Skip to main content

Full text of "[untitled] The Jewish Quarterly Review, (1893-04-01), pages 497-499"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

Critical Notices. 497 

clearly call for emendation, but have received no treatment : xiv. 2, 
20, 22 — 33 ; xx. 2, 6 ; xxi. 5 ; xxii. 9 ; xx'tii. 4 ; xxvii. 5 ; xxviii. 2 ; 
xxxi. 2. 

It might appear from the above criticism that the Ethiopic text must 
compare very unfavourably with that preserved in the Gizeh MS. 
But this is by no means the case ; and herein I can agree heartily 
with Prof. Dillmann, my master in these studies. From an exhaustive 
comparison of the two texts, I have arrived at the following con- 
clusion, that the Ethiopic preserves a more ancient and trustworthy 
form of text than the Gizeh MS. ; that it has fewer additions, fewer 
omissions, and f enter and less serious corruptions than that text. This 
conclusion I hope to substantiate at some length in my work on 
Enoch, which will appear in May. 

This result, in conclusion, is in perfect harmony with the external 
history of the Gizeh Greek text and the Eth. version. The former 
cannot be earlier than the eighth century, and may be as late as the 
twelfth. It is possible, therefore, that it is a descendant of the third or 
still remoter degree from the common Greek parent of the two texts. 
This of itself would account for some of the corruptions ; but the real 
explanation of its vicious orthography and syntax and of its very 
numerous and serious corruptions is that the Book of Enoch was from 
the fifth century onward practically a proscribed book, and under the 
ban of the Greek and Latin Churches. Accordingly, it was copied with- 
out care, and the way was opened for every kind of depravation of the 
text. The Eth. version (circ. 500 ad.), on the other hand, was, so 
far as we know, regarded from the first as a canonical book of the 
Old Testament in the Ethiopic Church, and thus it was transmitted 
with the greatest care and accuracy through successive copies till the 
sixteenth century. After this date the text suffered much from 
ignorant corrections. 

K. H. Charles. 

Beitr'dye zur Geschichte der Bibelexegese. Heft 1 des Gregorius Abul- 
farag,gen. Bar-Hebrdus, Scholien zum Buche Daniel. Herausgege- 
ben, iibersetzt und mit Ammerkungcn versehen, von Dr. Jacob 
Fkeimann. Briinn, 1892. Epstein & Co., pp. 74. 

Zur Geschichte der Exegese. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Enlangung 
der Philos. Doctormiirde, etc., von Immanuel Plato. Halle, 
1892, pp. 54. 

The two little books form a welcome contribution to the history of 
Biblical exegesis, although they refer to the comparatively late period 
of the 13th and 14th centuries. These two men were even to some 

498 The Jeurish Quarterly Review. 

extent contemporaries, as Immanuel seems to have been in his teens 
when Abul-Farag died, in the year 1286. The commentaries of the 
Jacobite author are distinguished from most of his Christian pre- 
decessors by his more independent and altogether scientific method. 
The Syriac literature was indeed already on the decline when Abul- 
Farag composed his Magazine of Mysteries, as his Biblical commentaries 
are styled. Even if it is not his most important work, still it has its 
significant grammatical and lexicographical features, and also other- 
wise furnishes interesting matter. To those volumes of the Magazin, 
already existing in print, Dr. Freimann has added the edition of the 
scholia to [the Syriac version of] Daniel. Although B. H. was igno- 
rant of the Hebrew language, in the present instance this was of less 
consequence, as the largest part of the book is written in Aramaic. 
He seems, however, to have been unaware of this fact, otherwise he 
might perhaps have left us some interesting information. Thus the 
exegetical value of these scholia is comparatively small. On the other 
hand, we find here again notable remarks on the orthography, especi- 
ally the differences between the Jacobite and Nestorian spelling. 
Almost at the beginning, e.q., he draws attention to the difference 
between Jacobite qyarntha and Nestorian qyamta (cp. Duval, Traite 
de Grammaire Syriaque, p. 117). Similar remarks, also referring to the 
vocalisation, are appended to many other verses. In II., v. 4, B. H. 
observes the difference made by the Jacobites between ardmdye, "Ara- 
maeans " and armdye, "heathens," which the Nestorians neglect 
(Duval, p. vi.). In other places he notices varice lectiones of the Syriac 
versions, e.g., II. 40, ppHD for p~m, etc., etc. References to Chris- 
tianity which he finds in some verses we must take cum grano salis. 
As appendix to his commentary B. H. gives a chronological table, re- 
presenting the " seventy weeks of years.'' Beginning with Nebukad- 
nezar, B. H. gives in one column the number of the years of the 
government of each king, in a second the dates according to the 
Seleucide era, and in a third a summary of the events of each ruler 
down to Vespasian. 

Dr. Freimann's edition is carefully prepared, and the translation, 
which is accompanied by annotations, shows that he thoroughly 
mastered his subject. 

The treatise of Dr. Plato, although dealing with a kindred subject, 
is of entirely different character. He endeavours to introduce as 
Biblical interpreter a man with whom we are familiar as a graceful, 
though often frivolous, Hebrew poet and imitator of Dante. Through 
De Rossi and later scholars, such as Zunz and Steinschneider, we have 
received much information concerning Immanuel's comprehensive 
exegetical labours, of which, however, only his commentary on the 
Proverbs and a few other fragments exist in print. Although the 

Critical Notices. 499 

author of this Commentary on the Proverbs is, according to the title- 
page, Immanuel b. Jacob, Dr. Plato proves that it belongs to our 
Immanuel (b. Salomo). The little book, which as yet does not give any 
specimen of Immanuel's exegesis, is a forerunner of a longer work 
which is to contain his Commentary on Lamentations, accompanied by 
expositions on his attitude to Biblical interpretation and by remarks 
on the various ways of treating the holy text in the Talmudical and 
post-Talmudical epochs. Dr. Plato thus confines himself for the 
present to giving a sketch of Immanuel's life, in which many points 
still require elucidation. The author shows sound judgment in not 
drawing hasty conclusions from the uncertain data which exist with 
regard to Immanuel's birth. With reference to Immanuel's widely 
discussed personal relations to Dante, I am, with Dr. Plato, of opinion 
that the mysterious words in the 28th maqamah do not refer to the 
poet of the Divine Comedy. Neither can I follow the opinion of those 
who see in the words my brother Daniel a real brother or kinsman; nor 
that of Dr. Plato, who refers them to the Prophet Daniel, from the 

passage:— Tma •>"?& sip i2w * »mx ns< "is^i nox *ivi3 ynan ncx 
inVna rural • Tin n»K>Ji naa «n • two by y#a vnpn nu rv 

irDJHDI 17113*131, it seems rather that the poet alludes to a person 
of the name of Daniel who had acted as his benefactor, and had 
given him protection and material help. It well suits the poet to 
express himself in such overflowing words as in the passage referred to. 
Both books give evidence of industry and the honest endeavour to 
work scientifically, and we are justified in expecting that the further 
productions of their authors will be useful for students. 


II 2