User:Ubufox/12
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...
a 1. In general. As is the case with regard to the looser subordination of nouns to the verbal idea (§ 118), so also their subordination by means of prepositions is used to represent the more immediate circumstances (of place, time, cause, purpose, measure, association, or separation) under which an action or event is accomplished. In the case of most prepositions some idea of a relation of space underlies the construction, which then, in a wider sense, is extended to the ideas of time, motive, or other relations conceived by the mind.
On the origin of the prepositions and the original case-relation in which they stand to the nouns governed by them, cf. § 101, where a list of the prepositions is given with their original meanings. Cf. also § 102 on the prefixes, and § 103 on the union of prepositions with suffixes.
b 2. A not unimportant part is played in Hebrew by the compounding of prepositions to represent more accurately the relations of place, which either precede or follow the action. In the former case מִן־, and in the latter (which is not so frequent) אֶל־ occurs before other prepositions of place; cf. e.g. Am 7 the Lord took me מֵאֽחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן from behind the flock; 2 K 9 turn thee אֶל־אַֽחֲרָי to behind me, i.e., turn thee behind me; מֵעִם־, מֵאֵת from being with ..., as in French de chez, d’après quelqu’un.[3] For further examples, see c.
c Rem. 1. We must not regard as combined prepositions in the above sense either those substantives which have become prepositions only by their union with prefixes, as לִפְנֵי before, מִפְּנֵי, לְמַ֫עַן on account of (but e.g. מִלִּפְנֵי from before, Gn 4, &c., is such a compound); nor adverbs, which are also formed by combining words which were originally substantives (also used as prepositions) with prepositions, as מִחוּץ without, מִתַּ֫חַת in the sense of below,[4] מֵעָל above (so also in Gn 27, 49, not from above). These adverbs of place, however, may become prepositions by the addition of לְ, e.g. מִחוּץ לְ outside as regards ..., i.e. outside of something, in 1 K 21 even after a transitive verb of motion; מִתַּ֫חַת לְ below as regards ..., i.e. under something (cf. עַד־מִתַּ֫חַת לְ until they came under ..., 1 S 7), מֵעַל לְ over something, &c.; לְבַד prop. in separation; לְבַד מִן־ in separation from, i.e. apart from, besides. Only rarely in such a case is the לְ omitted for the sake of brevity, e.g. Jb 26 מִתַּ֫חַת מַיִם beneath the waters; Neh 3 (מֵעַל־).
d 2. Real combinations of prepositions (each retaining its full force) occur—
(a) With מִן־, in מֵאַחַר, מֵאַֽחֲרֵי (see above) from behind something; מֵאֵת and מֵעִם from with (see above); מִבֵּין or מִבֵּינוֹת from between something (with motion in either direction, see e.g. Gn 49); מִלִּפְנֵי from before (see above); sometimes also מִמּוּל Lv 5, &c.; מֵעַל־ from upon, i.e. off from; מִתַּ֫חַת away from under (see footnote 2 on p. 377).
e (b) With אֶל־, in אֶל־אַֽחֲרֵי to behind, אֶל־בֵּינוֹת to between; אֶל־מִבֵּית לְ forth between 2 K 11; אֶל־מִחוּץ לְ forth without, i.e. out in front of, Nu 5; אֶל־תַּ֫חַת down under.[5]—In Jb 5 the two prepositions of motion are combined in a peculiarly pregnant construction, אֶל־מִצִּנִּים (he goes thither and takes it) out of the thorns, i.e. he taketh it even out of the thorns, but the text is hardly correct.
f 3. A general view of the union of certain verbs, or whole classes of verbs, with particular prepositions, especially in explanation of certain idioms and pregnant expressions.[6]
g (a) (אֱלֵי) אֶל־[7] towards, properly an expression of motion or at least direction towards something (either in the sense of up to=עַד, or into=אֶל־תּוֹךְ), is used after verbs not only in answer to the question whither? but by a specially pregnant construction, in answer to the question where? e.g. Jer 41 they found him אֶל־מַ֫יִם רַבִּים by the great waters; cf. Dt 16, 1 K 13, and a still more remarkable instance in 8:30 אֶל־מְקוֹם שִׁבְתְּךָ אֶל־הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם. This combination of two different ideas, of motion to a place and being or acting in the place (very plainly seen in Dt 16 but to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose... shalt thou bring thine offering and there shalt thou sacrifice, &c.), is the same as the Greek use of εἰς, ἐς for ἐν, the Latin in potestatem, in amicitiam ditionemque esse, manere (Cic. Verr. 5, 38; Div. 2, 14, &c.); cf. also the common German expressions zu Hause, zu Leipzig sein, zu Bette liegen, &c.
h (b) בְּ.[8] Underlying the very various uses of this preposition is either the idea of being or moving within some definite region, or some sphere of space or time (with the infinitive, a simultaneous action, &c.), or else the idea of fastening on something, close connexion with something (also in a metaphorical sense, following some kind of pattern, e.g. the advice or command of some one בִּדְבַר פ׳, בַּֽעֲצַת פ׳, or in a comparison, as in Gn 1 בְּצַלְמֵ֫נוּ כִדְמוּתֵ֫נוּ in our image, after our likeness; cf. 1:27, 5:1, 3), or finally the idea of relying or depending upon..., or even of merely striking or touching something.
i Thus the use of בְּ is explained—
(1) In the sense of among (in the domain of), e.g. Mi 7 יָשָׁר בָּֽאָדָם אָ֫יִן there is none upright among men; in the sense of consisting of, in specifying the constituents of a collective idea, e.g. Gn 7 and all flesh died... in (=consisting of) fowl, &c. 8:17, 9:10, Ho 4. Also after ideas of appearing, manifesting oneself, representing, being, in the sense of as, in the capacity of (prop. in the sphere, after the manner of, see above), consisting of..., tanquam, the בְּ essentiae of the earlier grammarians, corresponding to the Greek ἐν, the Latin in,[9] and the French en, e.g. Ex 6 I appeared unto Abraham... בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי as El Shaddai; Jb 23 וְהוּא בְאֶחָד but he is (manifests himself as) one, i.e. he remains always the same; Dt 26, 28 בִּמְתֵי מְעָט in the condition of being few, cf. 10:22 to the number of seventy; Is 40, ψ 39.—Cf. also such examples as Ex 18 (ψ 35, 146) בְּעֶזְרִי as my help; Dt 26 being unclean; Is 28 in Sion (i.e. I make Sion a foundation); Ez 20 as a sweet savour; Pr 3, perhaps also Ex 3 in (i.e. as) a flame of fire; Is 66 with (i.e. like) fire; ψ 31, 37 (102:4). For the origin of all these forms of expression ψ 54 is especially instructive, since אֲדֹנָי בְּסֹֽמְכֵי נַפְשִׁי is not meant to refer to the Lord as belonging to the סֹֽמְכִים, but only to ascribe to him a similar character, i.e. the Lord is one who upholds my soul; so also ψ 99, 118, Ju 11 [the plur. as in § 124 g–i].[10]—Cf. Gesenius, Thes. Linguae Hebr., i. 174 f., and Delitzsch on ψ 35.
k (2) To introduce the object after transitive verbs, which denote touching, striking, reaching to (thus to some extent a fastening on, see above) something, in English sometimes rendered by at, on, &c., and in German generally by compounds with an, e.g. anfassen=אָחַז בְּ, anrühren=נָגַע בְּ, &c. To the same category belongs also the construction of verbs denoting authority (מָלַךְ, מָשַׁל, נָגַשׂ, רָדָה, the last prop. to tread on...) with בְּ, inasmuch as the exercise of the authority is regarded as a laying hold of the person ruled; so also, the introduction of the object by בְּ after certain verba dicendi, or when the mental action is to be represented as extending to some one or something: e.g. קָרָא בְ to call on some one, נִשְׁבַּע בְּ iurare per aliquem, שָׁאַל בְּ to enquire of some one. Again; רָאָה בְ to look upon, שָׁמַע בְּ to hearken to (but cf. also m), generally with the secondary idea of participation, or of the pleasure with which one sees or hears anything, especially pleasure at the misfortunes of others, hence רָאָה בְ to see his desire on any one or anything; cf. however, Gn 21 let me not look upon the death of the child; 1 S 6 because they had looked [irreverently] at the ark of the Lord.
Closely related to this is the use of בְּ:
l (3) To introduce the person or thing, which is the object of a mental act, e.g. הֶֽאֱמִין בְּ to trust in (to cleave trustingly to) somebody or something; בָּטַח בְּ to have confidence in...; שָׂמַח בְּ to rejoice in or at something, &c.; דִּבֶּר בְּ to speak of (about) some one or something, Dt 6, 1 S 19, &c.
m (4) The idea of an action as extending to something, with at the same time the secondary idea of participation in something, underlies finally the partitive use of בְּ, e.g. אָכַל בְּ to share in eating something, Ex 12, Lv 22; also simply to eat, to taste of something, Ju 13, Jb 21; so also לָחַם בְּ to eat of, and שָׁתָה בְ[11] to drink of something, Pr 9; שָׁמַע בְּ to hear a whisper of something, Jb 26; מָצָא בְּ they found remaining of her only..., 2 K 9; נָשָׂא בְ to bear a share of something, Nu 11, Ez 18, Jb 7. Cf. also חָלַק בְּ to give a share of something, Jb 39; בָּנָח בְ to do building to, Neh 4.
n (5) With the idea of touching, striking against anything is naturally connected that of proximity and vicinity near, and further that of association with something; cf. Gn 9 בְּנַפְשׁוֹ with the life thereof; 15:14, 32:11 בְּמַקְלִי with my staff. Sometimes בְּ combined with a verb of motion (to come with something), expresses the idea of bringing, e.g. Ju 15 Samson visited his wife with a kid, i.e. he brought her a kid; Dt 23, ψ 66, 1 Ch 15 ff., 16:6.
o (6) From the idea of connexion with something, being accompanied by something (see n), is developed, finally, the instrumental use of בְּ, which represents the means or instrument (or even the personal agent), as something with which one has associated himself in order to perform an action; cf. Mi 4 בַּשֵּׁ֫בֶט they smite with the rod; Is 10; ψ 18 בְּךָ by thee (so also 44:6, parallel with בְּשִׁמְךָ); Is 10, Ho 1, 12; cf. also עָבַד בְּ to labour by means of some one, i.e. to cause him to labour at it, Ex 1, &c. On בְּ with the passive to introduce the means or the author, see § 121 f.
p A variety of the בְּ instrumenti is ב pretii (the price being considered as the means of acquiring a thing), cf. Gn 23, 29 (בְּרָחֵל); 30:16, 33:19, 34:15 (בְּזֹאת on this condition); 37:28; also, in a wider sense, Gn 18 בְּ for the sake of; 1 S 3.
q Rem. The use of בְּ instrumenti to introduce the object is peculiar in such expressions as ψ 44 and thou coveredst over us בְּצַלְמָ֫וֶת with the shadow of death; Jb 16 פָּֽעֲרוּ עָלַי בְּפִיהֶם they have opened wide their mouth against me (prop. have made an opening with their mouth); cp. ψ 22, Ex 7 he lifted up בַּמַּטֶּה the rod; Lv 16 חָגַר and צָנַף followed by בְּ; Jos 8, La 1. Analogous to some English expressions we find both to gnash the teeth, ψ 35, and to gnash with the teeth, Jb 16; to wink the eye, Pr 10, and to wink with the eye, Pr 6; shake the head, ψ 22, and to shake with the head, Jer 18, Jb 16.—In all these instances the verb (intransitive) construed with בְּ has a greater independence, and consequently more emphasis than the verb construed with a direct accusative; the latter conveys a sort of necessary specification of the action, while the noun introduced by בְּ is used rather as a merely adverbial complement. An instructive example of this is נָתַן קוֹל vocem emittere, to utter a voice, also to thunder, while in נָתַן בְּקוֹלוֹ ψ 46 (68:34, Jer 12), נָתַן has an independent sense = he thundered with his voice (i.e. mightily).
r (c) לְ[12] to, a very general expression of direction towards anything, is used to represent the most varied relations of an action or state with regard to a person or thing. On the use of לְ as a periphrasis for the genetivus poseessoris or auctoris (the idea of belonging to), see § 129; on לְ with the passive, to introduce the author or the cause, see § 121 f; on לְ in a purely local sense (e.g. לִימִֽינְךָ at thy right hand, prop. towards thy right hand), or temporal (e.g. לָעֶ֫רֶב at evening, &c.) or distributive, see the Lexicon
The following uses of לְ properly belong to the government of the verb:
s (1) As a nota dativi[13] to introduce the remoter object; also
(2) To introduce the dativus commodi. This dativus commodi (or incommodi, e.g. Ez 37) is used—especially in colloquial language and in later style—in the form of a pronoun with לְ, as an apparently pleonastic dativus ethicus, with many verbs, in order to give emphasis to the significance of the occurrence in question for a particular subject. In this construction the person of the pronoun must always agree with that of the verbal form.[14] By far the most frequent use of this לְ is with the pronoun of the 2nd person after imperatives, e.g. לֶךְ־לְךָ go, got thee away, Gn 12, 22, Dt 2 (also in the feminine, Ct 2, 13); נְטֵה לְךָ turn thee aside, 2 S 2; סְעוּ לָכֶם take your journey, Dt 1; עִבְדוּ לָכֶם pass ye over; בְּדַח־לְךָ flee (to save thyself), Gn 27; עֲלִי־לָךְ get thee up, Is 40; פְּנוּ לָכֶם turn you, Dt 1; שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם return ye, Dt 5; ק֫וּמִי לָךְ rise up, Ct 2; שְׁבוּ לָכֶם abide ye, Gn 22; חֲדַל לְךָ forbear thee, 2 Ch 35 (in the plural, Is 2); הָ֫בוּ לָכֶם take you, Dt 1, Jos 18, Ju 20, 2 S 16, and so almost regularly הִשָּׁ֫מֶד לְךָ (see above, § 51 n) cave tibi! and הִשָּֽׁמְלוּ לָכֶם take heed to yourselves; דְמֵה רְךָ be thou like, Ct 2 (cf. verse 9), 8:14, is remarkable; after a perfect consecutive, 1 K 17, 1 S 22; after an imperfect consecutive, e.g. Is 36 וַתִּבְטַח לְךָ and puttest thy trust.—In the 3rd person, e.g. וַתֵּ֫שֶׁב לָהּ and sat her down, Gn 21, cf. 22:5, Ex 18, ψ 120, 123, Jb 6; even after a participle, Ho 8.—In the 1st person plural, Ez 37.
t (3) To introduce the result after verbs of making, forming, changing, appointing to something, esteeming as something; in short, in all those cases in which, according to § 117 ii, a second accusative may also be used.
