Paul Haupt.

The book of Canticles; a new rhythmical translation online

. (page 7 of 8)
Online LibraryPaul HauptThe book of Canticles; a new rhythmical translation → online text (page 7 of 8)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

3,11 (5<).
(2) For m ^•''^'Q read -j^^^J ; contrast M "^^D 7,10 (j.) for "j^ss.

m -|7J is correct; c/. -j^3 nip^-i33"a ^DplZJj 1,2 (t); p^i: "pT
-n^j Ps. 36,9.

For im ^d''E^ read Q^3"l2^ ; c/. Crit. Notes on Isaiah (SBOT),
p. 83, 1. 11 ; p. 117, 1. 36.

7 (13) Gloss r) (ffi €Ket 8w(T0) Toix; /xacTTOus yu-ov crot; cf. above, p. 50,

n. *) appears in ffi not only after 7,13 (I3, ii) but also after
6,11 (12, iv).

8 (4) fil DiriU^ need not be corrected to "pni5 ; see my remarks in

Crit. Notes on Judges (SBOT), p. 66, 1. 29 and Crit. Notes on
Ezra-Neh., p. 64, 1. 49 ; cf. Siegfried's Neuhebr. Gramm. (Berlin,
1884), § 27, a and note on 5,3 (1).

ffir inserts the hemistich iv raU Swa/xecnv kol rats la-xva-eo-iv

ToS Aypov=m tiiwn nib^isn li^ ni^^nrin 2, 1 (t), not only in

the present passage, but also in 5,8 (1); cf. on 2,7 (7).

n?J in nmyn ni3l in^yn-n^J is negative {cf. Prov. 20,24);
contrast note on iTHri TV2 7, 1 (n)-

(11) The addition of TlTit which was afterwards supplemented by
H/QblUb (contrast note on 6, 8), was probably suggested by

mzDb n^n d^d ik 21,1 and ^rrb n^n on^ is. 6,1.

For |H "ji^^n by^ read -^53)1 b:'^ ; see n. 3 on No. 4 ; con-
trast taTl"!, Q"re i:^ni 1,17 (T)- Gratz proposed to read
"p'a'^M b"n- Cheyne (EB 405) thinks that M "p'^M b^n is
merely an incorrect repetition of the name n^'blU-

■jriS is impersonal ; see Crit. Notes of Numbers (SBOT), p. 43,
1.31. We may also read the Nif'al, "jri], or the passive Qal
(Ge8.27, § 52, 6. s; § 53, u) -^np (Ges.27, § 121, a; cf. Num. 32,5;
1 K 2,21),* but it is not necessary.

*Some of the Nif'al forms "JPS • "'ISPS . &c., might just as well bo pointed "jp; , 13riD ;
cf- npb, impf. np^. &c., and vol. 3, p. 39, of this Jouenal, also JAOS 22, 53.

n The Book of Canticles 61

8 The meter requires the insertion of bp'iT ; it dropped out

because it was customary to omit bp'vT in such phrases (Ges.^",
§ 134, n).

6 (8) For m nrn read, with Budde and Siegfried, H^b^b ; contrast
above, note on 8,11. It is unnecessary to insert, with Bickell,
"]b7jn ""11)12 after v, 8. See Addenddm, on p. 74.
(9) After J!<^n"rin&< ^n^n (the ^^n is enclitic: t am mat hi
axxdth-hi) we must insert JJ^'ll'mirTD •

For m ni3Sb and r^nibvb read n52^|l7J and HHlbV:^ =
rr'^^yV/2 and nn^lb'i?^ ; cf. (^^^0 -m"^, nrn:2- in post-
Biblical Hebrew QJ^ is used for womb (cf. German Mutter =

uterus and in^ "iT^^lb 0^^:25111 Dm Jud. 5,30).* The
expressions H52i<"2 and timbl^^ are unparalleled, but this is
no argument against the correctness of the emendation. If the
phrases had not been unusual, they would not have been mis-
understood for more than 2000 years ; see my remarks on
-ini237J nrni2, Ps. 110,3, in JHUC, No. 114, p. 110^, n. **.

