Jan Joosten

The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition

The Samareitikon is a rather marginal entity in textual criticism of the He-

brew Bible. To begin with, it is very poorly attested. There is no running
text, only a modest collection of readings, extending from one word to no
more than two verses. In addition, the Samareitikon has only intermittently
attracted scholarly attention.1 Although the material basis of its study has
greatly increased with John Wevers’ publication of the Greek Pentateuch,
few investigations have tried to exploit the additional material for a better
understanding of the collection as a whole.2 The study of Samaritan tradi-
tions has otherwise made great strides in recent times. New editions of the
Samaritan Pentateuch, of its reading tradition, of the Samaritan Targum
and the Samaritan Arabic version have become available.3 Very little use
has been made of this new material to illuminate the Greek Samareitikon
readings. In the present paper, an attempt will be made to show how this
can be done.

1. Marginal readings in Septuagint manuscripts

In ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint, one finds a number of scholia

attributing readings to τὸ σαµαρειτικόν, “the Samaritan”, often abbreviated
as σαµ (or τὸ σαµ). Frederick Field, collected 43 such readings in his edi-
tion of the Hexapla, and subsequent manuscript studies have identified
more material.4 The Göttingen edition of the Septuagint contains, in the

1
See notably FREDERICK F IELD, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Tomus I & II
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), lxxxii–lxxxiv; ABRAHAM GEIGER, Nachgelassene Schriften,
4. Band (Hsg. Ludwig Geiger; Berlin: Gerschel, 1876), 121–126; SAMUEL KOHN, “Sama-
reitikon und Septuaginta,” MGWJ 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67; REINHARD P UMMER, “The
Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” RÉJ 157 (1998): 269–358.
2
An exception is P UMMER’s study quoted in the preceding note. P UMMER collects all
the readings marked as Samareitikon in the Göttingen edition and presents them in exten-
so alongside the Septuagint, the Massoretic and Samaritan Hebrew, and a selection of
Targumic texts.
3
See the bibliographical notes below.
4
The increase in material is documented in the articles by GEIGER and KOHN quoted
in note 1 and in the Cambridge edition of the Pentateuch (BROOKE & MCLEAN).
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 347

second apparatus, 70 readings characterized in this way, all of them from

the Pentateuch.5 Ever since they were first rediscovered, in the sixteenth
century, these readings have raised many difficult questions: Where and
when did they originate, and how did they end up in the margins of Septu-
agint manuscripts? Do they represent an entire Greek version of the Penta-
teuch, or are they to be regarded as ad hoc rendering of Hebrew readings?
What is the significance of the “Samaritan” label attached to them?
Bernard de Montfaucon, in his reconstruction of the Hexapla published
in 1713, formed the hypothesis that the Samareitikon was a Greek version
of the Pentateuch made by Samaritans some time before the third century
AD. In his view, Origen had incorporated selected readings from this ver-
sion in the margins of his Hexapla, whence they were transmitted into the
manuscript tradition.6 Frederick Field in his edition of the Hexapla of 1875
essentially agreed with Montfaucon on all these points.7 Many other schol-
ars have repeated the claim that the preserved Samareitikon readings were
transmitted via the Hexapla.8 It must be said, however, that the evidence
for this view is flimsy, not to say inexistent. It is true that Samareitikon
readings come to us via Septuagint manuscripts – especially catena manu-
scripts – that also transmit readings attributed to Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion. The latter probably do go back to the Hexapla.9 The associa-
tion between the Samareitikon and the “Three” in the transmission history
may lead to the idea that they all go back to the same source. But the same
manuscripts also transmit ὁ Σύρος readings, which according to recent re-

