Grammatical Type: noun m.
Occurrences: Total 2x OT, 1x Sir, 5x Qum, 0x inscr.
- Sir: 5.8.
- Qum: 1QH XV(=formerly VII).15; 4Q184 1 i 9; 4Q266 2 ii 3; 4Q275 3.1; Mur 47.4.

Text doubtful:

A.1 MS A at Sir 5.9 reads שׁבולת in place of שׁביל in MS C. MS A may be influenced by שׁבלת in 4.26, although the whole bicolon seems to be a retroversion from the Syr. MS C, by contrast, is supported by the LXX and Vg.

B.1 At Jr 18.15 in place of שׁבילי, many MSS read שׁבולי, a reading preferred by Dahood (1962:209). He reads the MS variant as שְׁבוּלֵי, ‘wanderers, nomads’, taking it to be a qal pass part in apposition with the subject of the verb וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם, whose root sense he says is ‘to twist, wander’. He compares this with the Phoenician lpt šbl (see Root and Comparative Material A.6), which could denote a wanderer, and suggests that other lexemes in Hebrew with a root šbl derive from the idea of twisting (e.g. ‘a twisting path, a trail’; ‘a meandering river or stream’). The text at Jr 18.15, however, is intelligible with the reading שְׁבִיל (so Holladay 1986:521) and we should not resort to unnecessary speculation. Nonetheless, the peculiar reading of the LXX σχοῖνος may indicate that the Greek translators shared Dahood’s view (see Versions A.1, B.1).

B.2 Dahood (1973:233) on Ps 77.20 reads שְׁבִילְךָ as שְׁבָלֶךָ ‘your train’, understanding it to be the plural of שֹׁבֶל from Is 47.2 and related to שׁוּל ‘hem’ (e.g. Is 6.1). He notes that in 1QIs^a שׁבלך is changed to שׁוליך at Is 47.2. The train of the garment, therefore, explains why the ‘heels’ were not seen according to the next colon in Ps 77 (cf. Dt 33.3). Beeston (1979:176), by contrast, argues that שֹׁבֶל in Is 47.2 designates a ‘well’ (see also Root and Comparative Material B.1).

B.3 There is an uncertain reading at 4Q405 20 ii-21-22 10, where the waw in אשׁ שׁבולי appears not to be clear. Strugnell says that the waw is the better material choice rather than the reading שׁבילי, but that the cst pl of שִׁבֹּלֶת is only attested in the OT with the meaning ‘grains’ (1960:340). Here it ought to mean ‘watercourses’ as a parallel to the נהרי אור ‎(4Q405 15 ii 2) later on in the text (cf. 1Enoch 14.19; 71.2). Newsom does not comment on the waw, transcribing it as certain in her version (1985:303), but does provide further examples of the expression ‘streams of fire’ (1985:31516), noting especially the Aramaic to 1Enoch 14.19 that had since come to light (שׁבלין ד[י נור‎‎, 4QEn^c 1 vii 1) and the description of God’s throne in Dn 7.10 (נהר די־נור).

Qere/Ketiv: Ps 77.20 Qere וּשְׁבִילְךָ (m s with 2p s suf), Ketiv וּשְׁבִילֶיךָ (m pl with 2p s suf ). The Qere is supported by a number of MSS, and preferred by BHS. The plural noun of the Ketiv is also found in the LXX and Peshitta, but the Versions often translate the nouns with a different number from that represented in the MT. The singular may, however, be a later correction in the light of the singular of דֶּרֶךְ immediately preceding in the verse. Alternatively, the one other occurrence of שְׁבִיל in the OT is in the singular and this may have affected the MS traditions.

A.1 The etymology of שְׁבִיל is obscure. Some relate it to the Arabic sabala (Wehr 1971:396) in the fourth conjugation, ‘to cause to hang down, to let fall’ (e.g. BDB:987; KB²:942). It is difficult to see how this relates to the meaning ‘road’, but there is no other verbal root šbl in the Semitic languages (Dorsey 1991:237).

