Christ and Criticism. 75 have been the .real Moses of the Exodus, and not the mythical Moses of the Exile, who wrote long centuries after Khammu- rabi had been forgotten! AN INCREDIBLE THEORY. The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an impor tant count in the critics’ indictment of the Pentateuch; but we can call another witness whose testimony demolishes their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all know, and the Pen tateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans. Who, then, were the Samaritans? And how and when did they obtain the Pentateuch ? Here again the critics shall speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who have cham pioned their crusade in Britain there has been none more es teemed, none more scholarly, than the late Professor Robert son Smith; and here is an extract from his “Samaritans ar ticle in the “Encyclopedia Britannica” : “They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites, de-| scendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of Moses * * * The priestly law,, which is throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem before the Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must, therefore, have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra’s reforms.” And in the same para graph he says that, according to the contention of the Samari tans, “not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schismatical.” And yet, ,as he goes on to say, “the Samaritan religion was built on the Pentateuch alone.” Now mark what this implies. We know something of ra cial bitterness. We know more, unfortunately, of the fierce bitterness of religious strife. And both these elements com bined to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But more than this, in the post-exilic period distrust and dislike were
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker