[1] Similarly a Syrian story tells how the Druses came to slay
Ibrahim Pasha's troops, and desiring to spare the Syrians ordered the
men to say _gamal_ (camel). As the Syrians pronounce the _g_ soft,
and the Egyptians the _g_, hard, the former were easily identified.
Other examples from the East will be found in H. C. Kay, _Yaman_, p.
36, and in S. Lane-Poole, _History of Egypt in the Middle Ages_, p.
300. Also, at the Sicilian Vespers (March 13, 1282) the French were
made to betray themselves by their pronunciation of _ceci_ and
_ciceri_ (Ital. _c_ like _tch_; Fr. _c_ like _s_).
JERAHMEEL, (Heb. "May God pity"), in the Bible, a clan which with Caleb,
the Kenites and others, occupied the southern steppes of Palestine,
probably in the district around Arad, about 17 m. S. of Hebron. It was
on friendly terms with David during his residence at Ziklag (1 Sam. xxx.
29), and it was apparently in his reign that the various elements of the
south were united and were reckoned to Israel. This is expressed in the
chronicler's genealogies which make Jerahmeel and Caleb descendants of
Judah (see DAVID; JUDAH).
On the names in 1 Chron. ii. see S. A. Cook, _Ency. Bib._, col. 2363
seq. Peleth (v. 33) may be the origin of the Pelethites (2 Sam. viii.
18; xv. 18; xx. 7), and since the name occurs in the revolt of Korah
(Num. xvi. 1), it is possible that Jerahmeel, like Caleb and the
Kenites, had moved northwards from Kadesh. Samuel (q.v.) was of
Jerahmeel (1 Sam. i. 1; Septuagint), and the consecutive Jerahmeelite
names Nathan and Zabad (1 Chron. ii. 36) have been associated with the
prophet and officer (Zabud, 1 Kings iv. 5) of the times of David and
Solomon respectively. The association of Samuel and Nathan with this
clan, if correct, is a further illustration of the importance of the
south for the growth of biblical history (see KENITES and RECHABITES).
The _Chronicles of Jerahmeel_ (M. Gaster, _Oriental Translation Fund_,
1899) is a late production containing a number of apocryphal Jewish
legends of no historical value. (S. A. C.)
JERBA, an island off the coast of North Africa in the Gulf of Gabes,
forming part of the regency of Tunisia. It is separated from the
mainland by two narrow straits, and save for these channels blocks the
entrance to a large bight identified with the Lake Triton of the Romans.
The western strait, opening into the Gulf of Gabes, is a mile and a half
broad; the eastern strait is wider, but at low water it is possible to
cross to the mainland by the Tarik-el-Jemil (road of the camel). The
island is irregular in outline, its greatest length and breadth being
some 20 m., and its area 425 sq. m. It contains neither rivers nor
springs, but is supplied with water by wells and cisterns. It is flat
and well wooded with date palms and olive trees. Pop. 35,000 to 40,000,
the bulk of the inhabitants being Berbers. Though many of them have
adopted Arabic a Berber idiom is commonly spoken. An affinity exists
between the Berbers of Jerba and the Beni Mzab. About 3000 Jews live
apart in villages of their own, and some 400 Europeans, chiefly Maltese
and Greeks, are settled in the island. Jerba has a considerable
reputation for the manufacture of the woollen tissues interwoven with
silk which are known as burnous stuffs; a market for the sale of sponges
is held from November till March; and there is a considerable export
trade in olives, dates, figs and other fruits. The capital, trading
centre and usual landing-place are at Haumt-es-Suk (market quarter) on
the north side of the island (pop. 2500). Here are a medieval fort,
built by the Spaniards in 1284, and a modern fort, garrisoned by the
French. Gallala, to the south, is noted for the manufacture of a kind of
white pottery, much prized. At El Kantara (the bridge) on the eastern
strait, and formerly connected with the mainland by a causeway, are
extensive ruins of a Roman city--probably those of Meninx, once a
flourishing seaport.
Jerba is the Lotophagitis or Lotus-eaters' Island of the Greek and Roman
geographers, and is also identified with the Brachion of Scylax. The
modern name appears as early as the 4th century in Sextus Aurelius
Victor. In the middle ages the possession of Jerba was contested by the
Normans of Sicily, the Spaniards and the Turks, the Turks proving
victorious. In 1560 after the destruction of the Spanish fleet off the
coast of the island by Piali Pasha and the corsair Dragut the Spanish
garrison at Haumt-es-Suk was exterminated, and a pyramid, 10 ft. broad
at the base and 20 ft. high, was built of their skulls and other bones.