5
See P UMMER, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans”.
6
BERNARD DE MONTFAUCON, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris, 1715),
conveniently accessible in the reprint in MPG 15. For the inclusion of Samareitikon read-
ings, see § VIII (MPG 15, col. 35).
7
FIELD, Origenis Hexaplorum, lxxxii–lxxxiv.
8
See e.g. J ACOB W ASSERSTEIN, “Samareitikon”, in A Companion to Samaritan Stud-
ies (ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, Abraham Tal; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1993), 209–210; ALAN D AVID CROWN, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (TSAJ 80;
Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), 15; P UMMER, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans”,
269; ADRIAN SCHENKER, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Sa-
mareitikon. Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuch im 2. Jh. V.Chr.” in Samaritans: Past and
Present (ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich Reiterer; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 105–121,
in particular 109. A few scholars cautiously refrain from making this assertion, see e.g.
SEBASTIAN BROCK, “Bibelübersetzungen I,” TRE 6 (1980), 169; NATALIO FERNÁNDEZ
MARCOS, Introducción a la versions griegas de le Biblia (Madrid: CSIC, 19982), 176–
179. I have not seen any explicit contestation of the claim, however.
9
See REINHARD CEULEMANS, “Greek Christian Access to ‘The Three’, 250–600 CE,”
in Greek Scriptures and the Rabbis (ed. T. Michael Law & Alison G. Salvesen; CBET
66; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 165–191; OLIVIER MUNNICH, “Les révisions juives de la
Septante. Modalités et fonctions de leur transmission. Enjeux éditoriaux contemporains”,
forthcoming in a volume to be edited by Rémi Gounelle and Jan Joosten and published
by Le Zèbre, Lausanne (2014).
348 Jan Joosten

search were generated in the fourth century and could hardly have figured
in the margins of the Hexapla.10 The company they keep in the margins to
Septuagint manuscripts says very little about the origin of the Sama-
reitikon readings. It is to be noted, too, that Jerome and Eusebius, who
comment extensively on the various textual forms of the Greek Bible, and
who enjoyed direct access tot Origen’s great work, never refer to the Sa-
mareitikon. Although this is an argument from silence, it does make the
Hexaplaric origin of the preserved readings rather doubtful.
If it cannot be proven that Origen knew and excerpted a Samaritan
Greek version of the Pentateuch, this brings us back to the readings them-
selves. Only an analysis of the Samareitikon readings in comparison with
other textual material can help us answer the questions formulated above.

2. Samareitikon readings and the Samaritan Pentateuch

A first confirmation of the Samaritan nature of Samareitikon readings is

the fact that they agree at times with the Samaritan Pentateuch.11 The dis-
covery of “proto-Samaritan” texts among the biblical manuscripts from
Qumran has shown that the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) is not, for the most
part, a sectarian production.12 The Samaritans adopted a type of text circu-
lating among Jewish groups during the Hellenistic period, to which they
added a thin layer of sectarian readings, such as the addition to the Deca-
logue commanding the construction of an altar on Mount Gerizim. Never-
theless, the agreement of the Samareitikon with the SP most probably does
indicate that the readings are in some way related to the Samaritan tradi-
tion. Several Samareitikon readings do indeed correspond to variant read-
ings in the consonantal text of the SP:

10
See HENNING LEHMANN, “The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evi-
denced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa),” SJOT 1
(1987): 66–86; BAS TER HAAR ROMENY, “‘Quis sit ὁ Σύρος’ Revisited,” in Origen’s Hex-
apla and Fragments (ed. Alison Salvesen; TSAJ 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998),
360–398.
11
The most recent editions of the SP are: ABRAHAM TAL, The Samaritan Pentateuch
edited according to MS (6 C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the He-
brew Language and Related Subjects VII.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1994); ABRA-
HAM T AL and M OSHE FLORENTIN, The Pentateuch. The Samaritan Version and the Maso-
retic Version (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2010). A new critical edition is being pre-
pared at the University of Halle under the supervision of Stefan Schorch.
12
EMANUEL TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press/Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992), 80–100.
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 349

Gen 46:2813
Israel sent Judah ahead to Joseph to lead the way before him into Goshen (NRSV).
σαµ ὀφθῆναι ἔµπροσθεν αὐτοῦ “to appear before him”
LXX συναντῆσαι αὐτῷ “to meet him”
MT ‫“ ְל הוֹר ֹת ְל ָפ ָניו‬to show the way before him”
SP ‫“ להראות לפניו‬to appear before him”

While the MT has a verb meaning “to show the way” ( ‫ ירה‬hiphil), the Sa-
mareitikon clearly reflects the verb ‫“ ראה‬to see”, thus corresponding to the
Samaritan Pentateuch.14
Samareitikon readings similarly agree with the consonantal text of the
SP against the MT in several other passages:
MT SP Σαµ
Exod 26:5 ‫אישה אל אחותה‬ ‫אחת אל אחת‬ µία τὴν µίαν
Exod 32:18b ‫ענות‬ ‫עונות‬ ἁµαρτιῶν
Lev 13:51 ‫ממארת‬ ‫ממראת‬ φιλόνεικος15
Num 32:29, 31 – ‫ולחצי שבט המנשה‬ καὶ τὸ ἥµισυ τῆς φυλης
Μανασσή

