THE PENTATEUCH OF THE SAMARITANS. 



157 



book to keep it alive, Hebrew would disappear. The priests of 

 Esar-haddon had come certainly, and "taught them the manner 

 of the God of the land," but according to the ruling theory they 

 brought no sacred books with them, consequently there would 

 be no reading to fix a special mode of pronunciation. To this 

 community, which by hypothesis knew no Hebrew, came 

 Manasseh with the completed Law — the Law of JHWH, the God 

 of the land. Manasseh would necessarily read the Law in the 

 Jewish way. Would not his audience, when they accepted the 

 ritual, accept also the way of reading the book which laid down 

 the regulations of this ritual ? The Samaritans have done 

 nothing of the kind ; they have retained the mode of reading 

 Hebrew which they had inherited from their Israelite ancestors. 

 People so obstinate about the pronunciation would not without 

 strenuous resistance accept the whole Levitical ritual thus being 

 forced upon them. 



Such, then, is our case. We maintain that it is in direct contra- 

 diction to human nature as we know it that Manasseh, as the 

 Critical hypothesis demands, banished by the Law introduced 

 by Ezra, should preach that Law in the place of his exile. It 

 contradicts all that is known of the Samaritans that they would, 

 at the bidding of a Jewish priest, change their ritual of worship. 

 We have shown from the evidence deduced from the confusions 

 of letters, from which have arisen the differences of the two 

 recensions, that there have been two streams of manuscripts quite 

 independent, their date of separation seeming to be about the 

 time of the schism of the kingdom. Further, we have seen that 

 the mode in which the Samaritans read the Law shows also a 

 marked difference from the Jewish ; we have found that this 

 points back to the same period. 



On the other hand, not a tittle of evidence is adduced for the 

 allegation that Manasseh, or whoever was the son-in-law of 

 Sanballat, conveyed the Law to Samaria. The only evidence 

 that he conveyed even himself thither is the unconfirmed assertion 

 of Josephus, in a narrative otherwise confused and unhistorical. 

 The Assouan pap3rri confirm the Biblical date of Sanballat ; 

 there is mention of his sons. In the appeal which the Israelites 

 of Assouan say they had made to Samaria there seems to have 

 been no reference to a High Priest : as they had appealed to the 

 Jewish High Priest as well as to Ostanes, the civil governor, it 

 might have been anticipated that, as the matter of their appeal 

 regarded the desecration of a temple, the Samaritan High Priest, 



