ference, even to Jerusalem: much less does charitable man, in his parable of the good he say, that Ebal had been the mount really Samaritan. The history is not less pertinent honoured by God; and not Gerizim, as her than remarkable; and let us give it a mofathers had falsely pretended. ment's attention, &c.

If it be said, that this Samaritan and his

'Tis farther observable, that this Samaritan St. Luke's account is this-"Ten men, woman expressed her expectation of the that were lepers, lifted up their voices, and Messias-that Christ made a clear declara- said; Jesus, master! have mercy on us. tion to her of his being so-that she believed And he said; Go, shew yourselves unto the him to be so that she went hastily into priests. And as they went, they were Sichem, full of the interesting discovery cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that, at the importunate request of the in- that he was healed, turned back; and with habitants, Christ continued in the town, at a loud voice glorified God, and fell down at the foot of Gerizim, for two days—and, that his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a many of those Samaritans were such candid Samaritan. And Jesus said; Were there judges, so ingenuously disposed to embrace not ten cleansed? But, where are the nine? the truth; that they said: Now we believe There are not found, that returned to give —we have heard him ourselves; and we glory to God; save this stranger!”— know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Chap. xvii. Saviour of the world." On which words Lightfoot remarks-"Here is a confession of contemporaries lived long after the time, faith higher by some degree than the Jews' common creed concerning the Messias; for they held him only for a Saviour of the Jewish nation: and so we may see, how deeply and cordially these Samaritans had drunk in the water of life, so as to acknowledge Christ in his proper character." The comment of St. Chrysostom on the behaviour of this woman and her friends, in preference to that of the Jews, is worthy our observation. * Ούτω κατέχεται εκείνη τοις λεγομενοις, ως και ετέρους καλέσαι. Lovdator de, ou μονον ους εκαλουν, αλλά και τους βουλομενοις προσελθείν εκωλυον. Μιμησωμεθα τοινυν την Σαμαρείτιν-Ορας κρίσιν αδέκαστον της γυντικός, από των πραγμάτων ψηφιζόμενης και TO TUTрlaрx n και το Χριστο. AXX' OUK Ιουδαίοι οίτως, -16ου Σαμαρείται και Γαλιλαιοι πιστεύουσιν, εις αισχύνην των Ιουδαίων. ευρίσκονται δε Γαλιλαίων οι Σαμαρείται βελ

τιους.

This head being meant to vindicate, in general, the credit of the ancient Samaritans; I shall add, that as Christ was pleased to manifest great favour to these his ready disciples at Sichem, so he draws an aniable character of the beneficent and

To this testimony we may add that of Epiphandas; which is also very favourable to the general character of the Samaritans, especially upon a comparison with that of the Jews:Excyxos Tys Lovdatov σkanpokapŝtus qy Sapaρειτών ευπείθεια και το εν εκείνοις απανθρωπου ἐν τῇ τούτα νημεροτητε διαφανεται. Καίρατω παλιν ο φιλομαθης ΤΗΣ ΕΝ ΑΜΦΟΙΝ ΕΞΕΩΣ AIAPOPAN.

when this famous text (Deut. xxvii. 4) was corrupted; and therefore (though the disposition of a people is indeed to be collected from the behaviour of individuals, yet) their good character is not conclusive in favour of their ancestors: this is acknowledged readily. And no greater stress is laid upon the particulars of this article, than to establish the general character of the Samaritans; in opposition to those writers, whọ revile that people, of all ages, as a race of wretches the most profligate and most abandoned.

VII. If then, from this worthy disposition of the Samaritans, and from their profound veneration for the law of Moses, they should be thought less likely to have made the wilful corruption, which is considered in the present chapter, it may be now observed that, should this wilful corruption be charged upon the Jews, it will not be the first charge against them of this particular nature. Jerom, commenting on Gal. iii. 10 (“It is written; Cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them ") has the following very remarkable words :

St.

As the pronoun avrov in this place may not seem properly applicable to Ocos, possibly the Syr., Ethiop, and Persic versions have preserved the true reiding, at the feet of Jesus." And yet, perhaps, the common reading is as easily Vindicated as the words, "feed the church of God, which he hath purcha ed with his own blood: Δεί, Α. 24 But here our very ancient Bodleian ΜS. of the Acts, catalogue No. 1,119, reads ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΝ (hot ΤΟΥΘΥ, i.e., του Θεού, but ΤΟΥΚΥ, i.e., του Κυρίου.

"Hunc morem habeo, ut quotiescunque Now that ancient letters differed greatly ab Apostolis de veteri instrumento aliquid from the modern, as to their shape; no man sumitur, recurram ad originales libros; et of learning can possibly be ignorant. And diligenter inspiciam, quomodo in suis locis that the Samaritan Thau had formerly the scripta sint. Inveni itaque in Deuteronomio very shape assigned it so expressly by this hoc ipsum apud LXX interpretes ita posi- ancient author, has been proved from the tum: maledictus omnis homo, qui non per- best authorities, by Reland and Ottius, manserit in omnibus sermonibus legis hujus. Montfaucon and Chishull; by Bianconi, in -Ex quo incertum habemus, utrum LXX his late dissertation "De Antiquis Litteris interpretes addiderint omnis homo et in om- Hebræorum,” 1748; and also by Dr. Bernibus; an in veteri Hebraico ita fuerit, et nard, in his Table of Alphabets, called, postea a JUDEIS DELETUM SIT. In hanc me" Orbis eruditi Literatura, a Charactere Saautem suspicionem illa res stimulat, quod maritico deducta ”—which table being highly verbum omnis et in omnibus, quasi sensui curious and valuable in itself, and grown suo necessarium, ad probandum illud, quod much more so because extremely scarce; quicunque ex operibus legis sunt, sub male- the public will be soon obliged with a new dicto sint. APOSTOLUS, vir Hebrææ peritiæ, edition of it, greatly improved, by the et in lege doctissimus, NUNQUAM PROTULIS- learned Dr. Morton, librarian at the British SET; nisi in Hebræis voluminibus haberetur. Museum.*

Quam ob causam SAMARITANORUM Hebræa This vindication of St. Jerom will by no volumina relegens, inveni (quod inter-means be thought a digression; as it was pretatur omnis sive omnibus) scriptum esse, necessary to establish the authority of so et cum LXX interpretibus concordare. great a writer whose testimony is so very Frustra igitur ILLUD TULERUNT JUDEI, nematerial, as to the Jews having wilfully viderentur esse sub maledicto, si non possent corrupted their Pentateuch. I shall just omnia complere quæ scripta sunt: cum remark, that not only the Samaritan text and ANTIQUIORES alterius quoque gentis literæ id positum fuisse testentur."

version, printed in the French and English Polyglotts, but also all our Samaritan MSS. (which contain this verse) read 2, omnis, agreeably to those Samaritan MSS. examined by St. Jerom. And therefore 'tis matter of great surprise, that the learned Cellarius should affirm the direct contrary; at least, as to the printed copies of the Samaritan Pentatcuch: for he says-" Neque in EbræoSamaritano, neque in versione Samar. hodie 2, omnis, apparet."--Horæ Samar., p. 55.

Let us proceed now to another instance of wilful corruption, which seems equally clear and express. The book of Judges acquaints us with the shameful conduct of seme in the

'Tis true; it has been frequently asserted (in order to evade the force of this weighty determination) that Jerom could not find the word in any Sam. MS., because he did not know the Sam. letters. And, that he did not know those letters, has been pronounced fully evident, from the very wrong description he has given of the last letter of the alphabet. But surely-to give the direct lie to so venerable an author, at least without very ample proof, can hardly be excused; and yet in this case the charge is as false, as it is rash and unconsidered. For the evidence amounts to nothing more than thisthe modern Samaritan Thau is not like * If it should be possible for any one to doubt Jerom's description; and therefore (a the authorities of so many learned writers, there strange inference!) the ancient Samaritan are in England several genuine Samaritan coins, Thau was not like Jerom's description. The on which the♬ is uniformly expressed by a cross. One of these, of small brass, in excellent preservadescription is this-antiquis Hebræorum tion, is (with eight other Samaritan coins) preliteris, quibus usque hodie utuntur Sama-served in the valuable and elegant collection of ritani, extrema litera Thau Crucis habet, Mr. Duane, at Lincoln's Inn. And en this similitudinem." Comment on Ezek. ix. 4.

curious coin the 7, in form of a cross, occurs three times, the inscription being, rish na now 8nor. Another coin, of the same small brass,

The English version in this verse of Deuteronomy, as in many other places, allows the corrup-having on one side the words just specified, and tion of the present Hebrew copies. For, as it inserts other necessary words elsewhere, so here it inserts the word all, noting it with a different character, as deficient in the present Hebrew.