The opposite alignment, with the Samareitikon reading following the MT

against the SP, occurs very rarely and only in regard to small details. In
Gen 50:19, the Samareitikon’s γάρ reflects the MT’s ‫כי‬, which is absent
from SP; in Exod 14:20, the Samareitikon’s τὸ νέφος καὶ τὸ σκότος is close
to the MT (‫)הענן והחשך‬, while the SP omits the conjunction between the
nouns (‫)הענן החשך‬.
Correspondence with the SP could in principle be explained in different
ways. In a few cases, the designation τὸ σαµαρειτικόν may actually refer to
the Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, not to a Greek version. A
clear instance is the gloss on Deut 27:26 signalling that the plus “all (my
words)”, found in the Septuagint but not in the MT, is attested in the Sa-
maritan Hebrew: τὸ ἐν πᾶσι κείµενον παρὰ τοῖς O’, κυροῦται ἀπὸ τοῦ σαµ
ἀντιγράφου, ἐν ᾧ τὸ χολ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πᾶσιν ἢ πάντα. That the reference is to
the Hebrew is clear because the element is here given in transcription.
Similarly, a note on Gen 4:8 signals that the famous plus of the Septuagint,
“let’s go out into the field”, is found also in τὸ σαµαρειτικόν, “the Samari-
tan (version)”, although it is lacking in “the Hebrew”, i.e., probably, the

13
The Samareitikon readings are given on the basis of the second apparatus of the
Göttingen edition of the Pentateuch.
14
The same reading appears to be reflected in the Old Testament Peshitta.
15
The connection between the Semitic root ‫“ מרי‬to rebel” and the Greek composite
φιλόνεικος is independently established by the Samareitikon reading in Lev 26:24
(STJ ‫ במראי‬STA ‫במרי‬, σαµ ἐµφιλονείκως).
350 Jan Joosten

proto-MT. The opposition of the Samaritan to the proto-MT suggests that

Hebrew texts are meant.16
The great majority of readings designated as σαµ have a different pro-
file, however. The readings are not just referred to, but quoted explicitly,
and in Greek not in transcription. They diverge from the Septuagint. And
they show up a coherent linguistic and interpretive character.

3. Samareitikon readings and the Samaritan reading tradition

Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch are unvocalized, but the Samari-

tan community continues to cultivate a reading tradition whose roots ap-
pear to go back to Second Temple times.17 The entire traditional vocaliza-
tion was recorded and encoded by Zeev Ben Hayim.18 He and some of his
students have shown, through extensive research, that it reflects a genuine
dialect of ancient Hebrew showing much similarity to other varieties of the
language such as Qumran Hebrew or the dialect attested in the second col-
umn of the Hexapla.19
Several Samareitikon readings agree with the Samaritan reading tradi-
tion. In the example of Gen 46:28, given above, the Samareitikon follows
not only the Samaritan consonants, but the reading tradition as well. In the
traditional Samaritan tradition, the form ‫ להראות‬is read as a niphal infini-
tive: lērrå{’ot. With this, the passive infinitive of the Samareitikon agrees:
ὀφθῆναι. The agreement might perhaps be attributed to coincidence, for
there are only two ways to read the form (niphal or hiphil infinitive). In
other places, however, the Samareitikon coheres with the traditional read-
ing of the Samaritans in ways that hardly leave room for doubt as to there
being a direct connection. Thus, the fourth plague in the Exodus narrative
is that of swarms (of flies), ‫ ֶה ָ ר ֹב‬according to the MT. Here, the SP has the
same consonants as the MT, but the vocalization implies a different inter-
c
pretation. Indeed, the Samaritans read the Hebrew word as ārəb, with the
same vocalization as in Gen 8:7 and other passages where the MT has

16
Other possible cases where σαµ readings may refer to the Hebrew text of the SP are
Deut 10:22; 27:4; 32:8; 34:12.
17
See STEFAN SCHORCH, Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Band 1 Genesis (BZAW 339; Ber-
lin: De Gruyter, 2004).
18
ZEEV BEN-HAYYIM, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic
amongst the Samaritans, Vol. 4 The Words of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Academy
of the Hebrew Language, 1977).
19
See ZEEV BEN-HAYYIM, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes/
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000).
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 351

‫“ ָה ע ֹ ֵרב‬raven”.20 The fourth plague was not one of flies, or swarms, but of
ravens: a unique interpretation. The Samareitikon, according to a marginal
reading preserved in Exod 8:17, follows this tradition in rendering ‫ הערב‬as
κόρακα “raven”.
In Exod 38:8(26 in some editions), the word ‫צבאות‬, vocalized as a fem-
inine plural participle in the MT, is read in the same way as in Exod 12:41
where clearly the plural of the noun ‫“ צבא‬army” is intended: the Sama-
reitikon follows this with its τῶν δυνάµεων “the armies”.21
The concurrence of Samareitikon readings, transmitted in early manu-
scripts of the Septuagint, with a reading tradition encoded in the twentieth
century is a striking phenomenon. It confirms the connection between the
Samareitikon and the Samaritan community. It also confirms that at least
some of the peculiarities of the reading tradition are not recent innovations,
but represent early tradition as transmitted among the Samaritans.
Admittedly, it also happens once or twice that the Samareitikon reading
does not reflect the traditional vocalization of the Samaritans. A good ex-
ample is found in the scholion on Gen 49:23–24, where the rendering
µερίδων “parts” for Hebrew ‫ חצים‬indicates that the word was interpreted as
the plural of Hebrew ‫“ חצי‬half”, while the reading tradition (iṣṣəm) and the
Tiberian vowels imply instead that the word is the plural of ‫“ חץ‬arrow”.22
Such disagreement does not necessarily plead against the Samaritan affilia-
tion of the Samareitikon. Samaritan traditions, like Jewish ones, are multi-
ple, and sometimes contradictory. In Gen 49:23–24, the Samaritan Targum
indicates that the interpretation of ‫ חצים‬in the meaning “halves, parts” was
known in Samaritan circles. This brings us to the next section.

4. Samareitikon readings and the Samaritan Targums

Although the SP diverges from the MT, according to one estimate, in 6000
details, the two texts most often agree. The Samaritan reading tradition,
too, as a rule implies the same grammatical analysis as the Tiberian vocali-
zation. In light of these facts, it is no surprise to find that the divergent
character of Samareitikon readings most often manifests itself in matters
related to interpretation. The most important source for traditional Samari-

20
See BEN-HAYYIM, Literary and Oral Tradition, 217 (as is indicated here, there is a
c c
variation in vowel length, āreb versus ā:reb, but this does not indicate the presence of
distinct lexemes).
21
In BEN-HAYYIM (Literary and Oral Tradition, 234) the word is analysed as femi-
nine plural participle in accordance with the MT. This is a possible analysis: in Samaritan
Hebrew the two forms are homonymous.
22
See also Exod 3:22 quoted below in section 4.
352 Jan Joosten

tan exegesis is the Samaritan Targum. The Samaritan Targum exists in a

number of manuscripts that fall into two textual groups, an earlier one rep-
resented by manuscript J and a later one represented by most other manu-
scripts. The two text types were edited exemplarily by Abraham Tal in
1980–1981.23
Agreements between the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum are
very numerous, as was realized already by Frederick Field.24
Gen 44:5
σαµ καὶ αὐτὸς πειρασµῷ πειράζει ἐν αὐτῷ “And he with a testing he tests by it”
LXX αὐτὸς δὲ οἰωνισµῷ οἰωνίζεται ἐν αὐτῷ “And he with divination divines by it”
MT ֺ ‫ ≈( ְו הוּא ַנ ֵח שׁ ְי נַ ֵח שׁ בּו‬SP)
STAJ ‫“ והוא נסוי ינסי בה‬And he with a testing he tests by it”25

Here the MT and the SP have the same consonants, and the Tiberian vow-
els imply the same grammatical analysis as the Samaritan reading tradi-
tion. The Samareitikon reading has not simply been derived from the Sa-
maritan Hebrew, however, but rests upon an interpretation designed to ex-
onerate Joseph of magical practices. The same interpretation surfaces in
the Samaritan Targum.26
Note also the following cases:
MT ≈ SP ST Σαμ
Gen 47:22 ‫“ חק‬provision” ‫“ חלק‬part” µερίς
Gen 49:23 ‫“ חצים‬arrows” ‫“ פלגים‬halves” µερίδων
Lev 8:15 ‫“ ויחטא‬cleanse ‫“ וסלח‬pardon” καὶ ἱλάτευσεν
from sin”
Lev 13:8 ‫? פשתה‬ ‫“ פתת‬broaden” ἐπλατύνθη

