Note 250 — Chapter VI · SUPPLEMENTARY ON QUESTIONS OF DATE AND ORIGIN.

This is a little too strong. We should certainly have expected melek Lemuel (or Lemoel) rather than Lemuel melek, on the analogy of melek Yārēb, Hos. v. 13, x. 6. As it stands in the text, melek (after Lemuel, and without the article) can only be a definition of class. The Lemuel spoken of was quite unknown to the reader, and therefore the editor appends the descriptive title ‘king.’ Comp. Ex. xxxii. 11, where Joshua, son of Nun, being introduced for the first time, is described as na’ar ‘a squire.’