STOP
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
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
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
contact support@jstor.org.
504 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
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.
NOTES ON PEOF. JASTROWS EDITION OF HAYYUG.
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
CRITICAL NOTICES 505
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,
5o6 THE JEWISH QUAETEKLY REVIEW
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.
CKITICAL NOTICES 507
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.
508 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
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
meaning.
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)
CKITICAL NOTICES 509
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
unpunctuated.
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
IW'lT.
lb. 20. For ^1 . irT ..il 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
Yl'ip''Vn.
114. 5. For -\V read IBJ.
5IO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
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
Sheva.
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
CRITICAL NOTICES 5 II
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
reading.
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.'
512 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
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
CRITICAL NOTICES 513
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.
514 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
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.
A NEW COMMENTAEY ON THE FIVE MEGILLOTH.
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
Esther.
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
