Skip to main content

Full text of "A Miscellany of Lexical and Textual Notes on the Bible. Chiefly in Connection with the Fifteenth Edition of the Lexicon by Gesenius-Buhl"

See other formats


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 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
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 



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. 



"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 " : 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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


consult the article by Krauss, JB., II, 647-8, and the literature there 


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 

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. 


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. 


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." 


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. 


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. 


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 . 


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. 



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 

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 


K}Q "multitude, troop" shows exactly the same development 
of meaning as Assyrian millu (Delitzsch, HWB., 414a). 


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). 


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). 


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. 


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 


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. 


blows. A good parallel is offered in a similar context by Hos. 

6, 4 npa^jjjn nanom. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


joy" for which Arabic offers numerous instances is most 

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. 


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. 


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 ) ? 


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 


in this sense always in combination with Dm, a scribe added by 

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 


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 


be supplied. 

89 Shebiit 4, 3; 5, 9; Gittin 5, 9- 


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, 

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. 


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 


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). 


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 . 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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 


"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 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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). 


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. 


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.