before) that the Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate is some centuries later than is commonly supposed (pp. 158 sq.), and that the Ambrosian MS. of the Peshitto, which was deemed important enough to be published in facsimile by Ceriani, contains in fact a text which has been corrected to accord with the Hebrew (p. 145). And with reference to the Vatican MS, of the Septuagint (B.) he writes (p. 81): "My investigations have led me to the conclusion that it is an excerpt, made in Caesarea, from the Hexapla of Origen, with the object of restoring the original form of the LXX. by the omission of whatever was marked as not belonging to it by the asterisk." Professor Cornill, it may be added, is generous towards his predecessors; and the services to Biblical literature of Hitzig in Germany, and of Dr. Field (in his edition of Origen's Hexapla) in this country receive alike cordial recognition at his hands.

Professor Cornill's text is substantially a reconstruction of that presumed to have been followed by the translators of the Septuagint. Not, of course, that he follows the Septuagint blindly in its deviations from the Hebrew; its variations are considered upon their own merits, and not unfrequently rejected. The other versions also contribute their assistance; and conjecture, too, has at times to be resorted to; but still, as a whole, his text reproduces, as far as possible, the features of the oldest known authority, the Septuagint. The text of Ezekiel has long been recognized to be in places corrupt. How could an author who shows abundantly that he can command a lucid and flowing style write such extraordinary Hebrew as meets us, for instance, more than once in chap. xxi.? It appears, moreover, to be in places over-full; in other words, to have been glossed. There is no doubt that the Ancient Versions, and especially the Septuagint, represent in many places a purer and more original text. There is no doubt, also, that in other places the text had suffered corruption even before the date at which these versions were made; and in such cases the only remedy-though a remedy not always successful-is conjecture. The opinion sometimes expressed, that the ancient versions are of no value for the correction of the Hebrew text, that their deviations from it are arbitrary or due to the ignorance of the translators, will not bear examination, and is generally based upon an insufficient knowledge of the facts. Naturally, a certain allowance must be made for looseness of rendering or paraphrase: how much this should be will vary in different books, and must be determined in each case by special preliminary examination: but when this has been done there will be found always to remain a residuum of difference which cannot reasonably be accounted for by the causes alleged, and which quite clearly presupposes a divergent and, as a rule, readily determinable Hebrew original. Using the ancient versions in this way, we can recover a recension (or recensions) differing more or less widely from that represented by the traditional Hebrew text, and demonstrably of much greater antiquity. Different recensions of the Hebrew text existed in antiquity-those represented by the Ancient Versions, and that which was the parent of the existing Hebrew text: it does not, of course, follow that the superiority uniformly or even generally lies on the side of the former; but their readings may be compared with those of the traditional text, and a selection made by principles similar to those employed in deciding

between the rival readings of two actually existing MSS. That in particular cases the Ancient Versions preserve readings intrinsically preferable to those of the existing Hebrew text can be shown without difficulty to the satisfaction of any competent Hebrew scholar. Some well-chosen examples were referred to by Prof. Kirkpatrick in his paper read at the Church Congress last year. Two lines are now open to us. We may adhere to the existing Hebrew text whenever possible, only admitting a deviation from it where grammar or sense imperatively demands it. The minimum of deviations required on these grounds is represented by the variations from the versions quoted on the margin of the new Revised Version; most modern Hebraists of moderate views would consider that the number ought to be considerably increased. But we may also adopt a different line. We may suppose that the recension underlying the Ancient Version represented most nearly the original autograph: we may therefore strive to reproduce that as far as practicable, deviating from the Massoretic text, not only where sense or grammar requires it, but even in points which are (upon these grounds) indifferent. This is what, speaking generally, is done by Prof. Cornill. The Septuagint brings us greatly nearer to Ezekiel's own time than the oldest known Hebrew MS. (A.D. 916); in numerous cases its readings are confessedly superior; its greater terseness and force constitute to many minds further evidence of its originality; hence Dr. Cornill is disposed to adopt it as his main guide. It must not of course be thought that his text differs essentially from that printed in our Hebrew Bibles; the differences are largely verbal, consisting in the choice of one synonym for another, the substitution of a different pronoun, or the omission of tautological clauses. Dr. Cornill has carried out his principle with consistency and ability; his scholarship is sound, and his text is eminently readable. In very many passages his corrections appear to us to be certainly right; in others to be highly probable (not to specify those based on the versions, we would point in particular to the clever and convincing emendations in xiii. 20, xxxviii. 13); yet we cannot avoid thinking that elsewhere he shows himself too ready not merely to follow the authority of the versions, but to suspect corruption in cases where the versions have no deviation from the received Hebrew text. In altering persons and numbers, for instance, he seems to us to have not sufficiently estimated the peculiarities of Hebrew style (apparent also in other books of the Old Testament), or made allowance for the temptation in such cases for an ancient translator to assimilate. And in a writer like Ezekiel, a little repetition, even though it may strike our ears as tautological, may after all be original. So again, to take a particular instance, the expression I wrought in xx. 9, 14, 22, is doubtless a little singular; but it occurs three times, and it is precarious to emend I spared on the strength of the Syriac version alone (the other versions agreeing with the Hebrew). But whatever the view which may ultimately be taken of Prof. Cornill's text as a whole, his prolegomena and notes (which, it should be added, contribute often materially to the elucidation as well as to the criticism of the text) are of permanent value, and justify us in ranking his volume among the most important contributions of modern times to the textual criticism of the Old Testament, and as one which no future commentator upon Ezekiel can 1 to neglect.

