26 ; xi. [2, 15, 21, 44 xii. 2; xiii. 32; xxvii. 19 ; Num. x. 31 ; xi. 15, 25 ; xxxii. 29 ; Dem. xxviii. 22, 27) and the Chaldee (comp. on Gen. ix, 27 ; xii. 9 ; xix. 8 ; xxxvii. 3 ; xli. 45 ; Exod.
xxvii. 8 ; xxviii. 20; xxxvi. S ; Deut. i. 37). His ingenious criticisms of the text deserve the greatest attention of the Biblical student and Hebrew grammarian. He denies the existence of diminu tives in Hebrew (see Comment. on Eccl. xii. 5), which is taken for granted by Gesenius (Ilebrew Grammar,. sec. 86, 2, 4) and Ewald cLehrbuch, sec. 167), and most ingeniously accounts for the four letters 'IrIN constituting the original vowels (see Comment. on Eccl. vii. 19). Having tra velled in Italy, Provence, England, Rhodes, Palestine, Africa, and India, this shrewd observer and profound scholar frequently illustrates the manners and customs mentioned in the Bible by those of other nations with whom he mixed (comp. Comment. on Gem iii. 20; xxx. 24 ; xxxviii. 8 ; Num. xii. I), and also makes some valuable re marks on Biblical geography, viz., on Egypt (see Comment. on Gen. ii. II; Exod. vii. 15 ; xiii. 8, 31 ; xx. 8 ; Num. 8); Gadomes (Exod. xxv. 5) ; Arabia (Gen. xxxii. 4 ; Exod. xvi. 3), Palestine (Exod. x. r9); Persia and India (Esther vii. S). His knowledge of the Hebrew Bible was truly wonderful. Though living at a time when no concordances existed, yet he knew whether a word or a certain form of a word was unique or not (comp. Comment. on Gen. vi. ; xli. 23 ; Exod.
ix. 27 ; Levit. 15 ; vi. ; xi. 20 ; xiii. 55 ; Num. xi. 5 ; xxii. 22 ; xxiv. 3 ; Deut. vi. S). Equal to this marvellous knowledge of the Scrip tures was his extensive acquaintance with the best g,rammatical, lexical, and exegetical works of his predecessors and contemporaries, which he con stantly quotes. Aaron Ha-Cohen (Gen. xxxiv. 3o ; xlbc. 6 ; Levit. xviii. 6) ; Abraham Ha-Nassi (Dan. xi. 3); Ben Ha-Jotzer (Dan. x. 25) ; Ibn Sita (Exod. 2 ; xxi. 24 ; xxii. 5, 2S); Ben Ephraim (Exod. xix. 16); Chajug (Gen. xli. 48 ; Exod. vii. 5 ; x. S ; 8 ; Num. x. 36 ; xxiii.
; Deut. xxix. 29; Is. xiv. 20; xxvi. 20; xlix. 5 ; io ; Habak. 19 ; ; Ps. lxviii. 14 ; lxxxiv. 7 ; cii. 28 ; cxxxvii. 2 ; cl. 6 ; Job xxxviii. 5 ; Ruth i. 20 ; Eccl. ix. 12 ; xii. 5) ; Chavi El Balchi (Exod. xiv. 27 ; xvi. ; xxxiv. 29); Dunash b. Tamim (Exod. xxxviii. 9; Eccl. xii. 5) ; Dunash Ha-Levi (Ps. ix. r, 7, ro); Eldad Ha-Dani (Exod. ii. 23) ; Hai Gaon Gob iv. to ; vi. to; xiii. 26 ; xxxi. 32 ; Ps. lviii. to; Is. xlvi. 8; Amos v. 23); Hannanel (Levit. xviii. 22); M. Gikatilla (Job iv. io; v. 5); Ibn Balaam (Gen. xli. 48 ; xlix. 6; Exod. v. 19, al.); Ibn Ganach (Gen. iii. 8; xxviii.
xlbc. 27; Exod. 3, al.); Ibn Gebirol (Gen.
; Dan. xi. 3o, al.); Ibn Giath (Dent. x. 7; Ps. cxlvii. 3); Ibn Koreish (Amos vi. io); R. Isaac (Exod. xlix. 18; Levit. v. 7); Isaac b. Levi (Dan.
xi. 3o) ; Isaac b. Saul (Is. xxvii. 3); Itzchaki (Gen. xxxvi. 3o, 31; 1\r1111.1. XX1V. 17 ; Hos. i. t); R. Ishmael (Gen. xxxviii. 28; Exod. xxxviii. 25) ; Jepheth b. Eli (Hos. iii. 4; Joel i. 4, al.); R. Josi (Ps. xlv. 5); Joseph b. Gorion (Gen. xxxvii. 25; Is. ii. 2; Hos. xiv. 2; Hag. ii. 9; PS. XliX. 20 ; CXX. 5; Dan. ii. 39; xi. 3); R. Joshuali (Gen.
xxviii. Exod. iii. 3; Levit. xvi. al.); Judah Ha-Levi (Exod. iv. to; Num. xxvii. 3; Deut. xiv. 21, al.); R. Levi (Ps. vii. to; xxxv. 13) ; Menachem b. Saruk (Exod. vi. 3; Dent. xxii. 9; lix. 16 ; Hag. ii. 12); Moses b. Amram Parsi (Exod. xii. 5 ; Amos vii. 14); Moses Ha Nagid (Is. lv-ii. 9); Saadia (Gen. i. I; Exod. 8; Levit. ii. 9; Num. xix. 2; Deut. vii. 21, al.); Samuel b. Chofni (Gen. iii. i; xxxviii. ; Exod. iv. 24, 25 ; viii. 5; Levit. xvi. to; NUM. XXII. 28), are cited alternately for approbation and dis approbation. Some c,f the works of these dis tinguished writers would not have been known but for the quotations preserved by Ibn Ezra. Hence his commentaries may be regarded as furnishing most valuable materials for the construction of a history of O. T. exegesis. No wonder that his commentaries were a complete triumph over the allegorical and trifling manner in which the Bible was expounded both by the synagogue and the church, and that even the great luminary Maimo nides charged his son, in his last will and testament, not to study any other commentaries but those of Ibn Ezra, which are exceedingly good, and can not be consulted without profit, and which, for beauty of thought, clearness of wisdom, and clear ness of perception, are unlike any other writings.' lbn Ezra's style is very concise and sometimes very obscure, which is to be ascribed to the fact that he formed a technical phraseology of his own, that the good humour with which he exposes the exposi tions of his opponents is often expressed in plays upon words, and that he not unfrequently veiled his scepticism about the Mosaic authorship of certain portions of the Pentateuch in ambiguous and laconic phrases. Thus, for instance, upon Gen. xii. 6 he remarks (n)-I, 4ntvnr-il IND ` there is a mystery here, but the wise man will be quiet.' Another way in which he expresses his scepticism may be seen in Gen. xxii. 14, where he remarks `the meaning of the words Mtn, i11714 1r11 is to be found in the section b41T1r1 r6N,' i.e., at the beginning of his commentary on Deuteronomy, and on turning to the place we simply find an enumeration of all the post Mosaic passages in the Pentateuch. Or he merely says, ` this passage belongs to the mystery of the twelve verses,' i.e., it is not written by Moses, just as the last twelve verses of the Pentateuch, which narrate the death and burial of Moses, were not written by him.