We may here remark, in conclusion, that such an edition might prepare the way for the correction of the blemishes which remain in our authorized English ver- sion. Embracing the results of the criticism of the last two hundred and fifty years, it might exhibit several passages in tlicir original purity ; and the corrections thus made, being approved by the judgment of the best scholars, would probably, after a time, find their way into the margin at least of our English Bibles.
One example onl\' can be here given, in a passage which has caused no small perplexity and loads of com- mentary. Isa. ix, 3 is thus rendered in the Sept. : To TrXtitTTOv TOV Xaov, o Kari'iyayeg iv i.v<ppoavvy aov ' Kcii EV(ppav^i)aovTai ivioTniiv aov, ioQ o'l ti'(ppaiv6fiE- I'oi iv afiiiT({), Kai ov TpoTTOv o\ ^laipovi-iivoi (JKvXa. It is easy to see how the faulty rendering of the first part of this has arisen from tlie similarity of the He- brew letters H and n, 1 and "i, and from an ancient er- ror in the Hebrew text. The following translation re- stores the whole passage to its original clearness and force :
SEPTUAGINT 547
SEPTUAGINT
ifJtyaXrvai Tr]v eu(pfi0(7i'i>t)v'
tuippixivovTat ^viii-Ktov tTov ojr o'l eotppaivofievoi Iv uju»/tw,
of rponov uyuiWtivvTat ot diatpoufj.ti'Oi <rKv\u^
"Thou hast multiplied the glacluess, Thou hast iuciejised the joy ;
They rejoice before thee as with the joy of harvest, As nieu are glad wheu they divide the spoil."
Here ayaWicKTig and aynWiwvrai, in the first and fourth lines, correspond to ii^3 and ^ib'^S^; (V(ppoavvi] and tiKppaivovTai, in the second and third lines, to nrrC'J and Wpb. The fourfold introvei-ted parallel- ism is complete, and the connection with the context of the prophecy perfect.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that in such an edition the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, and those to the book of Daniel, which are not recog- nised by the Hebrew canon, would be either omitted or (perhaps more properly, since they appear to have been incorporated with the Sept. at an early date) would be placed separately, as in Field's edition and our English version. See Apocrypha; Canon; Daniel, Book of ; Esther, Book of ; Samaritan Penta- TKicn.
VHI. Jlfannsci-ipfs and Earh/ Crilical Labors. — 1. The various readings given bj' Holmes and Parsons en- able us to judge, in some measure, of the character of the several MSS. and of the degree of their accord- ance with the Hebrew text. Many other MSS., chiefly fragments, have since been brought to light by Tisch- endorf, and most of them have been published in his JIoHum. Sacra Iited. They are distinguished thus by Holmes: the uncial bj' Koman numerals, the cursice b\' Arabic figures. Among them may be specially noted, with their probable dates and estimates of value as given by Holmes in his preface to the Pentateuch : Probable
Uncial. Century.
ISinaitienn. l?oyal Library, St. Petersburg] 4
I. CoTToMANUS. Brit. Mns. (fragments) 4
II. Vaticancs. Vat, Library, Home 4
III. Ai.KXANDiiiNUS. Brit. Mus .5
VII. Amurosianus. Anibros. Lib., Milan 7
X. CoiSLiNiANCs. Bibl. Nat., Paris 1
Cursive.
16. Mediceus. Med. Laurentian Lib., Florence 11
19. Chisrianus. Similar to Complut. text and lOS,
lis 10
25. Moiiachiensis. Munich 10
58. Vaticanus (No. x). Vat. Lib., similar to 72 13
59. Glasgueusis 12
CI. Bodleianus. Laud. 30, notfe opiimte 12
64. Parisieusis (11). National Library 10 or 11
72. Veuetus. Maximi facieudus 13
75. Oxoniensis. Univ. Coll 12
S4. Vaticanus (1901), notse optiuife 11
}rJ' I Ferrarienses. These two agree iVi
los! (Vaticanus (330). > Similar to Complut. (14 lis. (Parisieusis. Nat. Lib. j text and (19) \U
The texts of these MSS. differ considerably from each other, and consequently differ in various degrees from the Hebrew original (see Grabc, De Variis Vitiis LXX, etc. [Oxf. 1710]).
The following are the results of a comparison of the readings in the first eight chapters of E.xodus:
(1.) Several of the MSS. agree well with the Hebrew ; others differ very much.
(2.) Tiie chief variance from the Hebrew is in the addition, or omission, of words and clauses.
(3.) Taking the Roman text as the basis, there are found eighty places (n) where some of the iMSS. differ from the Roman text, either by addition or omission, in agreement toith the Hehrcn- : twenty-si.x places (fi) where differences of the same kind are not in (tr/reemeHt iritli the Hebrew. There is therefore a large balance against the Roman text in point of accordance with the He- brew.
(4.) Those MSS. which have the largest number of differences of class (a) have the smallest number of class (/3). There is evidently some strong reason for this close accordance with the Hebrew in these MSS.
(5.) The divergence between the extreme points of the series of MSS. may be estimated from the following statement :
72 differs from the Roman ( in 40 places, with Hebrew.
text ) i u 4 " against ' '
59 >( ci ( in 40 " with "
( iu 9 " against " Between these and the Roman text lie many shades of variety. The Alexandrine text falls about half-way be- tween the two extremes:
Differing from Roman text |!" 25 places, wOT Hebrew. ° (lu 16 " against "
The diagram below, drawn on a scale representing
the comparison thus instituted (by the test of agreement