Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on Prof. Jastrow's Edition of Hayyûḡ"

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 byJSTOR. 

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 


of these immortality may be taken as a crucial example. And again, 
some tilings might be said of the nation, which were not, at least 
so readily, said of the individual. Israel was Yahwe's "son" 
(Hos. xi. i): but did the individual Israelite so regard himself? 

The fact is. Prof. Robertson gives too much weight to Smend's 
claim that the Psalter wag the hymn-book of the second Temple. 
Putting that claim entirely out of sight, we are still left with the 
exegetical problem — How far does personification in our Psalter 
extend? We cannot escape the discussion, for personification is 
indisputably there (Psalm cxxix), and it would be manifestly absurd 
to ' limit its presence to the single Psalm, in which, by a happy 
chance, the peculiar rhythmic structure of the poem gives the author 
of the poem an opportunity for stating directly that he is personi- 
fying Israel (v. 1 b). A careful study of the Book of Lamentations 
will be found to be as good a preparation as any for approaching 
this difficult but important exegetical problem of the Psalter. 

That the titles imply an individualistic interpretation does not 
prove that the original meaning of the Psalm was individualistic. 
For we have many instances of writers individualizing manifestly 
general expressions. The " son " whom Yahwe called out of Egypt 
was unquestionably to Hosea the whole people of Israel : but the 
author of the first Gospel interprets the expression of Jesus (Matt. 
ii. 15); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 5-9) 
individualizes the purely general subject of the statements in 
Psalm viii. 5 f. 

G. Buchanan Gray. 


Goethe's saying that " old age possesses what youth wishes for " 
is, in all its true and melancholy significance, applicable to our 
study of Hebrew grammatical research during the Middle Ages. 
That which was eagerly wished for in that direction in the forties 
of the present century, when that study was still in its infancy, has 
been supplied in rich abundance during the two last decades. The 
works of the greatest master of the classical period of that branch 
of learning, Abulwalid Mervan Ibn Ganach, or at least so much 
of them as is still extant, are accessible to all, partly in the original 
Arabic, partly in Hebrew translations. And another work also, 
which was written towards the end of the tenth century, and which 
became the basis of a future grammatical science of the Hebrew 


language, lies now before us in its original Arabic garbK The 
writings of the "first grammarian," as Ibn Ezra calls its author, 
on the weak and geminative verbs, can be studied now in the very 
shape in which they exercised their extraordinary influence at a time 
when in Spain the newly-aroused mental activity plunged eagerly 
into the exploration of the laws of the forms of the Hebrew language. 
In the original Arabic we are struck by the clearness and conciseness 
of the work of Jehuda ben David Hayyfig, after having all along been 
obliged to be content with the two Hebrew translations. The latter, 
although the work of Moses ibn Gikatilla (edited by J. W. Nutt 
in 1870) and Abraham ibn Ezra (edited by L. Dukes in 1844), both 
masters of the subjects, has, however, been preserved only in a mutilated 
form, and afford, moreover, all those difficulties which are inseparable 
from an accurate study of Hayylig from translations. 

Prof. Jastrow, who in the first instance published a chapter of the 
original Hayyug in 1885 in Stade's Zeitschrift fur die aUtestamentliche 
Wissenschaft, has now the great merit of having for the first time 
made accessible to all students both above-named works in a splendid 
edition. (Hayyug's third book, the Kitab el-Tankit, has been edited 
before by Nutt.) His edition is based upon the only two complete 
MSS. extant, the property of the Bodleian Library at Oxford. A copy 
of these MSS. made by Neubauer, and belonging to the late 
Professor Magnus of Breslau, was utilized by me when I undertook 
the explanation of the Hayyug's grammatical terms Die grammatische 
Terminologie des Jehuda HajjUg, Vienna, 1882, in the Reports of the 
Philosophical- Historical Division of the Imperial Academy, vol. C, 
part 2. Jastrow was unable to make use of the numerous fragments 
of Hayyug's works existing in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg ; 
but the kindness and literary zeal of Professor Paul von Kokowzoff, 
who has become famous by his writings on subjects of Judaeo-Arabic 
literature, enabled our editor to embody in the work a large collection 
of various readings taken from those fragments. They form the 
conclusion of the Introduction (pp. xxxi-lxxxv), and are a valuable 
assistance towards a correct understanding of the text, besides being 
a contribution to its history. Kokowzoff collated with Jastrow's text 
not less than two large and twenty-five smaller fragments of the 
Petersburg Library, and noted down the various readings. It ought 
to have been observed that the additions to p. 27, 1. 14 (p. xxxix) 

