Part 22
(38 24; 42 37, etc), which has not yet been limited
in any way by the jurisdiction of the courts as in Ex-Dt. In both cases comparative historical jurisprudence confirms the Bible account against the
critical, which would make e.g. Gen 9 6 post-exilic,
(6) The hierarchical organization in P.—Much of what falls under this head is treated in Priests, 2,
while assigning Ex 21 to a much earlier period. (On
the whole subject see further OP, 13.5 ff.)
(a), (6), and need not be repeated here. The following may be added: "Urim and Thummim were not used after the Exile. In lieu of the simple condi-
(4) The professedly Mosaic character of the legis-
lation.—Coming now to the four concluding books
of the Pent, we must first observe that the legisla-
tions—a small number of priests and a body of Levites—we find a developed hierarchy, priests,
^ Perhaps
tion everywhere professes to be Mosaic.
this is not always fully realized. In critical edi-
Levites, singers, porters, Ncthinim, sons of Solomon's servants. The code that ex hypothesi was forged to deal with this state of affairs has no acquaintance with them. The musical services of the temple are as much beyond its line of vision as the worship of the synagogue. Even such an organi-
tions of the text the rubrics and an occasional phrase
are sometimes assigned to redactors, but the representation of Mosaic date is far too closely interwoven with the matter to be removed by such
devices. If e.g. we take such a section as Dt 12, we shall find it full of such phrases as "for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance," etc; "when ye go over Jordan," "the place which the
zation as that betrayed by the reference in 1 S 2 36 to the appointment by the high priest to positions
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2306
Wellhausen {Prolegomena'', 392, n.) now regards their main elements as pre-Mosaic Canaanitish law.
oarrying pecuniary emoluments is far beyond the primitive simplicity of P" {OP, 122).
(9) Laler allusions.—These are of two kinds. Sometimes we have references to the laws, in other cases we find evidence that they were in operation,
(7) The legal evidence of P.—As this subject is technical we can only indicate the line of reasoning. Legal rules may be such as to enable the historical inquirer to say definitely that they belong to an early stage of society. Thus if we find elementary rules relating to the inheritance of a farmer who dies without leaving sons, we know that they cannot be long subsequent to the introduction of individual property in land, unless of course the law has been deliberately altered. It is an everyday occurrence for men to die without leaving sons, and the question what is to happen to their land in such cases must from the nature of the case be raised and settled before very long. When therefore we find such rules in Nu 27, etc, we know that they are either very old or else represent a deliberate change in the law. The latter is really out of the question, and we are driven back to their antiquity (see further OP, 124 ff). Again in Nu 35 we find an elaborate struggle to express a general principle which shall distinguish between two kinds of homicide. The earlier law had regarded all homicide as on the same level (Gen 9). Now, the human mind only reaches general principles through concrete cases, and other ancient legislations (e.g. the Icelandic) bear witness to the primitive character of the rules of Nu. Thus an expert like Dareste can say confidently that such rules as these are extremely archaic (see further SBL and OP, passim).
(a) By postulating redactors evidence can be banished from the Bib. text. Accordingly, reference will only be made to some passages where this procedure
is not followed. Ezk 22 26 clearly knows of a law that dealt with the subjects of P, used its very language (cf Lev 10 10 f), and like P was to be taught to the people by the priests. Hos 4 6 also knows of some priestly teaching, which, however,
is moral and may therefore be Lev 19; but in 8 11-13 he speaks of 10,000 written precepts, and here the context points to ritual. The number and the subject-matter of these precepts alike make it certain that he knew a bulky written law which was not merely identical with Ex 21-23, and this passage cannot be met by Wellhausen who resorts to the device of translating it with the omission of the important word "write." {h) Again, in dealing with institutions the references can often be evaded. It
is possible to say, "Yes, this passage knows such and such a law, but this law does not really come into existence with D or P, but was an older law incorporated in these documents." That argument would apply, e.g. to the necessity for two witnesses in the ease of Naboth. That is a law of D, but those who assign Dt to the reign of Josiah would assert that it is here merely incorporating older material. Again the allusions sometimes show something that differs in some way from the Pent, and it is often impossible to prove that this was a development. The critics in such cases claim that
(8) The evidence of D.—The following may be quoted: "Laws are never issued to regulate a state of things which has passed away ages before, and can by no possibility be revived. What are we to think, then, of a hypothesis which assigns the code of Dt to the reign of Josiah, or shortly before it, when its injunctions to exterminate the Canaanites
it represents an earlier stage, and it frequently happens that the data are insufficient either to support or refute this view. "But fortunately there are in P certain institutions of which the critics definitely assert that they are late. Accordingly, references that prove the earlier existence of such institutions have a very different probative value. Thus it is alleged that before the exile there was but one national burnt offering and one national meal offering each day: whereas Nu 28 demands two. Now in 1 K 18 29,36, we find references to the offering of the evening oblation, but 2 K 3 20 speaks of 'the time of offering the oblation' in connection with the morning. Therefore these two oblations were actually in existence centuries before the date assigned to P—who, on the critical theory, first introduced them. So 2 K 16 15 speaks of 'the morning burnt-offering, and the evening mealoffering .... with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their meal-offering.' This again gives us the two burnt offerings, though, on the hypothesis, they were unknown to preexilic custom. Similarly in other cases: Jer 32 shows us the land laws in actual operation; Ezekiel is familiar with the Jubilee laws—though, on the critical hypothesis, these did not yet exist. Jeroboam was acquainted with P's date for Tabernacles, though the critics allege that the date was first fixed in the Exile" {OP, 132 f).
(20 16-lS) and the Amalekites (25 17-19), who had long since disappeared, would be as utterly out of date as a law in New Jersey at the present time offering a bounty for killing wolves and bears, or a royal proclamation in Great Britain ordering the expulsion of the Danes? A law contemplating foreign conquests (20 10-15) would have been absurd when the urgent question was whether Judah could maintain its own existence against the encroachments of Babj'lon and Egypt. A law discriminating against Ammon and Moab (23 3.4), in favor of Edom (vs 7.8), had its warrant in the Mosaic period, but not in the time of the later kings. Jeremiah discriminates precisely the other way, promising a future restoration to Moab (48 47) and Ammon (49 6), which he denies to Edom (49 17.18), who is also to Joel (3 19), Ob, and Isa (63 1-6), the representative foe of the people of God. .... The allusions to Egypt imjily familiarity with and recent residence in that land And how can a code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while
it contemplates the possible selection of a king in the future (Dt 17 14 ff), nowhere implies an actual regal government, but vests the supreme central authority in a judge and the priesthood (17 8-12; 19 17); which lays special stress on the requirements that the king must be a native and not a foreigner (17 15), when the undisputed line of succession had for ages been fixed in the family of David, and that he must not 'cause the people to return to Egypt' (ver 16), as they seemed ready to do on every grievance in the days of Moses (Nu 14 4), but which no one ever dreamed of doing after they were fairly established in Canaan?" (Green, Moses and the Prophds, 63 f). This too may be supplemented by legal evidence (e.g. 22 26 testifies to the undeveloped intellectual condition of the people). Of JE it is unnecessary to speak, for Ex 21 f are now widely regarded as Mosaic in critical circles.
