EUEEPETTETEEC RTT EGER ER EEEEERE 
 
 
 
- 
 hy 
 
 - 
 ~ 
 
 ~*) - 5 
 
 - 
 + 
 
 k 
 
 * 
 : ; 
 
 : 
 
 im | 
 
 st-49 Scape 
 
 oa | 
 
 
 

 

 
PeCONTRIBUTION LO BIBLICAL 
 PEGG OU RaAVEELY: 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 NEw YorK CIty 
 
 SALES AGENTS 
 HUMPHREY MILFORD 
 
 AMEN CORNER, E.C. 
 LONDON 
 
 EDWARD EVANS « SONS, L7p. 
 30 NortTH SZECHUEN ROAD 
 SHANGHAI 
 
 
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 
 No. 10 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION 
 
 ah, 
 
 BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 ang 
 
 ISRAEL EITAN. L. és S.. Ph.D. 
 
 
 
 New York 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1924 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
To .. = i 
 . . a. 
 *heue 
 : 
 zo 4 
 * 
 . 
 i 
 i 
 t 
 : 
 ’ 
 ~ 
 i] 
 ‘ 
 
 . 4 
 ¢ if ; hh 
 > 
 TA ie 
 
 - By COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Printed from type. Published May, 1924 
 
 ¢ 
 
 i, 7 P i“ We” 
 4 Py 
 . be : ‘ 
 7 - ' P 
 r / : ' ’ <r el ; 
 i, 1% * Odes, 4 Al Bet ie 
 ' > 0 a 
 . re 
 i ayy 
 ts 
 _ 
 af ‘ 
 = 
 
 Copyricut, 1924 
 
 7 
 - J 
 7 , 
 ' : 2g 
 a °@ ~ 
 z ws 
 P ] ® a > 
 £ 7 a a . 
 i ac bed? 
 s wg n 
 . el Fk 
 5 a 
 A — - ha vy 
 
 : cat 
 TAL “a4 He: - 
 
 * 5 as ws 
 
 t 
 e 
 
 * 
 <P 
 ee. 
 é 
 
 UJ 
 ? 
 
 “eee 
 = 
 
 of. 
 
 
 
IHG) RGR Gish D) (CTOMPUM BREA HES Tein De 
 
 Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 
 Columbia University 
 

 
NOTE 
 
 In the following studies, which I recommend cordially to my 
 fellow Semitologists and students of the Bible, Dr. Eitan has endeavored 
 to explain some difficult passages in the text of the Old Testament upon 
 a double basis. The first is the inherent probability of a root’s meaning 
 from its connection in the text; the second is the derivation of such a 
 meaning from a comparison with similar roots in sister dialects. These 
 theories are not new; but their application in the cases treated is. 
 Anything that aids us in staying the hand of the blind destroyer of 
 our text called ‘““The emendator’’, and that appeals to our sense of 
 exegetic propriety and philologic exactness, must be welcome. I 
 am certain that the readers of Dr. Eitan’s book will pardon an unusual 
 turn of English phrase here and there, if they will remember that whilst 
 writing in English, he is thinking in three or four different languages. 
 
 RICHARD GOTTHEIL 
 February 27th, 1924. 
 

 
CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction .. a ae 
 Etymological Studies......... 
 Hebrew Index........ 
 Biblical indexa, e122. 
 
4 OL 7 
 
 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I. The ‘‘Etymological Studies’’ following after these 
 preliminary considerations are intended to illustrate by 
 concrete examples the incompleteness of our Biblical lex- 
 ica and at the same time to propose some supplementary 
 material to them. 
 
 The fact of our being but partially acquainted with 
 the ancient Hebrew vocabulary might with sufficient se- 
 curity be inferred merely from the small size of the Bible. 
 The Holy Scriptures could evidently include documents 
 of a religious or moral character only or almost so. As 
 to ancient or more recent profane literature, the pious 
 editors contented themselves occasionally with granting ad- 
 mission to needed excerpts or whole compositions able 
 to undergo easily a monotheistic redaction or at least such 
 an interpretation. Sometimes even the compiler refers ex- 
 plicitly to the first sources of which he availed himself 
 and where more information may be gotten. Compare 
 for instance: 
 
 (1) The wm 5d Jos. 10.13; II Sam. 1.18; 
 
 (2) The 'A monyn raDD Num. 21.14., possibly an epi- 
 cal collection; 
 
 (3) The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel mentioned a 
 Sreqtemany times: (1. Ku. 14.19 +.15131- 16.514, 20;27; 22. 
 Gree tine 1603 L034 90505, ste el ool 5. 15.1112015,°-21; 
 26, 31) and their parallel, 
 
 (4) The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah pointed to 
 emicetial Lime 420 -a lot) ote A0et Ll eKie 8.23% 12,20; 
 
 eee U0 LO O20 20s ele 2825.20) 24.9) =DOtn 
 1 
 
2 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 appearing clearly enough to have been extensive and 
 detailed annals out of which the Biblical author of the 
 First and Second books of Kings drew his short notices 
 essential and sufficient according to his monotheistic pur- 
 poses, while he contented himself for further particulars 
 with referring the reader to the original; 
 
 (5) The Book of the Acts of Solomon I Wi. 11. 41; 
 
 (6) The Commentary of the prophet Iddo If Chr. 13.22 
 (comp. 12.15, and 9.29); 
 
 (7) The Commentary of the Book of the Kings II Chr. 
 24.27, and other written documents (II Chr. 12.15; 9.29). 
 
 All these books are lost and a similar fate overtook 
 certainly a still larger number of literary products during 
 the period of the Second Temple, chiefly the latter half of 
 it. The warning of Qoh. 12.12 against ‘‘making many books’”’ 
 is a transparent hint at the contemporary productiveness 
 in this respect. A good deal of these compositions have 
 undoubtedly been originally written in Hebrew, as for 
 instance Ben Sira and I Maccabees. By reason, however, 
 of their conspicuous recentness or unfitting contents, they 
 were not qualified to figure in the Jewish Canon and could 
 be saved from oblivion by the Oriental churches in various 
 
 translations only, in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, etc. 
 
 Il. The original! of Ben Sira, recovered in its largest 
 part, though containing an important number of words 
 and expressions not occurring in the Bible, can give but 
 a slight idea of the significance of such texts, especially 
 of the earlier ones, for Hebrew lexicography. If, however, 
 the Mishnaic and neo-Hebraic character of Ben Sira’s 
 language has been amply insisted upon. it is just also to 
 
 1 See ISRAEL Levi: I‘ Ecclesiastique, Paris, ed. Leroux, 2 vol., 1898, 1901; 
 COWLEY AND NEUBAUER: Ecclesiasticus, Oxford 1897, Clarendon Press; 
 
 SCHECHTER AND TAYLOR: The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, Cambrigde 1899; 
 Rup. SMEND: Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906, 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 3 
 
 point out there several new elements which are certainly 
 
 probably of ancient Hebrew origin. As such may be 
 considered, for instance: mvs? (alias Mw) reservoir ob- 
 viously identical with the mws of the Mesa inscription 
 
 ak 
 
 (11.9 and 23); pnwns to rise and shine (comp. Ar. yal se 
 1x71 to observe stealthily (comp. Ar. ey); min to bestow gifts, 
 present (comp. am and Ar. is). Even 2» apn ° to attack 
 
 can not be considered as an artificially forged verb, having 
 just the opposite meaning of the Mishnaic 9°ap7 (mostly 
 with 05) to welcome, greet, receive. In Ben Sira it reminds 
 
 one rather of Assyrian gablu fight and mugqtablu warrior. 
 
 Just so, there is no doubt that many words first 
 appearing in the Mishna belong to the old Hebrew stock, 
 though they do not chance to occur in the Bible. The 
 bare presence of the &maé NeyOueva, or vocables saved 
 from oblivion through the good luck of being mentioned 
 in a single instance, is a sufficient hint at a far larger num- 
 ber of words entirely lost. The same idea is suggested 
 by epigraphy, when Hebrew, Moabite or Phenician in- 
 scriptions first revealed unkown terms. Thus we find, 
 for instance, in the Siloam? inscription 7ap) tunnel from 
 
 2 Ben-Sira 50,3: 12192 (OD =) DI MX, Mpd 712) 73 Wwe. 
 3 Idem 50,7: 205 2" PR NP WH WNW). 
 
 4 Idem 14,22: TEV MND 73) APN TANS mxx> This verb occurs also once 
 in Aramaic. See Levy’s NHWB. 
 
 5 Idem 12,3: AWY N? MPT ON YOU MID? Ww Ps: 
 
 - 
 
 6 This is also one of the meanings attached to Arab. fog It would seem 
 rather unlikely to view some of these isolated Hebrew words as direct loans from Arabic 
 though this was then spoken by the Nabataeans. For the only Semitic language that 
 could pretend to such a literary influence was Aramaic, at that period paramount in 
 Western Asia and in which the Nabataean inscriptions themselves are written. The 
 possibility, however, of some direct Arabic influence on the Hebrew vocabulary (for 
 instance, in Job) through the channel of the Nabataean tribes constitutes an important 
 problem for Bibtical lexicography. 
 
 7 See, for instance, COOKE: WNorth-Semitic Inscriplions, Oxford 1903, p. 15, 
 lines 1 and 3, 
 
4 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 the well known root ap) to pierce, but also AT (probably 
 
 fissure) of enigmatic etymology. 
 
 III. The small number of Biblical roots, which has 
 been estimated at about 5008, is due simply to the paucity 
 of this sacred literature and can in no wise be supposed 
 to comprise the entire vocabulary of ancient Hebrew, es- 
 pecially not as a spoken language. This becomes quite 
 natural if we take in account two facts of historical character 
 which can no more be questioned. Inthe first place, Biblical 
 Hebrew is the literary representative of an ancient language 
 more or less wide-spread in western Asia, at least for 
 certain periods, anyway extending far beyond the narrow 
 boundaries of Palestine proper, no matter under what 
 various names—Hebrew, Canaanaitic, Amoritic, Moabitic 
 or Edomitic.® Secondly, the antiquity of the Hebrew 
 language must be far higher than it is mostly assumed. 
 Not only the Tell-el-Amarna letters show by Canaanaitic! 
 glosses and morphological!! influence the prevalence of 
 this language as vernacular in western Asia at the beginn- 
 ing of the XVth century B. C. and consequencly much 
 earlier. But a piece of Biblical poetry like the Debora 
 Song (Ju. 5), for instance, dated not later than the XIIth 
 century, B. C., by its fine prosody gives us reason to surmise 
 
 a previous literary tradition of long duration. 
 
 IV. Fortunately, all chances are not lost for us to 
 get better acquainted with the ancient Hebrew vocabuiary. 
 Hebrew lexicography may still achieve many new conquests. 
 First, philological investigation is required by the num- 
 erous proper names of unknown origin. But, as the ety- 
 
 8 W. H. Green: General Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1899; see 
 vol. on The Text, p. 30. 
 
 ® We could add Phoenician, for in the main it is only a dialect of Hebrew. 
 
 10 Charles Bezold: Oriental Diplomacy, London, Luzac Co., 1893; espec. p. 119. 
 
 11 The French scholar Dhorme has tried in his La Langue de Canaan (Rev. bib- 
 
 lique, 1913, t.X., pp. 369-394) to restore even the grammar of this pre-Biblical Hebrew. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 5 
 
 mology of such names has rarely any connection with the 
 context and, if at all, is explicable only through cognate 
 languages, no very important results can be expected from 
 this side. 
 
 A second kind of lexicographical research is concerned 
 with detecting the primitive and original meaning, mostly 
 concrete, of roots which otherwise are well known. Here 
 far surer results may be obtained. For such studies are 
 not reduced to the help of cognate languages only. They 
 are able to avail themselves of the context also where, 
 sometimes, the word occurs exceptionally in its archaic 
 and etymological sense, especially in poetry. Thus, for 
 instance, in Prov. 13.9 the familiar verb now to rejoice 
 seems rather to betray its original and concrete meaning 
 preserved by Arabic os to be high. 73) now? op'T¥ WS 
 7y7 o'ywn means exactly: “The light (=flame) of the 
 righteous shall vzse (or be high), but the candle of the wicked 
 shall be put out.’’ Even, if words nowhere occur in their 
 etymological sense, this may often be disclosed through 
 the comparison of their usual secondary or figurative mean- 
 ing with the respective roots in the kindred languages, 
 as shown in the following ‘“‘ Etymological Studies”’ for 77377 
 
 to subdue connected with Ar. > back. Perhaps we could 
 
 likewise find in Hebrew }17 to murmur, slander a secondary 
 meaning of Eth. #72 (nagara) to speak, talk. For the 
 regular metathesis of all the three radicals compare Heb. 
 on to have compassion and Ech. @mhé@ (mahara). This 
 process of derivation, which consists merely in specializ- 
 ing the general meaning to speak, talk by attaching to it 
 an unfavorable shade, finds a good parallel in Assyrian ‘? 
 dababu to speak meaning also to intrigue, complain and 
 connected with Heb. 729 whispering, defamation, evil report. 
 
 12 For the exact meanings of this verb see references in Muss-Arnolt’s Concise 
 Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, Berlin 1909, pp. 237-8. I do not mention the 
 Heb. verb 337, because its etymology is still uncertain. 
 
6 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 V. The third and most important task incumbent 
 upon Hebrew lexicography is fruitful and involves great re- 
 sponsibility. It aims at discovering the genuine meaning of 
 words and phrases which so far have remained unexplained 
 or misunderstood. Indeed, too many passages in the Bible 
 still withhold from us the secret of their real contents. 
 This phenomenon is very often, if not always, considered 
 as a result of the corruptness of the Massoretic text con- 
 taining, in accordance with the same assumption, all the 
 errors of copyists which could creep into the sacred manu- 
 scripts during previous centuries. 
 
 If, however, there is a part of truth in this argument, 
 it includes certainly a good deal of exaggeration. The 
 effect of the latter has been naturally to incite emendation 
 of the text as soon as it seems unintelligible. Now, as a 
 matter of fact, many of those would-be corrupt passages 
 for which various corrections have been proposed can be 
 most suitably explained in the way of purely “ philological 
 exegesis’, thus revealing new linguisitical elements so far 
 not identified, as shown below in the Etymological Studies 
 of 1, 1, won, 1m, pn, mwy, etc. 
 
 VI. It would, therefore, not be superfluous on this 
 occasion to insist upon two tendencies in contemporary 
 exegesis, both of them conspiring to hinder the possible 
 advance of Hebrew lexicography and correct understanding 
 of the Biblical text. The one and most disastrous, from 
 our point of view, is an active inclination to a special kind 
 of wholesale emendation resting upon a quite erroneous 
 principle. The latter consists in superseding an entire 
 Hebrew word or phrase by another one, at one’s choice, 
 in order to fit the meaning given by one of the ancient 
 versions, chiefly the LX. X, that seems to differ from the MT. 
 Now, just in such cases of apparent variance between the 
 MT and the Septuagint, we have logically the best occasoin 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 7 
 
 of detecting ancient vocables of an etymology so far un- 
 surmised because of their deceiving graphical form. Emen- 
 dation is then equivalent to the suppression of many of 
 the best instances capable of furthering our acquaintance 
 with the Hebrew vocabulary of old. The absurdity of 
 such a method is striking in an example like °11 (Zp. 2.14), 
 emended into p18 or 77¥ according to the LXX or Targum, 
 while the authenticity of this Massoretic vocable may 
 be proved by Arabic where it is preserved in the required 
 meaning. So that, whatever we might think of other 
 ways of adjusting! the Massoretic text, excepting cases 
 of wrong separation of words which is often quite! con- 
 
 spicuous, this one is erroneous from its very beginning. 
 
 VII. The other obstacle on the road of lexicographi- 
 cal progress is not an active tendency but rather a passive 
 and unconscious one. Even most liberal exegetes and Bibli- 
 cal philologists, owing probably to passive resistance, 
 still too often yield to traditional explanations and ety- 
 mologies based on mere graphical resemblance or on 
 
 13 DeLitzscH: Die Lese-und Schreibefehler im Alten Testament, Berlin 1920, passim. 
 14 For instance, Mi. 7,4 73100079 WW’ = 7D)10D ow, Job 38,12 AAW ANY = INA NYT, 
 Nu. 23,10 "DODiI= 15D 9) etc. Compare below, in the root study "&, Job. 31,23 °D 
 2 pe Sy tmp 2=5x TRON IND. In the same way, I propose for Hos. 5,7 ANY 
 ompon NS WIN O75" to read....WIM) 2DN my. The word WIM) may possibly mean 
 here tnvader or conqueror, if we taxe into consideration the following shades of meaning 
 attached to the Ar. verb oe to hasten (the walk), go at Asse throw down, tread 
 under foot, vanquishin wrestling. Comparealso age or UM pes prostrated. This 
 w=Im) would then be an isolated remainder of a root WIN akin to Ar, Hm and different 
 from walks which is the Ar. counterpart to the usual Hebrew root of WIN new, wan 
 month ete. 
 For Proy. 25,27 N33 0735 IpM it might also be preferable to read 13229 ape 7PM 
 «And he who despiseth giory is honoured.’’ Compate Ar dis to despise, think slightly 
 
 of and Prov. 28.11 pM aD bm YY WN YI ODN which would mean: ‘‘The rich 
 man is wise in his own conceit (=in his eyes); but the poor that has understanding 
 
 thinks slightly of him.” 
 
8 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 
 
 Aramaic influence and involving evident infringement of 
 
 ’ 
 
 parallelism or exaggeratedly “‘figurative’’ meanings. A 
 
 few short examples wil] suffice in this place. 
 
 VIII. In Is. 41.10,23 ynwn and aypyy are generally 
 derived from the verb nyw to gaze. The first verse, how- 
 ever, shows clearly that we have to deal here with a synonym 
 of xv to fear: Pnbsx 1RK->D ynwn-bx uN Joy-D NVn-OK 
 “Fear not for I am with thee: be not dismayed for I am 
 thy God.” So the authorized English version gives the 
 true meaning which both suits parallelism and corresponds 
 with Pesh. .20522 flo (an7NnN 891) “and be not afraid.” 
 Now, as Ar. 75 ae means just to be sad and agitated, it 
 seems most natural to find in our verse as the Hebrew 
 counterpart of it the root ynw to be afraid, so far mentioned 
 in no Biblical!® lexicon. This will likewise fit the other 
 passage: Mm xn qYAYN, Where we have to vocalize 8), 
 meeting again the two synonymous verbs of the first - 
 mentioned verse. Moreover, the root ynw is here clearly 
 proved by the penulttma accent and the games preceding 
 the precative (or cohortative) 7 in the first verb; for 
 myw with radical 7 (=*) would have given 7Aynypy. 
 
