7.—It sometimes varies from the Septuagint, as in Gen. I. 7, V. 29, VIII. 3, 7, XLIX. 22; Num. XXII. 4.

The differences between the Samaritan and Hebrew Pentateuchs may be accounted for by the usual sources of various readings, viz., the negligence of copyists, introduction of glosses from the margin into the text, the confounding of similar letters, the transposition of letters, the addition of explanatory words, &c. The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, is of great use and authority in establishing correct readings; in many instances it agrees remarkably with the Greek Septuagint, and it contains numerous and excellent various lections, which are in every respect preferable to the received Masoretic readings, and are further confirmed by the agreement of other ancient versions.

The most material variations between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew, which affect the authority of the former, occur, first, in the prolongation of the patriarchal generations; and, secondly, in the alteration of Ebal into Garizim (Deut. XXVII.), in order to support their separation from the Jews.

With regard to the charge of altering the Pentateuch, it has been shown by Kennicott, from a consideration of the character of the Samaritans, their known reverence for the Law, our Lord's silence on the subject in his memorable conversation with the woman of Samaria, and from various other topics; that what almost all biblical critics have hitherto considered as a wilful corruption by the Samaritans, is in all probability the true reading, and that the corruption is to be charged on the Jews themselves. In judging, therefore, of the genuineness of a reading, we are not to declare absolutely for one of these Pentateuchs against the other, but to prefer the true readings in both. "One ancient copy," Kennicott remarks, with equal truth and justice," has been received from the Jews, and we are truly thankful for it; another ancient copy is offered by the Samaritans; let us thankfully accept that likewise. Both have been often transcribed; both, therefore, may contain errors. They differ in many instances, therefore the errors must be many. Let the two parties be heard without prejudice; let their evidences be weighed with impartiality; and let the genuine words of Moses be ascertained by their joint assistance. Let the variations of all the manuscripts on each side be carefully collected, and then critically examined by the context and the ancient versions. If the Samaritan copy should be found in some places to correct the

Hebrew, yet will the Hebrew copy in other places correct the Samaritan. Each copy, therefore, is invaluable; each copy, therefore, demands our pious veneration, and attentive study. The Pentateuch will never be understood perfectly, till we admit the authority of both."*

VERSIONS OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

Of the Samaritan Pentateuch two versions are extant; one in the proper Samaritan dialect, which is usually termed the Samaritan Version, and another in Arabic.

We here reproduce on the opposite page a specimen of the Samaritan Codex, and its Samaritan translation from Walton's Polyglott. The passage is from Genesis, I. 1-14.

The Samaritan Version was made in Samaritan characters, from the Hebraeo-Samaritan text into the Samaritan dialect, which is intermediate between the Hebrew and the Aramaean languages. This version is of great antiquity, having been made at least before the time of Origen, that is, early in the second century. The author of the Samaritan version is unknown, but he has in general adhered very closely and faithfully to the original text; so that this version is almost exactly the counterpart of the original Hebrew-Samaritan Codex with all its various readings. This shows, in a degree really surprising, how very carefully and accurately the Hebrew Pentateuch has been copied and preserved by the Samaritans, from the ancient times in which their version was made.

After the rise of protestantism, the adherents of the new sect made a fierce attack on the Latin Vulgate. They, at the same time, greatly extolled the original languages of Holy Scripture, and strove to maintain that the Hebrew text had persevered unchanged from the beginning. To counteract this movement, some Catholics depreciated the Hebrew text far below its merits. It is undoubtedly true that both opinions are extreme. The Hebrew text, like all other old documents, has suffered much from various causes, and in the text are many uncertain readings. In fact, as it is older than the other texts of Scripture, its vicissitudes have been greater, and the resulting corruption greater; but we stoutly deny that it is so vitiated, that it is no longer an authentic text of Scripture. Justin, (martyr) Origen, Chrysostom, the pseudo Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome and others accused the Jews of corrupting the Scriptures.†

*Kennicott, Diss. II. pp. 20-165.

