while v. ' shows that the plundering of the treasures was in the mind of
the author of the orig. oracle. Ob. expresses this distinctly. The metre
is vs. the originality of the phrase. Moreover, the metre is so regular
throughout that v. '^ must also have had the double trimeter form and
have iea.d for behold I have made thee small, greatly despised among the
nations. A copyist disregarded the metre and, solely intent on the
parall., put among the nations into the first half of the verse and changed
HND greatly, which is still preserved in Ob., to anxa among men. Ora-
cle of Yahweh in v. '« stands outside of the metre. It is omitted by (B.
In Ob. the metre is not so regular, indeed several times it seems to be
disregarded. But also here the rhythm indicates that the orig. oracle
must have been metrical. This being so, the presumption is that its
metr. form is on the whole more correctly preserved in Je. If the metr.
form of Je. 49 were due to an editor, it would be singular that he did not
cast the whole oracle in this form.
We may now compare the texts in detail:
V. 1. Ob. We have heard, Je. I have heard. Since the phrase from
Yahweh has its full force only if a proph. audition is intended, the sg.
must be orig. The pi. in Ob. may be due to text, corruption since (6
has the sg. here also. — The words of the messenger are metr. better
in Je. The meaning is the same in both. — Though Je.'s being sent (prtc.
pass. Qal) and Ob.'s was sent (pf. Pu.) presuppose no difference in the
cons, text, Je.'s pointing is exegetically preferable, v. z. V. 2. ]e.'sfor
which connects w. *• ^ was added by one who overlooked that the sen-
tence and a messenger . . . baftle is a parenthesis. The connective is
wanting in (B, where, however, behold is also omitted. — Ob. changes the
constr. by adding thou after despised; in Je. despised is dependent on /
have made thee, in Ob. it begins a new clause. — Ob. exceedingly, Je.
among men. The parallel among the nations favours Je.'s among men,
but Ob.'s exceedingly was the orig. text which was changed by a scribe
who neglected the metre and only observed the parall., v. s. V. 3. Metr.
Je. is in perfect order, while Ob. lacks a hemistich in the first 1. Je. has
at the beginning an add. word transl. by RV. as for thy terribleness, but
which orig. read thy folly,* and for the verbal sf. in hath deceived thee
* The diffioJty of insScH appears to be satisfactorily solved by reading with Pet. TlpSon
(c/. Je. 23'^), following <8, h naiyvia <tov and 'H, arroganlia tua. Du.'s ingenious explanation of
inx'Jijn as a marg. n. on mxa, through Edom D1N3, thine abomination, i. e.,idol (cj. nxScD
I K. 1513 and Obed-Edom for the divine name) destroys the metr. symmetry. It helps, how-
ever, to explain the origin of the corruption of "]nSfln to "^nsSDn.
COMPARISON WITH JE. 49 35
he has an independent pron. It seems more natural that Ob. omitted
thy folly, which had already been expressed by the pride of thy heart,
and joined the sf. to the vb. than that Je. should have added the noun
and made the other necessarj' changes in order to produce the strictly
metr. line required at this point. — Je. the rock, Ob. rock. — In the next 1.
Je. has the regular double trimeter, while Ob. has a pentameter. Je.
that holdest the height of the hill, Ob. the height of his habitation. If this
were Ob.'s orig. text it would be easy to show from gram, considerations
{cf. text, n.) that Je.'s is better, but in Ob. the pointing was orig. different,
as the Vrss. show, that maketh high his habitation, anr for anc. The
decision rests thus simply on the metre which favours Je. V. 4. Ob.
has an add. pentameter that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down
to the ground ? It is so expressive that it seems impossible that Je. should
have omitted it, if he had quoted from Ob. The same is true of the
striking add. and though among the stars were set. If the claim were
well founded that without this phrase the foil, thence in Je. "hangs alto-
gether in the air" (Cor.), we should have a conclusive argument for
Ob.'s priority. But thence is altogether in place in Je., for it refers to the
high cliffs on which Edom dwells. Metr. the add. in Ob. does not fit
into the general scheme which here also is preserved in Je. The differ-
ence of the condit. part, is unimportant.
