160 



REV. J. E. H. THOMSON. M.A., D.D., ON 



before us a text deliberately and carefully compiled on lines parallel 

 to those followed by the Jews, and the similarity goes even further, 

 for I have been able to study the Samaritan scrolls, not only the 

 text in book form, and I have satisfied myself that also in the 

 writing of these scrolls there is a distinct approximation to the 

 rules laid down for the writing of the Jewish scrolls. This is the 

 case also of the famous old scroll ascribed to Abisha, and I venture 

 to say I have been one of the very few who have seen and read this 

 copy, and therein the same rules can be observed. All these texts, 

 and therefore the archetype, contain already those deliberate 

 changes and alterations which are introduced in order to justify the 

 claim of the Samaritans for the sanctity of Mount Gerizim, and such 

 other minor details of a ceremonial character by which the 

 Samaritans have been separated from the Jews. These have after- 

 wards been elaborated by Samaritan scholars and scribes, and 

 I have been lucky enough to discover among them many archaic 

 treatises which throw an unexpected light on the origins of primitive 

 Christianity. I am preparing for publication one of these works 

 dealing with the ceremonies and practices, at which I have been 

 working for the last ten years. And among others we learn from 

 it incidentally the time when, according to their tradition, the Jews 

 had " corrupted " the sacred text. This is much more fully stated 

 in their chronicles, of which I also possess some remarkable 

 copies. They state that neither Eli who, as they allege, had 

 established a Schismatic Tabernacle, nor Solomon, who built 

 a Temple in the wrong place, had tampered with the word- 

 ing of the text. This was left to Ezra, who was the first to 

 alter the text. Here we have at any rate a definite tempus a quo 

 from which we have to work backwards if we are to trace the 

 antiquity of the Samaritan Pentateuch to its remoter origin. It 

 is obvious that the Samaritans would not accept a new-fangled 

 Law if, as the Higher Critics allege, it was the work of Ezra. Nor 

 do I connect Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, with this 

 Pentateuch. • The story told by Josephus is unquestionably wrong 

 in its chronology, and the Manasseh mentioned by him is the 

 man mentioned by Nehemiah. In the chain of the Samaritan 

 High Priests, published by me, which gives the names and dates 

 of these High Priests beginning with Adam, and being carried down 

 to the late High Priest Jacob, Manasseh does not figure at all as 



