Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

text. This version is generally acknowledged to be the oldest translation we have of the Pentateuch into any language, and on all hands allowed to date as far back as the Christian era. And it is so literal as to agree almost word for word with the original Samaritan text, so that hardly any errors can have crept into this text, since that version was made. These two facts prove conclusively that, ever since the Christian era, the Samaritans have transcribed their Pentateuch with surprising accuracy. But we know of no reason why it should have been preserved in a purer state since the time of Christ, than before.

So far then from there having been any peculiar causes of corruption operating to impair its value, there is good reason to believe that it has come down to us in a state of remarkable integrity, and is, in the main, a true and faithful copy of the original text. Let it not, however, be supposed that we have it in a condition of perfect integrity. Like the Jewish, it must have passed through considerable changes in the course of transcription for more than three thousand years. Corruptions from this source it doubtless has, as well as the Jewish. Neither would it be strange, if, in the lapse of so many ages, some few intentional corruptions had crept into the one as well as into the other. If any such there be, they were full as likely to be introduced by the Jews, as by the Samaritans. It is unreasonable at this day to expect as pure a text of the Five Books of Moses, as of the Four Gospels, written as these were so much later, and transmitted to us through so many different channels. All we would say, then, in regard to the integrity of the Samaritan copy, is, that, in general, it may safely be depended upon, as a means of correcting the received text of the Pentateuch, and that, in case of a disputed reading, the preference should always be given to the Samaritan, unless there is some reason for supposing the text to have been corrupted in that particular instance.

Nine tenths, at least, of the variations between the Jewish and Samaritan texts are so trifling, as not to affect the sense at all. But there are some very considerable differences, which claim a passing notice.

There is quite a number of passages, where the Samaritan is more full than the Jewish; where difficulties are cleared up, and the sense is illustrated. These additions may be viewed in either of two lights, either as real omissions in the Jewish

[ocr errors]

text, or as glosses introduced into the Samaritan by scribes. But, if they improve the sense, or are confirmed by the known truth of facts, it is fair to presume that they did belong to the original text, and have been omitted in the Jewish only through the negligence of copyists. About thirty passages of considerable length, which occur but once in the Jewish, are repeated in the Samaritan. Of these repetitions, some of the most remarkable occur in the Book of Exodus. Here we have the speeches, which were occasioned by the various messages from God to Pharaoh, expressed twice; once, as given in charge by God to Moses, and again, as delivered by Moses to Pharaoh,after the manner of Homer's Iliad, where we find the principal messages recorded twice. In the Jewish, the same speeches occur but once, and that not in any regular order. Sometimes we have a message from God to Moses, without reading that Moses delivered it; and sometimes one from Moses to Pharaoh, without reading that God had commanded it. And what seems strange, we read the speeches of God to Moses, denouncing certain judgments upon Pharaoh in case of his disobedience, and immediately after, of the infliction of those judgments, without being told that the speeches were ever delivered by Moses. In regard to all repetitions of this nature, the presumption is strong, that they really made a part of the original text, since, in general, they are not only required by the connexion, and, if not expressed, must be understood, but, as Whiston truly says, are such "the old plain method in the Bible elsewhere, and in Homer, one of the ancientest heathen authors now extant, gives us reason to expect." We may easily suppose them to have been omitted by Jewish scribes for brevity's sake, and to save themselves the trouble of what was deemed unnecessary transcription.

-

as

There are some very material discrepancies between the Jewish and the Samaritan Chronology. From the Creation to the Flood, the Samaritan computes a hundred years less than the Jewish, making the interval fifteen hundred and fiftysix years, while the Jewish makes it sixteen hundred and fiftysix. On the other hand, in the ten successive generations immediately after the Flood, the Samaritan computes six hundred and fifty years more than the Jewish, the one making the interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham nine hundred and forty-two years, and the other, only two hundred and ninety two. And in regard to the time, which elapsed 3D s. VOL. XI. NO. I.

VOL. XXIX.

11

between the birth of Abraham and the death of Moses, there are several other important differences between the Jewish and Samaritan texts. The Samaritan Chronology differs also from that of the Septuagint, though with this it agrees better than with the Jewish. Which is the true Chronology, or rather, which is nearest the truth, has been a question much discussed; but it is one, which probably will never be decided. In this particular, some corruptions doubtless have crept into the Samaritan, as well as into the Jewish and the Septuagint.