 IX. In Zech. 1.15 Ay 9 IWIy ADM LYyD NYP IN, every- 
 body seems so far to be satisfied with the usual rendering: 
 “T was but a little displeased and they helped (forward) 
 the affliction.”’ 
 point of view, the customary verb “1y to help would be 
 
 Nevertheless, from a careful philological 
 
 surprising in this place where it is expected to play the 
 
 part of an antithesis to vyno little and of a synonym of 
 
 15 See Kasimirsky, p. 1190, and Wahrmund; comp. also the root Cx Kasim. 
 Doe LoU, 
 
 16 This root, however, with its meaning to fear for Is. 41,10, without further 
 proofs, has first been mentioned in the small modern-Hebrew dictionary 3) 17> by 
 
 Yellin and Grasovsky, Jerusalem. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 9 
 
 ma17 to multiply, increase. In no other instance it has 
 the meaning of the periphrasis ‘‘to help forward’’. If, 
 
 however, we try to surmise a special so far unknown He- 
 oh ee 
 
 brew verb, it will at once appear identical with Ar. »x* 
 
 to be copious,'* abundant (1V yl to multiply). So mon 
 
 ay > ity would mean ‘they were copious in the affliction.’ 
 
 Possibly also the correctseparation of the words ought 
 to be ayn siya on (comp. el) they multiplied the af- 
 
 fliction. 
 
 X. With regard to. Job 4.10 o2~1 Snw Sip) AAS MINw 
 ni 0755, Duhm states confidently: yni's is Aramaic for 
 Hebrew yn. This is the most current assumption, while 
 some suppose a textual error for )1¥n). The supposed mean- 
 ing of yn) in both cases seems to rely upon the Peshitta 
 rendering p52) (mann) are broken. A slight examina- 
 tion, however, may suffice to prove that this etymology is 
 unfounded. Indeed, yn) does not even exist in Aramaic 
 and in Syriac'® it has a meaning far away from the pro- 
 posed one. On the other hand, it is of no use to conjecture 
 a textual error for 1x¥m). The whole verse with its two 
 conjunctive waws seems rather to represent a_ single 
 sentence having exceptionally given up parallelism; so 
 that the final verb must suit all three subjects, something 
 which is not realized in the case of i¥m. It is further 
 unsatisfactory to consider the first hemistich as a sentence 
 apart with omission of its special verb. Such an ellipsis 
 is without example, for parallelism allows only the dropping 
 out in one hemistich of a term mentioned in the other. 
 
 17 The Syriac root (WY) ‘azar with the essential meaning of entangling would 
 hardly be related here to the Arabic one. 
 
 18 See Das Buch Hiob, p. 27, in Marti’s Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. 
 
 19 Possibly Syr.“\.42.3 (YN3) to outweigh, evceed in weight, would suit Ben-Sira 3,14: 
 YNIN NA NON W9N) AMSN &? IX NpI¥ ** Bounty towards (thy) father shall not be wiped 
 out and it shall outweigh the recompense of (thy) sin.’’ Then, the emendation yuiIn 
 
 suggested by the copyist in the marginal note is superfluous. 
 
10 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 Thus the structure of our verse would resemble that of the 
 verse 8 in the same chapter, with a common verb for both 
 hemistichs (A7xp SOY CYAN PR wan cs AwRd). Such a 
 verb in our case may be the Hebrew counterpart to the 
 Ethiopic #€0 (nat‘a) to flee (=here disappear, cease) which 
 is synonymous with the two verbs of the foregoing sentence 
 5>”.....7aN°. Our verse ought then to be rendered: ‘‘The 
 roaring of the lion and the voice of the fierce lion and the 
 teethze (LXX arrogance) of the young lions—flee (all 
 disappear, cease)’’. 
 
 XI. Sometimes, on the contrary, a forced traditional 
 explanation, based on the Hebrew etymology, sticks to a 
 word which has very evidently been employed in its Aramaic 
 sense, possibly under foreign influence. For instance, in 
 Prov. 24.21 anynn->s ony oy 4740) 022 '7-nx-Nv where 
 the Vulgate translates D’nw varits, this vocable is even now 
 generally rendered by various periphrases all going back to 
 the Hebrew meaning different or changing. So the Author. 
 English version reads for the second hemistich ‘meddle 
 not with them who change’. Wildeboer translates?! ‘‘Anders- 
 gesinnte’’, i. e. otherwise minded (than thou), and nearly so 
 do many others. The context, however, requires naturally 
 the Syriac sense of the same word: foolish. This signifi- 
 
 cation, indeed, is explicitly indicated in the Peshitta by a 
 
 20 The Septuagint renders D° VDD 3) yavpiaua be dpakovrTwy the arrogance of the 
 dragons, where Schleusner (Lexicon in LX X vol. I, p. 485) sees merely a metaphorical 
 interpretation. This is not certain. The LXX might possibly have read W= Ar. alin 
 grandeur, magnificence, from the root so lo shine, be exalted, eminent, which most 
 probably appears again in Qoh. 8,1 838° PID ty) PID VSN OIN NON. Indeed, NI” is 
 here parallel to VSN and seems to be identical with lee (root wei) to shine, be 
 bright, which is also closely related to Eth. Wie (sAnnaya) fo be beautiful, good. The 
 
 Ethiopic could perhaps justify the intensive form in which the Hebrew verb occurs 
 
 here (RW = NIv”). 
 
 * 
 
 21 See Marti’s Hand-Commentar, Prov. 24, 21. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 11 
 
 synonym, Hei (xyyw) fools. Our verse should be rendered 
 as follows: ‘My son, fear thou the Lord and the King, 
 
 9 
 
 meddle not with fools’, the latter being a popular term for 
 all kind of light-headed people departing easily from sound 
 
 religious and political principles. 
 
 XII. Thus, the general cause of very many misinter- 
 pretations as well as superfluous and misleading emenda- 
 tions lies in the customary state of mind of most exegetes. 
 The latter still are wont to face the Biblical text in such a 
 way, as if its whole vocabulary were already well known, 
 so that nothing is wanting but the interpretation of the 
 sentences. They must then consider the puzzling pas- 
 
 ’ 
 
 sages either as rare ‘‘idioms’’, or as allusions to some un- 
 known historical or local circumstances, or as textual errors. 
 
 On the contrary, lexicography—along with exegesis— 
 will be able to progress really, if we keep constantly in 
 mind the fact that we know the ancient Hebrew vocabu- 
 lary very incompletely and inexactly, as well as that we 
 are completely ignorant of other special philological or 
 linguistical conditions under which certain texts may have 
 arisen. Then, in every puzzling passage, after failing to 
 identify exactly a vocable by the comparison of all the 
 instances where it seems to occur, we shall have to in- 
 quire whether we are not in presence of some philological 
 element, lexical, much more rarely grammatical or syn- 
 tactical, so far unsurmised. 
 
 In many a case the result may be considered as quite 
 reliable. This is when a meaning required by the context 
 is really given by an early version and is commonly used 
 by some of the cognate languages to a vocable which 
 seems to be identical with the Hebrew one under consid- 
 eration. Especially the LXX offers now and again ‘‘ pecu- 
 liar’’ renderings which have often been considered as free 
 
 paraphrases or metaphorical interpretations, but which 
 
12 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 comparison of the Hebrew with other Semitic languages 
 will prove to represent the genuine meanings of the puzzling 
 terms preserved in the Massoretic text and misinterpreted, 
 doubted of or subjected to various emendations. 
 
 XIII. The Peshitta, though less important from a 
 purely lexicographical viewpoint, may be of use in con- 
 nection with later texts on which Aramaic influence has 
 acted, as shown above for ow in Prov. 24.21. Greater, 
 however, than its lexicographical is its exegetical importance 
 which frequently proves indirectly valuable to lexicography. 
 At least many parts of it prove conspicuously to have been 
 translated from the Hebrew original and by scholars quite 
 familiar with the finesses of the sacred tongue, probably 
 by Jews. I have pointed out elsewhere22 how the Pe- 
 shitta, Qoh. 3. 18, shows us the true meaning of the word 
 0729, a famous crux interpretum of long standing. There- 
 fore, a special Lexicon of the Peshitta with reference, for 
 each vocable, to all the Hebrew instances rendered by it 
 and with a Hebrew index at the end, like Schleusner’s 
 Lexicon in LX X, would certainly be of great avail to exeges- 
 is and occasionally also to lexicography. | 
 
 As illustration, let us try here briefly, with a clue 
 furnished by the Peshitta, to interpret one of the most 
 difficult passages, usually held by modern scholars either 
 as corrupt throughout or as a later?3 interpolation. I mean 
 the famous second hemistich in Job 6.7 ‘9n>b 4D apn. 
 For the first, wb] yuly MIND, the LXX gives certainly 
 the right sense: ‘‘ My soul is unable to rest’’*4 (ravoaoTat). 
 
 22 See REJ. No. 147 (1922), footnote on p. 12. O799=Pesh. }28 8137. 
 
 28 Duhm: Das Buck Hiob (in Marti’s Hand-Commentar), p. 37. 
 
 *4 On account of this Kittel, Duhm and others propose the emendation y))7? 
 or y°179 (better would be y= ya). Nevertheless, our yo may be correct, if akin 
 to the Ar. verb s that is used to convey the good effect of food or medicines on the 
 
 body. Wahrmund, in his Neu-Arab, Handw., mentions also the meaning “‘sich woh, 
 
 befinden und gedeihen.” 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 13 
 
 As to the second, the Peshitta suggestively renders its 
 first two words by (cd yal SES (Sie yx 55:9) waileth 
 like a drunkard, something which proves a reading anq 
 379. The remaining nm? has then all chances to be the 
 subject of mq and, as parallel to wb] (my soul or J), 
 may here best point to some part of the body for which 
 this verb would be fitting. Now, Delitzsch ascribes to 
 oinv2s in Zeph. 1.7 and Job 20.23, the meaning intestines, 
 bowels, deriving it from on? 26 to press together in the same 
 way as its synonym ap entrails is connected with ap 
 to approach, come near. This noun may be identical with 
 the final word of our verse, which ought then to be vocalized 
 ‘one=cnin?). Thus the association ‘mn? mp7 would be 
 quite synonymous with -yp wa (Jer. 31.20) or ion yn 
 (Cant. 5.4) and analogous to mom...29 (Jer. 48.36). As 
 to the above reading 379, it seems merely to have been 
 suggested by the Aramaic and Syriac sy drunkard; 
 there is no reason which should have determined the author 
 to prefer such an Aramaism instead of the Hebrew “jp. 
 Therefore, it is rather the Vulgate, by its rendering Jlan- 
 guores in accordance with Jewish tradition, that gives 
 here the true meaning of the word which is ‘74 “illness, 
 languishing, suffering. Our 17> is probably a slight error 
 for 7a 7” suffering. The whole hemistich ought then to 
 be vocalized qn? ‘ma mq and rendered: ‘‘My bowels 
 sound (hum) in suffering’. This is good enough as a 
 counterpart to the parrallel: ‘‘My soul (=I) is unable to 
 rest.” 
 
 25 Delitzsch: Prolegomena cines neuen Hebr.-Aram. Woerterb., Leipzig 1886 
 pp. 193-4. 
 
 See also pind in Gesenius-Robinson’s Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old 
 
 Testament. 
 
 26 See this verb in Levy’s Neuhebr. und Chald. Worterb., Leipzig 1876,t. I p. 494 
 
 a ak 
 =~ 
 
 Comp. Arabic wu. 
 
 
 
14 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 XIV. The Vulgate, though last in date of the ancient 
 versions, still has occasionally an advantage which is not 
 to be underestimated. Thanks to Jerome’s own knowledge 
 of Hebrew and, perhaps more, to his close relations with 
 Hebrew scholars, he could afford sometimes to recede 
 from both the LXX and the Peshitta. In this way, al- 
 though usually representing already the later Jewish exegesis, 
 he has succeeded in preserving some instances of older 
 Jewish tradition anterior to Aramaic influence in Bible in- 
 terpretation. Compare, for example, Job 6.7 for above 
 179 and Prov. 12.27 for 11¥ 7°97 471M 89 (see below the 
 footnote in § XXITT). 
 
 XV. Of course, when the ancient versions cannot 
 help us, we still may have the double help of the context 
 and the cognate languages. Though in such cases the 
 results seem to be of a less sure character, the confirmation 
 by Semitic languages of the meaning required by the con- 
 text for a peculiar or doubtful vocable gives the genuine- 
 ness and identification of the latter a certain degree of 
 probability, sometimes even of conspicuous certainty. Non- 
 Semitic languages, too, in this regard, may occasionally 
 
 ae 
 
 be available, namely in “‘exotic’’ passages. As a matter 
 of fact, Sumerian, Indian, Egyptian and Persian words 
 occur in the Bible. When we bear in mind the influence that 
 the great Nile Empire must have exerted on its Canaanitish 
 border-land which it more than once had under its suzerainty, 
 especially at earlier periods of Palestinian history, we should 
 rather be surprised at the paucity of Egyptian loanwords 
 thus far indicated in the Scriptures. Reserving for another 
 occasion more material on this question, I shall content 
 myself here with a single suggestion having also an exe- 
 getical bearing. Thus, in Is. 19.10 I would best explain 
 mane by Copt. WTIT2? weaver (=Eg. Sht-ty). Speaking 
 
 27 See Peyron: Lexicon linguae copticae, Taurini 1835, p. 312. Most Egyptian 
 loanwords in the Bible appear to resemble their Coptic counterparts, for instance: 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 15 
 
 of the textile industry, for which the Nile country was 
 then?s famous (comp. 0°7¥9 71U8), in a chapter wholly 
 of Egyptian content, the author naturally uses the proper 
 indigenous term as we do nowadays, for instance, for special 
 articles of French importation. Our verse is a_ direct 
 sequel of the preceding and our vocable with the correct 
 vocalization mny represents simply a synonym of 07178 
 in verse 9. nny foundations, however interpreted, is out 
 of place here. Nor is it necessary to emend nw as some 
 others would have it. The verse means ox977 PNY 
 ‘And her (=Egypt’s) weavers shall be afflicted; 15w *wy-> 
 wpi-9is all hired labourers—sad.”’ 
 
 XVI. Friedrich Delitzsch has several times raised his 
 protest against the abuse of Arabic, especially by Gesenius, 
 
 4a 
 
 so as to ‘“‘abase2*9 Hebrew lexicography to be a slave of 
 Arabic.’’ On the other hand, he emphasizes on all oc- 
 casions the great importance of Assyrian for Biblical philolo- 
 gy.» One may thus get the impression, though nothing is 
 stated explicitly, that Delitzsch would attribute in this 
 regard the foremost rank to Assyrian instead of to Arabic. 
 This question, from a purely lexicographical viewpoint, 
 leads to the following observations. 
 
 However close the kinship of Assyrian to Hebrew 
 may be, it seems practically prevented from yielding to 
 Biblical lexicography such good and rich results as those 
 
 which Arabic is able to supply. .The main reason for this 
 
 iN? stream and Copt. ELOOp (Peyr. p.40), M3 ark and Copt. TAIBE coffin, chest 
 (Peyr. 234). The borrowing of these vocables may date from the New-Kingdom to 
 the language of which Coptic stands morphologically nearer than to Egyptian of the 
 Old-Kingdom (Steinfdorff: Kopttsche Gramm., Berlin 1904, p. {). 
 
 28 Also Hebrew ¥W ‘“‘byssus’’, as proved already, is a loanword from Egyptian SS, 
 
 Copt, WENC. 
 
 29 See Fried, Delitzsch’s Philolog. Forderungen an die Hebr. Lexicographie, 
 Leipzig 1917, p. 18 seq. Seealso his Prolegomena eines neuen Hebr.-Aram. Wéorterb., 
 
 pp. 22-31 and passim. 
 
 
 
16 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 
 
 is the uncertainty reigning so often in the etymological 
 identification of Assyrian vocables themselves, uncertainty 
 at this rate hardly paralleled by any other Semitic literature. 
 Indeed, the cuneiform script represents under the same 
 signs entire groups of primitively different Semitic sounds. 
 If a Hebrew ¥, for instance, has three phonetical values 
 corresponding to Arab. Ye, ye, & and respectively to 
 Aram. ¥, y, 0, so that a Hebrew word including this 
 character may graphically represent at least three different 
 Semitic roots, Assyrian in this regard is in by far worse 
 conditions. For not only confusion of related sounds like 
 b-p, b-k-q, d-t-t etc. is usual, but as various and many values 
 as 8,71, @, & £ and mostly also w° and y are represented 
 in the same way. This basic defect, often hindering us 
 from detecting the original value of the root, impairs 
 considerably the value of Assyrian lexicographical help 
 in favor of Arabic, in spite of the high antiquity of the 
 former language and its contemporaneousness with ancient 
 Hebrew. If Assyrian, having. preserved more primitive 
 meanings, offers sometimes a useful clue for the etymology 
 of Hebrew vocables otherwise well-known and understood, 
 it is much less helpful for further advances in Biblical 
 
 lexicography. 
 
 XVII. On the contrary, the paramount and unequaled 
 advantage of Arabic from the above viewpoint is its exact 
 notation of all! the original Semitic sounds. Because of 
 this, we are enabled to discriminate different roots which 
 in Hebrew may be disguised under one and the same gra- 
 
 phical form, as illustrated by the well-known examples: 
 
 30 In Hammurabi's Code, however, the sound w is often clearly represented. 
 
 31 There is only one slight exception to this rule. Arabic, as well as Ethiopic, 
 represents by the same character UU (Eth. () two primitive Semitic sounds for which 
 the Minaeo-Sabaean alphabet has different signs ¥ (s= Heb. D) and n (s), the latter 
 corresponding phonetically with Heb. Y and etymologically with w. See Fritz Hommel: 
 Siid-Arabische Chrestomathie, Miinchen 1893, pp. 4 and 10. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 4 
 
 < 
 
 npn to dig= <a» and 1»n to be ashamed = he - aay to be 
 
 S ipners os if as { 4 we 
 bowed down, afflicted =i (r. gis) and my to SINE = gat; 
 sipz bird from ie to twitter, whistle and j7Bx nail = Sab 
 17x to bind, eee and 17x to show hostility Tie 
 
 G-? 
 
 to harm, damage and 1x flint or 77x pebble =" or yy 
 
 — 
 
 sharp-edged hard stone etc. 
 
