AUTHOR'S REPLY.

I am glad that Members of the Institute, present or absent, have found in my paper so little to which they felt inclined to object. With regard to those present when my paper was read for me, and to whose criticisms I had the opportunity there and then of replying, I shall pass them over.

Although, as Mr. Wiener's criticism was then read, it therefore might be said that I could have answered it (and did to some degree) with those of friends present, yet the answer was necessarily inadequate. I shall therefore consider his objections now more at length. I am afraid Mr. Wiener must have been hindered from reading my paper carefully by the illness which prevented him being present when it was read before the Victoria Institute. Had he been able to do so, he would have seen that I had no intention of putting the Samaritan recension as a whole above the Massoretic, or of denying that there are many late interpolations. These I have considered elsewhere (Samaritans, pp. 312–315). We would merely remark that no one reading with unprejudiced eye would regard the direction as to the disposal by the Israelites of “this Law" as an "eleventh Commandment," interpolation although it is. I shall therefore take no further notice of the first three of Mr. Wiener's objections as they deal with matters not in my paper. In regard to objection No. 4, I fail to apprehend its point, especially when taken in connection with his alternative case. Speaking of Jeroboam's "three great religious abuses" he says, "these departures from the Torah incidentally prove its existence." He thinks, however, that "the last thing that Jeroboam' would do would be to circulate copies of the Torah." Whoever said that he did? It was generally known independently alike of Jeroboam and of his priests. He thinks that the Roll of the Law found in the days of Josiah must have been the autograph of Moses, that all others were copies, as only it could be called the Book of the Law." I do not think that at all necessary; it would be enough if it were a copy specially individualized, e.g., by being that placed by Solomon, according to the Egyptian custom, in the foundation of the Temple. Even if it were the autograph of Moses which was found that would not disprove the general diffusion of the Law, or of the knowledge of its contents.

66

It is to be observed that Mr. Wiener does not combat my initial assumption that the Samaritan Pentateuch is in all essentials the same as that of the Jews. Interpolations are no evidence that the document which has suffered from them is recent, as Mr. Wiener seems to imply; rather the reverse. I respect what I have read of Mr. Wiener's work so much that I am sorry to differ from him so sharply. I can only sympathize with him in the blunders he has fallen into as to the scope of my paper, and regard them as due to illness and haste.*

To Professor Geden, Professor Orchard, and the Rev. Chancellor Lias my sincere thanks are due for their kind words of appreciation. In regard to Lex Mosaica, it is many years since I read it first, but Mr. Lias will no doubt have observed that I rest no opinion either in my Lecture or in my book on the Samaritans on authorities, but on proof, hence I have not noticed the able arguments of the writers of the book mentioned.

I am sorry that Mr. Finn feels himself obliged to differ from me in so many points. His able work on The Unity of the Pentateuch I read with great interest when it appeared. In answer to his first objection, I would observe that I do not maintain that the present Samaritans are descendants" of the remnant of the Israelites "without admixture." Even the Jews cannot claim absolute purity. There seems to have been a considerable admixture in the time of David, e.g., Obed-edom the Gittite, in whose house the Ark abode three months. There is also mention of Uriah the Hittite, Ittai the Gittite, besides the Cherethites and Pelethites. I refer to the message of the colonists elsewhere (Samaritans, p. 23). As to his second objection, in regard to "Ibri" and "Ashurith,”

* At the same time Mr. Wiener is not always meticulously accurate in regard to opponents. In his valuable book, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, p. 13, he accuses Mr. Carpenter of error when he says that in Gen. vii, 9, the Targum of Onkelos has LORD for God, as he, Onkelos, habitually paraphrases. This is misleading unless Mr. Wiener regards the English versions as paraphrasing when they print "LORD " instead of "Jehovah." In the passage in question Onkelos has which Levy (Chaldäische Wörterbuch) says is used in Talmudic instead of the Tetragrammaton. Jastrow (Targum Dictionary) regards it as an abbreviation. Therefore in the case in point it is Mr. Wiener not Mr. Carpenter who has blundered.

