Jeremiah 7:1–9:1

Footnotes

1. 1 Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord.”
2. 2 Heb “Proclaim there …” The adverb is unnecessary in English style.
3. 3 That is, all those who have passed through the gates of the outer court and are standing in the courtyard of the temple.
4. 4 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God Israel.” Compare the use of similar titles in 2:19; 5:14; 6:6 and see the explanation in the study note at 2:19. In this instance the title appears to emphasize the Lord as the heavenly King who drags his disobedient vassals into court (and threatens them with judgment).
5. 5 Or “Make good your ways and your actions.” J. Bright’s translation (“Reform the whole pattern of your conduct”; Jeremiah [], 52) is excellent.
6. 6 Heb “place” but this might be misunderstood to refer to the temple.
7. 7 Heb “Stop trusting in lying words which say.”
8. 8 The words “We are safe!” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
9. 9 Heb “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these (i.e., these buildings).” Elsewhere triple repetition seems to mark a kind of emphasis (cf. Isa 6:3; Jer 22:29; Ezek 21:27 [32 ]). The triple repetition that follows seems to be Jeremiah’s way of mocking the (false) sense of security that people had in the invincibility of Jerusalem because God dwelt in the temple. They appeared to be treating the temple as some kind of magical charm. A similar feeling had grown up around the ark in the time of the judges (cf. 1 Sam 3:3) and the temple and city of Jerusalem in Micah’s day (cf. Mic 3:11). It is reflected also in some of the Psalms (cf., e.g., Ps 46, especially v. 5).
10. 10 The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.
11. 11 Heb “you must do justice between a person and his fellow/neighbor.” The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.
12. 12 Heb “Stop oppressing foreigner, orphan, and widow.”
13. 13 Heb “Stop shedding innocent blood.”
14. 14 Heb “going/following after.” See the translator’s note at for an explanation of the idiom involved here.
15. 15 Heb “going after other gods to your ruin.”
16. 16 The translation uses imperatives in vv. 5–6 followed by the phrase, “If you do all this,” to avoid the long and complex sentence structure of the Hebrew sentence which has a series of conditional clauses in vv. 5–6 followed by a main clause in v. 7.
17. 17 Heb “live in this place, in this land.”
18. 18 Heb “gave to your fathers [with reference to] from ancient times even unto forever.”
19. 19 Heb “Behold!”
20. 20 Heb “You are trusting in lying words.” See the similar phrase in v. 4 and the note there.
21. 21 Heb “not profit [you].”
22. 22 Heb “Will you steal … then say, ‘We are safe’?” Verses 9–10 are one long sentence in the Hebrew text.
23. 23 Heb “You go/follow after.” See the translator’s note at for an explanation of the idiom involved here.
24. 24 Heb “over which my name is called.” For this nuance of this idiom cf. 896 קָרָא Niph.2.d(4) and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
25. 25 Or “ ‘We are safe!’—safe, you think, to go on doing all those hateful things.” Verses 9–10 are all one long sentence in the Hebrew text. It has been broken up for English stylistic reasons. Somewhat literally it reads “Will you steal … then come and stand … and say, ‘We are safe’ so as to/in order to do …” The Hebrew of v. 9 has a series of infinitives which emphasize the bare action of the verb without the idea of time or agent. The effect is to place a kind of staccato like emphasis on the multitude of their sins all of which are violations of one of the Ten Commandments. The final clause in v. 8 expresses purpose or result (probably result) through another infinitive. This long sentence is introduced by a marker (ה interrogative in Hebrew) introducing a rhetorical question in which God expresses his incredulity that they could do these sins, come into the temple and claim the safety of his protection, and then go right back out and commit the same sins. J. Bright (Jeremiah [], 52) catches the force nicely: “What? You think you can steal, murder … and then come and stand … and say, ‘We are safe …’ just so that you can go right on …”
26. 26 Heb “over which my name is called.” For this nuance of this idiom cf. 896 קָרָא Niph.2.d(4) and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
27. 27 Heb “Is this house … a den/cave of robbers in your eyes?”
