^ 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 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>oserJ^ 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" , "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.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 "^'•^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; 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 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"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 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"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 ''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; &"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-i5n-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 ; 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 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;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 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'^) ^'^ ^?^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' ^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 ^i2'^^_ «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 ^' 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-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 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& 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