Vv. 5, 6 correspond to Je. 49'- "»; they precede, therefore, in Je. the
verses corresponding to Ob. •■<. This diff. of order appears to have no
important bearing on the question of originality. V. 5. In Ob. how art
thou destroyed I is added. It interrupts the natural flow of the sentence
and can hardly have belonged to the orig. oracle. The further add. in
Ob. if robbers by night is not necessary to the thought and spoils the metr.
scheme. It also was not a part of the orig. oracle. The order of the
two similes in Je. retains thieves and by night and is therefore preferable.
Besides, the transition from the vintagers to the thieves is better than vice
versa. The metre also favours Je.'s order. However, Ob.'s steal is
more orig. than Je.'s have destroyed, which, by the way, must have orig.
been in the impf. tense, cf. ®. Je.'s reading originated under the influ-
ence of Je. 49""'. Again, the rhetorical question in Ob. is not only more
lively and forcible than Je.'s simple statement of fact, but is required at
least in the first 1. by the sense, for we need the thought that vintagers do
leave gleanings and that thieves steal only as much as they need, while
the disaster of Edom cannot be explained by an ordinary visitation of
thieves and plunderers. This must be the meaning both of Je. and of
Ob. V. 6 . Though not strictly like Je. 49'", it is similar enough to show
that they are related. The strong exclamation in Ob. is again more lively
and forcible than the simple statement in Je. But the constr. in Je. with
its explanation of the author of the calamity, setting the / of Yahweh over
against the imaginar}' thieves and vintagers, — not they but // — is clearer
36 OBADIAH
and more logical than the abrupt exclamation in Ob. whose form re-
minds one of the exclamation in v. =. Whether the terms in Je. aside
from the constr. are more original than the synonyms in Ob. cannot be de-
termined, unless the orig. be pre-exilic and the Aram, influence seen in
n;?3 (Ob.) be allowed to decide the question in favour of Je. as the earlier
reading. V. 7. The continuation is di£F. from Je. 4g"'b_* jt is evident
that Je. 49'<"> belongs with 49i»'>. Not only the metre but also the round-
ing out of the thought require it. Je. 49""> must therefore have been a
part of the orig. oracle. Ob. could not make use of it, he goes his own
way. He does no longer quote a prophecy, but gives a specific descrip-
tion of the events which have taken place in his own day and in which
he perceives the fulfilment of the older prophecy.f
Vv. 8, 9 are so much alike in thought to Je. 49' that some kind of
relation must exist betw. them, even though the phraseology is not so
strikingly similar. Again Je.'s metre is correct, while Ob.'s is irregular.
It certainly looks as if Ob. had quoted this also in his free manner. But
We., et al., object, and insist that vv. s. 9 are a later insertion, because
they predict the catastrophe of Edom as still to come, while the preced-
ing verses have already described it as past or as Just taking place. This
appears to be a cogent reason for rejecting these verses, not to mention
the use of the 3d pers. for the 2d and the difference of metre. If they clash
with the rest of the oracle they cannot be orig. But so would the predic-
tion of the f ut. in v. 3 clash ! We have here the same literary relation.
For when the connection with Je. 49 is taken into account it is most
plausible that Ob. himself should revert here once more to the older oracle
from which he had quoted. He sees this oracle fulfilled. Yahweh had
blinded Edom's wise men. Usually so wary, they had not seen the traps
which had been set for them. It was a divinely wTought folly intended
to destroy them all! Why should Ob. himself not have seen the appro-
priateness of the other part of the oracle from which he was quoting just
* ffi in Jc. 49'" relates the two texts more closely by reading Sia. x«'P* ^113 for lyni. But
this does not represent the orig. text. It is due partly to the desire to avoid the conflict be-
tween this verse and the next. For v. 'o speaks of the utter extinction of the offspring, brothers
and neighbours of Edom, while v. " says, that Yahweh will take care of their widows and or-
phans. Partly it is due to the other proph. hope that the Judeans will be the agents of Edom's
destruction. Cf. Ob. i'. Du. thinks <S contains the orig., and so reconstructs he is destroyed by
the arm oj his brethren and neighbours, so lluit he is no more. — Cor. restores Je. 49"' so as to
read For I myself <search oul> Edom, Lay bare his secret places. He cannot hide himself, He
is destroyed and is no mare. The rest he regards as secondary.
t We., Now., Marti regard v. « as secondary because it interrupts for them the connection
between v. ^ and v. ', because of the use of the 3d instead of the 2d pers., and because it represents
the catastrophe as a plundering of Edom and not as an expulsion from their land. Now., Marti,
Cor. assume that it was introduced from Je. into Ob., though ace. to them Je. quoted the rest
of the oracle from Ob. But v. ^ is really so closely woven into the structure of the passage that
it cannot be om. as secondary. In reality the impression of secondariness is caused by Ob.'s
modification of the orig. oracle which is still preserved in Je.
