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" — תורתכ ם זייפת ם — 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 De 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 ה 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 (De 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 החוצה (=לחווֹ) to be an epithet of אשת, "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 τὸ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν ῾Εβραικόν, giving its various readings in the margin of his Hexapla (e.g. on Nu 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 Ga 3:10 he upholds the genuineness of its text over that of the Masoretic one, but in his Quoest. in Genesis 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" (τὸ τῶν Σαμαρείτῶν ἀρχαιότατον καὶ χαρακτῆρσι διάλλαττον ὅ καὶ ἀληθὲς ειναι καὶ πρῶτον ῾Εβραῖοι καθομολογοῦσιν [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, הֵנָהand הַנֵּה, עִר and עֵד, דֶבֶר and דָבָר, אִל and אֵל, יֵאָכֵל and יאֹכִל, יַקָרֵא and יַקיָא, שׁ and שׂ, the suffixes at the end of a word, the ה 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 Le 7:15 (8:8, in Hebrew text), * where the words "Middle of the Torah" (פלגא דארהותא) 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 Le 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 Le 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 (Ex 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 תהיה "There shall not be," into תחיה, "live," De 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 יַ ם is found in the Samar for אַּ ם of the Masoretic text; ות for אֹּת; יָו for אָּו; אליה ם for אֲלֵהֶ ם; מאורות for מאֹרֹת, etc.; sometimes a ו is put even where the Heb. text has, in accordance with the grammatical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva: חופניו is found for חָפניו (Le 16:12); אוניות for אַניות (De 28:68).
(b.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns, probably less known to the Samuel, are altered into the more common ones. Thus נחנו, ה ם, הָאֵל, become אנחנו, המה, האלה.
(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 וִתִּגֵּד becomes ותגיד (Ge 24:22); וִיָּמָת is emendated into וימות (Ge 35:18); יֵרֶא (verb ל8 8ה) into יראה (Ge 41:33); the final ן , of the 3d pers. fem. plur. fut., into נָה.
(d.) On the other hand, the paragogical letters ו and י at the end of nouns are almost universally struck out by the Samuel corrector; e.g. שוכני (De 33:16) is shortened into שוכן, חיתו into הית (Ge 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 לח ם (Ge 49:20), שער (De 15:7, etc.), מהנה (Ge 32:9); feminine the words ארוֹ (Ge 13:6),!דר (De 28:25), נפש (Ge 46:25. etc.); wherever the word נער. occurs in the sense of "girl," a ה 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 הלווִשוב וישובו, "the waters returned continually," is transformed into וישובו הלכו ושבו, "they returned, they went and they returned" (Ge 8:3). Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e.g. הרחק (Ge 21:16), "far off," it is altered into הרחיקה, "she went far away," which renders the passage almost unintelligible; or it is changed into a participle, as היודוע נדע (Ge 43:7) into the meaningless הידע נ8.
