In view of all these differences between the
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 71
0 ee
Jewish-Hebrew and the Samaritan-Hebrew Pen- tateuch, there can be no doubt that what the Samaritans possess is a later form of the Pen- tateuch. Whether we look at the groups dealing with linguistic differences or at those connected with the subject-matter, the indications point to a late period. A sufficient evidence of this is supplied by the Jewish marginal readings which are taken by the Samaritans into the ¢ewt itself, but the same conclusion follows equally from the theological peculiarities of the Samaritan Penta- teuch which have been mentioned above. For the same transcendentalizing of the conception of God is met with also in the later writings of the Jews: e.g. the statement ‘and God was grieved’ (Gn 6°) is replaced in the Targum of Onkelos by ‘and He commanded by His sm» (word) to destroy their energies according to His will.’
iii. RELATION OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH TO THE HELLENISTIC (7.e. THE SEPTUAGINT).—(q@) Both these forms of the Pentateuch agree in many details of form. For instance, both, differing in this from the MT, have an ‘ and’ before ‘ tree’ in Gn 1! (MT yy, Sam. wez, LXX xal E’dov). The case is the same in 3% (avxa-by wel wishsha, Kal rh yuvasxt), 64 (abain wannephilem, ot 5é ylyavres), and 6% 9, Again, both have in common some considerable deviations from the MT. In Gn 2? the LXX, like the Samaritan, has replaced ‘on the seventh day’ by ‘on the sixth. day’ (rn fuépa rH éxrn). Instead of the strange order ‘earth and heaven’ which the MT exhibits in Gn 2, the other two forms of the Pentateuch have the more usual succession of the two words (shamém waarez, Tov ovpavov kal thy yhv). Both supplement the words of Cain in 4° by ‘let us go into the field’ (nelaka ashshadi, déhOwpev eis Td wediov). Both interpolate into the MT of Ex 12° the words ‘in the land of Canaan,’ but, while the Samaritan has this addition before, the LXX has it after, the words ‘in the land of Egypt.’ Finally, the Samaritan and the LXX agree in some of the expansions of the MT which are derived from parallel passages. For instance, in Gn 1" there is the addition ‘to give light upon the earth’ (la’ér al aarez, eis patow éml rhs ys), and in 118 ‘and the tower’ (wit ammegdal, kal rov wipyor) is added.
(6) Differences between the Samaritan and the LXX. As regards the use of ‘and,’ the LXX agrees with the MT in Gn 6° (opm py, dixaros réhewos, against Sam. zgadék wtamem). The LXX prefers asyndesis in rév Du, rov Xam, rov Idged, as against the syndesis of the MT (‘Shem, Ham, and Japheth’) and the polysyndesis of the Samaritan (it Shem wit Am wit Yephet). In 2” the o1nn of the MT and the 6 Addu of the LXX agree, but the Samaritan has the anarthrous mx (adam), whereas in 3” the article is wanting alike in the Samaritan (adam) and the LXX (Addu). In 3° the MT and the LXX have the simple expression ‘the tree,’ put the Samaritan reads ‘this tree’ (wiz azze). The LXX has different numbers from the Samaritan in the genealogies of Gn 5** and 11%. Finally, in the sphere of religion, the Samaritan Pentateuch has retained the Divine name Jahweh in its teat, only that the Samaritans read for it Shema (Peter- mann, /.c. p. 162), which means ‘the name’ Kar’ ekoyjv. This use of the expression ‘the name > has the foundation already laid for it in Ly 24", and makes its appearance for the first time in the Mishna in the words ‘ Let him offer a short prayer, saying, Help, O name (o¥7), thy people the remnant of Israel’ (Bérakhéth iv. 4). The Greek Jew has already replaced in his ¢eat the most holy Name mm (Jahweh) by the expression ‘ the LORD’ (6 xipios) which the Hebrew Jews placed in the margin. But, on the other hand, the Greek Jew has retained the term ‘God’ in Nu 22” and 23+ (6 deés), whereas
the Samaritan has introduced the expression ‘ angel of God,’ thus raising the Deity above any inter- course with man.
iv. SOURCE OF THE PECULIARITIES OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. — Four principal sug- gestions have been made to account for these peculiarities.
(a) May not the features in which the Samaritan and the Greek Pentateuch agree with one another, and differ from the Jewish-Hebrew Pentateuch, be traceable directly to certain views and aims of later scribism? This is not only possible, but is even positively favoured by the circumstance that the relation of the Samaritan and the Greek to the Jewish Pentateuch is a mixture of agreement and difference. Let us look at two examples. The later scribes held that 078 in Gn 220f. ig not the nomen appellativum, ‘man,’ but the proper name‘ Adam.’ This common opinion, however, found expression in various ways. The Hebrew-Jewish Massoretes pronounced, in 220 317.21 Je- adam, %.e. without the article, because this was possible in these three passages without alteration of the teat, which in the other two passages (225 320) would have had to be altered to get rid of the article. The Greek Jew likewise retains the article in 225 (6 ’Ad%w) and drops it only in 320, But the Samaritan in both these passages has introduced the anarthrous word D1N (adanv) into the text. Again, the view that the 430 years of Ex 1240 included Israel’s sojourn in Canaan and Egypt, finds expression in different ways in the Samaritan and in the LXX.