STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
A MISCELLANY OF LEXICAL AND TEXTUAL
NOTES ON THE BIBLE
Chiefly in Connection with the Fifteenth Edition of thB
lexicon by gesenius-buhe 1
By Felix PEREES, Konigsberg
Exactly a hundred years after the publication of the first
edition which marks the beginning of modern Hebrew lexicog-
raphy we are presented with a new— it is the fourth prepared
by Buhl — edition of Gesenius' Lexicon. When it is remembered
that a century ago Semitic philology was in its initial stages,
that the study of the Old Testament was carried on mainly on
traditional lines, and that practically nothing was known of
Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, and South Arabic antiquity, it will
be possible to gauge the extent of the labor which has since then
been done in the entire province under consideration and of
which our Lexicon represents as it were the epitome. The degree
of perfection, however, is not merely ascertainable in comparison
with the first edition ; even when compared with the last edition
which appeared five years ago, a substantial progress is to be
recorded which, on its external side, reveals itself in an increase
of some fifty pages. Wholly new is a comparison of the linguistic
material from the South Arabic inscriptions which is the work
of O. Weber.
A random perusal of the new edition has resulted in the
following additions and corrections: Reverse of the title-page, 1.
i : r. iudicis; 1. 3 : r. ergastula.—P. 54, .y. v. TDK , there is wanting
Zech. 9, 12 mpnn ''TDK.— P. 127b, s. v. 2>3J , add: also in
New-Hebrew as a verb and in derivatives. — P. 158&, j. v. im, r.
1 Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1910.
97
98 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
"die gemeine Hirse." — P. 166a, 1. n from below, (Syriac) nom r.
NDITt — P. 208b, 1. lo from below, ban r. ban.— P. 2346, 1. 28 from
below, pbn r. pbn ; ibid., 1. 3 from below, r. W'pbn .—P. 2356,
1. 13 from below, hertietu r, himetu.-— P. 239a, 1. 19, Amos 4,
3 t. 4, 5.— P. 2430, 1. 5 from below, after "Griinbaum" add: Ges.
Aufs., 454. — P. 2S7&, 1. 15 from below, 1. Chwolson.—P. 29ga, 1.
7 (in front of nab ), for "u." r. "v."— P. 308a, 1. 17, '» r.
^©13 .—P. 3240, 1. 20, Prov. 17, 26 r. n, 24.*— P. 366a, 1. 20,
b^anbl r. b""iailb^.— P. 376b, s. v. mbll Niph., the strange
form nibj (Isa. 56, 3) for nib? is wanting.— P. 382a, 1. 10,
after the words "bei Griinbaum" add: — Ges. Aufs., 94- — P- 4 2 4 & >
s. v. fybto, 1. 8 from below, insert in front of "Rob, Sm." : Geiger,
Vfschrift, 301.— P. 426b, the word J1DD Sir. 31, 8 is wholly
wanting. — P. 455a, 1. 5, remove the words "Perks An. 32 WXJD"
from their present position to 1. 13 (after Ps. 106, 43). — P. 5376,
s. v. m3Q, add: comp. Perles, in Beiheft II sur OLZ., 1908, col.
140 (on Test. Judah 25, 2). — P. 543ft, 1. 2 from below, r. mL». —
P- S570, s. v. JJy, add: In New-Hebrew pay denotes a woman's
being without a husband through force of circumstances. — P. 591a,
1. 17 from below, after the words "bei Griinbaum" add: = Ges.
Schr., 282 ff. — P. 600a, 1. 11 from below, strike out: Perles JQR.
18, 363.— P. 653b, 1. 15 from below, fna r. }»nB.— P. 6580, 1. 24,
(Syriac) NIB r. n"lB. — P. 719a, J. v. 3"lp ]£al, the strange form 131pm
Ezek. 37, 7 for which we should expect i"03"lpni is missing.—
P. 719&, 1. 8 from below, r. Wa"}PK--- ]E \ 727&, 1- 21, nB>j? r. nB>j5.—
P. 7526, 1. 8 from below, for "sdrtlich" r. "versdrtelt."—P. 7586,
I. 5 from below, for a? r. D'3B . — P. 7740, 1. 11, for Dozy t. Lane.
— P. 775a, 1. 18 from above, insert in front of "Nestle": Geiger,
Urschrift, 367.— P. 809&, 1. 10 from below, r. Ua'^N .—P. 874a,
1. 8 from below, insert in front of "Perles": Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr.,
IX, 204. — P. 876a, 1. 14, for "amg.ru : Signal" r. "am&ru sehen,
also <=■ Signal."
2 The mistake is due to an aberration of the eye to the next line where
Prov. 17, 26 is actually adduced.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE— PERtES 99
In the list of Hebrew words proposed on the basis of con-
jectural emendations (p. 885) add the following entries Tjfe'n
speechlessness, s. tIB*n, 263b. — 70 web s. Berichtigungen und
Nachtrage, XlVa, with reference to p. 135b, 1J3.— npt{> s. ncfc*
781a below.
In the German Index note the following corrections: 9790,
s. v. "Schlauch," fortJ'Dftll r.non.— 983, s. v. "stark," add:D1¥y.
As in the case of the two previous editions," we present in the
following pages a series of lexical and textual observations which
may be taken as an original contribution to the interpretation of
the Scriptures.
Zech. 6, 3 D'SDK is explained by a number of scholars in
the sense of "red," since in verse 7 it stands directly for CQIN.
It is quite possible that the word stood originally at the outset in
verse 2 where it was subsequently replaced by the gloss DWN,
whereas the original D^DK found its way by error at the end
of verse 3. The meaning "red" fits in with rabbinic KVD1K raw
meat (Levy, NHWB., 41) 4 the red color of which is expressly
alluded to in a number of places, e. g. Pesahim 74b KVD1K 'KM
DBK
The verses Deut. 15, 4-6 are rightly stricken out by Marti (in
the new edition of Kautzsch's Bible) as a later gloss, since they
contradict verses 6 and 11. How are we, however, to explain the
wholly superfluous DBS at the head of verse 4, which is wanting
in the Septuagint and Peshitta? It is not too rash to conjecture
that in the Greek period a glossator wrote on the margin DBK,
i. e. o^ff, in explanation of fT t3D65TI (end of verse 3), con-
sidering that DDC is rendered by <ty«?/« in the Septuagint. 5 The
3 See JQR., XI, 688-690; XVIII, 388-390.
4 The derivation from uft6<; is improbable for the reason that the word
occurs exclusively in the Babylonian Talmud.
5 As is well known, the Midrash repeatedly makes use of the similarity
in sound between DDK and <x0£f for haggadic purposes; see the passages
in Krauss, Lehmndrter, II, 1100.
IOO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
word being omitted in the two oldest versions, the possibility of a
Greek gloss in the present passage will not be contested. 6 The
gloss was then copied into the text immediately after "|T tJDBTl
and taken for a Hebrew word;- it was then natural, when verses
4-6 were received into the text, that the word was drawn to the
following.
A similar instance of an originally non-Hebrew gloss being
taken for Hebrew on its admission into the text is Ezek. 20, 37
Wlin n"lDD3 where ma = Babyl. biritu "bond" was
originally intended as an explanation of fl'ipfo ; see my observation
JQR., XVIII, 384, and comp. below on Gen. 22, 13.
Dnsu
Isa. 24, 15 we expect in the place of the difficult D^Ka
rather an apostrophe naming those who are bidden praise the
Lord. I therefore conjecture that we should point D ,J !"W3
"inhabitants of Berytus (Beirut).'" It fits in well with the parallel
DTI "N that just this port should be mentioned. It is true, the
city does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament, but mention
is frequently made of it as Beruna and Berutu in the Amarna
tablets. 8 The name WIX3 is simply the plural of "IK3 well, as
is expressly attested by Stephen of Byzantium. 9 This would also
explain the form , ")Na in the place of 'flllKa 10 as we might
expect. For the subsequent relations of Berytus and the Jews
If my conjecture be right, then the omission of the gloss in the
Septuagint and Peshitta would furnish proof for the latter also that the
Hebrew text underlying these versions was current for some time side by
side with the sources of the Masoretic recension. An analogous case is
afforded by the Papyrus Nash proving that, so far as Deuteronomy is con-
cerned, there was circulating in the second post-Christian century a Hebrew
text deviating from the Masoretic.
' Comp. Isa. 42, 10 where in a similar context Kedar and Sela are
called upon to praise the Lord.
8 Comp. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, I, 309, n., and 436.
9 S. v. B>ipvt6$: inAifiri Sid to elrvSpov ■ fir/p yap rb fpeap wap' avrolg.
10 As a gentilic of the Benjamite city M"W3 frequently.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES IOI
consult the article by Krauss, JB., II, 647-8, and the literature there
adduced.
rifa
T T
The word nn3 which occurs only Isa. 5, 6 should probably be
T T
stricken from the lexicon; it is apparently a mere remnant of the
reading !]nn , 3E>{0 for inrPE>&0. It is true that in present
Hebrew text we meet only with the JZ-ol TCtiO in the sense
of "lying fallow" ;" but both the rendering of the Septuagint
{avriam rbv ajiiazkwva /j.ov ) and the following TIJT ttb) ~)W tib
speak in favor of the supposition that 1i"UV3B'K1 was the
original reading. 12 Instances where the two stems JVC and rue*
are confounded may be adduced from other places in the
Scriptures, e. g. Job 10, 20 where we must read with Lagarde
J-DtJ" in the place of )Wl, and Job 38, n where in the place of
T^J J1W3 W we ought certainly to read 'J J18J mE» (comp.
my Amlekten, 87). Perhaps for JVtPK Jer. 51, 38 we
should likewise read rP3tS>N . In the present passage, the word
nn3 may have originated in the following manner: when the
faulty reading lrUVCXI had found its way into the text, a copyist
inna
wrote above it by way of correction inm, hence: lillVB'NI.
