what Mr. Hurwitz has urged against them I am ignorant, having not read his book; but the only other evidence for them is from Jewish tradition in the Talmud. M. Simon however himself acknowledges, that the traditions there on this subject are in direct opposition to one another, as Buxtorf has also proved ever since 1662, in his Dissert. de origine ling. Hebr. He says "that he is convinced that Buxtorf has sufficiently proved from the Talmud, that although in one passage [according to the common interpretation of it] Mar Sutra affirms the antiquity of the Samaritan letters, yet in the same place of the Gemava of the same tract, Sanhedrin, R. Simeon says the directly contrary after Rabbi Eleazar, and affirms that neither the Jewish language nor letters had undergone any change by Ezra." P. 425, tom. 2.

on y

Such contradictory traditions then can amount to no evidence, especially since Simon adds, "that no dependence whatever is to be placed on any traditions in either of the Talmuds." Les traditions qui n'ont point d'autre fondation que le Talmud sont peu croyables; ce vaste ouvrage est si plein de contradictions, que le plus souvent il ne merite pas qu'on y ait egard: voit des docteurs, qui se combattent avec force les uns les autres sur leurs traditions," p. 427. Accordingly, learned Jews themselves have had different opinions on this subject ever since; but one further evidence has occurred to me of which I have seen no hint before, which is, that even that passage of Mar Sutra, above mentioned, which has been made the only foundation for the antiquity of Samaritan letters, appears to me to have been altogether misinterpreted by Raf Chasda, whose interpretation of it is subjoined

in

in the Talmud; and that Mar Sutra actually meant to affirm the directly contrary to what Raf Chasda supposes him to mean: now it is that interpretation by Raf Chasda which the Jews and Christians have adopted ever since, but I apprehend very erroneously, and this is the only passage in the Talmud in favour of Samaritan letters.

I was led to this opinion by a remark in the above work of Simon, in which he asserts that there is one evident error in the common interpretation of that passage in question (which I will mention afterwards) in regard to one assertion in it," p. 426. Now I wonder that the perception of this error did not carry him further, and as far as myself to perceive that the whole interpretation was erroneous, and has made Mar Sutra affirm the directly contrary to his real meaning. Let me first quote the whole passage itself, and then point out the above error; the words added in Italics, between crotchets, ascertain the senses which Raf Chasda gives to the preceding words, and which have been given to them ever since; but the question is whether those be the right senses. "Dixit Mar Sutra; in principio data est lex Israeli scripturâ Ebræâ (Samaritana) et linguâ sanctâ (Ebræa): iterum data est ipsis in diebus Ezræ scripturâ Assyriacâ (Ebræâ) et linguâ Aramæâ (Chaldaica). Elegerunt pro Israelitis (Judais) scripturam Assyriacam (Ebræam) et linguam sanctam (Ebrzam); et reliquerunt Idiotis (Samaritanis) scripturam Ebræam (Samaritanam) et linguam Aramæam (Chaldaicam). Quinam sunt Idiota? Raf Chasda dixit Cuthæi (Samaritani). Quænam est scriptura Ebræa? Raf Chasda dixit Libonaah (Samaritana)."

Now, at the mere reading of the above so interpreted, I think that every reader must find himself astonished at almost every national name being made to have a sense quite different from what he had ever been used to before; yet such is the interpretation of Chasda, if Israelitis means Judzis, as it must do if Idiotis means Samaritanis; and accordingly so all Jews and Christians understand those words, even Simon himself. But what is the error above referred to? It is "that these Rabbins do not say what is really true, when they affirm "that there was left to the Arthæans (Samaritans) the scriptura Ebræa and lingua Chaldaica.' For it is certain that the Samaritan pentateuch is in lingua sacra (Ebræa) not in Chaldaica, and in the same language with that of the Jews themselves, although it is writ in Samaritan letters, not in the letters of the Jewish pentateuch."

This is such an evident and gross blunder, that it seems very wonderful how the interpretation by Raf Chasda could be so generally adopted, and he must. therefore certainly have mistaken the sense of Idiotis, when he explains it to mean the whole nation of Samaritans instead of the private commonally of the Jews, which is the most proper and general meaning of Idiotis; and of whom it is actually true that their paraphrases of the pentateuch in the lingua Chaldaica were writ in the letters of the lingua sancta, i. e. in Hebrew letters; but it is not true of the Samaritans, as Simon rightly remarks: the latter had indeed a paraphrase likewise, but this was in Samaritan letters as well as language. Now this alteration of the sense of Idiotis necessarily alters the sense of every national name throughout the whole passage, and restores them

to

to such senses, as they have every where else and ought to have here also. The explications in the crotchets will then stand thus. "Dixit Mar Sutra: In prin

cipio data est lex Israeli (et Judæis et Israelitis) scripturâ Ebræâ (Ebræâ et linguâ sanctâ (Ebræa): iterum data est lex ipsis diebus Ezræ scripturâ Assyriacâ (Syriaca et Samaritana) et lingua Aramæâ (Chaldaica). Elegerunt pro Israelitis (Samaritanis) scripturam Assyriacam (Samaritanam) et linguam sanctam (Ebræam) et reliquerunt Idiotis (privatis Judæis) scripturam Ebræam (Ebræam) et linguam Aramæam (Chaldaicam)."

Thus every assertion is true and every name has its right and common sense: but it must be observed that when Mar Sutra says that iterum data est lex scriptura Assyriaca et linguâ Arameâ, he cannot mean that these two innovations were united in one and the same copy, for this would not be true; but only that these two innovations were certainly made under Ezra, in two different copies however of the pentateuch. For the Samaritan copy was afterwards writ in Samaritan letters for the Samaritans (Assyriaca,) and the Jewish copy was afterwards paraphrased in the Chaldee language (Aramæa) for the use of private Jews. That Sutra thus meant different copies for the use of different persons is evident by his subsequent words, eligerunt and reliquerunt. When persons make choice of any thing, they must necessarily choose one out of two or more things; and thus out of the two innovations they chose Assyrian letters for the Samaritans; but thus the second innovation of Chaldee' language they left (reliquerunt) to the private Jews." He could not have used reliquerunt with any propriety,

F 4

priety, if he had not meant that what was thus left was the remainder of the two innovations before mentioned, and which were after this manner divided between the copies by the Jews and Samaritans.

By this exposition, which necessarily results from giving the right sense to Idiotis, it appears that even this passage in the Talmud, if rightly explained, affirms the present Hebrew letters to have been the original letters of the pentateuch, not the Samaritan ones: and this also several Jews have asserted in the same chapter of the Talmud, and others expressed their as tonishment that Sutra should say that the Samaritan letters were the original ones, as Simon himself thus affirms," in the very same place of the Gemava of the tract Sanhedrin, R. Simeon says expressly after R. Eleazar the directly contrary to Mar Sutra above; he there affirms, that as the language of the people of Israel was not changed by Ezra, so also there was no change in their letters at that time." P. 425.

Buxtorf also produces the testimony of R. Abraham' Harophe in these words-" Obstupescit cor meum, quomodo id ascendere potuerit in animum Mar Sutræ: an instar hominis est Deus, ut mutet aliquid circa scripturam legis, prout ab ipso metest data lex publice in oculis totius Israelis in monte Sina? Aut ut peniteat ipsum linguæ illius propriæ Judæorum-mutando eam in alienam scripturam tempore Ezra," p. 199. He was misled by the false interpretation of Sutra's words, which Raf Chasda had given in the Talmud, as all others have been ever since, and his implicit reverence for the Talmud would not permit him to suppose that there was any mistake concerning the sense of any thing affirmed there; he differed so far

however