Mr. M. L. ROUSE said: The story of the capture of the chief Jebusite city by Joab for David recalls the capture of Naples from the Ostrogoths for Justinian by his general, Belisarius: the Byzantine troops then clambered through the tunnel of the great drain of the city and took its defenders by surprise.

I should like to call attention to a striking coincidence and contrast in Bible history. When, as we this evening have heard explained, the Jebusites, in mockery of David, set the blind and lame to protect the city, they challenged him if he could to remove them; and he replied by offering the highest military honour for valour in these words: "Whoever first getteth up to the watercourse and smiteth the Jebusites and the blind and the lame that are hated of David's soul" (or "that hate David's soul as another reading has it) "shall be chief and captain"; and Joab won the honour.

Centuries rolled by, and the Lord Jesus, the eternal King of Jerusalem, entered amid triumphant, though fickle, honours into the city; and after He had for a second time purged His temple of the avaricious, we read that the blind and the lame came to Him" there, and He healed them."

Mr. Rouse writes the following additional comment, which he had intended to make upon the lecture: If the Canaanites occupied with their city only the south-eastern crescent hill, then we can understand what has always been hard to comprehend, how Abraham could have ascended a hill-top in Mount Moriah and in complete privacy prepared for the solemn faith-testing sacrifice of Isaac; in privacy he meant it to be, for he had told his servants to wait below while he " and the lad" went " yonder to worship."

Dr. SCHOFIELD: Is there any evidence that in ancient times Ophel was considerably higher than the insignificant proportions attributed to it, and that between it and Mount Moriah there was a deep valley, and that to talk of the citadel of Zion would be more relevant, because there was a large city outside the city of Zion which was taken by Joshua, although no one could find the citadel? This citadel was no doubt the site of the original city. Jericho is smaller than the whole of Ophel, the first city which was taken, and, therefore, may it not have been built round it? Would Dr. Masterman allow a distinction between the city of Zion and the hill of Zion?

A MEMBER: May I ask the relation of the Saviour's tomb to the city walls?

The CHAIRMAN: I think we cannot have such a large question raised at this hour.

Mr. MOON: Could we be told the distance of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre outside the walls of Jerusalem? How many feet would the eastern wall of the holy sepulchre be from the second wall to which Dr. Masterman referred ?

Dr. MASTERMAN: I know I must be very brief, and I am afraid there are some subjects which it would be no use to try and dismiss in a few words. About the higher hill dominating Zion, I think the chief reasons for the identification of the south-east hill as Zion is that the result of the excavations shows this to be a site in keeping with all the ancient fortified sites we know in Palestine, and it is no objection to such a view that there is a higher hill some distance away. The essential thing is these ancient sites was a tongue of land isolated on three sides by deep valleys and on the other side isolated by the higher ground from which it springs, either by a natural depression or an artificial fosse. I do not agree with Dr. Schofield's remark that there was a city on "Mount Zion" in the time of the Jebusites. With regard to the western site there was no city in the whole country in pre-Hebrew times which covered the area which such an identification suggests. Of course, the name Zion has been applied to many parts. It was an alternative name for Jerusalem in the Psalms, and the name Mount Zion has been applied during the Christian era to the western hill. The original Zion was the hill which David took and which he renamed " the City of

David."

As regards the site of our Lord's tomb, there is still much controversy. If you have read Sir Charles Wilson's book Golgotha, you will find the subject discussed in a thoroughly scientific spirit. His conclusion is to this effect: He considers, while there is nothing archæological to support the view that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the present site, we have found nothing in the position of the walls to make it impossible that it could have been the site. I cannot go farther than that, because I can only say that is my attitude. I do not believe we shall ever get nearer a conclusion than that

I have been asked about the distance of the second wall from the Holy Sepulchre. I can only say that Sir Charles was a military man and a great student, and he said the walls could be sketched in just far enough to make the site possible.

The CHAIRMAN asked Col. Roberts to move a vote of thanks to Dr. Masterman

Col. ROBERTS: I have much pleasure in doing that, and I hope Dr. Masterman will come again. I think, if I may say so, to-day's paper is more interesting than on the last occasion, at least it is to me, because it is more concentrated, and I think concentration on a particular subject makes it more interesting. I ask you to pass by acclamation a vote of thanks to Dr. Masterman for his very interesting paper.

