Commentaries on the Old Testament: Genesis to Second Samuel

for us sufficient means to carry on the work. We have many others to thank, above all the great libraries of Florence and Rome; Berlin and Göttingen; London, Oxford, Cambridge, and Birmingham; Jerusalem and Charfé (north of Beirut), for the liberality with which they placed their resources at our disposal. Among those who did valiant and often wearisome service in lightening the burden of preliminary labor we are happy to mention Drs. Watson Boyes and T. P. R. Jacobsen, of the Institute staff, Dr. Julius L. Siegel, formerly of the Institute staff, Dr. Milton B. Williams, and Professor Anis Freyha of Beirut. Dr. T. George Allen, of the Institute, and our own University of Chicago Press have contributed greatly toward making this volume what it is. The indexes are, indeed, due wholly to Dr. Allen and his assistants.

It is our hope that scholars will approve our method of publication. The reason for it is twofold. First, as a matter of necessity, a sufficient amount of Syriac type and facile typesetting were not to be had in Chicago. Second, as a matter of choice, we believe that for scholarly purposes, though not for pure and simple school use, a manuscript text plus ample notes and collation is better than any made text. Thus every scholar can find and make his own text to suit his own purposes. Our choice of the great Florentine manuscript was likewise made for two reasons. First, it is undoubtedly the oldest known text. It was written in Barhebraeus' own lifetime, not more than six years after the completion of the work by Barhebraeus himself. This should be placed with our oldest two manuscripts in 1272/3, and not with Göttsberger in 1278, though the latter date is, indeed, that of the Florentine manuscript, which was written by John of Sarw, a disciple of Barhebraeus. Second, this manuscript furnishes us with the neatest, most presentable complete text. Its text is probably also the oldest; in its original form it lacks the touches of a revision which Barhebraeus himself may have made in connection with the writing of his larger grammar, probably about 1284/5. For this revision the manuscripts numbered by us as 2 and 20, together with the modifications introduced in text and margin of the Florentine manuscript itself, furnish the best evidence. Our collation and notes must serve for the present to substantiate this statement. There likewise the groupings of manuscript readings, varying somewhat both in detail and in general in larger sections of the notes on the Old Testament, may be found by him who needs them.

In the meantime, despite Göttsberger's warning (p. 74, n. 3), we present our idea of the text and its meaning in a complete English translation. We do this because we believe that the interest and usefulness of this great work are wider than even Göttsberger saw. As Göttsberger expanded Nöldeke's statement, which assumed that this book would interest only the philologian and the critic of the biblical text, to include the theologian and the historian, the exegete and the philosopher, so we would include further, as men who will find grist for their mill in the great comprehensive work of this wide-awake humanist of the thirteenth century, our anthropologists and sociologists. An article by Mr. Sprengling on "Scapulimancy divination using shoulder blades and the Mongols," accepted for publication by the American Anthropologist, will bring our great scholar to the attention of anthropologists, who are sorely in need of just such information as he furnishes in the most surprising manner and places. And the Storehouse of Mysteries is hereby recommended as valuable source material to such modern sociologists as are as wide awake as its author.

Lest hope for continuation, throughout the Old Testament section at least, be held in abeyance, we may say here that, though far from finished, yet preliminary work, chiefly in Doctors' theses by younger and less experienced men, has progressed so far and has been controlled so thoroughly that the whole is within sight of completion and can, indeed, be brought to a successful conclusion even though the hand of one or both of us should drop from the plow.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
September 11, 1931

M. SPRENGLING
W. C. GRAHAM