Kartveit, REJOICE - DEAR - ZION

Magnar Kartveit
REJOICE,
DEAR ZION!
HEBREW CONSTRUCT PHRASES WITH
“DAUGHTER” AND “VIRGIN” AS NOMEN REGENS
Magnar Kartveit
Rejoice, Dear Zion!
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Edited by
John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz and Markus Witte
Volume 
Magnar Kartveit
Rejoice,
Dear Zion!
Hebrew Construct Phrases with “Daughter”

and “Virgin” as Nomen Regens
DE GRUYTER
Magnar Kartveit is professor of Old Testament at the School of Mission and Theology,
Stavanger, Norway.
ISBN ----
e-ISBN ----
ISSN -
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
©  Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Preface
Teaching Hebrew may bring unexpected blessings. It happened to me a few years
ago when I repeated the standard examples of the use of the construct state,
which I had done many times before. This particular day I paused in the middle
of the series “Land of Canaan,” “river Euphrates,” “land of Egypt,” and “virgin
Israel.” It dawned on me that there was an odd case here, the “virgin Israel”; she
did not fit in with the lands and rivers.
Since then the topic has occupied me over periods, briefly in 1993, and again
in 2009 during a stay at the Yale Divinity School. Carolyn Sharp of the YDS al-
lowed me to use her office, which is close to the library, and this was a great
help. My employer, The School of Mission and Theology supported the project
by granting me a study leave in the autumn of 2009, and also in 2012. The School
deserves my appreciation for this benevolence, just as Carolyn Sharp does. My
wife, Marit Kartveit, has followed the project with interest and encouragement,
and I am indebted to her for this inspiration.
The publisher, Walter de Gruyter, is to be thanked for good cooperation, and
the editors of the series, Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Markus Witte, and John Barton,
deserve my gratitude for publishing the book as a Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
The abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style and the Chicago Manual
of Style. Standard grammatical terms are used, so no special source is quoted for
them. Translations of biblical texts are quoted from the New Revised Standard
Version, as a tribute to the fact that it was conceived in a room at the YDS,
and much of the work was done there. Quotations from other translations are
given their due references, and my own translations are also provided with
the necessary information.
Some of the material has been presented in other ways, at a seminar of the
Lutheran School of Theology in Hong Kong, 2001, at the congress of the Interna-
tional Organization for the Study of the Old Testament in Leiden, 2004, at a
forum for Bible translation of the Norwegian Bible Society and at seminars at
the School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger, Norway.
Teaching Hebrew may bring unexpected blessings; docendo discimus. A par-
aphrase could be Learning by teaching, and this old wisdom may receive another
modern parallel, Learning by writing. The present project has taught me many a
lesson, and I hope that it can spur the readers to continue the process.
Berlin, December 2012.

Magnar Kartveit
Contents
Preface V
Chapter 
Signs of Zion 1
. Types of Questions Raised 7
. The Problem 10
Chapter 
Does “Daughter of Zion” Refer to a Collective or an Individual? 12
Chapter 
“Daughter (of) Zion” in Recent Research 34
. Personification and More 57
. Metaphor 65
. Irony 70
. The Different Interpretations 71
Chapter 
The Genitive and the Construct State in Semitic Languages 73
. The Understanding of the Construct State in Contemporary Hebrew
Grammar 73
.. The Genitive and the Construct State in Some Semitic
Languages 82
. Morphology of the Construct State in Hebrew 92
. Syntax of the Construct State 96
. Terminology 105
. Conclusion 112
Chapter 
Semantic Analysis of the Construct Phrases with “Daughter” and/or
“Virgin” 114
. The Phrases 114
. The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ַּבת‬ 117
. The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬ 129
. The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ִציּוֹן‬ 133
. Paradigmatic Observations on ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬ 137
. Syntagmatic Analysis of Constructions with ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. 143
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת ְירוּ ָשּׁ ִַלם‬ 148
VIII Contents
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬ 148

. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים‬ 150
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, and ‫ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬ 151
. Analysis of ‫ ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬ 154
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ֱאדוֹם‬ 156
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ִּדיבוֹן‬, ‫ַּבת־ֹצר‬ 157
. Analysis of ‫ ַּבת־ַּתְר ִשּׁישּׁ‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִצידוֹן‬ 158
. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ַעִּמי‬ 159
. Analysis of ‫ְּבָבַבת ֵעינוֹ‬ 160
. Other Expressions with “Daughter” 161
. Summary 162
Chapter 
Can Nomen Regens in Biblical Hebrew be a Metaphor Applied (in Apposition?)
to Nomen Rectum? 163
. Nomen Rectum as an Attribute to Nomen Regens 163
. Construct Phrases where Nomen Regens is a Metaphor Applied to
the Following Nomen Rectum 164
Chapter 
Dear Zion 179
Bibliography 185
Index of Modern Authors 194
Index of Ancient Sources 196
Subject Index 198

Chapter 1 Signs of Zion
I remember you, Zion, for blessing; with all my strength I have loved you.
May your memory be blessed for ever! Great is your hope, O Zion,
peace will come and the expectation of your salvation.
Generation after generation shall dwell in you,
and generations of the devout (shall be) your splendour,
those hungering for the day of your salvation
and who rejoice in the abundance of your glory. (11QPsa XII 1– 4)¹
Laud, O Zion, thy salvation,

laud with hymns of exultation
Christ, thy King and Shepherd true:
spend thyself, his honor raising,
who surpasseth all thy praising;
never canst thou reach his due. (Thomas Aquinas, 1225 – 1274)²
Zion has been a symbol of longing and belonging from the time of the Bible until
today, portrayed in poetry and prose through the ages. For the unknown poet
who created the Zion psalm found in Qumran, Zion was the place of peace
and glory, the promised land. Thomas Aquinas used “Zion” as a label for the
Christian believers, the church. Other renderings are found in Zionism and in
more recent liberation theology, in eschatological hopes and in names of church-
es.
Already in the Bible “Zion” was more than the city of Jerusalem and much
more than a city quarter. Anchored in a mythical past, it was considered to
have eternal existence, according to Corrina Körting.³ Zion has dimensions of
time and space, she states, but is also larger than life; as a centre of a sacral
topography it offers Israel a direction and a home. The divine presence in Zion
can bridge the distance between heaven and earth. The praying person, whether
common people or a king, may participate in these features. Zion attracts motifs
and traditions; it is a centre for developing theology. Körting finds this in the
Bible, and for the devout it is true even today.
Körting’s study from 2006 is about Zion as a place where divinity was
thought to be present and where theology was transmitted and shaped. A year
later, in 2007, Othmar Keel turned our attention to one particular part of Zion’s
 Translation in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), vol. 2, 1177.
 Lauda, Sion, salvatorem; translation as in The English Hymnal, 1906.
 Corinna Körting, Zion in den Psalmen (FAT 48; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
2 Chapter 1 Signs of Zion
theological legacy to the world: monotheism.⁴ In this major study, he reminds us

that–just as Athens and Rome gave the world a lasting heritage in the areas of
art, architecture, law etc.–Judah and Jerusalem have provided the world with
monotheism. The attempt at monotheism by Achnathon remained an episode,
but the Bible and Islam made this notion an element of world history. Keel traces
the background of the aggressive and intolerant elements in monotheism, and
presents the way in which these were countered when they arose. Zion gave
the world a grand idea, and Keel provides scholarship with a magnificent
study of the growth and ramifications of a major element in modern world views.
2007 was also the year when Carleen R. Mandolfo published her study of
Zion, not as a place for the divine and not as a birthplace for history-shaping
ideas, but as a woman who talks back.⁵ The expression is significant: Zion is un-
derstood as a woman. More than a change of phraseology lies behind this word.
As an effect of the literary turn in biblical studies some scholars are not so much
concerned with, for instance, geography, history or historical theology, but with
the literary devices used to create a text and the consequences this may have for
the reading of it.
Mandolfo presents the theology of the Book of Lamentations in dialogue
with the prophets Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah. In Lamentations
the “wife” Zion talks back to God, who is her “husband” in the prophetical
books. The first two chapters of Lamentations presents the voice of Daughter
Zion who offers a counterstory to that of the prophets, and “provides a necessary
corrective to the crushing monologism of prophetic discourse.”⁶ Mandolfo does
not read the texts diachronically, but dialogically, which “means juxtaposing the
two books and taking account of both voices.”⁷ In this book, texts about and
from “Zion” are seen as offering the possibility to consider Israel’s fate from
both the perspective of prophetic oracle and from the perspective of the suffering
and protesting victim in Lamentations. Mandolfo is not disheartened from find-
ing opposing viewpoints in the Bible; on the contrary, “The Bible’s authority for
me rests in its ability to mirror the diversity and complexity of human existence.
It brings together in one book voices with, at the most extreme, diametrically op-
posed worldviews. And the books it contains do not come with headers caution-
ing that this particular voice should be censured, and that voice embraced. And
 Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Orte und
Landschaften der Bibel, 4,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007).
 Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the
Book of Lamentations (Atlanta: SBL, 2007).
 Ibid., 123.
 Ibid.
Chapter 1 Signs of Zion 3
rather than expunge, whitewash, or ignore the ’dangerous’ books as some are
wont to do (not least some feminist critics), …let us embrace and resist, rejoice
and weep with, and, mostly, listen respectfully to what these voices have to say
for themselves.”⁸
In the year following the publication of these two challenging books on
Zion, Christl Maier took up the lead from both Körting’s and Mandolfo’s studies.
For her, Biblical Zion is a divine abode, an idea based on two different Ancient
Near Eastern topoi, the sacred mountain in the Canaanite tradition and the
Mesopotamian temple-city.⁹ The actual topography of Jerusalem (“perceived
space,” according to the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre, whose terminology
she adopts) is intertwined with a well-known ideology of sacred space (“con-
ceived space”), and here a spatial practice is found through hymns, rituals,
and processions (“lived space”). At the time of threat from the Neo-Assyrian
and Neo-Babylonian empires Zion was personified as a daughter, a young, mar-
riable girl in need of protection from her father. This personification rests on two
assumptions: a blend of Near Eastern concepts and the vulnerability of the city
space to which God is the caring father. With this figure can be combined that of
a mother bewailing her children, as in Lamentations. In some of the preexilic
prophets is found an image of Jerusalem as a whore, a metaphor used to accuse
the city’s leaders of corruption and social inequality. Prophets and Lamentations
use these two images and other female personifications to address Zion and Jeru-
salem in judgment and salvation oracles.
In addition to the contribution by Lefebvre, Maier relates to an earlier spate
of scholarship on the topic “daughter of Zion,” an expression that was studied
by Aloysius Fitzgerald, who saw its background in West Semitic theology for cap-
ital cities. These cities were considered goddesses married to the patron god of
the city, he alleged, and therefore attributed with female epithets.¹⁰ Such a
line of thinking got a new twist in the study by F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, who
found the background in Mesopotamian city laments, where the goddess of
the city bewailed her tragedy. This goddess was termed “daughter of [the
city]”; an expression that would be the background for phrases like “daughter
 Ibid., 128.
 Christl Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008).
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a
Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT,” CBQ 34 (1972): 403 – 16.
of Zion.”¹¹ These ideas constitute a major impetus for some scholars, and for the
present study.
The interest in Zion understood as a person can also be found twenty years
earlier than these studies from 2006 – 2008; we may go back to a 1987 article by
Barbara Bakke Kaiser, in which she discusses “Daughter Zion” as a “literary per-
sona” used by the authors of Jer 4, Lam 1 and Lam 2.¹² The authors of these texts
speak with different voices and in different grammatical persons, and also as the
persona of Jerusalem construed as a female. This female persona is intended
when Kaiser prefers “Daughter Zion” to “daughter of Zion” in her translation
of the biblical texts. The literary device of persona would be used in texts charg-
ed with high emotions and in order to identify with the suffering city and her
population. The authors probably were men, but this female persona was used
because “distinctively female experience was regarded highly enough to function
as the chief metaphor through which the poet expressed his own agony over Jer-
usalem’s fate and encouraged community catharsis. At just that point at which
each poem reached the height of intensity, the poet adopted the female persona
to bear the weight of emotion. He felt compelled to become the woman bearing
her first child [Jer 4], the pollutant female socially and ritually isolated [Lam 1],
and the mother bereft of her children [Lam 2].”¹³
The shift from geographical and historical interests to literary ones has in
Kaiser’s study resulted in the assumption of a persona, presumably a character,
that hovers over the text, exists before it and behind it, is detached from it and
yet expressed in it. A reader of this study is brought to share this assumption
through its construction from individual expressions as well as from whole
text units and larger contexts. This reader is also led to take a closer look at
the possibility for finding a persona when the quite concrete textual basis for
it is scrutinized. Whatever ideas we may postulate for the biblical text, they
will not survive if not grounded in linguistic evidence.
John F. A. Sawyer’s 1989 contribution to reading texts about Zion is armed
with an expression, similar to “persona”, but different from it: “female charac-
ter.”¹⁴ He focusses on Second Isaiah, and parallels the texts about the Servant
of the Lord with those about Daughter of Zion. Sawyer, like Kaiser, capitalizes
 F. W Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the

Hebrew Bible (Biblica et orientalia 44; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 1993).
 Barbara Bakke Kaiser, “Poet as ’Female Impersonator’: The Image of Daughter Zion as
Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering,” JR 67 (1987): 164– 82.
 Ibid., 182.
 John F. A. Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison,”
JSOT 44 (1989): 89 – 107.
Chapter 1 Signs of Zion 5
the expression, but unlike her he keeps the preposition: “Daughter of Zion.”
These small differences echo the variations found in recent translations of the
Bible and are indicative of the deliberations behind: How are we to understand
this expression? As Sawyer does not limit himself to texts in which the term
“Daughter of Zion” actually occurs, his answer lies in this direction: “’Daughter
of Zion’ in my title is in effect shorthand for a female character who figures just
as prominently in Isaiah 40 – 66 as the servant of the Lord. Like him, she is
sometimes named, as in 49.14…., sometimes she is anonymous as in
ch. 54….”¹⁵ This “female character” can be Jerusalem, but also a collective,
like the servant of the Lord. “Just as, some years ago, it became fashionable to
drop the question of who the servant is, in favour o[f] what his office or role
is, or what figures have influenced the imagery (Moses, David, Jehoiachin,
Cyrus, Jeremiah, etc.), so now we should perhaps give a low priority to who
the daughter of Zion is, and focus instead on her role in the story.”¹⁶ The assump-
tion of a character with an existence of her own, is here notably hypothetical, as
witnessed for example when “Zion” in Isa 49:14 is taken to be the addressee in
chapter 54. The theory may seem attractive, but it needs to be made probable
from the material itself.
Patricia Tull in her dissertation carried on a literary reading of Zion-texts in
Second Isaiah, and presented it at the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual
Meeting in 1995, and in printing two years later.¹⁷ In her intertextual study of Sec-
ond Isaiah she focusses upon how the prophet uses other biblical texts to depict
his own message, in particular about “Daughter Zion” and “The Servant of
YHWH.” “Daughter Zion” is considered as one of the expressions referring to
Zion, whose history is briefly traced, and this history forms the background of
the texts concerning her in Isa 49 – 54. Earlier texts are found as building blocks
for Second Isaiah’s texts about her.
A similar interest in the “literary history” of “Daughter Zion” lies behind
Kathleen M. O’Connor’s Alexander Thompson lecture in 1999.¹⁸ Here, she traces
how the poems of Zion in Second Isaiah “adopt, expand, and reinterpret the bro-
ken household metaphor” from Jeremiah and Lamentations. “Capital city, mo-
 Ibid., 90 – 91.
 Ibid., 104.
 Patricia Tull Willey, “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of
YHWH’s Community,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 34 (1995): 267– 303. Patricia
Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah
(Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1997).
 Kathleen M. O’Connor, “’Speak Tenderly to Jerusalem’: Second Isaiah’s Reception and Use of
Daughter Zion,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 20 (1999): 281– 94; expression on 281.
narchical center, and divine dwelling place, her revivification and restoration
lures the exiled people homeward. Her bitterness is turned to song, her despair
to joy, her somnolence to awakeness. She is already standing to receive them.”¹⁹
Mary Donovan Turner similarly studies “the female figure [of Daughter Zion]
who represents Jerusalem. Most often she is called ’daughter,’ sometimes ’virgin
daughter.’ She is sometimes designated Jerusalem, sometimes Zion, Israel, Judah
or My People.”²⁰ After “tracing the growth of the ancient metaphor–Daughter
Zion”²¹ she reads Lamentations and Second Isaiah together and in contrast to
each other, and finds that in the first chapter of Lamentations Zion “describes
the horror Yahweh has brought against her,” and when he comforts her in Sec-
ond Isaiah, “Zion has begun to usher in her own redemption,” but when a ques-
tioning response is anticipated, “Daughter Zion becomes, once again, silent. Her
brief words…are words of resistance, and since they are her last, they linger.”²²
Whereas many scholars look to the East for material comparable to the Zion
expressions and theology, Elaine R. Follis looks in the opposite direction: to Ath-
ens.²³ She compares “daughter Zion” to Athena, daughter of Zeus, and finds that
Zion is to be considered the daughter of God in the same way. Both Zion and Ath-
ens are patronesses of civilization, and share other characteristics. In cultures
ancient and modern males are thought to represent the adventuresome spirit
of society, but daughters are associated with stability, with the building up of so-
ciety, with nurturing the community. “The stereotypical male spirit lies in con-
quest, while the stereotypical female spirit lies in culture.”²⁴
The study by Mandolfo from 2007 formed the background for a special ses-
sion at the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting in Boston, Massachu-
setts, in 2008. This session resulted in a book entitled Daughter Zion: Her Por-
trait, Her Response. ²⁵ In this book 15 authors contribute to the discussion on
the basis of Mandolfo’s book, and her presuppositions are often shared by
these authors, though sometimes challenged. The literary figure of Daughter
Zion is mostly assumed, and on this assumption the authors discuss the vio-
lence, oppression, and abuse of female figures, but also Daughter Zion’s salva-
 Ibid., 294.
 Mary Donovan Turner, “Daughter Zion: Giving Birth to Redemption,” in Pregnant Passion:
Gender, Sex, and Violence in the Bible (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004), 193 f.
 Ibid., 193.
 Ibid., quotations from 197 and 204.
 Elaine R. Follis, “The Holy City as Daughter,” in Directions in Biblical Poetry, JSOT Sup
(Sheffield: 1987).
 Ibid., 177.
 Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher (eds.), Daughter Zion: Her Portrait,
Her Response (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).
1.1 Types of Questions Raised 7
tion and joy. In many of the contributions there are linguistic parlance and com-
ments, but only Michael H. Floyd approaches the topic from a linguistic angle.
The existence of a female figure Daughter Zion is questioned in his article; in
the other chapters it is presupposed, and his objections are not taken into ac-
count. Given the overall interests of the book, “the role of female characters,”²⁶
this is understandable, and the foundations of “this now firmly established tra-
jectory in biblical studies”²⁷ are taken to be as firm as the establishment of the
discourse.
1.1 Types of Questions Raised
It is remarkable how much attention Zion has received in the last two genera-
tions of scholars, and diverse topoi, images, epithets, and theologies connected
to Zion have been analyzed and discussed. By mentioning the scholars intro-
duced here, I only indicate the scope of Zion studies. Instead of continuing
this survey of scholarship, I will pause here and take stock of what I have pre-
sented.
Christl Maier’s study employs a series of phrases from linguistics and the
study of literature: personification, figure, metaphor, images. Although these
words seem clear enough because they are widely used–as soon as they are
used for concepts and as technical terms they require discussion and definition.
To mention one topic: I would like to follow the process where some ideas asso-
ciated to “daughter” are chosen, and others not. Maier for instance focusses on
how “the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah characterize Jerusalem as a young, mar-
riageable girl in need of the protection from her father (Isa 1:7– 9, 10:32; 16:1; Jer
4– 6).”²⁸ The implied father would be Yahweh. The Biblical semantic field for
“daughter” is larger than what is covered by “a young, marriageable girl in
need of the protection from her father,” so some selection has taken place. It
would be interesting to know the criteria according to which Maier chooses
the elements mentioned as the meaning of the metaphors. The study of metaphor
will be of interest in the following treatment.
One of the scholars Maier refers to is Elaine R. Follis. With her she shares the
idea that the phrase “daughter of Zion” or “daughter Zion” implies that Zion has
God as her father. We would, however, have expected that Follis provided expres-
 Ibid., 1.
 Ibid., 2.
 Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 212.
sions from the Greek literature that may parallel “daughter (of) Zion,” and this
she does not. Also missing is a discussion whether this expression can mean
what she contends, that Zion is the daughter of God. Her linguistic presupposi-
tions, and the stereotypes mentioned, are not substantiated by her from HB evi-
dence. The semantics of “daughter” in the Hebrew Bible are not itemized, nor are
the associations connected to it. Even so, her thesis has made an impact on
scholarship. In my opinion, her thesis presupposes an understanding of topics
in need of discussion and substantiation before it is reckoned among the staples
of scholarship.
In Kaiser’s study, we are introduced to yet another expression, “literary per-
sona.” Her understanding of this term is given in a quotation from William La-
nahan: “[Persona refers to] the mask or characterization assumed by the poet
as the medium through which he perceives and gives expression to his
world.”²⁹ Kaiser supposes this persona to have been construed as a female be-
cause she appears in texts charged with high emotions. Grammarians of Hebrew,
on the other hand, tend to think that the language by default uses female gender
for names of countries, nations and towns.³⁰ Evidently, there is a discrepancy in
the understanding of the use of female gender between the grammarians and the
exegete. Kaiser therefore induces us not only to come to grips with the “literary
persona,” but also to rethink the relation between language and reality as exem-
plified in this expression.
Sawyer’s proposal to focus on the role of the Daughter of Zion seems attrac-
tive, but the first step in our reading of this “female character” is to understand
how the notion brought to verbal expression in “Daughter of Zion” also can be
present in contexts where the expression does not occur. For us to apprehend
how the “female character” may be Jerusalem or a collective, we would appreci-
ate understanding the mechanics of how this character is expressed, and only
when this is done are we able to focus on her role.
Whereas Sawyer’s “female character” could be expressed by a phrase, but
also present in contexts where no relevant terms occur, Turner’s “female figure”
is expressed by phrases only. They are, however, varied: “daughter,” “virgin
daughter,” “Jerusalem,” “Zion,” “Israel,” “Judah,” or “My People.” This widens
our perspective to expressions with two nouns preceding a geographical name;
both “virgin” and “daughter” are used, alone or in combination. Turner also in-
cludes phrases with “my people,” which means that we have to include the
 William Lanahan, “The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations,” JBL 93 (1974): 41– 49.
41; quoted on p. 165 of Barbara Bakke Kaiser, “’Female Impersonator’.”
 See e. g. GKC § 122 i.
1.1 Types of Questions Raised 9
phrase ‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬in our study if we are to do justice to the material she considers
relevant. Like Sawyer she assumes some character or figure behind the expres-
sions, and this character or figure constitutes the object of her study. Considering
her mode of operation, one has to ask whether she is right in the assumption
that these different expressions are more or less synonymous and refer to the
same character or figure.
Judging from these areas of scholarship, “Zion” leads scholars into areas of
theology, hermeneutics, and language. In the field of theology, Körting and
Maier are occupied with the changing Zion motifs and images, but Keel instead
concentrates on one great idea coming from Zion to the rest of the world. Fitz-
gerald, Dobbs-Allsopp, and Follis trace the background of the expression
“daughter (of) Zion” and other scholars follow up with an investigation of
how this may surface in the HB. Moving into the question of hermeneutics, Man-
dolfo does not harmonize and gloss over divergent ideas, but instead faces them
and listens to the voice of Zion as she protests against her fate and her God.
In the field of linguistics, scholars to some extent interact, but disagree on
the appropriate approach and the topical range to be studied. Most directly W.
F. Stinespring has made a contribution on the linguistic characteristics of the
phrase “daughter of Zion.”³¹ He suggests to read “daughter of Zion” in a way
where “daughter” describes “Zion,” ending in the translation “daughter Zion”
rather than “daughter of Zion.” Such a shift in translating practices can be
seen in translations appearing after Stinespring’s article, and his influence can
also be observed in the commentary on Lamentations by Adele Berlin and in
Hugh G. M. Williamson’s commentary on Isaiah.³² The linguistic part of this dis-
course has not come to rest, however, as Michael H. Floyd published a vehement
opposition to Stinespring in 2008.³³
Recent scholarship also reveals the need to map the area to be taken into
account for a linguistic analysis. The study of Donovan Turner focusses not
only on “daughter of Zion,” but includes a few other expressions in the discus-
sion, and it seems at the outset right to see construct expressions with “daugh-
ter” plus a geographical name as constituting one body of material, including
the expression “daughter of my people.” Donovan Turner has also seen a con-
 William Franklin Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional Genitive in
Hebrew Grammar,” Encounter 26 (1965): 133 – 41.
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,
2002). H. G. M Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1 – 27 (London ; New
York: T & T Clark, 2006).
 Michael H. Floyd, “Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!” CBQ 70 (2008): 484– 504.
nection to the expression “virgin of Israel,” and to expressions combining the

two common nouns, “virgin, daughter of…”
Fitzgerald, Floyd and Stinespring have addressed questions like, Is “daugh-
ter (of) Zion” an attributive genitive? Was there an attributive genitive in Biblical
Hebrew? We may add more questions: Which associations were attached to
words like “daughter” in old Israel, as far as this can be conjectured on the
basis of the HB? Is there reason in the HB to assume that the expressions or
even the ideas mentioned here were imported from Mesopotamia, Canaan or
Greece and applied to “Zion,” or were they indigenous?
Reading the literature on the topic of “Zion” one is left with questions about
the scholarly terms used. Clearly, they are not understood in the same way by
authors. Are some of the meanings presupposed in HB scholarship also found
in the study of linguistics? In addition to “literary persona,” scholars employ
the terms “literary character,” “metaphor,” “personification,”and “image,” and
some of them see a figure behind different Hebrew expressions, even where
none of the phrases occur. The usage needs a footing in linguistics. The question
whether the Biblical authors intended to portray a figure through terms and/or
indirectly may be addressed by studying the referents the terms may have in
each context, and this constitutes a linguistic analysis. “Personification” is
used with different meanings, and a separate part of chapter 3 is devoted to
the different understandings of this expression. When authors use the term with-
out locating it inside the wider panorama of possible meanings, there is the dan-
ger of confusion if a reader turns up with an understanding different from the
author’s. Some clarification is attempted in chapter 3.
One of the surprises recent Biblical scholarship on “Zion” brings, is that
they hardly use, or not at all use, or not consistently use the treatment of phrases
like “daughter (of) Zion” found in grammars, lexicons, and commentaries. I do
not find any reason why one should not exploit such scholarship; this oversight
might be due to unintended negligence. Let us not make another inadvertent sin,
but take a look at these resources. The next chapter reviews the treatment of
“daughter of Zion” and related expressions in this type of literature. On that
background chapter 3 delves deeper into other scholarly contributions on the
topic, in particular the expression “daughter of Zion.”
1.2 The Problem
then, in a narrower sense, is what senses ‫ ַּבת‬may have when used in expressions
where ‫ ַּבת‬is the nomen regens of a following geographical name, or of ‫ַעִּמי‬. This
involves a review of the nature of genitive and construct state in relevant Semitic
1.2 The Problem 11
languages, and this will be undertaken in chapter 4. Chapter 5 treats the expres-
sions with “daughter” or “virgin” or both of them, from a linguistic perspective,
in order to gain some footing in the language for understanding the contribu-
tions of these phrases to HB theology and thinking in general. As the question
of the possibility of an appositional genitive in Hebrew has been raised, and
scholars doubt the existence of such usage of construct phrases, this will be ad-
dressed in chapter 6, whereafter chapter 7 sums up the insights gained.
Chapter 2 Does “Daughter of Zion” Refer to a
Collective or an Individual?
Bible readers are familiar with the “daughter of Zion.” The expression occurs a
number of times in the Hebrew Bible, and it is also found in the New Testament,
and we may tend to consider it as referring to the population of Jerusalem. When
Matthew 21 and John 9 use the expression, it is embedded in a story about how
Jesus is welcomed to Jerusalem by a large crowd. This crowd is addressed in the
texts as the “daughter of Zion,” and a collective understanding of the phrase is
implied. Portions of these chapters are read in churches, for instance during Ad-
vent or on Palm Sunday, and they are perceived as a message of comfort to the
“daughter of Zion,” which by theological transference would be the congregation
assembled. The assumption made by the evangelists and by later Christians is
therefore that this expression by default has a collective as its reference.
The gospels of Matthew and John both quote Hebrew passages in connection
with the story of Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. Zech 9:9 constitutes the core of
the citations, and Matt 21:5 introduces this text with a quotation taken from Isa
62:11, where the “Daughter of Zion” is mentioned. John 12:15, on the other hand,
introduces the quotation by a formula, perhaps adapted from formulas in the
book of Isaiah. This combination of texts from the books of Zecharaiah and
Isaiah is not surprising to a reader of these books, as the expression plays a
role in both books. Is the NT collective understanding of the phrase warranted
on the basis of the HB? This question is connected to the core of the discussion
in this book, and it is not so easily answered as one might wish. The difficulty
starts with the quite contradicting analyses in the commentaries and the gram-
mars. The lexicons are also confusing in their treatment of the relevant expres-
sions. Before addressing this scholarly material, let us have a closer look at
the two relevant uses of the phrase in the NT.
The following two tables give an impression of how the NT combines the
texts from the HB.
Table 1: Matt 21:5 in the Greek version, compared to MT and LXX:
εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών· ‫ִאְמרוּ ְלַבת־ִציּוֹן‬

Εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιων, Isa : (MT and LXX)
‫ִגּיִלי ְמֹאד ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ָהִריִעי ַּבת ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם‬
ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι ‫ִה ֵּנה ַמְלֵּכְך ָיבוֹא ָלְך‬
‫ַצִּדיק ְונוֹ ָשׁע הוּא‬
πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον ‫ָע ִני ְוֹרֵכב ַעל־ֲחמוֹר‬
καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου. ‫ְוַעל־ַעיִר ֶּבן־ֲאֹתנוֹת׃‬
Zech : MT
Chapter 2 Does “Daughter of Zion” Refer to a Collective or an Individual? 13
Χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων· κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ·

ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι,
ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός,
πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον πραϋς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον
καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου. καὶ πῶλον νέον.
Zech : LXX
The text combination in Matt 21:5 omits the opening two sentences of Zech
9:9 and replaces them with Isa 62:11. The quotation from Isa 62:11 follows LXX for
as long as it is identical with MT, but then changes to MT.
As concerns John 12:15 we have no exact parallel in the MT or in the LXX for
the introductory formula, and the quotation from Zech 9:9 is condensed even
more than what is the case in Matt 21:5. “Daughter of Zion,” however, is taken
over from Zech 9:9, and not replaced by Isa 62:11, as in Matthew.
Table 2: John 12:15 in the Greek version, compared to LXX:
The marginal notes in NA mention two texts:

(ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σιων…) μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Isa : LXX;
μὴ φοβοῦ, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Isa : LXX
θυγάτηρ Σιών· Χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων· κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ·
ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται, ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι,
δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός,
καθήμενος ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου. πραϋς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον
καὶ πῶλον νέον. Zech : LXX
The quotation in John 12:15 uses ὄνος like Matt 21:5, which corresponds to MT
rather than to LXX, but employs a verb different from Matt 21:5 and LXX altogeth-
er (καθήμενος). The two gospels display a good deal of creative work on the part
of the evangelists, following different strategies, but the collective understanding
of “daughter of Zion” is the same in both gospels: Matt 21:8: “a very large crowd;”
John 12:12: “the great crowd.”³⁴
The NT texts presuppose that “daughter of Zion” refers to a part of the pop-
ulation of Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, as both quotations occur in contexts
where people from the city welcome him as king when he rides towards the
city on a donkey, and the quotations are directed toward this public.³⁵ The sub-
 According to Kenneth C. Way, “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics,” JBL
129 (2010): 105 – 14, ‫ ֲחמוֹר‬denotes “ass/donkey” and is the hyponym to ‫ַעיִר‬, “stallion, jack” and
‫ָאֹתון‬, “female donkey, jenny.” He translates the last part of Zech 9:9 in this way: “riding on a
donkey, a purebred jackass,” 108.
 Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, NTD 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1973), 264, on Matt 21:5: “die – als Frau vorgestellte – Gottesstadt.” Francis J. Moloney,
14 Chapter 2 Does “Daughter of Zion” Refer to a Collective or an Individual?
sequent ecclesiastical use of these texts also builds upon the idea that the ex-
pression has a collective referent, in the latter case the church or the congrega-
tion.
These two texts from the NT opens a window on the HB/OT material, where
the phrase “daughter of Zion” is used in many more texts than in Isa 62:11 and
Zech 9:9. In the book of Isaiah alone the expression occurs in five contexts, and it
is used 23 times in the HB. Prophetic and poetic books in particular are con-
cerned with the “daughter of Zion.” Is this phrase used with a collective or an
individual referent in the HB?
Claus Westermann comments on Isa 62:10 – 12 that the contemporary popu-
lation of Jerusalem is addressed.³⁶ In his commentary on the same text Bernhard
Duhm calls attention to the address in v. 11 to the “daughter of Zion.” This ad-
dressee is described in v. 12b, which is held in plural, as “the Redeemed [plural:
die Erlösten] of the Lord,” which means that the people of Zion are meant under
this expression.³⁷
Zech 9:9 envisions the coming of the king to the “daughter of Zion,” and in
the context the people of Jerusalem is in focus.
The two texts that form the basis for the quotations in Matt 21:5 and John
12:15 are taken to have the population of Jerusalem in mind with the expression
“daughter of Zion,” and this would be the background for the collective under-
standing in the NT and in later ecclesiastical usage.
From the King James Version on “daughter of Zion” is a familiar translation
of the Greek expression θυγάτηρ Σιών in the NT, and of the Hebrew ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. Read-
ers of this translation and later ones have been used to think of Zion as a collec-
tive, her population, and not on an individual daughter of Zion; the addition of
“daughter” to the place name has been taken to lead us to focus on the people in
general. This would be in line with the use of these texts in the HB and in the NT,
which assume that “daughter of Zion” refers to a collective, the population of Jer-
usalem.
How great, then, is our suprise when we turn to the grammarians for an ex-
planation of this expression. One of the more recent contributions to Hebrew
syntax comes from Bill T. Arnold and John Choi. They present the expression
in focus here as a type of genitives, and on their list of possible meanings for
construct expressions, genitives, it comes under category number 12, Explicative
[genitive].
The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1998), 350, on John 12:15:
“the crowd.”
 Westermann, Jesaja 40 – 66 (ATD 19), 301.
 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 5. ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1968), 462 f.
2.2.12 Explicative
The genitive is a specific member of a general category or class denoted by the construct,
and typically specifies the proper noun for the construct: ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬, “the river Euphrates”
(Gen 15:18), ‫ֶאֶרץ ִמְצַריִם‬, “the land of Egypt” (Gen 41:19), ‫ ַגּן־ֵעֶדן‬, “the garden Eden” (Gen
2:15), ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, “Virgin Israel” (Amos 5:2), ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “Daughter Zion” (2 Kgs 19:21).
Note that “of” is often unneccessary in English translations of the explicative genitive. ³⁸
As a reader notes that “of” is often unneccessary in English translations of this

type of genitive, one also observes that the translations offered here in addition
omit the definite article in some cases. “The river Euphrates” and “the garden
Eden” can both function in English without the “of,” but when the definite arti-
cle is omitted in front of the common noun, a new meaning emerges. “Virgin Is-
rael” and “Daughter Zion” are both capitalized in the translation, and “Virgin”
and “ Daughter” are in the indefinite state, and the meaning is a different one
from what “the virgin Israel” and “the daughter Zion” would have been. This dif-
ference is not irrelevant to our topic, and the change in translation technique
demonstrates that Arnold and Choi’s understanding of the last two examples dif-
fers from the understanding of the other expressions.
In the examples of this type of construct expressions the last word, nomen
rectum (the “genitive”), “typically specifies the proper noun for the construct,”
according to Arnold and Choi. The general category would be for instance
“river” and “land,” and the nomen rectum provides the names of these in
each case. When ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬and ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬are classified as cases of this kind,
the understanding is that “Israel” and “Zion” are “specific members of a general
category or class” of virgins and daughters, respectively. We in the first case ac-
cordingly read about one virgin among all the virgins on earth, and her name is
“Israel”; in the second case the expression refers to a daughter whose name is
“Zion.” Texts with these phrases would, on this understanding, deal with one
virgin or one daughter among the many. But since these two phrases are trans-
lated “Virgin Israel” and “Daughter Zion” they evidently are understood differ-
ently from the other phrases, and a reasonable interpretation of these renderings
is that the phrases refer to Israel in the capacity of being a virgin and Zion in the
capacity of being a daughter. That is not the same as phrases where “the geniti-
ve…typically specifies the proper noun for the construct.” This inconsistency in
the renderings reveal the underlying problem: Are all these phrases to be under-
stood as examples of one category?
 Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York, N.Y: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2003), 12– 13.
This syntax by Arnold and Choi does not specify whether ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬refers to an
individual or to a collective, but the whole paragraph deals with single entities
and not collectives, so a reader is brought to reason in the direction of individ-
uals, not of a collective. This contrasts with the understanding of the phrase in
the two HB contexts mentioned, and in the NT usage, and in later ecclesiastical
parlance.
In this list of examples, ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬occurs together with ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, and is
translated in a similar way, and it therefore seems sensible to take also this ex-
pression into consideration.
The understanding in this syntax stands in stark contrast to the exegesis pre-
sented in the commentaries on the texts mentioned. However, Arnold and Choi
are not alone in their understanding of these phrases, but they are part of a
wider community of scholars.
The foundation for this understanding was laid by Gesenius’ classic gram-
mar of Hebrew, and it can be found in the English translation from 1910,
which is in use today (abbreviated GKC).
Merely formal genitives (genit.[ivus] explicativus or epexegeticus, genit. appositionis) are

those added to the construct state as nearer definitions–
(d) Of the name, e.g. ‫ ְנַהר ְפָּרת‬the river Euphrates; ‫ ֶאֶרץ־ְּכ ָנַען‬the land of Canaan; ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬
the virgin Israel (not of Israel), Am 52.³⁹
From Gesenius on, a grammatical tradition has evolved in the understanding of

our expressions, according to which the word in the absolute state, the “geni-
tive,” explains, through an explicative genitive, the construct state word by
supplying the latter’s name. Telling is also here the special translation of
‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as “the virgin Israel (not of Israel),” where the omission of the prep-
osition is emphasized, different from the translations of the other phrases. Gese-
nius also seems to have felt that this phrase is special, without entering into a
description of possible differences between the phrases.
Gesenius created some further categories of “merely formal genitives”; they
are definitions “(e) Of the genus,” “(f) Of the species,” “(g) Of the measure,
weight, extent, number,” “(h) Of the material of which something consists,”
and “(i) Of the attribute of a person or thing.”⁴⁰ Even if there are considerable
variations in vocabulary in today’s grammars, his categories have formed the
 GKC § 128 k, 416.

 Ibid., 416 – 417.
general understanding of construct state expressions.⁴¹ Grammarians today often

follow him in using nomen rectum as the pivotal point in the expression, and in
categorizing the various expressions on the basis of the meaning of this part of
the word connexion. Some examples will demonstrate this situation.
Johannes Pedersen groups together some construct chains where he thinks
the second part expresses the essence of the first by naming the content, the ma-
terial or the name. Examples where the second word gives the name are ‫ּתוַֹלַעת‬
‫ ַיֲעק ֹב‬, Is 41:14, and ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬, Gen 15:18. The expressions ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬, Is 37:22,
cf. Am 5:2, and ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ַּבֲעַלת־אוֹב‬, 1 Sam 28:7, should be understod in the same
way.⁴² The meaning of the expressions discussed here would thus be understood
by Pedersen in a way very similar to that of Gesenius (and the other grammari-
ans).
A. B. Davidson’s Syntax tells us that “the genius of the language is not fa-
vourable to the formation of adjectives, and the gen. is used in various ways
as explicative of the preceding noun, indicating its material, qualities, or rela-
tions. (a) When the gen. is identical with the cons., merely expressing for ex.
its name, as Gen. 2.15 ‫ ַגּן־ֵעֶדן‬the garden of Eden; 15.18 ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬the river of Eu-
phrates; Is 41.14 ‫ ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬thou worm (of) Jacob, Is. 37.22 ‫ ַּבת ְירוּ ָשַׁליִם‬the daughter
of Jerus. Or the class to which it belongs, Is. 9.5 ‫ ֶפֶּלא יוֵֹעץ‬a wonder of a counsellor;
Hos. 13.2 ‫ ֹזְבֵחי ָאָדם‬men who sacrifice; Gen. 16.12 ‫ ֶפֶּרא ָאָדם‬a wild ass of man…”⁴³
Compare with this also his general comments in Davidson’s Grammar: “The
point is that the whole phrase in each case must be uttered before the idea or
subject of reference is fully defined. In consequence, the word in the construct
and the following word in the genitive relationship are conceived to be, and
are treated as, one unit of speech with one main accent which falls inevitably
upon the noun in the absolute, the noun in the construct being hurriedly pro-
nounced.”⁴⁴
Developing GKC’s approach, J. Weingreen’s treatment of the meaning of con-
struct expressions include a few examples under the heading “Shortage of adjec-
tives,” where he states that “Hebrew has a very limited number of adjectives, but
the effect of limiting the application of a noun may be obtained by putting it in
the construct state when the following genitive limits the application of the noun
 See the useful overview in Jan H. Kroeze, “Die Chaos van die “Genitief” in bybelse he-
breeus,” Journal for Semitics 3 (1991): 129 – 43, 132– 135.
 Hebræisk Grammatik, Copenhagen 1950, §118, 212 f.
 A. B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 3. ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1894) § 24 (a), 32.
 A. B. Davidson, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar: With Progressive Exercises in Reading,
Writing and Pointing, 26. ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966), § 14, 1 b, 64.
in the same way as would a following adjective…”⁴⁵ Davidson has a similar ap-
proach to these expressions, cf. the quotations above, and it seems to build upon
the perspective of seeing them as genitives. From the perspective of genitive, the
construct expressions are only a limited success; they do not behave as genitives
in all or most cases. Similarly, from the perspective of adjectives, they perform
other services in addition to that of adjectives, and, indeed, mostly so. They
have a larger range of possible uses than the genitive and they are found in
many cases where an adjectival understanding is not applicable.
C. Brockelmann regards ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬to be construct chains where
the general idea is defined or more precisely stated by the individual notion,
“Das Generelle bestimmt vom Individuellen.” In ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬the individual notion,
“Zion,” tells where the general idea, “daughter,” belongs or what its origin is,
in ‫ ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬the individuality is the name.⁴⁶
Specification of a general category is also the understanding of Bruce
K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, when they classify ‫ ְנַהר ְפָּרת‬, ‫ֶאֶרץ־ִמְצֵריִם‬, ‫ ֵגּן ֵעֶדן‬,
‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬and ‫ ְמקוֹם ְפּלוֹ ִני ַעלמוֹ ִני‬together as “the genitive of association,”
where “the individual G[enitive] belongs to the class of C[onstruct].”⁴⁷ The
idea of a “genitive of association” is a careful expression, but in the actual de-
scription of the expression the meaning that comes out is that “Israel” belongs
to the class of ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬, just as Arnold and Choi state that “Israel” is the proper
noun for the general category or class of “virgin.” Israel is a virgin, just as Eu-
phrates is a river, Eden is a garden, and Egypt is a land. Arnold and Choi also
includes ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬in this list of examples, so on the surface, they treat “Zion” is
the proper noun for the ‫“ ;ַּבת‬Zion” is the name of a daughter. Their translations
in these two cases, reveal, however, that they are not completely convinced by
this understanding. Ronald Williams presents ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬as an example of the appo-
sitional genitive, (together with ‫ֶאֶרץ ִמְצַריִם‬, ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬and others) and translates it
“the daughter Zion,” without, however, delving into theory on the matter.⁴⁸
This brief overview illustrates that the grammatical tradition from Gesenius
also provides more or less the same examples as he did; the tradition can be fol-
lowed further in the grammar of Paul Joüon, also in the new edition by T. Mur-
 J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959),
chapter 63, 136.
 C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen, 1956), § 77 a.b., 70.
 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake,
1990), 153.
 Ronald James Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1976), 11.
aoka, and in the grammars of Rudolf Meyer and of H. S. Nyberg.⁴⁹ There is also a
grammar that does not provide us with any information on the question.⁵⁰
The commentaries on Isaiah 62, quoted above, do not refer to the grammars
on this question, so one may suppose that they have reached their understand-
ing independently of the grammatical characterization of the expressions, and
by observing the context and deducing from the general impression gained by
reading and pondering on the text–and by reading earlier commentaries. The
grammarians, on the other hand, do not refer to the exegetical tradition, but
seem basically to reproduce and refine the classifications from the early 19. cen-
tury. The task of the grammarian would be to collect and study examples of the
phenomena which the grammar will describe, and in this process the context
and general flow of the HB text may be left aside. The phrases mentioned
here demonstrates, on the other hand, the function of context-sensitive reading
versus a compilation of examples for the sake of systematization and categoriza-
tion.
But as readers of scholarly literature we are confused by the different under-
standings presented in the two traditions. Have the exegetes and the NT interpre-
tation misunderstood the “daughter of Zion”?
Before dealing more closely with the understanding of “daughter of Zion,”
let us pay another visit to the commentators, and check their understanding
of “virgin of Israel.”
“Virgin of Israel” is found in a few places in the HB where the people of Is-
rael is in focus, but the understanding presented by the grammarians brings this
question to the fore: do we in fact read about a single virgin in these texts? One
of the texts with this expression is Amos 5:1– 2.
Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel:
Fallen, no more to rise,
is maiden Israel;
forsaken on her land,
with no one to raise her up. (Amos 5:1– 2, NRSV)
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica 27 (Roma:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006), § 129 f, 388; 437 (with the addition of ‫ ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬as a
further example of the same construction); Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, 3. neubear-
beitete Aufl. (Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1966)., III, 33 (§ 97, 4c) (omitting ‫ ;) ְנַהר ְפָּרת‬H.
S. Nyberg, Hebreisk Grammatik (Uppsala: 1952), 241 (§ 82b).
 J. Wash Watts does not treat construct phrases at all, J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the
Hebrew Old Testament, Revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).
These familiar words seem to address Israel as a nation, a people or a state, re-
ferred to by the expressions “house of Israel” and “maiden Israel.” The Hebrew
expression in the latter case is ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, traditionally translated by the
phrase “the virgin of Israel.” I will return to the issue of translation shortly,
but let us first concentrate on the question of reference. The context seems to
make it a natural inference that the phrase does not have a virgin in mind,
but a collective entity. Verse 1 here introduces v. 2 in this way: “Hear [pl.] this
word which I lift up over you [pl.]–a dirge, O house of Israel, (‫)ֵּבית יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬.”⁵¹
The two addresses in the plural and the collective entity “house of Israel” in
v. 1 create an expectation for a collective entity in v. 2 as well. Further, v. 2 is po-
etry, and seems to conform to the form of the dirge mentioned in v. 1.⁵² The fol-
lowing two Yahweh-oracles, one in v. 3 and one in vv. 4– 5, both are addressed to
“the house of Israel” also, and connect to the preceding v. 2 by the use of the
particle “for, because,” ‫ִּכי‬, in both cases. The oracle in vv. 4– 5 resumes the prac-
tice of imperative in the plural found in v. 1. Through these means vv. 1– 5 are knit
together, and from the text preceding and following v. 2 a reader is directed to-
wards a collective entity as a reference for ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬: it refers to the people or
the state of Israel. The text in Amos 5:1– 5 may have originated in several steps
and as individual sayings, but in the present form the pericope consistently has a
plural address.⁵³ And, in fact, exegetes have understood the expression in this
way, as the following examples from the commentaries will show.
Marvin A. Sweeney: “The dirge metaphorically portrays the nation Israel as a
young maiden who has fallen, and has no one to raise her up.”⁵⁴ Shalom M.
Paul: “The nation of Israel…is here personified as ’Maiden Israel’…for the first
time in the Bible.”⁵⁵ He further speaks of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as “the symbolic expres-
sion” used here and in Jer 18:13; 31:4.21, but used “literally” in Deut 22:19.⁵⁶ Fran-
cis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman: “Indeed the term ’virgin’ suggests that
 My translation.
 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Berit
Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2000), 233;
Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation With Notes and
Commentary, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 472 f.
 Especially conspicuous is ‫ לבית ישראל‬at the end of v. 3, and the apparatus of BHS suggests
moving it to the opening sentence in v. 3aα, thereby creating an almost complete parallel to v. 4a.
 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 233.
 Shalom M. Paul and Frank Moore Cross, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Her-
meneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 160.
 Ibid., 160, n. 9.
Israel is viewed as a bride or fiancée.”⁵⁷ J. Alberto Soggin: “The image refers to

the future of Israel, a future which envisages the certain death of the people.”⁵⁸
Hans Walter Wolff: “In Amos the ’lament’ (‫ )ִקי ָנה‬is applied for the first time to a
collective entity, in this case to the state of Israel…The mourning is especially
painful because it is for an Israel who was still a ’virgin.’”⁵⁹ Wilhelm Rudolph:
“…das Volk Israel, das Amos mit einer Jungfrau vergleicht…”⁶⁰ James L. Mays:
“The title ’virgin Israel’…personifies the nation as a maid…”⁶¹
This understanding is common today, and William Rainey Harper’s com-
ments on Amos 5:2 show that it has been so for some time: “- Virgin Israel] In
personifications the word ’virgin’ is used alone with no other name besides Isra-
el (Israel never occurs with ’daughter’ in this sense); … The explanations of the
phrase, used here for the first time [compared to Jer 18:13; 31:4.21], may be clas-
sified according as the principal thought is found in (1) the figure of chastity,
whether political chastity, i. e. as being free, unconquered, independent of
other powers [with reference to Gebhard 1737, Harenberg 1763, Hitzig 1838, Hen-
derson 1868, Keil 1866, Nowack 1897, Driver 1897] (cf. the use of ’daughter’ in the
same sense, and sometimes in combination with ’virgin,’ in connection with Idu-
mea, La. 422; Judah, La. 115 21-5; Egypt, Je. 4611.19-24; Babylon, Is. 471.5 Zc. 27; Jerusa-
lem, Is 3722; in La. 213 and Je. 1813 the reference is to Jerusalem before her capture),
or religious chastity, i. e. freedom from contaminating contact with other gods;
[reference to Osiander 1579] or (2) the idea of the delicacy and self-indulgence
of the people; [references to Calvin, and Pusey 1865] or (3) the idea of collectivity,
the feminine being used to convey this thought, – in this sense it has been taken
(a) as a designation of the people in general; [references to Vater 1810, Rosen-
müller 1886] (b) as a poetic term for state (cf. Is. 3722 Je. 1417 2 K. 1821); (c) as
the designation of a city, and usually the chief or capital city of the kingdom, Sa-
maria, or Jerusalem. [references to Schröder 1829, Ewald 1840] It here refers to
northern Israel [references to Mitchell 1893, Nowack 1897, George Adam Smith
 Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation With Notes and
Commentary, 474.
 J. Alberto Soggin and John Stephen Bowden, The Prophet Amos: A Translation and Com-
mentary (London: SCM Press, 1987), 82.
 Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and
Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 236.
 Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Kommentar zum Alten Testament, 13,2 (Güt-
ersloh: G. Mohn, 1971).
 James Luther Mays, Amos: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (London: S.C.M. Press,
1969), 85.
1896] (in Isaiah, Jerusalem), and is employed to mark the contrast between Isra-
el’s past and future condition.”⁶²
These scholars all understand the phrase “virgin of Israel” as referring to a
collective entity, the state or the people of Israel. The initial impression is thus
confirmed: we read about the people or state of Israel in Amos 5:1– 2. What
the exegetes do not provide, however, is a linguistic analysis of the expression
that might have underpinned their, perhaps intuitive, understanding of it.
“Virgin of Israel” is also found in Jer 18:13, that introduces the pericope
vv. 13 – 17, where the addressee is given in v. 15 as “my people.” The text is a con-
tinuation of the story with explanations in vv. 1– 12, which deals with the house
of Israel. On this background, one would understand ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as referring to
a collective. A few exegetical voices will confirm this impression: Georg Fischer:
“Diese Benennung [“Jungfrau Israel”] für das Volk (vgl. auch 2,32) sieht es unter
dem Aspekt eines unverheirateten Mädchens.”⁶³ Robert Carroll: “Virgin (epithet
of personification of the nation of Israel, cf. 31.4,21; Amos 5.2; of the people, 14.17;
of Egypt, 46.11; of Babylon, Isa 47.1;) Israel has behaved…”⁶⁴ William L. Holladay:
“maiden Israel.”⁶⁵ William McKane translates the phrase in Jer 18:13 as “The vir-
gin Israel” and comments, “The inexplicable character of Israel’s apostacy…”.⁶⁶
Jack Lundbom: “Here the term is ironic (Calvin: a reproach), as is ’virgin daugh-
ter of Egypt’ in 46:11.”⁶⁷ ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬therefore in this case may be a personifica-
tion in the sense that it would refer to the people of Israel. John J. Schmitt has
suggested that the expression here and in Jeremiah means a capital city.⁶⁸ This
proposal will be discussed in the next chapter.
The same impression is gained for Jer 31:4.21: according to exegetes the ex-
pression refers to Israel. Holladay translates 31:4 as: “maiden Israel,” and com-
 William Rainey Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC,
Edinburgh, 1905, 107. The references are of some interest: they show how widespread and old the
tradition is. The originally abbreviated names have here been written in full.
 Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1 – 25 (2005), 582.
 Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press for the Society for Old Testament Study,
1989), 376.
 William Lee Holladay and Paul D. Hanson, Jeremiah 1 : A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1 – 25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 519.
 William McKane, Jeremiah, ICC (1986), 428.
 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (New
York: Doubleday, 1999), 821.
 John J. Schmitt, “The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jere-
miah,” CBQ 53 (1991): 365 – 87.
ments on 31:21: “the personified ’virgin Israel’ is told to come back home.”⁶⁹
Lundbom comments: “personification of the nation.” “Here it was originally
Northern Israel, as in Amos 5:2.”⁷⁰ “As in 18:13, this metaphor denotes the rem-
nant of old Israel, or Judah…used here in an ironic sense…turnable daughter
[v. 22; ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, Jer 31:21, is parallel to ‫ַהַּבת ַהשּׁוֵֹבָבה‬, v. 22].”⁷¹ Commentators
find that Jeremiah uses the expression for a collective entity, as a personification.
Deut 22:19 is part of the law in 22:13 – 21, where the issue is a bride with
whom the bridegroom contends that he did not find any ‫ְּבתוִּלים‬, “evidence of
her virginity” (NJPS). If the contention is false, the accuser shall be punished,
“for the man has defamed a virgin in Israel” (NJPS), ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬. This “virgin
of Israel” is explicitly said to be a “woman,” ‫ִא ָשּׁה‬, in vv. 13 f, a “young girl,”
‫ ַנֲעָרה‬, in vv. 15 f.20 f, and a “daughter,” vv. 16 f. The whole context presupposes
that the reference of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬here is an individual inside Israel. The phrase
does not refer to any collective entity in this text, but it is found in a law about a
“woman,” “a young girl,” “a daughter” in Israel, and the expression would trans-
late as “an Israelite virgin,” or “a virgin in Israel” as in NJPS. KJV and NRSV have
“a virgin of Israel,” where the weight put on “Israel” in the text is rendered
slightly differently.⁷² The emphasis seems to lie on the last sentence in v. 21,
“Thus you will purge the evil from your midst,” and in this way keep “Israel”
purged. If the girl was not found to be a virgin at marriage, then she must
have “committed a ‫ ְנָבָלה ְּביִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, a disgraceful act in Israel by committing forni-
cation in her father’s house,” and this “disgraceful act in Israel” must be pun-
ished by stoning the girl to death, and thus “Israel” is purged of the evil in its
midst. The phrase ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬therefore gains its power from the nomen rectum,
describing the virgin as belonging to Israel. A husband who makes up false
charges against an Israelite virgin does not accuse any woman in the Ancient
Near East, but a member of the collective entity that must remain untainted
by any shameful act, in effect a member of Yahweh’s people. ‫ ְנָבָלה ְּביִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬de-
scribes acts that violate divine ordinances or the character of Yahweh’s people,
Gen 34,7; Josh 7,15; Judg 20:6; Jer 29:23.⁷³ The phrase ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬must refer to a
virgin belonging to the (holy) people of Israel.
 William Lee Holladay and Paul D Hanson, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26 – 52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 182. 194.
 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21 – 36 , 416.
 Ibid., 450.
 This understanding is taken for granted in Cynthia Edenburg, “Ideology and Social Context
of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex Laws (Deuternonomy 22:13 – 29),” JBL 128 (2009): 43 – 60.
 Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 113.
Thus, we have a construct phrase with two different meanings, one possibly
a personification of Israel, Amos 5:2; Jer 18:13; 31:4.21, and another referring to an
individual in Israel, Deut 22:19.⁷⁴ Our survey of the context in Amos 5 as well as
the exegetes’ reading of the instances both result in the understanding that the
pertinent phrase refers to Israel in most cases, and to a virgin in one case. None
of the texts mention a virgin whose name is Israel, as the grammars will have us
believe. The difference in understanding is the same as in the case of “daughter
of Zion.”
Presumably, the two different ways of thinking would be reflected in the lex-
icons. One would expect the lexicons to represent both sides, exegesis and gram-
mar, and present a balanced view of the evidence, perhaps also resolve the con-
tradictions. And, in fact, the differing viewpoints are mirrored, but the tension
between them is not resolved.
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, for instance, presents
under ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬the following: “2. personification (→ ‫[ ַּבת‬No.] 3): the virgin Israel
(not: the virgin of Israel) Dt 2219 Jr 1813 314.21 Am 52…” Looking up ‫ַּבת‬, number
3, we find “personification of a town, country (gen. epexegeticus, GK §128k)
‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬daughter Zion…” This description follows HAL closely.⁷⁵ At this point
we are again confused, as GKC § 128 k explains the use of gen[itivus] epexegeti-
cus, but it does not mention the idea of personification. The point in §128 k is that
nomen rectum provides the name of nomen regens. The idea of personification,
on the other hand, is found in GKC § 122 i. As we saw, some of the commentaries
use the idea of personification, for instance in connection with Am 5:2, but
HALOT does not refer to them when it speaks of “personification.” In other
words, HALOT explicitly mentions the most well-known grammar and refers to
its description of the phrase, without citing its description of the meaning of
the phrase (that the nomen rectum provides the name of the nomen regens);
for the meaning, personification, it is, tacitly, in line with a different paragraph
in GKC and with the exegetes. So we may conclude that this lexicon represents
both sides, but in such a way that contradictory viewpoints are introduced as if
they were in harmony with each other. The opposition between the two ideas is
not resolved, but glossed over.
If we turn to another recent dictionary for the understanding of ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬,
the 18. edition of Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, we find the nomen rectum descri-
bed as an epexegetical genitive for personification of names of countries and cit-
 For the second meaning, see Shalom M. Paul, “Virgin, Virginity,” Ecyclopaedia Judaica
(2007), 160 – 161.
 S. v. ‫ַּבת‬.
ies, with a reference to Meyer’s Hebrew grammar.⁷⁶ The understanding of the ex-
pression is the same as in HALOT, and the list of references for the expression is
also the same. Here, a different grammar is mentioned, but one with exactly the
same understanding of the expression as GKC. Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed-
ition, describes the expression as appositional genitive.⁷⁷
These two recent dictionaries reveal the same understanding: the expression
is a personification, and to be categorized along lines found in the grammars of
GKC and of Meyer. A third modern dictionary, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew has
the following approach: the expression is translated as “young woman (of) Israel
i. e. Israel itself,” with reference to Jer 18:13; 31:4.21; Amos 5:2. This is in line with
the commentaries, and DCH does not refer to any grammar on this point.
BDB presents under number 3 the expressions with name of city, land, or
people, and continues “poet. personif. of that city or inhabitants, etc.”⁷⁸
Summing up, so far: According to the grammatical tradition from Gesenius,
‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬is an expression providing the name “Israel” for a certain virgin, but
according to the exegetes the phrase refers to Israel as a collective entity. A simi-
lar difference is found for the understanding of ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. The dictionaries mostly
sympathize with the exegetes, but two of them refer to grammars that propose
a different understanding. So, as the dictionaries do not provide a resolution
of the dispute, we are still faced with the question: who are on the track of under-
standing the phrases in the most appropriate way, the commentators or the
grammarians?
Before attempting an answer, I have to admit that there is more here that
confuses me. HALOT and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18th edition, provide us
with the complete list of occurrences of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬in the HB, Jer 18:13;
31:4.21; Am 5:2; Deut 22:19, but surely these occurrences cannot all be personifi-
cations?⁷⁹ We have looked at these texts, and can ascertain that the information
in HALOT and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18th edition, is misleading in the case
of Deut 22:19. We may have personification of Israel in the other texts, but not
here. DCH makes a distinction between Deut 22:19 and the other instances in
the use of the expression, and this is warranted. Deut 22:19 is by DCH considered
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Test-
ament, 18. Aufl. (Berlin, New York: Springer, 1987), vol. 2, 186, s.v. ‫ ;ְּבתוָּלה‬Rudolf Meyer, He-
bräische Grammatik, § 97, 4c.
 S . v. ‫ ַּבת‬part 5, 121.
 Francis Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix
Containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on the Lexixon of William Gesenius (Oxford: Clarendon,
1979), 123.
 The occurrences in the Qumran literature, 4QOrda 28 11QT 6515, are not relevant here.
a different case, to be translated a virgin of Israel. ⁸⁰ The importance of the con-

text for understanding a word or a phrase is also here demonstrated. On the face
of it, the phrase is the same in the five cases where it occurs, but the context
rules against reading it in the same way. Morphologically and grammatically,
the phrase looks the same in all instances, but semantically it cannot have the
same meaning in all these instances. One may ponder what historically has hap-
pened in this process, whether the instance with the meaning referring to an in-
dividual was earlier than the instances with a meaning referring to Israel, or
whether the uses came into existence independently of each other. The net result
is that we have one series of word forms, a construct phrase, with two different
meanings. The context makes it impossible to assume the same meaning in all
instances.
If personification is accepted in those other instances, in line with these dic-
tionaries’ understanding of ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, what about the expressions where two per-
sonifications occur together? We have such an expression, according to
HALOT, in the case of ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬, Isa 37:22 // 2 Kgs 19:21; Lam 2:13, translated
as “the virgin daughter Zion.” The translation is ambiguous, as an adjectival use
of “virgin” may have several functions, for instance as a comparison or an adjec-
tive. As the entries under ‫ַּבת‬, number 3, and under ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬, number 2, are both
headed “personification” and the latter refers to the former, we end up with a
double personification in the case of the composite expression. The translation
offered by HALOT may therefore be an expression of a double personification.
The semantics here are of some consequence, since there exist the same double
construct state expressions with the following nomina recta: ‫ִצדוֹן‬, Isa 23:12, ‫ָּבֶבל‬,
Isa 47:1, ‫ִמְצַריִם‬, Jer 46:11, ‫ ְיהוָּדה‬, Lam 1:15, and ‫ַעִּמי‬, Jer 14:17. Gesenius’ Handwörter-
buch, 18th edition, in its treatment of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬also uses the term personifi-
cation and refers the reader to the entry under ‫ַּבת‬, namely part 11, where we
find the nomen rectum described as an epexegetical genitive for personification
of names of countries and cities. Consequently, we also here have a double per-
sonification, but this dictionary translates the expression ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬with an
adjective and a noun, “jungfräuliche Tochter Zion,” indicating that the first
noun has the meaning of an adjective that describes the next noun. The idea
of personification is therefore not carried through, but the understanding is rath-
er that of a description followed by a personification. The Handwörterbuch pro-
vides the same reference to Meyer’s grammar as in the case of ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬.⁸¹
 David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1993), vol. 2, 290, s.v. ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬.
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Test-
ament, s. v. ‫ַּבת‬, and the reference is to Meyer’s Grammatik § 97, 4c.
DCH translates the expression ‫“ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬young woman (of the) daughter of
Zion (unless app., young woman, daughter of Zion).” The other expressions
with ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬are commented upon and translated in a similar way by DCH.
This corresponds to GKC’s treatment of the expression in § 130, where it is clas-
sified under the description “The construct state…is frequently employed in
rapid narrative as a connecting form, even apart from the genitive relation.”⁸²
It can be “[c]onnected with a following word in apposition; certainly so in
such cases as ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬the virgin, the daughter of Zion.”⁸³ This means that
‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬in this expression is not a proper nomen regens, only an apposition to
the following expression. In a next remark, GKC mentions another possibility,
namely that there is “a real genitive relation” (to use the parlance of GKC; I
will return to this parlance later), “provisionally left in suspenso,” as it is inter-
rupted by the intervening word, in this case ‫ַּבת‬.⁸⁴
One thing is the syntactical understanding of such expressions as consisting
of a construct form “employed in rapid narrative as a connecting form” followed
by an apposition and ending with a noun, or as a proper nomen regens, inter-
rupted by an intervening word, to a nomen rectum; another is the semantic un-
derstanding of them. Does it make sense to have two personifications in expres-
sions of the type ‫ ?ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬Or, do we here have a personification combined
with a different phenomenon? Another scholar, Paul, combines the idea of per-
sonification with that of explicative genitive, like HALOT and Gesenius’ Hand-
wörterbuch, 18. edition, but also includes a description of the sense of the per-
sonification: “As a figure of purity and moral worth, betulah, ’maid,’ is used
to personify countries and peoples in poetry (often construed with bat, ’daugh-
ter,’ ’woman’); e. g. Lamentations 2:13, betulat bat Z.iyyon, ’fair, maiden Zion’–the
genitives being explicative (as in nehar Perat, ’River Euphrates’).”⁸⁵ A figurative
understanding is thus combined with personification, and with one of the tradi-
tional examples of expressions where nomen rectum provides the name. On the
basis of what Paul describes as a figurative use here, one is inclined to suppose
that ‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬in the expression would either be a word used figuratively or a person-
ification, and to combine them must be considered to apply two senses to the
word at one time. None of the two senses seems to be construed like phrases
of the type nehar Perat. Nehar in the latter expression is neither a figurative ex-
 GKC § 130 a, 421.