In 1848 this pyramid was pulled down at the instance of the Christian
community, and the bones were buried in the Catholic cemetery. In
general, from the Arab invasion in the 7th century Jerba shared the
fortunes of Tunisia.
See H. Barth, _Wanderungen durch die Küstenl. des Mittelmeeres_
(Berlin, 1849); and H. von Maltzan, _Reise in Tunis und Tripolis_
(Leipzig, 1870).
JERBOA, properly the name of an Arabian and North African jumping rodent
mammal, _Jaculus aegyptius_ (also known as _Jaculus_, or _Dipus_,
_jaculus_) typifying the family _Jaculidae_ (or _Dipodidae_), but in a
wider sense applied to most of the representatives of that family, which
are widely distributed over the desert and semi-desert tracts of the Old
World, although unknown in Africa south of the Sahara. In all the more
typical members of the family the three middle metatarsals of the long
hind-legs are fused into a cannon-bone; and in the true jerboas of the
genus _Jaculus_ the two lateral toes, with their supporting metatarsals,
are lost, although they are present in the alactagas (_Alactaga_), in
which, however, as in certain allied genera, only the three middle toes
are functional. As regards the true jerboas, there is a curious
resemblance in the structure of their hind-legs to that obtaining among
birds. In both groups, for instance, the lower part of the hind-leg is
formed by a long, slender cannon-bone, or metatarsus, terminating
inferiorly in triple condyles for the three long and sharply clawed
toes, the resemblance being increased by the fact that in both cases the
small bone of the leg (fibula) is fused with the large one (tibia). It
may also be noticed that in mammals and birds which hop on two legs,
such as jerboas, kangaroos, thrushes and finches, the proportionate
length of the thigh-bone or femur to the tibia and foot (metatarsus and
toes) is constant, being 2 to 5; in animals, on the other hand, such as
hares, horses and frogs, which use all four feet, the corresponding
lengths are 4 to 7. The resemblance between the jerboa's and the bird's
skeleton is owing to adaptation to a similar mode of existence. In the
young jerboa the proportion of the femur to the rest of the leg is the
same as in ordinary running animals. Further, at an early stage of
development the fibula is a complete and separate bone, while the three
metatarsals, which subsequently fuse together to form the cannon-bone,
are likewise separate. In addition to their long hind and short fore
limbs, jerboas are mostly characterized by their silky coats--of a fawn
colour to harmonize with their desert surroundings--their large eyes,
and long tails and ears. As is always the case with large-eared animals,
the tympanic bullae of the skull are of unusually large size; the size
varying in the different genera according to that of the ears. (For the
characteristics of the family and of its more important generic
representatives, see RODENTIA.)
In the Egyptian jerboa the length of the body is 8 in., and that of
the tail, which is long, cylindrical and covered with short hair
terminated by a tuft, 10 in. The five-toed front limbs are extremely
short, while the hind pair are six times as long. When about to
spring, this jerboa raises its body by means of the hinder
extremities, and supports itself at the same time upon its tail, while
the fore-feet are so closely pressed to the breast as to be scarcely
visible, which doubtless suggested the name _Dipus_, or two-footed. It
then leaps into the air and alights upon its four feet, but
instantaneously erecting itself, it makes another spring, and so on in
such rapid succession as to appear as if rather flying than running.