For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more common ones have been substituted in a great number of places. Thus ערי ם for עיר ם (Ge 3:10-11); ילד for ולד (Ge 11:30); צפורי ם for the collective צפור (Ge 15:10); אמות, "female servants," for אמהות (Ge 20:18); וירא מנוחה כי טובה for the adverbial טוב (Ge 49:15); בריחי for בריחי ם (Ex 26:26, making it depend from עצי); מַשָּׁ ם, in the unusual sense of "from it" (comp. 1Ki 17:13), is altered into מַמֶּנָּה (Le 2:2); חיה is wrongly put for חי (3d pers. sing. masc. of חיי =-is>); עי, the obsolete form, is replaced by the more recent עַיר (Nu 21:15); the unusual fem. termination אַּי (comp. אביטל, אביגיל) is elongated into אּית; שהו is the emendation for שֵׂיו. (De 22:1); הרי for הִררֵי (De 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 איש ואשה, "man and woman," used by Ge 7:2 of animals, is changed into זכר ונקבה, "male and female;" שנאיו (Ge 24:60), "his haters," becomes אויביו, "his enemies;" for מה (indefin.) is substituted מאומה; ירא, "he will see, choose," is amplified by לוֹ, "for himself;" הִגָּר, הִגֵּר is transformed into הגר אשר יגור (Le 17:10); בלע ם וִיקָּר אלה8 אל (Nu 23:4), "And God met Bileam," becomes with the Samuel וימצִא מלאאִל8 את ב8, '"and an angel of the Lord found Bileam; על האשה (Ge 20:3) for the woman," is amplified into האשה על אודת, "for the sake of the woman;" for ולנכדי, from נכד (obsol., comp. < >), is put לנגדי, "those that are before me,"in contradistinction to " those who will come after me;" וִתּעִר,"and she emptied" (her pitcher into the trough, Ge 24:20), has made room for ותוריד, "and she took down;" נועדתי שמה, "I will meet there" (A.V. Ex 29:43), is made נדרשתי ש ם, "I shall be [searched] found there;" Nu 31:15, before the words ההיית ם כל נקכה, "Have you spared the life of every female?" a לָמָּה, "Why," is inserted (Sept.); for כי ש ם יהוה אקרא (De 32:3), "If I call the name of Jehovah," the Samuel has בש ם, "In the name," etc.
3. The third class consists of conjectural emendations of difficulties; e.g. the elliptic use of ילד, frequent both in Hebrew and Arabic, being evidently unknown to the emendator, he alters the הלבן מאה שנה יַוָּלֵד (Ge 17:17), "shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?" into אוליד, "shall I beget?" Ge 24:62, בא מבוא, "he came from going" (A.V. "from the way") to the well of Lahai-roi, the Samuel alters into בא במדבר, "in or through the desert" (Sept. διὰτῆς ἐρήμου).
In Ge 30:34,!הֵן לו יהי כדברי, "Behold, may it be according to thy word," the לו (Arab. J) is transformed into לא, "and if not — let it be like thy word." Ge 41:32, ועל הַשָּׁנות החלו ם, "And for that the dream was doubled," becomes שנית ה8 ועלה, "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, Ge 49:10, מַבֵּין רִגלָיו, "from between his feet," into "from among his banners." מבין דגליו. Ex 15:18, all but five of the Sam. codd. read ועוד לעול ם, "forever and longer," instead of ועד, the common form, "evermore." Ex 34:7, ינִקֶּה ונִקֵּה לֹא, "that will by no means clear the sin," becomes ונֹקֶה לוֹ יַנָּקֶה, "and the innocent to him shall be innocent," against both the parallel passages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult ולא יָסָפוּ, "and they did not cease" (A.V. Nu 11:25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural יֵאָספוּ, which we would venture to translate, "they were not gathered in," in the sense of "killed:" instead of either the אכנשו, "congregated," of the Samuel Vers., or Castell's "continuerunt," or Houbigant's and Dathe's "convenant." Nu 21:28, the עָר, "Ar" (Moab), is emendated into עִד, "as far as," a perfectly meaningless reading; except that the עָר, "city," it seems, was a word unknown to the Samaritan. The somewhat uncommon words (Nu 11:32) וישטחו לה ם שטוח, "and they (the people) spread them all abroad," are transposed into וישחטו לה ם שחוטה, "and they slaughtered for themselves a slaughter." De 28:37, the word לשִׁמָּה, "an astonishment" (A.V.), very rarely used in this sense (Jer 19:8; Jer 25:9), becomes לשֵׁ ם. "to a name," i.e. a bad name. De 33:6, מתָיו מספר ויהי, "May his men be a multitude," the Samuel, with its characteristic aversion to, or, rather, ignorance of, the use of poetical diction, reads ויהי מֵאַתּו מספר, "May there be from him a multitude," thereby trying perhaps to encounter also the apparent difficulty of the word מספר, standing for "a great number." Anything more absurd than the מאתו in this place could hardly be imagined. A few verses farther on, the uncommon use of מַן. in the phrase מַן יקוּמוּן (De 33:11), as "lest," "not," caused the no less unfortunate alteration מַי יקַימֶנוּ, 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 דָּבאֶךָ (De 33:25; A.V. "thy strength"),!רבי 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 לא אעשה (Ge 18:29) becomes אשחית לא, according to ver. 28. Proper names, which are variously written in Hebrew, are all conformed to one orthography, as יתרו, Moses's father-in-law. In Ge 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.).
