« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
. מתו מתן , מתו עשתרת Punic
The plural noun ano is construed in the same manner, e. g. na This seems to have been more common in very ancient times, as we may perhaps infer from its use in the singular in proper names, e. g. banana, mwaną, also in
, . II. 3ya (nya). In this word, the sense of possession appears to be the primary one. The meaning of the verb Bys in the Ethiopic (see Ludoll's Lex.) and the Arabic (the Camus, Golius, &c.,) indicates this. Correct, therefore, is Vitringa in his remark,—“ 395 proprie o žyor, habens quamcunque rem in sua potestate, quare ad maritum refertur per ellipsin, qui integre dicitur nun by habens mulierem. Exod. 21: 3.”
This word is therefore to be distinguished from " in its idiomatic use, since it expresses that relation which exists, when a thing subordinated to a person is in his possession (Steiger). Even in some passages in which at first view the difference between this word and the former does not appear, it, on closer examination, is found, as where the men of Jabesh are styled win 2 Sam. 2: 4, 5, 39 2 Sam. 21:12, and W. 1 Sam. 31; 11. The word “ citizens" or "inhabitants," may indeed be used to translate either passage, but the idea of dwelling must not be excluded in the last instance, nor that of possession in the one immediately preceding it. The word bya in the usage to which we now refer, is in fact more expressive than any on this very ground, that while the latter has no respect to degrees of superiority or inferiority, the former carefully denotes these. It is thus used with up in more than one passage to increase the signification, a circumstance which in itself proves the diversity of meaning in these
. w one means “ hairy man,” in a general sense, the other, in a peculiar and pre-eminent degree, as wearing the hair dress, peculiar to the prophets.
Thus, then, from the primary meaning of the word, and from its use with 8, the peculiar force of bga over Up may perhaps be considered as established. Nor does it appear to
The אִישׁ שֵׂעָר is stronger than אִישׁ בַּעַל שֵׂעָר two words
.Prov בעל אַף Thus
us that any one passage requires us to regard the two words as identical in meaning.
We proceed now to cite some examples of the use of Bya. mirbning by means, as indeed the context seems to require, a “celebrated dreamer," “ professed dreamer ;" one who, as it were, makes a business of it, has dreams at his beck. 'n ong would merely mean-"a dreamer.” The expression maa differs from Obad. 7, since the former were “allies” of long standing, the latter simply “allies.” Indeed bga in its idiomatic use frequently conveys the sense of habitual possession and therefore development.
. 22: 24, and nen byn Prov. 29: 22 indicate habitual anger, and are therefore stronger than 9 Prov. 29: 22, and nion - Prov. 22: 24. Indeed, in these passages the gradation of meaning which is visible further supports our view as expressed above. Jo Prov. 29: 22 mom in the latter clause is stronger than 98. Now with the former word we have 392, with the latter tnx. Io Prov. 22: 24 the comparative weakness of this compensated by the plural form of the same strong expression mion. The difference between 553 097 and '" is too plain to need remark, although Gesenius (Lex. voc. 757) makes them the same in meaning. Fürst, however, in his Schul-wörterbuch, Steiger in his Com. on Peter, Ewald in his Gram. $ 498, and others, agree in giving to the former the sense of “one having or instituting lawsuits,” and to the latter that of “ eloquent” merely. Indeed, so obvious is this difference of meaning that Gesenius himself (Lex. voc. bsa) in another part of his Lexicon plainly confesses it; not the only instance by the way in which this eminent scholar contradicts himself.
The word bra, in consequence of its peculiar meaning, is sometimes applied to animals and inanimate things, with which wann is not found. The words indicating relation among men are frequently used with reference to the lower orders of creation, to express certain shades of meaning, but never those which indicate man as such, in distinction from all other created objects. This is the reason why, while the
and a threshing drag בַּעַל הַקְרָנִים a ram ,בַּעַל כָּנָף is termed
latter are not used with reference to animals and inanimate objects, the former are frequently so found. Thus a bird , a
a ninyo 399; is so used in Arabic, and a (ra) both in Hebrew and Arabic.
This word is used in the sense above mentioned in the Targums, as 7790 bsa Gen. 29: 1, and in the Rabbinic writings (Buxt. Chald. and Rab. Lex.col. 333); in the Arabic, in which language a usage similar to this prevails very extensively ; and also in the Syriac, of which Hoffmann, in his excellent Grammar, gives several examples. See $ 108,
occasionally shortened by the omission of the ; אֲבִיגַיִל , אֲבִידָע
III. (on). Although these words indicating source, control, &c., are idiomatically used in Arabic (for examples see Golius in his Lex. Arab. col. 10-11, and 147-150; though these, it must be confessed, belong rather to the artificial, sportive, and later language, as Ewald correctly asserts), the Ethiopic (Ludolf's Lex.) and the Syriac (Hoffmann Gr. Syr. p. 286); yet they are not found in this connection in Hebrew, unless we may regard the former as so employed in proper names. The word " in the old construct state (Roediger's Gesenius' Heb. Gr. by Davies, pp. 131, 132) often occurs in such names, sometimes written in full, as
, ; of construction, see x 1 Sam. 14: 51, in v. 50 g; now and then still further softened when a Yod follows,
; with 7998 Josh. 17: 2.
