Among these towns we notice " Chinnereth," a form of the name occurring only in the closely allied books of Deut. iii. 17, and Joshua xix. 35, and in Num. xxxiv. 11, where, however, it is only used to designate "the sea of Chinnereth."1 Outside the Hexateuch we find "all Chinneroth" among the conquests of Benhadad (1 Kings xv. 20), and in Joshua xi. 2 "Chinnaroth "2 as a region north of the Arabah. Amongst many corruptions of the text, and names consequently doubtful, revealed by a comparison of the Hebrew and LXX. readings in Joshua xix. 35, the name Chinnereth stands out clear as that of a "fenced city." It probably gave its name to the sea or lake, and in the plural form, oth, to the region, as meaning "Chinnereth and purlieus." These facts attest its importance, but only at an early period. The conquest of Benhadad probably either destroyed or annexed it. Its occurrence as a fortress in Joshua xix. 35 is another mark of antiquity.

The "Arabah," as a local feature (not including the "Ar'both Moab," which is one limited portion of it), occurs first in nomenclature when the desert march brings us to it in fact (Deut. i. 1 and ii. 8). Joshua of course was familiar with it, crossed it, and traversed a portion of either of its sides. In the earlier Pentateuch this remarkable feature of the Palestinian area has a different name, the Ciccar. That "Arabah" should become prominent as a name just where we find it (and indeed the same remark applies to the "Ar'both Moab," found in Num. in the last year of the wandering), is surely a mark of genuine antiquity. The same is true of the term, “Sea of the Arabah," to interpret which, in Deut. and Joshua, the older designation, "the Salt Sea," is added (cf. Gen. xiv. 3 with Deut. iii. 17; Josh. iii. 16, xii. 3). In Deut. iv. 49, and as late as 2 Kings xiv. 25, the sole name is the "Sea of the Arabah." In the prophets (Joel ii. 20; Ezek. xlvii. 18; Zech. xiv. 8), it is the "East Sea." The presumption is that a writer as late as Isaiah, or later, would have called it as they call it.

Zidon occurs in Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28, with the epithet "Great” (Heb., Rabbah), denoting, as in the case of Rabbath Ammon (Deut. iii. 11; Joshua xiii. 25), a capital city. In close context we find the Fortress of Tyre (Bozrah-Tzôr) in Joshua xix. 29; cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 7. The next mention of Tyre is in 2 Sam. v. 11, where "Hiram king of Tyre" meets us. In Joshua Zidon is thus the capital, and Tyre an outpost of defence. By David's time. Tyre becomes a title of royalty. In Isaiah's time (Isa. xxiii.) Tyre is clearly the leading and Zidon the secondary place. And Jeremiah (xxvii. 3;

1 So also Joshua xii. 3 and xiii. 27.

The LXX. agrees with the Hebrew in the terminations -è✪ and -w in the above passages, except in Joshua xii. 3 and 1 Kings xv. 20. But where the difference is so slight, and error so easy, the discrepancy in these two passages is probably accidental.

3 of these names in Naphtali, Heleph is still traced in Beth-heleph, now Beitliff; Jabneel is probably Jamnia; Hukkok and Ramah are Yakuk and Rameh; Iron, Migdal-el, and Horem are Yarun, Mujeidel, and Hurah (Robinson, Van Velde, and others); see also Names and Places, by the Pal. Explor. Soc., where nearly all these names, Joshua xix. 33 ff., will be found identified by modern research.

4 Once "the Sea" only, but in a verse in which the Arabah previously (Ezek. xlvii. 8) occurs.

cf. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4), who mentions a king of each,1 puts Tyre first. It seems clear from this that a writer of the Isaian period, or later, could not have made Zidon the "Rabbah," and Tyre a mere covering fortress."

As we pass to the Book of Judges, the "Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor," and had, like Saul and David later, a captain of the host under him (Judges iv. 2), points to a more advanced organization than that of "Jabin king of Hazor," who calls out a confederacy of petty kings and tribes to make a united effort (Joshua xi. 1-5). In Syria, too, a consolidated royalty still later takes place, and with the same result of a more formidable power (2 Sam. x. 19; 1 Kings xx. 1, 12, 16, 24, xxii. 31). Thus in Phoenicia, in Syria, in Israel itself, the tendency is the same-from a looser political system to one more compact and monarchical. This seems to neutralize the suspicions of critics that the Jabin of Joshua and of Judges are identical. But the further consideration of the Book of Judges must be reserved for the present.

DATE OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

BY REV. H. D. ASTLEY, M.A.

In the August and September numbers of THE THINKER there are two papers in continuation of the controversy as to the origin and date of the Samaritan Pentateuch, both defending from different points of view the opposite opinion to that expressed by Professor Ryle in the words quoted by me in the July number of this magazine.

In the August number Canon Garratt affirms his complete agreement with the statement of Dr. Wilson, of Utica, U.S.A., that the existence of that document is a "controlling fact" in the controversy as to the origin of the Old Testament, and he then proceeds to argue against the position taken up by Professor Ryle.

The Canon first refers to the article "Samaritan Pentateuch" in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible to show that the "popular notion," and the "opinion" of a long list of authorities is that the "Samaritan Pentateuch" came into the hands of the Samaritans "as an inheritance from the ten tribes whom they succeeded," and after expressing his surprise that this should be ignored by the "Higher Criticism" as a "controlling fact absolutely fatal to it," he declares that the "proof of it is to be found in the Book of Kings (2 Kings xvii.)."

'Aristotle (Pol. ii. 11 § 2, cf. v. 12 § 12) assigns two kings to Carthage, as he knew it, possibly derived from the twin royalty of these cities. Ethbaal, father of Jezebel, is "king of the Zidonians," not styled "of Zidon" yet (1 Kings xvi. 31; cf. Judges xviii. 7).

* Mr. Gladstone (Homeric Synchronism, p. 162) has pointed out the "accordance" between the testimony of the Homeric poems and that of the Old Testament to the early status of Zidon, and the absence in those poems of any direct mention or clear trace of Tyre.

The curious royal Phoenician sarcophagus, inscribed with a curse on whoever should disturb the deposited remains, which Ewald assigned to the eleventh century B.C., is now by MM. Perrot and Chipiez given to the fourth.

With the Canon's quotations from this chapter, and his outline of historical events, I have no fault to find, but with his deductions therefrom I entirely disagree. The narrative in the Book of Kings, as I shall endeavour to show, says not one word as to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and is, therefore, quite beside the mark.

What this narrative teaches is, that the new immigrants brought from various countries under the sway of Assyria found themselves much harassed by lions (which had probably increased in number and violence during the wars, and subsequent depopulation of the country), and that they believed this was due to the anger of the god of the land, of whose worship they were ignorant. They therefore sent an embassy to Assyria to make known their pitiable condition, whereupon the king sent back one of the deported priests who "came and dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord" (2 Kings xvii. 24-28).

Now, in 1 Kings xii. 26-33 we read that Jeroboam, fearing lest his people should be enticed into renewed fellowship with Judah if they went up to Jerusalem to worship, set up a worship of his own, with a priesthood, and appropriate services at Dan and Bethel. The motive assigned is due to the author of the Book of Kings, who lived at the time of the Captivity. What is historically certain (from the Books of Amos and Hosea) is that Jehovah was worshipped at Dan and Bethel under the representation of golden calves, and that a priesthood was established with a settled service. But this priesthood differed from that of Judah in that it had no connection with the tribe of Levi, for Jeroboam "made houses of high places, and priests from among all the people (R.V.) which were not of the tribe of Levi." Surely we may conclude that this state of things continued during the whole history of the Northern Kingdom, and therefore what we have to note is (1) that this priest who was sent back from Assyria was no member of the tribe of Levi or priest of the sons of Aaron, but was one of the priests "taken from among all the people" whose order had been founded by Jeroboam I.; and (2) that "he came and dwelt at Bethel," where the calf-worship had been established by the same monarch at the disruption of the kingdom. Whether this priest set up the calf again we are not told-probably he did not-but we must bear in mind that in any case the religion established by Jeroboam, and re-instituted by this priest, whether with or without an image, was a real, though schismatic, Yahveh-worship, and no worship of false gods; and that, therefore, it would rightly be described as teaching the people "how they should fear the LORD" (Heb. 1, Yahveh, wrongly, but irretrievably, Anglicized Jehovah).

In ver. 34 where the author of the Book of Kings, writing probably about the era of the Captivity, says, "Unto this day they do after the former manner," &c., we have a hint of the true state of the case; and in agreement with this we find the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin saying to Ezra, "We seek your God as ye do, and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon, King of Assyria, which brought us up hither" (Ezra iv. 2).

The people imported into Northern Israel from various countries were therefore instructed by this priest in the religion which had been customary there, and which, like that of Judah at a corresponding date, is concluded on critical grounds not to have been based on the Pentateuch as we have it, nor even on Deuteronomy, but on the earlier codes contained in that portion of the Pentateuch which has been assigned to J E, and which includes Exod. xx.-xxiii. and xxxiv. The main reasons for this conclusion I shall set forth in summing up the critical position at the close of this paper. Here I would ask one question, and it is this: If the Priestly Code, not to speak of Deuteronomy, existed in Israel at any date prior to the destruction of Samaria, how are we to reconcile with this the fact of the worship at Dan and Bethel being established for so many years without a word of protest from the prophets and priests, who must have known its utterly illegal character? On the contrary, Amos and Hosea accept the condition of things they see around them, and merely protest against the abuses and heathen practices which were being introduced. Never once do they say to the people, "You ought to do sacrifice at Jerusalem, and go up to the feasts there; and, as for your priests, they are worthless, for they are not members of the tribe of Levi."

Again, Elijah brings forward as a charge against the people, "They have thrown down thine altars" (1 Kings xix. 10), and he himself "repaired the altar of Yahveh" on Carmel "that was thrown down" (1 Kings xviii. 30). How reconcile all this with the existence of laws prescribing one sanctuary, one altar, one priesthood?

We may therefore conclude that the document which the priest brought with him from Assyria, if document there were at all, would consist only of the narrative of E (who on many independent grounds is supposed to have been a native of Northern Israel, in the tenth or ninth century B.C.), or perhaps of JE, already combined, which would contain the greater and lesser Books of the Covenant, and the early traditions of the nation; but not Deuteronomy, which was not "found" at Jerusalem until 100 years later; nor the Priestly Code, which was not written out until the loss of the temple services during the Exile made a code necessary, if former customs were to be remembered at all. This is distinctly stated to the discerning reader in the verse quoted, and the succeeding passage to the end of the chapter (2 Kings xvii. 34-41).

Thus we have every reason to believe that the ten tribes never had the written "Book of the Law," if by that is meant the completed Pentateuch as we now have it. The only written law they had was that contained in Exod. xx.-xxiii., and Exod. xxxiv., and by this they could justify their worship at Dan and Bethel and other sanctuaries on the strength of the permission given in this code to a multiplicity of altars (Exod. xx. 22-26).

I hope I have now said enough to show that, on historical grounds 2 Kings xvii. has really nothing to do with the question of the origin and date of the Samaritan Pentateuch.

And now to come to Dr. Hayman's paper in the September number of THE THINKER. The Doctor writes with an ability and acuteness worthy of all praise, and brings an immense amount of ingenuity to bear upon the technical details which he advances in support of his view; but he appears to completely misunderstand the critical standpoint, and while he opens up the whole question debated between the advocates of tradition and the Higher Criticism, he discusses much that is really irrelevant to the subject in hand, viz., the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Nevertheless, his paper merits careful consideration, and such I will endeavour to give it.

I have already shown that we have no grounds for believing that the Samaritans knew anything of the completed Pentateuch before the Captivity. I have now to show that the facts recorded in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are not inconsistent with the supposition that they first received the completed Pentateuch (in which they afterwards made alterations to suit their own schismatic worship) from Manasseh, the grandson of Eliashib, in 432 B.C.

The first thing we have to bear in mind in studying the facts recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah is that these two books originally formed only one book, and that this book was in close connection with, and intended to be a continuation of, Chronicles (see 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23; and Ezra i. 1, 2). This book, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, was intended to be a universal history, commencing with Adam, and continuing the annals of the Jewish State, and especially Jerusalem, down to the time of Nehemiah, from the priestly standpoint. It runs parallel with, and is sometimes dependent upon, the prophetical narrative in Samuel and Kings, but differs from it in the prominence it gives to the law, which it looks upon as having come down in its entirety from the days of Moses. The author, who certainly made use to a large extent of contemporary documents in the later stages of his history, and had the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which he made large extracts, lying before him, lived most probably at the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century before Christ, when the institutions he describes had long been in force, and when for nearly two centuries the Jewish Church had taken the place of the Jewish State (see 1 Chron. iii. 17-24, where the genealogy is carried down to the 6th-some say the 11thgeneration after Zerubbabel; and Nehemiah xii. 22, where "Darius the Persian" is certainly Darius Codomannus, who was defeated by Alexander in 332 B.C., and ver. 26, where the " days of Nehemiah" are spoken of as long past).

This being so, let us now examine more particularly the points brought forward by Dr. Hayman in order; and here I must be as brief as perspicuity will allow, though the questions involved are almost too vast to be even touched on in the limits of a short paper.

1. With regard to the genealogy in Ezra ii. which corresponds with that in Nehemiah vii. and is taken from the same official document, which Ewald