6. The sixth class consists of corrections made in order to remove what was offensive in sentiment to the Samaritans, or what conveyed an improbable meaning in their view. Thus in the antediluvian times none begets his first son after he is 150 years of age. Hence, from Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, 100 years are subtracted at the time they are said to have their first son. In the postdiluvian times none is allowed to beget a son till after he is fifty years old. Accordingly some years are subtracted from several patriarchs and added to others. To make this intelligible, we subjoin from our Horoe Samaritanoe the following table of the Hebrew and Samaritan chronology, and where the first column, marked A, gives the years before birth of son; the second, B, the rest of life; the third, C, the extent of whole life:
Heb./Sam. A B C A B C Jared 162 800 962 62 785 847 Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 Methuselah 18 782 969 67 653 720 Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653
Heb./Sam. A B C A B C Arphaxad 35 403 438 135 303 438 Eber 34 430 464 134 270 404 Peleg 30 209 239 130 109 239 Reu 32 207 239 132 107 239 Serung 30 200 230 130 100 230 Nahor 29 119 148 79 69 148
Under this head falls the passage in Ex 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 Ga 3:17). In Ge 2:2 השׁביעי is altered into השׁשׁי, 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: הררט becomes אררט (Ge 8:4); באי is altered into בעי (23:18); שבה into שבע (Ge 27:19); זהלי stands for זחלי (De 32:24); the ה is changed into ִח in words like נהג, גבהי ם, which become נחג, גבחי ם; ִח is altered into ָע — חמר becomes עמר. The י is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis): הייטיב; is substituted for היטיב; איירא for אירא; פיי for פי. Many words are joined together: מרדרור stands for מר דרור (Ex 30:23); כהנאןfor כהן אן (Ge 41:45); הר גריזי ם is always הרגריזי ם. The pronouns אִתּ and אתֵּן, 2d pers. fem. sing. and plur., are changed into אתי and אתין (the obsolete Heb. forms) respectively; the suff. ךָ into!אִ into!י; the termination of the 2d pers. sing. fem. pret., אּתּ, becomes תַּי, like the 1st pers.; the verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; אזכרתי for הזכרתי; the medial letter of the verb ע8 8ו is sometimes retained as א or י, instead of being dropped as in the Hebrew. Again, verbs of the form ל8 8888ה have the י frequently at the end of the infin. fut. and part., instead of the ה. Nouns of the schema קָטֵל (אָבֵל, etc.) are often spelled קָטֵיל, into which the form קָטוֹל is likewise occasionally transformed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be mentioned:!הִ (Ge 34:31) =!אֵי,!הֵי (Chald.), "like;" חתי ם, for the Heb. חות ם, "seal;" כּפֹרחת, "as though it budded," becomes כאפרחת = the Targ. כד אפרחת, 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 (Ge 20:13; Ge 31:53; Ge 35:7; Ex 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 Ge 49:7 and De 33:12; for example, for "cursed is their anger," ארור אפִ ם, the Samuel reads, "excellent is their anger," אדיר אפ ם; and instead of "the beloved of the Lord shall dwell," ידיד יהוה, 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 De 25:11, במבשׁיו is changed into בבשרו.
Here Gesenius puts the notable passage De 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. Ge 4:8, where the Samuel adds, "Let us go into the field;" Ge 22:13, אחד, a, instead of אִחִר, behind (also found in five fragments of old Jewish MSS. at St. Petersburg; see Journ. Asiat. 1866, 1, 542); Ge 49:14, where גֶרֶ ם, a bone, is גָּרַי ם, bony; and Ge 14:14, וידק, instead of וִיָּרֶק, 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 הקרב for יקרב (Ex 12:48); and to ignorance of the use of the infinitive absolute, as זכרו for זכור (Ex 13:3), אמר for אמור (Nu 6:23), etc.