It is a gregarious animal, living in considerable colonies in burrows,
which it excavates with its nails and teeth in the sandy soil of Egypt
and Arabia. In these it remains during great part of the day, emerging
at night in search of the herbs on which it feeds. It is exceedingly
shy, and this, together with its extraordinary agility, renders it
difficult to capture. The Arabs, however, succeed by closing up all
the exits from the burrows with a single exception, by which the
rodents are forced to escape, and over which a net is placed for their
capture. When confined, they will gnaw through the hardest wood in
order to make their escape. The Persian jerboa (_Alactaga indica_) is
also a nocturnal burrowing animal, feeding chiefly on grain, which it
stores up in underground repositories, closing these when full, and
only drawing upon them when the supply of food above ground is
exhausted (see also JUMPING MOUSE). (R. L.*)
JERDAN, WILLIAM (1782-1869), Scottish journalist, was born on the 16th
of April 1782, at Kelso, Scotland. During the years between 1799 and
1806 he spent short periods in a country lawyer's office, a London West
India merchant's counting-house, an Edinburgh solicitor's chambers, and
held the position of surgeon's mate on board H.M. guardship "Gladiator"
in Portsmouth Harbour, under his uncle, who was surgeon. He went to
London in 1806, and became a newspaper reporter. He was in the lobby of
the House of Commons on the 11th of May 1812 when Spencer Perceval was
shot, and was the first to seize the assassin. By 1812 he had become
editor of _The Sun_, a semi-official Tory paper; he occasionally
inserted literary articles, then quite an unusual proceeding; but a
quarrel with the chief proprietor brought that engagement to a close in
1817. He passed next to the editor's chair of the _Literary Gazette_,
which he conducted with success for thirty-four years. Jerdan's position
as editor brought him into contact with many distinguished writers. An
account of his friends, among whom Canning was a special intimate, is to
be found in his _Men I have Known_ (1866). When Jerdan retired in 1850
from the editorship of the _Literary Gazette_ his pecuniary affairs were
far from satisfactory. A testimonial of over £900 was subscribed by his
friends; and in 1853 a government pension of 100 guineas was conferred
on him by Lord Aberdeen. He published his _Autobiography_ in 1852-1853,
and died on the 11th of July 1869.
JEREMIAH, in the Bible, the last pre-exilic prophet (fl. 626-586 B.C.?),
son of Hilkiah.
_Early Days of Jeremiah._--There must anciently have existed one or more
prose works on Jeremiah and his times, written partly to do honour to
the prophet, partly to propagate those views respecting Israel's past
with which the name of Jeremiah was associated. Some fragments of this
work (or these works) have come down to us; they greatly add to the
popularity of the Book of Jeremiah. Strict historical truth we must not
ask of them, but they do give us what was believed concerning Jeremiah
in the following age, and we must believe that the personality so
honoured was an extraordinary one. We have also a number of genuine
prophecies which admit us into Jeremiah's inner nature. These are our
best authorities, but they are deficient in concrete facts. By birth
Jeremiah was a countryman; he came of a priestly family whose estate lay
at Anathoth "in the land of Benjamin" (xxxii. 3; cf. i. 1). He came
forward as a prophet in the thirteenth year of Josiah (626 B.C.), still
young but irresistibly impelled. Unfortunately the account of the call
and of the object of the divine caller come to us from a later hand (ch.
i.), but we can well believe that the concrete fact which the prophetic
call illuminated was an impending blow to the state (i. 13-16; cf. ch.
iv.). What the blow exactly was is disputed,[1] but it is certain that
Jeremiah saw the gathering storm and anticipated its result, while the
statesmen were still wrapped in a false security. Five years later came
the reform movement produced by the "finding" of the "book of the law"
in the Temple in 621 B.C. (2 Kings xxii. 8), and some critics have
gathered from Jer. xi. 1-8 that Jeremiah joined the ranks of those who
publicly supported this book in Jerusalem and elsewhere. To others this
view appears in itself improbable. How can a man like Jeremiah have
advocated any such panacea? He was indeed not at first a complete
pessimist, but to be a preacher of Deuteronomy required a sanguine
temper which a prophet of the school of Isaiah could not possess.
Besides, there is a famous passage (viii. 8, see R.V.) in which Jeremiah
delivers a vehement attack upon the "scribes" (or, as we might render,
"bookmen") and their "false pen." If, as Wellhausen and Duhm suppose,
this refers to Deuteronomy (i.e. the original Deuteronomy), the
incorrectness of the theory referred to is proved. And even if we think
that the phraseology of viii. 8 applies rather to a body of writings
than to a single book, yet there is no good ground (xi. 1-8 and xxxiv.
12 being of doubtful origin) for supposing that Jeremiah would have
excepted Deuteronomy from his condemnation.
_Stages of his Development._--At first our prophet was not altogether a
pessimist. He aspired to convince the better minds that the only hope
for Israelites, as well as for Israel, lay in "returning" to the true
Yahweh, a deity who was no mere national god, and was not to be cajoled
by the punctual offering of costly sacrifices. When Jeremiah wrote iv.
