Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew 9652235547, 9789652235541

Citation preview

T.MDRAOKA

Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew

Emphatic Words And Structures In Biblical Hebrew by

T.Muraoka

JERUSALEM - LEIDEN THE MAGNES PRESS, THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY E.J. BRILL

Distributed by E.J. Brill - Leiden Holland

Published with the assistance of the Committee on Research and Graduate Studies, The University of Melbourne

©

By The Magnes Press The Hebrew University Jerusalem 1985

ISBN 965-223-554-7 Printed in Israel Typesetting: Graphpress Ltd, Jerusalem Plates: Art Plus, Jerusalem Printing: Ahva Co-operative Press, Jerusalem

To Prot and Mrs. Chaim Rabin

PREFACE

This is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew, which was submitted in 1969 to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was passed in the following year. The revision, which is substantial in some parts, has taken into account a considerable amount of work pertaining to the subject of emphasis that has appeared since 1969 and some works that had earlier escaped the author's attention. It is quite possible that there is still some work that has not come to my notice. My indebtedness to colleagues in the field, past and present, including the unknown Hebraist and Semitist, should be apparent on almost every page of the present work, even when I took exception to their view. It is only right that I should take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the warm and friendly encouragement and enriching instruction I received from many fellow students and teachers at the Hebrew University as their first ever Japanese doctoral candidate. Their number is so large that I can only mention by name my supervisor, Prof. Chairn Rab in , a scholar of undisputed distinction and a gentleman of uncommon kindness and warmth of heart, a truly rare combination. For a loan which has covered part of the cost of production of the present work, I am indebted to the generosity of the Research and Graduate Studies Committee of the University of Melbourne. I also acknowledge a grant received from the Faculty of Arts of this University towards the cost of preparing the manuscript. I like to believe that the quality of this work has been bettered by a critical reading of it by Prof. Barr of Oxford, and Profs. Rabin and Joshua Blau of the Hebrew University. My sincere thanks go to Mr. R.G. Jenkins, a Ph.D. candidate under my supervision, for his editorial assistance over a substantial part of the

vii

viii present work, and to my secretary, Pat Johnson, who skillfully prepared the manuscript with her usual enthusiasm and dedication. The management of the Magnes Press has put me in debt for their agreement to include this work among their already long list of valuable publications and the printer for the commendable technical execution. Last but not least, I unashamedly depart from the tradition of my fathers in expressing my gratitude to Keiko, who ever since our Jerusalem years has been '"Ill;) 'TlI. TAKAMITSU MURAOKA February 1983 Department of Middle Eastern Studies University of Melbourne Australia

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface On Transliteration

vii x

Introduction Chapter I Word-order Chapter 11 Personal Pronoun with Verbum Finitum Chapter III Personal Pronoun (cont.) Chapter IV Pronominal Copula Excursus 1: yes (1li.~) and 'en (P~) Chapter V Infmitive Absolute Chapter VI Casus Pendens Excursus 2: Syntax of yes (lJh ) and 'en Chapter VII Particles i) Lamed ii) 'al ('~) iii) bal ('~) iv) 'im (C~) v) 'iiviil (';!~) vi) ax ('!I~) . vii) raq ( p'J ) viii) 'Oxen ,

xi 1 47 61 67

(P~)

'omnii (i1:l7:l~),(be)'emet(n7:l~[!11)

x) ze (il.~), h~: (~~il) etc. with i~t~;~ogative xi) 'ejO (')([~l;!)~) xii) hen (m), hinne (il~i})

xiii)

'af (~~)

xiv) gam (C!) xv) 'et (n~) xvi) ki ('~) Some Concluding Remarks Abbreviations Bibliography Index of Biblical Passages

77 83 93 99 113 113 123 125 128 128 129 130 132 133

134 137 137 141 143 146 158 165 169 173 191

ON TRANSLITERATION The mode of transliteration of Hebrew adopted in this work represents a compromise between the Tiberian Massoretic graphic-phonetic system and the current Israeli pronunciation. a). There is one-to-one correspondence between our transliteration and the Tiberian system of vowel signs except the plain shwa, which is not indicated at all whether vocalic or silent: # = ba or ba; oil = bi; ~"~!! = bu; ~ = be; ~ = be; ':::I = bO; ~ = ha; ~

= be; ~ = bO; ~ = b.

b). The distinction between plene and defective spelling is ignored. Thus ~" Ni' = 10'. c). The final He as mater lectianis is not indicated. Thus i10~O = susa, but i'1~~O = susiih. d). The fricative realisation of the stops is indicated only for :l,:l, and El:!! = b / :l = v; >\ and .:I =g; '1 and , =d; ::l =k / :l =x; J =p / El = f; l'1 and l"l = t. e). In cases of conflict between Qre and Ktiv, the former is usually followed. In transliterating Aramaic (Targumic) and Syriac words, the fricative realisation is indicated for all the six stops: 8? ~, !. T

x

INTRODUCTION

A perusal of the literature relative to our subject has made it quite clear that the term 'emphasis' is often too rashly called in, like a pinch-hitter in the baseball game, without much thought being given to precisely what is meant by the term! nor, more importantly, to the question why the writer or the speaker possibly felt the need for an emphatic form or construction. The impression is thus created that 'emphasis' is a ready panacea for Hebraists' (and Semitists') headaches of all sorts. The said confusion of the whole concept of emphasis is also indicated by the unusual plurality of synonyms and half-synonyms of 'emphasis.' The point may be illustrated by comparing the descriptions given by different authors concerning the "emphasizing" function of the particle ki. Brockelmann (Synt., § 51), "nachfolgendes Pradikat wird after durch ki hervorgehoben" and (Or., x [1941], 203; on Ugr. k), " ... rnit dem affirmativen k, das das Verbum ans Satzende ruckt, urn es urn so nachdrucklicher hervorzuheben" (cf. Gordon, UT, Glossary, no. 1184, "emphasizing particle at the end of clause"); Gesenius-Kautszch (GK, § 148d), "A weaker form of exclamation is sometimes produced by the insertion of a corroborative ki, surely, verily, before the predicate," (ib. § 15gee), "the absolute certainty with which a result is to be expected is frequently emphasized by the insertion of ki Is 7.9, ki 'iiz 2Sm 2.27 ki 'attii . .. Nu 22.29 ... ",2 Kanig (§ 351a), "Urn den behauptenden Sinn und den

1 It is most unhelpful to be presented with such a novel suggestion as "the construct chain with intervening emphatic ki" (Dahood, Psalms III [Anch. Bib.), p. 382) and to see that the translation of passages to which the suggestion is supposed to apply does not reflect any shade of emphasis whatsoever nor do the accompanying detailed commentary and notes clarify what is meant by 'emphasis.' 2 See also § 163c, n. 1: "Very probably this use of ki arises from the original meaning for if, surely if (ki in an affumative sense) ... "

xi

xii

INTRODUCTION

davon abhiingigen Klang eines Satzes in ungewohnlichem Grade hervortreten zu lassen, besass das Hebriiische folgende Exponenten ...(§ 351c) ki . .. wenn auch an der einen oder andern Stelle erst durch brachylologische Ausdrucksweise der factische versichernde Sinn des ki entstanden ist"; Lambert (§ 1153), "hii peut etre renforce par ki, p. ex. hiixi 'iimarti 'ai-je donc dit?' (Job 6.22)"; Joiion (§ 164b), " ... ki est parfois employe pour renforcer legerement l'affrrmation: il a la valeur d'un certes, oui faible et doit generalement s'omettre dans la traduction ... "; Driver (BDB, s.v.), "(le) esp. after an oath ... though Heb. usage prob. gave it an asseverative force, Engl. idio~ does not require it to be expressed ... (1 d) ki is used sts. with advs. and interjs. to add force or distinctness to the affirmation which follows: so esp. in 'af ki ... , in introducing the apodosis esp. ki 'attii . .. (1 e) there seem also to be other cases in which ki, standing alone, has an intensive force, introducing a statement with emph., yea, surely, certainly ... "; Kropat (p. 31), "ki wird hervorhebend verwandt ... " (see also p. 65); Albright (Fschr. G.R. Driver, p. 2, n. 3), "The asseverative ki is far commoner in Hebrew than generally supposed"; Kohler (KB, s.v.), "(1.1) hinweisend, bekriiftigend." The German language displays the greatest variety; apart from those used in the above quotations one might mention "Verstiirkung," "Betonung," "Nachdruck," "Emphase," and perhaps also "Steigerung.,,3 English and French might add "intensification," "forcibleness," "strengthening," and "stressing. " To my best knowledge, no attempt has been made to see comprehensively the phenomena of emphasis under all these varied aspects, at least with regard to Hebrew or any other Semitic language. 4 Further, not 3 Aartun uses both 'Bestlirkung' and 'Hervorhebung' without attempting to provide any clear defmition, although for the former he usually adds fiirwahr in his translation of Ugaritic examples, but gives no translation value to particles of the latter category: Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, vo!. 1, the subtitle of which reads "Adverbien, Verneigungspartikeln, Bekriiftigungspartikeln, Hervorhebungspartikeln. " 4 For the (Indo-European) classical languages, small but important contributions towards what one might call general theory of emphasis have been made. The first such attempt is that of ID. Denniston in his The Greek Particles (Oxford, 1954 2 ), in which he makes the following pertinent remarks: " ... emphasis may take different forms: (i) Affirmative, (ii) Intensive, denoting that something is very much so, (ill) Determinative, concentrating the attention on one idea to the exclusion of all else, (iv) Limitative, implying that beyond the prescribed limits

INTRODUCTION

xiii

a few scholars simply describe a certain form or construction as emphatic without specifying which particular aspect of emphasis they have in mind, another source of confusion and unconvincing argumentation. Emphasis may be observed on different levels of a language system, namely phonetic, morphological, syntactic, prosodic, stylistic, and lexical, among which the present study will confine itself to the study of syntactic and lexical means of emphasis. s Except for the Massoretic accents, 6 little information about the prosodic or suprasegmental features of Biblical Hebrew has been transmitted to us. 7 Undoubtedly the classical Hebrew as spoken and read by the ancient Israelites must have possessed a variety of intonations and stress accents, one of whose functions was probably phonetically to release inner psychological energy. However one defines emphasis, an enquiry into certain psychological aspects of speech acts is unavoidable. Although I myself am fully aware of dangers and difficulties involved in such an approach, I am equally convinced that any attempt that does not positively evaluate and take into account inner psychological aspects of emphasis is inevitably doomed to failure, 8 since in my view they belong to the very nature of emphasis; emphasis as a linguistic expression belongs more to the psychological than to the logical, purely communicative sphere. Thus the added the reverse may be true" (p. xxxviii). An important treatise by H. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsinki, 1954), is an extensive study of the second form of emphasis named by Denniston. For emphasis by phonetic means, cf., e.g., P.P. Saydon, "Assonance in Hebrew as a Means of Expressing Emphasis, " Bibl., xxxvi (1955), 36-50, 287-304. 5 Morphological features will be dealt with only rarely; for instance, the presumed emphatic use of the inftnitive absolute in place of the ordinary imperative. Hence we shall not discuss the question of the intensive stem - Piel, for which the classic treatment is that of A. Goetze, ''The So-called Intensive of the Semitic Languages," lAOS, !xii (1942),1-8, and most recently E. Jenni, Das hebrtilsche Piel (1968). For stylistics, cf. H. Striedl, "Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebriiischen Buches Esther," ZAW, Iv (1937), 73-108, L. Haefeli, Stilmittel bei Afrahat dem persischen Weisen (1932), and E. Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Literatur (1900). 6 See A. Spanier, Die massoretischen Akzente (1927), M. Breuer, The Accentual Division in the Bible: A Theory of the Grammar of Accents [in Heb.] (1958), and I. Yeivin,Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (1980). 7 According to Rubinstein, for instance, a difference in pitch level alone can tell whether a Modern Hebrew utterance zehu ha-paqid 'This is the clerk' is emphatic or not; see his Nominal Sentence (1968),p. 111. 8 Cf. A Gibson,Biblical Semantic Logic (1982), p. 89.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

hu' in an utterance like yhwh ~addiq hu' (as against ¥1ddiq yhwh) does

not affect the basic logical relation that obtains between the subject and its predicate; it only ooems to indicate the force and stress laid upon the fact that Jahweh is righteous, for which purpose, it might be noted, a certain stress or accentual pattern may serve just as well. Related to the above-mentioned factor of psychology in emphatic expressions is that of emotion, which may be expected to play a significant role in many emphatic expressions. 9 The use of an emphatic expression might be an outflow and discharge of inner intensified emotion. Evidently it is not an easy task to attain objectivity in handling these highly subjective factors of psychology and emotion. One must always bear in mind that emotional reactions caused by the same stimulus may vary from language to language, hence the danger of reading our (researchers') reaction patterns into those of the speakers of the language under study. A group of speakers of one language might fmd it wry hard to comprehend how another group of speakers of a different language, say Hebrew, can employ one and the same verb /:tiirii to indicate both sorrow (e.g., Jon 4.1,4,9) and anger. Further, one people may be very modest in expressing emotions, or the very modesty in expression and suppression of emotions may be indicative of especially intense emotions for such a people, while another people may be accustomed to giving free vent to all forms of emotions, by whom a passing shower might be described as an inundating deluge. To overcome this difficulty, one must look for sure external and objectively identifiable signs of emotion in the context. In discussing the question of emphasis, a distinction should be made between emphasis given to a sentence or complete statement as a whole and that given to a smaller unit, word or phrase. Thus what we shall term affumative-emphatic force belongs to the former category. Another necessary distinction to be made is the one between emphasis and intensification. 1o The latter means, according to the defmition given by Denniston (see n. 4), that something is very much so, or in other 9 W. Havers explains "Affekt" as one of the reasons for the use of casus pendens in the classical languages; IF, xliii (1926), 211. See also H. Sperber, Ueberden Affect als Ursache der Sprachveriinderung (1914). 10 Cr. the defmition of emphasis by J. Marouzeau: "Applique l'enonce, le mot qualifie tout mode d'expression qui comporte une intensite notable ou une certaine grandiloquence: pluriel emphatique, tour emphatique ... " (Lexique de la terminologie linguis(ique (1943'). Rather surprisingly, my search after a defmition of emphasis in some other similar works has proved fruitless.

a

INTRODUCTION

xv

words, it presupposes a concept of value which can be measured and graded. Some authors include intensification in emphasis, a procedure which we do not accept in the present study. Hence we shall not discuss here matters like intensifying adverbs (e.g. m 'od), pluralis intensivus, intensifying force of the divine name, etc. Rather strangely, not a few scholars who characterize a certain form or construction as emphasizing do not take trouble to offer a convincing argument for the case of emphasis. ll Two main arguments have been given. One is based on a stylistic consideration - poetic parallelism. The names of I. Eitan and M. Dahood in their studies on the particles may be mentioned. The second argument is made from the standpoint of comparative Semitic grammar. As to the question of word-order, the value of the second type of argument is perforce limited because of the dearth of particular studies on the word-order in various cognate languages. The area of studies to which the comparative method has been most extensively and fruitfully applied is obviously particles. Thus, for instance, Haupt quoted the Arabic la- and the Accadian lil in his attempt to establish the case of Lamed emphaticum in Biblical Hebrew, and Ginsberg, followed by Gordon, Dahood, and others, noted the parallel use of Kaph in Ugaritic and in Bibl. Heb. It should be borne in mind that the particles are a class of words or forms whose precise functions are most difficult to determine. The Accadian minde, rendered by some authorities "vielleicht" and by others "sicher," is a case in point (Chapter VII, n. 159). Some might even assert that there was a fairly great stock of consonants ready to be freely and rather arbitrarily chosen by various Semitic languages at various points in their history to compose monosyllabic or polysyllabic particles. Then mere identity or similarity in phonetic shape, or in consonantal orthography in the case of unknown vocalization, by no means guarantees complete or approximate parallelism in

11 I cannot agree more with J. Barr, who writes: "Purely quantitatively one might suggest a rule that, if one is to demonstrate that a Hebrew word had a meaning not hitherto known for it, the demonstration should require an article of twenty or thirty pages for each word, in order that the various levels of evidence should be taken into account. The fact that many philological proposals have been propounded in notes of three or four lines tells against their being accepted as more than possibilities for consideration": J. Barr, "Semitic philology and the interpretation of the Old Testament," pp. 48f. in G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradi· tion and Interpretation (1979).

xvi

INTRODUCTION

their syntactic functioning. 12 Further, in utilizing comparative data drawn from cognate languages, due consideration must be given to the historical period when a given parallel form or structure is attested in the related languages concerned. Thus the peculiar distribution of the alleged emphatic Lamed in Biblical Hebrew, attested mostly in late books, is significant in view of the antiquity of the Accadian la, which is said to be its parallel. Relative age of the two languages does not count here; if such a use of Lamed were attested in earlier books of the O. T., whether it remained alive into later periods or fell into desuetude in the meantime, there would be little place for objection to the view. Another point of importance for the proper assessment of comparative data is the syntactic environment in which a common feature is attested in languages under consideration. Accordingly, in discussing the possible emphasizing force of ki, one can hardly be justified in disregarding the syntactic detail that the Ugaritic counterpart is prefIxed to the predicate, which is thrown back to the sentence end. Again, the fact that no cognate language employs the emphatic Lamed with imperative forms is not to be overlooked in arguing for its alleged emphatic use in Gn 23. In passing, it might be stressed that Biblical Hebrew, which is fairly well represented in a sizeable number of texts, is able to export as well; the defeatist position that Biblical Hebrew is only able to import, having nothing of its own resources that might contribute to better understanding of cognate languages, should be judged as completely unwarranted. As in any study of ancient texts, the tradition of interpretation always deserves due consideration. Alongside modern commentators, among whom S.R. Driver (esp. his Notes on the books of Samuel and commentary on Deuteronomy) and E. Dhorme (commentaries on Job and Samuel) are most valuable, and translations into modern tongues, among which French versions show themselves most appreciative of the phenomena of emphasis, the four ancient versions in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Aramaic come into consideration. The value of these versions as embodiments and repositories of ancient interpretations of the Biblical writings is twofold. Firstly, they can be useful for the general elucida1i On the contrary, despite the absence of etymological or formal correspondence, parallelism in semantic structure or development may afford a powerful and significant argument, as we shall demonstrate below in our discussion about the construction yes" + suffix + participle (pp. 80f.).

INTRODUCTION

xvii

tion of a given Biblical text, including their use in the reconstruction of a corrupt text. Secondly, they may throw some light on the specific question of emphasis, which is our concern in the present study. On the latter score, their value varies from version to version and from question to question. Thus, only little help can be gained in the treatment of the question of word-order. However, when we come to discuss particles, the case could be different. The recent emphasis on comprehensive and macroscopic approach in the study of the versions requires that the judgement concerning a given form of a versional text be based upon examination of a larger corpus in which the given text is located, whether it be a single Biblical book or the whole version. I must confess that in certain cases it has been found impracticable strictly to adhere to this principle, owing to the limited scbpe of the present work. Obviously nothing can and should replace a thorough and independent examination of the Biblical text itself; in that sense, versional evidence and comparative Semitic parallels possess only secondary value. As has been stated above, before pronouncing a final judgement about the emphasizing function ascribable to a certain form or structure in a given place, the text and the wider context in which it is found must be closely examined. The present study makes no claim to exhaustiveness; it is intended to represent a modest attempt to re-examine critically some of the more important forms and structures which have been asserted by different authors to be emphatic, to obtain a clearer understanding of emphasis by distinguishing between different shades of this ill-defmed concept, to determine how emphasis is internally motivated, and finally to discover hitherto unknown means for emphaSiS utilized by Biblical writers.

CHAPTER I Word-order A. Introductory Remarks

It is true that Hebrew grammars recognize, mostly in the form of scattered notes, this or that particular word-order as emphatic, especially the fronting of an element to be emphasized, but so far the subject has not received any systematic or exhaustive treatment. More than that, a careful study of word-order in Biblical Hebrew still remains an urgent desideratum, as can be shown by the extreme brevity with which the subject is treated; for instance, Gesenius-Kautzsh devote a mere two pages to it (§§ 141 I-n, 142f-g).1 Two recent works, however, represent significant contributions to the subject, namely, Abba Bendavid's Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. 2 (1971), pp. 692-769, 785-855,2 and F.I. Andersen's The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (1970). The latter work has been reviewed in detail by B1au (1972) and Hoftijzer (1973). Hoftijzer's review is a most meticulous and penetrating one, and perhaps exceeding in size the work under review; we shall refer to it as "Review." Furthermore, works mainly concerned with Modem Hebrew often provide useful insights, and in this connection H.B. Rosen's Good Hebrew (1967, 2nd ed.) and two monographs by E. Rubinstein, The Nominal Sentence (1968) and The Verb Phrase (1971) may be singled out. Note should also be taken of an important contribution made by A. Bloch, Vers und Sprache im Altarabischen (1946), which seems to

1 Word-order is one of the most neglected fields of study of almost any language. Cf. J. Ries, Was ist Syntax?, pp. 36f. 2 An earlier and somewhat popular version may be found in his article, "How to Arrange the Subject and Predicate? "[in Hebrew), Leshonenu la'am, ix (1957 58),67-75,97-107,149-65.

1

2

CHAPTER I

have been unduly neglected by later works dealing with the subject, 3 and which, in spite of its title, adduces much comparative material from Biblical Hebrew, thus constituting a fairly substantial supplementation to the meagre information afforded by standard grammars and the like. Before entering upon detailed discussion, some general remarks may be in order. 1) Word-order is one of those linguistic features in which the conflict between freedom and convention becomes manifest. This conflict is a highly productive factor inherent in any living language. In several places below we shall see that emphatic constructions are often characterized by something much is irregular, extraordinary or seemingly redundant, namely attempts at deviation from the conventional norm. This consideration suggests the possibility that emphatic word-orders may be identified by setting a given word-order over against a set of (statistically) normal word-order patterns obtaining in the language concerned. Then our necessary preliminary work would be to determine what these normal word-order patterns are in Biblical Hebrew. At this point, however, one should be warned against thinking that deviation from the norm is a necessary and sufficient condition for a given word-order pattern being emphatic. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that other factors are also possibly at work in effecting deviations. Therefore, efforts must be made to identify these other factors too and determine their ways of working. 2) Throughout our discussion we shall have many occasions to observe that emphasis is the expression of a dominantly psychological aspect involved in speech acts. Thus it is inseparably tied up with the factor of freedom in the above-mentioned conflict system. "But it should always be remembered that word-order in actual language is not exclusively determined by psychological reasons, but is often purely conventional and determined by idiomatic rules peculiar to the language in question and independent of the will of the individual spe~er ."4 This remark of Jespersen would be confirmed by noting, for example, a considerable measure of regularity in Latin word-order over against the popular and naive belief in its extreme freedom. Brockelmann's idea (actually borrowed :3 E.g., K. Oberhuber, "Zur Syntax des Richterbuches - Der einfache Nominalsatz und die sogen. nominale Apposition," VT, Hi (1953),2-45 and K. Schlesinger, "Zur Wortfolge im hebr. Verbalsatz," ib. 381-90. 4 O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar. p. 147.

WORD-ORDER

3

from Wundt) of the "dominierende Vorstellung" must also be weighed in the light of these considerations,s and likewise Konig's claim that the initial position occupied by a word can always be explained as due to emphasis seems to be an oversimplification (§ 339b, d, g-i, m, p). 3) I feel it necessary to defme precisely, at least negatively, my field of interest, as I approach the present subject of emphatic wordorder. I have no intention whatever to venture into the precarious and also dubious logico-grammatical argument as to whether the word-orders said to be normal in Semitic languages (if we know what they are) give in themselves any indication as to dominant emphasis on any specific group of ideas - action (in the case of the verbal clause) and subject (in the case of the nominal clause). 6 4) It seems to me that we are still very far from being able to formulate definitive pronouncements concerning any particular point related to the question of word-order from the standpoint of comparative Semitics, since our present knowledge of detailed workings of word-order in particular Semitic languages is so partial and insufficient. In this connection it must be pointed out that the above-mentioned logico-grammatical approach is doomed to break down as soon as we realize that Arabic and Accadian, the representatives of the two main streams of the Semitic language family, are diametrically opposed to each other in their verbal clause word-order, unless one is to excommunicate the latter from the Semitic family by claiming that those East Semites were so deeply influenced by the heterogeneous culture of the Sumerian substratum as to lose one of the most striking features characteristic of the Semitic way of thinking. 7 5 See Synt., § 123, and on a wider comparative-Semitic plane, G VG ii, §§ 271-274. 6 Note, for instance, A. Miiller, HebrillscheSchulgrammatik (Halle, 1878), § 503: " ... dem Hebriier in den meisten Fiillen, insbesondere in einfacher Erziihlung [ist) die Handlung die Hauptsache [gewesen)" - the reason given for the frequent precedence of the predicate in a verbal clause. One may also be justified in seeing an expression of this approach in the following words of GeseniusKautzsch: "The natural arrangement of words in the noun-clause, as describing a state, is subject - predicate; the principal stress falls on the former since it is the object of the description" (§ 141 1), and "In the verbal-clause proper the principal emphasis rests upon the action which proceeds from the subject, and accordingly the verb naturally precedes" (§ 142a; emphasis added). 7 Nonetheless, Vngnad is a trifle overcautious: "Ob die Voranstellung des Praedikats vor sein Subjekt, wie es die Regel in den westsemitischen Sprachen ist, erst innerhalb dieser Sprachen zur Regel geworden ist, oder ob sie schon im Vr-

4

CHAPTER I

5) Our investigation here will be concerned with the exploration of various possibilities of arranging the major constituents of a sentence, viz. subject, verb, predicate, object, and adverb. To keep our inquiry within manageable bounds, we shall not touch upon the question as to how each of these major parts can be constituted, questions concerning, for example, the position of the demonstrative in relation to its head, that of the adjective in relation to its head, or the mutual relation of two different objects construed with one verb. 6) It is of great importance to remember that there exists fundamental disagreement among the leading Hebraists as to the validity of the prevalent assumption as to the alleged word-order polarity discernible in the two main sentence types, namely the nominal clause shows the order Sop and the verbal clause V-S.8 Thus Jotion, 9 , Konig,1O and Schlesinger 11 semitischen iiblich war, sodass demnach die babylonische Stellung erst aus der Zeit Sonderentwicklung dieser Sprachgruppe stammt, lasst sich nicht mit Sicherheit feststellen" (ZA, xviii [1904/6),50). H.S. Nyberg, reviewing G. Bergstrasser's Einfiihrung in die semitischen Sprachen (1928), holds that the word-order in the Proto-Semitic verbal clause was Sop (Gaffing. Gel. Anz. 194 (1932), p. 109. 8 As is well known, the most extreme position of this type of argument is represented by traditional native Arab grammarians, for whom the nature of the word standing at the head of a sentence, and that alone, served as the sole criterion according to which to classify a given sentence either as nominal or verbal. At present we prefer to proceed according to the traditional definition of the basic binary classification for which the nature of the predicate is decisive, viz. whether it is a finite verb form or not. For the sake of brevity the following abbreviations will be used: S(ubject), O(bject), V(erb) = finite verb form, P(redicate), A(dverb), C(opula), pron(omen) dem(onstativum), adj(ective), prep(ositional phrase), ptc. = participle, pron(omen) pers(onale), nom (en) det(erminatum), indet(erminatum). By "prepositional phrase" is meant a phrase headed by a preposition which serves as adverbial qualification by indicating time, place, manner, ground, etc., in distinction from another kind of prepositional phrase which in function is very close to the object. a. qiirii'ti bqOl ram and qiira'ti 10 yose! This convenient and essential distinction, in spite of occasional difficulties that might arise if one is to press it, originates from M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes and R. Blachere, who call the two types "complement circonstanciel"and "comp. indirect" respectively. See their Grammaire de l'arabe classique (1952), § 368, and cf. also Bloch, Vers ... , pp. 53f. Accordingly the latter type will be regarded here as O. Of course, there exists now a considerable amount of literature on this subject pertaining to Modern Hebrew and general linguistics. See my "On Verb Complementation in Biblical Hebrew," VT, xxix (1979),425-35. 9 § 155k: "L'ordre des mots dans la proposition verb ale (comme dans la propos.

WORD-ORDER

5

do not recognize any correlation between the sentence type and the word-order pattern, while the majority of scholars do recognize such a correlation. 12 Therefore to answer this fundamental question will be one of the major aims of our enquiry. 7) One of the merits to be attributed to the above-mentioned work of Bloch lies in his realization that the question of word-order cannot be properly treated without examining separately each of the different levels or styles, or more exactly, different literary genres found in the corpus concerned. Accordingly, in the following pilot study, which I hope will serve as a basis for further exhaustive and more detailed studies, we propose to distinguish three literary forms: conversational, narrative, and legal. 13 Each of them will be represented respectively by the following selection of passages: words of Jacob found in Gn 25-49 (Jac co), words of Joseph recorded in Gn 37-50 (Jo co), the rest of the text in Gn 25-50 (Gn 25-50 co na), oratio recta portions in the book of Judges and ISm 1-24 (Jud co, ISm co), narrative portions in them (Jud na, ISm na), and legal texts in Ex 21.1-23.19, Lv 18.1-20.27, 25.1-55, and Dt 21.1-25.19. 14 The first three bodies of the text are of approximately equal length and Leg about 1/2. 8) To avoid unnecessary complexity, cases in which one or more sentence constituents consist of a clause will not be considered nor sentences containing the particles yes or 'en or the verb hiiyii, for these latter form, as I believe, a separate group by themselves. 9) The mere listirlg of the actually occurrirlg word-order patterns such as Brockelmann gives (Synt., §§ 121-122, 138) can be misleading, because it does not show which is or are the normal pattern(s). Therefore, nominale, § 1540 est nonnalement: Sujet-Verbe." 10 § 339c: " ... sind bei der Einzelbehandlung der Wortstellung Verbalsatz und Nominalsatz zu trennen, nicht aber deswegen, weil diese beiden Satzarten als solche verschiedene Wortstellung besiissen. Denn diese Voraussetzung beruht auf einer unbegriindeten Unterscheidung dieser beiden Satzarten, wie in § 326d gezeigt wurde." 11 "Zur Wortfolge," pp. 381f. 12 See, e.g., Gk, § 1411 and § 142a, Brock., Synt., §§ 27a,48. 13 The last category is of course that of poetry. This we shall leave for our future stUdy. 14 By "narrative portions" I mean those parts of our corpus excluding those utterances which are represented as spoken in conversation. Further, the legal texts examined here do not contain strictly cultic-ritual and religious laws.

6

CHAPTER I

the frequency with which a given pattern appears must be taken into account. 10) Andersen is averse to the use of notions such as emphasis or importance, "which have no empirical status,,15 as if the concepts used by him such as classification, identification, and contrastive focus are above similar criticism. We only hope that this is not yet another case of the naive and totally unfounded belief in the objectivity of a modern linguistic approach characterised, inter alia, by the use of pseudoscientific mathematical symbols and formulations.

