If the girl bought in this way was as a matter of course bought to be her master’s concubine, the words in v. 8, ‘who hath designated her for himself,’ are otiose; on the other hand, the condition that the two alternatives mentioned in vv. 8, 9 are to be adopted only if she is st...
Show full excerpt
If the girl bought in this way was as a matter of course bought to be her master’s concubine, the words in v. 8, ‘who hath designated her for himself,’ are otiose; on the other hand, the condition that the two alternatives mentioned in vv. 8, 9 are to be adopted only if she is still a virgin, ought, Budde thinks, to be clearly expressed: accordingly, taking ‘not’ from the margin, and transposing two letters in the following word, he reads for the words quoted, who (or in case he ) hath not known her ( Genesis 4:1 ): he further argues that this view does better justice to the wording of v. 8 (which is not, as it should be on the ordinary view, If he hath designated her for himself, and she please him not ), and to the tense of ‘designate’ in v. 9 (which is the impf., as in vv. 10, 11, not the perf., as in v. 8a), and also that it explains better v. 9b (why, if he originally intended her as a concubine for his son, should he treat her as a daughter, and so place her in a better position than if he intended he for himself? On the other hand, this is intelligible, if he did not fulfil his original engagement to her, and passed her on to his son). For another solution of the difficulties of the passage, resting upon a further emendation, see W. R. Smith, ZATW. 1892, p. 162 f., or Ryssel in Di.2 p. 253.