REVIEWS D. R. G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 2. xii + 251 pp. Sheffield, 1977. U.K. £ 2.95; Canada and the U.S.A. $ 5.95; Germany DM 15; elsewhere £ 3.75. Originally a St Andrews Ph. D. thesis, this study, reproduced from typescript, is divided into three parts. The first consists of an elementary introduction to the ancient versions, the Midrashic literature and five of the mediaeval commentaries; the second, which is the largest, provides a translation of these commentaries; the third offers some brief conclu- sions about the historical development of Jewish exegesis. The author is certainly to be commended for undertaking such a mammoth task, but his efforts have unfortunately achieved only limited success. The intro- ductory material will be useful to those unfamiliar with the field, but the specialist will find little to convince him that what is here presented is a contribution to scholarship rather than a doctoral dissertation made widely available. In his treatment of the Versions the author does begin to touch upon some interesting comparisons but obviously in a chapter which covers no more than ten pages the reader's appetite can be no more than whetted. As far as the Midrashic material is concerned its presentation as a pot- pourri of traditions is reminiscent of the first part of L. Ginzberg's Legends of tbe jeiv,r but without the comprehensiveness or brilliant notes to com- pensate. No attention is paid to the Sitz im Leben of individual haggadoth nor is any serious effort made to come to grips with the theory which lies behind the Midrashic practice. The survey fares little better as it moves into the mediaeval field since no attempt is made to establish accurate readings nor is satisfactory guidance provided on how the vexing problem of translating these commentaries is to be tackled. In addition, Dr Beattie maintains the sixteenth century attribution of one of the commentaries to David Qimhi in spite of the fact that F. Talmage has recently found that "it shows no evidence of being his work" (David Kimhi : the Man and the Commentaries [Cambridge, Mass., 1975], p. 189). The author's tendency in the concluding part of his work to set the various exegetical methods of Jewish history against each other and even to weigh them against modern methods also seems to this reviewer to be questionable. To go directly to the heart of the problem-is there such a thing as the "Jewish exegesis" of the book's title and, if so, is it to be defined as it is implicitly by the contents of this volume? There is certainly scope here for a lively discussion and it is a pity that Dr Beattie has not attempted a defence of his position in this. Such shortcomings might have been forgivable had the translations of the mediaeval commentaries, imaginatively including Salmon b. Yeroham 370 and Jellinek's "Ungenannter" as well as the more popular work of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, proved to be reliable and a contribution to making such sources more easily accessible. The renderings, however, even allowing for the inordinate difficulties involved in the undertaking, contain more errors and inaccuracies than even the most liberal of critics can afford to let pass. The following is a selection of those to be found in two of the translations and exemplify the extent of the problem: Ibn Ezra: i 1 (p. 135): (tyd does not mean "past or future or intransi- tive" but "past or future or participle". i 1 (p. 135): mu).rk (fmw av'hr Cmwdoes not mean "serves for itself and for his people" but "serves for itself and another word after it". i 13 (p. 137): mkb ky byd by' klr).vn bnj 'dm dbr hktwb does not mean "This means 'a blow' for in using the word 'hand' the text is speaking metaphorically" but "This means 'a blow' for this is administered by the hand; Scripture is speaking metaphorically". i 16 (p. 137): w"yn mlb ?rb rq does not mean "It is not a strange word, except ..." but "the only exception to the rule is ...". i 20 (p. 137): The reference to is not to the word in Gen. i 11 but to the word in Jer. I I I , with 'alepb for he. i 22 (p. 138): does not mean "as it is found here" but is a reference to the phrase in 1 Chron. xxix 17, either slightly corrupted in the trans- mission of the commentary (Cambridge University Library MS. Add. 1502. 1 has or quoted from memory by Ibn Ezra, or reflecting a variant reading of the Biblical text. ii 12 (p. 139): bbnyn bkbd hnw.rp does not mean the "heavy declension" but the "hif `il conjugation". iii 16 (p. 142): The text )mr 'ly in connection with Jonah ibn Janah is chronologically impossible and the second word should therefore be deleted from the comment and the translation. This is supported by the readings in Cambridge University Library MSS. Add. 403. 1 and Add. 1502.1. iv 4 (p. 143): For bhaa?rymread bravbkm. "Ungenannter" : i 13 (p. 116): mlh tmavb does not mean "a rhetorical question" but "a puzzling word". i 16 (p. l 17) : p(tjw does not mean "princes" but "palaces". i 17 (p. 117): does not mean "I will be buried" but "I desire". ii 5 (p. 121): The various occurrences of the root kns do not here mean "gather" but "enter". ii 19 does not mean "where lib can be (p. 125): zvmtrg' qnh ly " interpreted to mean 'it has acquired for me' but simply "The Targum on Dt. viii 17 renders it qnb ly". ii 19 (p. 125): ? ? does not mean "This is no 'leqet' unless ..." but "This is not `leqet'. Perhaps ... ". ii 21 (p. 125): lbd btivbb does not mean "only good" but "apart from the good". .