User:Ubufox/13
God and אֱלֹהִים חַי the living God. In Ju 1 גֻּלּתֹ עִלִּית and גּ׳ תַּחְתִּית are strange; Jos 15 has גּ׳ עִלִּיּוֹת and גּ׳ תַּחְתִּיּוֹת.
z Of the remaining examples Is 11 explains itself; the direct connexion of the attribute with its substantive is broken by the insertion of לַיָּם. In Ez 34, Hag. 1:4 (as Wellhausen says, a good instance of a Hebrew adjective in the stative form = וְהֵם סְפוּנִים), ψ 143, Ct 6 (?) the substantive is also (see above) determined by a suffix, and consequently the attribute is less closely attached; the same applies to Gn 37, 42, 43, ψ 18, except that in these passages the omission of the article before ר, א, ע may at the same time be due to considerations of euphony (as also in Jos 16 before ע, Nu 14 before ר, 28:4, Ez 10 before א, 21:19 before ח).[1] In 1 S 13 f. (אֶחָד) and 2 K 25 (שְׁנַ֫יִם after a determinate substantive), the attribute again, being a numeral, is determinate in itself (see above, x); in Is 65 the לֹא prevents the use of the article; finally, in 2 Ch 26 בְּחִצִּים and בַּֽאֲבָנִים are to be read, as in Jer 2 גֶּ֫פֶן for הַגֶּ֫פֶן, in 22:26 אֶ֫רֶץ for הָאָ׳; in 2 S 6 omit חֲדָשָׁה, and in Ez 39 omit רַבִּים. Without any apparent reason the article is omitted in Dn 8 and 11:31.
aa 2. When, as in Mi 7 (יוֹם הוּא in that day?), the article is omitted from both substantive and demonstrative, and in Ezr 3, the demonstrative even precedes (זֶה חַבַּ֫יִת=הַבַּ֫יִת הַזֶּה), this is obviously due in both cases to a radical corruption of the text (not only in the words quoted). In Jos 9 לַחְמֵ֫נוּ is either in apposition to the independent demonstrative זֶה (= this our bread, &c.), as in verse 13 נֹאדוֹת is to אֵ֫לֶּה, or they are complete sentences, this is our bread, &c. So also in Ex 32 משֶׁה (= that [iste] Moses, &c.), and in ψ 48 אֱלֹהִים are to be taken in apposition to זֶה. On ψ 68 and Is 23 cf. § 136 d.
a When a genitive, determined in any way, follows a nomen regens, it also determines the nomen regens, which, according to § 89 a, is always in the construct state. Moreover, every pronominal suffix attached to a substantive is, according to § 33 c, to be considered as a genitive determinate by nature. An independent genitive may be determinate—
(a) By its character as a proper name (according to § 125 a), e.g. דְּבַר יְהֹוָה the word of the Lord.
(b) By having the article, e.g. אִישׁ הַמִּלְחָמָה (prop. the man of the war) the soldier (but אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה Jos 17, a soldier); אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה Nu 31, the soldiers; דְּבַר הַנָּבִיא the word of the prophet, Jer 28 (but e.g., on the other hand, מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה a commandment of men which hath been taught, Is 29; דְּבַר־שָׁ֑קֶר word of falsehood, Pr 29).
(c) By the addition of a pronominal suffix (see above), e.g. בֵּֽית־אָבִי my father’s house.
(d) By construction with another genitive determined in some way, e.g. Gn 3 מִפְּרִי עֵֽץ־הַגָּן of the fruit of the trees of the garden. Thus in Is 10 four, and in 21:17 even five, members of a series are determined by a concluding determinate genitive.
b Rem. 1. The above explains also the various meanings of כֹּל (prop. a substantive in the sense of aggregate, whole), according as it is followed by a determinate or indeterminate genitive. In the former case כֹּל has the meaning of the entirety, i.e. all, the whole (like the French tous les hommes, toute la ville), e.g. כָּל־הָאָרֶץ the whole (prop. the entirety of the) earth, כָּל־הָֽאָדָם all men;[2] Ex 18, Nu 15, Jer 4, and cases like Nu 4, 47, 21:8 where כָּל is followed by a singular participle with the article. On the other hand, before an indeterminate genitive כֹּל is used in the more indefinite (individualizing) sense of of all kinds, any (cf. tout homme, à tout prix), or distributively each, every, e.g. כָּל־עֵץ every (kind of) tree, Gn 2; cf. 4:22, 24:10, 1 Ch 29; כָּל־דָּבָר any thing, Ju 19; בְּכָל־יוֹם every day, every time, ψ 7.
c It is, however, to be observed—
(a) That the article may in this case also (see § 126 h) be omitted in poetic style, although the substantive is to be regarded as determinate, e.g. כָּל־שֻׁלְחָנוֹת all (the) tables, Is 28.
(b) That the meaning every is frequent even before singulars used collectively; afterwards the idea of quisque passes naturally into that of totality, e.g. כָּל־חַי each living thing, i.e. every (not every kind of) living thing; כָּל־בָּשָׂר all flesh, i.e. all men or all living creatures (with the article only in Gn 7 before a relative clause, and in Is 40); sometimes also כָּל־עֵץ all trees, כָּל־עוֹף all birds; finally—
(c) That before the names of members of the human body, כָּל־ frequently (as being determinate in itself) denotes the entirety, e.g. Is 1 the whole head, the whole heart (the sense required by the context, not every head, &c., which the expression in itself might also mean); 9:11, 2 K 23, Ez 29 all (i.e. the whole of) their shoulders... all (the whole of) their loins; 36:5.—On כֹּל with a suffix when it follows a noun in apposition (e.g. Is 9 הָעָם כֻּלּוֹ the people, all of it, i.e. the whole nation, more emphatic than כָּל־הָעָם, cf. Driver on 2 S 2), as well as when it follows absolutely in the genitive (= all men, every one, e.g. Gn 16),[3] see the Lexicon, pp. 481b, 482b.
d 2. Gentilic names (or patronymics), derived from compound proper names (consisting of a nomen regens and genitive), are determined by inserting the article before the second part of the compound (since it contains the original genitive), e.g. בֶּן־יְמִינִי (see § 86 h) a Benjamite, בֶּן־הַיְמִינִי Ju 3, &c., the Benjamite; בֵּֽית־הַלַּחְמִי the Bethlehemite, 1 S 16, &c. (cf., however, 1 Ch 27 Qerê לַבֵּן יְמִינִי); בֵּֽית־הַשִּׁמְשִׁי the Beth-shemite, 1 S 6; אֲבִי הָֽעֶזְרִי the Abiezrite, Ju 6, &c., cf. 1 K 16.
e 3. In a few instances the nomen regens appears to be used indefinitely notwithstanding a following determinate genitive; it is not so, however, in Gn 16, where the reference is to a well-known fountain; 21:28, where in the original context there must have been some reason for the seven ewe lambs of the flock; 2 S 12 the spoil found in the city; but it often is so before a proper name, as in Ex 10 חַג יְהֹוָה a feast of the Lord (unless it is the spring festival), Dt 7, and frequently תּֽוֹעֲבַת יְהֹוָה an abomination unto the Lord; cf. also Gn 46, Dt 22 a virgin of Israel; 1 S 4 a man of Benjamin; Pr 25, Ct 2, 3; similarly before appellatives with the article (or before a genitive determined by a suffix, as in Lv 14), 1 S 20 three arrows; 2 S 23 חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה a plot of the ground (but see Gn 33, Jos 24); Ju 13, Jer 13, 41, Ct 1, 13 f., 5:13, 7:3, 8:2. On the other hand, שִׁיר הַמַּֽעֲלוֹת in the titles of Psalms 120 to 134 (except 121:1, שִׁיר לַמַּֽעֲלוֹת) was most probably originally the title of a collection, in the sense of ‘the pilgrimage-songs’ (according to § 124 r), and was subsequently added to these Psalms severally.—In Ex 20 בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, is a dogmatic correction of בְּכָל־מָקוֹם, in every place, to avoid the difficulty that several holy-places are here authorized, instead of the one central sanctuary. In Gn 20 also כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם (unless it means in the whole place) is remarkable, since elsewhere every place is always (8 times) כָּל־מָקוֹם.
f 4. The deviations mentioned under e, from a fundamental rule of syntax, are in some cases open to suspicion on textual grounds, but much more doubtful are the instances in which the article is found before a noun already determined in some other way, as—
(a) Before a noun which appears to be determined by a following independent determinate genitive. The least questionable are the instances in which the genitive is a proper name, since these may be elliptical forms of expression like the apparent construction of proper names with a genitive, noticed in § 125 h, e.g. Nu 21 הַנְּחָלִים אַרְנוֹן the valleys, namely the valleys of Arnon; 2 K 23 הַמִּזְבַּח בֵּית־אֵל the altar, namely the altar of Bethel (i.e. with the suppression of the real nomen regens, מִזְבַּח without the article; by the pointing הַמִּזְבַּח the Masora evidently intends to allow the choice either of reading הַמִּזְבֵּחַ or correcting it to מִזְבַּח); הָאֵל בֵּית־אֵל the God of Beth-el[4] (equivalent to הָאֵל אֵל בּ׳), Gn 31 (the LXX read הָאֵל הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלֶיךָ כַמָּקוֹם the God who appeared to thee in the holy place); הַמֶּלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר the king of Assyria, Is 36 (probably a scribal error due to verse 13; it does not occur in the parallel passage, 2 K 18), cf. Jos 13, 2 K 25, Jer 38, Ez 47; in the vocative, Jer 48, La 2. On the other hand, שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ Gn 24 is no doubt only a subsequent insertion; so also יִשְׂרָאֵל Jos 8b (cf. LXX), 2 S 20, 2 K 7, הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ 1 S 26 after הַחֲנִיה (simplified by the Masora to חֲנִית Qerê); עֲלִיַּת אָחָז 2 K 23, אַשּׁוּר Is 36 (cf. 2 K 18), הַקֹּדֶשׁ Ez 46 (unless the article with לשכות is to be omitted), also הַתָּמִיד Dn 8, and עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא 2 Ch 15. In Ex 9 read with the Samaritan לְמִיּוֹם; in 2 S 19 לֶ֫כֶת might possibly be taken in apposition to לְמִן הַיּוֹם; in 2 K 10 restore אֶת־בְּנֵי, with the LXX and Lucian, before אַחְאָב; in 2 K 25 omit the article, as in Jer 52, before סֹפֵר.
g A similar ellipse must also be assumed in 2 K 23 the sepulchre is the sepulchre of the man of God (but most probably קֶבֶר has dropped out after הַקֶּבֶר) and ψ 123 (cf., however, the LXX, and observe that in the parallel member the genitive is paraphrased by לְ).—In Jos 3 הַבְּרִית (verse 17 בְּרִית יהוה) has been added to the original הָֽאָרוֹן by a redactor; cf. similar syntactically impossible additions in verse 11 (also in 1 S 4, &c., where the LXX still had simply אֲרוֹן יהוה); in הַיְחַד Ju 16 the Masora evidently combines two different readings הַיָּחֵד and יְתַד הָאֶרֶג; and similarly in Jer 25 (where הָאָ֫רֶץ was only subsequently introduced into the text), the two readings הַמַּמְלָכוֹת and מַמְלְכוֹת הָא׳ are combined.—In Jos 8, 1 K 14, Jer 31, Ez 45 the article, being usual after כָּל־, has been mechanically added, and so also in 2 Ch 8 after עַד־; in 2 K 9 the second הַנַּ֫עַד (instead of נַ֫עַר) is occasioned by the first; in Ez 7 מְהוּמָה belongs as a nominative to what follows; in Ez 8 the meaning perhaps is in the chambers, in the house of the Lord, or the article is to be omitted; in 1 Ch 15 the text is manifestly corrupt.
h Of another kind are the instances in which a determinate noun is followed by a definition of the material in apposition (hence, not in the genitive; cf. § 131), e.g. Zc 4 הָאֶ֫בֶן הַבְּדִיל the weight, the lead, i.e. the leaden weight; Ex 39, 2 K 16 (הַנְּח֫שֶׁת, both here and in verse 17, is probably only a later addition, while המסגרות המכנות in verse 17 has arisen from a confusion of two readings, מסגרות המכנות and המסגרות מֵהמכנות). In Jer 32 also הַמִּקְנָה (unless the article is simply to be omitted) is in apposition to הַסֵּפֶר.
i (b) Before a noun with a suffix (which likewise represents a determinate genitive; see above, at the beginning of this section). This does not apply to cases in which a verbal (i.e. accusative) suffix is affixed to a participle which has the article, e.g. הַמַּכֵּ֫הוּ Is 9, the one smiting him; in Dt 8, 13 also ךָ is a verbal suffix, but hardly the וֹ in הָֽעֹשׂוֹ for הָֽעֹשֵׂ֫הוּ Job 40, nor the ־ָהּ in הַיֹּֽלְדָהּ Dn 11; § 116 g. For הָֽעֶרְכְּךָ Lev 27, read עֶרְכְּךָ as in verses 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, &c., twelve times (but cf. also the note on § 128 d).—Of the remaining examples כַּגְּבִרְתָּהּ Is 24 (probably an intentional alliteration with the eleven other words beginning with כַּ), לַמַּֽעֲנֵ֫הוּ Pr 16, and בֶּֽעָרֵ֫ינוּ (so Baer, following the best authorities) Ezr 10, rest only on the authority of the Masoretes, not of the authors. So also in הָאָֽהֳלִי Jos 7, הַֽחֶצְיוֹ Jos 8 (previously חֶצְיוֹ), הֶהָֽרוֹתֶ֫יהָ 2 K 15 (dittography of the ה), the article is simply to be omitted as syntactically impossible; the ו of הַדָּבְרוֹ Mi 2 is the copula belonging to the next word.
a 1. The genitive relation is regularly expressed (see § 89) by the close connexion of the nomen regens (in the construct state) with the nomen rectum (in the genitive). Since only one nomen regens can be immediately connected with a nomen rectum, it follows that the same genitive cannot depend on two or more co-ordinate nouns, but a second (sometimes even a third, &c.) regens must be added with a suffix referring to the nomen rectum, e.g. בְּנֵי דָוִד וּבְנֹתָיו the sons of David and his daughters (not בְּנֵי וּבְנוֹת דָּוִד); cf. 1 K 8.[5] The language also prefers to avoid a series of several co-ordinate[6] genitives depending upon one and the same nomen regens (such as occur in Gn 14, Nu 20, 31 [1 Ch 13], 1 S 23, 2 S 19, Is 22, ψ 5, 8),[7] and rather tends to repeat the nomen regens, e.g. Gn 24 אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וֵֽאלֹהֵי הָאָ֫רֶץ the God of heaven and the God of the earth (so in Jer 8 the regens is five times repeated). A lengthened series of genitives may, however, be formed by a nomen rectum serving at the same time as regens to a genitive depending on it (cf. § 127 a [d]); e.g. Gn 47 יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי the days of the years of the life of my fathers; cf. Jb 12, where there are three genitives, Is 10 four, and 21:17 five (unless the last three are in apposition). As a rule, indeed, such an inconvenient accumulation of genitives is avoided by means of a circumlocution in the case of one of them (see § 129 d).