A.2 Much of the debate surrounding the root of שְׁבִיל is whether or not it is cognate with שִׁבֹּלֶת, and if so, in what way. שִׁבֹּלֶת denotes an ‘ear of grain’ in at least 15 of its 19 occurrences in the OT (e.g. Gn 41.5) and elsewhere denotes, probably as a homonym, a ‘watercourse, torrent’ (e.g. Ps 69.3, 16). In deriving these lexemes from the same root šbl some scholars have proposed an etymology for שְׁבִיל, as recorded in A.3 and A.4 below. An alternative comparative semantic suggestion has been made by Beeston (see B.1 below). The debate is complicated by the account in Jdg 12.6 of the Ephraimite inability to pronounce שִׁבֹּלֶת, replying instead with the sound סִבֹּלֶת. It is, first, uncertain whether the lexeme they are asked to utter is the one with the meaning ‘ear of grain’ or with the meaning ‘watercourse, torrent’. Second, this account raises phonetic questions regarding the root of the lexeme, whichever of the two homonyms is the one used in Jdg 12.6. A summary of this debate, as far as it bears on the meaning of שְׁבִיל, is given in B.2 below, although it is probably an unresolvable question (Beeston 1988:261; Speiser 1967:150). It does, however, appear that we should distinguish between two roots (Faber 1992:48; Hendel 1996:69 70): a Proto-Semitic denoting *šblt ‘ear of grain’ (attested in many languages) and a root *šbl denoting ‘watercourse, path’ (attested in Heb, Syr, Arb, and [from Arb] Tge). This implies that caution should be exercised in connecting שְׁבִיל with the meaning ‘ear of grain’, but that it may well be cognate with שִׁבֹּלֶת ‘a flowing stream’ and the hapax שֹׁבֶל (Is 47.2).

A.3 Nouns in BH commonly associated with שְׁבִיל are שֹׁבֶל (Is 47.2), possibly referring to the hanging folds of a robe, שִׁבֹּלֶת ‘an ear of corn’ (e.g. Gn 41.5), and שִׁבֹּלֶת ‘a flowing stream’ (e.g. Ps 69.16; cf. BDB:987; KB²:942). See on these B.1 below. Jastrow includes in this group the noun שַׁבְּלוּל, a ‘snail’ (Ps 58.9; 1903:1515). Jastrow in turn (1903:1514, 1557) connects these words with the Shaphel of יבל, ‘to bring, carry’, a verb appearing only in the causative stem in Heb, but in the causative and Peal (in Egyptian Aram; see Muraoka & Porten 1998:121, and n. 561) in Arm, and in the causative and G-stem in Akk. The derivatives from lby are similar in meaning to those from the stem šbl: יָבָל, ‘watercourse, stream’; יְבוּל, ‘produce’; יוֹבֵל, ‘ram’s horn’; אוּבָל, ‘stream’.

A.4 Dorsey (1991:237) notes that what is common to Heb nouns with the stem šbl and to those from ybl is that each appears to be an object that grows out or extends from something else. It may be produced from the earth (יְבוּל, בּוּל), be an ear of grain (שִׁבֹּלֶת), a ram’s horn (יוֹבֵל), a snail (extending) out of its shell (שַׁבְּלוּל) or the folds of a robe dropping down from the upper part of the garment (שֹׁבֶל). A שִׁבֹּלֶת ‘a flowing stream’ could be so called because a stream flows from or extends from a particular source (so also יָבָל and אוּבָל). Dorsey, therefore, suggests that a שְׁבִיל was so called because it was a road extending from a main road (i.e. a branch road), although he admits that this is speculative . The doubtful connection between all these lexemes renders his suggestion all the more speculative (see A.2, B.1). Others have identified the root as denoting something that flows (BDB:987), and hence Carroll glosses שְׁבִיל as a ‘flowing course of life’ (1986:376). This is possible if there is a root *šbl behind certain of the lexemes, but uncertainty remains over the origins of the lexemes.

A.5 In RH the substantive appears most often in the prepositional expression בשׁביל ‘for the sake of’ (Jastrow:1514). This use is also found in Mur 47.4, whose date and the context are unclear owing to the damaged state of the manuscript (Milik 1961:167). שְׁבִיל appears ten times in the Mishnah as an independent substantive and designates a ‘path’ in contrast to דֶּרֶךְ, which is used of roads in general (Dorsey 1991:23738). A שְׁבִיל, for example, may be traversable only in the summer months (m.Peah 2.1) or may designate a path that leads only to a well, cistern, pit, cave or winepress (m.Toharot 6.6), all denoting its small size. According to m.Toharot 5.1, 2, 3, 5 a שְׁבִיל is one of many paths on which a man walks, so numerous that he could easily forget on which one he had walked. Indeed in m.Peah 2.1 a שְׁבִיל is actually differentiated from a דֶּרֶךְ as being the smaller of the two. In the Talmud and Midrashim שְׁבִיל continues to be used of a ‘path’ (e.g. b.BQ 81a).