u (4) In loose connexion with some verbal idea in the sense of in reference to, with regard to... (§ 143 e); so after a verbum dicendi, Gn 20; 1 K 10, cf. Is 36; even before the verb, Jer 9.—To the same class belongs also the Lamedh inscriptionis (untranslatable in English, and hardly more than a mere quotation-mark) which introduces the exact wording of an inscription or title; thus Is 8 write upon it... (the words) מַהֵר שָׁלָל וגו׳ (cf. verse 3, where the לְ naturally is not used); Ez 37.
v (d) מִן, originally (according to § 101 a) separation,[15] represents both the idea of distance, separation or remoteness from something, and that of motion away from something, hence also descent, origin from a place, Am 1.
w (1) From the idea of separation is naturally derived on the one hand the sense of (taken) from among..., e numero, e.g. Gn 3 subtil as none other of the beasts, &c.; cf. 3:14, Dt 33, 1 S 15, Ju 5 (so especially after the idea of choosing out of[16] a larger class, 1 S 2; cf. Ex 19, &c.), and on the other hand, the sense of without (separated, free from...), e.g. Is 22 מִקֶּ֫שֶׁת אֻסָּ֫רוּ without the bow (i.e. without one needing to bend a bow against them) they were made prisoners; cf. Jer 48 מִכֹּחַ without strength; Ho 6, as the first half-verse shows, not more than burnt offerings (as R.V.), but and not burnt offerings; Mi 3, ψ 52, Jb 11, 19, 21, also such examples as Nu 15 far from the eyes, i.e. unobserved by the congregation; Pr 20.
x Here also belongs the use of מִן after the ideas of restraining, withholding from, refusing to any one, frequently in pregnant expressions, which we can render only by complete final or consecutive clauses, e.g. 1 S 15 he hath rejected thee מִמֶּ֫לֶךְ away from (being) king, instead of מִֽהְיוֹת מ׳ (as in verse 26), that thou be no longer king; cf. 1 K 15, Is 17 מֵעִיר so that it is no longer a city; Jer 17, Jb 28 he bindeth the streams מִבְּכִי that they trickle not; Gn 16, 23 מִקְּבֹר that thou shouldst not bury thy dead; Is 24.
y The מִן has a still more pregnant force in those examples in which the idea of precluding from anything is only indirectly contained in the preceding verb, e.g. Gn 27 his eyes were dim מֵֽרְאֹה away from seeing, i.e. so that he could not see; Is 7 Ephraim shall be broken in pieces מֵעָם that it be not a people (just as in Is 23, Jer 48, 42, ψ 83); Lv 26, Is 5, 49, 54, Ezr 2 (for other pregnant constructions with מִן see below, ff)[17]; on מִבְּלִי and מֵאֵין without, cf. § 152 y. z (2) On the sense of motion away from anything depends the use of מִן after such ideas as to take away from, to beware, to be afraid of, to flee, to escape, to hide oneself from (cf. καλύπτω ἀπό, custodire ab), sometimes again in pregnant expressions, e.g. Is 33. On the idea of starting from anything depends finally the very frequent causative use of מִן on account of, in consequence of (cf. our that comes from...), prae, e.g. מֵרֹב for multitude, 1 K 8.
aa (e) עַל־.[18] The two original local meanings of this preposition are upon (ἐπί)[19] and over (ὑπέρ, super).
(1) From the original meaning upon is explained the use of עַל־ after ideas of commanding, commissioning (פָּקַד עַל־), &c., inasmuch as the command, obligation, &c., is laid upon the object. The construction is self-evident in the case of to lie, rest, lean, rely, press upon something; cf. also, for the last, such examples as Is 1, Jb 7, 23, and especially 2 S 18 וְעָלַי prop. upon me would it have been, it would have been incumbent upon me, &c.
bb (2) From the original meaning over is explained the use of עַל־ after ideas of covering, protecting, guarding כָּסָה עַל־, גָּנַן עַל־; also the combinations רִחַם עַל־ to have compassion upon..., חוּס עַל־, חָמַל עַל־ to spare some one, arise from the idea of a compassionate or protective bending over something. Cf. also נִלְחַם עַל־ Ju 9 = to fight for some one, i.e. in his defence.
cc (3) Moreover עַל־ is used after verbs of standing and going, to express a towering over some one or something, sometimes in phrases, in which the original local idea has altogether fallen into the background, and which are therefore to be rendered in English by means of other prepositions (by, with, before, near), e.g. Gn 41, &c., Pharaoh... stood עַל־הַיְאֹר by the Nile (above the water level; cf. ψ 1), and so especially עָמַד עַל־ in the pregnant sense to stand serving before some one (prop. over one who sits or reclines at table) Zc 4 (cf. Is 6, where מִמַּ֫עַל לְ is used for עַל־); הִתְיַצֵּב עַל־ to present oneself by command before some one, Jb 1, &c. Cf. also עַל־יַד, עַל־יְדֵי (Jb 1) near, at (on) the side of some one or something.
dd (4) From the original meaning above (not, as formerly, explained, on to something, at something) there arise finally all the various constructions with עַל־ in the sense of towards, against. The original idea (which in many of these constructions has become wholly unrecognizable) starts from the view that the assailant endeavours to take up his position over the person attacked, so as to reach him from above, or to over power him; cf. especially קוּם עַל־ to rise up over, i.e. against some one, then with a transference of thought applied to any kind of hostile approach, נִלְחַם עַל־ to fight against..., חָנָה עַל־ to encamp against..., נֶֽאֱסַף עַל־ to be gathered together, to assemble against (Mi 4; cf. ψ 2), &c.; even after verbs which express a mental action, e.g. חָשַׁב רָעָה עַל־ to imagine evil against any one, &c.
ee 4. Sometimes a preposition appears to be under the immediate government of a verb, which, by its meaning, excludes such a union. In reality the preposition is dependent on a verb (generally a verb of motion), which, for the sake of brevity, is not expressed, but in sense is contained in what is apparently the governing verb.
ff Various examples of this constructio praegnans have been already noticed above in x and y under מִן־; for מִן־ cf. also ψ 22 וּמִקַּרְנֵי רֵמִים עֲנִיתָ֫נִי and thou hast answered and saved me from the horns of the wild oxen (in Is 38, which Delitzsch translates by thou hast loved and delivered my soul from the pit, read חָשַׂ֫כְתָּ with the LXX); Gn 25, 2 S 18, Jb 28; cf. also זָנָה מִן־ ψ 73 to go a whoring from any one i.e. to be unfaithful to him; רָשַׁע מִן־ ψ 18 = to depart wickedly from God; חָרַשׁ מִן־ ψ 28 to be silent from one (to turn away in silence); cf. Jb 13 [; so with מֵעַל Jb 30, 30].
gg Pregnant constructions wgith אַחֲרֵי: Nu 14 equivalent to וַיְמַלֵּא לָלֶ֫כֶת אַֽחֲרָ֑י and he made full to walk i.e. walked fully after me; in 1 S 13 read with the LXX חָֽרְדוּ מֵאַֽחֲרֶיו they trembled, i.e. went trembling away from him; with אֶל־ Gn 43 הָּמַהּ אֶל־ to turn in astonishment to some one (cf. Is 13); דְּרַשׁ אֶל־ Is 11, &c., to turn inquiringly to some one; הֶֽחֱרִישׁ אֶל־ Is 41 to turn in silence to some one; חָרַד אֶל־ Gn 42 to turn trembling to some one (cf. חָרַד לִקְרַאת to come trembling to meet, 1 S 21 [also with שאג, הריץ, שמת and other verbs, Ju 14, 15, 19; see Lexicon]); cf. further Jer 41, ψ 7, 2 Ch 32; with בְּ ψ 55 he hath redeemed and hath put my soul in peace, exactly like ψ 118; with לְ ψ 74 they have profaned and cast... even to the ground; cf. 89:40.
hh 5. In poetic parallelism the governing power of a preposition is sometimes extended to the corresponding substantive of the second member;[20] e.g. בְּ Is 40, 48 he shall perform his pleasure בְּבָבֶל on Babylon, and his arm shall be כַּשְׂדִּים (for בַּכַּשְׂדִּים) on the Chaldaeans; Jb 15; לְ Is 28, 42 (but probably לְ has fallen out after another ל), Ez 39, Jb 34 (perhaps also Gn 45; משֵׁל may, however, be taken here as a second accusative according to § 117 ii); לְמַ֫עַן Is 48; מִן־ Is 58, ψ 141 (unless וּמִמֹּֽקְשׁוֹת is to be read); עַד־ Is 15; תַּ֫חַת Is 61.
ii 6. Adverbs which have acquired a substantival value are sometimes governed by prepositions, e.g. אֶל־חִנָּם in vain, Ez 6; אַחֲרֵי־כֵן after this; בְּכֵן (Ec 8, Est 4) then, on this condition; לָכֵן and עַל־כֵּן therefore; עַד־כֵּן hitherto.
a 1. When a relative verb (incomplete in itself) receives its necessary complement in the form of a verbal idea, the latter is, as a rule, subordinated in the infinitive construct (with or without לְ), less frequently in the infinitive absolute, in a few instances in the form of a participle (or verbal adjective), or finally in the imperfect without the copula. In these combinations the principal idea is very frequently represented by the subordinate member of the sentence, whilst the governing verb rather contains a mere definition of the manner of the action; cf. d and g below, and § 114 n, note 2.
b (a) On the subordination of an infinitive construct as an accusative of the object, and as the complement of relative verbal ideas, see above, § 114 c, and the numerous examples given in § 114 m; on the infinitive absolute as object, see § 113 d.—The complement in the form of a participle (as in Greek, and also frequently in Syriac) occurs in Is 33 כַּֽהֲתִֽמְךָ שׁוֹדֵד (cf. for the form, § 67 v) when thou hast ceased as a spoiler, i.e. to spoil; Jer 22 לֹא יִצְלַח... ישֵׁב he shall never prosper, sitting, i.e. so as to sit, &c.; Jon 1 what meanest thou, sleeping? i.e. that thou sleepest;[21] by a verbal adjective, 1 S 3 now his eyes הֵחֵ֫לּוּ כֵהוֹת had begun being dim, i.e. to wax dim (unless we read כְּהוֹת=לִכְהוֹת, cf. § 114 m); by a substantive, Gn 9 and Noah began to be an husbandman (omitting the article before אֲדֶמָה).
c (b) Examples of the subordination of the complementary verbal idea in the imperfect[22] (in English usually rendered by to, in order to or that) are—(1) with both verbs in the same person: after the perfect, Is 42 יְהֹוָה חָפֵץ... יגְדִּיל it pleased the Lord... to magnify, &c.; Jb 30, 32 לֹא יָדַ֫עְתִּי אֲכַנֶּה I know not to give flattering titles; after a perfect consecutive, 1 S 20 (where for תֵּרֵד we should read with the LXX תִּפָּקֵד); after an imperfect, ψ 88, 102, Jb 19, 24; after an imperf. consec., Jb 16; after a participle, Is 5a.—(2) with a difference in the persons: after a perfect, Lv 9 this is the thing אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהֹוָה תַּֽעֲשׂוּ which the Lord commanded (that) ye should do; a negative imperfect follows צִוָּה in La 1; after the imperfect, Is 47 (5) כִּי לֹא תוֹסִ֫יפִי עוֹד יִקְרְאוּ־לָךְ for thou shalt no more continue (that) they call thee, i.e. thou shalt no longer be called, &c.; Ho 1 לֹא אוֹסִיף עוֹד אֲרַחֵם I will no longer continue (and) have mercy, i.e. I will no more have mercy; Is 52, Pr 23.—Nu 22 peradventure I shall prevail (that) we may smite thom, and (that) I may drive them out of the land (אוּכַל may, however, be a scribal error for נוּכַל, due to the preceding אוּלַי, and in that case the example would belong to No. 1); after a participle, 2 S 21.—A perfect is possibly subordinated in La 1; but the explanation of בְּ֫אוּ as a relative clause is preferable.
d 2. Instead of subordination (as in the cases mentioned in a–c), the co-ordination of the complementary verbal idea in the finite verb (cf. above, c) frequently occurs, either—
(a) With the second verb co-ordinated in a form exactly corresponding to the first (but see below, e) by means of וְ (וַ, וָ).[23] As a rule, here also (see above, a) the principal idea is introduced only by the second verb, while the first (especially שׁוּב, יָסַף[24], הוֹסִיף) contains the definition of the manner of the action, e.g. Gn 26 וַיָּ֫שָׁב וַיַּחְפֹּד and he returned and digged, i.e. he digged again; 2 K 1, 13; in the perfect consecutive, Is 6; with הוֹסִיף, e.g. Gn 25 and Abraham added and took a wife, i.e. again took a wife; Gn 38 and frequently; with הוֹאִיל in the jussive, Jb 6; in the imperative (cf. § 110 h), Ju 1 6 וְלִין הֽוֹאֶל־נָא be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night (cf. the English he was persuaded and remained, for to remain); 2 S 7; with מִהַד Gn 24, 20, &c.; with חִמַּד Ct 2.
e Rem. 1. Instead of an exact agreement between co-ordinate verbal forms, other combinations sometimes occur, viz. imperfect and perfect consecutive (cf. § 112 d), e.g. Dt 31 that they יִלְמְדוּ וְיָרְֽאוּ אֶת־יְהֹוָה may learn, and fear the Lord, i.e. to fear the Lord; Is 1, Ho 2, Est 8, Dn 9b; perfect and imperfect, Jb 23 (O that I knew how I might find him); perfect and imperfect consecutive, Jos 7, Ec 4, 7; jussive and imperative, Jb 17; cf., finally, Gn 47 וְאם־יָדַ֫עְתָּ וְיֶשׁ־בָּם and if thou knowest and there are among them, &c., i.e. that there are among them.
f 2. Special mention must be made of the instances in which the natural complement of the first verb is suppressed, or is added immediately after in the form of an historical statement, e.g. Gn 42 then Joseph commanded and they filled[25] (prop. that they should fill, and they filled...; cf. the full form of expression in Gn 50); a further command is then added by means of לְ and the infinitive; Ex 36; another instance of the same kind is Gn 30 I have divined and the Lord hath blessed me, &c., i.e. that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.
g (b) With the second verb (which, according to the above, represents the principal idea) attached without the copula[26] in the same mood, &c. In this construction (cf. § 110 h) the imperatives קוּם (ק֫וּמָת, ק֫וּמִי, &c.) and לֵךְ (לְכָה, לְכִי, &c.) are exceedingly common with the sense of interjections, before verbs which express a movement or other action, e.g. קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ arise, walk, Gn 13, 19, 27; in the plural, Gn 19; Ex 19 לֶךְ־רֵד go, get thee down; 1 S 3; with a following cohortative, 1 S 9 לְכָה נֵלֵכָ֑ה come, let us go; Gn 31 and frequently.—Also with שׁוּב (a periphrasis for again) in the perfect, Zc 8; in the imperfect, Mi 7, ψ 7, 59, 71; in the jussive, Jb 10; in the cohortative, Gn 30; in the imperative, Jos 5, 1 S 3 lie down again; הוֹאִיל (sometimes to express the idea of willingly or gladly) in the perfect, Dt 1, Ho 5; in the imperative, Jb 6; הִרְבָּה=much, 1 S 2 אַל־תַּרְבּוּ תְדַבְּרוּ גְּבֹהָה do not multiply and talk, i.e. talk not so much arrogancy; in the imperative, ψ 51; הֵחֵל, Dt 2 הָחֵל דְשׁ begin, possess; יָכֹל, La 4 בְּלֹא יֽוּכְלוּ יִגְּעוּ, without men’s being able to touch, &c.; מִהַר=quickly, in the perfect, ψ 106; in the imperative, Gn 19, Ju 9, Est 6.—Other examples are: Ho 9 הֶֽעֱמִיק=deeply, radically; Zp 3 הִשְׁכִּים=early (even in the participle, Ho 6, 13); Is 29 שָׁפֵל=low, cf. Jer 13; Jos 3 תָּמַם=wholly; ψ 112 פִּוַּר=plentifully.
