SILEX Revision Notes

The original gloss categorizes אָב as a 'primitive word,' presuming direct primacy without addressing etymology. The revised gloss points out the etymology is uncertain and debates possible roots, correcting the implication of clear derivation in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that אֲבַדֹּה is 'the same as אֲבֵדָה, miswritten for אֲבַדּוֹן,' by noting that its formation is uncertain and it may be a textual variant or scribal error, but the relationship is not definite. The revised gloss is more cautious and less definitive, correcting oversimplification in the original etymology.

The revised gloss casts doubt on Strong's direct etymological derivation and points out that the connection to אֲגַם ('pool' or 'marsh') is uncertain and debated. It also clarifies that semantic difficulties exist. In addition, it calls out meanings like 'kettle' or 'hook' as interpretive expansions, not lexical certainties, correcting Strong's broader and less precise gloss.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology claim. Strong's traces the word's origin to 'whiteness' (בּוּץ), but the revised gloss states that the etymology is uncertain, that a formal connection to 'whiteness' is not established, and that color is not evidenced as relevant. The original's etymological explanation is speculative and rejected by modern scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, noting that the term is borrowed from Old Persian and not derived from a Semitic root, whereas the original incorrectly implies a correspondence to a Hebrew term as its source.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied Hebrew derivation by noting that while the word uses the noun בִּירָה (birah), its ultimate origin is uncertain and possibly a foreign loanword. Strong's gloss gives a simple Hebrew root derivation, which the revised gloss says is not definitive.

The revised gloss corrects the etymological claim that the word 'bayit' is 'probably from בָּנָה abbreviated,' noting instead that although commonly associated with 'to build,' the precise etymology is uncertain.

The revised gloss clarifies that 'El' can refer more broadly to a generic deity or specifically to the Israelite God, rather than simply 'God,' as Strong's implies. This corrects the older implication that 'El' always means the Israelite God.

The revised gloss corrects the original's speculative etymology linking 'Arbel' to 'ambush.' The revised entry asserts that this connection is unsupported by evidence and that 'Arbel' is more likely a proper name with uncertain origin.

The revised gloss notes that the traditional derivation from the root נָגַן is uncertain, correcting Strong's claim of probable derivation. The etymology is not linguistically secure, so the original's etymological claim is materially outdated.

The revised gloss corrects the claim that the second element is from the verb 'to create' (בָּרָא), clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and the association with 'create' is not linguistically secure.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's implied certainty regarding the etymology of 'בָּרָה,' noting that its origin is uncertain and debated, whereas Strong's confidently derives it from elements meaning 'house of the ford.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's assumption about the dual form in the second element, stating that it may indicate abundance or quality rather than referring strictly to 'two' fig cakes. It also notes that the precise derivation is uncertain, whereas the original is more confident in the duality implying 'two figcakes.'

The revised gloss clarifies that the meaning of 'Gilgal' is debated and probably refers to a 'circle [of stones]' or 'roll/circle,' correcting the original, which gave 'rolling' as an unqualified definition. This addresses the uncertainty in the etymology that the original gloss does not reflect.

The original gloss suggests that 'Beth-haran' is probably for 'Beth-haram,' implying a derivation. The revised gloss corrects this by stating that 'ha-Ran' is likely a proper name and that its etymology is uncertain in this context, not necessarily equating it with 'ha-Ram.'

The original gloss states that the name comes from 'house of hollowness,' giving a definite etymology from 'hollow.' The revised gloss highlights that the etymology is uncertain: 'Horon' may refer to a root meaning 'hollow,' but could also reference the Canaanite deity Horon, and advises against strictly associating the name with 'hollowness.' Thus, the revised gloss corrects the certainty and scope of the original's explanation.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the meaning of 'kar' is debated and not strictly 'pasture', as Strong's claims. It could also mean 'lamb', and there is scholarly uncertainty about its precise meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting uncertainty in the meaning of 'Nimrah,' suggesting it could mean 'leopard,' 'pure/clear water,' or a personal name, rather than definitively 'leopard' as the original claims. This acknowledges ambiguity the original gloss overlooks.

The revised gloss clarifies that the precise nuance and form of the second element (based on עָנָה) is uncertain and may be either a plural or abstract form, correcting the original's assertion of a definite plural form. This reflects modern scholarly caution and updates the etymological understanding.

The revised gloss notes uncertainty in the etymology of פַּצֵּץ (patstsêts), which the original uncritically derives from פּוּץ (pûts). The revised corrects the impression that the derivation is certain, indicating instead that it is debated or uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's confident claim that the name means 'house of ease' by stating that the second element's meaning is uncertain. The etymology is acknowledged as debated and not definitively established, whereas Strong's gives 'ease' as the root meaning.

The revised gloss notes that while the word is derived from 'בַּיִת' (house), the suffix is uncertain and the precise derivation is unclear, whereas the original presents the derivation as straightforwardly from 'בַּיִת.'

The original claims a specific meaning ('to burst the womb') as the proper etymology. The revised gloss states the root is primitive but the exact origin is uncertain—correcting the over-specific and likely erroneous etymology in the original.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's implicit claim that אִגֶּרֶת is simply the feminine of אִגְּרָא, stating that the etymology is uncertain and noting possible connections to Akkadian. This challenges the oversimplified or possibly incorrect root derivation given by Strong's.

