Actually such an opinion, to which we subscribed without reserve in our previous study, could only be half a truth. There exists in fact the Hebrew root ''SHUBH ''which is very interesting for our purposes, even if nobody – as far as we know – ever recognised any inter-linguistic relation between it and the two Arabic roots which we are dealing with. W.L. Holladay, for example, when surveying in chapter I of his ''Theroot SHUBH in the Old Testament, ''various instances of ''the root in cognate languages'', records the verb ''tawaba ''which ''occurs in classical Arabic in a great variety of meanings, some of them paralleling Hebrew usage. According to Lane’s ''Lexicon ''<ref>E.W. LANE, ''An Arabic-English Lexicon'', repr. New-York 1955, I, 1, p.361 ff. </ref>the verb in the first form has the meaning ‘he returned to a place to which he had come before’, exactly the central meaning which we shall assign to ''shùbh''; then, after having remembered two further uses of the verb in the IV form (causative) and in the X form (reflexive), he reckons among the ''less assured proposals'' a Jacob Barth’s suggestion, according to which ''the adjectives ''sobhàbh'', ''sobhèbh ''‘disloyal, faithless’, and the noun ''meshùbhà ''‘faithlessness’, are to be distinguished from the Semitic root ''twb'', and to be rather connected with the Arabic root ''s’b''=''syb'', ‘free, untrammeled’ '' <ref>J. BARTH, ''Wurzeluntersuchungen zum Hebraischen und Aramaischen Lexicon'', Leipzig 1902, p.48 f.. </ref>.
