Skip to main content

Full text of "The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures April-July 1894: Vol 10 Iss 3-4"

See other formats










+BEBRAIGA.< 


VOL. X. APRIL—JULY, 1894. Nos. 3 AND 4. 


THE RELATION OF LEV. XX. TO LEV. XVII.-XIX. 
By Pror. Lewis B. Patron, 


Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 


The similarities of diction between Lev. xx. and the portion of the Holiness 
Code which immediately precedes it (Xv1I.—xIX.) are so obvious and so numerous 
that they must form the starting point of any investigation into the literary his- 


tory of this section of the legislation. Characteristic expressions of H which both 


have in common are as follows,—5N familiar spirits (xx. 31; xx. 6,27), wR 
UN whosoever (Xvi. 3, 8, 10,13; xvii. 6; xx. 2, 9), TTIN hy? 9S Iam 
Yahweh thy God (xvi. 2, 5, 30; x1x. 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; xx. 7), FY 
Sx Ww" of the house of Israel (xvi. 3, 8, 10; xx. 2 in Sam. and Heb. 
codices), JIN fny>3 uncover the nakedness (xvii. 6-18; xx. 11, 18, 19, 20, 21), 
mpns S-) walk in the statutes (xviir. 3,4; xx. 23), [pp infamy (xvumr. 17; 
XIx. 29; xx. 14), "MN PS go whoring after (xvu. 7; xx. 5, 6), SOR 

ION OWN profane the name of thy God (xvi. 21; xx. 12; xx. 3), 
D’vd5v'1y) APA statutes and judgments (xvii. 4, 5, 26; xIx. 37; xx. 22), 
NO to pollute (xvi. 28; xx. 3), H*J}y’ spirits of divination (xrx. 31; xx. 
6, 27), JN 9D) and I will cut him off (xvi. 10; xx. 3, 5), 9995 in 
order that (XviI. 30; xx. 4), wp my sanctuary (XIx. 30; xx. 3), D9 5w 
intercourse (XVIII. 22; xx. 13), py Nw/3 bear sin (Xvul. 16; xrx. 8; xx. 17,19), 
Woy 3p from the midst of his kin (xvu. 4, 10; xv. 29; xx. 3, 5, 6, 18), 
SN 7135 pay regard to (x1x. 4, 31; xx. 6), 998 9MPJ) and I will set my face 
(xvii. 10; xx. 3, 6), PRA Dep ye shall be holy (xrx. 2; xx. 7, 26), 95 
95N WP for I am holy (xix. 2; xX. 26), NIP to vomit (XviI. 25, 28; xx. 22), 
S55 to curse (xIx. 14; xx. 9), 98 559 draw near unto a woman (xvutl. 6, 19; 
xx. 16), YO") gender (Xvi. 23; xrx. 19; xx. 16), FLY fellow (XIX. 13, 16, 18; 














112 HEBRAICA. 


xx. 10), "Nw flesh =near kin (xvmi. 12, 13,17; xx. 19), WY m3 give 
thy issue (Xvi1l. 20, 23; xx. 15), UY) “Wows observe and do (XVIII. 4, 26, 30; 
XIX. 87; xx. 8, 22), 99> confusion (xvi. 23; xx. 12) NIM ADIN it is 
abomination (XVIII. 22; xx. 13). 

In view of the remarkable correspondence of the diction of this chapter with 
that of the preceding chapters, there would be no doubt in the mind of any critic 
that it was an integral part of the Holiness Code, but for the following facts. 
1. It contains no new legislation but simply traverses the ground already gone 
over in Ley. XVII.-x1x. and in Lev. xI.,a fragment of the Holiness legislation 
which has been dislocated from its original connection with Lev. XvII.-xIx. 
The correspondence of the laws is as follows.—xx. 2-5 =xvill. 21; xx. 6= 
xix, S1+ 2x; 9 =—Xmx. 8; xx. 10 = xviii. 20; xx. 11 —xvim1.8; xx. 12=Xvui. 
16; xx. 18<— xvi. 22; xx. 14=Xvi. 17; xx. 15= Xvi. 28a; xx. 16=— 
vit. 2eb> Xx. 17 = xvu1.9; xx. 18 =xvir.19; xx.19 = xvi. 128q.; xx. 20 
= ees. 14: 2K. Zl xvi. 16: xx. 22890.— Xvi. 8eq.; XK. 25= Lev. XI. 
2-23, 41-46; xx. 27 = x1x. 31. 

The traditional exegesis has pronounced Lev. xx. to be the enactment of the 
penalties which are to be visited upon the offences enumerated in Lev. xvi1.- 
xix. If this were true, it would possibly explain the singular repetition of the 
legislation ; but even then one might ask, why the penalties were not inserted in 
immediate connection with the laws, instead of waiting until the legislation was 
completed and then repeating it with the penalties. The threat of cutting off is 
combined with the law in xvu. 4, 9, 10, 14; why is it not combined with the law 
in xx. 5, 6, 17, 18? It is not the fact, however, that xx. gives the penalties 
of the laws in xvul.-x1x. As Graf first pointed out (Geschichtliche Biicher des 
A. T. p. 77), this chapter is in no sense a code of penalties to be visited upon the 
offender by the nation. In five cases, that of keeping God’s statutes (v. 8), mar- 
riage with one’s mother’s sister (v. 19a), marriage with one’s father’s sister (v. 19b), 
distinguishing between clean and unclean beasts and fowl (v. 25a), and eating of 
creeping things (v. 25b), no penalty whatever is prescribed. These laws are no 
less important than the rest of the group, and if it had been the intention of the 
writer to give a code of penalties parallel to the foregoing legislation, he would 
not have omitted the sanctions here. In seven cases no obligation is laid upon 
Israel to punish the offender, but Yahweh himself declares that he will intervene 
in judgment. He will ‘set his face against the man” and will ‘ cut him off 
from the midst of his kinsfolk’’ (vs. 4, 5,6). ‘* They shall be cut off,’ i.e. by 
divine intervention (vs. 17,18). ‘* They shall be childless’ (vs. 20,21). All of 
the crimes which are accompanied with these threatenings are of such a nature 
as to call for the exercise of human penal authority and no reason can be given 
why the writer should not have said, ‘‘ they shall surely be put to death,” as in 














THE RELATION OF LEV. xx. TO LEV. XVII.-xXIx. 113 


other cases, if his aim had been to give a code of penalties. The threatening of 
divine judgment is in no true sense a penalty but is rather an exhortation to 
obedience. 

In seven cases it is said that the offender shall be put to death (vs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 
18, 15, 16), but it is not stated how death is to be inflicted, nor is any distinction 
made between the crimes, which are of very different degrees,of heinousness ; so 
that the formula really furnishes no guide to the judges in any individual case 
and, therefore, cannot be called a penalty in a strict sense of the word. As Graf 
very properly observes, ‘‘ In all these cases, as in the declaration that the offend- 
ers shall be cut off from their people, we have no discrimination of civil penalties 
or of gradation in the various crimes, but only the expression of moral abhor- 
rence towards the respective offences and of the curse which transgressors of the 
divine will bring down upon themselves.” 

In two cases stoning is prescribed (vs. 2, 27), and in one (v. 14) burning; 
these are the only true penalties in the chapter. How little emphasis the author 
lays upon them, is evident from the fact, that in v. 6 he threatens with divine 
visitation the same offence which in v. 27 he threatens with stoning. These 
three crimes are not as flagrant as many of the others, and that they should be 
provided with specific sanctions, is quite fortuitous. 

Again, if it were the purpose of Lev. xx. to give the penalties for the 
offences enumerated in the foregoing chapters, how does it happen that some of 
the most grievous of those offences are omitted from the list? Although the 
rest of the laws of Lev. xvii. are given, those in regard to marriage with one’s 
mother, granddaughter, and wife’s sister are not mentioned. Is that because the 
author did not regard them as sufficiently important to call for the enactment of 
a penalty? Why is the consulting of familiar spirits and spirits of divination 
alone singled out from xrx. to be threatened with punishment, while all the 
other sins against the majesty of Yahweh remain unnoticed? This is inexpli- 
cable if the writer of xx. intended to give the penalties for the offences just 
enumerated in XVII.-XIX. 

Accordingly, it is clear that xx. is in no sense a code of sanctions to the 
foregoing legislation. It is not supplementary to xv1I.—x1x. but parallel to it. 
It simply gives in another form the legislation which has just been traversed and 
enlarges it with a variety of motives for obedience. This fact makes it difficult 
to think that xx. is an integral part of the Holiness legislation or that the orig- 
inal author of xv1.-xrx. has written this chapter. 

2. Another reason for doubting that xx. was originally connected with xvi1.— 
x1x. is found in the difference of the structure of this chapter from those which 
precede it. The methodical and logical treatment of the legislation in XVII.-xIX., 
apart from obvious glosses, such as XIX. 20-22, is one of its most marked charac- 
teristics. The precepts follow one another in the natural order of thought and are 








114 HEBRAICA. 


so grouped as to exhaust one subject before another is taken up. In Ley. xx., 
however, confusion reigns supreme. The laws make the impression of having 
been thrown together without any plan. The sequence is, Molech-worship, 
sorcery, cursing father and mother, then various sexual crimes, clean and unclean 
meats, and sorcery a second time. The only suggestion of plan in this combina- 
tion is that the sexual crimes are grouped together (vs. 10-21), but within this 
group the same confusion prevails as throughout the rest of the chapter. In 
Xvi. the order is perfect and the commandments fall into their respective 
groups with mathematical precision. Xxvull. 6-10 treats of relationships of the 
first degree; 11-15, of relationships of the second degree; 16-19, of relationships 
through marriage; 20-24, of purity outside of the family; and the whole is fol- 
lowed by a hortatory address, 25-30. Here in xx. most of these commandments 
are given again, but we search in vain for any principle of classification. Can we 
believe that the two codes come from the same hand ? 

3. Not only is this chapter unmethodical in structure but it is characterized 
by a diffuseness of style which is quite foreign to the preceding chapters. 
The author of xviI-xrx. wastes no words. He states his laws in a compact 
form and, if he gives a sanction or a reason, gives but one and that as brief as 
possible. This writer, however, piles up after the several precepts a variety of 
exhortations to obedience and threatens two or more judgments which shall fall 
upon the transgressor. Notice how in vs. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 the words ‘“‘ Their (his) 
blood shall be upon them (him)” are attached to the direction ‘‘ They (he) shall 
surely be put to death,” although this phrase adds nothing to the thought. In v. 
12 there is a triple comment, ‘‘ They shall surely be put to death: they have 
wrought confusion: their blood shall be upon them ” (cf. v.14). So also in v. 16, 
** Thou shalt kill the woman and the beast: they shall surely be put to death: 
their blood shall be upon them.” In vs. 2-5 the writer threatens the Molech- 
worshipper with death, and then adds, ‘“‘ The people of the land shall stone him 
with stones.” Not satisfied with this emphasis, he threatens him also with 
cutting off by God, regardless of the fact that if the judgment already pronounced 
be executed, this is an impossibility ; and finally, he extends the sentence to the 
family of the man and to all who aid and abet him in his wickedness. This is 
quite analogous to the redundant style which we have found already in this chap- 
ter and needs no theory of a combination of documents to explain it (against 
Dillmann, Baentsch). Similarly in v. 10 the tautology, ‘‘ A man who commits 
adultery with the wife of a man,’ and ‘‘ He who commits adultery with the wife 
of his fellow,” does not demand the assumption of two sources (Dillmann), but is 
simply one more instance of the author’s redundancy of style. The same sort of 
a double expression of a single idea is found in 10a, 17b, 18a, but in none of 
these cases does Dillmann assume two sources for the text. Verse 27 also is 
probably only another instance of the author’s love of amplification and disre- 














THE RELATION OF LEV. xx. TO LEV. XVII.-XIX. 115 


gard of order. Wishing to lay special emphasis upon the evil of consulting 
familiar spirits and spirits of divination, and feeling that he had not said all that 
was possible in vy. 6, he returns to the subject in v. 27 and adds to the previous 
threat of extermination by the intervention of God, ‘‘ They shall surely be put to 
death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them,” a 
sentence which is quite as redundant as any that we have met hitherto. The 
style of xx., accordingly, is very different from the direct and terse style of the 
code in Xvi1.-x1Ix., so different, in fact, that it is difficult to believe that both are 
the composition of the same author. 

4. In spite of all the similarities of diction between Lev. xx. and the legisla- 
tion of H which precedes it, there are some remarkable differences which deserve 
to be noted carefully. Most striking of all is the regular use of the introductory 
formula WN YN (vs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, ef. "WN WHI Vv. 6), 
which is found nowhere else in the Holiness Code. Another peculiarity, which 
runs through the entire chapter, is the use of the phrase 4 995], ‘‘ His blood 
shall be upon him,” or, ‘‘ Their blood shall be upon them ” (vs. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 
27). The expression, with the addition of f97q, is found in Ezek. xvu. 13 but 
does not occur in the Hexateuch outside of Lev. xx. The different formula of 
xvii. 4, ‘“ Blood shall be imputed to that man,’’ is worthy of notice. Neither of 
the expressions, ‘‘In Israel,” or ‘‘ The people of the land” (vs. 2, 4), are used 
elsewhere in H. The phrase, ‘‘ Hide the eyes from,” is not found in H nor any- 
where else in the Hexateuch. 

Other cases of verbal difference from XVII.-XIx. are as follows; the construc- 
tion of ¥/55 as a masculine in v. 6 (in xvi. 10,15; xvii. 29 it is treated asa 
feminine), the use of Nf) in the sense of ‘ regard as unclean,” as in P, instead 
of ‘*‘ defile,”’ as in H (Lev. x1. 44; Xvi. 28). 

ven where this author is closest to the style of X v11.-xIx. he shows a freedom 
in the use of the phrases in question which is not found in those chapters. For 
instance, he not only says, RIAN UNS 935°NN JTS SSN), “‘ And I will give 
my face against that man,” which is the regular form in the previous chapters; 
but he modifies this into, RIMM W'ND 93DTAN AYDW, which is not found 
elsewhere in H. He not only says, “‘I will cut him off,’ ‘‘ And that man shall 
be cut off,” forms which the preceding chapters employ, but he says also, ‘‘ They 
shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people,’ an expression which 
is unique in the Hexateuch. Besides the expressions of the purity laws in XVII1., 
in this shorter parallel we find the additional phrases, “Xk NY? (v. 10), mp 
(v.14), FYAYAAN ANT (v.17), IPO TAA (v.18), AAT NUN 
(v. 19), NIT ION (v. 17), Wy 93M (v.12). These instances show that the 
similarity of diction, upon which we commented at the outset, is only superficial 
and that the writer of xx. has really a much more copious vocabulary than the 
writer of XVII.-XIx. 








116 HEBRAICA. 


Furthermore, there is an absence of certain constantly recurring expressions 
of Xv1I.-x1x. from xx. which is surprising if these chapters come from the same 
hand. ;J\fT’ 9§N, without any added words, is a closing formula which runs 
through all the holiness legislation ; but, curiously enough, it is absent from this 
chapter. The words ['}}}/ neighbor and TAN thy brother, which are so fre- 
quent elsewhere in H, are also wanting, although there is nothing in the contents 
to hinder the use of them. The characteristic expression NH “for defile- 
ment” (XVIII. 20, 23; xrx. 31; xx1I. 5), which would be most appropriate in 
this context, is also wanting. 

In view of all these facts it must be admitted, I think, that it is improbable 
that Lev. xx. was written by the author of Lev. Xvi.-XIx. 

In this conclusion the majority of modern critics are agreed, but in the-expla- 
nation which they give of the peculiar relation between these passages they differ 
widely from one another. The main theories which are proposed are the 
following. 

1. Graf (Geschichtliche Biicher, p. 77) recognizes fully the weight of the consid- 
erations which make it impossible to regard Lev. xx. as originally connected 
with XVII.-xIx., and seeks to explain the similarities of style by the hypothesis 
that it was written by the author of xv11.-xIx. at a later time and under differ- 
ent historical conditions. 

With this theory the facts enumerated above are as inconsistent as they are 
with the theory that xx. is the original continuation of xvm.—x1x. No reason 
can be given why an author who had already published a complete legislation 
should repeat the same at a later time ina fragmentary form. Even if we grant 
that he might have done so, we cannot see why he should abandon in his new 
code the logical method and orderly arrangement of his former code. This the- 
ory fails also to explain why, in treating of precisely the same subjects as in the 
earlier legislation, he should change his terse and direct style into a diffuse and 
repetitious one, or why he should give up so many of his habitual expressions and 
make constant use of others which he never employed in his earlier code. 

2. Wellhausen (Composition d. Hexateuchs, p. 157), Baentsch ( Heiligkeitsgesetz, 
p. 31), and most of the Grafian school hold that the kernel of Lev. xx., the legis- 
lation in vs. 10-21, is drawn from a code which was originally independent of 
Lev. xvi. and that it owes its present position to the writer of xx. 2-5, 22sq., 


who is the editor of the whole code. 

This theory explains the doubling of the legislation of Lev. xvi. in Lev. 
xx., but it fails to explain the close correspondence in thought and language 
between the assumed kernel and its assumed doublet. If xx. 10-21 was origi- 
nally independent of xviiI., how does it happen that it contains net one law 
which is not found in xvii.? One can see how a second code treating of the 
same subject should in large measure contain the same commandments, but one 














THE RELATION OF LEV. xx. TO LEV. XVII.-XIXx. 117 


cannot see how, if it were independent in its origin, it should not contain at least 
a few laws not found in its doublet. Baentsch attempts to evade this argument 
by assuming that the editor of xx. has supplemented all deficiencies in the kernel 
out of its doublet in xvi. and omitted from it everything that was different 
from xvi. This, however, is a purely arbitrary assumption, which has nothing 
in its favor except that it bolsters up Baentsch’s theory of the relation of the 
codes. 

Again, the similarity of the diction of this chapter with those which precede 
it is against any hypothesis of strict literary independence. If these similarities 
were confined to the paraenetic setting, as # is called, and the central code were 
different, then this theory would be the most probable one, but it is not the fact. 
If one will examine the list of verbal and phraseological similarities given at the 
beginning of this article, one will see at a glance that the similarities are quite as 
great and quite as numerous in the code as in the so-called “setting.” These 
similarities are not of the nature of redactional amplifications, so that one might 
conjecture that the editor of the whole had added them at the time of his incor- 
poration of the code, but they are woven into the fundamental structure of the 
laws and must have belonged to their first draft. 

Wellhausen’s suggestion that similarity of standpoint and nearness of time 
of origin will explain this verbal correspondence is insufficient, for there is more 
here than a mere general correspondence of language. In many instances there 
is an exact verbal correspondence between the supposed doublets, and this 
points to a closer connection between the documents than that they have orig- 
inated in the same age or have made use of the same oral tradition. xx. 11 
agrees with XVIII. 8 in using the indefinite expression PANN, wife of thy 
father, for step-mother and also in the peculiar application of the expression, 
‘“*uncover the nakedness,” to the father who is dishonored as well as to the 
woman, to whom alone it is strictly appropriate. In xx. 13 and in its parallel, 
XVill. 22, we find the identical phrases, \5?"“AX 554”, and 7WWEY '55wy, 
neither of which are usual. More remarkable still, the comment upon the 
offence, that itis FAP “ abomination,” is found in both passages. The very 
peculiar language of xvitt. 23 Wav jan nN and Y3 reappears in xx. 
15, 16. The nearer definition of sister by the words, ‘‘The daughter of thy 
father or the daughter of thy mother,’’ which can hardly be said to be necessary 
to the sense, is found both in xx. 17 and in xviu.9. The extraordinary use of 
MY MYND) in the case of a wife in xvi. 19 is followed also in xx. 18. 

xx. 19 and xvitl. 12sq. agree in speaking of the aunt as ‘‘the sister of the 
father or the sister of the mother,’ and both annex the peculiar reason, not 
found in other cases, that she is "NY “near kin.” xx. 20 and xvui. 14 both 
speak of the uncle’s wife as (J"}"J and pronounce marriage with her an uncover- 
ing of the uncle’s nakedness (cf. also xx. 21 and xviil. 16). These verbal coin- 








118 HEBRAICA. 


cidences cannot be accidental and they make it impossible to believe that Lev. 
Xvi. and Lev. xx. are independent of one another in their literary origin. This 
is precisely the same sort of verbal similarity with the preceding legislation which 
we find in those portions of chapter xx. which enclose the laws about sexual 
purity. Whatever explanation we give to the similarities of diction in the set- 
ting, we must give also to the similarities of the kernel] in vs. 10-21, for they are 
identical in kind. If vs. 2-9, 22-27 are to be ascribed to the collector of the 
entire Holiness Code, over against the original author of the legislation in xvm.- 
XIx., then vs. 10-12 must also be ascribed to the same hand. 

Another objection to this theory is that vs. 10-21 do not, after all, form a 
code in any strict sense of the word. The characteristic absence of direct address 
(noted by Wellhausen himself, Composition, p. 158) is evidence against its ever 
having been intended to circulate as a code, inasmuch as elsewhere direct address 
is one of the most marked features of Hebrew legislation. Its incompleteness 
also makes it improbable that it ever existed as an independent document. The 
prohibition of marriage with one’s mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, and 
wife’s sister are wanting from the group. The first four of these offences are 
perhaps the worst that could arise. Can that be called a code which has nothing 
to say about such weighty matters? Of course it is possible to say that laws on 
these subjects once stood in the group and have been omitted by the editor, but it 
is impossible to prove this assertion. That a later compiler should have singled 
out these cases above all others for omission, is exceedingly improbable. 

The lack of order in the commandments, which we have already noticed, is 
also against regarding this group of precepts as a code. If it had been published 
as such, it seems almost necessary that it should be cast into some form which 
would appeal to the logical faculty and to the memory. In absence of this, it 
seems to me unlikely that it ever existed as a separate document. 

One more argument may be urged against regarding 10-21 as a fragment of 
an independent code. If we do so, we must also regard the precepts in vs. 2-9, 
22-27 as extracts from codes which were parallel to H, for, as we have seen 
already, these sections do not stand in any different literary relation to H from 
that of vs. 10-21. That is to say, we must assume a doublet or set of doublets, 
parallel not only to Lev. xvuii., but parallel also to xrx. and to xI. 2-28, 41-47. 
Baentsch (p. 31) actually does this, but it is a difficult hypothesis. It is possible 
that a doublet to xvi. may have existed, but it is scarcely probable that a 
doublet existed to the entire legislation of H which precedes chapter xx., a 
doublet which corresponded so closely that not a single law stood in it which did 
not stand in the other legislation. If we are not willing to make this assump- 
tion for the entire chapter, we have no right to make it for vs. 10-21. 

3. Dillmann attempts to explain the relation of Lev. xx. to XVII.-xIx. by 
the application of his peculiar theory of a J recension of H along with a P 














THE RELATION OF LEV. xx. TO LEV. XVII.-XIX. 119 


recension of H. Chapter xx., according to him, has been drawn by the editor 
from J’s redaction of the original H, while xvim. and the other parallels are 
drawn from P’s redaction. 

This theory evidently meets the objections just urged against Wellhausen’s 
theory of originally independent documents for XvII.-x1x. and xx., for, accord- 
ing to it, the documents are not independent but go back to a common primitive 
source. If the source of Lev. xx. was simply another recension of the same code 
which underlies Lev. XI. and XVIII.-XIX., it is natural enough that this chapter 
should contain no new legislation and that it should have many points of simi- 
larity of diction with them. The great difficulty, however, in this theory is the 
absence of any proof of the existence of two such recensions apart from the fact 
that we find these parallel groups of laws. There is nothing to show that xx. 
comes from a J recension except that certain expressions of J occur in this chap- 
ter, but that is the case in xviit. also. In both chapters these phrases are found 
in the hortatory comments only, and they prove no more than that one of the 
editors of H was acquainted with the history of J. If the characteristics of J 
were woven into the legislation of xx., the theory of a J recension would be 
probable, but this is not the case. The coincidences with J are redactional ele- 
ments superimposed upon the legislation here precisely as they are superimposed 
upon XVIII. and upon the rest of the code. 

Again chapter XVIII. contains nothing which suggests that its legislation has 
passed through a redaction at the hands of P. The only argument which Dill- 
mann is able to make in support of this theory is as follows (Ex.-Lev. p. 541, 
‘*In den Gesetzen selbst, die in der Hauptsache sehr alt sind, findet sich kein 
Zeichen, um die Quelle sicher zu bestimmen. Jedoch, da in xx. 8-24 Rden Text 
des C (= J) zu Grund gelegt hat, ist wahrscheinlich, dass er x vi11. 6-20. A (=P) 
folgte, fiir welchen ohnedem die systematische Ordnung und Vollstandigkeit 
spricht, aber vs. 21-23 aus C excerpirt hat.’”? That is to say, Dillmann assigns 
the legislation in xvii. to P because he must give that in xx. to J and has no 
other editor left to whom he may assign it. There are no linguistic marks 
pointing to the redactional hand of P, and the only indication of style is the sys- 
tematic arrangement; but the original H is always systematic, even in those 
sections which Dillmann assigns to the J recension, and, therefore, this cannot 
be claimed as a peculiarity which is due to the influence of P. Besides this, it is 
a great weakness in Dillmann’s theory, that he is compelled to cut out of the 
midst of xvii. laws which are an integral part of its legislation (vs. 21-28) 
because they show the same standpoint as the supposed J recension in xx. This 
criticism seems to me exceedingly arbitrary. The fine logical development of 
thought in xviiI., and the regular arrangement of its legislation in groups, point 
to a unity of source; but Dillmann rejects these evidences and then, without any 
evidence, supposes P to have recast the legislation in xvi11., although not one of 








120 HEBRAICA. 


his characteristic phrases occurs, and although the whole subject of the legisla- 
tion is alien to his spirit. 

The relation of xviii. to xx. is the stronghold of the theory that the present 
form of the Holiness Code has arisen through the combination of two recensions 
of a primitive H, and if it breaks down here, there is little hope of carrying it 
through elsewhere in the code. The supposed extracts from parallel codes in 
XIx. and other parts of H can, I think, all be shown to be nothing more than 
glosses or accidental transpositions of laws which stand in their right connection 
elsewhere in the code; they lend, therefore, no support to the hypothesis that H 
once existed in a double form. 

Not finding that any of the theories just enumerated are satisfactory, we are 
shut up, it seems to me, to the hypothesis that Lev. xx. is a hortatory com- 
mentary on the foregoing code in xvi1.-x1x. This hypothesis will explain, I 
believe, all of the phenomena in the case and it is the only one which will do so. 
That chapter xx. contains no legislation which is not found in the preceding 
chapters, is due to the fact that its author had H before him when he wrote and 
simply worked over given material. That many of the laws of XVII.-xIX. are 
left out in xx. is due to the fact that its author had already retained these laws 
from his sources in xviI.—xrx. and therefore, did not feel compelled to insert 
them here. Theoretical completeness is not what he aims at in this chapter, but 
rather the emphasizing of certain laws which were peculiarly liable to be violated 
in his time. The lack of order in the precepts of xx. is due to the fact that the 
writer’s aim was exhortation and not legislation, so that it was quite immaterial 
in what succession he enumerated the duties. The redundant style is precisely 
what we should expect in one who made a selection of old laws a basis for his 
homily and whose chief aim was to impress the conscience. 

The many similarities of diction with xv1I.-xIx. are due to the fact that the 
author of xx. was thoroughly familiar with the contents and language of the 
document which he was annotating and intentionally imitated it. That they are 
not signs of identity of authorship but rather of quotation, is evidenced by the 
circumstance that they are not spontaneous expressions of the writer of xx. and 
are not always used intelligently by him. For instance, xv1I.-x1x. threatens 
that God will cut a man off from his kinsfolk in cases where the offence is of 
such a nature that it would not naturally come to the cognizance of the civil 
authorities, but in xx. 3 the threat is appended to the sin of sacrificing children 
to Molech, which is in no sense a private offence, and this shows that the writer 
has mechanically adopted this phrase without observing its exact use in his 


source. 
The closing formula, ‘‘I am Yahweh your God,” is used throughout xvit.- 


xix. to mark the logical divisions of the code into its groups of laws, in xx., 
however, it is employed entirely indiscriminately. 














THE RELATION OF LEY. xx. TO LEV. XVII.-XIX. 121 


Another indication that the similarity of diction is due to quotation is found 
in the fact, that the writer of this chapter feels the necessity of explaining 
expressions which he has borrowed from the original code. A case of this sort is 
seen in v. 11, where the expression, ‘‘ uncover the nakedness of one’s father,’ is 
used precisely as in Xviil. 8, and yet the author feels it necessary to interpret 
this by the added clause, ‘‘lie with the wife of one’s father” (cf. vs. 20, 21). 
Notice also how in xx. 23 the writer uses %\§ in dependence upon xvi. 24, 
but so soon as he begins to write of his own accord in the following verses, 
abandons it for Dp y. 

It seems to me, therefore, that the mere comparison of the more striking 
similarities of the diction of this chapter with that of chapters xvu.-xIx., apart 
from any other facts, favors the theory that the writer of this chapter is an 
imitator. 

The differences of the diction of this chapter from xXvII.—xrx. need no com- 
ment, for if this chapter be the work of an annotator of the original legislation, 
it is only natural that, along with quotation and imitation of the document before 
him, he should also show variations due to his own peculiar style. 

If space permitted, it would be possible, I think, to show that Lev. xx. comes 
from the same hand which has added the hortatory amplifications in Lev. xv111. 
25-30; xxv. 18-22, and probably also in Lev. xxv1. The proof, however, cannot 
be given in this article. I must content myself with having shown that Lev. xx. 
is not an extract from an independent code, or even an independent recension, 
but that it is an hortatory address written by a later editor with the primitive 


holiness legislation as his text. 








A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 
WRITTEN IN A. D, 1282, 


By Rev. W: Scotr Watson, A. M., 


Towerhill (Guttenberg P. O.), N. J. 
IV. COLLATION. 

The printed text of the Samaritan Pentateuch with which the codex has been 
compared is that of Blayney’s ‘‘ Pentateuchus Hebraeo-Samaritanus Charactere 
Hebraeo-Chaldaico.”” (The verses are referred to as they are there numbered.) 
The editor professes to give an exact reprint of the text of the London Polyglot. 

The results have been gathered into ten tables, as follows: 

Table I.—General collation and index to the other tables; 

Table II.—Two readings actually given ; 

Table III.—Places where § is omitted from the middle of a word but its 
insertion is indicated for a secondary reading ; 

Table IV.—Places where § is found in the middle of a word but its omission 
is indicated for a secondary reading; 

Table V.—Places where * is omitted from the middle of a word but its 
insertion is indicated for a secondary reading; 

Table VI.—Places where ° is found in the middle of a word but its omission 
is indicated for a secondary reading ; 

Table VII.—Places where secondary readings other than those included in 
the preceding tables are indicated ; 

Table VIII.—Interlineations and other additions made after the first writing ; 

Table [X.—Erasures and changes made in whole or in part by erasure; 

Table X.—Places where the text of the codex is lost. 


TABLE I. 
GENESIS. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
1 1 to 3:19. See Table X. 4 4 MSD bye) mpia) 
8 20 DIN DINT 7 ANS? ND AND? DON NY 

“ gts IV. a “ANS Yon i Ste 


wii; my wm 7 pn 
4 32ND) vu. 12 pin Din 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 





A CRITICAL Copy OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


Watson Codex. 
nn 
Ill. AN*5 
i aa 
SNM 
V. °F7* ON 
IX. 
x 
AN) 
tS 


2 MD See also IX. FNDIW 


4 12 (2d) FN 
* nnd 
18 9") 
. SND 
28 IPIDN 
25 yn 

5 19, 28-30, 32 
32 (2d) FN 

6 1 5 
4 p37 
4-7 
7 orwy 
8-10 
10 (2d) FAN 
11-13 
1 DTN? 
14 wy 
14-17 
17 mre 
18 99), FIND) 
19 nv? 
19-22 

7 1-8, 10,11 
11 mnnd3 
12 IT 
17 “ 
. Spy 
19 8=6onsn 
21-23 
23 "Nw 
24 py, 99)" 

8 1 DDN 
2 xD") 
2-9, 17 
19 vow 
21 om) 
“(1st & 24) DIN 
22 ? 
ie pin 


UL o* 337 
x 


VI. pO rey 
x 

ne) 

3 

VL. DOUyNwD 
nwy 

p.¢ 

mnwn 

dF 

nyn> 

x. 

me 

NND) 

7) 

»& 

DInNaI7 

ba 

"Nw 

PF 

LS 

55") 

x 

yO won 
VI. ny) 
FDIN 

p 

on) 


8 
9 


10 % 


11 


12 


13 


14 


Ch. Vs. Blayney's Edition. 
22 Sad 
6 DIN 
12 na 
15 mene 
17-19 
2 ws) 
3 359 
4 yey 
5, 6 
10 Ww) 
13 on? 
15 mM 
23 yn 
26 | ADIN 
27 OPN 
29 NN 
4-23 
26 yor) 
° (2d) FAN 
27 te 
29 DN 
30 i 
5 {8 
7777 
12 TOS 
13 TON 
“  Siaya 
: 77733 
15 m3 
16 ony 
24 om) 
19 {ON 
2 033 
6 yn 
8 D338 
9 (2d) FONDUIT 
18 77") 
1 WN) 
2 SOND” 
. O'NIS 


123 


Watson Codex. 
SAL 
DINT 
nyo 
mnwn 
x 


mal) 
no 

Xx. (WP 
X. 

995) 
on? 

VII. 

ay 
monyn 
Sry 
mornn 

pe 

v. "1 
fal) 
DIN 

Vv. 459 
TYAN 
rn 

VI. 4) 
III. 9* MN 
yaya 
7733 
VII. 

VIl. 

I. om 
III. ** AN 
093) 
yn 
DDN 
monowin 
SN 

VII. 

7DN DU 
D'NIDS 





124 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


14 2 


15 1 


16 6 


Nn 
p73 
mvs 
DNS 
Nn 
SDDN) 
WT 
73) 
mwn 
“IDWN 
yu 
yn 
wr 
ANSI 
IWIN 
N35 
703 
p™Dsn 
yy 
yay” 
NIN 
3PM 
sw 
773 

LI ta y 

N 
{AND 
myn 
yy 
730 

5 b| y 
Nv) 

* 5 

> 

mY 


99N 
INDD 
p59) 
ona 
WN" 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 


IX. 

VII. 

VII. 

IIL. D*N*DY 
VII. 

SD TDN 
7") 

Now) 

VII. 

VIL. 

la) 

VI. 1”) yor 
. @ 


VIII. 
IWIN 
VIII. 

myn 

I. OY * Dyn 
yr 

yay" 

UL. PN* IN 
"apn 

IX. 

113 

ney 

III. 9*8& 
FNS 
syn 

VI. Voy r 
nw; 737 
Vv. yoy 
NW 

m5 

VII. 

DSN 

Probably 95) 
IX. 

IX. 

ony 
“YON?) 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


17 


18 


19 


9 ann 
9-12 


2 psn 
13, 15 


16 9919) 
19-21 
21 ManN) 
22, 23 
24 ywnND 
25 “ 
2 D'wIN 
6 D'ND 
6,7,9 
13 DIDN 


19 (1st & 2d) DAN 


20 IND 
21 ANpysIn 
220 DYNA 
25 (Ist) AON 


“ pown 
33 pe iag 
2 DN 
5 DWINA 
6 no) 
8 NSN 
9 SON 
: 35 
° now 
16° NSN 
. wn" 
17 oon 
° mann 
20 DIN 
* Jat) 
23 FIND? 
26 ala) 
a 333 


28 (Ist) PANT 
2 SYnwnd 
32 won 





Watson Codex. 


ony 
x 


p75 
a 

ix, 

: wy 
LOTINNA 
 & 
yon3 

X. NSpanA3 
Dv IIN 
D’D 

: a 

DIDNT 

DA IIN 

x. 

Npys I 
DYNA 
VI. 979()9R 
IIT. 05* wn 
3“ 

DN 
DYNA 

» ea 

NUSIN 

VII. 

a bh, 

iT. mp" 
JINN 
m9" 
pon 

VII. 

Tx. 

mn) 

Ny? 

in. 

y) 

VII. 
mnws 
ON 














Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


19 33 
34 


ID OO aM wre 


— 


° 
- 


13 


21 7 


22 2 


A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


pw 
, pes 
pwn) 
yTNN 
nN 
ITNN 
awn 

55 
hwy? 
DIDNA 
{NNN 
Jon 
JAN? 
1? 
TN 
apa 
DWN 
ow 
APA 
NnNoDD 
779 
Im 

i au 
PND 

55 5) 
mon) 
DMTDNO 
59 °5) 
30" 
pryn 
N77 
m3 
ors 
30M 


m3 
AN 
val) 


é 


(1st) N19 


Watson Codex. 


rm Dwr) 
pws 
TIPU 
III. *7*NN 
Mas 

ILI. °* AN 
VI. SOY 
IX. 

pwy" 
DIN 
IPINN 

VI. 90)90N 
VI. WIND 
¥. 3 
VI. CN 
TX. 

nis 

Dw’ 
PAW 
VIII. 

950 
veliara 
ver 
ND 

AS one word. 
Pra 

On SX 

As one word. 
390") 
poy 
TAN’ 
VIL. 

OSV 
VAN 
ywn353 

Nei 

ma) 

VI. SF) 
aaa) 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


23 


24 


8 aya) 
9 ap 
11 aia) 
13 IAY 
15 yn» 
18 5 
8 J APAN 
“  omypIwy 
12 “DN 
13 3y) 
. Dy? 
14 OF 
i N) 
. 71 
17 77199 
18 TN 
20 * 

. 57 
28 TN) 
30 (1st) \NNN 
“© (2d) do. 
35 09D) 
87 NU) 
88 NO DN'D 
42 NIN) 
43 3y) 
. pwn 
45 sn) 
° "Iw 
” y139 
46 TN) 
“ Appwn 
49 pw 
50 N° 
51 aay 
51-54 

56 m0" 
59 ONNN 
s DSN 


125 


Watson Codex. 
(VI.?) 979 
3p 
VI. NID 
var) 
a aye) 
ND 
JANN 
Iw 
IX. 
283 
DN? 
07 
The word omitted. 
(VI?) JID 
7199 
i ban} 


WNIT 

VL aM) 
InN 

TET. Sy" Fine 
oon 
yaw” 
DN 'D 

III. N*5N) 
ay) 
WN 

X. 

‘OWT 

VL. W990 
VL 0) 
VIL. 

ae 

b.2 

mM 

pb. 

x. 

DMN 

X. 





126 
Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 
24 60 YANN 
61-67 
25 3 yn 
“ ow) 
4 my 
' pm 
8 wy 
11 +N 
12 Pes) 
15 wp) 
16 ANnYVodo) 
17 no" 
23 VYYSIT 
25 IN 
27 "py" 
29 TS) 
30 MOY 
3 DIANA 
- DINT 
81 IND 
32 Mmnd3 
33 wd3 
34 m3 
2 3 FTN 
‘npn 
* NM 
9 *PITIN 
an iTVON 
13 sy 
18 ae") 


210 INN 


. monn 
26 59 °D) 
31 onde 
33 1 Oy 
85 wan) 
27 8 MmyD 
12 9579) 


, FN) 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 
NIAN 
X. 
39 
o'7) 
VIL. 
pan 
IX. 
VII. 
Peay 
v5) 
Itt. ony"voo) 
neo 
VIII. 
III. 9*Q5N 
apy 
“h) 
DYN 
Ill. D*3N7 
Ill. 4*753 
nt, 7771" 3S 
wnss 
MN 
III. FR y * Sy 
‘Mpn 
TW 
III. 9A\* AN 
KFVON 
IX. 
au") 
Ms 


“ 


man 


As one word. 
IX. 

11993? 
IT 
mia} 3A) 

IV. 93(9)19 
VIII. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


27 


29 


30 


13 ON 
6b POAT 
‘a ywoon 
19 723 
x yaw 
21 JUN) 
2 jw 
27 nm) 
28 | mn 
“ pAONA 
7 vin 
31 D iy) 
32 753 
35, 36 

39 vy) a)a) 
45 Sw’ 
45, 46 

6 3” 
11, 12 

13 333 
18 Iw'N7D 
0 9 
o » 22 aad 
2 pys5 
7 7) 
10 ON 
12 ra 
13 SNNN 
» * ee 
16 1307 
21 mn 
26 WPI 
34 9 
“ 5 
35 IN 
1 nn 
2 male) 
8 ITINN 
* NN 


18 1WN 





Watson Codex. 
qN 
AWAN 
VI. 2) 97) 
ynD3 
mow 
Il. m4 * AN) 
Ww" 
Vv. Pe 
IX. 
IX. 
yy) 
wy 
III. 7 wf =] 
X. 
van) 
aw 
Xx. 
VIL. 
X. 
2's) 
WYUN WS 
apy 
La 


p’y754 

az. 

YON 

3) 

ITT. JA* AN 
wD" 
VIII. 

