But while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original language in which our book was written, it does not necessarily follow that the recently found manuscripts contain the original form of the Hebrew; indeed, there have not been wanting scholars who have stoutly denied this, and who maintain that this Hebrew is a translation of a Persian rendering of a Syriac text[353]; or that it is, at any rate in part, a translation from the Greek and Syriac.[354] Here, again, in order to prove our point that, in the main, the Hebrew of the recently found manuscripts does represent the original form, numerous details of a technical character would be required[355] which would be out of place here; it must suffice to say that “the text of the Hebrew, though it is disfigured by scribal errors and corruptions, and—in some places—by the presence of glosses, is yet essentially independent of the Greek and the Syriac; the hypothesis of retranslation breaks down, at best a plausible case for the influence of such a factor can only be made out for an insignificant number of verses, where, however, an alternative—and, on the whole, more probable—explanation is possible.”[356] V. THE AUTHORIZED AND REVISED VERSIONS OF ECCLESIASTICUS In comparing the Authorized and Revised Versions it will be seen that, apart from differences of rendering, there is this fundamental difference between the two: the Authorized Version contains a large number of verses which are omitted in the Revised Version. These omissions are noted in the Revised Version, for in the margin one constantly comes across the words: “Verse ... is omitted by the best authorities.” The reason of this difference between the two Versions is that for the Revised Version only the great uncials of the fourth century A.D. were used; whereas for the Authorized Version a number of cursive manuscripts belonging to a much later time were used. The procedure of the Revisers is justified on the grounds of textual criticism, for as authorities the great uncial manuscripts of the fourth century are far superior to the cursives of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; on the other hand, the Authorized Version is not only supported by early patristic authority, but also by that of the Old Latin Version which contains many really ancient elements.[357] There is, of course, a great deal of matter common to the uncial and cursive manuscripts as represented by the Revised and Authorized Versions; but the difference between this common matter and that which is peculiar to the cursives is very marked; the additions, numbering a hundred and fifty lines or more, besides many verbal additions (and it is more than probable that both amounted to many more originally), must have been added for some special reason, and that reason, whatever it was, must have existed at a very early date, for as we shall see, the additions have existed since pre-Christian times.