2. The characteristics of the Galilaeo-Palestinian dialect, such as the interchange of the ahevi letters, and of ב for פ, of ז for צ, 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 קָטֵל and קטיל. 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, י8 8ג שערי ם, as follows:
1. למעלת הר גריזי ם ש8 ההוספות והשנוי ם, additions and alterations in favor of Mount Gerizim, e.g. De 5:21.
2. למלאות ש8ההוספות, additions to fill up.
3. הבאור, explications or glosses.
4. חלוŠ הפעלי ם והבניני ם, change of verbs and conjugations.
5. חלוŠ תשמות, change of nouns.
6. ההשואה, assimilation, or bringing irregular forms into the same uniform type.
7. האותיות תמורת, permutation of letters.
8. כנויי ם, pronouns.
9. המין, gender.
10. אויתיות הנוספות. letters added.
11. אותיות היחס והחבור, addition of qualifying letters, as articles, conjunctions, and prepositions.
12. הקבווֹ והפרוד, junction and separation.
13. ימות עול ם, chronological alterations (Kane Shomron, p. 32 sq.). Comp. for No. 13, Pick, Horoe Samaritanoe (Ge 5; Ge 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 κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν.
(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 extolled. If, however, Lowe has really found with them (as he reports in the Allgem. Zeitung d. Judenth. April 18, 1839) our book of Kings and Solomon's Song of Songs-which they certainly would not have received subsequently all these arguments are perfectly gratuitous.
(c.) The present Hebrew character was not introduced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, but came into use at a much later period. The Samaritans might, therefore, have received the Pentateuch at the hands of the returned exiles, who, according to the Talmud, afterwards changed their writing, and in the Pentateuch only, so as to distinguish it from the Samaritan. "Originally," says Mar Sutra (Sanhedr. 21 b), "the law was given to Israel in Ibri writing and the holy (Hebrew) language; it was again given to them, in the days of Ezra, in the Ashurith writing and Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ashurith writing and the holy language, and left to the ignorant (Ι᾿διῶται) the Ibri writing and the Aramaic language. Who are the ignorant? The Cuthim (Samaritans). What is Ibri writing? The Libonai (Samaritan)." (See also Luzzatto, in Kirchheim, op. cit. p. 111.) It is well known, also, that the Maccabaean coins bear Samaritan inscriptions; so that " ἰδιῶται "would point to the common use of the Samaritan character for ordinary purposes down to a very late period.
2. The second leading opinion on the age and origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch is that it was introduced by Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. 11:8, 2, 4) at the time of the foundation of the Samaritan sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R. Simon, Prideaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette, Gesenius, Hupfeld, Hengstenberg, Keil, etc.). In support of this opinion are alleged the idolatry of the Samaritans before they received a Jewish priest through Esar-haddon (2Ki 17:24-33); and the immense number of readings common to the Sept. and this code against the. Masoretic text.
3. Other, but very isolated, notions are those of Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, etc., that the Israelitish priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the new inhabitants in the religion of the country brought the Pentateuch with him; further, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of an impostor. Dositheus (דוסכאי in the Talmud), who lived during the time of the apostles, and who falsified the sacred records in order to prove that he was the Messiah (Usher) — against which there is only this to be observed, that there is not the slightest alteration of such a nature to be found; finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension, made after the Masoretic text (6th century after Christ), into which glosses from the Sept. had been received (Frankel), or transcribed from a Hebrew copy into their own character, in the 10th, 11th, or 12th century (Tychsen). Both these conjectures are clearly refuted by the testimonies of Origen and Jerome, who affirm that the Samaritans had the Pentateuch in peculiar characters before their time.
V. Relation of the Samaritan Pentateuch to the Septuagint. — From the time of the discovery of the Samaritan Pentateuch, its striking resemblance in numerous passages to the Alexandrine version had been noticed by all. Hassencamp calculated some 1900 places in which the Samaritan Pentateuch agreed with the Sept. Gesenius thinks that there are more than 1000 such places. The most important places are given by Pick in his Horoe Samaritanoe.
It must, on the other hand, be stated also that the Samaritan and Sept. quite as often disagree with each other, and follow each the Masoretic text; also, that the quotations in the N.T. from the Sept., where they coincide with the Samaritan against the Hebrew text, are so small in number, and of so unimportant a nature, that they cannot be adduced as any argument whatsoever. SEE PENTATEUCH.
The chief opinions with respect to the agreement of the numerous readings of the Sept. (of which no critical edition exists as yet) and the Samaritan Pentateuch are:
(1.) That the Sept. was translated from the Samaritan (De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhorn, Kohn).
(2.) That mutual interpolations have taken place (Grotius, Usher, Ravius, etc.).
(3.) That both versions were formed from Hebrew codices, which differed among themselves as well as from the one which afterwards obtained public authority in Palestine; that, however, very many wilful corruptions and interpolations have crept in in later times (Gesenius).
(4.) That the Samaritan has, in the main, been altered from the Sept. (Frankel).
(a.) As to the first of these opinions — that the Sept. was translated from the Samaritan — it has been alleged on the evidence of Origen and supported by Jerome that in certain MSS. of the Sept. existing in their day the word יהוה was retained in the ancient Hebrew (i.e. Samaritan) character, not in those used at their time, Ezra, according to tradition, having introduced other letters after the captivity (Origen, Hexapla [ed. Montfaucon], 1, 86; Jerome, Epistola 136 ad Marcellume). It is clear, however, from the statement made by Jerome on this point, that the remark of Origen can apply only to the Aramaic or square characters, not to those in use among the Samaritans. These are his words: "Nomen (viz. nomen Dei) est tetragrammum, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, i e. ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis scribitur: Yod, E, Vav, E. Quod quidam non intelligentes Pi Pi legere consueverunt;" and they explain how it came that some Greek copyists could make πιπι out of the Hebrew יהוה. That the argument based upon Origen's words must fall to the ground is evident. Another reason alleged in support of the Sept. having been derived from the Samaritan original has been given on the supposition that the variations from the Hebrew text arose from a confusion between letters resembling each other in the Samaritan and not in the square alphabet. But this argument is untenable; for while we admit that such errors may have arisen from a confusion between similar letters in the Samaritan, yet it is equally true that the same could have occurred as well in the square letters; thus, e.g., ה and 10:י and 5, ו and ז, ב and נ, ב and כ, ר and נ, פ and ר, ד and ר, could have been mistaken. A third argument has been used: The Samaritans had already brought out for their own use a Greek translation, known under the name of τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν; the Sept. finding this convenient for their purpose, took it for their basis, altering here and there after the Hebrew original to suit their own ideas (so Kohn, p. 38 sq.). But there is this objection to that theory: the Samaritan-Greek version was c not translated before the 3d or 4th century A.D. Besides, it is hardly possible that a people like the Samaritans, who on all other occasions showed themselves powerless to invent, only capable of feeble imitation, should in this one instance have distanced their rivals ill producing so great a literary work as a Greek translation of the Pentateuch. For this reason we must give up this explanation of the similarity of the two texts.
(b.) As to the second opinion, that mutual interpolations have taken place, or that the Samaritan Pentateuch was corrected from the Septuagint, it is true to a certain extent: many passages occur in the former which bear all the marks of being interpolations from the Alexandrine version, e.g. Ge 23:2, הארבע אל עמק בקרית= ἐν πόλει Α᾿ρβὸκ, ἣ ἐστιν ἐν τῶ κοιλώματι; Ge 27:27, כריח השדה מלא = ώς ὀσμή ἀγρου πλήρους; Ge 43:28, לאלהי ם ברוהִאישההוא=εὐλογημένος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος τῷ Θεῷ; Ex 5:13, התבן נתן לכ ם = τὸ ἄχυρον ἐδίδοτο ὑμῖν, etc. But how, moreover, on this supposition, are the equally numerous passages to be accounted for in which the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Sept., sometimes in these cases agreeing with the Hebrew, at others departing from it?