A subsequent scribe mistook the superscribed letters for an
omission; in this fashion our masoretic reading arose.
May not the Greek iclf/poc for which it is difficult to find
a satisfactory Greek etymology be a loan-word going back to
~n\l ? For the transposition of / and r we have abundant ex-
amples in the case of foreign words transplanted from one lan-
guage into another. 13 As for Greek k for Semitic 1 , comp.
11 nnatito Lam. 1, 7 similarly refers to the ground's lying fallow; comp.
Midrash Echah ad locum where it is correctly paraphrased hy tKHSV.
12 Comp. Lev. 25, 4 where we meet with the same expression t& "]D131
"1DM") with reference to the year of rest.
13 In addition to the examples given by my father (Bysant. Zeitschr.,
II, 583) and by myself (ibid., VIII, 544) we might name Syriac iODSp
"inkwell" from Ka?uipapiov; Spanish Argel (= Algier) from al-jazireh.
102 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
napiloc. for *}V1. According to Lewy," P"I1J is the prototype
of Greek Kopa/.'uav ; but in view of the special meaning of the
latter for which no parallels are to be found anywhere in the
Semitic languages, the proposed derivation must be rejected as
highly improbable.
nna
Prov. 17, 22 TfnX 3D" n»B> 3^> has thus far not been
satisfactorily explained. The parallel D"U in the second hemi-
stich suggests that n nj likewise denotes a part of the body.
Certain scholars have therefore, on the basis of Peshifta (XKtJ'lJD
and Targum ( KS1J ), proposed in its place niJ or mi . No
change, however, is required: n<M corresponds exactly to Arabic
4?_j " and means "countenance"; accordingly, Prov. 15, 13 3?
D'JB 3D" nDB* represents a variant of the present verse."
TvbFI
T ~
Ps. 12, 4 m^lJ ri"l31D Jie6 does not fit in well with
the parallel three hemistichs that precede in which hypocrisy and
not grandiloquence is combated. I therefore conjecture that JTDtJ
represents a miswritten ni^T (comp. Syriac) which, though not oc-
curring elsewhere in Hebrew, might constitute an Aramaism
which would comport with our passage. The transposition of
rilStJ into nbvi , easily accounted for on graphic grounds
(note the similarity in the Old Hebrew script), was due not
merely to the circumstance of its being a rare word, but was in
addition suggested by the next following verse (4).
It is quite possible that a form from the stem PJT stood in
another passage in the Book of Psalms: 15, 3 1JB'i> b]i b)~) tlb
offers both lexical and grammatical difficulties. Perhaps the text
14 Semit, Lehnworter in Griechischen, 18-19.
15 From the stem iTS' *; comp. rnj? , DJfli and tlle I!ke -
" Comp. also Eccl. 7, 3 2 1 ? 2B>< D>JB J?13.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES IO3
read originally : ^-11 JO " "there is no falsehood upon his tongue." 18
Thus also the preposition pj? which it is difficult to construe with a
verb would find its explanation. It is not impossible that the correct
reading was still extant in the Hebrew copy used by the Greek
translator, though he took it for a verb (ovk Uolaaev h yhoxray
ahrov). Likewise Sir. 5, 14 ( (in) bitn b$ IwSai ," which
it is safe to say imitates our verse, we should read pjtn : "lie not
with thy tongue." The concluding word (JD ) which is wanting
in both versions may with certainty be pronounced a later addition.
1DH
A verb hitherto unrecognized appears to be extant in TDTS3
pK Ps. 46, 3. Aside from the fact that the Hiphil TCfl
(except in the obscure passage Mic. 2, 4) is never used intrans-
itively, the meaning of the stem does not fit the context. Accord-
ing to my judgment, the vocalization alone is erroneous: read
"ibna "when the earth is dissolved" 20 from the stem "l»n = Arabic
hmr which means both "pour out" and "be poured out." nilBno
Ps. 140, 11 seems likewise to go back to the same stem.
'"IDT as the name of a people
Jer. 25, 25 is still awaiting an explanation; it is wanting in
the Septuagint and the Old Latin. Duhm conjectures that it rep-
resents a cipher, say for i^Dll , which has the same numerical
value! Such recourse to gematria in a modern commentary par-
17 xS (in the place of the expected Ji» ) before a noun as Job 18, 17
pin >5B by ib nv tf»-, 21, 9 nn>^< mb» aa» vh.
18 For TIJH in this sense we have instances in New-Hebrew (Cant.
rabba, ed. Romm, 15a, on 2, 4) V3N3 apj>> bSTW pUin jniX and in the
place just quoted naHX 'Sj? l^Ulll . In the Targum of Proverbs which is
dependent on the Syriac Version the verb bit and its derivatives occur
frequently; in our texts, however, bit is disfigured into bl") (see Levy, Targ.
Wbch., I, 162).
19 4, 28 we find likewise bxtn bn "piB>S btt\ . The whole sentence,
however, is missing in both versions; it is probably a misplaced doublet to
5, 14-
Comp. the parallel in v. 7 pX J1DJ1 .
104 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
takes of the nature of a jest. It is quite probable, however, that
we are dealing here with a cipher. In the light of the word "\W
in the following verse which is universally acknowledged as a
symbol for PD2 (according to the permutation K>"3ni<) 21 it is not
far-fetched to see in 'HDT a cryptograph for DTJ? which im-
mediately follows. Now, it is true, DTJ?, according to the C'DDN,
would result in i20f. We need not, however, be surprised that
this unknown word which has certainly an un-Hebrew sound was
at an early period replaced by the otherwise known , "IOT which
as the name of a king was also graphically quite similar. Now
we may understand why the four words "HOT WO ?3 DX1
are wanting in the Septuagint, being nothing else than a doublet
of dW WO ^3 HK1 .
Ps. 74, 6 TYW'ai yW2 was apparently chosen intentionally
with a view to the Greek fW.oi» and xa,%vi\i which designate the two
parts of an axe. This allusive play on Greek terms is not surpris-
ing in a Maccabean psalm.
10? = drive on
Jer. io, 2 TID^n ba CIM TT1 bx is difficult grammat-
ically; hence the rendering "go" in a number of the versions which
probably represents a mere guess from the context. I propose
HOpPI in the signification "be driven on, be impelled." This
meaning may readily be inferred from the noun "lO^D "an ox-
goad"; comp. also Jer. 31, 18 10^ xb bi]J (similarly Hos. 10,
11). According to Gesenius-Buhl, s. v., the primary meaning of
the stem is "goad on."
In Is. 40, 16 DSE>0 miO imoh the verb is certainly to
be rendered "guide" (Septuagint: awefiiftacev abrov). The same
semantic development from "guide" to "teach" may be witnessed
also in mii"I.
21 Similarly 51, 41 and tap iS for DHB>3 51, 1.
IvEXICAI, NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES IO5
nno
Prov. 31, 3 pbo ninD^ T3T" I^H D'Eob jnn ^>K I sug-
gest that in the obscure mno there may be present perhaps
a derivative from fioix&u ( fiuixuq adulterer). The presence of a
Greek word in this passage should be nothing strange ; it may
be taken rather as characteristic of the decadence of Jewish
family life in Hellenistic times that the writer intentionally
chose a Greek word. Moreover, T!D for some form of the verb
fioixau occurs in the Midrash (Cant, rabba on 3, 4) -.DTIp 'JOB ^"Ifi
^0 '03 - S2
n-GD
Prov. 31, 10 iTDO DTJSD pi mi is doubly difficult: in
the first place we find nowhere else pim in the sense demanded
by the context here, and secondly the commercial figure of ac-
quiring a wife is least of all to be expected in this chapter. Per-
haps we ou'ght to point : n")30 "the place where she may be
found (comp. Zeph. 2, 9 n t, D .TOO) 23 is more distant than that
where corals are found." i. e. she is farther away to seek and more
difficult to find. That is poetic and safeguards pim its original
sense.
&6o
K}Q "multitude, troop" shows exactly the same development
of meaning as Assyrian millu (Delitzsch, HWB., 414a).
nnnjo
Judg. 6, 2 anna "lfc>K m-JnJOrT ntt. So much may be
gathered from the context that a hiding-place in the mountains
made with human hands must be meant. Perhaps it denotes
"subterranean passages," "shafts," comp. Job 28, 10 D , "IN'' ]"I1"I1X3
Jfpa where many commentators assume the meaning "shafts."
22 Comp. Israel I^ewy, Ober die Spttren des griecl't. u. rom. Altertums im
tahnud. Schrifttum, 80 (in: Verhandlungen der 33. Philologenversammlung).
23 The basic meaning: place where something is dug after (rtID).
106 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The figure is wholly appropriate, since a mine with shafts
and galleries is similar to a river with its tributaries.
Perhaps we ought to take the word "l!"U in the rather difficult
sentence Job 28, n K>3n nnf!J "030 in the same sense, i. e. as
"shaft," "gallery."
