308 Kevin McGeough midwives may have deposited newborns… I incline toward theory (a), since the evidence for (c) is scant and, were (b) correct, we would expect “between” the two stones” (5). But approach (a) also has difficulties. Nowhere else does Hebrew literature call testicles “stones”. More important, the context suggests that both boys and girls possess or are associated with ’obnayim. Note that to determine sex, the midwives “look upon, inspect” (ra’a ’al) rather than simply see (ra’ ’et) the ’obnayim. This suggests a fourth explanation: “two stones” are pudenda in general. Propp’s comments demonstrate that in spite of the relative standardization of translation choices amongst English language Bibles, there is still considerable difficulty in determining the meaning of this word. Propp’s suggestions provide more problems than are solved. Of difficulty first is his declination of ’obnayim as a dual of ’eben. Propp himself acknowledges that this is not the expected form. Therefore, Propp’s suggestion based on Durham’s 1987 suggestion “testicles” — inspired by the old English idiomatic use of “stones” for testicles cannot be upheld. Beyond this basic issue, other problems are apparent (6). Propp favors an understanding of the passage, where the midwives are explicitly told to look at the genitalia of the child to determine whether the child needs be killed or not. This does fit the context of the verse. As shall be demonstrated later, Propp is incorrect in asserting that there is minimal evidence that babies were rested upon birthbricks immediately following birth — this is a relatively well-attested practice, which shall be discussed below. Likewise, as shall be demonstrated, Propp is incorrect in suggesting that the use of the preposition ’al is problematic; if taken as birthing equipment, the rendering “look upon the ’obnayim” is plausible. Within Propp’s discussion, no strong arguments against taking ’obnayim as birthing equipment can be identified. Propp concludes that ’obnayim must refer to external genitalia, male or female. It is difficult to reconcile this conclusion with the use of the term in Jeremiah. Before continuing the discussion of the word’s use in Exodus, it is important to discuss the use of the word in Jeremiah. In this situation, context demands reading ’obnayim as a type of equipment. (5) W. PROPP, Exodus 1–18 (New York 1999) 139. (6) See J. DURHAM, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX 1987) 12, for Durham’s argument.