TBE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 



191 



In Jeremiah this word frequently occurs in the latter sense. 

 In the whole of Ezekiel it is only twice used, and even then 

 not in the sense of punishing, although the prophet has often to 

 express that idea. 



Here, then, are two contemporary Hebrew prophets, one of 

 whom never uses the usual word for " punishing," the other 

 constantly. When we ask the reason, the Samaritan translation 

 of the Pentateuch comes to our help. For "TpS is the word 

 always used in it to translate the Hebrew word TlT:^, to "command." 



When we see this the problem is solved. For Ezekiel is writing 

 to those exiles who are using the same language as the Samari- 

 tan colonists had before they entered Palestine. Therefore IpQ 



would be liable to be misunderstood and taken in the sense of 

 " command " or some kindred meaning. If with this in mind 

 we examine the late Professor A. B. Davidson's Commentary on 

 EzeJciel, Cambridge Bible Series, Chapter xxiii, 21, and xxxviii, 

 8, the only passages in which Ezekiel uses the word, we find that 

 what Dr. Davidson says, " can hardly be supported from usage " 

 in Hebrew, is exactly what is supplied by the Samaritan trans- 

 lation and proves to be Ezekiel's meaning, at the same time 

 affording us the reason for his avoiding its use in the sense of 

 punishing. This is just an instance of the light we may 

 expect on the exegesis of the Word when we use aright the 

 Samaritan dialect. 



Among other grammatical changes in the Samaritan Penta- 

 teuch is that of t^in, when used for the feminine, to that of t^"^n,the 

 usual third singular feminine pronoun. The wonder is that 

 this has not been done in the Massoretic text also where 

 the only change that is made in the case of the feminine is in the 

 pointed text to give the vowel points of ^^^TT- The presence of 

 the archaism strongly testifies to the antiquity and Mosaic 

 authorship of the Pentateuch and to the fidelity with which the 

 ancient sacred writings were kept. 



With respect to the Mosaic authorship I have ventured to say, 

 and I repeat to this audience, because id is strictly true : "The 

 evidential value of this pronoun b^in epicene in the Pentateuch 

 is greater than if Moses had signed every page of the Penta- 

 teuch, infinitely greater, because a forger might have done that. 

 But no forger that ever lived could have devised anything so 

 simple yet as efficacious as this ^^IPf." 



One critic supposes this to be a glaring non sequitur and 

 triumphantly asks : " Does an epicene pronoun prove J E D P 

 to have been all written by one man and that man Moses ?" I 



