Hebrew Syntax in the Organization of Laws 535 X+ejavn+Pred, with a one-to-one correspondence of Hebrew to Greek lexemes. The one factor that militates against a uniform use of X+ejavn+Pred seems to be the awkward Greek word order: one would expect ejavn instead of the substantive X to begin the statement. Indeed, the other Greek forms used follow Greek syntax nicely and may have been chosen as alternatives for this very reason (26). The Greek relative pronoun may seem an unusual way of rendering the particle yk. Joüon, Waltke, and O’Connor think that yk in the X+yk+Pred construction still introduces a protasis, although it appears after the subject (27). Admittedly, there is great semantic overlap between the use of yk to begin a protasis and its use to begin a relative clause (28). Indeed, X+rça+Pred, like X+yk+Pred, is some- times translated as an ejavn clause or X+ejavn+Pred (29). Furthermore, except for the introductory clause to a legal section, X+yk+Pred and X+rça+Pred can be used interchangeably and often indicate the same organizational level. The analogous use of yk and rça in these constructions probably influenced the translators to use relative pronouns in the translation of both yk and rça. The frequent use of ejavn clauses for X+yk+Pred is surprising, because of the deviation from the Hebrew word order. More importantly, the use of ejavn clauses to translate both X+yk+Pred constructions and other yk and µa clauses obliterates the Hebrew delineation of organizational levels. I propose, however, that this (26) With regards to X+rel+a[n+Pred, Wevers argues that “a[n is taken to be original in relative clauses rather than ean in view of the usage pattern for the preChristian centuries in Egypt. In a substantial number of cases Ra accepted ean in such contexts because of its occurrence in B. But by the fourth century of our era ean was the normal form in relative clauses and its evidence is not to be trusted for the third century B.C.” (Text History of the Greek Leviticus, 76). (27) The subject is taken to be a “casus pendens”. Cf. JOÜON, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 630-31; WALTKE – O’CONNOR, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 637. (28) Note, for example, the semantic equivalence of the following statements despite their differences in surface structure: 1) As for the man, if he sins, he shall die; 2) The man who sins shall die. (29) X+rça+Pred as ejavn clause (3 occurrences): Lev 20,2.11.12; X+ejavn+Pred (2 occurrences): Lev 15,18; 21,17; X+rel+a[n+Pred or rel+a[n+Pred (41 occurrences): Lev 5,2; 7,20; 15,4a.4b.5.6.9.11.12.17.20a. 20b.26a.26b; 17,3.8.10; 20,6.9.10.13.14.15.17.18.20.21; 21,18; 22,3a.3b.4.5.6. 18a.18b.20; 27,26; Num 9,13; 19,16.20.22. Also, Lev 4,22; Deut 11,27; and Josh 4,21 contain examples of protases introduced by rça. KAUTZSCH – COWLEY, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, §159cc; WALTKE – O’CONNOR, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 637.