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.
530 John Zhu-En Wee
Although only one µa clause is used, the section actually mentions two
possible outcomes that are mutually exclusive and therefore co-
ordinate. Thus, instead of viewing the discussion of the µa clauses as
semantically subordinate to that of the yk clause, it is more accurate to
view the yk clause as the syntactic introduction to a section that
includes all µa clauses subsumed under it.
An interesting application of this rule is the yk clause in Exod
21,37, which deals with restitutions for the theft of cattle. According to
the chapter division in the Hebrew Bible, the next verse begins a new
chapter (17). Exod 22,1-2, using µa clauses, discusses the culpability of
one who kills a thief in the act of his robbery. According to the above
rule, the laws in Exod 22,1-2 are part of a section on theft introduced
by Exod 21,37. Indeed, Exod 22,3 confirms the fact that the item stolen
may be an ox, donkey, or sheep. The English versions are uniform in
taking Exod 21,37 of the Hebrew Bible as the first verse of chapter 22.
Lev 13,40-43 seems to present a contradiction to this rule. After
v. 41 (µa clause) mentions the case of balding, v. 42 (yk clause)
apparently continues the idea by discussing the case of a plague on the
bald head. However, a proper understanding of the subordination of
ideas clears up the difficulty here. Lev 13,40 begins the section by
mentioning a kind of baldness (jrq) that is clean. The next verse
considers a more specific case of this “clean†baldness, i.e., baldness
on the forehead (jbg). In sharp contrast, Lev 13,42 introduces the case
of disease on the bald head. That v. 42 functions as a contrast to both
vv. 40 and 41 is indicated by its mention of the two Hebrew terms used
in the preceding verses: tjbgb wa tjrqb (v. 42).
A X+yk+Pred: General loss of hair; plague absent (v. 40)
C................... clause: Loss of front hair; plague absent (v. 41)
µa
B......................... yk clause: General loss of hair; plague present (v. 42).
Rule 5: Where they appear, yk and µa clauses indicate a higher
level of organization than that of hnh clauses.
This rule applies almost entirely to Leviticus 13, a long section
dealing with various “leprous†plagues (18). In particular, Lev 13,9-
(17) The Hebrew text, however, does indicate by the notation s that Exod
21,37 begins a new paragraph.
(18) The rule can be observed in the following units: Lev 13,4-6.7-8.9-13.16-
17.18-21.24-26.29-34.35-36.42-43.53.55-56.