exactly this. The answer format is two readings, each with its justification, and then, if the question invites it, a preference with a reason. A candidate who gives one reading where two were asked for has answered half the question; a candidate who gives two unjustified readings has answered none of it, because the justification is what is being marked.

Two habits raise the score on this half of the paper more than any amount of extra vocabulary. The first is to quote or transcribe the word you are talking about at the start of the answer, because it removes all ambiguity about which of two similar forms you mean and it takes a moment. The second is to answer in note form when notes are clearer, which the specification's requirement of clear, concise and logical presentation explicitly permits. A grammar answer laid out as four short labelled clauses is easier to mark, and therefore more likely to be marked generously, than the same content buried in a sentence with a subordinate clause in the middle of it.

Worked example

Two justified explanations of one ambiguous form

Constructed teaching Hebrew, not a quotation. In a narrative passage you meet the phrase וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת־עֲבָדָיו אֶל־הָעִיר, and a question asks you to give up to two explanations of the sense of the verb here, with grammatical and contextual justification. Work through it.

Establish the form first
Before any question of sense, parse. וַיִּשְׁלַח is a vav consecutive with the qal imperfect, third person masculine singular, of the root שלח. The patah as the stem vowel rather than the expected holam is the third-radical guttural doing its work: a het at the end of the word prefers an a-class vowel before it. That observation is worth stating even in an answer about meaning, because it shows the form has been identified rather than guessed.
Reading one, with justification
The qal of שלח commonly means to send, and with a personal object and a phrase of direction introduced by אֶל the natural sense is that the subject dispatched his servants to the city on an errand. Grammatical justification: the object is animate and definite, marked by אֶת, and the prepositional phrase expresses motion towards. Contextual justification: in narrative, a king or a master who sends servants somewhere is normally sending them to do or find something, and the following clause will usually say what.
Reading two, with justification
The same root also carries the sense of letting go or sending away, and in the piel it commonly means to send off or dismiss. If the surrounding narrative concerned a dispute or a dismissal rather than an errand, the sense here could be that he sent his servants away to the city, that is, dispatched them out of his presence. Grammatical justification: nothing in the form excludes it, since the qal covers both senses. Contextual justification: this reading depends entirely on what precedes, which is why it must be argued from the passage and not asserted.
State a preference and why
If the question allows it, choose. Here the phrase אֶל־הָעִיר, expressing a destination rather than a separation, supports the first reading: a dismissal is more often expressed with מִן, from, or with a bare imperative to go. So the errand reading is preferable, and the preposition is the evidence. Note the shape of that argument: a preference justified by a grammatical feature is far stronger than a preference justified by a feeling about the story.
How to lay it out
Number the two readings, give each one sentence of grammatical justification and one of contextual justification, then a final sentence stating the preference and the reason. Five short sentences, no preamble. The specification asks for up to two explanations supported by contextual and grammatical justification, so the layout should make it visible that both kinds of justification are present for both readings.

Result: Parse first: vav consecutive with the qal imperfect third masculine singular of שלח, the patah caused by the final guttural. Reading one: he sent his servants to the city on an errand, supported by the animate definite object and the directional preposition. Reading two: he sent his servants away, supported by the root's second sense. Preference: reading one, because אֶל expresses a destination where a dismissal would more naturally take מִן.

Typical mistakes

Using a Hebrew grammatical term from the unacceptable column, which the specification says will not be credited even when the understanding behind it is correct.
Naming a form without naming what it does in the clause, when the question asked for the function.
Offering two possible readings without any grammatical or contextual justification, which answers the shape of the question but not its substance.

Active revision

Take a passage of prose you have translated and write twenty grammar questions on it, one for each of the question types listed above, and answer each in the three-clause format with the terminology of section 3.3.2 only. Then go through your answers with the specification open and highlight every word you used that appears in the unacceptable column. Rewrite those answers. Repeat until the highlighter finds nothing, which usually takes three passes and after that never recurs.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 3.2 and 3.3.2 (AQA)

Comprehension and grammar on a poetry passage#

AdvancedAQA 7677 section 4.4.2 — students will respond to comprehension and grammar questions on a passage of unseen poetry; the split between comprehension and grammar questions will be approximately evenAQA 7677 section 3.3.2.5 — parallelism, pausal form, subject, object, ellipsis

The Section B comprehension and grammar question carries 25 marks, the same as its prose counterpart, and it is set on a poetry passage that is not the one you translated. Its comprehension half asks about meaning in a text that states things obliquely, and its grammar half asks about a set of features that scarcely arise in prose. Both halves are answerable, but only if the poetic apparatus has been prepared. The specification gives you the vocabulary for it in section 3.3.2.5, whose five terms are parallelism, pausal form, subject, object and ellipsis; three of those five are effectively poetic terms, and they are there because this question exists.

