Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Samaritan Pentateuch
Subjects in this Topic:
This is one of the:most important relics of the Samaritan literature that have come down to our times. We therefore give it a large critical treatment, following the results of Gesenius's investigations, as they have been presented by Lee in his Prolegomena; Davidson, in Kitto's Cyclop.; and Deutsch, in Smith's Dict. of the Bible. The latter two, also giving the results of Kirchheim, we have especially used in this abstract, making such corrections and additions as appeared necessary. SEE PENTATEUCH.
I. History — It had been well known to early Jewish and Christian writers that a recension of the Pentateuch, differing in important respects from that in use among the Jews, was in possession of the Samaritan community. But these writers regarded it in a different light respectively. Thus the Jews treated it with contempt as a forgery. “You have falsified your law” — úåøúë í æééôú í — says R. Eliezer ben-Simeon (Jeremiah Sotah, 7, 3; Sotah, p. 33 b), “and you have not profited aught by it,” referring to the insertion of the words “opposite Shechem” in Deu_11:30. On another occasion they are ridiculed on account of their ignorance of one of the simplest rules of Hebrew grammar, displayed in their Pentateuch, viz. the use of the ä locale (unknown, however, according to Jeremiah Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of Jerusalem). “Who has caused you to blunder?” said R. Simeon ben-Eliezer to them; referring to their abolition of the Mosaic ordinance of marrying the deceased brother's wife (Deu_25:5 sq.) — through a misinterpretation of the passage in question, which enjoins that the wife of the dead man shall not be “without” to a stranger, but that the brother should marry her: they however, taking äçåöä (= ìçååֹ ) to be an epithet of àùú , “wife,” translated “the outer wife,” i.e. the betrothed only (Jeremiah Jebam. 1, 6; comp. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 197 sq.).
Early Christian writers, on the other hand, speak of it with respect, in some cases even preferring its authority to that of the Mosaic text. Origen quotes it under the name of ôὸ ôῶí Óáìáñåéôῶí ῾Åâñáéêüí , giving its various readings in the margin of his Hexapla (e.g. on Num_13:1; comp. 21:13, and Montfaucon, Hexapl. Prelim. p. 18 sq.). Eusebius of Caesarea, noticing the agreement in the chronology of the Sept. and Samaritan text as against the Hebrew, remarks that it was written in a character confessedly more ancient than that of the latter (1Ch_16:1-11). Jerome (in Preface to Kings) also mentions this fact, and in his comment on Gal_3:10 he upholds the genuineness of its text over that of the Masoretic one, but in his Quoest. in Gen_4:8 he speaks more favorably of the Hebrew; while Georgius Syncellus, the chronologist of the 8th century, is most outspoken in his praise of it, terming it “the earliest and best even by the testimony of the Jews themselves” ( ôὸ ôῶí Óáìáñåßôῶí ἀñ÷áéüôáôïí êáὶ ÷áñáêôῆñóé äéÜëëáôôïí ὅ êáὶ ἀëçèὲò åéíáé êáὶ ðñῶôïí ῾Åâñáῖïé êáèïìïëïãïῦóéí [Chronogr. p. 851]).
Down to within the last two hundred and fifty years, however, no copy of this divergent code of laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pronounced a fiction, and the plain words of the Church fathers — the better known authorities — who quoted it were subjected to subtle interpretations. Suddenly, in 1616, Pietro della Valle, one of the first discoverers also of the cuneiform inscriptions, acquired a complete codex from the Samaritans in Damascus. In 1623 it was presented by Achille Harley de Sancy to the Library of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628 there appeared a brief description of it by J. Morinus in his preface to the Roman text of the Sept. Three years later, shortly before it was published in the Paris Polyglot — whence it was copied, with a few emendations from other codices, by Walton-Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitationes Ecclesiasticoe in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found codex, with all its innumerable variants from the Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the latter; in fact, the unconditional and speedy emendation of the received text thereby was urged most authoritatively. And now the impulse was given to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and theological controversies, of which more anon. Between 1620 and 1630 six additional copies, partly complete, partly incomplete, were acquired by Usher; five of which he deposited in English libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has disappeared mysteriously. Another codex, now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, was brought to Italy in 1621. Peiresc procured two more, one of which was placed in the Royal Library of Paris, and one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the number of MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen. During the present century another, but very fragmentary, copy was acquired by the Gotha Library. A copy of the entire (?) Pentateuch, with Targum (? Samaritan version), in parallel columns (4to), on parchment, was brought from Nablus by Mr. Grove in 1861, for the count of Paris, in whose library it is. Single portions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in a more or less defective state, are now of no rare occurrence in Europe. Of late the St. Petersburg Library has secured fragments of about three hundred Pentateuch MSS.