Non 
WwoaIp23 
mo 

ON 

TN 

N37 
yyoo 

ITI. 9M* MN 
DN 

NWN 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 





A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


30 14 ONT 
. NTNID 
15 ‘7 Hnnmp 
ss nnpr) 
‘ oy 
* NNT 
16 NTT 
20 py 
26 my? 
31 YAN 
32 DVN 
. “Dn 
. noon 
8 Ompyn 
« osu 
“Ap 
36 ony 
. onp3 
* om) 
. YOR 
37 nowy 
«pom 
38 fANIN 
“| TANI3 
39 O23 
. D'NdD) 
41 Dow 
“ opr 
42 ow 
“  pnwpn 
43 pn) 

31 3 VNIN 
“TTIVD ON) 
6 PON) 
- pny 
" nD 
“ ID’ON 


8 (Ist & 2d) O73 
6 6 66 Onspy 


9 (IN 


*9 
a 


Watson Codex. 
on 
VII. 
VI. qOINAp 
IND?) 
VI. W)Dy 
m7 
73 
73 
9 
TYAN 
TX. 
VI. DA 
NO) 
opr 
HI. ON*59OM 
nyNp37q 
(IIL?) OM" Py 
omy3 
ps3) 
30'N) 
i. 
DONA 
TININ 
TINI3 
omyp3 
DONO) 
ow” 
DONS 
ou” 
pep 
ILL. OD * OM) 
ILL. “Y* IN 
V EL. 
V.7*N) 
Vv. 7*nyy 
IIL. 9*5 
V. 7* ON 
ony 
ony 
V. 7}* DON 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


31 


32 


33 


10 


omy 
opps 
on) 
ompy 
onp3 
o-mn3) 
ny) 
35 
no 
9355) 
nD 
ym3 
won” 
7n33 
mov 
Anan 
sy) 


9 DDL” 
1") 
ala) 

qa) 
DON 

ON 19D 
on 
Tan eas 
ra in aa) 


127 


Watson Codex. 
pnpy 
ops 
on) 
IL OI*py 
ops 
on) 
Av d35 
Wd 
Ill. 3*35 
Iv. \()333) 
. 
yn 
w5in) 


Il. *33 
Pred 
PNT 
wy 3 

IX. 

a0") 

IV. (ow) 
NTN ON 
DON 

As one word(?). 
pon 
Teas 
mony 


5 (ist&2d) Oo V. oq 


6 


7 
10 
13 


14 


— 


o - eS st 


rao aa 
mn) 
ay ata) 
Do 
pony 
MOMIAN 
DT 
mnmsaD 
mx 
mon 
ven 


Vz FTN 
V. ron 
(VI?) *9Y") 
V. om 7 
MOYEN 
TOAIAN 

Vv. on 
Viti. 
mend 

V. TIT 
verity 





128 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


34 13 


35 


36 


14 
21 
23 
25 
27 
28 


“ce 


30 
iid 
31 
2 


em 


DANN 
ANN 
wns 
p33) 
WwW 
DANN 
(1st) FN) 
on Dn 
WPI 
99/7) 
YININN 
sDoAM 
pp) 
OnN 
ny) 

% 
PTONAD 


apy” 
nn 
(1st) FON 
nn 
yu 
now 
pp’) 
Do 
15w 
DDN 
er 
yn 
7IN 
SNSO'ND 
OND 
map 
20D 
wn 
m99w"9) 
ww" 
p? 

TON 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 
(LV. ?) DANN 
YINN 
(IIL. ?) 53935 
DIN’39) 
wow 
Il. O*AN 
DN 
on DN 
UNITS 
3) 
UININN 
spon 
mp3 
i. 
VII. 
V. 5 a 
ANAND 
ix. 
apy” 
Ans 
TON) 
nn 
na 
nw 
DYN) 
jor? 
ba}ig 


Ill. o* DNA 


ne 
ny 
TN 
230M 
IN TID 
VII. 

LAs 

I. AIPN* 
w55wd 
weve 
VI. p09 
137 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


87 35 Tone’ 
38 1 YON 
6 33 
8 opm 
12 oY 
xm) 
13 19 
14 
nmna3 
23 rm pe 
' 0? 
24 os 
39 1 pw’ 
5 span 
6 2 WN 
15 (?) FINA 
18 wD 
19 1DN 
20 (Ist &24) 97D 
21 “ 
22 (Ist &2d) ‘ 
40 3 S 
5 yn 
. non 
9 1D 
10 on 
“Swan 
1 ON 
2 pwr 
412 IND) 
Ty 


3 TAIN 
4 mx IM 
6 met 
“ TAIN 
10 DAN 
NAD 
is PND 
: mi" 





Watson Codex. 
I. A9* Nw 
i, 

55 

VI. BOD 
IX. 

yn) 

n> 

io 

yns3 
mn 

III. ¢*95 
cx. 

mow 

VL. 0) 57 
73 19 TWN 
ayn 
75. 

x 

Non 


“ce 


c 


nn 
non 

2g 

rap) log 

VI. HO) WA 
oy 

UL py wh 
nv) 
aya 
AANN 
nv) 
IL. YD" 
TIANN 
TN 

Nns5 
nv 

Ill. y*) 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


41 


43 


18 
19 
20 





A CriItTicAL Copy OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 129 


Watson Codex. 


Tyan) ryan 
17D VII. 
Mw VU. 
mya) nya) 
ANIM INI 
NN INN 
AD" qpY 
INN TNN 
mow WL pps 
INN NN 
rv sw VII. 
p5n) pom 
ome Vv. or*pD 
0" 0") 
pom III. p*5M) 
DY 9pY 
yINww (VII?) yap "wD 
ININD IN [7D 
5U73 NLS 
DT NIDA 
yan syn 
you" 30") 
oN mn 

oyn oy 
D8" Vit. 
hort VIII. 
Yo ypu 

on pn OL. OFAN 
SMNN Vin. 
n> IL. Nd 
mone ss. x * New 
Du 720" 
pwn yrvn 
Wdv (D0 

(24) 9579 p59 
niwy mw 
ayalp| x. 
NOT Non 
p73 IX. 


"oN 





UI. 939 * 9 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


43 


44 § 


46 


24 


“ce 


25 


(Ist & 24) P599N 


Watson Codex. 
x 


I. on* ON 


X. 
PTT 


I. oF* OM) 


pM 
VEEL. 

it. 7" Br 
30") 

VIL. 

i 

13v" 

ON 

SONA 

IIL. O* NY 
ys 

VIII. 

55 

EX, 

mpon 

Hi.. By Or 
I. F* NAYS 
yn33 

m3) 

EX: 

VII. 

VII. 

a> 

DNINN 


YINVW (VIL?) PND ww 
INITD (VILL?) IN AD 


VIII. 

ITT. 0°5* 5 
orm 

wal 

my 
X3") 


PT 99D) LX. PT 1QRP 9999 


NIN 
Vu. 





130 
Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 
47 15 mu bps) 
17 D’DIDD 
“ pena) w 
. oon" 
19 77) 
“ FTWONT) 
23 DINDIN 
26 won 
30 TIN 
484° 95997) 
15 TIN 
. IID 
16 IN 
“« 995 97 
49 3 m5 
6 NON 
8 ynne” 
9 "3 
10 pon) 
Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 
111 on9303 
13 way" 
16 YN 
17 D7 
18 prey 
9 AN 
2 3 “"9N3 
, Dvn) 
4 ‘NN 
5 = Donn 
6 a as) 
7 ‘NN 
“ @a) 9 
9 nano 
9 yon 
“ PIN 
1 = pnzaD3 
17 


yen 





HEBRAICA. ‘ 


Watson Codex. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


Watson Codex. 


ID 49:15 py Ill. p* p> 

IX. 17 (1st) 939 VIL. 

I. O* OND) 19 Nin Nv) 

pon”) 21 nmow =. A* Se 

mr * Dv (IIL?) "wy 

ADIN 29 HIN NIN 

DIAIIN «50 45 (Ist & 2d) yay Iprswn 

win? 6 yawn wen 

ISN 10 7505 IX. 

yrv347) 1 7N Vu. 

*ION “ TyI3n yIDN 

IMD “ (24) o> DD 

IN 13 DIN IX. 

IX. 14 ww" 37") 

LIT. **5 17 IX. 

Noy 18 omy> omayo 

Vil. 20 DAN) DMN 

"3 25 you" you” 

ppm 26 NI IIL. 7*9N3 
EXopDUs. 


Watson Codex. 
onioap5 
3" 
V. 77 NV 
V. OT 
V. 7* wy 
ny on 
"N53 
VI. DU)WY 
ITI. SA* NX 
noon 
999 
I. 1* AN 
Vv. shy) 
nan 
997 
wpm 
onio3p05 
ween) 


Ch. 


- 


2 
o 


4 5 


Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
is DC. g*IAND 
2 ny pnsy 


5 73 Vv. J*Oy3 
. yn v.79 
6 7NIS UL pn*sx 
B 4 iT ON) VIII. & IX. 
i DID VIII. 
9 Syn VIII. 
11 yay VIII. & IX. 
j NSN NIVIN 
13 DIN IN 
15 Nm? IX. 
mad 7) 
17 DT x7IDM 
: yn 77) 
21 yA IX. 
ONIN OMIN 
i wn en 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


+ 


-~I 





20 
25 

3 
11 


12 


A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


yoy 
ON 
pn 
pins 
55 
snow 
mnsn 


773 
ye" 
mL’ 
mnt) 
733) 

a a) 
nap 
DASN 
SON) 
DANN 
np? 
sAN 
ompnos 
135u"3 
omnes 
135 
TINY 
msn 
ompnos 
mr 
nn 
NUN 
pin 


D3°5N 
(3d) 9 
Jap) 

7 INA 

my e)a)a) 
ON 


Watson Codex. 
nw 
oy 
onan 
PuTIN 
M33 
VIII. 
Doms 
LL. NA 
93753 
yw) 
mL’ 
Ansty 
way 
Til. {9 * vw 
moap 
DNMISN 
VII. 
DMINN 
VERE. 
TIN 
omDnss 
95u") 
VII. 
35) 
TIINWDD) 
man 
pmDnys 
yn 
mts 
NY? 
V. p*tn 
pn 
Il. 95°35*N 
Sy) 
III. 9py*5 
mi 
VI. (DDD 
EA. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


9 
10 


11 


13 


14 


30 
1 


9° 
a 


e 


py 
mow 
NN 
9? 

‘>’ 


(Ist &2d) 9 


6 
8 


9 


(1st) ” 
pa izan) 
THON 
19) 
onan 
qn 
953 
93 
MySNy 
on 
qn 
onan 
qpwrnn 
ov3 
59) 
open 
nrnron 
qpwnon 
Dy 
on 
> 

IN 
apn 
77133 
yoNn 
nosy 
MSY 
1 
pn 
wm 
pin 
Jenn 
a Pala 
on’) 


131 


Watson Codex. 


VII. 
mw 
TIN 
7 
Tx. 


IN TLL “PAT IN 


30") 
DON 
pI) 
Dna 
II. D* 
53 

IIL. * 53 
Myns 
Onan 
own 
DNDN 
penn 
py) 

55 

EEL. | * pur 
nyren 
ppwnan 
0 ay 
on 
95) 

EX: 

37 

X. 

7N 

Ex; 
MDS 
10") 
apn 
WNW) 
pn 

EX, 

yo" 
on” 





132 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


14 25 


oe 


28 


15 2 


16 4 


WN" 
ny355 
Nw") 
pon) 
on mdv’ 
mn 
33 
mown 
mors 
m3 

DN 
ie 
i) 
monn 
WRN 
DONS 
=") 
ANN 

. mon 
aa) 
13595 
JANN 
Ny) 
malate) 
9555 
yay 
737 
vRNA 
IN 
ON 
Posy 
wn" 
mow y 
pD75 
DN 


p55 
pun On 
33) 

7) 


Watson Codex. 


HEBRAICA. 


yun) 18 2 


nmyvns53 6 


1X. 14 
yur) 16 
IX. 20 

IX. 23 
a) 


I. Wp “ 


mos 19 2 


Ill. 7*535 
IX. 9 
DIN 19 10 
NDP 11 


W.. - SN 15 
YONI «2 2 


DN 4 
— * 
x) 

myx 1 
IX. 1 
IX. 
Tey 
mw 


V."* DDD 19 


"9 = 
yn 2 
IX. - 


wNOA . 
MINN) 21 5 
SN) 10 

ee 15 
09" 27 
Mvwy 30 


VL ODI 35 


VIIT. & IX. - 
VII. oe 
omvons ” 
VII. 22 1 
¥23"°a3 5 
VIII. Fe 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


rou 
IN 

3¥3 

5 
ryan 
Dy 
pL" 
onoae”) 
p51) 
93D 
py 
onion’ 
p95) 


ANSI 
(Ist) Sy) 
Oya 
ps) 
nN’ 
(Ist) "59 
DM) 


on WS 


(24) 7 
(24) FN 
ONT 
Wor 
5° 
p79 


' (2d) AN 


Ty 
raya) 

Sp’ 

755 

55 ON 
(2d) IN 
wn 
Nyon 
ays) 
(2d) pw 
30" 





Watson Codex. 
Il. -pm* oy 
rat 
83 
VIII. 
npn 
IX. 
IT. OO * 0") 
x. 
V. o* 575 
MD 
Il. p>*y9 
ono 
D915 
VI. SOAS 
VII. 
oy 
IX. 
PIN’ 
xo 
IIT. )* 3M) 
As one word. 
IX. 
VII. 
IX. 
or 
St 
pnyo 
Palys) 
msy) 
VII. 
S99 
Ill. "9*5 
59) 
IX. 
wm 
psn’ 
yA) 
mw 
30° 








or 








3079) 
6 NY) 
" rang 
“  sysn 
10 733 
14 ns) 
7 psn 
23 you) 
24 am) 
1. on 
25 N’wdD 
30 yor 

youn 
4 I'S 
. Nn 
. awn 
11 O15? 
. qr 
19 m3 
ue p1p3 
24 DONNY 
27 ~~ (Ist) FAN 
“ v9 
28 NN) 
31 INL 
* (1st) IN 
" sy 
33 wn’ 
5 MI 
6 YAN 
10 wy) 
11 "EN 
12 nny 
«pra 
5(1st & 2d) ANP 
12 nN 
MW op\yoIDs 
16 Oy 
21 ON) 
29 1’D 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


22 5 


Watson Codex. 


30°15) 


Vit. 


awn 
Vv. mya 
now 
nip 8 


VII. 
VIL. 
ym 


ae) ay 
NUD 


VON 


Down 


IX. 


Ill. * 73 


UT 


V. 4*109? 
poi 


tx. 
3 
VIII. 
AN) 
TON 
nN) 
Pw 
TX. 
VIII. 


WOM 


Dns 
VIII. 
IX, 
YN 


UL. AM 
ony 
mw 
SONA 


IX. 

IX. 
VI. 
yD" 


A GRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 133 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 


25 30 myst nanan 
82 (Ist &2d) 73D "xp 
33 Oy") Oy 
: (2d) AFAIN TX. 
35 0°30) DIN 
37 “an “ay 
4 ANSP Ap 
10 “ “ 
2 py myers 
13 ny Il. m* ym 
14 ny : nyvy 
19 (Ist & 24) Ay Yon 
33 ow ial 
6% ralalod VI. 


so oyna UL pana 


10% p»55s7 sO. om *55N 


5 (Ist) FDO IX. 
11 D5 om Pum X. 
12 TDN IX. 
19 win yr’ 
28 11 onn onin 
= Had Vv MADV 
18 5) 53 
19 | ADOAN DOAN) 
20 nadyV Mad 
21 onn Onin 
26 sre Pw 
“ 3n “Wy 
30 (Ist 624d) DANA UL. O* NA 
“ DdvD AN 1X. 
36 Onn oni 
43 npn IV. Hap 
3 ON oy 
21 PITDUT rm inigeyn | 
32 S5N” {ODN 
34 qa “pa 
36 p-p|sn ~~ COIL. O* 557 
40 mys mya 
42 (ist) Ow Tow 


43 wep VII. 








134 


30 


31 


oo 
bo 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 
12 755 
13 wap 
15 97) 
16 8 O75 In 
2 oon 
2 NIT 
340 DSM 
* 773 
36 Dw’ 
2 nN 
7 (2d) MN 
10 mwn 
12-14 
16 wv 
17 o>y5 
18 (Ist) FMD 
ee (2d) ee 
‘i p’sn> 
6 909) 
mI m3 
13 a 
15 (1st) AMD 
- (2d) se 


33 


34 


“ (ist &2d) OOD 


16 pon 


" mmon 
5 73) 
6 nN 
7 pnt 
8 wa 


10 (24) DY 
nu ow) 


13 ITN 

16 J5N 
- won 

18 INIT 

19 IM 
1 mm 
4 (ist) 


“ (2d) “c 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 
ILL. 99*5 
wapn 
IX. 
LU. Oo * D7 
oni 
7 9 
m339M 
333 
mu’ 
™N 
ny 
TWiT 
IX. 
1X. 
ody 
LU. ey 
mm 
DIND 
wr 
Eb PRS ip fadeo be | 
Dt 
LT. pYMY 
mim 
DIN 
mind 
mmon 
pv) 
nN 
V. penn 
wd 
Dy 
IX. 
ye 
NON 
YNIDN 
NT 
ma 
mom 


LL. tM 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


34 


35 


38 


7 (2d) SY 
9 wy 
11 WN 
38 DOTTWN 
16 wh 
¥ 723 
24 vn 
26 m3 
230 DYYON) 
29 3D 
‘ mmd> 
31 mw" 
7 ny 
11 won 
23 ny 
30 mn 
2 SNOAN 
4 3 
6 yoy 
8 4 vy 
7 APA 
19 my 
‘ myyy 
24 (Ist & 2d) YF 
29 7 
1,2 
3 aN 
MT 
17 397 


18 (Ist & 2d) FID 


20 


8 3 
TIN VIS 

i ANI 
0 DPN 
12 iON 
16 DN) 
19 OND 


2 = 9gnAn 


19 (Ist & 2d) HY) 


Watson Codex. 
oy 
wy 
IX. 
V. OTF YN 
ah irm a 
yI3 
v"IN 
ms 
Ops Nr) 
YD 
II. FEM 
300" 
OL. Fey 
IX. 
LL. FEN) 
"IN 
VILL. 
Ww" 
nay 
VII. 
VIII. 
nyvyy 
Ill. y* yy 
yr’ 
x. 
IX. 
SONA 
Maw 
MmVNIDN 
"3p 
D’ys 


shh) 

ILL. F\* NID 
Msayn 
yy) 

IX. 

D'IINA 
oA NDy 
syn) 




















A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 135 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
38 22 mn MN 39 23 mann VII. 
27 (ist) "35N 35 33 y way yrNpy 
39 3 m5 mis) 34 nvy nyvvy 
“ pond porns 36 "5 IX. 
6 nadVv MaDdW 37 MAI CV. ?) PPA 
11 153 VI. 53 y An Il. F\*7) 
22 ADIANY MOSMAN 40 15 ona on 
13 Nad W MID 19 (3d) FN IX. 
18 pan" pin") 20 ON VII. 
20 2 as 23 YON yoy 
21 DNF Il. OM * NT 37 x) xo 

LEVITICUS. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
1 2 (3d) 715 ja) 68 2 mw y mvwy 
6 Www Ww 2 PYF PLT 
9 23) 97S YON. mey x. 
10 19) 11 N 23 no X. 
12 Ty 7 27 p53)’ IX. 
2 13 (Ist) “PAN v.;"ivee + * 5 mine tiarn X. 
** (2d) 53 VI. WIFI 6 aa) X. 
3 3 apn mm. 12 FNM See also LX. | 
4 3 PICT PUT 21 W53 IN wd) 
5 . = 23 pal dgm) pa | age) 
16 “ “ 27 (ist) 55 55) 
18 (Ist) FFB IX. 30 nN ‘IN 
21 WN LX. 35 apn pit 
22 WYN meyn 36 on? on 
5 2 W538 v5) 37) ANSON neon 
? DYN) IX. 8 7 woo wg) 
6 mn DN 8 DN IT. OP * NN 
11 mw yp nvwy 14 wn) wr") 
12 M3 PUTT 16 wp") POP" 
17 a 4'28) PUY ‘4 PTD IX. 
6 1 737) 7") 18 vw) v7") 
4 TPS VI. SO)DOT «28 w/P") YO") 
9 “pan P29 5 (Ist) 1389 11D ON 
12 3p33 33 7 Mat Prt 
17 UND VII. 9 wy" yp" 
20 PIT PLT ”" PI VorT PAT 

*3 f 





136 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


9 17 
20 
10 1 


Po 


Op" 
yop" 
4") 
"ee 

INY 
oI. 
Won 


“ce 


“ 


p>n779 
ond 
YIN 
ye 
nN 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 
Op" 
70" 
wp" 
Il. 3*5 
VII. 
onIrVvd3 
Win 
VII. 
Won 
pan 
5937) 
TWN 
yw 
TN 


11 49D 95119) Seealso IX. ‘D9 O9) 


5 My 1D awn 


10 





ponm3) 
Dann 
qxen 
np 37 
ayn 
p’yrd 
yn 
YSN 
Nwon 
nw) 
3ynm 
oan 
ny 
nwo 
we) 
(2d) 793 
p’ypow 
ypwo 
aya aaa 
nyws 
ON 
nw 


bk 
p°5n)5) 
DIANA 
qnwn 
LL. 959)* 47 
IIL. §)* 7 
Ill. Dy *5 
Il. 4 * yn 
youn 

III. NY* 37 
NWT) 
3y7) 
LL. O* SNM 
ta 

ILL. NW* IT) 
wosn 

3) 

Vii. 

mw 

vats san 
nyo 

VIL. 

pnw 


Ch. 


13 


14 


16 


Vs 
25 


32 


18 


. Blayney’s Edition. 


spn 
Wit 


35 TWD Tw 


nnen 
1337 
ay 
7379 
onDy 
(24) ON 
ont 
wap 
np) 
als) 
pp 
0" 
ny) 
on 
Nw) 
INN 
TIAN) 
wn) 
391 
TUN 
(Ist) 777 
29 
UPN 
muna) 
23 


Dd 


DNODI 


wapint 
NOD 
NOD) 
yI5IN 
(3d) FN 
(2d) 9 
nn 





Watson Codex. 
Vil. 
IX. 
oe 
Pw 
VIII. 
Wit 
my IW") 
Dp )5¥ 
Y 
VIL. 
IX. 
IX. 
IX. 
ody 
va) 
Ay WN 
IX. 
IL. NUIT) 
“THIN 
TINT) 
IX. 
sh }a)a) 
VIII. 
IX. 
99) 
VIII. 
VIII. 


55) 


D5 
OANDYS 
ix. 

non 
non) 

III. 9995* 
IPN AN 
oy 

horn 


1 F\& is written at the end of one line and repeated at the beginning of the next. Cf. Table 
TX. for other instances of a similar repetition. 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


16 


17 


18 


19 





21 


ow 


a 
24 
i lrd 


a 


“ce 


31 


— 
mam OC Cr 


on 


A CRITICAL Copy OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


” 
novy 
pny 
(2d) FIN 
nryy 
yw 
ony 
nn 
yor 
ID 
on a> 
‘nN 
yoy 

Dp DNS 
wp)’ 
55) 


prrmpna) 


‘npn 
NN 
in 
qn 
04 
ANNAN 


ANDY? 73 


‘APN 
173 
Syn 
(2d) 3°) 
(Ist) ‘ 
(2d) XO 
non 
a> he 
ON 
*ApH 
YOM 
noy 
mwonn 
No 
YPP 


Watson Codex. 


aL 
may 
ony 


The word omitted. 


ny 
yw 
ony 
nn 
yoy 
Dns? 
ony 
EX. 

ex. 
VE. 
wp) '5 
VII. 


HT. OPA 


pH 


NINN 
v.pnvy 
NN 

IL. J3*7F 
ANINS 

7 ANDO? 
mph 

1X 


I. 55* yp 
x? 


See also IX. N59) 


main 
nD 
x) 
mph 
rx. 

abiay 
mwonn 
IX. 


YPYP 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


19 


to 
to 


31 
35 
36 
3 


MDNn 
poy 
?pwrnd 
IND 
APN 
D>y? 
mon 
Dy 
morn 
‘npn 
nya 


(1st & 24) JAN 


5 
‘pn 
SN) 
TWN IN 
7) 
snd 
(Ist) NO 
WN 


DIP: 


ww 
man 
on 
ON) 
ovy3) 
NSD) 
pyd 
pnw) 
p39 
x) 
1953) 
DONIN 
oan179 
DININ 
p53 

iy a 
p57 
p55 


137 


Watson Codex. 
VIII. 
TI. O* pwn 
II. 9*Dv193 
VII. 
‘MPN 
sada 
nor 
II. O9* pA 
mis 
*MIpN 
yan 
IIL. {A* AN 
i re 
mp 
VI. 5)93N) 
TWN) 
Ny IN 
ILL. (AND 
x) 
VII. 
ss \apia) 
wes 
EX. 
on 
IX. 
DOTY ON 
INV N 
pyn 
Onn 
p51399 
Ny, 
yoDo) 
DN’NT 


I. oN" 49 


DIN'D7 
od 
TU 

oO nd37 
om 








138 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


23 30 
36 
37 
39 


9 


a) 


43 


24 2 


13 


20 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


ISN) 
mn’ 
yy5 
py) 
13" 
p74 
7 
TH 
TAN 
oan 
Te" 
mn’ 
DLT 
wn" 
MDD 
Tsp 
yr 
p57 
mau 
TNDD 
mova) 
‘APN 
wWHrANISN 
on”) 
7N9 
059 nnd 
bg 

(1st) 19 
xo 

"35 


DNIN 
LIN 
SND) 
IY) 
UMD) 
SNPID 
DNSN 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 





Watson Codex. 


“ec 


IX. 26 6 ~y3) Vv. VY) 
muni 12 ADAM MDSANN 
1) JN) 77) 

is. 15 DN ax. 

5u 16 =6FpRwn nnawn 

VIL. “ pow) na) 

(V.?) 99 19 poy Doty 

yy 20 D ND Il. pDN*5 

‘TN 21 95 ™p 

IL. opts ss Nous VIII. & IX. 

V. hate ad 26 Dwr IX. 

mn’ 9355 . x) IX. 

pep 27 p35 =p 

wn") 30 0555) TI. 95°*5) 

059 31 = QD /NN) DONN') 

PDD 38 DIN D''N 

V. yr YEP 39 DNnIN DMIIN 
IX. 40 + - 

ont 4 JN pn 

VIII. 43 PMOwWNI VIII. 

MmvaD . ‘mph *mYpN 

niws 44 DNOND VI. OW)MOND 

mpnr omNeya OVE DMN Y3 

WANIIN 27 8 wom wy” 

IX. 9 bhiaja) VII. 

IX. 10 "97 Or 

IX. 18 mya yu 

III. 3* yw 20s mp’ 
Il. *5 31 eM) snw"pn 
LX. 33 “7 Vv. 9° On 

Vv. 97*¥9 

NUMBERS. 

Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
OnISN «1 «O18 DMSN DNDN 
VII. 20 s 
SND) 22 . . 
i) Fa om mps DATS 
VII. 23 ons - 
SN psp 24 DMIN DMIIN 


DIN 26 











Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


1 


28 
30 
32 
ee 
34 
36 
38 


“ 


40 
42 
dt 
47 





A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


DNIN 


iT) 


“es 


"5D93 
DNIN 
on7>in 
DNIN 
539 
DNIN 


“ 
sé 


oe 


mann) 
DimN3 
DMN 
TY 
SND) 
73 
ONYID 
DMN 
Dnwan 
7) 
o37pn3 
a aia) 
9995 
DMN 
nnawy? 
mn 
nnawn 
man 
75 
nod 
ppp 
DNDN 
73 
wn 
mwnr 
55 


Watson Codex. 


OMIIN 


“ 


IX. 
OMIN 


VIII. 
pmax 
i309 
OmaN 


“ce 
“ce 


“ce 


man) 
MANS 
DNDN 

Vil. 

SND) 
NTI 
SNpID 
DMISN 

x. 

799 
p33 
737 

9955 

DMISN 

IL. Fn 
1. 

I. P*Mawn9 
yr") 

oa 

HT. W*59999 
pot 
DNISN 

35 

rs. 

wh 

TA. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


4 


6 


15 55 
22 DMIN 
25 wn05) 
- mos 
26 uw) 
29 DNSN 
34 . 
38 “ 
40 “ 
46 
48 DYDON Pypw 
49 (ist) Sy 
. my 
3 86 nny 
8 oOmpsn 
13 p33) 
15 mowy 
19 0"N 
” pan 
20 (1st & 2d) TWN 
2 oyawr 
“ Ayows 
. TAN 
“ syne) 
a oy 
. ao 
‘ 203 
NOY 
22 AWN 
23 DD 
24 sg 
- p> 
26 pn) 
27 p19 
28 Ans 
. yur) 
29 WN) 
3 a a) 2g 
5 aap 


139 


Watson Codex. 
9 93 
Ill. O7*5N 
WDd'5 
md D1) 
wn 
DMIN 


rc. 

IX. 

my 

OTN ON 
oman 
ma>yo) 
nvewy 

V. 7 * UN 
VII. 

V. T* ON 
yawn 

Ill. Fy* ws 
V. 78 

IL. VY * v9) 
VI. yO)Oy 

V. T ba bs 

Vv. 7*303 
VII. 

|B. & 

D NDT 


D-IND 
VII. & IX. 
DND> 
VIL. 
my) 
WN 

Pex. 

III. weap 





140 


6 


1 


10 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 
7 9)nND) 
11 73) 
17 13D) 
2 DNIN 
8 AyYIIN 
10 nwo 
11 mw" 
29 53 
41 BNL 
54 OND) 
60 pw 
. IYI 
61 (1st) "MN 
" ae 
65 3) 
71 wy 
72 SNYID 
84 nv 
88 ss 
4 MAND 
" ANID 
7 7 
9 AIPM 
19, 20 
26 mwyn 
3 5951 
WwW oAIN 
1 on) 
12 yyNw” 
npn 
13 wr) 
14 npn 
9 fIDwD 
22 (1st) O92 
23 mn 
7 SAPNA 
s on 
10 yyou’ 
19 BPN 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 


won 
5D) 
DMIIN 
YIN 
mewn 
VII. 

3 

VII. 
SND 
9 yr nn 
yD 
Dns 
pimsu 
Nya 
vik. 

SN y35 


V. won 
VI. POwOr 
rnp 

x. 

VII. 

ix: 

x: 

wyn 

995) 


I. OIN*777 
UI. p9* 9) 


Nw” 

LV. MPA 
ONT 

IX. 
nw 
oy 

nm 
7773) 


IL. ONT? 


es) 4 


Tey 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


LV. INO)NNY) 10 23 


4 
26 
28 
29 


32 


33 
35 


20 


SND) 
AID 
7) 
ONYID 
95 
3°) 
pa ba bd 
WIT 
n> 
yy5") 
sabia 
°DN" 
pIwpn 
Daw 
ymnawy> 
999399) 
poNn 
PONT 
oN) 
ye") 
°DN! 
wp 
"pt 
D355 
oy 

in el 2g 
mine’ 
pn 
nvns 
Non 
(3d) WN 
7" 
YIN 
mn 
NTD 
n> 


NOW 
NUT 
DIAN 





Watson Codex. 
OND 
NYIID 

Dy 

V. ON* PID 
IX, 
JID 
5 
933007) 
wn 
wi" 
19" 
1995 
ONIw*PIT 
DONT 


I. yp * Naw 


IX. 
“VINN 


(TIL?) [O*NA 


IX. 
yw 
15D’ 
VII. 
"pr 
D'DINDS 
TX. 

iz. 

Vil{. 

VII. 
mewn 
VIII. 

ke 
7 
ILI. )\*3N 
IN 
ID 

Il. 9* 7,5 
75 
Vii. 

.s.. 
DIN 














A GRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


Ch, Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


13 21 nvn3 
22 mm 
- ivr 
23 p59 
2 8 8©6SOwNA 
re » WN 
26 1300") 
“ mia) 
30 yISM 
32 moy 
33 =n> 
si DUN 
34 779) 
- D337 
. 9373) 
“ sno 

14 2 YVSN" 
3 yr’ 
P 195 
Ys aw 
6 DANI 
7 sno 
“ FID ANS 
8 (NT 
11 rN 
13 N33 
14 Wow 
15 “AMS 
17 m3 
18 po yoan 
19 ile 
wu TIS 
23 DA3N9 
25 Wd 


‘yo oN 
27 SNTWw 999 


31 rn 
36 an 
0") 
38 wn 


Watson Codex. 
Ill. * 53 
Saal 
Vu. 
VI. (9) 
WNT 
x. 
uv") 
hr 
yI3) 
VIL. 
win> 
WIN 
mr) 
D’33ND 
9353/7) 


“n> 
VEE. 


Lc. 

139 

VII. 

I. OANA 
n> 

TA; 

as 
mn 

Il. M* 33 
VIII. 
SONA 
Ill. m*5 
pyon 
mn 
NIN 
DMIN9 
WD 

rx. 

IX. 

VILLI. 
wn> 
su") 
“n> 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


141 


Watson Codex. 


14 40 woy yoy 
- mi VII. 

45 yw" Ill. 99 *v" 

15 4 my 23 rr ya 
5 mya mys 

9 oMwy UL os wy 

1 8pawo3 IX. 

4 pA UL onnsD 
16 395) 5) 

20 pono sy pDND Wy 
2 pan UL ont 
si mw? maw 
27 AM am 
29 OND! ony 
33a IP" 
36 WSN) wey) 

33 oman. one 

2 YY See also IX. FYYY 

39 my nye Y 
nan man 
ale 737) IX. 
Woy? IX. 

” TU sw) 

K mY wy 
“nen sane 
14 ANT NONI 

- D'v'IN DWNT 
TN SNA 
as "D m0 
.. pnw 


‘ mnws5) 


. mone 
33 ‘s 

35 9379 
38 ID 
42 aN) 
48 Dn 
49 (1st &2d) * 
50 7" 


“ND? See also VII. ND! 


mrad) 
ILL. 9>o* Nw 


ya"p'5 
dap 
VIL. 
DVT 


7 


au" 





142 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


17 


19 


20 





3 


18 


“ee 

“ee 
19 

ee 


99 
—— 





HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 


ONIN DMAN 21 27 
ow Woe’ 29 
DNIN DIMNSN 30 
NY") NY) 32 
DTU Ope 33 
may my 22 6 
rm) Mm 2 
vn vn 18 
yn) Ws 19 
MO" ore 21 
“DN “5N AN 22 
>) IX. 23 
Nw NUT 24 
1X. 26 
ap) ps ” 
#79) VII. 30 
PINT VII. 31 
75) {53 32 
xy) VII. 34 
TWN VIL. 
PAID) OV. WII 39 
MIYN IX. “ 
yawn BWM 2 6 
pw 3 10 
9985 95) 6s 
DSANT LLL DANA 
pn (3 , 
PIM pa 11 
Dawn lil. od* wr 17 
21793 "sr ta 18 
D3 * “ 
Itwice [3.- .. NVVYP Once only. 19 
o9n3an o> nn 21 
ANMS MND 22 
ppm pp ins 30 
OMIM Ywrd) VIII. 24 4 
Song Sworn . 
Sxon) NONI) 6 
773 JON 8 


1 Doubtless a printer’s double of eight words. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


oN 
DD 
(2d) yy 
mn 
DANI? 
i733 
py 
It IN 
ya) 
VIAN 


33) 
ONYWDS 
ay 
Ny" 
nvon 
33) 
08 
333 
aw. 
ANI" 
pen 
333 
DY 73D °D 
75019) 
DN 
yaw 
3p? 
33) 
Mop 
nyow 
DAN 
SNw3 
noypns 
naan 
UY 

ory 
YDS 
npynd 





Watson Codex. 
san 
VL. pyyoD 
3) 

Il. PH* 99 
IX. 

ra. 

VII. 

37 
AyAN) 

5g. 19° Ta 
Vv. 3*¥) 
Sywns 
“ay 

wy" 

IV. XM9ON 
»y) 
ILI. 93* AN 
VI. 30°)¥3 
VII. 
IND" 
myn 

Vv. 3°83 
"5p 
VIII. 


The word omitted. 


nyo 
Td. 

83 
py 

VII. 

VII. 
SN7w"3 
mpyns 
horn 
nw 
min 
0) 
mpyns 











A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 143 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 


24 12 non VIII. 26 57 mp5 IV. ND 
13 ay IX. 59 DNnNMs DNINN 
16 AD mn 68 mpd IV. (5 
7 TTY Vil. 27 1) Maw mnpwn9 
i Min rr 4 a> ia) IX. 
17 yn IX. 5 3" 7p" 
18 (1st &2d) YI" me 7 nna m3 
23 WN III. #*& 9 955M) See also LX. MOM 
24 Vay’ VIII. 14 Ld) » 
’ wy" VIII. 17 ym) ws 
25 777 IX, 19 DAYS DVI? 
. ba an) su 28 5 PY nvwy 

25 1 morn moro 6 ANWyN IX. 
3 398") sm. 7 \900) D9) 
7 Apt Ap" 9 _ VIII. 
4 Sw SN 11 on’ ayayeyn) 
15 fay=tp) vu. 2 869f95sn UL on*53n 
18 5 VIL. “  p339pN3 p33pn3 
. DNNN DMINN 29 2 ON Vil. 

26 1 INN “INN 20 wy nnwy 
2 DIN DMIs . alate Ix. 
7 PInbwe = Iv. ponbwp 389 pops OF. pan*Sy5 
10 p39 pi) «30 2 my IX. 
122 AMdSwy> I. A*nbwn> 3 Nyy VIII. 
n OT IX. 6 (1st &2d) NIT NOT 
1 onnbwe> = ominbwn> we Ney ny 
* wr wr . mn mn" 
24 sw au 9 Non ny 
. WIT wT . 9577) Vv. ON 
25 wou IX. 11 yw OIL. Ay*aws 
30 pan? pam = 2 NIT Nu 
84 MDD mins 13 on Or 
ss Sw SIN . p77 p Won 
« NOUN SYN 15 (1st & 2d) YY wn 
41 pAMpD? omspa) . opm opm 
42 (1st) FON TIN) ” Opn opr 
47 OAD? IX. 16 957 VI. 9()577 
51 pd IV. (1/5 31 2 oN IX. 
55 DNSIN DNI3N 3 won VL SO)SAA 


“ yonam IX. 14 pd UL. * Db 
*4 





144 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 

31155 OnYnn 
18 yn 
19 DAVIN 
21 MN 
23 pA 
30 PP 
34 om 
88 )) 
44 93) 
47 TAIN 
1 STN 
“oon oN 
480 ppan 
54 Wd") 

32 3 Modu" 
5 wayn 
10 
14 8 DoNIN 
17 DINAN 
WIN 
* muy 


33 


20 (2d) ON 
2 nw 


" DN 
27 3)” 
28 MSNA 
33 (1st) M991 
“ce (2d) “ 
. no333 
3 ANNI" 
36 "¥3 
38 PVNVYI 
" nap 
3 pppyn 
7 S79 
8 pn’ 
4 89513 
6b Ooms 


23 TPN 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


OMT = 33 29 


ynA 
pon’aw) 

i. 

ILL. oon 


Il. oO * DM) 
Th. 

Ts. 

IANA 

SONA 

on155 

nt ary pant 
sala) 

Vial. 
wyayn 

IX. 

Ill. O5°N*5N 
DIIN'DT 

Vv. 7*¥99n 
bn ad 

VII. 

VIII. 

op3 

1x. 

MSN 


(IV.?) FQ)D9DD 


mon 
mo333 
Vit. 
yD 
ny ys 
Fu) ete)ia) 
IX. 

7X. 

Vili, 
p53 
pvp 
VI. ADM)NDS 


34 


36 


30 
31 





Watson Codex. 


Apnos VL ApMnos 
nivons nyon3 
mvony Fu) al}a}e) 
Nyda PII 
onowD onyvsw1 
Sy, DYN IX. 
DN 59 ON 

93N “SN 
TANS TN 
059 IX. 

ri Vort VIII. 
IANS NIN 
nos NODNA 
SANS NIN 
(Ist & 2d) ONIN DnIN 
YM) DNIN 199 IX. 
(24) Dye oy 
(8d) FINS IX. 
py roy 
np" IX. 

(24) MD» no 
(1st) NW IX. 
. N 

2d) FWD IX. 
5) 11. 9)*5 
_pnpwn? mnawn? 
wn V. 7* M3 
WMI ILL. wh*SN 
mT Awan 
WMS IL. wWN*3N 
(2d) 79M3 V. 7*9M3 
m7 wan 
on 30n 
maa As 
inonms Ss. 4*93 
nm Mm 














Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 


17 yyw 
* 773 
11 DOIN 
19 N19) 
20 DION 
. WON 
28 ony) 
32 9373) 
33 n> 
38 PIN 
39 5 
40 9yp) 059 
4400 

21 3D)) 
5 979 
6 own 
7 735097 
. 73 
“ D3 
8 POND 
10-12 
23 86D Swrn 
ra) aap) 
30 My 
36 ADA ND 

3 4 3398 
5 pyr 
6 m0? 
17 DWN 
23 JAAN) 
24 F339) 
26 x 

4 6 pian 
13 mm 
18 rab 
34 pp) 
37 IN 
. sn) 
38 DOs 


145 


DEUTERONOMY. 
Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 

yiow 4 39 naw mawn 
aes wy ON 
, OmMIX 41 os oe! 
IL. N*39) 42 D9 =) 
EX. 43 5 5 
IX. r nnn nn 
poy si wD VIL. 
337) 47 wn IX. 
wn? 49 DIWN MIWN 
pirit 5 9 AMAWN MAAwNA 
IIL. ¢* 39 ss Sy) VI. 
D5? I/D) o Dyson oys5 
MIU 14 WM Ii. 7 * 25M) 
3105) 15 3") sys) 
IX. 16 p>’ )D7N’ 
Iw 21 mon) Ill. 7 * 5M) 
IX. “* per wa As one word. 
IX. plan IV. SY) 
IX. 22 mm IL. Fem 
NP ND 29 poy Il. od* yd 
IX. 6 9 Prin nvr 
D377 - DAS PIS 
HVWITp a OND) Ul. oO Md*) 
nN 7 4 “ry Vig. 
IX. 5 PAWN V-. OF * YN 
S.N7 “  pmop5) om) 
omy 6 m3D WI. F9* 3D 
nn? 8 MISAND IANS 
MNIWSN . Fawn UL. Hy* sawn 
MIIAANI 9 NIT 1%, 
Vv. TANIA 13 p34 VIL (99 
IX. TT... TWN IX. 
IV. BO)Sh 19 pos IV. oA Msn 
WL emo DD DD 
vi. 8 8 THIS = TL. pPNn* SN 
II. O95 * 95) 7 D'NSY O'NY? 
I. ?* IN 10 ON by 
Il. \7* 55) il yapm = OL. yn*pm 
DD SV) 17 Im III. 94*5 





146 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


8 17 
18 


ee 


20 


Jaa -} 


om 


“ 


10 
11 
13 
15 
17 
19 
26 
27 
“ 
29 
10 1 


7 

11 

12 

“cc 

15 

17 

22 

ll 3 
8 

12 

14 

20 

22 

23 

29 

30 

12 5 


psy) 
n> 
yD) 
DIAN 
DD Sy) 
pw 
"I 
yown 
Mops 
(24) FMD 
pon> 
mm> 
40) 
mm 
DD°wN) 
(1st) > 
ON 

"I 

wD 
N33 
Am 


mons 
DNaNo 
pAyw> 
nN 
NIN 
37) 
NIN 
YOON 
(1st) IN 
7INT 
7305 
nr 
p37) 
wT) 
p93 97 
3wrn 
wows 


HEBRAICA. 