(10) Other evidence.—We can only mention certain other branches of evidence. There is stylistic evidence of early date (see e.g. Lias, BS, 1910, 20-46, 299-334). Further, the minute accuracy of the narrative of Ex-Nu to local conditions, etc (noticed below, IV, 8, [6]), affords valuable testimony. It may be said generally that the whole work—laws and narrative—mirrors early conditions, whether we regard intellectual, economic or purely legal development (see further below, IV, and OP, passim).
(1) Moral and psychological issues.—The great fundamental improbabilities of the critical view
2307 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
have hitherto been kept out of sight in order that the arguments for and against the detailed case might not be prejudiced by other con-
(3) Divergence between the laws and post-exilic
practice.—Thirdly, the entire perversion of the true meaning of the laws in post-exilic times makes the
5. Fundasiderations. We must now glance at mentallinsome of the broader issues. The first probabilities that occurs is the moral and psychoof the logical incredibility. On theory two Critical great frauds were perpetrated—in each Case case by men of the loftiest ethical principles. Dt was deliberately written in the form of Mosaic speeches by some person or persons who _ well knew that their work was not Mosaic. P is a make-up—nothing more. All its references to the wilderness, the camp, the Tent of Meeting, the approaching occupation of Canaan, etc, are so many touches introduced for the purpose of deceiving. There can be no talk of literary convention, for no such convention existed in Israel. The prophets all spoke in their own names, not in the dross of Moses. David introduced a new law of booty in his own name; the Chronicler repeatedly refers temple ordinances to David and Solomon; Samuel introduced a law of the kingdom in his own name. Yet we are asked to believe that these gigantic forgeries were perpetrated without reason or precedent. Is it credible? Consider the principles inculcated, e.g. the Dcuteronomic denunciations of false prophets, the prohibition of adding aught to the law, the passionate injunctions to teach children. Can it be believed that men of such principles would have been guilty of such conduct?
critical theory incredible. Examples have been given (see above, 4, [.5], [6], and Prie.sts, passim). It must now suffice to take just one instance to make the argument clear. We must suppose that the author of P deliberately provided that if Levites approached the altar both they and the priests should die (Nu 18 3), because he really desired that they should approach the altar and perform certain services there. We must further suppose that Ezra and the people on reading these provisions at once understood that the legislator meant the exact opposite of what he had said, and proceeded to act accordingly (1 Ch 23 31). This is only one little example. It is so throughout P. Everybody understands that the Tabernacle is really the second Temple and wilderness conditions post-exilic, and everybody acts accordingly. Can
it be contended that this view is credible?
(4) The testimony of tradition.—Lastly the uniform testimony of tradition is in favor of Mosaic authenticity—the tradition of Jews, Samaritans and Christians alike. The national consciousness of a people, the convergent belief of Christendom for 18 centuries are not lightly to be put aside. And what is pitted against them? Theories that vary with each fresh exponent, and that take their start from textual corruption, develop through a confusion between an altar and a house, and end in misdating narratives and laws by 8 or 10 centuries!
Nemo repente fit turpissimus, says the old maxim; can we suppose that the denunciations of those who prophesy falsely in the name of the Lord proceed from the pen of one who was himself forging in that name? Or can it be that the great majority of Bible readers know so little of truth when they meet
(see above 3 and 4; Sanctuary; Prie.sts).
If anything at all emerges from the foregoing discussion, it is the impossibility of performing any
such analytical feat as the critics
6. Origin attempt. No critical microscope can and Transpossibly detect with any reasonable mission of degree of certainty the joins of varithe Pentaous sources, even if such sources really teuch exist, and when we find that laws and narratives are constantly misdated by 8 or 10 centuries, we can only admit that no progress at all is possible along the lines that have been followed. On the other hand, certain reasonable results do appear to have been secured, and there are indications of the direction in which we must look for further light.
it that they cannot detect the ring of unquestionable sincerity in the references of the Deuteronomist to the historical situation? Or can we really believe that documents that originated in such a fashion could have exercised the enormous force for righteousness in the world that these documents have exercised? Ex nihilo nihil. Are literary forgeries a suitable parentage for Gen 1 or Lev or Dt? Are the great monotheistic ethical religions of the world, with all they have meant, really rooted in nothing better than folly and fraud?
(2) The historical improhabilily —A second fundamental consideration is the extraordinary his-
First, then, the Pent contains various notes by later hands. Sometimes the VSS enable us to detect and remove those notes, but many are pre-versional. Accordingly, it is often impossible to get beyond probable conjectures on which different minds may differ.
torical improbability that these frauds could have been successfully perpetrated. The narrative in K undoubtedly relates the finding of what was regarded as an authentic work. King and people,
Secondly, Gen contains pre-Mosaic elements, but we cannot determine the scope of these or the number and character of the sources employed, or the extent of the author's work.
priests and prophets must have been entirely deceived if the critical theory be true. It is surely possible that Huldah and Jeremiah were better judges than modern critics. Similarly in the case of P, if e.g. there had been no Levitical cities or no such laws as to tithes and firstlings as were here contemplated, but entirely different provisions on the subjects, how came the people to accept those
Thirdly, the whole body of the legislation is (subject only to textual criticism) Mosaic. But the laws of Dt carry with them their framework, the speeches which cannot be severed from them (see SBL, II). The speeches of Dt in turn carry with them large portions of tile narrative of Ex-Nu wiiich they presuppose. They do not necessarily carry witli them such passages as Ex 35-39 or Nu 1-4, 7, 26, but Nu 1-4 contains internal evidence of Mosaic date.
At this point we turn to examine certain textual Ehenomena that throw light on our problem. It may e said that roughly there are two great classes of textual corruption—that which is due to the ordinary processes of copying, perishing, annotating, etc, and that which is due to a conscious and systematic effort to fix or edit a text. In the case of ancient authors, there comes a time sooner or later when scholarship, realizing the corruption that has taken place, makes a systematic attempt to produce, so far as possible, a correct standard tc-xt. Instances that will occur to many are to be found in the work of the Massoretes on the Heb text, that of Origen and others on the LXX, and that of the commission of Peisistratos and subsequently of the Alexandrian critics on Homer. There is evidence that such revisions took place in the case of the Pent. A very important instance is to be found in the chronology of certain portions of Gen of which three different VSS survive, the Massoretic, Sam and Septuagintal. Another instance of even greater consequence for the
forgeries so readily? (See further POT, 257 f, 294-97.) It is of course quite easy to carry this argument too far. It cannot be doubted that the
exile had meant a considerable break in the his-
torical continuity of the national development; but yet once the two views are understood the choice cannot be difficult. On the critical theory elaborate
literary forgeries were accepted as genuine ancient laws; on the conservative theory laws were accepted because they were in fact genuine, and interpreted as far as possible to meet the entirely different requirements of the period. This explains both the action of the people and the divergence between
preexilic and post-exilio practice. The laws were the same but the interpretation was different.
