SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects the original's proposed etymology (el + gabish), stating it is uncertain with no consensus, and removes the association with 'pearl', clarifying the word specifically refers to large hailstones. The original's 'as if a great pearl' inserts a KJV translation tradition/cultural anachronism, while the revised gloss limits the term to meteorological phenomena.

The revised gloss rejects the original etymology (from זוּר and 'turning aside from truth') and corrects the definition, removing 'treachery' and 'plot.' It limits the meaning to a physical wound or injury. Thus, both an etymological error and definitional overreach from the original are addressed.

The revised gloss corrects the original by highlighting uncertainty in the etymology (not definitively from זוּר), and corrects the definition: 'bandage' or 'remedy' is interpretive, with the primary meaning being a 'wound' or 'sore.' The original gloss reflects translation tradition and an overconfident etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original both in etymology (the original incorrectly derives it from a root signifying invocation or connects it with lamentation) and in definition (the original definition 'to bewail; lament' is incorrect, as the word means 'to swear, to take an oath, or to pronounce a curse').

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by noting the etymological link to מָחָה is speculative and not widely supported (etymology), and by specifying that the term does not have the figurative sense of 'rich' in the Hebrew Bible and is restricted to literal animal fat (definition).

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's on both etymology (explicitly cautions that the relationship to מַחְמָד is uncertain and likely just wordplay, not direct derivation) and definition (Strong's emphasizes feelings of sympathy/pity, while the SIBI gloss restricts the sense to 'precious, desirable' with minimal connection to compassion).

The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying the uncertain etymology (original presents the root derivation as more certain), specifies that the primary meaning is 'oak tree' but may refer to other prominent trees, and notes that the translation 'plain' reflects translation tradition rather than lexical meaning—thus addressing both etymology and translation tradition issues.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology (uncertain derivation rather than from כּוּר in the sense of stabbing) and definition (removes 'sword' as a meaning, which is unsupported). It also notes that the original gloss's suggestion of 'sword' may stem from translation tradition or misunderstanding, which the revision corrects.

The revised gloss corrects the original on several points: (1) The etymology is updated to reflect modern uncertainty about the word's origin rather than asserting a Persian derivation; (2) The definition broadens the title from 'butler' to a more general 'court official' or 'overseer,' noting that the specific function is unclear; (3) The revised gloss clarifies that 'Melzar' is a role or title, not a personal name, and cautions that translating as 'butler' is interpretive and potentially misleading.

The revised gloss corrects the original in both etymology and cultural anachronism. It expresses uncertainty about the precise etymological root, unlike the original's more confident derivation. It also cautions that 'vestry' is a later ecclesiastical term and not appropriate for the biblical context, challenging the anachronism in the original gloss.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology (no certain root can be discerned), definition (does not specify 'Jewish father and heathen mother' or any precise ethnic pairing, instead focusing on illegitimacy broadly), and removes theological/cultural bias in Strong's ethnicized and pejorative definition.

The revised gloss disputes both the asserted etymology (Strong's claims a direct connection to a root meaning 'vigor', but the revision notes the etymology is uncertain and the connection is not secure) and the definition (Strong's translates the name as 'lusty,' implying a character trait, which the revision explicitly discourages as unjustified and culturally anachronistic). The revision clarifies that Mamre is a proper name of a place and, secondarily, a person, not a common noun with a translatable meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original on several points: (1) It identifies the etymology as uncertain rather than deriving from a supposed root, (2) It clarifies that 'meat offering' is a mistranslation due to changes in English, (3) It notes that the term refers specifically to non-animal offerings, correcting the implication that it could refer broadly to 'sacrifice,' and (4) It removes translation tradition and anachronistic terminology.

The revised gloss corrects two issues: (1) It removes 'apostatize' as an inherent meaning of the root, noting this is a result of translation tradition not supported by lexical evidence (definition, translation_tradition). (2) It clarifies the etymological relationships, specifying uncertainty in wider connections rather than asserting it as a primitive root with a set meaning (etymology).

