^ vri.'\-v*j^
B M 4^fl DDE
ZJ^C
TTbc XDlnivcrsiti? of CbicaQO
THE HEBREW PARTICLE ^ 125 i<
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS
AND LITERATURE IN CANDLDACY FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(department of SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES)
BY
CARL GAENSSLE
OF T"^
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Agriita
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON AND EDINBURGH
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO
KARL W. HIERSEMANN
LEIPZIG
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY
NEW iOEK
Zbc mmvcxsit^ of Cbicago
THE HEBREW PARTICLE ^ ^ «
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS
AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(department of SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES)
BY
CARL GAENSSLE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Published March 1915
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicagro Press
Chicago. Illinois. U.S.A.
^Tu'u,
CONTENTS
Part I. 'HIIJS as a Nota Relationis^
A. The Etymology of "illj^^
PAGE
a) Various Etymological Theories 7
1. Reference to Older Theories as to the Relation between "1123 Ji and llj .
2. Recent Theories.
3. Theory of the Priority of mijj^ . The View of Ewald.
4. Theory of the Priority of 125 •
5. The Views of Boettcher and Wright.
6. Theory of the Substantive Origin of ni2J5< .
b) Theory of the Common Pronominal Origin of I'Cs and T2J
Examined 9
7- 8. General Objections.
9-10. Criticism of Ewald's View.
11-14. Criticism of Boettcher's View.
15-18. Criticism of SperUng's View.
c) The Substantive Origin of ^IIJN 19
19-24. Traces of Substantive Origin in the Adverbial Use of 112JJ5 .
25-32. The Adverbial Use of "I12J5< without Analogy in the Demon-
stratives of Other Semitic Dialects.
33-39. The Close Analogy between lllit^ and the Assyrian a s a r .
40. Objection against the Substantive Origin of "lllJS Con-
sidered.
41-45. Analogies from Other Languages.
B. The Syntactic Relation of llljj^
a) Criticism of Baumann's Theory 32
46-50. Baumann's Theory of the Syntax of IIIJS .
51-53. Baumann's Theory Involves the Assumption That Two
Successive Demonstratives May Belong to the Same Ante-
cedent.
54. A Point of Difference between the Relative Use of HT and
?1T, and nt2J5< •
55-57. Comparison with Other Semitic Dialects.
58-61. *T;25s Following Demonstratives Used Alone.
b) Substantive Relative Clauses 41
1 Cf. sec. 39, note.
3
30B176
4 Caul (Jaenssle
PAGE
1. Substantive Relative Cla^ises as Subject
62. Syntactic Position of I^S according to Boettcher-Baumann
and Gcscnius-Kautzsch Grammar.
63-05. Objections against This View.
2. Substantive Relative Clauses as Object
66. Examples Illnstrating Baumann's Theory.
67-68. Objections against the Theory. Importance Attached to
nj< Preceding TOiK •
69. Object Relative Clauses without flS •
3. Substantive Relative Clauses Depending on a Preposition
70. Clauses with -llTN •
71. Clauses without "|^^^ .
4. Relative Clauses in Construct State
72. Clauses with lllj^ •
73. Clauses without TJJX .
c) "IllJN A Vague Medium of Relation 50
74-76. Used as a Connective Indicating Neither a Relative Nor a
Conjunctional Subordination.
77. Does the Duty of a Partitive Genitive.
78. Takes the Place of an Accusative of Result.
79. Expresses Attendant Circumstance.
80. Expresses Means ( ?) .
81. Dispenses with Adjuncts Ordinarily Employed.
82. After Time-Determinations.
d) "iuJ5< IN Clauses of Specification 55
83-86. IllJJi-Clauses the Equivalent of an Accustive of Specification.
e) Miscellaneous 58
87. "!irs with an Entire Sentence as Antecedent.
88. Construed Like the Indo-European Relative.
89. Attraction of Antecedent. Satzverflechtung.
90. Relative Clause Precedes Antecedent.
91. Removed from Antecedent by Intervening Words.
92. Continues an Idea Begun by a Participle.
/) The Retrospective Complement 63
93-96. Weakness of Baumann's View Regarding the Syntactic
Importance of the 'Aid.
97. View of Konig as to the Origin of the 'Aid .
98-100. Erroneous Statements of Gesenius-Kautzsch Grammar
with Reference to the Suppression of the 'Aid.
The Hebrew Particle ^TTN 5
PAGE
Part II. The Conjunctional Use of ^i:JJ< and Its
Compounds
o) 1i2J>5 Used Alone 'j^
101- 2. General Remarks.
103. n^^s in Subject Clauses.
104- 6. In Object Clauses.
107. In Causal Clauses.
108- 9. In Causal Relative Clauses.
110-11. In Pure Final Clauses.
112. In Complementary Final Clauses.
113. In Final Relative Clauses.
114. In Consecutive Clauses.
115. In a Complementary Consecutive Clause.
116. In Consecutive Relative Clauses.
117. In Conditional Clauses.
118-34. In Conditional Relative Clauses.
135-38. In Explicative Clauses.
139. In Concessive Clauses.
140. In Concessive Relative Clauses.
141. In Temporal Clauses.
142-43. In Modal Clauses.
144. niljj^ RecUativum.
b) llTJi IN Compounds 105
145-47. n'JJS as a Rule Dispensed with. 3 and IlIJJ^S •
"I"12JN5 i>i Comparative Clauses
148-54. niSjiS Equivalent to "According to That Which," the
niZJN Retaining Its Force as a Relative Particle.
155-57. "ll2Ji<D Equivalent to "According to the Fact or Circum-
stance That," the "112JS Revealing Its Conjunctional Force.
158. "ItlJNS Introducing an Assumed Comparison.
159. Equivalent to quo .... [eo].
160-61. In Temporal Clauses.
162. In Causal Clauses.
163. As a Causal Conjunction.
'\'m by
164-65. Causal.
166. Used Concessively.
167. Causal.
Carl Gaenssle
168-69. Emphatically Causal.
^^s ^B-by
170. In Proportion to, According as.
171. According as (with Causal Connotation).
172. ^3D Used Alone.
173-74. Used Prevailingly in Divine Threats and Promises.
175, An Unusual Use of.
176-80. External Form in nT2J&< "^-Clauses.
181-82. In Consequence of the Fact That.
^TiJN nnn
183. In Its Primary Sense (Instead of . . . .).
184r-87. In a Causal Sense.
"^ti^ ^^ni< (^nx)
188-89. Strictly Temporal.
190. With Causal Nuance.
191. niZJS nnx Instead of "-nnti .
192. "11235^ Dispensed with.
193. Unusual Forms.
194-95. With Imperfect Denoting Future Action.
196. I^IJN ly and Similar Compounds with Perfect Denoting
Future Action.
197. With Final Connotation.
198-99. With Perfect Denoting Past Action.
200. In the Sense of "To the Point or Degree That."
201. In Nominal Sentences.
202. nb-iS'^Tiiis ly.
203. ly Used Alone.
204- 7. To the End That.
208. Sporadic Cases of Compounds with ^'JJS .
THE HEBREW PARTICLE nTTi^
PART I. nir5< AS A NOT A RELATION IS
A. THE ETYMOLOGY OF llCi^
a) VARIOUS ETYMOLOGICAL THEORIES
1. Since there are two relatives in Hebrew, liTX and IT, of similar
grammatical usage, it is quite natural that grammarians have sought
to trace them to a common origin. The older attempts, referred
to by Sperling, 1 to trace both to verbal roots are so manifestly arbi-
trary and artificial that we shall not waste time in mentioning or
discussing them.
2. In recent times other theories have been offered. According
to some scholars I'^TX and '13 look to a common pronominal root,
while others hold that there is no etymological relation between the
two, ^ only being regarded as pronominal in character, while I^S
is derived from a substantive.
3. Among those again who maintain the pronominal derivation
of both particles there is no agreement as to how the two distinct
forms arose. Some scholars hold that "I'^TJ^ is the original form
of which ID is said to be a mutilated fragment. Olshausen says,
for example, that the form IT is a remnant of "^ITX by the elision of
5< and the assimilation of ^ to the consonant of the following word.^
So also Gesenius, who calls '^T a forma decurtata of "^ITS.' With this
1 Die nota relationis im Hebraischen (Leipzig, 1876).
2 Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache (Braunschweig, 1861), p. 439.
8 Carl (^iaensslp:
view nuiy Ix' classed tlic theory of Ewald, inasmuch as ho also assigns
the priority to 1T&<, although he gives his own explanation of the
origin of this form. In the opinion of this great scholar ^oii^ is
made up of three demonstrative elements, "JJ ( = ri, 1, T), b, and S<,
resulting in the form b'iS, analogous to the Arabic ^jJi- From
this boJS arose the form I'i'i^ through the hardening of the b, while
the "t23 is sui)i)osed to be due to the assimilation of b and the rejection
of S.i
4. Others, as indicated, reverse the relation between the two
particles, assigning the priority to ^, of which the form ^^^^< is sup-
posed to be an extended formation. Sperling devotes many pages
to the elaboration of his theory of a progressive development from
an original 'J3 through the Phoenician "i2Ji<(ir) to the final "il2J5< in
Hebrew. He, too, in common with Ewald, holds that "l^5< is due
to the hardening of b in blTt^ to 1. Thus, while accepting the
Ewaldian form h'<Li^, Sperling contends that this blCX represents
the final stage in the development of 123, while it is the original ground-
form according to Ewald. Konig, in the first volume of his elabo-
rate grammar, favored the view of Boettcher, which derives both 123
and I'kL'i^ from an original bl23, and regards i< as merely prosthetic. -
In the second volume of the same work, however, he abandoned
this view in favor of an original b'l23^^ , laying, in common with Sper-
ling, great stress on the importance of the Phoenician 123i< as the con-
necting link between 123 and ^123J<.3 Substantially the same view is
held by Baumann,'* Philippic ("das "I123!J< wird demnach bl23i< gelautet
haben"), and others.
5. Boettcher, as already stated, takes a different position.
Regarding Ewald's bl23i< as being artificially constructed {kunstlich
konstruiert) , he substituted for it the simpler bl23, analogous to
bn, as the ground-form both of 123 and of "I123S, the &^ being pros-
thetic.^ Wright, while not taking a definite position, inclines toward
' Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, 8. Ausg. (Gottingen, 1870), § ISlt
= Hislorisch-krit. Lehrgeb. der hebr. Sprache (Leipzig, 1881), I, 140.
' Op. cit., II. 323 f.
• Hebrilische Relativsatze (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 42 f.
• Status conatructus im Hebraischen (Weimar, 1871), pp. 72 f.
• Ausfahrliches Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache (Leipzig, 1866). II. SI
The Hebrew Particle "ilIJ^^ 9
the views of Ewald or Boettcher, because he prefers to "seek the
origm of the relative pronoun somewhere in the region of the
demonstratives."^
6. The difficulties with which these views are encumbered have
led many scholars to regard the attempt to trace the two Hebrew
relatives to a common etymological source as futile. They deny
that there is any etymological relationship between them, the longer
particle being in their opinion originally a substantive signifying
place, the Hebrew equivalent of the Assyrian a s r u , the Arabic
Jt , the Aramaic "^rii^ , ii] . Among the defenders of the sub-
stantive origin of I'^TJ^ are Fleischer, Muhlau,^ Friedrich Delitzsch,^
Hommel,^ Stade^ (who though assuming the substantive character
of "l^&5 still considers iT as a remnant of the longer particle), W. R.
Harper,^ Kraetzschmar,^ Zimmern,^ and, recently, Brockelmann.^
And the writer of this thesis will endeavor to show in the following
pages that this is the only tenable theory. On the other hand, the
grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch suspends its judgment with regard
to the matter ("Die Etymologie ist noch immer streitig," § 138).
b) THEORY OF THE COMMON PRONOMINAL ORIGIN OF "IITJJ^
AND "iT EXAMINED
7. Let US now examine the various views represented by those
scholars who seek to uphold the common pronominal derivation of
the two particles. In general, it may be said at the outset that
there is little or no noticeable resemblance between "iir'5< and 125
beyond the bare fact that the letter W forms an element in ^ITi^ .
» Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Cambridge University Press, 1890),
p. 118.
- Cf. Boettcher, op. cit., II, 79, note.
» Prolegomena (Leipzig, 1886), p. 44. note.
4 ZDMG, XXXII, 100 f.
6 Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache (Leipzig, 1879), p. 133.
« Elements of Hebrew (Scribner, 1906), p. 63.
' "The Origin of the nota relationis in Hebrew," Hebraica, VI (1890), 296 t.
8 V ergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Berlin, 1898), p. 77.
• Ibid. (Berlin, 1908). § 109 g and (3.
10 C'ahl (Iaknssle
This alone might seem to precliuU^ the j^ossihiUty of finding a com-
mon origin for both by any other than artificial combinations. How-
ever, it is a fact well known to linguistic science that words are often
mutilated and disfigured beyond immediate recognition in the course
of their history. Assuming then the priority of 1"^X , there may,
after all, be no a priori reason why "d should not be a mere remnant
of the earlier complete form, though such a radical change in the
physiognomy of a word would certainly represent about the utmost
limit in the process of phonetic decay. But similar changes have
actually occurred in other languages. We can hardly recognize
the Low Latin aetaticum in the English word "age," nor the Latin
demonstrative ille in the enclitical I of the Roumanian homul (homo
ille), yet they belong etymologically together. However, such
phenomena do not warrant the assumption that the same thing has
happened with "luIJi , for the reason that 123 meets us simultaneously
with "i^S , already in the earlier stages of the language, whereas the
examples referred to above represent the result of a long process of
decay, the shorter forms not being found side by side with the full
and unimpaired originals. We are, of course, well aware that *v23 is
emplo3^ed much more extensively in the later literature than in the
earlier. But the fact remains that it is also found, though with less
frequency, in the earUer writings, e.g., in the song of Deborah, which
is by many regarded as the oldest monument of biblical Hebrew.
Nor need we doubt that the pronominal IT is contained as an
element in such compound names as byjlT^np (Gen. 4:18), and
bX'iJr;; (Exod. 6:21); perhaps also in DB'iS (Gen. 6:3). These
facts are very troublesome for the theory of common origin.
8. Moreover, a glance at the corresponding forms in other Semitic
languages clearly shows that a3 is etymologically independent of
"I'i'S . It is now generally agreed that all undoubted Semitic rela-
tives^ (originally demonstratives) are traceable to the two demon-
strative roots ta and da, the "lisped dentals forming part of the
'protosemitic' stock of sounds preserved in Arabic alone. "^ From
da are derived the Ethiopie "H , Syriac ? , Aramaic "^ , and the Arabic
' "ITDSH is uot included here.
'Wright, Comparative Grammar, p. 55.
The Hebrew Particle ■i'©i< 11
O in ,^jJt ; while ta (the t passing into s according to the well-
known law of phonetics) is the original of the Assyrian s a , the
Phoenician "JJCvIji^), and the Hebrew "oJ . This theory, while avoid-
ing all precarious combinations, which must arise from every attempt
to connect oJ with "^'^TX , has the merit of assigning to the Hebrew oJ
a natural and fitting place in Semitic in accordance with well-
established phonetic laws.
9. But let us now examine the various views of a common pro-
nominal origin more in detail. First, those which assign the priority
to 1uC5< . Since Olshausen contents himself with the bare state-
ment that "JJ is the shortened form of loJi^ without attempting any
explanation of the shorter form,^ we shall first take up the theory
of Ewald. The ground-form, says this scholar, is bt235< . Boettcher
rightly objected that this form was "artificially constructed." This
hypothetical ba35< springs, in fact, from the determination to bridge
over, at all hazards, the gulf between iT and "I'^Ti^ . Doubtless no
scholar would ever have thought of resorting to such a desperate
expedient, if the common pronominal origin of the two particles
were not a foregone conclusion. But assuming bxb^ to have been
the parent both of "*2J and of I^TJ^ , it would be rather singular, to
say the least, that the supposed original should exhibit such diametri-
cally opposite tendencies in its development. On the one hand, the
b hardens into ~ , and the entire form in this new shape steadily
and stubbornly maintains its independent existence throughout the
entire period of the language. On the other, the initial X disappears
entirely, b disappears through assimilation, and the remaining
fragment leans on the following word for support. We contend
that this militates against all the laws of language. How can we
conceive this twofold process going on at the same time and leading
in exactly opposite directions ? If the assumed b'JJX showed a pro-
pensity to surrender its independence and, by the rejection of 1!<
and the assimilation of b , become a procHtic of the succeeding word,
the origin of 1"^5< from the same b'oJK and its steadfast continuance
beside the shorter form become inexpUcable.
10. As for the b in \)Z^ , this is gratuitously assumed by Ewald
in order to find, what he thought, an adequate explanation for the
> Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, p. 439.
12 Carl Gaenssle
daghesli forte after -'^ . Ewald starts out from the theory that the
(laghesh necessarily impHes the assimilation of a preceding letter,
but this view is without foundation, as Sperling correctly objects,
the daghesh being frequently found where assimilation is out of the
question. The daghesh after 1 consecutive, in TV3^ , {1533 , and
very likely also in such combinations as n;TTl?J , HMTI*^ , '^'TTC
are cases in point. The sharpening here takes place in order to
strengthen the preceding vowel. I say "very likely also" with
reference to the daghesh after • 'TV2 . It is true that Wright,^ follow-
ing Boettcher, thinks that an easy explanation for the daghesh is
here found in the fact that IT'J goes back to an original mant, which,
passing successively through the intermediate stages of matt, mat,
math, mah (n7J), finally assumed the form with an open syllable
(n*^) . But the very existence of the final form ITTJ with a quiescent
n is fatal to the foregoing explanation of the daghesh. If the develop-
ment of the original ma7it had not proceeded beyond math or mah
(ri"^), in other words, if it had stopped at a point where the
form still represented a closed syllable, the following daghesh might
easily be explained on the principle of assimilation. But it went
one degree farther, so that the original consonantal ending wore
away entirely. Consequently the daghesh in the following word
must be explained on other grounds than assimilation. There can
be no doubt that the daghesh is intended to strengthen and preserve
the preceding vowel. Nor can the daghesh after the Hebrew article
be urged in favor of Ewald's view with respect to the doubling after
• 'Z . The once prevalent idea that the Hebrew article • H involves
the assimilation of b , making the original bn identical with the
Arabic J^ , Jl , cannot be upheld. Barth has conclusively shown
that the Hebrew article corresponds to the Arabic be r At all events,
there is no inherent necessity for assuming the assimilation of b
or any other letter to account for the daghesh forte as in -IT . Thus
Ewald's whole theory, besides being extremely labored and artificial
in itself, is also deprived of this imaginary support, and the probability
of its correctness is reduced to a minimum.
11. Passing on to Boettcher's theory, we do not see that it carries
us any farther toward a satisfactory solution of the difficulties con-
' Comparatire Grammar, p. 124. s AJSL, XIII (1896), 1 f.
The Hebrew Particle *112Ji5 13
nected with "vT and "IITS than the view of Ewald. As is well known,
Boettcher assumes an original b'^T , a by-form of bn , which, by the
accession of a prosthetic i< and the hardening of b into "i , resulted in
"11235^ , while at the same time the assumed b gave, as before, a con-
venient explanation for the daghesh as in • T2J . But the principal
objection against Ewald's theory also applies here. If the original
was blT , it is not easy to understand how on the one hand the form
should tend to grow and strive after independence by taking on the
X and hardening its b into ^ , while on the other hand it should so
weaken as to become a feeble proclitic of the following word. This
blT owes its origin to nothing else than the fiat of its author, who
postulated it as an open-sesame in the effort to derive 123 and ^oJS
from a common source. There is nothing that corresponds with
bl23 in any Semitic tongue. A posteriori Boettcher looks around
and finds an abundant variety of "proofs" for the correctness of his
view. Foremost among these is the fact that the spiritus asper (h)
and s (sh) are found in some instances to correspond in Semitic.
Boettcher calls attention to such forms as nztlboJ and VOTl^Ti ,
bbyjj and vb^n ; also to similar phenomena in Indo-European,
e.g., aXXo^iat and salio, aXs and sal. But apart from the fact that
in so doing he is plainly begging the question, there is no undoubted
instance of such interchange between !! and 'Z in Hebrew, the rinnblT
being a shaf el-formation borrowed from the Aramaic.^ As for the
n and 12: of the causative stems, there is as yet no consensus of opinion
among Semitic scholars as regards the mutual relation of these
formations. Some of the most noted Semitists either leave the
matter of their original identity an open question or deny that
such identity ever existed. Zimmern, for example, says with refer-
ence to saqiala and haqtala that it is impossible to decide whether
we have here "two originally separate formations,"- or whether
haqtala is a descendant of saqiala by phonetic change. Brockel-
mann, on the other hand, declares that the prefixes s a , ha, and 'a
cannot be traced to a single ground-form, whence it must be assumed
that they existed side by side in protosemitic.^ Wright, however, it
1 Cf. Gesenius, Handworterbuch, s.v.; also Konig, Lehrgeb. der hebr. Sprache. II, 404.
2 Von Haus aus verschiedene Bildungen; cf. Vergleichende Grammatik der semit.
. Svrachen, p. 88.
• Ibid., pp. 520 f.
14 Carl Gaenssle
is only fair to add, liolds that s and h in these stems were originally
identical, .s having changed into h.^ Thus the theory of Boettcher
is seen to rest on a very slend(>r foundation, so far as this interchange
of n and uj is concerned.
12. But there are other difficulties besetting the Boettcher
theory besides those of phonetics. If 551 is only a by-form of blC ,^
it is not easy to explain why such a by-form should come into exist-
ence at all. Why should not the original b'JJ, a])breviated into -lij,
have sufficed, especially within the same language? Such a duality
of forms is unparalleled within the range of Semitic demonstratives.
The Assyrian has s a as a demonstrative relative, but not a trace of a
corresponding form with h. It also has s u , but not a coexistent by-
form h u . Assuming then that blC was the primary form, we should
expect to find it employed (in its abbreviated form) as the Hebrew
article, and the more so, since, as already stated, there is no inter-
change between "^23 and Tl in Hebrew. Again, if the two forms spring
from a single stock, we should naturally expect to find some trace
of agreement in grammatical usage. But such agreement is nowhere
to be found. IT is never used as an article, while H performs almost
exclusively that function,' a fact that stands in glaring contrast with
the analogy of the causative verbal stems in IT and Tl , which have
practically the same significance.
13. "Die Form "iTTJ^ ," says Boettcher, "hat sich erst mit der
Sonderstellung von blT erhartet."* This is the way in which Boett-
cher conceives the transition from the shorter to the longer form.
blT with a change of the original vowel is supposed to represent
the intermediate stage in the evolution toward ~\'^i^. Thus both
the daghesh after -113 (before the Sonderstellung) and the - in ITTS
were accounted for — but on the impossible assumption that the
same particle simultaneously detached itself from and attached itself
to the succeeding word.^
I Comparative Grammar, pp. 204 f.
^Boettcher calls bC a by-form of bjl. hut taking their original unity for granted,
the reverse of this is the true relation, bllj being the earlier form,
' In a few sporadic instances the Hebrew article, originally a demonstrative, is used
as a relative.
* AusfUhrl. Lehrbuch.. etc.. I, 15.3.
' There is, of course, a form bttj . but this, being modeled on the analogy of the
Aramaic b'^'l , has no connection with'Soettcher's ^XJj .
The Hebrew Particle "i'OS 15
14. Also the supposition that the 5< is merely prosthetic is open
to criticism. The Aleph prostheticon is employed to "lighten the
pronunciation of an unpleasant combination of consonants" (Wright).
In other words, the prosthetic vowel is used on grounds of euphony.
We find it in such words as begin with two consonants, the
first of which is vowelless, e.g., 5i^7S; for yi"iT ; bil^PJ* for
bi'jri . So also in Arabic, Syriac, and bibhcal Aramaic. There
are also numerous analogies in modern languages; cf. in English
special and especial, state and estate; the English stomach and the
French estomac, spirit and esprit; the German sklave and the French
esclave. Also the Greek x^« a-nd exd^s, aairalpco and airalpo)
exemplify the same principle. In all cases, it will be seen, the pre-
fixing of an initial vowel springs from grounds of euphony, the words
beginning with two consonants in immediate juxtaposition. But no
such grounds for the addition of an initial vowel exist in the case
under consideration. A word so easily pronounced and so frequently
used as would be the case with the blT in question would hardly
burden itself with a wholly superfluous prosthetic ^<, especially
since the whole tendency of language in the case of frequently used
particles is rather toward abbreviation than extension.
15. We now come to consider the opposite theory. May not
"^oJi^ be a Weiterhildung of vT without assuming either an b'^^ or a
b 'iT' as the ground-form ? This is, as remarked, the view of SperUng,
which he elaborates with much labor and skill. While Sperling is
unquestionably right in vindicating for the particle 'J2 an original
place in Semitic, he is on very uncertain ground, when he contends that
the original form was '^ . The corresponding Assyrian form sa,
from which the Hebrew particle cannot be etymologically separated,
makes this view extremely improbable, to say the least.^ Kraetzsch-
mar already called attention to the fact that the Assyrian sa had
originally a long vowel, being written sa-a in the syllabaries, though
when employed for literary purposes in the inscriptions it invariably
appears as s a.^ It is to be noted, however, that the long form s a-a
OQCurs frequently in the Amarna Tablets. In Hebrew the long vowel
is found in HFlSir (Judg. 6:17), more frequently, however, -'^ with
1 Konig thijiks that the Hebrew may have occupied a Sonderstellung with reference to
§a; cf. Lehrgeb., II, 323.
2 BA. I. 382.
1(") Carl Gaenssle
tlic short (>ninp; of the vowel jukI the compcusativo (lap;hosh. This also
favors ail orij!;inal long vowol. Rut the coiiimoncst forms of our par-
ticle are • TT ami 'X , even 'Z Ixin^ found. This has led some scholars
to believe that ,. must have i)eeu tlu; original vowel. But besides
the fact, already referred to, that the Assyrian sa-a and §a stand
directly opi>ose<l to this view, the chanpie from a to e is quite common
in Hebrew, and. therefore, the transition from sa to Se constitutes
no such difficulty as, for instance, Kiinip; supposes.' We need only
refer to the ,. of the article before the gutturals n, y, and H; or
to ri- instead of H - , which is found not only before gutturals
(ri'"j;7"r!"2 , "nsrin'n*^ , etc.), but before other consonants as well,
e.g., :i3ri rrZ'by (Isa. l:o), ^TTb n'2 (Jer. 11:15), ni^3^b ri-2 for
"ii'TV2 , and numerous other instances.- The same change is found
in verbal and nominal forms. Cf. "'nbl^oJ with DFlbsiT , and the
segholate forms y^S , "53 , "pp , originally pronounced y^if* , "(33 ,
■pP , as is plainly seen not only from the corresponding Arabic forms
' uf. o^ o^
^J , ^^vA=». , jOY* ) 'lut also from the Hebrew forms with the suffix
"4"^^^ , etc. Cf. also the pausal forms yiX , 'S3 , yp . That the
a in "iC should be weakened into e and even into mere sewa (cf. ^y}'iL
[Eccles. 3:18], corresponding to the Syriac ? and the targumic "H)
is, therefore, quite in accordance with the law of vowel change in
Hebrew.
16. In working out his theory, Sperling lays great stress on the
Phoenician *i*S as constituting the connecting link between ^3 and
""i'S . In this he is followed by Konig, who makes the summary and
categorical statement that the Phoenician form is "in seiner tat-
siichlichen Existenz ein Bindeglied zwischen hebr. "iT und loJi^ ."^
Sperling objects to Ewald's view that it failed to give due recognition
to this supposed intermediate (2JX of the Phoenician. To judge from
the Poeniilus of Plautus, this form seems sometimes to have been
pronounced in two syllables (asse). Such being the case, Sperling
argues, one can see no reason for the rejection of the third consonant
of Ewald's ground-form boIS , least of all in the shape of ^*23S . One
' Lehrgeb.. II, 323.
3 Cf. Stade, Hebrdische Grammatik, p. 130.
« Lehrgeb., II. 323.
The Hebrew Particle "^ISi^ 17
should expect, says Sperling, to find a trace of this final consonant
in Phoenician. Again, if this 1 was in reality as fleeting as the
Phoenician form ol^i is supposed to prove, one would at least expect
to find a form similar to the Phoenician in some passage of the
Hebrew, for it would be singular if "^"^TX, in the course of its history,
should have complete^ passed over the stage of the Phoenician 'ZH^.'^
17. While these remarks expose the weakness of Ewald's theory
with reference to the intermediate stage of the supposed development
or rather decay of the assumed original b"JJ!^, the opposite view put
forward by Sperling himself is beset with similar difficulties.- In
common with Stade, Sperling holds that the Phoenician and the
Hebrew ran a common course in their earlier history, and that later
on they branched out into two distinct languages. The form 'dX
was already in existence before the separation took place. The
Phoenician never developed a fuller form, but the Hebrew completed
the process by adding a third pronominal element, b, thus closing
the open syllable in a3t< . It is more probable, according to Sperling,
that the Hebrew should have made this addition to a form that
was growing from 'J: than that the Phoenician should have cast off
the b of the assumed original bTS. But this theory does not help
us in the least. The stubborn fact remains that only two forms
appear in Hebrew literature with the missing link still to be found.
Whether we accept, with Ewald, the theory of decay from bl2Ji< to '^23,
or, with Sperhng, that of growth from IT to b'JJS, in either case we
have only the beginning and end of the process with a yawning gulf
between. If 'JJS is the immediate precursor of b'JJS or "I'i'X, we
must expect to find some vestige of it in Hebrew. Granting the
correctness of this view, the language has preserved examples of the
earliest and of the latest form. Why not also of the intermediate
form, if such development actually took place? Or are we to sup-
pose that as soon as the Hebrew set out on its independent course of
development the 'iX straightway leaped into an bxii or "i'JIJS with-
out revealing a trace of its former existence ? Thus it will be seen
that Sperling's objection against Ewald's view applies equally to his
own. If Ewald's b'JJS passes into 'JJ without giving due weight to
1 Die " nota relationis" im Hebr., p. 19.
2 It must always be borne in mind that Sperling starts with Tij as the original form.
18 Carl Gaenssle
ITS, Sperling's IT passes at a bound into (1)b'j:S, since the ir5< is
absent when the theory is most sorely in need of it.*
18. The theory of Sperling is found wanting, finally, also in the
last stage of the proposed development. The "1 which is added to
the 'iTS is not a pronominal clement in any Semitic language.-
Sperling frankly confesses that it "admits of no immediate explana-
tion" {"eiiie umnittelhare ErMdrung nicht zuldsst").- To save the
theory, therefore, he is obliged to resort to the expedient of an original
b, thus arriving at the form bwi^, from which Ewald sets out. In
support of this b, Sperling appeals to the interchange of b and "i
in Semitic, e.g., ^"^S and ^byj in biblical Aramaic; nil-T'J and
ri^T'I in Hebrew. Now we might render any further discussion
of this matter unnecessary by simply pointing to the futility of
referring to this possible interchange of b and "i at all, if, as we
beheve we have shown, the unfinished form "JJb^, to which b is
attached, never existed in Hebrew. But granting, for argument's
sake, that the supposed intermediate form '^i^^ actually existed and
that the b was attached to it as a third pronominal element, we
again have a right to demand that the latter show some trace of its
existence. Strictly speaking, the coexistence, within the same lan-
guage, of two forms of a word, one with b, the other with "i, so far
from supporting Sperling's view, rather militates against it. It
shows plainly that the same word may exist under two forms without
the disappearance of the one or the other. Now if there ever had
been such a form as b'lTi^, we might reasonably expect it to have
maintained its existence, even though a by-form "i"J3i< should have
sprung up alongside it. Why not blTS and TJJ&5 as well as ^-^S
and ^"iS ? Again, b being a genuine pronominal element in Semitic,
the buJX would doubtless have shown considerable tenacity of life.
' The Phoenician TBS has been variously explained. Kraetzschraar sees in TSS
nothing but an extension of tD by the addition of the demonstrative element 55 , analogous
to the Assyrian a k i for k I . Homniel regards it as a by-form of TJJ due to the transposi-
tion iUmsprinuen) of the vowel, analogous to OX as compared with the Arabic ^^ ;
bS and Stb , ef. il and Assyrian la (cf. BA, 1,381). Perhaps it is best, with DeUtzsch, to
combine the Phoenician ©S with the Assyrian aSSu. assa, which, though used pre-
dominantly as a conjunction, is also employed as a relative, like Sa {Proll.. p. 44; Assy-
risches HandwSrterbuch. pp. 151 f.). The fact that a s s u is sometimes accompanied by s a
(a !5 s u -s a) is not, as Kraetzschmar tliinks, an insuperable objection. Redundancies of
this kind are not uncommon; cf. ly^Zl^ ]7^ i" Hebrew.
-• Op. cii.. p. 20.
The Hebrew Particle ^lUS 19
Instead of disappearing altogether, it would seem to me, on the con-
trary, that it would maintain its ground as the predominating form
with the possibility of "1*23^5 as a by-form. It is not conceivable
that this b should have been so transitory and short-lived that it
was driven completely from the field the moment it came into exist-
ence. The possible objection that bl2J5< might have flourished in
the early pre-literary period and have already yielded its position,
when the first written memorials appear, is obviated by the fact that
the literature has preserved the still older (according to the theory)
"it in spite of later (hypothetical) developments. We repeat, there-
fore, that we have a right to demand, if the theory is to hold water,
that blTU^ as the nearest ancestor of "li235< show some sign of its
existence. To sum up, the theory of Sperling necessitates a leap
at every stage along the line. Instead of natural growth and sequence
from the earliest to the latest form, we have four forms, IT, 'JJJ<, b'JJi^,
and "I'diX , the two middle ones imaginary and hypothetical, and each
of the four disconnected from its neighbor, so far as may be ascer-
tained from the existing records.
c) THE SUBSTANTIVE ORIGIN OF "i'lTS
19. If, therefore, the theory of the pronominal origin of llZJi^
and its etymological kinship with 12J must be abandoned, we are com-
pelled to locate the particle among the substantives. This view,
together with its principal representatives, has already been men-
tioned at the beginning of this dissertation. What may be said
in its favor ?
20. Before looking around for analogies from other languages,
let us see if the Hebrew itself lends any countenance to this theory
of "il2Ji<. I think that an unprejudiced examination of not a few
Old Testament passages will show conclusively that the use of "ITTX
differs in some respects so widely and fundamentally from that of any
undoubted Semitic demonstrative as to render the view of its nominal
origin almost unassailable. I have reference especially to those
passages in which llTi^ without an antecedent is employed in the
sense of ''where" or "whither," as the case may be. Cf. Judg.
5:27, ITlip bSD DTT 5^3 ^TTSS, "where he bowed, there he fell
down overpowered^'; Ruth 1:16, "fbs ^rbn ^^n, "where thou
20 Carl Gaensslk
lodgest, I will lodge"; vs. 17, Tfli'2^ "n^:2n I'vZJXiL, "where thou
diest, I will die"; Judg. 17:8, 9; I Sara. 23:13; II Kings 8:1;
Job 39:30; Exod. 32:34, r\b 'nnn^-i-j-yt bs Drn Hnp, "lead
this people whither I have spoken unto thee"; Ruth 1:16, ^^ "3
-bs 'Sbn ^"iS , "for whither thou goest I shall go"; II Sam. 15:20,
T^bin "S 1">rJ^ b^ T]bin ^3X1, "I am going whither I am going";
I Kings 8:12, 51«-xb n"j;s b^' ?jS;T23^ nin';, "Jahwe shall bear thee
7t'/»7/?er I donotknow"; Exod. 5:11, ^K'ffn "^'^^q "nn D::b ^np,
"get straw /rom where you can find it."
21. In these passages the substantive origin of ^ITS seems to be
indicated by the construction. This construction is without analogy
in other Semitic languages. No Semitic relative used absolutely has
a local signification such as we find here. Konig gets around the
difficulty by declaring that an antecedent of place is to be supplied in
cases like the foregoing, that is, when a preposition is immediately
followed by "loJi^ . "Wo also sonst eine Praposition vor einem
Relativum steht, bezieht sich dieselbe auf ein vor dem Relativsatz
weggelassenes Demonstrativum. Auf einer solchen Ellipse beruht
"I'ZSS , ubi; es ist da h inter TJJ5< nicht noch einmal die vor dem
weggelassenen neutralen Demonstrativum stehende Praposition mit
dem Personalpronomen gesetzt, also nicht iH "'u2!5<S an dem
[Punkte], an welchem." This, however, is not an explanation, but
an evasion. Konig here boldly imports into the text the local idea
which it is our business to account for in the language as it lies before
us. If, as in many other cases, the loSlSJ were preceded by an ante-
cedent of place, the demonstrative theory of the particle could be
upheld, so far as these passages are concerned. This will become
more apparent presently, when we come to speak of the usage in the
other Semitic languages. Baumann, to be sure, who strenuously
defends the demonstrative character of ^HJt^ , finds no difficulty in
deaUng with these passages. He says that in such cases IITS has
become "mehr ein demonstratives Adverb."^ In support of this
view he points to the fact that there are other instances of the
adverbial use of a demonstrative, e.g.. Gen. 38:21, tlTS nn^n i<b
ri'iTjp, "there is no kedesha here (in this [place])." The use of HTS
in the sense of hie, "here," is, of course, quite common. The same
' Hebraische RelativsdUe, p. 22.
The Hebrew Particle "I'OS 2i
applies to tlV2 , hinc, "from here." But this proves only one thing,
viz., that demonstrative pronouns may assume an adverbial function,
not, however, that "112355 is such a demonstrative. To appeal to this
usage of nT|L as supporting the demonstrative origin and use of TjiS
is simply to beg the question. The fact is that Tl2J!SSl is used only
in a relative and never in a strictly demonstrative sense. HT^l , on
the other hand, is never employed in a relative construction.
22. Again, the vague indefiniteness of "I'lZJS in some of the pas-
sages referred to argues conclusively, it seems to me, against its
demonstrative character. While Til always points to something
definite and near at hand (or at least as present to the speaker's or
writer's imagination; cf. II Kings 5:7), never denying its distinctly
demonstrative nature, "i^"55 is very often intangibly vague and color-
less, similar to "wherever" or "wheresoever," etc. Take the pas-
sage Exod. 5:11 quoted above, "get you straw," ^SH^JFI "I'JJi^p .
Here there is no trace of a demonstrative idea, the Pharaoh plainly
ndicating that he does not know, and does not care, where the
Israelites may obtain the necessary straw for their brickmaking.
But what a radical change in the meaning if we were to substitute
ni'Z for ^'J^^P ! Yet, according to Baumann's theory, this substi-
tution ought to occasion little or no difference in sense, inasmuch
as Til and "IITN are not only supposed to have the same origin, but
it is further contended that TdJJ^ never forfeits its demonstrative
character, even though employed exclusively in relative constructions.
23. Furthermore, a Semitic demonstrative without any anteced-
ent of place is never employed to express the idea of motion toward,
whither, as is the case with "ITTN . We have no such combinations
as HT'bSl or Tl'bv , corresponding to liTS'biji and "i"t2J!S5"bj" .
24. Lastly, it will be noticed that in this local use of "IUJ5< the
adverbial complement (Q^ , T'C'uJ , etc.) is easily dispensed with.
On this head Baumann says: "Bisweilen kommt es vor, dass das
'Aid mit seiner Praposition ausgelassen wird. Das ist besonders
da der Fall, wo die gleiche Praposition bereits vor "I'JJS steht."^
Among the passages cited by him for sake of illustration is Exod.
5:11, ^S<^";ri ^'m-2 -inn D^b ^np, which he renders, "Holt
euch Hackerling von dort, von wo ihr ihn kriegen konnt." The
1 Op. cit., pp. 36 f.
22 Cam. (Saknssi.k
repetition of the ran is doubtless supposed to illustrate the matter
in question. But this is not a strictly accurate translation, since
the verb SiS"- is not construed with "P , but with III or 5 . We see,
therefore, that the retrospective with its preposition can be omitted
even when the preposition would be different from that preceding
the "^'yTS . This favors the idea that "l'^^^5 in itself implies a local
signification. An exact rendering of this sentence would be: "Holt
euch Hiiokerling, von wo ihr ihn finden konnt," making the entire
I'i'S-clause dependent on 'J }
In view of the foregoing facts, our conclusion is that "l"£^^ is not
an original demonstrative, but an original noun of place, which in
many Old Testament passages has preserved traces of its primitive
sense in being employed as a relative adverb of place.
25. This view receives further confirmation from a comparison
with other Semitic languages. Speaking of the adverbial use of
"^"ITS , Baumann goes on to say: "In ganz analoger Weise wird auch
das aramaische Relativum Dan. 2 : 38 gebraucht : "^Dn "fi";! ^'H'bjn
5<"j;3&|;, 'uberall da, wo Menschen wohnen. '"^ But this is by no
means strictly "analogous" to the passages we have just con-
sidered. Baumann overlooks the fact that the Aramaic """^ here has
an antecedent in bSS , and it is this that contains the local idea,
not the following "'^ . Even in English we may render, "in all
places [everywhere] that men live," instead of "where men live."
We are now dealing with passages where "luT^^ is employed inde-
pendently, without an antecedent, and yet plainly has a local signi-
fication. To this usage there is absolutely no analogy in biblical
Aramaic, as there is none in biblical Hebrew in case of HT . It is
needless to say that there is no Aramaic ^7r^ ^s the corresponding
equivalent of the Hebrew "'"'jt''^^^ . There are such expressions as
■'V'l'2 , "since"; ^V1>" , "until," donee; ^13, "when," "as soon
as," simidatque, as temporal conjunctions, a very easy development
from an original demonstrative, but nothing answering to the
absolute adverbial use of IICS . In Ezra 6 : 1 occurs the expression
n^Fl . . . . ■''n , but only after an antecedent of place, "the house
of the archives," so that the use of "''^ with the following adverbial
1 The question of syntax will receive full discussion later on.
» Op. cit., p. 22.
The Hebrew Particle IllJi^ 23
complement presents no difficulty or irregularity. Here also the
local idea is already expressed in the antecedent. A hteral English
rendering would run as follows: "the house of the archives that the
treasures were laid up in." The '^'1 has not lost its demonstrative
nature.
26. Passing on to the Syriac, we find that here also the use of
the demonstrative relative ? offers no parallel to the use of 1123S
under consideration. It is never used in an adverbial sense without
a nominal or adverbial antecedent, which shows that in itself the
particle has no local implication. True, the designation of place
having preceded, it may often be rendered by "where," "whither,"
according to our English idiom, but this does not mean that in itself
it contains this notion. The difference will be apparent, if we com-
pare the Syriac version with some of the passages referred to above:
Ruth 1:16, yb^ ^rbri ndSn— Syr. , M; Ruth 1:17, TJDS2L
nT2S 'nr^n— Syr. , izl; Judg. 17:8, S^r l^n ^^jb — Syr.
? ii^] (cf. also vs. 9); Ruth 1:16, T]bS; ^^bn Tj:y5 bj<— Syr. , ^43;
II Sam. 15:20, T^bin ^DX nm by T|bin— Syr. h ■^■, Exod. 5:11,
^5<;iTjri ^'tr&|l":2 — Syr. ? j-^^^-l ^; and so in all passages where
the texts agree.