b Rem. As the fundamental rules stated above are the necessary consequence not merely of logical but more especially of rhythmical relations (see § 89 a), we must feel the more hesitation in admitting examples in which genitives are supposed to be loosely attached to forms other than the construct state. Some of these examples (the supposed genitives following a regens which is determined by the article) have been already discussed in § 127 f–h. Compare, moreover:
c (a) Genitives after the absolute state, e.g. Is 28 גֵּֽיא־שְׁמָנִים הֲלוּמֵי יַ֫יִן the fat valley of them that are overcome with wine. The usual explanation that גֵּֽיא־שְׁמָנִים forms one single idea (in German Fettigkeitstal), on which the genitive הֲלוּמֵי יַ֫יִן then depends, in reality explains nothing; the text is almost certainly corrupt. In Dt 15 מִשְׁנֵה would be expected; in Jos 3 הַבְּרִית is a later addition; in Is 32 (מָשׂוֹשׂ), and ψ 68 (שֵׂעָר), the absolute for the construct state probably rests only on the authority of the Masoretes. In Ju 6 ff. the text is obviously in confusion. In Ju 8 (cf. 6:24) כְּעָפְרָה should come either after וַיִּקָּבֵר or at the end of the verse, unless, with Moore, we omit אֲבִי הָֽע׳ as a gloss (from 6:24); in Is 63 משֶׁה is probably a gloss on יְמֵי־עוֹלָם which has crept into the text; in 2 S 4 לְאִישׁ־בּ֫שֶׁת, according to the LXX, has dropped out before בֶּן; in Ez 6 רָעוֹת is to be omitted with the LXX; if originally in the text, it could only be genitive (= all abominations of evils), not an adjective; Pr 21 the text is altogether uncertain (the LXX read מֽוֹקְשֵׁי for מְבַקְשֵׁי); in 1 Ch 9 the preposition לְ (after a ל) has dropped out before מְלֶאכֶת (cf. 12:25).—Elsewhere (Dt 3, 1 K 4, 2 Ch 8) the supposed genitives are to be taken rather as words of nearer definition standing in apposition, i.e. with high walls, gates, and bars. In Jer 8 ירושלים is either in apposition to העם הזה or is better (since not in the LXX) omitted as a gloss.
d (b) Genitives after a noun with a suffix (where the suffix prevents the direct government by the nomen regens). Thus in Lv 27, 5, 6, where הַזָּכָר after עֶרְכְּךָ[8] might be taken, contrary to the accents, as subject of the following clause; in Lv 5, 25 the suffix may refer to Moses. In Lv 6 מִדּוֹ בַד his garment, namely the garment of linen, unless simply in apposition, cf. § 131 d (or read מִדֵּי?); Lv 26, where בְּרִיתִי יַֽעֲקֹב וגו׳ could at most be explained as an ellipse for בְּרִיתִי בְרִית יַֽעֲקֹב, cf. § 125 h (probably, however, it is a case of dittography of the י, which was repeated also before אברהם; so Valeton, ZAW. xii. 3); equally strange is בְּרִיתִי הַיּוֹם Jer 33, &c. On the other hand, אִם יִֽהְיֶה נְבִֽיאֲכֶם יְהֹוָה Nu 12 could not possibly mean if your prophet be a prophet of the Lord; the text is manifestly corrupt (probably נְבִֽיאֲךָ מִיַּהְוֶה is to be read, with Marti). In ψ 45 בִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים (usually explained as thy divine throne), אלהים is most probably a later addition [another suggestion is to read כֵאלֹהִים like God(’s throne): cf. § 141 d, note]. In Jer 52 two readings are probably combined, לִנְחֻשְׁתָּם without any addition, and לִנְח֫שֶׁת בָּל־הַכֵּלִיס. In Nu 25 שָׁלוֹם is in apposition to בְּרִיתִי. On דַּרְכֵּךְ זִמָּה Ez 16, cf. § 131 r.
e (c) The interposition of a word is assumed between כָּל־ (the whole; cf. § 127 b) and the genitive governed by it in 2 S 1, Jb 27 (עוֹד), and, if the text is correct, in Hos 14 (תִּשָּׂא). In reality, however, in all three places the genitive relation is destroyed by the transposition of the words (instead of עוֹד כָּל־, &c.), and כָּל־ is rather to be taken adverbially (equivalent to wholly), e.g. 2 S 1 because my life is yet wholly in me, i.e. my whole life; cf. Philippi, Stat. Constr., p. 10.—On the instances in which the original construct state אֵין non-existence is used without a following genitive, see the negative sentences, § 152 o.
f 2. The dependence of the nomen rectum on the nomen regens by no means represents merely what is, properly speaking, the genitive relation (see the examples under g–i). Very frequently the nomen rectum only adds a nearer definition of the nomen regens, whether by giving the name, the genus or species, the measure, the material, or finally an attribute of it (genit. epexegeticus or appositionis,[9] see the examples under k–q).
Examples. The nomen rectum represents—
g (a) A subjective genitive, specifying the possessor, author, &c., e.g. בֵּית־הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ the king’s house; דְּבַר יְהֹוָה the word of the Lord.
h (b) An objective genitive, e.g. Ob 101 מֵֽחֲמַס אָחִיךָ for the violence done to thy brother[10] (but in Ez 12 מֵֽחֲמַס is followed by a subjective genitive); Pr 20 אֵימַת מֶ֫לֶךְ the terror of a king; Gn 18 זַֽעֲקַת סְדֹם the cry concerning Sodom; Is 23 שֵׁמַע צֹר the report of (about) Tyre, cf. 2 S 4; Am 8 אֵ֫בֶל יָחִיד the mourning for an only son; Dt 20 שְׁלַל אֹֽיְבֶיךָ praeda hostibus tuis erepta; cf. Is 3. In a wider sense this includes such examples as דֶּ֫רֶךְ עֵץ הַֽחַיִּים the way of (i.e. to) the tree of life, Gn 3; cf. Pr 7, Jb 38; דֶּ֫רֶךְ הַיָּם the way of (by) the sea, Is 8; זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים the sacrifices of (i.e. pleasing to) God, ψ 51; שְׁבֻעַת יְהֹוָה the oath of (i.e. sworn before) the Lord, 1 K 2; דִּבְרֵי לְמוּאֵל the words of (i.e. addressed to) L., Pr 31.
i (c)A partitive genitive; this includes especially the cases in which an adjective in the construct state is followed by a general term, e.g. חַכְמוֹת שָֽׂרוֹתֶיהָ the wisest of her ladies, Ju 5; cf. for this way of expressing the superlative, § 133 h, and also r below.
k Merely formal genitives (genit. explicativus or epexegeticus, genit. appositionis) are those added to the construct state as nearer definitions—
(d) Of the name, e.g. נְהַר פְּרָת the river Euphrates; אֶ֫רֶץ כְּנַ֫עַן the land of Canaan; בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל the virgin Israel (not of Israel), Am 5.
l (e) Of the genus, e.g. Pr 15 (21:20) כְּסִיל אָדָם a fool of a man (=a foolish man); cf. Gn 16, Is 1, 29, Ho 13, Mi 5, &c.
m (f) Of the species, e.g. אֲחֻזַּת קֶ֫בֶר a possession of a burying-place, i.e. hereditary sepulchre, Gn 23, &c.; תְּאֵנֵי הַבַּכֻּרוֹת the early figs, Jer 24; אֹ֫הֶל בֵּיתִי the tabernacle of my house, i.e. my dwelling-place, ψ 132.
n (g) Of the measure, weight, extent, number, e.g. מְתֵי מִסְפָּר people of number, i.e. few in number, Gn 34, Dt 26; cf. also Ez 47–5 waters of the ankles, waters of the loins, waters of swimming, i.e. which reached up to the ankles, or loins, or necessitated swimming; but in verse 4 in apposition (?) מַ֫יִם בִּרְכַּ֫יִם.
o (h) Of the material[11] of which something consists, e.g. כְּלִי חָ֑רֶשׂ a vessel of earthenware, Nu 5; כְּלֵי כֶ֫סֶף vessels of silver (cf. the French des vases d’or); אֲרוֹן עֵץ an ark of wood, שֵׁ֫בֶט בַּרְזֶל a rod of iron, ψ 2; cf. Gn 3, 6, Ju 7, &c.
p (i) Of the attribute of a person or thing, e.g. Gn 17 אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם an everlasting possession; Pr 17 a precious stone; cf. Nu 28, Is 13, 28, ψ 23, 31, Pr 5, 14, Jb 41, and the examples of the genitive with a suffix given in § 135 n. Such a periphrasis for the expression of attributes frequently occurs, even when the corresponding adjectives are in use. Thus especially קֹ֫דֶשׁ holiness very frequently serves as a periphrasis for the adjective קָדוֹשׁ (e.g. בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּ֫דֶשׁ the holy garments, Ex 29), since קָדוֹשׁ is used almost exclusively in reference to persons (hence also with עַם and גּוֹי people, and with שֵׁם the name of a person); the only exceptions are מָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ holy place, Ex 29, &c.; מַ֫יִם קְדשִׁים holy water, Nu 5; קָדוֹשׁ as the predicate of יוֹם day, Neh 8 f., and of מַֽחֲנֶה camp, Dt 23. So also the use of צַדִּיק righteous is always confined to persons, except in Dt 4; elsewhere the periphrasis with צֶ֫דֶק or צְדָקָה is always used, e.g. מֹֽאזְנֵי צֶ֫דֶק just balances, Lv 19.
q In a wider sense this use of the genitive also includes statements of the purpose for which something is intended, e.g. צֹאן טִבְחָה sheep for the slaughter, ψ 44; מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵ֫נוּ the chastisement designed for our peace, Is 53; cf. 51:17 (the cup which causes staggering), ψ 116; finally, also, the description of the material, with which something is laden or filled, e.g. 1 S 16 חֲמֹר לֶ֫חֶם וְנֹאד יַ֫יִן an ass laden with bread and a bottle of wine (but probably עֲשָׂרָה is to be read for חֲמֹר); cf. Gn 21, Pr 7, &c.
r Rem. 1. Certain substantives are used to convey an attributive idea in the construct state before a partitive genitive; thus מִבְחָר choice, selection, as in Gn 23 מִבְחַר קְבָרֵ֫ינוּ the choice of our sepulchres, i.e. our choicest sepulchres; Ex 15, Is 22, 37; other examples are, Is 1 the evil of your doings, emphatically, for your evil doings; Is 17, 37 (=the tall cedars thereof), ψ 139, Jb 15.—This is the more common construction with the substantive כֹּל entirety, for all, the whole, every, see § 127 b; it is also frequent with מְעַט a little, for few, 1 S 17, &c.
s 2. To the periphrases expressing attributive ideas (see p above) by means of a genitive construction may be added the very numerous combinations of the construct states אִישׁ a man, בַּעַל master, possessor, בֶּן־ son, and their feminines and plurals (including מְתֵי men, used only in the plural), with some appellative noun, in order to represent a person (poetically even a thing) as possessing some object or quality, or being in some condition. In English, such combinations are sometimes rendered by single substantives, sometimes by circumlocution.
Examples:—
t (a) Of אִישׁ, &c.; אִישׁ דְּבָרִים an eloquent man, Ex 4 (but אִישׁ שְׂפָתַ֫יִם Jb 11 a man of lips, i.e. a boaster); אִישׁ לָשׁוֹן = a slanderer, ψ 140; אִישׁ דַּ֫עַת a man of knowledge, Pr 24; אִישׁ חֵמָה a wrathful man, Pr 15; אִישׁ דָּמִים a man of blood, 2 S 16, ψ 5; cf. further, 1 S 16, 1 K 2, Is 53, Pr 19, 26, 29, Ezr 8; also אֵ֫שֶׁת מִדְיָנִים a contentious woman, Pr 27; in the plural, e.g. Gn 6 אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם the men of renown, famous; cf. Gn 47, Is 41, Jb 34, 10 (אַנְשֵׁי לֵבָב men of understanding); with מְתֵי, e.g. Is 5 (מְתֵי רָעָב famished men; but read probably מְזֵי רָעָב weak with hunger); ψ 26, Jb 11, 22.
u (b) Of בַּ֫עַל, &c.; בַּ֫עַל שֵׂעָר hairy, 2 K 1; בַּ֫עַל הַֽחֲלֹמוֹת the dreamer, Gn 37; cf. Na 1, Pr 1, 18 (a destroyer), 22:24, 23:2 (disposed to eat, greedy), 24:8; feminine בַּֽעֲלַת־אוֹב a woman that hath a soothsaying spirit, 1 S 28; cf. Na 3; in the plural, e.g. בַּֽעֲלֵי חִצִּים archers, Gn 49, בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית confederates, Gn 14; בַּֽעֲלֵי שְׁבוּעָה sworn supporters, Neh 6.
v (c) Of בֶּן־, &c.: בֶּן־חַ֫יִל a hero, warrior, 1 K 15; בֶּן־מֶ֫שֶׁק heir, Gn 15; בֶּן־שָׁנָה yearling, Ex 12, &c.; בֶּן־מְאַת שָׂנָה centum annos natus, Gn 21; בֶּן־מָ֫וֶת worthy to die, 1 S 20 (Luther, 2 S 12 ein Kind des Todes); cf. Dt 25 בִּן־הַכּוֹת worthy to be beaten. Feminine, e.g. בַּת־בְּלִיַּ֫עַל a wicked woman, 1 S 1; frequently also אִישׁ בְּלִיַּ֫עַל, בְּנֵי ב׳, אַנְשֵׁי ב׳ and even simply בְּלִיַּ֫עַל, like the Latin scelus for scelestissimus, 2 S 23, Jb 34. Plural masculine, e.g. בְּנֵי מֶ֑רִי children of rebellion, Nu 17. בֶּן־ is used poetically of things without life, e.g. Is 5 בֶּן־שָׁ֫מֶן a fat, i.e. a fruitful (hill); Jon 4 בִּן־לַ֫יְלָה i.e. grown in a night; Jb 41 son of the bow (i.e. an arrow); so also בְּנֵי רֶשֶׁף = sparks, Jb 5; La 3; בְּנוֹת Ec 12 the daughters of song, probably meaning the individual notes.