4 (8) ffi SeCpo = TlS! , imp. of nri5< 'to come,' instead of ffl ■'pi^^ ; so,
too, 3, Veni de Libano, &c., and S ^in\ ,_:aD ^z .

""iV^rn (®j 8teAew>7, <S .^t^ iSZ ; 3 coronaberis) means 'thou
mayst descend,' not 'look down ;' so Magnus, Kritische Bearbei-
tung und Erkldrung des Hohen Liedes Salomo's (Halle, 1842),
p. 206; also Winckler, AoF 1, 193; 292, n. 1 ; 294, n. 2.

For fH nD7J5< 'JjHOU ® has dTro dpx^s Trto-rews, mistaking the
proper name for a common noun, as in 6,4 (n) : © ws cvBokm = ifl
n^^ln^ • HD'Ji^ is not the Amanus, on the borders of Cilicia and
Northern Syria, E of the Gulf of Alexandretta. The Orientals
are no Alpinists. Contrast Budde, ad loc.

Benzinger (ad 1 Chr. 5,23) thinks that ^TJImI was originally
an explanatory gloss to T'Dic (with Waw explicative ; see Crit.
Notes on Ezra-Neh., in SBOT, p. 68, 1. 53; p. 70, 1. 17). The
meter, however, requires a second name. In 1 Chr. 5,23 Tj'JJl
may be a subsequent addition to "p'-ir;"b3''2 m^ and IHI
ll'^lrt a tertiary gloss to "I"3i23l . According to Wetzstein (ZAT
3, 278) ■i"']'^; is a Saf 'el of 113 (the mountain of light, /. e., snow) ;
cf. D'^IIDD? a euphemism for blindness.


6 (2) The first double-line of the first stanza has been restored on the
basis of 3,1 (2"); "111 has been substituted for ""^S] HnnSu.'
which we find in J^"* and H"- The present poem does not use
this phrase.

* See also Deiitzsch's Prolegomena (Leipzig, 1886) , p. 109.

62 Hebeaica 1

5 The scriptio plena Hj"'^^ is used to prevent the reading

nriJ^ which may occasionally have been introduced as a joke


(I am an old maid, but my heart is alert).

The pointing ^fll^lp of M is just as incorrect as the pro-
nunciation n&<::i'a 8,io (3). We must point ^niii^p (Gres.27,

§ 9, o) or Tliilp; so, too, v. 11. The stem is yi^p ( jJxJI (joS
(jOAfJU), cf. 1^^0-0 quggetha, iLoJ' qugge.

For M "C^C"! read ■'ir^ir^ = j^; , pl- J^^) ', so, too, ^T\TL =
^Lcvo in 2,11 C') for fH mO ; cf. H, n. 61.

T :

(3) The suffix Q in ffl QS^pJ^ need not be corrected to "i ; cf. note
on 8,4 0).

(4) The rhythm requires the insertion of flb'in after JH "l^nn TD-

The reading "^b:? (so many MSS and editions) for M l^bS?
(ffi €7r' auToV, S ^oialiiii, 3 et venter nieus intremuit ad factum
ejus) is preferable; cf. Ps. 42,6. 12; 43,5. Budde and Siegfried
prefer Vb?*-

M T^mn ini^lS'' ""irSS , which appears in the Received Text
between the first and the second double-line of v. 6, must be
inserted, with Budde, at the end of v. 4 ; but Budde's suggestion
to add ID^^'^I after IT' at the end of the first hemistich of v. 4
is not good ; nor need we insert, with Bickell, 'lb SlSCSS between

m ^^sD and mnin n«::^

(5) "'Tllb is an erroneous repetition from the end of the first hemi-
stich of the following verse ; cf. Crit. Notes on Isaiah (SBOT),
p. 128, 1. 50.

The second hemistich bl3?D^n tllSlD bS? stands in M at the
end of the verse, but it must be inserted, following Budde, after
the first hemistich ; it is, however, unnecessary to add a verb ' I
grasped,' as Budde suggests. Siegfried cancels the hemistich,
following Meier.

(7) V. 7 is correctly canceled ])y Bickell. Budde considers only
ni^nn ^"I7J123 a subsequent addition, and perhaps also the pre-
ceding ■'by'J ; but •'b^/J is indispensable.