Comprehension questions on verse usually take one of four shapes. What does this image mean, which is answered by describing the comparison the poet has made and what it is being used to claim, always with the Hebrew word or phrase identified. What is the relation between these two lines, which is answered by naming the parallelism and saying what the second line adds. Who is speaking or being addressed, which in a psalm or an oracle can shift within a few verses and is answered from the pronouns and verb forms rather than from assumption. And what does the poet mean by a particular expression, which is answered by giving the sense of the Hebrew and, where the expression is genuinely ambiguous, by section 3.2's device of two justified explanations.

Grammar questions on verse concentrate on the features that make verse verse. Expect to be asked to identify a parallelism and name its kind; to say what has been elided in a colon and how you know; to identify a pausal form and give its contextual equivalent; to explain an unusual word order and what it emphasises; to parse a short or archaic form, since poetry uses forms that prose spells out in full; and to explain a pronominal suffix whose antecedent is not adjacent. Each of these has a determinate answer and each rests on a rule you can learn in advance, which is why this question is more approachable than its reputation suggests.

The habit that most improves performance here is to write the passage out as verse before answering anything. Copy each colon onto its own line, align the parallel members where they correspond, and mark the line ends. Doing that takes two minutes and answers several questions before they are asked: it makes ellipsis visible as a gap, it makes pausal forms visible as line-final words, it makes chiasmus visible as a crossing, and it makes the relation between the two cola of a verse something you can see rather than something you have to remember. Examiners cannot give marks for the diagram, but the diagram is what lets you write the answers.

One caution about interpretation. Poetry in these set texts and in the unseens is religious poetry, and comprehension questions about it are questions about what the Hebrew says, not about whether it is true or about what a tradition has made of it. The safest and also the most accurate register for an answer is descriptive and attributed: the speaker claims, the poet presents, the oracle announces, this line is read by some as, rather than a bare assertion in your own voice about what is the case. That register is not evasion; it is precision about who is speaking, and in a passage where the speaker changes within a psalm it is often the difference between a right answer and a wrong one.

Worked example

Six questions on one constructed couplet

Constructed teaching Hebrew in the shape of a biblical couplet, not a quotation. The couplet is רָחֲקוּ מִמֶּנִּי אֹהֲבָי · וּמִבֵּיתִי רֵעָי. Answer: (a) Who is speaking, and how do you know? (2) (b) Name the kind of parallelism and justify it. (2) (c) What has been elided in the second colon? (1) (d) Identify a pausal form and give its contextual form. (2) (e) Parse רָחֲקוּ. (3) (f) Explain the pointing of the initial vav in וּמִבֵּיתִי. (2)

(a) speaker, from the morphology
The speaker is a first-person singular voice: the evidence is the suffix on מִמֶּנִּי, from me, and the first person singular possessive suffixes on both אֹהֲבָי and בֵּיתִי. There is no first-person verb in the couplet, so the pronouns carry the whole identification. Two marks, two pieces of evidence: name the suffixes and say what they are. What would not score is an assertion about who the speaker is in the wider narrative, since the couplet does not say.
(b) parallelism named and justified
Synonymous parallelism. Justification: the two subjects are near-synonyms, those who love me and my companions, and the two prepositional phrases both express separation. A stronger answer adds that the second colon specifies rather than merely repeats, moving from separation from the speaker to separation from the speaker's house, which is the kind of observation that would also earn credit in a literary question in Paper 3.
(c) the ellipsis
The verb. The second colon has a prepositional phrase and a subject but no verb, and the verb of the first colon, רָחֲקוּ, is carried over. One mark, one word: the verb. Saying which verb is what makes it an answer rather than a guess, and the specification lists ellipsis as a term precisely so that this can be asked.
(d) pausal forms
Both אֹהֲבָי and רֵעָי stand at the end of a colon and are therefore in pause. The contextual forms would carry patah before the final yod of the first person singular suffix rather than qamats — אֹהֲבַי and רֵעַי — and the lengthening is the pausal effect. Two marks: identify one form and give its contextual equivalent. The specification's accepted alternative for pausal form is in pause, and both will be credited.
(e) and (f) the two grammar questions
רָחֲקוּ is the qal perfect, third person common plural, of the root רחק; the hataf patah under the het is required because a guttural cannot carry a plain vocal sheva. That is three elements for three marks. The vav of וּמִבֵּיתִי is the vav conjunctive, written as shuruk rather than with a plain sheva because it stands immediately before a labial letter, mem — one of the letters bet, mem and pe named in section 3.3.2.4 as the labials. Two marks: name the morpheme, and give the rule.

Result: (a) A first-person singular speaker, shown by the suffixes on min, ohavai and beiti. (b) Synonymous parallelism, justified by the two near-synonymous subjects and the two phrases of separation. (c) The verb is elided and carried over from the first colon. (d) Both line-final nouns are in pause; the contextual forms would have patah rather than qamats. (e) Qal perfect third common plural of רחק, with hataf patah under the guttural. (f) Vav conjunctive, written as shuruk before the labial mem.

Typical mistakes

Answering an image question by explaining what the image means in general rather than what the poet is using it to claim in this passage.
Assuming the speaker of a psalm is the same throughout, when the person and number of the verbs may show otherwise.
Asserting a religious or historical interpretation in one's own voice where the question asked what the Hebrew says.

