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.
526 John Zhu-En Wee
of the level(s) below it. If the co-ordination of ideas is conceived in a
less exacting way, one might say that co-ordination can occur not only
as B-B’-Bâ€, but also as A-B-B’-Bâ€.
2. Rules for syntactic markers in legal texts
Tov is right to say that translation technique, unlike LXX
grammatical studies, “takes the categories of Hebrew as its point of
departure†(8). Attention to Hebrew syntax (instead of Greek grammar
proper) is therefore warranted in this study. Admittedly, my empirical
observations on the structure of legal texts are descriptive rather than
prescriptive. I have felt warranted, however, to call these observations
“rules†because of the great consistency with which they are follo-
wed (9). Indeed, in view of the practical relevance of the legal texts in
the daily life of the Israelite community, one should not be surprised
that these texts were framed according to a formal and clearly defined
literary convention. Five of these rules are listed below, followed by
their explanation and any apparent deviations from the rule.
Rule 1: Where it appears, the X+yk+Pred or X+rça+Pred
construction with çya çya as the subject X indicates the highest
level of organization in its section.
This pattern occurs 10 times in the legal texts of the Pentateuch
(Lev 15,2; 17,3.8.10; 20,2.9; 22,18; 24,15; Num 5,12; 9,10). In
addition, the introductory use of çya çya also occurs in Lev 18,6,
although there it is not phrased as a conditional statement. The pattern
is often used in the beginning of a fairly long section, the exceptions
being Lev 17,3.8.10. However, even in Lev 17, the above–mentioned
rule is not broken, because çya çya still heads each short section. The
use of çya çya in Lev 20,9 may seem puzzling: whereas v. 9 speaks of
one who curses his father or mother, the next verse discusses the case
of adultery, an apparently unrelated topic. However, there is evidence
that Lev 20,9-21 is to be viewed as a single long section dealing with
(8) E. TOV, “The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX
in the Past and Presentâ€, VI Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. C.E. COX) (Atlanta, GA 1987) 340. See also
R.T. MCLAY, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand
Rapids, MI 2003) 74-75.
(9) These rules have been articulated in this paper for the purpose of studying
LXX translation technique. Moreover, their value in other studies involving the
exegesis of the Hebrew text is evident.