Watson Codex. 
Ill. o* ¥y) 
Ill. A*3 
Vii. 
IX. 
IV. OSI 
a} ama) )A) 


Dt 

ix. 

my>ys 
min 
pind 

UL. penny 
me 

Il. pen 
DOWN) 
IX, 

ix, 

Ii 

1x, 

IIL. W*33 
II. F*m> 
A) 
DNSNo 
ANY 

DN 

TI. \* IND 
33°37) 

III. \*3N 
YINN 

55 TN 
{N 

09 

nvr 
Mpa 
wenn) 

As one word. 
3w'n 
Ww 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. 


12 5 
11 
13 
14 
15 
17 


“ce 


“c 


20 
13 5 


14 2 


16 9 


17 12 


me 
(24) ow 
pny 


155" 
JIN? 
795 

qwin 
DON 
DIAN 
NIN) 
(24) NO 
wun 
‘DY 

Sy3 

93D 
YN 
95) 
myn 
DDN) 
Mop 
Dann 
Nein 


ADIWT . 


95) 
p37 
nm 
mwy 


' pwayn 


ooyn 
ray 
Syd 
WOR 
957 
935 
5 
maps 
faya}a}g 
ow") 
nar 





Watson Codex. 
ow 
mw 
VI. ONY 
v. yny 
ix. 
59x 
VI. W299 
wun 
PON 


The word omitted. 


ana. yh *95N) 
x) 

won 

yoy 

Sy55 

mo 

PN) 

v=) 

Spry 
IDDND) 
yy 
DIDANA 
qnwn 
now 

55 

37 

] » 

mey>) 

 & @ 

x. 

yoyn 
S59 

VII. 

(IV.?) (0)957 
(IV.?) \)935 
(IV.?) "93 
VII. 

IIT. ODD *v 
Il. Oo D*w 
VI. py) 














Ch. Vs. Blayney's Edition. 


A CRITICAL Copy OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 147 


Watson Codex. 


17 12 ON) ON ON 
20 DN PX. 
“ 4naon9 av ala 

18 1 ws WIN 
3 pono pnd) 
4 yu 75 
8 55 Ix. 
10 ayn 73D 
11 DNDN Dna 
12 ow pw 
14 Dw, FA, 
15 YON YON) 
16 S)DIN eDIN 
22 “la he TX. 
" nar Vv. y4*t3 
- wun "un 

19 3 Tn. ony 
5 W's (III.?) ia 
, Sus) IX. 
7 S73 Son 
17 DUN DYNA 
° 9955 9955) 
“ po pown UL ops* wn 
is oO MawN LI. ops wr 
21 sm hi) 

25 pomp! IL onp*wnr 
‘ : ~ mn 
9 ‘ m ig 
10 AND) PNW 
11 pn> pio 
18 Onan onan 
19 WwWH5....NID5 IX. 

22 IDL yqww 
3 y3 Sy3 
11 nnn? VIL. 
14 sy VI. AM) 
17 m537 537 
20 31D) N10) 
23 NOT NON 

22 1 3wn wh 


Ch. 


22 


23 


24 


26 


27 


Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 


4 p75) IX. 
9 yspn OVI. wp 
19 noins nyins 
21 morn miso 
29 55wnm See also IX. 55y777 
“ W719 y WET. 
30 (24) x) 
4 PSPS IX. 
6 DAD DMDw 
" oyy5 lL. 09* y9 
8 yoy yy 
14 (Ist &2d) M9 TID 
16 3103 © OX, 
17 met map 
* wtp aa 
22 5 >) 
4 WON INDOAN 
8 DN WwW DANS 
11 ny V EEE. 
13 3vn rw 
14 15 Vv. VF" 
16 (1st & 2d) \yy wn 
21 soyn Syn 
8 Mon wn 
15 en Pd iy 
“ pa’ p7N’ 
17 I Not 
1s DOWNIN pD>owan 
8 pn DAD) 
14 N53 TE. 99585) 
15 wp Vv. Fe 
18 53D III. 779* 30 
4 myn we 
9 nn rT 
10 yApN HL. y* pA 
22 JOAN (III.?) JANN 
7 DANO DDT 
«“ yaw VIII. 
12 39 3) 
8 Fw Aw yy 








148 HEBRAICA. 


Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 

2200 Preaen TVOCT 28 68 DINN DIN 
“VV INT ‘TVAN 68 PYDNI UT. FAYI* NS 
oa ‘>’ IX, 23) DYDD DID WT) 
4 OUT Town 5 77") TN) 
- yao) maw) 8 WINN TU3137 
” n900 msn 9 own own 
27 ~ IX. 1 po De IT. ps 0*w 
“5 DT) pn) 11 aN ann 
28 7?’ IX 1220 ayn yy? 
31 on Wan 15 (1st) "WN VIII. 
“7 PII M13 IX. 17) gptsog IL. pate dy 
33 ™5) ™) 19 Ann mn 
35 Mm)’ Vil. 20 nS VI. 
36 7." yor 21s NA An 
” WAN AND 23 ONS) TT. O*N* DB) 
40 Yu" > DNnax OMmIN 
- Ww VI. yO)" 28 mans Mons 
41 Tan vn 29 N93 Vu. 
42 ven’ yey 380 1 PDT M37) 
48 TIN —-VL WIN ‘ oy IN 
51 TWONA VIN 10 YApM UL yA*pm 
58 rs? py 161 no? 
54 a a bb sny 20-34:12 x. 
55 ye IX. 


The manuscript has none of the headings of books and sections found in 
Blayney’s edition nor are the initial letters of the books of extraordinary size. 
The punctuation and the division into paragraphs are not identical with those of 
the printed text but a detailed statement of the difference is beyond the scope of 
this collation. 


TABLE II. 
The only place where two readings are actually given is Gen. 30:37. See 
HEBRAICA, Vol. IX., p. 223. 


TABLES III., IV., V. AND VI. 

It is not deemed necessary to reprint these Tables apart from Table I. There 
the text which the scribe preferred is given at length and the secondary readings 
are indicated by asterisks and parentheses, the former denoting the insertion of 
a or a’, as the case may be, and the latter the omission of the inclgsed letters. 











A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 149 





TABLE VII. 
GENESIS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney. Reading Reading Ch. Vs. Blayney. Reading Reading 
. Given. Indicated. Given. Indicated. 

44 ra7N) 1B. PII) «25 4 my B. 4(?)7 DN 
10 15 nn nna B. 11 > AN B. 
12 15 mv Bo =D 28 6 yw" yy" B. 
6 DOTY OTD B. 3014 = %N WNW B. 7) 
141° FOND NOB. 81 8 ITIVD ONY JAIIV99) ‘B. 
5 O73 B. DMD 35 9 nv) my) B, 
cw 377 Mm) MIND B. 

8 NT Nw B. 41 19 73 B. ND 

7 AMT 32 WT B 
2 © = «NUN B. SYWN) 42270 SNA B. “INN 
16 14 Nw> B. FAN 64414 ws B m5 
19 9 TN SANA 3B. 46 10 TIN) B. SAN) 
7 AAA ata) B. 12 mow B. 79W" 
28 (1st) PNT BON 47 14 wry BRB OPS 
22 5 sy) 773 B. 4917 (Ist) Sy noy B. 


2446 ANpWA B. ANPWN 50 11 px PNT OB. 


EXoDUwvS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. ‘ 

Ch. Vs. Blayney. Reading Reading? Ch. Vs. Blayney. Reading Reading 
Given. Indicated. Given. Indicated. 

6 15 WIN) B. “IAN 22 6 N39) PINS) B. 
T2oN0Ao. ~=—OoB.. OFYNID wpyansn  B. )MYyNS 
9 30 yy B Ay 23 you yow B. 
173 DN" B. SDN") 25 21 ON) BOO) 
9 porn ON pers B. 26 6% rou B. 3(?) Ow 

20 5 (Ist) 539 Sy B. 36 8 wy NBS B. 
19 (2d) FAX TN) B. 39 28 MAN B. NWN 

21 15 9D 70) B. 40 20 SN B. oy 


1B = reading of Blayney’s edition. 

2 These two entries should have been omitted from Table I. 
3 The mark perhaps accidental. 

4 The mark perhaps unfinished or accidental. 

6 Cf. Ex. 17:2 in Table IX. A. 





150 


Ch. Vs. 


6 17 
10 4 


13 22 
25 


Ch. Vs. 


1 6 
12 
2 12 
5 19 
21 
26 
28 
i | 
41 
71 
11 23 
12 5 
13 19 
22 
32 


14 3 


Ch. Vs. 


4 18 

43 
5 9 
8 18 
15 18 
16 9 


Blayney. 


UND 
NY 
nan 
DN 
357 


Blayney. 


ion | gaa by 
™UDY 
UNL 
p37 
NOS 
D7) 
nnp3 
7" 
LIAL 
TWD 
wp 
myn 
Noun 
Ansan 
midy 
av 


Blayney. 


ra 
wr9I99 
Sy) 
yo) 
YSN 
npn3 


HEBRAICA. 


LEVITICUS. 
Watson Codex. 
Reading Reading Ch. Vs. Blayney. 
Given. Indicated. 
B. AWND 17 15 95) 
B. INU) 19 36 IND 
Nmon inn 21 6 WN 
DON) B. 27 9 35 
oor B. 
NUMBERS. 
Watson Codex. 
Reading Reading Ch. Vs. Blayney. 
Given. Indicated. 
mus B. 1630 N93 
B. TIDY 42 Ny) 
B. FTW 19 21 7) 
xypIT OB. 20 5 INT 
B. Sy 6 ny) 
B. (7?) 07 11 WN 
B. ANN 212 poy 
B. 439" 34 mW. 
B. TIWHY 2318 Ayo 
TW Dy B- 19 DIN 
pn B. 24 16 il wy’ 
B. Wy 25 15 rata 
B. Fo 18 pe | pn) 
B DN 2 2 Sy 
myys B. 3220 (2d) ON 
re lng B. 
DEUTERONOMY. 
Watson Codex. 
Reading Reading Ch. Vs. Blayney. 
Given. Indicated. 
Bey 21 ANP 
ws? B. 22 29 my 
Sy B. 28 35 755’ 
yoo B, 29 20 nd 
wor B. 
AONpI «8B. 





Watson Codex. 


Reading Reading 

Given. Indicated 

B. 55 

B. (2?) 

B. TWN 

B. FIND 
Watson Codex. 

Reading Reading 

Given. Indicated. 

mo A’ 

nv) B, 

rm) (?)B. 

B. FINN 

my) B. 

MmMmvmM Awn 

ony B. 

yr (2) B. 

B. you 

DANA B. 

B. bes | Ul 

B. WS 

B. PotD 

B. DN) 

DN) B. 


35 FUTATII FTATIIN (2) TIIN 


Watson Codex. 
Reading Reading 
Given. Indicated. 


B. ANP 
B. my 
>’ B. 
nd B. 


29 989997) F909) B. 


In Tables VIII. and IX. reference will be found to some other places in 


which secondary readings were indicated. 

















A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 151 


TABLE VIII. 

The additions are inclosed in parentheses. They are interlineations except 
where otherwise stated. ‘‘1st’’ denotes the first scribe and ‘“‘2d”’ another 
hand, no attempt being here made to discriminate between the work of perhaps 
several later scribes. Where the additions are in exactly the same ink as the 
surrounding text ‘‘a”’ is added; while these changes may have been made imme- 
diately after the writing of the word affected, it should be borne in mind that 
the first writer used the same kind of ink throughout the volume, although its 
transcription occupied considerable time. No account is taken of the text sup- 
plied on paper in many places principally by the writer of the Arabic colophon. 
See also Table IX. 


GENESIS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Authorof Ch.Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of 
Change. Change. 


1507 “PONSVT JONI Ist; a. 42.17 DN (2)DN" Prob. Ist. 
10 a) nO) > 21 MW APIS 1st. 


2116 MYDD MYDD “ “ 4410 ONIPI ON) Ist; a. 
2523 YN yyy) “451 NAM GNI « 
2712 ANIA OMNI Prob. Ist. 46 20 yD ‘ 
2916 MOP AWOPA itso «NED 5 


8317) ANNID AAMID 21 933) = (9)55) Ist; a. 
4120 DWN VIMMINUNVN “§ 49° 8 NAY MAM) Prob. Ist. 


50 PIN ° 


EXxopvws. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings, Authorof Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of 
Change. Change. 
3.8 FTN (ATW) ? 18 16 9-199) Prob. 1st. 
“  S9DIDTN = DIBA 23 24 OT PAYD VOI) HAs“ 
9 SN 8O)ON TY 2d. 31 ww 42=ay) “ “ 
11 MY75 See Table IX. B. 24 6 NMP See Table IX. C. 
4 28 wow wnAnbw ? 29 43 YETI) 19, 29(1)UPT/93) Prob. 1st. 
6 25 npo (mp9) Prob. 1st. 36 2 SSSAN SNO)SAN Ist; a. 
17 2 VON" See Table IX. A. WW ANSON ADSMPT “ 
16 71) (29, *"4(§) Prob. 1st. 


1,2 «046 A mark over the interlineated letter, contemporary with it, indicating its omission 
fora secondary reading. 

34,°n¢5 Perhaps each of these expressions was at first written as one word and the dots 

whieh separate them into two, as given in Table I., subsequently inserted by the first scribe. 


y0'515 appears as one word in Gen. 41:45 and pRIND as one in Gen. 41:45, but as two in v. 50, 


7 The )} prefixed, not interlineated. Its insertion was at the first writing indicated for a 


secondary reading. ‘ 

8 The ’ was doubtless placed where it is by mistake. The intention was evidently to change 
‘Dp)371), v. 8, to 'DI3°); the 7 is above the 

9, 11,12, 13,18 Inserted in line, not interlineated. 

Z and 18 The insertion of the letter added was at the first writing indicated for a secondary 
reading. 

14 The writer of the } indicated its omission for a secondary reading. 








152 HEBRAICA. 


LEVITICUS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Authorof Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of 
Change. Change. 


-~I 


25 Dyoy Oyoow ist;a. 1713 DSN O(D)5\M3 Prob. 2d. 
1356 = (D357 10)DI5/7 Prob. Ist. 19 31) YIN PYDO)N Ist; a. 


14 6 Ont OV ? 23 43 DIT ODA) Ast; Pa. 
1518 FON ADLON Ist; a. 2510 PDB 4PQBAI)Y Ist; a. 
24 LPN (PVN Perhaps ist. 26 21 NISDM See Table IX. A. 


FTTH) 307771) Same as of 43 FTOUNID PTOUN())D Ist; a. 


last preceding. 


NUMBERS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Authorof Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of 
Change. Change. 
138 OAT DIN) ? 2412 NYT UNIT Ist? 
11 32 IN ° UA)wIMY Prob. Ist. 24 Wy? = 2\DIY Ist; a. 
12 14 NOT NOVO 2a? . my) UMN 


14 2 ON O)ON Ist; a. 28 9 DN WSN “ “ 
14 wow pow) “« “ 30 3 NOVT NOT 
31 795 wWw37 “ “6828 AW) BAW 
43 mm? =: SFNT) Ist? 2 PDwN MnDwh ? 

21 18 OMpwnd) ONIywiD)d) 33 8 Dp = 15/9999) Ist. 

Prob. 2d. 34 8 mipr (CMADN ist; a. 

23 10 HD) 1%, ™HDM(4) Prob. 1st. 


DEUTERONOMY. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of Ch. Vs. Blayney. Readings. Author of 
Change. Change. 


(o-) 


7 4 a) (FIT) Ast? 28 7 Pw) youd) Ist; a. 
diene NYY (NN Ist? 29:15 (Ist) TWN awe 


1 The addition of a} for a secondary reading was probably indicated at the first writing. 

24,7 and18 A mark over thé interlineated letter, contemporary with it, indicating its omission 
for a secondary reading. 

3, 5, 9 and 11 The insertion of the letter added was at the first writing indicated for a secondary 
reading; probably so also at !4 «=< 16, 

6, § and 15 Tnserted in margin. 

10 Inserted in line. 


12 The interlineated 7} has been erased. 

















A CRITICAL Copy OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 153 


TABLE IX. 
A. Letter erased and no other put in its place. 

This section includes the words from which letters have been removed, 
either by scratching or by washing out, without the substitution of others. The 
letters erased are inclosed in brackets. ‘‘Sec.’”? denotes that the shorter text 
was indicated as a secondary reading by the original scribe. It is of course 
difficult to assign a simple erasure to its maker, The manuscript, however, 
affords proof that the changes in Ex. 17:2, Lev. 21:9 and Num. 11:15 at least 
were made by the first hand. 


GENESIS. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
4 25 yr YUE 2 8 wy Se.  wWipyp 
15 16 a (W3w" 27 28 ") og vn 
7 6. OID) ODMMorN}) 29 7 7 OA 

16 9990) DLMorN)9D) 3032 = FD YN Sec. [AMDYN 
19 20 DOMN Sec. [ADIN 37 8 Sw Sec. OP wy 

26 va/e)) “TAD 88 24 O75 Se. Or 
21 7 Man ?Sec. Mp7 

EXxopws. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
8 15 "79 “INT7 16 24 “pan “pIALII 
10 2 95° Se. Oo 17 2 ON 1 
12 44 iN -: IND] 18 238 Woy WNDy 
13 19 MVIsy Hilpsy 23 4 J's TRUIIN 
14 20 yen yen! 19 mvs Pris 

28 mw" ow") «=—-25 838 (2d) AN See. SANIAT 
15 2 mV See. [APTN 27 12 HVWON = PSec. FPINL?T) 

8 JOR  “ — FDIDN 38 12 TDN MONI] 

18 Ny) WHY) 

LEVITICUS. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
418 (Ist) FD Sec. PDI) 25 5 yy vty 
1519 = (Ist) FAV MIF «26 15 ON _ OND] 
21 9 PTD See. PAID Nuon a 
23 30 IATISN) Sec. (AION 26 yaw) Wer 








1 The facts seem to show that the word was first written without the final }, that ) was then 
added and that subsequently the ) was erased but its addition indicated as a secondary reading, 
all by the first hand. Cf. Ex. 17:3 in Table VII. 

2 The original reading was )$3F (or 13M) but an 8 has been interlineated by a second (? 
hand and the original & (or Ff) erased, making the text read }3NN. 








154 HEBRAICA. 
NUMBERS. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
914 8 =APM = Sec. ANIM 2% 13 ay “nay 
11 15 SN) 1 17 au) aul) 

29 By Sec. Dy] 25 3 “38") [7938 

31 now [Doe 28 6 wy APNwyn 
15 38 mys FIaPyy 31 38 “p3) “pain 
16 9 oy? Soyo = 44 PBA Pee. ABET 
20 18 TIDYN Sec. [AIMDYN 33 7 579 SEI 
23 11 595 Sec. ap? 

DEUTERONOMY. 

Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. Ch. Vs. Blayney’s Edition. Watson Codex. 
15 6 DIN BIISPYM 28 22 1’ Sec. [755° 
17 20 DN ?Sec. DIN 27 +“ 66 &s 
18 8 55» [I99N 28 “ ‘ &s 


B. Letter changed into or substituted for another. 


Erasure and addition, either singly or combined, were used to transform one 


letter into another in the places here referred to. 


the same signification as in Tables VII. and VIII. 


a “Ist” and 6 Od ” have 


GENESIS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present 
Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading. 
14 2 NT NW 24 B. 45 21 myn 3) myn 2d B. 
38 12 Sy B. 24 5p 
EXopDwvs. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present Ch. VS. Blayney. Original Present 
Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading. 
3 11 mya B. 2 25 16 SN Sy 3 
9 20 SN Sy 2B. 3015 S77) Sam) 4 


, 
1 At first xd) but the ) erased and a small 5 added by the first hand after the 8, making the 
text read as in Blayney. 
2 A second hand added a stroke turning the 5 into a} but cancelled his work. 
3 Changed by a second hand to 9X and then changed back to by by the same person; the 
first scribe probably indicated 9X8 as a secondary reading. 
4 Perhaps there was an attempt made to change the original Minton. 














A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 155 


LEVITICUS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present 
Reading. Reading, Reading. Reading. 
6 27 D355’ DSN Prob. 1st B. 18 30 173 °DFT3 Prob. ist B. 
17 10 SAN 1B. ? 1st nmr 19 20 IWwOr PARWwor B. 
* wy 2B. Pist PMP 25 24 {N? SPNA 1st B. 
NUMBERS. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present 
Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading. 
14 3 YT = NP Pst B. 26 47 DAD OAD B. 
21 83 DONT? WANIPI Ist B. 55 Y9MIM = OMINN ist B. 
22 6 9) (2) D3 B. 27 4 07 PIM Pst B. 
2625 (wu) PJTNY Pist 7B. 999M) (Double 5) Ist (MOMS 
DEUTERONOMY. 
Watson Codex. Watson Codex. 
Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present Ch. Vs. Blayney. Original Present 
Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading. 


.* 1) ON B. 9 27 wD B. ist wp 
NDI NON B. 


ral 
= 


C. Other erasures. 


What may be called simple erasures not belonging to either of the foregoing 
classes are here grouped together. The words printed are those written over 
them or most closely related to them. Detailed statements in regard to their 
position—whether beneath or entirely to one side of the words given,—the exact 
contents of the first writing, etc., would take up too much space. In many places 
what has been removed was less than a letter but in others it was several words. 
Except where otherwise stated the present text is from the first hand contem- 
porary with the rest of the page and the making of the erasure must have pre- 
ceded the writing of what follows it. 


1,2 and 3 The present reading indicated at the first writing; probably so at °. 

4 The present ° probably changed from a7} by the first hand. ; 

5 A secondary reading indicated at the first writing. 

7 Cf. the third word preceding. 

®§ The change was made before the word was finished, the . now occupying the place of the 
erased b, 

®* A secondary reading indicated both at the first and the second writing, the one being 
the converse of the other. 








156 HEBRAICA. 


GENESIS. 

6:2, PND; 17:6, INDI; 20:8, 295 Ist; 24:12, WON; 26:13, By; 31, 
DIU; 27:28, JOT ONT; 31:53, 29999 DDL; 35:4, DAN; 24, 999); 43:16, 
2 IYI; 46:8, WDD; 47:9, 2799 (3d); 17, 2O°DIDS; 48:16, 995_99°597; 50:10, 
“DDD; 13, “PAIN; 17, ANP. 

EXopwvus. 

3:8, FTN; 21, °F); 14:30, OT AD; 15:19, 19399; 16:33, AVIY; 
18:25, *OMWDL; 20:7, 93; 17, AAW (2d); 19, NIPINM; 21:35; AN (2d) ; 
23:31, PAN (Ist); 24:6, YET); 10, 29NVI; 25:14, YIOD; 27:5, MDD (1st) ; 
28:30, NOVY MN; 31:12-14 (in part); 16, yw); 33:11, YA wry); 34:11, 
PVN; 85:11, FUT; 36:29, WT; 87:1, 2 WINS" INDY SM TON): 
2,27 99; 39:36, 2995 ; 40:19, FUN (3d). 

LEVITICUS. 

8:3, DWI (2d) 5 4:21, “WAND 5 9:2, “DUAN; 712, FTW 8:16, APD: 
11:4, DDI 5, IVD 9D [DWT 18:52, YT; 35, FVD; 14:18, wp; 
25, PINs 43, POPIN (2d); 15:5, 7OIDs 16, *VYNIs 16:3, YTD: 19:16, 
25); 26, 25; 22:2, 28); 23:39, OD); 25:23, O99; 38, O55 Aya; 44, 
ND ONY; 26:26, 2N'5). 

NUMBERS. 

1:32, "DDI; 3:3, DMV; 33, MIND W; 4:11, IW; 48, 2OD9N 
Fs9w7; 49, “Dy (1st); 5:22, WINN; 26, “OMT; 6:3, DW; 8:4, ANIWD; 
9, DIA; 19, NTs 19, 20, 2°99) PWIND LD WYN LTT ON; 10:28, 993; 
11:10, 29993739) ; 13:1, WW (3d); 20, 2NIPF (Ist); 25, WN; 14:7, FOO TAN; 
25, 41D D? J; 27, 25NIW 199; 15:11, 1DIWID; 16:5, IW; 19:10, 
1™95); 13 (last eleven words); 21:11, D3; 24:25, 77; 26:12, 99979973; 29:20, 
15992; 31:2, 2598; 21, 29; 32:10 (whole verse); 27, PAY’; 33:3, DDB ; 
54, "2977, ys 34:6, 7, °OD9 (2d); 14, *YM) DAVIN; 35:5, AND (3d); 16, 
F199; 19, 2NWFT (Ist); 28, VD (2d). 

DEUTERONOMY. — 

1:7, 97735 20,90 DN, APTING 2:5, 2D PIV IPs 7, IWIN: 10, 
(last two words) ; 11, (all); 12, (ist 11 words); 36, 2pm ND; 3:26, 5); 4:47, 
WW; 7:9, NTs 18, TT PILI AWN; 8:20, DITIN; 9:8, “Wow; 19, 
2TV7? (Ist); 12:15, YJDINY; 15:6, IAOIYT; 18:14, DY; 22, VW (2d) ; 
19:5, "9/91; 20:19, WYII PIO NIIP; 22:4, OHI; 29, DWM; 23:4, 
2DINNFIs 16, IW; 28:31, ND) PIHID PIs 55, Pap. 


1 An adjoining letter written at first where the one now over the erasure is. 

2 Apparently due to carrying out calaeographic principles, in most cases that of placing let- 
ters under similar letters in the preceding line, 

3 Due to bringing out the cryptograms; so also perhaps °. 

4355 erased from the margin to the left of this word. 

§ See HEBRAICA, Vol. IX., p. 220. 

6,7 an¢d8 Portions of these words (0°71, 4 and 3528 respectively) perhaps not contemporary. 











A CRITICAL COPY OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 157 


55 (ist) of Num. 4:14, (? FY of Num. 30:2) and SN (1st) of Deut. 9:26 were 
written twice, once at the end of aline and again at the beginning of the next 
line, and the former erased. Cf. Lev. 16:15 in Table I. 


TABLE X. 


The portion of the text of the first scribe that preceded FAN ' DY’ 5 of 
Gen. 3:19 and that that followed “W\p3" you’ of Deut. 30:20 have been lost. 
The leaf that contained Gen. 11, from 53 'P) of verse 4 to the end of verse 23, 
has also disappeared. 

In the following list the missing text is supplied in brackets from Blayney’s 
edition. There can be no reasonable doubt that in most of the places where only 
part of a word has disappeared the reading was the same as that here given. 
Fragments of some of the letters remain but not enough to identify them with 
certainty. 

GENESIS. 


5:19, YI, POWs 28, MP, FIs 29, WL]; 30, OVI; 82, 
CVIVs 6:1, P15 4, (7195 5, CUNs 6, CSV; 7, CUWN, (1st) Ty, (1st) 
[195 8, (FIs 9, 2d [3], CIN: 10, Fees 11, OND; 12, (1st and 2d) 
(YONI, MW13; 13, PID19, PIs 14, PSY OIIN. [ANN AM|D:; 15, 
[AW YIN . (ADIT, (IN: 16, FON] FTTIS. wyln; 17, Oy), (nM, 
(77ND; 18, CANIN, 271915 19, UWI. CAN: 20, DAI, Ow; 21, 
[Ap], PONT; 22, 9309 Mls 71, WON, FAP %0359]; 2, (NPA 
VOTIAL WINs 3, AI, 1D Wis 4, LIN], YIN, OYA: 
5, WYODs 6, PLM, OLD) s 7, IWIN, IDs 8, pO] (Ast); 10, FA], [915 
11, *1F7], SIA), DTI s 17, PYL91s 21, [OTINT s 22, (9319; 23, (DY, 
(24) [439], (PUNT 24, (DI (OI; 8:1, LOMAS 2, (Ist) [OMIA 8, 
(ist) (DOs 4, (WIND; 5.01997; 6 EIN: 7, CAIN, Colwa’s 8, LOIN; 
9, (FR 9IVs 17, (AUDI; 9:17, 9D], 18, WL, DLs 19, WLIW]. PONT 
10:4, (PWN: 5, MPN, (190/79. (DIT: 6, FYI; 15:4, [Tes 
17:9, VON SALI, BAIN; 10, 9131, Das 4, ONIMy) 
DIIIW ; 12, (93), (031; 18, NIA, JOD]; 15, CTAIWN; 19, (oy; 
20, [plnyow. (2d) DIAN, Miley, (a; 21, 9M, CINNA: 22, 
[FIN 5 23, (I, PD, PUPIINDs 25, WIT; 18:6, DAVIN], LW; 
7, LY; 9, PIII; 20, (FIND; 19:6, CATT; = 24:45, TANNs 49, 
DIU; 50, NII; 51, APIO JI; 62, HAW, WIM; 53, My, 
TVD, FON 54, TWIN]; 56, FUT; 59, [DIFTIIN: 61, PAN, CUD; 
62, 2[°]N75 63, (PAIN, [7s 64, (FIPIA, (yl; 65, LLMINA, MDIN, 








1 Parchment sufficient to contain one letter lost from the right of the ». (Some manuscripts 
read JI) .) 








158 HEBRAICA. 


[EPIYSITs 66, LOIN: 67, (TIND, COIN, WINS 27:35, SON CANIN; 
36, WN, PIDPIYN, (OMYS] (NII AP? Any), AMI; 45, 
Nw 9), DIY 033” ra 46, PIMI¥P shy 28], [AP? ON NN, 
MID POND: 28:11, wHWH). Ones. Bes! 12, [OSA 
[OMOwIT YI; 21, (3); 1 INN ONT, DUAN MD; 38:1, 
[YAN]; 14, DIMM, OY]; 39:19, DIN]; 43:16, ODI; 24, 
(ol; 25, (OA¥3.clONI9. 


EXODUS. 
9:19, (84) PONIT: 18:7, (F)919I5 27:11, (HIDID OM*IPwM. 
LEVITICUS. 


6:22, *AWYL) VIBIDN: 23, NID]; 7:5, FDI: 6, v7) - 


2 and 4 The damaged letter was probably °. 
* The initial letter accidentally rubbed out. 


P. 124, Gen. 19:9, for Py read (9; p. 129, Gen. 43:25, add OMS X.; p. 134, Bx. 
33:10, for") read “J; p. 138, Lev. 26:16, add FISD (B.) MYSDY codex; p. 140, 


Num. 8:7, for VII. read RM. 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS, 


By PROFESSOR NATHANIEL SCHMIDT, 


Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 


According to the Elohist, the Sons of Israel lived for three or four genera- 
tions! among the Egyptians,? honored and supported at first,? but subsequently 
enslaved and il! treated. From this oppression they were delivered through 
Moses, who with the rod of God' smote the land of Egypt with five great plagues, 
viz.: blood in the river, hail,” locusts,8 darkness? and disease,!° then divided the 
waters of the Yam Suph,! caused the people to march through the sea, fought 
‘Amalek at Rephidim,!? continued to Horeb, the mount of God,!° received 
Yithro, the priest of Midyan,'‘ settled at Kades and planned the conquest of the 
Amorite kingdom of Sihon. The Yahwist related that Israel once resided with 
flocks and herds in the province of Gosen!® and grew to be a great and mighty 
nation, feared by the Egyptians, who therefore forced them to supply brick and 
laborers for the building of the store-cities of Pithom and Ramses.!7 Yahweh, 


1 Gen. L. 23; Ex. 11.1. 

2 Bacon seems to me correct in his view that in this document ‘“‘ we see the Hebrews still a 
mere clan quietly living in one of the cities of Egypt, the royal city, and scattered as individuals 
among the Egyptians’ dwellings,’ JBL., X., 1891, p. 110. How, with his fine appreciation of E’s 
consistency, Bacon can assign to him Ex. x1il. 37b, Num. x1. 21, I cannot quite understand. 
“Slaves, not in a condition to own flocks and herds and crops”’ are scarcely in a position to ‘‘go 
forth like an army 600,000 strong, armed and with an high hand,” JBL., LX., 1890, p. 93. With 
Kittel, Geschichte, p. 196, I assign these passages to P. Cf. also Addis, The Oldest Book of Hebrew 
History, 1893, p. 127. 

3 Gen. XLVII. 12. 4 Ex. 11.18qq. 5 Ex. Iv. 17, 20b al. 6 Ex, Vit. 15, 17b, 20b, 23. 

7 Ex. 1X. 22, 23a, 25a. 8 Ex. X. 12, 18aq, aq, 15a, 9 Ex, X. 20-23, 27. 

10 The order in E was probably as follows: Xt. 1-3; X11. 35, 36; this sentence 98 771 WIN") 
by WD TS WW YO) DIS y Ss va 5D D3 PAD) WIAD OS Ps oy ain M0) Mw 
DMS PIS 5 then x1. 30a3b, 31a, 33 and 88a. For 37 and the construction of 45, cf. Ex. v. 
3 (vs. 1-4 belong to E). 

11 Ex, xi. 18. 12 Ex. XVII. 8-16. 13 Ex. XIX. 26, 14 Ex. XVIII. 1. 15 Num. Xxt. 21-31. 

16 All references to GoSen and to flocks and herds belong to J. On this important point I 
agree entirely with Bacon,l.c. A listin the temple at Denderah designates Kesem as the capital 
of the twentieth nome in Lower Egypt, called Sopt, Diimichen, Rec., III., 65, 20. It is probable 
that LXX. had this in mind in rendering T'ecez. Ptolemy calls the capital of Apafrac¢ vouoc, 
axovoa, and with this agrees the Coptic Fakos=pa Kos, the modern Tell Fakus. The name was, 
no doubt, extended from the city to the nomos in the form of Kos or Kosem. Cf. Diimichen, 
Geographie d. alten Aegyptens, 1887, p. 265; also Ebers in Riehm, Handwérterbuch, 1893-1894. If this 
identification is correct, the GoSen of Josh. x. 41; XI. 16, D2. can scarcely be the same as the 
Goien of J, as Bacon thinks,l.c. It may bea fertile strip of land west of the Negeb named after 
the Egyptian province; and the city of the same name, Josh. xv. 51, its capital. 

17 Ex. I. 11, Pi Tum, “‘the abode of Tum,” was the sacred name of the capital of Abnefer, the 
VIIIth nome in Lower Egypt, its civil name being Thukut = 7)3D, Ex. x11. 87a P. It was sit- 
uated in the Wadi Tumilat where the modern Tell el Maskhuta is; cf. Naville, The Store-City of 
Pithom,?® 1888, Ramses has not yet been identified. Ebers, in Riehm, Hdwbh., 1894, thinks of Tan, 


*5 








160 HEBRAICA. 


however, sent Moses to demand of Pharaoh release, and upon his refusing to 
grant even a few days’ leave of absence, smote Egypt with seven plagues, viz., 
pollution of the Nile water,!® frogs in the river,!9 flies,2? murrain,?! hail,22 
locusts?3 and death of the firstborn, in each case exempting the province of 
Gosen. Then he led the way in a pillar of cloud and fire to the Yam-Suph, laid 
bare the sea by a strong east wind,?5 gave Israel victory over the pursuing Egyp- 
tians and confused and drowned them in their retreat,26 appeared in majesty on 
Mount Sinai?’ and ordered the conquest of Canaan. Guided by Hobab, the Mid- 
ianite,?6 Israel marched to Kade%, sent spies into Canaan,?® was discouraged and 
moved about in the desert for forty years,3° then settled in Sittim,%! crossed the 
Jordan and captured Jericho. Amos declared that Yahweh had brought Israel 
out of Egypt and led them forty years in the wilderness, and based an argument 
upon the admitted fact that throughout this period there were no sacrifices and 
religious processions such as characterized the cult of his own time.32 Hosea 
threatened Ephraim with a return to Egypt,?? proclaimed Yahweh’s love for 
Israel, his son, whom he had called out of Egypt,?4 called Yahweh Israel’s god 
from Egypt and intimated that Israel had once lived in tents before entering 
Canaan.®5 Isaiah announced that Assur would smite Israel with a rod “ after 
the manner of Egypt’”’ but that Yahweh subsequently would lift ‘‘ his rod upon 
the sea against AXSur” after the manner of Egypt.36 Micah proclaimed that 
Yahweh had brought his people up out of the land of Egypt, redeemed them from 
Tanis, the jpvs of Num. x1. 22 E. But this city flourished already in the XIIth dynasty, and 
possibly as early asin the VIith. Lagarde, Mitt., [V., 149sqq. proposes Dap} DNS in Ex. 1. 11, 
and would understand '’ as in '’9 ys, Gen. XLVII.11 P. But there is no ground for supposing 
Ramesses to be another name for the VIIIth nome. 


18 Ex. VII. 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25. 19 Ex. VII. 26sqq. 20 Ex. VIII. 16sqq. 2. Ex. 1x. 1-7. 
22 Ex. 1x. 13, 14a, 17, 18, 23b, 24, 25b, 26-34. 23 Ex. X. 1-11, 13ab, 14aQb, l5aqb, 16-19, 

24 Ex. XI. 4-8; x11. 29 [30ac, NIP, 31b, 32). 25 Ex. XIV. 21b. 
26 Ex. xiv. 24sqq. Cf. Wellhausen, JDTh. xx1. p. 546. 27 Ex. XIX. 9, 11, 16, 18, 20. 


23 Num. X. 29-32, cf. Kittel, Gesch., p. 181. 29 Num. xt. 17b-19, 22, 27, 28. 

30 Num. xxxIi. 13. Kuenen’s reasoning, Theol. Tijdsckr. XI., 1877, 545sqq. failed to convince 
me that 5-13 is one of the latest haggadic fragments in the Pentateuch. In Onderzoek,2 1887, p. 
248, he at least assigns it to JE. With Diilmann and Kittel, LassignittoJ. 31 Num. xxv. 1. 

3211. 10; IX. 7; V. 25, 26. On the last passage, cf. my article in JBL., XIII., 1894. 

33 IX. 3. 34 XI. 1. 

35 XII. 10; y/)1) should, in my judgment, be emended to DIP. That the Targum could have 
rendered the present text DI) ‘)°D, is to me inconceivable. Ir) may have been a gloss ex- 
plaining the period referred to, probably designed to convey the idea of wandering, marching, cf. 
yD “band,” “troop,” Isa. Xrv.31. Some later reader or copyist would readily think of the 
feast of tabernacles and pronounce t}/)7). 

36 x. 24, 26. Duhm, Jesaia, 1892, assigns x. 24-27a to the 2d century, pointing to “die Ten- 
denz, die Tempelgemeinde zu trésten,”’ to 26ba as “ein Ausdruck der besser zu einem Exegeten 
passt als zu einem Propheten”’ and to the preference since Ezekiel, ‘die Geschichte des Exodus 
als Themenstoff fiir Predigten zu verwerthen.” But there is no reference to any ‘“ Tempelge- 


meinde;” the author of x. 5-7; x1. 1sqq. knows well how to give comfort of this kind; poetic 
license may account for D°F Dy’ 171 instead of O° by 710) WS 170, but scarcely exe- 
getic axpiBeva; E, J, Amos and Hosea had already used the Exodus and the wilderness period 
for parzenetic purposes, and the style and the vocabulary are Isaiah's. 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 161 


bondage, sent before them Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and frustrated through 
Balaam the plans of Balak, king of Moab.37 According to the Deuteronomist, 
Yahweh took Israel out of the midst of Egypt, with signs and wonders, with 
battle and great power,®* spoke to the people from the fire on Mount Horeb,*? led 
them to Kade3 Barne‘a and thence in thirty-eight years to Zered,4° supplied them 
miraculously with food and clothing all through the forty years’ period*! and finally 
gave them the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and Og.42 Jeremiah praised the love 
shown by. Israel and the faithfulness of Yahweh in the wilderness‘? and declared 
that Yahweh gave no commands concerning sacrifices at the time he brought 
them out of the land of Egypt.44 Ezekiel held that Israel and Judah had once 
been in Egypt and there learnt idolatrous practices.46 A Deuteronomistic hand in 
1 Kgs. vi. 1 penned the statement that the building of Solomon’s temple began in 
the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. Partly on the basis of 
earlier documents, the Priestly Writer related, that Israel sojourned in Egypt 430 
years ;46 was delivered through Moses and Aaron who with his rod performed five 
great wonders, viz., transformation of the rod into a serpent,47 change of water 
into blood,‘8 frogs,49 flies,59 and boils,5! of which the Egyptian magicians could 
perform only three; marched 600,000 strong from Ramses to Sukkoth,5? Etham,53 
Pi Hahiroth® and the Yam Suph and through this sea to Sinai where an elabo- 
rate code was given and a magnificent cult instituted; and from Sinai proceeded 
by easy stages®5 to Paran where the conquest of Canaan was planned. 

