Ez 425 (?), Dn 1111, 1 Ch 442, 2 Ch 2614.[1]—Cf. finally, Ct 37, where the suffix precedes the genitive periphrastically expressed by שֶׁלּ׳, as in Ez 91, 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 2923 when he (or rather) his children see, &c. (but יְלָדָיו is clearly a gloss); cf. ψ 8312; in Jb 293 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 4315; cf. Jer 1718; 1 S 175 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 131 (cf. also Ec 716 צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה righteous over much), and the very frequent הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד prop. a much-making exceedingly, i.e. exceedingly great, Gn 151, 4149, also Pr 2329 פְּצָעִים חִנָּם wounds without cause,[3] perhaps also Gn 3425 (בֶּ֫טַח).
[r] (b) A few examples, in which an epexegetical substantive is added to a substantive with a suffix; thus, Ez 1627 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 2413, 2 S 2233 מָֽעוּזִּי חָ֑יִל my fortress in strength, i.e. my strong fortress (cf., however, ψ 1833); Hb 38, ψ 717. 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 187, i.e. according to the context his pledge for a debt; Ezr 262 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 2642), and in Jer 3320 with הַיּוֹם.[4]
- ↑ But in Is 176 we should certainly divide the words differently and read בִּסְעִפֵי הַפֹּֽרִיָּה, in Jer 4844 read אֵלֶּה for אֵלֶ֫יהָ, and in Pr 1413 אַֽחֲרִית הַשִּׂמְחָה; in Gn 219 נֶ֫פֶשׁ חַיָּה is a late gloss upon לוֹ, and in Ez 4125 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 103) 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 695 חִנָּם (like שֶׁ֫קֶר in a false way, falsely, ψ 3519 and 38:20) is used as an adverbial accusative with a participle; cf. § 118 q.
- ↑ But in Nu 2512 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.