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2308
matter in hand is to be found in Ex 35-39. It is well known tliat the LXX preserves an entirely different edition from that of MT (supported in the main by the Sam and other VSS). Some other examples have been noticed incidentally in the preceding discussion; one other that may be proved by further research to possess enormous importance may be mentioned. It appears that in the law of the kingdom (Dt 17) and some other passages where the Massoretic and Sam texts speak of a hereditary king, the LXX knew nothing of such a person (see further PS, 157-68). The superiority of the LXX text in this instance appears to be attested by 1 S, which is unacquainted with any law of the kingdom.
ture that is of great interest even now, viz. the prevalence in the main of three different styles, each marked by its special adaptation
1. Style of to the end in view. These styles are Legislation (1) mnemonic, (2) oratorical, and (3) procedural. The first is familiar in other early legislations. It is lapidary, terse in the extreme, pregnant, and from time to time marked by a rhythm that must have assisted the retention in the memory. Occasionally we meet with paral-
Thus we know of at least three recensions, the M, the Sam and the Sept. While there are many minor readings (in cases of variation through accidental corruption) in which the two last-named agree, it is nevertheless true that in a general way the Sam belongs to the same family as the M, while the LXX in the crucial matters represents a different textual tradition from the other two (see Expos. September 1911. 200-219). How is this to be explained ? According to the worthless story preserved in the letter of Aristeas the LXX was trJ from MSS brought from Jerus at a date long subsequent to the Sam schism. The fact that the LXX preserves a recension so different from both Sam and MT
lelism. This is the style of Ex 21 ff and occasional
later passages, such as the judgment in the case of Shelomith's son (Lev 24 10 if). No doubt these laws were memorized by the elders.
Secondly, the legislation of Dt forms part of a speech and was intended for public reading. Accordingly, the laws here take on a distinctly oratori-
cal style. Thirdly, the bulk of the rest of the legis-
lation was intended to remain primarily in the custody of the priests who could certainly write (Nu 6 23). This was taken into account, and the style is not terse or oratorical, but reasonably
(i.e. from the most authoritative Palestinian tradition of the 5th cent. BO and its lineal descendants) suggests that this part of the story must be rejected. If so. the LXX doubtless represents the text of the Pent prevalent in Egypt and descends from a Heb that separated from the ancestor of the M before the Sam schism. At this point we must recall the fact that in Jer the LXX differs from MT more widely than in any other Bib. book, and the current explanation is that the divergence goes back to the times of Jeremiah, his work having been preserved in two editions, an Egyp and a Bab. We may be sure that if the Jews of Egypt had an edition of Jer, they also had an edition of that law to which Jer refers, and it is probable that the main differences between LXX and MT (with its allies) are due to the two streams of tradition separating from the time of the exile—the Egyp and the Bab. The narrative of the finding of the Book of the Law in the days of Jo-siah (2 K 22). which probably refers to Dt only, suggests that its text at that time depended on the single MS found. The phenomena presented by Gen-Nu certainly suggest that they too were at one time dependent on a single damaged MS , and that conscious efforts were made to restore the original order—in some cases at any rate on a wrong principle (see esp. EPC, 114-38; BS. 191.3, 270-90). In view of the great divergences of the LXX in Ex 35-39, it may be taken as certain that in some instances the editing went to considerable lengths.
full. It was probably very clear to those for whom the laws were meant. There are minor varieties of style but these are the most important. (On the whole subject see esp. PS, 170-224.)
What holds good of the laws is also true with certain modifications of the narrative. The style varies with the nature of the subject,
2. The occasion and purpose. Thus the itinNarrative erary in Nu 33 is intentionally composed in a style which undoubtedly possesses peculiar qualities when chanted to an appropriate tune. The census lists, etc, appear to be written in a formal official manner, and something similar is true of the lists of the spies in Nu 13. There is no ground for surprise in this. In the ancient world style varied according to the genre of the composition to a far greater extent than it does today. A literary form that is peculiar to the Pent deserves special notice, viz. the covenant document as a form of literature. Many peoples
Thus the history of the Pent, so far as it can be traced, is briefly as follows: The backbone of the book consists of pre-Mosaio sources in Gen, and Mosaic narratives, speeches and legislation in ExDt. To this, notes, archaeological, historical, explanatory, etc, were added by successive readers. The text at one time depended on a single MS which was damaged, and one or more attempts were made to repair this damage by rearrangement of the material. It may be that some of the narrative chapters, such as Nu 1-4, 7, 26, were added from a separate source and amplified or rewritten in the course of some such redaction, but on this head nothing certain can be said. Within a period that is attested by the materials that survive, Ex 35-39 underwent one or more such redactions. Slighter redactions attested by Sam and LXX have affected the chronological data, the numbers of the Israelites and some references to post-Mosaic historical events. Further than this it is impossible to go on our present materials.
3. The have had laws that were attributed Covenant to some deity, but it is only here that laws are presented in the form of sworn agreements entered into with certain formalities between the nation and God. The literary result
is that certain portions of the Pent are in the form of a sort of deed with properly articulated parts. This deed would have been ratified by oath
if made between men, as was the covenant between Jacob and Laban, but in a covenant with God this
is inapplicable, and the place of the jurat is in each case taken by a discourse setting forth the rewards and penalties attached by God to observance and breach of the covenant respectively. The covenant conception and the idea that the laws acquire force because they are terms in an agreement between God and people, and not merely because they were commanded by God, is one of extraordinary importance in the history of thought and in theology, but we must not through absorption in these aspects of the question fail to notice that the conception found expression in a literary form that is unknown elsewhere and that it provides the key to the comprehension of large sections of the Pent, including almost the whole of Dt (see in detail SBL, ch ii).
///. Some Literary Points.—No general estimate of the Pent as literature can or need be attempted. Probably most readers are fully sensible to its literary beauties. Anybody who is not would do well to compare the chapter on Joseph in the Koran (12) with the Bib. narrative. A few words must be said of some of the less obvious matters that would naturally fall into a literary discussion, the aim being rather to draw the reader's attention to points that he might overlook.