Active revision

Take ten verses of set text 4 and write your own 25-mark comprehension and grammar paper on them, with an approximately even split. Include at least one question on parallelism, one on ellipsis, one on a pausal form, one on word order, one on a suffix with a non-adjacent antecedent, and one asking for two justified explanations of an ambiguous phrase. Then answer your own paper a fortnight later and mark it strictly. The questions you found hardest to set will be the ones you find hardest to answer.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 3.3.2.5 and 4.4.2 (AQA)

Section C: 50 marks, 100 words, and the pointing cliff#

AdvancedAQA 7677 section 2.2 — in Section C students will translate a passage of approximately 100 words in length into pointed Biblical Hebrew (50 marks)AQA 7677 section 4.4.3 — the passage will be based on a suitably ancient text and may be adapted; it will be written primarily in third person narrative prose, with some direct speech; names of people and places will be provided in pointed Hebrew in a glossaryAQA 7677 section 4.7.3 — the composition passage will be divided into nine sections each worth 5 marks; additional marks to a maximum of 5 for individual instances of idiomatic and stylish writing; an answer with no attempt at pointing cannot gain more than 2 marks for the phrase

The composition mark ladder

Fig. 1Each of the nine phrases is climbed from the bottom of this ladder, and where the two columns disagree the examiner makes a best-fit judgement. The emphasised cell is the sentence that governs the whole question: an answer with no attempt at pointing cannot gain more than 2 marks for the phrase, so the step from nothing to any attempt is worth at least one mark nine times over.

Section C is the largest single question in A-level Biblical Hebrew: 50 marks, a third of Paper 1 and a sixth of the whole qualification, for approximately 100 words of English translated into pointed Biblical Hebrew. Nothing else in the specification asks you to produce the language, and nothing else concentrates so many marks in one place. The specification describes the passage precisely. It will be based on a suitably ancient text and may be adapted. It will be written primarily in third person narrative prose, with some direct speech. And names of people and places will be provided in pointed Hebrew in a glossary, which removes the one category of vocabulary a candidate could not reasonably be expected to produce.

The marking, in section 4.7.3, has a structure worth learning exactly. The passage is divided into nine sections, each worth 5 marks: nine fives is 45. Additional marks to a maximum of 5 are awarded for individual instances of idiomatic and stylish Biblical Hebrew writing: 45 plus 5 is the 50. Each of the nine phrases is marked on a ladder with two columns, one for grammar and one for spelling and pointing, and the examiner starts at the lowest level and climbs to see whether the answer meets each descriptor. Where the two columns disagree — the specification's own example is pointing correct but grammatical errors present, or no grammatical errors but spelling errors — a best-fit judgement is made. The general principle for the grammar column is the same proportion of sense achieved that governs the translation questions.

One sentence in that mark scheme matters more than any other in the specification: an answer with no attempt at pointing cannot gain more than 2 marks for the phrase. Read against the rest of the grid, it defines a cliff. The 5-mark descriptor requires all spelling correct and pointing seventy-five per cent or more correct; 4 requires one or two minor spelling errors and pointing fifty per cent or more correct; 3 requires minor spelling errors and any attempt at pointing; 2 is spelling errors with no pointing present. So the step from no pointing to any attempt at pointing is worth at least one mark per phrase and, where the grammar is sound, considerably more. Across nine phrases the difference between an unpointed answer and a pointed one is on the order of eighteen to twenty-seven marks, which is between six and nine per cent of the entire A-level.

That arithmetic should govern preparation. It means that a candidate who can write good unpointed Hebrew has capped themselves at 18 out of 45 on the phrases, and that a candidate whose pointing is half right but whose grammar is sound can reach 4 out of 5 on every phrase. It also means that partial pointing knowledge is worth a great deal: the thresholds are any attempt, fifty per cent and seventy-five per cent, not perfection. The corollary is that in the examination itself you should point everything, including words you are unsure of, because an unpointed phrase is capped and a badly pointed one is not. Guessing a vowel is a chance of being right; omitting it is a certainty of being capped.

The style marks deserve their own attention because five marks for idiom is a tenth of the section and is available to any candidate who has memorised half a dozen constructions. The specification's phrase is individual instances of idiomatic and stylish Biblical Hebrew writing, which suggests marks for specific things done well rather than a general impression. The candidates most likely to earn them are those who write biblical narrative rather than English narrative in Hebrew words: vav consecutive chains rather than subordination, the frame formula for a time setting, the infinitive construct as a speech marker, the presentative particle to bring something before the hearer, the infinitive absolute reinforcing its verb, and a construct chain where English would use an adjective. Six constructions, each droppable into almost any narrative, each unmistakably idiomatic.

Worked example

What the cliff is worth, phrase by phrase

Two candidates write compositions of identical grammatical quality: in every one of the nine phrases the grammar is mostly correct. Candidate A points every word, achieving roughly sixty per cent accuracy. Candidate B writes no pointing at all. Work out both totals and say what the difference is worth.