[ocr errors]

If the view we have presented of the origin of the Samaritan copy be the true one, then, from what has been seen of its character, it must appear highly valuable as a source of correcting the received text. Whenever a new Version of the Pentateuch is attempted, we cannot but think great weight ought to be allowed to this Samaritan text; for, when our common Version of the Scriptures was made, it had never been seen by English scholars. In general, we believe it may be relied upon; though, in some places, it is allowed on all hands to be corrupt, and needs to be amended from the Jewish. The more carefully and impartially the two copies are collated, the more nearly may we expect to arrive at the genuine words of Moses. Most of the differences may easily be accounted for by the usual sources of various readings, the negligence of copyists, the confounding of similar letters, the omission of single words, the transposition of words and letters, the introduction of glosses into the text, &c. With two or three exceptions, the variations are all of an unimportant character. The most material are those, which relate to the sacred Chronology, and to the reading of the celebrated text in Deut. xxvii. 4. Still, in the main, we repeat, the Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs agree together. And when we consider how entirely independent of each other they have always been kept, how many thousand times they must have been transcribed, — from what remote ages they have descended, through what various and eventful scenes they have passed, the wonder is, that they should have been preserved in a state so pure, and now differ so little. In view of the whole, we may well exclaim in the words of Kennicott; "How adorable is that Wisdom, which could contrive to impress the seal of credibility so strongly upon the Pentateuch; so firmly to establish its authenticity upon the joint testimony of two such nations, -two nations, who, for about two thousand years, have exercised the most uniform resent

[ocr errors]

ments, scarce agreeing in any one observance, but worshiping the true God, and reverencing this same Pentateuch of Moses."

T. W.

NOTE. In addition to the authorities already referred to, in a note to a previous article on this subject, see also Reland's Dissertatio de Samaritanis; Du Pin's History of the Canon of Scripture, Book I., Ch. 4 and 5; Cellarius's Collectanea Historiæ Samaritanæ; and Le Clerc's Bibliotheque Universelle, Tom. ix., pp. 373-385; Tom. xii., pp. 532–546; Tom. xiv., pp. 102–126.

ART V.- Prize Essays on a Congress of Nations, for the Adjustment of International Disputes, and for the Promotion of Universal Peace without Resort to Arms. Together with a Sixth Essay, comprising the Substance of the Rejected Essays. Boston: Whipple & Damrell, for the American Peace Society. 1840. 8vo. pp. 706.

THE phrase Congress of Nations has become familiar to almost every ear; but we apprehend that comparatively few attach to it any definite idea. It is regarded by many as designating a Utopian vision of certain weak and warm philanthropists, not more likely to realize itself than any one of the thousand whims of our one idea reformers. Others, who have given the subject a cursory reflection, have understood by a Congress of Nations a permanent international court, clothed with judicial functions, and authorized to enforce its decisions, when resisted, by the arms of the non-recusant powers represented in the tribunal. This view has been made too prominent by many of the friends of peace, and has drawn upon their measures the shafts both of sound argument and of searching ridicule. But it is by no means the true view. Those who have bestowed the most attention upon the subject are by no means sanguine as to the feasibility of a permanent tribunal for the adjudication of controversies between nations; nor do they deem such an institution essential to the establishment of universal peace, We propose in the present article to set forth

the legitimate purposes, for which we desire and expect, ere long, to see convened a Congress composed of representatives from the principal civilized nations of Europe and America.

International law may be compared to the common law of Great Britain and of this country. It is a lex non scripta, — a law of precedent and authority. It is perpetually in the process of creation. It has its foundation in the extension to communities of those principles of natural justice and good faith, which govern the intercourse of man with man. It grows with the growth of national wealth, refinement, and power, and is modified by every new mode of diplomatic or commercial intercourse. It incorporates into its substance conventional forms and usages; established courtesies between courts and their representatives; mutual concessions ratified by venerable precedent. It is derived in a great measure from stipulations and treaties. Its sources and authorities are the universal human heart, all human history, and the archives of all nations upon earth. It is vast and comprehensive, yet intangible. All have their ideas with regard to it, but know not how to verify them. The phrase law of nations is on every one's lips, with regard to a wide diversity of subjects; but who shall say what that law is on any one point?

We can trace the law of nations back to the very infancy of society. Even among hordes of savages in the earliest times the person of a herald was held sacred; there were certain conventional modes of declaring and conducting war, from which it was unlawful to vary; and a covenant of amity between two tribes, when ratified by oath or sacrifice, was deemed indissolubly binding, even though obtained by the fraud of one of the parties, as was the case with the covenant between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites, mentioned in the book of Joshua. From these rude beginnings has this common law of nations been extending its sway, and multiplying its ramifications, with every generation. On many subjects of prime moment, it may be regarded as fixed, or rather as having reached a stage of progress, from which it will never recede. This is the case, no doubt, with the usages of war among civilized nations. In those respects, in which common consent has mitigated the barbarities of war, there is but little reason to dread a retrograde movement, though there are still many points, in which humanity has larger demands to make of Christian nations, in conducting hostilities with each other, and especially with savages.

« ZurückWeiter »