From these data the conclusion may be drawn that, in the period of the two 
kingdoms, there was among the Israelitish tribes a widespread®® tradition that 


37 VI. 3, 4, by5an Ty DvDWN te) is more likely to be a remnant of a more complete sentence 
than a gloss in Ewald’s sense. Wellhausen has no explanation to offer for its interpolation here, 
Skizzen, V. 144. 


38 IV, 34. 39 I. 68qq. 40 11, 14. 411. 30, 31; Xxx. 4, 5. 42 II, 248qq.; III. 1sqq. 
43 II. 2, 6, 7. 44 VII. 22, cf. XVI. 14. 45 XXIII. 3, 19, 27. 46 Ex. xXir. 40. 47 Ex. VII. 1-13. 
48 Ex. VII. 19, 20aa, 22. 49 Ex. VIII. 1-3, Llayb. 50 EX. VIII. 12-15. 51 Ex. 1x. 8-12. 


52 Ex. XII. 37. 

53 Ex. x11. 20. Neville, l. c., p. 28, identifies DOS with the Atuma or Atima of Pap. Anastasi 
VL., 4, regarding it as a region and notacity. Rougé, Chabas and Brugsch (even Aegyptologie, 
1889, p. 37) transcribed it Edom and referred it to the Biblical Edom. Naville’s objection that ‘it 
is an anachronism to admit the existence of a land of Edominthe XIIth dynasty” assumes a 
knowledge we do not possess of the origin of the name and the nation of Edom. 

64 Ex. xIv.2. Naville, l. c., p.30, identifies KMD with Pikerehet, found in the tablet of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, combining the LX X. evavdi¢ with the ah of Anast. VI. It is, indeed, dif- 
ficult to see why the Alexandrian should have given this translation, if the Hebrew word had 
not suggested to him a place familiarly known as “the farm house.” But it is not certain that 
he knew just where the ancient Pi Hahiroth was. Naville admits that Pikerehet “must have 
been an important place judging from the amount of taxes which the kings attribute as reve- 
nue to its temple,” p. 15. Is it likely that such a city should have been known as “the farm 
house?” There is no evidence that the particular ah of Anast. VI. was either Pikerehet, 
Pi Hahiroth or the farm building of which the Alexandrian thought. 

55 Num. Xxx11I. 1-49. For the genesis and growth of these itineraries compare the excellent 
observations of Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 1893, p. 168sqq. 

56 We are scarcely in a position to assert that it was universal even then; but the political 
unity of David’s and Solomon’s time no doubt made common property of many a tale that until 
then had lived on the lips of single tribes. 











162 HEBRAICA. 


their ancestors had once been in Egypt but escaped from this house of bondage 
and lived awhile on the Sinaitic peninsula, previous to the conquest of Canaan. 
It is also to be inferred that, at least towards the close of this period, centuries 
were thought to lie between Solomon and the Exodus and other centuries between 
the Exodus and Joseph. This would point to the time of the X VIIIth and XIXth 
dynasties as the epoch of the sojourn in Egypt, the life in the desert, and the con- 
quest of Palestine. 

Fortunately, this is just the time when we would most hopefully look to 
Egypt, Sinai and Palestine for testimony concerning the Hebrew tribes. From 
Aahmes (1579-1557)57 to Ramessu IV. (1203-1192) Egyptian armies were constantly 
marching through the Eastern Delta on their way to Palestine; official couriers 
and travelers passed to and fro between these countries, and numerous records of 
campaigns, reports, letters and memoirs have come into our possession. 

During the same period, Ma‘in Misran, Ma‘in, Maon, Midyan and ‘Amalek 
dwelt on the Sinaitic peninsula, in the Syrian desert and in Northern Arabia. 
Some of these knew well how to record important events, as the Minaean inscrip- 
tions show. 

How long before the reign of Amenhotep III. (1487-1401) the cuneiform script 
and the Babylonian language were used in Palestine, cannot be determined at 
present. Nor have we any data for ascertaining whether the wedge-shaped char- 
acters fell into disuse when the diplomatic relations between Egypt and Pales- 
tine ceased. But for more than a generation there certainly was considerable 
literary activity in the centres of Amorite life. Unless a very marked deteriora- 
tion of this race took place, such as the Hebrew records scarcely warrant us in 
assuming, it is more likely that the wedge-writing was retained by the Amorite 
scribes until the alphabet became known than that so useful an art should have 
been suddenly dropped. 

Increasing knowledge of this period justifies the hope for direct testimony 
from those so immediately concerned in the movements of the Hebrew tribes, and 
so capable of rendering an account of themselves and of their neighbors. The 
more reliance we place upon the details of the Hebrew tradition, the more 
remarkable would be their silence. 

Is there any such testimony? Chabas®® first called attention to the Aperiu 
or Apri appearing as carriers of stone in two letters from the time of Ramessu II. 


57 These dates are based on the native sources, the synchronism with Babylonian kings fur- 
nished by the Amarna correspondence and the astronomical calculations of Mahler. On the 
basis of Lepsius, Denkmiiler, III., 43e, Mahler determined the date of Tehutimes III. as extending 
from March 20th, 1503 to February 14th, 1449; Chronol. Vergleichungstabellen, Wien, 1888, p. 39. If 
it is not absolutely certain, internal evidence strongly points to a composition of this fragment 
in the same reign as that of III. 43f. where Tehutimes’ name occurs. He also determined the 
date of Ramessu II. as extending from 1348 to 1281. Cf. ZAS., 1889, p. 97; 1890, p. 32. Meyer is 
sufficiently convinced to commend a slight change in his former dates and to suggest Amen- 
hotep I. as the king of Papyrus Ebers; cf. Geschichte des Altertums, II., Stuttgart, 1893, p. 131. 

58 Mélanges Egyptologiques, Chilon sur Saone, 1864, II., 148. 











THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 163 


(1848-1281), one from Kausir to Bakh-en-Ptah,59 and another from Keni Amen to 
Hui. The reading Aperiu was also suggested in a somewhat blurred text from 
the beginning of the reign of Mer-en-Ptah (1281-1269), where this king is repre- 
sented as vanquishing them with his arms.6! The identification with the 
Hebrews was confidently proposed®2 and widely accepted.®® Perhaps the most 
comprehensive and vigorous defense, from the old point of view, was that of 
Waldemar Schmidt. But further research brought difficulties. It was discov- 
ered that these Aperiu were in Egypt when, according to the theory, they ought 
not to be there. As late as in the days of Ramessu IV. (1203-1192) ‘* Aperiu 800 
in number” are mentioned in the Hamamat inscription. They are there called 
Aperiu of An or Aian, the mountainous district east of Memphis extending to 
the Red Sea. And as early as in the time of Neferhotep, of the XIIIth dynasty 
(c. 2200) they meet us as sailors in Egypt.66 In the thousand years intervening 
they are found occasionally in a different rdle. Thus in the reign of Tehutimes 
III. (1503-1449) some of this people are presented as messengers mounting their 
horses at the king’s command ;®7 and in a document from the time of Ramessu III. 
(1235-1203) we learn that 2083 Aperiu were settled near Heliopolis. They are 
introduced as ‘“‘ knights, sons of the kings and noble lords [marina] of the Aperiu, 
settled people dwelling in this place.”’68 In view of these facts it was thought 
impossible to maintain the identification and most scholars beat a hasty retreat. 
The only remarkable thing about this change of position was the quiet assump- 
tion of knowledge that led to it. Wiedemann announced that the Aperiu were in 
the land “long before the arrival of the Jews in Egypt,’ as if all the world 
knew just the year and the day when Hebrew tribes first began to assemble on 
the frontiers of Egypt. Brugsch took offense at the thought that any of the fore- 
bears of the prophets should ever have sat on horseback, and was at a loss to 
explain how Hebrew clans could have resided as honored men near Heliopolis in 
the days of Ramessu III.7? Max Duncker was quite certain that the Hebrews 
could not have been known to the Egyptians as Apri or Ibri, since we know 
Ibrim to mean “die Jenseitigen.’”?! Even Eduard Meyer, convinced by Brugsch’s 
investigations that the Aperiu were a people living in the Erythrean dis- 
trict of An, declared the identification without a foundation.72 Of course, if we 
know just when Hebrew tribes drifted into Egyptian territory, how they occupied 


59 Leyden Papyrus, I., 348. 60 Leyden Papyrus, I., 349. 

61 Papyrus Anastasi, I1L., last letter. 62 Chabas, Mélanyes, and Recherches, Paris, 1873. 
63 Cf. Naville, Les Israelites en Egypte, in Revue Chrétienne, 1878. 

64 Assyriens og Aegyptens gamle historie, Kjoebenhavn, 1877, 8i8sqq. 

65 Lepsius, Denkmiiler, IIL., 219e. 66 Mariette, Abydos, II., 39,13. 6? Pap, Harris, 500 verso. 
68 Chabas, Voyage d’un Egyptien, p. 211. 

69 Aegyptische Geschichte, Gotha, 1884-1888, p. 491. 

70 ZAS., 1876, p. 71; Geschichte Aegyptens, 541, 582sqq. 

11 Geschichte des Altertums, Leipzig, 1878, I., 387. 

72 Geschichte des Altertums, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 288. 








164 HEBRAICA. 


themselves there, what name they bore and what it signified, and can be sure that 
these sons of the desert never sat on horseback and never bolted or lagged 
behind, or slunk back to the fleshpots of Egypt, these arguments are convincing. 
But are we really so well informed as that? The only serious objection against 
the identification was raised by Meyer, when, a few years after his first utterance, 
he announced that ‘“‘die ‘apru sind tiberhaupt kein Volk, das Wort bedeutet 
Arbeiter.’’73 It is difficult, however, to believe that the Egyptians should have 
used the same word to designate a sailor, a stone-carrier, a mounted courier, a 
warrior, and a mighty lord. If Apri is the true reading in Anast. III. 7, Mer-en 
Ptah would then boast of a glorious victory over a body of laboring men (!) 
Worst of all, the author of the Harris papyrus would ex hypothesi call these 
‘** laborers,” ‘‘ sons of kings and noble lords.”’ Perchance as a compliment to their 
versatility ?74 On the other hand, Brugsch, in his last work,75 comes to the con- 
clusion that ‘‘es ist immer noch eine unentschiedene Frage ob die....’pr’’w 
Ebrier sind oder nicht;”’ and he refers to the Heroopolitan district, ’An, where 
the Pitum known to Hebrew tradition and so brilliantly discovered by Naville 
was situated, as “dasselbe Gebiet von welchem die ’pr’’w (Ebrier ?) versetzt 
wurden.”? The Aperiu may, indeed, have been a different people from the He- 
brews ;76 but no reasons have yet been adduced that conclusively forbid the iden- 
tification. 

These foreigners first appear in Egypt in an era of migratory movements, 
possibly in the very century that witnessed the Palestinian expeditions of Kudur 
Mabuk and Hammurabi (2240-2186), possibly the Amraphel of Gen. xtv.,77 who, 
according to the same source, was accompanied by Kudur La‘amar,78 Ariokh = 
Eri Agu”? and Tid‘al®® and was a contemporary of Abram,®! the Hebrew.82 Push- 


13 Geschichte des alten Aegyptens, Berlin, 1887, p. 297. 
74T can attach no significance to the absence of the determinative for foreigner in some 


instances. In Pap. Leyden, I., 348 it occurs, while in Pap. Leyden, I., 349, it is absent; yet the 
context is exactly the same. The ordinary word for “laborer,’’ bak, Copt. bok, occurs alongside 
of Apri in these texts. ; 

1% Die Aegyptologie, Leipzig, 1889-1891, pp. 38, 39. 

76 One would be tempted, in that case, to think of the Midianite people 15}’, Gen. xxv. 4, J 
or of A&sSurbanipal’s Apparu., V R. 9.27 with whom Glaser connects this 7D), Geschichte und 
Geographie Arabiens, Berlin, 1890, p. 446. This may, indeed, be the remnant of a larger Sinaitic 
people including some Midiunite clans and some clans afterwards entering into the composition 
of the 59" >)2. 

77 Even Winckler now admits that Martu (Aharru) always refers to ‘das Westland” and 
.hat Ammisatana and Hammurabi held possession of Palestine, Altor. Forschungen, II., 1894, p. 
1483sqq. The identification is accepted by Schrader, Bab. Koénigaliste, 25, 26; Halévy, REJ., XV., 
168sqq.; Zimmern, Die Assyriologie als Hiilfswissenchaft, 10. Less probable is Hommel’s Amar- 
pal (LXX.) = Amar muballit = Sin muballit, father of Hammurabi, Geschichte Bab. und A8s., 366. 

78 soypoyD has not been found on any inscription; but the name is so ‘‘echt Elamitisch.” 
that Meyer gives him a place beside Kudur Mabuk, and regards the chapter as written by a Jew 
in Babylon on the basis of historical study, Geschichte des Altertums, I., p. 165sqq. 

79 For this identification see the convincing arguments of Hommel, Gesch., p. 357 sqq. 

80 D")) possibly corrupted from D°f\)) = Guti. According to Hilprecht, Old Bab. Inscr., p, 


128qq., this kingdom already existed in the days of SargonI. But cf. Halévy, Revue Sém., 1894 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 165 


ing into the land, some of their number, as well as Phoenicians and other aliens, 
were hired for marine service. What their fortunes were during the Hyksos 
period, is not known. But in the X VIIIth dynasty we find Aperiu familiar with 
the use of the horse just then putting in his appearance in Egypt. This seems to 
point to some connection with Syria and Mesopotamia, or at least with the Semitic 
tribes mediating the traffic with those parts. In the Egyptian army that besieged 
Joppa it was the Aperiu that mounted their horses to carry royal messages, 
But whatever services of this nobler kind they rendered Tehutimes III., a new 
king arose that knew them not. For his great building enterprises Ramessu II. 
had need of these strangers and he put them to work as stone-carriers, and possi- 
bly as brick-makers.8° Between Mer en Ptah (1281-1269) and Ramessu III. (1235- 
1203) a change took place in their position. Something of radical importance 
must have happened. For when the cloud lifts, they are seen in a peaceful settle- 
ment near Heliopolis and are referred to as ‘‘sons of kings and noble lords of the 
Apri.’”’? The most natural explanation of this seems to be that the former slaves 
had escaped from their bondage and risen to eminence in the time when the 
Palestinian Arsu®! held sway over the country (1255-1242). Maintaining them- 
selves in the reign of Ramessu III., they were no longer remembered as the sons 
of abject bondsmen but as the descendants of noble sires. Tant va le monde! 
But in their old haunts in the Mokattam mountains less successful kinsmen soon 
were reduced to slavery again. 

Is there in all this anything that is incompatible with a reasonable concep- 
tion of early Hebrew history ? The Sons of Israel rightly regarded themselves as 
only a part of a larger family, the Hebrews, scattered all over Arabia and the 
Sinaitic peninsula. Some of their great mountain shrines were on this peninsula.85 


p. 279. Tad‘al = Ta du gilu may, however, only point to a linguistic affinity between Gutian and 
Mittanian. 

81 Whatever the original elements, this pericope was undoubtedly worked over in postexilic 
times. As to the character, age and extent of the source, we know nothing. The finds at El 
Amarna and El Hesy make an Amorite origin as probable as a Babylonian. To assert that 
Abram and Malkisedek never existed, as Meyer does, l. c., is to assume more knowledge than 
we possess. On the other hand, Dillmann, Genesis¢ and Kittel, Geschichte, 158sqq. have only 
shown a bare possibility. 

82 The derivation of this name from the root 3)’ with the significance of ‘ passieren, vor- 
iiberziehen, weiterziehen” as ‘‘ wanderer,” proposed by Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies, 
Leipzig, 1881, p. 262, seems to me more probable than the ordinarily accepted view connecting 
the name with the passage of a river, either the Euphrates or the Jordan (so Stade and Meyer). 
The name of the Ge‘ez people is a good analogy; Cf. Ludolf, Hist Aeth. I., 1,4; Dillmann, Gram- 
matik d. Aeth. Sprache, p.2; Lexicon Aeth., p. 1188s. v. Less felicitous is the proposed analogy 
to the Philistines. This people has been identified even by Meyer, Gesch. Aeg., p. 316, with the 
Pulista or Pursta. Of the meaning of their name we are as ignorant as of their ethnic connec- 
tion. 

83 Pap. Anast., III. 

84 Pap. Harris, pl. 76. Cf. Eisenlohr, Der grosse Papyrus Harris, Leipzig, 1872. 

85 That Horeb and Sinai were the same mountain, cannot be asserted. The two tradi- 
tions, ED,1 Kgs. xix. 8, and Deut, xxxrIr. 2, (Song of Moses,) JP, may point to two equally 
famous sanctuaries. That Yahweh was the god of Kayin, Midyan and possibly other Sina- 








166 HEBRAICA. 


The Egyptian borderland no doubt had the same attraction for them as for other 
Semites.86 That some of their clans should have established themselves in the 
Mokattam mountains, the Heroopolitan district, and the neighborhood of Heliop- 
olis. is not at all unlikely. Like their kinsmen they certainly may have been 
pressed into service occasionally. It is only natural to suppose that, at a time 
when Egypt was suffering from dissension®’ and pestilence, some of these clans 
should have effected their escape. Nothing forbids the assumption that Hebrews 
in better circumstances declined to cast in their lot with Moses, that the 
unwonted hardships of the desert, the rigid discipline of the great leader and the 
first unsuccessful attempts at entering Palestine sent others back, that the disaf- 
fected elements united with the Palestinian hordes invading Egypt under Arsu 
and that a flourishing colony established itself in this period of foreign domination 
in their old home near Heliopolis. This is, at any rate, not a whit more strange 
or less probable than the course of Aperian history just outlined. But if the 
Egyptians designated as Aperiu the same people that the Israelites called Ibrim, 
there is no objection to supposing that among the Aperiu-Ibrim that escaped 
from Egyptian oppression there were some clans that afterwards became a 
part of the nation of Israel.88 As to the Exodus, the Egyptian references 
would neither affirm, nor yet exclude, such an event; they would, however, indi- 
cate as its probable date some time between the end of Mer en Ptah’s reign 
(1269) and Ramessu III’s accession (1235), not long before the invasion of 
Arsu, in 1255. 

Before leaving the Egyptian documents it may be well to inquire whether any 
references in later writers to this epoch, or to the Exodus of the Hebrews, may 
have been based upon reliable native sources. The number of Greek and Roman 


itic tribes has been well shown by Tiele, Vergel. Gesch., 1876, p. 558sqq.; Godsdienst in de Oud- 
heid, 1893, p. 280sqq.; and Stade, Gesch., 1889, p. 131; Das Kainzeichen, ZATW., XI1V., 1894, p. 
250sqq. Yithro, Re‘uel and Hobab whom, with Tiele, I regard as priestiy representatives of 
Midianite and Kenite clans, probably joined with Moses in Yahweh worship at Horeb, or at Sinai, 
or at both these places, because they had often worshiped him there before and the power of 
their god had been signally manifested. Sinai was, no doubt, originally dedicated to Sin; for 
while the Min.-Sab. 4, with which the name is written, Osiander 29, 5, generally corresponds to 
an Aram.-Heb. w rather than a 0, I doubt whether it can be laid down as an absolute rule, as 
Hommel does, Stidarabische Chrest., 1893, p. 10. But that would not prevent Kayin from habit- 
ually worshiping Yahweh there, any more than Israel scrupled to worship Yahweh at the old 
sanctuary on Carmel. The Ephraemitic designation of Horeb as a o'm>x 457 also points to it 


as a “‘Gétterberg.” 

86 Cf. Meyer, Gerch. d. alt. Aegyptens, p., 297 sqq. 

87 Is there an intimation of political disaffection in Ex. x11. 38a, E? 

88 This is admitted to be the historical nucleus of the later Hebrew accounts even by Stade, 
Geschichte, p. 129 ‘‘Es sind gewichtige Griinde vorhanden welche uns zu der Annahme zwingen 
....dass einzelne hebriische Stimme oder Geschlechter in Aegypten sich aufgehalten und unter 
Mose sich befreit;’”’ and by Meyer, Geschichte d. alt. Aeg., p. 298 “‘irgend einer der Stimme aus 
denen die Nation der Séhne Israels zusammengefiossen ist, hat einmal in den Grenzgebieten des 
Nillandes gezeltet und die Einnerung davon bewahrt.”’ That the identification would carry with 
it the historicity of the Hebrew narratives, as Honorato del Val, El Pentateuco, in La Ciudad de 
Dios, 1893, p. 180sqq., seems to think, cannot be maintained. 














THe EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 167 


historians who agree that the Jews once resided in Egypt, but in some way, at some 
time, were driven out of the country, is indeed considerable. Such names as 
Hecateus of Abdera, Manetho, Poseidon, Lysimachus, Cheremon, Pompejus 
Trogus, Strabo, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Tacitus, have a good sound. But even 
their combined testimony has little weight. The later writers depend on the 
earlier, and some of these may easily have picked up their crumbs of learning in 
the Jewish Ghetto at Alexandria. The only authors that can be seriously con- 
sidered are Hecateus of Abdera and Manetho of Sebennytos. No doubt the 
number of Jews in Egypt at the time of Ptolemy I. (306-283) was not small. The 
persons upon whom Hecatzus depended for his knowledge may have derived 
information from the Jews. But they themselves could scarcely have told him 
that their fathers were driven out of Egypt because the gods were angry with 
them and that the common mass of the expelled became their ancestors while the 
flower of the people went to Hellas.89 On the other hand, it is difficult to say what 
native traditions reported to him may have led to his view. That such existed 
bearing on this point, seems evident from the accounts of Manetho.9 Whether 
this learned priest took his story from the mouth of the people, or, as is more 
likely, from written documents, its thoroughly native character cannot be 
denied. Meyer says: “Die Art der Erzahlung ist acht agyptisch. Die Ge- 
schichte kénnte direct aus einem hieratischen Papyrus des neuen Reichs tiber- 
setzt sein,’’®? and his judgment on this point is of the greatest value. Ayevadgic tov 
Tlarvoc was identified by Erman as Amenhotep, the famous son of Hapi, pa being 
the masculine article and apis = Hapi.% This naturally led Meyer to regard 
Apevagic 0 Baovdeve AS Amenhotep IV., and the whole story as embodying a later 
conception of ‘the revolution Khu en Aten’s apostasy from the old faith called 
forth.”” Amenophis= Amenhotep certainly seems to me more probable than 
Wiedemann’s Amenophis = Amenmerisetneht.9%* It may even be that the 
elegant phrase, ex:fuuew Sew yevecar Bcatnc, Which Josephus so needlessly ridicules, 
was coined in sympathetic North Egyptian priestly circles as a euphemism for 
the solar monotheism of Khu en Aten. But Wiedemann, in my judgment cor- 
rectly, maintains that the substance of the story is the memory of a time like that 
depicted in the Harris papyrus, pl. LXXVI., rather than that of Khu en Aten. 
The iconoclasts and oppressors are the strangers, and not Amenophis-Khu en 


89 Hecatzean fragment in Diodorus, XL.,3. 

90 Josephus, Contra Apionem, I., 26-31. The suspicion that 26sqq. were derived froma pseudo- 
Manethonian work does not appear to be well founded. 

91 Even if these documents should go back to the XXth dynasty, it is of course possible that 
the words translated eteteGe To ovoua Kat Tpoonyopevdy Mwvonc were inserted by some learned 
scribe in the days of SeSenk or even the Napata kings, when there was a sufficiently close con- 
tact with Judea to account for the identification. 

92 Geschichte d. alt. Aeg., p. 276. 93 ZAS., 1877, p. 147 sqq. 

% Aegyptische Geschichte, 1884, p. 493. Pauwny¢e may have referred in the original to Ramessu 

III., but Manetho evidently thought of Ramessu Mer Amen (66 years). 








168 HEBRAICA. 


Aten. In Manetho as in the Harris papyrus there is a Palestinian invasion. 
Theological considerations may have rounded out the picture and located it in a 
wrong time. How was this humiliation of Egypt to be accounted for? The 
presumptuous course of Amenhotep IV. was known to have brought in a period 
of national disaster. But the wise son of Hapi, living about that time, must have 
seen beforehand the coming calamity and warned the king. Eliminating this 
later element, and also some evident reminiscences of the expulsion of the 
Hyksos under Aahmes,” the rest seems to be a duplicate of the sad story in the 
Harris papyrus. With this addition, however, that certain aliers already in the 
land are described as lepers, connected with the Hyksos in Jerusalem and said to 
be governed by Osarsiph-Moses rather than by Arsu. Egyptian feeling may 
have vented itself in the somewhat inelegant nickname of “‘lepers’’ given to this 
people, scarcely on the ground of their ‘‘ ceremonial uncleanness ’’% i. e. their dif- 
ferent rules of taboo, rather then because of numerous and obnoxious cases of 
elephantiasis or other cutaneous diseases among them. With our present knowl- 
edge of the history of Jerusalem, it is no longer improbable that the expelled 
Hyksos fell upon Palestine and took possession of its chief city.97 It is now gen- 
erally admitted that the Hyksos were Semites and not improperly designated as 
Arabs.%> The Palestinian hordes invading Egypt under Arsu may well have 
been taken to be the descendants of these Hyksos. Nor would it be strange, if 
some in reality were so. Manetho explains the name Ocapoid aro rov ev HAsov moder 
Gcov Ooipewe. He evidently took him to be a native. But Egyptian deities were 
known and worshiped in Syria as early as in the fifteenth century,9° particularly 
Hesiri and Tehuti. Yet it is more probable that the name, being in reality 
Arsu,% was Egyptianized by a later writer, familiar with the event, but not with 
pap. Harris. That this man assumed the name of Moses, cannot be an interpola- 
tion of Josephus; for this identification of Moses with Osarsiph seems to him the 


9 As such must be characterized the memory of Avapic, the Hatwaret of the inscriptions, 
ef. Brugsch, Die Aegyptologie, pp. 34-36, and also the close connection with Ethiopia at that time, 
for Aahmes’ queen was an Ethiopian, cf. Wiedemann, Gesch., p. 313 and it is not unreasonable to 
suppose that her kinsmen aided in the expulsion of the Hyksos. 

% So Wiedemann, Geschichte, p. 495. 

97 After centuries of settled life in Egypt, during which their leaders held control of the 
nation and their upper classes no doubt adopted Egyptian civilization, it is not likely that they 
returned to nomadic life, but vastly more probable that they sought a new home for themselves 
in Palestine, this MY NT IDI DX. Agumkakrime (c. 1600-1570) was scarcely in a position to pre- 
vent this. The Babylonian ascendency in Palestine, of which the inscriptions of Hammurabi 
and Ammisatana (2147-2131), and only less directly the language of the Amarna tablets, bears 
testimony, must have been lost in the time of the later Uruazagga kings. Hani is to be sought 
in the Median mountains. 

9% Cf. G. Steindorff, Zur Geschichte der Hyksos, Leipzig, 1894. 

9% Cf, the letter from the inhabitants of Tunip to Amenhotep IV., No. 41 of the Tell el Amarna 
Tablets in the British Museum, London, 1892. 

99So Wiedemann, Geschichte, p. 493. 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 169 


crowning proof of Manetho’s untrustworthiness.100 Manetho may have heard 
something of Moses and inserted him in what he deemed a suitable place. But 
why should he have ascribed to Moses sucha career? Hebrew tradition certainly 
knew nothing of a Moses holding possession of Egypt through a number of years, 
pillaging the cities, violating the temples and discharging the priests. It seems 
to have been in native lore he found the two figures, the Heliopolitan priest 
Moses, the leader of an alien race in their successful revolt, and the Palestinian 
conqueror Osarsiph (Arsu), the dictator of Egypt, blended into one personality by 
the simple device of a change of name. If this tradition rests on a reliable 
foundation, (and it is difficult to see any motive for its invention by the Egyptians 
themselves) we are again directed to the time immediately preceding Setneht for 
the Exodus. Whatever its strength or weakness, this appears to be all the direct 
testimony Egypt has to offer.101 

Speaking of Aahmes’ war of deliverance, Davis and Cobern say: ‘‘ The only 
text which at all connects the Israelites with this war is the Minaean inscrip- 
tion (Halévy, 535) which, according to Dr. Eduard Glaser’s translation, speaks 
of the ‘‘ Hebrews of the canal country ”’ giving thanks to the gods for their deliver- 
ance during a time of civil war.’’92 Later researches led Glaser to the view that 
the inscription commemorates the successful escape from Egypt of certain Min- 
aeans belonging to the Hyksos at the time when these were expelled by Aahmes, 
that the Ma‘in Misran are Egyptian Minaeans, and that Sar, A’ur and Ibru naha- 
ran point to the isthmus of Suez, the Wadi el Aris and the Mediterranean coast 
as their home. Hommel at first assigned the inscription to the same period,104 
but afterwards dated it in the time of the conflict between Arsu and Set- 
neht.1% The inscription was found at Barakis, the ancient Yathil (kis),19° and 


records the building and dedication of some structure to Athtar ( ps), Wadd 
(05) and Nakrah (cS) by Ammigadik ( 30maee) and Sa'd (New), designated 


100 Contra Apionem, I.,31. It would be interesting to know, however, how the name was 
spelled in Manetho’s work and in his original source, if there at all. The excerptors naturally 
cared for its correct spelling. 

101 In Davis’ and Cobern’s Ancient Egypt, p. 44, there is a reference to a black jasper ring 
foundat Tanis and dating from the Hyksos period, which has a Hebrew inscription. In reply to 
an inquiry, Dr. Davis writes me: ‘‘In 1878 there was exhibited in London the Egyptian collection 
of M. Allemant. The catalogue of this collection refers to this ring as follows: ‘No. 705 San- 
Tanis. Black jasper. Stone of ring or seal graven in intaglio (gravé en creux) on both sides. 
On the front a winged serpent and two Semitic signs; on the back a Hebrew inscgiption. Epoch 
of the shepherd-kings, XVIIth dynasty.’ Unfortunately the signs and inscriptions are not 
given, and I do not know what has become of the collection.” If this ‘‘ Hebrew inscription”’ 
appears in the characters used on the Siloam stone, the pre-exilic seals and the Maccabzean coins, 
it would be difficult to assert that it was made by Hebrews, unless this name should occur. 
Fenhu were in Egypt already in the sixteenth century. If the Aramean characters are used, 
the ring cannot belong in the Hyksos period. The Allemant collection ought to be looked up. 

102 Ancient Egypt, p. 45; Glaser, Skizze, I., 1889, 57 sqq. 103 Skizze, II., 1890, p. 451sqq. 

104 Aufsiitze und Abhandlungen, 1892, p. 10. 105 1. ¢., p. 127; Chrestomathie, 1893, p. 104. 

106 Cf. Miiller, Burgen, II., p. 58sqq. Mordtmann, ZDMG., XLVII., 1893, p. 408; Hommel 


Chrest., p. 135. 








170 HEBRAICA. 


a8 Ie lame aad iS, re ss and the Ma‘inu Misran (wan yp), in 
recognition of a given them at a time when they had been attacked by bands 
of Saba’u and Haulanu, while war raged between Ma‘in (pe) and Raghmat 


(Kae, 107 and between the king of Yamnat (&4») and the king of Sa’mat 


(xoLs), 108 and because of deliverance out of the midst of Misr ( (an Loony on) 
while there was hostility between Maday ( eo)109 and Misr, in the reign of 


Abiyada‘' Yathi' ( fei soul), king of Ma‘in and Mawan (gylyle).110 Glaser 
and Hommel are undoubtedly right in referring Misr!1 and Ma‘in Misran to Egypt 
and the Sinaitic peninsula respectively, and in seeking for Sar, Asr and Ibru 


Naharan in the neighborhood of Egypt. Hommel points out that pill is a 
broken plural of I, 112 and that consequently this word indicates the ’Aérites, 


but goes on to identify them as D/")WN and the other two words as re — ys by 
and ore rt = “das Ufergelainde des Stromes’’ or ‘‘ das jenseitige Ufer des 
Stromes,” i. e. the Red Sea. I regard it more probable that Ammisadik and Sa‘d, 
as governors under Abiyada‘ Yathi‘ over the Ma‘inu Misran, ruled the Sar-people 
living in the district of the fortress T’ar, the ASer people!!8 living on the Mediter- 
ranean coast, and the “jf? people living near the Red Sea. As to these 


Bee ye their name presents a striking analogy to S) ya pee . If the 
latter are Egyptian Minaeans, why should not the former be Red Sea Aperiu, or 
even Hebrews ? In one case, as in the other, the second word would designate 
them as only a part of a larger family. The restoration of native rule may well 
have forced some Tarite, Axerite, and Aperian families to betake themselves else- 


107 Cf. Mordtmann, l. c., p. 408, note. 

los According to Hommel, South and North, Upper and Lower Egypt, Setneht and Arsu. 
Adhering substantially to the ordinary significance of the two terms, I would suggest that the 
king of Sa’mat was Sulmanuataridu I. (ca. 1250-1220) and the king of Yamnat, Abiyada‘ Yathi' 
against whose Sinaitic province the Musri expedition was directed. 

109 The identification of these with the Madoy (Copt. Mati) seems to me extremely doubtful. 
If, as Ebers avers, in Hommel, Aufs., p. 128, ‘die Polizeitruppe der Madoy”’ were likely to aid 
Setneht against Arsu, how could the writer who knows of two fighting kings in Egypt substi- 
tute this police force for the victorious * king of the south,” and regard them as fighting with 


Egypt? 
110 wl le = Magan = Sinaitic peninsula, according to Hommel. Then itis best to consider 


Ma‘in Misran ohly as the part of this peninsula immediately adjoining Egypt. 

11 Winckler, Altorient. Forschungen, I., 1893, p. 24sqq., thinks of a North Arabian country, also 
called Musri, the existence of which II R. 67, 56 forces him to assume. It would not be strange, 
if an Assyrian scribe should have regarded Egypt as beginning at the Wadi el AriS which even 
the Hebrews called D°"¥ 9M). Idibi’il may well have been made governor over a part of the 
Sinaitic peninsula which a court historian would not scruple to call Musur. It is scarcely neces- 
sary to suppose a separate kingdom with the same name. 

112 Aufsditze, p. 8. 


= 
113 rs = WN ? The name of the people may have been derived from its god. 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 171 


where. But is it possible that this inscription can date from the thirteenth cen- 
tury ?114 The discovery of a Minaean inscription in Egypt that seems to belong 
to the reign of Ptolemy II. (283-247) is now declared by Halévy to have “ detruit 
l’hypothése qui fait remonter le royaume minéen d’Arabie avant la fondation du 
royaume sabéen.”!15 But who has ever denied that there was in the days of Ptol- 
emy Philadelphus a Minaean people? All the world knew that from Eratos- 
thenes. And what is there in this inscription that even hints at the existence of 
a Minaean kingdom? Halévy himself has well shown that the only word that 
would in the remotest way indicate a political connection with South Arabia does 
not mean at all ‘‘l’administrateur de la communauté yéménite,”’ as Derenbourg 
translated,6 but simply “‘calamus.”17 That the Saf’al form yuan should 
have maintained itself through seven centuries is not more strange than its 
longer maintenance in Assyrian and Mandaic. On the other hand there is no sign 
of mimation. an hs = IIrodeuavog seems certain, and is supported by Vas 3}. 
Whatever the interpretation given to Hal. 535, it remains a valuable testimony 
of how easily Semitic tribes would drift into Egypt, how completely they were 
able to retain their own worship, language and script, and how successfully they 
could escape at certain times and form alliances in the desert. It at least sug- 
gests the possibility of some Hebrew tribes living in Egypt without being much 
influenced by Egyptian civilization, casting in their lot with the Sasu when they 
were in power, faring with them in their adversity and perchance also pushing 
their way with them into Palestine in the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
thus offering a reasonable explanation of the facts now claiming our attention. 

In the Amarna tablets several passages have been understood to contain ref- 
erences to the Hebrews. The Habiri mentioned frequently in the Palestinian 
letters now in Berlin!!® have been identified as Hebrews by Zimmern!9 and 
others. Milkili and mare Milkili,!2° Labawi and mare Labawi,!2! were explained 
as early representatives of the tribes of AXer, among whom there was a clan 
Malkiel, Num. xxvi. 45, and Levi, respectively, by Morris Jastrow, Jr.122 
Scheil!23 called attention to the Yaudu appearing in one letter,!24 and Jastrow 


114 Glaser, Skizze, I. and II., developed the historical reasons for supposing the kings of 
Ma‘in to have reigned before the Sabaean kingdom. Hommel, Aufséitze and Chrestomathie, forti- 
fied these with linguistic reasons, such as the Safal and the su, sa, sumu vs. Sab. Hafal, hu, ha, 
humu (ef. on this point also Vollers, ZA., LX., 189sqq.), the double writing of a middle radical 
and the enclitic ,,y with a perfect in Min. and only the oldest Sab. Winckler, l. c., p. 36 has been 
convinced. So also the learned reviewer in Lit. Centralblatt, 1894, Apr. 28. On the other hand, 
Miiller, Allg. Zeitung, No. 31, 1890; Mordtmann, ZDMG., XLIV., 182; Halévy, Revue Sém., 1894, p. 
95, oppose this view, and Meyer, Gesch. d. Alt., II., 1893, p. 382 expresses doubt. 

115 Revue Sém., 1894, p. 95. 16 JA., 1893, Dec., p. 519. 117 Revue Sém., 1894, p. 179 sqq. 

us Winckler-Abel, Der Thontafelfund von El Amarna, Berlin, 1889-90, 102, 103, 104, 106, 199. 

119 Palestina um das Jahr 1400 v. Chr., in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina Vereins, XIII.,133- 
14%. Cf. also Tiele, Godsdienst in de Oudheid, 1893, p. 285. 

120 Berlin, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110; also London, 62, 63. 121 Berlin, 103, 105; London, 61. 

12 JBL., XI., 120sqq. 123 JA., XVIL., 349. 1% Berlin, 39. 








172 HEBRAICA. 


made the ameluti Yaudu precursors of the men of Judah, Yaudu being more 
nearly an equivalent of Yehud.!25 But the most audacious combinations and the 
most amazing confidence have been developed by Major Conder.!26 According to 
him the Hebrews first appear in monumental history in Amarna letters written 
about 1480 B. C. The exodus has already taken place. It is the era of Israel- 
itish conquest of Palestine. The Habiri are the Hebrews. The names of Joshua’s 
great opponents, Japhia, Jabin, and Adonizedek, appear on the tablets. This is 
sufficiently startling. How were these discoveries made? The name of the king 
of Jerusalem is rendered Abdihiba by Winckler, Aradhiba by Halévy,!27 Abdiheba 
by Zimmern,!28 Abdu dhabba or Ebedtob by Sayce,!?9. Abdu is, of course, the 
equivalent of Arad, meaning servant. As to Hiba, it may be read Taba in some 
instances, but, as Conder correctly sees, not in letter 102 Berlin, where it must 
be Hiba. But, says Conder, “Abdihiba is an unusual name, which is unknown to 
history.” On the other hand, the name of Joshua’s contemporary is well known. 
It was Adonizedek. Abdu means servant and Adoni, lord; Zedek means right- 
eousness, and khi-+ ba means ‘‘ good do,”’ whatever that is.1209 Hence Conder sub- 
stitutes Adonizedek in his translation wherever the text has Abdihiba. In reality 
Abdihiba seems to designate the king of Jerusalem as the servant of Ramman, 
“the god of Martu,13! as Boissier has shown.182 This interpretation accounts 
satisfactorily for both readings. The name of the governor of the city of Khasur 
is given by Budge-Bezold as Abdi-kar-3i.°3 There is some doubt abaut the last 
sign $i. Conder changes the whole complex into Iebaenu, and announces Jabin 
of Hazor, Josh. x1. 1, as the author of the letter.1%4 There are three letters from 
Yapakhi, governor of the city of Gezer.185 According to Josh. x. 33, the king of 
Gezer at the time of Joshua was Horam. But Japhia of Lachish is mentioned, 
Josh. X. 3,as an enemy of Israel. Conder therefore suggests that ‘‘the words 
Gezer and Lachish would not look unlike in the writing of the earlier Hebrew 
(about the Christian era), but it is not impossible that the two towns may have 
had the same king.”!8 And thus Yapakhi of Gezer is identified with Japhia of 
Lachish. None of these identifications, except that of the Habiri, in my judgment, 
deserves serious consideration. Even that single instance does not seem to me 
to be beyond all doubt. The initial guttural is no valid objection, for both pointed 
and unpointed ‘ayin are represented by cheth in Babylonian; nor the first vowel, 


12%5 JBL., XII., 618qq., cf. Tiele, lL. c. 


126 The Tell Amarna Tablets, London, 1893. 127 JA., XVIIL., 517. 
128 ZA., VI., 246, where he also admits the possible reading Abditaba in some places. 
129 Records of the Past, Vol. V., 66 (new series). 1301, ¢., p. 139. 


131 Cf. Hommel, Geschichte, 349, 373. 

132 Notes sur les lettres de Tell el-Amarna, in ZA., VII., 346. 

183 Tell el Amarna Tablets, No. 48, p. 1xxv.; ef. Bezold, Oriental Diplomacy, London, 1893, p. 46. 

1341. ¢., p. 112. 135 London, 49, 50, 51. 

136 1. ¢., p. 137. This I do not understand. Does Conder advocate an error in the Hebrew 
text? Is it his idea that Gezer was changed into Lachish, or the reverse? In either case, what 


becomes of Horam ? 














THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXODUS. 173 


for how the original gentilicium from the root 3}? was pronounced and how 
nearly correctly it was vocalized in cuneiform script, we do not know; nor the 
fact that “ the time of Amenhotep IV. is entirely too late for the first appearance 
of the Ibrim in Palestine,’’!°7 for it is nowbere implied that this was their first 
appearance; nor the idea that all Hebrews must have been snugly settled in 
Goxen at this time (about 1400), for there is nothing to prevent some of their 
tribes from having drifted away from their kindred. Nor am I better satisfied 
with the explanation of Halévy,!88 who regards them as Kad%ites, for there is no 
evidence that Burnaburiya’ had any occasion for carrying out his threat to send 
troops against Amenhotep, should this monarch fail to punish the offenders at 
Akko, or that the Habiri were the messengers of the Babylonian king, Milkili at 
least representing himself as loyal to Amenhotep and the other writers never 
referring to them as Babylonians; or that of Sayce,189 who explains them as 
‘** confederated tribes,’’ for there is little evidence of any confederacy and the deter- 
minative ki accompanying the name in one place!49 makes it improbable that they 
merely passed as ‘‘ allies.” But I feel attracted by Jastrow’s view connecting 
the Habiri and mare Milkili with the ASerite clans Heber and Malkiel. And I 
can accept his explanation of Yaudu, without rejecting Winckler’s!4! view of 
Yaudi. Labawi = Levi is a more doubtful identification ;142 but it is suggestive of 
Levi’s presence that Tehutimes III. in the fifteenth century found a district 
named Semana,!42 which Tomkins considers identical with Simeon.“ He also 
found [pal = Joseph-el!4 and Yaqbal = Jacob-el.446 Is it a mere chance that 
the important tribes so conspicuously absent in the Song of Debora, Jud. V. 
viz., Judah and Joseph, Levi and Simeon, are just the ones whose presence in 
Palestine long before the conquest, monumental history would thus allow us to 
trace? And that the families of ASer, whose failure to participate in the war 
calls forth no word of blame or indignation, are also found in this company ?147 
This is just what we would expect, if these tribes, whatever their relationship, 
never had shared the trials and religious experiences of the wilderness and the 
enthusiasm of the conquest, the memories of which so solemnly bound the partici- 


137 Jastrow, JBL., XI., 118, 119. 138 JA., XVIII., 547. 139 Records of the Past, Vol. V., 59. 


140 Berlin, 199. 
141 Altorientalische Forschungen, I., 1893, 1sqq. May not the ameluti Yaudi have come from 
‘IN? This thought which I expressed in June, 1894, Immortality and the Hadad Statue, JBL., 


XIIL., p. 13, was also suggested in July by Halévy, Revue Sém., 1894, p. 215. 


~~ e 
142 ) = priest cf. Min. wy! = priest. 143 Mariette, Karnak, pl. 25, No. 18. 
144 Records of the Past, V., 44. 1451. ¢., No. 78. 


146 1, c., No. 102. That even a scholar who, in mastery of sources, breadth of view, and accu- 
racy of critical judgment, seems to me of living historians facile princeps, recognizes the value 
of scientific conjecture, may be seen from Ed. Meyer's article on Yakob-El and Yoseph-El in 
ZATW., V1., 1886, p. 1sqq. 

147 Heber and Malkiel may have been the first ASerite clans to enter Palestine, while the 
main body itself lived between Gaza and Egypt even in the time of Arsu. 








174 HEBRAICA. 


pants together that it was treason not to come to the help of Yahweh. But a 
relationship, though more remote, is by no means excluded. For all, or some of 
them, may have been severed from their kindred in Egypt or on the Sinaitic 
peninsula, and cast upon Palestine with the wave that swept the Hyksos in that 
direction. As to the Habiri or Heberi, the situation after the death of Amenho- 
tep IV. invites the supposition that they succeeded in taking Kirjath Arba, giving 
their name Heberun or Hebron, i. e., Habiri district, to this important place. 
When they were driven away by the Hittites or the Amorites, in the following 
period, the name may have dropped, only to be resumed after the Israelitish con- 
quest, just as the name of Jerusalem gave place to Jebus for a time, to revive 
again after a few centuries. 

While thus suggesting the presence of elements afterwards entering into the 
composition of the 5x7" 935), the Amarna tablets furnish absolutely no proof 
that the Israelitish conquests took place in the time of Amenhotep IV. Rather 
is their testimony evidence against such an assumption. For by the light they 
throw upon Palestinian history an event of that character is seen to be an impossi- 
bility yet for along time. The fourteenth century witnessed the Hittite ascend- 
ency in Syria, scarcely broken by the expeditions of Ramessu II. (1347-1281). 
Then the maritime invasion from Asia Minor under Mer-en-Ptah (1281-1269), 
and possibly the pressure of Assyria,148 crushed the strength of the Hittite. 
Arsu’s expedition may mark a revival of spirits in Palestine. But the Amorites 
became too exhausted by the campaigns of Ramessu III. to be able to resist the 
Hebrew tribes that then, and not until then, attacked them on a larger scale. 

Thus it is impossible to assert that the Aperiu were Hebrews, that Manetho 
used sources coeval with the events he recorded, that the Minaean inscriptions 
refer to the Hebrews, or that the Amarna tablets have anything to tell concern- 
ing them. If any of the later Hebrew accounts of the Exodus is supposed to be 
accurate history, it is impossible to find in any inscription that has come to us 
from Egypt, the Desert, or Palestine the slightest knowledge of them. But with 
the view of early Hebrew history which a critical study of the Biblical narratives 
themselves suggests, it is quite conceivable that the Aperiu were Hebrews, that 
Manetho’s story contains a kernel of real information, that the Ibru Naharan 
were Hebrew clans, and that the Amarna correspondence has preserved the 
memory of tribes afterwards members of the Bene Yisrael who already in the 
century before the Exodus may have attempted to enter Palestine. As for the 
date of this Exodus, all these sources point to the time of Arsu as the most 
likely to have witnessed such an event. 


148 Cf. Jastrow, ZA., VII., 1sqq. 











ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN, 
By LEO WIENER, 


Missouri State University, Columbia, Mo. 


I. INTRODUCTION. 


The languages of nearly all Mohammedan countries have been influenced in 
some way by the Arabic. Their alphabets are adaptations of the Arabic alphabet 
to the needs of the foreign phonology; their vocabulary has been enriched and 
their grammar has been tainted by Semitic influence. The Jews had not gained 
sufficient political or religious supremacy and never had been present in suffi- 
ciently large numbers to influence to any considerable degree the languages of 
the nations among whom they lived. They spoke the tongues of their Christian 
fellow-citizens, and when violently torn from their surroundings and carried in 
compact masses to other lands, preserved in exile the language of their inhos- 
pitable stepfatherland. When they were driven from Spain and settled on the 
eastern shores of the Mediterranean they brought with them the Spanish idiom, 
which under the name of Ladino is spoken even to-day by their descendants in 
Turkey and the Levant. In 1553 a translation of the Old Testament into Ladino 
was published in Ferrara; a large number of books have appeared since on all 
kinds of subjects mainly from the press in Vienna. Its thorough linguistic inves- 
tigation will certainly repay the student of Romance philology. 

The fate of the German language among the Jews who spoke it in Germany, 
Russia, Galicia, Roumania, has been a very peculiar one. It is evident from the 
remains of the Jewish minnesaenger Stisskind and from many documents that 
have come down to us that up to the 15th century the language of the German 
Jews in no way differed from the dialects of the localities where they lived.1 

In the 16th century the German becomes vitiated by an introduction of 
Hebrew words, and in the following centuries this taint has grown to such pro- 


1In an article of the Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur inscribed Ein 
mit hebrilischen Buchstaben niedergeschriebener deutscher Segen gegen die Biirmutter by Alois 
Miller, the following is quoted from Giidemann: ‘‘ Die Sprache des Gedichts, wie es uns vor- 
liegt, ist im ganzen und grossen spit mittelhochdeutsch, doch enthiélt es meiner Ansicht nach 
auch althochdeutsche Reste und diirfte es wahrscheinlich viel alter sein, als nach jetziger Fass- 
ung und Niederschrift vermutet werden kann,”’ and further: ‘‘ Beachtenswert ist die eigentiim- 
liche Umschreibung des Deutschen, welche teilweise die hebriiischen Vokale zu hilfe nehmen 
muss. Die auch dem Laien erkennbare Korrektheit der Sprache und Schrift lisst eine genaue 
Bekanntschaft des Schreibers mit dem Deutschen voraussetzen.” 


*6 








176 ; HEBRAICA. 


portions as to call for special grammars. Buxtorf,! Wagenseil,? Pfeffer,? have 
composed grammars of the Judaeo-German* for the use of theological students. 
In the present unsatisfactory state of the history of the Jews in Germany in 
the 15th and 16th centuries it is impossible to ascertain the exact causes that led 
to this vitiation of the German language. I hold with Gtidemann‘ that German 
Jews lived in Russia previous to the 16th century, and that in their insulation 
from German surroundings they modified the dialect they had brought with 
them,§ and as they were pre-eminently given to the study of the Talmud and the 
Bible, they, under these unfavorable conditions, made free use of words and 
expressions more familiar to them in the Hebrew form. Harkavy’ and still more 
Bershadski® insist that the language of the Russian Jews previous to the Lublin 
Union was Slavic. The facts, however, seem to indicate a bilingualism long 


before that period.? 
These Russian Jews became the teachers of the German Jewish youth.10 


Thus only can be explained the presence of Slavic words in the Judaeo-German 


of Germany. ; 
In Slavo-Judaeo-German, Hebrew influence appears in the use of the Hebrew 


alphabet, the introduction of a considerable number of Hebrew words and some 
grammatical forms. Before entering on the subject proper it is necessary to 
review the causes that led to the peculiar pronunciation of Hebrew by the Russian 


and Polish Jews. 
ae. ? 

1 Thesaurus grammaticus linguae Sanctae Hebraicae (Basles, 1609), in the appendix to which is 
found the Usus et Exercitatio lectionis Hebraeo-Germanicae. 

2J.Chr. Wagenseil’s Belehrung der Jiidisch Teutschen Red- und Schreibart: etc....... Konigs- 
berg, gedruckt in dem Jahre, 1699. Heyl-Jahr. 

3 Manuductio facilis ad lectionem talmudico-rabbinicam, Sectio I: De lectione Ebraeo-germanica, 
in his Critica Sacra, 1680. 

4Cf. Avé-Lallemant, Das deutsche Gaunerthum, Vol. III., pp. 218-240, also Lazir Saineanu, 
Studiu Dialectologic asupra Graiului Evreo-German, Bucuresti, 1889, pp. 17-29. 

5M. Gtidemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden in Deutschland 
wiihrend des XIV. und XV. Jahrhunderts, p. 296. 

6 An investigation in the dialects of Southwest Germany, on which I am now working, leads 
me to the conclusion that the various dialects of Slavo-Judaeo-German have their origin in 
Hesse-Darmstadt, Aschaffenburg and Unterfranken, i. e., in the neighborhood of Frankfort on 
the Main. Heinrich Heine had surmised as much in the case of Mauscheldeutsch. 

1A. Harkavy, D'VNION) ONAN Nw, Wilno, 1876. There is also a Russian translation of 
the work. 

8S. A. Bershadski, Litowskije Jewrei, St. Petersburg, 1883. 

* So, too, German Jews, in the East at least, were acquainted with Slavic, to judge from a 
note in Steinschneider’s Hebriiische Bibliographie, XI. Jahrgang, p. 57: ‘‘ Nota quod iudei in 
omnibus partibus non habent idem ydioma commune quia in alemannia aliud habent ydioma 
commune eis et est slavicum nam audivi indeum emere et vendere cum slavo in alemannia 
scilicet in partibus meis. Diese worte citirt Boncompagni (Atti dell’ Academia Pontif, XVI., 
1863, S. 692, 721) aus dem handschriftlichen Werke des Johannes Alemanus de “pulcro rivo”’ 
[wabrscheinlich Schénbach in der Lausitz], welcher 1297-8 in Paris war (Atti, S. 740), bekannter 
unter dem Namen Johannes de Saxonia als Verf. von ‘‘Canones”’ tiber die Alphonsinischen 
Tabellen. 

10 Cf, Giidemann, ibid., pp. 295, 296. 














ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN. 177 


II. PRONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 


More or less confused ideas were held even by prominent grammarians, such 
as Luzzatto, Gesenius, as to the correct pronunciation of Hebrew and the causes 
of a different pronunciation by German and Polish Jews. Some held that it was 
a Syriac mode of pronouncing Hebrew, others that it was a corrupt Sephardic 
form. Martin Schreiner! is the first one to prove the absurdity of either state- 
ment and to place the question on a truly scientific basis. The following words? 
clearly state his position: Die Aussprache des Hebraischen konnte sich unter 
semitischen Volkern natiirlich nicht in solchem Maasse verandern und von der 
urspriinglichen entfernen, wie bei den in den europaischen Landern wohnenden 
Juden. Anfangs mag die Aussprache der europdischen Juden nur wenig ver- 
schieden gewesen sein von derjenigen der in den Landern des Islims lebenden, 
aber in dem Maasse, in welchem die in Europa wohnenden die Sprache ihres 
Aufenthaltes sich aneigneten, wurde ihr Sinn fiir die Eigenthiimlichkeiten der 
semitischen Laute getriibt; und so sehen wir die Aussprache sich immer mehr 
und mehr verandern..... Und wenn sich schon in der Aussprache der ara- 
bischen Juden fremder Einfluss bemerkbar macht, der sie aber—und hier meinen 
wir diejenigen von Jemen—nicht sehr von der urspriinglichen Aussprache 
entfernt, so konnen wir in der sogenannten deutschpolnischen Aussprache, welche 
aber auch viele Wandlungen aufweist, nur einen Product indo-germanischen 
Ejinflusses erblicken. 

But this is not all. Not only is the pronunciation of Hebrew by the Polish Jews 
due to the influence of the spoken German language, but it has kept pace with the deteri- 
oration of German into Judaeo-German. Saineanu® grasps this fact but does not 
arrive at any general conclusion, nor are his statements complete. 

The Hebrew consonants have their German values. and Y are toneless, 
since the spiritus lenis and spiritus asper do not play any part in German itself. 
We will see later, however, that tradition keeps up & as a spiritus lenis in trans- 
literations up to our times. In apy" Jajnkew the y has become nasalized, either 
on account of a long a preceding the >» or, more probably, on account of its resem- 
blance to the Slavic name Janko. 

;? and fF} are respectively h and ch. These sounds were confused as early as 
the time of Hieronymos, and they are pronounced alike by the nations who do 
not distinguish between the two sounds, as for example, by the Greek Jews.4 

¢ and § as consonants are j and w. 


1 Zur Geschichte der Aussprache des Hebriiischen. Von Martin Schreiner, in Budapest. 
ZATW., Bad. VI. 

2 Tbid., pp. 258, 259. 

3 Lazir Saineanu, Studiu, etc., pp. 54-55. 

4 The German Jews were divided in the time of Isserlein (15th century) into Hetites and Chet- 
ites, those who pronounced Mf like Germanhorch. Cf. Giidemann, ibid., pp. 75sqq. 








178 HEBRAICA. 


&, , 3, “) are exactly asin German. Of the twofold value of “|, as with the 
Arabian Jews, nothing is known. 

5) and 5 have, perhaps, retained their original values and are G. b and p 
respectively. 5) and 5=G.w and f, instead of the older bh and ph, from which, 
naturally, w and f would be developed. 

3=G.g. Daghés does not change its pronunciation. German has only one 
k sound, hence both 5 and 9 are alike k.1 5 =G. ch evidently evolved from kh. 
In 8.-J.-G. this ch, as well as fJ, is very guttural. 

“1 is G. d and Daghés does not changeit. { and f) must naturally become 
alike and = G. t, while ( originally th, becomes s. This will not surprise, when 
we consider that Germans invariably render English th by s, and that the sound 
of Castillian c and z is pure s in the New World. 

In most countries there is no difference in the pronunciation of D and yw; 
so also in Germany there was originally no difference and both sounded s. In 
Germany sch is generally a development of s, and so { differentiated into ys = s 
and ¢=<sch. In the early transliterations of the Bible with Greek characters 


TVWN I is rendered Bepecs’. Fis G. soft sand Y=G. z. 

The vowels have undergone a much more thorough change since the vowels 
of S.-J.-G. have experienced great mutations. B.H. Levensohn in his yo" 
DTN to Bensab’s 3 y Nw/’9 N95 ADD mixes truth with fiction in attempt- 
ing to explain these peculiar changes.? j 

Hebrew accent is generally disregarded, and in S.-J.-G. it is placed on the 
penult. In many words, however, the original accent prevails, as in DON 
elohim God. In reading pointed texts the vowels generally receive their full 
value; in reading unpointed books Russian Jews (wherever this denomination 


1 Cf. Giidemann, / id., pp. 77. 

2 Cf. pp. 19sqq. of the Wilno edition of 1874. The following synopsis in English I owe to the 
kindness of Dr. I. M. Casanowicz, of Washington, D. C.: 

Hebrew, like all original and pure languages, had the five sounds or vowels, a, e, i, 0, u, 
which are divided in long or open ones, and short or closed ones. When the present vowel 
points were introduced, the signs for the long sounds were made different from those for the 
short ones in name and shape. Only the i sound (hiréq) was given one sign for both, as the long 
iis sufficiently distinguished from the short one by its being followed by ’quiescens. Long a 
(qimé¢) was distinguished from the short one (pithih) by making the horizontal stroke some- 
what broader. While thus the signs for the long and short vowels were different in name and 
form, and the sounds themselves differed in quantity, the quality of both, the long and the 
short sounds were the same. This is still the pronunciation of the Portuguese Jews and those 
who follow them. Not so with the German Jews and their followers in Poland, etc. They dis- 
tinguish between the long and short vowels not only concerning the quantity but also the qual- 
ity of sound. Thus with the Céré (é) they let hear something of the hiréq (i). They were influ- 
enced by the circumstance that ¢éré and hiréq are both palatal sounds, and by the people 
surrounding them, namely the Germans who also have the compound sound ei. With the hélém 
(6) they sound somewhat of the Siiréq (i). Here, too, both sounds are labials, and the German ou 
offered itself for imitation. Hiréq and &Siréq they left unaltered since the following ° and } 


resp., which are heard in the sounding of these vowels sufficiently distinguish the long from 


the short ones. Etc., etc. 
I also take this occasion to thank Dr. Pietsch, of the Newberry Library of Chicago, for 


directing my attention to some valuable material incorporated in this essay. 














ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN. 179 


occurs in the essay, Polish, Galician, Roumanian Jews as well are meant) modify 
the unaccented syllables as in S.-J.-G. proper. A number of accented syllables 
change their vowel sounds, partly in consequence of certain phonetic laws, partly 
because they became acquainted with these words through unpointed books where 
the exact pronunciation could not be ascertained. In the following examples 
most of the words have become naturalized in 8.-J.-G. and the pronunciation is 
that of the Lithuanian Jews, unless otherwise stated. The letters in transliter- 
ation have their German values, and z= G. soft s, z = French je 

German @ has in most dialects developed into 6, in S.-J.-G. under Slavic 
influence into 6; German d@ and 6 remain d@ and 6 respectively. Hence pithah 
is pronounced d, qamé¢ and qamég hatiph are both 6.1 NANI “3 (nh.) 
bar pligte opponent, n> kojach strength ; MIN chochme "wisdom, 133? 
lewéne moon, MINI meloche work. 

In the South and in Poland this o has further developed into a dull u,? hence 
the last two words would sound there lewwne, meluche. 

Two a following each other in the same syllable become ¢@ (through original 
a) if no other syllable follows, otherwise @ in Poland, aj in Lithuania and even 
a (an nasalized) in Bessarabia and Roumania.’ TIN Syd bal meléche arti- 
san, vyr rasch tumult, noise, DY kas anger ; TN] gdjwe (in Poland gawe, 


in Roumania gawe) pride, MNF tdjwe, (tdwe, tawe) passion, PTAN'T ( (for bibl. 


TAN) didjge, (dage, dage) trouble, care. 

Oo is rare and becomes & 6, NYY ( (nh.) sché, (schi in the South) hour. More 
generally the contraction does not take place, NIT (nh.) hanéde enjoyment, 
ANI (nh.) hasrée warning. sisi 

If a is followed by [7 the second a disappears. TIM mdchne host, DY AN 
(for nh. DIAN) achrdjes risk. 7 

Ina large number of words qamég is pronounced like &, probably because of 
the word appearing more frequently in the construct or other grammatical 
form, where pithih takes the place of the qamé¢. IN [92 ( (nh.) binjen aw axiom 
on (cf. Moh » VD) ) tam simple, FAN FAWN éjsches me sister-in-law, 2777 
mit (nh.) ‘dan lekaf gchus to take the best view of a person, 2) man manna, 

vo" on (DM , Job Xxxvit. 17) cham wejowesch warm and dry, "1D sddin sheet, 


1The examples are mainly from Levensohn’s notes, as above, pp. 19sqq.; nh. stands for 
neohebraic. 

2This I take to be Slavic influence. Miklosich, Vergleichende Grammatik der Slavischen 
Sprachen, Vol. I., p. 480, has the following: unbetontes o lautetin vielen gegenden klr. wie u: 
kutréhu d. i. kotrého. Dieselbe regel gilt fiir das bulg. und das rumun.; wr. dagegen lautet 


unbetontes o nach der r. regel wie a...... altes o wird unter bestimmten bedingungen, unter 
denen es ehedem lang war, im N. und im S. durch u, ou ersetzt an dessen stelle in der mittleren 
region i tritt, das ich durch 6 bezeichne : 6, u, uo, 6; vujsko neben véjsko nd. 


In Poland 6=wu. In precisely these localities does German and Hebrew o (from 4) become 


u; in Poland it sounds like ue. 
3 In the same localities German ei = a, as in wa = wein, wine. 
A 











180 HEBRAICA. 


Dd YFD (cf. 953 DN) masir dém he who bleeds, JAD | (nh.) ksaw scriptum, 
33) V3 (nh.) nawendd wandering, vagrant, UND (nh). "mejdesch despairing, jan 
(nh. ) tendn we learn, $3 An chasénim bridegrooms, 995 ( nh.) klal general, rule, 
p15 (nh.) frat special, nv (nh.) hawdjes discussions. This is generally the 
case before ch, NID mdlach angel. amie) mizrach Orient, East, 7D sach a 
great deal, much. 

Téré = é (ej), but aj in Poland,! S*ghé] = é, Sewi = unaccented German e. 
TVS Syo balawéjre sinner, jn chejn grace, mn téjwe ark; wd) néfesch 
soul ; 71229 lekowed in honor of, 3299 meldmed teacher. 

In closed syllables and in a few others céré is pronounced like é. WIN 
elijohu Elijah, ON) aN ow weém father and mother, haa DVS (oh.) besdin judicial 
court, \j ger stranger, rai WN réjschis hagé> the first offering of the shear- 
ing, (3 (nh.) get divorce, “Ww (nh.) sched evil spirit, 2 lez (bibl. scorner, scoffer) 
ghost, goblin, Toh “\3 nertomid the lamp before the ark of the scrolls, NOM oy 
alchét litany in the ritual of Atonement day. 

In open accented syllables s‘gh6] generally becomes ¢j (é). IA) méjlech king, 
MIDS péjsach Passover, DOL zéjlem cross, VHT chéjder school, 3/2 kéjwer 
grave, Wd péjger carcass, {py schéjgez urchin, ‘DD kéjfel multiply. 

SewA, whether quiescens or mobile, is silent wherever the consonants form 
a group easy of enunciation to Slavic or German, or when the consonants belong 
to two separate syllables. Hattiph has no effect on the vowel. ND2v/3 (nh.) 
bischlome granted, S953 gwul border, NPT (nh.) ddwke by all means, pani ( (nh.) 


watren liberal giver, MD s-chdjre goods. But when s*wa is an evident devel- 
opment of a vowel in a word already in use in S.-J.-G. the original vowel is 
sounded, as in 7333 | from 333 gdanew thief) ganéjwe what is stolen. 

Hiréq is i except before ‘5 when it may sound e as in words of German 
origin. m3 (nh.) bérje a thorough workman, 7")'}) (nh.) térez reason. 

German. 6 has developed a large number of sounds in Judaeo-German. Ger- 
man Jews pronounce it ou or au; the Polish and Southern Jews pronounce it oj; 
in Lithuania it gets the umlaut and sounds 6j, which in many localities is flat- 
tened and sounds ej. Accordingly hdlém has undergone the same changes. 
“JVM toure, tdjre, tijre, téjre Holy Writ, PFD mikéjach in regard to, PEL téjwe 
kindness. . 

In closed syllables, however, 6 has changed to 6. Sj) oI mdzeltow good 
luck, 54) DY jontew holiday, O°/} jorschim heirs, DWH schoftim judges, 
Ds sonim enemies, [\OU “toldes history, p’nsin rozchim murderers, 
DID TIPDN (nh.) apikorsim heretics, rip kol voice, \j7} dor generation, OD 
sof end. 


1 So, too, geh’, schnee sounds in the Polish dialect gaj, schnaj. 














ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-J UDAEO-GERMAN. 181 


In Poland and the South u through the umlaut has become i, hence Siréq 
and qibbiig sound there i. m4 3} gdile joy, Wt) (uh.) meschimed apostate. 
In Lithuania both remain w. ni ruach devil, men, (nh.) reschis permission, 
possession. 

Unaccented posttonic syllables (except 0’ and f}) invariably change their 
vowels to é. Nd rojfe physician, WO'D mamzer bastard, “Did sdjfer scribe; 
mn téjre Holy Writ, mina) 4 simche joy, m3) (nh.) minche evening prayer ; 
nips zdékes and zdokes ‘alms, 55 oy’ (nh.) ) jonkiper Atonement day. But 
PI) rvach devil, D971) (nh.) gaglonim robbers. So also *} in compound words 
becomes toneless e. ns Syd balebos master of the house, or is entirely neg- 
lected as in weyT97 mn’ besmédresch synagogue. 


III. TRANSLITERATION. 


The Jews of nearly all civilized countries in the Middle Ages wrote the ian- 
guages of their Christian fellow citizens with Hebrew characters. The oldest 
documents so far investigated reach back into the thirteenth century.1 A system 
of transliteration, fairly uniform for all countries, had been established before 
this time, and I shall attempt the proof that the German way, and with it the 
S. J.-G. way, of transliteration is a direct development of the French, Provengal 
and Spanish mode of writing with Hebrew characters. 

All agree that the Jews tried not only approximately but even exactly to 
render the pronunciation of the European idioms.? Originally only three letters 
were used to represent all possible vowel sounds, namely &,%,}. In Ladino,’ 
where the number of vowels is smallest, % represents a, % stands for e andi, } 





1 Kin mit hebriischen Muchstaben niedergeschriebener deutscher Segen gegen die Biirmutter by 
Alois Miller, Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur, No. 19, cf. above. 

Histoire littéraire de la France, Vol. XXVIL., pp. 439 and 440, Jehouda ben Eléazar; p. 442, Un 
autre éléve d’Elyaqim; p. 540 Menahem se sert de mots provengaux ou plutét catalans; extrait 
des gloses du Manuscrit de Paris 207; extrait des gloses du manuscrit de Parme 582; extrait des 
gloses du manuscrit Halberstam. 

Deux Elégies du Vatican, Arséne Darmstetter, Romania, 3, pp. 443 sqq. 

Les Roman Provencal d’ Esther par Cresca Du Caylar, Médecin Juif du XIV® siécle. Neubauer 
& Meyer, Romania 21 (1892), pp. 194-227. 

De Vocabulis Francogallicis Judaice transcriptis, disseruit Eduardus Boehmer, Romanische 
Studien, I., pp. 197 sqq. 

Der Vocalbuchstabe }) von M. St. (Steinschneider), Hebraische Bibliographie, VI., p. 119. 

3 Cf. p Ein mit hebriiischen Buchstaben, ete. 

Deux Elégies du Vatican : Ce qui importe, c’est de savoir que l’écrivain juif avait le sentiment 
d’une différence de prononciation entre les diverses sifflantes. 

Giidemann, Geschichte, etc. as above, p. 292: Aus der vorstehenden Uebersicht ergibt sich, 
dass die jiidisch-deutsche Orthographie der deutschen angepasst und dass sie kunstvoll und 
planmiissig angelegt ist. Wenn Steinschneider (Serapeum 1864, S. 129) von einer Handschrift des 
Sittenbuches sagt: “ Die Orthographie ist auch hier eine sehr schwankende,”’ so kann man das- 
selbe Urtheil iiber die Orthographie jedes deutschen Buches aus dieser Zeit fillen...... Dieser 
Verwilderung gegeniiher stellt man der jiidisch-deutschen Orthographie ein sehr ehrendes 
Zeugniss aus, wenn man sie bloss ‘‘schwankend”’ nennt. 

3 The only book I have been able to consult on Ladino is a prayer book published in Vienna 
about 30 years ago; in the main the spelling has not been changed in the last 400 years. 











182 HEBRAICA. 


for o and u; for final a 7 is used. WX also represents the spiritus lenis, hence 
words beginning with * and § are preceded by N; it is also placed between ) and 
9 in the middle of the word to indicate that the two vowels are to be pronounced 
separately. 

PR YY WIND DD 9 ID DT HT YT ID ND 7 Ww WTI 
-DIND TT ANINSNS 51D VIPOWIN DVD 'N ONDINTWOPIN DID 
Bendijo tu nuestro Deio rei de el mundo qui mos santificé en sus encomen- 
danzas é mos encomendé sovre lavadura de manos. 

The same is the case in Catalan.1 yyytr5'9)3 noblezas, PONS*ANS adrezatz, 
DIONINAIN adornament, YINYOY"N estorbet, ANLN} passaro, 1 I79I9)) 
golondrino. Short e is not written, as in O50OU"N estorbet, HISD! IN 
adresment. 

In the other Provencal dialects? even a may be left out, especially when the 
text is pointed. U after a vowel is rendered by 5); %, as might be expected, stands 
for ei. “ND laor, FY) mota, Wi provar, YI) mudat, Yop capio, 
DN SSN NISSN e vinga (pour vinha) angres, YONI TILT Pw sien desra- 
digatz, FFTVIDID AOIOI'N en tota ma gaudida. 

In Deux Elégies du Vatican, (JX occurs for final a. Atonice is sometimes 
represented by &; u after a vowel is rendered as before by 3j, or by 4), or 5\. 

DIN YN WNP POT NTI [7 17d 
Je sui Cohen, e ofrande de mon cors vos ofrir. 

In the Langue d’Oil? & quite frequently expresses atonic e and silent e, either 
because e was felt only as a spiritus lenis or because in the case of the posttonic 
a it generally represents a Romance a. 4 stands for u (%) as wellaso. Open and 
closed vowels are not distinguished. The following combinations are given by 
Boehmer as possible. Ex modo allatis vecalium simplicium signis notae pendent 


combinationum : 
a} ) N) a ” XN? IN N NN 
(u) (i) (o) (e) 
4A \ A A 

uu ul ua iu li ia au al aa 

uo ue ue io ie ie ao ae ae 
] , 

ou oi oa eu el ea eu el ea 

; 3 3 
00 oe oe e0 ee ee ee eo ee 
} 


The examples cited are from Histoire littéraire de la France, Vol. XXVIL, p. 
439: "~y¥yj575 porpencer, “YN vouer, 375! %N e defeseient, NOIMN 
aigle, PIN corbel, |") DWN esprevier ou esparvier, [17 53/5) salv de non, 
v9 35’ son brés, “ION yj feraz, alonger (ou alognier). 


1 Histoire Littéraire de la France, as above. 
2 1bid., and Deux Elégies du Vatican, as above. Roman Provencal d’ Esther, as above. 


3 De Vocabulis Francogallicis, as above; Histoire littéraire, as above. 














ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN. 183 


German transliteration follows the same rules. Anciently N was used for 
a and posttonic (final) e; %is e andi; ) stands for o and uw. In Hin mit hebra- 
ischen Buchstaben niedergeschriebener deutscher Segen & is not used as a spiritus 
lenis. yy? leg dich, N5)5  buche, ew, legen, T{OM" rechte, ¥} visch, 
w5/>ur592) menschlichs, NWT drie, ODL’? instet, vy) wilius. In the 
Judaeo-German glosses of R. Moses Haddarschan of the 13th century,! the vowels 
have the same values and & occurs as a spiritus lenis. In a few cases in both 
manuscripts does JY appear as an accented e. What led to the introduction is 
hard to ascertain. Its use did not become universal before the 16th century.? 

Isserlein (d. 1460) gives in his appendix to the ‘‘ Sittenbuch” a number of 
rules for writing German with Hebrew characters. Giidemann discusses them 
in note VII. of his Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden in 
Deutschland wahrend des XIV. u. XV. Jahrhunderts, but generally fails to grasp 
the reason for the use of certain combinations. 

1. “* Erstlichen is zu wissen dz ein Jud bringt ein Chirek un’ ein Zere.”’ 

Giidemann sees in this a proof of the antiquity of Hebrew transliteration, 
because Gothic i becomes German e, etc. In reality this is taken bodily from the 
Romance languages where ? had to do service for e and i. 

2. “Un ein Alef bringt ein Kamez un’ ein Patach.”’ 

For example PHONAIIN) = wohnhaftig. Since long a became 6, & natur- 
ally followed the same mutation. This innovation did not take root till the next 
century. 

3. ‘*Un ein Waw bringt ein Melo-pum (Schurek) un ein Cholem.” This is 
again Romance usage. 

4. “ Un ein Ayin bringt ein Segol.” 

5. “* Un wenn zwai Juden sein so is die letter die dar vor stet al mol gepiin- 
telt (gepiinktelt, vacalisirt, dh. man hat sich dieselbe vocalisirt zu denken) mit 
einem Patach un’ dz Jud mit einem Schwa un’ dz ander Jud macht ein zeichen 
dz es kein Chirek is gleich als a>’ = ain, NY = zwai N"\"7,, un’ das fehlt gar 
selten.” 

Giidemann sees in it again a proof that the Jews transliterated German with 
Hebrew characters at a time when weth was written wip. (Hier haben wir also 
abermals einen Rest des altdeutschen Jiidischdeutsch. Giid.). Asin Old French, et 
is merely rendered by %%, and when ei was pronounced ai, still remained to 
express this sound. 

6. ‘* Un’ ein Alef so es hinden stet nach einem Piintel so tut es niks denn es 
macht der Geschrift ein Zirunge gleich als N°} = di (die).” 


1 Beitriige zur Geschichte der hebriiischen und aramiiischen Studien von Dr. Joseph Perles, 


Miinchen, 1884. 
2 Cf. Der Vocalbuchstabe jy von M. St., Hebrilische Bibliographie, Vz., p. 119. 











184 HEBRAICA. 


(Hier sieht man deutlich(?) den Einfluss der deutschen auf die jiidisch- 
deutsche Schreibung. Giid.) Here again French influence is visible. 

7. ‘*Nun is das Waw un’ das Jud di ‘ ikren’ (hauptsichlichen) piintel da 
einer nit (erg: ohne) kan aus kummen denn sie werden in vil piintel gebraucht, 
als ich mit der hulf gottes (gel. sei er) an zaign wil so er mir zeit verleicht.”’ 

‘Nun sein etlich die piinteln (vocalisiren) ein wort wen sie es nit wol kiinnen 
schreiben. das geb ich zu. aher alein auf ein Zere oder ein Schurek oder siinst ein 
punt der wol bekant is die mag man wol pinteln. gleich als jp (kiinnen) da 
mag man wohl ein Schurek pinteln. un’ “)f (ser, sehr) oder “?§ (mer mehr) an 
Zere’’ (namlich “}). 

By this the author means that combinations of § and * may be used to express 
sound combinations between 0, vu andi,e. From the following remark it is evi- 
dent that combinations, such as au, were rendered by the more frequently occur- 
ring digraph 9. ‘ 

** Aber siinst das Waw un’ das Jud so es gebraucht wert vor ein halb Patach 
un’ halb Melo-pum. oder halbe Kamez un halb Zere. wie is denn oft gefunden 
wert. dz is jo nit mOglich zu piinteln. man schreibe denn ein Patach dz maint ein 
Alef. un’ ein Melo-pum dz maint ein Waw. un’ wiltu wissen wie es gebraucht 
wert halb Patach un’ halb Melo-pum. nemlich wenn du schreibst N97) oder 
N°9993 oder N59 ds is als halbe Patach un’ halb Melo-pum. da brauchen die 
Gojim ein ‘a’ un’ ein ‘u’ gleich wie da ‘ fraw gnaw baw.’ ”’ ; 

** Un vor ein halb Kamez un’ vor eine halbe Zere wern sie (naimlich Waw 
und Jud) gebraucht gleich als ja" oder jr; brauchen die Gojim ein ‘0’ mit 
einem ‘e’ drauf dz bezeichnet ein Kamez un ein Zere gleich wie da mogen. 
bosen. un’ vil die denn gleich sein.” 

This is in keeping with the fundamental values of } and %. What follows in 
Isserlein’s appendix and Gidemann’s notes to it are of no great value to our 
subject. 

In Slavo-Judeao-German there is a perfect chaos of orthographies, but all 
are evidently a development of the one enunciated by Isserlein. 8 has the values 


of a and 0,1 and is silent at the end of words after vowels and in the beginning 
before and }; }f is universally tonic e and with the modern writers atonic e also ; 


1 Griinbaum (Jildisch-deutsche Chrestomathie, pp. 88-90) in rendering the S.-J.-G. version of 
the 104 psalm shows his ignorance of this dialect. In two pages anda half there occur 34 mis- 
takes in rendering 8 by a when it ought to be 0, 7 mistakes by rendering it o when all Russian 
Jews pronounce it a; *) is rendered wrong in every case. But the most ridiculous mistakes are 
the following two: In his note to the 4th verse he says that bodener or bodiner is probably a 
specifically Slavo-Judaeo-German word for bote messenger. The original S.-J.-G. text had evi- 
dently Vj~3°IN3 which is German badiner = Bedienter. In verses 8 and 9 the words occur: ‘‘ die 
samd hastu (hostu) gemacht ein (ajn) 9)3) zum DO’ as es sol nit iberfaren (iberforen), es sol sich nit 
umkeren zu bedeken di erd.’”” Here Griinbaum explains that ‘die samd bedeudet vielleicht 
‘ebenso’ (the same) oder ‘gleichzeitig, zugleich’ wie mhd. samet, samt.’’ Had he taken the 
trouble to look at the Hebrew text he could haveseen that samd is = G. Sand, Eng. sand. These 
few specimens show his untrustworthiness when he deals with Slavo-Judaeo-German. 











ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN. 185 


9 is i and with the older writers atonice; jis u. 9% stands for e (éj = ez) and aj, %) 
for ou, oj, 67 and ej according to the dialect. This might have been expected 
since these sounds are developments of au and 6 (oro). When oj stands for o the 
older writers employed } alone. Some Southern authors write 98 for oj. In the 
South §&§ sounds also as u, when this is a development of 0, and } like é 

The orthography in vogue with the best writers of the day in Russia is a com- 
promise between phonetic spelling and German writing and attempts to render 
the words in such a way that Polish, Lithuanian and Southern Jews may readily 
recognize it. In the most excellent collection of S.-J.-G. literary productions 
** Di Jidische Folksbibliotéjk,”’ Mr. Rabinowitsch puts down the following rules: 

1. Me darf schrajben jidesch, az0j wi me ret. 

2. Me darf schrajben az6j, az saj der pojlischer lezer, saj der litwak zolen 
konen ferschtejn. 

3. Jeder Zargonist darf gedenken az er schrajbt zargon, d. h. mer farn folk, 
fam DY yids. 

4. Dos ouslejgen fun di dajtsche werter darfen zajn mer nohent zu dajtsch. 

5. Es darf zajna Dion zwischen werter wos weren glajch ousgeret un hoben 
zwejerlej bedajtung, Su? : pO tr*-stein un PIVYOUstehn ; ; fiTYY-zehn un 
JINY-Zahne; W"t- zejer (ihr) un WIT sehr ; J°9))-weinig un PAY -wenig (if 
the latter word were written in accordance with its pronunciation it would be 
written }°3’"}) , and would thus only differ in the vowel points); V yOy-zajlen 
(Zeilen, Reihen) un wonyy zahlen; “-tr (Sie) un WIN-the 5 [It-Sonne, 
pimt- Sohn un ss-Sinn (the first two sound zun in Lithuania, but all three are pro- 
nounced zin in the South. Wy"S vier un Wd y’ N ich fiihre ; oy jN 6 daran 
(an dem) un DY j JON ohne dem; Syrp viel un rm i) 7] ich fiihle. 

If to this ae be "added that Hebrew words are spelled as in Hebrew, the 
chaotic state of spelling in S.-J.-G. becomes evident. It is to be hoped that some 
authoritative writer, such as Abramowitsch, will introduce a more sensible and 
simple spelling reform or at least revert to the older, less objectionable, spelling of 
the last century. For one not versed in 8.-J.-G. it becomes an impossibility even 
to guess at the probable sound of a written word. The vowel points occur only 
in some books printed not with rabbinical type and are somewhat of an aid since 
pithith =a, qimé¢ = 6, s‘ghdl =e, céré = @, Saréq =u, hiréq =7, 8*wi is always 
silent. 

Consonantal transformations differentiate more readily in the different lan- 
guages than vowel changes, hence there is a greater tendency to develop inde- 
pendently. Yet, on the whole, it can be easily shown that German transliteration 
vf consonants has developed directly from the Romance. I suspect that Ladino 
of to-day has introduced some changes, especially in rendering Spanish s, that 
were not common in the Middle Ages, and Ladino is introduced here only for com- 


pleteness’ sake. 