27. The same applies to the Targum. In Judg. 17:8 instead of
Tupj^n we have ^ ^ns^; Ruth 1:16, "^'m bx— Targ., ^ ]'^2 b^b ;
II Sam. 15:20, ^'m b^— Targ., "H ^n5<b , etc.
28. Even when "bs precedes T^TS , it is extremely rare to find
the Vs in Syriac, though it does occur, e.g.. Josh. 1:7, ?|bri TiTS'bDSl
— Syr. ^oiz? vie (Targ., ■'n&5 bDS). This corresponds exactly
with ■'"^ bDIIl in biblical Aramaic (cf. the Daniel passage discussed
above). But the rule is that even here an antecedent of place is
substituted; cf. the following passages: I Sam. 14:47, TJ3i<"bD21
HDS":— Syr. , iL]i (Targ., "1 ^nS bDS); II Sam. 8:14, '\-m bsn
-bn— Syr. , ill.; Judg. 2:15, m^^ TiX brS— Syr. , jl:^ (Targ.,
^ -^nX b2S); II Sam. 7:9, Fl^bn nipS bDS— Syr. y^ (Targ.,
29. The fact that in all these passages there is either a nominal
or adverbial antecedent, that the particle ? nowhere stands alone,
24 Carl CIaenssle
as is so fr(Miu(Mitly (he case witli "^'vTS , shows clearl}^ that the latter
must contain a local idea which is al)sent from the Sj^riac demon-
strative.
30. Coming now lo i\\c Arabic, it is well known that the relative
^Jj! is never useil as an adverb in any sense. Tliis fact deserves
to be well noted, inasmuch as Baumann bases his conclusions as to
the character and syntax of "ilTii largely on the supposed analogy
between the Hebrew and the Arabic. But singularly enough this
analogy fails completely, as Baumann is obliged to confess, respect-
ing the local adverbial use of I^S . It is also noteworthy that the
demonstrative adverbs in Arabic are never employed in the sense of
"where" or "whither." Such are \j^ , UpUc , oJUii , dULjo ,
which, according to Reckendorf, are formed on the analogy of the
demonstratives lo , I lX^ , c)! J , and vJU j ,^ but, true to their
demonstrative nature, they never can perform the function of a
relative, "where" or "whither" being expressed by ^.^/.j^ , an original
noun. This oyv:^ , again, is frequently dependent on a preposition,
e.g., viJ^, "where" (eig. a?iwo2); oJUi. Jl, "to where," "whither"
(eig. nach wo-) ; vi>.Ai» j^wo , "from where" (eig. von wo^). One cannot
fail to notice the striking analogy between this mode of expression
and the Hebrew ^ITSS , ^ZS b^ , ^'^^'2 . We have here in Arabic
the same development that we are vindicating for the Hebrew "iTIJi^ .
Like loJS , the Arabic c:aa^ also appears without a preposition in
the sense of "where" or "whither."
31. Respecting the Assyrian, it is well known that the demonstra-
tive relative s a , when used alone, never has an adverbial meaning.
Like the corresponding "^ or ? it requires an antecedent of place,
e.g., alu sa asbu, "the city in which they live," or more literally,
"the city that they live [in]." The same applies to the Ethiopic H .
32. In consideration of these facts, it must be admitted that 1*JJS
in its adverbial use holds a unique place among Semitic relatives.
These facts do not receive due recognition by the defenders of the
demonstrative theory. To me they justify the conclusion that "niJX
must have a different origin from that of the demonstrative relatives
1 Syntaktische Verhdllnisse des Arabischen, § 150.
= Reckendorf, op. cil., § 10.
The Hebrew Particle Tl2J5< 25
in other dialects. In the passages referred to above we can still
discern the traces of the substantive origin of our particle. But this,
of course, is not meant to imply that a sense of its nominal character
was still alive in the Sprachbewusstsein of the writers. If such had
been the case, such combinations as Tup5< Dip/J , occurring else-
where, could scarcely have arisen. We should not venture to trans-
late ■'^5^21 "in the place where," as if place still retained its sub-
stantive force. What we contend is that we have here the petrified
remains, as it were, of an earlier stage of the language, when "^ITi^ was
actually used as and felt to be a noun of place. In the stage repre-
sented by the records of the Old Testament, the "^^^ had already,
in these passages, become a relative adverb.
33. If our investigation thus far has made the substantive origin
of "i"i'i< at least highly probable, this probability is heightened almost
into certainty when we compare with "i uS the Assyrian a s r u , constr.
a s a r . Kraetzschmar, in the article in Hebraica referred to above,
has collected a number of passages illustrating the use of a s a r :^
Taylor, IV, 22-24 : munnaribsunu . . . . asar ikasadu
urassapu ina kakke,* " their fugitives they killed with their
weapons where they overtook them"; Taylor, III, 88 f.: asar
birka manahti isa sir aban sadi usibma,* "where my
knees found a resting-place I sat down on the top of the mountain";
CH,- XXIX, 42: summa zinnistu sii asar erubu . . . .
mare ittalaad, "if that woman bear children where she has
entered"; CH, XX, 48: asar iddinu, "where they give"; CH,
XVII, 8, 9: summa asar illiku nemeiam la itamar,
"if he does not meet with success [there] whither he goes"; VR,
II, 20: Tarku asar innabtu rasubat kakke Asur
ishupsuma,* "the weapons of Asur overthrew Tirhaka [there]
w/iiY/ier he had fled"; Asurb. Sm. 125, 61: asar tallaki ittiki
lullik,* "whither thou goest, I will go with thee"; Asurb. Sm.:
asar panuki saknu tebuku anaku, "I shall go whither
your face is directed." Examples of this type are very common;
further citation is unnecessary.
34. Comparing this use of a s a r with that of I'lIJi^ in the examples
heretofore cited, it will be seen that the only difference is that "l'a;^5
1 Hebraica, VI (1890), 296 f. These passages I shall indicate with an asterisk (*).
s Code of Hammurabi, edition by R. F. Harper.
20 Carl (^.ap^nssle
takes a pre]X)sition, while asar does not. Ruth 1:16, ^oJS'bx
T|bs "^bri , would be exactly the same as asar t a 1 1 a k i i 1 1 i k i
1 li 1 1 i k but for the preposition bi^ before "ilIJl^ . This would seem
to indicate that ■'"*23i< has lost its local signification to a greater
extent, has become more vagije and colorless than asar. How-
ever, I have found several passages in the Amarna Tablets where
asar appears in conjunction with a preposition. Cf. anaku
kadu sabi-ia . . . . ana pani sabi beli-ia adi a§ar
tilaku, "I together with my troops .... am at the service of
the troops of my lord, wherever they may go."^ Exactly the same
construction occurs in the following letter. The preposition may be
omitted (and as a rule is omitted). Cf. asar tilaku [sc. the
troops] anaku it[tisunu], "wherever they may go I am with
them";- anaku kadu . . . . ana pani sabi bitati adi
asar jikabu sarru beli-ia, "I together with .... am at
the service of the troops wherever the king, my lord, may com-
mand" (Winckler: "wohin auch befiehlt der Konig, meinHerr").^
Asar is also united with the preposition i n a ; cf . h a r r a n u i n a
asar asib, "the way to where he dwells."* The ina asar here
is equivalent to ina asri sa used elsewhere, e.g., anaku
arduka in asri sa ibasati, "I am thy servant in the place
where I am."^ It is interesting to note that ina asri and ina
asar are used in exactly the same constructions; cf. ina asri
anni, "in that place "^ and ina asar sanim, "in another
place. "^ This shows that the dividing line between the strictly
substantive and the hardened (erstarrt) adverbial form of a s r u was
in process of obliteration. That an adverb should connect itself
with a preposition is, as is well known, a very common phenomenon.
Thus the Arabic X4^ , as already stated, is employed indifferently
with or without a preposition. Cf. also in Latin hinc and dehinc;
inde and deinde; in English "hence," and "from hence"; "whence"
and "from whence," etc. Even to the singular asar sanim,
just referred to, where the changeless adverbial asar is united
with an attribute, I venture to offer a modern parallel in such
1 KB, V. 251. 15 f. ♦ Ibid., 46, 26. • Ibid., 179, 11.
2 Op. cit., 214, 34. ' Ibid., 2.38, 4 f. ' Ibid., 126, 17.
>Ibid., 144, 31.
The Hebrew Particle 1123X 27
expressions as "everywhere," "nowhere," and others, which exhibit
the same tendencies of language.
It is plain from the above that the usage of ^iTSJ^ and asar
agrees more closely than has been generally recognized,
35. We shall now quote some passages in which asar appears
with an antecedent, and, in order to present the Hebrew analogy
vividly to the eye, corresponding passages from the Old Testament
will be added.
Shal. 69: adi res (naru) eni sa (naru) Diklat asar
musu sa me saknu alik,* "to the source of the Tigris
where the springs of water are situated I went"; Hebrew (Num.
20:13): h^'^'^'', "?n ^nn -^m nn^-!7J ^2 nan, "these are the
waters of Meriba where^ the children of Israel contended." VR,
VIII, 108 ff.: Mas asar . . . . issur same la isakan kinu*
[the land] Mas, "where no bird of heaven builds its nest"; Hebrew
(Ps. 84:4): "^nnsN! Hn'^ mry? nb ip, nini^ n";n ni^'r'2 nis::-D:»,
"Yea, the sparroAV hath found a house and the swallow a nest
for herself where she may lay her young." And so frequently in
the sense of "where" both in Assyrian and in Hebrew. Cf. for the
Hebrew Deut. 1:31; 8:15; I Kings 8:9; Isa. 64:10; Ezek. 47:13;
Ps. 95:9, and many more passages.
36. Like asar, i"JJ&5 is also employed in the sense of "whither."
VR, X, 13f.: ultu sade bit markitisu asar ittanapra-
sidu,* "from the mountain, his refuge, whither he had fled";
Hebrew (I Kings 12:2; II Chron. 10:2): rn^ ^m U^';^'2'2^ i^^ni ,
"and he was in Egypt, whither he had fled."
37. We can trace the affinity between asar and "112355 a step
farther. Sometimes the asar, which in this case has almost lost
its local coloring and passed into a relative particle pure and simple,
is so indefinite as to take an 'Aid in the form of a noun of place
with its respective suffix. Thus, instead of the simple asar in
the sense of "where," there occurs asar . . . . kirib with the
suffix as the exact equivalent of sa . . . . ina libbi. This
shows conclusively that asar was well under way to become a
general relative particle, the only reason why it did not reach this
stage being, as Kraetzschmar says, the fact that it never ceased to be
> Not " because," as the English versions render. Vulg. ubi jurgati sunt.
28 Carl Gaenssle
a noun of place. To illustrate: I n a h i d a t i e r u I) B i t r i d u t i
§a Sinachd-er ha isarriiti epusu ina lihhisu a§ar
A§ur-ahe-id(l ina ahu hanua kiribsu aldu.' In this
passage, the a§ar . . . . kirihsu has precisely the same meaning
as s a . . . . ina 1 i b b i S u , showing very plainly to what extent
the local signification of a§ar was fading away. Besides, who can
fail to notice in this construction of a§ar with the following
resumptive k i r i b s u a striking and unquestionable analogy to the
Hebrew "i">ri< with the complementary i3"^pll ?
38. Winckler, in his edition of the Amarna Letters, holds that
in some instances a s a r is used interchangeably with § a , even
where no local idea is involved; in other words, that a§ar has lost
its original meaning altogether. It is not necessary to cite all the
passages he refers to in the glossary under this head, since they are
all of one character. Two will suffice : KAR . KAR pi. sa hurasu
. . . . asar abi-i-ka ma Mi-im-mu-u-ri-a i-ti-ri-is,
"Bilder aus Gold .... habe ich von deinem Vater M. verlangt";^
hurasu ma-a-at-ta asar abi-i [ka-i-ti-r i-] is , "von
deinem Vater habe ich verlangt viel Gold."^ The supposed identity
between asar and sa is not brought out by the translation von.
But Winckler must assume that asar is here used like s a as the
sign of the genitive, viz., "much gold, that of thy father." But
this view is hardly correct. More commonly the verb e r e s u , with
which the asar is construed, appears with the preposition ana, e.g.,
ana ahi-ia hurasi ma-a-at-ta e-te-ri-is, " ich verlangte
WW meinem Bruder viel Gold " ;^ mi-ri-is-ta ma sa ana abi-
ka i-ri-su, " den Wunsch, den ich an deinen Vater stellte "^ (with
the figura etymologica) . The use of ana, as the translation of the
last example indicates, shows that the wish or request expressed in
e r e s u is conceived as being addressed to or directed toward someone
(cf. the German, "jemand anflehen, angehen," French, "demander
d" etc.). And since asar interchanges with ana in connection
with this verb, I should assign to it the sense of to or toward, thus
allowing it to retain a local notion. I would add that Winckler's
1 Hebraica, July. 1890. « Ibid., 17, 34.
» KB. V. 23, 19 f. s Ibid., 35, 11 r.
' Ibid.. 21. 50 Rev.
The Hebrew Particle T123!j< 29
view is also rejected by Boehl, though the latter offers no explana-
tion for this singular use of a s a r .^
39. The preceding discussion has, it is hoped, made two things
clear: first, that ITIJlJ^ cannot be classed with the ordinary Semitic
relatives, and, secondly, that the Assyrian asar quite closely cor-
responds with it in its adverbial use. Our conclusion, therefore,
is that ""123J^ not only lost its substantive force by becoming a rela-
tive adverb, but developed into a broad and general nota relationis,
a mere medium of relation,^ sometimes untranslatable, as we shall
see, except by periphrasis.
40. The obvious objection to this is, of course, the singular and
isolated position of Hebrew in Semitic as regards the relative, since
in the other Semitic dialects a demonstrative performs this function.
I recognize the force of this objection. However, the difficulties
attending every attempt at locating "I'^TS among the demonstratives
are insurmountable, etymologically as well as syntactically, as we
shall see later on. The history of a s r u in Assyrian shows a develop-
ment in the direction of the Hebrew "I'lTS . Why should not this
development have been carried a step farther in Hebrew, until ITTi^
had worn away into a vague relative particle ? Even oriental lan-
guages are not absolutely stationary. Development there is in every
living language. At all events, rather than have recourse to the
wild and baseless etymologies referred to in order to force "I'JJS into
one mold with Semitic demonstratives, rather, too, than insist on
the demonstrative character of l"aJ5< , while leaving the matter of
etymology in suspense,^ I prefer to believe, for reasons already
stated, that in the present instance the Hebrew language pursued
an independent course in expressing the relative idea, a course,
however, already far under way, though not carried to completion,
in the Assyrian. Nevertheless, Gesenius' grammar, following
Baumann, says that "Ti235< ist weder als Relativpronomen ....
noch als blosse nota relationis, sondern als urspriingliches Demon-
strativpronomen zu betrachten." And in proof of this statement
' Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe, § 17.
' This designation is not always adequate. The fact that the retrospective com-
plement is often omitted indicates that the particle showed a tendency to assume a more
or less definite pronominal function.
» Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 138, note 1.
30 Caul (Jaenssle
it is tuldetl in a note: ''Zu dioscr Annahme notigt cbcnsowohl die
analogic des arabischen alladi, welches (wie Hebr. T^H , npil)
deutlich Demonstrativj)rononien, wie der Gebrauch von HT und
^T als Relativpronomen."' Sujjpose a grammarian should maintain
that, l)e('ause the original demonstrative "that" is used relatively
in English, the relative "who" must also be a demonstrative, or
that since the German uses der, die, das, originally demonstratives,
OS relatives, welcher, welche, welches (or vulgarly wo) must also be
demonstratives, would it not be a palpably erroneous conclusion?
And so it is when we reason from alladi or HT to 1 UJX . The
argument is valueless, because it rests on the assumption of the
invariable uniformity and immutable fixedness of Semitic grammar.
That even a Semitic language may exhibit peculiarities unknown
to sister-dialects is seen, for instance, in the waw consecutive of the
Hebrew and Moabite, of which there is no trace in Assyrian and
other languages.
41. Before leaving this part of our discussion, I cannot refrain
from calling attention to numerous analogies from other fields.
These, while not proving the correctness of our theory of "I'oJS , will,
at least, abundantly show that we are not trying to defend an unparal-
leled grammatical phenomenon. Indeed, it is surprising to note
that in various and, in part, widely divergent languages the same
tendencies were at work as those underlying the development of
■^'kTS , such as we conceive it to have been. Thus we are told that
in Chinese the word so, originally a noun of place, is employed as a
relative. The Persian L^iO , "wo des Orts," was originally used Uke
the common relative x5^.- But the nearest approach to the Hebrew
I'vL'X , though still more specific, is the wo of the provincial dialects
of Southern Germany, which in colloquial language is employed
almost exclusively as a general relative particle, e.g., "der Mann,
wo''; "die Frau, wo''; "das Kind, wo." Like the Hebrew iTTi^ ,
this wo is of course incapable of inflection; and though the Sprach-
gefiihl instinctively distinguishes between the nominative and
accusative cases (cf. "Der Freund, wo mich besuchte," and "der
Freund, wo ich besuchte"), it serves, as a rule, merely as a connective
' Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 138.
•Cf, Kraetzschmar, Hebraica, July, 1890.
The Hebrew Particle IISS^ 31
between the principal and subordinate clauses, the precise syn-
tactic relation being indicated by a retrospective in the clause
which wo introduces; cf. "der Mann, wo seine Frau gestorben ist"
(Hebr. in'OJi^ '^"^^); "der Mann, wo das Haus ihm abgebrannt ist"
(Hebr. ib . . . . '^^^); "der Baum, wo ich dir verboten habe von
ihm zu essen" (Hebr. ^3^"^ .... '^^^); "wo sein Same drin ist"
(Hebr. iS "i"j:X). Even in polite language, the German uses wo
compounded with a preposition instead of the ordinary relative with
its preposition, though with certain restrictions; cf. worin for in wel-
chem, in welcher; wovon for von welchem, welcher; womit for 7nit welchem,
welcher (used instrumentally) . Very suggestive, too, are the ad-
verbial expressions in German in such phrases as "wo er /iingegangen
ist," or wo er /lergekommen ist," which are quite parallel to the
Hebrew n^JlT .... n'iJS and n^'2 .... ^ITK . It is true that
the Hebrew "idiom cannot in all cases be dupUcated in German.
The German has nothing to correspond with DIT . . . . "i'ffi&^ , for
the reason that wo, though requiring a complement (except as nomina-
tive or accusative) when employed as a general relative particle, has
so far retained its primary sense, when used as a relative adverb,
that it does not admit of a complementary adjunct. The Hebrew
JTi^ri n'^"^'m nVinri Y■l.^^"b^ could not be rendered "das
ganVe Land Havilah, wo Gold doriist," in strict correspondence with
the Hebrew, but simply "wo Gold ist." In other words, the Hebrew
HITS is more indefinite than the German wo.
42. A similar, though more limited, use of the relative adverb
for the relative pronoun is also found in English; cf. "wherein,"
"whereon," "whereby," "wherewith," etc. And, although at
present obsolete, this use of the adverb is found even when the latter
refers to a perso7ial antecedent; cf. "Edward's seven sons, whereof
thyself art one" (Shak., Rich. II, I, 2).
43. The same phenomenon is observable in French, where the
adverb ou likewise encroaches upon the territory of the relative:
"C'est une chose ou je te reduirai" (Moliere, Uavare, Act I, scene
iv). Ou is very often equivalent to dans, a, sur, etc., plus a relative
pronoun.
44. Also the Latin uhi sometimes loses its local meaning entirely
and does the duty of a relative, as may be seen from the following
32 C'ahl CJaenssle
examples; Iluiu^niodi mi res semper comminiscere, ubi me excarnijices,
"You are always devising things of this kind, with which [ubi = quibus]
to torture me";' neque 7iobis adhuc praeter te quisquam fuit, ubi
nostrum ius contra illos obtineremus;'^ in this sentence, ubi refers to a
person and is equivalent to with whom;'^ quia suppeditat nobis ubi
et animus ex hoc forensi strepitu reficiatur, "because he furnishes
[that] with which," etc.,"* ubi being equivalent to quo instrumental.
45. These examples from various languages will suffice to show
to what extent a relative adverb of place, forfeiting its local meaning,
has tended to assume pronominal functions, or to fade away into
what is hardly more than a medium of relation. As remarked,
therefore, the development and use of ^'l'^^ in Hebrew represents
but one of many kindred phenomena in the history of language.
B. THE SYNTACTIC RELATION OF ^'iTNl
a) CRITICISM OF BAUMANN's THEORY
46. The substantive origin of liTK is of vital importance in
determining the syntactic position of the particle. I trust that the
conclusions arrived at with reference to the origin of ^IIJS will receive
fuller confirmation in the following pages, in which we shall discuss
the syntax. The latter, as I hope to show, su])stantiates the etymo-
logical theory defended in the first part of this treatise. In the
nature of the case, the following syntactic discussion will be largely
a polemic against the view of Boettcher, Baumann, and (after them)
the standard grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch. Baumann being
the chief representative of the demonstrative theory (both as to
origin and as to syntax), we may fitly begin by setting forth his
views.
47. Baumann firmly and steadfastly maintains that I'lJi^ intro-
ducing relative clauses belongs logically and syntactically not to
the relative clause, but to the principal proposition. There is no
subordination, but only co-ordination, no hypotaxis, but only
parataxis. If a relative clause has an antecedent, the I'lTH belongs
' Terence H eautonlimoroumenos 813.
2 Cicero Pro P. Quinctio oratio 34.
» Here, perhaps, a trace of local meaning is still discernible.
* Cicero Pro Archia.
The Hebrew Particle TllJS 33
to this antecedent as an appositional demonstrative. " HaJJ^ ist
weiter nichts, als eine den Attributivsatz einleitende demonstrative
Apposition zum Hauptwort.''^ Or: "Das hebraische Relativum
ist eine den Relativsatz einleitende demonstrative Apposition zum
Beziehungswort und verbindet die folgende Aussage mit demselben
als etwas von ihm Auszusagendes."- If the relative clause has no
antecedent (selbstdndiger Relativsatz), "i"i2Ji< , according to Baumann,
is used substantively in the sense of jener (der), jene (die), jenes
(das), soldier {der), etc.,^ and has no syntactic connection with the
relative clause. Syntactically, it belongs to the main sentence, of
which it may be subject or object, or it may depend on a preposition,
or on a regens of a nominal nature, in which case ^oJX is virtually a
genitive.* The point that Baumann insists on here is that the
substantive use of 1"aJ5< does not involve the elhpsis of a demon-
strative like the absolute use of qui for (is) qui, since ^'JJS is itself
a simple demonstrative, and if there is anything to be supplied, it
is rather the relative according to our notions. As just remarked,
^oJX in such sentences is equivalent to is, ille (qui), and not (is),
(ille) qui.
48. Consistently with this view of the syntactic position of "^oJU^
Baumann explains the Jol^ . In dependent clauses, that is, such as
have an antecedent, the retrospective does not point back to ^'iJN ,
but resumes the antecedent, while in independent clauses, in which
"I125S is used substantively, the retrospective, of course, must refer
to this. The following examples with Baumann's rendering will
illustrate the foregoing: Jer. 28:9, "in^ inb'oj 1'u:X ^^^22", ''der
Prophet, der, Jahwe hat ihn gesandt"; Num. 17:20, ^TTS "oj^J^n
iS"innX , "der Mann, jener, ich werde ihn erwahlen"; Deut.
28:49, ijirb :7:^irrT5<b "^t^ -i:*, "ein Volk, ein solches, du ver-
stehst seine Sprache nicht.''^ Deut. 27:26, 0^7^'' ^"^^ ^^"^^"^
rii<TrTn'^'inn ^"^nvrs^ , " verflucht sei derjenige, welcher den Inhalt
dieses Gesetzes nicht in Kraft treten lasst." Here we have the
independent use of "I'^IJi^ . Baumann's rendering in this instance,
being freer, does not indicate clearly the syntactic relation of
1 Relativsatze. p. 20. * Ibid., pp. 21 f.
» Ibid., p. 30. 5 Ibid., pp. 14 f.
3 Ibid., p. 20.
34 Carl Gaenssle
1'^^^< . But the comment which he adds makes this sufficiently plain.
He says: "Hier konnte man versucht sein, "I'JJl^^ fiir das gram-
matische Subjekt des Relativsatzes zu halten, doch auch im vorlie-
genden Falle gilt: Es steht ■•'i'i^ a))S()lut [i.e., unconnected, detached]
an der Spitze der beziiglichen Aussage und hat syntaktisch mit
ihr nichts zu tun."' Consequently, according to Baumann's mode
of rendering, the sentence would run as follows: "Cursed be such a
one [^CS]— he does" not establish," etc. Gen. 44:10, Sy^a*; ^'^
"!-> "^'•^1"!' "^^^ > "derjenige, bei dem er [sc. der Becher] sich findet,
soil mein Sklave sein"; precisely, to avoid a possible misconception
arising from the use of "whom," the sentence should read: "That
one [■'u^S] — ^it [sc. the cup] shall be found with him — shall be my
servant," "I'lIS being clearly detached from the relative clause.
Ruth 2:2, r:'^_^ -r S^3^5 ^TS< ^nx, "Hinter demjenigen, in
dessen Augen ich Gnade finden werde";^ literally: "After him, or
such a one — I shall find favor in his eyes." Gen. 49:1, rn^3bi
D"C;'- n^^nsn DSnS J^-^p-^-^iri^ nx DDb , literally translated by
Baumann thus: "Icli will euch mitteilen jenes (von dem auszusagen
ist); es wird euch in der fernsten Zukunft widerfahren."' On this
passage Baumann remarks : " Da nun "ilIJX durch Ti^ als im Accusativ
stehend gekennzeichnet ist, so zeigt sich klar, dass es dem Haupt-
satzgefiige angehort und von HTTti^ abhangig ist, d.h. es ist nicht
ein Relativum, sondern . . . . ein Demonstrativum."* The fact,
therefore, that "i-!}< is preceded by the sign of the accusative is
supposed to put an end to all controversy. Baumann is so fully
convinced of this that he declares on the next page (21) that these
passages must serve as a guide in dealing with others in which the
syntactic position of "iiZJS is not thus outwardly indicated. As to
the validity of this argument, we shall have more to say later on.
49. Another phenomenon to which Baumann attaches very
much importance in support of his theory of "111^5 is the well-known
fact that when a relative clause refers to an antecedent in the first
or second person the JoLt appears almost exclusively in the same
person as the antecedent. Examples: Isa. 41:8, .... bi^'^ir'^ nrii<
Tj^ri'^-jr^ ""'^'^ ) which Baumann renders, "Du, Israel, das, ich habe
« Relativsdtze, pp. 21 f. > Pp. 20 f.
2 P. 22. « P. 20.
The Hebrew Particle "ilIJi< 35
dich erwahlet"; Isa. 51:17, H^n^ T7J n^n^' ^'j:Si_ D^b^^"i'' ^12^p
*in"^H CiSTlii, "stehe auf, Jerusalem, das aus Jahwes Hand den
Becher seines Zornes getrunken hat"; literally this would run,
"Stehe auf, Jerusalem, das, du hast getrunken," etc.; Gen. 45:4,
^n^ DrT)57^-nipy: nrni< -CV^Dy|, ''ich bin Joseph, euer Bruder,
jener, ihr habt mich verkauft."^ The possibihty of such construc-
tions, Baumann remarks, reveals the nature and syntactic position
of the Hebrew relative.-
50. Baumann's theory, it will be seen at a glance, is dominated
wholly by his conception of "iir&5 as being not only a demonstrative
originally, but as permanently retaining its demonstrative character
in the Hebrew usus loquendi. It makes no allowance for a possible
weakening of the particle. Nor does it consider the further possi-
bility of syntactic shifting in the structure of a sentence. By which
I mean to say that, though we grant the demonstrative origin of "UTS ,
it by no means follows that it continued to attach itself appositionally
to the antecedent. This point will receive fuller discussion as we
proceed.
51. We shall now examine these views more in detail. In his
study of the Assyrian relative sa, Kraetzschmar remarks: "sa
hat seine ihm anhaftende Demonstrativnatur nie eingebiisst, es
duldet kein weiteres Demonstrativum vor sich."^ While this state-
ment is not quite true as to fact,* the argument is sound. It implies
that two successive demonstratives cannot belong to the same noun.
What Kraetzschmar says of s a , Gesenius-Kautzsch says of "iT2Ji< .
Having asserted the demonstrative character of 1iI3X , the grammar
proceeds to say: "Als solches [i.e., as a demonstrative] zeigt es
sich in unmittelharer Anlehnung an den naher zu bestimmenden
Substantivbegriff."* Now (assuming Kraetzschmar's statement to
be correct) if the fact that the Assyrian s a does not tolerate another
demonstrative before it clearly proves that it never lost its demon-
strative character, the equally patent fact that 1^23^5 does, in numer-
ous cases, tolerate an immediately preceding demonstrative proves
> Ibid., p. 27. 2 it)id., p. 29.
' BA, I, 399. Italics ours.
< Cf. As^iurb., II, 101, su ttu annitu sa e m u r u ," that dream which he saw
6 § 138.
36 Caul (Jaenssle
witli equal clearness that it cannot be a demonstrative, or, at least
(granting it to have been a demonstrative originally) , that it has lost
its demonstrative nature. The fact is that neither Baumann nor
Gesenius-Kautzsch has paid any attention to that large class of
passages in which a nominal antecedent is followed first by a demon-
strative, which in its turn is followed by "^'JDS . Thus according to
the theory that we are opposing we should indeed have the impossible
phenomenon of two successive demonstratives belonging to the same
noun. The demonstratives occurring in this way are HTn , ^l^^•T^ ,
n't^ri, J^^inri, and l)n; d. Gen. 28:20, ''pbs ^•^^? !^5~ 'Q"^^
T^bin , "in this way that I am about to go"; Gen. 33:8, n:n^n-b3
■^ri'JJJE ^ipS n-TH , "all this company which I met"; cf. also Gen.
37:6, 10, 22; 44:15; Exod. 13:3; 18:14, 18; 32:13; 33:17; Josh.
2:17; 14:12; 22:16; I Sam. 12:16; 24:20; 26:16; II Sam. 12:21;
I Kings 6:12; 8:27,43; 9:3; 12:9,10; II Kings 18:19; Isa. 28:14;
36:4; 38:7; Jer. 7:10, 11; 25:13; 32:22, 36, 43; 33:10; Amos
3:1; 5:1; Neh. 2:19; 13:17; I Chron. 29:16; II Chron. 6:18, 33;
7:21; 10:9 (forty-four instances in all). Similarly, "1123^1 follows
nj<-Tn; cf. Gen. 28:22, ^Fi:j"0 ''rm nS-TH 'fl^ri'l , "and this stone
which I have set up"; cf., further, Num. 14:27; Deut. 4:8; 11:22;
15:6; 30:4; Josh. 23:13, 15; Judg. 20:12; I Sam. 25:27; I
Kings 14:15; II Kings 23:27; Jer. 11:8; 13:10; 44:4; Ezek.
3:3; II Chron. 6 : 34 (seventeen instances in all) . So also with
nb^ri; cf. Gen. 21:29, HD^nb m^" ^m nbs;- nir'na v:i^,
"these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves"; cf.,
further. Num. 1:17; 15:22; 34:29; Deut. 6:6; 10:21; 12:28;
18:14; 20:16; 27:4; Josh. 4:20; 21:19; I Sam. 2:22; I Kings
7:45; 9:13; II Kings 23:17; Jer. 38:16, 27; 43:10; Zech. 8:17
(perhaps doubtful); Neh. 6:8; II Chron. 32:14 (twenty-two
instances in all). Passages with S^nH; cf. Num. 10:32, nitsri n^ni
rj^^ nin^ n^P". ^IIJX X^nn, "and it shall be that the good
which Jahwe shall show us"; cf., further, Deut. 1:19; 17:5, 10;
I Kings 8:27, 43; 22:25; II Chron. 9:9 (eight instances in all).
Finally'', there is one passage in which "iTpy* is preceded by 75" ;
cf. II Kings 23:17, H^jn ^]5< nm ibn 'yl^^^r^ n7J , "what is that
monument which I see?"
The Hebrew Particle "illJi^ 37
52. None of these passages (ninety-two in all) has, as already
remarked, been considered by Baumann or Gesenius-Kautzsch.
Baumann incidentally cites two of the passages, but merely as
illustrating the absence of the retrospective. I shall insert one with
Baumann's translation: II Kings 18:19, ITTJ^ nTH "jint^Hn tl'2
riM^T^, "was bedeutet diese Zuversicht, die du hegst?" This ren-
dering is, of course, correct; but it is obtained by ignoring the
supposedly demonstrative force of "liryj . It would be interesting if
Baumann had in this case also given a literal translation, such as
his theory demands. It would necessarily run as follows : "Was ist
diese (n-TPi) Zuversicht, diese (^TIJN) — du hegst (sie)?" Or still
more complete: "Was ist diese Zuversicht, diese (von der auszusagen
ist) : du hegst (sie)." It is needless to say that such syntax is impos-
sible. All these passages plainly show that "112555 is not a demon-
strative but that it is little more than the equivalent of Baumann's
parenthetical remark, "von der (dem, denen) auszusagen ist," that
is to say, "^'^^^ is a mere connective^ indicating that something more
is to be said about the antecedent. I should like to call particular
attention to the last passage cited in the foregoing paragraph:
mrji Tbn "^^^n n^2 . This ibr; is the Hebrew counterpart of the
Arabic (<<X'I • Are we to suppose that "I'lTS is, in effect, another
,^jJI also belonging to 'ri'^'SXl ?
53. All these passages show clearly that "laJS does not belong
to the " Rektionsgef uge des Hauptsatzes." And it is these passages
that must guide us in the investigation of the syntax of "I12J5< . If
in the sentence Hn^jQ TJ:i< nTn n^nri-n^^ ^niT'npr; (I Kings 3:9)
the particle lIl'S cannot belong to TT^tj , it cannot, of course, be
consistently maintained that it does in the following sentence,
■'ma."npn "iirS n^'SriTiyi (I Kings 9:7), that is, in such sentences as
Baumann selects as the basis of his conclusions.
54. To this use of TCi^ that of HT or ^T offers no parallel. To
be sure, Baumann remarks: " HT und ^T leiten selbstandige und
unselbstandige Relativsatze ein. Von ihrer syntaktischen Stellung
gilt das von '^'^^_ Gesagte." ^ This is again adopted by Gesenius-
Kautzsch. But this statement requires modification. HT (^T),
1 Cf . § 39. note.
2 Op. cit., p. 47.
38 Carl Gaenssle
being; a domonstrative, is never preceded by another demon-
strative; ff. Exod. 13:8; Isa. 25:9; Ps. 74:2; 78:54; 104:8, 26;
Prov. 23:22; Job. 15:17; 19:19. Baumann further remarks that
~T or ^T is sometimes joined by the linea makkef with the ante-
cedent, showing that it is not a relative in the ordinary sense. But
apart from the fact that this is not always the case (cf. Ps. 104:26,
n^*4"~T "n'lb), the same argument, applied to "^tpS, will lead
to the opposite conclusion, since "IIIJS is in most cases united by
makkef with the following clause, not with the antecedent. Like HT ,
the Aramaic "''^ is also sometimes found united l\y makkef with what
follows; cf. Ezra 5:4, 7=3 Hw^zn nDI""'^ ^^TR\ ^^'^^' "t^^
names of the men that were building this building."
55. In Aramaic, the relative particle is sometimes preceded by
a demonstrative with a nominal antecedent; cf . Ezra 6:12, SribST^lL
Db'JJ^l^n ^"^ T]"I, "this house of God which is in Jerusalem." But
this, of course, does not mean that ^"H was felt to belong to the ante-
cedent, but clearly shows that the original demonstrative had worn
away to a mere medium of relation, a 7iota relationis; cf. also Dan.
3:22, 27; 6:25; Ezra 5:17.
56. The same applies to the Syriac ? which in many cases has
clearly passed into the regimen of the subordinate clause, even to
the extent of being preceded by a preposition.^
57. As for the Arabic, the remarks of Baumann are, in the main,
correct. It is well known that ^< jJI is a demonstrative belonging
syntactically to the antecedent. This is seen from the fact that it
ordinarily agrees with the latter not only in gender and number but
even in case. It is also true that the antecedent may have a demon-
strative. This, however, never interposes itself between |^(X'I and
the antecedent. In other words, ^JJI follows immediately upon
the antecedent. It is not found, as is so frequently the case with
i1Di<, in direct juxtaposition with another demonstrative accom-
panjnng the antecedent. To illustrate, we may compare the fol-
lowing examples from the Arabic and the Hebrew: I^\ Ijjc ,^
^L*j' ^ JJ' , ''wer ist dieser Stamra, den du meinst?"^ and ""^
1 Cf. Noldeke, Syrische Gr., § 349. It is not necessary to assume with Noldelve that
this is due to Greek influence.
* Reckendorf, Synlaktische Verhnllnisae dea Arabiachen, p. 018.
5^'
The Hebrew Particle ^'^i^ 39
"'ITS n-TIj D''ibrir) , "what is this dream which thou hast dreamed?"
Besides, Reckendorf sees in Arabic sentences of the above type a
tendency on the part of ^^ jJl to sever its close connection with the
antecedent and enter into the construction of the relative clause.
He says: "Nun vollzog sich aber eine Verschiebung in dem Ver-
haltnis des Relativpronomens zum Relativsatz, indem das Relativ-
pronomen in vielen Fallen seine Freiheit gegeniiber dem Relativsatze
verlor und auch hinsichtlich seiner Kasuskonstruktion (wenn
auch nicht seiner Kasus/orw) in den Satzverband des Relativsatzes
einriickte."^ Similarly Brockelmann: "Aber die Tendenz, die in
alien semitischen Sprachen wirksam gewesen, das Pronomen enger
an den Nebensatz anzuschliessen, hat vereinzelt schon im Altara-
bischen dazu gefiihrt, dass die Form a 1 1 a d i erstarrt und auch bei
pluralischem Leitwort verwandt wird, wie lastuma 'ula'ika
'lladi 'anaitu, seid ihr nicht die, die ich meinte?"^ Note
here the word erstarrt, which is seen clearly from the fact that the
relative ^ JJi is employed in the singular, although the antecedent
is in the plural. This being true of the Arabic relative, notwith-
standing its demonstrative origin and its immediate proximity to
the nominal antecedent, what must be said of the Hebrew TI2J5< ,
separated at it is from the antecedent by an intervening demon-
strative ?
58. 1 shall now proceed to the consideration of those passages in
which "I12J!S1 follows a demonstrative standing alone, i.e., not as the
accompaniment of a nominal antecedent. These passages are again
not treated by Baumann and others. Gen. 6:15, n'"l2J^n TllJi^ nn
nni^, "this [it is] that thou shalt build"; Gen. 44:5, "T xbn
in . . . . nnilj"; ''''P^, "is this not [that] which my lord drinks
with?" Exod. 29:38, "nT^an-b? nb?n "^m nn, "and this is
• : • . : .... ^
[that] which thou shalt do concerning the altar"; Deut. 14:12, nn
DH/J ^bDSr Sb ^1Ij^5, "and this is [that] which you shall not eat
of." What Baumann's treatment of these examples would be is
clear from what he says on II Sam. 2:4, ^^2]^ "^^^ 13?b3 1252; ^'^Z^
b^551I3Ti<, "die Leute von Gilead was es [diejenigen], die Saul
» Op. cit., p. 617.
2 Vergleichende Gr., II, 565.
40 Carl Gaknssle
begrutx'u."' That is to siiy, "^TIJS^ is ;i predictito nomiuativo pure
and simple. It is equivalent to n, not qui. If I were to adopt the
suggestion of Driver {Notes on Samuel) that the Itpyt has somehow
got into an unnatural position, that would end the matter, so far
as this passage is concerned. But the fact that this type of con-
struction is by no means isolated or anomalous obliges us to take
the text as it stands. So far from being "an unnaturally worded
sentence" (Driver), it will be seen that it falls in line with the sentences
that we are now considering. The only legitimate rendering is
"The men of Jabesh Gilead are [those] who have buried Saul," the
entire "^"^i^-clause, being the predicate. So also in the foregoing
sentences. The demonstrative HT (note the accent) is virtually a
sentence: "This is [that].^^ According to the Hebrew idiom it is
simpty the subject of which the following "TmX-clause forms the
predicate. This analysis is required not only in the light of what
has already been said, but receives additional support from the fact
that in not a few cases an actual demonstrative used as the predicate
nominative is found as the antecedent of '^ipj^ in sentences of this
kind. Cf. Esther 7:5, ^nb y^\'2 nilJS; X^n nT-'NI , ''who is he
(S^n) whose heart has moved him ?"; Ezek. 38: 17, ^^S! J^^H HFIN
^n'^n'n, "thou art he of whom I spake"; I Chron. 21 : 17, i^^n ^DX
-pj^^n "i^N , "I am he that has sinned." If it be maintained
that S^n in such cases is not really a predicate nominative, but
merely an attendant of the subject for the sake of greater emphasis,
this is incorrect, as may be seen from other passages; cf. Ps. 102:28,
i<^ri nriXI , "Thou art he," i.e., the same (in opposition to the
transitoriness of all things spoken of before); Isa. 41:4, J^^H ''DS ,
"1 am he"; 43:10, 13.^ Similarly i<^n ^12, «^n HT, DH nbs;'.^
59. The same construction is found with n>X; cf. Num. 34:29,
ir;;5 mn*' n^:i '^irj^ n^S, "these are [they] whom Jahwe com-
manded"; Josh. 13:32, H^TJ bljD ItlJN; nbs , "these are [they, sc.
the inheritances] which Moses allotted"; "Das ist's, was Moses
verteilte" (Steuernagel) ; Josh. 14:1, bS'lTT"] "^n ^brs "IllJSi Hbxi ,
> Op. cit., p. 22.
2 Driver, Hebrew Tenses, § 200.
» Ibid., § 201.
The Hebrew Particle "^TIJJJ^ 41
"this is [that] which the IsraeUtes received as an inheritance"; Zech.
1 : 10, riln^ nbir "llIJS! nbs , "these are [they] whom Jahwe has sent."
60. In Hke manner, ^T2Ji< follows X^n; cf. Gen. 42:14, TC5^ S^H
^n'lia'n , "this is [that] which I have said";i Lev. 10:3, IH'n mi3i< ^5^-
mr;* , "this is [that] which Jahwe said"; I Kings 18:22, J^^m ^htl
rnrn-nSt ^n^^pjri -^C^n ntbyj, ''is this not he whose highi
places Hezekiah removed?"