 GKC § 130 e, 422. The German text makes clear that it is supposed that in this phrase the
word ‫ ַּבת‬is an apposition: “[the construct form is used] in Anlehnung an eine nachfolg. Ap-
position.”
 GKC § 130 f, 421.
 Shalom M. Paul, “Virgin, Virginity”, 161.
pression nor a personification; it means “river.” This quotation from Encyclope-

dia Judaica may serve as an example of the confusion that reigns. One notion
from the grammatical tradition is combined with an opposing view: that
which is found in the commentaries. These notions not only come from different
traditions, but lead to different exegetical results, and these differences have to
be respected.
HALOT’s translation of the expression ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as “the virgin Israel (not:
the virgin of Israel)” comes from Gesenius’ grammar. Cowley’s translation “the
virgin Israel (not of Israel)” reflects the German version of Gesenius’ grammar,
“die Jungfrau Israel (nicht Israels!).”⁸⁶ It seems that Gesenius wanted to say
that the expression does not denote the one and only virgin in Israel, but rather
a virgin called Israel, or Israel called a virgin. There is therefore ambiguity in Ge-
senius’ grammar: on one hand, the expression ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬is classified with
other expressions where nomen rectum provides the name, as in the case of
‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬and ‫ֶאֶרץ־ְּכ ָנַען‬, on the other hand, the translation is open towards an un-
derstanding where Israel is called a virgin. The grammar is not clear on this
point, and it seems that this lack of clarity has led subsequent grammarians
to overlook the possibility chosen by the exegetes, and simply repeat the series
of seemingly similar expressions, understood in the way that nomen rectum pro-
vides the name of the phenomenon referred to by nomen regens. But either the
classification is correct, and the translation must accord with it, or the transla-
tion is right and the classification must be adjusted.
As noted, grammarians describe ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬and ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as cases where the
last word (the “genitive”) “specifies the proper noun” for “a general category or
class denoted by the construct.”⁸⁷ With the emphasis on the nomen rectum, it is
only natural that the classifications came out as here referred. Still, in hindsight,
it was unfortunate that GKC classified “virgin of Israel” with the other two exam-
ples “river Euphrates” and “land of Canaan,” and perhaps led Joüon to include
also ‫ ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬in the group, because it also has a nomen rectum with a geograph-
ical name.
GKC presents the expressions ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ַּבת ָּבֶבל‬as “collective poetical per-
sonifications of the people,” and ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוִֹן‬as an example of the construct
state connected with a following word in apposition, used in rapid narrative
as a connecting form, and therefore translated “the virgin, the daughter of
Zion.”⁸⁸ This appositional use of the construct state is part of its “wider use,”
 § 128 k; note that the exclamation mark in the German version is not found in the English.
 Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 12.
 GKC §§ 122 i, 392, and 130 e, 422.
and does not therefore belong to the core use of the construct state. Similarly, A.
B. Davidson: “A noun in appos. with a cons. is sometimes attracted into con-
struction… Is 37.22 (‫ )ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוִֹן‬the virgin, the daughter of Zion.”⁸⁹ The idea
that “virgin” here is in apposition to “daughter” is also found as one of the pos-
sible readings in DCH, and HALOT and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18th edition,
translate the expression as “virgin daughter Zion” and “jungfräuliche Tochter
Zion”; translations that indicate that these dictionaries reason similarly in the
case of the first word.
The understanding found in these grammars is therefore that the two short
expressions are examples where nomen rectum provides the name for the entity
mentioned in nomen regens, and the longer expression has an added apposition
to the shorter expressions. The explanation that the construct words are in appo-
sition to each other, accords with languages that use cases, where the apposi-
tional word must have the same case as the word to which it is an apposition.
If the thinking is based on genitives, such an idea is not unexpected.
Joseph Blenkinsopp’s commentary on Isaiah 1:8 characterizes ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as “ap-
positional genitive” and translates it “daughter Zion.”⁹⁰ Duhm also speaks of ap-
positional use of the construct state, “whereby Zion poetically is described as a
young woman.”⁹¹ Both commentaries consider ‫ ַּבת‬to be a word in apposition to
‫ִציּוֹן‬. Isa 1:8 speaks of Zion, and ‫ ַּבת‬is a “poetic” description of the city. So far, it is
possible to follow Duhm, but he adds a rather surprising comment: “compare
the construction ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬, the river Euphrates.”⁹² If taken to signify a full parity
between the two expressions, the comparison is wrong, as it implies that
“river” is a poetic description of the name “Euphrates.” If the similarity is re-
stricted to the use of the first word in the Hebrew expression, nomen regens,
as an apposition to nomen rectum, this grammatical description may apply in
both cases without creating confusion about the understanding of them. The
basis for juxtaposing ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬with ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬could also be that nomen rectum in
both cases is a geographical name. But this juxtaposition is built on a superficial
similarity. Both grammarians and commentators tend to create categories ac-
cording to criteria that are too superficial.
 A. B. Davidson, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar: With Progressive Exercises in Reading,

Writing and Pointing, 38 f.
 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1 – 39 : A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary
(New York: Doubleday, 2000), 183.
 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 27: “Zu dem appositonellen Gebrauch des stat. constr. in
‫ּבת ציון‬, womit poetisch Zion als junges Weib bezeichnet wird, vgl. die Verbindung ‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬, der
Fluss Euphrat.”
 Ibid.
As we have seen from the texts with “virgin Israel” it is impossible in any
and all cases to read the absolute word as providing the name of the construct
word in that expression. The same goes for “daughter Zion,” as will be evident
from the material. With this insight the understanding of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬in the
grammars just mentioned also must be considered untenable. If there is no
daughter called Zion, then there can be no virgin daughter called Zion either.
‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬in the expression may still be an apposition to the following expression,
but its understanding depends on the understanding of the rest of the expres-
sion. What is here said about ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬will be relevant for the
other expressions with ‫ ַּבת‬and with ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬.
The problem in the grammars is that the thinking is steered by the grammar
created on the basis of genitives and/or adjectives, cf. this formula: “In the struc-
ture construct plus genitive, the genitive modifies the construct in some way, fre-
quently as some sort of attributive adjective.”⁹³ Therefore, grammars regularly
classify the expressions ‫ְּבתוַּלת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬, ‫ ַּבת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬and ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬on the basis of
the nomen rectum, and possible understandings which start from the construct
word or lets this word be of an interest equal to the absolute state word are not
seen. The typical thinking is easily visible in such statements as this: “The se-
quence of the two constituents is typical of Hebrew syntax in that the qualified
precedes the qualifyer…”⁹⁴ Is this conceivable in the case of ‫ ?ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬Is
“daughter” qualified by “Zion,” and this Zion-ish daughter qualifies the “virgin”?
Such a systematization does not make the three types of expressions that are our
concern here into readable expressions. When genitive or adjective are the start-
ing points for the understanding of these expressions, we do not arrive at read-
able text–at least there are cases that resist this thinking.
If we look in the grammars for other categories than an appositional genitive
where the nomen rectum provides the name of the nomen regens, we will see
that there are no categories in the grammars that enable us to understand
these expressions in a sensible way. GKC might have located the expressions
in the category of “improper annexion,”⁹⁵ but the grammar does not present
them there, and for good reasons. The way this category is described, it cannot
contain such expressions as the ones under discussion.
The idea in the Hebrew language could be that by inflecting the first word(s)
in the chain it opens up the expression for the following words. A construct state
word calls for something more, it asks for a following, and the last word of the
 Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 2.2., 8 – 13, quotation
from 8.
 Joüon-Muraoka § 129 a, 435.
 GKC, § 128 x, 418 f.
chain completes the expression. If ownership, it names the owner, if a name, it

provides the name, if a quality, it tells to whom the quality belongs. By taking
the expression down to an ending, a grounding, the uninflected word is the
word that provides the finale of the preceding one(s) that function as an over-
ture. There are scholars who think in this direction.
J. Weingreen puts the emphasis on the construct word: “…it should be recog-
nized that the noun in the construct state is the main idea and that the second
noun (in the genitive) has a qualifying effect upon it, similar to that of an adjec-
tive upon the noun with which it is associated.”⁹⁶ This can be supported by the
many examples where the focus is on the nomen regens of the phrase. In Gen 1
we may think of ‫ַח ַיּת ָהָאֶרץ‬, v. 25. 30, ִ ‫ ְּד ַגת ַה ָיּם‬,‫עוֹף ַה ָשַּׁמיִם‬, v. 26, and in Gen 2 there
are ‫ ֵע ֶשׂב ַה ָּשֶׂדה‬and ‫ ִשׂיַח ַה ָּשֶׂדה‬, v. 5. In Gen 1 the point is that God creates the ani-
mals, the birds, and the fish, not that he does something to the earth, the heav-
ens and the sea. Gen 2 says that there were no plants nor herbs, but the field was
there.
So, does ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬refer to a virgin or to Israel in a collective sense? As a
conclusion of the question of reference, we can state that it is not possible that
all three standard expressions (‫ ְנַהר־ ְפָּרת‬, ‫ֶאֶרץ־ְּכ ָנַען‬, and ‫ )ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬have as the
nomen rectum a place name and as nomen regens a noun denoting a (for in-
stance, geographical) phenomenon. This fits two of them well: among all the
countries we speak of Canaan, of all the rivers we mention Euphrates. But to fol-
low the logic and assume that of all the virgins on earth we are dealing with Is-
rael, makes no sense. One might think that Gesenius was led by the assumption
that “Israel” here is a name like “Canaan” and “Euphrates,” and he had no other
clear category in § 128 in which to locate “virgin Israel.” “Israel” in the expres-
sion was not the genus or the species, nor was it the measure, weight, extent,
number of something, and certainly not the material of the virgin. What might
have been considered is the last one on his list in § 128, the attribute, but the
expression is not located there. In his understanding of this last category of con-
struct state expressions, he focusses on the nomen rectum, and his examples,
when translated, are of this type: “an everlasting possession,” “a precious
stone,” “the holy garments” and so on. Often, such expressions are used
where other languages would use an adjective, as in the translations. Gesenius
has no category for the case that the nomen regens might provide the character
of the nomen rectum. Such cases would have been close to the “improper annex-
ion,” treated in § 128, x.
 J. Weingreen, “The Construct-Genitive Relation in Hebrew Syntax,” VT 4 (1954), 50 – 51.

What is here said about “virgin (of) Israel” applies to “daughter (of) Zion” as
well: there was no category for this expression. The aporia is felt even more
strongly in the case of expressions of the type ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬. Scholars struggle
to find a proper description and an adequate translation of these expressions.
It seems that it is necessary to study once more “daughter (of) Zion” and
“virgin (of) Israel.” The grammars have an inadequate description of these
phrases, and another look at the possibilities for understanding such construct
state expressions would have as its aim to find an appropriate classification and
understanding of them.
Also the commentaries reveal a need for a renewed study of these phrases.
They may be on the right track in the general understanding of such expressions,
but vary considerably in the vocabulary when it comes to describing the type of
figurative language “virgin (of) Israel” may contain. They see it as figurative
speech: a metaphor, a personification, an image, a symbol, or they consider it
a comparison; they move in different directions in the description of the nature
of the expression. Also, it is difficult to find in these works a theoretical basis for
the use of this vocabulary. Metaphor has been extensively discussed by scholars,
and the term “metaphor” is used in a wide variety of ways. One would be inter-
ested to find a more precise understanding of this and other terms employed
here.
And here the issue of translation comes in. The NRSV rendering of Amos 5:2
uses the expression “maiden Israel” instead of the more traditional “virgin of Is-
rael.” This rests upon discussions around the figurative language possibly em-
ployed by the Hebrew text here, and the translators may have good reasons
for their choice of words. The emotions evoked by “maiden Israel” are not the
same as those created by “virgin of Israel,” and, accordingly, we are in the
area of emotional connotations of the words. Also, “daughter of Zion” has
been subject to similar analysis and discussion, as some of the preceding quo-
tations reveal. From the King James Version on, we are used to “daughter of
Zion,” but in more recent translations the phrase is rendered by “daughter
Zion,” “maiden Zion,” or by other expressions, and this shift in translation
may need justification. Behind this shift lies a discussion about the understand-
ing of the Hebrew (and Greek) phrases–what they really mean in the original lan-
guages and how this meaning is best transferred into modern English and other
languages. This has led to a new trend in the translations, to render the expres-
sion “Maiden Zion” and similarly, but there is also an ongoing discussion on the
grammatical classification and understanding of the expression, as we will see
later.
On the basis of the preceding overview of scholarly contributions, in order to
find out for example to whom the expression “virgin (of) Israel” refers, and
which emotions were originally evoked by “daughter (of) Zion,” we have in front
of us at least the following questions.
First, how do we classify these expressions grammatically? This means a re-
newed study of the morphological, syntactical and semantic aspects of relevant
construct expressions with ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬and ‫ַּבת‬. We are dealing with classification ac-
cording to possible meanings, which involves the semantics of the expressions,
but this must be seen together with the morphological and syntactical aspects.
Especially, the traditional categories of appositional genitive and improper an-
nexion deserve our attention.
Then, how are we to evaluate the possible figurative language of the first
word in these construct chains? We have seen suggestions of personification,
metaphor, image, symbol, or a comparison. This leads us into a field where
grammar and rhetorics meet, perhaps from different angles, but they share a
field of figurative language.
Thirdly, the lists of expressions in the grammars sometimes include “the
worm of Jacob,” Isa 41:14, so we have to look at this expression and, in general,
at the possibility for cases similar to the ones discussed in this chapter.
Fourthly, there is the understanding of the construct state and its uses.
These questions will direct the following investigation. The next chapter will
look at the research done on the phrase ‫ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬, and the following chapter is de-
voted to the grammar and semantics of the construct state in a wider Semitic
context.
Chapter 3 “Daughter (of) Zion” in Recent
Research
In 1972 Aloysius Fitzgerald published a now famous article in which he investi-
gated the mythological background for capital cities presented as a royal female
figures, and for false worship presented as adultery.⁹⁷ The state of the question
before his investigation is described in this way: that capitals are presented as
females is usually considered a case of personification, and the biblical evalua-
tion of false worship as adultery is explained by the promiscuous character of
Canaanite fertility cults. Fitzgerald wants to show that there is a connection be-
tween the two biblical concepts, and instead of the two commonly held hypoth-
eses he proposes one: “in the W[est]S[emitic] area capital cities were regarded as
goddesses who were married to the patron god of the city.”⁹⁸ This thesis would
explain both of the biblical notions. The evidence for this thesis is constituted by
titles that were used both for goddesses, cities, and queens, namely rbt, btwlt /
bt, ’m, and qdšh.
The general backdrop for his thesis is that in Semitic religions male gods
have female consorts. “In the W[est] S[emitic] area…once the city (fem.) becomes
a goddess, the marriage connection with the patron god of the city would imme-
diately suggest itself.”⁹⁹ Fitzgerald mentions some cases where names of cities
are the feminine form of names for male deities, for example Baalah, Josh
15:9, a feminine form of Baal. The Israelite theologians adapted this system in
the way that they spoke of God as “father,” “while presenting Yahweh as beyond
the human, beyond the sexual.”¹⁰⁰ The concept of capital cities as wives of the
patron deity of the city is adopted “for purely literary purposes.”¹⁰¹ Application
of this imagery is “limited to a situation in which the city is presented as having
suffered or about to suffer a disaster.”¹⁰²
Fitzgerald’s evidence for his thesis is presented in the form of phrases found
on coins, in inscriptions and in texts. He interprets the phrases as containing ti-
tles–titles for goddesses, cities, and queens. In the case of rbt, this word as a title
is found with the goddesses Athirat, Šapš, and Tinnit in the Ugaritic material,
possibly also with the Queen of Byblos in an inscription and in the Amarna let-
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background.”

 Ibid., 405.
 Ibid., 415.
 Ibid., 416.
 Ibid.
 Ibid.
Chapter 3 “Daughter (of) Zion” in Recent Research 35
ters, and with Tehom in Isa 51:10. As titles for cities it is used with Rabba of the
Amonnites, Deut 3:11; Josh 13:25, in Sidon Rabbah, Josh 11:8; 19:28, with udm and
ḫbr in the Ugaritic material, as referring to Jerusalem in Lam 1:1 (rbty, twice), and
with ṣur-ri in the Amarna tables. One instance where the word is used as a title
for a queen is found in the Ugaritic material.
The evidence for btwlt / bt as title for a goddess is the single case of btlt ‘nt
from Ugarit, and as title for a city there are the two cases btwlt bt ṣywn, Isa 37:22,
and btwlt bt bbl, Isa 47:1. “Sensewise everyone recognizes that btwlt bt ṣywn and
the like simply have to mean ’virgin, daughter, Sion/etc.’ (three words in appo-
sition)…”¹⁰³ Such expressions are no appositional genitive, since “for such a cat-
egory the evidence apart from the above phrase is virtually nonexistent.”¹⁰⁴ His
grammatical explanation is that the expressions were appositional, but hardly
construct phrases; the forms could be early absolute forms that had survived.
In the case of ’m, it is a title for the goddesses Tinnit and Athirat and occurs
in two personal names, all Ugaritic material. As a title for cities Fitzgerald addu-
ces the phrase where Abel-beth-maacah is termed “a city and a mother in Isra-
el,” 2 Sam 20:19, and two Greek coins from Phoenicia where Tyre and l’dk’ are
described as “mothers.” Qdšh is found as a title for a goddess used in a personal
name in Ugarit, and in the expression “the holy gods of Byblos.” As concerns city
names, it is used on two coins with Byblos and Jerusalem.
Coins with the text tychē poleōs and images of a woman wearing a turreted
or walled crown are interpreted as expressions of “a goddess who personifies the
city and is its protectress.”¹⁰⁵ “The city is [not] a goddess distinct from the prin-
cipal patron goddess of the city…the city itself as a goddess is a combination of
the divine city and its divine patroness.”¹⁰⁶
Against this theory one may adduce the material discussed by Marion
Meyer.¹⁰⁷ She finds that the oldest cases of a city-tyche are found on coins
from the second century b.c.e. “If one can expect from the depiction of a city-
tyche that it visually shows the two parts, city and tyche, then this picture is a
candidate for such a depiction.”¹⁰⁸
 Ibid., 409.

 Ibid.
 Ibid., 413.
 Ibid.
 Marion Meyer, “Wunschbilder. Zu bildlichen Darstellungen abstrakter Personifikationen
des guten Lebens,” in Die Welt der Götterbilder (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007).
 “Wenn man von Darstellungen einer Stadttyche erwarten darf, dass sie die beiden Be-
standteile Stadt und Tyche bildlich veranschaulicht, dann wäre dieses Bild eine Kandidatin für
eine solche Darstellung” Marion Meyer, “Wunschbilder.”, 199.
36 Chapter 3 “Daughter (of) Zion” in Recent Research
As will be seen from the above, Fitzgerald’s only case of a title applied to
Jerusalem in the HB is rbt in Lam 1:1, and his understanding of this verse is cer-
tainly attractive, but generally not endorsed by the commentaries.¹⁰⁹ The mate-
rial for btwlt / bt is meagre, with no cases where a goddess is called bt in the
West Semitic material. John J. Schmitt has noted that “none of the goddesses
who appear in the Hebrew Bible is ever called bat.”¹¹⁰ We may add that no god-
desses outside the HB receives this title, either. Even more importantly, Fitzger-
ald presents no cases where btwlt or bt are titles for capital cities outside the HB.
Only the HB material is a possible candidate for this usage. In addition, Fitzger-
ald obtains his conclusion because he fuses the two words into one assumed
title, visible in the combination “btwlt / bt.” He then can present the evidence
as one category: btlt ‘nt from Ugarit, btwlt bt ṣywn, Isa 37:22, and btwlt bt bbl,
Isa 47:1. On the basis of this construed category, he then in a later article can
state that “it is immediately possible to forego discussion of the largest group
of examples, the group that involves the prefixing of the title to the name of a
capital city….and a phrase like bt ṣywn just simply has to be interpreted “daugh-
ter/capital Zion.”¹¹¹ The application of btlt to Anat as a female consort of a god in
Ugarit, is understandable as a semantic extension of the sense of the word. A
similar extended sense for bt is not found, and in fact it is not natural to expect
such an extension, since bt is a term inside a word field of family terms where it
has as a sense component a “subsequent generation” in relation to a mother
and/or father. All things considered, though, it would be fair to give Fitzgerald’s
thesis on this point a try, by checking whether there is for bt a sense component
of sexual relation or marital bond to another member in the family. This will be
done in chapter 5.
Another weakness in Fitzgerald’s thesis is the assumption that his sample of
words is used as titles. He discusses other readings of the material, but not with
the necessary awareness to the possibility that the usage may vary according to
context. There is no real substantiation of the assumption that the texts he
quotes all contain titles.
On the basis of the 1972-article Fitzgerald in 1975 discussed ‫ ַּבת‬and ‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬as
titles for capital cities.¹¹² He includes here expressions with ‫ ַּבת‬in the plural, and
phrases with ‫ַעִּמי‬. The basic assumption is the same as in the previous article: “In
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary, 45.

 John J. Schmitt, “The City as Woman in Isaiah 1– 39,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of
Isaiah, ed. Broyles and Evans, 97– 98.
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities,” CBQ 37 (1975): 167– 83,
170 – 171.
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities.”
the Canaanite area, capital cites were regarded as goddesses married to the pa-
tron god of the city. For this reason capital cities could be given the title bt or
btwlt. More specifically the titles could be applied to Jerusalem…”¹¹³ Also in
this article Fitzgerald works with two categories for understanding these expres-
sions. Either, they are personifications, as visible in his translation “the daugh-
ter, my people,” and in his rendering of the common understanding: “bt in the
phrase bt ’my is regarded as a title of ’my personified as a lady.”¹¹⁴ Or, and this is
his own alternative to this, they are to be interpreted as a title for a capital city,
“daughter/capital of my people,” just as he understands ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬as “daughter/
capital Zion.”¹¹⁵ He is aware that the category of construct phrase is different
in the two understandings. In the former case the construct phrase would be ap-
positional, and in the latter case it would be relational, but assumes that such
variation is possible.¹¹⁶
The expressions with ‫ ַּבת‬or ‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬attached to ‫ ַעִּמי‬or to a noun denoting a
country are explained in this way: Five of the expressions with ‫ ַעִּמי‬are under-
stood as referring to the capital city, Jerusalem, the other eight are considered
textually problematic. No case should be interpreted as “the daughter, my peo-
ple.”¹¹⁷ As titles for countries, these expressions may refer to the capital of the
country or to the country itself, which then is seen as the wife of the god. The
only exception is Jer 18:13, where ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬refers to people. This phrase orig-
inally was a designation for the northern kingdom.¹¹⁸ It was taken over as a fro-
zen expression from Am 5:2; Jer 31:4.21, but used with a different referent: Jeru-
salemites and Judeans. Most of the cases where ‫ ַּבת‬is found in the plural in front
of a geographical name refer to capitals, for example of the Philistines, Ezek
16:27.57, or of the Chaldeans, Isa 47:1.
In the 1975 article Fitzgerald is more open than in 1972 to the possibility that
construct phrases can be appositional, but he defends his position on the under-
standing of the phrases as titles. He realizes now, however, that the expressions
may be construct phrases; but his main point still is that ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬is an apposition-
al phrase, fixed in poetry without an otherwise expected article. In the discus-
sion of grammar he opts for an objective genitive in the cases “daughter/capital
(who rule over) the Chaldeans,” Isa 47:1, or “daughter/capital (who rule over) my
 Ibid., 182.

 Ibid., 174. 172.
 Ibid., 172. 171.
 Ibid., 180.
 Ibid., 173.
 Ibid., 179.
people,” Jer 6:26. Mostly, the expressions are appositions, understood as con-
struct phrases or simply as appositions.¹¹⁹
The theory will be checked in chapter 5 through a semantic analysis of the
lexemes used.
A variant on this theory is presented by Mark. E. Biddle: “City and principal
deity were so integrally related that the deification of the city itself, made pos-
sible perhaps by the grammatical structures of W[est]S[emitic] languages, pre-
sented a logical extension and simplification of the relationship.”¹²⁰ This presup-
poses that grammatical gender was taken to express, in this case, a female char-
acter, which is possible, but there is fluidity in the use of grammatical gender in
biblical Hebrew.¹²¹
Fitzgerald’s thesis has been endorsed by scholars, but there has also been
criticism.¹²² Of the most important counter-arguments is that he provides no
cases where bt is used as a title for a city or a goddess apart from ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, and
this is the phrase for which he would like to prove his case. Another problem
is the lack of linguistic argumentation for his thesis. If the expressions are con-
struct phrases, other possibilities for the understanding open up. His thinking is
steered by the status quaestionis as he perceives it at the time of his writing the
articles. The articles suffer from the weakness of investigating the material on the
basis of a certain thesis. A lingustic, synchronic reading in the first place would
give more prominence to the actual material and, eventually, invite historical ex-
planations of the background from this perspective.
The point of “daughter Zion,” in Fitzgerald’s model, would be Jerusalem as a
capital city. Then there would also be a special attachment of Jerusalem to Can-
aan or Canaanite thinking. This cannot be substantiated from the use of the ex-
pressions in the texts.
As mentioned in the résumés of the two articles, Fitzgerald only had on the
table the idea of personification of cities as the background for his understand-
ing of the material, and against this theory he suggested to understand the evi-
dence as titles coming from a way of thinking where cities were considered mar-
 Ibid., 180.

 Mark E. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personifi-
cation of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective :
Scripture in Context (Lewiston, N.Y: E. Mellen Press, 1991), 181.
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §134; § 134 g on the subject of
cities; Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer Hebräischen Syntax, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1977), 76 – 77.
 Peggy Day, The Personification of Cities as Female in the Hebrew Bible: The Thesis of
Aloysius Fitzgerald, F. S. C., Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective,
Reading From This Place (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
ried to a god. At the time when he published his first article there existed another
proposal for the understanding of ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and related phrases. It is surprising that
Fitzgerald in neither of the articles discusses this proposal, which was presented
in an article published in 1965.
The relevant study was written by William F. Stinespring, who contends that
the expression ‫“ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬refers to Zion herself, not to any daughter of Zion.”¹²³ He
then looks at “the Hebrew word bath to see if it has some other meaning besides
’daughter’.” After looking at the meanings “inhabitants” of Cruden’s Concord-
ance and “people” of KBL he tries out the meaning “people” and states that
this sense does not fit Ps 9:15 (“the gates of daughter Zion”) or Lam 2:8 (“the
wall of daughter Zion”). If applied to the phrase bath-‘ammi it “makes no
sense at all”: “the people of my people” or “the inhabitants of my people.”
BDB and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed., provide him with the terms “person-
ification” and “appositional genitive,” which will “lead to correct understanding
and correct translation.” The grammar of GKC is found partly correct and partly
inconsistent, as § 128 k omits the word “of” in the translation of the phrase as
“the virgin Israel,” but § 122 i “in direct contradiction” translates the phrases
mentioned there as “the daughter of Babylon” and “the daughter of Zion.” Stine-
spring concludes that bath in Hebrew “sometimes means ’girl’ or ’maiden’ like
bint in Arabic…” “The connotation of the phrase is usually tender pity, as in
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations.” This understanding also fits ‫ ַּבת־ַעִּמי‬in Jer
8:19: “the maiden, my people,” or “’my darling people,’ ’my beloved nation,’
or ’my unfortunate folk,’ keeping in mind that thus prefixing the word bath in
Hebrew gives connotations of affection and/or misfortune or both; and some-
times a threat is indicated as in the reference to Babylon and Egypt.” Stinespring
finds that among the Bible translations Moffatt’s translation differs from the oth-
ers, and offers “maiden Sion” or “Sion the maiden” and similar translations. The
Moffatt translation also says “’my lady Egypt,’ a good translation, connoting
mockery.”¹²⁴ Stinespring saw a connection to other phrases with ‫ ַּבת‬and to sim-
ilar expressions, like ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ַּבֲעַלת־אוֹב‬, ‫ ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים‬and ‫ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬. He concludes his
study with some brief remarks on the appositional genitive with shenath, “year.”
Stinespring’s formulations of the connotations attached to the expressions,
“affection and/or misfortune or both,” are paralleled by Fitzgerald: “Israelite
theologians and poets are able to use the Canaanite notion of capital cities as
wives of the patron deity of the city… [and this] is limited to a situation in
 William Franklin Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion”; quotations in the following from
133 – 137.
 Ibid., 139.
which the city is presented as having suffered or about to suffer a disaster. What
the writers are attempting here is to make clear the dimensions of the disaster …
violence done to a delicate young mother is violence indeed.”¹²⁵ “The poet is also
endeavoring to arouse the sympathy of his audience for the one so character-
ized.”¹²⁶ Fitzgerald comes close to Stinespring’s understanding without referring
to it.
Stinespring’s idea is not extensively argued, and it lacks linguistic substan-
tiation and parlance, but it makes good common sense. He does not explain how
he understands personification, but even though he refers to the tradition from
GKC mentioned above, one has a feeling that a different understanding of per-
sonification is present in his thinking. I will return to this topic in a special sec-
tion of the present chapter. In the actual translations of the expressions Stine-
spring understands the nomina regentia as figurative language, although he
does not use technical terms to this effect. His understanding was also presented
in 1976 in the supplementary volume of the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
and here he introduced the description of “daughter of Zion” as “a term of affec-
tion.”¹²⁷ According to Michael H. Floyd, Stinespring’s article has influenced
scholars and Bible translations made after its appearance, for example the
NAB, the JPS Tanak and the NRSV. ¹²⁸ “Stinespring’s argument makes a strong
first impression because it is stated with rhetorical vigor–which perhaps ex-
plains its wide influence.”¹²⁹ Is this perhaps to underestimate Bible translators
and scholars?
Fitzgerald’s and Stinespring’s contributions have made clear the necessity to
investigate the semantic range of ‫ ַּבת‬in the HB, and the use of construct phrases
in biblical Hebrew. Fitzgerald in the second article opened up for an appositional
use of such phrases, and Stinespring presupposes this use without developing
the point. This possibility deserves our particular attention. We therefore have
to study two areas of the Hebrew language. The next chapter is devoted to the
grammar of construct phrases in general, and chapter 5 deals with the semantics
of phrases with ‫ ַּבת‬and similar phrases. But our topic has also been treated in
more recent scholarship, to which we now turn.
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background”, 416.

 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities”, 182.
 W. F. Stinespring, “Zion, Daughter of,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary
Volume (1976).
 Michael H. Floyd, “Welcome Back.”
 Ibid., 492.
In 1993 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp published his dissertation on the genre of city-

lament in the HB.¹³⁰ As a part of this study he devotes a chapter to “the weeping
goddess” in Mesopotamian texts, and he thinks that this motif forms the back-
ground to the “daughter of Zion” and similar phrases in the HB.¹³¹ In an article
two years later he spells out his view on this question in a longer description.¹³²
He supposes that there is correspondence between city laments in Mesopota-
mian literature on the one hand, primarily “The Hymn of Nana” and a Neo-Baby-
lonian lament for Tammuz, and some HB texts on the other. The pertinent con-
struct phrase he sees as “a divine epithet with the G[eographical]N[ame] ana-
lyzed grammatically as a genitive of location, which results in the translation
’daughter of (whatever the geographical name is).’”¹³³
Dobbs-Allsopp summarizes his argument in this way: “Three pieces of evi-
dence favor understanding bat GN as a divine epithet: (1) the close resemblance
of the Hebrew phrase and the Akkadian divine title mārat GN to one another, (2)
the frequent occurrence of bat GN as a designation of the personified city in
(modulated) city lament passages in the Hebrew Bible and the correspondences
between the biblical motif of personified city and the motif of the weeping god-
dess in the Mesopotamian city laments, and (3) the use of other divine titles to
designate the personified city.”¹³⁴ Part 2 is argued in five respects: A. The city as
female mourner, B. Authorial points of view, C. The city as possessor, D. The city
as mother, and E. The city in exile. Dobbs-Allsopp concludes that “bat GN as at-
tested so far… is a purely literary phenomenon. The phrase bat GN nowhere re-
fers to a specific goddess in the Hebrew Bible….the divine title of the type bat GN
has been appropriated as a whole and used in a stereotypical way…in a way that
is consistent with the monotheistic tendencies of the biblical writers.”¹³⁵ “He-
brew bat GN might well represent a loan shift from Akkadian mārat GN. In
loan shifts ’a foreign concept is borrowed without its corresponding linguistic
form and without the introduction of a new word into the borrowing language.’
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the
Hebrew Bible.
 Ibid., 75 – 90.
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of Bat Followed By a Geographical Name in the
Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57
(1995): 451– 70.
 Ibid., 451.
 Ibid., 467.
 Ibid.
In the case of the phrase bat GN, the new concept would be the divine epi-
thet.”¹³⁶
In his commentary on Lamentations Dobbs-Allsopp spells out what his
views mean in concrete texts. An excursus is dedicated to “personified Zion,”
and here he states the basic assumption: “The figure of the personified city in
this poem [Lamentations 1] and the next is undoubtedly the most compellingly
drawn figure in the whole of Lamentations…The personified city-temple complex
in Lamentations functions analogously to the sorrowful, tender, and compas-
sionate weeping goddess in the Mesopotamian laments…”¹³⁷
His linguistic presuppositions are seen in these expressions: “Personifica-
tion may be likened to a sentence that has a literal subject and a metaphorical
predicate.”¹³⁸ Linguistically, one would have to add that personification in this
sense need not be likened to a sentence, but is found in sentences of the type
he explains. This is linguistically easy to confirm, in expressions like “How lone-
ly sits the city,” Lam 1:1, and “The roads to Zion mourn,” Lam 1:4. Dobbs-Allsopp
does not explain, however, what happens when there is no sentence, but a con-
struct expression. Does he mean that nomen regens is a metaphor that creates
the nomen rectum into a personification? In “daughter Zion” “daughter” cannot
be a human being, and therefore must constitute a metaphor? He further states
that “A variety of feminine imagery forms the metaphorical predicate, the per-
sona that enlivens the figure of Zion in these poems.”¹³⁹ Does he here include
whole sentences, adjectives, verbs and so on in this imagery, and that such
words create a persona?
Dobbs-Allsopp further writes that “an additional layer of complexity is
added by the fluidity of geographical references associated with the personified
figure in Lamentations, for example, Zion, Jerusalem, Judah, and even Jacob and
Israel…we should not insist on distinguishing these figures too sharply.”¹⁴⁰ It
seems that he sees in Lamentations a personified entity, which he calls a figure,
or a persona. Under this heading he subsumes all the expressions with ‫ ַּבת‬as
nomen regens to a following GN, and also to ‫ַעִּמי‬, occurring in the book of Lam-
entations, and claims that they all have the sense “personified Zion.”¹⁴¹ The
 Ibid. 468. The quotation is from H. H. Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1986), 398.
 F. W Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002),
50.
 Ibid., 52.
 Ibid., 52.
 Ibid., 52.
 Ibid., 50 – 53.
roots of this type of construct phrases are found in the Mesopotamian texts, and
the various epithets enhance the status and authority of the figure so entitled:
she is a woman infused with the aura of divinity and royalty. With a definition
of “personification” in line with Encyclopædia Britannica (see below), he ex-
plains that personification takes place when feminine imagery forms the meta-
phorical predicate for “Zion” etc. After a theoretical exposition, his actual under-
standing of “personification” resembles that of Stinespring, but with a different
sense for ‫ַּבת‬: the expression signals divinity and royalty, but also affection, sym-
pathy and vulnerability. He therefore is able to see in the Hebrew phrases a sense
provided by the presumed source of the expressions. Perhaps he would call this
a loan shift (see later). I think, however, that the short expression “daughter”
cannot serve the function of transmitting some of the senses of the divine epi-
thet. I think it impossible that there was a “metamorphosis of the city goddess
into the personified city.”¹⁴² Phrases of the type “daughter of GN” are a major ar-
gument for this metamorphosis, and even if they occur in comparable contexts
in the different cultures, the basis for the thesis is fragile.
In the Festschrift to Robert R. Wilson, Dobbs-Allsopp has modified his view
about the divine epithet: “…it no longer seems necessary to me to stipulate god-
desses as the sole or even primary source of the personification in question.”¹⁴³
However, he still “remains convinced that the personified city in Lamentations
(and in other biblical passages indebted to the city-lament genre) functions
very much analogously to the weeping goddess in the Mesopotamian laments
and perhaps even owes specific aspects of its depiction (e. g. as a female mourn-
er) to knowledge of the genre and of the weeping goddess motif more specifical-
ly..”¹⁴⁴ He also still sees ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬as a “genitive of location”:
The biblical poets, then, have taken a common way of referring to a woman from a certain
place (lit. ’daughter of GN’) and used it as part of the repertoire of tropes by which they
effect the literary personification. That is, bat-ṣiyyon, for example, does not indicate that
Zion has a literal daughter. Rather, it is the phrase as a whole (i. e. ’daughter of Zion’),
which, when spoken of a real individual, identifies her as an inhabitant of Zion (cf.
bĕnôt ṣiyyon, Isa 3:16, 17), that is attributed to the literary figure and thus identifies that fig-
ure metaphorically as a–or even the (leading)–citizen of Zion (mārât GN in Akkadian is ex-
tended in an analogous way as a designation of goddesses).¹⁴⁵
 Ibid., 50.

 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “”Daughter Zion”,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and
Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook, Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 502 (New York London: T & T Clark, 2009), 130, n. 16.
 Ibid., 129 f, n. 16.
 Ibid., 130 f.
I have quoted him at some length here, as these statements are presented after a
period of deliberations on the topic. He has treated the phrase ‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬in a foot-
note, and phrases with betulat bat GN are not mentioned at all, except in foot-
notes in the articles.¹⁴⁶
Dobbs-Allsopp has received comments from Adele Berlin in her commentary
on Lamentations, and from Hugh G. M. Williamson in his commentary on
Isaiah.¹⁴⁷ Berlin recognizes the possible parallels in the non-Biblical material,
but
this usage is relatively rare and does not occur in the Sumerian city laments or other Su-
merian lament literature. Nor do these titles work quite the same way as they do in the
West Semitic sources that Fitzgerald cited. A more serious weakness…is that he limits his
discussion to cases containing a geographical name. What about bat-‘ammî…at this point
the argument becomes forced.
Berlin is skeptical about the conclusion that the word ‫ ַּבת‬reflects an early con-
cept of the city goddess or city as goddess, and states that we can understand
the pertinent expressions without knowing their origin.¹⁴⁸
Williamson is not convinced by Dobbs-Allsopp’s grammatical description of
the phrase, further questions whether he has correctly identified the background
for phrases where the GN is the name of a country, and states that the phrases by
no means always occur in city laments of the HB. One would ask whether the use
is suitable to passages where “the daughter of Jerusalem” stands in parallel to
“the daughter of Zion.”
Maria Häusl has criticized Dobbs-Allsopp’s understanding of the syntax in
these expressions. As there is no mention of any goddess in the texts, the city
must be the subject described, but a city cannot be the “daughter of the city.”
A construct phrase of locality is not possible here, and his understanding is re-
jected, even in the developed idea of a secondary use of such constructions.¹⁴⁹
In addition to the comments made by Berlin, Williamson, and Häusl, some
more reflections may be added. The primary texts for comparison are two texts
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “”Daughter Zion”.”, 131, n. 21 is the most recent contribution. His
ideas are used by Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 398; Gender, Culture, Theory
(London, New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 131– 136.
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary; H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Isaiah 1 – 27.
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations : A Commentary, 11– 12.
 Maria Häusl, Bilder der Not: Weiblichkeits- und Geschlechtermetaphorik im Buch Jeremia,
vol. 37, Herders Biblische Studien (Freiburg etc.: Herder, 2003), 59 f.
about Ishtar. One is the “Hymn of Nanâ,” that praises her under several aspects,
and the other is the lament over Tammuz, where she laments her lost hus-
band.¹⁵⁰ Formally, they belong to different genres, a hymn and a lament. It
may, therefore, be a cul-de-sac to focus on the genre of lament in these texts;
cf. the comment by Williamson that by no means all the relevant HB texts are
laments. The “weeping goddess” is only found in parts of the material, and
therefore does not constitute a category for understanding the expression
“daughter of GN.” The “weeping goddess” motif is a concomitant phenomenon,
and not a constituent factor.
In both Ishtar-texts the goddess is introduced through several titles. In the
hymn she says, “They call me the Daughter of Ur, the Queen of Ur, the daughter
of princely Sin, she who goes around and enters every house, the holy one who
holds the ordinances; she takes away the young man in his prime, she removes
the young girl from her bedchamber–still I am Nanâ.”¹⁵¹ Though fragmentary,
this text to a modern reader describes the goddess under various aspects, and
she has temples in several cities, expressed by the repeated expression “daugh-
ter of GN.” At the same time “daughter” is used to express family relations
among the deities: “the daughter of princely Sin.” The expression “Daughter of
Ur” parallels “Queen of Ur,” and similar parallels exist in the following strophes.
These expressions are names given to the goddess, and they do not personify Ur.
In the lament over Tammuz Ishtar is repeatedly called “goddess of GN,” as
for instance, “The goddess of Uruk wept, whose lady-in-waiting had departed.
The goddess of Uruk wept, whose loincloth had been snatched away. The daugh-
ter of Uruk wept, the daughter of Akkad was lamenting. The face of the daughter
of Larak was enveloped in her garment.”¹⁵² Here, “the goddess of Uruk” parallels
“the daughter of Uruk.” Given that “The use of mārtu in these titles reflects the
common use of māru and mārtu in Akkadian to designate ’a citizen or native of a
city or country’,” the expression may be termed, as Dobbs-Allsopp has suggest-
ed, “a genitive of location,” if one takes nomen rectum as the decisive element in
the phrase.¹⁵³ With equal emphasis on both elements the type of construct
phrase would rather be a phrase of belonging, a phrase for the goddess under
 W. G. Lambert, “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament,” Journal of the American Oriental

Society 103, Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer
(1984): 211– 15; Erica Reiner, “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ,” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 33 (1974): 221– 36.
 Strophe II.6 – 8; translation by Erica Reiner, “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ”, 233.
 Lines 2– 4; translation by W. G. Lambert, “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament”, 212.
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of Bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the
Hebrew Bible”, 453.451.
the aspect of being a “citizen of GN.” It describes the goddess as having a temple
in the relevant locality, by being, as it were, an honorary citizen of the place.
“The [honorary] daughter of Uruk,” then becomes a divine epithet, paralleling
“the goddess of Uruk,” and is no personification of Uruk.
A possible parallel in the HB are the expressions with a name for a person
and/or locality as the nomen rectum for ‫ַּבת‬, for example in the phrase ‫ִמְלָּכה‬
‫ַּבת־ָהָרן‬, Gen 11:29. In this case the construct phrase is an apposition to the
name of the woman. In the two Ishtar-texts from Mesopotamia the expression
stands alone, and the goddess is presented separately from the construct phrase.
In the Mesopotamian texts and in Gen 11:29 there is an expression for a goddess
or a person present in the text, and the expression “daughter of GN” describes
her as belonging to a place (“Haran” can refer to the father; in that case the sit-
uation is different).
If the meaning of the Mesopotamian expressions with marat is to describe a
goddess as an honoray citizen of a city where she has a shrine, then the funda-
mental difference to the HB expressions “daughter of Zion” and the like, is that
there is no presentation in the texts of who this citizen of Zion might be. Yah-
wistic theology has no place for a goddess, and Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem
has not occasioned expressions where he would be an honorary citizen of that
city. “Daughter of Uruk” is a divine epithet, because it is applied to the goddess
mentioned in the text, Ishtar, but there is no such subject mentioned in the con-
text of the HB phrases with “daughter.” ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬is not an epithet of someone men-
tioned in the texts, it stands alone. This is the reason why other understandings
have been suggested: if no figure external to the expressions is introduced in the
texts, then a different sense is sought.
Dobbs-Allsopp supposes that there was a “metamorphosis” in the expres-
sion “daughter of GN” from being a divine epithet to being an expression of per-
sonification. However, he does not in the commentary to Lamentations fully
leave the idea of divine epithet, as he still sees “daughter of Zion” as expressing
that Zion is infused with the aura of divinity and royalty. This is less prominent in
the article from 2009, but he sees the expression as a precise correspondence to
royal/divine titles, cases of which are “Mistress of Kingdoms,” Isa 47:5, “En-
throned One over Aroer,” Jer 48:19, and “Princess over the Provinces,” Lam
1:1.¹⁵⁴ But these phrases all are illustrations of my previous point: in all these
cases there is a subject mentioned who receives this epithet (Babylon, Daughter
of Dibon, and Jerusalem). If there is no such subject in the context, then the fun-
dament for understanding the expressions in this way is lacking.
 Dobbs-Allsopp, “’Daughter Zion’”, 130 – 131.

In the article from 2009 Dobbs-Allsopp starts with a definition of personifi-

cation, built upon The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: “Per-
sonification is a trope wherein an object, abstraction, or other inanimate or non-
sentient entity or force is endowed with features of animal or human life and
movement.”¹⁵⁵ He then goes on to speak of a “figure,” as if personification cre-
ates a figure, and I am not able to follow him on this point. In the next part of
this chapter the topic of personification will be discussed; suffice it to say here
that the definition he works with in my opinion does not warrant an understand-
ing of personification whereby a figure is created. An inanimate or nonsentient
entity or force is endowed with features of animate life, not transformed into a
figure. It seems therefore to be a fundamental error to assume that for example
Zion is transformed into a figure when the word “Zion” occurs together with
words otherwise used with animate subjects. The process is of a different nature.
Dobbs-Allsopp builds his argument on the assumption that a “literary fig-
ure” is created. After mentioning a number of cases where expressions with
“daughter” attached to a geographical name refer to a woman from a certain pla-
ce–a common understanding of these expressions–he goes on to say that “the
biblical poets…have used [such expressions] as part of the repertoire of tropes
by which they effect the literary personification.”¹⁵⁶ This seems to be a shift in
logic from seeing these expressions as designations used for women from a cer-
tain place to personification, in the sense that a literary figure was created in this
way. It would imply that these designations make the place mentioned into a lit-
erary figure; but they predicate the women in the text and I cannot see that they
have any other effect.
There seems to be another shift in logic in the continuation: “It is the phrase
as a whole (i. e. ’daughter of Zion’) … that is attributed to the literary figure and
thus identifies that figure metaphorically as a–or even the (leading)–citizen of
Zion.”¹⁵⁷ If one first accepts that Zion has been transformed into a literary figure,
and secondly that the phrase “daughter of Zion” is a metaphor, then one will see
that this literary figure is a leading citizen of Zion. This presupposes that the
phrase performs two services at the same time: first it creates the literary figure,
and then it is a metaphor identifying this figure as the leading citizen of Zion.
One wonders if this perhaps is to ask too much from one phrase.
In the 1995 article the idea seems to be the same: “any putative original ref-
erent of bat has been tamed and recast as the personified city or country, to con-
 Ibid., 125.

 Ibid., 129.
 Ibid., 130.
stitute a purely literary motif…the literary metaphor of the personified city.”¹⁵⁸

This idea goes beyond the traditional understanding of how language works.
A designated phenomenon or a concrete referent in the real world cannot be re-
cast; they remain what they are. The senses of a word, on the other hand, may
develop, and be literal, metonymic, metaphorical and so on. We will return to the
topic of metaphors shortly.
As Dobbs-Allsopp describes “loan shift” it means that a concept, “the divine
epithet,” is borrowed, but at the same time it is emptied of original contents and
retained as a “purely literary phenomenon.” The concept is therefore hardly bor-
rowed, but the term has possible parallels in Mesopotamian expressions. But
there are different senses to the term: in the Mesopotamian texts it is a divine
epithet of a goddess named in the texts, in the HB there is no subject mentioned.
Then, what is borrowed? Not the concept and not the sense of the words marat/
bat.
A word might also be in place in connection with Dobbs-Allsopp’s use of the
expression “metonymy.” The background for his comment is that bat and bēn in
Biblical Hebrew have the meaning of “citizen” or “inhabitant” of a city or coun-
try. “In the title bat ‘ammi the same basic relationship holds [probably between
nomen regens and nomen rectum], only the political affiliation has been meto-
nymically shifted from a geographical designation to designation of the people,
which results in a slight modification of the title’s semantics.”¹⁵⁹ He seems to
mean that the change of nomen rectum from “Zion” to “my people” in the per-
tinent expressions occasion a metonymical shift in meaning. Traditionally, “met-
onymy” is used to describe sense(s) of a word in relation to other senses of the
same word, and not for sense relations between different words (here, for in-
stance “Zion” and “my people”). The use of the term “metonymically” seems
to indicate a linguistic basis for his understanding of the phrase bat ‘ammi,
but this is an illusion. More to the point is his use of the term in this sentence:
“In the case of the personified city in Lamentations, the city constitutes the lit-
eral subject [of a metaphorically used predicate], whether referring to the actual
physical entity of wall, gates, roads, and buildings or by metonymic extension to
the city’s human inhabitants.”¹⁶⁰ If we interpret this to apply to a lexeme for
“city,” his examples constitute literal and metonymic uses of the lexeme.
Summing up, Dobbs-Allsopp does not discuss the complete material, only
parts of it, reveals a certain Systemzwang in the direction of laments, and
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of Bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the

Hebrew Bible”, 470.
 Ibid., 470, n. 75.
 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 52.
ends with a reading of the Hebrew phrase “daughter of GN” which is without
Mesopotamian parallels and fundamentally challenges the possible senses of
the Hebrew ‫ַּבת‬. This will be discussed later.
Christl Maier rejects Dobbs-Allsopp’s understanding of a genitive of location,
and supposes that the expressions in question are appositional genitives.¹⁶¹ Ac-
cordingly, “daughter denotes a characteristic of Zion.”¹⁶² She also sees that ‫ַּבת‬
‫“ ַעִּמי‬syntactically forms an apposition ’daughter, my people’ meaning that the
collective ’my people’ is called ’daughter.’”¹⁶³ This can make sense with the pre-
supposition that “The personification of Zion is indicated by the formulaic ex-
pressions bat or bĕtûlâ + name of a city, land, or the collective ’ammî ’my peo-
ple’.”¹⁶⁴ If ’ammî refers to Zion, one can understand the thinking here, if it does
not, it does not make sense to personify the people, as Stinespring noted.
Stinespring supposes that the nomen regens describes the nomen rectum,
that it is some type of appositional phrase. Berlin agrees with this understand-
ing, in that ‫ ַּבת‬in the expression “Bat X” has the sense “Lady” or “Fair”, and
“connotes en emotional tenderness or protectiveness toward a female person
of lesser power or authority. It is a term of endearment…functions like a dimin-
utive: ’Dear Little Zion’ or ’Sweet Little Zion.’”¹⁶⁵ Close in meaning and usage are
expressions with “virgin.” Both types of expressions may be used ironically.
Here, two ideas are included: the connotations of these expressions and a pos-
sible ironic sense.
A similar understanding is found in Williamson’s commentary on Isaiah.
Here, he reviews the Hebrew expressions and their treatment in scholarship,
and makes the following observations: any explanation should cover the phe-
nomenon of “daughter of GN” as a whole, not only “daughter of Zion;” the
phrase sometimes follows some other feature of the city in the construct state,
like “the mountain of the daughter of Zion;” the phrase is a metaphor for the
city itself, and the phrase is best understood as an appositional genitive; it is
a term of endearment, a “dead” or “conceptual” metaphor.¹⁶⁶
Continuing the line of study opened by Fitzgerald and Dobbs-Allsopp, in-
cluding the linguistic presuppositions, Marc Wischnowsky investigated the
 Christl Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 62.

 Ibid., 61.
 Ibid.
 Ibid.
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary, 12.
 H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1 – 27, 67– 71.
adoption and adaptation of Mesopotamian city laments by the HB prophets.¹⁶⁷

For him, “personification” describes the textual situation, and his results can
be summarized in this way: 1. The personification of Jerusalem has its back-
ground in personification of cities in the Ancient Near East. 2. The original set-
ting of this personification is the lament and announcement of judgment. 3. This
developes into prophetic accusations against Jerusalem, now depicted as agent
more than victim, not any more a daughter, but a whore and an adulteress. 4.
After the exile the development ends in salvation oracles for Lady Zion, depicted
as a mother and queen. From the laments over Zion the prophets move to accu-
sations against her, and the development ends with salvation for Zion. Wisch-
nowsky’s understanding of “daughter Zion” is adopted in the commentary on
Lamentations by Ulrich Berges.¹⁶⁸ Accordingly, Berges states that the expressions
“daughter Zion/Jerusalem” refer to Jerusalem, as the phrase is appositional.¹⁶⁹ In
the case of “daughter of my people” the expression is possessive and refers to
Jerusalem. It emphasizes the close relation between people and capital, each
is dependent upon the other. The qualification of Jerusalem/Zion as “daughter”
brings the capital close to YHWH, her protecting God. As “daughter” she is sub-
ject to his protection as well as his anger.¹⁷⁰ In the commentary on Lam 1:6 he
states that the title “Daughter Zion” aims at YHWH’s close connection to Zion/
Jerusalem, by evoking the image of the marriage of YHWH to his bride, and
then the idea of the complaining city/woman, who is now a widow, that is aban-
doned by her protecting God. In addition, the phrase emphasizes the motherly
relation between Zion and the people in need.¹⁷¹ One might comment, in brief,
that “daughter” hardly was used for a bride, nor for a mother.
Dobbs-Allsopp refers to a contribution by Michael H. Floyd. Floyd takes
issue with Stinespring in an article from 2008, under the programmatic title
“Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!” He declares that “the banishment imposed
on ’the daughter of Zion’ should be lifted, and she should be joyfully welcomed
back.”¹⁷² The “banishment” refers to Stinespring’s suggested understanding of
the expression, with the proposal to omit the word “of” in the translation of
 Marc Wischnowsky, Tochter Zion: Aufnahme und Überwindung der Stadtklage in den Pro-
phetenschriften des Alten Testaments, WMANT 89 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
2001).
 Ulrich Berges, Klagelieder, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Frei-
burg: Herder, 2002).
 Ulrich Berges, Klagelieder.
 Ibid., 56.
 Ibid., 103.
 Michael H. Floyd, “Welcome Back”, quotation from p. 504.
this expression, because there was “No Daughter of Zion.”¹⁷³ Floyd’s own under-
standing is that “The ’daughter of Zion’ … personifies the woman and/or the en-
tire population of the city as an individual woman who is one of Mother Jerusa-
lem’s many ’daughters’.”¹⁷⁴ Other formulations are: “Zion’s population [is] being
metaphorically personified as one of the city’s daughters,” and “the city is poeti-
cally personified as one of its daughter-inhabitants.” The first two formulations
can be seen as analytical propositions, just like a superficial reading of the ex-
pression in GKC § 122 i, as they speak of personification of people. The last state-
ment is different, in that it speaks of personification of the city, and this is in line
with the idea of personification as it is probably understood in GKC. The two
former statements seem to mean that “personification” has the sense that one
individual epitomizes the population: he addresses the question of the singu-
lar noun, and states that it is used for the entire population. The distinction be-
tween “personification” and “individuation” mentioned by Anders Jørgen
Bjørndalen seems to be relevant here.¹⁷⁵ He applies the idea of “individuation”
to ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬in Amos 5:2, and this expression could be a relevant description
of the process several scholars after GKC describe as personification. Floyd is one
of the scholars who describe in detail his thinking on the process, and it seems to
come close to “individuation.” Such a description of the process is possible with-
out the concept of “corporate personality,” which once was much discussed as a
supposed phenomenon among “primitives,” but later was abandoned.¹⁷⁶
“Metaphor” and “personification” are used by Floyd without definitions,
and his understanding of the construct phrase is unclear: it is not an apposition-
al phrase, but a construct phrase understood as in the Syntax by Waltke and
O’Connor: a genitive of association (see next chapter). His translation “Daughter
of Zion” reveals an understanding different from that of their Syntax, as they de-
scribe it as an expression where the nomen rectum provides the name for the
nomen regens, and Floyd sides with GKC on this question: the expression has
the sense of the “population of Zion.”
Unlike Stinespring, Floyd does not address the understanding of other ex-
pressions with ‫ַּבת‬. With reference to Adele Berlin’s commentary on Lamenta-
tions, he states that ‫“ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬must at least be bracketed, if not excluded, from
the present discussion because it lacks the definitive element of a geographical
 This is the title of the article by William Franklin Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion.”
 Michael H. Floyd, “Welcome Back”, 494.
 Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen, Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und
Jesaja, BZAW 165 (Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 166.
 Ibid.
name.”¹⁷⁷ Berlin says nothing to this effect; instead, she comments that Dobbs-
Allsopp does not provide a satisfactory understanding of ‫ַּבת ַעִּמי‬.¹⁷⁸ Further, even
if ‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬is left out of the discussion, there are relevant expressions with a geo-
graphical name that are not discussed by Floyd. We are not informed why these
are left out of the discussion.
I will take a closer look at Floyd’s argument with Stinespring, because it is
instructive of what we are discussing.
When he opens the discussion with Stinespring, Floyd does this by summa-
rizing his arguments under the questions “A. Is Zion a Daughter or a Mother?”
“B. Does ‫ בת‬Mean ’Girl’ as Well as ’Daughter’?” and “C. Is ‫ בת ציון‬an Appositional
Genitive?”
In the discussion of the first question, Floyd states that the starting point for
Stinespring is that Ps 9:15 and Lam 2:18 cannot speak of “the population/inhab-
itants of Zion.” Stinespring in fact starts by saying that these two texts cannot
mean that Zion has a daughter, evidently presupposing that a daughter of
Zion or the people of Zion cannot have a gate or a wall. The city has gates
and walls, not the inhabitants. Floyd’s understanding of the expression agrees
with the basic proposition made by Stinespring, that Zion does not have a
daughter, since the understanding that “Zion’s population [is] being metaphori-
cally personified as one of the city’s daughters” means that the expression is not
read literally, but in a different way, and this is, in fact, the starting point for Sti-
nespring. Stinespring then tests the meaning for ‫ ַּבת‬suggested by Cruden’s Con-
cordance and KBL: “population,” or “people,” and finds these meanings impos-
sible, for instance, in the two texts mentioned, and even more in the expression
‫ַּבת ַעִּמי‬. Floyd instead holds that in the expression ‫“ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬the city is poetically
personified as one of its daughter-inhabitants,” and this entity can have a
“gate,” as in Ps 9:15, and “wall,” Lam 2:18. His argument in the former case is
supported by Ruth 3:11; Mic 1:9; Ob 13. But in the clause ‫ יוֵֹדַע ָּכל־ ַשַׁער ַעִּמי‬in
Ruth 3:11, ‫ ַשַׁער‬is used metonymically for the people performing their duties in
the gate, the citizens, and ‫ ַעִּמי‬is the people of Boaz, his larger family. A possible
translation would be “all the citizens in my family.” In Mic 1:9 ‫ ַשַׁער ַעִּמי‬is in par-
allel to “Jerusalem.” Only Ob 13 may have the meaning suggested by Floyd, that
people have a gate. The wall of Jerusalem may be described as “his [the king’s]
wall,” Ps 89:41 (ET 89:40), and correspondingly as the wall of the daughter of
Zion; Floyd may be right on this point. On the other hand, Floyd’s claim that
Zion was seen as a mother receives no substantiation in his article.
 Ibid., 498, n. 34.

