^{page 165 note 1} See p. 175, n. 2.

^{page 165 note 2} Cf. Lam. iii, 66 (Sept., Targ.).

^{page 166 note 1} The verb is not affected by a predicate that precedes it (Lev. xxiv, 5 Is. xxiv, 12); s. p. 167.

^{page 167 note 1} In the same way feminine nouns are occasionally treated as masculine if they are such in form, as in “the deep said” (Jb. xxviii, 14), unless this ought to be changed to to accord with the usual rule of Semitic grammar (see p. 175); cf. (Ct. v, 14).

^{page 167 note 2} S. p. 166, n. 1.

^{page 167 note 3} In the case of the explanation may be that the masc. replaces the fem. gender κατ σύνεσιν, as in … (Lev. ii, I; cf. v, 1 xx, 6).

^{page 168 note 1} See p. 170.

^{page 168 note 2} See p. 174.

^{page 168 note 3} No sense can be made of the M.T.'s “its (?) crushed ones”. As then the parallel “ruin” suggests an abstract noun, with which the LXX's άλήθεια agrees, I tentatively propose “declaring innocent, acquittal”. Such a form does not actually occur but is legitimately derived from the Aram. = Hebr. “purged, declared innocent” (Dalman), while the form with instead of will be due to Aramaic influence; possibly indeed ought to be restored in the text, although the whole proverb may we be of Aramaic origin. There is, however, some evidence that may have crept into the Hebrew language beside the correct by the time of the LXX; for they twice mistranslate “crushed” as = “was pure, purified” (Is. liii, 10 Jer. xliv, 10). So Syr. and and Hebr. and exist side by side. However this may be, the sense of the proverb seems to be that a false accuser or slanderer hates to see his victim cleared while a flatterer brings about the ruin of anyone whom he praises.

^{page 168 note 4} Beside (ibid., 11, 12).

^{page 169 note 1} Not (Prov. ii, 15), since the fern. plur. form comes from a mase. sing., not fern., form.

^{page 169 note 2} Not in Jb. xxxvi, 18, where seems to be an error for (Budde).

^{page 169 note 3} The explanation of … … “Sheol beneath is astir for thee …, rousing the dead for thee … (and) raising up all the kings of the nations from their thrones” (Is. xiv, 9) is not so easy, since the first predicate agrees with the noun, though separated from it, while only the second and third predicates do not agree with it. The construction may perhaps be analogous to that in (see p. 170) or may be an error of vocalization for (Bickell); alternatively is regarded as a single fern, concept.

^{page 170 note 1} So may be corrected to in … … (1 Ki. v, 30–1).

^{page 171 note 1} Driver in Bibl., xix, 20; cf. Jer. xx, 9, where goes not with but with and must be vocalized “burning heat” (Driver in JQR., N.S., xxviii, 114–15).

^{page 171 note 2} The misreading is perhaps due to a recollection of (Prov. iv, 5).

^{page 171 note 3} Driver in JTS., xxxiv, 377–8, and ZDMG., xci, 346; cf. Barth, ibid., xlii, 348–358, and Rowley, ibid., xcii, 52–9.

^{page 172 note 1} There is no reason to suppose that is indeclinable; for in the only other passage where a plural form may be thought necessary the predicate precedes the subject and may therefore naturally not be declined (Jer. 1, 42).

^{page 172 note 2} As though means “thy cursers (each) is accursed” (see Kautzsch-Cowley, , Hebr. Gr., §145lGoogle Scholar).

^{page 173 note 1} Nöldeke, , Mand. Gr., 418–19, 422Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 2} Dillmann-Crichton, , Eth. Gr., 500–1Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 3} Assyrian examples, such as šittum rīḫât nišī elišu imqut “sleep that is poured on men fell upon him” (Thompson, , Gilgamish, 37, iii/iv, 70Google Scholar) must not be cited (Brockelmann, , GVOSS., ii, § 103aGoogle Scholar), since imqut for tamqut may be due to Babylonian influence.

^{page 174 note 1} See p. 167, n. 1. So the Fr. mode, which is properly masculine like the Lat. modus, is also feminine according to its form, though in a different sense.

^{page 174 note 2} Cf. Kautzsch-Cowley, , Hebr. Or., § 145p)Google Scholar; cf. Jer. xlix 16, where is in the acc. case (s. ‘J.Q.R.’ N.S. xxviii, 125).

^{page 174 note 3} In this construction the organ is not a secondary subject in the nomin. case (Kautzsch-Cowley, § 144l-m), but a limitative term in the accus. case describing the organ, as the corresponding Arabic construction shows, for example, in “ye shall surely see it with the eye of certainty” (Qur., cii, 7); cf. Acc. erû libbašu or ina libbišu limuttam ikpud “the eagle plotted evil in its heart” (Langdon, Etana 17₃₀ 18₁₄).

^{page 175 note 1} Cf. K. but Q. in Prov. xxviii, 16.

^{page 175 note 2} Sometimes the translation is wrong (s. p. 170) as in “east-wind”, for “the wind of the east” (Exod. x, 13; cf. in the same verse) and “an upright spirit” for “an upright man's spirit” (Ps. li, 12; cf. 14, 19). Sometimes the text may be at fault; thus may be an error for “flame of fire” (Ps. civ, 4; cf. Kenn.'s H. MS. 245, LXX^Aa, Arab, and Eth. Vss.). So, too, “liver” is not proved masculine (Brown-Driver-Briggs, , Hebr. Lex., 458Google Scholar) by “my liver is poured upon the earth” (Lam. ii, 11), since the verb precedes it; it is proved feminine by “let not my liver be united to their assembly” (Gen. xlix, 6), since the LXX's τ ήπατ μου and Assyro-Babylonian idiom, whereby kabittu “liver” and napištu “soul” are used in parallelism with reference to emotions (cf. Langdon, , BPS., 18–9 9 13–7Google Scholar), show that “my glory” is mispointed for “my liver” (Dillmann, , Genesis ⁶459Google Scholar). Occasionally, too, parallel passages prove that the text is incorrect (cf. Jer. xlviii, 45 with Numb, xxi, 28, which gives the true text, and Gen. xix, 23 where the same error occurs).

^{page 176 note 1} So must be corrected to = (Albrecht, in ZAtW., xvi, 81Google Scholar) at the end of the verse; cf. Exod. xv, 2 Deut. xxxii, 10 Jer. v, 22 Ps. lxxii, 15 and Ezek. vii, 21 for the form of the suffix.