kazav

The lexica agree on the core sense of the noun (a lie, a false or deceptive thing) while registering a distinctive nuance of non-fulfillment. BDB divides the related verb into lying and disappointing/failing, and HALOT registers something that proves deceptive or disappointing as an independent sub-sense of the noun (Prov 23:3; Isa 28:17). This nuance was worked out by M. A. Klopfenstein (Die Luge nach dem Alten Testament, 1964; summarized in his TDOT article), who set kazav within a field with sheqer (covenant and legal breach), kachash (dissembling and denial), and shav (emptiness and nullity), arguing that kazav's contribution is the note of a claim measured by whether it holds true. Later scholarship (NIDOTTE, Grisanti) follows the distinction while treating the terms as overlapping ranges. The Septuagint generally levels the whole family under the pseudos word-group, though it varies its rendering when the subject is God or a divine vision. Etymology is a separate, unsettled question: Akkadian shows kazabu I (to be attractive) alongside a sparsely attested kazabu II (to lie), and CAD, AHw, and HALOT treat them as two distinct roots, while a minority tradition (e.g. Held) seeks to unify them; this etymological debate does not affect the settled meaning of the Hebrew noun.