174 



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



Author's Reply. 



I am glad that Members of the Institute, present or absent, have 

 found in my paper so little to which they felt inclined to object. 

 With regard to those present when my paper was read for me, and 

 to whose criticisms I had the opportunity there and then of reply- 

 ing, I shaU pass them over. 



Although, as Mr. Wiener's criticism was then read, it therefore 

 might be said that I could have answered it (and did to some degree) 

 with those of friends present, yet the answer was necessarily 

 inadequate. I shall therefore consider his objections now more 

 at length. I am afraid Mr, Wiener must have been hindered from 

 reading my paper carefully by the illness which prevented him 

 being present when it was read before the Victoria Institute. Had 

 he been able to do so, he would have seen that I had no intention 

 of putting the Samaritan recension as a whole above the Massoretic, 

 or of denying that there are many late interpolations. These I 

 have considered elsewhere [Samaritans, pp. 312-315). We would 

 merely remark that no one reading with unprejudiced eye would 

 regard the direction as to the disposal by the Israelites of this 

 Law " as an " eleventh Commandment,'' interpolation although 

 it is. I shall therefore take no further notice of the first three 

 of Mr. Wiener's objections as they deal with matters not in my 

 paper. In regard to objection No. 4, 1 fail to apprehend its point, 

 especially when taken in connection with his alternative case. 

 Speaking of Jeroboam's three great religious abuses '* he says, 

 " these departures from the Torah incidentally prove its existence." 

 He thinks, however, that " the last thing that Jeroboam ' 

 would do would be to circulate copies of the Torah.'' Who- 

 ever said that he did ? It was generally known independently 

 alike of Jeroboam and of his priests. He thinks that the EoU 

 of the Law found in the days of Josiah must have been the auto- 

 graph of Moses, that all others were copies, as only it could be 

 called " the Book of the Law." I do not think that at all neces- 

 sary ; it would be enough if it were a copy specially individualized, 

 e.g., by being that placed by Solomon, according to the Egyptian 

 custom, in the foundation of the Temple. Even if it were the 

 autograph of Moses which was found that would not disprove the 

 general diffusion of the Law, or of the knowledge of its contents. 