(c.) The third opinion, advocated by Gesenius, that both the Samaritan and the Sept. were formed from Hebrew MSS., has the most probability.
(d.) The fourth opinion, which claims that the Samaritan has, in the main, been altered from the Sept., will leave few, if any, supporters, since, according to Frankel, this should have been accomplished through a Greek translation of a Targum and the Greek version of the Samaritan Pentateuch. SEE SEPTUAGINT.
VI. Copies. —
1. The following is a list of the MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch now in European libraries (Kennicott):
No. 1. Oxford (Usher), Bodl., fol., No. 3127. Perfect, except the first 20 and last 9 verses.
No. 2. Oxford (Usher), Bodl., 4to, No. 3128, with an Arabic version in Samaritan characters. Imperfect. Wanting the whole of Leviticus and many portions of the other books. SEE NUMBERS and SEE DEUTERONOMY.
No. 3. Oxford (Uisher), Bodl., 4to, No. 3129. Wanting many portions in each book, especially in Numbers and Deuteronomy.
No. 4. Oxford (Usher, Laud), Bodl., 4to, No. 624. Defective in parts of Deuteronomy.
No. 5. Oxford (Marsh), Bodl., 12mo, No. 15. Wanting some verses in the beginning; 21 chapters obliterated.
No. 6. Oxford (Pocock), Bodl., 24mo, No. 5328. Parts of leaves lost; otherwise perfect.
No. 7. London (Usher), Br. Mus. Claud. B. 8vo. Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves. Of great value.
No. 8. Paris (Peiresc), Imp. Libr., Samuel No. 1. Recent MS. containing the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with all Arabic version in the Samaritan character. Wanting the first 34 chapters, and very defective in many places.
No. 9. Paris (Peiresc), Imp. Libr., Samuel No. 2. Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Genesis, and all Deuteronomy from the 7th chapter. Houbigant, however, quotes from Ge 10:11 of this codex — a rather puzzling circumstance.
No. 10. Paris (Harl. de Sancy), Oratory, No. 1. The famous MS. of P. della Valle.
No. 11. Paris (Dom. Nolin), Oratory, No. 2. Made-up copy.
No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Genev.). Of little value.
No. 13. Rome (Peiresc and Barber.), Vatican, No. 106. Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with Arabic version in Samaritan character. Very defective and recent. Dated the 7th century (?).
No. 14. Rome (Card. Cobellertius), Vatican. Also supposed to be of the 7th century, but very doubtful.
No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be very ancient; not collated.
No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1. Said to be complete.
No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only.
No. 18. London (Count of Paris's library). With version.
No. 19. St. Petersburg (Imp. Libr.).
A description of No. 19 is expected from Mr. Harkavy, while the others are described by Kennicott in his Dissertatio Generalis, reprinted by Blayney in his edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
All these are written on separate leaves; none are in the shape of rolls. At Nablus, however, as is well known, there is still preserved in the synagogue, and only brought out with much solemnity on certain festivals, an ancient parchment roll, purporting, by its inscription, to have been written by the hand of the great-grandson of Aaron himself, thirteen years after the original settlement of the Israelites in Canaan. It is written on the hair side of the skins of some twenty rams that served as thank offerings (so says the priest). They are of unequal size, some containing five, some six, columns of writing. Other old MSS. are also mentioned as existing there and elsewhere in Palestine; one has the date of A.H. 35 (=A.D. 655) inscribed on it.
2. Printed editions are contained in the Paris and Walton Polyglots; and a separate reprint from the latter was made by Blayney (Oxford, 1790). A facsimile of the 20th chapter of Exodus, from one of the Nablus MSS., has been edited, with portions of the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian translation and introduction, by Levysohn (Jerusalem, 1860); but the specimen is badly executed.