According to Winckier (AoF l,293)"fH n^yn D^Zncn ^'^^I'D
is a conditional clause (if they find me, they will hit me, &c.).

(8) ffi inserts after the first hemistich, iv rats Swdfiea-iv koL iv rats to-x^-
creaiv tov ay pov, cf. on 8,4 (j).

For Tl^sn n"2 see on 7, 1 (Z) ; TTZ is used here owing to the
preceding conditional DX ; lb M'jT\ D5< mi n&^ 1i<::rn DX
(cf. 2,7; contrast 8,4), would be impossible.

For the masculine form iT^nin see on 1,6 (j). It is unneces-
sary to read, with Bickell and Budde, "^ITib instead of iH ^b •

(9) For ffl i:n3?2'j;n read i:n3?nirn ; contrast note on 8,4 (3).
(10) For IB riZ^"'"^ bl31 ('/• G. Buchanan Gray's paper on bjl in

1 The Book of Canticles 63

5 JQK 11, 97, below, and Winckler, AoF 2, 174, n. 1. Cheyne

(JQR 11, 233. 236) proposes to read b^blD 'perfect' (in beauty)
instead of M bl jl •

(11) Gratz's emendation -iri5 for fH UTO, which is endorsed by
Budde, is entirely superfluous. ffiVA have xpvo-tW kol <^a^ which
was corrupted in (ffiS to Kc^a^ (phonetic spelling) ; see Lagarde,
Mittheilungen 2, 81. We must read T£1 Dri- which was pro-
nounced T5^i< nVi'D; cf. Dan. 10,5. In Jer. 10,9 and 1 K 10,18


the prefixed :j is a later addition. For T215< = T3^ ff- "i23''i< =
12j^ see Crit. Notes on Proverbs (SBOT), p. 51, 1. 1 and cf. BA
1, 260, n. 27 and Addenda on p. 327. S j^ci?? Mjis «^] ay^t^h,
3 caput ejus auruni optimum.

For m D^bn^n read Vnb^; cf. ^z^-^ nbll 7,6 (n) and
^rt-^ : 'curly.' The prefixed mi-Ip (fH Vni^Ip; see on v. 2)
is an explanatory gloss. There may have been a byform
D"'b'nb'n, but D'^bribri cannot be right. S> has ^^« ^ ^'^v oiZ^slo,
ffi f^ocTTpvxoL avTov iXdvaL, 3 comae ejus sicut elatae palmarum.

(12) (K has for this stanza : oi^OaXfxoX avrov ws TrepLtTTepal iirl -rrXrjpu)-
fxara vooltwv, AeAovcryu,€vat iv yaXa/CTi, Kadrjixivat eirl TrXrjpttifjiaTa
(ffiSA -(- iSaTwv) ; SO D"?- ■'p"'25< b3? is translated in the same way
as fH fli<b'J by • The original text of the second hemistich was
probably Jnj^b^ b^ Inl2"l23% and 'OT'Z *'p^£5< b^ may be an
explanatory gloss to njj^b^J bs? , which afterwards crept into the
text. The second and the fourth hemistichs in the Received
Text appear to be doublets. The original text of the fourth
hemistich may have been D''3'ir'T'2J2 HIjlD (cf- 7,3) referring to
the eyelashes. 3 renders, Oculi ejus sicut columbae super
rivulos aquarum, quae lacte sunt lotae, et resident juxta fluenta
plenissima, and S has, - "^« l*iJo? ]r'i^ Vi^ )Ja-k? ^] ^in r , M\
Iz^vNa^ Vi^ ,_-i^£J:o i n\t.^ . It is not impossible that jZ -\iNi >^
'perfection,' which is meaningless in this connection, is a trans-
position of ]ZnNsnA> = ]Zn*\v = TrXrjpoifia ; cf. the Saf 'el derivative

|« \v? A. ' completion, fulfilment, perfection.' The Saf'el usamli
and the Saf'el of the intensive stem, usmalll, and its reflexive-
passive ustamalli or ultamalll are common in Assyrian
(HW410a). Milu (=millu, mil'u, mila'u; cf. xitu 'sin'=
xittu, xit'u) means in Assyrian 'abimdance of water, high
water, flood,' and this word appears in Syriac as J«<i<b'?- (Noldeke,
Syr. Gr.^, § 111, n. 2). The original form seems to have been
mila'u, with xJLcf, mil6'u; see Haupt, Assyr. E-voxcel, p. 18.
For r5<bt3 cf- Assyr. forms like ximetu = HK-J", xitetu =

n5<ion, &c.

