Faculty of Divinity, Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies
Introduction
Grammatical Type: n m?
Occurrences: Total 1x OT (Jb 41.21), 0x Sir, 0x Qum, 0x inscr.
Text Doubtful: none.
Qere/Ketiv: none.
1. Root and Comparative Material
A.1 To judge from Bochart's claim (1663:785) "xtwt fustem, ex Arabica lingua novè explicamus" he was the first to connect xtfwOt@ with Arb watah~a "fuste percutere". This is cited as cognate by Schleusner (1822:215), Heiligstedt (1847:280), König (1910:539), and Ahituv (1968:974). Arb also possesses the cognate word mi!tah~at 'club'. BDB (450) supports the connection of xtfwOt@ with both Arb words, as do Zorell (894), Driver (1950:340), and HAL (1580 ["wahrscheinlich"]). Hirzel (1852:258) says, "nach der Etymologie: Keule (nicht: Hammer, LXX, Vulg., Luth., Zür. Uebers.)".
B.1 Barth (1894:294, n. 1) regarded xtfwOt as a "Fremdwort aus assyr. tartah~u 'keule'". However, as noted by BDB (450), this rests on a misreading of the cuneiform signs. Meissner (1931:195-96) argues that the word should be read kuttah~u. Nevertheless, Ebeling (1933:33) has argued that even the pronunciation kuttah~u is uncertain because of the well attested word s]iltah~h~u 'arrow' or 'spear'. CAD records both kuta4h~u 'a lance' (8:603) and s]ilta4h~u (s]iltah~h~u) 'arrow' (17-b:448-51). Driver (1950:339-40) discusses and rejects the supposed word *tartah~h~u. He believes that this word was never supposed to be equivalent to xtfwOt@, but that xtfwOt@ was believed to be a scribal error for the hypothetical Hebrew word *xtf@r:ta@, the supposed equivalent of *tartah~h~u. HAL (1580) rightly defends KB's failure to mention *tartah~u as a form possibly cognate with xtfwOt@.
Dhorme (1926:585) and Gordis (1978:489) cite Barth's proposal favourably. Hartley (1988:529) says, "The meaning 'javelin' or 'mace' is assigned to MT tôt`a4h[ on the basis of Akk. tartah~u, 'shaft, club' (Dhorme), or Arab. mitah~at, 'club' (Rowley). Cf. G.R. Driver, ETL 26 (1950) 339-40." Hartley seems to have misunderstood Driver. Gray (Driver & Gray 1921 Pt. 2:344) cites the Akk cognate as possible, but refers to Delitzsch (1896:630), which though containing the word tartah~u makes no connection between it and Hebrew xtfwOt@. Besides the non-existence of the supposed Akk cognate of xtfwOt@, questions had already been raised by 1910 about the equation of xtfwOt@ with *tartah~h~u. König (1910:539) viewed the derivation of xtfwOt@ from Assyrian tartah~u as groundless and improbable. Even granted the existence of such an Akk word there would be enough problems phonetically to make any equation highly dubious.
B.2 KB (1025) explain xtfwOt@ as cognate with Arb watah[a, with h[ rather than h~, to which they assign the meaning "mit Knüppeln schlagen beat with cudgels". This seems to be merely a typographic error, though it is not corrected in Koehler & Baumgartner (1958) and is cited by Van Selms (1983:205). The correct form with h~ is used in HAL (1580).
2. Formal Characteristics
A.1 The form xtfwOt is in pause. Therefore Schleusner (1822:215) understood the word to be xtawOt@ in its basic, non-pausal form. If Arb watah~a is cognate with xtfwOt@ then we may, with Bochart (1663:785) and Olshausen (1861:§213), compare its formation with b#f$wOt@. It would then be a Root-a taqta:l. However, since its only occurrence is in pause consideration should also be given to the view that it is taqtal rather than taqta:l.
B.1 Barth (1894:294) refused to connect xtfwOt@ with other Hebrew words of the same external form, deriving it erroneously from Akk. See Root and Comparative Material B.1.
3. Syntagmatics
A.1 In MT xtfwOt@ is construed with the pl verb w%b#;$x;ne "they are considered". It may therefore be that xtfwOt@ is a distributive sing. Heiligstedt (1847:280-81) says of xtfwOt@ "sensum collectivi habet, quare cum plurali verbi conjuncta est." Hirzel (1852:258) says that xtfwOt@ is "hier als Gattungsbegriff mit dem Plur. Construirt."
