which is exactly like the coin of Henrion, having a bunch of grapes on one side and on the other a lyre with the legend liberation of Jerusalem; but in this coin the first letter of Schemoun, namely S, is visible as well as the last two letters: he mentions also another coin, on which it is only the two last letters, which are defaced. These confirm the name to have been Schemoun. The former of these is in silver, but the latter is in bronse: this confirms that the four silver ones of the second class, struck on coins of Trajan, were of the same nature in other respects with the bronse ones, and relative to the same event with those coins examined by Reland and Ottius, which were all in bronse with liberation of Jerusalem on them also; and it does not appear that they knew of any silver ones of those smaller sizes, but only of the large silver shekels worth two shillings and four pence. Bouteroue calls the latter of his above two coins, viz. that in bronse a quarter shekel, but another in bronse he calls a shekel; which cannot be rightly surnamed, yet it still shews how great a difference there must be in the sizes of those bronse coins as well as values. Which.

then of these different sizes in bronse did Barthelemy

mean to say were conformable to the fabric of coins of Syrian kings?

It appears by Bouteroue's account of their types and legends, that these were all the very same with those on the smaller bronse coins of Reland and Ottius, which Ottius also had found to be of very different weights. Bouteroue seems more right in the name with respect to the silver coins; for his first, which was like the silver one of Henrion, he calls a quarter shekel, or dracme, of silver. Now a dracme, in French,

VOL. IX.

is

is an eighth part of an ounce troy; if then an ounce was worth five shillings, the eighth would be seven pence halfpenny, and thus be a quarter part of two shillings and four pence, the greatest value of a shekel. It would be curious therefore to know, whether the two silver ones, in Mr. Hunter's collection, struck on coins of Trajan, weigh a dracme likewise: if they do, or apparently did so before worn and defaced, it would prove that all these silver coins were rather formed in conformity to the silver coins of the Roman Emperors than of Hebrew weights or the Syrian kings. It is indeed possible even that these silver ones of Bouteroue might have been originally coins of Trajan also, although so well superstruck, as that the Roman letters were all obscured: it would also be of some use to know whether there be any others of these silver coins of a different weight from those of a dracme (except the shekels,) or whether all of them are not conformed to the weight of Trajan's silver coins, rather than to Hebrew weights, or to the coins of the Syrian kings. Without knowing some more of these particulars it is impossible to make any thing of Barthelemy's proof of there being a first class conformable to Syrian royal coins for as Bouteroue confirms the account of Ottius, that the bronse ones are of very different weights and sizes, did Barthelemy mean that all of these were conformable to royal Syrian coins, or only some of them; if the latter what are we to think of the rest? Which nevertheless Reland and Ottius thought to be all equally coins of Simon Maccabee; and can any distinction in point of antiquity be made while they are all so similar in their types and legends? Every way thenthat we can survey Barthelemy's argument from

:

such

such conformity, for making a difference between the first and third classes it amounts to nothing satisfactory all the above authors have indeed omitted to mention many necessary articles of information, for which reason I have added those of Bouteroue from Simon's Bibliotheque, as the work itself of Bouteroue is scarce.

It appears further from Morinus in his Exercitat. Samaritan. p. 125, that a Moses Nachman, who lived before 1300, had mentioned his seeing some Jewish shekels of the larger class, which had on them shekel of Israel and Jerusalem the holy, together with pots of manna and Aaron's rod for types: if these were genuine, still from the similarity of their types to the lesser ones there is no reason to suppose these also to be of greater antiquity than those having Simon on them; therefore Prideaux had no sufficient authority for speaking so confidently of their antiquity, and of the proof arising from such shekels concerning the antiquity of Samaritan letters. But possibly Bayer, whose book is scarce also, may have cleared up some of the above articles of insufficient information; at present I can find no foundation for attributing greater antiquity to some than to others; and as four of them are now with certainty proved not to be more ancient than Trajan, the same is probably the case with all the rest, especially as I have pointed out several circumstances attending them more suitable to Barcochebas than to Simon Maccabee.

After having thus invalidated this favourite evidence for the antiquity of Samaritan letters, readers possibly may wish to know whether there be any other which is more solid. I confess that I think there is not; what

F. 2

what Mr. Hurwitz has urged against them I am ignorant, having not read his book; but the only other evidence for them is from Jewish tradition in the Talmud. M. Simon however himself acknowledges, that the traditions there on this subject are in direct opposition to one another, as Buxtorf has also proved ever since 1662, in his Dissert. de origine ling. Hebr. He says "that he is convinced that Buxtorf has sufficiently proved from the Talmud, that although in one passage [according to the common interpretation of it] Mar Sutra affirms the antiquity of the Samaritan letters, yet in the same place of the Gemava of the same tract, Sanhedrin, R. Simeon says the directly contrary after Rabbi Eleazar, and affirms that neither the Jewish language nor letters had undergone any change by Ezra." P. 425, tom. 2.

on y

Such contradictory traditions then can amount to no evidence, especially since Simon adds, "that no dependence whatever is to be placed on any traditions in either of the Talmuds." Les traditions qui n'ont point d'autre fondation que le Talmud sont peu croyables; ce vaste ouvrage est si plein de contradictions, que le plus souvent il ne merite pas qu'on y ait egard: voit des docteurs, qui se combattent avec force les uns les autres sur leurs traditions," p. 427. Accordingly, learned Jews themselves have had different opinions on this subject ever since; but one further evidence has occurred to me of which I have seen no hint before, which is, that even that passage of Mar Sutra, above mentioned, which has been made the only foundation for the antiquity of Samaritan letters, appears to me to have been altogether misinterpreted by Raf Chasda, whose interpretation of it is subjoined

in the Talmud; and that Mar Sutra actually meant to affirm the directly contrary to what Raf Chasda supposes him to mean: now it is that interpretation by Raf Chasda which the Jews and Christians have adopted ever since, but I apprehend very erroneously, and this is the only passage in the Talmud in favour of Samaritan letters.

I was led to this opinion by a remark in the above work of Simon, in which he asserts that there is one evident error in the common interpretation of that passage in question (which I will mention afterwards) in regard to one assertion in it," p. 426. Now I wonder that the perception of this error did not carry him further, and as far as myself to perceive that the whole interpretation was erroneous, and has made Mar Sutra affirm the directly contrary to his real meaning. Let me first quote the whole passage itself, and then point out the above error; the words added in Italics, between crotchets, ascertain the senses which Raf Chasda gives to the preceding words, and which have been given to them ever since; but the question is whether those be the right senses. "Dixit Mar Sutra; in principio data est lex Israeli scripturâ Ebræâ (Samaritana) et linguâ sanctâ (Ebraa): iterum data est ipsis in diebus Ezra scripturâ Assyriacâ (Ebræâ) et linguâ Aramæâ (Chaldaica). Elegerunt pro Israelitis (Judais) scripturam Assyriacam (Fbræam) et linguam sanctam (Ebraam); et reliquerunt Idiotis (Samaritanis) scripturam Ebræam (Samaritanam) et linguam Aramæam (Chaldaicam). Quinam sunt Idiota? Raf Chasda dixit Cuthæi (Samaritani). Quænam est scriptura Ebræa? Raf Chasda dixit Libonaah (Samaritana)."