 Adele Berlin, Lamentations, 12.
The second argument of Floyd is that ‫ ַּבת‬has “the various metaphorical

meanings it can assume precisely because its basic meaning is ’daughter.’” Sti-
nespring does not use the term “metaphor” but his expression “personification”
may be one type of metaphor, so on this level there is no contradiction between
the two. Their understanding is, however, different, as Stinespring supposes that
the whole expression refers to Zion, and Floyd that it refers to one of her inhab-
itants as a prototypical woman citizen. Both understandings of personification
are found in scholarly literature, as we will see. Floyd might have accredited Sti-
nespring with the references to the dictionaries in addition to the Arabic bint and
Ruth 2:8; Ps 45:10 for his proposition that “daughter” has different senses. As we
will see, this is only a fragment of the relevant material for a metaphorical sense
of ‫ַּבת‬.
Floyd’s third argument against Stinespring has two sub-questions: “In He-
brew is there such a grammatical category as the appositional genitive?” His an-
swer is in the affirmative, although he prefers to see it as “provisionally descri-
bed” in this way. The reason for this proviso is that in Latin (and English) there
are genitives, but strictly speaking, Hebrew has no genitive. Admittedly, this is a
problem when one uses a metalanguage with categories not found in the lan-
guage under discussion. The second question is whether ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬can be analyzed
in terms of an appositional genitive. This time the answer is in the negative, since
‫ ַּבת‬designates a class, but “it is also a relational term that indicates familial sta-
tus, and it continues to serve this semantic function even when it is used figura-
tively.” Such an unconditional proposition needs to be proved, and no such
proof is attempted. The study of figurative language is complex, with a tradition
in scholarship that cannot be handled by providing a statement on the figurative
meaning of a word. In light of the use of ‫ ַּבת‬in the HB, the statement is wrong, as
the analysis will show later.
Floyd then addresses the question of a possible difference between ‫ְּבנוֹת־ִציּוֹן‬
and ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, and finds that in Jer 49:1– 6 the population of Rabbah is termed ‫ְּבנוֹת‬
‫ ַרָּבה‬in v. 3 and ‫ ַהַּבת ַהשּׁוֵֹבָבה‬in v. 4, once by a plural form and once by the singular
form. At least in this case, the singular and the plural have the same referent:
inhabitant(s) of the city, according to Floyd. This is doubtful, however, as Hesh-
bon is addressed in the female singular in v. 3 and constitutes a possible referent
for the expression found in v. 4. It is not likely that the two expressions have the
same referent, as he assumes. If Floyd were right in his reading Jer 49:1– 6, it
would still be a singular case over against the standard use of the plural form.
According to Floyd, ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬may also mean the “subsequent generation of Jer-

usalem’s inhabitants,” Zeph 3:14; Isa 62:11.¹⁷⁹ Here, the expression is understood
in the sense that “daughter” means any later generation. The expression may
mean the present population of Zion in some cases, and a subsequent genera-
tion in other cases. This is to suppose that ‫ ַּבת‬can have the sense “daughter”
as well as “granddaughter” or something similar; the latter sense is not found
anywhere (see chapter 5), and I think his understanding of Zeph 3:14; Isa 62:11
is incorrect. For “his granddaughters” Hebrew typically uses ‫ְּבנוֹת ָּב ָניו‬. We have
‫ ְּב ֵני־ִציּוֹן‬as a designation of the population of Zion, Ps 149:2; Lam 4:2; Joel 2:23.
We can now state that Floyd has an understanding of “personification” sim-
ilar to GKC: he sometimes uses the expression to the effect that it signifies the
use of a singular form of “daughter” as a collective with the sense “population.”
Other scholars have other understandings of this term. Such different under-
standings of a term in scholarly literature is not helpful, as it may create confu-
sion for the reader. A similar situation can be seen in the case of the term “meta-
phor”; it is used in scholarly literature in many ways and sometimes without def-
initions, much to the detriment of the effectiveness of scholarly debate.
In his 2012 contribution to the volume Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Re-
sponse Floyd restates his position in the discussion with Mandolfo, and against
J. Andrew Dearman.¹⁸⁰ The expression “daughter of Zion,” with a lower-case “d”,
on the grammatical level, according to Floyd, “metaphorically refers to a daugh-
ter whose mother is the city of Jerusalem. On the rhetorical-poetical level this fig-
ure personifies the women of the city in particular, and the people of the city in
general…On the sociocultural level, this personfication reflect the social role of
women as leaders of civic lamentation and rejoicing.”¹⁸¹ His irritation over Stine-
spring’s “success” has not waned over the years: “The success of Stinespring’s
proposal is a notable example of the way in which a scholarly theory can be pro-
posed, and then readily assumed, repeated, and built upon without being ade-
quately tested. Why have so many scholars been so taken with the notion of
Daughter Zion that they misrepresent or overlook the evidence to the contrary
that is right before their eyes?”¹⁸² It seems to me that the notion of Daughter
Zion comes more from the literary turn in scholarship that Daughter Zion: Her
 Floyd, “Welcome Back,” 502.

 Michael H. Floyd, “The Daughter of Zion Goes Fishing in Heaven,” in Daughter Zion: Her
Portrait, Her Response, (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).; cf. J. Andrew Dearman,
“Daughter Zion and Her Place in God’s Household,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 31 (2009): 144–
59.
 Floyd, “Fishing,” 196.
 Ibid.
Portrait, Her Response represents than from the two small articles by Stinespring.
What Floyd so eagerly awaits, the testing of Stinespring’s theory and those of
other scholars, will be attempted in the present book–by looking at all the rele-
vant evidence. His own presentation of Stinespring’s idea is, in my view, once
again misrepresented.
John J. Schmitt has researched several areas connected to the present mate-
rial.¹⁸³ Particularly relevant is the article on the expression ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬. His pro-
posal is “that the phrase refers directly, not to the people Israel collectively, but
rather to a capital city…alternately of the northern and southern kingdoms, that
is, Samaria and Jerusalem.”¹⁸⁴ One important argument is that in the phrase
nomen regens is feminine and nomen rectum masculine. This makes the con-
struct phrase not a genitivus definitivus, but a “possessive” genitive relationship.
He then rejects the following senses of ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬in construct to ‫יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬: “young,”
“beautiful,” not touched by invading armies, untouched by Canaanite religious
practices, and that the expression is used to emphasize the poingnancy of the
lament. These suggestions neglect the problem of the gender or sex of the victim,
according to Schmitt. Instead, the expression refers to the capital Samaria in
Amos 5:2; Jer 31:4.21, and to Jerusalem in Jer 18:13.¹⁸⁵
The gender of “Israel” is masculine, Schmitt is to be credited for reminding
us of this, and he mentions only two cases where it is construed as feminine.
However, in addition to those two cases, in Jer 3:6.8 “Israel” is construed as fem-
inine. In his study of gender in Hebrew, Diethelm Michel states that names of
countries and cities are feminine when they are seen as nourishing their inhab-
itants, but as masculine when they refer to the inhabitants themselves: Edom:
feminine in Jer 49:17, masculine in Num 20:21; Ephraim: feminine in Hos 5:9,
masculine in Isa 11:13; Judah: feminine in Jer 23:6, masculine in Isa 3:8; Canaan:
feminine in Isa 23:11, masculine in Hos 12:8; Moab: feminine in Judg 3:30, mas-
culine in Num 21:29.¹⁸⁶ On this background, it is not inconceivable that there
would be cases where ‫ יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬could be construed with feminine predicates. If
this is not accepted, we still have a feminine word in the construct state with
a masculine word in the absolute state in the case of ‫ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬, Isa 41:14. The
assumed conflict of gender is perhaps not pressing when one opens for the pos-
 John J. Schmitt, “The Gender of Ancient Israel,” JSOT 26 (1983): 115 – 26; John J. Schmitt,
“The City as Woman in Isaiah 1– 39.”; John J. Schmitt, “The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of
the Phrase in Amos and Jeremiah.”
 John J. Schmitt, “The Virgin of Israel”, 366.
 Taken over by Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-
Isaiah, 158 – 159.
 Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer Hebräischen Syntax, 76 – 77.
sibility that he choice of word was more important for the authors than its gen-
der. The most important problem with Schmitt’s thesis is, however, that it is hard
to harmonize with the context of the four instances of “virgin Israel” that he
mentions. There are few indications in the context that the expression should
refer to a capital city, and more that it refers to Israel. As an example, Jer
31:21b may be mentioned; it reads “Return, O virgin Israel, return to these
your cities.” This is easier to understand as an admonition to Israel to return
to cities, than as an admonition to the capital city Samaria to return to
Zion.¹⁸⁷ It is also difficult to assume that such a rare expression would be
used inside one and the same book, Jeremiah, with two different capital cities
as referents.
Daniel Bourguet in his voluminous treatment of the metaphors in Jeremiah
devotes a chapter to “daughter” as metaphor in that book.¹⁸⁸ His conclusion is
that when the title “daughter” precedes a proper noun it is never charged with
affection, and often with mockery. It denounces an illusory military force,
most often that of an adversary, whether this adversary is a foreign nation or Is-
rael herself, to whom God acts as an enemy. The expression is an insult, perhaps
originating from soldiers’ abuse of a city as they attack it. Israel had the courage
to repeat the expression, as it realized that her power was not military force, but
God’s action. It is a play on words: bt, “daughter,” against the common title of
capitals, rbt, “great.” On the other hand, the expression “daughter of my people”
is charged with affection in the mouth of God or of the prophet. It also belongs in
a situation of military weakness, and denounces the sin attached to this weak-
ness and God’s and the prophet’s sharing in the sufferings of victims.¹⁸⁹
The expression “daughter of [city name/my people]” is a metonym, where
“daughter” is a female inhabitant of the city or people, a pars pro toto. From
this metonym a metaphor could be developed, as in the case of Jer 49:2– 4.¹⁹⁰
The use of “metonym” here is not common in linguistics, and needs substan-
tiation. Also, Bourguet’s understanding of the phrases, has not been accepted by
other scholars. Bourguet works in some isolation from the discourse sketched
above, and his contribution suffers from an idiosyncratic understanding of “met-
aphor,” and his suggestions for the sense in the phrases under discussion here
fails to convince when applied to their contexts.
 John J. Schmitt, “The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jere-
miah”, 385.
 Daniel Bourguet, Les Métaphores de Jérémie, Etudes Bibliques; Nouv. Sér. 9 (Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre: J. Gabalda, 1987), “L’image de la fille,” 477– 510.
 Ibid., 509.
 Ibid., 510.
3.1 Personification and More 57
3.1 Personification and More
Some of the commentaries mentioned in chapter 2 understand the expression

‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as “personification,” without, however, explaining the linguistic process
supposed to have taken place. “Personification” is also found in Hebrew diction-
aries and lexicons, but one looks in vain for an explanation of the theoretical
basis for such a description.¹⁹¹ References to grammars are not often found in
these books. Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed., refers to Meyer’s Hebräische
Grammatik, § 97, 4c, for the type of construct expression this phrase is (epexeget-
ical genitive), but there is no reference for the understanding of “personifica-
tion.” HALOT refers to Gesenius’ grammar, § 128 k, for the type of construct ex-
pression used (epexegetical genitive). There is no reference to literature with a
description of personification, but I am inclined to suppose that the Gesenius-
tradition has influenced the parlance found in commentaries and dictionaries
and lexicons today. The 28. edition of Gesenius’ grammar appeared in 1909,
and the 27. edition was translated by Cowley and updated on the basis of the
28. edition and published in 1910 (GKC). Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch uses the
word “Personifikation” in its 17. edition of 1915, and an earlier version of this
book speaks of προσωποποιΐα, “personification.” Of these two, the grammar pro-
vides some hints at how personification was understood.
GKC § 122 deals with Indication of the Gender of the Noun, and sections h and
i are relevant for his understanding of personification. The content of these sec-
tions may be paraphrased in this way: Names of countries and towns are femi-
nine, “since they are regarded as the mothers and nurses of the inhabitants.”¹⁹²
The expressions ‫ ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬and ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬are mentioned in this connection. When such
proper nouns refer to the population of the place, they receive masculine pred-
icates and are therefore masculine. Nevertheless, it sometimes happen that a
name is feminine, but can refer both to the place and its population by a
“very common transference of thought.” This can be compared to the expression
“Turkey concludes peace.” “Hence [German: daher] the frequent personification
of nations (as well as of countries and towns, see h, note 5) as female beings, e. g.
Is 501, 541 ff., and the use of the expressions ‫ ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬Is 471 ff., ‫& ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬c. (see above)
as collective poetical personifications of the people.”¹⁹³ In the mentioned part h,
note 5, this grammar gives examples of cities understood as mothers, and Isa
50:1; 54:1ff are about female lexemes allegorically describing Israel or Jerusalem.
 TDOT, s.v. BAT, vol. I, 868; HAL, s.v. BAT, part 3, 159; HALOT, s.v. BAT, part 3; Gesenius 17th
ed., s.v. BAT, 121; Gesenius 18th ed. s.v. BAT, part 11, 185; BDB s.v. BAT, part 3, 123.
 GKC, 391.
 Ibid., 392.
For “collective poetical personifications of the people” the German original

speaks slightly differently: the expressions ‫ ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬and ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬are used “zur zu-
sammenfassenden poët. Personifizierung einer Volksmenge,” which seems to
mean that “daughter” summarizes or condenses a multitude into one person.¹⁹⁴
The noun in the singular would represent a collective.
GKC and its German original can be taken to state that when the geograph-
ical name is used alone, it would refer to a particular place or its inhabitants, but
when it occurs with “daughter” attached to it, it refers to the population of the
place. Personification would then mean the transition from an expression con-
taining one word only with a location as reference, to a longer expression
with “daughter” that would refer to a female inhabitant as a condensation of
the whole population.¹⁹⁵ Would it be fair to say that GKC thinks that the inhab-
itants of the place are considered as “daughter” of the place, since towns and
countries were regarded as mothers and nurses?
In present linguistic parlance the “transference of thought” mentioned by
GKC would be termed metonymy, and I will later look at such cases for the ex-
pressions in question in this book. Such metonymy is by GKC exemplified by
the sentence “Turkey concludes [= makes] peace,” meaning that the rulers of
Turkey make peace. This sentence is used in comparison to personification in
§ 122 i, and the understanding of “personification” is therefore that it equals
what one today would term metonymy. I do not think that this exhausts GKC’s
understanding of these phenomena, but one gets a clue to this grammar’s defi-
nition of “personification”: the addition of “daughter” to a place name makes it
refer to inhabitants, people, persons, and may therefore be termed “personifica-
tion.” Seen from the end result, two processes have the same outcome. A phe-
nomenon which today is called metonymy leads to the sense “population
of…”, and this equals the phrase “daughter of…,” which also means “the popu-
lation of…”
The commentaries, dictionaries and lexicons surveyed here would make
good sense if this understanding of “personification” is applied to their use of
the term.
We may compare this use of “personification” to that of Encyclopædia Bri-
tannica (abbreviated EB): “personification, figure of speech in which human
characteristics are attributed to an abstract quality, animal, or inanimate object.
An example is ’The Moon doth with delight / Look around her when the heavens
 Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, G. Bergsträsser, E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik (Hildes-

heim, New York: Georg Olms, 1977), 409.
 A similar understanding is probably intended by E. Otto, “Art. ‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjôn,” Theologisches
Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, VI (Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln: Kohlhammer, 1989), 1011.
are bare’ (Wordsworth, ’Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of

Early Childhood,’ 1807).”¹⁹⁶ “Personification (speaking of an abstract quality
or inanimate object as if it were a person) is exemplified in ’Money talks.’”¹⁹⁷
This use of the expression would fit HB clauses like these from Lam 1:1– 7:
“How lonely sits the city,” “She [Jerusalem] weeps bitterly in the night,” “The
roads to Zion mourn,” “Jerusalem remembers.” In these cases, like in the exam-
ples used by EB in the excerpts above, a noun denoting inanimate objects occurs
with a verb most commonly used in syntactical relation to living entities. The
verb is used metaphorically and the subject is used literally. It is stated in this
form by Dobbs-Allsopp: “Personification may be likened to a sentence that
has a literal subject and a metaphorical predicate.”¹⁹⁸ This is “personification”
in the linguistic and rhetorical sense.
We therefore have two different phenomena appearing under the same term:
“personification.” Linguistically expressed, we may say that a construct phrase
with ‫ ַּבת‬plus a geographical name, and nouns for inanimate entities used with
words otherwise found with human agents are referred to by the same term:
“personification.” If not expressly defined, this parlance may cause confusion,
as it indeed has done, as the following examples will show.
“A personification is the depiction of a thing, a phenomenon or an abstract
entity as a person, in language or pictures.”¹⁹⁹ “Fundamentally, the act of person-
ificating in itself is an abstract act. Something which is not a person is treated as
a person. The result of the personificating, the personification, is depicted in the
picture as a person, as an anthropomorfic figure. As pictures of persons cannot
at the same time be pictures of that for which these persons stand, one cannot
expect that the picture can visualize what has been personified.”²⁰⁰ The problem
with these statements is that they glide from “personification” in the linguistic
sense to “persona” in a literary sense. I have problems with adopting this pur-
ported connection. In the sentence “The roads to Zion mourn” do we presume
 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992), art.
“Personification”, vol. 9, 312.
 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. art. “Speech, figure of”, vol. 11, 80.
 Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 52
 “Eine Personifikation ist die Darstellung eines Gegenstandes, eines Phänomens oder eines
Abstraktums als Person, in der Sprache oder im Bild.” Marion Meyer, “Wunschbilder. Zu bild-
lichen Darstellungen abstrakter Personifikationen des guten Lebens.”, 183.
 “Grundsätzlich gilt: Der Vorgang der Personifizierung als solcher ist ein abstrakter. Etwas,
das keine Person ist, wird als Person behandelt. Das Ergebnis der Personifizierung, die Perso-
nifikation, wird im Bild als Person, als anthropomorphe Figur dargestellt. Da Bilder von Per-
sonen nicht zugleich Bilder dessen sein können, wofür diese Personen stehen, ist nicht zu
erwarten, dass das Bild das, was personifiziert wurde, zu visualisieren vermag.” Ibid, 185.
that the roads are personas? I suppose not, but we get a more vivid impression of
the situation than from a statement like “The state of affairs is difficult.”
The problem becomes apparent in the approach found in Christl Maier’s
Daughter Zion, Mother Zion. ²⁰¹ She states that “In this study, the term personifi-
cation is used for passages that portray Zion as an acting person with human
characteristics.” But the movement is not from linguistic expression to a possible
notion, as it should be, but rather from linguistic observations to a notion that in
turn is seen in different expressions:
[T]he predicative of the metaphorical statement in the biblical texts is not a woman per se,
but a specific role or status like daughter, wife, widow, and so on. Thus, a myriad of differ-
ent meanings are communicated succinctly through reference to a specific female role. For
an evaluation of female personification and, especially, its function within a given text,
each role or status must be interpreted on its own and in its given context.
This method seems to be grounded in each text, but the overall phenomenon of
“personification” of Zion or Daughter Zion is presupposed in her following dis-
cussion of expressions and text. Because of this, she may admit for influence
from different religions and areas on the biblical personification of Zion, like
Sumer, Babylon, Assyria and Greece. Such influence, given the material availa-
ble at present, can only be assumed if one has a phenomenon of Zion personi-
fied in mind. It is not possible if linguistic and ideological influence has to be
proven from text to text and from case to case. If one requires such proof,
then there is no basis for admitting for obvious foreign influence. The basic dif-
ference to a linguistic approach is that Maier thinks in the category of Zion per-
sonified, and not what the individual texts and expressions convey of meaning
in each case. Zion personified may develop into a “ghost,” which the texts do not
present in any clear statement, but which the researcher sees in the individual
texts. Maier is not alone in this respect, as chapter 1 has indicated. Meyer, on
the other hand, concentrates on linguistic evidence. With her approach, one
has to look for the linguistic expressions used in each case, and discuss whether
this actually is a case of personification.
In her discussion of Isa 40 – 55, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer seems to be caught in
similar unclear terminology.²⁰² She uses “personification” and “persona” with-
out definitions, but seems to presuppose a “persona of Zion-Jerusalem”: “In
many instances in Isa 40 – 55, the persona of Zion-Jerusalem is personified as
 Christl Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 60 – 61.

 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of
Isaiah 40 – 55, VTSup 139 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011).
a female entity. As such, she is often described in metaphoric language that is

associated with the traditional realm of women.”²⁰³ She also uses the term “sym-
bol,” and speaks of “the symbols of Jacob-Israel and Zion-Jerusalem”: “A symbol
may, depending on the context, signify different things or people and it may have
different frames of reference.” Daughter Zion appers weak in Lamentations, but
represents security etc. in much of Isa 1– 39.²⁰⁴ For the understanding of meta-
phor, Tiemeyer refers to Øystein Lund, who again refers to Terje Stordalen.²⁰⁵
The understanding of metaphor will be commented upon below, but at this
point it is appropriate to note that scholars glide from linguistic parlance into ex-
egetical: the use of an image, whether a metaphor or other, suggests to the schol-
ar an entity behind the text. In this case, it is the “persona” or “symbol” that is
felt under the surface of the text. How can one avoid the impression that this is a
case of reader-response or reader-creativity rather than of an attempt to under-
stand the text? Text is created and understood according to linguistic rules,
and on this basis e. g. rhetorics operate. To move between these aspects of exe-
gesis without clarifying the different aspects will blur the questions discussed
and their possible solutions.
As noted earlier, the expressions under consideration here are often under-
stood as personifications. Scholars who use this expression do not agree on the
understanding of personification, however, as they produce different presenta-
tions of the sense of the nomen regens and of the referent of the whole construct
phrase. In one line of thought, the nomen regens is considered to have the sense
of “population” of the places mentioned in the nomen rectum; in a different un-
derstanding the construct phrase refers to the phenomenon mentioned in the
nomen rectum and the nomen regens would describe some specific aspect of
this referent. It is therefore necessary not only to pay attention to the more or
less technical language of the different scholars, but to the sense they attribute
to the elements of the phrases and the referents they assume.
A special case is constituted by wisdom, which has been seen as a person-
ification, a hypostasis or a person, even a former goddess.²⁰⁶ A possible personi-
 Ibid., 206.

 Ibid., 209.
 Øystein Lund, Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40 – 55, Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 30 – 43, with reference to Terje Stordalen, Echoes
of Eden: Genesis 2 – 3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, Con-
tributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000).
 Roland E. Murphy, “The Personification of Wisdom,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in
Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. Robert P. Gordon, H. G. M. Williamson, John Day (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995); Judith M. Hadley, “Wisdom and the Goddess,” in Wisdom in
fication is found in ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ְּכִסילוּת‬, often translated as “Lady Foolishness,” but now
usually understood as “the foolish woman,” Prov 9:13.²⁰⁷ This case can be read
against the understanding of wisdom in Prov 8, where we encounter a personi-
fication in so far as “wisdom” is construed with verbs usually having animate
subjects. The personification of wisdom in Prov 8 is as described by Encyclopæ-
dia Britannica. The possible case of ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת ְּכִסילוּת‬is different. Here, a noun denot-
ing women is used as nomen regens to a nomen rectum denoting an abstract
quality. If this is to be taken as a personification, this type of personification
is not frequent in the HB, if found at all. The understanding of this expression
may be inspired by the personification of wisdom in the preceding chapter of
Proverbs. Compared to the frequency of modern examples like “Lady Justice,”
“Father Time” or “Mother Earth,” the absence of the use of such nouns to per-
sonify abstract entities in the HB is conspicuous. Words like mother, father,
woman/Lady, man are not used to this effect in the HB, with the possible excep-
tion of this expression in Prov 9:13.
Magne Sæbø in an article from 2011 has called attention to the fact that wis-
dom is never called a woman or lady in Proverbs, only folly receives a similar
epithet, Prov 9:13: ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ְּכִסילוּת ֹהִמ ָיּה‬, translated by NRSV as “The foolish
woman is loud,” a translation which does not see any “Lady Folly” in the expres-
sion, but considers the phrase to refer to a woman described by the noun used as
nomen rectum. Sæbø is, however, right in pointing out the lack of expressions
referring to wisdom as a woman, and to the fact that when wisdom speaks in
the first person, she calls herself an ‫ָאמוֹן‬, Prov 8:30, a masculine word. The
point is “a broad and variegated gallery of pictures and images that express in
a metaphorical way a high degree of literary description of personified wisdom;
what remains essential is its status and authority, not its gender.”²⁰⁸ His study
does not discuss the ways in which personification may be expressed in lan-
guage, and on a general basis this is necessary.
In his commentary on Proverbs from 2012 Sæbø mentions a number of au-
thors who considers the phrase to express the idea of “Frau Torheit,” “Lady
Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. Robert P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson, John Day
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
 Art. KSL, ThWAT IV (Stuttgart etc.: Kohlhammer, 1984), 279 f., with reference to Bernhard
Lang, Frau Weisheit: Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, 1975, ET Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs:
A Hebrew Goddess Redefined (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1986).
 Magne Sæbø, “Was There a ’Lady Wisdom’ in the Proverbs?,” in Among Jews, Gentiles and
Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Professor Oskar Skarsaune on
His 65th Birthday, ed. Redar Hvalvik and John Kaufman (Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press,
2011), qoutation from p. 193.
Folly,” a personification of folly.²⁰⁹ The depiction of this Lady builds upon the
contrast to wisdom, and on the image of the “strange woman” in the preceding
chapters. The latter image has been studied by Christl Maier, and she too iden-
tifies “Lady Folly” in 9:13 with the “strange woman.”²¹⁰ If this identification is
accepted, one might see in the phrase a heightening of tension after the preced-
ing chapters: the “strange woman” is Folly in person. Since this would be a lone
instance of this type of phrases in the HB, the instance must be left as it is: a
possible case, but nothing more.
That an awareness of personification was present before the advent of the
modern study of the Hebrew langugage can be exemplified by Moses ibn
Ezra’s comments on Psalm 19 from ca. 1135. His understanding of metaphor is
found in Shirat Yisrael, when he writes that “The essence of metaphor is that
you describe an unknown thing with a known one…There are two sorts of meta-
phor: one in which the proposition is explicit and clear, and another in which
the intended sense is hidden and concealed. The explicit proposition is like
the examples I adduced above, and the hidden is like ’The heavens tell of the
honor of God’ [Ps 19:2]. The very next verse proves that the poet is using these
words metaphorically and not literally, for it is written there: ’There is no speech,
and there are no words, etc.’”²¹¹ This type of metaphor is what Encyclopædia Bri-
tannica terms “personification.”
The understanding of personification presented by Stinespring, where
“daughter” is attached to a place name, creates a similar effect. In the expression
‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬Zion is spoken of as if she were a living phenomenon: a metaphorical
sense of “daughter” is applied to Zion, as if Zion were an animate being. The dif-
ference to Encyclopædia Britannica is that there mainly verbs used with nouns
are considered to perform the personification process, but here a noun attached
to another noun does the same. Applied to the construct phrases I discuss here,
this logic would mean that they refer to the entity mentioned in the nomen rec-
tum. If we assume that the nomen regens may function like the verbs in the ex-
amples from Encyclopædia Britannica and the HB, personification would mean
the process whereby a nomen regens creates the impression that nomen rectum
may be seen in terms of a living entity. This type of personification is therefore
 Magne Sæbø, Sprüche: Übersetzt und erklärt von Magne Sæbø, ATD 16,1 (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012)., 137, n. 278, 141– 143.
 Christl Maier, Die “Fremde Frau” in Proverbien 1 – 9: Eine exegetische und sozialge-
schichtliche Studie, Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis 144 (Freiburg, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag
Freiburg Schweiz, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 256.
 Quoted from Alex Preminger and Edward L. Greenstein, The Hebrew Bible in Literary
Criticism (New York: Unger, 1986), 105.
linguistically the same as the one described by Encyclopædia Britannica, but dif-
ferent from that of GK and GKC.
A related phenomenon to “personification” can be seen in the examples pro-
vided by Joachim Schaper in his study of LXX. The expression ‫ ְיהוָּדה ְמֹחְקִקי‬,
“Judah is my scepter,” Ps 60:9 (ET 60:7); 108:9, is in the LXX rendered as Ιουδας
βασιλεύς μου· “Judas is my king,” Ps 59:9; 107:9; a messianic interpretation, and
it can be called “personalization.” A similar case is Gen 49:10, where ‫ ֵשֶׁבט‬, “scep-
ter,” is translated as ἄρχων, “ruler,” and ‫ְמֹחֵקק‬, “[the ruler’s] staff,” as
ἡγούμενος, “prince” by LXX.²¹² Such a transition from a geographical to a per-
sonal name, and from a symbol of royal rule to the ruler can be called “person-
alization” rather than “personification,” since the process here is different from
the other ones. This phenomenon is an interpretation of text, and the former
types are of a linguistic or rhetorical type. The connection between them is con-
stituted by the end result, more than by the process, and this connection is thin.
There is no necessity to discuss this phenomenon further here.
We are therefore left with three different understandings of personification
in the HB: one that focuses on the metonymic sense of geographical names,
one that sees the use of “daughter” in construct phrases as a condensed expres-
sion for the larger population, and one that reasons syntagmatically or combina-
torially, where the words combined with for example “Zion” are usually found
with words denoting animate subjects.
Personification in the sense of GKC, viz. as describing the creation of an ex-
pression with the sense component “inhabitants” of a place by adding the word
for “daughter” to a geographical name presupposes that the nomen regens can
have this function. In most cases, inhabitants of a location are referred to in the
HB/OT by construct phrases with the plural construct forms of ‫ ֵּבן‬or ‫ ַּבת‬and a
geographical name as nomen rectum, for example ‫ְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן‬, Ps 149:2; Lam 4:2;
Joel 2:23, and ‫ְּבנוֹת־ִציּוֹן‬, Isa 3:16 f; 4:4; Song 3:11. This corresponds to expressions
like “Zion bore her sons,” Isa 66:8, and “your sons, O Zion,” Zech 9:13. We have
to be open to the possibility that the singular, feminine construct form can be
used with the sense “a single inhabitant” or “a collective;” but at this point
we note that there are other expressions referring to the population of, for exam-
ple, Zion.
Among the grammarians, Meyer does not use the word personification, but
understands ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as a collective and translates it “the population of Jerusalem
[sic],” whereas the expression ‫ ְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן‬would refer to the individual members of
 Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, WUNT Reihe 2; 76 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1995), 42– 43.
3.2 Metaphor 65
the population.²¹³ This understanding of the construct phrase supposes it to be

used as a genitive expression: Zion’s daughter = Zion’s population, in a pars pro
toto-movement for “daughter,” which would belong to the category of metonymy
for this word.
3.2 Metaphor
The analysis of metaphor has a long history, and the last decades of the previous
century saw an upsurge in interest in this phenomenon in different fields.²¹⁴ Also
in biblical studies this phenomenon has been intensively studied by the last gen-
eration of scholars.²¹⁵ In the contributions around gender and theology it is often
discussed.²¹⁶ One of the more recent contributions is Brent A. Strawn’s analysis
of leonine image and metaphor.²¹⁷ The word “metaphor” is used with different
meanings and in different contexts, for instance to describe the metaphysics
of the Bible.²¹⁸ The present study focusses on individual words used in the HB
 Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, § 43, 5: “‫’ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬Bewohnerschaft von Jerusalem’ [sic]
im Gegensatz zu ‫ְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן‬, den einzelnen Bewohnern;” and in the case of Zech 9:9 he translates
‫“ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬Zionsbewohner,” § 94, 3c.
 Warren A. Shibles, Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History (Whitewater, WI: The
Language Press, 1971); J. P. van Noppen, Metaphor: A Bibliography of Post-1970 Publications
(Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1985); J. P. van Noppen, and Edith Hols,
Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publications From 1985 to 1990 (Amsterdam ; Phila-
delphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1990).
 For a good overview, see Bonnie Howe, Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor
and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter, Biblical Interpretation Series 81 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005). Also
relevant is Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah..
 Hanne Løland, Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in
the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46 and 49, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 32
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) is one example.
 Brent A. Strawn, What is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew
Bible and the Ancient Near East, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 212 (Fribourg, Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).
 See for example James R. Adams, From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for
Biblical Metaphors, Updated 2nd ed. (Cleveland, OH [Gig Harbor, WA]: Pilgrim Press in Asso-
ciation with The Center for Progressive Christianity, 2008). In addition to the criticism presented
by Christine Treu, RBL 03/2009, an appropriate comment on this book might be the discussion of
metaphor by Harald Weinrich, “Allgemeine Semantik der Metapher,” 317– 323, and “Semantik
der kühnen Metapher,” 295 – 316. A wide extension of a word makes its metaphorical use less
likely. Cf. Stephan Lauber, “Euch aber wird aufgehen die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit” (Vgl. Mal 3,20):
Eine Exegese von Mal 3,13 – 21, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 78 (St. Ottilien:
Eos Verlag, 2006), 107.
with a metaphorical sense, and it is therefore not necessary to comment on the

use of “metaphor” in other contexts and for other purposes. Only a few meth-
odological remarks are necessary.
Ivor Richards set off a new wave of interest in metaphors in his essay from
1936, where he introduced the technical terms “vehicle” and “tenor.”²¹⁹ His ter-
minology was criticized by Max Black for being “an inconvenient fiction” and
for vacillating in reference.²²⁰ This criticism has not led scholars to abandon
the phrases, on the contrary, they are still in full use. Black’s criticism is, how-
ever, valid: Richards uses “vehicle” as referring to the metaphorical expression,
to the subsidiary subject and to the connected implication system; and he uses
“tenor” for the principal subject, for the implications connected with that subject
and for the resultant meaning of the expression in its context. On this back-
ground, it is no wonder that later authors use “tenor” and “vehicle” in a variety
of ways. One must respect Richards’ usage of these words, but the most logical
understanding of them would be that “vehicle” describes the word or expression
used for the metaphor, and “tenor” the metaphorical meaning of this word or ex-
pression. In the sentence “how lonely sits the city,” Lam 1:1, “sits” is the vehicle
for the meaning “dwell/rest.” The tenor of “sits” is dwell/rest. Ironically, Ri-
chards opened for confusion by using two words metaphorically to describe
parts of the metaphorical process. I am not tempted to use any of these terms.
Both Richards and Black react against earlier views of metaphor, first of all
against the substitution view of metaphor, according to which a metaphor is
used in place of some equivalent literal expression. This reaction corresponds
to the remark in a recent handbook in philosophy that there are metaphors
that resist being transformed into concepts; Ernst Cassirer calls them “radikale
Metaphern,” Stephen C. Pepper “root metaphors,” Max Black “generative meta-
phors,” Paul Riceour métaphores vives, and Hans Blumenberg “absolute Meta-
phern.”²²¹ This reaction is justified; among other aspects, the creative, artistic
sense of a word or an expression used metaphorically is lost in a replacement.
On the other hand, the metaphorical sense can be described by other terms.
The question of synonymity in language comes into play here, and a metaphor,
 I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, 1936 Mary Flexner Lectures (New York ; London:
Oxford University Press, 1936).
 Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N.Y: Cor-
nell University Press, 1966), 47, n. 23.
 Ralf Konersmann, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Metaphern (Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), “Sprachbilder…, die ihre philosophische Pointe darin haben,
aufgrund ihrer begriffsadäquaten Funktion transformationsresistent zu sein,” 12.
3.2 Metaphor 67
in particular, resists full synonymity with a replacement, but a descriptive equiv-

alent may approximate the sense of the metaphor.
Black also opposed the comparison view of metaphor, that a metaphor con-
sists in the presentation of the underlying analogy or similarity. Instead, he sug-
gested the interaction view of metaphor, metaphor as a filter, where the system of
associated commonplaces is needed to understand for example the metaphor in
the sentence “man is a wolf.” “The wolf-metaphor suppresses some details, em-
phasizes others–in short, organizes our view of man.”²²² It is not difficult to fol-
low this thinking; more problematic is the following statement: “If to call a man
a wolf is to put him in a special light, we must not forget that the metaphor
makes the wolf seem more human than he otherwise would.”²²³
If this should be a general statement, one would have to include the meta-
phorical applications of words within their “literal” use, something that is im-
possible, if only for practical reasons. No user of natural languages can master
the innumerable metaphorical usages a word or an expression may have. “Inter-
action” can also be understood as the limiting force of a target for the metaphor
upon it. Only the “humanly” possible “commonplaces” of “wolf” can be carried
over in the expression “man is a wolf.” Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen’s comment to
this mutual interaction is to the point: At least one element of meaning that can-
not refer to man must be present in the metaphor “wolf” in addition to the re-
ferable elements, in order for the word to function as a metaphor and not be
eliminated as a metaphor altogether.²²⁴ There has to be an element of non-trans-
ference for the metaphor to work.
The idea of interaction has been used by Antje Labahn to describe the reader
response understanding of metaphors.²²⁵
According to the basic literary idea, a metaphor enlarges the meaning of a single word…It
works rather like a sign for a matter. A metaphor provokes a step from word to reality, from
verbal expression to the nature of the affair.²²⁶
In the dialogue with the reader or hearer of the text, the metaphor creates new senses as
individual as the readers and hearers in their precise circumstances are. Dealing with met-
aphorical texts under a methodological reader-response point of view, the number of new
senses created by a metaphor cannot be limited to a few meanings differing from one an-
other, but has to be regarded as a wide range of various matters set forth by the metaphor
 Black, Models and Metaphors, 41.

 Ibid., 44.
 Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen, Allegorische Rede, 61, n. 244.
 Antje Labahn, “Metaphor and Inter-Textuality: ’Daughter of Zion’ as a Test Case: Response
to Kirsten Nielsen ’From Oracles to Canon’–and the Role of Metaphor,” SJOT 17 (2003): 49 – 67.
 Ibid., 50.
itself. Read by various readers in different times and situations, the metaphor evokes a
large range of various meanings.²²⁷
The way a reader or hearer identifies the phrase in his or her individual interaction depends
on the precondition a hearer or reader of the metaphor applies to the term.²²⁸
Therefore, “…the metaphor gives birth to a new sense in a new situation.”²²⁹ Lab-
ahn applies this understanding to “Daughter of Zion as an intertextual phenom-
enon of a metaphor.”²³⁰ Metaphors are given new meaning by an author who use
them in a new context. The metaphor “Daughter of Zion” is “a good example of
mutual influence from a context of doom toward a context of salvation and vice
versa: from a context of salvation to a context of doom.”²³¹ Labahn considers his
work to be of a literary nature, and not linguistic, and that will explain his ap-
proach.
From a semantic and cultural point of view, his theory cannot be followed. If
there is to be some historical verisimilitude to the understanding of a metaphor,
cultural elements in the original setting have to be taken into account. An exam-
ple is the use of “fox” in Luke 13:32: “He [Jesus] said to them [the pharisees], “Go
and tell that fox [intending Herod Antipas] for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out de-
mons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my
work.” The material on “fox” in the Bible is sparse, but we have the statement in
Neh 4:3: “Tobiah the Ammonite was beside him [Sanballat], and he said, ’That
stone wall they [Nehemiah and the people of Jerusalem] are building—any fox
going up on it would break it down!’” For such a statement to have historical
meaning, it seems to imply that a fox was considered light-weight and insignif-
icant, and such a metaphorical sense works well in Luke 13:32 also. The tradi-
tional European metaphor “fox” means “crafty, scheming, unreliable,” and
this will not work in the two Biblical texts with “fox.” A modern, for example Eu-
ropean, understanding of “fox” in Luke 13:32 may well create many interesting
images of Herod Antipas, but will not approximate the historical meaning of
the statement made. The issue might be what a modern reader wants to achieve,
an historical understanding or any possible modern reading.
Peter W. Macky ventures to give a full picture of the metaphors used in the
Bible. His understanding of metaphor is “that figurative way of speaking (and
meaning) in which one reality, the Subject, is depicted in terms that are more
 Ibid., 51.

 Ibid., 63.
 Ibid., 51.
 Ibid., 58.
 Ibid., 67.
3.2 Metaphor 69
commonly associated with a differed reality, the Symbol, which is related to it by

Analogy.”²³² From a linguistic point of view, this understanding fails to take into
account how the two areas language and reality relate to each other. It seems
that words are generally presumed to refer to reality, without the phenomenon
of sense or meaning of words which operates in the area between word and
world. The definition would also need to include cases where a metaphor pro-
poses something about a subject, without recurring to existing analogies. An
analogy, or tertium comparationis, needs not be true or well-known for a meta-
phor to function.
An interesting tool for the study of sense relations is the componential anal-
ysis.²³³ It has been used for analyzing metaphors.²³⁴ There are valuable insights
from componential analysis for our purpose. But this method was developed in
the era of nascent anthropolinguistics, when linguistics saw that there are family
expressions in some languages that have no parallels in the metalanguage they
used. Instead of providing longish translations, they would rather dissect the
words into components that could be given proper expression in the metalan-
guage. This componential analysis is no longer so popular as it was, and in
my treatment of the pertinent lexemes in chapter 5 I use it only to a limited ex-
tent.
A method of studying metaphors is that of Otto Eissfeldt in his study of God’s
kingship.²³⁵ Here, he collects all contexts in which God is explicitly called king,
or the root ‫מלך‬, “to reign,” is used of him. The elements of royalty that are pro-
jected onto him are then catalogued and studied to see what elements of human
kingship are contextually explicit. In his study of the same topic, Marc Zvi Bret-
tler instead first describes human kingship in all its aspects and then investi-
gates the associated commonplaces between God as king and human kings.
He also as notes the images and terms that are not shared by God and the
human king.²³⁶ An influence from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson is evident
in the concentration on clusters of metaphors or one master metaphor with sev-
eral sub-metaphors.²³⁷
 Peter W. Macky, The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting
the Bible, Studies in the Bible and early Christianity 19 (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1990), 26.
 John Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1995), 107– 117.
 Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen, Allegorische Rede.
 Otto Eissfeldt, “Jahwe als König,” in Kleine Schriften I (Tübingen: Mohr, 1928).
 Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76 (Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).
 George Lakoff & Mark Jonson, Metaphors We Live By, (The University of Chicago 1980.)
The importance of metaphors in Biblical studies has been demonstrated sev-

eral times in the preceding investigation. One example is “personification” char-
acterized as a metaphor, where the verbs etc. in syntactical relation to the noun
are used metaphorically. Another is Stinespring’s suggestion to read “daughter
Zion” as an expression with a metaphor in nomen regens, which implies that
a word is used with a sense that cannot be replaced by other words with exactly
the same meaning. We will return to this topic in chapter 5.
3.3 Irony
Some of the instances we will consider later may be considered as ironical uses
of the phrases, and the brief comments here are only a backdrop to that discus-
sion, as this is not the place to enter into the study of irony as a topic in itself.
Only a few remarks are made before we approach the phrases in chapter 5.
Irony is “expression of one’s meaning by saying the direct opposite of one’s
thoughts in order to be emphatic, amusing, sarcastic etc.,” according to the Ox-
ford Advanced Learner’ Dictionary (4. ed., 1989). This is a simple and common
sense definition of irony, and it is helpful for some of the instances which one
may suggest are ironical uses of the phrases. Edwin M. Good’s study of irony
is based on the understanding that “irony can be distinguished from other per-
ceptions of incongruity by two characteristics. One is the means of statement,
which we may describe as understatement or a method of suggestion rather
than of plain statement. The other is the stance in truth from which the percep-
tion comes.”²³⁸ This covers instances of irony that go further than the simple def-
inition quoted above, and one may keep this in mind when the phrases are in-
vestigated. The study of irony has received a valuable contribution in the work of
Carolyn J. Sharp.²³⁹ The present study works on a basic level with possible iron-
ical uses of words and expressions, and therefore has a more limited scope than
her study, but insights from her book should not be overlooked.
 Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981),
quotation from 30 – 31.
 Carolyn J. Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2009).
3.4 The Different Interpretations 71
3.4 The Different Interpretations
In view of the above, it is now incumbent to sum up the status of the different
suggestions for understanding the phrases under discussion.
(1) “Daughter of Zion” = Zion, Daughter [of God]

This idea, proposed by Follis, and reviewed earlier, can probably be discarded. A
reading of “daughter” would in this theory presuppose that it is appositional to
“Zion” and the whole phrase would then describe Zion as the daughter of God,
where “God” would be presupposed as a “father” of Zion. In view of the general
tendency towards monolatry in the HB, this position is not very probable. Also,
the phrase would need some part(s) of the (con)text that could refer to God, but
such reference is not found.
(2) “Daughter (of) Zion” denotes a capital city

This is Fitzgerald’s theory, and he is right in that some texts show that Jerusalem
is intended by “daughter (of) Zion.” The problems with his theory have been
mentioned above, most importantly the scarcity of the extra-Biblical textual
basis for his explanation of the phrase.
The suggestion by Schmitt to read the cases with ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as referring to
the capitals Samaria and Jerusalem has been commented upon earlier: the most
important problem is that the understanding does not fit the contexts.
(3) “Daughter (of) Zion” lends an aura of divinity and royalty to Zion
The instances in Lamentations could favour an understanding that focusses
upon Jerusalem and her disaster, and Dobbs-Allsopp has focused on this biblical
book in his studies of the relevant phrases. On the other hand, there is not much
divinity and royalty about the lamenting city in Lamentations. Many of the rele-
vant texts are not laments but salvation oracles, and in other cases there is more
compassion for Zion than laments.
In the study of the individual texts later, this option should be kept in mind,
even if one cannot adopt the background suggested by Dobbs-Allsopp.
(4) “Daughter (of) Zion” is a case of personification

This is a widespread theory found in many grammars, lexicons and commenta-
ries. It can be defined in two ways. The first is to assume that “Zion” in these
phrases not only refers to Jerusalem, but at the same time can serve as a meto-
nym for the population of the city. The problem then would be that it is unnec-
essary to add an element that directs our attention to the population of the city a
second time. The cases with “daughter of my people” fall into the same category,
and are unlikely to constitute phrases of individuation.
The second variant of this theory is that the addition of “daughter” creates a
focus on the population of “Zion.” Since “daughter” denotes humans, the mean-
ing of the combined expression moves towards the population of Zion, and this
can be called “personification.” This will be an item in the study of the expres-
sions in chapter 5.
(5) “Daughter (of) Zion” has a metaphor as nomen regens applied to nomen
rectum
This was first suggested by Stinespring, who also had a view to other phrases
with a similar structure, but the idea needs closer study from a linguistic
point of view before it can be made probable.
On the background of the history of research of these phrases the following ques-
tions need to be addressed. First, there is the problem of which phrases should
be included in the investigation, how many of them belong together and consti-
tute a group of similarly construed phrases. Secondly, the understanding of them
depends on the sense of the words used as nomina regentia. The answer to this
question has consequences for the grammatical understanding of the whole
phrase as an attributive phrase or a phrase providing the possessor and the pos-
sessed. This question again is attached to another topic touched several times in
scholarship: is there such a thing as an appositional construct phrase in Biblical
Hebrew, where nomen regens is an apposition to nomen rectum? If the evidence
for such a category is “virtually nonexistent,” to quote Fitzgerald once more, the
semantic range of the nomina regentia is limited by this fact.²⁴⁰ If, however, there
are phrases that represent such a category, apart from the phrases we discuss
here, the semantic range possible in the relevant contexts is larger, and may in-
corporate the understandings suggested by scholars who interpret them in this
way. They include not only Stinespring, Berlin and Williamson, but also Fitzger-
ald (ironically enough, almost against his own will), Dobbs-Allsopp, Follis and
Wischnowsky.
As the first step in the analysis of the semantics of construct state expres-
sions, the next chapter will review them in the most relevant Semitic languages.
 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background”, 409.

Chapter 4 The Genitive and the Construct State in
Semitic Languages
The review of scholarship so far has revealed some confusion in the understand-
ing of these expressions. Confusion starts at the level of morphology, where it
seems that the construct state is not properly regarded as a distinct form of
the relevant words, and it continues with the semantics of the expressions,
where the understanding often uses the nomen rectum as the fixed point.
4.1 The Understanding of the Construct State in Contemporary

Hebrew Grammar
When Paul Joüon published his Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique in 1923, he in-
tended it to be an intermediate grammar between the monumental works such
as the Lehrgebäude by Eduard König and the elementary grammars.²⁴¹ Takamitsu
Muraoka reworked and translated the grammar into English in 1991, and when
he revised this translation in 2006 he stated that “the 1991 edition had already
begun to take on the appearance of an advanced grammar; this is even more evi-
dent in this revised edition…”²⁴² This development can be seen in the “consider-
able amount of bibliographical information and a scholarly exchange in copious
footnotes.”²⁴³ One notes, however, that the 2006 edition has the same framework
as the 1923 grammar. This is not only visible in the paragraph counting, which is
identical, but in the approach to many phonological and grammatical issues.
One of the novelties in the 2006 edition is found in a final paragraph of the
“general observations” on morphology:
Just as a phoneme can be realised with multiple allophones (§ 5 gb), a given inflectional
category, ’morpheme,’ can be expressed by means of multiple ’allomorphs.’ Thus the in-
flectional category of Qal participle feminine singular absolute state has a set of three al-
lomorphs: ̇‫ׁקֶ֫טֶלת‬, ‫ק ֵֹטָלה‬, ‫ק ְֹטָלה‬. Their distribution is conditioned by various factors or para-
meters. ²⁴⁴
 Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Édition photomécanique corrigée, Graz 1965.
(Rome: Institut biblique pontifical, 1923), p. vii.
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, p. xix.
 Ibid.
 Ibid., § 34 e, p. 101.
74 Chapter 4 The Genitive and the Construct State in Semitic Languages
In other words, a grammatical morpheme, in this case Qal participle feminine

singular absolute state, may have different allomorphs, resulting in different
word-forms.
From this vantage point, one might expect the grammar to present the noun
in a similar way, but the “general observations” introducing the treatment of the
noun reproduce the views of the 1923 edition, for example:
Because the Hebrew noun has lost the final vowels which indicated cases (nominative, ac-
cusative, genitive, §93 b), there is, properly speaking, no declension. The logical relations
expressed by the nominative, the accusative, and the genitive are shown by the position
of the noun in the phrase or sentence. For the genitive, however, the first noun (nomen re-
gens), which governs the second noun (nomen rectum), often has a special form called the
construct state, as opposed to the ordinary form, which is called the absolute state (§ 92 a).
The changes in the vocalisation of the noun in the construct state and those changes which
occur when a noun is lengthened by the addition of the plural, dual, and feminine endings
and of the pronominal suffices are due to stress shift. All these changes in the vocalisation
constitute the inflection of the noun, §95 a.²⁴⁵
The grammar here bypasses some word-forms that are used for construct state
morphemes, and mentions the changes in vocalisation only. If it had followed
up the approach used in the case of Qal participle feminine singular absolute
state, it might have seen the relevant word-forms of the noun as allomorphs
of different construct state morphemes. Instead, the construct state is merely
viewed as occasioned by stress shift, stress shift from the nomen regens to the
nomen rectum. Similarly, the opening paragraph to the section on the morphol-
ogy of the “Construct state” has this approach, also found in the 1923 edition:
A noun can be used in close conjunction with another noun to express a notion of posses-
sion, of belonging etc., as in the Latin construction with the genitive e. g. equus Pharaonis
“the horse of Pharaoh.” This relation is expressed in Hebrew by the simple close nexus of
the two nouns: ‫סוּס ַפְּרֹעה‬. The two nouns form a phonetic unit resulting from the logical
unit. The first noun is called the governing noun (nomen regens), the second the governed
noun (nomen rectum). The first noun is said to be in the construct state because it rests pho-
netically on the second, just as a building rests on its foundations. The opposite of the con-
struct state is the absolute state… ²⁴⁶
The construct state is here not introduced as an “inflectional category,” as is the

case with the Qal participle singular absolute state, but as a part of a unit that
 Ibid., § 86, p. 217; cf. Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, § 86, 186 f.
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 92 a, 253; cf. Paul Joüon,
Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, § 92 a, 220.
4.1 The Understanding of the Construct State in Contemporary Hebrew Grammar 75
expresses notions corresponding to the Latin genitive. From this logical unit re-
sults the phonetic unit, which is the fundamental understanding of the construct
state. The description of the construct state is made by the help of construct
phrases, where the nomen rectum is considered the main part, the foundation,
and the nomen regens logically and therefore phonetically rests on that element.
The possibility of there being construct state morphemes is not in focus; nor is it
the focus of the following section that overviews the morphology of the construct
state.
To understand construct phrases, the paragraph quoted chooses a compar-
ison from Latin, by selecting an example where the word in the genitive case is
preceded by a word in the nominative case. Word order in the Latin example is
similar to Hebrew, just as in its English translation (“horse” – “Pharaoh”). But a
reference to Latin and English calls attention to the asymmetry between Semitic
and Indo-European languages. English may change expression and word order
into “Pharaoh’s horse,” and word order in phrases with genitive in Latin is
free. Word order in Hebrew construct expressions is not free. Further, “Pharaoh”
is the unaltered word in Hebrew, in the absolute state, which is preceded by a
word that is in the construct state. Latin and English, on the other hand, inflect
“Pharaoh.” This difference between the languages does not prevent this gram-
mar from using Latin as a template for understanding Hebrew, and the differen-
ces are not mentioned.
By focusing on the absolute state word, Joüon-Muraoka make the loss of
stress on the construct state word with the resultant vowel changes the main
characteristic of the construct state. The construct terminations are treated brief-
ly in § 92, and only with a view to their origin, and by looking for older forms that
may have survived in the construct state. Joüon-Muraoka explain feminine sin-
gular construct state as a primitive form: “In nouns with the primitive feminine
ending at, which has become ‫ ָ–ה‬in the absolute, both the primitive t and the
short a are retained…”²⁴⁷ One could comment that the cases where the feminine
forms have different vowels would also have to be taken into account if a mor-
phological analysis is the point, and not an etymological. Masculine plural con-
struct state is unexplained: “The origin of this ending, which has no relation
whatsoever with the ending ‫̣–ים‬, is still an unresolved question. Some see in it
the ‫̤– י‬of the construct dual, others an abstract ending used as a plural ending.
This ẹ seems to us to be the contraction of the ay of nouns from the ‫ ל”י‬roots…
This ‫̤– י‬, found in the nouns of ‫ ל“י‬roots, would then have spread to the nouns
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 92 e, 254.

formed from other roots.”²⁴⁸ The suggestion that an ẹ in some forms of the ‫ל“י‬
roots should end up particularly in the construct state endings of masculine plu-
ral, is hard to follow.
Joüon-Muraoka’s approach in the part on morphology is followed up in the
grammar’s section on syntax, where chapter II introduces the cases in this way:
We shall employ the usual terms accusative, genitive, and nominative by analogy with
Latin. Although case endings have almost entirely disappeared from Hebrew (cf. § 93 b
ff.) all these originally morphological categories are now largely syntactic ones.
[To this a footnote is added in the 2006 edition:] Retention of these terms has an added
advantage of facilitating comparison of the syntax of Hebrew with that of ancient cognate
languages still retaining the case endings, notably Classical Arabic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,
which amply attest to, and illustrate, analogous phenomena.²⁴⁹
The authors admit that cases do not exist in biblical Hebrew but use their names
for syntactic categories. A reader will presume that since the syntactical func-
tions of cases in other languages are also observed in Hebrew, the case names
are used here also. This grammar states that in order to explain the origin of
the paragogic vowels, it is necessary to know the “old Semitic declension, as
it still exists in Classical Arabic, and as it must have existed, at some earlier
stage, in Hebrew.”²⁵⁰ Even though the grammar is occupied with the Hebrew
of the Hebrew Bible, its treatment is structured by categories from a supposed
earlier stage of the language, and from Latin. In contrast with the comments
on the Qal participle feminine singular absolute word-forms found in § 34, in
the subsequent presentation of the construct state it is not considered an “inflec-
tional category,” but a phonological phenomenon, created by the loss of stress.
The result is that a possible morphological treatment of the construct state is ne-
glected.
The category of genitive, as this is found in other languages, steers the treat-
ment of the construct state. We will return to these other languages presently and
see that there is a basic incongruence between Hebrew and these languages at
this point, but Joüon-Muraoka do not focus on this. The call from Johann Gott-
fried Herder and Wilhelm von Humboldt to see each language as a separate sys-
tem, has not been heeded here, though some scholars show renewed interest in
 Ibid., § 92 f, 254.