Insufficient attention has been paid to order and rhythm generally. Two great principles must be borne in mind: (1) in really good ancient prose 4 Order ^^^ artist appeals to the ear in many subtle
' . T>L tVim ways, and (2) in all such prose, emphasis' ana Knymm and meaning as well as beauty are given
Of the style of the legislation no sufficient estimate can now be formed, for the first requisite of legal style is that it should be clear and unambiguous to contemporaries, and today no judgment can be offered on that head. There is, however, one fea-
to a great extent by the order of the words. The figures of the old Gr rhetoricians play a considerable part. Thus the figure called kuklos, "the circle," is sometimes used with great skill. In this the clause or sentence begins and ends with the same word, which denotes alike the sound and the thought. Probably the
2309 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
most effective instance—heightened by the meaning, the shortness and the heavy boom of the word—is to be found in Ut 4 12, where tliere is an impressive "circle" with 51p , kol, " voice"—the emphasis conveyed by the sound being at least as marked as that conveyed by the sense. This is no isolated instance of the figure; cf e.g. in Nu 32 1. the "circle" with "cattle"; 14 2 that with '
hear that Gen 14 represents Abram as having inflicted adefeaton the enemy with only 318 men (vor 14), whereas from ver 24 (cf ver 13) it appears that in addition to these his allies Aner, Bshcol and Mamre (i.e. as we shall see, the inhabitants of certain localities) had accompanied him I Sometimes the clue to the precise meaning of a story is to be found near the end: e.g. in Jo.sh 22 we do not see clearly what kind of an altar the trans-Jordanic tribes had erected (and consequently why their conduct was open to objection) till ver 28, when we learn that this was an altar of the pattern of the altar of burnt offering, and so bore not the slightest resemblance to such lawful altars as those of Moses and Joshua (see Altar; Sanctuary). Nor is this the only instance In which the methods of expression adopted cause trouble to some modern readers; e.g. the word "all" is sometimes used in a way that apparently presents difBcultles to some minds. Thus in Ex 9 Oit is possible to interpret "all" in the most sweeping sense and then see a contradiction in vs 19.22, etc, wlilch recognize that some cattle still existed. Or again the term may be regarded as limited by ver 3 to all the cattle in the field (see All).
. " Chiasmus is a favorite figure
' would that we had died
and assonances, plays on words, etc, are not uncommon. Such traits often add force as well as beauty to the narra tive, as may be seen from instances like Gen 1 2 ^nDI ^nn. toha wa-bhoha, "waste and void"; 4 12 HjI l?]f na' toa-nod/i," a fugitive and a wanderer"; 9 6
rjD'i£n''',TaT D~X3 Dnsn D1 ^SiC, shoplnkh dam ha-
' ddhdm, bd-ddhdm ddind, yifihshaphekh, lit. "shedding blood-of man, by-man his-blood shall-be-shed"; Nu 14 *5: DinS^T D'lS^T, viayyakkum wayyakkHhum, "and smote them and beat them down." The prose of the Pent, except in its more formal and ofHcial parts. Is closely allied to poetry (cf e.g. the Aeschylean "Sin coucheth at the door" [Gen 4 7]; "The fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" [7 111; "how I bare you on eagles' wings" [Ex 19 4]). In the oratorical prose of Dt we find an imagery and a poetical imagination that are not common among great orators. Its rhythm is marked and the arrangement of the words is extraordinarily forcible, esp. in such a chapter as ch 28. It is diaicult to convey any idea of how much the book loses in EV from the changes of order. Occasionally the rendering does observe the point of the original, e.g. in Dt 4 36; "Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice," and if we consider how strikingly this contrasts with the flat "He made thee to hear his voice out of heaven," some notion may perhaps be formed of the imgortance of retaining the order. More frequently, owever, the Eng. Is false to the emphasis and spirit of the Heb. Sometimes, but not always, this is due to the exigencies of Eng. Idiom. This is the cardinal fault of AV, which otherwise excels so greatly.
At this point two further idiosyncrasies of the Sem genius must be noted—the habits of personi-
fication and the genealogical tendency; 3. Personie.g. in Nu 20 12-21, Edom and Israel fication and are personified: "thy brother Israel," Genealogies "Edom came out against him," etc. Nobody here mistakes the meaning. Similarly with genealogical methods of expression. The Semites spoke of many relationships in a way that is foreign to occidental methods. Thus the Heb for "30 years old" is "son of 30 years." Again we read "He was the father of such as dwell in tents" (Gen 4 20). These habits (of personification and genealogical expression of relationships) are greatly extended, e.g. "And Canaan begat Zidon his first-born" (10 1.5). Often this leads to no trouble, yet strangely enough men who will grasp these methods when dealing with ch 10 will claim that ch 14 cannot be historical because localities are there personified and grouped in relationships. Yet if we are to estimate the historical value of the narrative, we must surely be willing to apply the same methods to one chapter as to another if the sense appears to demand this. See, further, Genealogies.
IV. The Pentateuch as History.—Beyond all doubt, the first duty of any who would use the Pent
for historical purposes is to consider
1. Textual the light that textual criticism throws Criticism upon it. So many of the impossias History bilities that are relied upon by those who seek to prove that the book is historically worthless may be removed by the simplest operations of scientific textual criticism, that a neglect of this primary precaution must lead to disastrous consequences. After all, it is common experience that a man who sets out to produce a history—whether by original composition or compilation—does not intentionally make, e.g., a southward march lead to a point northward of the starting-place, or a woman carry an able-bodied lad of 16 or 17 on her shoulder, or a patriarch linger some 80 years on a deathbed. When such episodes are found, the rudiments of historical judgment require that we should first ask whether the text is in order, and if the evidence points to any ea.sy, natural and well-supported solutions of the difficulties, we are not justified in rejecting them without inquiry and denying to the Pent all historical value. It is a
A further consideration that is not always heeded is the exigency of literary form; e.g. in Gen 24 there occurs a dialogue. Strangely enough, an 4 Literary ^-ttack has been made on the historical Itnrm Character of Gen on this ground. It canr orm ^q^ i^q supposed—so runs the argument that we have here a literal report of what was said. This entirely ignores the practice of all literary artists. Such passages are to be read as giving a literary presentation of what occurred ; they convey a far truer and more vivid idea of what passed than could an actual literal report of the mere words, divorced from the gestures, glances and modulations of the voice that play such an important part in conversation.
Another matter is the influence of the sacred numbers on the text; e.g. in Nu 33 the journeys seem designed to present 40 stations
6. The and must not be held to exclude campSacred ing at other stations not mentioned; Numbers Gen 10 probably contained 70 names in the original text. This is a technical consideration which must be borne in mind, and so,
priori far more probable that narratives which have come down to us from a date some 3,000 years back may have suffered slightly in transmission than that the Pent was in the first instance the story of a his-
torical wonderland. It is far more reasonable, e.g.,
too, must the Heb habit of using certain round numbers to express an unspecified time. When, for instance, we read that somebody was 40 or 60 years
to suppose that in a couple of verses of Ex a corruption of two letters (attested by Aquila) has taken place in the MT than that the Pent contains two absolutely inconsistent accounts of the origin
old, we are not to take these words literally. "Forty years old" often seems to correspond to "after he had reached man's estate" (see Number).
of the priesthood (see Priests). Accordingly, the
first principle of any scientific use of the Pent for
Still more important is it to endeavor to appre-
historical purposes must be to take account of
ciate the habits of thought of those for whom the
textual criticism.