 Another great advantage of Arabic as a help for Bib- 
 lical lexicography, especially in uncovering and_ identi- 
 fying unknown roots, is the stupendous richness of its vo- 
 cabulary. This abundance of linguistic material is not 
 due only, as is often contended, to a vain and luxuriant 
 vegetation of synonyms originating from adjectives or 
 metaphors which ultimately have become independent vo- 
 cables. Arabic shows also an amazingly considerable vari- 
 ety of distinct roots, realizing on an incomparably larger 
 scale than any other cognate language all the various 
 combinations of consonants possible with a Semitic al- 
 phabet. A great number of these roots, even though they 
 have deviated more or less from their original meanings, 
 are primitive and might be considered as common Semitic. 
 It is sometimes argued that this very richness of Semitic 
 roots, numerous tribes having certainly contributed vo- 
 cables for many centuries, easily encourages abuse and has 
 too often led scholars into regrettable errors. This is true 
 and may be amply illustrated from any edition of Gesenius’ 
 Lexicon. It can, however, serve only as a good reason for 
 the Hebrew lexicographer to be always on his guard. But 
 at the same time he has here more than anywhere else 
 real chances to find what he is looking for. 
 
 A third important quality of Arabic from the above 
 viewpoint is its being preserved up to our days as a living 
 language. On many occasions it is thus able to bear 
 the most actual and convincing witness to the true identity 
 
18 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 of doubtful Hebrew vocables. Moreover, the vernacular 
 Arabic dialects are of special interest in this regard. First 
 they certainly may contain old Semitic roots of popular 
 use which for certain reasons did not pass into the classi- 
 cal language. Secondly, those Arabic dialects spread in 
 Semitic countries very likely have absorbed in an immediate 
 way a number of indigenous words, besides others which 
 may have penetrated into classical Arabic through literary 
 or religious influence (from Syriac and Hebrew, for instance). 
 For Biblical lexicography, of course, special attention is 
 due the vernacular of Palestine, then of Syria. See, for 
 instance, the study of the verb w¥n given further on. 
 Another curious example of a loanword from Hebrew may 
 be hizig3? “‘strong’’=pin, used by Jerusalem fallahin, which 
 is unknown in classical Arabic and certainly arose inde- 
 
 pendently of Sy “to compress, bind.”’ 
 
 The fact of Arabic being a relatively young language, 
 i. e. fixed by writing comparatively late, so that it has 
 had sufficient time to alter the original meanings of many 
 
 roots, constitutes really a defect in its relation to Hebrew 
 lexicography. This is, however, not enough to rob it of its 
 advantages and to place it ina rank below that of Assyrian. 
 
 XVIII. Even the tentative explanations afforded by 
 Arabic for difficult passages in the Bible have often their 
 value as clues to surer results or as indications of possi- 
 bilities unsurmised. In Qoh. 3.18, for instance, the sen- 
 tence og9 nq ae7a ony is rendered by nearly all the 
 ancient versions “‘that they are beasts”. To this the 
 Peshitta and the Vulgate add also the translation of ond 
 ens; tlis—, which proves this word to be authentic. 
 As 7a seems to be a mere dittography of apma, the correct 
 text would have read o7% mAyma onv. But even so the 
 
 $2 Lohr, Der Vulgdrarab. Dialekt von Jerusalem, Giessen 1905, p. 124. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 19 
 
 final ond is linguistically puzzling, for it cannot be con- 
 sidered as a dativus commodi usually following some verb. 
 The only alternative possible is to construe O79 as a pos- 
 sessive (=‘‘they have’’). The subject of the sentence o7 
 ought then to mean the possessed thing. This would be 
 the case, if on proved to signify some characteristic of 
 beasts and thus to be in the construct state to 7972. 
 Lambert, therefore, supposes instead of onw “something 
 like 7 pow’’3s, But this emendation is unnecessary if 
 
 we can admit here a connection with Arabic pls (root was) 
 “to run about madly”. Our o7 might be a noun (perhaps 
 oO as SENG: of of) equivalent morphologically to 
 the masdar was of the Arabic verb and signifying ‘‘straying 
 of mind” (comp. last) or ‘‘stupidity.”34 ond mena on 
 
 would thus mean literally “stupidity of beasts is to them’, 
 i. e. they have the stupidity of beasts, or they are stupid 
 like beasts. The whole verse should then be translated 
 as follows: “I said in mine heart concerning the sons of 
 men: truly®> God has created them to show that they are 
 stupid like beasts’? (=that they have the stupidity of 
 beasts). 
 
 XIX. Another example. In two passages mp? is used 
 in a meaning strikingly different from that in which the 
 verb np> is known to occur. In the first instance, np” 
 
 33 See REJ. t. 28, p. 283. 
 34 Comp., for instance, the adjective or participle pale: ‘stupefied, bewildered ”’ 
 
 ee Ona 
 
 in Hariri’s Assemblies uae, London 1897), p.9 (Ass. I): > eniiales 
 lel dite Lgsle b “‘And I started to cross its roads like one crazed”’ 
 (stupefied). 
 
 z. oja>=0+(8)724. This Sov Al “truly”’ or Assyr. lu. N12 is proved by 
 
 the Peshitta. msi is to be vocalized nino (=nin77>) according to the LX X, Peshi- 
 tta and Vulgate. See my article La particule emphatique ‘‘la”’ dans .a Bible, REJ., 1922, 
 NOm14 dep: 12. 
 
20 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 nap Nu. 16.1, all the ancient versions differ from one 
 another. Among Jews the most current rendering was 
 that of Onkelos 195nx) ‘he broke away”’, followed by the 
 Peshitta and made current especially by Rashi and also by 
 Nahmanides (XIIIth cent.). So that np was interpreted 
 to mean here: he took himself off the community (=he 
 founded a separate party). On account probably of this, 
 Kittel’s Bible offers tentatively the emendation pom 
 side by side with another one, opn, obviously suggested 
 by the Vulgate’s periphrasis ecce autem. Ibn-Ezra’s too 
 simple view on np”) as an ellipsis for ‘““he took men”’ has 
 been followed by Christian%¢ translators and the Jew. Publ. 
 Society. The peculiar rendering of the Septuagint €A\aAnoev 
 from A@Aéw ‘to speak, indicate, preach’’, induced Schleus- 
 ner to suppose in np) a verb different from np>, namely 
 nnp37 with the meaning ‘‘to murmur” which he endeavors to 
 justify from the Syriac. Though it is not easy to derive such 
 a sense from this language,%8 the very idea of a special 
 verb distinct from np is fruitful. On one hand the text 
 is surely correct, for pom or opy or any other familiar 
 term could not have occasioned such wide divergences 
 in the ancient versions. On the other hand, the LXX 
 surely read np, as is proved by its interpretation which 
 seems to be derived from np> “learning, teaching’’. If 
 
 so, Mp) must be an intransitive verb and probably akin 
 
 o_ 
 
 to Arabic e “to be impudent, shameless’, which would 
 quite suitably convey the Biblical appreciation of Qorah’s 
 rebellious behavior towards Moses. 
 
 Furthermore, this seems likewise to be the meaning 
 
 36 Author. Engl. Version; see also, for instance: Biblia Sacra, sive Testamentum 
 
 Vetus ab Im. Tremello el Er. Junio ex Hebraeo Latine redditum, Amsterdami MDLXIX. 
 87 See Schleusner: Lexicon in LXX, vol. II, pp. 351-2. 
 
 v Vv 
 8 All that Syriac can offer here for comparison is: VoaQweo (APMP) ‘to laugh”’ 
 
 or wwe. (APpnpnx) ‘‘to gurgle, make a sound as running water”’; ws oZ} 
 
 (Mpnk) “to cry out, raise an outcry, cry for help.” 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY vA 
 
 mtended in Job 15.12: 9°37 yon? AD) FA? ANP nd. One 
 might be at first sight satisfied with the usual translation 
 of this verse: ‘‘Why doth thine heart carry thee away? 
 and what do thy eyes wink at?’ A close examination, 
 however, shows difficulties for both verbs. I, as a 
 aTra& ypagouevoy, attracted already Ibn-Ezra’s atten- 
 tion. The above interpretation of this verb is due merely 
 to its outward resemblance to a metathesis of the Aramaic 
 and later Hebrew 197 which does not occur in the Bible. 
 The LXX’s rendering émnveyxar, from émimépw, suggests 
 rather the reading 71917” (comp. Budde) which is the most 
 likely and in best harmony with the context. Indeed 
 Sayed, like 1y 1oa-Proyv. 30.13, mon oy Prov. 6.17 
 and Ps. 18, 28 etc., conveys the idea of “‘arrogance.”’ Now, 
 as to 439 4nNp* which is here the parallel of Fry 1917’, 
 it is important to note that both the Septuagint and the 
 Peshitta (€roAunoey ‘to dare’, 5221 “to be uplifted’’) 
 do not render the final object suffix 4 of the verb. They 
 seem to have read only np’ which they translated as an 
 intransitive verb expressing, in good parallelism to }1917 
 yy, the idea of “arrogance”’ and identical with the above 
 
 Arabic 35 “to be impudent.’ The correct text of the 
 
 9 2 
 
 whole verse may have been: pry pory am 4a (8s =)mp. 7129 
 “Why doth thine heart dave and why are thy eyes 
 lifted up?” In both instances then, in Nu. 16,1 and Job 
 15.12, we should have to deal not with the customary 
 verb npy but with a quite different one, np (np) =z 35, 
 thus far unknown in Hebrew and belonging to the group 
 of verbs primae ’=}. The right vocalization, therefore, 
 in the above instances would be np, like y7. 
 
 39 The Targum reads here ]”912"5 7”, deriving the meaning from nd‘ teaching’ 
 as did the Septuagint to Nu. 16,1. There is no need to insist on the worthlessness 
 
 of this interpreration, though followed by Rashi. It does not even prove the authen- 
 
 ticity of the final 7 of 7M’, rendered also by the Vulgate. Even in the case of this 
 
ZL A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 XX. From the viewpoint which interests us here, 
 great attention ought to be paid also to Ethiopic. 
 Certain philological features enable this south-Semitic 
 language to yield precious help to Hebrew lexicography, 
 namely, in uncovering the genuine meaning of obscure 
 words or in suggesting the probable etymology of otherwise 
 well-known Biblical vocables. For the exactness in noting 
 the Semitic sounds, it ranks second after Arabic. Indeed, 
 the Ethiopic alphabet has distinct characters for different 
 sounds which are represented in Hebrew by the same sign. 
 Thus, Hebrew nm corresponds to Ethiopic either a (h) or 
 *y (h); Heb. ¥ corresponds to Eth. either & (s) or 8 (d). 
 But the main advantage of this probable offshoot of south- 
 Arabic is its having remained semantically very near to 
 primitive Semitic, much nearer than Arabic. There are 
 numerous examples in Ethiopic which can show clearly the 
 etymology of isolated Arabic vocables or the original 
 
 meanings from which Arabic derived secondary ones. Com- 
 Soe s ; 
 pare, for instance, Ar. asx» ‘‘book”’ and Eth. Amhé. (sahafa) 
 
 . So - “7~ 
 “to write’; Ar. j9e “fortune, omen, augury” and Eth. 
 
 Fat 
 es 
 ptt 
 
 Pq: (‘Of) “fowl; Ar. Garb “physician”’ (Cndo “to practise 
 medicine’) and Eth. MAM (tabib)19 ‘‘wise, learned’’; Ar. 
 
 Bn 
 
 o> “to remain and keep to”’ (a place) or o> “inside of 
 apartments of women, curtain, lair”? and Eth. 4.22 (hadara) 
 “to dwell.” Quite often, when Hebrew would seek in 
 vain its counterpart in Arabic, Ethiopic offers the same 
 vocables with the same meaning or nearly so. Compare, 
 for instance, 1237 ‘“‘to unite, be joined’? and #Néd or "hNé, 
 
 Latin version which is by far earlier than the Targum, the mistaking of the intransitive 
 verb np” for npd has had sufficient time to cause the object suffix required by this 
 transitive verb to creep into the text. A period of about two centuries separates the 
 
 Vulgate from the Peshitta. 
 § a 
 
 40 A quite analogous derivation of meaning is offered by Ar. aKa ** phy- 
 
 - 
 
 sician’’ (also ‘‘learned, wise’’) and Heb. D5N “wise.” 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 23 
 
 moar “lion” and AC® “wild beast’”’, paw “to swarm, teem”’ 
 and 2A “to germinate, sprout”, Up “small, insignificant” 
 and $a} ‘thin’, on “strength” and "#2A, pr “to run” 
 and @& (rosa), nx “moon” and @G€4, np “to make bald” 
 and #€cdh (rare) etc. Much more important, however, 
 is another fact, namely, that sometimes Ethiopic is of all 
 the Semitic languages the only one to present the exact 
 counterpart of Hebrew vocables. Compare, for instance, 
 pnw ‘“tolaugh” and Wah? (Sahaqa), 778 “to gather, pluck’’ 
 and @é@& (araya), po “to count” and 4.2 ‘‘to measure”’, 
 ppi ‘cleft’? (of rock) and 3##. Again a very important 
 feature, from our viewpoint, is the fact that the Ethiopic 
 vocalization, as has already been pointed out by Néldeke,*! 
 is more clearly and surely represented than in any other 
 of the Semitic languages; for the vowels are here attached 
 to the body of the consonants themselves. Originating 
 from a south-Arabic stock and transported into an African 
 country where it was isloated in non-Semitic surroundings, 
 Ethiopic quite unlike Arabic stopped developing secondary 
 meanings easily. Two further factors that may readily 
 have contributed to this effect are, on the one hand, the 
 fixing of this language in writing by the translation of 
 the Bible as early as the [Vth century C. E. and, on the 
 other hand, the very scanty literary production in general. 
 Thus we have every reason to expect valuable help for 
 Hebrew lexicography and Biblical exegesis from the Ethi- 
 opic language. Let us, therefore, briefly examine a few 
 
 suggestions. 
 
 XXI. The authenticity of the a@maé Xeyouevov vp 
 in Ez. 16.47 is most usually called in question by modern 
 lexicographers and commentators, so that there is no lack 
 in emendations proposed. It is, however, quite important 
 to ascertain that the traditional Jewish interpretation 
 
 41 Th. Nodsdeke: Die Semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig 1899, pp. 68-9. 
 
24 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 little (ups? wyo “a little bit’’) finds its corroboration in 
 Ethiopic, which reveals likewise the root yup of the much 
 discussed vocable. Indeed, this is the root of Eth. Raw? 
 (quatit) ‘thin’, APMM (aqtetata) “to make thin’. vup 
 is related to }¥p as the Eth. root #Mm (qatata) to #Ms 
 (qatana). There is even an exact morphological corres- 
 pondence between the two languages with regard to the 
 adjectives respectively derived from both roots. Thus 
 Ethiopic choosing the form pa‘il has $a} (qatin) and RauP 
 (quatit), while Hebrew preferring here the form bys 
 (comp. 097 pon) presents yup and up=vup (comp. 57 for 
 bb bp for 5bp). The right vocalization would be yp. 
 The latter is then a mere synonym‘? of yup, and up vyns 
 means literally ‘like a small little” (=‘“‘like a little bit’’). 
 Moreover, 0p need no more remain isolated. Its 
 root WYP reappears in several instances where it had 
 been mistaken for ¥1p, a supposed parallel form of pp, 
 with the meaning “‘to feel a loathing’. This is certainly 
 wrong. Ezek. 6.9 077252 wpyn reveals unmistakably the 
 root vup in the niph‘al form and is to be rendered exactly: 
 ‘and they shall be belittled against their faces’? (=at 
 themselves). The same niph‘al occurs again in Ezek. 
 20.43 and 36.31 where the correct vocalization ought to 
 be onspn instead of onypn which may have been influenced 
 by the holem of the first instances wpn Ez. 6.9. The 
 fact that this verb occurs three times in Ezekiel certainly 
 gives some good support to the authenticity of the above 
 adjective up “‘little, small’’ in the same book. The hith- 
 42 See Rashi and especially Qimhi. 
 43 Thus OP would not be an abridgment of the word ]UP, as believed by F. Perles, 
 Analekten sur Textkrilik des Alten Testaments, Miinchen 1895, p. 30. 
 44 The same niph‘al occurs also in Job. 10,1 (WD3) mp) for m9p)- As to Job 
 8,14 yb05 vip? “WN, as long as it can not represent a noun parallel to w’ADy m3, the 
 
 best woud be to consider vip? (=p?) as the Imperfect Qal of OOP and to render 
 
 the hemistich as follows: ‘‘Whose hope is small.’ 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 25 
 
 po‘el form met with in Ps. 119.158 (aywipnEi) and ibidem 
 139.21 (obIpns&) may well be translated, in accordance with 
 the usual Jewish interpretation, to quarrel from the original 
 
 meaning ‘“‘to belittle each other.’?’ Anyhow, a root vp, 
 synonymous with pp, thus far has been supported by no 
 
 positive philological proofs. 
 
 XXII. Ethiopic can also reveal the unknown etymology 
 of the Biblical verb Ann and the noun Anny derived from it. 
 The verb is usually translated ‘“‘to snatch up’’, but has 
 in all4s the instances where it occurs five or coals (burning) 
 as object. Compare Is. 30.14 7p wy ninnb; Prov. 6.27 
 ipna wx wx amg; Prov. 25.22 wri Sy ann ans od op. 
 The noun 7mm “‘fire-pan, censer, snuff-dish’’ denotes 
 properly a utensil to serve as receptacle for burning things. 
 Undoubtedly, therefore, the root must originally have 
 contained the idea of ‘“burning”’ or ‘“‘kindling’”’. This is, 
 indeed, confirmed by Ethiopic "rfr@ (hatawa) ‘to be kind- 
 led, to burn and light”’ (candle, lamp or the like). Starting 
 from the basic idea of kindling and burning, the common 
 term would have developed in Ethiopic as an intransitive 
 verb, while in Hebrew it took a transitive sense, ‘‘to kindle’”’ 
 satisfactorily suiting the above mentioned passages. 
 
