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 539
4–5); 3) a case where no offering is available, namely, defiant sin. The
legitimacy of o{tan as a discourse marker may be rightly questioned.
There are only five examples of yk translated as otan in clearly legal
{
texts, of which only Num 15,22 and Deut 15,13 do not speak of the
Israelites entering the land (37). Whereas the organization proposed
below cannot be insisted on with absolute certainty, it may represent
the translators’ interpretation of this particular text.
otan clause (= b + inf. const.):
{
A Group 1: First fruits
(vv. 19-21 // Lev 2,12)
otan clause (= yk clause):
{
A’ Group 2: Purification
Offerings (vv. 22-23)
B....................... ejavn clause (= µa clause): Congregation’s sin (vv. 24-26)
B’...................... ejavn clause (= µa clause): Individual’s sin (vv. 27-29)
Z X+rel+Pred (= X+rça+Pred): No offerings: Defiant sin (vv. 30-31).
b) Eating well-being offerings (Lev 7,11-18; 19,5-8)
In both Lev 7,11-18 and 19,5-8, the translators have made explicit
the contrast between proper and improper ways of eating well-being
offerings. Wevers thinks that in Lev 7,12, as in Lev 3,1 and 4,3, “the
mevn particle expresses certainty†and translates it as “(if) specifi-
cally†(38). He does concede, however, the mevn ... dev contrast in Lev
27,7 (39). Wevers, however, fails to recognize the use of mevn ... dev over
the lengthier sections of legal texts. For example, in the laws on
purification offerings, Lev 4,3 uses eja;n mevn to introduce the case
where the anointed priest sins, while eja;n dev, is used for the alternative
scenarios where the sinning party is the whole congregation (4,13), a
leader (4,22), or one of the common people (4,27). Similarly, Lev 3,1
uses eja;n mevn to introduce the well-being offering of oxen, whereas eja;n
dev introduces alternative offerings of sheep (3,6) or of goats (3,12).
It is likely that the translators intended kai; ejavn in Lev 7,16 to link
together both vv. 12-15 and vv. 16-17 as two parts of the mevn element.
A contrast, then, is presented between legitimate times for eating the
well-being offerings (Lev 7,12-17, introduced by eja;n mevn) and
illegitimate times (Lev 7,18, introduced by eja;n dev).
(37) The examples are Lev 19,23; 23,10; Num 15,2.22; Deut 15,13.
(38) WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, 23, 35, 85.
(39) Ibid., 468.