' Abu Zakariyya Jahya Ibn DSwud from Fez, known as Hayyug : The 
Weak and Geminative Verbs in Hebrew. The Arabic text, now published for 
the first time by Morris Jastrow. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1897, pp. Ixxxv and 
271, 8vo, 


was taken from Abulwalid's Mustalhah {Opuscules, p. 15)'. Many 
of the variae lectiones reproduce the text as read by Ibn Ezra, 
e.g. those to 59. 4, 61. 18, 68. 9. 

Jastrow utilized the list of various readings for the purpose 
of correcting the errors that still remained in his text. With the 
aid of the various readings he corrects not only many erroneous 
passages, but we find in the list also the emendations of such 
errors as are due to an oversight of the editor's, and faults of the 
copyists. Nevertheless, many errors, and some of them important 
ones, remained in the text, which it is my intention to point out 
in the following pages. This is particularly necessary in regard 
to the Hebrew portions of Jastrow's text, particularly the quotations 
from the Bible ; the punctuation of the forms constructed by Hayyug 
for didactic purposes is often incorrectly rendered ; they are some- 
times left without any punctuation whatever, although a correct 
rendering of the latter is indispensable to a right understanding 
of Hayyug's meaning. In the latter direction I confine myself only 
to passages of real importance. 

Jastrow has treated the Arabic of his text with much greater care. 
He has edited his text in Arabic characters, although the MSS. are 
in Hebrew writing, which was, without doubt, used also by Hayyug 
himself. It is only in rare and unimportant cases that he does not 
transcribe a word (v. infra to 10. i sqq.), or transcribes it incorrectly 
(v. to 30. 9), or that he transcribes a Hebrew word into Arabic 
(v. to 30. 9, 37. 9) ; otherwise I found only very few inaccuracies 
of the Arabic text which have not been noted in the list of various 
readings (v. to 30. 8, 47. 9, 71. 9, 83. 13, 90. 6, 232. 3). 

Jastrow deserves thanks for marking chapter and verse of Hayyug's 
citations from the Bible ; and it is only in a few cases that he did 
not recognize the citation as such, which causes, of course, such 
passage to be misunderstood (v. infra 49. 12, 50. 3, 97. i, 166. 8, 191. 5). 

Jastrow describes in bold outlines the significance of Hayyug and 
his writings, and gives an account of his own labour as editor 
(pp. vii-xxx). I communicated some observations on the Introduction 
in the Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, April 16, 1898 (n. 15, col. 587 sq.). 

My sole object in publishing the following notes is to make more 
complete the meritorious and praiseworthy work of the first editor 
of the Arabic Hayyug. This classical work of ancient research 
in the field of Hebrew grammar deserves to be cleared even of the 

' Cf. V. 1. to 178. 7. Taken from the Mustalhak are also the w. 11. to 
197. 9 (p. Ixx) [Opusc. p. 189], to 210. 18, vid. Opuscules, p. 170 ; to 237- 15, vid. 
Opuscules, p. 179. 


slightest impediments to its proper understanding, and to gain 
the amount of clearness and correctness aimed at by Hayyug 
in his works. 

Page 1. In the first six lines the rhymes of the piece written 
in rhymed prose ought to have been marked. 

P. 6, line 2. Read DTina for D^nna. 

10. I. For t*^ read li ; for NH read U. Hayyug designates the 
n, with or without dagesh, with the two corresponding Arabic 
letters. Similarly 1. 2 U ^1 Ij ; 1. 4 read uJtwl jl DVIDp U., thus 
it is in my copy. Similarly 1. 5 *—iu jl li. jjij (jfr=Heb. 5, ^). 

15. 5. For iT ''Ipl Ps. xxxvii. 9 read ''I V.ipl Is. xl. 31 *. For Hayyug 
gives instances of the same word being pronounced sometimes with 1 , 
sometimes \ He mentions as the last instance of the kind the 
passage in Isaiah, and then ''Ip Is. xlix. 23. 

