Adam J. Howell. <i>Ruth: A Guide to Reading Biblical Hebrew</i>

Isaac Watts learned Hebrew at the age of thirteen and his Hebrew studies doubtless encouraged him to base many of his hymns on the Psalms. Less tender years need enticement to acquire skill in reading Hebrew; in this respect, the book of Ruth has deservedly been a popular choice. It is a touching short story, complete in itself, that pulls the reader forward. It has so much dialogue that it reads like a drama. And it closes with a surprising coda that endows the story with extra significance by using a genealogy to ground it in its proper context in Israel’s literary tradition. Happily, the book is mostly written in Standard Biblical Hebrew, with a few cases of late usage, and the text is pretty well preserved apart from issues in 2:7 and 4:5, while its numerous cases of ketiv and qere provide a useful introduction to a regular Masoretic feature.In reading a biblical book, students need to become versatile in juggling individual morphological features to understand syntactical sentences. Essentially, this is the skill that Howell is endeavoring to teach in this book—intended also for pastors wanting to brush up on their Hebrew—while stimulating interest by providing enough commentary for appreciation of the literary unfolding. The introduction to the book first observes the importance of Hebrew for biblical theology. It notes that particular aspects of the grammatical nomenclature will be explained in line with Arnold and Choi’s intermediate grammar; throughout the book, there are also references for followup to earlier, standard grammars, to Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. The book’s “unique features” are cited as (1) careful explanations of forms of weak verbs, which are then repeated each time throughout the book, (2) division of sentences according to accents (a novel but useful feature), and (3) attention to the Masoretic marginal notes. The body of the book presents each section of the text in turn, with the author’s own literal translation and the pointed, accented Hebrew on opposite pages, followed by extensive annotation explaining the Hebrew of each verse and how best it may be rendered in English. In the annotation, the Hebrew text is given once more and then repeated on separate lines in its principal divisions according to accentuation. At the close of the book there are a glossary, Hebrew accent tables, and an extensive bibliography. BHQ is taken into account as well as BHS.There is much to be admired in the annotation and usually it is clear and sufficient, but some cases warrant further attention. At 1:1, the explanation that “the vav-consecutive ‘flips’ the sense of the imperfect” is hardly adequate. The presence of a jussive-like preterite needs to be explicitly acknowledged as a clue to its morphological differentiation from the imperfect in a number of weak verbs. In 1:2, the collective singular for the sons’ “names,” a feature that occurs in v. 9 with another noun and gets mention there, deserves notice. Here assonance was presumably a factor. In 1:8, the ketiv/qere alternatives have the same meaning since in lamed-he verbs in the imperfect form is often used for the jussive according to GKC §109a n. 2. In 1:9, is it not the daughters’ response in view at the close (cf. NAB, NIV, NJB, NJPS, TEV, and REB)? No modification of speakers is indicated in v. 10, where they alone are speaking. In the comment on 1:19 “2fp” should be “3fp.” In 1:15, whether ybmt is used here in a levirate sense is a moot point.1 In footnote 12 relating to 2:2 “GKC §18i” should be “JM §18i.” In 2:11, explanation of the dagesh in the tav of yd‘t in terms of GK §28e n. 2 would be helpful. In the translation of 2:13 (p. 116) “my lord” is omitted; so is “at mealtime” in 2:14 (p. 156). Also, in 2:14, is not the reason for the final patakh in wthr the preference for this vowel that resh has as a quasi-guttural (cf. JM §23b)? In 3:2, malkanu is a blatant mistake for malkenu, but rectifying the mistake will require the assistance of JM §94h. In 3:6, tsiwwattah would benefit from a footnote referring to JM §62d for the backward assimilation; it will be provided later for the case in 4:15. In 3:13, does khay-yhwh literally mean “the life of the Lord” or is khay an adjective (cf. JM §165e and n. 2)? At 4:2, “masculine” is an unfortunate slip for “feminine.” In the translation of 4:4 (p. 242), “to redeem” is omitted. In the Hebrew of 4:6, the double g’l verbal phrase is usually understood in terms of a cognate object, “take my right of redemption.” In the translation of 4:9 (p. 264), ky is rendered “for,” but it is more naturally translated “that,” as in the comment. In the translation of 4:12 (p. 264), “who bore Judah to Tamar” should be “whom Tamar bore to/for Judah,” as the comment correctly implies.In general, the book is to be commended as capable of fulfilling its important purpose. This applies even for learners working by themselves.