(Vote of thanks.)

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, S.W., ON MONDAY, APRIL 12TH, 1920 AT 4.30 P.M.

DR. T. G. PINCHES, M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous meeting were read, confirmed and signed. The HON. SECRETARY announced the Election of the following Members and Associates:-Members: Miss Pelham-Burn, William P. Annear, Esq., F.C.I.S., Alexander Ross, Esq., Colonel W. Sidebottom, J.P., Lieut.-Col. F. A. Molony, O.B.E., and J. Norman Holmes, Esq. Associates: Lieut.Col. Arthur Ford-Moore, Frederick J. Bramall, Esq., Robert McCormack, Esq., the Rev. Ivo F. H. Carr-Gregg, and the Rev. George B. Macgarr.

The CHAIRMAN then called on the Rev. J. E. H. Thomson, M.A., D.D., to read his paper on "The Samaritan Pentateuch." He requested his friend the Rev. DONALD ROSS, Stratford, to read it for him as his voice was weakened with bronchial catarrh, which Mr. Ross accordingly did.

THE PENTATEUCH OF THE SAMARITANS: WHEN THEY GOT IT, AND WHENCE. By the Rev. J. E. H. THOMSON, M.A., D.D.

WHO

HO are the Samaritans ? At the present time in an obscure quarter of the city of Nablus there are collected together in mean dwellings some 150 souls who claim to be Samaritans-the descendants of the Ephraimite Tribes of Israel. As late as the first half of the seventeenth century there were wealthy communities of Samaritans all over Syria and Egypt. These, however, have all disappeared save this one diminishing, poverty-stricken group. Are they then what they claim to be, genuine Israelites? The orthodox Jewish opinion is that this claim is false; it is maintained that they are the descendants of the Mesopotamian colonists sent by the successive Sargonid Princes of Nineveh to supply the place of the deported Israelites. Many Christians agree with them in this opinion. It is maintained that it is supported by 2 Kings xvii. When this chapter is carefully read it will be found that the evidence it gives in support of this conclusion is not so clear nor undubitable as is thought. Although deportation is asserted, there is nothing said about its being total. All that is asserted is that God rejected all the seed of Israel until He had cast them out of His sight" (1 Kings xvii, 20); this refers rather to spiritual

66

privileges of these all Israel, North and South, were to be deprived. It is expressly applied to Judah as well as to Israel, but we know that all Judah was not deported by Nebuchadnezzar ; "the poor of the land which had nothing" were left. Moreover, the last verses of this chapter in 2 Kings is addressed to those with whom JHWH had made a covenant. "Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. So these nations feared the Lord and served their graven images (2 Kings xvii, 40, 41).

Besides, there are grave difficulties of various kinds which beset this view. In the first place it would contradict many other passages in Scripture. In the account of Hezekiah's Passover it is told that he sent an invitation to Ephraim and Manasseh, "the remnant of you that are escaped out of the hand of the Kings of Assyria (2 Chron. xxx, 6). From the Ninevite marbles it is evident that Jewish chronology is too long by nearly forty years. This is occasioned by joint reigns as, for instance, Jotham with his father Uzziah, and Jehoram with Jehoshaphat; it seems not unlikely that during the latter years of the life of Ahaz, Hezekiah was his colleague, and that he emphasized the first year of his independent reign by the celebration of a Passover. The first year of Hezekiah as reigning alone may well have been 720 B.C. Whatever difficulty there may be about the chronology of Hezekiah's Passover there can be no doubt that the Passover of the reign of Josiah was after the fall of Samaria, and the deportation, whatever its extent, had taken place. In the account of it which is to be found in 2 Chron. xxxv, 17, it is said, "The children of Israel that were present kept the Passover ; to show that the writer had in his mind the distinction between Judah and Israel in v. 18 we read, 66 all Judah and Israel that were present. ""*

Further, in Jer. xli, 5, there is mention of men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, who were bringing offerings and incense to the House of the Lord; this was after the fall of Jerusalem. There are other passages in Jeremiah that seem to have little meaning unless there were still a remnant of the Ephraimite Tribes, whom the prophet thus represents as

*I do not think that evidence from Chronicles is to be dismissed on the plea that the book is non-historical. At all events it is clear that at the time when the chronicler wrote it was believed that a very considerable number of the Ephraimites had escaped from the hands of the Assyrians.

L