II. Description. — Respecting the external condition of these MSS., it may be observed that their sizes vary from 12mo to folio, and that no scroll, such as the Jews and the Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to be found among them. The letters, which are of a size corresponding to that of the book, exhibit none of those varieties of shape so frequent in the Masoretic text; such as majuscules, minuscules, suspended, inverted letters, etc. Their material is vellum or cotton paper; the ink used is black in all cases save in the oldest scroll of the Samaritans at Nablits, the letters of which are in purple. There are neither vowels, accents, nor diacritical points. The individual words are separated from each other by a dot. Greater or smaller divisions of the text are marked by two dots placed one above the other, and by an asterisk. A small line above a consonant indicates a peculiar meaning of the word, an unusual form, a passive, and the like; it is, in fact, a contrivance to bespeak attention. For example, äֵðָä and äַðֵּä , òִø and òֵã , ãֶáֶø and ãָáָø , àִì and àֵì , éֵàָëֵì and éàֹëִì , éַ÷ָøֵà and éַ÷ְéָà , ù ׁ and ùׂ , the suffixes at the end of a word, the ä without a dagesh, etc., are thus pointed out to the reader (comp. Kirchheim, p. 34).
The whole Pentateuch is divided into nine hundred and sixty-four paragraphs, or Kazzin, the termination of which is indicated by these figures, =, .., or <. At the end of each book the number of its divisions is stated thus:
(250) nv , vtam ]yjq . ]v>arh rpc hzh
(200) , ytam “ yn>h “ “
(130) , y>vl>v ham “ y>yl>h “ “
(218) xyv1 y “ yiybrh “ “
(166) ycv1 q “ y>ymxh “ “
The Samaritan Pentateuch is halved in Lev_7:15 (8:8, in Hebrew text), * where the words “Middle of the Torah” ( ôìâà ãàøäåúà ) are found. At the end of each MS. the year of the copying, the name of the scribe, and also that of the proprietor are usually stated. Yet their dates are not always trustworthy when given, and very difficult to be conjectured when entirely omitted, since the Samaritan letters afford no internal evidence of the period in which they were written. To none of the MSS., however, which have as yet reached Europe can be assigned a higher date than the 10th Christian century. The scroll used in Nabls bears — so the Samaritans pretend — the following inscription:
“I, Abisha, son of Phinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest — upon them be the grace of Jehovah — in his honor have I written this Holy Law at the entrance of the Tabernacle of Testimony on the Mount Gerizim, even Beth El, in the thirteenth year of the taking possession of the land of Canaan, and all its boundaries around it, by the children of Israel. I praise Jehovah.”
