Page:Keil and Delitzsch,Biblical commentary the old testament the pentateuch, trad James Martin, volume 1, 1885.djvu/689

 the Niphal, as the י is wanting in many MSS), see Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 52, and Ewald, §83b. “Of it shall be (i.e., there shall issue from it so as to form one complete whole) its ירך” (lit., the loins, the upper part of the thigh, which is attached to the body, and from which the feet proceed, - in this case the base or pedestal, upon which the candelabrum stood); its קנה, or reed, i.e., the hollow stem of the candelabrum rising up from the pedestal; - “its גּבעים,” cups, resembling the calix of a flower; - כּפתּרים, knobs, in a spherical shape (cf. Amo 9:1; Zep 2:14); - “and פּרחים,” flowers, ornaments in the form of buds just bursting.

Verse 32
From the sides of the candlestick, i.e., of the upright stem in the middle, there were to be six branches, three on either side.

verses 33-34
On each of these branches (the repetition of the same words expresses the distributive sense) there were to be “three cups in the form of an almond-flower, (with) knob and flower,” and on the shaft of the candlestick, or central stem, “four cups in the form of almond-flowers, its knobs and its flowers.” As both ופרח כּפתּר (Exo 25:33) and וּפרחיה כּפתּריה (Exo 25:34) are connected with the previous words without a copula, Knobel and Thenius regard these words as standing in explanatory apposition to the preceding ones, and suppose the meaning to be that the flower-cups were to consist of knobs with flowers issuing from them. But apart from the singular idea of calling a knob or bulb with a flower bursting from it a flower-cup, Exo 25:31 decidedly precludes any such explanation; for cups, knobs, and flowers are mentioned there in connection with the base and stem, as three separate things which were quite as distinct the one from the other as the base and the stem. The words in question are appended in both verses to משׁקּדים גּבעים in the sense of subordination; ו is generally used in such cases, but it is omitted here before כפתר, probably to avoid ambiguity, as the two words to be subordinated are brought into closer association as one idea by the use of this copula. And if כפתר and פרח are to be distinguished from נביע, the objection made by Thenius to our rendering משׁקּד “almond-blossom-shaped,” namely, that neither the almond nor the almond-blossom has at all the shape of a basin, falls entirely to the ground; and there is all the less reason to question this rendering, on account of the unanimity with which it has been adopted in the ancient versions, whereas the rendering proposed by Thenius, “wakened up, i.e., a burst or