28. 28 Heb “Behold!”
29. 29 Heb “where I caused my name to dwell.” The translation does not adequately represent the theology of the Lord’s deliberate identification with a place where he chose to manifest his presence and desired to be worshiped (cf. Exod 20:25; Deut 16:2, 6, 11).
30. 30 The place in Shiloh … see what I did to it. This refers to the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines circa 1050 b.c. (cf. Ps 78:60). The destruction of Shiloh is pertinent to the argument. The presence of the tabernacle and ark of the covenant did not prevent Shiloh from being destroyed when Israel sinned. The people of Israel used the ark as a magic charm but it did not prevent them from being defeated or the ark being captured (1 Sam 4:3, 11, 21–22).
31. 31 This reflects a Hebrew idiom (e.g., 7:25; 11:7; 25:3, 4), i.e., an infinitive of a verb meaning “to do something early [or eagerly]” followed by an infinitive of another verb of action. Cf. שָׁכַם Hiph.2.
32. 32 Heb “I called to you and you did not answer.” The words “to repent” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
33. 33 Heb “over which my name is called.” For this nuance of this idiom cf. 896 קָרָא Niph.2.d(4) and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
34. 34 Heb “fathers” (also in vv. 22, 25, 26).
35. 35 Heb “I will do to this house which I … in which you put … and to this place which … as I did to Shiloh.”
36. 36 Heb “the descendants of Ephraim.” However, Ephraim here stands (as it often does) for all the northern tribes of Israel.
37. 37 The words “Then the Lord said” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
38. 38 Heb “As for you.” The personal name Jeremiah is supplied in the translation for clarity.
39. 39 The words “to save them” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
40. 40 Or “Just look at …” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
41. 41 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
42. 42 The form for “queen” is unusual. It is pointed (מְלֶכֶת [mélekhet] instead of מַלְכַּת [malkat]) as though the Masoretes wanted to read the word for “work” (מְלֶאכֶת [méle’khet]), i.e., the “hosts of,” a word that several Hebrew read and an understanding the reflects. The other ancient and modern versions generally, however, accept it as a biform for the word “queen.” The Queen of Heaven is probably a reference to the goddess known as Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Anat in Canaan, Ashtoreth in Israel. She was the goddess of love and fertility. For further discussion, see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52 (), .
43. 43 Heb “to provoke me.” There is debate among grammarians and lexicographers about the nuance of the Hebrew particle לְמַעַן (léma’an). Some say it always denotes purpose, while others say it may denote either purpose or result, depending on the context. For example, 775 לְמַעַן note 1 says that it always denotes purpose, never result, but that sometimes what is really a result is represented ironically as though it were a purpose. That explanation fits nicely here in the light of the context of the next verse. The translation is intended to reflect some of that ironic sarcasm.
44. 44 Heb “Is it I whom they provoke?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer which is made explicit in the translation.
45. 45 Heb “Is it not themselves to their own shame?” The rhetorical question expects a positive answer which is made explicit in the translation.
46. 46 Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.
47. 47 Heb “this place.” Some see this as a reference to the temple but the context has been talking about what goes on in the towns of Judah and Jerusalem and the words that follow, meant as a further explanation, are applied to the whole land.
48. 48 Heb “the trees of/in the field and the fruit of/in the ground.”
49. 49 The words “The Lord said to the people of Judah” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift in addressee between vv. 16–20 and vv. 21–26.
50. 50 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on and .
51. 51 Heb “Add your burnt offerings to your [other] sacrifices and eat the meat!” See the following for explanation. This is an example of the rhetorical use of the imperative for a sarcastic challenge. Cf. §110.a; cf. Amos 4:4, “Go to Bethel and sin!” All of the burnt offering, including the meat, was to be consumed on the altar (e.g., Lev 1:6–9). The meat of the other sacrifices could be eaten by the priest who offered the sacrifice and the person who brought it (e.g., Lev 7:16–18, 32). Since, however, the people of Judah were making a mockery of the sacrificial system by offering sacrifices while disobeying the law, the Lord rejected the sacrifices (cf. 6:20). Since they were violating the moral law they might as well go ahead and violate the cultic law by eating the meat dedicated to God because he rejected it anyway.