B.1 [nil]
4. Versions
A.1 The extant versions generally support the meaning "hammer" or "mallet". LXX originally did not contain v. 21a. Thd, now standing in Hexaplaric LXX manuscripts (Dhorme 1926:585), reads: w(j kala&mh e)logi/sqhsan sfu~rai. Aq is attested as the same by Field (1875:79). Some manuscripts, e.g. Vaticanus have sfura for sfu~rai. sfura is accented in the editions of Walton, Swete and Tischendorf (see also HAL:1580) as sfura& pl of sfuro&n 'ankle', as opposed to sfu~rai pl of sfu~ra 'hammer', 'mallet'. These latter meanings can more easily be derived from MT. Schleusner (1822:215) and Gesenius (1835:644) read LXX as sfu&ra. Sym (reconstructed from SyHex )yk qny) h[s]yb) lh )rzpt)) reads: w(j kala&mh e)logi/sqh au)tw~| sfu~ra.
A.2 Vg malleus supports the rendering of the Gk versions.
A.3 Tg's reading )yf,gar:ni 'axes' (Díez Merino 1984:163) supports identification with a hand-held weapon.
A.4 Jb 41.21a is absent from Pesh (Dhorme 1926:585), and not extant in 11QtgJob.
B.1 [nil]
5. Lexical/Semantic Field(s)
A.1 Offensive weapon.
B.1 [nil]
6. Exegesis
A.1 xtfwOt@ is in parallel with NwOdyki@, or with NwOdyki@ #$(arA. This may suggest a hand-held weapon, though the parallel need not be precise. Since the text says that xtfwOt@ "is/are considered as stubble", one may presume that something known for its solidity is being compared to something known for its weakness. This is a possible contextual indicator that a club is being referred to.
A.2 Clines (3:328a), on b#$x, glosses xtfwOt@ as "cudgel".
B.1 HAL (1580) expresses disagreement with Fohrer (1963:526-27), alleging that he translates xtfwOt@ by "Sichelschwert". HAL maintains that both etymology and versional evidence argue against this "Sonderbedeutung". However, Fohrer in fact agrees with HAL in translating xtfwOt@ by "Keule", and HAL has misread Fohrer (1963:526) where "Sichelschwert" is the translation not of xtfwOt@ in Jb 41.21a, but of NwOdyki@ in 21b.
7. Conclusion
The connection with Arb watah~a seems plausible, and along with the testimony of the ancient versions points towards the meaning "club", although another sort of hand-held weapon may be meant.
Bibliography
Ahituv, S. 1968. Article )rqmb q#$nh ylk Encyclopaedia Biblica: Thesaurus Rerum Biblicarum Alphabetico Ordine Digestus 5:970-76.
Barth, J. 21894. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig.
Bochart, S. 1663. Hierozoicon. Vol. 2. London.
Delitzsch, F. 1896. Assyrisches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig.
Dhorme, E. 1926. Le Livre de Job. Paris.
Díez Merino, L. 1984. Targum de Job: Edición Príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil n. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora. Madrid.
Driver, G.R. 1950. L'interprétation du Texte Masorétique à la lumière de la lexicographie hébraïque. ETL 26:337-53.
Driver, S.R. & G.B. Gray. 1921. The Book of Job (ICC). Edinburgh.
Ebeling, E. 1933. Aus den Archiven von Uruk und Assur. Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur: Festschrift Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern. Berlin:27-36.
Field, F. 1875. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt. Tomus II. Oxford.
Fohrer, G. 1963. Das Buch Hiob (KzAT). Gütersloh.
Gordis, R. 1978. The Book of Job. New York.
Hartley, J.E. 1988. The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Grand Rapids.
Heiligstedt, A. 1847. Commentarius Grammaticus Historicus Criticus in Jobum. Lipsiae.
Hirzel, L. 1852. Hiob (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament). Zweite Lieferung. Leipzig.
Koehler, L. & W. Baumgartner. 1958. Supplementum ad Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden.
König, F.E. 1910. Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig.
Meissner, B. 1931. Beiträge zum assyrischen Wörterbuch I. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 47:145-236.
Olshausen, J. 1861. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. Braunschweig.
Schleusner, J.H. 1822. Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus: sive, Lexicon in LXX. et Reliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. Vol. 3. Glasguae.
Van Selms, A. 1983. Job II (De Prediking van het Oude Testament). Nijkerk.
Cambridge home