A volume entitled "Biblical Essays, or Exegetical Studies" (T. & T. Clark) comes to us from the pen of Dr. C. H. H. Wright, of Dublin. Three of the essays deal with the Old Testament and two with the New. In the essay on the Book of Jonah, the view that the narrative is intended as an allegory is thoughtfully and attractively worked out. The style of the book is of course abundantly sufficient to show, in spite of what is affirmed in some commentaries to the contrary, that it is no work of Jonah himself, but is of much later origin. This fact removes a ground of objection to the allegorical interpretation which many would otherwise feel. Dr. Wright exhibits the difficulties (other than those arising out of the wonders related in it) which lie in the way of understanding the narrative literally, while showing at the same time how significantly Jonah is adapted to be a type or symbol of Israel-Israel, with a mission to the nations, yet often too ready to shrink from her work; Israel "swallowed up" (Jer. li. 34, 44) in exile, but afterwards restored; Israel culminating in its ideal representative, Christ. Another study of not less interest is on Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and Magog (chaps. xxxviii. xxxix.). In dealing with this, Dr. Wright discusses the sense in which the prophecy is really predictive, and is justly severe upon the view which, strange to say, has been seriously propounded in modern times, that it relates to the growth of the Russian power, or to a triumph-happily yet future-of the Anglo-Saxon race, when the continental nations are swept away with the besom of destruction (!). He points out that Ezekiel's imagery is borrowed from the circumstances of his time, especially from the invasions of Scythian hordes, which had then recently desolated Western Asia, and whose aim is represented as being, not hostility to the people of God as such, but rapine and conquest, and shows that the prophet's object is to present a picture of the ultimate ruin and overthrow of all those enemies who, at whatever time, seek for the sake of greed and gain to destroy the people of Jehovah. Ezekiel does not speak of any yet future restoration of Israel to the Land of Promise; yet "his prophecy is not unfulfilled. It has had many a fulfilment in the oppression used against the poor Jew, and in the vengeance that by Divine Providence has fallen upon his oppressors. There are no grounds to expect a more full accomplishment in the future" (p. 136). We hope that the learned author may be induced at some future time to publish further studies on the prophets, which are often much misunderstood: one on Isaiah xix., for instance, could not fail to be well timed. The other essays in the present volume are on the Book of Job, a sketch of the argument and scope of the book; "The Spirits in Prison," a criticism of Dean Plumptre's view, expressed in his work on the same subject; and the "Key to the Apocalypse" (the man-child in xii. 5 identified with the Messiah).

On a previous occasion (Feb. 1885) allusion was made to Ed. König's "Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religionsgeschichte," and the interest attaching to it from the fact that the author, while rejecting the most characteristic theological principles of the critical school, nevertheless acquiesced in many of their historical conclusions. A translation of this work lies before us (T. & T. Clark), of which it is dis

* Under the title, "The Religion of Israel."

