wise rejected the prophets and other men more recent than Moses and Joshua, who were held in high esteem among the other Jewsfor example, David and Solomon. These they rejected as not inspired with a divine spirit, and even ignominiously traduced them." Since these things were so, scarcely will it be expected that our heresy should acknowledge the historical books or the Psalms, almost every page of which abounds with praises of Jerusalem,

as the seat

of worship, of David, and the Prophets. I shall pass over the Prophets and Solomon, whom they accuse of almost overturning the Law. To these is to be added the singular sanctity of the Pentateuch, the authority of which is much greater than that of the other books. This argument alone, perhaps, is sufficient to decide the question.

III. They say, "It is not possible that the Samaritans, after the exile, should desire to erect a temple in common with the men of Jerusalem, unless they had had the Pentateuch." But so far is this from the truth, that I think...... the opposite opinion might much better be drawn from this. I cite the words of De Wette,' who thus speaks of the matter: "From this very desire of associating with the Jews in the same religious rites, it is shown that the Samaritans had no fixed and legitimate worship, or priests invested with any authority. But, as it is very apparent from 2 Kings xvii., they seem to have fluctuated, in their form of worship, between the rites of the Jews and pagans, which could not have been the case if they had made use of the Pentateuch, and had adapted the form of their worship to it. A people already in possession of a certain form of rites, is not so ready to take up any other form. But the Samaritans, desiring to share the worship at Jerusalem with the Jews, forsook their own peculiar form of religion which they had previously adhered to."

IV. "Finally, they think the difference of the sacred books of the two nations is best explained in this manner: they say the Samaritans preserved the Law in the same characters their ancestors had used."

This is a very feeble argument, and for the most part not expressed with sufficient accuracy; for the hypothesis that the writing charac

a Photius, Cod. 230. Paulus, Rep. vol. i. p. 136, sq. Hottinger, Exercitatt. Antimorin, p. 23. Tertullian, Adv. Hep. c. 45. Eichhorn, Rep. vol. xvi. p. 168. De Sacy, Mem. sur l'Etat des Samaritains, c. v.

Beiträge, vol. i. p. 234.

с

Morinus, Houbigant, Bertholdt, 1. c. 473, 816. Kelle, Wurdigung d. Mosaischen Schriften, vol. i. p. 64. Eichhorn, § 383.

ter was not changed by Ezra, if it were the true one, does not affirm that the present Samaritan character was in use before the exile, but another like the Phoenician, and, indeed, the same that now appears on the Jewish coins. What forbids our believing that the Pentateuch was transcribed from the square letters into the Samaritan characters? This fact, in itself not improbable, is illustrated by the present practice of the Samaritans, who are so tenacious of their writing characters, that they use their own letters even when they write in the Arabic language, from which, however, no intelligent man will readily infer that the Samaritans, in this, have imitated the most ancient manner of writing Arabic.

After so much has been said, we think it may be taken for granted that, before the exile, the Pentateuch might pass over from the Jews to the Samaritans, if it had been extant among the Jews in its present form; but so far are we from thinking this actually took place, that, on the contrary, there are good arguments which persuade us that the present form of the Pentateuch was not known, either to the Samaritans or the Jews themselves, in the time of Jeroboam and the division of the kingdom. In the first place, the learned Paulus has fully proved the former [that it was not known among the Samaritans] from the history of the kingdom of Ephraim; for, admitting that, in the time of Jeroboam, copies of the present Pentateuch were current among the inhabitants of that kingdom, how could it happen that the new king, annulling the Levitical priesthood, should transfer the administration of religious rites, which were limited to one place by the Law in Deuteronomy, into many places, and should establish a religious worship entirely different from that of the Law? Would not the Levites be greatly afflicted by the loss of their privileges, appeal to the sacred code, and accuse the king of impiously overturning the laws? Again in my opinion, it finds a very powerful support in the present text of the Pentateuch; for the Pentateuch, as it is now extant, contains, though in no great number, certain marks of the age commonly called that of the Prophets, and likewise of the Captivity. Now, all of these passages are found in the Samaritan copy, as well as in the Jewish; but it is universally acknowledged that the Pentateuch was reduced to its present form by the Jews, and not by the Samaritans; and hence it easily follows that this book might pass over to the Samaritans after these latest fragments were united

a L. c. See also Hasse, Aussichten zu küntigen Aufklärungen zur A. T.; Jena, 1785, p. 11, 12.

VOL. I.

65

together, or, rather, after our codex was brought into its present form. But it cannot be supposed that the Samaritans, after the age of Manasseh perhaps, either finished or interpolated their own Pentateuch (which, it may be, existed among them in a more imperfect form) from the Jewish.

Since the vestiges of an age more recent than that of Moses have been collected from these books, and judged of by others," it is sufficient to mention those passages which seem to demand a writer later than the time of Solomon. From the four books older than Deuteronomy, a few passages may here be cited, no one of which is earlier than the time of the prophets."

1. The following are the most remarkable: Gen. xlix. We think it will be confessed, in our times, that this prediction has been adjusted by some poet later than Jacob or Moses, so as to describe the rank of the tribes, in condition and lot. The remarkable praises bestowed in this song upon Judah and Joseph (8-11, 21-26,) who are placed far before the other tribes, clearly betray an age, in which, besides Judah, the royal tribe, the Ephraimites began to be a tribe of great and royal authority in the nation; that is, the times of the division of the kingdom. To this is to be added another prediction of Jacob, respecting Ephraim and Manasseh, (who was formerly far the most powerful-xlviii. 8, sqq.,) which, indeed, we scarcely doubt to refer to the same age.

