“The Haughtiness of the Priesthood” (Isa 65,5) 239 = “because I am holy” without an object. The Syriac form çdqm ana çdqmd may support a Piel rather than a Paal in its Vorlage, but it could also show dependence on the LXX (11). TJ renders the saying as ˚nm anykd ana yra, understanding the object suffix as a matter of comparison, i.e., “holier than you”, as does Symmachus: aJgiwvterov" sou. Finally, the Latin translation found in Origen’s Hexapla reads sanctus sum tibi = “I am holy for you”, which supports an understanding of the Hebrew text as taking a dative “with reference to you, I am holy”. The standard Vulgate text differs drastically from the other major versions with its reading quia immundus es = “because you are unclean”. This, however, is probably an interpretation rather than evidence of a different Hebrew Vorlage. To sum up, the understanding of the verbal suffix as an indirect object is supported by most of the ancient translations, either understanding it as a dative (holy to/ for you) or as a comparative (holier than you). Looking at how different scholars have understood this expression, we find that most mediaeval commentators advocate the latter sense, i.e. they understand the verbal suffix in a comparative sense. For example, Rashi writes ˚mm rtwy ytrhfw ytçdq yk and Radak and Ibn Ezra interpret ˚mm çwdq yna. In support of the idea of an intransitive verb taking an object suffix, Ibn Ezra compares ˚ytçdq with Jer 10,20 ynwaxy. In contrast, several early critical scholars render the verbal suffix as a dative. For example, Gesenius–Kautzsch compare ˚ytçdq with Zech 7,5 yna yntmx µwxh = “did you fast at all for me” and with Job 31,18 bak ynldg = “he grew up to me as to a father”, where the indirect object is directly subordinated in the form of an accusative suffix (12). In this context, Delitzsch draws attention to Jer 20,7 (yntqzj = “you overpowered me”, i.e. you were strong to me) and Isa 44,21 (ynçnt al = “you will not be forgotten by me”), where the verbal suffixes indicate the dative. In view of this, Delitzsch translates “Ich bin dir heilig d.i. unnahbar”, by which the speaker would mean that he is unapproachable (13). Along similar lines, Torrey translates “I am taboo for thee” (14). The Masoretic pointing is, however, not accepted by all commentators. For example, Geiger repoints the verb to a Piel and translates “bleibe bei dir, komm’ mir nicht zu nahe, sonst weihe ich dich”. In support of his repointing, he claims that the current punctuation is a result of the Pharisaic Halacha, which, seeking to “liberate” the text of any indication that holiness could be contagious, changed an original Piel to the now attested Qal (15). This (11) D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 50/2; Göttingen 1986) II, 454. (12) GKC, §117x. (13) F. DELITZSCH, Das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig 1889) 616. (14) C.C. TORREY, The Second Isaiah (New York 1928) 468. Other scholars supporting the MT are for example BARTHÉLEMY, Critique, II, 454, J.A. EMERTON, “Notes on the Text and Translation of Isaiah XXII 8-11 and LXV 5”, VT 30 (1980) 446-450, who translates “for I am holy to thee” i.e. “for I am too sacred for you”, S. ACKERMAN, Under Every Green Tree. Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta, GA 1992) 167, n. 11, B. SCHRAMM, The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Reconstruction of the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSS 193; Sheffield 1995) 157, and SMITH, Rhetoric, 137, n. 31. (15) GEIGER, Urschrift, 56, 172-173.