The

guidance as the student of Hebrew will really find helpful. present volume offers information which in too many instances is superfluous, insufficient, and even misleading. These are no light accusations, and we are sorry there is so much evidence to support them. Would it not be somewhat surprising if, in a Commentary on Vergil intended for the use of students who are presumed to know the regular verbs, the writer were to occupy space by parsing words which should be familiar to a young schoolboy? Yet Dr. Barton takes the trouble to explain grammatical forms which should be obvious enough to a serious student of Hebrew within twelve months of his learning the alphabet.

Is it desired to make Ecclesiastes a first reader for elementary students? This word is a 'feminine participle'; that is a 'Poal participle'; another is a 'Piel participle.' Here is a Hiph-infinitive used adverbially'; there is a game of the pre-tone. One form is a Hiphil, another is a Niphal. Here is a feminine word making plural in im. But the most curious instance of this feature of the notes is the statement that the definite article is here rightly pointed' (p. 141), where the allusion is to a perfectly regular and obvious pointing, to which the exceptions are so few as to be numbered by the fingers of one hand, with two or three fingers to spare after allowing for a dubious case.

Again, some notes seem insufficient. Chances are missed. For example, in speaking of the syntax of malákh no mention is made of the frequent construction with Bêth (p. 85). In noticing nuh we are not reminded of the two forms of the Hiphil, and the shade of meaning each supplies (pp. 94, 132). While supporting the Massoretic reading in iv. 14, Dr. Barton ignores the altogether anomalous pointing of the article (p. 121), the note being thus in odd contrast to that on vii. 2 (p. 141). In dealing with vii. 25 (p. 148) it is not observed that késel may be a genitive, with résha' in construct state. The accent would support this (see R.V. margin). There seems to be no particular reason for the note as to Baer's reading of ii. 3 (p. 89), for nothing is said about the possible force of paseq with mûnaḥ--a point well worth comment. Further the note as it stands is nearly useless, for paseq is printed as waw.

Few of the notes fortunately are actually misleading, but it is surprising to find any in a work of this kind. Tobiah-benEleazar's comment (p. 67) is incorrectly translated: collects, assembles,' should be collects assemblies'; and among rabbis

should be 'in public' (i.e. among the many '). It is misleading to refer to strong waw with ending -ah as expressing ́ purpose in i. 17 (p. 87). To say this is to say too much or too little. The cohortative ending may, no doubt, now and again add vivacity or even suggest the direction in which the will exerted itself ' (Driver, Tenses, § 72). But often there is no additional emphasis at all (cf. Davidson, Syntax, § 51, Rem. 7). A brief statement of the essential facts as to this verbal form would have been useful.

On the same page is another statement which surely needs qualification; Sheggám is said to be 'not necessarily a late expression,' an assertion supported by a reference to Gen. vi. 3 (J). But, notoriously, its occurrence there is open to question. Some texts read Shaggām (the rest read Shaggám, not Sheggám) and it has been claimed as an infinitive of a verb ' to wander.' Thus for that he also is flesh' would be on account of their wandering [i.e. error] he is flesh.' No clear instance of the relative shin occurs in the Pentateuch (outside one or two doubtful proper names), and therefore this isolated passage can hardly be relied upon, even if the pointing were undisputed. In noticing the textual emendation proposed for the last word of ii. 25 (third person instead of first) is Dr. Barton justified in saying that the received text gives no intelligible meaning'? (p. 97). Surely it is conceivable that Qoheleth is claiming that no one has tasted life more freely than he has. Undoubtedly the reading of the LXX. and Vulgate &c. is more edifying (see R.V. marg.) but the old reading at least is possible. In iii. 21, we cannot help thinking that Dr. Barton is over-bold in correcting Gesenius-Kautzsch in regard to the pointing of the interrogative particle. Is there any clear instance where it occurs with games before gutturals? The only passage here cited is Num. xvi. 22. But did not the Massoretes intend the article and not the particle there? (see Ges.-K. § 100 m). And surely Isa. xxvii. 6, has nothing to do with the case. In v. 1 (Hebrew iv. 17) we find it stated that ' analogies can be adduced for the plural' (of 'foot'), p. 124. But the reference is to a passage (Ps. cxix. 59) which gives a dual form! The only instances of the plural of réghel (there are four) are without any suffix; and they only occur in the phrase ' three times' (i.e. paces, steps)! Again, is Qoheleth inaccurate in ii. 6, in using the masculine for therefrom'? (p. 90). We are told that mehém should be mehén to agree with 'pools' (fem.). But is not the concord rather with 'waters' (masc.)? Trees are watered from what a pool contains, unless the pool is dry,

The masculine seems appropriate enough, particularly as it is the nearer word to' therefrom.' Another misleading note is that on p. 66, where we are told that the root QH L'in Aram. is used in Ni. and Hi. in the same meanings as in Heb.' But Aramaic does not know a Niphal; and the Hebrew Hiphil is the Aramaic Haphel conjugation.

It is unfortunate for the book that the proofs have been read carelessly. Misprints abound. We have noticed a hundred in this work of little over 200 pages. They are found in the Hebrew, the English and the Greek. Those in Hebrew words are usually unimportant, but it is strange that the Greek of Ecclesiastes should appear as if it were Ecclesiastes, that Theodotion should invariably be spelled 'Theodotian,' and Plumptre' Plumtre.'