Pent was first intended, and to seek
Having discovered as nearly as may be what the author wrote, the next step must be to consider what he
6. Habits of to read it in the light of archaic ideas. Thought One instance must suffice. Of the many explanations of names few are
meant by it. Here, unfortunately, the 2 Hebrew modern inquirer is apt to neglect many
\'ir ix. A ( most necessary precautions. It would MetnoQS or j,g ^ truism, but for the fact that it is so Expression often disregarded, to say that the whole of a narrative must be carefully read in order to ascertain the author's meaning; e.g. how often we
philologically correct. It is certain that Noah is not connected with the Heb for "to comfort" or Moses with "draw out"—even if Egyp princesses
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2310
we have to ask whether they were truthful and
spoke Heb. The etymological key will not fit. Yet we must ask ourselves whether the narrator ever thought that it did. In times when names were supposed to have some mystic relation to their bearers they might be conceived as standing also
able. As to the ability no doubt is possible;
genius is stamped on every page of the Pent.
Similarly as to truthfulness. The conscience of the
narrators is essentially ethical. This appears of
course most strongly in the case of the legislation
in some mj'stio relation to events either present or future; it is not clear that the true original meaning of the narratives was not to suggest this in literary form. How far the ancient Hebrews were from regarding names in the same light as we do may be seen from such passages as Ex 23 20 f; Isa 30 27; see further EPC, 47 ff; see also Names, Proper. The Pent is beyond all doubt an intensely national work. Its outlook is so essentially Israelitish that no reader could fail to notice the fact,
(cf Lev 19 11) and the attribution of truthful-
ness to God (Ex 34 6), but it may readily be de-
tected throughout; e.g. in Gen 20 12 the narrative
clearly shows that truthfulness was esteemed as a
virtue by the ancient Hebrews. Throughout, the
faults of the dramatis personae are never minimized even when the narrator's sympathy is with them. Nor is there any attempt to belittle the opponents
of Israel's heroes. Consider on the one hand the magnanimity of Esau's character and on the other
7. National and it is therefore unnecessary to cite Coloring proofs. Doubtless this has in many instances led to its presenting a view of history with which the contemporary peoples would not have agreed. It is not to be supposed that the exodus was an event of much significance in the Egypt of Moses, however important it may appear to the Egyptians of today; and this suggests two points. On the one hand we must admit that to most contemporaries the Pentateuohal narratives must have seemed out of all perspective; on the other the course of subsequent history has shown that the Mosaic sense of perspective was in reality the true one, however absurd it may have seemed to the nations of his own day. Consequently in using the Pent for historical purposes we must always apply two standards—the contemporary and the historical. In the days of Moses the narrative might often have looked to the outsider like the attempt of the frog in the fable to attain to the size of an ox; for us, with the light of history upon it, the values are very different. The national coloring, the medium through which the events are seen, has proved to be true, and the seemingly insignificant doings of unimportant people have turned out to be events of prime historical importance.
the very glaring light that is thrown on the weak-
nesses of Jacob, Judah, Aaron. If we are taught
to know the Moses who prays, "And if not, blot me,
I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written" (Ex 32 32), we are also shown his frequent
complaints, and we make acquaintance with the hot-tempered manslayer and the lawgiver who disobeyed his God.
(3) The historical genius of the people.—Strangely enough, those who desire to discuss the trustworthiness of the Pent often go far afield to note the
habits of other nations and, selecting according to
their bias peoples that have a good or a bad reputa-
tion in the matter of historical tradition, proceed to argue for or against the Pentateuchal narrative on
this basis. Such procedure is alike unjust and un-
scientific. It is unscientific because the object of the inquirer is to obtain knowledge as to the habits
of this people, and in view of the great divergences that may be observed among different races the comparative method is clearly inapplicable; it is unjust because this people is entitled to be judged on its own merits or defects, not on the merits or
defects of others. Now it is a bare statement of
fact that the Jews possess the historical sense to a preeminent degree. Nobody who surveys their long history and examines their customs and prac-
There is another aspect of the national coloring of the Pent to be borne in mind. If ever there was a book which revealed the inmost soul of a people, that book is the Pent. This will be considered in V, below, but for the present we are concerned with
^ This is no recent development; it is most convincingly
tices to this day can fairly doubt that fact.
attested by the Pent itself, which here, as elsewhere,
faithfully mirrors the spirit of the race. What is the highest guaranty of truth, a guaranty to which unquestioning appeal may be made in the firm assurance that it will carry conviction to all who hear?
its historical significance. In estimating actions, motives, laws, policy—all that goes to make history—character is necessarily a factor of the utmost consequence. Now here we have a book that at every point reveals and at the same time grips the national character. Alike in cont nts and in form the legislation is adapted with the utmost nicety
"Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father and he will show thee; Thine elders, and they will tell thee" (Dt 32
7). "For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth," etc (Dt 4 32). Conversely, the due handing down of tradition is a religious duty: "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this serv-
to the nature of the people for which it was promulgated.
When due allowance has been made for all the various matters enumerated above, what can be said as to the trustworthiness of the
8. How Far Pentateuchal history? The answer the Pentais entirely favorable. teuch Is (1) Conteynporaneous information.— Trustworthy In the first place the discussion as to the dating of the Pent (above, II,
^ "Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently,
ice? that ye shall say,*' etc (Ex 12 26 f).
lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children, and thy children's children" (Dt 4 9). It is need-
4) has shown that we have in it documents that are in many cases certainly contemporaneous with the matters to which they relate and have been preserved in a form that is substantially original. Thus we have seen that the wording of Gen 10 19 cannot be later than the age of Abraham and that the legislation of the last fourbooks is Mosaic. Now contemporaneousness is the first essential of
less to multiply quotations. Enough has been said to show clearly the attitude of this people toward history.
(4) The good faith of Deuteronoyny —Closely connected with the preceding is the argument from the very obvious good faith of the speeches in Dt. It
is not possible to read the references to events in such a chapter as ch 4 without realizing that the speaker most fully believed the truth of his statements. The most unquestionable sincerity is impressed upon the chapter. The speaker is referring to what he believes with all the faith of which he is
(2) Character of our informants.—Given the fact (guaranteed by the contemporaneousness of the sources) that our informants had the means of providing accurate information if they so desired.
credibility.
2311 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
capable. Even for those who doubt the Rlosaio authenticity of these speeches there can be no doubt, as to the writer's unquestioning acceptance of the historical consciousness of the people. But once the Mosaic authenticity is established the argument becomes overwhelming. How could Moses have spoken to people of an event so impressive and unparalleled aa having happened within their own recollection if it had not really occurred?