* Mr. Deutsch, who copied here Kirchheim (p. 36), has overlooked the latter's note, viz. that Lev_8:8 contains the two words which, according to the Masorites, constitute the middle of all the words in the Pentateuch. As it stands now it would lead to the supposition that Lev_7:15 of the Samaritan Pentateuch corresponds to 8:8 in the Hebrew text. (Letter of Meshalmah ben-Ab Sechuah, Cod. 19, 791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. in Heidenheim, 1, 88. Comp. Epist. Samuel Sichemitarum ad Jobusn Ludolphum [Cize, 1688]; Antiq. Eccl. Orient. p. 123; Huntingtoni Epist. p. 49, 56; Eichhorn, Repertorium f. bibl. und morg. Lit. vol. 9, etc.) But no European has fully succeeded in finding it in this scroll, however great the pains bestowed upon the search (comp. Eichhorn, Einleit. 2, 599); and even if it had been found, it would not have deserved the slightest credence. It would appear, however (see archdeacon Tattam's notice in the Parthenon, No. 4, May 24, 1862), that Mr. Levysohn, who was attached to the Russian staff in Jerusalem, has found the inscription in question “going through the middle of the body of the text of the Decalogue, and extending through three columns.” Considering that the Samaritans themselves told Huntington “that this inscription had beeon in their scroll once, but must have been erased by some wicked hand” (comp. Eichhorn, ibid.), this startling piece of information must be received with extreme caution. Nevertheless, Lieut. Conder speaks as if he had actually seen the inscription on the venerable MS. (Tent Work in Palestine, 1, 50).
This venerable roll is written on parchment, in columns thirteen inches deep and seven and a half inches wide. The writing is in a good hand, but not nearly so large or beautiful as in many book copies which they possess. Each column contains from seventy to seventy-two lines, and the whole roll contains a hundred and ten columns. The skins of which the roll is made are of equal size, and each measures twenty-five inches in length by fifteen inches in width. In many places it is worn out and patched with rewritten parchment, and in many other places where not torn the writing is illegible. About two thirds of the original writing is still readable. The name of the scribe, we are told, is written in a kind of acrostic, and forms part of the text running through three columns of the book of Deuteronomy. In whatever light this statement may be regarded, the roll has the appearance of very great antiquity.
III. Critical Character. — We have briefly stated above that the Exercitationes of J. Morin, which placed the Samaritan Pentateuch far above the received text in point of genuineness — partly on account of its agreeing in many places with the Sept., and partly on account of its superior “lucidity and harmony” — excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years one of the most extraordinary controversies on record. Characteristically enough, however, this was set at rest once for all by the very first systematic investigation of the point at issue. It would now appear as if the unquestioning rapture with which every new literary discovery was formerly hailed, the innate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish) text, the general preference for the Sept., the defective state of Shemitic studies — as if, we say, all these put together were not sufficient to account for the phenomenon that men of any critical acumen could for one moment not only place the Samaritan Pentateuch on a par with the Masoretic text, but even raise it, unconditionally, far above it. There was, indeed, another cause at work, especially in the first period of the dispute; it was a controversial spirit which prompted J. Morin and his followers, Cappellus and others, to prove to the Reformers what kind of value was to be attached to their authority — the received form of the Bible, upon which, and which alone, they professed to take their stand. It was now evident that nothing short of the Divine Spirit, under the influence and inspiration of which the Scriptures were interpreted and expounded by the Roman Church, could be relied upon. On the other hand, most of the “Antimorinians” — De Muis, Hottinger, Stephen Morin, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeiffer, etc. — instead of patiently and critically examining the subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments which were within their reach, as they are within ours, directed their attacks against the persons of the Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left the question of the superiority of the new document over the old where they found it. Of higher value were. it is true, the labors of Simon, Le Clerc, Walton, etc., at a later period, who proceeded eclectically, rejecting many readings, and adopting others which seemed preferable to those of the old text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled ignorance and obstinacy, returned to Morinus's first notion — already generally abandoned — of the unquestionable and thorough superiority. He, again, was followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Alex. a St. Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, Bertholdt, and others. The discussion was taken up once more on the other side, chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally disposing of this point of the superiority (Exercitatt. Phil. in Houbig. Prol. [Lugd. Bat. 1755]). It was from his day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the Masoretic text was the genuine one; but that in doubtful cases, when the Samaritan had an “unquestionably clearer” reading, this was to be adopted, since a certain amount of value, however limited, did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Jahn, and the majority of modern critics adhered to this opinion, Here the matter rested until 1815, when Gesenius (De Pent. Samuel Origine, Indole, et Auctoritate) abolished the remnant of the authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch. So masterly, lucid, and full are his arguments and his proofs that there has been, and will be, no further question as to the absence of all value in this recension, and in its pretended emendations. In fact, a glance at the systematic arrangement of the variations, of which he first of all bethought himself, is quite sufficient to convince the reader at once that they are for the most part mere blunders, arising from an imperfect knowledge of the first elements of grammar and exegesis. That others owe their existence to a studied design of conforming certain passages to the Samaritan mode of thought, speech, and faith — more especially to show that the Mount Gerizim, upon which their temple stood, was the spot chosen and indicated by God to Moses as the one upon which he desired to be worshipped. Finally, that others are due to a tendency towards removing, as well as linguistic shortcomings would allow, all that seemed obscure or in any way doubtful, and towards filling up all apparent imperfections either by repetitions or by means of newly invented and badly fitting words and phrases. It must, however, be premised that, except two alterations (Exo_13:6, where the Samaritan reads “Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,” instead of the received “Seven days,” and the change of the word úäéä “There shall not be,” into úçéä , “live,” Deu_23:18), the Mosaic laws and ordinances themselves are nowhere tampered with.