A.6 The only occurrence of a possible cognate with the same meaning in North-West Semitic (apart from in Aramaic/Syriac) is the hapax legomenon šbl in Phoen (<cite>DNWSI</cite>:1101; KAI I:2), but its context is too unclear to permit any definite conclusion (Albright 1947:156, n. 27). It probably is a substantive (sing abs), perhaps indicating some type of erasing instrument (e.g. Gibson 1982:16) or, as some have suggested (e.g. Albright 1947:156, n. 27), a ‘road, way’. These are, however, only some of many suggestions for the reading of the lexeme in this text and for its interpretation. Torrey even sees it as a verb and not a substantive, and proposes that it is the Shafel of bll ‘to besmear’ (1925:274). A complete list of alternative suggestions and bibliographical details is provided in <cite>DNWSI</cite>:1101.

Ug preserves a form šblt, which means ‘ear of corn’, but no cognate lexeme with the meaning ‘path’.

A.7 In Aramaic the noun שְׁבִילָא denotes both a ‘path’ (e.g. Tg Jr 18.15) and a ‘way’ (LevR 17; Jastrow:1514), whilst שׁוּבְּלָתָּא is the noun denoting ‘ear of grain’. Faber (1992:5) even suggests that on the basis of the initial cluster šv- in שְׁבִיל the Hebrew lexeme is probably an Aramaism. In Syriac šḇilāʾ appears to denote a ‘path’ (via Brockelmann:752) and the more common lexeme ʾurḥāʾ is used for both a ‘road’ and a ‘way’ (Brockelmann:47). Also in Syriac one can find the lexeme šebeltāʾ ‘flow of a river’ and the homonym šebeltāʾ ‘ear of grain’.

A.8 In Mandaic the noun šḇilā is attested with similar meanings to its Syriac counterpart (Drower and Macuch 1963:447b). There is also the Christian Palestinian šwbjl ‘semita, via’ (Schulthess 1903:200).

A.9 The Tge sabil, a ‘religious war’ is derived from the Arabic sense of a religious path or the right path of the Lord (Leslau 1958:53). In Eth there does not exist a cognate lexeme with the meaning ‘path’, but the form sabel and many variants on this denoting ‘ear of grain’, ‘spica’ (Dillmann:35556) appear.

A.10 There does not appear to be in Soqotri a cognate noun denoting ‘path’, but the root may exist in the noun sebōleh (dual: seboliti) ‘ear of grain’ (Leslau 1938:280).

A.11 In Arabic the noun sabīl designates both a ‘road’ and a ‘path’ (Wehr 1971:396), and there exists the noun sabal ‘rain, flowing rain’.

A.12 The Egyptian šabaruti ‘Weg’ is sometimes cited as a cognate (e.g. Ges.:802; <cite>HAL</cite>:1295).

B.1 Beeston (1979:177) has proposed that there is a semantic association between ‘way’ and ‘watering’ in the Hebrew šbl root, accounting for the existence of שְׁבִיל, a ‘way’, and שִׁבֹּלֶת, a ‘watercourse’. שִׁבֹּלֶת meaning an ‘ear of grain’ should, he suggests, be considered to derive from a different root. The modern South Arabian languages uniformly show an initial s in the word for ‘ear of corn’ (e.g. Soqotri: sebōleh [given by Beeston as seblit]), and this implies that an initial s was the original form of the word, portrayed in the Bible as an Ephraimite peculiarity (Jdg 12.6; although see B.2). In BH, confusion with the word for ‘watercourse’ , Beeston (1979:175) surmises, led to the creation of a homonym. Although Blau (1977:109) argues that in Ephraimite Hebrew the Proto-Semitic letters *s *ś *š had all merged into s (as in Eth), all that may be concluded from the Biblical account, if Beeston’s hypothesis is not correct, is that the Ephraimites had lost the phoneme š, but not necessarily ś. Beeston notes that in medieval and modern Arabic sabīl is a word both for ‘way’ and for a ‘public fountain’. The connection with BH must, however, remain tenuous since in early Arabic the meaning of sabīl as a ‘public fountain’ is not attested (Beeston 1979:176). Furthermore, Dozy (³ 1967) gives a different account of the semantic development that led to sabīl meaning ‘public fountain’. Nevertheless, Beeston still finds Dozy’s explanation requiring a ‘semantic jump’ and feels that the development was facilitated by an association between ‘way’ and ‘watering’, as exists in the Arabic root šrʿ, giving both šāriʿ ‘street’ and šarīʿah ‘watering place’ (1979:177). In response, Faber indicates how, given that the lexeme denoting path only appears in Hebrew and Arabic, it is unlikely to have provided the analogical source for a change of *s to š in other languages (1992:5). She further suggests that on the basis of the initial cluster šv- in שְׁבִיל the lexeme is probably an Aramaism.