 XXIII. A last example will help us to find out the right 
 interpretation of the second hemistich of Prov. 12.27 
 pion 7p? o4N-7)m, which has been much discussed and very 
 differently rendered. Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta 
 read: pian O78 Ap? pM “ 
 treasure.’’ To say nothing of the inversion implied, this 
 
 and a diligent man is a precious 
 
 interpretation offers rather a poor parallelism to the first 
 
 45 The Biblical lexica (Gesenius-Rob., B. Davidson) put quite wrongly under 
 this root 4A? of Ps. 52,7 which is evidently nothing else than another vocalization 
 for the hiph’il oialaw ‘the shall shatter thee’’. This was well understood by the Targum 
 42"74rm (followed by Rashi) and, still earlier, by Aquila who gives the rendering TTONTEL 
 (See Fields’s Hexaplorum Fragmenta, Oxonii 1875, t.II, p. 176). 
 
26 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 hemistich. The Vulgate renders without inversion: ef 
 
 ‘ 
 
 substantia hominis ertt aurt pretium ‘‘and the price of gold 
 
 shall be the substance of a man.’”’ Thus Jerome read 7p 
 yin ‘the price of gold”. The English authorized version 
 supposes a text 1p? p17N OS 71M “but the substance of a 
 diligent man is precious.”’ Waildeboer has even suggested 
 to read yinn® as an infinitive “to be diligent’’; but there 
 is no other example of such a verb either in Hebrew or 
 in the cognate languages. 
 
 Now the first hemistich expresses the reluctance of 
 the slothful man for any effort, whatever translation we 
 
 may accept for Jom‘7: whether “to roast”’ after the Syriac or 
 
 46 Wildeboer, Die Spriiche (in Marti’s ‘‘Handkommentar’’), Freiburg 1897, p. 38. 
 
 47 Both interpretations of ww are very unlikely. Neither of them can show 
 any connection with the ancient versions. Both, more especially Schultens’ Arabic 
 suggestion (‘‘to start the game’’) which is prevalent among modern commentators, 
 evoke a vivid image of hunting life. This, however, was never popular enough among 
 Hebrews, especially of a later epoch, to expect of it typical illustrations for current 
 proverbs. Anyway, the above image would offer rather a far-fetched example of 
 slothfulness which the Book of Proverbs, in other passages, ordinarily illustrates by 
 characteristic instances borrowed from agricultural life, as is natural for an agricultural 
 people. Compare Prov. 20,4 yr xd Oxy FAM ‘A sluggard plougheth not in autumn” 
 (or ‘‘after harvest’’); ibidem 10.5 W399 j2 VSp3a 077) bon ]2 Y°p3 Us “He that gather- 
 elh in summer is a wise son, but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causes shame.”’ 
 In a similar way Prov. 6,8 describes diligence: m9DND VSP. MIX mond Y’p3 pon 
 “‘Provideth (the ant) her bread in the summer, gathereth her food in the harvest.” 
 
 The Jewish rendering of WT “to roast, singe’’ is due to later Aramaic influence, 
 when the verb NM had penetrated into post-biblical Hebrew. In the time of Jerome 
 this interpretation must not yet have been very current. Two weighty reasons seem to 
 indicate that the Massoretic 7M differs from the primitive text. First, as yg (7M) 
 is common in Syriac, the Peshitta could not have missed coinciding with the Jewish 
 interpretation, if reading JM. Secondly, not only do the Septuagint, the Peshitta and 
 the Vulgate differ altogether from this interpretation which, for ] 1, would necessarily 
 be imposed upon them at a time when Aramaic (including Syriac) was paramount in 
 all western Asia, but all these ancient versions seem to point to one and the same 
 verb with the basic meaning “‘to gather.’’ This general sense, of course, had to comply 
 
 with the object "PX. As it was rendered ‘‘game’’ by both the Septuagint and the 
 
 Peshitta, so the former interprets the verb émirevierar, from émiTvyxavw ‘to 
 reach, get, attain, obtain’’; and the latter gives the same meaning of the sentence with 
 ‘“‘oame’’ as the subject Jp; ocd) rt) “game doth not meet’’ (occur, present itself). 
 But very curious and suggestive is the Vulgate’s rendering of this hemistich: ‘Non 
 inveniet fraudulentus lucrum”, ‘The defrauder shall reach no gain.”” No more hunting 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY A 
 
 “to start’’ according to the Arabic. The second hemistich, 
 as antithesis, ought naturally to convey the readiness of 
 the diligent man even for hard work, the latter leading 
 finally to great success. In opposition to 7°97, therefore, 
 the subject would most probably be here p1nn “‘the diligent 
 man’’, at the end of the verse. The hemistich, then, 
 evidently begins with a direct complement, 1i7), thus giv- 
 ing the sentence a regularly reversed construction. Ac- 
 cordingly, we must find the verb which rules this object 
 7 somewhere preceding the subject ping. Such a verb 
 can be found only in our 1p’ that ought to be vocalized 
 Cupi=) 7p, from 1p “to dig, bore’. The same root 
 as a verb occurs in one more passage repeated in two parallel 
 documents, namely in Is. 37.25 and II Ki. 19. 24: 1% 
 on omnwi nap “I have digged (a well) and drunk water’”’. 
 The identity of the verb and consequently also the authen- 
 
 here. This is certainly an echo, even if not quite exact, of the old Jewish interpretation 
 anterior to Aramaic influence and still known in Jerome’s time; otherwise he would 
 
 have followed in the main the Septuagint. Indeed YX has two distinct meanings of 
 
 which ‘‘game’’ was the best known in later times, owing to the verb 18 ‘‘to hunt” 
 which is common in the Bible. The seond signification is “‘food, provisions’’, 
 
 established beyond question by expressions like O¥ ON? (Jos. 9,5) ‘‘their food-supply”’, 
 the denominative verb TOXT (ibidem 9,12 and also 9,4 instead of YUM) ‘‘to supply 
 
 oneself with provisions’’, and other instances. In our proverb, too, thisis the genuine 
 sense of 1X. As regards 1M, the similar rendering of all the three above versions 
 
 seems naturally to point to a textual error for 7. This verb ala would be the equiv- 
 
 a oe 
 
 alent of Arabic —5 ~, ‘‘to gather”’ (fruit) and etymologically akin to Hebrew AN 
 “harvest-time, autumn’’, but ought not to be confused with the later denominative 
 verb of the same stem, an ““to spend the harvest-time’”’. Such a slight textual error, 
 | for *, was unavoidable as a consequence of the misinterpretation "?¥ ‘‘game"’ at 
 a time when on the one hand the correct meaning of ‘WN. “to gather the fruit’’, was 
 forgotten, and on the other our now hapax legomenon 47M “‘to roast, singe’’ was 
 quite usual. Weare thus permitted to conjecture that the above textual error occurred 
 about the middle of the period which elapsed between the Vulgate and the Massora, 
 
 i. e. either at the end of the Vth or at the beginning of the VIth century. Finally 
 YS TD ahaa nb ‘the sluggard gathereth not (even) his provision’”’ yields the best 
 
 parallelism and harmonizes in spirit with the similar proverhs above mentioned. Thus 
 WN is but a synonym of “aS and F}ON. 
 
28 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 ticity of this text are sufficiently warranted by the deriva- 
 tive “po ‘‘spring, fountain’’ and the Arabic‘s verb yk 
 (555) “to cut a round hole in, scoop out’’; so that the 
 
 suggested emendation *™713 may certainly be dispensed 
 with. Now our above proverb, too, speaks of the diligent 
 man digging out a treasure. A phrase like jin ap is 
 synonymous with mi~veD WIDN) Job 3.21. As to oy 
 that accompanies 17 so closely (maqqeph), it can represent 
 here only some qualificative of “‘a treasure’. We may 
 thus be in the presence of a Hebrew counterpart to the 
 adjective A489” (’adam) “‘fair, pleasant, delightful, charming”’, 
 corresponding in the Ethiopic version of the Bible with 
 Hebrew? Msi, 2Ww ,o°y2 ,any. Then, ow ine would be 
 a synonymous phrase of 79m) 1x18 Prov. 21.20. So that the 
 exact rendering of our hemistich ping 7p. oqNTim would 
 read as follows: ‘And the diligent (man) diggeth out a 
 delightful treasure.” 
 
 The following studies in Hebrew roots will be more 
 detailed and systematic, so as to present a more concrete 
 illustration of the general ideas laid down in this introduc- 
 
 tion. 
 
 48 Ethiopic ove may present a mere metathesis of the first two radicals of our 
 
 verb. 
 
 49 For Biblical references see Dillmann, Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae, pp. 800-801, 
 Lipsiae MDCCCLXV. 
 
 50 O18 **pleasant, fair’’ may, as conjectured by Gesenius (Thesaurus 1829, p. 24), 
 be derived from O78 “‘to be red’. A similar connection is to be noticed in Russian bet- 
 ween krasniy ‘‘red"’ and krasiviy (or prekrasniy) ‘nice, beautiful’, both belonging to 
 
 thesame root. Also JY ‘‘scarlet’’ may possibly be related to Ar. (tr ‘to shine, flash”’ 
 
 and Eth. D?$@ (sannaya) “be beautiful”. 
 
BLY NMOLOGIGALSS PUDIES: 
 
 XXIV. 1. 78 (root Ts) “to be strong and powerful.” 
 
 The first hemistich of Job 31.23, 58 4'8 obs an 0D, 
 puzzles the reader by the lack of a verb. The most usual 
 way of translating it is: ‘For calamity from God was a 
 terror to me.’ Compare Targum: ran °om> m>7 onK 
 sm2x. This translation thus follows literally the Mas- 
 soretic text, as if it had a sentence of reverse construction 
 
 before it with bs tx as subject and x np as predicate. 
 
 It is, however, noticeable that out of more than twenty 
 examples of Tx occurring in the Bible none, when used in 
 the construct state or when provided with pronominal 
 suffixes, refers to the author of the “‘calamity or distress”’ 
 but all do so to the victim of it. Therefore the above in- 
 terpretation of 5s TN as “calamity from God” must at 
 first sight seem questionable. Also an expression like 
 »"98 IND in the sense of “a terror to me’’ can hardly be 
 considered Hebrew; since “to me”’ in the meaning of for 
 me, after a predicate noun, is generally expressed by °9 52 
 
 instead of *bx 
 
 While accepting in the main the above meaning of 
 the sentence, Ehrlich 53 nevertheless suggests the emenda- 
 tion: bx v bs anpocp “for the most terrible of terrors is 
 the hand of God’’, taking by amp as a superlative. But 
 such an aphoristic form of sentence, general and objective, 
 to say nothing of the heavy and improbable repetition of 
 
 bx, does not seem simple enough as a mere parallel of the 
 
 61 Nearly so read the traditional Jewish explanation, the English authorized 
 version, Saadya, Philippson, Kautzsch, Budde, the Jew. Pubi. Soc. etc. 
 BARE OM DA LOL MIStance seLOVen O.ns, OS. o 24 22 alone rk (e202 20,o ei: 
 58 Randgtossen zur hebr. Bibe., Leipzig 1913, Band YI, p. 304. 
 29 
 
30 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 following hemistich which is personal and subjective: inswn 
 baix xd ‘And by reason of his majesty I could do nothing.’ 
 It is the more interesting to compare with the above 
 general interpretation the two most ancient versions of 
 the Bible which seem to differ from the MT. Indeed both 
 the Septuagint and the Peshitta render our hemistich by 
 a normal sentence of logical structure with amp as subject and 
 with a special verb of similar meaning. Thus the Septuagint 
 reads: goBos yap ouvéoxey we ‘For a terror overwhelmed 
 me.’ The Peshitta reads: saps lad oddo99 Saco 
 Cinyts NO9ST AN2NI7 29vD) “For the terror of God seized 
 me’’ (more exactly: ‘‘made me tremble, terrified me.’’) 
 It seems, therefore, very probable that the Hebrew 
 text, too, would contain here some verb. Indeed, Kittel 
 deeming our verse corrupt, does not hesitate to read: IND 
 *ounx’ 9x. Now, if this bx is beyond all question as proved 
 by the above Syriac version, a verb like xns& ‘“‘to come”’ 
 would appear really weak as a predicate to the expression 
 ‘the terror of God’? and when compared with ouvvéoxev 
 and wads.) Ciny’ts). Seemingly, it would have been sug- 
 
 gested by the supplementary explanation to our hemistich, 
 embodied in the Syriac verse: ass 12] ne aZé O9Y NNN TIAN) 
 “and the calamity from Him came upon me.” 
 
 As to the Hebrew text, it can contain a verb with a 
 meaning similar to that of the above verbs of the two 
 earliest versions only. Such a verb, almost without any 
 real text emendation, might be 7x from the root 7s that has 
 given the usual noun wx ‘‘calamity’’ assumed to occur 
 in our verse. Thus the Bible would have preserved here 
 a unique example of the Arabic verb Sit (root dol) “to 
 be strong and powerful’’. Our text would not be properly 
 corrupt, but there might have occurred a mere mistake 
 in the separation of the words, the final yod of 8 be- 
 longing really to the beginning of the next word, namely 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 31 
 
 the Imperfect +t. Then our hemistich would read: snp »D 
 eby=) cx py by “For the terror of God was mighty upon 
 me’’. Sy yx would be, with more emphasis, synonymous 
 with »Sy pi in expressions like mpin °9y 'A 4 (Ezek. 
 3.14) “and the hand of the Lord was strong upon me’; 
 aNy 27y pin 79on-Iam (1 Chr. 21.4) ‘and the King’s word 
 prevailed against Joab’; ayrn omy pin -> (Gen. 47.20) 
 
 y 
 
 ‘‘because the famine was sore upon them”’, etc. 
 Obviously I consider this verb 4x (r. 7°8) akin to the 
 
 noun x “calamity, misfortune”’ (something strong versus 
 
 us) and both the verb and the noun to be connected with 
 
 the above Arabic root df, mediae *, rather than with the 
 verb SH, mediae 1 (root 9!) meaning ‘‘to ate 
 as admitted by many,* or than the geminate of “to 
 happen, overwhelm” proposed by others. The evolution 
 of meaning from ot (r. dol) “to be strong and powerful”’ 
 
 up to Tx “calamity, distress’? would find a parallel in the 
 
 = 
 
 verb (3 ‘fasten tight, strengthen, increase in violence”’ 
 and the derived noun gah or Fhadkss ‘misfortune, misery, 
 calamity’’. Compare also Assyrian dandnu ‘‘to be strong” 
 and dannatu5> ‘distress, affliction.’’ 
 
 As to the last word of our hemistich, °>s instead of 
 %y, it is sufficient to remember that the confusion of the 
 prepositions bx and by occurs so often in the Bible that 
 is seems quite superfluous to quote any examples.*6 
 
 Finally, with this verb ry we get the most natural 
 parallelism between the two halves of our verse: “ For 
 the terror of God was mighty upon me, by reason of 
 
 His majesty I could do nothing.”’ 
 
 54 See 7x, for instance, in Gesenius’ or in Fuerst’s lexicon to the Oid Testament. 
 
 55 See Muss-Arnolt: A concise Dictionary of the Assyrian language, Berlin 1905, 
 aR PASI 
 
 5@ See Friedrich Delitzsch: Die Lese-und Schreibefehler im Aiten Testament, 
 p. 124, Berlin and Leipzig 1920. 
 
32 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 XXV. 2.2 ‘‘a field for pasture, a wide valley”’. 
 
 This vocable exercised considerably the mind of com- 
 mentators of Zeph. 2. 14: °1u"mnm 95 DOTY ADINA 1x37). 
 Some interpreted it in the sense of ‘‘people’’. However, not 
 only is there no reason for such an expression as ‘‘animals of 
 the people’, but even an implied meaning such as ‘‘the 
 
 yy 
 
 animals of all the nations”’ is logically out of the question 
 here: as a rule animals of very different countries cannot 
 exist in the same climate; and why is it necessary that the 
 animals of all the nations should be there? Similarly the 
 meaning ‘‘crowd”’ or “‘multitude’’ does not suit here, for 
 then we should expect 7’n 53 "1. or something else, but 
 certainly not the present 1 wn 5p. 
 
 Now it is important to note that the Septuagint and 
 the Targum almost coincide in their interpretation of this 
 phrase: the Septuagint renders -1n"n by Ta Onpla tns ys 
 ‘the animals of the earth’; the Targum has x12 nyn 
 ‘the animals of the field’’. Basing themselves on these 
 renderings many of the newer critics have come to the con- 
 clusion that our text is corrupt5? and should read ‘tw inn 
 ‘‘the animals of the field’. Even Ben-Jehuda who thinkss 
 that ‘for us, for lexical purposes, the main thing is the ex- 
 isting text, and therefore we are compelled to accept the 
 word °)) in the sense of field, forest, wilderness’’—even he 
 admits on the other hand that “from the translation of the 
 Septuagint it would appear that they had before them 1n’n 
 maw or 1y°’’ and therefore ‘‘this is a doubtful word whose 
 origin is unknown”’. 
 
 ” 
 
 However, here likewise the Arabic language helps us 
 to bring the Massoretic text and the early translations into 
 perfect harmony. Indeed, the word *) in our text is old 
 and genuine and needs no correction. It is the equivalent 
 
 of Arabic > whose meaning coincides exactly with the 
 
 8? Zettschrift f.d. alttest. Wissenschaft, X, 194. 
 68 Ben-Yehuda: Thesaurus, II, 719, note. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 33 
 
 translations of the Septuagint and the Targum. Freytag*» 
 renders it terra, regio ampla, campus. 
 
 In this way the passage in Zephaniah is explained with- 
 out difficulty. The prophet wishes to depict the destruction 
 of Nineveh and Asshur (beginning with verse 13) as he de- 
 picted in the same chapter (verses 5-7) the destruction of 
 the Philistine cities: the land will be laid waste without 
 inhabitant and will be converted into a’place of pasture for 
 cattle. -1m’n thus really means ‘“‘the animals of the field’’, 
 i.e. cattle that graze on pasture, in juxta position with o-77y 
 of the preceding hemistich. It is even likely that this 
 1 is derived from the same root as the word &’1(comp 
 
 ly >.) 
 
 pol : (1) ‘to recede, turn the 
 
 XXVI.° 3a. 1297 comp. 
 back, flee, go away’’. 
 