T ~

It is not necessary to read, with Bickell, D^3V "T^S 1T>' in
the first hemistich; cf. mp ^bPlXS 1,5 and mbTT Hi^llT-S
8,10(3). ^" ' ■■ '

64 Hebraica T

5 (13) For in njiin:?D read ri3Tl3'!D, following (& ws e^iaAat tov dpu)-
/u,aros <f)vov(Tat yLvptxj/iKa, 3 sicut areolae aromatuni consitae a
loigmentariis, S simply jviff?.^; ]h n-i ^'w ^] , omitting Inl5l37j
D'TTp"!". . The 5 prefixed to rij1^3?5 , which Bickell cancels,
is correct.

For M rSb"^"'! point nib'^j'i ; so Bathgen, Ottli, Budde ; cf.
the Beilage7i to Kautzsch's AT (one of the two critical notes on
the text of Cant, in the work, the other one refers to IfH TlSlT
O^y^'' 7,10). Siegfried prefers i$l.

(14) It is not necessary to read Q'T'EC^ ; cf- Ges.27, g 121, d.

(15) For m n^nn (ffi ckAektos, 3 electus, S Ui^) substitute n'^'qj^ ; cf.
Ezek. 17,23. ffl "llnz seems to be an explanatory gloss which
crept into the text and displaced the original "i'''ns»< ; cf. note on

D^b-^n 6,6 (n).

(16) Bickell's insertion "p before Db'^Sl"!"' '^\^'2'2 is impossible.


1 (15) V. 15 is a scribal expansion derived from 4,1 (tt)- It is the femi-

nine x>cndant to v. 16 just as 2, 2 ( 3 , /3) is the feminine x>endant to
2,3. Bickell cancels the second ns^ tlBH ; Budde, the following
D^'DT' "TV^ at the end of the verse ; it is sufficient to omit the
second HS^ ; cf. 4, 1 (n).

(16) M -jSpi at the beginning is indispensable (against Budde), but

we may omit the second ^J^ , following S. Bickell's emendation
W!2V' r5< Ti"'"'^ W'lT is superfluous.

For f£\. nj!5'"i cf. my remarks in Crit. Notes on Proverbs
(SBOT), p. 35, 1. 16. Budde suggests rMyp_ or r'jpt^; cf. 7,7
(2). ffir renders ctwkios, S ^s^ ^i (cf. 3, 10), 3 floridus.

(17) M irnS is an amplificative plural; see Crit, Notes on Proverbs
(SBOT), p. 34, 1. 31. It is not necessary to read, with Budde, the
singular TjT}^:^ (S ,^)-

For m iDt:*""! read, with the Qf^re, l:t2^nn (cf 7,6 = 3, 7),

• rT

or, better, iDtiTi^ blDl • Wetzstein's emendation iDtiTll (Budde,
TDTI) is unnecessary ; nor need we read, with Budde, VtSTtI ;

T "

see H, n. 24.

2 (4) ffii ■jS'nri (^ introduxit me) is correct in the present passage ;

bvxt in 1,4 it must be emended to the imperative "]Jj<''2n • ® lias
the imperative eto-ayayere fie {& ^a.1^]) here, in the second chap-
ter, but not in the first. Gratz suggested "'jj<"2n •

For m -p^n rri Cheyne (JQR 11, 234)"suggests '^^r^ TTI.

For bjl 8«B Gray's paper cited in the note on 5, 10 (1). Accord-
ing to Cheyne (JQR 11, 234) v. 4'> 'is surely a corrupt form of
V. 5c ; '':5< MaHS nbl~""D became distorted into "'b? ib^ill

T The Book of Canticles 65

2 nnrii^ • This is not really bold ; it is an every day proceeding,

and justified by numerous parallel cases which will at once occur
to scholars like Budde.' — I doubt it. Gratz proposed ^ib'ljl for
iPK ibrni ; and Bruston, Jlbjll (© Ta^are, S sJiL=4). 3 ordinavit
in me caritatem.

