RBL 04/2017 Robert D. Holmstedt the Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew

RBL 04/2017 Robert D. Holmstedt

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 10

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Pp. xvi + 456. Cloth. 69.50. ISBN 9781575064192.

Frank H. Polak Tel Aviv University Ramath Aviv, Israel

Robert Holmstedt’s study of the relative clause, an incisive and extensive reworking of his 2002 PhD dissertation on this subject, represents a significant advance in the field of Biblical Hebrew linguistics. Holmstedt’s meticulous methodology is based on two systems of linguistic theory: transformational grammar in the Chomsky tradition and linguistic typology, the method developed by Joseph Greenberg and Bernard Comrie. Typological analysis studies patterns that occur systematically across languages and thus reveals cross- linguistic universals or tendencies shared by a large number of languages. An example for a universal: “all languages have a relative clause.” A famous pattern is the word order in the simple sentence: subject-verbal predicate-object (e.g., English), or subject-object- verbal predicate (e.g., Sumerian, Akkadian, Mandaean), or verbal predicate-subject-object (e.g., Arabic).1 Typological generalizations serve Holmstedt as guides of the analysis of the patterns discerned. Consequently, all of Holmstedt’s discussions of issues in Hebrew are introduced and accompanied by short but enlightening summaries of the linguistic

1. See, for instance, William Croft, Typology and Universals, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Croft, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. Timothy Shopen, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Notably, Gesenius, in his Thesaurus, often points to Greek and Latin parallels of Biblical Hebrew usage.

This review was published by RBL ©2017 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp. debate, including, of course, a review of the state of the art in Hebrew language study. Of course, these discussions are not limited to transformational grammar and typology: semantic and pragmatic considerations appear in many parts of this study. The extensive bibliography includes many items in Modern Hebrew.2

At the outset Holmstedt presents a short explanation of the theoretical insights to which he adheres, including a discussion of the possibility of a linguistic analysis of a language that is only transmitted in writing and an exposition of some of the linguistic principles involved. The third chapter discusses the types of words indicating the relative clause. Holmstedt distinguishes between (1) relative pronouns, such as English who, Latin qui, or Greek hós, that involve agreement within the relative clause (declination as whose, whom), (2) relative markers that involve agreement with the antecedent in the main clause (or rather, the matrix clause),3 (3) relative complementizers with no agreement features, such as English that, Hebrew ʾăšer/še-, Aramaic di, and Akkadian ša. Thus Holmstedt rejects the terminology by which ʾăšer is classified as a pronoun. This chapter also discusses the use of zû, ze, mī, mâ, and the article ha- as relatives, the etymological disconnection of ʾăšer and še-, and the use of a “zero-relative” for relative clauses not marked by any relative particle.

Chapter 4 centers on the role of the “relative head” (the antecedent) that is complemented by the relative clause. One issue is the position of the head, preceding, as it does the relative clause in Hebrew or English (“external head”), whereas in other languages it is found within the relative clause as “internal head.” Among the heads used in Hebrew, Holmstedt notes the suffixed pronoun, the extended noun phrase, and the complete clause. Relative clauses with a “null-head,” lacking an antecedent, are likewise noted (Gen 9:24), with as a special case the clause lacking both head and complementizer (Exod 4:13). The problems involved in the identification of the antecedent when the head of the relative clause is not made explicit is illustrated by means of Exod 14:13, where the implied head of ʾăšer (13b) is found in “you” (lākem, 13a): “because (you) who see the Egyptians today,” rather than “for the Egyptians whom you see today” (NRSV, with miṣrayim as internal head, unattested in Hebrew).

With regard to the syntax of the relative clause (ch. 5) Holmstedt notes that there seems to be no difference between clauses with a resumptive pronoun (referring back to the

2. Two additional items would have been relevant: C. Rabin, Taḥbīr lĕsôn hammiqrāʾ, ed. S. Shkolnikov (Jerusalem: Aqademon, 1965), recognizing, with Holmstedt, restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses; ʾÔṣār lĕsôn hammiqrāʾ, ed. Samuel E. Loewenstamm and Jehoshua Blau; 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Biblical Concordance, 1957–1968), with its rich discussions. 3. However, this class includes vocables that reveal clear characteristics of pronominals, such as Old Akkadian šu and Arabic ḏû and ʾallāḏî (and, by implication, Ugaritic d).