TEXTUAL NOTES I -5 37
as well as the alleged interpolator? This favours the retention of there
was no understanding in thee in Ob. ' as orig., v. i.
Our conclusion is that Ob. quoted in w. '-' an older oracle, the orig. of
â– which is better preserved in Je. 49. This conclusion does not carry with
it the further conclusion that Je. was the author. It is reasonable to
look for a Jeremian nucleus in the oracle vs. Edom (Gie., Cor., Bu.), and
a priori it is not impossible that either w. s- " or vv. '• '• '" might form
this nucleus. With the latter vv. '^-'« are held together by the same metre
and by the parall. in Ob. But while it is not impossible that Je. gave
such a brief oracle as vv. 'â– " in connection with his announcement of
Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of W. Asia, — the danger will come from the
north sweeping on southward to Dedan {cf. Ez. 25), — there is nothing in
w. 1- 9- 10. n-16 to warrant our ascribing them to Je., except that they
now form part of his book. The manner in which the nations who are
allied against Edom are spoken of excludes the Babylonians under Neb-
uchadrezzar. But if the attack on Edom did not fall under the general
sweep of Nebuchadrezzar's conquests, was Je. likely to turn aside to
threaten Edom? It is true the time came when Je., however much ab-
sorbed in the affairs of his own country, must have thought of Edom —
after 586 B.C.! But would he then not have referred to Edom's be-
haviour toward Judah at the time of Jerusalem's fall?
TEXTUAL NOTES.
1 . Thus saith the Lord Yahweh to Edom, or concerning Edom, is re-
garded as secondary by Eich., et al., because Yahweh does not speak the
words which immediately follow, and because it seems superfluous after
the Vision ofObadiah. Besides, the parall. in Je. 49' has a diff. order. Con-
cerning Edom: Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts. But this is due to the editor
of the prophecies vs. the nations {cf. 49'), where concerning the A mmonites
is also placed at the beginning. If the phrase is om., there is no hint up
to v. 6 to whom the oracle is addressed, and the pron. in against him (v. •)
has no antecedent. Marti retains, therefore, at least concerning Edom
(cp. Je.462 48'49i- r-ss.ss). Du. connects it with the oracle itself , of Edom
I heard a report. But the parall. in Je. 49 is against this. Since Ob.
quotes here from an earlier oracle, the whole introd. phrase comes most
prob. from him. — nini iji.s (^ Kvpioi 6 0e6s shows the influence of the Jew-
ish mode of reading the divine name, uyntr (S iJKovffa \-"y:;r as in Je.
49". — ri}n-' PND shows that the rly^■!:•^' proceeds from Yahweh as its au-
thor, n^v DMJJ •\>:s\ may be variously construed, as logically the ob-
ject of npicr Ges. ^ "o '•, as an independent clause parall. to ^y;■^v n>'icE',
or as a circumstantial clause. — nSu' (6 n^v ^laTr^crretXe; Je. 49" mSi?.
Since the oracle was given while the messenger was making his tour, it is
38 , OBADIAH
better to read also in Ob. the prtc. pass., so also 01 rcSr. Siev. regards
avJ3 as a later add. T'X (S irepiox'^v, & &« Niirian B munitio, but
2 d77£\fa»'. Jer. notes "quod ipse 'legatus' sit, et ipse 'munitio'"
(Rahmer). Vol. thought (Sread iixc, but the vb. i^atricrTeCke does not
agree with this. More likely irepiox'fiv was orig. irepLoxov, one who rides
around. Cf. the similar Gk. corruption in irvpdcpopos v. 's. Cappellus,
eial.j already explained Trepioxijj'as "a document given to an ambassador,
then the ambassador himself" (Vol.). — n^'^j; is read vh'; both here and
in Je. by many, because the masc. is used throughout. This is reasona-
ble, but since the variation occurs also Mai. i'- < (icnp) with Edom, not
absolutely necessary. The land (fem.) may be referred to here, not the
people as in the oracle. — nnipj imp cf. no'^:! wS Is. 2K The cohort,
with the imv. adds an element of encouragement to the command, thus
making the summons more urgent (Je. 4'). — 2. njn with proph. pf. as
jn Nu. 17". Du. takes nxa with v. K — 3. jnr from iir to boil, bubble
over, an expressive word for arrogance which scorns all limits (Or.).
