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 527
prohibited human relationships: 1) the unusual repetition of the
X+rça+Pred pattern in almost every verse unifies the section; 2) the
parallel wording in Lev 20,8 and 20,22 functions as an inclusio for
Lev 20,9-21; 3) the laws here are analogous to those of another section
(Lev 18,6-23), though they appear in a different order in Leviticus 20.
Rule 2: Where they appear, X+yk+Pred and X+rça+Pred
constructions indicate a higher level of organization than that
of other yk, µa, and hnh clauses.
The legal texts of Leviticus and Numbers often introduce a
scenario with the X+yk+Pred or X+rça+Pred pattern, followed by a
sequence of yk or µa clauses that provide alternatives to plot devel-
opment. A classic example is Num 27,8-11, a passage that has already
been outlined above. After v. 8 (X+yk+Pred pattern) introduces the
legislation on inheritance, vv. 9-11 (µa clauses) explore the different
possible ways by which the inheritance could be handed down. The
use of µa clauses in this manner is especially prevalent (10). By
contrast, the similar use of yk clauses only occurs in 9 passages (Lev
2,1-16; 5,21-26; 13,29-37.40-44.47-59; 15,2-13; 22,27-30; Num 6,2-
12; 9,10-14). In these sections, there are at most two yk clauses
subsumed under the discussion started by X+yk+Pred or X+rça+Pred.
Where a longer string of contingencies is needed, µa clauses are often
used to supplement the yk clauses.
Zimmerli thinks that “the sacral-legal sphere is first of all
indicated by the position of the conditional yk after the subject [e.g.,
Lev 1,2; 2,1; 19,20]†whereas “in the ‘civil’ casuistic law yk precedes
[e.g., Exod 21,2.7; Deut 22,23.28]†(11). Accordingly then, the differ-
ence between X+yk+Pred and the yk clause is not one of organizational
levels. This explanation, however, fails to account for the occurrences
(listed above) where yk appears before the subject in sacerdotal laws.
Perhaps it is better to attribute the profusion of X+yk+Pred forms in
(10) Such a use of µa clauses is illustrated in Lev 1,2-17; 2,1-16; 4,2-35; 5,2-
13; 12,2-8; 13,2-8.9-17.18-23.24-28.29-37.40-44.47-59; 15,25-28; 17,15-16;
20,2-5; 25,26-28.29-30; 27,2-13.14-16.26-27; Num 5,6-10.12-31; 27,8-11;
30,3-17.
(11) W. ZIMMERLI, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel.
Chapters 1–24 (ed. F.M. CROSS, et al.; trans. R.E. Clements) (Philadelphia 1979)
302. Schoors concurs with this explanation. A. SCHOORS, “The Particle ykâ€,
Remembering All the Way... (ed. A.S. VAN DER WOUDE) (OTS 21; Leiden
1981) 271.