To the Editor of the Deax Sir,—In your issue of 7th Sept., there appeared a letter bearing the above heading, from the pen of the Rev. Canon McOlatchie, M.A. 'The writer is evidently profoundly' anxious to maintain: the is torical accuracy of what he terms ie Book of Infallible Truth, against all comers, ich treat of the Deluge and the Dispercially in those chronological portions
sion, This zeal is commendable, provided it be accompanied with real knowledge. The Book of Infallible Truth, which Mr. McCiatchie takes for his guide in these chronological questions is not our ordinary English nor the Hebrew Bible, nor the Septuagint, but the Samaritan Penta-credence, as "the only reliablechronology." touch. Zo this, the writer gives unqualified
Now, sir, I shall not exiter upon the details of the letter referred to, but confine myself to the writer's statement on this poi Thus he writes;—' Now, according to th only reliable chronology, viz., that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 0 si i which has never yet been discovered, the date of the Deluge is B.C. 2938; &e., &e."
Tam not sure whether the writer means to say that an error "has never yet been discovered" in the book itself, or in its chronology. In either case, the passage quoted seems to me to betray a total ignor tance of the relative value of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan texts. Here, allow me to cite the views of the leading Biblical critics on the subject.
In Smith's Bib. Diet. [read thus:—Here the matter rested until 1815, when Gesenius (do Pent. Sam. Origine, Indole, et Autctoritate,) whalished the remnant of the authority of the Sam. Pent. So masterly, lucid, and clear are his arguments and his proofs, that there has been and twill Beno further question as to the absence of all value in this Recension, and in its pretended emendations." (Vol. III. p. 1107-8.) The italics are my own. Gesenius and others have discovered grave errors in the Sam, Pent. These errors have been classified, and lists of them may be seen in Smith's Bib, Diet., ort. Sam. Pent., or in Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Lit., art, Sam. Pent.
The writer above quoted, admits that Gesonius's classification is deficient, but at the same time says, "it has at once and for ever silenced the utterly unfounded though time-hallowed claims of the Samaritan Pentateuch." (Diet. of the Bible, vol. IN. p. 1,111).
In Kitto's Cylop. of Bib. Lit, I read thus:—"* With respect to the authority and value of the Samaritan Penetateuch the opinions of scholars are neatly unanimous at the present day." Then comes a reference to the work of Gesenius, as above, whose views are those of modern scholars. (Vol. 11, Eamartian cannot be put in comparison 787). "It is sufficient to say that the with the Hebrew recension, because its Geviations from the latter have generally the appearance of design." (Ibid p. 749) Another writer in the same wor "This last, however, (i. ¢. the Sam. need not come into consideration, since it is well understood that the Samaritan text, here [i.¢. in the chronology from Adam to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.