This review was published by RBL ©2017 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp. antecedent) and clauses without resumption (“that I chose him”/“that I chose—”), although resumption is obligatory when the resumptive pronoun is possessive. Salient issues are the zero-head relative clause in which the subject is not indicated explicitly (Gen 49:27); the word order, in which the subject almost always follows the predicate (98 percent, with rare exceptions, such as 1 Sam 20:31); focusing, when a part of speech precedes the predicate (Judg 9:9); and the use of multiple relative clauses for one and the same head (1 Kgs 11:34). Resumption, mostly by pronoun or deictic adverb, rarely involves full noun phrases (Gen 13:16) and is obligatory for disambiguation (Lev 16:32) and for verbs demanding the presence of the syntactic slot of the resumptive vocable (Jer 25:15, with bi- or trivalent verbs). In other cases the resumption serves pragmatic ends, such as highlighting the referent of the resumption (focusing, such as Lev 25:42; 1 Sam 10:19). An additional phenomenon is the possibility to place the relative clause at a distance from its head (extraposition, such as 1 Sam 12:17). Even a parenthetic clause may separate the relative clause from its head (Lev 22:2). Holmstedt finds that relative clause extraposition may serve for focusing but often allows the smaller constituents that are easier to process to precede the longer phrase.

Semantic analysis shows that Hebrew knows both restrictive relative clauses, which define the identity of the head, and nonrestrictive relative clauses, which are merely descriptive of a head whose identity is already established. A relative clause not introduced by a relative marker (zero-marked) always is restrictive, as are relative clauses that complement a noun in the construct state (Lev 4:24). Holmstedt notes a series of cases that combine the bound state of the noun head with zero marking (Gen 1:1; Deut 4:15).

Holmstedt concludes his study of the Hebrew relative clause with a discussion of the diachrony problem, posed by the distribution of ʾăšer and še-. Holmstedt rejects the thesis that the use of še- is stylistically determined, for instance, as a “low brow,” colloquial variant for high standard ʾăšer, since in Ecclesiastes both forms are used together, often in the very same verse. Thus Holmstedt concludes that the distinction mostly is diachronic, although he recognizes some cases in which it is used to characterize a foreigner’s speech or talk with foreign interlocutors, such as in the conversation of Jonah with the sailors on the ship from Joppa. In his view, the postexilic use of še- could reflect the influence of Babylonian ša. In this context Holmstedt also indicates the use of ʾăšer/še- to open object clauses (“that”) and wider uses, such as the opening of result/causal clauses.

Only at this juncture does Holmstedt enter into the comparative picture. Three points are especially significant: the less frequent use of cognate ašar as relative in Akkadian;4 the

4. An important item, in particular for the role of šu- in Sargonic Akkadian: Ignace. J. Gelb, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, 2nd ed., MAD 3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961).

This review was published by RBL ©2017 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp. presence of ʾăšer/še- in the sister languages Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite; and the use of ḏ (and Aramaic ḏy/dy), cognate with Hebrew zû/ze, in Ugaritic and Epigraphic South Arabic. An appendix presents a table of all instances of the relative clause in Biblical Hebrew, with translation, and a discussion of all difficult passages (forty-one cases; notably, sixteen of them deriving from the Persian/Hellenistic era).

There can be no doubt regarding the value of Holmstedt’s study. Treatment along similar lines of other phenomena will advance our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages most considerably. Still, some details are slightly disappointing.5 On a general level, it is to be regretted that no more place has been given to functional linguistics, in particular in the tradition of Michael Halliday. I say this in order to underline the importance of a general observation in the opening of Holmstedt’s study (1) concerning the general human preference for expanded phrases and expressions, a tendency to which Halliday has paid much attention in his treatment of expansion and enhancement as general features of syntax.6 By the same token, the definition of language as a social fact (33–35) seems slightly misleading. Is not language a social semiotic system used in communication by means of audial, grammatical, and lexical entities? Holmstedt finds the foundations of language usage in the personal idiolect, but this assumption is undermined by the communicative context. By contrast, Biblical Hebrew has lost its immediate social context and thus is no more than a “grapholect,” in the terms of Walter Ong.7

A central issue is the consistent treatment of ʾăšer as a relative complementizer (or nominalizer), even where a less specific interpretation would make for a more adequate reading. Holmstedt (220–21, 232–33) rejects analysis as general complementizer, in spite of its attestations for the Akkadian cognate ăšar,8 although the results yielded by this

