ews,
that they had substituted the [Greek: ta apokeimena auto] for the
earlier [Greek: ho apokeitai]. Comp. _Stroth_ in _Eichhorn's_ Repert.
ii. 95; _Hohne's_ edition of the LXX.) _Aquila_ and _Symmachus_, who
translate, [Greek: ho apokeitai], as well as the Syriac and Saadias,
who translate, _Ille cujus est_, follow the same reading. But the
defenders of this exposition are wrong in inferring, from the
circumstance of the ancient translations having followed this
punctuation, that it was generally received. Had such been the case,
how could it be explained that it should no more be found in any of our
manuscripts? For the circumstance that forty manuscripts collected by
_de Rossi_ have [Hebrew: wlh] written without a [Hebrew: i], cannot be
considered as of great weight; since it is merely a defective way of
writing, occurring frequently in similar words. But if we consider the
fact, which may be established upon historical grounds, that the Jews
watched with most anxious care the uncorrupted preservation of the
received [Pg 74] text of Holy Scripture, according to its consonants
and pronunciation; that they did not even venture to receive into the
text any emendation, though it should have recommended itself as in the
highest degree probable; while, on the other hand, the ancient Jewish
and Christian translators took great liberties in this respect, and, in
the manifold perplexities into which, owing to their insufficient
resources and knowledge, they fell, helped themselves as best they
could;--it will certainly appear to us most probable, that even the
ancient translators found our vocalization of the word as the received
one, but felt themselves obliged to depart from it, because they could,
in accordance with it, give no suitable derivation; whilst the
punctuation adopted by them agreed perfectly with the traditional
reference of the passage to the Messiah. But if this be the case, the
authority of the ancient translations can here be of no greater weight
than that of any modern interpreter; and, in the case under review, we
are at liberty to urge all those considerations which are, in general,
advanced against any change in the vocalization, unless there be most
urgent reasons for it. The ancient translators, moreover, can have
less weight with us, because we can distinctly perceive that a
misapprehension of Ezek. xxi. 32 (27)--on which passage we shall
afterwards comment--gave rise to their error. Against this exp