 Ibid., introduction to § 125, in the section on syntax, 410; cf. Paul Joüon, Grammaire de
l’hébreu biblique, § 125, 365.
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 93 a, 255; cf. Paul Joüon,
Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, § 93 a, 223.
it.²⁵¹ The focus on the nomen rectum not only steers the analysis of the changes
in the construct state when compared to the absolute state, but it also governs
the understanding of these expressions, their semantics, as we will see later.
The 2006 edition of the grammar reveals, however, some doubt about the
approach. In a footnote to § 129, which deals with the genitive and the construct
state, we read “But the light vocalisation of the construct state goes beyond the
case of the genitive relationship; it is sometimes found in other cases of close
linking (§ r, s). One may wonder whether the relationship was felt to be properly
genitive in cases where the noun was constructed on something other than an-
other noun, e. g. on a preposition.”²⁵² This question has not resulted in a different
approach to the construct state; it is only considered a possibility that in some
cases it was not “properly genitive.”
The grammar of Joüon-Muraoka is not alone in its treatment of the construct
state. A fresh treatment of Hebrew grammar is offered by Christo H. J. van der
Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé and Jan H. Kroeze. The starting point for the declension
of the noun is also here “Cases in B[iblical]H[ebrew]. The Construct State.”²⁵³ The
introductory statements here are: “Unlike most Semitic languages, BH no longer
has noun cases…BH has adopted other strategies to compensate for the loss of
noun cases. There is, for example, a specific construction for the ’genitive’ in
BH. This construction which is, in a sense, the only morphological indicator of
a ’case’ in BH, is called a construct relation.”²⁵⁴ This grammar in its glossary pres-
ents morphology as “the study of the forms of words”,²⁵⁵ and heads § 25.2 “Mor-
phology of the Status Absolutus, Postconstructus and Status Constructus.”²⁵⁶
The descriptions of absolute and construct states are held in morphological par-
lance, but the following explanation then moves into syntactic idiom:
The status absolutus is the normal form of the word…The status constructus is a special
form of the word that is used to indicate that that particular word and the word following
it form a possessive construction (in the broadest sense of the word). This is called the con-
struct relationship or ‫( ְסִמיכוּת‬support). The status constructus is also called the ‫( ִנְסָמְך‬sup-
 This has happened in the development in linguistics; for Hebrew, see Diethelm Michel,
Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax, part 1, 12– 23.
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 129 a, n. 2, 434.
 C. H. J. van der Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999), § 25.1, heading, 191.
 Ibid., § 25.1, 191– 2.
 Ibid., 361.
 Ibid., § 25.2, 193.
ported) and the word that follows it the ‫סֵמְך‬

ֹ (supporter). The ‫ ֹסֵמְך‬is the equivalent of the
genitive in Greek and Latin and other Semitic languages.²⁵⁷
The following treatment presents nouns with endings: the construct state ap-
pears together with the possessive suffixes. The construct forms are not charac-
terized as a morphological category.
It seems to me that ‫ ִנְסָמְך‬and ‫ ֹסֵמְך‬are names for syntactic categories, corre-
sponding to nomen regens and nomen rectum; this grammar does not use these
latter expressions. The presentation is blurred by the confusion of syntactic
terms with morphological ones, and the description does not correct this. Anoth-
er confusing term is “postconstructus,” and I will return to this in the part on
terminology. Given the definition of “morphology” one would expect a different
approach, with focus on the forms of the construct state, but this is not given. If
“the only morphological indicator of ’case’ in BH, is called a construct relation,”
it is also true that only the construct form, as the “special form” can indicate this
morphologically, as the absolute is “the normal form.” But this grammar does
not put its own description of morphology to use in the case of the construct
state. The basic assumption that the category of “genitive” is helpful, is shared
with Joüon-Muraoka.
These grammars and others rest on a tradition from Gesenius, whose gram-
mar opens the morphological treatment of the construct state in a this way:
The Hebrew language no longer makes a living use of case-endings, but either has no ex-
ternal indication of case (this is so for the nominative, generally also for the accusative)
or expresses the relation by means of prepositions (§ 119), while the genitive is mostly in-
dicated by a close connexion (or interdependence) of the Nomen regens and the Nomen rec-
tum. That is to say, the noun which as genitive serves to define more particularly an imme-
diately preceding Nomen regens, remains entirely unchanged in its form. The close combi-
nation, however, of the governing with the governed noun causes the tone first of all to be
forced on to the latter, and the consequently weakened tone of the former word then usu-
ally involves further changes in it…Thus in Hebrew only the noun which stands before a
genitive suffers a change, and in grammatical language is said to be dependent, or in
the construct state, while a noun which has not a genitive after it is said to be in the abso-
lute state. It is sufficiently evident from the above that the construct state is not strictly to be
regarded as a syntactical and logical phenomenon, bur rather as simply phonetic and rhyth-
mical, depending on the circumstances of the tone.²⁵⁸
 Ibid., § 25.1, p. 192.

 GKC, § 89 a, 247.
Gesenius also made the vowel changes due to lack of stress on the construct
state words the main characteristic, and commented briefly on the construct
endings with some remarks on their origin.²⁵⁹ Gesenius’ whole understanding
is steered by his vantage point, the genitive in other languages, which is sup-
posed to have a Hebrew counterpart in construct phrases and in expressions
with prepositions, periphrastic expressions and so on. There may have been gen-
itives in Hebrew before the Biblical language was fixed, and there are in other
Semitic languages; accordingly, this is what he was looking for. For the construct
state this has the consequence that only some of its usages can be considered
proper genitives, the rest are only “formal genitives;” these cases are not really
genitives.²⁶⁰
Gesenius also laid the foundation for the understanding of morphology in
later grammars. His parlance is “Etymology, or the parts of speech” as the
name for this section of the grammar, whereas Joüon-Muraoka uses the name
“Morphology” for the corresponding section.²⁶¹ Even if the parlance has
changed, the understanding of morphology remains much the same. It is mostly
an analysis of roots or stems and their forms as nouns, verbs etc. For the con-
struct state this results in a lip service to the definition of morphology, which
is forgotten when we come to the actual construct state morphemes.
The category of genitive and its concomitant understanding of construct
phrases as constituting one idea has a pronounced expression in J. Weingreen’s
grammar:
The vowel changes brought about in the construct state will be easily understood by bear-
ing in mind that the compound idea (i.e. the construct and the genitive together) are spo-
ken together practically as one word. The natural tendency, then, is to hurry on to the gen-
itive and in doing so the word in the construct is spoken hurriedly and thus shortened as
much as possible.²⁶²
The dependence upon Latin and the concentration on nomen rectum influences
the morphological analysis of the construct state in several grammars, for in-
stance the one by Rudolf Meyer.²⁶³ Choon-Leong Seow does not use “genitive”
as the leading principle in the understanding of what he calls “The construct
chain,” but still states that “since nouns in construct (except for singular sego-
 Ibid., § 89 c – f, 248.

 Ibid., § 128 k, quoted in chapter 2, p. 16.
 Compare Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, second part, pp. 99 – 308
with Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, part two, 99 – 324.
 J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, chapter 23, 45.
 E. g. Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, § 97.
lates) tend to lose their primary stress, certain changes may be expected.”²⁶⁴ This
important exception to the rule of loss of stress (singular segolates) is seldom no-
ticed in grammars, and the only phenomenon considered important about con-
struct forms, is the change of the vowels due to loss of stress.
Arnold and Choi discuss the terminology of nominative, genitive and accu-
sative, and state that although Hebrew does not have cases, the terms are re-
tained: “Since the nouns in B[iblical]H[ebrew] function syntactically in the
same distinct ’cases’ as its parent language, it is still helpful to distinguish
three case functions in BH using the traditional terminology: nominative, geni-
tive, and accusative.”²⁶⁵ The question to be asked in the following is whether
the use of morphological terminology for syntactic functions really is “helpful,”
or simply confusing.
A grammar from the period between Gesenius and the more recent ones is
that of Carl Steuernagel from 1926 (9. and 10. reprinting 1933). A look into this
book indicates that there is a consistent line of thought from Gesenius until
today: “Originally, Hebrew distinguished between the three cases (nominative,
genitive and accusative) in the singular and in the feminine plural through the
vowels ŭ (nom.), ǐ (gen.). and ǎ (accus.) attached to the root: málku, málki,
málka; malkátu, malkálti, malkáta; malakấtu, malakấti, malakấta…Over time,
these endings lost their meaning. They were then at first arbitrarily con-
fused…and finally disappeared completely but for some few remains, and did
so in St. cstr. first, if not protected by a following suffix.”²⁶⁶ The material to sup-
port this reconstruction is the appearance of vowels connecting the suffix to the
root and words with endings similar to the case vowels. Accordingly, he goes on
to state that “As a result of this development, the different cases can only be rec-
ognized through the construction [= syntax]. A noun is 1. nominative, when it is
used independently, 2. genitive, when it is dependent upon a noun or a prepo-
sition, 3. accusative, when it is dependent upon a verb or defines it more close-
 C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995),
117.
 Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 5.
 Author’s translation of “Ursprünglich unterschied das Hebr. die 3 Kasus (Nominativ,
Genetiv und Akkusativ) im Sing. und im fem. Plur. durch die an den Stamm tretenden Vokale ǔ
(Nom.), ǐ (Gen.) und ǎ (Akkus.): málku, málki, málka; malkátu, malkálti, malkáta; malakấtu,
malakấti, malakấta…Allmählich verloren diese Endungen ihre Bedeutung. Sie wurden daher
zunächst beliebig vertauscht…und fielen schließlich bis auf wenige Reste ganz ab…, und zwar
zuerst am St. cstr., wenn sie nicht durch ein folgendes Suffix geschützt waren,” Carl Steuernagel,
Hebräische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Literatur, Übungsstücken und Wörterverzeichnissen,
(Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1933), § 57 a, c, 85 f.
ly.”²⁶⁷ Also in this description one sees the confusing of morphology with syntax:
in spite of the lack of morphological evidence, or on the basis of meagre evi-
dence, categories are presumed on the basis of syntactical observations.
“The word was not modified in order to put it into the combination, but be-
came modified under certain circumstances because it was in the combination,
by vowel reduction through loss of accent,”²⁶⁸ according to James Barr. He com-
ments upon statements made by Knight and Pedersen on the construct state,
and his comments are appropriate in that context. However, it has to be taken
into account that the construct form appears in a number of cases outside con-
struct phrases, a fact that indicates that it was perceived as independent of a
noun combination and could act in other situations as well. Morphologically,
the relevant examples are construct forms, and they appear to be in relation
to the word(s) following them, but outside of situations where the combination
demanded vowel reduction or loss of accent. In the following, some examples
will be quoted, and they show that the construct state took on an existence of
its own and could operate on its own.
The dictum that “the construct state is not strictly to be regarded as a syntac-
tical and logical phenomenon, but rather as simply phonetic and rhythmical, de-
pending on the circumstances of the tone”²⁶⁹ is echoed in the thinking in the
whole tradition from Gesenius on, and it depends on a lack of interest in the reg-
ular forms of the construct state and on the “irregular” constructs; and we will
return to these shortly. These forms and “irregularities” belong in the realm of
morphology of Hebrew and reveal a separate construct state of the word. Even
when a morphologically distinct construct form of the word cannot be found,
a morphosyntactic analysis shows when and where the words used are in the
construct state.
A review of the morphology of the construct state is evidently necessary in
Hebrew grammar, and this must be done on the background of similar phenom-
ena in other Semitic languages. Joüon-Muraoka in the introduction to the discus-
sion on the cases refers to Classical Arabic, Akkadian and Ugaritic, and in the
other grammars a similar background for Hebrew is indicated. When Gesenius
states that “The Hebrew language no longer makes a living use of case-end-
 Author’s translation of “Infolge dieser Entwickelung lassen sich die verschiedenen Kasus
nur aus der Konstruktion erkennen. Ein Nomen ist 1. Nominativ, wenn es unabhängig steht, 2.
Genetiv, wenn es von einem Nomen oder einer Präposition abhängt, 3. Akkusativ, wenn es von
einem Verbum abhängt oder ein solches näher bestimmt,” ibid., § 58 i, 86 f.
 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language ([London]: Oxford University Press, 1961),
91.
 GKC, § 89, a, 247.
ings…”, the “no longer” implies that the common Semitic phenomenon of cases
is there even if the formal expressions of cases are absent. Because of traditional
grammar’s interest in the other Semitic languages, it is incumbent to take a look
at the relevant phenomena in some other Semitic languages. Instead of recon-
structing “Early Hebrew,” as Joüon-Muraoka do, we will overview the extant
data from the most important and relevant languages.²⁷⁰
John Huehnergard has called for more attention to the reconstruction of
early Semitic.²⁷¹ The following overview does not aim at something like that,
but briefly reviews the data available, and assesses the consequences for the un-
derstanding of the construct state as a morphological category. Huehnergard
himself considers that “On the basis of Akkadian, Arabic and Ugaritic, a simple
case system may be reconstructed for the protolanguage, with each of three cases
marked…The short case-vowels of the singular were lost in many of the languag-
es over time (in Modern South Arabian, Hebrew, Aramaic, late Akkadian dialects
and modern Arabic and Ehtiopian dialects…)…”²⁷² This view of the development
is shared by many Semitists, and may well be probable, but it should not keep us
from attempting to isolate the possible differentia specifica of the construct state
in Biblical Hebrew. Etymology of the forms is important in itself, and the Hebrew
Bible often provides etymologically oriented explanations or comments on He-
brew names and other lexemes. But the state and use of the language in the
Bible is more important when it comes to interpreting it, and this is our concern
here.
4.2. The Genitive and the Construct State in Some Semitic

Languages
East Semitic: Akkadian²⁷³
“The Akkadian noun is morphologically marked for case (nominative, accusa-
tive, and genitive), gender (masculine and feminine), and number (singular,
dual, and plural)…Additionally, the Akkadian nominal can assume four possible
 Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §92 b, 255 – 6.
 John Huehnergard, “Comparative Semitic Linguistics,” in Semitic Lingistics: The State of the
Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, ed. Shlomo Izre’el, Israel Oriental Studies (Eisen-
brauns, 2002).
 John Huehnergard, “Semitic Languages,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack
M. Sasson (New York: Scribner, 1995), 2129.
 Classification of the languages follows the system in John Huehnergard, “Semitic Lang-
uages”, 2118 – 9.
4.2. The Genitive and the Construct State in Some Semitic Languages 83
forms or ’states’: (i) the free form or declined state; (ii) the construct or bound
form; (iii) the absolute form or state; and (iv) the predicative form or the predi-
cative construction (also referred to as the stative in some grammars).”²⁷⁴ For
the present purpose the predicative form or stative can be left out of considera-
tion. The free form or declined state has also been termed the Status rectus. ²⁷⁵
The Status constructus has only a limited declension, and the Status absolutus
cannot be declined. In Old Babylonian, the nouns for “god,” ilum, and “god-
dess,” iltum, are declined in this way in the free form or declined state, the Status
rectus: ²⁷⁶
Singular, masc/fem Dual, masc/fem Plural, masc/fem
Nominative ilum/iltum ilān/iltān ilū/ilātum
Genitive ilim/iltim ilīn/iltīn ilī/ilātim
Accusative ilam/iltam ilīn/iltīn ilī/ilātim
The genitive case is characterized by the allomorphs -i/-in/-im in all three num-
bers–in the singular as its distinguishing mark, in the dual and plural as mor-
phemes shared with the accusative in what is often called an oblique case.
The construct state is different from the nominative case of the declined state
in that it is “the shortest form of the noun phonetically possible.”²⁷⁷ In the con-
struct state the root morpheme receives a zero morph for all feminine nouns
(aššat, “wife”) and for masculine singular nouns (bēl, “master”). In masculine
dual and plural of the construct state the case endings are retained.²⁷⁸ There
is no nunation in the dual (ana uznī marṣim, “for the sick man’s ears”).
Genitive of the declined state, status rectus, is used with the construct state
to create a genitival relationship, where the governing noun is in the construct
state and the following noun in the genitive case of the declined state, for in-
stance, bīt awīlim, “the house of the man,” šarrat mātim, “queen of the land.”²⁷⁹
The semantics of the genitival relationship in Akkadian are summarized by
Wolfram von Soden in this way: possessive genitive, subject genitive, object gen-
itive, partitive genitive, genitive of belonging, epexegetical genitive, attributive
 John Huehnergard and Christopher Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite,” in The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, ed. Roger D. Woodard (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 241– 2.
 Wolfram von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Roma: Pontificium Inst. Bi-
blicum, 1952), § 62, 78 – 9.
 John Huehnergard and Christopher Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite”, 242; John Huehner-
gard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 2nd ed., Harvard Semitic studies no. 45 (Winona Lake, Ind:
Eisenbrauns, 2005), 2.1, 6 – 10.
 John Huehnergard and Christopher Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite”, 242.
 John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 8.2, 56; 8.3, 57.
 John Huehnergard and Christopher Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite”, 245.
genitive, genitive of content, of material, of relation and an adverbial use of the

genitive.²⁸⁰ Of special interest in this connection are the following functions and
the examples provided by von Soden: epexegetical genitive, kussê dajjānūfi-šu
(construct state + genitive case of the declined state, without mimation + person-
al suffix), “the chair of his judiciary;” the attributive genitive, šībūt sarrātim,
“witness of falseness, false witness,” šar tašīmtim, “the king of insight, a wise
king;” the genitive of relation, ṣalmāt qaqqadi(m), “the black-headed,” saniq
pî-šu (construct state + genitive case of the declined state, without mimation +
personal suffix), “tested [with reference to] his mouth,” kabit kaspi, “heavy on
silver;” and the adverbial function, ṣit pîm, “that which has left the mouth,”
that is “saying,” miqit pi, “that which has fallen from the mouth,” that is “care-
less saying.” In every case there is the genitive case-vowel on the nomen rectum;
this form is morphologically distinguishable.
The genitive case is also used after prepositions (ana iltim, “for the god-
dess,” ina šarrī, “among the kings”), and after the determinative pronoun ša
(šarrum ša ālim, “the king of the city”). Possessive pronouns are attached to
the construct state or to the declined state. Only the construct state is used in
the position of the nomen regens.
West Semitic:
Central Semitic: North Arabian: Classical Arabic
Classical Arabic inflects the noun for gender (masculine and feminine), number
(singular, dual, and plural), state (indeterminate, determinate and construct),
and case (nominative, genitive, and accusative). The nominative ends in -u(n),
the genitive ends in -i(n), and the accusative ends in -a(n). For most nouns,
the nunation is found in all forms of the indeterminate state, and in the dual
of masculine and feminine nouns and in the plural of masculine nouns of the
determinate state. It is not found in the singular of the determinate state, mas-
culine and feminine, and not in the plural of feminine nouns of the determinate
state, and not at all in the construct state. The nouns for “thief,” masculine and
feminine, are declined in this way in the indeterminate state:
 Wolfram von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, § 136, 190 – 191, the categories
are: Gen. possessivus, Gen. subjectivus, Gen. objectivus, Gen. partitivus, Gen. der Zugehörigkeit,
Gen. epexegeticus sc. der Erläuterung, Gen. attributivus der Beschaffenheit bzw. Eigenschaft, der
oft dem deutschen Attribut enspricht, Gen. des Inhalts, Gen. des Stoffes, Gen. der Beziehung,
adverbiale Bestimmung.

Nominative sāriq-un/sāriq-at-un sāriq-āni/sāriq-at-āni sāriq-ūna/sāriq-āt-un
Genitive sāriq-in/sāriq-at-in sāriq-ayni/sāriq-at-ayni sāriq-īna/sāriq-at-in
Accusative sāriq-an/sāriq-at-an sāriq-ayni/sāriq-at-ayni sāriq-īna/sāriq-at-in ²⁸¹
Similar declensions exist for the determinate and the construct states, where the
lack of nunation is the major difference from the indeterminate state, as noted
above. This triptotic system has a counterpart in a diptotic system for some
nouns, where nouns are not marked by nunation for the indeterminate state,
and where the genitive morpheme is -a instead of -i.
The genitive phrase, the iḍāfa construction, consists of one nomen rectum,
in the determinate or indeterminate state, and one nomen regens or several nom-
ina regentia, in the construct state, mālu tāǧirin, “the wealth of the business-
man,” kalbu dārin, “the dog of the settlement.” The nomen rectum is in the gen-
itive case, and may be preceded by one or more nouns in the construct state,
which may be in the genitive, accusative or nominative case.²⁸² Both parts of
the iḍāfa construction are marked morphologically, the nomen rectum through
its genitive case, and the nomen regens/nomina regentia through its/their con-
struct state, which means that the genitive phrase is doubly marked by specific
morphemes.
In addition to the iḍāfa construction, the genitive case is also used after
prepositions, and the construct state is used in front of personal suffixes. A gen-
itival phrase can have the function of a subject genitive (possession), or objective
genitive, the genitive may describe the nomen regens, it may be a partitive gen-
itive, the name and the entity it names (a country, city, month, sura etc.) may be
provided in such a phrase, numerals may occur in the construct state with the
numbered entity as nomen rectum, it may be a partitive genitive, determinative
or descriptive genitive, or an epexegetical genitive.²⁸³
Northwest Semitic:
Ugaritic
In Ugaritic the noun is inflected for gender (masculine and feminine), number
(singular, dual, and plural), state (absolute and construct), and case (nomina-
 Wolfdietrich Fischer, Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972),
§ 147, 80.
 Peter F. Abboud and Ernest Nasseph McCarus, Elementary Modern Standard Arabic
(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), vol. 1, 159 – 161.
 Wolfdietrich Fischer, Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch, § 385 – 392, 176 – 180.
tive, genitive and accusative).²⁸⁴ “A triptotic system – nominative, genitive, accu-

sative – is used in the singular, a diptotic one – nominative, oblique – in the dual
and plural.”²⁸⁵ Because of the nature of the available sources and sign systems,
scholars are cautious in their presentations.²⁸⁶ Still, the following table may be
offered for the nouns malku, “king,” and malkatu, “queen,” which are declined
in this way in the absolute state:
Nominative malku/malkatu malkāmi/malkatāmi malakūma/malakātu
or: malkāma/malkatāma or: malkūma/malkātu
Genitive malki/malkati malkêmi/malkatêmi malakīma/malakāti
or: malkêma/malkatêma or: malkīma/malkãti
Accusative malka/malkata = genitive = genitive²⁸⁷
“In Ugaritic, the case-vowel is preserved in the first word(s) of genitive phrases…-
Thus, in the singular, the genitive relationship is marked only by the genitive
case-vowel on the second element of the phrase. This feature is shared with,
for example, classical Arabic [a different opinion is noted above, because the
construct state – different from the determinate and indeterminate states –
never has nunation in classical Arabic], whereas in other Semitic languages
the first word also shows some form of modification (e. g., Akkadian šarru be-
comes šar in construct, Hebrew dābār becomes dəbar…). In the dual and plural
the -m of the nomen regens is usually dropped in construct.
Singular malku qarîti ’The/A king (nom.) of the/a city’
Dual malkā qarîti ’[The] two kings (nom.) of the/a city’
Plural mal(a)kū qarîti ’[The] kings (nom.) of the/a city’“²⁸⁸
The dual form of the noun for “king” is malkāmi or malkāma in nominative and
when the -m is dropped, the result is as shown in Dennis Pardee’s table here quoted.
Similarly, the plural masculine, nominative case is malakūma or malkūma in the ab-
 Stanislav Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and
Glossary (Berkely, Cal.: Univ. of California Press, 1984), § 52, 49; Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic,” in The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, ed. Roger D. Woodard (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), 4.2, 294– 296.
 Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic”, 295.
 Robert Hawley, “Some Case Problems in Ugaritic,” in Grammatical Case in the Languages of
the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, Concurrrence et
Evolution des cas dans divers domains linguistiques Paris, 2 – 4 Avril 2007, ed. Michel Mazoyer,
Dennis Pardee, Michèle Fruyt, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 64 (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 2011).
 A comprehensive list of endings and word examples is found in Stanislav Segert, A Basic
Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and Glossary, § 52.7, p. 51 f.
 Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic”, 296.
solute state, and the construct state is mal(a)kū. The same system was used for the
feminine forms, but in feminine plural there is no distinction between the absolute
and the construct states. “There is no observable difference between the absolute
and construct forms in the masculine singular, the feminine singular, or the feminine
plural. The differentiation of absolute and construct states can be observed in the
dual, both masculine and feminine, and in masculine plural. Construct forms end
in a long vowel, while absolute forms have, after a long vowel, a morpheme consist-
ing of a nasal consonant and a short vowel.”²⁸⁹ “The first element is in the case re-
quired by the context, the second in the genitive.”²⁹⁰
Ugaritic therefore has a system where the nomen regens/nomina regentia of the
construct phrase is/are not distinguishable from the absolute state in the singular
and in the plural of feminine words, but looses the mimation in masculine and fem-
inine dual and in the masculine plural. In all singulars and in feminine plural, only
the nomen rectum reveals that there is a genitive relation; in masculine and femi-
nine dual and masculine plural both words have distinctive marks, morphs for
the morphemes of the construct state. This means that the genitive form is important
for recognizing a sequence of nomen regens and nomen rectum; it is even decisive in
three of the six possible combinations.
The genitive is also used after prepositions.²⁹¹ Possessive pronouns are suffixed
to the construct state. Genitival phrases may express ownership, object, material,
quality, or the superlative.²⁹²
Hebrew
Hebrew inflects the noun for gender (masculine and feminine), number (singular
and plural), and state (absolute and construct). Dual exists for some words, but
not for all. There are no cases.²⁹³ Some vestiges of the case system in other lan-
guages may be reconstructed for the connecting vowels between the noun and
the suffixes, but this does not change the picture.²⁹⁴ The noun for “horse,”
sûs, is inflected in this way:
 Stanislav Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and
Glossary, § 52.5, 51.
 Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic”, 311.
 Stanislav Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and
Glossary, 85.
 Ibid., 116; Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic”, 311.
 Hans Bauer u. Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes mit einem Beitrag von Paul Kahle und einem Anhang (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), § 65,
522– 530.
 Dennis Pardee, Vestiges du système casuel entre le nom et le pronom suffixe en hèbreu
biblique, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 64 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2011).
Singular, masc/fem Plural, masc/fem

sûs/sûsāh sûsîm/sûsôt
Corresponding forms in the construct state are: sûs/sûsat, sûsê/sûsôt. The abso-
lute state is used after a preposition. Construct state is used with possessive pro-
nouns, but the absolute state may also serve in this position. Only the construct
state may function as a nomen regens. Because of the lack of cases the construct
state is the only indicator that two consecutive nouns constitute a construct
phrase. A construct phrase may express several meanings, corresponding to
those of the languages mentioned above. For details on this point, the different
grammars offer overviews.
Aramaic and Syriac

Aramaic and Syriac inflect the noun for gender (masculine and feminine), num-
ber (singular, and plural), and state (determined–also termed definite or emphat-
ic–, absolute and construct). Dual exists for some words, but not for all. There
are no cases. ṭāb, “good,” is inflected in the absolute state in this way (variations
in dialects disregarded):
Singular, masc/fem Plural, masc/fem
ṭāb/ṭābāh ṭābîn/ṭābān ²⁹⁵
This word is in the corresponding construct state: ṭāb/ṭābat, ṭābê/ṭābāt. Con-

struct phrases are formed by juxtaposing a word in the construct state and a
word in the absolute or emphatic state, and they may have several functions.
The construct state may also be found in front of a prepositional expression.
A construction with the particle d- or dî becomes more and more common
over time.²⁹⁶ In Biblical Aramaic we find ‫ֲעִביְדָּתא ִּדי ְמִדי ַנת ָּבֶבל‬, “the administration
 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, neue Serie, 5, Porta Linguarum Orien-
talium (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1961), 23; Gustaf Dalman, Grammatik des jü̈disch-palä-
stinischen Aramäisch: Nach den Idiomen des palästinischen Talmuds, des Onkelostargums und
Prophetentargums und der jerusalemischen Targume, 2. Aufl. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1905; reprint
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1960), § 38, 189; William Barron Stevenson and
John Adney Emerton, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1962), § 8, 22– 26; Theodore H. Robinson, and L. H Brockington, Paradigms and Exercises in
Syriac Grammar, 4th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), § 7, 22.
 Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Remarks on the Use of the Construct in Classical Syriac,” in
Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen on the Occasion of His
65th Birthday April 11th 1997, ed. Elie Wardini, The Institute for Comparative Research in Human
Culture, Oslo, Serie B: Skrifter (Oslo: Novus forlag, 1997), 46, see also his reference to more
literature in note 35 on p. 60.
of the Province of Babylon,” Dan 2:49, alongside with ‫ֲעִביַדת ְמִדי ַנת ָּבֶבל‬, Dan 3:12;
cf. ‫עופא דשמיא‬, “the birds of heaven,” Gen 1:30 in the Targum.
The emphatic or absolute state is used after prepositions. The construct state
is used with possessive suffixes, but the emphatic state may also serve in this
position. Only the construct state may serve as nomen regens. Aramaic and Sy-
riac use construct phrases to express the same range of meanings as the lan-
guages mentioned above.
The morphological categories of nouns observed in Akkadian, classical Arabic,

and Ugaritic may be abstracted in the following way:²⁹⁷
Masculine / Feminine
Singular / Dual / Plural
States: Akkadian: Declined state (rectus) Akkadian, Arabic and Akkadian: Absolute
Arabic: Determinate and Indetermi- Ugaritic: state
nate states Construct state
Ugaritic: Absolute state
Cases: Nominative Nominative nil
Genitive Genitive nil
Accusative Accusative nil
For Hebrew and Aramaic/Syriac the corresponding system is:

Masculine / Feminine
Singular / Dual / Plural
States: Absolute Construct

Cases: nil nil
The forms used for nomen regens and nomen rectum of the construct phrase
of these languages can be summarized in this way:
Nomen rectum Nomen regens
Akkadian Declined state: genitive case Construct state; masculine dual and plural only:
case as required by context
Classical Determinate or indeterminate Construct state, case as required by context
Arabic state: genitive case
Ugaritic Absolute state: genitive case Construct state, case as required by context
Hebrew Absolute state, no cases Construct state, no cases
Aramaic Absolute state, no cases Construct state, no cases
and Syriac
 The term “absolute” is used by Pardee and Segert for the declined state in Ugaritic, whereas
the same term is used for the non-declined state in Akkadian by Huehnergard and von Soden.
When there is no morphological marking of the nomen rectum the respon-

sibility of identifying the phrase as a construct phrase lies on the nomen regens
only. This is the case in Aramaic, Syriac and Hebrew. Aramaic with time more
often used another way of expressing the relation, namely by the use of the par-
ticle d-/dî. A corresponding construction is found in Akkadian as well: the use of
the determinative ša.
Biblical Hebrew represents an intermediate stage where construct phrases
were used as in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Arabic, but without the cases, and with-
out elements corresponding to the particles in Akkadian, Aramaic and Syriac.
The accusative was expressed by the use of nouns in the absolute state with
or without the “nota accusativi,” or by prepositions with an absolute state.
The accusative case of the other languages has a counterpart in the phenomenon
of “nota accusativi” in Hebrew, through an element which is not an accusative
morpheme on the noun, but through a separate lexeme with the only function
to indicate the object.²⁹⁸ A separate, grammatical lexeme, to some extent repla-
ces the use of the accusative morphemes in Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugar-
itic. This feature is grammaticalized in Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic,
but is lexicalized in Biblical Hebrew. But the genitive is not replaced in any
other way than by the word in the absolute state taking the position of a
nomen rectum without any morphological features. With prepositions, the abso-
lute state is used, and no form corresponding to genitive is found with preposi-
tions.
On the other hand, there is little use in Hebrew of particles like determina-
tives to express what the construct phrase expresses. This feature is evident in
Akkadian, Syriac, and Aramaic, but rarely found in Biblical Hebrew. Some
cases with – ‫ שׁ‬correspond to the relative pronoun ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬, and the use of ‫ ֶשׁל‬as
an expression of the genitive relation belongs to a later stage of Hebrew. In
these grammatical lexemes are found semantic counterparts to the morphosyn-
tactic features of genitive in languages that have these. To a small extent, an item
that was grammaticalized in Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic is lexical-
ized in Biblical Hebrew, but this is not prominent. In this way, Biblical Hebrew
is a language that preserves the use of construct phrases known from all Semitic
languages, and in a manner resembling them, and that only to a very limited ex-
tent developed other means of expressing the same phenomena. For expressing
 There is a discussion on the use of ‫ ֶאת‬to indicate the subject, in particular in the book of
Chronicles, but I think this use is better explained in other ways, for instance as a result of the
text transmission, cf. the discussion in Magnar Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie
in I Chronik 1 – 9, (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989), 38, n. 9.
a semantic connection between nouns, Aramaic and Syriac has a more elaborate
system than Biblical Hebrew.
Like Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic, Hebrew has construct mor-
phemes, a specific modification of the word seen against the basic form.
When this is viewed on the background of the lack of genitive forms in Hebrew,
unlike the other languages, there is reason to focus on the construct form in He-
brew and study its syntactical possibilities. The nouns in Biblical Hebrew is in-
flected for the morphosyntactic features of the construct state. Of the different
morphemes, the allomorph zero is an option, but this should not obscure the
fact that all nouns are inflected for the construct state.
It is difficult to do justice to the use of cases and states in the different lan-
guages by isolating the morphological phenomena and their collocations and
syntax, and for instance concentrate on construct phrases. A language has a
life of its own, its own Geist, and this can only be appropriately perceived and
interpreted by a comprehensive study of the individual language. On this ques-
tion, I side with the linguists that have emphasized this, not forgetting that there
are connections and phenomena that unite languages. The brief comparison
made here is therefore only an overview of the phenomena, not pretending to
cover the whole ground.
There is every reason to compare languages, but what is the effect of doing
it? Otto Hinze in the previous century suggested that we compare for two rea-
sons, first, to see individualities sharper, and then to comprehend generalities
(1. Individualität schärfer zu sehen, 2. Allgemeines zu erfassen). It seems that
the second point has been exaggerated in Hebrew grammar, and it is time to
bring also the first point to the fore.
The idea underlying the use of “case” for Hebrew in the grammatical tradi-
tion from Gesenius is that diachronic factors may be valuable for understanding
the synchronic use of the language. If interpreted as indispensable, however, this
presupposition is questionable, to say the least, and the total absence of mor-
phological phenomena for cases in Hebrew is a fact to be respected, and a differ-
ent way of understanding Hebrew noun inflection and morphosyntax should be
found. James Barr coined two phrases for fallacies in the study of semantics: “il-
legitimate identity transfer” for the transfer of meaning from one word to anoth-
er, and “illegitimate totality transfer” for perceiving all possible meanings for a
word to be in function each time the word is used.²⁹⁹ The danger in the question
under discussion here is that of committing an illegitimate systemic transfer
from one language to another, or an illegitimate categorial transfer from the
 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 218.

realm of syntax into that of morphology. On the background of the review of the
Semitic languages let us now look at the construct state in Hebrew in some de-
tail.
4.3 Morphology of the Construct State in Hebrew
Thomas O. Lambdin’s Introduction to Biblical Hebrew describes the following

types of construct state forms, compared to the absolute forms, thereby offering
a structural analysis. First, there are singular nouns with vowel changes:
Absolute state Construct state
‫ָיד‬ ‫ַיד‬
‫ָמקוֹם‬ ‫ְמק ֺום‬
‫ָנִביא‬ ‫ְנִביא‬
etc.³⁰⁰
Then, there are some “minor types”:

‫ָאב‬ ‫ֲאִבי‬
‫ָאח‬ ‫ֲאִחי‬
‫ַּביִת‬ ‫ֵּבית‬
‫ָמ ֶות‬ ‫מוֹת‬
‫ֵּבן‬ ‫ֶּבן־‬
‫ָּכֵתף‬ ‫ֶּכֶתף‬
‫ָשֶׂדה‬ ‫ְשֵׂדה‬
etc.³⁰¹
Thirdly, there are feminine singulars ending in -āh:
‫ָשׁ ָנה‬ ‫ְשׁ ַנת‬
‫ַעָצה‬ ‫ֲעַצת‬
etc.³⁰²
Masculine plurals constitute his next category:

‫ָיִמים‬ ‫ְיֵמי‬
‫ָּב ִנים‬ ‫ְּבני‬
etc.³⁰³
 Thomas Oden Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (London: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1973), § 73, p. [70].
 Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, § 75, p. [73 – 4].
 Ibid., § 76, p. [74].
 Ibid, § 78, p. [77– 8].
4.3 Morphology of the Construct State in Hebrew 93
Lastly, there are feminine plurals:

‫ֵשׁמוֹת‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹת‬
‫ִלּבוֹת‬ ‫ִלּבוֹת‬
etc.³⁰⁴
Lambdin also notes “irregular” forms like ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת‬against the absolute ‫ִא ָשּׁה‬.³⁰⁵ Tra-
ditionally, the masculine construct forms ‫ ֲאִבי‬and ‫ ֲאִחי‬are also considered “irreg-
ular.”³⁰⁶ In addition to these cases, one may add that the construct state may be
identical to the absolute state of the word, even if the forms are morphosyntacti-
cally distinguishable, and this is the case with ‫ַּבת‬. In such cases the allomorph
for the construct state is zero.
Masculine words with female endings in plural follow the system for femi-
nine plurals when forming the construct state (‫)ֲאבוֹת‬, and feminine duals and
plurals with masculine endings follow the system for masculine construct
state endings (‫) ְיֵדי‬.
Summing up these observations we may conclude that it is wrong to speak of
construct state as constructed upon the nomen rectum. This is demonstrated by
the forms that are independent, like the “irregular” forms, and it is strengthened
by the use of construct forms with the relative pronoun, with finite verbs and by
other constructions that will be discussed below.
The masculine singular construct state morpheme is represented by the al-
lomorphs zero, 0, forms of the word only used for the construct state, and
vowel characteristics depending on stress.³⁰⁷ The feminine singular construct
state morpheme is represented by the allomorphs 0 (as in the case of ‫)ַּבת‬,
forms of the word only used for the construct state, and -t with vowel character-
istics depending on stress (as in ‫)ְּבתוַּלת‬. The dual and plural masculine construct
state morphemes are represented by the allomorphs -ôt, and -ê with vowel char-
acteristics depending upon stress. The feminine dual construct state morpheme
is -ê. For feminine plurals the construct state morpheme is represented by the
allomorphs -ôt and -ê accompanied by vowel characteristics depending upon
stress. The case noted by Seow, where singular segolates have the same stress
in the absolute and the construct state, falls in the category of the allomorph
 Ibid, §79, p. [78 – 9].

 Ibid, § 76, p. [74].
 GKC, § 96, pp. 282, even if this grammar states that “These peculiarities, however, are
almost always subordinate to the usual phonetic laws, and the usual designation of the nouns
as irregular is, therefore, not justified…”, p. 281.
 A 0 morph means that the word form remains the same in the absolute and the construct
state. It does not mean that there are no morphs in addition to the root or base morpheme; this is
seen in a morphosyntactic analysis.
0 for singular masculine. These cases (singular segolates) indicate that the con-
struct state is seen as a morpheme in its own right; nomen rectum did not con-
stitute the decisive stress factor of the unit in all and every case. Some few cases
with a construct state ending in -i will be discussed below; they seem to add em-
phasis to the nomen regens and do not constitute an allomorph of the construct
morpheme.
Instead of the diachronic analysis found in GKC and Joüon-Muraoka, one
may look at construct state endings from a “synchronic” perspective. This is
the case in Lambdin’s book, with the proviso that “synchronic” cannot be
taken as describing phenomena from the same time, but as an expression refer-
ring to the text corpus of the Hebrew Bible. This text is “synchronic” in the sense
that it is one corpus, and can be taken in the main to represent the same struc-
ture. The forms of the construct state of a word are compared to the correspond-
ing absolute state, and from this kind of “synchronic” perspective they constitute
a structural phenomenon of Hebrew. Construct state forms may be comparable to
inflection, as in the case of modification of verbs, irrespective of their being pris-
tine forms or the result of a possible transference of forms from one type of
nouns to another, or internally developed. “Synchronically” they constitute a
structural phenomenon; we may leave the etymology to a different analysis.
That analysis is important in itself, but it should not replace the morphological
analysis. With the emphasis on loss of stress and concomitant vowel changes,
GKC, Joüon-Muraoka, and others are in the danger of neglecting the synchronic
structure of the phenomena, compare for example J. Weingreen’s grammar.³⁰⁸
Joüon-Muraoka consider the ḥireq compaginis as a vestige of the Semitic gen-
itive, cf. cases like ‫ ֲאִבי‬and ‫ֲאִחי‬.³⁰⁹ As shown above, the genitive in Akkadian,
classical Arabic and Ugaritic is used for the nomen rectum, and for the nomen
regens when it serves as a nomen rectum for a preceding nomen regens or is pre-
ceded by a preposition. The genitive case has the syntactic feature of connection
to or dependence upon a preceding word. This may explain a case like ‫ַעל־ִּדְבָרִתי‬
‫ַמְלִּכי־ֶצֶדק‬, “in the manner of the just king,” Psalm 110:4, where the preposition
may govern a genitive case, which serves as a nomen regens to a following
nomen rectum in the genitive case, which again serves as a nomen regens to
the following nomen rectum in the absolute state. The problem with this explan-
ation is that for the first two nouns a system from Akkadian, classical Arabic and
Ugaritic is presupposed, but for the last noun a Hebrew system. If the system
 J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, chapter 23, 43 – 47.
 GKC, § 90 k – n, p. 252– 254; Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 93 l – q,
p. 259 – 261.
4.3 Morphology of the Construct State in Hebrew 95
from the other Semitic languages has determined the form of the first two words,
why has it not determined the last also? The nomen rectum should in particular
have had a morph for the genitive case, but it has not. One is therefore inclined
to see the suffix -î here as an element adding emphasis to the word. Apart from
this text and a few other possible cases there are no vestiges of the genitive form
in Hebrew.
A more moderate view than that of Joüon-Muraoka is found in Gesenius,
who mentions that the terminations -î and -û “are most probably to be regarded
… as having originated on Hebrew soil in order to emphasize the const. st., on the
analogy of the const. st. of terms expressing relationship [in the German text: Ver-
wandtschaft, which in this case probably means ’family relations’].”³¹⁰ This
grammar mentions ‫ְּב ִני ֲאֹתנוֹ‬, “his ass’s colt,” Gen 49: 11, ‫שְׁכ ִני ְס ֶנה‬
ֹ , “the dweller
in the bush,” Deut 33:11, ‫ֹע ְזִבי ַהֹּצאן‬, “that leaveth the flock,” Zech 11:17, ‫ַרָּבִתי ָעם‬,
“great among the nations” (NRSV), Lam 1:1, and some more cases.³¹¹ If the as-
sumption is correct that the inspiration for these construct forms are found in
‫ ֲאִבי‬and ‫ֲאִחי‬, considered as indigenous Hebrew construct forms, that would
add to our impression that the construct state is treated as a form in its own
right and with morphosyntactic properties different from the absolute state.
The -î found in these cases would have the function of emphasis, not of genitive.
In addition to this emphasis, of course, the various nomina regentia here are in
the construct state.
To look in Hebrew construct state forms for the -î of the genitive case in other
Semitic languages is to presuppose that the connection between nomen regens
and nomen rectum may be reversed, so the possible morphosyntactic feature
of -î would connect to a following word. As word order for construct phrases
seems to be fixed in these languages, this is hard to imagine. In Hebrew the
states cannot be declined for case, and if there should be traces of such declen-
sion as found in other languages, one would expect them to follow the rules for
word order of cognate languages, or of the supposed source languages, not to
mention the language where they are used. The genitive form ought to appear
in the nomen rectum, like in Akkadian, classical Arabic, and Ugaritic.
Joüon-Muraoka mentions that “The nom. case is sometimes called casus rec-
tus,”³¹² but this an untraditional way of using the terms; “rectus” in Akkadian
belongs in the category of “state,” which is used for nouns that can be inflected
for cases. “Case” describes the forms of nouns inflected for nominative, genitive
 GKC, § 90 k, p. 252.

 Ibid., § 90 l, p. 253.
 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 93 b, p. 256.
and accusative. There is here therefore a danger of confusing different morpho-

logical categories, if not morphology and syntax, which would be a methodolog-
ical error.
If, however, the noun endings of -û, -î and -â found with some Hebrew words
are to be understood as remnants of case endings, this would for -î probably have
the function of drawing attention to the word in the construct state and not be a
genitive form, which in this instance would attach to the following noun, instead
of to the preceding noun, as in Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic. The -î
found on some words used as nomen regens, is never found on words serving
as nomen rectum. This means that the interest is focused on the nomen regens
compared to these other languages, where the nomen rectum is the standard in-
dication of the connection by use of the genitive. In the three languages men-
tioned, the nomen regens may be inflected for case, but then the case depends
on one or more preceding words, like verbs or prepositions, not on the following
nomen rectum.
For expressions of the type ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬,‫ ַּבת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬and ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ְפּל ִנֹ י‬this means
that the construct state form should be considered a separate phenomenon, and
be accorded due attention in the study of these expressions. Such an approach
will free us from the grip of the grammar of other languages and from the em-
phasis on the nomen rectum, and allow us to regard the whole expression as
a real unit, where each part plays its own role. It allows us also to recognize in-
stances where the dominant element is the word in the construct state, and
where the nomen rectum only plays second violin.
4.4 Syntax of the Construct State
Grammars regularly assert that in a construct chain there can only be one word in
the absolute state, but this contention has to face such cases as
‫תּוְֹלדוֹת ַה ָשַּׁמיִם ְוָהָאֶרץ‬, Gen 2:4; ‫( ַו ָיּ ֻנסוּ ֶמֶלְך־ְסֹדם ַוֲעֹמָרה‬the verb is in the plural), Gen
14:10; ‫ק ֹ ֵנה ָשַׁמיִם ָוָאֶרץ‬, Gen 14:19; ‫ ַזֲעַקת ְסֹדם ַוֲעֹמָרה‬, Gen 18:20; ,‫ ֵאם ַיֲעק ֹב ְוֵע ָשׂו‬Gen
28:5; ‫ֶאֶרץ ָזַבת ָחָלב וְּדָבשׁ‬, Deut 6:3; ‫ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ָיתוֹם ְוַאְלָמ ָנה‬, Deut 10:18; and the three
cases in Isa 11:2: ‫רוַּח ָחְכָמה וִּבי ָנה רוַּח ֵעָצה וּ ְגבוָּרה רוַּח ַּדַעת ְויְִרַאת ְיה ָוה‬. In the last
case the third sequence of words, ‫רוַּח ַּדַעת ְויְִרַאת ְיה ָוה‬, may be understood as
two different construct chains, but the context creates the impression that the
point of the whole sentence is that the “shoot from the root of Jesse” shall be
endowed with spiritual gifts, and the last gift of the spirit is the “fear of the
Lord.” This impression is strengthened by the following sentence, where the
“fear of the Lord” is repeated. If so, ‫ יְִרַאת ְיה ָוה‬is used by the author as one com-
pound expression that may function as a nomen rectum, even if it is a construct
4.4 Syntax of the Construct State 97
phrase in its own right.³¹³ The cases here mentioned show that the construct
state could attach to two nomina recta. This is not emphasized by grammarians
who consider the construct phrase a stress unit with resultant changes of the
vowels of the word in the construct state. Such an idea can only be maintained
when the cases mentioned above are neglected.
Also, it is said in the grammars that only one word in the construct state can
relate to the absolute state word, but this must be seen in light of these cases:
‫ִמְבַחר ְוטוֹב־ְלָבנוֹן‬, Ezek 31:16, and ‫ֵסֶפר וְּלשׁוֹן ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬, Dan 1:4. Admittedly, two such
cases are not much against the majority of construct chains, but they indicate
that it was possible to make exceptions to the overall system. These cases do
not constitute a problem if the construct state is accorded an existence of its
own.
The examples quoted above show the relative independence of the construct
state; this form may precede more than one noun and may operate in pairs. At-
tention should not stop at such cases, but they deserve to be mentioned. Further,
on the basis of the category genitive we would expect only one nomen rectum,
since this corresponds to the genitive. There are some cases where Hebrew dis-
plays two nomina recta and even two cases with a double nomen regens. Per-
haps it is better to avoid any Systemzwang and analyze the material at hand.
Gesenius presents us with a separate paragraph on the “Wider Use of the
Construct State.”³¹⁴ Here, he describes how the construct state form can appear
before prepositions and the wāw copulative, how it may govern ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬and inde-
pendent sentences, how it may be connected with a following word in apposi-
tion, and how some cases of the construct state numeral ‫ ַאַחד‬may be found.
He kept the category of genitive as his departing point, and observed that the
genitive may also be expressed by the preposition ‫ ְל‬or by ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ְל‬.³¹⁵ The corre-
sponding section in Joüon-Muraoka is entitled “Extension of the genitive con-
struction and of the construct state.”³¹⁶ It mentions the use of the construct
state with an adverb, with a preposition plus a participle or a substantive, before
a clause (non-relative or relative), and as a pure linking form. To this list may be
added the cases noted by Joüon-Muraoka where the construct state is used with
“heavy” possessive suffixes. This is not the only form possessive suffixes attach
to, as the “light” suffixes are attached to the stem of the absolute state of the
 Further examples in Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 129 b, 435 f.
 GKC, § 130, 421– 23.
 Ibid., § 129, 419 – 420.
 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 129 l-s, 441– 444.
noun.³¹⁷ Such cases of the syntax of the construct state shows the versatility of
this form.
Gesenius mentions the two cases in Lam 1:1: ‫ַרָּבִתי ַבגּוֹיִם ָשָׂרִתי ַּבְּמִדינוֹת‬, “she
that was great among the nations, princess among the provinces,” and considers
them two of the “rather numerous cases, in which a preposition is inserted be-
tween the construct state and its genitive (cf. § 130 a), without actually abolish-
ing the dependent relation…”³¹⁸ If so, these cases constitute examples of the syn-
tax of the construct state; it has a relative independence, despite its attachment
to a following prepositional construction.
Other instances where a construct form precedes a preposition include ‫ָהֵרי‬
‫ַב ִגְּלֹּבַע‬, “You mountains of Gilboa,” 2 Sam 1:21; ‫ ֹי ְשֵׁבי ְּבֶאֶרץ ַצְלָמ ֶות‬, “those who
lived in a land of deep darkness,” Is 9:1 (ET 9:2); ‫ְּכ ִשְׂמַחת ַּב ָּקִציר‬, “as with joy at
the harvest,” Is 9:2 (ET 9:3); ‫ָּכל־חוֵֹסי בוֹ‬, “all who take refuge in him,” Ps 2:12;
‫ ְו ֹי ְשֵׁבי ָבּה‬, “and those who live in it,” Ps 24:1; ‫ֶאת־ַה ֶשֶּׁמשׁ ְלֶמְמ ֶשֶׁלת ַּביּוֹם‬, “the sun to
rule over the day,” Ps 136:8; ‫ֶאת־ַה ָיֵּרַח ְוכוָֹכִבים ְלֶמְמ ְשׁלוֹת ַּבָּל ְיָלה‬, “the moon and
stars to rule over the night,” Ps 136:9; ‫פּוּ ַגת ָלְך‬, “rest for you,” Lam 2:18; ‫ַמְמֶלֶכת‬
‫ְלַבת־ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬, “ a kingdom for daughter Jerusalem,” Mic 4:8. The next to the last
expression contains a hapax legomenon, but ‫ פּוּ ַגת‬is usually taken to be a con-
struct form of ‫פּוּ ָגה‬. Also ‫חוֵֹכי לוֹ‬, “who wait for him,” Isa 30:18, constitutes an ex-
ample of the same construction.
Examples where a construct form precedes the relative pronoun: ‫ְמקוֹם‬
‫ֲא ֶשׁר־ֲאִסיֵרי ַהֶּמֶלְך ֲאסוִּרים‬, “a place where the king’s prisoners [Qere] were con-
fined,” Gen 39:20, cf. similar constructions in Gen 40:3; Lev 4:24.33; 6:18; 7:2. It
seems that in the construction ‫ ַּבָּמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬the definite article was used as a de-
monstrative, “in that place which/where,” and the phrase ‫ ִּבְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬means “in
the (or: a) place where,” cf. ‫ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬, Gen 39:20; 40:3, “a place where.” Further:
‫“ וְּבָכל־ְמִדי ָנה וְּמִדי ָנה ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר ְּדַבר־ַהֶּמֶלְך ְוָדתוֹ ַמ ִגּיַע‬In every province, wherever the
king’s command and his decree came,” Est 4:3. For this meaning the construct
state was employed as a matter of course, testifying to the syntactic possibilites
of this form. The construct state signaled attachment to the following word or
expression. Further cases with the relative pronoun are ‫ֹזאת ּתוַֹרת ֲא ֶשׁר־ּבוֹ ֶנ ַגע‬
‫ָצָרַעת‬, “This is the ritual for the one who has a leprous disease,” Lev 14:32;
‫ַעל־ְּדַבר ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־ִקְּדמוּ ֶאְתֶכם ַּבֶּלֶחם וַּבַּמיִם‬, “because they did not meet you with
food and water,” Deut 23:5 (‫ ַעל־ְּדַבר ֲא ֶשׁר‬has developed into a preposition); ‫ִה ְנ ִני‬
‫ֹנְת ָנְך ְּב ַיד ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׂ ֵנאת ְּב ַיד ֲא ֶשׁר־ ָנְקָעה ַנְפ ֵשְׁך ֵמֶהם׃‬, “I will deliver you into the hands
of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in dis-
 Ibid., § 95 b, p. 268.

 GKC, § 90 l, p. 253.
gust,” Ezek 23:28; ‫ַא ְשֵׁרי ֶשׁ ְי ַשֶּׁלם־ָלְך ֶאת־ ְגּמוֵּלְך ֶשׁ ָגַּמְלְּת ָלנוּ‬, “Happy shall they be who
pay you back what you have done to us!” Ps 137:8; ‫ַא ְשֵׁרי ֶשׁ ֹיּאֵחז ְו ִנ ֵפּץ ֶאת־ֹעָלַליְִך‬
‫ֶאל־ַהָּסַלע‬, “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against
the rock!” Ps 137:9; ‫ַא ְשֵׁרי ֶשֵׁאל ַיֲעק ֹב ְּבֶע ְזרוֹ‬, “Happy is [he] whose help is the God of
Jacob,” Ps 146:5.
The construct state is used with finite verbs in a few cases, notably in expres-
sions like “(in) the day(s) of”: ‫ ְוַהָּבא ֶאל־ַהַּביִת ָּכל־ ְיֵמי ִהְס ִגּיר ֹאתוֹ יְִטָמא ַעד־ָהָעֶרב׃‬, “All
who enter the house while it is shut up shall be unclean until the evening,”
Lev 14:46; ‫ָּכל־ ְיֵמי ִהְתַהַּלְכנוּ ִאָּתם ִּבְהיוֵֹתנוּ ַּב ָּשֶׂדה׃‬, “when we were in the fields, as
long as we were with them,” 1 Sam 25:15; ‫ְּביוֹם ִהִּציל ְיה ָוה ֹאתוֹ ִמַּכף ָּכל־ֹא ְיָביו וִּמַּכף‬
‫ ָשׁאוּל׃‬, “on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his ene-
mies, and from the hand of Saul,” 2 Sam 22:1. Expressions with other nouns:
‫ַמ ָּשׂא מוָֹאב ִּכי ְּבֵליל ֻשַּׁדד ָער מוָֹאב ִנְדָמה ִּכי ְּבֵליל ֻשַּׁדד ִקיר־מוָֹאב ִנְדָמה‬, “Oracle over
Moab: Truly, in the night Ar was laid waste, Moab was ruined, yes, in the
night Qir was destroyed, Moab was ruined,” Is 15:1; ‫הוֹי ֲאִריֵאל ֲאִריֵאל ִקְר ַית ָח ָנה‬
‫ָד ִוד‬, “Ah, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped!” Is 29:1; ‫ַעל־ֵּכן יְִתַרת ָע ָשׂה‬
‫ָאָבדוּ׃‬, “therefore, the abundance they made shall perish,” Jer 48:19b; ‫ְּתִחַּלת‬
‫ִּדֶּבר־ ְיה ָוה ְּבהוֹ ֵשׁע‬, “When the LORD first spoke through Hosea,” Hos 1:2; ‫ְּבֵרא ִשׁית‬
‫ָּבָרא ֱאל ִֹהים ֵאת ַה ָשַּׁמיִם ְוֵאת ָהָאֶרץ‬, “In the beginning when God created the heavens
and the earth,” Gen 1:1;³¹⁹ ‫ַא ְשֵׁרי ִּתְבַחר וְּתָקֵרב יִ ְשֹּׁכן ֲחֵצֶריָך‬, “Happy is [he whom] you
choose and bring near, he lives in your courts” (author’s translation), Ps 65:5.
Some expressions with ‫ ְל‬have developed into pseudo-prepositions in combi-
nation with ‫ִמן‬, like in Ex 26:35: ‫ ְו ַשְׂמָּת ֶאת־ַה ֻשְּׁלָחן ִמחוּץ ַל ָפֹּרֶכת‬, “You shall set the
table outside the curtain,” perhaps also Ex 26:33: ‫ְוֵהֵבאָת ָשָּׁמה ִמֵּבית ַל ָפֹּרֶכת ֵאת‬
‫ֲארוֹן ָהֵעדוּת‬, “and bring the ark of the covenant in there, within the curtain;” cf.
also ‫ֵמֵעֶבר ַל ַיְּרֵּדן‬, “on the other side of the Jordan,” Num 32:32; ‫ִמ ֶּקֶדם ָלָעיִן‬, “on
the east side of Ain,” Num 34:11; ‫ֶהָעִרים ִמְקֵצה ְלַמֵּטה ְב ֵני־ ְיהוָּדה‬, “the towns belonging
to the tribe of the people of Judah,” Jos 15:21. These are not to be confused with
the cases where a noun in the construct state is followed by ‫ְל‬, as in ‫ִמּקוֹל ַשֲׁעַטת‬
‫ ַפְּרסוֹת ַאִּביָריו ֵמַרַעשׁ ְלִרְכּבוֹ ֲהמוֹן ַגְּל ִגָּּליו‬, “At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of
his stallions, at the clatter of his chariots, at the rumbling of their wheels,” Jer
47:3; ‫ַמְמֶלֶכת ְלַבת־ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬, Mi 4:8; ‫ִאם־ֶאֵּתן ְשׁ ַנת ְלֵעי ָני ְלַעְפַע ַפּי ְּתנוָּמה‬, “I will not give
 Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1– 3,” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983):
207– 09, with reference to the eleventh century commentator Rashi, who had this understanding
of Gen 1:1. Rashi reaches his view since “there is no instance of the form reshith in Scripture
which is not in construct to the word following it,” quoting Jer 26:1, and comparing it to Hos 1:2
(‫)ְּתִחַּלת ִּדֶּבר־ ְיה ָו ְּבהוֹ ֵשַׁע‬.˝ One may also add to the bereshith-cases Jer 27:1; 28:1; 49:3. Hos 9:10
displays bereshith with a personal suffix, amounting in effect to the same construction. Rashi
was right.
sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids,” Ps 132:4; ‫ַאל־ִּתְּת ִני פוּ ַגת ָלְך‬, “Give your-
self no rest,” Lam 2:18. In the last two cases one may speculate that the use of ‫֧ל‬
with ‫ ָנַתן‬has resulted in the present text, but the presence of nouns in the con-
struct form is conspicuous all the same.
Grammars often say that nouns with personal suffixes attached are genitive
constructions where the suffix is the genitive and the noun is the second part of
the construction: “With regard to the connexion of the noun with pronominal
suffixes, which then stand in a genitive relation… and are, therefore, necessarily
appended to the construct state of the noun….”³²⁰ “Like a noun, a pronoun
which depends on a noun is in the genitive, e. g. ‫ָאִבי‬, which properly speaking
means ὁ πατήρ μου ’the father of me.’ The suffixes are, in principle, added to
the cst. form (the vocalisation of which is sometimes modified).”³²¹ This thinking
may have been inspired by the general tendency to see construct phrases in He-
brew as genitives, like in Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic, but also by
genitives of the personal pronouns in Indo-European languages, as the compar-
ison in Joüon-Muraoka may indicate. Some of these languages have genitive
forms of the personal pronoun.
In Greek the genitive forms of the personal pronoun, ἐμοῦ, μοῦ, σοῦ, ἡμῶν,
ὑμῶν, are the most common way for expressing ownership or attachment, and
for the third person, the genitive of αὐτὸς etc. serves in this function: αὐτοῦ
etc. Examples are ὁ πατήρ μοῦ, “my father,” αἱ oἰκίαι μοῦ, “my houses.” But
for the first and second person Greek also uses a separate possessive pronoun,
ἐμος etc., which is inflected like an adjective when used with nouns, ἐκ τῶν προ-
βάτων τῶν ἐμῶν, “of my sheep,” Joh 10:26; τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας, “[of] my heart,”
Rom 10:1.³²²
Latin displays the same double set of pronouns.³²³ The genitive forms of the
personal pronoun (for the third person supplemented with genitives of is, ea
etc.), mei, tui, eius, nostri, nostrum, vestri, vestrum, eorum, earum, are used
with verbs, as in pudet me tui, “I am ashamed at you,” with adjectives, similis
tui, “similar to you,” as objective genitive, amor nostri, “the love for us,” and
as partitive genitive, nemo vestrum, “none of you.” In addition, there are posses-
sive pronouns, meus, tuus, suus, noster, vester, that are inflected like adjectives:
provinciam nostram, “our province [acc.],” suis finibus, “in his/her/its/their bor-
ders [ablative or dative].”
 GKC, § 91 a, p. 254.