23. 13. For OuiSj read oiSj. 

26. 13. Read UHNri. 

28. II. Read man; 1. 12^10??"?; 1. IS for »JL.lj read J-»lj. 
_ 30. 8. For '\y\ read i$y\ (Ibn Ezra translates JWJ inv ; Ibn 
Gikatilla pin ini'). Correct in the same way p. 64, 1. 19. 

lb. 9. For ^ read nns ; for Hayyug means the Hebrew name 
of the vowel-point. Pp. 32. 17, 33. 2, 58. 19 correctly nns. 

33. 4. Read tL;U-.0l. 

34.16. For T'E'p^ read f^M^r, 1. 17, for n3J?t<1 read nspKI. 
L. 20, for l^i^^^J read T'S'^^IJ, for Hayyfigdoes not mean the Hiphil, 
but the Piel, vid. p. 25, 1. 2 sqq. 

36. 5. For njnWri, with the allegation Job xxxix. 2, read '"'jn^^'Pl 
Ezek. xxiii. 40. Cf. 45. 20 and 91. 4, where Jastrow gives the 
correct points. 

37. 9. For uyjiil read nvJ)l . H. gives the Hebrew for exile, 
which in its Arabic form is written i:^^^.. 

40. 20. For <Ljii read JiS^, cf. 73. 4. The note (p. xliv) gives the 
V. 1. ^U^. 

45. 13. For '•nDn.l, on* read "•J!''?"! On^ For '?ni»V? read 'Jn^J^B. 

47. 9. For IjuxJl read \jm> . It is the term for the transitive 
verb (Ibn Ez. NVV, Ibn Gik. ^lj?a bx ISynD). Similarly alter 60. 8, 
65. 13. The word is punctuated correctly 189. 14. It occurs without 
punctuation with the article 195. 9 and 200. 9 tfXxil (vid. note to the 
latter passage p. Ixx). 

49. II. For '•JinSpa read *3Vibya, and for WID^ys (left unpunc- 

' According to the KerS, vid. Kimchi. 


tuated), ^J^npysn ; for these are the standaxd fonns for the biblical 
forms — ^JiriDS (Zech. vii. 5) and WW^yn (Num. xx. 5). Jastrow 
seems to have identified them with the forms supra 1. 10, and to have 
left them, therefore, without punctuation and allegation. 
50. 3. For ''PipiB' read WDiE' (Is. x. 13). L. 14, for llBB'n read 

52. 10. Read mov 

54. 6. To ''J1DE', compl. the citation Gen. xxviii. 20. Ibid. In t^y^N 
delete the Sheva. 

58. 12. The article 1p^ commences with the example ^^D^ "ip^ rtD 
(Ps.xxxvi. 8). Then follows nip'' (Is. xliii. 8). Therefore Hayyug did 
not read "l^J but IpJ . This was already observed by Abulwalid in his 
Lexicon, s. v. "ip^; who adds, however, that the reading "ip^, adopted 
by Hayyug in the Psalm, is erroneous. The same is referred to by 
Kimchi in his Lexicon, s. v. Ip'', at the commencement : min^ '"1 "OT 

nnina ti"ipn nsoa kxd •-^ni lay bvQ D^^i>^< ']iDn np^ no. 

59. 4. For D'hya read D''^J?'iS ; for D^Wp^ Jer. v. 26 has active 

61. I. For yiTl yTN read y^n VT^. 

63. 9; 64. 5. For -si read nns, v. supra 30. 9. 

64. 15. For nj^ya;:! read njSya^l For it is a question of 
M posited Piel. 

lb. 19. Vid. supra 30. 8. 

66. 4. The editor puts after ^^j^ a "sic" I I do not know what 
is meant by it. The meaning of the word is clear. Ibn Gik. 
translates it by D''11N^21 D''B'1"i''B ; it denotes explanations of all kinds 
with which Hayyug introduces the lexicological portions of his work. 
Of 67. II, 69.6, 87. 12, 131. 10. 

68. 13. For (J^U read (jJU. 

t ' o I 

71. 9. For ^\ read ^yK 

76. 10. Read "ipi-Jrin for Tllb'nn. 