B. Nominal clause 16 i) It is generally l? agreed that the normal word-order of this sentence type is S_p.IS But a mere glance at the following statistical table 19 is

15 Verbless Clause, pp. 18 and 24. Cf. also Hoftijzer, "Review," 475: "By the way what is the real difference between contrastive focus and concepts like 'emphasis or importance' rejected by Andersen ... ?" and a critique by a linguistic logician, A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic (1981), pp. 209f. 16 Up to the year 1953 we had two important articles written on the subject: C. Albrecht, "Die Wortstelling im hebr. Nominalsatz," ZA W, vii (1887),218-24, ib. viii (1888) 249-63, and K. Oberhuber, art. cit. in n. 3 above. Cf. also A. Basset et al., "Entretien sur la phrase dite nominale," GLECS, iv (1945/48), 90-94, v (1948/51), 9-11, 17 -29, 31. These are now, of course, to be supplemented by Andersen's monograph and Hoftijzer's review of it. 17 Exceptions include S.R. Driver, Tenses, § 198: "the latter [= predicate] as a rule standing fIrst"; Andersen, Verbless Qause, pp. 39-50. Incidentally, in his critical survey (pp. 17f.) of the previous study of the verbless clause, Andersen makes no reference to this important treatise by Driver nor is it referred to anywhere in his monograph. 18 GK, § 141,1, Brock., Synt., § 27a, Jotion, § 154f. For Konig any given wordorder can by psychologically explained; the word which appears at the beginning of a sentence stands there because it is felt as an important piece of expression in the speaker's mind (§ 339g-l). Although I myself tend to value positively the factor of psychology involved in speech act, still this approach of Konig sounds rather far-fetched. I can hardly see how and in what sense Driver could write " ... the mere juxtaposition of a subj. and pred. - the latter as a rule standing first - is sufficient in Hebrew for predication" (Tenses, p. 267; emphasis added). 19 From this table are excluded nominal clauses which do not begin with S or P. The fIgures for Gn 27-50 exclude the examples counted under Ja co and Jo co (so also for the second table on p. 20).

7

WORD-ORDER

sufficient to show how precarious and over-simple it would be to dismiss as exceptions those cases deviating from the said "normal" pattern. This means that a much rmer and detailed exploration alone, instead of the crude capital-letter schematization, would enable us to know the truly "normal" nominal clause word-order pattern, or more precisely, set of such patterns. For all that, it is evident on the surface of the given statistics that the conversational style evinces greater freedom in word-order. It may be noted that in the majority of examples of the order P-S in Leg the subject is an enclitic third pers. pron.; e.g., Ex 21.3 'im ba'al 'iiia hu', 21 ki xaspo hu '.

S-P P-S Tot.

Ja co

Jo co

17 5 22

17 8 25

Gn 25-50 Jud ISm 1-24 co na co na co na Leg (Ex

7 10 17

3 4 7

32 50 26 11 58 61

58 93 36 ( 6 29 8 39 ( 4 87 101 75 (10

Lv Dt)

Tot.

22 8) 24 11) 46 19)

313 140 453

ii) Structural Meaning It is of fundamental importance to recognize the basic difference in

structural meaning carried by the two different word-order patterns: deSCription is the structural 20 meaning of the P-S pattern, except where the predicate is a prepositional or adverbial phrase, when the clause may be identificatory. In contrast, that of the reverse order can be either description or identification. In order to avoid unnecessary and serious misunderstanding, I must make clear what is meant by these two key terms. By "identification" I

Andersen stresses as one of the major conclusions of his study: "The fact that about one-third of declarative clauses (606 out of 1,857 [identified by A. in the Pentateuch)) have the sequence P-S is enough to suggest that this important pattern cannot be explained simply as an exception to the S-P pattern" (op. cit., p. 31). Note that his statistics are roughly in line with ours in proportionate terms. 20 "Structural meaning" is a meaning ascribable to a given clause pattern. It has nothing to do with structuralist linguistics.

8

CHAPTER I

mean, to illustrate, a sentence like I am Esau [and none else] as a reply to the question, whether explicit or implicit, Who is Esau? or Which of ybu is Esau? while I am Esau, when it can be construed as a reply to the question, whether explicit or implicit, Who are you?, is a description. 21 In contrast, Andersen's approach is typical of the usual understanding of "identification": "When both Sand Pare defmite, the predicate has total semantic overlap with the subject; that is, each has exactly the same referent. The predicate supplies the identity of the subject" (op. cit., p.32). Accordingly I am Esau can be only identificatory. It will be seen from this that Andersen's (and many others') categories are those of logic, whereas ours are those of semantics. Hence, perhaps, Andersen's indifference to questions of emphasis and the like. Hoftijzer is obviously unhappy about this, so that the notion of contrast, which is only casually introduced by Andersen, assumes considerable importance in the former's analysis. 22 Further, the key to the decision for description or identification in the Sop pattern lies in the nature of the predicate; where it consists of an adjective, participle, or indeterminate noun, the meaning of the whole structure is that of description, while, when it consists of a determinate noun or noun phrase, the structure means identification. By "determinate" noun or nominal phrase I mean such a noun or noun phrase that can be conceived by virtue of the context as already known to the speaker(s) or the hearer(s), chiefly because it has been mentioned earlier in the flow of speech,23 so that it can be referred to by means of an anaphoric

21 The question of prosody is left out of discussion for the moment. I am also aware that the decision is bound to be subjective to a degree where the question is not explicitly asked. By the way, it is remarkable that no example of the identifying type question Who is Esau? appears to be attested in the O.T.; cf. Bloch, op. cit., pp. 98f., n. 69. 22 For a critical probe into Andersen's logico-linguistic basis, see A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic, pp. 170-73. 23 On my definition of "determinate" and the twofold structural meaning, see J. Blau, Leshonenu, xxxvii (1972), 71. Bendavid also emphasises the need to keep apart the grammatical determinateness and psychological detenninateness; see his Bibl. Heb. and Mishn. Heb., vol. 2, p. 730. Andersen has also found it necessary to recognize degrees of definiteness (op. cit., p. 32). To regard such disparate types as hassefer, sifro, sifro ze 'this book of his', diiwid, 'attii etc. as defmite under one umbrella is patently too crude to be of much use.

WORD-ORDER

9

pronoun, or because it indicates something which is part of the common knowledge of the participants in a given speech situation, such as well known names or the name of God. 24 Hence our defmition does not include among the category of determinate noun every construct phrase, e.g., Gn 27.22 haqqol qol ya'aqov whayyiidayim yde 'esiiw, as the ordinary definition of "determined" would do. The following examples would illustrate the point made above: Sop identification ~ Gn 48.18 ze habbxor, Jud 6.l 0 'iini yhwh 'elohexem, Sop description ~ Gn 27.11 'iinoxi 'il fliilaq, 33.l3 hayliidim rakkim, 46.32 hii'iiniilim ro'e ~o'n, 1Srn 1.2 sem 'al}at I}annii, P-S description ~ Gn 46.34 to'iivat mi~rayim kol ro'e ~i5'n, Jud 7.2 rav hii'iim 'aser 'ittiix. This distinction can be made manifest with the addition of a copula; see below (pp. 17 ~ 18) and also our chapter on the copula. Hi) Sop (S nom and/or P prep) It is those cases of Sop in which S is a noun and/or P is a prepositional phrase that speak against Konig's position mentioned above Cp. 3), for there is no basis for supposing that in the following selection of examples the first word or sentence7component stands there because it is especially emphasized or carries special weight in the mind of the speaker{s). Thus 1) S nom - Gn 47.9 yme sne mguray Slosim um'at §anii, Jud 18.10 hii'iire~ ral}iivat yiidayim, 1Srn 12.17 rii'atxem rabbii, 2) P prep - Gn 41.29 Siivii' giidol bxol 'ere~ mi~riiyim, Ex 22.14 'im b'iiliiw 'immo, Jud 6.12 yhwh 'immxii. These two word-order patterns may be regarded as indifferent to the question of emphasis. Mention may be made here of a rather obscure construction whose structural meaning is apparently equivocal. We know that Biblical Hebrew lacks formal means to express the superlative (and comparative too, for that matter) degree of adjectives. If modern Western grammarians are right in thinking that the use of the article with an adjective may make up for this deficiency,2S then sentences like Jud 6.15 'alpi haddal bimnaSie w'iinoxi ha~~'ir bvet 'iivi are to be interpreted as structurally signifying description. But it appears to me closer to the linguistic reality to accept the correction of the above interpretation as suggested by the 24 The reason which does not justify rendering Gn 45.3 ani yose] as 'Joseph is I' (identification) seems to be that the name of J. as high-ranking official in Pharaoh's court was unknown to his brothers - absence of common knowledge. 25 See Brock., Synt., § 21e, GK, § 133g, Jotion, § 141j, Konig, § 309b.

10

CHAPTER I

Syriac version, which clearly saw here the process of substantivization of the adjective and employed the status emphaticus form z'orii', and not the st. abs., which is the rule for a predicative adjective. 26 Moreover, this view tallies with our remark made above with regard to the differentiation in structural meaning according to different word-orders; then haddal and ha~~ii'ir are determinate in the sense that they mean dal and ~ii'ir par excellence. iv) S-P (S =pron. dem.) In addition to the rules we have described above (ii), which help us to decide whether the structural meaning of a clause in S-P order is description or identification, another one is capable of removing this obscurity. It says that when the subject is apron. dem., S-P can only signify identification. 26a So Gn 48.18 ze habbxor (S: hiinaw) , 44.5 hiili5' ze 'aser yiste 'adoni hO, 43.29 hiize 'ii~ixem haqqiiron 'aser 'iimartem '€lay (S: hiinaw) , 40.12, 18 ze pitrono, 28.17 ze (S: hiinaw)sa'ar haSfiimiiyim 'This must be the gate of heavens (about which I used to hear)" Jud 9.38 hiilo' ze hii'iim 'aser mii'astii bo, ISm 21.12 hiilo' ze diiwid melex hii'iire~. 27 Compare these places with Gn 32.3 ma~ane 'elohim ze 28 and ISm 24.17 hiiqo/xii ze, where the structural meaning is evidently that of description. As long as we adhere to our definition of 'identification,' a clause like Nu 13.27 ze piryiih would present no problem, whilst Hoftijzer rightly considers it an additional exception to Andersen's Rule 1, for "notwithstanding the core sequence, the predicate has not specificness as a relevant feature; what they show is not the totality of the fruits of the land, but specimens of the fruits ("Review," p. 473). The questions raised by Hoftijzer as regards Gn 28.17 quoted above should have convinced him of the importance of not taking too narrow a view of 'identification':

26 Rather strangely the Peshitta is not consistent, using the st. abs. b~irii in the rust half of the verse, while the Targum uses adjectives in both places (zl'orii' and lJalliisJ. 26a The notorious difficulty of determining which is S and which is P may be overcome by reformulating the rule as ''where the rust slot is occupied by a demonstrative pronoun." 27 Further examples may be found in Bendavid, Bibl. Heb. and Mishn. Heb., vol. 2, p. 737. 28 Likewise Gn 12,12 11to zo't, i.e. 'not his sister.'

WORD-ORDER

11

"Does the sequence of the clause really underline that this is the only gate of heaven, and is the possibility excluded that this fact is not relevant here, but that the relevant fact is that this clause underlines the importance of the place in question?" (art. cit., p. 474). There is a use of the demonstrative ze, zo't, and 'elle, which must be distinguished from their deictic use; this use corresponds to that of the Greek hode as against houtos, referring to what follows. The pron. demo thus used - kataphoric - regularly stands at the head of a sentence, even when it is an object. See Gn 40.12, 18 ze pitrono, Jud 20.9 ze haddiiviir 'aser na'ase laggiv'ii, 21.11 ze haddiiviir 'aser ta'aSu, 3.1 ... 'elle haggoyim aser hinnial; yhwh, Gn 43.11 zo't 'asu (cf. 32.20 kaddiiviir hazze tdabbrun). Pace Andersen (Verbless Clause, p. 40), the demonstrative in Gn 2.23 zo't happa'am 'e~em me'a~iimay uviisiir mibb§an is deictic (with Adam pointing at her with his finger), and not kataphoric. Cf. Rashi: "this shows that Adam had gone (to seek company) to all cattle and animal without finding satisfaction," S.R. Driver (WC, 1904 2) ad loc., and a discussion by Hoftijzer ("Review," p. 499). There is no need to emend the pronoun to hi' on the basis of Ex 22.26 hi' ksuto, where the pronoun is anaphoric. Nor is it necessary to reverse the word-order in Ex 15.2 ze 'eli. v) Sop (S = pron. pers.) Against Albrecht, who established that one of the conditions under which the normal nominal clause word-order Sop may be reversed is the use of apron. pers. as subject,29 Kropat (p. 26) argues that the word-22 In Ps 2.6 'ani niisaxti malki 'al ~iyyon har qodsi, the pronoun rings with divine-royal authority against the background of the futile rebellion of earthly princes. 23 The self-asserting tone of the pronoun is is characteristic of later books. Against his second point however speak a great number of the passages we are discussing in the present chapter. Note that the position of the pron. in ISm 22.18 is conditioned by the U6e of the Waw consecutive. 21 Ehrlich, whose Randglossen began to appear in 1908, does not explicitly state whether his interpretation depends upon the one proposed by Marti (1904 in KEH) or not. gam is apparently unknown to S: 'ant t!luniwhy Ivayty or more probably it got round the difficulty. Kai su is not 'and you,' but 'you also' or 'even you'. 22 GK, § 135a, "emphatic," Lambert, § 297, "C'est moi qui ai donne ... " 23 GK, § 135a, "emphatic," H.J. Kraus (BK), "ich selbst." Cf. also F. Hitzig, Die halmen (1863), F. Delitzsch (BCAT), R. Kittel (KAT), ad loco For the possibility of a different vocalization based on G, see A.B. Ehrlich, Die Psalmen (1905), ad loco

PERSONAL PRONOUN WITH VERBUM FINITUM

53

most apparent when a king boasts of his deeds, as in 2Ch 6.2 'I (Solomon) have built Thee an exhalted house ,'24 1Ch 29.17 'in the uprightness of my heart I (David) have freely offered all these thingS.'25 Note the interesting parallel usage in Moabite: (21) 'nk bnty qr[lh, (22) 'nk bnty s'ryh w'nk bnty mgdlth, etc.z6 2Sm 12.7 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul,' Is 45.12 'I made the earth' (CK § 135a, "I and none else"; note the recurring 'ani and 'I am the Lord, and there is no other' in the neighbouring passages, where the Lord challenges His antagonists) and Jer 27.6 'Now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar' (compare the preceding verse which speaks about the Lord's sovereign power over all men and animals that are on the earth). According to Driver, "the pronoun is also expressed sometimes in responses, where although no special stress rests upon it, a slight prominence is evidently not unsuitable" (Tenses, p. 201, n. 1). Likewise Joiion, ;'On ajoute volontiers le pronom dans certaines phrases cl. nuance emphatique. Ainsi, en rappelant un fait cl. quelqu'un on dit souvent 'attii yiida'to . .. de meme dans une reponse cl. une invitation ou cl. une demande, en particulier dans le cas d'une promesse" (§ 146a,2). The use of the pronoun in a phrase like 'attii yiida'tii may be viewed as motivated by the desire to call special attention of the addressed, esp. when the speaker requests something on the basis of the knowledge of the addressed or seeks his agreement. E.g. Gn 31.6 'You know what the Lord said to father with all my strength,m Jos 14.6 'you know what the Lord said to Moses' (the people of Judah demanding their lot in the land ofCanaan), 1Kg 1.17 'you swore' (Bathsheba's plea on behalf of her son Solomon), 24 The parallel 1Kg 8.13 lacks the pronoun and uses an inf. abs. instead. Kropat (p. 1), once again, attributes the pron. to "Emphase zur ganzen Aussage." The adversative autem of L (ego autem aedificavi) does not suit the context, since there is no contradiction between Solomon's accomplishment and the divine will. Cr. E.L. Curtis - A.A. Madsen (ICC), ad loco 25 Cf. Curtis-Madsen (ICC) and J.W. Rothstein-J.Hiinel (KAT), ad loco 26 The syntax of Moabite has recently been treated by F.l. Andersen in considerable detail. See his "Moabite Syntax," Or., xxxv (1966), 81-120. On page 98 of the article, he rightly rejects Segert's view of 'nk as pleonastic and concludes, "Nor is it a question of 'emphasis,' but of focus, of self-identification in the boasting style of such monumental inscriptions." 27 Cf. H. Gunkel (GHK), ad loc., "Gegeniiber dem Groll des Schwiegervaters beruft sich Jaqob nachdriicklich auf das eigene Urteil der Frauen."

54

CHAPTER 1I

Ps 139.2 'Thou knowest when I sit down and when I rise up' (David demanding God's judgement of justice on the basis of His intimate knowledge of His servant). I think that one possible reason for the use of the pronoun in a response or promise is, psychologically speaking, that at the moment of making a response or promise, the speaker's self-consciousness is especially deepened. This is all the more so in the case of solemn oath. Examples are numerous: Gn 21.24 'iinoxi 'issavea' (vs. 23 'Now swear to me ... '), 38.17, 47.30 'iinoxi 'e'ese xidviirexii,28 Ex 8.24, Jud 6.18, 1Srn 20.42,29 26.6 'ani 'ered 'immiix (a reply to 'Who will go with me?'; the simple 'ered without the pronoun is obviously out of place in the present context), 2Sm 3.13 'Good, I will make a covenant with you' (consent to 'Make your covenant with me'),30 lKg 2.18,5.22,6.3, Ru 4.4, 2Ch 18.20. Despite the general vagueness with which the term "emphasis" is employed in grammatical discussions, one aspect of it is recognized by everyone, which is "contrast." I feel however that here again one needs further to distinguish different shades of that aspect. Firstly, from a formal point of view, the contrast can be either explicit or implicit. If implicit, one must seek in the context the contrasting member which is missing. Then from a semantic point of view, the contrast can involve either opposition or simple juxtaposition. For the former, "antithesis" would be a more appropriate term. Antithesis is especially apparent when the two terms contrasted represent respectively the positive and negative side of an idea common to both of them. Furthermore, the explicit contrast may be found in a single sentence, but it may also be spread over more than one sentence. Plenty of examples could be adduced for each type of contrast described above. Antithesis An obvious case is Jer 17.18 yev6iu rod/ay w'al 'evosa 'iini yel;zattu hemmii w'al 'el;zattii 'iini. In the following two insta)lces the 28 Cf. Lambert, § 297, "Qui, je ferai comme tu l'as dit," and he thinks that the pronoun here adds solemnity to the phrase. So Joiion, § 146a, 2, ''promesse solennelle." GK, § 135a, "on rhythmical grounds" must be rejected, also with regard to Ex 8.24, Jud 6.18, 2Sm 3.13, 21.6, lKg 2.18. 29 niSba'nu snenu 'ana!lnu bs"em yhwh. GK, § 135f, "without special emphasis." Lambert's comment that "we" is opposed to the descendants (§ 299 n.) is forced. Ehrlich (Randgl., ad loc.) suggests reading snayim 'ana~nu on the ground that snenu 'analJnu is unhebraic. 30 Caspari's attempt to read 'im for 'ani is presumably due to his being unable to explain the use of the pron. here (KAT, ad loc.).

PERSONAL PRONOUN WITH VERBUM FINITUM

55

word-order makes antithesis more conspicuous: Jud 8.23 la' 'emsol'lmi blixem ... yhwh yimsol biixem and 2Sm 24.17 hinrJe 'tinaxi bUtti'ti w'linOxi he'eweti w'elle ha~§iJ'n me 'tiSu. 31 See also Gn 14.24 'As for Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, they shall take their portions' (in contrast to Ab ram, who would take nothing), Ex 20.19 'You speak to us (dabber 'attli) , and we will hear; but let not God speak to us,' Jud 11.27 'Pour moi, je ne ptkhe pas contre toi, c'est toi qui me fais tort' (Lagrange), 2Kg 10.4, Jer 5.5 (cf. vs. 4) Ru 4.6 'Take my right of redemption, you (g'al !xli 'attli), forI cannot redeem it,' Ne 5.15 (in contrast to the predecessors), 1Ch 22.10 'He (Solomon) shall build (hu' yivne) a house for my name. He shall be my son!' (contr. to David, referring back to vs. 7), 2Ch 20.15 'attem 'al tir'u w'al tehattu 'for the battle is not yours, but God's.' Impiicit contrast Gn 14.23 'I have made Abram rich,'32 Dt. 5.24 qrav 'attli . .. w'att tdabber (instead of the direct communication between God and His people), Jud 143 hi' ytisrli v'entiy (I don't care for any other girl),33 1Srn 17.56 S'al 'attti (despite Abner's professed ignorance, Saul insists on getting information from him)34 1Kg 1.17 sliJmo vnex yimlox 'a~iirliy whu' yesev 'al kis'i (none else; note the word-order), 2Sm 12.28 31 For the curious construction in G: egO eimi adikesa kai ego eimi ekakopoiesa .. ., cf. I Soisalon-Soininen, Die Textform der Septuagintaiibersetzung des Richterbuches (Helsinki, 1951), p. 41, H. St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (London, 1923), p. 23. ibid., "The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books," JThSt iv (1903), 584. See also Driver,Notes, p.lix, ''Thackeray (JThSt, viii[1907], 272f.) thinks that the usage is due to an attempt to represent 'I1nOxi (as distinguished from 'ani). but though it does always express 'i1noxi except 2Kg 10.9, 22.20, Ez 36.36, it by no means stands for 'I1noxi uniformly." The feature is now widely recognized as a hallmark of the so-called Kaige recension of the Septuagint. 32 Cf. H. Gunkel (GHK), "Dass sich Abraham selbst mit Namen nennt ist Ausdruck seines Stolzes." GK, § 135a, "on rhythmical grounds." 33 "Get her for me, for she it is that pleaseth me" (Burney). 34 Driver (Tenses, p. 202, n.) and Ehrlich (Randgl., ad loc.) say nothing more than "emphatic," but the question is, how. Further Driver invites our attention to the position of the pronoun. But in the case of the imperative, postposition is the rule as in Jud 8.21, ISm 17.56, and Ru 4.6. And for exceptions, see Gn 9.7, Nu 1.50, and p. 31,n. 71 above. By the way, this is one of the passages that Brock. (§ 34b) quotes as examples of the emphatic pron., and he seems to see a certain essential connection between the use of the pron. for Gegeniiberstellung and its use with the imperative - a point hard for me to grasp. He writes: "Daher [= well es sich urn eine Gegeniiberstellung handelt] steht das pron. oft beim imp."

56

CHAPTER 11

('not you, but I'), Is 20.6 (contr. to the already vanquished great powers), Jer 29.25 'you have sent letters in your name' (against the divine will?), Ez 16.60 zaxarti 'ani 'et briti (contr. to the people's oblivion), 34.15 'ani 'er'e p'ni wa'ani 'arbi~em (the lord can no longer entrust His sheep to the $elfish, greedy shepherds), 44.29 (contr. to the lay people of Israel who had gone astray), Ho 4.14 ('if husbands go after temple prostitutes, how can their wives be punished for immorality?'),35 Ps 39.11,36 Job 5.3 (not hearsay). 37 The pronoun in 1Srn 10.18 '/ brought up Israel out of Egypt ... ' is to be seen in the light of the movement to set up a king upon Israel. Cf. Jud 6.8. Juxtaposition Gn 3.15 hu' yfufxa ro'sw'atta tsufennu 'tiqev, 15.15 'you will go to your fathers in peace ... (the preceding verse being a promise pertaining to Abram's posterity), 33.3 whu' 'avar lifnehem (Jacob versus his household mentioned in the preceding verses),38 Ex 18.19 hifye 'attti la'am mul hti'elohim wheve'tti 'attti 'et haddvtirim (Moses versus his assistants; see vss. 21ff. and note hem in vss. 22, 26), 2Sm 17.15 'thus and so did Ahitophel counsel ... and thus and so have I counselled, 'Ez 3.19 w'atta ki hizhartti rtisa' wlo' Stiv meris"'o umiddarko hiirsa'a hu' ba'awono yamut w'atta 'et nafsxti hi~~ltti (see below), Ps 109.28 yqalalu hemmli w'attii tvlirex, Ezr 10.8 whu' yibblidel (the property versus the person himself?),39 2,Ch 7.14 'ani 'esma' ('If my people repent, then I on my part ... '), 10.11 (If lKg 12.11; 'ani versus avi). In Nu 1.50 we read w'atta hafqed 'et halwiyyim 'al miskan hQ'edut w'al kol keliiw w'al kol 'aser 10 hemmii yis"u 'et hamisktin w 'et kol kelllw whem yilrtuhu wsQviv lammisKan ya/:lifnu. Ehrlich (Randgl. ad loc.)

35 For the identification of "they", I am inclined to accept the view represented by E. Sellin (KAT) and K. Marti (KEH). 36 Cf. F. Delitzsch, Die Psaimen, ad loc., " ... mit 'ani setzt er der Allmachtigen Strafhand Gottes sich, den Ohnmachtigen, entgegen, welchem wenn es so fortgeht der Untergang gewiss ist." 37 Cf. A. Dillmann, Hiob (Leipzig, 1891), ad loco 38 The appropriateness of the term "emphatic" applied to this kind of use of the pronoun is rather questionable. So it is used by Driver, Tenses, § 160 Obs., adopted by G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis (Oxford, 1896), ad loco 39 To say hu' is emphatic (Kropat, p. 1) is not enough. Noteworthy is the use of autos in the prologue of Iliad i 4-5 autous de heloria teukhe kunessin oiOnoisi te pasi '!te gave them (Le. the warriors' bodies as distinct from ifthimous psukhas in line 3) to dogs and birds of all kinds.'

PERSONAL PRONOUN WITH VERBUM FINITUM

57

renders the fIrst word "dagegen du" and continues: "Nicht jedoch dass das Subjekt hier einem andern entgegengesetzt ist, denn das Subjekt bleibt ja dasselbe wie vorher. Der Gegensatz besteht hier nur darin, dass dasselbe Subjekt an demselben Objekt eine Handlung vollziehen solI, an dem ihm zuvor verboten wurde, eine andere Handlung vorzunehmen. Der Uebergang von Nichttun zu Tun bei demselben Subjekt und Objekt ist es, was die starke Hervorhebung des Subjekts durch das entsprechende Fiirwort, wo nicht unbedingt notig macht, so doch empfIehlt." This view is accepted by Joiion (§ 146a,3) and G.B. Gray (ICC), who rejects Dillmann's explanation which sees an opposition between the command given to Moses alone and the one given to Aaron and the princes as well as Moses (vs. 3).40 Ehrlich's interpretation sounds too complicated, and just why the pronoun can serve the purpose of marking the passage from ''Nichttun'' to "Tun" is hard to see. A simpler solution seems to me to see here juxtaposition: 'what you, Moses, must do is to appoint the l..evites ... and then they will ... ' Two more passages are treated in the same manner by Ehrlich and Joiion: Ez 3.19 (see above) and Nu 5.20 w'att ki SO!it ta/:lat 'isex wxi ni!me't wayyitten 'is' bax 'et sxovt6. For the latter I should think that the pronoun is inserted to draw the attention of the addressed because of the new content opposed to what precedes. The pronoun, then, may be said to approach the vocative. Indeed, it is true that in many cases discussed above we can recognize, to a greater or lesser degree, the vocative force of the independent personal pronoun. Basically, the independent pers. pron. in Hebrew and other cognate languages carries with it no particular case function; its commonest use in the "nominative" function is all but incidental. The series of the independent pers. pron., therefore, corresponds to the French series moi, toi, lui, etc., expressing the bare concept of "I", "you", etc. This recognition of the nature of the pers. pron. enables us to obtain a proper understanding of the functioning of the same pronominal forms used in conjunction with the pronominal sufftxes, which we shall take up later. Ewald discusses in detail a particular force of the pers. pron. used with verb. fm.; that force can be reproduced as '-self/selves', 'selbst.' See Ewald, § 314a-b. At this point a warning must be sounded against the failure to distinguish the genuine emphatic use of 'selbst' from its use for the purpose of more precise identifIcation of a certain object, which is 40 A. Dillmann, Die Biicher Numeri, Deuteronium und Josua (KEH), ad loco

58

CHAPTER 1I

generally known as "reflexive" and finds its ordinary expression in the word nefd. The distinction is important, although practically, Le. in translating into modern European languages, the reflexive pron. can do well for the former use, too. A few examples suffice to illustrate the point: Ex 5.7 hem yeixu (from now on the Hebrews were to take upon themselves the task that other labourers had done so far - implicit antithesis), Ps 27.2 hemmli xlis'1u wnii{li/u (contrary to the expectation, the enemies, and not their prospective prey, are to stumble), Pr 28.10 bislJuto hu' yippo/ (in the pit prepared by himself). In concluding the chapter we may summarize the results of our examination as follows: 1) The generally held view that in the late books of Ec and et the pers. pron. is employed purely pleonastically has been proved wrong in vverlooking the peculiar category of the meaning indicated by the verbs united with the pronoun. The use of the pronoun in Ec particularly is to be taken as indicative 0 f the meditating ego. 2) Various psychological factors play a defmite role in the use of the pers. pron. with fmite verb forms. These factors may be emotional elevation, intensified self-consciousness, self-assertion, special interest or attention and the like. 3) Therefore the pers. pron. with emphasizing force may appear in those passages where one of the above-named factors is involved, namely, rebuke, indignation, penitence, narration of unusual experiences like strange dreams, supplication, boasting, response, conclusion of contract, promise, etc. 4) The use explained in 2) and 3) above is in a large measure limited to the fll'st 41 and second persons, and also to direct speech. In view of what has been said above, a psychological explanation easily suggests itself: psychological intensification naturally becomes most manifest in those persons who are directly involved in lively speech acts. 5) The second important function of the pers. pron. joined with a verb. fm. form is to indicate contrast. From the formal standpoint, the contrast thus expressed may be either explicit or implicit, in which latter case the contrasting member is to be supplied from the context. From the standpoint of meaning, on the other hand, it expresses either anti-

41 Cf. A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic, pp. 159-64.

PERSONAL PRONOUN WITH VERBUM FINITUM

59

thesis or juxtaposition, i.e. parallel arrangement of related matters. The contrast may be reproduced in the English translation by using a reflexive pronoun. 6) As far as the emphasizing function is concerned, the position of the pronoun is irrelevant: it can either precede or follow the verb. Numerically, however, the preceding pronoun is far more frequent.

CHAPTER III Personal Pronoun (cont.)

This chapter will deal with various uses of the independent personal pronoun other than the one taken up in the previous chapter. Its use as the so-called "copula" will be left for later discussion. From the formal point of view, the majority of the examples discussed here can be viewed as cases of apposition. 1) An independent personal pronoun may refer back to a pronominal suffIx attached to a noun,! when, as it seems, there was felt a need to bring out the personal element with greater force . Thus Nu 14.32 pigrexem 'attem yipplu bammidbiir hazze 'your damned dead bodies shall fall in this desert' - God's displeasure and disgust at the murmuring Israelites, 2Sm 19.1 bni 'avsa1om bni vni 'avnilOm mi yitten muti 'ani ta/:ltexii 'avsiilOm bni vni: (unmistakably emotional scene), Ps 9.7 'iivad zixriim hemmii (animosity towards the detestable enemies). In Ne 5.2 biinenu uvnotenu 'ana!mu rabbim we can probably be justified in assuming the omission of Beth before biinenu, 'We have many sons and daughters' = so many mouths to feed (so G: en huiois hemon). Indeed, there is no place for emphasis. 2 2) One example alone is attested where a verbal suffIX is strengthened by a following pers. pron.: 3 Zec 7.5 hii~om ~mtuni ani 'Is it for me that you fasted?' (cf. the following verse ''When you eat and when you drink, do you not eat for yourselves and drink for yourselves?,,).4 Examples 1 See Jotion, § 146d, 6, Konig, § 19, GK, § 135f. 2 Another plausible and old proposal by Houbigant is mentioned by W. Rudolph (HAT): 'rbym (='orvim) for MT rabbim. 3 See Jotion, § 146d, 7, Konig, § 19, GK, § 135e. 4 Cr. Segond's excellent translation: 'Quand vous avez jeiine ... est-ce pour moi que vous avez jeiine? Et quand vous mangez et buvez, n'est-ce pas vous qui mangez et vous qui buvez?'

