It is well known that one of the most serious varia- tions between the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch and the Samaritan text is in reference to Ebal and Geri- zim. In Deut. xxvii, 4, the Samaritan has Gerizim, ■while the Hebrew (as in A.V.) has Ebal, as the mount on which the altar to Jehovah and the inscription of the law were to be erected. Upon this basis the Sa- maritans ground the sanctity of Gerizim and the au- thenticity of the Temple and holy place, which have ex- isted there. The arguments upon this difficult ques- tion will be found in Kennicott (Dissej-t. ii), and in the reply of Verschuir (Leovard. 1775 ; quoted by Ge- senius, De Pent. Sam. p. Gl). Two points may merely be glanced at here which have apparently escaped no- tice. 1. Both agree that Ebal was the mount on which the cursings were to rest, Gerizim that for blessings. It appears inconsistent that Ebal, the mount of curs- ing, should be the site of the altar and the record of the law, while Gerizim, the mount of blessing, should remain unoccupied b}' sanctuary of any kind. 2. Taking into account the known ]iredilection of Orien- tals for ancient sites on which to fix their sanctuaries, it is more easj' to believe (in the al>sence of anj- evi- dence to the contrary) that in building their temple on Gerizim, the Samaritans were making use of a spot already enjoying a reputation for sanctity, than that they built on a place upon which the curse was laid in the records which thej' received equallj' with the Jews. Thus the verj^ fact of the occupation of Gerizim by the Samaritans would seem an argument for its orig- inal sanctity. On the other hand, all critics of emi- nence, with the exception of Kennicott, regard this as a corruption of the sacred text; and when it is con- sidered that the invariable reading in Hebrew MSS. and ancient versions, both in this passage and the cor- responding one in Josh, vni, 30, is "Ebal," it seems strange that any scholar would for a moment doubt its correctness. Kennicott takes an opposite view, main- taining the integrity of the Samaritan reading, and ar- j guing tlie point at great length ; but his arguments are neither sound nor pertinent (Disserfalions on the Hebrew Text, ii, 20 sq.). The Samaritans had a strong reason for corrupting the text, seeing that Gerizim was their sanctuary ; and they desired to make it not mere- ly the mountain of l)lessing, but the place of the altar and the inscribed law. See Samauitans.
3. Ebal is rarely ascended by travellers, and we are therefore in ignorance as to how far the question may be affected l)y remains of ancient buildings thereon. That such remains do exist is certain, even from the very meagre i\ccounts published (Bartlett, W<ilk^ about Jerusalem, Ajjp. p. 251 s(]. ; and Narrative of Rev. J. Mills in Trans. Pal. Archn-ol. Assoc. 1855), while the mountain is evidenth' of such extent as to warrant the ! belief that there is a great deal still to discover. |
The report of the old travellers was that Ebal was more barren tlian Gerizim (see-15enjaniin (kf Tudela, and JIaundrell, in Eurli/ Travels in Palestine, p. 82,
'133 ; Wilson, Lands of the Bible, ii, 71) ; but this opin- ion probably arose from a belief in the effects of the curse mentioned above. At any rate, it is not borne out by the latest accounts, according to which there is little or no perceptilde difference. The}' are not iso- lated mountains, but culminating points of a chain. Their declivities facing the vale bear a singular resem- blance to each other. They are equally rugged and bare ; the limestone strata here and there project, foi'm- ing bold blufls and precipices ; but the greater portion of the slopes, though steep, are formed into terraces, partly natural and parth' artificial. For this reason both mountains appear more barren from below than they are in reality, the rude and naked supporting walls of the terraces alone being thus visible. The soil, though scanty, is rich. In the bottom of the vale are olive groves, and a few straggling trees extend some distance up the sides. The broad summits and upper slopes have no trees, yet they are not entirely bare. The steeper banks are here and there scantily clothed with dwarf shrubbery ; while in spring and earh' summer, rank grass, brambles, and thistles, in- termixed with myriads of bright wild flowers^ane- mones, convolvulus, tulips, and poppies — spring up among the rocks and stones. Ebal is " occupied from bottom to top by beautiful gardens" (Mills ; see also Porter, Hand-booh, p. 332). The slopes of Ei)al to- wards the valley appear to be steeper than those of Gerizim (Wilson, p. 45, 71). It is also the higher mountain of the two. There is some uncertainty about the measurements, but the following are the re- sults of the latest observations (Vande Velde, Memoir^ p. 178):
>;abiris, above sea, 1C7'2 ft.
Gerizim do. £0(10 " .above NaWds, n2S ft.
Kbal do. about 2T00 '•'■ do. 10'2S ■'
According to Wilson (^Lafids, ii, 71 ; but see Eobin- son, ii, 277, 280, note), it is sufficiently high to shut out Hermon from the highest point of Gerizim. The structure of Gerizim is nummulitic limestone, with oc- casional outcrops of igneous rock (Poole, in Geof/raph. Journ. xxvi, 5C), and that of Ebal is probably similar. At its base above the valley of Nabliis are numerous caves and sepulchral excavations. This was, doubt- less, the necropolis of Shechem (Robinson, iii, 131; Van de Velde, ii, 290). The modern name of Ebal is Sitii Salamiyah, from a Mohammedan female saint, whose tomb is standing on the eastern part of the ridge, a little before the highest point is reached (Wil- son, p. 71, noteV By others, however, it is reported to be called 'Jmdd ed-Din, "the pillar of the religion" (Stanley, p. 238, note). The tomb of another saint, called Amad, is also shown (Ritter, p. 641), with Avhom the latter name may have some connection. On the south-east shoulder is a ruined site bearing the name of 'Askar (Robinson, iii, 132). — Smith, s. v. See Sy-