48.  Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem.  Alex. | | | loosely. | |50.  Is. 26.20. |} | | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory? 50.  Ps. 32. 1,2. | | | | |52.  Ps. 69.31,32. | 52.  Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | | Ps. 51.17. |} | | |53.  Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas | Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly. | 11,31,32. |} | Compression. 54.  Ps. 241. | | | 56.  Ps. 118.18. | | | Prov. 3.12. | | | Ps. 141.5. | | | |+56.  Job 5.17-26,| | | v.l. | | |+57.  Prov. 1.23- | | | 31. | |

[Footnote:  The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.]

It will be observed that the longest passages are among those that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g.  Gen. xiii. 14-16; Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12).  Others, such as Gen. xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. 16-23, have only slight variations.  There are only two passages of more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide divergences.  These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a vague reference [Greek:  legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19.  This is perhaps what we should expect:  in longer quotations it would be better worth the writer’s while to refer to his cumbrous manuscript.  These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost sight of.  We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps not numbered, to guide him.  We must remember too that the memory was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, especially among the Jews.

The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the fusion remarkably complete.  Of all the cases in which two passages are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a different source is being quoted from.  The same would hold good (with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek:  aegapaesan] to [Greek:  en auto]) in c. xv.  But here the question is complicated by the possibility, and