176 



THE PENTATEUCH OF THE SAMARITANS. 



I do not feel myself obliged to defend the historical accuracy of 

 the Talmudic statement. I am afraid Mr. Finn had not recently 

 examined either Samaritan MSS. or the coins of the Maccabees 

 recently when he penned his third objection. As more convenient 

 to handle than the Codices, if he will look at the photograph of 

 the Watson Codex in Montgomery's Samaritans, p. 288, and be 

 good enough to compare the resh (fourth letter) in the top line 

 with daleth (second) in the third line, he will see that the 

 Samaritan resh was more liable to be confounded with heth than with 

 daleth. A study of the figures of Jewish coins given in Madden, and 

 in the British Museum Catalogue of the coins of Palestine, will show 

 that the backgoing line which difierentiates daleth from resh is em- 

 phasized. I also think he is mistaken when he says that " on the 

 Moabite stone these letters are sufficiently alike to be mistaken." If 

 Mr. Finn will look at any photograph of the Moabite stone he will see 

 that the daleth is in every case a triangle while the resh always 

 has one side prolonged, e.g., the last letter in the first line is daleth 

 and the fifth in the third is resh. He will find, I think, that the 

 same thing holds in almost all nearly contemporary inscriptions 

 figured in Lidsbarski, e.g., the Siloam inscription and that of Baal 

 Lebanon. I admit that in the Sinjirli inscriptions the likeness 

 amounts almost to identity, but these inscriptions are a 

 century later in date and removed geographically 300 miles 

 from Palestine. If Mr. Finn cares to look at the Samaritans 

 he will find that in the chapter I devote to the relation of the 

 Samaritan to the LXX, I come very much to the same 

 decision he himself comes to. I do not see how Mr. Finn arrives 

 at his conclusion that the Samaritan is derived from " a corruption 

 of the original from which the Massoretic is derived " unless he 

 means that both had a common source and that the Samaritan 

 has sufiered more from interpolation than the Massoretic. In 

 thinking that Rodanim has intentionally been varied from Dodanim 

 Mr. Finn has forgotten that in 1 Chron. i, 7, the K'thibh ii Rodanim. 



Let me conclude by again thanking the Institute for their kindness 

 and courtesy. 