h Rem. This co-ordination without the copula belongs (as being more vigorous and bolder) rather to poetic or otherwise elevated style (cf. e.g. Is 52, Ho 1, 9 with Gn 25, &c.). Asyndeton, however, is not wanting even in prose; besides the above examples (especially the imperatives of קוּם and הָלַךְ Gn 30, Dt 1, 2, Jos 3, 1 S 3) cf. also Neh 3, 1 Ch 13. For special reasons the verb representing the principal idea may even come first; thus Is 53 יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע he shall see, he shall be satisfied (sc. with the sight), for the satisfaction does not come until after the enjoyment of the sight; Jer 4 קִרְאוּ מַּלְאוּ cry, fill, i.e. cry with a full (loud) voice.
a 1. Verbs which in the active take one accusative (either of the proper object, or of the internal object, or of some other nearer definition; cf. § 117 a, p, u) may in the passive, according to our mode of expression, be construed personally, the object of the active sentence now becoming the subject, e.g. Gn 35 וַתָּ֫מָת רְחֵל וַתִּקָּבֵר and Rachel died, and was buried, &c. The passive, however, is also used impersonally (in the 3rd sing. masc.), either absolutely, as Dt 21f., Is 16, Ez 16 (with a dative added, 2 S 17, Is 53, La 5), or, more frequently, with the object of the active construction still subordinated in the accusative,[27] e.g. Gn 27 וַיֻּגַּד לְרִבְקָה אֶת־דִּבְרֵי עֵשָׂו and there were told (i.e. one told) to Rebekah the words of Esau; 2 S 21, 1 K 18. b Other examples are: after Niph., Gn 4 וַיִוָּלֵד לַֽחֲנוֹךְ אֶת־עִירָד and unto Enoch was born Irad (cf. Nu 26, and after an infinitive, Gn 21); Gn 17, 21 (after an infinitive); 29:27 (unless וְנִתְּנָה is 1st plur. cohortative); Ex 21, 25, Lv 6, Nu 7 (after an infinitive); 26:55 (cf. verse 53); Dt 20 (where, however, for יִמַּס the Hiph. יַמֵּס should be read, according to 1:28); Jos 7, Is 16; with the object preceding, Ex 13, Lv 2, 19, Nu 16, Dan 9:24.[28]— Also after Puʿal, Jer 50; before Puʿal, Is 14 (אֲשֶׁד equivalent to the internal object עֲבֹדָה=which they have caused to be served by thee); Jb 22; according to the Masoretic text also Gn 46, where, however, the Samaritan and LXX read יָֽלְדָת for יֻלַּד; the Samaritan in Gn 35 and 46:27 also reads יָֽלְדוּ, and this (or יֻלַּד) should certainly be read instead of יֻלְדוּ in 2 S 21.—After Hoph., Ex 10, 27, Lv 10, 16, Nu 32, 1 K 2, Pr 16, Jb 30; after the infinitive Hoph., Gn 40, Ez 16 f., 27:7; before Hoph., Is 17, 21, Ho 10, Zc 13; after the infinitive Hothpaʿel, Lv 13 f.
c 2. Verbs which in the active take two accusatives (§ 117 cc) retain in the passive construction at least one accusative, namely that of the second or remoter object, whilst the nearer object now becomes the subject. Thus, corresponding to אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶ֫ךָּ which I will show thee (Gn 12) the passive is אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה מָרְאֶה (Ex 25) which thou hast been shown, i.e. which has been shown to thee; cf. Ex 26 (but in Lv 13 with an accusative of the person); Jb 7. In ψ 22 מֻדְבָּק מַלְקוֹחָ֑י depends on an assumed transitive הִדְבִּיק governing two accusatives (= my tongue is made to cleave to my jaws); also in Is 1, חֶ֫רֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ ye shall be devoured with the sword, חֶרֶב is not an accus. instrumenti, but most probably an accusative of the object retained from the active construction.[29]
d Rem. 1. Examples of the retention of the second accusative are—(a) with verba induendi and exuendi (§ 117 cc), ψ 80, כָּסּוּ תָרִים צִלָּתּ the mountains were covered with the shadow of it (the vine); Pr 19. So also some of the examples in § 116 k of passive participles of these verbs, Ju 18, 1 S 2, 17, 1 K 22, Ez 9, 3;[30] with the accusative preceding, Neh 4.—(b) with verba copiae and inopiae, Ex 1, Is 38 (equivalent to I must forego the residue of my years); Is 40.—(c) an accusative of the result (§ 117 ii) with the passive, Is 6, Zc 14, Jb 28; with the accusative preceding, Is 24, Mi 3 (Jer 26), Jb 15, 22.[31] Also in Ez 40 and 46:23, the accusative preceding עָשׂוּי (in 41:18 following it) can only be taken as the accusative of the result; some general idea, such as that of place, is to be understood as the subject of עָשׂוּי.—(d) an accusative of the member or part specially affected by the action (§ 117 ll), Gn 17, 14, Ju 1 (accusative before part. pass.); 2 S 15 (accusative with suffix after the part. pass.).
e 2. Both accusatives are retained in an unusual manner after the passive of a verbum implendi in Nu 14; instead, however, of the Niph. וְיִמָּלֵא the Qal (which is sometimes used transitively elsewhere) should simply be read with the LXX; similarly in ψ 72, although there the LXX also translate the passive.
f 3. The efficient cause (or personal agent) is, as a rule, attached to the passive by לְ (thus corresponding to the Greek and Latin dative), e.g. Gn 25 וַיֵּעָ֫תֶ֫ר לוֹ יְהֹוָה the Lord let himself be intreated by him; cf. Lv 26, ψ 73 and the blessing בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַֽיהוָֹה blessed be he of the Lord Ru 2; cf. Gn 14, Ju 17b, 1 S 15; also in the plural, 1 S 23 (2 S 2, ψ 115).—Before the verb, Pr 14 and frequently; less commonly by מִן־ (called מִן־ of origin=coming from), e.g. Gn 9; before the verb, ψ 37, Jb 24; by בְּ (instrumenti) [rarely, König § 106], Gn 9 (בָּֽאָדָם by man); Nu 36, Is 14 b [but ?=wherewith it was worked (§ 52 e) with thee; cf. Dt 21, König § 106; and see עָבַד בְּ in the Lexicon], Ho 14, always to introduce a personal agent.—On the connexion of the passive participle with a genitive of the agent, cf. § 116 l.
Syntax of the Noun.
a 1. According to § 80 a, Hebrew, like the other Semitic languages, distinguishes only a masculine and feminine gender. To indicate the latter a special feminine ending is generally used (§ 80 b and § 87 i) both in the singular and plural (see, however, § 87 p), its use being most consistent in adjectives and participles; cf. § 87 r. The employment of these special endings is most natural when by means of them the feminine names of persons or animals are distinguished from the masculine of the same stem and the same formation, e.g. אָח brother, אָחוֹת sister; עֶלֶם a young man, עַלְמָה a young woman, maid; פָּר iuvencus, פָּרָה iuvenca; עֵגֶל vitulus, עֶגְלָה vitula. On the other hand, the feminine plays an important part in denoting the gender of whole classes of ideas (see below, p, &c.), which the Hebrew regards as feminine. The language, however, is not obliged to use the feminine ending either for the purpose of distinguishing the sex of animate objects (see b), or as an indication of the (figurative) gender of inanimate things which are regarded as feminine (see h).
b 2. The distinction of sex may be effected even without the feminine ending, (a) by the employment of words of different stems for the masculine and feminine; (b) by the different construction (either as masculine or feminine) of the same word (communia). But the distinction may also, (c) in the case of names of animals, be entirely neglected, all examples of a species being included under one particular gender, either masculine or feminine (epicoena).
c Examples of (a) are: אָב father, אֵם mother; אַ֫יִל ram, רָחֵל ewe; תַּ֫יִשׁ he-goat, עֵז she-goat; חֲמוֹר he-ass, אָתוֹן she-ass; אַרְיֵה lion, לָבִיא lioness. Sometimes with the feminine ending as well, e.g. עֶ֫בֶד male slave, man-servant, אָמָה or שִׁפְחָה female slave, maid; חָתָן bridegroom, כַּלָּה bride.
d Of (b): גָּמָל camel. Plur. גְּמַלִּים construed as masculine, Gn 24; as feminine, Gn 32; בָּקָר collect, oxen, Ex 21, construed as masculine, but in Gn 33, Jb 1 as feminine. In Jer 2 the construction of פֶּ֫רֶה wild ass, changes directly from the masculine (intended as epicene) to the feminine.Cf. the Greek ὁ, ἡ παῖς· ὁ, ἡ βοῦς.
e Of (c): analogous to the epicene nouns of other languages, many species of animals which are strong and courageous, are regarded in Hebrew as always masculine, while the weak and timid are feminine; cf. ὁ λύκος, ἡ χελιδών, and the German der Löwe, der Adler, &c., but die Katze, die Taube, &c. Similarly in Hebrew, e.g. אַלּוּף ox (ψ 144 even referring to cows when pregnant), דֹּב bear, Ho 13 דּוֹב שַׁכּוּל (a bear that is bereaved of her whelps; cf., however, 2 K 2, Is 11), זְאֵב wolf, כֶּ֫לֶב dog, all masculine; but אַרְנֶ֫בֶת hare, יוָֹנָה dove, חֲסִידְה stork, דְּבוֹרָה bee, נֲמָלָה ant, &c., feminine.
f Rem. 1. Masculine nouns which either have a separate feminine form or might easily form one, are but seldom used as epicene; such are, חֲמוֹר ass, 2 S 19 for אָתוֹן; אַיָל hart, ψ 42 for אַיָלָה. In Gn 23 ff. מֵת a dead body, refers more especially to the body of a woman; אָמוֹן a master workman, in Pr 8 refers to wisdom (חָכְמָה feminine, cf. Plin. 2, 1 natura omnium artifex; and our use of friend, teacher, servant, neighbour, either as masculine or feminine; in German, Gemahl[32] spouse, also for fem. Gemahlin, &c.).
g 2. Of words denoting persons נַ֫עַר παῖς, according to the formerly common opinion, was in early times used as epicene (see, however, above, § 2 n). The use of the plural נְעָרִים in Jb 1 and Ru 2 in the sense of young people (of both genders) does not, however, prove this. In this and in similar cases (cf. e.g. אֹתָם Gn 1 and אֶתְהֶם 32:1) the masculine as prior gender includes the feminine.[33]
h 3. The following classes of ideas are usually regarded as feminine,[34] although the substantives which express them are mostly without the feminine ending:[35]
(a) Names of countries and towns, since they are regarded as the mothers[36] and nurses of the inhabitants; e.g. אַשּׁוּר Assyria, אֱדֹם Idumaea, צֹר Tyre; cf. also such expressions as בַּת בָּבֶל, בַּת צִיּוֹן daughter of Babylon, daughter of Zion, &c. On the other hand appellatives which are originally masculine, remain so when used as place-names, e.g. Am 5 בֵּית־אֵל, הַגִּלְגָּל, &c.
i Rem. The same proper nouns, which as names of countries are regarded as feminine, are frequently used also as names of the people, and may then, like national names in other languages, be construed as masculine (the national name almost always being used also as the personal name of the supposed ancestor of the people); thus יְהוּדָה masc. Is 3, &c., Judaei; but Is 7, fem., Judaea; אֱדֹם masc., Idumaei, Nu 20; fem., Idumaea, Jer 49. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that by a very common transference of thought (just as we say Turkey concludes peace) these names are construed as feminine, even when they denote not the country but the inhabitants; so יְהוּדָה La 1; cf. Gn 41, Ex 10, 12, 1 S 17, 2 S 8, 24, Is 7, 21, 42, Jer 50, Jb 1. Hence the frequent personification of nations (as well as of countries and towns, see h, note 5) as female beings, e.g. Is 50, 54 ff., and the use of the expressions בַּת בָּבֶל Is 47 ff., בַּת צִיּוֹן &c. (see above) as collective poetical personifications of the people.
k (b) Appellative nouns, which denote a circumscribed space, such as אֶ֫רֶץ earth, land, תֵּבֵל world, שְׁאֹל the abode of the dead, כִּכָּר circle (of the Jordan valley), עִיר a town, בְּאֵר a well, צָפוֹן the north, תֵּימָן the south.
l In the majority of nouns denoting place the gender is variable, e.g. אֹ֫רַח and דֶּ֫רֶךְ a way (usually feminine; the masculine gender only begins to predominate with Ezekiel; cf. Albrecht, l. c., 1896, p. 55), גַּיְא (גַּי) valley, גַּן garden (fem. Gn 2, unless לְעָבְדֹה, &c., is to be read), הֵיכָל palace, temple, חָעֵר court, כֶּ֫רֶם vineyard, שַׁ֫עַר door,[37] &c.; also מָקוֹם place, at least in Gn 18 (referring to Sodom), Jb 20, and 2 S 17 Kethîbh, is construed as feminine. The mountains and hills commanding the surrounding country are almost without exception masculine (see Albrecht, l. c., p. 60 f.).
m (c) The names of instruments, utensils, and (on the same analogy) members and parts of the body in man or beast, since these are all regarded as subservient and subordinate (consequently as feminine).
n Thus חֶ֫רֶב sword, יָתֵד tent-peg, כַּד bucket, כּוֹס cup, נַ֫עַל shoe, עֶ֫רֶשׂ bed, &c.; in other cases, as אֲרוֹן chest, ark (with the article הָֽאָרוֹן), תַּנּוּר oven, the gender is variable. (‘Instruments for binding or holding, girdles and the like, as constraining and mastering, are masculine,’ Albrecht, l. c., p. 89.)—Also אֹ֫זֶן ear (and in general, members occurring in pairs, Albrecht, l. c., p. 73 f.), אֶצְבַּע finger (and so probably בֹּ֫הֶן thumb, great toe), יָד and כַּף hand, יָמִין right hand, רֶ֫גֶל foot, בֶּ֫רֶךְ knee, יָרֵךְ thigh, כָּתֵף shoulder, לְחִי cheek, בֶּ֫טֶן belly, כָּנָף wing, קֶ֫רֶן horn, שֵׁן tooth; as a rule also זְרוֹעַ arm (masc. Is 17, &c.), לָשׁוֹן tongue (masc. ψ 22, Pr 26, &c.), עַ֫יִן eye (masc. Zc 3, &c.), שׁוֹק thigh (masc. Ex 29).[38]
o (d) Certain names of natural forces or substances are feminine, being probably regarded as instruments, while in the names of the heavens, the heavenly bodies and natural phenomena, the masculine generally predominates (cf. Albrecht, l. c., p. 323 ff.); thus feminine are שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ sun (but often also masc., ψ 19, 104); אֵשׁ (Ethiopic ’ĕsât) fire (rarely masc.); נֹ֫גַהּ brightness, אֶ֫בֶן a stone, as a rule also רוּחַ wind, spirit; נֶ֫פֶשׁ breath, soul; also אוֹר light in Jer 13, Jb 36, and others.