52. 52 Heb “For” but this introduces a long explanation about the relative importance of sacrifice and obedience.
53. 53 Verses 22–23a read in Hebrew, “I did not speak with your ancestors and I did not command them when I brought them out of Egypt about words/matters concerning burnt offering and sacrifice, but I commanded them this word:” Some modern commentators have explained this passage as an evidence for the lateness of the Pentateuchal instruction regarding sacrifice or a denial that sacrifice was practiced during the period of the wilderness wandering. However, it is better explained as an example of what R. de Vaux calls a dialectical negative, i.e., “not so much this as that” or “not this without that” (Ancient Israel, 454–56). For other examples of this same argument see Isa 1:10–17; Hos 6:4–6; Amos 5:21–25.
54. 54 Heb “Obey me and I will be.” The translation is equivalent syntactically but brings out the emphasis in the command.
55. 55 Heb “Walk in all the way that I command you.”
56. 56 Or “They went backward and not forward”; Heb “They were to the backward and not to the forward.” The two phrases used here appear nowhere else in the Bible and the latter preposition plus adverb elsewhere is used temporally meaning “formerly” or “previously.” The translation follows the proposal of J. Bright, Jeremiah (), 57. Another option is “they turned their backs to me, not their faces,” understanding the line as a variant of a line in 2:27.
57. 57 Heb “from the day your ancestors … until this very day.” However, “day” here is idiomatic for “the present time.”
58. 58 On the Hebrew idiom see the note at .
59. 59 There is some textual debate about the legitimacy of this expression here. The text reads merely “day” (יוֹם, yom). suggests the word is to be deleted as a dittography of the plural ending of the preceding word. The word is in the Greek and Latin, and the represents the typical idiom “day after day” as though the noun were repeated. Either יוֹם has dropped out by haplography or a ם (mem) has been left out, i.e., reading יוֹמָם (yomam, “daily”).
60. 60 Or “But your predecessors …”; Heb “But they.…” There is a confusing interchange in the pronouns in vv. 25–26 which has led to some leveling in the ancient versions and the modern English versions. What is involved here are four levels of referents, the “you” of the present generation (vv. 21–22a), the ancestors who were delivered from Egypt (i.e., the “they” of vv. 22b–24), the “you” of v. 25 which involves all the Israelites from the Exodus to the time of speaking, and the “they” of v. 26 which cannot be the ancestors of vv. 22–24 (since they cannot be more wicked than themselves) but must be an indefinite entity which is a part of the “you” of v. 25, i.e., the more immediate ancestors of the present generation. If this is kept in mind, there is no need to level the pronouns to “they” and “them” or to “you” and “your” as some of the ancient versions and modern English versions have done.
61. 61 Heb “hardened [or made stiff] their neck.”
62. 62 The words, “Then the Lord said to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift from the second and third person plural pronouns in vv. 21–26 and the second singular in this verse. The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.
63. 63 Heb “Faithfulness has vanished. It is cut off from their lips.” For the need for faithfulness see 5:1, 3.
64. 64 The word “mourn” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation for clarity to explain the significance of the words “Cut your hair and throw it away.” Cf. Mic 1:16; Job 1:20 for other examples of this practice which was involved in mourning.
65. 65 The words, “you people of this nation” are not in the text. Many English versions supply, “Jerusalem.” The address shifts from second masculine singular addressing Jeremiah (vv. 27–28a) to second feminine singular. It causes less disruption in the flow of the context to see the nation as a whole addressed here as a feminine singular entity (as, e.g., in 2:19, 23; 3:2, 3; 6:26) than to introduce a new entity, Jerusalem.
66. 66 The verbs here are the Hebrew scheduling perfects. For this use of the perfect see §106.m.
67. 67 Heb “the generation of his wrath.”
68. 68 The words “I have rejected them” are not in the Hebrew text, which merely says “because.” These words are supplied in the translation to show more clearly the connection to the preceding.
