Lawloe — The Cathach of St. Columba. 



263 



Cathach. 



Vulgate. 



8eptuagint and Hebrew. 



Ixxvii. 13. quasi 



quasi in* 





(utret : quasi 



25. in abundantiam 



in abundantia* 





ei? TrXrja-fjLoi'riv : in saturita- 

 tem 



49. inmissionem 



inmissiones 





airoa-ToX-qv : inmissionem 



51. piimitium 



pvimogenitum 





TrpcoTOTOKov : primogeuitum 



Ixxxi. 1. deus 



deos 





9^ov<; : deos 



Ixxxv. 10. fades* 



faciens 





TTOLuiv : faciens 



xci. 12. auris tua* 



auris niea 





TO ol? /xov : auris mea 



xcvi. 5. terrae 



terra* 





T^9 y^s : teri'ae 



ciii. 10. inniittis 



eniittis 





a.-!roo-T€/\Xa)i/ : emittis {al. 

 inmittis) 



15. laetificat . . . con- 



laetificet . . . oonfirmet 



evrfipaiveL . . . <TTy]pit,eL : 



firmat 







laetificat . . . roborat 



cir. 12. numero breues 



numero breui 





apiOfxw Ppa)((.h : uiri pauci 



25. tit dolum faeerent 



et dolura facen 



•nt* 



Tov SoXiova-dai : ut dolose 

 agerent 



This table registers 19 readings of V and 19 of which may be regarded 

 as Hieronymian. But the predominance would have been on the side of 

 C if some readings of that manuscript which are probably mere slips of the 

 scribe had been excluded; as, for example, those in xlix. 22; Ixi. 4; 

 Ixv. 18; Ixvii. 6; Ixxiv. 10; Ixxvi. 2. The application of the test of agree- 

 ment with both Hebrew and Septuagint seems, therefore, to give some slight 

 indication of the superiority of C to V. 



Eeference has already been made to St. Jerome's attempt to exhibit the 

 readings of both the Hebrew and the Greek, distinguishiug them from one 

 another by asterisks and obeli. But this could rarely be done except when 

 one authority contained words which had no place in the other. When the 

 Septuagint, for example, had an imderlying Hebrew word which differed from 

 that of St. Jerome's Hebrew text, or when it mistranslated a word, it was 

 often impossible to put the corresponding Latin words side by side. One or 

 other must be omitted. In such cases what course did St. Jerome take ? 

 Was he content to translate the Greek, ignoring the Hebrew ? or did he 

 translate the Hebrew, ignoring the Greek ? A priori we should expect that 

 he would usually adopt the latter method. And this expectation seems to be 

 justified by the facts. There are not a few places in which C and V differ 

 from each other, one following the Hebrew, and the other the Septuagint. 

 It is most unlikely that the rendering from the Septuagint came from 

 St. Jerome, and that it was corrected from the Hebrew by a later scholar. 

 We are warranted, therefore, in claiming that the reading supported by the 

 Hebrew is most commonly Hieronymian, while that which is based on the 

 Greek is from an Old Latin version. And a similar claim may be made for 

 readings which have the authority, in addition to the Hebrew, of one or more 