T —
Lam. 2, DTinoi tw niacw -\b ~Wn —tw iS wT T'N^i
represents a tautology which within one and the same
verse is not tolerable. Perhaps the text read originally "p Itm
DWIOl niNB*D • H that be so, then niNtSto 24 is to be de-
rived from tPt^n "beguile" and taken as synonymous with
DTIHO , whereas HW was merely an explanatory gloss on the
unusual niNB'D and then admitted into the text through error.
The verb SWH is used just of deceitful prophecies (Jer. 29, 8,
comp. 4, 10). For the juxtaposition of the synonyms niKtJ'D
DTTHDI com. II Chr. 32, 15 DSriK W bfcSl liTptn D311K JTB" ^X
and in New-Hebrew the standing formula rVlDl JVDO.
1^13, once also 17IJ , Biblical Aramaic, "heap of rubbish" (so
rather than "dung-hill"), is compared by Gesenius-Buhl conjectur-
ally with Assyrian namalu (nawalu) "ruin." But this leaves
the ending ' unexplained. I would therefore place it beside As-
syrian na mlitu (for which, it is true, no example is available
at the present moment), from malu (= }OD ), in the sense of
"rubbish," properly "filled up ground." Thus far, examples are
available only for t a m 1 u and m u 1 u, "heaping up," "terrace,"
and for the verb nbo III 11 * = "cause to be thrown up" (De-
litzsch, HWB., 410a). In the Babylonian Talmud (Baba batra
540) K^TO designates directly "rubbish" ; comp. also SOTOD Heb.
Nita "dam," "earthwork," prop, anything heaped up.
24 Or rritft&to which, it is true, occurs in an entirely different sense?
We find pM&'O in the sense of "deceit" (Prov. 26, 26).
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PEREES 107
I would explain the proper noun masculine "lirpDJ/ as
llJViSJ?, i. e. as a compound => dy (= Arab, 'amin) and TUT.
It is true, the abbreviated form "HIV for min 1 ' occurs at
present only in Biblical Aramaic; it may nevertheless be assumed
that it underlies the place-name "iliV Josh. 19, 45. For other
proper nouns compounded with D5J comp. the literature adduced
by Gesensius-Buhl, fifteenth edition, 591 below, .y. v. C]l II.
DpOtfV
Jer. 47, s DpDJ7 n'HKB' is rendered in the Targum "IKS?
linapirf. The latter does not presuppose, as has been as-
sumed, a reading DW ; the translator merely gave to the word
the meaning "power," specifically "military power," which is
actually extant in the case of Assyrian emuk u. Nevertheless, the
original reading was probably ppDtf, i. e. the original form of
jripj? as it still underlies Assyrian A m k a r r u n a (comp. also
in the Septuagint 'Amapuv by the side of 'Ampoiv). The men-
tion of Ekron as one of the cities of the Philistian pentarchy
is in the first place quite appropriate in the context; secondly, it
is suggested by the parallel passage Zeph. 2, 4. 25 The error in our
passage arose perhaps in consequence of the fact that the word
was abbreviated to 'pDJ? and that the abbreviation was then falsely
resolved. Whether the Septuagint read in our passage D'pJV, may
be reasonably doubted. The translator, unable to make sense of
DpDJ? , merely made a guess to which Josh. 11, 22 readily led the
way.
ninny:
Prov. 27, 6 XJ1£> nip'tM nrUlWl 3'TiK 'JJVB D'JDtW. The
current explanation of nvirijo in the sense "abundant"
fails to supply an effective contrast to CJCKJ. On the
basis of Ezek. 8, 11 nbv mtapil pj? "inj?1, I would explain
"inVJ as "vapor-like" which is an appropriate epithet for the
false kisses of an enemy in contrast with a friend's well-meant
25 Comp. also Jer. 25, 20; Am. i, 8; Zech. 9, 5. 7.
108 THE; JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
blows. A good parallel is offered in a similar context by Hos.
6, 4 npa^jjjn nanom.
TnD
By the side of mS "bud" (= Arab, frh) and mB "fly"
(= Syriac ma) there seems to have existed in Hebrew a third
stem ma which corresponds to Arabic fariha and signifies "rejoice" :
Isa. 35, 2 jm^n "TI33 ]i~\ S)K bin) msn niS the parallel verbs
indicate with certainty the signification mentioned. Perhaps a
play on mS "bud" in verse I was intended.
pTB
Jer. io, 13 (= si, 16; Ps. 135, 7) TWV IDD^ b v iT13 is gram-
matically very strange. Perhaps we have to do with an old error,
the original reading being D^pTS. "He maketh appointed sea-
sons for the rain." Although the word JTIB in this meaning does
not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament, we may justly assume
with a view to its frequent occurrence in the tannaitic literature™
that it also existed in the older stage of Hebrew, since it cannot
very well have been borrowed from Aramaic where the word is
altogether unknown in a similar meaning. The context in which
our verse is found explains how it was replaced by the more
common p"Q. In Jeremiah where D^pTQ would on the whole
be less appropriate, the entire passage from nbv) to vrnXNO
may perhaps have constituted a marginal note calling attention to
the parallel in Ps. 13s, 7, which subsequently passed into the text
itself through error.
DTP
The semantic development of the word Dip which combines
the notions "east," "front," and (in Aramaic) "the first" may
perhaps be connected with the manner of orientation of the He-
brews in Palestine. Accordingly the first ( = chief) direction
constituted the orientation in contrast to the Babylonian conception
which placed the chief direction in the north ; hence i s t a n «
26 E. g. Abot 5, 9; Rosh ba-shanah i, 2, In a single passage (Tos.
Rosh ha-shanah 1, 12) we find even 0<»tM pIB "the period of rain
showers."
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES IO9
signifies in that language both "north" and "one" (or "first") and
is used interchangeably with irtann which denotes the direction
of the breast (i rtu).
Num. 21, S 7[>b\> Is perhaps an ancient broken plural = kalakilu
which denotes the name of a plant. If that be so, we should point
7p7pn Drp3 and the phrase would then mean bread prepared out
of ?\>bp- A similar broken plural is extant in "l$py and (according
to Hommel) in \iVC\V? Josh. 19, 6 (= jj?-1 -+.< from ,V-|f~")-
The stem Titty = Aram. lilD for which only two examples
are cited, Hnb' Job 16, 19 and the purely Aramaic xn-nne> Gen. 31,
— :|T - T -|T
47, seems to have stood originally in still another passage : Mai.
2, 5 BW3D3 -lilOD "IJ? is flat and trivial. Once we read
TntJ'P , an excellent sense is the result. The graphic similarity of
1 and T and (in the Old Hebrew) of D and S? occasioned the
change, especially since ~\TWQ was a rare word in Hebrew. The
construction 3 "int5>D corresponds exactly to the Aramaic Pael
IAD which when construed with 3 means "testify against."
From the time of Gesenius, ^XBE' = J 1 .*.- (by the side of
J...U and J^ ,s ) is universally explained as a formation from
» U by means of the suffix -/. This derivation is contradicted by
Assyrian sumelu which, to judge from the vocalization, points
to an original sum ' e 1 u which, to be sure, is a form baffling ex-
planation. May the conjecture be advanced that the vocalization of
the word rests on a popular etymology according to which the word
was taken as a compound = sum ili "name of God?" In that
case the word may have been borrowed from Assyrian into the
27 Freytag, III, 492a, where also divers other names of plants from the
same stem. Perhaps Assyrian k u 1 k u 1 1 a n u, as Peiser thinks, goes with
it; comp. Sluss-Arnolt, 914.
IIO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
other Semitic languages; the spelling with X would receive a
natural explanation. If our theory should prove acceptable, an
interesting parallel might be cited from Greek: evoivv/ioe
(from er and bvo/ta.) — -"left" shows the identical euphemism in
the same concept. One may even go farther and surmise in the
Greek term a trace of Oriental influence.
Ezek. 36, 3 D3riX e|1KB>1 nteB> ]W3 \V has thus far remained
a puzzle. Both Septuagint (avrl tov arijiaadyvai i'/xas) and Peshitta
(prnjJBVRI ?y)takenteB'in a sense which alone fits the context and
is, moreover, confirmed by 2JTO1 T3? a in verse 4. I therefore
regard the word as an infinitive Piel the stem "hDB> (comp. "ibj
Ps. 118, 18 and the like). This stem which meets us otherwise
only in Jewish-Aramaic 28 and Arabic 30 may certainly be credited to
Ezekiel. In the present passage, the meaning "gaze with malicious
ss Thus, of course, we ought to read, as has long been recognized, for
29 Pael DOW "to put in the ban"; WT32J "ban"; JVCBJ (so it ought
to be pointed) "put in the ban," Levy advocates the vocalization NfiCE»;
he takes it as a contraction from WHQV and regards rtHi» as a denominative
verb. This view, however, is untenable; for, in the first place, we find the
part. JVOW (Targum Yerush. Deut. 7, 26); secondly, we have in Arabic
with the corresponding change of the sibilant ^.t*, (by the side of ^^.5* ).
Kohut, i. v., has already thought of the Arabic ^*JZ> .
20 While in the formation I. we find only "^*."Z> "have malicious
joy," the forms ^ *. j and £,"*.+» are met with by the side of each
other in II., with the meaning "bless a sneezer." Professor Hommel has
been kind ^enough to inform me that, according to the Arab native lexicogra-
phers, £, t ** is the current and better form in the place of ^J'». J. . At
the same time he gives expression to a plausible conjecture that the II. form
originally meant "execrate the evil demons." For "j^.*. J. "have malicious
joy" he mentions as old instances Hudh. 25, 5; 48, 5; 51, 1; 'Alkama 9, 1.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES III
joy" for which Arabic offers numerous instances is most
appropriate.
