§ 131. Apposition.
2. The principal kinds of apposition in Hebrew are:—
Finally, under this head may be included all the cases in which a numeral (regarded as a substantive) is followed by the object numbered in apposition, e. g.
Rem. 1. Only in certain combinations does the noun of nearer definition come first, e. g. g
dwID' %l,M,ñh;Ã hmol{v. %l,M,ñh; king David, king Solomon (less frequently%l,M,ñh; dwID' as in 2 S 13:39, 1 K 2:17, 12:2, 2 K 8:29, 9:15, and in late Hebrew, Hag 1:1, 15 [cf. the Aramaic orderaklm Xwyrd ], and often in Chron.).—A chiasmus occurs in Is 45:4, the name standing after the defining noun in the first part of the verse, and before it in the parallel clause.
2. When the nota accusativi ( h
taeà -ta, ) or a preposition precedes the first substantive, it may be repeated before the noun in apposition, e. g. Gn 4:2, 22:2, 24:4, 47:29, Is 66:21; this usually occurs when the nearer definition precedes a proper name. As a rule, however, the repetition does not take place (Dt 18:1, Jer 33:18, 1 S 2:14). A noun in apposition is made determinate, even after a noun with a prefix, in the ordinary way, e. g. 2 Ch 12:13ry[ih' ~yIl;ñv'Wr yBi in Jerusalem, the city which, &c.5
3. Sometimes a second adjective is used in apposition to a preceding adjective, in order to modify in some way the meaning of the first, e. g. Lv 13:19 i
tm,D+'m.d;a] hn"b'l. tr,h,ñB; a white-reddish (light red) bright spot.
4. Permutation is to be regarded as a variety of apposition. It is not complementary like apposition proper (see a above), but rather defines the preceding substantive (or pronoun, see below), in order to prevent any possible misunderstanding. This includes cases like Gn 9:4 with the life thereof (which is) the blood thereof; Ex 22:30, Dt 2:26, 1 S 7:9, 2 K 3:4 an hundred thousand rams, the wool, i. e. the wool of the rams; Jer 25:15 this cup of the wine, that is of fury (but k
hm'xeh; is probably a gloss); Is 42:25 he poured upon him fury, namely his anger;6 but especially the examples in which such a permutative is added to a preceding pronoun, viz. —
(a) To a separate pronoun, e. g. Ex 7:11; with regard to the vocative, cf. § 126 f. l
(b) To an accusative suffix, e. g. Ex 2:6 she saw him, the child (unless m
ä Yh;-ta, be a later gloss); Ex 35:5, Lv 13:57 b, 1 K 19:21 (where, indeed,rf'B'h; appears to be a late gloss); 21:13, 2 K 16:15 Keth., Jer 9:14, 31:2, Ez 3:21, Ec 2:21 (according to Delitzsch rather a double accusative).7
(c) To a noun-suffix, e. g. Ez 10:3 n
vyaih' AaboB. when he went in, the man; 42:14; cf. Pr 13:4 (?), Ezr 3:12; so also after a preposition with suffix, e. g. Ec 4:10dx'a,h' Al yai woe to him, the one alone; with a repetition of the preposition, Nu 32:33, Jos 1:2laer'f.yI ynEb.li ~h,l' to them, to the children of Israel; Ju 21:7, Jer 51:56, Ez 42:5(?), Dn 11:11, 1 Ch 4:42, 2 Ch 26:14.8—Cf. finally, Ct 3:7, where the suffix precedes the genitive periphrastically expressed byä Lv, , as in Ezr 9:1, where the genitive is expressed byl. .9
Of a different kind are the cases in which the permutative with its proper suffix follows as a kind of correction of the preceding suffix, e. g. Is 29:23 when he (or rather) his children see, &c. (but o
wyd'l'y> is clearly a gloss); cf.y Ps 83:12; in Jb 29:3 readALhih]B; (infin. Hiph.) or at least its syncopated formALhiB; .