 In Job 19. 18: °3-19237% 7D1PsS 73 OND D91y-01 nobody 
 doubts that it is related to the ordinary verb 1137 in the 
 sense of speech. However, since plain speech yields no 
 satisfactory sense to this phrase and expresses no clear 
 thought, the word is made to yield the sense of ‘‘words of 
 mockery, derision, defamation, etc.’’ In this sense approx- 
 imately all the translators and interpreters of ancient and 
 modern times have construed it. But is it not surprising: 
 if spite or wickedness is to be understood here, why is it 
 that just as Job rises they mock at him? 
 
 In order to understand this error we must observe well 
 and carefully the fundamental characteristic of the com- 
 plaints which are expressed by Job in verses 13-19 of our 
 chapter. Job does not accuse anyone of active cruelty 
 
 69 The ancient origin of the word "11 here need not be impaired in the least even if 
 
 we note that Freytag quotes also a synonym of that family whose form corresponds 
 S - 
 
 much more to the Hebrew ")): are non conveniens alicui terra ‘‘earth of no use to 
 
 &. 
 anybody", i.e. abandoned, uncultivated. 
 
34 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 against him, such as mockery, calumny, denunciation, 
 etc. It would be difficult to imagine such a thing in the 
 East with reference to an unfortunate man afflicted with 
 terrible suffering, and especially with reference to Job who 
 was a lord among his people» But one thing Job complains 
 bitterly of, and that is his great lonesomeness. All his 
 acquaintances and friends have abandoned and forgotten 
 him; his servants consider him a stranger and refuse to 
 obey his commands; his repulsive disease and the putrid 
 breath of his mouth or nostrils(?303 325 *mam snwed A417) 
 keep away from him his wife and all those who were wont 
 to be in his company (710 np). In short, all abandon him, 
 not out of spite or cruelty, but because of repulsiveness and 
 loathing (nayn...°2 OND). 
 
 And indeed, in accordance with all this train of thoughts, 
 also °A7277) means nothing else but “they runaway from 
 me, they turn their back on me, they go away’’. And so 
 exactly is the meaning of this root in Arabic, although in 
 
 the Hiph‘il form aol. Accepting our meaning of 727, 
 we obtain a satisfactory correspondence of thought bet- 
 ween the two hemistichs: ’2 10ND OS yy oy “Even urchins 
 despise me’’ on account of my great repulsiveness, 7D1PX 
 > het fs He a 
 
 46 
 
 when I rise (to come near to them), they turn 
 away from me, (turn their back on me)’’. It is noteworthy 
 that in this rendering our sentence will correspond, hemi- 
 stich for hemistich, with the verse immediately following: 
 Gata =) 29D) -naAN-AN oD eno@b> (03 1OND =)*IAyn. 
 
 XXVIT. 3a. (2) “to follow someone, go in someone's 
 footsteps’. 
 
 The above mentioned meaning—to recede, to flee—does 
 not suit Cant. 5.6: i373 ANxX’ wD), coming immediately 
 after the verbs 12y pon which already have this signification. 
 
 However, it is quite possible to ascribe to it with sufficient 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 39 
 
 --vF 
 certainty the second meaning of -204: to follow somebody, 
 
 go in someone’s footsteps. For this Arabic verb, which 
 
 Go? 
 
 is originally connected with re ‘back, hinder part’’, ap- 
 parently evolved its meanings from this concept in two 
 different, almost opposite, directions: on the one hand, it 
 has reference to the back of the subject, in which case 
 it means ‘‘to recede, turn the back, go away’’, as in the 
 above-mentioned passage of Job; on the other hand it in- 
 volves the back of the object, meaning then “to follow some- 
 one, go in the footsteps of, etc.’’ The latter meaning fits 
 well Cant. 5. 6. Here there is no question about words 
 spoken by the lover, since he has already disappeared (pon 
 339); but just because of his disappearance his beloved 
 went out in his footsteps, ran after him to get hold of him. 
 iMa1=inik a7; it is a transitive verb, the 1 being the 
 pronominal object suffix. Ns’ ‘wD] signifies not the 
 pleasure felt at hearing the words ofthe lover, but the im- 
 patience experienced at the lengthy search and vain running 
 to and fro, as is made clear in the words immediately follo- 
 wing: 7229 85. ypoxap nese Ndi inwpsa. Indeed, the 
 Shulamite utters her words in logical order and natural 
 
 sequence: 
 ay pon om 175 008 onnnD 
 I7373 ANY’ wD) 
 oy 8d) yap Wns xd) wenwpa 
 
 Po tie Sb asain tozsubdue?. 
 
 This Hiph‘il occurs twice in the Book of Psalms. From 
 18. 48 *nnn omy 727 °9 maps jman dsm one cannot judge 
 as to the original meaning of this verb, despite the fact that 
 its derived sense is made evident by the preposition *nnn 
 pointing to ‘“‘subduing”. However, it is a philological 
 axiom that every word, whether noun or verb, had (or its 
 root had) originally a concrete signification and that only 
 
36 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 by way of metaphor did it receive subsequently derived 
 meanings, as need for them arose. The second passage 
 47. 4 yp5an nnn ovond) aennn ony tat may give us 
 the proper clue as to the origin and etymological sense 
 of watn. If it is possible to say wb37 nnn WAIF in 
 the sense of ‘‘subduing’’, then it is clear that we are 
 dealing here with a striking expression illustrating the 
 concrete picture with which primitive man presented to 
 himself the concept of victory over his enemy: the conqueror 
 steps with his foot on the back of the conquered. A707 
 then may be construed as a denominative verb closely 
 related to ,9O ‘‘back’’, which has been preserved in 
 Arabic, just as the Hiph‘il o-bo17 mx Jonan “he caused 
 the camels to bend their knees” is related to the noun 
 p72 or yuan to oyis. Also y27 meant originally no 
 doubt ‘to cause somebody to bend his legs*, to kneel”’, 
 only by metaphor it received subsequentiy the abstract 
 meaning of ‘subduing an enemy”’ or even “oppression of 
 the soul’’. And so it seems very probable that the Hiph‘il 
 7177 meant originally ‘“‘to cause somebody to bend his 
 back’’, and through metaphor it came to mean ‘‘subdue’”’. 
 
 XXIX. 4. “quaking, roar, shout”’. 
 
 The author of the book of Job, in describing the prow- 
 ess of the horse and its eagerness to fight, says of it in 39- 
 25: MNT TDN BY "73. The traditional interpretation which 
 is still current among most of the commentators is as fol- 
 lows: “‘As often as (he heareth the sound of) the trumpet 
 (calling for war) he rejoiceth exceedingly’’. And therefore 
 Gesenius, Budde, and others think that Ia is a synonym 
 of and is derived from the well-known stem 4 ‘‘sufficient’’. 
 
 60 Perhaps some difference should be indicated between 9/737, 37M, on the one 
 hand, and y’D7 on the other: the latter hiph‘il may be derived directly from the qal 
 yD. But there is not much importance in this difference, the qal yy itself being 
 probably derived from the noun O'y93. And besides we find the qal 42, a denominative 
 from 0°D723, in Syriac and twice in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 37 
 
 The translations of the Septuagint and the Vulgate agree 
 fairly with the above sense: the former exhibits ca\7vyyos Oe 
 onuatvovons ‘when the trumpet makes known”’, when it 
 gives a sign (for an attack); the latter has: ubi audierit buc- 
 cinam ‘“‘when he has heard (the sound of) a trupmet’’. Evi- 
 dently both these versions understood 7)y "ta as an ellip- 
 tic clause and supplied the missing verb. The Septuagint 
 added it to "Dw as subject; the Vulgate construed pip of 
 verse 19 as subject and Dw as a direct complement. 
 
 Strange here is the Peshitta version which renders 
 15wv 73 by one word 89pa= Heb. Yipa taken adverbially, 
 and the whole phrase in this way: (the horse) sayeth ‘‘ha, 
 ha!’ (=neigheth) in a (loud) voice. But it is difficult 
 to determine whether the Syriac translator read 1Dw’7A3 
 in one word, in the manner of the Talmudic expressions 
 8D973 ,TAy'ta, and translated ‘in the voice of a trumpet”’, 
 but for the sake of shortness employed only one word xbpa 
 aloud,—or indeed the word 7 has also a special meaning, 
 ‘shout, roar, quaking’’, which had been forgotten in the 
 course of time. 
 
 It is surprising that Sa‘adya offers an interpretation® 
 which is less satisfactory than all the others: piadbx »dx 1m 
 "SNNPR NAT Yip, ie. ‘and he (the horse) will say to the 
 trumpet: this is the brotherhood!’ Accordingly 15v *1a=> 
 to the trumpet. It is especially surprising in the case of 
 Sa‘adya, since he knew the Arabic language perfectly. Yet 
 he overlooked the fact that in this language there is a word 
 supplying the key to the understanding of this passage, to the 
 
 original meaning of the word 13. This word is ist 
 
 (Freytag: susurrus, sonus),‘‘a noise, a roar®!4, a shout’’,which 
 
 61 Version arabe du Livre de Job de R. Saadia ben Josef al-Fayyoumi, publiee avec 
 des notes hebraiques par W. Bacher, Paris 1899, . 
 61a) See for instance: Lingus leis pe a=, AS LIL lot, 
 pl 1 cas Lego “and behold the ground trembled under us and we heard a 
 roar from theair’’, (Les Voyages de Sindebad le Marin, ed. Machuel 55). 
 
38 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 in early Hebrew was shortened through the receding of 
 the vowel of the second radical and the elimination of the 
 1 as a half-consonant: 17 became °7 just as 13 became 5 
 (Is. 3. 24). It is very likely therefore that the word should 
 be vocalized with a hireq 15°72, only that under the influ- 
 ence of analogy with the ordinary construct state of 1-7 
 (‘‘sufficient’’) the Massoretes introduced here likewise “2, 
 Thus the two ancient versions of the Bible first men- 
 tioned above understood the general spirit of our passage, 
 especially the Septuagint. In the Syriac version there is 
 perhaps a trace of the original meaning of the word "1 (<1), 
 but the general sense of the sentence has become obscured. 
 Sa‘adya’s translation is defective in both respects. Only 
 if we add the aid of Arabic £59 to the rendering of the 
 Septuagint do we geta complete explanation of the sentence 
 —both as regards the verbal meaning and the general sense 
 of the clause. Let us not forget that the preposition 3 
 serves not only as a locative or instrumental but also as a 
 temporal particle. Thus n87 798° 1Dv¥ '72 means simply: 
 “at the sound of the trumpet—i.e. when the sound of the 
 trumpet calling for battle is heard—the horse rejoices’’. 
 
 XXX. 5. nxvn “step, walk”’. 
 
 This is the only meaning that naturally suits the 
 word as it occurs in Prov. 13.6; Aywn  FyTON 7kn ApPIY 
 neon *bon. 
 
 
 
 The verse is usually translated—in accordance with the 
 Peshitta and the Vulgate—as follows: ‘‘ Righteousness 
 keepeth (or guardeth) him that is upright in the way, 
 but wickedness overthroweth the sinner.” This translation 
 is based upon the treatment of the expression 477-0n, 
 in spite of the fact that the Massora particularly vocalizes 
 
 62 So interpret the English Authorized version, and most of the Jewish commen- 
 tators, e. g. Rashi, Ibn-Ezra, Philippson, the Eng. transl. of the Jew. Publ. Soc., the 
 
 French transl. Zadoc Kahn etc. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 39 
 
 the word ‘on (with 6) as the construct of on, as a pure 
 adjedctive (=on) “the man who is upright of way.’’s 
 Consequently nxgn must express the antithesis of such a 
 
 b] 
 
 qualificative, i. e. ‘‘the sinner, the man of sin.’ 
 
 But, as hinted above, yrvon according to the Mas- 
 soretic punctuation is an abstract noun meaning ‘“up- 
 rightness of way.’’ Had the intention of the Massoretic 
 tradition been to express an adjective, it would rather 
 have used the typical phrase qrrmen which is found in 
 ready proximity to our verse, i. e. in Prov. 11.20 Qnusm 
 Mm eon) easeaisosin rs, 119 1 (447 Don 40s). This 
 is analogous to other expressions, like mya opm and won 
 ov (Job. 36.4; 37.16). 
 
 In regard to the use of the word nxyn in the sense of 
 ‘“sinner’’, even Saadya (Xth cent.) was reluctant to accept 
 so bold a metonymy, preferring to look upon it as a second 
 subject of the sentence and to translate: ‘“‘ But wicknedness* 
 and sin pervert.’ Kautzsch®, indeed, is led to doubt 
 the authenticity of the MT. Ehrlich, also, feels that in 
 this passage it is impossible to give to the word nxun its 
 
 customary meaning. 
 
 Among other modern commentators, Bickell and 
 Kittel may be mentioned as having based their transla- 
 tions upon the LXX and, in view of the reading Tous 0¢€ 
 doeBers, would substitute oywan for ayy. In such 
 manner, having n&vun as subject, the second hemistich of 
 
 our verse would be made to mean: ‘“‘ But szz makes the un- 
 
 b 
 
 godly worthless’’, or “‘and sin overthrows the wicked.”’ 
 
 63 The Vulgate offers here an inversion: viam innocentis (=OM VW “the way of 
 the upright one.”’ 
 
 64 Saadya: Version arabe des Proverbes, éd. Leroux, Paris 1894; see p. 70. 
 xp AvSdN) mdon. 
 
 65 See his Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, Freiburg und Leipzig 1894, 
 p. 796. 
 
40 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 I should, however, recall the fact that in an article® 
 already published, I have tried to prove that the meaning 
 ‘to overthrow” ascribed to the verb 2D by many exegetes 
 and lexicographers ° 7—especially in the supposed expression 
 y1> 4%d—is a pure fiction. The basic meaning of this 
 verb in the Bible is ““‘to remove from the straight line, 
 cause one to leave the upright way’’, and then “to pervert 
 or distort’’, followed, as we shall see, by the object 7717 
 “way, walk”’ or by a synonym of this word. Used in a 
 more figurative sense, it conveys the idea ‘“‘to cause one 
 to forego righteousness or truth’’,—this time followed by 
 
 the object ‘729 “the words of’ (Prov. 22.12; Ex. 23.8; 
 Deut. 16.19) or the name of a person. In this latter case 
 
 the meaning may be “‘to induce into error, to make foolish 
 Gr to; Cause’ to: sith, “(Prove zijice sl OlmleLo 
 
 Let us now see whether the verse that we have under 
 consideration can not be explained without any mishandling 
 of the Massoretic text. We must not forget that it is 
 fashioned upon the model of antithetic parallelism. It 
 is quite clear that the first hemistich expresses an abstract 
 idea, 1. e. a characteristic of righteousness: ‘‘ Virtue keepeth 
 uprightness in the way.’’ Then, it is equally clear, the 
 
 second hemistich must contain a characterization of the 
 
 
 
 opposite moral feature—wickedness. Now if mywn as the 
 antithesis of mp7x is the subject of the second hemistich, 
 the words nxon FSpn must express the contrary of 71xn 
 J77-0n. And, since ‘on Wxn means “keeps uprightness of”’ 
 
 ‘ 
 
 or “in” (on being the construct of on) and is evidently 
 
 ” 
 
 the opposite of »%on ‘‘perverts’’, the word nxn can be 
 nothing more than a synonym of 97. 
 
 The foregoing explanation is confirmed if we compare 
 the words nun 4%on with a parallel phrase in the same 
 
 66 See La particule emphatique ‘‘ta’’ dans la Bible, in the REJ., 1922, No. 147, 
 pp. 5-6. 
 
 67 For instance, Gesenius, or Siegfried-Stade. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 41 
 
 book (Prov. 19.3), 717 490n. And the supposition be- 
 comes almost a certainty if we appeal to Arabic usage. 
 
 sé 
 
 There SyloS means simply “step, stepping, walking, 
 pace’’, derived as it is from the verb We (root gbs) 
 “to step, walk.” 
 
 We should, then, have to translate our verse as fol- 
 lows: “Virtue keepeth uprightness in the way (i. e. the 
 upright way), but wickedness perverteth the walk”’ (i. e. 
 takes the perverted course). 
 
 It is undoubtedly interesting to note that the word 
 Nkvnm occurs once again with exactly the same meaning, 
 in Job 14.16: -nsun-by saown-e5 a\DON Iyx Any °D. In 
 the article referred to above, I have explained that there 
 is no necessity to follow the Peshitta and add xb before 
 71»DN or to read with the Septuagint ayn in place of 
 sown, as Ewald and Dillmann have done. The two hemi- 
 
 ‘ ’ 
 
 stichs are perfectly parallel: to "yx ‘‘my steps” ’nsun 
 
 “my walk” or ‘walking’ corresponds. The phrase -xb 
 "vn does not contain a negation, as is generally believed. 
 The word xd is merely the Scriptio plena of the emphatic 
 particle meaning ‘‘verily ’’ and represented in Arabic by 
 dg, in Assyrian by lz or la and which occurs in a number 
 of passages °®*® in the Bible. The verse of Job, then, can 
 be translated following a perfect parallelism: ‘For now 
 Thou numberest my steps, verily Thou watchest over my 
 walk.”’ 
 
 It is further probable that this basic meaning of 
 “stepping, marching, walking’’ that attaches to a root 
 sun is to be seen also in the verb wenm (Job 41.12) which, 
 
 then, would be identical with the corresponding fifth form 
 of the Arabic verb Lbs ( pbs) “to step, walk’’, and have 
 a sense here similar to that of Arabic —bs _ Non would 
 
 68 Indicated and explained in my above mentioned article, REJ., 1922, No. 147’ 
 
 pp. 1-12. 
 
42 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 mean ‘‘to pass over, swerve from.”’ In such fashion the 
 hemistich iwenm onawo (read oxavp) might be rendered 
 in English: ‘‘ Billows pass over”’ or ‘‘ pass away from him’’ 
 (frightened by the dreadful crocodile). It has been also 
 suggested to emend o%s.of the first hemistich to 079). 
 If we accept such an emendation, we again obtain a very 
 satisfactory parallelism, translating: ‘‘waves are frightened 
 
 by his majesty, billows pass away.” 
 
