9. Thou hast put heart into me, &c. This extraordinary amount of strength and courage which he feels, to enable him to rescue her from the abode of the lion, and to lead her safely home, has been infused into his heart, he says, by the sight of his beloved one. So the Anonymous Oxford Manuscript, ‏שבשביל אהבתך נתגברתי ונבוא לי לב חדש שיש לי כח ללחם עם האריות והנמרים‎. As the Piel has sometimes an intensive, and sometimes a privative meaning (see Gesen. § 52, 2; Ewald, § 120), a difference of opinion exists as to the signification of ‏לִבֵּב‎ here. The Sept. has ἐκκαρδίωσας ἡμᾶς, thou hast unhearted us; the Vulg. Vulnerasti cor meum; Ibn Ezra, ‏לקחת לבי‎, thou hast taken away my heart; Gesenius, De Wette, &c. adopt this rendering. Against this however it is urged, that it is incompatible with the context. The beloved here accounts for his extraordinary strength and courage, which would enable him to rescue his beloved one from her critical position; and to say, “Thou hast deprived me of all heart,” would be a positive contradiction. To be in such an unusually courageous frame, the individual must have been full of heart, and not disheartened. Hence Herder, Ewald, Döpke, Lee, Meier, &c., translate ‏לִבַּבְתִּנִי‎, thou hast put heart into me; thou hast made me bold. This is confirmed by Sym., Syriac, Arabic, and Chald. ‏אַחוֹתִי‎, my sister, does not imply that the betrothed was related to her beloved, but is used as an expression of endearment, Prov. vii. 14; Tobit vii. 12; the Apoc. Esth. xv. 8, and soror in Latin. Good’s rendering of ‏אַחֹתִי כַלָּה‎ by my sister-spouse, and his remark that the pronoun “my” between the two substantives, being a useless interpretation of the versions, are gratuitous. ‏כָּלָּה‎ has no suffix here, not because it is to be joined with ‏אֲחֹתי‎, but because this word, like ‏אָב‎ in Chald., never takes the suffix 1 pers.; and versions therefore made in languages whose idioms allow of the suffix are right in so expressing it.