69. 69 Heb “have done the evil in my eyes.”
70. 70 Compare, e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3, 5, 7; 23:4, 6; Ezek 8:3, 5, 10–12, 16. Manasseh had desecrated the temple by building altars, cult symbols, and idols in it. Josiah had purged the temple of these pagan elements. But it is obvious from both Jeremiah and Ezekiel that they had been replaced shortly after Josiah’s death. They were a primary cause of Judah’s guilt and punishment (see beside this passage, 19:5; 32:34–35).
71. 71 Heb “the house which is called by my name.” Cf. 7:10, 11, 14 and see the translator’s note 7:10 for the explanation for this rendering.
72. 72 Heb “high places.” These places of worship were essentially open air shrines often located on hills or wooded heights. They were generally connected with pagan worship and equipped with altars of sacrifice and of incense and cult objects such as wooden poles and stone pillars which were symbols of the god and/or goddess worshiped at the sight. The Israelites were commanded to tear down these Canaanite places of worship (Num 33:52) but they did not do so, often taking over the site for the worship of Yahweh but even then incorporating some of the pagan cult objects and ritual into their worship of Yahweh (1 Kgs 12:31, 32; 14:23). The prophets were especially opposed to these places and to this kind of syncretism (Hos 10:8; Amos 7:9) and to the pagan worship that was often practiced at them (Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35).
73. 73 Heb “the high places of [or in] Topheth.” The noun Topheth is generally explained as an artificial formation of a word related to the Aramaic word for “cooking stove” combined with the vowels for the word for “shame.” Hence, Jewish piety viewed it as a very shameful act, one that was contrary to the law (see Lev 18:21; 20:2–6). Child sacrifice was practiced during the reigns of the wicked kings Ahaz and Manasseh and apparently during Jeremiah’s day (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; Jer 32:35).
74. 74 Heb “It never entered my heart.” The words “to command such a thing” do not appear in the Hebrew but are added for the sake of clarity.
75. 75 Heb “Therefore, behold!”
76. 76 Heb “it will no longer be said ‘Topheth’ or ‘the Valley of Ben Hinnom’ but ‘the valley of slaughter.’
77. 77 Heb “And they will bury in Topheth so there is not room.”
78. 78 Heb “Their dead bodies will be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.”
79. 1 Heb “At that time.”
80. 2 , 4QJera and read “the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven,” but 4QJerc reads “the sun and all the stars.” Heb “the host of heaven.”
81. 3 Heb “the sun, moon, and host of heaven which they …”
82. 4 Heb “followed after.” See the translator’s note at for the idiom.
83. 5 Heb “they will not” but the referent is far enough removed that it might be ambiguous.
84. 6 Heb “like dung/manure on the surface of the ground.”
85. 7 Heb “Death will be chosen rather than life by the remnant who are left from this wicked family in all the places where I have banished them.” The sentence is broken up and restructured to avoid possible confusion because of the complexity of the English to some modern readers. There appears to be an extra “those who are left” that was inadvertently copied from the preceding line. It is missing from one Hebrew and from the Greek and versions and is probably not a part of the original text.
86. 8 Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For the significance of this title see the notes at and .
87. 9 The words “the Lord said to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation to make clear who is speaking and who is being addressed.
88. 10 There is a play on two different nuances of the same Hebrew word that means “turn” and “return,” “turn away” and “turn back.”
89. 11 The text is quite commonly emended, changing שׁוֹבְבָה הָעָם (shovévah ha’am) to שׁוֹבָב הָעָם (shovav ha’am) and omitting יְרוּשָׁלַםִ (yérushalaim); this is due to the anomaly of a feminine singular verb with a masculine singular subject and the fact that the word “Jerusalem” is absent from one Hebrew and the . However, it is possible that this is a case where the noun “Jerusalem” is a defining apposition to the word “these people,” an apposition which §131.k calls “permutation.” In this case the verb could be attracted to the appositional noun and there would be no reason to emend the text. The is undoubtedly the harder reading and is for that reason to be preferred. For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
90. 12 Or “to their allegiance to false gods,” or “to their false professions of loyalty”; Heb “to deceit.” Either “to their mistaken beliefs” or “to their allegiance to false gods” would fit the preceding context. The former is more comprehensive than the latter and was chosen for that reason.
