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 541
of a lower organization level than X+yk+Pred in vv. 26 and 29. By
translating the latter expression as an ejavn clause, however, these
difficulties in the Hebrew syntax do not appear at all in the Greek (41).
The whole passage emerges as a long series of ejavn clauses concerning
a unified topic.
Numbers 30 presents an even more striking illustration. Verse 3,
introduced by X+yk+Pred, discusses the vows of a man. In contrast,
Num 30,4-17 deals exclusively with a woman’s vows and her absolution
from them in the case of her father’s or husband’s disapproval. This
latter section begins with X+yk+Pred, and every subsequent develop-
ment of the plot is indicated by an µa clause. The translators have chosen
to render X+yk+Pred as X+rel+a[n+Pred in v. 3 and as an ejavn clause in
v. 4. This has the effect of uniting Num 30,3 and 30,4-17 together in a
single section on vows, beginning in v. 3. Although the great bulk of this
combined section concerns a woman’s vows, the translators did not feel
the need for Num 30,4-17 to stand as a section on its own.
d) Leprosy laws: white marks in skin (Lev 13,38-46)
The whole of Leviticus chapter 13 deals with various leprosy laws,
each new section introduced by the X+yk+Pred pattern (see vv.
2.9.18.24.29.38.40.47). Lev 13,38-39 is an unusually short section
and, more importantly, the only one that does not name a situation
which is “unclean†(42). By rendering X+yk+Pred in v. 40 as an ejavn
clause, the translators effectively combine two sections: Lev 13,38-39
with 13,40-46 (see below). This maneuver eliminates the awk-
wardness of Lev 13,38-39 as a section complete in itself. The
intentionality of this move is suggested by the fact that all other
occurrences of X+yk+Pred in Lev 13 are consistently translated as
X+ejavn+Pred. According to the LXX interpretation, the discussion on
skin health (vv. 38-39) leads to the issue of baldness (vv. 40-46),
which deals more specifically with skin on the head. Interestingly, it
could be that the translators even interpreted the reddish-white
(41) Wevers thinks that “Lev has rendered the initial waw by dev, thereby
showing that v. 25 [sic. v. 26; i.e., redemption by a kinsman] contrasts with the
situation of v. 24 [sic. v. 25; i.e., the absence of a kinsman]†(Notes on the Greek
Text of Leviticus, 416). While this may be true, I have earlier shown that arguments
concerning logical organization that are based on dev tend to be rather unreliable.
(42) “Why did not the editor first complete his description of impure cases
(vv 42-44) before describing pure cases? Apparently, he ordered his material
according to the subject: men and women together first (vv 38-39), then men
alone (vv 40-44; Keter Torah)â€, MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 799.