98 A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum <strong>IOSOT</strong> (<strong>2013</strong>) 87-98 Ainsi, sans prétendre ici résoudre tous les problèmes d’interprétation du Cantique des Cantiques, et quoiqu’il en soit de la date exacte d’une fête des vendanges, il nous semble que le sens du mot hapax legomenon zāmīr de Cn. ii 12 s’éclaire à la lumière du sens de zmr dans la ligne 6 de la tablette de Gézer. La traduction ʿēt hazzāmīr, « le temps de la vendange » mérite au moins d’etre envisagée sérieusement pour mieux situer le Cantique des Cantiques dans son cadre naturel.
Vetus Testamentum <strong>IOSOT</strong> (<strong>2013</strong>) 99-108 Vetus Testamentum brill.com/vt YPḤ “Witness” in Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Ugaritic Dennis Pardee Chicago At the risk of slighting other contributions, I would distinguish four principal stages in the scientific elucidation of Hebrew yp( y)ḥ “witness”. Cutting through the equivocations of previous commentators, in 1909 Mayer Lambert stated that yp( y)ḥ in Proverbs (vi 19, xii 17, xiv 5, 25, xix 5, 9) <strong>and</strong> in Habakkuk (ii 3) must for syntactic reasons be interpreted as a substantive <strong>and</strong> not as a verb.1 S. E. Loewenstamm provided in 1962 the first full-scale treatment of Hebrew ypḥ in the light of Ugaritic ypḥ “witness”.2 In 1965 Mitchell Dahood pointed out that the different consonants in Ugaritic ypḥ “witness” vs. mpḫm “bellows” precludes a derivation of the former from the Ugaritic root meaning ‘to blow’ (npḫ/pḫ, attested only in the noun mpḫm).3 William McKane’s 1970 commentary on Proverbs provided the first consistent attempt in such a commentary to interpret Hebrew yp( y)ḥ under the impact of Ugaritic ypḥ “witness”.4 The occurrence of Ugaritic ypḥ in two recently published texts (Ugaritic texts 1971 <strong>and</strong> 1976 cited below) not included in R. E. Whitaker’s Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1972) provides us with the opportunity to review the entire question <strong>and</strong> provide a summary discussion. It will 1) “Notes exégétiques,” REJ 57 (1909), pp. 279-80. 2) “yāpē a ḥ, yāpī a ḥ, yāpî a ḥ,” Lešonenu 26 (1962), pp. 205-8. 3) “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography III”, Biblica 46 (1965), pp. 311-32 (esp. pp. 319-20); idem, Psalms I (Garden City, 1965), p. 169. Dahood’s most recent contribution to the problem is most puzzling considering his several statements 1958-1965. In L. R. Fisher (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels 2 (Rome, 1975), p. 24, he translates the relevant portion of Prov. vi 19: “The lying witness vents lies”, <strong>and</strong> implies that pḥ/yp( y)ḥ is from the same root as Ugaritic mpḫm “bellows” (see full discussion of these points below). Since this is the exact opposite of his position in Biblica 46 <strong>and</strong> Psalms I, I can only surmise that he was either converted by P.-R. Berger’s article cited below (UF 2 [1970], pp. 7-17) or that his associate in the parallels work, T. Penar, introduced a point which Dahood missed but with which he would not agree (or have I missed a statement by Dahood rejecting his former position?). 4) Proverbs: A New Approach (London <strong>and</strong> Philadelphia, 1970). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1978 DOI: 10.1163/15685330-12340008