The Background of the Gospels, or Judaism in the Period between the Old and New Testaments. By W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A., Minister of Dunnikier United Free Church, Kirkcaldy. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1908.) 8s. net.

MR. FAIRWEATHER has made this subject peculiarly his own, being already known by an article on the 'Development of Doctrine in the Apocryphal Period' in the Extra Volume of Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible and by his edition of 1 Maccabees in the Cambridge Bible. In these 'Cunningham Lectures' he gives us a general survey of the fundamental characteristics of Judaism, in Palestine and in the Diaspora, tracing the growth of the legalistic conception of religion from its beginnings in the book of Ezekiel down to the destruction of Jerusalem. A lucid picture is presented of the opposing tendencies of the national life during this period; the writer admits the difficulty of tracing any single line of development running through the varying phenomena, but holds that in general' the later Judaism represents a religion in the stage of transition from a narrower to a wider phase. We see here the national on the way to become the universal, and ceremonial in process of being superseded by the spiritual.' The importance of the Maccabaean revolt as the water-shed of post-exilic Judaism' is well brought out, and the history of that movement and its sequel, with the alternating ascendency of the Sadducaean and the Pharisaic parties, is briefly sketched. But it is with the literature and the development of doctrine pourtrayed in it, rather than with the external history, that the author is chiefly concerned, and the chapters dealing with the Apocalyptic movement and Hellenistic

Judaism will be read with most interest. Among the Apocalyptic writings, which have been well described as 'Tracts for bad times,' and are rightly, we think, regarded by Mr. Fairweather as essentially lay literature, books emanating from the comparatively uneducated section of the people,' we miss any reference to the little-known Book of Antiquities of pseudo-Philo, of which a critical edition is still needed. The writer has not attempted to deal fully with the bearings of his subject upon the New Testament, but the student of the Gospels will find here many sidelights on their language which fully justify the title of the book. If no strikingly novel views are advanced, it is convenient to find brought together in a single volume, written with sane judgement and in an attractive style, matter which the student has hitherto had to look for in various quarters or in voluminous works. The Appendices contain a bibliography and a collection of extracts from recent authorities, English and foreign; a translation of the German passages might have been welcome to some readers.

A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. For Students familiar with the Elements of Greek. By A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. (Hodder and Stoughton. 1908.) 6s. net.

GRAMMARS of New Testament Greek have been rather abundant of late, and more are yet to come. But students of the Greek Testament, happily, are and always will be numerous, and their needs are not all alike. There is room, we think, for a work such as this, intended to fill an intermediate place between the elaborate works of e.g. Winer-Moulton, J. H. Moulton, or Blass, and the more elementary treatises for beginners. The student at the clergy training college and the busy pastor will find much sound learning in this volume compressed into a small space. The writer is conversant with the latest authorities, but takes a line of his own. He keeps in view the place which the New Testament occupies in the development of the language as a whole. He is a Sanskrit scholar, and his purview ranges from the IndoEuropean origins to the final resultant in modern Greek. The principles on which the student should proceed are briefly and soundly stated, and he is left to apply them himself to the list of illustrative passages which closes each section. The book is never dull, though at times, from a desire for brevity, the style VOL. LXVIII.—NO, CXXXVI.

F F

drops into mere notes or jottings, and the English is occasionally slipshod (e.g. p. 205, 3). There are not a few misprints, which should be removed in the next edition, and some incorrect or questionable statements have been noted. For instance, on p. 40 (e) the single exception made to the correct statement as to the disappearance of reduplication from modern Greek does not in fact exist: for example, ypaμμévos, not yeypaμμévos, is the vernacular form. The explanation of ò in ʼnv (Apoc. i. 4) as a relative (p. 82) is untenable; it cannot be considered apart from the whole phrase in which the words occur.

Histoire des livres du Nouveau Testament.

Par M. l'abbé E. JACQUIER. Vols. III. and IV. (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie. 1908). 3 frs. 50 each.

THESE Volumes, which embrace the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Johannine writings, are pervaded throughout by a spirit of resolute conservatism. The author has provided us with an almost overwhelming thesaurus of New Testament exegesis, past and present, parallel to which, as it were, he expounds his own. His work, learned and prolix as it is, would have been more valuable had he developed his own point of view with more thoroughness, and in the interests of this the too detailed analysis of contents might have been greatly curtailed. Thus on such debatable ground as 2 Peter something less sketchy than his somewhat unsatisfactory discussion is wanted. M. Jacquier accepts in toto the authenticity of the books ascribed by tradition to the beloved disciple.' St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 (la femme adultère) is apparently regarded as an organic part of the Gospel; so with chap. xxi., where, in his argument from the words μerà тavra, the author balances a pyramid on a pin-point; verses 24-25 of the same chapter he regards as'un façon de signature de l'écrivain: c'est moi, le disciple bien-aimé, qui écris cela.' Ultra-conservative ingenuity, surely, is hard put to it here. Especial mention must be made of the minute and valuable discussions on the various questions raised by the Acts of the Apostles. Speaking generally, with much that the learned abbé has to say we are in accord, notwithstanding the impression he somehow conveys that the problems of the New Testament are causes jugées, and that wholly in favour of the traditional view. We commend these volumes as scholarly examples of New Testament criticism from the Romanist side.