C

2. The remarks in Exod. xv. 13, 17, on the mount of possession, the sacred habitation, and the sanctuary, show that the temple at Jerusalem was then built.

3. In Levit. xxvi. the dispersion of the people is threatened in almost the same words which the prophets were wont to use, who saw the approach of the captivity under the kings of Assyria, or even lived when it took place.

4. In Num, xxiv. 22, under the name of Assyria, mention is made of the Babylonian empire, or rather of Nebuchadnezzar, leading the Kenites into captivity in his expedition to Egypt.&

The book of Deuteronomy...... is of still greater importance in this inquiry; for whole chapters of it—whether you regard the hortatory and rhetorical style of speaking, or the matter of the book, and the very usus loquendi - breathe the spirit of the prophets. It is sufficient to appeal to the song of Moses, (chap. xxxii.) Besides, there is a

a Paulus, iv. 230. See Hasse, Aussichten, üb. A. T. Vater, l. c. vol. iii. p. 631. Bauer, Einleit. § 249-251. De Wette, 1. c. vol. i. p. 265. & Vater, 1. c. vol. iii. p. 639.

'De Wette, 1. c.

more frequent mention of the dispersion of the people, (iv. 27, sq.» xxviii. 25, 36, sq. :) the law respecting prophets (xiii. 1, xviii. 20) could scarcely be given, unless the people had often been deceived by the false teachers of whom the prophets complain. Moreover, the fondness for Levitical institutions, to which almost every page refers, points clearly to the times in which the authority of the Levites began to increase, (while the piety and freedom of the people had hitherto remained inviolate;) that is, to the times of the exile.

That we may not repeat what has been said by others, we will only add one passage, taken from the blessings of Moses,-xxxiii., composed not without regard to the prediction of Jacob,-which contains an evident indication of the time, and betrays a later author, who had lived in the exile. The reader will perceive in what manner the tribes of Judah and Levi are treated in this prophecy. Judah is not praised, as before, for his virtue, power, wealth, and plenty. A few words are used in speaking of him, and prayers are poured out for him, as one broken and a captive.

He dwells longer upon Levi, (8-11.) He passes in silence over the curse formerly denounced upon him, (Gen. xlix. 7,) and celebrates him with the highest praises. He exalts his piety and merits before God and the people of Israel. I can scarcely persuade myself that one would have written in this manner, in any other time than that when the captivity was near at hand, or had actually taken place; and I cannot fail to refer the other parts of Deuteronomy, also, to the same epoch. For at what period does history represent Judah miserable, and oppressed with enemies, while the Levites are flourishing in so great power among the people, except when both tribes were in exile?

It will be sufficiently clear, from what has already been said, why I cannot agree with those who think our Pentateuch passed over to the Samaritans before the time of the exile.

But now, if the Pentateuch contained no passages which must have had a later origin than the times of the exile, what prevents our supposing that the Mosaic books were reduced to their present form and passed over to the Samaritans a little after the end of the exile? I willingly grant that passages in Nehemiah and Ezra, which make

frequent mention of the written Law, demand the first statement; but the last is less probable for these reasons: First, the time in which the Samaritans, highly offended at the repulse they had received from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, began to calumniate and vex them, can scarcely be deemed a proper one for receiving a law from them. Secondly, from the history of Manasseh, a Jewish priest, who established the Babylonian worship at Gerizim, nearly two centuries after the exile, - it appears that, after this time, the Samaritans were destitute of Levitical priests, and a regular form of worship, conformable to the laws of the Pentateuch.

a

We have now come upon a period of time which is very important to our cause, namely, to the origin of the Samaritan heresy, and the worship at Gerizim. But it would be foreign to our purpose to delay long upon it. As Josephus says, during the reign of Darius Codomannus, Manasseh, the brother of the high priest at Jerusalem, married the daughter of Sanballat, the satrap of the Samaritans. His brother, and the other priests, disapproved of this marriage, and threatened to degrade him from the priesthood, unless he repudiated his wife; he then went to his father-in-law, and said he loved his wife, but was unwilling to be deprived of the priesthood on her account. His father-in-law replied that he should not only retain his priesthood, but be made high priest, if he would retain his wife; for he would undertake to erect a temple on Mount Gerizim, like that at Jerusalem, and establish the worship of God at Samaria. Enticed by this hope, Manasseh adhered to his father-in-law, and was soon joined by a considerable number of priests and Jews, who were entangled in similar marriages, and all went over to the side of Sanballat, and received from him liberal grants of money and lands. A temple was erected by the permission of Alexander. And here is the origin of that heresy which has ever since been most thoroughly detestable to the Jews.

An appearance of truth seems to favor the opinion of such as make the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan heresy identical, and suppose that Manasseh and his companions, who established the Jewish worship among the Samaritans, brought this civil and ritual code with them, and communicated it to this nation." They who oppose this opinion draw their arguments from the silence

• Josephus, Ant. xi. 7, § 2, 8; § 2, 4, 6.

Prideaux, 1. c. vol. i. p. 414. Paulus, Mem. vol. vii. p. 21. Com. vol. iii. p. 232. De Wette, 1. c. vol. i. p. 214. Archäol. § 46, sqq.