 XXXI. 6. wn “to snatch away, carry off, reap.” 
 
 This verb, in Job 14.10 w$mn mn. san, is still con- 
 sidered by most commentators to be related to the Aramaic 
 won “to be weak’’ and to the adjective wn of Joel 4.10, 
 which is really identical with the Syriac ANZ (xwbn). Ap- 
 preciating, however, that the term wom) translated in this 
 way is an anticlimax after nv’, they have exaggerated the 
 above meaning as far as the signification of the Aramaic 
 root would allow. Thus the most usual translation of 
 our sentence reads: ‘“‘But man dieth and wasteth away.’’6 
 
 As early as the tenth century we find Saadya inter- 
 preting this verse in a similar manner: “But man when 
 he dieth, is benwmbed.’’79 Gersonides (XIVth cent.) as- 
 cribes to the verb w9n both in this passage and in Ex: 
 17.13 the meaning ‘‘to cut off’’.71 This might have been 
 
 suggested by the vernacular Arabic? Uta “to reap with 
 a_ sickle.”’ 
 
 69 This is the English Authorized Version. 
 70 Saadia: Version arabe du Livre de Job, Paris 1899, éd. Leroux; see p. 45: 
 “ ¢ 
 
 ds! “to grow numb") “7528 IP) NNO NWS W?N). Notice the curious resem- 
 S 
 
 blance of this interpretation to the meaning acquired by the same verb in Yiddish 
 "won “to faint, swoon’’. Comp. with the French Zadoc Kahn translation: s’évanouit 
 (meaning both “‘to faint, swoon”’ and ‘‘to disappear’’). 
 
 71 See Gersonides on Job 14,10. 
 
 7 In common use among Palestinian fallahin. Since this verb does not belong 
 to the literary language, it does not occur in the classical lexica, like those of Freytag, 
 Lane, Kasimirsky. It is, however, found in such Lexica as include dialectical words 
 and phrases as, for instance, Steingass’ Arabic-English, Wahrmund’s Arabic-German 
 and Belot’s Arabic-French dictionaries, 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 43 
 
 Delitzsch’s interpretation of this verb in both the above 
 passages (in Job—fdllen, stiirzen; in Ex.—fdllen, nieder- 
 strecken) can be considered but as a broadening of the 
 Aramaic signification ‘‘to be weak”’, since it rests on neither 
 
 etymological comparisons nor other positive?’ proofs. 
 
 ’ 
 y 
 
 Merx’ “und liegt?> da’’, Budde’s ‘“‘und ist dahin”’ (for ‘‘er 
 
 liegt dahingestreckt’’7* in the Commentary), seem to be 
 
 Other translations, like Renan’s ‘‘il reste7* étendu’ 
 
 more or less influenced by the Vulgate rendering—nudatus. 77 
 
 The Peshitta jise 2Zls lpaye (823) NX 87331) as well 
 as the Targum popon’ have evidently had in mind the 
 Aramaic signification of wbn. 
 
 The Septuagint rendering @yeTo, however, is quite 
 different from all the others and seems most naturally 
 to fit our text by its striking simplicity. Indeed, ®yero™ 
 comes from otxouat ‘‘to depart, go off, pass away, dis- 
 
 ’ 
 
 appear”. The whole hemistich would then read: “But 
 man dieth and disappeareth’’. This is doubtless the near- 
 est to the original and genuine sense, inasmuch as it af- 
 fords the best parallelism to the second hemistich: ‘‘Man 
 expireth and where is he?”’ 
 
 On this account some would read 497" (Dillmann, 
 Beer, Merx) instead of won, others suggest the emen- 
 dedation 49nn (Wright, Budde). Thus, we have here an 
 other instance where the wrong principle of changing the 
 MT in order to adjust it to an obsolete rendering of the 
 ancient versions, chiefly the Septuagint, serves to prevent 
 us from discovering the true character of authentic Biblical 
 vocables long misunderstood. For in most of such cases, 
 
 73 Delitzsch, Das Buch Hiob, Leipzig 1962, p, 154, also p. 46. 
 
 74 Renan, Le Livre de Job, Paris 1882, p. 57. 
 
 75. Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob. Yena 1871, p. 65. 
 
 76 Budde, Das Buch Hiob, Géttingen 1896, p. 70. 
 
 77 This may also have inspired the English tranlslation of the Jew. Publ. Soc.; 
 see p. 936: ‘But man dieth and lieth iow.” 
 
 78 LXX Job. 14.10: dvnp dé TeXevTHOaS BETO. 
 
44 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 especialy when supported by comparative Semitic lexi- 
 cography, it is rather logical and natural to recognize 
 archaic roots whose genuine meaning was hitherto con- 
 cealed by their graphical resemblance to other words more 
 common in the Bible. | 
 
 There is no doubt, indeed, that this particular passage 
 does not need to be emended. The above verb is quite 
 independent of the Aramaic won and must be considered 
 
 - 
 
 as the ancient Hebrew counterpart of the Arabic rd 
 
 ‘to snatch away, carry off.’’79 Nothing could give as 
 perfect a parallelism with the next hemistich: “But man 
 dieth and is snatched away; man expireth and where is 
 he?” 
 
 Curiously enough Schleusner, who noticed the con- 
 nection between ples and the above rendering of the 
 
 LXX, continued, nevertheless, to translate this wbn in ac- 
 cordance with the old fashion—debzlttor.81 
 
 Furthermore, the above meaning also suits the text 
 in Ex. 17.13 aan-p> ay mse pooy-ne yor wor “And 
 Joshua carried off (or ‘“‘snatched away’’) Amalek and his 
 people with the edge of the sword.’’ What an energetic 
 expression the verse thus contains! 
 
 This instrumental phrase ann-»>, recalling by as- 
 
 ag 
 
 sociation the above vernacular AAs ‘‘to reap with a sickle’’ 
 
 that I have connected with Gersonides’ interpretation, is 
 here of special interest. First, it furnishes additional 
 proof that a verb wbn, different from its Aramaic homonym, 
 was actually existing in ancient Hebrew. Secondly, it 
 
 affords opportunity to trace the origin of the above ver- 
 
 79 See this verb in Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, London 1865, p. 784. 
 
 80 The right vocalization of the Hebrew, as a transitive verb used here in a passive 
 sense, would certainly be wor if derived from its active form worn in the passage next 
 quoted. 
 
 81 Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX, Glasguae 1822; see vol. I, p. 544, otyvopat. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 45 
 
 F te 
 
 nacular Uda itself. As a matter of fact, this agricultural 
 
 term is quite absent in classical Arabic, something which 
 may lead us to call in question its very Arabic origin. On 
 the other hand, this verb is common chiefly in the vernacu- 
 lar of Palestine and Syria, while it exists neither in Aramaic 
 nor in Syriac. It is then most natural to assume that 
 in our case we have to deal with a Hebrew loan-word picked 
 up by the Bedouin invaders from the indigenous peasants. 
 
 Indeed, the spelling of (sts appears to be simply a 
 phonetical copy of the above Hebrew wbn, without the 
 
 corresponding \w (or &) for w as one would naturally expect 
 for roots common to both Hebrew and Arabic. 
 
 This assertion seems further to be strengthened by 
 the comparison of the vernacular pod with the classical 
 ges The meaning of the former verb, ‘‘to reap’’, would 
 
 be merely a specialized shade of the general sense of the 
 latter—‘‘to carry off, to snatch away.’ Both verbs may 
 be etymologically identical. The original Arabic form is 
 
 a“ 
 =- - 
 
 yah, the classical counterpart of the Hebrew wbn, with com- 
 
 mon primitive meaning ‘‘to snatch away, carry off.’’ The 
 Hebrews, a preponderantly agricultural people, would nat- 
 urally have derived from this general signification a more 
 special one: ‘‘to reap,” i. e. to carry off with a sickle. 
 This verb would further have been preserved by the Pales- 
 tinian peasants up to the time of the invasion of Islam, 
 when it could come back to the Arabs through the channel 
 
 of the vernacular under the form halas (Yaka), according to 
 later Hebrew pronunciation where every NM is regarded as 
 a 
 
 I should like to close this study with reference to Is. 
 
 14.12. It seems most probable that here, too, our verb 
 has one of the shades of the above advocated meaning, 
 
46 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 perhaps rather the second. For whatever the value of bys: 
 in the phrase orn-by wbin might be, each hemistich would 
 emphasize a tragical contrast in the fate of the King of 
 Babylon. The first compares him to a “day-star’’ which 
 is ‘fallen from heaven”’. “The second, where w)n is ob- 
 
 viously a counterpart and synonym of ny722 (from yr) “to 
 cut down’’), wants to assert that he who used “to 
 
 carry off’’ nations by his victories, as a reaper does corn, 
 
 is now ‘‘cut down’”’ himself. 
 
 Isnv-ja S54 onwno nop: 7s 
 
 lona-by win ,paxd nya: 
 
 ‘How art thou fallen from heaven, 
 
 O day-star, son of the morning! 
 
 (How) art thou cut down to the ground, 
 O reaper of (LXX all) the nations!” 
 
 XXXII. 7. yn “lot, portion or fate of man”’. 
 
 All the early and later commentators of the Bible in- 
 terpret Job 34. 6 ywe-ba -xn wux in the customary way, 
 as if the word °xn were derived from the well-known noun 
 yn ‘“arrow’’, and as if Job meant to say: The arrow which 
 God thrust at me for no fault of mine causes pain. There 
 are some who see metonymy here and think that °xn sig- 
 nifies ‘‘the wound of an arrow’’ (Budde, for instance); ac- 
 cordingly °sn v8 means “my wound (which was inflicted 
 by the arrow of God) is incurable”’. 
 
 Now we ought to feel that such a strong metaphor in 
 the passage before us is unnatural and altogether too sud- 
 den, and hence could not have been the intention of the 
 author. 6. 4 does not furnish any proof, for there yn has 
 its proper meaning and fits into the context, which is a 
 
 8 Some emend it to “b> on account of the LX X,. See, however, the explanation 
 
 of this particle here by Qimhi (p"7). 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 47 
 
 picture of God warring against Job: wx ‘Toy ‘Tw XN 
 D9 y Mdxs3 mya-mannmwonon. Duhm therefore reads in 
 the above passage xno ‘‘my wound”. But any emendation 
 is superfluous here. And, indeed, there is hardly any doubt 
 that the word yn in our passage, under the misleading simil- 
 arity to yn ‘‘arrow”’, hides an ancient vocable which has 
 
 been preserved in NAC DIRS (x=L) SSD 3 lot’, por- 
 
 tion of the lot of man’”’. It is true that be generally 
 signifies mostly ‘“‘a good lot,’’ but it also designates ‘‘lot”’ 
 in general, and with the addition of a special adjective also 
 “a bad lot’. In this way our SORES vux yn would 
 
 5 5 207 
 
 correspond with the Arabic expression nee Eee Pope) 
 fortuna adversa (Freytag) “bad luck’’*, a meaning which 
 would be made even clearer by a comparison with the par- 
 allel expression in Jer. 17. 16: wx" ov. Thus, as is custom- 
 ary in the Book of Job, the parallel thought is emphasized 
 in our passage. In the first half Job states in a general 
 way that the judgement which came upon him from God 
 
 A A 
 
 83 Ben-Jehuda, Thesaurus, I, 572: *MY3,="M?Y from Cagis ‘to send”. 
 
 84 I cannot enter here into a discussion about the evolution of this meaning of YN: 
 whether the meaning ‘‘lot, portion’’ was derived in course of time, by way of metonymy 
 from that of ‘‘arrow”’, since arrows were used in casting lots. For usitis important that 
 
 Nis used here not as a metaphor, but in its proper sense of ‘“ portion, luck’’, asin Arabic. 
 
 85] give preference here to the stem thy over that of weo> ( Lol =>) for the 
 following reasons: 1) the former has also the abstract sense of ‘‘fate’’ which fits our pass - 
 
 age so well, while the latter has a more concrete meaning of ‘‘a portion’’ belonging to 
 S Lin S 3 = 
 somebody; 2) the former is used also ina special expression, gina => corresponding 
 
 to the Hebrew expressions VIX YN ,WIX OF; 3) ass resembles the Hebrew YN also in 
 $s 
 
 w - 
 form, while o> resulted in a feminine noun Xx, Ss = T1Stl. Finally I may add that 
 
 it is quite possible that the Hebrew stem YXM absorbed the two primitive stems which 
 w vate d a, - ‘ 
 have been preserved in Arabic: asin conj.1IT, ola “to give to someone the portion 
 
 S 
 
 that belongs to him’’ which corresponds to )¥¥pj 9 in Job 21. 21, and bs which is 
 
 to be seen in the noun YM above. 
 
48 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 is a wrong judgement®*, and in the second half he specifies 
 his thought by saying that his lot (or luck) is bad (xn wii) 
 though he has not sinned (ywb-93)... 
 
 XXXIII. 8. yr (root. yt) “to say farewell to, take 
 leave of, leave.”’ 
 
 This hapax legé6menon occurs in I Sam. 21.3: nx 
 spb oso> opo bx cnyt? ony. The translation usually 
 given is worded: “‘And the young men have I appointed 
 
 ’ 
 
 to such and such a place.’’ The Targum renders the verb 
 simply by *o3p mn>w “have I sent onward.’’ Since the 
 approximate meaning of this word is sufficiently indicated 
 by the context, no very perceptible divergences could 
 result in the general interpretation of the sentence. 
 
 Nevertheless, various opinions have been expressed 
 concerning the etymology of the above verb, involving 
 as a consequence, the question of the authenticity of 
 the text. 
 
 Conservative scholars naturally assume that the verb 
 is an unusual form of the usual verb y7°: some explain it 
 as a quadriliterals7 form yt, others as a po‘el8’ conju- 
 gation corresponding with the Arabic III form. The basic 
 meaning would be nearly that of the Hiph‘il ymn ‘to 
 let know’’, whence ‘“‘to enjoin” or “‘to appoint.” 
 
 Radical scholars, however, frankly wish to emend 
 the text. They suggest as an alternative reading *myii 
 ATVI eA, or at least *nyTin. 
 
 Between these two groups we may place those exe- 
 getes who believe they see here a mere metathesis of *mpyy, 
 po‘el from ay’. Thus Wellhausens? does not question 
 
 8 Perhaps we might read here ip "DBUD bx. Comp. ‘ODD DN be at the 
 end of the previous verse 34. 5. 
 
 87 See, for instance, Qimhi’s commentary. 
 
 88 Ewald, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der Hebraischen Sprache, § 125. 
 
 89 Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, p. 121, Gé6ttingen 1871. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 49 
 
 this root, which is admitted also by Driver,» Budde* 
 and Ehrlichs?. Most of them rely upon the LXX: dvape- 
 wapTupnuar conveys the meanings of “‘attest, affirm, en- 
 treat, charge, enjoin’’, so that in our verse it would mean 
 “to appoint”. Let us add that the Vulgate also, with 
 its condixt, seems to support the root 7y’. 
 
 Consequently, if we were certain that our text is corrupt, 
 we should be ready to admit here as the most likely hy- 
 pothesis the root 7y°, rather under the hiph‘il form -*myin, 
 But just that is the question. The corruptness of our. text 
 is scarcely demonstrable. Could not the above LX X render- 
 ing be considered as the best way of turning into Greek 
 our ‘nyt that was supposed to convey the meaning of 
 YT, as interpreted by later Jewish?’ commentators? 
 Note also that the Peshitta, with auct (nin) “show, de- 
 clare’, seems clearly enough to plead for the root y7? 
 (in a causative meaning) of the Massoretic text. 
 
 If, however, we assume that our Hebrew text is correct, 
 we have to meet two difficulties, one of a purely morpho- 
 logical and one of a general semantic character: (1) Why 
 have we the very rare po‘el form instead of the usual 
 ‘nyTin, since the verb must be translated here with hiph‘il 
 connotation? (2) Even if we assume a hiph‘il sense, is 
 it possible to maintain that, without any artificial stretch- 
 
 46 
 
 ing, the verb yt’ can be made synonymous with “send, 
 appoint, dismiss’ —the meaning required here? 
 
 Here we are afforded another good opportunity to 
 ask ourselves whether we are not in presence of some 
 archaism forgotten by tradition and whose genuine value 
 
 could be detected only with the help of kindred languages. 
 
 Indeed, the same root ¢o. has in Arabic the basic 
 ay 
 
 90 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel, p. 137, Oxford 1890. 
 91 Budde, Die Biicher Samuel, p. 147, Tiibingen und Leipzig 1902. 
 
 8 EKhrlich, Randglossen, Band 3, p. 242, Leipzig 1910. 
 
 93 See, for instance, Gersonides’ commentary q"a>>). 
 
50 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 meaning of ‘‘put down, deposit, leave behind, abandon, 
 take leave of and wish a good journey to’’. Moreover, 
 even our exceptional grammatical form of this verb 1s usual 
 in Arabic:9% pols (as well as the II f. £05) means ‘to say 
 farewell to, take leave of, abandon, leave’’ (when separa- 
 ting). 
 
 Thus the meaning of our above sentence may be: 
 ‘“And I wished the young men a good journey to such and 
 such a place”’, that is to say more simply “I sent them away 
 
 yy 
 
 (or “I dismissed them’’) to such and such a place. 
 
 The root y7’ as well as the rare po‘el form would be 
 
 justified without any text emendation. 
 This y7? (=y7}) corresponding with Eos would then be- 
 
 long to the verbs 1”), and should be distinguished from 
 
 ey 
 
 the usual yt” “to know”’ which seems to originate from a 
 genuine *") stem, as may be inferred from Ethiopic 42.20 
 (’aydé‘a) ‘to let know, announce”’ and perhaps also from 
 
 Assyrian ida “‘to know.”’ 
 
 XXXIV. 9. jn (=m) “to be perpetual, exist perman- 
 ently, be everlasting and indestructible”’. 
 
 Let us compare the following four verses, all occurring in 
 the Book of Proverbs: 
 
 A. 9 ops mym ’NIan NT ywra nano (10. 24). 
 B. mM ops wii oy a xo ywr ton (12. 12). 
 C. 7p2n oxy) nN) SDN 11a ps tls stay 
 D. Jum xd. ym pam MAN mMxNF OT YD (21. 26). 
 
 In all these passages the verb mn’ makes the impression 
 of being out of place: for ]n) is a transitive verb, and why 
 then has it no direct complement here, except—it seems— 
 in verse C (Axo jm)? Especially striking and startling 
 is phrase B: jm’ o’pax wiw—what does this root yield? 
 
 94 This etymology has already been hinted at in my article Light on the History 
 of the Hebrew verb, JOR. (New Series), vol. XII, p. 32. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY oil 
 
 Hence all the forced and artificial explanations from time im- 
 
 memorial to this day. 
 