measure of truth in this view; but so far as the Pent is concerned it can be greatly overstated. One great criticism that falls to be 9. The made is entirely in favor of the Pentateuch Hebrew as against some Greeks, viz. as Reasonthe superior art with which the causes ed History are given. A Thucydides would have stated the reasons that induced Pharaoh to persecute the Israelites, or Abraham and Lot to separate, or Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their followers to rebel; but every reader would have known precisely what he was doing and many who can read the material passages of the Pent with delight would have been totally unable to grapple with his presentation of the narrative. The audience is here more unsophisticated and the material presented in more artistic form. In truth, any historian who sat down to compose a philosophical history of the period covered by the Pent would in many instances be surprised at the lavish material it offered to him. A second criticism is more obvious. The writer clearly had no knowledge of the other side of the case. For example, the secondary causes for the defeat near Hormah are plain enough so far as they are internal to the Israelites—lack of morale, discipline and leadership, division of opinion, discouragement produced by the Divine disapproval testified by the absence from the army of Moses and the Ark, and the warnings of the former—but the secondary causes on the side of the Amalekites and Canaauites are entirely omitted. Thus it generally happens that we do not get the same kind of view of the events as might be possible if we could have both sides. Naturally this is largely the case with the work of every historian who tells the story from one side only and is not peculiar to the Pent. Thirdly, the object of the Pent is not merely to inform, but to persuade. It is primarily statesmanship, not literature, and its form is influenced by this fact. Seeking to sway conduct, not to provide a mere philosophical exposition of history, it belongs to a different (and higher) category from the latter, and where it has occasion to use the same material puts it in a different way, e.g. by assigning as motives for obeying laws reasons that the philosophic historian would have advanced as causes for their enactment. To some extent, therefore, an attempt to criticize the Pent from the standpoint of philosophic history is an attempt to express it in terms of something that is incommensurable with it. V. Character of the Pentateuch.—The following sentences from Maine's Early Law and Custom form a suggestive introduction to any consideration of the character of the Pent:
(5) Nature of the events recorded.—Another very important consideration arises from the nature of the events recorded. No nation, it has often been remarked, would gratuitously invent a story of its enslavenient to another. The extreme sobriety of the patriarchal narratives, the absence of miracle, the lack of any tendency to display the ancestors of the people as conquerors or great personages, are marks of credibility. Many of the episodes in the Mosaic age are extraordinarily probable. Take the_ stories of the rebelliousness of the people, of their complaints of the water, the food, and so on: what could be more in accordance with likelihood? On the other hand there is another group of narratives to which the converse argument applies. A Sinai cannot be made part of a nation's consciousness by a clever story-teller or a literary forger. The unparalleled nature of the events narrated was recognized quite as clearly by the ancient Hebrews as it is today (see Dt 4 .32 ff). It is incredible that such a story could have been made up and successfully palmed off on the whole nation. A further point that may be mentioned in this connection is the witness of subsequent history to the truth of the narrative. Such a unique history as that of the Jews, such tremendous consequences as their religion has had on the fortunes of mankind, require for their explanation causal events of sufficient magnitude.
(6) External corroborations.—All investigation of evidence depends on a single principle: "The coincidences of the truth are infinite." In other words, a false story will sooner or later become involved in conflict with ascertained facts. The Bib. narrative has been subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination from every point of view for more than a century. Time after time confident assertions have been made that its falsehood has been definitely proved, and in each case the Pent has come out from the test triumphant. The de-
tails will for the most part be found enumerated or referred to under the separate articles. Here it must suffice just to refer to a few matters. It was said that the whole local coloring of the Egyp scenes was entirely false, e.g. that the vine did not grow in Egypt. Egyptology has in every instance vindicated the minute accuracy of the Pent, down to even the non-mention of earthenware (in which the discolored Nile waters can be kept clean) in Ex 7 19 and the very food of the lower classes in Nu 11 5. It was said that writing was unknown in the days of Moses, but Egyptology and Assyriology have utterly demolished this. The historical character of many of the names has been strengthened by recent discoveries (see e.g. Jerusalem; Amraphel). From another point of view modern observation of the habits of the quails has shown that the narrative of Nu is minutely accurate and must be the work of an eyewitness. From the ends of the earth there comes confirmation of the details of the evolution of law as depicted in the Pent. Finally it is worth noting that even the details of some of the covenants in Gen are confirmed by historical parallels (Churchmayi, 1908, 17 f).
" The theory upon which these schools of learned men worked, from the ancient, perhaps very ancient, Apas-
tamtaa and Gautama to the late Manu 1. Hindu ^"'^ f^s ^'"1 later Narada, is perhaps still t' r-„i-„ held by some persons ot earnest religious jjdw DUUKS convictions, but in time now buried it affected every walk ot thought. The fundamental assumption is that a sacred or inspired lit. being once believed to e.\lst, all knowledge is contained in it. The Hindu way of putting it was. and is, not .simply that the Scripture is true, but that everything which is true is contained in the Scripture It is to be observed that such a theory, firmly held during the infancy of systematic thought, tends to work itself into fact. As the human mind advances, accumulating ol^servation and accumulating reflection, nascent philosophy and dawning science are read into the sacred literature, while they are at the .same time limited by the ruling ideas of its priestly authors. But as the mass of this literature grows through the additions made to it by successive expositors, it gradually specializes itself, and subjects, at first mixed together under vague general conceptions, become separated from one another and isolated. In the history of law the most important early specialization is that which separates what a man ought to do from what he ought to know. A great part of the religious literature, including the Creation of the Universe, the structure of Heaven, Hell, and the World
It is often said that history in the true sense was invented by the Greeks and that the Heb genius was so intent on the Divine guidance that it neglected secondary causes altogether. There is a large
Pentateuch Pent, Samaritan THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2312
ings, and it is impossible to sever it from the history
or Worlds, and the nature of the Gods, falls under the last head, what a man ought to know. Law-books first appear as a subdivision of the first branch, what a man should do. Thus the most ancient books of this class are short manuals of conduct for an Aryan Hindu who would lead a perfect life. They contain much more ritual than law, a great deal more about the impm'ity caused by touching impure things than about crime, a great deal more about penances than about punishments
of the "people of the book"—as Mohammed called
them. It appears then that it possesses in some
unique way both an intensely national and an in-
tensely universal character and a few words must
be said as to this.
The great literary qualities of the work have un-
(pp. 16-18).
doubtedly been an important factor. All readers have felt the fascination of the stories
It is impossible not to see the resemblances to the Pent that these sentences suggest. Particularly
4. The of Gen. The Jewish character has
Universal also counted for much ; so again have
interesting is the commentary they provide on the attitude of Moses toward knowledge: "The secret things belong unto Jeh our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we maj' do all the words of
Aspect the moral and ethical doctrines, and
the miraculous and unprecedented
nature of the events narrated. And yet there is much that might have been thought to militate
against the book's obtaining any wide influence Apart from some phrases about all the families of
this law" (Dt 29 29). But if the Pent has significant resemblances to other old law books, there are differences that are even more significant.