1-4 he evidently considered that the judgment could even then be
averted. Afterwards he became less hopeful, and it was perhaps a closer
acquaintance with the manners of the capital that served to
disillusionize him. He began his work at Anathoth, but v. 1-5 (as Duhm
points out) seems to come from one who has just now for the first time
"run to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem," observing and observed.
And what is the result of his expedition? That he cannot find a single
just and honest man; that high and low, rich and poor, are all ignorant
of the true method of worshipping God ("the way of Yahweh," v. 4). It
would seem as if Anathoth were less corrupt than the capital, the moral
state of which so shocked Jeremiah. And yet he does not really go beyond
the great city-prophet Isaiah who calls the men of Jerusalem "a people
of Gomorrah" (i. 10). With all reverence, an historical student has to
deduct something from both these statements. It is true that commercial
prosperity had put a severe strain on the old morality, and that contact
with other peoples, as well as the course of political history, had
appeared to lower the position of the God of Israel in relation to other
gods. Still, some adherents of the old Israelitish moral and religious
standards must have survived, only they were not to be found in the
chief places of concourse, but as a rule in coteries which handed on the
traditions of Amos and Isaiah in sorrowful retirement.
_Danger of Book Religion._--Probably, too, even in the highest class
there were some who had a moral sympathy with Jeremiah; otherwise we can
hardly account for the contents of Deuteronomy, at least if the book
"found" in the Temple at all resembled the central portion of our
Deuteronomy. And the assumption seems to be confirmed by the respectful
attitude of certain "elders of the land" in xxvi. 17 sqq., and of the
"princes" in xxxvi. 19, 25, towards Jeremiah, which may, at any rate in
part, have been due to the recent reform movement. If therefore Jeremiah
aimed at Deuteronomy in the severe language of viii. 8, he went too far.
History shows that book religion has special dangers of its own.[2]
Nevertheless the same incorruptible adviser also shows that book
religion may be necessary as an educational instrument, and a compromise
between the two types of religion is without historical precedent.
_Reaction: Opposition to Jeremiah._--This, however, could not as yet be
recognized by the friends of prophecy, even though it seemed for a time
as if the claims of book religion were rebuffed by facts. The death of
the pious king Josiah at Megiddo in 608 B.C. dashed the high hopes of
the "book-men," but meant no victory for Jeremiah. Its only result for
the majority was a falling back on the earlier popular cultus of the
Baals, and on the heathen customs introduced, or reintroduced, by
Josiah's grandfather, Manasseh. Would that we possessed the section of
the prophet's biography which described his attitude immediately after
the news of the battle of Megiddo! Let us, however, be thankful for what
we have, and notably for the detailed narratives in chs. xxvi. and
xxxvi. The former is dated in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim,
though Wellhausen suspects that the date is a mistake, and that the real
occasion was the death of Josiah. The one clear-sighted patriot saw the
full meaning of the tragedy of Megiddo, and for "prophesying against
this city"--secured, as men thought, by the Temple (vii. 4)--he was
accused by "the priests, the prophets, and all the people" of high
treason. But the divinity which hedged a prophet saved him. The
"princes," supported by certain "elders" and by "the people" (quick to
change their leaders), succeeded in quashing the accusation and setting
the prophet free. No king, be it observed, is mentioned. The latter
narrative is still more exciting. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (= the
first of Nebuchadrezzar, xxv. 1) Jeremiah was bidden to write down "all
the words that Yahweh had spoken to him against Jerusalem (so LXX.),
Judah and all the nations from the days of Josiah onwards" (xxxvi. 2).
So at least the authors of Jeremiah's biography tell us. They add that
in the next year Jeremiah's scribe Baruch read the prophecies of
Jeremiah first to the people assembled in the Temple, then to the
"princes," and then to the king, who decided his own future policy by
burning Baruch's roll in the brazier. We cannot, however, bind ourselves
to this tradition. Much more probably the prophecy was virtually a new
one (i.e. even if some old passages were repeated yet the setting was
new), and the burden of the prophecy was "The king of Babylon shall come
and destroy this land."[3] We cannot therefore assent to the judgment
that "we have, at least as regards [the] oldest portions [of the book]
information considerably more specific than is usual in the case of the
writings of the prophets."[4]
_Fall of the State._--Under Zedekiah the prophet was less fortunate.
