Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2081

 lies under a right supposition. But the designation is not thus general. Schultens explains catapultis regum after Eze 26:9; but, inasmuch as he takes this as a figure of those who lay siege to the hearts of men, he translates: expugnatricibus regum, for he regards מחות as the plur. of מחה, a particip. noun, which he translates by deletor. The connecting form of the fem. plur. of this מחה might certainly be מחות (cf. מזי, from מזה), but למחות מלכין ought to be changed into 'וגו 'לם; for one will not appeal to anomalies, such as 'לם, Pro 16:4; 'כּג, Isa 24:2; 'לם, Lam 1:19; or 'וגו 'הת, 1Ki 14:24, to save the Pathach of למחות, which, as we saw, proceeds from an altogether different understanding of the word. But if 'לם is to be changed into 'לם, then one must go further, since for מחה not an active but a conditional meaning is to be assumed, and we must write למחות, in favour of which Fleischer as well as Gesenius decides: et ne committe consilia factaque tua iis quae reges perdunt, regum pestibus. Ewald also favours the change למחות, for he renders מחה as a denom. of מח, marrow: those who enfeeble kings, in which Kamphausen follows him. Mühlau goes further; he gives the privative signification, to enfeeble, to the Piel מחה = makhakha (cf. Herzog's Real-Wörterb. xiv. 712), which is much more probable, and proposes לממחות: iis quae vires enervant regum. But we can appropriately, with Nöldeke, adhere to למחות, deletricibus (perditricibus), for by this change the parallelism is satisfied; and that מחה may be used, with immediate reference to men, of entire and total destruction, is sufficiently established by such passages as Gen 6:7; Jdg 21:17, if any proof is at all needed for it. Regarding the lxx and those misled by it, who, by מלכין and מלכים, 4a, think on the Aram. מלכּין, βουλαί, vid., Mühlau, p. 53. But the Syr. has an idea worthy of the discourse, who translates epulis regum without our needing, with Mühlau, to charge him with dreaming of לחם in למחות. Perhaps that is true; but perhaps by למחות he thought of למחות (from מה, the particip. adj. of מחח): do not direct thy ways to rich food (morsels), such as kings love and can have. By this reading,