135 
was substantially what it is now. When we compare the three versions, we 
find scarcely any discrepancy worthy of note. There are no great discrepan- 
cies between those three copies — the original Hebrew text, as handed down 
by Hebrew tradition ; the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, as preserved in the 
Samaritan character ; and the translation of the Pentateuch which we have 
in the Septuagint. There may be differences here and there, but are they 
more than would have been likely to occur in manuscripts so handed down ? 
They are not greater than those in the manuscripts handed down of the New 
Testament 
Mr. Row. — I cannot agree with you there. The variations are very large. 
The Chairman. — Well, are they greater than in the manuscript of the 
Septuagint itself ? 
Mr. Row. — Undoubtedly. 
The Chairman. — Well, I hope people will look at the matter for them- 
selves and judge for themselves. I have recently gone over them 
Mr. Row. — I am speaking of the Septuagint. 
The Chairman. — I will confine myself to the Pentateuch, and this may 
be thrown out for the comfort of many people : let them compare the differ- 
ent versions, and they will not find anything to try their faith Where do 
we find these discrepancies? Simply in matters affecting numbers. Are 
there no discrepancies as to facts between the Septuagint, the Samaritan, and 
the Hebrew versions ? There are no discrepancies as to facts at all except 
with regard to numbers. Now there must have been some cause for that. 
With regard to the discrepancies in point of numbers there must also have 
been some reason for it, and it is pointed out by Dr. Kennicott and insisted 
on by Dr. Thornton, though not with the same force that he might have 
brought to it. What would be the errors in manuscripts now if, instead of 
using the Arabic system of notation, we used the Roman system ? Take the 
variations that there are in Roman notation — the C with and without a stroke, 
and the D — how easily discrepancies might arise in the use of such a system. 
I do not see why people should be much disturbed even if we do find that 
there are discrepancies in these numbers — they could only be reasonably 
expected. But at the same time we should be very cautious not to give way 
too much to exaggerating these difficulties, and in that respect Dr. Thornton 
has given greater prominence to such difficulties than I think he need have 
done. Dr. Thornton tells us that he sees no difficulty in the pursuing force 
of the Egyptians following the Israelites across the Red Sea having 600 
chariots, while he reduces the number of armed men on the side of the 
Israelites to 600 by his own interpretation. And as he has before admitted 
the probable correctness of Abraham having 318 armed retainers, I cannot 
understand how, if Abraham could have 318 soldiers at his command, there 
should only have been 600 men to go out of Egypt. Dr. Payne Smith 
pointed out at the University of Oxford, and he also pointed out at Zion 
College, immediately after Dr. Colenso’s book appeared, that people when 
they come to these points always want to restrict you to the absolute pro- 
geny arising from the loins of Abraham, when you have the fact patent 