B.2 Swiggers (1981:205206; cf. Marquart 1888) has argued that in folk-tales the test-word used (as in Jdg 12.6) is related to the context, and in the case of the Gileadites a word ‘stream’ is relevant in the light of the banks of the river that they are occupying. Emerton has, however, questioned whether it is always the case that the test-word is relevant to the context (1985:153). Hence, even if שִׁבֹּלֶת at Jdg 12.6 is found to be from a different root than שְׁבִיל, it need not necessarily be the lexeme denoting ‘watercourse’. There is at present little agreement as to what the Shin Samekh interchange in the account of Jdg 12.6 tells us about the etymology of שִׁבֹּלֶת there. Many have argued for an historical *ṯ as the first consonant, and that this sound has been preserved by the Gileadites in Jdg (Speiser 1967; Swiggers 1981; Lemaire 1985; Rendsburg 1988a, 1988b). The cognate evidence, however, does not seem to support this (except for Arm תּוּבְּלָא: see B.3), and it has been doubted by Emerton (1985) and Faber (1992). Emerton (1985) argues that there has been no change from the root, but that the story represents two different pronunciations of the phoneme š, an argument supported by Hendel’s graphemic evidence (1996; cf. Tropper 1997). Blau posits an initial letter š that became an s in Ephraimite (1977), whilst Faber (1992) and Beeston (1979) prefer an inital letter s. Emerton’s and Faber’s suggestions appear to be the most likely, but there is as yet a lack of consensus.

B.3 The Arm form תּוּבְּלָא, which is used to translate שִׁבֹּלֶת in TgPsJ Gn 41.5, 6, 7 etc. (not FT as recorded in Emerton 1985:149) and brought as evidence by Speiser for the root of שִׁבֹּלֶת in Jdg 12.6 (1967:145 47), is most likely a hyper-correction in Aramaic, as argued by Kutscher (1967:17374) and affirmed by others (Emerton 1985:150; Blau 1977:109; Faber 1992:4, n. 3; Marcus 1992:98, n. 13; Hendel 1996:73, n. 6). The form with taw is lacking in TgNeo, probably one of the oldest Targumic texts (Kutscher 1967:174), although the observation that it is also lacking in FT (Marcus 1992:98, n. 13) is not helpful, since none of the FT records the relevant verses. Emerton (1985:151) observes that Fraenkel (1905:252) had already argued, before Speiser’s proposal, that תּוּבְּלָא was a learned back-formation in the Aramaic (see also Marcus 1942:39). Emerton (1985:151, n. 2) also notes that Speiser does not argue for a ProtoSemitic root beginning with ṯ (as Driver 1950:60 thinks), but that there were two Proto-Semitic roots, one beginning with š and one with ṯ. In that case שְׁבִיל may be cognate with a Proto-Semitic šblt without being cognate to the doublet ṯblt.

A.1 The form qtīl may be the result of a reduction of the a vowel in qatīl (BL:470 n), as in Aramaic, or a reduction of qitil (BL:471 s).

B.1 [nil].

A.1 שְׁבִיל is in apposition to דֶּרֶךְ, which is in an adverbial phrase modifying כשׁל hif (Jr 18.15).

A.2 The שְׁבִיל is the subject of a predicative בְּמַיִם רַבִּים ‘through mighty waters’ (Ps 77.20).

A.3 שְׁבִיל is governed by the verb הָלַךְ + ל (Sir 5.9 [MS C]).