Place candidate A on the ladder
Grammar mostly correct places A at the 4 descriptor in the grammar column. In the pointing column, sixty per cent correct meets the 4 descriptor, which requires pointing fifty per cent or more correct together with one or two minor spelling errors. The two columns agree, so no best-fit judgement is needed and each phrase scores 4. Nine phrases at 4 is 36.
Place candidate B on the ladder
B has the same grammar and would also sit at the 4 descriptor in the grammar column. But the pointing column offers B only the 2 descriptor, spelling errors with no pointing present, and the specification states the cap explicitly: an answer with no attempt at pointing cannot gain more than 2 marks for the phrase. The cap is absolute, not a best-fit consideration, so each phrase scores 2. Nine phrases at 2 is 18.
The style marks
Up to 5 further marks are available for individual instances of idiomatic and stylish Biblical Hebrew writing. Nothing in the specification ties these to pointing, so in principle both candidates could earn them; in practice a candidate who has not pointed anything is unlikely to be writing the kind of Hebrew that reads as idiomatic. Assume both earn 2. A finishes on 38, B on 20.
Convert to the qualification
Eighteen raw marks on Paper 1 is 12 per cent of that paper and 6 per cent of the A-level, because Paper 1 is 150 of the 300 total marks and the scaling factor is one to one. Six per cent of a qualification is comfortably more than one grade boundary at most points of the scale. That is what is at stake in a single decision about whether to write the vowels.
The practical conclusion
Point as you write, not afterwards. Points added at the end are the first casualty of a time shortage, and a phrase that runs out of time unpointed loses more than a phrase that is left half-finished but pointed. If you truly do not know how to point a word, write the pointing you think most likely: a wrong vowel is one error inside a column that only asks for percentages, whereas no vowel at all removes the phrase from three quarters of the ladder.

Result: Candidate A: nine phrases at 4, plus 2 for style, 38 out of 50. Candidate B, with identical grammar but no pointing: nine phrases capped at 2, plus 2 for style, 20 out of 50. The gap of 18 raw marks is 12 per cent of Paper 1 and 6 per cent of the A-level, and it is created by a single decision rather than by any difference in knowledge of Hebrew grammar.

Typical mistakes

Writing the whole composition unpointed and intending to add the points at the end, then running out of time and being capped at 2 on every phrase.
Translating complex English syntax clause for clause instead of rebuilding it as a chain of simple Hebrew narrative clauses.
Spending the style effort on rare vocabulary rather than on the half-dozen constructions that actually read as biblical narrative.

Active revision

Take any hundred words of English narrative prose in a biblical register and divide it yourself into nine phrases, as the mark scheme would. Translate it into pointed Hebrew under a fifty-five-minute limit, then mark your own work phrase by phrase on the two-column ladder, giving a grammar judgement and a pointing percentage for each. Add up. Then repeat the exercise pointing nothing, mark it again, and compare the totals. Seeing the gap in your own figures is more persuasive than being told about it.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 4.4.3 and 4.7.3 (AQA)

Writing biblical prose: the constructions you actually need#

AdvancedAQA 7677 section 4.4.3 — the passage will be written primarily in third person narrative prose, with some direct speechAQA 7677 section 3.3.1.5 — word order; relative clauses; oath clauses; interrogative clauses, and the ten constructions a passage may containAQA 7677 section 4.7.3 — additional marks for individual instances of idiomatic and stylish Biblical Hebrew writing

Because the specification tells you what the passage will be — third person narrative prose with some direct speech, based on a suitably ancient text — you can prepare the constructions in advance with a high degree of confidence. The backbone is the vav consecutive chain. Set the time reference once with a perfect or with the frame formula, and then let every subsequent clause begin with a vav and an imperfect. Resist the instinct to reproduce English subordination: where the English has a participial phrase, a relative clause or a because-clause, biblical narrative will very often use two coordinated clauses instead, and doing so is not a simplification but the genuine idiom. That single decision converts most of the syntactic difficulty of the task into a repetition of one pattern.

Word order in a narrative clause is verb, subject, object, with adverbial and prepositional phrases usually following. Depart from it only when you mean to: fronting a subject marks contrast or a change of participant, and fronting an object marks emphasis. Definiteness is expressed by the article, and a definite direct object takes the object marker אֵת, usually written with a maqaf as אֶת. Possession and relationship are expressed by the construct chain, in which only the last member may take the article, or by pronominal suffixes on the noun. Where English uses an adjective, Hebrew often prefers a construct chain or a prepositional phrase, and using one is both accurate and a candidate for a style mark.

Direct speech is guaranteed by the specification and has a fixed shape. A verb of speaking, the addressee marked by אֶל or by לְ, then the infinitive construct לֵאמֹר opening the speech, then the speech itself with no quotation marks. Inside the speech, second person forms address the hearer and first person forms speak for the speaker, and both must be produced correctly, which is why the pronominal suffixes and the second-person verb forms belong in the production kit even though a third-person narrative might seem not to need them. Commands inside speech use the imperative, negative commands use אַל with the jussive, and a question uses the interrogative he or one of the question words.

A small set of constructions will cover the subordination the passage does require. Temporal relations use כַּאֲשֶׁר, when, or a preposition with the infinitive construct — literally in his hearing for when he heard. Causal relations use כִּי, because. Purpose uses לְמַעַן or a vav with a jussive or cohortative. Conditions use אִם with the imperfect. Relative clauses use אֲשֶׁר, which is invariable, so English whose, of which and in which are all rendered by אֲשֶׁר plus a resumptive pronoun or suffix later in the clause. Negation uses לֹא with a finite verb and אֵין for non-existence. That list is short enough to memorise and long enough to cover a hundred words of narrative.

Finally, the constructions that read as idiomatic and are therefore candidates for the five style marks. The frame formula וַיְהִי introducing a time setting. The presentative particle הִנֵּה, which brings something before the hearer's attention and has no single English equivalent. The infinitive absolute placed before a finite verb of the same root for emphasis, in the pattern of the recurring legal formula מוֹת יָמוּת. The use of a construct chain where English would use an adjective. The repetition of a command in the report of its execution, which is a genuine narrative habit of the historical books. And the use of the object marker with a suffix, אֹתוֹ and its relatives, where a pronoun object is required. None of these is rare vocabulary; all of them are patterns, and patterns can be drilled.

Worked example

Rebuilding three English sentences as biblical narrative

Constructed teaching exercise. Rewrite each English sentence as biblical Hebrew narrative would express it, in English first, then say which construction you would use. (a) Having heard the report, the king summoned his advisers. (b) The king, who had reigned for many years, was afraid. (c) He told them that they should go to the city and find out what had happened.

(a) a participial phrase becomes a temporal clause or a coordinated clause
English has a participial phrase, which Biblical Hebrew does not use in this way. Two idiomatic options. The first is the frame formula with a temporal clause: and it came to pass when the king heard the report, that he called to his advisers, using וַיְהִי plus כַּאֲשֶׁר plus a perfect, then the vav consecutive main clause. The second is simple coordination: and the king heard the report, and he called to his advisers. Both are correct; the first is more likely to earn a style mark because the frame formula is unmistakably biblical.
(b) a non-restrictive relative becomes a separate clause
The English embeds a relative clause between subject and verb, which Hebrew avoids. Rebuild as two clauses: and the king had reigned many years, and he was afraid — or, better, put the background clause first with the subject fronted, which is exactly what a fronted subject is for: now the king had reigned many years, and he was afraid. Fronting the subject is the Hebrew signal for background information, so using it here is both accurate and a demonstration that you know what the departure from verb-first order means.
(c) indirect speech becomes direct speech
Biblical Hebrew has very little indirect speech and prefers to quote. Rebuild as: and he said to them, Go to the city and see what has happened. That gives you a verb of speaking, the addressee with אֶל or a suffix, לֵאמֹר to open the quotation, and two imperatives. The gain is threefold: the syntax becomes a pattern you have drilled, the imperatives are forms you can point confidently, and the whole reads as narrative rather than as report.
Checking the chain
Having rebuilt all three, write them as one connected passage and check that the vav consecutive chain runs unbroken except where you deliberately broke it. In this passage there should be exactly one break, the fronted subject in (b), and it should be doing the job of background. A chain with three or four unexplained breaks means English syntax has leaked through; a chain with none means the background information in (b) has been presented as a new event, which is a real error of sense.
Where the style marks would come from
Three candidates in this short passage: the frame formula in (a), the fronted subject marking background in (b), and the conversion of indirect into direct speech in (c). The specification awards up to 5 marks for individual instances of idiomatic and stylish writing, and each of these is exactly an individual instance rather than a general impression, which is what the wording suggests examiners are looking for.

Result: (a) Use the frame formula with a temporal clause: and it came to pass when the king heard the report, that he called his advisers. (b) Front the subject to mark background: now the king had reigned many years, and he was afraid. (c) Convert to direct speech: and he said to them, Go to the city and see what has happened. Three rebuilds, three candidates for a style mark, and every construction drawn from a drilled pattern.

Typical mistakes

Reproducing English subordination clause for clause, which produces Hebrew that is grammatically defensible but reads as translationese and forfeits the style marks.
Omitting the object marker before a definite direct object, which removes the clearest signal of what the object is.
Putting the article on the first noun of a construct chain, which Hebrew does not allow and which an examiner will read as a failure to understand the construction.