The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim of certain root derivation by marking the etymology as uncertain (etymology). It also narrows the definition, excluding 'emasculate' and 'handle' as inherent meanings, clarifying them as context-dependent (definition).

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymology by noting that the connection to 'sweetness' is not supported and that the exact root is uncertain, distancing from the original's claim of derivation from 'sweet.' It also corrects the definition by clarifying that the primary characteristic is the absence of leaven, not sweetness, and cautions against calling it 'sweet bread.' Additionally, it separates the meaning of the bread itself from the festival, counter to the conflation in the original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's definition from 'silence (i.e. mute justice); congregation' to 'youth; young man (male adolescent),' clarifying that the term refers to young men and not to silence or congregation. It also rejects the etymological connection to 'mute' and notes the etymology is debated, correcting both definition and etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymological claim in Strong's that the root properly means 'to trickle,' indicating this is uncertain and not widely supported. It also clarifies that the meaning does not intrinsically include 'anger' or 'provocation,' correcting a possible overextension of the lexical sense in the Strong's gloss definition.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's gloss on both etymology and definition: it rejects the claimed derivation from נָשָׁא ('to deceive') and points to an uncertain or onomatopoeic origin instead. It also corrects the definition from 'dissimulation; deceit' to 'uproar, clamor, or noise,' reflecting actual usage in context. The Strong's gloss is based on outdated assumptions and shifts both lexical sense and etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two points: (1) The etymology: Strong's calls it a 'primitive root,' while the update says its origin is uncertain but attested across Semitic languages. (2) The definition: The strong claim of 'to sigh' is rejected or marked as disputed in the revised gloss, indicating that the meaning is not well supported. The revised gloss narrows the definition to driving or leading, not sighing.

The revised gloss corrects the original in two areas: (1) Etymology: The original calls it a 'primitive root,' while the revised notes uncertain origin and lack of clear connection to other roots. (2) Definition: The revised limits the meaning to 'refuse, be unwilling, or decline,' clarifying that older glosses' 'neutralize,' 'make of none effect,' etc., are overextensions based on translation tradition rather than lexical meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original in two ways: (1) etymology—the original claims the root is primitive while the revised states the root meaning is uncertain; (2) definition—the original lists broad and varied uses (such as 'sprinkling', 'rubbing', 'bastinadoing', 'sawing', 'strike', 'sift') which the revised gloss rejects or limits, emphasizing that these are rare, context-dependent, and not primary meanings.

The revised gloss corrects several issues: (1) It clarifies the etymology, noting that any association with Nazareth is coincidental, not substantive, correcting Strong's mistaken suggestion of 'false alliteration.' (2) It corrects theological/translation bias by removing conflation with nobility ('prince') and focuses strictly on the Nazirite/vow context. (3) It addresses the metaphorical sense of an 'unpruned vine' with more nuance, adhering to its figurative usage rather than direct equivalence. Thus, it corrects Strong's etymological assumptions, addresses translation tradition, and refines the definition.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's in etymology (noting the root is uncertain and not related to 'serpent'), definition (narrows the meaning to divination and omens rather than general 'learning by experience'), and translation tradition (rejects 'certainly, diligently observe' etc. as core meanings).

The revised gloss corrects the etymology presented in the original, clarifying that the root is uncertain and not strictly Semitic. It also addresses definition and cultural anachronism: the use of 'brass' and 'steel' in the original reflects misunderstanding of ancient metallurgy and translation tradition, as these materials were not present as understood in antiquity. Additionally, the revised gloss narrows figurative usage, clarifying 'filthiness' and 'base' are only secondary or context-driven meanings, not lexical ones.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by (1) stating the root origin is uncertain rather than a 'primitive root,' (2) narrowing the definition by excluding meanings like 'press sore,' 'stick fast,' and 'be broken,' which may belong to other roots, and clarifying the core meaning as 'to go down/bring down.'

The revised gloss corrects the original on two points: (1) etymology—it states the root is of uncertain origin, while the original calls it a primitive root; (2) definition—the revised gloss narrows the meaning to bearing a grudge or retaining anger, removing the neutral sense of 'to guard' found in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by noting the root is of uncertain origin, whereas the original calls it a 'primitive root.' The definition is also revised: the original glosses include senses like 'appoint,' 'deputy,' 'officer,' and 'sharpen,' but the updated gloss clarifies these are not core meanings and are context-dependent. Additionally, the reference to 'Huzzah' as an idiom is explained in the revision as a mistake in translation tradition. Thus, the disagreements are in etymology, definition, and translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects the original by: (1) questioning the etymology—where Strong's calls it a primitive root meaning 'to go forth,' the revised gloss states the root is of uncertain derivation and warns against this connection; (2) narrowing the definition—the revised gloss restricts the core meaning to 'strive, contend, or dispute,' noting that senses like 'to go forth' or 'to be desolate/laid waste' are debated or not securely attested. Thus, it corrects both etymological assumptions and the lexical range presented by Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two key points: (1) etymology—the claimed root meaning 'to glitter from afar' is not supported in modern scholarship and the denominative connection to נֶצַח is uncertain; (2) definition—the original's meanings of 'to be eminent,' 'to be permanent,' and especially 'to shine' are not considered primary in modern lexicons. The revised gloss restricts the sense to 'supervise, oversee,' especially in musical/liturgical contexts.

The revised gloss corrects the original in several areas: (1) it challenges the claimed etymology by stating the connection to the root נ-צ-ח is uncertain and the link to 'brilliancy' is interpretive; (2) it narrows the definition by restricting the meaning to juice (esp. grape juice) and, only figuratively, blood—while the original's 'strength' is not supported; (3) the original's inclusion of 'strength' and strong interpretive etymology reflects translation tradition and possible theological inference not found in the lexical evidence.

The revised gloss disagrees in two main categories: (1) etymology—the original calls it 'a primitive root,' while the revised says the etymology is uncertain and not clearly connected to other Semitic languages; (2) definition/theological bias—the revised clarifies that the meaning centers on retributive justice, not personal vindictiveness, partially correcting the broader or potentially subjective sense ('to grudge') implied in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology (from 'to shut up' to 'to acquire as property/treasure') and clarifies that the term primarily refers to the valued, personal property or treasured status rather than material 'wealth.' It also points out that 'peculiar treasure' is a misleading translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects the original's stated Hebrew etymology, indicating the root is uncertain and possibly Akkadian rather than an unused Hebrew root. It also adjusts the definition: the original's 'prince' or member of the royal family is incorrect—rather, the term refers to an appointed administrative official or governor, not necessarily of royal blood.

The revised gloss corrects the original in several ways: (1) It disputes the precise etymology claimed in the original by labeling the root as uncertain; (2) It removes 'pure' and 'repair,' clarifying these are interpretive or contextual, not intrinsic to the root; (3) It distinguishes the sense of 'shut up' or 'deliver' from meanings relating specifically to imprisonment or detention. These corrections address both etymology and the actual semantic range.

The revised gloss challenges the original's etymology (stating the root is uncertain rather than primitive), narrows the definitions (removing or doubting 'snatch away', prioritizing 'cease' and 'come to an end'), and omits language that reflects traditional idiomatic or translation-specific renderings. Thus, corrections span etymology, definition, and translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two issues: (1) etymology—the original's derivation from שַׂכִּין ('knife') is explicitly rejected; (2) definition—the original meanings 'to cut, damage, impoverish' are rejected as not supported by modern evidence, with the revised gloss focusing on 'to be accustomed, to benefit, to be useful'. Both the root and lexical sense in the original are corrected.

The revised gloss corrects both the definition and the etymology of the original. The original gloss includes 'leap (with joy)' and 'harden self', but the revised gloss states that the verb means 'to shudder, tremble, or be startled', not 'leap with joy' or 'harden self'. The revised gloss also notes the root is uncertain, correcting the original's claim to a primitive root.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology and the definition given in Strong's. It states that the root etymology is uncertain and that prior associations (e.g., arranging troops, hoeing) are now considered unsupported, countering Strong’s connection to battle/vineyard contexts. The revised definition narrows the meaning to 'to be lacking/missing/absent' and excludes Strong's broader glosses such as 'to hoe,' 'dig,' and 'arrange.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's speculative etymological connection to 'contraction in anguish' as linguistically unsupported, and clarifies that the meaning 'seek a quarrel' is context-specific and not part of the core lexical sense. The revised entry also disputes the claimed root identification, qualifying the etymology as uncertain. Thus, there are disagreements regarding both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects several aspects: (1) The original's etymology claims a derivation and meaning for שׁוֹפָן ('hidden') that is presented as uncertain in the revised gloss, which also introduces an alternate derivation ('coney/rock badger'). (2) The original states Atroth and Shophan are 'as if two places,' but the revised gloss specifies it is a single compound toponym. (3) The original uses 'Palestine,' which the revised gloss calls anachronistic for this period.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, stating that the connection to עוּר ('ur) is not certain, and also the definition, clarifying that the term refers to a young male donkey based on age, not one recently domesticated or 'just broken to a load.'

The SIBI gloss corrects the original in two material areas: (1) Definition—the original includes 'complain' or 'complaining' as a gloss, while the revised specifically excludes the sense of generic complaint or protest, restricting the meaning to expressions of mourning, lamentation, or grief; (2) Etymology—the original claims a primitive root without qualification, whereas the revised states the root is of uncertain origin, noting only possible cognates. Thus, both the meaning and the etymological certainty are corrected.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, clarifying that the root is uncertain and not demonstrably a primitive root or directly from 'omer. It also rejects the figurative definition 'to chastise' as linguistically unsupported and notes that 'make merchandise of' is not a primary Hebrew Bible usage, correcting both definition and etymology.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by clarifying the etymology: 'answer', 'sing', and 'speak' are separate roots and should not be included. It also narrows the definition to core meanings ('afflict,' 'oppress,' 'humble'), removing unrelated senses stemming from translation tradition (KJV choices), and addresses mistaken derivation links. The original lists meanings and etymological connections the revised gloss identifies as incorrect or from other roots.

The revised gloss disputes the etymology (original calls it a 'primitive root,' revised says root is uncertain) and corrects the definition/theological bias by stating the word does not inherently mean 'wicked' or 'desperately wicked'—this is a translation tradition/interpretive move, not lexical meaning. The revised gloss strictly locates the sense in weakness or incurable illness, not moral evil.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two points: (1) it rejects the etymological claim that the root means 'to urge,' stating instead that the root is uncertain; (2) it narrows the definition to financial or compensatory penalties, correcting the broader original sense which included general punishment. It also clarifies that 'to penalize' or 'to fine' is the core legal meaning, not a generic sense of punishing.

The REVISED gloss corrects the ORIGINAL in two material ways: 1) It rejects the etymological derivation from the Hebrew root עָנָה ('to answer') given in the ORIGINAL, stating the root is uncertain but likely tied to the Northwest Semitic goddess Anat; 2) It corrects the definition from 'an Israelite' to a personal name likely referring to a Canaanite deity, shifting from a presumed Israelite association to acknowledgment of Canaanite religious context.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, stating the root is of uncertain origin rather than 'a primitive root' meaning to carve. It also narrows the definition, removing glosses like 'worship' and noting that 'carve' likely reflects a homograph confusion. Additionally, it clarifies that the central meaning is emotional distress, not manufacturing or fabrication.

The revised gloss corrects two material errors in the original: (1) it rejects the definition 'earthen vessel' as a confusion with another word, correcting the original's inaccurate inclusion of that meaning, and (2) it clarifies that the association with 'idol' is secondary or a later wordplay, not the primary lexical sense, indicating issues of both definition and translation tradition.