Samaritan Pentateuch compared to Masoretic text

[Daniel Marsh]

• The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) is a Hebrew version dating from the 1st century BC. After the Assyrians deported many of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, they imported colonists to the area centred around Samaria. The Samaritans were mixed descendants of these colonists and Jews. They had their own system of worship centred at Mount Gerizim (John 4:20–21), and based only on the Law of Moses, or Pentateuch, which was slightly different from the one used by the mainstream Jews. The SP differs from the Masoretic Text in about 6000 places. In about 2000 of these cases, it agrees with the LXX against the MT.

Biblical chronogenealogies - creation.com

"Jews is known as the Masoretic text, the most authoritative Hebrew version of the Torah. But it is not the only one. A small, ancient sect known as theSamaritans rely on the Torah, and the Torah alone, as their sole religious text—and the Samaritans"( from google search)

"In Exodus 12:40, for example, the Masoretic text reads: “The length of the time the Israelites lived in Egypt was 430 years,” a sentence that has created massive chronological problems for Jewish historians, since there is no way to make the genealogies last that long. In the Samaritan version, however, the text reads: “The length of time the Israelites lived in Canaan and in Egypt was 430 years.”...

Perhaps the most variant of texts within the two Torahs is the differences in the Ten Commandments.

“The Commandments are all in the form of ‘do’ and ‘don’t do,’ ” Tsedaka asserted. “The Masoretic version includes the intro of ‘I am your God that took you out of Egypt,’ as a commandment, when we see it as an introduction. Our Ten Commandments start later, and we have our last commandment to establish Mount Gerizim.”"http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/132004/the-other-torah

John 4:20
“My Samaritan ancestors worshiped God on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God.”

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interestingly, the LXX says Abraham went up to Amoriah to sacrifice Isaac, instead of the Masoretic Moriah. There is a Hamor at Shechem (near mount Gerizim) in Genesis, and the Amorites lived in that area as well.
This supports a reading of the sacrifice of Isaac having taken place at Gerizim, as the Samaritans teach, in opposition to the Masoretic text. Seeing Moriah as referencing Jerusalem, as many modern Jews and Christians do, is probably mistaken, especially with Melchizedek, king of Salem.

Most of the differences between the MT and the Samaritan Torah are related to the split over Gerizim. The Ten Commandments requiring worship on Gerizim is obviously a later addition though, as even the Samaritan conquest narrative of Judges has the construction of other high places.
What should be remembered is that the Samaritan works have at least 2000 years of separate development or transmission from the Masoretic one, and never developed the definitive edition that the Masoretes did for the Jewish holy books or how Christians cemented the Hellenistic LXX text. Some redaction or transmission errors are thus far more likely amongst Samaritan works, for they are dependant on very few copies held by a small and determined community, beset by enemies on all sides since the 7th century. They are thus incentivised to stress Gerizim and their texts can easily all be altered, on purpose or accidentally, being few in number.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Interestingly, the LXX says Abraham went up to Amoriah to ...
Most of the differences between the MT and the Samaritan Torah are related to the split over Gerizim. The Ten Commandments requiring worship on Gerizim is obviously a later addition though, as even the Samaritan conquest narrative of Judges has the construction of other high places.
...
few in number.

See article below, unless I am misreading it, Gerizim was in the SP in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If I am misreading because of brain damage, let me know.,

What is a Variant?
Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy
James H. Charlesworth
https://foundationjudaismchristianorigins.org/ftp/dead-sea-scrolls/unpub/DSS-deuteronomy.pdf

The search I used,
Gerizim worship dead sea scrolls - Norton Safe Search

 

[Daniel Marsh]

