general rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that
is, its independence as compared with other manuscripts. We may have a
group of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come
from a single source. Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only
for the text of their source. The authority of a single independent
manuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony. Then,
again, the character of the different readings must be considered. The
easiest reading--that which most naturally suggests itself to the
scribe--has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading;
and that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should
have been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse. There
are many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for
biblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief
hints are sufficient.

The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and
are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to
believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good
degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so
many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch
is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we
possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be
very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical
scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its
critical authority is of small account.

3. Next in order come _ancient versions_, the value of which for
critical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and
also upon the state of their text as we possess it. Other things being
equal, the authority of a version is manifestly inferior to that of a
manuscript of the original. But a version may have been made from a more
ancient form of the original text than any which we have in existing
manuscripts; and thus it may be indirectly a witness of great value. The
extremely literal version of Aquila (Chap. 16, No. 9) was made in the
second century. Could we recover it, its testimony to the Hebrew text,
as it then existed, would be of great value. The Septuagint version was
made (at least begun) in the third century before Christ. But its free
character diminishes, and the impure state of its text greatly injures
its critical authori