The remarks now made on the antiquity of the Samaritan recension convey our opinion on the cause of the agreement between numerous readings of the LXX. and it. The similarity exists in above a thousand places, some of them important It is true that the Septuagint also agrees with the Maso retie text in many passages against the Samaritan ; but these discrepancies are not so striking as the coincidences of the Septuagint and Samaritan against the Hebrew. If the original Samaritan codex was an Egyptian-Jewish one, the similarity is sufficiently explained. Amid successive emen dations, or corruptions as some would call them, of the Samaritan and the Greek, in addition to the mistakes made by copyists, all that can be looked for now is an agreement in the principal charac teristic readings. And that is actually found. Hence we reject the numerous hypotheses which have been framed to account for the agreement in question, such as that the LXX. translated from the Samaritan, that the two documents were mutu ally interpolated, that the Samaritan has been 'merely altered from the Septuagint, etc. etc.
It is highly desirable that a critical edition of the Samaritan should be printed in the Samaritan character, from a good collation of all known MSS. Since it was inserted in Walton's Polyglott, it has not been published in its own character. Blayney's edition (Oxford 179o) is in the square or Hebrew character. Kennicott gave his various readings front the Samaritan, in his Hebrew Bible in the same letters. Levisohn published at Jeru salem, 1860, the 20th chapter of Exodus in fac simile from a very old MS. at Nablus, already noticed, with some parts of the Masoretic text, a Russian version, and an Introduction ; but the specimen is badly executed.
Besides the Introductions of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Jahn, De Wette, Havernick, Keil, and Bleek, the reader is referred to Gesenius, De Fent. Sanzarit. origine, indoleetazictoritate, Halle 1815, 4to ; Morini (J.), Exercitationes in ;11r-unique Samarz?. Pentateu chum, Paris 1631, 4to ; Ussher's Synta,gma de .LXX. interpretibus, epistola ad L. Cappellum, London r 655, 4to; Poncet's Nouveaux eclaircissements sur l'origine et le Pentateuque des Sanzaritains, Paris 1760, 8vo ; Le Clerc's Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Hal lande sur l'histoire critique du R. Simon, Amster dam 1686, Svo ; Tychsen's Disputatio historic°. philologico-critica de Pentateuch° Ebroo-Samari fano, ab Ebrao eoque Masoretico &script° exemplarz; Butzovii 1765, 4to ; Prideaux's Old and New Testanzent connected in the history of the yews and neighbouring nations, London Ivo, 8vo ; Walton's Prolegomena, xi. 9, II, ed. Dathe, 1777, 8vo ; Cappelli Critica Sacra, ed. Vogel and Scharfenberg, Halae '775-1786, 8vo ; Kennicott's Secona' Dissertation, Oxford 1759 ; A letter to the Rev. Mr. ICennicotz, in which his defence of the Sanzaritan Pentateuch is examined, and his second Dissertation on the state of the printed Hebrew text of the O. T. is shown to be in many instances inju dicious and inaccurate, by T. Rutherford, D.D., Cambridge 1761, 8vo ; An answer to a letter from the Rev. T. Rutherford, D.D., 1761, Svo ; also A second letter to the Rev. Dr. Kennicott, in which his defence of the second dissertation is examined, 1763, 8vo ; Bauer's Cri?ica Sacra, Lipsiae 1795 ; Steudel in Bengel's Archiy., iii. 626, etc. ; R. Simon's Histoire critique a'zi V. T., Paris 1678, 4to ; Fulda in Paulus's Memorabilia, vii. ; Hasse's
Aussichten zu kfinftiger AzcfkMrzeng ueber das A. T., Jenm .1785, 8vo ; Paulus's Conzmentar ueber das N. T., 4 Theil, Liibeck 18°4, 8vo ; Hupfeld's Beleuthtung- einiger dunklen und miss verstandenen Stellen der alttestamentlicher Text geschichte in the Studien und Kritiken of 1830, H. ; Mazade, Sur l'origine, rage, et Peat critique du Fent. Samar., Geneve 183o, Svo ; Hug in the Freiburg- Zeitschrift, vii. ; Hengstenberg's Die Authentie a'es Pentateuches, vol. i. Berlin 1836, 8vo ; Stuart in the North American Review for 1826 and American Biblical Repository for 1832 ; Frankel's Lieber den EiVuss a'er palaestinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851, 8vo ; Davidson's Treaare on Biblical Criticism, Edinburgh 1852, 8vo ; Introductio in Libruvz Talmudicum de Sanzari tanzlr' scripsit Raphael Eirchheinz, Frankfurt 1851, 8vo.
Sanzaritan Version of the Pentateuch.—This is a translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch which follows the text literally, except that in rendering the names of God, in dispensing with anthropo pathisms and using euphemisms, it adopts the method of the Targums, especially that of Onkelos with which it often agrees. This agreement, though striking, is not uniform. Hottinger and Eichhorn account for it by supposing that the translator made use of the Targum—an improbable hypothesis, because of the enmity then subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans. To say that it has been subsequently interpolated from Onkelos will hardly account for the peculiar character of the version. In difficult places it departs from the Targum. How then is the likeness to be ex plained ? According to Winer, followed by Haver nick and Juynboll, it was owing to the influence of the hermeneutical tradition of the Jews on the theology of the Samaritans. Yet it is difficult to resist the impression that some MSS. have been interpolated from Onkelos ; because the agreement in various places is identical. The language in which it is written is that sort of Chaldee which comes near the Hebrew, mixed with several Arab isms. As a whole the version ca.nnot be called a good one ; since the translator seems to have been guided by no proper rules of exegesis. Hence he falls into many mistakes. E/okim or Yekovali is commonly avoided, and angel put instead, to suit the supposed dignity of the divine being. The names of peoples, countries, cities, mountains, and rivers are changed from the old into more modern names ; less so, however, than by Onkelos and Saadias. Thus Ararat, in Gen. viii. 4, is Sarnedib; the land of Shinar (Gen. x. ro) is rev land of the tower (Babylonia) ; Potipherah (Gen. xlvi. 2o) is Cohenan ; Gad, a troop will depopulate, as it is in the Samaritan, is here rendered a despiser will despise. In Gen. x. 3i for these are the sons of Shem,' this version has Cu, np,91-1 these are the portions of the sons of Shem. takes are numerous and glaring : thus for the two of them (DrOW, Gen. iii. 4), the version has n71451) 'S`11, pursuing them, apparently because the translator read VilN.V). In Exod. xx. 26, thou shalt not go zip by steps, is rendered pnr, ITIPV3, thou shall not ascend with preva2-ications. In Num. xii. 14, rr1N, lzer father, seems to have been taken from W1, for it is rendered in bri nghzg her. In Gen. xlix. r, ni,V, his colt, is mistaken for city, and is therefore translated rimp. In Gen.