From Charlesworgh article,

"
The close relation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the received Pentateuch (the so-called MT) –
especially in textual tradition and sense divisions – indicates that the Samaritans and Judeans (and
conceivably some Jews in Lower Galilee) separated late (perhaps during, or after, the time of John
Hyrcanus). The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews
shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture. We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript
with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may
represent the original reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redaction by
others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan “altar” by John Hyrcanus in
the late second century BCE.
How are we to discern the text-type of this fragment of Deuteronomy? Two hypotheses seem apparent.
First, prima facie, it is conceivable that the manuscript is a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In favor of
this hypothesis are the following four observations: (1) The fragment preserves the reading found in the
Samaritan Pentateuch of Deut 27:4: One is to build an altar on Mount Gerizim. (2) The Samaritans
consider it a commandment (mizwot) to write “Mount Gerizim” with seven letters, as in this fragment
(hrgrzim); and to worship on Mount Gerizim is the so-called eleventh commandment in the Samaritan
Decalogue which now appears in early lapidary inscriptions.9 (3) A study of the recently discovered
inscriptions in Samaria, especially on Mount Gerizim, indicates the existence of a Samaritan community
with priestly institutions, and the preservations of the paleo-Hebrew script during the Hellenistic and later
periods.10 (4) One might then add that it is impressive that the scribe wrote bhrgrzim and not bhr grizim.
The scriptio continua clashes with the scribe’s practice of separating most words. On Masada, a Paleo-
Hebrew papyrus scroll, inscribed on both sides, preserves [ הרגריז[ים ; that is “Mount Gerizim” appears as
one word. S. Talmon and A. Ben-Tor conclude that a Samaritan, fleeing the Roman armies, probably
bought the scroll to Masada.11
Are there problems with this hypothesis? Yes. First, the spelling of “Mount Gerizim” as one word and in
a form with only seven consonants (hrgrzim) is clearly a Samaritan practice; the Hebrew form is also
mirrored in Greek in the two Delos stelae that praise the “holy Argarizein.” But, as S. Talmon points out,
the form also appears in scrolls and texts that are not Samaritan: “Agarisin” in the Latin of 2Mac 5:23 and
6:2, “Argarizin” in Josephus’ War 1.6, “Mons Agraris”12 in Pliny’s Natural History (V.14.68).13 Thus, the
presence of this form – one word with seven consonants – does not prove that the scroll is a Samaritan
text.14
Second, it would be surprising to find that the Qumran Library, located in eleven caves, preserved copies
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It seems representative to refer to the Qumran Scrolls as belonging to a
“Library;” this library contained differing traditions (as in Princeton’s many libraries) and yet is
characterized by a concentration of texts that reflect a distinct type of sectarian Judaism (as most scholars
now conclude, related somehow to the Essenes of Philo and Josephus). The Qumran Library is selective;
as far as we can discern, it contained neither a copy of texts that are clearly pro-Hasmonean (as with 1
Mac) nor a copy of the Pharisaic-like Psalms of Solomon.15 Third, as already stated Samaritan Texts
should not be confused with Proto-Samaritan texts; as far as I know, the only scholar who argued that
fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch were found at Qumran is M. Baillet.16 Such fragments seem to be
Proto-Samaritan text types.
The second hypothesis is markedly different. The original reading of Deuteronomy, “on Mount Gerizim,”
is preserved in this fragment.17 Thus, it should not be labeled “a variant;” the MT and related texts
preserve the “variant” and it looks redactional and later. Here are the reasons for this suggestion.
1) Most importantly, the text of Deuteronomy mentions two mountains: the Mountain of the Curse or
Ebal and the Mountain of Blessing or Gerizim: “You shall pronounce the blessing at Mount Gerizim and
the curse at Mount Ebal” (Deut 11:29 TANAKH). One would expect, therefore, that the author or
compiler of Deuteronomy wrote that Moses conveyed the instruction to build God’s altar on Mount
Gerizim and not Mount Ebal as in the MT and LXX text of Deut 27:418 (which influenced the Vulgate,..."