The proper name KV\2 "IDC which occurs several times in
the book of Ezra is paralleled by the name |t"QntJ> in the Assuan
papyri (A, 16; E, 18). In a previous review of these papyri 31
I ventured the opinion that the biblical name likewise read origin-
ally 'WDriK', though the received form is as old as the
Septuagint. The similarity of 2 and 1 in the Old Hebrew script
was especially favorable to the interchange of the two letters.
The resolution of the word into 'JMa IDC is readily explained
from the circumstance that the first element was identified with
the name 1J"IE> occurring in Est. I, 14.
Textuai, Notes (according to the order oe the bibucal books)
Gen. 1, 26 JHKn?331 interrupts the context in the enumera-
tion of the several species of animals. It has been proposed to
read with Peshifta psn JVn ?331. It seems to me more
plausible to read yiBTl 5331; comp. 1, 20-21; 7, 21.
Gen. 22, 13 tnfcO -inK ^K rum . At one time I thought
of emending ins for which all the ancient witnesses read iriK
into ths. Now, however, the reading inK appears to me to be
correct. I regard it as an Aramaic gloss (= TflN , as the Targum
ad locum actually reads) for into , which was subsequently mis-
understood and admitted into the text.
Gen. 31, 13 ^N JV2 i>Nn ^JK is strange on account of the
grammatically impossible article n in front of ?S. I conjecture
that the n was originally an abbreviation for nirP ; 33 the sentence
thus read: J am J., the God of Bethel. It is clear that our verse
refers back to Gen. 28, 18-22, and there the text quite unambigu-
ously reads: D'fl^K^ 'i> Triiv rvnl. It may further be con-
jectured, since our chapter from verse 4 on belongs to the Elohist,
that v. 31 stood originally immediately after v. 3 to which it is a
31 OLZ., XI (1908), col. 28.
82 See Geiger, Urschrift, 244.
112 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
fit sequel 34 and which in point of fact comes from the pen of the
Jahvist. On the other hand, v. 14 connects well with v. 12.
Gen. 46, 3 "P3X t6k bxn ^:tt shows the same difficulty
as in the passage just discussed. It may be conjectured that the
original read Tax Tli^K niiT" , 3JS; bs represents the catch-
word to TDK which through a copyist's error remained in the
text and was then naturally drawn to the abbreviation 'n thus
forming i?Ni"l. Comp. my Analekten, 43-44, where further ex-
amples are adduced for catchwords wrongly inserted in the text;
many more examples may easily be adduced.
Ex. 5, 12 pr6 K>P Wp^>, though presupposed by the ver-
sions, is quite tautological. I propose |3p? ; comp. verse 7 and
especially verse 14 where the verb is used absolutely as in the
present passage. The error is due to an aberration of the eye to
the word \2T\7\ at the end of the following verse.
Lev. 14, 57 TinDn bVOl" KDtDn DV3 nmrD is rendered in
Peshitta STSl!? NNDD rP3 E'ISDb'l. The Jerusalem Targum, likewise,
has beside its translation reflecting the Masoretic text the
following additional element: XVI 13 ?lb K3KDD XBO "13 p31
tran . This undoubtedly points to the original reading pa mTirO
TinDn p31 XDtOn ; comp. Lev. 10, 10-n and particularly Ezek,
44, 23 D15JHV "nnzb KDD P31 ^inb VHP p3 nv ^5? DK1, similarly
also Ezek. 22, 26. The reading of the Masoretic text is to be ex-
plained as an erroneous explication of an abbreviated 'V3. For the
abbreviation of W we have an example Deut. 32, 35 where, with
the Samaritan, we ought to read Dpi DID for the masoretic Dp} '?•
Lev. 19, 31 Dna n«»D^ Wpan bx is, as far as the style
goes, very strange. What is K>p3 to mean here? It would have
been simpler to say just 1KDDD ^N . May not the original have
read Itypin as we find Deut. 7, 25 13 K'pID t s in a similar
context and Deut. 12, 30 orpins E>pjn JS where likewise the
original reading will have been Cpin unless t5>pjn was a legitimate
33 See further below on Gen. 46, 3; Isa. 5, 19; I Chr. 29, 22, and
my Analekten, 17 ff. (particularly on Ps. 68, 20) and 92, also REJ., XXXV
(1897), 59, on Sirach 24, 1.
31 Verse 13b repeats expressly the admonition contained in verse 36.
W3XICAL NOTES ON BIBEE — PERILS 113
synonym for K'pin ? May it be further assumed that in our
passage also there stood originally lB>pjn bit ?
Deut. 33, 11 VDp D'OFID has so far not been explained on
its grammatical side. Every difficulty disappears as soon as we
read by simply dividing the words differently : VDpD "OnD , i. e.
VtD'pO , i. e. the loins of them that provoke him; comp. Gen. 49, 9,
Wp' 1 ''D. According to Wellesz 33 and Chwolson, 36 v. 11 be-
longs right after verse 7b, hence Judah (and not Levi!) is spoken
of. That would make the proposed emendation still more prob-
able, since Gen. 49, 9 says just of Judah V3D^ 'D.
Deut. 33, 16 S|DV WUrb nriKUn is a monstrous form
which has thus far baffled explanation. It has been proposed to
read nJXian. According to my judgment, nriKUn is father a
conflate of the two words nrtND and Nian of which the latter
was a gloss on the former. 87 The verb nnx occurs in our chapter
twice in addition. It is true that the feminine form still remains a
puzzle. For further examples of conflate readings see my
AnaJekten, 82, also OLZ., VIII (1905), 181, on I Chr. 12, 33 where
~\~wh arose out of "py? and "l"lb6 and further below on I Sam.
1, 6 and Lam. 3, 49; comp. also Job 22, 21 where "jnx 12, exactly
as in our passage, seems to be a conflate of "]nxn and "JNUn.
Josh. 7, 5 ona¥n "IJJ Wn Vsb D1BTM. For the difficult
■ t : —
D^DK'n I would propose the pointing DIDtyn , as actually underlies
t:|t •
the rendering of Peshitta (mnn&n WW). The Niphal of -at5>
occurs in a similar use and in a similar context II Chr. 14, 12;
comp. also Dan. 11, 22. On the side of style, the nearest parallel
is Deut. 7, 23 where it is said of the defeated enemy 'n DJCIJI
Josh. 17, 14 'n. ''JS-n !13 "IJ? ICN "lit? is strange, the first
1J? being absolutely beyond explanation. We must, however,
neither strike it out nor emend it into PV; it is simply an abbre-
35 OLZ., VII (1904), col. 341.
38 In his "Nachlrdge" to the "Das letzte Passahmahl Christi," 1898,
184, n. 1.
37 Or did the text read finnm Kian (as Mic. 4, 8 ntOl rtflKn ) ?
114 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
viated 121 b]l The expression 1&H ITt bv occurs else-
where Deut. 22, 24; 23, 5; II Sam. 13, 22.
I Sam. 1, 6 nDjnn TQJD may of course be explained after
Arab, ragama IV vexavit, contumelia affecit, hence "in order to vex
her." Nevertheless, it may be assumed that we have to do here
with a textual error. The original appears to have read "I13JD
FnWt "on account of her barrenness." 3 * The verb ")XJ? being used
t:|t-
in this sense always in combination with Dm, a scribe added by
nam
way of explanation the word [tDm ; thus from iV)¥J/ the in-
correct TOjnn followed. If that be so, then the following "IJD "O
ilDrn "1JQ 'H is to be regarded merely as an explanatory gloss on
rmjm.
I Sam. 15, 29 iptJ" N? ?N"IB» nXJ DJI has not received
a satisfactory explanation. On the basis of Num. 23, 19 where we
read 2W\ 7S B*K fcO, I venture to conjecture that we ought to
read PN Its' 1 for ■lK"lt}' , : "And also God is everlastingly truth-
ful. He will! not lie, etc." God is designated "Inexactly as Deut.
32, 4; Ps. 25, 8; 92, 16. The simple nVJ (in the place of TOJ?]
is met elsewhere: Jer. 15, 18; Am. 1, 11; Ps. 13, 2; 16, 11. A
parallel to our passage is Ps. 73, I where we should read with
Ewald ?K "lK"b for ?{OB»?.
I Sam. 23, 16 D\"6&0 IT HX pNVI I would explain:
"and he encouraged him." In this sense we find in the Mishna
'IPS , T ON pTnn. 39 To encourage a person, it was customary to
address to him the words D3 1 T I iljptnn (on the line of the later
ina *ie>").
I Kings 10, S lipB'DI DrPBOPD! miKD TOJJD1 . I would
transpose : DiVKOpDI VpCDI "the attendance of his ministers
and of his cupbearers, and their apparel." Thus all difficulties of
the received text disappear.
38 The Niphal lXJ?ri in this sense as Sir. 42, 10 where "lXJ,'fl should
••T|"
be supplied.
89 Shebiit 4, 3; 5, 9; Gittin 5, 9-
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE— PERLES 115
I Kings 12, 10 IJi^J/D ppn is perhaps to be pointed ^55)0 comp.
123n i^fD? nc 'P n T 3X maVO bpiT Similarly we should read
Lam. 3, 28 with Peshitta i?5J for VOVi comp. verse 27. The same
confusion also underlies Sir. 6, 29 in the Septuagint* and 30, 13
in Peshitta.