80. 9. Read DIIO 5)310 2*f1D DfJID. 

81. II. For ^\ read nnall. 

82. 8. Read_^^'j (without Tashdid). Ibid. 1. 15, read 1313^1. 

86. 4. For niNJ read IIW. L. 13. The editor in his note (p. liv) 
expunges the former of the two words JJUl JLatil • But the second 
word should rather be removed. JLx-»l is correct, but still more correct 
would be %xi\. 

88. II. In la^DIN delete ■>. 

89. 7. Hayyug cannot possibly have written ^011? IIN. It should 
be read 'ri'l'iK "liN, as the supposed forms to which h^N (i Sam.xiv. 29) 


belongs. Hayyug himself saya later that n^N is the perfect, and 
a contracted form from "»^1N. Cf. 95. i, where ^rinil is correctly 
punctuated, but not so n^ for ni'H ; 98. 8 ^nit "lit has remained 
lb. 18. For niNn read IINH. 

T •• 

90. 5. For (^jS&Lfl read ^^sJ-a-* or ^jJ-a-o, as on 148. 6. L. 6 for 
4.*il read il-d' (partic). 

91. 15. rVVSi must be punctuated n^ys. 

93. 8. Delete IB'E'in^, and put in its place IB^n^ which appears 
at the beginning of the line, for the latter is the pausal form of 

lb. 20. For ^1 . irT read iLj-xji-il. 

94. 19. The editor observes in a note to xjj. a T c^ : k^\ (p. Iv) 
that the Petersburg MS. F "correctly omits JiJJ-iJ." But the word 
can be retained, and iaJL*.! be read instead of v:>jlx.^1. My copy 
of the Oxford MS. has riDpDS. 

95. 2. In the note (p. Iv) n^"in is corrected into D^'^r'- But the 
correct reading is DHn. 

lb. 10. Punctuate '•wn. 

lb. 12. For I'lIB' read i^^; for ^S"^, )\2 read ]n, m. 

lb. 15. For Pin read |nn. 

96. 10. Punctuate obiys. lb. last line but one, for '•nto^nn read 
•'n'iO\nn. Cf. the rale 'on 74. 4 sqq. 

97. I. For nao'inn read njO'nn. For naC'ipri Opn read njo'ipri Q-'pn, 
Jer. xliv. 25 (cf. 118. 17). 

lb. 5. For 'ni3''nn read '•rtrnn. L. 6, for 49. 9 read 49. 4. 

lb. 15. Delete Twl at the end of the line, 
lb. 20 and 21. For niJJt read nyiT, and for nyiT read niyt. 
99. I. For ^rf^^nn read •'niij''nn. L. 4, for v_»Lij read (_iftLaJ. 
L. 19, for TllK^nn read ^niB'''nn. 

107. 17. Delete the dagesh in JDini. The note to the word (p. Ivii) 
is incorrect ; for it is the supposed form of the word which is 
meant here, and not the one occurring in Isaiah lix. 14, and men- 
tioned before (1. 10). 

108. I. Read f\^^0 instead of ^b. 

109. II. Read ''nia'']tfn. 

110. 5. Read TlH^VO- L- 10, punctuate b^]}S. 

111. I. Add to m^jy, Hos. X. 9. L. 9 read ^rfS^yn. L. 17 read 

114. 5. For -\V read IBJ. 


115. 19. For I-IXI is; read 11^ ny. 

117. 8. For Njpri Nlp^ read JJipri NIpJ, or (as with K13) N^pn Kip>, 
119. 7. Bead n33in. L. 8 nnxn (Is. xxxii. 9) is corrected in the 
note to i^l.t^Ll. Several MSS. and printed copies are, however, 
mentioned in Ginsburg's Bible (p. 773), in which the N has a mere 

121. 4. Read DDiinK. 

122. 3 sq. Read '^IK'J, 15^. LI. 2 and 12, it is unnecessary to alter 

»JUl«, LJLi-» into s-Li-o, l^~l.i-«, as is done in the notes (p. Iviii). 

lb. 19 sq. The ' in the three posited forms, )b'?D\ )bb^, )22D\ 
must be punctuated with a Chirek, and not with a Pathach. 