 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 94 a, p. 262.
 Eduard Bornemann et al., Griechische Grammatik, 2. Aufl. (Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg,
1978), § 64– 67, 59 – 63.
 E. Schreiner, Latinsk grammatikk (Oslo: Cappelen, 1960), § 33 – 34, 37 f.
German has the same twin set of pronouns. The personal pronouns have
genitive forms: meiner, deiner, etc., that are used for instance with verbs, Ge-
denke meiner! “Think of me!” Erbarme dich unser! “Have mercy on us!” or as par-
titive genitives, Wir waren unser fünf, “There were five of us.” Then there are pos-
sessive pronouns, mein, dein, sein, ihr, unser, euer, ihr, that are declined like ad-
jectives, mein Herr!, “Sir!” meinem Freunde, “for my friend,” ihrer Nadel, “her
needle’s” (genitive) or “for her needle” (dative).
The genitive of the personal pronoun is the most common way in Greek to
express ownership etc., whereas the possessive pronouns are most commonly
used for this function in Latin and German. Other Indo-European languages
have different ways of expressing ownership etc. The Hebrew grammars that con-
sider the noun with a possessive suffix a genitive relation seem to think in ways
similar to the use of genitives of the personal pronouns, especially in Greek
(maybe also in Latin and German). Expressions like ὁ πατήρ μοῦ, αἱ oἰκίαι
μοῦ, or amor nostri, may indeed resemble forms like ‫סוִּסי‬. And the feminine
form, ‫סוַּסִתי‬, is one example of the forms where the construct state is used
with possessive suffixes. The natural conclusion therefore seems to be that the
construction noun + personal suffix in Hebrew is a genitive relation with the suf-
fix in the genitive and the noun in the construct state. Accordingly, we would
have a situation similar to the use of the construct state with a noun, when it
is understood as a genitive relation.
The problem is that Hebrew has no genitive or accusative forms of the per-
sonal pronoun, but use abbreviated forms of the personal pronoun as suffixes to
nouns to express, for instance, ownership, and as suffixes to verbs to express the
object. The parlance in GKC depends on the system from other languages, with
cases, as its Paradigm A shows. This paradigm demonstrates that there is a dif-
ference in the supposed accusative suffix from the genitive suffix only for 1. per-
son singular.³²⁴ The grammar states that “The suffix of the verb (the accusative)
and the suffix of the noun (the genitive) coincide in most forms, but some differ,
e. g. ‫ ִני‬- me, ִ ‫י‬- my.”³²⁵ This is the only case where one may discover a difference in
form, and even in this case it is difficult to consider the forms morphologically as
a genitive or an accusative form of the first person pronoun. The connections be-
tween the personal pronouns and the suffixes are there, but to find the latter as
forms of the former, only morphologically marked for the cases, is very strained.
The construct infinitive can have a personal suffix that may express subject or
object, depending on the context and on the semantics of the verb, but the
 GKC, 508 f.

 Ibid., § 33 g, 109.
form of the suffix is the same for both senses. Here, also the form of the first per-
son singular is the same for both senses, subject and object. GKC provides only
one example of a construct infinitive with a suffix in the accusative form, in Jer
37:7, in all other instances the infinitive is constructed with the “genitive” form,
whether it expresses the subject or the object of the action described by the
verb.³²⁶
The Semitic languages with the genitive case use suffixed possessive pro-
nouns which are not declined in the genitive case. In Akkadian, the personal
pronouns exhibit nominative, genitive/accusative, and dative forms, but these
are not used as possessive suffixes on nouns. In this function we find a special
set of suffixes.³²⁷ Also, these suffixes are not declined in correspondance to the
case of the noun they are attached to: eli kussīka, “on your throne” (preposition
with genitive plus suffix), šar mātīšunu, “the king of their [masc] land” (noun in
the construct state with noun in the genitive case plus suffix). For Ugaritic, Segert
states that “Personal pronouns suffixed to nouns are all virtually in the genitive
case; they express for the most part the possessive relation.”³²⁸ The word “virtu-
ally” is significant here; it tacitly admits that there are no genitive forms of the
personal pronoun in Ugaritic. Fischer has a more cautious way of saying it for
classical Arabic: “Das Pers.-Suff. tritt an den St. cstr. des Nomens … und hat
in dieser Verbindung Gen.-Funktion…”³²⁹ As his examples show, the suffix is
not declined corresponding to the case of the noun: kitābu-ka, kitābi-ka, kitā-
ba-ka all mean “your book” where “book” is inflected for case but the suffix re-
mains the same. In other words, the Semitic languages that know of the genitive
case do not use genitive forms of the personal pronoun when these are attached
to the noun.
To say that a suffixed form of the noun in Hebrew (and Akkadian, classical
Arabic, and Ugaritic) constitutes a genitive relation smacks of Systemzwang.
Grammarians’ attempts at streamlining the material is a natural consequence
of their task, but there is the risk of overdoing it. Rather, the construct form is
a shortened form, often usable with pronominal suffixes (but the form of the
noun may resemble the absolute state when this fits the type of suffix). That
the construct form is the most frequently used in such a position means that
 Ibid., § 61 a, 162.

 John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, § 11.1, 84, for the suffixes, § 25.2, 272 f., for the
personal pronouns inflected for cases.
 Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 51.13, 48.
 “The personal suffix attaches to the construct state of the noun and has in this connection
the function of genitive,” Fischer, Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch, § 269, 126.
it can attach to suffixed pronouns, in addition to its other syntactically colloca-

tional possibilites.
Taken together, these observations on the morphology and syntax of the
construct state indicate that this form had an existence of its own in Biblical He-
brew and could be employed in cases where it is not (the less important) part of
a (logical or stress) unit. One may still see the changes in the word as a result of
changed stress in the context, but it is easier to consider the construct state a
form that existed in its own right. Its use when it was not syntactically expected
or necessary, viz. in other contexts than in front of an absolute form, shows that
there was an awareness that the construct form constituted a separate form. The
syntax of the construct state point in the direction of its being a form by itself,
and the significance of this fact has not been taken seriously by grammarians.
An exception to the rule is, however, the Swedish Semitist Jan Retsö, who states
that, “It is maintained that the term state should be established as a morpholog-
ical category in Semitic studies and that it is crucial for the understanding of
both synchronical functions and diachronical developments of the nominal de-
clination it the Semitic languages.” ³³⁰ The construct state is the only “inflected”
form of the noun in Biblical Hebrew, and this creates a different situation from
that prevalent in languages where the genitive is an inflected form in relation to
the nominative. One might be tempted to draw some historical conclusions from
the material adduced above, and Retsö may have a point: “Since the category of
state is a common Semitic feature whereas case-marking with suffixes is not and,
when found, always regulated by state, it can be assumed that the existence of
state categories is a prerequisite for the development of the Semitic case-marking
systems, not vice versa.”³³¹ Such assumptions have to take into account the lower
age of the Hebrew material available than for the texts from languages with cases
morphologically marked, but the emphasis on the phenomenon of state is a wel-
come reminder of facts that are so well known, and tend to be overlooked.³³²
Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac use construct phrases to express the same
meanings as Akkadian, classical Arabic and Ugaritic did. These six languages
all share the use of a separate state, the construct state, for the nomen regens.
But the former three languages do not have the possibility to mark nomen rec-
 Jan Retsö, “State and Plural Marking in Semitic,” in Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour
of Ebbe Egede Knudsen on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday April 11th 1997, ed. Elie Wardini, The
Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, Oslo, Serie B: Skrifter (Oslo: Novus forlag,
1997), 268.
 Retsö, “State and Plural Marking in Semitic”, 268 f.
 See the overview of Semitic languages and the presumed historical development in
Huehnergard, “Semitic Languages.”
tum morphologically for its function as part of a construct phrase, unlike the lat-
ter three. The former three languages depend on the construct state to identify a
construct phrase. In cases where the construct state is morphologically marked,
this is our only way to know that we are dealing with a construct phrase. When a
construct form has the allomorph 0, the realization that it is part of a construct
phrase is made through its morphosyntactic relation to the surrounding words.
The last word in the construct phrase can be determined, by being a name,
or through a pronominal suffix, etc. The construct state word cannot, it is always
indetermined in itself, which indicates that it depends on what follows to decide
determination or non-determination. J. Weingreen is correct in pointing out that
the suffix on the nomen rectum in many cases belongs to the first word.³³³ The
construct state word looks for help in this respect, and even in phrases where
this word is meant to be determined, the absolute state word performs this serv-
ice to the whole expression. But this phenomenon should not lure us into focus-
sing on the nomen rectum only; it only shows that the expression functions as a
unit, and suffixes and other determinatives have to be attached to the last part of
the unit.
At the end of this discussion of the morphosyntax it is worth taking a side-
glance at a special phenomenon. William Johnstone has called attention to the
use of suffixed forms before nouns that would seem to be nomina recta in Lev
26:42: ‫ ְו ָזַכְרִּתי ֶאת־ְּבִריִתי ַיֲעקוֹב ְוַאף ֶאת־ְּבִריִתי יְִצָחק ְוַאף ֶאת־ְּבִריִתי ַאְבָרָהם ֶא ְזֹּכר‬, and in
Jer 33:20: ‫ִאם־ָּתֵפרוּ ֶאת־ְּבִריִתי ַהיּוֹם ְוֶאת־ְּבִריִתי ַהָּל ְיָלה‬.³³⁴ In both these sentences one
would expect either a construct phrase without the suffix, or a suffixed form
with a preposition between the two nouns. By comparison with a similar case
in Arabic, Johnstone suggests that the suffixed noun rules the following noun
despite its suffix. If this is so, the result is a phrase where the intended
nomen regens received a suffix, but it still attaches to the following nomen rec-
tum. The meaning “my (covenant) with” in Lev 26:42 is expressed through the
suffix on the nomen regens, as a personal name could not receive the suffix.
A nomen regens, even when suffixed, witnesses to the weight given to this ele-
ment of the phrase.
 J. Weingreen, “The Construct-Genitive Relation in Hebrew Syntax.”

 William Johnstone, “The Legacy of William Robertson Smith: Reading the Hebrew Bible
With Arabic-Sensitized Eyes,” in William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment, ed. William
Johnstone, JSOTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 395 – 396.
4.5 Terminology 105
4.5 Terminology
The previous discussion has revealed that the basis in most grammars for the
thinking around construct phrases is provided by the category of “genitive.”
This governs the study of morphology of construct state words and the syntacti-
cal classification of the construct phrases. I suggest that the construct state
should be recognized as a morpheme in its own right and that the construct
phrases should receive an analysis with due attention to all the elements in
the phrase. Common to existing categorization is that the type of construct
phrases studied here is not recognized for what it is, but classified under labels
that do not fit. I have focused on the expression “genitive” as used by GKC,
Joüon-Muraoka, and others, and “genitive” was and is the all-pervasive expres-
sion used in this connection. This parlance is found from Gesenius on, as the fol-
lowing review will show.
GKC reckons as proper genitives only cases where “the nomen rectum repre-
sents–(a) A subjective genitive, specifying the possessor, author, &c,” “(b) An ob-
jective genitive,” and “(c) A partitive genitive.”³³⁵ “Merely formal genitives (geni-
t.[ivus] explicativus or epexegeticus, genit. appositionis) are those added to the
construct state as nearer definitions–(d) Of the name, “(e) Of the genus,” “(f)
Of the species,” “(g) Of the measure, weight, extent, number,” “(h) Of the material
of which something consists,” and “(i) Of the attribute of a person or thing.”³³⁶
Waltke and O’Connor have three main categories: Subject genitive, adverbial
genitive and adjectival genitive.³³⁷ Arnold and Choi present 13 categories of gen-
itive, van der Merwe et al. state that the construct relation is “a specific construc-
tion for the ’genitive’ in B[iblical]H[ebrew].”³³⁸ Williams presents the genitive
function “which occurs after bound forms [construct state words].”³³⁹ Seow
states that “Although genitive relation is expressed by the construct chain, it
does not mean that the construct chain must always be translated by the English
preposition of. One must determine from the context the proper function of the
absolute.”³⁴⁰
 GKC, § 128 g-i, 416.

 Ibid., 416 – 417.
 Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind: Ei-
senbrauns, 1990).
 Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 8 – 13; van der Merwe et al., A Biblical
Hebrew Reference Grammar, 192.
 Ronald James Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 10.
 Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 122.
Earlier scholars with the same approach include H. L. Fleischer, who com-
pares construct expressions with some Arabic examples of “die unterordnende
Genetivanziehung” where the explanation is : “…der Genetiv beide Male in
dem Sinne des lateinischen Genetivus definitivus: monstrum hominis, arbor
abietis.” (emphasis his)³⁴¹ E. König describes ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬as “Gen. appositio-
nis.”³⁴² He provides only this description and no further comments. C. Steuerna-
gel: the construct chain is a word chain, “Wortverbindung”, that should be con-
sidered in analogy with our composite words. The meaning of this word chain is
genitive, or some prepositional relationship or an appositional ordering, “appo-
sitionelle Nebeneinanderstellung” of words. Examples of the latter phenomenon
are ‫ֶאֶרץ־ְּכ ָנַען‬, translated “das Land Kanaan,” and ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬, translated “die
Jungfrau Tochter Zion.”³⁴³ The translation of the last expression reveals that
Steuernagel probably reads the Hebrew as containing two appositions. The un-
derstanding of our phenomenon is thus not commented upon by Steuernagel,
as he merely uses the formal category “apposition,” but it may be the same as
in the previously mentioned grammars.
Davidson’s comments on construct phrases were quoted in chapter 2. We
may here add that to describe ‫ ֶפֶּלא יוֵֹעץ‬as an expression where ‫ יוֵֹעץ‬provides
the class to which the “wonder” belongs, makes good sense, but to see ‫ֹזְבֵחי‬
‫ ָאָדם‬as an expression where the genitive expresses the class to which the word
in the construct state belongs, is strange; it would mean that the sacrificers
are men–and what other possibilites are there? It would better be counted as
a partitive expression: sacrificers among men (cf. KJV: “the men that sacrifice”).
Even more strange is the idea that in ‫ ֶפֶּרא ָאָדם‬the genitive provides the class, hu-
mans, to which the “wild ass” belongs. That creates a contradiction in the ex-
pression, a contradiction in the sense that one phenomenon is a wild ass and
a man at the same time. Again, the category of genitive steers the understanding.
It seems that a more flexible approach to construct expressions would have
opened up for a more adequate treatment of these cases.
It has been suggested to use the terms “status constructus” and “postcon-
structus” in connection with the construct phrase.³⁴⁴ One is not sure if “postcon-
structus” is a syntactic category or a morphological, as the definition once is that
 Kleine Schriften, 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 8.

 Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache (Leipzig 1897), 417.
 Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin 1933), § 56 f, 81 f.
 van der Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, § 25.1, 192. The terminology
was proposed in an earlier contribution, cf. Jan H. Kroeze, “Underlying Syntactic Relations in
Construct Phrases of Biblical Hebrew,” Journal for Semitics 5 (1993): 68 – 88, 70, and Jan H.
Kroeze, “Die chaos van die “genitief” in bybelse hebreeus.”
4.5 Terminology 107
it is equivalent to the ‫ֹסֵמְך‬, p. 192, probably meaning that it is a syntactic category,

and once that it is a morpheme, p. 193, but in the following morphological chart
postconstructus is omitted.³⁴⁵ This parlance is already confusing in the grammar
itself in the way that the postconstructus can be in the absolute state, and it may
be “itself in the status constructus and followed by a postconstructus” (their ital-
ics).³⁴⁶ The expression seems to be intended as a syntactic term, but it is used
confusingly since it is constructed from a part of the morphological term “status
constructus.” The difference of the expressions (“status” in the case of “status
constructus” versus nil in “postconstructus”) makes it clear that the terminology
confuses morphology with syntax. “Status constructus” is a morphological term,
“postconstructus” an attempt at a syntactic term. One reviewer of the grammar
in question considered it better to use “nomen rectum” or “genitive.”³⁴⁷ The ex-
pression may be an innovation, but it is not progress. The attempt at a new ter-
minology in this grammar can be seen as an example of the uneasiness felt to-
wards conventional grammatical terms.
The all-pervasive use of the term “genitive” rests upon grammar in languages
other than Hebrew, and is used as a syntactical category. In Akkadian, Arabic,
Ugaritic, Greek, Latin etc. “genitive” is a morphological term, describing the
case of a noun in one of its states. As grammarians generally realize that “gen-
itive,” strictly speaking, is a morphological term, it seems natural to abandon
this term altogether. We might then avoid confusion in the grammatical analysis.
It is advisable to reserve the term “genitive” for morphological analysis only, and
find other terms describing the syntax of construct phrases. Grammars defend
the use of this term because the syntactical realities of “genitive” is found in He-
brew, but at the outset this parlance is confusing. Firstly, it is cumbersome to use
a word in an area when it is fitted for another use. It is not enough for the reader
to receive the definition of the term in one place of the grammar when it is used
repeatedly without the necessary precision. As reference grammars are created
for readers who want to check specific items this practice is especially awkward.
Secondly, the grammars mentioned earlier understand construct phrases from
the vantage point of the “genitive,” i. e. the last word of the phrase. This ap-
proach is unsatisfactory. Thirdly, for the syntactic relation we need expressions
that cover the different types describe above, and “genitive” would for instance
not cover cases where the word following a construct state is a finite verb. On the
 Ibid., § 25.2, 193.

 Frederick E. Greenspahn, “A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, by Christo van der
Merwe et al,” JBL 119 (2000): 109 – 10, includes “postconstructus” among the “unusual terms”
that “make(s) using this volume confusing,” 109.
 Greenspahn, “A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar.”
whole, “genitive” is not a syntactic expression, but a morphological, and as

there does not exist a genitive form in Hebrew, there is no appropriate use for
the term. The material surveyed calls for distinguishing between morphology
and syntax in the treatment of construct phrases, and this must be reflected
by the terms used. For morphology we need terms that describe the forms of
the words only, as they appear in the language, and since we deal with mor-
phemes the step after the morphological description is to describe the syntactic
relation between the construct state and the following word(s).
It is worth considering if Gustaf Dalman’s expression Verbindungsform could
describe the essence of the construct state.³⁴⁸ The construct form is not used in-
dependently, similarly to the absolute form; its nature is to signal connection to
something that follows. The construct state has been interpreted to the effect that
it leans on the following absolute state word. The Hebrew name for the construct
state, ‫ ִנְסָמְך‬, “leaning on, supporting oneself,” captures this thinking well.³⁴⁹ The
separate construct endings and/or vowel changes mean that the construct form
calls for something to follow after it; it is incomplete in itself and looks for solid
ground on which to come to rest, cf. Joüon-Muraoka’s comment, quoted above:
“The first noun is said to be in the construct state because it rests phonetically on
the second, just as a building rests on its foundations.” What is here said about
the phonetical situation, can be applied to the general relation between the two
components of the expression. On the other hand, it is an exaggeration to call
the construct state ‫ ִנְסָמְך‬, or to compare it to a building resting on its foundations.
The idea of the construct state is to connect, and not to lean on or rest on some-
thing else. The terminology used reveals our thinking.
van der Merwe et al. refer to these traditional Hebrew terms for construct
phrases, ‫ ִנְסָמְך‬, “leaning,” for the construct state, and ‫ֹסֵמְך‬, “supporting,” for
the absolute state. Also Gesenius seems to have been influenced by this parlance
when he speaks of “Anlehnung,” see below. The whole phrase is called ‫ְסִמיכוּת‬,
“support,” in Hebrew. One might be inclined to use the Hebrew expressions, be-
cause of their partial appropriateness, but this is not common in Western schol-
arly literature, which has found it advisable to stick with the more traditional ex-
pressions.
If the Hebrew grammatical expressions ‫ ִנְסָמְך‬, “leaning,” “being supported,”
and ‫ֹסֵמְך‬, “supporting,” are taken in a syntactic sense, it is misleading, since the
focus is on the word in the absolute state, and this is not warranted by actual
linguistic data. Syntactically, the phrase functions as a unit, without emphasis
 Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palä̈stinischen Aramäisch, 188.

 HALOT, s.v. ‫סמך‬.
4.5 Terminology 109
on one of the constituent parts. The problem with these expressions is that the
absolute state word is seen as the major word in the construct chain, the ‫ֹסֵמְך‬, the
“supporting” part of the expression. This can be taken to signify a “psychologi-
cal” phenomenon of the words, and not as an expression of the morphological
analysis. The construct form should not a priori be considered as resting upon
the absolute state word. From a morphosyntactic point of view the word(s)
do/does not “lean on” the following, but connects to it.
In the discussion of morphological expressions “form” is often used, and be-
cause this word covers all the different forms, like gender, number, state, and
case, it can be used in this general sense. The different subgroups need more pre-
cise terms, and for the subgroup of state, it is precise enough to speak of “state.”
Accordingly, “state” can be used to describe one set of forms.
The terms for the states as “absolute” and “construct” can be retained with-
out problems, provided that they are used as morphological descriptions. The
traditional usage of these terms speaks against a continued procedure: “con-
struct” is defined in this way by GKC: “Thus in Hebrew only the noun which
stands before a genitive suffers a change, and in grammatical language is said
to be dependent, or in the construct state, while a noun which has not a genitive
after it is said to be in the absolute state.”³⁵⁰ The English translation here says
that the construct state word is “dependent” on the following word, while the
German original speaks of “Anlehnung,” “the act of leaning on,” which is a dif-
ferent notion. A few lines earlier the English translation is “interdependence” for
“Anlehnung,” and the German parallel to “Anlehnung” is in this case “den
engen Anschluß,” which is translated as “a close connexion.”³⁵¹ Different from
this approach, I propose to use “construct” not to mean that the word is “de-
pendent,” or “leans on,” but is to be understood in the more general sense as
the constructed, built, or arranged form, the “inflected” form; and “absolute”
is the “non-inflected” form, without being accorded an absoluteness in the
sense of supremacy over the “inflected” form. As morphological expressions,
therefore, “the absolute state” designates the form of the word without any of
the morphs used for the construct morpheme, and “the construct state” is char-
acterized by one of the morphs that are used for the construct morphemes. The
lexeme is inflected for the morphosyntactic features of the construct state, and a
connection to other words is not the focus when we study the forms of the words
only.
 GKC, § 89 a, 247.

 GKC, § 89 a, 257.
In some grammars “bound form” is used rather than “construct state,” cf.
Huehnergard’s expressions for Akkadian,³⁵² and for Akkadian and Eblaite he
uses the expression “the construct or bound form.”³⁵³ The terminology used by
Ronald J. Williams, “bound structure” for construct state, and “free form” for
the absolute state is “neutral,” and the terms are appropriate as morphosyntactic
expressions; but they are not in common use, and therefore not used here.³⁵⁴
For the forms of nouns in the area of state it is therefore appropriate to use
“construct state” and “absolute state.”
Common syntactic names for the elements in the construct expression are
nomen regens, “the governing noun,” and nomen rectum, “the governed
noun.” “Nomen” is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, but one might allow the
term to include all the words used in construct expressions, not only nouns.
The technical terms used in the grammars reveal the thinking behind the treat-
ment of construct expressions. This is explained in GKC by stating that the con-
struct word is “governing” and the absolute is “governed”, in a direct translation
of the Latin terms, and GKC speaks of “[t]he dependence of the nomen rectum on
the nomen regens…”.³⁵⁵ At the same time, GKC states that “only the noun which
stands before a genitive… in grammatical language is said to be dependent, or in
the construct state, while a noun which has not a genitive after it is said to be in
the absolute state.”³⁵⁶ The last explanation is most in line with GKC’s focus on
the absolute state word when it comes to explaining the semantics of the phrase:
“the noun which as genitive serves to define more particularly an immediately
preceding Nomen regens…”³⁵⁷ This fluctuating use of “dependent” and “govern-
ing” can be taken as an indication of the fluctuation in the thinking: the absolute
state word is considered the important part, but it is also realized that the con-
struct word governs the following. The terms are therefore in opposition to the
logic described above, where the absolute state word is considered the dominant
word. On the other hand, it will be an exaggeration from my point of view to see
the construct state word(s) as the governing word(s). Still, in lack of other appro-
priate terms and due to their wide use, the expressions will be used here as des-
ignations for the elements of the construct expressions. Seen from a syntactical
point of view, the absolute state word(s) are the “nomen rectum” or “nomina
recta,” and the construct state word(s) the “nomen regens” or “nomina regen-
 Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 8.3, 57– 63.

 Huehnergard and Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite”, 242.
 Ronald James Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 8 – 9.
 GKC, § 128 f, 415.
 Ibid., § 89 a, 247.
 Ibid.
4.5 Terminology 111
tia.” Since they are in common grammatical use in English grammars on He-
brew, they are not considered loan words and not italicized.
The nomen rectum may itself be a nomen regens for a following nomen rec-
tum. This problem can be remedied by using nomen regens for all the word(s) in
the construct state, and nomen rectum only for the word(s) in the absolute state.
For Arabic we have the terminology “a governing noun (nomen regens) … an
attributive adjunct (nomen rectum),”³⁵⁸ or “the first term and the second term of
the iḍāfa. The first term is the head of the phrase…The second term gives further
information about the first…”³⁵⁹ This parlance is not leading our analysis any fur-
ther, and can be left aside.
The construct state may connect to different words, and we need an expres-
sion to denote the phenomenon of connecting. The most common group is
nouns, but finite verbs, adverbs, and the relative pronoun are also candidates.
This type of expression has been called a construct connection (Constructus-Ver-
bindung in German), genitive relation etc.³⁶⁰ “Construct connection” is a possibil-
ity, but does not distinguish itself from cases with the infinitivus constructus,
cases that are not of relevance here. It has been suggested to use “construct
phrase.”³⁶¹ I see some reasons for doing this: “phrase” is used in standard lin-
guistic parlance for noun phrases, verb phrases etc.; “construct phrase” ac-
knowledges that the fundamental character of the phrase is that it involves a
word in the construct state; further, it is not unnatural to assume that it
means one or more words forming together a phrase, and this is indeed the
case. “Construct phrase” means that the words are constructed to form one
unit, a construct unit. “Composite phrase” might seem a candidate, as the ex-
pression is composed of several elements and now forms a unit. But it misses
the “construct” in the expression, which is the characteristic phenomenon in
this type of expressions, and it is too wide. So “construct phrase” is an appropri-
ate formal description of this type of sequence involving a noun in the construct
state connected to a following noun or other word(s). Accordingly, this book will
make use of the expression “construct phrase” for this expression.
It has been suggested to use the expression “construct chain” for a longer
series, involving several construct state words, but this opens up for confusion,
 Eckehard Schulz et al., Standard Arabic : An Elementary-Intermediate Course, Rev. English
ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 68.
 Peter F. Abboud, and Ernest Nasseph McCarus, Elementary Modern Standard Arabic, 159.
 van der Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 191– 200; For the last ex-
pression, see GKC, § 128, 414; Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 8 – 13.
 Jan H. Kroeze, “Underlying Syntactic Relations in Construct Phrases of Biblical Hebrew,”
1993.
as some authors use it in the meaning of a “construct phrase.” It also seems to be

an unnecessary specification, and will not be followed here.³⁶² The expression
“construct phrase” will be used here for all cases, including the cases with
more than one construct state words plus one (or more) absolute state word(s).
Summing up, as morphological expressions I propose to use “construct
state” and “absolute state;” for the syntactic constructions consisting of one
or more words in the construct state and a following word “construct phrase”
seems adequate, and for the constituent parts of such phrases “nomen regens”
and “nomen rectum” (or in the plural if appropriate) if the construct phrase con-
tains a noun in the absolute state. The syntax of construct phrases is well repre-
sented by the parlance suggested by Dalman for the construct state: “Verbin-
dungsform,” and “connecting form” would be appropriate.³⁶³ Such an expres-
sion is imprecise, however, in so far as “form” is too general as a morphological
term.
These deliberations make relevant the long-standing discussion on the gen-
eral understanding of languages: are they separate, self-contained entities, or
can we see patterns and common phenomena across language-boundaries?
This question reflects the impetus from linguists such as Wilhelm von Humboldt,
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, who thought of languages as creating
their own world through vocabulary and syntax. But it pervades much of linguis-
tic discussion, also in the rejection of it by adherents of componential analysis
and generative grammar, particulary Noam Chomsky himself. As with many
problems, a mix of theory and empirical data may provide for a reasonable atti-
tude to the topic under discussion, and for genitive and the construct state I
think it useful to concentrate on the data we see in Hebrew without recurring
to explanations cultivated on foreign soil.
4.6 Conclusion
Genitive as a morphological category is found in other languages, but not in He-

brew. This expression is to be avoided for Hebrew, without any loss in precision.
For the morphology “construct state” and “absolute state” can be used.
The construct state is found in Hebrew with the same usages as in other Se-
mitic languages.
 van der Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §25.1, 192.
 Dalman, Grammatik des jü̈disch-palästinischen Aramäisch, § 38. a 1, p. 188.
4.6 Conclusion 113
The names nomen regens and nomen rectum are to be retained as syntactic
expressions. The complex expressions can be called construct phrases, because
the morphological category construct state has the only distinguishing character
of these phrases, and they may have different syntactic functions, both internally
and externally.
The possibilities of meaning offered by the scholarly community are, among
others, apposition or personification, and such categories have to be looked into.
The next chapter will concentrate on the semantic analysis of construct phrases
with “daughter” or “virgin,” or with a combination of them as nomen regens or
nomina regentia.
Chapter 5 Semantic Analysis of the Construct
Phrases with “Daughter” and/or
“Virgin”
5.1 The Phrases
The construct phrases with “daughter” as nomen regens, and those with “virgin,
daughter” as nomina regentia, plus a geographical name as nomen rectum, are
the following (nomen regens/nomina regentia are named in the first horizontal
line, and the nomen rectum in the vertical column to the left.):
Chart 1:
Nomen With ‫ ַּבת‬as regens: With ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬as

rectum: regentia:
‫ִציּוֹן‬  instances:  instances:

Ps :; Isa :; :; :; :; :; Jer :; :.;  Kings : //
Lam :; :....; :; Micah :; :..; Zeph Isa :;
:; Zech :; :. Lam :
‫ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬  instances:
 Kings : // Isa :; Micah :; Zeph :; Zech :;
Lam :.
‫ְיהוָּדה‬  instances: Lam :
Lam :.
‫ַגִּּלים‬ Isa :
‫ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬  instances:
Isa :.
‫ָּבֶבל‬  instances: Isa :
Jer :; :; Zech :; Ps :
‫ִמְצָריִם‬  instances: Jer :
Jer :.
‫ֱאדוֹם‬  instances:
Lam :.
‫ִּדיבוֹן‬ Jer :
‫ַּתְר ִשׁישׁ‬ Isa :
‫ֹצר‬ Ps :
‫ִצידוֹן‬ Isa :
 nomina  instances  instances
recta
The two instances where “Chaldeans” is nomen rectum are included here,
because this expression in one instance parallels “daughter of Babylon,”
where the geograhical name “Babylon” is the nomen rectum. The case with ‫ַּבת‬
‫ ַגִּּלים‬is included since ‫ ַגִּּלים‬seems to be a geographical name.
5.1 The Phrases 115
I see no linguistic reason to limit the discussion to ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬only, even if this
expression has theological significance for the understanding of Zion/Jerusalem
and even if it is the most frequent of the phrases. There seems to be a general
consensus (excepting Fitzgerald) that these phrases are distinct from construct
phrases with the plural forms “daughters” (and “sons”) as nomen regens.
Also, it is agreed that they are distinct from construct phrases with “son” and
“daughter” as nomen regens to a following nomen rectum of kinship, age, capa-
bilities, qualities and similar expressions; this type of distinction is not further
discussed here, and readers are referred to relevant literature for this discussion.
One set of relevant phrases are those with “my people” as nomen rectum.
There is some bewilderment in the translation of this phrase. While many trans-
lations more or less consistently render the expression “the daughter of my peo-
ple,” the NRSV translates it “my beloved/poor/sinful people” in Isaiah and Jer-
emiah, but “my people” in Lamentations. This phrase will be studied after the
phrases with geographical names have been treated. Included in the discussion
are also three expressions with “eye,” “my dispersed ones” and “troops” as nom-
ina recta. No clear understanding of these phrases has been reached, and it will
therefore be attempted to see if the meaning suggested in the case of the other
expressions can help throw light on these expressions. These additional expres-
sions are:
Chart 2:
Nomen rec- With ‫ ַּבת‬as regens: With ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬as re-

tum: gentia:
‫ַעִּמי‬  instances: Jer :

Isa :; Jer :; :; :....; :; Lam :;
:; :..
‫ָעיִן‬ Ps :; Zech :; Lam :
‫פּוַּצי‬ Zeph :
‫ְגּדוּד‬ Micah :
 nomina  instances  instance
recta
The material included here consists of 11 phrases with a geographical name

as nomen rectum, occurring 50 times, 15 cases of a phrase with “my people” as
nomen rectum, and five more with three different nomina recta. The distribution
of the material is interesting: the 50 instances with a geographical name are
found in the prophetical corpus, Lamentations and Psalms only, with the singu-
lar exception of 2 Kings 19:21, which is identical with Isa 37:22. Lamentations
alone has 14 cases with a geographical name, and in addition five more of the
relevant expressions, and therefore containes a substantial part of the material.
116 Chapter 5 Semantic Analysis of the Construct Phrases
As the charts show, three of the “virgin, daughter”-phrases occur in contexts

where the same geographical name or ‫ ַעִּמי‬is used with “daughter” only, but there
are no cases where ‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬is used in parallel to ‫ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬, as Maier suggests.³⁶⁴ ‫ְּבתוַּלת‬
‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬is found in Lam 2:13, in a chapter with five occurrences of ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. Further,
‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬is found in Lam 1:15, and in the following chapter we twice read
about ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬. Lastly, ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬is found in Jer 46:11, before the two cases
of ‫ ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬in vv. 19 and 24. This situation might suggest that the use of the lon-
ger phrase is related to the occurrence of the shorter expression, and that the au-
thor aimed at variation. The two phrases would convey different meanings, if
ever so small.
Two of the phrases with “virgin, daughter,” namely ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת‬
‫ַּבת־ַעִּמי‬, have shorter correspondences in another context. The former occurs in
Isa 47:11, and no corresponding short version is found in Isaiah, only in Jeremiah.
The latter appears in Jer 14:17, and the corrsponding short version is amply attest-
ed in Jeremiah, eight times, but in other chapters. Only one phrase, ‫ְּבתוַּלת‬
‫ַּבת־ִצידוֹן‬, Isa 23:12, is without a short correspondence; but it occurs two verses
after the short ‫ַּבת־ַּתְר ִשׁישׁ‬, Isa 23:10.
On the face of it, the longer version can be understood as an extension of the
shorter, and an inspiration for adding ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬in these cases may have been found
in the phrase ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, which is attested as a phrase in Jer 18:13; 31:4.21, in
addition to Amos 5:2. If ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬could be used to such an effect in this expression,
an extension of its use to phrases with other geographical names as nomen rec-
tum is conceivable. On the assumption that ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬is older than the phrases
with “virgin, daughter” plus a geographical name, this development is possible;
Amos 5:2 may very well be older than the latter material.
The expression “virgin Israel” is not included here, as it has been comment-
ed upon in chapters 1 and 2, but it constitutes a part of the relevant material. It
will be borne in mind that the expression is ambivalent: of the five occurrences
four are figurative language and one non-figurative. The lesson to be learnt from
this is that a single expression may have different meanings and different refer-
ents, and one should be aware of this possibility in the analysis of the expres-
sions discussed here.
As ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬occurs most often it has understandably received the most atten-
tion in scholarship, we will treat this expression first.
 Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 61.

5.2 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ַּבת‬ 117
5.2 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ַּבת‬
The following review of the lexicon entries tries to capture the salient points in
their understanding of this lexeme.³⁶⁵ The form and contents of the entries vary
from lexicon to lexicon, but some kind of synopsis is still possible. I will use the
term ’sense’ for the English or German glosses, classifications, and explanations
provided. This can be considered a violation of the logics of the lexical entries,
but it is not a criticism of the lexicons, only an indication of the fact that we are
dealing with sense-relations, viz. senses of different lexemes found in and inter-
nal to the Hebrew language.
DCH distinguishes between three homonyms, ‫ ַּבת‬I, “daughter,” ‫ ַּבת‬II, a liquid
measure, and ‫ ַּבת‬III, a proper name. The last word is found on three Samaria
coins only, and not in the Hebrew Bible; this lexeme is therefore left out in my
treatment. ‫ ַּבת‬II is not relevant for the present discussion. The senses of ‫ ַּבת‬I
are given as 1. “daughter of humans,” 2. “female young of animals,” 3. “posses-
sor of (a) years of life… (b) steps, i. e. inlaid with ivory,” 4. “environ, village,” 5.
perhaps “branch of tree,” 6. “one who is, one who is numbered among,” 7. “one
having the form of,” with one instance, ‫ַּבת־ ְגּדוּד‬, see Chart 2 above, and 8. “pupil”
of the eye, three instances, see Chart 2 above.³⁶⁶
HALOT also distinguishes between three homonyms ‫ַּבת‬, but they are differ-
ent from DCH’s three. ‫ ַּבת‬III, with the sense “woven dress,” is conjectured in 2
Kings 23:7 on the basis of the versions and an Arabic word, and is not relevant
for our discussion. This lexicon offers the following senses for ‫ ַּבת‬I: “daughter
(by birth),” 2. “belonging to,” 3. personification of a town, country, 4. indication
of age, 5. “girls,” “young women.”³⁶⁷
The immediate predecessor of HALOT is HAL with the first volume from 1967,
where ‫ ַּבת‬is treated. HAL distinguishes between three homonyms, the same three
as in HALOT. Under ‫ ַּבת‬I we find the following senses distinguished: 1. “daughter
(physically)” (Tochter [leiblich]), 2. “daughter” in the sense of belonging, 3. per-
sonification of city or land, with reference to epexegetical genitive, GK § 128k, 4.
age information, 5. “girls,” “young women.”³⁶⁸ This is the same taxonomy as in
HALOT.
 Bold text, italics, and references are omitted in my abridgment of the actual entries.
 David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. II 1995, 281 f.
 Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden ; New
York: E. J. Brill, 1994).
 Ludwig Koehler et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, 3. Aufl.
(Leiden: Brill, 1967), I, 158 f, translation mine.
The grandfather of HALOT is KBL from 1958. This lexicon has two homonyms
only, identical to ‫ ַּבת‬I and ‫ ַּבת‬II in DCH, HALOT, and HAL. The senses of ‫ ַּבת‬I are
glossed in this way: 1. “notion of kinship: daughter,” 2. “daughter, designing the
belonging to a group etc.,” 3. “stage of life,” 4. “girls, young women,” 5. “Varia:
eyeball, Daughter of the Many = name of gate.”³⁶⁹
BDB has the same two homonyms as KBL. For ‫ ַּבת‬I it provides the following
senses: 1. “daughter,” “female child,” with the following subcategories: a. girl
called “our daughter” by father and brothers; b. adopted daughter; c. used in
speaking to daughter-in-law; d. ‫ = ַּבת־ָאִביו‬sister, also half-sister; e. ‫ = ַּבת־ֹּדדוֹ‬cous-
in; f. used in kindly address; g. ‫ = ְּבנוֹת ָּב ָניו‬granddaughters; h. ‫( ִרְבָקה ַּבת־ְּבתוֵּאל‬as
more precise designation); i. often plural as designation of women of a particular
city, land, or people, 2. “young women,” “women,” 3. with name of city, land, or
people, poetical personification of that city or inhabitants, etc., 4. plural = “vil-
lages,” after name of city, 5. in phrases denoting character, quality, etc., 6. ‫ַּבת ַיֲע ָנה‬
= “ostrich”; ‫“ = ַּבת ַעיִן‬pupil of the eye,” 7. figurative ‫“ ַלֲעלוָּקה ְשֵּׁתי ָבנוֹה‬two daugh-
ters” (i. e. She’ôl & the barren womb), 8. of vine = “branch,” 9. as n. relat., of age
of woman; of ewe-lamb; of she-goat.³⁷⁰
Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. edition (1915), has two homonyms, corre-
sponding to the two in KBL and BDB. A basic paragraph provides the sense
“daughter,” also used for granddaughter, and, in the expression ‫ְּבנוֹת ָהָאָדם‬,
“women” as opposed to “sons of God,” Gen 6:2, 4 f. This lexicon offers the follow-
ing uses of the word “in an extended sense (I.[n] weiterem S.[inne])”: 1. “daugh-
ters” of Canaan, of Israel, of the Philistines, of Zion, of Jerusalem, 2. for “girl,”
“virgin,” “woman” generally, 3. for a daughter in care (Pflegetochter), 4. belong-
ing to a god, 5. with names of cities and countries, a personification, 6. daughters
of a city: villages etc., 7. expression of belonging: daughter of ninety years,
daughter of an attack, daughter of music, apple of the eye, 8. branch of a tree.³⁷¹
We note that there is considerable overlap between BDB and Gesenius’
Handwörterbuch, 17. ed., but the latter dictionary’s distinction between basic
sense and extended uses is not found with BDB. Several of BDB’s senses are,
however, “extended.”
 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden:
Brill, 1958), 158 f.
 Francis Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix
Containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius, 123.
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament, Unveränderter Neudruck der 1915 erschienenen 17. Aufl ed. (Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1959), 121 f.
Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed. (first volume 1987), also presents three
homonyms for ‫ַּבת‬, the same three as in HAL and in HALOT. For ‫ ַּבת‬I this lexicon,
like Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed., indicates a basic distinction in the senses
of the lemma by first providing “the actual sense” (i. eigentl. S.) “daughter,” but
this specification is not paired by corresponding descriptions later. Under num-
ber 1, described as “the actual sense,” we find “daughter,” “daughter-in-law,” fe-
male humans (opposed to sons of God, Gen 6:2, 4), “noblewoman” (Edelgebor-
ene, Edelfräulein), Cant 7:2. The following categories are: 2. “granddaughter,” 3.
“daughter in care,” 4. in combinations “niece,” 5. “offspring,” 6. “(young)
woman, girl,” 7. used as address by persons in higher authority, 8. “worshiper
of a god,” 9. as a designation of a nomen unitatis, Dan 11:17, 10. expressing at-
tachment to a city or a people (e. g. “daughters of Jerusalem”), 11. with an epex-
egetical genitive as personification of a country or city, 12. “villages” or “towns”
belonging to a city or area, 13. as an expression of attachment to a property or
character (e. g. “a worthless woman,” “[ninety years] old”).³⁷²
A first observation on this material is that ‫ ַּבת‬I occurs 585 times (KBL, HAL)
or 579 times (THAT). A number of times it appears together with ‫ ֵּבן‬I, in expres-
sions like “sons and daughters,” Gen 5:4 etc., where it denotes human female off-
spring in the first generation. The combination with ‫ ֵּבן‬I suggests that these lex-
emes’ difference mainly pertains to the gender. Also, ‫ ֵּבן‬I in the plural may mean
“children,” of both genders, whereas ‫ ַּבת‬I only denotes females. The use of ‫ ַּבת‬I is
therefore more restricted than that of ‫ ֵּבן‬I, but they share the feature of denoting
human offspring in the first generation. With variations in the glosses used, this
is the first sense noted by all lexicons, “daughter.” Assuming that this is the lit-
eral or basic meaning, we may consider the other meanings from this starting
point. A componential analysis would have the elements human + female +
offspring + first generation. Such an analysis would not capture every as-
pect of the senses of ‫ ַּבת‬I, but it might be a help in finding basic elements of
the lexeme. This is not the place to enter into a discussion on the larger questions
surrounding componential analysis, but use it in a simple way to indicate what
the literal sense of the word might be. In our connection it would be especially
pertinent to discuss the question of universality of the components, as we are
dealing with a body of texts from a setting and a time different from ours.³⁷³
With the proviso that the components given here can only indicate which mod-
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament, 1. Lieferung, 185 (the glosses are in my translation).
 Componential analysis is discussed by Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction, 102–
130.
ern categories we can assume in the ancient words, I think we, after all, can ap-
proach an analysis of the pertinent Hebrew words in this way.
In the following discussion I use “‫ ”ַּבת‬instead of the more precise term “‫ַּבת‬
I,” as the danger of confusion with the other homonyms is negligible.
Five of the lexicons present “granddaughter” as one of the senses of ‫ַּבת‬:
HAL, HALOT, KBL, Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed., and Gesenius’ Handwör-
terbuch, 18. ed. If this sense is found for ‫ַּבת‬, we would have to include the second
generation in our analysis. Only one text is adduced for this sense, 2 Kings 8:26,
and this reference requires closer attention.
In 2 Kings 8:16 – 29 (parallel: 2 Chron 21:5 – 22:9) we read about the two Jer-
usalem kings Jehoram (or Joram) and his son Ahaziah, who ruled in the mid-
ninth century b.c.e. They rule in the age of the Israelite dynasty of Omri, more
specifically they are contemporaries of king Ahab and Ahab’s two sons, Ahaziah
and Jehoram (or Joram). 2 Kings 8:18 mentions that Jehoram of Judah was mar-
ried to a daughter of Ahab–she is unnamed. In verse 26 we read that his son Aha-
ziah’s mother was Athaliah, who is said to be a ‫ ַּבת‬of Omri. The masoretic text
therefore raises the question: If Athaliah is identical to the wife mentioned in
verse 18, whose daughter was she–Omri’s or Ahab’s? Or, could there be two
wives of king Jehoram, both coming from the same Israelite dynasty? Josephus
was the first author to link these informations and assume that Athaliah is the
name of the wife mentioned in verse 18, and that she was the daughter of
Ahab and the sister of king Jehoram of Israel, Ant. 9.45 f, 95 f, 112. He gives the
woman’s name as Othlia, and does not mention Omri in the family tree at all,
thus evading the possible conflict created by his own assumption that Athaliah
is the wife mentioned in verse 18. If his assumption is correct, Athaliah would
have been the granddaughter of Omri, not his daughter, and this would conse-
quently mean that ‫ ַּבת‬in verse 26 could have the sense “granddaughter.”
The five lexicons mentioned refer to the following scholarly contributions
(but they do not mention Josephus). Joachim Begrich in an article in 1935 pre-
sumed that 2 Kings 8:26 should be read to the effect that Athaliah was the daugh-
ter of Omri, and, accordingly, she would have been the sister of Ahab, not his
daughter, as verse 18 says. The information in 2 Kings 8:18 would be corrupt:
it originally read “from the house of [‫ ]ִמֵּבת‬Ahab he [= Jehoram] had a wife.”
The transition from ‫ִמֵּבת‬, “from the house of” to ‫ַּבת‬, “the daughter of,” is not tex-
tually impossible. In other words, ‫ ַּבת‬in verse 26 carries the sense “daughter,”
not “granddaughter.” Wilhelm Rudolph, in his commentary on Chronicles,
draws attention to the fact that “sister” is attested to by Peshitta in 2 Kings
8:18; 2 Chr 21:6 and by the Arab translation in 2 Chr 21:6, and assumes that
the original text in fact had “sister” of Ahab in 2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chron 21:6.³⁷⁴ “Sis-
ter” (‫ )ֲאחוֹת‬was then changed to “from the house of” and later to “daughter of.” A
simpler explanation would be that Peshitta and the Arab translation saw the
problem created by the masoretic text, and solved it by saying that Athaliah
was the sister of Ahab in verse 18, and the daughter of Omri in verse 26. Martin
Noth comments on 2 Kings 8:26 that the verse means that Athaliah was of the
dynasty of Omri, because of the following verse (where ‫ֵּבית ַאְחָאב‬, “the house
of Ahab,” occurs).³⁷⁵ He does not take a stand on the original text.
The lexicons mentioned refer to these scholarly contributions from the 20th
century, for the sense “granddaughter” of ‫ַּבת‬, but in fact the scholars do not sup-
port this claim. Begrich and Rudolph both work with the assumption that Atha-
liah was the daughter of Omri, and Noth does not comment upon the text, but
thinks in larger categories. By making assumptions on the inference from
Noth’s view one may reach the sense “granddaughter” for ‫ ַּבת‬in verse 26.
Remembering that the Bible here tells of two kings in Jerusalem with the
same names as two kings in Samaria, and does not specify how many wives
the kings had, I do not think we are in a position to make the statement that
‫ ַּבת‬in verse 26 has the sense “granddaughter.” Peshitta, the Arab translation
and Josephus have sensed the problem created if one combines information in
the masoretic text, just like the modern scholars have done. But their solutions
is either to concentrate on verse 18 and neglect verse 26 (Josephus), or to leave
the masoretic text in verse 26 as it is and change “daughter” to “from the house
of” or “sister” in verse 18 (Begrich and Rudolph), and in both solutions the sense
of ‫ ַּבת‬in verse 26 is taken to be “daughter.” Since one cannot presuppose that the
masoretic text is fully consistent, I think that ‫ ַּבת‬in verses 18 and 26 may have the
sense “daughter.” Nothing compels us to assume otherwise. If so, ‫ ַּבת‬in Hebrew
is restricted to denote offspring in the first generation.
The lexicons offer examples of how Hebrew usually refers to granddaugh-
ters: expressions of the type “his son’s daughter,” “his daughter’s daughter,”
“his sons’ daughters” etc. carry this meaning. In all these expressions ‫ ַּבת‬has
the sense “daughter” as I have analyzed its components above: human + female
+ offspring + first generation.
DCH presents as one sense of ‫“ ַּבת‬female young of animals,” a sense that
would seem to make the component human too narrow. The first three cases
mentioned for this sense, are Lev 14:10; Num 6:14; 15:27, but these texts use ‫ַּבת‬
 Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbücher, Handbuch Zum Alten Testament 21 (Tübingen: Mohr,
1955), 264.
 Martin Noth, Geschichte Israels, 5 ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 216, n. 3.
in expressions of age for the sacrificial animals, and not in the sense offered by
DCH. The only possible evidence for this sense is constituted by the phrase ‫ַּבת‬
‫ ַיֲע ָנה‬that refers to the “ostrich” or “eagle owl.” The word ‫ ַיֲע ָנה‬, however, only ap-
pears in this phrase, and the etymology is contested. The lexicons in the Gese-
nius-tradition suppose that it means “desert,” but some scholars have found
“greed” or similar senses the most likely sense. DCH solves the problem by as-
suming two homonyms, ‫ ַיֲע ָנה‬I, “desert, “ and ‫ ַיֲע ָנה‬II, “greed.” The combined ex-
pression on this analysis either means “daughter of the desert” or “daughter of
greed.”³⁷⁶ In neither case does ‫ ַּבת‬have the sense of “female young of animals,”
but rather denotes something as “belonging to” or “coming from” greed or the
desert. This could be a metaphorical use of the word, and it builds upon the el-
ement offspring in the components mentioned. In other words, there is no reason
to assume that ‫ ַּבת‬was used for animals, and we may keep the component
human in the analysis.
As for the glosses “sister,” “half-sister,” “cousin,” and “niece” found in the
lexicons, in all the relevant Hebrew expressions ‫ ַּבת‬is used in combination with
other nouns, mostly in construct state expressions. Examples include ‫ַּבת ִאִּמי‬,
“my mother’s daughter” = my sister, Gen 20:12; ‫ַּבת־ֹּדדוֹ‬, “his uncle’s daughter”
= his cousin, Esth 2:7; ‫ַּבת־ֲאִחי ֲאֹד ִני‬, “my master’s brother’s daughter” = my mas-
ter’s niece, or more probably, as NRSV translates, “the daughter of my master’s
kinsman,” Gen 24:48. ‫ ַּבת‬means “daughter” in all these expressions, but the
complete expressions would equal “sister” etc. in European languages.
A next question is whether ‫ ַּבת‬had the sense “adopted daughter.” The rele-
vant material is found in the book of Esther: Mordecai takes his uncle’s daughter,
Esther, as a daughter, Est 2:15: ‫ָלַקח־לוֹ ְלַבת‬, “(Mordecai, who) had adopted her as
his own daughter,” NRSV, cf. verse 7. ‫ ֵּבן‬I is used for adoption, 2 Sam 7:14: ‫ֲא ִני‬
‫ֶאְהֶיה־ּלוֹ ְלָאב ְוהוּא יְִהֶיה־ִּלי ְלֵבן‬, “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to
me,” NRSV. Mordecai’s act might imply adoption or care in a more general
sense. Even though the material is meagre, it can be assumed that one compo-
nent in ‫ ַּבת‬could be by birth or by legal action. Combined with the other
components we then have ‫ = ַּבת‬human + female + offspring + first genera-
tion + by birth or by legal action. As mentioned earlier, such an analysis
does not capture every aspect of the meaning of the lexeme, but these compo-
nents may be important basic elements in the sense.
All the lexicons assume that ‫ ַּבת‬can have the sense “daughter-in-law.” There
are two corpora of material that presumably testify to this sense: the book of
Ruth and Judg 12:9.
 David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. IV, 244.
Judg 12:9 reads, “He (Jephthah) had thirty sons. He gave his thirty daughters
in marriage outside his clan and brought in thirty young women (‫ )ָּבנוֹת‬from out-
side for his sons,” NRSV. Like NRSV, I think the sense of ‫ ַּבת‬here is “young
woman,” which is one category found in the lexica. This would be a metonymic
use of the lexeme, as the focus is not on the element offspring, but on the generic
category created by the daughters in a group. The parallel with ‫ ָנ ִשׁים‬, “women,”
in Isa 32:9 shows that the lexeme could have this metonymic sense. The basic
elements in the literal sense are presupposed in this usage, and the sense
“young woman” is contiguous to the sense “daughter,” and contiguity consti-
tutes, simply expressed, the characteristics of a metonym.³⁷⁷ Accordingly, Judg
12:9 is no basis for the assumption that ‫ ַּבת‬has the sense “daughter-in-law.”
The second body of text adduced for this sense is found in the book of Ruth.
Often, Naomi’s address to her daughters-in-law as ‫ְּבֹנַתי‬, “my daughters,” Ruth
1:11, and Naomi’s address to Ruth “my daughter,” Ruth 2:2.22; 3:1.16 have been
understood to the effect that the daughter-category here includes the daugh-
ter-in-law. The precise term for “daughter-in-law,” ‫ַּכָּלה‬, occurs, however, in
Ruth 2:22, and in 3:1.16 Naomi is introduced as the “mother-in-law,” ‫ֲחמוֹת‬, speak-
ing to her. In a context where two technical terms for this relationship are used,
it would be odd to find a possibly more general word used with the same sense
as the precise term for daughter-in-law. A more appropriate understanding is to
assume that ‫ ַּבת‬in these cases is used metaphorically, meaning “my dear, be-
loved,” or with similar senses. This could also be the case when Boaz uses ‫ַּבת‬
in addressing Ruth, Ruth 2:8; 3:10.11. Ruth 2:1 introduces Boaz as coming from
the family of Elimelech, Naomi’s late husband, and he had no reason to use
‫ ַּבת‬in the sense of “daughter-in-law,” but could have meant “(my) dear, beloved,”
or something similar. BDB might be right in assuming that the word can be “used
in kindly address” in Ruth 3:10.11, and I would think that there are some more
examples of this usage in the book of Ruth.³⁷⁸ The characteristics of a metaphor,
simply stated, is that it works with similarity.³⁷⁹ Metaphors have been discussed
above, but this is a common element in the different understandings of them,
and here such a characterization is sufficient for our purpose. In this case
Ruth is “beloved” in a way similar to that of a daughter.
On the basis of the book of Ruth and Judg 12:9 there is no reason to suppose
the sense “daughter-in-law” for ‫ַּבת‬.
 Peter H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2 ed., Oxford Paperback Re-
ference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 244.
 S.v. BAT, 123.
 Peter H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 244.
KBL and BDB mention Gen 34:8, 17 as cases where “daughter” is used in a
wider sense: Hamor refers to Dina as her father’s and brothers’ “daughter,” and
on their side they refer to her as “our daughter” (BDB’s number 1 b in the list
referred above). This can hardly be said to be addressed to the citizens of a
city,³⁸⁰ but to the male members of the family. This usage indicates that ‫ַּבת‬
can refer to the younger female members of a family, in other words the meto-
nymic use mentioned is pertinent here: “young woman.”
The expression ‫ְּבנוֹת ָהָאָדם‬, “women” as opposed to “sons of God,” Gen 6:2.4 f,
shows this sense clearly. Here, the point is the human, female category of beings
different from the divine, male category. They are “young women,” not under the
aspect of offspring, but in the sense of constituting a category of humans, like in
Isa 32:9.
The expression ‫ְּבנוֹת ַה ִשּׁיר‬, “the daughters of song,” Eccl 12:4, is interpreted
by the lexicons as “songs, melodious notes,” but if ‫ ַּבת‬here is employed as a met-
onym for “young woman,” the meaning would rather be “young singers,” “fe-
male singers.” This understanding fits well with the context in Ecclesiastes 12,
where the topic in verse 4 is that the old person’s hearing grows weak: “when
the doors on the street [= ears] are shut, and the sound of the grinding is low,
and one rises up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song [= singers]
are brought low.”
The metonymic use corresponds to BDB’s categroy 2, Gesenius’ Handwörter-
buch, 17. ed., category 2, Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18.ed., category 6, HALOT’s
and HAL’s category 5, KBL’s category 4. This use is not noted by DCH. This usage
also counts for the cases with “daughters of Het,” Gen 27:46, “daughters of
Shilo,” Judg 21:21, and similar expressions, where ‫ ַּבת‬is used in the sense
“girl,” “young woman.”
Such metonymic usage has lasted until New Testament times. Luke 13:16 tes-
tifies to this: “And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham (ταύτην δὲ
θυγατέρα Ἀβραὰμ οὖσαν) whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set
free from this bondage on the sabbath day?”
A metaphorical reading may be suggested for 2 Sam 12:3: “But the poor man
had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and
it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and
drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him
 ThWAT, 159; rightly criticized by H. Haag, ThWAT, I, 868; Haag, on the other side, only
mentions the brothers, and misses the point that the “your” in the suffix refers to brothers and
father as addressees.
(‫) ַוְּתִהי־לוֹ ְּכַבת‬.” In this case, the likeness to the daughter is the belovedness, so
touchingly described here.
Ps 45:11 is a case that can be understood in different ways: ‫ִשְׁמִעי־ַבת וְּרִאי ְוַהִּטי‬
‫ָא ְז ֵנְך‬, “Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear.” In verse 13 the woman in
focus is called a king’s daughter, ‫ַּבת־ֶמֶלְך‬, which might be the reason for the use
of “daughter” in verse 11. The expression might equal “princess,” and ‫ ַּבת‬in verse
11 might by implication have the same sense; the expression was abbreviated.
The lexeme would then be used in its literal sense in verse 13, and only in the
combination with the noun “king” the meaning “princess” is achieved–a mean-
ing perhaps implied in verse 11 as well. A different understanding is that ‫ ַּבת‬in
verse 11 is an honorific address, and the usage is metaphorical, and the sense
is “dear, beloved,” at the same time expressing the respect and admiration be-
coming a royal person.
Is 43:6 is of a similar nature: God says, “bring my sons from far away and my
daughters from the end of the earth.” As God does not have sons or daughters,
the usage here is metaphorical referring to “my beloved ones, men and women.”
One may compare such cases with the use of θυγάτηρ in Matt 9:22: “Jesus
turned, and seeing her he said, ’Take heart, daughter [θάρσει, θύγατερ]; your
faith has made you well.’ And instantly the woman was made well.” Parallel
texts are in Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· θυγάτηρ, “He said to her,
’Daughter,…’.” In the Semitic area, this metaphorical use of “daughter” has last-
ed until New Testament times, and is reflected in these Greek texts.
Also the expression ‫וָּבַעל ַּבת־ֵאל ֵנָכר‬, Mal 2:11, Judah “has married the daughter
of a foreign god,” seems to require a figurative usage. ‫ ַּבת‬could here have a met-
aphorical meaning. The foreign god has a “beloved,” like Yahweh who loves his
worshipers. More likely, however, is that the element of producing and product is
in focus: a foreign god has produced a product, the woman whom Judah mar-
ried. Similarly, the phrase in 1 Sam 1:16 ‫ַּבת־ְּבִל ָיַּעל‬, “a daughter of wickedness,”
NRSV: “a worthless woman,” could either be a metonymical use of “daughter”:
a woman described by the nomen rectum, or a metaphorical use: offspring of
wickedness.
DCH’s sense 3 b, “possessor of steps,” has one occurrence only, Ezek 27:6,
and the explanation “inlaid with ivory” does not comply with the text. In Ezek
27:6 we read that “your deck they made of ivory, daughter of steps,” ‫ַקְר ֵשְׁך‬
‫ָעשׂוּ־ ֵשׁן ַּבת־ֲא ֻשִׁרים‬. Perhaps ‫ בת‬should be attached to ‫ אשרים‬and form one word,
and the phrase would then mean “(ivory) of cypresses.”³⁸¹ Or, in addition to
this emendation, ‫ שן‬could be considered a dittography and should be deleted,
 DCH, I, 436.

so the text would be emended to “your deck they made of cypresses from the
coasts of Cyprus.”³⁸² This would parallel the beginning of the verse: “From
oaks of Bashan they made your oars.” The sense “possessor of” seems difficult
to substantiate from this text.
More relevant are the expressions where ‫ ַּבת‬is used in expressions of age:
“daughter of XX year(s),” Gen 17:17; Lev 14:10; Num 6:14; 15:27 etc. This is a meta-
phorical use of the lexeme: There is similarity between “daughter” and “daughter
of XX year(s)”; they are both offspring, “products,” in the latter case of the
nomen rectum in the construct phrase: XX year(s). One might be tempted also
to consider ‫ ַּבת‬a grammatical word, having the function to link other words.
But this is not satisfactory as an explanation of the usage, as it would imply
the emptying of meaning of ‫ ַּבת‬in these cases; it would occur as an empty
word when used in expressions of age. Such a transition is not impossible,
but in this case unnecessary if one assumes that ‫ ַּבת‬is used metaphorically
with the sense component offspring as the main characteristic.
Cant 7:2 uses the phrase ‫ַּבת־ ָנִדיב‬, “noblewoman.” It can be understood as a
woman born of aristocracy, or as a description of a young woman with a noble
character, noble traits etc. Both meanings are possible for ‫ ָנִדיב‬in Hebrew. In the
former case, ‫ ַּבת‬is used with its literal sense. In the latter case, the word is used
metonymically: it refers to a young woman, and nomen rectum describes her.
Also in Canticles 7 we find a phrase mentioned in the lexicons, ‫ ַשַׁער ַּבת־ַרִּבים‬,
“the gate of the daughter of many,” verse 5, in the description of the beloved:
“Your eyes are pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rabbim.” ‫ ַּבת־ַרִּבים‬is usually
understood as the name of the gate, and we may leave it at that. However, since
the location of the gate is by the pools in Heshbon, one cannot exclude the pos-
sibility that we here deal with ‫ ַּבת‬II, a liquid measure, meaning that there is
some idea of abundance in the context. The description of the beloved is very
positive, so any understanding of the verse must take this into account. There
seems to be little material for our purpose in Cant 7:5.
In the cases where ‫ ַּבת‬is found in connection with a place name in expres-
sions like “Heshbon and her daughters,” Num 21:25, the word denotes filial
towns or villages. L. Delekat has tried to find a difference between the sense
of ‫ ָחֵצר‬and ‫ ַּבת‬in expressions like ‫ֶעְקרוֹן וְּבֹנֶתיָה ַוֲחֵצֶריָה‬, “Ekron and its daughters
and settlements,” Josh 15:45, and a general difference for these lexemes.³⁸³ He
thinks that ‫ ָחֵצר‬means “place,” “town,” and ‫“ ַּבת‬fortified city.” Some of the ma-
 Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament vol. 13/2 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 627 f.
 L. Delekat, “Zum Hebräischen Wörterbuch,” VT 14 (1964): 7– 66, 9 – 11.
terial for this discussion is constituted by lists, and they may have parallels in
other texts. Because of the context and the nature of these lists, this material
is difficult to assess, but it is not necessary to enter into that discussion in our
connection. Suffice it to say that the sense of ‫ ַּבת‬is metaphorical in such
cases, where the metaphor exploits the sense “progeny,” offspring, in ‫ַּבת‬,
whether these villages were actually founded or captured by the mother city
or not, and whether they were fortified or not. Also in this case, the likeness con-
sists in the aspect of producing and product.
Gen 49:22 contains the form ‫ָּבנוֹת‬, commonly taken to be plural, absolute
state of ‫ַּבת‬. It precedes a verb in 3. person sing. fem., and it may be the subject
of this verb. The LXX has a different text, and the understanding of this verse
varies considerably among the exegetes.³⁸⁴ If ‫ ָּבנוֹת‬means “daughters” = branches
of the vine, the usage would be metaphorical, where the branches are considered
the offspring of the three or vine. The text is sometimes amended to ‫ְּב ָנוֹת‬, “in pas-
tures,” and with such an amendment it is irrelevant for our purpose.
In Prov 30:15, ‫ַלֲעלוָּקה ְשֵּׁתי ָבנוֹת‬, “the leech has two daughters,” ‫ ַּבת‬seems to
carry a metaphorical sense. The following verse describes the consequences of
leech: Sheol, the barren womb, the earth ever thirsty for water, and the fire
that never says ’Enough.’ When consequences are described as “daughters,”
the sense is “offspring,” “result,” building on the idea of production and product
inherent in the literal sense.
The phrases mentioned in the two charts at the beginning of the chapter
have not been included in this survey, since these are objects of my study.
Summing up the observations on the other cases, we first see that the literal
use of ‫ ַּבת‬is more widespread than the lexicons seems to indicate. On one hand,
when it stands alone, it denotes “daughters” and “adopted daughters,” but not
other family members. On the other hand, it denotes “daughters” in complex ex-
pressions that taken together mean “granddaughter,” “niece,” etc.
A metonymic use is found with the sense “girl, young woman.” The contigu-
ity consists in that “daughter” is extended to mean “young woman.” This meto-
nymic use is built upon the literal sense of the lexeme, but in the way that it de-
notes a class or group of “daughters.” One might say that the extension of the
lexeme is the class of “girls, young women,” and the intension is their properties
as being human, female, young.
 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, Fünfte unveränderte Aufl., Handkommentar Zum Alten Test-
ament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922): “the text is partly not translatable,” teilweise
unübersetzbar, 485.
As a metaphor ‫ ַּבת‬may be used for villages, in expressions for age and char-
acteristics, and as a kind address. Two similarities with daughters are exploited
in the metaphorical use: one is the producing, or the product–this is employed in
the cases of “villages,” in expressions of age, and in phrases with personal char-
acteristics. Another similarity is the belovedness–this is used in kind address
and in some other cases. In the metaphorical usage the connotations of the lex-
eme come into play, and these are difficult to describe in terms of components.
For the first set of metaphors one might say that one component is in focus, that
of offspring, in some cases also that of female. When the other components are
impossible to observe in the metaphor, this fact indicates that the word is used
as a metaphor with emphasis on the one element present also in the metaphor.
As the emotions connected to a word will be gauged by us mainly from its use in
context, in utterances, we are dependent upon texts where this sense is in play,
and we would assess the metaphorical sense from them. There is a small, but
interesting set of texts where this sense can be observed, and despite their
small number they form a group of utterances with a characteristic and signifi-
cant sense.
Were we to form a condensed presentation of the senses of ‫ַּבת‬, it might look
like this. ‫ַּבת‬, used literally with the sense components human + female + off-
spring + first generation + by birth or by legal action, denoting “daugh-
ter,” also “adopted daughter” or “daughter-in-care.” By extension of the compo-
nents human + female and, by implication, young, it is used metonymically for
“girl, young woman.” Metaphorically it is employed for production and/or prod-
uct with the senses “villages,” “coming from, produced by, (greed, the desert, a
god, a quality, year[s]),” “consequence (of something),” and for the emotional
aspect of the lexeme with the sense “dear,” “beloved.”
Considering the longer entries in the lexicons, such an overview of the
senses of ‫ ַּבת‬might seem too short and rather inadequate. On the other hand,
does not this approach capture the essentials of the actual use of ‫ ַּבת‬in the He-
brew Bible? If so, it would be easier to cope with the usage in context, since one
can do with fewer senses than commonly presented, and thus acquire a more
easily navigable map. Also, one does not have to look so much for paraphrasing
glosses in rendering ‫ַּבת‬, but can follow the track of the word from literal use to
the figurative uses.
The phrases mentioned in the two charts above I have kept for separate
treatment.
5.3 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬ 129
5.3 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬
DCH presents us with the following gloss for this lexeme: “young woman,” with
the further comment “a young, marriageable (rarely married, as Jl 18) woman,
sometimes with specific ref. to virginity.”³⁸⁵ ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬is glossed as “young woman-
hood.”
HALOT offers this understanding: “1. grown-up girl without any sexual expe-
rience with men,” “2. personification.” HAL has the same two senses.³⁸⁶ ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬is
in both these lexicons described as: “1. state of virginity,” “2. evidence of virgin-
ity.”
KBL has the following description: “virgin, grownup girl whom no man has
known.” For ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬the understanding is “the (whole of = a) virgin of Isr.,”
Deut 22:19, and “= the people of Isr.,” Jer 18:13; 31:4.21; Am 5:2. To distinguish be-
tween the meaning of the expression in Deut 22:19 on one hand, and in the other
four instances, is necessary, as noted earlier. ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬is “age, stage of virginity.”
BDB has the gloss “virgin,” and a description of some instances as “person-
ification of nations.” ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬is “virginity,” and “tokens of virginity.”³⁸⁷
The basic rendering in Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed., is Jungfrau, “vir-
gin,” with this comment on some instances: Ö. v. Städten od. Ländern, “often
of cities or countries.”³⁸⁸ Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed., is more elaborate:
“1. virgin in the real sense,” “2. (?) woman who married young,” “3. with epex-
egetical genitive for personification of names for countries and cities” (transla-
tions mine).³⁸⁹ ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬is in both editions “1. state of virginity,” and “2. evidence
of virginity.”
All lexicons, except DCH, offer “virgin” as the basic sense, and we may call it
the literal sense. There are several lexemes collocating with this lexeme, but they
do not altar this sense. In view of the detailed and precise law in Deut 22:13 – 21,
with both ‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬and ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬employed, this literal sense seems well attested. The
crucial point is the demonstration of the “evidence of her virginity” (NJPS), the
‫ ְּבתוִּלים‬of the ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, Deut 22:17. In the following laws, Deut 22:22– 29, the
“virgin” is subject to male sexual violence, rape, and the image is that of a vul-
nerable and weak “virgin.” Also, in the regulation for who might become a
 David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, II, 289 f.

