The Samaritan Pentateuch represents one of the most intriguing textual witnesses to the Torah, standing apart from the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint as a distinct recension rooted in the ancient Hebrew tradition. However, while its origins stretch back to the post-exilic period, the surviving manuscripts are comparatively late, most dating from the Middle Ages. This reality raises critical questions for the textual scholar: To what extent should late Samaritan manuscripts influence modern textual decisions concerning the Pentateuch? In exploring this issue, one must weigh the Samaritan Pentateuch’s historical development, its textual affinities, and its intrinsic reliability against the primary Hebrew tradition represented by the Masoretic Text. Only then can its proper role in textual criticism be rightly defined.

The Historical Background of the Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch is the sacred Torah of the Samaritan community, who trace their lineage to the northern tribes of Israel and claim continuity with the pre-exilic Israelite priesthood. Historically, the Samaritan schism likely developed after the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 740–722 B.C.E. and was later solidified during the Persian period (ca. 538–332 B.C.E.), when the Samaritans established their rival sanctuary on Mount Gerizim near Shechem. The Samaritan Torah became the religious and national constitution of this community.

The Pentateuch in Samaritan form is written in a unique script that derives from the old Hebrew script used before the Babylonian exile, distinct from the square Aramaic script adopted by the Jews in the post-exilic period. Thus, its orthography preserves an archaic visual form, though the linguistic content underwent its own line of development. The oldest surviving Samaritan manuscripts, however, date only from about the 11th to 13th centuries C.E., with later copies showing increasing standardization. Earlier evidence for the Samaritan Pentateuch’s readings appears indirectly through quotations in early Christian and patristic literature, as well as a few Samaritan fragments discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Nature of the Samaritan Text

Textually, the Samaritan Pentateuch contains approximately 6,000 differences when compared with the Masoretic Text. Most of these differences are minor orthographic or grammatical variants, often reflecting Samaritan scribal tendencies toward harmonization and expansion. For example, in the Samaritan tradition, parallel accounts—such as the Decalogue in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5—are frequently brought into alignment with one another, eliminating perceived discrepancies.

Some readings reveal theological motivations. The Samaritan emphasis on Mount Gerizim as the chosen place of worship is reflected in several key alterations. For instance, in Exodus 20:17 (Samaritan numbering 20:21), an additional command explicitly commands the building of an altar on Mount Gerizim, integrating Deuteronomic theology directly into the Decalogue itself. Such sectarian interpolations clearly indicate that the Samaritan Pentateuch underwent conscious theological revision.

However, not all differences can be dismissed as sectarian or secondary. In numerous instances, the Samaritan text aligns with the Septuagint and certain Dead Sea Scrolls readings against the Masoretic Text, suggesting that its base text may preserve an ancient Hebrew recension parallel to, though distinct from, the proto-Masoretic tradition. The Samaritan Pentateuch therefore represents a separate textual family that branched off from the main Hebrew stream at an early stage, likely before the textual stabilization of the Hebrew Bible during the post-exilic period.

The Relationship Between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dramatically altered scholarly understanding of the Samaritan text’s antiquity. Prior to 1947, the Samaritan Pentateuch was frequently dismissed as a sectarian distortion of the Jewish Torah. The Qumran evidence, however, revealed the existence of manuscripts (e.g., 4QpaleoExodm, 4QDeutn, and others) that exhibit close affinity with Samaritan readings, both in orthography and in harmonizing tendencies. This demonstrated that the textual features characteristic of the Samaritan Pentateuch were not innovations of the Samaritan community but were part of a wider textual diversity that existed in Palestine during the Second Temple period.

Thus, the Samaritan Pentateuch reflects an ancient textual tradition that diverged from the proto-Masoretic form perhaps as early as the 5th or 4th century B.C.E. Nevertheless, the presence of similar readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not mean that the Samaritan text as preserved in medieval manuscripts accurately represents the original state of that textual family. Instead, the medieval Samaritan manuscripts reveal the outcome of centuries of internal Samaritan transmission, during which harmonizing tendencies and theological interpolations intensified.

The Late Samaritan Manuscript Tradition

The late Samaritan manuscripts must be evaluated with careful caution. While the Samaritan Pentateuch as a textual tradition possesses ancient roots, the physical manuscripts themselves reflect a long process of copying and standardization within an isolated religious community. The earliest complete Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts, such as the Abisha Scroll (reputedly ancient but actually a composite manuscript from the 12th century C.E.), demonstrate a remarkable uniformity. This uniformity, however, does not guarantee textual purity. On the contrary, it suggests that earlier textual diversity within Samaritan circles was eliminated through deliberate harmonization, resulting in a monolithic but secondary text.

The Samaritan scribes did not employ the same rigorous safeguards that characterized the Masoretic tradition. The Masoretes developed precise numerical checks, margin notes, and transmission rules that virtually eliminated accidental corruption. Samaritan copyists, in contrast, allowed free orthographic variation and often paraphrased or expanded phrases for clarity or theological emphasis. Consequently, while the Samaritan text can occasionally preserve valuable readings, its late manuscripts do not carry equal authority with the Masoretic witnesses in establishing the original text.

