..... says, "When in a negative clause has the meaning omnis, the two words present the notion of nullus... But when signifies totus, this notion alone is denied." From Gesenius's statement one would gather the impression that, whenever in a negative clause 55 has the article or is construed with a definite noun, the negation is partial. Ewald's statement, though similar, is more guarded, for he says that has sometimes the meaning of omnis even before a definite noun. How far either of these statements needs to be modified will appear after the passages in which is used with negatives have been collated and examined. Noldius, who is perhaps the only one who has heretofore undertaken to collect the passages in which this construction occurs, adduces only ninety-three. He gives no systematic analysis of them, however, merely dividing them into two classes, according as the negative precedes or follows 35, and specifying three passages as instances of partial negation. But of these, two (Deut. xviii. 1 and 1 Sam. xiv. 24) are as clear instances of universal negation as any others. It is hoped that the following list is nearly, if not quite, complete. In regard to the classification adopted, it may be said that it was assumed that, if there is any law according to which a negation can be determined to be partial or universal, it would be discovered by observing what position occupies in the sentence, and whether it is made definite by the article or by being joined with a definite noun. A different classification might perhaps have been better; but the analysis is so thorough that no different result could have been attained by any change in the method. The translations of the Hebrew passages referred to are in general taken from the Authorized Version, but are often modified for accuracy's sake, or in order better to illustrate the special point under consideration. The figures in parenthesis are from the A. V. .לא WITH A. Propositions in which occurs in the subject. NJE-DE) Here the 1. In construct state with a definite noun or pronoun. a. Preceding the verb. E.g. Num. xiv. 23, 77 No "Neither shall any of them that provoked me see it." negation is clearly universal. So also in Lev. ii. 11; Num. xxx. 6 (5); xxx. 13 (12); Deut. xvii. 13; Jer. ii. 24; Ezek. xviii. 22, 24; xxiii. 48; xxxiii. 13, 16; Ps. xxv. 3; Prov. ii. 19; iii. 15; Dan. iv. 15 (18); 2 Chron. xxxv. 18. Here belongs, perhaps, also Hos. xii. 9 (8), a passage in which with certainly denotes a universal negation, though some, with A. V., take as adverbial. There remains only 1 Chron. iv. 27, 2 baby 66 Neither did all their family multiply like to the * עַד־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה children of Judah." The statement has reference to the tribe of Simeon. The preceding part of the verse reads: "And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his brethren [i.e. the rest of the Simeonites] had not many children." The meaning evidently is: The tribe of Simeon, as a whole, multiplied slowly, as compared with Judah. The language can hardly be pressed to mean that none of the Simeonites, besides Shimei, had large families. Yet, on the other hand, the negation cannot be called a partial one in the proper sense; i.e. we cannot understand the sentence to mean: Not all, though very many, of their family multiplied like the children. of Judah. b. Following the verb. E.g. 1 Sam. xiv. 24, on cyn-be dry Noby "And none of the people tasted food." The negation is strictly universal. So in Deut. v. 14; 1 Sam. v. 5; 2 Sam. xix. 29 (28); Jer. xxxvi. 24; xliii. 4; Ps. xiv. 4; xxxiv. 23 (22); Prov. vi. 29; Lam. iv. 12. There is no doubt in any of these cases as to the universality of the negation; but, perhaps, Ps. xiv. 4 might be adduced under 2 (6) below, inasmuch as has no article. Yet I take the true meaning to be, "all of the workers of iniquity," the omission of the article being common in poetry. The same remark applies to Lam. iv. 12.— Gen. ix. 11 also belongs here, for, though without the article, yet being a collective noun, is virtually definite, like the English phrase "all flesh." But does niy niya-ba nnar- mean, "No flesh shall be again cut off”? Hardly; but still less admissible is it to translate, "Not all flesh shall be cut off." Reference is made to the foregoing universal deluge, and it is declared that there shall not be another. Whether there will be a partial deluge is left undetermined. The case is similar to 1 Chron. iv. 27 above mentioned, under (a), and those to be mentioned under B. I. 2. b. and c. 2. In construct state with an indefinite noun. a. Preceding the verb. E.g. Ex. xii. 48, "And no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." gation. So in Ex. xii. 16, 43; Lev. vi. 23; xvi. bog-bot Universal ne 17; xvii. 12; xxii. 10, 13, 21; xxvii. 28, 29; 2 Sam. xviii. 13; 1 Kings vi. 7; Isa. xxxi. 8; xliv. 9 ; Prov. viii. 11; vi. 5 (4), 16 (15), 24 (23); viii. 4. liv. 17; lix. 8; Ezek. xxviii. 3; xx. 1; Dan. ii. 10, 35; iv. 6 (9); b. Following the verb. E.g. Ex. x. 15, paba airby “And there remained not any green thing." Universal negation. So in Deut. xxix. 22 (23); Josh. xi. 11; 2 Kings xii. 14 (13); Jer. xxxii. 17; li. 43; Ezek. xii. 24; xxxi. 14 (bis) ; xliv. 21; Ps. lxxvi. 6 (5) ; cxv. 17; cxliii. 2; Prov. xii. 21; Dan. xii. 10; 2 Chron. xxxii. 15. 3. Qualified by a relative clause. a. Preceding the verb. E.g. 2 Kings x. 19, TEEN "Whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live." Universal negation. So also Lev. xxi. 18, 21. In these two passages, however, we have the combination ; but the sense is the same. b. Following the verb. E.g. Gen. xi. 6, "Nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do." Universal negation. So Lev. xiv. 36. II. Joined with a preposition, and qualifying the subject of the proposition. There are only two examples: .2 Chron. xxiii. 