went over to them, and became their high priest, he carried copies of the Pentateuch from the Jews, it would be inconceivable that they should not take other books, also, such as the Psalms of David, some Prophets, and, in particular, the book of Joshua, by which they might have spared themselves the trouble of forging one or two ungenuine books of Joshua."

Eichhorn, who seems naturally to belong on the other side of the question, attempts to construct a still stronger argument than that of Jahn.

There must have been copies of the Pentateuch in the hands of the priests of Israel, or how could they teach the people? When the priests forsook Israel, as they did under Jeroboam, (2 Ch. xi. 13-17,) all their copies of the Law would not be lost. The Mosaic religion was still honored in Israel, as in Judah, though the worship of Baal often prevailed. (2 Kings iii. 2. x. 21— 28.) The school of the prophets at Bethel, and the pious men, like Elisha, continually arising, would keep alive the remembrance of Moses. Hosea says they had written laws, (viii. 12,) and the writers of Kings seem to suppose they had the same law with the inhabitants of Judah. (2 Kings xviii. 12.)

b

Now, continues his argument, admitting, the Israelites received the Law after the separation, it would not have the force of a law, and the king would not give it his sanction. But the Law was still observed for one hundred years after the captivity of the ten tribes. Some

b [Hosea, indeed, speaks of written laws, (perhaps only hypothetically, as the LXX. reads,) but it does not follow that he referred to the Pentateuch in its present form. No one doubts there were written laws current in the time of Hosea; but can this verse have any weight in establishing the existence of the present form of the Pentateuch, at that date?]

of the inhabitants of Israel went up to keep the Passover under Josiah. (2 Ch. xxxv. 18.) Therefore they must have had a copy of the Law. The priest whom Essarhaddon sent must likewise have had a copy of the Law; and the fact that the Samaritans wished to join with the Jews in building the second temple, (Ezra iv. 1-4,) shows they observed the same Law with them. Besides, if they had received it from the Jews at this time, would not the historians mention the circumstance? Some say Manasseh, the apostate priest, brought it; but this story is founded on the narrative of Josephus, which is not trustworthy, for he makes him live one hundred years too late. Besides, there is no reason for supposing it was brought by Manasseh.]"

But this theory, that it was composed before the separation of the kingdoms, is opposed, I. by the circumstance that the Pentateuch was composed and compiled at a more recent date, a fact which is supported by the strongest critical arguments, and, in particular, by the entire analogy of the history of Hebrew literature,— and, II. by the idolatrous state of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and that of the Samaritans, (before the erection of the temple on Mount Gerizim,) which does not allow us to suppose the existence of a written law like that of the Pentateuch.

Again: the above theory has nothing in its favor, except,

a

[The best work on this subject, in our language, known to the translator, is that of Professor Stuart, in N. A. Review for April, 1826, reprinted in Bib. Rep. vol. ii. p. 681, sq. He comes to different conclusions from those of Doctor De Wette.

But see, who will, Hengstenberg, Beiträge....... die Authentie des Pent. p. 1, sqq. He says himself, Der Ton in diesem Buche wird Vielen manchmal nicht zusagen, and it is very true. But he says he has written his hard words rather in sorrow than in anger, and dares expunge nothing.]

I. The national hatred of the two people. But there were many exceptions to this hatred; and sometimes it ceased altogether."

II. The fact that the Samaritans accepted no other book of the Old Testament; but this can be satisfactorily explained in a different manner. And,

III. The old Hebrew writing character of the Samaritans, (although this differed somewhat from the original character.) But it is possible they received this long after the exile, since the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah made use of it even under the Maccabees."