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It is

From Charlesworgh article,

"
The close relation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the received Pentateuch (the so-called MT) –
especially in textual tradition and sense divisions – indicates that the Samaritans and Judeans (and
conceivably some Jews in Lower Galilee) separated late (perhaps during, or after, the time of John
Hyrcanus). The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews
shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture. We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript
with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may
represent the original reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redaction by
others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan “altar” by John Hyrcanus in
the late second century BCE.
How are we to discern the text-type of this fragment of Deuteronomy? Two hypotheses seem apparent.
First, prima facie, it is conceivable that the manuscript is a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In favor of
this hypothesis are the following four observations: (1) The fragment preserves the reading found in the
Samaritan Pentateuch of Deut 27:4: One is to build an altar on Mount Gerizim. (2) The Samaritans
consider it a commandment (mizwot) to write “Mount Gerizim” with seven letters, as in this fragment
(hrgrzim); and to worship on Mount Gerizim is the so-called eleventh commandment in the Samaritan
Decalogue which now appears in early lapidary inscriptions.9 (3) A study of the recently discovered
inscriptions in Samaria, especially on Mount Gerizim, indicates the existence of a Samaritan community
with priestly institutions, and the preservations of the paleo-Hebrew script during the Hellenistic and later
periods.10 (4) One might then add that it is impressive that the scribe wrote bhrgrzim and not bhr grizim.
The scriptio continua clashes with the scribe’s practice of separating most words. On Masada, a Paleo-
Hebrew papyrus scroll, inscribed on both sides, preserves [ הרגריז[ים ; that is “Mount Gerizim” appears as
one word. S. Talmon and A. Ben-Tor conclude that a Samaritan, fleeing the Roman armies, probably
bought the scroll to Masada.11
Are there problems with this hypothesis? Yes. First, the spelling of “Mount Gerizim” as one word and in
a form with only seven consonants (hrgrzim) is clearly a Samaritan practice; the Hebrew form is also
mirrored in Greek in the two Delos stelae that praise the “holy Argarizein.” But, as S. Talmon points out,
the form also appears in scrolls and texts that are not Samaritan: “Agarisin” in the Latin of 2Mac 5:23 and
6:2, “Argarizin” in Josephus’ War 1.6, “Mons Agraris”12 in Pliny’s Natural History (V.14.68).13 Thus, the
presence of this form – one word with seven consonants – does not prove that the scroll is a Samaritan
text.14
Second, it would be surprising to find that the Qumran Library, located in eleven caves, preserved copies
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It seems representative to refer to the Qumran Scrolls as belonging to a
“Library;” this library contained differing traditions (as in Princeton’s many libraries) and yet is
characterized by a concentration of texts that reflect a distinct type of sectarian Judaism (as most scholars
now conclude, related somehow to the Essenes of Philo and Josephus). The Qumran Library is selective;
as far as we can discern, it contained neither a copy of texts that are clearly pro-Hasmonean (as with 1
Mac) nor a copy of the Pharisaic-like Psalms of Solomon.15 Third, as already stated Samaritan Texts
should not be confused with Proto-Samaritan texts; as far as I know, the only scholar who argued that
fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch were found at Qumran is M. Baillet.16 Such fragments seem to be
Proto-Samaritan text types.
The second hypothesis is markedly different. The original reading of Deuteronomy, “on Mount Gerizim,”
is preserved in this fragment.17 Thus, it should not be labeled “a variant;” the MT and related texts
preserve the “variant” and it looks redactional and later. Here are the reasons for this suggestion.
1) Most importantly, the text of Deuteronomy mentions two mountains: the Mountain of the Curse or
Ebal and the Mountain of Blessing or Gerizim: “You shall pronounce the blessing at Mount Gerizim and
the curse at Mount Ebal” (Deut 11:29 TANAKH). One would expect, therefore, that the author or
compiler of Deuteronomy wrote that Moses conveyed the instruction to build God’s altar on Mount
Gerizim and not Mount Ebal as in the MT and LXX text of Deut 27:418 (which influenced the Vulgate,..."

It is very possible I misread the above text.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

From Charlesworgh article,

"
The close relation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the received Pentateuch (the so-called MT) –
especially in textual tradition and sense divisions – indicates that the Samaritans and Judeans (and
conceivably some Jews in Lower Galilee) separated late (perhaps during, or after, the time of John
Hyrcanus). The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews
shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture. We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript
with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may
represent the original reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redaction by
others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan “altar” by John Hyrcanus in
the late second century BCE.
How are we to discern the text-type of this fragment of Deuteronomy? Two hypotheses seem apparent.
First, prima facie, it is conceivable that the manuscript is a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In favor of
this hypothesis are the following four observations: (1) The fragment preserves the reading found in the
Samaritan Pentateuch of Deut 27:4: One is to build an altar on Mount Gerizim. (2) The Samaritans
consider it a commandment (mizwot) to write “Mount Gerizim” with seven letters, as in this fragment
(hrgrzim); and to worship on Mount Gerizim is the so-called eleventh commandment in the Samaritan
Decalogue which now appears in early lapidary inscriptions.9 (3) A study of the recently discovered
inscriptions in Samaria, especially on Mount Gerizim, indicates the existence of a Samaritan community
with priestly institutions, and the preservations of the paleo-Hebrew script during the Hellenistic and later
periods.10 (4) One might then add that it is impressive that the scribe wrote bhrgrzim and not bhr grizim.
The scriptio continua clashes with the scribe’s practice of separating most words. On Masada, a Paleo-
Hebrew papyrus scroll, inscribed on both sides, preserves [ הרגריז[ים ; that is “Mount Gerizim” appears as
one word. S. Talmon and A. Ben-Tor conclude that a Samaritan, fleeing the Roman armies, probably
bought the scroll to Masada.11
Are there problems with this hypothesis? Yes. First, the spelling of “Mount Gerizim” as one word and in
a form with only seven consonants (hrgrzim) is clearly a Samaritan practice; the Hebrew form is also
mirrored in Greek in the two Delos stelae that praise the “holy Argarizein.” But, as S. Talmon points out,
the form also appears in scrolls and texts that are not Samaritan: “Agarisin” in the Latin of 2Mac 5:23 and
6:2, “Argarizin” in Josephus’ War 1.6, “Mons Agraris”12 in Pliny’s Natural History (V.14.68).13 Thus, the
presence of this form – one word with seven consonants – does not prove that the scroll is a Samaritan
text.14
Second, it would be surprising to find that the Qumran Library, located in eleven caves, preserved copies
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It seems representative to refer to the Qumran Scrolls as belonging to a
“Library;” this library contained differing traditions (as in Princeton’s many libraries) and yet is
characterized by a concentration of texts that reflect a distinct type of sectarian Judaism (as most scholars
now conclude, related somehow to the Essenes of Philo and Josephus). The Qumran Library is selective;
as far as we can discern, it contained neither a copy of texts that are clearly pro-Hasmonean (as with 1
Mac) nor a copy of the Pharisaic-like Psalms of Solomon.15 Third, as already stated Samaritan Texts
should not be confused with Proto-Samaritan texts; as far as I know, the only scholar who argued that
fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch were found at Qumran is M. Baillet.16 Such fragments seem to be
Proto-Samaritan text types.
The second hypothesis is markedly different. The original reading of Deuteronomy, “on Mount Gerizim,”
is preserved in this fragment.17 Thus, it should not be labeled “a variant;” the MT and related texts
preserve the “variant” and it looks redactional and later. Here are the reasons for this suggestion.
1) Most importantly, the text of Deuteronomy mentions two mountains: the Mountain of the Curse or
Ebal and the Mountain of Blessing or Gerizim: “You shall pronounce the blessing at Mount Gerizim and
the curse at Mount Ebal” (Deut 11:29 TANAKH). One would expect, therefore, that the author or
compiler of Deuteronomy wrote that Moses conveyed the instruction to build God’s altar on Mount
Gerizim and not Mount Ebal as in the MT and LXX text of Deut 27:418 (which influenced the Vulgate,..."