186 HEBRAICA. 


In Ladino 5 and 5 are b and p respectively ; the same with raphe, 5, § are 
v and f, 5 and P are g, k (c, qu); Jisj(g); 5 is not used. “| and % (ff is not 
used) express d and ¢. } stands for s or z between vowels; this is due to the fact 
that anciently such s or z was pronounced softly like English z; D answers 
Spanish s and ¢. 5, 79, 3, are 1, m,n, 73; I believe § occurs for #. % as a conso- 
nant is=y. Compare examples as above.! 
In Catalan the same letters hold; but % much more frequently than D stands 
for s, both f and ¥ corresponds to z, perhaps with a different pronunciation. 
The same is still true of Provencal Proper. = Pr. ch; }=}?=softs; = 
Pr. nh; J = Pr. 7; Y= Pr. v; M=8; Y=¢. 
IPT FAD pA 9 OA LAND 
ID OTN “PNIN NENT WP WN) OITID NYPD 
VTi 1 THD ON] OID WIND OTN 


Préchors vinret R. Ighak Cohen rekerir 
K’i se tornat ver lor creace o il li kevanret perir 
I dit: Ke avés tant? Je vol por Gé morir. 

In the Langue d’Oil the consonants are the same as in Provengal, but, of 
course, } does not occur; rarely D stands for wf = s. 

To express the gutteral sound ch in German, Jews very early began to use 5 
but never fF}. Sand sch are both written ; in French ch is generally a devel- 
opment of k, hence it was natural to write it with ; similarily in German sch 
is usually a development of s, hence ¥ had to do service for both. W is rendered 
by }) as in Romance, and v by } or 5. In all other respects there is no difference 
between Romance and German usage. We saw D creeping in in Romance in 
place of ¥%; in Judaeo-German it has finally come to entirely replace YY. 

There is no material difference between consonantism of Judaeo-German and 
Slavo-Judaeo-German. ) and never 5) is used for w, hence only one letter occurs 
with raphe, namely 5 for f; in printed books § stands more generally for p and § 
for f. The Slavic sound z is written wt, and the semi-vowel 7, or consonant y 
(G. 7), is expressed by ?. 

To illustrate Slavo-Judaeo-German spelling a few examples are subjoined. 
IVD WNT PANT OND YOIN . PIN OND NUT OND UN ANY wy 
0D PNY? ON POY DN ONYNDNT DVT OS PN POINT ONT 

-PIVID DN PSINI PR PT WNT OY [yD PD IAN PID 

Es war dermit di schtot ouf. Alte lajt zogen dos men hot dorten ajn gerejzt 
dem domow6j un welen alz6j schOjn nit blajben rijig biz men wet dos hougz in 
ganzen op brechen. 


1 Since writing this, the following essay has appeared: R. Foulché-Delbosc, La transcription 
hispano-hébraique in the Revue Hispanique, Numéro I., Mars 1894. 














ON THE HEBREW ELEMENT IN SLAVO-JUDAEO-GERMAN. 187 


Of course, the orthography is here inconsistent, but it is evident that in the 
main Mr. Dick (a writer of novels in the Lithuanian dialect of S.-J.-G.) is follow- 
ing the older form of the Middle Ages. Another author, J. M. Lipschitz, writing 
in the Southern dialect, introduces a few consistent changes, namely: %§ for 07, 
*Y for ¢, & for u = original 0), but does not himself carry out his own rules: 
pusyn Ww. ie) IVOIN PN WY PUT’ NT IN OI 03D 
IND PIP 'S AWEN PN PITYOIYN PIN AWPRT AT NAVE 

3 TN 

Mejnt nit az di jidische schprach iz urimer fin der hebrejischer, wajl der 


doziker chejlek werterbich iz efscher zi klejn far ajch. 
Final 8 after vowels is now generally discarded by Jargonists, as in Abram- 


owitsch’s translation of the psalm: 
IPOAN OMY Ow » TF TW "TOI OY 
POINT MWA ND MYO'S OY 
PS PEPIN ON NIP NTP 
PWS DYD PN ODP TW. FIND) 
Es wigt di erd zich, schturemt unten 
Es zitern fun berg di grunten. 
Krach! Krach! Ot walen zej zich ajn 
Wi bald er kumt in kas arajn. 








NOTES ON SEMITIC GRAMMAR. 


By Dr. Max L. MARGOLIS, 


Assistant Professor of Hebrew and Syriac, Hebrew Union College. 


‘ 
THe First VOWEL OF THE IMPERFECT TENSE-STEM. 


The present forms of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic imperfect of the 
simple stem (Qal, Pe‘al, I.) show the complete absence of a vowel between the 


9 Jo) 
first and second radicals, cf. the types 20’, Nope) Sa, hits. Hence the 


possibility of forms like 55’, vw), (A, 88), ete. Because it is commonly 
supposed that Old Arabic possesses a fuller vocalization than any other Semitic 


dialect—cf. e. g. an ordinary word like el 3 _ — yin (YUEN) )—the inference 


is evidently justified that, where an Arabic form presents vocalic scarcity, we are 
treading upon common Semitic ground. The type yaqtul, ete. is pronounced 
to be the original (Wright, Comp. Gram., p. 181), while the Hebrew Ty. and 
WW)” are represented as ‘‘Zerdehnungen” of the archetype and as resultants 
of a phonetic decay peculiar to Hebrew (ibid., p. 91sq.; Stade, Hebraeische Gram., 
2102). I think that I have sufficient evidence to prove that the form yaqtul, 
etc. presupposes an earlier form of the type yaqvtul (by v I indicate a full 
vowel the exact character of which I propose to determine in the second part of 
my paper), etc. 

I. Argument from consistency. Philippi, in an article published in the Mor- 
genlaendische Forschungen (pp. 69-106), which it was not my privilege to peruse 
till shortly before writing these lines, has made it a point to derive all other stems 
of the verb from the simple stem, or, as he calls it, the “Grundstamm,” not 


merely the ell of the type ches a. dels : but notably the augmented stems. 
Thus, ACrt} compared with 70)3 = ‘203 goes back to na+qatal, saqtal 
to sa+qatal,’aqtal to ’a+qatal, etc. (p. 73). He compares (p. 74) 5n29 
=53755, evidently thinking of N89 Num. vi. 24, to which I would add 
ivDy¥77, Ex. 11. 3, and of nominal prefixed forms p99 Job 1x. 18; DAN 
Cant. v. 16 and others. The reason for the disappearance of the first vowel of the 


stem is not far to seek. It appears from several sources (cf. ibid., p. 78) that: pre- 
fixed forms, unless stronger motives came into play, allowed in earliest times the 














NOTES ON SEMITIC GRAMMAR. 189 


main accent to fall upon the syllable containing the prefix, thus subjecting the 
next vowel to complete want of stress and hence of articulation. Why not be 
consistent and derive yaqtul, etc. from an older ya’qvtul, etc.? 

II. Argument from injinitives of the type qutl a. qetdl. Philippi (1. c., 
p. 81) perceives the difficulty of explaining Arabic yaqtul (I substitute qt] for 
his ktb) compared with the infinitive qut] (kutb), with which he puts together 
Hebrew a) (with hard 3—e. g. >a Gen. X1x. 21—which is by the way the 
exception ; the rule is 3$)9) as over against SnD. Shall we believe in migra- 
tion (metathesis) of vowels? Lagarde, ( Ve -bersicht, p. 153) knows that qutl and 
qetdl go back to one common form, qutul, of which the former is the paroxy- 
tone and the latter the oxytone. Why not go a step further, and say that 
yaqtul=ya’+qutul? 

III. Argument from the imperative. To the type yaqtul belongs the im- 
perative jist = Hebrew 20) which latter, if compared with m70—e. g. 
m9 Jd. 1x. 8—a. shop. g. 37 N7 Num. x1. 15—leaves no baa as to 
what the -- in vialp) stands for. The imperative is nothing but the imperfect 
(jussive) minus the preformative (of the second person). Hence 20) qutul’ 





presupposes ta’+qutul. 
IV. Argument from a comparison of the imperfects I., II. and VII. The 


imperfect forms of the intensive and N reflexive stems (II. a. VII.) show the 
existence of a vowel (the same vowel) between the first and second radicals: 


we ay e we, jn = . 
EB 20/2? © 03, Cree 20? - The Arabic language has many imperfects 
in the I. of the type yaqtil. In Hebrew we find my, 7, ete., in Biblical 
Aramaic Sp’, in Syriac 2.3. We may also compare the impf. of the IV.: 


2 «© a 
oo 20? 9 9 j Ting 7 
\ Kis 5 oS j.cj and. without for the present laying stress upon the vowel of 


the preformative, put down the following imperfect types as related: I. yaqtil, 
II. yuqattil, IV. yuqtil, VII. yanqatil. Does the relationship merely 
consist in the identity of the second vowel of the stem (i), or does it extend fur- 
ther? The analogy of the perfect on the one hand, and the additional identity of 
the first vowel of the stem (a) in two of the imperfects (II. and VII.) should 
help to answer our question. If, with Philippi (1. ¢.), we see in qattal and 
qAtal (III.) modified types of qatal, we shall have similarly to look for a 
“Grundstamm” to (yu) qattil, i.e. we have to postulate ya’+qatil, which 
indeed we find reproduced also in yanqatil=ya/naqa’til. The first vowel 
of the stem remains if stressed, and disappears if unaccented. Thus, ya’qatil 
becomes yaqtil. 

V. Argument from Ethiopic. Ethiopic (cf. Wright, 1. ¢., p. 181) indeed has 
preserved the type yaqatil in allowing the first vowel of the stem to be 








190 HEBRAICA. 


accented: yéqdtel. It uses the latter form for the Arabic indicative, while it 
differentiates the type y &q tél] = ya’qatil for the subjunctive and jussive. 

VI. Argument from infinitives of the type gatil. The relation of thes. ¢. 
infinitive construct in Hebrew to the imperfect is obvious (cf. Barth, Nominal- 


bildung, p. 152): yla)p) : via)py = 70/2 : 709)2" = OPT : PO’, etc. We must 
agree with Professor Barth (1. c., p. 103 sq.) in connecting nouns like OF etc. with 


J. ete. Hence vla)p) is the exact prototype of 702. Pop etc. in the same 
manner as the s. ¢. infin. absolute rale)py explains 20/2, 20/3 etc. (tbid., p. 72) 


and J =ya gazil. 

We shall now proceed to our next task, viz. to determine the exact character 
of the first vowel in the “Grundstamm’”’ of the imperfect, the existence of which 
in common Semitic we have endeavored to prove from six independent points of 
view. Some of the sources already adduced will help us in obtaining our aim. 

I. The imperative forms in Hebrew and Arabic. 2p compared with 
MOP. "0p (v. supra) and the rarer "0/2—e. g. 990 Jd. 1x. 10—points to 
qutul with which goes Arabic uqtul, i.e., the prefixed element is identical 


with the disappearing stem vowel—"3J3, 95, 35, \ 2 3 point to 


qital, ¢, 3 to qitil. Hence we obtain the following three types: 1. 
7 - 


qutul; 2.4 itil; 3. qital. The first and second forms are at once intelligible ; 
not so the third. For if the principle be found in the assimilation of the first 
vowel to the second, we should expect the third type to be qatal. 

II. The common Hebrew infinitives 20). with suffixes 0). 023 = 
qorobekem, 33Y with maw point again tol. qutul; 3.qital. If Barth’s 
explanation of forms like p55) ( (Hebr. imperf. SD’, Bibl. Aram. 55’), vs | 
(Hebr. “Du”, Arab. yh ete. (]. ¢., p. 104) be'correct, we shall equally obtain 


for the second type the form qitil. In Arabic, we find as ordinary infinitive 
forms: 1. qutul, e. g. d Lis ( (impf. juis); 2 .qatil, &- SAS (impf. AG), 
which type is easily recognized in Hebrew Wa, V3. *e. etc.; 3. qatal, e 

oe of, oF represented in Hebrew in forms like OWN, NOS, ay (impff. 


om 
De‘N’ Oe ayy) ; also qital and qutal (for fuller examples cf. Barth, 


l.c., pp. 101, 103, 105, 106). If qutl be the paroxytone of qutul (v. supra), 
Arab. Sd S by the side of oo $ can be explained only by assuming Sd S 


(paroxytone) as a medium (cf. Lagarde, 1. ¢., p. 8,1. 25—p. 9, 1.12); similarly Hebr. 














NOTES ON SEMITIC GRAMMAR. 191 


Or compared with OP; hence the existence of 2. qitil in Arabic is proven. It 
is needless for me to reproduce Professor Barth’s list of nouns, the connection of 
* which with the imperfect tense-stem can not be doubted. I must refer the reader 
to the book itself. Thus from the various forms of imperfect nouns we obtain the 
following types for the imperfect tense-stem: 1. qatul, qutul; 2. qatil, 
qitil; 3.qatal, qital, qutal. 

III. The imperfect forms of the II. and VII. prove the existence of 2. 
qatil. 

IV. Similarly Ethiopic yéqdtél. 

V. The vowel of the preformative may be taken as an index of the character of 

°90? oc ¢@ ° aS . . : : Pd 
the lost stem vowel. List, hel, vyel justify this assumption. Hence \ ‘ 3 
points to yaqatul, "bp ana) toyuqutul. (Ithink that yiqt6] stands for 
yoqtol, cf. HWNI=fI+WN, iI = fit JIM, etc., notably [YM y cxxrx. 
7 compared with 9}¥fJ Neh. v. 13a. yh Is. XLIX. 22 ; cf. also Barth, ].¢., p.24; also 
bf i a 

- Oodudp, Oedudp = “7 F\—Lagarde, |. c., p. 125 note.) heas presupposes yaqa- 
tal, WBD'—yigqital; UY, re points to yaqatil, tay to yiqitil. We obtain 


again the types: 1. qatul, qutul; 2.qatil, qitil; 3.qatal, qital. 

VI. Hebrew TyY?, WEY? = ya‘amud, ya‘asamd. With the former 
compare DP = | ae We find once more: 1. qatul; 3. qatal. 

VIL. ‘Icadk ef. pny’ Gen. xXI. 6 leads us to postulate 3. qatal. 

VIII. Occasional Hebrew forms—D JI YM Ex. xx.5; xxi. 24; Deut. v. 
9; OVI Deut. XU. 3; yy”  CXXXVIIL. 6; ‘DONA Pr. 1. 22—prove 1. 
qutul; 2. qitil; 3. qital. 

1X. Notably forms like =e and ro are virtually yaquwum a. yabi- 
yin (not yaqwum a. yabyin). Hence we find again 1. qutul; 2. qitil. 
Similarly xo’ = yabawa’ points to 3. qatal. 

The result of our study may be summed up as follows. We find three types 
of the imperfect tense-stem : 

1. qatul, or, with assimilation of vowels, qutul. 

S.aett], “ * . - is qitil. 

3. qatal, “ “ dissimilation“’  “ qital (qutal). 

The relation of the perfect to the imperfect tense-stem may be represented 
as follows: 

1. Perf. qatul. Imperf. qatul. 

2.“ qatil. " qatal. 

3.” -qetal 


sas | 


“ 


qatil. 








192 HEBRAICA. 


The symbolism of tense vocalization is thus rendered complete. Qatul for 
qatil belongs to a later development, when, as in Hebrew, verbs of the type 95° 
assume the form of that of fir , and yaqtil becomes impracticable as it may be 
confounded with the corresponding form of the causative stem which is certainly 


> ’ 
of later age. Lek’ and 2D)? are other attempts at differentiation; still ef. 


my “he goes up” and “he leads up.” 

Notr.—I should throw out the suggestion that the other stems of the Semitic 
verb are not only derived from the simple stem, but are much posterior to it in 
time. It seems that the tripartite mechanism of the simple stem served fora 


. 2 . “ 
long time to render the formation of new stems unnecessary. Cf. éy “to be 


idle,” é 3 “to bring to an end ;” Win VT’ “WT “Is the hand of Yahweh too 


short ?” and PTS)? mw yur “He who soweth wrong-doing, reapeth 
(= cuts short) trouble”’ (Num. XI. 23 a. Pr. Xx1I. 8). When the additional stems 


were formed, some of the old forms remained. Hence we find combinations like 
vs (N reflex.) a. Y3}’, “O53 (Mishnic) a. WOH I Sam. xxx. 10, Dj33 a. 035° 
(both Mishnic, the latter in accordance with the traditional pronunciation, though 


a mistaken zeal leads purists to read B95’). 
oo 

















MUSANNITU(M). 
By Morris JAStTrow, JR., Pu. D., 


University of Pennsylvania, Pa. 


Peiser in his Babylonische Vertraege des Berliner Museums, pp. 305-6, discusses 
the term muSannitum (written mu-Sa-an-ni-tum and mu-Sa-ni-tum), 
which is of frequent occurrence in the legal literature of the Babylonians, without, 
however, reaching any satisfactory conclusion. He thinks that it may refer to 
some kind of construction for purposes of irrigation. Tallqvist leaves the word 
untranslated (Die Sprache der Contracte Nabu-naids, p. 139). 

There is a Talmudical term NOD , With which I believe the Babylonian 
word is identical.* The word NV DLID occurs in the Talmud in the sense of 
(a) jaw, (b) cliff, grotto, and thirdly, embankment. In two passages it is 
expressly applied to a field. Baba Mesi‘d, Fol. 108b, we read ‘5 p*DDN “* a pre- 
cipitous mound separated the fields” and again ibid., 109a, “19 >PO TAN “he 
surrounded the fields with an embankment” for which a variant has FB ‘he 
fenced it in.” 

It is in the sense of ‘‘embankment’”’ in which muSannitum appears to be 
used in the Babylonian legal tablets, the reference being to the protection which 
the physical conditions of the Euphrates valley rendered necessary in order to 
protect fields and property from being damaged by the rise of the numerous 
streams in the rainy season. The artificial canals would of course be similarly 
affected by this season and embankment works would thus be rendered necessary 
in all sections of the valley even where canals existed, the waters of which might 
be directed into the fields during the dry season. The solidity of these embank- 
ments was further assured by the use of wooden or iron beams employed in their 
construction and acting as a support to the earth heaps. With this brief explana- 
tion, we may pass to an examination of some of the passages in which the term 


occurs. 


* See the passages in Levy’s Talmudical Dictionary where, however, the various meanings of 
the word are not properly distinguished. Through the courtesy of my father, I am enabled to 
quote from his manuscript the article on the word as it will appear in Part IX. of his Talmudic 
Dictionary. NIVDWID f. (denom. xr tooth) (1) jaw, Erub. 100+ * * * (2) cliff, bluff, grotto, Gen. 
R. 8. 10! N°) ‘> the bluffs at Caesarea, Tan. 23* Midr Til. to Ps. CXvIt. mw TIVWIN a grotto 
formed around him; B. Mesi’& 108° “> DDD a precipitous mound separated the fields; ib. 
109" ‘'75 ms 778 he surrounded the fields; (MS. Hamburg 7) fenced it in) with an 
embankment. 











194 HEBRAICA. 


Tablet No. 910 of Strassmaier’s Nabunaid texts is a receipt for dates delivered 
in part as an annual assessment, and in part ana dullu $a muSanitum 
$a nar Sumanti, i.e. “for the embankment work at the Sumanti canal.” 

Nabunaid No. 770 gives a list of workmen engaged ya dullu ina eli 
musannitum sa Gilusu “for the work in connection with the embankment 
at GiluSu.” 

Further operations at this same place are referred to in Nbd., No. 784, which 
is a receipt for a variety of iron material and instruments required: ana eli 
musannitum Sa NIH Gilusu, “forthe embankment of NIH Gilusu;’* 
and again in Nbd. 1080 where 80 workmen engaged in the enterprise—which 
must have been one of considerable magnitude—are enumerated in groups as 
they were furnished by the contractors. 

Nbd. No. 1002 testifies to the payment in silver ana dullu $a muSani- 
tum Xa Hallab for the embankment work at Hallab. 

In a text from the days of Darius published by Peiser, Babyl. Vertraege, No. 
143, there is a reference to three beams that are to be delivered ina muhhi 
musSannitum $a Kar-ri TaS-me-tum “in connection with the embank- 
ment work at Karri-TaSmetum.” From this passage as well as from Nbd. 
No. 784, it appears that the term dullu might be omitted without affecting the 
force of the phrase. 

Nbd. No. 6 (as No. 910) is a receipt for 20 kur of dates, full measure (?) 
(i-mit-tum), joint ownership ina house u edutum Sa eli muSanitum 
‘*and choice dates} for embankment’? where dullu (= work) is again to be 
supplied. 

Lastly, in Strassmaier’s tablets of the reign of Cyrus, No. 180, ll. 10 and 12, 
in an assessment list of dates due to the Ebarra temple of Babylon, there are 
included two payments of this kind, one of 17 kur, another of 26 kur made in 
lieu of the sum of one mana and one mana plus 11 Sekels respectively, charged 
ana dullu ’a muSanitum, ‘for embankment work.” From this we may 
be permitted to conclude that the Babylonian temples were not only, as we know 
from various sources, great business corporations (Peiser, Babyl. Vertr., pp. xvii- 
xxix) that farmed out lands for cultivation, but that they also accepted contracts 
for land improvements. The passages above given will suffice to show that the 
meaning proposed for muSannitum answers the requirements and accords 
with the context involved. 

A word remains to be said as to the form of the Talmudical and of the 
Babylonian term. The former N/'3)¥'9 is a form like RMAYMOiw/'Hy (‘‘ stretch- 


* Seed of NIH(?) Gilusa is spoken of Nbd. No. 690,13, and the same place with the deter- 


minative for city is found Nbd. No. 398,37. 
+I connect edutum with Talmudic fy, which signifies “choice,” but reserve the 


proof for another occasion. 











MvsANNiTU(M). 195 


ing out,”) maSnunitha, becoming by contraction m‘Sunnitha; and 
so far as the ordinary meanings of the word are concerned (‘ jaw, cliff, grotto, 
etc.,”) it may be regarded as a home production. In its technical sense, 
however, as applied to the embankment along a canal as a protection to 
fields and property, what more natural than that the term should, like so 
many other technical terms pertaining to architecture, commerce and the 
industrial arts, have been borrowed? With the Babylonian muSannitu 
before us, there seems hardly any reasonable doubt that such was the case. 
Upon this supposition, the slight variation between the Babylonian and the 
Talmudical form can readily be accounted for. The transposition of the Waw 
from behind the first letter to a position after the second letter—i.e. NPY)WH 
instead of NJV9U/)—is the natural consequence of the attraction exercised by 
the already existing NPA9)W'Y. It is altogether likely that with more manu- 
scripts at our disposal, a variant would be encountered with the Waw after the 
Mem or with the omission of the Waw altogether. The differentiation here 
proposed between NP SW and NAW) does not involve any difference in 
the underlying stem. ‘or the latter as for the former, and also therefore for the 
Babylonian muSannitum, the stem is jae. Though the writing with one ¢ 
is unusual, while at the same time far from unparalleled,* muSannitum may 
very well be the feminine participle of the Pyel (II.1) muSanninatum = 
musannintum=musanittum=—muSanitu(m). Tallqvist, it may be noted, 
also suggests the long quality of the vowel i in the word. The spelling with one 
n (Nbd. Nos. 910, 1002, 6) instead of two is of course a very common variant. 
The use of the word in the sense of embankment is deduced without difficulty 
from the fundamental notion of “to be pointed ’’ attaching to fae. In Biblical 
usage already, 4 is the * point of the rock ” as well as ‘‘ tooth.”” The embank- 
ment forming a kind of wall and supplied perhaps with turrets, as the ordinary 
wall of fortification was, could appropriately be designated as a ‘‘ pointed ”’ 
or a “ turreted ” object. 


*Cf. ummaitu=ummantu; istitu =istantu (ef. Delitzsch, Assyr. Gr., §49, b) with 
only one t despite the assimilated n, but lengthening of vowel instead of reduplication. 











ASSYRIOLOGICAL NOTES. 


By Ropert Francis Harper, Pa.D., 


The University of Chicago. 


I. 


This is the first of a Series of Notes—lexicographical and textual—to be 
published in Hepraica. They are based on Delitzsch’s Assyrisches Hand- 
woerterbuch = HWB., and my Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to 
the K. Collection of the British Museum = LK. 

u 2, Arnolt, DAZ. p.1 not, nicht, but ef. K. 979, DK. 47, obv. 7-11:7 
ina Si-a-ri $a ba-a-di® ri*-in-ku ina ®!U Tar-bi-gsi9 imméru 
niké” ga Sarri in-ni-pa-Sal! a-na-ku-u al-lak, tbermorgen there 
will be a rinku(=rimku, ‘779% ) libation (pour-offering) in the city of 
Tarbisi and royal sacrifices will be offered. Shall I go? Cf. also K. 522, 
DK. 31, 9 sqq. For ba-a-di, cf. K.561, ZX. 101, obv.11: imu VI*¥am 
a-na ba-a-di and K. 519, ZK. 108, rev. 5: ina ti-ma-li ki-i ba-di= 
Oe 

A. BA. Delitzsch, HWB. p. 4, comments as follows: “A. BA. mit oder 
ohne Determ. amél, s. u. dupSarru.” He does not say anything about 
this writing in the place mentioned. Note the reading, amélu AB. BA. 
MES, K. 1139, obv. 2 and K. 620, DK. 91, obv. 13. 

Agappu. Cf. also su-pur a-gap-pi, K. 573, DK. 180, obv. 5. 

The plural of egirtu, which Arnolt, DAZ. p. 16, takes from an oral 
communication with me, and for which he does not give a reference, is 
found in K. 619, LK. 174, rev. 12 = e-gir-a-te-Su-nu. This form is to 
be inserted in Delitzsch, HWB. p. 18. 

Neither Delitzsch nor Arnolt gives a satisfactory treatment of adanni3. 
The former places it under a root IN. The latter makes it parallel with 
dannisS—after Bezold, and remarks “perhaps=a(na)danni&8(u)” Cf., 
however, my note in Hesraica, X. p. 107:¢ “In Oriental Diplomacy, 
Bezold has placed both danni’ and adanniS under the root dananu, 
without further comment. I am inclined to think that he is correct in this 
view, and would add the following: dannis is used interchangeably with 
adan nis in 1, 6; 2,6; 3,7, ete. Ana danni’ =andannis = addanniis 


*Sar is a typographical mistake. My copy of the original has ri. 
+ This was published before the appearance of Arnolt’s Concise Dictionary, etc. 




















ASSYRIOLOGICAL NOTES. 197 


(K. 519, 3, 7, ZK. 108; K. 532, 3, 7, DK. 109, etc.) = adannis (the form in 
common use) = adani§ (K. 485, rev. 8, DX. 112).” 

No derivation is given for ahamiS. Under a-ha-iS =ahami8, such 
forms as a-ha-a-a-i8, K. 63°, rev. 8, 18, DX. 168, should be cited. In both 
of these places, a-ha-a-a-i$ is preceded by the sign for iStu, ultu. 
Cf. also such forms as a-hi-ia-Si, Rm 2,1, rev. 14and a-ha-ia-%i, Rm 2, 
464, obv. 11.* 

Both Delitzsch and Arnolt have accepted my textual reading at the end 
of line 46, col. III. of Cyl. A. Esarhaddon, reading ak-ta-bi-Su a-hu-lap 
instead of Abel-Winckler’s impossible a-hu-ta. Arnolt quotes this passage 
under ahulap(i), DAZ. p. 30 and again under ahiitu, p. 31. Only one 
of these readings can be correct. Arnolt has accepted ahulap in Hepraica, 
and hence his double treatment of the text of this passage in DAZ. 30, 31 
must be put down to the careless editing of his notes. 

*ahAru receives imperfect treatment from both Delitzsch and Arnolt. 
Delitzsch says: ‘‘II.1 * * * astronomischer, bes. auf Mond und Venus- 
stern beziiglicher term. technicus.’”” Arnolt remarks: “ * * * uhburu 
= éixieirey, of moon and stars.” Both cite few examples. This verb is often 
used without a technical astronomical meaning. Cf. Rm 2, 2, obv. 15; K. 625, 9 
DK. 131 (uh-ha-ru-u-ni); K. 63°, obv. 11, rev. 8 and 11 (uh-hu-ur), 
DK. 168; K. 1396, 12, ZK. 185 (li-ih-hu-ra), etce., ete. 

Under * "WON: etéru, IL, Delitzsch notices the use of etéru with ina. 
Cf. also K. 595, ZK. 6, obv. 24, sqq., where we have the form lu-u-te-ru 
with ana:ilani rabati kaliSunu Sa Samé irsitim ana Sarri béliia 
adu zérigSu SumsSu ummanatisu lu-u-te-ru ina ki-ni-Su-nu lu-Se- 
ri-bu = may the great gods—all of them—of heaven and earth give protection 
to the king, my lord, together with his seed, his name, his armies: into their 
nest (protection) may they cause [him] to enter. There is another interesting 
passage in this letter. The verbal form from which we derive the forms 
parSumu, purgumu, ete., etc. which are of such frequent occurrence in 
the Letter literature—both with and without a determinative—has, so far as I 
know, not been found. But, cf. rev. 3, sqq.: ildni rabfiti 8a Samé 
irgitim ana balat napSati Sa Sarri béliia nu-sa-al-laf Sarru 
béli ana mdr marani lu-par-Si-im (OW) = to the great gods of 
heaven and earth for the life of the king, our lord, we pray. May the king 
live long enough to have grandchildren (lit.: to grandchildren grow old). 

To the citations under 9%: add a-a-u-ti alaniSu, K. 63°, obv. 8, 
IK. 168. 


*Cf. my article on The Letters of the Rm 2 Collection in the British Museum in Zeitschrift 


f. Assyriologie, VIII. pp. 341, sqq 
+Cf. K. 1024, rev. 6-9, LK. 28: ana-ku ime misu ina muhhi napsati Sa béliia 


u-sal-la. 














198 HEBRAICA. 


For the forms illuku, il-lu-ku il-la-ku-ni, K. 574, obv. 13, DK. 
173, ef. Craig in Hepraica, X. p. 110. The 1.3 form occurs in an interesting 
passage in K. 185, rev. 6-9, DK. 74: a-me-lu 8a IID. Sanati ina ku-u-ri 
u ni-is-sa-te it-ta-na-al-la-ak. Cf. also i-li-kan-a-ni, Rm2Q2, 1 
oby. 21 and i-ta-lak, Rm 2, 1, obv. 13. 

55N, tallultu. Delitzsch cites the single well-known passage, V. R. 6, 25. 
Cf. also K. 527, obv. 13sqq., DX. 32: ina eliiméru gisi dan-ni Sa tal- 
lul-tu $amatu Kasi riSaini ana e-rab ali ana®!U Sabbanat, ete. 

The plural of elippu, ship =elipp4dni occurs in K. 609, rev. 8, DX. 
126, written MA. MES + ni. The connection is uncertain, since the last 
three lines of this tablet are vitrified. 

Under *"VX, add the following forms, found in the badly broken tablet, 
K. 591, ZK. 22: obv. 7, i-tam-me-ru; rev. 9, lit-me-ru, rev. 12, 
i-tam-me-ir. The last line of the reverse also contains a form of this 
verb. The first sign is broken off, but it can easily be restored. 

The Assyrian Letters furnish us with a large number of interesting plural 
forms. A new plural of iméru, ass (usual plur. iméré) is found in the 
name of a city in Rm 2, 1, rev. 13: ina®!/4% Dir-imér Pl + te = Diar- 
iméra(é)te. Cf. also the new plural of bithallu, noticed by Craig in 
Hepraica, X. p. 109,—in K. 469, rev. edge 22, DK. 138: amélu ga bit- 
hal-la-ti-Su-nu ina pdniia i-za-zu. Cf. Delitzsch, BAS. I. p. 211. 
In K. 631, obv. 5, LK. 136, we have: ardAni Xa Sarri béliiasmélu 
haza-Pl. + phonetic complement ni. Cf. also egirdte and elipp4ni 
above and iSpardte below. In this connection, I would say that Arnolt’s 
reading imati, as the second plural of imu, day, is incorrect, and that 
the only passage given in support of this reading is incorrectly cited. 
Further notice of the plurals of imu will be taken in a review of Arnolt’s 
Dictionary. 

A good example of the fem. plur. of undtu is found in a short inscrip- 
tion of AXurbanipal published by S. Arthur Strong in the JRAS. 1891, p. 469 :* 
u-na-a-te hurdsi kaspi sipirri parzilli isé u abné épus. The 
form a-nu-ut is to be added to those given by Delitzsch. Cf. K. 1101 + 
K. 1221, rev. 5sqq. UX. 152: * * * XX. ma-na kaspi Sa a-nu-ut 
bit na-mu-ra-a-te Sa Sarri $a ummi Sarri * * * 

Along with annuSim, we have the form a-nu-Sim; cf. Rm 2, 1, rev. 
30. I do not find any mention by Delitzsch of the form an-nu-ri which 
is of frequent occurrence in the Letters. It must have the same meaning 
as annuSim, and I am of the opinion that the sign ri is to be given 


the value Sim in this word. 


* Arnolt, DAL., p. 73, has cited this passage from an oral communication with me. 














ASSYRIOLOGICAL NOTES. 199 


An interesting word not noticed by Delitzsch is found in K. 903, rev. 3, 
DK. 124, viz.: ana bit i-si-te-ia. The last line of the obverse (9) is to 
be restored as i-si-te. 

Issi, isi, Delitzsch places under DN with the remark: “gleichbedeu- 
tend, nach Haupt auch etymologisch eins mit itti mit.’ Hilprecht in his 
Assyriaca, which has just appeared, p. 47, argues with great force for the root 
rIDN.* Cf. the following forms not noticed by Delitzsch: is-si-e-Su, Rm. 2, 
468, rev.8; i-si-e-Su, K. 596, obv. 22, LK. 190; is-si-e-a, K. 558, rev. 14, 
DK. 153 and K. 653, obv. 14, ZK. 154; i-si-e-a, K. 63°, rev. 16, ZX. 168 and 
K. 596, obv. 17, LK. 190. 

Under PON, Delitzsch accepts my restoration and reading of Esarhaddon, 
Cyl. A., VI. 13, viz.: ina Sipir harrakfite e-si-kaki-rib-Sa. Cf. 
AET, p.16. Arnolt’s notes on this passage in HEBRAICA are, to say the least, 
of no value. 

There are some interesting forms of WON in the Letters. Cf. K. 515, 
LK. 89: obv. 11-13, u elippu Sa®mélu pjhati $a91U Arrapha ina 
Jibbi®!u U-pi-a ne-bu-ru tu-pa-as; rev. 1-5, * * * elippu[SaJ@mélu 
pihati $a91U Arrap[ha] lu-u ta-li-ik ina®lU** ni-bu-ru lu-tu- 
pit-i8; rev. 10-14, 9m¢lu gabé $a pihadti $a81U* jnaalu** ni-bu-ru 
u-pu-Su. Cf. also tu-up-pa-a&, K. 619, obv. 15, DX. 174, and lu-pi-is, 
K. 596, obv. 26, ZK. 190. The form nipisu occurs frequently. 

Under esadu (¥N:), ef. K. 1057, obv. 6, ZK. 93: imu XI.kan 
e-sa-du inamatu Axgur. The rest of this text is badly broken. In a 
very difficult and broken letter of Arad-Nana, we have the form is-sa-di. 
Cf. K. 576, ZX. 110, obv.8: ina eli is-sa-di 8a Sarri béli [iSpuran)ni 
m 4 (the tablet is broken here), and rev. 12-13: ba-si is-sa-di i-ha-li-ku, 
At present, I do not know whether this issadi is to be connected with "YX , 
or not. 

Under erébu, add the form ir-rab, K. 629, obv. 9, DX. 65. 

Under urdsu, ef. the interesting form ®™é@lU y-ra-su-tu in K. 636, 
LK. 209. This letter reads as follows: 1a-na Sarri béli-ia 2ardi-ka 
Nabd-Sum-Se-si 2apil Nabd-rés-i-8i flu-u Sul-mu a-na Sarri 
béli-ia 5ASur [Star a-na Sarri ®béli-ia lik-ru-bu 79™6@lU jXparu 
Pl. ga e-kur 8ikX-bi-Su-nu la ik-sur-u-ni Tev-1 amélu y-yra-su-tu 
2e-pu-uS. The feminine of iSparu (uSparu) is not given by Delitzsch. 


*Gegen issi=itti speciell spricht der Umstand, dass das Wort sowohl bei Asurna~ 
sirapal als in IV. R.2 61 in demselben Texte mit itti vorkommt, das auch in der Brief- 
literatur, wo es sich am hiufigsten findet, beide neben einander gebraucht werden. * * * 
Die einfachste Erklirung bleibt jedenfalls, dass issi genau so von (JON gebildet ist, wie 
itti von TNX. Bedeutet ittisu demgemiiss urspriinglich “seine Seite,’ i.e., ‘‘an seiner 
Seite, mit ihm,’’ so bedeutet issiSu zundchst ‘“‘sein Helfer, sein Beistand,’” i.e., ebenfalls 
“mit ihm.” 

+ My text reads 8i, but I am inclined to think that this character is pi. 














200 HEBRAICA. 


The plural form is found in a letter of Sennacherib, K. 125, DK. 196, edge 
24: f. US-BAR-P!.-te. 

To the forms under {/Ns, add ni-ra-a% found in K. 609, obv. 10sqq,, 
DK. 126: [a]-na-ku an-na-ka ina&lu Kar-Sarukin libnati am-mar 
arhuNITR ikx-Su-u-ni bitannu a-ra-si-pi u zéruPl ni-ra-a’. 

Aglu is found in K. 527, rev. 10, DX. 32; ina eli a8li. The sign 
following is broken. 

Cf. the peculiar I. 2 forms of etéku, viz.: i-ta-ta-ka, Rm 2, 4, rev. 
14 and i-ta-at-ku, K. 469, obv. 11, DK. 138. 

A word not noticed by Delitzsch, and of frequent occurrence in the 
Letters, is the conjunction ba-si, ba-a-si. Cf. for ba-si, K. 1197, rev. 5, 
DK. 15; K. 494, obv. 9, ZX.19; K.576, rev. 12, ZK.110 = ba-si is-sa-di 
i-ha-li-ku; K. 596, obv. 7, ZX. 190. For ba-a-si, ef. K. 1168, obv. 10, 
LK. 49. 

Delitzsch’s treatment of ba&lu is unsatisfactory. The meaning ‘‘ gekocht ” 
does not suit the context of K. 1101 + K. 1221, ZK. 152, rev. 3, sqq. 

The most important text for the study of galaibu is a letter from 
Akkullanu, K. 122, DX. 43. Cf. the form gal-lu-bu, rev. 4 and 28; and 
ug-da-lib-Su, rev. 7. In rey. 17, we have pi-lu-ub. At present, I am 


‘ 


inclined to regard the pi as an incorrect reading for gal. It will be neces- 
sary again to consult the original of this difficult text. 

For 3 and “Ww3, cf. the broken letter, K. 554, DK. 100, rev. 14: 
i-su-ri gi-iS-ru nu-ga-mar Sarru béli-ka gi-iS-ru. Cf. also the 
form ug-da-me-ir, K. 690, rev. 4, DK. 201. 

Another word not noticed by Delitzsch is the catchword in a badly rubbed 
letter of Balasi, K. 555, DK. 76. Cf. obv. 7: ina eli gi-sa-ru-u Sa 
Barri béli is[puran]ni. These lines are very badly rubbed, but rev. 4, 
gi-sa-ru-u damku, makes this reading absolutely certain. 

I must take exception to Delitzsch’s treatment of the text of Esarhaddon, 
Cyl. B. 1.9. III. R.15 reads gir-ri-i-ka. Delitzsch, ALS p. 117, reads ga 
with sic! In HWB. he remarks: “ga las richtig schon Layard.” The reading 
gir, though unexpected, must be accepted. Cf. my AFL, p. 32: ‘“‘ According 
to my reading (so Pinches) gir-ri-i-ka stands on the orig.” Cf. also Haupt, 
BAS. I. p. 167: “Ich habe die Stelle zusammen mit Pinches und Dr. Harper 
genau untersucht und mich dabei iiberzeugt, dass das Zeichen vor -ri-ka in 
der That nicht ga, sonder gir ist.” There are two or three other textual 
mistakes in Delitzsch’s edition of Col. I. of this inscription. Line 15 is to 
be read: kima issuri si-s7-in-ni, not si-er-in-ni. Cf. Haupt again, 
BAS. I. p. 167: “Auch mit seinem von mir (p. 19) von vornherein als das 
Wahrscheinlichste bezeichneten si-si-in-ni ist Harper im Rechte. Es steht 
wirklich so da, nicht si-er-in-ni wie Delitzsch bietet.” 











ASSYRIOLOGICAL NOTES. 201 - 


Under 55%, Delitzsch should have noticed such forms as the following, 
which are of frequent occurrence in the Letter literature: ad-du-bu-ub, 
K. 602, rev. 16, LX. 23; K. 174, obv. 6-8, LK. 53 =ina eli Sa Sarri béli 
ik-ban-ni ma itti Bast dubbu ad-du-bu-ub; K. 617, obv. 13, LK. 
208=i-si-Su-nu ad-du-bu-ub lib-bi u-sa-a8-kin-Su-nu; K. 625, 
rev. 8, LK. 131 = i-du-bu-bu; K. 569, rev. 9, LK. 78 = ni-id-du-bu-ub; 
K. 504, obv. 10-12, LK. 157=[ina pa]-an Sarri béliia li-ru-bu Sarru 
béli i-si-Su-nu lid-bu-bu; ete. 

