Editing Samaritan Pentateuch (section)

==Evaluations of its relevance for textual criticism==
[[File:Gerizim Samaritan Torah IMG 2118.JPG|thumb|230px|right|Samaritan Torah scrolls preserved in the Samaritan synagogue on [[Mount Gerizim]]]]

The earliest recorded assessments of the Samaritan Pentateuch are found in [[rabbinic literature]] and the writings of the early Christian [[Church Fathers]] of the first millennium. The [[Talmud]] records [[Eleazar ben Simeon]], a [[Rabbinic Judaism|Rabbinic Jew]], condemning the Samaritan scribes: "You have falsified your Pentateuch... and you have not profited aught by it."<ref name= "Fallows">{{cite book|last = Fallows| first = Samuel|author2=Andrew Constantinides Zenos |author3=Herbert Lockwood Willett | title = The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia and Scriptural Dictionary, Volume 3| publisher = Howard-Severance| year = 1911| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=FLRUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1701 |page=1701}}</ref>

Some early Christian writers found the Samaritan Pentateuch useful for [[textual criticism]]. [[Cyril of Alexandria]], [[Procopius of Gaza]], and others spoke of certain words missing from the Hebrew Text but present in the Samaritan Pentateuch.<ref name = "Fallows"/><ref>{{cite book|last = Du Pin| first = Louis Ellies| title = A compleat history of the canon and writers of the books of the Old and New Testament, Volume 1| publisher = H. Rhodes| year = 1699| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=VzZWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA167 |page=167}}</ref> [[Eusebius]] writes the "Greek translation [of the Bible] also differs from the Hebrew, though not so much from the Samaritan" and notes that the Septuagint agrees with the Samaritan Pentateuch in the number of years elapsed from [[Noah's Flood]] to [[Abraham]].<ref>{{cite web
 | last=Pamphili
 | first=Eusebius
 | translator=Robert Bedrosian
 | title=Eusebius' Chronicle: The Hebrew Chronicle
 | publisher=History Workshop
 | url=http://rbedrosian.com/euseb7.htm
 | access-date=10 July 2012}}</ref> Christian interest in the Samaritan Pentateuch fell into neglect during the [[Middle Ages]].<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/samaritansearlie00montuoft#page/286/mode/1up Montgomery 1907, p. 286].</ref>

The publication of a manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch in 17th-century Europe reawakened interest in the text and fueled a controversy between [[Protestants]] and [[Roman Catholics]] over which [[Old Testament]] textual traditions are authoritative. Roman Catholics showed a particular interest in the study of the Samaritan Pentateuch on account of the antiquity of the text and its frequent agreements with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.<ref name = "Vanderkam93"/> Some Catholics including [[Jean Morin (theologian)|Jean Morin]] argue that the Samaritan Pentateuch's correspondences with the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint indicate that it represents a more authentic Hebrew text than the Masoretic.<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/samaritansearlie00montuoft#page/288/mode/1up Montgomery 1907, p. 288].</ref> Several Protestants replied with a defense of the Masoretic text's authority and argued that the Samaritan text is a late and unreliable derivation from the Masoretic.<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/cu31924029099864#page/n290/mode/1up Thomson 1919, pp. 275–276.]</ref>

The 18th-century Protestant scholar of Hebrew [[Benjamin Kennicott]]'s analysis of the Samaritan Pentateuch stands as a notable exception to the general trend of early Protestant research on the text.<ref>{{cite book |last=Saebo |first=Magne |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OMlT-FViF40C&pg=PA796 |title=Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation |publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht |year=2008 |isbn=9783525539828}}</ref> He questioned the underlying assumption that the Masoretic text must be more authentic simply because it has been more widely accepted as the authoritative Hebrew version of the Pentateuch:<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=MSMUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA32 Kennicott 1759], p. 32.</ref><blockquote>We see then that as the evidence of one text destroys the evidence of the other and as there is in fact the authority of versions to oppose to the authority of versions no certain argument or rather no argument at all can be drawn from hence to fix the corruption on either side.</blockquote>Kennicott also states that the reading Gerizim may actually be the original reading, since that is the mountain for proclaiming blessings, and that it is very green and rich of vegetation (as opposed to Mount Ebal, which is barren and the mountain for proclaiming curses) amongst other arguments.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=AORDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20 Kennicott 1759, p. 20].</ref>

German scholar [[Wilhelm Gesenius]] published a study of the Samaritan Pentateuch in 1815 which biblical scholars widely embraced during the next century.<ref>{{cite book|last = Gesenius|first = Wilhelm |title = De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica |publisher = Halae |url = https://archive.org/details/depentateuchisa00gesegoog |year = 1815}}</ref> He argued that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch share a common source in a family of Hebrew manuscripts which he named the "Alexandrino-Samaritanus". In contrast to the proto-Masoretic "Judean" manuscripts carefully preserved and copied in [[Jerusalem]], he regarded the Alexandrino-Samaritanus as having been carelessly handled by scribal copyists who popularized, simplified, and expanded the text.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA92 Vanderkam 2002, pp. 92–93].</ref> Gesenius concluded that the Samaritan text contained only four valid variants when compared to the Masoretic text.<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/samaritansearlie00montuoft#page/288/mode/1up Montgomery 1907, p. 288].</ref>

In 1915, [[Paul E. Kahle|Paul Kahle]] published a paper which compared passages from the Samaritan text to Pentateuchal quotations in the [[New Testament]] and [[pseudepigrapha]]l texts including the [[Book of Jubilees]], the [[First Book of Enoch]] and the [[Assumption of Moses]].<ref>Kahle, Paul. ''Theologische Studien und Kritiken'' 88 (1915): 399–429.</ref> He concluded that the Samaritan Pentateuch preserves "many genuine old readings and an ancient form of the Pentateuch."<ref name = "Vanderkam93"/> 

Support for Kahle's thesis was bolstered by the discovery of biblical manuscripts among the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], which contain a text similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch.<ref>Some examples include the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts conventionally designated as 4QpaleoExod<sup zoompage-fontsize="9">m</sup>, 4QExod-Lev<sup zoompage-fontsize= "9">f</sup> and 4QNum<sup zoompage-fontsize="9">b</sup>.  See [https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA95 Vanderkam 2002], p. 95.</ref> The Dead Sea Scroll texts have demonstrated that a Pentateuchal text type resembling the Samaritan Pentateuch goes back to the second century BCE and perhaps even earlier.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=U1UfMyO-RiEC&pg=PA80 Tov 2001], p. 80.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA95 Vanderkam 2002, p. 95].</ref>

These discoveries have demonstrated that manuscripts bearing a "pre-Samaritan" text of at least some portions of the Pentateuch such as [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]]<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA106 Vanderkam 2002, p. 106].</ref> and [[Book of Numbers|Numbers]]<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA110 Vanderkam 2002, p. 110].</ref> circulated alongside other manuscripts with a "pre-Masoretic" text. One Dead Sea Scroll copy of the Book of Exodus, conventionally named 4QpaleoExod<sup>m</sup>, shows a particularly close relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch:<ref>Skehan, Patrick, Eugene Ulrich and Judith Sanderson (1992).  ''Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Volume IX.''  Quoted in Hendel, Ronald S.  "Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible After Qumran," p. 284 in Lim, Timothy and John Collins (2010).  ''The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.  {{ISBN|978-0-19920723-7}}.</ref><blockquote>The scroll shares all the major typological features with the SP, including all the major expansions of that tradition where it is extant (twelve), with the single exception of the new tenth commandment inserted in Exodus 20 from Deuteronomy 11 and 27 regarding the altar on Mount Gerizim.</blockquote>[[Frank Moore Cross]] has described the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch within the context of his local texts hypothesis. He views the Samaritan Pentateuch as having emerged from a manuscript tradition local to the [[Land of Israel]]. The Hebrew texts that form the underlying basis for the Septuagint branched out from the Israelite tradition as Israelites emigrated to Egypt and took copies of the Pentateuch with them. Cross states that the Samaritan and the Septuagint share a nearer common ancestor than either does with the Masoretic, which he suggested developed from local texts used by the Babylonian Jewish community. His explanation accounts for the Samaritan and the Septuagint sharing variants not found in the Masoretic and their differences reflecting the period of their independent development as distinct local text traditions.<ref name = "Purvis"/> On the basis of archaizing and pseudo-archaic forms, Cross dates the emergence of the Samaritan Pentateuch as a uniquely Samaritan textual tradition to the post-[[Maccabees|Maccabean]] age.<ref>[[Frank Moore Cross]] [[Harvard Theological Review]] July 1966 "The language of the Samaritan Pentateuch also includes archaizing forms and pseudo-archaic forms which surely point to the post-Maccabaean age for its date"</ref>