+S. Iustin. c. Tryph. 71, 72, etc. (M. 6, 644); S. Iren. c. haer. III. 21; IV. 12 (M. 7, 946, 1004); Origen. Ep. ad Afric. 9; in Ierem. hom. 16, 10 (M. 12, 65

ཡར

TEXTUS HEBRÆO-SAMA

gy,

RITANU s.

TEXT.ET VER.SAM.
Tranflatio Latina.

CAP. I.

IN Principio creavit De us cælum & terram. Ter 2 ra autem erat inanis &

AM* ••mb3°2v*x]¥9*'*m=2&'81933 vacua, & tenebræ erant *&&'YMIZA'49M3* •93&'M¥MY'9%&'Mm*24 Super faciem abyssi :spiri tus quoque Dei (a) fere batur fuper aquas. Di 3

*5m 93'934¥*DMA'HM¥2*2ram3'9KEMY'AKAI *ÁaÞ

<ymq23*3m•9342•TMm¥2&*&9Pm5 xitque Deus, fiat lux, & =«¿TE&•43M'APA'MINI'IIV'MIM22 faila eft lux.Et vidit De-4 YTX9*VMPQ'MXM MIZA'YAM**6us lucem quod bond esset 2.2.27 Et feparavit Deus inter

2

lucem & inter tenebras. Vocavitque Deus lucem, diem, tenebras vocavit noctem; Et factum ef vefpere, factumque e? mane,dies unus. Et dixi:

in medio aquarum: Separetque aquas ab aquis. Et fecit Deus firmamentum: Separavitque aquas que erant fubter firmamentum ab aquis que erant Yuper firmamentum:& Factum eft tta. Vocavit

=mwm2m2*M*JPA'MEMY'AMM * que Deus firmamentum, 14 cœlum: Et factum eft ve93:43m3'5m9*2mTa¥23:m9&X:20:9m&X2 pere, factumque eft ma2*23*x3x^2*3maz'a2m2

VERSIO SAMARITANA.

me, dies fecundus. Et di-b
it Deus, congregentur
aqua, que fubcælo funt in
Locum unum,& appareat
arida: & factum eft ita.
Et vocavit Deus aridam, to

ཝཱ

Effet. Et dixit Deus, ger-x minet terra berbam virentem, (b)facientem femen; & arborem fru giferam, facientem fru um fecundum fpeciem fuam, cujus femen fit in

AJP*X*XYZ4:99V3* 'am¥2•amy®5mg w * 2 ea fuper terram : & fa*Amax*am&JP2mXYY'IMY®®®um eft ita. Produxitque *P*******=m&JP2•2028 terra herbam virente (c) Facientem femen fecundu wJw'm&YTM¶'Im'bby&m•¥¥2&•9aƒ3 **peciem fua:&(d)arbore faci:ntefructu(e)babente 43****emen in femetipfa, fecun •T 210 dum fpeciem fuam: Et ri '9BAT* :98**2****2^'*98*di: Deus quòd boni esset J'99V'm9J'52m&K:JKJ'av9am. Et factum eft vefpere,fa-13 JA*:**<*¥**2*¥*12tumq; eft mane, dies ter tius. Et dixit Deus, fiant 14 3:137512;33232°3232* •9ÅD'A&M`IVIH Luminaria in(f)firmamen ZA ŽIVI•ÈRID12¥9'INTIMOPT'MIJ'SMA to cali, ut luccant Jupe -<2X.47*9*XX**** 9213 terram, & feparent diem www.mamab•mama notte: fintque in figna in tempora,& in dies

per faciem aque(b) feminantem (c) progerminantem gernen (d) plantam (e)cujus fructificatio in seipfa eft() orbe cœli

Martianay, Nicolas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, Salmeron, Melchior Canus, Morini and others also have laid this accusation upon them.*

Jerome, in another place, stoutly defends the integrity of the Hebrew text. Augustine, Sixtus of Sienna, Bellarmine, Genebrard, Mariana, Richard Simon and others have also defended its integrity.†

In studying the question, we are led to the following conclusions: 1.-They err greatly who believe that any extensive corruption was wrought in the Hebrew text in hatred of the Messiah. That such corruption could not have been wrought before the time of the Christ is self-evident. There was lacking the motive for such movement, and, moreover, had it been done in hatred of the Messiah, he would have charged them with this great crime. That such corruption were wrought after the advent of Christ is disproven first, from the impossibility of the work. There were many codices scattered abroad through the world, several of which were in possession of those who would not conspire in such undertaking. No system would suffice to reach them all. And, moreover, some of the sublimest of the messianic prophecies never arrive, in their translations, at the grandeur that they have in the original. We believe, also, that the Providence of God would not permit that code to be essentially corrupted, in which he had first covenanted with the chosen people. But it is not our mind to deny that an occasional corruption has been wilfully fastened upon the Hebrew text. Hatred of the Messiah is bound up in the heart of the Jew. Now, as they were the chief custodians of the Hebrew text, it is quite probable that, wherever the reading or the sense was doubtful, they would incline to that reading or interpretation which was less favorable to the Messiah. Again, some certain texts may have been deliberately corrupted in some codices, whence the corruption spread, sqq.; 13, 449 sqq.); S. Chrys. in Matth. hom. 5, 2 (M. 57); Ps. Athan. Synops. SS. 78 (in textu latino tantum; M. 28, 438); Tertull. de cultu fem. I. 3 (M. 1, 1308); S. Hier. in Gal. 3, 10 (M. 26, 357).

*Raym. Mart. Pug. fid. II. 3, 9 p. 277; Lyran. et Paulus Burg. in Os. 9; Salmer. Proleg. 4; Cani Loci theol. II. 13; Morin. Exercit. bibl. I. 1, 2 p. 7 sqq. eorum et aliorum multorum testimonia recitat.

+S. Hier. in Is. 6, 9 (M. 24, 99); S. Aug. De Civ. D. XV. 13 (M. 41, 452); Bellarm. De verbo Dei II. 2; Sim. de Muis Triplex assertio pro veritate hebraica. Opp. II. p. 131 sqq.; Genebrard in Ps. 21, 19; Sixt. Sen. Biblioth. s. VIII. haer. 13; Ioan. Mariana Pro Vulgata c. 7; Rich. Sim. Hist. crit. du V. T. III. 18; Marchini De divin, et canonic. libr. sacr. I. 6; Lamy Introd. in SS. I. p. 83 sqq.; Reinke Beitræge VII. p. 292 sqq., etc. etc.

and gradually invaded them all. This we admit, but it is in so small a part that it does not rob the great text of its value. We reserve for the exegesis of the text to specify the places where such corruption has prevailed.

The corruption of one passage, or the attempt to obscure the sense of a passage, would have sufficed to bring upon the Jews the accusations spoken of in the Fathers. Moreover, it is not clear that the Fathers charged them with changing the Hebrew text, but rather with obscuring the sense, so that they rejected the Septuagint. Justin, it is true (1. c.), accuses them of deliberate mutilations, but an examination of the passages does not substantiate his charge. The rejection by the Jews of the deuterocanonical books might also have been taken by the Fathers as a corruption of Scripture.

We believe, therefore, that the way of truth lies in a middle course. We admit that some passages of the Hebrew text are corrupted, but we defend that in the main it is authentic, and of the greatest value for him who would arrive at the deeper sense of the message of the Old Law.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

We have before spoken of the evidence of the Providence of God in bringing about a state of peace in the civilized world, preceding the advent of Christ. It is also attributable to this benign Providence that one universal tongue was the medium of thought in this vast extent of the habitable globe. When, therefore, the Apostles entered upon the execution of the mandate of Christ to teach all nations, they adopted the Greek language which was the great medium of thought among the nations.

After the Macedonians had subjugated the whole of Greece, and extended their dominion into Asia and Africa, the refined and elegant Attic began to decline; and all the dialects being by degrees mixed together, there arose a certain peculiar language, called the Common, and also the Hellenic; but more especially, since the empire of the Macedonians was the chief cause of its introduction into the general use from the time of Alexander onwards, it was called the (later) Macedonic. This dialect was composed from almost all the dialects of Greece, together with very many foreign words borrowed from the Persians, Syrians, Hebrews, and other nations, who became connected with the Macedonian people after the age of