61

62

CHAPTER 1II

with the particles gam and 'a/will receive a separate treatment below. 3) A pers. pron. may also refer back to the sufftx attached to a preposition. s So Dt 5.3 "Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us ('ittiinu 'anal;znu), 1Srn 25.24 bi 'ani 'adoni he'iiwon (Abigail taking upon herself the responsibility for her husband's folly), lKg 1.26li 'ani 'avdexa ... lO'qara"Butme,justme,meofallpeople ... he has not invited' - Nathan complaining of his wounded pride,6 Hag 1.4 ha'et laxem 'attem lasevet bvattexem s/unim 'Is this a time for you to be dwelling comfortably in your panelled houses, while your Lord's house is deserted?' - a strict personal rebuke, Dn 8.1 lJiizon nir'a 'elay 'ani daniy'el, 15 bir'oti 'ani daniy'el 'et helJtlzon, which remind us of the Aramaic parallel 7.15 'e!kriya!ruf/i 'ana ganiy 'el. 7 In Nu 3.13liyihyu 'ani yhwh I am inclined to view the latter half as independent nominal clause and render 'they shall be mine (for) I am the Lord.' So the versions G, L, and S. Against Konig (§ 19) I would like to construe hem in Ho 13.2 lahem hem 'omrim as the subject, hence lahem = ''to the images." 4) hinni 'ani8 The combination is found only in the 1st pers. sing. and all the examples are in Ez: 6.3 hinni 'iini mevi' 'ii.lexem IJerev (announcing a pWlishment), 34.11 hinni 'ani wdarasii 'et p'ni (note the tension between the real shepherd, who is the Lord, and the unreliable greedy shepherds), 34.20 hinni 'ani wsa/a{ti - in the last two places with Waw apodosis. So far as emphasis is concerned, the idiom is hardly different from 'iini hinani in the reverse order, which is found more frequently, as in Gn 6.17 'tini hinani m/M' 'et hammabbul (discussed with other examples on p. 140). 5) It is generally agreed that the use of the pronoun in a fairly common construction like Jud 11.38 wattelex hi' wre'oteha is to enable

5 See Jotion, § 146d, 7, Konig, § 19, GK, § 135g. I have included here those instances in which the prepositional phrase represents a verb complement and not an adverbial qualifier. 6 I cannot agree with Joiion, who writes "Clltte construction n'est pas emphatique, quand elle est de necessite grammaticale, savoir quand un nom suit" (§ 146d). For cases of a noun appearing as the apposition of a pronominal suffix, see Is 33.1 kahatimxil soded tusad, Ps 69.4 kJ7lu 'enay myahelle7ohily, and cf. . also JSS, xi (1966), ISH. 7 Further Aramaic evidence will be found in Montgomery, Daniel (ICC), ad loc., anetcf. also BL Gram. Aram., § 19d, nb. 8 See JOiion, § 146d, 5, Konig, § 343a, GK, § 135e.

a

PERSONAL PRONOUN

63

the addition of further subjects, so that the pronoun is not emphatic.9 In this connection we may note the following points. a) Theoretically four different constructions are possible: (1) wayyif'al w'aviw, (2)wayyf 'al hu' w'aviw, (3) wayyif'al diiwid w'aviw (4) wayyif'aldiiwid hu'w'iiviw. An example for Type (1) is Gn 7.7 wayyiiva' niJal;z uvaniiw w'ista unse viiniiw 'itto 'el hattevii. 10 Also ib. 8.18,19.30, Ex 18.5,6. b) The first subject represented by the pronoun is the chief character in the passage concerned. c) The important difference between this Hebrew idiom and the similar Arabic construction, i.e. sing. verb + pi. subj. (consisting of two or more subjects) + pi. verb is that the former shows strict concord with the first subject represented by the pronoun. The same difference is observable between this Hebrew construction and a related one as in Gn 31.14 watta'an riibel wle'ii watto'marnii. ll Thus Ru 1.6 wattiiqom hi' wxallotehii wattiisov miSide mo'iiv. 12 This last point confrrms what has been stated in b) above. In Gn 17 .9ff. we have a slightly different picture, for the singular second person in 17.9 'attii 'et briti tUlnar 'attii wzar'axii passes to the plural in vs. 10 tismm, 13 beni uvenexem and vs. 11 nmaltem etc. One might see here the hand of a later editor .14 Or it may be that in the mind of the writer of Genesis the observance of the later generations was more important than that of Abraham. 6) A great number of examples are found in which the pronoun is used in conjunction withgam (occasionally 'af). In these cases, emphasis, if any, is due to the additive particle rather than to the pronoun. In the 9 The question is treated as part of a larger grammatical issue in M. Moreshet, "The Predicate Preceding a Compound Subject in the Biblical Language" [in Heb.] Leshonenu, xxxi (1967), 251-60. 10 On two grounds I am not inclined to regard this as a circumstantial clause: (a) parallelism with Gn 6.18 uVll'tll 'et hattevll 'attii uvllnexll w'istXl1 unie Vl1neXll 'ittllX, and (b) an extraordinary discontinuous clause structure which would otherwise result, wayyl/VO noalz . . . 'et hattevll. This ought to remove the uncertainty felt by Hoftijzer as to the analysis of these and some other cases ("Review," p. 505). 11 For further examples of the latter fashion of concord, see Jouon, § 150q. 12 I have checked the matter according to the lists of examples given by Kiinig, § 340b, Jouon , § 146c, and found no exception. The other examples agreeing with the statement made here are Gn 13.1, 14.15,31.21,35.6,50.22, and Jud 11.38. 13 G: diatereseis, but G's correction (?) does not extend further. 14 Similarly in Jos 4.21-23 we note the confusion of the original situation and its application to, and implication for,later generations; I am referring to 'iivotl1m (21), 'etOhexem (23), mippt1nenu (ib.), and 'ovrenu (ib.).

64

CHAPTER III

majority of the places examined here, the particle means little more than "also." For instance, Gn 4.4 ... hevel hevi' gam hu' mibbxorot ~o 'no 'Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock ... 15 426 lset gam hu' 'To Seth also a son was born' (as to his forefathers),16 27.34 bllriixeni gam 'ani (gam is indispensable, once one begins by using a verbal suffix, particularly in a context charged with especially intense emotions)/7 ISm 1923 watthi 'aliiw gam hu' rua/:l 'eiohim 'upon him also' (as upon Saul's thrice sent messengers)/8 IKg 21.19 'Your own blood too' - perhaps slightly emphatic in a stem reproach,19 Jer 27.7 'ar~o gam hu '(Cyrus is the central figure in the passage),20 Pr 23.15 libbi gam ani, Ps 38.11 'or 'enay gam hem (hem accords with 'enay as plural, while from the standpoint of meaning it must refer to 'or, as is evident from L and G). Cf. also Nu 4.22 bne gerson gam hem, 2Sm 175 ma bfiw gam hu', Jer 25.14 'livdu barn gam hemmli,21 Pr 22.19 hOda'tixii hayyom 'af 'attii (perhaps "so that you may trust in the Lord, as I do "). 22 15 RSV omits "also." L: Abel quoque obtulit. "Also" must be taken as referring to the fact that Abel, like his brother, brought his offerings to God, irrespective of what he brought, while F: 'de son cote' contrasts Abel's offerings to Cain's. Does the particle here have the same force as in Arb. 'ammo . .. fa? And if the text read hevel gam hu' hevi' mibbxorot, would it mean that Cain too offered animal sacrifices? Not necessarily, perhaps. Kogut correctly analyses the clause as a compound sentence: Leshonenu xlvi (1981-82), p. 9. The clause then can be paraphrased: "as for Abel, he too brought offerings, which were from the firstlings of his flock." 16 In what sense can gam hu' be emphatic, as interpreted by Spurrell, Notes on the Hebrew Text . .. , ad loc.? The retention of the preposition speaks against Kogut (ib.), who regards this also as a compound sentence. At least one needs to re-define 'compound sentence.' Clearly a distinction is called for between 'compound sentence,' 'extraposition,' and 'casus pendens,' which three terms are often used as synonyms. 17 Note de in G: eulogeson de kame. The particle is used "oft in affektvoller Rede," R. Kiihner-B. Gerth,Ausfiihrliche Gram. der griech. Sprache, ii 2, p.126. Cf. also Ec 2.15 gam 'ani yiqreni. 18 Nothing in the context seems to lend support to Brock.'s view (Synt., § 67b) that hu' here "wird als die dominierende Vorstellung aus dem Satz hervorgehoben." Cf. G: kai ep autOi, L: etiam super eum, S: 'af 1awhy. 19 Joiion, § 146d, "ton sang a toi aussi," F: aussi ton propre sang, S: 'af dmax dilox. 20 CL L: terrae eius et ipsiae and S: 'ar'eh 'af dileh. 21 The text is perhaps corrupt. CL Ehrlich, Randgl., ad loco 22 F: le veux t'instruire auiourd'hui, oui toi. GK (§ 135e) assume the probable corruption of the text, while Sand L lack what would correspond to 'af 'atto.

PERSONAL PRONOUN

65

The particle and a pronoun may precede the noun to which the pronoun refers later, and then it may be in casus pendens as in Gn 40.16 'af 'ani ba/:liilomi and ISm 12.23 gam 'linoxi IJtililii li, but not so in Ex 7.11 gam hem /:la'!umme mi~rayim. It appears to me that in all these places no special emphasis is expressed by the construction. 7) hu' before a definite noun Joiion (§ 146e) lists those passages in which the separate pronoun precedes a noun in apposition. All the examples mentioned by him are from Ch except Ex 7.11. Kropat (p. 49) adds Ezr 7.6 and Ne 10.38. It is noteworthy that the noun which follows is always a proper noun except the above-mentioned Ex 7.11, which has been treated just above, and which we shall exclude from our consideration here. This syntactic feature is observable in Arabic, too. Now all our examples come from late books: 1Ch 9.26, 26.26,27.6, 2Ch 28.22, 32.12, 30, 33.23, and the two places added by Kropat. He is of the opinion that the idiom is but a pedantry of the scribe, no emphasis being intended. Jotion does not give his judgment as to whether the construction can be emphatic or not. I am inclined to view the construction as nonemphatic, only I believe that the explanation ofthe construction should be different from the one suggested by Kropat. See below. On the other hand, I agree with Joiion and Kropat in regarding the construction as appositional, and therefore the rendering 'this same ... ' may reproduce its force fairly well. Thus in 1Ch 26.26 the pronoun refers back to Shelomoth who has just been mentioned and introduces an explanatory parenthesis (so also 1Ch 27 .6, where the difference is manifest in the way of describing the divisions) and in Ezr 7.6 the same pronoun resumes the subject lost sight of after a lengthy genealogy . How can we then account for the irregular prepositive position of the pronoun?23 It is not unimportant to observe at this point that in some of our examples (see 2Ch 28.22,32.12, and Ne 10.38) we fmd adisjunctive accent with the pronoun, which may be interpreted as indicating that the Masoretes felt in the construction looser cohesion than in the case of the normal type ha 'is hahu', or ha 'is hazze, for that matter. So we can say that the anaphoric force of the pronoun is at the basis of our construction, and I think that we can be justified in asserting that Aramaic influence must have reinforced the process, which latter consideration alone can, as it seems to me, afford a reasonable explanation for the con23 For the normal position of the pronoun in Bib. Heb., cf., Joiion, § 143h-i, Brock., eve H, § 40c.

66

CHAPTER III

struction being employed chiefly in late books, althoughjust at this point, i.e. the position of the attributive demonstrative pronoun, Aramaic dialects by no means present a uniform picture. 24 From the above examples are to be distinguished Ex 12.42 hu' hallayliJ hazze - probably emphatic 'that very night' 2S and Ez 3.18, 33.8 hu' riisa' ba'iiwono yiimut - also slightly emphatic. 8) hu' following a definitive noun Driver (BDB, s.v. hu', p. 215b) mentions three 26 places in which the pronoun hu' immediately follows the subject with emphasizing force. It seems to me a rather forced interpretation to see in the preceding subject a casus pendens or extraposition. 1) Nu 18.23 'the Levites ('iivad hallewi hu) shall do the service' (in contrast to the lay people of Israel),27 2) Is 7.14 [iixen yitten 'iidonily hu' liixem 'at - the precise force of the pronoun is best produced by paraphrastic rendering 'auf eigenen Antrieb und aus eigener Wahl' (F. Delitzsch, /saias, 1889) and 3) Est 9.1 yis'1tu hayyhudim hemmil bion 'ehem (F: '[oil les ennemis des luifs avaient espere dominer sur eux, ce fut le contraire qui arriva], et les luifs dominerent sur leurs ennemis').

24 See Brock., GVG ii § 40d. In Bib. and Egypt. Aramaic, the pronoun mostly follows the substantive (BL, Gram. Aram., § 73a-b) , while in Syriac and Mandaic it follows as often as it precedes (N6Ideke, Syr. Gram., § 226 and idem, Mand. Gram., § 236 [po 338]). Mish. Heb. also makes use of both constructions (Segal, Gram., § 411). 25 G: ekeine he nux haute, S: hu lelyo' hono'. 26 Bendavid (Biblical Heb. and Mishnaic Heb., vol. 2, p. 740) adds a few more examples: Nu 35.19; 2Sm 14.19; Is 34.16, 63.5; Ps 23.4; Pr 19.21. Some uncertainty remains as regards Lv 17.11 !:laddl1m hu' bannefeS yxapper. See comments by Ehrlich (Randg1.), Orlinsky (Notes on the New Transl. of the Torah), and G.J. Wenham (NICOT, 1979). Cr. also S. Kogut, art. cit. (n. 15), I1f. 27 It is not self-evident, as Ehrlich thinks (Randgl.), ad loc.), that hem in whem yis'u 'awonom refers to bne yiiro 'el.

CHAPTERN Pronominal Copula

This present chapter will discuss the use of the personal pronouns as "copula" in the nominal clause with a view to determining whether they can be used for the sake of emphasis or not, and if they can, in what ways. As far as my knowledge goes, the question of a copula in Hebrew was ftrst brought into discussion by T. Roorda, Grammatica Hebraea, 1831, in which he insisted that the pronoun inserted between 'ani or 'attti and the predicate as in Ps 44.5 'attti hu' malki strengthens the preceding pronominal subject like the Gk. autos would (§ 563; so also F. Delitzsch on Is 37.16), while in the opinion of Ewald (§ 297b), the pronoun is anticipatory, thus "Thou art he - my king."i Driver consents to the latter and applies the same interpretation to a different pattern P-C-S as well, as in Ct 6.9 'alyat hi' yontiti (Tenses, § 200).2 It appears to me that this anticipation theory is based on a rather naive theory of psychology according to which, to illustrate by the example just given, at the moment when the poet said or wrote hi', the real subject yontiti was not yet present in his consciousness. But the very use of the feminine form of the pronoun contradicts such an interpretation. Further, Driver has argued for the emphasizing force of the copula in the patterns S nom-C-P and S-P-C (ib., §199), whether or not one accepts his view that here we are dealing with a case of extraposition or casus pendens. However, he does not explain

1 Brock:elmann's criticism against Driver (Synt., § 30a) misrepresents the latter's position; Driver even gives a few definite reasons for preferring Ewald's interpretation. 2 Again Brockelmann (loc. cit.) has misunderstood Driver. B. writes bei voranstehendem Priidikat will er das pron. als Apposition zu diesem angesehen wissen, wofiir es sonst keine Beispiele gibt." His wording in the corresponding place in GVG ii, § 53c, Anm. is slightly different and vague. H •••

67

68

CHAPTER IV

why cases with a pronoun preceding the "copula" and those with a noun preceding should be treated differently. M.M. Bravmann's highly theoretical treatise Studies in Arabic and General Syntax (1953) has not, in my view, made much substantial contribution to the clarification of our question. Whilst the question-answer approach is definitely a fruitful one, his theory that the isolated natural subject and its natural predicate internally correspond to a question-answer scheme has only one material basis in his very personal observation of a particular intonation which reached his ears. 3 Brockelmann (Synt., § 30a and GVG ii, § 53c) is fully convinced that the "copula" in Bib. Heb. has completely lost its original force, having been weakened to nothing more than a mere copula in the true Indo-European sense of the word. The existence of the pattern P-C-S does not prove the whole point, as he thinks, because its attestation is restricted to books or parts of books oflate composition.4 A convincing case for the existence of pure copula in Biblical Hebrew could be made if one could adduce a meaningful number of examples such as hal:zayim hem yam so'er in Modern Hebrew. 5 For possible beginnings, see a few examples from Ec mentioned on pp. 74f. Finally, no substantial progress is presented by the most recent study on the subject, B. Hartmann, 'Es gibt keine Kraft und keine Macht ausser bei Gott-Zur Kopula im Hebraischen," OudtestStud, xiv (1965), 115-21.6 Our following investigation will confirm the view expressed by, for example, S.R. Driver (Tenses, § § 198f.), GK (§ 141g-h), and lotion (§ 154i-j),' who all recognize the emphatic 3 For a penetrating critique, see J. Blau in Leshonenu, xxii (1957/58), 67-70. 4 Rubinstein (Nominal Sentence, p. 116 and n. 115) is absolutely right in insisting on treating Biblical and Modem Hebrew as two separate entities in this regard and criticizing Oman, who in his Syntax of Modern Hebrew fails to do so. 5 Rubinstein, op. cit., p. 60 where more examples may be found. 6 Prof. Sekine's latest discussion from the general-logical ~andpoint fails to take into account the patterns S-P-C and P-C-S, and is in need of further substantiation; M. Sekine, "The Hebrew Language and the Hebraic Thinking" [in Japanese] in Methods and Tasks of Biblical Studies (1967), pp. 71-73. On the copula in Modem Hebrew, cf., in addition to the studies by Rubinstein and Oman, Y. Hayon, Relativization in Hebrew (1973), pp. 74-85; M. Azar, ''The Emphatic Sentence in Modem Hebrew," pp. 209-30, and R.B. Berman and A. Grosu, "Aspects of the COPllla in Modem Hebrew," pp. 265-85, both in P. Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics (1976). 7 The name of Rosen may be added: writing on Modem Hebrew, he notes 'hu-' did not function, in all likelihood, as a copula in Biblical Hebrew non-verbal

PRONOMINAL COPULA

69

force of the "copula," which we shall define as one of the third person personal pronouns used in a nominal clause alongside its subject and predicate. Before entering upon an examination of particular cases, we wish to make some general observations. i) It may be argued that the copula in Bib. Heb. is pleonastic, for the ancient Semitic languages including Bib. Heb. required only Sand P for simple predication and needed no further element. In this light one should understand what native Arab grammarians said about "pronouns of separation" (cjamfru l-fa$li); see Brock., eve ii, § 52a and Reckendorf, Arab. Synt., § 141. Hence it may be suggested that the copula, if it retain its proper function, serves to colour the nature of predication. It sounds most natural to consider the genuine copula as relatively late development, as is best represented in Syriac. Unlike Syriac, which uses the copula more often than not,S its non-use is far more frequent in Bib. Heb. than its use: 6/35 even in Ec, which makes the most extravagant use of the genuine copula of all the O.T. books. ii) Apart from yeS' and 'en, which we shall take up at the end of the chapter, it must be perfectly clear that the so-called copula in Semitic languages does not exactly correspond to what is referred to by the same term in the Indo-European grammar whence the term has been borrowed, for there the copula is provided by a verb of existence.9 Brockelmann rightly, as it seems to me, assumes that the original force of the personal sentences ... the nominal immediately preceding hu·' is the logical predicate of the sentence, while the other nominal should be considered the extrapositional logical subject ... the Israeli Hebrew usage of the pattern N + hu + N as 'copula clause' with non-designation of anyone of the nominal constituents as logical predicate coincides with the traditional interpretation (or syntactical understanding) of Biblical verses of that structure, while linguistic analysis deviates" (Contemporary Hebrew, p. 209, n. 193). See an earlier expression by Rosen to the same effect in his "On Verbless Gauses in Biblical Hebrew," pp. 168f. He agrees with Bravmann's view that in the original [emphasis added) structure of a tripartite sentence hu' had the function of marking subject or predicate and the extraposed subject could either precede or epexegetically follow it. 8 N6ldeke, Syr. Gram., § 311. 9 See an excellent treatment by Benveniste of the function of the copula in the Indo-European languages in the earlier stage of their history; E. Benveniste, "La phrase nominale" in his Problemes de linguistique generale (1966), pp. 15167.

70

CHAPTER IV

pronouns in the third person was demonstrative, thus leaving the paradigm of pron. pers. incomplete. lO This assumption would offer a possible explanation as to how the third person pron. can be used in combination with the second pers. pron. as in 2Sm 7.28 'attil hu' hii'eliihim, or with the frrst as in Is 52.6 'ani hu' hamdabber. Another possible explanation could be sought in the principle of analogy based on a case like Dt 3.22 yhwh 'elohexem hu' hannil/:zilm liixem. The latter interpretation may be supported by the fact that the use in connection with the 1st or 2nd person begins to appear comparatively late, from 2Sm 7.28 onwards (other occurrences are 2Kg 19.15, Is 37.16, 43.25, Ps 44.5, Ne 9.6,7, 2Ch 20.6). In other words, these cases represent a stage in which the use of the demonstrative as an emphasizing and identifying element was already fIxed. This assumption is obviously irreconcilable with the argumentation of Driver (Tenses, p. 271), who actually follows Ewald (§297b). They suppose that the demonst. pron. in this use is anticipatory in nature, so that they render Ps 44.5 'attil hu' malki 'Thou art he - my king.' What Humbert writes about the Greek demonstrative ekeinos deserves to be quoted here: "Cet eloignement dans le temps et dans l'espace explique la valeur emphatique du pronom, assez comparable sur ce point a celle du lat. ille: l'eloignement dans le passe peut rendre l'objet winerable; dans l'espace, on regarde, pour aisni dire a distance, l'objet que l'on respecte ou que l'on craint. Aussi ekeinos, dont le sens est le plus souvent favorable, peut cependant se rapporter a ce que I'on redoute ou a ce que I'on hait" (Syntaxe grecque, § 40). At this point we must take note of the interesting fact that in the O.T. Hebrew also the demonstrative hu' etc. as the third element of nominal clause appears very frequently with God as the subject, who is the object of veneration or fear for the sons of Israel. This applies particularly to the pattern S-C-P that gives emphasis to the subject, as is well illustrated by the examples to be produced below. Thus, when we read I Srn 17.14 dilWid hu' hoqqiltiln, the author

10

eve i, § 104f. For an attempt to explain the absence of the 3rd pers. pron. in many languages, cf. E. Benveniste, "Structures des relations de personne dans le verbe" in op. cit., p. 228. The use of hu' etc. as pers. pron. may be a result of the demonstrative force attenuating to that of anaphora. It should be noticed also that the morphological structure of the 3rd pers. pron. in Semitic clearly contrasts with forms of 1-2 pers. which are composed of /'/ and /n/ (and also /t/).

71

PRONOMINAL COPULA

must have been very conscious of the national pride with which his fellow people used to think of their hero .. iii) The repetition of the same pronoun as subject and copula, a phenomenon common enough in Syriac,l1 is unknown to Bibl. Heb., though quite common in Mod. Heb.12 Hence we read IKg 3.27 hi' 'immo, not hi' hi' 'immo (S: hay hy 'emmeh) in the sentence passed in Solomon's court. iv) Unlike Syriac again, Bibl. Heb. affords no example of copula in the Hrst or second person. The only apparent case is Gn 42.11 kulllinu bne 'is' 'el;ziid nal;znu. I am inclined to see in nal;znu an expression of earnest endeavour on the part of the poor strangers to convince Joseph of their honesty. Note also vs. 11 kenim 'iinal;znu, vs. 13 snem 'asar'iivadex1i 'al;zim 'anal;znu bne

'is~

'el:ziId.

Our renewed examination has made it clear that the relative position of the three elements, namely subject, predicate and copula, is a signifIcant factor when we come to understand the exact force and functioning of the copula. For clarity's sake, we leave two-member clauses out of consideration. Against Dillmann, who writes that the position and concord of the copula in Ethiopic is arbitrary (Aeth. Gram., p. 440), Praetorius has justly made a very Hne distinction when he wrote, "Enthalt das Pradikat eine Beschreibung oder nahere Bestimmung des Subjekts, so pflegt sich das als Kopula dienende pers. Pron. in Person, Geschlecht und Zahl nach dem Subjekt zu richten und hinter das Pradikat zu treten .... Bezweckt aber die Hinzufiigung des Pradikats eine Gleichsetzung zweier bekannter Dinge, so pflegt das als Kopula dienende pers. Pron. sich nach dem Pradikat zu richten und diesem voranzugehen" (Aeth. Gram., pp. 159f.). We shall see soon that his distinction holds good more or less for Hebrew too, except as it concerns the concordP 11 Noldeke, op. cit., § 312C. On the other hand, the use of the 3rd pers. pron. as copula with 'the 1st and 2nd pers . pron. subject is attested in Syriac; cf. ib., § 312D. 12 See, e.g., Rubinstein,Nominal Sentence, pp. 186f; 13 It is well nigh certain that we have a case of the collective feminine singular in Lv 25.33 batte 'are halwiyim hi' 'a/)uzzatam btox bne yiira'el (S: masc. pI. hennon 'ennon). The mas. sing. is used with the mas. pI. subject in Jos 13.14 1Sse yhwh 'elohe yifra'el hu' na/JtiliUO (the fust word om. in G). Nevertheless it is possible that we have a case in point in Ec 3.13 gam kol ha't1dam seyyo'xal wsata wrl1't1 {OV bxol 'amalo mattat 'elohim hi' (S: mawhavta' hy dmaryl1'), which compares with a sentence to similar effect ill ib. 5.18 gam

72

CHAPTER IV

1) S-C-P The force of the copula in this pattern is often selectiveexclusive, and emphatic in that sense. The element to be emphasized is the subject, which is singled out and contrasted with other possible or actual alternative(s). So Gn 9.18 ("The sons of Noah ... were Shem, Ham, and Japheth") wlJiim hu' 'avi knii'an,14 42.6 yosef hu' hassalli! dramatic (Joseph, whom his brothers thought they had done away with, was now the person whose favour they were to seek; S: yawsef huyu), Dt 4.35 yhwh hu' hii'elOhim (note the immediately following" there is no other besides him"), also 4.39, Ps 100.3, and cf. 2Kg 19.15 / / Is 37.16 where the selective-exclusive sense is likewise reinforced by a similar addition, Dt 10.9 yhwh hu' nalJdliito, i.e. not material inheritance, lKg 18.39 yhwh hu' hii' elOhim in sharp contrast to the defeated Baal (in the challenging question put by Elijah, however, we read vs. 21 'im yhwh hii'elohim), Ps 44.5 'atta hu' malki 'elohim. At times the force of the copula may be somewhat weakened; so Gn 2.14 hannahiir hiirvi'i hu' priit "the fourth river is none other than Euphrates" .15 Cf. Rashi, ''the most important of all, being mentioned in connection with the Land ofIsrael.,,16 So also the patriarch's pathetic plea in ib. 15.2 ben mes"'eq beti hu' dammes'eq 'eli'ezer of all people. Now we see that in this pattern of selective-exclusive identification the copula is only inappropriately so called, its original demonstrative force still being felt .17 Like many authors on the subject, I am ready to koi ha'trdam 'ilier natan io htJ'eiohim 'oler unxasim . .. ze mattat 'eiohim hi'. If so, this is not a case of breach of the rule of concord, as Konig thinks (§ 345d and the index of passages). 14 Cf. Ehrlich's pertinent comment: "Die Bemerkung wham hu' 'iivi kna'an erkliirt sich daraus, dass der Fluch Kanaans die Hauptsache ·in dieser Erziihlung bildet" (Randgl., ad loc.). Note also the significant disjunctive accent with the subject. See also Rashi ad loco 15 Modern Hebrew seems to be capable of prosodically differientiating between the purely copulaic version of the sentence and its identificatory version, which could be elicited by a question such as "Which of the four rivers mentioned is Euphrates?" 16 Bendavid, Bibl. Heb. and Mish. Heb., vo!. 2, p. 729: "it is of course the great river, River Euphrates, about which, unlike the three other rivers remote from the Land of Israel, it is not necessary to state where it flows." Rashi must have noticed the change in formula, for the first three rivers are introduced by the formula "the name of the x'th river is so and so" without the pronoun, e.g. sem hll 'el;llld pi/on. 17 It may be permissible to add that in almost all of these cases the particle ga

PRONOMINAL COPULA

73

admit the possibility that here we have a casus pendens construction, or more precisely, extraposition, for in these cases the preceding subject noun is not "hanging" in the air. ls This "Hervorhebung" of the subject is also corroborated by the characteristic accentual pattern which is, in the majority of the examples examined, S:'C-P or S~C'P(exceptions: 2Kg 19.15 II Is 37.16, Ps 44.5).19 It means that S is emphasized by being isolated, and at the same time C, which resumes S, receives prominence after a pause andlor by being isolated in its turn. The above examples suffice to show clearly that the need to draw a formally distinct line between Sand P cannot be the whole explanation for the use of the demonstrative. To me that seems to be rather an effect of, but not the reason for its use. Thus one may argue, for instance, that if the text had read dtiwid haqqtittin in place of dtiwid hu' haqqtittin in 1Srn 17.14, this might be easily misunderstood as an appositional subject phrase of halxu. 20 In any actual speech situation, however, the context and suprasegmental features would combine to serve as a sufficient guide to tell S from P. Hence, when one of the two disputing prostitutes cried lKg 3.22, bni hal,zay uvnex hammet, the message must have been crystal clear to her rival. Nor is the demonstrative necessarily preceded by a long subject, although a long subject is usually marked offby the demonstrative as in Gn 2.19. It must be stressed here that the use of the demonstrative in this structural meaning is not obligatory, but optional, so in Ex 9.27 yhwh ha~~ddiq wa'ani w'ammi htirS/i'im 'it is the Lord who is right, and I and my people that are the wrong' the insertion of the demonst. might make better sense, but the juxtaposition of the two parallel clauses makes it almost unnecessary.21 Likewise the abovequoted lKg 3.22 (S: bery hw /:zayyti' wavrexy hw miJ.ti). It is not

18 19 20 21

(as against wa for the S-P-C and P-C-S patterns) can and should be employed in Japanese translation. For example, Driver, Tenses, §§ 198f., GK, §141g-h. The sign v marks a disjunctive accent. Another relevant question concerning the force of the article prefixed to the substantivized adjective serving as the subject of a nominal clause has been dealt with above, pp. 9f. Cf. GK, § 126k, Jotion, § 1371, and Brock., Synt., § 25a. For Lemoine's book Theorie de l'emphase hebrai'que (1951), cf. the review by H. Cazelles in VT, ii (1952), 94. Thus Bendavid's thesis (Bibl. Heb. and Mish. Heb., vol. 2, p. 738) that the use of the emphatic demonstrative increases in late Hebrew can be only partially valid, if valid at all.

74

CHAPTER IV

possible to say whether yhwhy hu' ha~~ddiq can be any different in meaning from yhwy ha~~addiq when the latter is uttered with the appropriate emphasizing pause or intonation. All one can say is that the former is more explicitly marked as emphasizing. Hence some justification for Andersen's considering the pronoun pleonastic, particularly in his binary system of classification and identification (Andersen, op. cit., pp. 36,42, 45)?2 I see little point in arguing as to which is the real subject of the two elements connected by the copula. 23 The question concerns what is called psychological or logical subject24 as against grammatical subject. 25 The remaining two patterns do not give rise to any doubt in this regard, since P is not a noun. The book of Ecclesiastes is characterized by free and even arbitrary use of the copula, which is best interpreted as a reflection of late usage influenced by the parallel construction in Aramaic. It is almost certain that the author did not intend to bring out any difference in meaning when he wrote 1.17 gam ze hu' ra'yon ruatz, 2.23 gam ze hevel hu', and 4.8 gam ze hevel w'inyan ra' hu' on the one hand, and 2.15, 19 gam ze hevel and 26 gam ze hevel ur'ut rua/:z on the other. For the preacher even the position of the copula is irrelevant. It seems that only in the following

22 Hoftijzer seems to agree with Andersen in this regard. See the former's treatment of Dt 31.3 yhwy 'elohexll hu' 'over lfl1nex(J (p. 503). See also pp. 489f. 23 So also Driver (Tenses, § 199): "it is immaterial which of the two terms is considered to be the subject ... ," which is in contrast with a rather cavalier criticism levelled by Kutscher against my treatment of Dan 2.38 ("Aramaic," p. 379), a clause which Driver interprets analogously (op. cit., p. 272 top). Similarly Bendavid, Bibl. Heb. and Mish. Heb., vol. 2, p. 803. It is commonly said that the subject is more definite than the predicate, and what is new in an utterance is assigned the status of predicate, though it must be pointed out that an entire utterance can be new. The whole question is notoriously complex, which may be the reason that Hoftijzer decided to dispense with these categories and to operate instead with such morphological categories as noun, participle on the one hand and partly semantic and partly morphological categories of definite and indefinite ("Review," pp. 487f.). See M. Sandmann, Subject and Predicate (1954), and more recently P.H. Matthews, Syntax (1981), pp. 96-113. 24 Some authors add a third category, thematic subject. See J. Lyons, Semantics 2 (1977). pp. 500-511. 25 Cf. H.J. Polotsky, "Nominalsatz und Oeft Sentence im Koptischen," Or., xxxi (1962), pp. 413-30.

