John Zhu-En Wee, «Hebrew Syntax in the Organization of Laws and its Adaptation in the Septuagint», Vol. 85 (2004) 523-544
The Hebrew of the Pentateuch exhibits a hierarchy of
discourse markers that indicate different organization levels in the legal
texts. This organization elucidates the relationship (whether coordination or
subordination) of legal stipulations with each other. The markers studied
include X+yk+Pred and X+r#)+Pred
constructions, yk and M)
clauses, as well as a specialized use of the particle
hnh. The Greek translators may have been sensitive to the use of these
markers and even modified them in order to express their particular
interpretation of the text.
Hebrew Syntax in the Organization of Laws 529
way to µa clauses (14). It is therefore natural that, first, the conjecture of
a legislative scenario should be introduced by X+yk+Pred. After the
setting is established in the mind of the audience, X+rça+Pred
constructions may then describe persons or events within the frame-
work of reality that is thus posited. This explanation accounts nicely
for the cases where çpn, çya, or çya çya is the subject X. The indefinite-
ness of these referents substitutes for the sense of contingency usually
expressed by the particle yk. Moreover, the introductory value of yk is
illustrated in Lev 20,9 and 23,29, where yk is actually used just before
the X+rça+Pred construction in the same clause.
The one passage that may challenge the rule is Deut 15,19-23 (that
begins with the X+rça+Pred pattern), which introduces the apparently
new topic of consecrating firstborn animals after a section dealing with
debt remission in the seventh year. Other passages do not really
introduce a new topic, but rather, a sub-topic of the preceding text: Lev
27,26-27 continues the topic of consecrating various items to God,
while Num 19,16 continues the topic of defilement by a human corpse.
Rule 4: Where they appear, yk clauses indicate a higher level of
organization than that of µa clauses.
Among others, Schoors has observed that “[in casuistic laws,] kî
introduces the general case followed by its general rule, whereas the
special cases are marked by ’im†(15). This comment is generally true
but requires some qualification (16). I have noted earlier the danger of
too rigidly linking the semantic structure of a text with the use of
syntactic markers. For example, in Exod 21,20, the yk clause not only
introduces the legislative scenario (i.e., a man strikes his servant), it
also mentions the first possibility of plot development (i.e., the servant
dies). The following µa clause in Exod 21,21 then mentions the second
possibility of plot development (i.e., the servant does not die).
(14) The particle yk in Exod 12,15.19 and 22,22, while conceivably having an
explicative use, may perhaps also be explained as a conditional particle.
(15) SCHOORS, “The Particle ykâ€, 270. See also A. AEJMELAEUS, “Function and
Interpretation of yk in Biblical Hebrewâ€, JBL 105/2 (1986) 197, n. 10; E.
KAUTZSCH – A.E. COWLEY, eds., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford 1910)
§159bb; B.K. WALTKE – M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake, IN 1990) 637.
(16) This rule is demonstrated in Exod 21,2-6.7-11.18-19.20-21.22-23.26-
27.28-32; 21,37–22,3; 22,6-8.9-12.13-14.15-16; Lev 2,4-16; 5,5-13; 13,31-37;
19,5-8; 25,47-54; Num 15,22-29; 27,8-11; 35,10-29; Deut 20,10-18; 21,10-14;
22,13-21.23-27; 24,1-4.10-13; 25,1-3.5-10.