« הקודםהמשך »
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. 'Tis farther observable, that this Samaritan St. Luke's account is this—" Ten men, roman 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 Gerizin, for two davs-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 ingemuonly 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 te glory to God; save this stranger!"know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Chap. xvii. Saviour of the world." On which words If it be sail, that this Samaritan and his Lightfoot remarks-"Llore is a confession of contemporaries lived long after the time, faith higher by some degree than the Jews' when this famous text (Deut. xxvii. 4) was common creed concerning the Messias ; for corrupted; and therefore (though the disthey held him only for a S iour of the position of a people is indeed to be collected Jewishi nation : and so we may see, how from the behaviour of individuals, vet) their deeply and cordially these Samaritans had good character is not conclusive in favour of drunk in the water of life, so as to acknow their ancestors: this is acknowledged readily. ledge Christ in his propor character." The ind no greater stress is laid upon the parcomment of St. Chrysostom on the behaviour ticulars of this article, than to establish the of this woman and her friends, in preference general character of the Samaritans; in opto that of the Jews, is worthy our observa- position to those writers, who revile that tion. “Out" KATE YETAN ERELVI TOUS leyoue people, of all ages, as a race of wretches VO!S, W5 Killete pous kuleoal. Tovoucou de, Ou the most profligate and most abandoned. uorok OUKcKalour, alla kal TOUS DovojEPOUS III. It then, from this worthy disposition Toporre del Colvov. Viunoneta T V Thy of the Samaritans, and from their profound Σαμαρειτι!- Ορις κρισιν αδε κασταν της γι - Teneration for the law of Moses, tlie' should νικος, απο των πραγματων ψηφιζομενης και b» 1lhought loss like to have made the TO T7UT PLPxy ku To Spuot($). M OUK wilful corruption, which is considered in the Jovoulou (LTUS. - lầov Sappeltal kull Tane- present chapter; it may be now observeddal TOLSTOVOLUTIV, Os Qu yummy Toy lovorov that, should this wiltul corruption be charged EL PUT KOPTAT Òc Tamidawy ou Saupertal 30- won the Jews, it will not be the first charge TLOUS."'
against them of this particular nature. St. This lead being meant to vindicate, in Jerom, commenting on Gal. iii. 10 (“ It is general, the credit of the ancient San- writen; (uusal is every one, that conritans; I shall arid, that as Christ wis timueth not in all things, which are written pleased to manifest great favour to these his in the book of the law, to do them") has the ready disciples at Sichem, so he draws ay following very remarkable words :miable character of the beneficent and
* In the pronou ('TOV in this place may not “ 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 Oitius, 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 ( JUDÆIS 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, NUNQUIM PROTULIS- learned Dr. Morton, librarian at the British SET; nisi in llebræis voluminibus haberetur. Museum.* Quam ob causam SWARITANORUM IIebræa This vindication of St. Jerom will by no volumina relegens, inveni 55 (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, ne material, as to the Jews having wilfully viderentur esse sub maledicto, si non possent corrupted their Pentateuch. I shall just omnia* complere quae scripta sunt: cum remark, that not only the Samaritan text and ANTIQUIORES alterius quoque gentis literae id version, printed in the French and English positum fuisse testentur.''
scem properly applicable to Ocos, possibly the * To this testimony we m ul that of Epi- Sur, Llop, and I'cric versions have preserved penins; wich is also very firowable to the the true reins at the teet of Jesus." And
crual currit of the Sunutart, (pealt vet, perhaps the cool1 redding is as easily on a coupurison with that of the Jens: - invested in the wo.ch, feed the church of God, Ελεγγος της Ιουδαίων σκλη, 50 καρδιας ην Σιμα- « Inic! In: 1:11, μαγch.i-el with lis own blood :” PriTWV CUTIE C'Ell' KUL TO EV (KELHOLS (I Tint), UTTON dros 24Duliere our very ancient Bodleian EV TY TOUTUD Mueputy Oduvetul. Ruco,XITW S. of the drin, Citiakoue V). 1,119, reads Toadevo pedofuOns TIIS EX.DOIN TEROS EKKIUS11.V (nor TOYOY, i.e., Tou ecov, A1ADOP.IV.
but TOYKY, i.e., TOI' Kuntou.