In other instances only part of the manuscript tradition of the Samaritan

Targum agrees with the reading:

Lv 25:5
σαµ τῶν χέρσων σου “of your uncultivated fields”
LXX τοῦ ἁγιάσµατός σου “of your sanctification”
MT ' ‫“ נְ זִ ֶר‬of your nazirite”
SP ‫נזיריך‬
STB(M2) ‫“ בורך‬of you uncultivated field”

23
ABRAHAM TAL, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, Vol. 1–2 (Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University, 1980–1981).
24
See above, note 1.
25
See also Gen 44:15.
26
The interpretation is not as such attested in the Jewish Targums, but it does surface
in some form in Saadia’s Tafsir: imtaḥanakum bihi “he tested you by it.” See J. DEREN-
BOURG, Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef Al-Fayyoûmi, Volume premier: Version
arabe du Pentateuque (Paris: Leroux, 1893), 69.
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 353

MT ≈ SP ST σαµ

Gen 50:19 ‫“ התחת‬instead of” ‫“ דחול‬fearing” A φοβούµενος

Exod 13:13 ‫“ וערפתו‬break the neck” ‫“ ותמסרנה‬transfer” B παραδώσεις
Num 7:3 ‫“ צב‬litter”? ‫ חיל‬B “force” δυνάµεως

The fact that the Samareitikon conforms to a single text type – indeed
sometimes to single manuscripts – of the Samaritan Targum again illus-
trates the inner diversity of Samaritan exegesis. Incidentally, the agreement
with the later text form in the four examples given indicates that this text
type at times independently transmits early interpretations.
Although it is not always as striking as in the examples quoted, the
agreement between the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum is surpris-
ingly frequent. The interpretation followed by the Samareitikon may occa-
sionally be found also in Rabbinic writings, but no Rabbinic source is as
consistently close to it as the Samaritan Targum. In the past, the close con-
nection between the two sources has pushed some scholars to suppose that
the Samareitikon is not a translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but of
the Samaritan Targum.27 Some of the readings indeed seem to support to
this hypothesis:
Gen 49:23
σαµ καὶ διέµεινεν ἐν βάθει τόξον αὐτῶν 28 “and their bow remained in depth”
LXX καὶ συνετρίβη µετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν “and their bows broke with strength”
MT ‫יתן ַק ְשׁ תּוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ ≈( ַו ֵתּ ֶשׁב‬SP) “and his bow remained in strength”
ָ ‫בּא‬
STJ ‫“ ודרת בעמקה קשתה‬and his bow remained in strength/depth”

The Hebrew word ‫איתן‬, normally taken to imply enduring strength, is in-
terpreted in the Samareitikon as meaning “depth”. The origin of this inter-
pretation is hard to fathom, until one considers the Samaritan Targum,
where the equivalent of ‫ איתן‬is ‫עמקה‬. In Samaritan Aramaic, the root ‫עמק‬
expresses two distinct meanings: “to be strong” and “to be deep”.29 If the
author of the Samareitikon had the Samaritan Targum before his eyes, or
in his mind, he could easily have confused the two meanings – in a context
that was largely obscure – and end up with the notion of depth.30 Cases
like this tend to show that something like the Samaritan Targum was in
existence when the Samareitikon readings were created. They do not
prove, however, that the Samaritan Targum was the sole source text of the

27
This was argued notably by F IELD and by KOHN, see note 1.
28
Instead of τόξον, a different witness gives the reading τοξευµάτων.
29
See ABRAHAM TAL, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000),
644–645.
30
See W ILHELM GESENIUS, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate
(Halle: Renger, 1815), 21.
354 Jan Joosten

Samareitikon. More likely, the Samaritan renderings were only one of the
inputs that went into the production of the Samareitikon.
Only a handful of Samareitikon readings clearly diverge from the Sa-
maritan tradition as attested by the Targum. Some of these divergent read-
ings may have been attributed to the Samareitikon by mistake.31 Others
may go back to a Samaritan interpretation that is no longer preserved:
Exod 3:22
σαµ καὶ διασώθητε ἀπὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων “you will escape from the Egyptians”
LXX καὶ σκυλεύσετε τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους “you will despoil the Egyptians”
MT ִ ‫ ≈( ְו ִנ ַצּ ְל ֶתם ֶא‬SP ‫ ונצלתם את מצרים‬wnaṣṣeltimma it miṣrəm) “you will
‫ת־מ ְצ ָר ִים‬
despoil Egypt”
ST ‫“ תרוקנין ית מצראי‬you will despoil the Egyptians”

