^{page 165 note 1} Driver, in J.T.S., xxxiv, 34–8Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 1} Most probably identified with the root underlying the Syr. . or iuravit (Muss-Arnolt, s., Cone. Dict, of the Ass. Lang., 63Google Scholar and Brockelmann, , Lex. Syr.², 303)Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 2} So rather than “unlawfully” after Mowinckel's wider das Gesetz (s. Brown-Driver-Briggs, “Hebr. Lex.,” 754a, under ; cf. Jes. b. Sir., xliv, 15); for “law” and “statute” are, pace Dr. Guillaume, to all intents and purposes the same thing in the language of poetry !

^{page 166 note 3} Thomas, in J.T.S., xl, 390–1Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 1} Cf. LXX's έταράχθη, Aq.'s έρρέμβετο, Pesh.'s , Jer.'s fluctuabat, Vulg.'s conturbatum est, and Targ.'s .

^{page 167 note 2} In any case the expression is only metaphorical, as when St. Paul says, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ?” (Gal. iii, 1).

^{page 167 note 3} Can Dr. Guillaume cite a single passage in Accadian literature where aw/mâtṷ, without qualification connotes a spell outside a professedly magical text or context ?

^{page 167 note 4} Dr. Guillaume's suggestion on p. 115, n. 2, that in Ezek. v, 16,17, means not “hunger”, as usually supposed, but “spell” is in the highest degree improbable; for spells and wild beasts are not naturally associated, whereas hunger and wild beasts are in fact associated elsewhere in the Bible as common dangers (cf. Matt, iii, 2 with Mk. i, 13).

^{page 168 note 1} Dan. vi, 4 (Pe.'), and Jon. i, 6 (Hithpa.').

^{page 168 note 2} Cowley, “Aram. Pap.,” P 30₂₃ Etupa'. Aḥ., 25, 68 Pe'.

^{page 168 note 3} Cf. Jer. xxxi, 20 () and Ct. v, 4 () and also Jer. xlviii, 36 ().

^{page 168 note 4} Cf. Zeph. i, 7.

^{page 168 note 5} Cf. LXX's παύσασθαι with the Arab. “wascomfortable, at ease” (Eitan).

^{page 168 note 6} Also in Jb. xx, 23, which, however, is left out of the present discussion, as it is quite uncertain whether the same word is intended.

^{page 168 note 7} Qur., xxii, 38.

^{page 168 note 8} Driver, in J.T.S., xxxix, 398Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 1} Cognate also with “was soft (leather)”, as Gesenius has remarked.

^{page 169 note 2} Dillmann, , Lex. Ling. Aeth., 30–1Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 3} As in “flesh of bulls” (Jes. b. Sir., vii, 31).

^{page 169 note 4} Formed like “thumb, big toe” (Jud. i, 6, 7).

^{page 169 note 5} So also the Arab, , “fresh, tender (fruit, vegetables)”, and “belly (of human beings)” seem to be connected. Thus, too, a √rḥm “tender” appears to lie behind the Hebr. “womb”, from which “loved, pitied” will be a denominative verb (Gerber, , Hebr. Verb. Denom., 126)Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 6} Dillmann, , Lex. Ling. Aeth., 471–2Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 7} As suggested by Hare with two Hebrew MSS. (Kennicott).

^{page 170 note 1} This secondary sense, curiously enough, is represented by the Pesh.'s corrugatus fuit, which appears in all three passages of Ezekiel and thus further supports the existence of a Hebr. as postulated by Eitan.

^{page 170 note 2} Namely (see p. 169, n. 7). Otherwise a plural abstract noun with prefixed (cf. “wantonness”, and so on) with an objective genitive case (cf. “in indignation against any foes”, in Ps. vii, 7) must be assumed, when the meaning will be “and I have been vexed at the opposition to Thee”; but the ancient Vss. and the parallel as well as grammatical formation militate against such an interpretation.

^{page 171 note 1} Brockelmann, , Lex. Syr.², 660Google Scholar; see Barth, , Wurzeluntersnchungen, 43Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 2} From : qaṭqaṭa “broke, bruised” (Dillmann, , Lex. Ling. Aeth., 469–472).Google Scholar