Daniella Ishai-Rosenboim, «Is yh MwOy (the Day of the Lord) a Term in Biblical Language?», Vol. 87 (2006) 395-401
The collocation yh MwOy in the Biblical language is not a term, as it does not answer
the criterion of being a term: one, specific and unchanged expression referring to
one, specific and unchanged concept: Rather, this collocation may be replaced by
other ones (e.g. yhl Mwy, yh P) Mwy, yhl Mq@n Mwy,
Kp)/wp) Mwy) and on the other hand the
concept is referred to also (mostly!) by another expression ( )whh Mwyh); nor does it
refer exclusively to the concept of ‘The Day of the Lord’. None of the cultures
continuing the Biblical one refer to the concept by this collocation or by a
translation of it.
Is ùh (the Day of the Lord) a Term in Biblical Language? 397
µ/y
and ùh. From the syntactic point of view, this intermediate noun replaces
µ/y
the nomen rectum ùh, and is in itself a nomen regens, governing ùh as its nomen
rectum, producing a tripartite constructive. As for the content of this
intermediate noun, it is changed by this, and it conveys the nature of the day.
As was said above, the constructive ùh µ/y says nothing about the nature of the
day; the intermediate noun completes that function:
ùh tr'b][, µ/yB] – “On the Day of the Lord’s wrath†(Ezek 7,19; Zeph 1,18).
ùh πa' µ/y(B]) – “(On) the Day of the Lord’s anger†(Zeph 2,2.3; Lam 2,22).
ùh jb'z< µ/yB] – “On the Day of the Lord’s sacrifice†(Zeph 1,8).
The construction with the intermediate noun in itself may have a
variation: the nomen rectum ùh (God), which is a noun, may be replaced by a
pronoun:
ÚP,a//Pa' µ/yB – “On the Day of His/Your anger†(Lam 2,1.21).
/Pa' ˆ/rj} µ/yb] – “On the Day of His burning anger†(Isa 13,13; Lam 1,12).
The two deviations from the constructive ùh µ/y — an intermediate noun
and a decomposed constructive — may be combined together, i.e. the
intermediate noun governs its ‘nomen rectum’ by l: ùhl µqn: µ/y – “a Lord’s ;
day of retribution†(Isa 34,8).
3. The two components of ùh µ/y, i.e. µ/y (day) and ùh (God) may not be put
in any nominal relation between them but just as two independent members
in a sentence with no closer connection between them than between two other
components of the sentence:
ùhl aB;Aµ/y hNEhi – “Behold, a day of the Lord is coming†(Zech 14,1). In this
sentence ùhl (of God), which is the attribute of µ/y (day), is separated from it
by aB; (coming).
ùhl [d"W:yI aWh dj;a,Aµ/y hyhw> – “But it shall be one day, it shall be known to
:;
the Lord†(Zech 14,7). In this case µ/y (‘day’) and ùh (‘God’) belong — from
the syntactical point of view — to two different sentences.
Such an unstable way of expression with so many variations contradicts
the usual behavior of a term.
4. If one follows consistently the formal-linguistic approach adopted by
Hoffmann as the key to the study of the concept, one has to consider other
collocations too, consisting of µ/y and ùh. In an analogy to the collocation
ùhl µqn: µ/y – “a Lord’s day of retribution†(Isa 34,8), which according to this
;
approach is an indication that a text belongs to the corpus dealing with the
concept discussed (even though, according to Hoffmann, only on a secondary
level), one should include in this corpus also the collocation ùhl ˆ/xr: µ/y – “a
Lord’s day of goodwill†(Isa 58,5), which syntactically is completely
identical; however, no one does that because the content does not fit the
subject. Moreover, it happens that only substantives appear as the
intermediate-explaining nouns between µ/y and ùh in the texts belonging to the
subjects discussed. However, infinitives — syntactically nouns to all intents
and purposes — may also fulfill that syntactic and explaining function, with
the advantage that they may join a complement to themselves. Thus,
according to the formal-linguistic approach one should also add to the corpus
of ‘The Day of the Lord’ the texts in which one finds the following
collocations:
Úz