61. ^taji also occurs after Ti^l ; cf. Num. 8:24, Q^lbb ■^•J:^^! n5<T ,
rendered by Baentsch, "Das ist's, was mit Bezug auf die Leviten
(geschehen soil)." The LXX favors the Massoretic text: tovto
eaTL TO irepl tcop Aev. Gen. 49:28, DH^nS DHb ^nV^tDS; n^^TI ,
"and this is it that their father spake unto them" (R.V.j.
b) SUBSTANTIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES
1. Substantive Relative Clauses as Subject
62. Entering now into a fuller discussion of the substantive or
independent relative clauses, I must repeat, in the first place, that
Baumann's conclusions are based on only part of the facts. He
selects such passages as seem to suit his theory, while numerous
others, inimical to it, are passed by unnoticed. To begin with the
clauses used as the subject, I shall insert here a typical example from
Gesenius-Kautzsch which will illustrate the mode of treatment:
Num. 22:6, ^&5V nb^Fl ^W , is dissected thus: "der— du verfluchst
[ihn]— ist verflucht,"' ^tblS; being the subject of ^SV . This after
Baumann, who cites Deut. 27:26, ^"^nTnS D^p^'j^b ni23li^ n^^S ,
with the remark that itlJNI has nothing to do syntactically with the
attributive clause, i.e., it is the subject of "I^ISI . "Cursed is he —
[he] does not fulfil the words," etc.
63. To show the incorrectness of this syntactic scheme nothing
further is necessary than to call attention to such passages as preclude
the possibility of its apphcation; cf. Zech. 14:17, !J<b nilJSl J^^HI
D^Sri n^n^ On^b:;? U^bl . . . . nbr. There is more than one
reason why this sentence cannot be analyzed after the Boettcher-
Baumann-Gesenius-Kautzsch fashion. Keeping the difficulty
offered by the waw consecutive in abeyance for the present, can
1 Gunkel and others favor the insertion of "ID'^H after X^H (cf. Gen. 41:28), but
this is unnecessary, as may be seen from the other passages quoted above.
42 Cakl (Iaenssle
the relative clause be regarded here as in any possible way
parenthetical,^ so to speak ? Let us apply the above scheme. "And
it shall be, that one — [he] does not go up — upon thetn shall be no rain."
Assuming for the present that fllJii can be a casus pendens antici-
pating Dr'^l^y , the great difficulty of the number of the verb in
the relative clause remains unsolved. How account for the singular
nby^ ? There would b(^ a semblance of possibility for the con-
struction we are opposing, if instead of nb?^ we should have the
plural ^br. We might then construe: "They ptOSl]— [«/iey] do
not go up [^by*] — upon them shall be no rain." The fact, however,
that the verb in the relative clause is in the singular shows conclu-
sively that its number is determined by "^tDS; . Consequently, the
"i^S; belongs syntactically to the relative clause. The plural QH^b^'
in the main clause is, of course, easily accounted for. The relative
clause is general and indefinite, involving a plural idea. The only
possible rendering of the verse is: "whoever does not go up, upon
them shall be no rain." Another passage in which it is equally
impossible to construe "IIIJS with the main clause is Isa. 55:1,
^;b -C3 ib "X "^lljy; . l( '^^^ is to be construed with the main
clause here, it must be equivalent to the second person plural of
the personal pronoun! Further, if "ilIJ^^ be a plural, how account
for the singular ib ? The ib becomes inexplicable if detached
from ^IIJS;. They both belong together, and the verse must be
rendered: "whoever has no money — come."
64. The importance of the ivaw consecutive has already been
alluded to. To the first passage quoted in the last paragraph we
may here add a few more typical instances: Gen. 44:9, i^'-p^"", ''■^^.
T\-2) . . . . inX; Judg. 1:12, ib^FinDI .... Hr mNi; Mic. 3:5,'
JlTIJ'npl .... "in"; ikb ^ipSi. The first of these passages is cited
twice by Gesenius-Kautzsch. In §112 u, the verse is translated:
"derjenige, bei dem der Becher gefunden werden wird .... der
soil sterben." In §138/ we find the following: " der— gefunden
wird er [der Becher] bei ihm— muss sterben." One cannot fail to
notice that in this last rendering the waw is completely ignored, while
in the former its force is indicated by the resumptive der. Reference,
however, is made to § 143 d, where attention is drawn to the waw
> This expression is employed by Boettcher.
The Hebrew Particle 1123U5 43
apodosis after a casus pendens. Accordingly, ^tljy^ is to be regarded
as a casus pendens. Now, there are, of course, numerous instances
in which the waw follows upon a single word; cf. Jer. 6:19, ^mini
Hn"^CSl«^1, "and as for my law, they have despised it"; Gen.
17:14, . . . . nnn^j^ .... n^T b"^r, , "ein Unbeschnittener aber
. . . . (falls ein solcher betroffen wird), so soil er ausgerottet
werden," etc.;i Gen. 22:24, nbn'l .... TOjb^S^, "und (was)
sein Kebsweib .... (betrifft), so gebar sie."^ With reference to
this usage the grammar says that the casus pendens is virtually a
sentence {Satzdquivalent, 112^, 111 /i). Hence the above mode of
translation ("was .... betrifft, so"). Why call a casus pendens
a "sentence-equivalent?" Obviously, to explain the use of the
following waw. This is, perhaps, putting an unnecessarily heavy
burden upon the casus pendens. It was hardly felt to be a Satz-
dquivalent; but so much is true that this casus absolutus must be
sufficiently definite and suggestive to arrest the attention momen-
tarily and to warrant, as it were, a fresh start (at the waw) in the
continuation and completion of the thought. Such a word as this,
"'ipS , as employed in indefinite relative clauses, in the nature of the
case cannot be. We can easily test this. Let us come back once
more to Gen. 44:9, r\'2) .... i^-0^_ miJS , and isolate *i^i^_ as
a casus pendens. According to Gesenius-Kautzsch, the following
paraphrastic rendering should be allowable: "Was den betrifft —
der Becher wird bei ihm gefunden werden — -so soil er sterben."
We at once feel that this will not work, for the reason that was den
betrifft lacks content and distinctness. But the matter assumes an
entirely different complexion as soon as we say, "was den betrifft,
bei dem der Becher gefunden werden wird, so soil er sterben." In
other words, the explanation and justification of the waw in sentences
of this kind is to be sought in the content of the entire relative clause,
not in the particle as a supposed casus pendens. An ocular repre-
sentation of the syntax must employ only one — and not two ("With
whomsoever the cup be found — he shall die"; "Whoever shall
smite — unto him will I give," etc.). The waw marks the division,
and may sometimes be rendered by "then." This applies especially
to indefinite relative clauses, which are virtually conditional. Thus
> Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 112 mm. " § 111 h.
44 (\\UL Oaknssle
Mie. 3:5 might he freely remlered: "If anyone does not put into
their mouth, then they consecrate war against him." Whatever
precedes the ivaw constitutes a logical and grammati(;al unit.
65. Instead of the icaw, a special resumptive j^ronoun is quite
frequently employed to introduce the main clause. The principle
involved is the same as with the ivaiv, only that the use of the pronoun
gives greater emphasis to the principal sentence; cf. Exod. 12:16,
orb nipr ^^in '^Srb^b brx:. -itpy; -« . Here again the demon-
strative theory presupposes that "lllJ^t is a casus pendens, which,
being resumed by S^H , is really the subject of HiT^I] . According
to the theory we should have to analyze as follows: "Only that
(1'upS has no connection with bS^^) — [it] shall be eaten by every
one — that shall be prepared." These disjecta membra require no
further comment. The simple fact is that I^S is the subject of
b^ii"^ , and the entire "iTIJ^i- clause, emphatically resumed by i^'^Tl ,
is the subject of nir?" . "Only what is eaten by every one, that
shall be prepared." Cf. in English, "Who noble ends by noble
means obtains, that man is great indeed" (Pope, Essay on Man).
A similar passage is Gen. 15:4, ^jtcn^"] X^H ?^7537J 55^;^ nilji^ Di<'^3 ,
"but one that shall come forth out of thy bowels, he shall be thine
heir." Not: "But that one — [he] shall come forth, etc. — he shall
be thine heir." Note also the accent.
2. Substantive Relative Clauses as Object
66. We shall now pass on to consider the relative substantive
clause used as the object. It is in the objective relative clauses that
Baumann would find one of the main stays for his theory of the
s^mtax of our particle. As a typical passage, he singles out Gen.
49:1, as already remarked. The presence of the accusative sign
nx before nip5< (-lllJ^Jt ni< DDb HTSN) is to him an unassailable
proof that "^TlJi^ itself must be in the accusative, and that it must
belong to the Hauptsatzgefiige as the object of •TT'iiX . Before
offering criticism, it may be well to transcribe a few more of Bau-
mann's passages, all of which are to be analyzed in the same way as
Gen. 49:1. Deut. 5:11, "nx «1B^"^m njS; r^rr Tl^T sb ^3
U^llSb i'JIIJ , "denn Jahwe lasst den nicht ungestraft, der seinen
The Hebrew Particle lllJi^ 45
namen freventlich ausspricht"; Deut. 21:16, "r\5< ib^M^n DI'S
"^^ »^."!»7^"^'?^ ^]^ ^^i^> "^^ Tage, wo er seinen Sohnen das uber-
giebt, waserbesitzt"; Lev. 13:57, 3^33^ 'i^'^^i^ n5< ^BS^'^n iiJXn ,
"Mit Feuer soil man es vertilgen, das, woran sich der Aussatz
befindet." Baumann's rendering in these cases is freer, so that the
syntactic relation of ^t23lJ5 is not indicated in the German translation.
However, these passages are in Baumann's opinion so manifesth' in
favor of his theory that he says, "Von diesen Fallen hat man aus-
zugehen und nach ihnen diejenigen zu beurteilen, wo die Sprache
die syntaktische Stellung des IISJ^ nicht zum Ausdruck bringt."'
67. Baumann is determined at all costs to keep the "1123 !J5 from
slipping away from the main clause, and consequently he seizes
upon the preceding rii< to prove that it is the object of the principal
verb and wholly disconnected with the subordinate clause. But
this mode of reasoning will not hold water. It is a mere begging
of the question. It does not prove that lllJj^ must be a demon-
strative in the accusative case, but merely shows that, the demon-
strative theory assumed, the accusative sign dovetails in with this
theory. A stringent proof would have to show that the prefixed
ns^ is inexplicable on any other than the demonstrative conception
of "I'ilJS . As a matter of fact, however, the accusative sign admits
of a very easy explanation without adopting the proposed analysis.
Its function is not to subordinate the "itSS , but the entire clause
introduced by TC5^ . Nor need this surprise us. Such a construc-
tion is quite in harmony with Hebrew usage in general, which often
treats an entire clause, grammatically, as a single word. One need
only recall the very common construction of an entire sentence
depending (as a single idea) on a noun in the construct, to which we
shall have occasion to recur later on. Even granting, therefore, that
"11235^ were an original demonstrative, the rii< would not prove that
it belonged to the principal sentence; and, of course, the argument
fails completely in view of the vague and indeterminate character of
our particle. Moreover, in all the passages cited by Baumann, one
cannot fail to notice that the accentuation stands directly opposed
to his syntax, the '^'J^^_ being in every instance joined with the
following statement by means of the makkej. In the opinion of the
I Op. cit., p. 21.
46 Carl Gaenssle
pimctuiitors, the accusativo sign r&5 was, therefore, prefixed not to
^'I'S but to the entire succeeding clause. And so it is with scores
of other passages which I have examined. Again, there are passages
in which Baumann's syntactic scheme will not fit into the text so
snugly as it apparently does in the passages selected by him for
illustration. In perfectly regular constructions, such as we find in
Gen. 49:1 and numerous other places, it might be contended that,
keeping other objections in abeyance, the "iTTSlTyi constitutes the
object of the principal verb. But where there is no such regularity
of construction, the scheme will not fit. In Num. 32:31 we read
the following: rVJi72 "jS ?jnn3^-bst nvr ^n^ ntdit nj<. Here
the resumptive "3 is troublesome for the Baumann analysis. If
this "3 were absent, it might be contended that "tllJiil nSl is the
object of ri'jp^D (" that — Jahwe has commanded thy servants — we
shall do") ; but the insertion of "3 between the two members of the
sentence makes this analysis impossible. What does this "3
resume? Not, of course, ^llJi^ rii< alone, which as a substantive idea
(according to the theory) could not tolerate an adverbial resumptive.
The "3 gathers up and resumes the logical content of the entire
preceding clause, which contains an abstract verbal idea.^ The force
of the objection urged here will become more apparent if we contrast
with the verse just quoted a similar one containing an emphatic
resumptive pointing back to a nominal idea: Judg. 11:24, Sbij
^yn inis ^"rrbx i2jtj3 ?|ti3"iv nii3« ns;, "what thy god
Chemosh giveth thee to possess, that wilt thou not possess?" Cf.
also Num. 23:12.
68. Even this latter type of sentence is not treated by Baumann.
What has been said above with reference to the emphatic resumptive
in connection with relative clauses used as subject will also apply
here. Judg. 11:24 is not to be analyzed thus: "That — Chemosh,
thy god will give thee to possess [it] — that wilt thou not possess?"
The ''1^^|1 ns is not a casus pendens.
69. We shall now insert a few of the numberless instances of the
objective relative clause without the accusative sign. Gen. 41:28,
n'lr^E-nS -X":n rrj:y O^nbX niZJX, "What God is about to do
he has shown Pharaoh"; not: "That — God is about to do [it] — he
' R.V. As .... so, and Kautzsch wie .... so.
The Hebrew Particle ilI3i< 47
has shown Pharaoh," Tl235< being the object of Ti'JiV , not of tl^'^n ;
Exod. 4:12, ^ann ^llJi^ ^'^n^^in') , "I win teach thee what \hou
Shalt speak"; Exod. 6:1, TO^sb npy&|! n^S n^i^ri nny , "Now
shalt thou see what I will do unto Pharaoh"; I Sam. 10:7, TVLV
?;T 5^:27JF1 -itSS r(o, "Do for thyself what thy hand shall find,"
i.e., do as occasion shall serve thee (R.V.); II Sam. 18:4,
riW^ D^'r?^ ?^'"!"^'^^ . "What is good in your eyes I shall do"
(think of making "''05^ the object of riiryi^ in spite of Makkef and
accentuation!); Isa. 33:13, ^r\^'X^ ni^JJ^ D-jim ^TQ^ , "Hear, ye
that are afar off, what I have done"; Isa. 37:11, ^WV nm r\y'2^
1^12J5< "^rf r"^ ) "thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have
done"; Isa. 44:7, Vcb ^T^ nDSJinri ^ir^l , "and what shall come
let them announce." In all of these cases — and they might be
greatly multiplied — the accentuation is again directly opposed to the
syntactic scheme defended by Baumann.
3. Substantive Relative Clauses Depending on a Preposition
70. It is a well-known phenomenon in Hebrew that a preposition
may govern an entire clause just as well as a single word. When,
therefore, a relative clause introduced by 1123X depends on a preposi-
tion, the latter subordinates the clause, not merely the particle, to
which the former is supposed to stand in an appositional relation.
This analysis is required by the vague non-demonstrative character
of ^^^5 . Such sentences as in^^'by ^IZJ^b HTJi^^l are not to be
analyzed, "and he said to him [I^N] — [he] was over his house"; but
rather, "And he said to [him] who-was-over-his-house," the entire
clause being conceived as a single idea, while the relative is hardly
more than a medium of relation. Constructions of this kind are
very common; cf. the following passages: Gen. 27:8, "'bpS TZ"^
T^nX n^Ii'J ^3S ^^^b, "Obey my voice in what I am about to
command thee"; Gen. 47:6, "If there are able men among them
[^b-nTI35<-b? HDp"^ ^lb DFl''JTr'l], set them as rulers of the cattle over
my property " ; Gen. 47 : 24, " And it shall come to pass at the harvest
that you shall give a fifth unto Pharaoh and four parts shall be your
own, for seed of the field .... [DD^Finn ^'^^b'l] and for your
48 Caul (Iaensslk
househokls" (not "for those — [thi'ij] :iro in your houses"); Exod.
10:16, "This is the thing which Jahwe has commanded, Gather
ye .... [ibr^SIIl "^'^^^ '^^^], every man for [those] who are
in his tent"; Exod. 29:27, "Thou shalt sanctify the breast of the
wave-offering .... of the ram of consecration ['pH^P "^"'^^'rl
of what belongs to Aaron"; Lev. 27:24, "In the year of jubilee the
field shall return [in^^■I ^n;j^ "'"^^^l to him from whom he bought
it" (lit. "to from-whom-he-bought-it"). Here the "IIISS is nothing
more than a connecting link. There are numerous other passages
of the same kind which it is needless to quote. I shall merely indicate
where they may be found: Lev. 5:24; 14:30; Num. 5:7; 6:11;
20:24; Josh. 10:11; 17:16; Judg. 21:5; I Sam. 30:14; II Sam.
18:8; II Kings 10:22; Isa. 2:8; 29:12; 31:0; 43:4; 49:9; 56:4;
65:12; Koh. 3:9.
71. The weak non-demonstrative character of ■''C&5 in the above
sentences is seen from the fact that it is sometimes dispensed with
entirely, the clause depending immediately on the preposition; cf.
Isa. 65:1, ^bif:^ Sibb ^ri'^^_"I3, "I was consulted by those who
did not ask." (J^ibb instead of i<b "^^xb); Jer. 2:8, ""^-^^
^Sb" ^b'^yi^'kb , "After what does not profit they walked";
Jer. 2:11, "My people have changed their glory [b^^V iJ^ibS] for
what does not profit."
4. Relative Clauses in Construct State
72. The principle that an entire clause was conceived by the
Hebrew Sprachbewusstsein as a single idea and construed as such is
further illustrated by the fact that a relative clause very frequently
appears as depending on a construct. In the syntactic treatment of
this type of sentence, I must again express my dissent with the view
of Baumann, Gesenius-Kautzsch, and Philippi. What this view is
may be best seen by inserting a few examples with Baumann's
rendering. Num. 9:18, '{D^^n-by -D^n -,iD12J^ nilJiSt ^'2^'^^ ,
"die ganze Zeit des: es lagerte u.s.w."; I Kings 21:19, "ilIJSl Oip'-Ii
nia: W^-n^ Q^^l^^n ^ppb, "AmOrtedes: es leckten die Hunde
Naboths Blut."' Similarly Philippi, who renders ~ci^ "^'^^ ^V"^
DuJ "'^C^5 (Gen. 40:3), "der Ort des — dass daselbst Joseph ge-
fangen ist, der Ort des daselbst Gefangenseins Josephs. "^ So far
I Op. cit., p. 40. = Status Constr., p. 79.
The Hebrew Particle "I'iJX 49
as the sense is concerned, these renderings are sufficiently accurate.
Phihppi's "Der Ort des daselbst Gefangenseins Josephs," which
gathers up the relative clause into a single substantive in the geni-
tive, shows a true insight into the nature of the Hebrew construction.
Yet it will be noticed that both Philippi's and Baumann's rendering,
and especially the latter's, seek to preserve intact and unimpaired
the demonstrative character of itSJ!; . In other words, Tl2JiJ< is a
true demonstrative in the genitive after the construct ^"2^ or bip*2 ,
while the following clause is in apposition with it. In the hght of
our whole previous discussion, this syntax cannot be upheld. As in
numerous other cases, it assigns to our particle a specific demon-
strative meaning such as it does not express. Just what was implied
in the "^"kliS in such connections, when the language was still living,
it is hazardous for us to decide. There is one thing, however, that
is worthy of note. This construction occurs principally after designa-
tions of -place and time. May we, therefore, not also here discern a
trace of the adverbial character of nilJS ? It might perhaps be
objected that this supposition, while suitable enough after expres-
sions of place, fails when applied to those of time. However, the
idea of time as well as place is often conceived locally, spatially. Do
we not speak of a ^^ space of time" in English, or of a "Zeitrai//n"
in German? The latter tongue even goes so far as to use the local
adverb wo, indifferently of place or time, e.g., "die Zeit, wo"; "am
Tage, wo." So also the French. I think, therefore, that we may
have in these Hebrew constructions the lingering traces of the
adverbial use of ^IIJSl . While this may be the case, the other sup-
position that TOS! is simply a faded medium of relation satisfies
all the requirements. One cannot be dogmatic on this point. For
additional examples cf. the grammars, e.g., Davidson, Syntax, § 25.
73. Very frequently the IlIJS; is omitted; cf. I Sam. 25:15,
Dri&< ^jip*rinn ^'T'bj, rendered bj^ Baumann, "Die ganze Zeit
(des:) wir zogen mit ihnen herum." The English equivalent would
be, "All the days of our going about with them." Passages of this
type are also very common; cf. Ps. 56:10, ^5^p^ DVZl , "on the day
that I called"; Isa. 29:1, TQ "jH n^"^p , "the city where David
encamped"; Job. 18:21, ^T )^ '^'^'p'r ^ "the place of one that
knows not [God]." Further citation is unnecessary for our purpose.
50 Carl Gaenssle
c) 1"jjs< a vague medium of kelation
74. In addition to what has already been said against the demon-
strative tlieory of "ilIJSl , it may further be remarked that there are
passages in the Old Testament wliere 112JS is so impalpably vague
and elusive as to be untranslatable except by periphrasis. These
passages have not received due consideration by the grammars in
determining the character of our particle. Cf . the following passages :
Judg. 8:15, 'ni< DF13in l^K y37jb?1 nnT nsn ^•2^'^'], "and
he said, Behold Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom you
taunted me"; Vulg. : super quibus; LXX: ej^ols ; Kautzsch: "wegen
dcrcr ihr mich gehohnt habt." A mere glance at this sentence is
sufficient to show the vague indeterminateness of TllJNi . It will
tolerate neither a demonstrative, relative, nor conjunctional treat-
ment. It is simply a connective medium, indicating in itself no
logical or grammatical relationship between the two clauses. To
establish this in accordance with the demands of English syntax,
we must have recourse to periphrasis and employ the more definite
phrases "concerning whom," "with reference to whom," or some-
thing similar. Zech. 11:13, "Cast away the precious wage P^N*
^"^/r^'r T^"1P^] ^i which I had been valued by them." Our rendering
"at which" is, of course, determined solely by the free rendering
of '^ri"'pV The particle simply links the two statements "goodly
price" or "precious wage" and "I had been valued," etc., together,
leaving the logical relation to be determined by the reader. Num.
10:32 also belongs here: r^12y HIH^ 3^.' ^^^ ^^"v' nil^H .
Here we must render our particle "wherewith," by which it is not
meant that it conveyed any such definite meaning to the Hebrew.
I Sam. 2:32, bs;"iir"; ns; n^tp^ ^-ICS-bDn, "in all of that wherewith
[as to which] he shall show kindness to Israel"; II Kings 19:6, "Be
not afraid of the words which you have heard [^"^y] ^213 "^liDi^
'nJ5 ^^ISX'Tjb'J] wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria
have blasphemed me." Here again I'CX is neither a pronoun nor
a conjunction in the real sense of the term. Another instructive
passage is Josh. 5:4, y'^pirT^ b/J'^lI^S; ^^IL'^H HTl . This is usually
rendered, "This is the reason why." But "^J,"^ does not mean
"reason," nor IIZJ^; "why." Why should we not have H'-b fol-
lowing 131 , if the latter really means reason ? H'-b is used in
The Hebrew Particle "TOX 51
indirect questions (cf. Dan, 10:20). "iZl"^ here simply means
matter, state, condition, Bewandtnis. The sentence is to be trans-
lated somewhat as follows: ''This is the matter with reference to
Joshua's circumcising"; or, more freely, "Such are the facts con-
cerning Joshua's circumcising," "So verhalt es sich damit, dass
Josua beschnitt." We find a parallel passage in I Kings 11:27,
ibaa T D^^n-nidi^ "^n^n m, "Such are the facts concern-
ing his rebellion against the king," " Folgendermassen ging es dabei
zu, als er sich gegen den Konig emporte" (Kittel, Handkommentar) ;
Burney {Notes on Kings): "and this is the reason why."
75. Sometimes the particle "''C^^l unites two propositions, com-
plete and independent in themselves, in such a way that the verb
following '^^^|1 governs its own object clause. In these cases also
the vague connective character of "i^S is evident. Cf. Num. 11 : 16,
" Gather seventy men from the elders of Israel [D»l"^3 Tl^T "iipi<^
Qi?r! "SpT] concerning whom you know that they are elders of the
people"; Deut. 9:2, "Thou shalt go in and dispossess [vs. 1] . . . .
the sons of Anakim [^wSb 2^:n^ ^"p ny'^TIJ HnSI ri>"7^^ nn« ni2JS
pDy ■'jS], whom thou knowest and concerning whom thou hast
heard, who shall stand," etc.; Deut. 20:20, "'S ^^fn'^^^P^ 7? pi
X^n bpi<'J2 Y2?"^ib , "only the trees of which thou knowest that
they are not trees for food"; I Sam. 25:11, "And shall I take my
slaughter that I have slaughtered for my shearers and give it unto
men [mri TlTZ "S "n3?T 5<b n^S] concerning whom I do not
know whence they come?"
76. The following examples exhibit the same general character
as the preceding: Exod. 6:8, '^m ""^XH"^^ °?^?^ T^^n")
nrii^ rrib '^^Tii^ "inSirD, "I shall bring you into the land con-
cerning which I sware to give it [sc. to your fathers]"; Ezek. 20:42,
nrninxb nm nnb ■'i^ns! ^nsirs ti2J5< 'p.^0' "*^^ ^^^^
concerning which I sware to give it unto your fathers"; cf. also
Josh. 21:43; Ezek. 38:17; Job 30:1; Dan. 9:2. Konig thinks
that sentences of this kind represent the syntactic phenomenon of
Satzverflechtung in which the "ITIJS; appears "als das gemeinsame
Objekt zweier Satze." ^ That is to say (to use Exod. 6:8 for illustra-
tion), the TC^Il is supposed to be at once the object of "^riJ^TTS and
" Syntax, 414 kl.
52 Carl Gaenssle
riri5 . I doubt very much wliether this view is correct. In view
of the unquestionable vagueness of "'"J^Sl in many other cases, it
seems to me decidedly preferal)lc to regard it also in the foregoing
constructions as a medium of relation pure ami simple. And here
we may conveniently refer to three other passages similarly treated
by Konig: I Sam. 3:11, "I am about to do a thing in Israel," '^'1IJ&5
V:TJ< ^rpS nr b;:in i5piD-b|l, translated by Konig as follows:
Cuius aitditoris cuiusque aures ambae tinnient^ ("both ears of every
hearer of which shall tingle"). But this is more in harmony with the
involved character of Latin syntax than with the Hebrew. Wj'nkoop
{Syntax, 41, 3), to my mind, comes much nearer to the Hebrew idiom
in rendering "at which, if any one heareth it, both his ears shall
tingle." Giesebrecht's remark is to the point. He says that in
this connection "^IIJSI is a "Partikel der Relation im Allgemeinen,
etwa s.v.a. ivohei" {Handkonimentar). Reproduced in English,
■''kZJX is equivalent to some such expression as "with reference to
which the following applies," "I shall do a thing " (with reference to
which, etc.). The same expression recurs in II Kings 21:12 and
Jer. 19:3.
77. Sometimes, according to our grammatical categories, IIIJS
does the service of a partitive genitive; cf. Exod. 1:15, "And the
king of Egypt said unto the Hebrew midwives, nnsin Dup '^^^^
ny^E '^"j'ljSn D12JT JT'S'llJ , Vulg. : Quarumunavocahatur,eic.\YiXO(\.
18:3, "[Jethro took] her two sons," Da:"i3 inSH D'J? "1123^5, Vulg.:
Quorum units vocahatur; Judg. 20:31, "In the highways, riHi^ ''"JiS
bSl"n''2 nVy , Vulg. : quarum unaferebatur in Bethel. In these cases,
1125s is manifestly nothing more than a connective with no syntactic
relation at all.
78. I have found one passage in which miS is equivalent to an
accusative of result: Lev. 6:3, IIJS;" b^i^B IT^S; -TlJ^ri-nS; D^-ini
"ST^ri'by nb^'riTli^ , "And he shall take up the ashes whereto
the fire shall consume the burnt-offering on the altar." This passage,
along with several others, is quoted by Baumann in a paragraph
introduced by the following words: "Im Hebraischen nehmen
verschiedene Gruppen von Verben ein direktes Objekt zu sich,
wo wir das Verhaltnis durch eine Praposition vermitteln." Having
i Syntax, 412 1.
The Hebrew Particle "i12Ji< 53
then cited the illustrative examples, he concludes the paragraph with
this sentence: ''In alien diesen Beispielen ist das in der Gestalt
eines Pronominalakkusativs zu erwartende 'Aid ausgelassen."i
That is to say, the verb bDX is supposed to take two accusatives,
one representing the direct object (in our verse Tl^^lT^) and another
denoting the result. In this way Baumann seeks to rescue "^"^IJi^ for
his hypothesis. He conceives of the syntax in this way: "He shall
take up the ashes that — [into it] [suppressed retrospective] the fire
shall consume the burnt-offering." But the verb b^Si is never
employed with two accusatives, but with one only. Consequently,
the ^ipx can be nothing else than a vague connective, equivalent
to an accusative of result, according to our mode of thought. A
suppression of the 'Aid is out of the question.
79. There is, perhaps, one example where ^IZJS; may be said to
be employed as an ablative of attendant circumstance; cf. Exod.
6:5, nnj^ D^l=l?"r D":'^^"r ^"^^ ^^y^". '5=^ f^P^?"^^ T^^'t^,
"I have heard the groaning of the Israelites under which the Egyp-
tians hold them in bondage [lit. make them serve]." There is, of
course, room for difference of opinion here. "Whom the Egyptians
keep in bondage" is the translation adopted by R.V., Baentsch, and
others. But the verse is more vividly descriptive of the situation
if "I12P&5 be made to refer as a connective to flpSD instead of bsT^:"' ,
thus denoting the circumstances under which the oppression goes
on. So Vulg. : gemitum .... quo Aegypti oppresserunt eos. LXX
also refers "I'CS to groaning, but the translation is too slavishly
literal: arevaynov .... ov oi Axyb-KTioi KaTabovKovvTai avTohs-
80. It may be that "^lliij; expresses means (always to be borne in
mind that the various forces are not inherent in the particle itself) ;
cf. Isa. 50:1, "Where is your mother's bill of divorcement ["I'lZJ^i
ri''ri~b'aJ] by which I put her away?"; Judg. 9:38, "Where is now
thy mouth [H/JJ^Fl ^IIJS;] with which you spoke ?" But cf. explicative
clauses in Part II. Josh. 8:26, "iTS^ uDD nilJS iT , "his hand
wherewith he stretched out the javelin"; but, perhaps better,
"which he stretched out with the javelin"; cf. Exod. 8:1.
81. It is quite in keeping with the broad and indeterminate
nature of "ltl3si that it often dispenses with specifying adjuncts
> Op. cit.. p. 32.
54 Caul (Jaenssle
ordinarily employ t\l. This is especially the ease when it is used with
I'^yi . Ordinarily, the person or thing spoken of is expressed by
• means of prepositions, such as b^|; or b . In relative clauses, however,
they are usually omitted; of. Gen. 43:27, "Is your father well, the
old man [□n■!r^i ^"^X] of whom you speak?"; Gen. 43:29, "Is
this your little brother ["bx Orn'^Sl TCSS] of whom you spoke to
me?"; Exod. 22:8, " Concerning anything that is lost [TJS^ miJS]
of which one says [this is it]"; Num. 14:31, "And your little ones
[D^|■}"^^^ "I'^Sl] of whom you say [they shall be a prey]"; Num.
21:16, "This is the well [niflTjb HIH^ Tp^^ ni25s] concerning which
Jahwe spake to Moses"; I Sam. 9:9, ?|^bs T"^'r^ ^^^ llJ^i^n ,
"the man concerning whom I spake to thee." Examples of this
kind are very numerous. So also with "I3T and ^Hll .
82. The indefinite character of IIJJNI is further observable in
its various uses after time-determinations. It may denote, accord-
ing as the context requires, (a) the time at which (point of time),
(6) the time during which (duration of time) , and (c) the time within
which an action takes place or a condition exists.
Examples of (a): Exod. 13:3, "Remember this day pllJX
Dn^<^■'] when ye went forth"; Num. 15:23, "From the day p^N;
Tr\rr nj:;] when Jahwe commanded"; Deut. 4:10; 4:32; 9:7;
27:2; Judg. 4:14; II Sam. 19:20; 19:25; I Kings 22:25; Jer.
7:25; Ps. 78:42; Koh. 8:9; Esther 5:13; 9:1; 9:22, "As the
days [On^n^i^p On^n';:! Ona ^HD ^^^] wherein the Jews had
rest from their enemies." I quote this passage, in particular,
because it is the only one that I have found with a retrospective,
when "''Oi< is used after designations of time. This passage has been
overlooked by Baumann, who says that when '^'^'^ belongs to a
Zeithegriff the retrospective fehlt stets.^ So also Gesenius-Kautzsch :
"Tritt der appositionelle Satz zu einem Zeitbegriff, so fehlt das
zuriickverweisende Pronomen immer."^ I Chron. 17:5; II Chron.
6:5.
Examples of (6): Deut. 1:46, "According to the days P'i2?X
□nz^^] that [during which] ye shall dwell"; Deut. 4:10, "All the
days [n:^lXr;-br D^^^n nri n^S] that they live upon the earth";
^Op. cit., p. 33. 2§ 138 c.
The Hebrew Particle IIIJS 55
Deut. 12:1; 31:13; Judg. 14:17; I Sam. 1:28; 20:31; 27:7, 11;
II Sam. 2:11; I Kings 2:11; 8:40; 11:42; 14:20; I Chron. 6:31.
Examples of (c): Gen. 45:6, "There are yet five years ["j^S; 112JX
"I'^Jkj^'l ^''■;"] in which there shall be no plowing or harvest";
Num. 14:34, "According to the number of days [Dn^ri'H'ilJi^
y^ytHTiyi] in which you spied out the land"; Deut. 2:14, "and the
days [??."'4l '^1]^'r ^'r^V "'"^^1 ^^ which we came from Kadesh-
Barnea to," etc.; I Kings 9:10, "At the end of twenty years [T^2j^^
n^nnn ;:'f -nj^ nbbtp HDZ] in which Solomon built the two
houses."
d) "I12JX IN CLAUSES OF SPECIFICATION
83. There are a few instances where ^llJ^t is employed in what
I shall call specifying relative clauses; cf. II Sam. 24:10, 'li^'2 "IHi^t^r
'rr'W^ ^ll3s; . This is an instructive passage. What is the syntax
here? On the demonstrative hypothesis the only possible con-
struction would be to regard "''^i|! as depending on ■'Hi^tsn as an
accusative of nearer definition: "I have sinned greatly with respect
to that — I have done [it]." In the light of our whole preceding
discussion, this view is to be set aside a limine. Nor is "'n^ir^ 1"j3s
simply an independent relative clause: "I have sinned greatly —
what I have done." This leaves an intolerable chasm between the
two actions. Nor can "''^Sl be purely a connective medium: "I
have sinned greatly — [connective] — I have done." The logic of the
sentence will help us to determine the sjmtax. The main sentence
"p^^ti" is a confession, which implies a judgment on the sub-
ordinate action. The latter, therefore, must have at least a certain
measure of definiteness as a basis for the judgment. This is, of
course, not contained in "'ri""?^ alone, but only in ""O'^iry plus ^^i< .
The particle, therefore, must have a pronominal content referring
to the numbering of the people, for which " David's heart smote him."
But since, as we have seen, there is no outward syntactic relation
between the intransitive "rii^un , which is complete in itself, and
the T"^'Tr2? "i^Si , there is only one means left to establish the required
relation, and that is to regard the clause as the equivalent of a speci-
fying accusative. Thus we arrive at the translation, "I have sinned
greatly with respect to what I have done." What has been discussed
here with some minuteness was felt by the translators: R.V. : "I
56 Carl Gaenssle
have sinned jireatly in that which I have (k)ne"; Kautzsch: ''Irh
habe schwer gosimtligt mit dcm. was ich tat"; the Vulgate euts the
knot with: Peccavi valde in hoc facto.
84. A similar passage is Gen. 44:5. Cn-'T? "^"OX Ch?";- .
In the first place, we cannot render, "You have made evil that —
you have done [?7]." Baumami does not treat the passage. Is the
structure of the sentence adequately represented by, "You have
made evil what you have done." making "^-X the object of 2n""rr
and the entire clause depend as object on Cpi?'^"? We feel at
once that there is an inconcuinity between "jou have made e\dl"
and the supposed objective clause "what you have done" (the same
applies to "that"). This analysis implies faulty logic in the utter-
ance. The act to which Joseph refers was evil in itself, and was not
subsequently made evil. In other words, there was only one actiop.
and not two. This was felt by translators and commentators:
"Ye have done evil m so doing'' (E.V.); "Daran habt ihr Ubel
getan" (Kautzsch); "Eine bose Tat habt ihr begangen" (Keil);
"Eine schlechte Tat habt ihr da begangen" (Delitzsch); "Ihr habt
iibel gehandelt" (Gunkel). Similarlj- Vulg., Pessimam rem fecistis.
All these renderings are correct, though somewhat free. But what
is the exact s\nitax? A little investigation will show that we have
here a construction of exactly the same t>T3e as the one discussed
in the preceding paragraph. To prove this, a few remarks on the
nature and function of the Hifil are necessary in the first place.
The Hifil is of two kinds. Besides the ordinary causative meaning,
which needs no further remark, the Hifil has what Konig calls the
"direct causative," Gesenius-Kautzsch, the "imier transitive or
intensive" meaning (it is difficult to find an adequate terminology).
When thus employed, it mdicates that the action or state expresse<i
bj- the Qal is exercised or put into operation, without, however,
terminating on an object. Sometimes, both of these Hifil forces are
found with the same verb; cf. Isa. 9:2, nr;"I*5ri ^"'^lir; , "he caused
joy to be great"; Dan. 9:8, "b^^j^tl, "[the ram] showed greatness"
(used absolutely). Among the numerous examples of the direct
or injier causative Hifil I refer to the following: Isa. 36:21, ^w^1"^1 ,
"and they held their peace [silentiian facereY'; Isa. 1:18, 3x'Jj3
^;"Z*" , "they shall become white as snow," i.e., "thej- shall exhibit
The Hebrew Particle ^"ix 57
the quality of whiteness"; Dan. 9:5, T.y^^rt , "we have acted
wickedly." For further examples cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 53 d, e,
f, and Konig', I, 204 f.
85. As might be expected, this class of Hifil often receives a
nearer definition to indicate the sphere in which the action is exercised
or to which it is limited. This specification is added: (1) by means
of the infinitive with b: cf. Ps. 126:2, niz^b m"^ b-^r-H ,
''Jahwe has manifested greatness in his doings"; II Chron. 26:15,
""•ri!^ ^^bi" *3 , "for he was marvelously helped," i.e., "he showed
marvelous success in winning victories" (which were attributed to
Jahwe. Hence Nif.); I Sam. 16:17, "ylb -"pv;; 'i2;""X , "a man
who shows skill in playing"; (2) by means of the infinitive alone:
cf. Ezek. 33:32, '^l Z'^'Z , "one who plays well"; Isa. 23:16;
(3) by means of the accusative: cf. Dan. 11:32, n'"^Z '"'r^"'r ,
" those acting wickedly with respect to the covenant." I have quoted
this passage first, because it shows clearly the nature of the accom-
panying accusative. Deut. 5:25, ^■'11" "^ITSl'bj ^2"I3"rt, "they
have done well in all they have said"; Kautzsch, "Sie haben recht
mit dem, was sie geredet haben"; not, of course: "They have
made good all that they have said."
86. And now, having thus cleared the way, we come back to our
passage Gen. 44:5, Cr^T^' tJSS; QH^'^Jj . The verb >"n is among
those most frequently used as an inner transitive Hifil; cf.
Gen. 19:7, ^5^ri '"S; N"*S , "I pray you, my brethren, do not
act wickedly"; Judg. 19:23, S: ■>;:n"bx ""i<"bi< , "do not, my
brethren, do not act wickedly"; I Kuigs 16:25, ^'iw^ bb'Z "^^^l
T'rS^ , "and he acted more wickedly than all that were before
him"; II Kings 21:11; Isa. 1:16; 11:9; 65:25; Jer. 4:22, etc.
Sometimes this Hifil is, as in the examples above, accompanied with
the infinitive with b; cf. I Kmgs 14:9, "nfeb 3?"'ni , "thou hast
acted [more] wickedly in thy doings [than all, etc.]"; Jer. 16:12. It
is also found with the accusative; cf. Mic. 3:4, ^^7" "^'iIJSS
Dr;"bb""^ , "according as they have "^Tought evil in their doings"
(R.V.); Jer. 38:9, ■■""-T- ■^'^'^' ^"-^^"-r ^^ "^'?~ °^'^V^~ ^"'^~ ^
"these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah."
These accusatives are specifjong in character. Consequently, in
our passage Dr"''C" l-JSI Dn:7"^ri it is the ItDS- clause that furnishes
58 Carl (Jaenssle
the necessary specification to Drjl" . "You have done evil with
respect to what you have done" is the only possible construction.
Thus it will be seen that the clause is employed in exactly the same
way as in II Sam. 24:10; cf. also Deut. 18:7, T^'Iil ^'m ^n^p^M ,
" they have done well as to what they have said " ; R.V. : "They have
well said that which they have spoken" implies a misunderstanding
of the sj-ntax.
The bearing of these passages on the demonstrative theory is
obvious.
e) MISCELLANEOUS
87. The particle ■'"bi^ may refer to an entire sentence; cf.
Exod. 10:6, "And thy houses shall be filled [with locusts], and the
houses of thy servants"; ^"nh^ ^S^'i^b ^125S ; LXX: a ovUirore
iccpcLKaaLv ol iraripes (tov; Vulg. : Quantam non viderunt patres
(making "^ylJlSk refer to locusta and the end of vs. 4). This is wrong.
R.V. as Baentsch: "Wie es deine Vorfahren nie erlebt haben."
This is correct. The context shows that IllJ^t sums up the preceding
statements about the plague of locusts and is equivalent to "a thing
such as," quale. Similarly, the Syriace ? introduces, at times, a
relative clause referring to an entire sentence, but in this case it is
always preceded by a correlative.^ The Assyrian sa occasion-
ally performs the same function. Jer. 7:31, "and they have built
high places of Topheth .... to burn their sons and daughters
in the fire psb-by nnb>- sb") 'm^ ^b nilJX] which I commanded
them not, neither came it into my mind"; cf. also 32:35; Esther
4:16, "And so I will go to the king [H'^S xb niryj] which is not
according to the law."
88. In at least one instance ^'^2j^I> depends on a preposition
in the same way as an Indo-European relative; cf. Gen. 31:32,
-■"■; i<b ^""bs ns Xr^n niZJSt ny , "with whom thou find-
est thy gods, [he] shall not five." Ordinarily, the construction
would be yBV ^123 Si . Boettcher is the only one, so far as I am
aware, who assumes a disorder in the text. Sperling and Baumami,
accepting the text as correct, hold that this is the only instance of
the kind in the Old Testament. Perhaps this view is correct.
The other passages usually referred to as exhibiting the same con-
struction are by no means as clear as Gen. 31:32; cf. Isa. 47:12,
» Noldeke. Syr. Grammatik, § 356.