Polyglotts, but also all our Samaritan MSS. "Tis true ; it has been frequently asserted (which contain this verse) read ), omnis, (in order to evade the force of this weighty lagreeably to those Samaritan MSS. examined determination) that Jerom could not find the by St. Jerom. And therefore 'tis matter of word in any Sam. MS., because he did not great surprise, that the learned Cellarius know the Sam. letters. And, that he did should affirm the direct contrary; at least, as not know those letters, has been pronounced to the printed copies of the Samaritan Pinfully evident, from the very wrong descrip-'tatouch: for he says- Neque in Ebræotion he has given of the last letter of the Samaritano, neque in versione Samar. hodie alpliabet. But surely-to give the direct lie 13, omnis, apparei."-Ilora Samar., p. 35. to so venerable an author, at least withont Let us proceed now to another instance of very ample proof, can hardly be exeused; wilful corruption, which seems equally clear and yet in this case the charge is as false, as and express. The book of Judges acquaints it is rash and wiconsidered. For the evi-us with the shameful conduct of some in the dence amounts to nothing more than this ! the modern Samaritan Thau is not like' * Il it should be possible for any one to doubt Jerom's description; and therefore (2 the authorities of so many leemed writers, there strange interence!) the ancient Samaritan are in England several genuine Samaritan coins, Thau was not like Jerom's description. The on which theo is uniformly expressed by a cross. 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 702, Moses, himself? No; for the word Manasseh foland not 7019, 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 Graca 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 Nioses, we may (as Glassius copies, suspended between heaven and earth, observes) inter from Theodoret ; who flou- as omninous ; 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 “Iwvaðav vios Mavao on vlov l'npoan, VLOV Criminal intrusion, by shrinking to the comMwon. QUTOS KIIL OL VLOL QU'Tov ngay tepels t mon size, and wearing the exact garb of the puan Aav, ews ons MLETOLKEO UIS,' &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 casily lived about 6,50 years ago--- 17p 10 1712325
One of these, of small brass, in excellent preservadescription is this antiqnis llebræorum
',110), is (with eight other Samaritan coins) preliteris, quibus usque hodie utuntur Sanua-'served in the valuble and elegut collection of ritani, extrema litera Thau Crucis habet Nr. Duane, at Lincoln's Inn. And on this similitudinem." Comment on Ezek. ix. 1. curious coin the n, in form of a cross, occurs
-- --- --- -- 'three times, the inscription being, recte * The English version in this verse ot' Deutero. 7". Another coin, of the same small brass, nomy, as in many other places, allow the corrupc'having on one side the words just specitied, and tion of the present llebres copie For, as it, on the other side the same unknown characters as inserts other necessary words elsewhere, so here upon the reverse of the preceding coin, has been it inserts the word all, noting it with a dittcrent published by T. Harduin. See lis Pliny, Paris, character, a deficient in the present Hebrews 1723, vol. ij., tals. 7, p. lut.
ותdeter ined , by the nature of the luce , dandi
כתב נון לשנות את השם ונכתבה תלויה לימר שלא היה
from the honest confession of the Jews : 763 mm 700, - Propter honorem Mosis themselves.
scripta fuit (litera) Nm, ut nomen mutaretur; For, struck with deep concern for the et quidem scripta fuit suspensa, ad indicanhonour of their lawgiver, and distressed dum, quod non fuerit Menasses, sed Moses." that a grandson of Moses should be the first Vid. Talmud., Bava Bathra, fol. 109, b. priest of idolatry; they have ventured (it Thume', then, we have the Jews convicted seems) upon a pious fraud, placing over the of wilful corruption, upon the most unexword 703 the letter which might intimate ceptionable of all evidences-their own conit to be Vanasseh. The fate of this super- fession. And low any Christian can rapositions letter has been very various: some-'tionally defend this word, as uncorrupted, I times placed over the word ; sometimes suis do not see. That Manasseh, in this text, pended half way; and sometimes witormly should mean the then future king of Judalı, inserted. The consequence of which has is most absurd to imagine. That it should been ; that, as it was universally understood | mean Vanasseh 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 Vanasseh, called Gerslom. But that Gershom was the Vanasseh 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 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 IIebrew text, as the sacred history here most impartially at Josh. xv. 60—“OEKW, Kal Eopada (avtn represents him.