[The above remarks of the author are too brief and comprehensive to be clear and convincing to an American reader; but in the work referred to, he has treated the subject in detail. From that and other sources I derive what follows: - The history of the Samaritan Pentateuch must always remain obscure, for no ancient writer gives any account of it, and the tradition of the Samaritans that it was made in the thirteenth year of the first settlement in Canaan, is too absurd to deserve notice. We can never attain more than a probable answer to the question, When was it first received by the Samaritans? We find the first mention of it in Origen and Jerome. It is, indeed, contended that the version of the Seventy was made from a Samaritan manuscript; but the most, perhaps, that can be proved, is, that it follows a manuscript which agrees remarkably with the Samaritan text, in some places, though it

G

Vater, 1. c. iii. 626. De Wette, Beit. vol. i. p. 188.

Gesenius, Pent. Sam. p. 4, [in Appendix, I.]

Morinus lays great stress on this, (Ex. ii. ;) but see Hupfeld in Stud. und Kritiken, 1830, vol. ii. p. 280.

d [Montfaucon, Hexap. Origenis, ad Num. xii. 1. xxi. 13. xxxi. 21. Jerome, Prol. ad Reg. Quæst. in Gen. iv. 8. Com. in Gal. iii. 10.]

differs widely in others. But even if this codex were used by the Seventy, the fact only brings us down to the third century before Christ.

When did the Samaritans receive it? Many critics have been led to embrace the opinions of Eichhorn and Jahn, from the alleged difficulty of procuring entrance for the Pentateuch among the Samaritans, after the separation, because a strong religious hatred prevailed between the two nations. This is the difficulty which embarrasses all that follows. Before the separation, there was no hatred; and when that event took place, it was not caused by hatred between the two tribes and the ten. The latter simply desired milder laws; and before the death of Solomon, a prophet of Judah had pointed out to their leader, Jeroboam, the course he was to pursue. (1 Kings xi. 28, sqq.) Before the time of Solomon, the crown had been elective; but the great power of David, and his popularity, enabled him to appoint his successor. But Solomon's despotism, luxury, and idolatry, so far weakened his hold on the people, that it was not very difficult for the ten tribes, on the accession of Rehoboam, either to make terms with the monarch, or to elect a new one, who would support their interests. They are forced to the latter alternative, as the prophet had said; but the only change made in the laws is this-unlevitical priests are established, and images of oxen (probably the cherubim) are set up at Dan and Bethel. There is no deep and deadly hatred between the nations, and, on the eve of a battle, Shemaiah, the man of God, forbids the army of Judah to fight against their brethren; they obey, and return home without striking a blow. (1 Kings xii. 21—24.) Before the separation, there was no very strong tie

uniting the tribes, and after that event, there seems to be no deep hostility between the rival kingdoms. They are often at war, it is true, but they are sometimes allies. Jehoshaphat and Jehoram go out together to fight the Moabites. Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, was king of Samaria twenty-eight years; and he seems to have owed his accession rather to the Israelites than to his own friends in Jerusalem. Had there been that deadly hatred between the two nations, could these events have taken place? The religious rites in the two countries did not differ much. Jeroboam erected calves; but there were idols even in Josiah's time, in the great temple at Jerusalem. Idolatry prevailed in both kingdoms, and perhaps equally. It were no easy task to tell which was the most idolatrous, Rehoboam or his rival. There were more prophets in Israel than in Judah, and they went from one country to the other. (1 Kings xiii.) Elijah, an Israelite, in a solemn sacrifice, considers them both as one nation, and builds an altar of twelve stones, (1 Kings xviii. 31;) and, on another occasion, he helps the king of Judah in preference to the king of Israel. (2 Kings iii. 14.) Ahab and Jehoshaphat assemble all the prophets, four hundred in number, to advise them in their joint undertaking. (1 Kings xxii.) In the chapter (2 Kings xvii.) which treats of the captivity of the Israelites, there is no hatred displayed towards them, and nothing like a tone of triumph over their distress is heard in the books of Kings. Even in speaking of the Cuthites, we find no hatred displayed. But a hostile spirit may be found in the Chronicles, written much later. There was, then, nothing to prevent the passage of the Pentateuch from Judah to Israel, whenever its materials (probably for the most part well known before) were collected into the proper form.