p 4. The following classes of ideas, which are also regarded as feminine in Hebrew (see above, h), are usually indicated by the feminine form, notwithstanding their occasional transference to masculine persons (see r and s):
q (a) Abstracts[39] (sometimes along with masculine forms from the same stem, as נְקָמָה vengeance, as well as נָקָם, עֶזְרָה help, as well as עֵ֫זֶר), e.g. אֱמוּנָה firmness, faithfulness, גְּבוּרָה strength, גְּדוּלָה greatness, מְלֵאָה fullness, מֶמְשָׁלָה dominion, &c. Similarly, the feminine (sing. and plur.) of adjectives and participles is used substantivally in the sense of the Latin and Greek neuter, e.g. נְכוֹנָה stedfastness, ψ 5, טוֹבָה goodness, רָעָה evil, Gn 50, נְקַלָּה a light thing (i.e. a trifling thing), Jer 6; so especially in the plural, e.g. גְּדֹלוֹת great things, ψ 12; הַנֶּֽהֱרָסוֹת the ruined places, Ez 36, along with הַנְּשַׁמָּה that which was desolate, טֹבוֹת kindnesses, 2 K 25, נְכֹחוֹת uprightness, honesty, Is 26, נְעִימוֹת amoena, ψ 16 (but in verse 6 in the same sense נְעִימִים), נִפְלָאוֹת wonderful things, Ex 34 and frequently, קָשׁוֹת hard things, roughly Gn 42, 30 (but cf. also רֵיקִם vain things, Pr 12, 28). Cf. moreover, the very frequent use of זֹאת, הִיא (as well as זֶה and הוּא), Ju 14, ψ 118, &c., in the sense of hoc, illud (also הֵ֫נָּה equivalent to illa, Is 51): also the use of the feminine form of the verb in Is 7 לֹא תָקוּם וְלֹא תִֽהְיֶה it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass; cf. Jer 10; so too the suffixes Gn 15, Ex 10, Jb 38, referring back to a whole statement.[40]
r (b) Titles and designations of office, properly a subdivision of the abstract ideas treated above, under q, and specially noticed here only on account of their peculiar transference to concrete male persons. Thus we have קֹהֶ֫לֶת Ec 1, &c. (as a title of Solomon), properly no doubt that which takes part in or speaks in a religious assembly, hence LXX ἐκκλησιαστής, i.e. concionator, preacher; the proper names סֹפֶ֫רֶת Ezr 2, Neh 7, and פֹּכֶ֫רֶת Ezr 2, Neh 7, and the foreign word פֶּחָה viceroy; in the plural כְּנָוֹת prop. cognomina, then like-named, colleagues; פְּרָעוֹת princes (if this be the true meaning).[41] All these words, in accordance with their meaning, are construed as masculine (in Ec 7 instead of אָֽמְרָה ק׳ the words should rather be divided as אָמַר הַקּ׳; cf. 12:8).
s Abstract ideas include also—
(c) Collectives in the fem. form,[42] generally fem. participles used substantivally, especially as the comprehensive designation of a number of persons, e.g. אֹֽרְחָה (fem. of travelling), prop. the travelling (company), i.e. travelling persons (a caravan); גּוֹלָה (fem. of גֹּלֶה one going into exile) the company of exiles (also frequently used of those who had returned home again); יוֹשֶׁ֫בֶת (that which inhabits) i.e. the population, Is 12, Mi 1 f.; אֹיֶ֫בֶת (prop. that which is hostile) the enemy, Mi 7, 10 (cf. Mi 4 f. the halting, cast off, driven away, i.e. those who halt, &c.); דַּלָּה (the abject) the poorest sort; of living beings which are not persons, cf. חַיָּה (that which lives) in the sense of cattle, beasts; דָּגָה a shoal of fish, Gn 1 (but in Jon 2 as a nomen unitatis, cf. t, for דָּג a fish, which in verses 1 and 11 is used as the nomen unitatis). Cf., moreover, נְבֵלָה dead body, Is 26, &c. (construed as masculine), for a heap of dead bodies.—On the collective poetic personification of a nation, by means of בַּת daughter, in בַּת בָּבֶל, בַּת עַמִּי (equivalent to בְּנֵי עַמִּי) my countrymen, see above, i.
t (d) Conversely the feminine form of substantives is sometimes used (as in Arabic) as a nomen unitatis, i.e. to indicate a single example of a class which is denoted by the masculine form; cf. אֳנִי a fleet (1 K 9), אֳנִיָּה a single ship (Jon 1 ff.); צַ֫יִד hunting, game, צֵידָה Gn 27 Keth. (צָ֑יִד Qerê) a piece of venison; שֵׂעָר hair (coll.), שַֽׂעֲרָה a single hair (Ju 20; in the plural, ψ 40, 69); שִׁיר a poem, frequently collective, שִׁירָה a single song; so probably also תְּאֵנָה a fig (the corresponding masculine tîn is collective in Arabic); שֽׁוֹשַׁנָּה a lily (also שׁוֹשָׁן); לְבֵנָה a brick (Arab. libina, but libin collective), &c.
(e) The feminine is also used for things without life (as being weaker or less important), which are named from their resemblance to organic things expressed by the corresponding masculine form; cf. יָרֵךְ side (of the body), thigh, יְרֵכָה or יַרְכָּה back part, border (of a country, house, &c.); מֵ֫צַח forehead, מִצְחָה greaves. On a similar distinction between the masculine for natural, and the feminine for artificial objects, see § 87 o.
v Rem. The juxtaposition of the masculine and feminine from the same stem serves sometimes to express entirety; e.g. Is 3 מַשְׁעֵן וּמַשְׁעֵנָה stay and staff, i.e. every kind of support (unless we omit verse as a gloss and take staff as = staff-bearer, official; the list of officials begins in verse 2); cf. Is 16, Pr 8. For similar groupings in the case of persons, see Is 43, 49, 60 (sons and daughters); 49:23, Ec 2.
a Besides the plural endings treated in § 87 a–i, the language employs other means to express a plurality of living beings or things:
(a) Certain words employed exclusively in a collective sense, while the individual members of the class are denoted by special words (nomina unitatis, but not in the same sense as in § 122 t). Thus בָּקָר cattle, oxen[43] (even joined with numerals, e.g. Ex 21 חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר five head of cattle), but שׁוֹר an ox; צֹאן small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats (μῆλα), cf. Jb 1 שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי־צֹאן seven thousand sheep; but שֶׂה a single head of small cattle (a sheep or a goat). Other more or less common collectives are: זִיז (prop. that which prowls or roams) wild beasts, טַף (perhaps prop. tripping) a number of little children; דֶּ֫שֶׁא fresh green herb, i.e. young plants, יֶ֫רֶק green, i.e. vegetation in general; עוֹף birds, fowl; רֶ֫כֶב chariots or cavalcade, רִמָּה worms, רֶ֫מֶשׂ creeping things (of small creatures), שֶׁ֫רֶץ swarming things.
b (b) The collective use of substantives which at the same time serve as nomina unitatis; thus, אָדָם (never in plur.) means both man (homo) and men (homines); אִישׁ a man (vir) and men (viri); אִשָּׁה woman and women (Ju 21, 1 S 21); אַרְבֶּה a locust, but usually a swarm of locusts; נֶ֫פֶשׁ soul and souls (persons); מַקֵּל staff and staves (Gn 30); עַ֫יִט a bird of prey and birds of prey; עָלֶה a leaf and foliage; עֵ֫שֶׂב a plant and plants, herbs; עֵץ a tree and trees (as it were foliage); פְּרִי fruit and fruits; שִׂיחַ a shrub and shrubs; in isolated instances also nouns like עֶ֫בֶד man-servant, שִׁפְחָה maid-servant, חֲמוֹר ass, שׁוֹר ox (cf. Gn 32).—On the singular (especially of gentilic names) with the article (which may, however, be omitted in poetry, cf. e.g. ψ 12 חָסִיד, Pr 11 יוֹעֵץ) to include all individuals of the same species, cf. § 126 l. On the special meaning of the plurals formed from certain collectives, see § 124 l.
(c) The feminine ending; see § 122 s.
c (d) The repetition of single words, and even of whole groups of words, especially to express entirety, or in a distributive sense. The following cases are more particularly to be noticed:
1. The repetition of one or more words to express the idea of every, all, as יוֹם יוֹם Gn 39, &c., day by day, every day; שָׁנָה שָׁנָה year by year, Dt 14; אִישׁ אִישׁ every man, Ex 36; with בְּ before each, as בַּבֹּ֫קֶר בַּבֹּ֫קֶר Ex 16 every morning (and similarly before a group of words, Lv 24), for which the distributive לְ is also used, לַבֹּ֫קֶר לַבֹּ֫קֶר 1 Ch 9, and with one plural לַבְּקָרִים ψ 73, לִבְקָרִים Jb 7 parallel with לִרְגָעִים every moment. Somewhat different are the instances with בְּ before the second word only, e.g. יוֹם בְּיוֹם day by day, 1 Ch 12; שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה year by year, Dt 15, 1 S 1 (but in verse 3 מִיָּמִים יָמִ֫ימָה), כְּפַ֫עַם בְּפַ֫עַם Nu 24, Ju 16, 20 f., 1 S 3 as at other times. Also With the two words united by means of wāw copulative, אִישׁ וְאִישׁ ψ 87, or אִישׁ וָאִישׁ Est 1; דּוֹר וָדוֹר all generations, Dt 32; יוֹם וָיוֹם Est 3; cf. Est 8, Ezr 10, 1 Ch 26 and often (cf. Cheyne, Bampton Lectures, 1889, p. 479, according to whom the use of the ו copulative with the second word is especially common in Ch and Est, and therefore belongs to the later language; Driver, Introd.6, p. 538, No. 35); sometimes (but with the exception of ψ 45 only in very late passages) with a pleonastic כָּל־ preceding, ψ 145, Est 2, 9, 2 Ch 11, &c.
d 2. Repetition of words in an expressly distributive sense[44] (which may to some extent be noticed in the examples under c) equivalent to one each, &c., e.g. Nu 14 forty days יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה counting for every day a year; cf. Ez 24, Ex 28 (three words repeated); also with the addition of לְבַד apart, עֵדֶר עֵדֶר לְבַדּוֹ every drove by itself, Gn 32; cf. Zc 12. Most frequently with the addition of a numeral (for the simple repetition of numerals for the same purpose, cf. § 134 q), and with the words not only in groups of two (Lv 24, Nu 13, 31) or three (Nu 7, 17), but even of six (Ex 26) or seven (Ex 25, 26, 21, 25); in Ex 25 five words even three times repeated.[45]
e 3. Repetition to express an exceptional or at least superfine quality; e.g. 2 K 25 which were of gold, gold, of silver, silver, i.e. made of pure gold and pure silver; Dt 2 בַּדֶּ֫רֶךְ בַּדֶּ֫רֶךְ only along by the high way; cf. Nu 3, 8 they are given, given to him, i.e. given exclusively for his service, for his very own. Also with a certain hyperbole in such examples as 2 K 3 גֵּבִים גֵּבִים nothing but trenches; Gn 14 בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת חֵמָר all asphalt-pits.—Repetition serves to intensify the expression to the highest degree in Ju 5 by reason of the violent pransings of his string ones, Ex 8 (countless heaps), and Jo 4 (countless multitudes); cf. also מְעַט מְעַט Ex 23 by little and little, very gradually; cf. § 133 k.
f 4. Repetition with the copula to express of more than one kind; thus Dt 25 (Pr 20) אֶ֫בֶן וָאֶ֫בֶן a weight and a weight, i.e. two kinds of weight (hence the addition great and small); ψ 12 בְּלֵב וָלֵב with two kinds of heart, i.e. with a double-dealing heart; cf. the opposite בְּלֹא לֵב וָלֵב 1 Ch 12.
a 1. The plural is by no means used in Hebrew solely to express a number of individuals or separate objects, but may also denote them collectively. This use of the plural expresses either (a) a combination of various external constituent parts (plurals of local extension), or (b) a more or less intensive focusing of the characteristics inherent in the idea of the stem (abstract plurals, usually rendered in English by forms in -hood, -ness, -ship). A variety of the plurals described under (b), in which the secondary idea of intensity or of an internal multiplication of the idea of the stem may be clearly seen, is (c) the pluralis excellentiae or pluralis maiestatis.
b Examples of (a): Plurals of local extension to denote localities in general, but especially level surfaces (the surface-plural), since in them the idea of a whole composed of innumerable separate parts or points is most evident, as שָׁמַ֫יִם (§ 88 d) heaven (cf. also מְרוֹמִים heights of heaven, Is 33, Jb 16; elsewhere מָרוֹם); מַ֫יִם water; יַמִּים (the broad surface of the sea) poetically for יָם sea; פָנִים (prop. the side turned towards any one, then) surface in general, usually face; אֲחוֹרִים the back, Ex 26, 33, &c., צַוָּארִים neck nape of the neck[47]; also מְרַֽאֲשׁוֹת the place at the head, מַרְגְּלוֹת place at the feet; עֲבָרִים place on the other side (of a river); מַֽעֲמַקִּים depth, מֶרְחַקִּים (also מֶרְחָק) distance, מִשְׁכָּבִים bed, Gn 49 (unless, with Dillmann, it is to be explained in the sense of double bed, i.e. torus), מִשְׁכָּנִים ψ 46, and מִשְׁכָּנוֹת 43, 84, 132, dwelling (perhaps also אֹֽהָלִים encampment, in passages like 1 S 4). The last four belong, however, to poetic style, and are better reckoned amongst the plurals of amplification treated under d–f. So perhaps יְצֻעִים bed (ψ 63, Jb 17; but Gn 49, ψ 132, &c., in the singular); probably, however, יְצֻעִים (prop. strata) refers to a number of coverings or pillows.