PRONOMINAL COPULA

75

two examples we can recognize the proper - in the Classical Hebrew sense - use of the copula: 3.13 gam kol hii'iidam seyyiJ'xal wSlita wra'ii {ov bxol "(uniilo mattat 'elohim hi', and 5.18 likewise (cf. n. 13). Here perhaps slight emphasis on the predicate is intended. Nevertheless, in view of the general freedom in the use of the copula in Ec, the possibility is not entirely excluded that these two are merely apparent cases of the earlier syntax. 2) S-P-C This pattern may be termed descriptive, although at times one can perceive an element of selective-exclusive identification. The predicate is mostly an adjective or prepositional phrase that furnishes a description of the subject. As in the fust pattern S-C-P the subject is emphasized by C being placed after it, so here the predicate (and consequently the nominal clause as a whole) is emphasized by C following it. 26 The two most frequent accent patterns are S::J>-C and S::J>:-C; thus P receives prominence by being isolated after a pause and/or being isolated by another accent in its turn. Here again I have no objection to interpreting the subject as standing in casus pendens or extraposition, so that the demonstrative resumes the extraposed subject; in this connection, the position occupied by the inserted hiilo' is instructive and noteworthy in Gn 34.23 miqnehem wqinyiinam wxol bhemtam heRo' lanu hem. Now follow a selection of examples. Gn 31.16 kol hii'oser . .. liinu hu', where Rachel and Leah urge their common husband to claim uncompromisingly the fruit of his toil and lab our (cf. also ib. 31.43), 34.21 ha'aniislm hii'eUe slemim hem 'ittiinu wyesvu bii'iire~, where Hamor and Schechem assure their townsmen of the harmless nature of the newcomers,27 45.20 .tuv kol 'ere~ mi~rayim liixem hu', Pharaoh's promise to 26 See also Hoftijzer, "Review," pp. 489f. 27 Cf. the emendation of Biblia Hebraica (BHS): hem 'ittl1nu yewu on the basis of G and Samaritan Pent. (then most probably hem would be explicitly translated in G at least). When the G translator recognized the jussive force of yewu, and rendered oiketosan, it was quite natural for him to drop kai, whereas the pronominal copula usually turns up in G as einai and the changed punctuation would result in perfect harmony with L: eirenikoi eisin meth hemon' oiketosan > eirenikoi eisin' meth hemon oiketosan. The strongest and unmistakable evidence for the emended reading is that offered by the Vulgate that reads viri isti pacifici sunt et volunt habitare nobiscum. We may be justified in omitting the first Waw of wysow (dittography) and further construing 'ittl1nu with yesvu, which could conform to the recurring similar phrase in the same context: vs. 10 'ittl1nu tes"evu, 16 YI1Savnu 'ittxem, 22111levet 'ittl1nu.

76

CHAPTER IV

Joseph of the favour to be done to him and his kinsfolk. An interesting example is found in ib. 48.5a; cf. our discussion above p. 17. In Ex 3.5 Moses is solemnly reminded of the sanctity ofthe spot where he happens to be staJ}ding: hammiiqom 'jis'er 'attii 'omed 'iiliiw 'admat qaddhu' (see also Jos 5.15). Ex 32.16 hallu/:lOt ma'ase 'elOhim hemmli, but Israel's folly and apostasy make Moses so furious and indignant that he dared shatter the divine tablets. Nu 13.32 hii'iire~ . .. 'ere~ 'axelet yosvehii hi', a report about the frightful land. Dt 4.24 yhwh 'elohexa 'e{ 'oxla hu' 'el qannli', "an emphatic declaration of the ultimate ground of the preceding warnings" (Driver, ICC). Jos 6.19 kol kesef wzahav uxle nlzoset uvarzel qodeS hu' lyhwh gives an exception and in vs. 24 the same list is preceded by the word raq. Mal 1.7 sullzan yhwh nivze hu', a condemnation of the prevalent religious laxity (cf. also vs. 12).28 3) P-C-S The last pattern is fundamentally the same as the one just discussed above in that P and C go together as a unit, and emphasis is laid upon P, which is propped by C, thus isolating itself from S, and stands at the head of the clause. Note also the accent pattern P-C=S, which alone occurs. Of the three word-order patterns of the nominal clause this is the one in which the copula does the least service for the purpose of emphasizing either of the remaining two elements. In other words, it is here that the element C is most worthy of its name. The precedence of P can be explained in different ways?9 In some cases it appears at the beginning of a sentence by virtue of attraction to what has gone before. So in an interpretative gloss Is 9.14 zliqen unsu 'fiinim hu' hlirD's wniivi' more scqer hu' hazziinav (S: huyu) the predicate immediately follows wayyaxret yhwh miyyisra'el ro's wziiniiv. Ct 6.9 'alJat hi' yoniiti, where devotion to a single girl is emphasized in the context of the royal harem, may be explained as poetic parallelism; see the preceding sissim hemmii mliixOt usmiJnim pilagsim wa'jj[iimiJt 'en mispar.3O In La 1.18 ¥1ddiq hu' yhwh the position of the predicate is partly due to the acrostic structure. 28 Note S: si! hu pl1J.Ureh dml1ryl1'. Ehrlich's suggestion to read 'omrxem sull)an yhwh and construe the pronoun with le/lem sounds rather forced, 29 Cf. the chapter on word-order pp. 14-17, 22. 30 Note should be taken of the fact that numerals as predicate of a nominal clause tend to al2pear at its beginning. Besides the two examples cited here, cf. also Gn 42.13, Pr 6.16, 30.15, 18, 24, 29; all the Pr passages are numerical proverbs, like 6.16 "There are six things which the Lord hates, seven which are an abomination to him."

77

EXCURSUS 1

The idiom ze hu' or its plural 'elle hem, much used in a stereotyped chronolOgical or juristic style, probably belongs here. These demonstratives always refer to what has preceded, just like Gk toioutos (as against houtos). In 1Srn 4.8 'el/e hem hfj'elohim hammakkim 'et mi~rayim (neither chronological nor juristic) emphasis is intended; cf. F: 'Ce sont ces dieux qui ... ' and S: hanaw. Noteworthy is Nu 3.27b 'elle hem mispl}Ot haqqhiiti, where S uses the feminine 'ennen as copula, but T: 'il!eyn 'ennun.

Excursus 1: yes and 'en We have already pointed out that, as far as the meaning of the words goes, it is yes, 'en (and hiiyii) that are the exact Hebrew counterparts of the Indo-European copula; among the Semitic languages, Syriac with 'il, lay t, and (h)wli' shows itself as most closely related to the Indo-European type with regard to syntactic behaviour of these words, for it is well known that the Syriac 'iJ., while preserving its original use with the meaning of "existence," is extensively used as mere copula, too. There is good reason to believe that this unique development in Syriac may have been reinforced by the Greek language and its literature whose deep and continuous influence upon the Syriac culture in general cannot be doubted. As for the syntactic functioning of the element apparently common to the two different language-families, I believe that the foregoing discussion has pointed clearly to the significant difference between them. It will be seen that we are justly warned against the careless use of the misleading term "copula" applied to yes'and the other two, as is done, for example, by Brockelmann (Synt., § 30b), Konig (§ 338 1), and Noldeke Wand. Gram., p. 403, n. 1), and the first two authors mean what they say, namely, in their view yes and the other two function as nothing but mere copulae. Brockelmann however rightly inserts 'wirklich' in his translation, so Gn 43.4 'wenn du wirklich unsern Bruder mit uns schicken willst' (so also in ib. 24.49 and Jud 6.36). Jotion, after having remarked that the particles yes~ and 'en followed by a participle appear in the protasis of conditional sentences, writes that they serve to express readiness or non-readiness to do something (§ 154 1). I would rather think that these words emphatically indicate the fact that a state of things or behaviour of a certain man or men is actually as one wants or expects it to

78

CHAPTER IV

be, or as one thinks it should be.3 ! It seems that this feature of actual realization derives from the fundamental significance of the words in question, i.e. "existence" or "non-existence." The aspect of readiness pointed out by Jotion seemingly stems from the general meaning of the context in which a given statement is made, for his view cannot explain adequately why the very words signifying existence are chosen to express !'la disposition (ou non-disposition) de la volonte afaire une chose." We shall examine first the examples of yes: which in fact are extremely rare, five in all. 32 1) Gn 24.42 'Lord the God of my master Abraham, prithee, if Thou doest prosper my way ('im yes'xii nii ma~liaJ:! darki),' as I naturally expect on the basis of my master's assurance (vs. 40).2) Now the servant of the patriarch turns to Laban and Bethuel with these words (ib. 24.49): 'And now if you do deal loyally and truly ('im yesxem 'Mim /:lesed we'emet) with my master ... , , as I am almost sure that you will after God of my master has hearkened to my prayer of request to lead me to the right bride for his heir. 3) lb. 43.4 'If you do send ('imyesxii mSalleal;) our brother with us,' as you should, seeing that there is left no other step to be taken in order to overcome the present critical situation. 4) God wanted to know (Dt 13.4) 'if you do love (hiiyisxem 'ohiivim) the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul,' as you should because of the unique covenant established between us. 33 5) When Gideon brings a request before the Lord, saying (Jud. 6.36) 'if(S: 'enhu d-) Thou dost save ('im yesxii mosia') Israel in my hand ... , , he bases it on His former promise (vss. 14-16).34 31 A similar interpretation has been proposed by Bauer-Leander for Bib. Aram.; see their Gram. Aram., § 81e, "Zur Hervorhebung Tatsiichlichkeit ... " 32 Dt. 29.14 'et 'aser yeino po 'immlInu 'omed hayyom lifne yhwh 'eiohenu, counted as the sixth example by Konig, § 3281, and KB, s.v. yei 6., is to be discarded in view of the words intervening between yeino and the ptc. 'omed. and the immediately following parallel verse which lacks 'md. 33 This example should certainly be added to the list of Jotion, because the He interrogativum in this context means about the same thing as the conditional 'im. He may have excepted it because the verb 'hb itself carries the meaning of "disposition de la volonte faire une chose." One could argue of course that the dispositional or volitive aspect is not central to the Biblical concept of love towards God, but rather its practical aspect is fundamental, as is implied in the words which follow our text: "You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him" (Dt 13.5). 34 Lagrange views our construction as one of the marks of the E source (Le Livre

a

79

EXCURSUS 1

Jouon's assertion about the volitive force added by yesVapparently holds equally good for its negative counterpart 'en. The following places may be cited as evidences: Gn 43.5 'im 'enxa miallea/:z, which is the negative condition corresponding to no. 3) above and Ex 8.17 'im 'enxamsallea/:t (S: ,'i!n M' ¥ive' 'ant lamsaddaru). The first instance suggests the possibility that our construction with yes may have developed by analogy on the basis of the much more frequent negative form. Is 1.15 gam ki tarbu tfilM 'enenni somea', together with Jer 7.16,11.14,14.12 et passim, may be grouped as cases of flat denial. It is important, however, to observe that the positive yeS'is essentially pleonastic, which we regard as one of the formal indices of emphatic construction, whereas that is not the case with 'en, which is an indispensable element of negative statement. Hence we believe that the construction with 'en is to be kept apart from that with yef Jouon's qualification that confines the use in question to the conditional clause must be judged to be unjustified in the light of the following considerations. 1) There are cases where the phrase 'im 'en. plus ptc. does not indicate readiness, as in 1Srn 19.11 'im 'enxii mmalle! 'et nafSxii hallayliimiil:ztir 'atta mum lit or Ex 33.15 im 'en panexii hOlxim 'al ta'iilenu mizze. 2) On the other hand, there can be found cases where the significance ascribed by Jotion to the conditional clause is expressed outside that framework, e.g. Is 1.15, Jer7.16, 11.14, 14.42 (all mentioned above), 44.16, and lKg 21.5 'enxa 'oxellii1:zem (S: M' ~ve' 'ant lme'xal la1:zmii'). 3) The possibility is not ruled out that yes was also used with the same force outside the conditional clause, especially in view of the extreme rarity of the examples preserved in the O.T. And finally, the volitive aspect may be perceived in cases of a ptc. in the positive protasis, as in Jud 9.15 'im be'emet 'auem mos"tzim 'oti and 11.9 'im msivim 'attem 'oti.35 If so, the said volitive nuance does not stem from the construction with yU as such, but rather from the general context. On the other hand, the force of the evidence for the asseverative-confirmative sense is such that we must confess that it is equally based on the context. Here we may look for help in cognate languages. V

V

des Juges, ad loc.). while Eissfeldt (Hexateuch·Synopse) attributes our Gn passages (24.42, 49, 43,4) to J. 35 According to Fergusson's list, there are six examples in the O.T. of a ptc. in the positive protasis; the other four are Lv 3.1, 7, Nu 11.15, and Jer 26.15. See H. Fergusson, "An Examination of the Use of the Tenses in Conditional Sentences in Heb.," JBL, ii (1882),40-94; cf. also Driver, Tenses, § 137.

80

CHAPTER IV

A most remarkable use parallel to that of yelis found in Accadian, as registered in CAD, s.v. basu, 2 (p. 155), which means in the G stem 'to exist, to be (but not as copula).' According to the Chicago lexicographers, the verb can occasionally have the meaning of 'it is certainly,' and I have observed that in the examples given there it is generally followed by the main verb, and only in the fossilized form ibasSz, pres. 3 sg., hence indifferent to the grammatical concord. Let me single out only two examples. i-ba-ds-si ina libbi ana Elamti ittalku (Mari) 'certainly they have already left from here (en route) to Elam. 'awiitum mimma Sa •.. assubu i-ba-as"si-ma ana GN aspur (Neo-Babylonian) 'whatever I excerpted I certainly have reported to Esnunna.' The use of the Ethiopic bo, which means 'there is' (originally 'in him, in it' just like the Palestinian-Syrian colloquial Arb .(jf21 or can the preposition be taken as a marker of "dativus commodi et incommodi"? It now remains to examine the use of simple Lamed, that is, neither /' nor Iw. The most probable case of Lamed emphaticum would be Ps 89.19, which reads Iyhwh miiginnenu wliqdos yisra'el malkenu 'for verily YHWH is our shield and the Holy One of Israel is our king.' However, it is not fair to overlook another interpretation represented by G, L, and T, which versions unanimously ascribe the regular meaning to the Lamed as a preposition, and further, the general context shows that the passage concerned mentioned the King as one through whom God governs and Interrogative Sentences in Bibl. Heb.," AJSL, xlix (1932-3),212-217; L Guidi, "Particelle interrogative e negative nelle lingue semitiche," Fschr. E.G. Browne, A Volume of Oriental Studies, ed. T.W. Arnold and R.A. Nicholson (1922), pp. 175-178. 20 In a note ad Pr. 19.8 added by Haupt as general editor of SBOT (1901). In all these cases the inf. can best be rendered 'by ...ing'; so GK, § 1140. 21 See P. Haupt in AJSL, xx (1904), 172, n. 60 and M. Deleor, VT, i (1951), 112. In the above-quoted (nl.) article, "A New Hebrew Particle" (p. 108), Haupt concedes that here "the text seems to be corrupt, besides the I may be explained here as the common exponent of the dative, depending on the preceding 'amart in v.2". The latter alternative was also suggested by Saadia; see his translation with his commentary (Kapf's edition [Jerusalem, 1960)).

120

CHAPTER VII

protects Israel rather than God Himself, so that the subjects of the sentence would be 'our shield' or 'our protector' and 'our king.' No doubt the particle emphasizes the predicate in La 4.3 bat 'ammi l'axziir 'the daughter of my people (has become) cruel.'22 The measure 'aFal itself may be emphatic; but cf. BL, Gram. Heb., § 61 p (p. 487). No satisfying solution has been offered to the notorious Bc 9.4 lxelev /:lay hu' tov min ha'arye hammet. 23 Ginsberg holds that the Lamed should be transposed a line above and attached to mi (Qoheleth, ad loc.).2 4 None ofthe ancient versions shows any trace of the particle. It seems to me that not infrequently the emphatic use of Lamed has been assumed a little too hastily without exhausting all the possibilities. So KB 3 , S.V. 11 1-, has "rette mich doch" for Is 38.20 yhwh IhMi'eni "YHWH is there (ready) to deliver me"; see GK § 114iandK6nig, § 399y. Pr 19.23 yir'at yhwh l/:layyim 'the fear of Yhwh is for (= leads to) life,' where Dahood is quick to produce parallelism by detecting in the second hemistich the emphatic bl allegedly attested in Ugaritic. 25 Ezr 1.5 lxol he'ir ha'elOhim 'et ru~o la'QJOl livnot 'et bet yhwh. Pr 14.35 r¥Jn melex l'eved maskil, about which Frankenburg (GHK) rightly notes that in Pr the person or thing with which one is pleased is given as subject (e.g., 11.1,20,12.22,15.8,16.13). But the Lamed is also rarely found with l~on instead of the regular b- (so S here), e.g. Ex 2838. In one place, namely Ps 119.91 (N6tscher, p. 380), the acrostic form of the psalm in question seems to have led to the unusual use of Lamed: Imiipii!exii 'iimdu hayyom 'they stand (= appear) for thy judgments today'f 6 note also an unusual way of expression ib. 119.104 mippiqqudexli 'etbOniin, the last of the eight lines that all begin with the letter Mem. What is especially 22 Cr. B. Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text (1963), ad loc., to whom it seems simpler to follow the interpretation represented by S and supply hlIyttJ. He does not mean however to emend the text in that way. Against Albrektson, McDaniel still asserts the emphatic force of the Lamed; Bibl. , xlix (1968),207. 23 This is of course one of the examples in which Haupt finds the emphatic Lamed "verily": HA New Hebrew Particle," p. 107. Konig (§ 351d) is cautious. 24 I remain unconvinced by Kogut'sinterpretation: Leshonenu, xlvi (1981-82), 12f. 25 Gregorianum, xliii (1962), 65. For the Ugr. bl emphaticum, cf. Gordo~, UT, § 9.18, Aistieitner, Worterbuch, s.v., Dahood, Ugr.-Heb. Philology, § 9.18, and our discussion in Section (ill) of the present chapter. 26 Note also Ibn Ezra ad loc.: "he (= psalmist) has mentioned the heaven and the earth, and they stand like servants, prepared to do his statutes, as in 'when I call to them, they stand forth together' (= Is 48.13)."

PARTICLES

121

difficult with 1Ch 7.1 (Deleor, p. 112) livne yissiixlir tola'. .. "1'0 the sons ofIssachar (belong) Tola ... '? Likewise ib. 5.2,6.5 (cf. Nu 3.21), 1Ch 24.1,20, Ex 27.19, Pr 17.21,21.12, Ct 13. In 2Ch 7.21 (Delcor, p. 112) habbayit hazze 'aier hiiyli 'elyon Ixol 'over 'liliiW yiisom, the yissom is probably passive Nif.27 Kropat describes the peculiar use of Lamed in Ch in detail,211 and it must be admitted that there are found examples difficult to explain like 2Ch 5.12 halwiyyim hamsoriirim lxulliim l'lisiiflhemiin ... Certainly "emphasis" is not the right term to describe such a use, and a dry chronological list of personal names would be the last place to call for an emphatic construction. The solution which suggests itself most readily is to understand it as the Lamed of specification or reference, as the Ethiopic equivalent is called.29 Kropat thinks of possible Aramaic influence .. This Lamed of specification is in place in Pr 25.3 siimayim liirum wii'iire~ lii'omeq wlev mlaxim 'en ?zeqer. Eitan's demand for parallelism (p. 4) necessitates a drastic emendation (lrumo, l'omqo), and the intent of the proverb is not to say that the heavens are high and the earth profound, but that as the heavens for its height and the earth for its depth are hard to search, so is the heart of kings hard to search. It is Driver who suggested a new shade of meaning of the infinitive construction which maybe rendered "be likely to"; see Bibl., xxxii(1951), 196. Thus Pr 16.30 'o~e 'enaw la?zsov tahpuxot 'one who winks his eyes is likely to hatch some villainy.' The decisive proof against the proposal to read in analogous cases the emphatic Lamed plus an imperfect or participle is afforded by an example of a verb ultimae infrrmae in Pr 19.27 liSgot. See also ib. 19.8,30.14. Emphasis is out of question in Is 44.14 lixrOt, which may have been influenced by the preceding llisevet(vs.13). A special study has recently been made by Whitley 30 on examples of the so-called dativus ethicus, and the author holds that the Lamed thus used is emphatic: e.g., Gn 12.1 lex Ixii "go, yea you"; Ho 89 bOded 10

27 See Bergstriisser, Gram., ii § 27i, GK, § 67t and Kropat, p.4. Cf. L: domus ista erit in proverbium universis transeuntibus. The parallel lKg 9.8 lacks the particle. 28 pp. 4-7. Cf. also Brock., Synt., § 31a, and Bauer-Leander, Gram. Aram., § 96k. 29 See A. Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Leipzig, 1865), s.v. la, g) (col. 24b). E.g., walagabi'otekassa: 'et quod ad reditum tuum attinet' (Asc. Jes., 8.27). 30 C.F. Whitley, ''The Hebrew Emphatic Particle I with Pronominal Suffixes," JQR,lxv (1974/75),225-28.

122

CHAPTER VII

"he goeth alone, even he". Without being aware of Whitley's article, we 31 also examined this difficult usage and concluded that this particular usage of the preposition is best described as centripetal, haVing ''the effect of creating a self-contained little cosmos around the subject, detached from the surrounding world, an effect of focusing on the subject ... ," conveying "the impression on the part of the speaker or author that the subject establishes his own identity, recovering or finding his own place by determinedly dissociating himself from his familiar surrounding. Notions of isolation, loneliness, parting, seclusion, or withdrawal are often recognizable." Whilst we are inclined sometimes to agree with general sentiments expressed by Whitley, we are rather doubtful that this use can really be called emphatic nor are we convinced that the use of even, yea, indeed in his translation is best suited to bring out the force of the idiom. After all these attempts,32 there still remain cases for which the best possible solution seems to assume scribal error or textual corruption. Cases of possible scribal error are: 1 Ch 3.2 hasslisi l'avsa1iJm, a similar expression appearing in vs. 1; ib. 28.21lxol niidiv, note the repeated lxol in the same verse; Ps 100.3 10 for the negative /iJ'to be read with Ga , Hie, T, Qre pI MSS.33 Examples of possible textual corruption are Hag 1.9, where one is to read hliyli for hinne according to G, S, T, and L(?); Zec 9.1 lyhwh 'en 'adam. When Notscher (p. 377, n. 1) sees an emphatic Lamed in the demonstrative halliize in Gn 24.65 hli'isvhalllize hahiJlex bassiide, one must ask what he means by "emphatic." The most we can say is that we have here "strengthened" demonstrative force (GK, §34f). In T it corresponds to dexi 'dieser da, jener da' (Levy, W6rterbuch).

31 T. Muraoka, "On the So-called dativus ethicus in Hebrew," JThSt, NS xxix (1978),495-98. 32 Torrey suggests "namely" (Ezra Studies, pp. 121f.; see also Ehrlich, Randgl., ad Ezr 1.5), and it does seem to fit the context rather well, though one can hardly resist the temptation to ask how the preposition came to acquire this rather unusual nuance. 33 The asseverative force has been lately demanded by J.O. Lewis, though without any versional support; see JBL, Ixxxvi (1967), 216. Ibn Ezra (ad Ex 21.8) mentions that Saadia, with reference to Ps 100.3, suggested two alternative interpretations: "we did not make ourselves" (Ktiv) or "we belong to him" (Qre).

123

PARTICLES

Now we conclude our study by saying that the examples claimed by different authors as containing the emphatic Lamed have not been found sufficiently convincing, although we are inclined to leave such a possibility open in a few passages with a Lamed prefixed to finite verb forms (Jer 4.27,5.10,18, Ru 2.13 ,Job 8.12,14.16,23.17,33.14) and also occasionally prefixed to the subject or predicate of a nominal clause (ps 89.19, La 4.3). ii) 'al

A few scholars have proposed to admit the emphatic use of 'ai, as paralleled in Ugaritic. It is proper to observe at the outset that the two leading Ugaritologists do not agree among themselves with regard to the etymology of the Ugr. particle thus used. Gordon 34 seeks the origin of the use in the negative 'af employed in a rhetorical question; see UT, § 9.19 and n. 1 there. I would object that unlike I, the notion of deprecatoryprohibitive al used in a rhetorical question sounds rather unnatural and hard to accept; cf. Driver, Notes on ISm 27.10. In my view, Aistleitner's attempt to decompose the particle into an a interrogativum and I negativum is preferable ,35 which in turn might be compared with Arb. 'alii, as suggested by him; cf. Reckendorf,Arab. Synt., p. 39. We shall now examine some Biblical examples presented by Dahood. The adoption of the emphatic 'af in Ps 59.12 'al tafuirgem brings about perfect harmony with the rest of the verse and vs. 14, which reads "consume them in wrath, consume them until they are no more" (Bibl., xliv [1963],294),36 but the usual negative force of the particle can be retained; see A.F. Kirkpatrick (CBSC) and Ibn Ezra ad loco ForJer 18.18 'al naqsiva 'el kol dvariiw his proposal of the emphatic 'al seems to be quite 34 So Aartun: Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, Vol. 1, p. 31, where he also writes: "Dahood will . . . an mehreren biblischen Stellen den gleichen Gebrauch von Hebriiisch 'al finden. Die von ihm angefiihrten hebriiischen Beispiele sind jedoch - dem Kontext nach - alle negativ zu interpretieren." Gibson, while admitting the asseverative 'aI, is not sure about its origin: Canaanite Myths and Legends, Glossary, S.V. 35 Worterbuch, no 181. The only example adduced is the phrase recurring in the Baal and Anat· legent al ttn pnm. Cf. also A. Goetze, "Ugaritic Negatives" in Fschr. I. Pedersen, Studia Orientalia, ed. F.F. Hvidberg, 1953, pp. 115-23. 36 As regards our passage, Dahood has quietly dropped the earlier proposal, now revocalizing the particle to produce "0 El!" (Psalms 11 [Anch. Bib.)).

124

CHAPTER VII

attractive (Ugr.-Heb. Philology, § 9.19), although the traditional negative particle is equally acceptable .37 In 1Sm 27.1 0 'al piattem hayyom (Bib I. , xliv [1963], 294) the reading reflected in S: 'aykii' and T: l'iin, which must have read 'an instead of 'al (so several MSS), or the falling out of mi (L: in quem, G: epi tina)38 is preferable in view of the reply given to the question in the following verse "Against the Negeb of Judah .... " In interpreting Pr 27.1 0 re'iixii wrea' 'iivixii 'al la'iizov uvet 'ii~ixii 'al tava' byom 'edexii Dahood (loc. cit.) seems not to have appreciated an interesting feature of human psychology, namely that brothers can be hostile and cold to each other in such a way as parents or their friends can not. For Soggin's view on Jer 5.10, cf. our discussion above on [0' (p. 117). Rin's contention that the girl is proud of her black colour in the immediately preceding verse (BZ, vii (1963], 30) does not constitute a sufficient ground for taking 'a! in et 1.6 'al tir'uni se'(Jni SJ:zarJ.zoret as emphatic, for a casual glance at the beauty of her sun-tanned skin would gratify her, but staring eyes at the blackness would be only repulsive. 39 Rin thinks that in 2Kg 627 'al yoSi'ex yhwh me'ayin 'oSi'ex, too, the emphatic force may be attributed to the particle. The traditional interpretation has been to treat it as used absolutely against the accent, of which phenomenon at least six certain examples are adducible.4O It is said that our case is, like the other six, that of 'a! serving to indicate a deprecatory

reply to a request or proposal, with the only difference that in this example the particle is immediately followed by a verbal form. It is seemingly this last point, among others, that led Driver to presume that this is a case of paratactic conditional clause made up of two sentences each of which has a verb in the jussive form (Tenses, § 152,3). We can only say that it is not easy to decide for or against Rin's proposal. KB3 suggest the emendation 'im /0' abbreviated as,r,'N (s.v. 'ai, p. 47a). It is perhaps best to treat Pr 30.31 melex 'a!qum 'immo as a case of textual corruption; even after the 37 Cf. J. Bright,Jeremiah (Anch. Bib.) ad loco G omits 'al. 38 Konig, § 330n, explains the falling our of mi here on a phonetic ground, i.e. beforep. 39 See also J.Ch. Exum, "Asseyeratiye 'al in Canticles 1.6?" Bibl.,lxii (1981),41618. M.H. Pope has a lengthy expose on the colour of the girl's skin and its theological, sociological, and political implications: Song of Songs (Anch. Bib.), ad Ct 1.5. 40 See KB, S.Y., 2 and 3, and BDB, S.Y., a, (b), {3. The said examples are found in Gn 19.18, Jud 19.23, 2Sm 13.25, 2Kg 3.13,4.17, Ru 1.13. Burney's 'I (= 7') ''if not, unless" (Notes, ad loc.) would be a hapax legomenon in Bib. Heb.

