SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. - The five books of Moses, which for the Samaritans are the whole Bible, limited as it was to the initial stage of the Canon, at the time of the Samaritan secession (ca. 400 B.C.). This tôrâh, the basis of their entire religious and social life, is handed down with an impressive conservatism. The very script in which it is preserved is the ancient Hebrew or Phoenician script, somewhat evolved.
This is important in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. The Samaritans did not wish to admit recensional evolutions or purifications, nor the whole Masoretic "hedge" that fixed the sacred text; they had no need of it, inhabiting a restricted territory and being few in number. If they had possessed the true original text, there would be no more genuine text of the Pentateuch than theirs; the first editor of a manuscript of the S. P. in Europe (J. Morin, Exercitationes..., Paris 1631) would be right in extolling it above the Masoretic text, after P. Della Valle (v.) in 1616 had brought that manuscript together with a targum of it. But according to P. Kahle, the matter is far more complicated. However, those who, influenced by dogmatic prejudices, eliminate the S. P. from textual-critical research, such as G. Gesenius (v.), to whom we owe the most accurate classification of its variants, are wrong.
On the whole, the Masoretic text is to be preferred, based as it is on manuscripts older than the S. P., free of additions later than the vulgar texts, which prefers to a certain extent more difficult but more original grammatical forms. However, even the Masoretic "learned" recension is not devoid of dogmatic influences. The S. P., on the contrary, is a popular text which, before and after the secession, in the Samaritan community was modernized according to the needs of readers and listeners, just as today the poets of the 16th and 17th centuries are presented in modern orthography. The following adaptations became necessary: an abundance of matres lectionis, similar to that shown by the first scroll of Isaiah found in 1947 at Hírbet Qumrán; rectification or even correction of grammatical forms that were too archaic or not well understood. Several passages intruded from parallel places remained in the text, as happens when the word of God is alive in the liturgy, in preaching, in dogmatic teaching. Moreover, it is probable that the Samaritan manner of writing the sacred text reflects dialectal influences different from those of Jerusalem (Sperber); the Samaritan system of simple "punctuation" appears only after 1200 A.D., and in only a few codices. From the spoken language, which became increasingly Samaritan Aramaic, similar to that of Galilee, several Aramaisms were introduced. This explains the mass of over 6000 variants in comparison with the Masoretic Pentateuch.
More controversial, however, are the variants that reveal the particular dogmatics of the Samaritans, especially those that sprouted around the biblical passages referring to Mount Gerizim, where they built their temple. Here too a fair judgment presupposes knowledge of the pre-Masoretic history of the Hebrew text. Some apocrypha, such as the Ethiopic Henoch (v.) and the Book of Jubilees (v.), have figures for the patriarchs in Gen. 5, 10-11 identical with those of the S. P. This can be explained only by admitting that, in Jewish circles, besides the type of text that later determined the Masoretic text, besides the "semi-popular" one (P. Kahle) that underlies the Septuagint (v.), a third type close to the Samaritan one was in use. This is confirmed by citations of Philo of Alexandria and by references in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 7, 4; 7, 32; 7, 35; Heb. 9, 3), which find their counterpart only in the S. P.
There was therefore an anti-Samaritan tendency in the fixing of the Hebrew textus receptus, around 100 A.D., which gradually eliminated the texts favorable to the Samaritans. A similar tendency existed already before their secession, and we witness the curious fact that certain "anti-Samaritanisms" were handed down by the Samaritans themselves out of their veneration for tradition, as additions to the text of Deut. 11, 29; 27, 12; Jos. 8, 33, which even today in the Masoretic text assign to Gerizim the function of mountain of blessing, while to Ebal that of mountain of cursing. Historically there existed a sanctuary on Gerizim, though not so famous in the times of the kings. The additions, however, not excluded from the S. P., suggest that these are localities near Gilgal, close to the Jordan, in contrast with the Samaritan conception. Some exegetes affirm with serious probability that it was not the Samaritans who changed the text in their favor by substituting "Gerizim" for "Ebal" in Deut. 27, 4, but rather the Jews who substituted "Gerizim" for "Ebal" in Deut. 27, 4 and Jos. 8, 30 (ed. Meyer, C. C. Torrey, R. H. Pfeiffer, and already B. Kennicott); God would have ordered an altar rather on the mountain of cursing than on that of blessing which, even according to the Masoretic text, is only Gerizim. But in another 19 passages (removing the prefix j from the verb to choose) it was rather the Samaritans who changed the text in favor of their dogmatics.
Even granting, therefore, that the Masoretic text is better, the S. P. remains a precious document for control it and emend it in a considerable number of cases. Even within the orbit of its most pronounced Samaritanisms, its testimony requires serious examination. In 1900 of its variants the S. P. often has the support of the Septuagint; yet it is not possible to establish mechanical rules of preference.
Despite many lively discussions, textual criticism still does not possess in the S. P. the working tool that would be desirable. The text is accessible in the Polyglots of Paris (1645) and of London (1657), both with a Latin version. B. Kennicott (Oxford 1776-80) and today R. Kittel note its important variants in their Bibles. Blayney gave a convenient edition of it, based especially on the Paris manuscript (Oxford 1790). A. von Gall (Berlin 1914-18) prepared a critical edition of it, with a valuable introduction (for which P. Kahle supplied materials) and critical apparatus; but the critical edition has serious defects: it is not based on all the manuscripts, it does not deal with the Samaritan targum (edited by Petermann and Vollers in an even less satisfactory manner) nor with the Arabic version, nor with the Greek one (the Samareitikon, already used by Origen in the Hexapla: a version according to the Hebrew-Samaritan text, but with the Septuagint version before his eyes [and perhaps versions earlier than the Septuagint?]), nor with the commentaries, especially the one in Aramaic, the Memar of Marqah, the greatest writer of the Samaritans, nor with the biblical passages cited by the liturgy. A more serious defect is the adoption of eclectic principles not entirely corresponding to the facts. Thus the S. P. has remained a difficult field of vast labor, for a few specialists, requiring the most extensive erudition in the pre-Masoretic history of the Hebrew Bible together with much judgment.
Bibliography22 works
Pietro Nober