188 



REV. J. IVERACH MUNRO, M.A., ON 



matter of producing an authentic and intelligible copy of the 

 Law, cleared of every ambiguity and apparent contradiction, is- 

 in the circumstances a certainty : and so far from, as was said 

 by one critic of my work, being ''a theory only, unsupported as 

 yet by solid facts," it is a conclusion to which I have been shut 

 up by " the solid facts " of the Samaritan Pentateuch itself, the 

 historical situation revealed in ii Kings xvii, and the facts of 

 the translation in the Samaritan dialect. My placing of it in 

 the forefront in my work on the Samaritan Pentateuch was 

 intended to save the reader the drudgery of following the 

 investigation while it afforded the light upon the subject, which 

 was needful. 



We now come to the evidence of the translation. The first 

 thing that strikes me about that translation is that it has the 

 name Jehovah everywhere throughout when it is in the 

 Hebrew-Samaritan. There has been no attempt whatever 

 to make any change or substitution for it, from any reason 

 whatever. This I especially emphasize because of tiie error of 

 Gesenius on this important point. I may mention here, though 

 not stopping now to give the grounds of my conviction, that 

 I am convinced that Jehovah is the original pronunciation of 

 the Tetragrammaton after all. We shall revert to the subject. 



Here we note that the occurrence of this name throughout is 

 a very strong proof, taken in conjunction with the rest, of the 

 early date of the translation. Since it occurs throughout, in a 

 translation which must have been made for popular use, then it 

 must also have been read. Therefore it appears to me that the 

 translation must have been not only earlier, but much earlier 

 than the Targum of Onqelos or that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel or 

 the Jerusalem Targuui, and also much earlier than the 

 Septuagint translation. The citation of any modern Hebrew 

 work in proof of the contrary is beside the mark. The con- 

 dition of mind which prevented the translators of these 

 Targums and of the Septuagint from writing and reading the 

 name is quite absent from that of modern Jew or Gentile. We 

 can write and read anything so far as reverence is concerned. 



The simple directness and force of the translation and the 

 absence of any attempt at circumlocutions in connection with 

 the names of God also bear out the evidence of the name 

 Jehovah. They mutually support each other. But in turn 

 they form part of a series of evidences which is overwhelmingly 

 in favour of the early translation. 



This brings us to examine the kind of dialect which is used 

 by the Samaritans in the translation of their Pentateuch. 