We will now proceed to lay specimens of these once so highly prized variants before the reader, in order that he may judge for himself. We shall follow in this the commonly received arrangement of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into eight classes:
1. The first class, then, consists of readings by which emendations of a grammatical nature have been attempted.
(a.) The quiescent letters, or so called matres lectionis, are supplied. Thus éַ í is found in the Samar for àַּ í of the Masoretic text; åú for àֹּú ; éָå for àָּå ; àìéä í for àֲìֵäֶ í ; îàåøåú for îàֹøֹú , etc.; sometimes a å is put even where the Heb. text has, in accordance with the grammatical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva: çåôðéå is found for çָôְðéå (Lev_16:12); àåðéåú for àַðéåú (Deu_28:68).
(b.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns, probably less known to the Samuel, are altered into the more common ones. Thus ðçðå , ä í , äָàֵì , become àðçðå , äîä , äàìä .
(c.) The same propensity for completing apparently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is altered into the regular future. In this manner åִúִּâֵּã becomes åúâéã (Gen_24:22); åִéָּîָú is emendated into åéîåú (Gen_35:18); éֵøֶà (verb ì ä ) into éøàä (Gen_41:33); the final ï , of the 3d pers. fem. plur. fut., into ðָä .
(d.) On the other hand, the paragogical letters å and é at the end of nouns are almost universally struck out by the Samuel corrector; e.g. ùåëðé (Deu_33:16) is shortened into ùåëï , çéúå into äéú (Gen_1:24); and, in the ignorance of the existence of nouns of a common gender, he has given them genders according to his fancy. Thus masculine are made the words ìç í (Gen_49:20), ùòø (Deu_15:7, etc.), îäðä (Gen_32:9); feminine the words àø åֹ (Gen_13:6),! ãø (Deu_28:25), ðôù (Gen_46:25. etc.); wherever the word ðòø . occurs in the sense of “girl,” a ä is added at the end (24:14, etc.).
(e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner possible, reduced to the form of the finite verb; so äìååִùåá åéùåáå , “the waters returned continually,” is transformed into åéùåáå äìëå åùáå , “they returned, they went and they returned” (Gen_8:3). Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e.g. äøç÷ (Gen_21:16), “far off,” it is altered into äøçé÷ä , “she went far away,” which renders the passage almost unintelligible; or it is changed into a participle, as äéåãåò ðãò (Gen_43:7) into the meaningless äéãò ð 8.
