When Ezra attempts to rebuild the temple, (Ez. iv. 1-3,) the Samaritans desire to join in the work, but are repulsed, and then oppose the building. Nehemiah either found them hostile to his undertaking, or rendered them his foes by his own conduct; it is uncertain which commenced the quarrel." But this, at least, is plain, that there was no religious or other deep hatred between the two nations. Here the history of the Old Testament closes, and we must follow the fluctuating Josephus. In the time of Darius Nothus, contemporary with Nehemiah,' lived Sanballat, the prince of Samaria, who was desirous of keeping on good terms with the inhabitants of Jerusalem; accordingly he gives his daughter in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the high priest of Jerusalem. But the high priest expels his brother on account of this marriage. His father-in-law builds a temple on Mount Gerizim, to rival that at Jerusalem, and makes Manasseh high priest of Samaria. Other priests, who were entangled in similar alliances, flee to Manasseh, who is thus made the rival of his brother. After this, there was hatred, deep and deadly hatred, between the two nations. Before this event, there could be no lasting cause of religious dissensions, for the religion of Samaria, perhaps, was not fixed; but after it, religious quarrels occur, and a continual hatred

[It deserves to be remembered that we have only Nehemiah's version of the story. How much he may have colored his narrative, so as to cast the blame on the Samaritans, we cannot tell. But if his account is perfectly correct, we see the cause of the hostility of the Samaritans toward the Jews.]

[Josephus seems to make a great mistake in respect to this affair, for he makes Sanballat live under Darius Codomannus, who was conquered by Alexander the Great, and then adds a long tissue of fictions (they cannot be facts) which he had either forged or borrowed. Probably he confounded the two Dariuses, and then invented the rest, to help out the story. See Eichhorn, §383. Hahn's Heb. Commonwealth, p. 182.]

seems to have made them deadly foes. Josephus (xii. i.) says, expressly, there were disorders because the inhabitants of Judah sent their offerings to Jerusalem, while the Samaritans made their sacrifices at Mount Gerizim. Again, (xiii. ch. iii. § 4,) he says the Jews and Samaritans brought the dispute about their respective temples before Ptolemy. "There be two

manner of nations which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no nation- they that sit on the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem," says the Son of Sirach;" and it was the common Jewish sentiment in after times.

Now, it is plain that the Samaritans would receive no law-book from the Jews after their temple was completed and its religious rites established. It is plain, also, that the present Pentateuch could not have been acknowledged as a law-book, in either empire, in the time of Jeroboam, or Ahab, -certainly not before the reign of Josiah. If it was first compiled at that time, would not Josiah take pains to spread a knowledge of the law-book in Israel, when he was careful to make attempts to secure obedience to it? (2 Kings xxiii. 1-3.) The Levites were in the kingdom of Judah; therefore the compilation was made there: now, when the prophets were so earnest, and often so successful, in preaching Theism and Holiness, would not they attempt to circulate the new work? Was there any insuperable obstacle to its introduction? If it imbodied the common law of the two nations, with other provisions which the prophets had

G

[See the sensible and candid remarks of Doctor Palfrey, Academic Lectures, vol. i. p. 47, sqq. It is to be regretted, however, that he does not enter into the argument.

See Appendix, I.]

long been attempting to procure, would they not welcome the book, as the courtiers of Josiah did? But, still further, if these attempts were not made, or were not successful, some knowledge of the Law, and the book containing it, must have been communicated to the Samaritans; and this would prepare the way for a more perfect reception of it, after it had received some other alterations or additions, if such were made. Now, what more probable than that Manasseh, the brother of the high priest, coming under those circumstances, and with such expectations, should bring the Pentateuch with him, and publish it as the law of the land? If the writing character in Samaria were different from that in Judah, the book could easily change its form.] Therefore they who make the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch contemporary with the erection of the Samaritan temple, and the establishment of an independent Samaritan sect,* have on their side all the analogy of history, and the fact of the revolt of Manasseh and other Jewish priests."

* A. van Dale, Ep. ad Steph. Morin. in his Dissertatt. p. 681, sqq. R. Simon, Hist. crit. du V. T. i. 10, p. 66. Prideaux, Connection, vol. i. p. 414. Fulda, in Paulus, Memor. vol. vii. p. 21. Hasse, Aussichten zu künft. Aufklär. über das A. T. (Jena, 1785,) pp. 9-14. Paulus, Comm. über das N. T. vol. iv. p. 227. De Wette, Beitr. i. 214. Gesenius, 1. c. p. 9. Hupfeld, 1. c. Hengstenberg, 1. c. vol. i. p. 39, sqq., denies, but erroneously, all affinity between the Samaritans and the Israelites of the ten tribes.

