The theory in a nutshell is that Deuteronomy originated in the time of
Josiah, and was promulgated in the interests of centralization of worship at a
central sanctuary. Surely a stranger way of advocating so great a revolution
was never planned.
A prophetic writer, according to theory, puts all these words into the
mouth of Moses, yet never makes him mention Jerusalem as the place where man
ought to worship, this too in the time of Josiah, having in possession the
history of David, Solomon, as well as the intervening kings of Israel and
Judah. A prophet is writing with all the enthusiasm and passion for God and
righteousness, with the consuming earnestness for the good of the people so
manifest in Deuteronomy, in the interests of a central sanctuary, and there is
not only no Jerusalem, but, in face of schism and the prophetic utterances of
Hosea, the place of that central sanctuary is left indefinite while the weight
of influence is thrown into the Northern Kingdom. The Shechem district is
singled out for the honour of having the Law first promulgated within its borders.
To this with perfect unanimity Jew and Samaritan testify.
Let us test the theory with regard to the Samaritans. Suppose it true
that Deuteronomy was written in Josiah’s time. It follows that the Samaritans
would then have received it, for it is scarcely credible that Josiah’s
reforming zeal should have extended to Samaria as recorded in 2 Kings xxiii.
15-20, while he kept them in ignorance of that Law which had made so profound
an impression on himself, and on the authority of which he was also acting.
It follows that the Samaritans, having received this book of
Deuteronomy, would have been in possession of it when the Babylonian Exiles returned.
Can we believe that any people having in their possession a book like
Deuteronomy, and having been treated to ignominiously as they were by the
returned Exiles, would have waited for the remaining four books of the Law and
have received them from such a quarter? We are looking at the theory from the
point of view of the effect of Deuteronomy upon the Samaritans.
Look again at it from the point of view of its production by a
prophetic writer in Josiah’s time. Not only is the whole history of the people
subsequent to the time of Moses ignored except, as it asserted, in certain
cryptic utterances called prophecies; not only is Jerusalem and its history erased
completely from the mind of the prophet as far as written word is concerned, he
advocating centralization of worship at one sanctuary, while there is not one
word about Zion; not only is this done, but, if possible, a greater psychological
impossibility is afterwards accomplished when, according to the theory, the
remaining four books of the Law are published. With the possible exception of
the story of Melchizedek King of Salem, no mention his made of Jerusalem. In
all the long history of Israel no legend nor interesting incident has attached
any observance of the Law to Jerusalem; not one. Place after place is visited
by patriarchs. Incidents grave and joyous are given with inimitable effect;
never a whisper of Jerusalem. “If I forget thee, oh Jerusalem, let my right
hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the
roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jersualem above my chief joy.” Place after
place in north and south is singled out, but not one word about Jerusalem. It
certainly appears to be forgotten. A theory which requires faith in the
possibility of such books as these four having been compiled after Deuteronomy
and after Josiah’s time is bankrupt with no assets. (J. Iverach Munro, The
Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism [London: James Nisbet & Co.,
Limited, 1911], 61-64)