The plural of extension is used to denote a lengthened period of time in עֽוֹלָמִים eternity (everlasting ages).
c Rem. The plural of extension includes also a few examples which were formerly explained as simply poetic plurals, e.g. Jb 17 קְבָרִים לִי graves are (ready) for me, i.e. the place where there are many of them (as it were the graveyard) is my portion, Jb 21, 2 Ch 16; cf. 2 K 22.
d Of (b): the tolerably numerous abstract plurals, mostly of a particular form (qeṭûlîm, qiṭṭûlîm, &c.), may be divided into two classes. They sum up either the conditions or qualities inherent in the idea of the stem, or else the various single acts of which an action is composed. Cf. for the first class, בְּחוּרִים and בְּחוּרוֹת youth, זְקֻנִים old age, נְעוּרִים youth; בְּתוּלִים maidenhood, כְּלוּלוֹת bridal state; מְגוּרִים condition of a sojourner, בְּשָׂרִים fleshliness (only in Pr 14), חַיִּים life (the abstract idea of the qualities of a living being); שִׁכּוּלִים childlessness, סַנְוֵרִים blindness, עִוְעִים perverseness.
e There are also a number of plurals, found almost exclusively in poetry (sometimes along with the singular), which are evidently intended to intensify[48] the idea of the stem (plural of amplification), as אוֹנִים might, Is 40; אֱמוּנִים (as well as אֱמוּנָה) and אֱמוּנוֹת faithfulness; אַשְׁרֵי (according to § 93 l, only in the construct state plural or with suffixes = the happiness of), happy; כּֽוֹשָׁרוֹת (complete) prosperity, ψ 68; בִּינוֹת Is 27 and תְּבוּנוֹת Is 40, &c. (keen) understanding; עֵצוֹת (true) counsel, Dt 32; דֵּעִים Jb 37 and דֵּעוֹת 1 S 2 (thorough) knowledge; בַּטֻּחוֹת Jb 12 and מִבְטַחִים Is 32 (full) confidence; בְּרָכוֹת (abundant) blessing, ψ 21; גְּבוּרוֹת (exceptional) strength, Jb 41; הַוּוֹת ψ 5 (very) wickedness; חֲמוּדוֹת Dn 9 (greatly) beloved; חֵמוֹת ψ 76, &c.(fierce) wrath; חֲרָפוֹת Dn 12 (utter) contempt; יְשֻׁעוֹת (real) help, Is 26, &c.; מַרְאֹת Gn 46 (an important) vision; מֵֽישָׁרִים uprightness; תַּהְפֻּכוֹת perversity; נְקָמוֹת (complete) vengeance, Ju 11, &c.; חֲשֵׁכִים and מַֽחֲשַׁכִּים (thick) darkness; מִסְתָּרִים a (close) hiding-place; נְגִידִים nobility; שְׁמָנִים Is 28 fatness; צַחְצָחוֹת (complete) aridity; מַמְתַּקִּים sweetness; מַֽחֲמַדִּים preciousness; שַֽׁעֲשֻׁעִים delight; עֲדָנִים and תַּֽעֲנֻגִים pleasure; רַֽחֲמִים compassion; מְנוּחֹת ψ 23 rest, refreshment; מְהוּמֹת Am 3 tumult. Probably also יְדִידֹת (heartfelt) love, ψ 45; מְרֹרוֹת (extreme) bitterness, Jb 13; מִרְמוֹת (base) deceit, ψ 38; צְדָקוֹת (true) righteousness, Is 33, &c.; שְׁמָחוֹת (the highest) joy, ψ 16. On the other hand, חָכְמוֹת wisdom (Pr 1, &c.) can hardly be a plural (=the essence of wisdom, or wisdom personified), but is a singular (see § 86 l).
A further extension of this plural of amplification occurs according to P. Haupt’s very probable suggestion (SBOT. Proverbs, p. 40, line 50, &c.) in יְאֹרִים the great river (of the Nile, generally יְאֹר) Is 7, 19 (though with the predicate in the plural), Ez 30, ψ 78, but in Is 37, Ez 29 the usual explanation, arms or channels of the Nile, can hardly be avoided; also in נְהָרוֹת ψ 24 of the ocean, which encircles the earth, 137:1 of the great river, i.e. the Euphrates, but in Is 18 נַֽהֲרֵי כוּשׁ is evidently a numerical plural.—In Pr 16 מְלָכִים (acc. to P. Haupt=the great king) is very doubtful. In נְשִׂיאֵי Ez 19 the second yôdh is evidently due to dittography, since ישְׂרָאֵל follows.
f The summing up of the several parts of an action is expressed in חֲנֻמִים embalming, כִּפֻּרִים atonement, מִלֻּאִים (prop. filling, sc. of the hand) ordination to the priesthood, שִׁלֻּחִים dismissal, שִׁלֻּמִים retribution, פִּתֻּחִים engraving (of a seal, &c.); אֳהָבִים fornication, זְנוּנִים whoredom, נִֽאֻפִים adultery; נִֽחֻמִים (prop. no doubt, warm compassion) consolation, תַּֽחֲנוּנים supplication, נְדֻדִים Jb 7 (restless) tossing to and fro, פְּלָאִים wonder La 1, עֹלֵלוֹת gleaning; perhaps also נְגִינִוֹת ψ 4, 6, &c., if it means the playing on stringed instruments, and שַׁלְמֹנִים Is 1 bribery, unless it be a plural of number.[49]
g Of (c): the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics[50] belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification, treated under [[Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/e|]], which are mostly found in poetry. So especially אֱלֹהִים Godhead, God (to be distinguished from the numerical plural gods, Ex 12, &c.). The supposition that אֱלֹהִים is to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and, moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (see below). That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in אֱלֹהִים (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute (cf. § 132 h), e.g. אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק ψ 7, &c. Hence אֱלֹהִים may have been used originally not only as a numerical but also as an abstract plural (corresponding to the Latin numen, and our Godhead), and, like other abstracts of the same kind, have been transferred to a concrete single god (even of the heathen).
h To the same class (and probably formed on the analogy of אֱלֹהִים) belong the plurals קְדשִׁים the Most Holy (only of Yahweh), Ho 12, Pr 9, 30 (cf. אֱלֹהִים קְדשִׁים Jos 24, and the Aram. עֶלְיוֹנִין the Most High, Dn 7, 22, 25); and probably תְּרָפִים (usually taken in the sense of penates) the image of a god, used especially for obtaining oracles. Certainly in 1 S 19, 16 only one image is intended; in most other places a single image may be intended[51]; in Zc 10 alone is it most naturally taken as a numerical plural. In Ec 5 גְּבֹהִים supremus (of God) is doubtful; according to others it is a numerical plural, superiores.
i Further, אֲדֹנִים, as well as the singular אָדוֹן, (lordship) lord, e.g. אֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה a cruel lord, Is 19; אֲדֹנֵי הָאָ֫רֶץ the lord of the land, Gn 42, cf. Gn 32; so especially with the suffixes of the 2nd and 3rd persons אֲדֹנֶ֫יךָ, אֲדֹנַ֫יִךְ ψ 45, אֲדֹנָיו, &c., also אֲדֹנֵ֫ינוּ (except 1 S 16); but in 1st sing. always אֲדֹנִי.[52] So also בְּעָלִים (with suffixes) lord, master (of slaves, cattle, or inanimate things; but in the sense of maritus, always in the singular), e.g. בְּעָלָיו Ex 21, Is 1, &c.[53]
k On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Jb 35; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ Is 54; עשָֹׁיו ψ 149; עשֶֹׁיהָ Is 22; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Is 42; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to § 93 ss.[54]—נֹֽגְשָׂיו Is 3 might also be regarded as another instance, unless it be a numerical plural, their oppressors; moreover, מְרִימָיו him who lifteth it up, Is 10 (but read probably מְרִימוֹ); שֹֽׁלְחָיו him who sendeth him, Pr 10, 22 (so Baer, but Ginsburg שֹֽׁלְחֶ֫ךָ), 25:13 (in parallelism with אֲדֹנָיו). These latter plurals, however (including מרימיו), may probably be more simply explained as indicating an indefinite individual, cf. o below.—For שֹֽׁמְרֶ֫יךָ ψ 121 (textus receptus) and בּֽוֹרְאֶ֫יךָ Ec 12 (textus receptus) the singular should be read, with Baer.
l Rem. 1. (a) Coherent substances, &c., are mostly regarded as single, and are, accordingly, almost always represented by nouns in the singular, cf. אָבָק fine dust, אֵ֫פֶר ashes, בַּד linen, בְּדִיל lead, זָהָב gold, כֶּ֫סֶף silver, נְח֫שֶׁת brass, חָלָב milk, יַ֫יִן wine, עָפָר dust, the ground, עֵץ wood. Plurals are, however, formed from some of these words expressing materials in order to denote separate portions taken from the whole in manufacture (plurals of the result) or parts otherwise detached from it; thus, בַּדִּים linen garments; כְּסָפִים silver pieces, Gn 42, 35; נְחֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם (dual) fetters of brass; עֵצִים ligna (timber for building or sticks for burning); also in a wider sense, בְּדִילִים particles of alloy to be separated by smelting, Is 1; עֲפָרוֹת fragments of earth, Pr 8, cf. Jb 28 עַפְרֹת זָהָב dust of gold.
m (b) To the class of plurals of the result belong also a few names of natural products, when represented in an artificial condition; thus, חִטִּים wheat in grain (threshed wheat), as distinguished from חִטָּה wheat (used collectively) in the ear; cf. the same distinction between כֻּסְּמִים and כֻּסֶּ֫מֶת spelt; עֲדָשִׁים and עֲדָשָׁה (the singular preserved only in the Mishna) lentils; שְׂעֹרִים and שְׂעֹרָה barley; also פִּשְׁתִּים linen, פֵּ֫שֶׁת (to be inferred from פִּשְׁתִּי) flax.
n (c) Finally, the distinction between דָּם blood and דָּמִים requires to be specially noticed. The singular is always used when the blood is regarded as an organic unity, hence also of menstrual blood, and the blood of sacrifices (collected in the basin and then sprinkled), and in Nu 23 of the blood gushing from wounds. On the other hand, דָּמִים as a sort of plural of the result and at the same time of local extension, denotes blood which is shed, when it appears as blood-stains (Is 1) or as blood-marks (so evidently in Is 9). But since blood-stains or blood-marks, as a rule, suggest blood shed in murder (although דָּמִים also denotes the blood which flows at child-birth or in circumcision), דָּמִים acquired (even in very early passages) simply the sense of a bloody deed, and especially of bloodguiltiness, Ex 22 f., &c.
o In some few cases the plural is used to denote an indefinite singular; certainly so in Dt 17 אֶל־שְׁעָרֶ֫יךָ unto one of thy gates; Zc 9 בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת (cf. Ct 2); Ex 21 יְלָדֶ֫יהָ (where evidently only one child is thought of, certainly though in connexion with a contingency which may be repeated); cf. also Ec 4 (if one of them fall).—So probably also Gn 8, 1 S 17, Dn 2, Neh 3, 6; but not Gn 19, since the same document (Gn 13) makes Lot dwell in the cities of the Jordan valley; in Gn 21 בָּנִים denotes the class with which the action is concerned. In Ju 12 instead of the unusual בְּעָרֵי גִלְעָד in the cities of Gilead (formerly explained here as in one of the cities of Gilead) we should most probably read, with Moore (SBOT. Judges, p. 52), בְּעִירוֹ בְּמִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד in his city, in Mizpeh (in) Gilead.
p 2. When a substantive is followed by a genitive, and the compound idea thus formed is to be expressed in the plural, this is done—
(a) Most naturally by using the plural of the nomen regens, e.g. גִּבּוֹרֵי חַ֫יִל mighty men of valour (prop. heroes of strength), 1 Ch 7, 9; so also in compounds, e.g. בְּנֵי יְמִינִי 1 S 22, as the plur. of בֶּן־יְמִינִי Benjamite; but also
q (b) By using the plural of both nouns,[55] e.g. גִּבּוֹרֵי חֲיָלִים 1 Ch 7; וּבְבָֽתֵּי כְלָאִים and in prison houses, Is 42; cf. Ex 34, &c., שְׁנֵיֽ־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים two tables of stone (but Ex 31 לֻחֹת אֶ֫בֶן); Nu 13, Dt 1, Jos 5, 6, 2 K 14, 25, Is 51, Jer 41, Ezr 3, &c. עַמֵּי הָֽאֲרָצוֹת the people of the country; 2 Ch 26; so perhaps בְּנֵי אֵלִים sons of God, ψ 29, 89 (according to others sons of gods); or finally even
r (c) By using the plural of the nomen rectum;[56] e.g. בֵּית אָבוֹת Ex 6, Nu 1, 4 ff., &c., as plur. of בֵּית אָב father’s house, family; בֵּית הַבָּמוֹת the houses of the high places, 2 K 17 (also בָּֽתֵּי הַבָּמוֹת 23:19); בֵּית עֲצַבֵּיהֶם the houses of their idols, 1 S 31, Ez 46; cf. also Ju 7 the head of Oreb and Zeeb, i.e. the heads, &c.
s Rem. When a substantive (in a distributive sense) with a suffix refers back to a plural, the singular form of the substantive suffices, since the idea of plurality is already adequately expressed by the suffix, e.g. פִּימוֹ os (for ora) eorum, ψ 17; יְמִינָם their right hand, ψ 144 [so in the English RV.], for hands.
a 1. A noun may either be determinate in itself, as a proper name or pronoun (see below, d and i), or be made so by its context. In the latter case, the determination may be effected either by prefixing the article (see § 126), or by the connexion of the noun (in the construct state) with a following determinate genitive, and consequently also (according to § 33 c) by its union with a pronominal suffix (§ 127 a). It is to be taken as a fundamental rule, that the determination can only be effected in one of the ways here mentioned; the article cannot be prefixed to a proper name, nor to a noun followed by the genitive, nor can a proper name be used in the construct state. Deviations from this rule are either only apparent or have arisen from a corruption of the text.
b Rem. Only in a few passages is a noun made expressly indeterminate by the addition of אֶחָד in the sense of our indefinite article; cf. Ex 16, Ju 9, 13, 1 S 1, 7, 12, 1 K 13, 19, 20, 22, 2 K 4, 8, 12, Ez 8, Dn 8, 10 (in 8:13 אֶחָד קָרוֹשׁ i.e. one, viz. a holy one, is opposed to another).
c It is further to be noticed, that in Hebrew the phenomenon sometimes occurs, which the Arab grammarians call indeterminateness for the sake of amplification; e.g. Is 31 and he shall flee מִפְּנֵי־חֶ֫רֶב from a sword, i.e. from an irresistible sword (God’s sword); cf. Is 28 בְּיָד; 2 S 6 שֵׁם; Ho 3 אִשָּׁה such a woman, without doubt to be referred to the Gomer mentioned in cap. 1; Am 6 גּוֹי; ψ 77 בִּזְרֹעַ; Pr 21 צַדִּיק, if with Delitzsch it is to be referred to God; Jb 8 מִלִּים meaning important words, but in 15:13 מִלִּין reproachful words. Cf. on this point, § 117 q, note 3, and Delitzsch, Psalmen, ed. 4, p. 79.