For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more common ones have been substituted in a great number of places. Thus òøé í for òéø í (Gen_3:10-11); éìã for åìã (Gen_11:30); öôåøé í for the collective öôåø (Gen_15:10); àîåú , “female servants,” for àîäåú (Gen_20:18); åéøà îðåçä ëé èåáä for the adverbial èåá (Gen_49:15); áøéçé for áøéçé í (Exo_26:26, making it depend from òöé ); îַùָּׁ í , in the unusual sense of “from it” (comp. 1Ki_17:13), is altered into îַîֶּðָּä (Lev_2:2); çéä is wrongly put for çé (3d pers. sing. masc. of çéé =-is>); òé , the obsolete form, is replaced by the more recent òַéø (Num_21:15); the unusual fem. termination àַּé (comp. àáéèì , àáéâéì ) is elongated into àּéú ; ùäå is the emendation for ùֵׂéå . (Deu_22:1); äøé for äִøְøֵé (Deu_33:15), etc.
2. The second class of variations consists of glosses or interpretations received into the text glosses, moreover, in which the Samuel not unfrequently coincides with the Sept., the various versions, and Jewish commentaries, most of them therefore the result of exegetical tradition. Thus àéù åàùä , “man and woman,” used by Gen_7:2 of animals, is changed into æëø åð÷áä , “male and female;” ùðàéå (Gen_24:60), “his haters,” becomes àåéáéå , “his enemies;” for îä (indefin.) is substituted îàåîä ; éøà , “he will see, choose,” is amplified by ìåֹ , “for himself;” äִâָּø , äִâֵּø is transformed into äâø àùø éâåø (Lev_17:10); áìò í åִé÷ָּø àìä 8 àì (Num_23:4), “And God met Bileam,” becomes with the Samuel åéîöִà îìààִì àú á , ‘“and an angel of the Lord found Bileam; òì äàùä (Gen_20:3) for the woman,” is amplified into äàùä òì àåãú , “for the sake of the woman;” for åìðëãé , from ðëã (obsol., comp. < >), is put ìðâãé , “those that are before me,”in contradistinction to “ those who will come after me;” åִúְּòִø ,”and she emptied” (her pitcher into the trough, Gen_24:20), has made room for åúåøéã , “and she took down;” ðåòãúé ùîä , “I will meet there” (A.V. Exo_29:43), is made ðãøùúé ù í , “I shall be [searched] found there;” Num_31:15, before the words ääééú í ëì ð÷ëä , “Have you spared the life of every female?” a ìָîָּä , “Why,” is inserted (Sept.); for ëé ù í éäåä à÷øà (Deu_32:3), “If I call the name of Jehovah,” the Samuel has áù í , “In the name,” etc.
3. The third class consists of conjectural emendations of difficulties; e.g. the elliptic use of éìã , frequent both in Hebrew and Arabic, being evidently unknown to the emendator, he alters the äìáï îàä ùðä éַåָּìֵã (Gen_17:17), “shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?” into àåìéã , “shall I beget?” Gen_24:62, áà îáåà , “he came from going” (A.V. “from the way”) to the well of Lahai-roi, the Samuel alters into áà áîãáø , “in or through the desert” (Sept. äéὰôῆò ἐñήìïõ ). In Gen_30:34,! äֵï ìå éäé ëãáøé , “Behold, may it be according to thy word,” the ìå (Arab. J) is transformed into ìà , “and if not — let it be like thy word.” Gen_41:32, åòì äַùָּׁðåú äçìå í , “And for that the dream was doubled,” becomes ùðéú ä åòìä , “The dream rose a second time,” which is beth un-Hebrew and diametrically opposed to the sense and construction of the passage. Better is the emendation, Gen_49:10, îַáֵּéï øִâְìָéå , “from between his feet,” into “from among his banners.” îáéï ãâìéå . Exo_15:18, all but five of the Sam. codd. read í åòåã ìòåì , “forever and longer,” instead of åòã , the common form, “evermore.” Exo_34:7, éְðִ÷ֶּä åְðִ÷ֵּä ìֹà , “that will by no means clear the sin,” becomes åְðֹ÷ֶä ìåֹ éַðָּ÷ֶä , “and the innocent to him shall be innocent,” against both the parallel passages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult åìà éָñָôåּ , “and they did not cease” (A.V. Num_11:25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural éֵàָñְôåּ , which we would venture to translate, “they were not gathered in,” in the sense of “killed:” instead of either the àëðùå , “congregated,” of the Samuel Vers., or Castell's “continuerunt,” or Houbigant's and Dathe's “convenant.” Num_21:28, the òָø , “Ar” (Moab), is emendated into òִã , “as far as,” a perfectly meaningless reading; except that the òָø , “city,” it seems, was a word unknown to the Samaritan. The somewhat uncommon words (Num_11:32) åéùèçå ìä í ùèåç , “and they (the people) spread them all abroad,” are transposed into åéùçèå ìä í ùçåèä , “and they slaughtered for themselves a slaughter.” Deu_28:37, the word ìְùִׁîָּä , “an astonishment” (A.V.), very rarely used in this sense (Jer_19:8; Jer_25:9), becomes ìְùֵׁ í . “to a name,” i.e. a bad name. Deu_33:6, îְúָéå îñôø åéäé , “May his men be a multitude,” the Samuel, with its characteristic aversion to, or, rather, ignorance of, the use of poetical diction, reads åéäé îֵàַúּå îñôø , “May there be from him a multitude,” thereby trying perhaps to encounter also the apparent difficulty of the word îñôø , standing for “a great number.” Anything more absurd than the îàúå in this place could hardly be imagined. A few verses farther on, the uncommon use of îַï . in the phrase îַï éְ÷åּîåּï (Deu_33:11), as “lest,” “not,” caused the no less unfortunate alteration îַé éְ÷ַéîֶðåּ , so that the latter part of the passage, “smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again,” becomes “who will raise them?” — barren alike of meaning and of poetry. For the unusual and poetical ãָּáְàֶêָ (Deu_33:25; A.V. “thy strength”),! øáé is suggested; a word about the significance of which the commentators are at a greater loss even than about that of the original.
4. The fourth class consists of those readings where the Samuel is corrected or supplied from parallel passages. Thus ìà àòùä (Gen_18:29) becomes àùçéú ìà , according to Gen_18:28. Proper names, which are variously written in Hebrew, are all conformed to one orthography, as éúøå , Moses's father-in-law. In Gen_11:8, “and the tower” is added to the Hebrew text, taken from the fourth verse.
5. The fifth class consists of larger interpolations taken from parallels, in which whatever was said or done by Moses as recorded in a preceding passage is repeated; and whatever is said to have been commanded by God is repeated in as many words where it is recorded to have been carried into effect. In this way Exodus is much enlarged by interpolations from itself, or from Deuteronomy. Gesenius thinks that these insertions were made between the date of the Sept. and Origen, because the Alexandrian father mentions a passage of the kind (Pick, Horoe Samarit.).
Heb./Sam.
Heb./Sam.
Under this head falls the passage in Exo_12:40 : “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years.” The Samuel has “The sojourning of the children of Israel and their fathers who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was 430 years.” The same reading is in the Sept. (cod. Alex. and Josephus; comp. also Gal_3:17). In Gen_2:2 äùׁáéòé is altered into äùׁùׁé , the sixth.