In the Samareitikon reading, the Hebrew verbal form is rendered as if it

were a niphal. Morphologically this is possible, even although neither the
syntax nor the context favours it. The Samaritan Targum, in both text
types, reflects an analysis of the verbal form as a piel. The Samaritan read-
ing tradition also indicates that the verbal form was understood as piel, for
the Hebrew particle ‫ את‬is vocalized it, indicating that it is the nota accusa-
tivi. An understanding of the particle as the preposition “with”, which
would make the analysis of the verb as niphal possible, would have led to
the vocalization at. Thus the Samareitikon here finds no parallel in attested
Samaritan writings. That does not mean, however, that it was never part of
the Samaritan tradition. The manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum attest
great textual fluidity, and it is easy to imagine that not all traditional read-
ings have been preserved.32
In recent years, a few scholars, notably Reinhard Pummer, have at-
tempted to relativize the alliance between Samareitikon readings and the
Samaritan Targum by pointing out that similar interpretations are at times
found in the Jewish Targums as well.33 This is true, but irrelevant. As is
well known, the Jewish and Samaritan Targums stand in some sort of rela-
tion to one another. In many passages, the Samaritans may have borrowed
readings from Targum Onkelos or other Jewish sources. A source agreeing
with the Samaritan Targum may therefore be expected to agree now and
then with Jewish sources. However, none of the Jewish Targums aligns
systematically with Samareitikon readings in the way the Samaritan Tar-
gum does. Moreover, some of the readings are attested in no Jewish
sources.

31
See above in section 1.
32
Similar cases are the Samareitikon readings preserved for Lev 1:17a, 17b and 15:3.
33
See P UMMER, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans”.
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 355

5. Special cases

Some Samareitikon readings have a more complex relationship with tradi-

tional Samaritan exegesis. Two examples will illustrate the light that can
be thrown on problematic cases when they are examined in conjunction
with Samaritan sources.
Exod 16:31
σαµ ὡς σπέρµα ὀρύζης “like seed of rice”34
LXX ὡς σπέρµα κορίου “like seed of coriander”
MT ‫“ ְכּ ֶז ַרע ַגּד‬like seed of coriander (?)”
SP ‫ כזרע גד‬kåzēra gid “like peeled seed”35
Jpm
ST ‫“ כארז קליף‬like peeled rice”

The texts raise two distinct issues: how did the Targum arrive at the mean-
ing “peeled rice”? And what is the relationship between the Targum and
the Samareitikon? Samuel Kohn thought the Aramaic rendering came
about by mistake. Since ayin and aleph are pronounced alike in the Samar-
itan tradition, the confusion between ‫“ זרע‬seed” and ‫“ ארז‬rice” was an easy
one.36 If the reading “rice” is a mistake it must have been an early one: in
the parallel passage, Num 11:7, the two text types of the Samaritan Tar-
gum have the reading ‫ ;כארז קליף‬unfortunately, for that verse we have no
Samareitikon reading. One should also note that the reading makes tolera-
ble sense: peeled rice would have a distinctive appearance, while “peeled
seed” could only evoke the question: “What type of seed?” Faced with a
baffling expression, the Targumist appears to have applied a type of al
tiqre exegesis, permitting him to read ‫ ארז‬out of ‫זרע‬.
The Greek reading, although it also refers to “rice”, is not a straight
equivalent of the Aramaic: while in the Targum, “rice” corresponds to ‫זרע‬,
in the Samareitikon it corresponds to ‫גד‬. The reading ὡς σπέρµα ὀρύζης
cannot be explained, therefore, as a translation of the Aramaic, as argued
by Kohn. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that there is a connection
between the two readings. Whereas σπέρµα derives simply from the He-
brew text, ὀρύζης reflects knowledge of the exegetical tradition that identi-
fied the mysterious seed referred to in Exod 16:31 and Num 11:7 as rice.
Num 32:13
σαµ ἐπέχεεν “he poured out (?)”
LXX κατερρέµβευσεν “he made them wander”
MT ‫“ ַו ְי ִנ ֵ ם‬he made them wander” (≈ SP)
STV ‫“ וכלתון‬he held them back”