I Kings 15, 30 (comp. II Chr. 15, 16) contains a difficulty
which has thus far escaped attention. The verb XTD "cut," "hew,"
does not fit in with riVPBD which beyond doubt denotes a metal
object, as is shown with clearness by pT1 in the passage in
Chronicles. One would rather expect an expression like "break
in pieces." That would be in Hebrew nri3 which is used Deut.
9, 21; Mic. 1, 7; II Chr. 34, 7 with reference to images of idols
that are broken in pieces. In our passage the proper form would
be nB3 , l. Observe in particular the agreement of Deut. 9, 21
with II Chr. 15, 16, since there as well as here nro, pp"l, and spt?
would constitute parallels.
Isa. 5, 19 WPP inev The n in nCTV is strange, since
it is wanting in "ifiO' . Perhaps it represents a misconceived
abbreviation for nin , ) God not being mentioned in the preceding
part at all, whereas it would afford a good parallel to W\p
7&05J" in the second half of the verse. See above on Gen. 31,
13"
Isa. 21, 2 ntt m\" ahfy ny I would emend into noi "I1X:
"Go up, O Blam, Tyre, and Media." The collocation of
Elam, Tyre, and Media is rather strange from a geographical
point of view; still an explanation may be found in the circum-
40 Comp. my observation REJ., XXXV (1897), 52.
il Likewise, Job 32, 8 where tPUNS N'rl mi is emended by many
commentators into rllH* 111*1, receives its simplest explanation if we assume
an abbreviated 'M. In a letter, dated April 30, 1903, Professor Hommel
expresses his opinion that also Ex. 15, 2 (= Isa. 12, 2; Ps. 118, 14) the
original read '71 'fllDTl 'TJ? and that our present text is based On a
misconception of the abbreviation. The redundant fllM' after fP in the
present text of Isa. 12. 2 was originally a gloss on the abbreviation 'II.
Il6 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
stance that Tyre had withstood a protracted siege at the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar and might therefore be apostrophized as a dan-
gerous foe of Babylon.
Isa. 31, 2 |1K ^1® rn7j <~by\ is not to be derived from rflTV
"help," but from mtJJ "court" which fits in excellently
tt-:
with the parallel JV3 ; comp. elsewhere iTPJJ and "ixn in par-
allelism to JVa. The circumstance that the word mtj? is only
met with in late books (Ezekiel and Chronicles) is of no im-
portance; the word occurs also in Arabx, 'adiratu(n), hence, as
may be seen from interchange of sounds, is common Semitic.
Isa. 44, 11 D1NO non D'tnm is difficult both grammati-
TT r ,
cally and exegetically. I would propose the emendation D'DTNb
"blush" which would go well with the parallel 1E>3\ The
omission of the plural ending admits of a ready explanation;
comp. my Analekten, 29. It is true, we nowhere find in the Old
Testament DHKfl in the sense "blush with shame," but an instance
is available in the Midrash 42 (in connection with a haggadic ex-
position of D11N 1315?) : TH 'JS D^NnC? DHK.
isa. 60, 4 moxri ns by -prom isa 1 pime T>ja. As far
as I know, no objection has been raised by critics to this
verse although it offers a great difficulty. It is not quite easy to
conceive how an adult person can be carried on the side; for the
daughters are certainly not thought of as infants that they should
be carried, especially since the sons come of themselves. All
difficulties disappear when we read 3¥ : "thy daughters shall be
carried in the litter"; comp. 66, 20 where we read exactly in a
similar context JV3S31 ... D'UPI ^>3D D3TIK bl T)H IN'am . The
Peshitta, likewise, which renders "l¥ by by NDina by
must certainly have read 3V. It may be casually noted that
66, 12 iK&wri TX by is rendered by Peshitta in the same man-
ner; nevertheless 3X there, though possible, is quite unnecessary,
for there indeed the writer has in mind the figure of small
children ( lJ?BWn D\TI3 by, Oripj'l ). The interchange of 3
and 1 in our passage goes back to their similarity in Old
42 Num. rabba 4, 20 (ed. Romm, 14b, below).
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PEREES 117
Hebrew script; comp. my Analekten-, 51, on Ps. 69, 11. Further
examples: Gen. 9, 7 D3 HIT for which read with Nestle H3 1T*ri;
Josh. 15, 47 TDJn for which the Hebrew margin and the versions
have ^fljn; Ezek. 40, 2 3JJD which in the Septuagint appears
as "UJD ; comp. also below on Ezek. 30, 4.
jer. 1, 15 mini nj? ^a ^yi a^aD nTiiom !>a bin. it is
very strange that it is said here of the hostile kings that
they will place their thrones upon the walls of Jerusalem and
upon all the cities of Judah. The preceding nriS 1KDD K"K 13J1J1
DvW , "IJ?K' precludes our taking the expression figurat-
ively; the former sentence is certainly meant concretely. It
is still less plausible to take b)l here in a hostile sense = "against,"
for that would yield a distorted sense, a throne being surely no
weapon which may be directed against a wall or city. I therefore
propose the reading '1J1 iTlTlOin ^3 b]l nbj?"! , " and the y sha11
scale all her walls round about and storm all the cities of
Judah." It is true that elsewhere we find fpj* in this particular
sense construed with the accusative : Joel 2, 7 rein WV,
Prov. 21, 22 D3n n^>5? Dmaa TJ>. Shall we 'perhaps take lity
in the present passage (as frequently elsewhere) simply in
the sense "march against?" It is certainly clear that in the
sequence of letters pjj 17JH the second pj)l may readily have
been omitted ; see further below on Eccl. 7, 26.
Jer. 16, 16 p nriK1 D1J111 'H DfcU D^l D^Vtb vhw 'JJH
DHV1 D'TV D'm^ n^K. While the first DUI is superfluous,
the second is directly ungrammatical. It seems to me
therefore that the original read: 'n DKJ dW^ I"6k» iJJH
an¥l D'ani? D^B>K p nn^l DUm. The word Dm has here,
as Duhm has seen, the meaning "archers," specifically
"hunters," as Jerem. 50, 29 and perhaps Job 16, 13;
comp. also Gen. 21, 20 (of the hunter) ntS>2 H3T. If this
be so, then the word D'TV represents a subsequent gloss 43 on
the unusual D'at ; at a still later period when D'ai was no
43 In Gen. 21, 20 tWp is most probably likewise a gloss on flSi .
Il8 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
more understood, the same word was likewise inserted in the first
half of the verse for the sake of the supposed parallelism.
jer. 30, 19 vw &61 Dvroam ww t»bi oviaini. The
overlined words are missing in the Septuagint, This
suggests the possibility that 1tDJ?XD % N7I DTDim represents but
a gloss on the less frequent expressions that follow, which indeed
is in perfect accord with the sense. The parallel passage
job I4.1E& p* &6i rwi j>t vh\ via naa> shows that naa
was used not only as an adjective (as in numerous passages),
but also as a verb, in the sense "be many." There, the Septuagint
has ; JroWfiv Si yevojitvuv tuv vluv ovk olScv, sav Si: b/uyot yivuvrcu
ovk eiriararai.
Jer. 48, 10 ,TO"l 'H rg»bp nW "VIS is perhaps to be pointed
'il rO»bOi comp. Hag. I, 13 'n ^38^03. An indirect support for
this conjecture is perhaps the fact that the Septuagint renders
ri3K^D by the plural ra Ipya ; hence it read watOD with 1 ."
Exactly as in this passage ni3&6l3 would be the object to the
verb n», we find in New-Hebrew "iba mw'w HOT-
Ezek. 18, 7 a^ ain Vlion has thus far received no
satisfactory explanation. Modern commentators for the most part
either take with Cornill Sin as a corruption from ai£>, or with
Noldeke 45 strike the word out altogether as a dittogram from
lri^an . It seems, to me, nevertheless, that the text is perfectly
in order: ain lJlban is to be taken as a construct state con-
struction with the ancient case ending, hence: a pledge for a debt.
Similarly, DIN 1T1 Ezek. 1, 8 (ketib) and Via wbrii 4,6, 17
are to be explained in the same manner. 411 The circumstance
to which Noldeke calls attention, that ain is met with elsewhere
only in Aramaic, gives us ground for doubting the genuineness of
the word least of all in Ezekiel who elsewhere shows a predilec-
44 It must be owned that the plural Ipya occurs elsewhere also for the
lingular DDK7D .
« ZDMG., I, VII, 418. n. 2.
46 Comp. Analekten, 73, where further examples are given.
EEXICAE NOTES ON BIBLE — PJJRI.ES 1 19
tion for Aramaic expressions in a high degree." Moreover, if we
accept Luzzatto's conjecture which is exceedingly plausible, we
should read also Jer. 17, 4 "pin J1t2»B»1 for 131 rmtDOW.
Ezek. 22, 3 nsrata^ n->by ah'bi nnwi. in the place of
the superfluous and difficult rfbv the original perhaps read
'1 by , i. e. rw hi) ■ The abbreviation was then misunderstood
and expanded so as to read rP^JJ . 48 Comp. Ex. 20, 5 *p nw $b
»JB ^S? tmnt* DTI^N ; similarly Gen. 28, 9 W3 by... m np'1
ntJ'sb lis and 31, SO TW3 ^J* DTJ npn OKI.