7. The seventh class comprises what we might briefly call Samaritanisms. i.e. certain Hebrew forms translated into the idiomatic Samaritan; and here the Samuel codices vary considerably among themselves — as far as the very imperfect collation of them has hitherto shown some having retained the Hebrew in many places where the others have adopted the new equivalents. Thus the gutturals and ahevi letters are frequently changed: äøøè becomes àøøè (Gen_8:4); áàé is altered into áòé (Gen_23:18); ùáä into ùáò (Gen_27:19); æäìé stands for æçìé (Deu_32:24); the ä is changed into ç in words like ðäâ , âáäé í , which become ðçâ , âáçé í ; ç is altered into ò — çîø becomes òîø . The é is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis): äééèéá ; is substituted for äéèéá ; àééøà for àéøà ; ôéé for ôé . Many words are joined together: îøãøåø stands for îø ãøåø (Exo_30:23); ëäðàï for ëäï àï (Gen_41:45); äø âøéæé í is always äøâøéæé í . The pronouns àִú ְּ and àúֵּï , 2d pers. fem. sing. and plur., are changed into àúé and àúéï (the obsolete Heb. forms) respectively; the suff. êָ into! à ִ into! é ; the termination of the 2d pers. sing. fem. pret., àּúְּ , becomes úַּé , like the 1st pers.; the verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; àæëøúé for äæëøúé ; the medial letter of the verb ò å is sometimes retained as à or é , instead of being dropped as in the Hebrew. Again, verbs of the form ìä have the é frequently at the end of the infin. fut. and part., instead of the ä . Nouns of the schema ÷ָèֵì ( àָáֵì , etc.) are often spelled ÷ָèֵéì , into which the form ÷ָèåֹì is likewise occasionally transformed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be mentioned:! äִ (Gen_34:31) =! àֵé ,! äֵé (Chald.), “like;” çúé í , for the Heb. çåú í , “seal;” ëּôֹøçú , “as though it budded,” becomes ëàôøçú = the Targ. ëã àôøçú , etc.
8. Passages which have been conformed to the theology, hermeneutics, and worship of the Samaritans. Thus, to avoid the appearance of polytheism, the four passages where Elohim is construed with a plural are altered so as to present the singular (Gen_20:13; Gen_31:53; Gen_35:7; Exo_22:9). Again, whatever savors of anthropomorphism, or is unsuitable to the divine majesty, is either removed or softened. Wherever the Almighty himself is brought immediately into view as speaking to and dealing with men, “the angel of God” is substituted. Reverence for the patriarchs and Moses led to the alteration of Gen_49:7 and Deu_33:12; for example, for “cursed is their anger,” àøåø àôִ í , the Samuel reads, “excellent is their anger,” àãéø àô í ; and instead of “the beloved of the Lord shall dwell,” éãéã éäåä , it has “the hand, the hand of the Lord makes him to dwell,” which yields no sense. In like manner, voces honestiores are sometimes put when there is fancied immodesty; as in Deu_25:11, áîáùׁéå is changed into ááùøå .
Here Gesenius puts the notable passage Deu_27:4, where the Samaritans changed Ebal into Gerizim to favor their own temple. Some, as Whiston and Kennicott, have attempted to show that the Jews changed Gerizim into Ebal, but unsuccessfully (comp. on this point Lee's Prolegomena, p. 29). From the immense number of these worse than worthless variations Gesenius has singled out four which he thinks preferable, on the whole, to those of the Masoretic text, viz. Gen_4:8, where the Samuel adds, “Let us go into the field;” Gen_22:13, àçã , a, instead of àִçִø , behind (also found in five fragments of old Jewish MSS. at St. Petersburg; see Journ. Asiat. 1866, 1, 542); Gen_49:14, where âֶøֶ í , a bone, is
âָּøַé í , bony; and Gen_14:14, åéã÷ , instead of åִéָּøֶ÷ , i.e. he numbered, for he led forth. Even these have been thought emendations, and rejected by the majority of critics (comp. Frankel, Einfluss, p. 242).
Frankel has treated of the subject more by way of supplement to Gesenius than from an independent point of view. His additions to the classes of the latter are small and unimportant, besides being pervaded by erroneous conceptions of the age when the Samaritan Pentateuch originated. He adduces —
1. The use of the imperative for the third person, as ä÷øá for é÷øá (Exo_12:48); and to ignorance of the use of the infinitive absolute, as æëøå for æëåø (Exo_13:3), àîø for àîåø (Num_6:23), etc.
2. The characteristics of the Galilaeo-Palestinian dialect, such as the interchange of the ahevi letters, and of á for ô , of æ for ö , etc. But this peculiarity is simply owing to carelessness of transcription in the copyists, who wrote as they pronounced, and softened the hard gutturals which were difficult to their organs.
3. The Aramenan coloring and orthography, as ÷ָèֵì and ÷èéì . This is likewise owing to transcription, and can hardly be called a characteristic of the Samaritan (Frankel, Einfluss, p. 238 sq.).