91. 13 There is a continuing play on the same root word used in the preceding verse. Here the words “turn away from me,” “apostasy,” and “turn back to me” are all forms from the root that was translated “go the wrong way” and “turn around” in v. 4. The intended effect is to contrast Judah’s recalcitrant apostasy with the usual tendency to try and correct one’s mistakes.
92. 14 Heb “I have paid attention and I have listened.” This is another case of two concepts being joined by “and” where one expresses the main idea and the other acts as an adverbial or adjectival modifier (a figure called hendiadys).
93. 15 Heb “What have I done?” The addition of the word “wrong” is implicit in the context and is supplied in the translation for clarity. The rhetorical question does not function as a denial of wrongdoing, but rather as contrite shock at one’s own wrongdoing. It is translated as a declaration for the sake of clarity.
94. 16 Heb “each one of them turns aside into their own running course.” The wordplay begun in v. 4 is continued here. The word translated “turns aside” in the literal translation and “wayward” in the translation is from the same root as “go the wrong way,” “turn around,” “turn away from me,” “apostasy,” “turn back to me.” What God hoped for were confessions of repentance and change of behavior; what he got was denial of wrongdoing and continued turning away from him.
95. 17 Heb “its appointed time.” The translation is contextually motivated to avoid lack of clarity.
96. 18 There is debate in the commentaries and lexicons about the identification of some of these birds, particularly regarding the identification of the “swallow” which is more likely the “swift” and the “crane” which some identify with the “thrush.” For a discussion see the Bible encyclopedias and the handbook Fauna and Flora of the Bible. The identity of the individual birds makes little difference to the point being made and “swallow” is more easily identifiable to the average reader than the “swift.”
97. 19 Heb “keep.” Ironically birds, which do not think, obey the laws of nature, but Israel does not obey the laws of God.
98. 20 Heb “do not know.” But here as elsewhere the word “know” is more than an intellectual matter. It is intended here to summarize both “know” and “follow” (Heb “observe”) in the preceding lines.
99. 21 Heb “the ordinance/requirement of the Lord.”
100. 22 Heb “Surely, behold!”
101. 23 Heb “the scribes.”
102. 24 Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the , “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.
103. 25 Heb “be trapped.” However, the word “trapped” generally carries with it the connotation of divine judgment. See 540 לָכַד Niph.2, and compare usage in Jer 6:11 for support. The verbs in the first two lines are again the form of the Hebrew verb that emphasizes that the action is as good as done (Hebrew prophetic perfects).
104. 26 See Jer 6:12–15 for parallels to 8:10–12. The words of Jeremiah to the people may have been repeated on more than one occasion or have been found appropriate to more than one of his collection of messages in written and edited form. See Jer 36:4 and Jer 36:28 for reference to at least two of these collections.
105. 27 Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
106. 28 Heb “They heal the wound of my people lightly.”
107. 29 Heb “They say, ‘Peace! Peace!’ and there is no peace!”
108. 30 Heb “They will fall among the fallen.”
109. 31 Or “I will completely destroy them.” The translation which is adopted is based on the revocalization of the which appears to mean literally “gathering I will sweep them away,” a rather improbable grammatical combination. It follows the suggestion found in סוּף (Hiph) of reading אֹסֵף אֲסִיפָם (’ose, a first singular Qal imperfect of אָסַף [’asaf] followed by a noun אָסִיף [’asif] with possessive suffix) instead of the ’s אָסֹף אֲסִיפֵם (’aspf ’asifem, a Qal infinitive absolute of אָסַף [’asaf] followed by the Hiphil imperfect of סוּף [suf] plus suffix). For parallel usage of the verb אָסַף (asaf) see 62 אָסַף Qal.4, and for a similar form of the verb see Mic 4:6. The alternate translation follows the suggestion in 692 סוּף Hiph: אָסֹף (’asof) is to be interpreted as a form of the Hiphil infinitive absolute (הָסֵף [hasef] would be expected) chosen for assonance with the following form. This suggestion would gain more credence if the is to be retained in Zeph 1:2 where parallel forms are found. However, that text too has been questioned on lexical and grammatical grounds. The translation adopted fits the following context better than the alternate one and is based on less questionable lexical and grammatical parallels. The Greek translation which reads “they shall gather their fruits” supports the translation chosen.
