re most unsatisfactory, by which the
attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the
LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there
notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want
of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are
out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp.
_e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot
sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make
any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the
text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect
anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It
is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out
the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions,
alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we
are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable
every where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us
likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the
deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot
be regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission,
nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here
presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1.
Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already
occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers.
20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words,
partly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX.
often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they
were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and
transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which
was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal
thought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against
the genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX.,
who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of
the Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and
the sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed,
whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian
version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000
years before _J. D. Micha