19, And no one that is unclean in anything shall וְלֹא־יָבוֹא טָמֵא לְכָל־דָּבָר enter in." Universal negation. So Ex. ix. 4. B. Propositions in which occurs in the predicate. I. As the direct object of the verb. 1. Not construed with a noun or relative clause. a. Without the article, and following the verb. The only example is Deut. viii. 9, "Thou shalt not lack anything in it." Universal negation. b. With the article, and following the verb. Only in Ps. xlix. 66 For in his death he shall take none * כִּי לֹא בְמוֹתוֹ יִקַּח הַכֹּל (17) 18 of it." Universal negation. The force of the article is not given in the A. V. rendering, "He shall carry nothing away." Reference is made to the wealth spoken of in the preceding verse, and the statement is that it is true of the whole of it that its possessor at death shall not take it with him. 2. In construct state with a definite noun or pronoun. a. Preceding the verb. E.g. Job xxxiii. 13, "He giveth not account of any of his matters." Universal negation. So Ex. xv. 26; Deut. vii. 15; Josh. v. 5; xi. 13; Ezek. xviii. 11; Job xxxiv. 27. More doubtful is 1 Kings xi. 13, abzan-ba-ng pa “Howbeit, I will not rend away all the kingdom." The context reads: "The Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake; from the hand of thy son I will rend it. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; one tribe I will give to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen." This seems to be a clear case of partial negation: Not all the kingdom, yet all but one tribe. This must be maintained, although the closely parallel passage in xi. 34 (under b) cannot be interpreted in the same way.Num. xxiii. 13, the passage (and perhaps the only genuine one) referred to by grammarians as illustrating the use of and in a partial negation, is, without doubt, so to be regarded. Balak says to Balaam, "Come, I pray thee, with me unto another place, from whence thou mayest see them: thou shalt see but the utmost part of them, but the whole of him thou shalt not see." b. Following the verb. The cases under this head are noticeably different from most others. E.g. Deut. xxxii. 27, -be by ning "Lest they say, Our hand is high, and Jehovah hath not done all this." The case is similar to those in 1 Chron. iv. 27 and Gen. ix. 11, already spoken of. We cannot render, "Jehovah hath done none of this"; nor, on the other hand, is it meant to be affirmed that Jehovah hath done some, but not all, of this. It is simply the negation of an implied universal affirmation. One man is conceived to have affirmed, "Jehovah hath done all this." The other replies, "Jehovah hath not done all this "; whether he has done some or none, is left undetermined. The right impression is given by the rendering of the A. V. But it would be still more exact, as well as in accordance with the order of the Hebrew words, to read, "Not Jehovah hath done all this."-Very similar is Judg. xiii. 23, "Neither would he have showed us all these things." We might call this a universal negation, and render, "He would have showed us none of these things." But the process of thought is: He has showed us all these things; but if he had been pleased to kill us, he would not have showed them; and though one might infer that none would have been showed, yet this is not the prominent feature of the thought. Num. xv. 22 and Lev. xxvi. 14 present a similar form of expression. - Probably Ps. lxxviii. 38, also, is to be interpreted in the same way: in “And he did not stir up all his wrath." The whole verse reads: "But he is compassionate; he forgiveth iniquity, and de stroyeth not; and many a time he turneth his anger away, and stirreth not up all his wrath." This might be taken as a partial negation: He stirreth up not all his wrath, but some of it. But the context strongly favors a different view. God's great compassion in forgiving sin is emphasized both before and afterwards. It would decidedly weaken the force of this passage to understand the writer to say merely that God's anger is stirred, indeed, but not the whole of it. Rather he means: God is merciful; he turns his anger away, and refrains from stirring up his wrath all that wrath which is so terrible when roused.— Another example is Judg. iii. 1, "As many as had not known all the wars of Canaan." This is, perhaps, a universal negation, "such as had known none of the wars of Canaan." Certainly it is not, properly speaking, a partial negation. It may, however, be explained like the foregoing.So also Lam. ii. 2, “The Lord hath swallowed - he hath not pitied -all the habitations of Jacob." The negative clause, bb, is here rather parenthetical or adverbial: "He hath swallowed without pity." The negation is, however, total, rather than partial.-1 Kings xi. 34, already alluded to, belongs here. What in vs. 11-13 is said to Solomon is in vs. 31-36 said to Jeroboam about Solomon. In vs. 31 it is said, "I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee." Then, after mention of the exception of one tribe, and the reason for the threat, it is added = whole kingdom out of his hand"; and in the following verses, "but I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes; and unto his son will I give one tribe." The first impression, perhaps, would be that the negation is partial "not the whole, but only ten tribes." But the context, and the historic fact that none of the kingdom was taken from Solomon, lead us to a different conclusion. These allow, if they do not require, the rendering: "I will take none of the kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake." This would be verbally inconsistent with the statement in vs. 31, "I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon"; but so would a partial negation also, only in a less degree. The declaration in vs. 34 is a correction, or limitation, of the prior one, and must be interpreted according to the nature of the case. When we read, in vs. 34, "I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand," and in vs. 35, "But I will take the king |