Ez 42 (?), Dn 11, 1 Ch 4, 2 Ch 26.[1]—Cf. finally, Ct 3, where the suffix precedes the genitive periphrastically expressed by שֶׁלּ׳, as in Ez 9, where the genitive is expressed by לְ.[2]
[o] Of a different kind are the cases in which the permutative with its proper suffix follows as a kind of correction of the preceding suffix, e.g. Is 29 when he (or rather) his children see, &c. (but יְלָדָיו is clearly a gloss); cf. ψ 83; in Jb 29 read בַּֽהֲהִלּוֹ (infin. Hiph.) or at least its syncopated form בַּהִלּוֹ.
[p] 5. Cases of apposition in a wider sense are those in which the nearer definition added to the noun was originally regarded as an adverbial accusative; on its use with the verb and on the relative correctness of speaking of such an accusative in Hebrew, cf. § 118 a and m. Owing to the lack of case-endings, indeed, it is in many instances only by analogies elsewhere (especially in Arabic) that we can decide whether the case is one of apposition in the narrower or in the wider sense; in other instances this must remain quite uncertain. However, the following are probably cases of apposition in the wider sense:—
[q] (a) Such phrases as מִשְׁנֶה כֶ֫סֶף a double amount in money, Gn 43; cf. Jer 17; 1 S 17 five thousand shekels in brass, but this might also be taken (as in d) shekels which were brass; certainly such cases as Jb 15l0 older than thy father in days, and the expression of the superlative by means of מְאֹד (originally a substantive), e.g. טוֹב מְאֹד very good, Gn 1 (cf. also Ec 7 צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה righteous over much), and the very frequent הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד prop. a much-making exceedingly, i.e. exceedingly great, Gn 15, 41, also Pr 23 פְּצָעִים חִנָּם wounds without cause,[3] perhaps also Gn 34 (בֶּ֫טַח).
[r] (b) A few examples, in which an epexegetical substantive is added to a substantive with a suffix; thus, Ez 16 מִדַּרְכֵּךְ זִמָּה of thy conduct in lewdness (but it is also possible to explain it (as in c) of thy conduct, which is lewdness); cf. Ez 24, 2 S 22 מָֽעוּזִּי חָ֑יִל my fortress in strength, i.e. my strong fortress (cf., however, ψ 18); Hb 3, ψ 71. While even in these examples the deviation from the ordinary usage of the language (cf. § 135 n) is strange, it is much more so in חֲבֹֽלָתוֹ חוֹב Ez 18, i.e. according to the context his pledge for a debt; Ezr 2 כְּתָבָם הַמִּתְיַֽחֲשִׂים, i.e. their register, namely of those that were reckoned by genealogy (but perhaps הַמִּתְי׳ is in apposition to the suffix in כְּתָבָם), also the curious combinations (mentioned in § 128 d) of בְּרִיתִי with a proper name (Lv 26), and in Jer 33 with הַיּוֹם.[4]
- ↑ But in Is 17 we should certainly divide the words differently and read בִּסְעִפֵי הַפֹּֽרִיָּה, in Jer 48 read אֵלֶּה for אֵלֶ֫יהָ, and in Pr 14 אַֽחֲרִית הַשִּׂמְחָה; in Gn 2 נֶ֫פֶשׁ חַיָּה is a late gloss upon לוֹ, and in Ez 41 אֶל־דַּלְתוֹת הַֽהֵיבָל a gloss on אֲלֵיהֶן.
- ↑ Some of the examples given above are textually (or exegetically) doubtful, whilst in the case of others, especially those from the later Books, we cannot help asking whether such a prolepsis of the genitive by means of a suffix (as e.g. Ez 10) is not due to the influence of Aramaic, in which it is the customary idiom; cf. Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Biblisch-Aram., § 81 e and § 88.
- ↑ In ψ 69 חִנָּם (like שֶׁ֫קֶר in a false way, falsely, ψ 35 and 38:20) is used as an adverbial accusative with a participle; cf. § 118 q.
- ↑ But in Nu 25 שָׁלוֹם may also be explained, according to c, as really in apposition. Cf. on the whole question Delitzsch, Psalmen, 4th ed., p. 203, note 1.