Ezek. 23, 24 JJD1 HJX D'OJ* i>np31 Wil 33T |VH T^ 1N31
3130 T^J* IDT' JQlpi. The words D'TOJJ bnp31 do not fit in
well at all and disturb the context. In spite of the fact
that the words were read by the versions, I would con-
jecture that there stood originally at the beginning of the
verse ybv COS? bnp 1N31- 49 The words dropped out in con-
sequence of an error, and a copyist who noted the mistake
wrote the omitted two words at the place proper between the
lines introducing them by '31 , i. e. 1N31, whereby he indicated
that the words should be inserted after 1K31. A sub-
sequent copyist mistook this insertion and wrote the letters 31
together with pnp as one word; thus arose D^DJ) bnp31. By a
further error, the two words were subsequently inserted in the
wrong place.
For similar examples in Ezek. where in the case of inserted
passages a catchword was prefixed and sometimes abbreviated see
Rost, OLZ., VII (1904), 390 ff. and 479 ff. ; see also further on my
note on Ezek. 37, 26.
" Comp. Selle, De Aramaismis libri Ezech., 1890; and my own observa-
tion above s. v. M3tP (on Ezek. 26, 3) and on b)l (Ezek. 37, 11) in OLZ,,
XII (1909), col. 251 f.
48 Comp. Analekten, 12, and especially 16 on Ps. 145, 12. For further
instances of the abbreviation of the tetragrammaton by means of 1 see fur-
ther below on Ps. 20, 10; 131, 2.
48 Comp. in a similar context Jer. 50, 9 bib by rrjJfDl VJ>B '3JN 113(1
wbn* d'ij bns.
120 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Ezek. 24, 4 p\roi tv 310 nro ^3 rvbx rvnru *|DK. it has
been long suggested that 31D nri3 73 represents a later ad-
dition. This conjecture becomes more probable if we read iTpX
"fat tail" in the place of !T9K; thus three choice pieces (TV 1V7K
SJJ131 ) would appear in collocation, and 21t2 ni"0 ?3 would then
constitute a suitable explanation. We know from I Sam.
9, 24 where Pl^KHl IWfl MK should be read 50 that the
iTPK was regarded as a choice piece which was reserved for the
guest of honor.
Now the strange reading rtTiriJ for which the Septuagint and
Peshitta correctly read DTlfli , is explained : once the false read-
ing rp?X was in vpgue, it was natural to change the immediately
preceding DTirU into pvnnj.
Ezek. 30, 4 D'~l¥D3 3"in 11X31 is perhaps corrupted from
rmn which fits in well with the parallel nprpn ; comp. verse 9
where in a similar context "I '•"inn? and n?n?n form a parallel.
According to Cornill, we should read niin for the first 3*in also
38, 21. For the interchange of 3 and 1 see above on Isa. 6o, 4.
Ezek. 37 14 D3rltO"tN bv D3nx Willi is strange. According
to the context, we should rather expect a verb meaning
"lead," "bring." It is therefore not too bold a conjecture to propose
the pointing WrUPIl; comp. verse 21 DntOIX ^K DJTIX 'DN3ni.
Though nnjil is nowhere else met with in construction with
7j?> we have examples of this very construction in the case of
the synonymous verbs 7!"IJ (Isa. 49, 10; Ps. 23, 2) and T7W (H
Kings 25, 20).
Ezek. 37, 23 Dn3 1Xt3n "It^X seems to stand in the wrong place.
It appears rather to belong immediately after DrpyCB ?33
comp. 18, 31 D3 DriVK'S 1K>K D3WS ^3 riX. If we thus transpose the
words, it becomes unnecessary to change, with Symmachus,
DiTTDBTO into Dn , ni31K>D. Indirectly, the transposition is favored
by the fact that the Septuagint did not find the three words
50 See Geiger, Urschrift, 380 f.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE PUREES 121
DnWS !>331 DrpyipCll at all in its Hebrew text, rendering at the
same time BfPrDCIO ?0O by " n ° ■Kaouv tuv avo/iiav avruv.
Ezek. 37, 26 D^JirOI is unintelligible, superfluous, and want-
ing in the Septuagint and Peshitta. The Septuagint omits in addi-
tion the immediately following words DJ11K TVQIfll. Perhaps
the text, in the form in which the Septuagint found it, read
originally: D^iub D3im Wlptt DK 7lW1 DH1N rpfp D^IV m3.
On the basis of passages like Jer. 30, 19; Ezek. 36, 10. 11, a later
scribe, it seems, inserted after DITlK rPfT 1 the words DI11K , JV3"liTl.
This addition foreign to the original text induced a copyist to put
right above it 'O WOI, i. e. Dt^TpD TIXU1, by which he desired to
indicate that in the place of DI11K TP3"ini the reader should pro-
ceed immediately with the following , KHpD riS Tirol. This gloss
'D TlflJI was erroneously contracted into one word D'nriJI which
then subsequently was received into the text; see above on 23, 24.
Mic. 5, 13 -p-ip TTIDSSTn is strange. In the first place,
the cities have been mentioned in verse 10; secondly, from verse
11 on only objects of idolatrous worship are named. The pro-
posed emendation T3X5? is too violent. The parallel "pifc^K
suggests the reading "piy "thy (sacred) groves." 51 No example,
it is true, is available for *ll?< in this specific sense. On the other
hand, the verb TQBTI is used frequently (comp. Lev. 26, 30; Num.
33> 52) just with reference to the destruction of places of idolatrous
worship; in the former place God is the speaker exactly as in our
passage. The identical error is present Ezek. 6, 6 where in a
similar context we read in our present text D'lpn for which we
should read with Cornill mjrn .
Zeph. 3, 20 D3J1K 'Mp rijm is, as has long been recognized,
impossibly correct. There is nevertheless no occasion for so
radical a change as f3pK KVIfl nj?31 ; we are simply to read
D3J1X »X3p OS? SOI. which phrase fits the context admirably
and is so common that illustrations would be superfluous.
For the dropping out of the K and the resultant joining of the 3
sl The omission of the » after a word ending in a 'is another instance
of the phenomenon discussed in Analekten, 44 f. ; comp. also Iyttzzatto on
Jer. 23, 14. The instances adduced there might be considerably multiplied;
comp. e. g. below on Ps. 50, 19.
122 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
to the following word we have numerous examples elsewhere;
see Analekten, 49. In addition to the instances there adduced we
may mention also n)3 Gen. 30, II and 'HE'SO Gen. 30, 13; comp.
also Prov. 13, 10 where I. Kahan proposes (lit 83 for ]nt3.
Zech. 9, 2 m bin non DJ1 is Perhaps corrupted from
^331 non. The n in b^JD is probably only a dittogram of ran.
Exactly as in our passage |1TX1 TIV follow immediately
thereon, so is ^33 found also Ezek. 27, 9 by the side of those two
cities.
Zech. 12, 8 nifT 1 *1K?D3 seems to me to represent a later
gloss on the QTlbtO, for the sake of mitigating the bold
comparison. The Targum proceeds similarly in passages like the
present.
Ps. 10, 17 "pm ywpn D3b pn. The words D3^ pan have
thus far received no satisfactory explanation." The trans-
lation given by Kautzsch : "Thou quickenest their courage"
is just as little acceptable. As a matter of fact, 3? pan occurs
elsewhere only in a reflexive sense, = "direct one's own mind to
something"; it is never used as here with reference to another
person's heart. Nevertheless, it is altogether unnecessary to read,
as has been proposed, tiab }'3T1. All the difficulty disappears if
we merely change the pointing: D3? ]?ft "weigher (fathomer)
of their heart"; comp. Prov. 21, 2; 24, 12 where ri13i> JSfl
is used as here as an epithet of the Deity. As far as the sense
goes, the nearest parallel to our passage is Ps. 17, 1-3 where the
psalmist equally grounds his hope that his prayer may be heard
on the conviction that God has proved him. It is quite possible
that in the difficult phrase p'HX U13ni Ps. 7, 10 there is like-
wise present a corrupt form of )3)i; comp. the parallel ni3? |n31
nvbai.
52 The Septuagint (frot/iaaiav 77/f KapSiac avrav) took ]'3H in the sense
of New-Hebrew )Ofl ; there is, however, no ground for assuming a specific
nominal form pn (Krochmal) or JDH (Chajes). The Talmud (Tos. Berakot
3, 4 and parallels), likewise, interprets in the same fashion as the Septuagint:
-jjt« 3'B>pn os.b fan rh&rb t»'D idin Sisw son n"? n« jia'tc "pis ^annn.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — FERLES 1 23
Ps. 20, 10 liKlp DVj'wjJ? ibnn (ljwn mrP has perhaps
arisen out of 1335? ">, i. e, 1JJJ? nin'' ; conip. above on Ezek.
22, 3.
Ps. 29, 3 D'Ofl ^>y nin' 1 blp is strange when contrasted with the
other verses where invariably a quality or effect of the Divine
voice is referred to. I therefore conjecture that EPDn i>J? and D'JPiri
should be transposed; the whole passage would thus read niiT 1 ^>1p
Dm D'D ^ nin 11 D'Dn bv TOan b« O'jnn . The expression
D'SHH niiT 1 ?1p will not be taken exception to on the grounds of
style when Job 37, 4 blp 3KK" inn SI is compared where b)p in a
similar context is likewise employed as subject.