There is another use of בֶּן־ or בְּנֵי to denote membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים or בְּנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים Gn 6, 4, Jb 1, 2, 38 (cf. also בְּנֵי אֵלִים ψ 29, 89) properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of אֱלֹהִים or אֵלִים; בְּנֵיֽ־הַנְּבִיאִיס 1 K 20 (singular in Am 7) persons belonging to the guild of prophets; בֶּן־הָֽרַקָּתִים Neh 3 one of the guild of apothecaries, cf. 3:31 where בֶּן־הַצֹּֽרְפִים is to be read. Similarly בְּנֵי שִׁלֵּשִׁים Gn 50 are most probably not great-grandsons but grandsons, i.e. those belonging to the third generation. Cf. also בְּנֵי הַגֵּֽרְשֻׁנִּי Nu 4 f. Gershonites, בְּנֵי הַקְּהָתִים 2 Ch 20, &c., Kohathites; בְּנֵי קֶ֫דֶם dwellers in the East.
w 3. Special mention must be made of the not infrequent idiom by which adjectives (sometimes also ordinals, see § 134 o) are added in the genitive, like substantives, rather than as attributes in the same state, gender, and number as the noun which they qualify; thus, Is 28 צִיצַת נֹבֵל the flower of that which fades, for which verse 1 has צִיץ נֹבֵל the fading flower; cf. further, Is 22, Jer 22 (?), 52:13, ψ 73, 74 (but אֵיתָן may be a substantive), 78:49; also the use of רַע as a substantive, e.g. in Pr 2 b, 6:24 (אֵ֫שֶׁת רַע), &c., analogous to the New Testament phrase ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας, Luke 16:8, and the French un homme de bien.[12]—Finally, an adverb (treated as a substantive) may likewise be used as an epexegetical genitive; cf. דְּמֵי חִנָּם blood shed without cause, 1 K 2; Pr 24, 26; Ez 30 (יוֹמָם).
x 3. The epexegetical genitives include finally the numerous nearer definitions which follow the coustruct state of adjectives (and of active and passive participles, or verbal adjectives, cf. § 116 f–l). For, while the word of nearer definition is added to the verb in the accusative (e.g. חָלָה אֶת־רַגְלָיו he was diseased in his feet, 1 K 15), it may, with participles and verbal adjectives, be either in the accusative (§ 116 f and k) or in the genitive, the case of a word depending on a noun. Such a genitive relation is usually termed an improper annexion. The nearer definition contains a statement either of the material, e.g. Ex 3, &c., אֶ֫רֶץ זָבַת תָלָב וּדְבַשׁ a land flowing with milk and honey; or of the means, e.g. חַלְלֵי־חֶ֫רֶב slain with the sword, Is 22; or the cause, Ct 2 sick of love; or of the scope of the attribute,[13] e.g. Gn 39 יְפֵה־תֹ֫אַר fair of form; cf. Gn 41, 4, Ex 34, Is 1, Jer 32, Na 1, ψ 119, Jb 37; or of the manner, e.g. ψ 59 בֹּֽגְדֵי אָ֫וֶן faithless ones of wickedness (wickedly faithless).
y Especially frequent is the use of this genitive to name the part of the body described as being affected by some physical or mental condition, e.g. ψ 24 נְקִי בַפַּ֫יִם clean as regards hands, &c.; 2 S 9, Is 6, Jb 17; Is 19 אַגְמֵי־נָ֫פֶשׁ grieved in soul; 1 S 1, Jb 3. Also such examples as Am 2, Pr 19, where a suffix is attached to the substantive, must be regarded as instances of the genitive construction, on the analogy of Pr 14, see § 116 k.
a Besides the construction of a nomen rectum dependent upon a nomen regens in the construct state (§§ 89 and 128), the connexion of two nouns may also be effected otherwise, either by simply attaching the dependent noun by means of the preposition לְ, which, according to § 119 r, expresses, besides other ideas, like that of belonging to,[14] or by the addition of a relative clause (אֲשֶׁר לְ, see h below).
b 1. The introduction of a genitive by לְ sometimes occurs even when the construction with the construct state would be equally possible, e.g. 1 S 14 הַצֹּפִים לְשָׁאוּל the watchmen of Saul; ψ 37, 2 Ch 28 (where indeed the circumlocution makes the sense much plainer); as a rule, however, this use is restricted to the following cases:—
c (a) To prevent a nomen regens being determined by a following determinate genitive, e.g. 1 S 16 בֵּן לְיִשַׁי a son of Jesse (בֶּן־יִשַׁי would be, according to § 127 a, the son of Jesse); cf. Gn 14, 36, 41, Nu 16 (27:16), 1 S 17, 2 S 19, ψ 122. Hence, regularly מִזְמור לְדָוִד (ψ 3, &c.) a psalm of David (properly belonging to David as the author), for which לְדָוִד of David is used alone elliptically in ψ 11, 14, &c. Such a case as לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר (ψ 24, &c.) is not to be regarded as a transposition, but מִזְמוֹר is used epexegetically for the general term omitted before לְדָוִד (as it were, a poem of David, a psalm). Moreover, the introduction of the author, poet, &c., by this Lamed auctoris is the customary idiom also in the other Semitic dialects, especially in Arabic.
d (b) When a genitive is to be made dependent on a nomen regens, which is itself composed of a nomen regens and rectum, and represents, as a compound, one united idea, e.g. Ru 2 חֶלְקַת הַשָּׁדֶה לְבֹעַז the portion of field belonging to Boaz (חֶ׳ שְׂדֵה בֹעַז would be the portion of the field of Boaz); 2 K 5 at the house-door of Elisha. This especially applies to the cases in which the compound regens represents a term in very common use, the fixed form of which cannot be altered, e.g. 1 K 14 עַל־סֵ֫פֶר דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel; 15:23, &c.; cf. also Jos 19.
e (c) When for any other reason the construction with the nomen regens in the construct state is inadmissible; cf. e.g. Lv 18, where שְׁכָבְתְּךָ, on account of the suffix, cannot be used in the construct state; but Lv 15 ff., &c., שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֫רַע; Ju 3 the Jordan fords of Moab (יַרְדֵּן as a proper name cannot be used in the construct state); Ex 20 upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hats me; וְעַל־רִבֵּעִים must be kept in the absolute state for the sake of conformity with עַל־שִּׁלֵּשִׁים, and for the same reason also לַֽאֲלָפִּים לְאֹֽהֲבַי.
f (d) After statements of number in such cases as Gn 8 בְּשִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ on the seven and twentieth day of the month; cf. 7:11, 16:3 and frequently, or as in Hag 1 בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּ֫יִם לְדָֽרְיָ֫וֶשׁ in the second year of Darius; the numeral here is always one compound idea with the substantive numbered, and consequently (as in the examples under b) does not admit of being in the constr. st. with a genitive. The same naturally applies also to such examples as 1 K 3 בַּיּוֹם חַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְלִדְתִּי on the third day of my giving birth (i.e. after my giving birth). Cf. also the standing phrase בְּאֶחָד לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ on the first (day) of the month, Gn 8 and frequently.
g Rem. In cases like 2 S 3 and his firstborn was Amnon לַֽאֲחִינֹ֫עַם of Ahinoam, the genitive expressed by circumlocution with לְ is in reality dependent on a regens which is omitted (בֵּן לַֽאֲחִינֹ֫עַם a son of Ahinoam); cf. 2 S 3, 5, 1 K 14, Am 5 (unless לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל originally depended on thus spake the Lord), and the remarks on לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר under c above.
h 2. The periphrastic expression of the genitive by means of אֲשֶׁר לְ is used principally to state the possessor, e.g. Gn 29 הַצֹאן אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִ֫יהָ her father’s sheep (prop. the sheep which belonged to her father); Gn 47 and frequently. So also (according to § 128 a) when a genitive depends on more than one substantive, e.g. Gn 40 the butler and the baker who (belonged) to the king of Egypt (וְֹאפֵה מֶ֫לֶךְ מִצְרַ֫יִם would indicate only the baker as belonging to the king); or when a genitive (as in the examples under d above) is added to a compound, which expresses one united idea (Ru 4); or when, as a fixed term (e.g. a title), it appears always in the same form, e.g. Ct 1 שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה the Song of songs, of Solomon; 1 S 21, 2 S 2, 1 Ch 11; cf. also Gn 41.[15]
a The construct state, which, according to § 89 a, primarily represents only the immediate government by one substantive of the following word (or combination of words), is frequently employed in rapid narrative as a connecting form, even apart from the genitive relation; so especially—
(1) Before prepositions,[16] particularly in elevated (prophetic or poetic) style, especially when the nomen regens is a participle. Thus before בְּ, שִׂמְחַת בַּקָּצִיר the joy in the harvest, Is 9, 2 S 1, ψ 136f.; in participles, Is 5, 9, 19, ψ 84, and especially often when בְּ with a suffix follows the participle, e.g. ψ 2 כָּל־חוֹסֵי בוֹ; cf. Na 1, Jer 8 (ψ 24); ψ 64 (unless רֹאֶה should be read); 98:7.[17]—Before לְ, Ho 9 (but read probably מַתֲמַדֵּי כַסְפָּם); ψ 58 (before לָמוֹ); Pr 24, Jb 18, La 2 (before לָךְ); 1 Ch 6, 23; in participles, Ez 38, Jb 24; before לְ with an infinitive, Is 56, and again before לְ with a suffix, Gn 24, Is 30, 64;[18]—before אֶל־, Is 14, Ez 21; —before אֶת־ (with), Is 8; —before מִן, Gn 3, Is 28 (a participle); Jer 23, Ez 13, Ho 7; —before עַל־, Ju 5; —before בִּלְתִּי, Is 14; —before the nota accus. את, Jer 33; —before a locative (which in such cases also serves as a genitive), Ex 27, Jer 1.
b (2) Before wāw; copulative, e.g. Ez 26; but חָכְמַת Is 33, גִּילַת 35:2, and שְׁכֻרַת 51:21 may be cases of an intentional reversion to the old feminine ending ath, in order to avoid the hiatus (וָ)־ָה וְ.
c (3) When it governs the (originally demonstrative) pronoun אֲשֶׁר; so especially in the combination מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר, Gn 39, 40, the place where (prop. of that in which) Joseph was bound; cf. § 138 g; or בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר Lv 4, 33, 2 S 15, 1 K 21, Jer 22, Ez 21, Ho 2. We should expect הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר, בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר, as in Gn 35, &c., at the place which..., cf. § 138; but אֲשֶׁר is treated as a nomen rectum instead of as an attribute. Cf. also מִיּוֹם א׳ followed by a perfect in 1 S 29, and יְמֵי א׳ Lv 13, Nu 9.[19]
d (4) When it governs independent sentences (cf. § 155), which virtually stand to the construct state (as nomen regens) in a sort of genitive relation, e.g. Ex 4 בְּיַד־תְּשְׁלָח prop. by the hand of him whom thou wilt send; Nu 23 דְּבַר מַה־יַּרְאֵ֫נִי the matter of that which he shall show me, i.e. whatever he shall; Is 29 קִרְיַת חָנָה דָוִד the city where David encamped; Jer 48, ψ 16 (if the text be right), 65:5 (Pr 8), ψ 81, Jb 18 the place of him that knoweth not God; Jb 29, La 1 (if the text be right) into the hands of those against whom I cannot stand.[20] In Gn 39 (כָּל־יֶשׁ־לוֹ) the כָּל־ takes after it a noun-clause, and in Ex 9, still more boldly, a subst. with לְ.—Very often a time-determination governs the following sentence in this way; thus אַֽחֲרֵי followed by a perfect, Lv 25, 1 S 5; בְּיוֹם ψ 102 (before a noun-clause), Ex 6, Nu 3, Dt 4, 2 S 22, ψ 18, 59, 138 (in every case before a following perfect), ψ 56 (before an imperfect); מִיּוֹם followed by the perfect, Jer 36; כָּל־יְמֵי Lv 14, 1 S 25, Jb 29 (כִּימֵי as in the days when...[21]; cf. כִּימוֹת and שְׁנוֹת before a perfect, ψ 90); בְּעֵת before a perfect, Jer 6 (cf. 49:8, 50:31); before an imperfect, Jb 6; תְּחִלַּת before a perfect Ho 1.
e (5) Connected with a following word in apposition; certainly so in such cases as בְּתוּלַת בַּת־צִיּוֹן the virgin, the daughter of Zion, Is 37; cf. 23:12, Jer 14; also 1 S 28 אֵ֫שֶׁת בַּֽעֲלַת־אוֹב a woman, possessor of a soothsaying spirit; cf. Dt 21.—Gn 14, Ju 19 (but read probably אֲנָשִׁים with Moore, as in Dt 13, Ju 20, 1 K 21); 2 K 10, 17 Qerê; Jer 46, ψ 35 (?), 78:9, Jb 20 b (unless נַֽהֲרֵי or נַֽהֲלֵי be a gloss).
f Rem. Some of the above passages may also be explained by supposing that there exists a real genitive relation towards the preceding construct state, which has been, as it were, provisionally left in suspenso, in consequence of the insertion of some interrupting word, e.g. Is 37, &c.; Jb 20 a. Elsewhere (Dt 33, ψ 68) the nomen regens probably governs the following construct state directly.[22]
g (6) The numeral אַחַד one for אֶחָד in close connexion, and even with small disjunctives, e.g. Gn 3, 48, 1 S 9, 2 S 17, Is 27, Zc 11.
The character of these passages shows that the numeral here cannot be in the construct state, but is merely a rhythmical shortening of the usual (tone-lengthened) form.
a 1. Apposition in the stricter sense is the collocation of two substantives in the same case in order to define more exactly (or to complete) the one by the other, and, as a rule (see, however, below, under g), the former by the latter. Apposition in Hebrew (as in the other Semitic languages[23]) is by no means confined to those cases in which it is used in English or in the classical languages. It is not infrequently found when either the subordination of one substantive to the other or some more circumstantial kind of epexegetical addition would be expected.
2. The principal kinds of apposition in Hebrew are:—
b (a) The collocation of genus and species, e.g. אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה a woman (who was) a widow, 1 K 7; נַֽעֲרָה בְתוּלָה a damsel (that is) a virgin, Dt 22, 28, Ju 4, 19, 21, 1 S 30, 1 K 1; cf. Gn 13, 21 (where, however, קַשָּׁת is probably an explanatory gloss); Ex 24 (1 S 11), 2 S 15, 1 K 3, 5 (but probably סֵ֫בֶל should be read instead of סַבָּל); Is 3 (unless מַֽעֲשֵׂה is to be read), Jer 20. Perhaps also כֹּחֵן הָרֹאשׁ the priest (who is) the chief man, 2 K 25, &c.; others take כֹּהֵן as constr, st.—In 2 S 10 read כָּל־צְבָא הַגִּבּ׳ with the LXX, as in the parallel passage 1 Ch 19 for כָּל־צָבָא הַגּ׳, which is evidently meant to refer to the reading in 2 S.
c (b) Collocation of the person or thing and the attribute, e.g. Jb 20 (27:13) זֶה חֵ֫לֶק־אָדָם רָשָׁע this is the portion of a man, (who is) a wicked man (but רָשָׁע might also be an adject.); cf. Pr 6.—Lv 6, 16 (where, however, קֹ֫דֶשׁ is probably a gloss); Pr 22 אֲמָרִים אֱמֶת words (which are) truth; (immediately after אִמְרֵי אֱמֶת) cf. 1 S 2, Mi 1 (where, however, בּ֫שֶׁת is most probably a gloss on עֶרְיָה); Zc 1 (=comfortable words); ψ 45 (?) 68:17 (cf. verse 16). In a wider sense this includes also such cases as ψ 60 יַ֫יִן תַּרְעֵלָה wine which is staggering (intoxicating drink), which causes staggering[24]; 1 K 22, 2 Ch 18 מַ֫יִם לַ֫חַץ (in Is 30 parallel with לֶ֫חֶם צַר) water which is affliction, drunk in trouble (imprisonment). Still more boldly, 1 K 5 בָּקָר רְעִי oxen which were taken out of the pastures, and 1 K 6 undressed stones which come from the quarry, probably a corruption of מִמַּסָּע. A person and a condition are in apposition in Ez 18 (unless בְּנִדָּתָהּ is to be read).—In 1 S 4 read אֶ֫בֶן הָע׳, as in 5, 7.
d (c) Collocation of the person (Dt 28) or thing (form) and material,[25] or of the place or measure and its contents, e.g. 1 Ch 15 נְה֫שֶׁת בִּמְצִלְתַּ֫יִם with cymbals which were brass, i.e. of brass; cf. Ex 26, Dn 11, 1 Ch 28, 18 (?); Ex 28 four rows, namely stones (for which 39:10 has טוּרֵי אָ֑בֶן); cf. 2 Ch 4, Lv 6 (see, however, § 128 d); 2 K 7 סְאָה סֹ֫לֶת a seah of fine flour; cf. 2 K 7, Gn 18, Ex 16, Lv 5, Ru 2, 1 K 16, 2 K 5 כִּכְּרַ֫יִם כֶּ֫סֶף two talents of silver;[26] cf. 5:17, Ex 39, Ez 22 (if the text be right). With the material placed before the measure, Ex 30 f..—A period of time and its contents are placed in apposition חֹ֫דֶשׁ יָמִים a month of days, i.e. a month’s time=for a whole month, Gn 29, Nu 11, 21, cf. Dt 21, 2 K 15, and שְׁנָתַ֫יִם יָמִים two years’ time, i.e. two full years, Gn 41, 2 S 13, 14, Jer 28, Dn 10.
Finally, under this head may be included all the cases in which a numeral (regarded as a substantive) is followed by the object numbered in apposition, e.g. שְׁלשָׁה בָנִים trias sc. filii, § 97 a and § 134 b.
e (d) Collocation of the thing and the measure or extent, number, &c., e.g. Nu 9 יָמִים מִסְפָּר days, (a small) number, i.e. only a few days; כֶּ֫סֶף מִשְׁנֶה money, repetition, i.e. twice as much money, Gn 43 (unless כֶּ֫סֶף be constr. st.); מַ֫יִם בִּרְכָּ֑יִם water which was of the measure of the knees, which reached to the knees, Ez 47 (also מֵי מָתְנָ֑יִם water that was to the loins, in the same verse). This likewise includes the cases in which a noun is followed in apposition by a numeral (see § 134 c) or an adverb, originally conceived as a substantive, e.g. Neh 2 אֲנָשִׁים מְעַט men, a few, i.e. some few men; 1 K 5 תְּבוּנָה הַרְבֵּה understanding, much-making, i.e. much understanding, unless הַרְבֵּה is to be taken as an adverb with וַיִּתֵּן, as in 2 S 8 with לָקַה. f (e) Collocation of the thing and its name, e.g. בְּהַֽרֲרָם שֵׁעִיר in their mountainous district, Seir (perhaps only a later gloss), Gn 14; הָאָ֫רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן the land Canaan (כנען probably only a later gloss), Nu 34; cf. Ezr 9, 1 Ch 5 (see under g below).—For examples of nouns in the construct state before a noun in apposition, see § 130 e.
g Rem. 1. Only in certain combinations does the noun of nearer definition come first, e.g. הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ דָּוִד, הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה king David, king Solomon (less frequently דָּוִד הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ as in 2 S 13, 1 K 2, 12, 2 K 8, 9, and in late Hebrew, Hag 1, 15 [cf. the Aramaic order דריוש מלבא], and often in Chron.).—A chiasmus occurs in Is 45, the name standing after the defining noun in the first part of the verse, and before it in the parallel clause.
h 2. When the nota accusativi (אֵת, אֶת־) or a preposition precedes the first substantive, it may be repeated before the noun in apposition, e.g. Gn 4, 22, 24, 47, Is 66; this usually occurs when the nearer definition precedes a proper name. As a rule, however, the repetition does not take place (Dt 18, Jer 33, 1 S 2). A noun in apposition is made determinate, even after a noun with a prefix, in the ordinary way, e.g. 2 Ch 12 בִּירֽוּשָׁלַ֫יִם הָעִיר in Jerusalem, the city which, &c.[27]
i 3. Sometimes a second adjective is used in apposition to a preceding adjective, in order to modify in some way the meaning of the first, e.g. Lv 13 בַּהֶ֫רֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדָּ֑מֶת a white-reddish (light red) bright spot.
k 4. Permutation is to be regarded as a variety of apposition. It is not complementary like apposition proper (see a above), but rather defines the preceding substantive (or pronoun, see below), in order to prevent any possible misunderstanding. This includes cases like Gn 9 with the life thereof (which is) the blood thereof; Ex 22, Dt 2, 1 S 7, 2 K 3 an hundred thousand rams, the wool, i.e. the wool of the rams; Jer 25 this cup of the wine, that is of fury (but הַֽהֵמָה is probably a gloss); Is 42 he poured upon him fury, namely his anger;[28] but especially the examples in which such a permutative is added to a preceding pronoun, viz.—
l (a) To a separate pronoun, e.g. Ex 7; with regard to the vocative, cf. § 126 f.
m (b) To an accusative suffix, e.g. Ex 2 she saw him, the child (unless אֶת־הַיּ׳ be a later gloss); Ex 35, Lv 13 b, 1 K 19 (where, indeed, הַבָּשָׂר appears to be a late gloss); 21:13, 2 K 16 Keth., Jer 9, 31, Ez 3, Ec 2 (according to Delitzsch rather a double accusative).[29]
n (c) To a noun-suffix, e.g. Ez 10 בְּבֹאוֹ הָאִישׁ when he went in, the man; 42:14; cf. Pr 13 (?), Ez 3; so also after a preposition with suffix, e.g. Ec 4 אִי לוֹ הָֽאֶחָד woe to him, the one alone; with a repetition of the preposition, Nu 32, Jos 1 לָהֶם לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל to them, to the children of Israel; Ju 21, Jer 51, Ez 42 (?), Dn 11, 1 Ch 4, 2 Ch 26.[30]—Cf. finally, Ct 3, where the suffix precedes the genitive periphrastically expressed by שֶׁלּ׳, as in Ez 9, where the genitive is expressed by לְ.[31]
o Of a different kind are the cases in which the permutative with its proper suffix follows as a kind of correction of the preceding suffix, e.g. Is 29 when he (or rather) his children see, &c. (but יְלָדָיו is clearly a gloss); cf. ψ 83; in Jb 29 read בַּֽהֲהִלּוֹ (infin. Hiph.) or at least its syncopated form בַּהִלּוֹ.
p 5. Cases of apposition in a wider sense are those in which the nearer definition added to the noun was originally regarded as an adverbial accusative; on its use with the verb and on the relative correctness of speaking of such an accusative in Hebrew, cf. § 118 a and m. Owing to the lack of case-endings, indeed, it is in many instances only by analogies elsewhere (especially in Arabic) that we can decide whether the case is one of apposition in the narrower or in the wider sense; in other instances this must remain quite uncertain. However, the following are probably cases of apposition in the wider sense:—
q (a) Such phrases as מִשְׁנֶה כֶ֫סֶף a double amount in money, Gn 43; cf. Jer 17; 1 S 17 five thousand shekels in brass, but this might also be taken (as in d) shekels which were brass; certainly such cases as Jb 15l0 older than thy father in days, and the expression of the superlative by means of מְאֹד (originally a substantive), e.g. טוֹב מְאֹד very good, Gn 1 (cf. also Ec 7 צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה righteous over much), and the very frequent הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד prop. a much-making exceedingly, i.e. exceedingly great, Gn 15, 41, also Pr 23 פְּצָעִים חִנָּם wounds without cause,[32] perhaps also Gn 34 (בֶּ֫טַח).
r (b) A few examples, in which an epexegetical substantive is added to a substantive with a suffix; thus, Ez 16 מִדַּרְכֵּךְ זִמָּה of thy conduct in lewdness (but it is also possible to explain it (as in c) of thy conduct, which is lewdness); cf. Ez 24, 2 S 22 מָֽעוּזִּי חָ֑יִל my fortress in strength, i.e. my strong fortress (cf., however, ψ 18); Hb 3, ψ 71. While even in these examples the deviation from the ordinary usage of the language (cf. § 135 n) is strange, it is much more so in חֲבֹֽלָתוֹ חוֹב Ez 18, i.e. according to the context his pledge for a debt; Ezr 2 כְּתָבָם הַמִּתְיַֽחֲשִׂים, i.e. their register, namely of those that were reckoned by genealogy (but perhaps הַמִּתְי׳ is in apposition to the suffix in כְּתָבָם), also the curious combinations (mentioned in § 128 d) of בְּרִיתִי with a proper name (Lv 26), and in Jer 33 with הַיּוֹם.[33] s 6. In Dt 33 (מֽוֹרָשָׁה, perhaps מוֹר׳ לִקְהִלַּת is to be read), 33:27 (מְעֹנָה), Ju 7 (צֵדָה), the absolute state appears to be used instead of the construct to govern a following logical genitive; this, however, cannot be explained either as a special kind of apposition, or (with Hitzig) as a peculiarity of the dialect of Northern Palestine, but is merely a textual corruption. On the other hand, in Jb 31 עָוֹן is evidently intended to combine the readings עֲוֹן פְּלִילִים and עָוֹן פְּלִילִי (as in verse 28).—The remarkable combination אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת in ψ 80, 15 is due to the fact that in ψψ 42–83 אֱלֹהִים has almost throughout been subsequently substituted by some redactor for the divine name יחוה; on יהוה צְבָאוֹת cf. § 125 h. In ψ 59, 80, 20, and 84:9 יהוה has been reinstated in the text before אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת.[34]
t 7. Lastly, the nearer definition (qualification) of a noun may be effected by means of a preposition (either with a suffix or with an independent noun), but must then be distinguished from the cases in which the preposition is dependent on a verb or verbal idea, e.g. Gn 3 and she gave also לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ unto her husband with her (= her husband who was with her); in Gn 9 (that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh) and other places, the qualification of the noun is itself also qualified.
a 1. The adjective (like the participle used adjectivally), which serves as an attribute of a substantive, stands after the substantive, and agrees with it in gender and number, e.g. אִישׁ גָּדוֹל a great man, אִשָּׁה יָפָה a beautiful woman. If the substantive is immediately connected with a genitive, the attribute follows the latter, since, according to § 89 and § 128 a, the construct state and the genitive belonging to it are inseparably united, e.g. Est 8 עֲטֶ֫רֶת זָהָב גְּדוֹלָה a great crown of gold.— On the attribute when attached to a determinate substantive, see above, § 126 u.
b Rem. 1. Where an adjectival attribute appears to stand before its substantive (according to the usual explanation, for the sake of special emphasis) the relation is really appositional in character; thus, Is 10 עֲנִיָּה עֲנָתוֹת O thou poor one, Anathoth! (but probably עֲנִ֫יהָ answer her, is to be read); cf. 23:12, 53:11 (a righteous man, my servant; but in 28:21 זָר and נָכְרִיּ are predicates preceding the substantives); Jer 3, 10 f., ψ 18 him who is worthy to be praised will I call upon the Lord; 92:12 (apposition after participles).—But רַבִּים and רַבּוֹת many, are sometimes placed, like numerals, before the substantive, Jer 16, Neh 9 (in ψ 145 רַב is a subst. regens, in 89:51 the text is corrupt); an appositional relation can scarcely be intended in these instances.
c 2. In a few expressions (mostly poetic) the adjective appears not as an attribute after the substantive, but in the construct state governing it; so in the singular, Ex 15 (unless גֹּדֶל should be read); 1 S 16 (the height of his stature); in the plural, 1 S 17 חַלֻּקֵי אֲבָנִים smooth ones of (among) stones, i.e. smooth stones; Is 35, Ez 7, ψ 46, and with a following collective instead of a plural, e.g. Is 29 אֶבְיוֹנֵי אָדָם the poor among men, i.e. poor men; Jer 49, Zc 11; cf. in Latin canum degeneres. However, in almost all these cases the adjective which is made into a regens is strongly emphatic, and is frequently equivalent to a superlative (see below, § 133 g).
d 3. When two adjectives follow a feminine, sometimes only that standing next to the noun takes the feminine termination, e.g. 1 K 19 רוּחַ גְּדֹלָה וְחָזָק וגו׳ (but read גָּדוֹל); 1 S 15 (but cf. § 75 y); Jer 20, ψ 63. A similar dislike of the feminine form may also be observed in the case of verbal predicates referring to feminine subjects, cf. § 145 p and t.
When an attribute qualifies several substantives of different genders, it agrees with the masculine, as being the prior gender (cf. § 146 d), e.g. Neh 9 חֻקִּים וּמִצְוֹת טוֹבִים; Jer 34, Zc 8.
When three attributes follow a substantive, the first two may stand without a conjunction, and the last be attached by wāw copulative, cf. Zc 1.
e 4. After feminines plural ending in ־ִים (§ 87 p) the adjectival attribute (in accordance with the fundamental rule stated above, under a) takes the ending וֹת, e.g. Is 10 בֵּיצִים עֲזֻבוֹת forsaken eggs; Gn 32. For a strange exception see Jer 29 (differently in 24:2).
f 5. With regard to number it is to be remarked that—
(a) Substantives in the dual are followed by adjectives (or participles) in the plural, e.g. ψ 18 (Pr 6) עֵינַ֫יִם רָמוֹת haughty eyes; Is 35, Jb 4 f., cf. § 88 a.
g (b) Collective ideas are not infrequently joined with the plural of the adjective or participle (constructio ad sensum); thus, e.g. צֹאן sheep [with fem. plur.], Gn 30, 1 S 25; עַם=men, 1 S 13, Is 9; כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל=all the Israelites, 1 S 2; גָּלוּת=the exiles, Jer 28; cf. also נֶ֫פֶשׁ שְׁנָ֫יִם two souls, Gn 46.[36] Cf. similar phenomena in the connexion of collectives with plural predicates in § 145 c.
h (c) The pluralis excellentiae or pluralis maiestatis is joined, as a rule, to the singular of the attribute, e.g. ψ 7 אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק; 2 K 19, 16 (=Is 37, 17); Is 19; but cf. אֱלֹהִים חֶיִּים[37] Dt 5, 1 S 17, 36, Jer 10, 23, perhaps also Ex 20 אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים= another god, and Jos 24 אֱלֹהִים קְדשִׁים (but cf. above, § 124 g–k). On the other hand, 1 S 4 is to be explained as having been said by the Philistines, who supposed that the Israelites had several gods. On the connexion of אֱלֹהִים with a plural predicate, see § 145 i.
2. On the adjective (in the construct state) governing a following genitive, see § 128 x; for the participle in the same construction, see § 116 f–l.
a 1. Hebrew possesses no special forms either for the comparative or superlative of the adjective.[38] In order to express a comparative, the person or thing which is to be represented as excelled in some particular quality is attached to the attributive word by the preposition מִן־ (מִ·), e.g. 1 S 9 גָּבֹהַּ מִכָּל־הָעָם higher than any of the people. The fundamental idea evidently is, tall away from all the people (beyond all the people); cf. Ju 14 מַה־מָּתוֹק טִדְּבַשׁ וּמֶה עַז מֵֽאֲרִי what is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? Ez 28, Am 6 Frequently an infinitive appears as the object of the comparison, e.g. Gn 29 it is better that I give her to thee, than that I should, give her, &c.; Ex 14, ψ 118f.[39]
b Rem. 1. This use of מִן־ is also very common when the attributive idea is represented by an intransitive verb, e.g. 1 S 10 וַיִּגְבַּהּ מִכָּל־הָעָם and he was higher than any of the people; Na 3. Jb 7. Elsewhere, especially after transitive verbs, מִן־ rather represents (on its different senses see § 119 v–z) the idea of a separation, distinction or superiority of one person or thing from or over others.[40] This is evident in such cases as בָּחַר מִן־ to choose something (to prefer it) before something else, e.g. Jb 7, cf. Dt 14 (also יִתְרוֹן... מִן־ the excellence of... over..., Ec 2); it is also seen in examples like Gn 37 וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אָהַב אֶת־יוֹסֵף מִכָּל־בָּנָיו now Israel loved Joseph more than all his (other) children; 29:30, 1 S 2, Ho 6.[41]
c 2. A somewhat different idea underlies the use of מִן־ after adjectives, or intransitive verbs possessing an attributive sense, when the thought to be expressed is that the quality is too little or too much in force for the attainment of a particular aim or object, e.g. Is 7 הַמְעַט מִכֶּם is it a small thing (i.e. too little) for you to...? Jb 15; after an intransitive verb, e.g. Gn 32 I am too insignificant (קָטֹ֫נְתִּי) for all the mercies (I am not worthy of...), &c.; cf. also the expressions כָּבֵד מִן־ to be too heavy for one, Ex 18, Nu 11, ψ 38; קָשָׁה מִן־ to be too hard for one, Dt 1; מָעַט מִן־ to be too few for something, Ex 12; גָּבַר מִן־ to be too strong for one, ψ 65; עָצַם מִן־ to be too mighty for one, Gn 26; רוּם מִן־ to be too high for one, ψ 61; צַר מִן־ to be too narrow for one, Is 49; קָצַר מִן־ to be too short for something, Is 50, and very frequently נִפְלָא מִן־ to be too wonderful for one (and, consequently, inconceivable or unattainable), Gn 18, Dt 17, 30, Jer 37, Pr 30; in ψ 139 פְּלִיאָה in the same sense is followed by מִן.—This use is especially seen in the numerous instances in which the attribute is followed by מִן־ with an infinitive e.g. 1 K 8 the brazen altar... was קָטֹן מֵֽהָכִיל too little to receive (to be able to receive) the burnt offering, cf. Gn 4, 36 too great for them to dwell together; after verbs, e.g. Ex 12, Is 28, ψ 40. Finally, cf. רַבּ לָכֶם מִן־, followed by the infinitive, it is enough (prop. too much) for you to..., meaning ye have... long enough, 1 K 12; cf. Ex 9 and Ez 44 (מִּן־ followed by a substantive).[42]
d In all these instances מִן־ expresses either the removal of a thing from a person, or the severance of the person from some aim or object; cf. also the expression לֹֽא־יִבָּצֵר מֵהֶם כֹּל וגו׳ nothing will be unattainable for them (prop. there shall not be cut off from them anything which, &c.), (Gn 11, Jb 42.
e 3. The attributive idea, on which מִן־ logically depends, must sometimes, in consequence of a pregnant use of the מִן־ (see the analogous examples in § 119 ff), be supplied from the context, e.g. Is 10 וּפְסִֽלֵיהֶם מִירֽוּשָׁלַ֫יִם whose graven images were more numerous than those at Jerusalem, &c.;[43] Mi 7 worse than a thorn hedge; ψ 62 lighter than a breath; Jb 11 clearer than the noonday; Ec 4 better than, &c. f 2. The correlative comparatives greater—less (older—younger) are expressed by the simple adjective with the article (the great, equivalent to the greater, &c.); Gn 1, 19, 27, 29.
g 3. To express the superlative it is also sufficient (see above, f) to make the adjective determinate, either by means of the article or a following partitive genitive (or suffix); in this case the article or genitive indicates that the attribute in question belongs especially to one or more definite individuals;[44] e.g. 1 S 9 הַצְּעִרָה the least; 16:11 הַקָּטָן the little one, i.e. the youngest of eight sons; 17:14 David was הַקָּטָן the youngest, and the three great, i.e. elder, &c.; Gn 42, 44, Ct 1.—So also with a qualifying adjective, e.g. Gn 9 בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן his youngest son; cf. Jos 14; also with a following genitive, 2 Ch 21 קְטֹן בָּנָיו the youngest of his sons: Pr 30 the least upon the earth; with suffix, Mi 7 טוֹבָם their good one, i.e. the best of them; Jan 3:5 מִגְּדוֹלָם וְעַד־קְטַנָּם from the greatest of them even to the least of them; cf. the inverse order in Jer 6, 31.
h Rem. 1. The above examples apply only to the most common relative attributes (great, small, good), and to expressions which by usage easily came to be recognized as periphrases for the superlative. Other adjectives, however, when followed by a partitive genitive, also acquire the sense of a superlative; this appears from the context, e.g. Dt 33 the most hidden treasures of the sand; Ju 5 the wisest amongst her ladies; Is 14, 19, 23 f., 29:19, Jer 49, Ez 28, Zc 11, ψ 45, Jb 30 (in the most horrible of valleys), 41:22; probably also ψ 35. On this government by the adjective generally, cf. § 132 c.—Moreover, the combination of a substantive in the construct state with an adjective used substantivally (§ 128 w) sometimes serves as a periphrasis for the superlative, e.g. Is 22 כֹּל כְּלֵי הַקָּטָן all the smallest vessels. On Ct 7 see § 126 x.
i 2. Other periphrases for the superlative are the use of a substantive in the construct state before the plural of the same word (which is naturally to be regarded as a partitive genitive; cf. our book of books), e.g. Ex 26 קֹדֶשׁ הֲקָּדָשִׁים the most holy place; שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים (Ct 1) the most excellent song; cf. Gn 9 (= servus servorum, the lowest servant); Nu 3, Dt 10 (ψ 136, 3)[45]; 1 K 8, Is 34 (cf. Gal 1:5, Rev 22:5); Jer 3, Ez 16, 26 (king of kings, of Nebuchadrezzar; cf. 1 Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14, 19:16, and another kind of periphrasis in ψ 95); Ec 1. Similarly in Jer 6 two participles are combined, and in Ho 10 two substantives in the singular. Finally, the same object is attained by connecting one substantive in the construct state with another of the same stem (שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן a sabbath of solemn rest, i.e. an obligatory day of rest, Ex 31, &c.) or of the same meaning (e.g. ח֫שֶׁךְ אֲפֵלָה a thick darkness, Ex 10).
k 3. The intensification of attributes by means of repetition belongs rather to rhetoric than to syntax, e.g. Ec 7 עָמֹק עָמֹק exceeding deep; 1 S 2, Pr 20; the adjective is even used three times in Is 6.—Cf. the repetition of adverbs for the same purpose in Gn 7, Nu 14 (מְאֹד מְאֹד exceedingly, also בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד Ex 1, &c.); Ez 42.—On the other hand, in Dt 28 the repetition expresses a continuous progress, higher and higher... lower and lower; in Dt 2 (see § 123 e) and 16:20 (nothing but justice) the constancy of the action. Cf. Ex 23 מְעַט מְעַט little by little, very gradually.[46]
l The repetition of substantives serves also as a periphrasis for the superlative in such cases as לְדֹר דֹּר (Ex 3) = to the remotest generations; cf. 17:16, Jer 6, 8 (perfect peace); Ez 21 (עַוָּה three times);[47] 35:7, Na 1; cf. also Ho 2 f. and the emphatic combination of synonymous verbs in Is 33. Sometimes the completeness of an action or state is expressed by placing together two or even three substantives of the same stem and of similar sound, cf. Is 22, Ez 6 (33:28 f., 35:3); 32:15, Na 2, Zp 1 (Jb 30, 38).
Cf. the exhaustive statistics collected by Sven Herner, Syntax der Zahlwörter im A.T., Lund, 1893. E. König, ‘Zur Syntax der Zahlwörter im A.T.,’ AJSL. xviii, 129 ff.
a 1. The numerals from 2 to 10, as being originally abstract substantives,[48] may be connected with their substantives in three different ways. They may stand either—
(a) In the construct state before the substantive (the object numbered being consequently in the genitive), e.g. שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים a triad of days, i.e. three days; שְׁנֵי הָֽאֲנָשִׁים the two men; or
b (b) In the absolute state before it (the object numbered being in apposition, § 131 d), e.g. שְׁלשָׁה בָנִים a triad, viz. sons, i.e. three sons; שְׁנַ֫יִם אֲנָשִׁים two men; or
c (c) In the absolute state (likewise in apposition) after the object numbered, e.g. בָּנוֹת שָׁלוֹשׁ. So especially in long lists, since in these the substantives naturally come first, e.g. Gn 32. Nu 7, 28. Apart from such cases, the frequency of this order in the later Books is due to the fact that the character of the numeral tended more and more to become adjectival rather than substantival.[49]
d Rem. In Lv 24 אֶחָד follows the construct state מִשְׁפַּט, but here as in Nu 15 מִשְׁפָּט should be read. In Gn 42 אֶחָד is in apposition to a substantive with a suffix (= one of you brethren; but verse 33 the one of you brethren). In Nu 31 אֶחָד precedes the substantive in the Aramaic manner (= one each).—For מֵאָֽה־שָׁנָה (Gn 17, &c.) we find regularly in the Priestly Code (except in Gn 17, 23) מְאַת שָׁנָה (Gn 5, &c.) an hundred years. On the connexion of abstract numerals with suffixes, as שְׁנֵיהֶם their duality, i.e. they two, Gn 2, &c. (also with a strengthening separate pronoun, as שְׁנֵ֫ינוּ אֲנַ֫חְנוּ 1 S 20), cf. § 97 i.
e 2. The numerals from 2 to 10 take the object numbered in the plural,[50] with very few exceptions, such as Ex 16 (where שְׁנֵי הָעֹ֫מֶר = the double of an omer), 2 K 2, Ez 45, cf. 2 K 8 and 25:17 Keth. The numerals from 11 to 19 generally take the plural, but with certain substantives frequently used with numerals the singular is more common (see further, under f). The tens (from 20 to 90), when they precede, take the singular (in the accusative, cf. § 131 p) of certain nouns frequently used with numerals (אֶ֫לֶף a thousand, אִישׁ, יוֹם, כֹּר, נֶ֫פֶשׁ, שֶׁ֫קֶל—but only in Ezekiel and the Priestly Code), otherwise the plural, as בָּנִים, בָּנוֹת, עָרִים (but cf. also Ju 11), &c.; on the other hand, the plural is necessary when they follow the object numbered in apposition (e.g. אַמּוֹת עֶשְׂרִים twenty cubits, 2 Ch 3 f.; with the exception of 2 S 24, only in late Books). After טֵאָה and אֶ֫לֶף the substantive numbered may be used either in the singular or plural, see further under g.
f Rem. 1. After the numerals from 11 to 19 the singular is used, as a rule, with יוֹם day, שָׁנָה year, אִישׁ man, נֶ֫פֶשׁ soul (person), שֵׁ֫בֶט tribe, מַצֵּבָה pillar (Ex 24), sometimes with אַמָּה cubit, חֹ֫דֶשׁ month, עִיר city, שֶׁ֫קֶל shekel (compare our four-year-old, ten pound), e.g. Dt 1 אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם (cf., however, such exceptions as Dt 1, Jos 4, &c.).—Substantives other than these are used in the plural with the numerals from 11 to 19, and the numeral may even follow the substantive, especially in later passages, as Nu 7 f., 1 Ch 4, 25.
g 2. After מֵאָה (מְאַת [so almost exclusively in the Priestly Code, e.g. always מְאַת אֶ֫לֶף], מֵאוֹת, מָאתַ֫יִם) and אֶ֫לֶף (אֲלָפִים, אַלְפֵי, אַלְפַּ֫יִם) the substantives אִישׁ, אֶלֶ֫ף, אַמָּה (except in Ez 40), יוֹם, רַגְלִי, צֶ֫מֶד are regularly used in the singular, generally also שָׁנָה, כִּכָּר, כֹּר, שֶׁ֫קֶל (with the exception of Jos 7, 2 S 14, &c.); cf., moreover, Gn 33, 24 (אַלְפֵי רְבָבָה), Est 1, Ju 21, Dt 7, 1 K 5, 2 Ch 9.—Examples of the plural after מֵאָה are Gn 26, 1 S 18, 2 S 16, 1 K 18; after מְאַת Ex 38; after מֵאוֹת Ju 15, 2 S 8, 1 K 10, Ez 42; after מָאתַ֫יִם 1 S 25, 1 K 7; after אֶ֫לֶף 1 S 25, 1 K 3, 5, 2 K 3, ψ 90; after אֲלָפִים 1 S 17, Jb 42; after אַלְפֵי Mi 6; after אַלְפַּ֫יִם Is 36.— In Dn 12 the plural יָמִים precedes the numeral twelve hundred.
h 3. Numerals compounded of tens and units (like 21, 62) take the object numbered either after them in the singular (in the accusative), e.g. Gn 5 שְׁתַּ֫יִם וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה two and sixty years (שָׁנָה in the singular, according to e, since it conforms to the ten immediately preceding; but also שְׁלשִׁים וּשְׁמֹנֶה שָׁנָה Dt 2), or before them in the plural, especially in the later Books, Dn 9, &c.; or the object is repeated (but only in 1 K 6, and the Priestly Code; sometimes even several times, e.g. Gn 23, 25, 17 thrice) in the plural with the units, and in the singular with the tens and hundreds, e.g. Gn 12 חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה seventy and five years; Gn 23 מֵאָה שֶׁנָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְשֶׁ֫בַע שָׁנִים an hundred and twenty and seven years. Cf. Gn 5
i Rem. 1. It may further be remarked with regard to the order, that the thousand or thousands always precede the hundreds, &c., and the hundreds almost always come before the smaller numbers (in Kings and Ezekiel sometimes, and in the Priestly Code usually, after the smaller numbers), the tens in the earlier Books (documents J and D of the Pentateuch, in Joshua 1–12, Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, and also in Ezra and Nehemiah) before the units, but in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Priestly Code, Joshua 13–24 after the units (see Herner, op. cit., p. 73). After the hundreds the smaller number is very frequently added without וְ, especially in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel.
On the syntax of the cardinals in general:—
k 2. The cardinals are determined by the article, when they refer back (without being connected with the object numbered; cf., however, Lv 25 f., Nu 16, Jos 4, 2 S 23) to a number or list already mentioned, e.g. Gn 2 שֵׁם הָֽאֶחָד פִּישׁוֹן the name of the one (the first) is Pishon; Gn 14 four kings against the five (enumerated in verse 2); cf. 1 Ch 11 f., and the determinate tens in Gn 18, 31 f. A demonstrative with the article may also be added to a numeral determined in this way, e.g. Dt 19 (but cf. also Gn 9, 22, where the numeral and demonstrative are practically determinate in themselves). In the case of the numerals from 11 to 19 the article may stand either before the unit (1 Ch 25, 27) or before עָשָׂר (Jos 4); it is used before all three members of a compound number (273) in Nu 3.
l In apposition with any determinate substantive the cardinal number is used without the article, not only when it precedes the substantive, as in Jos 15 (אֶת־שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְנֵי הָֽעֲנָק, where שְׁלוֹשָׁה is equivalent to a substantive determinate in itself; cf. Gn 18, Jos 6, 22 1 S 17, 1 K 11, and the passages discussed above in § 126 x, Gn 21, &c.), but also when it follows the substantive, e.g. 1 K 7, 43 f. עֶשֶׂר and עֲשָׂרָה; the omission of the article may here, as in the eases noticed in § 126 z, be also due to the dislike of a hiatus, but cf. also שְׁנַ֫יִם 2 K 25 after a determinate substantive. The fact that it is by nature determinate would also be a very simple explanation of אֶחָד Nu 28, 1 S 13 f., Jer 24, Ez 10, instead of the more usual הָֽאֶחָד, and of אַחַת 1 S 1 for הָֽאַחַת.
m Such cases as שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים Ju 14 (which is determined by a following determinate genitive) are explained from § 127 b; 1 Ch 9 perhaps from § 126 q; in Is 30 probably the light of all the seven days of the week is meant; on the other hand, in 1 S 9 and 25:38 the article is, with Wellhausen, to be omitted.
n 3. Certain specifications of measure, weight, or time, are commonly omitted after numerals, e.g. Gn 20 אֶ֫לֶף כֶּ֫סֶף a thousand (shekels) of silver; so also before זָהָב Gn 24, 1 K 10, Is 7, cf. ψ 119. Moreover, Ru 3 שֵׁשׁ שְׂעֹרִים six (ephahs) of barley; 1 S 10 שְׁתֵּי־לֶ֫חֶם two (sc. loaves, see verse 3) of bread, cf. 17:17 עֲשָׂרָה לֶ֫חֶם; 2 S 16, where before קַ֫יִץ a measure, or perhaps some term like cakes, is to be supplied.—The number of cubits is stated in the Priestly Code (Ex 26, &c.) and in 1 K 6 and 7 (otherwise only in Ez 40, 21, 47:3. Zc 5, 1 Ch 11, 2 Ch 4 f.) by the addition of בָּֽאַמָּה prop. by the cubit. Also in Ex 27 the Samaritan and LXX read בָּֽאַמָּה after אֹרֶךְ, and in 27:15 אַמָּה after עֶשְׂרֵה.
o 4. The ordinals above 10 have no special forms, but are expressed by the corresponding cardinals, which may then stand either before or after the object numbered, e.g. Gn 7 בְּשִׁבעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם on the seventeenth day; Dt 1 בְּאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה in the fortieth year; cf. Gn 14, 2 K 25, and, with repetition of שָׁנָה in a compound number, 1 K 6; such a cardinal occurs without בְּ (and therefore in the accus. temporis, according to § 118 k) in Gn 14 (the Samaritan, however, has ובשלש); with the article (but without a numbered object, see under k), 1 K 19.[51]—On the position of the numeral as a genitive following its noun, cf. e.g. 1 K 16 בִּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים וָשֶׁבַע in the twenty and seventh year, and with a determinate numeral, Ex 12, Nu 33, Dt 15. In this case, however, שָׁנָה is very frequently repeated, e.g. Gn 7, 2 K 13; after a determinate numeral, Lv 25.[52]
p Rem. In numbering days of the month and years, the cardinals are very frequently used instead of the ordinals even for the numbers from 1 to 10, e.g. בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם 1 K 15; בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלשׁ 2 K 18, &c., cf. Dt 15. The months themselves are always numbered by the ordinals (בָּרִאשׁוֹן, בַּשֵּׁנִי, &c., up to בָּֽעֲשִׂירִי), but not the days of the month, e.g. בְּאֶחָד לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ Gn 8, &c., בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ Zc 7; בַּֽחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ Ez 1, &c., בְּשִׁבְעָה לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ 2 K 25, בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ Lv 23 (always, however, בֶּֽעָשׂר לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ on the tenth day of the month). On the omission of יוֹם in all these cases see under n; only in late passages is יוֹם added, e.g. 2 Ch 29 בְּיוֹם שְׁמוֹנָה לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ; Ezr 3 מִיּוֹם אֶחָד לַחֹ֫דֶשׁ.—Finally, when the year is stated by בִּשְׁנַת governing a determinate ordinal, viz. 2 K 17 בִּשְׁנַת הַתְּשִׁיעִית in the ninth year; 2 K 25 (in Jer 52 בְּשָׁנָה), Jer 28 Keth., 32:1 Keth., 46:2, 51:59, Ezr 7; בִּשְׁנַת in such cases is again (see note 2 on o) to be explained according to § 128 k. This is supported by the fact that the Masora on Jer 28, 32 requires in the Qerê בַּשָּׁנָה for בשנת.
q 5. Distributives are expressed either by repetition of the cardinal number, e.g. Gn 7, 15 שְׁנַ֫יִם שְׁנַ֫יִם two and two; 2 S 21 שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ six each; with the numbered object also repeated, e.g. Jos 3 אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לַשָּֽׁבֶט for every tribe a man; Nu 13, 34 (אֶחָד מִן, as in Neh 11, one out of every ten); cf. § 123 d; or a periphrasis with אֶחָד לְ is used, Nu 17, Dt 1, cf. Is 6 לְאֶחָד after six wings twice repeated; the simple distributive לְ is, however, sufficient (as in לַבְּקָרִים, § 123 c), e.g. לְמֵאוֹת וְלַֽאֲלָפִים by hundreds and by thousands.
r 6. The multiplicatives are expressed either (like the ordinals above 10, see under o) by the cardinals (in the feminine, probably owing to the omission of פַּ֫עַם, פְּעָמִים; so König, Lehrgeb., ii. 228), as שְׁתַּ֫יִם twice, Jb 40; שֶׁ֫בַע seven times, Lv 26, 24, Pr 24; cf. also אַחַת once, 2 K 6, Jb 40, for which in Jb 33 בְּאַחַת[53] along with בִּשְׁתַּ֫יִם (the latter also in 1 S 18); or by the dual of the numeral, thus שִׁבְעָתַ֫יִם Gn 4 (in verse 24 along with the cardinal 77 for 77 times); Is 30, ψ 12, 79; אַרְבַּעְתָּ֑יִם 2 S 12;[54] or periphrastically by פַּ֫עַם a time (prop. a step, with the article, הַפַּ֫עַם this time; cf. also בַּפַּ֫עַם הַזֹּאת, with בְּ, like בְּאַחַת above), as פַּ֫עַם אַחַת once (Neh 13 פַּ֫עַם וּשְׁתַּ֫יִם once and twice), נַּֽעֲמַ֫יִם twice, שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים (for which in Ex 23, Nu 22, 32 שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים) three times; cf. Ez 41 thirty-three times; 2 S 24 an hundred times; Dt 1 a thousand times; 1 K 22 עַד־כַּמֶּה פְעָמִים until how many times, i.e. how often. Cf. also עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת מֹנִים ten times, Gn 31, 14, and רַבּוֹת עִתִּים many times, Neh 9.—In Gn 43, five times is expressed by חָמֵשׁ יָדוֹת (prop. five hands),[55] and in Ex 16 the double is expressed by מִשְׁנֶה עַל־ (prop. a repetition over and above that which, &c.).—Of the ordinals שֵׁנִית is used as a numeral adverb, Gn 22, &c., a second time, cf. the Latin tertium consul; בַּשְּׁלִישִׁת the third time, 1 S 3; פַּ֫עַם חֲמִישִׁית a fifth time, Neh 6; בַּשְּׁבִעִית at the seventh (time), 1 K 18, and בַּפַּ֫עַם הַשּׁ׳ Jos 6.
s Rem. The collocation of a numeral with the next above it (either in the same or in different sentences) is a rhetorical device employed in numerical sayings to express a number, which need not, or cannot, be more exactly specified. It must be gathered from the context whether such formulae are intended to denote only an insignificant number (e.g. Is 17, two or at the most three), or a considerable number, e.g. Mi 5. Sometimes, however, this juxtaposition serves to express merely an indefinite total, without the collateral idea of intensifying the lower by means of the higher number. Thus one and two are connected by וְ, Dt 32, Jer 3, Jb 33, 40 (without וְ, ψ 62); two and three, Is 17 (Sirac 23, 26, 50), and without וְ, 2 K 9, Ho 6, Am 4; three and four, Jer 36, Am 1–11, Pr 30, 21 (Sirac 26), and with out וְ, Pr 30; four and five, without וְ, Is 17; six and seven, Jb 5, Pr 6; seven and eight, Mi 5, Ec 11; (nine and ten, Sirac 25).
III. Syntax of the Pronoun.
a 1. The separate pronouns,—apart from their employment as the subject in noun-clauses (cf. § 141 a) and the idiom mentioned under d–h, —are used, according to § 32 b, as a rule, only to give express emphasis to the subject; e.g. Gn 16, 2 S 24 אָֽנֹכִי i.e. I myself, so also אֲנִי 2 S 12, 17 (after the verb), Ez 34, ψ 2;[56] but 1 S 10, 2 S 12, Is 45 אָֽנֹכִי I and none else; cf. also אֲנִי אֲנִי I, I! Ho 5, &c.; אַתָּה Gn 15, Ju 15, 1 S 17 (as in 20:8, 22:18, Ex 18, Dt 5, Ju 8, after the imperative); 1 K 21; אַתֶּם Gn 9, Ex 20 (after the verb, Ju 15); fem. Gn 31; הוּא 1 S 22; הִיא Gn 3, Ju 14; הֵ֫מָּה Jer 5.—Sometimes, however, the separate pronoun appears to be placed before the verb more on rhythmical grounds, i.e. in order to give the statement a fuller sound than that of the bare verbal form (cf. the similar use of the infinitive absolute, § 113 o). Thus Gn 14, ψ 139, and most clearly in such passages as Gn 21, 47, Ex 8, Ju 6, 11, 1 S 12, 2 S 3, 21, 1 K 2 (in solemn promises). The same explanation applies to אֲנִי at the beginning of sentences, e.g. Gn 24, Ho 5, 10, 12, ψ 39, 82, Jb 5.[57]
b Rem. 1. Different from this is the pleonastic addition of the separate pronoun immediately after the verb (according to Delitzsch on Ct 5 perhaps a trace of popular language), e.g. 1 S 23(?), Ct 5, and (like other indications of the very late origin of the book) very frequently in Ecclesiastes, e.g. 1:16, 2:1, 11, 15, 3:17f. and thirteen other places; in Aramaic, Dn 5.
c 2. Substantival subjects also are somewhat frequently resumed, and thus expressly emphasized, by the insertion of the corresponding separate pronoun of the 3rd person before the predicate is stated, e.g. Gn 3 the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she (הִיא) gave me, &c.; 14:24 (הֵם); 15:4, 24:7, &c.; but הוּא in Is 7 after the predicate and subject is equivalent to he himself.[58]
d 2. Not infrequently the separate pronoun serves to give strong emphasis to a suffix of the same person which precedes (or sometimes even to one which follows), whether the suffix be attached to a verb (as accusative) or to a noun or preposition (as genitive). In English such an emphasis on the pronoun can generally be rendered only by laying greater stress upon it, or sometimes by repeating it; cf., on the contrary, the French mon livre à moi. The separate pronoun in such instances is not to be regarded as casus obliquus (accusative or genitive), but as the subject of an independent sentence, the predicate of which must in each case be supplied according to the context.
e Examples of emphasis:—
(a) On a verbal suffix by means of אֲנִי (אָ֫נִי) Gn 27 בָּֽרֲכֵ֫נִי גַם־אָ֫נִי bless me, even me also (prop. bless me, I also would be blessed); Zc 7; cf. also Ez 6, 34, 20 הִנְנִי אָ֫נִי; by אַתָּה (אָ֫תָּה) Pr 22 (but the text is most probably corrupt).—The separate pronoun precedes in Gn 24 (אָֽנֹכִי); 49:8 (אַתָּה, not Judah, thou art he whom, but Judah thee, thee thy brethren shall praise!), and Ec 2 גַּם אֲנִי.
f (b) On a noun-suffix with a substantive, by means of אֲנִי 2 S 19, Pr 23; by אָ֑תָּה 1 K 21 אֶת־דָּֽמְךָ גַּס־אָ֑תָּה thy blood, even thine; by הוּא 2 S 17, Jer 27, Mi 7; by אֲנַ֫חְנוּ 1 S 20, after שְׁנֵ֫ינוּ, but without special stress; Neh 5 (?); by אַתֶּם Nu 14; by הֵם ψ 38 (without special stress), הֵ֫מָּה ψ 9.—The separate pronoun precedes in Jb 21 (אָֽנֹכִי); Gn 40, Is 45, 1 Ch 28 (אֲנִי); Zc 9 (אַתְּ); Jos 23 (אַתֶּם); Ez 33 (הֵ֫מָּה).—In ψ 89, where אֲנִי might be taken as strengthening חלד (equivalent in sense to חֶלְדִּי), we should read אֲדֹנָי for אֲנִי, as in verse 51.
g (c) On a suffix united with a preposition, 1 S 25 בִּי אֲנִי upon me, upon me; 1 K 1 לִי... אֲנִי; 2 Ch 35 לֹֹא־עָלֶ֫יךָ אַתָּה not against thee; 1 S 19 עָלָיו גַּם הוּא upon him also; Dt 5 כִּי אִתָּנוּ אֲנַ֫חְנוּ but with us, even us; Hag 1 לָכֶם אַתֶּם for you yourselves; Jer 25 בָּם גַּם־הֵ֫מָּה.—The separate pronoun precedes in 1 S 12 אָֽנֹכִי... לִי; 1 K 1 אַתָּה... עָלֶ֫יךָ; Mi 5 אַתָּה... מִמְּךָ, and 2 Ch 28 אַתֶּם עִמָּכֶם.
h The same principle also explains Gn 4 לְשֵׁת גַּם־הוּא to Seth, to him also (not גַּם־לוֹ); cf. 10:21, and Ex 35, Nu 4.
i 3. The oblique cases of the personal pronouns expressed by means of a preposition (or the nots accus. את) with a suffix may be used either in a demonstrative or reflexive sense,[59] as לוֹ to him, but also to himself, e.g. Ju 3 and Ehud made לוֹ for himself a sword, cf. Gn 33; so also לָהֶם sibi, Is 3; אֵלָיו unto him, and Gn 8 unto himself; אִתּוֹ with him, and Gn 22 with himself; עִמָּהּ with her, and 1 S 1 with herself; also apparently as a pleonastic dativus ethicus (see § 119 s), Jb 12, 13.
k Rarely, and only when marked emphasis is intended, is the accusative of the reflexive pronoun represented by the nota accusativi את with a suffix (this being ordinarily expressed by the reflexive conjugations Niphʿal and Hithpaʿēl[60]); thus, אֹתָם se ipsos, Ex 5, Jer 7 in sharp antithesis to הַֽאֹתִי; Ez 34, 8, 10. Cf. § 57 at the end, together with note 2.
l Rem. There is a similar emphasis in Is 49 on בְּשָׂרָם and דָּמָם in the sense of their own flesh, their own blood. On the sometimes demonstrative, sometimes reflexive meaning of noun-suffixes of the 3rd person singular and plural, cf. § 91, p and q. For other circumlocutions to express the idea of self, see § 139 f.
m 4. The possessive pronouns are, according to § 33 c, expressed by the suffixes of the noun (in the genitive),[61] which may represent either a subjective genitive, or (like the genitives proper, § 128 h) an objective genitive, e.g. חֲמָסִי the wrong done against me, Gn 16, Jer 51; cf. Gn 9, 18, 27 (2 S 16 Keth.); Gn 30, 39 (cf. Ex 3, &c.); 50:4, Ex 20, 21, Ju 4, 13 (מַֽעֲשֵׂ֫הוּ the treatment of him); Is 56, Jer 9, Na 3, Pr 1, 24, Jb 20, 23, 34. Cf. also such pregnant expressions as ψ 20 יִשְׁלַח עֶזְרְךָ he will send thy help (help for thee), i.e. he will send thee help; Gn 30, 39, Ex 2, Is 1 (and I will restore judges for thee); Ez 37.
When several substantives are co-ordinated, the pronominal suffix must be attached to each singly, e.g. Gn 36 and Esau took אֶת־נָשָׁיו וְאֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־ בְּנֹתָיו his wives and his sons and his daughters, &c.; 38:18, &c. In 2 S 23 the text is hardly correct. n 5. When the genitive, following a construct state, is used periphrastically to express the idea of a material or attribute (§ 128 o and p), the pronominal suffix, which properly belongs to the compound idea (represented by the nomen regens and genitive), is, like the article (§ 127), attached to the second substantive (the genitive), e.g. הַר־קָדְשִׁי prop. the hill of my holiness, i.e. my holy hill, ψ 2, &c.; עִיר קָדְשְׁךָ thy holy city, Dn 9; אֱלִילֵי כַסְפּוֹ his idols of silver, Is 2, 30, 31;[62] cf. Dt 1, Is 9, 28, 41, Ez 9f., ψ 41, 150, Jb 18 צַֽעֲדֵי אוֹנוֹ his steps of strength; 38:6; after an adjective as nomen regens, Is 13 (Zp 3) עַלִּיזֵי גַֽאֲוָתִי my proudly exulting ones.—On the same analogy is the use of e.g. כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתּוֹ Dt 1 his weapons of war [cf. Is 41]; Is 56 בֵּית תְּפִלָּתִי my house of prayer, although the genitive here does not convey the idea of an attribute.
o Rem. 1. Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere (cf. § 110 k, 144 a, 145 p, t, u) and which probably passed from the colloquial language[63] into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives; thus a noun-suffix in the singular, Ex 11, 25, Ju 11;[64] in the plural, Gn 31, 32, 41, Ex 1, 2, Nu 27 (but the feminine suffix twice immediately after, and so the Samaritan also in verse 7); 36:6 (Samaritan אֲבִיהֶן, but also בְּעֵֽינֵיהֶם); Ju 19, 21, 1 S 6, 10b (בְּנֵיהֶם); 9:20, Is 3, Ez 23 ff. (alternating with הֶן); Am 4 f. (but afterwards a feminine suffix); Jb 1, 39 (חֶבְלֵיהֶם in parallelism with יַלְדֵיהֶן); 42:15, Ct 4, 6, Ru 1 ff. (along with feminine suffixes); Dn 1, 8. Verbal suffixes in the singular, Ex 22; in the plural, Ju 16, Pr 6, Jb 1. But Gn 26, 18, 33:13, Ex 2, 1 S 6 a are to be explained according to § 60 h. On הֵ֫מָּה as feminine, see § 32 n. On the use of the masculine in general as the prior gender, see § 122 g.
p 2. The suffix of the 3rd person singular feminine (as also the separate pronoun הִיא Nu 14, Jos 10, Ju 14) sometimes refers in a general sense to the verbal idea contained in a preceding sentence (corresponding to our it); thus the verbal suffix, Gn 15, Nu 23, 1 S 11, 1 K 11, Is 30, Am 8; cf. Gn 24 (בָּהּ thereby), 42:36, 47:26, Ex 10 (אֹתָהּ that), Is 47. Elsewhere the suffix of the 3rd singular feminine refers to the plurals of things, e.g. 2 K 3 [but see Kittel; so 13:2, 6, 11; 10:26, but LXX מַצִּבַת], Jer 36, Jb 6 (if the text is correct), 39:15 (read תֵּחָמֵם in v. 14), and to the plurals of names of animals, Is 35, Ezr 11. Conversely, plural suffixes refer to collective singulars, e.g. in Gn 15, Nu 16, 1 S 2, Zp 2 [but read עַל הַיָּם]; and to a verbal idea contained in the preceding clause, in Ez 33, Jb 22 (בָּהֶם thereby), Ez 18, 33 (עֲלֵיהֶם on that account, thereby).[65] But the suffix in נְתָנוֹ Dt 21 refers to the collective idea contained in אֹֽיְבָ֫יךָ; in Jon 1 עִמָּהֶם refers to the sailors included in sense under the term אֳנִיָּה. In Jos 2 read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם; in Is 30 (מֵהֶם), 38:16, ψ 19 (בָּהֶם) the text is most probably corrupt.
q 3. In a few examples the force of the noun-suffix or possessive pronoun has become so weak that the language appears to be almost entirely unconscious of it. Thus in אֲדֹנָי my Lord, usually explained as being from the pluralis maiestatis אֲדֹנִים (§ 124 i) with the suffix of the 1st singular (always with Qameṣ to distinguish it from אֲדֹנַי my lords, Gn 19; but see note below), used exclusively of God, not only in addressing him (Gn 15, 18, ψ 35), but ultimately (see, however, the note below), without any regard to the pronoun, as equivalent to the Lord.[66] On אֲדֹנָי as a Qerê perpetuum of the Masoretes for יהוה see § 17 c and § 102 m.
r A similar loss of vitality in the suffix is generally assumed in יַחְדָּו prop. in his unitedness, i.e. he &c. together, e.g. כָּל־הָעָם יַחְדָּו Ex 19; then, without regard to the suffix, even after the 1st person אֲנַ֫חְנוּ יַחְדָּו 1 K 3 in reference to two women; Is 41, Jb 9, Neh 6, 7; after the 2nd person, Is 45, &c. But the supposed pronominal suffix is perhaps rather to be explained, with Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 344 f., as an old adverbial ending, which survives in the Arabic adverbs in u and in Assyrian.—Cf. further כֻּלָּם prop. their entirety, but also after the 2nd person equivalent to all together, 1 K 22, Mi 1 (hear, ye peoples, all of you; cf. § 144 p), and even before the 2nd person, Jb 17 (in 1 S 6 read לָכֶם with the LXX).—On the redundant suffix in הָֽעֶרְכְּךָ Lv 27, cf. § 127 i.
a The demonstrative pronouns are זֶה, fem. זֹאת, plur. אֵ֫לֶּה (§ 34), hic, haec (hoc), hi, &c., and the personal pronoun הוּא, likewise used as a demonstrative, fem. הִיא, plur. masc. הֵ֫מָּה, fem. הֵ֫נָּה (§ 32 b), is, ea (id), or ille, &c., ii, eae or illi, &c. The distinction between them in usage is that זֶה (like hic, ὅδε) almost always points out a (new) person or thing present, while הוּא (like is, ille, αὐτός, ἐκεῖνος) refers to a person or thing already mentioned or known (see the examples below).[67]
b Rem. 1. Compare the instructive examples in Gn 32, Ju 7 of whom I say unto thee, this (זֶה) shall go with thee, he (הוּא) shall go with thee (so afterwards with negatives). Moreover, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה this day, i.e. the actual day on which one is speaking or writing (Gn 26, &c.), but הַיּוֹם הַהוּא the day or period of which the historian has just been speaking (Gn 15, 26) or of which the prophet has just been foretelling (Is 5, 7, 20 ff.) and of which he continues to speak or foretell. Nevertheless זֶה and אֵ֫לֶּה are also found in certain common combinations where הוּא and הֵ֫מָּה would be expected, and vice versa; thus almost always הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, plur. הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵ֫לֶּה, but בַּיָּמִים הָהֵ֫מָּה or בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם—With a secondary sense of contempt (like Latin iste) זֶה occurs, e.g. in 1 S 10, 21, 1 K 22, Is 6, &c. In the sense of the neuter, this, זֹאת is more common than זֶה, as Is 5, 43, &c., but הוּא more common than הִיא.
c 2. Both זֶה and הוּא are sometimes used almost as enclitics to emphasize interrogative words (like the Latin nam in quisnam; cf. also quis tandem); e.g. Jb 38 מִי זֶה who now (darkeneth, &c.)...? 1 S 17 f., Is 63, Jer 49, ψ 24, 25, &c; מַה־זֶּה what now? 1 S 10; how now? Gn 27; why now? Ju 18; but before the verb עָשָׂה it is usually מַה־זֹּאת Gn 3, 12, Ex 14, Ju 15; לָ֫מָּה־זֶּה wherefore now? Gn 18, 25, 1 S 17, 2 S 12, &c.—So also מִי־הוּא Is 50, Jb 4 ff.; and still more emphatically מִי הוּא־זֶה ψ 24, Jer 30.
d 3. זֶה is likewise used as an enclitic (see c above): (a) of place, in such passages as Gn 27 הַֽאַתָּה זֶה וגו׳ whether thou (that art here) be my son Esau? 2 S 2 is it thou? הִנֵּה־זֶה behold, here, 1 K 19, Is 21;[68] cf. also the strengthen-
- ↑ The same reason no doubt also favoured the omission of the article before הוּא and אֵ֫לֶּה, see above, under y. Also in Is 23 (is this your joyous...?) the article is omitted before עַלִּיזָה probably only for euphony.
- ↑ הָֽאָדָם being a collective, cf. כָּל־הָאִישׁ 2 S 15, all men, כָּל־הַכֵּן Ex 1 all sons, כָּל־הַבַּת all daughters; in itself כָּל־הָֽאָרָם could also mean the whole man.
- ↑ In Ezr 10 instead of בַּכֹּל אֲנָשִׁים read simply בְּכָל־הָֽאֲנָשִׁים.
- ↑ According to Philippi (st. constr., p. 38) בית־אל is rather a case of ‘sub-position’ in the accusative, as also הַדֶּ֫רֶךְ חֶתְלוֹן Ez 47 (for which, however, in 48:1 there is the correct reading דֶּ֫רֶךְ חֶתְלוֹן) by the way to Hethlon; and in fact, Ez 47 may without difficulty be explained in this way; so שֵׁשׁ Ex 39 as an accusative of the material.
- ↑ Very rare, and only possible in very rapid utterance, are such exceptions as Ez 31 (מִבְחַר וְטֽוֹב־לְבָנוֹן); Pr 16.—In Is 11 the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord, דַּעַ֫ת may at any rate also be taken as an absolute genitive, so also סֵ֫פֶר Dn 1.
- ↑ In ψ 114 a second genitive is added even without the copula, but the parallelism of the members renders any misunderstanding impossible.
- ↑ In almost all these instances the two (or three) genitives form one closely connected whole, as heaven and earth, sons and daughters.
- ↑ Halévy, J. A. xiv. 548, removes the difficulty by pointing עַרְכֹּךְ.
- ↑ The latter term is preferred especially by König, Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1898, p. 528 ff.
- ↑ Cf. in Latin a similar use of the genitive after iniuria (Caes. B. G. 1, 30), metus (hostium, Pompeii, &c.), spes, and other words. In Greek, cf. εὔνοια τῶν φίλων, πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, 1 Cor. 1:18.
- ↑ In the almost entire absence of corresponding adjectives (אָרוּז made of cedar, a denominative from אֶ֫רֶז, and נָחוּשׁ brazen are the only examples), the language regularly has recourse to the above periphrasis. On the form qāṭûl, as expressing an inherent property, cf. § 50 f; cf. also the proper name, בַּרְזִלַּי ferreus.
- ↑ On the other hand, in such passages as Is 36 (2 K 18), Zc 14, Ec 8, &c., there is no apparent reason why the Masora requires the construct state instead of the absolute; hence חֵיל Is 36 and גֵּיא Zc 14 must be intended as forms of the absolute state, shortened in consequence of their close connexion.
- ↑ Cf. the Latin integer vitae scelerisque purus; tristes animi, &c.
- ↑ Cf. the σχῆμα Κολοφώνιον in Greek, e.g. ἡ κεφαλὴ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ for τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 88). The Arab grammarians distinguish a twofold genitive, one of which may be resolved by לְ, and the other by מִן [see Wright’s Arabic Grammar, vol. ii, § 75 ff.]. The de of the Romance languages is a development of the latter idea; the Gascon, however, says e.g. la fille à Mr. N., laying stress upon the idea of belonging to and not that of origin, as in la fille de... of the literary language.
- ↑ In New Hebrew שֶׁל (derived from שֶׁלְּ = אֲשֶׁר לְ, see § 36, and cf. Ct 1, 3 שֶׁלִּי, שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה) is used like the simple relative דִּי, דְּ in Aramaic, as an independent sign of the genitive.
- ↑ Cf. König, ‘Die Ueberwucherung des St.-constr.-Gebrauchs im Semit.,’ ZDMG. 53, 521 ff.
- ↑ In Ju 8 the article is even used before a construct state followed by בְּ, in order to determine the whole combination שְׁכוּנֵי בָֽאֳהָלִים tent-dwellers, taken as one word; cf., however, the remarks in § 127 f–i on similar grammatical solecisms.
- ↑ These are to be distinguished from the cases where לְ follows a construct state, which in conjunction with מִן (and the following לְ) has become a sort of preposition or adverb of place; thus, we have מִבֵּית־לְ Ex 26 (for which in Ez 1 merely בֵּית לְ) meaning simply within; מִימִין לְ (2 K 23, Ez 10) on the right hand (i.e. south) of; מִצְּפוֹן לְ (Jos 8, 13, &c., Ju 2) on the north of; cf. also Jos 15 and לִפְנֵי מִן Neh 13.
- ↑ In Dt 23 the construct state governs a sentence introduced by the conjunction אֲשֶׁר (עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר by reason of the fact that, i.e. because); so also in 1 S 3.
- ↑ Probably Gn 22 is also to be so explained (contrary to the accents), and certainly (contrary to the very unnatural division of the verses) 2 Ch 30, which should read on thus: יְהֹוָה הַמּוֹב יְכַפֵּר בְּעַד כָּל־לְבָבוֹ הֵכִין the good Lord pardon every one that setteth his heart to seek God. [See Wickes’ Accontuation of the Twenty-one Prose Books of the Old Testament, p. 140.]
- ↑ Cf. Na 2 מִימֵי הִיא, usually explained to mean from the days that she hath been, but the text is evidently very corrupt.
- ↑ So also Is 28 a corner stone of the preciousness (יִקְרַת is a substantive not an adjective) of a fixed foundation, i.e. a precious corner stone of surest foundation.—In 2 S 20 the text is wholly corrupt; in ψ 119 read כָּל־פִּקּוּדֶ֫יךָ.
- ↑ On certain uses of apposition peculiar to the Semitic languages, cf. the exhaustive discussion by Fleischer, ‘Ueber einige Arten der Nominalapposition im Arab.’ (Kleine Schriften, ii. 16); [and see also Driver, Tenses, Appendix IV.]
- ↑ Unless it is to be translated thou gavest us intoxication to drink as wine (and so in 1 K 22 give him affliction to eat as bread, &c.); cf. ψ 80 and the analogous examples of apposition in the form of a second accusative in § 117 kk. Moreover, having regard to יַ֫יִן הָרֶ֫קַח spiced wine, Ct 8, and עַ֫יִד פֶּ֫רֶא a wild ass’s colt, Jb 11 (in which passages יַ֫יִן and עַ֫יִר must certainly be in the construct state) we cannot but ask whether the Masora does not intend the יַ֫יִן in ψ 60 to be taken as construct state (for which elsewhere יֵין).
- ↑ Cf. also the examples treated above in § 127 h.
- ↑ On the anomalous form כִּכְּרַ֫יִם (instead of כִּכָּרַ֫יִם; cf. כִּכָּרָ֑יִם immediately before), see § 88 b.
- ↑ In 1 K 11 participles after לְכָל־נָשָׂיו, as in 2 K 10 after אֶת־גְּדֹלֵי הָעִיר, in 19:2 after a determinate accusative, and in Hag 1 after בְּבָֽתֵּיכֶם, are used without the article; these, however, are probably to be explained not as in apposition, but according to § 118 p.
- ↑ But מַ֫יִם Gn 6 (cf. 7:6) is to be regarded as a later gloss upon the archaic מַבּוּל.
- ↑ For וַיְשַׁנּוֹ 1 S 21 either’ וַיְשַׁנֶּה is to be read or the Kethîbh is to be explained according to § 75 b, note. Also יִלְכְּדֻנוֹ Pr 5 has hardly preserved the correct form.
- ↑ But in Is 17 we should certainly divide the words differently and read בִּסְעִפֵי הַפֹּֽרִיָּה, in Jer 48 read אֵלֶּה for אֵלֶ֫יהָ, and in Pr 14 אַֽחֲרִית הַשִּׂמְחָה; in Gn 2 נֶ֫פֶשׁ חַיָּה is a late gloss upon לוֹ, and in Ez 41 אֶל־דַּלְתוֹת הַֽהֵיבָל a gloss on אֲלֵיהֶן.
- ↑ Some of the examples given above are textually (or exegetically) doubtful, whilst in the case of others, especially those from the later Books, we cannot help asking whether such a prolepsis of the genitive by means of a suffix (as e.g. Ez 10) is not due to the influence of Aramaic, in which it is the customary idiom; cf. Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Biblisch-Aram., § 81 e and § 88.
- ↑ In ψ 69 חִנָּם (like שֶׁ֫קֶר in a false way, falsely, ψ 35 and 38:20) is used as an adverbial accusative with a participle; cf. § 118 q.
- ↑ But in Nu 25 שָׁלוֹם may also be explained, according to c, as really in apposition. Cf. on the whole question Delitzsch, Psalmen, 4th ed., p. 203, note 1.
- ↑ Without this assumption it would be inconceivable that יהוה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת should not have been written; that the anther of these Psalms regarded צְבָאֹוֹת already as an independent name of God (so Gesenius and Olshausen) is out of the question.
- ↑ On the expression of attributive ideas by substantives, cf. above, § 127 h, and § 128 o, with the note; § 135 n and § 141 c (substantives for adjectives as predicates of noun-clauses) and § 152 u (periphrases for negative qualities). On the use of the feminine of adjectives (and participles) to express abstract ideas, see § 122 q. It remains to mention further the employment (mostly only in poetry) of certain epithets in place of the substantives to which the quality in question belongs; e.g. אָבִיר the strong one, i.e. God; אַבִּיר the strong one, i.e. the bull (in Jer 8, &c., the horse); קַל swift=the runner (of the horse, Is 30); לְבָנָה alba, i.e, luna; פֹּֽרִיָּה (fructifera) a fruitful tree, Is 17 (so פֹּרָת Gn 49); רֹבֵץ a croucher, i.e. a crouching beast of prey, Gn 4. Cf. also רֹזֵן (gravis, augustus) and נָשִׂיא (elatus ?), i.e. a prince. The use of adjectives and participles for substantives is much more extensive in Arabic. In Greek and Latin poetical language cf. such examples as ὑγρή = the sea; merum for vinum, &c.
- ↑ But it is impossible to take תְּמִימִם in Ez 46 as an attribute of בָּקָר; probably it is a correction intended to harmonize the passage with Nu 28 where two young bullocks are required.
- ↑ Cf. 1 S 28, where אֱלֹהִים (in the sense of a spirit) is followed by עֹלִים as a second accusative; conversely in 1 S 19, 16, a singular suffix refers back to תְּרָפִים household god (but not so in Gn 31), as in ψ 46 to the plural of amplification יַמִּים sea. On the other hand, it is very doubtful whether רַבָּה ψ 78 is to be regarded as an attribute of תְּהֹמוֹת and not rather as the adverb, abundantly.
- ↑ There is in Arabic a special form of the adjective (the elative) for the comparative and superlative, which in Hebrew would have the form אַקְטָל. Instances of it, perhaps, are אַכְזָר daring, cruel, אַכְזָב deceptive (of a brook drying up), and its opposite אֵיתָן (contracted from ʾaitan) constantly flowing, perennis. These forms are, however, used without any perceptible emphasis, and cannot be regarded as more than isolated relics of an elative formation which has become obsolete, much as the Latin comparative disappears in Italian, and still more so in French, and is supplanted by the circumlocution with più, plus.
- ↑ In Ju 11 the adjective is specially intensified by repetition, art thou so much better than Balak? It would also be possible, however, to translate art thou really better ...?
- ↑ Cf. the Latin ablative with the comparative; also the etymology of such words as eximius, egregius, and the Homeric ἐκ πάντων μάλιστα, Il. 4, 96; ἐκ πασρ́ων, 18, 431.
- ↑ On the other hand, the phrase צָדַק מִן־ expresses not a comparison, but only a relation existing between one person and another; thus, in Gn 38 צָֽדְקָה מִמֶּ֫נִּי means, she is in the right as against me; cf. ψ 139, Jb 4, 32.—In Pr 17 rather (to meet with so and so) than... is expressed by וְאַל־ before the second member.
- ↑ Cf. also 2 K 4, where the idea of doing something too little is paraphrased by the Hiph. הִמְעִיט = do not too little, sc. לִשְׁאֹל in borrowing empty vessels.
- ↑ With this comparatio decurtata, cf. the still bolder pregnant construction in ψ 4, מֵעֵת greater gladness than at the time, &c.
- ↑ Cf. also עֶלְיוֹן the one above, i.e. the Most High.
- ↑ God of gods, and Lord of lords, just as the supreme god of the Babylonians is called bēl bēlī (Tiele, Compend. der Rel.-Gesch., p. 87).
- ↑ Adverbs of the same stem are connected in this way in Nu 6, Is 29, 30; of different stems in Is 5 and Jo 4. In Nu 12 the particles רַק אַךְ appear to be placed together for a similar purpose, equivalent to simply and solely.
- ↑ Different in kind from the triple utterance of the same words in 2 S 18, Jer 7 and 22:29, and the double exclamation in Jer 4 and La 1 (?).
- ↑ Cf. § 97 a, where it is shown that the masculine is the original form of the numerals (used for both genders), and that the feminine was afterwards differentiated and used with masc. nouns, primarily in the second decade and then in the first as well.
- ↑ From Herner’s tables (op. cit., pp. 55–66) it appears, according to p. 68, that in the documents J, E, D of the Pentateuch, and in Jos 1–12, Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Megilloth, and Job, the numeral never, or very rarely, stands after its noun; in Kings and Ezekiel it stands several times after; in the Priestly Code nearly always after; in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, nearly as often after as before the noun. In Ex 28 the Masora makes the numeral in the genitive follow the construct state of the substantive numbered; we should, however, read וְאֶת־שֵׁמוֹת הַשִּׁשָּׁה; for the omission of the article before שׁ׳, cf. § 126 w.
- ↑ On examples such as Gn 46 (נֶָפֶשׁ שְׁנָ֑֫יִם two souls), cf. § 132 g (collectives joined with the plural of the adjective).
- ↑ Somewhat different from this is Ex 19 be ready לִשְׁל֫שֶׁת יָמִים prop. after three days, i.e. on the third day (in verses 11 and 16 and in Ezr 10 the ordinal is used), also 1 S 30 כִּי חָלִיתִי הַיּוֹם שְׁלשָׁה because three days agone I fell sick, prop. to-day three (days).
- ↑ All these expressions may indeed be explained by supposing that, e.g. in Lv 25, the proper meaning is the year of the fifty years which it completed, i.e. the fiftieth year; but it is more correct to regard שְׁנַת or בִּשְׁנַת in such cases not as a real nomen regens, but simply as a connective form to be explained on the analogy of the cases mentioned in § 128 k.
- ↑ But בְּאַחַת Nu 10 is to be translated on one (trumpet).
- ↑ Probably also כִּפְלַ֫יִם Jb 11 (from כֶּ֫פֶל doubling) does not mean doubled but manifold.
- ↑ But אַרְבַּע הַיָּדוֹת Gn 47 means the (other) four parts; cf. 2 K 11, Neh 11.
- ↑ Also הוּא, הִיא he himself, she herself (of persons and things), e.g. Is 7 אֲדֹנָי הוּא the Lord himself; Est 9 הַיְּהוּדִים הֵ֫מָּה the Jews themselves. In the sense of the same (ὁ αὐτός) or (one and) the same, הוּא is used in Is 41, 43, 13, 46:4, 48:12 (always אֲנִי הוּא), ψ 102 (אַתָּה הוּא), and probably also Jb 3.—The position of הֵ֫מָּה, as an accusative of the object, before a perfect in 1 Ch 9, can at most be explained on the analogy of Aramaic (Ezr 5).
- ↑ As early as the Mêšaʿ inscription (line 21 ff.) אנך frequently stands at the beginning of a new sentence after the dividing stroke.
- ↑ Analogous to this is the resumption of a noun dependent on a preposition, by means of a pronominal suffix united with the same preposition, e.g. Gn 2, 2 S 6, 2 K 22, or of an object by means of the nota accusativi את with suffix, e.g. 1 S 15 (where וְנִמְאֶ֫סֶת is certainly to be read), Is 8.
- ↑ As in Luther’s Bible jm (ihm), jr (ihr) for sich, and in our version him, her for himself, herself.
- ↑ Niphʿal according to § 51 e (like Hithpaʿēl according to § 54 f) may also include the dative of the reflexive pronoun.
- ↑ Like the substantival genitive, according to § 129 h, the possessive pronoun may also be paraphrased by a relative clause, e.g. Ru 2 הַנְּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר לִי the young men, which are to me, i.e. my young men; so especially, when the substantive, which should take a genitive suffix, is already followed by a genitive, e.g. 1 S 17. In this case, however, the suffix also is sometimes attached pleonastically, e.g. Ct 1 כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי my vineyard, which belongs to me. Cf. Ct 3, and the analogous pleonasms in 2 S 22 (but see ψ 18) and ψ 27.
- ↑ On the other hand, more explicitly in prose, Gn 44 אֶת־גְּבִיעִי גְבִיעַ הַכֶּ֫כֶף my cup, the silver cup.
- ↑ According to Diehl (see the title at the head of § 91 a), who adduces numerous instances on pp. 44 ff., 54 ff., 67 f., many of these cases may be set down to corruption of the traditional text, while the sudden (and sometimes repeated) change of gender in suffixes is mainly due to the influence exercised on the copyists by the Mishnic and popular Aramaic dialects, neither of which recognizes such distinctions. Such influence, however, is insufficient to explain the large number of instances of this weakening, occurring even in the earlier documents.
- ↑ The Masora reckons six instances of מִמֶּ֫נּוּ, where מִמֶּ֫נָּה would be expected (Ju 11, where, however, the text is most probably corrupt), Ex 25 (?), Lv 6, 7, 27, Jos 1; almost all these passages can, however, be easily explained in other ways.
- ↑ In 2 K 7 for שֹׁעֵר (the LXX had שַׁ֫עַר) read שֹֽׁעֲרֵי.
- ↑ Cf. the same weakening of the force of the possessive pronoun in רַבִּי prop. my master, from the second century A.D. onwards the master; so also in Syriac מרי my lord, and ultimately as a title the lord; in Italian Madonna, French Madame, Notre Dame, Monsieur, Monseigneur, &c. It can, however, hardly be doubted that the regular distinction between אֲדֹנָי as a holy name, and אֲדֹנִי as an ordinary appellative is merely due to the practice of the later Rabbis. G. H. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte (Berlin, 1889), in an exhaustive discussion, shows that apart from the book of Daniel and the eight critically doubtful passages, in which אדני is used by God himself, there is nowhere any necessity to regard the suffix as entirely meaningless, since אדני is always used either in an address to or (like אֲדֹנִי, which also is never a mere phrase or title) in reverent language about God—as the Lord of the speaker—like the Assyrian bēli-ia, my lord. Against any original distinction between אֲדֹנָי and אֲדֹנִי it may be urged especially that when unconnected with suffixes the singular אָדוֹן is always used of God, and not the pluralis maiestatis presupposed by אֲדֹנָי.
- ↑ On זֶה and הוּא standing separately as determinate in themselves, see § 125 i. On the use of determinate demonstratives as adjectives, see § 126 u.
- ↑ On the other hand, it is very questionable whether זֶה in ψ 104 (זֶה הַיָּם), Is 23 (זֶה הָעָם), Ju 5, ψ 68 (זֶה סִינַי) can be taken, according to the common explanation, simply as a prefixed demonstrative particle (the sea yonder, &c.). In ψ 104 הַיָּם may be in apposition to זֶה; cf. § 126 aa, on Ex 32, and Zc 5, where אִשָּׁה אַחַת is in apposition to זֹאת depending on הִנֵּה, and also Ez 40, where הַלִּשְׁכָּה is in apposition to זֹה; otherwise it is most naturally taken as the subject, this is the sea. Is 23, Ju 5, 1 K 14, and ψ 68 might also be explained in the same way; but in these passages the text is almost certainly corrupt. In Ju 5 in fact זֶה סִינַי is most probably to be regarded with Moore as a very early gloss, which subsequently found its way from this passage into Ps 68.