T:

N

I do not feel myself obliged to defend the historical accuracy of the Talmudic statement. I am afraid Mr. Finn had not recently examined either Samaritan MSS. or the coins of the Maccabees recently when he penned his third objection. As more convenient to handle than the Codices, if he will look at the photograph of the Watson Codex in Montgomery's Samaritans, p. 288, and be good enough to compare the resh (fourth letter) in the top line with daleth (second) in the third line, he will see that the Samaritan resh was more liable to be confounded with beth than with daleth. A study of the figures of Jewish coins given in Madden, and in the British Museum Catalogue of the coins of Palestine, will show that the backgoing line which differentiates daleth from resh is emphasized. I also think he is mistaken when he says that "on the Moabite stone these letters are sufficiently alike to be mistaken.' If Mr. Finn will look at any photograph of the Moabite stone he will see that the daleth is in every case a triangle while the resh always has one side prolonged, e.g., the last letter in the first line is daleth and the fifth in the third is resh. He will find, I think, that the same thing holds in almost all nearly contemporary inscriptions figured in Lidsbarski, e.g., the Siloam inscription and that of Baal Lebanon. I admit that in the Sinjirli inscriptions the likeness amounts almost to identity, but these inscriptions are a century later in date and removed geographically 300 miles from Palestine. If Mr. Finn cares to look at the Samaritans he will find that in the chapter I devote to the relation of the Samaritan to the LXX, I come very much to the same decision he himself comes to. I do not see how Mr. Finn arrives at his conclusion that the Samaritan is derived from “ a corruption of the original from which the Massoretic is derived" unless he means that both had a common source and that the Samaritan has suffered more from interpolation than the Massoretic. In thinking that Rodanim has intentionally been varied from Dodanim Mr. Finn has forgotten that in 1 Chron. i, 7, the K'thibh is Rodanim. Let me conclude by again thanking the Institute for their kindness and courtesy.

A SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING

OF THE

VICTORIA INSTITUTE

WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON APRIL 26TH, 1920, AT 3.45 P.M., to consider the modification of Rule 18, Section II, of the Constitution of the Society.

Dr. SCHOFIELD, who was in the chair, began the proceedings by proposing a vote of thanks to the Treasurer, Mr. Arthur W. Sutton, J.P., F.L.S., and to Messrs. H. Lance Gray and George Avenell, the Honorary Auditors, for their kind and able services in the past.

Mr. H. LANCE GRAY then proposed the following amendment to Rule 18:

66

66

That the words from "A Committee " down to the words on the Council" and also the word Committee lower down be omitted, and the following words substituted, " by a chartered or incorporated accountant" and "and chartered or incorporated accountant."

This was seconded by Dr. A. T. SCHOFIELD and passed nem. con.

Lt.-Col. HOPE BIDDULPH then proposed E. Luff Smith, Esq., Incorporated Accountant, as Auditor for the present year at a fee of three guineas.

This was seconded by Mr. W. HOSTE and passed nem. con.

The proceedings then terminated.

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON MONDAY, APRIL 26TH, 1920,

AT 4.30 P.M.

THE DEAN OF DURHAM IN THE CHAIR.

At the opening of the proceedings the DEAN explained that he was unexpectedly summoned to a funeral of a friend in Manchester, and was therefore obliged to leave in a few minutes, but before doing so he warmly commended the paper about to be read by Dr. Pinches to the attention of those present. He believed that as the truth of Holy Scripture had in the past been borne out by the work of exploration in Eastern fields, so the cause of Truth had nothing to fear, but everything to hope for, in this domain of research in the future. The Dean then relinquished the chair to Dr. A. T. SCHOFIELD.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed and signed, and the HON. SECRETARY announced the election of the following: The Rev. J. E. H. Thomson, M.A., D.D., as a Member, Bertram Seymour Whidborne, Esq., B.A., M.C., as a Life Associate, and Arthur Rendle Short, Esq., M.D., B.Sc., F.R.C.S., and the Hon. Mrs. Carr-Gregg as Associates.

The CHAIRMAN then called upon Dr. T. G. Pinches, M.R.A.S., to read his paper.

BABYLON IN THE DAYS OF NEBUCHADREZZAR. By THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S.

F all the many and renowned rulers that Babylonia, in the centuries of her long history, possessed, there is probably none who attained a greater reputation than he who captured Jerusalem, and led the Jews into captivity at Babylon. This, of course, made his name one of the most prominent in Jewish history. But in addition to this, he was regarded by them as the great builder, or one of the great builders. of the Babylon of later days-that great capital of the ancient Eastern world, described for us, among others, by Herodotus, and specially referred to in the Book of Daniel as Nebuchadrezzar's work. This king, in fact, is represented as congratulating himself upon this great achievement, when, walking about in his palace, he said, “Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal dwelling-place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?" That he should have imagined himself the builder of a city founded at least 2000 years before his time, might well be regarded as the beginning of his madness, but there is no doubt that not a few of its glories, such as they were, were due to him, as many of his inscriptions show.