Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1270

 is more Aramaic than Hebrew, and the divine name Eloah occurs more frequently in it than anywhere else. The transition from the optative to the imperative סוּרוּ is difficult; it would have been less so if the Waw copul. had been left out: cf. the easier expression in Psa 6:9; Psa 119:115. But we may not on this account seek to read יסוּרוּ, as Olshausen does. Everything here is remarkable; the whole Psalm has a characteristic form in respect to the language. מנּי is the ground-form of the overloaded ממּנּי, and is also like the Book of Job, Job 21:16, cf. מנהוּ Job 4:12, Psa 68:24. The mode of writing ימרוּך (instead of which, however, the Babylonian texts had יאמרוּך) is the same as in 2Sa 19:15, cf. in 2Sa 20:9 the same melting away of the Aleph into the preceding vowel in connection with אחז, in 2Sa 22:40 in connection with אזּר, and in Isa 13:20 with אהל. Construed with the accusative of the person, אמר here signifies to declare any one, profiteri, a meaning which, we confess, does not occur elsewhere. But למזמּה (cf. למרמה, Psa 24:4; the Targum: who swear by Thy name for wantonness) and the parallel member of the verse, which as it runs is moulded after Exo 20:7, show that it has not to be read ימרוּך (Quinta: παρεπικρανάν σε). The form נשׁוּא, with Aleph otians, is also remarkable; it ought at least to have been written נשׂאוּ (cf. נרפּוּא, Eze 47:8) instead of the customary נשׂאוּ; yet the same mode of writing is found in the Niphal in Jer 10:5, ינשׁוּא, it assumes a ground-form נשׂה (Psa 32:1) = נשׂא, and is to be judged of according to אבוּא in Isa 28:12 [Ges. §23, 3, rem. 3]. Also one feels the absence of the object to נשׁוּא לשּׁוא. It is meant to be supplied according to the decalogue, Exo 20:7, which certainly makes the alteration שׁמך (Böttcher, Olsh.) or זכרך (Hitzig on Isa 26:13), instead of עריך, natural. But the text as we now have it is also intelligible: the object to נשׂוא is derived from ימרוך, and the following עריך is an explanation of the subject intended in נשׂוא that is introduced subsequently. Psa 89:52 proves the possibility of this structure of a clause. It is correctly rendered by Aquila ἀντίζηλοί σου, and Symmachus οἱ ἐναντίοι σου. ער, an enemy, prop. one who is zealous, a zealot (from עוּר, or rather עיר, = Arab. gâr, med .  Je, ζηλοῦν, whence עיר, Arab. gayrat = קנאה), is a word that is guaranteed by 1Sa 28:16; Dan 4:16, and as being an Aramaism