5. Cases of apposition in a wider sense are those in which the nearer definition added to the noun was originally regarded as an adverbial accusative; on its use with the verb and on the relative correctness of speaking of such an accusative in Hebrew, cf. § 118 a and m. Owing to the lack of case-endings, indeed, it is in many instances only by analogies elsewhere (especially in Arabic) that we can decide whether the case is one of apposition in the narrower or in the wider sense; in other instances this must remain quite uncertain. However, the following are probably cases of apposition in the wider sense:— p
(a) Such phrases as q
@s,k,ñ hn<v.mi a double amount in money, Gn 43:15; cf. Jer 17:18; 1 S 17:5 five thousand shekels in brass, but this might also be taken (as in d) shekels which were brass; certainly such cases as Jb 15:10 older than thy father in days, and the expression of the superlative by means ofdaom. (originally a substantive), e. g.daom. bAj very good, Gn 1:31 (cf. also Ec 7:16hBer>h; qyDIc; righteous over much), and the very frequentdaom. hBer>h; prop. a much-making exceedingly, i. e. exceedingly great, Gn 15:1, 41:49, also Pr 23:29~N"xi ~y[ic'P. wounds without cause,10 perhaps also Gn 34:25 (xj;B,ñ ).
(b) A few examples, in which an epexegetical substantive is added to a substantive with a suffix; thus, Ez 16:27 r
hM'zI xKer>D;mi of thy conduct in lewdness (but it is also possible to explain it (as in c) of thy conduct, which is lewdness); cf. Ez 24:13, 2 S 22:33lyIx+' yZIW[m' my fortress in strength, i. e. my strong fortress (cf., however,y Ps 18:33); Hb 3:8,y Ps 71:7. While even in these examples the deviation from the ordinary usage of the language (cf. § 135 n) is strange, it is much more so inbAx Atl'bo x] Ez 18:7, i. e. according to the context his pledge for a debt; Ezr 2:62~yfox]y);t.Mih; ~b't'K. , i. e. their register, namely of those that were reckoned by genealogy (but perhapsä yt.Mih; is in apposition to the suffix in~b't'K. ), also the curious combinations (mentioned in § 128 d) ofytiyrIB. with a proper name (Lv 26:42), and in Jer 33:20 with~AYh; .11
6. In Dt 33:4 ( s
hv'r'Am , perhapstL;hiq.li ä rAm is to be read), 33:27 (hn"[om. ), Ju 7:8 (hd'ce ), the absolute state appears to be used instead of the construct to govern a following logical genitive; this, however, cannot be explained either as a special kind of apposition, or (with Hitzig) as a peculiarity of the dialect of Northern Palestine, but is merely a textual corruption. On the other hand, in Jb 31:11!A[' is evidently intended to combine the readings~yliyliP. !A[] andyliyliP. !A[' (as in verse 2:8).—The remarkable combinationtAab'c. ~yhil{a/ iny Ps 80:8, 15 is due to the fact that inyy Ps 42–83~yhil{a/ has almost throughout been subsequently substituted by some redactor for the divine namehwhy ; ontAab'c. hwhy cf. § 125 h. Iny Ps 59:6, 80:5, 20, and 84:9hwhy has been reinstated in the text beforetAab'c. ~yhil{a/ .12
7. Lastly, the nearer definition (qualification) of a noun may be effected by means of a preposition (either with a suffix or with an independent noun), but must then be distinguished from the cases in which the preposition is dependent on a verb or verbal idea, e. g. Gn 3:6 and she gave also t
HM'[i Hv'yail. unto her husband with her (= her husband who was with her); in Gn 9:16 (that I may remember the everlasting. covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh) and other places, the qualification of the noun is itself also qualified.
Footnotes:
2[2] Unless it is to be translated thou gavest us intoxication to drink as wine (and so in 1 K 22:27 give him affliction to eat as bread, &c.); cf.
3[1] Cf. also the examples treated above in § 127 h.
4[2] On the anomalous form
5[1] In 1 K 11:8 participles after
6[2] But
7[3] For
8[1] But in Is 17:6 we should certainly divide the words differently and read
9[2] Some of the examples given above are textually (or exegetically) doubtful, whilst in the case of others, especially those from the later Books, we cannot help asking whether such a prolepsis of the genitive by means of a suffix (as e. g. Ez 10:3) is not due to the influence of Aramaic, in which it is the customary idiom; cf. Kautzsch's Gramm. des Biblisch-Aram., § 81 e and § 88.
10[3] In
11[4] But in Nu 25:12