34
For some slight variants in the Samareitikon reading, see the Göttingen apparatus.
35
For the translation, see the note in TAL and F LORENTIN, The Pentateuch (note 11),
674.
36
KOHN, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta”, 5.
356 Jan Joosten

The Samareitikon reading makes no good sense in a context where Moses

reminds the Rubenites and Gadites of what happened forty years ago: the
Israelites refused to occupy the land and God made them wander in the
desert until the whole generation of adults would have died out. Although
the reading is confirmed by several witnesses, one should consider the pos-
sibility of a scribal mistake. Instead of ἐπέχεεν “(God) poured out (the Is-
raelites for forty years)”, the correct reading may be ἐπέσχεν,37 the aorist
indicative of the verb ἐπέχω, one of whose meanings is: “to hold back”.
This fits the context well: when they disobeyed him, “(God) held back (the
Israelites for forty years).” The corrected reading also agrees with a read-
ing in the Samaritan Targum: ‫ וכלתון‬from the verb ‫“ כלי‬to hold back”, with
amalgamated ‫ ית‬+ suffix, “them”.38
The interpretation “he held them back” does not tally with the MT as we
would understand it, but it conforms to Samaritan exegetical principles.
The Hebrew form ‫וינעם‬, derived from the root ‫נוע‬, was connected through
some form of biliteral grammar to the root ‫“ מנע‬to withhold, to restrain”.
This connection can be observed also in other passages: the expression ‫נע‬
‫“ ונד‬a fugitive (participle active qal of ‫ )נוע‬and a wanderer” in Gen 4:12 is
rendered ‫“ כלי וטמי‬withheld and isolated” in the Samaritan Targum.39
The correction of the Samareitikon reading is conjectural, which makes
the analysis uncertain. Nevertheless, the Samaritan connection permits to
make sense of what would otherwise remain an obscure reading.

6. The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Arabic translation

An additional source for the study of Samaritan exegesis is the Arabic

translation of the Samaritans.40 Haseeb Shehadeh recently published a new
edition of this text, offering on facing pages two different text types with a
copious critical apparatus.41 In regard to the interpretative material embed-
ded in the Samareitikon, the Arabic translation has very little to offer how-
ever. Where the Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch diverges from
the MT, the Arabic translation usually follows the SP. This entails a couple
of agreements with the Samareitikon. Thus in Exod 32:18b, where the SP

37
The reading ἐπέσχεν is the one recorded for this passage by Field. I do not know
whether Field misread the manuscript or whether his transcription is based on an intelli-
gent conjecture.
38
The same idea is expressed in the rendering of Targum Onkelos: ‫אוחרינון‬.
39
See TAL, Dictionary, 388, 315.
40
I thank Takamitsu Muraoka for reminding me of the importance of the Arabic trans-
lation for the study of Samaritan exegesis.
41
HASEEB SHEHADEH, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Vol 1–2
(Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989–2002).
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 357

reads ‫“ עונות‬sins” and the Samareitikon ἁµαρτιῶν, the Arabic follows suit
with its dunûb “sins”.42 However, in matters of exegesis, the Samaritan
version goes its own ways and offers very few parallels to the interpreta-
tions found in the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum.

7. Conclusions and suggestions for further research

The connection of the Samareitikon to the Samaritan tradition is suggested

by the name designating the readings and has never seriously been doubt-
ed. The present investigation confirms the link and shows to what extraor-
dinary degree the different representatives of the Samaritan tradition inter-
twine and interlock. The Samaritan writings – the Samaritan Pentateuch,
its reading tradition, the Samaritan Targum, the Samareitikon and, to a
lesser extent, the Samaritan Arabic – clearly make up a family, in spite of
inner diversity, and in spite of some similarity with Rabbinic sources. The
family relationship is marked to an extent that makes it possible to explain
the different witnesses in each other’s light. The agreement between the
Samareitikon and the reading tradition indicates that the essential features
of the latter were already in place before the fifth or sixth century. Similar-
ly, the close relation between the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum
confirms that the latter is substantially very old, even if the earliest manu-
scripts do not reach back before the tenth century. Admittedly, the Sama-
reitikon itself is difficult to date. The terminus ad quem is the seventh cen-
tury, when it starts being quoted in the margin of Septuagint manuscripts.
Other evidence for its date is difficult to find.43
The close ties of the Samareitikon readings to practically the entire Sa-
maritan tradition (excepting partly the Samaritan Arabic, which is later)
suggest very strongly that the readings represent a full Greek version of the
Pentateuch. Excepting a handful of readings,44 the evidence cannot be ex-
plained on the view that the readings were created ad hoc on the basis,
directly or indirectly, of the SP. The Samareitikon readings are the vanish-
ing remains of a text that must have been in use among Greek-speaking
Samaritans, perhaps throughout the Mediterranean world. How this text
became known in Christian circles and through which channels extracts
from it were adopted in the margin of Septuagint manuscripts is, in the