d 2. Real proper nouns, as being the names of things (or persons) only once met with, are sufficiently determinate in themselves. Such names, therefore, as יהוה, דָּוִד, יַֽעֲקֹב, כְּנַ֫עַן, סְדֹם do not admit of the article,[57] nor can they be in the construct state. On the other hand, not only gentilic names (as denoting the various individuals belonging to the same class), but also all those proper names, of which the appellative sense is still sufficiently evident to the mind, or at least has been handed down from an earlier period of the language, frequently (often even as a rule) take the article (according to § 126 e), and may even be followed by a genitive.
e Examples. Like the above-mentioned proper names of individuals, countries, and cities, so also national names, which are identical in form with the name of the founder of the race (e.g. יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֱדֹם, מוֹאָב), are always determinate in themselves. Of gentilic names (e.g. הָֽעִבְרִי the Hebrew, הָֽעִבְרִים the Hebrews, Gn 40; הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי the Canaanite) the plural פְּלִשְׁתִּים, even when meaning the Philistines, is generally used without the article (but in 1 S 4, &c., הַפְּ׳); so always כַּפְתֹּרִים.—Evident appellatives (like such modern names as the Hague, le Havre) are הַגִּבְעָה the hill, in the construct state גִּבְעַת שָׁאוּל, i.e. the Gibeah named after Saul to distinguish it from others; הָֽרָמָה the height; הָעַי the heap; הַלְּבָנוֹן (prop. the white mountain) the Lebanon; הַיְאֹר (prop. the river) the Nile, cf. Am 8 כִּיאוֹר מִצְרָֽיִם like the river of Egypt; הַיַּרְדֵּן the Jordan (according to Seybold, Mittheil. und Nachr. des DPV., 1896, p. 11, probably the drinking-place [ירד, Arab. warada, meaning orig. to go down to drink]).
f Rem. 1. In a few instances original appellatives have completely assumed the character of real proper names, and are therefore used without the article; thus אֱלֹהִים God, to denote the one true God (as elsewhere יהוה) Gn 1 and so generally in this document of the Pentateuch up to Ex 6, elsewhere sometimes הָֽאֱלֹהִים ὁ θεός (cf. § 126 e); also the sing. אֱלוֹהַּ God, עֶלְיוֹן the Most High, and שַׁדַּי the Almighty never take the article.—Moreover, אָדָם Adam from Gn 5 onwards (previously in 2:7, &c., הָֽאָדָם the first man); שָׁטָן Satan, 1 Ch 21 (but Zc 3, Jb 1, &c., הַשָּׂטָן the adversary); cf. אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד the tent of revelation (i.e. the tabernacle), always without the article.
g To the class of nouns originally appellative, which the language regards as proper names, and which consequently never take the article, belong also certain archaic words mostly used only by poets, such as שְׁאוֹל Hades, תֵּבֵל world, תְּהוֹם ocean, of the body of water which encircles the earth, Gn 1, &c.; but Is 63, ψ 106 בַּתְּהֹמוֹת through the depths, viz. of the Red Sea.[58]
h 2. When nouns which the usage of the language always treats as proper names occasionally appear to be connected with a following genitive, this is really owing to an ellipse whereby the noun which really governs the genitive, i.e. the appellative idea contained in the proper name, is suppressed. So evidently in the case of יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת Yahweh (the God) of hosts; the fuller form יהוה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת 2 S 5, &c., or יהוה אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת Am 3, &c., is a secondary expansion of the original יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת; אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת in ψ 59, 80, 20, 84:9 is due to the mechanical substitution of אֱלֹהִים for יהוה affected in the 2nd and part of the 3rd book of the Psalms. So also in geographical names such as אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים Ur (the city) of the Chaldees, Gn 11; אֲרַם נַֽהֲרַ֫יִם Aram (the region) of the two rivers; בֵּית לֶ֫חֶם יְהוּדָה Bethlehem (the city) of Judah; אָבֵל בֵּית מַֽעֲכָה 2 S 20, &c., to distinguish it from אָבֵל מַ֫יִם Abel by the water, 2 Ch 16; יָבֵישׁ גִּלְעָד 1 S 11, &c.; יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ Nu 22, 26, 63, &c.; on Ju 8 cf. § 128 c; צִיּוֹן קְדֹוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל the Zion of the Holy One of Israel, Is 60; but in 1 S 1 for צוֹפִים read צוּפִי a Zuphite. Some of these examples (cf. also Am 6) come very near to the actual construct state (cf. above, גִּבְעַת שָׁאוּל), since e.g. the addition of the genitive serves to distinguish the place from four others called Aram (see the Lexicon), or from another Bethlehem. Aram, Bethlehem, &c., are accordingly no longer names found only in one special sense, and therefore also are no longer proper names in the strictest sense.
i 3. Of the pronouns, the personal pronouns proper (the separate pronouns, § 32) are always determinate in themselves, since they can denote only definite individuals (the 3rd person, also definite things). For the same reason the demonstrative pronouns (§ 34) are also determinate in themselves, when they stand alone (as equivalent to substantives), either as subject (Gn 5) or as predicate (e.g. זֶה הַיּוֹם this is the day, Ju 4; אֵ֫לֶּה חַדְּבָרִים these are the words, Dt 1), or as object (e.g. אֶת־זֹאת 2 S 13), or as genitive (מְחִיר זֶה 1 K 21), or finally when joined to a preposition (לְזֹאת Gn 2; בָּזֶה 1 S 16, see § 102 g).
k So also the personal pronouns הוּא, הִיא, הֵם, הֵ֫מָּה, הֵ֫נָּה when they are used as demonstratives (=is, ea, id, ille, &c.) are always determinate in themselves, e.g. הוּא הַדָּבָר that is the thing, Gn 41. They are made determinate by the article, when they are joined like adjectives (see § 126 u) with a determinate substantive, e.g. חָאִישׁ חַזֶּה this man; הָֽאֲנָשִּׁים הָאֵ֫לֶּה these men; בַּיָּמִים הָהֵ֫מָּה וּבָעֵת הַהִיא in those days, and in that time, Jo 4. The demonstrative, however, even in this case, is frequently used without the article, as being sufficiently determinate in itself (cf. § 126 y).
a 1. The article (הַ·, הָ, הֶ, § 35) was originally, as in other languages (clearly in the Romance; cf. also ὁ, ἡ, τό in Homer), a demonstrative pronoun. The demonstrative force of the article, apart from its occasional use as a relative pronoun (see § 138 i), appears now, however, only (a) in a few standing phrases, and (b) in a certain class of statements or exclamations.
b (a) Cf. הַיּוֹם this day, hodie (§ 100 c.); הַלַּ֫יְלָה this night, Gn 19; הַפַּ֫עַם this time, Gn 2; הַשָּׁנָה this year (= in this year) Is 37, Jer 28.
(b) includes those instances in which the article, mostly when prefixed to a participle, joins on a new statement concerning a preceding noun. Although such participles, &c., are no doubt primarily regarded always as in apposition to a preceding substantive, the article nevertheless has in some of these examples almost the force of הוּא (הִיא, הֵ֫מָּה) as the subject of a noun-clause; e.g. ψ 19 the judgements of the Lord are true..., verse 11 הַנֶּֽחֱמָדִים וג׳ prop. the more to be desired than gold, i.e. they are more to be desired, or even they, that are more to be desired,[59] &c.; cf. Gn 49, Is 40 f., 44:27 f., 46:6, Am 2, 5, ψ 33, 49 (הַבֹּֽטְחִים in the parallel half of the verse continued by a finite verb); ψ 104, Jb 6, 28, 30, 41 and frequently. When such a participle has another co-ordinate with it, the latter is used without the article, since according to the above it strictly speaking represents a second predicate, and as such, according to i, remains indeterminate; e.g. Jb 5 who giveth (הַנֹּתֵן) rain, &c. and sendeth וְשֹׁלֵחַ &c.
c The article is sometimes used with similar emphasis before a substantive, which serves as the subject of a compound sentence (§ 140 d); e.g. Dt 32 הַצּוּר תָּמִים פָּֽעֳלוֹ i.e. as a fresh statement (not in apposition to the preceding dative), really equivalent to he is a rock, perfect in his work (i.e. whose work is perfect); cf. ψ 18.
d 2. The article is, generally speaking, employed to determine a substantive wherever it is required by Greek and English; thus:
(a) When a person or thing already spoken of is mentioned again, and is consequently more definite to the mind of the hearer or reader; e.g. Gn 1 and God said, Let there be light: verse 4 and God saw the light (אֶת־הָאוֹר); 1 K 3 fetch me a sword: and they brought the sword; Ec 9. (In 2 S 12 therefore לֶֽעָשִׁיר must be read.) (b) With a title understood and recognized by every one, e.g. הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ שְׁלֹמהֹ ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμών: Gn 35 under the oak (the well-known oak which was there).
(c) With appellatives to denote persons or natural objects which are unique, e.g. הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל the high priest, הַשֶּׁ֫מֶשׁ the sun, הָאָ֫רֶץ the earth.
e (d) When terms applying to whole classes are restricted (simply by usage) to particular individuals (like ὁ ποιητής, meaning Homer) or things, e.g. שָׂטָן adversary, הַשָּׂטָן the adversary, Satan; בַּ֫עַל lord, הַבַּ֫עַל Baal as proper name of the god; הָֽאָדָם the (first) man, Adam; הָאֱלֹהִים[60] or הָאֵל ὁ θεός, the one true God (cf. also ὁ Χριστός in the New Testament); also הַנָּהָר the river, i.e. Euphrates; הַכִּכָּר the circle, sc. of the Jordan, the Jordan plain [Gn 19, &c.].
(e) Very often with the vocative, e.g. 2 S 14 הוֹשִׁ֫עָה הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ help, O king; Zc 3 יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל O Joshua the high priest; 1 S 17, 24, 2 K 9; in the plural, Is 42, Jo 1, 13; but cf. also Jos 10, Is 1, 49 (שָׁמַ֫יִם and אֶ֫רֶץ); 23:16, Ho 13, Jo 1, ψ 34, Ec 10, 11, &c.[61] The vocative occurs without the article in Is 22, since it has been already defined by a preceding accusative.
f Rem. Strictly speaking in all these cases the substantive with the article is really in apposition to the personal pronoun of the 2nd person, which is either expressly mentioned or virtually present (in the imperative), e.g. 1 S 17 thou, the young man. But such passages as Is 42, where the vocative precedes the imperative, prove that in such cases the substantive originally in apposition eventually acquired the value of a complete clause.
g (f) With words denoting classes (see particulars under l).
(g) In a peculiar way, to specify persons or things, which are so far definite as to be naturally thought of in connexion with a given case, and must be assumed accordingly to be there (see q–s).
(h) With adjectives (also ordinal numbers and demonstrative pronouns used adjectivally) which are joined to substantives determined in some way (see u).
h Rem. The article may be omitted in poetry in all the above-mentioned cases; in general it is used in poetry far less frequently than in prose. Its use or omission probably often rests on rhythmical grounds;[62] it is sometimes omitted also for rhetorical reasons. Cf. e.g. אֶ֫רֶץ for הָאָ֫רֶץ ψ 2; מְלָכִים as vocative, verse 10; מֶ֫לֶךְ for הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ 21:2; שִׁמְךָ גָּדוֹל וְנוֹרָא (contrary to u, v) 99:3. In the instances in which the ה of the article is omitted after a prefix (§ 35 n), the vowel of the article is often retained after the prefix even in poetry, e.g. בַּשָּׁמַ֫יִם ψ 2, &c.
i (i) On the other hand, the article is always omitted when a person or thing is to be represented as indefinite (or indefinable) or as yet unknown; consequently also before the predicate, since this is from its nature always a general term, under which the subject is included, e.g. Gn 29 עוֹד הַיּוֹם גָּדוֹל as yet the day is great, i.e. it is yet high day; 33:13, 40:18, 41:26, Is 66.
k Rem. 1. As exceptions to the above rule it is usual to regard those examples in which a determinate adjective or participle (equivalent to a relative clause) is used apparently as a predicate, e.g. Gn 2 הוּא הַסֹּבֵב it is the compassing, i.e. that is it which compasseth; 42:6, 45:12, Ex 9, Dt 3, 8, 11, 1 S 4, Is 14, Mal 3 (cf. in Greek, e.g. St. Mat. 10:20, where Winer, Gram. des neutest. Sprachidioms, § 58, 2, Rem., explains οἱ λαλοῦντες as a predicate with the article). In reality, however, these supposed predicates are rather subjects (acc. to § 116 q), and the only peculiarity of these cases is that the subject is not included under a general idea, but is equated with the predicate.
2. Sometimes the article is used with only one of two parallel words, as Na 1 חָרִים and הַגְּבָעוֹת, 2 Ch 3 מִיָּמִין and מֵֽהַשְּׂמֹאול.
l 3. The use of the article to determine the class is more extensive in Hebrew than in most other languages. In this case the article indicates universally known, closely circumscribed, and therefore well defined classes of persons or things. The special cases to be considered are—
m (a) The employment of general names as collectives in the singular, to denote the sum total of individuals belonging to the class (which may, however, be done just as well by the plural); e.g. the righteous, the wicked man, Ec 3; the woman, i.e. the female sex, 7:26; הָֽאֹיֵב the enemy, i.e. the enemies (?) ψ 9; הָֽאֹרֵב the liers in wait, i.e. the liers in wait; הֶֽחָלוּץ the armed man, i.e. soldiers; הַֽמְאַסֵּף the rearguard; הַמַּשְׁחִית the spoiler, 1 S 13;[63] so also (as in English) with names of animals, when something is asserted of them, which applies to the whole species, e.g. 2 S 17 as the courage of הָֽאַרְיֵה the lion. Especially also with gentilic names, e.g. the Canaanite, Gn 13 (cf.15:19 f.); so in English the Russian, the Turk, &c., in Attic writers ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, ὁ Συρακόσιος, &c.
n (b) Names of materials known everywhere, the elements and other words denoting classes, even though only a part and not the whole of them is considered, in which case in other languages, as e.g. in English, the article is usually omitted (cf., however, our to fall into the water, into the fire, &c.), e.g. Gn 13 and Abram was very rich בַּמִּקְנֶה בַּבֶּסֶף וּבַוָּהָב in cattle, in silver and in gold; Jos 11 and he burnt their chariots בָּאֵשׁ with fire; cf. Gn 6, 41 (unless this means, the chain necessarily belonging to the official dress); Ex 2, 3 (35:32), Is 1, &c., and בַּשָּׁמֶן with oil[64] very commonly in the sacrificial laws, Ex 29, &c., and also Dt 33, 2 S 1, Is 1, ψ 23, &c. Similarly the article is used with terms of measurement, as הָֽאֵפָה Ex 16, &c.: הַחֹמֶר and הַבַּת Ez 45; הָעֹ֫מֶר Ex 16; בַּחֶ֫בֶל 2 S 8.