125

PARTICLES

admission of the emphatic particle the text still remains difficult, as it stands. 41 Gibson,42 on the basis ofUgaritic, proposes 'surely' in Mi 1:10 bgat 'al taggidu, which is however unnecessary; cf. Rashi ad loc., "lest the Philistines rej oice." In conclusion we might say that in a very few cases the emphatic 'al is possible before the imperfect as in Ugaritic, but most of the examples produced for the case are more or less suspect. iii)

bal

Here again it is Dahood who is sure about the emphatic force of bal, as is allegedly the case in Ugaritic. The existence of the emphatic bl in Ugaritic has been admitted by Gordon ("surely"; UT, § 9.18),43 Aistleitner ("doch"; Worterbuch, no. 516), and Driver ("surely"; Canaanite Myths . .. , Glossary, S.V.).44 The etymological relationship with Arb. bal and baM has also been suggested. The precise force of the former is defmed by Reckendorfwith these words: "balweist einevorhergegangene Bemerkung zuriick, urn eine andere an die Stelle zu setzen,,45 or to quote Ibn Hisham (Mughnf l-labib, red. Cairo, n.d.], I 104), "It is especially connected with the negation, and expresses its denial .... It is agreed that balo never responds to a positive statement" (personal communication by Prof. Rabin). At this point we should take note of the not unimportant fact that the Arabic negatives, when used in a verbal clause, are usually placed inunediate1y before the verb to be negated, i.e. not necessarily at the beginning of a statement, whereas bal always stands at the beginning of a statement;46 in other words, it does not negate 41 G. Sauer, Die Spriiche Agurs, p. 121, n. 121. Cf. also Ehrlich, Randgl., ad loco For an attempt to detect here the Arabic article, see KB 3 , S.V. 'alqum. 42 Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Glossary, S.V. 'al. 43 In Glossary (no. 466) slightly modified: ''The positive translation of bl(t) should really be rhetorical questions with negative bl(t). " 44 Gibson's revised edition suggests alternatively 'not', 'nay, but' or 'yea' (Glossary, s.v.), whilst the translation of the passage to which the last alternative applies has 'yes'. 45 balll is, like na 'am, a "bestatigende Partikel"; no example is given by Reckendorf (p. 41, n. 1), but see Lane's Lexicon, S.V. 46 One of the examples quoted by Reckendorf (§ 3 reads: lam nakun 'ani l/:laqqi 'umYllnan bali l/:laqqa nas'alu 'we are not blind to the truth; nay, rather we seek the truth.' The exact parallel from the syntactic point of view is the Japanese

126

CHAPTER VII

an individual word. On the other hand, the alleged etymological equivalent in Heb. and Ugr. does negate an individual word exactly like 10'/ 'al and l/al. 47 Thus in Ps 49.13, for instance, one would expect bal to be placed before '(idam, and not before yalin, if the statement is really emphatic to any degree. Let me add however that I am ready to concede that a single syntactic detail, important as it may be, cannot constitute the sole and sufficient criterion to refute the opinion which is occupying us now. Final decision must be based on the examination of the Biblical passages themselves. Before we proceeed with this examination, let me present here a new thought about the alleged emphatic bl in Ugr. Gordon seeks to explain the use in question by seeing a statement containing bl as a rhetorical question, as he does for the two other particles I and al discussed already. In the two instances lAB, I 20 bl. nmlk. yd'. ylF.zn 48 and 11 AB, IV-V 123 (likewise VI 5) bl. asl. urbt. bbh[tm] I would rather see a proposal in the form of a question "shall we not ... ?," "Shall I not ... ?" As to the fmal example lID, I 21 bl. it bn. Ih. kmaIJh, it seems to me that a rhetorical question is not in place ;49 but cf. Gordon, UT, p. 108, n. 1. In Pr 14.7 lex minneged l'is~ ksil uval yiida'ta si/re da'at (Dahood, Ugr.-Heb. Philology, § 9.18) 'the lips of knowledge' seem to be those of 'a foolish man', so that I am not quite sure whether better sense can be gained by admitting the emphatic bal here. 50 The second example quoted by Dahood, Pr 19.23,51 has already been discussed in connection negative iie, which is employed in the excellent translation of the Koran by Izutzu to render bal. The trouble which the Japanese learning English has in reversing "Yes" and "No" in reply to a negative form of question is well known. Of course the German parallel is doch. 47 For the remarkable variety of negatives and their syntactic differentiation in Phoenician, cf. Z.S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (1936), p.62. 48 The correct solution is no doubt the one suggested by C.l. Labuschagne, "Ugaritic BLTand BILTIin Is x.4," VT, xiv (1964), 97-99. 49 Aartun also takes the particle in the passages discussed in its negative force: Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, Vol. 1, pp. 26f. 50 Can the reading common to Sand G, which presupposes kol for lex and kli for bli,be explained away as a mere attempt to get round the difficulty? 51 Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology (1963), p. 41. Whitley's proposal, "but man in Sheol will surely sleep, he is like beasts that perish" (ZA W, lxxxiv [1972], 215), rests on a rather questionable interpretation of the noun yqar and also has no regard for the wider context.

127

PARTICLES

with the emphatic li5'(p.120). The central theme of Ps 49, namely, the futility of trusting earthly wealth and worldly fame, defmitely favours that traditional interpretation, which takes bal as a negative in v. 13 'adiim biqiir bal yiilin nimsal kabbhemot nidmu 52 and the same thought is expressed at the end of the psalm by means of li5 '. The rendering proposed by Dahood "Can't you fmd his wickedness?" or "Surely you can fmd ... " for Ps 10.15 svor zroa' riisa- warii' tidros risv,o val tim~ii'53 does not smoothly fit the general meaning of the verse. Apart from his problematic decomposition of 'elexii into 'ly ky (= 'eliiw ki), what emphasis can be recognized by translating Ps 32.9 bal qrov 'elexii "Then you can approach him" (Anch. Bib .)? Eitan thinks that an exact parallel of the "strongly affirmative particle balii" can be identified in the phrase hiimibbli 'en that occurs in Ex 14.11 hamibbli 'en qvarim bmisrayim and 2Kg 1.3,6,16 hiimibbli 'en 'elOhim byisrii'el,54 and translate~ "Is it because really there is no ... ?" The idea is very attrl!ctive and probably right, although one cannot deny the possibility that the assumed emphatic force derives from the double negative (but not = positive).55 We may summarize our discussion by saying that it is hardly possible to fmd a case of genuinely emphatic bal in Biblical Hebrew,56 while bli in the phrase hamibbli 'en may perhaps be emphatic. V

52 cr. Kirkpatrick,Psalms (CBCS), ad loco 53 Psalms 1-50 (Anch. Bib.), ad loco It appears to me that the best interpretation is that of Ehrlich (so Ibn Ezra), who takes zroa' as the subject of timftJ' 'Break the arm of the wicked and smash it, so that even if it seeks its wickedness it may not attain it' (Die P.I'I1lmen, ad loc.). Whitley proposes "Seek out his wickedness, thou wilt surely find it" (ZAW, lxxxiv [1972),214), but if one follows Rashi by taking the second half of the verse as an apodosis, the negative bal would make perfectly good sense. 54 I. Eitan, AJSL, xlv (1929), 204f. He analyses baltJ as prep. b, la emphaticum and deictic *)la. 55 So GK, § 152y, and see also Konig, § 352x and Joiion, § 160p. S: men blay dlayt; for the phrase, cf. R. Payne Smith, The.l'l1urus Syriacus (Oxford, 186897), col. 528. 56 Tromp also concludes that, if there is any place for the asseverative bal, it would be originally negative bal used in rhetorical questions: N.J. Tromp, "The Hebrew Particle bal," OudtestStud, xxi (1981), 277-87, esp. 285-87. I remain unconvinced by a study by Whitley (art. cit.), who also proposes to see the emphatic bal in some OT passages.

128

CHAPTER VII iv)

'im

In spite of Ehrlich's assertion that 'im as introducing a question can be employed only in the double question, we surely have such a case in lKg 1.27 'im me'et 'adani hammelex nihyii haddiiviir hazze. The emphatic force attached to 'im is well reproduced in S 'en (not 'en) 'revera.' 57 A note of emphasis is entirely natural in the question of Nathan who rushed into the royal chamber, having obtained some astounding information. This is again a case of rhetorical question with emphatic colouring. The same consideration seems to hold good for Jud 5.8 miigen 'im yera'e waramal}. See also Is 29.l6, Jer 48.27, Am 3.6, Job 6.l2, 34.l7. The use of 'im for emphatic negation and conversely 'im la' for emphatic afflrmation in oaths is undoubtedly a specialized application of the conditional 'im, and the emphasis expressed there does not derive from 'im as conditional conjunction as SUCh.58 Therefore the treatment of the question lies beyond the scope of the present study. v)

'aviil

Almost all the etymologies imaginable have been suggested for this particle: 'a/alii (Eitan), verb 'iival (Ehrlich), bala (Brockelmann), bal (BDB).59 As is often the case with etymological discussions, we have no sure way to prove or disprove these suggestions; only the one proposed by Ehrlich (Germ. leider) seems to be suitable in some passages to be dis· cussed below, although we must admit that in the same places the asseverative force is certainly recognizable. 57 Brock., Lexicon Syriacum, s.v. L: nunquid, F: Est·ce bien par ordre ... In Ps 58.1 'en is used to translate 'umnt7m. 58 Of course it is not impossible to argue that the emphatic use was original, the conditional being one of its developments. Cf. the Arabic emphatic 'in and C. Rabin, Ancient West Arabian (1951), pp. 168ff.; Brock., GVG ii, § 419; Reckendorf, Arab. Synt., § 65, 6; and Noldeke, Zur Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch (1897), p. 89, n. 1. 59 Eitlln, AJSL, xlv (1929), 206f.; Ehrlich, Randgl., on Gn42.12; Brock., GVG, ii § 122c; BDB, s.v. According to Ehrlich (loc. cit.), 'iiVt7i in Gn 42.21, 2Sm 14.5, lKg 4.14 introduces a "bedauemde Aussage" (noteL: hen in 2Sm 14.5), and a similar semantic development is to be observed in Germ.leider.

129

PARTICLES

Whichever etymology may turn out to be right, the asseverative force is unmistakable in Gn 17.19 'iival sara 'istxa yOledet!xii ben (G: Nal),60 where Abraham's doubt and mistrust are emphatically controverted. So also Gn 42.21 'iiviil 'jgemim 'iinaQnu 'al 'iilJinu (deep regret - see n. 59 and cf. G: nai, S: Sarririi'iJ), lKg 1.43 'aviil 'Qdonenu hammelex diiWid himlbc 'et slom{) (L: nequaquam, G: kai mala, S: Sarrira'i!), 2Kg 4.14 'lzviil ben 'en liih w'isvah ziiqen (C: kai mala, S: Sarrira'i£). It is interesting to note that a liar felt it necessary to begin her supplication by the asseverative particle in 2Sm 14.5. Only in late Hebrew was the originally asseverative force ofthe particle weakened to an adversative one. So In Dn 10.7, 21, Ezr 10.13, 2Ch 1.4, 193,33.17. As a summary it may be said that the emphatic use of 'aviil should be regarded as established in the passages quoted above, and that late Hebrew shows its weaking to an adversative particle. vi)

QX

It is widely admitted that the particle 'ax has two different, but internally related (so it seems to me) functions, asseverative~mphatic and restrictive-adversative .61 The former may be exemplified by the following passages. Gn 29.14 'ax '~mi uvsiiri 'atta 'You are truly my bone and my flesh.'62 lb. 4428 'ax {lira! [ora! 'Surely he has been tom 60 S often, as here, renders the asseverative particle by sarrirll'i!. Cf. Brock., GVG ii, § 122c: "Das arabische balil tritt einem Zweifel des Fragenden noch sriirker entgegen." Aheady Rashi saw here (and at Gn 42.21, 2Sm 14.5) an asseverative particle (lion 'amitut dvarim) , but Gesenius (Worterbuch, s.v., ad Gn 17.19): "nein, vielmehr." 61 The asseverative force is not known to GK and Brock., but see K6nig, § 351b, Jotion, § 164a, Gesenius (Worterbuch) , BDB, KB 3 , and Kropat, p. 31. Whilst I concede (see below) that there are cases where it is not easy to draw a line between "asseverative" and "adversative", Snaith seems to have gone to the other extreme by holding that 'ox "always involves restriction ... and is sometimes even adversative" (VT, xiv [1964), 221). For instance, on Ps 23.6 he writes "in spite of everything, darkest ravines . . . God will certainly protect the psalmist and all will be well with him ... " (po 222), but vs. 5 is not contrary to vs. 6. 62 S: iarrirll'it. Ehrlich, Randgl. ad loc., rightly gives a more precise definition of the for~ of the particle when he writes" 'ax leitet an dieser Stelle ein erzwungenes Zugestiindnis ein, das nicht ganz ohne Zweifel gemacht wird."

130

CHAPTER VII

to pieces,' 'ax coupled with another means of emphasis, the inf. abs. (so also Jud 20.39). In Ex 31.13 'ax 'et '5abbtotay tismoru, the use of the emphatic particle leads to an irregular word-order (see also Jer 12.1). Cf. also Jud 3.24 'ax mesix hu' 'et raglliw bal.ziidarham111£{erii, ISm 16.6 'ax neged yhwh mSil;lo, lKg 22.32 'ax melex yisrii'el hu'. Jer 2.35,10.19, Ho 12.9, Ps 58.12,62.10,68.22,73.1 ,63 85.10,140.14, Job 16.7,64 33.8, 35.13, La 2.16. In most of the examples given above a disjunctive accent is provided with the particle. Further, it is entirely understandable that the asseverative-emphatic use is especially frequent in colloquial or spoken language, although not exclusively so. The restrictive particle can be used for the sake of emphasis, since the word or part of a sentence restricted in relation to or in contrast to what precedes may be emphasized in being made prominent. Hence the difficulty in drawing a sharp line between asseverative and restrictive use ('only') in cases like Is 14.15 'ax 'el '5'01 turlid, ib.19.11 'ax 'ewilim SiJre ~o'an (cf. Dt 12.16 and 15.23 with raq), Dt 16.15 'ax siimeal;l. So also Is 34.14,15,45.14,24, Ho 12.12, Ps 23.6,39.6,7, Job 18.21 ,Pr 21.5. Likewise something of the original emphatic force of the particle is still to be felt in those cases where it introduces important additions or exceptions to what has been stated. This we observe particularly in legal or cultic texts. Examples are Gn 9.4 'ax biiSiir bnafso diimo 10' to 'xe/u, Ex 12.15, 16, Lv 11.4,21.23,23.27,27.28, Nu 14.9, 18.17,36.6,Dt 14.7,18.20. In these passages we might translate the particle 'But, mark!.' Further, even where adversative force is to be attributed to it, there are cases where the particle is not a simple logical adversative one, but slightly stronger than that, 'nevertheless, for all that.' See, e.g., Jer 12.1,34.4. Summary. The asseverative-emphatic use of 'ax is indisputable in a fair number of places scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible. In its semantic development, i.e. restrictive-adversative use, a slight residue of the original force is still preserved occasionally. vii)

raq

What has been said about the restrictive use of 'ax applies equally to raq, since this particle is primarily restrictive. Thus the delicate transition 63 'ax {OV lyiirll'el - L: Quam bonus . .. , G: hos agathos . .. (both exclamations). 64 For exegetical difficulties of the passage, cf. N.H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (1957), ad loco

PARTICLES

131

of meaning from 'only' to 'altogether' is evinced in cases like Gn 6.5 kol mal;svot libbo raq ra', Dt 2833 hiiyitii raq 'iisuq wrii~u~, Jud 14.16 raq sne'tiini wlo' 'Qhavtiini (S: 'Sarririi'it). It also indicates important additions or exceptions as in Gn 19.8 raq lii'iiniislm hii'el 'al ta'iiiu diiliir, 24.8 raq 'et bni la' tiisev sammii, Ex 9.26 raq b 'ere~ gosen ... la' hiiyii biiriid. On the other hand, it is asserted (BDB, s.v. 2e)65 that in the following places raq possesses affIrmative, asseverative force. 66 'Indeed, one recognizes clearly raq of asseverative force in Gn 20.11 raq 'en yir'at 'elohim bammiifjom hazze,67 Jud 19.20 raq kol maJ}sorxii 'iiliiy raq biirlJov 'al tiilan (the second raq non-emphatic), lKg 21.25 raq 10 'hayiix 'af/'av,68 2Ch 28.10 halO' raq 'attem 'immlixem '~iimot. To these add perhaps J08 1.17 raq yihye yhwh 'elohexii 'immax (S: bal/:IOd),69 and note something like a compassionate sigh of the author in Jud Ll.34 wraq hi' ylJida.Dt 4.6 raq 'am I;iixiim wniivon haggoy haggiidol hazze must certainly be grouped together with the above-cited Gn 6.5, i.e. 'only wise and intelligent' > 'altogether wise and intelligent.'70 The text, as it stands, is almost hopelessly corrupt in Ps 32.6 !'et m~' raq lsvetef mayim rabbim 'eliiw 10' yaggi'u; for possible emendations, cf. H.J. Kraus (BK) and M. Dahood (Anch. Bib.).

ye~er

65 In Gesenius, only in two-of the places, namely Gn 20.11 and Dt 4.6. 66 The particle raq has recently received a detailed and exhaustive treatment by T. Nishimura, "On the Use of raq" (in Japanese) in Methods and Tasks Of Biblical Studies, ed. M. Sekine (1967), pp. 74-82. He also stresses the emphatic use of the particle. According to his classification, the emphatic raq appears (1) when it stands at the head of a sentence or clause, having no close internal relation with what precedes and CD when it heads an imperative clause as in Dt. 4.9, Jos 1.7,18,13.6,22.5. It is remarkable that this latter use is restricted to the book of Jos and those.Dt passages which are related to it in content. The former category includes, beside those places mentioned by us, Nu 12.2, 20.19, Dt 10,15, Jud 14,16, Am 3.2, Ps 91.8, and Pr 13.10. 67 Skinner (ICC) discards the view expressed in BDB, but without giving any reason for it. 68 The qualification of A. Sanda (EHK) that the particle strengthens the negation "ga!, schlechthin" appears to be too narrow to cover a few other examples in which we have the emphatic raq in the affirmative sentence. Ehrlich, op. cit., ad loco "entschieden." 69 Y. Kaufmann (Joshua, ad loc.) sees here a condition of the people's obedience to the new leader. 70 Cf. F (PIe.): 'Ce ne peut etre qu'un peuple sage et intelligent.' So Ehrlich, op. cit., ad loco

132

CHAPTER VII

Summary. In several places raq seems to have emphatic-asseverative force, but it must be remembered that this is comparatively rare, given that the particle is used one hundred and nine times in all. If its derivation from the root r-q-q meaning "thin" is right,7! it appears to me that there is no other way to explain the development of the emphatic use but by analogy with 'ox, which is then a semantic development exactly in the reverse direction compared with the latter. viii)

'iixen

The particle is unmistakably emphatic or, more precisely, asseverative 72 in passages like Gn 28.16 'iixen yUyhwh bammiiq6m hazze (S: farrira'it, L: vere),73 Ex 2.14 'hen nada' haddiivar, ISm 1532 'iixen sar mar hammiiWet, lKg 112 'iixen ya!!u 'et lvavxem,74 Is 40.7 'iixen ~a~ir hli'am, 45.15 'lixen 'attli 'el mistatter, Jer 3.23 'axen lasYeqer m;ggva'Ot hamon hlirim 'axen byhwh 'elOhenu tsu'at yisra'el, 4.10 'iixen hasse' hisse'ta /ii'am hazze (coupled with an inf. abs.), 8.8 'iixen hinne lasseqer 'Ma 'et seqer s6frim (with hinne). In all of the above examples, the particle 'iixen stands at the beginning of a sentence. The place of the disjunctive accent is also significant. A slight modification of this asseverative force of 'iixen is to be seen in those cases where the particle indicates a turning-point in thought of the speaker and expresses the reality in opposition to his previous doubt or false presupposition. Ehrlich thinks that this is the meaning of 'iixen in the passages discussed above, too. The truth is that there the 71 Bravrnann derives the particle from req: Leshonenu, xi (1939/40), 98f. On a similar force of Ugr. akn, see Aartum, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, Vol. 1, p.30. 72 So admitted by Konig, § 351b, BDB, S.V., Gesenius (Worterbuch), s.v. and KB, S.V., KB 3 , s.v. 73 Ehrlich, op. cit., adloc., makes an instructive observation when he writes: .. 'iJxen leitet meist wie hier das Gestiindnis einer falschen VorllJolssetzung oder eines falschen Eindrucks ein, unter dem man sich bis zum Augenblick des Sprechens befand." But cf. Is 40.7,45.15, Jer 4.10. 74 KB 3 , S.V., "sodass." S. dalmlI' and G: me do not necessarily justify the generally admitted emendation '/en > pn here. a. Gn 20.11 raq (emphatic), S: dalmlI', L: [orsitan, Jud 3.24 ~ (emph.), S: kvl1r, L: [orsitan, Jer 5.4 4X (emph.), L: [orsitan, and Nu 22.37 'umnl1m, S: kvtlr, G: ontOs. A similar semantic development, i.e. certainty> probability, is noticeable in Fr. sans doute, Eng. no doubt or doubtless, which now must be replaced by a new form undoubtedly.

133

PARTICLES

opposing view to be rejected is not explicitly stated, whilst in the examples which follow it is. Thus Is 49.4 'iixen mispii.ti 'et yhwh u!,ulliiti 'et 'eiahiiy (opposed to vs. 4a), ib. 53.4 'axen ~oliiyenu hu' nasa' (opp. to vs. 3 fin.), Jer 3.20 'lixen bligda 'issamere'iih (see 19b), Zep 3.7 'lixen hiskimu (opp. to vs. 7a), Ps 3l.23b 'lixen sama'tii (opp. to vs. 23a), 66.19 'lixen soma' (opp. to vs. 18), 82.7 'iixen k'adiim tmutun (opp. to vs. 6), Job 32.8 'lixen ruof! hi' ve'enos(opp. to vs. 7;L: sed ut video). In the majority of the examples discussed above one should note a disjunctive accent placed with 'lixen. And moreover, unlike 'iiviil, 'ox, and raq, our particle appears only at the beginning of a statement. Summary. The asseverative-emphatic force of the particle 'iixen with its slight modification should be regarded as established in Biblical Hebrew, and it is evenly distributed through the whole O.T., only the slightly modified use is evidently dominant in later books. ix) 'omnam, 'umniim, 'amnii, (be) 'emet Unlike the other particles we have treated thus far in the present chapter, there can be no legitimate doubt whatever as to the derivation of these four from a content word, or more precisely, from the root of a series of content words, i.e. '-m-n. Their meaning 'truly, in fact, verily' is perfectly understandable on that basis, and therefore the question is not syntactic, but purely lexical. It suffices to list all the occurrences of these words. 'omniim 2Kg 19.17 (= Is37 .18), Job 9.2,12.2,19.4,5,34.12, 36.4, Ru 3.12; 'umnlzm (always in interrog.) Gn 18.13, Nu 2237, lKg 8.27, 2Ch 6.18, Ps 58.2; 'amnii Gn 20.12, Jos 7.20; 'emet Ps 132.11 niSba' yhwh ldawid 'emet la yasuv mimmenna,75 Jer 10.10 yhwh 'elOhim 'emet,76 23.28 ydabber dviiri 'emet 77 (all the three passages accord75 So also Jotion, § l02d. But perhaps 'emet means here "in fidelity," then a kind of internal object of nilba'. So G, L, S. Possibly Driver's decision depends on metrical consideration; or is it simply a matter of the equivocal English phrase "truly, in truth "1 76 So also Jotion, § l02d. Only the accents seem to favour Driver's view. The prima facie questionable interpretation 'llohim 'lmet "God of truth, true God" is possible, as in G, L, S. For the pseudo-status-constructus phrase, see Joiion, § 131c. 77 Parallelism with 'aler 'itto ~iilom y9llpper ~iilom supports this interpretation; so also G, L, S. Nevertheless the meaning is not asseverative, but reflected by "fidelement" (F: Segond).

134

CHAPTER VII

ing to BDB, s.v. 5); be'ernet Jer 26.15, 28.9.78 Let it be pointed out finally that sometimes these words are combined with another emphatic particle as in Gn 18.13, Job 19.4,34.12, all with 'af x)

ze, hu' etc., particularly in conjunction with interrogatives

The fairly frequent occurrence of ze, hu' etc. following interrogatives has received the special attention of grammarians and has been explained in different ways: GK, "to emphasize interrogatives,,,79 Brockelmann, "to give emphasis (Nachdruck) to questions" (Synt., § 55a), K6nig, ''to heighten the urgency and liveliness (Eindringlichkeit und Lebhaftigkeit) of questions,"so Jotion, ''without notable modification of the sense" (§ 143g). Arabists also have occupied themselves with a similar question in trying to determine whether in rnii gii the gii is a relative pronoun or not. S1 Driver writes, " ... attached enclitically ... to impart directness and force, bringing the question or statement made into close relation with the speaker" (BDB, s.v. ze, 4). Indeed, keen concern and interest on the part of the speaker is clearly noticeable in this type of question, and this undoubtedly derives from the use made of the originally deictic ze, which places the speaker, as it were, in the midst of the situation as a self-conscious participant in what is going on around him. 82 78 The other three examples given by Driver (BDB, s.v. 'emet, 5), namely Jud 9.15, Jer 32.41, Ps 145.18 use the phrase in the sense of "in faithfulness." 79 § 136c (Gesenius, Worterbuch,p. 193b: "zurVerstiirkung"), but in another context (§ 150 I), "to give vividness to the question." Cf. also Lambert, § 276. 80 § 353r; cf. also Ewald, § 325a and I. Lande, Formelhafte Wendungen der Umgangssprache im alten Testament (1949), pp. 114f. 81 Cf. Reckendorf, Arab. Synt., § 20, 1, Wright, Arab. Gram. ii, 312B, and esp. H.L. Fieischer, Kleinere Schriften i (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 356f. I shall not go into etymological discussion here; cf. Rabin, Ancient West Arabian, p. 76, § t. The same idiom is attested in Aramaic dialects as well (S: 1tII1!llm, Ar: mi1gen, mllgll); see Fleischer, loco cit. See also 1. Blau in Leshonenu, xxii (1957/58), 75, and T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (1978), p.128. 82 L: tam (cito) at Gn 27.20 shows that the translator did not take ze here as a mere appendix to the interrogative. Cf. also ISm 17.55 ben mi ze hanna 'ar, S: bar manu !alyll' hllnll', L: hie adulseens, G (= Orig. and Luc.) ho neaniskos houtos, and Ps 24.8 mi ze melex hakkllVOd, S: manu hllnll' malkll' di'q/1re', L: Quis est iste rex gloriae?, G: tis estin houtos ho basileus tes dOXi!s. In all these

PARTICLES

135

On the other hand, another emphatic feature, identification, is noteworthy as well. At this point we recall the emphatic use of the copula as in yhwh hu' hli'eIohim which we have dealt with already and termed "copula of selective-exclusive identification." Occasionally, even without any interrogative, the said identifying force of ze is apparent, though perhaps in a lesser degree than in the case of the above-mentioned hu', as in lKg 18.7 ha'atta ze 'Odoni 'eliyyiihu, a question asked by Obadiah, who probably had never met the prophet, but knew him by repute. See also Gn 27.21,24, 2Sm 2.20,83 lKg 18.17. This identifying force of the demonstrative is well reproduced in the Syriac version, and sometimes in LXX and Vulgate, too. This may be illustrated by passages like Gn 3.13 ma zo't 'iisit>S: miinaw hanii' da 'Qagty84 (so also with this recurring phrase in Gn 26.10, 29.25 85 ); 27.20 ma ze mihartii lim~>S: miinii' hw hiina'dva'gal 'eskaJ:!t; G: ti touto, ho taxu heures; Is 63.1 mi ze ba' me'edom> S: rP..anu hlina'd'iile'men 'agom;Jer46.7 mizekay'orya'iile> S: manu hana' da'yx nahrii' siileq, L: Quis est iste, qui quasiflumen ascendit? See also Ex 4.2, ISm 10.11, Ps 25.12, Job 4.7, 38.2, 42.3, et 3.6, 6.10,8.5, La 3.37, 2Sm 15.2,86 Job 28.12, 38.19b. This use can become stereotyped and lose its original identifying force, as is shown by lKg 21.5 ma ze ruJ:ziixii siirii w'enxii 'oxelliiJ:zem and 2Kg 1.5 ma ze savtem where the interrogative is neither subject nor predicate of the sentence. This process of weakening and fossilization was brought to completion in the formation of the interrogative 'eze with a new meaning 'Which?' as in Syr. 'aynii', 'ayda'.

83 84

85

86

three places the preceding demonstrative is interpreted in the versions as attributive. Dhorme (Samuel, ad loc.) recognizes here a parallel French idiom and renders: 'Est-ce toi Asael?' Note that the same Syriac words translate 2Sm 12.21 mi1 haddtlVar hazze 'ilier 'asit{J (of course S: 'vadt instead of 'vadty). By the way, we probably have a residue of this Semitism in the New Testament at Lk 16.2 ti touto akouo peri sou = manaw hana' diilma' 'na 'iayk (Pesch.; in Sinaiticus iama'na), Ac 14.15 ti tauta poieite = mana' 'avdin 'nton. Cr. F. Blass-A. Debrunner, Gram. des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (1954 9 ), § 299, 1, where there is no suggestion of a Semitism. The different way of the Peshitta's treating the same Heb. phrase in certain books other than Genesis may be accounted for by plurality of translators. See Ex 14.5 (haxanna), Jud 2.2 (ib.), 15.11 (ib.), Jon 1.10 'e mizze 'ir 'atta. S: men 'ayda' 'att qri!iI'; cf. N6ldeke, Syr. Gram., § 234A, "SHirker ist die Trennung des Fragewortes vom Substantiv ... "

136

CHAPTER VII

It seems that the versions found it difficult to apply the same interpretative principle to cases of lammii ze and 'e ze Where?.' Nevertheless, they too may be translated, at least in principle, Why is it that ... ?,' 'Where is it that ... ?' So e.g., Gn 18.13, Jos 7.10, ISm 17.28,2Sm 12.23, Ne 2.4 ('al ma ze). Biblical Hebrew extended the usage also to hu' etc., as in Gn 2733 mi 'ejO hu' hO§~lid ~yid (S: manu kay haw d~li4 ... ); for other examples, see Driver, Tenses, § 201.2. After all this, however, I cannot free myself from a thought which would oppose somewhat the main line of the conclusion to be drawn from our foregoing discussion. The thought is that the possibility may not be excluded that in some passages the interrogative ma, in particular in the type of sentence under discussion, may be able to stand together with the demonstrative, forming a separate statement, although inseparably bound up with the subsequent sentence from the standpoint of the general meaning of the whole utterance. This is especially true in those instances where the part of a statement which follows ma ze is able to constitute a complete sentence by itself. So, for example, Jud 18.24 ma ze to'mru 'elay ma lax may be rendered What is it? You tell me 'What's the matter with you?"?! ,87 likewise the afore-mentioned Gn 27.20 and lKg 21.5. To translate 'How ... ?' in these instances is nothing but an expediency for, strictly speaking, What?' and 'How?' are two entirely different concepts. If this interpretation be correct, then the sentence type we havE( viewed as a single unit may be the result of gradual coalescing of two originally separate sentences. By the way, if they say taqUlu mli gli as well as ma gli taqulu, as Reckendorf writes, this might confmn our view, at least as far as the Arabic construction is concerned; see Arab. Synt., § 17.1 and cf. also N6ldeke, Zur Grammatik, p. 92. And this second interpretation would easily afford an explanation for the development of 'e ze, lammli ze, and ma ze (=liimmii) mentioned above. 88

87 Cf. F: 'Comment done pouvez-vous me dire, "Qu 'as-tu?"? , and Gn 27.20 'Eh quoit tu en as deja trouve, mon fils!' Note also Gn 33.15 G: hina ti touto; hfkahon hoti heuron xarin . . .. which translates 14mmll ze 'em~' lJen b 'ene 'adoni. 88 No solution is suggested to the syntactic aspect of the question by I. Lande, Forme/holte Wendungen, pp. 114f.

