A comment on the Codex Bononiensis

In the Codex Bononiensis, which has now been thoroughly edited by Carla Falluomini, ZfdA 143 (2014), p. 281–305. On p. 300 she renders 1r, l. 7-9 as follows:

7 aiwa∙ inuh þis jah sa audaga praufetus da
8 weid ar./.a leika bikausjands kuni manne du
9 ...d ize f(rauj)in∙ jah skapa [h]ropeiþ qiþanda∙ na

The sentence Inuh þis jah sa audaga praufetus daweid ar./.a leika bikausjands kuni manne du...d ize f(rauj)in is despite the reading problems around du...d ize f(rauj)in in its structure clear: sa praufetus daweid bikausjands kuni manne 'the prophet David probing mankind'.
The praufetus daweid is specified by audaga 'blessed', which leaves the sequence ar./.a leika.
Now leika could be a dat.sg. of the substantive leik n. a-st. 'body'; however in this case the sequence ar./.a cannot be analyzed (the dat.sg.n. of an adjective is not possible, because this ends in -amma). If leika is not a substantive it can only be a case form of the adjective (-)leiks. In this case it is apparent that it is a weak nom.sg.m., parallel to audaga. If this is accepted, the complete sequence ar./.a leika is best seen as a compound, so as ar./.aleika.
I would now like to propose that this should be read as arbjaleika, nom.sg.m. (wk.) of arbjaleiks* adj. a-stem < PGmc. *arƀialīka- (continued in OHG arblīh, MHG erb[e]lich, G erblich, MLG ervelīk, MDu. erfelijc, Du. erfelijk; cf. EWA 1, 318). It is then the second specifier of sa praufetus daweid, that could refer to the fact that David is not the hereditary king but assigned as king to be the heir of Saul (cf. 2Samuel 5:2-4: 2 Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. 3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years).
After personal communication with Falluomini she proposes as possible readings arbsaleika or arbialeika. So, if this interpretation is followed, an error <i> for *<j> must be accepted. I do not see that as a insurmountable problem.

Comments on this idea are very welcome.