The Hebrew Particle ^tlJb^ 59
'^^^'^yY'r W^l ^^?^ T^^? ^'"^?^ T^-^'^ ^r^Tr^', "Stand
forth now with thy spells and the multitude of thy enchantments
wherein thou hast labored from thy youth." The question is
whether the S before I^X belongs to ^"IpS? at the beginning of
the sentence (so Davidson) or to Fl^ji^ (so Delitzsch and Wyn-
koop). ^''^X^ would thus be employed for the ordinary DH^ "I'^IJS .
In favor of this view is the fact that the verb ^^ is ordinarily con-
strued with 2; cf. Isa. 43:22; 62:8; Josh. 24:13. But it is not
to be overlooked that other verbs, usually construed with a preposi-
tion (e.g., ^/JS; already referred to, il'H , and ^H^), frequently
omit the preposition when used in connection with TCS . The
same thing may have taken place with yy . Moreover (if the
text is correct), we have ri^'3^ "^123 Nl without a preposition in vs.
15 of the same chapter. Rather, therefore, than assume the anoma-
lous "i^iSI^ as being employed for DHIl TOS , I prefer to make the
preposition depend on ""p^ at the beginning of the sentence, and
render thus: "Stand forth .... thy spells .... with what thou
hast labored," etc., making the clause not attributive but appo-
sitional to the preceding nouns. Isa. 56:4 need not detain us long.
The words are ^ri^S" '''^^^ ^""Jt^ > ''Choose what pleases me."
Again Wynkoop says "''^i^S = iS '^^^ • There can be no question
that ^ depends on ^1"3 and subordinates the entire clause. VSn
requires no preposition, being often construed with the accusative;
cf. Isa. 55:11, ^niiSn IllJ^-nX Timy DS ^3, "but accomplishes
that which I please"; Isa. 1:11. Finally, Zech. 12:10 may be
briefly discussed here. The passage reads rii< "'bi< ^ti'^SHT
^"'j!5'l"TCS! , "They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced."
Konig accepts this as an undoubted instance of the relative use of
^■fflS in the ordinary sense of the term. So, many interpreters:
g! a. Smith: "They shall look to him [reading Vbx for "bs]
whom they have pierced"; Briggs: "They .... upon me, whom
they have pierced"; Vulg.: Adspicient ad me quem confixerunt.
Others assume textual corruption; e.g., Baumann,Gesenius-Kautzsch,
Wellhausen, Nowack. Keil thinks that the rii< before '^'^^ is
added for sake of clearness, since the particle ^"^^ might otherwise
be regarded as the subject of T^^Ti . Nowack says the expression
is unhehrdisch. There may be a parallel case in Jer. 38:9, "These
men have done evil [TCJ^'b^ HlSt] with respect to all that they have
60 Carl Gaensslk
done unto JcM-cniinh pi--bs ^^b'^H "'^^^5 ns] whom [?] they
cast into the pit." Giesebrecht simply cancels the HS before "^V?^ •
Konig says it means "mit Bezug darauf, dass." This may be cor-
rect, and it may not. With the means at our disposal there seems
to be no possibilitj^ of definitely deciding. If "^llJi^ flSi be retained
in the sense of whom, we must admit that it is very unusual, but
no more so than ■^■:JS '2V in Gen. 31:32.
89. "Ganz eigentiimHch," says the grammar of Gosenius-
Kautzsch, "ist der absolute Gebrauch von 1tpJ5 in der Formel
■^S nin"' ■'Zl m'H 1123s 'das [ists] — es erging als Wort Jahwes
an.'" This is, indeed, somewhat "peculiar," but not without
analogies in other Semitic languages. Besides, the expression
"absolute Gebrauch" is misleading, growing out of the attempt to
save the demonstrative character of the particle. What we have
here is an inversion of the usual order in the structure of dependent
relative clauses, inasmuch as the antecedent is drawn into the clause.
Here we can adopt Konig's Satzverflechtung or, as sometimes called,
Satzverschrdnkung. I have found twelve instances of the attraction
of the antecedent by the relative clause. Of these Konig cites six
{Lehrgeb., Ill, 414 f.). Four occur in Jeremiah, all having the same
form as the example above; cf. Jer. 14:1; 46:1; 47:1; 49:34,
"That which came as Jahwe's word." For the remaining examples
cf. Num. 33:4, "bs DHn nirr Hsri "ij5si ni< D^")np_7j n^y^'z^
■^1321, "while the Egyptians were burying all the firstborn
whom Jahwe had smitten among them"; I Sam. 24:19, PSI
nniD -ni5 n^ir^-ni25Ji nx nrn rn^n [nb^^n?], "And thou
hast declared this day the good which thou hast done me" (so, if
we adopt the Massoretic reading) ; adopting the proposed emenda-
tion, "And thou hast increased this day," etc. Nowack, "Und
zwar hast du heute noch vermehrt, was du Gutes an mir gethan hast,"
conforming exactly to the Hebrew construction. I Sam. 25:30,
"And it shall come to pass when Jahwe shall have done to my lord
[7\^by nzilsn-nwS: ^S'n-nirS bbS], according to all the good that
he has spoken concerning thee." II Kings 12:6, "They shall
repair the breaches of the house [pin Ut i^-l'n^-^^i^_ bbb],
according to every breach that is found there." (But, perhaps, it
is preferable to join W^ with "I123X, "according to every place where
a breach is found." Then there is no attraction. Konig, however,
The Hebrew Particle "^"I2J5< 61
counts this passage among his examples.) Ezek. 12:25, "^Sli^
^2*1 ^nny; T^SS n5<, "I shall speak the word that I will speak.''
Toy rejects "^^^ nx "inii^ (SBOT), but this is unnecessary. The
text, as it stands, expresses the determination of Jahwe to announce
his will more strongly than if the words are omitted, and this suits
the purport of the whole passage. Ezek. 12:28, ^2" ^ni5< "1123i<
niry]''! , "the word which I shall speak shall be performed"; Exod.
1"b3"b3 , "according to all that I shall show thee, the model of
the tabernacle and the model of all the furniture thereof"; II Kings
8:12, "Because I know [Ti^'^ bss-j'tT^. "nb nir^n-nilJJ^ nx] the
evil that thou will do unto the children of Israel." In all these
cases, the relative particle with which the sentence begins, and which
is necessarily vague, receives the required specification by the follow-
ing noun. Hence we may say that the antecedent is drawn into the
clause, though this refers only to the external make-up. No doubt,
there is a psychological basis for such constructions. To venture an
explanation, I should say that the statement is begun without the
necessary clearness and distinctness, this again naturally calling for a
supplementary word in order to render the expression sufficiently
precise. Hence the unusual position of these "antecedents." On
this principle we explain another passage, which, though differing
from the above in one respect, may be properly inserted here. In
Amos 5:1 we have the following: "^bSi ^llJi^ nTH ^n^n-n5< Wri
nrp Dn^bj; &<u:2 , "Hear this word, which I lift up for you — a
lamentation." This passage differs from the above in that the
^'i2J&< has an antecedent, while it agrees with them in having an addi-
tional word in the clause for ;the sake of clearness and precision.
Constructions of this kind are found in other Semitic languages,
especially in Ethiopic, less frequently in Syriac^ and Assyrian.
Cf. Tabti katussun uba'ima sa epussunuti dunku,
"My favor I required at their hands, the kindness which I showed
them"; literally, "what I did unto them by way of kindness. "^
90. We also find that the relative clause precedes its antecedent.
I have found two instances of this kind. Gen. 46:20, "And unto
Joseph were born in the land of Egypt [HDCX '^'^TilT ^'^i<},
1 Cf. Noldeke, Syrische Grammatik, § 352.
2 Delitzsch, Assyrische Grammatik, § 147, 1.
62 Carl Gaenssle
whom Asnath bore him .... [n^^2^^t-nX1 HlSD^J-nS;], Manasseh
and Ephraim" (accusative after impersonal use of passive; cf. the
grammars). Both Gunkel and Ball reject the relative clause as a
redactional addition. If it be such, we should expect the redactor
to have put the clause in a more natural position, that is, after the
antecedent. Gunkel further suggests the addition of D''D^ before
■'"(TX . In this way, irregularities are easily overcome. Again, we
find the same construction in other Semitic languages; cf. ul
i p s a h s a e z u z u k a b i 1 1 i b e 1 li t i s u n u , "not was pacified
the heart of their lordship, which was angry. "^ Hence there is no
cogent reason for rejecting the clause on grammatical grounds. Cf.
also Josh. 18:2, Q'pniij TOntp Qnbnrns! ^pbn-sb nsii3, "And
there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, who had
not divided their inheritance."
91. As for the position of "''CX , it follows, as a rule, immediately
upon the antecedent. But there are exceptions, the particle being
sometimes removed from its antecedent by intervening words.
Thus we find it separated by a participial phrase; cf. Gen. 21:3,
"And Abraham called the name of his son [ib'lbiBH] that was
born unto him [i3Tnb^ "'"^^j) whom Sarah bare unto him,
Isaac"; Josh. 2:3, "Bring forth the men p^Sl ^'bj^ Q^5<nM
?jn''Zlb ^S3], that have come to thee, that have entered into thy
house." So, if the clause in this case is original. Lev. 11:21,
"But this ye shall eat of all the winged creeping things [T^brin
rb:nb by^p D^-JS [ib] Xb nil3s 5?n^^ b^] that goes upon all
fours that has legs upon its feet." In this case the clause restricts
the idea expressed by the preceding participle. The separation
becomes still greater, when in addition to a participial phrase another
relative clause intervenes between TlIJNk and its antecedent; cf.
Ezra 2 : 1-2, " These are the children of the province T^lpw Q^V^"
pb-jj^in^b ^nr^j^i bnnb b2n-T|b-^ n^2i2-iD^n] nb^n "nijs nbijn
.... bnnnT-ny ^Sn-n^S; (2) . . . .] that went up out of the
captivity of those carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar had
carried away .... and [who] returned unto Jerusalem; (2) who
came with Zerubbabel "A similar construction, but without
a preceding participle, is found in II Chron. 32:14, Tl'bX'bSS "'"J
•Delitzsch, Assyrische Grammatik, § 147, 1.
The Hebrew Particle TCS< 63
"who [was there] among all the gods of those nations whom
my fathers destroyed, who was able to rescue his people?" In
like manner, a temporal clause may intervene; cf. Gen. 41 :50, "And
unto Joseph were born two sons [^"^^ n^^H flj^ Jii^n D^t23,
ri:CiS! i>"niy] before the year of the famine came, whom Asnath
bore unto him." Again, the verb of the principal clause may sepa-
rate the particle from its antecedent; cf. I Sam. 10:16, ^nTni<1
bs^7J123 T;i5 nizJS ib T3n-i<b TO^b^alj, "But the matter of
the kingdom he made not known unto him, whereof Samuel had
spoken." So far as the grammar is concerned, there is no reason for
rejecting the relative clause. Cf. also Isa. 30:24. The same
construction is found in Assyrian, e.g., katasu ukarrit sa
kastu isbatu ana mithusi Asur, "I cut off his hands,
which seized the bow to fight against Ashur."i Cf. also Isa. 29:22,
"Thus says Jahwepn-^ZX-nyt nns ^ICX npT n^n-bs] concerning
the house of Israel, who redeemed Abraham." Duhm remarks on this
passage, "AUerdings ist der Relativsatz jetzt reichlich weit von dem
Substantiv getrennt; eben deshalb muss man mit Lowth im Vorher-
gehenden bj)» statt bs sprechen. Darum spricht Jahwe, der Gott
des Houses Israel, der Abraham erloste." In the light of similar
constructions, this objection has no weight. For other examples of
a different kind, cf. Gen. 24:24; I Sam. 29:3.
92. Occasionally a relative clause with "^tliSl continues an idea
begun with a participle; cf. Josh. 24:17, .... ^DDb^ "by^ri S^H
nbx- nibisn nh>5n-ny5 ^rr^b ri-^y ^tijj^i , "He it is 'that has
brought us up [out of the land of Egypt] and that has performed
these signs in our eyes," Mic. 3:3, "^^i^) H^T ^nnj^'] ^ii: ""^p
'^'B'S ^yt^ ^bpN , "Ye that hate good and love evil and that devour
the flesh of my people."
/) THE RETROSPECTIVE COMPLEMENT
93. Baumann attaches much importance to the 'Aid as support-
ing his theory of the character and syntax of ^IIJSI . He calls par-
ticular attention to the retrospective in relative clauses belonging
to an antecedent in the first or second person. In these cases the
complement appears either as a separate pronoun, or suffix, or
inflectional addition (according to the nature of the sentence), almost
exclusively in the same person as the antecedent. The following
1 Kraetzschmar, B-4, I, 422.
64 (\\HL (Iaknssle
examples will illustnitc: Gen. 45:4, Dri-lD'^-nilJX nj""i< "CT ^X
■ni< , "I am Joseph your brother, whom ye have sold"; Isa. 49:23,
■'ip TJin': ^^b nips n^rr ^ji<, "I am Jahwe, ill whom those that
trust shall not be ashamed"; Deut. 5:6, ?]^n';:in ^dS "1"' "rb^^
□']'^:i"2 'C^i^'Z , "I am Jahwe, who brought thee out of the land of
Egypt"; Isa. 51:17, Di'TS m"^ 1^;2 r\'T\t ^^^ D^b'^^i^ ^'^^p
inT^n , "Arise, Jerusalem, that hast <lrunk from the hand of Jahwe
the cup of his wrath."
94. On the basis of these facts, Baumann makes the summary
statement that the possibility of such a construction is conditioned
by his view of the nature and syntax of the relative particle;^ i.e.,
"'TCJIl is a demonstrative belonging to the antecedent, having, there-
fore, no influence on the attributive clause. It is true, this explana-
tion fits the case. But this alone does not prove the correctness of
the theory. A stringent proof must exclude the possibility of any
other explanation of the phenomenon in question. This, however,
is not the case. We, who reject the demonstrative theory, can easily
find another explanation. The principle involved here is not a great
anomaly at all. While it is true that, as a rule, we should expect the
third person in the verb of the relative clause, the correspondence
of the person of the verb with that of the antecedent is not without
analogy — is, in fact, quite common even in Indo-European. Indeed,
to a certain extent, it is the only normal and admissible usage. In
the last passage cited above the use of the third person in the relative
clause would be impossible. "Arise, Jerusalem, that hast drunk"
is required by the English usus loquendi, and is by no means, of course,
an accommodation to the Hebrew form of expression. So also the
German "die du getrunken hast" (Luther and Kautzsch). Cf.
Milton: "Thou, O Spirit, that dost prefer before all temples the
upright heart and pure" {Paradise Lost, I, 17). If the antecedent
be in the first person, the English again admits the first person in
the verb of the relative clause. Deut. 5:6 employs the imperfect
in English ("who brought thee"), and hence does not furnish an
illustration; but suppose we substitute the perfect ("I am Jahwe
who have brought thee"), should we then violate the English idiom?
Cf. Scott: "It will break my heart that have been toiling more Uke
a dog than a man" {Roh Roy); Chaucer: "A tale of me that am a
» Op. cit., p. 29.
The Hebrew Particle "i123j5 65
pover man" (Canterbury Tales). The same phenomenon is very
common in Latin; cf. Quaeso, parce, inquit, mihi, quae tibi molestis
muribus purgo [instead of purgat] domum (Phaedrus i. 22. 3); Haec
omnia feci, qui sodalis Dolabellae eram [instead of erat].^ It is not
miknown in Greek; cf. "Ayoir' dv {xdraiov avbp' eKirodcov, 6s ... .
KOLKravov [instead of KaKrave] (Sophocles Antigone 1339).
95. The tendencies of language exhibited by these examples
show plainly that the use of the second or first person in the verb of
the relative clause decides nothing with reference to the syntactic
position of the introductory particle. If an undoubted relative,
about whose syntactic position, as belonging to the dependent clause,
there is no question, can be so far weakened as to lose the grammatical
control of its predicate, the latter agreeing in person with the ante-
cedent instead of with its subject, what may we not expect in the
case of so vague and indefinite a word as "ni3iJ| ? For vague and
indefinite it is on any theory of its origin. In an earher part of this
dissertation I have already indicated to what extent the use of
ITIJJ^ may be paralleled by that of the German wo. So I need not
repeat my remarks on this point here. To show the weakness of the
demonstrative theory still more, I should like to add that Baumann's
mode of reasoning will appl}^ equally well to the English and other
examples just cited and, if applied, will lead to some very preposter-
ous conclusions. How easy to show, for instance, that in the sen-
tence, "Stand up, Jerusalem, that hast drunk," "that" must belong
appositionally to Jerusalem, as may be seen from the second person
in the verb ! But English being a living language, we make no such
blunders. The real explanation of the phenomenon we are consider-
ing is, to my mind, to be found in the fact that these clauses contain
a kind of latent anacoluthon, though, of course, not felt as such.
While the clause is begun with the relative strictly requiring a verb in
the third person, the first person (or second, as the case may be) of
the antecedent as the real agens forces itself upon the consciousness
of the speaker and insensibly gives a twist to the construction. In
other words, the logic and psychology of the utterance take prece-
dence over strict grammatical sequence and accuracy. The relative,
in such cases, shows a tendency, even in Indo-European, to become
a conjunctive particle between the main and subordinate propositions.
I Cf. Lane, Latin Grammar, § 1807.
66 Carl Gaenssle
And this tciuloncy would he proportionately stronger with the Hebrew
"*'rS , resulting in constructions that we can no longer imitate in
modern languages.
96. Baumann remarks further: "Die ganz gleichc Erscheinung
[i.e., the correspondence of the person of the retrospective with
that of the antecedent] finden wir auch in den anderen semitischen
Sprachen."^ This is not quite true. Before Baumann's dissertation
appeared the investigations of Kraetzschmar with reference to the
Assyrian § a had shown that in the Assyrian the person of the retro-
spective is wholly independent of the person of the antecedent. In
other words, the retrospective appears invariably in the third person,
though the clause may refer to an antecedent in the first or second
person. Kraetzschmar says: "Das Assyrische steht also in dieser
Hinsicht noch auf einer urspriinglicheren Stufe als die iibrigen semiti-
schen Sprachen."- Cf. sarru sa ilu idiisu atta, "thou art a
king whom God has known " ; Mannu atta sa ana sarriitu
inambusu, "whoever thou mayest be, whom they have called
to exercise royalty " ; Anaku sa ana simat sarrutu isimu
simatsu, "I, whose lot they appointed for the exercise of
roj^alty." In view of this fact, Baumann's argument on the basis
of the retrospective is invalid.
97. In this connection, a word may be said about Konig's view
of the origin of the "Aid. In explaining the origin of the relative
construction, Konig sets out from the idea that originally two inde-
pendent propositions were paratactically co-ordinated without a
conjunctive word of any kind (Asyndetische Parataxe). Accordingly,
the sentence ^HS DFTiD'J 112J1S! ZZi"" "'jbX would consist originally
of the two separate statements, "I am Joseph," "Ye sold me." As
Konig puts it, "das Identifizierungselement (arab. 'Aidun) besass
im allgemeinen die Prioritat der Existenz vor dem die Relation
vermittelnden Pronomen."^ This asyndetic juxtaposition, Konig
remarks, is very common in poetic language, which has a tendency
to retain or revive archaic forms of expression. Later on, when the
usus loquendi began to "bridge over" the parataktische Asyndese,
that is to say, when by the introduction of the relative particle the
subordinate construction began to displace the co-ordinate, the
original form of the clause was in most cases (allermeist) left un-
1 Op. cil.. p. 28. 2 BA. I, 424. ' Lehrgeb.. III. § 384.
The Hebrew Particle "lll5&< 67
changed. The word first employed to estabUsh this relation was
the demonstrative tlT , and then 123 and ^12 i^ were similarly used.*
There seems to be much speculation in all this. At any rate, it is
very precarious, in the absence of clear data, to give an account of
the origin of certain modes of expression. While poetry has the
tendency ascribed to it by Konig, it also has a tendency to be more
concise and succinct than prose, thus dispensing with all unnecessary
verbiage. The fact, therefore, that ^12Ji< is comparatively rare in
the poetic sections does not necessarily prove that they represent
a stage of language prior to the general use of "i^S , but simply
that the particle was dispensed with as not being absolutely required.
On other grounds, however, we may safely assume that "i'^!}< came
in later as a relative particle than the demonstrative HT or IIJ .
"•Ipyt , as an original noun of place, could, of course, not have per-
formed the function of a relative particle, until it had all but lost
its primitive meaning, whereas the most obvious word to introduce
an attributive clause is a demonstrative. ^ When, however, "llflS
was introduced, it would not, by reason of its already faded char-
acter, affect the structure of the sentence, at the same time following
as closely as possible the analogy of uT or 113 . In this way, the
general correspondence between the construction of the demonstrative
relatives and that of '^'^^_ is to be explained. I say general, for, as we
have seen in the preceding pages, the difference remained, in some
respects, so apparent as to show that "1113^^ cannot be traced to a
demonstrative source.
98. It is not my intention here to discuss the "A i d in all its
aspects. This would be, in large measure, simply to restate what
has already been said by others. Nevertheless, my study of the
subject has led to some results at variance with the statements of a
grammar so widely used as Gesenius-Kautzsch. Consequently, I
shall record these results. With reference to the suppression of
the 'Aid, the grammar makes the following statement: "Diese
Unterdriickung des riickbeziiglichen Pronomens findet besonders
dann statt, wenn es . . . . als Prononien separatum einen Subjekts-
nominativ im Nominalsatz reprasentieren wiirde Nur in
' Op. cit., § 59 flf.
2 Cf. the English " that," which is very old as a relative, whereas " who " and "which.'!
originally interrogatives, came into use much later.
68 Carl Oaenssle
negativcn Nominalsatzen win! das riickbezugliche Pronomen nicht
seltcn ])eisefugt."^ I have found the contrary to be the case. As a
matter of fact, there are in all thirty-five instances of this use of the
pronominal complement in nominal relative clauses in the Old Testa-
ment. Of this number, fiftcoi are found in negative clauses, and
iarntij in positive. The examples of the first class are the following:
Gen. 7:2, 8; 17:12; 20:33; Lev. 11:26; Num. 17:5; Deut. 17:15;
20:15; Judg. 19:12; I Sam. 11:7; 1 Kings 8:41; 9:20; Koh. 8:13;
II Chron. 6:22; 8:7 (the last two being parallel to I Kings 8:41
and 9 : 20 respectively) . The following are the examples of the second
class: Gen. 9:3; Lev. 11:26, 39; Num. 9:13; 14:8, 27; 35:31;
Deut. 20:20; I Sam. 10:19; II Kings 25:19; Jer. 27:9; 52:25;
Ezek. 20:32; 43:19; Had. 1:9; Ps. 16:3; Ruth 4:15; Koh. 4:2;
7:26; Neh. 2: 18. Of these, Ezek. 20:32 and Ps. 16:3 may be ques-
tioned. In the former passage, "11231}< is by many taken as a con-
junction, though there is no strict necessity for this. As for Ps. 16:3,
which, if we adopt the present punctuation, ~^~ V^^ "^^^ would
present the only instance in the Old Testament where the retro-
spective is separated from the ^IIJS in positive sentences, the text
is probably corrupt. Driver suggests ri^Jj V'l'J^S' "'''^^ • In all
negative sentences the retrospective is invariably separated from the
particle.
99. From the grammar referred to it would appear furthermore
that the 'A i d is more frequently found in negative relative clauses
of a nominal character than in verbal clauses in which the 'A i d
represents the object. "Diese Unterdriickung findet besonders
dann statt, wenn es [i.e., the "Aid] einen Objektsaccusativ ....
reprasentieren wiirde Nur in negativen Nominalsatzen wird
das riickbeziigliche Pronomen nicht selten beigefiigt." I have found
that the 'Aid as representing einen Objektsaccusativ is much more
common than in either type of nominal clauses where it represents
the Subjektsnominativ. If none has escaped my notice, there are
sixty instances of the kind in the Old Testament. Cf. Gen. 5:29;
21:2; 27:27; 45:4; Exod. 6:5; 25:2; 28:3; Lev. 16:32; 23:2,27;
25:42; Num. 13:32; 34:13; 35:25; Deut. 11:12; 12:2; 13:3;
18:14, 21, 22; 20:48; 29:25; 31:4; 32:46; 34:10; Josh. 2:10;
10:25; 14:1; I Kings 9:21; 11:34; 21:25; II Kings 16:3 (cf.
1 § 138 6.
The Hebrew Particle ^t25^5 69
17:8 for the same construction without the retrospective); 19:4
Isa. 19:25; 28:4; 29:11; 37:4; 62:2; Jer. 8:2 (thrice); 19:4
27:20; 29:22; 44:3; Ezek. 4:10; 5:16; 15:6; 20:13; 32:9; 36:21
Zech. 7:14; Ps. 1:4; 88:6; 94:12; 107:2; Koh. 7:11; Esther
7:5; 10:2; II Chron. 22:7.
100. That there is one case of a retrospective after a time-
designation has already been pointed out. Cf. § 82.
In concluding this part of our task, I should like to add a few further
remarks by way of reinforcing the criticism attempted in the foregoing pages
of the syntax of "iTIJi^ . Granted the demonstrative origin of our particle,
there is still an Achilles heel in the Boettcher-Baumann syntax. This lies
in the fact that no allowance is made for syntactic shiftings and changes,
such as are sure to take place more or less in every living language. Boettcher
and his followers confound the results of historico-philological science (assum-
ing "112355 to be a demonstrative) with the actual xisus loquendi. It is a
philological truism that whatever the origin of a certain construction may
have been, the later usage may be something totally different. This principle
applies in particular to the mutual relation between the main and subordinate
proposition^. Here a particle or a pronoun that belonged primarily to the
main sentence has in numerous instances insensibly shifted its syntactic
position, being then conceived by the Sprachgefiihl as belonging to the sub-
ordinate clause. Such is the case in Latin; cf. Simulatque (simulac) de
Caesaris adventu cognitum est, ad eum venit {De hello Gall. v. 33). In con-
structions of this kind atque belonged originally to the main sentence ad eum
venit; but it united with simul and was then no longer felt to belong to venit.
So also postquam, priusquam, etc. Similarly in Enghsh, e.g., "as soon as,"
and in German so bald als, auch wenn, etc., one element of these particles
belonging originally to the main proposition; but, coalescing later with the
other particle, both were then felt as introducing the dependent clause. A
very instructive example of this kind is the commonest of all English or
German conjunctions, namely "that," da.ss. "'Ich sehe, dass er zufrieden
ist,' ist hervorgegangen aus: 'Ich sehe das: er ist zufrieden.' "^ In other
words, what was originally a demonstrative pronoun belonging syntactically
to the governing sentence has detached itself from its primary position as
object of the main clause and become the introductory particle of the sub-
ordinate clause.
A similar phenomenon is noticeable in tracing the development of the
demonstrative pronoun into the relative. There can be no doubt that the
relative demonstratives "that," der, die, das, belonged at the outset to the
main sentence, but in process of time they were drawn into the relative clause.
' Paul, Principien der Sprachgeschichte, § 211.
70 Carl Caenssle
Tliis i.s attested l)y tlie fact that sitlc by sicie with tlie demonstratives the
interrogative jironouns, "who," "which," icelcher, trelche, welches, have
assumed tlie relative function, which could have occurred only after the
demonstratives had severed their connection with the principal proposition
and attachetl themselves syntactically to the secondary clause.
The same thing has admittedlj'^ — though, of course, not to such a degree
— taken place at least in some Semitic languages. This, too, Baumann con-
cedes. Are we then to assume that TIlj^< (granting it to have been a demon-
strative) remained fixed and stationary throughout its entire history; that,
in short, a relative construction never arose ? We have seen that even the
Arabic ^ tXil showed a tendency to shift, according to Reckendorf. And
though we might demur with reference to the Arabic for the reason that
^jJl is declinable, there is nothing that could have checked TCN in a
^' V -:
similar way, since it is invariable for gender, number, or case. Konig is,
therefore, undoubtedly right when he says that, e.g., iSl • • • • Tl2Ji<
might have been conceived relatively just as well as the English expression,
"The age which we live tn."' What is this "in" but a kind of retrospective
giving the "which" its necessary definition and clearness? In view of all
this I contend that the demonstrative theory of the syntax of 112Ji^ cannot
be successfully maintained, even if the premise of the demonstrative origin
of the particle be granted.
ADDENDUM
A passage that also deserves notice as illustrating the indefinite non-
demonstrative character of "iTIJS is Gen. 30:29, "And he said unto him [ri^"''
^^l^5 T^Zy'2 rrr\ ^tijn nsti ^^nin:^' ^l2i^5 nsi], Thou knowest how i
served thee and how thy cattle have fared with me" (R.V.). In neither of
these clauses will the demonstrative theory apply. To take the first ri5<
"I'JJX as object of ri2?"I'', "Thou knowest that," leaves the ^TTlinS' destitute
of meaning and destroys all connection. But perhaps "lllJik is here a
conjunction: "Thou knowest that I served thee." This is self-evident and
devoid of force. We are then shut up to the rendering "Thou knowest what
I served thee," the entire clause being the object of pyi"^ . The "1123 ISl HK
is here used as a cognate accusative depending on ^TTlin" •" In the
second clause, 112Ji< introduces what in modern terminology is called an
indirect question: "Thou knowest what thy cattle have become [this is the
force of TTT\\ with me." A moment's reflection will again show the impos-
sibility of making "illJS PlS; depend on Fiyi'' .
1 Lehrgeb.. Ill, § 62.
2 Some supply "^nnhr before mCS , after Syr., but this is not required.
I
The Hebrew Particle I^JS 71
PART II
THE CONJUNCTIONAL USE OF ^tlJU^ AND ITS COMPOUNDS
a) n-lljjj^ USED ALONE
101. To explain the conjunctional use of n^J< , we cannot have
recourse to the analogy of Semitic demonstratives such as sa,
, , ^"n , which, it is well known, have, to a certain extent, assumed
the functions of a conjunction. Though the usage in both cases
is within certain limits naturally the same, the process of develop-
ment resulting in such usage is wholly different. With regard to
the demonstratives, we have the familiar phenomenon, already
pointed out, that the original pronoun was employed to introduce
the subordinate clause. In the case of ^125i<, however, the matter
is different. The origin of its conjunctional use is to be sought in
its vague and indeterminate character as a medium of relation. As
such it could be employed indifferently to connect a sentence with
a single word (antecedent) or with another sentence. Hence also the
great variety of uses which it exhibits. No Semitic demonstrative
that has passed into a conjunction covers as large a territory as does
the Hebrew particle TOS . Thus the Assyrian s a never expresses
purpose, result, condition, or time (unless a time-designation has
preceded) . The same may be said of the Aramaic "''^ , though
this occurs in final clauses when the latter are at the same time the
object of the main verb. The nearest approach to the extensive
conjunctional use of ^'©^^i is found in the Syriac ? , though it, too, is
not as far-reaching as ^^^ . Expressed in our grammatical cate-
gories, ^IZJSl may introduce subject, object, causal, final, consecutive,
conditional, explicative, concessive, temporal, ^ and modal clauses.
It may also introduce a direct quotation. It need hardly be added
that it never occurred to the Hebrew consciousness to make any
I Somewhat uncertain (when no time-designation precedes).
72 Caul Ciahnsslk
such grammatical classifications as the above in the conjunctional
use of "-S . The latter never acciuired any specific meaning as
either a causal, conditional, or any other conjuiiction. It was
never anythin{>; more than a fj;eneral connective, the exact logical
relation between the main and dependent clauses being instinctively
felt in the living languag(\
102. It is not surprising, therefore, that grammarians and inter-
preters differ so widely in many cases in dealing with ^^5< . Indeed,
in not a few instances, it seems impossible to decide just what
modern conjunction deserves the preference in rendering the con-
junctional "uJS . In the treatment of this elusive particle there
will always be an element of uncertainty and hence diversity of
opinion. Upon the whole, 1 am inclined to think that a conjunctional
use has been assumed in more cases than is necessary. This applies
in jxirticular to the causal use.
"TCJ^ in Subject Clauses^
103. "^uJS may introduce a subject clause. This usage occurs
with growing frequency in the later books. It is especially common
in Koheleth. The following passages occur: Num. 9:20, 125^1
•3"i:2r; by "^ECp n^'r ■:yr; rrn'_ 'ntlJSt, "and it happened that
the cloud was a few days upon the sanctuary" (the same con-
struction appears in the next verse); II Sam. 14:15, ^'OS nri^l
■nsn, "and now it is that I am come"; II Kings 20:20', "The
rest of the acts of Hezekiah .... [nj'^nn H'^ry "ilflSil], and that
he made the pool" (not quomodo fecerit according to the Vulg.,
emphasizing the modal idea; the mere statement of the fact is all
that the context demands); I Kings 14:28, "The rest of the acts
of Jeroboam [ni^n"b n-^ri-n5<*l ptfl^lTiS n^lIJn ^^Sll], and
that he restored Damascus and Hamath unto Judah" (Vulg.:
Quomodo restituit); Koh. 3:22, DIXH HT^iZJ^ ITIJ^^^ nit: --^J; ,
"nothing is better than that a man rejoice" (cf. II Sam. 18:3,
3 Zii: ; also Ps. 119:71; Ruth 2:22); Koh. 5:4, ^^^5 nii:
Drin Sbl ^i'lrnS"; n'ln-sb, "it is better that thou shouldst not
vow," etc.; Koh. 7:18, Hn THSn TllJK QlD , "it is good that thou
shouldst seize hold of thiV'; Esther 6:2, Tiin n^^^^: n^nS X^^n
» Clauses implying purpose are not Included under this head.
The Hebrew Particle TIIJi< 73
"by ^?^.T9' "and it was found written that Mordecai had told,"
etc.; Neh. 2:10, DIN Sn ^TlJs: nblj TOn DHb 3?T^ , "and it
displeased them greatly that a man had come" (cf. Isa. 59:15,
'3 3?-^!!l); Zech. 8:20, Dr;y :iN2; niTS; iv , "it shall yet be that
nations will come." As to II Sam. 14:26, n5:r nirx .... HTl),
the lies probablj'^ introduces a temporal clause (cf. Driver, Notes
on Samuel; Gesenius-Kautzsch also refers to Jer. 28:9 as containing
an instance of a Subjektsatz introduced by I'^IJN , but this is by no
means certain; the clause maybe simply attributive) ; Zech. 8:23,
"Thus says Jahwe Zebaoth, In those days [^p^H^ ni^S] it shall
be that . . . ." Nowack regards 1125i< as introducing direct dis-
course. But in this case it would occupy a wrong position.
"loJN in Object Clauses
104. "''OSi is frequently employed to introduce object clauses.
When thus used, it is often preceded by the accusative sign in5< .
Naturally, this usage is common after verba dicendi and sentiendi
or equivalent expressions.
105. A. Depending on verba dicendi, IlliSl occurs after:
a) n'ninn, "to confess": cf. Lev. 5:5, ^^D" IIIJS H^lpr' >
"he confesses that he has sinned"; Lev. 26:40, ~Sl1 .... ^"^inni
"■^pS "'ay ^Dbri""!'!^^ , "and they confess .... that they walk
contrary to me."
6) n:aN, "to say": cf. Josh. 4:7, ^n")3? ^m Dnb DFll^J?;'! ,
"And ye shall say that," etc. O'^Vi may possibly be the ^12JN
recitativnm) .
c) After 13:, "to make known": cf. Josh. 9:24, ^^"j^^b 13"
TT\Tr njl^ "^llJi^ nS , "it was made known unto thy servants that
Jahwe commanded"; here, according to a common Hebrew idiom,
the passive IBH takes an object clause, the verb being used in an
impersonal sense when the agent is indefinite (cf. the German man,
French on, or the EngUsh "they" used as an indefinite subject);
I Kings 19:1, D^N^^rbj-n^i: rP" ^'i:S-b5 nsn . . . . IS'll, "and
he [Ahab] made known that he [Elijah] had slain all the prophets"
("bj riSl before I'lZJy* is probably a repetition from the preceding,
and may be eliminated; but see Esther 5:11); Esther 3:4, TSri ^3
^T\XT J5^n-ni23N nnb , "for he had told them that he was a Jew."
74 Carl Gaenssle
d) After ISC, "to rohite": of. II Kings 8:5, ^SC"^ N^H ^m
r^riTS ri"r;n"'^"rSl rS ^^^r'- "and it came to pass while he
was telling the king that he had restored the dead to life"; Esther
o:ll. D'^^irn by ixis: TiX nsin nnb "BC';1, "and he related
unto them .... that he had exalted him above the princes."
e) After D'")SC nbllj , "to send letters": cf. Esther 8:11, nb^^l
D""l?in'^b Ti^'BTj 'in: nm .... D^^SC, "And he sent letters [i.e.,
made known by letters] that the king had granted to the Jews," etc.
106. B. Depending on verba sentiendi, ^"^^ occurs after:
a) 3?!^, "to know": cf. Exod. 11:7, xbs: ^m 'yiyiT) ]T2b
bSi'^'C "2^ D'^''^''? "^ mn^ , "in order that you may know that
Jahwe distinguishes l)etween the Egyptians and Israel"; Deut.
29:15, ^""^ny ^TIJ5< ni<'1 . . . . ^Dnip^-nm n« QFiyr, "Ye know
that we dwelt .... and that we passed through"; II Sam. 11:20,
n'iir- brZ ^^""^'J:JS: nx Dnyr Sbn, "did ye not know that
they would shoot from the wall'?"'; Ezek. 20:26, rj'r niijs "jy-jb
nTT ""wS; I'uJS , "that they may know that I am Jahwe"; Job 9:5,
Dirsn TuJX ^yT J^bl , "and they know not that he overturns
them"; Koh. 7:22, 'O^^ns nbbp ni<-DSi ^^^ ^li) ^T , "thy
heart knows that thou likewise hast cursed others"; Koh. 8:12,
D-n'bss-; 'X^ib nii: n^n^. "i-cs ^:« ^I^'D^ ^s, "Yet surely i
know that it shall be well with) them that fear God"; Esther 4:11,
. . . . ^T25wS! Q7T .... "12y-b:p, "All the servants of ... .
know that . . . ."; II Chron. 2:7, n7-ir Tj^iny TlIJS WT "ZNi ,
"I know that thy servants know."
6) nS-;, "to see": cf. I Sam. 18:15, X^H nT2Ji< b^Sp Sn^l
15<'- b"Z'X'2 , "and Saul saw that he was very successful"; I Sam.
24:11, ^-hl [urn] T-i^rr ^jZnrTlZJS; nSS ^j^ry ^U^-^, "thine eyes
have seen that Jahwe delivered thee into my hand"; Deut. 1:31,
n^rr ?;Stir: ^IlilJ^ n^J^*;! nirs ^Sl^an^, "and in the wilderness
where thou hast seen that Jahwe bare thee."
c) r^TIJ, "to hear": cf. Josh. 2:10, "iS^niH nilJS; ni< W'Q^
"^C'D"; ■'■^TlN; mn"' , "we heard that Jahwe dried up the waters
of the Red Sea"; Josh. 5:1, '^^if._ ns; . . . . "jb'^-b^ yb^3 ^nn
'"I!*" ""r'^^ '^"'r'^" ' "And it came to pass when all the kings
of ... . heard that Jahwe dried up the waters of the Jordan";
I Sam. 2:22, D^^SnTiJ; "^3^': "^m ni<1 . . . . T2^) , "and
heard that they lay with the women."
The Hebrew Particle ^U5J^ 75
d) ^jT, "to remember": cf. II Kings 20:3, ^'iJN nS; Xj'^jT
r'^5^^ ^^.2Sb ^riSbnrn , "remember that I walked before 3'ou in
integrity";' cf. Isa. 38:3.
e) ru^, "to forget": Deut. 9:7, riS'4pn-"ll2J5< ns; H^'C^P. bi<
mrr'TiS , "do not forget that thou hast provoked Jahwe."
/) nsiian, "sign": of. I Kings 13:3, "^n^. ^123^1 nsisri -T
nilT' , "this is a sign that Jahwe has spoken."
g) nisn, "sign": cf. Isa. 38:7, "TTr ^m .... nii^n r(l: HT
rt^rr , "this is a sign unto you that Jahwe shall do," etc.
"1123 5< in Causal Clauses
107. ^"^^ may introduce clauses expressing the cause of some
effect, the reason or explanation of some fact, the ground of an
exhortation, the motive or justification of some mental affection, the
proof of an assertion, and the like: Josh. 4:23, "On drj^ land Israel
crossed the Jordan ['Q'^^i ^"r"^^ °?^rT-^ "1!^^ ^^nin ^3N],
because Jahwe your God dried up the waters of the Jordan"; J
Kings 8:33, "when thy people Israel are defeated by the enemy
[T^b'^Xpr"' "^^i^], because they have sinned against thee" (cf.
II Chron! 6:24, ^3); I Kings 15:5, "For David's sake did Jahwe,
his God, give him a lamp in Jerusalem [^ipj^nTiyt iTt Tiwy' nilJS],
because David did that which was right" (for the sake of greater
emphasis the causal sentence precedes in Koh. 8:11, ""'SJ^ "^"iTS
"nb xb-2 "3-by n'^r'2 ny;- ri'J:T2 nr-ns niz:?D, "because sen-
tence is not executed speedily against an evil work, therefore the
heart," etc.; Koh. 8:12, "ib ^""X'^^ nyf^ y^_ HlT^" nt2n nds ,
"because a sinner does evil a hundred times and prolongs [his
days]," etc. [a resumption and amplification of the idea in 11a]);
Hab. 3:16, "I heard and my body trembled .... [HTj^ ^^^^
TT'^ D'i^b], because I must wait for the day of trouble" (so if the
text is retained); Gen. 31:49, "Therefore was the name of it called
.... Mizpah [?j^"n^ ^j-3 Hin^ r;i" ^'^IS; -^m], for he said,
Jahwe watch between me and thee" (giving the reason for the
name); Deut. 3:24, "Thou hast begun to show thy greatness and
thy strong hand [^"''^r^S TiW'J-'_ "^^^ "f"^^?^ □'■^^SS bS'rj nT::^],
for what god is there in heaven or on earth who does accord-
ing to thy works" (the unrivaled power of Jahwe being the
natural reason for his mighty acts); I Sam. 15:15, "They have
76 Carl Gaknssle
hroujiht tlu-ni from tho Aiualckites pp"7J by Qy- b'2r\ nilis
"Siin] for las tlu> speaker adds by way of explanation] the people
spared the best of the sheep"; I Sam. 2:23, "Why do you do these
thin.iis [U^'^1 Dr";^n7-nS Tit "^SbS ^^^}, for I hear of your evil
dealinjis" (so if the text is retained); II Kings 12:3, "And
Jehoash did that which was right in the eyes of Jahwe all his days
p'-'i-" ^rr^^i -\t^}, for Jehoiada had taught him" (R.V., "all
his days wherein" is wrong; "all his days" necessarily means
all his life; therefore a restrictive relative clause is impossible);
Zech. 1:15, "I am greatly displeased with the nations that are at
ease [n^^-^h ^'^•^'J n'Br}') "OTZ "Fli^i: ■'w^ ^TIJS], for I was but a
little angry, but they helped for evil" (aggravated the evil); Josh.