110. 32 The meaning of this line is very uncertain. A possible alternate translation is: “They have broken the laws that I gave them.” The line reads rather literally “And I gave them they passed over them.” The translation adopted treats the first expression as a noun clause (cf. §155.n) which is the subject of the following verb, i.e., “the things I gave them [contextually, the grapes, etc.] passed over from them.” The alternate translation treats the expression as a dangling object (a Hebrew casus pendens) resumed by the pronoun “them” and understands “the things that I gave them” to be the law or some related entity which is often the object of this verb (see 717 עָבַר Qal.1.i). Neither of these translations is without its weakness. The weakness of the translation which has been adopted is the unusual use it assigns to the object suffix of the verb translated “pass over.” The weakness of the alternate translation is the rather abrupt and opaque introduction of a new topic of reference (i.e., the laws) into the context. On the whole the latter weakness would appear to outweigh the former. This line is missing from the Greek version and J. Bright (Jeremiah []) and J. A. Thompson (Jeremiah []) despair of giving a translation. For other possible suggestions see, W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:.
111. 33 The words “The people say” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift of speakers between vv. 4–13 and vv. 14–16. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
112. 34 Heb “Gather together and let us enter into the fortified cities.”
113. 35 Heb “Let us die there.” The words “at least” and “fighting” are intended to bring out the contrast of passive surrender to death in the open country and active resistance to the death implicit in the context.
114. 36 The words “of judgment” are not in the text but are intended to show that “poison water” is not literal but figurative of judgment at the hands of God through the agency of the enemy mentioned in v. 16.
115. 37 Heb “against the Lord.” The switch is for the sake of smoothness in English.
116. 38 Heb “[We hoped] for a time of healing but behold terror.”
117. 39 Heb “his stallions.”
118. 40 The words “They are coming to destroy” are not in the text. They are inserted to break up a long sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.
119. 41 These words which are at the end of the Hebrew verse are brought forward to show at the outset the shift in speaker.
120. 42 Heb “Indeed [or For] behold!” The translation is intended to convey some of the connection that is suggested by the Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) at the beginning of the verse.
121. 43 Heb “I am sending against you snakes, poisonous ones which cannot be charmed.” In the light of the context literal snakes are scarcely meant. So the metaphor is turned into a simile to prevent possible confusion. For a similar metaphorical use of animals for enemies see 5:6.
122. 44 Heb “they will bite you.” There does not appear to be any way to avoid the possible confusion that literal snakes are meant here except to paraphrase. Possibly one could say “And they will attack you and ‘bite’ you,” but the enclosing of the word “bite” in quotations might lead to even further confusion.
123. 45 The words, “Then I said” are not in the text but there is a general consensus that the words of vv. 18–19a are the words of Jeremiah. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.
124. 46 The meaning of this word is uncertain. The translation is based on the redivision and repointing of a word that occurs only here in the and whose pattern of formation is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. The reads מַבְלִיגִיתִי (mavligiti) which provisionally derives from a verb root meaning “to gleam” or “to shine.” However, notes that the text is dubious (cf. 114 מַבְלִיגִית). The text is commonly emended to מִבְּלִי גְּהֹת (mibbéli géhot) which is a Qal infinitive from a verb meaning “to heal” preceded by a compound negative “for lack of, to be at a loss for” (cf., e.g., מַבְלִיגִית and 174 גּהה). This reading is supported by the Greek text which has an adjective meaning “incurable,” which is, however, connected with the preceding verse, i.e., “they will bite you incurably.”