Samaritan Pentateuch.

Samaritan Pentateuch.

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 number 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  Leviticus 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  Leviticus 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  Leviticus 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 ( Exodus 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 ,"  Deuteronomy 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 חָפְניו ( Leviticus 16:12); אוניות for אַניות ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Genesis 24:22); וִיָּמָת is emendated into וימות ( Genesis 35:18); יֵרֶא (verb ל ה ) into יראה ( Genesis 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 ( Deuteronomy 33:16) is shortened into שוכן , חיתו into הית ( Genesis 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 ( Genesis 49:20), שער ( Deuteronomy 15:7, etc.), מהנה ( Genesis 32:9); feminine the words אר וֹ ( Genesis 13:6),! דר ( Deuteronomy 28:25), נפש ( Genesis 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" ( Genesis 8:3). Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e.g. הרחק ( Genesis 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 ( Genesis 43:7) into the meaningless הידע נ 8.

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 ( Genesis 3:10-11); ילד for ולד ( Genesis 11:30); צפורי ם for the collective צפור ( Genesis 15:10); אמות , "female servants," for אמהות ( Genesis 20:18); וירא מנוחה כי טובה for the adverbial טוב ( Genesis 49:15); בריחי for בריחי ם ( Exodus 26:26, making it depend from עצי ); מַשָּׁ ם , in the unusual sense of "from it" (comp.  1 Kings 17:13), is altered into מַמֶּנָּה ( Leviticus 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 ( Numbers 21:15); the unusual fem. termination אַּי (comp. אביטל , אביגיל ) is elongated into אּית ; שהו is the emendation for שֵׂיו . ( Deuteronomy 22:1); הרי for הִרְרֵי ( Deuteronomy 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  Genesis 7:2 of animals, is changed into זכר ונקבה , "male and female;" שנאיו ( Genesis 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 ( Leviticus 17:10); בלע ם וִיקָּר אלה 8 אל ( Numbers 23:4), "And God met Bileam," becomes with the Samuel וימצִא מלאאִל את ב , ‘ "and An Angel Of The Lord Found Bileam; על האשה ( Genesis 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;" וִתְּעִר ,"and she emptied" (her pitcher into the trough,  Genesis 24:20), has made room for ותוריד , "and she took down;" נועדתי שמה , "I will meet there" (A.V.  Exodus 29:43), is made נדרשתי ש ם , "I shall be [searched] found there;"  Numbers 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 ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Genesis 17:17), "shall A Child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?" into אוליד , "shall I beget?"  Genesis 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  Genesis 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."  Genesis 41:32, ועל הַשָּׁנות החלו ם , "And for that the dream was doubled," becomes שנית ה 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,  Genesis 49:10, מַבֵּין רִגְלָיו , "from between his feet," into "from among his banners." מבין דגליו .  Exodus 15:18, all but five of the Sam. codd. read ם ועוד לעול , "forever And Longer ," instead of ועד , the common form, "evermore."  Exodus 34:7, יְנִקֶּה וְנִקֵּה לֹא , "that will by no means clear The Sin ," becomes וְנֹקֶה 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.  Numbers 11:25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural יֵאָסְפוּ , 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. "  Numbers 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 ( Numbers 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."  Deuteronomy 28:37, the word לְשִׁמָּה , "an astonishment" (A.V.), very rarely used in this sense ( Jeremiah 19:8;  Jeremiah 25:9), becomes לְשֵׁ ם . "to a name," i.e. a bad name.  Deuteronomy 33:6, מְתָיו 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 יְקוּמוּן ( Deuteronomy 33:11), as "lest," "not," caused the no less unfortunate alteration מַי יְקַימֶנוּ , 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 דָּבְאֶךָ ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Genesis 18:29) becomes אשחית לא , according to  Genesis 18:28. Proper names, which are variously written in Hebrew, are all conformed to one orthography, as יתרו , Moses's father-in-law. In  Genesis 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: ANTEDILUVIANS.

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

POSTDILUVIANS.

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  Exodus 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  Galatians 3:17). In

Copyright Statement These files are public domain.

Bibliography Information McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Samaritan Pentateuch.'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/s/samaritan-pentateuch.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.

.