DOUBTFUL NAMES. 229 instance we may safely presume that the more ancient history1 [of the Kings] would not have failed to mention so important a fact, if it had had an historical foundation; and besides, if an open fabrication can be seen in any part of the Chronicles, it is chiefly visible in this passage. The names of the princes2 whom Jehoshaphat sent forth, and those of the Levites who were sent with them, are stated in the narrative; but we find among the princes the names of three well-known prophets, Obadiah, Zechariah, and Micah; and the names of the Levites (which seem to have been collected with no less anxiety,) bear evident marks of a later mode of formation. We find, for example, among these names, Shemaiah (whom Jehovah hears), Nethaniah (whom Jehovah has given), Jehonathan (whom Jehovah has given), Zebadiah (a gift of Jehovah), Adonijah (Jehovah is my Lord), Nathaneel (whom God has given), Asahel (whom God created), and even Shemiramoth, a name of so ambiguous a form as to leave it doubtful whether it were intended to designate a male or a female. Movers has done nothing to rescue this passages from doubt, and, with all his great critical acumen, he seems to have been fully aware that it could not be authenticated. We now leave it to the explanation of those who believe in it, and return to our previous line of proof, which supplies, as will be seen, a refutation of the following argument sometimes adduced for attributing the Pentateuch to Moses, which would be amply refuted by such a succession of proofs, even if it had possessed much more force than its authors have assigned to it. The argu 1 1 Kings xxii. 41-50. 2 Sarim belong to the time when the priests had assumed this title. 3 Movers, p. 299, &c. 230 KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL. ment is this: "That the adoption of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans is a proof that that work must have been already in existence at the time of the separation of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, although after that division the two kingdoms remained at enmity with each other." Here we have a striking example of the little attention that is paid even to the strongest evidence whenever it happens to be opposed to firmly rooted prejudices; for although this form of argument was only first brought forward in the seventeenth century, and was clearly shown by Antony Von Dale1 to be utterly untenable, it has still been considered by Jahn, Bertholdt3, and others, as invincible; and although, since their time, it has been completely demolished by Vater, De Wette, Gesenius, and Paulus, yet Rosenmüller again takes his stand behind it in order to raise the Pentateuch into higher antiquity. The whole of this argument rests on two false assumptions: 1st, that a bitter hatred constantly separated the kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and 2ndly, that the later sect of the Samaritans completely coincided with the ancient inhabitants of Samaria, and with those of the kingdom of the ten tribes. With respect to the first of these points, it may be proved beyond all doubt, from the historical books [of the Old Testament], that a constant intercourse was maintained between the two kingdoms, that they regarded each other with brotherly interest, acting in concert against all common enemies, and that the division between them was wholly confined to the political jealousy of the two rival dynasties. From time immemorial, owing 1 In his Correspondence with Morinus, pp. 77, 681, &c. SAMARITAN INDEPENDENCE. 231 to the intercourse with the Syrians and Phoenicians, Samaria had been the portion of the country most remarkable for the freedom of the Hebrew faith, and had risen at an early period to a certain degree of independence, evidence of which may be traced even in the census of David1; and hence it arose that the kingdom of the ten tribes was less disposed to submit to any fixed system, and that it never acquired a settled form of internal government. A constitution founded on the legislatorial enactments of the Pentateuch was evidently out of the question, since from the date of the separation the kingdom of Israel never ceased to protest in the strongest terms against the centralization in Judah. It was nevertheless one of the cherished hopes of the prophets that the mutual jealousy of the two kingdoms might eventually cease, and make way for a reunion3; though, at the same time, it may be remarked that no mention was ever made by them of Levitical laws and ceremonies. These are first mentioned in those writings which were under Levitical influence, and which describe priests passing to and fro like missionaries to enlist new worshipers for their temple, while they would also lead us to infer that Jeroboam had expelled the Levites from his territories1. All this has been admirably 1 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. Compare Comm. on Gen. xlviii. and xlix. 2 See Winer, Dict. of Bible, in the article Israel. 3 'The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim."-Isaiah xi. 13. "Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel."-Hos. i. 11. See also Ezek. xxxvii. 15. 4 "The Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off : 232 IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. developed by Gesenius', and it only remains for us to add, that Jeroboam could neither have introduced nor maintained the worship of Apis if the Pentateuch had then been in existence2; that, if we are to believe the history, the same idolatrous worship continued to prevail in both the Hebrew kingdoms, and that all the indications of a later origin which are found in the Jewish text of the Pentateuch apply with equal force to the Samaritan version; so that the whole argument of those who defend the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch on this ground loses its weight. No proof can be adduced of the existence of these books. among the remnant of the ten tribes previous to the time of Manasseh, in the fourth century before Christ. This was after the Samaritans, forbidden by Zerubbabel to assist in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem3, had erected their own temple on Mount Gerizim, and had adopted the Levitical ritual; on which occasion, for the first time, Jewish priests were appointed by the Samaritans, whereas until then they had shown no disposition to possess any and they had expressly asserted that they had offered no sacrifice since the days of Esarhaddon 5. from executing the priest's office unto the Lord: and he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made."-2 Chron. xi. 14, 15. 1 On Isaiah xi. 13. 2 See A. v. Dale, p. 682. 3"But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, You have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us." -Ezra iv. 3. 4 A. v. Dale, p. 685. De Wette, Contrib. i. 216. 5. "We wish to build with you, for we seek your God as ye do, and we have offered no sacrifice since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assur, who brought us up hither."-Ezra iv. 2 (Luther's translation). THE SAMARITAN TEMPLE. 233 The erection of the Samaritan temple was regarded by the Jews as an open disavowal of Jerusalem, and it filled them at once with all that implacable hatred which is generally indulged in towards apostates'. It is probable also that this feeling was considerably strengthened by the circumstance, that when the Samaritans admitted Jewish priests into their service, they remained true to their protestant character by refusing to adopt any of the sacred writings of the Jews except the Pentateuch; either be cause, in the first instance, this work had been promulgated alone, or because they could have felt no very strong attachment to the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Chronicles, which are so full of Jerusalem and Judah. Bertholdt has attempted to show that the ancient written character of the Samaritan Pentateuch is in itself a proof of an earlier period for the composition of that work; but the examination of the coins of the time, and the study of ancient Semitic writings, entirely disprove his reasoning, since they demonstrate that the same mode of writing was then in common use, both among the Jews and the Samaritans, and that what is called the square character was first derived from the Chaldæan forms of letters at a later period of Jewish history. This argument concludes the series of the objections to the later date of the Pentateuch, with the exception of one ground of opposition, which still remains to be noticed, and the examination of which will enable the reader to acquire a full and clear knowledge of the subject. 1 Compare Sir. 1. 28. Josephus, Archæol. xi. 7, 8. St. John iv. 2 A. v. Dale, p. 82. |