(c) The expression of abstract ideas of every kind, since they are likewise used to represent whole classes of attributes or states, physical or moral defects, &c.; e.g. Pr 25 (בַּצֶּ֫דֶק); Gn 19 and they smote the men... בַּסַּנְוֵרִים with blindness; Am 4, &c.; but in הַח֫שֶׁךְ Is 60 the article is no doubt due to dittography of the ה, and the parallel וַֽעֲרָפֶל has no article.
o (d) Comparisons, since the object compared is treated not (as usually in English) individually but as a general term, e.g. Is 1 white כַּשֶּׁ֫לֶג as snow, כַּצֶּ֫מֶר as wool; red כַּתּוֹלָע like crimson; Is 34 and the heavens shall be rolled together כַּסֵּפֶר as a scroll; cf. Nu 11, Ju 8, 16 as פְּתִיל־הַנְּעֹרֶת a string of tow is broken; 1 S 26, 1 K 14, Is 10, 24, 27, 29, 53, Na 3, ψ 33, 49; cf. also such examples as Gn 19, Ju 14, where the object compared is determined by a determinate genitive which follows (according to § 127 a).
p Examples of indeterminate comparisons are rare, and perhaps due only to the Masora,—so at least in the case of singulars, while in such plurals as those in Gn 42, 1 K 10, Jo 2, 7, the omission of the article may be explained by the ordinary rules. On the other hand, the article is regularly omitted when the object compared is already defined by means of an attribute (or relative clause, Jer 23, ψ 17), e.g. Is 16 כְּעוֹף נוֹדֵד קֵן מְשֻׁלָּח as wandering birds, (as) a scattered nest (but cf. 10:14 כַּקֵּן); 14:19, 29:5 כְּמֹץ עֹבֵר (but ψ 1 כַּמֹּץ); Jer 2, Pr 27, Jb 29, 30.—In comparisons with persons also the Masora seems to avoid the use of the article, as in כְּגִבּוֹר Jb 16 and seven other places (כַּגִּכּוֹר only in Is 42), כְּאָב Jb 31, כְּגֶ֫בֶר Jb 38, 40.
q 4. Peculiar to Hebrew[65] is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is mostly used.
r Thus Am 5 as if a man did flee from a lion (הָֽאֲרִי, i.e. the particular lion pursuing him at the time), and a bear (הַדֹּב) met him, &c., cf. 3:12, 1 K 20 (John 10:12); also Gn 8 f., 14:13 (הַפָּלִיט, i.e. one that had escaped, the particular one who came just then; so also Ez 24, 33; cf. 2 S 15); Gn 15, 11 18:7 the servant, who is regarded as being constantly at hand and awaiting his commands; cf. 2 S 17 (but הַנַּ֫עַר Nu 11 is used like הַפָּלִיט above); Gn 19, unless בַּמְּעָרָה means in the well-known cave; בַּמָּקוֹם Gn 28, according to Dillmann, upon the place suitable for passing the night, or the right place, but it may possibly also refer to the sanctuary of Bethel afterwards so sacred and celebrated; Gn 42, 46, 50, Ex 2, 3, 4, 21 (2 S 23), Lv 23, 24 (Samaritan יִשְׂרְאֵלִי without the article); Nu 17, 21, 9, 25:6, Dt 19, Jos 2, Ju 4, 8, 13, 16, 19, 20, 1 S 17, 19, 21, 2 S 17, 1 K 6, 13 (? most probably a particular tree is meant); 19:9, Is 7 (הָֽעַלְמָה, i.e. the particular maiden, through whom the prophet’s announcement shall be fulfilled; we should say a maiden [cf. Driver on 1 S 1, 6, 19]; Jb 9.
s So always to write in the book (or on the scroll, Nu 5, Jer 32), i.e. not in the book already in use, but in the book which is to be devoted to that purpose, equivalent to in a book, on a scroll, Ex 17, 1 S 10, Jb 19. Especially instructive for this use of the article is the phrase וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם, which does not simply refer back to the previous narrative in the sense of the same day, but is used exactly like our one day (properly meaning on the particular day when it happened, i.e. on a certain day), 1 S 1, 14, 2 K 4, 11, Jb 1, 13. In Gn 39 even כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.
t The article is sometimes used in this way before collectives in the singular, which are not meant to denote (like the examples given under l) a whole class, but only that part of it which applies to the given case; thus הָֽעֹרֵב, הַיּוֹנָה Gn 8, הַצִּרְעָה Ex 23.
u 5. When a substantive is defined by the article, or by a suffix, or by a following genitive determinate in any way (see the examples below), the attribute belonging to it (whether adjective, participle, ordinal, or demonstrative pronoun) necessarily takes the article (see, however, the Rem.), e.g. Gn 10 הָעִיר הַגְּדֹלָה the great city; Dt 3 יָֽדְךָ הַֽחֲזָקָה thy strong hand. A genitive following the substantive may, according to § 127 a, be determined either by the article, e.g. 1 S 25 אִישׁ הַבְּלִיַּעַל הַוֶּה this worthless man (prop. man of worthlessness; cf. also such examples as 2 Ch 36, where the article is prefixed only to a second genitive following the noun); or as a proper name, e.g. Dt 11 מַֽעֲשֵׂה יְהֹוָה הַגָּדֹל the great work of the Lord; or by a suffix, e.g. Is 36 עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי הַקְּטַנִּים the least of my master’s servants.
v When several attributes (whether connected by Wāw or not) follow a determinate substantive, each of them takes the article, e.g. Dt 10 הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַבּוֹרָא the great God, the mighty, and the terrible. Cf. also Ex 3, Dt 1, in both of which places a demonstrative with the article also follows the adjective.[66]
Rem. 1. The article is, however, not infrequently used also—
w (a) With the attribute alone, when it is added to an originally indefinite substantive as a subsequent limitation; so always with ordinal numbers after יוֹם,[67] e.g. Gn 1 (cf. 2:3, Ex 20, &c.) יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי the sixth day (prop. a day namely the sixth; but יוֹם שֵׁנִי a second day, Gn 1); Ex 12 מִיּוֹם הָֽרִאשֹׁן from the first day onward (not before Dn 10 and Neh 8 is מִן־הַיּוֹם הָֽרִאשׁוֹן used instead of it). On the other hand, the article is always found after בְּ, hence בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, &c., although it is possible that the original reading in these cases was בְּיוֹם, and that the article is only due to the Masora. In Ju 6 the text is evidently corrupt (see verse 26).—Especially also in certain frequently recurring combinations as in particularizing the gates in Jer 38, Ez 9, &c., Zc 14, and courts in 1 K 7, 12, &c., Ez 40; and very often when the attribute consists of a participle, e.g. Dt 2, Ju 21, 1 S 25, Jer 27, 46 חֶ֫רֶב הַיּוֹנָה the sword which oppresses (?); Ez 14, Zc 11 Keth. (the impenetrable forest?) Pr 26, ψ 119.
x Of the other examples, Gn 21 (where, however, the Samaritan reads הכבשות), 41:26 (but cf. verse 4), Nu 11, Ju 16, 1 S 17 may at any rate be explained on the ground that the preceding cardinal number is equivalent to a determinant; in Gn 1, 28, 10, &c., the substantive is already determined by כָּל־, and in 1 S 14 (דְּבַשׁ) by מְעַט.—In 1 S 12, 2 S 12, Is 7 (where, however, הַשְּׂכִירָה might also be understood as a subsequent explanation of בְּתַ֫עַר) and Neh 9, the omission of the article after the preposition is certainly due merely to the Masora. In 1 S 16 (unless רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים is to be read twice), Zc 4 (where however אַתָּ הָהָר is probably meant), ψ 104 (where a ה precedes הָרִים, hence probably a case of haplography), the omission of the article before א, ר (?) and ה may be due to a regard for euphony (see z below). On the other hand, in 1 S 6 (read הָאֶ֫בֶן הַגְּ׳), 17:12 (הַזֶּה is a later addition), 19:22 (cf. the LXX), Jer 17, 32, 40 Keth., Ez 2 (read גּוֹי or omit גּוֹיִם with Cornill), Mi 7, ψ 62, either the text is corrupt, or the expression incorrect. But in 2 K 20, Jer 6, Ct 7 acc. to D. H. Müller (Anzeiger der Wiener Akad., phil-hist. Kl. 1902, no. x) הַטּוֹב is the genitive of a substantive, aromatic oil, sweet cane (in Jer 6 read וּקְנֵה), like spiced wine. In Is 39 read שֶׁ֫מֶן הַטּוֹב and in ψ 133 כְּשֶׁ֫מֶן חַטּ׳.
y (b) No article with the attribute, while the substantive is determined either by the article, or a suffix, or a following genitive. Thus the article is sometimes omitted with demonstratives, since they are already to a certain extent determined by their meaning (cf. also the Mêšaʿ inscription, l. 3, הבמת זאת this high place); as with הוּא Gn 19 (evidently for euphony, and so probably often); 30:16, 32:23, 1 S 19; with הִיא Gn 38; with זוּ ψ 12 (according to the Masora זוּ is a relative pronoun here, as always elsewhere); with אֵ֫לֶּה 1 S 2, according to the present corrupt text (the original reading כָּל־עַם יהוה became כָּל־עַם אֱלֹהִים, and אֱלֹהִים was then corrupted to אֵלֶּה); so, almost without exception, when the substantive is determined only by a suffix, e.g. Jos 2, Ju 6, 1 K 10, 2 K 1 and 8:8 f., where חלי, as in Jer 10, has arisen by contraction from חָלְיִי, or we should simply read חָלְיִ (in all these passages with זֶה); Gn 24 (with זֹאת); Ex 10, 1 K 22, Jer 31 (with אֵ֫לֶּה).
The article is sometimes omitted also with the attributes referring to proper names,[68] as צִידוֹן רַבָּה Jos 11, 19, חֲמָת רַבָּה Am 6. Other examples are Jos 16, 5, 18:13, 1 K 9 (but in 1 Ch 7, 2 Ch 8 with the article). In Gn 7, &c., תְּהוֹם רַבָּה is also a case of this kind, תְּהוֹם being used (almost always without the article) as a sort of proper name; cf. also אֵל עֶלְיוֹן the most high
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ In other cases French, as well as English and German, can only emphasize one of the two combined ideas; thus, such expressions as il prend le chapeau sur la table, German and English er nimmt den Hut vom Tisch, he takes his hat from the table, all regard the action from one point of view only; the Hebrew here brings out both aspects of it by means of מֵעַל־ from upon, cf. e.g. Is 6.
- ↑ Hence not to be confounded with מִתַּ֫חַת from under, in such examples as Pr 22, which is a real compound preposition. In the above-mentioned adverbs also the מִן־ was originally by no means pleonastic; מִתַּ֫חַת denotes properly the locality, regarded primarily as a place from beneath which something proceeds, and so on. This original sense of the מִן־, however, has become so much obscured by its regular combination with words of place to form independent adverbs, that it is even prefixed (evidently only on the analogy of such common adverbs as מֵעַל־, מִתַּ֫חַת) in cases where it is really inadmissible, owing to the meaning of the adverb, e.g. in מִבַּלְעֲדֵי, מִלְּבַד without, cf. also such examples as מִבְּלִי, מִמּוּל, מִנֶּ֫גֶד, מִשָּׁם (there), &c. Since a מִן־ is not usually repeated after מִלְּבַד, it appears as if מִלְּבַד by a transposition of the מִן־ stood for the usual לְבַד מִן־. In reality, however, the preposition which forms the adverb into a preposition is omitted here, as in מֵעַל, מִתַּ֫חַת without a following לְ (see above). Properly מִלְּבַד has a purely adverbial meaning=taken by itself, like מִלְּמַ֫עְלָה מִמַּ֫עַל (Syriac men le‛ēl) above (adv.), as distinguished from מִמַּ֫עַל לְ or מֵעַל־לְ (Syriac le‛ēl men), over, upon something.—Also לְמִן־ from ... onward is not for מִן־לְ, but the לְ serves merely (just like the Latin usqus in usque a, usque ad, usqus ex) to indicate expressly the starting-point, as an exact terminus a quo (of place or time).
- ↑ Also in 1 S 21 אֶל־תַּ֫חַת by a pregnant construction is virtually dependent on the idea of coming into, contained in the preceding אֵין־.
- ↑ A summary of all the relations and senses in which a preposition may be used, belongs not to the Grammar but to the Lexicon.
- ↑ Cf. Mitchell, ‘The proposition el,’ in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1888, p. 143 ff., and especially A. Noordtzij, Het hebreeuwsche voorzetsel אל, Leiden, 1896, a thorough examination of its uses, and especially of the relation between אֶל־ and עַל־.
- ↑ Cf. Wandel, De particulae Hebr. בְּ indole, vi, usu, Jena, 1875.
- ↑ e.g. res in praeda captae, i.e. things taken as spoil; see Nägelsbach, Lat. Stilistik, § 123:4. On the Hebrew בְּ essentiae, see Hauschild in the Festschrift zur Einweihung des Goethegymn. Frankf. a. M. 1897, p. 163.
- ↑ Other instances formerly cited here (Is 26, ψ 55, where בְּ is used before the subject) as well as ψ 68 בְּיָהּ שְׁמוֹ Jah is his name, are textually very uncertain. Cf. Cheyne, SBOT. Isaiah, p. 173, on Is 26.
- ↑ To be distinguished from שָׁתָה בְ=to drink from (a cup, &c., Gn 44, Am 6), as in Arabic and Aramaic (Dn 5). Cf. also ἐν ποτηρίοις (Xen. Anab. vi. 1, 4), ἐν χρυσώμασι πίνειν (3 Ezr 3), venenum in auro bibitur, Seneca, Thyestes 453, and the French boire dans une tasse.
- ↑ Cf. Giesebrecht, Die hebr. Präpos. Lamed, Halle, 1876.
- ↑ Just as in the Romance languages the Latin preposition ad (Italian a, before vowels ad>, French à, Spanish á) and in English to are used as a periphrasis for the dative.—On the introduction of the nearer object by לְ, cf. § 117 n.
- ↑ Such expressions as the analogous English he plucked me ope his doublet, but me no buts, and the like, are accordingly inadmissible in Hebrew.
- ↑ Cf. O. Molin, Om prepositionen min i Bibelhebreisken, Upsala, 1893, and especially N. Zerweck, Die hebr. Praep. min, Leipzig, 1893, who, instead of the partitive meaning (formerly accepted by us also), more correctly takes ‘separation’ as the starting-point of its various uses.
