THE PEISTTATEUCH OF THE SAMARITANS. 



167 



Torah which conclusively proved the sinfulness of their entire cult 

 and the illegitimacy of their whole sacerdotal order. Such men 

 could have no use for the Decalogue with its prohibition of images 

 of Deuteronomy, with its insistence on a Levitical priesthood. In 

 the absence of any complaint, we may properly hold that in matters 

 of sacrificial ritual they did not depart unnecessarily from Leviticus, 

 and that, except as specified, there was habitual observance of the 

 provisions of the Law. But I cannot believe that that was based 

 on copies extant in the northern kingdom, for their evidence would 

 have been far too damning to the whole system. I conclude, there- 

 fore, that such knowledge of the Torah as existed in Northern 

 Israel was based on custom and oral tradition. 



The second material passage is the famous narrative of Hilkiah's 

 find, in 2 Kings, xxii 8fi. His statement is that he had found, 

 not a copy of the Law, but " the hook of the Law." That is the correct 

 description of only one writing of all that have ever existed in the 

 world, viz., of the Mosaic autograph. Every other document 

 containing his work is not " tJie hook of the law " but " a copy of 

 the law." The subsequent narrative makes it clear that the law 

 had disappeared from view altogether for a time, and that no 

 copies were extant even in Judah. In the circumstances, it is 

 impossible to infer that copies were circulating in Northern Israel. 



One point more. It is one thing to adduce evidence to show that 

 the deportation of Israelites was not complete, it is quite another 

 to infer that therefore full-blooded Israelites accepted the eleventh 

 commandment of the Samaritan Pentateuch and joined the sect 

 that worships on Mount G-erizim. The Samaritans were cast out 

 from the worship of which Jerusalem was the centre, and adopted 

 this device to meet their religious needs. It does not in the least 

 follow that men who were entitled to participate in the Jewish 

 observances, and were under no necessity to enter on a heretical 

 course, accepted as a command of God something that was proved 

 by all their history and traditions to be a shameless forgery. 



For these and many other reasons, I find myself regretfully com- 

 pelled to reject Dr. Thomson's hypotheses, but I need scarcely add 

 that I am entirely at one with him in his opposition to Wellhausenism. 



The Rev. Professor A. S. Geden, D.D., writes : — It seems to me 

 that Dr. Thomson is certainly correct in his contention that, in 

 great part at least, the Samaritans were descendants of Israelites not 