qxiB'n (g ivijpev, &h iJ^a-Sl, "B extulit, all mistaking t' for t'. —
ijpi:' with the old nominal ending, so called Yodh compaginis, frequent
with cstr. St., Ges. ^^ ^^ '. — \1 in, also Ct. 2'*, presupposes aiijn as abs. st., sg.
wn Ges. 5«3^. <&6irah, holes, clefts, Je. 49" rpvfiaXids, Ct. 2>< ffKiirri, cf.
]-^, cavern. BDB. compares Ar. L^ conceal, L^ , _^ place of
refuge, protection, and transl. places of concealment, retreats. Buhl com-
pares »,fl-* the rugged valley side, and transl. Felsenklufte, Schluchten. —
an)?, if orig., would be an ace, depending on ijsc', which may be con-
strued with the ace. or with 3. But the juxtaposition of both constrs. is
harsh. Ew., et al., read therefore anoa in accordance with ® «<cna, &
)^o^o. Hi., et al., regard the force of 3 in â– 'unj as holding over to ana
which is in apposition to it. Or., Ehr. read anc, Gr. anps. Siev.,
JMPS. insert â– 'U'sn from Je. 49. But the Vrss. show that the orig. read
CIDj 05 vfG)v, g>" >Q_.j^, U exaltens. Pet., Du., Con., Marti, Now.
— in2E' and laSa with sf. 3d sg. for 2d pers. frequently in rel. and prtc.
clauses. Mi. i^, Is. 22i« 47' 54' 63'^. — i. niajn here abs., soar aloft, as
in Jb. 39", (S iJL€Teupi<70i]s. In Je. 49 it has an object q:p. — a^u- prtc.
pass., Nu. 24". Ki., Houb., We., et al., read a^t'n, a simple and natural
correction, (6 6^^.
5. nnignj tiin <S dire^pl<l>rji = npipn^. So Wkl. who compares Assyr.
ranfU. It is no serious objection that the Ni. of nm does not occur in
OT. Wkl. places the exclamation after itr.:? v. *. But if orig. it stood
rather at the beginning of v. K Van H. puts it after v. ^. Du. regards it
as orig. in its present place. Jer. read quomodo conticuisses ^r^b^i}, which
was regarded by older commentators as the orig. reading (cf. Pet.) We.,
5-8 39
Now., Marti om. the phrase. Che. om. nn^cu n^N nS>S as "an editor's
transformation of a corruptly written in'ri-f: nSh (cp. Jer. 49»)."— n-iir
destroyers, despoilers, here robbers, as d>3JJ shows. o« condit. part., not
interrog., for that would make the constr. artificial. D^h'^'y <& ivupvWlSas,
in Je. KardXifi/xa. on <S rd J/cavA ayTo?y, in Je. X"P* oiJtwv (oi^).
® interprets ansa by ro'^Ci'^t P?^'^? robbers like vintagers. — 6. ircnj
01 rbPN, though irj; may be coll., Ges. ^ '«• «, the pi. is prob. a scribal
error, so also Ehr., Hal. ly^o Aram. U^S. Cf. Is. 21". (6 KareX^(^)-
<^^77 and KaTe\{e)l<pe7], which sounded alike, seems to have read
13J>:, M is correct, c/. parallel t-on. — vj-iox3 (S ra KeKpyfifiiva, Wkl.
thinks of wihw, but this was hardly intended by Ob., though there were
mines in Edom. He transl. the whole, "How is Edom searched out as
far as Cebal" [transposing Sojn -i? thus emended from v. ' and com-
paring '/' 838 for Gebal], "how are his mines sought out, so that they
bring no yield/" [transposing 13 7\:t2D px with emended nsn.-i from
V. ']. He thinks that these are the words of the disappointed thieves.
Che. emends q^'^Jnn i-i>:.3j q\;^bv'n? ''">?V' ^- T'^ " ^°^ ^^^ ^^ purposes
broken, thy wise thoughts become foolish!" — 7. Sojn -[•;, Or. S? for
n^. Wkl., van H. join Sujn ijj to v. ^ and transl. How is Edom
searched through, his treasures sought out to the very border! (van H.) as
far as Gebal f (Wkl.), i. e., the Edomitish territor)' toward the North, i/- 838^
later called Gebalene. Then they begin a new sentence with iinSr,
Thine allies have sent thee away, given thee over, abandoned thee. But
this proposal spoils the kinah metre, and though Ob. is not over par-
ticular with the metre, it is not likely that he should have spoiled this
effective kinah line. For linSrChe. reads qiSrp they have befooled thee.