(5) For m ■'D^lD^D and ^Jtns'l read ^DD^QD and ■^Jisn ; both verbs
refer to the bridegroom.

Bickell's insertion ^"Illb T>^2^ ^TjTl before M nbliT'D
■^Si^ nznj^ is unnecessary. The last clause of the verse is a
scribal expansion derived from 5,8 (1). Bickell reads nbin'jj,
as in 5,8, for M nblH-^D-

(6) Bruston's emendation btiriri 'she envelops' for £H b PImD is
not good. The parallel passage 8,3 has simply ''123!5<1 HmH
instead of ^"J35<nb nnn. We may read ^iri<^b finnp, but it
is not necessary. Bickell thinks that v. 6 should be canceled
as a repetition of 8,3; but 8,3 (3, 6) is a scribal expansion
derived from the present passage.

1 '(12) We must not point, with Budde and Siegfried, "inb instead of M.
"iTO (® tSwKcv). 3 translates correctly, Dum esset rex in accubitu
suo (S oi-oi^iBis), nardus niea dedit odorem suum.
(13) Winckler, KB 5, 298, n. 1, thinks that n^H ni^H means 'gravel
of myrrh,' i. e., granulated myrrh.

The second hemistich, M 'rb'' "'TJ: "^2 , is a relative clause ;
see on 3,8 {^). ffi^ has only dTroSeo-juos ttJs o-TaK-r^? d8eX<^t8os fj.ov
ilxoL, iv dyaTreXwo-tv EvyaSSec, omitting the two intervening hemi-
stichs ; but 13^ and 14a are given in ©SAP.

(2) For m ^rr'El nip^"J33b ^DIDUJ*; (®^ 4>i\y}a-aT0i fxe d-n-o inXrjfidTWv
o-To/Aaros avTov, 3 osculetur me osculo oris sui, S> ]Z^.fl-fc,Qj ^ ^ in ^ n
(Ti^asj) read yB nip^lTD^J ^Dp^j (Martineau, ^Dp'^T'; see on
V. 4) ; but if V. 1 is preceded by vv. 12-14, the third person of
ilHffiSS would not be impossible ; nor would the transition from
the third to the second person in the second hemistich be open to
any serious objection. Bickell and Siegfried do not alter fll in
the first hemistich, but read Til for ffl yTl in the second

For (!5 jLtao-Tot (3 ubera) = U^H instead of M W^ll see n. 17
on No. 9 of the Translation.

For the preposition p in nip'^"^::3:j cf. 8,2 (3).

(3) Budde suggests n^l for m nnb at the beginning of this verse
(S I '-^l ■ .iV/M^^ " -^V) ffiP Kol ocTfJir] fJ.vpo)v (Tov vTrep Travra ra

ip^fiaTa = n^-d^zi bs-a y:^^ n^ii 4,io (n, ix). Gratz's

emendation irjITl for M "j^D^J^ is unnecessary.

M pniri is a relative clause ; cf. Luzzato's emendation 2llT
r^yW (Ges.2', §155, f) for M nrj ^:2lnT EccI. 10,1 and above.

66 Hebraica T

1 note on v. IS'^. It is unnecessary to read, with Bickell, "p^fl
= Thracian; or, with Gratz, pT'JH (Esth. 2,3.9.12); or, with
Budde, p"|!l7J (3 oleum effusum, ffirP, /juvpov iKKevwOiv, S j^a^? | ^»4V),
or p-jr , "or ■|7J"i p^"in5 ; or, with Siegfried, pn^?iT2J • 151 ■^:2"j:
is here construed as fem., just as "i2J7J123 in v. 6. The fern, form
may have been suggested by nn"i2352n (c/. 5).

Nor need we read, with Budde," ~n'2^J^ or "i:2T232 for fH -I7j'a3
at the end of this hemistich.
(4) The sing. suflBxes in jM ^jDt2J'2, "'DSJ^'ZH ^iiust not be altered,

: T

with Gratz and Martiueau, into the plur. 12^11313 , IDJ^"*"?! ; c/.
on V. 2.

