Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1253

 duly separated, and secures, moreover, to the guttural initial of the second ערוּ its distinct pronunciation (cf. Gen 26:28; Num 35:16). It is to be construed: lay bare, lay bare (as in Hab 3:13, cf. גּלּה in Mic 1:6) in it (Beth of the place), of in respect of it (Beth of the object), even to the foundation, i.e., raze it even to the ground, leave not one stone upon another. From the false brethren the imprecation turns to Babylon, the city of the imperial power of the world. The daughter, i.e., the population, of Babylon is addressed as השּׁדוּדה. It certainly seems the most natural to take this epithet as a designation of its doings which cry for vengeance. But it cannot in any case be translated: thou plunderer (Syriac like the Targum: bozuzto; Symmachus ἡ λῃστρίς), for שׁדד does not mean to rob and plunder, but to offer violence and to devastate. Therefore: thou devastator; but the word so pointed as we have it before us cannot have this signification: it ought to be השּׁדודה, like בּגודה in Jer 3:7, Jer 3:10, or השּׁדוּדה (with an unchangeable ā), corresponding to the Syriac active intensive form ālûṣo, oppressor, gōdûfo, slanderer, and the Arabic likewise active intensive form Arab. fâ‛ûl, e.g., fâshûs, a boaster, and also as an adjective: ǵôz fâshûs, empty nuts, cf. יקוּשׁ = יקושׁ, a fowler, like nâṭûr (נאטור), a field-watcher. The form as it stands is ''part. pass., and signifies προνενομευμένη (Aquila), vastata'' (Jerome). It is possible that this may be said in the sense of vastanda, although in this sense of a ''part. fut. pass''. the participles of the Niphal (e.g., Ps 22:32; Psa 102:19) and of the Pual (Psa 18:4) are more commonly used. It cannot at any rate signify vastata in an historical sense, with reference to the destruction of Babylon by Darius Hystaspes (Hengstenberg); for Psa 137:7 only prays that the retribution may come: it cannot therefore as yet have been executed; but if השׁדודה signified the already devastated one, it must (at least in the main) have been executed already. It might be more readily understood as a prophetical representation of the executed judgment of devastation; but this prophetic rendering coincides with the imprecative: the imagination of the Semite when he utters a curse sees the future as a realized fact. “Didst thou see the smitten one (maḍrûb),” i.e., he whom God must smite? Thus the Arab inquires for a person who is detested. “Pursue him who is