lxiii. 8, 9. The punctuation might here be made to agree with Heb., beginning a fresh sentence with ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως. Various other passages might be brought by similar means to show less discrepancy: e.g. iii. 17, 18, xxii. 24, 25, and possibly xxxiv. 9, 10, lvi. 7, 8, lx. 5, 6. But xxvi. 18, hi. 6, 7, would need alteration of text: lxiii. 2, 3 probably requires a different division from the Heb.; and i. 11—13, xxvi. 8 xxviii. 27, 28, xxix. 5, 6, xxxii. 13, 14, and lix. 17, 18, seem to defy this treatment.

lxvi. 14 σεβομένοις] For the variant φοβουμένοις (B) cf. Jonah i. 9 where for σέβομαι καὶ) has φοβοῦμαι, supported, according to H. and Ρ., by V 40 91 130 153 311.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE GRAMMAR AND STYLE OF THE LXX.

§ 1. There is not yet, so far as I know, any work in English which deals mainly and directly with the grammar and style of the Greek O.T. The student has still to depend principally upon such books as deal with Hellenistic Greek generally, and with the lexicology and grammar of the N .T. Beside Janaaris' Historical Greek Grammar, whose range is too wide for our immediate purpose, and the N.T. Grammars, whose period does not coincide, we can now turn to a chapter in Prof. ’s Introduction to to O.T. in Greek (Part I l. chap. IV.) ; very valuable so far as it goes, but reduced by the neces- sities of space and proportion to an outline sketch. Selections from tlze Septuagint, by F. C. Conybeare and St G. Stock, contains a short practical survey of the grammar, which will meet some but hardly all the ’s needs. When a grammar of the LXX. does appear it will necessarily deal, for the sake of completeness, with many points which are interesting, especially for the light thrown upon philology, comparative and historical; but are not immediately important to readers Whose desire is to use the Greek version continuously. To these, the actual occurrence of a form or construction, however unclassical, is its own explanation in practice, provided that they can grasp its meaning. As a rule, the most pressing question is whether a doubtful sentence in the Greek is to be interpreted by the guidance of the Hebrew, or by the ascertained rules and practice of Greek, classical or Hellenistic. To decide this, either every such sentence must be noticed, or very care- fully reasoned principles must be collected and laid down. Neither of these things can be done here, nor can even an outline be attempted. Only a few roughly assorted remarks can be put together.

§ 2. Many points, both of accidence and syntax, can but be registered; they will hardly perplex the reader, or, if they should, he must turn for guidance to a translation—the Revised represents standard opinions on many points—unless he can find he wants in Liddell and Scott, Prof. Sophocles' Lexicon of Byzantine Creek, or the N.T. lexicons and grammars. In any case, no trouble need be caused by varieties of form: such as εὐθὴς for εὐθύς, τρανὸς for τρανὴς, σωτήριον, ὅρκος, δυσίν (which serves to mark the death Of the Dual), may, λήμψεται, ἐλάβοσαν, and the like: πλοῦτος neuter, the plurals of οἱρανὸς (as xxxiv. 11, xliv. 23) and γῆ (as 2 Kings xviii. 35 xix. 11, Ps. xlix. 11): τοίνυν fist in the clause (iii. to, v. 13, xxvii. 4 xxxiii. 23), ἐὰν for ἂν after relatives: tense-forms such as φάγομα (xxix. 1), with φάγεσαι (lit. 16), ἐκέκραξα (see on vi. 2), ’w’yxataav (lxvi. 20), and even εἰλημμένος. xi. 5: κύκλῳ used almost as a preposition, vi. 2, ix. 18, εἰ and μὴ as interrogative particles, the latter extended by comparison with ’s Greek, while ποῖος interrogative (l. 1 c.) scarcely goes beyond it: ὃς for ὅστις, as xlii. 23; πῶς ex- clamatory, as xiv. 4, 2 Sam. i. 19, 25, 27, Ezek. xxvi. 17, Lam. i. 1, with which compare Gen. xxviii. 17, Numb. xxiv. 5, Ps. lxxxiii. 1, cxix. 97 where the more classical ὡς appears.