Active revision

Write out the six idiomatic constructions listed above on a card, each with one model sentence of your own, fully pointed. Then take five short English narrative paragraphs and translate each one twice: once as literally as you can, and once rebuilding it into vav consecutive chains with at least two of the six constructions used. Compare the two versions aloud. The second should sound like the historical books; if it does not, the difference is usually that you have kept a subordinating conjunction where Hebrew would have coordinated.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 3.3.1.5 and 4.4.3 (AQA)

Pointing what you have written#

AdvancedAQA 7677 section 4.7.3 — spelling and pointing column: pointing 75 per cent or more correct; pointing 50 per cent or more correct; any attempt at pointing; no pointing presentAQA 7677 section 3.3.1.4 — syllables and vowels; weak and strong dagesh; the effect of the guttural and labial letters on pointing; pausal form

Pointing your own composition is a different task from pointing an unseen passage, and it is easier in one crucial respect: you chose the words. In the pointing question you must first work out what a form is; in the composition you already know, because you decided to write a qal imperfect third masculine singular before you wrote a letter. That means the whole of the identification stage is free, and the only work left is the pattern and the environment. The corollary is that you should choose words you can point. Given two ways of saying something, the one built from forms whose vowels you are sure of is worth more than the one that is a shade closer to the English, because the pointing column is half the ladder.

Point as you write. This is the single most important habit in Section C and the one most often neglected. Points added at the end are the first thing sacrificed when time runs short, and a phrase left unpointed is capped at 2 out of 5 regardless of how good its grammar is. Writing the vowels as you go also improves the Hebrew itself, because deciding on a vowel forces you to decide on a form: a candidate who writes consonants only can leave the aspect of a verb vague in their own mind, and a vague aspect produces a clause that does not quite say what the English said.

The environmental checklist is the same one that governs the pointing question and should be run over the finished composition in the last few minutes. No dagesh in alef, he, het, ayin or resh. No plain vocal sheva under a guttural: use a hataf vowel. A weak dagesh in every word-initial bet, gimel, dalet, kaf, pe or tav, and after every silent sheva; no dagesh in those letters after a vowel unless a pattern requires doubling. The definite article with patah and a following dagesh, or qamats before alef, ayin and resh, or patah without a dagesh before he and het. The vav conjunctive as shuruk before bet, mem and pe and before a vocal sheva. The inseparable prepositions with hiriq before a vocal sheva and the matching short vowel before a hataf.

Some words are safer to write than others, and knowing which is a legitimate strategy rather than a form of cheating. Segolate nouns are safe because their pattern is fixed and frequent. Vav consecutive third-person forms are safe because the pattern is uniform: patah on the vav, a dagesh in the prefix letter, hiriq for the qal. Suffixed prepositions are safe because they are a closed set that can be memorised whole. What is risky is the pointing of nouns you have met only in passing, of hollow and lamed-he verbs in less common persons, and of any hiphil or hithpael you have not drilled. A composition built from safe words with two or three deliberate reaches for a style mark will out-point a composition that reaches everywhere.

Finally, note what the pointing column does not ask for. It asks for percentages, not perfection: seventy-five per cent for the top band, fifty per cent for the next, any attempt for the one below. It says nothing about accents, and the specification nowhere asks a candidate to write one, so writing accents is effort spent on something not assessed and a source of error that cannot earn a mark. It also says nothing about the maqaf, though writing one where the idiom expects it does no harm. The target to aim at is every word pointed, the environmental rules applied, and no ornament that the grid does not reward.

Worked example

Choosing between two correct Hebrew renderings on pointing grounds

Constructed teaching exercise. The English is: and the men went out from the city and did not return. You can render it in two ways, both grammatically correct. Decide which to write on pointing grounds, and justify.

Version one, built from safe patterns
וַיֵּצְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִן־הָעִיר וְלֹא שָׁבוּ. Every element here is a drilled pattern. וַיֵּצְאוּ is a vav consecutive with a pe-yod verb whose plural is standard. הָאֲנָשִׁים carries the article before a guttural with the qamats you can justify by rule, and the hataf patah under the alef is required. מִן־הָעִיר writes the preposition in full with a maqaf, avoiding the assimilation question altogether. שָׁבוּ is the qal perfect third common plural of a hollow verb and is short, common and stable.
Version two, closer to the English
וַיֵּצְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מֵהָעִיר וְלֹא הֵשִׁיבוּ אֶת־פְּנֵיהֶם. This is more elaborate and, if it came off, might attract a style mark; but it introduces a hiphil of a hollow root, a construct-like noun phrase with a plural suffix, and a contracted form of the preposition. Each of those is an extra opportunity to be wrong, and the pointing column counts percentages across the phrase. A single misjudged vowel in הֵשִׁיבוּ costs more than the elegance gains.
Apply the ladder to each
Suppose version one is written with all its pointing correct: grammar accurate with at most one slight slip, spelling all correct, pointing well above seventy-five per cent — 5 out of 5. Suppose version two is written with the hiphil mis-pointed and one vowel wrong in the suffixed noun: grammar still mostly correct, but pointing perhaps sixty per cent — that is the 4 descriptor. The simpler version scores higher, and it took less time to write.
When to reach anyway
The style marks are worth up to 5 across the whole composition, so somewhere in the nine phrases you should attempt something more ambitious — the frame formula, an infinitive absolute for emphasis, a presentative particle. The discipline is to place those reaches deliberately, two or three times in the piece, in phrases where the rest of the material is safe, rather than to write ambitiously throughout and be pulled down in the pointing column nine times.
The general rule
Write the version you can point. That is not a counsel of timidity: the grammar column still rewards accuracy of sense, and a simple sentence that says exactly what the English said is accurate. What it rules out is reaching for a construction you have not drilled in a phrase where a drilled one would have done, which is a very common way of turning a 5 into a 3.

