be regarded as originally a substantive[1] in the sense of amount, kind (instar), standing in the accusative (so that כְּ is equivalent to as a kind of, after the manner of, according to), while the following noun represents a genitive governed by the כְּ. From this, which is the proper meaning of the כְּ, may be explained its power of representing a great many pregnant relations, which in English can only be rendered by the help of prepositions.[2] Thus the comparison may refer to—
[t] (a) The place, e.g. Is. 5 כְּדָבְרָם after the manner of, i.e. as in their pasture; 23:15 as (it is said) in the song of the harlot; 28:21, 29:7 כּֽחֲלוֹם as in a dream.
[u] (b) The time, especially in the combination כְּיוֹם after the manner of the day, equivalent to as in the day, Is 9, Ho 2; כִּימֵי as in the days of ..., Is 51, Ho 2, 9, 12, Am 9; cf. moreover, Lv 22, Ju 20, Is 17, Jb 5, 29, and the expressions בְּיוֹם בְּיוֹם as day by day=as in the former days, 1 S 18; כְּפַ֫עַם בְּפַ֫עַם as at other times, 1 S 3, &c.; כְּשָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה as in former years, 2 K 17; cf. § 123 c. Of a different character is the use of כְּ as a simple particle of time, e.g. Gn 18 כָּעֵת חַיָּה at this time (not about the time), when it lives again, i.e. at the end of a year; כָּעֵת מָחָר to-morrow at this time; cf. Is 23, and the frequent connexion of כְּ with the infinitive construct to express a definite time (in the sense of a pluperfect), Gn 12, 27, Ex 9, &c.
[v] (c) The person, e.g. Gn 34 should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?
[w] (d) The thing, e.g. Is 10, ψ 33, Jb 28 כְּמוֹ־אֵשׁ as a fire, i.e. as it were by fire (cf. Is 1 כַּבֹּר as with lye); Jb 29 כַּמָּטָר as for the rain (they waited for me); Jb 38 (as in a garment); 38:30 כְּאֶבֶן as to stone (the waters are solidified in freezing).
[x] Rem. According to the earlier grammarians, כְּ is sometimes used pleonastically, i.e. not to indicate a similarity (as in Lv 14 as it were, i.e. something like), but simply to introduce the predicate (Kaph veritatis), e.g. Neh 7 for he was כְּאִישׁ אֱמֶת a faithful man; cf. 1 S 20 כְּפֶשַׂע, La 1 כַּמָּ֫וֶת. Such a pleonasm is of course out of the question. At the most a Kaph veritatis can only be admitted in the sense that the comparison is sometimes introduced by כְּ with a certain emphasis (equivalent to in every respect like); thus כְּאִישׁ אֱמֶת in Neh 7 means simply of the nature of a faithful man, i.e. as only a faithful man can be; cf. Nu 11, Is 1, 13, Ho 4, 5, Ob 111, Jb 24, 27, La 1, 2; also כִּמְעַט in such passages as ψ 105 yea, very few; but e.g. in Is 1 only just, a very small...
- ↑ Schwabe (כְּ nach seinem Wesen und Gebrauch im alttestam. Kanon gewürdigt, Halle, 1883) contests this explanation (which is defended especially by Fleischer and is certainly indisputable). He, with Gesenius and Ewald, places כְּ as a preposition on the same footing as בְּ and לְ, and believes it to be probably connected with the stem כּוּן as well as with כִּי and כֵּן. The above view of כְּ as a substantive of course does not imply that the language as we have it is still in every case conscious of the substantival meaning.—On כְּ in numerical statements, in the sense of about, nearly, see the Lexicon.
- ↑ It would be altogether unsuitable here also (see above, note 2 on r) to assume a loss of the preposition. Such examples as Is 1 (כְּבָרִֽאשֹׁנָה and כְּבַתְּחִלָּה), Lv 26 (כְּמִפְּנֵי) are to be explained from the fact that here the preposition and substantive had already become simply one word before the כְּ was prefixed. We find also כְּעַל Is 59, 63, ψ 119, and 2 Ch 32; cf. Driver on 1 S 14 (כְּבַֽחֲצִי), where the text is wholly corrupt.