 HALOT and HAL s. v. BETULAH.
 Francis Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 143 f.
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament, 122.
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament, I, 186.
priests wife, Lev 21:14, the lexeme has the same sense: “A widow, or a divorced
woman, or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute, these he shall not marry.
He shall marry a virgin of his own kin,” cf. the equivalent regulation Ezek 44:22.
The same sense is presupposed in the book of Esther, 2:2 f.17.19; DCH does not
offer this sense justification by rendering the lexeme as “young woman.”
There is no need to change the understanding gained from Deut 22:13 – 21 on
the basis of Joel 1:8: “Lament like a virgin dressed in sackcloth for the husband
of her youth (‫)ַּבַעל ְנעוֶּריָה‬.” DCH and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed., mention
this instance as a special case, and there could here be a different sense of the
word, with the proviso that ‫ ַּבַעל‬here has the sense “husband.” Such a sense is
often found, and it is common to assume it also here. It is, however, not the
only sense of the word, and one may consider senses more in the direction of
“master,” “owner,” “lord” also as possible here. On the assumption that ‫ַּבַעל‬
here has the sense “husband,” we do not have further information on the
case presupposed by Joel 1:8, whether the virgin was betrothed, or married with-
out consummation of the marriage, or married for some time and presumably
not a virgin any more. On this background it is not necessary to abandon “virgin”
as the literal sense of the lexeme, and see “young woman” as the basic sense, as
DCH does. This one instance is ambiguous, and constitutes no foundation for es-
tablishing a different literal sense.
In some texts ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬parallels ‫ָּבחוּר‬, “young man,” Deut 32:25; Isa 23:4; 62:5;
Jer 31:13; 51:22; Ezek 9:6; Amos 8:13; Zech 9:17; Ps 78:63; 148:12; Lam 1:18; 2:21; 2
Chr 36:17. This parallelism might suggest the sense “young woman” for ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬,
without any sense component of virginity. On the other hand, Isa 62:5 says
that “a young man (‫ )ָּבחוּר‬marries a young woman (‫)ְּבתוָּלה‬,” in the rendering of
NRSV. Further, in the same text both lexemes parallel “bride” (‫ )ַּכָּלה‬and “bride-
groom” (‫)ָחָתן‬, respectively, “For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall
your builder marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall
your God rejoice over you,” NRSV. In Jer 2:32 ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬parallels “bride,” “Can a girl
(‫ )ְּבתוָּלה‬forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire?” NRSV. These latter two texts
indicate that the word-pair ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬and ‫ ָּבחוּר‬seems to have the sense of unmarried
young persons. According to HB legislation sexual life would begin with mar-
riage, and an inference from this is that ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬has the sense “virgin.” Texts
like Gen 24:16: “The girl was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man
had known,” need not be taken to mean that ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬had the sense “young
woman,” which necessarily had to be made precise through the clause “whom
no man had known,” if such precision was the intention of the author. Hebrew
narrative and poetry often work with double expression with virtually the same
meaning, and this could be the case here as well.
5.3 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬ 131
Younger females might be designated ‫ ַיְלָּדה‬, “girl,” ‫ַעְלָמה‬, “marriageable girl,”

“young woman,” ‫ָאחוֹת‬, “sister,” ‫ַּבת‬, “daughter,” in addition to ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬, “virgin.”
All these lexemes might share some connotations associated with girls, but
one may assume that each of them would have its separate place in the system,
its own semantic profile, its own literal sense, as it were. Inside this word field,
‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬might have a sense not fully covered by any of the other lexemes. As none
of the others clearly has a sense component of virginity, and in view of the laws
in Deut 22:13 – 21; Lev 21:14; Ezek 44:22, plus the parlance in the book of Esther, it
seems most probable that ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬has the sense components female, young, vir-
gin. ‫ ָּבחוּר‬would correspond to this: male, young, unmarried, assuming that
only females can be designated “virgins.” This is, of course, an assumption
that many today would question, so the components here are built upon tradi-
tional uses of these words. If these sense components may be admitted, it is un-
derstandable that ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬and ‫ ָּבחוּר‬may equal “bride” and “bridegroom.” They
are, of course, not synonyms, as lexemes rarely, if ever, have absolute synonyms,
but they may be descriptively synonymous, that is, they share the same truth
conditions. Presuming that Hebrew normative thinking is reflected in the legis-
lation of the HB, we can suppose that a woman who is a ‫ ַּכָּלה‬have at the same
time to be a ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬, and, conversely, she cannot be a ‫ ַּכָּלה‬without at the same
time being a ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬. A man is more difficult to put into a similar equation, as
we do not have legislation on him, but we may presume that he cannot be a
‫ ָחָתן‬and at the same time not a ‫ָּבחוּר‬. And, if such a comment may be allowed,
in distinction to a woman a man has nothing paralleling the ‫ְּבתוִּלים‬, which
might heve functioned as evidence in courts.
A metaphorical sense of ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬would presuppose the components in the lit-
eral use, but include others, for instance the associations attached to a bride,
who is surrounded by joy, dance and song, Jer 2:32; 31:13; Isa 62:5. The
‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬, paralleled to ‫ַּבת‬, normally is ‫ַרָּכה ַוֲע ֻנ ָגּה‬, “tender and delicate,” accord-
ing to Isa 47:1, and this could be included in the metaphorical sense of ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬. The
whole verse depicts Babylon as bereaved of these qualities, so a reasonable in-
ference is that they belonged to the natural repertoire of a “virgin daughter,” and
a “daughter.” Also, one cannot overhear the associations of the ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬as valua-
ble, precious, a treasure in her father’s house, for instance in the expression ‫ִּבִּתי‬
‫ַהְּבתוָּלה‬, “my daughter, who is a virgin,” Judg 19:24. This association connected to
the word is different from the description of HALOT and HAL: “grown-up girl
without any sexual experience with men.” The phrase describes a virgin as a
girl lacking something, a young woman with a deficit, whereas the usage in
the HB often carry overtones of preciousness and value. A virgin is a young
woman with added value, not with a deficiency. The metaphorical senses of
‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬would then include tender, delicate, precious, reason for joy.
We are here reminded of the comments of William Rainey Harper on Amos

5:2, quoted above, and here in abbreviation, “The explanations of the phrase, …,
may be classified according as the principal thought is found in (1) the figure of
chastity, whether political chastity, i. e. as being free, unconquered, independent
of other powers…or religious chastity, i. e. freedom from contaminating contact
with other gods;…or (2) the idea of the delicacy and self-indulgence of the peo-
ple; … or (3) the idea of collectivity, the feminine being used to convey this
thought, – in this sense it has been taken (a) as a designation of the people
in general; (b) as a poetic term for state… (c) as the designation of a city, and
usually the chief or capital city of the kingdom, Samaria, or Jerusalem… and
is employed to mark the contrast between Israel’s past and future condition.”³⁹⁰
Harper’s summary of research on this topic is valuable and we may assume that
none of the comments are right on the track suggested by my analysis, but his
summary reflects common sense ideas of what might be the metaphorical
sense of the lexeme.
When two words from this family occur together in a construct chain,
‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬, plus a nomen rectum, they would each contribute their own compo-
nents to the nomen rectum. In the view of Maria Häusl, this would consist in as-
pects of patriarchal society, and she thinks that a dominant patriarchal perspec-
tive of daughter- and virgin-roles is the reason why these lexemes are employed
as metaphors for cities, countries and collectives.³⁹¹ Her evaluation of the use of
these words as metaphors is built upon information on ancient Israelite society
gained from the HB, and not on a linguistic analysis of the use of the terms only.
On one hand, she uses linguistics, but moves, on the other hand, quickly on to a
social analysis based on the texts for her understanding of the words. The ques-
tion is then, if linguistics has served the way it might, before it is left for other
methods of study.
I have discussed the texts with ‫ ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬in chapter 2 of this book, and the
conclusion drawn by the exegetes on the basis of the contexts of the expression
is that ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬can be used as a personification, and a similar understanding is
suggested by HALOT, HAL, BDB and Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed. I have
discussed the three uses of this term above, and suffice it to say here that a met-
aphorical sense of ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬in my opinion better captures the meaning of the
phrase.
 Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC, Edinburgh, 1905,
107.
 Maria Häusl, Bilder der Not: Weiblichkeits- und Geschlechtermetaphorik im Buch Jeremia, 69.
5.4 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ִציּוֹן‬ 133
5.4 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ִציּוֹן‬
The range of meanings for ‫ ִציּוֹן‬is described in this way by the lexicons:
DCH understands ‫ ִציּוֹן‬as a place name, with the following ’meanings’ or
’senses’³⁹²: 1a. “Zion as city, i. e. Jerusalem,” 1b. “Zion as city personified,” 2a.
“Zion as mountain, abode of Y[ahweh],” 2b. “plur., mountains of Zion,” 3. “as
appellative for inhabitants/people of Zion/Jerusalem or even inhabitants of Isra-
el/Judah…, Israel as a nation.”³⁹³ The entry is preceded by the proviso “distinc-
tion between §1, §2 and §3 not alw[ays] clear.” The entry under 2a and 2b hardly
describes a different sense of the word, but specifies that it can occur as nomen
rectum with “mountain” in the singular or plural as a nomen regens. Senses 1
and 2 are literal, sense 3 is metonymic: the concrete place name is used for
the population of the place.
HALOT’s treatment is the following: a. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬originally denotes a locality on
the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem,” b. “as usage by extension ‫ ִצ׳‬means
‫ ְירוּ ָשַׁליִם‬,” “c. ‫ ַהר ִצ׳‬the temple mount,” “d. those living in Jerusalem are described
as: —i. ‫…ְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן‬ii. ‫ … ְּבנוֹת ִצ׳‬cf. sg. ‫…ַּבת ִצ׳‬iii. ‫ ִציּוֹן‬on its own denotes the place and
its inhabitants, and in particular the exilic and post-exilic community.”³⁹⁴ HAL
has the same description as HALOT. ³⁹⁵ KBL’s entry is in essence the same. In
these three lexicons we may see the same general classification as in DCH:
there are two senses, one in the literal usage with a location as the referent,
and one in the metonymic, with the population of the location as the referent.
Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 17. ed. provides this description: “proper noun
for Zion, originally name of the stronghold of the Jebusites on the southern
half of the eastern hill of Jerusalem…The name was lost early as a topographical
designation…but later we find it with prophets and poets transferred to the
whole eastern hill of Jerusalem, the temple mount…or to the whole holy city…or
to its population….finally, also to the exilic community.”³⁹⁶ This means that this
lexicon describes a literal (geographical) sense: a name for a part of Jerusalem:
 The dictionary’s expressions, vol. 1, p. 19.

 David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 7, 2010, p. 115 – 118.
 HALOT, 1022.
 My translation of “urspr. eine Örtlichkeit auf dem Südosthügel Jerusalems…in erweitertem
Gebrauch: [Zion = Jerusalem]…blosses ‫ ִציּוֹן‬als Bezeichnung seiner Bewohner u. im besonderen
der exil. und nachexil. Gemeinde,” HALOT, 958, s.v. ‫ִציּוֹן‬.
 My translation of “n. pr. f. Sion, urspr. Name der Jebusiterburg auf der Südhälfte des
Osthügels Jerusalems…später finden wir ihn aber bei Propheten u. Dichtern übertr. auf den
ganzen Osthügel Jerusalems, den Tempelberg…od. auf die ganze heilige Stadt…od. auf deren
Bewohnerschaft…endlich auch auf die Gemeinde des Exils,” Gesenius et al., Handwörterbuch,
681– 2, art. ‫ִציּוֹן‬.
for the stronghold of the Jebusites or the temple mount, or for the whole city, as
well as a transferred sense: denoting the population of Jerusalem or the exilic
community. Examples of the latter use are Isa 40:9; 52:1.
Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18.ed., describes the senses in similar terms.³⁹⁷ It
is basically a proper noun (Eigenname) for the south-east hill of Jerusalem or the
temple mount, or the whole city. It can also stand for the population of Jerusa-
lem, later also for the destroyed city, the post-exilic city and its population.
‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬is mentioned as a personification. We see the same distinction between
literal (geographical) and metonymic senses as in the other lexicons.
A similar distinction between literal (geographical) and metonymic mean-
ings is found in BDB: it is a place name for “[the] stronghold (of Jebusites)…not
elsewhere in narrative, but often in poets and proph.: as name of Jerus., from po-
litical point of view (sts. = inhabitants)…specif. of Jerus. as abode of [Yahweh]
and place of his worship…partic. of sanctuary.”³⁹⁸ BDB states that the word
sometimes has the sense “inhabitants,” and this is metonymic usage.
The treatment by the dictionaries of this word shows that the connotations
of the word often are seen as included in the senses of the word. Even when it is
a place name, ‫ ִציּוֹן‬is not purely referential, merely referring to a geographical lo-
cation, but carries with it a host of connotations. The geographical name is seen
as having an emotive component that influences the definition of the senses,
even to the extent of suggesting different senses. The dictionaries agree, howev-
er, on a basic distinction between a geographical reference on the one hand, and
an “appellative,” a sense referring to inhabitants of the place on the other hand.
None of the lexicons mentions a metaphorical sense, even if the transition to
metaphor may have taken place in cases where the connotations dominate
over the literal sense.
The dictionaries refer to the following texts for a geographical sense of the
word. “The stronghold of Zion” is equated with “the city of David,” 2 Sam 5:7 = 1
Chr 11:5: ‫ְמֻצַדת ִציּוֹן ִהיא ִעיר ָּד ִוד‬, and “the city of David” is equated with “Zion” alone
in 1 Kings 8:1 = 2 Chr 5:2: ‫ִעיר ָּד ִוד ִהיא ִציּוֹן‬. In these cases, the whole sentence has to
do with a location, but ideological associations are also in play: ‫ ִציּוֹן‬in these
cases seem to carry with it an amount of ideological material, to the extent
that it is hard to say if it here has a purely geographical reference, or if the oc-
currences witness to a sense that included ideology with geography.³⁹⁹ Still,
these senses of the word are all geographical. All lexicons agree that the word
 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament, art. ‫ ִציּוֹן‬1115 – 6.
 Francis Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 851, s.v. ‫ִציּוֹן‬.
 F. Stolz, Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjōn Zion,” in Band II, THAT; E. Otto, Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjôn,” ThWAT.
5.4 The Senses of the Lexeme ‫ִציּוֹן‬ 135
also may have senses like “inhabitants,” “population,” “community.” This met-
onymic use: a word denoting a city or parts of it can be used for the people living
there, is not unique for ‫ִציּוֹן‬.
DCH’s § 1b “Zion as city personified,” mentions cases with “Zion,” where it
occurs with verbs that usually take animate subjects or objects. This understand-
ing of personification seems to be more in line with a linguistic approach to per-
sonification than in the parlance one finds in many grammars and lexicons, see
the discussion in chapter 3. The verbs constructed with ‫ ִציּוֹן‬in these cases have a
metaphorical sense, and ‫ ִציּוֹן‬is used literally. One text adduced for this sense is
Isa 66:8, which says that ‫ ִציּוֹן‬is in labor and bears children: ‫ִּכי־ָחָלה ַגּם־ ָיְלָדה ִציּוֹן‬
‫ֶאת־ָּב ֶניָה‬. This is a personification of the city because “Zion” is used with verbs
that require animate subjects. “Zion” is used in its geographical sense, and
the verbs in a figurative sense, as metaphors for the city’s creation and increase
of inhabitants. When verbs for activity reserved for animate subjects are used
with an inanimate subject, we have a metaphorical usage of the verbs, entailing
a personification of the subject, as was considered in the earlier discussion. Fur-
ther, Isa 51:16; 52:7 mention persons speaking to Zion, and in Isa 49:14 Zion
speaks. Isa 52:1 admonishes Zion to arise and dress in strength, ‫עוִּרי עוִּרי ִלְב ִשׁי‬
‫ֻע ֵּזְך ִציּוֹן‬. Here, the verbs are used in senses that require an animate subject and
a literal sense of “Zion” in this case requires figurative senses for the verbs.
The expression “dress in strength” is a metaphor for taking on a strong attitude,
where ‫ לבשׁ‬is used metaphorically.
This small sample from the Book of Isaiah may suffice to convince us that ‫ִציּוֹן‬
used alone can refer to the city as personified, without focussing on the popula-
tion as such. DCH speaks of personification in such cases. Personification is by
other lexicons supposed to be expressed by the phrase ‫ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬, as discussed in
the previous chapter, and this is contended. But ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone may be personified
in a way that corresponds to the phenomenon described by Encyclopaedia Bri-
tannica. When personified, ‫ ִציּוֹן‬still has the sense of the geographical area, but
understood from a specific angle, understood as if it were animate.
On the other hand, the lexicons are right in asserting that ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone can refer
to a location as well as to its inhabitants, or to the community associated with
it. As an example of this, Isa 1:27 may serve: “Zion shall be redeemed by justice,
and those in her who repent, by righteousness.” The parallel “Zion” // “those in
her who repent” reveals that “Zion” has the sense “the inhabitants of Zion,” and
the parallel “those in her who repent” may equal and define “Zion,” or limit its
sense to those who repent among the inhabitants. This is a metonymic use of the
word, where the senses “people, inhabitants, community” has a direct link to the
senses “the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, temple mount, Jerusalem.” Admitted-
ly, it is not always clear what is meant, the city or her inhabitants or the com-
munity, but it is possible to think of the city or her inhabitants when the text for
example mentions that Zion will be filled with “justice and righteousness,” Isa
33:5. Thus, there is a usage that refers to the geographical entity, and there is
also a metonymic use of ‫ִציּוֹן‬, and in some texts “Zion” is personified by collocat-
ing with words elsewhere used for animate subjects.
The lexicons mention the following expressions denoting the inhabitants of
Zion:
‫ְּב ֵני ִצ ֹיּון‬, found in ‫וְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן ִגּילוּ ְו ִשְׂמחוּ ַּביה ָוה ֱאל ֵֹהיֶכם‬, “O children of Zion, be glad
and rejoice in the LORD your God,” Joel 2:23; ‫ְּב ֵני־ִציּוֹן ָי ִגילוּ ְבַמְלָּכם‬, “let the children
of Zion rejoice in their King,” Ps 149:2; ‫ְּב ֵני ִציּוֹן ַה ְיָקִרים ַהְמֻסָּלִאים ַּב ָפּז ֵאיָכה ֶנְח ְשׁבוּ‬
‫ְל ִנְבֵלי־ֶחֶרשׂ‬, “The precious children of Zion, worth their weight in fine gold—how
they are reckoned as earthen pots,” Lam 4:2. Further, there is ‫ְּבנוֹת ציּוֹן‬, which is
found in ‫ְצֶאי ָנה וְּרֶאי ָנה ְּבנוֹת ִציּוֹן ַּבֶּמֶלְך ְשׁל ֹֹמה‬, “come out. Look, O daughters of Zion,
at King Solomon,” Song 3:11; ‫ָגְבהוּ ְּבנוֹת ִציּוֹן ַוֵּתַלְכ ָנה ְנטוּוֹת ָגּרוֹן וְּמ ַשׂ ְּקרוֹת ֵעי ָניִם ָהלוְֹך ְוָטֹפף‬
‫ֵּתַלְכ ָנה וְּבַר ְגֵליֶהם ְּתַעַּכְס ָנה׃ ְו ִשׂ ַפּח ֲאֹד ָני ָקְדק ֹד ְּבנוֹת ִציּוֹן ַויה ָוה ָפְּתֵהן ְיָעֶרה‬, “Because the
daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wan-
tonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet; the Lord
will afflict with scabs the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will lay
bare their secret parts,” Isa 3:16 f; ‫ִאם ָרַחץ ֲאֹד ָני ֵאת ֹצַאת ְּבנוֹת־ִציּוֹן ְוֶאת־ְּדֵמי ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם ָיִדיַח‬
‫ִמִּקְרָּבּה‬, “once the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and
cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst,” Isa 4:4. Other expressions
are ‫ַעִּמי ֹי ֵשׁב ִציּוֹן‬, “O my people, dwelling on Zion,” Isa 10:24, where “my people” is
defined by an apposition: dwelling on Zion; ‫יוֹ ֶשֶׁבת ִציּוֹן‬, “O, inhabitants of Zion,”
Jer 51:35, with female imperatives for this expressions, which is used as a voca-
tive. These expression are used with verbs and nouns that only take animate
partners.
The paucity of these expressions indicates that only in a few cases the au-
thors felt it necessary to add an element explicitly referring to the inhabitants.
For the other cases, ‫ ִציּוֹן‬used metonymically could be used for the population
in question. There may have been a nuance between the expressions quoted
in the preceding paragraphs and the metonymical use of ‫ִציּוֹן‬, namely that the for-
mer referred to the people or women of Zion in particular, whereas the latter re-
ferred to the whole concept of city, temple, and inhabitants, and perhaps even
historical and theological associations that go with them, like the sense “exil-
ic/post-exilic community.” A metonymical usage of ‫ ִציּוֹן‬carries overtones that ex-
pressions with “sons,” “daughters,” and “inhabitants” might not have, and au-
thors may exploit this difference.
5.5 Paradigmatic Observations on ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬ 137
Some of the lexicons mentioned classify ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as an expression referring to

the people of Zion. Both THAT and ThWAT use the expression “personification,”
which seems to mean that the phrase refers to the inhabitants.⁴⁰⁰ The expression
‫“ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִציּוֹֹן‬personifies emphatically,” according to ThWAT. ⁴⁰¹ In these cases
“personification” would be used in a sense different from the technical parlance
of linguistics and rhetorics, and different from DCH’s category § 1b “Zion as city
personified.” ThWAT adds that the expressions “wall of daughter Zion,” “gates of
daughter Zion,” and “hill of daughter Zion” are used with reference to the south-
eastern hill, which is hard to imagine if the expression ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬personifies ‫ ִציּוֹן‬in
the sense that it denotes the population of Zion rather than the city. When this
expression serves as a compound nomen rectum for words denoting “wall,”
“gates,” or “hill” as nomina regentia, the association to a location has tradition-
ally been felt more strongly than with other combinations. Indeed, Stinespring
used these phrases as indications that his theory of explanation of the expres-
sion was on the right track: it is easier to associate the referents for such
words with a city than with its population.
As observed, ‫ ִציּוֹן‬may be used metonymically for the people associated with
the location, and the addition of ‫ ַּבת‬to ‫ ִציּוֹן‬is not necessary for obtaining this
sense. Also, verbs and nouns in syntagmatic relationship to ‫ ִציּוֹן‬indicate that
the word is used as if it were an animate phenomenon. I prefer to employ the
term “personification” for this latter phenomenon, instead of using it for expres-
sions like ‫ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬. After analyzing the two words separately, we now turn to this
expression.
5.5 Paradigmatic Observations on ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬
As noted by the lexicons, ‫ ִציּוֹן‬may parallel ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬, and this is the case also when
both these names are found as nomen rectum in phrases with ‫ ַּבת‬as nomen re-
gens.
‫ִגּיִלי ְמֹאד ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ָהִריִעי ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! (Zech 9:9a)
 “Personifizierung des Ortes,” F. Stolz, Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjōn Zion,” col. 544; “Personifikationen
Jerusalems,” E. Otto, Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjôn.”, ThWAT 6, col. 1010 – 11, with reference to Fitzgerald.
 The expression “personifiziert emphatisch,” E. Otto, Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjôn.”, col. 1011.
In this case ‫ ִגּיִלי ְמֹאד ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬parallels ‫ָהִריִעי ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬. The verbs and the vocatives
parallel each other, and the pattern is a-b-a1-b1. ‫ ְמֹאד‬has no equivalent in the sec-
ond sentence, but the idea of strengthening the expression may have been thought
to have been included already in the sense of the verb ‫ָהִריִעי‬. This half-verse shows
that “Zion” is considered as semantically overlapping with “Jerusalem,” at least to
the extent that these words could be used in parallel. The two parts of this half-
verse may be addressed to the people of Zion/Jerusalem, if the geographical
names here are used metonymically, or if the appearance of “daughter” in a con-
struct phrase with them creates this sense. They may also be addressed to the city
of Zion/Jerusalem, and the verbs are used metaphorically, to the effect that there is
no real “rejoicing” or “shouting” taking place, but something comparable. This lat-
ter reading would be a forced understanding of the sentences, so the former option
seems preferable: the two phrases refer to the people of Zion/Jerusalem.
‫ָר ִּני ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ָהִריעוּ יִ ְשָׂרֵאל ִשְׂמִחי ְוָעְל ִזי ְּבָכל־ֵלב ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
Sing aloud, O daughter Zion;
shout, O Israel!
Rejoice and exult with all your heart,
O daughter Jerusalem! (Zeph 3:14)
This verse consists of three parallel parts, where “daughter Zion” and “daughter
Jerusalem” are accompanied by a third expression, ‫יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, that also forms a kind
of parallel to the other two. The pattern here is a-b-a1-b1-a2-a3-c-b2, where “c”
(“with all your heart”) stands for an element strengthening the verb represented
by “a3.” Because of the two verbs in the third part and the strengthening ele-
ment, the whole verse is a step parallelism. That “daughter Zion” and “daughter
Jerusalem” are used in parallel to “Israel” suggests that all three expressions
carry a sense of “people” or “community.”
In the following example, Mic 4:8, the second phrase (‫ )ַּבת־ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬is preceded
by ‫ְל‬, “for,” which again is preceded by a word in the construct state, constituting
a case where the construct state is followed by a preposition, cf. the discussion of
this phenomenon in chapter 4.⁴⁰²
ֹ ‫ְוַאָּתה ִמ ְגַּדל־ֵעֶדר ֹעֶפל ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ָעֶדיָך ֵּתאֶתה וָּבָאה ַהֶּמְמ ָשָׁלה ָהִרא‬
‫שׁ ָנה ַמְמֶלֶכת ְלַבת־ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
And you, O tower of the flock,
hill of daughter Zion,
to you it shall come,
the former dominion shall come,
a kingdom for daughter Jerusalem. (Mic 4:8; my translation)
 Cf. above, p. 98. Gesenius, Handwörterbuch, 18th ed. p. 690 considers ‫ ַמְמֶלֶכת‬a possible
absolute form (provided with a “?”), but BDB thinks it is a construct form, p. 575.
“Hill of daughter Zion” is paralleled by the expression “tower of the flock.” The
verse opens with these two parallel expressions, and the vocative is made explic-
it through the element “you,” and the following second person singular feminine
forms. When “flock” parallels “daughter Zion” here, we again see that the latter
expression is used for the population. Also, there is nothing new here in the
usage compared to the metonymic use of ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone. The verse continues with a
verbal sentence containing a prepositional expression, two verbs and a subject,
which is then paralleled in the last phrase by “a kingdom for daughter Jerusa-
lem.” One must assume that the latter expression parallels the two opening
phrases, as the kingdom will come to the addressee of the verse.
In 2 Kings 19:21b // Isa 37:22b the two names for the city are preceded by dif-
ferent nomina regentia, ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־‬alternates with ‫ַּבת‬, without any obvious, fun-
damental difference in reference:
‫ָּב ָזה ְלָך ָלֲע ָגה ְלָך ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ַאֲחֶריָך ֹראשׁ ֵה ִניָעה ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
She despises you, she scorns you—
virgin daughter Zion;
she tosses her head—behind your back,
daughter Jerusalem. (2 Kgs 19:21b; Isa 37:22b)
The idea that “virgin daughter” personifies emphatically (cf. ThWAT, see above),
is faced with the fact that in this text this expression parallels the shorter expres-
sion with “daughter” only. The verbs used as predicates (“despise,” “scorn,”
“toss the head”) may be metaphors, and the subjects are used literally, referring
to the city (personification in the linguistic sense). If they are understood literal-
ly, the “virgin daughter Zion” and “daughter Jerusalem” must refer to the popu-
lation. It is worth considering that the construct phrases have a different sense
from ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone, used metonymically. The sense of the two expressions may also
be different among themselves because of the presence of ‫ ְּבתוַּלת‬in the first case.
In addition to the expressions listed in the table, Lam 2:13 presents the voc-
ative ‫ ַהַּבת‬in apposition to “Jerusalem,” forming a phrase that parallels ‫ְּבתוַּלת‬
‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, and these expressions seem to have the same referent:
‫ָמה־ֲאִעיֵדְך ָמה ֲאַדֶּמה־ָּלְך ַהַּבת ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם ָמה ַא ְשׁ ֶוה־ָּלְך ַוֲא ַנֲחֵמְך ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ִּכי־ ָגדוֹל ַּכ ָיּם ִשְׁבֵרְך‬
‫ִמי יְִר ָפּא־ָלְך‬
What can I say for you, to what compare you,
O daughter Jerusalem?
To what can I liken you, that I may comfort you,
O virgin daughter Zion?
For vast as the sea is your ruin;
who can heal you?
It is interesting to note that both expressions are vocatives with the same refer-
ent, but one has the vocative form of “daughter” in front of “Jerusalem,” and the
other has the form of “virgin daughter” as nomina regentia to “Zion.”⁴⁰³ This can
be indicative of the choices an author had in forming text: an apposition in one
case, a construct phrase in the next. Both expressions can also be seen as con-
struct phrases, with a marker for vocative in the first case. Fitzgerald does not
mention that the use of the article in the phrase ‫ ַהַּבת ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם‬can be an expression
of the vocative, but it seems that he supposed that the article here has the func-
tion of making the following word definite; it is supposed to work in the same
way as “when personal names are given titles that indicate the rank or dignity
of the people involved…”⁴⁰⁴ He sees the relation between ‫ ַהַּבת‬and ‫ ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם‬as ap-
positional, and this also goes for the syntactic relation in the parallel phrase
‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. The latter phrase he does not consider a “genitive”, since “so far
as the writer knows there is no evidence whatsoever for a double appositional
genitive such as the usual interpretation of btwlt bt ṣywn supposes. Thus, the reg-
ular writing of these titles without the article and the preservation of the final t in
btwlt may well be indications of the antiquity of the language involved and its
technical sense.”⁴⁰⁵ The use of the article in the case of ‫“ ַהַּבת‬could simply be
a modernization of the usage.” He has ignored the possibility for vocatives, de-
spite the fact that the suffixes in the verse are second person feminine singular.
One may wonder to what extent a focus on the thesis, that titles are added to the
names for the city, has led to less attention on the linguistic analysis of the verse.
To assume a vocative use of the article and the parallel nature of the expressions,
offers itself more readily as an understanding than to look for ancient forms plus
modernization.
If the use of ‫ רפא‬in this verse refers to human wounds and sickness, it might
indicate that the two expressions for Zion and Jerusalem are used for the popu-
lation; a probable new case where the construct phrases refer to the people of
Zion/Jerusalem, like the toponyms when used metonymically.
In the previous examples, the parallels to ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬are phrases with “daugh-
ter,” or one parallel has “daughter” and the other has “virgin daughter.” As in-
dicated, this may be a sign that the expressions collected in table 1 form a group,
meaning that the expressions share some properties, and this is the preliminary
conclusion: there are indications that these expressions form a group. Scholars
who tend to focus on ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬only, or even insist that this expression can be treat-
 Berlin, Lamentations, 66: “The hê before bat yĕrûšālayim is a vocative marker,” and her
translation is “Dear Jerusalem.”
 Fitzgerald, “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities.”, 181.
 Ibid., 181.
ed alone, miss out the larger picture and loose material that belongs in this con-
text.
There are some cases where ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬parallels ‫ ְירוּ ָשׁ ִָלם‬:
In Isa 10:32 ‫ַהר־ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬⁴⁰⁶ parallels ‫ ִגְּבַעת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬, which means that ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬par-
allels ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬:
‫עוֹד ַהיּוֹם ְּבֹנב ַלֲעֹמד ְיֹנֵפף ָידוֹ ַהר־ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ִגְּבַעת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
This very day he will halt at Nob,
he will shake his fist
at the mount of daughter Zion,
the hill of Jerusalem.
In this case it would be forced to say that “the hill of Jerusalem” refers to the hill
of the population of Jerusalem, so ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬is not used metonymically. If so, nei-
ther is “daughter Zion” used with reference to the population. Indeed, it
would not be natural to assume that the “mountain” belongs to the population
rather than to the place. This means that we here have a case where the idea of
“personification” does not work for the phrase “daughter Zion,” if “personifica-
tion” would mean that the phrase refers to people.
Similarly, in Isa 52:2,⁴⁰⁷ ‫ ְשִּׁבי ְירוּ ָשׁ ִָלם‬parallels ‫ ְשִׁב ָיּה ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, thus ‫ ְירוּ ָשׁ ִָלם‬parallels
‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬:
‫ִהְת ַנֲעִרי ֵמָעָפר קוִּמי ְשִּׁבי ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם ִהְת ַפְּּתִחי מוְֹסֵרי ַצ ָוּאֵרְך ְשִׁב ָיּה ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬
Shake yourself from the dust, rise up,
O captive Jerusalem;⁴⁰⁸
loose the bonds from your neck,
O captive daughter Zion!
Assuming that “Jerusalem” is constructed in its usual way as a feminine, and

that ‫ ְשִּׁבי‬is a masculine noun in the construct state, we reach the understanding
“O captivity of Jerusalem,” which can be translated as in NRSV, “O captive Jer-
usalem.” Then this might be a case where nomen regens describes nomen rec-
tum, as discussed in the previous chapter. ‫ ְשִׁב ָיּה‬, “O Captive,” seems to be in ap-
position to the following “daughter Zion,” and this corresponds to the verbs, and
 Reading ‫ ַּבת‬with Qere, LXX, V, Qa, and Peschitta; Kethib is ‫ֵּבית‬.
 Reading ‫ ִהְת ַפְּּתִחי‬with Qere, LXX, V, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Peschitta, against
‫ ִהְת ַפְּּתחוּ‬of the Kethib.
 BHS, app. suggests to follow a number of commentators and read ‫ ְשִׁב ָיּה‬in the case of ‫ְשִׁבי‬
also, and in this way create sentences with feminine forms only. In the MT two feminine
imperatives precede the masculine ‫ ְשִׁבי‬, “captivity.”
to the suffix in ‫ַצ ָוּאֵרְך‬, all of which are feminine. We then have three words and
expressions in parallel to each other: “O captivity of Jerusalem/O captive Jerusa-
lem,” “O Captive,” and “Daughter Zion.” The first two seem to refer to the people
of Jerusalem, and, accordingly, “Daughter Zion” would also refer to people. The
addition of ‫ ַּבת‬to “Zion” does not create this sense, as “Zion” alone might have
meant this in its a metonymical sense. The phrase ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬might have a different
sense, though, and we will return to that possibility.
In Lam 2:10 ‫ ִזְק ֵני ַבת־ִציּוֹן‬corresponds to ‫ ְּבתוּל ֹת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬and the elements ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬
and ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬are in parallel to each other:
‫ֵי ְשׁבוּ ָלָאֶרץ יְִּדמוּ ִזְק ֵני ַבת־ִציּוֹן ֶהֱעלוּ ָעָפר ַעל־ֹרא ָשׁם ָח ְגרוּ ַשִּׂקים הוִֹרידוּ ָלָאֶרץ ֹרא ָשׁן ְּבתוּל ֹת‬
‫ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
The elders of daughter Zion
sit on the ground in silence;
they have thrown dust on their heads
and put on sackcloth;
the young girls of Jerusalem
have bowed their heads to the ground.
If ‫ ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬are used metonymically for the population, this would result in
expressions like “the elders of the population of Zion” and “the virgins of the
people of Jerusalem,” which would be to over-egg the pudding. The phrases
therefore most easily are taken to refer to the elders and virgins of the city of
Zion/Jerusalem. The paralleling of ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬does not seem to imply
any shift in reference, but a change of expression for the sake of variation and
for a possible added characterization of Zion by the use of ‫ַּבת‬.
The same can be said for Isa 10:32, discussed above, where the two relevant
expressions refer to the city; as “mountain” and “hill” would fit better to the
place than to the population living there. Isa 52:2, however, refers to the popu-
lation of the place which had been taken captive. In these three cases the addi-
tion of ‫ ַּבת‬to ‫ ִציּוֹן‬does not change the reference of the expression, so there is no
“personification” here in the sense that the combined expression “Daughter
Zion” should refer to people, but the addition of ‫ ַּבת‬may alter the sense of the
combined expression in some direction.
Summing up this material, we observe that in some cases ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬refers to the
people of Zion. In Zeph 3:14 it stands in parallel to “Israel,” in Mic 4:8 “daughter
Zion” parallels “flock,” and in Isa 52:2 it parallels “O Captive,” a word referring
to the population. In other cases an analysis of the context may reveal the refer-
ent(s), as in the following texts: in Lam 2:10; Isa 52:2 it is parallel to “Jerusalem,”
whereas it in Zech 9:9a; Zeph 3:14; probably also in Mic 4:8; parallels “daughter
Jerusalem.” The longer expression “virgin daughter Zion” parallels “daughter Jer-
5.6 Syntagmatic Analysis of Constructions with ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬. 143
usalem” in 2 Kgs 19:21b; Isa 37:22b; Lam 2:13. The possible referent “population”
may in such instances be created by the individual word(s) “Zion” (or “Jerusa-
lem”) used metonymically for the population, or by the combined expression(s)
‫( ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬and ‫)ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬. In other cases the phrase most probably refers to the city,
Isa 10:32, Lam 2:10. This variation in sense corresponds to the senses of ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone,
as we have observed.
5.6 Syntagmatic Analysis of Constructions with ‫ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬.
The syntagmatic relations for this expression are the following.

Construct phrases with “daughter Zion” as a complex nomen rectum:
‫חוַֹמת ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “the wall of daughter Zion,” Lam 2:8.18; ‫ ַשֲׁעֵרי ַבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “the gates
of daughter Zion,” Ps 9:15⁴⁰⁹; ‫ַהר־ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “the hill of daughter Zion,” Isa 10:32;
16:1; ‫ֹעֶפל ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “Ofel/the hill of daughter Zion,” Mi 4:8; ‫ֹאֶהל ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “the tent
of daughter Zion,” Lam 2:4; ‫ ִזְק ֵני ַבת־ִציּוֹן‬, “the elders of daughter Zion,” Lam
2:10; ‫קוֹל ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬,”the voice of daughter Zion,” Jer 4:31.
If we include nouns with suffixes referring to “daughter Zion” we arrive at
the following list: ‫ַּבת־ֵעי ֵנְך‬, “daughter of your eye,” Lam 2:18; ‫ֲעוֹ ֵנְך‬, “your sin,”
Lam 4:22; ‫ַמְלֵּכְך‬, “your king,” Zech 9:9; ‫ֲהָדָרּה‬, “her majesty,” Lam 1:6; ‫ ָשֶׂריָה‬,
“her princes,” Lam 1:6; ‫ַקְר ֵנְך‬, “your horn,” Mic 4:13, ‫ ַפְּרֹסַתיְִך‬, “your hoofs,” Mic
4:13; ‫יִ ְשֵׁעְך‬, “your salvation,” Isa 62:11; ‫ ַנְפ ִשׁי‬, “my soul,” Jer 4:31.
Corresponding construct phrases with ‫ ִציּוֹן‬alone: ‫ַהר ִציּוֹן‬, “the hill of Zion,”
Isa 4:5; 8:18; 10:12; 18:7: 24:23; 29:8: 31:4 (cf. ‫ְמכוֹן ַהר־ִציּוֹן‬, Isa 4:5); ‫ ַשֲׁעֵרי ִציּוֹן‬, “the
gates of Zion,” Ps 87:2. Nouns with suffixes referring to ‫ ִציּוֹן‬are ‫חוֹֹמַתיְִך‬, “your
walls,” Isa 49:16. In Isa 33:20, “Zion” is paralleled to “city,” “Jerusalem,” “hab-
itation” and ‫ֹאֶהל‬, in the following way:
‫ֲח ֵזה ִציּוֹן ִקְר ַית מוֲֹעֵדנוּ ֵעי ֶניָך ִתְרֶאי ָנה ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם ָנ ֶוה ַשֲׁא ָנן ֹאֶהל ַּבל־יְִצָען ַּבל־יִַּסע ְיֵתֹדָתיו ָל ֶנַצח‬
‫ְוָכל־ֲחָבָליו ַּבל־יִ ָּנֵתקוּ׃‬
“Look on Zion, the city of our appointed festivals!
Your eyes will see Jerusalem,
a quiet habitation, an immovable tent,
whose stakes will never be pulled up,
and none of whose ropes will be broken.”
 Cf. the same expression in Ps 72:28 LXX: ἐν ταῖς πύλαις τῆς θυγατρὸς Σιων, a plus against
MT, and evidently copied from Ps 9:15.
As these expressions show, the nomina regentia “hill” and “gates” can be attach-
ed to “Zion” as well as to “daughter Zion” as a (complex) nomen rectum; “wall”
and “tent” occur as nomina regentia to “daughter Zion” as a complex nomen rec-
tum, and they also appear with “Zion” alone: “wall” with a suffix pointing to
“Zion,” “tent” in a parallel to “Zion.” Though the syntagmatic relations vary,
the possibility for collocation is the same: the words mentioned can collocate
with “Zion” as well as with “daughter Zion.” These nouns would not immediately
be associated with words meaning “people” or the like, and we may assume that
they retain their sense when they are nomina regentia to “daughter Zion” as
when they are nomina regentia to “Zion” alone. In other words, these lexemes
as nomina regentia and in comparable combinations indicate that “daughter
Zion” refers to the city and not the people of the city. We add the observation
that ‫ חוָֹמה‬is only used with city names, never with nouns for people or gentilic
names, as a look into the concordances will reveal. The result of this survey is
therefore that some of the construct phrases with “daughter Zion” seem to
refer to the city, not her people.
In seeming opposition to this statement stands the expression “the voice of
daughter Zion,” which would be natural to connect to the people. As noted ear-
lier in this study, however, “Zion” alone may refer to the population connected
with the city, and such a “personification” is also possible for this extended ex-
pression. For “the elders of daughter Zion” it would be natural to assume that it
refers to the elders in the city of Zion, but it may, of course, refer to the elders
among the people of Zion–though this would be strained.
‫ ֹעֶפל‬carries the basic meaning “hill”, but has the specialized meaning of a
specific part of the city, and it is only used for one particular part of Jerusalem,
2 Kgs 5:24; Neh 3:26, and six further cases. It is not attested as connected to
“Zion,” only to “daughter Zion,” and this latter phrase could then be interpreted
as having the sense “the people of Zion,” or “the ’daughter’ of Zion” understood
as a place name. If we take into account, however, that “Zion” alone may have
both senses, there is no difference in the reference when the longer expression is
used. As with “hill,” however, the more natural reference is to the city for both
“Zion” and “daughter Zion.”
The impression gained from the nouns with suffixes referring to “daughter
Zion” is different. “Majesty” and “salvation” seem to be able to collocate both
with the city and her population, and “hoofs” and “horn” may themselves be
metaphors for qualities or attributes of both people and their homestead.
“King” and “princes” may collocate with the city, but “eye,” “sin,” and “soul”
would work better with the population than with the city. If these last cases dis-
close a tendency in the meaning of “daughter Zion,” it is towards human rather
than inanimate referents. Since this ambivalence is found in the usage of “Zion”
alone, it is no novelty for the longer expression. As for many Hebrew expres-
sions, the question is often where to look for a possible figurative sense, in
the words themselves (like “eye”) or in the words they are associated with.
This phenomenon makes solid conclusions difficult; we follow intuition in
cases where no clear frame of reference can be seen in the context.
On the background of the construct phrases with “daughter Zion” and the
nouns with suffixes referring to this expression, there seems, therefore, not to
be a consistent shift in reference when “daughter” is a nomen regens to
“Zion,” compared to “Zion” alone. The single noun or the construct phrase
may both refer to the city Zion, understood as an inanimate entity or in a “per-
sonification” through metonymic use. A conclusion to be drawn from this is that
the addition of “daughter” as nomen regens to “Zion” does not change the ref-
erent from a location to the population of that location. This addition does not
change the syntagmatic profile of the expression, but the addition seems to
work in a way similar to cases when an adjective or other descriptive element
are added to a noun. The theories suggesting such a shift have been looking
in the wrong direction for a solution to the riddle. There must therefore be a dif-
ferent reason for this addition.
This fact is interesting when compared to the syntagmatic profile of the fol-
lowing construct phrases, already mentioned: ‫ְּבנוֹת ִציּוֹן‬, Isa 3:16.17; 4:4; ‫ְּב ֵני־ִציּוֹן‬, Ps
149:2; Lam 4:2; Joel 2:23; ‫ַעִּמי ֹי ֵשׁב ִציּוֹן‬, “O my people, dwelling on Zion,” Isa 10:24,
where “my people” is defined by an apposition: dwelling on Zion; ‫יוֹ ֶשֶׁבת ִציּוֹן‬, Isa
12:6, with female imperatives for this vocative. All these expressions have a sense
with animate referents, whereas the phrase “Daughter Zion” may have animate
or inanimate referents. It is therefore possible to discard the idea that a shift
from an inanimate “Zion” to an animate “daughter Zion” takes place. The addi-
tion of “daughter” to “Zion” does not necessarily make the resultant phrase a
personification of the name–personification meaning having as referent “popu-
lation.”
In the case of ‫ ְמַב ֶּשֶׂרת ִציּוֹן‬, Isa 40:9, the expression may be a subject or object
construct phrase: “[you] who bring good tidings to Zion,” or “[you,] Zion, who
bring good tidings [to the cities of Judah]”. The context speaks in favour of the
latter understanding.⁴¹⁰ We then also here have a use of “Zion” that refers to peo-
ple, but in this case in the form of a metonymical use of “Zion,” and not through
an additional word that makes this clear. ‫ְמֻצַדת ִציּוֹן‬, in 2 Sam 5:7 refers to the for-
tress that David occupied.
 Claus Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja : Kapitel 40 – 66, 39.

A similar picture emerges from the nouns used for actions or entities collo-
cating with “daughter Zion.” She may have ‫ֵחל ְוחוָֹמה‬, “rampart and wall,” Lam
2:8, or experience ‫ִמְלָחָמה‬, “war,” Jer 6:23, as cities do; but she may also be affect-
ed by ‫ַחָּטאת‬, “sin,” Micah 1:13, or shed ‫ִּדְמָעה‬, “tear,” and have ‫*פּוּ ָגה‬, “rest,” Lam
2:18, phenomena naturally associated with the city as well as with her people. In
the latter direction points the only noun occurring with “daughter Zion,” ‫ ְשִׁב ָיּה‬,
“captive,” Isa 52:2. People, not cities, are led captive.
If we now turn to the cases where verbs occur with ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as subject, we can
observe the same pattern. The only verb that may be associated with inanimate
subjects is ‫יתר‬, niph., “be left,” Isa 1:8; all the others are better seen as collocat-
ing with animate subjects: ‫רנן‬, “sing aloud,” Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14; ‫שׂמח‬, “rejoice,”
Zech 2:14; ‫גיל‬, “rejoice,” Zech 9:9; ‫ חיל‬I, “give birth,” ‫גיח‬, “give birth,” ‫יצא‬, “go
forth,” ‫שׁכן‬, “dwell,” ‫בוא‬, “go in,” ‫נצל‬, niph., “be saved,” Mic 4:10; ‫קום‬, “arise,”
‫דושׁ‬, “thresh,” ‫דקק‬, hiph., “beat in pieces,” ‫חרם‬, hiph., “devote, sacrifice,” Mic
4:13. All the verbs (except one) collocate with animate subjects.
Verbs with ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬as an object are: ‫עוב‬, hiph, “humiliate,” Lam 2:1; ‫שׁכן ּבתך‬,
“dwell in the midst of,” Zech 2:14; ‫ גאל‬I, “redeem,” Mic 4:10; ‫דמה‬, “liken,” Jer 6:2;
(cf. Lam 2:13, where it is used in piel together with ‫עוד‬, “compare,” and the sub-
ject for both is ‫גלה ;)ַהַּבת ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם‬, hiph., “exile,” Lam 4:22. With a preposition we
find ‫אמר ל‬, Isa 62:11. The same ambiguity is seen here: most of the verbs collocate
with animate objects, some may be used with both animate and inanimate ob-
jects.
What does this overview mean for the understanding of ‫ ?ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬The emerg-
ing picture is that this expression shares with “Zion” used alone senses that may
denote a location as well as inhabitants. The latter reference is not created by the
addition of “daughter,” but the metonymic use of “Zion” alone for the inhabi-
tants can be observed in a number of cases. Conversely, some of the cases
with “daughter Zion” refer to the location, not the inhabitants. When “sons,”
“daughters,” “dweller(s)” (masculine or feminine qal participle of ‫ )ישׁב‬are
added as nomina regentia to “Zion,” the reference to the population is made ex-
plicit, perhaps in order to create a different sense from that inherent in the met-
onymic use of “Zion” for the population. This latter use would call forth associ-
ations to history and theology that were not intended by the authors who wanted
to refer to the population in particular. For Isaiah, for instance, the mention of
the “daughters of Zion” in Isa 3:16.17; 4:4, is not positive, and he targets the fe-
male population only, whereas “daughter Zion” may be more positive in its con-
notations and may denote all inhabitants.
In a structural analysis of the material one would be inclined to assume nu-
ances between the different expressions, perhaps even different references for
the different expressions. If this is applied to the material, an understanding
of “daughter Zion” would suppose that its reference is different from expressions
like “sons of Zion” and “daughters of Zion.” It is also worth noticing that there
exists no such expression as ‫ ;ֶּבן ציּוֹן‬when the authors wanted to refer to one male
inhabitant of Zion, there was the expression ‫ ֹי ֵשׁב ִציּוֹן‬at hand. In the single occur-
rence of this phrase it functions as an apposition to “my people,” Isa 10:24, and
thus refers to a collective, but one can guess that it might have been used for in-
dividual male inhabitants as well.
There is therefore hardly any room for an understanding of ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬that fo-
cusses upon a human element in the reference against the short “Zion”; there
is no transition from location to population when the authors use “daughter
Zion” instead of “Zion.” The “personification” of “Zion” has already taken
place through the metonymic use of “Zion” alone, and no new element of refer-
ence seems to be provided by the use of “daughter.” In addition, there are cases
where the phrase refers to the location, not the inhabitants. We can therefore ex-
clude the suggestions by scholars that see in this phrase a phenomenon of “per-
sonification” or “individuation,” if these expressions are understood as defining
a sense with an animate referent.
Several scholars have proposed that the phrase describes Zion as infused
with an aura of divinity and royalty, or of Zion as close to the heart of God.
These proposals cannot be substantiated from linguistic evidence alone, but
may be made probable by an analysis of the texts where the expression occurs.
The net result reached by Fitzgerald and Schmitt, that expressions with “daugh-
ter” and “virgin” always refer to capital cities, is true for “daughter Zion,” which
stands in parallel to “Jerusalem,” but it is impossible for “virgin (of) Israel,” an
expression which they included in their material. But, and this is of some con-
sequence, the reference to Jerusalem as capital is not brought about by the
phrase “daughter Zion,” but this phrase refers to a city that we from other textual
material know was a capital. There are no indications in the linguistic material
surveyed here that points to such a sense. In the case of the reference for
“daughter Zion,” the fact that Jerusalem was a capital city can be reached
from the Hebrew Bible texts alone, without recourse to possibly older material.
We are therefore left with the possibility suggested by Stinespring, that
“daughter” is an element that adds a qualification to the understanding of
“Zion,” for example one of the the metaphorical uses found for ‫ַּבת‬: a term of en-
dearment. This reading is linguistically possible and even probable, and it has to
be tested in each case how it works.
5.7 Analysis of ‫ַּבת ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬
The lexicons focus on one sense only for ‫ ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬: Jerusalem the city. This is, of
course, the basic or literal sense, but as was observed in the analysis of
“Zion,” “Jerusalem” a number of times refers to the population of the city.
Like “Zion,” the word is used as a metonym for the inhabitants, the population
of Jerusalem. This impression is strengthened by the syntagmatic analysis in
DCH. ⁴¹¹ “Jerusalem” collocates with verbs like “be exiled,” “wash,” “clothe one-
self,” “stumble,” “drink,” “remember,” “say,” “sing,” “praise.” In such cases, a
metonymic sense seems to be presupposed: The population can perform such
acts, not the city. The border-line to personification is, however, thin. Verbs
like “be clean,” “dwell,” “go up,” “rouse oneself,” “shake oneself” may be em-
ployed in a metaphorical sense, and “Jerusalem” is then personified. They may
also have their literal sense, and “Jerusalem” is used as a metonym for the pop-
ulation. In both understandings, “Jerusalem” has a sense different from that of
being a name for a city; it is either a personification of the city, bringing her to
life, as it were, or a lexeme employed in a metonymic sense for the population.
On this background, we may state that the addition of ‫ ַּבת‬in a construct
phrase with the name, does not bring about a fundamental change in the mean-
ing from a literal sense to an expression for personification of “Jerusalem.” More
likely, the addition performs an act of a different nature, like a description or
characterization of “Jerusalem.” ‫ ַּבת‬may, through its metaphorical sense perform
such a service to the combined expression.
5.8 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬
‫ ְיהוָּדה‬is described by DCH in this way: “1. fourth son of Jacob and Leah…2. people
and nation claiming Judah as eponymous ancestor; territory and people of
Judah.” The following senses, number 3 – 21, all mention individuals named
Judah.⁴¹² A slightly different taxonomy is found in BDB: I. 1. proper name, mas-
culine: 1. son of Jacob and Leah, 2. tribe descended from Judah, 3. nation, of
southern kingdom, 4.–7., several individuals, II. proper territorial name: land
of Judah. The other lexicons follow the same path. For our purpose it suffices
to note that the word can refer both to a territory and its inhabitants, and the
 DCH, IV, 293 f.

 DCH IV, 117– 121.
5.8 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬ 149
addition of ‫ ַּבת‬or ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת‬to the word would not be needed in order to make it
refer to people.
‫ִּבַּלע ֲאֹד ָני ל ֹא ָחַמל ֵאת ָּכל־ ְנאוֹת ַיֲעק ֹב ָהַרס ְּבֶעְבָרתוֹ ִמְבְצֵרי ַבת־ ְיהוָּדה ִה ִגּיַע ָלָאֶרץ ִחֵּלל ַמְמָלָכה‬
‫ְו ָשֶׂריָה‬
The Lord has destroyed without mercy
all the dwellings of Jacob;
in his wrath he has broken down
the strongholds of daughter Judah;
he has brought down to the ground in dishonor
the kingdom and its rulers. (Lam 2:2)
Here, ‫ ָּכל־ ְנאוֹת ַיֲעק ֹב‬parallels ‫ִמְבְצֵרי ַבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬, which means that ‫ ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬parallels
‫ ַיֲעק ֹב‬. The lexicons offer these two senses for ‫ ַיֲעק ֹב‬: the personal name Jacob, and
the people descending from the son of Isaac and Rebecca. Here, it seems to be
used in the second sense, in the wording of DCH: “name of people claiming Ja-
cob…as their ancestor.” ‫ ַיֲעק ֹב‬and ‫ ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬have their counterpart in the last ex-
pression in the verse, “the kingdom and its rulers,” ‫ַמְמָלָכה ְו ָשֶׂריָה‬. Seen in this
light, the whole verse refers to the people and state of Judah / Jacob, the nation
and her office-bearers.
‫ָה ָיה ֲאֹד ָני ְּכאוֵֹיב ִּבַּלע יִ ְשָׂרֵאל ִּבַּלע ָּכל־ַאְרְמנוֶֹתיָה ִשֵׁחת ִמְבָצָריו ַו ֶיֶּרב ְּבַבת־ ְיהוָּדה ַּתֲא ִנ ָיּה ַוֲא ִנ ָיּה‬
The Lord has become like an enemy;
he has destroyed Israel;
He has destroyed all its palaces,
laid in ruins its strongholds,
and multiplied in daughter Judah
mourning and lamentation. (Lam 2:5)
The conspicuous feminine suffix in in ‫ ַאְרְמנוֶֹתיָה‬fits badly to the preceding “Isra-

el,” that in almost every case is masculine (exceptions noted by BDB are 1 Sam
17:21 and 2 Sam 24:9). The suffix may therefore point to “Zion” in the preceding
verse. The feminine gender is resumed by ‫ ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬in the following sentence.
Still, the more general expression ‫ יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬parallels ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬, just as it parallels
‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬in Zeph 3:14. The two expressions may here denote the population rather
than the country of Israel/Judah. The sense “people of Judah” could have been
expressed by ‫ ְיהוָּדה‬alone, so one has the feeling that something more is intended
by the extended expression. If the metaphorical sense “dear” of ‫ ַּבת‬is intended
here, one would think of “poor Judah” as a possible meaning of the whole
phrase. Chapter 2 of Lamentations can be read as a text full of compassion for
Jerusalem, Judah and the population, and this compassion could be expressed
in English by “poor,” “…we sense that the poet is angry with God.”⁴¹³ He there-
fore laments the destiny of Jerusalem, laments and expresses compassion.
The following example contains a longer phrase, “the virgin daughter
Judah”:
‫ִסָּלה ָכל־ַאִּביַרי ֲאֹד ָני ְּבִקְרִּבי ָקָרא ָעַלי מוֵֹעד ִל ְשֹּׁבר ַּבחוָּרי ַגּת ָּדַרְך ֲאֹד ָני ִלְבתוַּלת ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬
THE LORD has rejected
all my warriors in the midst of me;
he proclaimed a time against me
to crush my young men;
the Lord has trodden as in a wine press
the virgin daughter Judah. (Lam 1:15)
The speaking voice here starts in v. 12 and is not presented by name, but, as a
continuation of the preceding third person lament over Jerusalem, the first per-
son in vv. 12– 22 (except v. 17) is the city herself speaking.⁴¹⁴ The impression that
there is a continuity in the chapter is strengthened by the alphabetic acrostic
that spans it. The last phrase can be taken to sum up the lament and present Jer-
usalem as “the virgin daughter Judah” or “the virgin daughter of Judah,” that is
Jerusalem.
There are no parallel expressions to “the virgin daughter Judah,” so no para-
digmatic information is available; but there is the triad “Zion,” “Jacob,” and “Jer-
usalem” in verse 17. But if the speaking voice is the city herself, then these three
names fit the context, and the third person phrase “the virgin daughter Judah”
refers to Zion/Jerusalem, as if the speaker refers to herself through a third person
expression.
In Lam 1:15 ‫ ָּבחוּר‬occurs in a context with “virgin daughter Judah.” As noted
in the analysis of ‫ְּבתוָּלה‬, these two lexemes often appear as complementary, and
the semantic parallel between them may have been exploited in Lam 1:15. In Lam
2:10 ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬similarly form a wordplay and parallels.
5.9 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים‬
‫ ַגִּּלים‬is only found in 1 Sam 25:44, where it is the name of the home of Saul’s son-
in-law, Palti, after Saul had taken Michal from David and given her to him. The
single occurrence of ‫ ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים‬is Isa 10:30, where it refers to one of the places in the
 Adele Berlin, Lamentations, 67.

 Ibid., 48.
5.10 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, and ‫ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬ 151
series in verses 28 – 32: Aiath, Migron, Michmas, Geba, Ramah, Gibeah of Saul,
Bath-Gallim, Laishah, Anathoth, Madmenah, Gebim, Nob, Bath-Zion, Jerusalem.
These places are the posts of the advance of Assyria, mentioned in vv. 5.12.24,
before the Lord of Hosts cuts down Assyria. The tone of the context suggests
that the places mentioned deserve pity because they are invaded by the Assyri-
ans, but since they will be saved by God, they are comforted. An understanding
in the direction of “poor Gallim” would cover this aspect. This understanding is
strengthened by Isa 10:32:
‫עוֹד ַהיּוֹם ְּבֹנב ַלֲעֹמד ְיֹנֵפף ָידוֹ ַהר־ַּבת־ִציּוֹן ִגְּבַעת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬
LXX: σήμερον ἐν ὁδῷ τοῦ μεῖναι, τῇ χειρὶ παρακαλεῖτε, τὸ ὄρος, τὴν θυγατέρα
Σιων, καὶ οἱ βουνοὶ οἱ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ. We note that LXX has “daughter Zion”
as apposition to “mountain,” instead of an expected genitive, whereas Vulgate
has read a full construct phrase: montem filiae Sion in apposition to collem Hier-
usalem. Ketib in Isa 10:32 is ‫ֵּבית‬, but it is common to read ‫ ַּבת‬with Qere, LXX, V,
Qa, Peschitta.
In v. 30 ‫ ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים‬parallels ‫ֲע ִנ ָיּה ֲע ָנתוֹת‬, which is “poor Anatot.”⁴¹⁵ KJV: “O poor
Anathoth.” Taken as a series, this means that both phrases express compassion.
‫ַצֲהִלי קוֵֹלְך ַּבת־ ַגִּּלים ַהְק ִשׁיִבי ַל ְי ָשׁה ֲע ִנ ָיּה ֲע ָנתוֹת‬

Cry aloud, O daughter Gallim!
Listen, O Laishah!
Answer her, O Anathoth! (Isa 10:30, NRSV)
The NRSV translation has read ‫ ענה‬as a verb with suffix, as has NJPS: “Take up
the cry, Anathoth!” I think an adjective makes better sense, and fits the context
better.
5.10 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, and ‫ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬
‫( ָּבֶבל‬with 262 occurrences) is described by the lexica as referring to the city and
territory of Babylon. The lexeme is, however, also the subject of such verbs as
‫ידע‬, ‫עשה‬, and ‫חטא‬, in which cases the lexeme can be interpreted as a metonymy:
the people of Babylon “do,” “know” and “sin” etc. It may also be a personifica-
tion of Babylon: the verbs are used metaphorically and the subject literally. The
lexicons do not provide separate sections in the entries on this way to use the
 BHS, app., instead has “answer her,” on the basis of Peshitta, cf. the translation in NRSV.
lexeme, but it is clearly used in this manner. Jer 50:24 may serve as an example
of this way of speaking:
You set a snare for yourself and you were caught, O Babylon,
but you did not know it;
you were discovered and seized,
because you challenged the LORD.
In this text “Babylon” may be a metonymy for the people of Babylon, or the verbs
may be used metaphorically and “Babylon” is personified. Both possibilites mean
that the lexeme has a wider use than the purely literal one described by the lexicons.
DCH provides a list of verbs used with ‫ ָּבֶבל‬as the subject, and from this list one may
become aware of the metonymic sense of ‫ ָּבֶבל‬or the personification of the city.
The phrase ‫ ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬is found in Jer 50:42:
‫ֶק ֶשׁת ְוִכיֹדן ַיֲח ִזיקוּ ַאְכ ָזִרי ֵהָּמה ְול ֹא ְיַרֵחמוּ קוָֹלם ַּכ ָיּם ֶיֱהֶמה ְוַעל־סוִּסים יְִרָּכבוּ ָערוְּך ְּכִאישׁ ַלִּמְלָחָמה‬
‫ָעַליְִך ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬
They shall hold the bow and the lance: they are cruel, and will not shew mercy: their voice
shall roar like the sea, and they shall ride upon horses, every one put in array, like a man to
the battle, against thee, O daughter of Babylon.
It is also found in Jer 51:33:
‫ִכּי ֹכה ָאַמר ְיה ָוה ְצָבאוֹת ֱאל ֵֹהי יִ ְשָׂרֵאל ַּבת־ָּבֶבל ְּכֹגֶרן ֵעת ִהְדִריָכּה עוֹד ְמַעט וָּבָאה ֵעת־ַהָּקִציר ָלּה‬
For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: The daughter of Babylon is like a thresh-
ingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.
Chapters 50 and 51 in the book of Jeremiah are oracles against Babylon. The
sense of the phrase might be one of compassion, or it might be used ironically,
“poor Babylon!” A similar ambivalence is found in Psalm 137:8 and Zech 2:11.
‫ַּבת־ָּבֶבל ַה ְשּׁדוָּדה ַא ְשֵׁרי ֶשׁ ְי ַשֶּׁלם־ָלְך ֶאת־ ְגּמוֵּלְך ֶשׁ ָגַּמְל ְּת ָלנוּ‬

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us! (Ps 137:8)
‫הוֹי ִציּוֹן ַּבת־ָּבֶבל יוֹ ֶשֶׁבת ִהָּמְלִטי‬

Up! Escape to Zion, you that live with daughter Babylon. (Zech 2:11)
The difficulty here is, among other things, to assess the stance of the speaker. He
may adopt this expression from his addressees’ parlance, or he may try to de-
5.10 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬, and ‫ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬ 153
scribe Babylon’s self-understanding, or he may coin his own ironical phrase for
Babylon.
Isaiah chapter 47 is a divine speech threatening Babylon, and in this text we
find two expressions of interest for our study.
‫ְרִדי וּ ְשִׁבי ַעל־ָעָפר ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל ְשִׁבי־ָלָאֶרץ ֵאין־ִּכֵּסא ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים ִּכי ל ֹא תוִֹסיִפי יְִקְראוּ־ָלְך ַרָּכה‬
‫ַוֲע ֻנ ָגּה‬
Come down and sit in the dust,
virgin daughter Babylon!
Sit on the ground without a throne,
daughter Chaldea!
For you shall no more be called
tender and delicate. (Isa 47:1)
‫ְשִׁבי דוָּמם וֹּבִאי ַבֹח ֶשְׁך ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים ִּכי ל ֹא תוִֹסיִפי יְִקְראוּ־ָלְך ְגֶּבֶרת ַמְמָלכוֹת‬
Sit in silence, and go into darkness,
daughter Chaldea!
For you shall no more be called
the mistress of kingdoms. (Isa 47:5)
‫ ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬is a gentilic referring to Chaldea, always used in the plural. In its literal
sense, it refers to the inhabitants of Chaldea.⁴¹⁶ If the territory is in focus, it is
a metonymy. The lexeme may also have the sense of “wise men,” “astrologers,”
Dan 1:4; 2:2.4, “because Chaldea was the Vaterland of astrology.”⁴¹⁷ This usage is
metonymic (astrology is referred to in Isa 47:13 as existing in Babylon).
In Isa 47:1 ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬parallels ‫ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬, and interpreters have therefore
assumed that both expressions refer to the city Babylon, that could be called
“daughter of the Chaldeans.” There are, however, no instances where ‫ ַּבת‬is
used with reference to a city, except for the phrases “GN and her daughters,” dis-
cussed above. The case “virgin daughter (of) Judah,” discussed above, is ambiv-
alent. This usage is not applicable here, and there are no other cases where ‫ַּבת‬
might have this sense. We are therefore advised to understand ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ָּבֶבל‬as an
expression referring to Babylon, and ‫ ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬as doing the same, by transfer-
ence of the sense of ‫ ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬from referring to the Chaldeans or the territory Chal-
dea to the central city of the Chaldeans or Chaldea. The phrasing of verse 1 is so
close to that of verse 5, and verses 1– 4 are so close to verses 5 – 7, that the two
expressions seem also to have similar referents. The capital and her territory or
 DCH IV, 468, and the other lexicons.

 Wilhelm Gesenius et al., Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament, 366, translation mine.
people are so closely knit together that judgement befalls both of them in one. If
we read the phrases ‫ ְשִׁבי־ָלָאֶרץ ֵאין־ִּכֵּסא ַּבת־ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬as constituting one clause, as is
usually done, then “daughter Chaldea” would be the parallel to “virgin daughter
Babylon.” This might be an indication that the reference of the clause is the city
of Babylon.
The adjectives “tender” and “delicate” are used of these entities in verse 1,
and they together describe the former status of Babylon the city. This status is
now about to be lost, but these lexemes give an impression of what it is like
to be a “virgin daughter.” Both lexemes may have metaphorical senses in this di-
rection, as they both denote younger females, but my suggestion is to take them
as revealing the metaphorical sense of “virgin.” As was noted earlier, “virgin”
may interchange with “bride,” and they both are “tender and delicate.” There
is no need to see irony in these lexemes or this context; the adjectives refer to
the status of Babylon and Chaldea up until now, when they rightly deserved
such positive evaluation by being a glorious city and “mistress of kingdoms.”
This situation is to be changed when God’s punishment reaches them. The
city will no longer be a “virgin daughter,” but a slave who grinds the meal,
and a prostitute who undresses, v. 2 f. Similarly, the kingdom will loose its chil-
dren and become a ruin, vv. 8 – 15.
This text illustrates the problem with the idea of personification advocated
for our expressions. The idea that “daughter” personifies the following ‫ַּכ ְשִּׂדים‬
would be forced, if not counterintuitive. If this word literally refers to the Chal-
deans, living beings need no additional reference to population, no “personifica-
tion.”
5.11 Analysis of ‫ ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬
The three cases with these phrases are all found in Jer 46:1– 28, the oracles
against Egypt (verses 11, 19, and 24).
‫ ִמְצָריִם‬is in the lexicons described as 1. “the country, empire of Egypt,” and 2.
“the nation of the Egyptians.”⁴¹⁸ BDB has the following categories: 1. a. “of land,
Egypt,” b. different syntactical collocations, 2. “of people,” a. in table of nations,
b. “= Egypt (as people).” It seems that the lexeme may be used for a country, an
empire, and a people, in other words, there is a literal sense and two metony-
mies. Since the lexeme may refer to the people of Egypt, the addition of ‫ ַּבת‬to
it is not necessary to “personify” it in this metonymic sense.
 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, 558.
5.12 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ֱאדוֹם‬ 155
In the oracles against Egypt in Jeremiah chapter 46, the longer expression
occurs in the first oracle, v. 3 – 12, and the shorter in the second oracle, vv. 14–
24.⁴¹⁹ The first oracle may have arisen before, during or after the battle of Carch-
emish, 405 b.c.e. The tone is triumphant against Egypt, and in view of Egypt’s
defeat at Carchemish, the comment in verse 11 seems ironical:
Go up to Gilead, and take balm,

O virgin daughter Egypt!
In vain you have used many medicines;
there is no healing for you. (Jer 46:11)
The status of Egypt as young, precious, beloved, is over, and the former status
contrasts with the present condition in an ironical twist of history.
The second poem describes an attack on Egypt, twice described as “daughter
Egypt,” vv. 19.24.
Pack your bags for exile,

sheltered daughter Egypt! (‫)יוֹ ֶשֶׁבת ַּבת־ִמְצָריִם‬
For Memphis shall become a waste,
a ruin, without inhabitant. (Jer 46:19)
The expression may also here be ironical: Egypt dwells securely, ‫יוֹ ֶשֶׁבת‬, has sta-
tus as favoured (by the gods), ‫ַּבת‬, but should now prepare for exile. The coming
attack will be devastating.
Daughter Egypt shall be put to shame;

she shall be handed over to a people from the north. (Jer 46:24)
This verse may play on the danger for the women to be raped by invading sol-
diers.⁴²⁰ The description of Egypt as “daughter” then becomes more than a met-
aphor for a favoured status; it creates a new image of what it means to be women
in the case of occupation.
5.12 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ֱאדוֹם‬
‫ ֱאדוֹם‬used alone is by DCH described as “1a. Edom, territory and state in moun-
tainous region east and south of Judah. b. as collective noun, Edomites (distinc-
 Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah, 759 – 771.

 Ibid., 771.
tion not alw. clear).”⁴²¹ This means that the use of ‫ ַּבת‬in a construct relation is
not necessary to add the meaning of “population of” to the noun; this construc-
tion seems to serve some other function.
Two instances are found, both in Lam 4:21 f. These instances surround an in-
stance of “daughter Zion”:
Rejoice and be glad, O daughter Edom,

you that live in the land of Uz;
but to you also the cup shall pass;
you shall become drunk and strip yourself bare.
The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter Zion, is accomplished,
he will keep you in exile no longer;
but your iniquity, O daughter Edom, he will punish,
he will uncover your sins. (Lam 4:21– 22)
As described in the HB the relation between Jerusalem and Edom was strain-
ed.⁴²² The situation presupposed here may have to do with the political realities
after the battle of Carchemish, 605, or later, but in any case it seems that Edom
has taken pleasure in the misfortunes of Jerusalem. In verse 21 she is addressed
with positive connotations–“daughter” evokes good sentiments–but the cup of
God will be given her, and punishment comes. Accordingly, the positive attitude
shifts in verse 22 to negativity: Edom was favoured, but this status will contrast
with coming disaster in history’s ironical twists and turns. In the middle of this
change in emotional value of “daughter Edom” stands “daughter Zion,” who has
been punished, but will return to her former state of being beloved, cherished,
God’s dearest.
The author here seemingly adresses “daughter Edom” in vers 21 in a positive
way, but the continuation in verse 22 reveals that this was a delusion. “Daughter
Edom” is in fact used ironically in both cases, luring the listener, who is Edom, to
prepare for an oracle of salvation, but it is, in fact, an oracle of judgment.
“Daughter Zion,” on the other hand, is comforted, because her time of punish-
ment is over. That phrase carries comfort and help in it: dear Zion.
5.13 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ִּדיבוֹן‬, ‫ַּבת־ֹצר‬
The first expression is found in a love song, Ps 45, which praises the king and his
bride.
 DCH I, 118.

 Adele Berlin, Lamentations, 113 f.
5.13 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ִּדיבוֹן‬, ‫ַּבת־ֹצר‬ 157
‫ְויְִתָאו ַהֶּמֶלְך ָיְפֵיְך ִּכי־הוּא ֲאֹד ַניְִך ְוִה ְשַּׁתֲח ִוי־לוֹ׃‬

‫וַּבת־ֹצר ְּבִמ ְנָחה ָפּ ַניְִך ְיַחּלוּ ֲע ִשׁיֵרי ָעם ָּכל־ְּכבוָּּדה׃‬
…and the king will desire your beauty.
Since he is your lord, bow to him;
the people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts,
the richest of the people
with all kinds of wealth. (Ps 45:12– 14aα; ET: 45:11– 13aα, NRSV)
‫ ַּבת־ֹצר‬in the NRSV translation has become “the people of Tyre.” ‫ ֹצר‬is by HALOT
considered as representing five different homonyms, and, in addition, the word
may be emended to ‫ִציר‬, IV, “shape,” “figure.” Still, NRSV opts for “Tyre” in the
translation, and this is not impossible. “Daughter of Tyre” is not impossible as
an understanding of the expression, as the bride may come from this city. ‫ָפּ ַניְִך‬
has a feminine suffix, and ‫ ַּבת־ֹצר‬could be vocative. Nomen rectum describes
the daughter: she is Tyrian. This is the understanding of NJPS: “O Tyrian lass,
the wealthiest people will court your favor with gifts.” On this understanding,
the lexeme ‫ ַּבת‬here has its literal meaning “daughter,” or transferred: “young
woman;” here she is the bride of the king.
‫ ִּדיבוֹן‬is used for a town in Moab and for a town in Judah. Verbs used with ‫ִּדיבוֹן‬
as subject or object indicate a metonymic sense for the word: the people of
Dibon.⁴²³ In the only case with ‫ַּבת‬, Jer 48:18, we find it preceded by another con-
struct: ‫ ֹי ֶשֶׁבת‬:
‫שֵׁדד מוָֹאב ָעָלה ָבְך ִשֵׁחת ִמְבָצָריְִך‬

ֹ ‫ְרִדי ִמָּכבוֹד ישׁבי ַבָּצָמא ֹי ֶשֶׁבת ַּבת־ִּדיבוֹן ִּכי־‬⁴²⁴
Come down from glory,
and sit on the parched ground,
enthroned daughter Dibon!
For the destroyer of Moab has come up against you;
he has destroyed your strongholds.
The full expression ‫ ֹי ֶשֶׁבת ַּבת־ִּדיבוֹן‬may be translated as “O inhabitant of Fair

Dibon,” NJPS, but could be considered as the enthroned Dibon. This is supported
by the association of ‫ ישב‬with ‫כסא‬, that in all cases except one means “throne,”
carrying with it the meaning of enthronement also when is used alone.⁴²⁵ Anoth-
 DCH II, 433.

 Usually emended to ‫וּ ְשִׁבי‬, because of LXX καὶ κάθισον, and Vulgate et sede, cf. the trans-
lation of NRSV quoted here.
 A. Salvesen, “‫כסא‬,” in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, ed. T. Muraoka, Abr-Nahrain Sup-
plement Series, vol. 6 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998).
er possibility is to read it as “you who dwell securely, dear Dibon!” where future
destruction throws a grim light over the former privileged status.
On the basis of Jer 48:18 it has also been suggested to emend the text of Isa
15:2 from ‫ ָעָלה ַהַּביִת ְוִדיֹבן ַהָּבמוֹת ְלֶבִכי‬to ‫ָעְלָתה ַבת ִּדיֹבן ַהָּבמוֹת ְלֶבִכי‬. This would result in
an understandable text: Bath-Dibon went up to the heights to weep, and this is
the reading found in Targum and Peshitta.⁴²⁶
If “daughter Dibon” is the original text here, it would be an expression that
balances between a metaphor of endearment and favour and an ironical expres-
sion in view of the destruction of the Moabite cites mentioned in Isa 15:1– 4. This
ambivalence is present also in the phrase “my heart cries out for Moab,” v. 5, and
in the rest of the oracles against Moab, Isa 15:1– 16:11. The comment in 16:13 – 14
might indicate that the oracles could have been interpreted positively in the past,
but their sequel is negative.
5.14 Analysis of ‫ ַּבת־ַּתְר ִשׁישׁ‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ִצידוֹן‬
Isa 23:10.12 presents these two phrases in an oracle against Tyre, Isaiah 23, with a
focus on Sidon Translations vary, as the text is difficult.
Cross over to your own land, O ships of Tarshish (MT has ‫;)ַּבת־ַּתְר ִשׁישׁ‬
this is a harbor no more.
He has stretched out his hand over the sea, he has shaken the kingdoms;
the LORD has given command concerning Canaan to destroy its fortresses.
He said: You will exult no longer, O oppressed (‫ )ַהְמֻע ָשָּׁקה‬virgin daughter Sidon;
rise, cross over to Cyprus—even there you will have no rest. (Isa 23:10 – 12, NRSV)
Already LXX had problems with the original, or presents an independent inter-
pretation. The difficulties do not affect the basic understanding of the pericope:
The oracle seems to deal with the fate of these Phoenician cities as we know it
from the Assyrian campaigns in the 8. and 7. centuries, but also from the Baby-
lonian campaign in the 6. century, and even from the conquest of Alexander in
the 4. century.⁴²⁷ The tone of the text is negative to these cities, and the sense
seems to be one of irony: “O beloved Tarshish!” and “O oppressed virgin daugh-
ter Sidon!” Thinking that these were beloved, oppressed, and delicate, is an il-
lusion. They may have been so, but the coming disaster will change this picture.
 BHS, app.

 Joseph Blenkinsopp’s comments in Michael D. Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1008.
5.16 Analysis of ‫ְּבָבַבת ֵעינוֹ‬ 159
5.15 Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ַעִּמי‬
‫ ַעם‬is masculine, and always used for “people,” “population,” cf. DCH and the
other lexicons. The phrase ‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬occurs in 14 instances, and here, the transla-
tions have difficulties. One example: NRSV has “my beloved people” in Isa
22:4 and “my poor people” in Jer 4:11; 6:26; 8:19.21 f; 9:1, “my sinful people” in
Jer 9:7, and “my people” in Jer 8:11; Lam 2:11; 3:48; 4:3.6.10. ‫ ְּבתוַּלת ַּבת ַעִּמי‬in Jer
14:17 is translated “the virgin daughter–my people.” It seems that translators
have problems with a phrase that twice seems to refer to people. If one builds
on “personification” for “daughter,” in the sense that a phrase with this lexeme
as nomen regens would refer to people, one runs into trouble with this phrase.
Some scholars shun away from this phrase altogether, and try to argue against
including it in the portfolio of relevant phrases, as we have seen in chapter 3.
Against this tendency, I think we ought to include the phrase, and assume
“daughter” to carry a metaphorical sense, as already done by NRSV in some,
though not all, instances. It is not impossible to understand all instances in
this way, including the texts where “daughter” has no equivalent in the transla-
tion of NRSV. The “sinful people” in Jer 9:7 is a “poor people;” there is compas-
sion for the people in the text. Jer 14:17 might translate as “my tender, poor peo-
ple”:
You shall say to them this word:

Let my eyes run down with tears night and day,
and let them not cease,
for my tender, poor people is struck down with a crushing blow,
with a very grievous wound.
‫ ַּבת ַעִּמי‬illustrates the metaphorical sense of ‫ַּבת‬: even though it is feminine in gen-
der, it had a metaphorical sense that could be applied to masculine nouns as
well. It is not necessary to enter into the instances in more detail; suffice it to
say that a metaphorical sense seems to be applicable to this expression. There
might be cases where “dear / beloved” could carry overtones of irony. This is
the case in some of the instances discussed above, and need not be demonstrat-
ed again for the phrase ‫ַּבת ַעִּמי‬.
5.16 Analysis of ‫ְּבָבַבת ֵעינוֹ‬

‫ִּכי ַה ֹּנ ֵגַע ָּבֶכם ֹנ ֵגַע ְּבָבַבת ֵעינוֹ‬
Truly, one who touches you touches the apple of my [reading a first person suffix instead of
third person] eye. (Zech 2:12)
The text in Zech 2:12 is discussed by J. T. Finley.⁴²⁸ He thinks the form baba has as
an Akkadian cognate bābu(m), “gate,” as in the city name bābilim, “God’s gate”
= Babylon, and that the expression in Zech 2:12 is a pun on the Akkadian name
for Babylon. The idea implies that the phrase carries meanings like “gate of his
eye” and “pupil of his eye” at the same time, or at least that the expression
would be able to create associations in both directions. However, bābu(m) in Ak-
kadian is used for “opening, door, gate; city quarter.”⁴²⁹ It takes some changes in
usage to suppose that bāba could mean “pupil” and still retain an allusion to the
name bābilim. Further, Finley mentions Deut 32:10, which he thinks is relevant,
with its expression ‫ְּכִאישׁוֹן ֵעינוֹ‬, where he supposes that there is an idea that a thief
or wild animal cannot touch people who are in a protected position, “except
through the eye of the guard.” But the expression in Deut 32:10 is a comparison.
God will protect his people like he protects the apple of his eye. Finley supposes
that the expression in Zech 2:12 would “allude to both the arrogance of Babylon
as well as to Yahweh’s abiding presence with his people.” It is difficult to see that
it can allude to any of these in the way Finley suggests. There is a comparison
between God’s protection of the apple of his eye in both texts, but this is pro-
nounced in both texts and not dependent upon sophisticated intertextuality.
This connecting of the contents of the texts has nothing to do with a possible
play on words.
Instead, the phrase in Zech 2:12 might well be associated with benta ’ayn,
“Pupille,” in Ethiopic, according to Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, 18. ed., 185.
The three beth’s in the expression might be a dittography, and if one is deleted,
we have the phrase “daughter of his eye,” where “daughter” plays on the meto-
nymic sense described above, and offspring is the active sense component.
“Daughter of his/my eye” would be the apple of the eye. Alternatively, ‫ ַּבת‬is a
metaphor for “dear,” “beloved,” and we arrive at the meaning “his/my precious
eye.”
5.17 Other Expressions with “Daughter”
In Mi 4:14 we have an expression that has caused problems to interpreters and

translators. The context is this:
Now many nations are assembled against you, saying, “Let her be profaned, and let our
eyes gaze upon Zion.”
 T. J. Finley, “”The Apple of His Eye” (Bābat ’Ênô) in Zecharaih II 12,” VT 38 (1988): 337– 38.
 John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 489, s. v. bābum.
5.18 Summary 161
But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD;

they do not understand his plan, that he has gathered them as sheaves to the threshing
floor.
Arise and thresh, O daughter Zion,
for I will make your horn iron and your hoofs bronze;
you shall beat in pieces many peoples,
and shall devote their gain to the LORD,
their wealth to the Lord of the whole earth.
Now you are walled around with a wall (= LXX; MT: ‫;)ִּתְת ֹגְּדִדי ַבת־ ְגּדוּד‬
siege is laid against us;
with a rod they strike the ruler of Israel upon the cheek. (NRSV; Mi 4:11– 14; ET: 4:11– 5:1)
After this follows the famous oracle about the ruler from Bethlehem, Mi 5:1ff, ET:
5:2 ff.
With a metaphorical understanding of ‫ַּבת‬, the phrase ‫ ַּבת־ ְגּדוּד‬would mean
“dear troop,” which would fit the context. Jerusalem, Zion, is besieged, even
though she is herself a troop, vv. 11 f. The next oracle explains the bright future
for this troop, vv. 13 f. A possible reading is then “Now: Gather yourself in troops,
you beloved troop!” The reason for this positive oracle is the following annunci-
ation of the ruler from Bethlehem, 5:1 ff. BDB says for this phrase: “daughter of a
troop, i. e. warlike city,” under “phrases denoting character, quality, etc.”⁴³⁰ This
is an attempt to come to terms with the expression; my suggestion is another
possibility.
Also, the phrase in Zeph 3:10, ‫–ַּבת־פּוַּצי‬another traditional conundrum–is
possible to read in this way. NRSV here translates: “From beyond the rivers of
Ethiopia my suppliants, my scattered ones (‫)ַּבת־פּוַּצי‬, shall bring my offering.”
‫ ַּבת‬has no equivalent in the translation. The phrase might, however, simply
mean “my dear scattered ones,” parallel to “my suppliants,” “my worshipers.”
5.18 Summary
There are texts where a literal understanding of ‫ ַּבת‬is possible, even when it is
nomen regens to a following GN, cf. Ps 46:13. In most instances, however, a meta-
phorical sense of ‫ ַּבת‬and ‫ ְּבתוָּלה‬seems to fit the understanding of the phrases in
their context better, and other readings run into problems in many of the cases.
The phrases studied in this chapter seem to contain metaphors in the nomen re-
gens or nomina regentia, and the sense of this metaphor is then applied to the
nomen rectum.
 BDB, s. v. BAT, 123.

But, is this possible in Hebrew? Are there appositional construct phrases in

Hebrew? Scholars have answered this question in the negative, and we need
therefore address it separately. The next chapter will discuss this problem. I
will do it by studying some other phrases than those discussed until now, in
order to avoid a circular reasoning, or at least reduce it as much as possible.
We turn to material of a possibly analogous nature.
Chapter 6 Can Nomen Regens in Biblical Hebrew
be a Metaphor Applied (in Apposition?)
to Nomen Rectum?
6.1 Nomen Rectum as an Attribute to Nomen Regens
Construct phrases with “daughter” and/or “virgin” may express different mean-
ings; scholars agree on this point. At the end of chapter 2 I stated that the tradi-
tional categories of appositional genitive and improper annexion deserve our at-
tention in this connection, but this is a contested issue. Can construct phrases be
appositional, and is there such linguistic phenomenon at all in Hebrew? “ [T]he
appositional genitive in semitic is relatively rare and fairly narrow in applica-
tion,” according to Dobbs-Allsopp.⁴³¹ Above I have quoted grammarians who
provide examples of phrases with nomen regens that is considered appositional,
and this chapter will review some of these examples and add some more.
An example often referred to is ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ַּבֲעַלת־אוֹב‬, “a woman who is a medium,”
NRSV, 1 Sam 28:7, where nomen rectum is appositional. Arnold and Choi have
devoted a paragraph to the “attributive” use of the “genitive,” the nomen rec-
tum.⁴³² “The genitive denotes a quality or attribute of the construct. In transla-
tion, the genitive often becomes an adjective: ‫ ִגּּבוֹר ַחיִל‬, “a man of worth” or “a val-
orous man” (Judg 11:1), ‫ֵא ֶשׁת ַחיִל‬, “a woman of worth” or “a valorous woman”
(Ruth 3:11), ‫ַהר־ָקְדשׁוֹ‬, “the mountain of his holiness” or “his holy mountain” (Ps
48:2 [Eng. 48:1]), ‫ֶמֶלְך ַהָּכבוֹד‬, “the king of glory” or “the glorious king” (Ps 24:7),
‫ ִשְׂמַחת עוָֹלם‬, “joy of perpetuity” or “everlasting joy” (Isa 61:7).” In these cases,
the nomen rectum describes the nomen regens, and grammarians have given
these cases their due attention, since they use the nomen rectum as the starting
point for studying construct phrases. Of a similar nature are expressions like ‫ְקִצי ֵני‬
‫ְסֹדם‬, “rulers of Sodom,” and ‫ַעם ֲעֹמָרה‬, “people of Gomorrah,” Isa 1:10. Here, the
nomen rectum describes the nomen regens. What is of particular interest in our
connection is that nomen rectum is a word with a metaphorical sense, exploiting
inherited commonplaces associated with “Sodom” and “Gomorrah.” These two
phrases are examples where a metaphor in the nomen rectum is applied to
nomen regens.
The problematic issue is, however, whether the nomen regens in a similar
way may describe the nomen rectum. This is what scholars have claimed for
 Dobbs-Allsopp, “’Daughter Zion’”, 128.

 Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 10.
164 Chapter 6 Nomen Regens in Biblical Hebrew
‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ְּבתוַּלת יִ ְשָׂרֵאל‬, and similar phrases, and we will have to explore this
possibility. In this study, I will limit myself to cases where nomen regens is a met-
aphor, and this metaphor is an apposition to the nomen rectum. In phrases like
‫ ְמַב ֶּשֶׂרת ִציּוֹן‬and ‫ ְמַב ֶּשֶׂרת ְירוּ ָשִָׁלם‬the nomina regentia are candidates for being appo-
sitional to the nomina recta, at least they are understood in this way in KJV (the
former is translated “O Zion, that bringest good tidings,” and the latter similarly)
and NRSV (“O Zion, herald of good tidings,” and the latter phrase is similarly
translated), but in NJPS they are seen as phrases where the nomen rectum is
the object (“O herald of joy to Zion”), Isa 40:9. In the following I will not
carry on the study of these expressions, but look at some phrases that may
more obviously be candidates for an “appositional genitive” in the sense that
scholars ascribe to the construction.
6.2 Construct Phrases where Nomen Regens is a Metaphor

Applied to the Following Nomen Rectum
The first example is ‫ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב‬, Isa 41:14:
‫ַאל־ִּתיְרִאי ּתוַֹלַעת ַיֲעק ֹב ְמֵתי יִ ְשָׂרֵאל ֲא ִני ֲע ַזְרִּתיְך ְנֻאם־ ְיה ָוה ְוֹגֲאֵלְך ְקדוֹשׁ יִ ְשָׂרֵאל׃‬
Do not fear, you worm Jacob,
you insect Israel!
I will help you, says the LORD;
your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.
Some grammarians will follow Johannes Pedersen in his understanding when he

translates “Worm (by the name) of Jacob.”⁴³³ On the face of it, this understand-
ing is impossible; the text is about Israel, not about creeping things. Translators
are ambivalent on this expression: NJPS: “Fear not, O worm Jacob, O men of Is-
rael;” NRSV: “Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you insect Israel!” The expression
caused considerable problems already in antiquity.
The LXX has conflated the two “do not fear”-expressions in v. 13 and 14 and
omitted the last expression in v. 13, which in MT is repeated in v. 14: ‫ֲא ִני ֲע ַזְרִּתיְך‬,
and thus reaches the following translation of the two verses: ὅτι ἐγὼ ὁ θεός σου
ὁ κρατῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς σου, ὁ λέγων σοι Μὴ φοβοῦ, Ιακωβ, ὀλιγοστὸς Ισραηλ· ἐγὼ
ἐβοήθησά σοι, λέγει ὁ θεὸς ὁ λυτρούμενός σε, Ισραηλ. Here, the expression
 “Orm af (Navnet) Jaqob,” Johannes Pedersen, Hebræisk Grammatik (Copenhagen: 1950),
§ 118 p, 212 f.
6.2 Construct Phrases where Nomen Regens is a Metaphor 165
“worm of Jacob” is rendered by “Jacob” only, and instead of the expression “The
Holy One of Israel” of the MT, the LXX offers only “Israel.”
The Vulgate, on the other hand, follows the Hebrew, but has read ‫ ְמֵתי‬as a
form of ‫מות‬: noli timere vermis Iacob qui mortui estis ex Israhel ego auxiliatus
sum tui dicit Dominus et redemptor tuus Sanctus Israhel.
The topic of the death of Israel = Jacob, is found in the Bereshith Rabbah
100,3 (C: III) on Gen 50:1 f: “And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians
to embalm his father.” The discussion starts with a question, “Why did Joseph
die before his brethren?” The question is prompted by Exod 1:6 “And Joseph
died and all his brethren,” which is understood to the effect that Joseph died
first. The Midrash goes on in this way, “Rabbi and the Rabbis disagree. Rabbi
said: Because he embalmed his father. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to
him: ’Could I not guard My righteous ones? Did I not say thus to him, Fear
not the worm Jacob (Isa. xli, 14)–meaning, Fear not, O Jacob, the worm.’ The Rab-
bis say: It was he [Jacob] who charged them to embalm him, as it says…”⁴³⁴ To
this translation is added a footnote: “So Th., and it accords with the context. The
Midrash, however, places eth, the sign of the accusative, before Jacob, not before
the worm; further, the verb is in the fem., agreeing with worm. Perhaps we
should render: Thou shalt not see Jacob, thou worm–the Heb. ‫ תראי‬may bear
this meaning.” “Th.” refers to J. Theodor’s critical edition of the Midrash,
which again is based on Codex Add. 27169 of the British Museum.⁴³⁵
Theodor’s text reads as follows ‫לא הייתי יכול לשׁמור את צדיקי לא ככא אמרתי לו לא‬
‫תיראי תולעת יעקב )יּשׁעיה מא יד( ’א אל תיראי ‚תולעת את יעקב‬.⁴³⁶ This text is the one
translated by Freedman by “Fear not, O Jacob, the worm,” but this translation
presupposes the nota accusativi before “worm,” where Theodor has not put it.
The translation in the footnote is easier to understand, presupposing the nota
in front of “Jacob,” where Theodor in fact has it. The Italian translation of Bere-
shith Rabbah has just as well a double rendering of the verb: “Non temere, non
vedrai verme (Is 41,14), Giacobbe,” with the footnote “Piccola variazione della
scrittura.”⁴³⁷ One may assume that there is a correlation between the version
in the Vulgate, where “you who are dead in Israel” are addressed, and the appli-
 H. Freedman et al., Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1961), vol. 2, 990. Similar
translation in Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A
New American Translation, vol. 106, Brown Judaic Studies (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1985),
381 f.
 J. Theodor, Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (Berlin: 1912).
 Ibid., 1286, l. 5 f.
 Alfredo Ravenna and Tommaso Federici, Commento Alla Genesi (BereSit Rabbâ), 1. ed.
([Torino]: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 1978), 855.
cation of Isa 41:14 to the embalming of Jacob in the Bereshith Rabbah. The iden-
tificaton of “Jacob” with “Israel” is presupposed in the Vulgate and, perhaps, in
the Midrash.
The relevance of the Midrash for our purpose is well spelled out by Ignaz
Goldziher: “Eine sonderbare Verkennung oder bewusste Weglassung des status
constructus, so zwar, dass der zweite Theil als Objektakkusativ aufgefasst und
die restitutio in integrum mit dem Objectexponenten ‫ ֵאת‬versucht wird, liegt in
der Stelle Beres’ith rabba sect. 100 vor…”⁴³⁸ The reason for this “misjudgment
or deliberate omission of the construct state” may have been the interpretation
of Isa 41:14 as a divine promise relevant at the death of Jacob, Gen 50:1. But Gold-
ziher is correct in the sense that the construct chain has been dissolved in this
way. The Midrash has read the expression as one object for the verb plus one voc-
ative, instead of reading it as a construct phrase. This understanding obviously
was within the Midrash’s limits of reading the HB, and it was not compelled to
keep the construct phrase. Apart from that, the Midrash is rather an example of
Jewish exegesis than of philological interests. But these voices from antiquity tell
us that the understanding of the phrase was a problem.
HALOT describes ‫ ּתוֹ ֵלַעה‬as parallel to ‫ִרָּמה‬, “maggot,” and there are three pla-
ces where it is used metaphorically, Isa 41:14; Ps 22:7; Job 25:6.⁴³⁹ On this under-
standing, the nomen regens is a metaphor that describes the nomen rectum:
Jacob is described in terms of a worm, where e. g. the smallness and pitifulness
is transferred to Jacob. The parallel phrase “you insect Israel” and Ps 22:7 con-
firm this understanding.
The next example is from Gen 16:12: ‫ ֶפֶּרא ָאָדם‬is a description of Ishmael:
‫ְוהוּא יְִהֶיה ֶפֶּרא ָאָדם ָידוֹ ַבֹּכל ְו ַיד ֹּכל ּבוֹ ְוַעל־ ְפּ ֵני ָכל־ֶאָחיו יִ ְשֹּׁכן׃‬
He shall be a wild ass of a man,
with his hand against everyone,
and everyone’s hand against him;
and he shall live at odds with all his kin.
The expression ‫ ֶפֶּרא ָאָדם‬, “a wild ass of a man,” is translated ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος,
“a rustic man,” in the LXX and ferus homo, “a wild man,” in the V. (Cf. Jer 14:6,
where “wild asses” in LXX is translated as ὄνοι ἄγριοι.) Both these translations
 Ignaz Goldziher, “Anzeige der Beiträge zur hebräischen Grammatik im Talmud und Midrasch
von Dr. A. Berliner, Berlin 1879,” ZDMG 34 (1880): 375 – 84, 381 f.
 HALOT, s.v. ‫ּתוֹ ֵלַעה‬.
chose adjectives to render the construct chain. Similarly, the KJV translates “a
wild man,” but the ASV has a partitive genitive, “a wild ass among men.”
Kenneth C. Way in his treatment of the terms for the domestic donkey com-
ments upon ‫ ֶפֶּרא‬that it designates “the onager or wild/half ass…a distinct spe-
cies of equid (i. e., Equus hemionus).”⁴⁴⁰
Gerhard von Rad comments on the expression in this way: “He will be a real
Bedouin, a ’wild ass of a man’ (pere’, zebra), i. e., free and wild (cf. Job 39.5 – 8),
eagerly spending his life in a war of all against all–a worthy son of his rebellious
and proud mother! In this description of Ishmael there is undoubtedly undis-
guised sympathy and admiration for the roving Bedouin who bends his neck
to no yoke. The man here pictured is highly qualified in the opinion of Near East-
erners, but there is not a word about the great promise to Abraham.”⁴⁴¹
Hermann Gunkel translates the expression “ein Mensch wie ein Wildesel”
and comments “ein Wildesel von einem Menschen …ein Tier von unbändiger
Freitheislust, das der Städte und der Treiber lacht: ein prächtiges Bild für den
Beduinen, mit dem er die Wüste teilt.”⁴⁴² Along with von Rad and Gunkel,
BDB translates “Ishmael as a free nomad.”
On the other hand, Esarhaddon’s vassal treaty, 39 (419), is not enthusiastic
about a wild ass: “May Sin, the luminary of heaven and earth, clothe you in lep-
rosy and (thus) not permit you to enter the presence of god and king; roam the
open country as a wild ass or gazelle!”⁴⁴³
Davidson thinks the expression is of a type where the nomen rectum refers
to “the class to which it [the nomen regens] belongs.” As remarked in chapter 2,
this would create a contradiction in the expression, a contradiction in the sense
that one phenomenon is a wild ass and a man at the same time.
The ancient translations and modern commentators have seen the expres-
sion as a case where nomen regens describes nomen rectum, reflected in the ad-
jectives of LXX, V, and KJV, and the renderings in von Rad and Gunkel. The de-
scription provided by the nomen regens is still “wild ass,” which also produces a
contradiction in the expression, a tension typical of figurative language. A literal
meaning of ‫ ֶפֶּרא‬must be given up in this case, and a figurative found. If this
thinking is followed, one would look for possible other cases where ‫ ֶפֶּרא‬might
have a figurative meaning. Job 11:12 is perhaps of help in showing the distance
between “man” and “wild ass”: NJPS: “A hollow man will get understanding,
 Kenneth C. Way, “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics”, 106.
 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1972), 194.
 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (6. Aufl., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 188 – 189.
 ANET, 538.
When a wild ass is born a man;” NRSV: “But a stupid person will get understand-
ing, when a wild ass is born human.” In Hos 8:9 Ephraim is compared to a ‫ ֶפֶּרא‬,
where “wilfulness,” seems to be intended. In Jer 2:24 the word has the sense
“lust,” and Job 24:5 seems to describe “poor desert dwellers.”
Esarhaddon’s vassal treaty and the HB instances of “wild ass” indicate a
flexibility of the associations connected to this lexeme, and this flexibility has
been exploited in the metaphorical sense(s). I cannot help feeling that the neg-
ative associations connected to the wild ass in the treaty have more of the intend-
ed sense in them than the positive connotations presupposed by Gunkel and von
Rad. In any case, this phrase is an example of the nomen regens being a meta-
phor whose sense is applied to nomen rectum.
In Isa 30:30 there are two cases for consideration: ‫ ֶאֶבן ָּבָרד‬and ‫הוֹד קוֹלוֹ‬.
‫ְוִה ְשִׁמיַע ְיה ָוה ֶאת־הוֹד קוֹלוֹ ְו ַנַחת ְזרוֹעוֹ ַיְרֶאה ְּב ַזַעף ַאף ְוַלַהב ֵאשׁ אוֵֹכָלה ֶנֶפץ ָו ֶזֶרם ְוֶאֶבן ָּבָרד‬
“And the LORD will cause his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his
arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst and tem-
pest and hailstones.” (NRSV)
In “his majestic voice” the nomen regens is rendered by an adjective, that de-
scribes the nomen rectum. Normally, we would expect a phrase like ‫ קוֹל הוֹדוֹ‬to
express “his majestic voice.” Standard grammar would then see the nomen rec-
tum as a description of nomen regens. But this expression is different. The verb
‫ ִה ְשִׁמיַע‬relates to ‫ קוֹל‬and not to ‫הוֹד‬. This means that the main proposition in the
sentence is that the Lord will cause his voice to be heard, and ‫ הוֹד‬is not related to
the verb, but to the following noun, describing it. There might even be an empha-
sis on the majesty when the expression is inverted compared to the usual se-
quence ‫קוֹל הוֹדוֹ‬. The translation in NRSV reveals that the translators have
taken the nomen regens to correspond to an adjective.
The same situation is found in the case of ‫ֶאֶבן ָּבָרד‬, “hailstones.” This expres-
sion follows after words for metereological phenomena, ‫ ֶנֶפץ‬, “pattering [of
rain],” and ‫ ֶזֶרם‬, “rain,” and the sequel to this is “hail,” ‫ָּבָרד‬, not “stone,” ‫ֶאֶבן‬.
The latter word, the nomen regens, therefore relates to the following word, the
nomen rectum, and it describes this part of the phrase. While in the former
case ‫ הוֹד‬is used in its direct sense but with an adjectival function with the mean-
ing “majestic,” ‫ ֶאֶבן‬in the second case cannot be used directly, but takes on a
metaphorical sense, “stone-like, stone-ish.” The LXX spells out the figurative na-
ture of ‫ ֶאֶבן‬in this way: χάλαζα συγκαταφερομένη βίᾳ, NETS: “hailstones falling
down with violence.”
In Isa 30:30 we probably have two instances where nomen regens describes
nomen rectum in a way similar to adjectives in many European languages. The
first phrase contains a description with the literal sense of the lexeme, and in
the second phrase a metaphorical sense of the lexeme is applied to the following
nomen rectum.
Mal 4:20 presents us with another example for consideration in the instance of
‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ ְצָדָקה‬:
‫ְו ָזְרָחה ָלֶכם יְִרֵאי ְשִׁמי ֶשֶׁמשׁ ְצָדָקה וַּמְר ֵפּא ִּבְכ ָנֶפיָה ִויָצאֶתם וִּפ ְשֶּׁתם ְּכֶע ְגֵלי ַמְרֵּבק‬
“But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its
wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall.”
‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬is attested as feminine 17 times, and according to KBL is construed as mas-

culine 23 times, but HALOT thinks this is “less certain.”⁴⁴⁴ This means that the
feminine forms of the verb ‫ ְו ָזְרָחה‬and of the suffix in ‫ ְּכ ָנֶפיָה‬may syntactically re-
late to both elements of the phrase ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ ְצָדָקה‬. Also, the senses of ‫ זרח‬and ‫ כנף‬can
be combined with both words of the phrase. Applied to ‫ ְצָדָקה‬this would have
meant a personification of righteousness, and in combination with ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬the
use of ‫ זרח‬would be direct, and the use of ‫ כנף‬indirect, or figurative. On the latter
reading, the phrase ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ ְצָדָקה‬is a construct phrase where nomen rectum de-
scribes nomen regens, and ‫ ְצָדָקה‬might be translated by an adjective, “the right-
eous sun.” This abstract word used as an adjective would then explain which el-
ements of “sun” are in focus: the salvific function of the sun. However, if the sen-
tences are read to the effect that the people will experience the rising of the right-
eous sun with healing under its wings, the proximity to a theology that would be
difficult in the HB setting may be felt. In light of the nature of the recipients as
those who “revere my [Yahweh Zebaot, cf. the previous verse] name” a focus on
the sun with healing is not expected. If, on the other hand, the point of the ora-
cle is that righteousness will come to the Yahweh-worshipers, the consequence is
that the nomen regens is a metaphor applied to the nomen rectum. The “sun” is
a metaphor applied to “righteousness.” ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬carries with it two other expres-
sions, ‫ זרח‬and ‫כנף‬, which also then must be understood as metaphors, together
forming what may be called an allegory.⁴⁴⁵ This understanding is well described
by Stephan Lauber: the physical attribute of the sun to enlighten darkness and
what is hidden therein is metaphorically transferred to the realm of jurisdic-
 HALOT, ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬, p. 1589.