The Theological and Ideological Factors in the Samaritan Tradition

One must also consider the theological and ideological framework that guided Samaritan scribes. Their central tenet was that Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem, was the divinely chosen site of worship. This belief profoundly influenced textual activity. The Samaritan Pentateuch modifies passages such as Deuteronomy 12 and Deuteronomy 27 to emphasize Mount Gerizim’s preeminence. These alterations are not mere glosses but deliberate reconfigurations of the text’s meaning.

Furthermore, the Samaritan rejection of the Davidic monarchy and their differing priestly lineage affected how certain genealogical and historical details were transmitted. These biases, though understandable within their religious context, render their text less reliable for reconstructing the original Hebrew. The Masoretic Text, transmitted within a broader Jewish community deeply committed to textual preservation, remains the more dependable witness in nearly every case where the two diverge without corroboration from independent sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint.

Evaluating Samaritan Influence in Textual Decisions

In textual criticism, the principle of weighing manuscripts rather than counting them applies. A reading’s antiquity and its relationship to other textual families determine its weight. The Samaritan Pentateuch, though late in manuscript form, sometimes carries early readings that can illuminate difficult passages in the Masoretic Text. However, any decision favoring a Samaritan reading must be supported by converging evidence.

When the Samaritan text agrees with both the Septuagint and a Hebrew Dead Sea Scroll, such a reading may reflect a common pre-Masoretic source. For example, in Exodus 12:40, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint include the phrase “and in the land of Canaan,” a reading supported by some Dead Sea Scroll evidence, clarifying that the Israelites’ sojourn of 430 years included time in both Canaan and Egypt. In this case, the Samaritan reading likely preserves an ancient and original wording that the Masoretic tradition later streamlined.

Conversely, where the Samaritan Pentateuch stands alone—especially in passages reflecting Samaritan theology—it must be regarded as secondary. Textual decisions must therefore follow a consistent hierarchy of evidence: the Masoretic Text first, the ancient versions and Dead Sea Scrolls second, and the Samaritan Pentateuch third, serving primarily as a supplementary witness.

The Samaritan Text and the Masoretic Tradition

The Masoretic Text represents the culmination of a long line of careful Hebrew transmission that began with the Sopherim and continued through the Tannaim and Masoretes. Its preservation, exemplified by the Aleppo Codex and Codex Leningradensis (B 19A), reflects a tradition of precision unparalleled in antiquity. The Samaritan Pentateuch, by contrast, reveals the results of independent textual evolution outside the mainstream Jewish community.

While the Samaritan community preserved the Pentateuch faithfully according to its own standards, those standards differed fundamentally from the meticulous methods of the Masoretes. The Masoretic Text, corroborated by the proto-Masoretic Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient Hebrew orthography, provides a more stable and reliable textual base. Therefore, late Samaritan manuscripts, though interesting for comparative study, cannot outweigh the Masoretic evidence in textual decisions unless multiple independent witnesses converge to support the Samaritan reading.

The Scholarly Consensus and Objective Evaluation

Objective textual scholarship recognizes that the Samaritan Pentateuch is invaluable for understanding the history of the Hebrew text but limited as a primary authority for restoration of the original wording. Its existence confirms the diversity of textual forms before the standardization of the Hebrew Bible, while its content reflects sectarian evolution. Late Samaritan manuscripts, especially from the medieval period, primarily represent the Samaritan community’s internal canonical text rather than a reliable transmission of the ancient Torah.

Nevertheless, a balanced textual criticism neither dismisses the Samaritan evidence outright nor allows it to override the Masoretic tradition without sufficient support. When approached carefully, the Samaritan Pentateuch offers a window into ancient Hebrew textual forms and can occasionally clarify the original sense of difficult passages. Yet, it must always be subordinated to the weight of the Hebrew manuscript tradition preserved through the Masoretic line, which provides the most accurate reflection of the inspired original.

Conclusion

The influence of late Samaritan manuscripts on textual decisions must therefore remain secondary and carefully controlled. While their late date and theological bias preclude them from serving as a primary textual authority, the Samaritan Pentateuch remains a valuable comparative witness that sometimes preserves traces of early Hebrew readings. Its significance lies not in its ability to supplant the Masoretic Text but in its capacity to illuminate the broader textual history of the Pentateuch. The Masoretic Text, preserved through centuries of meticulous copying and confirmed by ancient witnesses such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, continues to stand as the most reliable representative of the original Hebrew Scriptures. The Samaritan Pentateuch, despite its antiquity in origin, must therefore be viewed as a parallel yet secondary textual stream, whose late manuscripts bear the marks of sectarian preservation rather than inspired transmission.

You May Also Enjoy

Reconstructing the Vorlage of the LXX through Hebrew Variants

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS