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.
542 John Zhu-En Wee
infection (µdmda ˆbl [gn = aJfh; leukh; purrivzousa) in v. 42 to be a
malignant version of the white marks (tnbl trhb = aujgavsmata
augazonta leukaqivzonta) in v. 38.
jv
X+ean+Pred (= X+yk+Pred): White marks in skin but clean (vv. 38-39)
jv
A
B................. ejavn clause (= X+yk+Pred): Baldness but clean (vv. 40-41)
B’................ ejavn clause (= yk clause): Reddish-white infection in baldness >
unclean (vv. 42-46).
e) “Eye for eye†principle (Lev 24,17-22)
The “eye for eye†principle pervades all of Lev 24,17-22. The
Hebrew participle (ptc.) is used in vv. 18 and 21 to express the idea
usually indicated by the X+yk+Pred or X+rça+Pred construction.
However, the participle’s role as a discourse marker is unclear, since it
is not as regularly used in legal texts. In vv. 17-18, the variable
discussed is the object of the killing, whether man or beast. In contrast,
the variable in vv. 21-22 concerns the subject of the killing, whether a
native or a foreigner. In any case, vv. 17-18 and vv. 21-22 belong
nicely together as a discussion on the possible identities of both parties
in a situation where life is taken. The translators may have recognized
this unity and so translated X+yk+Pred in v. 19 as an ejavn clause (43). In
this way, both verses 19 and 20, dealing in more general terms with
the “eye for eye†principle, may be presented as an interruptive
comment on the ideology behind the “life for life†discussion.
X+rel+an+Pred (= X+yk+Pred): Life for life: victim = man (v. 17)
[
A
rel+an+Pred (= ptc.):
[ Life for life: victim = beast (v. 18)
B....................... ejavn clause (= X+yk+Pred): Injury for injury (v. 19)
*Governing principle: Eye for eye, Tooth for tooth
(v. 20)
rel+an+Pred (= ptc.): Life for life: offender = native/ foreigner
[
A’
(vv. 21-22)
f) Prohibited human relationships (Lev 20,9-21)
Under Rule 1 above, I have argued that Lev 20,9-21 is to be viewed
as a unified section dealing with prohibited human relationships. With
(43) “ejavn ti" for yk çya [Lev 24:19] is unusual, and only occurs elsewhere at
19:20â€, WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, 397.