Result: Write version one: וַיֵּצְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִן־הָעִיר וְלֹא שָׁבוּ. It conveys the same sense, is built entirely from drilled patterns, and can be pointed with confidence, so it sits at the top of both columns of the ladder. Reserve the ambitious constructions for two or three deliberately chosen phrases where they will earn style marks rather than risk pointing ones.

Typical mistakes

Writing the consonantal text of the whole composition first and running out of time before the vowels, which caps every phrase at 2 out of 5.
Adding accents, which the specification never asks for, and thereby spending time on something unmarked while introducing errors.
Choosing a word closer to the English but whose pointing is uncertain, when a safer synonym would have conveyed the same sense with a better pointing score.

Active revision

Write a hundred-word composition and, before checking it against anything, run the environmental checklist over it in five minutes: gutturals and resh, shevas under gutturals, begadkephat letters, articles, vav conjunctives, prepositions. Record how many corrections each scan produces. Do this ten times over a term and you will find that two or three of the six checks account for most of your errors; those are the rules to over-learn, and the rest can be trusted.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 3.3.1.4 and 4.7.3 (AQA)

A composition worked through, decision by decision#

AdvancedAQA 7677 section 4.4.3 — translate a prose passage of approximately 100 words from English into Biblical HebrewAQA 7677 section 4.7.3 — nine sections each worth 5 marks, marked on a two-column ladder of grammar and of spelling and pointing

From an English block to a pointed Hebrew clause

Fig. 2The order matters more than any individual step: identification and chain form come before vocabulary, and vocabulary is chosen partly for whether it can be pointed. The emphasised node is the one candidates postpone and should not, because points added after the whole composition is written are the first casualty of a time shortage and an unpointed phrase is capped at 2 out of 5.

A composition is written in a fixed order and the order is what makes it manageable. Read the whole English passage first and mark its divisions, which will correspond roughly to the nine phrases the examiner will mark. Identify the main verb of each and decide its Hebrew form before writing anything: aspect, binyan, person, number, gender. Decide the chain — which clause sets the time reference and which clauses continue it with a vav consecutive. Then write clause by clause, pointing as you go, and only afterwards run the environmental checks. Writing before deciding is what produces a composition that changes its mind about the tense halfway through.

Each individual clause is then a sequence of small decisions, and it is worth being able to name them because naming them is what makes them repeatable. Which verb root, and can I point it. Which binyan does the English force. Which aspect and which chain form. Who is the subject and does it need to be expressed at all, since a Hebrew verb carries its own subject. Is the object definite, and therefore does it need the article and the object marker. What word order, and is there a reason to depart from verb-subject-object. What preposition, and does it take the article. Seven decisions, most of them instant once drilled, and the pointing follows from them rather than being an extra layer on top.

Direct speech, which the specification guarantees will appear, adds two decisions of its own. First, whether the English is direct or indirect: if it is indirect, convert it, because biblical narrative overwhelmingly prefers direct quotation and the conversion is a candidate for a style mark. Second, whether the speech contains a command, a question or a statement, since each has its own machinery — imperative or jussive with אַל for commands, the interrogative he or a question word for questions, and ordinary finite forms for statements. Inside the speech the person shifts to first and second, so the pronominal suffixes and the second-person verb endings must be to hand.

The commonest structural error is to import English subordination. When the English says having done X, he did Y, or after they had gone, he said, the Hebrew answer is usually two coordinated clauses or a temporal clause with כַּאֲשֶׁר or with a preposition and the infinitive construct. When the English says he told them that they should go, the Hebrew answer is direct speech. When the English uses a passive, the Hebrew answer is often an active with the agent as subject, or an impersonal third person plural, or a niphal if you are confident of the pointing. Each of these substitutions is idiomatic rather than evasive, and each replaces a construction you might get wrong with one you have drilled.

Finally, budget the time within the question. Fifty-five minutes for nine phrases is about six minutes a phrase, and that is enough only if the reading and planning were done first. A workable split is eight minutes to read the English, mark the divisions and decide the chain; forty minutes to write and point; and seven minutes for the environmental checks and for any phrase left incomplete. If the writing overruns, the checks are the wrong thing to cut, because they are the highest-yield minutes in the question: a systematic scan of a hundred words for dageshes in gutturals and shevas under gutturals routinely finds several errors, and the pointing column is measured in percentages.

Worked example

English into pointed Hebrew, every decision justified

Constructed teaching exercise in the shape of Section C. Translate into pointed Biblical Hebrew, justifying every consonantal and vocalic decision: And it came to pass after these things that the king sent his servants to the city, saying, Go and see whether the people has kept the covenant. And the servants went and returned and said to the king, We have not found the men.