123. II. Delete the second JJiT. 

124. 9. For J*''iril read pW. Hayyflg explained this spelling of 
the word (Judges ix. 53) without Yod on 78. 13 sqq. 

125. 13. For W"] read t^BH (without punctuation), for Hayyug 
means the root of the word. 

131. 19. For 'm^ 'mp^ read 'R^Ja 'm^. 
133. 18. For 'n^3K' read n''2^. 

136. 6. For iTpn nvrm read nnn HN-in (thus correctly punctuated 
on 140. 8-10). 

137. 19. Read nb^n. 

142. 10. Read mi' min ^^ *-5llj (thus Ibn Gik.,'n ;d ijjjisn Den) 
or '■• 'n |,-.lj (as in my copy). 

145. 14. For JjiLiJI read J.»fJl. 

146. 9. After wil the word p is missing (Ibn Gik., NSO* i6^ 'si>; 
Ibn Ezra, WNSD nh '3). 

148. 9. Read "310. 

150. 10, For njbx read n^jJN. 

151. 14. For nm^ read nriNJ. 

152. 10. jl is correct, and the remark in the note (p. Ixiii) super- 
fluous. Hayyug gives two explanations of the Kere and Ketib in 
Neh. vi. 8. Firstly, it can be assumed that the words were written 
according to their original forms, but were pronounced differently. 
They pronounced dTi3, but wrote DN113; but the form of the word 
was originally DN"!i3. Secondly, it can be assumed that some 
of them (the Hebrews as long as the language was a living one) 
pronounced DN1^3, and others D"l^3. When the text of the Bible 
was established, the one form was retained as the written form, 
whilst the other form was to be used in reading, so as not to allow 
anything in use in the living language to be lost. This is a theory 
about the Kere- Ketib system obtaining in the Massoretic critique 


similar to one set up by Ben Asher, who explains in this way several 
other biblical variations, e.g. the differences between 2 Sam. xxii 
and Ps. xviii, and those between the two decalogues. Cf. '•pHpT "iSD 
COyon, ed. Baer-Strack, p. 9, and the passage quoted there from 
the Commentary on the Pentateuch of Jehudah ben Balaam. This, 
it seems, was overlooked by our editor; otherwise he would have 
punctuated (1. 11) DXl^B, and not DKIU. 

153. 3. Hayyfig wrote in Lam. i. 2 nD3, and not S22 ; this reading 
is also otherwise attested (vid. Ginsburg's edition of the Bible). 

155. 2. For njy read iMV (the root only, without points). 

156.4. For n»r3 read .T13. 

^ T*: "'"• » 

157. 2. For n'ii'jn read ni?3n . L. 7 read ^5^1 . 

158. 16. Read Viann. 

161. I. Punctuate yWDlS . 

162. 18. For Nin^ read NinV The form KIH'' in Kohelet xi. 3 is 
also explained by Hayyug in accordance with the afore-mentioned 
theory. Some said in^ (from mn, like '"H^ from n\n), others Hin^ ; 
the latter form came into the text, the former was retained for the 

163. 16. For f\jt 31in read fpVff ilSn. 
164.4. Read y-Min. 

lb. 10. Before ^^"l^^<1 the words with which the passive forms are 
introduced are omitted, viz. dicli "L^ J (j\i\ J-«a11. (vid. Ibn 
Gikatilla's translation). As an instance of such passive form HSIT 
is given (Ezek. xvi. 34), and then the imperfect HSr formed. Jastrow, 
overlooking this, punctuates DJI^, which is meaningless. 

165. 4. For mtn} read mtDI. It is the supposed form, without 
BufiBxes, of the immediately following '•Jltni (2 Sam. xxii. 40). 

lb. 5. |,-<1 must be placed here, after JfJI. As evident from the 
note, the editor arbitrarily places it after ITy p'^n, because he only 
considers JV^n to be a noun and not ^3n. But it is incorrect; for 
Hayyfig actually considered ''in in Isa. xxvii. 20 to be a noun after 
the forms 'D"], ''3E', which words he quotes as examples. Vid. also 
Abulwalid's Lexicon, s. v. n3n. 

lb. II. Read nN>3m. 

166. 3. For ''n''in njn read ^n'^n HiH, for this verb has no Kal form. 
lb. 8. The editor suggests in the note (p. Ixiv) to read n3"in for 

n3"}n . But this rests on a misunderstanding. Hayyug cites the words 
n3"1l< n3"in from Gen. iii. 16, especially for the sake of the infinitive 
form n3"iri, as an analogy to '•njn^l (Job xiii. 12) explained by 'njnni. 

167. II. For the first n^ni read 'nvr\; 1. 12, for nn^nj read nn^m.' 


168. 10. For bl read b"^.. 

169. 19. For D'-'n read D'^n. 

171.7. For nripnn read nripPin. L. 19, punctuate wn?.. 

172. II. Punctuate nanv Before SlX\ JjLo insert ii<olU , although 
the word was already absent in Ibn Ezra's text. In Ibn Gikatilla 
(ed. Nutt, p. 79, 1. 2) the whole piece is omitted. It must be restored 
after the original: pE'^a NnHK' pn niB>3 lOT JIK'i' 1ID3 HDpJ |1E'^] 

ion ^jnan idS napj \^\ih[b] Nnn [nnpj jic'i'ai ^jyian id^ Nin isr. 

174 10. For nnnn read HFinn. L. 12, nnnn must be punctuated 

nrinri or nnrin. 

180. 16. There is no ground for the remark " sic " after ''nvS. 
Hayyiig quotes TINPa from Ps. cxix. 109, and observes, in regard to 
the reading without the N, that some pronounced the word with 
the N. TlNPa, and others "TlvS. It is the same view as mentioned 

J T T ' • T 

supra 152. 10. 

184. I. Punctuate HTO^ WTO nno. 

lb. 5. There is no ground for "sic" after i^;i5, for II ^^-J^S means 
" rarely." 

185. 6. For nK?D31 read DKPDi^. It is a supposed form, after the 
analogy of HE'D^ (Gen. viii. 7), which instance is quoted in explanation 
by Gikatilla. 

187. 3. For Vp»n read 1''D0ri, 

188. 13. For "Tl^n: read nnji This word, together with the two 
following words, are the quotation from Micah ii. 4. After that only 
follows the form of the first person ^nTIJ. For this the editor 
puts incorrectly "TT'TIJ, which is here meaningless, as it belongs to 
n'n (162. 2). 

191. 5. For Vtyy KIE'3 read NIB'^ NVb'J, Jer. x. 5. 

lb. 6 sq. The passage on iriDPD NCJ (2 Sam. v. 12) was explained 
by Abulwalid in Mustalhak (Opuscules, ed. Derenbourg, p. 157 sq.). 
Abulwalid notices here an error of Hayyug's, whose remark cannot 
refer to the passage in 2 Samuel, but only to the parallel passage 

in I Chron. xiv. 2 (inu^D n^yci? nmi '•3). 

193. 4. For NB'JI read ilE'Jl. This is also the correct reading in 
1 Eings viii. 15. In Hayyug also tS' must be written, as he adduces 
the instance under the root nB'3. 

lb. II. For nriD read nnp. The Kal of this form does not occur. 

195. 21. Hayyug quotes Num. viii. 3, HTinj DN n7J>n. The note 
(p. Ixix) says, "erase DN." Both translators have, however, DN. 
Two MSS. of Kennicott also have the word. 

197. 9. For W read ^'S, the form corresponding with the word 


under consideration, viz. V^^ (Ps. cxxxni. 7). [Ibn Gikatilla also has 
11V ; in Ibn Ezra the article is missing.] 

198. 15. For 13B Ibn Gikatilla has ''ri''3B, which accords better 
with the arrangement of the examples in the articles of Hayyug. 

205. 6. For inxipl read ^nNlpl. Several MSS. of Kennicott read 
also in Gen. xliv. 29 IDNIpl instead of irnpl. 

207. 5. For nN"ip read HN^p, not nsip as demanded in the note 
(p. Ixxii). The participle of the Pua'l (Job xxxiii. 21 ?N"i) is meant. 

208. 13. For min read min. 

210. 10. }VV belongs to the following line before ?N. 
212. 8. nNKTl is either to be deleted or to be placed before HNIB' 
(partic. HNiB'). 
lb. 9. For 'nN2'3 read '•n'^HW. 