Another classification of the Samaritan characteristic readings is given by Kirchheim. He makes thirteen classes, é â ùòøé í , as follows:
1. ìîòìú äø âøéæé í ù
8 ääåñôåú åäùðåé í , additions and alterations in favor of Mount Gerizim, e.g. Deu_5:21.
2. ìîìàåú ù
8 ääåñôåú , additions to fill up.
3. äáàåø , explications or glosses.
4. çìå äôòìé í åäáðéðé í , change of verbs and conjugations.
5. çìå úùîåú , change of nouns.
6. ääùåàä , assimilation, or bringing irregular forms into the same uniform type.
7. äàåúéåú úîåøú , permutation of letters.
8. ëðåéé í , pronouns.
9. äîéï , gender.
10. àåéúéåú äðåñôåú . letters added.
11. àåúéåú äéçñ åäçáåø , addition of qualifying letters, as articles, conjunctions, and prepositions.
12. ä÷áååֹ åäôøåã , junction and separation.
13. éîåú òåì í , chronological alterations (Kane Shomron, p. 32 sq.). Comp. for No. 13, Pick, Horoe Samaritanoe (Genesis 5, 11, where the differences of the chronology in the Heb., Sept., Samuel, and Josephus are exhibited).
A third division is that adopted by Kohn (De Pent. Samuel p. 9). He makes three divisions, viz.
1, Samaritan forms of words;
2, corrections and emendations;
3, glosses and corruptions for religious purposes; and perhaps,
4, blunders in orthography.
IV. Origin and Age. — In regard to these questions, opinions have been much divided. We shall enumerate the principal ones.
1. That the Samaritan Pentateuch came into the hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from the ten tribes, whom they succeeded — so the popular notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus, Walton, Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer, Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, Davidson, and others. Their reasons for it may be thus briefly summed up:
(1.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans should have accepted their code at the hands of the Jews after the Exile, as supposed by some critics, since there existed an intense hatred between the two nationalities.
(2.) The Samaritan canon has only the Pentateuch in common with the Hebrew canon: had that book been received at a period when the Hagiographa and the Prophets were in the Jews' hands, it would be surprising if they had not also received those.
(3.) The Samaritan letters, avowedly the more ancient, are found in the Samaritan code; therefore it was written before the alteration of the character into the square Hebrew — which dates from the end of the Exile — took place.
Since the above opinion — that the Pentateuch came into the hands of the Samaritans from the ten tribes — is the most popular one, we will now adduce some of the chief reasons brought against it; and the reader will see, by the somewhat feeble nature of the arguments on either side, that the last word has not yet been spoken in the matter.
(a.) There existed no religions animosity whatsoever between Judah and Israel when they separated; the ten tribes could not, therefore, have bequeathed such an animosity to those who succeeded them, and who, we may add, probably cared as little, originally, for the disputes between Judah and Israel as colonists from far-off countries, belonging to utterly different races, are likely to care for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly inhabited the country. On the contrary, the contest between the slowly Judaized Samaritans and the Jews only dates from the moment when the latter refused to recognize the claims of the former of belonging to the people of God, and rejected their aid in building the temple. Why, then, it is said, should they not first have received the one book which would bring them into still closer conformity with the returned exiles at their hands? That the Jews should yet have refused to receive them as equals is no more surprising than that the Samaritans from that time forward took their stand upon this very law — altered according to their circumstances — and proved from it that they and they alone were the Jews êáô᾿ ἐîï÷ήí .
(b.) Their not possessing any other book of the Hebrew canon is not to be accounted for by the circumstance that there was no other book in existence at the time of the schism, because many psalms of David, writings of Solomon, etc., must have been circulating among the. people. But the jealousy with which the Samaritans regarded Jerusalem. and the intense hatred which they naturally conceived against the post-Mosaic writers of national Jewish history, would sufficiently account for their rejecting the other books, in all of which, save Joshua, Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the center of worship, or David and his house, are