THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

 After the return from exile, there was a great deal of conflict between those resettling in the area around Jerusalem and the more heterogeneous peoples inhabiting what was formerly the Northern Kingdom. The latter, known as Samaritans, developed their own brand of Judaism which was considered heretical by the Israelites of Judea.

“The Samaritan creed has six articles: Belief in one God, in Moses the prophet, in the Law, in Mt. Gerizim as the place appointed by God for sacrifice (cf. Samaritan reading on Dt. xxxvii. 4), in the day of judgment and recompense, and in the return of Moses as Taheb, or restorer (something akin to the Messiah.) Their belief in the resurrection is problematical...The Samaritan Pentateuch, despite theological modification, is a very important witness to the original text.” (Gelston) Note that the Pentateuch (in their version) was the only part of the Hebrew Bible they accepted as authoritative.

Since most of this short article involves issues of textual criticism, I will shorten it somewhat by using the standard abbreviations for the various major OT types: the standard Hebrew text (MT), the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Dead Sea scrolls (Q for Qumran), and Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).

The major differences between SP and MT have been summarized by P.J. Williams: “The extant manuscripts of the SP date from around the twelfth century A.D. and later, though like the MT, the SP has in general been faithfully transmitted.” [If that relatively late date concerns anyone, it is believed that 'the final revision of the SP probably dates to the latter part of the second century B.C.' according to R.T. Anderson and others.]

“In comparison with the MT, the SP contains...a number of features that seem to be updatings of linguistically archaic forms. The text is also often expansionistic. In particular, formulas from parallel passages are inserted to make the text in a given instance include information included elsewhere...The main sectarian variants in the SP are as follows. Twenty-one times when Deuteronomy refers to the place which God 'will choose' (ybhr) the SP reads 'chose' (bhr), indicating that Gerizim is the place already chosen by God, not Jerusalem, which would be chosen in the future from the point of view of the Pentateuch (see also SP's 'in the place where I have caused my name to be remembered' in Ex 20:24, where the MT has 'in every place where I shall cause my name to be remembered').” Also, the listings of the Ten Commandments are altered so that the last commandment becomes one to build an altar on Mt. Gerizim.

As Brotzman and Tully summarize: “Having adopted a distinct Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, scribes of the Samaritan religious sect revised it according to their own theological position.”

Wurthwein enumerates the differences between SP and MT as follows, stating that the latter “was established with the aid of early manuscripts that were then available, and in contrast to the widely used popular texts of the period, of which the Samaritan Pentateuch survives as an example, it gives the impression of greater age and value...At Qumran three groups of text may be distinguished; these are related to the SP, the LXX, and the MT, respectively.”

“The problem of the SP is that it differs from MT in some six thousand instances,” although most difference are trivial and others can be easily discarded because they obviously were changes made to justify Samaritan practices, mainly emphasizing Mt. Gerazin as the official place to worship God, “yet it is significant that in about 1,900 instances SP agrees with LXX against MT.”

And there are other differences between SP and MT. As one example, SP uses a singular verb form with elohim in Genesis 20:13 rather than the Hebrew plural. The intent, no doubt is to remove any hint of polytheism in the text. Also, concerning OT chronology, the ages of the early patriarchs match up roughly when comparing SP, LXX, and MT.

But Merrill points out one definite difference in chronology – the length of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, as mentioned in Exodus 12:40-41. “Both traditions agree that the exodus occurred after a period of 430 years, but the LXX and SP include within this time frame the Egyptian period and the preceding years of the patriarchs in Canaan...This example provides prime facie evidence for the priority of the MT and the tendency of the LXX (and SP as well) to resolve real or imagined chronological difficulties in the MT.”

Besides providing scholars with another ancient manuscript tradition surrounding the OT text, the SP may also figure into our understanding of several NT passages:

Anderson notes that SP may lie behind Stephen's speech in Acts 7, especially in verses 4, 5, 32, and 37. This speech “has other indications of sensitivity to Samaritans. He emphasized Samaritan heroes and modified the Hebrew text in favor of Samaritan concerns. Many scholars deduce that he is either of Samaritan background or targeting an audience of Samaritan background.”

Chavalas says, “It is possible that Luke was using the LXX or SP [in Acts 7:4], where Terah is stated to have died at the age of 145.” Note that it is equally possible that Stephen was simply quoting from the Septuagint. Also, Wurthwein expresses the opinion that “Presumably the New Testament depends upon a Greek Pentateuch which was similar to SP at these points.” However, I find it of interest that the very next chapter of Acts describes the Gospel being spread to the Samaritans.

R.E. Brown explains how John 4, the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well, fits into the Samaritan beliefs outlined above: “ Samaritans did not expect a Messiah in the sense of an anointed king of the Davidic house...the conversation in John iv 19-25 fits the Samaritan concept of the Taheb as a teacher of the Law, even though the more familiar Jewish designation of Messiah is planted on the woman's lips...the contrast between worship in Jerusalem or on Gerizim and worship in Spirit and truth is part of the familiar Johannine dualism between earthly and heavenly...Jesus is speaking of the eschatological replacement of temporal institutions like the Temple...In ii 21 it was Jesus himself who was to take the place of the Temple, and here it is the Spirit given by Jesus that is to animate the worship that replaces worship at the Temple.”

Merrill points out that in Galatians 3:16-17, the apostle Paul appears to support the understanding of the 430 years of the Egyptian sojourn as including the preceding years of the patriarchs in Canaan. But here again, that concept appears in LXX as well as SP, so it is impossible to tell which of these two sources Paul was utilizing.

Lastly, there is the case of Hebrews 9:3-4 involving a rather technical issue as to exactly where the incense-altar was to be placed. The author of Hebrews apparently “used a text of LXX [of Exodus 30] which had the same order as the SP, and that this explains his assigning the incense-altar to the holy of holies.” (Bruce)