The original gloss asserts the name is 'the same as בֶּכֶר' (implying a direct equivalence with the Hebrew noun for 'firstborn'), whereas the revised gloss clarifies that while the name Beker is likely derived from the root for 'firstborn,' the etymology is uncertain and the connection is not direct. The revised gloss also cautions against conflating the proper name with the noun meaning.

The original gloss states 'by contraction for בַּעַל,' implying 'Bel' is a Hebrew contraction of 'baʿal.' The revised gloss corrects this, specifying 'Bel' is borrowed from the Akkadian 'Bēlu' and not simply contracted from 'baʿal;' it is cognate, not directly derived. Thus, the etymological link in Strong's is oversimplified or incorrect.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by noting that the etymology (derivation from אוּד) is uncertain and debated, whereas Strong's asserted a specific root origin. The revised gloss de-emphasizes this etymological connection, regarding it as likely uncertain or incorrect.

The revised gloss corrects the original by stating that the etymology (derivation from 'Bel' and 'Adon') is not secure, whereas the original asserts this derivation. The revised gloss notes that the linguistic components do not align with Babylonian or Hebrew patterns, removing the confident etymological claim of the original.

The original gloss asserts that the name Bilgah derives from the root בָּלַג with the meaning 'desistance.' The revised gloss rejects this certainty, stating that the etymology is uncertain and the connection to the root is possible but obscure. This corrects an unfounded etymological claim in the original.

The original gloss asserts derivation from בָּלַג and gives a meaning 'desistant', whereas the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and disputes any confident derivation or meaning. The revised gloss corrects speculative etymology and definitions found in the original.

The original gloss calls it a 'primitive root' and does not mention any uncertainty in the derivation, while the revised gloss states that the etymology is uncertain and the precise root connection is debated.

The revised gloss highlights that the connection between the root meaning ('to wear out' or 'use up') and the place name Balah is uncertain, whereas the original implies a direct derivation and meaning ('failure'). This corrects an etymological assumption in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original gloss's assertion that אָדַב is a 'primitive root', noting instead that the root is uncertain and not clearly connected to other Semitic roots.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that Bilhah derives from a root meaning 'timid.' It points out that this connection to the root is uncertain and not linguistically assured, warning against confidently assigning this meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the name is from בָּלַהּ with the meaning 'timid.' Modern scholarship considers this derivation uncertain and the suggested meaning speculative, indicating there is no confirmed etymology or definition for the name Bilhan.

The revised gloss notes that the precise etymology is uncertain, correcting the original's stronger claim that the word derives from a root corresponding to בָּלָה. The original presents the etymology as definitive, whereas the revised gloss expresses uncertainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original's label of 'foreign derivation' by specifying Akkadian origin and explaining possible elements of the name. It also highlights that the exact meaning and formation are debated and not fully certain, which corrects the oversimplification of the original.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original by providing an etymological explanation derived from Akkadian elements and noting the uncertain formation, whereas the original does not address the origin beyond simply stating it is an Aramaic equivalent. The revised gloss reflects more cautious and nuanced modern scholarship.

The revised gloss notes that some etymological aspects are uncertain, correcting the original's assertion of derivation from בָּלָה (balah) while still mentioning its possible connection. The correction indicates that the original overstates the certainty of its etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's confident etymology ('disciplined of God') by stating that the root is uncertain and that such meanings are speculative, making the definition in Strong's unsupported by current scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim that the root is 'primitive' by stating that the etymology is uncertain, with only possible but unclear cognates in related languages.

The original gloss asserts that 'balas' is a primitive root, whereas the revised gloss states its etymology is uncertain and that the root appears only in the specific context of sycamore figs. The revised also clarifies the meaning, excluding the broader sense of 'gatherer,' but the main material correction is regarding the unclear root derivation.

The original gloss asserts that the name Bela is 'the same as בלע', implying a definitive etymological connection. The revised gloss corrects this by noting the etymology is uncertain and that any relation to the root meaning 'to swallow' or 'to consume' is not definitive. This materially corrects the original's claim of etymological identity.

The revised gloss notes that the exact morphological development is debated, correcting the original which presents the etymology (from בַּל and עַד) as certain. The revised gloss highlights modern scholarly hesitation to state the derivation as definite.

The SIBI gloss explicitly rejects the etymology provided by Strong's ('not of the people, i.e. foreigner'), stating that current scholarship finds this derivation doubtful and unsupported, and that the true origin of the name is uncertain.

The original gloss states with probability that 'Adad' is an orthographical variation for Hadad, whereas the revised gloss points out the etymology is uncertain and that the association with Hadad or a storm deity is not definitively established for the personal name. This corrects an unfounded assumption in the original gloss.

The revised gloss disagrees with the original's claim that the root is primitive and means 'to annihilate.' It corrects this to say the root is of uncertain origin, possibly archaic, and that 'annihilate' overstates the verb's meaning, which is better rendered as 'to lay waste' or 'devastate.'

The original gloss states the meaning 'waster' as deriving from the root, while the revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and that the meaning 'to lay waste' is only a possibility, not a definite definition for the name. The revised gloss corrects the assertion of a clear derivational meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim about the etymology: the original asserts a specific origin from 'בָּלָה' and equivalence to 'בְּלִי,' while the revised gloss states the precise origin is uncertain, possibly only related to the negative base. This challenges the assertiveness and specificity of Strong's original etymological statement.

The original gloss claims the term derives from 'an unused root (meaning to be high),' while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain with no clearly attested root in Biblical Hebrew. This corrects Strong's confident assertion of a root derivation.