137

PARTICLES

In conclusion it might be stated with some reserve, in view of our discussion in the last paragraph, that the demonstratives ze, hu' etc. joined with interrogatives like mi, ma, liimmii, 'e can be emphatic in that they serve to bring out the speaker's keen interest and can perform the function of exclusive-selective identification similar to the one performed by hu' in the nominal clause and the topicalizing hw in Syriac. xi) 'ejo' / 'ejO Brockelmann asserts that the interrogative can also be strengthened by the interjection 'ejO and quotes the following examples: Gn 27.33 mi 'ejO hu' ha~~ad ~yid, Jud 938 'ayye 'ejO' /ixa, Is 19.12 'ayyam 'ejO' Ijixamexa. 89

A careful examination of all the occurrences ofthis particle, whether it appears with an interrogative or not, leads us to the indisputable conclusion that it serves to point to the logical connection between the question or statement containing it and the foregoing statement with the particle, and this connection can be best reproduced by translating ''then.,,90 Therefore Brockelmann's view must be rejected, and the particle is not particularly related to the interrogative alone, but to the whole statement containing it. xii) hinne, hen

The following is not intended as a detailed and exhaustive lexical description of these much-used particles in the Hebrew Bible. Suchinformation is to be sought in lexica. No legitimate doubt can be raised as to the etymological relationship between the two particles and the corresponding Arabic 'inna,91 which is usually used with weak emphatic force. Just as 89 Synt., § 55b. Cf. Konig, § 353s, "Eindringlichkeit und Lebhaftigkeit." 90 Peretz offers no proof for his claim that the particle is emphatic in Biblical Hebrew: Leshonenu la'am, xii (1959/60), 161. Neither does Tur-Sinai in Leshonenu, viii (1936/37), 110f., but he seems to have changed his mind somewhat, judging from what he writes on one of his proof texts in his commentary on Job (ed. 1971) ad Job 19.6. 91 It is said that hinna also exists in the form lahinna (Wright, Arab. Gram. i, 285B). The so-called alleviated 'in is also etymologically related. Cr. Rabin, Ancient West Arabian, pp. 168ff. The form lahinna is peculiar to Tayyi dialect, which is next-door to Canaanite (ib., p. 202). On the 'hervorhebende' Ugaritic

138

CHAPTER VII

in the case of the Arabic parallel, the asseverative "truly, verily" is hardly in place in the majority of the occurrences of hinne / hen, with a few possible exceptions such as Ps 121.4 hinne 10' ylinum w!6' yisan somer yisrliel, where hinne forcibly removes the doubt hinted at in the preceding verse which negates a statement to approximately the same effect by means of 'ai, not 10'.92 On the other hand, as the time-honoured English translation "Behold!" or "Lo!" might suggest, the primary function ofthese particles lies in indicating that the speaker or the writer wants to draw the special attention of the hearer or the reader respectively to a fact or object which can be said to be important, new, unexpected, etc.93 This can be best accounted for by assuming their origin as demonstrative or deictic elements. Their above-defined function accords very well with the results of an excellent analysis attempted by Humbert of the construction hinneni plus participle .94 He successfully demonstrated that a significant proportion of the examples (75%)is found in ''passages essentiellement oraculaires," the subject is mostly God (94%), and hinneni very often (94%) introduces a threat or promise of divine origin. In his treatment of the particles under discussion K6nig (§ 325e) mentions a not unimportant question which is especially relevant to our study and which he himself has left unanswered. The question is whether there exists any difference between hinneni and hinne 'ani, or in particular whether in the latter the subject is emphasized or not. In order to answer this question we have schematically set up eleven theoretically possible patterns, checked their actual occurrence or non-occurrence, and made a critical and comparative examination of the actually occurring patterns. The eleven patterns are divided into two major groups, depending on whether the particle is followed by a nominal clause (1) or a verbal

particles hn and the like, see Aartun, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, vol. I, pp. 68-71. 92 Other possible examples are listed in Jotion, § 164a. For the characteristic 'al in Ps 121.3, cf. K6nig, § 186c ("subjektiv verneinend") and § 353d ('al = L: num, G:me).

93 See also Andersen, Sentence, pp. 94-96. 94 "La formule hebrai"que en hinneni suivi d'un participe," REJ, xcvii (1934), 58-64. Of the total occurrences of hinne, 436, this construction comprises 125. See also Humberfs "Die Herausforderungsformel hinnenf etektI," ZAW, li (1933),101-108.

139

PARTICLES

clause (2).95 The table below is the occurrence (x) or non-occurrence (-) check list.

(2)

(1)

a

x

hinneni ilila!}ti

hinneni 'ani (DV

x x,

b

x2

hinneni 'ani sala!}ti

'ani hinneni !QV

x

b'

-

'ani hinneni salabti

hinneni (DV

---hinne- ani (DV

ani hinne !DV

x -(1)

---........

c

x

hinne 'ani sala!}ti

c'

x

'ani hinne sa1atlti

d

x

hinne Sa7al)ti

A glance at the table above and the examination ofthe actual examples lead us to the following points 0 f interest. i) When the personal element is to receive emphasis, the full form 'ani is put first and then repeated by the least distinct pronominal suffIx (lb'). The sole example for (lb) is Ez 63 hinni 'ani mevi' 'alexem llerev - a solemn declaration of divine threat. The pattern (2b) is represented by the following two examples only, both from the same chapter of Ezekiel, and is characterized by the placement of a disjunctive accent and the intervening Waw: Ez 34.11 hinni 'ani wdaraS'ti 'et ~o'ni, 34.20 hinni 'ani wsafarti. They express God's firm determination to displace the selfish and degenerated shepherds in whose hands His people had been entrusted, to take upon Himself the responsibility ,and to act as the Judge. Note however that the straight triple representation of personal elements (2b, 2b') is avoided by inserting the Waw, or at least, not attested. ii) As to the question raised by Konig, we are now able to reply that there is a difference between the two types, and the fuller form (lc, 2c) gives emphasis to the subject, only in the verbal clause (2) the difference is not so clearly marked as in the nominal clause, probably owing to the additional pattern (2d). The prominence of the personal element in the pattern (l c) is often and justly brought out in the Syriac translation as in Gn 24.13 hinne "linoxi ni~~av> ha 'ena qa'em 'na. likewise in

95 To simplify the discussion, forms with non-pronominal subject will not be considered.

140

CHAPTER VII

Gn 25.32,48.21,50.5.96 And moreover, there is good reason to believe that hinneni (DV is virtually nothing but a variant form of hinne [av, the personal element being implicit. Thus, when there is no need to stress the subject and it has been already mentioned in the immediate context, or is somehow evident from the general context, the form hinne {DV appears. So Abraham, when asked about the whereabouts of his wife, simply answers Gn 18.9 hinne va'ahel. See also ib. 16.14. As indicated above, the verbal clause demands a slightly different approach. The pattern (2d) approximately corresponds to (1 a) as regards the emphasis upon the subject, and substantial difference between (2a) and (2c) is hardly discernible. In other words, in both of the patterns the subject is stressed. Compare (2a) ISm 14.43 hinni 'amut, Jer 44.26 hinni nisoa'ti bismi haggiidal and (2c) Nu 22.32 hinne 'anaxi ya~a'ti !Satan, ISm 8.5 hinne 'atta zaqanta. ill) The precedence of the separate personal pronoun is especially emphatic. This we can observe very clearly in the pattern (lb') for the nominal clause and (2c') for the verbal clause. Some examples follow. (lb') Gn 6.17 'ani hinni mevi' 'et hammabbul, ib. 9.9 'ani hinni meqim 'et briti, Ex 14.17 'ani hinni ml:zazzeq 'et lev mi~rayim, Jer 40.10 'ani hinni yosev bammiljpa. The disjunctive accents with the pronoun and the Syriac rendering which couples the full and enclitic forms of the pronoun (e.g., Gn 6.17 'ena ha' mayte' 'na) are significant. (2c') Ex 31.6 'ani hinne natatti 'Uto, Nu 3.12 'ani hinne likJal:zti, ib. 18.6,8, Jer 1.18 'ani hinne ntattixa hayyam, 7.11 gam 'anDxi hinne ra'iti. Our remarks above about the accent and Syriac rendering are true of the (2c') type, too. iv) Gn 17.4 'ani hinne vriti 'ittax is the only example found for the type (lc'). But it does not seem to belong here because of its peculiar construction. Summary. The particles hen and hinne are employed for the purpose of emphasis in that they serve to call the especial attention of the hearer or reader to a certain statement as a whole or to a single word out of a statement. Patterns differentiated in the kind of clause containing either of the particles, whether the particle is suffIxed or not, and/or the place of the subject in relation to the particle reveal different degrees of emphasis laid upon the subject.

96 This point of Syriac syntax is discussed by Noldeke, Syr. Gram., § 312BC.

141

PARTICLES

xiii)

'at

According to Gesenius-Kautzsch (§ 150g), 'at gives special emphasis to the first member of a disjunctive question in Job 34.17 and 40.8f. 'is it even ... ? . ' and Driver (BDB, s.v. 1) suggests rendering 'indeed, really?' when the interrogative He is attached to the particle, thus enlarging the list to include Gn 18.13, 23f., and Am 2.11 as well. The same author notes in another connection that, where it occurs in prose, 'at generally has some rhetorical force (Notes, on 2Sm 20.14). For the last example mentioned above, Am 2.11 , W.R. Harper (ICC) comments that the particle gives special stress to 'en; see our discussion below. Before we proceed to examine the passages cited above, we must be clear that in the majority of its occurrences the function of the particle unmistakably lies in adding something new to what precedes, precisely in the same manner as the Aramaic and Ugaritic equivalents. In 1) Gn 18.13 ha'af'umnam 'eZedthe emphatic (asseverative) "indeed" is obviously to be ascribed to 'umniim.97 The same is true of Job 19.4 w'at 'omnam sligiti 'Mais meme s'il etait vrai que j'ai erre' (Dhorrne) and 34.12 'at 'omnam 'eZlO' yarslQfJ8 without the interrogative proclitic in either case. 2) Gn 18.23 ha'at tiSpe ~ddiq 'im raSa'" illustrates how our particle can be employed in a rhetorical question which, in accordance with its nature, often expresses something unexpected, unbelievable, or an exaggerated, extreme case. So the text may be rendered: Will you even go so far as to destroy the just with the wicked?' It is obvious that in a case like this the particle relates not to the word immediately following, but to the entire clause. 99 This same force, I believe, can be ascribed to 'at in the first example given above and 3) Gn 18.24 ha'attispe. Likewise in 4) Am 2.11 ha'at 'en zo't the Lord only reluctantly realizes the

97 Pace, e.g. Gesenius, Worterbuch, S.V.: "In Fragesiitzen ha'af 'wirklich?' ". As to Gn 18.13, 23 Rabin sees an idiom parallel to the Arb. 'afa before a question, which serves to establish a logical connection "then." Cf. Reckendorf, Arab. Synt., § 164, 4, N5lQeke, ZDMG, xlvii (1893), 103 n,. and G.A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions (1903), p. 165. 98 Here however Dhorme (Job, ad loc.) claims that the particle 'af retains its full value of affumation or categorical denial, rendering "Non, en verite, Dieu ne fait pas le mal." 99 So with gam occasionally, as noted by Gesenius, Worterbuch, s.v., p. 143a. Pace Andersen, Sentence, p. 166.

142

CHAPTER VII

unbelievably corrupt plight of His chosen people. loo The same consideration equally applies to the remaining two passages: 5) Job 34.17 ha'af sane' mispii! ya~avoslOl and 6) ib. 40.8 ha'af tliter misPli.ti. Moreover, against GK (see above), there is no disjunctive question in these two places. Our conclusion is then that the alleged emphatic force of 'af is nothing but a slight modification of its primary additive use. This is most manifest in the first three examples discussed above for which we believe that any theory that does not take full account of 'af as a separate item, Le. as independent of 'u/omniim, should be discarded. Of course, it is entirely possible that the process of development may have been the reverse, namely the additive function may have been the result of the weakening of the original emphatic one, only the material available to us is not of such a nature as to enable us to trace the exact historical development of its use, although its predominance in poetry might be interpreted as supporting the second possibility. Thus 'af is often used as a stylistic feature "to emphatically introduce a new thought" (BDB, S.v. L) in a climactic fashion. So, for example,Ps 65.14 yitro'ii'u 'afyiis7ru, Is 42.13 yiiria' 'af ya~ria~, 43.7 Y¥lrtiw 'af 'MUiw, 46.6 yisgdu 'af yisla¥wu et passim. The notorious Gn 3.1 'af ki 'iimar 'eiohim, put in the mouth of the serpent, deseIVes a brief comment. The asseverative interpretation 102 is represented by the Aramaic versions, namely S: Sarrirli'i!., T'{): bqus{li, T-J: hqws?, d'mr (but Neofiti: 'rwm 'mr). On the other hand, the concessive interpretation proposed by, e.g., Ehrlich (Randgl., ad loc.: 'obgleich') suits the context equally well. He is of the opinion that the serpent

100 But "unterstreichende Partikel;ha'afwirklich?," V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (1951), p. 67. 101 Cf. Dhorme, ad loc.: "L'interrogation ha'af "est-ce que vraiment?" amene une hypothese inadmissible (40.8, Gn 18.23, Am 2.11)~" Then the parallel 'im might also be slightly emphatic. See above our treatment of the particle (iv). 102 Cf. Joiion, § 157a, n. 2, "(ceci est-i!) aussi qu'i! a dit? = est i! donc vrai qu'i! a dit?" So Blau: "Is the situation really that ... ?, Is it really the case that ... ?" On the other hand, Blau's own description makes it quite plain that this particular lexical interpretation of the Hebrew idiom does not apply to the remaining cases of it in the OT discussed by him. See Leshonenu, xx (1955/ 56), 34. Cr. now also 1. Blau, An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic (1977), p. 25: "has God really said?"

143

PARTICLES

did not finish the apodosis on purpose103 and Eve fell into the trap of language as a woman often does. Whichever interpretation may prove to be right, the difficulty remains that neither interpretation has another example from Biblical Hebrew to support it. 104 In conclusion we may say that forcefullness is certainly felt in (rhetorical) questions with 'af and in climactic additions in the poetic style, but emphasis in the sense of asseveration is not a function of the particle. 105 xiv) gam There is no denying that there are found cases in which the particle gam can be only inadequately and awkwardly rendered "also." From its

treatment by Driver in BDB we can gather scattered remarks about its alleged emphasizing function, although he regards addition as primary. The climactic use observable in poetry in particular, as is the case with 'at, e.g. Ps 107.5 r'evim gam ~me'im. may be safely seen as a stylistic modification of its additive use. See also Ps 13 7.1 yilsavnu gam biixinu, Job 21.7 'iitqu gam glivru ~liyil. 24.19 ~iyyil gam ~om. La 4.15 nll~ gam nii'u. What we have stated in the foregoing section concerning the slightly emphatic use of 'at, which we are convinced is derived from its primary function of addition, equally applies to the present particle. Thus gam is frequently employed when giving an exaggerated, aggravated or extreme case. See, e.g., 2Sm 17.10 whu' gam ben I)ayil 'aser libbO klev hil'arye 19.31 gam 'et hakkol yiqqll/;l, Jer 2.33 gam 'et hilril'ot limmadti 'etdrlixliyix. So also Gn 20.4 hagoy gam ¥Jddiq taharog,l06 Nu 22.33 gam 'otxii hilragti w'Otilh hel;!lyeti (note the word-order too), Dt 12.31gam 'et bnehem w'et bnOtehem yisrjU vii'es; 1Kg 17.20 hiigam 'al ha'almiinU ... hiire'otil lhilmit 'et bnllh, Jer 12.6 gam 'a/:lexil uvet 'ilvixil gam hemmil 103 Gesenius (s.v. 'af ki, 2) also assumes an ellipsis, but in a different sense: "Gott hat wohl gar gesagt?". 104 Ehrlich (loc. cit.) compares the present case with Ps 23.4 gam ki 'elex bge' ~almawet 10' 'ira' ra'. Rabin suggests: 'af here = Arb. 'afa "Did God indeed commarld ... ?" 105 Pace Andersen (Sentence, p. 166), the emphasizing function of 'af and gam does not become apparent by comparing Gn 20.12 gam 'omna with ib. 18.13 'af 'umnam. 106 The fact that the construction of gam intervening between a noun arld its adjectival qualifier is attested nowhere else does not constitute a sufficient ground for Ehrlich's emendation hgm > hky (Randgl., ad loc.).

144

CHAPTER VII

biigdu vax gam hemmii qiir'u 'aJ;zifrexii, 14.5 gam 'ayyelet basslide yiilda w'iizov, Pr 14.13 gam bis'/:laq yix'av lev, 14.20 gam lre'ehu yissiine' riis~ 17.28 gam 'ewil maJ;zifrin.liixiim ye/:liisev, 20.11 gam bma'iiliiliiw yitnakker nli'ar, Ru 2.15 gam ben hli'omiirim tlaqqe!, Ne 3.35 gam 'iiser hem bOnim 'im ya'iile Su 'iil uftira~ /:lamat 'avnehem, Est 7.8 hifgam lixboi 'et hammalkii 'immi babbiiyit. The use with the numeral "one" in the negative form also belongs here, "auch nicht einer"; see 2Sm 17.12/(5' natar bO uvxol h/i'anlisvim 'aser 'itto gam 'e/:llid, Ps 14.3 (= 53.4) 'en 'ose tav 'en gam 'el:ziid. Likewise the use with the numeral "two," as in Gn 27.45 llimii 'es'kal gam snexem yom 'e{zlid, Ex 4.9 'im la' ya'iiminu gam lisne ha'Mot ha'elle, Dt 22.22 metu gam snehem hii'i{ hass6xev 'im hli'issa whii'issli. Jotion is certainly right in attributing the simple additive force to gam in Ru 1.5 wayyiimutu gam snehem ma{zlan wxilyan with reference to the death of Elimelech mentioned in vs. 3 (Ruth, ad loc.). On the other hand, Labuschagne, in his most extensive inquiry into the particle gam,107 has come to the fairly plausible conclusion that its original function was emphatic, and has produced a sizable amount of evidence in support of his claim. The general impression we obtain on reading his article is that etymological considerations are of fundamental importance to his whole argument. 10g He agrees with Cordon (UT, Glossary, no. 547) in considering gam as etymologically cognate with Ugr. g(m) 'voice.' Then he proceeds to picture a highly hypothetical semantic development of the particle which would eventually result in its assuming the emphasizing function, as he writes, ''to explain how gam came to be used as an emphasizing particle, we ought to return to the original meaning preserved in Ugr., with voice, aloud; it is quite obvious that in connection with shouting, crying and calling, it implies emphasis, force, stress, explicitness. Thus the word gm in Ugr. may even be rendered emphatically, explicitly . .. " (p. 198). I find it very hard to conceive how the content word "voice" could come to be used as a mere function word, having been entirely deprived of its reference to the tangible reality, 107 C.J. Labuschagne, "The Emphasizing Particle GAM and its Connotations," Fschr. Th. Ch. Vriezen, Studia Biblica et Semitica, 1966, pp. 193-203. By the way, Labuschagne has a forerunner in B. Jacob, "Erkliimng einiger HiobStellen," ZAW, xxxii (1912), 278-287. Unfortunately Jacob does not explicitly specify what aspect of emphasis is ascribable, being satisfied with the mere underlining of the word which he thinks is emphasized. 108 I must admit that I myself have no alternative etymology to suggest.

PARTICLES

145

even if we ignore the not insignificant fact that the alleged original meaning or even anything very close to it is not attested in the Hebrew Bible,l09 a circumstance which characterizes his etymology as only hypothetical in nature. It must be stressed that even the final result of the assumed development "emphatically, explicitly" is far from being equal to "surely, certainly," which he ascribes to gam. Besides this theoretical fallacy of his thesis, our close re-examination of those passages in which the particle can be translated in its asseverative meaning "certainly, surely," as Labuschagne thinks, shows that indeed in some such places his claim is tenable, where, it should be noted, the accepted additive meaning is equally applicable. Thus Gn 16.13 hiigam /:Ia1om rii'iti 'a/:liire ro'i (L :pro!ecto),110 Nu 13.27 wgam ziivat I}liliiv udvaf hi' (L: revera), where it is certainly possible to paraphrase the report of the scouts "Not only is the land penetrable, but it is even a land flowing with milk and honey," ISm 22.7 gam Zxullxemyitten benyisay (L: nunquid, G: alethOs), where, according to Driver (BDB, s.v. gam 2), the particle emphasizes kol, where once again a paraphrase such as ''Would that fellow care about you to such an extent as ... , Is he resourceful and powerful to that extent?" makes perfectly good sense. In the following instances, simple additional force is perfectly in place: Gn 27.33 gam biirux yihye, 31.15 wayyo'xal gam 'lixol 'et kaspenu,111 46.4 'linoxi 'a'alxii gam 'lilO, Dt 2.15 gam yad yhwh h/iytli biim,m Ps 132.12 gam bnehem 'iide 'ad yesvu Zxisse'liix ('also' in view of vs. 11), Job 2.10 kdabber 'a/:lat hannvlilOt tdabberi gam 'et hatl0v nqabbel me'et hii'elOhim.ll3 Cf. also Nu 16.13 ki tistiirer 'iilenu gam his109 Labuschagne rightly rejects Dahood's questionable proposal to interpret the Hebrew gam in some passages as "aloud," precisely as in Ugaritic. For the latter's position, see the bibliography given by Labuschagne, p. 195. There would be no objection to Dahood if he could adduce an example like itIma'ti vga(m) 'elohim meaning 'I have hearkened to God's voice.' 110 Ehrlich Randgl., ad loc.: "gam in der Bedeutung wirklich ist mit dem Verbum zu verbinden." gam may affect a word which does not immediately follow it (GK, § 153). See also n. 99 above. Cf. Rashi: "also here in the wilderness ... after 1 saw His messengers at Abraham's home" (additive). 111 Emphasis, if any, is no doubt due to the inf. abs. 112 Cf. Driver (lCC, ad loc.): " ... not natural causes only, but the special action of God's hand as well, cooperated to accomplish their destruction ... " 113 1 would accept a happy emendation, adopted also in Biblia Hebraica (BHK), reading gam 'tItt 'et (haplography); the originator of the emendation is unknown to me.

146

CHAPTER VII

tlirer, Dt 28.61 gam kol /:U)[i . •• ya'lem yhwh 'lilexli, Jud 9.49 wayylimutu gam kol 'anse migdal sxem, ISm 10.11 hagam sa-'ul bannvi'im, Jer 6.11 ki gam 'isv'im 'issayilllixedu, Ps 78.20 Mgam le/:lemyuxal tel. Summary. The particle gam almost always retains its additive force. Indeed "there is a small number of examples in which it seems to possess the asseverative-emphatic force, while the additive force is not to be excluded there, either.

xv) 'et (,et-) No single particle has given rise to more widespread and also mutually more contradictory discussion than this so-called nota accusativi,1l4 so much so that one may wonder what substantial contribution is still left to be made. The point around which the dispute centers is whether the particle can precede the nominative (or more exactly, a noun in the function of subject) as well as the accusative. It goes without saying that in the great majority of its occurrences the particle is prefIxed to an object noun of a transitive verb, or at least, not to a subject noun, for the transitivity of a given verb may constitute a separate question by itself.

114 In addition to the literature which will be quoted below in notes, cf. also the following: Gesenius, Worterbuch, s.v., 2 ("bes. in d. spat. Spr. hebt 'et zuweilen d. Subj. des Satzes hervor, indem es auf diese Weise als Gegenst. d. Aufmerksamkeit betont w."); GK, § 117i, m; Brock., Synt., §§ 31b, 51; Joiion, § 125j; Lambert, § 1214; Konig, § 270; EWald, § 281d; J. Hoftijzer, "Remarks concerning the Use of the Particle 'T in Qassical Hebrew," OudtestStud., xiv (1965), 1·99; G. Furlani, "La nota accusativa 't in ebraico," RSO, viii (1919-20), 213-231; H.C. Hoskier, "Concerning 't and its very special use in the O.T.," Fschr. J.R. Harris, Amicitiae Corolla, ed. H.G. Wood (London, 1933), pp. 96-117; A.M. Honeyman, ''The So-called nota accusativi in Bib. Heb.," Glasgow Univ. Oriental Soc. Trans., 1944-46 (inaccessible to the present writer); R. Meyer, "Bemerkungen zur syntaktischen Funktion der sogenannten Nota Accusativi," Fschr. K. Elliger, Wart und Geschichte (Neukirchen, 1973); idem, Hebrtilsche Grammatik, Bd.1II Satzlehre (Berlin/New York, 1972), p. 72, n. 1; H. Rosen, "On a Syntactical Phenomenon in Ancient Northwest Semitic - For the Prehistory of 't" (in Heb.), Sefer Tur·Sinai (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 127-42. On the particle in the Damascus Document, see G.-W. Nebe, "Der Gebrauch der sogenannten 'Nota accusativi' 't in Damaskusschrift.XV, 5.9 und 12," Revue de Qumrtin, no. 30 (1973), 257-66, and P.E. Dion, ''The Heb. Particle 't in the Paraenetic Part of the Damascus Document," ib., no. 34 (1977), 197-212.

PARTICLES

147

In view of the current diversity of opinions held by various scholars concerning our particle, some methodological and general clarifications may be in order. 1) Any theory that will speak for the emphasizing function of the particle should take full account of the afore-mentioned numerical preponderance of the object marking 'et in Biblical Hebrew. This means that, as Blau insists,llS any case admitting the slightest possibility of the nota accusativi must be excluded. 2) The amazing diversity of views presented so far for the etymology of the particle 116 makes it methodologically precarious to rely too heavily on etymological arguments, which can be only hypothetical in this case. Even if the most plausible identification with the undoubtedly emphasizing Arabic 'Tyii_ll7 be fmally established, sound methodology requires that Hebrew and Arabic be treated as two cognate but separate languages. Note also that the Arabic particle is not usually attached to a noun. On the other hand, if Bauer (n. 116) be right in deriving the particle from the verb 'ty 'to come,' then the case for emphasis would receive no support whatever from the etymological discussion. 3) One should be clear as much as possible as to what one means by the term "emphasis," or in other words, to what particular aspect of emphasis one is referring in a given case and what internal necessity exists for such an emphasis there, for our discussion up to now has made it clear enough that "emphasis" can be such a broad and ill-defmed concept that grammarians may brush away cases of crux simply as "emphatic." 115 J. Blau, "Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von 'et vor dem Nominativ," VT, iv (1954), 7-19; "Gibt es ein emphatisches 't im Bibelhebriiischen?" VT, vi (1956), 211f. Now cr. also a summary of the usage of the particle in Loewenstamm-Blau, Thesaurus, s.v. 'et. 116 See F. Praetorius, "Zur aethiopisch-arabischen Grammatik," ZDMG, xxvii (1873),63944; idem. "Zur hebr. und aram. Grammatik. Die hebr. Akkusativpartikel 'Of. 'et, 'et," ZDMG, Iv (1901), 369f.; Th. NOldeke, ZDMG, xl (1886), 738; H. Bauer, "Semitische Sprachprobleme. Die Herkunft der Objektspartikel yat, 't, usw.," ZDMG, Ixviii (1914), 369-71; I. Eitan, "Hebrew and Semitic Particles," AlSL, xliv (1927), 187-89, xlv (1928-29),50-52; G. Furlani, art. cit. (n.U4 above); F .R. Blake, "Studies in the Semitic Grammar. The Etymology of the Aramaic Particle 't, yty," lAOS, xxxv (1915-17), 377-81; idem, "Studies in the Semitic Grammar V: Additional Note on Etymology of Aramaic 'it," lAOS, Ixxiii (1953), 7f.; G. Garbini, n Semitico di Nord-ovest (1960), pp. 170f. 117 No doubt the Eth. kiya etc. and the Acc. yl/ti etc. are related to it. So N6ldeke, ZDMG, xl (1886), 738.

148

CHAPTER VII

A.M. Wilson's Yale dissertation ''The Particle 'et in Hebrew"u8 is a most exhaustive study of all the occurrences of our particle, and Wilson attributes intensive or reflexive force to it in some of its occurrences (p. 141),119 but he does not make it clear whether the said force is due to the particle itself or to the article prefixed to the following noun; he also admits that the particle can introduce the subject of "intransitive or neuter verbs and passive verbs" (p. 224), which latter group may be illustrated by 1) Jer 36.22 w'et hii'ii/:l IftiniiW mvo'iiret, where I think the emendation (w'eS) is the only reasonable solution (cf. G[43.22]: eskhara puros, S: nurii'sllymin, and T: weyiil nurii), 2) Ez 17.21 w'et kolmivrii~iiw ... baJ:zerev yippolu, where T and S presumably read miv/:liiraw (gibbiirohi, /:le'rawhy), and GK (§ 117 m) and Jotion (§ 125j) admit the emphatic 'et, while I wonder if it is possible to construe mbrtlW with hiivi'oti(hu) in the preceding verse, 3) Dn 9.13 'et kol hiirii'ii hazzo 't bii'ii 'iilenu, 4) Ne 9.19 'et 'am mud he'iiniin 10' siiY me'iilehem, and 5) 2Kg 6.5 w'et habbarzel nii/al 'el hammiiyim. K6nig (§ 270a-f), who made the first systematic examination of those passages in which the particle 'et apparently plays a role other than that of nota accusativi, could recognize no emphatic use of it, only he thinks that part of those places may be explained as cases of accusativus relationis (Lat. quod attinet ad) taking the place of the subject. Kropat (pp. 2f.) also admitted the use of 'et before the "nominative" and characterized it as emphatic, without however explaining how it can be emphatic and without offering his own theory for the origin of the use as against the one offered by Gesenius-Kautzsch (§ 117i), which he rejects. Thereafter came Albrecht, who chose to explain all the examples of crux by assuming textual corruptions and introducing emendations, concluding that there can be found no single isntance of the 'et as nota nominativi, except in the passive forms of the verb yid; see K. Albrecht, '''t vor dem Nominativ und beim Passiv," ZA W, xlvii (1929),274-83.

118 An abstract of the dissertation, which appeared in Hebraica, vi (1889-90), 139-50, 212-24, will be quoted here. Another more recent exhaustive study is the above-mentioned one by Hoftijzer (n.114). 119 What Wilson means by "reflective" will be seen in the following explanation given by him to Ex. 12.13 wr4'iti 'et hadd4m "And when I shall see the blood" (viz. the blood which, by my command, you have sprinkled upon the doorposts and lintels - when I shall see that blood), "then I will pass over you" (p. 141).

PARTICLES

149

Nearly three decades ago the whole question was re-examined by J. Blau (see n. 115), who insists that in all the cases but one (Ez 44.3) the particle can be explained as nota accusativi on the basis of the disturbed sentence structure or contamination of two heterogeneous syntactic types. In fact, one notes the same idea expressed here and there throughout the above-mentioned article of Albrecht, only Blau established it as a more geneml interpretative principle, adducing parallel phenomena from the classical languages, toO. 120 This article of Blau aroused immediate reaction when N. Walker,121 P'p. Saydon,122 and J. Macdonald 123 contributed articles on the same subject in the following numbers of the same journal. All of the last-named three scholars argue for the emphatic use, but their arguments are not very convincing, the reason partly being, in my view, their failure to show in terms of the immediate context why the noun follOWing the particle in a given case should receive emphasis. After the foregoing general remarks, we are now in a position to proceed to our own examination. The question facing us may be formulated as 1) Can the particle 'et be used with the subject?, and 2) Can it be emphatiC in force (irrespective of the syntactic status ofthe noun following the particle)? We shall begin by attempting to answer the second question. Instead of involving ourselves in those cases in which the subject status of the noun following 'et and the related question of possible emphasis ascribable to the particle are interrelated, we think it a wiser procedure to inquire into the obvious cases of the object marker 'et and see if any emphatic force can be attributed to the particle instead of, or in addition to, its purely grammatical force as object marker, for I hardly see how the object can be more emphatic than the subject. This will be accomplish120 Blau quotes W. Havers, Handbuch der erkltirenden Syntax (1931), e.g. p. 72. Say don 's complaint (VT, xiv [1964), 203) that it is too much to expect of the Hebrew writers knowledge of the niceties of classical syntax is entirely irrelevant, seeing that the section of Havers' work quoted by Blau bears the title "Syntaktische Fehler (!) und ihre psychischen Bedingungen." 121 "Concerning the Function of 't," VT, v (1955), 314f. 122 "Meanings and Uses of the Particle 't," VT, xiv (1964),192-210. 123 "The Particle 't in Oassical Hebrew," VT, xiv (1964),263-75. The writer adduces examples of various emphatic uses of 'et from the Samaritan Hebrew texts. At present we are not in a position properly to evaluate these unpublished materials. See provisionally J. Hoftijzer, art. cit. (supra, n. 114), p. 1, n. 1. By the way, this latter long article ranging over ninety-nine pages does not concern itself very much with the aspect of the use of 'et which interests us in this study, but see pp. 9lf.