Such was the tension of feeling that the "princes," who were formerly
friendly to Jeremiah, now took up an attitude of decided hostility to
him. At last they had him consigned to a miry dungeon, and it was the
king who (at the instance of the Cushite Ebed-melech) intervened for his
relief, though he remained a prisoner in other quarters till the fall of
Jerusalem (586 B.C.). Nebuchadrezzar, who is assumed to have heard of
Jeremiah's constant recommendations of submission, gave him the choice
either of going to Babylon or of remaining in the country (chs. xxxviii.
seq.). He chose the latter and resided with Gedaliah, the native
governor, at Mizpah. On the murder of Gedaliah he was carried to Mizraim
or Egypt, or perhaps to the land of Mizrim in north Arabia--against his
will (chs. xl.-xliii.). How far all this is correct we know not. The
graphic style of a narrative is no sufficient proof of its truth.
Conceivably enough the story of Jeremiah's journey to Egypt (or Mizrim)
may have been imagined to supply a background for the artificial
prophecies ascribed to Jeremiah in chs. xlvi.-li. A legend in Jerome and
Epiphanius states that he was stoned to death at Daphnae, but the
biography, though not averse from horrors, does not mention this.
_A Patriot?_--Was Jeremiah really a patriot? The question has been
variously answered. He was not a Phocion, for he never became the tool
of a foreign power. To say with Winckler[5] that he was "a decided
adherent of the Chaldean party" is to go beyond the evidence. He did
indeed counsel submission, but only because his detachment from party
gave him a clearness of vision (cf. xxxviii. 17, 18) which the
politicians lacked. How he suffered in his uphill course he has told us
himself (xv. 10-21). In after ages the oppressed people saw in his love
for Israel and his patient resignation their own realized ideal. "And
Onias said, This is the lover of the brethren, he who prayeth much for
the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the prophet of God" (2 Macc. xv.
14). And in proportion as the popular belief in Jeremiah rose, fresh
prophecies were added to the book (notably those of the new covenant and
of the restoration of the people after seventy years) to justify it.
Professor N. Schmidt has gone further into the character of this
sympathetic prophet, _Ency. Bib._ "Jeremiah," § 5.
_Jeremiah's Prophecies._--It has been said above that our best
authorities are Jeremiah's own prophecies. Which may these be? Before
answering we must again point out (see also ISAIAH) that the records
of the pre-exilic prophets came down in a fragmentary form, and that
these fragments needed much supplementing to adapt them to the use of
post-exilic readers. In Jeremiah, as in Isaiah, we must constantly ask
to what age do the phraseology, the ideas and the implied
circumstances most naturally point? According to Duhm there are many
passages in which metre (see also AMOS) may also be a factor in our
critical conclusions. Jeremiah, he thinks, always uses the same metre.
Giesebrecht, on the other hand, maintains that there are passages
which are certainly Jeremiah's, but which are not in what Duhm calls
Jeremiah's metre; Giesebrecht also, himself rather conservative,
considers Duhm remarkably free with his emendations. There has also to
be considered whether the text of the poetical passages has not often
become corrupt, not only from ordinary causes but through the
misunderstanding and misreading of north Arabian names on the part of
late scribes and editors, the danger to Judah from north Arabia being
(it is held) not less in pre-exilic times than the danger from Assyria
and Babylonia, so that references to north Arabia are only to be
expected. To bring educated readers into touch with critical workers
it is needful to acquaint them with these various points, the neglect
of any one of which may to some extent injure the results of
criticism.
It is a new stage of criticism on which we have entered, so that no
single critic can be reckoned as _the_ authority on Jeremiah. But
since the results of the higher criticism depend on the soundness and
thoroughness of the criticism called "lower," and since Duhm has the
advantage of being exceptionally free from that exaggerated respect
for the letters of the traditional text which has survived the
destruction of the old superstitious veneration for the vowel-points,
it may be best to give the student his "higher critical" results,
dated 1901. Let us premise, however, that the portions mentioned in
the 9th edition of the _Ency. Brit._ as having been "entirely or in
part denied," to Jeremiah, viz. x. 1-16; xxx.; xxxiii.; l.-li. and
lii., are still regarded in their present form as non-Jeremianic. The
question which next awaits decision is whether any part of the booklet
on foreign nations (xxv., xlvi.-li.) can safely be regarded as
Jeremianic. Giesebrecht still asserts the genuineness of xxv. 15-24
(apart from glosses), xlvii. (in the main) and xlix. 7, 8, 10, 11.