Ps. 37, 22 seems to have changed places with verse 26. The
latter verse fits in less well in its present location after verse 25
than after verse 21 of which it is a continuation. In the same
manner verse 22 goes well with verse 25 for which it gives the
reason; it is certainly out of place after verse 21, there being
nothing in that verse for which the clause introduced by 'a may
serve as a reason,
Ps. 45, 11 >tm n3 , J?DE'. The apostrophe to the queen as
n3 without further addition is strange. I would therefore suggest
that the original read (as in verse 13) 'Nil IIS na , Jtt3B>. The
omission of the word is readily accounted for by haplography
(11 nix).
Ps. 48, 10 *pDn DTI7N 13W is strange, because the vocative
DTPK is in no wise prepared. I should propose the reading
D*n"7X ; "we liken Thy mercy (in its magnitude) to the seas." 63 This
would do justice to the parallelism: verse 11 jPDtJ>3 °* and ^Sp bll
Y"\H, hence the sea, the heavens, and the earth as objects of com-
parison for the infinite greatness of God; comp. the cognate
passage Ps. 36, 6-7 where it similarly reads H3*l DinTi TDBCD.
The word W itself, it is true, occurs elsewhere as a figure of
greatness in a totally different - context : TOE' DO bfM Lam. 2, 13.
58 7N nSI = "liken unto" as Isa. 40, 18. 25.
54 So read for -\0»2; Analekten, 62.
124 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Ps. so, 19 rtJTO nr6e> yti. The object ya to n'PC is ex-
ceedingly strange. Perhaps the original read T>S3 (as frequently
V n^tf), the 3 dropped out by haplography (the preceding word
ends in "| ) ; see above on Mic. 5, 13. The clause should then be
rendered: "Thou puttest thy hand forth after ill-gotten wealth"
(or perhaps "with evil intention"?). Perhaps we ought to read
with Chajes JHB which would fit in well with the following
verse.
Ps. Si, 6 "iBSCrn mm "pm pnvn \rm^ should be pointed in
either case as Piel : nStfl , pTOfl. The sense is this : I confess openly
my guilt, that Thou mayest justify and clear me.
Ps. 78, 65 J"D pnnO "113J3 'n )2»3 flW. For -I13J3 read
with Peshitta -OJ3 ; comp. Jer. 23, 9 p naif 1333. Sim-
ilarly we find II Sam. 22, 26 1133 for Ps. 18, 26 "Da. For
pliriD I should read conjecturally JJinnD "coming back to
his senses" (comp. Syriac JJinnK ) ; comp. the rendering
of the Targum npSnD. Similarly b. Berakot 30& JJWnnP H3
vby mjn arose perhaps through the concurrence of the
following SbmnnC, the original reading being JJinnnc. The
error must then, of course, date from very early times; for the
haggadic exposition (from jjnnKI) which follows presupposes the
reading with n .
Ps. 88, 17 'JinnDX has, it is true, been long recognized as a
scribal error for '"JinDS; but no satisfactory explanation has as
yet been offered for the fact that just in this passage a superfluous
n was introduced into the text. I take it that the n moved up
from the end of verse 19 where we should read with Peshitta
n385TI D'JTPD. Once the faulty reading of the Masoretic text
had come into existence, a scribe at a later period added the missing
fl which he placed above the line. By error, it moved further up
and so came to be inserted in ■"JWDX . It is probable that the
manuscript in question comprised two whole verses in one line;
then indeed "|tSTID and 'JinCX stood above each other. An
error of a quite similar character underlies the text of Job 15,
31-32; comp. Analekten, 82, and further below on Prov. 28, 1.
U3XICAI, NOTES ON BIBI^ — PERILS 125
Ps. 119, 43 n»K ~\TI 'BO ^Sn bttl. As far as I know, the cor-
rectness of the text has been questioned by nobody. Nevertheless,
the sense in which ">'Xri is used here is very strange ; for elsewhere
it means only "take something away from someone by violence,"
but not, as here, "deny something to someone." I therefore suspect
that ?XD in the present passage should be derived from PVX ; the
omission of the X is a regular feature of verbs X"B. An exact
parallel is the passage Eccl. 2, 10: DPID TI^VN vbwV lWlPN i>31.
Ps. 131, 2 TBJ ^J? PD3D presents, it is true, no grammat-
ical difficulty ; nevertheless, the use of ^V and b]l_ in two totally
different senses in so close a proximity is not quite probable. The
ancient versions appear to have had difficulties in understanding
the three words : witness their efforts at translating them. All
difficulty disappears when we read '1 bv (= mfP b]l) for *bjl-
It will be found that thus the figure used in the clause preceding
is carried out more consistently, the parallelism being of the
chiastic order: "I have composed and quieted my soul as a child
that is weaned of his mother, even as a weaned child is toward the
Lord my soul." As for '\ standing for miT, see above on Ezek.
22, 3.
Ps. 146, 6 abvtb "IDS "l»K>n is very weak. We rather
expect (as in the immediately preceding verses) the class of men
mentioned with whom God keeps faith. I therefore propose to
point D'tI^t : "He keepeth faith with the ungodly." In Exod.
• T"|T
34, 6 it is expressly stated that God shows mercy and truth even
to sinners. We find elsewhere quite a number of examples where
forms of the stem P1J? and the word oSy are confounded ; so
e. g. Ps. 37, 28 where the missing strophe beginning with J? is
restored (in part after the Septuagint) by reading VIDEO DvW
* T —
for 11B£J*J D^iyb; Job 22, 15 1DETI dbw niKM for which we should
likewise read with Chajes Dv1l? » comp. also my remarks on Ps.
sal. 2, in OLZ., V (1902), col. 278.
Ps. 147, is mi )TP mno W- The phrase mnD IV occurs
only in this passage; nor is it quite clear what the meaning
126 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
is of the superfluous 1]}, While our text is attested by the Septu-
agint, the preposition (ny) is omitted in the Peshitta. I therefore
conjecture that 1$ was originally intended as a gloss on nbtJTt
pN imtDN, the glossator wishing to indicate that pK here is to
be taken in the sense of pN ny. 05 By error, the gloss moved
down to its place before mno.
Prov, I, 18 Omsb 1JBV Wit 1 DOl!? Dm It is not easy to
see what the suffixes in DDlS and DWSjb refer to. It has therefore
been proposed to read, on the basis of the Septuagint and a
single manuscript in Kennicott's collection, as in verse n, D"6.
But DWSJP still remains a puzzle. I therefore suspect that the
original read DA ^wi';" comp. 29, 10 on lMB* DW W« ; Ps. 64, 5
DJ1 D'HTlDDa nilv. Moreover, the synonym ">pjb in the parallel
passage verse n speaks in favor of DO E-'Dib- Once the two words
were erroneously welded together into QT\&Sib, for the sake of the
parallelism the suffix of the third person plural had to be appended
to DT likewise.
Prov. 24, 11 7iK>rm dn nn^DTiDi moi? &npb !wi. For o'dd
which occurs nowhere else in the sense of "tottering toward
something" and, moreover, is rather weak by the side of the plastic
DTlp?, I would read D^D: "that are stretched out." In New-
Hebrew we meet with the phrase niDP ItM (e. g. Eccl. rabba on
5, 6; Pesikta, ed. Buber, 181a.)
Prov. 25, 1 riDX 1 TB33 CP^Sl yW\ S|Tn psi 1DJ . The
superfluous 1 of 1D3 which is missing in the Septuagint as well
as in one Hebrew manuscript, belongs to the end of the verse
where we should read inoa^in consonance with the subject D'P'IV
The mistake arose through inw being written (as often) de-
fectively: DOT. The missing 1 was then added by a copyist above
the line, which by mistake was drawn to the word D3 which hap-
pened to stand right above it; see above on Ps. 88, 17.
55 Comp. verse 6 p« »"iy.
88 The construct state combination Dfl CCJ^ is paralleled by p'"IS B"B3
Prov. 10, 3.
U3XICAI, NOTES ON BIBEE— PERLES 127
Prov. 31, ii "IDIT 1 to y?&\ is very strange in this context;
for y?W\ which does not fit in well at all we should expect some
ideal possession to be mentioned. Perhaps the original read D?K*1
T
"IDI"P SO which would fit in well with the parallel nt33. The simplest
way to account for the error is to assume that in some texts the
word was abbreviated: 'hw\, which then was falsely resolved into
bbvn.
Job 21, QinaDDW DDTO- There is no ground for emending
with the versions 1D?B> ; rather read Dlb$ ; comp. 12, 6 quite
similarly DTW? D'^flK vbw.
Job 31, 33 we n*iN3 WD3 DK . Read CHfl» : "If I covered my
transgressions before men," to which the parallel "W Mrn P 13 ?
is a suitable sequel. For the construction comp. Gen. 18, 17
TlW 'JK WH Dm3ND~ ,, JX HD30n . The interchange of 3 and is to
be explained on the basis of the Old Hebrew script; comp Analek-
ten, 52.
Cant. 3, 6 ruu^i no'jTJ»po )W rrnoTD -anion jo n?j? rixr -D
owes its obscurity to a mistake in the pointing. We ought mani-
festly to read rnbpD : "Who is this that cometh up out of the
wilderness like pillars of smoke from the perfume of myrrh and
frankincense." The words ?31"1 np3S ^3D seem to be a mere gloss
on what precedes. The smoke as it comes up straight out of the
incense (comp. Ezek. 8, 11) is indeed a fitting object of compar-
ison.
Lam. 1, 14 WS) bil "ll^f It is generally agreed to point
the first two words on the basis of the versions and the Midrash
75? "IpJM; but no one has noticed that the word "WB is like-
wise badly pointed. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that
the correct pointing should be "WS (from WB I Sam. 20, 3) :
"He hath watched for my steps"; comp. Job 13, 37; 14, 16; 33, 11.