This fragment is about the altar on Mount Gerizim vs the one on Ebal. When the Israelites entered the holy land they divided and passed blessings and curses from these two mountains. It says nothing on the importance of Jerusalem nor the Decalogue.

Probably the mountain of blessings was Gerizim, for it is green and fruitful, while Ebal is barren and thus suited for curses. The MT altar on Ebal thus seems less likely than the Samaritan one on Gerizim. Probably the Masoretes swopped the mountains around as part of the sectarian strife with the Samaritans.

So yes, this is one place where the Samaritan Torah probably has the original form, but this is most definitely not the case for the Ten Commandments and some other Gerizim-specific Samaritan variants.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The fact is that the Samaritans and Judaism diverged at some point. The Samaritans claim in the time of Eli at Shiloh before the monarchic period, the Jews when Esra returned from Exile - going so far as to claim them not even being really Israelites.
They need not have fully diverged, just variant traditions having arisen.

At some point Gerizim had to have become important in the religious traditions of the area. In Joshua we read of him calling the tribes together at Shechem and inscribing the Covenant. This is mirrored later with El-Berith, the God of the Covenant, with some form of Asherah pole or pillar there, which is likely related to it.
Coupled with this the fact of Gerizim being the mountain of Blessing and the support for Isaac's sacrifice perhaps being located there, it is quite clear that there is a lot of support for Samaritan reverence for Gerizim being an inherent tradition of the Israelites.

Jerusalem however is only conquered by David, and the temple built on a threshing floor. The possibility of the temple at Jerusalem supplanting earlier Gerizim as a major site seems clear, especially as we know it supplanted Dan, Bethel and Shiloh from our other narratives. For some reason the adherents of Gerizim dug in their heels.

I find the Samaritan story of a dispute in the high priesthood during Eli's time quite plausible. Why was the Ark at Shiloh instead of older pan-Israelite sites like Bethel or Shechem? Why does the High Priesthood's descent change from one son of Aaron to another?

Regardless though, the Incarnation took place out of the Jewish tradition, not the Samaritan one. They are however close brother-religions.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

This fragment is about the altar on Mount Gerizim vs the one on Ebal. When the Israelites entered the holy land they divided and passed blessings and curses from these two mountains. It says nothing on the importance of Jerusalem nor the Decalogue.

Probably the mountain of blessings was Gerizim, for it is green and fruitful, while Ebal is barren and thus suited for curses. The MT altar on Ebal thus seems less likely than the Samaritan one on Gerizim. Probably the Masoretes swopped the mountains around as part of the sectarian strife with the Samaritans.



So yes, this is one place where the Samaritan Torah probably has the original form, but this is most definitely not the case for the Ten Commandments and some other Gerizim-specific Samaritan variants.

Thanks,
Daniel

 

[Yekcidmij]

Good thread.

On a related note, you can see the Samaritans today doing Passover sacrifices and such thanks to Youtube. It's like a small peek into history.