εστι Βηθλεεμ) και Φαγωρ, και Αιταμ, και The very learned John David Michaëlis Kovrov, kai Tataui, kai Lopns, kai Kapeu, has judiciously given his opinion, against the kui Talliu, kai Baionp, kai Mavoxw' models legitimacy of this word Manasseh. For in evỒera, kal al Kwuau avtov." These cities, the third volume of the Gottingen Com- he thinks, may have been omitted by the mentaries (1to., 1753) this writer has a ancient Jews, out of malice to Christianity; curious treatise, “ De pretiis rerum apud because Bethlehem-Ephratah (the place of Hebrros 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 Ileb. tre 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 Nin; qua ua Manassis a Mosis an interpolation. 'Tis true: this critic supnomine differt. Es majorum traditione poses the omission to have been occasioned narrat Abendana, Nm illud in honorem by the same word ;797 (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 momen 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. lle 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 llebrew text (it inay be added and Bethlehem is elsewhere mentioned as befalsely expressed also in the Hebrew MSS.), longing to Judah, vet (I believe) Bethlehemand as he here allows, that the Jews wiltully 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 Vicah before referred to. And been very lately convinced of the Jews therefore, though this remarkable omission having wilfully corrupted their text, at least was probably owing at first to some tranin one instance; after having advanced the scriber's mistake; its not being re-inserted contrary opinion, in the volume preceding.' might be owing to the reason specified by For there, in a curious treatise“ De Siclo ante St. Jerom. exiliun Babylonicum," at p. 81, his words It may be noted, at the conclusion of this ari " Vullo certo exemplo probari huc article, that Dean Prideaux also thought it 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. i., 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, i 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 notorions; and tans." * And, lastiv, 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 perse- Samarit m, "Say we not well, that thou art quantur, neminem latere potest eorum, quila Samaritan, and hast a devil?" John vili. 43. legunt mendacia et calumnias, quibus Sa- From all which it is most abundantly manimaritas eorumque scripturam omnibus seculis fest, that the Jews cannot be acquitted of obruere sint conati." De LII, cap. 29. the preceding charge, merely for their not Scaliger observes, in his famous book, “ De having the Samaritans. Emend. Temp., "p. 602, “ Judride Simaritis LX. 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 intensissimum," 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 ilebrew VISS, did, in the days of Josephus, power) were not behind hand with the truly read Ebal in the text of Deut. xxv. 4, Samaritans. For (if we may believe their we shall doubtless find this author most own authors) Ezra, Zorobabel, and Jeshua, positive and most express, that the altar was gathered all the congregation into the tem-I to be, aud was, built upon Ebal. ple; and they blew the trumpes; and the Speaking of the command of God, by Lerites sung, and cursed the Samaritans by Moses, upon this head (lib.iv., cap. 8, sec. 14), 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 oriention versam, non procul ab ube Sicimothe upper and lower boue of judgment; rum, inter montes duos (METREU Ôvotv opouv), that no Israelite eat of any thing that is a Gariza o ad dextrum posito, id lavam autem Samaritan's; nor that any Samaritan be Cibulo." 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 cuuse; and the king fixed a curse from Sichen at the foot of Gerizim. But everlasting to them, as it is said, Indi God can it possibly be suprosed, that this acute destroy all kings and people, that shall pnt and learned advocate for the Jews (after so their hands to alter it. Hac R. Tunchum." * much sharp contention with the Samaritan)
We find, in Ezra iv. 1, &c.; that, upou would so espresly have given up the honour the Jew's returning from their captivity, the --
Ov7c4p (1776, 071 Eajapeltal Tous 102* See also Walton: Poly loun. I'rolont. xi, f. õaliis or curryporta. Crysoston. in lecun.