on the other side the same unknown characters as upon the reverse of the preceding coin, has been published by F. Harduin. See his Pliny, Paris, 1723, vol. ii., tab. 7, p. 162.

tribe of Dan; who first stole Micah's idol, rupted. We are told indeed, that this reand then publicly established idolatry, ap- lation to Manasseh was not real but pointing one Jonathan and his sons as priests. figurative; meant of similitude in idolatry, Concerning this Jonathan (who thus im- and not of natural consanguinity. But, that piously presumed to minister in this idola- any man, who lived 800 years before trous service, and so very soon after the Manasseh, should be called the descendant death of Joshua) the present Hebrew text of Manasseh, because Manasseh acted like tells us "he was the son of Gershom, the him 800 years afterwards, is absurd beyond son of Manasseh:" ch. xviii. 30. But we expression. Besides: who is it, that is here know, that Gershom was the son of Moses; called the son of Manasseh, because equally and there are strong reasons for believing, idolatrous? Is it the idolatrous priest that the word here was at first, Moses, himself? No; for the word Manasseh foland not, Manasseh. For first, Jerom lows after Gershom: and so Gershom, has expressed it Moses; and it is, at this though innocent, is now called the son of day, Moses in the Vulgate. We read in the the idolatrous Manasseh; whilst the wicked supplement to Walton's Polyglott, in page priest, Jonathan himself, is only said to be the 5th of the various readings collected by the son of Gershom! Lucas Brugensis, &c., "Latinis codicibus What a fruitful parent of absurdities has (qui legunt Moysi) exemplaria quædam this one single letter proved! And yet 'tis a Græca suffragantur." And farther; that letter, that is part of a word, and is not the Greek, as well as the Latin, version, part of a word: in the greater number of formerly read Moses, we may (as Glassius copies, suspended between heaven and earth, observes) infer from Theodoret; who flou- as ominous; in other copies, magnified to rished (about 423) a few years after Jerom's double the common size, as monstrous: and death. This Greek writer gives the follow- yet in some copies (written as well as ing as the words of the Greek version- printed) endeavouring to conceal its own “ Ιωνάθαν υιος Μανασση νιου Γηρσαμ, υιου criminal intrusion, by shrinking to the conΜωση αυτός και οι υιοι αυτού ήσαν ιερείς τη mon size, and wearing the exact garb of the φύλη Δαν, εως της μετοικεσίας, &c. Tis genuine letters, with which it presumes to true; though he has preserved the word associate. And all this; even though some Moses, he has also (though out of place) of the honester Rabbies have assured us that preserved the word Manasseh; and from the the nun had no right to a place in that existence of both words we may infer, that word; "having been added by their fathers, some copies read the latter word, and some to take away this great reproach from the the former; whilst others (that they might name and family of Moses." The following certainly have the right word) inserted both, are the words of R. Solomon Jarchi, who But the true reading may be here easily lived about 650 years ago—1133 “BO

כתב נון לשנות את השם ונכתבה תלויה לומר שלא היה determined, by the nature of the place, and

from the honest confession of the Jews is hord, themselves.

"Propter honorem Mosis scripta fuit (litera) Nun, ut nomen mutaretur; et quidem scripta fuit suspensa, ad indicandum, quod non fuerit Menasses, sed Moses." Vid. Talmud., Bava Bathra, fol. 109, b.

For, struck with deep concern for the honour of their lawgiver, and distressed that a grandson of Moses should be the first priest of idolatry; they have ventured (it Here, then, we have the Jews convicted seems) upon a pious fraud, placing over the of wilful corruption, upon the most unexword the letter which might intimate ceptionable of all evidences-their own conit to be Manasseh. The fate of this super- fession. And how any Christian can rapositious letter has been very various: some- tionally defend this word, as uncorrupted, I times placed over the word; sometimes sus- do not see. That Manasseh, in this text, pended half way; and sometimes uniformly should mean the then future king of Judah, inserted. The consequence of which has is most absurd to imagine. That it should been; that, as it was universally understood mean Manasseh the son of Joseph, is imthat the word was designed (by those who possible; because that Manasseh had no son added this letter) to be read Manasseh, called Gershom. But that Gershom was the Manasseh has now supplanted Moses: and son of Moses, is certain from many texts of the sacred text stands here wilfully cor- Scripture. And lastly; the time of this first

1

apostasy to idolatry farther confirms the usque potuit, Judæos vel unicum sui codicis present argument. "Tis allowed by the locum consilio corrupisse." This change of learned, that the events, recorded in the five sentiment is not mentioned here by way of last chapters of Judges, happened soon after reflection: but as a certain proof of fairness the death of Joshua; and (in order of time) in so eminent a writer, ingenuously open to are prior to the former chapters, which conviction. And I remark this the more relate the oppressions and deliverances of readily, in hopes of sheltering myself under the Israelites. And, as this idolatrous so considerable an authority; if I should be establishment in Dan was soon after Joshua's charged hereafter (as I very justly may) death; that will be perfectly coincident with with having altered my opinion also, on this the life of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, same point, since the publication of my the son of Moses. For Joshua, being in the Dissertation on the Hebrew Text. See vigour of life at the death of Moses, must page 275. be contemporary with Gershom the son of It should not be forgot, that St. Jerom Moses; and would, at his death, leave (commenting on the celebrated prophecy in Jonathan, the son of Gershom, in the vigour Mic. v. 2) takes notice of the eleven cities, of life; or at least capable, in point of age, which are mentioned in the version of the of being an idolatrous priest at such a time, LXX, but not in the present Hebrew text, as the sacred history here most impartially at Josh. xv. 60— Θεκω, και Εφραθα (αυτη represents him. εστι Βηθλεεμ) και Φαγωρ, και Αιταμ, και The very learned John David Michaëlis | Κουλον, και Ταταμι, και Σωρης, και Καρεμ, has judiciously given his opinion, against the και Γαλλιμ, και Βαιθηρ, και Μανοχων πολεις legitimacy of this word Manassch. For in ένδεκα, και αι κώμαι αυτών.” These cities, the third volume of the Gottingen Com- he thinks, may have been omitted by the mentaries (4to., 1753) this writer has a ancient Jews, out of malice to Christianity; curious treatise, "De pretiis rerum apud because Bethlehem-Ephratah (the place of Hebræos ante exilium Babylonicum :" where, Christ's nativity) is one of these cities, and upon the words, Jonathan Mosis ex Ger- is described as in the tribe of Judah. Dr. shone nepos, he has the following note, Wall, in his critical notes, says "these p. 180, "In Bibliis Heb. ære typographico cities were doubtless in the Hebrew copy of descriptis Manassis nepos dicitur: suspensa the LXX." And indeed they are of such a tamen, ac si suspecta esset, supra reliquas nature, that 'tis scarce possible to think them litera Nun; qua una Manassis a Mosis an interpolation. Tis true: this critic supnomine differt. Ex majorum traditione poses the omission to have been occasioned narrat Abendana, Nun illud in honorem by the same word (and their villages) Mosis adjectum, ne ejus nepos primus fuisse occurring immediately before and at the end videretur sacrificulus idoli: Mosis etiam of the words thus omitted: and indeed the nomen in vulgata Latina legitur. Mihi same word occurring in different places has exploratum videtur, non Manassem intelli- been the cause of many and great omissions gendum sed Mosem: qui enim Levita Ma- in the Hebrew MSS. He thinks it the less nassem progenitorem habere potuisset?" likely, that the Jews should designedly omit But then, as this worthy author allows in Bethlehem here; because that place is menthis volume, that the word was originally tioned, as belonging to Judah, in several Moses, and that Manasseh is printed falsely other parts of Scripture. But then; though in the Hebrew text (it may be added-and Bethlehem is elsewhere mentioned as befalsely expressed also in the Hebrew MSS.), longing to Judah, yet (I believe) Bethlehemand as he here allows, that the Jews wilfully | Ephratah is nowhere mentioned, in that altered their text, out of regard to the manner, excepting here and in the prohonour of Moses—it is evident, that he has phecy of Micah before referred to. been very lately convinced of the Jews having wilfully corrupted their text, at least in one instance; after having advanced the contrary opinion, in the volume preceding. For there, in a curious treatise "De Siclo ante exilium Babylonicum," at p. 81, his words are "Nullo certo exemplo probari huc

And

therefore, though this remarkable omission was probably owing at first to some transcriber's mistake; its not being re-inserted might be owing to the reason specified by St. Jerom.

It may be noted, at the conclusion of this article, that Dean Prideaux also thought it

Samarit in, "Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" John viii. 43. From all which it is most abundantly manifest, that the Jews cannot be acquitted of the preceding charge, merely for their not hating the Samaritans.

possible for the Jews to be guilty of (what Samaritans civilly offered to unite with them, he calls) a plain corrupting of the text; and saying, "Let us build the temple with you, he expressly charges them with wilfully for we seek your God," &c.; which kind corrupting the Greek version of Isa. xix. 18. and religious proposal was roughly rejected. See his Connexion, par. ii., b. iv. And Above 200 years after, we may observe, now, from these instances of wilful corrup- that the hatred of the Jews continued; for tion thus charged upon the Jews, let us thus writes the author of Ecclus. (L. 25, 26), return, and proceed in the further considera-"There be two nations, which my heart tion of the text principally controverted abhorreth; and the third is no nation: They between them and the Samaritans: taking that sit upon the mountain of Samaria; and with us those other arguments which offer, they that dwell amongst the Philistines; and and will prove still more convincing against that foolish people, that dwell in Sichem,"the former, and in favour of the latter. pointing out the very mount of Gerizim. VIII. Should the hatred of the Samari- 'Tis farther observable, that the phrase in tans be here objected, as what might urge our Saviour's time was (not, the Samaritans them to commit any crime out of opposition have no dealings with the Jews, but), "the to the Jews, certainly the hatred of the Jews have no dealings with the SamariJews is at least equally notorious; and tans." And, lastly, what could show Reland says (Dissert. ii. 1), “ Judæis, juratis greater virulence, than for the Jews, when Samaritanorum hostibus vix fides habenda." they saw our Saviour's many mighty and Agreeable to this is the remark of Vossius, beneficent miracles, and yet charged him “Quanto odio Judæi codicem Samaritanum with having a devil, spitefully to call him a olim persecuti sint, ac etiamnum persequantur, neminem latere potest eorum, qui legunt mendacia et calumnias, quibus Samaritas corumque scripturam omnibus seculis obruere sint conati." De LXX, cap. 29. Scaliger observes, in his famous book, “De Emend. Temp., p. 662, "Judæi de Samaritis | IX. Let us now consider the testimony of multa impudentissime mentiuntur; ut sciunt, Josephus, that eminent historian and Jewish qui Talmud et commentarios Rabbinicos priest, whom Reland calls "hostem Samarilegerunt." And we read also in Lightfoot tanorum infensissimum," Dissert. ii. 7. And (vol. i., p. 598), "As the Samaritans were I shall only premise that, if the ancient bitter to the Jews, so the Jews (to their Hebrew MSS. did, in the days of Josephus, power) were not behind hand with the truly read Ebal in the text of Deut. xxvii. 4, Samaritans. For (if we may believe their own authors) Ezra, Zorobabel, and Jeshua, gathered all the congregation into the temple; and they blew the trumpets; and the Speaking of the command of God, by Levites sung, and cursed the Samaritans by Moses, upon this head (lib. iv., cap. 8, sec. 44), the secret name of God, and by the glorious he says, "Aram extruere jussit, ad solem writing of the tables, and by the curse of orientem versam, non procul ab urbe Sicimothe upper and lower house of judgment; rum, inter montes duos (μeragv dvow opow), that no Israelite eat of any thing that is a Garizavo ad dextram posito, ad lævam autem Samaritan's; nor that any Samaritan be Gibalo." Here then he asserts that the proselyted to Israel, nor have any part in altar, though not to be upon Gerizim, was the resurrection. And they sent this curse not to be upon Ebal, but between both; and to all Israel in Babel, and added thereto rather nearer to Gerizim, as being not far curse upon curse; and the king fixed a curse' from Sichera at the foot of Gerizim. But everlasting to them, as it is said, And God can it possibly be supposed, that this acute destroy all kings and people, that shall put their hands to alter it. Have R. Tanchum."* We find, in Ezra iv. 1, &c.; that, upon the Jews returning from their captivity, the

See also Walton's Poly, lott. Prolegom, xi. 4.

we shall doubtless find this author most positive and most express, that the altar was to be, and was, built upon Ebal.

and learned advocate for the Jews (after so much sharp contention with the Samaritans) would so expres: ly have given up the honour

* Ου γαρ ειπε, οτι Σαμαρείται τοις Ιου dalis ov ovexportal, Chrysostom. in locum.