appointing to be obliged to say that its only value consists in the demonstration which it affords of the translator's imperfect acquaintance with the German language. In his very first sentence he succeeds in misrepresenting the scope of his author's book; on the same page (to say nothing of other absurdities) he shows himself to be unfamiliar with one of the commonest of German idioms: he translates "das Erscheinen eines Kuenen'schen Buches"-which of course simply means the appearance of a book by Kuenen-"the appearance of such a book-inspired as it is with Kuenen's spirit" (!). On p. 14 is a passage (too long to quote, besides being nonsense) which shows him to be innocent of the distinction in German between the indicative and subjunctive moods: indeed, throughout the book it is impossible for the reader to make out whether it is the author's own opinion that is being stated, or one which he is combating! An inversion of the author's meaning is quite an ordinary occurrence. Thus (p. 20) we read: “It also does not in reality affirm," &c.; the author's words being: "It makes the assertion, which in reality also is not to be gainsaid," &c.; (p. 30) "Now it cannot be considered as settled," for "the opinion cannot be given up ;" (p. 83) "they none the less recognize the apparent yet comprehensible superiority," &c., for "they mistake the à priori altogether self-apparent superiority" (!) &c. &c. The commonest words are continually misrendered. The following are two or three gems: (P. 69) "In the answer given to this question on the part of those adhering to the development theories, it has been regarded as a matter of secondary consideration. This, however, was in earlier times. Now it has been raised from this low position of secondary interest to one of chief importance." König's actual words are: "In answering this question, a point of secondary moment has, in my opinion, been more rightly determined than was formerly the case on the part of the adherents to the development theory; but it has at the same time been elevated (unduly) to a position of primary importance." (P. 70) "And because it must have been given to the pious in Israel to recall the erring around them, and that not in any uncertain manner," &c. Read: "And because the pious in Israel must have felt the importance of not confirming their erring compatriots in their apostacy by any more or less inexact forms of expression," &c. (the rest of the sentence is, if possible, worse). (P. 107)" And, lastly, the attitude assumed by idolatry towards the Mosaic Law seems to testify to a prohibition of the same." Read: "And finally, he [the author alluded to, not König] argues that the later freedom of image-worship testifies against the Mosaic origin of its prohibition." Further quotations are needless. We have opened the book in many places, and found the same confusion reigning everywhere. It is impossible for the English reader to learn from it, even approximately, the line of the author's argument or his opinions.

The series of manuals known as the "Porta Linguarum Orientalium,” commenced in the last generation by Prof. Petermann, and now appearing in a revised and improved form under the editorship of Prof. H. L. Strack of Berlin, ought to be of value to many students of these languages in this country. To render the series more generally available, the plan has been adopted of publishing the volumes simultaneously in Latin or English as well as in German. We have

s an introductory Hebrew Grammar by Prof. Strack (2nd ed.

1886), one of Arabic by Prof. Socin (1885), both in English; a Samaritan Grammar in Latin by Prof. Petermann (1873); and in German an introduction to the language of the Mishnah ("Lehrbuch der Neuhebräischen Sprache"), the joint work of Profs. Strack and Siegfried (1884). Others are in preparation: the "Grammatica Aethiopica," by Prof. Prätorius, will, we believe, appear shortly. All (except the "Neuhebräisches Lehrbuch ") are provided with short chrestomathies and glossaries; a further distinctive and useful feature is the account of the literature (historical, philological, &c.specially full in the two Hebrew manuals) appended to each. Prof. Strack's Introduction to Hebrew is wonderfully compact and exact; and the volume on the later Hebrew of the Mishnah supplies a muchneeded desideratum (the Laut- and Formenlehre are as complete as possible may the hope be expressed that in a future edition space will be found for a brief Satzlehre?). The Arabic and Ethiopic manuals are naturally not designed to supersede the elaborate treatises of Prof. Wright in this country, and of Dillmann in Germany; but they ought to be serviceable in facilitating the study of those languages-both important members of the Semitic group-to many who are at present deterred from it by the size, or language, of the larger work. Messrs. Williams and Norgate are the publishers of the series in England.

Two German professors have made recently a renewed examination of the "Moabite Stone" now in the Louvre; and there reaches us from Freiburg a cheap and convenient facsimile of the inscription, with an account of their investigations and of the new readings which they have established ("Die Inschrift des Königs Mesa von Moab usw. von Rudolf Smend und Albert Socin "). This stone, our readers will remember, was found at Dibon,in Moab, seventeen years ago, and is a contemporary record narrating the details of the revolt of Moab from Israel, alluded to in the single verse 2 Kings i. 1 (-iii. 5), and written in a dialect and style closely resembling the Hebrew of the Old Testament. The facsimile contains several new readings, which, though not all fixed now for the first time, are not, we believe, generally known in England. One of the most curious of these is the mention of the arel-apparently the rare word found in Ezek. xliii. 15, 16-or altarhearth, which appears to have been treated by the conqueror as a species spolia opima; for in line twelve Mesha specially narrates how he had secured the ar'el of Dodo-seemingly the name of a deity-and dragged it before his own god Chemosh; and in lines seventeen and eighteen that he did the same with those dedicated to Jehovah in a sanctuary (as we must suppose) in the town of Nebo. For an account of the history and philology of the inscription, and its bearing on the Old Testament, readers in this country wili still turn to the article in the North British Review for October 1870. Is it too much to expect that the eminent scholar to whom that article is attributed-resident, if report speak truly, no great distance from Cambridge-may reprint it in a separate form, accommodating it, where necessary, to the improved readings?* S. R. DRIVER.

The reading ar'el in line twelve, though quite certain, was not known in 1870; but it is not given even in Prof. Sayce's "Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments," who (p. 92, line 7) reads merely "all the spoil." Since the above was written, a fuller account of the new readings than we have here space for, has appeared, from the competent hand of Dr. Neubauer, in the Athenæum for September 25, where a different explanation of the word ar'el is also proposed.