VII. Literature. — Besides the Introductions of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Jahn, De Wette, Havernick, Keil, and Bleek, and the articles in the dictionaries of Kitto and Smith (which we have freely used here), the reader is referred to Gesenius, De Pent. Samarit. Origine, Indole, et Aucforitate (Halse, 1815, 4to); Journ. Sacr. Lit. July, 1853, p. 298 sq.; Morini (J.) Exercitationes in utrumque Samarit. Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631, 4to); Usher, Syntagma de Sept. Interpretibus, Epistola ad L. Cappellum (London, 1655, 4to); Poncet, Nouveaux Eclaircissements sur l'Origine et le Pentateuque des Samaritains (Paris, 1760, 8vo); Le Clerc, Sentinens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande sur I'Histoire Critique du R. Simon (Amsterdam, 1686, 8vo); Tychsen, Disputatio Historicophilologico-critica de Pentateucho Ebroeo-Samaritano, ab Ebroeo eoque Masoretico Descripto Exemplari (Butzovii, 1765, 4to); Prideaux, Old and New Testament connected in the History of the Jews and Neighboring Nations (London, 1719, 8vo); Walton, Prolegomena (ed. Dathe, Leipzig, 1777, 8vo), 11:9, 11; Cappelli Critica Sacra (ed.Vogel and Scharfenberg, Hale, 1775-86, 8vo); Hassencamp, Der entdeckte wahre
Ursprung der alten Bibelubersetzungen und der gerettete samar. Text (Minden, 1775); Kennicott, Second Dissertation (Oxford, 1759); Rutherford, Letter to the Rev. Mr. Kennicott, in which his Defense of the Sanaritan Pentateuch is examinsed, and his Second Dissertation on the State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the O.T. is shown to be, in many instances, Injudicious and Inaccurate (Cambridge, 1761, 8vo); Kennicott, Answer to a Letter from the Rev. T. Rutherford, D.D. (1761, 8vo); Rutherford, Second Letter to the Rev. Dr. Kennicott, in which his Defense of the Second Dissertation is examined (1763, 8vo): Bauer, Critica Sacra (Lipsise, 1795); Steudel, in Bengel's Archiv. 3, 626, etc.; R. Simon, Histoire Critique du V.T. (Paris, 1685, 4to); Fulda, in Paulus's Memorabilia, 7; Hasse, Aussichten zu kunftiger Aufklarung uber das A. T. (Jena, 1785, 8vo); Paulus, Commentar uber das N.T. (Lubeck, 1804, 8vo), pt. 4; Hupfeld, Beleuchtung einiger dunklen und missverstandenens Stellen der alttestamentlichen Textgeschichte, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pt. 2; Mazade, Sur l'Origine Ag, Ae, et 'Etat Critique du Pent. Sanar. (Geneva, 1830, 8vo); Hug, in the Freiburg Zeifschrift, vol. 7; Hengstenberg, Die A uthentie des Pentateuches (Berlin, 1836, 8vo), vol. 1; Stuart, in the North American Review for 1826, and American Biblical Repository for 1832; Frankel, Vorstudieni (Leipsic, 1841), and Ueber den Einuss der palastiniischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (ibid. 1851, 8vo); Lee, I Prolegomena, in Biblia Sacra, etc. (London, s. a.); Da-ividson, Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Edinburgh, 1852, 8vo); כרמי שומרון, Introductio in Librum Talmudicum "De Samaritanis," scripsit Raphael Kirchheim, (Frankfbrt, 1851, 8vo); Walker, in the Christ. Examiner, May and September, 1840; Zeitschrift d, D. M. G. 13:275; 14:622; 18:582 sq.; 19:611 sq.; Nutt, Samaritans History, p. 83 sq.; Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano (Lipsiae, 1865; reviewed in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1865, p. 356 sq.); Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften (Berlin, 1877), 4, 54 sq.; Pick, Horoe Samaritance, or, A Collection of Various Readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch compared with the Hebrew and other A ncient Versions, in Biblioth. Sacra, 1876-77-78. SEE SAMARITANS, MODERN. (B.P.)