162 



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



to emancipate themselves. The progress was slow and contrary, 

 influences very powerful ; hence the surprise and wonder when the 

 old scroll of the Law hidden away in the recesses or in the foundation 

 of the Temple was suddenly brought to light by the High Priest 

 Hilkiah. This certainly does not mean that the book was then 

 written. On the contrary, the very efiect it had on the people 

 shows that they must have known of the existence of such a book, 

 and now felt the guilt of ha^'ing disobeyed its ordinances. 



I also fully agree with the Lecturer that the Samaritans know 

 only the Pentateuch as a sacred book, but I regret to find that he 

 has e^-idently been misled by those who, with arrogant levity and 

 complete incompetence, have attacked my discovery of the Samaritan 

 Book of Joshua. There is not the slightest doubt about the genuine- 

 ness and antiquity of that book. A continued study, and especially 

 a minute comparison with the Greek, has removed every vestige 

 of doubt which may have been lingering on. 



With this book the Samaritans begin their history, which in some 

 of my MSS. is continued from that period to our times. To them, 

 therefore, the Book of Joshua has no sacred character ; it is a part 

 of Secular Literature, and thus the idea of a Hexateuch also becomes 

 impossible, from the point of view of the Samaritan tradition. 

 They, like the Jews, know only the Pentateuch as the Sacred Law 

 of Moses. 



There cannot be the slightest doubt that the Torah was in the 

 possession of the undivided house of Israel long before the Schism. 

 It is absurd to assume that the spiritual life of a nation can be 

 moulded by a patch-work, and the highest conception of morality and 

 human happiness can rest upon a fraud, however pious the int^tion 

 may have been of those who are credited with having committed 

 it. Our thanks are due to Professor Thomson for his excellent 

 paper, and for the challenge he has thrown down to the School of 

 Higher Criticism, which is now slowly waning and ebbing away. 



Mr. Rouse said : — The main arguments of this paper are most 

 comancing and admirable. But two subordinate ones that do not 

 materially help its conclusions I feel bound to modify. It could 

 not have been simply because the men whom Zerubbabel and Joshua 

 refused as co-operators did not belong to the tribe of Judah or of 

 Benjamin that he refused them ; for the proclamation of Cyrus, 

 to which he appealed, and which is twice quoted in Holy Writ, 