^cSr â– 'rjs iS iS3> "[W^vn = Je. 38*2, only Je. has iin^on for iin'U'h.
We., etc., divide the clauses differently from M, Unto the border have
they sent thee. All the men of thy covenant have deceived thee, the men of
thy peace have prevailed over thee. But Je. 38" as well as the metre favour
£&. <& avriar-naav, &» ^'^-Q mistook t:' for r, the same mistake v. ';
H here correctly illuserunt tibi. yzrh has been variously explained^
(i) by taking it with the following thy bread they make a snare under thee;
(2) by supplying or understanding ^rjs or •'.Sps, cf. 1/' 41"' {•'^^^t•■c^n
parall. ''nnS Sos), (J TJ''"'^? 'b?'?, niany Gk. mss. add ol iffOlovre^, or ol
arvveadlomdi ffoi{<T€); (3) by translating it thy flesh = thy blood relations
cp. Ar. x , <:y^t , Bo., Neue Ahrenlese, ii, 201; or reading ^s'nS thine
associates cp. Syr. >o.ii^, van H.; (4) by pointing it ^''Pq'^ they who
war against thee, Cappellus, Seydel; they who eat thy bread, Hal.; (5) by
omitting it with <&, Hi., We., et al. But then it should not be taken as
due to dittog. but as a variant of -\r:h^ (cf f 411"); (6) by emending it
to qcn'7 to scare, discomfit thee, Du. See further below. The meaning
of nits is disputed. We., Now. leave the whole clause untranslated.
40 OBADIAH
inr has nothing to do with iM^ wound, Ho. 51', though it has fre-
quently been translated thus. Cal., e. g., transl. ' they have fixed under
thee a wound, as when one hides a dagger between the bed and the sheet
when a person intends to go to sleep.' Also AV., RV.". Similarly
Hal. transl. ceux qui mangeaient ton pain t'ont inflige des plates a V ab-
domen, cp. Hb. 3'6 for this use of y^nr^. (S eveSpa, S x^f^n, ^ |jjina,
H insidice, Aq. iirl5e<np, detrfidv, 2 dWoTpluffiv. All presuppose the same
Heb. text, Aq. 9 appear to have connected it with iDic. 2 connects it with
-\v to be a stranger. The root -i?d should be compared with NH. iid to
twist, weave, spin, and Aram. »}lo to bind from which the meaning cord,
rope, snare, is naturally derived. Cf. ® Aq. G. BDB. cp. "Aram, jpo^)
stretch oneself, cf. Ar. *yo aqualiter distendit utrem" and transl. "perh.
net (as something extended)." Cf. i Mac. 5* o\ ^a-av rip Xay els iraylSa
Kal els (TKivSoKov iv r^ ivedpirjeiv avroiis ev rats oSatj. The various emen-
dations of mm are unnecessary. Vol. tisd or misn net; Gr. nbon or
-ID33 snare; Prince, JBL., xvi, 1897, P- i77. â– '''S9 siege, this would ne-
cessitate, however, the further change of nnn into Sj; with -iixa D''!:-.