For i-du-lu, cf. K. 619, obv. 23, LK. 174 and especially the short 
letter of Kabbu-ana-Agur, K. 491, obv.7, LK. 122. The letter reads as 
follows: a-na Sarri béliia 2ardika Kabbu-ana-ASgur, ?tibnu (pl.) 
(written SE. IN. NU. MES) gab-bu ‘ina matiia a-na®lu Dar-Saru- 
kinna 5Sa ina (here a break in the tablet) an-nu-Sim ®8mélu muSar- 
kisani 7i-da-tu-u-a i-du-lu ®tibnu (Pl) a-na II. sabé %la-aS-38u 
u-ma-a /mi-nu Sa Sarru béli Mi-ka-bu-u-ni. Reverse not inscribed. 

Under ft", cf. also K. 63°, rev. 26, LK. 168: la il-lak lu la 
i-dal-lah. 

pro. Cf. K. 620, obv. 7sqq., LK. 91: dam-ka-at a-dan-nis dul- 
la-Su-nu i-ba-Si 8a dam-mu-ki e-pu-uS u-da-mu-ku. Cf. also the 
letter, K. 1396, LK. 185, from Nabi-bél-Su-nu to ASur-mu-dam-me-ik. 











NOTES. 
By GEORGE A. BARTON, PH.D., 


Associate in Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages in Bryn Mawr College. 


1. ON THE SEMITIC ISHTAR CULT. 


In an article on “‘Ashtoreth and Her Influence in the Old Testament,’ pub- 
lished in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1891, I remarked that a deity, 
identical in name or in character or in both with Ashtoreth, is found among all 
the Semitic nations except the Ethiopians, and that our lack of knowledge of 
such a deity among them may be due solely to the paucity of non-Christian 
Ethiopic literary remains.* Since then I have published in HEBRAICA, Vols. 
IX. and X., some account of the Semitic Ishtar cult in all the Semitic lands 
except Abyssinia, but was until now unable to find any trace of it among the 
Ethiopians. At last, however, a deity bearing this name has come to light in 
this part of the Semitic area, so that we are assured that in some form this cult 
was coextensive with the Semitic peoples. 

The evidence for this comes from Professor D. H. Miiller’s Epigraphische 
Denkmiler aus Abessinien, Wien. 1894, which forms Heft III. of Vol. XLIII. of 
Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch- 
Historisch Classe. The inscriptions published in this work are edited from 
impressions made by J. Theodore Bent, Esq. 

Tafel II. of Miuller’s work gives a fac-simile of an inscription of Ezana, son 
of Ela-Amida, king of Aksum, which is on p. 35 ff. edited, translated and accom- 
panied with introduction and notes. The inscription is in the Geez script, and 
dates, as Professor Miiller shows, from the early part of the fifth century A. D. 
The Sabaean and Greek alphabets had been used in Abyssinia until the last half 
of the fourth century, as bilingual inscriptions, found in these tongues and pub- 
lished by Miller in this same work, prove. A reform in the script and the 
written language, by which the Geez writing was introduced, must, as Professor 
Miller points out, have occurred in the last years of Ela-Amida or the early years 
of Ezana. Ela-Amida began to rule at the latest about 380 A. D., so that the 
reform of the script could not have been accomplished before 400 A. D., and our 
inscription was probably written at no great distance in time afterwards. 

Ezana, the writer, calls himself king of Aksum, and of several other places, 
including in the list Raidan and Saba, indicating that at this time the mother 


* Cf. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. X., p. 77. 











NOTES. 203 


country of Sabaea, or Southern Arabia, was subject to the Ethiopians. The 
inscription records a victory of Ezana over the people of Adan, and after describ- 
ing the onslaught, the number of slain and the prisoners, it proceeds |. 22, ff. : 
** And he turned back unharmed with the people of Adan and erected a throne 
here in Sada and committed him to the protection of Astar, Barras and Medr.” 
The inscription then closes with an imprecation against the king’s enemies some- 
what in the strain of those at the end of the annals of the Assyrian kings. 

This passage shows us that Christianity had not yet wholly triumphed in 
Abyssinia, and that chief among the deities of che royal pantheon was a god 
identical in name with Athtar, Ishtar and Astarte. It will be observed that the 
Ethiopic form of the name, Astar, resembles the Moabitic form Ashtar, which 
appears on the Moabite stone in the compound name Ashtar-Chemosh. 

This name attests the presence of the Ishtar Cult in Abyssinia. As Astar 
is named first, we may infer that he was the leading deity of the pantheon. 
Athtar of South Arabia was, it will be remembered; a masculine deity. There is 
no definite hint in Ezana’s inscription which reveals with certainty the gender of 
this god in Abyssinia. A close connection had, however, long existed between 
Abyssinia and South Arabia, as the use of the Sabaean alphabet in the earlier 
Abyssinian inscriptions shows, and at the time of our inscription that connection 
was maintained by the extension of the dominion of the king of Aksum over the 
territories of Raidan and Saba. Indeed, it is altogether likely that the African 
Semites were emigrants from Sabaea. These facts, together with the fact that 
Astar is named first among the gods, would lead us to infer that Astar was, like 
Athtar, a masculine deity. We cannot, however, be certain of this until more 
evidence appears. 

Since The Semitic Ishtar Cult which appeared in HEBRAICA was written, 
Fasiculus II., Pars. IV., Tom. I., of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, 
i. e., of the Sabaean portion of the Corpus, has appeared, as has Hommel’s Siid- 
Arabische Chrestomathie, and Mordtman’s Himjarische Inschriften und Alterthiimer. 
This last work is Heft VII. of the Berlin Museum’s Mittheilungen aus den Orien- 
talischen Sammlungen. These works bring considerable new material within the 
reach of the American student, and add a few facts to his knowledge of the 
Athtar cult in South Arabia. 

No. 102 of the Corpus is an inscription from a tablet which contained on its 
upper right hand corner the head of a bull. The inscription consecrated the 
tablet to Athtar, [pw thus adding to our evidence that the bull or ox was 
sacred to this god. Cf. Hesraica, Vol. X., p. 58. 

These added publications make still more clear the fact that there were in 
Southern Arabia a multiplicity of Athtars. An inscription reproduced from 
Halévy by Hommel on p. 78 of his Chrestomathie, distinguishes three Athtars,— 
Athtar of Kabas, Athtar of Yaharik, and Athtar of Yahar. So also in Mordt- 








204 HEBRAICA. 


man’s Himjarische Inschriften we have three Athtars distinguished,—Athtar of 
Mount Thanin (No. 862), Athtar of Bana (No. 886), and Athtar of Kabid, the 
building (No. 874). Each place evidently had its Athtar as in ancient Palestine 
and Syria each place had its Baal. 

Professor Hommel thinks the epithet {pP7Ww, ‘the rising,’’ is an identifica- 
tion of Athtar with the morning star. This has in its favor the fact that 
Al-Uzza, the goddess of Mecca, who has been shown to be a form of Athtar, was 
identified with the morning star.* This is, I think, more probable than the 
identification with the rising sun, which I formerly favored.+ 

The inscription, No. 862, of Mordtman’s Himjurische Inschriften contains a 
passage in which Athtar is apparently called nny SN, or ‘father Athtar.”’ 
Mordtmann is not absolutely sure of the reading. It might, he says, be 
“NNy ON, but he thinks 3X the more probable. If this be correct, then 
Athtar was regarded as a father-god, and we have a trace in his character of the 
widespread conception of parentage and productivity, which was all but uni- 
versally connected with the Ishtars and Astartes. 

In treating of this, Miiller calls attention to an inscription published by 
Derenbourg in the Journal Asiatique, 8 Série, Vol. IL., p. 255. This inscription 
is of great interest as it confirms the theory of the late Professor W. R. Smith, 
which I followed in my Ishtar Cult, that Athtar was originally a mother goddess, 
and then developed into a masculine deity. Derenbourg’s inscription, translated, 
reads as follows :— 

1. “ Yasbah of Riyam son of Maukis and Baus and his wife Karibat, possessor 


eae 
. of the tribe of Sirwah, a man of the king. They have consecrated to their 


bo 


lady Umm(‘athtar for 

3. four sons, four images of pure gold because she blessed 

4. them (viz.: Umm‘athtar) with the boys and their daughters. And they 
lived—all these chil- 

5. dren—and the spirits of both of them have been calmed 
by these children. May Umm- 

6. ‘athtar continue to bless his servants Yasbah and Karibat with well- 
formed children and to favor them themselves 

7. and to favor their children. May Umm‘athtar be gracious 

8. and grant complete safety to the sons of Yasbah, Kharif, Magda‘al, Ra- 

9, babat and ‘Am‘atik, the descendants of Maukis and to their harvests 
and good fruits in 

10. the land Nakhal Khurif, and in the pastures of their 
camels. To Umm‘athtar. 





* Cf. HEBRAICA, Vol. X., p. 64, W. R. Smith’s Kinship and Marriage in Ancient Arabia, p. 197, 
and Wellhausen’s Reste Arabische Heidenthums, p. 37. + Cf. HEBRAICA, Vol. X., pp. 56,57 and 72. 
+ This inscription escaped my notice when I wrote the “Ishtar Cult.” 














NOTES. 205 


This inscription not only represents Athtar as a goddess, but as a mother god- 
dess, the giver of offspring, just the character in which Ishtar and Astarte usually 
appear. More than this, we catch in this inscription which comes from the very 
heart of the South Arabic territory the exact transition state between the mother 
goddess, so widely known elsewhere, and the masculine deity which otherwise 
appears in South Arabia. The deity is addressed by the compound name 
“NAYON. (which we may resolve into its component parts and translate 
‘* mother Athtar,’’?) and is moreover called IN), ‘the lady,” and yet in the 
phrase |), “his servants,” the deity is referred to asa male. The theory 
that a male deity was here developed out of a female is not, therefore, a mere 
theory ; this inscription demonstrates it by revealing the transition in progress. 

When the development was complete the idea of parentage which was 
inherent in the mother-goddess was still associated with this deity, and hence the 
epithet “NAYSN, which Mordtmann has noted in the inscription above men- 
tioned. 

The fact that Athtar was in South Arabia at one time a goddess, renders the 
theory advanced by W. R. Smith in his Kinship, and followed by me in the 
Ishtar Cult, that Al-Uzza is but an Athtar or Astarte, much more certain, as it 
becomes clear beyond a doubt that Athtar was once a goddess in Arabia. 


II. ON THE GOD MutT. 


In a paper published during the early part of 1894 in the Oriental Studies of 
the Oriental Club of Philadelphia on Native Israelitish Deities, it was proven, as I 
venture to think, that a god Maut, or Mut, was known in ancient Israel and 
Pheenicia, and that at least two proper names have been preserved in the Old 
Testament of which this divine name is a component part. 

When that paper was published it seemed impossible to give any satisfactory 
account of the origin or the nature of such a deity; and in the absence of any 
other clue it was conjectured from the Hebrew pointing of the names referred to, 
that it might be but a personification of death. After it was too late even to add 
a foot-note to the paper in question, Sayce’s Higher Criticism and the Verdict of 
the Monuments came to hand, on p. 294 of which an account is given of the dis- 
covery of some traces of the worship of the Egyptian mother-goddess Mut, near 
Gaza, in 1892. The natives then discovered in this locality several objects, 
among which were alabaster vases bearing the names of Amenophis III. and 
Teie, and another object bearing an inscription showing that it belonged to a 
temple of the goddess Mut, and that this temple had been erected by Amenophis 
II., grandfather of Amenophis III. This discovery indicates that near Gaza 
there was in the time of the eighteenth dynasty a shrine of the great Egyptian 
mother goddess, and suggests a different explanation of the goddess Mut in 
Palestine, viz., that the slight traces of the worship of Maut or Mut there 











206 HEBRAICA. 


and in Pheenicia may be but survivals of the worship of the Egyptian goddess on 
Syrian soil from the early time when she became naturalized there under the 
influence of the Egyptian domination. The El-Amarna tablets show that at that 
time Philistia, Phoenicia and Palestine were practically one. The whole country 
was in a state of vassalage to Egypt, but the inhabitants were in a state of flux, 
and a cult planted at Gaza might easily spread to other parts of Syria. 


III. Was Itv EVER A Distinct DEITY IN BABYLONIA ? 


George Rawlinson in his Five Great Monarchies (I. 112sqq.) and The Relig- 
ions of the Ancient World (pp. 37, 38) held that there was at the head of the 
Babylonian pantheon a deity Il, or Ra. His sources of information were, how- 
ever, not trustworthy. He relied on imperfect translations in the Records of the 
Past, on Greek sources of a late date, and on Egyptian analogies which were 
really quite remote. Schrader in his Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (ed. 2, 
p. 11) indicates that he holds the same view, or did hold it in 1888. On the other 
hand, Tiele in his Histoire Comparée des Anciennes Religions (pp. 181, 182) denies 
the existence of such a deity; Professor Lyon of Harvard in a paper in the Pro- 
ceedings of the American Oriental Society, May 1883, makes a clear and forcible 
argument against it, and more recent works omit, I believe, all mention of such 
a deity. 

The present note is written for the purpose of calling attention to a possible 
explanation of Ilu as an element of proper names, different from that adopted by 
Professor Lyon. He says (op. cit., p. clxvii.): ‘*‘ The result of an examination of 
proper names containing ilu would be to show that this word does not represent 
a particular deity, but simply ‘ god,” as we saw above in the case of Bab-ilu, 
‘ Babylon.” This is not saying that ilu would be the same god in each case. 
Zikar-ilu, for instance, ‘ Servant of ilu,’ might mean servant of Air, 
servant of Marduk, servant of Bél, according to the preferences of the family 
in conferring the name.”’ 

Such an explanation is indeed possible, but is it the only one? In the tab- 
lets from the first Babylonian dynasty published by Meissner in his Beitrdge zum 
Altbabylonische Privatrecht, 1893, there are several names compounded with I]u. 
Tlu-Su-ib-ni (No. 4), Buni-Ilu (No. 12), Gi-mil-Ili (Nos. 14 and 59), 
Sum-ma-Ili (No. 20), [lu-iki¥a (No. 25), Ilu-Su-nu-ti (No. 30), Ilu- 
$u-ba-ni(No. 31), Pur-Ili (No. 35), Ilu-emuki (No. 38,) Nur-I1]i (No. 39), 
Mutu-Ili (No. 80), Ilu-iSmi-hani (No. 97), Apil-Ili (No. 102), Ilu- 
kaga and Ilu-matisa (No. 105). In addition to these I have recently observed 
the following names on unpublished tablets belonging to the University of Penn- 
sylvania: Marduk*-nu-uh-libbi-I1i, [pi-is-Ili,f and Izizu-itti-Ili. 


* The tablet is partially defaced at this point, so that the reading is doubtful. 
+ Found also in Moldenke’s Cuneiform Texts, No. 22. 











NOTES. 207 


In some of the names of this list I]u is no doubt the generic term. Such is the 
case in Ilu-Su-ib-ni = ‘ His god created’; so also Ilu-%$ u-nu-ti, which 
is probably an abbreviation from a name originally longer. Ilu-ikixa is, how- 
ever exactly parallel to Sin-ikisa (Meissner, No. 81), and Bél-ikiga (Mol- 
denke, op. cit. No. 16), and while Lyon’s explanation may possibly be the correct 
one, nevertheless a strong argument from analogy could be made to support the 
supposition that in this class of names Ilu was once as much a deity as Sin or Bél 
was. [Star was used both for “ goddess” and for the name of a specific deity, 
and why should we not suppose that the development of this word was parallel 
toIlu? We may,I think, take it for granted that in the evolution of ideas 
terms which afterwards were employed to designate genera were first the names 
of specific objects. The usage in the case of the word [$tar denotes an arrested 
development of this sort—a development arrested so early that [Star is usually 
a specific deity, and only in rare cases the generic term. Do we not find here 
some ground for supposing that I]lu, the masculine term, is analogous—that it 
was once a specific deity, and that while it was such, names like [lu-emuki 
Tlu-ikixa, Nur-Ili, and Apil-I]li were formed and became traditional ? 
The argument from the analogies already mentioned is strengthened by the fact 
that among the Hebrews or Canaanites 5 was in early times a distinct deity.* 

All these analogies lead me to suspect that I] u was once a specific deity and 
underwent a transformation like that, the beginning of which we can trace in 
IStar, only that in the case of Ilu the change went so far that almost every 
vestige of the specific use of the term was lost. 

In the names given in Meissner’s Beitrdge the determinative is not prefixed to 
Ilu. This tends to show that the term had become, in these names, conven- 
tional, and that the consciousness of the presence of a specific deity in them had 
passed away. I am led, nevertheless, from the cumulative parallels here pre- 
sented, to suspect that among the very early Babylonians Ilu was a distinct 
deity and that other names had in the historical period displaced it, as Athtar 
was before the historical period displaced in North Arabia.t 


* Cf. Oriental Studies of the Oriental Club of Phila. Boston : Ginn & Co., 1894, pp. 97, 98. 
+ Cf. HEBRAICA, Vol. X., p. 66. 











>BOO0K + NOTICES. 





ERMAN’S EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR.* 





This little book marks an era in the study of Egyptian. Small as it is, in it 
there is presented for the first time a statement of Egyptian grammar that can be 
called in any degree complete. To go further, it might even be said that here we 
have for the first time a grammar of Egyptian. This may seem strange to the 
reader who knows that Egyptian has been before the world, and has been studied 
for nearly a century, but yet the fact stands so, and those few books which could 
in any way dispute the claim of this to be the first grammar of Egyptian are by 
the same author and mark the stages of his gradual advance, and of the gradual 
advance with him of the scientific study of the language. In 1878 appeared Dr. 
Erman’s Pluralbildung, in 1880 his Neudgyptische Grammatik, in 1889 his Sprache 
des Papyrus Westcar, a masterly development of the grammatical phenomena of 
a text which was published a year later in an equally masterly edition. 

In fact, the treatment of this one papyrus, with its photographic reproduc- 
tions (only those who have had to do with such things know how much here 
depends on the care of the editor whether they are to be for ornament or to the 
purpose), its elaborate palzographic Feststellung of the text, its glossary and 
grammatical analysis with the special grammar mentioned above, would have 
sufficed to show that Egyptian had at last fallen into hands that were prepared 
to rescue it from the reproach of dilettantism which had so long clung to it. 
And now, in this grammar, we have the ripened fruits of Dr. Erman’s studies, an 
elaborated and rounded scheme of Egyptian that, however incomplete it may still 
be, is miles in advance of anything attempted up till now. It may safely be said 
that there is not another man alive who could have written this book, and, prob- 
ably, those who can wade through it without having their ideas upon Egyptian 
simply transformed, can be counted on the fingers. Outside of Dr. Erman’s 
Egyptological school at Berlin and the two or three English students who are 
working upon his lines in London, this book might be a revelation to the so-called 
Egyptologists, a class in which there is probably more amateurism, unscholarly 
habits and simple humbug than in any other branch of orientalism—and that is 
saying a good deal. It might be a revelation to such men, but the probability is 
that for them it will pass unheeded, and we shall continue for a few years to have 
texts published by editors who could not translate them to save their lives, and 
learned treatises upon the Exodus or upon Joseph in Egypt by men who take as 
their guides Wilkinson’s Manners and Customs and Brugsch’s Egypt under the 
Pharaohs. In truth, it is hard to insist too much upon the difference between 
the two schools, that which Erman has been working some twenty years to found, 
and that which is represented by almost all the older Egyptologists. On the one 


* EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR, with Table of Signs, Bibliography, Exercises for Reading and Glos- 
sary by Adolf Erman. Translated by James Henry Breasted. Williams & Norgate, 1894. 














Book NOTICES. 209 


hand, we have conjecture and the treatment of the results of conjecture as ascer- 
tained facts, raised to a science; on the other, a resolute declinature to treat as 
fact what is not fact, and to go a step beyond what is firm and certain. On the 
one hand, again, an attempt to translate everything and anything though half the 
words are unknown and the construction a mystery, sometimes rising to the bold 
declaration that there is no such thing in Egyptian as construction, and that 
grammars are needless; and on the other, a recognition that where there is 
language there must be grammar, and that it is no disgrace to confess that a 
sentence or a whole document is unintelligible, that the disgrace rather lies in 
professing to translate what one does not understand. 

From what has now been said, it will be evident that this book, though it is 
one of the Porta linguarum orientalium, yet stands upon a very different level 
from that occupied by the other volumes of the same series. They form more or 
less excellent introductions to the different oriental languages, containing nothing 
but the universally known and recognized elements, and their chief merit is that 
they embrace in a small bulk a grammar, chrestomathy and glossary, and a guide 
for further study in the sketch of literature. These advantages this book also 
has, and the beginner may start with it in the full confidence that he will find in 
it all that he needs for the first few months of study. But, besides that, this 
book is simply the most complete and accurate statement of Egyptian grammar 
that has yet been published, and there is probably not an Egyptologist alive who 
will not have to make it a desk-book for constant reference. Two prefaces, the 
one by the author, the other by the translator, and full tables of contents and 
abbreviations occupy pp. I-XV. Then the Grammar begins. Introduction, 
Orthography and Phonetics pp. 1-28, Pronouns pp. 28-36, Nouns pp. 36-62, Verbs 
pp. 62-124, Particles pp. 124-138, the Sentence pp. 138-171. Then comes a most 
valuable table of signs with the latest determinations pp. 172-194, and Bibliog- 
raphy pp. 195-201. Then, on a separate pagination, the exercises for reading pp. 
1*-41*, and a glossary, which excites the hope that the dictionary on which Dr. 
Erman is at work, may soon appear, pp. 42*-70*. 

It is impossible to enter into all the points of interest which are raised by 
this little book, but it may well be asked how it happens that only now are we 
approaching a grammatical treatment of the language. The only answer is to 
refer to the tremendous difficulties involved, and these difficulties come under the 
two heads of the orthography and the history of the language. As to orthography, 
every one is familiar with the appearance of Egyptian hieroglyphics, but it is only 
recently that it has been thoroughly realized that these signs, with the exception 
of one or two doubtful endings, are exclusively consonantal and that the vowels 
are never indicated. In this respect Egyptian agrees with the other Semitic 
languages, only in it the non-writing of the vowels is much more rigorously 
carried out. Evidently that law of Semitic phonology which makes the conso- 
nants of primary and the vowels of very secondary importance, was here in full 
force. 

Again, as to the history of the language, it should be remembered that the 
oldest monuments date back to, at least, 3000 B.C., and that it only became 
extinct with the last speakers of Coptic, two or three hundred years ago. It is in 
the services of the Coptic church, still read in this which may be called ‘‘modern”’ 
Egyptian, that we meet the last remains of the language of the builders of the 
Pyramids. This long history is divided into the following five periods :—I. Old 














210 HEBRAICA. 


Egyptian, the language of the old Empire, found in its oldest form in the Pyramid 
texts, and continuing long as the language of the learned, though as unintelli- 
gible to the common peopie as are our Latin inscriptions. II. Middle Egyptian, 
the language of the people during the Middle Empire. III. Late Egyptian, the 
popular language during the New Empire. IV. Demotic, the popular language 
of the immediately pre-Christian centuries, written in a curious cursive develop- 
ment of the Hieratic character. V. Coptic, the language of the Christians in 
Egypt, written in Greek characters. It is difficult to overestimate the changes 
which a history of this length must have involved. Between Vergil and Dante 
there are only some thirteen centuries, and between Alfred the Great and Tenny- 
son, not ten, but the ability to read the ‘‘ neid” or the “Idylls of the King” 
does not by any means involve the ability to read the ‘“‘ Divina Commedia,” or 
Alfred’s translation of Boétius. And when to that is added that only in 
Coptic, the last of the five developments, are the vowels indicated, it will be 
understood how almost hopeless is the attempt to gain any knowledge of the 
word structure of old Egyptian. Dr. Erman puts the matter thus in the Vorrede 
to his Sprache des Papyrus Westcar, a text which appears to fall between the 
Middle and the New Empire :—‘ Wir stehen daher den vocallos geschriebenen 
Formen der alten Sprache fast hilflos gegeniiber und konnen nur schwer oder 
gar nicht uns ein Urtheil dariiber bilden, wie viel vokalisch geschiedene Formen 
sich hinter den Ausserlich gleichen Consonantengruppen verbergen. Um sich 
unsere Lage zu verauschaulichen, denke man sich dass wir vom Syrischen nur 
einige alte unvokalisirte Texte bes’ssen und dass wir nun die Formenlehre der- 
selben mit alleiniger Hiilfe des heutigen Neusyrischen entrathseln miissten, das, 
ganz ahnlich wie das Koptische von der alten reichen Flexion nichts gerettet hat 
als den Imperativ, zwei Participien und einen Infinitiv.”” But the difficulty of 
the case might have been stated even more strongly, for while in Syriac we have 
letters of prolongation that would go far to indicate the forms, these in Egyptian 
are totally lacking. 

The comparison here made between Egyptian and Syriac suggests the ques- 
tion of their linguistic relationships, and this question is answered without doubt 
or hesitation by the first sentence of the Grammar. ‘‘ The Egyptian language is 
related to the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, ete.), to the East 
African languages (Bischari, Galla, Somali, and others), and to the Berber lan- 
guages of North Africa.”’ Here we touch the second side of interest in this book. 
It is enoch making with regard to Egyptian, but it also marks the beginning of a 
new era in the study of comparative Semitic. Though Dr. Erman, apart from 
the above dogmatic statement, restrains himself in the most severe fashion from 
any dealing with these questions, it is principally due to him and his work that 
the place of Egyptian in the Semitic family can now be discussed without the 
risk of being regarded as a “‘ crank” in the field of scholarship. Not many years 
ago that was the reputation that awaited the investigator—though in Egyptian 
where there were and are so many “ cranks,” that did not count for much—and 
it awaited him rightly, for our knowledge of Egyptian was not then upon such a 
basis of certainty, nor of such an extent as to facts, as to warrant any attempt at 
comparison with another language. But now, that is past, and though there is 
much that will have to be learned and unlearned, we have reached a position 
from which we can see how great is the part to be played by Egyptian in the 
study of the development of the Semitic group. That it is Semitic, no doubt now 











Book NOTICES. 211 


remains and when Dr. Steindorff has completed his investigations into the sound- 
interchanges between Egyptian and Asiatic Semitic, we shall be able to compare 
the vocabularies of the two at length. But at the grammatical structure it is 
already possible to work, and it may be said without hesitation that the next great 
step in the study of comparative Semitic will be made through Egyptian. It will 
take us further back than we have yet been able to penetrate, and it will solve the 
riddle of the comparative values of Arabic and Hebrew as to primitiveness of 
form. Until recently it was imagined that we had in Arabic a tolerable repre- 
sentative of that mother tongue which lies behind the Semitic group, and Hebrew 
grammars, notably that of Olshausen, were written upon the principle of taking 
the Arabic form as representing the primitive, and from it deducing the Hebrew. 
This was an outcome of the position of the Dutch school of Arabists, and finds 
its parallel in the similar place once assigned to Sanscrit in the Indo-European 
group. But that passed, and it is coming to be slowly recognized that there are 
innumerable forms in Arabic which cannot be primitive, but are secondary in the 
highest degree ; and, further, that the appearance of uniformity, which in Arabic 
is so striking and gives so strong an impression of originality, is due to a law of 
analogy working within this one language. Thus the pendulum has swung back 
and Hebrew has partly regained its place. The position of being the original 
language is not again claimed for it, but it may possibly be the most original in 
the Semitic group. The problem, then, was and is to decide how much in Arabic 
is primitive, and how much is due to analogy and changes in the language itself. 
To the solution of this problem Assyrian did not contribute as much as was 
expected. Perhaps its time has not yet come, but it may be said that students of 
Semitic are, from various causes, very chary of basing anything upon the evi- 
dence of Assyrian forms or texts. But now Egyptian bas entered the field and 
has given promise of very different results. It stands very much farther removed 
from the other Semitic dialects than does Assyrian. The laws of the interchange 
of sounds show us that Assyrian is a close relative to Canaanite, and, as we now 
know through the Panammu inscription, to old Aramaic. But Egyptian stands 
altogether outside of the Asiatic group which forms a connected whole over 
against it. The combination of the two will take us behind the division, not only 
of Canaanite, Aramaic and Assyrian, or of North and South Arabic, but the 
division of North and South Semitic. Nay, it takes us even further than this, 
and promises to solve the problem of the North and East African languages. 
Into this it is impossible to enter, and many years must pass before, on that side, 
fixed results can be looked for, but it is curious to see the little group of lan- 
guages called Semitic which were once regarded as being so sharply and 
decisively separated from all the other tongues of the earth, beginning to accept 
new members and to melt into an unknown haze. 

But apart from the wider horizon which thus opens out, no one can work 
through this book without recognizing on almost every page the promise of the 
solution of one or another problem as to the origin of a form or of a construction. 
It is needless to enter into detail; no one who professes to study comparative 
Semitic can now afford to be ignorant of Egyptian, and those who, like Hommel 
in his examination of the Sibilants, have already begun the study, will be the 
leaders in the new movement. Like Hommel again, their theories may have 
been scoffed at, but it will be for the future to weed out the false from the true. 











212 HEBRAICA. 


It is for the student of Semitic, then, to give his days and nights to the study 
of this grammar, and of the companion Coptic grammar by Dr. Steindorff, and 
thus, at last, to gain a basis for scientific comparative study. As a guide to this, 
Dr. Erman’s article in Vol. XLVI. of the ZDMG., Das Verhdltniss des Aegypt- 
ischen zu den semitischen Sprachen, sums up all that at present can be asserted 
with absolute confidence. 

It remains only to say that the translation, with the exception of the author’s 
preface, which must have been done very hurriedly at the last, is idiomatic and 
careful, written in English and not, as so often,in English German. Mr. Breasted 


is to be congratulated on his work. 
Duncan B. MACDONALD, 


Hartford Theological Seminary. 


A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THE ASSYRIAN LANGUAGE.* 





The facts connected with the history of the decipherment of the Assyrian 
language have compelled every student of Assyriology to be his own lexicographer. 
Every earnest student has compiled “‘ lists ” of words for his own use. This was 
the only way in which he could hope to keep pace with the rapidly increasing 
vocabulary and the only means by which he could attain to approximate or scien- 
tific accuracy in the definition and derivation of words and in the syntactical 
constructions of the language. From this necessity the real student is not likely 
soon to be relieved. Heaps of clay tablets are now being exhumed in the orient, 
and several of our museums contain a wealth of material for future investigation 
that is far from exhausted. For the specialist it matters little whether a Lexicon 
appears or not. But the case is different with the average graduate student who 
wishes to gain a practical working knowledge of the language—sufficient to 
enable him to follow and appreciate the work of specialists and intelligently apply 
their conclusions in other fields. For beginners in Assyrian it would be a great 
gain if a suitable compendium of the lexical results already achieved were at 
hand. Up-to the present no complete work of this nature has appeared. Edwin 
Norris’ Assyrian Dictionary, Parts I.-III., appeared a quarter of a century ago. 
It remained incomplete. The advance made in the whole field of Assyriology 
since 1872 has deprived his pioneer work in Assyrian lexicography of its value 
except as an historical landmark. Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch began the publication 
of his Assyrisches Worterbuch in 1887. This work is beyond the range of the 
ordinary student in the wealth of material which it offers, and in the learned dis- 
cussions of difficult points which enrich it, as well as in price. Moreover, at the 
present rate of publication the end is afar off.t Pater Strassmaier’s Verzeichniss 
Assyrischen und Akkadischen Worter, one of the most indispensable works for 
advanced students, is, as its title implies, a catalogue of words with their con- 
texts alphabetically arranged and without definition. The most important 
available lexical contributions have come to us in connection with the interpreta- 


*A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THE ASSYRIAN LANGUAGE (Assyrian-English-German), by 
W. Muss-Arnolt. PartI., 8°, pp. 64. To be completed in about 8 parts. 5s. each. Berlin: 


Reuther u. Richard, 1894. 
+ His smaller Wérterbuch is, however, rapidly coming from the press, and is well adapted to 


the needs of students. April 10. 











Book NOTICES. 2138 


tion of special texts, or works on special subjects, but these, for the most part, 
like the works just named, are not available to the student who is beginning’ 
his study. 

The feeling has been generally shared for several years that the time had 
come for a succinct Assyrian Dictionary, and Assyriologists generally, I believe, 
hailed with satisfaction the announcement issued by the ‘‘ Semitic Seminary of 
the Johns Hopkins University ” in 1887, of its intention to produce such a work. 
This intention, fs some reason, has not been effected. On March 15th, 1892, in 
answer to an enquiry of the writer, Prof. Haupt wrote: ‘“‘ About one-quarter of 
the MS. has been prepared, and we hope to be able to begin with the printing in 
about two years.’’ The present work, as we learn from this statement, as well 
as from the preface, owes its inception to the Semitic Department of Johns Hop- 
kins University, and the author claims ‘“ that, on the whole, the plan is the same 
as that proposed by the ‘ Semitic Seminary.’ ’’ Prof. Haupt has already confirmed 
this in the PAOS. in which he points out that even parts of the preface are a 
transcript of what had been written regarding the plan before the author became 
a member of the Seminary. The author, after his connection with the “Seminary” 
as scribe and contributor in this codperative undertaking, presumably had an 
accurate register of the results, and the inference may be legitimately drawn that 
this First Part agrees substantially with the beginning of the MS., one-quarter of 
which was ready for publication in 1892. 

The work is therefore essentially a Johns Hopkins’ production, and the credit 
of the work, as far as it has gone, must be divided between the author and his 
friend in Baltimore. It was in pursuance of the advice of Prof. Haupt, according 
to the preface, that the work has eventually appeared. We need not further 
concern ourselves with the history of this work of many hands, concerning which 
there seems to have been some ‘confusion of tongues’ which resulted in the 
abandonment of the original purpose. Prof. Haupt has already promiséd to 
review it from the historical side, and we may safely leave the less interesting 
details of its origin and growth to him. 

The industry of the author is in many respects certainly praiseworthy. We 
have here a collection of material sufficient to show to one engaged in any similar 
undertaking in this field the laborious character of the work. It is, therefore, 
with the greatest regret that I cannot welcome this work as one worthy of its 
author and equal to the needs of the student and to the demands of present-day 
Assyrian lexicography. Especially in this field, where the band of workers is yet 
small and the hindrances still many, all earnest effort ought to be met with 
encouragement. But, when an author enters into one of the most important 
fields and essays to furnish a guide-book for the uninitiated, he voluntarily 
assumes a function the performance of which cannot, in the interests of scholar- 
ship, be judged except by scientific standards. 

What purports to be a favorable review of the book has already appeared in 
the Academy from the pen of Professor Sayce. Professor Sayce there declares 
that he “ has nothing but words of warm welcome and admiration for Dr. Muss- 
Arnolt”’; but immediately preceding he writes: “I wish that the author had 
been more careful in distinguishing Assyrian and Sumerian, and both from 
ideographic expressions. As it is, Sumerian and Assyrian are mixed together 
in a way that will be confusing to the beginner and still more to the general 
student of language.” Later he adds: ‘‘ The author has produced an accurate 














214 HEBRAICA. 


work and achieved the object at which he aimed.” We need not halt at this 
point to attempt a reconciliation of these antithetical judgments, nor to enquire 
what their author conceived the aim to be. We have reasons, as urgent perhaps 
as Mr. Sayce’s, for expressing admiration of the author, yet we cannot unite with 
him in saying that he has produced ‘‘an accurate work.’”’ Much less has he 
produced such a work as we need. 

1. The author, as we think, very unwisely accepted the suggestion of his pub- 
lishers and added throughout translations into German. Cui bono? He has thus 
encumbered his work with useless repetitions, introduced confusion by the inser- 
tion of about thirty pairs of unsightly brackets on each page, enlarged the volume 
and increased the price of the work. The distraction occasioned by the brackets 
is all the greater as there is also a copious use of parentheses, parallel lines, etc. 
Judging from experience, it is a mistake to suppose that Germans who study 
Assyrian, or any Semitic language, are so entirely ignorant of English as to be in 
need of this proffered help. If the student wishes to prosecute his studies to 
any length, it is imperative that he learn English. The Zeitschrift fiir Assyri- 
ologie admits articles in German, English, French, Italian and Latin, and the 
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology are printed for the most part in 
English and French, not to speak of HEBRAICA and others, to all of which the 
student is constantly referred. It must be quite evident to one who thinks over 
the matter seriously that the author has acted hastily and inconsistently. 

2. The need of the present is a concise Dictionary in fact, not merely in 
name. Instead of that, the author has produced a combination of Dictionary 
and etymological reference book, a product, the origin of which, we fear, is to be 
sought in a vain and jealous conceit. Whatever value or interest may attach to 
the history of derivations and definitions, the attention of the student certainly 
ought not to be diverted from the point in hand, viz., the definition and deriva- 
tion” It is sufficient to insert them, and, if doubtful, mark them so. To take the 
first case that my eye happens to catch at the moment, the word abbinu, p. 9, 
written ab-bu-un-nu and defined “ perhaps, pelican.”’ It is said to be par- 
allel, or equal, to tuSmi, and reference is made to Ds118=Delitzsch, Assyrische 
Studien. Both words are there defined as ‘* Pelekan.”” Abbdtinu is derived from 
~\am IV. “aufblasen,” and tu’mi from Oy), ‘aufblasen,” and said to be 
the same as Hwy. Turning back to page 93 ibid., where three pages are given 
to the discussion of tuSmi, he reads convincing arguments in favor of the 
reading, definition and derivation of tuS’mit. Then he has a reference to DW. 
(no page!) a work thirteen years later. Here he finds no reference whatever to 
tuSmu. On the contrary, ab-bu-un-nu is equated with ku-mu-u, as 
Norris, II. 567, had previously read. Moreover, DW. reads ab-bu-un-nu 
(or ap-pu-un-nu?) and defines ‘ein Vogel” with no attempt at derivation. 
In remark 2, we read: ‘‘ Fiir einen anderen Vogel kumit namlich den Pelekan, 
s.U. atan nari, ‘Flusseselin.’’”? There are still two other references, viz., 
Jensen and AV. 77. He looks back to the list of ‘‘ Abbreviations ”’ to see what 
work of Jensen’s is intended. Reference to the page is wanting, so he turns to 
the Glossary of Kosm., only to find that the word kumi is not recorded (only 
kummu.) AV. is now turned to, and here he sees that ab-bu-un-nu is equated 
with ku-mu-u and defined ‘ein Vogel.” It is further compared with Aram. 
NPVSSN “ Weihe?” (?) and Heb. FHIN. How much now has the student 

~ ". i hes | 











Book NOTICEs. 215 


gained, or what is to be gained by anyone by spending time on these clever 
speculations which have been abandoned long ago by the authors? In our own 
private ‘‘ lists,” these references are indispensable; here they have no place. 
It is the business of the lexicographer not merely to collect his material, he is 
also required to express a judgment. The student here is left to himself to find 
out that Prof. Delitzsch no longer defines the word in question as “‘ Pelekan,” and 
that he does not propose for it the derivation given in Assyrische Studien. He is 
left to draw what conclusion he may as to the correctness of Pater Strassmaier’s 
identification of the word with NIVIIN and MmDIN - If he concludes that the 
latter is correct, he may chance to look down the ‘column to the word ibnetum. 
This is defined as ‘‘ fishhawk,” and this, too, he learns is ‘‘ perhaps ”’ to be com- 
pared with Aram. NIVION - There is a reference to Ds114, where it is defined 
as “ Fischreiher ”’ (?) ‘but there is no mention of DW. which omits ‘* Fisch- 
reiher(?)”? but says, ‘“‘ sicher = targ. MVIIN womit hebr. MDI widerge- 
geben wird.” We submit as our judgment that the student has had unwisely 
imposed uvon him a vast amount of labor, the result of which must be confusion 
and distrust. Would it not have been preferable to have stated simply that 
ab-bu-un-nu=ku(tus)-mu-u, a bird; ibnetu=diidu, abird; ef. 
Aram. NOVA, Heb. DIN | ? These examples, taken by chance, indicate 
what I conceive to bea grievous mistake in a work intended for the beginner. 

3. The author seems to have forgotten the promise of the preface to give 
“the corresponding forms” occurring ‘‘in the sister idioms.’ The insertion of 
these forms, especially the Hebrew, instead of the diverting translations into 
German, would have been highly profitable. This, however, has been done with 
a reserve that caricatures the promise. Does the stem asbaru, p. 9, not corre- 
spond to a> lak and is not the root tatapu given under this word as a 
synonym, the ‘same root which occurs in MISO . Aram. NOOO | ? Have 
the following forms on pp. 7-9, not to speak of others, no corresponding forms 
“in the sister idioms’? ebru (2), abru (1), abusu, ebru (8), abnu, 
abalu(1), aiblu (2), abtilu, ubanu, (according to the derivation preferred)? 
Why explain almattu (3), ‘‘ widow=vidua,” and leave out PPIM5ON ? 

4. The work gives evidence on almost every page of inaccuracies and scorn 
of scientific principles. The first sentence in the book is a blunder. The student 
is informed that the Assyrian 8 represents seven gutturals, two of which are the 
labial waw and the palatal yodh! If we look now at the first word, A: 1. we ask 
(a) Why it is not written A? (b) Why, when it is defined ‘‘ ah!’ it were not 
better to translate it so in the appended example? The translation given does 
not represent the Assyrian (though, see also ZB. and DW.), and is decidedly un- 
English. (c) Why in this example Sunuhat (sighs, ef. MATIN) is translated 
“is filled” (=tumtalli or malat)? (dad) Why kabitti is written kat- 
bit-ti? (e) What new light has the author obtained on the text that he 
should prefer kabitti to kabittaSu, as read by Zimmern BS. p.10 and 
Delitzsch AW. p. 218? IV R? p. 29 certainly furnishes none. The last two lines 
of the Rev. were like those of the Obv. doubtlessly spoken by the priest. The 
last line certainly was, as is clear from the non--Semitic IS-BI and the Assyrian 
i-bak-ki, Turning to p. 2 to a-u, we are told that it is written ja-u, 








216 HEBRAICA. 


H. 33, 785. But the ja-u there is an adverb and synonym of ja-nu (With 
which it is equated) = where = jx: Reference is made to IV R. 68, 11+ 16 
for the pl. a-a-u-te. The sentence (I. 16) reads Ate dibbéya 8a akka- 
bakdni ina muhhi la tazizini (=tanziztini) = What (are) my words 
which I have spoken to thee whereon thou hast not relied? 4ate dibbéya 
cannot mean “ what words.”” The word does not occur in 1.11. The citation of 
NE. 48, 42f. without an accompanying interrogation was, to say the least, ven- 
turesome. It is quite impossible to decide from the fragmentary lines a-a-% 
Te gee oe ana da-ris, and a-a-t al la ki..... i-lu- what 
the force of the word is, much less to translate it ‘‘ what has become of ?”’ 