 However, the situation changes completely once we 
 begin to investigate the very essence of the root hiding 
 behind the form jm. If we decide to discard the stem jn), 
 
 then we are left with the alternative of considering the 
 root jn’, from which are derived the noun and the adjective 
 
 jx. In Arabic this root is frequent also as a verb Gp5s. 
 The word ]n’s corresponds in meaning to the Arabic ad- 
 jective oak ‘“‘strong’’, ‘‘permanent in place’’ (hence 
 also in existence, in action etc.); therefore we say in He- 
 brew: ]™& a2wy—a dwelling which exists permanently in 
 its place and cannot be destroyed; }n’s 9m1—a wady whose 
 water continues to stream ceaselessly without being dried 
 
 up, etc. Also the verb Gps5 means primarily “exist cease- 
 lessly, be indestructible, be permanent’’, as, for example, 
 the water flowing ceaselessly from the well. Hence the 
 
 meaning of the third conjugation cpls—to persevere in. 
 
 Now in truth this verb jm, and not jm), is hidden in 
 the above-mentioned four passages, and through it they 
 may be explained in a natural and logical way in accordance 
 
 with the antithetic parallelism so common in the Book of 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 The second passage, B, should be vocalized thus: 7p 
 oy? tixo yor “The desire for wicked deeds is a trap (71X90) 
 
 in which the wicked are caught’’; ee ) 1m OPT ww) 
 ‘but the root (= race) of the righteous will last forever”’, i.e. 
 they will not stumble and fall into the trap like the wicked. 
 
 As to verse C, it should be interpreted as follows: 
 myo ym yitia-p 1 “Only through insolence (or presump- 
 tuousness) does contention last’’; o°¥y1] n&) (or O’yi¥, comp. 
 11. 2) naDn “but with the lowly is wisdom’’, not contention. 
 
ahd A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 Apparently 7»2n here, in opposition to 7x9, designates a 
 patient and considerate relationship, a peaceful attitude 
 due to a calm state of mind, like the French sagesse. There 
 is no necessity to vocalize with the Septuagint py for pr: 
 such a hemistich would be entirely pleonastic. Likewise it is 
 unnecessary to delete® the a of }1912 and make py subordinate 
 to nx. For the fundamental idea expressed in our proverb 
 and emphasized by an antithetic parallelism is this: only 
 among presumptuous people quarrels prevail, among the 
 lowely, on the contrary, there is always a calm state of 
 mind (patient and considerate relations). And although 
 msn, the subject of the clause, is in the feminine, yet it is 
 not very surprising that the predicate is in the masculine, 
 ]7’ instead of }nn; such discrepancies occur frequently in 
 the Scriptures, especially when the verb precedes the sub- 
 ject. And besides, perhaps it should be vocalized «yn, 
 perfect. 
 
 In the other two passages (A and D) it seems to me 
 that the meaning of the verb m1"7 also and of the noun 71KN 
 is not the customary meaning of the Hebrew root Mx (="&) 
 
 <= 
 but that it is associated with the Arabic root sal, here too 
 
 especially in the Hithpa‘el 2aG “to rest in a quiet and 
 sheltered place’’. Hence I interpret the first passage as 
 followsa3Nian x’ yw nan ‘The harm which the wicked 
 fears, it shall come upon him”’; jm) opts mxym “but the 
 repose of the righteous will last forever’’. Perhaps here 
 too we should vocalise @im, Ehrlich thinks that ywr is 
 the subject of jm’, and he translates thus: ‘‘ While the wicked 
 experiences that which he feared, he grants the desire of 
 the righteous, who wish it upon him”’. This interpretation 
 is certainly ingenious, but not natural; it is strange to as- 
 cribe such a brand of morality to the righteous. Buta strong- 
 
 er argument against it is its lack of parallelism. 
 %° Ehrlich, Randglossen, VI, 68. 
 6 Freytag: in mansionem et locum quielis se recepil. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 53 
 
 Finally, the fourth passage, D, in spite of Ehrlich, 
 may be considered as a continuation of the previous sen- 
 tence dealing with the slothful (Prov. 21. 25-26). msn 
 moan Yxy “The (continuous) repose of the slothful killeth 
 him”, mvyds pa xo Dd “for (through it) his hands refuse 
 to labour”. (Septuagint by) msn mxnn orn-2> ‘All 
 ’ (=rests from work), 
 jum 87) jm pay “while the righteous keeps watch (con- 
 tinues to work) incessantly.”’ 
 
 day long he but rests and reposes’ 
 
 Thus jm in all these four passages is derived from 
 the root }m\=]m of the class 1"5. Accordingly, if we really 
 had before us the form of the imperfect, it would have to 
 be vocalised 1@ like 7% awetc. But, as was already hinted 
 above, itis quite possible that we have here forms of the perfect 
 in—nyy, which, it is difficult to decide with absolute certainty. 
 And since the Massoretes thought that jn) is the underlying 
 stem, they quite naturally but erroneously vocalised jm. 
 Now we understand why it has no direct complement, 
 for jn’ is indeed an intransitive verb. 
 
 XXXV. 10. ites “oppressor, violent man”’. 
 
 It is well-nigh probable that this is the meaning in- 
 tended in Job 20. 29:5x» nox non ody yor-otks pon ar 
 Here 17x correspondes with ywr-otx. Let us compare this 
 with the subsequent passage in 27. 13: bx oy yw otN-ponar 
 InP? Iwo OXY NIM). Incidentally let me remark, in op- 
 position to the critics who resort to emendation, that it 
 is the latter passage that has been mishandled. There 
 is no doubt that it was originally constructed in the same 
 way as the first or preceding sentence, and must therefore 
 have read>qwo poy nom Sxo yer os pon ar. oy was 
 not there: the y is simply a dittography of the last letter 
 of yun, and the d is an element of bxa. pay became o(?)¥"4y 
 owing to a dittography of » of Tw». inp’ seems to have 
 
54 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 been added afterwards in order to lend a verb to D°x’79; 
 but there is no need for it, since nvm) here is not an archaic 
 absolute but a construct state, like ox nom in the former 
 passage, and the sense is: wo (o)eay nom (1). At any 
 rate, the word 178 in the first passage corresponds with 
 yws-o7x, and here again it corresponds with (o°)xy. 
 
 Already the ancients misunderstood the word, and all 
 of them derived it from the root 198. The Septuagint 
 rendered 1708 nom by KrhRua UVrapxovTwY avTo, i. e. the 
 possession of the things appointed to him by God, which 
 God promised (198) to give him. Budde apparently fol- 
 lowed this interpretation in his translation and commentary 
 of Job. The Vulgate renders verborum eius, as if it were 
 10998. Now besides the fact that such a translation is 
 invalidated through the second passage, which is nothing 
 but a repetition of the first with a variation of synonyms, 
 it is also surprising that the main fault of the wicked should 
 be said to lie in his words: is it especially for them and not 
 for his deeds that he deserves punishment? Moreover, 
 it is very doubtful whether such an expression as Y78 nbn, 
 in the sense of “punishment coming to him for his bad 
 words ’’, fits in with the simplicity of the ancient Hebrewstyle. 
 
 Modern commentators propose various emendations 
 for ioe: pay wet jin. They have a feeling for the 
 true meaning of the word which should have stood here, 
 but the actual word has escaped them. As a matter of 
 fact it is before them, and there was no necessity to search 
 for it. 
 
 The word 178 requires no emendation whatever. We 
 have before us an archaic grammatical form which needs 
 only to be recognized in order to identify the exact root. Asa 
 matter of fact, itis a suffixless noun, formed by means ofa pros- 
 thetic aleph after the manner of the nominal types bypx and 
 
 %7 Budde, Das Buch Hiob, p 117; Gesenius—Buhl, Handwérterbuch, p. 51, v. "WOR... 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY ete 
 
 DIVDN (YAXN. DWN. TWN; TIDE, yitty). Accordingly, the & of 1708 
 is not a part of the root; nor is the final ) the suffix for the 
 third person, as is generally believed, but represents the 
 long vowel which marks the form Siyps and which occurs 
 also in the Arabic nouns “yy! . For 17x is not derived from 
 728 but from the root {_»(=879): the third radical, 8, was 
 dropped here as nannene sometimes when it is vowelless, 
 in the middle or at the end of a word (comp. ia) I Ki. 12. 12; 
 ‘on Mi. 1. 15; nso Nu. 11. 11; °nbo Job 32. 18, etc.). 
 Thus morphologically speaking, both with respect to root 
 and form, our}798 (=s179y) corresponds with Arabica, pal- yal ; 
 found also without prosthetic aleph: Be (or ya also Bye), 
 which signifies ‘‘man’’ together with the various traits that 
 characterize the male for good or evil: manly, courageous, 
 strong man, mighty. This word designates in Arabic also 
 “the wolf”’, probably on account of his strength and ferocity. 
 
 Say 9 S I9 Se? » 
 
 Hence also the abstract noun Boye — Bey re — Spo signify- 
 ing ‘‘ manhood, power, strength’’, besides the general concept 
 of “humanity’’. Similarly the verb sy “to be manly, 
 On the whole this stem Ine, in 
 addition to its other meanings, designates all the nuances 
 
 9 
 
 strong, powerful, etc. 
 
 and shades of meaning comprised in the Hebrew noun 
 323 vir and the verb 733 G73} nvaKND). 
 
 In Aramaic we find stress laid on the idea of overpower- 
 ing domination. si7779 means “master, lord, ruler’, 
 and from it is derived the abstract noun mip ‘domination’. 
 
 In this wise our 1998 contains the concept of the Arabic 
 ey and in addition the Aramaic nuance of overpower- 
 ing domination; its sense would then be: ‘‘a violent man, 
 an opressor’’, as is borne out also by its juxtaposition to 
 ywr—ots in Job 20. 29 and (o°)x1y zbid. 27. 13. 
 
 98 With the Hebrew form 91YD& two forms may correspond in Arabic: “SLesl and 
 
 aise Jyxsl: thus b)DUR = Just and J, Kt. 
 
56 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 Finally, it is likely that the well-known Hebrew stem 
 m9 has absorbed two primitive roots which correspond to 
 two different verbal forms preserved in Arabic: 1.°99 =770, 
 a verb "> (comp. Sy" especially conjugation III Ss), 
 which is employed particularly in the sense of disobedience, 
 opposition to somebody’s command, etc.; 2. 819, a verb i 
 which corresponds in Arabic with the stem and meaning 
 indicated above, anf of which only a few remnants are left 
 in Hebrew, such as 1798 discussed above and also 7719 
 (=nti) in Job 36. 22. In this last passage the sentence 
 reads 7719 19799 °) ID3 Dw YR"17. Now the word 7719 
 which of course refers to God, corresponds to 1nD2 271% 
 and is similar also in its grammatical construction to the 
 Aramaic xv) (an active participle); its meaning therefore 
 is: governor, ruler, lord. 
 
 It is quite possible that also in Zeph. 3. 1: ANTI ON 
 mr ~yn 72s, the word AN is nothing but a feminine 
 form of 87119 and signifies ‘“‘oppressing, tyrannical’’, in 
 juxtaposition to 7177 yn and in correspodence to the 
 subsequent description of the princes and the judges as 
 3599 (SN... .ONw ners (2bzd. 3. 3). 
 
 XXXVI. ita. ayy “to go to, turn to, approach”’. 
 This signification of the Arabic verb (ex (root ps) 
 
 is sufficiently corroborated in several places of the Scriptures. 
 
 A. Job °23: 8-9: 
 5 pas xd1 TnI mye) bas o4p jv 
 Taw xdi po yyy IMS 821 INvyA Dixnw 
 
 The Vulgate reads }byN sz me vertam (the Syriac dase) 
 
 in the sense of the Arabic Vgtie, ie. ‘‘Iturn’”. Themain 
 thought—Job seeks God and does not find Him—is repeated 
 four times corresponding to the four sides of heaven:a7p 
 east, T1N8 west, 2NOw north, ]’9 south. In this manner 
 every hemistich is composed of three elements: the name 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 57 
 
 of one of the sides of heaven, a verb of motion, and an ex- 
 pression designating the absence of God. And just as there 
 is a correspondence of meaning in ays »b pax dy 
 (meaning ‘‘andI do not see him’’) ,aimg=) IN8 81, and xd) 
 M8 18—so also invya (read *nyya) corresponds to} Vy (= VN, 
 see above), and its meaning is: ‘‘WhenIgo,turn’”’. Thus 
 the sense of verse 9 is exactly this: ‘‘When I turn to the 
 left I do not see Him (God), and if I turn to the right I 
 do not behold Him”. 
 
 B. Ruth 2. 19: mwy mix) strengthens our hypothesis, 
 for the word 718 usually points to motion. Naomi asks 
 her daughter-in-law: Whither art thou gone or turned? 
 
 C. I Kings 20. 40: 73m 71n Awy 7IAy is an additional 
 proof, for 735 likewise implies motion. Here too, therefore, 
 
 the sense is “‘Thy servant is turning hither and thither”’, 
 on a par with the expression 7) 7) 15D”). 
 
 XXXVII. 11b. myy “to cover, envelop”’. 
 
 Also this signification is well illustrated in several 
 
 Biblical passages. 
 
 A. Prov. 13. 16: nd1x8 wip? Spa nytanyy ony 55. This 
 proverb belongs to the duplicate passages in Proverbs, i.e. 
 passages of the same contents that are repeated with slight 
 changes or synonymous terms. Let us compare it with 
 verse 12. 23: nbix sap’ ord°o> ad) nyt ADD Oy o7N. The 
 idea underlying both these verses is simple: while the wise 
 man conceals his wisdom and is not in haste to reveal it, 
 the fool hastens to proclaim his folly (w1p° “spreads 
 openly’”’, xp’ “‘proclaims’’). Hence, on the basis of 
 a comparison between the two verses and in accordance 
 with the antithetic parallelism required between the two 
 couplets of the first verse (7D2—¥15), many commentators 
 propose the emendation nyt 7p>° for nyta mwy’. However, 
 
58 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 there is no need for emendation, since nwvy here, correspond- 
 
 ing to Arabices? ends is a special verb (D=;)s altogether 
 
 ’ 
 
 different from our ordinary verbnwvy “‘to make, to do’”’ and 
 synonymous withno>. The original version was very prob- 
 ably nya mwy: “conceals wisdom’’, but the Massoretes who 
 confused this archaic nvy’ with the more frequent verb of 
 the same sound naturally added a and interpreted Avy 
 
 nyta ‘deals with forethought”’. 
 
 B. Also in Is. 32. 6: }1n mwyd premwy 1251 etc., it is 
 difficult to believe that the same verb was repeated in such 
 close proximity. Besides, it is not customary to say a9n 
 }& Mwy? in the sense of “ the heart will work iniquity’’. Hence, 
 if we do not want to emend with the Targum (;;nwynd) and 
 the Septuagint (vonoe.) pRtavm for pRenwy, we should 
 have to explain the puzzling expression in the sense of ‘‘con- 
 cealing iniquity’’. 
 
 C. In addition, let us mention as a mere possibility 
 Ob. 1. 6: 1D¥D Iya) wy wen zx. The word wy here 
 
 looks somewhat suspicious: if indeed it is the same proper 
 name as that which occurs further on in the chapter, why 
 do we find in one and the same sentence first the plural— 
 weni—and then the singular—)npxp “his hidden things’’— 
 with reference to the same subject? Perhaps we should 
 read here plene ryy—his owy, this being construed as a 
 noun derived from the above mentioned verb nwy (as, for 
 instance, in Arabic cling from cane) and cast in the 
 form of md .orxy nine (p. b.), all” forms. ywy in the sense 
 of ‘‘concealed things, hidden treasures’’ (or the places hid- 
 ing them) will thus correspond in meaning, gender, and 
 number to 121) ¥9 of the second hemistich. This hypothesis 
 
 therefore deserves consideration. 
 
 98a For instance: LgadI had} opener: ‘He causes the night tocover the day”, 
 
 Koran, Sur. a‘raf 52. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 59 
 
 XXXVIII. 12. any] (root any) “artificial, false’’. 
 
 Except for our ignorance of the true origin and cor- 
 rect meaning of the word nminnyi, there is no reason why 
 we should suspect the Massoretic version in Prov. 27.6: 
 Nw Mp w) NANNY AMS yyy o9N2. The emendation nat, 
 after the Septuagint, appears far-fetched and difficult (a 
 construct to a construct). Other emendations, like mwpyi, 
 nny (Toy), are not at all in the spirit of the Hebrew 
 language. However, the very root ny here has up till 
 now been the subject of doubt with many scholars, and this 
 shows itself in the various attempts at explanation. The 
 explanation of Perles®°, ‘“‘vapor-like’’, despite its tenuity 
 offers no true antithesis to 0°98) in the sense of “well- 
 meant’’. Therefore this any is generally construed as an 
 Aramaic form of the Hebrew stem 1wy ‘to be rich, wealthy’, 
 and accordingly niqnyi is rendered ‘“‘abundant, numerous, 
 
 ’ 
 
 superfluous’’. But here again there is no genuine and 
 
 fitting antithesis. 
 
 . It is interesting to compare the ancient versions here. 
 The Peshitta already was ignorant of the meaning of the 
 word and hence omitted it altogether. The Vulgate, how- 
 ever, renders the verse thus: Melora sunt vulnera diligentis 
 quam fraudulenta oscula odientis, ‘‘ Better are the wounds 
 of a friend than the deceptive (false) kisses of an enemy’”’. 
 It is difficult to determine whether fraudulenta here is in- 
 tended to be a translation of mnyi or is a free explanation 
 added to mp’wi. Yet this Latin word may help us to under- 
 stand better the intention of the Septuagint translator who, 
 apparently, is more careful and exact than all the other 
 ancient translators in the rendition of this sentence, for 
 he alone translates 0°398) in the sense of ‘‘(more) trust- 
 worthy’ =dévoriototepa. To fraudulenta corresponds 
 éxovota ‘‘voluntary”’ in the Septuagint, and on this basis, 
 
 Dh AAO eee, NESE 1D aR Ble Bie 
 
60 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 
 
 as mentioned above, some suggest the emendation nan 
 for mioanyn. However, it is quite possible that éxovala 
 o.d\nuara may mean here “voluntary kisses’”’ in the sense of 
 kisses given with a set will and intention and not because 
 of inclination, i.e. atrificial, false, exactly as the Latin trans- 
 lation renders. This then would be a proper antithesis 
 to 0°JDN). 
 
