ebrew of Psa. 40:7. This reads: "Sacrifice and offering
thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened" (Heb. _bored_ or
_digged_). But the apostle quotes after the Septuagint: "Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me." The
attempted explanations of this difference are not very satisfactory. It
is to be noticed, however, that the apostle builds no essential part of
his argument upon the clause in question.

In the long quotation from Jeremiah in Heb. 8:8-12, the clause, "and I
regarded them not" (ver. 9), is perhaps correct for substance; since
many prefer to render the corresponding Hebrew clause not as in our
version--"though I was a husband unto them,"--but, "and I rejected
them."

When, on the contrary, the spirit and scope of a passage are lost in the
version of the Seventy, the New Testament writers quote directly from
the Hebrew. Examples are the following:

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of
Egypt." Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt. 2:15. Here the Seventy render: "Out
of Egypt I called my children," a variation from the original which
makes the passage inapplicable; since Israel, as God's first-born son
(Exod. 4:22, 23), was the type of Christ, and not the individual
Israelites.

Again, to the passage Isa. 42:1-4, quoted in Matt. 12:18-21, the
Septuagint gives a wrong turn by the introductory words: "Jacob my son,
I will help him: Israel my chosen, my soul hath accepted him: I have put
my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,"
etc.; whereas the Hebrew speaks not of Jacob and Israel, but of God's
servant: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul
delighteth," etc. Matthew accordingly follows the Hebrew, yet in a very
free manner: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom
my soul delighteth," etc.

For other examples see Mal. 3:1, as quoted by Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2;
Luke 7:27; Isa. 9:1, 2, as quoted by Matt. 4:15, 16.

3. Passing now to the consideration of the New Testament citations on
the side of their _inward contents_, the first question, that arises has
respect to the so-called _principle of accommodation_. There is a sense
in which the writers of the New Testament sometimes employ the language
of the Old in the way of accommodation; that is, they use its
phraseology, originally applied in a different connection, simply as
expressing in an apt and forcible manner the th