How much Hebrew did Jerome know? This often disputed question is not easily solved; an adequate test is required and any such would still be open to dispute. The book under review is based upon a doctoral dissertation supervised by Professor Adam Kamesar who is well-known in the field. Graves himself is now Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, Illinois. The choice of the Commentary on Jeremiah has a clear significance since it is Jerome's last exegetical work, begun in 414 and left unfinished at his death in 419. Nevertheless, as Graves notes, Jerome was ‘still at the height of his powers’ (p. 11). In this rather long commentary (six books, each with a preface), more than seventy-five Hebrew words are discussed and matters of Hebrew philology and etymology are referred to. As a philologist and grammarian, Jerome may be compared with other antique writers, such as Servius, but Jerome focuses more on content, as would have been appropriate in a Christian environment and for the audience he is addressing. Locating the sources for the commentary is an essential part of the argument, because, as is well known, Jerome used many sources but did not specify what they were. Did he have a direct access to Hebrew exegesis, through Jewish masters, or only indirect, mainly through the works of Origen and Eusebius? The answer is not easy to find. Thus, in Jeremiah xviii.3, Jerome notes that the Hebrew ‘abanim’ is not to be translated as ‘lapides’ as in the Septuagint, but as ‘organum, id est rota figuli’ (the wheel of a potter). Jerome's translation is borrowed from Symmachus, but Graves notes that he is aware of a particular pronunciation (p. 109). So Jerome knew Hebrew himself. I would mischievously add that he does not recognise that it is a dual, rather than a plural. Jerome must have had Hebrew teachers: this is clear not only from philological details but also from rabbinic, midrashic parallels. The combination of both patristic and rabbinic sources is one of the characteristics of Jerome's work. Origen had not placed the Hebrew text at the centre of his approach; he tended to use it as a tool in order to explain and to improve upon the Septuagint (p. 126 and n. 172). As a commentator, Jerome follows his own path. He ‘generally employs his knowledge of Hebrew to elucidate the wording of the text as part of his explanation of the contextual (“literal”) meaning’ (p. 191). But he indulges, following in a long-standing tradition, in etymologies, often disputable and interpreted in a spiritual sense. Some questions remain unsolved. In his Commentary on Jeremiah did Jerome have access to the full six-column Hexapla (with the Hebrew text transcribed into Greek letters) or only to a hexaplaric edition of the Septuagint with the critical signs and many marginal glosses taken from the Hexapla? One would like to enter his study. His commentary on the missing verses xxx.10–11 (In Hier. vi.vi. 12, ed. S. Reiter, p. 372, lines 2–5) provides clear evidence that he had read a text of the Septuagint (‘uulgata editio’) with hexaplaric supplements indicated by asterisks: ‘in plerisque codicibus uulgatae editionis sub astericis de Theodotione addita est’. Did Jerome actually have Hebrew instructors? G. Bardy and others insist that a lot of the references to such individuals are borrowed, without acknowledgement, from Origen or Eusebius. Graves provides sufficient evidence to show that, in some cases at least, Jerome must have had a contact with learned rabbis. The midrashic tradition on the seven names for gold, referred to by Jerome in order to explain Jeremiah x.9a ‘aurum de ophaz’ is a convincing example (pp. 124–5). But suspicions remain. As was the case elsewhere, Jerome provided the stick with which to beat him. There is a parallel case in the prefaces to Tobit and Judith where he announces a paraphrastic translation of the Aramaic (‘Chaldeorum lingua’) with the help of ‘utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem’, but actually uses the Old Latin version freely. Here he does not observe that Jeremiah x.11 is plain Aramaic in a Hebrew context. In some cases Graves finds it necessary to judge the exegesis of Jerome according to present-day criteria. And in doing so he uses excellent commentaries. In such a matter, it is difficult for a patristic scholar to be complete. I note a point where I am involved. Jerome explains the unexpected mention of ‘Ioacim’ in Jeremiah xxvii.1 (In Hier. v.xlv.1, pp. 331–2), which is a ‘crux’ for the exegetes today as it was in the past, in adding this verse to the end of chapter xxvi. ‘Jerome's suggestion is highly implausible’, writes Graves (p. 182). By a quite different route I argued that the subscription of the date (and 27:1 is a date) is documented in the book of Jeremiah and I proposed the same explanation as here Jerome, and elsewhere (‘La Datation par souscription dans les rédactions courte [LXX] et longue [TM] du livre de Jérémie’, in J. Joosten et Ph. Le Moigne [eds], L'Apport de la Septante aux études sur l'a ntiquité, Paris 2005, 137–59). Even if the discovery of new texts of Origen (for example in the Catenae) were to increase the number of recognised borrowings, Jerome's originality would remain undisputable. And we know of its long-lasting influence in the Latin world. Michael Graves's book helps us to appreciate the stature of Jerome as an exegete and the specific tone of his Commentary on Jeremiah.