The enormous difficulty of even conceiving the possi- bility of a fraud under such circumstances is increased by the wide dispersion of the Jewish race, and the mighty separation which had divided the original people into two jealous if not hostile nations. If one portion of the dispersed had been disposed to acquiesce in the fraud, or, in the depth of their superstitious ignorance, had been induced to accept a religious romance composed by some member of the college of the prophets as the ancient Scriptures of their nation, still it is inconceiv- able that all the communities of Jews established in the different cities of the known world could have been brought to the same conclusion. Or if the exclusive and intense spirit of nationality by which they were actuated, and which becomes on this supposition itself an effect without a cause, can be believed to have ac- complished even this result, it still remains to be con- ceived how the Samaritan people could have been in- duced to adopt the same belief, instead of indignantly protesting, as a people so sensitively jealous would in- evitably have done, against what must have been either an enormous folly or a criminal imposture. Yet an in- dependent Samaritan version of the Pentateuch carries the evidence for the national acceptance of the Mosaic ■writings as high as the times of Solomon and David, within little more than 400 years of the conquest of Canaan. Every theory hitherto suggested to explain the existence of the Jewish Scriptures, and the profound veneration entertained for them during all periods by the historic Jew, bristles with difficidties which con- tradict every ex|)erience of himian history and every linown ])rinciple of human conduct.
(3.) I'roof of the early composition of the Pentateuch exists in the fact that the iSammitcuis had their ou-n copies of it, not differing very materially from those possessed by the Jews, except in a few passages which had probably been purposely tampered Avith and al- tered ; such, for instance, as Exod. xii, 40 ; Deut. xxvii, 5. The Samaritans, it would seem, must have derived their book of the Law from the ten tribes, whose land they occupied ; on the other hand, it is (JUt of the ques- tion to suppose that the ten tribes would be willing to accept religious books from the two, unless these vyere
already in general circulation and of long-established authority. Hence the conclusion seems to be irresisti- ble that the Pentateuch must have existed in its pres- ent form before the separation of Israel from Judah ; the only part of the O. T. which was the common her- itage of both. There is not indeed any historical no- tice of a rupture between the Jews and Samaritans prior to the return from Babylon, except so far as the schismatic calf-worship, and the mongrel character of the inhabitants introduced by the Assyrian conquerors, would naturally produce it ; and there are traces of a religious association, more or less close, during the later period of the Hebrew monarchy ; but the notable fact that none of the prophetical writings were admitted by the Samaritans strongly argues that their copy dates from a very early period. This view is confirmed by the fact that it is written in the ancient character, which certainly was not in use after the Exile. The only ob- jection of any considerable weight to this conclusion is the fact that it agrees remarkabh' with the existing Hebrew Pentateuch, and that, too, in those passages which are manifestly interpolations and corrections as late as the time of Ezra. Hence many incline to the view of Prideaux {Connect, bk. vi, ch. iii) that the Sa- maritan Pentateuch was in fact a transcript of Ezra's revised copy. The same view is virtually adopted by (Jeseniiis [De Pent. Sam. p. 8, 9). See Sasiaritan Pestatkuch.
(4.) The unvarying conviction of the Jews, and of the Christian Church also, has been that the Penta- teuch, substantially as we have it now, and without any alterations beyond what are conceded to be admissible in all books which have been handed down from remote antiquity, is the writing of Moses. As we have seen above, until near the end of last century the universal- ity of this conviction may be pronounced absolute ; the alleged exceptions are so trifling or so dubious that the mere mention of them, as they have been carefully hunted out, gives us an impression of the strength of the traditional belief such as we might not otherwise have had. The case of some obscure early heretical sects ainong so-called Christians would scarcely be to the point, even if it could be established; but really the}' do not seem to have denied that Moses was the author of the book ; their denial had reference to its di- vine origin and authority. The first distinct adverse statement was made by Carlstadt, the Reformer with whom Luther was associated for a time, but from whom he was compelled to separate on account of his rashness and want of good sense. Carlstadt admitted tliat Moses had received the law from God, and that he communi- cated it to the people; but he doubted whether the words and the thread of discourse in the Pentateuch did not proceed from some later writer, though he rejected the notion that Ezra was the writer. Masius, a learned Koman Catholic, whose commentary on Joshua was pub- lished in 1574, after his death, held that at least there was rearrangement and supplementing by Ezra or some other inspired person. These two Christian writers per- haps had a predecessor among the Jewish rabbins, the learned Aben-Ezra, of Toledo, who live4 probably A.D. 1095-11C8; he hinted his opinion that a few passages had not come from the hand of Moses, and he notices the similar opinion, as to one ])assage, of another rab- bin in the 11th century, a man, however, who is other- wise wholly unknown to us. Einally, about the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, there were a few theologians, both Romanist and Reformed — Pey- rerius, Richard Simon, Yan Dale, and Le Clerc — who adopted the opinion, more or less decidedly, that Ezra was the author of the Pentateuch, The last of these, an eminent man among the Dutch Arminians, is by far the best known of the whole number; and he professed himself convinced by subsequent discussions that he had been in error, and in liis commentary on the Pen- tateuch retracted his ojjinion,