42
The Arabic version also follows the SP in the addition in Num 32:29, 31 (see above
in section 1).
43
Some further reflections on the question of dating may be found in J AN J OOSTEN,
“Septuagint and Samareitikon”, forthcoming in a volume honouring Zipporah Talshir, to
be edited by Cana Werman.
44
See the readings discussed at the end of section 1.
358 Jan Joosten

present state of our knowledge, a mystery. The hypothesis of Montfaucon,

according to whom the Samareitikon was excerpted in the margins of the
Hexapla, is imaginative but difficult to sustain.
The present study could be developed in a number of directions, some
of which may quickly be enumerated:
a) The genuine Samareitikon readings appear to have been selected be-
cause they diverge from the Septuagint. In spite of presenting a distinct
profile, some of the readings nevertheless clearly link up with the Septua-
gint. Preliminary investigations suggest that the Samaritan Greek version
was not created out of whole cloth, but based on the Septuagint.45 The Sa-
mareitikon, it seems, was not so much an independent version as a recen-
sion of the Septuagint, bringing it into line with the Samaritan text, exege-
sis and theology. This circumstance throws an interesting light on the Sa-
mareitikon, and notably on its date and its raison d’être. At the same time,
it raises a number of questions with regard to the Septuagint: if Samaritan
authors adopted it as their base text, this may suggest that they did not re-
gard the Old Greek as belonging to the Jerusalem-based Judaism with
which they had fallen out. Indeed, they may instead have regarded the Sep-
tuagint as belonging to their own group. It is not common nowadays to
deduce from the many connections between the Septuagint and the Samari-
tan Pentateuch that the two texts go back, in some way or other, to the
same community. The relation of the Samareitikon to the Septuagint sug-
gests, however, that this possibility should again be looked in to.
b) Linking up as they do to the Samaritan tradition, the genuine Sama-
reitikon readings display an unmistakable common profile. Strikingly, this
same profile is also encountered in a fairly large number of anonymous
readings figuring in the margins of Septuagint manuscripts. Field recog-
nized four anonymous marginal readings as belonging to the Samareitikon.
Geiger added about a dozen, and Kohn around 50. In preparation of the
Göttingen volume of Leviticus, Detlef Fraenkel noted that anonymous
readings in the margin of Codex M and its group tended to agree with the
Samaritan Targum in the same way as the Samareitikon readings.46 In the
second apparatus of the Göttingen Leviticus, 74 anonymous readings are
identified as being equal or similar to the Samaritan Targum. Altogether
some 100 additional readings are to be reckoned with. While earlier schol-
ars connected these readings with the Samaritan Targum, they should real-
ly be compared to the entire Samaritan tradition in the way illustrated in
the present paper. If the anonymous readings do turn out to agree with the
Samaritan tradition to the same extent as do the marked Samareitikon read-

45
See J OOSTEN, “Septuagint and Samareitikon”.
46
See J OHN W ILLIAM W EVERS, Levitikus (Septuaginta II,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1986), 32, note 1.
 The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition 359

ings, as preliminary research suggests they will, they should be added to

the database. A larger group of readings will form a more solid basis for
historical conclusions.
c) In addition to the anonymous marginal readings, it has been suggest-
ed that fragments of the Samaritan Greek version have been recovered in
old manuscripts and inscriptions. The main evidence is P. Giessen 13, 19,
22, 26, P. Geneva 99 and an inscription discovered in the remains of a Sa-
maritan synagogue in Thessaloniki.47 Unlike the marginal readings, these
palaeographical and epigraphic witnesses provide a running (though some-
times fragmentary) text. There is practically no overlap between attested
Samareitikon readings and the running texts. Nevertheless, the connection
between them has been argued persuasively and needs to be evaluated
anew.

47
For these texts and their relation to the Samareitikon, see J OOSTEN, “Septuagint and
Samareitikon”.
 Rezeption

Frühjudentum