212 EEV. CANON GARRATT, M.A., ON THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 



all over Canaan ; others would come into the hands of Jeroboam's 

 priests and be the Israelitish recension of our (Jewish) Pentateuch. 



Here, as in all other cases, progress of research and knowledge is 

 found to issue in vindication of the Bible. Does it not teach us 

 that God may permit difficulties to exist in order that we may trust 

 Him with regard to them and so glorify Him ? We may see no 

 rift in the clouds, but if we wait, they will part and the light will 

 stream through. 



Eev. G. F. Whidborne. — We are, I am sure, very grateful to 

 Canon Garratt for having given us this paper, and I only hope he 

 will give us another before he is ninety ! I know he is well stored 

 with subjects. 



I would say that it seems to me, quite apart from discussion on 

 the Babylonian script, that we have got a most difficult question for 

 the " higher critics " to settle in the mere fact of what Canon 

 Garratt has brought before us that the Samaritans, soon after the 

 time of the destruction of Samaria, had the Pentateuch, and I cannot 

 understand how the "higher critics" are going to reconcile that 

 with their views. 



There is one point of Canon Garratt's paper upon which I should 

 like to make a remark. He says, "In Genesis ii, 19, there is, both 

 in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan, a word not in the Hebrew. 

 The Greek word is eVt," and then he gives the Samaritan, " out of 

 the ground yet again God formed." This word, e'rt, conveys the 

 words necessarily, I think, in a reiterative sense, and if it is so in the 

 Samaritan that " out of the ground God still formed every beast," it 

 implies, as the author says, a previous creation. 



Kev. Canon Garratt. — I think Mr. Spencer referred to a point 

 in Deuteronomy treated of by Gesenius, that the Samaritan text 

 appeared to be a softening of the original as if, according to 

 Gesenius, it was made even more grammatical, and that, all together, 

 many difficulties were removed. He mentioned that as an objection. 

 But I think it should be borne in mind that, supposing the view I 

 have taken is right, at the time of the separation of the two kingdoms 

 it was in the northern kingdom that this recension, that seems to 

 be a softening and an improvement in some respects, took place. 



I cannot quote a text to show it, but the whole aspect of the 

 history seems to show that the northern kingdom was more 

 cultivated, and that if the scholars got the recension into their hands. 