 Now it is very likely that this is indeed the true sense 
 of the word ninny2 and that our text is quit2 correct. Support 
 
 may be found in the Arabic root x= which has both a 
 concrete meaning ‘‘to stumble, to trip’’ and an abstract 
 meaning ‘“‘to lie, tell a falsehood’’. Thus many would be 
 a proper antithesis to 0°29") both in the concrete (JON 
 ‘sound, permanent’’) and the abstract sense. mianyi mpw) 
 means then ‘“‘artificial, false kisses’, which do not come 
 
 from the heart or are deceitful. 
 
 Possibly also Ez. 35. 13: op-1279 °Sy onanyn should 
 be interpreted in this sense: ‘‘you falsified your words be- 
 
 fore me’’, ‘“‘you spoke false words”’ 
 
 XXXIX. 13. ow (root ow) “to attack” (in war). 
 This verb, as far as it is sesh to judge especially 
 
 from its use in Arabic — (Uegasiy as) PP ale — meant 
 primarily “‘to put one thing into another’’, like a sword 
 into its sheath. This concept was specialized afterwards, 
 among other meanings, to signify “putting the weapon into 
 the breast of the enemy’’, and finally it was still further 
 circumscribed as a special military term in the sense of “‘a 
 well organized attack of war’’. This technical term occurs 
 in our Scriptures, and the critics who misunderstood it 
 tried in vain to-emend the text in which it occurs. 
 
 A. In I Kings 20. 12 byimwn how :ytay Ss aR” 
 ~’yn, the sense is evident enough. Ben-Hadad, king of 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 61 
 
 Aram, who besieged Samaria, was wroth at the negative 
 reply of Ahab, king of Israel, and he gave command to his 
 
 troops (TOX1=1s, r') to attack the city, exactly like 
 the French: Attaguez! And there is no necessity to add 
 the word 71x» after the two verbs— 150 Yow ID 19°. 
 
 B. Ez. 23. 24: »ap q>y iw’, likewise needs no em- 
 endations nor additions, its meaning being: “they will attack 
 thee all around’”’ (with reference to Oholibah). 
 
 C. I Sam. 15.2: q>02 15 oy--wx means most naturally 
 “how he (Amalek) attacked him in the way”’. This clause 
 merely serves to specify the too general statement con- 
 tained in the immediately preceding sentence about the 
 same subject: “I remember that which Amalek did to Israel”’. 
 It is, therefore, quite unnecessary to consider 1b ow as an 
 elliptical phrase by the omission of the object D°3780, as 
 admitted by David Qimhi and later commentators—on 
 the authority of the Targum (7 y957). 
 
 DS Job 23, 62-2 OWN i-WN S82 TIDY 34 n5-3730 has 
 never been properly understood and always served as mat- 
 erial for forced and insipid explanations or cheap emendations. 
 Now the matter is quite simple. ‘ In the preceding verses 
 3-5 Job expresses his desire to meet God at one place (*p 
 INNDN TY NAN NON) JN’=his place) in order to contend 
 with him: to submit his arguments before God Himself 
 (mnsin xbox °b) ,wDwn PID> AD IYER) and to get an answer 
 from Him 05 4px? AD AYANI IY? OdD TYTN). This is the 
 demand of justice. But until now his experience was 
 altogether different. There is no attempt at judgment 
 between the two parties, there is no comparison of arguments 
 and no account is taken of the justice of proofs. Only one 
 party, God, makes evil use of His great might to fight 
 the other party and attack him (a ow’). This sad 
 experience Job wishes to depict in verse 6 in the form of 
 
62 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 a query of protest, repeated twice (parallelism): m3-2747 
 toy aa “Is it only by means of His great power that 
 He would contend with me?” (Is this all the judgment?) 
 3 OW NIT JN 8?P—'2 Ov -4N NIT NO(T) “Is He not only at- 
 tacking me?” (without taking intoaccountall the arguments). 
 pw’...7® corresponds to nd-272: only attack with force, 
 not judgment. This was the situation untilnow. Therefore 
 Job strives to obtain a meeting with God in a certain place 
 in order to get a true judgment from Him, based on a com- 
 parison of the arguments of the two parties, and not on 
 mere might. 
 
 It is interesting to note that this special sense of ow 
 exerted an influence on its customary synonym nv, lend- 
 ing to it, as an intransitive verb, also the meaning of “‘at- 
 tack’’. And this is its true sense in Is. 22. 7: nw ow pM 
 miywn inv “and the horsemen attacked the gate’’, and also 
 in Ps. 3. 7:°4y inv aap Tw OY maaqD NTN ND “attacked 
 me all around”’ (comp. above, under B.). 
 
 ’ 
 
 XL. 14. yowe “Very dear, precious”. 
 
 Prov. 21. 20: 1yba ots S°p21 DDN AIA }Ow) TOM] XIN 
 is sometimes emended in accordance with the Septuagint 
 
 (avaravoerar érl oTOuaTos) to DIN °DA Dw? AMM) AKIN. 
 Others conjecture that the word jovi is a later addition 
 which should be eliminated and the couplet read 79m) 1x18 
 oon 71a. Now if we decide to correct at all, it would be 
 much better to drop 71) and read: D5n 10° JM] Axs, in 
 antithesis to 1y>2°. 
 
 But if we abide by the Massoretic text, we are compelled 
 to admit that the ordinary meaning of }ow does not fit in 
 this sentence: “‘oil’’ here impresses us as ridiculous—why 
 just oil? But also the general sense of !¥7 (like }pw-j2 ]7p), 
 
 employed in Sa‘adya’s translation (OD079s8 = pwd), adds 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 63 
 
 nothing, besides the fact that the verb 1ny9>> naturally and 
 clearly points only to a singular, 1x1", and nothing else 
 to complete it. Thus }ow here makes no logical and ap- 
 propriate sense unless we compare it to the Arabic adjective 
 
 rte? (2=) “very dear, precious”, derived from the 
 
 a“ 
 
 es % : = : 
 noun 45 ‘price’. It is of no importance here to decide 
 
 what might be the exact form of our adjective: )2¥. [2v. 
 12%. 12¥ and so on. It is sufficient for us to know that if 
 the consonantal text is correct, then the most appropriate 
 rendering of the verse under discussion must be as follows: 
 ‘A desirable and precious treasure is preserved in the house 
 of the wise and dissipated in the house of the fool”’. 
 
 XLI. 15. aw “to shine, gleam, flash”’. 
 
 In the first hemistich of Job 37.3, iw? o»wa-b5-nnn 
 the ancient versions translate 111° differently, each dif- 
 ferent translation affecting the general idea of the sentence. 
 
 The Septuagint reads: yrokaTw TavTos Tov ovpavou 77 
 apxn avtov ‘His dominion is under the whole heaven.” It 
 is difficult to decide whether the translators intended to give 
 here a free rendering of the substantive -y100 “‘justice’’—a 
 reading in accordance with the later supralinear vocalization 
 of the Babylonian Massora!°!—or of a verbal phrase like 
 
 ’ 
 
 aon” ‘he dominates’. Everything considered, the 
 first supposition is likelier and seems to have been followed 
 by Delitzsch.1 But Kahle is quite right in remarking 
 
 that in this passage, closely before and after which thunder 
 
 100 Comp. Targum MY “his justice, straightforwardness.’’ Gersonides, 
 too, considered here the root to be WW’, but in the proper meaningof ‘‘straightness, 
 rectitude. ”’ 
 
 10. 44u = Tiber. WT". See Kahle: Der Massoretische Text der baby.onischen 
 Juden., p. 80, Leipzig 1902. 
 
 102 Fried, Delitzsch, Das Buch Hiob, p. 112, Leipzig 1902. 
 
64 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 
 
 and lightning are spoken of, one would expect something 
 else than “his justice’ to be mentioned.19 
 
 The rendering of the Peshitta is: nieuoe3 Latow ems Daw 
 (731NAw] NOW 71722 Mmnn) “Under the whole heaven they 
 praise him.”’ Apparently, the translators used the reading 
 mw= Nw (comp. Prov. 31.28 AIwNN mI2a Wp). This 
 interpretation, as far as I know, has found no modern 
 
 supporters. 
 
 The Vulgate, however, conveys a quite different idea: 
 Subter omnes coelos tpse considerat— ‘‘Under the whole 
 heaven [Ze inspects.’’ Evidently the Vulgate read aon 7w 
 from the verb wv “‘to look at, to see.’ The same ety- 
 mology is adopted by Saadya, Rashi (XIth cent.) and 
 recently by Ehrlich who wants to read wr ‘they see 
 it’’, so that the suffix might anticipate the following 171") 
 “and his light.’’ At any rate, it is noticeable that for 
 Rashi already and for Ehrlich the whole verse refers to 
 lightning only. 
 
 Curiously enough Ibn-Ezra (XIIth cent.) would see here 
 the later Hebrew 77 “‘to soak, to water.’’ And recently 
 
 Winckler, by comparison with Arabic eS “to be wet, 
 damp’’, came to propose the same? etymology. 
 
 Finally I must mention the most modern interpretation 
 which is now in favor among scholars and seems to be 
 final in their minds, so that it figures regularly in the Bibli- 
 cal lexica (see, for instance, Gesenius, or Siegfried-Stade, 
 root mw). These exegetes identify 74 with the Aramaic 
 and Syriac verb x1w “to loosen, unbind, let go’’, and 
 translate our hemistich approximately ‘‘Under the whole 
 heaven He sendeth it forth’’ (the thunder). See, for in- 
 stance, the commentaries of Budde and of Duhm, or the 
 
 103 See Kahle’s above-mentioned Massor. Text der Bab. Juden, ibidem. 
 
 104 See Mitteilungen der verderasiat. Gesellschaft, 6 Jahrg., p. 338. 
 
A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 65 
 
 English translation of the Jewish Publication Society (Phila- 
 delphia 1919). 
 
 Such, however, cannot be the true meaning of our 
 text. The second hemistich: ‘“‘And his light (is) on the 
 ends of the earth’’, shows clearly enough—by reason of 
 parallelism—that the first, too, may refer to lightning, 
 but not to thunder. This is proved all the better by the 
 next verse just beginning the description of thundering as 
 a new phenomenon: “After it (the lightning) a voice 
 
 pH 
 
 roareth...’’ Verse 2 must then be considered as a general 
 
 introduction. 
 
 Now, inasmuch as it seems sure that 177’? must con- 
 vev some idea of lightning, as felt already by Rashi and 
 later by Ehrlich, the final waw of this word cannot be an 
 object suffix in connection with %p or ax of the preceding 
 verse, as Budde, Duhm and others have been induced to 
 believe. This letter may be merely a dittography of the 
 following word 1718), so that the correct text might be 
 maw’. As to this verb, it would hardly be possible not to 
 recognize here its identity with the Arabic ope: “to shine, 
 gleam, flash”. Just as in our passage, this verb is used 
 in Arabic when violent lightning is spoken of and with 
 the more exact meaning: ‘“‘to shine repeatedly and inten- 
 sively.”’105 And so we shall render our verse: 55 nnn 
 (or mw) mew own “He flashes (or ‘causes to flash”’) 
 under the whole heaven, p18 m1D1D YY I71N1 and His 
 lightning (extends) upon the ends of the earth.” 
 
 The fact that usually an Arabic |% corresponds with 
 
 a Hebrew sin cannot be a sufficient argument against the 
 
 above clear etymology. Indeed, the exceptions are not 
 
 few where a (» proves to be the counterpart also of a Hebrew 
 
 105 See LS pt I (second half) in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 1544.. See 
 J 
 
 also Freytag (‘‘coruscavit, fusit multum fulmen’’), as well as Kasimirsky s. v. 
 
66 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 
 
 shin, for instance: opine, PpN— GLa” Se), wy q— 
 “hey PRO aH Na “py— ia (as well as pias) etc: - ~bhus, 
 it would be quite superfluous to consider here the possi- 
 bility of the primitive Hebrew text really having had 
 a SIN (770") or of our 77” being merely a loanword. 
 
HEBREW INDEX 
 
 (Including only vocables for which a new identification, or etymology, has been 
 
 proposed in this book) 
 
 ; S 
 CIN aC tes. ae Sah eater § XXIII 
 “TNiVe(t, “PNY Ban alae Oe LY, 
 STININT CEO ATIN) wa ersle 7 oso ya LV 
 SINE op tata on and ae se aecen Ibidem 
 | 
 Eo eat A SP Nae el Seer ELS 
 at 
 rt hale evieget tual eee meerree, o, Qigl 
 8 om bas Pade al eee ee ae, OO BI 
 BP all eit re Merete 's 9,205, pei aeX, VELL 
 oT (ase ae wih teehee taki ce OLX 
 rl 
 tard. (CONS. OF (37h 4) oes ave ctae me ous WLED 
 ic 
 BIN econo rire oath cis vault a rie eid XXX 
 eda Vaca + eae eae yee ee 6.24 
 PU ea are ares whe vasa wer ai Pact XOX 
 Raye a ener oh a oleae LT 
 Tianhe ae hrs Poet ee ere, O. 89 
 9 
 ate t Sol me A ste ele d esol XXXIII 
 I EO Notre ec etnlaree cm gy LX 
 PA COIN Pace ak xem ye ah XXXIV 
 
 ] 
 
 a) 
 VeVON he ais iets acetal ngiaisrelvs «' § XXXV 
 J 
 YU Ve eee eee cece eee eee eee XIII 
 Shakin Sos GA aaa ee ae x 
 “UY (or WITT). -- gy Wi dig ths nk Utes ts IX 
 TINY 2... sce e cece cece ee REXVI 
 Fy ent AR ine eo ciate ie eee XXXVII 
 BI dete eteiay cere lace f a ie XXXVITII 
 D 
 “Pp v- (re. Wp) .--- A OG POCR HI E XXIII 
 Geet ph eat anaan Pere ee XXI 
 ala) is) hn ky Ati aio megraceri ie Ibidem 
 a) (eh Dane Ibidem 
 “| 
 PA n ee ewe epee cece ge snes cents IV 
 DY (r. DW)... . eee eee eee eee XXXIX 
 TVDY . oe cece cece e eee eee ceee IV 
 TY. PW) 0c eee eee eee XXXIX 
 la in ia et apne isis cir A ee eae ate win arcie XI 
 YD... eee e cece e ect eetece tees VIII 
 
Ezek. 
 
 Ob. 
 Zeph. 
 
 Zech, 
 Ps. 
 
 Prov. 
 
 Qoh. 
 
 BIBLICAL 
 
 INDEX 
 
 (Including only passages newly interpreted) 
 
 73S ede paige iene § XXXI 
 LO SOR nal Le oe eee XI 
 Od iS. tte ee erate eee XXXII 
 2040 Bo Ain hieteercierin XXXVI 
 COND Rote Fine hea ee ses SEX XI 
 SB be Arete We; Pa Rheteeicha Are XXXI 
 LIAO BRO rei ete tae Severs XV 
 COM Soe siain sa ce anette XXXIX 
 SOMA tive etait etme sil oe XXII 
 SPAN = Ne oe PND ir Ph gre XXXVII 
 SLA: 2a i feaas a ieee eiteee VIII 
 pe Bi Tk pare Rey I cy XXI 
 LO; ELS oaiscch a rave ae erelnaim ietens Ibidem 
 COVA eva. he etre as a rie Ibidem 
 Sy la Mele oe wan poe eae XXXIX 
 OF, Ld ee € aiden Be whore XXXVITII 
 3.05 Sik Esters Ferns iapete op nace Pitas XXI 
 D eo alee I PERE orto XXXVII 
 CEVA Sw aage, tke wioke rier VI,XXV 
 Dloe cue se a nee XXXV 
 De Ua oy doberst Seetevece etree ae IX 
 © FY BRC rh abe ery See XXXIX 
 LE AS ee era ie eRe tees XXVITI 
 ee ee os Pee oe Ibidem 
 Sol 22 ss ak Tae XXII 
 2107 tae eer XXXVIII 
 Fa Re iret BR roe oH eRe XVIII 
 
 Job 
 
 Prov. 
 
 Ru. 
 Cant. 
 
 PIDs co cadet tackle penn apes § X 
 
 O57 Fe a Lebar ce eet XIII 
 14 AGT picts ete ie cia eaten XXXI 
 145 6 SP ca on eles eee XXX 
 ISH2S enc te cee XIX 
 LOTS eee nee eee eres tecale XXVI 
 20,29 We Selersere see a ae aa XXXV 
 LOD Peon 6 haa ne ene XXXIX 
 25 Vis is cules an ae XXXVI 
 U2 Sante Ae eee eee XXIV 
 34,6255 3 ERS tek eRe eu XXXII 
 36225 Ma aes alee aida XXXV 
 Fg Be a Pie ey ey eS IY XL 
 5 Poet Oe ate ee args Ia) XXIX 
 AULD acer aes teat ee ate ee XXX 
 
 C2 Pe aes ee ee ee XXII 
 LO 24a Pee cotter retelate XXXIV 
 BG A ae eth Aree Wares o La: Ibidem 
 DES ee Pe Se PB ey ty XXITI 
 LID csnln it waackeuae eee ees XXX 
 £330 canes pa et eho ae ee IV 
 LZ;10 Me acecteds tee Neaees XXXIV 
 TD AGG er aa an ene ie XXXVII 
 Fl be DM Riiry ey ee XXXIV 
 rH, BOA EAR Ee Pt Sr FE) XI 
 
 SU EY Sea ty eae Mn EA XXXVI 
 
 SO Wels wet ing ea tea XXVII 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Se NEADS aD 
 
 ps tae ys aa oe a 
 
 Be ae oo? 
 at . i Siti eon a 
 
 
 
 
 iY if iy iN 
 a PW lie oF ¢ 
 >: 7 UH CHA We oe) ee 
 »- ' | ji 1 2 > aoe 7 
 i . r f 7 1 . 3 
 
 , : : aha | yy Px 7 
 
 : ‘ fei : ; “he gaat 
 
 , : ad { ; i ‘ i c 
 AUT hy ve é “—s5 
 a ‘4 i. ns 
 
 oe 
 ! 
 < 
 
 ae on 6 As i & 
 +2 
 é 
 
 i. Ca a 
 \ 
 . 
 
 pl $ y oo 
 

 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A,. 
 

 
1 1012 00144 1296 fi 
 
 eee 
 i.’ = — 
 a 
 (ee 
 ee 
 > — a 
 ees 
 Se 
 emer 
 ee 
 0 eee 
 eee 
 + 
 er ens 
 C eieaeiietee ad