mere conjecture or on such slight and insufficient grounds, that they have no claim to reception, except so far as they may be alleged in favour of a particular interpretation; and if, at the same time, the prophecy be in itself justly chargeable with such extreme difficulty, so hampered by uncommon and difficult constructions, so beset and entangled with incongruities, or so enveloped in obscurities, as to need such very uncertain and objectionable means to restore it to any degree of light and meaning, then indeed it would be the wiser plan to forego all further attempts upon it, and to consider it as overspread with a veil, that defies every effort at penetration or removal.

That no such inextricable perplexity and darkness is justly imputable to the prophecy, as it now stands in the printed Hebrew text, the succeeding chapters of the disquisition now before the reader are intended, and, it is hoped, will be effectual to prove. That the chief alterations proposed or admitted into that text by the learned authors above mentioned, rest only on conjecture, or on such very slight authority, as gives them no claim to reception, I shall here endeavour to shew.

I. The insertion of the in the word wau, has no other effect, than to change it from a word defectively, to a word fully, written, and as

the insertion is supported by many MSS. and is warranted by the punctuation, which supplies theby Kibbutz, it may be received without doing any discredit to the printed text.

II. . It must be confessed that many MSS. read ; Mr. Faber asserts as many as thirty or forty; and Dr. Kennicott enumerate s twenty eight. Mr. Faber also pleads the authority of the old versions and Hexaplars; of which the LXX and Theodotion read συντελεσθηναι, and Aquila reλeoat; the Syriac has own, the the Arabic absumentur, the Vulgate consummetur, Africanus consummata. The determination of this matter is not of serious importance to the interpretation of the prophecy; for, as Dr. Blaney observes, "the sense would not be very different either way. "Hence it may also be argued, that the renderings of the ancient versions do not decisively proven to have been the reading of the MSS. which their several authors had before them, since they have perhaps given what they understood to be the general sense, instead of the exactly literal meaning. This may be exemplified by the practice of the Jews. They doubtless read with the printed text; yet we are told* "Judæi vertunt, ut perficiatur, vel, ut consummetur, vel ad finem perducatur." Hence too it

* Poli Synopsis ad loc.

;

appears that there is not sufficient ground for concluding, that our English translators themselves followed the other reading, although they have rendered the word, "to finish." Since then the majority of the MSS. collated agree with the printed copies, and the evidence of the versions is questionable, I agree with Dr. Blaney in considering that the received reading is preferable. Besides, if were the original reading, it would be more difficult to account for the change, than the other way.

,להתם More than forty MSS. read .לחתם .III

σφράγισαι,

together with the Keri, which is followed by our English version. The Vulgate also has finem accipiat, and the Syriac . But on the other hand Theodotion reads oppaytaat, the Arabic obsignentur, and the LXX Gravida; which last, if not a corruption of oppayiaat, was probably intended for an interpretation of it: as also the Syriac translation of the LXX in the Ambrosian library at Milan, which reads, et imminuatur impietas. By these countervailing authorities the judgment is suspended, and since the renderings of the Syriac and Vulgate versions may not indubitably ascertain the readings of the MSS. whence they were made; since also is the more refined and difficult reading, and therefore, other things being supposed equal, or

nearly equal, to be preferred, I have translated and interpreted according to the printed text, though without any serious objection to the various readings.

The three various readings above noticed are matters of mere criticism, on which men may differ, while they agree in the interpretation of the prophecy; as is also another, which not being received into the text by Dr. Blaney or Mr. Faber, has not been enumerated with the foregoing,

Those which follow are of a .חטאות for חטאת

of a very different cast, altering, as before mentioned, in very essential points the reading of the text and meaning of the prophet; but, standing, as I hope to shew, on very slight authority, they do not shake our faith in the general purity of the word of God, nor ought to affect our interpretation of this part of scripture.

IV. The addition of the letter prefixed to Dww is made partly on the authority of an ancient MS. in the Bodleian library, and partly on that of the Chigian MS. of the LXX, an authority, which is little better than mere conjecture. The Greek version of the prophet Daniel by the LXX could not maintain its footing in the church, but was early laid aside, and that, in the judgment of Jerome, on good grounds. "It has been rejected," he observes*, "by the judgment of the

*Hieron. Comment. in Dan. c. iv. 8.

masters of the church, and that of Theodotion is commonly read, which agrees both with the Hebrew text and with the other translators. Whence also Origen, in the ninth volume of his Stromata, asserts, that he explained the part of Daniel's prophecy, which follows this place, (c. iv. v. 8,) not according to the LXX interpreters, who depart widely from the Hebrew verity, but according to Theodotion's edition." Upon this Bishop Chandler remarks, "that the LXX's version of Daniel fell into discredit by Origen's means. The imperfections thereof appearing in his close comparing it with Theodotion from the original, the Septuagint, as amended by Origen, seems to have been first read in the churches, and afterwards the entire version of Theodotion to have been preferred to it." If it were needful to prove the propriety of so doing, it would be quite sufficient to turn to the prophecy of the seventy weeks, in which the Septuagint version affords an example of arbitrary departure from the original text, greater perhaps than any translation of any other author has ever exhibited. For no man will contend, or can believe, that the numerous mutilations, interpolations, and transpositions of the original text, which are found therein, are the result of mere mistake or carelessness in * Vindication of Defence, vol. 1. p. 68.