150

CHAPTER VII

-ed by comparing cases of the object without 'et and those with it (nominal object) or cases of the pronominal suffixes attached to verbal forms and those of the suffixes attached to 'et (pronominal object), on the assumption that we have here two different morphs of one and the same morpheme. 124 As to the nominal object, every Hebrew grammar attempts to establish considerably detailed rules about the use and non-use of the nota accusativi, the fundamental rule being that its use is almost invariably restricted to the determined object. Hence attempts are made to explain those apparent exceptions in which it appears with an indeterminate object. But, rather strangely, to the best of my knowledge, no grammar offers an explanation for another set of exceptions, namely those examples where the particle is not prefixed to a determined object. With this thought in mind, I have read through Gn 12-20 and ISm 1-8 (the song of Hannah in 2.1 b-lO excepted). In the former there are found 86 cases of the determined object out of which 22 lack the particle, while in the latter only 8 out 0 f 116 cases lack it.125 The historical development is fairly manifest,126 whatever stand one may take with regard to the documentary hypothesis. 127 On the other hand, our close examination of these 202 examples makes it very doubtful that any definite principles were at work for the omission of the particle in the above-mentioned thirty cases. This observation seems to be confirmed when we note the following contrasting

124 Besides the literature listed above under n. 116, cf. now Gordon's striking but not very plausible idea that the forms 'et and 'Ot should be regarded respectively as in st. const. and st. pronominalis in a wider Egypto-Semitic context; see UT, p. 52, n. 2. 125 We have chosen not to count examples of the object of non-finite verbal forms and to count only once in cases of co-ordinate objects, lest the moot question as to whether the rection with the non-finite forms is verbal or nominal should make the matter unnecessarily complicated. Note also may be taken of the fact that among several possibilities for a given noun to be determined, the class of nouns determined by means of the pronominal suffix lacks the particle very frequently (19 times), and then artiCUlar nouns (6 times) and nouns in the st. const. with the determined nomen rectum (5 times). 126 Cf. Brock., Synt. § 97c ad finem. 127 For the relevance of this particular grammatical feature for the documentary hypothesis, cf. Wilson, art. cit., p. 114 and H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (1893), pp. 107, 190, 348f.

CHAPTER VII

151

pairs in which I can hardly account for the fonnal differentiation. 128 So a) Gn 19.6 whaddelet siigar 'a/:liiriiW and 10 w'et haddelet siigiiru, b) ib. 20.7 hiisev 'Met hii'iS' and 15 wayyiisev 10 'et iiirii 'isto, c) 19.37 wattiqra' smo mo'iiv, 38 wattiqrii' smo ben 'ammi, 16.11 qarii't smo yisYnii"el and 17.15/0' tiqrii' 'et smah siiriiy, 19qiirii'ta 'et smoyi~/:liiq, ISm 1.20wattiqrii' 'et smo smu'el, 7.12 wayyiqrii' 'et smiih 'even hii'iizer, d) Gn 18.2 wayyissii' 'eniiW, 13.14 iii' nii' 'enexii and 13.10 wayyissii'lot 'et 'enaw, ISm 6.13 wayyis'u 'et 'enehem. A reference to Eissfeldt's HexateuchSynopse shows that the difference in literary sources of the Pentateuchal passages concerned is of no relevance as far as the use or non-use of the particle is concerned. Note particularly the inexplicable arbitrariness in ISm 8.13-17 w'et bnotexem yiqqii/:l ... w'et idotexem w'et karmexem wzetexem ha!!ovim yiqqiiJ:z wniitan la'jjvtidiiW wzar'exem wxarmexem ya'sor wniitan ISiirisiiW wla'iiviidiiW w'et 'avdexem ... hattovim w'et hit.. morexem yiqqiiJ:z w'iisii limla'xto ~o'nxem ya'sor. Furthennore, it is extremely hard to see that emphasis is responsible for this differentiation. Of those who assert emphatic force of the particle mainly on the ground of its hypothetical etymology, as it seems to me, one must demand to adduce convincing and unmistakable examples in which the use of the particle is emphatic as against its non-use and in which the object follows the verb, for an example like 2Kg 23.15 wgam 'et hammizbeaJ:z ... gam 'et,hammizbeaJ:z hahu' w'et habbiimii niitii~, which might be cited as supporting the alleged emphatic force of 'et, is equivocal in that emphasis, if any, is certainly to be ascribed to the ante-posed object, as is demonstrated in, e.g., Gn 14.21 ten li hannefeS'whiirxuS'qal;lliix, where the emphatic contrast is undoubtedly broUght out by the mutual position of the two objects, and that without the particle. The same holds true of an indetenninate object, as in ISm 2.33 'is' ZO' 'axrit!xii (the sole exception) and ib. 4.20 ki ven yiiladt (not a girl). It may also be in place to point to the absence of methodological soundness apparent in confounding emphasis and determinedness or definiteness, as is done by, for example, Saydon (art. cit., p. 193) and especially E. Lemoine, Theorie de /'emphase hebrai"que, Paris 1951. The Hebrew language, like its cognates, developed two means of indicating the pronominal object of a verb, namely suffixes attached to 128 Abba Bendavid argues with much plausibility for the possibility that here we are dealing with a literary device aiming at stylistic variation; see his Bibl. Heb. and Mish. Heb., VoU, p. 19.

152

CHAPTER VII

verbal forms and suffixes attached to 'et with the only formal differentiation in the first person singular. Besides several rules given by the authorities concerning the choice between the two alternative forms (GK, § 117e, Jouon, § 125e, Brock., Synt., § 97 bc), a noteworthy attempt at a more detailed description of the morphological and syntactic conditioning ofthese two forms was made by J. Libniin his article "Contribution to the Study of the Verbal Suffixes and Determination of their Use in their Attached and Non-attached Forms" [in Heb.), Leshonenu, v(I932), 221_30. 129 As for the possible emphatic force of the non-attached form with 'er I see no reason why the conclusion we have arrived at concerning the use with the nominal object should not equally apply. Moreover, those examples produced by some grammarians as pointing to its emphatic use are not convincing, for in the following passages quoted by Brockelmann (Synt., § 97b) one should not overlook the position of the particle , which precedes the verb: Gn 24.14 'otith hOxai)ta; 12.12 whargu 'ati w'otlix yJ:!.ayyu; Nu 22.23 gam 'atxli hiiragtiw'otli hei)eyeti; l::sm 8.7 ki 10' 'atxli mli'lisu ki 'oti mli'iisu, and also Jer 5.22 ha'oti 10' tirli'u quoted by Wright (A rab. Gram i, 104B) as parallel to Arb. 'fyli. Likewise it is hard to believe that any emphasis intended in ISm 5.11 wlO' yamit 'ati w'et 'ammi should be absent from the preceding verse lahiimiteni w'et 'ammi. All that one would claim for the emphasizing suffixed 'et as against the suffixes attached to the verbal forms is that the former is able to make the pronominal element indicated by the suffix more prominent, so Gn 30.20 zviidani 'e/ohim 'oti zeved (ov in which 'oti forcefully repeats the -ni attached to the verb; note that the independent personal pronoun can serve the same purpose, as we see from passages like Gn 27.34 blinixeni gam 'ani, Ez 6.3 hinni 'ani, 1Kg 21.19 'et damxa gam 'attli. Cf. pp. 61-66. Now it is time that we considered the first question, namely, Is the particle 'et used before the genuine subject in Bibl. Heb.? In most general terms one might say that the conclusion arrived at above, which is opposed to the case for the emphatic 'et, for the major part of its occurrences, rather foreshadows the negative answer. But it is our duty to examine for ourselves each of the passages in which it has been asserted by some scholars that the particle emphasizes the following noun. Those passages may be arranged into several groups. 129 Cf. also H. Petri, "Das Verbum mit Suffixen im Hebr.," Tell 2, Beilage zum Jahresbericht der k6nig. Landesschule Pforta, 1890.

PARTICLES

153

i) In Nu 18.21 /:lelej'avodllttIm 'aser hem 'ovdim 'et '(ZVodat 'ohel l30 and Ec 7 .26 mo~e' 'ani mar mimmtIwet 'et hii'is'StI131 the phrase headed by 'et is unquestionably the object phrase. Likewise Ez 10.22 rtI'iti . .. mar 'eh em w'ottIm 'I saw their appearance and themselves (?)' (Albrecht, p. 276), 16.22 w'et kol to' avotayix wtaznutayix 10' ztIxart 'et yme n'uriiyix 'You did not remember all your abominations and harlotries(which characterized [i.e., loose apposition]) the days of your youth,'132 17.21 w'et kol mivra/:liiw bxol 'iigapptIw baberev yippolu, where cf. our treatment above p. 148. lb. 37.19 ntItatti 'i5ttIm 'alaw 'et 'e$ yhudtI, where 'the tree of Judah' is most probably in apposition to 'otam, or to put it another way, 'otam is its prolepsis, 'e~ being taken as nomen collectivum. In spite of the intervening words it is still possible for 'et hazzahtiv in lCh 28.16 to continue wayyitten in vs.ll as its object (Albrecht,p. 277). As we could not fmd an adequate explanation for the seemingly arbitrary omission of the nota accusativi where one might expect it in view of its appearance in the contrasting passage, one can hardly account for the fact that in Is 57.12 'ani 'aggid $idqtItex w'et ma'iiiayix wlo' yo'i/ux the fIrst object is not preceded by the particle, while no reason for emphasis on the second object suggests itself. Similarly (against Kropat, p. 2) lCh 16.39 w'et ¥idoq hakkohen w'e/:liiw, which constitutes the co-ordinate object of wayya' azov (vs. 37) together with its counterpart 'oved 'edom ... in vs. 38 without 'et. Cf. also Dt 14.12-17 and Nu 3.26 discussed below. A good number of examples can be explained as influenced by the more or less immediately preceding transitive construction. So obViously 2Kg 6.5 wayhi htI'e/:ltId mappi/ haqqortI w'et habbarzel ntItal 'el hammayim unless one accepts the suggestion offered by Klostermann, 'et = Hacke, Ez 29.4 ha' alitixtI mittox y'orextI w'et kol dgat y 'orextI bqasqsotextI tidbtiq (note also hidbaqti dgat y 'orextI bqaSqsi5textI in the fIrst half of the verse), Ec 4.3 .fov misS'nehem 'et 'aser 'rlden 10' htiytI, under the

130 BDB, S.v. I 'et, 3, "Chiefly in an inferior or later style 'et (or w'et) is used irregularly, as it would seem, to give greater definiteness (so esp. w'et) at the mention of a new subject (when it sometimes may be rendered as regards)." 131 Brock., Synt., § 31b, " 'bitterer als der Tod ist das Weib,' falls es nicht von mo~e' abhiingt." 132 Prof. Rabin's private suggestion (,et = temporal accusative) is fairly attractive. Or perhaps related to the temporal sense of the Arb. ma ~, so that 'et here is 11 'et (= cum)?

154

CHAPTER VII

probable influence exercised by the preceding sabbeal;! (cf. Ginsberg, Qoheleth, ad loc.), Ne 9.19 'et 'am mud he'anan la' sar me'alehem, for which Blau rightly insists on contamination in view of the immediately preceding 'atta bral;liimexa hlirabbim la' 'azavtam bammidblir, and perhaps Dn 9.13 ka' aser katuv b tarat mose 'et kol hlira'a hazza't ba'a 'alenu influenced by Ihavi' 'lilenu ra'a gdala in vs. 12 (but see also below). Blau's attempt to account for Ne 9.34 w'et mliixenu sarenu ... li5' 'asu taratexa by having recourse to hattla'a 'aser m~a'atnu limlaxenu lsarenu in vs. 32 seems, apart from the Lamed standing before the same words, rather forced, especially after the intervening independent sentence (vs. 33) w'attii ¥1ddiq 'al kol habba' 'lilenu. I deem it more likely that verse 34 continues 33b wa'iinal:mu hirscrnu by means of the Waw which may find its correspondence in the so-called Waw of concomitance in Arabic; see Reckendorf, Arab. Synt., § 165.11. Thus 'emet 'asita wa'iinaJ:!nu hirscrnu w'et mlaxenu ... 'Thou hast dealt (with us) faithfully and we have acted wickedly together with our kings ... ' The influence of a transitive verb is more or less manifest in the following cases as well, though perhaps to a lesser degree than in the foregoing group of passages. Nu 3.26 wqal'e heJ:za~er w'et masax petal;! heJ:!a~er ... w'et mettirliw Ixal 'avadiiti5, where note should be taken of the verbal idea inherent in miSineret in vs. 25, and Dt 14.13-18 ... w'et ha'ayyli . .. w'et kol 'arev Imina ... in the list of birds forbidden as food, where no doubt the introductory ze 'iiser la' ta'xlu mehem with the verb 'kl accounts for the use of the particle. However, the reason why it is not consistently used with the other co-ordinate objects as well in these two passages is not clear at all. Blau's idea that hiiyii 1- may have developed to be syntactically equivalent to the transitive "have,,133 is attractive, but 133 "Nach hltylt 1- 'haben' wurde das grammatische Subjekt als Objekt empfunden" (p. 14). The idiom is also attested in modern Israeli Hebrew, which is excessively influenced by modern European languages. It is generally branded as VUlgarism, although it may turn up on the fIrst page of one of the leading newspapers, like yei Iflazit hasilJrur hal'ummit 'et 'al}at han~iguyot hagdolot vehal}aSuvot byoter The National Liberation Front has one of the largest and most important representations' (Ha-aretz, 27.1.1967). See also Rosen, Good Hebrew, pp. 34f. The Indo-European, i.e. Greek influence is almost certain in the similar Syriac idiom as illustrated by the rendering of Mt 26.11 eme de ou pantote ekhete as li den lit' vxulzvan 'i1. Ixon. Cf. N6ldeke, Syr. Gram., § 307. Note also the similar constuction in Ethiopic, e.g. Mt. 3.9 'aba bena 'abrehamha: 'We have Abraham as forefather' and cf. Dillmann, Gram" § 192 and Praetorius, Aethiop. Gram., § 148.

155

PARTICLES

I would rather see in Nu 5.10 a pregnant expression for 'is '{Her yitten qadasaw 10 yihyu in view of the immediately following 'is' 'iHer yitten lakkohen 10 yihye, and note also the preceding verse wxol trumii lxol qodse vne yisra'el 'ilS'er yaqrivu lakkohen 10 yihye. Cf. also Ez 35.lOa 'et sne haggoyim w'et ste ha'ilra~ot li tihyena, and note there yrafnuhii in vs. lOb. In some examples the anakoluthon seems to provide the best possible explanation for the disturbing 'et. So Jer 27.8 w'et 'iiSer 10' yitten 'et ~awWl1'ro b'ol melex bavel . .. 'efqod 'al haggay hahu' (as if 'efqod 'al were a verb which takes the object), Ez 20.16 bmiSPiitay ma'asu w'et /:luqqatay 10' halxu vahem/ 34 where we should take note of the following 'et sabbtatay /:lillelu. In the notorious Ez 43.7 'et mqam kis'i w'et mqom kappBt raglay the author probably had in mind 10' yitm'u as the verb to continue the object phrase, but for some reason or other decided to begin a new sentence with the same verb. Another possibility is to emend 'et to ra'ita on the basis ofG: heorakas, while T: den 'iliar is to be seen as a textually unfounded way-out through graphic manipulation. Anyhow, it is clear at least that the Aramaic translator would not share Saydon's view that the particle 'et can be counted among demonstratives owing to its alleged emphatic force. Probably belonging here also are Dt 11.2 10' 'et bnexem (the apodosis coming only in vs. 7 ki 'enexem haro'ot), Zec 7.7 MIO' 'et haddvarim '(der qara' yhwh, 8.17 ki 'et kol 'elle 'arer sane'ti and Hag 2.5 'et haddavar 'aser karatti 'ittxem b~e'txem mimmi~rayim wruJ:zi 'omedet btoxxem. 135 In the following two passages I am inclined to see a casus pendens and Waw apodosis construction: Nu 3.46 w'et pduye hass7asa whasYiv'im whamma'tayim continued by wliiqalJtii in vs. 47, and Jos 17.11 wayhi limnasS'e . .. bet "i'an uvnotehii . .. w'et yosve do'r uvnoteha to be connected with the following (vs. 12) wlO' yaxlu bnemnaS'se lhOrisV'et he'arim ha'el/e (cf. however the parallel Jud 1.27 10' hiJris mnasse 'et bet "i'an ... ). Needless to say, emphasis, if any, is due to the casus pendens construction, while the 'et keeps its ordinary function as object marker. v

v

134 This case incidentally shows that the preposition Beth used with the verb rn 's is nothing more than an alternative form of the object marker 'et and no longer preserves anything of the local signification. 135 For the last two passages, see (iii) below. If ki 'ani 'ittxern n 'urn yhwh fVII'ot be a parenthesis, then we could obtain a perfect sentence by construing 'et haddlIvlIr with the lonely 'IISu in vs. 4.

156

CHAPTER VII

ii) Blau is right in thinking that where the antecedent corresponds to the object of a relative clause, that antecedent occasionally has nota accusativi prefIxed to it. Such examples are: Ex 1.14 'et kol 'iivodiitiim 'aser 'iivdu bfiirex,l36 Nu 35.6 w'et he'iirim 'aser tittnu lalwiyyim 'et sel 'lire hammiqliit . . , wa'iilehem tittnu 'arbii'im ustayim 'ir, lKg 8.31 'er 'aler ye~etii' 'is'lre'ehu, continued by the Waw apodosis opening the next verse wattilma' etc., Jer 38.16 /:lay yhwh 't 'aser 'iisii llinu 'et hanne[elf hazzo't, where 'et is rightly deleted by Qre, ib. 45.4 'et 'aser ntIta'ti 'ani notel w'et kol hii'lire~ hi' (the second w'et may be interpreted as Waw of concomitance plus the object particle), Ez 14.22 ni~amtem 'al hiirii'ii 'aler heve'ti 'al yrusa1ayim 'et kol 'aser heve'ti 'iilehii. Hi) Verba copiae vel inopiae are recognized by GK, § 117z, aa in the following examples, while Brockelmann (Synt., § 102), Jotion (§ 125j), and K6nig (§ 270d) describe the use respectively as "Akkusativ als Bestimmung des Bereiches," "acc. de limitation," and "acc. relationis," unanimously regarding 'et as nota accusativi. So Jos 22.17 ham'at liinu 'et 'awon p'or, 2Sm 11.25 'al yera' b'enexii 'et haddiiviir hazze, Ne 932 'al yim'a! lfiinexii 'et kol hattlii'ii. Driver (Notes, ad loc.) thinks it possible to add to the list ISm 20.13 yetiv 'el 'iivi 'et hiirii'a 'iilexii. iv) In 2Kg 8.28 wayyelex 'et yorlim ben 'al:z'iiv the particle is unquestionably prepositional, 'with' (Albrecht, p. 276). So also perhaps Is 53.8 me'o~er umimmispiit luqqlil:z w'et doro miyso/:lea~ (cf. L(= G):generationem eius quis narravit ?), though the haplography ('et pro me'et) is not impossible. But a far better interpretation has been offered by Volz (KAT), who translates "Wer sorgt urn sein Geschlecht?" v) We have briefly mentioned above the use of 'et with the passive construction. Whether we admit its impersonal character (so Brockelmann) or not, there is no doubt that it has its origin in the corresponding active construction. m I do not deny the possibility that the frequent use of 'et in this construction tended to give the impression that it was the genuine nota nominativi, hence the occasional concord in number and/or gender, as in 2Sm 21.22 'et 'arba'at 'elle yulldu, 2Kg 18.30 wlO tinniiten 'et hii'ir 136 Joiion's view (§ l25j) that 'et can stand in apposition to another preposition is hardly acceptable. The same opinion is expressed by BDB, s.V., 3 (J3). 137 Cf. Brock., GVG ii, § 66, 6, Synt., § 35de; Joiion, § 128b; Kropat, p. 3; K. Albrecht, ZAW, xlvii (1929), 274ff. Analogously in Qassical Ethiopic: Dillmann, Gram., p.436 and Praetorius, Aeth. Gram., p.l13. See also Gn 31.42 in the Palestinian Targum (ed. P. Kahle).

157

PARTICLES

hazzo't. But, be it stressed that the recognition of the origin of the construction, as it has been suggested above, implies that the question of the possible use of the particle as nota nominativi and that of emphatic force must be strictly kept apart. Vi) After having exhausted all the possibilities imaginable, there remain a considerable number of passages for which we have no alternative but to suggest emendation, ranging from mere change in the pointing to that in the consonantal text itself. In Jud 20.44 wayyipplu mibbinyiimin smonii 'iisar 'elef 'if! 'et kol 'elle 'anse /}ayil the intervening words render it rather difficult to accept Blau's proposal to account for the object marker by making it dependent upon kittru in the preceding verse. Perhaps we should point wayyappilu instead of wayyipplu, thus ascribing the same subject to both wyplw and kittru. 138 ISm 17.34 bO' hti'an w'et haddov; if one thinks it improbable that the two beasts came upon the shepherd at the same time 0Naw of concomitance?), then Driver (Notes, ad loc.) may be right: "It would seem as though a copyist's eye had actually interchanged haddov here with 'et haddov invs. 36."139 Ib.26.l6 r'e 'e /:tanit hammelex w'et (read 'e) ~appaftat hammayim, 2Kg 10.15 hiiyes 'et lviivxii yiisiir should be halviivxa 'et lvavi yas(rr (so G) for the sake of parallelism with the following ka'aser lvavi 'im lvavexa. l40 Jer 3.9 watteIJenaf 'et hti'iire~; point wattal;ziinef (with STLG a'B') lb. 2333 'et ma masSii' wna.tasti 'etxem; read 'attem hammaSsa' according to G and L. lb. 36.22; cf. above, p. 148. Ez 31.4 'et nahiirOtehti hOlex svivot matfii'ah; pOint and read hOlixa (so G) in the light of the following line 'et t'aloteM sil/:lii 'el kol 'a~e hassade. lb. 47.17 -19 (thrice) w'et p'aqajOn; read zo't in view of vs. 20 zo't p 'at yam. Likewise 2Ch 31.17 w'et hitya/:tes hakkOhiinim lvet 'avotehem. Ib 31.10 yhwh berax 'et 'amma whannOtlir 'et hehiimon hazze; read hOtir according to the preceding hOter. At times the text must be judged as hopelessly corrupt. So lKg 11.25 wayhi siitan lyisra'el kol yme S/oma w'et hiira'ii 'aser hiidiid, 2Kg 9.25 ki zxor 'ani wii'atta 'et rOxvim ~madim 'abare 'afl 'av, Ez 44.3 'et hannasi' nasi' hu' yesev ha and Hag 2.17 'en 'etxem. 138 Note the similar wording in vs. 25 wayyas'1;zitu ... od imonat 'afar 'elef 'is 'ar~a kol 'elle lolfe ~erev and vs. 35 wayyas'1;zitu ... vne yiira'el bvinyamin ...

'eirim waluimiiil1 'elef ume '11 'is kol

'~lle

sole! I}l1rev.

139 Or to be read w'im haddov 'or maybe a bear'; Taw and Mem interchange (Rabin). 140 Stook yasar as a substantive 'honesty' (triIU14), but 'ax davlebby in the subordinate clause of comparison is difficult.

158

CHAPTER VII

In conclusion we may summarize by saying that there is no basis for the assertion that the particle 'et can be used for the purpose of emphasis, neither as the genuine object marker nor where it is rather awkwardly employed because of the Konstruktionsmischung, that it is never used with a genuine subject noun, and that even where it appears to be so used in the (originally) hybrid passive construction it never plays the role of emphasizing the following noun. xvi) ki Force of emphasis has been attributed by different scholars to this particle, a possible exception being Ehrlich, who does not express himself against the idea nor mention it at all in his seven-volume Randglossen. But those scholars who admit it disagree among themselves when they come to deciding in which particular passage it is emphatic. S.R. Driver is aware of the difficulty, saying that not infrequently it is not easy to decide whether ki should be translated "yea" or "for" (BDB, S.v., p. 474b). Likewise, I do not know how convincingly Vriezen 141 is able to argue for his "emphatic-concessive" use of the particle as against the simple concessive one. Jouon142 is very reluctant to admit the emphatic force beyond its use in oaths and the apodosis of a conditional sentence. On the contrary, Albright is of the opinion that the asseverative ki is far more common in Hebrew than is generally supposed,l43 and Dahood 144 and Muilenburg,145 relying heavily on the apparent Ugaritic parallel,146 attempt to enlarge the list considerably.147 141 Th.C. Vriezen, "Einige Notizen zur Uebersetzung des Bindewortes ki," Fschr. Q. Eissfeldt, Von Ugarit nach Qumran (Berlin, 1958), pp. 266-73. 142 § 164b, "En dehors de ces cas [i.e. cas de I'affirmation solennelle du serment et I 'apodose conditionelle Jon le [i.e.! ki/d'affIrmation] trouve ~a et la, d 'une fa~on plus ou moins probable." Cf. also his notes on Ru 1.10 and 3.12 in his Ruth, Commentaire. 143 "Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles," Fschr. G.R. Driver, Hebrew and Semitic Studies, 1963, p. 2, n. 3. 144 Ugr.-Heb. Philology, § 9.17 and his Psalms (Anch. Bib.) on 49.16. 145 "The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle ki in the Q.T.," HUCA, xxxii (1961), 135-60. The article is full of sweeping statements, and the author is so confIdent of his position that he feels no necessity even to mention opposing interpretations offered by other scholars. 146 In this respect the new Baumgartner Lexikon (s.v., 1 [po 448b]) is clearly influenced by the alleged Ugaritic parallel. 147 So does A. Schoors in his article "The Particle ki," esp. pp. 24348.

PARTICLES

159

In the course of our studies so far we have had occasions to observe that a certain word or construction was not infrequently explained as emphatic, when one found difficulty in adopting the commonly accepted usage; the idea of "emphasis" was called in as a convenient pinch-hitter, to use the terminology of the baseball game. As for the present particle, the common accepted use was the one as a subordinating conjunction with its variegated specializations. The two main cases which will not come into this framework are ki introducing the apodosis of a conditional sentence, mostly followed by 'atta or 'az, and ki prefixed to the (mostly verbal) predicate. Two attempts have been made to explain how the subordinating conjunction could come to be used for the emphasizing purpose. 148 The first was etymological; the relationship with the element k contained in such words as ko, ken and their various counterparts in other cognate languages was pointed out, and the demonstrative function was said to be or to have been its original one. It seems to me that there can be hardly any legitimate doubt about this etymological identification. The second attempt was a comparative one. In the meantime, as mentioned above, Ugaritic turned up with the apparent equivalent k, whose vowel is most likely to have been i like the Heb. counterpart. The similarity was not only phonetic, but also syntactic; H.L. Ginsberg was the first to call our attention to the important fact that the emphatic k in Ugr. immediately precedes the predicate, which is thrown back to the end of a sentence (JRAS, 1935, 56)~49 He was followed by Brockelmann,15o Gordon,l5l Dahood,152 and Driver .153 It may be interesting to note here that in the translations by Brockelmann and Gordon of the passages in question the alleged emphatic force claimed by them is by no means apparent. In opposition to 148 A useful survey on the particle may now be found in the above-quoted Schoors' extensive article. 149 Loewenstamm, who also admits the emphatic k in Ugaritic, casts doubt on the validity of this syntactic rule: Leshonenu, xxiii (1958/59), 77f. 150 "Zur Syntax der Sprache von Ugarit," Or., x (1941), 223-40. The same article has been appended to G. Bergstriisser, Einftlhrung in die semitischen Sprachen (1963), pp. 195-212. 151 UT, §§ 9.17, 13.51, and Glossary, no. 1184. 152 See n. 144 above and Psalms III (Anch. Bib.), pp. 402-405,410. 153 Canaanite Myths and Legends, Glossary, s.v. k. See also Aartun, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen, vol. 1, pp. 3lf.; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Glossary, s.V.

160

CHAPTER VII

this numerical supremacy of the advocates for the emphatic kin Ugr. the eminent Ugaritologist J. Aistleitner alone does not register such a use in his dictionary, and where others have recognized it, he explains it either as temporal or adverbial "so." The diversity of interpretation can be seen as well among those scholars who do express themselves in favour of the emphatic use of the particle, just as is the case with the interpretation of Biblical passages. Thus, e.g., IIAB ii 13 hlk. b'l. altrt kt'n. is variously rendered: 'Athirat eyes the going of Ba'l' (Gordon), 'when she looks on ... ' (Driver, 154 who begins a new sentence with the particle), 'als die Jungfrau Anat (ihn) kommen sah' (Brockelmann, p. 239). Far more important is the realization that in none of the passages l55 adduced to establish the emphatic use of the particle, does the afflrmative-emphatic sense suit the context. On the contrary, in its frequent conjunction with the verb ~!z introducing an oratio recta, the rendering 'so' is much more preferable, and we are even tempted to point it as kO, if one would press the correspondence with Hebrew. On the following pages I shall attempt to demonstrate that our particle has demonstrative force, not only as its original etymologically deducible function, but also as one of its basic uses in Old Testament Hebrew alongside its later varied specialisations,156 whose description lies outside our concern here. The only relevant question that remains to be answered is whether demonstrative function can develop into an emphatic one or not. It seems to me that there is no questioning the emphatic force of ki used in imprecation or oath forms. 157 We should not be very far off the mark if we infer that the use may have Originated in legal parlance; for instance, a person accused of theft is demanded to swear ki giinavti in reply to hiigiinavtii 'et hassus of the judge, referring by ki to the words 154 But cf. Gibson, "she surely sighted the coming of Baal." 155 Add to the examples quoted 11 AB ii 27, 29, iv 27, vii 53, I AB i 14, II 0 v 15, SS 39. 156 The Greek particle hos is the closest possible parallel to ki in its etymology and variety of uses. For its fundamental demonstrative force, see E. Schwyzer, Griech. Gram. i (1939), p. 614. If Gordis is right in attributing kt and comparative ki to one and the same origin, the said parallelism would be further enhanced. See R. Gordis, "The Asseverative Kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew," JAOS, lxiii (1943),176-78. 157 The Accadian ki can be used in the same way; see von Soden, Grundriss. § 285j-1. See also Schoors, "The Particle ki," esp. pp. 248-51.

PARTICLES

161

pronounced by the judge upon which his oath is modelled, 'So, as you have said.' One may object that the formula is an ellipsis of the nisoa'ti ki giinavti, i.e. ki is a conjunction introducing an object clause, but even so the particle must have been demonstrative in its origin, as is paralleled in many other languages, like Ger. dass (= das), Eng!. that. This use of ki in oaths fmds its excellent description in J oiion, § 165. Here are given only a few of the abundant examples: Gn 42.16 I;ze far'a ki mragglim 'attem where Joseph perseveres in his suspicion despite the repeated pronouncement by his helpless brothers concerning their harmless purpose (cf. G: e men kataskopoi este), 1 Srn 26.16 /:lay yhwh ki vne mawet 'attem, ib. 14.44 ki mat tiimut (coupled with an inf. abs.). In Gn 22.1617 ya'an 'aser ... ki viirex 'iiviirexxii (G: e men eulogan euiogesa) we would rather see a case of the corroborative ki than a promissory oath. According to some authorities,1s8 ki can have asseverative-emphatic force in the apodosis of the conditional sentence, almost invariably followed by 'attii or 'iiz (except Is 7.9) and preceded by the protasis of irreal condition (i.e. opening with iu or/uie, except Is 7.9, Job 8.6, 11.15 with 'im). This is very probable, but extremely difficult to prove or disprove. It is inferable that here again the particle was originally demonstrative; cf. the Germ. so, which often introduces the apodosis. Some examples are: Gn 31.42 iuie 'eiahe 'iivi . .. h/iyii li ki 'attii reqiim sillal;ztiini (L: forsitan modo), 1S9 Nu 22.29 iu yen)ereV byiidi ki 'attiI haragtix, 2Sm 2.27 lule dibbartii ki 'iiz mehabbOqer na'iilii ha'iim (S: 'ellu lii' dmallelt 'el/ii' sarririi'i! i~frii' ... ), Is 7.9 'im la' ta' iiminu ki 1fj' te'iimenu. There is a group of passages in which ki is directly prefixed to the predicate in such a way that it finds itself between the subject and its predicate. We have rejected above the thesis that the Ugr. k in the same position is emphatic. But it must be admitted that the asseverative-emphatic force suits these passages very well, whilst it is no less important that in the same places the demonstrative or conjunctional ki is equally applicable, as we shall attempt to show now. Thus Gn 18.20 za'iiqat sdom wa'iimarii ki rabbii wl;za!!ii'tiim ki xiivdii m 'ad, where Speiser

158 GK, § 15gee, Joiion, § 167s, Driver, Tenses, § 141. 159 Cf. n. 74. Note also that the Ace. minde has been rendered by some 'sicher' and by others 'vielleicht'; see Or., xviii (1949), 387f.

