the transcribers: they are evidently the meditated performance of the translator himself. The only way, in which I have been able to account for the phænomena, is by supposing the version to have been a bold attempt to support an interpretation, formed upon some previously conceived hypothesis, by a paraphrastic translation made from a text amended by conjecture; but that the author becoming at length less confident in, or less pleased with, his critical performances, or perhaps unable after all his efforts to bring his hypothesis and his translation to mutual accordance, left his work in an incomplete state. The reasonableness of such a supposition will appear to the attentive reader, who may detect in the Septuagint traces of at least two predicted desolations of Jerusalem. The first is foretold in the 26th verse, as an event appointed to take place after the seven, seventy, and sixty two; but as to those numbers, the writer seems not to have determined in his own mind what measure of time they should be applied to. Then in the beginning of the 27th verse he represents Jerusalem as rebuilt; and afterwards on the expiration of seventy seven times and sixty two years, (or perhaps of seventy seven times, and those of sixty two years*, making each time equal to sixty two

και μετα επτα και εβδομήκοντα καιρες και εξηκοντα δυο ετων.

years, and the whole equal to four thousand seven hundred and seventy four years,) as destroyed again. To cite such an authority for altering the text of scripture is then, I say, little or no better than citing a mere conjecture. Moreover the Septuagint itself must be made to undergo much emendation, before it can be brought forward to give the evidence required. In the words, which most nearly correspond to verse 25, no numerals at all are to be found, nor is any period of time at all mentioned or hinted at. The words of number do not occur till after the words και μετά, which answer to the beginning of the 26th verse in the Hebrew; and accordingly they are numbered, as the first words of that verse, by Dr. Holmes in his edition of the LXX. But what is more; the words of number in verse 26 are not connected there with any words of time, which do not occur till the next verse. Consequently, the words both of number and time must be removed from verse 27 and transplanted into verse 25, when properly prepared for their reception; and the words of time must be inserted in the proper places in verse 26. What alterations may be necessary there and in the other verses, in consequence of these transpositions, or how they may affect the meaning of the LXX, I am not prepared to say, nor do I think it worth

while to inquire. Dr. Blaney himself, with all his attachment to the LXX and notwithstanding, that his dissertation is mainly built upon it, freely confesses, that it is chargeable with "much mangling, interpolation, and transposition." Such a version does indeed open to the emendatory critic a spacious field for the exercise and display of acuteness and ingenuity; and when duly prepared by a little farther mangling, interpolation, and transposition, it may perhaps be brought to give equally powerful evidence in support of other equally bold hypotheses, as that, which doubtless it was originally framed to uphold; but it can never be made an useful instrument in the hand of one, who is inclined to proceed with the cautious reverence due to the sacred volume. Deprived of this aid, the proposed addition of 1 will stand on the ground of the Laudian MS. alone; but that, however ancient, being quite single in this instance, cannot afford any sufficient warranty for altering the text, or eyen for suspecting its integrity.

V. Dr. Blaney adds the word now after ow. This is done on the authority of the Bodleian MS. before mentioned. But unfortunately the MS. has the word in a wrong place, occupying that, which should have been allotted to yaw, which is omitted. The MS. consequently, before

But then it occurs

it can be brought to bear the desired testimony, must, like the LXX in the last instance, itself be subjected to critical operation; the absent word must be restored and removed into the required position. The testimony of the LXX also, which inserts the word twv, is vouched in support of this interpolation. not in the first mention of the numerals, but in the second; from which, therefore, it must be transferred to the 26th verse, as before mentioned. Nor is this all; for the genitive Twv will need to be amended into the nominative ɛτn. Such is the authority for the proposed addition; the weakness of which needs no farther exposure.

VI. I beg leave, for convenience sake, to postpone the consideration of the word belonging to this number till after the two following.

VII and VIII. These two alterations will be more conveniently taken into consideration together. After yawn Dr. Blaney adds the word yaw, and before ww the letter. These additions are introduced by observing, that, "as the words are evidently designed to mark out precisely the same time as the foregoing, it may be thought sufficient perhaps to justify the substituting of the same numbers again, which have been already settled." Upon what authority those numbers have been so "settled," we have

seen above; but waving a second discussion of that subject, I must enter my protest against the unwarrantable extension of authority claimed to the emendatory critic. For the position here advanced implies the general principle, that if an author mention two numbers in connexion and afterwards proceed to speak of the second separately, without a specific declaration of his intention not to include the other, the critic has a right to come in, and, peremptorily deciding that he must be understood to speak of both, make forthwith the requisite addition to his text. This protest against Dr. Blaney's observation will not however affect so much of it, as is true, "that the angel's words are evidently designed to mark out the same time as the foregoing." Now the time next foregoing is sixty two weeks. It was mentioned indeed in succession to another period of seven weeks; but the two were not added together, and the angel might have very good reasons for keeping them separate. At all events the period of seven weeks is evidently and indisputably prior to that of the sixty two; and where could be the necessity or the propriety of mentioning the former in order to fix the date of a fact, which was not to take place till after the latter? Besides, supposing, as we may in all reason be allowed to do, without expressing or even hinting