Against these views see N. Schmidt, _Ency. Bib._, col. 2384.
Let us now listen to Duhm, who analyses the book into six groups of
passages. These are (a) i.-xxv., the "words of Jeremiah." (i. 1); (b)
xxvi.-xxix., passages from Baruch's biography of Jeremiah; (c)
xxx.-xxxi., the book of the future of Israel and Judah; (d)
xxxii.-xlv., from Baruch; (e) xlvi.-li., the prophecies "concerning
the nations";[6] (f) lii., historical appendix. Upon examining these
groups we find that besides a prose letter (ch. xxix.), about sixty
poetical pieces may be Jeremiah's. A: Anathoth passages before 621,
(a) ii. 2b, 3, 14-28; ii. 29-37; iii. 1-5; iii. 12b, 13, 19, 20; iii.
21-25; iv. i, 3, 4; these form a cycle, (b) xxxi. 2-6; 15-20; 21, 22;
another cycle. (c) iv. 5-8; 11b, 12a, 13, 15-17a; 19-21; 23-26; 29-31;
visions and "auditions" of the impending invasion. B: Jerusalem
passages. (d) v. 1-6a; 6b-9; 10-17; vi. 1-5; 6b-8; 9-14; 16, 17, 20;
22-26a; 27-30; vii. 28, 29; viii. 4-7a; 8, 9, 13; 14-17; viii. 18-23;
ix. 1-8; 9 (short song); 16-18; 19-21; x. 19, 20, 22; reign of Josiah,
strong personal element. (e) xxii. 10 (Jehoahaz). xxii. 13-17;
probably too xi. 15, 16; xii. 7-12 (Jehoiakim). xxii. 18, 19, perhaps
too xxii. 6b, 7; 20-23; and the cycle xiii. 15, 16; 17; 18, 19; 20,
21a, 22-25a, 26, 27 (later, Jehoiakim). xxii. 24; xxii. 28
(Jehoiachin). (f) Later poems. xiv. 2-10; xv. 5-9; xvi. 5-7; xviii.
13-17; xxiii. 9-12; 13-15; xi. 18-20; xv. 10-12; 15-19a, and 20, 21;
xvii. 9, 10, 14, 16, 17; xviii. 18-20; xx. 7-11; xx. 14-18; xiv. 17,
18; xvii. 1-4; xxxviii. 24; assigned to the close of Zedekiah's time.
_Two Recensions of the Text._--It has often been said that we have
virtually two recensions of the text, that represented by the
Septuagint and the Massoretic text, and critics have taken different
sides, some for one and some for the other. "Recension," however, is a
bad term; it implies that the two texts which undeniably exist were
the result of revising and editing according to definite critical
principles. Such, however, is not the case. It is true that "there are
(in the LXX.) many omissions of words, sentences, verses and whole
passages, in fact, that altogether about 2700 words are wanting, or
the eighth part of the Massoretic text" (Bleek). It may also be
admitted that the scribes who produced the Hebrew basis of the
Septuagint version, conscious of the unsettled state of the text, did
not shrink from what they considered a justifiable simplification. But
we must also grant that those from whom the "written" Hebrew text
proceeds allowed themselves to fill up and to repeat without any
sufficient warrant. In each case in which there is a genuine
difference of reading between the two texts, it is for the critic to
decide; often, however, he will have to seek to go behind what both
the texts present in order to constitute a truer text than either.
Here is the great difficulty of the future. We may add to the credit
of the Septuagint that the position given to the prophecies on "the
nations" (chs. xlvi.-li. in our Bible) in the Septuagint is probably
more original than that in the Massoretic text. On this point see
especially Schmidt, _Ency. Bib._ "Jeremiah (Book)" §§ 6 and 21;
Davidson, Hastings's _Dict. Bible_, ii. 573b-575; Driver,
_Introduction_ (8th ed.), pp. 269, 270.
The best German commentary is that of Cornill (1905). A skilful
translation by Driver, with notes intended for ordinary students
(1906) should also be mentioned. (T. K. C.)