This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of the LXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that the LXX. do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example, the word חפץ is rendered in chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 8 (7), viii. 6, by πρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs, viz., chapter v. 4 (3), xii. 1, 10, by θέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such whatever. The LXX. use the one rendering or the other as best suits the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words, the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all the passages in which they occur, the renderings of the LXX. become of special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of the LXX.’s renderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search, and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in every instance. The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by the pronoun, and by ὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all. In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain vaw, and ain ain verbs, the LXX. do not always follow the Masoretic pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of the LXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real, and may be explained, for the most part, on the principle that the translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words in the original.