( 32 - )

torn, Pseiidambrofe , the Vulgar and all the La-^jiern Versions in the Polysott. Another Omis-sion of the Pleonastick ov we find in the newText of Lu. xxi. 23. Where, though the Vou-chers from Greek MSS. are more numerous,yet the fame critical Reasons subsist against theChange, besides many good Authorities, viz. allWalton i> Oriental Versions, and many Greek MSS.Once more, the new Editor leaves out this Par-ticle, 1 sim. iv. 15, though omitted only in fourGreek MSS. It is true, the antient Latin Ver-sions and the Syriack , are consenting to the O-milsion. , But then it should be considered, thatalthough those Versions are good Witnesses forredundant Words, they cannot be depended on,when they attest to Omissions of this Kind. Forit is not to be supposed, that an Interpreter willadd a redundant Particle not extant in his Copy:But we have Reason to think that they may andoften do omit Redundancies. Thus for Instance,Lu. ii. 14. the Vulgar , Syriack , Persian andÆthiopick. Versions, leave out cy, though foundin every Greek MSS. now extant and producible.For Veles\ MSS. which we are told have notthe Particle , were never seen by any but himself,though diligently sought after. Again, All theMSS. Verlions, &c. that we know of, readIvndvfjLis^ Rom. i. 24. except the Syriack , whichomits the Preposition . Thus also Psal. lxvii. 15?.the Syriack , Chaldee and Arabick Versions,neglect the redundant Hebrew Particle d.

II.