A.4 שְׁבִיל in the plural is the nomen regens of עוֹלָם ‘eternity’ (Jr 18.15) כבוד ‘glory’ (1QH XV.15), חטאת ‘sin’ (4Q184 1 i 9), חט[אים ‘sinners’ (4Q266 2 ii 3).

B.1 The syntax of 4Q266 2 ii 3 is disputed. The phrase containing שׁבילי חט[אים does not appear in the parallel text CD ii 3, where there is a small vacat. In 4Q266 the reading published by Baumgarten on the basis of Milik’s transcriptions has the expression ומכול before שׁבילי‎ (1996:36), which requires the restoration of a verb. Baumgarten accordingly supplies אזיר אתכם ‘I will keep you apart’. If, however, a beth is read in place of the mem (ובבול), a confusion caused by the misreading of an ancient scribe or the possible reading of the unclear letter in the MS (so Hempel 1997:299, 301), there is no need for the addition of a verb, but the phrase would be in parallelism with בדרכי רשׁעים earlier in the sentence and be an adverbial phrase of אגלה אזנכם (‘I will uncover your ears … concerning the paths of sinners’).

τρίβος (Ps 77.20 [pl as Ketiv]; Aquila on Jr 18.15);

σχοῖνος (Jr 18.15);

ἀτραπός (Sir 5.9);

šḇilāʾ (Ps 77.20 [pl as Ketiv], Jr 18.15, Sir 5.9);

כִּבְשָׁא (Ps 77.20 [s as Qere]);

שְׁבִילָא (Jr 18.15);

semita (Ps 77.20 [pl as Ketiv]; Jr 18.15);

via (Sir 5.9).

A.1 In Ps 77.20 שְׁבִיל is translated by τρίβος , a word chosen for the translation of other lexemes in the semantic field, including דֶּרֶךְ ( Is 3.12, Pr 2.20, 30.19ba). Tidwell suggests that at Jr 18.15 we have the curious translation σχοῖνος since in the following colon τρίβος is used to render נְתִיבָה ‎(1980:6566). This does not, however, clarify the meaning of σχοῖνος (see B.1). Perhaps σχοῖνος denotes a translation of the Hebrew חֶבֶל (often rendered in the LXX by σχοινίον, e.g. 2Sm 8:2), arising from a misreading of שְׁבִיל (so BH). The choice of the lexeme ἀτραπός by the Greek translator of Sir 5.9 is apposite, since in Greek it denotes both a ‘(small) path’ and a metaphorical ‘way of life’ (LSJ:272).

A.2 On the two occasions that דֶּרֶךְ is paired with שְׁבִיל, דֶּרֶךְ is translated by ὁδός (Tidwell 1980:66).

A.3 The Targum to Jr 18.15 qualifies its rendering of שְׁבִיל as שׁבילין תקנין ‘straight paths’.

B.1 A problematic reading in the LXX is the translation of שְׁבִיל ‘path’ at Jr 18.15 by the Gr σχοῖνος (Aquila here renders the noun by τρίβος ). A σχοῖνος is a ‘rush’ or ‘reed’ and it is not easy to see how it came to be used of שְׁבִיל. σχοῖνος is also a land measure used in Egypt (e.g. Hdt II 6), a meaning that is possible, if stilted, in the context. Lust et al. glosses it as ‘measure (of length)’ (Lexicon&nbsp;:466) for its occurrence here. In Root and Comparative Material A.4, it was noted that Dorsey saw that the common meaning underlying words from the root šbl was the idea of sprouting. It may be that the LXX translator’s rendering σχοῖνος , a ‘reed’ was a recognition of this association between lexemes apparently from that root. One may compare the cognates of Eth sabel, Arm שׁוּבַּלתָּא, Syr šeḇletāʾ, all meaning ‘ear of grain’, and the Heb שִׁבֹּלֶת. σχοῖνος may also be used of something that is twisted (such as a rope), a meaning that could underlie the root סָלַל in מְסִלָּה and מַסְלוּל. The idea of twisting has also been proposed by Dahood for שְׁבִיל ‘a twisting path, trail’ (1962:209), for its possible cognates שִׁבֹּלֶת ‘a meandering river or stream’ and שֹׁבֶל ‘a garment that wraps around the body (Wickelkleid)’ (see Introduction, Text Doubtful B.1).

