Greek Palaeography

...and arguments. Origen and Jerome recount the matter as if it were not in doubt, as anyone may see in the passages of theirs cited in the same place. For the former says, in a certain excerpt not yet published and of no doubtful note, the words of which I have transcribed, that in the more accurate copies the tetragrammaton name of God is found written out in those ancient characters, but not in the modern ones introduced by Ezra; which change of letters made by Ezra is mentioned by that same Origen in more than one place. Jerome more than once supports the Samaritan script, and indicates that the matter is beyond doubt with these words: “And it is certain that Ezra the scribe and doctor of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Temple under Zerubbabel, discovered other letters which we use now, whereas up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and Hebrews had been the same.” Origen and Jerome state these things explicitly and without any hinted variation of opinion; to whom may be added Eusebius, who writes these things in his Chronicon, at the year 4740: “Ezra was most learned in the divine law, and a renowned teacher of all the Jews who had returned from captivity to Judea; and it is affirmed that he reconstructed the divine Scriptures from memory, and, so that they would not be mixed with the Samaritans, changed the Judaic letters.” Those Christian writers, who lived for a long time in Judea and enjoyed familiarity with the Rabbis, and learned from them the ancient traditions of the Jews—as they not infrequently testify in their works—all agree on this point. Since, moreover, they do not even mention an opinion contrary to this, it seems one may certainly conjecture from this that the other view, which supports the antiquity of the Samaritan letters in the Bibles, was commonly accepted at that time. Furthermore, among the Talmudic Rabbis, Rabbi Jose from the Mishnaic, and Mar-Zutra and another from the Gemaric, hold the Samaritan to be the ancient script of the Bibles. But if other Talmudic Rabbis—even more than those mentioned—defend the modern Hebrew script, this surely does not seem to be of such weight, since the hatred of the Jews, and especially of the Rabbis, toward the Samaritans was so great that, after many centuries had passed since the time of Ezra, it is no wonder that some Rabbis, in order to favor the prejudice of their race, attempted to obscure the truth and claimed that the ancient letters of the Scriptures were in their possession, not in that of the Samaritans. On the contrary, the Rabbis who argued that the Samaritan script was more ancient in the Bibles seem to have been compelled to do so by the force of truth; for they would not have invented on their own and by their own efforts a matter that was considered a disgrace to their own people. But it was of no interest at all to the Christian authors, namely Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, whether the holy Scripture had been written originally in Samaritan or Hebrew letters; for which reason they are to be thought to have handed down what the common people of the Jews and the greater part of the Rabbis had on their lips at that time; if indeed those Talmudists were very few, if compared with the multitude of Rabbis dwelling in Judea and the surrounding regions. I have been led by these arguments and reasons, in particular, to consider the opinion that supports the Samaritan script to be by far the more probable. But men of great erudition think otherwise, who argue that the Talmudic doctors, who in greater number champion the antiquity of the Hebrew script, should be preferred to the testimonies of Origen and others; namely, Judah, surnamed the Holy, the compiler of the Mishnah, and older than Origen, who affirms that the Hebrew letters in the Bibles were never changed, but always remained the same; and similarly two great Mishnaic Doctors, R. Eliezer, who confirm the same thing, with only one Mishnaic doctor, R. Jose, dissenting. Likewise many Gemaric [doctors] for the Hebrew...