©P repeats "^12^ lT'"lb, from the beginning of v. 3, after
"T'^^rt^^ : OTricro) aov eis Saixrjv ixvfuav aov Spafxovfxev, 3 post te CUr-
remus in odorem unguentorum tuoruni.

For fH ""ISf^nri (®^ elo-^veyKeu fxt, 3, introduxit me) read
^5!J^"'Zin ) imperative, following Ss v^a^ i nN j^nNv^ -i -'^^l (con-
trast note on 2,4); the following fH ~h'2T'\ is vocative (Ges.27,
§ 126, f). Siegfried prefers IH but inserts 4* before v. 5 ("i).

Bickell's tVHT^ instead of fH H^I^D is unnecessary.

For fil V*nn (©^ ei's TO rafxeiov avTov, 3 in cellaria sua)
read "Ilir; (Budde, ■j^'lin) following S.

For M "73 (ffi^ cv o-ot, 3 m #e, S >f^), on the other hand, read
in (Budde, Dn).

For £51 niDTD C®^ dyaTTT/o-o/xev, but S i^?^ , 3 memores) read,
with Martineau and Budde, m'^STTj, cf. 5,1 (gloss e); GrStz,

riTS'iTD • Siegfried prefers JH and refers to Ps. 71,16. See,
however, E. W. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern
Egyptians^, 2, 78, u. 2.

2 (17) fH zb (®f airoa-Tpeil/ov, 3 revertere, & i^^.^]) belongs to the end

of the fourth hemistich ; it is the imperative of the denominative
verb mC, ?'• e., to be ijlC7iIl; cf. 1,12 (iv).

8 (14) In the same way ri"'!Zl in the variant at the end of the Book
(gloss f) has an erotic meaning; it is a denominative verb,
derived from Vi'^IZ 'bolt,' meaning 'bolt the open door' (8,9), &c.

2 (17) The second double-line of the last but one stanza of this poem
has been restored on the basis of the variant in 4, 6 (n , 8), but we
might also keep ffl "^nz "^"iH b^' in the text and supplement the
last hemistich from 8,14: D^'-"!Z3Z "'"^n bV- The addition of a
parallel hemistich to fH "iHZ ^IH b" would have made the
meaning of this objectionable phrase too obvious. Bickell reads,
inn ni3?nj "byi D"2TCn ^^n "by. The translation 'on the
moimtains of malobathrou ' (cf. Field ad loc.) seems to me very
improbable (ffi cVi oprj (cotXwjuaTwv, 3 super montes Bether, but &

hsrn- Jiz4 \^ as in 8, 14).

The Book of Canticles 67

(7) For m DSnU^ instead of 'pn5< see note on 8,4 (3, 6).

According to Winckler, AoF 1, 293 QblTl^" rii:Z does not
mean 'maidens of Jerusalem,' but 'inhabitants,' but cf. the
parallels from D cited in the Explanatory Notes. Father Oussani
has called my attention to the modern Egyptian love-songs in
Lane's Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians^ (London,
1871) 2, 78 where we find JLocX^Jt 1^ cj^aj L '0 maidens of
the city (of Cairo)' and io.cX-LC*/! c^Lo b 'O maidens of

Alexandria.' Contrast Crit. Notes on Isaiah (SBOT), p. 182^, 1. 30,
and Ges.27, § 122, s.

For the plur. Il'li^nik (® ^v 8wa/u,eo-iv koI iv to-;^Txreo-tv tov dypov)
instead of pil'^m see note on Q'^S^bn 7,2 (z).

T ;

D5< in such clauses implies an ellipsis : if ye stir or startle our
loving, zrcr l-iil D^nbX -pb-r^T niDl contrast Ges.27,
§ 149, b.

For the masculine forms I'T'yr^ and 1"i'^iyin see above, note
on 1,6(3).