- ↑ All the partitive uses of מִן also come most naturally under this idea of separation out of a larger class. Thus מִן is used in the sense of some, something, and even one, in such expressions as and he slew... also מִשָּׂרֵי יִשְּׂרָאֵל (divers) of the princes of Israel, 2 Ch 21; מִכָּל־ Lv 4; 1 K 18; מִדַּם הַפָּר some of the blood of the bullock, Ex 29, &c.; Jb 27 my heart doth not reproach me מִיָּמַי for any, i.e. for one, of my days; 38:12 מִיָּמֶ֫יךָ one of thy days, i.e. ever in thy life (this explanation is confirmed by 1 K 1; cf. also 1 S 14, 25). In this way also, the frequently misunderstood Hebrew (and Arabic) idiom is to be explained, by which מִן before אֶחָד, אַחַת is equivalent to ullus; e.g. Lv 4 and shall do מֵֽאַחַת מֵהֵ֫נָּה any one of these things; 5:13, Dt 15, Ez 18; so before a nomen unitatis (see § 122 t), 1 S 14 (2 S 14, 1 K 1) מִשַּֽׂעֲרַת רֹאשׁוֹ not one hair of his head.—מִן־ is used in the sense of the Arabic min el-beyān or explicative min (often to be simply translated by namely), e.g. in Gn 7 of all that was, i.e. so far as it was, probably also Gn 6 (=whomsoever they chose).
- ↑ On the use of מִן to express the comparative, which likewise depends on the idea of distance from..., cf. below, § 133 a; on מִן as expressing the distance of time from a fixed limit, in the sense of after, e.g. ψ 73 מֵהָקִיץ after awaking (cf. ἐξ, ἀρίστου, ab itinere), or after the lapse of..., e.g. Gn 38, Ho 6, and very frequently מִקֵּץ from the end of, i.e. after the lapse of..., see the Lexicon; also for the use of מִן to represent resting beside anything, like the Latin prope abesse ab...
- ↑ Cf. Budie, Die hebr. Präpos. ʾAl (עַל), Halle, 1882.
- ↑ Since the placing upon anything is an addition to it, עַל־ also implies in addition to something, cf. Gn 28 (31:50); 30:40, 32:12 (probably a proverbial saying=mother and children); Dt 22. Also עַל notwithstanding is no doubt properly in addition to, e.g. Jb 10 although thou knowest, prop. in addition to thy knowing.—From the original meaning upon is also derived that of on account of (prop. upon the ground of) and in agreement with, according to, since the pattern is regarded as the foundation upon which a thing stands or rests.
- ↑ Similarly the force of a negative is sometimes extended to the parallel member; see § 152 z.
- ↑ In יֹדֵעַ מְנַגֵּן 1 S 16, which appears to be a case of this kind, two different readings are combined, יֹדֵעַ לְנַגֵּן and the simple מְנַגֵּן.
- ↑ This kind of subordination is frequent in Arabic and in Syriac (cf. e.g. the Peshiṭtâ, Luke 18:13); as a rule, however, a conjunction (corresponding to our that) is inserted. Cf. moreover, the Latin quid vis faciam? Terence; volo hoc oratori contingat, Cicero, Brut. 84; and our I would it were; I thought he would go.
- ↑ Cf. the English colloquial expression I will try and do it.
- ↑ Of a different kind are the cases in which יָסַף with a negative is co-ordinated with a verb to emphasize the non-recurrence of the action; cf. Nu 11 they prophesied and added not, sc. to prophesy, i.e. but they did so no more; Dt 5, Jb 27 (reading וְלֹא יֹאסִיף).
- ↑ Cf. the analogous examples in Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., §102.
- ↑ To be distinguished, of course, from the cases in which two equally important and independent verbs are used together without the copula in vigorous poetic imagery, e.g. Ex 15, Jb 29, &c.
- ↑ When this is not recognizable either by the nota accusativi, or by its disagreement with the passive form in gender, number, and person, it naturally cannot be determined whether the construction is really impersonal. The construction itself can only be explained by supposing that while using the passive form the speaker at the same time thinks of some author or authors of the action in question, just as on the theory of the Arab grammarians a concealed agent is included in every passive. This accounts for the possibility (cf. § 144 g) of using the active without a specified subject as a periphrasis for the passive.
- ↑ In 2 K 18 יִנָּתֵן is to be read or אֶת־ is to be omitted, as in the parallel passage Is 36.
- ↑ In the active, the sentence would be I will cause the sword to devour you; by the rule stated above, under c, this would become in the passive, the sword (nom.) shall be made to devour you (acc.). Instead of this, the remoter object is here made the subject, and the nearer object is retained in the accusative. Otherwise, the only possible explanation would be, according to the Arabic idiom, to cause one to devour the sword (remoter object), i.e. to give him over to it. It would then be simplest to read תֹּֽאכְלוּ.
- ↑ Analogous to הַלָּבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים who was clothed in linen, Ez 9, would be וְהַנּוֹתָר אֶת־הֶהָמוֹן הַזֶּה 2 Ch 31; but we must certainly read there וַנּוֹתֵר with the LXX.—Still less can ψ 87 be so explained, נִכְבָּדוֹת being not an accusative, but the subject of a noun-clause. On the other hand, שָׁלוּחַ 1 K 14 may be explained with Ewald in the sense of being charged with something, so that, like צִוָּח, it may be construed with an accusative.
- ↑ In reality וַיָּרֻם Ex 16, 26 (it became putrid) is equivalent to a passive (it was changed), to which תּֽוֹלָעִים is added as an accusative of the result.
- ↑ So in early Arabic, ba‛l (lord) and zauǵ (conjux) are used both for maritus and uxor; ‛arūs for bridegroom and bride; the later language, however, distinguishes the feminine from the masculine in all these cases generally by the ending a (at). In early Arabic also the feminine ending is commonly omitted in such participles as ḥāmil, bāṭin (gravida), and the like, which from the nature of the case can only be used of females. Thus also אֹמֵן, at least in Nu 11 (Is 49?), probably means nurse (for אֹמֶ֫נֶת 2 S 4, &c.), not nursing-father.
- ↑ The Arab grammarians call this use of the masculine plural and dual (e.g. el-abawāni, the two fathers, i.e. parentes) taghlîb or the making (the masculine) prevail (over the feminine).—Cf. M. Grünert, Die Begriffs-Präponderanz und die Duale a potiori im Altarab., Vienna, 1886.
- ↑ The masculine gender is attributed ‘by the Hebrews and the Semites generally to whatever is dangerous, savage, courageous, respected, great, strong, powerful ...; the feminine to whatever is motherly, productive, sustaining, nourishing, gentle, weak, ... subject, &c.’ (Albrecht, ZAW. 1896, p. 120 f.).
- ↑ When, on the other hand, words with a feminine-ending, such as קֶ֫שֶׁת a bow (stem קוש), עֵת time (see the Lexicon), are sometimes construed as masculine, this is owing probably in some cases to a misunderstanding of the formation of the word, the ת of the feminine being regarded as a radical.
- ↑ Cf. a city and a mother (אֵם) in Israel, 2 S 20. In the same way אֵם (like μήτηρ, mater) on Phoenician coins stands for mother-city, μητ ρόπολις. The same figure is used in such expressions as sons of Zion, ψ 149; sons of Babylon, Ez 23, &c., as also in speaking of the suburbs of a city as its daughters, e.g. Jos 15 ff., &c.—The comparison of Jerusalem to a woman is especially frequent in allegorical descriptions, e.g. Ez 16, La 1, &c.
- ↑ מַֽחֲנֶה camp is feminine only when it is a collective, denoting the persons in a camp.
- ↑ אַף nose, גִּיד sinew, זָנָב tail, חֵךְ palate, כָּבֵד liver, לֵב, לֵבָב heart, מֵעִים, רַֽחֲמִים bowels, מֵ֫צַח forehead, עוֹר skin, עֹרֶף back of the neck, פֶּה mouth, צַוָּאר neck, רֹאשׁ head, שְׁכֶם shoulder, also רֶ֫חֶם womb, except in Jer 20, are invariably construed as masculine.—עֶ֫צֶם bone is common.
- ↑ Cf. the list of masculine and feminine abstracts in Albrecht, l. c., 1896, p. 111 ff.
- ↑ While in all these instances it is simplest to speak of the feminine in Hebrew as being used for the neuter (which in Latin, Greek, and German is commonly employed for similar purposes), it must yet not be forgotten that since the language is wholly wanting in neuters, the Semitic mind regarded the above-mentioned forms primarily as actual feminines. Hence the Arab commentators are accustomed to explain the feminines of adjectives and participles (which would be neuter in Latin, &c.) by supplying a feminine substantive.
- ↑ This use of the feminine form is far more frequent in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic; cf. e.g. in Arabic ḥalîfa (fem. from ḥalîf, following after, taking the place of) in the sense of the successor or representative (of Muḥammad), and ‛allāma (great wisdom) as a title of learned men. Analogous to this is the Latin magistratus, magistracy, for magistrate, and our his Majesty, Excellency, Highness, &c.
- ↑ Cf. in Greek ἡ ἵππος, the cavalry (as well as τὸ ἱππικόν), ἡ κάμηλος, Hdt. 1, 80, &c., the camel corps.
- ↑ The plural form בְּקָרִים from בָּקָר is found only in very late Hebrew, Neh 10 (where according to the Mantua edition, Ginsburg, &c., even צֹאנֵ֫ינוּ our sheep, is also to be read; Baer, however, has צֹאנֵ֫נוּ), and 2 Ch 4. In Am 6 read, with Hitzig, בַּבָּקָר יָם.
- ↑ Cf. in the New Testament St. Mark 6 f. συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαὶ πρασιαί (Weizsäcker, tischweise, beetweise).
- ↑ These repetitions of larger groups of words belong entirely to the Priestly Code in the Pentateuch, and are unquestionably indications of a late period of the language. Of quite a different kind are such examples as Ez 16, where the repetition of four words serves to give greater solemnity to the promise, unless here, as certainly in 1:20, it is a mere dittography; the LXX omit the repetition, in both passages.
- ↑ Cf. Dietrich, ‘Über Begriff und Form des hebr. Plurals,’ in the Abhandl. zur hebr. Grammatik, Leipzig, 1846, p. 2 ff.
- ↑ Cf. the same use of the plural in τὰ στέρνα, τὰ νῶτα, τὰ τράχηλα, praecordia, cervices, fauces; on plurals of extension in general, cf. the prepositions of place and time in the plur. form, § 103 n. סְפָרִים is not a case in point, in the sense of letter (properly a sheet folded into several pages; elsewhere also סֵ֫פֶר) 1 K 21 ff., 2 K 10, 19 (Is 37; referred to afterwards by the singular suffix); Is 39, Jer 29, 32 (after being folded, previously סֵ֫פֶר).
- ↑ Cf. A. Ember, ‘The pluralis intensivus in Hebrew,’ AJSL. 1905, p. 195 ff.
- ↑ Mayer Lambert in REJ. xxiv. 106 ff., enumerates no less than ninety-five words ending in îm, which in his opinion are to be regarded as pluralia tantum.
- ↑ The Jewish grammarians call such plurals רִבּוּי הַכֹּחוֹת plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc. 10, 11); and the plural used by God in Gn 1, 11, Is 6 has been incorrectly explained in this way. It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels; so at all events in Is 6, cf. also Gn 3), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied in אֱלֹהִים (see Dillmann on Gn 1); but it is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.
- ↑ Even in Gn 31, notwithstanding the plural suffix in וַתְּשִׂמֵם and עֲלֵיהֶם, since the construction of these abstracts as numerical plurals is one of the peculiarities of the E-document of the Hexateuch; cf. Gn 20, 35, and § 145 i.
- ↑ On אֲדֹנָי (for אֲדֹנִי) as a name of God, cf. § 135 q.
- ↑ Euting, Reise in Arabien, p. 61, mentions the interesting fact that the subjects of the Emir of Ḥâyel commonly speak of their ruler as šiyûkh, a plur. majestatis= the great sheikh.
- ↑ בֹּֽעֲלַ֫יִךְ, which in Is 54 is in parallelism with עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ, must then be explained as merely formed on analogy.
- ↑ Cf. König, Lehrgebäude, ii. 438 f., according to whom the plural of the principal word exercises an influence on the determining genitive.
- ↑ Cf. Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 482.
- ↑ Consequently, הַֽמְנַשֶּׁח Dt 3, Jos 1, &c. (in the Deuteronomist) in the combination שֵׁבֶט הַֽמְנַשֶּׁה (for which elsewhere שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה) is to be regarded not as a proper name but as a gentilic name (= the tribe of the Manassites), for which in Dt 29 שׁ׳ הַֽמְנַשִּׁי is used, as in 10:8 שׁ׳ הַלֵּוִי the tribe of the Levites, and in Ju 18 שּׁ׳ הַדָּנִי the tribe of the Danites.—In Jos 13 הַֽמְנַשֶּׁה (like gentilic names in ־ִי) is even used adjectivally.
- ↑ That various other words, such as אֱנוֹשׁ man, צַלְמָ֫וֶת deep darkness, רֹזֵן prince, שָׁדַי field, תּֽוּשִׁיָּה effectual working, are always found without the article is not to be attributed to any special archaism, but is to be explained from the fact that they belong solely to poetic language, which avoids the article; in other cases, such as תַּרְדֵּמָה deep sleep, there is no occasion for the article in the passages we possess.
- ↑ On the analogous use of the article before participles which have a verbal suffix, as in ψ 18, &c., cf. above, § 116 f.
- ↑ On the subsequent change of שָׂטָן, אָדָם, אֱלֹהִים into real proper names by the omission of the article, cf. above, § 125 f.
- ↑ For further exceptions see Nestle, ZAW. 1904, p. 323 ff.
- ↑ Cf. the useful statistics of J. Ley in the Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik, 2te Abteilung, 1891, Heft 7–9, and M. Lambert, ‘ L’article dans la po&ésie hébr.,’ REJ. 37, 263 ff.
- ↑ But in Ex 12 המ׳ is either to be explained as the destroyer (now mentioned for the first time) according to q, or a particular angel is meant whose regular function it was to inflict punishments. Others again take המ׳ even in Ex 12 impersonally = destruction.
- ↑ In nearly all the above examples the presence of the article is only indicated by the vowel of the prefix (בַּ, כַּ, לַ) and might therefore be merely due to the masoretic punctuation. There is, however, no reason to doubt the correctness of the tradition. The same is true of the examples under n and o.
- ↑ Cf., however, analogous examples in biblical Aramaic in Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., 79 f, e.g. Dn 2, 3, &c.
- ↑ The demonstrative used adjectivally is generally placed after the adjective proper; in such cases as עַמְּךָ הַזֶּה הַגָּדוֹל 2 Ch 1 the adjective forms a further (fresh) addition to עַמְּךָ הַזֶּה.
- ↑ Cf. Driver, Tenses, 3rd ed., 209; M. Lambert, REJ. 31, 279 f.—The omission of the article from the substantive is not to be regarded in this instance as an indication of late style, and consequently cannot be put forward as a proof of the late origin of the ‘Priestly Code’ (cf. Dillmann on Gn 1, Holzinger, Einl. in d. Hexateuch, p. 465, and especially Driver in the Journal of Philology, xi. 229 f., against Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 265 f.). On the other hand, the common omission of the article from the substantive before a determinate adjective (e.g. כְּנֵ֫סֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה the great synagogue, in the Mishna; cf. Segal, Mišnaic Hebrew, p. 19 ff.) is certainly a later idiom.
- ↑ Cf. Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semit. Sprachwiss., p. 48, n. 1.