 Bjørndalen, Allegorische Rede, 97– 99.
tion.⁴⁴⁶ In accordance with the parlance suggested by Paul Ricoeur, he terms it a

“live metaphor.”⁴⁴⁷ On the background of Isa 30:26; 56:8.10 and extra-biblical
evidence Lauber sees a combination of sun- and healing-metaphors in Mal
3:20.⁴⁴⁸ The expression “sun of righteousness” is also seen as figurative by
Karl William Weyde, and he understands it as referring to Yahweh, who is called
both sun and righteousness.⁴⁴⁹ His suggestion that the terminology here is “an
example of hypostatization,” is not necessary if one reads it as I have suggested
here, as an allegory describing the coming of righteousness and healing to the
worshipers of Yahweh.
In this case, the most probable understanding of the phrase in question, is
that it has a nomen regens with a metaphor that is applied to nomen rectum.
In the case of ‫ָעְרַלת ְלַבְבֶכם‬, Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4, we have a more complicated situa-
tion.
‫וַּמְלֶּתם ֵאת ָעְרַלת ְלַבְבֶכם ְוָעְר ְפֶּכם ל ֹא ַתְקשׁוּ עוֹד‬

Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer. (Deut
10:16)
‫ִהֹּמלוּ ַליה ָוֹה ְוָהִסרוּ ָעְרלוֹת ְלַבְבֶכם‬

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts. (Jer 4:4)
The two texts are not identical in the use of the expression ‫מול )ֵאת( ָעְרָלה‬, as only
Deut 10:16 employs the phrase in its usual form, and Jer 4:4 has split the verb
and its object and created a longer expression. Common to the texts, however,
is the phrase ‫ָעְרַלת ְלַבְבֶכם‬.
In both cases the LXX uses σκληροκαρδία and avoids the perhaps offensive
reference to foreskin: καὶ περιτεμεῖσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν, Deut 10:16, and
περιτμήθητε τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν καὶ περιτέμεσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν, Jer 4:4.
Vulgate, on the other hand, keeps this reference: circumcidite igitur praeputium
 Stephan Lauber, “Euch aber wird aufgehen die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit” (Vgl. Mal 3,20):
Eine Exegese von Mal 3,13 – 21, 45: “Im Hintergrund steht dabei die metaphorische Übertragung
der physikalischen Eigenschaften der Sonne (nämlich der Fähigkeit zum Erhellen der Finsternis
und des dort Verborgenen) auf den Bereich der Rechtssprechung, der durch mit dem N[omen]reg
[ens] ‫ ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬verbundene lebensweltlichen Assoziationen illustriert werden soll.”
 Ibid., 113.
 Ibid., 401.
 Karl William Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the
Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 376.
cordis vestri, Deut 10:16; circumcidimini Domino et auferte praeputia cordium ves-
trorum, Jer 4:4.
KJV and NRSV remain close to the original senses of the words in the trans-
lation, with some variation in the rendering of the verb: “circumcise/remove/
take away the foreskin of your hearts”; NEB, on the other hand, has removed
the foreskin: “circumcise your hearts” in both texts; but NJPS offers an alterna-
tive: “cut away/remove the thickening about your hearts” in both cases, evoking
associations to a modern heart surgery.
The heart, ‫לבב‬, is here used metonymically for the will, emotions, or some
ethical or mental quality believed to house in the heart. To this is added the
“foreskin,” used not metonymically, but metaphorically, for the uncircumcised
nature, “indomita obstinatio cordis,” “the stubborn obstinacy of the heart.”⁴⁵⁰
The word ‫ ָעְרָלה‬carries with it the verb ‫מול‬, to form the complete Hebrew
idiom. To “circumcise the foreskin” is then the full metaphor here, applied to
the “heart” in its metonymical meaning.
This is a case where the nomen regens describes some quality or particular-
ity of the nomen rectum. The call is not for removing the heart, but its uncircum-
cised nature. Nomen regens describes the nomen rectum. This construct phrase
belongs in the context where metaphors in the nomen regens are applied to the
nomen rectum.
‫ ָמ ֵגן ֶע ְזֶרָך‬and ‫ ֶחֶרב ַגֲּא ָוֶתָך‬in Deut 33:29 constitute further examples for considera-
tion:
‫ַא ְשֶׁריָך יִ ְשָׂרֵאל ִמי ָכמוָֹך ַעם נוֹ ַשׁע ַּביה ָוה ָמ ֵגן ֶע ְזֶרָך ַוֲא ֶשׁר־ֶחֶרב ַגֲּא ָוֶתָך ְויִָּכֲחשׁוּ ֹא ְיֶביָך ָלְך ְוַאָּתה‬
‫ַעל־ָּבמוֵֹתימוֹ ִתְדֹרְך‬
Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like you,
a people saved by the LORD,
the shield of your help,
and the sword of your triumph!
Your enemies shall come fawning to you,
and you shall tread on their backs. (NRSV)
The first expression, ‫ָמ ֵגן ֶע ְזֶרָך‬, is translated as a sentence in the LXX, and the
“shield” is translated as “to shield”; the second phrase is rendered as a nominal
sentence: λαὸς σῳζόμενος ὑπὸ κυρίου; ὑπερασπιεῖ ὁ βοηθός σου, καὶ ἡ μάχαιρα
καύχημά σου· In the V, the two expressions are translated word by word, but not
 Zorell, Lexicon.

treated as appositions to “Dominus,” as they are both in nominative: popule qui

salvaris in Domino scutum auxilii tui et gladius gloriae tuae.
KJV renders the phrases in this way: “the shield of thy help…the sword of thy
excellency!” The NRSV is very similar: “the shield of your help, and the sword of
your triumph!” In these two translations, both expressions receive renderings
with two nouns in a genitive relation; the NEB instead uses one verb and one
adjective, assumes ‫ ַשַּׁדי‬in the place of ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬and rearranges slightly: “peerless,
set free! The Lord is the shield that guards you, the Blessed One is your glorious
sword.” Also NIV uses an adjective: “Your glorious sword,” but has “your shield
and helper” in the first case, thereby leaving out the genitive. Similarly, NJPS: “A
people delivered by the LORD, Your protecting Shield, your Sword triumphant!”
These translations take the two phrases to be appositions to “the Lord,” and
on this understanding the nomina regentia are metaphors applied to God. At the
same time, they are described by the nomina recta, and some of the translations
use adjectives to bring out this describing function. Such a reading means that
the complete expressions are metaphors for God, and the nomina recta direct
us towards the understanding of these metaphors: the shield protects and the
sword wins and triumphs.
If we consider the two nomina regentia to be metaphors applied to the nom-
ina recta, a similar understanding would result. “Your help” would be qualified
by “shield” used metaphorically for protection: “the help that shields you,” and
“your pride” would be qualified by “sword” used metaphorically for attack and
defense: “the pride that defends you.” With such an understanding the nomina
recta are in apposition to “the Lord,” which is quite possible, since these abstrac-
ta regularly describe God’s assistance and eminence.
A series of phrases have to do with clothing or military attire. ‫ ִּב ְגֵדי ִתְפַאְרֵּתְך‬is
found in Isa 52:1:
‫עוִּרי עוִּרי ִלְב ִשׁי ֻע ֵּזְך ִציּוֹן ִלְב ִשׁי ִּב ְגֵדי ִתְפַאְרֵּתְך ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬
Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion!
Put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for the uncircumcised and the unclean
shall enter you no more.
LXX omits the “clothes,” ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου, but V has an expression corre-
sponding to the Hebrew text: vestimentis gloriae tuae.
Isa 61:10 presents us with ‫ ִּב ְגֵדי־ֶי ַשׁע‬and ‫ְמִעיל ְצָדָקה‬:
‫ִהְלִּבי ַשׁ ִני ִּב ְגֵדי־ֶי ַשׁע ְמִעיל ְצָדָקה ְיָעָט ִני‬

He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness.
Isa 59:17 contains ‫ כּוַֹבע ְישׁוָּעה‬and ‫ִּב ְגֵדי ָנָקם‬:
‫ַו ִיְּלַּבשׁ ְצָדָקה ַּכ ִשְּׁר ָין ְוכוַֹבע ְישׁוָּעה ְּבֹראשׁוֹ ַו ִיְּלַּבשׁ ִּב ְגֵדי ָנָקם ִּתְלֹּב ֶשׁת ַו ַיַּעט ַּכְמִעיל ִק ְנָאה‬
He put on righteousness like a breastplate,
and a helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
and wrapped himself in fury as in a mantle.
In the last verse we have a series of four elements in the divine punishment:
righteousness, salvation, vengeance, and fury. Two of them are compared to
clothing in this way, “righteousness like a breastplate (‫)ַּכ ִשְּׁר ָין‬,” and “fury as a
mantle (‫)ַּכְמִעיל‬.” The other two are construct phrases, “helmet of salvation
(‫)כוַֹבע ְישׁוָּעה‬,” and “garments of vengeance (‫)ִּב ְגֵדי ָנָקם‬.” The four parts occur in
parallel in this way: comparison, construct phrase, construct phrase, comparison
(a-b-b1-a1). The three instances of verbs consist in ‫ לבשׁ‬twice, and ‫ עטה‬once. ‫לבשׁ‬
in the first instance has “righteousness” as the object, whereas it the second time
has “garments of vengeance for clothing” as the object. This means that the ob-
ject in the narrow sense inside the construct phrase “garments of vengeance” is
“vengeance,” and “garments” functions like the comparison “like a breastplate”
in the first sentence. Consequently, the nomen regens of the phrase is a metaphor
that describes nomen rectum. The same situation can be assumed for the first
construct phrase: “helmet” is a metaphor that describes “salvation.” The two
comparisons provide parallel material that strengthens this understanding.
In Isa 61:10, ‫ִּב ְגֵדי־ֶי ַשׁע‬, “garments of salvation” parallels ‫ִּב ְגֵדי ָנָקם‬, “”garments
of vengeance” in Isa 59:17 closely, and the verb is the same in the two texts. We
may assume that the function here is the same as in Isa 59:17: nomen regens is a
metaphor that describes nomen rectum. We can assume that this is a valid under-
standing of ‫ְמִעיל ְצָדָקה‬, “the robe of righteousness,” Isa 61:10, also. The verb oc-
curring with this last expression, ‫עטה‬, is the same as in the sentence with the
parallel phrase in Isa 59:17: ‫ְמִעיל ִק ְנָאה‬.
Isa 52:1 uses the verb ‫ לבשׁ‬twice, like Isa 59:17, once with the object ‫ֻע ֵּזְך‬, “your
strength,” and once with ‫ִּב ְגֵדי ִתְפַאְרֵּתְך‬, “your garments of beauty” as the object.
The object inside this last phrase seems, accordingly, to be “beauty,” and the
phrase contains a nomen regens with a metaphor that describes nomen rectum.
It is, therefore, not an unreasonable conclusion to see these phrases as in-
stances of construct phrases that are appositions in the sense that nomen regens
describes nomen rectum, because nomen regens is a metaphor with a sense ap-
plicable to the nomen rectum. As in Mal 4:20 a noun carries with it a verb col-
locating with it; the resulting expression can be described as an allegory. On
the other hand, a verb collocating with a noun forms an idiom of the language,
and it would be too narrow-methodological to characterize this as an allegory.
“Zion” in these Isaiah-texts is adressed as if an animate entity, meaning that
it either is used metonymically for the people of Zion, or that it is personified in
the sense that expressions like “put on dress” are used metaphorically.
The suggested understanding of these expressions parallels that of the two
phrases in Deut 33:29, discussed above.
In a number of phrases we see lexemes that often are used metaphorically for
God, used as nomina regentia in construct phrases. This is the case with ‫צוּר‬,
by HALOT described in this way: “4. metaphorical ‫ צוּר‬rock as a place of protec-
tion, safety and refuge, cf. Akk. šadû…”
As nomen regens in a construct phrase it is found in the following cases:
‫צוּר־ָמעוֹז‬, Ps 31:3:
‫ֱהֵיה ִלי ְלצוּר־ָמעוֹז ְלֵבית ְמצוּדוֹת ְלהוֹ ִשׁיֵע ִני‬

Be a rock of refuge for me,
a strong fortress to save me.
In the LXX rendering, “rock of refuge” is translated as θεὸν ὑπερασπιστὴν, “a

protecting God,” which means that this version has moved directly to the stan-
dard application of the whole expression: it deals with God. The Vulgate renders
this phrase lapidem fortissimum, “a (very) strong stone,” which is literal, but
meaningless.
Ps 71:3 is usually conjectured from ‫ ָמעוֹן‬to ‫ָמעוֹז‬, but the MT reads:
‫ֱהֵיה ִלי ְלצוּר ָמעוֹן ָלבוֹא ָּתִמיד‬

Be to me a rock of refuge, where I can always come (my translation)
The change would result in the same expression as in Ps 31:3, and LXX has the
same version here also: θεὸν ὑπερασπιστὴν, whereas the Vulgate is different
here: robustum habitaculum, “a safe haven.”
‫ צוּר ָמֻע ֵּזְך‬is found in Isa 17:10:
‫ִּכי ָשַׁכַחְּת ֱאל ֵֹהי יִ ְשֵׁעְך ְוצוּר ָמֻע ֵּזְך ל ֹא ָזָכְר ְּת‬
For you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge.
For the phrase under discussion, the LXX also here has a translation referring to
God: κυρίου τοῦ βοηθοῦ σου, but the Vulgate renders the MT: Fortis adiutoris tui,
“your strong helper.”
NEB has converted the first expression into a sentence and the second into
an apposition: “You forgot the God who delivered you, and did not keep in mind
the rock, your stronghold.” NJPS has two sentences: “Truly, you have forgotten
the God who saves you And have not remembered the Rock who shelters you.”
‫ צוּר יִ ְשִׁעי‬is found in 2 Sam 22:47:
‫ַחי־ ְיה ָוה וָּברוְּך צוִּרי ְו ָיֻרם ֱאל ֵֹהי צוּר יִ ְשִׁעי‬
The LORD lives! Blessed be my rock,
and exalted be my God, the rock of my salvation.
The parallel in Ps 18:47 has a shorter text:
.‫ַחי־ ְיה ָוה וָּברוְּך צוִּרי ְו ָירוּם ֱאלוֵֹהי יִ ְשִׁעי‬
For 2 Sam 22:47 the LXX twice offers “guard,” instead of “rock”: ζῇ κύριος, καὶ
εὐλογητὸς ὁ φύλαξ μου, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὁ θεός μου, ὁ φύλαξ τῆς σωτηρίας
μου. Here, the Vulgate also offers an interpretation: vivit Dominus et benedictus
Deus meus et exaltabitur Deus salutis meae. In Ps 18:47 the LXX twice has “God”:
ὁ θεός μου, and ὁ θεὸς τῆς σωτηρίας μου, whereas the Vulgate is the same as in
the parallel.
For ‫ צוּר יִ ְשֵׁענוּ‬in Ps 95:1 LXX has τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, again replacing
“God” for “rock,” but V has petrae Iesu nostro, close to MT.
Ps 89:27’s phrase with “rock,” ‫צוּר ְישׁוָּעִתי‬, is in LXX “supporter”: ἀντιλήμπτωρ
τῆς σωτηρίας μου, and V also transcribes: fortitudo salutis meae.
Again, for “rock” in Deut 32:15, ‫צוּר ְי ֻשָׁעתוֹ‬, LXX has “God”: ἀπὸ θεοῦ σωτῆρος
αὐτοῦ, and V also: a Deo salutari suo.
‫ צוּר ַמְחִסי‬in Ps 94:22 is rendered similarly in LXX: βοηθὸν ἐλπίδος μου, but V
follows MT: quasi petra spei meae, where quasi might be influenced by the verb
erit, but might also reveal an understanding of the phrase as figurative.
Finally, we have the phrase ‫ צוּר־ֻע ִּזי‬in Ps 62:8, where “rock” by the LXX is ren-
dered as “God”: ὁ θεὸς τῆς βοηθείας μου, paralleled by V: robur fortitudinis
meae.
This last instance can be likened to the phrases with “dress,” in so far as we
also here have a series of parallel expressions: “On God rests my deliverance and
my honor; my rock of strength, my refuge is in God.” This means that our phrase
is comparable to the simple expressions “deliverance,” “honour,” and “refuge,”
and the nomen rectum of the phrase is in focus, and the nomen regens describes
this nomen rectum.
The rendering of “rock” as “God” or other lexemes by LXX, partly also in V,
indicates where these translators saw the reference of the lexeme, and indirectly
testifies to a metaphorical sense in these phrases. We may be on the right track in
seeing in these phrases nomina regentia with metaphors applied to the nomina
recta.
With the phrase ‫ ֶקֶרן יִ ְשִׁעי‬in 2 Sam 22:3, we enter into another series of parallel
expressions with metaphorical senses applied to God:
‫ֱאל ֵֹהי צוִּרי ֶאֱחֶסה־ּבוֹ ָמ ִג ִּני ְוֶקֶרן יִ ְשִׁעי ִמ ְשׂ ַגִּּבי וְּמנוִּסי ֹמ ִשִׁעי ֵמָחָמס ֹּת ִשֵׁע ִני׃‬
my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield and the horn of my salvation,
my stronghold and my refuge,
my savior; you save me from violence.
The opening phrase is here “God of my rock,” by NRSV changed into the trans-
lation quoted. Also here, LXX prefers “refuge” to “rock”: φύλαξ, and V has
“strong”: fortis meus. The parallel text in Ps 18:3 is identical to the 2 Samuel ver-
sion in the MT, but LXX this time approximates the MT: στερέωμά, “firmness.”
The different metaphors in this text may occur in construct phrases else-
where, like ‫ ָמ ֵגן יִ ְשֶׁעָך‬in 2 Sam 22:36; Ps 18:36, rendered closely in LXX, ὑπερασπι-
σμὸν σωτηρίας μου, and in V: clypeum salutis tuae. The difference in suffix is not
important in this connection.
It may be assumed that we in these phrases have the same situation as that
described for the previous ones: a metaphor in the nomen regens describes the
nomen rectum. The reason for this assumption is again that the relevant phrase
is part of a series of expressions where “shield,” “stronghold,” and “refuge,” all
metaphorically understood, belong to the description of God and his salvation.
In the phraes ‫ ֶשֶׁמן ָשׂשׂוֹן‬, “oil of gladness,” and ‫ַמֲעֵטה ְתִהָּלה‬, “mantle of praise,” Isa
61:3, one may perceive a similar situation:
‫ָלשׂוּם ַלֲאֵבֵלי ִציּוֹן ָלֵתת ָלֶהם ְפֵּאר ַּתַחת ֵאֶפר ֶשֶׁמן ָשׂשׂוֹן ַּתַחת ֵאֶבל ַמֲעֵטה ְתִהָּלה ַּתַחת רוַּח ֵּכָהה‬
‫ְוק ָֹרא ָלֶהם ֵאיֵלי ַהֶּצֶדק ַמַּטע ְיה ָוה ְלִהְת ָפֵּאר‬
to provide for those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a garland instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,

the planting of the LORD, to display his glory.
What is intended as replacement for mourning is gladness, and for a faint spirit,
praise. The two nomina recta describe the intended replacement phenomena.
This means that the two nomina regentia are metaphors applied to the following
nomina recta: gladness as if it were an anointment, praise as if it were a mantle.
Similarly, the phrase ‫ִחֵּצי ָהָרָעב ָהָרִעים‬, “deadly arrows of hunger,” Ezek 5:16,
intends to signal approaching “hunger,” not “arrows.”
‫ְּב ַשְּׁלִחי ֶאת־ִחֵּצי ָהָרָעב ָהָרִעים ָּבֶהם‬

When I loose against you my deadly arrows of famine.
I think we may assume that nomen regens is a metaphor for the fatality of hun-
ger mentioned by the nomen rectum. “Arrows” is not the issues in the context,
but hunger.
The expressions discussed above may all be analyzed as construct phrases

where nomen regens describes nomen rectum, and only some of the sense com-
ponents of nomen regens can be operative here, and these components are ap-
plied to the nomen rectum; we have metaphors. The phrase is appositional, but
the “predicate” is not found in the nomen rectum, as some scholars would think,
but in the nomen regens.
Classification of phrases may build upon the meaning of the expressions,
well exemplified by Kroeze in his contribution on back-transformation of phras-
es.⁴⁵¹ His examples also show that this back-transformation is not simple to un-
dertake. The phrase ‫ ַזֲעַקת ְסֹדם‬may mean “the cry over Sodom,” or “the cry from
Sodom,” where “Sodom” would be the object or subject, respectively. His exam-
ple from 2 Chr 36:23, ‫ֱאל ֵֹהי ַה ָשַּׁמיִם‬, need not mean “God made the heaven,” as his
transformation goes, but also “(God who) dwells in heaven,” ‫יוֹ ֵשׁב ַּב ָשַּׁמיִם‬, Ps 2:4.
Transformation has been done by grammarians before Noam Chomsky, but
it has gained momentum and a clearer method with him and his school. This in-
volves studying construct expressions where the nomen regens describes the
nomen rectum, the type termed improper annexion by Gesenius.⁴⁵² Here belong
phrases like ‫ ְטֵמא־ ְשָׂפַתיִם‬Isa 6:5, which can be transformed into ‫ַה ְשָּׂפַתיִם ְטֵמִאים‬, a
nominal sentence where the nomen rectum is the subject and the nomen regens
 Jan H. Kroeze, “Underlying Syntactic Relations in Construct Phrases of Biblical Hebrew.”
 GKC, § 128, x.
is the predicate. How difficult such transformation is, however, is shown by this
example, because the construct phrase is only part of a larger construct phrase,
which again is predicate in a nominal sentence: ‫ִאישׁ ְטֵמא־ ְשָׂפַתיִם ָאֹנִכ‬. The complex
construct phrase is not easy to transform. From the examples in Kreuze’s presen-
tation it becomes clear that caution is required in the practice of the method, but
it may prove useful.⁴⁵³ The analysis of construct phrases usually depart from a
semantic analysis of the sense of the expressions. GKC and the other grammars
do not contain a section on semantics, even if much of the thinking is based
upon semantic evaluation of words and expressions. By not addressing the ques-
tion of semantics, the grammars can create a syntactic part of the grammar that
includes much thinking based on semantics, resulting in a syntax that will seem
independent of semantics, but in reality is based upon it.
A conclusion to this chapter is that there in Biblical Hebrew probably is an
appositional use of construct phrases, not only of the kind where nomen rectum
is a “predicate” of nomen regens, but also the other way: nomen regens “pred-
icates” nomen rectum. This means that there is a possibility for “daughter (of)
Zion” and the other construct phrases with the same structure to be understood
as some scholars have suggested, as an appositional phrase where nomen regens
describes nomen rectum. The material here surveyed suggests that there was an
attributive nomen regens in Hebrew, and the cases reviewed contain metaphors.
In ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬nomen regens may be attributive and a metaphor applied to nomen rec-
tum, and this goes for the whole group as well. The understanding comes close
to the improper annexion in Gesenius’ taxonmy and those of other grammarians,
with the added specification that the nomina regentia in question are metaphors.
 Cf. for Ugaritic, the comments in Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, Alter Orient und
Altes Testament 273 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000): “uneigentliche Genitivverbindung” is for
example “schön bezüglich des Gesichts,” that may be transformed into “das Gesicht ist schön,”
91.314.2, p. 845.
Chapter 7 Dear Zion
O Zion, will you not ask how your captives are –
The exiles who seek your welfare, who are the remnant of your flock?
…
My heart longs for Bethel and Penuel,
for Mahanaim and for all the shrines of your pure ones.
There the Shekhinah dwelled within you,
and your Maker opened your gates to face the gates of heaven.
There the glory of the Lord was your only light;
it was not the sun, moon, or stars that shone over you.
…
Happy is he who waits and lives to see your light rising,
your dawn breaking forth over him!
He shall see your chosen people prospering,
he shall rejoice in your joy when you regain the days of your youth.⁴⁵⁴
This is an exerpt from the famous Qinah by Yehudah Halevi (1075 – 1141) that by
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was praised for its “fire of longing.” It was sung in
the Tish’a be’Ab-service of the synagogue, and gained iconic status in the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries, before the rise of Zionism. Here, longing and
belonging are epitomized, and the poem recalls the Zion-theology of the HB
as well as the Qinah of Amos 5:2.
Yehudah Halevi wanted to come to Zion, and he made it to Alexandria, but
his ship disappeared on the voyage from Alexandria to Israel. Our journey is also
over, but I hope it has brought us farther than to the Mediterranean, I hope we
have arrived in Zion, Daughter Zion, Dear Zion, Beloved Zion, Poor Zion.
We have made some observations along the road, observations on the gram-
mar and lexicon of Hebrew, observations on modern scholarship, observations
on texts of the Hebrew Bible. Did we also get glimpses of Zion as we journeyed?
Do we at the end of our travels see the contours of this beloved and cherished
city? Or are we lost at sea, like Yehudah Halevi, with an ocean of wreckage float-
ing around us?
There are images of Zion appearing to us. The image of a daughter and a vir-
gin. As these young ladies are loved by their fathers and mothers, so Zion is
loved by God. As they are precious and valuable, so Zion is precious to God.
As they are objects of reproach if needed, so Zion is reproached when she mis-
behaves. As they are in the constant flow of love and concern of their parents, so
 T. Carmi, The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 347– 349, cf.
Judah, and Gabriel Levin, Poems From the Diwan (London: Anvil Press Poetry, 2002), 100.
180 Chapter 7 Dear Zion
Zion is kept in a river of God’s love, God’s care, God’s commitment. A delicate,
valuable, precious virgin daughter, Zion, emerges from dry text and takes shape
among us.
She does not step forward in the form of a persona, however, as an almost
living entity that lives independently of the texture of the text. Some scholars
claim to have experienced such a persona, how she hovers over the texts and
appears in various dress, now as a daughter of Zion, now as a daughter of my
people, now as a virgin of Israel, and often without visible presence. She is
there, but capriciously hides behind textual surfaces that like a veil cover their
secrets. The experienced observer, will, after all, recognize her body shape, her
movements, her breath. The experienced observer, that is, the person who can
perceive what no eye can see and no ear can hear.
I do not think this is a parody on the idea of a persona, but an attempt at
portraying the impression gained when reading scholars who hold such tenets.
To me, at least, that idea is not what the texts with “daughter Zion” and compa-
rable phrases convey. They contain images, figurative language, metaphors and
metonymies, but this material does to me not suggest a persona in the sense of
an independent living entity behind the texts. The phrases present their mes-
sage, their contents through the senses of the lexemes and their syntactical em-
bedding, through the meaning so created. I do not feel compelled or even tempt-
ed to hypotezise any form of metamessage in the texts; a simple and straightfor-
ward meaning will do.
One might even venture to state that it is a mistake to construct an entity
from linguistic evidence, and then use this entity to understand the texts. The
danger of circular reasoning is here imminent. Against this, I think the texts
have to be read, and a meaning extracted on the basis of the evidence of the
texts. It seems that the use of “persona” or “character” has been especially un-
fortunate in many cases, in that they not only carry the sense attributed to them
by linguists and rhetoricists, but may have suggested to exegetes the existence of
some extra-linguistic phenomenon. This is evident in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait,
Her Response. ⁴⁵⁵ The authors presuppose a figure behind the texts, and this fig-
ure is made the object of their investigation, if not their imagination. More than a
dozen authors participate in this book, and the existence of a Daughter Zion is so
clear to them that they do not enter into a discussion with other opinions, for
instance that of Michael H. Floyd in the same volume.⁴⁵⁶ On this background
 Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher (eds.), Daughter Zion: Her
Portrait, Her Response.
 Michael H. Floyd, “The Daughter of Zion Goes Fishing in Heaven.”
Chapter 7 Dear Zion 181
one may be tempted to deplore the translation of ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬as “Daughter Zion.” Such
a translation evokes the image of a figure, more than that, the existence of a fe-
male, and this is not warranted on the basis of the linguistic evidence.
“Persona” in Lanahan’s definition is the following: “[Persona refers to] the
mask or characterization assumed by the poet as the medium through which
he perceives and gives expression to his world.” A “mask” or “characterization”
is not an entity existing independently of the texts, but a “medium” for percep-
tion and expression, which means a perspective on the object portrayed. A per-
spective is, however, not an entity existing in its own right, but an angle of attack
at the disposal of an author. There is an irony in the fact that the literary turn in
Biblical studies seems to neglect the ways in which language functions. Litera-
ture is transmitted in language, so how is it possible to overlook the rules of lan-
guage? The sense of ‫ ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬is not a person, but a description of a city and her
inhabitants.
A meaning thus expressed does not receive its form or content from Mesopo-
tamia or Greece or Ugarit; it is grown on home turf. The Hebrew Bible is its own
interpreter in this respect, the language, the texts, the internal contexts, they all
create a handbook for reading them.
In putting behind us a certain amount of land, we have also made observa-
tions on the landscape and the guides as we went along. We have, among other
observations, seen some of the nature of the traditional grammatical approaches
to Biblical Hebrew. The modern scholar analyzes the language on the basis of the
text corpus at hand, in this case the HB, perhaps complemented by inscriptions
and later texts like Sirach and the Qumran scrolls. This analysis is made in ret-
rospect, and tends to reduce the material to as few categories as possible, and
therefore to create general rules with as few exceptions as possible. What is
reached in this way is not an imitation of the imagined “handbooks” available
to the HB writers, but a modern construct. The grammarian will try to make
sense of actual use of the language in the text at hand. A consequence of this
situation is that one tends to organize as much material as possible into as
few categories as possible. If organizing and systematization and economization
are the main principles, then little room is left for the variation an artist will em-
ploy.
A skilled author, on the other hand, will vary the expression, stretch its use,
bend its major rules and mildly offend the grammatical restrictions. This will
particularly take place in poetic literature, where metaphorical expressions are
most often found in the HB.
On this background, we might consider a way of analyzing the construct
phrases differently from the traditional approach, by trying to see the actual lan-
guage from the perspective of an ancient author. This person would have a lan-
guage with a set of words and rules at hand, and may use it for the purpose of
expressing thoughts, but also for expressing them in a way suitable to the pur-
pose at any given moment or speech situation. Authors have therefore different
possibilities for expressing their thoughts, and if one wants to express a compar-
ison of one phenomenon to another, an Israelite author might have used parti-
cles intended for comparison, or verbs like “compare,” “liken,” or nouns like
“similarity” etc. One might also have used apposition. “Apposition in the stricter
sense is the collocation of two substantives in the same case in order to define
more exactly (or to complete) the one by the other, and, as a rule…the former by
the latter.”⁴⁵⁷ The construct chain offered itself as another possibility, which was
just as short and effective as the apposition. If we try to see it from the author’s
point of view, he would have to evaluate the different possibilities, and employ
the appropriate choice for the occasion. By choosing a construct chain over other
linguistic tools extent in ancient Hebrew, he would put the tone or stress on the
nomen rectum, thereby reaching the effect of one phrase, almost a single word,
at least a compressed idea. He could also make the nomen regens rule the
phrase, and have nomen rectum comply with that. Rather than taking the abso-
lute word as the starting point, which has been a usual approach, the phrase
should be regarded as one expression, consisting of two or more words, where
emphasis may vary from instance to instance.
The construct phrases under our eyes in this study often yield meanings that
were not attributed to them in grammars, lexicons and commentaries. One of the
surprises is that we have seen phrases that clearly are attributive, and where
both nomen regens may be an attribute to nomen rectum and vice versa. As
this phenomenon was overlooked or its existence even doubted, the possibility
for regarding them for what they are, was lost. Instead, I suggest to count this a
proper use of construct phrases, and register it as a standard procedure used by
the authors of the Hebrew Bible.
The possibility for metaphors in nomen regens has also scarcely been recog-
nized until recently–the voices calling for such an understanding have been few
and far between. I hope this possibility has received renewed impetus from the
present study.
Construct phrases have by grammarians and commentators regularly been
called genitives. This parlance comes from the scholarly treatment where geni-
tives are morphologically visible in forms of words, where lexemes are inflected
for the morphosyntactic features of the genitive case. The inspiration for such a
category in Hebrew grammar is the fact that genitives are found in Akkadian,
 GKC, § 131, 423.

Chapter 7 Dear Zion 183
classical Arabic and Ugaritic, and, of course, in Greek, Latin and German. One of
the latter two languages often constituted the metalanguage for Hebrew, and one
cannot avoid the creeping feeling that properties of the metalanguage have influ-
enced the classification and treatment of Hebrew. When one saw this phenomen-
on in three major Semitic languages, there seemed little reason to discard a ter-
minology that included “genitive.” What then happened, was that the facts flew
in the face of the theory implied in the categorization, and to save face, the theo-
ry found refuge in syntax. Perhaps there are no cases in Hebrew, well, indeed
there are no–this was also regularly admitted–but the phenomenon of object,
ownership, belonging, and so on were there in Hebrew, so why not use the
terms of nominative, accusative and genitive? In this way a morphological termi-
nology was kept because syntax needed it. And since the terminology is found in
all grammars and other scholarly literature, one may suppose that there is no
smoke without a fire. Yet, there is no fire, the smoke came from other sources,
and I am tempted to say that it transformed into a fog that covered the real land-
scape.
The study of lexemes undertaken in this book may yield results for lexico-
graphy in general. In the systematization of senses lexicographers might use
the taxonomy suggested in chapter 5: literal, metonymic, and metaphorical
senses. Individual lexemes might have a set of senses that do not conform to
this systematization, and that fact should be respected. But on the whole,
such a taxonomy would add clarity and overview to the treatment, and provide
help for translators to reach a rendering that is appropriate.
We may summarize this study in the following way. First of all, construct
state should be considered a morpheme in its own right. Secondly, the syntax
of the construct phrase should not take nomen rectum as its starting point,
but give due emphasis to both elements in the phrase. Thirdly, context plays a
vital role in the semantic analysis of construct phrases. Fourthly, a metaphorical
sense recommends itself in most cases of the phrases under consideration here.
In some cases the metaphorical sense has an ironical twist.
A linguistic approach will respect the distance between language and the
rest of reality, and the connection between them. The way language semantically
hooks on to the world is through denotation and reference, but at the same time
it is part of the world, as witnessed by the phenomena studied in pragmatics. In
the literature surveyed here, an awareness of this is not easily found, and future
studies should avoid this defect.
In the meantime, there is always the text of the HB itself. My contribution to
the theology of Zion is to add a new element in the description of God’s love,
expressed in the phrase ‫ַּבת ִציּוֹן‬, or in phrases like ‫ַּבת ְירוּ ָשׁ ִַלם‬, and ‫ַּבת־ַעִּמי‬. The
translations “dear Zion,” “beloved Zion,” “poor Zion,” “dear Jerusalem,” “my
dear people”, “my poor people” and others, as the context may suggest to the
translators, convey an emotional element that is missed in the traditional trans-
lation “daughter of Zion” or the contemporary “daughter Zion” or “Daughter
Zion.” The phrases are not descriptive, but full of feeling, love and reproach,
but always compassion. Zion is not an end in herself, but a depiction of love’s
target and purpose.
Bibliography
Abboud, Peter F. and Ernest Nasseph McCarus. Elementary Modern Standard Arabic. Edited
by Peter F. Abboud. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Adams, James R. From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for Biblical
Metaphors. Updated 2nd ed. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press in association with The Center
for Progressive Christianity, 2008.
Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation With Notes and
Commentary. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1989.
Arnold, Bill T. and John H Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York, N.Y: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Bauer, Hans u. Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes mit einem Beitrag von Paul Kahle und einem Anhang. Hildesheim: Olms,
1965.
Berges, Ulrich. Klagelieder. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg:
Herder, 2002.
Berlin, Adele. Lamentations: A Commentary. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2002.
Biddle, Mark E. “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification
of Cities in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 173 – 94 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative
Perspective: Scripture in Context IV, edited by K. Lawson Younger, William W. Hallo and
Bernard Frank Batto. Lewiston, N.Y: E. Mellen Press, 1991.
Bjørndalen, Anders Jørgen. Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und
Jesaja. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 165. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1986.
Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1 – 39: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary.
New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Boda, Mark J., Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher (eds.). Daughter Zion: Her Portrait,
Her Response. Ancient Israel and Its Literature, edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Vol. 13.
Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Bornemann, Eduard, Ernst Risch. Griechische Grammatik. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main:
Diesterweg, 1978.
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testament. Stuttgart etc.: Kohlhammer, 1973.
Bourguet, Daniel. Les Métaphores de Jérémie. Etudes Bibliques Nouv. Sér. vol. 9. Paris:
Librairie Lecoffre: J. Gabalda, 1987.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the study of
the Old Testament. Supplement series 76, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press,
1989.
Brock, Sebastian P. “Some Remarks on the Use of the Construct in Classical Syriac.” Pages
44 – 60 in Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen on
the Occasion of His 65th Birthday April 11th 1997, edited by Elie Wardini. Oslo: Novus
forlag, 1997.
186 Bibliography
Brockelmann, C. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen, 1956.

Brown, Francis, Charles A. Briggs, S. R. Driver. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on the Lexicon of
William Gesenius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.
Carmi, T. The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse. New York: Penguin Books, 1981.
Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah. Sheffield: JSOT Press for the Society for Old Testament Study,
1989.
Clines, David J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993.
Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 3 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001.
Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch: Nach den Idiomen des
Palästinischen Talmuds, des Onkelostargums und Prophetentargums und der
Jerusalemischen Targume. 2. vermehrte und vielfach umgearbeitete Aufl. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs, 1905. Reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1960.
Davidson, A. B. Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax. 3 ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1894.
Davidson, A. B. An Introductory Hebrew Grammar: With Progressive Exercises in Reading,
Writing and Pointing. 26. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.
Day, Peggy. The Personification of Cities as Female in the Hebrew Bible: The Thesis of
Aloysius Fitzgerald, F. S. C. Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global
Perspective, edited by Fernando Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert. Vol. 2. Reading From
This Place. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Dearman, J. Andrew. “Daughter Zion and Her Place in God’s Household.” Horizons in Biblical
Theology 31 (2009): 144 – 59.
Delekat, L. “Zum Hebräischen Wörterbuch.” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 7 – 66.
Dille, Sarah J. Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. Edited by J.
Cheryl Exum. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 398;
Gender, Culture, Theory, 13. London, New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the
Hebrew Bible. Biblica et orientalia 44, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 1993.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “The Syntagma of Bat Followed By a Geographical Name in the Hebrew
Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57
(1995): 451 – 70.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. Lamentations. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and
preaching, Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “”Daughter Zion”.” Pages 125 – 34 in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the
Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, edited by John J. Ahn and
Stephen L. Cook,. New York London: T & T Clark, 2009.
Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. 5. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1968.
Edenburg, Cynthia. “Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex Laws
(Deuternonomy 22:13 – 29).” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 43 – 60.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “Jahwe als König.” Pages 172 – 93 in Kleine Schriften I,. Tübingen: Mohr,
1928.
Finley, T. J. “”The Apple of His Eye” (Bābat ’Ênô) in Zecharaih II 12.” Vetus Testamentum 38
(1988): 337 – 38.
Bibliography 187
Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1 – 25. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament 38.
Freiburg: Herder 2005.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972.
Fitzgerald, Aloysius. “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a
Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT.” The Catholic Biblial Quartely 34 (1972):
403 – 16.
Fitzgerald, Aloysius. “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities.” The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 37 (1975): 167 – 83.
Fleischer, H. L. Kleine Schriften, 2. Leipzig 1888.
Floyd, Michael H. “Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!” The Catholic Biblial Quartely 70 (2008):
484 – 504.
Floyd, Michael H. “The Daughter of Zion Goes Fishing in Heaven.” Pages 177 – 200 in
Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Atlanta, Ga.:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Follis, Elaine R. “The Holy City as Daughter.” Pages 173 – 84 in Directions in Biblical Poetry.
Sheffield: 1987.
Freedman, H., Maurice Simon, S. M. Lehrman, J. Israelstam, Judah J. Slotki, J. Rabbinowitz, A.
Cohen, and Louis I. Rabinowitz. Midrash Rabbah. London: Soncino Press, 1961.
García, Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition.
Leiden, New York: Brill, 1997.
Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm, E. Kautzsch, and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar. 2d English ed. Oxford: The Clarendon press, 1910.
Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm, G. Bergsträsser, E. Kautzsch. Hebräische Grammatik.
Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms, 1977.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English
ed. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, 1985.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, Rudolf Krämer, W. Max Müller, Arnold Walther, Heinrich Zimmern, and
Frants Buhl. Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das
Alte Testament. Unveränderter Neudruck der 1915 erschienenen 17. Aufl. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1959.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, Udo Rüterswörden, Herbert Donner, and Rudolf Meyer. Hebräisches und
Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18. Aufl. Berlin, New York:
Springer, 1987.
Goldziher, Ignaz. “Anzeige der Beiträge zur hebräischen Grammatik im Talmud und Midrasch
von Dr. A. Berliner, Berlin 1879.” Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 34 (1880): 375 – 84.
Good, Edwin M. Irony in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. “A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, by Christo van der Merwe
et al.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 109 – 10.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Fünfte unveränderte Aufl. Abt. 1, Bd. 1, Handkommentar zum Alten
Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922.
Häusl, Maria. Bilder der Not: Weiblichkeits- und Geschlechtermetaphorik im Buch Jeremia.
Herders Biblische Studien Vol. 37. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck und Erich Zenger.
Freiburg etc.: Herder, 2003.
Hadley, Judith M. “Wisdom and the Goddess.” Pages 234 – 43 in Wisdom in Israel: Essays in
Honour of J. A. Emerton, edited by Robert P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson, John Day.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
188 Bibliography
Harper, William Rainly. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh 1905.
Hawley, Robert. “Some Case Problems in Ugaritic.” Pages 65 – 99 in Grammatical Case in the
Languages of the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the International Colloquium
Variations, Concurrrence et Evolution des cas dans divers domains linguistiques Paris,
2 – 4 Avril 2007, edited by Michel Mazoyer and Dennis Pardee, Michèle Fruyt. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 2011.
Holladay, William Lee, and Paul D. Hanson. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1 – 25. Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on
the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Holladay, William Lee, and Paul D Hanson. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26 – 52. Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on
the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Howe, Bonnie. Because Your Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning
of 1 Peter. Biblical Interpretation Series v. 81. Atlanta: SBL, 2005.
Huehnergard, John. “Semitic Languages.” Pages 2117 – 34 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, edited by Jack M Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995.
Huehnergard, John. “Comparative Semitic Linguistics.” Pages 119 – 50 in Semitic Linguistics:
The State of the Art At the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Shlomo Izre’el,.
Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona
Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Huehnergard, John and Christopher Woods. “Akkadian and Eblaite.” Pages 218 – 87 in The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D.
Woodard,. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Johnstone, William. “The Legacy of William Robertson Smith: Reading the Hebrew Bible With
Arabic-Sensitized Eyes.” Pages 390 – 97 in William Robertson Smith: Essays in
Reassessment, edited by William Johnstone. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Joüon, Paul. Grammaire de l’Hébreu Biblique. Édition photomécanique corrigée, Graz 1965.
Rome: Institut biblique pontificial, 1923.
Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. English ed. Subsidia Biblica
27. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006.
Judah, and Gabriel Levin. Poems From the Diwan. London: Anvil Press Poetry, 2002.
Kaiser, Barbara Bakke. “Poet as ’Female Impersonator’: The Image of Daughter Zion as
Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering.” Journal of Religion 67 (1987): 164 – 82.
Kartveit, Magnar. Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1 – 9. Coniectanea
Biblica Old Testament Series 28. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989.
Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 128.
Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Keel, Othmar. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Orte Und
Landschaften Der Bibel vol. 4, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, Benedikt Hartmann, and Edward Yechezkel Kutscher.
Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. 3. Aufl. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, and M. E. J. Richardson. The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden, New York: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: Brill,
1958.
Bibliography 189
Konersmann, Ralf. Wörterbuch der philosophischen Metaphern. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, 2007.
König, E. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig 1897.
Körting, Corinna. Zion in den Psalmen. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 48. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2006.
Kroeze, Jan H. “Die Chaos Van Die ‘Genitief’ in Bybelse Hebreeus.” Journal for Semitics 3
(1991): 129 – 43.
Kroeze, Jan H. “Underlying Syntactic Relations in Construct Phrases of Biblical Hebrew.”
Journal for Semitics 5 (1993): 68 – 88.
Labahn, Antje. “Metaphor and Inter-Textuality: ‘Daughter of Zion’ as a Test Case: Response to
Kirsten Nielsen ‘From Oracles to Canon’–and the Role of Metaphor.” Scandinavian
Journal of the Old Testament 17 (2003): 49 – 67.
Lakoff, George & Mark Jonson. Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago, 1980.
Lambdin, Thomas Oden. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1973.
Lambert, W. G. “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
103. Studies in Literature from the Aneient Near East Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer
(1984): 211 – 15.
Lanahan, William. “The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 93 (1974): 41 – 49.
Lauber, Stephan. “Euch aber wird aufgehen die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit” (Vgl. Mal 3,20):
Eine Exegese Von Mal 3,13 – 21. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 78. St.
Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 2006.
Løland, Hanne. Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the
Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46 and 49. Forschungen zum Alten Testament
32. Edited by Mark S. Smith Bernd Janowski, Hermann Spieckermann. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008.
Lund, Øystein. Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40 – 55. Forschungen Zum Alten
Testament. Reihe 2, vol 28. Edited by Mark S. Smith, Bernd Janowski, Hermann
Spieckermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed.
New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21 – 36: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary. 1st
ed. New York: Doubleday, 2004.
Lyons, John. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
Macky, Peter W. The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting
the Bible. Studies in the Bible and early Christianity 19. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press,
1990.
Maier, Christl. Die “Fremde Frau” in Proverbien 1 – 9: Eine Exegetische und
sozialgeschichtliche Studie. Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis 144. Edited by Othmar Keel und
Christoph Uehlinger. Freiburg, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1995.
Maier, Christl. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
Mandolfo, Carleen R. Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the
Book of Lamentations. Atlanta: SBL, 2007.
190 Bibliography
Matthews, Peter H. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford Paperback Reference. 2

ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Mays, James Luther. Amos: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: S.C.M. Press,
1969.
McKane, William. A critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. International Critical
Caommentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1986.
Merwe, C. H. J. van der, J. A Naudé, and Jan H Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar.
Biblical languages–Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Meyer, Marion. “Wunschbilder. Zu bildlichen Darstellungen abstrakter Personifikationen des
guten Lebens.” Pages 183 – 205 in Die Welt der Götterbilder, edited by John Barton et
al.. Berlin New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
Meyer, Rudolf. Hebräische Grammatik. 3. neubearbeitete Aufl. Berlin / New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1966.
Michel, Diethelm. Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. 1. Aufl. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.
Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1998.
Murphy, Roland E. “The Personification of Wisdom.” Pages 222 – 33 in Wisdom in Ancient
Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, edited by Robert P. Gordon, H. G. M.
Williamson, John Day,. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New
American Translation. Brown Judaic Studies 106. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1985.
Noppen, J. P. van. Metaphor: A Bibliography of Post-1970 Publications. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1985.
Noppen, J. P. van, and Edith Hols. Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publications From
1985 to 1990. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1990.
Noth, Martin. Geschichte Israels. 5. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963.
Nyberg, H. S. Hebreisk Grammatik. Uppsala 1952.
O’Connor, Kathleen M. “’Speak Tenderly to Jerusalem’: Second Isaiah’s Reception and Use of
Daughter Zion.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 20 (1999): 281 – 94.
Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1 – 3.” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983):
207 – 09.
Otto, E. Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjôn.” Col. 994 – 1028 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament,
Band VI, edited by Hans-Josef Fabry und Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln:
Kohlhammer, 1989.
Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic.” Pages 288 – 318 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s
Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Pardee, Dennis. Vestiges du système casuel entre le nom et le pronom suffixe en hèbreu
biblique. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 64. Edited by Michel Mazoyer and
Dennis Pardee, Michèle Fruyt. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2011.
Paul, Shalom M. “Virgin, Virginity.” Ecyclopaedia Judaica (2007).
Paul, Shalom M. and Frank Moore Cross. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos.
Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991.
Pedersen, Johannes. Hebræisk Grammatik. Copenhagen 1950.
Bibliography 191
Preminger, Alex and Edward L. Greenstein. The Hebrew Bible in Literary Criticism. New York:
Unger, 1986.
Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1972.
Ravenna, Alfredo, and Tommaso Federici. Commento Alla Genesi (BereSit Rabbâ). 1. ed.
Torino: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 1978.
Reiner, Erica. “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33 (1974):
221 – 36.
Retsö, Jan. “State and Plural Marking in Semitic.” Pages 268 – 82 in Built on Solid Rock:
Studies in Honour of Ebbe Egede Knudsen on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday April
11th 1997, edited by Elie Wardini. Oslo: Novus forlag, 1997.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Mary Flexner Lectures 1936. New York, London:
Oxford University Press, 1936.
Robinson, Theodore H. and L. H. Brockington. Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac
Grammar. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Neue Serie 5, Porta Linguarum Orientalium.
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1961.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Chronikbücher. Handbuch Zum Alten Testament 21. Tübingen: Mohr, 1955.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona. Kommentar Zum Alten Testament 13,2.
Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1971.
Sæbø, Magne. “Was There a ’Lady Wisdom’ in the Proverbs?” Pages 181 – 93 in Among Jews,
Gentiles and Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Professor
Oskar Skarsaune on His 65th Birthday, edited by Redar Hvalvik and John Kaufman.
Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press, 2011.
Sæbø, Magne. Sprüche: Übersetzt und erklärt von Magne Sæbø. Das Alte Testament Deutsch
16,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Salvesen, A. “‫כסא‬.” Pages 44 – 65 in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, edited by T. Muraoka.
Louvain: Peeters, 1998.
Sawyer, John F. A. “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison.”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44 (1989): 89 – 107.
Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament. Reihe 2, 76. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.
Schmitt, John J. “The City as Woman in Isaiah 1 – 39.” Pages 95 – 119 in Writing and Reading
the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition 1. Edited by Broyles and Evans.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Schmitt, John J. “The Gender of Ancient Israel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26
(1983): 115 – 26.
Schmitt, John J. “The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jeremiah.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 365 – 87.
Schreiner, E. Latinsk Grammatikk. Oslo: Cappelen, 1960.
Schulz, Eckehard, Günther Krahl and Wolfgang Reuschel. Standard Arabic: An
Elementary-Intermediate Course = Al-Luçga Al-°Arabīya. Rev. English ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Schweizer, Eduard. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 2.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.
Segert, Stanislav. A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and
Glossary. Berkely, Cal.: Univ. of California Press, 1984.
192 Bibliography
Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Rev. ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Sharp, Carolyn J. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2009.
Shibles, Warren A. Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History. Whitewater, WI: The
Language Press, 1971.
Soden, Wolfram von. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Roma: Pontificium Inst.
Biblicum, 1952.
Soggin, J. Alberto and John Stephen Bowden. The Prophet Amos: A Translation and
Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1987.
Steuernagel, Carl. Hebräische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Literatur, Übungsstücken und
Wörterverzeichnissen. Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1933.
Stevenson, William Barron and John Adney Emerton. Grammar of Palestinian Jewish
Aramaic. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Stinespring, W. F. “Zion, Daughter of.” Page 985 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.
Stinespring, William Franklin. “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional Genitive in
Hebrew Grammar.” Encounter 26 (1965): 133 – 41.
Stolz, F. Art. “‫ ִציּוֹן‬Ṣijjōn Zion.” Col. 543 – 551 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testament, Band II, edited by Ernst Jenni und Claus Westermann. München, Zürich: Chr.
Kaiser, Theologischer Verlag, 1976.
Strawn, Brent A. What is Stronger Than a Lion?: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew
Bible and the Ancient Near East. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 212. Fribourg, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.
Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Berit
Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2000.
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992.
Theodor, J. Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar. Berlin, 1912.
Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of
Isaiah 40 – 55. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 139. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011.
Tropper, Josef. Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.
Turner, Mary Donovan. “Daughter Zion: Giving Birth to Redemption.” Pages 193 – 204 in
Pregnant Passion: Gender, Sex, and Violence in the Bible. Edited by Cheryl A.
Kirk-Duggan. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Watts, J. Wash. A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament. Revised ed. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964.
Way, Kenneth C. “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 129 (2010): 105 – 14.
Weingreen, J. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1959.
Weingreen, J. “The Construct-Genitive Relation in Hebrew Syntax.” Vetus Testamentum 4
(1954): 50 – 59.
Westermann, Claus. Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40 – 66. 2. Aufl. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 19.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
Bibliography 193
Weyde, Karl William. Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the
Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Willey, Patricia Tull. “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s
Community.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 34 (1995): 267 – 303.
Willey, Patricia Tull. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in
Second Isaiah. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997.
Williams, Ronald James. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd. ed. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1976.
Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1 – 27. London, New
York: T & T Clark, 2006.
Wischnowsky, Marc. Tochter Zion: Aufnahme und Überwindung der Stadtklage in den
Prophetenschriften des Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten
und Neuen Testament 89. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and
Amos. Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Vol. 13/2.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.
Zorell, Franz. Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti. Romae: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1984.
Index of Modern Authors
Abboud, Peter F. 85 n282 Fleischer, H. L. 106

Adams, James R. 65 n218 Floyd, Michael H. 7, 40, 50 – 55, 180
Anderson, Francis I. 20 – 21 Follis, Elaine R. 6, 7, 71
Arnold, Bill T. 14 – 15, 30, 80, 105, 163 Freedman, David Noel 20 – 21
Freedman, H. 165
Barr, James 81, 91
Bauer, Hans 87 n 293 Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm 16, 78 – 79
Begrich, Joachim 120 Goldziher, Ignaz 166
Berges, Ulrich 50 Good, Edwin M. 70
Berlin, Adele 36 n109, 44, 49, 51 – 52, 140 Greenspahn, Frederick E. 107 n346
n403 Greenstein, Edward L. 63 n211
Biddle, Mark E. 38 Gunkel, Hermann 167
Bjørndalen, Anders Jørgen 67, 169 n445
Black, Max 66 Häusl, Maria 44, 132
Blenkinsopp, Joseph 29 Harper, William Rainey 21 – 22, 132
Bornemann, Eduard 100 n322 Hawley, Robert 86 n286
Bourguet, Daniel 56 Holladay, William L. 22
Brettler, Marc Zvi 69 Hols, Edith 65 n214
Brock, Sebastian P. 88 n296 Howe, Bonnie 65 n215
Brockelmann, C. 18 Huehnergard, John 83 – 85, 110, 160 n429
Brockington, L. H. 88 n295
Johnson, Mark 69
Carmi, T. 179 Johnstone, William 104
Carroll, Robert 22 Joüon, Paul 18 – 19, 30, 73 – 77
Choi, John 14 – 15, 30, 80, 105, 163
Chomski, Noam 112, 177 Kaiser, Barbara Bakke 4, 8
Kartveit, Magnar 23 n73, 90 n298
Dalman, Gustaf 88 n295, 108 Keel, Othmar 1 – 2
Davidson, A. B. 17, 29, 106, 167 König, E. 106
Day, Peggy 38 n122 Körting, Corrina 1
Dearman, J. Andrew 54 Kroeze, Jan H. 78 – 79, 111 n361, 177
Dille, Sarah J. 65 n215
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 3, 41 – 49, 59, 71, 163 Labahn, Antje 67 – 68
Duhm, Bernhard 29 Lakoff, George 69
Lambdin, Thomas O. 92 – 94
Edenburg, Cynthia 23 n72 Lanahan, William 8, 181
Eissfeldt, Otto 69 Lauber, Stephan 65 n218, 169 – 170
Emerton, John Adney 88 n295 Leander, Pontus 87 n293
Lefebvre, Henri 3
Federici, Tommaso 165 n437 Lund, Øystein 61
Finley, T. J. 160 Lundbom, Jack 22, 23
Fischer, Georg 22 Lyons, John 69 n233, 119 n373
Fischer, Wolfdietrich 85 n281 Løland, Hanne 65 n216
Fitzgerald, Aloysius 3, 34 – 39, 71, 140 n404
Index of Modern Authors 195
Macky, Peter W. 68 – 69 Sawyer, John F. A. 4, 8

Maier, Christl 3, 7, 49, 60, 63, 116 Schaper, Joachim 64
Mandolfo, Carleen R. 2 Schmitt, John J. 22, 36, 55 – 56
Mays, James L. 21 Schreiner, E. 100 n323
McCarus, Ernest Nasseph 85 n282 Segert, Stanislav 86 n284, 87 n291
McKane, William 22 Seow, Choon-Leong 79 – 80, 105
Van der Merwe, Christo H. J. 77 – 78, 106 – Sharp, Carolyn J. 70
108 Shibles, Warren A. 65 n214
Meyer, Marion 35, 59 n199, 59 n200 Von Soden, Wolfram 83 – 84
Meyer, Rudolf 19, 64 – 65 Soggin, J. Alberto 21
Michel, Diethelm 55 n186 Steuernagel, Carl 80 – 81, 106
Muraoka, Takamitsu 18 – 19, 30, 73 – 77 Stevenson, William Barron 88 n295
Stinespring, William F. 9, 39 – 40, 51 – 52,
Naudé, Jackie A. 77 – 78 72, 147
Neusner, Jacob 165 n434 Stolz, F. 134 n399, 137 n400
Van Noppen, J. P. 65 n214 Stordalen, Terje 61
Noth, Martin 121 Strawn, Brent A. 65 n217
Nyberg, H. S. 19 Sweeney, Marvin A. 20
O’Connor, Kathleen M. 5 Theodor, J. 165

O’Connor, M. 18, 105 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 60
Orlinsky, Harry M. 99 n319 Treu, Christine 65 n218
Otto, Eckard 58 n195, 137 n400 Tropper, Josef 178 n453
Turner, Mary Donovan 6, 8, 9
Pardee, Dennis 86 n284, 87 n290, 87 n294
Paul, Shalom M. 20, 24 n74, 27 Waltke, Bruce K. 18, 105
Pedersen, Johannes 17, 164 Way, Kenneth C. 13 n34, 167
Preminger, Alex 63 n211 Weingreen, J. 17 – 18, 31, 79, 104
Weinrich, Harald 65 n218
Von Rad, Gerhard 167 Westermann, Claus 14, 145 n410
Ravenna, Alfredo 165 n437 Weyde, Karl William 170
Retsö, Jan 103 Wischnowsky, Marc 49 – 50
Richards, Ivor 66 Willey, Patricia Tull 5
Robinson, Theodore H. 88 n295 Williams, Ronald James 18, 105, 110
Rosenthal, Franz 88 n295 Williamson, Hugh G. M. 44, 49
Rudolph, Wilhelm 21, 120 – 121 Wolff, Hans Walter 21
Woods, Christopher 83 n274
Sæbø, Magne 62 – 63
Salvesen, Alison 157 Zimmerli, Walther 126 n382
Index of Ancient Sources
Mesopotamian Sources 71:3 174

Hymn of Nanâ 45 72:28 143 n409
Tammuz Lament 45 110:4 94 – 95
137:8 152 – 153
Hebrew Bible / Old Testament
Proverbs
Genesis 9:13 62 – 63
6:2.4 f 124 30:15 127
16:12 166 – 168
34:8.17 124 Canticles
49:22 127 7:2 126
7:5 126
Deuteronomy
10:16 170 – 171 Isaiah
22:19 23 – 24 10:30 151
33:29 171 – 172 10:32 141, 151
15:2 158
Judges 17:10 174
12:9 123 23:10 – 12 158
30:30 168 – 169
Ruth 33:20 143 – 144
2:2.22; 3:1.16 123 37:22 139
40:9 145
1 Samuel 41:14 164 – 166
1:16 125 43:6 125
25:44 150 47:1 153 – 154
47:5 153 – 154
2 Samuel 52:1 172 – 174
12:3 124 – 125 52:2 141 – 142
22:3 176 59:17 173 – 174
22:47 175 61:3 176 – 177
61:10 172 – 174
2 Kings 62:11 12 – 13
19:21 139
Jeremiah
Nehemiah 4:4 170 – 171
4:3 68 14:17 159
18:13 22
Psalms 31:4.21 22
18:47 175 46:11 155
19:2 63 46:19 155
31:3 174 46:24 155
45:11 125 48:18 157 – 158
45:12 – 14 156 – 157 49:1 – 6 53
Index of Ancient Sources 197
50:24 152 2:12 159 – 160

50:42 152 9:9 12 – 13, 137 – 138
51:33 152
Malachi
Lamentations 2:11 125
1:15 150 4:20 169 – 170
2:2 149
2:5 149 New Testament
2:10 142
2:13 139 – 140 Matthew
4:21 – 22 156 9:22 125
21:5 12 – 13
Ezekiel
5:16 177 Luke
27:6 125 – 126 13:16 124
13:32 68
Amos
5:1 – 2 19 – 22 John
12:15 12 – 13
Micah
4:8 138 – 139 Dead Sea Scrolls
4:11 – 14 160 – 161 11QPsa XII 1 – 4 1
Zephaniah Rabbinic Texts

3:10 161 Bereshith Rabbah 100,3 165
3:14 138
Zechariah
2:11 152 – 153
Subject Index
Accusative 74 – 76, 80, 82 – 87 Carchemish 156

Akkadian 82 – 84 Cases 74 – 77, 89
Allegory 169 Chaldea 151 – 154
Anat 36 City lament 41, 45, 50
Appositional genitive 18, 29, 37, 49, 53 City of David 134
Arabic 84 – 85 Commonplaces 67, 69
Aramaic 88 – 89 Componential analysis 69, 112, 119, 128
Arrows of hunger 177 Conceived space 3
Athirat 35 Construct chain 111 – 112
Attributive nomen rectum 163 – 164 Construct form
– morphology 92 – 94
Babylon 151 – 154 – precedes a preposition 98 – 99
Back-transformation 177 – precedes the relative pronoun 98
Bāḥûr 130 – precedes a finite verb 99
Bat ‘ædôm 155 – 156 Construct phrase 112
Bat ‘ammï 159 Construct state, syntax of 96 – 100
Bat bābæl 151 – 154
Bat dîbôn 156 – 158 Daughter-expressions 114 – 115
Bat gallîm 150 – 151 Daughter Zion 4, 6, 29, 181
Bat gedûd 161 Daughter-in-law 123
Bat kaśdîm 151 – 154 Daughter of Abraham 124
Bat miṣrāyim 154 – 155 Daughter of [a city] 126
Bat pûṣay 161 Daughter of XX years 126
Bat, senses of 117 – 128 Daughter of Zion
Bat ṣiyyôn 137 – 143, 143 – 147 – collective understanding 12 – 14
Bat yerûšālayim 137 – 143, 148 – individual understanding 14 – 16
Bat yehûdāh 148 – 150 Dibon 156 – 158
Benê ṣiyyôn 136 Diptotic system 85 – 86
Benot ṣiyyôn 136 Dirge 20
Bat ṣor 156 – 158 Donkey 13
Bat taršïš 158
Bebābat ‘ênô 159 – 160 Edom 155 – 156
Betûlâh, senses of 129 – 132 Egypt 154 – 155
Betûlat bat ‘ammî 159 Emphatic state 88
Betûlat bat ṣiyyôn 139 – 140 Esarhaddon 167 – 168
Betûlat bat ṣîdôn 158 Explicative genitive 15, 17
Betûlat bat yehûdāh 149 – 150
Betûlat bat bābæl 151 – 154 Female character 4
Betûlat bat miṣrāyim 154 – 155 Female figure 5
Bound form 110 Female persona 4
Bride 130 – 132, 157 Figure of speech 27
Bridegroom 130 – 132 Foreskin of the heart 170 – 171
Formal genitive 16
Fox 68
Subject Index 199
Gallim 150 – 151 Metonym, metonymy 48, 58, 65, 123, 127
Garments of salvation 173 Monotheism 2
Garments of vengeance 173 Morpheme 73
Gender 55, 57 Morphological categories 89
Generative grammar 112 Morphosyntactic properties 95
Genetivus definitivus 106 Moses ibn Ezra 63
Genitive 14 – 18, 73 – 76, 79 – 80, 82 – 87,
105 – 107 Nanâ 41, 45
Genitive of location 41, 43, 45 Nismâk 78, 108
God as king 69 Nomina recta, two 96 – 97
God of my rock 176 Nomen regens as metaphor 164 – 178, 183
Goddess 3, 34 – 35 Nomen regens with suffix 104
Granddaughter 120 – 121 Nomina regentia, two 97
Nominative 74 – 76, 80, 82 – 87
Hailstones 168
Helmet of salvation 173 Oil of gladness 176 – 177
Herod Antipas 68
Ḥireq compaginis 94 Parallelism 138
Patron god 34 – 35
Iḍāfa 85, 111 Paradigmatic analysis 137 – 143
Illegitimate categorial transfer 91 – 92 Perceived space 3
Illegitimate identity transfer 91 Personal pronouns
Illegitimate systemic transfer 91 – Akkadian 102
Illegitimate totality transfer 91 – German 101
Ilum / iltum 83 – Greek 100 – 101
Interaction 67 – 68 – Hebrew 101
Irony 70, 154, 158, 159 – Latin 100 – 101
Ishmael 166 – 168 Persona 180 – 181
Ishtar 45 – 46 Personalization 64
Personification 3 – 4, 8, 24 – 28, 41 – 43,
Jerusalem 137 – 143, 148 57 – 65, 71
Josephus 120 Postconstructus 77 – 78, 106 – 107
Judah 148 – 150 Pupil of the eye 160
Lady Folly/Foolishness 61 – 63 Qinah 179

Lexicography 183
Literary persona 4, 6 Robe of righteousness 173
Literary figure 47 Rock of refuge 174
Lived space 3 Rock of salvation 175
Loan shift 48 Rock of strength 175
Maiden Israel 19, 32 Sāriqun / sāriqatun 85

Maiden Zion 39 Sense components 128, 131
Malku / malkatu 86 Shield of help 171
Mantle of praise 176 Sidon 158
Mārtum / mārat 41 Ṣiyyôn, senses of 133 – 137
Metaphor 61, 63, 65 – 70, 123, 128 Somek 78, 108
200 Subject Index
Status rectus 83 Ugaritic 85 – 87

Structural analysis 146 – 147
Sun of righteousness 169 Vehicle 66
Sword of triumph 171 – 172 Verbindungsform 108
Synchronic analysis 94 Virgin of Israel 19 – 23, 27 – 29, 31
Syntagmatic analysis 143 – 147 Virgin-daughter-expressions 114 – 115
Syriac 88 – 89
Weeping goddess 41, 45
Tammuz 41, 45 Wild ass 166 – 168
Tarshish 158 Wolf 67
Tenor 65 Worm of Jacob 164 – 166
Tertium comparationis 69
Thomas Aquinas 1 Yehudah Halevi 179
Tinnit 35
Tokens of virginity 129 – 130 Zion personified 135 – 136
Tôla’at ya’aqob 164 – 166
Tychē poleōs 35
Tyre 156 – 158

Kartveit, REJOICE - DEAR - ZION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kartveit, REJOICE - DEAR - ZION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magnar Kartveit

Hebrew Construct Phrases with “Daughter”

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

©  Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Berlin, December 2012.

. Analysis of ‫ַּבת־ ְיהוָּדה‬ 148

Index of Modern Authors 194

Index of Ancient Sources 196

Subject Index 198

Laud, O Zion, thy salvation,

theological legacy to the world: monotheism.⁴ In this major study, he reminds us

 F. W Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the

1.1 Types of Questions Raised

nection to the expression “virgin of Israel,” and to expressions combining the

1.2 The Problem

εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών· ‫ִאְמרוּ ְלַבת־ִציּוֹן‬

Χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων· κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ·

The marginal notes in NA mention two texts:

As a reader notes that “of” is often unneccessary in English translations of this

Merely formal genitives (genit.[ivus] explicativus or epexegeticus, genit. appositionis) are

From Gesenius on, a grammatical tradition has evolved in the understanding of

 GKC § 128 k, 416.

general understanding of construct state expressions.⁴¹ Grammarians today often

Israel is viewed as a bride or fiancée.”⁵⁷ J. Alberto Soggin: “The image refers to

a different case, to be translated a virgin of Israel. ⁸⁰ The importance of the con-

 GKC § 130 a, 421.

pression nor a personification; it means “river.” This quotation from Encyclope-

 A. B. Davidson, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar: With Progressive Exercises in Reading,

chain completes the expression. If ownership, it names the owner, if a name, it

 J. Weingreen, “The Construct-Genitive Relation in Hebrew Syntax,” VT 4 (1954), 50 – 51.

 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background.”

 Ibid., 409.

 Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary, 45.

 Ibid., 182.

 Ibid., 180.

 Aloysius Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background”, 416.

In 1993 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp published his dissertation on the genre of city-

 Ibid., 50.

 W. G. Lambert, “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament,” Journal of the American Oriental

 Dobbs-Allsopp, “’Daughter Zion’”, 130 – 131.

In the article from 2009 Dobbs-Allsopp starts with a definition of personifi-

 Ibid., 125.

stitute a purely literary motif…the literary metaphor of the personified city.”¹⁵⁸

 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of Bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the

 Christl Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 62.

adoption and adaptation of Mesopotamian city laments by the HB prophets.¹⁶⁷

 Ibid., 498, n. 34.

The second argument of Floyd is that ‫ ַּבת‬has “the various metaphorical

According to Floyd, ‫ ַּבת־ִציּוֹן‬may also mean the “subsequent generation of Jer-

 Floyd, “Welcome Back,” 502.

3.1 Personification and More

Some of the commentaries mentioned in chapter 2 understand the expression

For “collective poetical personifications of the people” the German original

 Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, G. Bergsträsser, E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik (Hildes-

are bare’ (Wordsworth, ’Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of

 Christl Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 60 – 61.

a female entity. As such, she is often described in metaphoric language that is

 Ibid., 206.

the population.²¹³ This understanding of the construct phrase supposes it to be

with a metaphorical sense, and it is therefore not necessary to comment on the

in particular, resists full synonymity with a replacement, but a descriptive equiv-

 Black, Models and Metaphors, 41.