Page:Keil and Delitzsch,Biblical commentary the old testament the pentateuch, trad James Martin, volume 1, 1885.djvu/394

 It cannot be traced, as the Jerusalem Targum and the Rabbins affirm, to the word שׁיל filius with the suffix ה = ו “ his son,” since such a noun as שׁיל is never met with in Hebrew, and neither its existence nor the meaning attributed to it can be inferred from שׁליה, afterbirth, in Deu 28:57. Nor can the paraphrases of Onkelos ( donec veniat Messias cujus est regnum), of the Greek versions (ἕως ἐὰν ἔλθη τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ; or ᾧ ἀπόκειται, as Aquila and Symmachus appear to have rendered it), or of the Syriac, etc., afford any real proof, that the defective form שׁלה, which occurs in 20 MSS, was the original form of the word, and is to be pointed שׁלּה for שׁלּו = לו אשׁר. For apart from the fact, that שׁ for אשׁר would be unmeaning here, and that no such abbreviation can be found in the Pentateuch, it ought in any case to read הוּא שׁלּו “to whom it (the sceptre) is due,” since שׁלּו alone could not express this, and an ellipsis of הוּא in such a case would be unparalleled. It only remains therefore to follow Luther, and trace שׁילה to שׁלה, to be quiet, to enjoy rest, security. But from this root Shiloh cannot be explained according to the analogy of such forms כּידור קימשׁ For these forms constitute no peculiar species, but are merely derived from the reduplicated forms, as קמּשׁ, which occurs as well as קימשׁ, clearly shows; moreover they are none of them formed from roots of ה.ל שׁילה points to שׁילון, to the formation of nouns with the termination ôn, in which the liquids are eliminated, and the remaining vowel ו is expressed by ה ( Ew. §84); as for example in the names of places, שׁלה or שׁלו, also שׁילו (Jdg 21:21; Jer 7:12) and גּלה (Jos 15:51), with their derivatives שׁלני (1Ki 11:29; 1Ki 12:15) and גּלני (2Sa 15:12), also אבדּה (Pro 27:20) for אבדּון (Pro 15:11, etc.), clearly prove. Hence שׁילון either arose from שׁליון (שׁלה), or was formed directly from שׁוּל = שׁלה, like גּלון from גּיל. But if שׁילון is the original form of the word, שׁילה cannot be an appellative noun in the sense of rest, or a place of rest, but must be a proper name. For the strong termination ôn loses its n after o only in proper names, like שׁלמה, מגדּו by the side of מגדּון (Zec 12:11) and דּודו (Jdg 10:1). אבדּה forms no exception to this; for when used in Pro 27:20 as a personification of hell, it is really a proper name. An appellative noun like שׁילה, in the sense of rest, or place of rest, “would be unparalleled in the Hebrew thesaurus; the nouns used in this sense are שׁלו, שׁלוה, שׁלום, מנוּחה”