in the Evangelists do not agree with, but militate strongly against, the reading of the Parisian MS. with the LXX, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Arabic; insomuch indeed, that we may be said to have divine authority for pronouncing it erroneous. At the same time they are easily brought into agreement with the printed Hebrew text; for since hostile armies surrounding Jerusalem are the abominations standing in the border, it is an allowable figure of speech to call the border, rendered abominable by such possession, the border of abominations, which is nothing else, but the abominable border, or the border made abominable by the people or things that are in it. But it may still be objected, that according to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, the word op, instead of being the absolute noun following the word, as the noun in regimen, appears to be itself put in regimen before the next word down, and that it is rendered in the singular, instead of the plural number. It is to be observed in answer; 1. That the renderings in the two Evangelists are by no means inconsistent with the supposition, that our Lord read the original according to the printed Hebrew text, for he might intentionally deviate from the strict letter of the original, with a view to make the prediction clearer by his rendering. 2. That the

phrase, the border of abominations, is an obscure one and much needed such an illustration. 3. That in point of fact the deviation is calculated, as will hereafter appear, to lead us to a right understanding of the prediction. 4. That it is little, if any thing, greater, than what all the ancient versions and our Lord himself have made in respect to the very next word, which they have rendered as an abstract substantive, instead of a participle active. 5. That such departures from the mere letter of an original are allowable in translations, so that it would be absurd to set about altering original texts, to make them agree with similar deviations. The second objection is already answered in the foregoing observations, and by what has been said in page 28 on the like variation in the Syriac version.

XI and XII. Two more additions to the original text remain to be noticed. They are admitted, as I have before observed*, by Mr. Faber into his translation, though not stated by him in his list of approved readings. Both are found in the 26th verse. The one seems to be the word Ty, which he renders in conjunction with TM, no more; the other seems to be, or, rendered for, and printed in italicst, as if it were

* Page 2.

,אין

†The word more is not so distinguished by Mr. Faber; but in Ezekiel, xiii. 15, where our learned translators have

necessarily understood in order to construe the passage. I shall not dwell longer on these additions than barely to remark, that they are both mere conjectures, and that they ought, as it seems to me, to have been more distinctly proposed by the learned author; and that more especially, since the one lends its aid to support his interpretation and the other is little else than necessary to it.

It has now been proved, as I trust, that of all the various readings stated in the beginning of this chapter, not one is necessary; and only two or three are admissible on any competent authority, while they are in themselves very small departures from the printed text and introduce little or no change in the sense of the prophet; whereas among those numerous and important variations, which affect very essentially the text and the meaning of the prophecy, and upon which Dr. Blaney and Mr. Faber have respectively built their interpretations, there is not any that can make good a claim to be received as genuine, or is supported by such evidence, as to throw even a reasonable doubt on the integrity of the printed text.

thought, that it ought to be understood with the same negative word as here, though the necessity is not, to me at least, very apparent, they have printed it in italics.

I conclude this chapter with part of the 25th and 26th verses, as they are given by Father Houbigant. He would read the passage thus :

מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם שבעים שבעה: ותשוב ונבנתה רחוב בחרוץ ובצוק העתים: ועד משיח

נגיד שבעים ששים ושנים: ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים

Notwithstanding the ingenuity and יכרת משיח:

plausibility of the above conjectures, since they are nothing better, I do not think it necessary to offer any observations upon them.

CHAPTER II.

Of the Translation of the Prophecy.

THE Hebrew text of the prophecy, as we find it in the edition of Van der Hooght, having been proved to be correct, at least so far as that neither its external appearance nor its meaning would undergo any serious change, even if all the various readings, which can make out a creditable title to reception, were established on the firmest ground, the next step is to obtain a correct translation. That, which is about to be offered to the reader, has been faithfully constructed according to the natural and regular order of things, previously to and independently of any decided interpretation; and is the result of a studious examination of every word of the original diligently compared with the ancient and several modern versions. It was originally intended to appear unaccompanied by any critical