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 525
In the diagram above, the discussion of B, B’, and B†is subsumed
under that of A. Indeed, the protases of B, B’, and B†assume a
condition already mentioned in A and taken for granted to be true —
i.e., that the man has died. The function of A, therefore, is to introduce
the legislative scenario, the delimitation of a real life situation within
which the laws in B, B’, and B†operate. Because A provides a point of
reference to which B, B’, and B†relate, A is said to be of a higher level
of organization than B, B’, and Bâ€. On the other hand, the function of
B, B’, and B†is to present alternative ways in which the situation in A
may develop (plot development).
The division of the text into portions A, B, B’, and B†is based
entirely on syntactic, not semantic, grounds. As is the case elsewhere,
conditional elements in the text do not merely function on the level of
the sentence, they also serve as syntactic markers indicating the
function of sentences in the larger context of the discourse. Such
conditional elements include X+yk+Pred and X+rça+Pred construc-
tions, yk and µa clauses, as well as a specialized use of the particle
hnh(7). To be sure, Hebrew grammar per se does not require the use of
syntactic markers in such a way; nevertheless, as later examples will
show, this use seems to be a literary convention where legal texts are
concerned.
Because the syntactic organization of a text does not always
coincide with its semantic structure, it is tenuous to speak of the
subordination or co-ordination of ideas based on the above division.
For example, Num 27,8-11 actually gives four qualifying factors that
influence how the inheritance is passed down: the absence of sons (A),
daughters (B), brothers (B’), father’s brothers (Bâ€). Although these
factors seem to present true alternatives to the situation’s develop-
ment, the first member is syntactically of a higher organizational level
than the rest. Moreover, it is questionable whether B, B’, and B†can
be truly called co-ordinate ideas. The condition at B’, in reality,
presupposes the truth of the condition at both A and B, i.e., the death of
a man and the absence of sons and daughters. It is preferable simply to
say that a higher level of organization defines the scope of discussion
(7) The notation X+yk+Pred refers to a construction in which a substantive X
is followed by the particle yk and the predicate after it. The yk+Pred portion seems
to provide some qualification of the substantive X. An example of this would be
lhab twmy yk µda (Num 19,14). Similarly, an example of the notation X+rça+Pred
would be wb [gt rça çpn (Lev 22,6). In almost every case, an imperfect verb
follows immediately after yk or rça.