The opinion that the usage above referred to, existing in very ancient times, gave rise to these as epithets, which afterwards became proper names, is defended by Gesenius in in his Thesaurus, and still more recently in the last edition of his Lexicon. Ewald, however, entirely dissents from it. He thinks that the first member of each compound did in very early ages indicate the father of the son named in the second member, and that subsequently the word “father,” as a term of dignity, distinguished the elder or favourite son.
compared אִיעֶזֶר and twice more abreviated_still in ; אֶבְיָתָר
-c. Now although in remote antiqui& ,אֲבִישַׁג , אֲבִיטָל , אֲבִיגַיִל
There is much to favour this opinion; for, 1. The second member of the compound term is often found alone, as, Dan, Abidan; Ezer, Abiezer; Noam, Abinoam. This even occurred in the same family, as Abner, the son of Ner. 2. This serves to explain other adjuncts, e. g. achi, “ brother,” in Ram, 1 Chron. 2: 9, Abiram, Nu. 16: 1, Achiram, Nu. 26: 38; Noam, Abinoam, Achinoam. To chamu, “brother-in-law," these remarks also refer. Thus we find Abital, 2 Sam. 3: 4, Chamutal, 2 Kings 24: 18. 3. This opinion seems to be further sustained by the word ?" Gen. 10: 28. 1 Chron. 1: 22. This person seems to have been the founder of the Arabic tribe by, the Mode of Theophrastus, the Mewūlor of Strabo. Yet it must be confessed that this adjunct is frequently found in the names of females, viz.
, , & ty this prefix might in such connexion have designated the father of the daughter mentioned in the last member, such was evidently not the case subsequently. Probably in the absence of male offspring, or from some other genealogical reason, the name of dignity peculiarly appropriate to the representative of a family, was conferred on certain females.
Traces of this idiomatic usage we have noticed as being found in Arabic, &c., are occasionally to be met with in Greek and Latin writers; see Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, voc. ratio, and notice the use of “pater cænæ” in Horace.
IV. 2 (na). The idiomatic use of these words is frequent. 12," says Steiger, i designates the begotten, in reference to that which begets : offspring, product, therefore son, grandchild, posterity, (trop. scholars), youth, shoot,without distinction. But in the oriental way of contemplating things, purified and sanctioned in the Bible, the general is not only recognized as a reality, but as something more real and earlier than the individual that holds of it, and hence considers this as its offspring. Hence so many expressions that appear to us strange and incongruous, but which we
must not, in translating, soften down and explain.” Thus a fruitful hill is styled jou a, literally, a son of fruitfulness, as derived from it-impregnated with fruit and therefore fruitful, being like its mother. So 37 s indicates more than Bant, since it denotes that the men were not merely strong, but as it were born of strength. The expression nion means belonging to beating, as a child to its parent, and my 7 that which has sprung up in a night, and is dependent on it (see Ewald's Heb. Gr. 9498). Du “sons of lightning," are birds of prey which fly as swistly as though born of the lightning, and characterized by its speed. A similar usage occurs in Onkelos, &c., Gen. 7: 17, 5: 32, &c. (see Buxtorf's Chal. and Rab. Lex. voc. 7a, na, na); in Arabic (see Golius Lex. Arab., sub voc.); and in Syriac (Schaaf 's Lex. Hoffmann's Gr. Syr. 287). It is found too in the Septuagint, where τέκνον (τα τέκνα αδικίας, Hos. 10: 9, τέκνα απωλείας, Is. 57: 4) and viós (vioi rñs duvauéos, 2 ch. 25: 13) are thus used. It also explains the peculiar force of some passages in the New Testament, in reference to which we shall cite from Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Idioms :“ Instead,” says that eminent scholar, “of concrete adjectives, which would be taken substantively, in conformity with Hebrew usage, we find nouns with viós or Téxvov, which, according to the lively perceptions of orientals, denote the most intimate connection with (dependence on) something (Vorst Heb. p. 467. 19): e. g. viol énettelas, Eph. 2: 2 (children of disobedience, born, as it were, from the anafia, raised, attached to her like a mother), réxva goozós, Eph. 5: 8, τέκνα υπακοής, 1 Ρet. 1: 14, τέκνα οργής, Εph. 2: 3, τέκνα xatágas, 2 Pet. 2: 14.” To these examples may be added many others, as vioi Bportñs, Mark 3: 17, vioi signons, Luke 10: 6, &c. For instances of this usage in ecclesiastical writers, see Epiphan. Opp. i. p. 380.
remarks hold good when ya is used with reference to time. “The time itself,” says a German critic, “is taken abstractly as mere form, or concretely, so that it com