B.2 Wutz (1933:493) suggests that the LXX translation σχοῖνος at Jr 18.15 implies the reading שׁכולי and that דֶּרֶךְ should be read as דרב.

A.1 [See דֶּרֶךְ].

A.2 שְׁבִיל is paired in the MT only with דֶּרֶךְ among the road words (Tidwell 1980:56), דֶּרֶךְ taking the position of the A-word of the pair in both cases (ibid.:57).

B.1 Koch says that שְׁבִיל stands in parallelism with נְתִיבָה at Jr 18.15 (1977:299), but it is in fact with דֶּרֶךְ.

A.1 The main disputes concerning the meaning of שְׁבִיל are whether it denotes a metaphorical or a physical path (or both) and whether it is of a particular size or importance. HAL (1295) merely glosses it as ‘Pfad’, which suggests that it may be of a smaller size than other lexemes in the field that are rendered by ‘Weg’ (e.g. אֹרַח ,דֶּרֶךְ), but that is dependent on whether it is considered to be a physical path or not. BDB (987) glosses it as ‘way, path’, but indicates that in Jr 18.15 it denotes a ‘course of life’ . It is not clear from this whether BDB takes Ps 77.20, therefore, as physical. Zorell indicates the variety of its meanings with the glosses ‘semita, callis, iter‘ (816), and Alonso Schökel (721) gives the two meanings ‘senda’ (for Jr 18.15) and ‘vado’ (Ps 77.20).

A.2 שְׁבִיל in ancient Hebrew (including Qum and Sir) probably only denotes a ‘course’ (Ps 77.20, Sir 5.9) or a ‘way [of life]’ (1QH XV.15, 4Q184 1 i 9, 4Q266 2 ii 3), and it does not denote a physical path (except possibly at Jr 18.15; see B.2 below), a meaning for שְׁבִיל that is, however , attested in RH. Whether this sense existed in ancient Hebrew but is not attested or whether in RH it is a derivative from the ancient uses we cannot be sure, but it seems more likely that it already existed and is simply not attested in our sources. There is no ancient indication of its size or importance, but if the evidence of RH is to be taken as an indicator of its use earlier, it would seem to have been a path or other small route. In m.Peah 2.1 a שְׁבִיל is actually differentiated from a דֶּרֶךְ as being the smaller of the two (cf. m.Toharot 5.1; see Root and Comparative Material A.5). In its metaphorical uses (i.e. ‘way [of life]’ ), however, there would be no distinction in size.

A.3 Holladay (1986:521) interprets the שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם in Jr 18.15 as the ways walked in infidelity to the Lord, rather than the ways prescribed by the Lord. He understands verse 15 as part of the description of the terrible state of the land facing the unfaithful, the ‘endless tracks’ (שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם) being paralelled by the ‘endless hissing’ in verse 16. Part of the hissing may be implied in the assonance of שְׁבִילֵי and סלוּלָה (Dahood 1986:525). McKane likewise takes the paths to be the apostasy followed by Israel, and the stumbling to be caused by the influence of idols on their way (1986:433). Bright (1965:124), on the other hand, thinks that the שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם in Jr 18.15 are the paths prescribed by the Lord and translates the expression as ‘tracks of old’. He sees the diction of Jr 6.16, נְתִיבוֹת עוֹלָם (‘paths of old’), which refer to the paths laid out by the Lord for covenantal obedience, as the background for Jr 18.15. Holladay considers the immediate context of Jr 18 first and argues that 6.16 may only be relevant as an ironic contrast (1986:525). However, most commentators agree with Bright and take שְׁבִיל here to be the path prescribed by God for the ordering of the nation’s life (e.g. Nicholson 1973:157; Carroll 1986:376).

A.4 In the light of Holladay’s interpretation, לֹא סְלוּלָה should be understood as pejorative (1986:525), suggesting that the roads are overgrown. This need not mean that a שְׁבִיל is always something of a lesser status or quality.

A.5 In Ps 77.20 God’s שְׁבִיל is said to be בְּמַיִם רַבִּים ‘through mighty waters’, and, as דֶּרֶךְ in that verse, probably designates a course of travel across the sea. This is also suggested by the statement later in the verse that his עִקְּבוֹת (‘footprints’ ) are not known (Dorsey 1991:236), implying that it is not a physical road.

