If this account of the Samaritan codex be cor rect, it is easy to perceive the reason why the Samaritans did not receive all the Jewish books previously written. When the schism of the tribes took place, the Pentateuch was commonly circulated, and usually regarded as a sacred na tional collection, containing all their laws and institutions. Though David's Psalms and some of Solomon's compositions may also have been written at that time; yet the former were chiefly in the hands of the Levites, who regulated the Temple music, and were employed in the public service of Jehovah; while the latter were doubt less disliked by the ten tribes on account of their author, who lived at Jerusalem, and were rare from the non-transcription of copies. The proph ets must have been unwelcome to the Israelites, because they uttered many things against them, affirming that Jehovah could not be worshiped with acceptance in any other place than Jerusa lem. This circumstance was sufficient to prevent that people from receiving any of the prophetical writings till Ezra's time, when their hatred of him and his associates was so great that they would not have admitted any collection of the Scriptures coming through such hands. Whatever other books, besides the Pentateuch, were written in the time of Rehoboam must have been comparatively unknown to the mass of the people. This fact, in connection with political considerations, was suf ficient to lead the Israelites to reject most, except those of Moses.
In addition to the Pentateuch, the Samaritans have the book of Joshua, but it did not always form part of their canon. Their Joshua does not appear to be the same as the Old Testament book. On the contrary, it must have been composed long after, out of the inspired records of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, to which have been added fables and Oriental traditions. Such a compilation can have no claim to be regarded as the authentic Jewish writing.
It thus appears that the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot be ascribed to a later period than that of the schism between the tribes. All the arguments adduced by Gesenius (in his Commentatio de Pen tateuchi Samaritani Origins, lndole, et Auctori tate) are not sufficient to disprove its truth. For
opposite and convincing statements we refer to the last edition of Eichhorn's Introduction to the Old Testament, and Professor Stuart's review of Gesenius, in the second volume of the American Biblical Repository. The name Samaritan was first given to that mixed multitude composed of the heathen introduced by Shalmaneser into the kingdom of Israel, and of the lower classes of the ten tribes which had not been carried away. Whatever civil jealousies may have previously ex isted between them and the Jews, their religious animosities were first excited when Ezra and his countrymen, returning from exile, refused to al low their co-operation in building the Temple. Subsequent events, far from allaying their mutual hatred. only raised it to a higher pitch, giving it that permanent, durable form in which it was continued through succeeding centuries.
2. Its Authority and Value. With respect to the authority and value of the Samaritan Pen tateuch, there has been much variety of sentiment. Gesenins, however. has very ably shown that very little value should he assigned to the characteris tics of its text. Ile has proved that no critical reliance can be placed on it, and that it is wholly unjustifiable to use it as a source of correcting the Hebrew text. He has divided the various read ings it exhibits into different classes, under each of which numerous examples are adduced. By a most minute investigation of particulars he has shown that it cannot be employed in emendation, as Kennicott, Morin, and Bauer supposed. This masterly dissertation has ruined the credit of the Samaritan codex in the critical world. The purity of the Hebrew is not to be corrupted by additions or interpolations from such a document. The original text of the Old Testament cannot be established by any weight attaching to it.
Library references.. \Valton's Prolegomena; Gesenius, De Pcntat. Samar. Originc, etc., p. 18; the Introductions of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Haver nick, De Wette; and Davidson's Lectures on Bib lical Criticism. S. D.