A good deal of uncertainty remains, as the MSS. often vary, and the grammatical points may depend on terminations of which the letters are few, and easily confused. In the LXX., Hebrew influence may affect the construction, but mainly in the tendency to use aor. and fut. indicative. Still, irregularities in the use of ἂν especially as to its omission with subj., are not very conspicuous. Despite the suspicion caused by A's irregular placing of ὅταν, it may be right to read it here, with Q θc.; and ἐὰν may be right in xxxi. 4. If ὅταν is here, an alternative would be to read ἐσαλεύθη. supposing ε to have dropped out between a preceding and following σε the syllabic augment does not seem to be omitted. (The reading ἀρθῇ in xviii. 3 is not certain.) The argument that irregularities of grammar occurring in the MSS. are likely to be genuine is largely balanced by the consideration that the grammar of the earlier writers would probably have been less bad than that of later scribes.

For questions involving the optative, see notes on xi. 9, xxi. I.

3. εἰς συνάντησιν Ἀχὰζ] Vulg. in occurs-um A. Heb. has ordinary inf. with The Greek phrase is common, Gen. xviii. 2, Exod. iv. 27 Deut. i. 44, Judg. xv. 14, c.; cf. John xii. 13, εἷς ὑπάντησιν Ἀχὰζ may be regarded either as gen. or dat., as both constructions are found.

ὁ καταλαξθεἰς Ἰασσοὺβ] LXX. have translated the first part of the name, no doubt wrongly. Cf. x. 21.

ὅ υἱὸς] Α, unsupported, has the curious variant ἀδελφός, cf. ix. 20. The scribe may have been influenced by the idea that Isaiah's son would be too young to accompany him: in fact, Shear-jashub was probably only a boy at this time. Or again, he may have thought that the child of promise, soon to be spoken of, would be probably, by analogy, a first-born son (leaving aside vii. 14, there remains viii. 3).