Wkl. iv-^nn niss in>sm -^-nS iS iSdn^ they shall eat thy flesh, shall take
away from thee thy food. Marti in:? dwelling {cf. Dn. 422-29 521) ; for the
phrase inn z'^v to make one^s dwelling, settle down, he compares \p__ o^r
v. <. He might also have referred to OI's translation, imip, of qjii
V. <. But Heb. idiom usually requires the sf. mnp or aiin (c/". Is.
3812), Ar. ^It>. Marti's emendation might be adopted, for it is most at-
tractive esp. from a hist, point of view, if the usage of inn did not make
it somewhat doubtful. If we retain -iiin in the sense of snare, we must
obviate the difficulty of the unhebraic ■•Tinn with m?D icib'>. The text
most prob. read for Trnn orig. 1? rnni; this connects closely with the
preceding and the foil. {cf. v. '), and the whole clause then reads, with
emended ^pnS, to discomfit thee they had kept setting traps and thou wast
dismayed {destroyed), because there was no understanding in thee {-\2). In
12 T\i^2^> fN the sf. must refer to Edom, (& airroTs, but this is strange
because of the 2d pers. throughout the verse. Many refer the sf. to iir::
and transl. they have placed snares under thee which thou didst not
notice. But grammatically this is not probable. Others have regarded
it as an independent sentence. But the 3d pers. is then not adequately
explained. Con. transposes it after nin> axj v. », Now."^ after aio
xinn V. 8, But then rtit^r^, unless emended, occurs twice in too close
succession. We., Marti, Du. om. the phrase as a marg. comment of a
reader or as a variant of v. K The best proposal is Gr.'s who emends n
to •\^. Similarly 21 uh'^did 13 H'-';;"!?:.
8. BDB. suggests that tr'N was om. by a scribal error before nji^n;
9-i6 41
why not rather 'C>jk ? Others change 7\it2D to 0''r2D to make it more
closely parall. with O'DDn, It is easier to change a^Dsn to nnsn, the
D is due to dittog. Cf. Je. 49'.— 9. inn J, Marti, Now.^ >ni3J, but this
is not necessary. Sopn by slaughter, not â– without slaughter ; a late word
in Heb. Gr.'s interesting conjecture SNt2|-i»D from Jokleel, i. e., Petra
(cf. 2 K. 14O, has found no approval. It is dub. whether the Selah which
Amaziah called Jokteel was Petra. Though (6 g* B join Sapn to v. >»,
the metre as well as Jo. 42" favour M. Now., et al., om. it as a variant
of Dcnc.
10. Cf. Jo. 4=". Siev., JMPS., Du. om. apy for metr. reasons. Van
H. suggests as orig. apy' Dcnn ynn Stapn. But this is not likely. — 11.
0V2 ($ D'i^-g; Du. appears to om. DV, reading licj'c, but the constr.
favours M. ijjd -icy to stand aloof, BDB. Cf. 2 S. i8'3. (T ^3;;^.
Buhl trans!., to stand there as an indifferent, hostile spectator; Wkl., to
stand in the way; We., Now., Marti, to be present, ^ 3812. I'r'n S
'HID?;; Du. transl. his wall and emends nnir to inr, which governs
both ^^'n and nyr, for he om. also in3. Du. has correctly seen that M
is wrong, for the carrying off into captivity should not precede the cap-
ture of the city. But it is dub. whether natt* can be used with S^n, wall.
It seems to me more likely that instead of iS^n the orig. had iS n^'^,^, when
they broke for him the gate-bar and entered his gate. Cf. Am. i^. 1x3
should not be om. nye', Qr. (& &"& t^V^F, but unnecessary, sg. also
v.". Viu i-f, the vb. ^^^ occurs only here and Na. 3'° Jo. 4^. BDB.
suggests that it may be a wrongly pointed pf . of mi Pi. in all cases. Gr.
proposed n;, which occurs with Siu (Jos. i8«). On the Metheg in l-^^y,
cf. Sta., Grammatik 52a. Du. inserts before hpn-dj latest gross nSijn, ac-
counting presumably for its omission by haplo., cf. the preceding Snu.
12-14. JMPS. regards w. ''â– " as secondary, chiefly because they are
written in kinah metre, "while the preceding and following context is in
ordinary trimeter." He is also impressed by the abruptness in the tran-
sition from the past to the present in these verses. But the abruptness
must not be exaggerated. See ad loc. Smith's principal argument is
ineffdttive, because the metr. structure is not regular, and besides, the
kinah lines in vv. '2-14 are by no means the only ones in Ob., cf, e. g.,
w, «• ". Peckham follows Smith in athetizing w. '2- i'- »b, but regards
V. »», without the negative, as the continuation of v.". — Vv. 12, 13
are so similar that We., Now. om. v. " as secondary, while Wkl. regards
them as variants of the same text. Marti combines these two positions,
regards v. "^ as orig. and corrects v. '"• by v. ■'* so as to read do not gloat