3 neque evigilare faciatis dilectam, quoadusque ipsa velit
seems to have read nnri5< for M TiZitlil^ ; cf. 7, 7 (2) carissima =

M T\'2V])^, ^ dyaTTT^. & \h^^l bJ, amicam.
(5) For the masculine suffixes in the illustrative quotation i {M

^■'Fl"!"!'!?; W2i^ TlVb^'n, Titnb'') we must substitute feminine

suffixes (t^^rnmy, rpzi^ T^nbnn, T^n-b";) following s ^z-r^,

^«^iic| >Aa£>\nii , ^*aZf2Xk . Even Delitzsch departs here from the
Received Text.

Budde thinks that M "IlTlbzin is perhaps a corruption of
'nribpri 'she wrapped thee in swaddling clothes.'

For M Smb"' read, with Konig, Budde, Siegfried T^rnb",

following fflr y TeKova-d aov (var., ae), ffi genitrix tua. Cf. 6,9 (I).

The third hemistich is not a somewhat modified dittogram of

the second (Budde), but the second hemistich is a prefixed

explanatory gloss, or variant, to the third; cf. 3,8. 10 (J^).


(1) Bickell reads Tl'^yn rii< Ha"' (cf. 6,4, i. e., stanza vii) instead of
M ^tr^y"! nS^ TIBH , and for the second Hs^ 'nSH of M he sub-
stitutes nib3i35 niz-'i^ it). For m Tjn^s^ib ^:f^2 onr jrj?

he inserts 6, 5^ (vii") ; but it is sufficient to omit the second ns"*
of 151 and M TlTO^^b 1^'3.'^2 , at the end of the second hemistich,
which is an erroneous repetition from the end of v. 3 ; cf. notes on
1,15 (T, a) and 3,1 (n^). Siegfried cancels m ^T\'B'2.b 13?^^ not
only at the end of v. 1 but also at the end of v. 3 ; he thinks that
the clause is especially awkward at the end of v. 3, which is cer-
tainly wrong.

68 Hebraica n

4 Cheyne (JQR 11, 233) thinks that fH Q^]^ "j^r^? is far from

probable, especially in view of 6,5 (vii). In both passages, says
Cheyne, we should very possibly read "'Zl^bn ' have overpowered
me.' Cf. Lane, op. cit., p. 11.

For £H lyhj "IJl^ at the end of the verse Bickell reads rj
"lybju '18 in 6, 5 (gloss v). Budde prefers IJ/'bii/J •

(2) Bickell cancels the second hemistich.

For fH DiS and DHB » fit the end of the verse, instead of "j^D

T "■, V T '

and "iJlQ see note on 8,4 (3, 6).

(3) The Qore TrniLlTJ (ffi 17 A.aXia aov, 3 eloquium tuum, & .nNNviV)
instead of fH Kothib "T'"^ jlTJ is preferable ; a pluralis magni-
tudinis is out of place in this case. The rare word is chosen in
order to get two beats ; cf. note on 1,6 (3).

(4) m. ni^Ebnb "iDn ti^^<^:2 i^n bi j:2D , © <k Trvpyos AavetS rpa-

;(>;Aos (Tov, 6 {OKoBof/.r]fjievo<; els ©aXirnaO, 3 Sicut turris David
collum tuum, quae aedificata est cum propugnaculis, Ss lie
jj.^^* "built with battlements, merlons' (Graecus Venetus,
€7raA^eis). fH rii^cbn is neither a corruption of D'^tsb'iZJ * (Cheyne,
Expository Times, 9, 423; JQR 11, 562) nor a Greek loanword =
TrjXwTTia (Gratz, Martineau, Budde) but the plural of the fern. inf.
Piel,t ri'^Ebn or n^Sbn, from nsb 'to surround, to protect
with walls and other fortifications.' The permansive lapi or
labi is repeatedly met with in the cuneiform texts (HW 368^),
and it is not impossible that the aira$ Xeyofxevov W'jb'ai 1 K 7,28
(cf. Assyr. sulbti) is connected with this stem ; cf. Crit. Notes on
Kings (SBOT), p. 95, 1. 11.

ffl ^ibn is a superfluous insertion.

For ffl rb^" Bickell reads l^-

Siegfried considers the fourth hemistich, D''"i!ll3ri Tib'JJ b'D ,
a gloss.
(6) At the end of the second hemistich we may supply "^niSQ .

