2. Levisohn procured a very old copy from Nablfis, which was probably written not long after the commencement of the Christian era. The 2oth chapter of Exodus is given from it in fac-simile by this scholar. The codex seems to be very old, since it wants the numbering of the ten command ments, which the Sammitans reduce to nine. The story connected with it is, that it is the identical Thorah which Zerubbabel threw into the fire before the Babylonian king, when he disputed with San ballat.
3. Another codex was seen by Levisohn and Kraus at Nablits, which probably reaches up to the 7th century of the Christian era, and of which o fac-simile is given by Rosen. This codex also wants the numbering of the commandments. The MS. itself, which is in 8vo, has a tarich or gloss, stating that it belongs to the 35th year of the Hegira.
4. A fac-simile from anothei codex, in folio, which is also at Nablfis, is given by Rosen.
5. At Oxford, Bodl., fol., 3127 (Ussher). This is perfect, except the first twenty and the last nine verses.
6. At Oxford, Bodl., 4to, 3128 (Ussher). This MS. has a parallel Arabic version in Samaritan letters. It is very imperfect, all Leviticus being lost, with the greater part of Numbers and Deu teronomy.
7. At Oxford, Bodl., 4to, 3129 (Ussher). This is also imperfect, especially in Deuteronomy and Numbers.
8. At Oxford, Bodl., 4to, 624 (Ussher, Laud). This is defective from Deut. 2 tO XVii. 15, and from xxv. 17 to xxvt. 16.
9. At Oxford, Bodl., 12mo, 15 (Marsh). This MS. wants the first thirty verses ; and is much obliterated in the first seventeen and last four chapters.
to. At Oxford, Bodl., 24mo, 5328 (Pococke). A perfect MS., except that parts of the leaves are lost in the 6th, 23d, 30th, and 31st chapters of Deu teronomy.
rt. At London, British Museum, Claud. B. 8vo (Ussher). This MS. is complete, and of great value.
12. At Paris, Imperial Library (Peiresc), No. t. This codex contains both the Hebrew and Samari tan texts, with an Arabic version in the Samaritan character. It is defective in various places.
13. At Paris, Imperial Library (Peiresc), No. 2. This MS. is defective in many parts.
14. At Paris, Oratory, No. (De Sancy). This is the MS. of Pietro della Valle, which was printed by Morin. It is complete, and ancient.
15. At Paris, Oratory, No. 2 (Dom. Nolin). A perfect MS., but made up from sheets of different copies. Genesis is the most ancient 16. At Paris, in the Library of St. Genevieve, written on paper, and of small value.
17. At Rome,Vatican, No. to6 (Peir. and Barber.) This MS. contains the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with an Arabic version in the Samaritan character. It is very defective in two or three places. The first part, to Dent. xi. 28, was written earlier than the rest.
18. At Rome, Vatican (Cardinal Cobellertius). Dated, like the preceding, in the 7th century, but not so old.
19. At Milan, in the Ambrosian Library. It is much faded in Genesis, and defective in many places, but of special value, and belongs to the 12th century.
20. At Leyden, fol., (Golius's MSS.) A complete MS. of the 14th century.
21. At Gotha, in the Ducal Library. Very im perfect.
22. At London, in the Count of Paris's Library, 4to. Said to be complete, with a parallel Samari tan version.
The texts of these MSS., as far as we know them by inspection, or by collations more or less careful, differ considembly from one another. They are by no means so uniform as those of Hebrew codices. It is matter of regret that they have not been properly collated. Little has been done towards their examination since Kennicott's time.
With respect to the authority and value of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the opinions of scholars are nearly unanimous at the present day. Morin was the first to maintain the great superiority of the Samaritan over the Hebrew recension. His Ex ercitationes opened up a controversy, which was carried on with much zeal and little calmness on both sides. In 1815, Gesenius published his cele bmted Dirsertation, in which he showed that little value belongs to the text, that no critical reliance can be placed upon its readings, and that therefore they cannot be employed as a source of emendation. This masterly essay went far to ruin the credit of the Samaritan in the critical world.* According to Gesenius, the peculiarities of the text may be divided into the following classes :— I. This class comprises such readings as have been adapted by Samaritan scribes to a gram matical standard usually inaccurate.