162

CHAPTER VII

apparently takes the particle as demonstrative ,160 translating ''The cry of S. and G. is so great and their sin is so heavy that I will go down ... " (Anch. Bib.), while Driver interprets it as causal (BOB, s.v. 3a),161 Jer 4.18 zo't rli'litex ki mlir ki nliga' 'ad Ubbex, where the particle seems to be repeated to produce climactic effect (cf. also La 3.22 below), Ps 49.16 'elohim yifde nalfi miyyad s'ol ki yiqqli!;eni (G L: temporal), ib. 89.2-3 /dor wlidor 'odia' 'emuniitxii bfi ki 'limarti 'ollim ... 'With my own mouth indeed I said" (Dahood, Ugr.-Heb. Philology, § 9.17), where the demonstrative "so" is quite possible, ib. 118.10-12 (as a refrain of each verse) bfem yhwh ki 'amilam, ib. 128.2 ygia' kappexa ki f{j'xel where Ehrlich (Randgl., ad loc.) thinks that the whole line is dependent upon the preceding one (= L: quia) and Rudolph (KAT) mentions the acrostic structure as well. It is noteworthy that all of the examples given above except the first one occur in poetic passages. Yet it must be stressed that the cases from Ugaritic, though found in the epic, are of a different nature, for "he surely cried aloud to his wife" (110 vIS) etc. does not sound poetic at all, or in other words, their immediate context is not poetic. 162 160 See Gesenius, Worterbuch, s.v., 1, ad init.: "die urspriingl. demonstr. Bed. (so) zeigt sich an Stellen wie: 'das Geschrei iiber Sodom ki rabba' gewiss, esist gross' Gn 18.20." 161 So Ehrlich, Randgl., ad loco This is difficult, as the causal ki clause hardly precedes the main clause. The absence of a correlative, as must be assumed in Speiser's interpretation, should be compared with a similar syntax in English: "In familiar speech so is often used without supplement and this comes to mean pretty much the same thing as very [as in) Tm so glad you've come at last' " (Jespersen, Essentials of English grammar, § 16.3.4). So interpreted, the ki in our passage is close to an intensifying particle. Albright tries to prove by making use of the comparative material from Amarna, Ugarit, and Mari that the ki here, as in Gn 1 ki !OV, means 'how' ('very, most'). Two objections might be raised. (1) All his extra-biblical examples are found in a larger sentence complex; we expect that an exclamatory sentence would stand by itself, esp. in the earliest stage of the development of the idiom. (2) In Gn 18.20 the idea of 'very' is expressed by m 'od. See W.F. Albright, "The Refrain 'And God Saw ki {ob' in Genesis," Fschr. A. Robert, Melanges Bibliques (1957), pp. 22-26. The saying "Like father, like son" does not hold in our case, for G.R. Driver admits the emphatic use of the particle in Gn 18.20. See his article "Another Little Drink - Isaiah 28:1-22," Fschr. D. Winton Thomas, Words and Mean· ings, ed. P.R. Ackroyd (1968), pp. 58, 61. Without no support available from Ugaritic, Dhorme had recognized here the emphatic ki (Job, on 28.1). 162 But see Gordon, UT, § 13.113, where he regards these recurrent expressions

PARTICLES

163

The use of ki in a climactic construction, which I have mentioned in the above paragraph, is observable in some other cases, too. Ps 77.12 'ezkor ma'aUe yiih ki 'ezkrii miqqedem pi/'exii, Ex 22.22 'im 'anne t'anne 'ato ki 'im ~li'aq yi~'aq 'elay samoa' 'esma', Is 32.13f. ki 'al kol batte miisas qiryli 'allizii ki 'armon nuttlis~ hiimtJn 'ir 'uzzliv. Cf. also ib. 55.9 ki glivhu samayim me'lire~ ken gavhu drlixay middarxexem and Ho 6.9 derex yra~~~u sexmli ki zimmli 'asu. In the following passages ki seems to be purely demonstrative.Job 6.22 hiixi 'limarti 'did I say so?' The Old Testament affords a good number of examples in which a negative statement or question is answered by means of /0'. For instance, to Sarah's denial Gn 18.15 ItJ ~lil:zaqti the angel rejoins la' ki ~liflQqt. It is amusing to read what ingenuity Speiser needed to find his way out ofthis apparently puzzling use of the negative and to arrive at the rendering "Yes" (Anch. Bib., ad loc.). I must object to him however that ki by itself is never used adversatively except in the negative construction. Likewise Jotion's rendering (Ruth, on 1.10) "Non, mais" is nothing better than a translation expedience. The whole difficulty will be removed when we recognize the demonstrative "so" in the particle and admit that the negative is used precisely in the same way as the Japanese negative, which negates the preceding (negative) statement or question as a whole; see n. 46. Then the reply of the angel may be best rendered 'Not so (your statement is not right); you laughed.' This phrase is most probably to be identified with the Arb. llikin or liikinna, which "rectifies or amends the preceding statement" (Wright, Arab. Gram. ii,

334C).163 The way the phrase is rendered in the Peshitta version is occasionally instructive. See Gn 42.12 10' ki 'erwat hli'lire~ ba'tem !ir'at (S: /ii' (h)wli' hlixannli' tebblih hw ... ), lKg 3.22 liJ' xi bni ha/:lay (S: lii' (h )wli' hlixannli' very hw IJayyli').

Once the demonstrative force of ki is established, it is easy to understand how it can be used in the same way as the Greek hoti recitativum .164 E.g., Ex 4.25 watta'mer ki /:liitan dlimim 'attli li. Causal use is preferable in the following places against the view of various authors, or at least, one cannot assert emphatic use to the abas poetic cliches: "It is unnecessary to regard these formulae as prose intrusions. Their frequency lends them a poetic flavor akin to that of a refrain." 163 Note Gn 4.15 laxen: G, G, a'B' : oukh houtos, L: Nequaquam ita fecit, S: la'· haxanna'. 164 This possibility is entirely rejected by Sh. Esh, "On Particles Introducing the Direct Speech in Heb.," Leshonenu, xxii (1957),48-52.

164

CHAPTER VII

solute exclusion of causal one. so Gn 33.11 qaJ:z nil' 'et birxilti ... ki J:zannani '1!lahim wxi yeS' li xal (against GK, § 148d),165 Nu 23.23 ki la' nalJaf bya'aqav, 2Kg 23.21-22 wanaw hammelex . .. 'iiSu fesaJ:z Iyhwh ... ki la' na'asli kappesaJ:z hazze (Bumey: causal), Is 15.1 ki blel Suddad 'lir ma'liv nidmil (K6nig, § 351c), Ho 9.12 ki gam 'ay lilhem biuri mehem (GS: causal), 103 ki 'attli ya'mru 'en melex liinu (GLS: causal), Am 3.7 ki la' ya'ase 'adanay yhwh dlivlir (GLS: causal), Ps 76.11 ki J:zamat 'ildilm tadekkiI (GLS: causal), Ec 4.16 ki gam ze hevel (GS: causal), 7.20 ki 'iidlim en ~ddiq biI'ilre~ (GLS: causal), et 1.2 yissaqeni minns1qOt pihu ki tavim dodexli miyyliyin (against Albright; see n. 143), Ezr 9.13 ki 'attli 'elOhenu lJilSaxtli lmaUil me'(jwanenu (against Kropat, p. 31, where it is not clear what Kropat means when he writes "ki ist hervorhebend verwandt"). For the following passages textual emendation has been suggested. 1Srn 20.26 miqre hu' bilti tilhOr hu' ki la' tilhOr (read tahar: Driver, Notes), 2Sm 23.5 ki xol yisV'i wxol fzefe~ ki la' (read ha1a) ya~miafz (ibid .), Job 28.1 ki yesVlakkesef ma~il', where G. Fohrer (KAT) assumes that whaJ:zoxmiI me'ayin timmli~e' w'e ze mqam biniI, which constitutes vs. 12 and vs. 20 (with a slight modification), originally preceded the vss. 1 and 7,166 Ec. 7.7 ki hii'aseq yhOlell;iixilm, which stands aloof in the context, and Ru 3.12 w'attil ki 'omnilm ki 'im g{)'el an{)xi wgam yesV ga'el qilrav mimmenni, which is hopelessly corrupt (cf. Jotion, Ruth, ad loc.). Summary. The etymologically deducible original demonstrative force of the particle ki was still alive alongside its later specializations, and this demonstrative function is the source of its occasional asseverativeemphatic use. It is so used particularly when it appears in oath formulae, and closely related to that in the apodosis of conditional sentences. Beyond these uses, it may be used for the emphasizing purpose when directly prefixed to the predicate, and that almost exclusively in poetic context. It is rather doubtful that the alleged emphatic k in Ugaritic is a case of genuinely analogous use.

165 All the passages for which it is not specified which author regards the construction as emphatic have been taken from BDB, s.v. ki, le. 166 I can hardly see why "une simple formule d'introduction" is to be rendered 'certes' (Dhorme, ad loc.).

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS On a number of occasions throughout the present work it has been stressed that in the past the notion of emphasis was often invoked for no good reason. Many a philological and grammatical study of the Old Testament and its Hebrew language pronounced certain linguistic forms, words or structures to be emphatic on the basis of what appears to be little more than unwarranted dogmatism and instinctive subjectivism. What one might call grammarians' licence has been most freely exercised over a group of words loosely classifiable as particles (Chapter VII). What is more, even as regards those forms concerning whose emphatic nature there prevails a measure of consensus, it was not always clear what is meant by emphasis. On the contrary, it appeared that emphasis is a rather opaque and nebulous (conveniently soJ notion whose varied aspects need to be identified and defined with greater precision. Bearing in mind these deficiencies in some of the past treatment of the subject, we have conducted our investigation apropos of select linguistic issues, some syntactic and some lexical. Some observations one can make about emphasis claim more or less general validity irrespective of the nature of a given linguistic issue under consideration. On the other hand, there are features of emphasis which are specific to this or that linguistic issue. One feature that appears to be shared by many forms which we have concluded to be emphatic, emphasis here being understood rather loosely, is that they are frequently associated with an unusual degree of emotional tension. Many emphatic forms are found in emotionally charged contexts expressive of indignation, anger, accusation, reprimand, warning, astonishment, exultation, despair, and the like. A promise or an oath is also sometimes couched in emphatic language. A strong sense of self-importance may be discerned in royal inscriptions or promulgations announcing a king's achievements or victories. It is sometimes said that the genius and beauty of the classical Biblical narrative 165

166

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

style lies in its deliberately suppressive reticence in stark contrast, for instance, with the Homeric verbosity, yet in expression of emotions Biblical Hebrew appears to me to be quite extrovert. Whilst it is by no means claimed that every emotional tension necessarily lends itself to emphasis, genealogies or legal codes, for example, are rather unlikely to be emphatically worded. The presence of a cluster of various emphatic forms in certain passages appears to be of some Significance in this regard. The fact that emphatic forms are found in lively conversational passages rather more frequently than in narrative may be accounted for by the speaker's personal emotional involvement. Another feature common to many emphatic forms is that they serve to highlight or underline a proposition or part of it. Their function is that of mise en relief If an entire proposition is to be made to stand out, one may be dealing with asseveration, or rather, confirmation and affirmation, or simply insistence. We have noted that many emphatic particles belong to this category. Should part of a proposition only be underscored, however, emphatic forms single out that part, or what is denoted thereby, by contrasting it with some other alternative which may be explicitly or implicitly indicated. This is what we said about identificatory patterns of the nominal clause, for instance. We also referred to this aspect in dealing with the pronominal copula and casus pendens. Extraposition is a device for singling out part of a proposition not only mentally but also linguistically and formally. The aspect of deixis has probably something to do with this process of singling out, and here reference may be made to the use of hinne or hen, and the use of ze or hu' following an interrogative. Extraposition has just been mentioned as a means of formally marking emphatic expressions. This is not the only such means. Emphasis often involves repetition. There are cases where one and the same form is repeated, but in general one aspect of a linguistic expression is repeated in a different shape, which is true, for instance, of the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute in paronomastic constructions. 'Phe use of the independent personal pronoun with a finite verb form, which by itself sufficiently marks the feature of grammatical person, may be viewed in this light. Likewise, given our insufficient knowledge of the prosody of Biblical Hebrew, there is some justification for saying that the use of a copula as in 'attit hu' hii'e!ohim lexically marks what may be prosodically so marked without it. In fact we have relied to a certain extent on the presence of disjunctive accents of the massoretes in order to identify a

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

167

word or phrase which appears to be singled out by them. However, we are the first to admit that a full enquiry into the relevance of these accent signs for Hebrew grammar is still awaited. Another possible formal indication of emphasis is aberration and departure from the conventional norm, which could have the effect of visually catching the reader's eye or aurally striking the hearer's ears. Repetition and real or apparent pleonasm are likely to have this effect. One of the main concerns of the chapter on word-order was to establish the statistically normal patterns and then to see whether patterns deviating from them may be emphatic. As is only to be expected, however, what initially emerged as novel and abnormal, becomes less so with the passage of time and frequent use. This effect of wear and tear seems to be noticeable in the idiom ze hu', for instance. We have found it most diffIcult to deal with cases where it has been claimed that a certain word or form is emphatic in the sense of stressing. This is particularly true of many of the particles dealt with in the final chapter. Often there was precious little supporting argument, if any, so that one is necessarily left unconvinced. As implied in Introduction, I do not claim that with this book the last word has been said on the subject of emphasis in Biblical Hebrew. True, some aspects of it, for instance, most of the particles discussed here, have been subjected to a thorough and exhaustive investigation or, as in the case of et, we have availed ourselves of such by colleagues of ours. In contrast, on the question of word-order, we have made only a modest beginning and contribution to this subject of enormous difficulty and complexity. Our probe was made into a selection of classical prose passages. Poetry was not touched at all. It is to be hoped that some significant advances made recently in this neglected corner of Hebrew linguistics will be followed up. Furthermore, we have approached the issues addressed in this work from one direction only, namely, that of emphasis. But many of those issues can and ought to be looked at from other points of view as well. I am also aware that some recent studies have suggested a possible emphasizing function of words and forms other than those dealt with here. I would like to believe, however, that the present study has covered enough ground to raise some of the more important general issues and has by way of illustration pointed to possible ways of tackling the question of emphasis in Biblical Hebrew.

ABBREVIATIONS

a. Books of the Bible Gn, Ex, Lv, Nu, Dt, Jos, Jud, 1-2Sm, 1-2Kg, Is, Jer, Ez, Ho, 11, Am, Ob, Jon, Mi, Na, Hb, Zep, Hag, Zee, Mal, Ps, Pr, Job, Ct, Ru, La, Ee, Est, Dn, Ezr, Ne, 1-2Ch, Sir, Ase. Jes, Mt, Lk, Ae.

b. Periodicals AfO AJSL ArOr BASOR Bib I. BiOr BZ CBQ GLECS

Archiv fur Orientforschung American Journal ofSemitic Languages and Literatures Archiv Orientdln{ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblica Bibliotheca Orientalis Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d'Etudes Chamito-Semitiques HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IF Indogermanische Forschungen JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNES Journal ofNear Eastern Studies JPOS Journal ofPalestine Oriental Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JThSt Journal of Theological Studies OLZ Orientalistische Litera(t)turzeitung Or. Orientalia OudtestStud Oudtestamentische Studien RB Revue Biblique 169

170 REJ RSO VT ZA ZA Ut' ZDMG ZS

ABBREVIATIONS

Revue des Etudes Juives Rivista degli Studi Orientali Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift fur Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete

c. Others Worterbuch = W. der ugaritischen Sprache (see Bibliography B 1) AnOr Analecta Orient alia Bergstrasser, Gram. =Hebriiische Grammatik (A 3) BDB Brown-Driver-Briggs (B 4) BL Baue!-Leander (A 1,2) Brock., GVG Brockelrnann, Gnmdriss der . .. (A 4) Synt. = Syntax (A 5) The Assyrian Dictionary (B 5) CAD Dillrnann, Gram. = A ethiopische Grammatik (A 7) Driver, Notes = Notes on the Hebrew Text . .. (E 10) Tenses = A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses . .. (D 72) Ehrlich, Randgl., =Randglossen zur hebr. Bibel (E 12) Ewald AusfUhrliches Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache (A 8) F French translation of the Bible by Segond (C 14) Jer. Bible de Jerusalem (C 15) PIe. Edition Pleiade (C 16) G Septuagint, Rahlfs' edition (C 1) Aquila Theodotion Symmachus GU Orig. Origen Lucian Luc. Gesenius, Worterhuch (B 7) GK Gesenius-Kautzsch (A 10) Gordon, UT = Ugaritic Textbook (A 11) Jotion Grammllire de l'hebreu biblique (A 13) JPSA. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text [published by the Jewish PublicaAistleitner,

ABBREVIATIONS

KB KB3 K6nig Kropat L Lambert RSV S T

T-O T·J

tion Society of America], Philadelphia, 1962K6h1er-Baumgartner (B 9) Baumgartner, Heb. und A ram. Lexicon . .. (B 2) Lehrgebaiide, vol. 3 Syntax (A 14) Syntax des Autors der Chronik (D 137) Vulgate version (C 5) Traite de grammaire hebrai"que (A 15) Revised Standard Version (C 13) Syriac (Peshitta) version (C 6) Aramaic Targum (C 10) Targum Onquelos (C 10) Targum Jonathan (C 10)

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Grammars 1. Bauer, H., and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebriiischen Sprache des alten Testaments. Halle, 1922. 2. -. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramiiischen. Halle, 1927. 3. Bergstrasser, G. Hebriiische Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1918-29. 4. Brockehnann, C. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Berlin, 1908-13. 5. --: Hebriiische Syntax. Neukirchen, 1956. 6. Dahnan, G. Grammatik des jiidisch-paliistinischen A ramiiisch. Leipzig, 1905 2 • 7. Dilhnann, A. Grammatik der iithiopischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1899. 8. Ewald, H. Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebriiischen Sprache des alten Bundes. Leipzig, 18708 9. Friedrich, J. Phonizisch-punische Grammatik. Rome, 1951. 10. Gesenius, W., E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowley. Hebrew Grammar. Oxford, 19102 . 11. Gordon, C.H. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome, 1965. 12. Harris, Z.S. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven, 1936. 13. Jotion, P. Grammaire de l'hebreu biblique. Rome, 1947 2 • 14. K6nig, E. Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebriiischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1897. 15. Lambert, M. Traite de grammaire hebrai"que. Paris, 1938. 16. N61deke, Th. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1898 2 • 17. -.Mandiiische Grammatik. Halle, 1875. 18. Praetorius, F. Aethiopische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1886. 19. Segal, M.H. A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew. Oxford, 1927. 20. - rr;lIzmrrl'tu; i"'i", (A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew) Tel-Aviv, 1936.

173

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

21.

Schulthess, F. Grammatik des christlich-paliistinischen Aramiiisch. Tiibingen, 1924. Soden, W. von. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Rome, 1952. [+ Ergiinzungsheft. Rome, 1969.] Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Rev. by Robertson Smith, W. and M.J. de Goeje. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1986-8 3 •

22. 23.

B. Lexica 1. Aistleitner, A. Worterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin, 1965. 2. Baumgartner, W. Habriiisches und Aramiiisches Lexicon zum alten Testament. 1st fasc. x-n:lU, 2nd fasc. n:lu·U:lJ. Leiden, 1967-74. 3. Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle, 1928 2 . 4. Brown, F., S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907. 5. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University. The Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago, 1956. 6. Dillmann, A. Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae. Leipzig, 1865. 7. Gesenius, W. Wilhelm Gesenius' hebr. und aram. Handworterbuch uber das Alte Testament .. . bearbeitet von F. Buhl. Leipzig, 1915 17 • 8. J astrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, 1903. 9. K6hler, L, and W. Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden, 1953. 10. Lane, E. W. Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vols. London, 1863-93. 11. Levy, J. Chaldiiisches Worterbuch iiber die Targumim und einen grossen Teil des rabbinischen Schrifttums. Leipzig, 1867-68. 12. -.Neuhebriiisches und Chaldiiisches Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim undMidraschim. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1876-89. 13. Loewenstamm, S.E., 1. Blau and M.Z. Kaddari. Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible. Jerusalem (n.d.). 14. Vogt, E. Lexicon linguae aramaicae veteris testamenti documentis antiquis illustratum. Rome, 1971. C. 1.

2.

Versions and Translations Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1935. Brooke, A. E., N. Mc Lean and H. St. J. Thackeray. The Old Testamentin Greek . ... 9 parts. Cambridge, 1906-40.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

3. 4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16.

D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

175

Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum. G6ttingen 1931--. Bibliorum Sacrorum juxta Vu/gatam Clementinam. Rome, 1959. Biblia Sacra Juxta vulgatam versionem. 2 vols. Eds. B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele, and R. Weber. Stuttgart, 1969. Biblia Sacra juxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta. 3 vols. Beyrut,1951. ThePeshitta. London, 1954. Repr. ofed. Urmia, 1852. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version etc. Leiden,1972-. Ceriani, A.M. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti. Milan, 1876. Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. Leiden, 1959-68. Berliner,A. TargumOnkelos. Berlin, 1884. Lagarde, P. de. Prophetae Chaldaice. Leipzig, 1872. The Revised Standard Version, 1952. La Sainte Bible. Tr. by L. Segond. 1910. La Sainte Bible. Traduite en franyais sous la direction de I'Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem, Paris, 1955. La Bible. Edition Pleiade. Paris, 1956. Grammatical and Related Studies Aartun, K. Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen. 2 vols. NeukirchenVluyn,1974-78. Ackroyd, P.R. "The Meaning of Heb. dor Considered," JSS, xiii (1968),3-10. Albrecht, C. "Die Wortstellung im hebraischen Nominalsatz," ZAW, vii (1887), 218-24; viii (1888),249-63. -. "'t vor dem Nominativ und bei dem Passiv," ZAW, xlvii (1929), 274-83. Albrektson, B. Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text. Lund, 1963. Albright, W.F. "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature," CBQ, vii (1945),5-31. -. "The Refrain «And God Saw Utab» in Genesis," in Fschr. A. Robert, Melanges Bib/iques (paris, 1957), pp. 22-26.

176

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8.

-. "Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles," in Fschr. G.R. Driver, Hebrew and Semitic Studies (ed. W. Winton Thomas and W.D. McHardy)(Oxford, 1963), pp. 1-7. Andersen, F.1. "Moabite Syntax" Or., xxxv (1966), 81-120. -. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville/New York,1974. -. "Passive and Ergative in Hebrew," in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore and London, 1971), pp. 1-15. -. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague/Paris, 1974. Azar, Moshe. "The Emphatic Sentence in Modern Hebrew," in P. Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 209-30. Bar Hebraeus. Le livre des splendeurs: la grande grammaire de Gregoire Barhebraeus. Texte syriaque edite d'apres les manuscrits avec une introduction et des notes par AxelMoberg (Lund/London/ Oxford/Paris/Leipzig, 1922). See also A.Moberg,BuchderStrahlen. Die grossere Grammatik des Barhebriius. Uebersetzung nach einem kritisch berichtigten Texte mit textkritischem Apparat und einem Anhang: Zur Terminologie. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1907-13). Barr, J. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1968. -. "Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament," in G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation (Oxford, 1979),pp. 31-64. Barth, J. Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig, 1913. Basset, A., H. Cazel1es, S. Gn!baut, S. Clere, 1. Nougayrol, 1.J. Caquot, M. Malinine and A. Guilaumont. "Entretien sur la phrase dite nominale," GLECS, iv (1945-48), 90-94, v (1948-51), 9-11,17-29,31. Bauer, H. "Semitische Sprachprobleme: die Herkunft der Objectspartikelyat, 't, usw.," ZDMG, lxviii (1914),369-71. Bendavid, Abba. "How to Arrange the Subject and Predicate?" [in Hebrew: ke~ad seder nose' venasu'], Leshonenu la 'am, ix (1957-58),67-75,97-107,149-65. -. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew [in Heb.], 2 vols. TelAviv, 1967-71. Benveniste, E. Problemes de linguistique generale. Paris, 1966.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

23. 24.

25. 26. 27 .

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

177

Bergstrasser, G. Verneigungs- und Fragepartikeln im J:;.ur'an. Leipzig, 1914. (Aronson) Berrnan, Ruth and A. Grosu. "Aspects of the Copula in Modern Hebrew," in P. Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 65-85. Berthier, A. and R. Charlier. Le Sanctuaire punique d'El Hofra a Constantine. Paris, 1955. Esp. pp. 33f., 139. Blake, F .R. "Studies in the Semitic Grammar: The Etymology of the Aramaic Particle 't, yty," lAOS, xxxv (1915-7),377-81. -. "Studies in the Semitic Grammar V: Additional Note on Etymology of Aramaic 'ft," lAOS, lxxiii (1953), 7f. Blass, F. - A. Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. G6ttingen, 19549 • Blau, J. "Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von 't vor dem Nominativ," VT, iv (1954), 7-19. -. "Adverbs as Psychological and Grammatical Subjects and Predicates in Hebrew," Leshonenu, xx (1955/56), 30--40. -. "Gibt es ein emphatisches 'et im Bibelhebraeisch? ," VT, vi (1956),211f. -. "A New Book on Syntax," Leshonenu, xxii (1957-58), 67-77. Rev. of M.M. Bravmann, Arabic and General Syntax [item 39 below] -. A Grammar of Mediaeval ludaeo-Arabic [in Heb.). Jerusalem, 1961. -. Review of F.1. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause [item 10 above], Leshonenu xxxvii (1972),69-74. -. An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic. Sentence Adverbials in Frontal PositionSeparatedfrom theRestoftheSentence. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Proceedings, Vo!. VI, no. l. Jerusalem, 1977. Bloch, A. Vers und Sprache imAltarabischen. Basel,1946. Blommerde, Anton C.M. Northwest Semitic Grammar and lob (Biblica et Orientalia, 22). Rome, 1969. Bravmann, M.M. "Notes on the Development of the Diphthongs in Hebrew," Leshonenu, xi (1939/40),96-99. -. Studies in Arabic and General Syntax. Cairo, 1953. Breuer, M. The Accentual Division in the Bible: A Theory of the Grammar of Accents [in Heb.]. Jerusalem, 1958. Brockelmann, C. "Zur Syntax der Sprache von Ugarit," Or., x

178

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1941), 223-40; now reprinted in G. Bergstrasser, Ein/Uhrung in die semitischen Sprachen (Munchen, 1963), pp. 195-212. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London, 1980. Casanowicz, J .M. "The Emphatic Particle 1- in the Old Testament," JAOS, xvi (1896), clxvi-clxxi. -. "Notes on Some Usage of liixen," JAOS, xxx (1910), 343-46. Cazelles, H. Rev. of E. Lemoine, Theorie de l'emphase hebrai"que [item 147 below], VT, ii (1952),94. Caspari, W. "Elohim als Elative?" ZDMG, lxix (1915),152-58, 393-401. Co hen M. Le systeme verbal semitique et ['expression du temps. Paris, 1924. Cooke, G.A. A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford, 1903. Coxon, P. W. "Daniel iii 17: a Linguistic and Theological Problem," VT, xxvi (1976),400-409. Croatto, J. S. "L'article hebreu et les particules emphatiques dans le semitique de l'ouest," ArOr, xxxix (1971), 389-400. Dahood, M. "Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth," Bibl., xxxiii (1952),30-52, 191-221. -. "Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testament," CBQ, xvii (1955),19-24. -. "Enclitic Mem and Emphatic Lamedh in Psalms 85," Bibl., xxxvii (1956),338-40. -. "Qoheleth and Recent Discovenes," Bibl., xxxix (1958), 302318. -. "Ugaritic Studies and the Bible ," Gregorianum, xliii (1962), 55-79. -. Rev. of E. Jacob, Ras Shamra-Ugarit et l'Ancien Testament (Neuchatel, 1960), Or., xxxi (1962), 463f. -. Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology. Rome, 1963. -. "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I," Bibl., xliv (1963), 289-303. -. Ugaritic-HebrewPhilology. Rome, 1965. -. "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV," Bibl., xlvii (1966),40319, esp. 407f. -. "Ebla, Ugarit and the Old Testament," Congress Volume Gottingen 1977, VT Supplement 30 (1978), pp. 81-112. Davies, T.W. "The Infinitive, especially the Infmitive Absolute in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

69. 70. 71.

72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80. 81.

179

Hebrew and its Cognates," Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society (1918/9), 55--69. Delcor, M. "Les allusions a Alexandre le grand dans Zach ix 1-8." VT, i (1951),110-24. Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles. Oxford, 1954 2 • Dion,Paul-Eugene. Lalanguede Ya'udi. Waterloo, 1974. -. "The Hebrew Particle 't in the Paraenetic Part of the Damascus Document," Revue de Qumrtin, Of. 34 (1977),197-212. Driver, G.R. Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System. Edinburgh, 1936. -. "Hebrew Notes on· 'Song of Songs' and 'Lamentations,' " in Fschr. Bertholet (ed. W. Baumgartner et al.) (Tiibingen, 1950),pp. 134-46. -. "Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs," Bibl., xxxii (1951), 173-97. -. Canaannite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, 1956. -." 'Another Little Drink' - Isaiah 28:1-22," in Fschr.D. Winton Thomas, Words and Meanings (eds. P.R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars) (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 47-67. Driver, S.R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. Oxford, 18923 • Duensing, H. Christlich-paliistinisch-aramiiische Texte und Fragmente. G6ttingen, 1906. Eaton, J .H. "Proposals in Psalms xcix and cxix," VT, xviii (1968), 555-58, esp. 558. Eissfeldt, O. Hexateuch Synopse. Leipzig, 1922. -. The Old Testament - An Introduction (tr. by P. R. Ackroyd). Oxford, 1965. Eitan, I. "La repetition de la racine en Hebreu," JPOS, i (1920/21), 171-86. -. "La particule emphatique «la» dans la Bible," REJ, lxxiv (1922), 1-16. -. "Hebrew and Semitic Particles," AJSL, xliv (1928),177-205, 254-60, xlv (1928/9), 48--63, 130--45, 197-211, xlvi (1929), 22-51. Ember, A. "The Pluralis Intensivus in Hebrew," AJSL, xxi (1905), 195-231. Esh, Sh. "On Particles Introducing the Direct Speech in Hebrew," Leshonenu, xxii (1957),48-52.

180

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82.

Fergusson, H. "An Examination of the Use of the Tenses in Conditional Sentences in Hebrew," JBL, ii (1882), 40-94. Fleischer, H. 1. Kleinere Schriften. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1885-88. Freedman, D.N. "The Burning Bush", Bibl., 1 (1969), 245f. Furlani, G. "La nota accusativa 't in ebraico," RSO, viii {1919 /20), 213-31. Garbini, G. Il Semitico di Nord-ovest. Naples,1960. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M.and R. Blachlhe. Grammairedel'arabe classique. Paris, 1952 3. Gibson, Arthur. Biblical Semantic Logic. A Preliminary Analysis. Oxford, 1982. Gibson, J.C.1. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, 1978. Ginzberg, H.1. "Notes on 'the Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods'." JRAS (1935), 45-72. Ginsberg, H.L. "Notes on 'the Birth of the Gracious and Beauti1909-56. Goddard, B.1. "The Origin of the Hebrew Infinitive Absolute in the Light of Infinitive Uses in Related Languages and its Use in the Old Testament," Diss. Harvard, 1950. Goetze, A. "The So-