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 537
apodosis: they shall not be destroyed. Moreover, the law concerning
jealousy in Num 5,12-31 presents a striking example of the legal use
of ejavn. In portions of this passage directly addressed to Moses and
reminiscent of legal texts elsewhere, the conditional elements are
translated as ejavn instead of eij. In vivid contrast, the recorded speech
of the priest to the woman under suspicion (vv. 19-22) uses eij instead
of ejavn.
The use of ejavn for both yk and µa clauses means that the distinction
of organizational levels in the Hebrew is not reflected in the Greek.
Furthermore, the absence of the waw conjunction before these
particles is not consistently indicated. In the legal texts, asyndetic yk is
translated by ejavn 14 times and by eja;n dev 54 times, while asyndetic µa
is translated by ejavn 9 times and by ean dev 20 times (34). Syndetic yk and
j;
µa are almost always translated with the conjunction dev included. This
means that arguments on clausal relationships based solely on the
presence or absence of dev are unconvincing. The rendition of hnh is
curious: in any given passage, it is either translated as ijdouv with
perfect consistency (Lev 13,1-43; Deut 13,15; 17,4; 19,18) or almost
never at all by ijdouv (Lev 13,47-59; 14,34-53) (35).
In summary, the discourse markers in Hebrew have been rendered
by the following equivalents in Greek (in descending order of
organizational level): 1) X+ejavn+Pred or X+rel+a[n+Pred construc-
tions; 2) syndetic or asyndetic ejavn clauses; 3) ijdouv.
4. Reorganization of legal texts in the LXX
The failure to distinguish between yk and µa clauses in the Greek
significantly reduces the visibility of organizational structure,
especially in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. This is
surprising, since the hypotactic Greek language is generally more
expressive of sentence relationships, in contrast to the paratactic
(34) Asyndetic yk as ejavn: Exod 21,2; Lev 22,9; 25,2; Num 18,26; Deut 6,25;
12,20.25.28; 13,19; 19,6.9; 21,9; 22,8; 23,11; Asyndetic yk as eja;n dev: Exod 21,37;
22,4.5.6.9; 23,4.5; Lev 13,51; 25,25; Deut 7,1.17; 12,20.21.29; 13,2.7.13;
15,7.12; 16,15; 17,2.8.14; 18,9; 19,1.16; 20,1.10.19; 21,1.10.15.18;
22,6.8.13.22.23.28; 23,10.22.25.26; 24,1.5.7.10.19.20.21; 25,1.5.11; 26,12;
Asyndetic µa as ejavn: Exod 21,3.8.19; 22,6; Lev 1,3; 3,7; 5,1; 26,3; Deut 5,25;
Asyndetic µa as eja;n dev: Exod 21,3.4.10.30.32; 22,1.2a.2b.3.7.12.14a.14b.
16.22.24.25; Lev 13,27; 25,51; 27,17.
(35) In Lev 14,37, “the translator has made a lapsus oculi by jumping from
one [gnh to the second one,†hence bypassing hnhw altogether. J.W. WEVERS, Notes
on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SBLSCS 44; Atlanta, GA 1997) 214.