5. Principles seem to have been utterly ignored in indicating the length 
of the vowels. The a of Abu is certainly long, and not short as given, as 
examples like a-a-bu, ab-bu show and as the derivation (7J3N), if correct, 
would suggest. The pl. is 4bé, not ‘‘abe,’’ though two lines below we read 
abésu, and again abéia followed by “Sarrani.”” Under abu: we read pl. 
abuti, c. st. abit. Soabubu for abibu, abubanis for abibanis’, 
abul-lati (sic!) for abdlAti. (Why the -ia after the MES?) Why read 
abalati? The word is construed as a feminine, but this does not prove that 
the pl. ending is “iti.” The citation(s) should have been given for the form, 
as the common reading is abullé. Under “ubanu” (for ubanu), we read 
side by side “‘ubane,” “ubanat,” “hurSane,” “Sadé.” So “esburu” 8, 
but note “‘ebitru,” “abalu,’ and “abalu,” “abkulit” and “abkuli,” 
“abksanu” and “ab-Si-na.” These are not selected pages, and it is, there- 
fore, sufficient to add: Ex his disce omnia! 

6. Instead of the symbols Q, I, Q™, ST, etc., it would have been much 
better had the author accepted the common notation I, IIa, Is. IIL, ete. 
And to what purpose are the devices,so generally ignored in Assyrian works 
and by Assyriologists, of representing ff}. by X (x) and Y by ¢ introduced here ? 
Such things are too petty for notice, were it not that they serve only to confuse 
the student, and represent a local striving after novas res. 

7. What advantage is gained by disfiguring the pages with the mathematical 
signs >, », the first of which ordinarily denotes “greater than,” the second 
the difference undetermined between two quantities? The use of the latter is 
not explaiied in the List of Abbreviations. The simple contraction ‘ fr.” or 
the usual “ = ” for the former and the omission of the latter would have been 
preferable. Symbols have their place, when they have a spevial use and excel 
in clearness or brevity the ordinary contractions, not otherwise. 

8. Occasionally the author reverses the order ‘* Ass.-Eng.-Germ.” and gives the 
Germ. the preference. Cf. p. 7, col. 1, under ubbulu, 1. “ ob magere Getreide 
wachst, whether poor grain will thrive;’’ Col. II., 1.4, ‘‘er nahm weg, he took 
away; and p. 11, under abSenu, ‘‘Korn in Aehren”’ is left untranslated ; 
“die Weltgegenden,” ibid., col. 1, 1. 5, likewise. Not infrequently the transla- 
tions from German into English are ambiguous and infelicitous, e. g., ‘* Rain- 
gushes ”’ from Regengiisse, p. 3, ‘‘ To make half the royal cap,’”’ from die Konig- 
miitze zu halften, s. agu 2. p. 20, ‘‘ gathered blood”’ from geronnenes Blut. 

9. Wherever the plurs. of nouns or adjectives occur, they should have been 
placed immediately after the singular. The author’s arrangement leaves the 














Book NOTICEs. 217 


student uninformed until he has read the most, if not all, that is given on the 
word. The verb-stems likewise should have been indicated more clearly than 
they are. If the common notation had been employed and projected beyond the 
edge of the column, a much more serviceable book would have been the result. 

10. The criticism made by Professor Sayce on the lack of discrimination 
between Sumerian and Assyrian is a just one. No suggestion is made anywhere 
that such words as agubbu (a+gub), igegallu (ige-gal), edamukku 
(a+damug), etc., were not originally pure Semitic. Enough said. 

I have not attempted a thorough examination of the work. I say nothing 
whatever about the etymologies or the definitions, nor about the typographical 
errors of which there are too many. What I have said is wholly without preju- 
dice, but not without a very strong conviction that this book will not satisfy our 
needs unless it be reconstructed on wholly different principles and executed with 
greater care. And we would most heartily recommend the author and publisher 


to take this suggestion into their consideration. 
JAMES A. CRAIG. 


University of Michigan, Dec. 26th. 


Since writing the above, I have been informed that Part I. was withdrawn, 
soon after its appearance in America, on account of the numerous mistakes 
to which the author’s attention was directed. Within a week a new edition of 
Part I, has appeared with the following explanation: ‘‘ Owing to the great dis- 
tance between Leipzic(!) and Chicago, the author could read only one proof of the 
greater portion of PartI. This has caused a number of irregularities in the 
marking of quantities, etc. Part I. has therefore been printed again.” 


April 10th, 1895. J. A.C. 








>SHIDITIC+BIBLIOGRAPBY.< 





GENERAL. 

Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire an- 
cienne. Edited by J. Halévy. First year, 
1893, Numbers for July and October. Paris: 

HaukEvy, J. Notes. Journal Asiatique. Sér. 
VIII. Tome XIX., pp. 564-66. 

LINDBERG, O. E. Studier 6fver de semitiska 
ljuden w och y. Lund, 1893 (Diss.), pp. 176. 

LUSCHAN, F. v. Altorientalische Fibeln. 
Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., XXV., pp. 387-89. 

NESTLE, E. Three small contributions toSem- 
itic Paleography. Trans. of Intern. Orient. 
Congress at London, 1892. Vol. II,, p. 628q. 

Sayce, A.H. The Aramzan inscriptions of 


Sinjerli and the name of the Jews. <Acad- 
emy, Vol. XLIV., p. 16. 
Vocus, MARQUIS DE. Fouilles du comité 


oriental allemand 4 Sendjirli (Haute Syrie). 
Acad. inscrip. et belles-lettres: Compte 
Rendu, 4th Sér. Tome XXL., p. 15. 





ASSYRIAN. 
ADAMS, W.M. Noteon the Babylonian Calen- 
dar. B.and O. Record, Vol. VIL., p. 66s8q. 
BELCK, W. and C. F. Lehmann. Ueber die 
Kelishin-Stelen. Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., Vol. 
XXV., pp. 389-400. 

BEZOLD, C. Fragment einer Inschrift Saos- 
duchinos’. ZA., Vol. VIII., pp. 392-94. 
Bonavia, E. The Floraof the Assyrian Monu- 

ments and its Outcomes. London: Con- 
ici abscunskikainchseskesbevanence 108, 
The Sacred Trees of Assyria. Trans. 
of Intern. Orient. Congress at London, 1892, 
Vol. II., pp. 245-57. 
BOSCAWEN, W. St. CHAD. 
Tel-Loh, Academy, Vol. XLIV., p. 175sqq. 
The oldest Dressmaker’s Bill in the 
World. St. James Gazette, Dec. 3, 1893, 
—— Beginnings of Chaldzan Civilization. 
B. and O. Record, Vol. VII., pp. 1-8; 25-80. 
BROWN, JR., Rost. The Ten Patriarchs of 





The Discoveries at 





Berosus. Academy, Vol. XLIV., p. 56. 
The Te Tablet. 


Ibid., p. 3958q. 





CARA, CESARE DE. Identificazione d’Iside e 
d’Osiride con Istar ed Aé’ur. Actes VIII. 
Orient. Cong. (Section sémit.), pp. 273-78. 

DELATTRE, A.J. La Correspondance asiatique 
d’Amenophis III. et d’Amenophis IV. Re- 
vue Quest. Hist., Vol. LIV. (1893), pp. 353-88. 

HALgEvy, J. Le rapt de Perséphoné ou Proser- 
pine par Pluton chez les Babyloniens. Re- 
vue sémit., Vol. I., pp. 872-76. 

La royaume héréditaire de Cyrus. 
Actes VIII. Orient. Cong. (Sec. sémit.), pp. 
153-63. 

Heuzey, Léon. Le vase du patési Entena. 
Compte Rendu, Sér. 1V., Tome XXI. 

La lance colossale d’Isdoubar et les 

nouvelles fouilles de M. de Sarzec. Ibid., 








pp. 305-10. 

Le patési Entéména d’aprés les décou- 
vertes de M. de Sarzec. Ibid., pp. 314-19. 
Serpent and Tree in Baby- 
Sunday School Times, No. 





HILPRECHT, H. V. 
lonian Records. 
52, 1893. 
— Zur Schreib. des Namens Sagarakti- 
ZA., Vol. VIIL., pp. 386-91. 
Die Identitiét der altesten baby- 


Burias. 
HOMMEL, F. 
lonischen und iigyptischen Géttergenealo- 
gie und der babyl. Ursp’g d. igypt. Cultur. 
Trans. of Intern. Orient. Congress at London, 
Vol. Ih, pp. 218-44. 
A supplementary note to Gibil-Gamish. 
PSBA., Vol. XVI., pp. 13-15. 
Zu den zwei Inschriften Sarduri’s 
ZA., VIIL., 8. 375-81. 





JENSEN, P. 

des Ersten. 
Assyrian relics from Nim- 
of the Bombay 
Jour. 


KARKARIA, R. P. 
rod in the possession 
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
Bomb. RAS., XVIII., pp. 97-108. 

KNuUDTZON, J. A. Assyrische Gebete an den 
Sonnengott fiir Staat u. kénigliches Haus 
aus der Zeit Asarhaddons u. Asurbanipals. 
Bd. I., Autographirte Texte III. u. 60S. 
folio. Bd, II., Einleitung, Umschrift u. 
Erklarung, Verzeichnisse, XI. u.3398. 8vo, 
Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 18983.......... errr 














SEMITIC BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


LEHMANN, C.F. Das altbabyl. Maass- und Ge- 
wichtssystem als Grundlage der antiken 
Gewichts-, Miinz- und Maassysteme. Actes 
VIII. Orient. Cong. (Sect. sémit.), pp. 165- 
249, and a table. 

MAHLER, Ep. Das Kalenderwesen der Baby- 
lonier. Trans. of Intern. Orient. Congress 
at London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 209-17. 

MEISSNER, B. Zu ZA., VIIL., 8. 1948qq., 382-4. 

Moor, Fu. de. Examen critique de quelques 
synchronismes assyrio-bibliques. Muséon, 
XIL., pp. 382-400. 

NIKOLSKIJ, M. V. Odvuch assirijskich frag- 
mentach knjazja P. A. Putjatina, Drev- 
nosti Vostocnyja I., pp. 353 sq. 

Klinoobraznyja nadpisi vanskich care], 

otkrytyja v predelach Rossii. Ibid., pp. 

75-453. 

Klinoobraznaja nadpiS Rusy I. v Ké- 
lany-Kirlany (Alucalu) na beregu Gakci v 
Erivanskoj gubernii. Arch. Izv. i Zam., 
Imp. Mosk. Arch. Obse. I. (Moskva, 1893), 
pp. 433-7; also additional thereto; Tekst, 
transkripcija i perevod klinoobraznych 
nadpisej K6élany-Kirlany (Aluealu), No. 
XVIII. Armavir No. XIX. i XX., Sary- 
kamys No. XXI. i Zachalu No. XV. Mosk- 
va, 1893. 

OPPERT, JULES. La fondation consacrée 4a la 
déesse Ninaé. ZA., VIII., pp. 360-74. 

Le dernier roi de |’Assyrie. Compte 
Rendu, Sér. 1V., Tome XX., pp. 402 sq. 

—— Le canon des dates babyloniennes. 
Ibid., pp. 410-15. 

— Le champ sacré de la déesse Nina. 
Ibid., pp. 326-44, 

PINCHES, T.G. A tablet referring to dues paid 
to the temple of the sun at Sippara. Am. 
Jour. Arch., VIIL., p. 190sq. 

The new version of the Creation Story. 
Trans. of Orient. Congress at London, 1892, 
Vol. IL., pp. 190-98. 

PRICE, IRA M. A new find in Chaldea. Bib. 
World, Vol. II., p. 132 sq. 

RASSAM, H. On the preservation of Assyrian 
and Babylonian Monuments. Trans. Orient. 
Congress at London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 187-9. 

Rosiou, F. A study on Egyptian and Babylo- 
nian triads. Asiat. Quart. Review, II. Ser., 
VII., 13 pp. 119-36. 














219 


Sayce, A. H. A bilingual Vannic and Assyr- 
ian Inscription. Academy, Vol. XLIV., p. 
1158q. 

Inaugural address [to the Semitic Sec.]. 
Trans. of Orient. Congress at London, 1892, 
Vol. II., pp. 169-86. 

SCHEIL, V. Une tablette palestinienne cunei- 
forme. Recueil de Trav., XV., p, 187 sq. 

Inscription de Ramman-nirari 

Ibid., pp. 138-40. 

Bas-relief avec inscription de Sennach- 
érib. Ibid., p. 148sq. 

Simpson, WM. The Tower of Babel and the 
Birs-Nimroud, JTSBA., LX., pp. 307-32 and 
two tables. 

STRASSMAIER, J. N. Babylonische Texte, 
Heft. XI.: Inschriften von Darius, Kénig 
von Babylon (521-483 v. Chr.) von den Thon- 
tafeln des Britischen Museums copirt und 
autographirt, Heft II., No. 249-451. von 9-17 
regierungsjahre. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1893, 
(on | See Se ee ee ae M. 12. 

Einige kleinere babylonische Keil- 
schrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum. 
Actes VIII. Cong. Orient. (Sec. sémit.) pp- 
279-83, also 35 authograph pages of text and 
transcription. 

StronG, S. A. A Prayer of Asurbanipal. 
Trans. of Orient. Congress at London, 1892, 
Vol. IL., pp. 199-208. 

WILCKEN, U. Der Sar kibrit irbitti und der Sar 
kiSSati. ZDMG., Bd. 47, pp. 710-14. 

WINCKLER, H. Sammlung von Keilschrift- 





Ter. 











texten. II. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. 
1-2Lfg. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1893, pp. 1-76 
CIID oon vcinviccdecctsotcvencusses M. 6; M. 8. 
ZEHNPFUND, R. Ueber baby.-Assyr. Tafel- 


schreibg. Actes VIII. Cong. Orient, (Sec. 
a) 


sémit.), pp. 265-72. 


ARAMAIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. 

BAETHGEN, FRDR. Ueber eine im Orient vor- 
handene syrische Handschrift, etc. Actes 
VIII. Cong. Orient. (Sec. sémit.), pp. 107-16. 

BARNES, W.E. A Syriac MS. (Add. 17215) in 
British Museum. Academy, XLIV., p. 344. 

BEDJAN, P. Oeuvre des publication chal- 
deenes. Oeuvres des Ecoles d’Orient., 1893, 
pp. 157-62. 








220 


BERTHELOT, M. La chimie des l’antiquité et 
au moyen fige. I. Grecs, les Latins, les Syr- 
iens. II. Les Arabes. Rev. d deux Mondes, 
CXIX., pp. 315-36; 545-63. 

BRANDT, W. Mandiaische Schriften tibers. u. 
erklirt. Gd6ttingen: Vanderhoeck & Rup., 
Be is TE NE nko wesc ccscececaccs M. 8. 

CHABOT, J. B. La legende de Mar Bassus 
Texte syriaque, traduit et annoté, publié 
pour la premiére fois. Paris: Leroux, 1893, 
pp. xvi. and 72. 

CHASE, F.H. The old Syriac Element in the 
Text of Codex Bezae. London: Macmillan, 
BOSS, DD. BVA. MG WD......ccccciccsecccss 7s. 6d. 
Reviews in Acad., XLIV., p. 351 (Simcox, 
G. A.); Athenaeum, Oct. 21, 1893; Scottish 
Rev., XXII, 44, p. 453. 

DRONIN, E. Inscriptions funéraires palmy- 
reniennes. Rev. sém., 1., pp. 270-2, and one 
table. 


GRIMME, Hus. Der Strophenbau in den 
Gedichten Ephraems des Syrers. Freiburg 
(Schweiz), 1893, pp. viii. and 95.......... M. 4. 


GuinI, Ign. Un nuovo testo siriaco sulla storia 
degli ultimi Sassanidi. Actes VIII. Congr. 
Orient. (Sec. sém.), pp. 1-36. 

Gwynn, JNO. Ona Syriac MS. of the N. T. 
in the library of the Earl of Crawford, etc. 
Trans. of Royal Irish Acad., XXX., pp. 347- 
418. 

LAMBERT, M. De |’emploie du lamed en ara- 
méen biblique devant le complément 
direct. Rev. Etudes juives, XXVIL., p. 2698q. 

LEwis, 8. The Lectionaries at Mt. Sinai. Athe- 
neum, Oct. 28, 1893, p. 591. 

MACLEAN, A.J. Vernacular Syriac as spoken 
by the Eastern Syrians. TJrans. Orient. 
Congr. at London, 1892, Vol. IL., pp. 33-34. 

MARSHALL, J. T. The Aramaic Gospel. Re- 
ply to Driver and Allen, Hxpositor, 1893, 
Sept., pp. 176-92. Reply of Driver, I bid., 
Nov., pp. 388-400; Dec., pp. 419-31. 

PoGNon, H. Une inscription de Babylone en 
caractéres araméens. Rev. sém., p. 273. 
SEEBERG, R. Der Apologet Aristides, u. s. w. 

Leipzig, 1893, pp. v. and 68.............. M. 2. 

WOHLSTEIN, JOS. Ueber einige aramaeische 
Inschriften auf Thongefiissen des Kénig- 
lichen Museums zu Berlin. ZA., VIII., pp. 
313-39. 


HEBRAICA. 


HEBREW. 


BACHMANN, J. Tabellen zur _ hebriischen 
Grammatik. XI. Verbum mediae gut- 
turalis; XII. Verb. tertiae gutt., XIII, 
Verba nihern, u. 8. w., u. Ss. w. Berlin: 
Mayer & Miller, 1893, folio..M. 0.20 per part. 

BALL, C.J. An Elementary Grammar, with 
Intro. by R. F. Weidner. N. Y. and Chi- 
cago: Revell & Co., 1893, pp. 428........ $2.25. 

BALTZER, J. P. Deutsch-hebr. Worterver- 
zeichniss zu dem hebr. Uebungsbuch. 
Stuttgart, 1893, pp. 15...... panes isenemls OO. 

MARGOLIOUTH, G. The Superlinear punctua- 
tion, its origin, the different stages of its 
development, ete. Trans, Orient. Congr. at 
London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 46-56. 

Mourn, O. Om prapositionen 37) i bibelhebre- 
iskan. Upsala, 1893, pp. iii. and 65 (Diss.). 

NESTLE, E. Nigri, Boehm. u. Pelican. Ein 
Beitrag zur Anfangsgeschichte des hebr. 
Sprachstudiums in Deutschland. Tiibin- 
gen, 1893, pp. 35 and 39 fksm............ M. 3. 

PRILL, JOs. Einfiihrung in die hebr. Sprache 
f. den Schulgebrauch. Bonne, 1893, pp. x. 


Sp iveabscccuccuxskbansanes baanekeas M. 2. 
ZERWECK, N. Die hebr. Priip. }2- Leipzig, 
RO I Ris ns ose ccunses sewedadeseres coe BS. 


ARABIA AND ARABIC, 
GENERAL. 

BuRTON, R. F. Personal Narrative of a pil- 
grimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah. Ed. by 
his wife, Isabel Burton. Memorial ed., 2 
vols. London, 1893............. sbaewawees 12s. 

CowPER, H. 8. Through Turkish Arabia: a 
journey from the Mediterranean to Bom- 
bay by the Euphrates and Tigris Valleys 
and Persian Gulf. London, 1893........ 18s. 

Douurvus, L. Les Muzarabes. Rev. hist. rel., 
XXVIII., pp. 111-34. 

GOLDZIHER, I. La notion de la Sakina chez 
les Mohamétans. Ibid., pp. 1-138. 

—— Ibn Hid the Mohammedan Mystic, and 
the Jews of Damascus. Jew. Quar. Rev., 
VI., 21, pp. 218-20. 

Hamip Snow, W. R. Merits of Islim or the 
primitive Faith. Lahore, 1893. 

Harris, W. B. A Journey through the 
Yemen, and some general remarks upon 
that Country. London, 1893............. 16s. 














SEMITIC BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Jacos, G. Das Beduinleben im Lichte der Be- 
duinpoesie. Globus, LXIV., pp. 853-6; 375-8. 

KREHL, L. Das islamische Dogma von der 
Fitra. Festgruss Roth, pp. 167-9. 

LAND, J. P. N. Remarks on the earliest devel- 
opment of Arabic music. Trans. Orient. 
Congr. at London, 1892. Vol. II., pp. 153-63. 

LANE-POOLE, 8. The Mohammedan Dynas- 
ties, chron. and genealog. tables, with hist. 
introds. London, 1893................+++ 128. 
Etudes Orient. Systéme légistatif musul- 
man. Mariage. ParI.deNauphal. Ber- 
PR Maks ccesegsaesescvocessccceseneas M. 4. 
tudes Orient. Législation musulmane. 
Filiation et divorce. Par I. de Nauphal. 
PRG Ey ss hesdncassenasursneeusaars M. 6.40. 

SCHWERIN, H. H. v. Muhammedanismen i 
Afrika. Antropo-geogr. studie. Lund, 


WASHBURN, G. Christianity and Mobamme- 
danism, their points of contact and con- 
trast. Contemp. Rev., Nov. 1893, pp. 654-69. 

Wo.uuastTox, A. N. Half-hours with Mu- 
hammad, Newed. London, 1893....3s. 6d. 


LANGUAGE. 

Die Hndschr, Verzeichn. d. Kénigl. Bibliothek 
z. Berlin. Bd. 17. Arab. Hndschr. v. W. 
Ahlwaradt. Berlin, 16003................ M. 28. 

CopERA, Fr. Libros Arabesimpresos en Tiinez. 
Bol. R. Acad. de la hist., XXIII., pp. 58-66. 

FAGNAN, E. Manuscrits de la bibliotheque- 
musée d’Alger. Paris, 1893...........Fr. 20. 

Bosset, R. L’expedition du Chateaux d’or et 
le combat d’Ali contre le dragon. Gi. soc. 
as. it., VII., pp. 3-81. 

Fragments de chausons populaires dans 
les Mille et une Nuits. Rev. trad. pop., 
VIIL., pp. 445-7. 

BookForD, W. Vathek,an Arabian Tale. Ed. 
by R. Garnett, with notes by Sam. Henley, 
and etchings by Herb. Nye. London and 
We ss sc bs Sec ccceasiuse 21s.; $7.50. 

CHERBONNEAU, A. FablesdeLokmfn. Texte 
arabe, etc. Paris, 1803 .............. Fr. 1.50. 

CORANI TEXTUS ARABICUS...... addidit by G. 
Fligel. Ed. ster. Tauchn. tertium emen- 
data Nova. impressio. Leipzig, 1893..M.20. 

DERENBOURG, H. Ousfima Ibn Mounkidh. 
Un émir syrien au premier siécle des croi- 
sades (1095-1188). Paris, 1893.......... Fr. 15. 





221 


FISKE, WILLARD. Parole arabe disposte in 
ordine alfabetico (Arabic). Firenze, 1893. 

GryER, R. Aus Al-Buhturi’s Hamfsah. 
ZDMG., Bd. 47, pp. 418-39, 

GoupzinER, I. Salih b. 'Abd-al-Kuddis u. d. 
Zindikthum wihrend d. Regierung d. Chali- 
fen Al-Mahdi. Trans. Orient. Congr. at 
London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 104-29. 

GREEN, A.O. Collection of modern Arabian 
stories, ballads, poems and proverbs. Ox- 
BROT IMDS, 5 ccadaenads uaa axccnedeswans 3s. 6d. 

HIRSCHFELD, H. Prolegomena to an edition 
of the Divan of Hassan b. Thabit. Trans. 
Orient. Cong. at London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 
99-103. 

Hvuart, Cu. L’ode arabe d’Ochkonwiin pub- 
liée, trad. et annotée. Rev. sém., I., pp. 
259-69; 337-58. 

Jacos,G. Studien in arab. Dichten. Heft I., 
Dr. L. Abel’s+neue Mut‘allagit-Ausgabe 
nachgepriift. Berlin, 1893........... M. 2.80. 

JARRETT, H.S. Modern customs among the 
Bedouins of the Hauran, ed. and trans- 
lated. JRASR., LXII., IIL. pp. 47-94. 

Lewis, Mrs. Some ancient MSS. of the Ara- 
bic N. T. Trans. Orient. Congr. at London, 
1892, Vol. II., pp. 96-8. 

LiDZBARSKI, M. Zu den arab. Alexander ge- 
schichten. ZA., VIII., pp. 263-312, 410. 

N6OLDEKE, TH. Tainvéc¢ tic. Philologus, LII., 
p. 736. 

PERTSCH, W. Die arab. Uebersetzung des 
Amrtakunda. Festgruss Roth, pp. 208-12. 
R&GLA, P. DE. Mahomedaansche theologie, 

El Ktab. Amsterdam, 1893......... Fr. 3.25. 

SiBpAWAIHI’S Buch iib. die Gram. nach der 
Ausg. von H. Derenbourg u. d. Commentar 
des Sirffi tibs. u. erkl. u. mit Ausziigen 
aus Sirfifi u. anderen Commentaren ver- 
sehen y. G. Jahn. ca 14 Lfgn. Berlin, 1894. 


Socrin, A. Zum arab. Dialekt von Marokko. 
Abh. phil-hist. Cl. Stichs. Ges. Wiss., XIV., 
pp. 149-204. 

STEINSCHNEIDER, M. Die arab. Uebersetz- 
ungen ausden Griechischen. Leipzig, 1893. 


Elementary Arabic 
London, 1898. 


THORNTON, F, DU PRE. 
text-book and glossary. 








222 


Vaux, C. pe. L’Almageste d’Abi’lwéfa Al- 
bizdjani. JA., Sér. VIIL., T. XIX., pp. 408- 
71. 

VLOTEN,G. VAN. Dimonen, Geister u. Zauber 
bei den alten Arabern. Wiener Zeits. f. 
Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII., pp. 233-47. 

Voters, K. The system of Arabic sounds, 
as based upon Sibawaihi and Ibn Yaish. 
Trans. Orient. Congress at London, 1892, Vol. 
II., pp. 180-54. 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


Aids to the Student of the Holy Bible. Lon- 


don: Eyre & Spot., 1893.........2seeeeeeeee 5s. 

ALBERTZ, E. Die Bibel in der Kunst u. die 
Kunst in der Bibel. Kirch. Monatschr., 
XIII., 2, pp. 79-94. 

ANDRE, T. L’esclavage chez les anciens He- 
breux. Etude d’arch. bibl. Genéve, 1893. 
ckaneSSSEEMANGA RED SSE Sind ORS sean dotuneaned 3 fr. 

ASMUSSEN, P. Die zehn Stimme. ZDPV., 
XVI., pp. 256-68. 

Die Leastiimme. 
36, IL., pp. 378-415. 

Barus, H. La Révélation du 
“Tétragrammaton.” Rev. bibl., 1893, 3, pp. 
829-50. 

Die heilige Schrift des Alt. Test.; translated by 
Kautzsch and others. Subse.-Ausgabe in 
10 Lfgn. Freiburg i. B., 1890-94....... M. 12. 

Das Alte Testament tiber eingel. u. erl. v.Ed. 
Reuss, etc. 5 Bde. Braunschweig, 1892-93. 

The Holy Bible—Old and New Tests. Edited 
by Cheyne, Driver, Clarke (R. L.), and San- 
day (W.). London, 1893, Eyre & Spot...12s. 6d. 

Biblia hebraica secundum editiones Ios. Ath- 
ica, Ioa. Leusden, Io. Simonis aliorumque 
inprimis Everardi van der Hooght rec. Aug. 
Hahn. Ed. ster. C. Tauchnitii. Quartum 
recognita et emendata. Leipzig, 1893.M. 6. 

La sainte Bible. (Texte latin et trad. fran- 
caise). Commentée d’aprés la Vulgate et les 
textes originaux par L. Cl. Fillion. T. 4: 
Les Psaumes, les Proverbes, !’Ecclesiaste, 
le Cantique des cantique. Paris, 1892. 

La sainte Bible, ou l’Ancien et le Nouveau 
Testament, d’aprés la version revue par J. 
F. Ostervald. Nancy, 1893. 

BLEEK, F. Einleitungindas Alt.Test. 6 Aufl. 
besorgt von J. Wellhausen. Berlin, 1893. 


Zeits. f. Wiss. Th., Bd. 


nom divin 


HEBRAICA. 


BLEICHER, C. Biblische u. Jiidische prag- 
matische Geschichte. Wien, 1893. 

BRANCO, W. Das angebliche Wrack der Arche 
Noas nach des Berosus u. ander. Mitt’gen. 
Jahrhfte d. Vereins f. vaterl. Naturkde. in 
Wirttembg, XL1X. (1893), pp. 21-32. 

BRANDES, G. La Bible et Homére. 
Rev., Dec., 1893. 

CONDER, C. R. The earliest ages of Hebrew 
History. Scott. Review, Vol. XXII., 44, pp. 
274-92. 

CROOKER, J.H. The new Bible and its new 
Dees. Boston, 1008 oso. ocs cseccccccans $1.00. 

Plain Introds. to Books of the Bible. I. Old 
Test. ed., by C. J. Ellicott. London: Cas- 
PE RC backte ciccdephctnsbebcespasasee 8s. 6d. 

Balaam et la mythologie. 


Rev. des 


FOURRIERE, —. 
Paris, 1891. 
Gasc-DesFossts. Les conference de l’abbé 

de Broglie sur l’idée de Dieu des 1’A. Teste- 

ment. Rev. delasc. W., Dec., 1893. 
GIBBES, E.O. The Origin of Sin and dotted 

Words in the Hebrew Bible. N. Y., 1893. 


GIRARD, R. DE. Etudes de géologie biblique. 
Le déluge devam la critique historique. 
ac ES ee M. 6. 

Ueber Bibelcitate in muham- 

ZATW., Bad. 


GOLDZIHER, I. 
medanischen Schriften. 
XIII., pp. 315-21. 

GRAU, R. F. Sem, Ham und Japhet. 
des Glaubens, Juli, 1893, pp. 249-64. 

HECHLER, W.H. An ancient papyrus MS. of 
the LXX. Trans. Orient. Congr. at London, 
1892, Vol. II., pp. 331-3. 

HERVEY, A. C. The Sojourn of the Israelites 

Expositor, Dec., 1898, pp. 446-55. 


Beweis 


in Egypt. 
Ho6uneg, E. Die Beriihrungspunkte zwischen 
Moses u. Plato...... zum theil nach Philo. 
RN, TOG sons on ie6 ose scksices ..M. 0.80. 
Lamy, T.J. La Bible royale en cing langues, 
imprimée par Plantin. Bul. Ac. de Belgique. 
Sér. III. T. XXIIL., pp. 628-68. 
LETOURNEAU, CH. Origine de la circoncision 
les Juifs. Bul. soc. d’Anthr. de 
IV. Sér. IV., 5, p. 2098q. 
MAAss, M. Bibel u. Koran, verglichen nach 
ihrem historisch-ethischen Gehalte. Zeits. 
f. Wiss. Theol. Jahrg., 36, II. 2, pp. 161-220. 


chez 
Paris, 














SEMITIC BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


MartTI, K. Der Einfluss der Ergebn. d. neues- 
ten alttest. Forschungen auf Religions- 
geschichte u. Glaubenslehre. Braun- 
Is as v5 oases s6d55000%0s000 M. 0.75. 

MEIGNAN, CARD. Les Juifs captifs en Chaldée 
(606-536 B. C.). Correspondant, Bd. 171, pp. 

NESTLE, E. The Variorum Septuagint. Trans. 
Orient. Congr. at London, 1892, Vol. II., pp- 
57-61. 

PECHIN, E. Le probléme de la vie dans l’An- 
cien Test. Paris, 1893. 

PETRAU, J. Hat der evang. Christ vor d. krit- 
ischen Behandl’g. d. Bibel etwas zu fiirch- 


ten? Braunschweig, 1893.............. M.1. 
RaAssaAM, H. The garden of Eden and Biblical 
Sages. London, 1898...............+5+ 1s. 6d. 


Rey, O. Le systéme de chronologie biblique 
de M. M. Chevallier et Dumax. Rev. bibl., 
1893, 4, pp. 560-83. 

Riess, L. Waren die Kinder Israel jemais in 
Aegypten? Jahrb., LXXIV., pp. 430-48. 

Ronatser, F. Biblia y egiptologia. Barcelona. 


Srecrist,G. A. L’idée du sacrifice dans l’An- 
cien Testament. Paris, 1893. 

SPIEKER, G. F. The negative criticism of the 
Old Testament. Luth. Ch. Rev., Oct., 1893, 
pp. 335-48. 

VUILLEUMIER, H. Les résultats des travaux 
les plus récents sur |’Ancien Test. et leur 
influence sur l’histoire de la religion et sur 
la dogmatique. Rev. de theol. et de philos., 
1893, pp. 241-66; 303-37; 402-23. 

Viagourovux, F. Manuel biblique, ou cours 
d’Ecriture sainte, Ancien Test. 8° éd., rev. 
et augm. T. 1. Introd. générale; Penta- 
teuque. T. 2. Livres historiques, sapien- 
tiaux, prophétiques. Paris, 1892-94. 

Z6CKLER,O. Eden,Ophir, Ephraim, Drei un- 
lésbare u. doch fruchtbare Probleme bib- 
lischer Forschung. (Bibl. u. Kirchenhist. 
Studien von O. Zéckler. Heft 5.) Miinch- 


PALESTINE. 
SmitH, H. Syrian research since 1886. Trans. 
Orient. Congr. at London, 1892, Vol. II., pp. 


402-7. 
*9 


223 


DESIMONI, C. Una carta della Terra Santa del 
secolo XIV. nell’ Archivio di stato in Fir- 
enze. Arch. stor. Ital. Ser. V., T. XI., pp. 
241-58. 

JACOBI, KARL. Wandkarte v. Palistina f. die 
Volkschule. 1:300,000 2 sheets a 59.58 
centim. Wiesbaden, 1893. 

Eine grosse Reliefkarte von Palistina. Globus, 
LXIV., p. 268. 

Karta Ofver Palestina efter “Palestine Expl. 
Fund’s Map of Palestine,’ och andra kiillor 
under medverkan af Magnus Roth utférd 
vid generalstabens litogr. austalt; Skala 
1:200,000, 4 sheets. Stockholm, 1893. 

Voyage d’Selme Adornes 4 Jérusalem et au 
mont Sinai, en 1470, texte flamand de Rom- 
boudt de Doppele, publié d’aprés le MS. 
original par E. Feys. Ann. de la soc. dém- 
ulation pour Vét. de Vhist. et des antiquités 
dela Flandre. Ser. V., T. IV., 1891. 

ALBANY, A. Jérusalem et les sanctuaires de 
la Judée. Paris, 1804.........ccceccsees Fr. 5. 

BALDENSPERGER, PH. J. Peasant Folklore of 
Palestine. Quar. Stat., July 1893, pp. 203-19. 

Religion of the Fellahin of Palestine. 
Ibid., pp. 307-20. 

BALME, FR. La province dominizaine de Terre 
Sainte de Janvier 1277 a Oct. 1280. Rev. de 
@’Or. lat., Vol. I., pp. 526-36. 

BAUER, B. Nach dem heilg. Lande. Reise 
nach Italien, Aegypten u. Pal. 2' Aufi. 
Radolfzell, 1893. 

Botton, H.C. Four weeks in the wilderness 
of Sinai, with Notes on Egypt. Bul. Am. 
Geogr. Soc., XXII., 4, pp. 574-98. 

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C. L’Embouchere du 
Jourdain dans la Mer Morte. Acad. in- 
scrip. et belles-lettres: Comp. Rend., 4°, 
Sér. XXI. p. 14. 

Note on Prof. F. F. Wright’s inscribed 

weight or bead. Quar. Stat., July, 1893, p. 

257. 








Note on an ancient weight found at 
Gaza. Ibid., p. 3058q. 

ConpDER, C. R. Shishak’s List. Ibid., p.245sq. 

EINSLER, A. Beobachtungen iib. den Aus- 
satz im heiligen Lande. ZDPV., Bd. XVI., 
pp. 247-55. 











224 


Fkvau, P. Des villes mortes i la mer. Rev. 
Terre Sainte, X., pp. 220-3; 250-8; 266-9; 285- 
%; 817-9; 331-4; 344-8; 364-8; 373-5. 

FROHNMEYER, J. Bijbelsche aardrijkskunde. 
lle uitgraf. Bewerkt door H. van Zuylen. 
INE, EUR aii nb s0so00ccnceonsnconss Fr. 1.60. 

HA.LéEvy, J. L’etat de Palestine avant l’Exode. 
Actes VIII. Congr. Orient., Sect. sém. (II.), 
pp. 141-52. 

HARPER, H. A. and GEIKIE, C. 

400 orig. illustr. 


Bildergriisse 
aus dem heilig. Lande. 
Charlottenberg, 1893. 

Hurwitz, I. ‘ny now oy. Warsaw, 1893. 

MUEHLAU, F. Beitriige zur Pal. literatur im 


Ausschluss an Roébrichts Bibliotheca geog. 
Pales. ZDPV., Bd. XVI., pp. 209-34. 


HEBRAICA. 


MurRRAY, A.8. Note on the inscription found 
at Tabitha near Jaffa. Quar. Stat., Oct., 
1898, p. 300. 

ROHRICHT, R. Zur Bibliotheca geog. Pales- 
tinae. ZDPV., XVI., pp. 269-96. 

Scuick,C. Neu aufgedeckte Griber in Jeru- 
salem. ZDPV.,XVL., pp. 202-5. 








Jerusalem nach Ps. 122:3. Ibid., pp. 
206-8. 
Die Baugeschichte der Stadt Jerusalem 


in kurzem Umrissen von den dltesten 
Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart dargestellt. 
Ibid., pp. 287-46. 

SCHUMACHER, G. Ergebnisse meiner Reise 
durch Hauran, ’Adschlin u. Belka. 


ZDPV., XVI., pp. 153-70. 




















GENERAL INDEX. 


A Critical Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch................ Rian een ie 122 
PVT OGRCED INGIOS 6 5:. 5 cine c cSc neces ees veins oe Sai iets reo ia aaa eee ater, 196 
Barton, Prof. George A., The Semitic [star Cult.. ...... ........ eee reades 1 
sebaseotaiae © NNN 2 3s Gis 0.9 's iG HAG (a oo:di oro FSW ASG 59'S 515 AR WIA ercid ww OinisloIsrmaieleere wis 202 


Book Notices: Bezold’s Oriental Diplomacy, 107; Harper’s Assyrian Let- 
ters, 108; Erman’s Egypt, 208; A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian 
Language, 212. 

Contributed Notes: Corrections to the text of the Monolith of Shalmanesar 
as given in ‘* Hebraica,”’ II., No. 3, 106. 

Craig, Prof. James A., Prayer of the Assyrian King Asurbanipal (cir. 650 
MB ose ers cee ea w Siti 3S WwW UO RAS 5a NT ais ow Pewmarine eons 75 

Critical Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, A................ cece cece eeee 122 

Derenbourg, Hartwig, Livre intitulé Laisa, sur les Exceptions de la Langue 
Arabe, par Ibn Khialofiya, dit Ibn Khalawaihi. Texte Arabe publié 


d’aprés le manuscrit unique du British Museum................6...08 98 
External Evidence of the Exodus, The.................. Manone pen oiier 159 
Harper, Prof. Robert F., Assyriological Notes................ccceeee cece 196 
PASMOW, 1POL. MAOITIS, L., MUSANNIGUN) 5 o<.0s.0/6 54500 cc ccisiesecesdensce see's 193 


Livre intitulé Laisa, sur les Exceptions de la Langue Arabe, par Ibn Kha- 
lotiya, dit Ibn Khalawaihi. Texte Arabe publié d’aprés le manuscrit 


SRRNINNND ERD, St RNID ooo aoe Gis ae ios 4s ed is a Wisinis aeeleasinpieeceeeils 88 
Margolis, Prof. Max L., Notes on Semitic Grammar............ 0 ........ 188 
ED a tcarahankieet ss. vhesW end eens mad seis sananeandsxeeeeeGns 198 
eee a ian ois cis Sosa ooh ss SSN SO ae Od le aod olde Wale aw enw Heieisinee 202 
ee eT PRE A RINE 05 84 ih eho ale b'e Ge eae S wee wie olla oelsinawes 188 
On the Hebrew Element in Slavo-Judaeo-German..................00.005- 175 


Paton, Prof. Lewis B., The Relation of Lev. xx. to Lev. Xvil.-XIx........ 111 





226 HEBRAICA. 


Prayer of the Assyrian King Asurbanipal (cir. 650 B. C.).................. 


Relation of Lev. xx. to Lev. xviI.-x1x., The 
Schmidt, Prof, Nathaniel, The External Evidence of the Exodus 


Semitic Bibliography 

Semitic [star Cult, The 

The External Evidence of the Exodus 

Pp ene OF Bev. Kx. G0 EO. RVI AKERS o.oo occ scicicossasiecsceneeee 
The Semitic [tar Cult. . 

Watson, Rev. W: Scott, A Critical Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch 


Wiener, Leo, On the Hebrew Element in Slavo-Judaeo-German