208 



RET. J. IVERACa MUXRO, M.A._, OX 



The contribution by Chancellor Lias is of great weight, as he shows 

 the importance of many points which I could only mention. 



Those who hold the views of what we may call the old Higher 

 Criticism must adjust themselves to facts. If they do not, they will 

 be left behind. Biblical Science will go on without them to take 

 possession of the Truth which is the inheritance of the Church granted 

 to her by her Lord, with the promised power to enter in and take 

 possession. What she needs now is young minds freed from bias, 

 trained in Semitic languages, with some grasp of comparative 

 philology, to work out the problems her Lord has given her ; so that 

 to all ranks and classes His Word shall come with its old authority, 

 truth, and power, and the imprimatur as of old — Thus saith the Lord. 



Subsequent Communications. 

 The Rev. Professor Sayce writes : — 



As I am not a Samaritan scholar I do not feel qualified to say 

 anything about the Samaritan Pentateuch on the philological side. 

 On the historical side, however, it is difficult to understand how the 

 Pentateuch could have been received and translated by the Samaritan 

 colony, much less regarded by them as of Divine authority, after 

 their quarrel with the Jews in the time of Zerubbabel. People do 

 not voluntarily accept the theological claims of their enemies. The 

 ignoring of this fact is an instance of that want of the historical 

 sense which is characteristic of the Higher Criticism. It obliges us 

 to conclude that the Pentateuch in its present form was known at 

 Samaria and believed there to be the inspired production of Moses 

 before the close of the Exilic period. 



The Rev. Dr. M. Gaster writes :— 



I take advantage of your kind invitation to write a few words 

 concerning the paper read by the Rev. Iverach Munro before your 

 Institution. Owing to official duties I was unfortunately prevented 

 from being present, and I will now put in writing as briefly as I can 

 my appreciation of that paper. I will confine myself especially to 

 that part referring to the Samaritan Pentateuch. 



The great value— and if I may venture to say so the greatest 

 value — of the paper lies in the successful attempt to fix the time for 

 the introduction of the changes which characterize the Samaritan 

 Pentateuch. From a long study of the Samaritan Pentateuch 