218. 2. For niNnn read ixnn. 

220. 9. Delete the dagesh in DOni . 

223. 10. For .,-4-iJl read j^-ltJl, as 225. 5, 228. il. 

229. 8. For ^J^■» read ^J^^ (erroneous transcription of ''330, 
the 3 being taken as 3). 232. 14 reads correctly u^LJIX.*. 

230. 8. For JUiJi read Jjtijl (Perf. Niphal). Thus correctly infra 
231. 4 and 232. 2. 

231. 14. For13J read 1133. 

232. 3. For Ji^j read |!,|j. This disposes of the editor's "sic." 

233. 4. For J-«aj1 read Ootijl ; a standard form to forms like 
nb331 (Gen. xi. 7), n3D31 (Ezek. xli. 7), in which the second of the 
two geminate letters of the root (33D ?73) has disappeared. 

lb. 13. Punctuate ril3p3, niSpJ. 

234. 3. TIT', "l"l* read bby_, b^., as both translators have it; also 
the Petersburg MSS., as well as (according to my copy) the Oxford 
MS. The reading "l instead of ? seems to have been an error 
of a copyist. 

236.7. ForJUiill read JljaJiH. 

244. 14. For «in read «'in. 

lb. 17. For ■^sni read ^3n). 

246. 14. For hnn read Jvjrj (Perf. Hiphil). Punctuate the other 

words innn'; nnn'; nnnri nrina. 
lb. 16. Punctuate nn'' nHN. L. 17, 'Finn vinn nnn. 

lb. 18. For n'Tinnj mnnn read rfrinn, inferred from 'ririnril .Ter. 
xlix. 37. Both translators read n^nnn. 
250. 14. For "iJIDOn read «iDpn. 
252. I. For JT^O read n?p. Hayyugsays distinctly Pion }'t:p3 *-Jil. 


255. 8. For 3D:1 read 3p;i; 1 9, for 13p:i read aojl. 

256. 8. For alD"', aion read 3iDJ, DSon. 

259. 14. Punctuate "Finsi. L. 16, punctuate ^?, '''??, niDB, finiS, 

W. Bacher. 


Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alien Testament. Die fiinf Megillot 
(Hohelied, Ruth, Klagelieder, Prediger, und Esther). Erklart von 
K. BxTDDE, A.BEHTHOLET, und Qt. WiLDEBOEK. Herausgcgeben 
von K. Marti (Freiburg i. B. : J. C. B. Mohr). 

The contemporaneous publication in Germany of two series of 
commentaries on the Old Testament of a higher character, and at 
a comparatively small price, tends to show, if proof were needed, 
that in that country the scientific study of the Bible is still pursued 
with unremitted vigour. In the Jewish Quarterly Review for 
October last I reviewed a recent issue of the Handkommentar. We 
now have before us a section of the Kurzer Hand-Commentar, deal- 
ing with the five Megilloth. Of these, Budde takes Canticles and 
Lamentations ; Bertholet, Ruth ; and Wildeboer, Ecclesiastes and 

The estimate which the student may form of the commentary on 
the Canticles is likely to be influenced to a very great extent by his 
regarding with favour or otherwise Wetzstein's view of the origin 
and structure of the Book ; for Dr. Budde is an ardent advocate of 
Wetzstein's theory, and expresses confidence in its ultimate general 
acceptance. According to this theory the book is a collection of 
bridal songs analogous to such as are used during the festive week 
in which the nuptials of the Syrian peasantry are celebrated ; and, 
indeed, the songs of the Canticles may be regarded as having derived 
their origin from such celebrations. But the student who compares 
the details of the Canticles with the array of facts set forth by 
Wetzstein, or his disciple Dr. Budde, is not unlikely to exclaim 
immane quantum discrepat! Special prominence is, however, given 
to the procession in Cant. iii. 6-1 1 ; and this is compared with a very 
curious proceeding on the part of the Syrian peasants, who, on the 
morning after a marriage, fetch, according to Wetzstein, from the 
barn or other receptacle the threshing- table or threshing- dray^ 
which, placed on a kind of scaffold on the threshing-floor, forms