© TTpos Tov fiovvbv Tov Ai/^dvov for £H Mwlnbn Jny^j biCl ; con-
trast note on nilTD (fj- We may read, however, Xi/Sdvov (= 3
ad collem thiiris) ; so, too, in v. 14 (where 3 = ffi, cum universis
lignis Libani, but Sh j^J^ n\j )ja-i_D >oii).
1 (9) For fH TCCb (© rfj l-rriru) fiov, 3 equitatui meo) read "'f^OCb ;
cf. £H "^^ for "33 5,1 (D, v). For the double plural ending see
Ges.27, § 87, s and Haupt, Assyi'. E-vowel (Baltimore, 1887), p. 5.
Neither TCCb nor ''2p"'Z is an amplificative plural (against
Siegfried); contrast T\^^Z'Z'^'Z 6,12 (S, t?)-
(10) It is not necessary to read, with Budde, IIJ^] XTi2, following ffi
Tt' <'ip(uw6r](Tav ; contrast 4, 10 (viii).

•Asayr. tukkn is a synonym of aritu and qababu 'shield, pavise' (HW 129'',
578b, 7ft» .

t Cf. above, p. 40, n. S-

The Book or Canticles 69

ffi ws Tpuydves, m opfx-Lo-Koi (3 sicut turturis, sicut monilia)

= D^^"n3, D'^TI'^mID; the same mistake in £H ri1l7JTli 3,6 (HO

and nbh7JD 7,1 (n)-
(5) 151 "^3123 at the beginning of the verse must be prefixed to M
n^2^ ''■Jlii^ri in the second hemistich. Bickell omits ^^IJ^IH

(4) Cheyne(JQR 11,233) thinks that 'the true reading is n^ PIS^

nyw riBiriirs niisa nbsnnD ^m^i; cf. 2,1 and notice

CSlElir in 6,3. The meadow-saffron became Tirzah; the lily,
Jerusalem. The valleys (D"'p7J2?) became 'a terrible one'
(»152"'5^)> and this suggested to the scribe rilb'IH^S ; lie thought
of 8, 10. rilbj"ij is neither an army with banners, nor the hosts of
heaven (AoF 1,293), but simply a corruption (; for 7^).* In 6,10
the parallel passage is an interpolation,' — But rilb^HDlD n/!2*'i<
(f) is an interpolation in the present passage, not in 6,10 {"2, i).
Cf. also Perles' Analekten, p. 31, quoted by Cheyne, I. c.

For (5 ws €vBoKui (3 suavis, & Ulo^ .^]) = f«[ Hil^n^ ; cf.
on n''-i< 4,8 (n)- Budde, following Bickell, is inclined to omit
not only IH HlinnD (e) but also OblTin^S mS<j.

(5) For M DniT instead of ".JllT see above, note on 4, 2 (ii).

For the variant 13;bj»n "iTi (gloss 17) instead of "ybn ^H^
in stanza i see on 4,1.

(6) M D''br!"in is a gloss on niHI^pn in stanza ii, which after-
wards crept into the text, displacing the original immpn ; cf.
note on "linn 5,15 (1, f). ffi has ws dye'Aai tw KtKapiiivdiv in
both passages.

For M Dbi123 and UTQ. see note on 4,2.

(7) The double-line, corresponding to 4,3^, which is here omitted in
fK, is supplied in <&m 'AS.

(9) Bickell and Budde think that vv. 9-11 belong to another song.
Bickell believes they may represent a fragment of an alphabetic
poem, but the sequence of the initial consonants of these three
double-lines (b, 53, D) may be accidental; cf. Crit. Notes on
Proverbs (SBOT), p. 54, 1. 30.

The Q^'re inn5!<Zl is more correct than the K^thib "n^^Il but
not absolutely necessary.

fH ""31^272 pD3? inj^u instead of T{^ p;yn (Ges.27,
§134, d) is peciiliar; fK pD3? seems to be a gloss. Siegfried
thinks that it is miswritten for some other word (ffi ev Oeimn, 3 in

1 2 3 4 5 7

Online LibraryPaul HauptThe book of Canticles; a new rhythmical translation → online text (page 7 of 8)