This venerable roll is written on parchment, in col- umns thirteen inches deep and seven and a half inches wide. The writing is in a good hand, but not nearly so large or beautiful as in many book-copies which they possess. Each column contains from seventy to seven- ty-two lines, and the whole roll contains a hundred and ten columns. The skins of which the roll is made are of equal size, and each measures twentj^-five inches in length by fifteen inches in width. In many places it is worn out and patched with rewritten parchment, and in many other places where not torn the writing is il- legible. About two thirds of the original writing is still readable. The name of the scribe, we are told, is writ- ten in a kind of acrostic, and forms part of the text run- ning through three columns of the book of Deuteronomy. In whatever light this statement may be regarded, the roll has the appearance of verj' great antiquity.
III. Critical Character. — We have briefly stated above that the Exercitationes of J. Morin, which placed the Sa- maritan Pentateuch far above the received text in point of genuineness — partly on account of its agreeing in many places with the Sept., and partly on account of its superior " lucidity and harmony" — excited and kept up for nearly two hundred j'ears one of the most ex- traordinary controversies on record. Characteristically enough, however, this was set at rest once for all by the very first systematic investigation of the point at issue. It would now appear as if the unquestioning rapture with which every new literary discovery was formerly hailed, the innate animosity against the Masoretic (Jew- ish) text, the general preference for the Sept., the defec- tive state of Shemitic studies — as if, we say, all these put together were not sufficient to account for the phe- nomenon that men of any critical acumen could for one moment not only place the Samaritan Pentateuch on a par with the Masoretic text, but even raise it, uncondi- tionally, far above it. There was, indeed, another cause at work, especially in the first period of the dispute ; it was a controversial spirit which prompted J. Morin and his followers, Cappellus and others, to prove to the Re- formers what kind of value was to be attached to their authority — the received form of the Bible, upon which, and which alone, they professed to take their stand. It was now evident that nothing short of the Divine Spirit, under the influence and inspiration of which the Scriptures were interpreted and expounded by the Roman Church, could be relied upon. On the other hand, most of the " Antimorinians" — De Muis, Hettin- ger, Stephen Morin, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeiffer,
etc instead of patiently and critically examining the
subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments which were within their reach, as they are within ours,
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 294 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
directed their attacks against the persons of the Morin- ians, and thus tlieir misguided zeal left the question of the sujieriority of the new document over the old where they found it. Of higher value were.it is true, the labors of Simon, Le Clerc, Walton, etc., at a later period, who proceeded eclectically, rejecting many read- ings, and adopting others which seemed preferable to those of the old text. Houbigant, however, with un- exampled ignorance and obstinacy, returned to Mori- nus's lirst notion — already generally abandoned — of the unquestionable and thorough superiority. He, again, was followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Alex, a St. Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, Bertholdt, and others. The discussion was taken up once more on the other side, chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in tinally disposing of this point of the superiority {Exercitatt. Phil, in Houhig. Prol. [Lugd. Bat, 1755]). It was from his day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the Masoretic text was the genuine one ; but that in doubtful cases, when the Samaritan had an '"unquestionably clearer" read- ing, this was to be adopted, since a certain amount of value, however limited, did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Jahn, and the majority of modern critics ad- hered to this opinion. Here the matter rested until 1815, when Gesenius (De Pent. Sam. Origine, Indole, et Auctoritate) abolished the remnant of the authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch. So masterly, lucid, and full are his arguments and his proofs that there has been, and will be. no further question as to the absence of all value in this recension, and in its pretended emendations. In fact, a glance at the systematic ar- rangement of the variations, of which he tirst of all be- thought himself, is quite sufficient to convince the read- er at once that they are for the most part mere blunders, arising from an imperfect knowledge of the first ele- ments of grammar and exegesis. That others owe their existence to a studied design of conforming certain pas- sages to the Samaritan mode of thought, speech, and faith— more especially to show that the Mount Geri- zim. upon which their temple stood, was the spot chosen and indicated by God to Moses as the one upon which he desired to be worshipped. Finally, that others are due to a tendency towards removing, as well as linguist- ic shortcomings would allow, all that seemed obscure or in any way doubtful, and towards filling up all apparent imperfections either by repetitions or by means of new- ly invented and badlv fitting words and phrases. It must, however, be premised that, except two alterations (Exod. xiii, 6, where the Samaritan reads "«Si.r days shalt thou eat unleavened bread," instead of the re- ceived" .Seren days,"and the change of the word nitin " There shall not be" into tT^nr, " live,'' Dent, xxiii, 18), the Mosaic laws and ordinances themselves are no- where tampered with.