A.6 At Qum שְׁבִיל always appears in the construct plural (1QH 7.15, 4Q184 1 i 9, 4Q266; cf. Jr 18.15). The nouns following all denote that it is to be taken in a metaphorical sense. In 4Q184 1 i 9 it is part of a list of lexemes each denoting the ways of ‘Lady Folly’.

A.7 In Sir 5.9 (MS C) שְׁבִיל is found in the singular, but is preceded by כל, denoting ‘all’ or ‘every’. There too it does not denote a physical road, but a course of travel. It is in parallelism with רוּחַ ‘wind’, and although it appears to denote a physical course of direction, it is used in a simile for proper behaviour.

A.8 The adverbial usage of בשׁביל ‘for the sake of’, known from RH (see Root and Comparative Material A.5) is already found in Mur 47.4, but the date and the context are unclear owing to the damaged state of the manuscript (Milik 1961:167).

B.1 Koch correctly notes that in the OT (he inaccurately says in Hebrew) שְׁבִיל never denotes a physical (he speaks of the foreground sense) stretch of road (1977:299), but only a course of travel or way of life. He adds that if one were to infer such a meaning then it would denote a prepared and well-known road, and not a path, in view of its contrast to נְתִיבָה in Jr 18.15. This seems unlikely for several reasons. In the first place he states that it never has the foreground sense in Hebrew, which indicates that he is thinking only of Biblical Hebrew, since such a sense occurs in RH, and in particular it seems to mean there a ‘path’. Second, he understands נְתִיבָה to denote a ‘path’ and not anything larger such as a ‘road’, an error found in many lexica (see נְתִיבָה/נָתִיב). Third, he infers in Jr 18.15 that the שְׁבִיל and the נְתִיבָה are contrasted, although the contrast seems to be between עוֹלָם and לֹא סְלוּלָה.

B.2 Dorsey takes the various roads mentioned in Jr 18.15 to be physical, and from this infers that a שְׁבִיל was a ‘road or beaten track’ (1991:236). He adds that עוֹלָם probably indicates that the road was ancient, ‘and therefore well established’. Although the verse does speak of stumbling and walking in roads, it is an allusion to their choosing the wrong metaphorical paths, and hence it is unclear to what extent designations such as עוֹלָם and לֹא סְלוּלָה should be taken literally. Craigie et al. say that סְלוּלָה is a ‘highway’ and that there is a contrast drawn in the verse between a pathway and a built-up highway (1991:249). They seem to be influenced by the translation of the RSV (cf. LXX) in rendering the adjective as a noun, and place great emphasis on the verb סָלַל as denoting the preparation of a main road. The meaning of סָלַל and precisely what it denotes when applied to roads is a matter of dispute (see מְסִלָּה Root and Comparative Material).

In ancient Hebrew שְׁבִיל is only attested in poetry and probably only denotes a way of life. Its use in RH for a physical path of a small size may attest to a meaning that has not survived in our ancient sources, but was known in ancient Hebrew. The root of שְׁבִיל cannot be decided with any certainty.

Albright, W.F. 1947. The Phoenician inscription of the tenth century B.C. from Byblos. JAOS 67:153-60.

Baumgarten, J. 1996. Qumran Cave 4, XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266273) [DJD XVIII] (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Beeston, A. 1979. Hebrew šibbolet and šobel. JSS 24:175-77.

- - - - -. 1988. šibbōlet: A further comment. JSS 33:259-61.

Blau, J. 1977. ‘Weak’ phonetic change and the Hebrew śin. HAR 1:67-119.

Bright, J. 1965. Commentary on Jeremiah [AB 21]. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday).

Carroll, R.P. 1986. Commentary on Jeremiah [Old Testament Library] (London: SCM Press).

Craigie, P.C, P.H. Kelley & J.F. Drinkard. 1991. Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25 [WBC 26] (Dallas, Texas: Word Books).

Dahood, M. 1962. Philological notes on Jer 18, 1415. ZAW 74:207-209.

- - - - -. ²1973. Commentary on Psalms II: 51100 [AB 17] (Garden City, New York: Doubleday).

Dozy, R.P.A. ³1967. Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes (Leyde/Paris: Brill/G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose).

Dorsey, D.A. 1991. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel [The ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology] (Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press).