Phrase one: the frame and the time setting
And it came to pass after these things gives the frame formula plus a temporal phrase. Write וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה. Decisions: וַיְהִי is the vav consecutive with the imperfect of היה, and the yod takes no dagesh because it carries a vocal sheva, which is why this form is written as it is and not with a doubled yod. אַחַר is the preposition after, with patah under both alef and het because the het is a guttural preferring a-class vowels. הַדְּבָרִים takes the article with patah and a strong dagesh in the dalet, and the demonstrative הָאֵלֶּה agrees in number and definiteness, its article taking qamats because alef cannot be doubled.
Phrase two: the main clause
That the king sent his servants to the city. Write וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־עֲבָדָיו אֶל־הָעִיר. Decisions: the chain continues, so vav consecutive with the imperfect; the root is שלח and the stem vowel is patah rather than the expected holam because the third radical is a guttural. הַמֶּלֶךְ is the segolate with the article doubling the mem. The object is definite by virtue of its suffix, so it takes the object marker, written אֶת with segol before a maqaf. עֲבָדָיו has hataf patah under the guttural ayin and the plural suffix for his. אֶל־הָעִיר has the article with qamats before the guttural ayin.
Phrase three: opening the speech
Saying, Go and see. Write לֵאמֹר לְכוּ וּרְאוּ. Decisions: לֵאמֹר is the infinitive construct of אמר with lamed, pointed with tsere because the alef has quiesced; it opens the quotation and is not itself translated. לְכוּ is the masculine plural imperative of הלך, which behaves as a pe-yod verb and loses its initial he. וּרְאוּ is the vav conjunctive plus the masculine plural imperative of ראה; the vav is written as shuruk because the resh carries a vocal sheva, and the final he of the root has dropped, as lamed-he roots always do before a vocalic ending.
Phrase four: the indirect question
Whether the people has kept the covenant. Write אִם־שָׁמַר הָעָם אֶת־הַבְּרִית. Decisions: אִם introduces an indirect question as well as a condition, and joins the following word with a maqaf. שָׁמַר is a qal perfect third masculine singular, because עַם is grammatically singular and Hebrew word order puts the verb first. הָעָם takes the article with qamats before the guttural ayin. הַבְּרִית takes the article with a strong dagesh in the bet, and the sheva under that bet is vocal because the letter is doubled. The object marker is required because the covenant is definite.
Phrases five and six: the report and the reply
And the servants went and returned and said to the king. Write וַיֵּלְכוּ הָעֲבָדִים וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ. Three vav consecutive clauses in a row, which is exactly the rhythm of biblical narrative and is worth writing that way rather than subordinating. וַיָּשֻׁבוּ is the vav consecutive form of a hollow root, with the stress drawn back and the vowel shortened. Then the speech: We have not found the men, לֹא מָצָאנוּ אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁים, with a qal perfect first person common plural, the negative לֹא before a finite verb, and the definite object marked. Note that the speech shifts to the first person, which is why first-person forms belong in the kit.

Result: וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־עֲבָדָיו אֶל־הָעִיר לֵאמֹר לְכוּ וּרְאוּ אִם־שָׁמַר הָעָם אֶת־הַבְּרִית׃ וַיֵּלְכוּ הָעֲבָדִים וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא מָצָאנוּ אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁים׃ Six vav consecutive clauses, one frame formula, one embedded speech with two imperatives and an indirect question, four definite objects marked, and every word pointed. The frame formula and the direct speech are the two most likely candidates here for a style mark.

Typical mistakes

Beginning to write before deciding the chain, so that the first clause sets a time reference the rest of the passage contradicts.
Rendering an English passive with a niphal whose pointing is uncertain, when an active clause with the agent as subject would have been safer and equally accurate.
Leaving the last phrase unwritten because the earlier ones were over-polished; a rough pointed phrase scores 3, a missing one scores 0.

Active revision

Take a hundred words of English narrative and, before translating a word, write out a plan: the nine divisions, the main verb of each with its full Hebrew parsing, and a note of which clause sets the time reference. Then translate to the plan, pointing as you go, in forty minutes. Finally, run the six environmental checks and count the corrections. Repeat weekly with different passages, and keep the plans: after a term you will see that the same three decisions are the ones you keep getting wrong.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA A-level Biblical Hebrew 7677 specification, sections 4.4.3 and 4.7.3 (AQA)

Key points

Answering five questions on a short prose passage

Key points

Two justified explanations of one ambiguous form

Key points

Six questions on one constructed couplet

Key points

What the cliff is worth, phrase by phrase

Key points

Rebuilding three English sentences as biblical narrative

Key points

Choosing between two correct Hebrew renderings on pointing grounds

Key points

English into pointed Hebrew, every decision justified

Sources

Comprehension and grammar

Key points

Answering five questions on a short prose passage

Key points

Two justified explanations of one ambiguous form

Key points

Six questions on one constructed couplet

Key points

What the cliff is worth, phrase by phrase

Key points

Rebuilding three English sentences as biblical narrative

Key points

Choosing between two correct Hebrew renderings on pointing grounds

Key points

English into pointed Hebrew, every decision justified

Sources