5. On a factual level, Holmstedt (149, 367, 370) struggles with the syntactic structure of ʾăšer lāmmâ (Dan 1:10; Holmstedt, 367, 370) but for some reason does not refer to its analysis as Aramaism dîlmāʾ, “lest” (BDB, 554a, 4d, referring to dî lĕmâ, Ezra 7:23), quite apt in the Hebrew context and similar to šallāmâ (Song 1:7), rendered as “because why?” (Holmstedt, 227). Holmstedt (25 n. 5) rejects analysis of bĕšel ʾăšer (Eccl 8:17) as a calque of Aramaic bĕdîl dĕ, referring to baʾăšer lĕmî (Jonah 1:8), but in the appendix (227) renders it as “so that,” within the meaning range of bĕdîl dĕ. 6. Michael A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. rev. by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (London: Hodder Arnold, 2004), 376–79, 395–440, 486–514.; Michael A. K. Halliday and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language Based Approach to Cognition (London: Continuum, 1999), 106–8, 117–19. 7. Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technolizing of the Word, 3rd ed., ed. John E. Hartley (London: Routledge, 2002), 8. 8. Bettina Faist and Juan-Pablo Vita, “Der Gebrauch von ašar in den Akkadischen Texten aus Emar,” WO 38 (2008): 53–60, here 58–59. This includes the use of ašar as conditional, as in Deut 11:27 (Holmstedt, 366). In view of the Akkadian examples, it seems reasonable to conclude that the general usage was a less

This review was published by RBL ©2017 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp. interpretation often are preferable (such as Gen 13:16). A case in point is the treatment of the phrase ʾăšer hāyâ dĕbar yhwh ʾel PN ʿal/ʾel…,9 rendered as “that the word of YHWH came to PN, was concerning …” (375). Taking ʾăšer as an undefined subordinator would enable one to read this phrase as “When the word of YHWH came to PN concerning….” Another example is the problematic interpretation of Exod 14:13 as “because you who see the Egyptians today, you shall never see them again” (117), although a interpretation as modifier clause (“for as you have seen the Egyptians…,” with LXX and Tg. Neof.),10 is both feasible and plausible.

Among the issues that will arouse discussion I want to mention Holmstedt’s thesis of the definite article ha- where it precedes the attribute following a noun that is not introduced by the article, such as yôm haššiššî (Gen 1:31) or lĕ’iš heʿāšîr (2 Sam 12:4). In Holmstedt’s view this particle should actually be analyzed as a relative complementizer, preceding a verbless clause with “null-copula.”11 Another point is the treatment of all cases in which ʾăšer introduces a noun phrase as circumlocution. Holmstedt treats all these cases as relative clause lacking the copula. One wonders whether this treatment fits such cases as karmî šellî (Song 1:6) miṭṭatô šellišlōmōh (3:7), or the title ʾăšer ʿal habbayit (Isa 22:15 and the well-known inscription). Would not a relative clause be too heavy? If ʾăšer serves as complementizer, why should its function be restricted to relative clauses? Why could it not serve to introduce complex (and less complex) attribute phrases, even if they do not form a full clause?12

Finally, then, some trivialities. Eisenbraun’s printing is splendid as usual, but two details demand some attention. There is a problem with the Hebrew wrapping: in some cases an initial aleph was widowed, leaving the orphaned remainder of the word in the opening of the next line. Once (302) an author query was left in the margin.13

Thus Holmstedt’s extensive and very welcome study of the relative clause opens up many perspectives, offers much food for thought, and constitutes a new stage in the debate on the complex syntax of Biblical Hebrew. Hêdād! common grammaticalization, paralleling the shift noun (regens) > relative complementizer. Holmstedt (232) derives the use as general subordinator from the use as relative. 9. Jer 14:1 (≠ LXX); 46:1(> LXX); 47:1 (> LXX); 49:34 (≠ LXX). 10. Similarly Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken, 1995), quoted according to Accordance 11.2.4 (Oaktree Software, www.accordancebible.com). 11. I have not found any reference to šettaqqpîp mimmennû (Eccl 6:10; ketib šhtqyp) and its Aramaic counterpart, zy qlyl mn twtb (Ahiqar, line 112). 12. For Akkadian ăšar libbi- (“where/to whom X wants”), see Faist and Vita, 58. 13. In a more general way, maybe there is place for a summary of this rich treatise skipping the linguistic terminology for the sake of those colleagues who are interested in the workings of Biblical Hebrew but are less qualified in linguistic theory?