22:31, "This day we know that Jahwe is in our midst [i<b ^^S
n-T" by^n nin''^ UribTZ], because [inasmuch as] you have not
committed this transgression against Jahwe"; in this case the
TuJ^^- clause contains the proof or evidence of the preceding assertion
(cf. Luke 7:47, "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she
loved much); I Sam. 26:23, "And Jahwe will render unto everyone
his righteousness and faithfulness ["'1^^ .... niJl"' TjjHD "I'OS
mn^ "^'^'^^ ^T nb'^b ^n^ni< ^b)], inasmuch as Jahwe delivered
thee into my hand and I was unwilling to put forth my hand
against the anointed of Jahwe"; Isa. 19:24-25, "In that day
Israel shall be the third to Assyria and Egypt, a blessing in the
midst of the earth [Hin^ iD^l ^^^]> forasmuch as Jahwe has
blessed him"; II Sam. 14:22, "Thy servant knoweth that I have
found favor in thy sight .... [i"nn? "^ni-nS; T^b^H nif^ ^^^},
inasmuch as the king hatli fulfilled the request of his servant";
Hos. 14:4, "We shall not say any more to the work of our hands,
'Our gods' [Din^ Onn*; ?jn ^IIJS], for in thee the fatherless shall
find mercy"; this clause differs slightly from those immediately
preceding in that it expresses not a fact as such, but the certainty
of a fact as the ground of the foregoing assertion; Koh. 4:9, "Two
are better than one pii: ^jTT Dnb TIJ"; ^^i<\, inasmuch as they
have good reward"; Koh. 6:12, "For who knows what is good for
man in his life .... which he spends as a shadow [T'i»^"''"2 TCJS
VTt5 rrfr ri- Q"5<b], for who shall tell a man what shall be
after him?"; if we change the interrogative rhetorical form of
The Hebrew Particle "Iiii^ 77
the verse into the positive, it will appear that '^'I23i< may also in this
case be rendered by "inasmuch as" or "seeing that," or some
equivalent expression; I Sam. 20:42, "Go in peace [^SS'ZtlJ] "i^i<],
forasmuch as we have sworn" ("seeing that," "in view of the fact
that," expressing the ground for the preceding exhortation); Zech.
11:2, "Wail, O cypress, for the cedar is fallen [^^jlIJ Dn^':ii< ^12355],
the mighty ones are destroj-ed"; Neh. 2:3, "Why should not my
countenance be sad [HZ";- T'^-.^ ""i^^P"!^"?^ ^7^7 '^^^], seeing
that the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, Hes waste"
("I'lIJS introducing at once the explanation and justification for the
sadness); Job. 34:27 (if text is correct).
Causal Relative Clauses
108. This classification has, so far as I know, not been made in
any grammatical treatise in Hebrew. This is surprising. The
facts certainly warrant a classification of this kind. There are two
classes of sentences expressive of cause or reason that are usually
thrown together, whereas they should be kept apart. The one
embraces the purely causal clauses (cf. the preceding paragraphs),
and the other all such relative clauses as, besides their relative func-
tion, imply a reason or cause. It will not do to put into one class
sentences of the following types: I Sam. 15:15, "And Saul said,
they have brought them from the Amalekites; for i"^"^^] the people
spared the best of the sheep," etc.; and I Sam. 26:16, ". . . .
Ye are sons of death that [1^^<] have not kept watch over your
lord, Jahwe's anointed." So Gesenius, Konig, Davidson, and other
grammars. In the first of these examples the ''"iIJ^^ -clause is, of
course, purely conjunctional; but in the second the "^'^X easily
and naturally refers to "sons of death" as antecedent, and is there-
fore to be taken as introducing a relative clause. It will also be
noticed that even the English (and the German) idiom will admit the
use of a causal relative clause in this case. To be sure, the relative
form cannot in all cases be adopted to render the Hebrew causal
relative, for the reason that English (or German) does not as a rule
express cause or reason in a relative clause. Consequently, the
distinction between these two classes of sentences will sometimes
disappear in translation, so far as the form is concerned. But even
78 Carl CIaenssle
aftor due allowuncc for this is iiKulo, n little oxaniinatioii of transla-
tions antl commentaries will show that much needless confusion and
inconsistency has arisen from the promiscuous treatment of these
two types of sentence. Thus in the sentence last quoted Nowack
correctly translates: "Ihr seid Kinder des Todes, die ihr nicht
Acht gehabt habt," etc.; Kautzsch: "dass ihr nicht"; R.V. :
"Because"; Vulg. : qtda non custodistis; LXX: ol (j)v\a<7o-ouT€s
(omitting the negation). 11 Sam. 2:5, "Blessed be ye of Jahwe pITS
riTn "Crn Dri''"j;3'']"; Nowack again: "die ihr"; Kautzsch also: "die
ihr" (but why not dass ihr, as in the previous example?); R.V. :
"that ye"; Vulg.: qui fecistis misericordiam hanc (why not quia
as in the previous example?); LXX: on iirotrjaaTe to eXeos tovto.
And so in general, one translator using a conjunction, the other a
relative pronoun, in cases where the latter could be employed. I
think we may set it clown as a safe rule that when IliiSt , as already
remarked, has an antecedent to which it can easily refer, the relative
construction is to be preferred to the conjunctional. The form being
identical with that of the ordinary relative clause, it is not to be
assumed that such clauses were conceived in other than a relative
sense by the He})rew language. The implication of the additional
idea of cause or reason was intuitively and immediately felt.
Naturally, however, cases will occur where it seems impossible to
decide positively in favor of the one or the other class of sentence.
109. The causal relative clause is quite common: Gen. 24:27,
"And he said. Blessed be Jahwe, the God of my master Abraham
["T^C" 2T^"Xb "l"l23^^], who [implying reason] has not forsaken
his kindness," etc.; cf. the Latin: fortunate adulescens, qui
Homerum praeconem tuae virtutis inveneris; in this case, the Revised
Version retains the relative construction, "who hath not forsaken,"
while in an exactly parallel case, II Sam. 2:5, it employs the con-
junction "that," because the verb in the relative clause is in the
second person; Gen. 24:48, "And I . . . . blessed Jahwe, the God
of my master Abraham [H'JS '^"'"^ ^'^L'r'*? ^^^], who [implying
reason] had led me in the right way"; Gen. 30:18, "And Leah said,
God has given me my hire [''^"^5b ^Iirs^ T'^'^ "''^J^], who have
given my maid to my husband"; the relative in this case attaches
to the suffix in "my hire"; in translation, the English idiom prefers
The Hebrew Particle ^llJi^ 79
a causal conjunction, "because," while the German, admitting the
insertion of the personal pronoun I into the clause, can easily employ
the relative construction: ''Die ich gegeben habe," quae dederiyn;
Gen. 34:13, "And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor
with guile and spoke [with guile] [nri rij|; i^^Qp ^^^l who had
defiled Dinah"; Gen. 34:27, "The sons of Jacob came upon the
slain and plundered the city [DniHi^ ^IX^ai: ^^^], who had
defiled their sister"; Gen. 42:21, ""We are guilty [^rj^'i TlflJ^
illJSD rii^], who [=in that we] saw the anguish of his soul"
(German: "die wir gesehen haben"); Exod. 5:21, "Let Jahwe look
upon you and judge [^Dn^-ny; DntZJXnn n^S], that have made
our savor to be abhorred"; Exod. 18:10, "Blessed be Jahwe ptliyt
D';"i:2p T7p DpnS b"Sn], who has delivered you out of the hand
of Egypt"; here again, though plainly causal, the R.V. retains the
relative construction, because the subject of the clause is in the
third person, as in the first passage cited above; Num. 5:3, "That
they defile not the camp [Q^inn -p-iT' "pbS nilJX], in the midst
of which I dwell"; Deut. 4:19, "Lest thou be drawn away and
worship them [the host of heaven] [Dni< ^^llbSl r^TT pbn n^S
D^^yn bbb] which Jahwe thy God has allotted unto all the peoples";
Deut. 34:10, "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like
unto Moses [D':5"bi< D^D3 niH^ I^T miJNl], whom Jahwe knew
face to face"; Josh. 5:6, "until all the nation, the men of war
.... were consumed [HirT' bipn ^^^pilj-xb n^X], who did not
obey the voice of Jahwe "; I Sam. 26: 16, " Sons of death are you
[nrailSl-by DnT^lIJ J<b n^X], who have not kept watch over
your lord"; II Sam. 2:5, "Blessed be you of Jahwe [Dn^TTy TO^^
n-T!l ICnn], who have done this kindness"; II Sam. 2:6; "I
will requite you this kindness [n-TJl ^H'lH Dri"'ir3' II^N!], who
have done this thing"; II Sam. 6:20, "How honorably did David
conduct himself to-day ["^^^^b DVn nbrO ^tlJS;], who uncovered
himself before the eyes [of the handmaids of his servants]"; the
scorn expressed in the exclamatory sentence is substantiated by the
relative clause, the sense being that the king disgraced himself,
since he uncovered himself, etc. (Vulg. : discooperiens se, expressing
reason) ; I Kings 3 : 19, "And the son of this woman died in the night
[Vb;^ i^^?^ "^''^^l"; it is, perhaps, impossible to decide here between
80 Carl Gaenssle
tlic rehitivo and conjunctional constructions, thougii 1 prefer the
former; assuming the chiuse to l)c relative, there is still some uncer-
tainty as to the antecedent; it may be "son" or "woman"; in
the one case, the translation would run, "upon whom [Vb^' ■ • • • ■'llJSl]
she lay," in the other, "who lay upon him"; at all events, the clause
expresses cause; nor is there any valid reason against its being a
relative clause; I Kings 8:30, "Render unto every one according
to all his ways ["nnb-ns n^T nns ^3 innb-nb5 :?-in '^w],
who knowest his heart; for thou alone knowest the heart [of all the
children of men]"; this is to my mind the only correct rendering
of the clause; R.V.: "whose heart thou knowest" would make the
clause rather restrictive, which is contrary to the sense, since Jahwe,
of course, knows all hearts; Kautzsch, Kittel, Keil: "Wie du sein
Herz kennst" involves a useless redundancy, since the same idea is
already expressed in "according to his ways"; the same objection
applies to the LXX and Vulg. : Ka6d)s av yvuis ttjp Kapdlav avrov,
sicut videris cor eius; it is simply a causal relative clause connecting
with "thou" implied in the imperative "render"; I Kings 8:23-24,
"O Jahwe .... there is no God hke thee in heaven above and on
earth beneath .... [Fl-^ni n'^S nx ^n^5 111 ^j-nn^b rr\'2^ miJX
15], who hast kept unto thy servant David that which thou didst
promise him"; here versions and commentaries generally adopt the
relative construction, though the sentence is exactly the same as
others where the "^^i^ is treated as a conjunction; I Kings 15:13,
"And Also Maacah, his mother, he removed from being queen
[rPupti^ r^bs'^ nriir? '^'ON;], who had made an abominable image
unto Ashera"; II Kings 17:4, "And the king of Assyria found
treason in Hosea [n-;^:;:^ ^^2 SiC'bs D-psb/J nbllj ^t^], who
had sent messengers to So king of Egypt"; Isa. 30:10, "For it is
a rebellious people, lying children [vs. 9] . . . . [Q'^5"ib ^^"2X "illii^
^S"^r sb], that say to the seers, See not"; Isa. 49:7, "Kings shall
see and rise, princes and they shall worship because of Jahwe ["i125<
■■I«:], who is faithful"; Jer. 5:22, "Will ye not fear me [^ri-^ir 1T2JS
D|'^ tJ^^r* bir], who have placed the sand as a boundary to the
sea?"; even in English we here distinctly feel that the relative clause
implies a reason; Jer. 13:25, "This is thy lot, the portion measured
unto thee from me, saith Jahwe [^0"^^ ^'j?''^ ""V?^]; who hast for-
The Hebrew Particle "I123&< 81
gotten me"; Jer. 16:13, "I will hurl you from this land .... and
there you shall serve other gods [Hrin udb "PSi ^b "illiX], who
shall show you no favor"; the fact that 1123^|! is here very far re-
moved from the antecedent in "'ITlbpri ("I will hurl") is no decisive
objection against the relative construction, though "ITIJS! may in this
instance be a conjunction; there are, as remarked, some cases where
it is impossible to pronounce definitely as to the function of the
particle; Jer. 20:17, "Let him hear a cry of mourning and an alarm
at noonday [D"'^'-2 "'3111117:3 U<b ^'OS], who slew me not from the
womb" (Vulg.: Qui non me interfecit) ; Ezek. 6:9, "And your
escaped ones shall remember me among the nations .... [Ilp^l
riDTTJl D3b"D5< "riillllljj], whose [referring to those that escape]
lewd heart I shall break"; there is no reason here for canceling IIIJX
(SBOT); possibly "ri'^^TIJ should take the place of the form in
the text; Ezek. 6:11, "Smite with thy hand and stamp with thy foot
and cry, Alas! because of the abominations of the house of Israel
[ibs"; .... Znrpl nUJS], which shall fall by the sword .... ";
here again there is no reason whatever for the excision of lip^J! ;
we have here simply a relative clause containing the ground for
the preceding exhortation; Ezek. 14:5, "In order to seize Israel by
the heart ["'b^"^ ^^TD "ITIJS!], which has turned away from me";
Ezek. 16:52, "Thou also, bear thy own shame [PbbE "lt25i<
T^riiriJ^b], who hast given judgment for thy sister"; Ezek. 39:29,
"I shall hot hide my face from them any more ["^Fl^SlIJ "I'Upi^
bSl"!^"' ri"'^'b;? "^niiTi^], who have [shall have] poured out my spirit
upon the house of Israel"; overlooking the real nature of this rela-
tive clause as implying a reason. Toy, Cornill, Gratz, and others
suggest tips; "j:?^ as a necessary emendation, because the LXX
reads avd' ov ; but it will be seen that the clause, as it stands, is
perfectly regular, requiring no textual manipulation whatever;
Hag. 1:9, "Because of my house [n"]n J^in "iipX], which lieth
waste" (Kautzsch: "Um meines Hauses willen, well es in Triimmern
liegt"); Ps. 66:20, "Blessed be Jahwe [^nbsn n^CH !J<b ntflS!],
who has not turned away my prayer"; Ps. 71:19, "Thy righteous-
ness, O God, is very high [Hlblj ^"'"^^ '^'^^], who hast done
great things"; Job 5:3-5, "I have seen the foolish taking root;
but suddenly I cursed his habitation .... [bp^^^ ZL^p il^llp n^X],
82 Carl Gaenssle
whose harvest the hunf>;ry (>:i,toth up"; Jol) 9:13-15, " . . . .
The helpers of Raliab stoop under him, how much less sliould I
answer him [vs. 14] ... . [n:yS sb ^npn^ DS n"^S], whom,
thoujili I were rijihleous. I (h)u1(1 not answer"; or, reading HDIJN ,
''who, though shall receive no answer"; Job 9:16-17,
"If I should call and he would answer me, I would not believe that
he would listen to my voice C^S^'JiJ'^ •^^r"'^^ ^'^^1' who overwhelms
me with a tempest" (a very obvious example of causal relative);
Job 37:16-17, "Knowest thou the poisings of the thick cloud, the
wonders of Him who is perfect in knowledge [D'^^'j T"^?^ '^'^^}>
[thou] whose garments are hot?"; Koh. 8:13, "It shall not be well
with the wicked and he shall not prolong his days like a shadow
[D^nbS ^DSbp K"^; l^rSl nipS], who does not fear God"; Dan.
8:9, "To us belongs confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes,
to our fathers [?jb ^]5<Dn "I12S], who have sinned against thee";
I Chron. 21:8, "And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly
[-•Tn ^n'^n-n5< ^n^iry nUJ«], who have done this thing."
Filial Clauses ^
110. Final or purpose clauses are not infrequently introduced
by '^'i23S . They are of two kinds, viz., pure and com'plementary .
In the former, the verb of the main sentence contains a complete
thought, while, in the latter, it requires the dependent clause as its
necessary complement.
111. A. Pure final clauses. — Gen. 11:7, "Let us confound their
language [^'2^^^ i<b nsS], that they do not understand" (LXX:
tW jjLT}); Exod. 20:26, "Thou shalt not go up by steps upon
my altar [yby ^^^"!? »^5^?0 ^^ ^^^]> that thy nakedness be
not revealed thereon"; Deut. 4:10, "Assemble the people and I
will make them hear my words [^ni< ^^5n-b ■^T^b"'. -^^^l that they
may learn to fear me"; Deut. 4:40, "And thou shalt keep his
statutes . . . . [?|b np^"; niajj;], that it may be well with thee"
(cf. "y'^b in the same verse); Deut. 6:3, "Hear, Israel, and observe
.... [ii^'^ ■^n^n nirSi'l ?|b np^*; ^^JJ;], that it may be well
» BDB treats final and result clauses under one head: "It ["ItpSl is resolvable
into 'so that.'" But "so that" may be final, expressing aim, or it may be consecutive,
expressing result. Gen. 11:7 and 22 : 14 certainly do not represent a single type of clause.
The former clearly denotes aim or purpose, the latter an actual consequence or result.
The Hebrew Particle "I123N 83
with thee and that you may increase exceedingly"; Deut. 32:46,
'' Set your heart unto all the words which I testify unto you this day
[D5^_j2"n5< D^^n ^llJi^t]"; this clause is probably best taken as a
relative, "which ye shall command" (against Gesenius-Kautzsch,
Davidson), since the action of the main clause does not look forward
to another action as its aim; in other words, it is not a means to
an end, but an end in itself; the relative clause is here very loosely
attached to the preceding; Josh. 3:7: "I will begin to make thee
great in the eyes of all Israel .... [nipi^D ^3 "!13?T ^^X],
that they may know that," etc.; Ruth 3:11, "Shall I not seek rest
for thee [T]b np^"; nilJX], that it may be well with thee?"; Koh.
7:21, ''Take no heed unto all words that are spoken [ifb "I123i<
?jbbj>p ir|^n3'"nx :f')2'^r\], lest thou hear thy servant curse thee";
Neh. 2:7, "Let letters be given unto me to the governors beyond
the river [^2^"i^nr "iW], that they allow me to pass"; Neh.
2:8, "And a letter unto Asaph [D"^? ^) "Fl^ nT235<], that he may
give me timber"; II Chron. 1:11, " . . . . but hast asked wisdom
and knowledge for thyself [""S? niSllJri ^123^5], that thou mayest
judge my people"; Jer. 42:14, "We shall go to Egypt [S<b ^^H^
n^nbp ns^j], that we may not see war," or "where we shall
not see war"; either is possible, if the present text be retained.
112. B. Complementary final clauses. — These clauses are found
after verbs of will or purpose, or equivalent expressions. They are
substantive clauses and may represent a subject or an object.
a) Complementary final clauses as subject: Esther 1:19, "If
it please the king, let it be written [^DSb ^n^l XizP 5<b nilJS
Tljb^n], that Vashti come not in the presence of the king"; Neh.
13:1, "And it was found written therein [^W U^iu^ ^b TCN
DTlbSin bnpn ....], that an Ammonite should not enter into
the congregation of God." These are the only two instances that I
have found in which the final clause represents the subject. It is
not impossible, however, that the Hebrew usus loquendi felt these
clauses to be in an objective relation to the governing verb, accord-
ing to the well-known Hebrew usage that a verb in the passive may
take an object; cf. Gen. 4:18, "l^^'ni^ ^^Tb i:^;f^.
h) Complementary final clauses as object: Gen. 24:3, "And I will
cause thee to swear .... ["'Dnb rni35< Hi^n-J^b n^^;], that thou
84 Carl (^aensslk
wilt not take :i wife for my son," etc.; I Kings 22:16, "How often
shall I cause thee to swear [D"^n n'lS-p^ "bi< "^n-n-sb mIj^^
nin"'] that thou speak to me only the truth in the name of Jahwe?";
Esther 2:10, " . . . . Mordecai had commanded her [Ti»n"Sb "^W^]
that she should not make it known"; Dan. 1:8, "And Daniel
purposed in his heart [bSyp"^ ^^b '^^^], that he would not defile
himself"; Neh. 2:5, "If it 'please the king .... [^;nb^ri ^^X],
that thou wouldst send me"; the governing verb is '^p^iJI , "I
would request," to be supplied from the preceding verse; Neh.
7:05, ^brS" Sb n-is Dnb '\'2i<^^, "he told them that they should
not eat" (cf. Ezra 2:63); Neh. 8:14, "And they found written in
the law that Jahwe had commanded by Moses [""ZJ. ^3'!2J[; "l^X
bi^'yr^] that the Israelites should dwell [in tents]"; Neh. 8:15, ^t2S1
V7J12J^ , "and that they should proclaim" (continuation of vs. 14);
Neh. 10:31, "They [the rest of the people, priests, Levites, porters,
etc.] entered into a curse and into an oath [vs. 30] ["iFip !}<b liIJX
ysn ''^?b ^3'ri3n] that we would not give our daughters to the
nations of ' the land"; Neh. 13:19, D^IHFIS^ !}<b ^^iS; ~T^i<T ,
"and 1 said that they should not open them [the gates]"; Neh.
13:22, □"■^ni^'p rrr; TOS: D^lbb "72^*1, "that they should
be purifying themselves"; II Chron. 18:15 = 1 Kings 22:16 (cf.
supra).
Note. — One cannot fail to notice that most of these examples are found
in late books, especially Nehemiah. It is noteworthy also that these clauses
never take the accusative sign ns before the TON •
Final Relative Clauses
113. "''i^N occurs in a few instances in relative clauses of purpose
(cf. the Latin). Exod. 32:1, 23, "Make us gods [^r^sb ^D^ n^fS]
to go before us" (in order that they may go, etc.); (cf. Vulg. :
quid nos praecedant [with subjv. of purpose]; Kautzsch: "schaffe
uns einen Gott, der vor uns einherziehe"); Num. 27:17: "Let
Jahwe appoint a man over the congregation [vs. 16] [NJI"^ ^^^.
Dn"lJSb], to go out before them" (R.V.: "who may go out before
them"; Vulg.: qui .... possit exire; Kautzsch: "der an ihrer
Spitze ausziehe").
The Hebrew Particle ^IIJJ? 85
Consecutive or Result Clauses
114. IIIJSl introduces clauses denoting result or consequence:
Gen. 13 : 16, "I will make thy seed like the dust of the earth [D^< ^TlJi^
n:i3-: ir|?"lT-°? 'fy'^ ^Sr^^ ^^'■>'^) ^'^ ^?^1, so that if any
man can number the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also
be numbered"; Gen. 22:14, "And Abraham called the name of
the place Jahwe-jireh ["S"^"; nin^ ^Hn □i'^n ^"p^<;; nilJX], so
that it is said to-day" (the rest obscure); Deut. 28:27, "Jahwe
will smite thee with the boil .... [i<S";n b^^D sb nTliSI], so
that thou canst not be healed" (Vulg.: ita ut curari nequeas; LXX:
o)<7T€ fXT] dvvaadal ae ladrfvai; R.V., however: ''whereof"); I Kings
3:12, ''I have given thee a wise and understanding heart [TC&5
?5i723 n^p75<b ^^^'^r,^) ^^;3b rrji'i^b r^rc^], so that there has
been none Hke thee before thee," etc.; I Kings 3:13, "I have given
thee .... both riches and honor [t23^^^ Tji/JS n^n"J<b TCi^
^'"'C^'b'Z D^Db^S], so that there has been none like thee among
the kings"; translating n'Tl as a perfect, "all thy days" must be
rejected; Kittel in the Handk. takes H^H as a future perfect; in
this case, "all thy days" could be retained, but it would then
unduly affect the greatness of the promise; II Kings 9:37, "And
the body of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field
in the portion of Jezreel [bnrij^ ni<7 ^"^'C^" ^b nilJX], so that
they shall not say. This is Jezebel"; Isa. 65:16, "He will call his
servants by another name ["Hbi^n "^^^H"; "p!S;n T^ian^aH nilis
"PX], so that he who blesses himself in the earth shall i3less him-
self in the God Amen"; Jer. 19:11, " . . . . so will I break this
people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel [b'DT sb "IIIJN
lis? 555'^nb], that it cannot be made whole again"; the clause
may, however, be taken in a relative sense, "which cannot," etc.;
Konig regards it as consecutive; Mai. 3:19, " . . . . the day that
Cometh shall burn them up, says Jahwe [W'^W Qnb D,iT ^b ^^J5
n:yi], that it shall not leave them root or branch"; Ps. 95:11,
"Forty years long was I grieved with this generation and said. It
is a people that do err in their heart [10] .... [DS, "^riyn^j ^123^5
■'nn^S/J'biSS •^Sin*'], so that I sware that they should not enter into
my rest"; it is possible here to take "^UJS simply in the sense of
"concerning whom" or "as to whom" (R.V.: "wherefore";
80 Carl (Jaenssle
Kautzsch: "I'nd so schwur ich"; X'ulfi;.: /// iuravi; LXX: cbs
cbfxo(Ta); Esther 9:1, Q^l^H'^n ^dbt^_ niZJS X^H Tjisn;"] , "and the
matter was reversed so that the Jews ruled [over those that hated
them]."
115. There is one instance of complcnientary consecutive clause
in the Old Testament: Ezek. 36:27, ^^bn "prn ^"^S-nX ^n^TSyi ,
"and I cause j'^ou to walk in my statutes" (Vulg.: Faciam ut in
praeceptis meis ambuletis).
Consecutive Relative Clauses, or Relative Clauses of Characteristic
116. This type of clause is quite common in Hebrew, although
it has been disregarded by the grammars. It is used, as will be seen
from the following example, to express a characteristic or quality
of an indefinite antecedent (as a rule): Gen. 20:9, "^W U^WTC
^1^3'' r-lT^" ^iry^ i<b , "thou hast done deeds unto me that ought
not to be done"; Gen. 41:38, "And Pharaoh said. Can we find such
a one as this [is D'^T^bx n^"i "I'llJiji '0^!!<], a man in whom the spirit
of God is?" (Vulg.: qui spiritu Dei plenus sit?); Exod. 5:2, . . . .
i^pH S^'^IIJlSt "i"l2Ji5 mn^ ■'p, "who is Jahwe, whose voice I should
obey?" ( = "that I should obey his voice") (Vulg.: ut audiam vocem
eius); Exod. 9:18, "Behold, to-morrow about this time I will cause
it to rain a very grievous hail .... [Q''i:i"J^ ^Til2^ n^Jl ^b "'IIJS],
such as has not been in Egypt" (Vulg.: qualis non fuit; cf.
Exod. 9:24); Exod. 11:6, "And there shall be a great cry through-
out all the land of Egypt [rir\'Tq ^h ^nbS ^123^5], such as there
has not been"; Exod. 34:10, '"7 will do marvels [^N^nr^^b IlIJN
""^^rrbSjj, such as have not been wrought in all the earth";
Deut. 3:24, " . . . . what god is there in heaven or in earth ["■'''P^^
T^''''XT2'D niry^] that can do according to thy deeds?" (Vulg.: qui
possit facere opera tua; Kautzsch: "der solche Werke verrichten
konnte?"); Deut. 28:49-50, "Jahwe will bring a nation against
thee from afar .... [HlflS U^ZB T^ ^i: tlT'b TC'JiT)-^': ^t^_ ^13
"O'lS Sifl'' iJ^b], a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand,
a nation of fierce countenance that shall not regard the person of
the old," etc. (Vulg.: cuius linguam intelligere non possis; gentem,
quae non deferat seni, nee misereatur parvuli); I Kings 3:8, 3T?J^
It; ^SQ^ !}<b"l Hj^Q'^-i^b ^"m, "a great people, that cannot be
The Hebrew Particle "^'iSS 87
numbered nor counted for multitude (Kautzsch: "dass es vor
Menge nicht zu zahlen noch zu berechnen ist"); Isa. 7:17, "Jahwe
shall bring upon thee and upon thy people and upon thy father's
house [Di^-;b !15<n-5<b ^'m nrr] days that [such as] have not
come" (Kautzsch: ''Tage, dergleichen nicht gekommen sind"); Jer.
49:19, ":3b lar TIIJX nn n-r;^, ^'Who is the shepherd that
shall stand before me?" (Vulg.: Quis est isle -pastor, qui resistat
vultui nieo^ Kautzsch: "wo ware der Hirte, der vor mir Stand
halten konnte?"; cf. Jer. 50:44); Dan. 12:1, ^TJ^S; H;^ Ty nnvn
"ni'Tl'^^ nri^rij ^ib , "And there shall be a time of trouble such as
there never has been since there was [a nation, etc.]" (Vulg.:
veniet tempvs, quale non fuit) ; Neh. 5:2-4, D"'T^i5 ^^^_ IIJ;;') , "There
were those who said" (Vulg.: erant, qui dicerent); the expression
occurs at the beginning of three successive verses; it corresponds
exactly with the Latin relative clause of characteristic after general
expressions of existence or non-existence; I Chron. 17:21, "And
who is like thy people Israel, a unique people in the earth [^^X
Uy ib niisb □■'ribxri ^b^], that God went to redeem unto him-
self for a people"; if Chron. 1:12, "5 H^n^sb ni25S T^b^irii^ ito
"D-Db^b , "And honor I will give thee such as none of the kings
had that were before thee"; the "? here takes the place of the
ordinary ^TiWD, but it might be dispensed with altogether without
altering the sense; II Chron. 2: 5, n^n ib-^Dn^^ ^llJi^ "DS ^12^, "and
who am I that I should build him a house?"
Conditional Clauses
117. The particle "^"^^ may introduce conditional clauses:
Exod. 21:13, Dip7J ^b "P^riJI . . . . niT xb ^^^), "and if
he does not act presumptuously, then I will appoint you a place";
since this verse continues and modifies the thought of the preceding
verse (n7JV liJ"^^ ^?'r), I prefer to take ^^Sl as a conditional
conjunction rather than as an indefinite relative pronoun ("whoso,"
Driver, Heh. Tenses, 123) (cf. Kautzsch: "Wenn er [i.e., the TO";]
es aber nicht vorsatzlich gethan"); Lev. 4:22, J^^m";; i^^'w: "^tpS,
"if a ruler sinneth"; Num. 5:29, HIC^^^ nnn J^TtW HtD'lEn n^S!,
"if a wife [being] under her husband turn aside"; hardly welches
88 Caul (Jap:nssle
Weib (Erwald), assuming an attraction of the antecedent; Num.
0:20, 21, "'"^i^ "^2"^ is not conditional (against Friedrich); the sense
is simply it happened that; Deut. 11:27, "The blessing CIIJS
nirr" ni:i"I"t;S ^"-"^ri], if you obey the commands of Jahwc"
(cf. vs. 28, ^:?"-':Jn ^^b dx); Deut. 18:22, s^nsn ^ST n^^X, "if
a prophet speaks"; Baentsch renders: "Was der Prophet redet
(ohne dass es geschioht und eintrifft, das ist ein Wort," etc.); Josh.
4:21, Dr:n "^bs;';!3^ ^"JJNI, "if your children ask" (cf. 4:6, "^3
"Jlbs^-;);' I^Kings 8:31, ':5-i< ^^DH^ nilJS; nS , "if a man sin" (lit.
"as to the case when a man sins") (cf. II Chron. 6:22, 5^12""' D^S).
Conditional Relative Clauses ^
118. A relative clause in Hebrew (as in other languages) often
involves the idea of condition. This is the case when the clause does
not refer to any specific individual or thing, which it describes, but
to a whole class of persons or things supposable under any given
circumstances. Such clause is not declarative, but merely assump-
tive, and hence it performs essentially the same function as condi-
tionals strictly so called. This becomes especially apparent in cases
where, by a kind of anacoluthon, there is no formal agreement or con-
nection between the main and the relative clauses. Such looseness
of construction is conditioned by the indefinite nature of the relative
clauses. Cf. Lev. 22:18-19, ^"^1^ n^np: ^12JX . - • • 12J^i< 'JJ^K
~^Z' W'Zri DpZ^'^b . . . ., "Any man .... who brings his offer-
ing — [ye shall offer such] that ye may be accepted," etc.; Isa. 55:1,
^jb "|C3 ib 7^ "^"^^V "whoever hath no money — come ye";
Zech. 14:17, nmn r\^n^_ nn^by ^<bi .... nbr-sb n-csi n^ni,
"And it shall be that whoever does not go up ... . upon them
shall be no rain."
119. Syntactically, conditional relative clauses naturally follow
the rules of hypothetical periods. Thus the relative clause (or, as
one might say, the relative protasis) most frequently takes the imper-
fect as the tense of incompleted and therefore indeterminate action;
cf. Gen. 17:14, nn"]D;i • • • • ^cnTX bis";-&<b n^s; ^dt by^
iX'^Ti'n llJSSn , "And the uncircumcised male who is not circum-
cised .... that soul shall be cut off" (Vulg.: circumcisa non
« Cf. Friedrich, Hebr. Conditionalsatze. §§88fr.
The Hebrew Particle "1112^5 89
fuerit); Gen. 24:14, ''And the girl ["7^S1 .... rrbif^ T;i< n^SS;],
to whom I shall say [let down thy pitcher] and she say"; this is
equivalent to : " If the girl to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher,
say . . . ." (cf. vs. 43, ^Fl'i'IS, where the tone proves that HT^SI
in vs. 14 has 1 consecutive,^ introducing the apodosis); Gen. 44:9,
r\'2'] .... ins i<-j::2"; "I'J^yt, "with whom it shall be found [he]
shall die"; Exod. 30:33', V^Q^J n^r-wT .... ^ribS npn": ITIJ^ t2J-i< ,
"whoever compoundeth anything like it ... . shall be cut off
from his people (LXX: 6s av iroLiqari ; Vulg.: Homo quicumque tale
composuerit); Lev. 7:20, nn^^DI .... bp^D-n^S ^SSni , "and
the soul that eateth .... shall be cut off" (LXX: tjtis eav (j)ayri ;
Vulg.: quae ederit); Lev. 17:3, mpDI • • • . tirip^ ^t25^^ ^■'^5 '^"5<
(vs. 4), "whoever killeth .... shall be cut off" (cf. Lev. 17:8, 13;
18:5, "Keep my statutes [DHl 'Hi QIS" Onj^ TV^T ItflJJ;],
which, if a man do, he shall live thereby" (cf. Latin: philosophia,
cut qui pareat, omne tempus aetatis sine molestia possit degere);
Lev. 20:6; Num. 15:30, nn^D:i . • • • TiW^ri n^5< ^33.ri; Deut.
17:12, S^nr: 1l5'«" n"r^ • • • ■ n'lrr-nias; lliSiri; Deut. 18:20,
r\-2^ .... ■'nr ^t^Jsi .... Tr n^s ^^r?~ ; J^dg. i : 12, n^i<
ib ^nn;i . . . .'^SC n:ip-nt< nV (LXX: 6s av irara^v • • • • ^^<^^
avTio); isa. 56:4, "For thus says Jahwe concerning the eunuchs
[□nb ^nn:"] .... ^ninn'jj-n^^ ^^-r^^. ^'^^]"; Jer. 27: ii, . . . .
rnnsni .V. . bns ^b-j b':?n ri<^J^-ni< i<^n; ^tiSs ^'i-in'i (LXX:
/cat TO Wvos 6 idv daayayri .... KaraXe ti/'co) ; Mic. 3:5, ^b ■^123^^'l
"■^nb:- rb:? ^"^1P1 Q""^"^? l^"!' "And whoever does not give
into their mouths, they consecrate war against him."
120. It will be noticed that in all the examples thus far cited the
relative clause with the imperfect is followed by the perfect and
waw consecutive in the main sentence. More frequently, however,
the latter also takes the imperfect; cf. Gen. 31:32, ^^S 7J3?
TTTr 5<b TTTlbi^Ti^ S:i"^ri , "with whomsoever thou findest
thy gods, [he] shall not live" (LXX: Uap' w au evprjs . . . . ov
^rjaerai ; Vulg. : apud quemcumque inveneris) ; Gen. 44 : 10, ^1235^
in>' ^b TTrC" in5< ^'^'^".^ "with whomsoever it is found [he]
shaH be my servant" (LXX: Hap' w av evpedri . . . . ; Vulg.: apud
quemcumque fuerit inventum) ; cf . the preceding verse, where instead
• Cf. Driver, Hebrew Tenses, p. 131.
00 Carl Gaknssl?:
of iinpcrffct in the (tpodosis we have the i)('rf('('t with ivaw consecu-
tin: i.cv. 7:10, brs" sb s'^p-brs :"r ■""lr^5 ^cnn (lxx:
Kal Kpia oca iau a\pT]Tai . . . . ov tSpcodrjaerai ; Viilg. : caro, quae
tetigerit); Lev. 15:5, riia Cnr i^S^'^n yr ^TTX ^^fi^"] (LXX:
Kai audpcoiros 6s iai' axp-qrai .... ■Kkvvel to. iixaTia ; Vulg. : Si quis
Iwminum tetigerit .... lavabii); Lev. 20:2, ^12JS • • • • 'JJ^J^ IZJ"'^
n*;V T\ri .... -FI-CLXX: 'Edz^ns .... OS a;/ So;; cf. Lev. 20:9,
10. 11, 12, 13, 14, and other examples in the same chapter) ; Lev.
21:10; Num. 5:10, n^r;- ib "nsb ',rT:-""i'X :r^t5 (LXX: Kalai'Tip
OS iav 8u) tepet, aurw eVrat); Num. 22:0, ^SV ^i<n ^tbs; (LXX: oi)s
Siu KaTapaarj); Deut. 18:19, ^SbX .... y>2'^^_ «b ^^^J^ llJ'Sn H^ni
i^^'I ■^'''^yi (LXX : OS iCLP nrj aKovar\ .... lKbLKi)GO) e^ auroO) ; Judg.
6:31, n:;v'ib n^-^; ^ICS: (LXX: Ss ed/^ SudaT/rat) ; I Sam. 17:25,
-brn ^3^":5"' ^33^ '^irSi 'LlJ^J^r: , "whoever slays him, the king will
make him' rich"; Isa'. 60:12, ':\r[2.T sb ^^S nDb^^^QHI ^rSH
■"ZS" , "the nation and kingdom which shall not serve thee shall
peri-sh"; Jer. 27:8, inS T^ZT ^<b ^T^S njb7^53riT ^iSH H^mI
.... "piNi . . . . , "and the nation and kingdom which shall not
serve him\' ... I will punish . . . ."; Ezek. 1:12, 'nVP ^IIJS; bx
^t*" Dljbb ij^^n n^123 , "wherever the spirit went [imperfect of
repeated action], they\vent" (cf. Ezek. 1:20); Koh. 5:3, ^123^5 ni<
D*- "''^ri , "whatsoever you vow, fulfil" (LXX: oaa eav ev^rj
dTToSos; Vulg.: Quodcumque voveris redde) . In Zech. 14:17, even the
imperfect has the waw consecutive: tTTT^ ^VrZ ^^) »^/r'?!'^'^ ^"'P'i!?
Dwliri , "whoever shall not go up, upon them shall be no rain."
121. The conditional relative clause sometimes takes the perfect,
in which case the implied condition is conceived by the imagination
as reahzed; cf. Num. 9:13, nCBH niTIJyb b'ltl . . . . ^^^^ ^^i<ri
. . . . nri"'3:V "The man who forbeareth to keep the passover,
[that soul] shall be cut off" (LXX [as in other examples where the
imperfect is employed]: 6s eav .... vareprjari) ; Isa. 50:10, lljpi^
mn^ Dtpn npn-; ib n^b -fsi D^pirn T]bn, "he that waiketh m'
darkness and hath no light, let him trust in the name of Jahwe."
122. The relative clause may also take the participle; cf. I
Sam. 11:7, nirr Tiz . . . . iK'4' ^Sr« "ilfl^^, "whoever does not
go forth .... so shall it be done [unto his oxen]." Here the
emphasis is not primarily on a possible future action, but on a possible
The Hebrew Particle illJi^ 91
mental attitude with reference to Saul's command. The sense is
"whoever shows no inclination to go forth."
123. The clause may also be a purely nominal sentence. In
this case there is no verb at all. Cf. Jer. 23:28, '\^^ ^^?IT^
. . . . "lEC"' Dij'j 'il^^, "the prophet who has a dream, let him
tell it"; Jer. 15:2, n^^b ni^b "^lliy; (cf. Jer. 43:11; Num. 9:13);
Job 39:30, ^5^n "iSp Vbbn ^"iXn^, ''and wherever the slain
are, there is he" (LXX: ov av coat redvecoTes; Vulg.: Ubicumque
cadaver fuerit, statim adest) .
124. Sometimes instead of the perfect with waw or the imperfect,
the bare perfect is employed in the main clause; cf. Ezek. 14:4,
ib ^n-^ry: mn"* ^dn? . . . . vb^b—ns; nbr may; . . . . iij'^5 is^^^,
"Every man who causes his idols to come up [into his heart]
.... I, Jahwe will answer him." The perfect here expresses the
certainty and immediateness of the result; cf. also Ezek. 14:7;
Gen. 24:14, rir^h HnS .... T^S nnJS; n^sn n^HI , "And the
girl to whom I shall say .... her thou hast appointed."
125. If the idea of generalization is to receive greater emphasis
than is already implied in the indefinite relative clause as such, the
antecedent or the relative particle (according as the clause is
dependent or independent) is often preceded by .^D . As to the
form, the use of the imperfect in both members of the sentence
represents the prevailing type. Out of the thirty-seven instances
that follow, eighteen are of this character; cf. Exod. 20:24, "b3!ll
?j^bs ^<in^5 ^"^ip-nS "^^DTS ^'iSN Dip^n, " in every place where i
shall record my name I will come to you"; Lev. 6:20, y^ '^12JI}< blD
IZJ'^p'' ni''j:3!Il , "whoever touches the flesh thereof shall be holy";
Lev. 15:¥o,' X^Jip"; .... rb:^' nS^n ^^^S; bbl, "everything that
shelieth upon shall be unclean"; Lev. 15:26, hlSn ^^S ^bSH-bS
rrri'^ i<'2p Vby, "every vessel that she sitteth upon shall be
unclean";' Num. 19:16, X'^ta": .... :'"r"^^^. ^^1. "whosoever
touches shall be unclean"; ^Num. 19:22, ^'zX^ri ^^ la ^TTS;^ bS
J^'^ti";, "whosoever the unclean person touches shall be unclean";
Num. 22:17, niryJSS ^bi< T^5<n"^12J^5 bb, "whatsoever thou sayest
I will do"; Deut.' i'i :24, n^rr: ddV .'. . . q3 tjinFi ^m nip^n-b3 ,
"every place the sole of your feet shall tread upon shall be yours";
Deut. 15:19, HJ'^'npln .... ibV ntpS lisnri-bS , "every firstling
92 Carl (Iaenssle
tluit is born thou shalt sanctify"; Dent. 19:15, "One witness
[n?ip; Sb] against a man [Xi:-^ ""dS Nlpr-bsn] in any sin that
he has sinned"; I Sam. 14:47, r^^: n:S";-n\ZJi< bbS , "whither-
soever he turned he was victorious"; so, if instead of y*"!?"^^ we
read (cf. LXX: ccoj^cto) y'C^''. , "he was saved" or "victorious";
II Sam. 15:35, TSn . . . .'riipn miJS ^n^n-'bS, "whatsoever
thou shalt hear, thou shalt tell"; II Kings' 10: 19^, lpE';-ni2JS Vs
n""" xb , "whosoever shall be missing shall not live"; Joel 3:5,
tsb^' rt*\rr C'liS S"^p"; IllJSl bb, "whosoever shall call upon the
name of Jahwe' shall' escape"; Ps. 1:3, n^b^: TVTT "112JS bs ,
"whatsoever he doeth, he carries out successfully"; Prov. 17:9,
b*'DTC^ »"'.'??''. "'''^^'b^'bi;^, "whithersoever he turneth he is successful";
Prov. 21:1, ^St2^_ ysn^ n^S'b^-b^ , "whithersoever he wills he
turns it"; II Chron. 15: 13, T\'2r .... "CnT-sb TlIJS; bb , "who-
soever should not seek [Jahwe] .... should be put to death."
126. Quite frequently also the apodosis is introduced by the
perfect and waw consecutive; cf. Exod. 9:19, "^tdS .... DlJ^rrbS
^iU'l) T^n- nrrhy l-n .... mian 5^;:^^' "every maV land
beast] that shall be found in the field .... the hail shall come
down upon them"; Lev. 7:27, 'nn'^^:^ .... bSSn-niDS! ^S^"^? ,
"whosoever eateth .... shall be cut off"; Lev. 17:15, IIJSp'blD
CSj*) .... b^Xn "^^^ , " whosoever eateth shall wash [his clothes] " ;
Lev. 18:29, n-w^ri niirpn ^nn^si .... nirr ^^^^"bs, "who-
soever does [these abominations] — the souls that do them shall be
cut off"; note here the plural in the apodosis due to the broad
indefiniteness of the relative clause; Lev. 22:3, n^p";-^^5< t2J^5<-b3
X^nn tDSSn nn^SDI . . . . , "every man that approaches ....
that soul shall be cut off"; observe here the change of subject in
the apodosis resulting again from the wide and general application
of the relative clause; Lev. 23:29, HSJ^n-i^b ^^^ ^SSPi-bS
r;n';^r;'i; Lev. 23:30, ^^^n^^:^1 .... niryn ""cj^ Tiissn-bs;
II Chron. 19:10, Qri^NSTrTl QTby Xi^^-n-irJift n^T^SI, "and every
controversy that shall come to you [from your brethren, etc.], you
shall warn them."
127. The relative clause may be a purely nominal sentence; cf.
Lev. 21:18, n^p"; Kb Lr,2 iZ nips ^^i<-b3, "whatsoever man
The Hebrew Particle 112^^ 93
has a blemish shall not approach"; Lev. 22:20, C^7J iS-nilS^^-bS
^n^ipn ^b , "whosoever has a blemish you shall not cause to
approach"; Num. 19:14, K^Jt:": bnJJ^n ^^5^"^:: , "whosoever is in
the tent shall be unclean." Again, the apodosis may have the bare
perfect for sake of greater emphasis. Cf. Josh. 1:3, D'lp'J'^S
Vnnj Dpb in .... r? "^"^"^^ "^'^^^ "every place whereon the
sole [of your feet] shall tread,' to you have I given it"; Judg. 2:15,
D3"nr\'n r^^rr T ^i<^^ TOS bb:a, "whithersoever they went out
the hand of Jahwe was against them."
128. The relative clause appears also with the perfect; cf.
Num. 30:10, D^p"; iT:33"b>' rT)CSi'lT^Sl V3, "everything where-
with she hath bound her soul shall stand"; I Chron. 18:6, ^^T)
■qbn HTIJS bbZL Tllb r^rr ; cf. I Chron. 18:13.
"l29. The main clause or apodosis may be a nominal sentence;
cf. Josh. 2:19, i':J^^^2 T2"n T]n'? ^rhrg i^:i: "^m bs,
"whosoever goes forth from the doors of thy house, his blood is
upon him." .
130. Both members may be nominal; cf. Gen. 30:33, "^^^^ b3
i^Jin u^jI* • • • • 5<^bi:1 np3 'ISr^^ "every one that is not speckled
or spotted .... shall' be [counted as] stolen"; Num. 19:15, ^bs b'3
i<^n 5<'-t: rby b^nS -r'^Z^ 'C^ '^^^. "^r^£, "every open vessel,
which hath no cover bound upon it, is unclean."
131. Finally, the main clause may have the imperfect with the
waw consecutive; d.U^Sim. 15:2, 2^^. ib-n:'n-ni23S \2J^Srrb? V'^
DibirnS ^"^p^l .... 5<inb, "and if any man had a suit ....
then Absalom would call to him," etc.
132. Another mode of generalizing a relative clause and thus
rendering it virtually conditional is to prefix the antecedent or the
particle with the interrogative "p (H?^) used indefinitely. How
far the latter in these instances may have retained its interrogative
force it is impossible to tell. This question, however, does not
affect the general sense of the clause. Cf. Exod. 32:33, "And
Jahwe said unto Moses ^^^'2 ^S'^^S ^b'S^n n^S ^12], Who-
soever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book"
(lit. "who [is it] that has sinned against me?— him will I blot out";
LXX: €t ns wapTrjKev kvcombv fwv, e^aXetiAco . . . . ; Vulg.: qui
peccaverit .... deleho); II Sam. 20:11, "And there stood by him
94 (\\HL (^.AKNSSLE
one of Joab's youiijj; nuni and said [^uJS ^'2^ nSTS VSn "nilj^^ ^•)2
-^^'^"' ""1"^ "'l"r]' wliosoover has delight in Joab and whosoever
is for David, let him follow Joab"; Eccles. 9:4, ^Hj^ n'^SS ""I-S
■jirt^n 'i^ C^nn-bS bs, "For whosoever is united with all the
living — there is hope"; as in other cases, referred to above, there
is here no formal agreement between the main sentence and the
relative clause; Deut. 20:5, T^bv . . . njn ■'ipS: IIJ^SH ^7^, "who-
soever has built [a house] .... may go" (lit., "who [is the] man
that has built a house," etc.; both LXX and Vulg. retain the
interrogative construction here: Tts 6 dvdpcowos . . . . , Quis est
homo, qui aedificavit; Kautzsch: "Jeflermann unter euch, der ein
neues Haus gebaut hat .... mag abtreten"; cf. also vss. 6 and
7); Judg. 10:18, mhb rrr\^_ . . . . b-^ TCN ■O^Xn rj, "who-
soever shall begin [to fight] shall be head"; in this case the Vulg.
abandons the interrogative construction: Qui primus coeperit dimi-
care .... erit dux; LXX: Tts 6 avr^p octtls olp dp^erat .... /cat
eVrat ets apxovra, carrying on the question to the end of the
verse.
133. A participle may take the place of the relative clause; cf.
I Sam. 11:12, ^IDFl ^rb^ Tj'bp-] b^STIJ ^'q\Xn ^12, "whoever says
. . . . deliver [the men, etc.]"; Deut. 20:8; Judg. 7:3. Of course,
an adjective or noun may also be employed; cf. Ps. 34:13-14,
>-T2 Tj:iT2Jb liiD .... D^^n ysnn HJ-sn ^2, "who is the man
that desireth life .... keep thy tongue from evil [and thy lips
from speaking guile]"; logically, the question is equivalent to a
conditional clause, of which the imperative forms the apodosis (cf.
Baethgen: "Wenn du . . . . begehrst .... so bewahre," u.s.w.);
Exod. 24:14, n^^b^|: Tijr D^nnr] byn-^Tj; isa. 50:8, b^n-^-j
"bx *^T ^ps^"^ .' '
134. ^'2 alone is sometimes equivalent to ^TIJSl ^'2 ; cf. II Sam.
20:11, n^^■i^ ^"inj^ lllb-^^S TJ, "whosoever is for David, let
him follow Joab"; and' Exod. 32:26, ^bs XTiXTb ^'/2 , "whosoever
is for Jahwe, let him come to me." It is noteworthy also that the
indefinite ^'2 is sometimes indistinguishable from the indefinite
"'m; cf. Isa. 55:1, ^Sb "CD lb ^X nm , "whoever has no
silver — come ye"; and Exod. 32:24, ^plSHtl nHT "pb , "whoever
has gold — strip it off."
I
The Hebrew Particle ITIJS 95
Explicative Clauses
135. The particle "''055 quite frequently introduces a clause which
serves to specialize or define a preceding idea stated indefinitely.
The latter may either be a single word or a clause. These explicative
or epexegetic clauses have never received due recognition. Most
grammars ignore them entirely. To a certain extent, however, they
are implicitly recognized by versions and commentaries, though
there is lack of agreement and uniformity in their treatment. This
arises chiefly from the fact that, owing to a misapprehension of the
true nature of the clause, an explicative "itDS is sometimes regarded
as a simple relative particle.
136. I shall first cite those instances in which the epexegetic
use of "^IIJS is plain and unmistakable; cf. Ezek. 20:32, nbl^ni
n^;ijD n^n: D^-]pi< qfix -iipst rrrin ikb rr^ niriri^-bv, "And
that which cometh up in your mind shall not be at all [namely]
that ye are saying, We will be as the heathen"; it is plain at the
first glance that the "'uJlSi-elause specifies the indefinite nb^n ; Koh.
7:29, ^T2J; DlStnTS □'"bxri Ti'X'J I^S ^N^^ S^r"??"! , ''Behold
this have I found [namely] that God made man upright"; Koh.
8:14, "There is [bllH] a vanity which is done upon earth [125]^ "llpyt
D''p"''i;2], that there are righteous unto whom it happeneth according
to the work of the wicked"; Koh. 9:1, "Sb-byj "'rin] HT-bS-nN
"□^p"'""^ "'"^J^) "AH this I laid to heart, that the righteous," etc.;
Neh. 2:17, "And I said unto them. Ye see [n3'"^n] the evil case we
are in ... . ["""^rj:^ 712^' D^bllJ^"; niZJX]," that Jerusalem is
desolate and its gates broken down"; II Chron. 35:20, "bS "'^Hi^
"in^C^^^ 7pn ^:2JS n^^T, "After all this [namely], that Josiah had
restored the temple," etc.; "itp^l is here not used temporally in
the sense of "when." So R.V. after all this: "when." Kittel:
"Nach alledem, als." The "itjp5«{-clause is an explanatory appo-
sition to ni<T"b|i . Vulg. simplifies by : Postquam instauraverat.
Finally, I should insert here Koh. 8:15, "And I commended mirth
["-□J5 ■'s '^"^^ri nnn wii^b jii:"75< "itiJb^ nr:7jUDn-nfi<], that
there is nothing better for a man under the sun than to eat and
drink." I think this is preferable to "because." The clause defines
wherein mirth consists rather than gives the reason for a final
judgment on the supreme good.
90 Carl Gaenssle
137. In the following examples the "l'!2JS is sometimes, erroneously
to mj' mind, regarded as a relative particle: Exod. 18:9, "And
jethro rejoiced [T^s bs^jj-^.b Hin'' nir^-^tsi^ Hziian-bs by
C"^!!'^ 1^2 ib^^n] at the good which Jahwe did "unto Israel,
that he rescued them from the hand of the Egyptians." Here
A.V. renders "whom he delivered," ])ecause i . . . . ITlJyi may
apparently refer to "Israel" as its antecedent. However, it is the
preceding indefinite Hjiian with its clause that calls for more definite
specification, not "Israel." While it is true that there is ultimately
little or no difference in the sense, we feel that the relative construc-
tion in shifting the emphasis from "the good" to the recipient of the
same materially weakens the force of the sentence. Therefore,
R.V., with truer insight into the thought, renders "in that he
delivered them." So also Baentsch, Kautzsch. LXX: on e^etXaro
(causal); Vulg.: eo, quod eruisset, "in that he had delivered." A
parallel passage is I Sam. 24:19, ^PS n^TT^' ^-lliSt. nS; rn^p Fl^tl
■:r:rn xbn Tj^n nirr ^2^sc ^m niit:,' "And thou hast made
known [according to a conjectural reading "made great"] the good
which thou hast done by me, that Jahwe delivered me into thy
hand and thou didst not slay me." Here again the good con-
sisted in this that Jahwe delivered him into his (David's) hand and
yet he (David) did not slay him (Saul). So far as formal grammar
is concerned "'pSC "llJi^ might be rendered "whom he delivered,"
making it refer to "^rilS^ as antecedent. But this would be awkward
and unnatural, especially in view of the intervening HZliD . Other
examples are: Deut. 25:18, "Remember [pb"^^ ?jb H'i^ ntdX ns
^Ci^ ^T2J5< . . . .] what Amalek did unto thee .... that he met
thee," etc. (LXX: ttcos aueo-rr} aot . . . . ; Vulg.: quomodo occurrit;
English versions: "How he met thee"; Kautzsch: "Wie er dir
l)egegnete"; Steuernagel in the Handkommentar: "der dir begegnete"
[incorrect]; again it must be insisted that the clause is manifestly
intended to specify the indefinite "what Amalek did"); Deut.
28:20, "Jahwe will send upon you the curse . . . . [^h "'jS/J
"rriZU IIIJS .... ^i'^bby?^], because of the evil of your deeds,
that you have forsaken me"; Steuernagel correctly renders: "wegen
der Bosheit deiner Taten, class du mich verlassen hast"; he adds
in a note, "die [sc. die Bosheit] darin besteht, class du mich
The Hebrew Particle "ITIJN 97
verlassen hast," which gives the sense exactly; freely rendered, the
clause means simply "in having forsaken me" (LXX: Stort lyKa-
reXiTre's ixe; Vulg. : in quibus reliqidsti 7ne; so also the English
versions: "whereby"); Deut. 11:4, "what he did unto the army of
Egypt, unto their horses .... ["by ~^C"D^ ^'r?''^^ "r^ij "^^^
Dn^DB], that he caused the waters of the Red Sea to overflow
them " (LXX : cbs iireKkvae ; Vulg. : quomodo; Steuernagel incorrectly
adopts the relative construction); Judg. 9:17, ^25< DnbD "I12JU5
'Ijc T-^ nsnx bsi'^i 133:^ i^srni^ i\bp^ ^T)k; this clause
attaches to the indefinite statement of the preceding verse, "Di<1
ib □n"'ir^ VT b^7^33, "and if ye have done according to the
deserving of his hands, namely, that my father fought for you and
cast his life before him [i.e., risked his life] and rescued you from
the hand of Midian [and ye have arisen against my father's house
this day, etc.]," the apodosis closing this long and involved period
being added in vs. 19, ... . "then rejoice." In the light of what
has already been said in connection with other examples, the clause
in question obviously stands in an appositional explanatory relation
to the statement "according to the deserving of his hands." Both
the A.V. and R.V. translate "for my father ....," treating vss. 17,
18 as a long parenthesis. Similarly Nowack: "denn, fiir euch hat
mein Vater gekampft " ; Kautzsch : " ihr, fiir die mein Vater gekampft
hat," making the "^^^ go back to the second person of the preceding
verbs; Keil: "da doch"; Vulg.: qui pugnavit pro vobis (omitting
■'lis); LXX: cos iraptTd^aTo [eToXe/jLTjaep] 6 irar-qp /jlov virep v/jlcop;
Konig, III, 385, n.: "Wenn gemass der Leistung seiner Hand ihr
thatet: dass mein Vater," etc., which is correct. Further instances
of the epexegetic use are: I Sam. 15:2, "I will punish [mr3?""i'lpy> ri5<
ib D^ ^TIJX b^'i^'^b pb-2V] what Amalek did unto Israel, that he
set himself against him" (cf. Deut. 25:18); I Sam. 28:9, "Thou
knowest [ni^j^ri-nj^ n^n^n iti^s; b^^^ niry niiJs nj^] what Saui
has done, that he has cut off the necromancers"; here Nowack
renders "der dir Totenbeschworer ausgerottet hat," treating the
clause as relative; in the preceding example, however, I Sam. 15:2,
he renders, "indem er sich ihm in den Weg stellte," an unnecessary
inconsistency, since there also he might have referred "^123^ to
Amalek and rendered, "der sich ihm in den Weg stellte"; however,
08 Carl Gaenssle
both clauses iire not rohitivo, ])ut explicative; Jer. 1:1(5, "Because
of their wickedness [^2^313? "illJyi], that they have forsaken me [in
having forsaken me]" (cf. Deut. 28:20; Keil: "das Bose besteht in
dem Abfall vom Herrn," which gives the exact sense); Jer. 32:40,
"I shall make an everlasting covenant with them [Q^T23fi< U^b "^ICyi
DrT'irX-] that I will not turn away from following them"; Ps.
31:8, "I will he glad and rejoice [^^'.^ n^S"^ ^'^i< ^"^Cnn] in thy
favor, that thou hast looked upon my affliction"; R.V. "for" is
wrong; the clause explains the general term "favor." Deut. 11:6 is
perhaps best placed in the category of explicative clauses: "What
he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of
Reuben [C3?b2F.1 H^E-nS •p&<n nn::5 ni23i<] [namely], that the
earth opened her mouth and devoured them." As in previous
instances, the clause specifies the indefinite preceding statement
"what he did." The syntactic relation is, however, less strict than
ordinarily, for the reason that the clause has its own subject
(yisn). Logically, however, it is Jahwe who causes the earth to
open her mouth, so that it may properly be said that the clause
is cast in essentially the same mold as others of this class. By way
of an interesting contrast, I insert here Baumann's analysis of this
verse: "Die Sohne EUabs, sie [^IIJS being a demonstrative appo-
sition to "the sons of Eliab"] (von denen auszusagen ist:) die Erde
sperrte ihren Rachen auf und verschlang sie," etc.^ Finally, Judg.
9:38 and Isa. 50:1 are best treated as explicative clauses.
138. In conclusion, it may be remarked that explicative clauses
sometimes appear asyndetically, that is to say, without the use of
the mediating ^T2J5< ; cf. Ruth 4:7, Tlb^^Tl bv bNi-^iz:-;^ D^DSb nj<7l
ib^'P Ili'^X "bllj . . . . , "This was formerly [the custom] in Israel
concerning redeeming .... [that] a man cast off his shoe," etc.;
Koh. 5:12, vb^nb ^^7jTi5 ^TT^ '^'2'^ri nnn ^n^5i;-i nbin nyn iij]
iri^"^b , "There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun,
[that] riches are kept by the owner thereof to his hurt" (R.V. :
namely, "riches kept," etc.) (cf. also Koh. 5:15; 10:5-6); Job 10:14,
■nstsn-nx [vs. lS]1\'By; nikl ^3 ^^^11, "l know that this was in
thy mind [that] if I should sin "
> Hebraische Relativs&tze, p. 30.
The Hebrew Particle n^!«<
Concessive Clauses
139. Simple "ntpSI never introduces a concessive clause. It may,
however, perform this function when coupled with 03 . Cf. Neh.
3:35, nri^pnjs; n7ji- ynsti by^^ nbr ni< D^Din Qn-nirn ds,
"Even though they build, if a jackal should go up, he shall tear
down their stone wall." It seems preferable to take "1125^5 as a con-
junction, though the relative construction is most generally adopted.
If we render "even that which they build" (R.V., Kautzsch, Sieg-
fried: "was sie auch immer bauen mogen), it would be more natural
to expect a pronominal resumptive in the main clause than Pl'^in
DH'^DnX. Cf. Konig, III, 4:15E: "Gesetzt auch, dass sie bauen";
Vulg. : Aedificent: si ascendent vulpes (with the subjunctive of indif-
ference: "Let them build"). This is the only instance of the kind
to be found in the Old Testament. Friedrich (Hebr. Conditional-
sdtze, p. 60) refers to Koh. 8:12 as a second example, in which, as
he says, the 03 is separated from Tl2Jy5 . But, as his citation shows,
"he has overlooked the ^3 which stands in immediate proximity to
D3 . ■'3 DB is, in fact, the more usual form of expression; cf. Ps.
23:4, T|biJ:-^3 D3 ; Prov. 22:6, "fpr ^3 03; Hos. 8:10; 9:16;
Isa. 1 : 15. Occasionally the position of the two particles is reversed,
DJ "3; cf. Koh. 4:14; 8:12.
Concessive Relative Clauses
140. There are a few instances in the Old Testament of relative
clauses with a concessive connotation; cf. Jer. 32:35, "And they built
high places of Baal .... to cause their sons to pass through the
fire unto Molech [''D^n^^^ isb TOX] which I did not command
them." The clause is the logical equivalent of : "Although [despite
the fact that] I did not command them." There is a concessive
or adversative idea implied. Cf. also Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 29:23;
Deut. 17:3. Jonah 4:10, "Thou hast had compassion on the gourd
[iFlb^3 Xbl in nb^^y ^b nilJSJ;], for which thou didst not labor,"
etc. Again the sense is, "although thou didst not," etc. Cf.
Kautzsch: "obschon du dich nicht um ihn bemiiht hast"; Esther
4:16, "And thus [referring to what has preceded] I will go in to the
king [n'l3"5<b ^^SSt], which is not according to the law," i.e., not-
withstanding it is contrary to the law. In this case, most versions
100 Carl (Jaenssle
abaiiclon ihv relative construction in favor of a ])uroly concessive
expression: Siegfried: "obwohl es gegen das CJesetz ist"; Kautzsch:
"obwohl dies dem Gesetz zuvviderliiuft"; Luther: "wider das
Gebot"; Vulg., freely: contra legem faciens; LXX: Trapa tov vofwv;
but A.V., R.V. : "which is not according to the law." In Ps. 139: 15
the case is not so clear, although the concessive construction is
possible and yields an excellent sense: "My bone was not hidden
from thee [■'HSQ "Jp^W "^'^^J' who was made in secret," i.e.,
"although I was made in secret." The relative particle refers
back to the suffix in "'"^^^ ("my bone"). The clause is often
classed as temporal; English versions: "when"; Kautzsch: als;
Luther : da; Delitzsch : der ich (relative) ; Vulg. and LXX : feaisti,
eirolrjaa^, with verb in second person, and taking "''©S as object;
Targ. : qui fadus sum.
Temporal Clauses
141. It is very questionable whether ^lliyt is as frequently eni-
ployetl to introduce pure temporal clauses (with no designation of
time preceding!) as has been supposed. Most of the examples cited
by GHW are by no means decisive. They are the following: Gen.
40:13, "Thou wilt put the cup into his hand ["litaS"]!! t3Stp^3
^np"ip?,2 f^^^V "^^^J' after the former manner when thou wast his cup-
bearer"; this may be correct, and is at any rate sufficiently accurate
as concerning the general sense; but if t2212J7J expresses more than
simply a modal idea, if it denotes the condition or office formerly
held by the cupbearer, a sense which seems to me legitimate,^ then
the following clause is attributive, and the "IIIJ^^ as the connecting
medium may be circumscribed somewhat as follows: "which answers
to the following description" (cf. Vulg.: juxta offidum tuum);
Num. 33:1, "These are the journeys of the Israelites [^S<:2^ "^ttJJi
DnS-:ib W'Z'^rZ '^^^X'C], when [R.V.] they went forth out" of the
land of Egypt by their hosts"; here the temporal idea is inap-
propriate; the clause evidently refers to journeys and indicates the
various stages in the migration to Canaan (Baentsch: "in denen
sie ausgezogen sind"; so also Kautzsch; Vulg.: qui egressi sunt,
' Clauses in which ItJX follows a time designation have already been considered;
cf. § 82.
"-Ct. Judg. 13:12; II Kings 1:7.
The Hebrew Particle ^''25_S, 101
referring to the Israelites; LXX: cos e^rjXdov); I Kings 8:9, "There
was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses
placed there at Horeb" [bsl'^Tr'; '^^"2y n^H" n^J ntb^t]; here
the local idea is at least just as probable and more so, perhaps,
than the temporal: "where Moses made a covenant (R.V. [margin]:
"where"; so also Konig, III, 387^, and Syr.; Vulg.: quando;
adopting the reading of LXX, the clause is purely relative); Jer.
29:19, "Because they have not hearkened unto my words pllJi^
"IZl^'niSl '^•j^^.^ T'r'^''f]> who sent unto them my servants [the
prophets]"; this is the most natural construction, the relative
attaching to the suffix in "my words"; Ps. 139:13 and II Chron.
35:20 have already been discussed. With the possible exception,
therefore, of Gen. 40:13, not one of the passages mentioned by
GHW is unquestionably temporal, while some of them are plainly
of another type. Equally uncertain are three other passages, in
which the ^ u3S is sometimes regarded as doing the duty of a temporal
conjunction. The first, Ps. 41:9, "An evil disease has befallen [is
cast upon] him" [D^pb "Ti^-J^b Z?p "i^J^SI], Konig (III, 3S7g)
regards as a temporal clause; so also A.V., R.V.: "Now that he
lieth, he shall rise no more"; Baethgen and Kautzsch: "Wer sich
einmal gelegt hat" (indefinite relative pronoun); so also Aq.: os av
KOLjjLrjdrj ; this is the simplest and most natural rendering. The
clause would seem to be of a proverbial character. The second
passage is Ps. 69:5, n^^X TX "nbjrxb ni^JN . Konig takes ^ipfi<
in the sense of dann, wann, with TX as correlative (III, 387g').
But "when I have not taken away, then I must restore" seems an
unnatural form of expression; possibly the text is corrupt and instead
of TNi we should read "'DX; the verse would then run: "what
. . . . taken awaj^, I must restore"; but the LXX reads 755 (d
ovK ripiraaa Tore aTreTLvvvov); so also Vulg.: quae non rapid nunc
exsolvebam. Baethgen explains: "Damals als die unverdiente
Feindschaft den Sanger traf, gait von ihm das Sprichwort, dass er
zuriickgeben musste, was er nicht geraubt hatte." However the
TX may be disposed of, the "lllJX-clause is doubtless relative. The
third uncertain passage. Gen. 30:38, "He placed the rods which he
had peeled in the watering troughs [nimiJb "SSin ^^^ZiT\ ni!JX]
where the flocks came to drink." So R.V., which, in view of what
U)'J Caul (Jaensslp:
we luivc seen conceruiiifj; the use of "'"^IJi^ in teniporiil clauses, is to
be preferred to "when." The local conception has been generally
preferred (Kautzsch, Delitzsch, Gunkel, Syr.), while Konig and
\\'ynkooi) favor the temporal.
Modal Clauses
142. Gesenius-Kautzsch cites a numl)er of passages in which
"^lSS is said to take the place of "''0^53 as a comparative conjunction
(cf. § 161). Let us look at these passages. In Exod. 10:6 the
"'TIJS is declared to be the equivalent of quemadmodum. We have
already- discussed this verse; cf. § 87, where it is stated that the
"UJS- clause refers to the entire preceding statement concerning the
plague, ami this accords best with the sense. In Exod. 14:13,
CnS^b ISC'n Xb Orn D^^^p-nX Dn^5<"i ^lliS ^3, ''for as ye see
the Egyptians to-day ye shall see them no more," "^TIJN is hardly
a conjunction equivalent to quemadmodum or bv rpoTrov (LXX).
Rather is it the equivalent of quales, "such as." The clause
expresses state or condition, not manner. The sense is that this
is the last time that the Egyptians shall appear in the character
of vigorous, menacing warriors. The rendering of Vulg., quos
'nunc videtis, and Keil, "die Agypter welche ihr heute seht" (with
attraction of the antecedent), though grammatically possible, is
devoid of force. In Exod. 34:18, "Seven days shalt thou eat
unleavened bread ["P'^l^ "'''^^l, as I commanded" (Vulg.: sicut
praecepi; LXX: Kaddirep), some MSS read 1123X3. The modal
idea may be accepted here. Nevertheless, it is possible to regard
ITIJi^ as a relative particle with the entire preceding sentence as
antecedent; cf. examples where the particle is thus employed,
§ 83. These are the examples instanced by Gesenius-Kautzsch ;
they are also adopted by Konig. It will be seen that they are inde-
cisive as establishing the comparative-modal use of the particle.
For sake of completeness I shall briefly discuss a few other similar
cases: Isa. 54:9, li:-" n'rr; 'iziTz "n:?ni2iD nia^ ^b nsT -b ^-2 ^3
""|D y^y^n'by , "For the waters of Noah is this unto me; as I
have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth,
so [have I sworn, etc.]"; this the usual rendering. Here it is to
be remarked in the first place that there is some manuscript and
The Hebrew Particle ni23N 103
abundant versional authority (Sym., Theod., Syr., Targ., Vulg.)
for reading "'/^^S , "as the days," instead of ^'^2 "'3. But if this
reading, which is decidedly preferable, be adopted, the following
Itpy; maj' very easily and naturally be taken in the sense of "when."
Vide supra for this common usage of the particle after designations
of time. "Like the days of Noah is this unto me when I sware,"
etc. As for the following "S , it cannot be objected that this demands
a correlative; cf. Isa. 55:9, where no correlative expression precedes.
Consequently, there is no necessity whatever for assuming that
ni2Ji< does the duty of H^KS in our passage. In Jer. 33:22, ^tpS
T7 ^^r'^^ ns")s -J ..'.'. oriTsri i^n:: ^5S";-sb, "as the host
of heaven cannot be numbered, so will I multiply the seed of David,"
if the text be accepted as it stands, we have here an undoubled
comparative-modal use of ltpy5 . But it is doubtful if TuJNt is original.
At any rate, the rendering of Syr., Theod., Targ., Vulg. seems to
favor an original "11l3si3 , though it must not be overlooked that,
granted the "I'^^i^ be original, these versions might still have used a
distinctively comparative mode of expression for the sake of clearness.
But the general usus loquendi seems to decide against the originality
of "n2Jy|. Jer. 48:8 is still less decisive. The IIDJSJ may be causal,
or it may be simply the relative particle. Giesebrecht cancels as
dittography. Our conclusion, therefore, is that a strictly modal use
of "^ipS in comparative sentences cannot be shown to exist in Old
Testament Hebrew.
143. There are, however, a few passages in which lUJi^ performs
the function of a conjunctive modal adverb; cf. I Kings 14:19,
"The rest of the acts of Jeroboam [7\T2 nUJS"! Dnbp ^^i^}, how
he warred and how he reigned [behold, they are written, etc.]." It
is plain here that TOi^ must have a conjunctive-adverbial force
expressing manner. By this is not meant, of course, that any such
meaning was inherent in the particle as such. It is only the sense
and the context that decide the peculiar force of TOSi in any given
case. In the present instance it is evident that a mere statement of
fact, i.e., that the king made war and particularly that he reigned,
would be wholly futile; cf. Vulg.: quomodo pugnaverit et quomodo
regnaverit. The case is diiferent in II Kings 14:15, "the rest of the
acts of Joash which he did and his power f ^"^II'^S U:? QnbD "^llJiil],
U)4 Caul (Jaknwslf:
and how ho foujiht with Ainaziah " Here tlic ^12Ji< may
simi)ly mean that, intrcxluoinK tlic statement tliat Joash waged war
with Amaziah. Vulg., omitting the 1, joins illJN with might and
renders: fortitiido eius, qua pugnavit; cf. vs. 28, OrbD "i123&i "iri^^Zj.
But even here the clause is hardly relative, modifying iri"^^33 , but
adverbial, as in the first example. Gen. 30:29, ^123s n&< n^'1'
Tj-riizy , "thou knowest iiow I served thee," expresses manner and
not mere fact; cf. §77; Vulg.: quomodo servierimtihi. But 1123S HS
may also be equivalent to an inner or cognate accusative.
1I2JS Recitatirum
144. Sometimes the particle ^l^N* serves to introduce direct
discourse. It then takes the place of "S , which is more ordinarily
employed. This usage is very rare. Even among the few instances
generally pointed out, some admit of another construction: cf. I
Sam. 15:20, "And Saul said unto Samuel [mn^ bpn T}:^'!^ niZJX],
I have obeyed the voice of Jahwe." The '^123X is here, in my
opinion, nothing else than an introductory particle. Syr. leaves it
unexpressed; Nowack: " ^ip5< dient zur Einfiihrung der directen
Rede." More generally, however, it is regarded as an asseverative
particle. R.V.: "Yea, I have obeyed ...."; Vulg.: Immo
audivi. Budde (SBOT), unwilling to admit this use of ^'^2j^< , con-
jectures "jX. We can safely say that so weak and indefinite a
particle as "ilipt^ can never have been employed to lend force and
emphasis to a statement. Nor is there any such idea required by
the context. Other instances are: II Sam. 1:4, "He said ["ni25X
D^n C2], The people fled"; so generally (LXX: elireu on t(f)vyev
[on is ambiguous]; Vulg., Kautzsch, Nowack, Driver, et al.); Konig
(III, 374c) remarks that the clause may be a "Referat des
Historikers " ; while this is possible, it is hardly probable; the vivid-
ness of the narrative favors direct discourse; II Sam. 2:4, ^lit^T
b^S'iJ-nS ^^Zj: ntps; -;;>-b3 ^Z"; -l2J:s; niat^b lllb, "And they told
David saying. The men of Jabesh-Gilead were they that buried
Saul"; so R.V., which I hold to be correct. This leaves the text
as it is, and is grammatically possible. It is generally assumed
that ^ipX is misplaced, its proper position being supposedly after
^bxb . But this would l)e the only instance in the Old Testament
The Hebrew Particle ^123S 105
where ISi^b , which, as is well known, is employed again and again
to introduce direct discourse, would be followed by an unnecessarily
redundant "^115^5 . It is thought that the LXX Xeyoz^res otl favors
the view of a misplacement of "^^^5 . But this rendering proves
nothing, otl could easily have been employed as an introductory
particle, even though "i"05< always occupied its present position.
As for the construction of the sentence in its present form, we
have an exact analogy, e.g., in the Assyrian; cf. Dariamus
sa bita aga epus, "Darius is he that has built this house."
"Der Relativsatz bildet das Pradikat" (Kraetzschmar, BA, I,
426). And just so in our verse. Cf. Zech. 13:6, "And one shall
say. What are these wounds between thy hands? and he shall say
[^nni!<72 n^S "t^'Sn 1^^], I was beaten in the house of my lovers."
This is at any rate possible, though "^TIJJ^ has been variously treated.
LXX with slavish hterality: as iirXmv ; Vulg.: His plagatus
sum; R.V.: "Those with which"; Nowack considers "itSi^ as
purely introductory. I prefer this view, though it is not the only
possible one — "IIIJ!!^ may be causal. In this case, the sentence must
be regarded as elliptical, the thought to be supplied from the context
being " I have these wounds," to which the niTJ^-clause would furnish
the reason. Neh. 4:6 is also sometimes referred to (Siegfried) as
containing an instance of "^^^5 redtativum but the syntax is doubtful.
b) "I1I3S IN COMPOUNDS
145. BOB says: "Combined with prepositions, TC5< converts
them into conjunctions." This is, of course, a well-known fact.
But it must be borne in mind that the "^^^^ is, as a rule, not indispen-
sable. Prepositions as such may subordinate an entire clause, in
other words assume the function of a conjunction. "Statt des
vermittelnden ^123^? tritt der ganze folgende Satz als ein Substan-
tivbegriff unter die unmittelbare Rektion der Praposition."i Indeed,
in some cases the preposition used as a conjunction is never accom-
panied by nm, e.g., D-lt:S and 7S;72 . Cf. Ps. 90:2, Q^pS
rnr D^'nn, "before the mountains were brought forth"; Exod.
5:23, 's"bi< ^nsn l^'Z, "since I came to Pharaoh." Q'^IfllL
1 Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 104c; cf. also Stade, p. 225; Olshausen, pp. 441 f.; Konig.
II. 327 f.
106 Carl (Iaenssle
TJpS or "ly^S TX'p arc not found. On tlio otlior liand, some prepo-
sitions are only in the rarest instances used immediately as conjunc-
tions. Thus "2 in Deut. 33:11, r^^p^-"J , "that they rise not
up," where "P is equivalent to '^XO^'Z . Olshausen further instances
&<^n""p in Isa. 18:2: "wo das .... X^n die Stelle eines ganzen
Satzes vertritt." So also Cheyne: "since it arose." Delitzsch
and Duhm take the expression locally, the former declaring that
J<"r;"7; cannot be used for J^^n '^lIJSp . But this takes for
granted the very thing that is under discussion. The temporal-
conjunctional sense is best suited to the context. The preposition
b is probably never found as a conjunction, 'rirb in I Kings 6:19
is plainly a scribal error. But in Gen. 30:41 Olshausen would read
(vielleicht) Tu'irr^ instead of HS/jn^b , thus making b introduce
a finite verb. 2l is employed as a conjunction in Lam. 4:14, U^bSl
^bDV ; cf. Konig, HI, 395e. Is 3 ever used for ntUXS ? This is
almost uniformly denied. Delitzsch remarks on Job. 7:2: "3
kann nie einen Vergleichungssatz einfiihren ausser einen infiniti-
vischen .... geradezu steht es nie fiir '^1IJN!3 ." So most of the
grammars. But Konig (III, 388rf) puts his finger on at least one
passage in which 3 introduces a comparative clause, viz., Jer. 31 : 10,
"He shall keep it [iT^lT] [i^iy riyi3] as a shepherd [sc. nbllj";]
his flock." This is the most natural and obvious construction. I
also think that Konig is right when he remarks on Obad., vs. 16,
TTl if,b'3 , that "als waren sie nicht gewesen" is " geistreicher "
than "wie solche, die nicht existiert haben." In other words, the
view that 3 is a conj unction = "^^N>3 deserves the preference to the
other which regards the clause as relative. So also Nowack: "Als
waren sie nicht gewesen," and G. A. Smith: "As though they had
not been"; cf. Job 10:19, rrtl^ ^n^^H 5^b ^1I3S3 , "I should have
been as though I had not been." There are other passages which
plainly show that the dividing line between 3 and "ItdSS was at
least partially obliterated; cf. I Chron. 17:9 (11 Sam. 7:10), "The
children of wickedness shall not waste them any more [^'OStS
nrcS^n], as at first"; Jer. 33:7, "I will build them [nru:&<"ia3], as
at first"; cf. also Jer. 33:11; Isa. 1:26, "I will restore thy judges
[r;;-X"33] and thy counselors [JlbnrinS] as at the beginning."
The same promiscuous use is noticeable also after nominal sentences ;
The Hebrew Particle '^T23&^ 107
cf. I Kings 13:6, "And the king's hand was restored again prini
nD'"ffi"j5";n3], and it became as it was before"; Gen. 41:21, ''Their
appearance was evil [nbnri^ "itZJiJia] as it was before."
146. If, then, 3 and ^ilJSiB are at times used interchangeably,
we are justified in re-examining a certain class of passages in which
the conjunctional character of 3 is commonly denied. Such examina-
tion has made it clear to me that 3 is often treated as a preposition,
where in reality it is a conjunction. What are evidently two distinct
types of sentence are promiscuously thrown together. For the
sake of illustration, I shall call attention to a few passages: Job
11:16, "For thou wilt forget misery [hlZ'J] ["tTTl ^^n^ n^'2'2],
thou wilt remember it as waters [that] have passed away"; Jer.
23:29, "Is not my word Hke a fire [:?bc ybSS-; tlJ^tOSS!!] and hke a
hammer [that] breaketh the rock in pieces?" It is plain here that
3 is not a conjunction, since the things compared are in each case
two mere substantives. 3 belongs only to the word to which it is
immediately prefixed. But now let us look at some other passages,
which are cast in a different mold : Job 7 : 2, .... b^ "i^"'^''. "??^
"''rivMDn "3, "as the servant panteth for the shadow, so am I
made heir [to months of wretchedness]"; Ps. 42:2, J^VPt b^SlS
"jh?n ^'053 -3 nr^-^j:"SS by, "as the hind panteth after the
water brooks, so panteth my soul [after thee, O God]." It will be
seen that in these two examples it is not so much the subjects that
are paralleled, but rather the two actions expressed by the verb.
If we insist that the first member of the verse last quoted be rendered,
"Like the hind [that] panteth," etc., the second member should
consistently be rendered, "so [is] my soul [that] panteth," etc.
This alone will save the concinnity of thought and expression. To
put it differently, if "3 belongs to the second verb, 3 belongs to
the first. Further examples illustrating these two kinds of sentences
can easily be found; cf. Hos. 6:3; Isa. 62:1; Ps. 125:1; 83:15-16;
Isa. 61:11.
147. Whatever view one holds with reference to the function of
3, it remains true, upon the whole, that "^^^ is not an essential
element in the so-called compound conjunctions. As in English,
the same particle may, as a rule, perform the functions both of a
preposition and of a conjunction; cf. "after his arrival" and "after
108 Carl (Iaenssle
hv had arrived." And, to carry the comparisons a step farther,
the Hebrew ■"u^^|> , when united with a preposition, was felt probably
to be no more specific or significant than the conjunctional affix
"that," which, especially in older Enghsh, often follows the (prepo-
sitional) conjunction; cf. "The word of Jahwe came to Jeremiah,
after that the king had burned the roll"; "Before that Abraham
was, I am" (Wyd. John 8:58). So also "ere that," "till that,"
"since that," etc. And further, just as in Hebrew the "^lliS may not
always be dispensed with, so this conjunctional affix "that," though
it has almost disappeared from modern English, still maintains its
place in certain connections; cf. "in that" (German indeni). "In"
alone never subordinates a sentence. To acquire conjunctional
force it must unite itself with "that"; cf. "Let him die, in that he
is a fox." This corresponds to the Hebrew "''ONtlll , used as a causal
conjunction.
148. We shall now take up the various compounds in which "i'!IJX
appears as an element. By far the most common is "ItbSli , which
occurs hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. We may,
therefore, begin with a discussion of the grammatical phenomena
connected with it.
"I'ilJiO in Comparative Clauses
149. There are many passages in which the "I'^^i does not unite
with 3 to form a compound conjunction (to retain the conventional
phraseology), but in which it performs its ordinary function as a
relative particle; cf. Gen. 27:4, "Make me savory food [112S3
"Fiinyt], such as I love" (lit. "according to what I love"); Gen.
41:21, "Their appearance was evil [n5nriS ^tb^53] as at first"
("according to what [it was] at first"). Sometimes the copulative
verb is added; cf. Isa. 11:16, "There shall be a highway for the
remnant of his people [bx^TC";b ^lt^''^\ '^'12JS3], like the one that
was for Israel"; Josh. 14:7, "I brought him word again ["''UpNlS
"22!^ D3''] as it was in my heart"; Josh. 14:11, "I am yet strong
to-day [^ni5< n'b'JJ nr3. I^SS] as I was on the day that [Moses]
sent me"; Judg. ' 11 :36', "Do unto me [^"E^J ^5^;^ '^^^^] accord-
ing to that which hath proceeded from thy mouth" (R.V.); I Sam.
24:5, "Thou shalt do unto him [^T?^ ^P^"! ^^^?] according
to what is good in thine eyes"; II Kings 7:7, "They left ....
The Hebrew Particle 11IJJ5 109
their camp [X^H "It23i<3] as it was/' i.e., "according to what [con-
dition] it had been''; II Kings 7:10, ". . . . the tents ptpNtS
n^QH]"; Job 29:4, ^n^M ^^3 , "according to what I was"; Isa.