The words iJjfcfB by npB>3 express the same as ">b}lb ItCH CDS in
verse 13.
128 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Lam. i, 20 niD3 1VM Tin il^C find. On the basis of the
parallel passage Deut. 32, 25 nffS DTirDI Tin Wn pn» I would
assume that in the present passage the word niD^ dropped out in
front of JTID3; the whole probably read originally IYID3 JIID'K 1Y33.
For the expression comp. Ps. 55, 5 1"I1D niD^XI . As for the graphic
ground for the omission see Analekten, 91.
Lam. 2, 2 mn naboo bbn pt6 jrin . It is stylistically
exceedingly uncommon to find a single object depending upon
two verbs asyndetically placed by the side of each other, especially,
as is the case here, when the verbs are separated by an additional
word. I therefore believe that the original read f\a y]}ir\ "
"He hath abhorred the land"; to this the following nsi)DD bbn
iTItn is indeed a suitable parallel. The word pN without the article
to designate the land of Judah is found once more Jer. 3, 2. The
Hiphil TWH occurs only once more, Job 21, 10, in a different
context; but the ICal is found Jer. 14, 19 exactly as in our passage
of God abhorring Zion.
Lam. 2, 4 "|S3 li'D 1 y£i is strange not only on account
of the masculine form of the verb, but particularly for the reason
that in the parallel parts of the verse transitive verbs are employed.
An old manuscript 68 reads yiJl; it will, however, suffice to point
y£) (as Piel) ; comp. Arabic nassaba used of the horse pricking
up the ears.
Lam. 2, 16 !0JJ?3 is doubly difficult: in the first place, an
object is wanting (hence it is that the Septuagint and Peshitta
supply the object in translation as if the text read iTlJJJ73; comp.
Ps- 3S» 2 5) ; secondly, 1JPP2 is suitable only in the mouth of the
Babylonians who actually conquered Judah, but not, as we read
now, in the mouth of third parties who remained inactive and
57 The error arose at a time when no vowel letters were used in the
text; thus especially in connection with the division of the word from one
line to another the received reading would easily arise out of S^Jin ; comp.
Analekten, 40, and below on Lam. 3, 49.
•» Comp. Harkavy, Neuaufgefundene hebr. Bibelhandschriften, St.
Petersburg 1884, 23.
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES 1 29
only gazed at the misfortune of Judah with malicious joy. I
therefore am bold enough to propose the reading 135? ;>3 : "O
Bel, O Anu! certainly this is the day that we looked for; we
have found, we have seen it." The nations hostile to the Jews
thus give thanks to the Babylonian gods for having brought about
the overthrow of Judah. 59 While }3 occurs several times in the
Old Testament, no example is available for 13JJ (if we except
the proper name "pDJlO- The author of the poem was certainly
familiar with the Babylonian religion ; the proof is afforded by
the peculiar use of ITO? in 4, io M in the sense of Labartu as a
common noun designating demons; comp. my article "Labartu im
A. T." in OLZ., VI (1903), 244-45.
Lam. 2, 22 ^nnati "lK>Nis rendered in the Septuagint wc iTrenfid-r/oa.
which it is certainly difficult to bring into consonance with the
meaning of the Hebrew verb. I suspect that the Greek is corrupt :
the translator most likely wrote : tveK/jorr/aa having had in mind
the sense which the word has in New-Hebrew ("strike," "beat,"
both in the Kal and Piel) unsuitable though the meaning be in the
present passage. We find eTiwporav elsewhere for KF1D (Isa. 55,
12) and J)pn (Prov. 17, 18). The two Greek verbs, iirucporelv
and tmapaTElv , moreover, are confounded elsewhere (Amos 6, 5
B; Ez. 29, 7 A).
Lam. 3, 1 limy D3B>3 'JJ? n«1 l^n V)X I would explain:
"I am the man that hath seen affliction in the tribe of His (that
is, God's) wrath"; 11TOJ) D3£> is used here exactly in the same
sense as im31> Dl? (Isa. 10, 6) and irmjJ TH (Jerem. 7, 29). The
writer means that he was able to study affliction by the means of
a typical case.
Lam. 3, 49 rruarf pxo noin s<bi mao tjj. After no-in ab,
nUSfl j'ND sounds quite tautological, not to mention the fact that
njDH occurs nowhere else and is grammatically peculiar. I there-
59 Comp. Judg. 16, 23 where the Philistines give thanks to their god
Dagon for their victory over Samson.
60 It is well known that chapters 2 and 4, according to the almost
universal opinion of commentators, belong to one and the same author.
130 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
fore Conjecture the reading JD HJKO; cornp. the striking parallel
passage Ps. 77, 3 'B>DJ Dmrt mXD J1D0 «bl mjJ nW 'T. Once
3D ilJND had been corrupted through the false division of words 01
into JQn )ND, a later scribe added to JSfl by way of explanation
or parallel the wordnJIB (from 2, 18). Through the welding together
of Jsn and ruiS arose the faulty form in the Masoretic text; see
above on Deut. 33, 16.
Eccl. 1, 8 OW D^ain bs is simply to be explained : "All words
are toiling," that is to say, no words are adequate to express it
fully. With this sense the following lai^ S5»N baV tib goes ex-
tremely well. In a similar context we read Sirach 43, 30 IN^n p«
npnn SO O. Judah Ibn Tibbon, moreover, seems to have taken our
passage in the sense indicated ; he writes in his translation of
Bahya's "Duties of the Heart" 02 1"p CWn pm D'W Dnain DK
Eccl. s. 2 onan 313 T<Da Spi pw ana mbnn xa 'a . The
second half of the verse is no logical sequel to the first. In the
place of 71P we rather expect a word which would indicate the
consequences of much talking for the fool. I would therefore
read p5p; comp. Prov. 11, 2 p6p $y\ pit S3- Or is Tip in our
passage to be derived, as in Jer. 3, cop, from the stem "9p and to
be explained as "disgrace"?
Eccl. s, s srn rujc o flwfysn ,JE ^ " lDx n ^ N1 - In the P Iace of
the wholly unintelligible "|KTOn read ?Ix)>D: "before thou fulfillest
(the word)"; comp. I Kings 8, 15; Jer. 44, 25, where S?D absolute
is used exactly in the same sense. The use of 'OS? with a follow-
ing infinitive — "before" in a temporal sense as Gen. 13, 10; I
Sam. 9, 15 ; II Sam. 3, 13 ; Mai. 3, 23. Once "INTO was incorrectly
understood as TJS^O, the article was added.
t : -
Eccl. 7, 16 DD1SW1 nisb was read, it is true, by the versions;
it is nevertheless peculiar both in form and sense. I do not there-
fore hesitate to propose DID RWft FID?. As K was frequently omitted
81 See above on Earn. 2, 2 where a similar error has been noted.
68 I, 10 (ed. Baumgarten-Sterri, 346).
LEXICAL NOTES ON BIBLE — PERLES 131
at the end of a word, the Masoretic reading readily followed from
D1DCW1 ; comp. Analekten, 47-48 on II Chr. 11, 23 and Job 27, 8,
where we meet with an exactly similar case. A perfect p arallel to
DID KtW nob is afforded Sir. II, 33 SKT1 D^IJ? DID nob.
Eccl. 7, 26 DTXD N'H *)K>K is very awkward; we rather expect
in this very part of the verse the mention of a part of the body
as a parallel to 33^ and JIT. The difficulty disappears when we
T * T VT
read JTHtJ'N t 63 "her steps are snares." Perhaps the original read
n'HB'K 1B>K ;"IE>X then dropped out by haplography. As for the
sense, comp. Prov. 7, 25 where men are warned of the ways of
the strange woman.
Est. 1, 14 V?H 2Tpni is grammatically difficult of explana-
tion. Shall we not simply point Tlpni (or the infinitive a'lpn'O?
Comp. Ex. 28, 1 ; Num. 16, 5. 9, where vbtt 3 , *lprt is used as here
in the sense : "permit one to draw near to oneself."
Neh. s, 11 f|DDn HND1 cannot possibly be correct. The com-
mentators therefore follow Geiger in reading riKCDI which indeed
fits the context admirably, but is nevertheless open to objection, it
being difficult to account for the dropping out of the K>. May we
not rather read F|D3H JHOI as in verse 4 mob (IDS l^lis
"PDD? It is easy to understand how this rare (originally Baby-
lonian) word would be replaced by DND?, particularly if we re-
member that in the Old Hebrew alphabet K and "t are quite similar ;
comp. Lagarde, Anmerkungen sur griech. Obersetsung der Pro-
verbien, on 19, 28; 24, 2; 28, 2; and my Analekten, 50, on Isa.
65, 23.
I Chr. 29, 22 T>iib nirpb inwi is grammatically peculiar
because of the want of an object to iflKW and also for the
reason that nirTv is superfluous. I suspect that the original read
n?: "and they anointed him to be ruler." A later scribe mistook n?
for an abbreviated mrP?; see above on Gen. 31, 13. Now the
parellelistic structure of our verse is completely restored, the
63 Ps. 10, 6 some exegetes propose likewise the reading **\WH for 1tS»N.
132 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
construction of the object with J occurring three times. The spell-
ing n? for "6 does not, it is true, occur elsewhere in the Old
Testament; but that may be a mere accident as the possessive
suffix is frequently found spelled with n.