Compare the remarks of Eichhorn, § 383, (4th ed.,) made against this fact, from a comparison with Neh. xiii. 28, and Bleek thereupon, in Rosenmüller's Rep. vol. i. p. 64. [Eichhorn's design is to show the incredibility of the statement of Josephus, and cast suspicion on any one who should make use of his narrative to establish the recent origin of the Samaritan text.] See other opinions, which favor a later origin, above, p. 323, sqq., and Hartmann, Hist. Krit. Forschungen, ub. d. B. B. Mos.; 1831, 8vo. Fried. Im. Schwarz, Exercit. hist. crit. in utrumque Sam. Pent.; Viteb. 1756, 4to. Tychsen, De Pent. Eb. Sam., etc.; Bützov, 1765, 4to. Tentamen de variis Codd. Hebr. V. T. p. 119. His opinion (that this text is not older than the 10th century) is confuted by history. See notes, p. 323, sqq. Hassencamp, Ursprung d. Alt. Bib. Ubers, p. 165. Bauer, Crit. p. 329. Josephus, Ant. xi. 7, § 2, c. 8, § 2, 4, 6.

Gesenius supposes, with Stephen Morinus, that some variants of the Samaritan codex may be explained from the square letters, and that the Samaritans transcribed the Pentateuch into their own writing characters out of the Jewish manuscripts in square letter." But this opinion is scarcely consistent with the probable origin of the square letter, and the degree of affinity between the Samaritan and the Jewish coin-letter."

§ 87.

CRITICAL VALUE OF THIS RECENSION.

the critics to

Hitherto it has been rather preconceived opinions than genuine critical arguments which led overvalue this recension, or to reject it. came to the task with a knowledge of the impartial judgment."

Only
Only a few
subject and

An accurate, well-grounded estimate of the value of

the Samaritan text has been first made in modern

St. Morinus, De Ling. prim., (Traj. 1694,) ii. 7, p. 209, sqq. Gesenius, 1. c. p. 16.

Hupfeld, 1. c.

Jo. Morinus, Ex. iv. L. Cappellus, 1. c. p. 480, sqq. Whiston, 1. c. p. 164. Houbigant, Prolegg. in Script. sac.; Par. 1746, 4to. Notæ crit., reprinted Fref. on M. 1777, 2 tom. 4to. Kennicott, 1. c. Alexius a S. Aquilino, Pentateuchi Hebr. Sam. Præstantia; Heidelb. 1783, 8vo. Lobstein, Cod. Sam. Paris. S. Genovevæ. Frcf. on M. 1781, 8vo. Alex. Geddes, Bible, and in Vater's Comm. ib. d. Pent. De Rossi, Prolegg. ad varr. Lectt. § 26. Ilgen, Urkunden des Jerus. Tempelarch. Bertholdt, p. 474, sqq.

Simeon de Muis, Assertio Veritatis Hebr. adv. Exercitt. eccl. in utrumque Sam. Pent. J. Morini; Par. 1631, 8vo. Hottinger, Exercitt. Anti-Morinianæ de Pentat. Samarit. ejusque udentica averría, etc.; Tigur. 1644, 4to. Steph. Morin. Exercitt. de Lingua primæv. p. 200. Buxtorf, Anticrit. ii. 7. Fuller, Miscel. sac. iv. 4. Leusden, Philol. Ebr. mixt. diss. 8. A. Pfeiffer, Crit. sac. c. 9. Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 610. Seb. Rau, Exercitt. phil. in Hubigantii Prolegg.; Lug. Bat. 1755, 4to.

times, and it has been shown that, for the most part, its peculiar readings have arisen from grammatical corrections; glosses admitted into the text; illustrative and explanatory conjectures of a grammatical or historical character; from additions and alterations to suit parallel passages; from Samaritanisms in language, and alterations to suit the peculiar theology and hermeneutics of the Samaritans, (Deut. xxvii. 4;) and that the genuine critical readings are but few."

[Eichhorn says more than half of the various readings arise from uncritical and arbitrary alterations, made to suit preconceived opinions. He finds eight emendations of this character in Genesis i. and ii. But this former statement is quite too broad, for elsewhere he says, neither is to be preferred to the other. (§ 386.) Hasse has well said, "I have found no variations which I prefer to the masoretic text; on the contrary, the greatest part of them are of recent times; they are the exegetical glosses and interpretations of half-informed men. Go yourself, with impartiality and the spirit of candid inquiry, to the Samaritan Pentateuch; compare it, as I have done, with the Hebrew-Jewish text; make an investigation of the various readings; remove the inconsiderable and intentional alterations; and no egg can be so like another as these two brethren."

A striking peculiarity of the Samaritan version is this: it assumes that none of the antediluvian patriarchs was

R. Simon, 1. c., c. 11, 12. Walton, Prolegg. xi. 17, 18. Cleric. Comm. in Pentat. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xxi. p. 177, sqq., vol. xxii. p. 185. Eichhorn, Einl. § 389, und Præf. ad Köcher, Nov. Bib. Heb. Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 331. Jahn, Einl. vol. i. p. 415, sqq.

De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, Indole et Auctoritate Comment. philol. crit. scrips. Guil. Gesenius; Hal. 1815, 4to.

[Hasse, Aussichten, p. 14, cited in Gesenius, 1. c. p. 24.