genitive הֲלוּמֵי יַ֫יִן then depends, in reality explains nothing; the text is almost certainly corrupt. In Dt 1518 מִשְׁנֵה would be expected; in Jos 311 הַבְּרִית is a later addition; in Is 3213 (מָשׂוֹשׂ), and ψ 6822 (שֵׂעָר), the absolute for the construct state probably rests only on the authority of the Masoretes. In Ju 625 ff. the text is obviously in confusion. In Ju 832 (cf. 6:24) כְּעָפְרָה should come either after וַיִּקָּבֵר or at the end of the verse, unless, with Moore, we omit אֲבִי הָֽע׳ as a gloss (from 6:24); in Is 6311 משֶׁה is probably a gloss on יְמֵי־עוֹלָם which has crept into the text; in 2 S 42 לְאִישׁ־בּ֫שֶׁת, according to the LXX, has dropped out before בֶּן; in Ez 611 רָעוֹת is to be omitted with the LXX; if originally in the text, it could only be genitive (= all abominations of evils), not an adjective; Pr 216 the text is altogether uncertain (the LXX read מֽוֹקְשֵׁי for מְבַקְשֵׁי); in 1 Ch 913 the preposition לְ (after a ל) has dropped out before מְלֶאכֶת (cf. 12:25).—Elsewhere (Dt 35, 1 K 413, 2 Ch 85) the supposed genitives are to be taken rather as words of nearer definition standing in apposition, i.e. with high walls, gates, and bars. In Jer 85 ירושלים is either in apposition to העם הזה or is better (since not in the LXX) omitted as a gloss.
[d] (b) Genitives after a noun with a suffix (where the suffix prevents the direct government by the nomen regens). Thus in Lv 273, 5, 6, where הַזָּכָר after עֶרְכְּךָ[1] might be taken, contrary to the accents, as subject of the following clause; in Lv 515, 25 the suffix may refer to Moses. In Lv 63 מִדּוֹ בַד his garment, namely the garment of linen, unless simply in apposition, cf. § 131 d (or read מִדֵּי?); Lv 2642, where בְּרִיתִי יַֽעֲקֹב וגו׳ could at most be explained as an ellipse for בְּרִיתִי בְרִית יַֽעֲקֹב, cf. § 125 h (probably, however, it is a case of dittography of the י, which was repeated also before אברהם; so Valeton, ZAW. xii. 3); equally strange is בְּרִיתִי הַיּוֹם Jer 3320, &c. On the other hand, אִם יִֽהְיֶה נְבִֽיאֲכֶם יְהֹוָה Nu 126 could not possibly mean if your prophet be a prophet of the Lord; the text is manifestly corrupt (probably נְבִֽיאֲךָ מִיַּהְוֶה is to be read, with Marti). In ψ 457 בִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים (usually explained as thy divine throne), אלהים is most probably a later addition [another suggestion is to read כֵאלֹהִים like God(’s throne): cf. § 141 d, note]. In Jer 5220 two readings are probably combined, לִנְחֻשְׁתָּם without any addition, and לִנְח֫שֶׁת בָּל־הַכֵּלִיס. In Nu 2512 שָׁלוֹם is in apposition to בְּרִיתִי. On דַּרְכֵּךְ זִמָּה Ez 1627, cf. § 131 r.
[e] (c) The interposition of a word is assumed between כָּל־ (the whole; cf. § 127 b) and the genitive governed by it in 2 S 19, Jb 273 (עוֹד), and, if the text is correct, in Hos 143 (תִּשָּׂא). In reality, however, in all three places the genitive relation is destroyed by the transposition of the words (instead of עוֹד כָּל־, &c.), and כָּל־ is rather to be taken adverbially (equivalent to wholly), e.g. 2 S 19 because my life is yet wholly in me, i.e. my whole life; cf. Philippi, Stat. Constr., p. 10.—On the instances in which the original construct state אֵין non-existence is used without a following genitive, see the negative sentences, § 152 o.
[f] 2. The dependence of the nomen rectum on the nomen regens by no means represents merely what is, properly speaking, the genitive relation (see the examples under g–i). Very frequently the nomen
- ↑ Halévy, J. A. xiv. 548, removes the difficulty by pointing עַרְכֹּךְ.