the earth being blessed (or blessing themselves) m
the seed of Abraham, there is very little in its direct
teaching to suggest that it was ever intended to be
"By an act that is unparalleled in liistory a God took to Himself a people by means of a sworn agreement. Some words that are fundamental for our 2 Differpurpose must be quoted from the offer; 'Now. therefore, if ye will obey my voice ences indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' The views here expressed dominate the legislation. Holiness—the correlative holiness to which the Israelites must attain because the Lord their God is holy—embraces much that is not germane to our subject, but it also covers the whole field of national and individual righteousness. The duty to God that
of universal application. Possibly these phrases only mean that other nations will use Israel as a
typical example of greatness and happiness and pray that they may attain an equal degree of glory and prosperity. Moreover, the Pent provides for a
sacrificial system that has long ceased to exist, and a corpus of jural law that has not been adopted by other peoples. Of its most characteristic requirement—holiness—large elements are rejected by
all save its own people. Wherein then lies its universal element? How came this the most in-
is laid upon the Israelites in these words is a duty that has practical consequences in every phase of social life. I have already quoted a sentence from Sir Henry Maine in which he speaks of the uniformity with which religion and law are implicated in archaic legislation. There is a stage in human development where life is generally seen whole, and it is to this stage that the Pent belongs. But no other legislation so takes up one department of man's life after another and impresses on them all the relationship of God and people. Perhaps nothing will so clearly bring out my meaning as a statement of some of the more fundamental dilferences between the Pentateuchal legislation and the old Indian law-books which often provide excellent parallels to it. Tliosc to which I desire to draw particular attention are as follows: The Indian law-books have no idea of national (as distinct from individual) righteousness—a conception that entered the world with the Mosaic legislation and has perhaps not made very much progress there since. There is no personal God: hence His personal interest in righteousness is lacking: hence, too, there can be no relationship between God and people: and while there is a supernatural element in the contemplated results of human actions, there is nothing that can in the slightest degree compare with the Personal Divine intervention that is so often promised in the Pentateuchal laws. The caste system, like Hammurabi's class system, leads to distinctions that are always inequitable. The conception of loving one's neighbour and one's sojourner as oneself are alike lacking. The systematic provisions for poor relief are absent, and the legislation is generally on a lower ethical and moral level, while some of the penalties are distinguished by the most perverted and barbarous cruelty. All these points are embraced in the special relationship of the One God and the peculiar treasure with its resulting need for national and individual holiness" (PS, 330 f).
tensely national of books to exercise a world-wide and ever-growing influence? The reason lies in the very first sentence: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This doctrine of the unity of an Almighty God is the answer to our question. Teach that there is a God and One Only All-powerful God, and the book that tells of Him acquires a message to all His creatirres.
Of the national character of the work something has already been said. It is remarkable that for its own people it has in very truth con-
6. The tained life and length of days, for it National has been in and through that book Aspect that the Jews have maintained themselves throughout their unique his-
tory. If it be asked wherein the secret of this strength lies, the answer is in the combination of the national and the religious. The course of history must have been entirely different if the Pent had not been the book of the people long before the Jews became the people of the book.
Literature.—The current critical view is set forth in vast numbers of books. The following may be mentioned: LOT; CorniU's Intro to the Canonical Books of the OT; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby's Hexateuch (a 2d ed of the Intro without the text has been published as The Coin-position of the Hexateuch)', the vols of the ICC, Westminster Covims. and Century Bible, Slightly less thoroughgoing views are put forward in the Ger. Intros of Konig (1893), Baudissin (1901), Selliu (1910); and Geden, Outlines of Intro to the Heb Bible (1909); Kittel, Scientific Study of the OT (ET, 1910); Eerdm. St. has entirely divergent critical views; POT; TMH. I, and W. Moller, Are the Critics Bight? and Wider den Bonn der Quellenscheidung; Robertson. Early Religion of Israel; Van Hoonacker, Lieu du culte, and Sacerdoce Uvitique are all much more conservative and valuable. J. H. Raven, OT Intro, gives a good presentation of the most conservative case. The views taken in this article are represented bv SBL, EPC, OP, PS. Troelstra, The Name of God, and 'in some matters, TMH, I.
These sentences indicate some of the most interesting of the distinguishing features of the Pent
its national character, its catholic view
3. Holiness of life, its attitude toward the Divine, and some at any rate of its most peculiar teachings. It is worth noting that Judaism, the oldest of the religions which it has influenced, attaches particular importance to one chapter, Lev 19. The keynote of that chapter is the command: 'Holy shall ye be, for holy am I the Lord your God'—to preserve the order and emphasis of the original words. This has been called the Jew's
Harold M. Wiener PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN, sa-mar'itan:
imitalio Dei, though a few moments' reflection shows that the use of the word "imitation" is here inaccurate. Now this book with this teaching has exercised a unique influence on the world's history,
I. Knowledge of Samaritan Pentateuch
1. In Older Times 2. Revived Knowledge II. Codices and Script
1. NablOs Roll 2. The Script 3. Peculiarities of Writing
for it must be remembered that Judaism, Chris-
tianity and Islam spring ultimately from its teach-
2313 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch Pent, Samaritan
4. The Tarikh 5. Pronunciation 6. Age of the NablQs Roll III. Relation of the Samaritan Recension to the MT AND TO THE LXX 1. Relation to MT: Classification of DifTerences (1) Accidental Variations
(a) Due to Sight (b) Hearing (c) Deficient Attention (2) Intentional
(a) Grammatical (6) Logical (c) Doctrinal 2. Relation to LXX (1) Statement of Hypotheses (2) Review of Hypotheses IV. On Pentateuchal Criticism V. Targums and Chronicle Literature
The existence of a Sam community in Nablus is generally knowTi, and the fact that they have a recension of the Pent which differs in some respects from the Massoretic has been long recognized as important.
/. Knowledge of the Samaritan Pentateuch.—Of the Gr Fathers Origen knew of it and notes two insertions which do not appear in 1. In Older the MT—Nu 13 1 and 21 12, drawn Times from Dt 1 2 and 2 18. Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon compares the ages of the patriarchs before Abraham in the
Pent, Samaritan THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2314
the Samaritans, and the contempt of the Pharisees
for them are remembered, this admission amounts to a demonstration. The Sam script resembles that on the Maccabean coins, but is not identical with it.
It may be regarded as between the square character and the angular, the latter as is seen in the M S and the Siloam inscription. Another intermediate form, that found on the Assouan papyri, owes the differences it presents to having been written with a reed on papyrus. As the chronology of these scripts
is of importance we subjoin those principally in question.
2315 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pent, Samaritan
29 we have gdzedh instead of ydzedh, "to seethe," because of the likeness of "fYl , f, to /yy , y or
in it was afterward added. That, however, is impossible unless a new skin—the newness of which would be obvious—had been written over and inserted. Even the comparatively slight change implied in turning Ishmael into Israel in the larlkh in the NablAs roll necessitates a great adjustment of lines, as the letters of the tartkh must read horizontally as well as perpendicularly. If that change were made, the date would then be approximately 6.50 AD, much older than Cowley's 12th cent. There is, however, nothing in this to explain the sanctity given to this MS. There is a tradition that the roll was saved from fire, that it leaped out of the fire in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar. If
i. These, while in Blayney's transcription of Walton's text, are not in Petermann or the Sam Tg. The above examples are mistakes in Sam MSS, but there are mistakes also in the MT. In Gen 27 40 the RV rendering is "When thou shalt break loose, thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck." This rendering does violence to the sense of both vbs. and results in a tautology. In the Hiphil the first vb. rUdh ought to mean "to cause to wander," not "to break loose," and the second vb. parak means "to break," not "to shake off." The Sam has "When thou shalt be mighty, thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." 'The MT mistake may be due to the confounding of /"^
it were found unconsumed when the temple on Mt. Gerizim was burned by John Hyrcanus I, this would account for the veneration in which it ia held. It would account also for the stereotyping of the script. The angular script prevailed until near the tirne of Alexander the Great. In it or in a script akin to it the copy of the Law must have been written which Manasseh,_ the son-in-law of Sanballat, brought to Samaria. The preservation of such a copy would be ascribed to miracle and the script consecrated.
a, with >^ , t, and the transposition of ^ , d, and ^ , 6. The vb. 'ddhar, "to be strong," is rare and
poetic, and so unlikely to suggest itself to reader or scribe. The renderings of the LXX and Pesh indicate confusion. There are numerous cases, however, where the resembling letters are not in the Sam script, but sometimes in the square character and sometimes in the angular. Some characters resemble each other in both, but not in the Samaritan. The cases in which the resemblance
///. Relation of the Samaritan Recension to the MT and LA-X—While the reader of the Sam Pent will not fail to observe its prac-
is only in letters in the square script may all be ascribed to variation in the MT. Cases involving the confusion of waw and yodh are instances in point. It may be said that every one of the instances of variation which depends on confusion of these letters is due to a blunder of a Jewish scribe,
1. Relation tical identity with the MT, closer study to MT: reveals numerous, if minor, differClassifiences. These differences were classication of fied by Gesenius. Besides being illogiDifferences cal, his classification is faulty, as founded on the assumption that the Sam Pent text is the later. The same may be said of Kohn'a. We would venture on another classification of these variations, deriving the principle of division from their origin. These variations were due either to (1) accident or (2) intention.
e.g. Gen 25 13, where the Jewish scribe has written n'bhUh instead of n'bhayoth {Nebaioth) as usual; 36 5, where the Jewish scribe has y'Hsh instead of y'ush (Jeush), as in the K're. In Gen 46 30, by writing r*'oiAi instead of ra'tthi, the Jewish scribe in regard to the same letters has made a blunder which the Sam scribe has avoided. When d and r are confused, it must not be ascribed to the likeness in the square script, for those letters are alike in the angular also. As the square is admitted to be later than the date of the Sam script, these confusions point to a MS in angular. There are, however, confusions which apply only to letters alike in angu-
(1) The first of these classes arose from the way in which books were multiplied in ancient days. Most commonly one read and a score of scribes, probably slaves, wrote to this dictation. Hence errors might
arise (a) when from similarity of letters the reader mistook one word for another, (h) If the reader's pronunciation was not distinct the scribes might mis-hear and therefore 'm-ite the word amiss, (c) Further, if the reader began a sentence which opened
lar. Thus binydmim, invariably in the Sam Pent Benjamin, binydmln, is written Benjamin; also in Ex 1 11 pithon instead of pithom, but m and n are alike only in the script of the Siloam inscription.
in a way that generally was followed by certain words or phrases, he might inadvertently conclude
In Dt 12 21, the Sam has I?!?'?, I'shakkcn, as
it, not in the way it was written before him, but in the customary phrase. In the same way the scribe through defective attention might also blunder. Thus the accidental variations may be regarded as due to mistakes of sight, hearing and attention. (2) Variations due to intention are either (a) grammatical, the removal of peculiarities and conforming them to usage, or (b) logical, as when a command having been given, the fulfilment is felt to follow as a logical necessity and so is narrated, or, if narrated,
the MT has in 12 11, whereas theMT has CWb , Idsum. A study of the alphabets on p. 2314 will show the close resemblance between waw and hdph in the Siloam script, as well as the likeness above mentioned between m and n. This points to the fact that the MSS from which the JMT and the Sam were transcribed in some period of their history were written in angular of the type of the Siloam inscription, that is to say of the age of Hezekiah.
is omitted according to the ideas of the scribe; (c) doctrinal changes introduced into the text to suit the doctrinal position of one side or other. Ques-
ih) Variations due to mistakes of hearing: Thie great mass of tiiese are due to one of two sources, eitlier on the one hand the insertion or omission of ivdw and yodh, so that the vowel is written plenum or the reverse, or, on the other hand, to the mistal<e of the gutturals. Of the former class of variations there are dozens in every chapter. The latter also is fairly frequent, and is due doubtless to the fact that in the time when the originals of the present MSS were transcribed the gutturals were not pronounced at all. Gen 27 .36 shows ^ and n interchanged, n and n in Gen 41 4.5, PI for j? in Gen 49 7, and X and J" in Gen 23 18. in many Sam MSS, but the result is meaningless. This inability to pronounce the gutturals points to a date considerably before the Arab domination. Possibly this avoidance of the gutturals became fashionable during the Rom rule, when the language of law was Lat, a language without gutturals. A parallel instance may be seen in Aquita, who does not transliterate any gutturals. This loss of the gutturals may be connected with the tact that in Assyr 'aliph is practically the only guttural. The colonists
tions of propriety also lead to alterations—these may be regarded as quasi-doctrinal.
(1) Examples of accidental variations.— (a) Due
to mistakes of sight: The cause of mistakes of sight
is the likeness of differing letters. These, however,
differ in different scripts, as may be proved by con-
sideration of the table of alphabets. Some of these mistakes found in connection with the Sam Pent appear to be mistakes due to the resemblance of
letters in the Sam script. Most of these are obvious blunders; thus in Gen 19 32, we have the mean-
ingless tahhinu instead of 'abhinU, "our father," from the likeness oi X , t, to ^ , a. In Gen 25
Pent, Samaritan THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2316
the narrative of the plagues of Egypt a whole paragraph
from Assyria might not unlikely be imable to pronounce the gutturals.
is added frequently. What has been commanded Moses and Aaron is repeated as history when they obey.
(c) Changes due to deficient attention; Another cause of variation is to be found in reader or scribe not attending sufficiently to the actual word or sentence seen or heard. This is manifested in putting for a word its equivalent. In Gen 26 31 the Sam has Vre'ehu, "to his friend." instead of as the MT^-'d/iiui, "to his brother," and in Ex 2 10 Sam has na ar for yeledh in MT. In such cases it is impossible to determine which represents the original text. We may remarii that the assumption of Gesenius and of such Jewish writers as Kohn that the MT is always correct is due to mere prejudice. More important is the occasional interchange of YH WH and 'JSlohlm, as in Gen 28 4, where Sam has YHWH and the MT ' Elohlm, and Gen 7 1 where it has 'Eldhi?n against YHWH in the MT. This last instance is the more singular, in that in the 9th verse of the same chapter the MT has 'Elshl m and the Sam YHWH. Another class of instances which may be due to the same cause is the completion of a sentence by adding a clause or, it mav be, dropping it from failure to observe it to be incomplete, as Gen 24 4.5. If the MT be the original text, the Sam adds the clause "a little water from thy pitcher"; if the Sam. then the MT has dropped it.