xxxi. 5 and II. Kings xiii. 5. "W?¶rtlich hebr?¤isch," as Reuss
notes _in loc._ If Aramaic were the original, it might be
?•???????“???§?“?°???•?„?”???™ ?›?°?????µ???¶???°???????µ?™.
v. 17 ??. ?????®?????±???±, "exprimere voluit Heb. ?‘?•???™??," but ???????•?§ (Esth. ii.
3, 9, 12) seems quite as likely as this suggestion of Grotius. Both
roots are Aramaic as well as Hebrew.
vv. 11, 30, 39, 63 ??. An instance similar to that given above (vv. 8,
14, 56) is the use of ???…?????µ??????????? in a bad sense in vv. 11, 39, and
???…???µ???µ??–?‚ innocently in vv. 30, 63.
v. 19 ?????. ???…????????µ?????? = ?–???? either in Aramaic or Hebrew, as in ii. 9,
while ??????µ?????¬?¶?????„?? = ?›?‘?©, as in Esth. vii. 8.
v. 22 ??. ???…?µ???¬ ?????? ???¬???„?????µ?? occurs also in David's choice, II. Sam.
xxiv. 14 (closer than I. Chron. xxi. 13). The certainty of its being a
translation in the one place increases the probability of its being so
in the other, suggesting a common original, unless we suppose a Greek
author borrowing a Septuagintal phrase.
Pages:
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159