"And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come into the midst of the Jews? Because they have mixed with the priests of the heights (idolaters). R. Isniael says: 'They were at first pious converts (p*!!! '^"I'^3 =real Israelites), and why is the intercimrse with them pro- hibited ? Because of their illegally begotten children, and because they do not fulfil the duties of 02"^ (marry- ing the deceased brotbei's wife);' a law which they un- derstand to apply to the betrotlied only.
'"At what period are they to be received (into the comnninily)?' 'When they abjure the Moinit Gerizim, recognise "Jerusalem (viz. Its superior claims), and believe in the Kesurrection.'"
See (iesenius, Samarit. Tlieolng. (Halfe, 1822); Amc- dota Exon. (Lipsia;, 1824) ; Kirchheim, Karme Shomron, p. 16 sq. ; Petermann, in Herzog, xiii, 37() sq. ; Nutt, Sketch nf Samaritan Hktory, p. 65 S(|., 142 sq ; Fried- rich, I>t Christologia Sarnar. (Lipsii«, 1821); Jost, Gesch. (]. Judenth. ii. .«. Secten, i, 50 sq. ; Westcott, Intro- duction to the Studi) of the Cospeln, p. 172; Adams, History of the Jevs, ii, 257 sfj.; Langen, Das Jiident/iiim in Palds- t'inn (Freiburg, 1866), p. 90 sq., 185 .sq., 232 sq., 299 sq., 407 sq. ; Ap|iel, lliiipstiones de rebus Samaritanorum (Giitting. 1874), and Ucber Samaritamr. in .///(/. I.ilern- turblalt, 1878, Xo. 14 sq. ; Kitto, Ci/clop. iii, 751 sq.; Smith, Dirt, of the liible, p. 2816 sq. (H. P.)
SAMAIJITAN PFN'I'.Vl'KUCH. This is one of the most important relics of the Samaritan literature that have come down to our times. We therefore give it a large critical treatment, following the results of (lese- iiius's investigations, as they have been presented by Lee in his Proleffomena ; Davidson, in Kitto's I'lirlop.; and Deutsch, in Smith's ])irt. (f the /lib/e. The latter two, also giving the results of Kirchbcitn, we have es- pecially used in this abstract, making such corrections and additions as appeared necessary. See Pkntatkuch.
I. History. — It had been well known to early Jewish and Christian writers that a recension of the Pentateuch, diflering in important respects from that in use among the Jews, was in possession of the Samaritan communi- ty. But these writers regarded it in a different light respectively. Thus the Jews treated it with contempt as a forgery. "You have falsified j-our law" — CTS'^'^T DDnin — says E. Eliezer ben-Simeon {Jer. Sotah, vii, 3; Sotah, p. 33 b), "and j-ou have not profited aught by it," referring to the insertion of the words " opposite Shechem" in Dent, xi, 30. On another occasion they are ridiculed on account of their ignorance of one of the simplest rules of Hebrew grammar, displayed in their Pentateuch, viz. the use of the n locale (unknown, how- ever, according to Jer. Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of Jerusalem). " Who has caused you to blunder T'' said R. Simeon ben-Eliezer to them; referring to their aboli- tion of the IMosaic ordinance of marrying the deceased brother's wife (Dent, xxv, 5 sq.) — through a misinter- pretation of the passage in question, which enjoins that the wife of the dead man shall not be " without" to & stranger, but that the brother should marrv her: thev, however, taking llinrin ( = ]'in?) to be an epithet of rex, "wife," translated "the outer tvife," i. e. the be- trothed only (./er. Jebam. 1, 6 ; comp. Frankel, Voistu- dien, p. 197 sq.).
Early Christian writers, on the other hand, speak of it with respect, in some cases even preferring its author- ity to that of the Mosaic text. Origen quotes it under the name of to tCjv '2apaptirio)' E/SpoiKoi', giving its various readings in the margin of his Heorapla (e.g. on Numb, xiii, 1 ; comp. xxi, 13, and j\Iontfaucon, Hexapl. Prelim, p. 18 sq.). Eusebius of Ciusarca, noticing the agreement in the chronology of the Sept. and Samari- tan text as against the Hebrew, remarks that it was written in a character confessedly more ancient than that of the latter (1 Chron.xvi, 1-11). Jerome (\n Pref- ace to Kings') also mentions this fact, and in liis com- ment on Gal. iii, 10 he upholds the gemiineness of its text over that of the Masoretic one, but in his Quast. in Gen. iv, 8 he speaks more favorably of the Hebrew ; while Georgius Syncellus, the chronologist of the 8th century, is most outspoken in his praise of it, terming it " the earliest and best even by the testimony of the Jews themselves" {to tCjv HapnptiTMV c'lpxaioraTov Kai xapaKTijpaL duiWnTTOi' o Kai c'lXij^sg tirai Kal TvpihTov 'Ejipaloi Kadoi^ioXoyovrnv [Chronoyr.p.S^']).
Down to within the last two hinidred and fifty years, however, no copy of this divergent code of laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pronounced a fiction, and the plain words of the Church fathers — the better known authorities — who quoted it were subjected to subtle interpretations. Suddenly, in 1616, Pietro della Valle, one of the first discoverers also of the cuneiform inscriptions, acquired a complete codex from the Sa- maritans in Damascus. In 1623 it was presented by Achille Harley de Sancy to the Library of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628 there appeared a brief description of it by J. Morinus in his preface to the Roman text of the Sept. Three years later, shortly before it was pub- lished in the Paris Polyglot — whence it was copied, with a few emendations from other codices, by Walton — Morinus, the first editor, wrote bis Exercitationes Eccle- siasticcB in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found codex, with all its inninnerable variants from the iNIasoretic text, to be iniiuitoly sui)eriort() the latter; in fact, the uncondition- al and speedy emendation of the received text thereby was urged most authoritatively. And now the impulse was given to one of the fiercest and most barren litera- ry and theological controversies, of which more anon. Hctween l(i20 and 1630 six additional copies, partly complete, partly incomplete, were ac<|uired bj- LTsher; five of which be deposited in English libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has disappeared mysteri-