24': 2, in «t;3D ^mS ri^2^', "as with the creditor, so with the
debtor"; the retrospective 12 plainly shows the relative character
of ^'m; Jer. 18:4, "He shall make it another vessel pT2J^ ^"L5^5^
"'Ty^] according to one that is right in the eyes of . . . ."; Ezek.
41:25, "They were made [D'TiE3? "^'^^f^S] like as were made" [R.V.],
i.e., "like those that were made"; I Kings 21:11, nin| ni23S;3
D"''^£02l , "according to what was written in the letters"; Koh. 9:3,
J^"i;'TOmr ^irS?, "as one that feareth an oath"; Dan. 9:13,
2in3 ■'t:S;3; Koh. 5:14, nVJJ; Din> .... 5<"^^ "^^^^ , "as he
came forth, naked shall he return again"; the significance of "''05^
is here plainly indicated by 01"^^ in the main clause; "^TliSlS means
literally "as what," i.e., "in what condition or character," qualis;
Koh. 8:7, ib Ty r2 Tl';r\^_ "^'^^il?, "how [i.e., as what] it shall be
who will tell him?"; Koh. 9:2, Vsb n'iJSlS bSH , "everything [is]
according to what [happens] to all," i.e., "all things come ahke to
all" (R.V.).
150. Also in the following passages, in which "'IIJSlS is followed
by transitive verbs, it is possible that "^jp^i retained more or less its
pronominal function. At any rate, ''tpi^S easily resolves itself
into "according to," "in correspondence or conformity to that
which." That "^llJyi had not so far coalesced with the 3 as to form
an integral part of the compound (in spite of close external union)
seems to be plainly indicated by at least one passage: Isa. 14:24,
D^pn J^'H ^ri:i?^ '^'^^'^, "according to what I have purposed
that shall stand." The resumptive S'" points back to ^"ip&5 as in
ordinary relative clauses. The ordinary mode of emphatic resump-
tion is, however, to use "p as in the first part of the same verse.
Just what was the living Sprachgefuhl in these cases we can no longer
positively determine. The English idiom, of course, prefers "as"
or "according as."
151. Examples of the class under consideration are exceedingly
common. Thus ''ilJS!? is found very frequently:
a) With mI^, "command": cf. Gen. 7:9, "Two and two they
came to Noah [D^nb5< n^'l ^1?^53], according to what [as] God
110 Caul Gaenssle
cominandcd"; vs. Ki; Kxod. 12:28, "The Isniclites did plIJNS
m~" n*;i], according to what .lalnvo commanded"; 16:24; 23:15;
34:4; Lev. 8:4; 8:9,13,31; 9:1,21; 10:15,18; Num. 26:4; 27:11,
22; 31:7. 31. 41, 47; 32:25; Deut. 1:19; 4:5; 5:12, 16, 29, etc.
It is aLso found with the pji-ssive: Ezek. 24:18; 37:7, ^n^l ^^&<3.
6) With -Z": cf. On. 12:4, "And Abraham went pllJSiS
'"^Sl], according to what [as] Jahwe had said"; 17:23; 24:19;
Exod. 1:17; 7:13, 22; 8:11; 9:12, 35; 12:25, 32; Num. 5:4;
14:17; 17:5; 23:2; 27:23; 32:27; Deut. 1 :11, 21; 2:1, etc.
c) With ■"•^K: cf. Gen. 21:1, "And Jahwe visited Sarah pT25&it3
1-^S] as he had said"; 43:17; Num. 23:30; Josh. 11:9, "And
Joshua did unto them [nin" ib'T^X "^'i'SlS] as Jahwe said unto
him"; IIKings8:19; Joel3:5; Amos5:14; Neh.5:12; IlChron. 21:7.
d) With y^t: cf. Gen. 50:6, "Go up and bury thy father
[TjJ'" ^"J2n "''JJNli], according to what [as] he caused thee to swear " ;
Exod. 13:11; Deut. 2:14; 13:18; 19:8; 26:15; 29:12; Josh.
6:22; Judg. 2:15.
e) With TiWS : cf. Gen. 8:21, "I shall no more smite every
living thing [■'in"'iC3'' ^'!lJi|t3], according to what [as] I have done";
Lev. 4:20; 16:15;' 24:23; Num. 21:34; Deut. 2:12, 22, 29; 3:2,
6; Josh. 4:23; 8:2; 10:1, 28, 30; 23:8; 24:5; Judg. 15:10; I
Kings 11:38; II Kings 8:18; 21:3, 20; Jer. 7:14; 44:17; Ezek.
12:11; 16:48; 24:22; Zech. 7:3; Ruth 1:8;- Dan. 9:12, nmS
nn'^ry: (with passive) ; IlChron. 21:6.
'/) With "NT: cf. Exod. 27:8, ^jm nS^n ^tDS3 , "according
to what one [indefinite subject] has caused thee to see, as has been
shown thee"; Job. 4:8, "ri^IJ^"^ "^'^^? , "according to what I have
seen," i.e., "according to my experience"; Jer. 42:2; II Chron.
29:8; 30:7; II Kings 2:19.
g) With T2'^: cf. I Sam. 23:11; Jer. 26:11.
h) WithHDS: cf. Gen. 40:22; 41:13.
i) With D/JT: cf. Deut. 19:19.
j) WithniD: cf. Deut. 23:24.
k) With nbT2J = command : cf. I Kings 21: 11.
I) With ysr : cf . Jonah 1 : 14.
m) With bb?: cf. Lam. 1:22.
n) Withn:^!: cf. Num. 33:56; Isa. 14:24.
The Hebrew Particle '^'IIJN 111
152. When there is no reference to an actual fact, but where
the idea is general and indefinite, "> up^|13 is equivalent to "according to
whatever." The action expressed by the verb being in such cases
merely potential, the tense employed is naturally the imperfect.
Cf. Gen. 34:12, "I will give [^''^NP "^125X2] according to whatever
you may command (R.V.: "according as ye shall say"; LXX:
KadoTL av elirrjTe); Gen. 44:1, "Fill the sacks .... ['^bpV ni23&5;3
nyjir], according to whatever they may be able to carry" (R.V. :
"as much as they can carry"; LXX: ocra eav bvvoiVTai apat; Vulg.:
Quantum possunt capere); Exod. 8:23, "We will go ... . and offer
a sacrifice [^rbS! TiS"' iTJiSS], according to whatever he may com-
mand us"; Num. 22:8, "I will bring you word again P^T ^iTXS
mn"'], according to whatever Jahwe may say" (LXX: airoKpidrjaoixai
vjxiv Tpdyixara a av \d\rj<Tr} Kvpvos; Vulg.: Quidquid mihi dixerit
Dominus; Kautzsch: "je nachdem Jahwe mich anweisen wird,"
which hits the sense exactly); I Sam. 2:16, "Take for thyself
[?i"JpS! n^Sri ^u3^<?], according to whatever thy soul may desire"
(R.V.: "as much as thy soul desireth"; Vulg.: Quantumcumque
desiderat); Jer. 39:12; Ezek. 46:7; Deut. 16:10; I Sam. 24:5;
Lev. 27:14.
153. The imperfect may, of course, also be used when the idea
is not indefinite. In this case, it denotes simple futurity or customary
and repeated action. Cf . Judg. 7 : 17, "VJjyri "3 "ll'^X ""^XS , "as
I shall do, so shall ye do"; Isa. 10:11; I Sam. 24:14; Exod. 5:13.
154. Regarding the external form of these comparative sentences,
the principal proposition, without any accompanying correlative,
ordinarily precedes the subordinate clause introduced by ''TjpNlB .
There are, however, many divergent arrangements determined
for the most part by a striving for emphasis. Thus: (a) The ^1^3X3-
clause may precede the main sentence; cf. Lev. 8:34, »Tir^ "^tbSiS
XWyb T'l^TT n|l!i . . . . , "as has been done [indefinite subject] ....
[so] Jahwe commanded," etc.; II Kings 17:41, .... fe" H^JJlS
"W'^y on ; Jonah 1 : 14, n^'ip:? n^S" n'^XS . (b) The ^TlJSS-clause
precedes, while the principal clause is introduced by "3 ; cf. Lev.
24:19, ib nipr -,3 ri'^y '^^^^, "as he has done, so shall it be
done unto him"; Num. 14:28, HirJ^S! "3 UrnD.1 ^'p^^ , "as you
have said, so will I do"; Num. 36:10; Josh! 10:39;' Judg. 1:7;
112 Carl Gaenssle
7:17; II Sam. 3:9; IKins^l:30; 2:38; Isa. 10:11; 14:24; Ezek.
12:11. (c) The principal clause precedes, with "3 following the
verb; cf. Exod. 7: 10, riirr ri^l "IIJSS "S to';'], "and did so, as
Jahwe had commanded"; Exod. 7:20; Josh. 4:8; Ezek. 12:7; Gen.
50:12, ... . ^12JSt3 "S lb rZ2 ^wy^"] ["(D separated from the verb] ;
II Sam. 5:25, "ilisS ]p_ T'l'n 'lLS'^^. (d) Same as c, but with "jS
precedingtheverb;"cf. Gen. 18:5, P^S^ ^12JS3 Hipyn "jS . (e) The
main clause precedes as in ordinary cases, but the thought is
l^loonastically repeated after the I^SlS-clause; cf. Exod. 7:6,
to -3 ~T-r 71^4. nibSS .... np'^' wy^'], "and Moses [and
Aaron] did as God had commanded — so did they"; Exod. 12:28;
Num. 17:26. (/) It occurs also that the principal clause is intro-
duced by ^; cf. Exod. 16:34, ^nn^B'^i .... n^rr r\^z n-fflSS ,
"As Jahwe commanded [Moses], so [Aaron] laid it up"; Num. 1:19,
Cipri n^;: ^'m"^, "so he numbered them." LXX, Vulg.,
Kautzsch, Baentsch (Handkommentar) unite the ^tCiJlil-clause with
what precedes, (g) Ellipsis of main clause; cf. II Chron. 2:2,
n:ib ^:n; nsn [vs. 3] ^ns t^i'uy r^^'w "^Tps!?, "as thou
hast dealt with my father [and didst send him cedars, etc.] — behold
I am about to build." The omission of the main clause results in
an anacoluthon. Vulg. supplies sic /ac mecwm.
155. There is another type of comparative clause in which
"■J2S12 is equivalent to "according to the fact or circumstance that,"
the "'JpS revealing its conjunctional force; cf. Gen. 26:29, ". . . .
that thou do us no evil [-p"^ ^'nv ^rir^ "^^^z^ ^T.yy: i<b ntass
2113], as we have not touched thee," etc. ("according to the fact
that," etc.); Gen. 34:22, ". . . . if every male among us be cir-
cumcised [Cb'Sw Dn ^TIJSS], as they are circumcised"; Exod.
2:14, "Thinkest thou to kill me [■"]::7;-nS; PJOH ^^^'^], as thou
killedst the Egyptian?"; Exod. 40: 15, "Thou shalt anoint them
. . . . [nn^-^ "^^^^i as thou anointedst . . . ."; Lev. 4: 21, "He
shall burn' it f^EH ns "pTT ^IIJSS] as he burnt the bullock"; Lev.
18:28, "That the land vomit you not forth .... [^i-in-ni^ nS]: ^^X3],
as it vomited forth the people . . . ."; Num. 14:19, "Pardon the
iniquity of thy people according to the greatness of the mercy [Tiz3s;21
"7" □•^ "DSir;] and according as [to the fact that] thou hast
forgiven this people"; Num. 27: 13, "Thou also shalt be gathered to
The Hebrew Particle IllJU^ 113
thy people [. . . . "Ci<D I^StS] as [Aaron] was gathered"; Deut.
6:16; 30:9; 32:50; Josh. 1:17; 3:17; 4:14; 8 : 5 (eUipsis of verb) ;
23:15; Judg. 2:22; I Sam. 15:33; 20:13; II Sam. 7:10 (elUpsis of
verb); 7:15; 10:2; 16:19; I Kings 1:37; 3:14; 8:57; 9:2; 9:4;
11:38; 20:34; 23:27; Isa. 10:10 (anacoluthic structure due to the
excitement of the speaker); 20:3; 52:14; 66:22 (with participle);
Jer. 2:36; 5:19; 7:15; 12:16; 31:28; 32:42; 44:13; 44:30;
48:13; Ezek. 20:36; 23:18; 43:22; 48:11; Obad., vs. 16; Zech.
8:13, 14; 14:5; Ps. 33:22; I Chron. 17:13; II Chron. 6:16; 7:17;
Koh. 11:5; Esther 9:31.
156. We find the same construction, when "1125^53 introduces
an action, which, though not real and accomplished, is nevertheless
conceived by the imagination as such; cf. Gen. 43:14, "IIIJSS
^nbSTIJ ^ribbW, "if I be bereaved, I am bereaved" (R.V.). While
this is sufficiently accurate, it must be remembered that there is no
condition implied. The bereavement is conceived as being no less
certain than if already accomplished. The expression denotes abso-
lute, though reluctant, resignation to unavoidable circumstances.
Kautzsch excellently reproduces the thought: "Ich aber — wenn es
denn sein muss, nun so bin ich eben verwaist." Very weak Vulg. :
Ego autem quasi orbatus absque liberis ero. Cf. also Esther 4:16,
^niZN "rnZS ^IIJSS, "if I perish, I perish."
157. If the action of the comparative clause is not represented as
being really accomplished (as in the foregoing examples, hence
perfect) , but merelj^ as contingent or potential, the verb appears in the
imperfect. As might be expected, this is quite common with "ilJpNlS ,
which is frequently employed to introduce facts of general experience
or common customs. Cf. Exod. 33: 11, "And Jahwe spake to Moses
face to face [^n.:p"]-bi< IIJ^X nni^ ^^^'^], as a man speaks to his
friend"; Lev. 4:10, "He shall take off [the fat, etc.] [Q'^T ntOi^S
^iTIj'J] as it is taken from the ox"; Lev. 24:20, "Eye for eye ....
[iz 'r\T "3 DlSn Zr2 "jFI^ ^tlJSS], as he causes [may at any
time cause] a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him"
(not: " as he hath caused" [R. v.] ; LXX: Kadon dp 8cp) ; Num. 11:12,
"Carry them in thy bosom .... ['^"^ZiXn KlS": ^^i^3], as the
nursing-father carrieth [the suckling]"; Deut. 1:31, "Jahwe bare
[iDn-ni< ^^^^-^^iS-; Itas:?], as a man beareth his son"; Deut. 1:44,
114 Cahl (Iaensslk
"They punsued them [D^^h"!- "riryn ^'m^], as hccs do";
Deut. 8:5, ?j"^3:"^ Hln^ I'^^'J^J^ 'ij^S ' "IS^- "^'ij^? . "As a man
chastens his son, so," etc.; Deut. 12:22, ^j^rrns b^Si;' TlDSB
. . . . "D, "as the gazelle is eaten, so shalt thou eat it"; Deut.
28:29, "Thou shalt be groping at noonday [^'^yri tSlS:;*; ^'iS!3
n^iSlS], as a blind man gropcth in the darkness"; Deut. 28:49,
"And Jahwe will bring a nation against thee .... from the end of
the earth r'^ir^ "ST "PS3], as the eagle flies"; Judg. 7:5,
nban pb; imS, "as a dog laps"; Judg. 16:9, pnr ^■J:Sl3
b^HD, "as a string is broken"; II Sam. 19:4, n^n 233ri'; "^^3 ,
"as people steal themselves [i.e., steal away] [when they flee in
battle]"; II Kings 21:13, ... . n-^-nmS , "as a man wipcth
[a dish]"; Isa. 9:2, ^b^rr nmS , "as men rejoice"; Isa. 25:11,
nn'Sn "kr"S" ^">IJS3, "as the swimmer spreads [his hands]"; Isa.
31:4, ^C^i^'Ti nsn^ ^"^^jl?, "as the lion growls"; Isa. 55:10,
D'jisn -t" ntpS!3,'"as the rain descends"; Isa. 65:8, 5<^:2'; "^'m^
^iTFin, "as the new wine is found"; Isa. 66:20, ^S^u^ ^"^^^^3 ,
"as [the children of Israel] bring [their oblation]"; Jer. 19:11,
"I'jj-^ nv^i<3 ^-"^^^ '^?? ' "^o will I break, as one breaks [may at
any time break] a potter's vessel"; Jer. 43:12, Tl^^Tl Tll^T ^ibytS ,
"as a shepherd puts on [his garment]"; Ezek. 46:12, "He shall pre-
pare his burnt offerings [Ti^T ^12JN3], as he prepares [on the Sabbath
day]"; Amos 2:13, nb^:?;! p^n ^tCSiS , "as a cart presses";
Amos 3:12, nyin b'-I^ "^^^^ , "as a shepherd rescues"; Amos
9:9, M-^nSn ns-; ^m^, "as [grain] is sifted"; Mai. 3:17, ^m3
i32l"by ^^X bbn'^, "as a man spares his son"; Num. 2:17,
^Sri: "'^XS, "as they encamp"; Jer. 13:11, ^iTSH pIlT ^'^2JS3 ,
"as the girdle cleaves."
158. The comparison may be merely assumed or imaginative;
cf. Exod. 10:10, "So may Jahwe be with you [D3n5< nbllJS ^1^X3],
as I shall let you go." The action is here neither completed nor
potential. Pharaoh has no thought of allowing Israel to depart. As
the principal clause is bitterly ironical, so the comparison is intended
to show the vanity of Israel's hopes. Cf. also Deut. 22:26, "'^XS
"TH "^^^n "« ^~yyby' '^^i^ Q^P^, "as if a man should rise
against his friend, so is this matter"; an assumed comparison for the
The Hebrew Particle ^^H. 115
sake of illustration ; not: "as when" (Driver, Tenses, § 115); the idea
of time is unsuitable to the sense; II Sam. 16:23, ^nin bsilfl-; n^i^S ,
"as if one should ask," etc.; Isa. 29:8, . . . . n3?-jr; nbrr nm3 ,
"as if a hungry man should dream [and behold he eateth, but he
awaketh, and his soul is empty .... so shall the multitude of the
nations be that fight against Mt. Zion]"; Isa. 51:13, "... . and
fearest continually because of the fury of the oppressor n^Sl3
IT'MiIJnb "313], as if he were preparuig to destroy?" (Kautzsch:
"als zieite er, dich zu vernichten"; R.V. [margin]: "as though");
the question that immediately follows, viz., "and where is the fury
of the oppressor?" places the sense of the ^12JS3 in this connection
beyond a doubt; Ezek. 1:16, "Sisn :]inn "iSisn TTrr n^SS ,
"[Their appearance was] as if a wheel were within a wheel" (Vulg.:
quasi sit rota in medio rotae; cf. Ezek. 10:10); Amos 5:19, ^125^^3
iy^S^ ^^5<n -jS'^ llJ^i^ C^;", "as if a man should flee from before
the lion and [the bear] meets him" (Vulg.: Quomodo si fugiat;
LXX: ou TpoTTOv eav cfyvyr) audpooTos); Zech. 10:6, "They shall be
[D^r":7"5<b ^"JJSS] as if I had not cast them off" (Kautzsch:
"als ha'tte ich sie niemals verworfen"); Job 10:19, ^n^^ri ^b ^lIj^^3
n^nS, "as if I had not been, I would be"; Esther 2:20, "For
Esther did the command of Mordecai [in^ ^'rr^r ^K'V ^^^^J'
as if she had been under his care"; Mic. 3:3, H^DS "illJSS, "as if in a
pot" (text doubtful, cf. LXX); Neh. 6:3 (similar to Exod. 10:10).
159. The logical relations between the two members of com-
parative sentences may be such that ^lp^<3 has the sense of "in
proportion as" {quo, quanto) or "in what degree." Cf. Exod. 1:12,
na^^ *3 in5< ^Sy*; ^^&<j1, "the more they afflicted them, the
more they multiplied" (R.V.); Quantoque opprimehant eos, tanto
magis multiplicabantur (Vulg.).
"lllJiO i>^ Temporal Clauses
160. From the original sense of ''■^^'^ , "according to," "agree-
ably to the fact that," it was an easy step to the temporal use. To
what extent (if any) the comparative idea was still felt by the Hebrew
consciousness it is impossible for us to determine. The sentence
"Agreeably to the fact that [lipSS] he [Abraham] was about to enter
Egypt, he said unto Sarai his wife ....," may be, perhaps, just
116 (\\RL (Jaenssle
as close to the Hebrew mode of thoufrlit ;is the j^urely temiJorul con-
ception, "when he was about," etc. The EngUsh idiom, however,
requires a temporal conjunction in the passages in question. Accord-
ing to the context, "when," "as soon as," "after" are found to be the
proper equivalents of "uSSS . The nearest approach to the Hebrew
conjunction is the Latin simulatque, though the use, of the latter is
more limited. The Vulg. employs cum, postquam, ut (in the sense of
simulatque) , ablative absolute with little discrimination; LXX: rju'iKa,
cos, nera to with infinitive, etc. Examples: Gen. 12:11, . . . .
^■;S^1 .... Sizb Z^y- niiJwSS 'ri'l (referred to above); Gen.
18:33, ... . ^nib -53 ■^•JJXS Hin^ ?;b^1 , "And Jahwe went
his way as soon as [R.V.] he had left off communing [with Abra-
ham]"; Gen. 20:13, T^SI .... □^-b5< "nj^ TJnn ^12JS3 ^-"1,
"And it came to pass, when [the time is more generally indicated
than in the foregoing example] God caused me to wander, that I said
[unto her]"; Gen. 24:22, n]5^'l .... nin^b . . . . ?lb3 niiJsiS
. . . . u'^^^ , "as soon as they [the camels] had done drinking,
the man took . . . ."; the action of the main clause follows
immediately upon that of the subordinate; yet Vulg. has postquam;
Gen. 24:52, . . . . nri"";]n-i-ns .... in;? ti'^ nizjss ^rn
^nriTp^") , "when [as soon as] the servant heard their words . . . .";
Gen.' 27:30, sn . . . . YiT^i .... !]i^b pn::-; nbs nms ^n^i,
"as soon as [R.V.] Isaac had made an end of blessing ....";
the parenthetical clause "Jacob having just gone out" shows that
the action of the principal sentence follows immediately upon that
of the ■^'vpSS -clause (Vulg.: Vix Isaac sermonem impleverat); Gen.
29:10, '^j^'i .... br;yni< .... ns-;^ ^m3 ^rr"], "and it
came to pass, as soon as [R.V. : "when"] he saw Rachel, that he
drew near"; Gen. 30:25, ^•Ii<^ TCVT^^fl bn"i mb;; "^TlJSa ^nn
2pr, "when Rachel had born Joseph"; Gen. S2:S^ j!pT TJS-']
DSJ I'OM, "And Jacob said, when he saw them"; Gen. 32:32,
. ^^ . -inj n^S;3 T2J-:Tan ib-rnpi, "and the sun rose upon him,
when he had passed over"; Gen. 37:23, "CT J^n-^TTSS ^-•;'l
. . . . ^Ij'lIJS^l VriSl'by; , "And it came to pass, as soon as [Vulg.
ut {=simulac) pervenit] Joseph came to his brethren . . . ."; "as
soon as" is here preferable to "when" (R.V.); Gen. 43:1,
1*Ii<''') .... "3 ^"^^^3 ''»^"] ) "And it came to pass, when they
The Hebrew Particle "l12j^^ 117
had eaten up [made an end of eating] . . . ." (Vulg.: consumptis
cihis); Exod. 32:19, bj^rmyj J^^'JI .... n^jD niSSS ^H'l , "And
it came to pass, when he drew near .... that he saw the calf"
(R.V. : " as soon as " ; but the idea of immediateness is not necessarily
implied; Kautzsch: "Als er nun in die Nahe kam"); Deut. 2:16,
^bs nirr -n--i .... n-^-b-;n "'Jpjy^-bs ^^n-niijsia XO, ''and
it came to pass, when [or after] . . . ." (Vulg.: postquam ....
cedderunt); Josh. 4:1, mn^ T2^5=^^ .... ^an-n"j:,S;3 'ri^l , "when
the people had completely passed over . . . ."; Josh. 4:11; 5:8;
Judg. 3:18, -'r^'^ .... ^'T"^ "?3 "^^^^ ""'L "when he
had made an end of offering"; Judg. 8:33, "pyi:* T\'2 "'^^3 'm'I
IZ^tlJ^I, "and it came to pass as soon as Gideon was dead, that
. . .V' (Vulg.: postquam); Judg. 11:5, ^Sb^l .... ^'iMbs ^m3 ;
Judg. 16:22, rbj nmD TTE'lh i^2j^<T^yir "bn^^l, "And' the hair
of his head began to grow, after it had been shaven" (R.V.: "After
he was shaven"); I Sam. 1:24, M^b'!'^ ^'JJNS r\W ^nb^FlT ,
"when [as soon as] she had weaned him"; I Sam. 6:6, 1^^^^ sbn
n^r;!ri2J"'') Dnz b^ynn , "when he made a mock of them"; I Sam.
8:1,'. '. . . Dir^l . ; . . '{pi nmD ^-^1, "when [time only in-
dicated in a general way] he [Samuel] was old . . . ." (Vulg.:
cum senuisset); I Sam. 12:8, Drn!2^< ^p^n .... SS-^T2:S:3 ,
"when he came," etc.; I Sam. 24:2, ^Tj^^l . ". . . 2Tl3 niSSS ^m,
"and it came to pass, when [as soon as]," etc. (Vulg.: postquam);
II Sam. 12:21, .... Fl'^p . . . . np ^TTSri , "but after [the child]
was dead," etc. (Vulg.: puero mortuo; Kautzsch: nachdem); II Sam.
16:16, ^"-:5<^T . . . . &5n ^mS, "when he came," etc.; II Sam.
20:12, nj<^ ^'^SS, "when he saw"; II Sam. 20:13, n^H ^IZiXS
^33? . . . . , "when he was removed," etc.; II Kings 14:5, 'n"!
"^^ .... 7'\Z)y.l'BX'\ npT" H'UJ^S J "and it came to pass, as soon
as," etc.; IsaV23:5, ^b''-; W'^l'/Zb y;tp-niI5N;3 , "when the report
[cometh] to Egypt they shall writhe" (the action of both clauses
lies in the future; Vulg.: Cum auditum fuerit, dolebunt); Isa.
26:9 (similar to preceding example); Jer. 38:29, "ISb? "^tDJ^S H^ni
^5<2'^'l .... D^bllJ^T^ , "and it came to pass, when Jeremiah was
taken .... ";yer. 39:4, ^n^n^l . . . . Q5<-1 nmS "'-■''1, "and it
came to pass, as soon as [Zedekiah and the men of war] saw them
...."; Ezek. 16:50, •n\^5n nirXS innx nXXI, "And I took
118 Carl Gaenssle
them away, as soon as I saw [it]"; or, perhaps, "according to what
I saw" (with a causal nuance) (Vulg.: sicut vidisti [evading the
difficulty by using second person]); Koh. 8:16, '^^"ni< "nn: ^m3
T'S""! " when I applied my heart .... then I saw" (note
the perfect in main clause; without 1 in 11 Sam. 20:13 see above);
Neh. 3:33, ib "^n^^ .... libnjC Tl'^ "^'^^^ , "as soon as
Sanballat heard, he was wroth." Precisely the same in Neh. 4:1;
Neh. 4:6, r'IX^"l .... 1J5n-^UJS:3 •'rr^ , "And it came to pass,
when . . . ."; Neh. 4:9, ^12331. . . .' ^Tl^ ^123St3 "H^l , "and
it came to pass, when . . . ."; Neh. 5:6, nil3X3 . . . . ^b ^n";i
Tl" -"i' , "I was wrc^h .... when I heard"; Neh. 6:16, "ri'l
^X'^i;'! .... ^T'Z'^ "^"^^5' "and it came to pass, when they heard
. .'. ."; Neh. 7:'i^T:;ys;i .... nnDn? ^ms -n''!,"and . . . . ,
when [the wall] was built . . . ."; Neh. 13:19, ^bb"^ ^ITSB "-"1
n^'^i^l "as soon as it grew dark . . . ."; I Chron. 17:1,
n-i5<^-l\ . . . Z& TilJSiS ^ri^l , "and . . . . , when ...."; II Chron.
25:3, rnn'^l . /. . nj:"" "nmS "n'l, "as soon as . . . ." (Kittel:
''Sobald er die konigUche Gewalt fest in Handen hatte) ; Ps. 51 : 2.
161. Temporal "1123^13 may, of course, also appear with the
imperfect, though the instances are comparatively rare. Examples:
Gen. 27:40, .... ib^ np^5^ T^Fl ^^S3 n;n'] , "and it shall
come to pass, when" (text doubtful; cf. SBOT); Gen. 40:14,
T^ lit:"'; TbD>i3 ^n&5 'DFinsrQS ^3, "when it shall be well with
thee" (for first part of verse, see Driver, Tenses, § 120d); Exod.
17:11, Tr rrr ^iiixii bs-^'^^^ -qji it .... n^y^ '\^^'2 rrr^^
pb"-> ■'nrn , "and it came to pass, whenever he [Moses] lifted up
his hand Israel prevailed"; "I'iiJSlS here indicates repeated action in
the past (LXX: drav eirvpe); Ezek.35:ll, '^jpsm n^S DS "n^^-bl,
"I will make myself known among them, when I shall judge thee";
Hos. 7:12, 'n-j;^ On^b:? iri^S^J ^jb"; firsts, "when they shall go,
I shall spread my net upon them"; Koh. 4:17, I^IJSlS ^??1 '^'^^
n"r;"!S;r! n^^I'bys "^bri, "guard thy foot, when thou goest to the
house of God"; Koh. 5:3, rabwh ^mr\ b^5 . . . . tt: n"in T^rss,
"when thou vowest a vow, do not defer its fulfilment"; Ezek.
37:18, ^Sll .... ^'^'/2ir "la:X3, "when they say ... . say unto
them."
The Hebkew Particle ^''ISS^ 119
"I"^r;'j53 in Causal Clauses
162. A ^ipSS -clause may stand in such relation to the main
clause as to indicate a ground or reason. Examples: Num. 27:14,
"Thou shalt be gathered to thj^ people as Aaron thy brother was
gathered [vs. 13] [^E DI^^Tr ^■^^?]> because ye rebelled against
my word"; the punishment is represented as commensurate with the
rebelhon; such, at least, is the original idea (Vulg.: Quia; LXX:
Siort); Judg. 6:27, irJi^l .... n^^-njiJ 5<"^; ^lr^^^ ^nn, "and it
came to pass, because he feared .... by day, that he did it [bj^
night]" (LXX: cos i4>o^r]dr}) ; I Sam. 8:6, "And it displeased Samuel
[^-^S ^taj!!3], because they said [Give us a king]" (Vulg.: Eo quod
dixissent; LXX: <hs elTrap); I Sam. 28:18, ... . riTl^'ikb n-OJXS
.... "S'by , "because thou didst not obey .... therefore ....";
the "3'b? plainly reveals the causal force of "1TIJ^5; I Kings 3:6,
"Thou hast shown great favor to David my father [T^b^i ^'0X3
Tl'jib], because he walked before thee in truth," etc. (LXX: /ca^cbs
8i,rj\d€v; Vulg.: sicut ambulativit) ; but mere comparison does not
exhaust the sense; there is a distinct causal connotation; Kautzsch:
"wie er denn auch" is good, making the causal relation less close
and prominent than weil, "because"; II Kings 17:26, "Behold they
are killing them [ . . . . t^r&.ZTi^ U^^j UZ'^ ^'^^f?], because
they are not knowing the law," etc. (LXX: KaQori; Vulg.: eo quod
ignorent); Hag. 1:12, "And Zerubbabel .... obeyed the voice of,
Jahwe and the words of Haggai the prophet [nin^ '^"^"'P ^^^^l^
because Jahwe had sent him" (LXX: Ka^ort; Vulg.: stci^O; Ps. 56:7,
"They mark my steps [""ipsS ^^p '^'^SlB], because they have waited
for my soul" (R.V. [margin]: "inasmuch as").
163. TklJi^a is sometimes employed as a causal conjunction in the
sense of "in that," "inasmuch as," "seeing that," "because," "in view
of the fact that." Examples : Gen. 39 : 9, " He has not kept back from
me anything except thee [iP'^^^-nS ^^^^], in that thou art his
wife" (R.V.: "because"; LXX: ha. to ak yvvaiKo. avTov dvai); Gen.
39:23, "The prison-keeper looked not to anything that was in his
charge [inS TTirr ^12?i<^], in that Jahwe was with him" (R.V.:
"because"); Koh. 7:2, "It is better to go to the house of mourning
120 Cakl Oaknsslk
than to tlu> house of fcvistiuK lD-^^r;-b2 "ic S^H "^^in], in that
this is the end of all men" (R.V.: "for"; Kautzsch: de7in; Delitzsch:
sintcmal: Siejjfried: indcni); Koh. 8:4, "Persist not in an evil
thin^^ for he [th." kin-| .l..1h wii:.tso(>ver lie will [vs. :]] pTSJ^n
"■^ilS^"^ T^"^'! "'-"1, in that the kind's word hath power" (R.V. :
"for");V Koh. 8:17, ^tDS bm [=Aramaic "H b^lS], "because of
the fact that," "because."
^ds b^
1G4. "uJS b" , i)ro])erly "on the ground that," "on the basis of
the fact that." is employed to introduce subordinate clauses expressing
the cause or motive of the main action. Examples: Exod. 32:35,
"And Jahwe smote the people [^Jjn'rX ^123? ^'^2j^^l by], because
they had made the calf"; Num. 20:24, "He [Aaron] shall not enter
into the land .... [^B'm Dn^-^p-miJN! by], because ye rebelled
against my command"; Deut. 29:24, "Men shall say [^njy TCS b^
mn^ rS-"^"^1 .... mn^ n^^n-nX], because they forsook the
covenant of Jahwe .... therefore the anger of Jahwe was kindled";
Deut. 32:51, "Be gathered unto thy people as Aaron .... [vs. 50]
[Crri^p Xb ^"i^^ by .... ^a nrhrc ^tiS; by], because ye tres-
passed against me .... because ye did not sanctify me"; I Sam.
24:6, "The heart of David smote him [":5"nN TH^ ^T2JS by],
because he had cut off the skirt [of Saul]"; 11 Sam. 3:30, "Joab
and Abishai slew Abner [bx HlfynX n^pn niSN by], because he
had killed Asahel"; II Sam. 6:8^ n^rr 'pS ^^r^i by Tllb -n^^! ,
"because Jahwe had broken forth upon Uzzah"; II Sam. 8:10,
"And Toi sent Joram unto king David to salute him ....
[^'"""inil D"b: ^tps; by], because he had fought against Hadad-
ezer"; II Sam. 12:6, "And the lamb he shall restore fourfold
[b-:r:-!j<b ^tss byi n-tn ^n'nn-nx niry n-cs ^p^], because he
did this thing and because he had no pity"; the interchange here
between ■'u3S 3py and ilTSl by shows that both conjunctions
have practically the same meaning, though the original conceptions
are different (see under ^IpS 2py); II Sam. 21:1, "Upon Saul
.... [rests] blood guiltiness [D^ynitM-nS nr^H-^trJJ^ by], because
' ^'^b nCXS in Jonah 1 :8 ="becauso of whom," cuius causa, and is patterned after
the model of the Aramaicized form "'^^1155 in. vs. 7. Cf. also vs. 12. ibpS, "because of
me," "on my account." mea causa.
The Hebrew Particle ~"*^5< 121
he slew the Gibeonites"; I Kmgs 9:9, "And they shall say ....
[i<^3n "iS-by .... mn^-ns ^nj:? '\m by], because they forsook
Jahwe .... therefore he brought this evil upon them"; I Kings
16:7, ''The word of Jahwe came against Baasha .... [""I125&5 bj?
irij< *~i'^*j], because he smote him." The remaining passages are
the following: II Kings 18:12; 22:13; Jer. 16:11; 22:9; Ezek.
23:30; 35:15; 39:23; Ps. 119:49; Job 32:3; Esther 1:15; 8:7;
I Chron. 13:10; 18:10; II Chron. 7:22; 34:21. In II Chron.
34 : 25 iTIJNt nnri is employed in exactly the same sense as ntp5^ by_
in similar passages: "I am about to bring evil upon this place ....
pj^nTy ITIJS ri~ri], because they have forsaken me." In Jer. 15:4
the "I'^IJyj following b" has pronominal force: "I will make them a
consternation to all kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh
[n";bTI3^n"S ri'Zy'^'^^ by], because of what he did in Jerusalem."
165. Sometimes "I'lTSSt is dispensed with, b>' alone having the
force of a conjunction; cf. Gen. 31:20; Ps. 119:136; Ezra 3:11;
II Chron. 29:36.^
166. In two instances b> is used concessively; cf. Isa. 53:9,
niry C"^~'Xb b?, "although [notwithstanding the fact that] he had
done no violence"; Job 16:17, "S^^ C"I"'i<b b;^" , "although no
violence is in my hands." For a similar concessive use of the prepo-
sitional by cf. Job 10:7, 'I^riy'^'by , "despite thy knowing that,"
etc.; i.e., "although thou knowest"; Job 34:6, 3-Tj&j5 ^t3E"il";-by,
"Notwithstanding my right I am accounted a liar."
n"i2N ^2'n-by
167. ^TIJS 12'n by signifies properly "because of the matter^
that." In the actual usus loquendi the "^21 has become so colorless
as to make the expression practically equivalent to "^II??^ b> ; cf.
Deut. 22:24, "Ye shall stone them .... the damsel [T^N "^ZVby
.... n^y-^'i^!! ^zTby "ij'j^n-nwsn .... ni^y^-.sb], because she
cried not .... and the man because he humbled [forced] [the
wife of his neighbor]"; Deut. 23:5, "An Ammonite or a Moabite
1 The first three passages are overlooked by Budie, Die hebr. Praposition ^37 , p. 68.
2 For this use of I^T cf. Gen. 12:17, "^yO "l^l'by ; 20:11, IPTpS "iSI'by ;
43:18, apSn in\!"by: Exod. 8:8, niy^nS^n nn^"by, etc. The nUJS-clause. it
will be seen, simply depends, as a single idea, on the construct "l^'H •
122 Carl Oaenssle
sliall iu)t cuter into tlie as!seml)ly of Jalnvc .... [vs. 4] pQVb"
C-DS T-lp sb 1uJl<], because they met you not [with bread and
with wiitorj," etc.; II Sam. 13:22, "For Absalom hated Ammon
[r>Zy ""I'S "^Z'^'bS], because he had forced [his sister Tamar]."
"ll23^^ niis-bs-b?
168. riilS is a plurale tantum in the sense of "circumstance,"
"reason," "occasion," though occurring nowhere alone, but always in
conjunction with by. Cf. Gen. 21: 11, i:!n DIIS b^, "on account of
his son"; Gen. 21:25, C^fl 15<2 PiillJ^'by ," on account [because]
of the well of water" (Vulg. : propter puteum aquae); Gen. 26:32,
"They made known unto him ["'SJ^^ri riili<"b?] concerning [the
matter of] the well"; Exod. 18:8, "And Moses related unto his
father-in-law all that Jahwe had done .... [b^<^i^■; niij^ b>'], on
account of [for the sake of] Israel"; Num. 12:1; 13:21, etc.
169. As a conjunction riili< b^ does not occur; nor does b^
n^JJi^ rili< , though Wjaikoop enumerates this combination among
the causal conjunctions {Syntax, p. 106). The only compound
in which inilb< appears as an element is 1125 1^ nili<"bD"by , which
introduces an emphatic causal sentence. The exact force is, accord-
ing to Ges., Thes., has ipsas oh causas quod, "for the very reason
that," "eben deshalb well"; cf. Jer. 3:8, nini<-b3-b? ^3 S^Sl
5^^"^3 Sbl . . . . riWblp bs-TT^ T^Z^'2 nSSD nirN,"AndIsaw
that — for the very reason that backsliding Israel had committed
adultery, I put her away and gave her a bill of divorcement — Judah
did not fear," etc. For the construction of the entire verse cf.
Konig, III, 414a, 3606, and Keil, Comm. on Jer.
"lips "B-by
170. "S'by , lit., "according to the command, or mouth" (cf.
Gen. 45:21, i^^B ^D'by , "according to the command of Pharaoh";
Exod. 17:1, mri" "S'by), is frequently employed in the sense of
"according to the measure of," "in proportion to," "in conformity
with"; cf. Lev. 27:18, D"!^" "'B'by , "in proportion to the years,"
"according to the years" (R.V.) (Vulg.: juxta); Exod. 34:27,
nbs- n^-^Zl- ^B-by ^3, "for after the tenor [R.V.] of these
words [I have made a covenant]." The conjunction occurs but once.
The Hebrew Particle HISS 123
Cf. Lev. 27:8, ^ISH T yisn n^S 'B'by , lit., ''according to the
measure of what his hand can reach," i.e., ''according as he may
be able."
171. This compound occurs once: Mai. 2:9, "I have made you
despised and abased [D"'')";2a: Dj"!?? "l^!??. ^33] according as
ye have not kept my ways" (R.V.). But doubtless the idea of
cause predominates over that of comparison, notwithstanding the
outward form lipS ^£3 seems to have here essentially the same
sense as causal "^^^"^ already discussed. Kautzsch: "Weil ihr
ja," etc.
172. ■'SS is found alone in Zech. 2:4, "These are the horns
which have scattered Israel [IllJi^i J^TTw'J^b 'i2J"'!J^ ''33], according to
a degree [that] none lifted up his head." The sense is consecutive.
Wellhausen and Nowack read ^"123N1 instead of '0"'5< and make Judah
the subject of S'^Ej .
^^^ ]T.
173. "itZJiS: 'T is more limited in its use than ^IIJS b^ . As a
rule, it is not used merely to introduce a cause as such, or to furnish
an explanation of some state or condition. This is the proper func-
tion of TOX by . As will be seen from the examples to follow,
HITS "^y^ denotes generally cause and motive, and hence presup-
poses a conscious personal agent (generally the Deity) in the main
clause. It is used almost without exception in divine promises or
threats. Naturally, therefore, the action of the principal sentence
will be in the future. Though this distinction between the two
conjunctions is not maintained throughout, it is nevertheless suffi-
ciently marked to arrest the attention and deserve notice. Further
details and exceptions will appear in the examples. Examples:
Gen. 22:16, "By myself have I sworn that pS] [H^'^^ Tu:&< ]r
T^'D'^'i^ T|^2""'3 .... n-TM ^^'^rrns] because thou hast done this
thing .... I will bless thee" (the resumption of "'3 gives special
emphasis to the main clause) (LXX: ou dp€Kep iTolrjcxas; Vulg.:
Quia). There can be no doubt that ^TlJNl '^^"^ here expresses more
than simply the notion of cause. It is more significant than
IllJi^ by . It indicates the motive of the main action besides
124 Carl (Saknssle
roprosontin^; tlic lattiM-. i.e., tlic promise of Jahwe, as a corresponding
rcconipcMiso for Al)rahanrs obedience. The thought of the writer
wt)ul(l l)e. periiaps. most accurately expressed by rendering, "Answer-
ing [corresponding] to the fact that thou hast .... I will surely
bless thee," though we can no longer tell just to what extent the
original idea prevailed. Cf. also Deut. 1:36, "To him [Caleb] will
I give the land that he hath trodden upon .... [«b7J ni^JS ]r
riTi" "^"5^], because he hath wholly followed Jahwe" (LXX: 5td
TO irpoaKticdai avTou . . . . ; Vulg.: Quia secutus est) (the same,
but with perfect in the main clause, because denoting the fulfilment
of \hv promise, Josh. 14:14, '^ .... nbsb -,innn-nn^n -jD-by
nir.* '""y* TtVl ^"^X , " Therefore Hebron became the inheritance
of Caleb .... because he wholly followed Jahwe"); I Kings 3:11;
IT Kings 10:30. "And Jahwe said to Jehu [. . . . nh^pn-niljj^ ■^";
"* "l"^^. ^''?^" '"r.r^l; because thou hast done well .... thy sons
of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel" (LXX:
avd' Jjj/); Jer. 35:18, "Thus says Jahwe []db .... Ur^T^t ^^5< "r
n"i" sb . . . .], because ye have obeyed the commandments of
Jo'nadal) .... therefore .... shall not be cut off," etc. (LXX:
'Ewetdr]); II Chron. 1:11, "And God said unto Solomon ["llliSl "^'^
T^b ",^n: .... n-^Dnn .... ^nnb-^y ni<T nn^ri], because' this
was in thy heart .... wisdom and knowledge is given unto thee."