Drower, E.S. & R. Macuch. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Driver, G.R. 1950. Problems of the Hebrew text and language. In H. Junker & J. Botterweck (eds.). Alttestamentliche Studien Friedrich Nötscher zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet (Bonn: P. Hanstein), 46-61.

Emerton, J.A. 1985. Some comments on the Shibboleth incident (Judges XII 6). In A. Caquot, S. Légasse & M. Tardieu (eds.). Mélanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor [Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215] (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag), 149-57.

Faber, A. 1992. Second harvest: šibbōleq revisited (yet again). JSS 37:1-10.

Fraenkel, S. 1905. Zu Zeitschrift 58, s. 954 z. 6. ZDMG 59:252.

Gibson, J.C.L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions: Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Hempel, C. 1997. The text of 4QD^a (4Q266) 2 ii 3. RQ 18:299-301.

Hendel, R.S. 1996. Sibilants and šibbōlet (Judges 12:6). BASOR 301:69-75.

Holladay, W.L. 1986. Commentary on Jeremiah I: Chapters 125 [Hermeneia] (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Jones, D.R. 1992. Commentary on Jeremiah [NCB] (London/Grand Rapids: Marshall Pickering/Eerdmans).

Koch, K. 1977. Article דרך in TWAT 2:288-312.

Kutscher, E.Y. 1967. Mittelhebräisch und Jüdisch-aramäisch im neuen Koehler-Baumgartner. In B. Hartmann, E. Jenni & E.Y. Kutscher (eds). Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburstag von Walter Baumgartner [ VTS 16] (Leiden: Brill), 158-75.

Lemaire, A. 1985. L’incident du sibbolet (Jg 12,6): perspective historique. In A. Caquot, S. Légasse & M. Tardieu (eds). Mélanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor [Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215] (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag), 275-81.

Leslau, W. 1958. Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon [University of California Publications in Semitic Philology 20] (Berkeley: University of California).

- - - - -. 1938. Lexique Soqotri-Sudarabique Moderne. Avec Comparaisons et Explications Étymologiques [Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 41] (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck).

Lust, J., E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie; with the collaboration of G. Chamberlain 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Part II KW . (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).

Marcus, D. 1992. Ridiculing the Ephraimites: The Shibboleth incident (Judg 12:6). Maarav 8:95105.

Marcus, R. 1942. The word šibbolet again. BASOR 87:39.

Marquart, J. 1888. šibbōlet = ephraimitisch sibbōlet = śibbōlet?. ZAW 8:151-55.

McKane, W. 1986. Commentary on Jeremiah, Vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV [ICC] (Edinburgh: T & T Clark).

Milik, J.T. 1961. Textes hébreux et araméens. 65205 in P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, and R. De Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât [DJD 2] (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Muraoka, T. & B. Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic [Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abteilung 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 32] (Leiden/New York: Brill).

Newsom, C.A. 1985. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition [Harvard Semitic Studies 27] (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press).

Nicholson, E.W. 1973. Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25 [Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Rendsburg, G.A. 1988a. More on Hebrew šibbōlet. JSS 33:255-58.

- - - - -. 1988b. The Ammonite Phoneme /T/. BASOR 269:73-79.

Sauer, G. 1971. Article דרך in THAT 1:456-60.

Schulthess, F. 1903. Lexicon Syropalaestinum, Adiuvante Academia Litterarum Regia Borussia (Berlin: G. Reimer).

Speiser, E.A. 1967. The Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6). In J.J. Finkelstein & M. Greenberg (eds.). Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E.A. Speiser (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 143-50.

Strugnell, J. The angelic liturgy at Qumran 4QSerek šīrīt ʿōlat haššabbāt. In Congress Volume (Oxford, 1959) [VTS 7] (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 318-45.

Swiggers, P. 1981. The word šibboleṯ in Jud. XII.6. JSS 26:205-207.

Tidwell, N. 1980. A road and a way. A contribution to the study of word-pairs. Semitics 7:50-80.

Torrey, C.C. 1925. The Ahiram inscription of Byblos. JAOS 45:269-79.

Tropper, J. 1997. Die šibbolet-Falle (Richter 12,6). ZAH 10:108-10.

Wehr, H. ³1971. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J.M. Cowan. Wiesbaden.

Wutz, F. 1933. Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronumus [BWAT 9, II] (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer).