76 Michael L. Barré noun meaning “bareness, nakedness” (8). Such a reading is viable, since the use of a noun with a cognate verb to intensify the verb is attested in biblical Hebrew (9). But it is probably not the original reading. The problems of this colon can be resolved by postulating the following textual history of these two words. (1) They originally read hr<[;t] hr[. The first E; word is the Piel infinitive absolute of yr[ and the second is the normal Piel 2nd masculine singular yiqtol form of this root. (2) At some point the final /ˇ/ of the first word, a Piel infinitive absolute, was written s≥ere + yod rather than s≥ere + he, a rare spelling of this form in the MT (10). A similar phenomenon, however, is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the case of the construct of third- weak nominal forms (11). (3) The resulting hr[t yr[ then suffered a scribal error: a copyist inadvertently placed the final he on hr[t at the end of yr[, which resulted in r[t hyr[. The same error is attested elsewhere in the MT(12). (4) Later, r[t was supplied with a vowel letter yielding rw[t hyr[ (= MT). The expression “to bare one’s bow” is best taken to mean removing the bow from a bow case or some type of container so that it is ready for use in battle. In this connection Hiebert points out that in the Late Bronze and early Iron Age “chariots were outfitted with bow cases and quivers to carry weapons not in use” (13). yr[ is used in this sense with reference to another armament, a shield, in Isa 22,6 (14). One might translate v. 9aa in idiomatic English, “You withdrew your bow (from its case)”, which fits well with the reference to the war-chariot in v. 8. 2. The Second Colon When we turn to the second colon of this line (v. 9ab), we note that each of its three words has been the subject of extensive discussion. The challenge of solving the dilemma posed by this colon is to come up with a solution in which (1) there is minimal change to the text (i.e., the MT), (2) any changes are plausibly explained, (3) all three words bear a meaning that is not forced, (4) the proposed translation fits well in the immediate context of the poem, and (5) the proposed restoration is in accordance with the conventions of biblical Hebrew poetry. (8) In the MT this word occurs also in Mic 1,11; Ezek 16,7.22.39; 23,29. (9) See GKC §117q (“internal object”). (10) Note the Piel infinitive absolute yKej' for hKej' in Hos 6,9. See GKC §23l and H. BAUER – P. LEANDER, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache (Tübingen 1922) 424. (11) Qumran Hebrew frequently spells the construct of third-weak noun forms with s≥ere + yod rather than s≥ere + he—i.e., the construct of nouns ending in -eh is written -ˇy more frequently than -ˇh. See E. QIMRON, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta 1986) §100.34 (p. 20). (12) A classic example of this error is yn:p; WvQB', “seek (plural) my face”, in Ps 27,8. This ] reading is impossible in the context. It is inane to think that the psalmist would ask God to seek his face or that he would address the deity with a 2nd plural verb. Rather, the waw at the end of WvQ]B' should be placed at the end of the following word. The two words then read wyn:P; vQEB', “seek (singular) his (i.e., God’s) face”, which makes perfect sense and is the commonly accepted reading (see the critical apparatus in BHS3). (13) God of My Victory, 26, referencing Y. YADIN, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (2 vols.; New York 1963) I, 88, 212, 214-15, 240-41. (14) HALAT, 834.