It will be seen that 1'^2?^^ "?^ in all the above examples is used in
connection with promises. Similarly, when the main clause con-
tains a threat; cf. Judg. 2:20, T"]T^"r^^ H-Tn ^iSH r\2y ^^^ ]r
^— in ""CiS Sb ^?S"D3 (vs. 21) .'. . ., "Because this nation has
transgressed my covenant .... I also will not henceforth drive
out . . . ."; I Sam. 30:22, "And they said [^Dbrrsb ^ITS "jr
Dn^ 'r\Z iJ<b '''By], because they went not with me, we will not
give them [of the spoil]"; I Kings 11:11, "And Jahwe said unto
Solomon [y"^pX ^1]: .... T]^:? ni<T nn^n im^ ]T], because this
is with thee .... I will rend the kingdom from thee"; I Kings
11:33, "Behold I am about to rend the kingdom from Solomon
[vs. 31-vs. 32 is parenthetical] [^3^IiT3? "l^N "i^"^], because they have
forsaken me"; I Kings 14:7, n^H xb"! .... ?j^nb^-in ^ICX ]r
ii'Z'l 7:- "pb [vs. 10] ... . Ill' -nnyb , "because I have exalted
thee .... and thou hast not been like my servant David ....
The Hebrew Particle TON 125
therefore I am about to bring [evil]"; I Kings 14:15; 16:2,
. . . . n^n?^ ■'jan .... ^T^^^T ^"^^ 'T., "because .... I
am about to sweep away"; I Kings 20:28, 36; II Kings 1:16,
''Thus says Jahwe [HS^-J T^n &ib . . . . nnbtZJ-mSSt ]T], Because
thou hast sent [messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub] .... thou
shalt not come down from it" (i.e., "the bed of sickness"); II Kings
21:11, 'Djn "Db .... nb^n ninyhn .... nujrj nir^ ni23i< -r
ny^ ^^^"rr ' " because Manasseh has done these abominations . . . .
therefore, behold I am about to bring evil"; II Kings 21:15, "I
will cast off the remnant of mine inheritance [vs. 14] ... . [I'OS; '^11
"■^HTlS VJjy], because they have done evil"; the main clause con-
taining the threat here has the perfect "rrOpS .... D'riDD , which
is the prophetic perfect indicating an unalterable resolution; Jer.
19:4, Q^'5r-r;2n -Db .... ^S^nU ^tCS ]r, "because they have
forsaken me .... therefore, behold, the days [are coming]"; Jer.
25:8, nbir' ^33n ^■^:n'n-nx nriTlt J<b nilJSS ]T, "because ye have
not obeyed my words, behold, I am about to send ...."; Jer. 29:23,
nbn: ^^y nirst -r [vs. 21] ^2i<^i3^x i-n Dnj< -nb ^ppp,
"behold, I am about to deliver them into the hand of Nebuchad-
rezzar .... because they have wrought folly in Israel"; Jer. 29:25
(text may be faulty); Jer. 29:31, "Thus says Jahwe [SSD "^TliX -j?^
lp_£ ^3Dri .... "Sb .... WDh], because Shemaiah has prophesied
unto you .... therefore thus says Jahwe, Behold I am about to
punish"; Ezek. 12:12, nSl"!^ ^b-ni2JX -^r "Sr TDD; the text
here does not yield a suitable sense (cf. Kraetzschmar, who reads
according to the LXX "^b ns^"; niTN 'Tcb , "damit er nicht
mit Augen gesehen werde"; Keil retains "itlJX "i^"' , but gives it a
telle sense, which it never has; cf. also Toy, SBOT); Ezek. 16:43,
'nn: T]|n'^ ^^n 'pyj-DJi Tj^^^yp ^^^^'ns fi-^dt ^b ^^25^^; ]>•: ,
" because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth .... I
also, behold, will bring [thy way upon thy head]"; Ezek. 31:10,
^narii^'l .... PHIIji ^'ipi< 'T , "because thou art exalted in stature
. . ! . I will deliver him"; Ezek. 44:12, .... ^^123" n^S! ]T
. . . . "'nJ^lTD "(3"b^ , "because they ministered unto them . . . .
therefore I lifted up my hand against them . . . ."; Ps. 109:16,
"that he may cut off their memory [^ST'J^b "itpij; 'T], because he
remembered not [to show kindness]."
126 Caul (Jaknssle
171. TluMT is one instance in whicli the su!)()r(linut(' clause docs
not rcfiM- to any human action, hut to ii divine resolve: Ezek. 21:9,
"^■^r: Sj:f, "b .... -n^r--^"iwS ]y^ , "because i will cut off
[perfect of jiroplietic certitude] from thee the righteous and the
wicked .... therefore my sword shall go forth"; R.V.: "seeing
that "; the \ulg. has pro co quod, which probably means here "con-
formably to the fact tiiat." In German I should render "dement-
sprechend. dass."
17"). Finally, another passage deserves special mention: I Kings
8:18, ni:""!^- .... T^ZOb'n'J rrn '\^^ "r . it is logically im-
l)ossil)le in this verse to take "ill^i^ "^^ , as is generally done, in
a causal sense. The main clause is not the result or effect of the
■I'siSl ")7^-clause, but merely pronounces a judgment on it. We
cannot render, "Whereas it was in thy heart" (R.V.). The only
tolerable sense is secured by rendering "As regarding the fact that
.... you have done well." This was felt by the Vulg., which, though
generally using eo, quod, or quia, here translates quod cogitasti ....
bene fecisti. For an analogous usage cf. the Greek heKa, which,
though ordinarily employed in the sense of "because of," "on account
of," has, besides, the meaning "as regards," "with respect to." It
is to be noted also that in the verse in question the main clause
has the perfect, the tense of completed action, while ordinarily the
principal sentence has the imperfect or its equivalent.
176. As to the external form of these periods, it is to be remarked
that the subordinate clause introduced by 1■^p^^ "j^^ ordinarily pre-
cedes the main clause. As a matter of fact, out of thirty examples
there are only seven in which the secondary clause follows the
primary. It is just the reverse in case of "''^^^ J^ . Out of twenty-
five examples, there are only three in which the subordinate clause
precedes. This is due to the fact that l^t^ b^ is, as a rule, em-
ployed in calmer discourse and states the cause objectively, while
lips "|7^ is used almost exclusively in the more emotional language
of threats and promises, and hence, for sake of greater emphasis and
effect, seeks its position at the beginning of the period. The dis-
tinction is, however, as remarked above, not absolute, as a com-
parison between the two sets of clauses will show.
The Hebrew Particle "itUS 127
177. As to the form of the main clause, ^'^^ '?^ preceding, I
have noted the following phenomena: The main clause is intro-
duced: (a) by "ipb and the imperfect; cf. II Kings 1:16, . . . . "Db
'nr) ikb ; Jer. 35^9, n-^r i<b -Sb ; Ezek. 21:9, t^^n "^b ; (6) by
ilZTl 'db with the participle; cf. I Kings 14:10, ^''^'2 "'jwri "Sb ;
II Kings 21:12, S^n7J ^jDH -jb ; Jer. 19:6, D\Sn U^r Hin "Sb ;
Jer. 29:31; (c) by tTIDn alone and the participle; cf. I Kings 16:3,
^^^y^2 ^ZZr^; I Kings 20:36, T^bin irjSn ; Jer. 25:8, nb'J ^j3n ;
(d) by Hj" and the perfect (prophetic certainty); cf. 1 Kings
3:11, "n^U;^ n?-; (e) by D5 and the imperfect; cf. Judg. 2:20,
-fCiS Jib 7^5 C5 ; compare with this (/) iSH ^jS D:"! with the
perfect, Ezek.' 16:43, ^Pn: .... 5<n ^3^5 D:"! ; the use of Dj in-
dicates the idea of correspondence between the sin and the threat:
"Corresponding with what you have done, so I on my part," etc.;
(g) by "3-b^" with perfect; cf. Ezek. 44:12, T^^; "5"^?; W by
1 and the perfect; cf. I Kings 20:28, "TS . . .'! ■rin;i ; {i) by
i and the imperfect; cf. Ezek. 31 : 10, ^nprNt'l .
178. Sometimes there is no introductory particle of any kind;
cf. I Sam. 30:22; I Kings 11:11; II Chron. 1:11; II Kings 10:30;
I Kings 8:18; II Chron. 6:8. In a single instance "3 b> is em-
ployed at the beginning of the main clause, the subordinate following;
cf. Josh. 14:14, above.
179. For the sake of comparison it may be added here that in the
three cases in which "^IIJSl b^ precedes the primary sentence the
latter is introduced by ^ in Deut. 29:27, nrn .... n^S b^ ;
by 1 and the perfect, Jer. 16:13, "ribpni ; by '^D'bT , I Kings 9:9.
180. Instead of "^'^^ '?^ , "^^ alone is frequently used; cf.
Num. 20:12, "And Jahwe said unto Moses and Aaron ['i^b "^^
"31 'Drij'pi^n], because you did not believe in me"; I Sam. 15:23,
riirr' "li^TrS ripys'J "?], "because thou hast rejected the word
of Jahwe"; I Kings 14:13; Isa. 61:1; 65:12.
181. This combination is of rare occurrence. The original idea
is that of consequence. "In consequence of the fact that" is the
primary meaning. The action of the main clause is represented
128 Carl Ciaenssle
as foUowinji, so to speak, on the heels of the subordinate action.
By this it is not meant that the underlying figure was consciously
perceived in the usus loquendi. In the few passages in which it occurs
^'>rx np5 could easily be replaced by "112S: 'T or "^'fflS b? , inter-
changing in fact with the latter in one case. Examples: Gen. 22: 18,
"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ["^^^ np3^
"5pS DJ"--]. because [in consequence of, as a return or reward for]
thou hast hearkened unto my voice" (LXX: av6^ Siv [usually also
employed in rendering "^IpS: "J"^]; Vulg.: quia)) Gen. 26:5 (almost
identical with previous example); II Sam. 12:6, "The lamb he
shall restore fourfold .... [1^^5 b3?1 .... niry n^N! npl!^],
because he has done this thing and because he showed no mercy."
The change in the conjunction has already been referred to. It may
be remarked that the subordinate clause always follows the primary
sentence.
182. As in the case of other compounds, "I1I3!^ may also here be
dispensed with; cf. Num. 14:24, i^^ niHiS; n^n nn*;- npJ ,
"because another spirit was with him"; Deut. 7:12, "j^y^lTri 3p>" ,
"because ye have hearkened"; Deut. 8:20.
n^s nnn
183. This conjunction really means "instead of the fact that,"
anstatt dass. From this root meaning it has developed into a causal
conjunction, corresponding in its usage quite closely with "''Ci^ "j?" .
In two passages, however, it accords best with the sense to retain
the original meaning; cf. Deut. 28:62, "Ye shall be left few in
number [""'11^133 Dr'"''!D ^^^ '^'j^]) instead of your having been
[instead of the fact that you were] like the stars [of heaven]" (R.V. :
"whereas"). The Vulg. felt the inappropriateness of a causal con-
struction, and hence renders Remanehitis pauci numero, qui prius
eratis sicut astra caeli; correctly Kautzsch: "Statt dass ihr vorher
.... gleichkamt"; Luther, following Jerome: "die ihr vorher
. . . . gewesen seid." Cf. also Ezek. 36:34, "And the land that was
desolate shall be tilled [H'^/J^ nn^H n^S nnFl], instead of it
having been desolate"; Kautzsch: "Anstatt dass es bisher wiiste
lag"; Vulg., again omitting nnn : terra deserta fuerit exculta, quae
quondam erat desolata.
The Hebrew Particle IlIJJ^ 129
184. The other passages that occur are the following: Num. 25:
13, ''And it shall be unto him the covenant of an everlasting priest-
hood [Vnb^b 5<3p 'l"!23(J^ rnri], because he was jealous for his
God" (perhaps there is latent the notion of in reward or return for,
etc.); Deut. 21:14, "Thou shalt not deal with her as with a slave
[nn^P ni2J&< nnn], because thou hast forced her"; Deut. 22:29,
"And she shall be his wife [n33? ^"^25^5 rinSTl], because he has forced
her"; Deut. 28:47, "And they shall be upon thee for a sign and a
wonder [r^?? xb 1123 S rnri], because thou didst not serve Jahwe
thy God"; I Sam. 26:21, "I shall do thee evil no more [t^Hri
"ISSj nip^ ^^^], because [in return for] my soul was precious [in
thy sight'f"; II Kings 22:17, Hn^i:'] .... "3^375 ■^^^^ nnn ,
"because they have forsaken me, therefore my wrath shall be
kindled (cf. similar passages under I'lZJlJi 'i^""); Isa. 53:12, "There-
fore ["5^1 will I divide him a portion with the great .... [nnri
"^rr" "''^^]> because he poured out his soul unto death; note the
emphatic 'db , which is unusual if the main clause precedes, though
quite common when the natural order is reversed (see the examples
under 1^Ij^!; "r); Jer. 29:19, "I shall pursue them .... [vs. 18]
[^J^'^'iIJ i<b 1123 X nnp], because they have not obeyed my words";
Jer. 50:7, " All those that found them devoured them .... [nnp
^Sipn 112JS!], because they sinned against Jahwe"; II Chron. 21:12,
rpbn ikb 112J5< nnn, " because thou didst not walk .... behold
Jahwe is about to smite" (^jib .... riBH); exactly parallel to many
passages with 1123 ^i "^^ ; the usual order is here reversed for sake
of emphasis; II Chron. 34:25, tjrini .... ^2^2V llStJ nnn,
"because they have forsaken me, therefore shall my wrath be poured
out . . . ."
185. It will be noticed that the subordinate clause generally
follows the main sentence. In only three instances it precedes,
viz., II Kings 22:17; II Chron. 21:12; 34:25, and in each case the
main clause contains a threat; cf. remarks on 11j35< "y"' .
186. As for the tense of the principal sentence, it is usually the
simple imperfect. Once the perfect with 1, II Kings 22:17, not,
however, to denote completed action, but fixed purpose. Similarly,
there is one instance of ^ with the imperfect, II Chron. 34:25; also
130 Carl (Jaenssle
of n2r; with the participle, II Chron. 21:12. These three passages
(referred to above) present a divergence from the ordinary structure,
due to the reversed order. In one case, however, the main clause
contains a perfect of completed action, viz., Jer, 50:7, "All those
that found them devoured them [Q^bpN], because they sinned."
This is the only case where the main clause looks back to the past
instead of forward to the future.
187. Contrary to the general ruU^ rnri alone is never used as a
conjunction.
188. ^wS: "^"i^ signifies properly "after the fact that." But it
is not, in every instance, a purely temporal conjunction. In most
cases, in fact, it has a distinct causal connotation, and is equivalent
to "since," which, like the Hebrew conjunction, expresses both time
and cause.
189. Examples of strictly temporal use: Josh. 9:16, "And it
came to pass at the end of three days [DHb iri'^S'TtlJiS! "'^".^
r^"^!!!], after they had made a covenant with them [^^''^IIJ^I],
that they heard"; Josh. 23:1, "And it came to pass in course of
time [nin*' M^w^rTIIIJS ^"^nj^], after Jahwe had given rest unto
Israel .... [^^'^p'^l], that Joshua called," etc. (LXX: juerd to
KaraTavaai,; Vulg. : postquam pacem dederat); Josh. 24:20, "He
[Jahwe] will turn and do you evil .... p^ip^rr^lIJS ^']~^], after
he has done you good." In this case, the tense is equivalent to a
future perfect; cf. Vulg. : postquam vohis praestiterit bona.
190. In the following examples there is a causal nuance, so distinct
in a few cases that after will not convey the sense.^ Josh. 7:8, "O
Lord, what shall I say [zfi'S .... T^SH niljji ^-^-J^] after Israel has
turned the neck?" ("since" could very properly be substituted
for "after") (LXX: iird ixere^aXeu; Vulg.: quid dicam videns [avoid-
ing literality in the interest of clearness]); Judg. 11:36, "Do unto
me according to what has proceeded from thy mouth .... ['"^T'iii
r^y 112j^^l], since Jahwe has wrought [vengeance for thee]" (R.V.:
"forasmuch as"; LXX: ev rip iroirjaaL aoi Kvpiov eKdUrjaLv;
Vulg.: concessa tibi ultione [ablative absolute expressing reason]);
» Konig, III, 387a; Davidson, Syntax, 1456. classify these as simply temporal
sentences.
The Hebrew Particle TCii 131
Juclg. 19:23, "Do not act wickedly, I pray [125^5<Jl J^^l'^IIJN ^^Hbi
n-TH], since this man [has come into my house]" (RV.: "seeing
that"; LXX, strangely enough: juera to daekBelv ; Vulg. : quia
ingressus est); II Sam. 19:30, "Let him take all ... . [^'^^^^
^i|l"^u2^J:], since [my lord, the king] has returned [in safety to his
house]" (R.V. : "forasmuch as"; LXX: fxera to 7rapa7ej^€'cr^at ;
Vulg. : postquam reversus est) ; both versions are here palpably incon-
sistent as compared with the rendering of similar examples; Deut.
24:4, "Hemay not take her again [n5^:2C)n npN! ^"^ns;] after she
has been defiled" (LXX: /xera to txiavdr\vai ; Vulg.: quia pollutaest).
191. Instead of ^TTNt ^"^-^^ , ni255<t nn>5 occurs in Ezek. 40:1,
". . . . In the fourteenth year .... [~'n'2n ^^^ ^Iji^^l, after the
city was smitten."
192. Both ^■]^^^ and ^"X may dispense with ^'l25^l! ; cf. Lev.
25:48, ^3pD ^"^ni^ , "after he has been sold"; I Sam. 5:9, ^"r.S
inb5 ^3Cn ', " after they had carried it about " ; Jer. 41 : 16, nSIl nni< ,
"after he had smitten"; Job 42:7, HIH^ ^n^ nnj< , "after Jahwe
had spoken."
193. Unusual for 7ns: In Josh. 2:7 we find the strange com-
bination ^^^"2 ^^~5^ . It seems highly improbable that this is
original. The remark of Steuernagel, "wohl Verschmelzung der
Lesarten lllJSlj und "I'lTi^ "^nx ," gives, perhaps, the true explana-
tion, unless "''^"i^ be taken as an adverb (cf. IHi}^ , which occurs as
such). In this case, we could render "afterwards," "when." Cf.
Gen. 6:4, .... D^nbj^n "3^ ^Sn; ^m "(b-^:^n!SJ QjI, "and also
afterwards when [ever] the sons of God came." Skinner suggests
the excision of "|J . . . . DjI , and the union of ^TliS with the
preceding DHn D'''2^S . So also Gunkel: "das .... den Zusam-
menhang storende hernachmals ist wohl Zusatz eines angstlichen
Lesers," etc. Delitzsch retains: "und auch nachher, da sich
gesellten (atque etiam postea quam)." But whatever be done with
the text, there is no close connection between ^'^2j^^ and the pre-
ceding "|b'"'"]'j^ • "'''^'r?' is here used independently in the sense of
"when."
194. 1123^^ 1^ with the imperfect: ItdN! 1^ with the imperfect
denotes a point of time in the future at which the action of the main
132 Caul (Iaensslk
clause teriniiiutcs. Since the latter itself usually appears in the
future, the imperfect of the subordinate is, in effect, a future perfect.
This use of the imi:)crfect is denied by some grammarians (Boettcher,
II, O-iOc; "Fiens kein fut. exact"), while others admit it (cf. Gesenius-
Kautzsch, 107/; Konig, III, 387a). The LXX rendering of these
clauses is cither ews with the aorist infinitive or more frequently ecos
til', eojs ov with the subjunctive aorist, which, as is well known, is often
equivalent to the Latin future perfect. The English idiom disregard-
ing, as it often does, the exact specification of the time relation between
two actions of the future, the future perfect force of the Hebrew
imperfect is not always apparent in translation. In the sentence
"Wait until I return," the present "I return" = "I shall have
returned." Similarly in German: "Warte bis ich zuruckkehre.'^
Nor is it necessary to suppose that the Hebrew imperfect in the
clauses to follow was distinctly felt as a future perfect. Logically,
however, it is such.
195. Examples: Gen. 27:44, "Thou shalt remain with him ["^
.... 2VJJr\"^"JJS], until [thy brother's wrath] turn away" (LXX:
'ioiSTOviinarpiypaC); Gen. 29:8, "We cannot \^jTj ^^b] [^SC^^;; "^llij^ l?],
until all the flocks be gathered"; Gen. 33: 14, "I will lead on gently
[«n^!t nipy; n?], until I come to Seir"; Exod. 23:30, "Little by
httle will I drive them out [rT^Sri IlIJJ^ 1?] until thou be increased"
(LXX: €cos av ah^rid^s); Exod. 24 : 14, " Remain here p^TIJ: llCi^ i:?
D!3"'bS|] until we return to you" (LXX: ecos av avaarpiypoiixtv); Lev.
22:4, "He shall not eat of the holy things pnt:^ "^^^^ 13?], until he
be clean" (LXX: ecos av Kadapiadri); Num. 11:20, "For a month of
days [shall ye eat it] [D^ESp S;i^-n'^i< !>'], until it come out of
your nostrils" (LXX: ecos a?' e^eXdv); Num. 20:17, "We shall not
turn to the right or to the left [^H^D "Ilp5< 1^], until we have passed
[thy border]" (cf. 21:22); Deut. 3:20, "Your wives .... shall
remain [H'^r "^'^2j^i! 1^], until Jahwe give rest [unto your brethren] " ;
Josh. 1:15, "Ye shall pass over armed [H'^r ■'t!j^^ 1^] until Jahwe
have given [R.V.] [your brethren rest]"; I Sam. 22:3, "Let my
father and mother go out with you [J'lN "1123 Nl 1^], until I know
[what God will do for me]"; Mic. 7:9, "I will bear the indignation
of Jahwe [3^*]; ^'JJX 1^], until he pleads [my cause]"; Ruth 1:13,
"Would you tarry [^b'Hj'^ ItlJS ly], until they were grown ?" ; Ruth
The Hebrew Particle "1^55 133
3:18, "Sit still, my daughter [-fynn -^m 1^], until thou know";
Eccles. 12:1, "Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth
[^Xn; U^b n'^wS! 1^], until the evil days are not [yet] come" ( =
"before the evil days come") (so also 12:2, 6); Neh. 2:7, "That
they [the prefects] permit me to pass through [i<izi< ~\ij5i< iy], until
I come to Judah"; Neh. 4:5, "They shall not know and not see
[XnX ^ISJS; ly], until we come [in the midst of them]"; I Chron. 19:5,
" Remain in Jericho ["TJIi"; ntDS !>'] until [your beards] be grown."
196. In one instance the perfect is found after '^lp^i 1^ , though
the time-relation between the main and subordinate clauses is the
same as in the above examples: II Sam. 17:13, "We will draw it
into the river [i<^"-3 !}<b'ntI35i ly] until there be not [even a stone]
found [there]." The perfect gives the thought greater emphasis.
Similarly, the perfect is found in other compounds than ^T2J}< ly .
So after DJ^ 1^ ; cf. Gen. 24:19, "I shall draw for thy camels also
[^b3"DS ly], until they have done drinking" (LXX: ecos au 7rico<n
[as in similar examples with the Hebrew imperfect]). So also after
Q5< nirS; 1?: Gen. 28:15, "I shall not forsake thee ['D^ '\^^ ly
'r\^''Xy], until I have done that which I said" (LXX: ecos tov TroLrjaai
jxe; Vulg.: nisi complevero) ; Num. 32:17, "We ourselves will be
ready armed to go before them [Q:S'':irTD!J5 T^23^|! iy], until we
have brought them to their place"; Isa. 6:11, "And I asked, How
long? and he said [^tiir"DS TiJS 13''], until the cities be waste
without an inhabitant."
197. Occasionally the ITliS !>' -clause with the imperfect has a
final nuance: Jonah 4:5, "He sat under it in the shade [^TJpX ^^
nJ^^'^j, till he might see [R.V.] [what would become of the city]";
it will be noticed that the governing clause here is in the past (Vulg. :
donee videret; Kautzsch : " um abzuwarten, was mit der Stadt gesche-
henwerde"); Eccles.2:3, "Howtolayholdonfolly[n5<ni< ^t)^ ly],
till I might see [R.V.] [what was good for the sons of men to do]."
"1123^11 IS with the Perfect
198. nUpS ly with the perfect generally denotes a point of time
in the past at which the action of the main clause terminates. Since
the latter is, in these cases, itself in the past, the perfect of the sub-
ordinate clause is, in effect, a pluperfect.
\:U Caul (Iaensslk
109. Examples: Dcut. 2:14, "The daj's in which we came from
Kadesh-Barnea [^j'^I^^'' "^"^I^ '^?], until we [had] crossed the brook
Zared"; Josh. 3:17, "And the priests .... stood in the midst
of the Jordan [V2r\ 1123SI 1?] until all the nation had completely
passed over"; Josh. 8:26, "For Joshua drew not back his hand
. . . . [D'^nn "'irS ly], until he had destroyed [devoted] all the
inhabitants of Ai"; I Kings 10:7, "I did not believe the words
['nSS"'"uJS; ">], until I had come." Kautzsch renders here: "bis
ich gekommcn bin," as referring to an action completed in the
present; Vulg.: donee ipsa veni. But since the conversation took
place after the Queen of Sheba had witnessed all of Solomon's glory,
the pluperfect may very well be employed.^ Cf. II Chron. 9:6.
Naturally, the LXX in these clauses employs the indicative, since the
reference is to a definite past occurrence, e.g., Deut. 2:14, ecos ov
TvaprfKdojiev ; Josh. 3:17, ecos crwereXecre.
200. Sometimes ■''OSl 1? marks the climax or culmination of a
certain condition or of a certain line of action rather than the tem-
poral limit of the action of the main clause. In other words, it
signifies "to the point or degree that" instead of "to the time that."
Examples: I Kings 17:17, "His malady was very grievous [■'1I5S; 1^
12 ""^rii: Sb], until no [breath] was left in him" (R.V.: "His sick-
ness was so sore that there was no breath left in him" [employing a
simple consecutive clause] ; Vulg. : ita ut non remaneret; Kautzsch :
"so sehr, dass"); II Kings 17:20, "And Jahwe rejected all the seed
of Israel and delivered them .... [OrbllJri nipS ly], until he
[definitely] cast them off" (indicating the culmination of the divine
chastisements); II Kings 17:23, "And the Israelites walked in all the
sins of Jeroboam .... they departed not from them [vs. 22] [1^
mri"' ■'"Cn "iIIJNi], until Jahwe removed [Israel from his sight] "(the
final outcome of Israel's transgressions); II Kings 21:16, "Manas-
seh shed innocent blood very much [^'2 "illJiJi 15], until he filled
[Jerusalem from one end to another]"; Ezek. 34:21, "Because ye
thrust with side and with shoulder [Dni^^Sn ^TIJS "?], until ye
have scattered [them abroad]" (describing the final results of their
cruel treatment as a present condition); Ps. 112:8, "He shall not be
' What has been said with reference to the lax use of English tenses to designate
relative time in the future appUes also to relative time in the past.
The Hebrew Particle "illJit 135
afraid [V'l^^ nj^"^"; ^m ly], until he shall see [his desire] on his
adversaries" (in which his security will triumphantly culminate).
201. "I123S; ly occurs also in nominal sentences; cf. Exod. 32:20,
''and he ground it [the calf] [pV'Tl2J>Ji ny], until it was dust";
I Sam. 30:4, ''They wept [UtlD, yi^ nm 15], until there was no
power in them to weep."
202. A very strange combination is ^D■'^^"TC^!l IV in Josh.
17:14, "And I am a great people" (circumstantial clause), "I^
"PP'^S JlD'iy '^'t^^^ . If the text be retained the translation
must run "to the degree that Jahwe has thus far [or simply 'thus']
blessed me." The sense is that the greatness is due to a pecuhar
blessing of Jahwe. But probably we are to read TOi^ bl? : "I
am a great people, because Jahwe has thus far blessed me"; LXX:
Kal 6 Beds evXoyrjae ixe (avoiding the dijQBculty altogether if the
text was the same) ; so also Vulg. : et benedixerit mihi Dominus.
203. It need hardly be added that instead of 'ni;;:^ TJ , the
simple ly performs the same function. Cf. Josh. 10:13, Up^"lV_
VIl''k "'ij , "until the people had taken vengeance against its
enemies"; Ezek. 39:15, ini< TOjiJ 15, "until they had buried
him"; Job 32:11; II Chron. 29:34. '
204. ^^^ ]y')2b signifies "to the intent that," "to the end
that"; of. the Arabic -Lw , intention, aim, purpose; cf. also Prov.
16:14, "Jahwe has made everything [^PlDy^b] for its own end,"
in which TT^TC , the original form of "^'J , appears in the same
sense as in the compound conjunctional form.
205. Examples: Gen. 18:19, "I have known him [^^^ ]T2b
VDlHTJi n^^''] to the end that he may command his children";
Lev. 17:5, "This is the thing which Jahwe has commanded ....
[vss. 2 ff.] [^i^^^l "lISS; ]T'2b], to the end that the Israelites bring
[their sacrifices]"; Num. 17:4, "As a memorial to the Israelites
[n'^p";"5<b "lllj^i^ '\T^% to the end that no [stranger] .... should
draw near"; Deut. 20:18, "You shall destroy them [vs. 17] ['T2b
DDDi^ ^153^ ^b I^S], that they teach you not"; Deut. 27:3,
"Thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law [^'05^ "j^^^b
136 (\\HL (lAKN.SSLK
SZPJ, that thou mayest enter into the land"; Josh. 3:4, "Come not
near to it [the ark] [^:''^^l■1'lI3^|l "[Tib], that ye may know [the way]";
II Sam. 13:5, "Let her .... prepare food before my eyes ['^'^b
nX")S ^'^2:^^;], that I may see it"; Jer. 42:6, "We will obey the voice
of Jahwe our God [^rb'Zp"" "^rr*]- that it may be well with us";
Ezek. 20:26, "Anil I polluted them in their own gifts .... []T2h
^3?T ■^'^3^J!], to the end that they might know that I am Jahwe";
Ezek. 31 : 14, "Upon his ruin all the birds of the heavens shall dwell
.... [vs. 13] [^nify-U^b n'^23^^ ^rib], to the end that [the trees] do
not exalt themselves."
206. The tense in these final sentences is, of course, always the
imperfect.
207. Simple "^rf occurs with greater frequency than "^^^ "?"rb ;
cf. Konig, III, 3966, whose list, though purporting to be complete,
omits three of the "'"^Ij^^ "^'^b -passages, viz., Num. 17:5; Deut.
20:18; Ezek. 31:14.
Sporadic Cases of Compounds with "Itlj^^
208. There is quite a number of instances in which "•'fflSl occurs
sporadically (as a rule but once) in conjunction with various prepo-
sitional forms. I shall gather these isolated cases into this final para-
graph. '^'OSi ■'Zyil occurs in Gen. 27:10, "And thou shalt bring it
to thy father [^j^^^ ^^^, ^^??], that he may bless thee." This
is a telle conjunclJion not essentially different in meaning from "^'^b
ItCyt . The etymological sense is, however, "for the gain of,"
"fiir den Ertrag von" (Konig, III, 396c). "'??^ alone occurs
quite frequently both as a preposition ("for the sake of") and as a
conjunction. ■'^^?■^ occurs in Isa. 43:4, T?? I;OP^ ""^^"r >
"because [lit., "from the fact that"] thou art precious in my eyes";
cf . the not infrequent causal use of "2 . Sometimes Num. 6:11 is
also regarded as exhibiting this use of ^''IJN;'^ : "And he [the priest]
shall make atonement for him [12JS3ri"b> i^I^n ^12JS:'«], for that he
has sinned " (R.V.) ; Vulg. : pro eo, quia peccavit. But it seems prefer-
able to take "2 as a preposition and combine "i^Nl with J^tp" , thus
arriving at the following translation: "And he shall make atone-
ment for him from what he has sinned." The sinner in question is
to be cleansed from his ceremonial uncleanness; cf. Lev. 4:26,
The Hebrew Particle ^125i< 137
"and the priest shall atone for him [i^^i^^;p] from his sin." There
are two instances of TllJJJ! ^jB'2 : Exod. 19:18, ''And mount Sinai
smoked .... [ly^ ^^'^'^jB'C], because of the fact that [Jahwe]
had descended [upon it in fire]"; lit. "from before the fact that,"
an originally local conception developing into a causal one; cf.
Assyr.: sa istu pa-an sunki bu-bu-te a-na .... e-li-u-ni,
"who because of want and hunger to ... . had gone up" (Ashurnaz.,
II, 7). The second instance is Jer. 44:23, DrT!t:p nilJNI ^Zil'2
. . . . "3"by . . . . , "because you have burned incense . . . .
therefore [this great evil has happened unto you]." The compound
^.^^ inb occurs in Esther 4:11. I should not have referred to it
at ail but for the fact that Konig (III, 392e) translates ausser wenn,
which is hardly correct. The passage runs: "And Esther gave him
a message unto Mordecai: All the king's servants and the people
of the king's provinces do know that whosoever, whether man or
woman, shall come .... who is not called, there is one law for
him . . . .," D^n^'^-DNt T^b^H lb XTW ^123^5p nnb. This
plainly means "except," or "apart from him, to whom the king shall
hold out his [golden] sceptre." The ib retrospective decidedly
favors this rendering. 1123S is not conjunctional, but pronominal.
^TIJS "bz'a has a restrictive force: Eccles. 3:11, "He [God] has
placed eternity [dpr^ in their hearts [W]^T\ ^"I'T ^h '\^^ "bTp],
only that a man cannot find out " The U^b is really pleonastic,
since the negation is already contained in "^bsp ; cf. BDB.
INDEX OF PASSAGES COMMENTED UPON
[The figures refer to sections]
Gen. 4:18 7
Gen. 6: 3 7
Gen. 6: 4 193
Gen. 12:11 160
Gen. 15: 4 65
Gen. 22:16 173
Gen. 22:18 181
Gen. 24:14 119
Gen. 24:22 160
Gen. 24:27 109
Gen. 27: 4 149
Gen. 27:10 208
Gen. 27:30 160
Gen. 27:40 161
Gen. 30:18 109
Gen. 30:29 100,143
Gen. 30:38 141
Gen. 30:41 145
Gen. 31:32 SS
Gen. 31:49 '... 107
Gen. 37:23 ' 160
Gen. 38:21 21
Gen. 40: 3 72
Gen. 40:13 141
Gen. 41:21 149
Gen. 41:28 69
Gen. 42:29 109
Gen. 43:14 156
Gen. 44: 1 152
Gen. 44: 5 84,86
Gen. 44: 9 64
Gen. 44:10 48,120
Gen. 45: 4 49
Gen. 46:20 90
Gen. 49: 1 48,66
Exod. 1:12 159
Exod. 1:15 77
Exod. 5:11 20,22,24,26
Exod. 6: 5 79
Exod. 6: 8 76
Exod. 6:21 7
Exod. 10: 6 87,142
Exod. 10:10 158
Exod. 12:16 65
E.xod. 14:13 142
Exod. 17:11 161
Exod. 18: 9 137
Exod. 18:10 109
Exod. 19: 8 208
Exod. 21:13 117
Exod. 32: 1 113
Exod. 32:19 160
Exod. 32:20 201
Exod. 32:23 113
Exod. 32:33 132
Exod. 32:34 20
Exod. 34:18 142
78
91
126
126
Lev. 24:20 157
Lev. 27: 8 170
Lev. 27:24 70
Lev. 6: 3.
Lev. 11:21.
Lev. 18:29.
Lev. 22: 3.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
Num.
1:19.
5:29.
6:11.
8:24.
9:20.
9:21.
10:32.
17:20.
20:13.
22: 6.
22: 8.
25:13.
27:14.
27:17.
154
117
208
61
117
117
74
48
35
62
152
184
162
113
139
140 Carl Gaenssle
Num. 32:;51 67 I Sam. 24:19 89, 137
Num. ;«: 1 141 I Sam. 25: 15 73
1 Sam. 26:16 lOS
Deut. 1 :31 35 I Sam. 28: 9 137
Deut. 3:24 107,116 I Sam. 28:18 162
Dout. 4:40 HI
Deut. 8:15 35 II Sam. 1:4 144
Devit.ll: 4 137 II Sam. 2: 4 58,144
Deut. 11: 6 137 II Sam. 2: 5 108
Deut. 18:22 117 II Sam. 6:20 109
Deut. 20: 5 132 II Sam. 7: 9 28
Dout. 22:26 158 II Sam. 12: 6 164
Deut. 25:18 137 II Sam. 14:26 103
Deut. 27:26 48,62 II Sam. 17:13 196
Deut. 28:20 137 II Sam. 18: 4 69
Deut. 28:49 48 II Sam. 24: 10 83
Deut. 28:62. , 183
Deut. 32:46 Ill I Kings 3: 6 162
Deut. 33: 11 145 I Kings 3: 9 53
I Kings 3:13 114
Jo.sh. 1:7 28 I Kings 3: 19 109
Jo.>^h. 2: 3 91 I Kings 8: 9 141
Josh. 2: 7 193 I Kings 8:18 175
Josh. 4:7 104 I Kings 8:23-24 109
Josh. 5: 4 74 I Kings 8:31 117
Josh. 7:8 190 I Kings 8:39 109
Josh. 8:26 80 I Kings 9: 7 53
Josh. 17:14 202 I Kings 10: 7 199
Josh. 22:31 107 I Kings 11:27 74
Josh. 24:20 189 I Kings 12: 2 36
I Kings 14:19 143
Judg. 8:15 74 I Kings 17:17 200
Judg. 9:17 137 I Kings 19: 1 104
Judg. 9:38 80 I Kings 21: 19 72
Judg. 10:18 132
Judg. 11 :24 67, 68 II Kings 7: 7 149
Judg. 11:36 190 II Kings 12: 3 107
Judg. 17: 8 20,26,27 II Kings 12: 6 89
Judg. 17: 9 20,26 II Kings 14: 15 143
Judg. 19:23 190 II Kings 17:20 200
II Kings 17:23 200
I Sam. 3:11 76 II Kings 18: 19 52
I Sam. 10: 7 69 II Kings 19: 6 74
I Sam. 11: 7 122 II Kings 20:20 103
I Sam. 15: 2 .137 II Kings 23: 17 52
I Sam. 15:15 107,108
I Sam. 15:20 144 Isa. 10:10 155
I Sam. 20:42 107 Isa. 11:16 149
The Hebrew Particle "IW&^ 141
Isa. 14:24 150 Ezek. 36:24 183
Isa. 18: 2 145 Ezek. 39:29 109
Isa. 23: 5 160 Ezek. 47:13. .- 35
Isa. 24:12 149
Isa. 29:22 91 Hos. 14:4 107
Isa. 41: 8 49
Isa. 43: 4 208 Amos 5:1 89
Isa. 47:12 88
Isa. 51 : 13 158 Ob. 16 145
Isa. 51:17 49
Isa. 53: 9 166 Jonah 4:5 197
Isa. 53:12 184 Jonah 4: 10 140
Isa. 54: 9 142
Isa. 55: 1 63,134 Mic. 3:3 158
Isa. 56: 4 88 Mic. 3:5 64
Isa. 64:10 35
Isa. 65: 1 71 ^ech. 2: 4 172
Zech. 8:23 103
Jer. 1:16 137 Zech.ll:13 74
Jer. 3: 8 168
Jer. 5:22 109
Jer. 11:15 15
Jer. 14: 1 89
Jer. 15: 4 164
Jer. 16:13 109
Jer. 19:11 114
Zech. 12:10.
Zech. 13: 6 144
Zech. 14:17 63
Mai. 2:9 171
Ps. 16:3 98
Ps. 31:8 137
•!^^-23:29 146 p,_^^,^s-U 133
Jer. 28: 9 48
Jer. 29:19 141
Jer. 31:10 145
Jer. 32:35 140
Ps. 41:9 141
Ps. 42:2 146
Ps. 69:5 141
Ps. 84:4 35
J«'--33:22 142 p^_ g^^g 35
Jer. 42:14 HI
Jer. 48: 8 142
Jer. 49:19 116
Jer. 50: 7 186
Ps. 95:11 114
Ps. 102:28 58
Ps. 112: 8 200
Ps. 139:15 140
Ezek. 1:16 .• 158 Prov. 16:14 204
Ezek. 6: 9 109
Ezek. 6:11 109 Job 4: 8 151
Ezek. 12:12 173 Job 7: 2 146
Ezek. 12:25 89 Job 9:16-17 109
Ezek. 14: 4 124 Job 10: 7 166
Ezek. 16:50 160 Job 11: 16 146
Ezek. 20:32 136
Ezek. 21: 9 174 Ruth 1:16 20,34
Ezek. 34:21 200 Ruth 1:17 20,26
Ezek. 36:27 115 Ruth 2: 2 48
142
Carl Gaenssle
Koh. 3:11.
Koh. 3:22.
Koh. 5:14.
Koh. 6:12.
Koh. 8:11.
Koh. 8:12.
Koh. 8:15.
Koh. 9: 2.
Koh. 9: 4.
Esther 4:11
Esther 4: 16.
Esther 9: 22.
208 Dan. 2:3S 25
103
149 Ezra 2: 1-2 91
107 Ezra 6: 1 25
107 Ezra 6: 12 55
139
136 Neh. 2: 3 107
149 Neh. 3:35 139
132 Neh. 5:2-4 116
208 IlChron. 2: 2 154
140 IlChron. 10: 2 36
82 IlChron. 35:20 136
UNlVERSli^ v..
t. desk from which borrowed.
iMR
\y
fi"^^^
.100m-9;48(B3998l6)476
GayJord Bros.
Makers
Syracuse, jy y
^oCll^p
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY