Lawlor — The Cathach of St. Colwiiba. 261 



Hebrew in omitting words found in V and the Septuagint; liii. 6 et ; liv. 16 

 et ;' Ivi. et ; Ixiv. 3 meam ; Ixxvii. 5 ea, 6 et ; Ixxix. 16 hominis ; xcvi. 10 

 dominus ; cii. 20 ovines. To these we may add two passages which are less 

 decisive. In xli. 11 V has qtd tribulant me inimici mei. Here the Hebrew 

 {hostes mei) and two MSS. of the Septuagint (ot '^xOpoi jnov) support inimici 

 mei, while C, with the remaining MSS. of the Septuagint (oi d\lj3ovTic; /xe), has 

 qui tribulant me. Probably St. Jerome wrote the text as it appears in V, 

 marking the first phrase with an obelus and the second with an asterisk ; and 

 C omitted inimici mei. Again at xlviii. 3 we have in V simul in unum, in 

 the Hebrew .simul, and in the Septuagint im rb ahro (= in unum ?). C, 

 omitting siwul, seems to follow the Greek. We conclude that C probably 

 omitted 4 asterisked readings, and 9 obelized readings, 13 in all. The 

 defects of V in such cases are less numerous, it follows the Hebrew in 

 omitting Septuagint readings 5 times : xxxv. 3 et ; xlii. 3 me ; xlix. lo et; 

 Ixxvii, 12 quae; Ixxxix. 16 et : and twice with the Septuagint, it omits 

 Hebrew readings : Ixx. 8 tu.a : Ixxvii. 21 7wn. Probably also at Ixiv. 9 C 

 correctly reads terminos terrae, the former word coming from the Hebrew 

 {extremis), agreeing with the majority of Greek MSS. (rd irepara), the latter 

 from St. Jerome's copy of the Septuagint ( = ^"* rriv ynv). V omits terrae. V 

 therefore omits 6 obelized and 2 asterisked words : 8 in all. These facts 

 suggest that C used more freedom in dealing with the readings marked with 

 asterisks and obeli than V, and so far gives an inferior text. 



But this impression is modified when we consider another class of 

 readings — those in which there is no conflict between St. Jerome's authori- 

 ties, and which, we may therefore presume, were not marked by him as 

 deficient in attestation. In 17 places there are words inserted in V which 

 are absent from both Hebrew and Septuagint, and also from C ; viz.- xxxiv. 

 14 et ; xxxvii. 23 deus'^-; xliii. 2 et; xliv. 13 omnes; xlvi. 6 et ; xlviii. 20 et* ; 

 I. 16 et ; liii. 7 et ; liv. 13 meus; Iviii 14 rf*;' Ixvii. 7 qui*; Ixxvii. 51 omnis;^ 

 Ixxx. 5 in ; Ixxxiii. 5 doviine ; xcv. 2 et ; xcvi. 7 et ; civ. 16 et. Only 4 such inser- 

 tions are peculiar to : Ixvi. 8 et ; Ixx. 7 domine : lx.x:v. 4 et ; Ixxxii. 1 et*. 

 In omissions of the same kind the numbers are more evenly balanced. 

 We have 4 in V : xlix. 22 nunc* f Ixxii. 16 et; Ixxix. 3 et, 10 et : and 7 in 



and also to his mature judgement as to the way in which it should be rendered into Latin. 

 By the Septuagint is meant the text as printed in Dr. Swete's " Old Testament in Greek," 

 where it is supported by all the MSS. cited in his apparatus. 



' Omitted by two of Lagarde's MSS. and present Heb. 



^ In this and the following lists an asterisk indicates that a reading is supported by 

 Sabatier's Old Latin version. 



^ Some MSS. of Sept. have Kai. 



* Some MSS. of Sept. have irarTds. 



" This word is in the received Heb., not in St. Jerome's version from the Heb. 



